WINNING

WITH
THE
KALASHNIKOV

IEIL
~cDONALD
Winning With the KaIashnikov
Neil McDonald

B. T. Batsford Ltd, London

First published 1995
© Neil McDonald

ISBN 0 7134 7576 5

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

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

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be

reproduced, by any means, without prior permission
of the publisher.

Typeset by John Nunn

and printed in Great Britain by
Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wilts
for the publishers,
B. T. Batsford Ltd,
4 Fitzhardinge Street,
London WIH OAH

:\0. EluaYi))"r'il~ J; ,2 ~~ ~ 9
991 8
A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK
Editorial Panel: Mark Dvoretsky, John Nunn, Jon Speelman
General Adviser: Raymond Keene OBE
Managing Editor: Graham Burgess
Contents
Introduction 5
Bibliography 8

Part One: The Main Line 5 lLlb5 d6 6 c4 i.e7

1 Strategic themes in the Main Line 9

2 Main Line: 7lLl1c3 a6 8lLla3 i.e6 26
3 Main Line: 7 i.e2 or 7 i.d3 67

Part Two: 5 lLlb5 d6

4 The Tactical6lLl1c3 76
5 The Classical 6 i.c4 97
6 The Fianchetto system 6 g3 100
7 The Quiet 6 a4 105
8 Short's 6lLl5c3 and other sixth moves 111

Part Three: Others

9 White avoids 5 lLlb5 119

10 Winning Tactics for Black 135
Exercises 139
Solutions 141

Index of Variations 144

Symbols

+ Check
++ Double check
# Checkmate
! Good move
? Bad move
!! Excellent move
?? Blunder
Ch Championship
Wch World Championship
Z Zonal
IZ Interzonal
Ct Candidates
OL Olympiad
Corr Postal game
(D) Diagram follows
Introduction
Why you should play the
Kalashnlkov
The Kalashnikov, 1 e4 c5 2 ~f3 ~6
3 d4 cxd4 4 ~d4 e5 5 ~b5 d6 (D),
w
is a dynamic and enterprising vari-
ation of the Sicilian. It leads to posi-
tions rich in tactical play, where
Black's aggressive plans and active
development allow him to play for a
win from the very first moves. In-
deed, the reader will be struck by
the number of quick wins Black
achieves in this volume.
Surprise is one of the most power-
ful weapons in chess, and players
with White often have only a hazy
idea of the theory of this line. This
means that in practice they fre-
quently develop their pieces to
'natural' squares without any clear
strategic plan, and are then over-
whelmed by the dynamism inherent
in Black's position.
Despite its energetic nature, the
Kalashnikov is founded upon solid
positional principles. This explains
its popularity at the highest levels of
chess, where it has been used with
great effect by Shirov, Anand, Kram-
nik and virtually all the other young
lions of world chess.
Surprise, dynamism and solidity:
these features of the Kalashnikov
make it an ideal choice for the ambi-
tious club player.
Some history
There are fourteen pages of analysis
on the Sveshnikov (4 ... ~f6 5 ~c3 e5
6 ~db5 d6) in the Encyclopaediaof
Chess Openings Volume B (1984)
but only one reference to the Kalash-
nikov - less than one twentieth of a
page! Moreover this reference is to
a 1952 game with the laconic rec-
ommendation after 6 ~lc3 to play
6 ... ~f6 transposing to the main line
Sveshnikov, which is hardly helpful.
Batsford Chess Openings (1982 edi-
tion) doesn't mention 5 ~b5 d6 at
all. Beating the Sicilian (1986) has
17 pages on the Pelikan (Sveshnikov)
6 Introduction
and five lines on the Kalashnikov,
while in Beating the Sicilian 2
(1990), the Kalashnikov still only
merits a single page. Since these
books tend to be the main source of
opening theory for many club and
tournament players, the conclusion
is obvious: after S ~bS d6 your op-
ponent, unless he keeps up with the
latest developments in In/ormator or
New in Chess, is likely to be on his
own. He may have some vague idea
of where the pieces belong, but he
certainly won't be armed with long
concrete variations. Isn't this much
better than playing twenty moves of
Dragon (or indeed Sveshnikov) the-
ory?
The reader may wonder why the
Kalashnikov has been neglected for
such a long time. Is it simply a bad
opening? No, but if you don't be-
lieve me, ask Kramnik, Anand or
Short why they persist in playing an
inferior variation! The real reason
for the revival of the Kalashnikov
can be explained in one word, a word
already used four times in this intro-
duction: Sveshnikov. The Russian
Grandmaster who popularized and
developed the variation which bears
his name decided in the early 1980s
that he needed a new defence to 1 e4.
Evidently the surfeit of theory on
the Sveshnikov was too much even
for the maestro. Sveshnikov likes to
have his openings precisely worked
out, and so has a rather narrow but
refined opening repertoire. Such
predictability may not always be
good for his competitive results, but
it means that he has introduced a
wealth of important ideas in open-
ings such as the French Advance, c3
Sicilian and of course the Svesh-
nikov Sicilian. Hence he began to
play 4 ... eS rather than S...eS. Prior
to the involvement of Sveshnikov
there had been several devotees of
the Kalashnikov - such as the Rus-
sian masters Kopaev, Kuzminykh
and (especially) Scherbakov and the
Bulgarian Grandmaster Padevsky.
However, it required the influence of
Sveshnikov, a strong player who is
prepared to annotate his games, to
drag the Kalashnikov into the pages
of In/ormator. Only when an open-
ing system appears in this hallowed
journal can it hope to become fash-
ionable. A tricky but unsound vari-
ation often has a spectacular start to
its career when its surprise value nets
some good wins, but it quickly van-
ishes when analysis draws its fangs.
The Kalashnikov has had the oppo-
site experience. On its first modern
appearance (modern since Howard
Staunton favoured 4 ... eS in the
1840s and the Indian genius Sultan
Khan used it four times in the 1930s
- four wins!) results were not en-
couraging. Some of these early Ka-
lashnikov games are very instructive
since they show how not to play the
opening. The reader will find several

examples in the section on strategic
lhemes. Gradually the system was
slrengthened. In Informator 59 we
see Bareev and Sveshnikov defend-
ing Black's position against Shirov
and Tiviakov, and achieving a credit-
able 50% score. Anand, after a loss
against Van der Wiel and a fortuitous
draw against Kramnik as White, has
Introduction 7
started playing the system as Black.
Indeed, virtually every young player
among the world's elite has adopted
it at some time or other - Kramnik,
Anand, Shirov, Bareev, Ivanchuk
and Tiviakov. I would have liked to
see Short adopt it against Kasparov
in the PCA World Championship
match but alas ...
Bibliography

The Neo-Sveshnikov by Jeremy Silman

This is a well-researched and thorough account of the theory of the Kalash-
nikov up to the beginning of 1990. As far as I know, it is the only monograph
on the opening besides the present volume.

The Correspondence Chess Informator No.1 (Moroz)

A new publication. Volume 1 (1992) includes a 32 page examination of our
opening (also known as the B32 Sicilian) by Alexander Moroz. The liberal
use of correspondence games is a welcome addition to source material. How-
ever, the assessment of variations differs very little from previous analysis,
and at times the weakness of the players distorts the value of the given vari-
ations. References up to 1991.

Chess in the USSR No.6 (Lepeshkin and Yanovsky)

This volume (1990) contains six large pages of analysis on the system by
Lepeshkin and Yanovsky, but there is no independent assessment of vari-
ations. References up to 1990.

Secret Weapons (Martin)

Contains a chapter on the Kalashnikov. A good verbal explanation of plans
though no hard tactical analysis. References up to 1990.

The British Chess Magazine (Bellin) May-June 1993

A two-part summary, about nine pages long, by Robert Bellin. As with Martin
it is well written and good on strategic explanation, but the Informator-based
assessments of positions are unchallenged. References up to 1992.

New In Chess Yearbook 27 (Sveshnikov)

An account by Sveshnikov himself. A nine page article followed by a 12 page
database of very lightly annotated games. The article contains an interesting
historical introduction to the opening, and then a long explanation of strategic
ideas. Certainly the best article available. References mainly pre-1992.
1 Strategic themes in the Main Line
In a nutshell, after 1 e4 c5 2 .!Df3
.!Dc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 .!Dxd4 e5 5 .!Db5 d6
White has two principal approaches:
the positional 6 c4, and the tactical 6
.!Dlc3.
6 c4 - the positional approach
This is White's most popular choice
against the Kalashnikov. He gains
space on the queenside and clamps
down on the d5 square. White can
only dream of achieving such a bind
in the Sveshnikov, since his knight
on c3 obstructs the c2-c4 advance.
However, 6 c4 is not without its
drawbacks:
1) It weakens the d4 square.
White will have to watch out for in-
vasions by a black knight or bishop.
2) It deprives the king's bishop of
c4 - its natural attacking square after
Black has weakened the a2-g8 di-
agonal with 4 ...e5. Hence, White has
little chance of winning by a direct
attack after 6 c4. This will annoy
aggressively-minded players with
White who are obliged to play 6 c4
because they have never learnt the
sharper variations after 6 .!Dlc3.
3) If White loses control of the
position, then the flanking blows
... b5 or ... f5 (often combined with a
later ... d5) will be all the more pow-
erful since White has loosened his
position with 6 c4.
6 .!D1c3 - the tactical approach
This move leads to much sharper po-
sitions than 6 c4. It is the choice of
those who prefer aggressive chess
and know the theory of the Kalash-
nikov - a rare combination! Or per-
haps White is hoping to transpose to
the Sveshnikov after 6 ... .!Df6 (of
course we do not let him).
The emphasis after 6 .!Dlc3 is on
exact knowledge of some rather long
and, at times, difficult variations.
There are few strategic 'signposts' to
guide White or Black. However,
once he has acquired a reasonable
mastery of the variations Black has
little to fear, and can hope to score
many wins.
To summarise:
6 c4 leads to a fixed central pawn
structure and slow-moving, sche-
matic play, whilst 6 .!Dlc3leads to a
more tactical battle. In this introduc-
tory chapter I shall concentrate on
the positional pitfalls Black faces af-
ter 6 c4, and how he can avoid them
10 Strategic themes in the Main Line
to achieve a reasonable or good posi-
tion.
McDonald - Kinsman
CappeUe La Grande 1991
w
At first glance White appears to
have a considerable positional ad-
vantage. His major pieces are all
bearing down on black's backward
d-pawn and the dS square beckons
for the knight. Yet things are not so
simple:
1) If the knight heads for dS (27
lDe3) then its black counterpart
jumps in at d4 and will be as well-
placed as White's knight on dS. Also,
the d6-pawn will be shielded. This is
a problem White experiences again
and again in the Kalashnikov: he
builds up his control of dS only to
find that his own knight has to stay
away from this square in order to
keep d4 guarded.
2) Black is poised to play 27 ... bS!
breaking White's stranglehold on dS
after 28 cxbS axbS followed by ...dS
when the d-pawn is transformed into
a strong passed pawn. The plan of
... bS! is a common theme in the Ka-
lashnikov. If Black can carry it out
without immediate punishment then
he generally achieves a good game.
White decided in the game that he
needed to take immediate action
against the ... bS advance and so he
played:
27 'ji'e3
The point is to meet 27 ... bS with
28 cxbS axbS 29 'it'b6, winning a
pawn. Meanwhile he intends 28
'it'b6, blocking up Black's queenside
and increasing his bind. Another at-
tempt at restraint is 27 a4 but this can
be answered by the thematic sacri-
fice 27 ... bS!? 28 axbS axbS 29 cxbS
lDe7 and 30... dS, with good play for
the pawn.
After the move played, Black
took the chance to free his position:
27 dS!
28 adS l:xdS
29 f3
After 29 h3 Black can play
29 ... l:xd3 30 l:xd3 l:xd3 31 'ii'xd3
lDd4! 32 lDxd4 'ii'd6! forcing a
queen endgame after ... exd4 which
is not altogether different from the
game.
29 l:xd3
30 l:xd3 l:xd3
31 'ji'xd3 lDd4!
32 lDxd4
This leads to an inevitable draw,
but after 32lDe3 'ii'c6 (or 32...'it'b6!?)
 Strategic themes in the Main Line 11

Black is so active he should hardly with :d5. Then the game would
lose. have reached a position similar to
32 ... exd4 that below:
33 ~
Of course, 33 'i'xd4?? 'WeI is Smagin - Sveshnikov
mate. If we replace the queens with Moscow rpd 1992
rooks, bishops or knights then the
cndgame clearly favours White: the
d-pawn would be a serious weak-
ness. Sveshnikov expostulates the
general rule in the Kalashnikov that
Black should keep the queens on,
since his chances of counterplay are
greatly diminished in an endgame.
Evidently if Black wants an end-
game, it should be a queen endgame!
33 'ti'e5
34 g3 'i'aS
35 a4 'ti'dS A thoroughly miserable position
36 'iite2 'ti'e6+ for Black. All he can do is wait and
37 'iita 'ti'dS see if White can improve his posi-
38 h4 'ti'd6 tion. Such prospectless positions
39 f4 'ti'dS should be avoided at all costs. You
The game is equal. White's king must achieve a ... d5 or ... f5 advance
cannot approach the d-pawn. to avoid falling into such a bind. Or
40 fS as at least you should keep on some mi-
41 g4 'ti'hl nor pieces so that White always has
42 'ti'g3 'ti'e4 to be ruling out potential counter-
43 f6 gxf6 play. It's no wonder that Black was
44 ""8+ 'iitg7 unable to defend his position:
45 'ti'c7+ 'iitg8 20 ... g6?!
46 'ti'd8+ Sveshnikov claims this is an equal
and a draw was agreed. position but I will take the liberty of
disagreeing with the maestro. This
Imagine if, in the diagram above, move is merely weakening. Holding
Black had earlier allowed the ex- tight with 20•••'ti'f6 was better, but
change of knights, and at the same not surprisingly Black wants to play
time permitted White to rule out ... b5 something active.
12 Strategic themes in the Main Line

21 g3 'ii'f6 34 'ii'e3 q;n

22 84 h5 35 'ft6
23 h4 Finally White penetrates into
The end of Black's 'counterat- Black's position.
tack'. From now on it's all defence. 35 dxc5
23 'ii'e6 36 bxc5 :'xcS
24 ~g2 37 'ft7+ ~e6
White has all the time in the 38 'ii'xg6 :'xdS
world. 39 'ii'g8+ ~d6
24 Worse is 39...~e7 40 "g7+ win-
25 'ii'e3 :'xdS?! ning a pawn with check before cap-
Sveshnikov says that it is better turing the rook.
for Black to retain both rooks, since 40 'ii'xd5+ ~e7
his chances of counterplay diminish 41 g4
with every exchange. True, but after A breakthrough on the h-file.
25...:'5c6 26 "g5+ ~f8 27 "d2 41 ••• 'ii'cS
(for example) White can continue to After 41 •••hxg4 42 h5 the passed
probe until he thinks it appropriate to pawn is very hard to stop.
break things open with c5, or b4 and 42 gxhS 'ii'g4+
b5. Black would be tortured for a 43 ~n 'ii'xh5
long time. At least after the rook ex- 44 'ii'xb7+ ~f8
change Black's king is able to leave and White won in the time scram-
the centre, where it was exposed to a ble at the end of this rapidplay game.
lightning breakthrough with c5.
26 :'xdS :'c6 How did Black end up in such a
27 'ii'd2 ~ bind as the diagram? We will get in a
28 'ii'b4 'ii'e7 time machine and travel back to
29 as ~g7 move 16 in the game, just after
30 'ii'c3 ~g8 White has played 16ltled5 (D):
31 b4 f6 a) Ideally Black would like to
The threat of 32 c5 provokes castle but then 17ltle7+ wins the ex-
Black into a further weakening of his change.
centre. b) As a general rule, if Black has
32 'ifb3 'ii'c7 a choice of capturing with knight or
33 cS! bishop on d5, he almost always
With discovered attacks on g8 in wants to play ... ltlxd5. This is be-
the offing. cause the bishop sitting on e6 (or
33 ••• ~f8 on d7 after cxd5 i.d7) is good for

B
long-term counterplay which offsets
White's long-term space advantage.
A black knight on f6, on the other
hand, is a long way from d4 and
often has no real purpose apart from
playing ... c!tJxd5. However, in the ac-
tual position, the strategically desir-
able 16•••c!tJxd5 fails tactically: 17
cxdS j.h3 18 'l'f3! j.g4 19 'l'g3 and
20 h3 is a winning threat.
c) 16...j.h3!? leads to dynamic
play after 17 g3 hS!? or 17 c!tJxf6+
gxf6 18 g3 hS and h4 etc. If White
plays 17 'ii'fJ then 17 ... j.g4Ieads to
a win for Black after either 18 'l'g3
c!tJhS! or 18 c!tJxf6+ gxf6 19 'I'g3
i.xdl. Alternatively 17 fJ c!tJxdS 18
c!tJxdS? drops a pawn to 18 .. Jbc4.
17 f4!? (Nunn) is White's most chal-
lenging move, but Black has good
counterplayafter 17 ...exf4 18 c!tJxf6+
gxf6 19 %:tdS 'I'g7. White must avoid
traps such as 20 %:tad 1 ? %:tg8 21
%:tld2 j.xg2! 22 'ii'xg2 'l'h8 winning
White's queen. After the careful 20
l:td2 (overprotecting g2 and counter-
ing the threat of ... j.e6) 20... j.g4 21
Strategic themes in the Main Line 13
'l'f2 f3 the position remains dynami-
cally balanced, e.g. 22 'l'g3 O-O!?
d) Finally, if Black doesn't want
a dynamic struggle (but then why is
he playing the Kalashnikov rather
than the Petroff?) then 16•••c!tJd7!?
prepares ... 0-0 and ... fS (though 17
%:td3 may be a good answer).
e) In the game Black played
16... j.xd5 17 c!tJxdS c!tJxdS 18 %:txdS
~e7 19 %:tadl %:thc8 20 b3 g6, etc.,
and we all saw what happened to
him. But the conclusion is obvious:
it wasn't the Kalashnikov's fault that
Black ended up in such a bad posi-
tion. There were satisfactory solu-
tions to the problems of the opening,
but Sveshnikov failed to grasp them.
To be fair, this was a rapidplay game,
so there was perhaps insufficient
time to be creative.
B
Popovic - B.Ivanovic
VrIac 1989
It is time for Black's queen to
develop. Should she head for the
14 Strategic themes in the Main Line
queenside (16 ...'Wa5) or the kingside
(16 ... 'WgS)? This is in fact a crucial
positional decision. 16.....a5 signals
that Black is aiming for counterplay
with ... bS, breaking White's stran-
glehold on dS and hoping to follow
up with ...b4, driving away the white
knight and winning the a-pawn. This
sounds fine, and Popovic even sug-
gests 16... 'Wa5 in Informator 48, but
how exactly is ... bS to be enforced
after 16 ...'Wa5 without simply losing
a pawn? ( ... bS can sometimes be
played as a positional pawn sacrifice
- see for example Dvoirys-Svesh-
nikov below - but only if Black's
pieces are actively placed; this is not
the case here.) Furthermore, the
knight has to stay on e8 guarding the
d6-pawn, so cannot be moved to c7
to support the ... bS advance. More-
over ... l:.b8 would leave the knight
on c6 hanging after ... bS, etc., while
relinquishing control of the c-file
would in general be a bad idea. So it
appears that after 16 ... 'Wa5 Black has
no way to follow up with the strate-
gically necessary ... b5 advance.
Hence his choice in the game seems
correct:
16 ... "g5!
Since he cannot achieve the ... bS
advance to attack White's centre, he
plans the ... fS advance instead.
Clearly, it's good to have the queen
near where the action will take place.
Also, since the knight has had to re-
treat to e8 to defend the d-pawn,
Black makes a virtue of necessity:
the path of the f-pawn is already
cleared. Now 17"xg5? would be a
mistake, since after 17 ... hxgS Black
can make good use of the h-file, e.g.
18 l£ldS g6 19 l:.d2 <l;;g7 20 l:.cdl
l:.h8 21 b4 l:.h4 22 f3 fS 23 .i.d3
.i.xdS 24 cxd5 l£le7 followed by
... l£lf6 and ... g4, gradually dissolv-
ing White's centre with an excellent
game. So White left it to Black to ex-
change queens:
17 "g3 "xg3
This is not bad, but it is difficult to
see how White could improve his po-
sition after simply 17...g6 and
18 ... <l;;g7, continuing his plan of
... f5. One wonders what idea Pop-
ovic has in this position. After all, he
gives his 17th move an exclamation
mark.
18 hxg3 g6
19 ~5(D)
B
19 ... <l;;g7
Here 19....i.xdS equalizes, e.g. 20
l:.xdS l£lf6 21 l:.xd6 ~xe4 22 l:.d7

liJc5. Or 20 exdS liJe7 followed by
... f5 and ... liJf6. Finally, 20 cxdS
liJe7 and once again ... f5 and ... liJf6
is fine, followed by doubling rooks
on the c-file planning to break up
White's centre with ... b5. If White is
not careful he could even end up
with the worse game. His bishop is
somewhat restricted by the pawn
structure and he is very extended in
the centre.
20 ':'d2
Popovic gives 20 f3 ;t, but al-
though 20 ... f5 21 exf5 (or 21...fxe4
gives White a sickly pawn on e4)
21...gxf5 leaves d5 in White's con-
trol, Black's centre is otherwise
compact and strong. Popovic also
suggests 20 liJb6, meeting 20...':'d8
with 21 ':'d2 and ':'cd 1. Instead
Black could try 20...':'c7 21 ':'d2 f5
with the idea of ... ':'c7-f7 attacking
f2. The continuation 22 exf5 gxf5
looks unclear.
20 ... f5?!
Here, as Popovic points out, after
20...i.xdS, 21 .l:.xdS liJf6 still yields
equality, whilst White should avoid
21 cxdS in view of 21...liJd4, ex-
ploiting the c-file pin. He claims a
slight advantage for White after 21
exdS but this recapture is seldom ef-
fective in the Kalashnikov pawn
structure; compare the note to move
19 after 19... i.xd5 20 exd5liJe7.
21 exfS pfS
Every Russian schoolboy knows
you should recapture with the pawn
Strategic themes in the Main Line 15
in such positions, but since we are
looking at positional themes, the
move 21...i.xfS deserves attention.
This contains the threat 22 ... i.xc2
and 23 ... liJd4, when the knight is ex-
cellently placed and White cannot
hope for any advantage. 22 liJce3
liJd4 is similarly useless, whilst 22
i.d3 i.xd3 23 ':'xd3 b5 24 cxb5
liJd4 exploits the pin on the c-file
again (threats of both ... liJe2+ and
... ':'xc2). 22liJb6 is probably best-
then 22 ... ':'c7 23 i.d3 ':'cf7 24 f3! is
;to
22 ':'cdl (D)
B
22 ... ltJa5?!
Black could set a very nasty trap
here with 22...bS!?, the point being
that after 23 cxbS axb5 24 i.xb5?
i.xd5 25 ':'xd5liJc7!! Black comes
out material up. 22 ... b5 is a logical,
thematic move, but like all positional
moves it succeeds or fails according
to the calculation of precise vari-
ations. That's what makes chess so
difficult (and interesting). If 22 ... b5
16 Strategic themes in the Main Line
works then we have no right to criti-
cize Black's previous play. Unfortu-
nately for Black, White can simply
play 23 b3 (not 23 tDa3 tDd4) when
23 ... tDa5?! 24 tDa3! enables White
to maintain his grip over c4 and d5,
whilst the tactical 23 ... i.xd5 24
l:txd5 bxc4 25 i.xc4 tDe7 26 l:t5d2!
(not 26 l:ta5 d5!) 26 ... d5 27 i.xa6
l:ta8 28 tDb4! merely leaves Black a
pawn down. So 22 ... b5 would only
weaken the queenside pawns. What
a pity!
23 b3 tDc6
After 23...b5 (hoping for 24 cxb5
i.xd5 winning a piece) 24 tDa3!
(Popovic) 24 ... bxc4 25 tDxc4 tDxc4
26 i.xc4 White has a clear advan-
tage - a6 is weak and White has an
absolute hold over d5.
24 f4!
White has achieved the optimal
deployment of his pieces and now
uses his pawns to undermine Black's
centre. Note that after 24 i.h5,
Black defends with 24 ...i.f7 (but not
24 ... i.xd5 25 i.xe80.
24 ... ~h7
Black continues his waiting pol-
icy.
25 ~h2 ~g7
26 tDde3
Another advantage of 24 f4: the
knight can retreat without being mo-
lested by ... f4. Now the threat is 27
i.h5 tDf6 (27 ... i.f7 leaves f5 at-
tacked) 28 l:txd6. Black's next move
deals with this threat by exploiting
a potential pin on the h-file, but it
also exposes another pawn to attack.
26...tDe7! looks best, so that after 27
i.h5 i.f7, f5 is defended.
26 ... h5
27 l:tn
More probing, which eventually
provokes a positional concession.
27 ... tDe7
28 tDb4 (D)
The knight is released from de-
fensive duty covering the d4 square.
B
28 ... e4?
28...tDg6 was better, aiming for
counterplay with ... h4. However 29
tDbd5 is a solid advantage to White,
as pointed out by Popovic. Now
Black has what can only be termed a
Kalashnikov gone horribly wrong.
The hole on d5 remains, the ... b5 ad-
vance is prevented, the ... f5 break
has hardly furthered Black's plans
and the h5-pawn is weak. Further-
more, the ideal outpost for the knight
on d4 has vanished. The reader is ad-
vised to take a long, hard look at
 Strategic themes in the Main Line 17

Black's position. This is what will Black captures on d5 and White re-
happen to him in the Kalashnikov if plies cxd5.
he doesn't seize the chance for coun-
terplay. A position can endure sev-
eral weaknesses if there is some
compensating activity. Here Black
has multiple weaknesses but there is
not one tactical variation in sight.
29 l:hl l:h8
30 ~gl i.n
31 ~f2 l:c5
32 ltlbc2 i.g6
33 lLXi4 ~n
33•••l:c8 would be a tougher nut
to crack. Now White has a break- A very common pawn structure in
through which exploits the unde- the c4 Kalashnikov. White has a
fended rook on h8. space advantage and two distinct
34 g4! fxg4 plans; either:
35 i.xg4 ltlg7 a) to play f4, trying to break
36 i.h3 h4 Black's centre and start a kingside
37 ltle2 ltle8 attack down the f-file, or
38 i.g4 i.hS? b) more commonly, to exploit the
The excruciating nature of slight weakness in Black's queen-
Black's defence finally takes its toll. side (weak b6 square, pawn on d6
Black is lost because of his numer- which can be attacked with ltlc4 and
ous pawn weaknesses, but this over- i.a3). White would like to wrest
sight speeds the end. control of the c-file from Black and
39 l:xh4 ltlg6 then penetrate with a rook. For ex-
40 l:hl ltlr6 ample, if he could go ltlb6 this
41 i.xhS l:ahS would deny Black's rook the c8
42 l:xhS ltlxhS square; or he could go 'iVb6 attacking
43 g3 ~e7 the b7-pawn and tying down a black
44 ltlrS+ 1-0 rook to b8 so that Black cannot con-
So far we have looked at (mainly test control of the c-file. Or he could
advantageous) positions for White attack the d6-pawn and tie down a
where he keeps the d5 square as an black rook in this way. Hence White
outpost for his pieces. Now we will has a clear and direct plan, based on
examine the pawn structure after a long-term positional advantage:
18 Strategic themes in the Main Line
his pawns are more advanced in the
centre and therefore he has more
space for his pieces, which means
more efficiency and power. There-
fore' he would like to exchange
queens to clarify the situation, and
avoid any Black counterplay. What
is Black's counterplay? The position
cries out for ... f5 undermining
White's centre. Black seeks to prove
the advanced white pawns are in fact
a liability since they are vulnerable
to flanking blows. If Black does not
achieve counterplay, then he can be
gradually constricted into defeat.
This position is reached in Game
2, Anand-Kramnik. Kramnik played
12.. JWxd2+! 13 ~xd2 g6! 14.id3
f5 and achieved a good game by at-
tacking White's centre after 15 f3
lDf6 1600 .ixd5 17 cxd5 fxe4 etc.
Note how vigorously Black plays to
gain the initiative before White has
time to solidify his position. In
Ljubojevic-I vanchuk(played before
the Kramnik game) Black played
insipidly and soon ran into prob-
lems:
12 ••• h6?
13 l:r.dl!
Not of course 13 'Wxd6?? l:r.d8
winning. The d6-pawn is often poi-
soned in the Kalashnikov, though
not often as blatantly as in this in-
stance. Now there is a real threat of
14 'Wxg5 and 15 l:r.xd6. So ...
13 ... 'ii'xd2+
14 ~d2!
But not 14 l:r.xd2 when we have
one of our familiar motifs: 14 ... lDa5
15 b3 b5! and Black's play on the c-
file ensures an active game.
14 ••• lDf6
15 f3 ~e7?!
It is natural to keep the king in the
centre, but 15.••0-0! 16 .id3 (16 b3
l:r.fd8 intending ... lDd7) 16 ... lDd7, as
given by Ivanchuk, was better. Then
Black is ready to play 17 ... lDc5 fol-
lowed by capturing the bishop on d3
and ... f5. A slower approach with
... g6 and only then ...f5 is also possi-
ble. After 15••• ~e7 Black never
achieves the liberating ...f5 advance.
16 .id3 l:r.c7
17 l:r.c1 l:r.hc8
Black anticipates White's next
move and so ensures that both rooks
are exchanged off. This will limit
White's advantage - Black's game
will not be so cramped.
18 lDds+ .ixd5
As we already know, Black pre-
fers to play lDxd5 in such situations

and keep his bishop, but tactics come
before strategy: 18••• lLlxdS loses a
piece.
19 cxdS lLlb8
20 lLle3 (D)
20 •.. ':xc1!?
Black tries to get by without ... g6.
If 20•••g6 here, then 21lLlc4lLlfd7 22
b4 (keeping the knight out of c5)
22 ... b5 (challenging White's knight
before a4-aS constricts him even fur-
ther; besides, Black is in virtual zug-
zwang) 23lLlaS ':xc124 ':xcl ':xcl
25 'iifxcI lLlb6 26 i.c2! and White
has a clear advantage (lvanchuk).
Strategic themes in the Main Line 19
White can prepare a breakthrough
with 27 'iifb2 and 28 a4. Then after
Black captures on a4 (or b5 will be
left very weak after axb5) White can
edge forwards with 'iifa3 and i.xa4,
making inroads into the queenside.
Black's knight on b8 is completely
dominated by its counterpart on as.
If it wanders too far then White will
jump in with lLlc6 and lLlb8. Black
has no counterplay on the kingside -
another Kalashnikov gone wrong. A
possible line is 26 ... 'iifd7 27 'iifb2
'iifc7 28 a4 bxa4 29 'iifa3 'iifd7 (Black
cannot undertake anything active) 30
i.xa4+ lLlxa4 (30... 'iife7 {or 30... 'iifc7
31 i.e8} 31 lLlc6+ lLlxc6 32 i.xc6
lLld7 33 i.b7 lLlb8 34 'iifa4 and 35
'iifas will win the a-pawn) 31 'iifxa4
'iifc7 32 lLlc4 'iifd7 33 'iifas 'iifc7 34
lLla3! 'iifb7 (34 ...'iifc8/d7 35 'iifb6 fol-
lowed by lLlc4 will soon win a pawn)
35 b5 winning a pawn after 35 ... axb5
36 lLlxb5 or 35 ... 'iifa7 36 lLlc4. So
Ivanchuk was probably right to
avoid 20 ... g6. However, Black's
problems persist after 20 ... ':xcl.
21 lLlfs+
Instead 21 ':xcl ':xcI 22 'iifxc 1
g6 23 lLlc4 'iifd7 24 lLlaS 'iifc7 en-
ables Black to free his game without
weakening his queenside with ... b5,
so he is not exposed to the positional
attack described in the sample vari-
ation above. Therefore Ljubojevic
prefers to deploy his knight on the
kingside where it is certainly a for-
midable piece.
20 Strategic themes in the Main Line
21 ~d8
22 llxc1 :Xc1
23 ~xc1 tDe8
Ivanchuk has defended well. He
has eased his game by simplifying
the position and there are no serious
weaknesses in his position. On the
other hand, White has an important
space advantage, his knight is excel-
lently placed on f5, and, as the Rus-
sian chess proverb observes, even
the worst bishop is better than a
knight! Although White's bishop is
conventionally 'bad' it will have
great potential if the game opens up.
In particular, White can manoeuvre
it to the diagonal h3-c8 after playing
g3. So this is definitely not Winning
with the Kalashnikov. But, believe it
or not, you won't win all your games
with Black in 20 moves. Occasion-
ally (but hopefully not too often) you
will end up in this type of miserable
(but defensible) position. Therefore
it pays to see how a world-class
player defends it.
24 g4 ~7
25 b4 ~c7
Not 25 ...lbdf6 26 b5 as (26 ...axb5
27 .txb5 leaves Black all tied up and
facing the threat of h4 and g5) 27 b6!
followed by .tb5 ± (Ivanchuk).
26 a4?!
Here Ivanchuk gives 26 h4! lbdf6
27 ~d2 h5 28 g5 lbh7 29 ~e3 f6 30
f4 with a clear advantage to White.
One threat is 31 .te2 g6 32 lbe7lbfS
33 f5! breaking through Black's
defences. 26 a4 is a good example of
a 'natural' move which is incorrect
because precise calculation indicates
a better course of action.
26 ... 006
27 as
The difference a move makes!
Now 27 h4 h5 28 g5lbh7 29 ~d2
(or 29 b5 a5 30 b6+ ~xb6 31 .tb5
lbc7 =Ivanchuk) 29 ... g6! 30 lbh6 f6
31 gxf6 lbexf6 32 lbn (or 32 ... g5
will equalize) 32...~d7! followed by
... ~e7 yields an equal game. If
White had played 26 h4 his king
would reach e3 one move earlier and
so f4 would keep his advantage.
27 h5
28 g5 lbh7
29 h4 (D)
29 ... f6?
Here 29...g6! 30 lbh6 f6 draws as
in the variation given after White's
27th move. Ivanchuk also points out
that 31 f4?! exf4 32 e5 fxg5 33
.txg6 dxe5 34 .txe8lbf6 intending
... gxh4, is best avoided by White.

After 29...f6? White could play 30
g6! tLlf8 31 b5 and Ivanchuk analy-
ses to a win for White after
31. .. tLlxg6: 32 bxa6 bxa6 33 1.xa6
<it>b8 34 1.b5 tLlc7 35 1.f1 tLle8 36
<it>d2 tLlf4 37 ~c3 g6 38 tLle7 g5 39
tLlf5 tLlg6 40 ~b4!' White's king
penetrates into Black's position
while his black counterpart is tied
down to stopping the passed a-pawn.
Meanwhile, the bishop on f1 firmly
guards h3 against Black's passed
pawn. White, however, misses his
chance, and Black escapes from the
pressure:
30 gxf6? tLlhxf6
31 ~d2 ~d8
32 ~e3 tLlg8!
At last he can challenge the white
knight.
33 tLlg3 lLlef6
34 tLlf5 lLle8
35 1.n
Or 35 b5 g6.
The game concluded 35••• lLle7 36
lLlxe7 ~xe7 37 1.h3 ~d8 38 1.f5
lLlf6 39 ~d3 lLlg8 40 1.g6lLlf6 41
~e3 ~e7 42 ~f2 ~d8 43 ~g3 ~c7
44 f4 b5 45 ~f3 ~d7 46 1.17 ~c7
47 1.e6 ~b8 and a draw was
agreed. There is no way through.
This game well illustrates the dan-
gers facing Black after cxd5 if he
does not achieve a liberating ... f5
advance.
We will look at one more example
of what to avoid as Black and then
get down to the real business of this
Strategic themes in the Main Line 21
book: Winning with the Kalash-
nikov.
B
Mokry - Holzl
Dubai OL 1986
Black has carried out the thematic
plan of ... 1.g5 to exchange off
White's strong dark- squared bishop,
and rid himself of his own 'bad'
bishop. However, there is something
of a paradox here: Black's bad
bishop often serves a good defensive
function, defending the backward d-
pawn, or guarding the dark squares
on Black's kingside once he has
played ... g6 and ... f5, but, as a rule,
the exchange of dark-squared bish-
ops tends to be a favourable transac-
tion for Black. Now he could play
10.••.:c8, preparing pressure on the
c-file, when White should avoid 11
1.xg5 'ii'xg5 12 'ii'xd6 1.h3 13 1.f3
lLld4 (the d-pawn often turns out to
be poisoned in this variation). Or
Black could try 10••• h6 when after
11 1.xg5 hxg5 the h-file could prove
22 Strategic themes in the Main Line
useful. Or finally there is 10...i.xc1
when, if White recaptures with the
rook, 11. ....g5!? is interesting.
These ideas will be considered later
in the theoretical survey of 6 c4.
Instead play continued:
10 ... lM4
11 1Dc2
Now Black has a choice: should
he capture on c2 or e2? This game
was played in 1986, so Black should
not be too much blamed for making
the wrong decision. Nowadays it is
accepted that 11...iDxe2+! is correct,
eliminating the white bishop. The
c4-pawn then becomes more vulner-
able, and the dilution of White's fire-
power along the fl-a6 diagonal
means that ... b5 is easier to realize.
And thinking classically, a bishop is
worth more than a knight! (Tarrasch
described exchanging a knight for a
bishop as 'winning the minor ex-
change'.) Also, the passage of time
has cast doubt on the idea of playing
both positional motifs of ... i.g5 and
... iDd4. As the reader will have no-
ticed, exchanging too many pieces
can leave Black in a prospectless
endgame, so it is a case of 'one or the
other'. Holzi in fact played:
11 iDxc2
12 "xc2 i.xc1
13 lIuc1 iDe7
14 lIfdl iDc6 (D)
15 i.n
White could try to exploit Black's
opening play with the direct 15 c5!?
w
iDd4 (no choice) 16 "a4+. Then
16.....d7 17 lIxd4! exd4 18 i.b5!
is inadvisable for Black, while
16... ~f8 17 "a3 ~e7 (17 ... dxc5
loses the e-pawn) 18 cxd6+ "xd6
walks into 19iDd5+! i.xd5 20llc7+
~e6 21 exd5+ ~xd5 22 i.c4+,
winning. After 16...~e7, White can
choose between 17 "b4 (when
17 ... dxc5 18 "xb7+ looks good) or
the dangerous exchange sacrifice 17
lIxd4 exd4 18 "xd4.
15 ... 0-0
16 "d3!
This shows a grandmasterly ap-
preciation of the nuances of the posi-
tion. At first glance, 16 "d2 looks
natural and best. Then if Black plays
16...'ii'b6, 17iDa4! wins a pawn after
17...'ii'b418 "xb4iDxb4 19 a3 and
20 lIxd6, whilst 17..:iVd4 18 "c2
picks up the d-pawn. However, Mokry
has noticed a positional trap: Black
can play 16...iDd4!, and meet 17
iDe2 with 17... i.g4!, the point being
18 f3 i.xf3!, while 18 ~hl i.xe2 19
i.xe2 'iib6 is fine for Black.

After 16 'it'd3, on the other hand,
16••• ll)d4 can be answered by 17
lDe2 .ig4? 18 f3lDxe2+ 19 'it'xe2!
(not 19 .ixe2 'it'b6+) 19 ... 'it'b6+
(19 ....ie610ses a pawn after 20 c5)
20 'it'f2 and White wins the d-pawn.
HOlzl finds the only defence:
16 ••• 'iVb6
Now the b2-pawn is attacked and
17 lDa4 can be answered by
17 ... 'it'b4 or 17 ... 'it'a5, followed by
... lId8, defending the d-pawn.
17 b3
Another critical moment. Which
rook should Black use to defend the
d-pawn? We know that in such posi-
tions Black has a choice between
two possible plans:
1) play ... b5 or
2) play ... f5.
Since White has four pieces con-
trolling the b5-square it would be
very difficult to effect Plan 1 - un-
less of course Black played ... b5 as a
pawn sacrifice, and then broke in the
centre with ... d5. However, White is
so well developed that it would re-
quire some bad mistakes on his part
to make this plan feasible.
Plan 2 looks much more promis-
ing. The f-file is clear for Black's
... f5 advance, and Black's queen is
already aimed at the vulnerable f2
square. Therefore, Black should de-
fend the pawn with 17•••lIad8, fol-
lowed by ... f5. If White plays 18
lDd5? .ixd5 19 cxd5 then after
19 ... lDd4! the knight is dominant
Strategic themes in the Main Line 23
and Black has an excellent game.
However, White can answer with 18
'ife3!? (D):
B
a) Then after 18•.•'ifxe3 19 fxe3
White has compromised his pawn
structure but he now has d4 under his
control. The d6-pawn is more vul-
nerable than White's doubled pawns,
since it stands on an open file. An ex-
ample of the danger Black faces:
19 ... lId7 20 lId2 lIfd8 21 lied 1 ~f8
(21.. ..ig4 22 .ie2 .ixe2 23 lDxe2,
and 24 c5 is threatened) 22 lDa4!
~e7 23 lDb6 lIc7 24 .ie2 and Black
is tied up. In this variation the knight
on b6 is a thorn in Black's side. It
prevents ... b5 and interferes with the
co-ordination of Black's pieces.
b) So perhaps Black should play
18•••lDd4, in order to enter the same
variation without the knights, e.g. 19
lDe2 lDxe2+ with the point that 20
.ixe2 'it'xe3 21 fxe3 lId7 22 lId2
lIfd8 23 l:cdl ~f8 followed by
... ~e7 allows Black to defend com-
fortably. However, White could play
24 Strategic themes in the Main Line

20 'iVxe2! when we will get a similar The correct recapture. 21 i.xe2

endgame to that we have already allows Black to play the liberating
seen between Smagin and Svesh- advance 21...b5!.
nikov (though we should point out 21 ••• ~
that the presence of bishops is a great Now Black finds that 21 ••• b5 22
help to the defence; White cannot cxb5 axb5 23 :cdl wins a pawn,
simply stick a rook on d5 and survey since 23 ... b4 24 :xd6 :xd6 25
the board with impunity). Note that :xd6 'it'xa2? allows a mate on the
the impatient 20 .. .f5 could be an- back rank.
swered by 21 exf5 i.xf5 (21...:xf5 22 :cdl 'iVc5
22 c5!) 22 c5! dxc5 23 :xd8 :xd8 22...~e7 puts the king in trouble
24.'it'xe5 when Black's hold on the after 23 'it'h5.
centre has collapsed. 23 'iVd3 as?
17 ... :fd8 Black fears 24 'it'c3 followed by
18 :d2 'iVaS? an eventual b4 and c5 and so hastens
18...li)e7! is better. Then 19li)d5 to fix the queenside, but this is a bad
li)xd5 20 cxd5 i.d7 is not danger- strategic error, since after White's re-
ous. Black only wants to exchange ply...
knights if White has to recapture on 24 a4!
d5 with a pawn, thereby blocking the ... Black no longer has any hope of
attack on the d6-pawn. counterplay with ... b5. White now
19 'iVe3 li)d4 has a permanent bind on the posi-
20 li)e2 tl)xe2+ (D) tion, and begins probing for ways to
20••• tl)c6 is better, but Black could increase his advantage.
hardly play that without losing face! 24 :a6
25 'iVg3 f6
26 i.e2 :b6
27 :d3 'iVaJ
w 28 h3 'iVc5
29 i.g4 i.g8
30 h4!
The signal for the attack on the
kingside.
30 :b4
31 'iVf3 ~e7
32 h5 i.n
33 i.h3 :b6
21 'iVxe2! 34 'iVg4 g6
 Strategic themes in the Main Line 25

An unavoidable weakening, since 36 1Wc7

34...~ is met by 35 :g3. 37 1ih4 g5
35 hxg6 hxg6 38 1ih6 cIS
36 :t3 Black loses his d-pawn after all.
A new target has emerged in 39 exclS ""'8
Black's position. d6 is overprotected 40 c5
in good Nimzowitschian style, but and Black resigned, since d6+ is
what about f6? curtains.
2 Main Line: 7 ltJlc3 a6 sltJa3 i..e6
Gamel
Dvoirys - Sveshnikov
Helsinki 1992
1 e4 cS 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ttJxd4 eS 5 ttJbS d6
6 c4 J..e7
7 ttJ1c3 a6
A good moment to challenge the
knight, since otherwise (e.g. after
7 ...J..e6) White could play 8 ttJdS, al-
lowing the other knight to retreat to
the central square c3.
8 ttJa3
Now, on the other hand, White's
knight is temporarily driven off-
side.
8 ... J..e6
The reluctance of Black to play
... ttJf6 is the hallmark of the Kalash-
nikov.
9 ttJc2 (D)
Returning the knight to the centre
and covering the d4 square. The
drawback is that the c4 square is
weakened, which makes Black's
next move very logical.
9 ••• l:.cS
If it were now Black's move he
could already strike at White's posi-
tion with 10... ttJa5 11 b3 b5! exploit-
ing the undefended knight on c3.
This would be the answer to 10 J..e2
or any other careless move. So
White's next move defends his
knight.
10 J..d2
a) Frolov-Tiviakov, Sochi 1990,
continued 10 ttJdS J..g5 11 ttJce3
ttJge7 12 J..d3 0-0130-0 ttJd4 14 b3
(D) .
Now Black played 14...J..xdS?!.
The reader will remember from our
 Main Line: 7lD] c3 a6 8lDa3 ~e6 27
introduction that ... ~xd5 is seldom a
good idea in this variation. White
gained a clear advantage after 15
exd5! g616"g4! ~h617 ~b2~g7
18 ~xd4! exd4 19 lDc2. The d4-
pawn is doomed and Black cannot
get enough counterplay as compen-
sation. Frolov and V.Gurevich rec-
ommend 14•••g6 and 15 ... f5. The
problem with this is that White can
playa timely f4! to break up Black's
centre. I think a better approach is
14•••lDxdS!? 15 cxd5 (15 exd5 ~d7
16 ~b2 b5!?) 15 ... ~d7 with com-
plex play, e.g. 16 ~b2 ~xe3 17 fxe3
lDb5 18 a4 lDc7 19 ~a3 lDe8 fol-
lowed by ... "b6 and ...lDf6, with a
good game for Black.
b) In Timman-Short, Belgrade
1989, White played 10 b3!? Now if
10•••.i.gS White has the option of
avoiding the exchange of bishops:
11 ~a3 directly attacking d6 (to
which Black may be able to respond
11.. ...a5) or 11 ~b2, with the idea
of gradual development with 12
~e2, 130-0, 14 "d3, 15 l:tadl and
16 ~a3, laying siege to the d6-pawn.
Hence· the plan of 10 ... ~g5 seems
inappropriate here. Short actually
played 10•••lDf6.
b 1) In the game, after 11 ~e2 0-0
12 0-0 b5 ! (D) he had achieved his
classic counterplay.
After 13 cxb5 axb5 neither 14
lDxb5 lDxe4 nor 14 ~xb5 lDa7! is
any good for White. So White had to
grovel for a draw with 14 ~f3lDb4
w
15 lDxb4 l:txc3, etc. (he finally got
it).
b2) White could have tried 11
~b2, but then 11.. ...a5!? 12 ~d3
(defending e4) 12 ... b5! still looks
good.
b3) However, in 'forcing' the Pe-
likan 10 ... lDf6 from Black, White
has scored a moral victory (....i.g5 is
no longer possible), and objectively
10 b3 is a useful move which
strengthens c4. So perhaps White
should try 11 ~d3 0-0 12 ~d2!?
However, Black then gains dynamic
play after 12 ... lDd7 130-0 lDc5 14
~e2f5.
10 ••• ~gS! (D)
The thematic offer (or demand!)
to exchange bishops.
11 ~e2
11 ~xgS is considered in Game 2.
11 •.. h6
Supporting the bishop and so
making possible the development of
the knight on g8. l1...~xd2+? 12
"xd2 with the threat of 13 l:tdl is
bad.
28 Main Line: 7liJlc3 a6 8liJa3 .ie6

15 b5!
16 cxb5 axb5
w
17 .ixb5 'ii'aS
White has an extra pawn but his
pieces are loosely placed. One threat
is 18 ...liJd4, exploiting the pin on c3
to win material. The e-pawn is also
vulnerable. All in all, the pawn sacri-
fice looks promising. White should
play 18 .id3 now, when Sveshnikov
gives 18 ... d5 as 'unclear'; Black
12 0-0 liJf6 looks at least equal.
13 b3 18 ':ac1?!
Sveshnikov points out that 13 White hopes for 18...liJd4 19
.ixg5 hxg5 14 'it'd2liJh5 15 g3liJf4! liJxd4 exd4 20 'ii'xd4 ':xc3 21 ':xc3
gives Black a strong attack. This 'ii'xb5 when the rook and queenside
looks right, e.g. 16 gxf4 gxf4 17 f3 passed pawns outweigh the bishop
'ii'g5+ 18 ~h1 (18 ~f2 'ii'h4+!) arid knight.
18 .. Jhh2+ 19 ~xh2 ~e7 mating. 18 ... liJa7!
13 0-0 19 b4
14 .ixg5 hxg5 There is no choice; everything is
15 'ii'd2 (D) attacked.
19 •.• 'ii'c7
20 liJe3 'ii'b6!
Giving White no time to consoli-
date. The threat is now 21...':xc3.
21 .id3
Returning the pawn and remain-
ing with a slightly worse position.
Sveshnikov gives 21 a4 'ii'd4! when
after 22 'ii'b2 (22 ':fd1? 'ii'xd2 23
':xd2 liJxb5 24 axb5 liJxe4 +)
22 ... liJxb5 23 axb5 (23 ':ad1? liJxc3
24 ':xd4 exd4 +) 23 ...liJxe4 24 ':fd1
Black is faced with threats to his liJxc3 25 ':xd4 exd4, Black threat-
g5-pawn and also the prospect of an- ens 26 ... liJe2+. Then 26 ~hl dxe3
noying pressure with 16 ':ad1 so he 27 ':xc3 ':xc3 28 'ii'xc3 exf2 fol-
tried: lowed by 29 ... ':c8 gives Black a
 Main Line: 7ll'l1 c3 a6 8 tba3 ..te6 29

clear advantage. Instead 26 ':e2!? 36 ..te2 ll'ld4

looks a better survival chance, but 37 <iPfi f5
White is certainly near death. How- 38 g4?!
ever, 22 "el! looks like a fighting A weakening move. It was better
defence for White, when 22•••~b5 to sit tight and do nothing. Black
23 tbxb5 ':xcl 24 'ti'xcI 'ti'xb425 now won as follows: 38••• g6 39 h3
'ti'c3 just holds on, e.g. 25.....xe4 26 <iPg7 40 ..ta4 <iPf6 41 ':cl <iPeS 42
tbxd6 'ti'xa4 27 'ti'xe5 or 25.••"xe3 <iPg2 ':a6 43 ':e4 tbe2 (43 ... <iPd5
26 tbxc3 ':c8 27 tbb5 tbxe4 28 f3, wins at once) 44 gxfS gxfS 45 ':eS+
etc. <iPd4 46 ..tbS tbf4+ 47 <iPh2 ':a2 48
21 "xb4 :Xf5 ':xf2+ 49 <iPhl tbxh3 50 ':xf2
22 ':c2 tbe6 ll'lxf2+ 51 <iPg2 tbd3 0-1.
23 tbb5 "xd2
24 ':xd2 ':fd8 Game 2
25 ':fdl d5 Anand - Kramnik
26 exd5 ~d5 Madrid 1993
27 tbf5
After 27 tbxd5 ':xd5, 28 ..tfl 1 e4 eS 2 tbf3 tbc6 3 d4 exd4 4
doesn't solve White's problems be- ll'lxd4 eS 5 tbbS d6 6 e4 ..te7 7
cause of 28 ... ':xd2 29 ':xd2 ':a8 or tble3 a6 8ll'la3 ..te6 9ll'le2 ':e810
if 28 ..th7+ <iPxh7 29 ':xdS ..txdS 30 ..td2..tgS
':xd5, then 30... tbb4. So White tries 11 ..txg5!? 'ii'xgS
for complications. 12 "d2!
27 tbdb4 Not, of course, 12 "xd6?? ':d8.
28 tbfd6 ':a8 This idea was first tried in the
29 ..tbl ~a2 game Ljubojevit-Ivanchuk, Linares
White's flurry of activity has led 1993. It looks odd to waste a tempo
to the loss of the a-pawn. with 10 ..td2 and then 11 ..txg5, but
30 tbc7 tbe3 the idea is very logical. The point is
31 ~a8 ll'lxdl that if White had already devel-
32 ':xdl oped his king's bishop, then after
32 tbe7 ..tb3. Black's recapture with the queen
32 ••• ll'ld4 (l1...'ti'xg5) White would not be
32•••':xa8 33 ..te4 ':a6 34 ..txc6 able to play 12 'ti'd2 because of
doesn't satisfy Sveshnikov. 12 ... 'ti'xg2. Hence by 'losing' a
33 tbc7 ':xd6 tempo White forces Black into a
34 ..td3 e4 queenless middlegame. This proved
35 ~e6 ll'lxe6 unpleasant for Black in the stem
30 Main Line: 7liJI c3 a6 8l?Ja3 j,e6

game after 12...h6?! 13 :dl! (with a IiJb8 21 b4. Black refused, but later
real threat to d6) 13 ... 'ii'xd2+ etc .. on submitted to the draw.
The reader will find this game with 15 ••• l?Jr6
notes in our discussion of strategic 16 l?Jds
themes. The only way to cause problems
In the main game, played later, for Black.
Black came up with the antidote to 16 ••• j,xdS
LjubojeviC's idea: 17 adS fxe4! (D)

.I.••••.l.'.
12 .-xd2+ Kramnik sees that the best retreat
13 ~xd2 g6! (D) square for his knight on c6 is b8,
whence it can go to d7 and then cS

w., • • ,., ~. or f6 (if the other knight is ex-

changed). This would put strong
pressure on White's centre. So he
'.~
.•••• ..
avoids 17•••l?Je7 and begins with a
zwischenzug to rule out 18 exfS .
• t3:J.t3:J. •
~
Anr.--W< nAn
OraJt.tJ~ UQU
a~. ~.i.:

An idea in true Kalashnikov style:

Black refuses to play ... liJf6 and in-
stead plans an immediate strike at
Black's centre with ... fS. White's
king could prove a target on d2. Af-
ter all, although the queens are ex-
changed there are many pieces still
on the board.
14 j,d3 fS
15 f3
In a later game Ferguson-Ansell,
Guildford 1994, White tried to im-
prove with 15 :hel but could find
nothing better to do than offer a draw
after IS ... liJf6 16 b3 ~f7 17 f3 l:.hd8
18 l?Jds fxe4 19 fxe4 j,xdS 20 cxdS
18 j,xe4?!
Anand doesn't want to be left
with an insipid bishop on d3 after 18
fxe4. However, he could cut across
Black's plans with 18 dxOO! exd3 19
cxb7 :b8 (19 ...:xc2+ 20 ~xd3
:xb2 21 :hbl) 20 1iJb4!? :xb7 21
IiJxd3 ~d7 22 :hc 1 when according
to Kramnik's analysis in Informa-
tor 58 Black should play 22 ... gS!?
 Main Line: 7 ttJ1c3 a68 ttJa3 .te6 31

followed by ... g4, with good coun- 27 :c3

terplay. White will lose the e-pawn after
18 ... ttJb8 27 cJi>e2 :f4 28:c4 b5.
19 ttJe3 ttJxe4+! 27 :Xc3+
A timely exchange. Anand points 28 'ltxc3 :f4
out 19••• ttJbd7 20 .tc2! when White 29 'ltd3 ttJf6
avoids a weakness on e4 and leaves 30 :cl <i'd7
Black with two knights defending 31 :m
each other but not really attacking Anand saves himself with skilful
anything - 20... ttJb6 21 .tb3 :c5 22 defence.
l:tac1! etc. 31 ttJxe4
20 fxe4 ttJd7 32 l:xf4 exf4 (D)
Already there is a threat to win a
pawn with 21 ...ttJc5. The following
notes are based on Kramnik's analy- a
waia.a a a aia
a •
•.. .
aia
sis in Informator 58.
21 :acl! 'lte7!
Avoiding messy complications
after 21 ...ttJc5 22 b4 ttJxe4+ 23 'ltd3
a u a~a
~••• •
a
ttJf2+ 24 'lte2 :xcl 25 :xcl.
22 b4 :hfS
a a ac.i>~
a •
a~D
23 'ltd3
24 a3
as!
:a8! a •••
Black voluntarily gives up the c-
file, since he has discovered a way to 33 ttJg4!
penetrate into White's position. Now The pawn endgame is lost after 33
White cannot contest the a-file be- 'ltxe4 fxe3 34 'ltxe3 'ltc7 35 'ltd3
cause if 2S :al :a7! followed by 'ltb6 36 'ltc4 'lta6! and White loses a
26 ...:fa8 and White must give way. pawn, e.g. 37 'ltc3 'ltb5 38 'ltb3 g5
2S :c7 axb4 39 h3 h5 40 g3 g4 41 h4 b6! 42 'ltc3
26 axb4 'lta4 43 'ltc4 b5+ 44 'ltc3 'lta3 and
Or 26 ttJc4? 'ltd8!? 27 :xd7+ wins.
c;t;>xd7 28 ttJb6+ 'lte7 29 ttJxa8 :xa8 33 ttJgS
30 axb4 :a3+ with clear advantage 34 h4 f3
to Black. Once again the exposed 3S g3! CfJr7
position of the white king proves l/Z_l/Z
critical. Kramnik gives the variation 36
26 ... :a3+ ttJf6+ 'lte7 37 ttJxh7 ttJe5+ 38 'lte3
32 Main Line: 7 CiJ1 c3 a6 8 CiJa3 .ie6
f2 39 'it>xf2 CiJd3+ 40 'it>e3 CiJxb4 41
'it>e4 with equality.
A real heavyweight struggle.
Game 3
011 - Sveshnikov
Helsinki 1992
1 e4 cS 2 CiJf3 CiJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
CiJxd4 eS 5 CiJbS d6 6 c4 .ie7 7
CiJlc3 a6 8 CiJa3 .ie6
9 CiJdS (D)
B
The main idea of this move is to
prevent. at least temporarily. the ex-
change of dark-squared bishops
which is inevitable after both 9 CiJc2
and 9 .ie2 .ig5.
9 ... 11c8
Black got away with 9.••.ixdS in
the game Van der Wiel-Kuijf. Hil-
versum 19S5. After 10 cxdS CiJb8
(after 10... CiJd4. White can develop
with 11 .id3 etc. and then begin un-
dermining the knight with .ie3):
a) The game continued 11 g3
CiJd7 12 .ih3 CiJgf6 13 'We2 h5!? 14
'it>f1 g6 15 'it>g2 'it>fS 16 f3 'it>g7 17
.ie3 h4 IS l1acl CiJh7! 19 'Wd2 (pre-
venting 19...CiJg5 or 19... .ig5 which
lose a piece because d7 hangs)
19 ... CiJdf6 20 CiJc4 CiJh5 21 CiJb6
'12-'12. White can force a repetition of
moves by 21...l1bS 22 CiJd7 l1aS. etc.
(22 ... l1cS? 23 l1xcS 'WxcS 24 CiJxe5
loses a pawn). If White avoids the
draw. then Black has the makings of
a kingside attack after ....ig5. etc.
b) 11 'Wb3 is an attemptto refute
Black's play. 11...CiJd7 12 'Wxb7
CiJc5 13 'ii'b4 (13 'ii'c6+ 'it>fS threat-
ening 14 ... l1cS) 13 ... l1bS 14 'ii'c4
.ig5 (14 ... CiJf6 15 f3) 15 b4 and
Black doesn't have enough for the
pawn. So Black must try 11...b5
which weakens the queenside and
the c6 square. However. he can gain
some time after ... CiJd7-c5 by attack-
ing White's queen.
10 .ie3
Others:
a) 10 CiJxe7? CiJgxe7 merely
helps Black's development. He will
equalize by castling and playing a
quick .. .f5.
b) 10 .ie2 is a typical developing
move played by non-theoretical
players with White. Black easily
equalizes with 1O....ig5 11 0-0
.ixcl 12 l1xcl CiJd4 13 CiJc2 CiJxc2
14 l1xc2 CiJe7 (Silman).
c) 10 CiJc2 .ig5 11 CiJce3 (the at-
tempt to preserve dark-squared bish-
ops leaves d4 undefended; d4 is as
valuable a square as d5. so White
 Main Line: 7ltll c3 a6 8 ~3 .te6 33
cannot hope to gain any advantage
this way) 11...ltlge7 12 .td3 0-0 13
0-0 ~4 14 .td2 fS ISltlxe7+ "'xe7
16 exfS .txe3! 17 fxe3 .txfS with
equality in Dvoirys-Scherbakov,
USSR 1988.
10 .tgS
11 .tb6 'fId7 (D)
w
12 .te2
White has many alternatives:
a) 12 ~2 .td8 13 .te3 ltlf6 14
.td3 .ta5+ IS .td2 (1S b4 loses a
pawn after the reply IS ....txdS)
IS ....txdS 16 cxdS .txd2+ 17 "'xd2
ltle7 180-00-0 19 a4ltlg6?! (per-
haps 19 ... ltlhS!? intending 20 ...fS,
e.g. 20 ~3 g6 21 f3 fS etc.) 20 f3
ltlf4 21ltle3 "'c7 and Black held the
draw after 22 :f2ltlxd3 23 "'xd3 g6
24 a5 'fIcs 2S 'it'b3 'fIa7 26 ~ "'cS
27 ltlb6 :c7 28 'iVa3 :d8 29 "'xcS
:xcS 30 b4 :c7 31 :ffl ltle8 32
:ac1 f6 Benjamin-H6bert, Toronto
1990. However, White can claim a
small advantage here, so I think
Black should play the more active
19 ... ltlhS, when he can even hope to
gain the advantage.
b) 12ltlbl re-routes the knight to
the more central square c3, but can
White really hope to get away with
it? Neither 12...fS?? 13 'it'hS+ nor
12....txdS 13 cxdS ~4 14 ~3 (not
14 .txd4 :c 1) refute the move, so
Black carried on with the standard
plan in Westerinen-Gausel, Haifa
1989: 12....td8 13 ltlbc3 ltlge7 14
.te3 0-0 IS .td3 fS 16 exfS (White
wouldn't be able to castle after 16 f3
fxe4 17 fxe4) 16 ... ltlxfS 17.txfS
:xfS 18 0-0 ltle7 19 b3 ltlxdS 20
ltlxdS bS! and Black had achieved
enough counterplay to equalize. We
may see more of the curious 12ltlb 1
in the future.
c) 12.td3 .td8 and now:
c1) After 13 .te3, 13...ltlf6 14
ltlc2 .ta5+ transposes to 'a' above,
whilst 13....taS+ is probably best
avoided, e.g. 14 .td2 .txdS IS cxdS
.txd2+ 16 "'xd2ltld4 17 ~4ltlf6
(17 ......c7 18 'it'b4 "'xc4! but 18 :cl
ltle7 19 0-0 intending ltlxeS and
'it'b4 is ±) 18 'it'b4 and Black doesn't
seem to have any tricks.
c2) 13 .txd8 :xd8 (this is not
bad, but since the bishop on d3 and
the knight on dS doubly shelter the
d-pawn, 13 ......xd8!? and ......gS is
interesting):
c21) I tried 14 ltle3 here in the
game McDonald-Kinsman, Cap-
pelle la Grande 1991, but Black
equalized easily after 14 ... ltlge7 IS
34 Main Line: 7 Cil} c3 a6 8 ti:la3 .i.e6
0-00-016 Cilac2 ~h8 17 "'d2 f5 18
exf5 Cilxf5 19 Cilxf5 .i.xf5 20 ':ad 1
h6 21 "'c3 "'f7 22 .i.xf5 "'xf5 23
':d3 "'e6 24 ':fd1 ':f4 25 b3 ':f7 26
"'d2 ':fd7 27 "'e3 d5! etc.; the rest
of this game is discussed in the sec-
tion on strategic themes. It was frus-
trating experiences such as this
which persuaded me to try the Ka-
lashnikov as Black.
c22) 14 0-0 Cilge7 15 f4? (pre-
empting Black's eventual ... f5, but
the dark squares in his centre are no-
ticeably weakened; the solid 15 ti:lc2
is better) 15 ... exf4 16 Cilxf4 0-0 17
Cilc2 Cile5 (a beautiful knight: well
centralized, safe from attack by
pawns, and unchallenged by any en-
emy piece; this is one of the conse-
quences of 15 f4?!) 18 ti:le3 ':c8 19
Cilfd5?! (19 b3 is better, keeping
some chances of counterplay by at-
tacking the d-pawn frontally or per-
haps an eventual Cilf5!?) 19 ... .i.xd5
20 exd5 (20 Cilxd5 Cilxd5 21 cxd5
leaves White with a terrible bishop
against a wonderful knight - but not
20 ... Cilxc4?? 21 .i.xc4 and a fork on
b6) 20......c7 (preparing to seize con-
trol of some dark squares) 21 ':e1?
(Kuijf suggests 21 ~h1 "'c5 22 "'d2
b5, but White's centre is collapsing)
21...f5! 22 b3 "'d7 (Black doesn't
hurry with 22 .. .f4, which would give
White's bishop some extra scope; in-
stead, he keeps the threat hanging
over White's head) 23 h3 ':f6 24':f1
b5 25 cxb5? (25 ~h1 was the last
chance) 25 ......a7! 26 "'e2 Cilxd5 27
':ae1 f4 28 'ii'h5 g6 29 "'g5 Cilxe3
0-1 Turner-Kuijf, Groningen 1990.
30 "'xf6 fails to 30... Cil3g4+.
d) 12 c5!? is a most aggressive
attempt to refute Black's set-up.
Now 12••• dxc513 .i.xc5 Cilce7! was
good for Black in Sukhorukov-
Umansky, Moscow 1993. After 14
.i.xe7 (D) (the only move):
B
d1) In the game, 14••ixe7 gave
Black a slight advantage: 15 Cilxe7
"'xd1 + 16 ':xd1 ~xe7 17 b3 Cilf618
.i.d3, etc., though White should
draw with careful play.
d2) Even better is 14•••Cilxe7!,
when Umansky gives 15 ""5 in-
tending ':d 1 as 'unclear'. However,
15 ... h6! threatening 16... .i.g4 is
practically winning, e.g. 16 Cilxe7?
or 16 Cilb6? "'d2 is mate or else after
16 .i.e2 or 16 h3 Cilxd5 White loses a
pawn for nothing. So White must try
either 15 Cilxe7 "'xd1+ 16 ':xd1
.i.xe7 (threatening both 17 ....i.xa2
and 17 ....i.b4+) or 15 .i.c4 Cilxd5
 Main Line: 7lDl c3 a6 SlDa3 i.e6 35
(when he is left with a weak d-
pawn). In both cases Black is clearly
better.
e} 12 b4!? is an untried sugges-
tion of Tiviakov's. One idea is to
block out ... i.a5+ after the plausible
12•••i.d813 i.e3. However, since 12
cS above proves inadequate it would
be surprising if a slower method
were effective. After 13 ... fS (as rec-
ommended by Tiviakov) Black has
adequate play. A more aggressive
method with 12•••i.xd5?! is insuffi-
cient, e.g. 13 exdS lDd4 (but not
13 ... lDxb4 14 llbl! {better than 14
'irb3 a5!? IS i.xa5 lDa6 intending
... lDcS} 14 ... a5 IS i.xa5 lDa6 16
cS!? threatening 17 i.bS with a very
dangerous initiative} 14 i.xd4 exd4
IS i.e2! (IS 'Wxd4? i.f6 16 'ire4+
lDe7 is very dangerous for White
since 17 llcl? i.b2 loses a piece,
while 17 llb 1 i.c3+ displaces the
king) IS ... lDe7 16 i.g4 fS 17 i.e2 18
0-0 ;1;. 12 b4 needs some practical
tests.
12 ... i.d8
The natural 12•••lDge7 13 h4 i.h6
14 g4 i.f4 IslDxf4 exf4 16 f3 is ±
according to Tiviakov. Play could
continue 16 ... hS 17 gSlDg6 18 'Wd2
lDceS 19 b3 0-020 lldl llc6 21 i.f2
(not 21 'Wd4 i.h3! threatening both
22 ... lDxh4 and 22 ...i.g2) 21...i.h3
22 llgl and since 22 ... bS 23 cxbS
axbS 24 lDxbS llfc8 2S lDd4 fails,
White is ready to consolidate his ad-
vantage with lDc2-d4. Although
White's king has to remain in the
centre, there seems no way for Black
to exploit this. The weakness of the
d-pawn is more important than the
beautiful knight outpost on eS.
13 0-0
13 i.e3 i.a5+! completes a
snooker-like manoeuvre with the
bishop. Or 13 i.xd8 llxd8 with an
equal position (13 ... 'irxd8!? intend-
ing 14 ...'irgS may be even better).
13 ... lDge7
Tiviakov graces this move with a
'?!' and recommends 13•••lDr6 14
lDxf6+ (14 i.xd8 llxd8 IS lDxf6+
gxf6 16 f4 {with the splendid point
16 ... fS?! 17 g4! llg8 18 'iii>hl ±}
16 ... 'irc7 17 fS i.d7 is unclear ac-
cording to Tiviakov} 14•••i.xf6 15
'Wd3. Then:
a} 15•••i.d8 16 i.e3 i.e7 17 b3
fS 18 exfS i.xfS is the way the game
Tiviakov-Y.Scherbakov, USSR 1988
went. Tiviakov assesses it as unclear,
but I think White might have a small
advantage.
b} In any case, Tiviakov was will-
ing to play it all again as White: in
his game with R.Scherbakov, St. Pe-
tersburg 1993, Black tried to im-
prove with 15.••0-0 16 llfdllDd4!?
(D).
Play continued 17 i.xd4 exd4 18
f4 'Wc7 19 'iii>hl llfe8 20 'Wd2 'Wb6
21 i.d3 g6 22 llac1 i.g7 23 b3 and
after 23•••i.d7?! White eventually
won. In the subsequent play Black
attacked e4 with every piece except
36 Main Line: 7 tiJ1 c3 a6 8 tiJa3 .te6
w
the bishop on g7, while White de-
fended e4 with every piece except
the knight. Then White played fS! at
a good moment and broke through to
win by an attack on the king. Mean-
while, the bishop on g7 was inert and
d4 a dead point in the centre. From
our introduction we know that Black
must carry out one of two plans: an
... fS or ... bS pawn break. After 23 b3
in the game the bS square is well de-
fended, so Black should try 23 ... fS!
24 exfS .txfS 2S tiJc2 (2S .txfS
gxfS 26 tiJc2 l:te4 with ... l:tce8 =1= to
follow) 2S ... l:te7 (2S ....tg4!?) in-
tending 26 ... l:tce8 when the d-pawn
is immune due to 26 .txfS gxfS 27
tiJxd4?? .txd4 29 'iVxd4 l:tel+!'
Black has a very active position.
Finally, the attempt to win a pawn
with 13 ....txdS (hoping for 14 .txd8
.txe4) fails to 14 cxdS .txb6 IS
.tg4! and 16 .txc8 winning mater-
ial.
14 .te3
Now Black really was threatening
to win a pawn by 14 ....txdS IS
.txd8 .txe4. White has little choice
as 14 .txd8 would leave the dark
squares, notably d4, without their
natural defender, while 14 tiJxe7
gives up the dS outpost.
14 0-0 (D)
15 c5
A game of Tiviakov's and his
analysis of it throw some light on
the alternatives:
a) 15 tiJb6?! was played in Uly-
bin-Tiviakov, USSR 1989. Black
achieved active play after IS ....txb6
16 .txb6 fS 17 exfS (Tiviakov pre-
fers 17 f3, but Black is comfortable
after 17 ... tiJg6and ... tiJf4) 17 ... tiJxfS
18 tiJc2 tiJce7! (attacking c4 and so
winning time to conquer the centre)
19 b3 dS 20 cxdS?! (Tiviakov gives
20.taS d4 as 'only' ;) 20... tiJxdS 21
.taS tiJf4 22 tiJe3 tiJd4. Black has
won undisputed control of the key
d4 square. Now Black's incredible
dynamic play overwhelms White: 23
.tg4 .txg4 24 'ii'xg4 'iVbs 2S .td2
hS 26 'ii'dl l:tcd8 27 ~hl h4 28 'iVg4
 Main Line: 7 tblc3 a6 8liJa3 i.e6 37

h3 29 :adl :f6 30 g3 'ii'c6+ 31 f3 18 WcS

tbd3 32 'ii'xh3 :xf3 33 tbg2 tbf2+ 19 b4 Wa7
34 :xf2 :xf2 35 i.e3 :e2 36 :cl 20 tbcb6
'ii'f3 37 i.gl :f8 38 :c7 :el. Com- An ingenious attempt to confuse
plete domination! White resigned things, but Black remains in control.
just before 39...:xgl+ forced mate. 20 :c6
b) Tiviakov says 15 Wd2 f5 16 f3 21 tbxe7+ i.xe7
f 4! 17 i.f2 i.xd5 18 cxd5 (18 exd5 22 tbds i.xd5
tbd4) 18 ... tbd4!? 19 i.xd4 exd4 20 23 exd5 :c3!
'ii'xd4 tbg6 is unclear; Black has a 24 a3 :d8
very strong dark-squared bishop and 25 i.f3 i.g5! (D)
a beautiful square on e5 for his
knight to compensate for the pawn.
b) Annotating the game in 'a'
above, Tiviakov recommends 15
Wd3!. White plans to answer 15 ... f5
with 16 f3, e.g. 16... f417 tbb6!. The
pawn sacrifice 16 ... i.xd5 17 cxd5
tbd4 18 i.xd4 exd4 19 'ii'xd4 f4 (or
19 ... tbg6!? 20 exf5 i.f6) is not as
effective here, but still looks good
enough as an interesting plan.
15 ... tbd4!
16 i.xd4 Black has a clear advantage since
Sveshnikov gives 16 cxd6 tbxe2+ his rooks are much more active than
17 Wxe2 'ii'xd6 18 tbc4 'ii'b8 19 his opponent's (White cannot chal-
tbcb6 as equal. This is how White lenge the c-file). This enables him to
should play, since after the exchange advance his d-pawn further. The fol-
of his key bishop he ends up in lowing comments are based on
trouble. Sveshnikov's notes in In/ormator 55.
16 ••• exd4 26 WeI 'ifb8
17 cxd6 27 We4 i.f6
Or 17 Wxd4 dxc5 ;. An inaccuracy. 27...d3 followed
17 Wxd6 by 28 ...d2 was much stronger.
18 tbc4 28 :reI g6
Black is also better after 18 29 g3 Wd6
tbxe7+ i.xe7 19 i.d3 ""6 20 'ii'e2 30 ~g2 ~g7?!
i.xa3 21 bxc3 :c3 (Sveshnikov). 31 :ec1! :dc8
38 Main Line: 7liJ1 c3 a6 8liJa3 ~e6
Now White exchanges a pair of
rooks and eases his cramp. Black
should have prevented this with
30....l:dcS.
The game concluded: 32 .l:xc3
.l:xc3 33 .l:a2 b5 34 ~e2? (White
had to try 34 .l:c2, planning to ex-
change off the last rooks. Then if
34 ... .l:xa3, 35 .l:c6 and 36 d6 is dan-
gerous for Black) 34...h5 (34 ... ~e5!
and 35 ... f5 was better) 35 a4 ~e5!
(Black gets the right idea) 36 ~f3 f5
37 "e2 g5! 38 1i'd2 ~f6! 39 axb5
g4 (displacing the bishop. White
now loses his d-pawn and his posi-
tion collapses) 40 ~e2 axb5 41
.l:a7+ ~g6 42 "a2 d3 43 ~n .l:c2
44 .l:a6 .l:xa2 45 .l:xd6 d2 46 ~e2
.l:al0-l
Game 4
Anand - Van der Wiel
Wijk aan Zee 1989
1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
liJxd4 e5 5 liJb5 d6 6 c4 ~e7 7
liJlc3 a6 8liJa3 ~e6
9 ~e2 (D)
This was the first choice among
masters when confronted with the
Kalashnikov, but time has drawn the
fangs of this simple developing
move and now top players are inves-
tigating alternatives such as 9 ~d3
and seventh move divergences.
However, you can expect to meet
with 9 ~e2 quite often in your club
and tournament games, since it is
cited as the main move in most gen-
eral opening reference works. If
your opponent knows anything at all
about the Kalashnikov, he will know
9 ~e2. In the chapter on strategic
themes we have already discussed
whether Black should play 9 ... liJd4
and ...liJxe2+ or 9 ... ~g5 and ... ~xcl
in this type of position. Before look-
ing at the theory of this line it could
be useful for the reader to refer back
to this introductory chapter.
B
9 ... ~g5
The alternative 9...liJd4 will be
examined in Game 7, Mainka-Lpu-
tian.
10 ~xg5
The critical test of 9 ... ~g5. The
alternatives 100-0 and 10 liJc2 are
the subject of the next two games.
10 ... "xg5
11 0-0 .l:d8
Unfortunately necessary. 11...liJf6
works well after 12 'ii'xd6? .l:dS 13
'ii'c5 ~h3 14 ~f3liJd4, winning, but
12 f4! exf4 13 'ii'xd6 is clearly better
 Main Line: 7lDl c3 a6 8 ttJa3 ~e6 39
for White since he picks up the f4-
pawn (13 ... tOeS? 14 h4! wins a
piece, as Yudasin points out).
Alternatively, 1l...lDd4?! 12 f4
lDxe2+ was tried in the game AI-
Modiahti - Abdulla, Doha 1992. Af-
ter 13 "xel?! exf4 14lDdS :c8 IS
:xf4 tOe7 16 :afllDg6 17 :4f2 0-0
Black was OK. 13lDxellooks bet-
ter, e.g. 13 .....d8 (13 ... exf4 14 "xd6
wins the f4-pawn) 14 fS ""6+ IS
cS! "xcS+ 16<Rhl ~d717 :cl fol-
lowed by 18lDc4 with a dangerous
attack.
12 lDds
12 lDcl does not interfere with
the smooth development of Black's
game (D):
B
a) 12•••lDf613 "d3 hS!? was the
enterprising continuation in Am.
Rodriguez-Ramon, Havana 1990.
After 14lDdS h4 IS ~f3, I suspect
that White is better, unless Black can
find a way to strengthen his attack.
One attempt is Silman's suggestion
of IS ...lDe7, intending 16...lDg6 and
possibly 17 ... lDf4. This is interest-
ing, but White can always play a
timely "e3 to prevent this plan, as
occurred in the game, which in fact
continued IS ...~xdS 16 cxdS tOe7
17 "e3! "g6 (in avoiding the ex-
change of queens, Black has to de-
prive the knight on e7 of its natural
g6 square) 18 :ac 1 and White was
ready to penetrate down the c-file af-
ter moving the knight from c2.
b) 12...lDge7 13lDdS 0-0 (Black
is poised to justify the position of his
queen by starting a kingside attack
with .. .fS or ... lDg6 and ... lDf4 ) 14
b4lDg6 IS "cllDf4! 16lDxf4 exf4
(Black has dislocated his pawns, but
on the other hand he has won the ex-
cellent eS outpost for his knight;
therefore White rushes to dissolve
the f4-pawn) 17 g3 f5 18 bS tOes 19
lDd4 "g6 20 lDxe6 "xe6 21 'ffxf4
lDxc4 22 bxa6 bxa6 23 :ac 1 fxe4!
24 ~xc4 dS 2S ~xdS "xdS 26 'ffe3
"d3 27 :c3 'ii'xe3 28 :xe3 :d2
1/2- 1/2 Leko-Hassabis, London 1991.
12 ... 1Dr6
Short tried 12...hS against Tim-
man in their 1989 Hilversum match.
After 13 lDc2 h4 14 "d3 ~xdS?!
(14 ... lDf6, which looks slightly bet-
ter for White, transposes to the Ro-
driguez-Ramon game mentioned in
the note to 12lDdS above) IS exd5?
(a positional blunder; Timman gives
IScxdSlDe716'iVb3! {or 16"e3!}
as clearly better for White, since he
has maintained his space advantage
40 Main Line: 7 ~l c3 a6 8 ~3 ~e6
and Black is vulnerable on the
queenside. There is no compensating
attack on White's king in sight. The
game ceases to be of theoretical in-
terest at this point, but we will give
the remaining moves as they provide
a good illustration of Black's
chances against inferior White play)
15 ... ~ce7 16 'ife3 'ifxe3 17 ~xe3
~h6 18 f4 exf4 19 :xf4 ~g6 20
:e4+ ~d7 21 ~g4+? (21 ~h5 :de8
22 ~xg6 fxg6 23 :xe8 :xe8 24 ~f2
~f5 25 :e1 :e4 was White's best
line, according to Timman, who,
according to Andrew Martin, had flu
at this point in the match and was
therefore unable to show his best
play) 21...~xg4 22 :xg4 :de8 23
~f5 :e2 24 b4 h3 25 c5 ~5! 26
:xg7 dxc5 27 bxc5 hxg2 28 :xg2
~f3+ 29 ~f1 :e5 30 ~6 :xd5 31
~xb7 ~xh2+ 32 ~gl ~f3+ 33 ~f2
:th3 34 :g7? (he had to play 35 :g8,
with the option of 36 :d8+ to ex-
change off a pair of rooks; in that
case White would probably survive
the immediate attack) 34 ... ~g5 35
:gl :d2+36~f1 :c3 0-1. It's mate
on c1.
13 ~7+(D)
The only way to disrupt Black's
position. 13 f3 is given as 'equal' by
Yudasin; Black looks well placed af-
ter the further moves 13 ... ~xd5 14
cxd5~4.
13 ... ~f8
A difficult decision for Black.
Where should the king go?
B
a) 13...~e7 14 ~5+ (14 ... ~xd5
15 exdS ;t;) 14 ...~f8 15 ~f3 is given
as unclear by Yudasin. 15 ... g6!? and
16...~g7 looks OK for Black.
b) The risky 13••• ~d7!? was
played in Yudasin-Sveshnikov, Mos-
cow 1991. There followed 14 ~xe6
fxe6 15 ~f3! (the best way to de-
fend e4; now 15 ...:hf8 16 ~c2 in-
tending b4 gives White a dangerous
attack, according to Yudasin, so
Black must act quickly) 15 ... ~416
~c2 ~xf3+ 17 'ifxf3 'iff4 (Black
has to grab a pawn and hope that he
can survive, since otherwise White
will have a big attack for nothing af-
ter 'ifb3) 18 'ifb3! 'ifxe4 19 c5!
dxc5? (Yudasin gives 19... ~c8! 20
'ii'xe6+ {20 cxd6 :xd6 21 ~3 =}
20 ... ~b8 21 :act as unclear) 20
:fe1 'ifc6 21 :xe5 ~c8! (21...:the8
22 :c I! Yudasin) 22 :xe6 'iVd5 23
'ii'h3 'ifd7. Here White should play
24 'iVe3! according to Yudasin, with
a strong attack. Instead he played 24
'iV's and after 24 ... ~d5! Black es-
caped with a draw.
 Main Line: 7lLl1c3 a6 slLla3 .te6 41
14 1i'd3 h5
15 .!De2 !De7
A logical move, preparing to re-
route the knight to f4 where it sup-
ports Black's attack, but according to
Van der Wiel Black could do better
with 15.....,416 f3 (16 .tf3 .tg4!?)
16... h4 which he feels is slightly bet-
ter for Black, since 17 "e3 can be
answered with the trick 17 ... lLld4!.
However, after 17 l:ladl intending
18 'ii'a3 pressuring d6, or 18 cSt? if
appropriate, White succeeds in cre-
ating play in the centre. Silman
thinks the position after 16 f3 is 'un-
clear' which certainly seems nearer
the mark.
16 l:ladl lLlg6
17 lLlxe6+ Ixe6
18 "a3! lilxe4
19 .td3 lLlc5
20 .txg6 'it'xg6(D)
21 !De3!
Now White has a solid plus -
Black's king is in the open and his
pieces are as yet uncoordinated.
Here there were two false trails to
avoid:
a) 21 l:lxd6 l:lxd6 22 "xcS ~e7
and since Black is ready to play
...l:lhd8, White cannot exploit the
pin. Hence he remains material
down.
b) 21 "xeS dxcS 22 l:lxd8+ ~e7
23 l:lxd8 'ii'xc2 and the blocked na-
ture of the position favours the
queen over the rooks.
(These variations are given by
Van der Wiel in 1nformator 47.)
21 ••• ~e7
According to Van der Wiel, Black
should play 21 •••~g8 when White
only has a small advantage.
22 b4 lLle4
23 eS!
Now Black's king no doubt
wishes it were safely on g8.
23 ••• d5
Black tries to keep the position
blocked, but White has other ideas.
24 b5! ~r7
Side-stepping the potential dis-
covered check after c6+.
25 bxa6 bxa6
26 'it'xa6?
White hastens to attack Black's
king, but he should preserve his
passed pawn with 26 c6 as pointed
out by Van der Wiel.
26
27 'it'a7+
28 "c7
The sacrificial28lLlxd5 is inade-
quate after 28 ... exdS 29 l:lxdS ~e8
42 Main Line: 7liJ] c3 a6 8liJa3 i.e6

30 :fdl "'fS! followed by ...:fS-f7 Now the e-pawn comes to the res-
(Van der Wiel). cue of the c-pawn, since 46 'ii'xc3?
28 ... l%hf8 'ii'xc3 47 :xc3 e2 wins. An amusing
Black suddenly finds himself double-act by Black's pawns.
with a strong centre and an extra 46 'iVe2 :e5
pawn. Anand realizes that he must 47 fxe3 l:xe3
create counterplay at all costs, be- 48 'ii'r.z h4!
fore Black plays ... ~gS with a com- An excellent move. Black threat-
pletely safe king. ens 49 ... c2 SO :xc2 :el+ 51 ~h2
29 liJc4! dxc4! 'ii'eS+ 52 g3 hxg3+ 53 'ii'xg3 :hl+
Black is not satisfied with mere winning White's queen. This threat
equality after 29...~g8 30 liJxeS breaks White's blockade and forces
liJxeS 31 'ii'xeS. him to make a desperate bid for per-
30 l:xd7+ :xd7 petual check.
31 "'xd7+ ~g8 49 'ii't7+ ~h6
32 "'00
33 h3
'ii'g4!
'ii'd4
50 ~h1
51 :n
c2
:c3
34 "'xe6+ 52 'iVf8+ ~h5
White has got his pawn back, but 53 :c1 :d3
Black's strong passed pawn and sub- And White resigned since
sequent pressure on f2 proves deci- ...:d 1+ combined with ... 'ii'eS+ will
sive. be fatal. Van der Wiel played the sec-
34 ~h7 ond half of this game in fine style.
35 'ii'e7 :f6
36 'ii'e8 :f5 GameS
37 'ii'e6 :f6 Geller - Lputian
38 'ii'e8 :f5 Moscow 7V rpd ]987
39 'ii'e6 g6
40 'ii'e7+ ~h6 1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
41 'iVaJ c3 liJxd4 e5 5 liJb5 d6 6 c4 i.e7 7
42 'iVc1+ ~h7 liJ1c3 a6 8liJaJ i.e6 9 i.e2 i.g5
43 'ii'c2 e4 10 0-0 (D)
44 :e1 :d5 The alternative 10 liJc2 will al-
45 :c1 most certainly transpose to lines
The passed pawn marches covered in the next game. However,
through whichever way the e-pawn one independent line is 1O ... h6!?
is captured. Van der Wiel suggests that White try
45 ... e3! 11 liJe3, hoping to answer 11...liJf6
 Main Line: 7 .!DIc3 a6 8.!Da3 .te6 43
B w
with 12 h4! .tf4 13 g3 .txe3 14
.txe3 ;I; and 11•••.l:c8 with 12 .!Df5
.txf5 13 exf5 ;1;. However, the reply
11•••.!Dd4! solves all Black's prob-
lems, e.g. 12 h4?! .tf4 13 g3 .!Dxe2
14 'ir'xe2 .txe3 15 .txe3 .l:c8 =.
10 ••• h6!?
Note that 10•••.l:c8 could be an-
swered by 11 .txg5 'ii'xg5 12 f4!
exf4 13 'ii'xd6 followed by 'ii'xf4,
winning a pawn. This 'trick' also ap-
pears in the 10 .txg5 variation in the
game above. I have chosen to devote
an illustrative game to 10... h6 since
it leads to an interesting clash, but
most of the battles in this system
have been fought after 10•••.txc1.
This is the subject of the next game.
11 .!De2
Here 11.tg4 .!Df6 12 .txe6 fxe6
13 .!Dc2 .txcl 14.l:xc1 0-0 15 'ii'd3
.!Dh5 16 g3 'ir'f6 was good for Black
in the game Tumurhuyag-Ayapber-
genov, Bishkek 1993. The plan of
.txe6 merely strengthens Black's
centre.
11 ••• .!DC6 (D)
12 'ii'd3 'ii'c7
13 .l:dl .l:d8
Better than 13•••0·0·0, when
White would have a clear plan of
advancing pawns against Black's
queenside. The king is safer in the
centre.
14 .txg5?
This allows Black to begin a di-
rect attack down the h-file. 14 b3 is
better since, by threatening 15 .ta3,
White obliges Black to initiate the
exchange of bishops with 15 ....txcl,
when after 16 .l:axc 1 White may
have a small advantage.
14 ••• hxg5
15 .l:ac1 'ii'b6
Side-stepping any potential pin
on the c-file after 16.!Dd5 and eyeing
the vulnerable f2 square.
16 b3 .l:h4
17 .l:d2 ~e7!
18 .!De3?!
This gives away the d4 square to
Black's knight. As a result, Black's
d6-pawn will be sheltered and so the
rook on d8 will be free to join in the
44 Main Line: 7 t'iJ1 c3 a6 8 t'i:Ja3 .te6

attack after ...:dhS. The best chance t'iJlc3 a6 8 t'iJa3 .te6 9 .te2 .tg5
was 18 b4 (the b-pawn is immune 100-0
because of an eventual :bl) with 10 .txc1 (D)
ideas of bS or, if appropriate, cS. In
the game, White plays in a totally
passive manner and it is no surprise
that he is quickly crushed. Note en
passant that 18 "'e3? "xe310ses the
e-pawn.
18 ... g6
Ruling out any t'iJfS+ ideas. Black
plays in a precise, methodical man-
nero
19 h3
20 .tg4
21 .txe6 11 "'xc1
Antipositional, but the defences 11 :xc1 is a major alternative:
along the h-file will crumble anyway a) 11 .••t'iJge7, as played in Ma-
after ...:dhS threatening ... t'iJxg4, tulovic-Conquest, Vrnjacka Banja
etc. 1990, should be good enough for
21 ••• fxe6 equality. White in fact gained a small
22 f3 advantage after 12 t'iJc2 0-0 13 "d2
The e-pawn was threatened. 1i'b6 14 b3 :adS? (the wrong rook!)
22 ... :dh8 IS t'iJdS (if the knight were on f6
23 t'i:Je2 :xh3! rather than e7 this move would be
A good moment for Soviet TV. impossible because of IS ... t'iJxe416
24 ph3 t'iJxf3+ "d3 .txdS 17 cxdS t'iJcS) IS .....a7
25 ~g2 t'iJxd2 16 t'iJce3 ~hS (and here if Black
and White resigned, since 26 "xd2 had played 14 ...:fdS rather than
t'iJxe4 leads to a murderous discov- 14 ... :adS, he could now continue
ered check. with 16 ...:acS intending 17 ....txdS
IS cxdS t'iJd4 with an equal game,
Game 6 but instead Black finds himself com-
Dolmatov - Van der Wiel mitted to the plan of ... fS, which
Manila OL 1992 leaves him with a weak central
pawn) 17 ~hl fS IS exfS t'iJxfS 19
1 e4 c5 2 t'iJf3 t'iJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 t'iJxfS .txfS 20 f4 .te6 21 t'iJc3 "'d4
t'iJxd4 e5 5 t'iJb5 d6 6 c4 .te7 7 22 "xd4 t'iJxd4 23 fxeS dxeS and
 Main Line: 7 c!tlJ c3 a6 8liJa3 .te6 45
White eventually managed to exploit
his positional advantage.
b) 1l•••lDf612 ~2 (this position
can be reached after the equally
plausible 10 c!tlc2 .txcl 11 ':xc1
c!tlf6 12 0-0) 12...0-0 (D).
w
Now White has several alterna-
tives:
bl) 13 b3?! is inaccurate. Nor-
mally (e.g. after 13 'ifd2 or 13 'ifd3)
Black, in order to unwind his game,
has to move his queen to b6, attack-
ing b2 and thereby winning the time
to defend the d6-pawn with ... ':fd8.
Here, however, Black can attack the
knight on c3 and thereby bring his
queen to a more active square:
13 ... 'ifaS! 14 c!tle3 (14 'ifd2 looks
better) 14 ...c!tld4 IS 'ifd3 bS 16 cxbS
axbS 17 c!tlc2?? 'ifxc3 0-1 Tuutti-
Sveshnikov, Helsinki 1992.
b2) 131M2 (much more sensible
than 13 b3) 13•••1i'b6 (to answer 14
'ifxd6 with 14 ...'ifxb2, when Black
is better) 14 b3 (or 14 ':fdl ':fd8
{not 14 ... 'ifxb2?? IS ':bl winning
the queen} IS b4 as {IS ... c!tlxb4??
16 ':bl wins} 16 a3 {16 bSleaves a
hole at cS} 16... axb4 17 axb4 h6 18
h3 c!tle7 19 'ife3 {White is something
of a spoilsport in this game}
19 ... 'ifxe3 20 c!tlxe3 c!tlc6 21 c!tlc2
liz-liz Fernandez-Van der Wiel, Novi
Sad OL 1990) 14•••.:rd8 15 .:rdl
(1S ~hl ':ac8 16 c!tldS .txdS 17
exdS c!tle7 18 f4 c!tlg6 19 fxeS c!tle4!?
20 'ifel c!tlxeS 21 ':f4 and now in-
stead of 2 l...c!tlcs , as played in
Kamsky-Piasetski, Manila IZ 1990,
which is not bad, Black could try
21...fS!? when 22 ':xfS? ':f8 23
':xf8+ ':xf8 gives Black a fierce at-
tack) IS•••':ac8 (D).
w
Here White has an important
choice:
b21) 16.tO 'it'a7!? intends the
freeing 17 ... bS when, after 18 cxbS
axbS, the a2-pawn is attacked. From
this position, Hardicsay-Klinger,
Hallein Werfen 1989 continued 17
'it'd3 h6 (17 ... bS is now met by 18
cxbS axbS 19 'ifxbS) 18 'it'e3 (if this
46 Main Line: 7 ti:Jlc3 a6 8 ti:Ja3 .te6
is best, why didn't he play it immedi-
ately?) and now:
b211) After 18...b519 cxbS axbS
20 ti:JxbS (20 "xa7 ti:Jxa7 defends)
20 .....xa2 21 ti:Jxd6 :lb8 22 'it'c3! I
don't think Black can regain his
pawn.
b222) 18.....CS looks a solid al-
ternative, e.g. 19 ti:Ja4 'it'xe3 20 fxe3
=
bS or 19lDd5 .txd5 20 cxd5 'it'xe3
21 ti:Jxe3 lDe7 =. White's best line
seems to be 19 :ld2 ti:Je7 20 :lcdl
bS! 21 'it'xcs :lxcS 22 :lxd6 :lxd6 23
:lxd6 bxc4 24 b4 :lc6, when he
looks a little better in the endgame.
b223) 18.....xe319 fxe3 ~f8 20
:ld2 ~e7 21 :lcdl and now Klinger
prepared and then made the decisive
blunder: 21...ti:Jb8? 22 :ld3 :ld7 23
lDb4 'Dc6? 24 lDbdS+! left Black
facing material losses. The game
continued 24 ....txdS 25 ti:JxdS+
ti:JxdS 26 exdS ti:Jb8 (or 26 ... ti:Jb4 27
:l3d2 intending both 28 a3 and 28
.tg4) 27 .tg4 and White eventually
converted his exchange advantage.
Instead 21 ...lDa5! is equal since
Black gets in the ... bS advance, e.g.
22 ti:Jd5+ .txdS ;, 22 ti:Ja4 b5 23
cxbS axbS 24 ti:Jb6 :lc3 and Black is
at least equal, or 22 :ld3 bS 23 cxbS
axbS 24 lDb4 :lc5 (24 ... :lb8!?) 2S
ti:Ja6 :lc6 26 ti:Jb4 :lcS with a draw
looks like best play.
b22) 16.tn was played (also by
transposition) in Urday-Fauland,
Novi Sad OL 1990, which went
16... g6 (angling for an eventual ... fS)
17 g3 ~g718 .tg2 "a7 (I would be
tempted to play 18 ... hS!? intending
19 ... h4; if 19 h4 then the g4 square
could prove of value to Black) 19 a4
(the threat was 19... bS!) 19...'it'b6 20
:lbl "cS (Black enticed the rook on
c 1 to a less threatening square before
playing this) 21 h3 ti:Ja7 22 :lal (D)
and Black faced an important deci-
sion:
b221) In the game, Black fell
into a positional bind: 22...:ld7? 23
as! :ldd8 (24 ti:Ja4 and 2S ti:Jb6 was
threatened, but Black should prob-
ably bite the bullet with 23 ... bS!) 24
ti:Ja4 'it'c7 2S ~h2 "e7 26 'it'e3 1Dc6
27 ti:Jb6 and Black was in a strangle-
hold on the queenside from which he
never escaped. This game illustrates
how carefully Black must play in
this system.
b222) Black was right to reject
22...b5, e.g. 23 axbS axbS 24 :laS!
(but not 24 "e3 bxc4 2S :lxa7 cxb3)
24 ... ~ 2S :ldal :lc7 26 ti:JxbS and
White wins.
 Main Line: 7 c!Dl c3 a6 8 &3 j,e6 47
b223) 22... "'6 is better, when
White probably has nothing better
than 23 :abl, drawing by repetition.
b224) 22... b6 is also equal.
b3) 13 1i'd3 "'6 and now:
b31) 14 a3 should be met not by
14...~?! 15 b4 c!Dxc4? 16 c!Dd5
j,xd5 17 exd5 :ac8 18 c!Dal c!Db2
(18 ...e4 19 'ii'h3! attacks c8) 19 'ti'b3
which cost Black a knight in Solo-
mon-Arakhamia, Sydney 1991 (a
very clever trap!), but rather by
14...:ac8, e.g. 15 b4 (15 :fdl?
c!Da5! 16 b4 c!Dxc4 17 c!Dd5 j,xd5 18
exd5 c!Db2 wins) 15 ...:fd8 16 :fdl
'fic7 and Black is ready to answer 17
j,f3 with 17 ... b5! 18 cxb5 c!Da7! ex-
ploiting the pin on the c-file. Now 19
c!De3 axb5 (or 19 ... c!Dxb5) followed
by ... 'fib6 gives Black a good game,
while 19 b6 reaches the Meczynski-
Lukasiewicz game in 'b321'.
b32) 14 b3 :fd8 15 :fdl :ac8
(D) and now:
w
b321) 16 j,f3 was played in Me-
czynski-Lukasiewicz, Wisla 1992
(by transposition) 16... 'fia5 (Black
tries a probing approach) 17 a3 'fic7
18 b4 (... and White obliges by weak-
ening his queenside pawns, but it is
not clear what he should be doing;
the bishop on f3 has very little effect
on the game) 18 ... b5! 19 cxb5 c!Da7
20 b6 'fixb6 and Black is at least
equal since he has dissipated White's
centre.
b322) 16 h3 (a slow approach,
but on the plus side White has not
committed his bishop to the dead f3
square) 16... c!De7 (Lukasiewicz's ap-
proach with 16... 'fia5 as in 'b321' is
less effective here with the white
bishop guarding c4, but Black
should prefer either 16......a7 with
the idea of ... b5 or a slower approach
with 16... g6 and 17 .. .<;I;>g7, followed
by ideas such as 'iVc5, c!Da7 and b5.
These ideas are illustrated in similar
surroundings in 'b2') 17 j,fl h618
g3 'fia5 19 b4 'fib6 20 c!Dd5 j,xd5?
(a positional blunder, as we know
from our discussion of strategic
themes; after 20 ... c!Dfxd5! 21 exd5
{after 21 cxd5 j,d7, Black would be
ready to play ... j,a4, ...j,b5 or ...f5}
21. .. j,f5 22 "'e3 "'c7 23 "'f3 "'d7
24 ~h2 j,xc2 25 :xc2 c!Df5 and the
knight will enter strongly on d4) 21
exd5 c!Dd7 22 a3 a5 23 h4! 'iVa7 24
j,h3. The white bishop finds a good
diagonal - a rare occurrence in this
variation. White has a slight advan-
tage, and finally won in I.Gurevich-
Grigore, Santiago jr Wch 1990.
48 Main Line: 7l[j] c3 a6 8 ~3 ~e6
11 ... "'6!
I have slightly adjusted the move
order of the main game; this position
was in fact reached by transposition
in Dolmatov-Van der Wiel. In his ex-
cellent book The Art of Chess Analy-
sis Timman comments of a Sicilian
Rauzer position 'The player whose
queen controls the most dark squares
in this type of Sicilian position often
stands better. Control of the gl-a7
diagonal is especially important.'
This is most definitely true here. If
Black had played the stereotyped
11...l[jf6 then Dolmatov would have
seized the chance to play 12 "e3!.
The move order in the game was
10 l[jc2 instead of 10 0-0, so Black
never had the option of 11 ... l[jd4 in
answer to 11 "xcI or, indeed, at any
other moment.
12 l[jc2 l[jf6
13 :dl O-O! (D)
w pawn and keep the other rook for ac-
14 b3
If White is to justify the idea of 11
"xcI then he has to call Black's
bluff with 14 :xd6. However, Black
was not bluffing according to Van
der Wiers detailed notes in Infonna-
tor 55. His main variation runs
14...-.cS 15 -.d2 (otherwise Black
captures the c-pawn with equality)
and now:
a) IS...:ad8 16 :dl l[jd4 17
:xd8+ :xd8 18 l[jxd4! :xd4 19
"c2 ~xc4 20 :xd4 "xd4 21l[jd5
b5 22 ~xc4 bxc4 23 l[jxf6+ gxf6 =.
b) IS ...l[jd4 16 :xd4 exd4 17
"xd4 is unclear, says Van der Wiel;
this is a strategically very sharp posi-
tion, e.g. 17 .....xd4 18l[jxd4 :fd8
19 :dl (not 19l[jxe6? fxe6 intend-
ing ...:d2) 19 ... b5!? 20 cxb5 axb5
21 l[jxe6 (21 a3 ~c4!?) 21.. .:xd 1+
22 ~xdl fxe6 23 ~b3 b4! etc. I
think the reader should investigate
this line in preference to 15 ...:ad8,
which leads to arid equality after
careful play by Black.
14 ... :t'd8
Black has now equalized, since he
can use this rook to defend the d-
tive play on the c-file; that is why
Black avoided 13 ...:ad8 on the pre-
vious move in favour of 13 ...0-0.
15 :d2 :ac8
Van der Wiel suggests IS...l[jd4
with the possible reply 16 -.dl; here
16 ... l[jxe2+! 17 "xe2 "a5
good for Black, e.g. 18 "e3 or 18
looks
:d3 b5! achieving the thematic
pawn advance, or 18 b4?! "c7 etc.
Perhaps White should prefer 16
 Main Line: 7 ttl 1c3 a6 8 tLla3 .ie6 49

.in!? Van der Wiel also analyses 16 In view of the next note, Black
ttlxd4 exd4 17 ttld5 .ixd5 18 exd5 should play 35...a5 with a slight ad-
ttle4 19 :d3 :e8 20 .if3 ttlc5 21 vantage..
:d2 a5 when Black's dynamic play 36 g3?
compensates for his potentially Van der Wiel felt that 36 gxh3
weak d4-pawn. leads to unclear play.
16 1i'b2 tLle7 36 as
17 tLle3 tLlc6 37 bxa5 bxaS
18 tLlc2 tLle7 38 'ifa 1fh5
The knight embarks on a familiar 39 :bl :cS
journey to inaugurate kings ide coun- IIz·If"
terplay. Black should play on; Van der
19 :bl ttlg6 Wiel analyses 40 :b5! :dc8 41
20 tLle3 ttlf4 :xc5 :xc5 42 'ife2 as slightly better
21 .in 'ifc6! for Black.
Now the queen begins a manoeu-
vre to join in the attack on the queen- Game 7
side. Mainka - Lputian
22 tLled5 .ixd5 Dortmund 1988
23 exd5 'ifd7
24 fJ 'ifrs 1 e4 c5 2 ttlfJ ttlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
25 :e1 h5! ttlxd4 e5 5 tLlb5 d6 6 c4 .ie7 7
26 b4 'ifg5 ttllc3 a6 8 ttlaJ .ie6 9 .ie2
27 a4 h4 9 ... lDd4(D)
28 :ddl?! The major alternative to 9 ....ig5
According to Van der Wiel 28 as (which was examined in the games
h3 29 g3 ttlg2! leads to unclear play. above).
28 'ifg6
29 tLle4 tLlxe4
30 :xe4 b6
31 Whl f5
32 :e3 %5!
33 :c3 ttlg3+!
34 Wgl
Of course, White is soon mated
after 34 hxg3.
34 tLlxn
35 wxn h3?!
50 Main Line: 7 CDlc3 a6 8 CDa3 i.e6
10 0-0
Two alternatives are unimpres-
sive:
a) 10 i.g4 i.xg4 11 'ii'xg4 can,
according to Timman, be answered
by 11.••d5 threatening 12 ... i.xa3
and 13 ... CDc2+, but what about 12
'ii'xg7 i.f6 13 'ii'g3, when White re-
mains a pawn up? Instead, Black
should try 11... CDf612 'ii'xg7 :tg8 13
'ii'h6 :txg2 (or 13 ... d5 I?) with active
play.
b) 10 CDc2 is White's main alter-
native. After the moves 10...CDxe211
"xe2 CDf6 120-0 :tc8 13 CDe3 Black
has been successful with two alter-
natives:
b 1) 13...0-0 worked well in the
game Ulybin-Sveshnikov, Naber-
ezhnye Chelny 1988: 14 :td1 'ii'c7
15 b3 b5 16 CDed5 CDxd5 17 CDxd5
i.xd5 18 cxd5 'ii'c2 19 'ii'g4?? (but
even after 19 i.d2 f5! Black has the
better game according to Silman)
19 ... f5! 20 exf5 h5! 21 'i'f3 e4 22
'ii'xh5 :txf5 0-1. The queen is finally
crowded out of safe squares on the
d1-h5 diagonal. Of course White did
not have to play so badly.
b2) After 13.....c7, Marciano-
Neverov, Bucharest 1993 continued
14 b3 b5 15 CDed5 i.xd5 16 CDxd5
CDxd5 17 cxd5 'i'c2 18 'i'xc2 :txc2
19 i.e3 ~d7 20 :tfel :thc8 21 ~f1
h6 22 ~e1 i.g5 23 ~d1 and White
held on to draw the pawn endgame
after 23 ...:txc1+ 24 :txc1 i.xe3 25
:txc8 ~xc8 26 fxe3, etc.
These games are hardly an adver-
tisement for 10 CDc2.
10 ... CDf6 (D)
In the game Timman-Short, Rot-
terdam 1990, Black played the in-
accurate 10...:tcS?! when 11 i.g4!
CDf6 12 i.xe6 fxe6 13 i.e3 was
slightly better for White.
w
11 i.e3
11 i.d3 was tried in Khalifman-
Vyzhmanavin, Leningrad 1990. This
went 11...:tc8 12 i.e3 0-0 13 h3
'i'a5 14 :tel (Vyzhmanavin and
Arkhangelsky mention 14 f4 b5 15
cxb5 CDxb5 16 CDaxb5 axb5 17
CDxb5 exf4 18 :txf4 d5 19 e5 CDe4
with a dynamically balanced posi-
tion) 14 ...:tfd8?! (and here the two
analysts recommend 14... i.d7!? in-
tending ...b5 with sufficient counter-
play) 15 CDd5 i.xd5 (Bonsch points
out that the natural 15 ...CDxdSloses a
piece after 16 exd5! i.d7 17 i.xd4)
16 cxd5 ± (now Black's queen is
gradually pushed back to a passive
square) 16 ...'i'b4. Here 17 i.d2!
 Main Line: 7lD1c3 a6SlDa3 .te6 51
'ifxb2 18 lDc4 'ii'bs 19 lDxeS (or 19
l:tbl 'ife8 20 l:txb7) gives White a
winning positional advantage ac-
cording to Vyzhmanavin and Ark-
hangelsky. Instead, after 17 l:tbl?!
lDd7 18 .td2 'ifcs Black somehow
escaped with a draw.
There is a simple solution to the
problem of 11 .td3: playa different
move order! After 10... lDxe2+ 11
'ifxe2lDf6, White will probably play
12 .te3 anyway, with a transposition
to the variations below.
11 ~e2+
12 "'xe2 0-0
13 f3 (D)
White may try to get by without
this move, viz. 13 l:tfdl and now
Black must decide whether White is
really threatening 14 cS:
a) In Wang Zili-Ambartsumian,
Beijing 1991, Black parried the
'threat' with 13......&5, but 14 .tgS
h6 IS.th4 (1S .txf6 .txf616 l:txd6
'ifcs regains the pawn) IS ... l:tac8 16
l:td3 gS 17 .tg3 t:i;g7 18 h4looked a
shade dubious for Black, and White
won after a hard battle.
b) 13...l:tc8 (not seeing any
ghosts) 14 .tgS (14 cS "'c7 comfort-
ably side-steps the pin) 14 ... lDd7! IS
.txe7 'ifxe7 16 lDdS 'ii'h4 (after
16....txdS 17 l:txdS, Black is OK but
passive, so Franco initiates a tactical
sequence in which Black eventually
comes out on top) 17 lDc2 .txdS 18
l:txdS lDf6 19 l:txd6 lDxe4 (maybe
19 ... 'ifxe4 20 lDe3 l:tfd8 is good
enough to equalize, since after the
natural 21 l:tad 1 l:txd6 22 l:txd6
'ii'bl+ wins a pawn) 20 g3 'ife7 21
l:tdS fS 22 f3 lDd6 23 l:txeS 'ifc7 24
cS (or 24 b3lDe4 {maybe 24 ... bS!?}
2S f4 {virtually forced, since the
rook has no safe squares} 2S ... l:tcd8
26 l:tdS {White cannot allow an in-
vasion with 26 ... l:td2} 26 ... l:txdS 27
cxdS 'ifcS+ and Black regains the
pawn with advantage, since 28lDe3
l:te8 threatening 29 ...1Dc3 is too dan-
gerous for White) 24 ... lDe4! 2S f4
lDxcs 26 lDe3 lDd7 27 l:txfS (per-
haps White should try 27 l:tdS, al-
though he has a very loose position)
27 ... l:tfe8 28 l:tdl 'ii'b6 29 l:td3 l:te7
30 l:tb3? (30 'iff2 was necessary)
30... l:tc1+ 31 t:i;g2 'ifc6+ 32 "'f3?!
l:tc2+! 33lDxc2 "'xc2+ 0-1 Fernan-
dez-Franco, Barcelona 1990.
B
13 ... l:tc8
Or 13...h6!? 14 l:tacl 'ifaS IS
"'d2 (IS l:tfdl sets more problems,
e.g. IS ... l:tfc8 16 t:i;hl l:tab8 trans-
poses to the game Timoshchenko-
52 Main Line: 7ltJlc3 a6 8ltJa3 ~e6
Vyzhmanavin, Cheliabinsk 1990,
which continued 17 ~d2 {the later-
native 17ltJdS ~xdS 18 cxdS bS is
unclear according to Vyzhmanavin
and Arkhangelsky} 17 ... 'iIt'd8 18 b4
'ilt'e8! intending ...bS =) IS ...11fc8 16
ltJdS'iIt'xd2 17ltJxe7+ ~f8 18 ~xd2
~xe7 19 ~b4 llc6 20 b3 gS! 21
llcdlltJe8 22 llf2 as 23 ~el liz-liz
Kindermann-B6nsch, Baden Baden
1993. Black's position is super-
solid, but so is White's.
14 ttJds
a) 14 .:edl (D) and now:
B
al) 14...h6 IS llacl 'ilt'aS 16 'ilt'd2
~h7 17 ltJdS 'ilt'xd2 18 ~xd2 ~d8
19 ~b4ltJe8 20 ~hl (20 cS? loses a
pawn to 20 ... aS, so White's visually
impressive attack has come to a
standstill; meanwhile Black is ready
to begin to undermining White's
centre by ... fS) 20 ...fS 21 exfS ~xfS
22ltJe3 ~g6 23 ~xd6?! (grabbing a
hot pawn) 23 ...ltJxd6 24 llxd6 ~gS
2S llel e4 (Black now regains his
pawn with a massive attack) 26ltJg4
llce8 27 llddl (27 fxe4 llxe4! 28
llxe4 lln mate) 27 ... exf3 28 gxf3
llxf3 29ltJeS llf2 30 ltJxg6 llxel +
31 llxel ~xg6 and Black converted
his positional advantage into a win
on move 39 in Ye Iiangchuan-Lpu-
tian, Beijing 1991.
a2) 14...ttJd7 with the ideas of
IS ... ~gS or IS ... fS is also possible.
The idea of 14 ... h6 is to avoid
White's positional threat of ~gSxf6,
winning control over dS after a sub-
sequent ltJc2 and ltJe3. Of course, it
is not clear how strong this threat is,
since White has to give up his dark-
squared bishop in the process.
b) After 14 llac1:
bl) 14 ... ltJhS looks best: IS
'ilt'd2! (ruling out IS ...~gS) IS ... fS!?
16 llfdl (side-stepping the compli-
cations after 16 exfS llxfS 17 g4
llgS! 18 ~hlltJf4 19 ~xf4 exf4 20
'ilt'xf4 lleS with dynamic equilibrium
according to Cabrilo; Black's bishop
is monstrously strong, though a
pawn is a pawn is a pawn) and now:
bll) 16•••ltJf6?! 17 exfS ~xfS 18
ltJdS llc6 19 b3 ltJxdS 20 'ilt'xdS+
~h8 21ltJc2 'ilt'c8 22ltJb4 (a notable
knight manoeuvre) 22 ...11c7 23 'ilt'd2
was played in Ivanchuk-Short, Til-
burg 1990. White intends 24 ltJdS,
and Black's weakness in the centre
proved more important than any
kingside counterplay he could gen-
erate with his two bishops.
b12) 16...fxe4 (recommended by
Cabrilo) 17 ltJxe4 ltJf4 (planning to
 Main Line: 7lb] c3 a6 8lba3 .te6 53

answer 18 .txf4 with 18 ...:xf4 19 doesn't have any constructive means

lbxd6? :d4! winning a piece) 18 of exploiting his space advantage.
'ii'f2 when he says White has a slight 17 .tb5 (D)
advantage. Black looks OK to me,
for example he can continue with
18 ...:c6, planning 19 ... 'ii'e8 and
w
20... 'ii'g6.
b2) Instead 14•••lbd7 looks a lit-
tle passive: 15 :fdl :c6 16 'iVd2 h6
17 b3 .tg5 18lbc2 .txe3+ 19 1Wxe3
'ii'as 20 lbd5 .txd5 21 :xd5 b5 22
c5! (a clever move, exploiting some
potential pins and forks) 22 ...:fc8
23 a3lbf6 24 b4 1Wa4 2S 1Wc3 dxcS
(capturing the rook gives White a
strong passed pawn on c6; besides, 18 :dc1
the queen on a4 would remain shut An admission that IS :fdl was a
out of the game) 26 :xcS :xcS 27 waste of time.
bxcS and, in Solomon-Gausel, Novi 18 ... .tg5
Sad 1990, White managed to squeeze Black's pieces are rapidly becom-
out a win because of the passed ing alarmingly active. Now 19 .txg5
pawn and the bad position of Black's 'ii'xgS leaves the knight on c4 pinned
queen. both diagonally and vertically (20
14 ••• h6 a4? .txa4 I). Therefore White acqui-
15 :fdl? esces to a weakened pawn structure
15 :ac1 looks more sensible, in order to fend off the immediate
since after Black's next move the threats.
rook doesn't have a useful function 19 b3 .txc4
on dl. 20 bxc4 .txe3+
15 lbxdS 21 1Wxe3 :c5
16 adS .td7 The c4-pawn is much weaker than
17 lbc4 the b7-pawn since Black's pawn still
Walking into a pin, but 17 lbc2 has some dynamism, e.g. 22 1Wb3
(the knight has to be recentralized 'iVc7 23 :abl bS! wins a pawn.
somehow) 17 ... fS is slightly better 22 a4 1Wc7
for Black. He has the two bishops 23 as f5!
and the makings of an attack on Black opens a second front. He is
White's centre. Meanwhile, White in no hurry to capture a pawn:
54 Main Line: 7liJ1 c3 a6 8l£:Ja3 .te6

23•••lIxaS 24 lIxa5 'iVxa5 25 c5 cre- 3). Black had good chances after 13
ates a passed pawn or 23•••llxc4 24 liJd5 .tg5 14liJc2liJe7! followed by
lIxc4 'iVxc4 25 lIc 1 followed by 26 a quick ... g6 and ... f5.
'iVb6. In both cases Black unneces- b) Instead, Black tried 11•••liJb4?!
sarily allows White counterplay. in Aseev-Neverov, Helsinki 1992,
24 'iVb3 fxe4 and after 12 .te2 'Wa5 13 'iVd2 .td8
25 fxe4 lIxaS (an unsound pawn offer, but Black's
26 llxaS 'iVxaS experiment has failed anyway, since
27 lIbl he cannot enforce ... b5; therefore,
27 'iVxb7 'iVd2 28 'iVbl lIf2 wins both 11...liJb4 and 12 ... 'iVa5 are re-
for Black, as does 27 c5 'iVd2 28 dundant moves) 14 'iVxd6 liJc6 15
'Wdl 'Wxdl 29 lIxdl dxc5, when 'Wd3 .tb6 16 l£:Jc2 lIad8 17 liJd5
three passed pawns easily outweigh .txd5 18 exd5liJb4 19liJxb4 'iVxb4
one. 20 .tg5 Black was lost, but not 'to-
27 'iVd2 tally' lost, since after a great defen-
28 h3 'iVd4+ sive effort, Black won!
29 ~hl 'iVxe4
30 'iVxb7 'iVxc4
0-1
B

Game 8
Fedorowicz - Salov
Wijk aan Zee 1991

1 e4 c5
2 liJf3 liJc6
3 d4 cxd4
4 liJxd4 eS
5 liJbS d6 9 ••. .tgS
6 c4 .te7 A very natural move, since the
7 liJlc3 a6 bishop on d3 now shelters the d6-
8 liJa3 .too pawn from attack, but in Lerner-
9 .td3 (D) Schmittdiel, Oberwart 1992, Black
A related variation is 9 b3liJf610 played 9 •••liJf6 and was never in
.td3 0-0 11 0-0: trouble after 10 liJc2 lIc8 11 liJd5
a) Now 11•••lIcS 12 .tb2 liJe8! 0-0 120-0 liJd7 13 b4.tg5 14 'iVh5
leads by transposition to Game 12, (a lunge into thin air, but how can
Tiviakov-Sveshnikov (see Chapter White improve his game?) 14....txcl
 Main Line: 7 ~1 c3 a6 8 ~3 .te6 55
15 ':axcl ~f6 16 'it'f3 .txdS 17
cxdS ~e7 18 'it'e3! (Black could
even dream of the advantage if al-
lowed to play 18 ...'ifb6) 18 ... a5 19
a3 ~d7 20 ~al axb4 21 axb4 'ifb6
22 'it'xb6 ~xb6 23 ~b3 fS 24 f3 and
a draw was agreed.
10 0-0 (D)
10 ~c2 will probably transpose to
the game after 10....txcl 11 ':xcl
~f6 120-0 etc.
In Kogan-Friedgood, European
Clubs Cup (Tel Aviv-Wood Green)
1991, White tried 10 ~c2 .txc1 11
'it'xcl ~ge7 12 ~S. There fol-
lowed 12•••.txdS 13 cxdS ~b8 14
'ii'gS?! 0-0 15 0-0 ~d7 16 b4 ':c8 17
~e3 ':c3 18 ':fdl h6 19 'it'h4 ~f6
20 ':ac1 ~g6 21 'it'g3 'it'c7 22 ':xc3
'it'xc3 and Black had a good position
since White must lose his b-pawn.
Instead 12•••':cS hopes to exploit the
position of the white queen on cl,
e.g. 13 0-0 .txdS, when 14 cxdS
~b4! 15 'it'd2 ~xd3 16 'it'xd3 0-0
intending ... fS is fine for Black, or 14
exdS ~b8 followed by ...~d7, ... 0-0
and ... fS with good play (but not
14 ... ~a5 15 b3 0-0 16 'it'd2 bS 17
cxbS axbS 18 .txbS which is prob-
ably slightly better for White).
10 ••• .txc1
10••• h6 (or ... h6 at some other
point) seems a waste of time, since
Black is virtually forced to play
....txc 1 sooner or later:
a) In Wang Zili-Arakhamia, Syd-
ney 1991, 11 ~dS ~f6 12 ~c2
B
.txcl 13 ':xcl .txdS 14 cxdS ~e7
15 ~e3 was very passive for Black.
If the black pawn were on h7, then
Black could at least try ... g6, ... ~hS
and ... fS, but with the pawn on h6
this would leave the kings ide se-
verely weakened. Meanwhile, White
can put pressure on the queenside
with 'ifb3, etc.
b) Another attempt to do without
.. ..txc1 was seen in Tseshkovsky-
Dukhov, Moscow 1992. This went
11~2~ge712~d5~g613~ce3
0-0 14 ~fS ~f4 (14 ....txc11S ':xcl
.txdS 16 cxdS ~ce7 17 ~e3 leaves
Black facing the same positional
pressure on the queenside as in 'a';
nevertheless, this is how Black
should play) 15 g3 ~xd3 16 'it'xd3
g6 (16 ....txfS 17 exfS .txcl {or
17 ... ~418f4} 18':axclisuncom-
fortable for Black, since after
18 ... ~d4 his centre can be under-
mined by f4 or cS; possibly f6!? will
be a sacrificial possibility for White)
17 f4! (but not 17 ~xh6+?~h7 win-
ning a piece; now Black's kingside
56 Main Line: 7li:J1 c3 a6 8li:Ja3 1.e6
collapses) 17 ... gxfS 18 fxgS 1.xdS
19 cxdS li:Jd4 20 exfS f6 21 gxh6 and
Black gave up six moves later.
11 ':'xc1 li:Jf6
11...li:Jge7 has been recom-
mended but never (as far as I know)
been played. A possible line is 12
li:Jc2! (before Black plays ... li:Jd4 and
... li:Jec6, consolidating his hold on
d4) 12....:.c813 'ii'e2li:Jg614 g3 hS!?
IS h4 1.h3 16 ':'fdl 1.g4 17 f31.e6
with unclear play. As Silman points
out, 11...li:Jf6 keeps the option of
... li:Jd7-cS.
12 li:Jc2
In the game Timoshenko-Kiselev,
Bucharest 1993, White tried 12 'ii'd2.
Black should probably seize the
chance for 12 ... li:Jd4!, e.g. 13 b3 0-0
14 li:Jc2 (14 ':'fdl 1.g4! IS f3?
1.xf3! or IS 1.e2? li:Jxe2+ winning
e4) 14... li:Jxc2 IS ':'xc2 'ii'b6 and
... .:.fd8 followed by ... li:Jd7-cS, with
equality.
12 ... 0-0 (D)
13 "'d2
13 li:Jd5 li:Jd7 14 li:Jce3 (14 b4
looks more challenging, keeping d4
guarded and ruling out ... li:Jcs; then
14 ... .:.c8 is a natural reply, while
14... li:Je7 with ideas of ... bS or ... fS
looks interesting) 14... li:Jd4 IS 1.bl
':'c8 16 ci>hl bS was fine for Black
in Wang Zili-Sveshnikov, Belgrade
1988. The knight on d4 is just as
valuable as White's knight on dS.
Meanwhile, Black has achieved the
freeing ...bS advance. The game con-
tinued 17 f4 (the only active plan)
17 ... li:Jb6! 18 cxbS (a major posi-
tional concession, but there was no
way to solidify the centre) 18 ... .:.xcl
19 'ii'xc 1 1.xdS 20 exdS axbS 21 b3
and now instead Sveshnikov gives
21 ......e7! with a clear advantage to
Black. Instead he played 21 ......d7?
which allowed 22 fxeS dxeS 23
'ii'cS! li:Jc8 24 1.xh7+ winning the
exchange. There is a theory that Chi-
nese players tend to be alert tacti-
cians since they are brought up on
Chinese chess in which pawns cap-
ture forwards. This game supports
the theory: Wang Zili demonstrates
both uncertainty with a fixed pawn
structure and deadly tactical accu-
racy.
13 1rb6
14 ci>h1 ':'ac8
15 b3 li:Jd4
According to Salov, this is a
mistake; he should have preferred
15....:.t'd8 followed by ... li:Je7 and
... li:Jg6. White would then have great
 Main Line: 7lLllc3 a6 8lLla3 .i.e6 57

difficulty in finding a constructive

plan, since f4 would cede the e5
B
square to a black knight after ...exf4,
without gaining any real attacking
chances on the f-file.
16 lDe3 .as
Salov also criticizes this decision.
Evidently it weakens his hold on d4
and makes White's next move much
stronger. 16...:t'd8 was solid.
17 f4! exf4
Salov gives 17... bS 18 f5 bxc4 19 26 ... lLlg4
fxe6! cxd3 20 e7! :fe8 21 :xf6! 27 :0
gxf6 22 lLled5 ~g7 23 :f1 with a The aggressive 27 eS lLlxf2 28
dangerous attack. Salov may have 'ifxf2 :xe5 29lLle7+ :xe7 30.i.xg6
missed 21 :xf6 when he played hxg6 is not dangerous for Black (Sa-
16... 'ifa5. lov).
18 :xr4 .gS 27 ... :eS
19:cn The rook is much less well placed
Not 19 .nlLlh5! 20:h4 f5 21
exf5 lLlxf5 when Black has the ad-
vantage (Salov).
28 .d2
on e5 than the knight.

Black's knights are now tripping

19 ... ttllis over each other. One threat is 29
20 :4n lLlc6 'ifb4 winning a pawn.
The knight spots a safer square on 28 ... ttlli6
e5. 29 lLlxh6+ ?!
21 .e2 'iVh6 Salov says that 29 :b3! ~h8 30
22 ~gl :ce8 'ifdl lLlf6 31 lLlxh6 gxh6 32 :g3
23 lLlcdS .i.xdS :g5 33 e5 gives White a decisive
24 lLlfS! .g6 attack. So far the game hasn't been
2S adS lDes a very good example of Black's
26 .i.c2! (D) chances in the Kalashnikov, but in
If Black's h5-knight were on d7, the subsequent play, Salov demon-
he would have a reasonable game, strates how to exploit all Black's re-
with absolute control of e5. Instead sources.
he has to disorganize his position to 29 .xh6
counter the threat of 27 .i.dl! lLlf6 30 .xh6 gxb6
28lLlxd6. 31 g4 lLlg7 (D)
58 Main Line: 7 &iJ1 c3 a6 8 &iJa3 .i.e6

43 l:lb6 <l;g5!
Now it is time to improve the
king's position.
44 lha6 ~4
45 b4 l:lc1+
46 <l;h2
Not 46 <l;f2?? &iJxg4+ 47 hxg4 h3
when Black wins.
46 l:lc2+
47 <l;gl l:lc1+
48 <l;h2 l:lc2+
32 l:lf6 &iJe8 49 <l;gl l:lb2!
33 l:lxh6 Black's pieces are so well placed
Winning a pawn, but White has that he does not have to force a draw
lost the initiative. immediately with 49...l:lc1+.
33 ... <l;g7 50 l:lxd6 l:lxb4
34 l:h3 &iJf6 51 l:la6 l:lbl+
35 l:lc3 l:lg5! 52 <l;h2
Not, of course, 35...&iJxg4? 36 White had one more chance to
l:lg3 winning a piece. lose: 52 ~ l:lb2+ 53 <l;f1 l:lbl+ 54
36 h3 h5 <l;e2? &iJxg4 55 hxg4 h3 56 l:lh6 h2
37 :rs and wins.
Beating off Black's kings ide at- 52 ... l:lb2+
tack, but he remains with a very 53 <l;gl l:lbl+
weak dark square complex in the 54 <l;h2 l:lb2+
centre. This proves ideal for Black's 55 <l;gl
king to enter the battle.
37 ... l:lxf5 Game 9
38 gxf5 &iJd7 Sznapik - Klinger
39 l:lc7 &iJe5 Dortmund 1989
40 .i.dl h4
41 .i.g4 ~ 1 e4 cS
42 l:lxb7 l:lc8 2 rn &iJc6
Black is two pawns down, and 3 d4 cxd4
will soon be three pawns down, but 4 &iJxd4 eS
all his pieces are ideally placed. 5 &iJb5 d6
Meanwhile, the white bishop is little 6 c4 .i.e7
more than a 'big pawn' . 7 &iJlc3 a6
 Main Line: 7 ~1 c3 a6 8 ~3 .te6 59
8 .!i.)aJ .te6
9 .te3 (D)
B
9 ... .tgS
If there was ever a logical move in
chess, this is it! In the line with 9
~d5 (see Game 3), Black has to go
through various contortions to force
the exchange of dark-squared bish-
ops. Here there is no such problem:
White cannot avoid an immediate
exchange. Masters and Grandmas-
ters have learnt to avoid giving Black
an easy game with 9 .te3, but at
lower echelons of chess lots of
White players, out of their theory,
play the 'natural', 'developing' .te3.
And they end up with an impotent
position where they have to try to
staunch the weak dark squares. Be-
fore we look at 9 ....tg5, I want to
show you the game Popovych-
Hassabis, London 1990, since it fea-
tures an interesting tactical trap.
Hassabis answered 9 .te3 with the
simple 9...~f6 10 .te2 (ruling out
1O... ~g4) 10 ... 0-0 11 0-0 (an error;
11 "d2, answering 1l...l:tc8 with 12
~c2 ~a5 13 b3 was best) 11. ..l:tc8
12 l:tc 1 ~!. White has played a se-
ries of obvious moves and now finds
that he loses the exchange after the
natural 13 b3 dS! 14 exdS (or 14 ...d4
follows) 14 ....txa3. This, however,
is how he should play since after
Nunn's suggestion 15 dxe6.txcl16
exf7+ l:txt7 17 'ilxcl Black is only
slightly better (he can continue with
... ~c6 and ... ~d4). Instead White
played 13 'ila4 (at last an 'unnatural'
move!) but was soon in all sorts of
trouble: 13 ... ~xc4 14 ~xc4 b5 15
'ilxa6 bxc4 16 .tb6? (obstinately
trying to prove that he is still attack-
ing; the cautious 16 "a4 leaves
Black slightly better because of his
extra centre pawn) 16.....e8 17 f3
l:ta8 18 'ifb5 (18 'ii'b7 had to be tried,
although White's queen is jeopardy)
18 .....xb5 19 ~xb5 l:tab8 0-1. It is
tempting to try 9... ~f6 just to see if
White falls for the trap, but objec-
tively 9....tg5 is better.
10 tbc2
a) I ought to point out the tactic
10 .txgS "xg5 11 "xd6?? l:td8 12
'ilc5 "d2 mate.
b) 10 ~S is a move too late.
1O....txe3 11 ~xe3 ~d4 was fine
for Black in Kristiansen-Fossan,
Gj~vik 1991. This game went 12
.td3 ~7 130-00-0 14 ~ac2 ~xc2
15 .txc2 l:tc8 16 b3 ~6 17 "d2 b5
18 cxb5 axb5 19 .td3 ~d4 (now
Black has achieved the thematic ... b5
60 Main Line: 7 CiJl c3 a68 CiJa3 .ie6
advance and has conquered the d4
square - what more could you ask
for in a Kalashnikov?) 20 l:tacl
l:txcl 21 l:txcl d5 22 exd5 .ixd5 23
l:tdl (after 23 CiJxd5 "xd5 there is
no piece left to challenge the mag-
nificent knight on d4; however this
was White's best line) 23 ....if3! 24
l:tel (24 l:tcl CiJe2+ is winning for
Black) 24 ....ixg2! 25 ~xg2 "a8+
26 CiJd5 (the only way to stop ... CiJf3)
26 .....xd5+ 27 .ie4 "d6 and for
some reason it took Black another 40
moves to win this position.
c) 10 'ifd2 .ixe3 11 "xe3 CiJd4!
and again Black is doing well. The
white queen is no better on e3 than
d2, where at least it would support
the recentralizing of the knight with
CiJc2. Play may continue: 12 l:tc1
CiJe7 13 CiJc2 CiJec6 14 "d2 (admit-
ting he has lost time) 14 ...CiJxc2+ 15
"a5
l:txc20-0 16 .ie2 l:tc8 17 b3 CiJd4 18
l:tc 1 19 f4 (White tries to cheer
himself up by starting a kingside at-
tack, but with Black's pieces so well-
placed, it would be astonishing if it
worked; one of White's problems is
that 19 0-0 b5! {our thematic move
again, and this time it has a tactical
sting} 20 cxb5 CiJxe2+ or 20... l:txc3
wins a piece) 19 ... f6 20 f5 .if7 21
CiJdl "xd2+ 22 ~xd2 d5! (an ele-
gant move which not only increases
the scope of his bishop, but also un-
dermines the f5-pawn and exposes
the white king to attack down the d-
file; the thematic 22 ... b5!? is also
possible) 23 exd5 .ixd5 24 CiJe3 (of
course, 24 cxd5 l:txc1 and 25 ...CiJxe2+
is a favourable exchange for Black,
who will quickly pick up the d5-
pawn) 24 ....ie4 25 .id3 .ic6 (Black
has enticed the white bishop to a
square where it will be pinned) 26
l:thel l:tcd8 27 ~c3 l:td7 28 l:tcdl
l:tfd8 29 c5 ~f8 30 a4 (a blunder
under pressure; Black was better
anyway because of his more active
pieces and less vulnerable pawns)
30... CiJxb3! 31.ixa6 l:txdl 32 CiJxdl
CiJxc5 33 .in CiJxa4+ 34 ~b4 l:td4+
35 ~a3 CiJc5 36 CiJc3 ~e7 37 l:tcl
CiJd3 0-1 Rahman-Abdulla, Doha
1992.
10 .ixe3
11 CiJxe3 CiJf6 (D)
w
The next game discusses 11...l:tc8
12 .ie2 and lines which could trans-
pose to 11...CiJf6 where White pre-
fers 12 .ie2 to 12 .id3.
12 .id3 0-0
13 0-0 CiJd4
14 l:tc1
 Main Line: 7 tD1 c3 a6 8 tDa3 .i.e6 61
14 "d2 b5 is no better for White.
14 ... b5!
If he achieves this advance with
impunity, then Black can already
hope to gain the advantage.
15 b3 'ii'b6
With an easy development. How-
ever, I would prefer 15.....aS, poten-
tially attacking the knight on c3 or
the a2-pawn. After 16 'ifd2 :ac8
Black would stand very well indeed.
Following the move played, Black's
queen could suddenly find herself
attacked with gain of tempo by tDd5.
16 "d2 b4?!
Playing 16•••:ae8 or possibly
16•••:fe8 would keep things more
dynamic. For a fuller discussion of
the merits of the ... b4 idea, see the
notes to Suetin-Scherbakov below.
17 tDe2?
Truly feeble. White had to try 17
tDedS .i.xd5 18 cxd5. Then his
bishop has some scope and the c4
square, which is free from attack,
would be an excellent post for
White's knight or rook. White may
then be slightly better.
17 tDxe2+
18 "xe2 tDd7!
19 :edl as
20 .i.e2 tDc5 (D)
White's bishop is entombed by its
own pawns and the dark squares are
mostly controlled by Black. How-
ever, we should not imagine Black
has a big advantage; the d6-pawn is a
weak backward pawn on an open
w
file, which - although in no immedi-
ate danger - will need constant atten-
tion. If Black is to win, he will need
to open the game somewhere - and
when that happens, the white bishop
may yet have the last word.
21 :d2 a4?!
This gives White the chance to
liquidate to an unclear ending. Black
should try a slower approach, e.g.
with 21.••:fd8, since White can do
nothing much to improve his posi-
tion.
22 "dl?
White should exchange off his
bad bishop, even if he loosens his
pawn structure in doing so: 22 bxa4
tDxa4 (necessary sooner or later) 23
.i.xa4 (23 "dl tDc3 24 :xd6 "c5
and 25 ...:xa2 is good for Black)
23 ...:xa4 24 :fdl :a6 25 tDf5!
.i.xf5 26 exf5 with unclear play.
22 axb3
23 axb3 :a6
24 h3 :Ca8
Black's advantage has increased
substantially. He has gained absolute
62 Main Line: 7li:J1c3 a6 8li:Ja3 i.e6

control of the a-file without having 35 ':b5 ':al

to give White any compensating 36 'if0
counterplay. The threat was 36 ....:xdl and
25 li:Jf5 li:Jb7 ... li:Je2+.
26 'ifg4 g6 36 ... ':8a2
27 'ifg5 'ifd8 37 ~h2
28 'ifg3 ~h8 After 37 ':xb4 ':d2 there is no an-
29 li:Je3 swer to the threat of ... ':d3 winning
The end of White's 'attack'. the queen.
29 ... 'iff6 37 ... ':d2
30 li:Jds 38 i.e2
This amounts to positional capitu- Preventing 38 ... .:d3, but White's
lation, since White allows the ex- position now collapses.
change of the one piece that can fight 38 ':aa2
for control over the dark squares, but 49 g3 ':xe2
White had already run out of con- 40 gxf4 exf4
structive ideas. 41.:xb4 ':e3!
30 i.xd5 The game concluded: 42 'ifg2
31 ':xd5 li:Jc5 'ifh4 (now there is no answer to the
32 'ifg4 li:Je6 threat of ... .:g3. White's queen has
33 i.dl h5 not had a pleasant time on the third
34 'ifg3 li:Jf4! (D) rank) 43 ':a4 ':b2 44 e5 ':g3 45
'ifa8+ ~g7 46 'ifc8 ':g4 (attacking
f2) 0-1

Game 10
Suetin - Scherbakov
Warsaw 1990

1 e4 c5
2 00 li:Jc6
3 d4 cxd4
4 li:Jxd4 e5
5 li:Jb5 d6
The beginning of the deciding 6 c4 i.e7
tactical phase. Klinger does not al- 7 li:Jlc3 a6
low White any counterplay with 8 li:Ja3 i.e6
34•••li:Jd4 35 f4, etc. 9 i.e3 i.g5
 Main Line: 7lDl c3 a6 SlDa3 i.e6 63
10 lDc2 i.xe3
11 lDxe3 (D)
11 :tc8
a) 11 ...lDf6 12 i.d3 was the sub-
ject of the previous game.
b) 11...lDge7 was tried in Lan-
zendorfer-Bator, Saltsjobaden Ril-
ton Cup 1988. There seems to be no
general 'rule' in the Kalashnikov as
to when you should play ... lDf6 and
when you should prefer ...lDge7, but
if the practice of masters and grand-
masters creates general principles,
then ... lDf6 is 'best' and ... lDge7 is
merely 'quite good'. In the afore-
mentioned game 11...lDge7 proved
its worth since Black won in good
style: 12 i.e2 0-0 13 i.g4 (another
example of this insipid plan; just be-
cause ... i.gS is good for Black, it
doesn't mean that the parallel move
will be good for White - he should
keep his bishop to defend his centre)
13 ... lDd4 14 0-0 bS! (that move
again!) IS lDe2 i.xg4 16 lDxg4
lDec6 (17 ...:tc8 was more direct) 17
lDe3 :tb8 18 cxbS axbS 19 lDxd4
lDxd4 20 :tc1 'ifaS 21 a3 b4:j: (the b-
pawn is weaker than the d-pawn,
which is well sheltered) 22 axb4
:txb4 23 lDc2 :tc4 24 lDxd4 :txd4
2S 'ifc2 'ifb4 26 :tcd1 :tc4 27 'ifd2
:txe4 28 'ifxd6 'ifxb2 29 'ife7 (now
it seems that Black will exploit his
extra pawn in a long endgame grind,
but White doesn't want to exchange
queens, so the finish was mercifully
brief) 29 ... h6 30 :td8 :txd8 31
'ifxd8+ ~h7 32 'ifdS :tf4 33 g3 :tf6
34 h4 'i'd4 3S 'ifb7 e4 36 'ifb1 g637
'i'b3 :tf3 38 'i'd1 and White, who
had missed 38 ...:txg3+, resigned im-
mediately.
12 i.e2 lM6
12...lDd4 was played in Harti-
kainen-Kilpela, Helsinki 1992. After
13 i.g4 (this move proves as useless
as 13 i.g4 in the previous note; he
may as well simply castle) 13 ... lDf6
14 i.xe6 fxe6 IS 0-00-0 Black had a
good game. Both white knights are
poised to go to dS and neither will
get there. Play continued 16 :tc1 bS
17 b3? (he must try 17 cxbS axbS 18
a3 :j:) 17 ... b4 18 lDe2 lDxe2+ 19
'ifxe2lDxe4 and since 20 'ifg4 can
be answered by 20 ...lDcs (did White
miss this?) White remained a pawn
down. Black won on move 37.
13 0·0 0·0
14 :tel
Sveshnikov criticizes this and
recommends 14 'ifd2 (though Black
still looks very comfortable after
64 Main Line: 7liJlc3 a6 8liJa3 .i.e6
14... lZXi4). 14 :'clleaves the a-pawn
a bit vulnerable, so it becomes easier
for Black to realize ...bS.
14 ••• lZXi4
15 .i.d3
Or 15 b3 'ii'aS and ... bS.
15 .•. 'it'aS
16 'it'd2 bS
The reader who has played
through the notes above will have a
strong sense of deja vu.
17 b3 (D)
B
17 ••• liJd7!?
An enterprising continuation.
Sveshnikov gives the alternative
17••• b4 as 'equal'. I'm not sure. The
plan of ... b4 bypassing the challenge
to the pawn on c4 strikes me as dubi-
ous in a strategic sense. After 18
liJcd5 White's queenside is no longer
under siege, and he has three threats:
19 liJe7+, 19 'ii'xb4 and 19liJxf6+
(though some Pelikan players would
claim that the final threat strengthens
rather than disrupts Black's pawns).
Black cannot answer 18liJcdS with
18•••liJxdS because of 19 cxdS (not
19liJxdS?? .i.xdS 20 cxdS :'c3! with
an excellent game for Black)
19 ... .i.d7 20 liJc4 and Black loses a
pawn. Or 18•••.i.xdS (best) 19 cxdS
and I think White is better. His
bishop now has a bit of scope, and
Black's queenside is disjointed. The
c4 square is a strong outpost for a
white knight or rook, and the c3
square cannot be exploited by Black
- 19... :'c3 20 liJc4 wins a pawn. So
we conclude that Scherbakov was
rightto play 17 ... lZXi7.
18 :.rdl liJc5
19 .i.n
White has little choice but to
withdraw his bishop:
a) 19 liJcd5 'ii'xd2 20 :'xd2
liJxd3 wins for Black because of a
fork on e2.
b) 19 cxb5 liJxd3 20 'ii'xd3
:'xc3! and again there is a murder-
ous fork on e2.
19 ••• b4
I criticized this pawn advance as
'antipositional' at move 17, but here
it succeeds or fails not on positional
considerations but on concrete cal-
culation. Sveshnikov points out the
alternative 19 ... Wh8, avoiding any
future liJe7+ and keeping up the
pressure. This slow approach was
objectively better, mainly because of
White's strong 22nd move below.
20 liJcd5 liJxe4
21 'it'xb4 'it'xa2
22 'it'el!
 Main Line: 7 t:jJ1 c3 a6 8 &iJa3 .ie6 65
A fearsome move. It defends f2
and suddenly threatens to win
Black's queen after 23 f3 (chasing
away the knight so that ... 'iVd2 or
... 'iVc3 is no longer an option) fol-
lowed by l:la1 and l:ldbl.
22 ~b3
23 l:le2 "a4
24 !iJe7+
White has won the time necessary
to carry out this threat.
24 ~hS
25 ~eS l:lxeS
26 l:lb2 lDti4
27 l:ldbl (D)
A good exchange sacrifice de-
pends on the opponent's rooks being
passively placed. Here White's rooks
are co-ordinated and poised to pene-
trate into Black's position. Black's
passed pawn has yet to become dan-
gerous. Since both sides have very
active piece play and White is the ex-
change up, we must put our money
on White; a good big 'un tends to
beat a good little 'un.
27 ••• &iJc5
Sveshnikov gives 27•••g6, but
White must be slightly better after
28 l:lb8 .
28 l:lbS
29 :XcS
"e8
"xeS
30 "as?
According to Sveshnikov, 30
'ii'b4 t:jJc6 (of course Black does not
want to allow the exchange of
queens after 31 'iVb8, when the white
rook would be dominant) 31 'ii'b6 g6
32 g3 is ;to When the chief proponent
of a system claims it is 'slightly
worse' you have to look carefully.
Maybe it is really very bad indeed.
30 g6
31 'ii'b6 "d7 (D)
32 &iJd5?
White has a slight advantage after
32 'fibS+ ~g7 33 l:lb6. Not only
does the game move exchange a
well-placed knight for an insipid
bishop, it also opens up the diagonal
c8-h3, along which Black's queen
can attack White's king.
66 Main Line: 7 t'iJl c3 a6 8 t'iJa3 .te6

32 .txdS alone four. In time pressure, Suetin

33 adS ~g7 misses Black's brilliant coup.
34 .txa6? 36 ... 00+
Sveshnikov suggests 34 l:[e1, 37 ~hl
keeping the black knight out of the Or 37 ~ t'iJed2+ and 38 .....e4+
e4 square. wins.
34 t'iJe4 37 ... 'ii'g3!!
35 "'2 'ii'g4 Almost as brilliant as Levitsky-
36 h3? Marshall.
Black had some dangerous possi- 38 gxO
bilities, e.g. 36 ~hl 'Wf4 37 l:[f1 'Resigns' would have been a more
t'iJd2 with ideas of ... t'iJf3. So 36.tn graceful response.
t'iJf3+ 37 ~hl t'iJfd2 38 f3 t'iJf2+ 39 38 t'iJxf2+
~g 1 t'iJh3+ with a draw by repetition 39 'ii'xf2 'ii'xf2
seems like a reasonable finish. Inci- 40 .tn 'ii'xO+
dentally, it took four blunders for 41 .tg2 'ii'd3
White to ruin his game after move 42 l:[b6 e4
29. This implies that White must 43 l%xd6 "'1+
have had a very strong position at
that point in the game, since few po-
44 ~h2 "'8
Oops. And now White finally re-
sitions can survive two blunders, let signed.
3 Main Line: 7 .te2 or 7 .td3

Game 11 new set of variations have to be ex-

Cuijpers - Garcia amined.
The Hague 1988 7 ... R.e6
a) 7•••fS is a risky attempt to seize
1 e4 cS the initiative. After 8 exfS R.xfS,
2 W liX6 White should not play slowly:
3 d4 cxd4 al) 9 0-0 lDf6 10 R.e3 0-0 11
4 lDxd4 eS lDlc3 a6 12lDa3 "eS 13 lDd5lDxd5
S lDbS d6 14 cxd5 lDd4! 15 Jlxd4 exd4 16
6 c4 R.e7 R.d3! (16 "xd4 Jlf6 gives Black
7 R.e2 (D) good play for the pawn) 16... Jlxd3
17 "xd3 Jlf6 IS 'ii'h3 "f7
:adS 20 lDb6 (he must defend d5)
191Dc4

20 ...:feS and Black had an active

B
position in AlmMi-Maidla, Debre-
cen 1992. The game was eventually
drawn after a sharp struggle.
a2) White should prefer 9 JlgS!
(D).

Of course, this could transpose to

lines considered under 9 R.e2 after
7 ...R.e6 SlDlc3 a6 9lDa3 etc., but 7
R.e2 has independent significance
if White avoids SlDlc3: instead he
can retreat the knight from b5 to c3
(usually after ... a6) and develop the
other knight from b 1 to d2. This
avoids being left with a decentral- 9 ... lDf6 (Belikov has suggested
ized knight on a3. Hence a whole 9 .....a5+, e.g. 10 Jld2 "dS 11 Jlg4
68 Main Line: 7 i..e2 or 7 i..d3
;1;, but the simple developing move
10 tLllc3 {Nunn} casts doubt on
Black's idea) 10 i..hS+! ~f8 110-0
a6 12 i..xf6 gxf6 13 tLlSc3 'it'd7 14
tLldS i..d8 IS tLlbc3 (with dS in his
absolute grasp, this must be good for
White) lS ... ~g7 16 f4l:tfS 17 ~hl
i..e6 (and here Belikov suggests
17 ... l:tb8) 18 tLla4! l:tb8 19 fxeS
tLlxeS (unfortunate necessity, since
19 ... fxeS 20 l:txf8 and 21 'it'f3+
gives White a strong attack, while
19 ... dxeS 20 tLlcs - the point of 18
tLla4 - is painful) 20 b3 bS 21 cxbS
axbS 22 tLlac3 ~h8 23 tLle2 i..g8 24
l:tc1 fS 2S tLlef4 'ii'b7 26 'it'd4 i..b6
and a draw was agreed in Belikov-
Scherbakov, Kuibyshev 1990. White
is clearly better in the final position
because of Black's ragged pawn
structure. So it seems that 7 ... fS is
not quite sound. However, it has
good surprise value and is well
worth a try in a weekend tournament
or a club match; your opponent, un-
less he is a master (or has read this
book!) is unlikely to find moves like
9 i..gS! and 10 i..hS+! over the
board. More likely he will be taken
aback and play 9 0-0 or some other
solid continuation, when Black gets
a dynamic game.
b) Some readers will want to play
....tgS against everything, but if
Black wants to carry out the plan of
....tgS here then he has to play the
immediate 7... a6 8 tLlSc3 i..gS (D)
(this is because the slower 7 ... i..e6 8
0-0 a6 9 tLlSc3 .tgS?! fails - see the
note to Black's ninth move).
w
Now:
a) 9 i..xgS?! 'it'xgS (attacking g2)
10 0-0 i..h3! (not of course 10....te6
11 f4, but 10... tLlf6!? 11 f4 exf4 12
'it'xd6 .th3 would give Black a much
superior version of Van Riemsdijk-
Hernandez in the note to Black's 9th
move) 11 .tf3 tLlf6 (or 11...tLld4)
and since f4 is no longer a legal
move, Black has a good position.
b) In practice, White has an-
swered with 9 tLld2 (9 tLla3 would
transpose, after 9 ....te6, to vari-
ations examined in Chapter 2) when
Black has tried three moves:
bl) 9...tLld4 breaks the 'rule'
given in our introduction that com-
bining the ideas of ...i..gS and ...tLld4
is seldom a good idea for Black. 10
tLlf3 i..xc111l:txc1 tLlxf3+ 12 .txf3
tLle7 13 0-0 0-0 14 'it'd3 i..e6 IS
l:tfdll:tc8 16 b3l:tc6left Black solid
but very passive in Geller-Wirthen-
sohn, Berne 1988.

b2) 9 •••lDge7 10 lDf3 J.xcl II
:'xcl J.g4? (11...J.e6Iooks OK for
Black) 12lDxeS! lDxeS 13 J.xg4 0-0
14 J.e2, Vogt-Grigore, European
Clubs Cup (Porz-Bucharest) 1991, is
a trap the reader should watch out
for.
b3) 9...lDf6! 10 0-0 0-0 II lDb3
(1IlDf3 J.xc112 :'xcl J.g4 intends
to fight for control of d4 with
... J.xf3; note that 13lDxeS fails here
to ... lDxeS, when two pieces defend
the bishop on g4 - this is one reason
why 9 ... lDf6 seems to be superior to
9 ... lDge7) 11...J.xcl 12 llxcl J.e6
13 'ifd2'ifb8 14 :'fdl :'d8 IS "e3
'ifa7 16 'ifxa7 (White's last two
queen moves have rather helped
Black) 16... lDxa7 17 lld2 bS 18 cxbS
lDxbS 19 f3 ~f8 and Black, who has
equalized, went on to win in Man-
nion-Kuijf, Thessaloniki OL 1988.
8 0-0 (D)
After 8 J.e3 a6 9 lDSc3 J.gS 10
0-0 J.xe3 II fxe3 White has won
control of the d4 square, but allowed
his pawns to be shattered. This idea
has never caught on, mainly because
most of the dynamism is taken out of
White's position - he can no longer
launch an attack on the kings ide
spearheaded by his f-pawn. There-
fore, if Black develops carefully and
stymies White on the queenside,
then there is little that can hurt him.
After 11...lDf6 12lDa3 0-013 'ifd2
:'c8 14 :'adl'ifb6ISlDc2lDe7! (at-
tacking c4) 16 b3 :'fd8 17 J.d3 'ifcs
Main Line: 7 J.e2 or 7 J.d3 69
18 a4 (he must prevent ...bS, but now
b3 is weakened) 18 .....b6 19 h3
as
lDd7 20:'bl 21lDellDcs 22J.c2
lDc6 23 lDf3 lDb4 24 :'f2 llf8 2S
lDh4 g6 26 lDf3 :'cd8 27 lDgS ~g7
28lDbS, a draw was agreed in Short-
Van der Wiel, Tilburg 1988. Black is
very comfortable in the final posi-
tion, but there is no way to break
through .
B
8 ... 86
This is not the only move. Alter-
natives:
a) 8...h6 9 lDlc3 (9 b3 a6 10
lDSc3 J.gS II lDd2 lDd4 12 J.b2
lDe7 13lDf3 lDec6 14lDdSlDxf3+
IS J.xf3 0-0 gave Black no pro~
lems in Wolff-Anand, Biel IZ 1993)
9 ... a6 10 lDa3 J.gS IIlDc2lDge7 12
b4 :'c8 13 a4 was played in Ti-
moshenko-Gorelov, Moscow 1988.
Here instead of 13 ... lDg6 14 J.a3,
when the d6-pawn was difficult to
defend, Black should have tried
13 ... J.xcI14 llxcl 0-0 followed by
... fS, with a reasonable position, or
70 Main Line: 7 .ie2 or 7.id3

maybe 13 ....ixcI14:xcl ~a7!? 15

~e3 ~6! is better, when White
B
must repeat moves with 16 ~c2 or
allow ... llXt4.
b) 8... llJf6 is a sound alternative:
bl) 9 ~lc3 a6 10 ~a3 :cS 11
.ie30-0 12 :cl ~d7 13 "d2 f5 14
exfS .ixfS IS ~dS ~f6 16 :fdl
~xdS 17 cxdS ~d4! (the reader
should be familiar with this sacrifi-
cial motif) IS .ixd4 exd4 19 :xcS
"xcS 20 :cl "dS 21 "xd4 b5 22 "xd6? .ih3 12 .if3 ~d4, winning)
:c6 .if6 23 "d2 .ics 24 g3 draw 11...exf4 (more or less forced since
agreed in Haba-Nun, Ostrava 1991. 11.. ...dS 12 f5 leaves Black in a
Evidently neither side was happy positional bind) 12 'ii'xd6 (D) and
with his position. White is a pawn Black couldn't justify the inevitable
up, but Black's two bishops, espe- loss of a pawn in Van Riemsdijk-
cially the monster on f6, are very Hernandez, Groningen 1990.
strong.
b2) 9 ~Sc3 ~d4 10 .ie3 (10
~d2 0-011 b3 a612 ~f3 ~xe2+ 13
B
"xe2 :cS 14 .id2 h6 IS ~el ~d7
16 ~c2 was Marciano-Moldovan,
Bucharest 1993, and now 16 ....ig5
or 16... fS should be tried, with ade-
quate play) 10... ~xe2+ 11 "xe20-0
12 f3 a6 13 a4 ~S 14 ~ .ixdS IS
cxdS .igS 16.if2 ~f4 17 "dl.ih6
IS ~hl fS 19 ~c3 "gS 20 :gl g6
21 as :acS gave Black dynamic play
in Agnos-McDonald, London 1993. a) The game continued 12...0 13
9 ~c3(D) :xf3 :dS (13 .....cl+ 14:n {or 14
9 ~Sa3 .igS (or 9... ~d4) 10 ~dl I?} 14 .....xb2 IS ~d5 gives
~lc3 would transpose to lines cov- White a dangerous attack - Van
ered in Chapter 2. Riemsdijk) 14 "g3 'ii'cS+ IS :f2
9 ... ~4 ~d4 16.in ~f6 17 b4! (avoiding
9....igS?! looks inadequate after 17 'ilxg7? ~g4!, e.g. IS "xhS+
10 .ixgS 'ii'xgS 11 f4! (but not 11 ~e7 19 b4 ~xf3+ and Black wins-
 Main Line: 7 i.e2 or 7 i.d3 71

Van Riemsdijk) 17...Wb6 18 a3lDg4 16 .g4?

19lDd5 .d6 (19 ... i.xd5 20.xg4) White wants to attack on the king-
20.1:.f4 and White had beaten off the side, but this is a completely wrong
attack while keeping his extra pawn. plan. In placing the queen on g4,
b) Van Riemsdijkgives 12.••:d8 White allows his opponent to play
13 'iVxf4 'iVcS+ (13 ...•xf4 14 :xf4 the thematic ... fS with gain of time.
lDd4 15 i.d3) 14 'iVf2lDd4 15 ~hl ! Instead, White needs to initiate some
lDf6 (not 15 ...i.xc4? 16 i.xc4 'iVxc4 play on the queenside, beginning
17lDd5! wins) 16 ~2 and 17 ~5 with 16lDa4.
with a clear advantage to White. 16 ~h8
Unless someone finds a reason- 17 :el ~5
able variation for Black in the com- 18 g311
plications above, 9 ... i.g5 will have Continuing his incorrect plan.
to be rejected. 18 g6
10 lDdS 19 i.h6 :g8
Alternatively, 10 i.e3lDxe2+ 11 20 h4?! CS!
1i'xe2lDf6 (or 11...:c8 12 lDd2 lDf6 21 exfS .d7
13 f3 0-0 14 a4lDhS 15 g3 g6 16 as 22 ~h2 gxfS
fS and Black achieved counterplay 23 .e2 :g4
in Sherzer-Strenzwilk, New York Now White is severely punished
1991 after 17 exf5 gxfS 18 f4 'iVe8) for his weakening pawn 'onslaught'
12 lDd5 i.xdS (not 12... lDxe4 13 on the kingside.
i.b6) 13 exdS 0-0 14 lDc3 lDd7 IS 24 ~1 f4
:acl f5 16 f4 liz-liz Cuijpers-Kuijf, 2S :gl i.xh41
Hilversum 1988. 26 b4
10 i.xdS Much too late. Of course captur-
11 adS ~e2+ ing the bishop allows mate in two.
12 .xe2 lDf6 26 ••• :cg8
13 ~3 0-0 27 :g2
The move order of our illustrative Capturing the knight leads to a
game was actually quite different: 6 quick mate after 27 .. .fxg3+ 28 :xg3
c4 i.e6 7 i.e2 a6 8 lDSc3 lDd4 9 i.xg3+.
lDdS i.xdS 10 cxdS lDxe2 11 'iVxe2 The game concluded: 27•••f:xg3+
i.e7 12 0-0 lDf6 13 lDc3 0-0. The 28 fxg3 i.xg3+ 29 ~gl ~ 30.0
transpositional possibilities in the l:[b4 (clearing the way for the deci-
Kalashnikov 6 c4 are mind-bending. sive entry of the queen) 31lDe3 'iVh3
14 i.e3 :ca 32 ~n 'iVhl+ 33 ~e2 .el+ 34 ~d3
IS :act ~7 lDf2+
72 Main Line: 7.i.e2 or 7.i.d3

and White resigned just before appropriate. Furthermore, 8 ... a6?! in

...l:r.d4mate. this sequence seems inaccurate since
after 8 .i.d3 there is no longer any
Game 12 real threat to the d-pawn. 8•••~
Tiviakov - Sveshnikov may gain a tempo, since White will
Podolsk 1993 probably play ~5c3 anyway.
In any case Black has a good al-
1 e4 cS ternative to 7 ... .i.e6 in 7••• ~f6 8
2 ll)f3 c!Dc6 .i.d3 (D) (not 8.i.a3 ~xe4):
3 d4 cxd4
4 ll)xd4 e5
5 ll)b5 d6
B
6 c4 .i.e7
7 .i.d3 (D)

a) 8...0-090-0 .i.g4!? (a similar

White has also tried 7 b3. Infor-
mator then claims a small advantage
for White after 7....i.e6 8 .i.d3 (8
.i.a3 'ifa5+ 9 'ifd2 'ifxd2+ 10 ~xd2
0-0-0 is not dangerous for Black)
8 •••a6 9 ll)5c3 .i.g5 10 .i.b2 ~f6 11
0-00-0 12ll)d5, but, as will be seen
in our discussion of the Tiviakov-
Sveshnikov game, White can only
justify the fianchetto of the bishop
on b2 if he achieves the f4 break. The
assessment 'unclear' seems more
idea will be seen in Anand-Arak-
hamia below) 10 f3 .i.e6 11 .i.e3
~h5 12 g3 g6 13 ~5c3 f5 14 exf5
gxf5 15 ~d2 and Black should try
15••:i'e8 rather than 15•••l:r.n, when
in Dolmatov-Sveshnikov, Podolsk
1992, White got the advantage after
16 f4! exf4 17 gxf4 ~f6 18 ~f3
ll)g4 19 'ifd2 (though admittedly the
advantage is small).
b) 8 •••.i.g4!? 9 f3 .i.e6 10 .i.e3
~h5 11 0-0 ~f4 12 ~hl 0-0 13
~5c3 .i.g5 14 l:r.el (defending
against 14 ... ~xg2!) 14... 'i'f6 15
.i.n and a draw was agreed in Yak-
ovich-Scherbakov, St. Petersburg

1993. Black is well deployed and has
no problems, but on the other hand
there are no weaknesses in White's
position. The game could have
continued 15 ... l:adS 16 ~d5 'ii'g6
(16 ...'ifh6 17 'ii'd2 threatening IS g3
could be uncomfortable) 17 ~ lc3 f5
with double-edged play.
7 ... i.e6
The game in fact began with the
move order 6...i.e6 7 i.d3 i.e7. We
will not consider lines here which
transpose to 9 i.d3 (such as S ~lc3
a6 9 ~a3 i.g5, etc.) Black has two
alternatives:
a) 7."l'iJf6 S ~lc3 a6 9 ~a3
i.g4!? 10fJ (l0i.e2i.xe211 'ii'xe2
l:cS is unclear - Kharlov) 10 ... i.e6
11 ~c2 0-0 12 i.e3 ~h5 13 g3
(stopping ... ~f4) 13 ... i.g5 14 'ii'd2
(14 i.f2 {threatening 15 f4} 14 ... g6
followed by ... l:cS with ideas of
... ~aS and ... b5100ks promising for
Black) 14 ...i.xe3 15 'ii'xe3 l:cS 16
~d5 and here, instead of 16 ... f5,
16... ~aS 17 b3 b5 IS cxb5 i.xdS 19
exd5 axb5 200-0 f5 gives Black dy-
namic play.
b) 7...a6 8 ~Sc3 i.gS 9 ~d2:
bl) 9...~ge7 100-00-0 11 a3?!
i.e6 12 ~dS ~d4 13 ~b3 i.xc114
~xe7+ (hardly the way to try for ad-
vantage) 14 ... 'ii'xe7 15 l:xcl ~c6
(now Black restrains, blockades and
finally destroys the c-pawn in good
Nimzowitschian style) 16 l:c3 as 17
'ii'd2 l:fcS IS 'ii'e3 a4 19 ~d2 ~aS
20 f4 exf4 21 'ii'xf4 l:c5 22 l:dl h6
Main Line: 7 i.e2 or 7 i.d3 73
23 i.n l:acS 24 l:dc 1 l:Sc6 25 h3
'ii'c7 26 ~h2 i.xc4 and Black won a
pawn and eventually the game in
Gufeld-Tiviakov, Podolsk 1992.
b2) 9...~f610 0-0 (D).
B
Van der Wiel is certainly one of
the most subtle practitioners of the
Kalashnikov. Here he avoided the
obvious 10... i.e6 and took the op-
portunity to reposition his knight on
a more effective square with
1O... ~7!. However, 10...i.e6 is not
at all bad either. The lines are as fol-
lows:
b21) After 10...i.e611 b3 0-0 12
i.b2 i.g4 13 i.e2 i.xe2 14 1t'xe2
~4 15 'ii'd3 i.xd2 16 1t'xd2 b5! 17
cxb5 axb5 IS f31t'b6 19 ~hl l:fcS
Black was doing perfectly well in
Anand-Arakhamia, Oakham 1990.
The fianchetto of the bishop on b2
doesn't seem to promise White
much.
b22) 10...~7! 11 l:el?! (an in-
sipid move; 11 ~f3 i.xcl 12 l:xcl
~c5 13 h3 {preventing 13 ...i.g4}
74 Main Line: 7.i.e2 or 7.i.d3

looks a better way to play, though if knight so that it can challenge a

White has any advantage it is very white knight which can be expected
small) 11 ... lLlc5 12.i.f1 0-0 13lLld5 to arrive on d5 shortly.
.i.e6 14 lLlf3 (14 b3 and 15 .i.b2
looks more sensible) 14 ... .i.xcl 15
:xcl .i.g4 and Black is slightly bet-
w
ter, since he wins control of d4;
A.Sokolov-Van der Wiel, Rotterdam
1989.
8 0·0 :c8
Sveshnikov points out that 8••• h6
(with the idea of 9....i.g5) is inadvis-
able after 9 b3! .i.g5? 10 .i.a3! at-
tacking d6.
9 b3?!
Here the fianchetto is inappropri- 13 lLlds .i.g5
ate (compare the note 'b21' to 14 lLlc2 lLle7!
Black's seventh move above). White 15 lLlce3 lLlxdS
is probably best advised to play 9 16 adS I
lLllc3 with a transposition to 9 .i.d3 16lLlxdS lLlf6! 17lLlxf6+ .i.xf6 i~
lines after 9... a6 10 lLl5a3 .i.g5, etc. equal according to Sveshnikov. '\
9 lLlf6 16 ... .i.d7
10 .i.b2 0·0 17 'ii'e2 g6
11 lLllc3 Now Black is ready to play ... f5.
l1lLld2!? planning to retreat the 18 g3
other knight to c3 was the alterna- Planning to answer 18 ... f5 with
tive. Black's best response is 19 f4!. The bishop on b2 is waiting
11 ... lLld7 intending 12 ...lLlc5 and if patiently for the chance to deal a
then .i.e2, ... f5 with complex play. devastating blow once the barrier on
Naturally, Black must play ... a6 at an e5 is removed. This e5 barrier be-
appropriate moment, to end the at- comes a focal point in the coming
tack of the knight on the d-pawn. struggle.
11 ... a6 18 ... .i.h3
12 lLla3 lLle8! (D) 19 lLlg2 .i.f6
Preparing ... f5 when appropriate, Sveshnikov gives an alternative
and, more importantly, freeing the way to challenge the bishop on b2:
bishop on e7 to move to g5. This in 19....i.h6 20 f4 exf4 21 gxf4 .i.g7
turn will vacate the e7 square for the with unclear play.
 Main Line: 7 .i.e2 or 7.i.d3 75

20 :ac1 .i.g7 30 exfS :e8

21 :Xe8 'iVxeS 31 .i.c1 c!l)f6
22 :c1 'iVd8 32 ~g2
23 ~3 .i.d7 Sveshnikovrecommends 32 ~h1
24 f4! here, giving 32...gxf5 33 ~xf5 .i.xf5
White achieves the f4 advance, 34 .i.xf5 'l'xd5 35 'l'xdS ~xdS as
but it is with a heavy heart: his king- slightly better for White. However,
side and centre are weakened in the 32...~xd5!? looks good for Black,
process. Nor does White achieve any e.g. 33 :d1? :xe3! 34 .i.xe3 'iVxe3
benefits along the al-h8 diagonal, 35 'l'xd5+ ~h8 and White has no
since the bishop on g7 counters the answer to the deadly threat of ....i.c6.
pressure. However, if White plays Instead, White must play 33 'iVxd5+
slowly then Black will advance ... f5 'l'xdS 34 ~xdS .i.c6 35 :dl.i.xd5+
with a good position. 36 :xd5 :el+ 37 ~g2 :xcl when
24 ... exf4 he should hold the draw, or 33 ~d5
25 gxf4 c!l)f6 .i.c6 34 :dl .i.xd5 35 'l'xdS+ when
Now White must seek dynamic a similar ...:el+ fork leads to a
play immediately, since Black is fairly equal endgame.
ready to pressurise White's fragile 32 ... gxf5
centre with moves like ... ~h5 and 33 :d1?!
... 'ifb6. Here Sveshnikov's suggestion
26 'iV13 ~h5 works: 33 ~xf5 .i.xf5 34 .i.xf5
27 .i.a3! 'l'xd5 35 'iVxd5+ ~xdS 36 ~f3 and
Better than 27 .i.xg7 ~xg7 in- White is slightly better.
tending 28 ... 'ii'f6 attacking f4. 33 ... 'iVai!
Sveshnikov feels that White would 34 .i.xf5?
then be in serious trouble. Time pressure inaccuracies cul-
27 ••• 'iVf6?! minate in a losing blunder. White is
According to Sveshnikov, Black only slightly worse after 34 .i.d2
should play 27....i.d4!? 28 ~g2 (not ~ 35 .i.el (Sveshnikov).
28 .i.xd6 'ifb6) 28 ...'I'f6 with a good 34 'iVxa2+
position for Black. 35 ~h1 :Xe3
28 :n 'iVd4 36 .i.xh7+ ~xh7
29 .i.b1 f5?! 37 'iVxe3 .i.f5
It appears that White has the bet- 38 .i.d2 ~d5
ter chances after this move, so Black 39 'iV13 c!l)f6
should prefer 29...'iVb6 30 e5 .i.h6 40 'iVg3 'iVa
with unclear play (Sveshnikov). 0-1
4 The Tactical 6 ttJlc3

Game 13 a) 8••• ~e7 breaks all the classi-

Jonsson - Zsu.Polgar cal rules about not moving a piece,
Egilsstadir 1988 especially a knight, twice in the
opening. However, in the main line
1 e4 c5 after 8 ... iDge7 9 c4 Black is more or
2 00 ~6 less obliged to play 9 ... iDd4 to hold
3 d4 cxd4 his position together, so in any case
4 llllcd4 e5 he cannot avoid losing time with his
5 iDbS d6 knight; besides, the elimination of
6 iDlc3 a6 White's knight on d5 is strategically
7 lDa3 bS very desirable. White now has two
8 iDdS (D) ideas:
al) 9 c4iDxd5 10 exd5 bxc4 11
iDxc4 i.e7 (preparing the ... f5
vance; 11...iDf6 didn't work out weI
ad!
B
in Grosar-Sveshnikov, Bled 1990 af
ter 12 i.e3 llb8 13 a4 i.e7 14 i.e2
0-0 150-0 i.b7 16iDb6iDe4 17 a5,
when Black was in a bind on the
queenside) 12 i.d2 a5 (he must stop
13 i.a5) 13 g3 (Informator52 men-
tions 13 'iVa4+?! i.d7 14 'iVa3iDf6!
as to Black's advantage in view of
the weakness on d5; 15 iDxd6+?
This is one of the critical positions ~f8 leaves the knight in danger of
in the Kalashnikov. being lost after 16 ... 'iVb8) 13 ... f5 14
8 ••• iDge7 i.g2 iDf6 15 0-0 (15 'iVa4+?! i.d7
A logical reply, developing and 16 'iVa3 i.b5! 17 iDxa5 0-0 gives
challenging the knight on dS. This is Black full dynamic compensation
my main recommendation, but just for the pawn in view of White's
in case someone finds a refutation of clumsily placed pieces and his in-
this move, here is a brief round-up of ability to castle kingside; Lanka-
the alternatives: Fossan, Gausdal 1991) 15 ... 0-0 16

f4! (better than 16 ~xe5!? dxe5 17
d6 e4! 18 dxe7 'ilxe7 which is un-
clear) is Lanka's analysis; he claims
a small advantage to White. I think
another 'unclear' is more appropri-
ate, e.g. 16...i.a6!? with an awkward
pin on the knight or perhaps
16...~4!? 17 fxe5 i.a6.
a2) White has also tried to blow
Black's brains out with 9 i.g5 h6 10
i.xb5!? axb5 11 ~xb5 (DJ.
B
Now:
a21) Of course not the awful
11•.• hxg5?? 12 ~c7+.
a22) Silman thinks that 11...:a7
may be stronger since 12 ~xa7
'ila5+ favours Black; White of
course has many alternatives such as
120-0 or the direct 12 ~xd6+ 'ilxd6
13 ~f6+ ~xf6 14 'ilxd6 hxg5 with
an interesting material balance.
a23) 11...:a6 is the usual move:
12 ~dc7+ (12 ~bc7+ ~d7 13
'ilg4+ f5 14 exf5 ~f6 15 i.xf6 gxf6
160-0~xd517~xd5i.b718:fdl
i.e7 19 'ilc4 looked dangerous in
The Tactical 6 ~l c3 77
Kindermann-Bischoff, Munich 1987,
but Black managed to consolidate
with 19 ...'ilc8 20 'ilb3 ~e8 and
eventually won with the aid of his
extra piece) 12 .. .'~)d7 13 'ild2!? (an
incredible move! White wants to
capture the rook on a6 without al-
lowing ... 'ila5+) 13 ...hxg5 14 ~xa6
~c6 (Black begins to unwind his
pieces; 14 ...i.xa6? 15 'ilxd6+ and
16 'ilxa6+ would be catastrophic) 15
~ac7 ~d4 (blocking the d-file) 16
0-0-0 i.b7 17 ~xd4 'ilxc7 18 ~b5
and now instead of 18......00 (as
played in Edelman-Benjamin, New
York Hudson 1993 when 19 'iIb4 in-
troduced dangerous ideas of 20
~xd6) Black should play 18...""6
with a balanced position. The con-
clusion on White's sacrifice seems to
be that it is dangerous, but if Black is
careful he has at least equal chances;
after all, he has a 100% score in this
variation!
We can conclude that 8 ... ~ce7 is
interesting and theoretically unre-
futed, but personally I do not trust it
as much as 8...~ge7.
b) 8...i.e7 is recommended by
Silman, who regards it as one of
Black's best choices:
bl) 9 c3 is harmless. 9...~f6 10
~xf6+ i.xf6 11 ~2 0-0 12 i.e2
~e7 13 i.f3 i.b7! (Black fights for
the d5 square) 14 ~e3 g6 (and now
he fianchettoes his bishop as a pre-
liminary to the ... f5 advance) 150-0
i.g7 16 a4 was played in Hughes-
78 The Tactical 6 Q:j1 c3
Silman, Los Angeles 1990, and now
Silman says that either 16 ... bxa4 or
16.....c7 gives Black a comfortable
game.
b2) 9 c4 b4 gives White another
choice:
b21) After 10 Q:jxb4 Q:jxb4 11
"a4+ .i.d7 12 'iVxb4 dS opinions
vary from 'unclear' (Sveshnikov) to
'Black should be doing very well'
(Silman). Timoshchenko also agrees
that it is inadvisable to take the
pawn, since he rejected this possibil-
ity when he had White in our illustra-
tive game. He is our most trustworthy
commentator, since actions always
speak louder than words!
b22) 10 Q:jc2 (D) and now it is
Black's turn to make a decision:
B
b221) Sveshnikov recommends
10...':b8, e.g. 11 "d3?! Q:jf6 12
Q:jxf6+ .i.xf6 13 .i.e2 0-0 14 0-0
.i.e6 IS b3 as 16 a3 a4 when Black
was doing quite well in Bokan-
Sveshnikov, Moscow 1989, but as
Silman points out, White could have
gained a small advantage after 11
.i.d3 Q:jf6 120-00-013 a3 bxa3 14
':xa3 (diverging from 14 b4? which
turned out badly in Perenyi-Holzl,
Budapest 1988 after 14 ... Q:jxdS IS
cxdS Q:jxb4 16 Q:jxb4 ':xb4). We
should point out that White's advan-
tage here is very small and hardly in-
validates the system (no more than
White's advantage after 1 e4 invali-
dates 1...cS).
b222) 10••• a5?! 11 .i.e3 ':b8 12
.i.e2 Q:jf6 13 'iVd3 ti::Jd7 (Sveshnikov
suggests 13 ... Q:jg4) 14 Q:jxe7 ~xe7
IS l:tdl 'iVc7 16 .i.g4 ':d8 17 .i.xd7
.i.xd7 18 cS?! (180-0 intending 19
f4 gives White a slight advantage ac-
cording to Sveshnikov) 18 ....i.g4! 19
f3 dxcS 20 .i.xcS+ ~e8 21 .i.d6?!
(here Sveshnikov says White must
play 21 'iVe2 when Black is only
slightly better) 21...'iVb6 22 fxg4
':xd6! 23 'iVxd6 ':d8 24 'iVd5! ':xdS
2S exdS and in the game Timosh-
chenko-Sveshnikov, Moscow 1989,
Black had a small advantage after
2S ... b3. Sveshnikov thinks 2S ... ti::Je7
26 d6 'iVcS! 27 ':d2 Q:jdS! is better
still, when Black has good winning
chances.
c) 8...':b8, as Silman points out,
will probably transpose to lines con-
sidered under 'b221' after 9 c4 b4 10
ti::Jc2 .i.e7 11 .i.d3 Q:jf6. This in fact
was the way the Perenyi-Holzl game
began.
d) Finally, 8••• ti::Jf6 would stray
out of our territory into a Sveshnikov

(after 9 .tgs) and so is not discussed
here.
9 .tgS
White's alternatives 9 c3 and 9 c4
will be discussed in the next game.
9 h6(D)
w
looking good for Black,
but the alternatives are no better:
a) 10 .txe7? &iJxe7 11 .te2 (a
very feeblejinale to White's aggres-
sive build-up) 11. .. &iJxds 12.xds
.te6 13 .c6+ .td7 14 .ds l:tc8 15
'ii'd3 ds! 16.xds (16 exds .a5+
and now 17 .d2 .tb4 18 c3 l:txc3!
or 17 ~f1 .txa3 18 bxa3 l:tc3 19
.e4 0-0 with a strong initiative for
Black) 16....a5+ 17 ~f1 .txa3 18
bxa3 .c3 19 l:tdl .te6 20 .d6
.xc2 21 .tf3 (21 .xa6 0-0 wins)
21. ....cs 22 ~el .xd6 23 l:txd6
~e7 24 l:txa6 l:tc1+ 25 .tdl l:thc8
and White couldn't escape from the
pin on the ftrst rank. Black won on
move 32 in Steinert-Klinger, Zurich
1991.
The Tactical 6 &iJlc3 79
b) 10 .th4 .a5+! (this is strong
now that White can't play .td2) 11
c3 (Black is clearly better in the
endgame after 11 .d2 .xd2+ 12
~xd2 &iJxds 13 exds &iJe7, since the
d-pawn is very weak) 11...&iJxdS 12
.xdS .c7 13 &iJc2 .te6 14 .d2
.te7 15 .txe7 &iJxe7 16 &iJe3 and I
think Black is very comfortable:
bl) The game Erneste-Velikhani,
USSR 1987 went 16...l:td8 17 a4 0-0
18 axbs axbs 19 .txbs ~7 20.td3
ds and Black had an initiative ac-
cording to Moroz. However, after 21
exds .txds (21...&iJxds 22 .te4) 22
0-0, I can't find a convincing line for
Black, e.g. 22 ....te4 23 .txe4, 22...e4
23 .ta6 or 22 ....txg2 23 &iJxg2 e4 24
.ta6.
b2) However, Black can simply
play 16...0-0, e.g.:
b21) 17 .te2 l:tfd8 intending
...dSl=.
b22) 1784 gives Black a choice
between 17 ... l:tfd8!?,and 17 ... l:tab8
followed by ...l:tfd8 and ...dS.
b23) 17 g3 l:tfd8 18 .tg2 l:td7 19
0-0l:tad8 20l:tfdl.cs (threatening
...ds) 21 &iJds &iJxds 22 exds .tg4
and Black is slightly better.
c) 10 .txbS axbS (not lO ... hxgs
11 &iJxe7 axbs 12 &iJxc6 ~6 13
&iJb4 l:th4 14 .d3 {better than 14
0-0 as played in Sofieva-Arakhamia.
Tbilisi 1987, when 14 ...l:txe4 15
&iJdS "c6 16 &iJxbs l:ta5 allowed
complications} 14....tb7 15 f3 fS 16
&iJdS .txdS 17 "xds .e3+ 18 ~f1
80 The Tactical 6liJl c3
:xa3 19 :e1 'ii'c5 20 'ii'xc5 dxc5 21
bxa3 and White was winning in
Meladze-Ivaniuk, corr 1990-91) 11
liJxbS reaches a very sharp position:
c1) 11••• hxgS?? 12 liJdc7+ ~d7
13 'ii'xd6 is mate.
c2) 11...J.e6? was tried in Mel-
adze-Poletaer, corr 1990-91. After
12 liJdc7+ ~d7 13 'ii'xd6+ ~c8
White could have played 14 liJxa8
'ii'xd6 15 liJxd6+ ~b8 16 J.xe7
J.xe7 17liJxf7 J.xf7 18liJb6 with a
clear advantage, or 14 'ii'xd8+ liJxd8
15 J.xe7 J.xe7 16liJxa8 J.b4+ 17
c3J.a5 18 b4 and White is again bet-
ter, according to Moroz (the last line
looks winning for White).
c3) 11...~d7? is suggested by
Sveshnikov (without analysis). Then
12 liJdc7? liJd4! looks good for
Black, but 12 liJxd6! is a killer:
Black loses his queen after either
12...~d6? 13liJxe7+ ~c7 (13...~c5
14 J.e3+ liJd4 15liJxc8 intending 16
c3 +-; 13 ...liJd4 is met by 14liJf5+)
14 liJd5+ 01' 12...hxgS 13 liJxf7
'ii'a5+ 14 b4! liJxb4 15liJxb4+ ~e8
16liJd6+ ~d8 17liJc4+.
c4) 11...:a7! (D) and now:
c41) 12liJdc7+ :xc7 13liJxd6+
'ii'xd6 (not 13 ... ~d7 14liJxf7+) 14
'ii'xd6 :d7 15 'ii'c5 hxg5 16 0-0
gives a very interesting material bal-
ance: queen and three passed pawns
versus four minor pieces. One imag-
ines that it must be good for Black.
However, White's king is fairly safe
and once he plays :ad1 followed by
w
advancing his queenside pawns it
won't be easy for Black. This line
has never been played in practice.
The nearest example is:
c42) 12 liJf6+ gxf6 13 liJxd6+
'ii'xd6 14 'ii'xd6 fxg5 (Silman con-
siders 14 ... hxg5 to leave White with
a completely hopeless position; then
15 'ii'xf6 seems foolish, since after
15 ...:h6 16 'ii'xg5 :g6lines are be~
ing opened against White's king, but
150-0 and maybe 15 a4!? don't look
too bad for White) 15 0-0 h5 16 c3
(16 b4 looks better) 16...:h6 17
'ii'd2 J.g4 (17 ...J.e6 is more accu-
rate) and now instead of 18 O? (as
played in Meladze-Diviakov, corr
1990-91) which weakens his king-
side, White should try 18 b4. Ad-
vancing the queens ide pawns leads
to very obscure play. Basically, we
need to wait for some grandmaster
games in this line - preferably Shi-
rov against Sveshnikov!
c43) 12 J.e3 is given by Silman
as best, when after 12... liJxdS, 13
'ii'xdS :a6 140-0-0 J.e6 15liJxd6+

i.xd6 16 'ii'xd6 'ii'xd6 17 l:lxd6
l:lxa2! is 'only' some advantage to
Black, whilst 13 exd5 looks more
testing, although both 13••:.a5+ 14
~31C.e7 15 i.xa7 'ii'xa7 160-0 and
13•••l:la5 14 c4 li:Je7 15 0-0 li:Jf5 16
b4li:Jxe3 17 fxe3 l:la6 18 a4 look :j:.
c44) 12li:Jxa7? is bad in view of
12...'ii'aS+ followed by ... 'ii'xa7.
So we may conclude that none of
the 10th move alternatives for White
are dangerous. However, Black must
know some of the theory. It is not
easy to find moves like 11...l:la7 with
your clock running!
10 ••• i.e6!
a) Sveshnikov suggests the ex-
change sacrifice 10•••hxg5!? He
gives 11 'i'xh8li:Jxd5 12 exdS 'i'a5+
13 c3 b4 14 li:Jc4 (14 dxc6 bxa3
{14 ... bxc3!?} 15 b4 'WcI5is unclear)
14•••'i'xd5 (D) claiming Black has
good play.
w
We can analyse this further:
al) 15 li:Jb6 'i'e4+ (15 ... 'ii'aS I?)
16 i.e2? 'ii'xg2 17 0-0-0 l:lb8 18
The Tactical 6li:J1 c3 81
li:Jxc8 l:lxc8 19 c4 'ii'xf2 20 i.h5
li:Jd4 looks very good for Black.
a2) 15 l:ldl 'ii'e4+ 16 i.e2 'ii'xg2
17li:Jxd6+ <lie7 18 <lid2!? bxc3+ 19
bxc3 (19 <liclli:Jd4!?) 19 ...i.e6 and
again Black has an excellent posi-
tion.
a3) White's best is probably 15
l:ldl W'e4+ 16 li:Je3! and unfortu-
nately he seems to be better, e.g.:
a3l) 16••• bxc3 17 bxc3 i.e6 18
i.d3 'ii'a4 19 0-0 and White can hope
to start an attack on Black's king
which has nowhere safe to hide.
a32) 16•••i.e6 17 i.d3 'ii'h4 18
'ii'xh4 gxh4 19 i.e4.
So, unless an improvement is
found, 1O... hxg5100ks not quite sat-
isfactory. In any case, the main line
is good for Black, so why should he
sacrifice the exchange?
b) 10...'i'a5+ is another alterna-
tive, when after 11 i.d2 'ii'd8, Lpu-
tian-Sveshnikov, Sochi 1987, went
12 i.g5 'ii'aS+ 13 i.d2 1/2- 1/2. In
Baranauskas-Toleikis, corr 1988-90
White preferred to invest some post-
age stamps with 12 c4!? li:Jxd5 13
cxd5. N ow Black should play
13 ... li:Jd4! when White must be care-
ful, e.g. after 14 l:lc1? g6! 15 'ii'dl
'i'h4 16 i.d3 i.g4 -+ the white
queen is trapped on dl! So 14 i.d3 is
wiser, but Black is comfortable after
14 ... i.e7 followed by 15 ... i.g5, etc.
(Unless of course White plays the
risky 15 h4).
11 i.d3
82 The Tactical 6liJl c3

In Mfu:kelbergh - Fauland-Borek,
Debrecen worn Echt 1992, White
B
tried 11 c3. Play went 1l •••l:b8 12
l:dl i.xd5 13 exd5 liJd4 14 l:d2?!
g6 15 "h3 and now 15 ... i.g7 16
i.xe7 (16 i.e3liJf5 is very good for
Black) 16... ~xe7 followed by ...l:e8
and ... ~f8 looks good for Black. It
should be remembered that Black is
playing to refute White's set-up.
Equality is not good enough!
11 ••• l:b8 12 ••• liJd4!
12 c4 (D) 12.....d7 13 cxb5leads to unclear
Or 12 0-0 "d7 (threatening both complications.
13 ... i.g4 and 13 ...liJxd5) 13 liJxe7 13 cxb5?
(13 i.xe7 i.xe7 intending ... i.g4) Now White should bailout with
13...liJxe7 14 i.e3 and now: 13 i.xe7 though 13 ... i.xe7 leaves
a) 14•••liJg6 15 "e2 (or 15 "f3 Black with the better game.
i.e7, intending 16 ... i.g4 followed 13 bxg5!!
by 17 ...i.h4, winning; or 15 h3liJf4, 14 "xh8 liJxd5
etc.) 15 ... liJf4 16 i.xf4 (16 "d2 15 exdS "&5+
liJxd3 ;) 16... exf4 17 "d2 (17 "f3 16 ~dl
g5! is very dynamic) 17 ... f3 !? (or 16 ~n "d2!! wins: 171r'h7 g6 or
17 ... g5!?) 18 g3 g5 and the bishop 17 i.c4 i.xd5! 18 i.xd5 (18 1r'h3
will be extremely strong on g7. i.xc4+ 19liJxc4 "e2+ picks up the
b) In Huerg-Alonso, Cuba 1988, knight on c4) 18 .....d3+ with a
Black preferred 14•••i.g4 15 1r'h4 smothered mate after ... liJe2+ (note
liJg6 16 "g3 i.e7 17 h3 i.e6 18 c3 by Zsuzsa Polgar in lnformator 46).
0-0 19 liJc2 a5 20 l:fdl l:fc8 and 16 ••• i.g4+
now Alonso says that after 21 i.c1 17 0
followed by manoeuvring the knight 17 ~c1 l:c8+ 18 ~bl "d2 19
on c2 to d5 White is equal. Black is i.e4 i.dl -+ (Polgar).
comfortable here but White has 17 ... liJxO!
hardly been punished for his over- 18 pO
aggressive play. Mate was threatened on d2, and
However, 12 c4 looks bad, so 18liJc4 (hoping for 18 .....xb5?? 19
White should certainly try one of liJxd6+) 18 ...liJd4+ 19 ~cl l:c8 (in-
these lines. tending 20 ... axb5 winning) 20 ~bl
 The Tactical 6lO] c3 83

l:txc4! 21 ~xc4 'ft'd2 22 a3 'ft'c2+ 23 22 'ii'h3!

'iita2 'ft'xc4+ 24 'iitb 1 ~f5 is mate. An easy move to miss. Now
IS ••• ~xf3+ 22•••l:tc7 is still good but one mistake
19 'iitc2 leads to another.
Or 19 ~e2 'ft'a4+ 20 b3 'ft'd4+, 22 ••• / "86?
when Black wins - Polgar. 23%n!
19 ••• l:tcS+ Now White is threatening 24
20 ~c4 (D) l:txn 'iitxf7 25 'ft'e6 mate. The re-
The only move, since 20 'iitb3 maining notes are based on Polgar's
~xd5+ 21 lOc4 axb5 is immediate comments.
death. 23 ••• f6
Not 23•••l:tc7 24 l:txf7! l:txf7 25
~xb5+ winning Black's queen, nor
23 ... 'ft'b7 24 l:txf7!
B
24"e6+ 'iitdS
24...~e7 25 l:tf3! intending l:th3
is winning for White.
Now White could force a draw
with 25 "gS 'iite7 26 'ft'e6+ but
rightly decides to play for an advan-
tage.
"f7
25
26 "gS+
~e7
'iitd7
20 ••• ~xhl? 27"e6+ 'iitdS
Black has played brilliantly so far 28 l:tf3!? bxc4
but the calculation of an immense 29 l:th3 "84+
number of variations takes its toll. 30 'iitc1 "eS
Here 20...axb5! wins, e.g. 21 l:thn Not 30.....d7 31 l:thS+ 'iitc7 32
(21 'ft'h3 g4) 21 ... ~e4+ 22 'iitc 1 bxc4 lOb5+ and wins.
and ... c3 leads to a quick mate (Pol- 31 l:tc3 .tm
gar). A better defence is 21 'ii'h7! 32 'ii'h3?!
with the idea 21 ••• bxc4 22 'ft'f5! hit- Here 32 "xeS+ 'iitxeS 32 l:txc4
ting cS and n, whilst 21...g6 22 l:txc4 34 lOxc4 is slightly better for
l:thfl ~e4+ 23 'iitdl is obscure. White because of his passed a- and
However, 21...~xd5 22 l:thd 1 bxc4 b-pawns, coupled with Black's poor
or simply 21 •••~xhI22 l:txhl bxc4 bishop.
should win easily enough. 32 "d7
22 l:txhl axb5 33 'ii'hS?
84 The Tactical 6l:iJl c3

White loses the thread com- 9 c4

pletely. 33 "xd7+ ~xd7 34 l:txc4 We must look at 9 c3 here. It
should be tried, with an endgame shouldn't be dangerous; Black's one
similar to that in the note above. problem is that he may over-react.
33 ~e7 9...l:iJxd5 and now:
34 1:iJxc4 "g4 a) 10 "xd5 .i.b7 (or 1O... 'it'c7
35 1:iJe3 followed by 11.. ..i.e6) 11 'ifd3 l:tc8
Suddenly the co-ordination of 12 .i.e2I:iJb8!? 13 .i.f3 d5! 14 exd5
White's pieces is broken and his king .i.xa3 15 bxa3 0-0 16 0-0 f5 17 .i.d 1
comes under attack. 35 b3 is also un- e4 (17 ... .i.xd5100ks better) 18 'it'g3
satisfactory: 35 ... 'ifgl + 36 ~b2 .i.xd5 ; Saltaev-Stripunsky, Mied-
'it'g2+ followed by 37 ...'ifxd5 when zybrodzie Zyw. 1991. Black's free-
the central mass of passed pawns ing manoeuvre is very interesting
gives Black a winning position. and should be carefully noted. The
35 l:txc3+ game continued 19 .i.f4 I:iJd7 20
36 bxc3 "f3! .i.b3 .i.xb3 21 axb3 'it'f6 22 c4 bxc4
37 ~d2 f5 23 bxc4 I:iJc5 24 .i.e5 'it'f7 25 .i.d6
White has no answer to the fear- l:tfe8 26 .i.xc5 l:txc5 and Black won
some passed pawns. the c-pawn and then the game.
38 "g8 b) 10 exd5 (D).
39 ~d3 e4+
40 ~c4 "xe3
41 "00+ ~d8
B
42 "xf5 "f4
0-1

Game 14
Hodgson - Lputian
Sochi1987

1 e4 c5
2 00 1:iJc6
3 d4 cxd4 If White feels obliged to make
4 I:iJxd4 e5 this antipositional capture then his
5 I:iJb5 d6 position can't be worth much. Now
6 I:iJlc3 a6 Garcia Martinez-Sveshnikov, Mos-
7 I:iJa3 b5 cow 1987, went 1O... l:iJe7 11 c4 g6!
8 I:iJd5 I:iJge7 (after this pawn sacrifice the game

resembles a variation of the Benko
Gambit where White has let his cen-
tre be undermined) 12 cxb5 j.g7 13
bxa6 0-0 14 lDc2 (Olthof recom-
mends 14 j.c4 j.xa6 150-0 which
at least completes development)
14 ... 'ifa5+! 15 b4 'ifa4 16 b5 e4 17
l%bl j.g4!. Now White's position is
tottering, since the natural 18 j.e2
j.xe2 19 'ifxe2 (19 ~xe2 lDxd5!)
19 ... lDxd5 threatening ...1Dc3 is
hopeless for White. Also bad are 18
'iVxg4 'ifxc2 (threatening ... j.c3+
and also attacking the rook on b 1)
and 18 1i'd2 l%ac8 19 l%b3 'ifxa2.
Play continued 18 f3 exf3 19 gxf3
j.fS 20 l%b3 (20 j.d3 lDxd5)
20...~4+ 21 ~e2 and now:
bl) Sveshnikov should have
played 21 ... j.xc2 22 'iVxc2:
b 11) After 22...l%ac8, Olthof
gives 23 "d1lDf5 winning at once
for Black; White has no defence
against 24 ...l%fe8+. Instead, 23 "e4!
looks like a reasonable chance, e.g.
23 .....xe4+ 24 fxe4 l%xcl 25 b6, and
the white pawns are very difficult to
stop.
b12) So probably 22...lDf5! is an
improvement, since "e4 is then not
a defensive possibility. After 23 ~d 1
l%fe8 (threatening mate on el) 24
j.d2 l%ac8 25 "d3 j.h6! intending
26 .....el+! 27 j.xel l%cl (it's easy
to be brilliant in such a position)
White is overwhelmed.
b2) Instead Sveshnikov chose
21 ...l%fe8, which should be good
The Tactical 6lDI c3 85
enough to win, but in the end he lost
all his advantage and then blundered
a piece to lose the game as well. We
have all experienced what happened
to Sveshnikov in this game. You have
a crushing position but you can't
quite finish your opponent off. You
calculate endless variations looking
for the absolutely 100% sure win.
One variation is piled on another, but
still the win remains elusive. Then
you drift into time pressure, get con-
fused, and not only does the win es-
cape, but so does the draw!
9 ... lDd4(D)
10 1Dc2
This doesn't prove dangerous. 10
j.e3 is considered in the next game,
while 10 cxbS is examined in the
next game but one.
10 ... lDxdS
11 adS
Or 11lDxd4lDf6 12lDc2 j.b7 ;.
11 ... j.g4!
This solves all Black's problems.
12 "d2
86 The Tactical 6lD.l c3
The natural 12 f3 runs headlong
into 12 ... 'it'h4+! 13 g3lD.xf3+, win-
ning.
12 ~c2+
13 "xc2 ie7
14 id3 0-0
15 0-0 :eS
16 ""3 igS! (D)
Forcing the thematic exchange of
dark-squared bishops. Black is al-
ready better.
w
17 ixgS
White can fall into a nasty trap
here: 17 h3 walks into 17 ... ixh3! 18
gxh3 ixcl with ... 'ii'gS+ to follow.
An attempt was made to improve
White's play in Gild.Garcia-Granda,
Salamanca 1988: 17 f4? exf4 18
ixf4 ixf419 :xf4, butWhite'se-
pawn was then very weak and Black
gradually improved his position:
19 ... 'ii'gS 20 :fft :fe8 21 :ael
'ii'd2! (tying up all White's pieces;
note how weak the dark squares have
become in White's position) 22 ~hl
:eS (now eS is a wonderful square
for a black piece; the rook blockades
the e-pawn, is perfectly safe from at-
tack and can be used as a spring-
board from which to start an attack
on White's king with ...:gS or
...:h5) 23 h3 (another weakness, but
White has no constructive plan)
23 ... ihS 24 ibl fS 2S 'ii'a3 (the
onl y chance is counterattack against
d6). Now Black should play 2S•• .f4
26 'ii'xd6 (26 "xa6 :f8 27 'ii'xd6 f3
wins) 26 ... f3! 27 :gl (27 gxf3
ixf3+) 27 ... fxg2+ (but not 27 ... f2?
28 'ii'xeS fxe l'ii' 29 'ii'e6+ and White
wins) 28 ~h2 (28 :xg2 'ii'xel+ 29
:gl if3+) 28 ... 'ii'f4+ 29 ~xg2
:gS+, winning. Instead, he played
2S...:ce8? 26 'ii'xd6 ie2?! (26 ... f4
still looks strong) and even lost after
27 :gl fxe4 28 'ii'c6 b4 29 d6 ibS
30 'ii'c7 :Se6 31 :dl 'ii'f4 32 ic2!
(the bishop, which has spent the
whole game entombed, comes to life
with the threat of 33 ib3) 32 ...~h8
33 ib3 :h6 34 'ii'f7 (34 ic4 is bet-
ter, e.g. 34 ... ixc4 3S d7!) 34 ...:f6
(here 34 ... 'ii'xf7 3S ixf7 :d8 wins
the d6-pawn {36 :gel ic6}, but
Black had evidently become unset-
tled by the unexpected tum of events
and time-pressure may also have
been a factor) 3S 'ii'dS e3 36 :d4
'ii'f2 37 d7 :d8 38 :e4 e2 39 ic4
:fS 40 :e8+ 1-0. Apparently this
was a loss on time, although 40...:f8
41 :xe2 is still good for White.
17 "xgS
18 :rel f5
 The Tactical 6 CiJl c3 87

18•••'ifd2 a la Granda also looks 29 l:tb4 l:t8c4

good. After the game move White is 30 l:tdb3 ~!
left with a weak d-pawn, which, in Not the impatient JO...l:tcS 31
combination with Black's control l:ta3. Now if White does nothing
of the only open file, gives Black ex- Black will improve his king's posi-
cellent winning chances in the tion. Therefore White decides to
endgame. swap rooks, even though he cannot
19 exfS .i.xfS save both his a- and d-pawns .
20 l:te3 .i.xd3 31 l:txc4 l:txc4
21 'ifxd3 'it'h4! (D) 32 ~ l:ta4!
So that 33 a3 l:td4 wins the d-
pawn without allowing l:ta3.
33 l:tc3 l:tx&2
34 l:tc7+ <i1'6
3S l:td7 e4
A good move, allowing the king
to restrain White's passect d-pawn.
36 l:txd6+ ~eS
37 l:td8 l:txb2
38 d6 l:t&2
39 d7 ~e6
40 ~e1 ~e7
A notable manoeuvre to exchange 41 l:th8
queens and thereby kill off any A forlorn struggle. The two
counterattacking notions. The rest is passed pawns give Black a technical
an awesome example of Soviet tech- win.
nique. Perhaps White should have 41 ~xd7
played the Trompowsky? 42 l:txh4 b4
22 l:tn 'ifc4 43 l:txe4 as
23 'ifxc4 l:txc4 44 ~dl ~c6
24 l:ta3 l:ta8 4S l:tg4 b3
2S l:tdl l:tc2 46 ~c1 ~b5
26 l:tb3 l:tac8 47 f4 l:tc2+
27 h3 hS! 48 ~b1 a4
28 l:tdd3 h4 49 l:txg7 a3
Fixing White's kingside pawns, 50 l:tb7+ ~c4
so that there will never be any coun- 0·1
terplay with g3 and f4. A very instructive game.
88 The Tactical 6 0.1 c3

Game 15
Mlchalek- Holemar B
Prague 1992

1 e4 cS
2 W 0.c6
3 d4 ad4
4 lDxd4 eS
5 0.b5 d6
6 0.1c3 a6
7 0.&3 b5
8 0.d5 0.ge7 b 11) B lack played the ambitious
9 c4 0.d4 13...f5? in Rodriguez-Estevez, Cam-
10 ~e3 lDxdS aguey 1988. This allowed White to
11 exdS simplify things in his favour with 14
This move has not proved danger- ~xd4 exd4 15 exf5 ~xf5 16 0.c2
ous, and the alternative 11 adS ~e7 ~d7 17 ~e4 ~f6 18 "d3 g6 19
has come in for more scrutiny: 0.xd4 when he was a pawn up with a
a) In A.Runt-McDonald, Maid- winning position.
stone 1994, White took the pawn: 12 b12) 13...~d7 has been played
~xd4 exd4 13 "xd4, but he was three times:
gunned down by Black's powerful b121) Richmond-Gullaksen, De-
dark-squared bishop after 13 ... ~g5 brecen Echt 1992, went 14 "d2
(ruling out the queen's retreat to d2) "b8 (Black fears 14 .....b6 15 0.c2
14 ~d3 (14 ~e2 is a bit better, but and 16 0.xd4;t;; in Kotronias-Niko-
not 14 "xg7? ~f6 and 15 ... ~xb2 laidis, Athens 1993, Black tried
winning) 14 ... 0-0 15 0.c2 ~f6 16 14 ... l:tc8 but was uncomfortable af-
"b4 a5 17 'it'b3 a4 18 'it'b4 (or 18 ter 15 f4! 'it'b6 16 0.c2 ~f6 and now
"a3 "a5+ 19 0.b4 ~d4 and then instead of 17 fxe5, Nikolaidis gives
20 ... ~c5) 18 ... a3! 19 bxa3 (the bet- 17 0.xd4 exd4 18 ~f2 intending
ter 19 0.xa3 l:ta4 20 'it'b3 "a5+ 21 l:tae 1 as a clear advantage to White)
~e2 l:tb4 still gives Black a strong 15 l:tfc1 a5 (15 ... l:tc8 immediately
attack) 19... ~xa1 and Black won. looks better; Black should not
b) Things are much more com- weaken his pawns unnecessarily) 16
plicated if White simply develops 0.c2 0.xc2 17 l:txc2 l:tc8 18 l:tac1
with 12 ~d3!. l:txc2 19 l:txc2 'it'b7 20 "c1 ~d8
b1) Then 12•.• 0-0 130-0 (D) is and having solidified the queenside
the normal continuation: Black began counterplay with ...f5.
 The Tactical 6 tLll c3 89

b122) In Nasekovsky-Yaremko,
corr 1990-91, White preferred to in-
w
augurate play on the kingside: 14 f4
.i.f6 15 .i.xd4 exd4 16 ~hl g6 17
'iVf3. Here 17 ... .i.g7 18 tLlc2 'iVh4
followed by ...:ae8 and possibly
... g5!? to weaken White's hold on e5
and undermine his kingside pawns
looks like good counterplay.
b13) Rodriguezrecommendsthe
careful 13....i.f6 followed by ...'iVb6
and ... .i.d7 with a solid position for b23) 14 0-0 'iVxd2 15 .i.xd2 0-0
Black. After 14 tLlc2 (14 :cl .i.d7 16 .i.e3 f5.
15 .i.xd4?! exd4 16 tLlc2 'iVb6 fol- In all these variations Black has
lowed by ...:fc8 yields good coun- the initiative in an unclear position.
terplay) 14 ... tLlxc2 15 'iVxc2 .i.g5!? As is usual in such cases, the idea
16 'iVc6 (16 .i.xg5 'iVxg5 {intending needs a practical test.
... .i.h3} 17 ~h 1 .i.d7 and ...:fc8 is 11 ••• tLJrS!
equal) 16....i.xe3! 17 'iVxa8 (17 fxe3 12 .i.d2 (D)
'iVg5! 18'iVxa8.i.h319'iVxf8+~xf8 White must keep his dark-squared
20 :f2 .i.xg2! is winning for Black) bishop.
17 ... .i.c5! White's queen is suddenly
in trouble, e.g. 18 'iVc6 'iVe7! and
... .i.b7 wins, or 18 b4 .i.xb4 19 :acl
B
.i.c5. Meanwhile, Black threatens
... 'iVd7 and ... .i.b7 or ...'iVg5 and
... .i.h3.
b2) This variation is relatively
unexplored, but I think I have found
a promising idea for Black. Instead
of the automatic 12... 0-0 he could try
12•••'iV&5+!1 (D).
Now after 13 'iVd2 .i.d8, possible
continuations are: 12 ••• g6!1
b21) 14 .i.xd4 exd4 15 'iVxaS Garcia-Lputian, Saint John 1988
.i.xaS+ 16 ~e2 0-017 tLJc2 f5. went 12....i.e713 .i.d3 (around here
b22) 14 :c1 'iVxd2+ 15 ~xd2 White could of course snatch the b-
.i.aS+ 16 ~dl f5. pawn, but after 13 cxb5 0-0 14 bxa6
90 The Tactical 6liJ1 c3

J.xa6 the knight on a3 is offside and Very convincing play by Black.

the d5-pawn is weak; Black would This game shows the danger of
also have pressure along the a- and snatching queenside pawns without
b-files - all in all, Black would have due care.
enough for the pawn) 13••• J.f6 14
:'bl (14 ... e4, followed by ...J.xb2, Game 16
was threatened and if 14 'iib 1, then Smirin - Shirov
14 ... J.g5! 15 J.c3liJb4 160-0 J.f4 Klaipeda 1988
and .....g5 gives Black a strong at-
tack, according to Lputian in In/or- 1 e4 c5
mator 45) 14...0-0 15 0-0 and here 2 liJo lDc6
Black may play: 3 d4 cxd4
a) 15•••g6 was Lputian's choice, 4 liJxd4 e5
when 16 cxb5 axb5 17 liJxb5 (17 5 liJb5 d6
J.xb5 e4 followed by ...J.e5 is given 6 liJlc3 a6
by Lputian as 'unclear' in In/orma- 7 ltJa3 b5
tor 45; however, 18 :'el here looks 8 1tJd5 liJge7
quite good for White) 17 ...:'xa2 18 9 c4 1tJd4 (D)
liJa3 e4 19 J.xe4 :'xb2 20 :'xb2
J.xb2 led to an equal game which
Black eventually won.
w
b) Instead, 15•••J.g5 looks best,
e.g. 16 cxb5 J.xd2 17 "xd2liJd4 18
bxa6 J.xa6 19 J.xa6 (19 liJc4
J.b7!?) 19 ...:'xa6 with pressure for
the pawn, e.g. 20 f4?! 'iib6 21 ~hl
"c5 intending 22 ... "xd5 ~. Mean-
while 22...:'a5 and ...:'xd5 is threat-
ened.
13 cxb5 J.g7
14 bxa6 0-0 10 cxb5
15 J.b5? 10 J.e3 and 10 ltJc2 were dis-
15 ltJc2! J.xa6 is complex. cussed in previous games.
15 e4 Another idea is 10 J.g5!? when
16 :'bl e3! Meiers-Novik, Riga 1988, went
17 fxe3?! 'iVh4+ 10...h6 11 J.xe7 (the only consistent
18 g3 liJxg3 move) 11...J.xe7 12 cxb5 J.b7 13
0-1 liJc3 (a prudent retreat; 13 bxa6
 The Tactical 6llJ1 c3 91

i.xdS 14 exdS 'l'a5+ IS 'l'd2 'l'xdS is 'unclear', no matter what happens

destroys White's pawn centre - note to his queenside pawns. 12 i.d3
that 16 i.bS+ ci>f8 {attacking g2} 17 leaves the d-pawn undefended, so
O-O?? llJf3+ wins) 13 ... dS!? (since 12 ... i.b7 is the natural response,
13 ...0-0 looks too slow; e.g. 14 bxa6 when Black must be doing quite
i.xa6 IS i.xa6 :xa616 0-0 intend- well. The critical line is 12 i.c4
ing 17 llJdS +-) 14 bxa6 i.c6 IS axb513lDxb5 i.a614llJa3 (D):
llJc2 (1S exdS i.xdS 16llJxdS 'l'xdS
and White can't develop his kingside
since 17 i.bS+ ci>fS IS O-O? loses a
B
piece to IS ... i.xa3) IS ... dxe4 16
i.c4 'iib6 17 0-0 :dS and Black has
a very dynamic position. This line
needs further investigation in grand-
master play.
10 lDxd5
11 exdS (D)

a) At first I thought that Black

B
could sacrifice his queen here with
14.....&5+ 15 i.dl "xa3!? 16 bxa3
i.xc4 (D).

11 ••. i.d7
A critical moment. The enterpris-
ing 11...'l'h4 is the subject of the
next game, while 11...i.e7 is also an
intriguing alternative. Then White
should avoid 12 bxa6 'l'a5+ and
13 ... 'I'xdS; if Black can win the d- I analysed this position with 1M
pawn without any drastic punish- Demetrios Agnos; we thought Black
ment then he can always claim that it had pretty good chances, e.g.:
92 The Tactical 6liJl c3
al) 17.1e3 (17 l:cl? .1e2! wins
or 17 f3 .1h4+ 18 g3 .1d8 intending
.1xd5, .1e2, l:xa3 and l:xf3 with a
clear advantage) 17 ....1d8! 18"'c1
.1aS+ 19 .1d2 .1xd2+ 20 ~xd2
.1xd5 21 f3 0-0 intending 22 ... l:fc8
and Black is much better.
However, when John Nunn saw
this analysis, he pointed out that
White should play 18 l:c1! when
18....1&5+ 19 .1d2 .1xd2+ 20 "'xd2
.1xd5 21 0-0 or 18••..te2 19 "'d2
.1aS 20 'ii'xaS l:xaS 21 l:c8+ ap-
pears better for White. Alternatively,
White could play 17 .1c3 0-0 18
.1xd4 exd4 19 'ii'xd4 .1a6 20 l:bl!
(Nunn - this stops the queen being
attacked with ... l:ab8 after 'iib4)
when White is again much better.
Therefore, the queen sacrifice
with 14 ......aS+ doesn't stand up to
analytical scrutiny. A pity!
b) The solid alternative to this is
14•••0-0. Then after 15 0-0, 15•.•.1r6
16 .1e3 was played in Klovans-Kise-
lev, Frunze 1988, and Klovans reck-
ons White has a clear advantage. He
is probably right, so a better try for
Black is 15..."'cS:
bl) Potapov-Shaibulatov, corr
1988-90 proceeded 16 .1xa6 'ii'xa6
17 .1e3liJf5 18 l:el (18 .1d2 is sug-
gested by Moroz, but 18 ... .1f6 fol-
lowed by "b7 and liJd4, rounding
up the d-pawn, looks like good play)
18 ... l:fb8 19 "c2 liJxe3 20 l:xe3
'ii'b7 21 l:b3 "xd5 22 l:xb8+ l:xb8
23 b3 and Black is better.
b2) 16 b3! is much stronger. Now
16 ... 'ii'b7 17 .1e3 .1d8!? (Black in-
tends 18 ....1xc419liJxc4 "xd5) 18
.1xd4 exd4 19 .1xa6 l:xa6 20 liJc2
.1f6 21 "d3! is good for White (but
not 21 liJxd4? 'ii'b6) as d4 is at-
tacked, 22 liJb4 is a threat and the
white passed pawns are dangerous in
the long term (Nunn).
So it seems that 11.. ..1e7 is not
satisfactory for Black. However, he
has good alternatives in 11.. ..1d7
(which is examined in the present
game) and 11.. ...h4 (which is the
subject of the next game) .
Returning to the position after
11....1d7 (D):
12 .1e3
In McShane-McDonald, London
1993, White tried 12 bxa6?!, which
allowed Black to demolish his centre
with 12 .....aS+ 13 .1d2 "xd5. The
game continued 14 liJc4 .1e7 15
liJe3 (there is no way to develop the
bishop on f1 unless g2 is defended)
15 .....e4 16 .1c4 (White should try

'iWbl on this move or the next)
16 ....tc6 17 .tc3 0-0 18 .td3 "f4!
with a most menacing position, since
190-0 loses to 19 ... ~f3+! 20 gxf3
.txf3 21 "c2 "g5+ and any other
developing move can be answered
by 19 ....th4 threatening f2 and
20 .....xe3+.
We can see another advantage of
1l....td7 over 11.. ..te7: 12 .tc4 can
be answered by simply 12... axb5.
12 ... tDxbS
A plausible move, but Black has
some attractive alternatives:
a) 12•••.te7 (D) gambits the d-
pawn or the a-pawn:
al) White took the d-pawn in
Pankratov-Nasekovsky, Corr 1990-
91. Retribution was swift: 13 .txd4
exd4 14 "xd4? (14 bxa6 "a5+ 15
"d2 "xd5 gives Black enough for
his pawn, while 14 ~c2 axb5 {or
14 ... 0-0} 15 "d2 .tf6 is unclear)
14 ... 0-0 15 bxa6? (sometimes greed
is a virtue in chess, but here 15 .te2
had to be tried) 15 ....tf6 16 'iWd2
The Tactical 6 ~1c3 93
':'e8+ 17 .te2 .tg5 18 "c2 ':'c8 19
~ "a5+ 20 ~f1 (20 ~xa5loses a
piece) 20 ... ':'xe2! 0-1 in view of 21
~xe2 ':'xc4 or 21 "xe2 ':'xc4 .
a2) In Pankratov-Kislov, corr
1990-91, White had learnt some-
thing from his game above and took
the other pawn: 13 bxa6 "as+ 14
"d2 "xdS 15 .tc4 (White finds he
cannot develop without shedding his
g-pawn) IS.....xg2 16 0-0-0 (D)
with a wild position:
B
a21) After 16•••0-0, 17 :hgl?!
"c6 18 .th6 g6 19 .txf8 .txfS
looks an excellent sacrifice for
Black, who now threatens ... d5.
However, 17 .txd4 exd4 18 "xd4
.tf6 19 "xf6! gxf6 20 ':'hgl is
equal/unclear. Evidently this is how
Black should play.
a22) In the game, Black played
16•••':'c8, but when the dust settled
he was left in a worse endgame: 17
.txd4 exd4 18 ':'hgl "f3 19 "xd4
dS 20~bl (20 "xdS "xdS 21 ':'xdS
.txa3 wins a piece) 20 ....txa3 21
94 The Tactical 6liJl c3

i.xdS "fS+ 22 i.e4 'iVbs 23 "xd7+ always seems to have enough for the
"xd7 24 l%xd7 ~xd7 2S i.fS+ ~e7 pawn. In view of Black's problem
26 i.xc8 l%xc8 27 bxa3 l%a8 28 in the game after 13 ... fS, he should
l%xg7 h6! 29 l%g4 l%xa6 and Black certainly try this variation.
managed to defend the endgame 14 a4 liJa7
(drawn in 48 moves). Now 14•••liJd4 is much worse be·
b) 12•••axb5 13 i.xd4 (if 13 i.d3 cause of the weakness created in
then 13 ... liJfS 14 i.d2 l%b8!? is one Black's position by ... fS. Therefore,
possibility) 13 ...exd4 14 "xd4 (call- Black finds himself in an unpleasant
ing Black's bluff) 14 ... i.e7 IS i.e2 bind on the queenside.
(if IS i.xbS "a5+ 16 "d2 i.xbS 15 l%c1
wins a piece, or IS "xg7 i.f6 fol- But not 15liJb6 f4! 16liJxd7 (16
lowed by ... i.xb2 wins) IS .....aS+ liJxa8 fxe3) 16... fxe3 17liJxfS exf2+
16"d2i.f617"xa5l%xa5180-0-0 and Black is clearly better.
(more or less forced - if 18 l%bl then 15 f4
18 ... i.fS) 18 ... 0-0 (despite the ex- 16 i.d2 liJc8 (D) .
change of queens Black has a strong
attack) 19 ~c2 l%c8+ 20 ~b3 (the
king fails to find refuge here)
w
20 ... b4! 21liJc2 (21 ~xb4 l%a4+ 22
~b3 l%b8+ 23 liJbS l%xbS+ 24 ~xa4
l%xb2+ wins) 21 ...l%xa2!? (21 ...i.a4+
was probably simpler) 22 liJd4 (22
~xa2 l%xc2 intending ... l%xe2 and
... l%xb2+ winning) 22 ...l%caS 23 l%d3
i.xd4 24 l%xd4 i.a4+ 2S ~c4 l%xb2
and Black soon won.
These two alternatives to Shirov's
12 ... liJxbS need testing in master Guarding against the threat of 17
play. i.a5 followed by liJb6, winning the
13 ltJc4 f5? a6-pawn at the very least.
Remembering Black's pawn sac-
rifice alternatives at move 12, we
17 ""3 rJ;f7
A forced journey, since 17...i.e7
should consider the possibility of 18 i.a5 loses the queen.
13•••i.e7 14 a4 liJd4 (Munoz). If 18 ""7 l%a7
Black can activate his dark-squared 19 ""8 i.e7
bishop after exchanging off its white 20 i.a5 'it'e8
counterpart for the knight, then he 21 i.b6?
 The Tactical 6 ~1c3 95

Georgadze gives 21 b3 e4 'un- 33 ~6

clear' but 22 .tb6 ~xb6 23 'ii'xa7 34 'ii'd6+ ~g7
~xd5 24 'ii'd4 looks to be winning. 35 'ii'd7+ ~f6
21 ~xb6 1h.-if2
22 'ii'xa7 ~xa4 An exciting tussle and a fine ex-
23 .te2 .!Des ample of Shirov's resourcefulness in
White has won his material but double-edged (bad!) positions.
now, as often happens in this vari-
ation, he finds it impossible to calm Game 17
the game down. Black always has Hellers - P.Cramling
one trappy move after another. Here Haninge 1989
24 0-0 seems best.
24 b4 ~b3 1 e4 c5
25 :c3 lDci4 2 W .!De6
White's 24th move encouraged 3 d4 cxd4
this manoeuvre, which has brought 4 ~d4 e5
Black's knight onto an excellent 5 ~b5 d6
square. 6 ~1c3 a6
26 'ii'xa6 'ii'b8! 7 ~a3 b5
27 ~b6 .td8! 8 lDci5 ~ge7
Suddenly Black has menacing 9 c4 lDci4
threats. 10 cxb5 ~d5
28 .th5+ 11 exd5 'ii'h4 (D)
28 ~d7 'ii'xb4 29 'ii'd3 .ta5 is no
better.
28 g6
w
29 ~xd7 'ii'xb4
30 0-0
White bails out. 30 'ii'c4 (30
'ii'a3?? ~c2+!) 30....ta5! risks los-
ing.
30 'ii'xc3
31 'ii'xd6 gxh5
32 ~e5+ ~g7
33 'ii'd7+
33 :bl was the last winning try, 12 .te3
but then 33...'ii'c8 34 ~d7 :e8 and After 12 bxa6 Black has several
33...:f81? both look adequate. options:
96 The Tactical 6 Ci:Jl c3
a) 12.....e4+ 13 .te3 'i'xd5? (or
13 ... Ci:Jf5 14.tb5+) 14 Ci:Jb5! (or 14
.tb5+) looks good for White, but
13•••.txa6!? is interesting, e.g. 14
.txa6 (not 14 'i'a4+? q;e7 15 .txa6?
dropping the queen to 15 ... Ci:Jf3+)
14 ...:xa6 15 0-0.te7 with unclear
play.
b) The immediate 12•••.txa6 is
another possibility.
c) 12•••.tg4 13 'i'd3 (13 'i'a4+
.td7 14 .tb5? loses to 14 ....txb5 15
Ci:Jxb5 Ci:Jf3+) 13 ....tf5 14 'i'e3 (14
'i'g3 'i'e4+ 15 'i'e3 'i'xd5 16 .tc4
Ci:Jc2+ 17 Ci:Jxc2 'i'xc4 is obscure)
14....te7 15 .td3 0-0160-0 .tg5 17
'i'xg5 'i'xg5 18 .txg5 .txd3 again
results in unclear play.
12 Ci:Jf5
13 Ci:Jc2 .te7
14 .te2 Ci:Jxe3
15 Ci:Jxe3 0-0
16 0-0 f5
Black has strong counterplay.
17 Ci:Jc4
White must avoid 17 bxa6 f4 18
Ci:Jc4 e4 when Black threatens to play
19... f3 with a winning attack.
17 ••• axb5
17•••e4 18 Ci:Jb6 f4!? is interesting.
Then 19 Ci:Jxa8? f3 20 gxf3 is dan-
gerous for White, e.g. 20 ...:f6 (in-
tending 21...:h6) 21 'i'c2 .th3 22
q;hl :b6 (not 22 ...:g6 since 23 :gl
"xf2 24 :xg6 bxg6 25 :gl exf3 26
"xg6 wins) 23 :gl (the threat was
... .tg2+) 23 ....tfl! and mate fol-
lows. However, the simple 19 Ci:JxeS!
:axc8 20 .tg4 seems to spoil
Black's fun.
18 Ci:Jb6
In a later game Kruppa-Neverov,
Nikolaev 1993, there followed 18
Ci:Jxe5 dxe5 19 d6 :b8 'Il-'Il. Evi-
dently neither player liked his posi-
tion. 19•••.tb7 is a more dynamic
way of dealing with White's threat
of 20 "d5+ e.g. 20 dxe7 "xe7 21
.txb5 (not 211i'b3+ q;h8 22 'i'xb5?
.ta6) 21.. ...g5 (21...f4 may be bet-
ter, since 22 f3? 'i'c5+ loses the
bishop, so Black achieves the e4 ad-
vance with good play) 22 f3 (22 g3?
f4 intending ... e4 and ... e3) 22 ... e4
23 fxe4 fxe4 (attacking the bishop)
241i'b3+ q;h8 25 :xf8+ (25 "a3!?
:fd8 or even 25 ...:f3!? {Nunn})
25 ...:xf8 26 :fl 'ii'c5+ 27 q;h1
:xfl + 28 .txfl 'i'f2 29 'i'dl h630
"e2 'i'd4 with complications.
18 ••• :b8
19 Ci:JxeS lUxeS
It was still possible for Black to
play aggressively with 19...:bxe8
20.txb5 e4.
20 :cI 'iVb4
21 b3 :Xci
If White is allowed to play 22 :c6
he may gain a slight advantage. Now
the game burns out into a draw.
22 "xci "eS
23 "xeS dxeS
24 a4 bxa4
25 bxa4 :b2
26 .tc4 :b4
27 .tb5 1/2_ 11z
5 The Classical 6 i.c4

Garne1S (1S ...bS was now essential) 16 ~bc3

G.Garcia - Vyzhmanavin 'i'aS 17 'ii'b6! "xb6 18 ~xb6 fS
Zaragoza 1992 (18 ... J.d8 19 ~cdS) 19 :adl :bd8
20 :fel g6 21 :d3:f7 22 g3 J.e7
1 e4 cS 23 b3 ri;g7 24 ri;g2 f4 2S~bdS J.f8
2 W 1Dc6 26 f3 gS 27 g4! hS 28 h3 :b8 29 a4
3 d4 cxd4 b6 30 :edl and Black has a night-
4 ~d4 eS mare position; Nunn-Brestian, Vi-
S ~bS d6 enna 1991. White achieved absolute
6 J.c4 (D) control of dS and always looked at
least slightly better. Black's kingside
counterplay never got off the
ground.
B
b) However, I think Black can
avoid all this if he plays 6,..tbf6! im-
mediately. Now after 7 J.gS we can
play 7 .....aS+! when White has
nothing better than 8 J.d2 "d8 9
J.gS with a draw (yes, we are com-
promising the title of this book by
agreeing a draw, but if you must win
at all costs, play 6 ...J.e6). So an am-
6 J.e6 bitious player with White has to try 7
The most direct answer to White's 0-0 (7 ~lc3 a6 8 ~a3 bS followed
pressure on f7. by ... b4 wins a piece - a very good
a) The natural continuation is trap):
6,..a6 7 ~Sc3 ~f6 but look at the bl) Here 7...~xe4? loses to 8
following game: 8 J.gS! (this move 'i'dS J.e6 9 'i'xe4 dS 10 J.xdS with a
gains control of dS and is very logi- fork on c7.
cal) 8 ...J.e7 9 J.xf6 J.xf6 10 0-0 0-0 b2) It could be worth spending a
11 J.b3 ~d4 12 ~dS J.gS 13 c3 tempo to frustrate White's plan of
~xb3 14 "xb3 :b8 (Blatny recom- J.gS with 7,..h6!. Then 8 ~lc3? still
mends 14 ...bS IS a4 :b8) IS c4 J.e6 loses a piece after 8 ... a6 etc., so
98 The Classical 6 j.c4
White must play more slowly with 8
:el j.e7 9 a4 (after 9 lDSc3 0-0
Black does not have to play ... a6, and
meanwhile he has avoided White's
plan of j.gS and j.xf6) 9 ... 0-0 10
lD 1c3 a6 (White was intending lDdS
and lDbS-c3, so it is time for this) 11
lDa3lDb4! (continuing the fight for
dS) followed by ... j.e6 and ...:c8.
Black has no problems.
b3) If you are not happy with
7 ...h6, you could play 7,..j.e6:
b31) 8 j.xe6 fxe6 9 j.gS a6 10
j.xf6 gxf6 11 'fi'hS+ ~e7 12lDSc3
'ii'e8 is equal/unclear (Silman).
b32) 8 "d3 :c8!? is an idea,
since 9 j.xe6 fxe6 10 :dl? fails to
10... lDb4 while 9lDla3 (strengthen-
ing c4) 9 ... a6 10 lDc3 bS 11 j.xe6
fxe6 looks good for Black.
b33) 8 j.dS j.xdS 9 exdS lDe7
10 c4 a6 I1lDSc3 bS! and now Nunn
gives 12 j.gS!?, e.g. 12 ... bxc4 13
j.xf6 gxf6 14lDd2 with an unclear
position.
7 j.dS
7 j.xe6 fxe6 8 'fi'hS+! (forcing a
weakness in Black's kingside) 8 ... g6
9 'fi'h3 'ii'd7 is of course a critical
line, but it seems fine for Black. e.g.
10 0-0 lDf6 11lD5c3 (11lDlc3 a6 12
lDa3 bS is good) 11...lDd4 12 'ii'd3
(12lDa3 bS I?) 12... j.g7 13 j.e3m
14 j.xd4 (14lDd2lDf4) 14... exd41S
lDe20-0 16lDd2 (16lDxd4lDf4 -+)
16...:c8 etc.
7 j.b3, on the other hand, looks
harmless after 7 ... lDf6: 8 lDlc3 (8
j.gS?'ii'a5+) 8 ... a6 9lDa3 bS +or8
lDSc3 h6!? 9 0-0 j.e7 10 :ellDb4
(or 10... 0-0 =) 11 a3 j.xb3 12 cxb3
lDc6 with interesting play.
7 ,.. a6
7,..j.xdS 8 exdSlDce7 9 c4 (with
the threatof'ii'a4 winning) 9 ... a610
lDSc3 fS 11 "a4+!? (11 f4lDg6 is
unclear) is a little better for White.
8 lDsc3 ltJr6
9 j.gS j.e7
10 j.xf6 j.xf6
11 0-0 0-0 (D)
w
So White has achieved control of
dS - the thematic idea in thi~ vari-
ation. However, it has been at a price.
The bishop on dS is much less effi-
cient than a knight on d5 (remember
the Nunn-Brestian game above) and
White's hold on dS cannot be
strengthened by a c4 advance, at
least for the time being. However
Black has to find some active play,
since if he does nothing White can
gradually build up a positional stran-
glehold as he develops his pieces.
 The Classical 6 i.c4 99

Vyzhmanavinjudges that a kingside and so on. That is why 14 ... i.gS!

counterattack with ...fS would be too was such a good sacrifice - it has
slow, and looks for counterplay in widened the struggle and thereby di-
the centre and on the queenside. minished the importance of the d5
It li)d2! square.
Beginning a logical manoeuvre of 17 i.d3!
the knight to e3, where it will rein- White must be careful, since
force dS. 17 ... 'it'a5 winning a piece was threat-
12 l%c8 ened. 17 'it'c1? l%xc2 is also disas-
13 lLlc4 li)d4! trous. White attempts to gain solid
14 lLle3 i.g5! control of the position again.
Black must create dynamic coun- 17 ••• 'it'aS
terplay, even at the price of a pawn. 18 lLlcdS
If he plays passively he is doomed. More or less forced. 18 'it'e1 is
15 i.xb7 bad in view of 18 ...i.xe3 and
After 15 i.b3 lLlxb3 16 axb3 ... lLlxc2.
i.xe3! (17 lLledS must be prevented) 18 ••• l%xa2
17 fxe3 'iWb6 181M3 l%fd8, the weak Black regains his pawn and now,
e-pawns balance White's pressure in view of the liquidation of all the
along the d-file. queenside pawns, a draw becomes
15 ... l%b8 inevitable.
16 i.xa6 l%xb2 19 l%xa2 'it'xa2
Now Black has great piece activ- 20 c3 i.xe3
ity, and the d5 square has become 21 lLlxe3 lLlc6
just one feature among many others 22 'it'al 'it'aS
- such as White's passed pawn, 23 l%bl l%d8
Black's rook on b2, the 'loose' con- 24 i.c4 'it'xal
dition of White's queenside pieces,
6 The Fianchetto system: 6 g3

Game 19 7 lLllc3
Nuon-Short 7 h4 .tg4! S f3 .te6 was fine for
Wijk aan Zee 1990 Black in Fedorowicz-Hassabis, Lon-
don Lloyds Bank 1990.
1 e4 c5 7 ••• a6
2 W tbc6 Before White plays slLlds.
3 d4 cxd4 8 lLla3 h4
4 ~d4 eS 9 .tg2
5 lLlbS d6 Virtually forced.
6 g3(D) 9 ••• h3
Martin says this is premature and
that Black should instead develop
with 9•••.te6 when 10 lLldS lLlge7
B
is unclear. We can take this analysis
further: 11 lLlc4 (threatening 12
lLlxd6+! 'ii'xd6 13 lLlf6+ gxf6 14
'ii'xd6 lLldS IS exdS ±) 11...h3 12
.tfl (not 12lLlxd6+ here because of
12 ... 'ii'xd6 13lLlf6+ gxf6 14 'ii'xd6
hxg2 IS l%gllLldS winning; 12.tf3
lLld4! is also unsatisfactory for
White). This looks good for White,
If White wants to strengthen his e.g. 12... .txdS 13 exdSlLlb4 14lLle3
hold on dS, he would do better with threatening IS c3. Meanwhile 13
c4, and keep the bishop on e2 to de- lLlxd6+ is still threatened.
fend the c-pawn. Fianchettoing the Therefore, if Black is to delay
bishop also forfeits any ideas associ- 9 ... h3, he must play 9...bS 10 lLldS
ated with .tc4. However, John Nunn (or 9 ....te6 10 lLldS b5) but this will
is a great opening analyst, so if he probably transpose to the game con-
plays 6 g3 there must be a point to it. tinuation.
6 ... hS!? 10 .tn
A radical attempt to exploit the Forced, since after 10 .tOlLld4,
weakness created by g3. Black will exchange on f3 leaving

White's kingside light squares very
weak.
10 bS
11 ~(D)
B
11 ••• t'iJce7
A logical move: Black plans to
exchange off the strong white knight
on d5 while keeping his own knight
on g8 to go to the f6 square, where it
would be well placed. Short reckons
that the time wasted by this move is
not as significant as his achievement
in carrying out this favourable ex-
change, because of the semi-closed
nature of the position and also be-
cause White's pieces are not very ac-
tively placed. However, there is a
drawback - White's next move!
Bonsch prefers 1l •••.te7, when
12 c4 is critical (12 .te3 is met by
12 .. J'b8), for example 12 ... b4 13
tDc2 (Bonsch gives 13 tDxb4, over-
looking that 13 ...'ii'a5! wins apiece)
13 ...:b8 and Black can follow up
with the manoeuvre ... tDf6-d7-c5
and ....tg5. As long as the queenside
The Fianchetto system: 6 g3 101
remains blocked or semi-blocked he
is OK. However, Black would have
very few winning chances since
White's position is very solid.
12 .tgS
12 c4 is a major alternative. Now
after 12 ... tDxd5 13 cxd5 (not 13
'ii'xd5 .te6 14 'ii'c6+ .td7), if you
put the black pawn on h3 back on h7,
Black can play to undermine White's
centre with ... f5 and attack along the
f-file (perhaps immediately with
... f5 or beginning with ...tDf6, ... g6,
... tDh5 and then ... f5). However,
with the black pawn on h3 the idea
of counterattack with ... f5 leaves
Black's kingside a heap of weak-
nesses. Meanwhile White has a
space advantage and the positional
threat of tDc2-b4-c6 (of course after
preparation). Best play for Black is
probably 13 ....te7 14 tDc2 .tg5 15
.td3 'ii'f6 160-0 tDh6 17f3 'ii'g6 fol-
lowed by ... 0-0. Then if circum-
stances are favourable he can
venture ...f5!?
12 .tg5 is a very annoying pin.
12 ... f6
Bonsch suggests 12......a5+, but
after 13 .td2 "'d8 (there is nothing
better) 14 c4 White has achieved
the 12 c4 variation examined above,
with his bishop on d2 rather than cl.
This is a useful extra tempo, in par-
ticular because the c 1 square is
cleared for the rook.
12.. .f6 is ugly but consistent.
13 .te3 tDxdS
102 The Fianchetto system: 6 g3

14 'iVxdS ':b8 20 i.dS ~e7 21 i.xc6+ ~xc6 or 20

15 0-0-0 (D) ':d3 q;e7 21 i.b3 ~6 22 ':c3 q;d7
23 i.e6+ q;xe6 24 ':xc6 ':a8 (or
24 ... ~f5!?) followed by ... ~f5 is
unclear.
B
However ...
15 ... 11:1e7?
An unfortunate blunder which
spoils a theoretically important
game.
16 'iVxd6! 'iVxd6
17 ':xd6 llJrs
18 ':b6!
Black probably missed this move,
This is the crucial position for our thinking that after the rook retreated
assessment of Black's plan. White's he could play 18 ... i.b7 and ... ~xe3,
knight on a3 is still offside and the with good chances. Now Black does
bishop on f1 has yet to find an effec- not get any compensation for his
tive entrance into the game. How- pawn.
ever, Back needs some dynamic play 18 :Xb6
since in the long term his king has no 19 i.xb6 ~6
safe haven. IS•••i.b7!, as recom- 20 f3 i.e6
mended by Bonsch, is critical. 21 i.cS i.e7
Then 16 'iVd3 f5 17 f3 fxe4 18 22 i.e2 ~b7
fxe4 ~f6 would win the e-pawn. So 23 i.xe7 ~e7
16 'iVe6+ "e7 (16 ... ~e7 17 ~xb5 is 24 b3 ~6
terminal) 17 i.xh3 (17 ':xd6? "xe6 25 c3 g6
18 ':xe6+ q;f7 19 ':b6 i.xa3 26 ~2 as
{19 ... ~e7! may be even stronger} 27 ':dl fS
20 bxa3 ~e7 and Black is threaten- 28 ef gf
ing both ...i.xe4 and ... ~8 winning 29 i.n f4?!
the rook) 17 .....xe6 (17 ... i.xe4 18 A further error accelerates the
':hel "xe6 transposes) 18 i.xe6 end.
i.xe4 19 ':he 1 (intending i.a7) and 30 gxf4 exf4
Bonsch says it's unclear. After 31 ~4 i.d7
19...i.c6 Black's solid centre and the 32 11:1e2 i.OO
offside white knight ensure that 33 ~f4 i.xf3
Black has at least equal chances e.g. 34 ~g6+ 1-0
 The Fianchetto system: 6 g3 103

Game 20 to recapture with his pawn rather

Nunn - Fauland than the queen and as a result the d5
Haifa Echt 1989 square is blocked and the black d-
pawn shielded from attack. That is
1 e4 c5 why 10 c!L\dS immediately may have
2 00 ~6 been more accurate.
3 d4 cxd4 11 c!L\dS .fu:dS
4 .fu:d4 e5 12 exdS j.,d7
5 c!L\b5 d6 13 c4
6 g3 j.,e7 Not 13 f4?! "b6+! 14 c;llhl exf4
A solid alternative to Short's IS :xf4 (1S j.,xf4 "xb2 +) IS ... c!L\f6
6 ...h5 (see previous game). 16 "e2 0-0 and Black stands well.
7 j.,g2 j.,e6 Against any other reasonable move
8 c!L\1c3 a6 Black plays ... bS.
9 c!L\a3 :c8 13 c!L\f6
Very logical: White's fianchetto 14 b4 0-0
has weakened his hold on the c-file
so Black inaugurates play along it.
15 "'3
15 c5 as! breaks up White's
10 0-0 queenside pawns.
Perhaps White should try 10 15 ••• j.,f5!
c!L\dS, e.g. 10 ... j.,gS 110-0 j.,xc112 Clearing d7 for the knight. The
:xc1 c!L\ge7 etc. bishop proves excellently placed on
10 ••• c!L\b4! (D) this square.
16 j.,b2
If 16 ~2 then 16 ... bS! when 17
cxbS is impossible. Alternatively, 16
w
j.,d2 c!L\e4!?
16 ••• as!
17 bw
17 b5 c!L\d7 and ... c!L\cS is ghastly.
17 ••• 'ii'xaS
18 'ii'xb7!
A very brave move. White grabs a
pawn since otherwise he has a bad
position for nothing. Note that his
Black anticipates c!L\dS and pre- bishops have little scope; his knight
pares to capture with his knight. The on a3 is offside and his c-pawn is
consequence is that White will have weak.
104 The Fianchetto system: 6 g3

18 ~7 25 h4 IS
19 ""3
20 'ii'f3
lbcs 26 ltd2
27 ltc2
lDe4
i.d8
Or 20 'ii'dl ~3 =l=. 28 ~g2 i.aS
20 ... i.d3! 28•••i.b6 followed by ...i.cS
21 ltadl looks like the correct way to pro-
If 21 ltldl, then 2l...i.f6! threat- gress.
ening ... e4 decides matters, e.g. 22 29 lObS ltad8
ltxd3 e4 23 'ii'dl i.xb2 and Black 30 f3
wins. So White gives up the ex- Black has squandered part of his
change. advantage but he still has some win-
21 i.xf1 ning chances. Either time trouble
22 i.xf1 ltb8 or fear of his illustrious opponent
23 i.el 'ii'a4 (surely not - Typesetter'snote) per-
24 'ii'e2 lta8 suaded him to agree a draw.
7 The Quiet System: 6 a4

Game 21 The most sensible starting move.

Adams - przewomik Black begins to contest control of dS
, London Lloyds Bank 1988 and c4 immediately.
7 lDlc3 86
1 e4 c5 A good moment to challenge the
2 m ~6 knight, since it cannot now return to
3 d4 cxd4 the c3 square.
4 lDxd4 e5 S ~ l:[c8
5 lDb5 d6 9 j,c4
6 84 (D) White virtually always plays this
move. The alternatives shouldn't be
dangerous to Black:
a) 9 ~!? and now:
B
at) 9 ...j,xd5 10 exd5 (D) gives
us a very interesting position.

The idea of this move is to restrain

Black from playing ... b5, while at
the same time keeping c4 free for the
bishop and not weakening the d4
square (as happens after 6 c4), but
whereas after 6 c4 White's hold on
d5 is more or less permanent, his
control of d5 is much more tenuous
after 6 a4. Black can hope to break
out with ...dS.
6 .•• j,e6
The d6-pawn is no longer vulner-
able to attack down the d-flle and the
weak d5-square is now blocked by
White's own pawn. (As Tarrasch re-
marked, holes in the opponent's po-
sition should be occupied by pieces,
106 The Quiet System: 6 a4
not pawns.) On the plus side for
White, he has the two bishops and a
definite space advantage. Neverthe-
less, Black has a safe, solid position,
and can expand on the kingside with
... fS, etc., after first moving his at-
tacked knight, of course!
al) The one master game avail-
able in this line, Maahs-Bonsch, Bad
Worishofen 1992, went 10...lDce7
11 c4 g6 12 .te2 .tg7 130-0 lDf6
(why not the immediate 13 ... fS,
gaining space?) 14 'iVb3 'iVd7 15
.tgS? lDe4 16 .txe7 'iVxe7 17 'iVc2
lDf6 (17 ... f5!) 18 'iVd2 and White
won on move 88. Of course White
should not part with his dark-
squared bishop on move IS. There is
not a great deal to be learnt from this
example.
a12) Black can treat the posi-
tion in a different way: the retreat
10... lDb8! allows the knight to come
to d7, a much better square than e7,
where it also obstructs the bishop on
fS. A possible line is 11 .te2 .te7 12
0-0 .tgS 13 .txgS 'iVxgS 14 ltJc4
'iVe7 IS 'iVd2 lDf6 16 'iVb4 0-0 and
Black is clearly better since 17
lDxd610ses a piece to 17 ... lDe8 and
17 'iVxd6 loses a pawn after
17 ... 'iVxd6 18 lDxd6 ':'xc2.
a2) Alternatively, if the above
variation is unappealing, you could
answer 9lDdS with 9 •••lDt'6 10 .tgS
'ii'a5+ 11 .td2 'iVd8 12 .tg5 'iVa5+
with a draw (though in Lanka-
Sveshnikov, Riga 1988, Black tried
for more with 13 .td2 'it'd8 14 .tgS
.txdS!? IS .txf6 'iVa5+ 16 c3 .txe4
17 'it'g4 'iVc7 18 .txg7 .txg7 19
'it'xg7 rJ;;e7 and the position was dy-
namically balanced).
b) 9 .te2 is a feeble developing
move. White has already neglected
the vital dS square with 6 a4, and
now he ignores it completely. After
9 ... lDf6 10 .tg5 (or 10 0-0 dS)
10....te7 11 0-00-0 Black is ready to
break out with ... ltJd4 and ... dS when
appropriate .
c) 9 .te3 (D) is a logical move
which hopes to exploit the weakness
of the b6 square.
B
However, after 9 ... lDf6 10 ltJc4
(not 10 .te2 lDb4! 11 0-0 dS! 12
exdSlDfxdS 13 liJxdSlDxdS 14.td2
.tcS and Black had solved all his
problems in Marinovic-A.Strikovic,
Yugoslavia 1991; this game is a good
example of how effective the Ka-
lashnikov can be against simple de-
veloping moves by White) 1O... lDd4
11.txd4 (11 b3? b5 12 axbS axbS 13

i.xd4 bxc4 14 i.e3 cxb3 is disad-
vantageousforWhite) 11.. ..txc412
i.xc4 :txc4 13 i.e3 'ii'cS (threaten-
ing ... o!tJxe4) 14 'ii'd3 h6 (stopping
i.gS) IS 0-0 'ii'c616 f3 .te7 17
:tfdl 0-0 IS :tac1 :tfcS 19 as i.dS
etc. and Black has a good game. So it
seems 10... o!tJd4 is a good answer to
White's plan of 9 i.e3 and 10 o!tJc4.
However, as always we must wait for
some illustrative games by masters
to confirm this verdict.
9 ~6(D)
w
10 i.gS
This is undoubtedly White's most
challenging plan. He aims to win
control of dS with i.xf6. The alter-
natives shouldn't trouble Black:
a) 10 .txe6? can be dismissed
here. After 1O ... fxe6 Black has a
strong centre, the dS square is no
longer weak, and Black can use the
f-file to begin counterplay. However,
the idea of i.xe6 was influential in
our choice of move order. Replace
the black knight on gS and instead of
The Quiet System: 6 a4 107
9 ... o!tJf6, try 9 ... i.e7. At first glance
this looks better than 9 ... o!tJf6, since
White's idea of i.gS is delayed for at
least a move, but White can in fact
play 10 i.xe6 fxe6 11 'ii'hS+! g612
'ii'h3 which looks very strong, e.g.
12 ... ~f7 13 0-0 o!tJf6 14 f4 when
14 ...:tfS loses to IS fxeS o!tJxeS 16
'ii'xh7+!. I repeat, move order is cru-
cial in the Kalashnikov!
b) The plan of fianchettoing the
bishop on cl proved strong in the
game Pletin-Chernov, corr 19S5-90
which went 10 0-0 o!tJb4?! 11 b3!
i.e7 12 i.b2 0-0 13 :tel and White
was a bit better: Black cannot
achieve the dS advance, and so has
no good plan. Meanwhile White can
slowly improve his position with 14
'ii'e2 and IS :tadl followed by the
doubling of rooks along the d-file.
This is the type of passive, position-
ally inferior game which Black
should strive to avoid. The culprit
here seems to be 10... o!tJb4. Instead
10....te7! keeps the option of other
knight moves e.g. 11 'ii'd3 0-0 12 b3
and now 12...o!tJa5! 13 i.xe6 (or he
must allow the doubling of his
pawns) 13 ... fxe6 14 'ii'h3 Wd7
leaves Black a little better, whilst
12...o!tJb4 also looks quite good now
that it attacks White's queen, e.g. 13
'ii'e2 (13 Wg3 .txc4 14 bxc4 is un-
pleasant for White) 13 ...dS!? 14
exdS o!tJfxdS IS o!tJxdS (the e-pawn is
immune because of i.f6) IS ....txdS
(or IS ... o!tJxdS I?) and Black is again
108 The Quiet System: 6 a4
better. Therefore, assuming Black is
alert, the plan of b3 and i.b2 is not
dangerous here.
c) 10 0-0 i.e7 11 :e1 0-0 12
~dS!? (D) was tried out in Yudasin-
Be1l6n, Dos Hermanas 1992.
B
The idea is similar to 9 ~dS
which is examined in note 'a' to
move nine above. Play continued
12."i.xdS 13 exdS ~b8 14 i.e3
~bd7 15 i.a2 ~e8 16 ~4 i.gS 17
as i.xe3 18 :xe3 fS 19 1i'd2. Here
Black has achieved a great deal. He
has exchanged off White's dark-
squared bishop; he has mobile king-
side pawns; and the white bishop on
a2 is, temporarily at least, out of the
game. White, on the other hand, has
kept his space advantage and has a
bind on the queenside. Now:
c 1) Bellon played 19".:f6 but
then 20 f41 allowed White to break
up the centre. The game continued
20... exf4 (20... e4Ieaves Black's cen-
tre congested; White can put his
knight on e3 after, say, :e2, and then
advance on the queenside with b4i
and c4, etc.) 21 :e2 f3 22 gxf3 1a64'!
23 ~h1 'ii'h4 24 "ell "xe1+ 21
:axe1 ~f8 26 c3 f4 27 :e7. Whl.;
has a clear advantage but Black DlIIltI'
aged to hold on and draw after 41'
moves.
c2) Black should play 19".f4 fol-
lowed by a kingside attack with
.....gS or ... 'ii'h4 and ...:f6 etc. For
example: 20 :b3 ~S 21 :b6 'irh4.
Here, since 22 ~xd6 loses to a fork
on e4, Black's attack with ... f3 or
...:f6 and ., .l:.h6 will be very hard to
meet.
10 i.e7
11 0-0 0-0
12 i.xf6 i.xf6
13 ~S i.gS (D)
w
A very common position which
can also be reached through a Peli-
kan move order. White seeks to
consolidate his hold on dS while
Black prepares to counterattack with
... fS.
14 c3 ~7!
 The Quiet System: 6 a4 109

In Wolff-Tisdall, London WFW

1990, Black prepared .. .f5 with the
immediate 14...~h8. After 15 'iWd3
f5 16 ~e3! fxe4 17 'iWxe4 l:.f4 18
'it'd3 'iWg8 19 .txe6 'iWxe6 20 'iWd5!
'it'g6 (of course Black needs to keep
the queens on if his kingside attack is
to succeed) 21 l:.adl l:.cfS 22 ~ac4
e4 23 'iWxd6 Black had lost his d-
pawn without achieving the slightest
glimmer of a breakthrough against
White's rock-solid kingside. Prze- Michael Adams is one of the most
woznik's knight manoeuvre is de- resourceful defenders in the world.
signed to strengthen the kingside This move prepares to eliminate
attack... Black's strong light-squared bishop.
IS 1M3 21 ... e4!
... so Nunn thinks it is best to Opening up lines for Black's
eliminate the knight immediately by rooks, which quickly break into
15 ~xe7+ 'iWxe7 16 'iWd3. White's position.
IS ... ~g6 22 .txe4 .txe4
Now ~e3 a la Wolff can always 23 'ii'xe4 l:[ce8
be answered by ... ~f4. 24 'ii'g4
16 l:.fdl White manages to exchange
Perhaps White should prefer 16 queens and thereby avoid immediate
l:[adl, not weakening the f2 square, disaster, but it is still hard to believe
since it is apparent that Black is pre- he can survive the coming attack.
paring to open the f-file. 24 'ii'xg4
16 ... ~h8 2S fxg4 l:.e2
17 .tal fS! (D) 26 ~4 :m
Now Black's attack develops with 27 ~e3 ~4
startling rapidity. 28 l:.xd6 ~g2(D)
18 exfS .txrs It seems as though the Kalash-
19 'ii'e2 .th4! nikov is about to achieve one of its
Provoking a weakness in White's most memorable victories. The
kingside and also clearing the g5 black pieces swarm fiercely around
square for the queen. White's king.
20 f3 'ii'gS 29 gS!!
21 .tbl! White, however, finds a brilliant
110 The Quiet System: 6 a4

Black, who was probably still look-

ing for the elusive win. 32••• ~g81
was better, since the king proves ex-
posed on h7.
33 00 Jle7
34 :d2 Jlc5+??
Completing his collapse. Perhaps
Black was short of time and wanted
to reduce the number of moves by
giving a check. 34..':xd2 35 ~fxd2
:xf1+ 36 ~xf1 ~f4 37 ~a5 lM3
defence. The counterthreat of mate 38 b4 Jlf6 with a draw seems like
on the back rank temporarily breaks best play.
the co-ordination of Black's pieces 35 ~hl l:xd2
and so wins enough time to organise 36 ~cxd2 ~3
a defence on the kingside. There is no saving move -
29 Jlxg5 36.••:g4 fails to 37 ~e5 :g5 38
30 ~g4! :f4 ~df3, since 38 ... ~e3 39 ~xg5 is
31 :n check. Incidentally, this is one vari-
White's pieces are now actively ation which demonstrates why
deployed and the immediate danger 32...~h7 was inaccurate.
has passed. 37 ~g5+ ~g6
31 ... h5 38 :xf4 ~g5
32 ~ge5 ~h7? 39 :n ~h4
The strain proves too much for 40 ~ 1-0
8 Short's 6ltJSc3 and other sixth
moves

Game 22 here, but 7 ...lLlxe4! 8 'ii'dS {8 f3 is

Short - Van der Wiel best answered by the simple 8 ... a6!
Thessaloniki OL 1988 and White has no good move}
8 ... ..te6 9 'ii'xe4 dS looks good for
1 e4 c5 Black) 7 ... dS 8 ..td3 ..tg4! 9 f3 ..te6
2 00 lbc6 10 0-0 ..te7 (why not 1O... ..tcS+
3 d4 cxd4 here?) 11 exdS lLlxdS 12 lLlxdS
4 ~d4 eS ..txdS (or 12.....xdS) and Black was
5 lLlb5 d6 slightly better in Velimirovit-Holzl,
6 lLlsc3 (D) Dubai OL 1986.
b) 6 ..td3 ..te7 7 O-O..te6 and if
White knows what's good for him,
he will play 8 c4, transposing to lines
B
familiar after 6 c4.1f he doesn't, then
Black will play ...lLlf6 and ...dS with
full equality and perhaps a bit more.
Incidentally, Silman prefers 7 •.,a6,
giving the line 8lLlSc3ll)f6 9 ..tgS?
lLlxe4! 10 ..txe7 lLlxc3 11 ..txd8
lLlxd1, winning a pawn. One advan-
tage of an immediate 7 ... a6 is that
White is denied the opportunity to
a) 6 lLld2 does nothing to fight transpose to the 6 c4 system.
for the dS square, and also obstructs c) 6 ..te2 (like 6 ..td3, this is an
the bishop on c 1. It is a typical exam- idea from Murray Chandler's labo-
ple of White not knowing what to do ratory):
against the Kalashnikov. 6 ... lLlf6 7 c1) 6•••..te7. Since 7 lLl1c3 a6 8
lLlc3 (the only way to justify White's lLla3 bS 9 00 lLlf6 is harmless - the
last move is to make 7 lLlc4 work bishop is feebly placed on e2 -
112 Short's 6lCJ5c3 and other sixth moves
White should play 7 c4, with a trans-
position to 6 c4 lines.
c2) 6".a6 may be slightly inaccu-
rate since, as we shall see in the
Short-Van der Wiel game, White
often plays iLl5c3 of his own accord;
why then spend a move persuading
him to go there? (though it is true
that the move White has gained,
i.e2, is hardly earth-shattering). 7
iLl5c3iLlf6 S i.e3 (Silman points out
that it is more natural to fight for
control of d5 with S i.g5; but if this
is White's best strategy, then his
king's bishop really belongs on c4
rather than e2) S...i.e6 9 0-0 :cS 10
i.f3 h6 11 'Wd2 (a most unnatural
move, depriving the knight of d2)
ll...iLle7 (Silman suggests 11...i.e7;
I would be tempted by 11...i.g4!?,
but not 11...iLlaS!? 12 b3 'Wc7 13
iLld5 and the black knight is badly
placed on as) 12 :dl iLlg6 13 a4
i.e7 14 as 0-0 with equal chances
according to Bellin; Chandler-
Spraggett, Hastings 19S9/90.
d) 6 i.e3 (D) is an interesting
idea.
The position can also be reached
after 1 e4 c5 2 iLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4
iLlxd4 iLlc6 5 iLlb5 d6 6 i.f4 e5 7
i.e3; this system has been christened
by Wahls and others as the 'Anti-Tai-
manov'. After 6 ... iLlf6 (keeping the
Kalashnikov move number) White
intends 7 i.g5!? Although he has
lost time with the bishop, White con-
tends that overall he has gained time
B
since he can develop his knight on b 1
to d2, and retreat his other knight to
c3 when attacked. Hence the knight
on b5 avoids being kicked to the off-
side square a3. Wahls claims a small
advantage to White after 6 ... iLlf6 7
i.g5 i.e6 SiLld2 i.e7 9 i.xf6 i.xf6
10 iLlc4 0-0 11 "xd6! "cS 12 c3
i.xc4 13 i.xc4 a6 14 iLla3 "g4
(Wahls thinks 14 ...:dS deserves at-
tention: 15 "c5 i.e7 16 "e3 i.xa3
17 bxa3 iLlaS IS i.d5 and White is
only slightly better) 15 0-0 "xe4 16
:fel (this analysis is taken from
the TUI Enterprises pamphlet Th~
Anti-Taimanov by Wahls). I think
that after a few careful moves by
Black he will equalize, e.g. 16.....fS
(denying the offside white knight the
c2 square) 17 "c7 (17 i.d3 "c8
threatens IS ...:d8 and if IS "d5,
18... lLle7 19 "e4iLlg6 and Black de-
fends comfortably) 16 .....cS 17
"xcS+ :axcS. White's queenside
pawn majority is not threatening,
and Black can try to exploit his extra
pawn in the centre after ... g6, .. /~g7
 Short's 6lll5c3 and other sixth moves 113
and eventually ... fS. The assessment
of this line is mostly based on analy-
sis rather than practical examples,
but we can expect 6 i.e3 to receive
some attention in forthcoming tour-
naments.
e) 6 i.gS!? (D).
B
Every opening has one crazy vari-
ation, and the Kalashnikov is no ex-
ception. White's sacrifice is untested
in serious master play, though it was
mentioned by I.Kuznetsov in a New
In Chess Yearbook (Volume 31) arti-
cle on early sacrifices in the Sicilian.
Kuznetsov himself has played the
sacrifice on several occasions, ap-
parently with good results. One of
the best features of White's sacri-
fice is that it often declined by play-
ers who are terrified of the unknown
consequences of capturing the piece.
White is slightly better after both
6...lClf6 7 c4 a6 S lClsc3 i.e7 9 "d2
0-0 10 f3 h6 11 i.e3, Kuznetsov-
Abkadirov, Cheliabinsk 1993, and
6•••f6?! 7 i.e3 a6 SlC!c3 i.e6 9lC!dS
i.xdS 10 exdSlC!ce7 11 c4 fS 12 f3
lClf6 13 lClc3 g6 14 b4 as 15 "a4+
rJitf7 16 l:[bl axb4 171Wxb4, Kuznet-
sov-Shneider, Cheliabinsk 1993. The
critical line is, of course 6 .....xgS 7
lClc7+ rJitdS (7 ... rJitd7? worked out
badly in Kuznetsov-Zhimen, Cheli-
abinsk 1993, after slC!xaS b69lC!c3
lClf6 10 lCldS lClxe4 11 lClaxb6+) S
lClxaS and now:
el) S•••b6 9 lCld2 i.b7 10 lClxb6
(10 lClc4? gives White a dangerous
attack after 1O...i.xaS? 11 lClxd6
i.xd6 121Wxd6+ rJiteS 13 i.bS with
the idea of 14 'it'bS+, but instead
10...lWg6! 11 lWdS lClf6! {but not
1l...i.xaS 12lClxeS} 12lClxeSlClxdS
13lC!xg6 hxg614 exdSlClb4 150-0-0
lClxdS, as recommended by Kuznet-
SOY, is very good for Black; another
good solution would be l1...rJitcS! 12
lClaxb6+ axb6 13 lClxb6+ rJitc7 pre-
paring ... lClf6, ... lCld4 etc.) 10... axb6
11 c31We7! (11...lClf6 12 'it'b3 rJitc7
13 lWxf7+ {after 13 lClc4 lC!d7 14
lC!e31Wg6, 1500+ rJitbS 16 f3 fS is
unclear according to Dvoirys, but
Kuznetsov thinks White should play
15 f3 when he is slightly better be-
cause fS and dS remain under his
control} 13 ...i.e714 "c4 and White
has a clear plan to strengthen his
game by advancing his queenside
pawns - analysis by Kuznetsov) 12
'it'b3 (Kuznetsov suggests 12 a4 with
the grand strategy of i.d3, 0-0, b4,
as planning to answer ... bxaS with
bS and l:[xaS) 12...lWc7 13lC!c4 (13
114 Short's 6lb5c3 and other sixth moves
.i.e2looks interesting, e.g. 13 ...1L1f6
140-0 lLlaS 15 "c2.i.e7 16 b4lLlc6
17 'iVb2 ~d7! 18 a4 :'a8 with com-
plex play) 13 ...1L1f6 (the threat to e4
buys time to reinforce the queenside)
14 f31L1d7 and now Kuznetsov says
he could improve on his game with
Bezgodov, USSR 1990 by 15 .i.e2
lLla7 16 a4 f5 171L1d21L1c5 18 "c2
.i.e7 19 0-0 .i.g5 and, as is usual in
this bizarre variation, the conclusion
is that the position is 'unclear'.
e2) 8•••.i.e6!. Silman and Kuz-
netsov concur with Sveshnikov that
this is the best line for Black. 9 tDc3
1Llf6 (D) (9 ... ~d7? 10 lLlb5 "d8 11
lLlac7 a6 121L1xe6 is best avoided by
Black):
w w
e21) 101L1b5?(thisbeginsaforc-
ing variation which leads to destruc-
tion) 10...1L1xe4 11 f3 (111L1ac7 "f4
12 "e2 d5 is similar to 'e221', but
with 0-0-0 impossible) 11...'iVh4+
12 g31L1xg3 13 hxg3 "xhI141L1xd6
lLld4! and Black is winning accord-
ing to Kuznetsov.
e22) Kuznetsov suggests 10 b41?
as deserving attention:
e221) I think that the critical
variation is then 10.....g6111L1b51t
(Kuznetsov mentions 11 h5 "g5 12
lLlb5 lLlxe4 13 lLlac7 a6 141L1xe6+
fxe6 15 lLlc3 as unclear) 1l•••lLlxe4
(11. ....xe4+ 12 .i.e21L1e8 {defend-
ing d6 and c7; 12 .....xg2? 13 .i.f3,
when d6 drops, is bad} 13 a4!? ~c8
14 as ~b8 15 a6 is dangerous for
Black, e.g. 15 ... b6 161L1xb6! axb6
17 a7+ ~a8 180-0 d5 19 .i.f3 "g6
20 .i.xdS with a clear plus for White)
12 lLlac7 "f6 (D) (12 ... .i.e7!? 13
lLlxe6+ {13 00 "f5!} 13 ...fxe6 14
:'h3 d5 151L1c31L1xc3 16 bxc3.i.cS
is promising for Black) and now:
e2211) 13 "e2? d5 140-0-0 (or
14 lLlxd5 .i.xd5 15 0-0-0 1Lld4! 16
lLlxd4 exd4 17 'iVb5 .i.c6 18 "as+
~c819"xa7"f4+20~bl.i.c5 21
"a8+ "b8 is winning for Black)
14...1L1xf2 15 lLlxd5 'iVh6+ 16 :'d2
lLlxhl with a decisive advantage for
Black.
 Short's 6 ttJ5c3 and other sixth moves 115
e2212) 13 "13!1 dS (13 .....xf3
14 gxf3 is unclear) 14lLlxdS!? .i.xdS
IS 0-0-0 'ii'h6+ 16 'ile3lLle7 17 .i.c4
lbxf2 IS 'ilxh6 gxh6 19 .i.xdslLlxd 1
20 l:txdl lLlxdS 21 l:txdS+ <ifi'cs 22
l:txeS a6 23 lLlc3 .i.d6 and White is
definitely not worse in this obscure
position.
Probably Black should play
12 ... .i.e7, as recommended just be-
fore the diagram above.
e222) Finally, Kuznetsov also
analyses 10.....g4 11 .i.e2 "xg2 12
.i.f3 'ilg613lLlbSlLleS 14 a4 <ifi'cs IS
as <ifi'bS 16 lLlxb6 axb6 17 axb6 in-
tending c3 and "a4.
No really convincing line against
the sacrifice has been discovered,
but on the other hand the onus is on
White to prove he has compensation
for the material: all variations end
with an 'unclear' or a plus to Black.
White's 'birthright' of a small edge
after 1 e4 has disappeared. Neverthe-
less, I am sure some players who like
risky chess will be attracted to the
opening. A few more illustrative
games would be welcome!
6 ... lbf6!
For once we have to playa Peli-
kan move since 6....i.e7 does noth-
ing to forestall 7 lLldS and S lbbc3.
7 .i.gS
The consistent move, trying to
gain supremacy over dS.
7 .i.e7
8 .i.xf6 J.xf6
9 lLlds J.gS (D)
w
10 J.c4
10 g3 was tried by Anand in his
game with Tiviakov, Oakham 1990.
Black had few problems: 10...0-0 11
J.g2 (if lllLlbc3, then 11...lLld4 12
J.g2 J.e6 achieves a good develop-
ment for Black - Tiviakov) 11...bS!
(an excellent move, which prepares
to molest the knight on b 1 with ... b4
if it goes to the natural square c3) 12
0-0 J.e6 13 c3 (Anand prepares to
develop his knight by a different
route, but in doing so he relinquishes
any hope of keeping control of the
dS square) 13 ...lLle7 14lLlxe7+ (if he
doesn't exchange he will be left with
a dead point on dS and a passive
bishop after 14 ...lbxdS IS exdS
J.d7) 14 .....xe7 IS lLla3 l:tfdS! 16
lLlc2 (16 lLlxbS l:tabS {but not
16... J.c4?! 17lba3 J.xfllS J.xfl
and White's control of the light
squares compensates for the loss of
the exchange - Tiviakov} 17 "e2
'ilb7 IS a4 a6 19 lLla3 'ilxb2 20
'ilxa6 'ilxc3 and the strong bishops
give Black the edge according to
116 Short's 6 !i)5c3 and other sixth moves
Tiviakov). Here the game was
agreed a draw. Tiviakov analyses
16••:."7 17 !i)b4 as 18 !i)dS .txdS
19 exdS or 16•••85 (ruling out !i)b4)
17 :'e1 ""7 18!f)e3 .txe3 (this time
preventing the knight reaching dS in
a more direct way) 19 :'xe3. and
again chances look equal.
10 0-0
11 !i)bc3 (D)
B
11 •.. ~b8
11 •••.te6 12 0-0 :'c8 reaches. by
transposition. the games Diaz-Jman-
aliev. Frunze 1989. and Ankerst-
Udo. Dortmund 1992.
a) In the first White went wrong
with 13 'it'd3? !i)b4! (he must have
missed this) 14 !i)xb4 (or 14 'it'e2
!i)xc2) 14....txc4 and Black won the
exchange and later the game.
b) In the second game. White
played the circumspect 13 .tb3. Af-
ter 13 ...!i)d4 14!f)e3 ~h8 15 'it'd3 g6
16 :'adl .th6 17 !i)cdS fS 18 exfS
gxfS 19 f4 'it'h4 20 c3 !i)xb3 21 axb3
exf4 22 !i)xf4?! (22 !i)c2 with ideas
of 23 !i)e 1 and !i)f3 is unclear)
22 ....txb3 White has several reason-
able moves. for example. 23 g3 or 13
:'del. Instead. he blundered mater-
ial with 23 !i)xf5? when Black won
after 23 ...:'xfS 24 'ibfS :'f8! 25
'it'e4 .txf4 26 g3 "gS 27 :'del
"cS+ 28 "d4+ "xd4+ 29 cxd4
.th6, etc. Evidently this is a lucky
variation for Black!
12 b4!?
Trying to disrupt Black's natural
plan of ...fS. Van der Wiel thinks 12
0-0 g6 is equal.
12 ••. .tb6
13 g4 .tf4?! (D)
Van der Wiel gives 13...f6 14 :'gl
.td7 15 "d3 !i)d4 as unclear. Black
has a great capacity to improve his
position with ... l:c8 ......as . ...bS,
etc. White's king is vulnerable in the
centre, and the bishop on h6 cuts off
his escape to the queenside (not that
the queens ide would be a particu-
larly hospitable place). So White
must aim to wipe out Black with a
quick kingside pawn advance before
his position deteriorates. I think
15•••!i)d4 may be a mistake. because
of 16 f4! threatening gS (if 16 ... gS
then 17 hxgS fxg5 18 fS and 0-0-0 is
very strong). So 15•••:'cS looks bet-
ter. Then 16 !i)e2 (16 "g3 !i)d4!)
16....te617.tb3 (if 17 'it'g3 !i)b418
!i)xb4 :'xc4 and Black's attack gets
in first) 17 ...txd5 18 exdS !i)b4 19
"e4 ""6 with a very sharp position.
White can try to snuff out the bishop
 Short's 6lDsc3 and other sixth moves 117

with 20 g5 (before Black manages to 16 .txclS

play 20 ... g6 or perhaps 20 ... f5!?), 17 lDxclS .!De7
but 20 ... fxg5 21 hxg5 .txg5! 22 18 lDxf4
:'xg5 'ifxf2+ is bad for White. The At last White thinks it is time to
alternative 20 c3 lDa6 21 g5 fxg5 capture the bishop.
(21...lDc5 22 "e3!?) 22 hxg5 .txg5 18 exf4
or 22.....xf2+ also looks bad for
White.
19 0-0-0
20 "d4! (D)
""6

w B

14 .te2! White's queen now seizes control

Defending g4 and thereby freeing of the centre, since Black cannot al-
the queen for more aggressive du- low the exchange of queens - the
ties. Such apparently simple moves endgame would be very bad for him
are among the most difficult to find because of the weakness on d6. So
in chess. Black seeks counterplay against
14 ••• .te6 White's king.
Van der Wiel suggests 14•••a6!? 20 ••• ""3
15lDxf4 (or 151M3 b5) 15 ...exf416 21 .tdJ "e6
'ifd2 f3! 17 .txf3lDe5 with unclear If 21 .....&2, White can take on d6.
play. 22 "xa7 "xg4
151M3 :'c8 23 'iVxb7 "e6
16 &3! 24 1fb4 1Dc6
Another accurate move which
keeps control of the position. Black
25
26
"c4
"cIS "f6
.!De5
was hoping for 16lDxf4?! exf4 17 27 c3?
0-0-0 lDb4 (or 17 ... lDe5) when he Black's bobbing and weaving fi-
has counterplay - Van der Wiel. nally provokes a mistake. White
118 Short's 6 ttlic3 and other sixth moves

should play 27 'ii'd4! intending ~bl, 35 'ii'e2 lDg4!

c3, a4 and "-bS when he has a clear 36 "-xiS? (D)
advantage according to Van der
Wiel.
27 ... lDg4!
B
Suddenly Black has some strong
threats: f2 is attacked and if 28 :d2,
Van der Wiel gives 28 ...:xc3+! 29
bxc3 'ii'xc3+ 30 :c2 as unclear (but
not 30 "-c2 'ii'xa3+ 31 ~dl 'ii'al+
with a big advantage to Black).
28 e5 dxeS
29 :d2 'ii'e7
30 "-5?!
White should play 30 'ii'0 fS 31 The bishop's second visit to fS is
"-xfS lDxf2 with obscure play - Van no more auspicious than the first
der Wiel. Now White gets into (White should play 36 :dl or 36
trouble. %tel according to Van der Wiel).
30 :cd8 Here, in fact, a draw was agreed.
31 'ii'o :xd2 In the post mortem, Kasparov sug-
32 ~d2 .!Zlli6! gested 36...0! when 37 'ii'xf3? lbh6
A paradoxical retreat in order to wins and 37 'ii'c2 lDxf2 38 'ii'xf2
enforce ...fS and start a general king- :xfS gives a position where Black's
side advance. passed pawns are very strong. White
33 "-c2 fS would have great difficulty in draw-
34 ~c1 'ii'c7 ing the game.
9 White avoids 5 tbb5
Game 23
Horwitz - Bird
London, 12th match game, 1851
1 e4 c5
2 d4 cxd4
3 00 tDc6
'Improving' on 3... e6 which was
played in game eight of the match.
This match was part of the first ever
international chess tournament
which was arranged by Howard
Staunton in conjunction with the
Great Exhibition at Crystal Palace. It
is nice to know our opening was
there at the start, even if it was
reached by an unusual move order.
4 tDxd4 eS
5 tDxc6?! bxc6 (D)
w
5 tDxc6 is antipositional, since it
strengthens Black's centre. Itsjusti-
fication (if there is any) is the pres-
sure that White gains against f7.
6 i.c4 (D)
Here:
a) 6 c4?! is feeble, e.g. 6•••i.c5 7
tDc3 tDf6 8 i.g5 h6 9 i.h4 0-010
i.d3 d6 11 0-0 i.e6 12 ~hl :b8
13 "c2 (or 13 "e2 g5 14 i.g3 i.d4
followed by .....as) 13 ...i.d4 14
:bl g5 15 i.g3 tDh5 16 b4. Now
16 ...tDf4 or 16... tDxg3+ look a bit
better for Black. Instead, Khok-
hlov-Gitsenko, corr 1988-90 went
6•••tDf6 7 i.g5?! (7 tDc3 i.b4!? or
i.c5 transposes to the line above)
7 .....aS+! 8 i.d2 'it'b6 9 i.c3 (9 tDc3
"xb2 10 :bl "a3 doesn't give
White enough for the pawn) and
now simply 9...tDxe4100ks like a big
advantage for Black.
b) 6 i.d3 is passive but shouldn't
lead to a worse game. After 6...tDf6 7
0·0 Black has two approaches:
bl) 7...i.c5!? (enterprising) 8
tDc3 0-0. Now 9 tDa4?! seems in-
adequate in view of 9 ...i.e7 10 i.g5
d5 11 f4? (11 :el :j:) 11 ...tDxe4 12
i.xe4 dxe4 13 "xd8 i.xd8 when
Black has a clear edge, but 9 i.gS
looks better, e.g. 9 ...:b8 10 :bl or
10 "d2!? etc. is unclear.
b2) 7...i.e7 (safer) 8 f4!? d6 9
tDc3 0-0 10 ~hl tDd7 11 "'el i.f6
120 White avoids 5 l:iJb5
12 "g3 (12 fS can be met by
12....tgS or 12... tOcS) 12 ... exf4 13
.txf4 lLleS and Black is at least
equal.
B
6 ... .ta6! (D)
Black takes advantage of a tacti-
cal trick to exchange off White's
strong bishop. The attempt to prove
the bishop is a target on c4 backflred
horribly in Morphy-Lowenthal,
London 18S8 (though it's true al-
most everything backfired against
Morphy): 6 •••lLlf6 7 0-0 d5? S exdS
cxdS 9 .tbS+ .td7 10 .txd7+ "xd7
11 lte1 .td6 12lLlc3 e4 (Sveshnikov
gives 12... d4 without comment, but
Black does best to avoid this line al-
together) 13 .tgS! lLlg4 14 "xdS
.txh2+ IS <i\?h1 and Black didn't
survive long: lS .....xdS 16 lLlxdS
O-O? 17 f3 exf3 IS gxf3lLleS 19 lte3
f6 20 <i\?xh2 ltadS 21 ltxeS fxgS 22
<i\?g3 h6 23 c4 ltf7 24 ltae1 <i\?fS 2S
cS g6 26 c6 ltcS 27 c7 ltcxc7 2S
lteS+ <i\?g7 29 lLlxc7 1-0. A typical
Morphy carve-up.
However, this is not the end of the
story. 7 •••lOxe4 is supposed to lose
after S lte1 dS 9 ltxe4! dxe4?? 10
.txf7+ <i\?e7 11 .tgS+ according to
Gligoric, Sokolov and Sveshnikov,
but Silman challenges this view and
claims that 9•••16! (D) is good for
Black.
'Ugly, butl can't flnd a refutation'
says Silman. I analysed this position
with Simon Bibby, a 2300 player,
and we couldn't find a refutation
either. Silman's line goes 10 'ifhS+
(10 ltxeS+ fxeS 11 'ifhS+ <i\?d7)
10... g6 11 ltxeS+ .te7! (neither
1l...~?? 12 ltxdS!! cxdS 13 "xdS+
"xdS 14 .txdS+ nor 11...fxeS 12
"xeS+ "e7 13 "xhS "e1 + 14.tfl
.ta6 IS lLld2 is any good for Black-
these variations are Silman's) 12
ltxdS! gxhS 13 ltxdS+ and now
13 ... <i\?xdS is slightly better for Black
(but not 13 ....txdS 14 .th6! - threat-
ening .tg7 - 14... <i\?e7 IslLlc3 and
White has a dangerous initiative ac-
cording to John Nunn). If this line
 White avoids 5 tiJb5 121

really is playable for Black, then 'In the highest degree imprudent.
6...tiJf6 is rehabilitated. It would surely have been much bet-
7 .i.xa6 ter play, on the previous move, to
Alternatives give Black a better have placed the queen at e2 and thus
game: have exchanged queens, or have ob-
a) 7 1t'd3 .i.xc4 8 'ii'xc4 tiJf6 9 tained the power to castle on the
0-0.i.e7 10 t2Jc3 0-0 11 f4 (if White kingside.' wrote Staunton in his book
does nothing, then Black is slightly on the London 1851 Tournament.
better after 1l...:b8) ll...exf4 12 e5
tiJh5 ;.
b) 7 tiJd2 .i.xc4 8 tiJxc4 'ii'c7
B
(8 ... tiJf6 9 tiJd6+!? .i.xd6 10 'ii'xd6
looks better for White) 90-0 tiJf610
f4!? .i.c5+ 11 <lI>hl tiJxe4 12 'ii'f3 d5
13 t2Jxe5 0-0 ;.
7 ... "&5+
8 .i.d2
Or 8 tiJc3 'ii'xa6 and if White
wants to castle kingside he has to
play 'ii'e2 at some point, allowing the
exchange of queens. Then in the 14 dS
endgame Black's extra centre pawn 15 .i.b2 ti:JrT
gives him the edge. Or if White 16 h4 .i.d4
chooses to castle queens ide, rather 17 .i.a3 :reS
than exchange queens, then he will 18 g4 'iVb6
face a very big attack against his 19 :b2 .i.c5
king. 20 .i.b2 t2Jd6
8 ... "xa6 21 :e1 .i.d41!
9 .i.c3 f6 21 •••d4 is simple and good.
9...tiJf6 isn't so good, e.g. 10 22 c3
.i.xe5 tiJxe4 11 tiJd2 'iVb5 12 tiJxe4 Black is now compelled to make a
and 130-0, and now White has the piece sacrifice which completely ex-
edge. poses White's king to attack. Objec-
10 b3 %6 tively it is rather dubious, but in 1851
11 a4 :d8 the problems proved too much for
12 t2Jd2 .i.c5 Horwitz:
13
"0
14 0-0-01 (D)
0-0 22
23 t2Jxe4
dxe4
"xb3
122 White avoids 5 !iJb5

24 ~2 1Wxa4
25 cxd4 exd4
B
26 :Xe8+ :Xe8
27 ""3+!
The exchange of queens avoids
disaster. Careful play should now
give White the advantage.
27 1Wxb3
28 t'bb3 c5
29 f3 d3
30 .tal?
The c-pawn was immune because 5 .•• .tb4+!?
of ...:c8, both on this move and the More usual is 5...lbf6, which is
last, but now White loses a piece. In- how in fact the illustrative game be-
stead 30 ~dl c4 31lbd4 is good for gan by transposition. One reason to
White since he coordinates his pieces check first is that it deprives White
and contains Black's passed pawns. of the possibility, after 5...t'bf6, of 6
The game concluded: 30•••lbc4 .tg5!? This very logical move, aim-
(threatening both 3l...t'bxa3 and ing to seize control of d5, was tried
31...:el mate) 31 ~dl t'bxa3 32 in Hubner-Anand, Munich 1991.
t'bxc5 :e3 33 :d2 t'bc4 34 :12 d2 There followed an interesting tussle
35lbe4 0·1 in which Black succeeded in neutral-
izing White's pressure: 6 ....th4+ 7
Game 24 c3 .te7 8 .txf6 (the point) 8 ....txf6
Hosp - Klinger 9t'ba3 (the knight finds c3 blocked,
Oberwart 1991 so it begins a long manoeuvre to e3
and, hopefully, the ideal square dS)
1 W c5 9 ... d6 10 t'bc4 .te7 11 t'be3 0-0 12
2 e4 lbc6 .tc4 .tg5! (Anand understands the
3 d4 cxd4 knight is one of his main enemies,
4 lL'lxd4 e5 and so prepares its elimination) 13
5 t'bb3 (D) 'it'd3 .txe3 14 'it'xe3 .te6 15 1We2
This was Staunton's recommen- t'baS! (harassing the bishop and forc-
dation, improving on the 5 t'bxc6 of ing further exchanges, which lessens
McDonnell-La Bourdonnais, West- White's control of the position) 16
minster 1834. It was also Schlecht- t'bxaS 1WxaS 17 0-0 'it'c5 18 .tb3 as
er's choice in his match with Lasker 19 'it'c2b5 20:fdl :ac821 :acl a4
in 1910 (via a Pelikan move order). 22 .td5 a3! (forcing a weakness in

White's pawn structure which bal-
ances his own) 23 bxa3 and a draw
was agreed. Anand had to play very
energetically to avoid falling into a
bind. Black looks OK, but why not
avoid this possibility altogether by
delaying the development of the g8-
knight?
6 c3
Alternatives:
a) 6 j,d2 j,e7 7 lLlc3 lLlf6 (D).
w
Now Black seeks to free his posi-
tion with ...dS. White has two moves
to prevent this:
al) 8 j,gS 0-0 (8 ... lLlxe4 has been
recommended by some authors,
mainly because in the game Khol-
mov-Sveshnikov, Pinsk 1986, after 9
lLlxe4 j,xgS 10 lLld6+ ~e7 {White
has the advantage after 10... ~f8 11
j,c4} 11 j,c4 'itb6, White 'found'
12 'ii'd5?? 1i'b4+ 0-1; instead, 120-0
is simplest, since 12 ...:f8 13lLlfS+
~d8 14 Wd6 or 14 lLlxg7 leaves
Black wretchedly placed) with the
possibilities (D):
White avoids 5 ltJb5 123
w
all) Now if 9 j,e2, Black can
just about get away with 9... lLlxe4:
10 j,xe7 lLlxc3 11 j,xd8 lLlxdl 12
j,c7lLlxb2 13 j,d6 (blocking the d-
pawn; 13 a4 dS intending ... lLlc4 is
very good for Black) 13 ...:e8 14 a4
(threatening to win with 15 :a2)
14 ...:e6! 15 j,cS (15 j,a3 lLlxa4)
15 ...dS ! and the knight escapes after
lLlc4.
a 12) The trick also works after 9
j,c4 since Black's eventual ... lLlxb2
will attack the bishop on c4.
a13) However, after 9 j,d3 Black
should avoid 9...lLlxe4? since 10
j,xe7 lLlxc3 11 j,xh7+ wins for
White: 11...~xh7 12 'it'hS+ wins the
queen, whilst 11...~h8 12 1i'hs
mates. Therefore 9••• h61 is correct.
Then 10 j,h4lLlxe4 works - there is
no j,xh7+. After 10 j,e3 dS or 10
j,xf6 j,xf6 11 0-0 d6 (1l...lLlb4!?)
12 lLldS j,gS Black has a good
game. White will miss his dark-
squared bishop.
a2) After 8 j,c4 the recom-
mended move is again 8•••lLlxe4.
124 White avoids 5liJb5
This looks good. e.g. 9 .i.xf7+ (or 9
~xe4 d5 10 .i.d3 dxe4 11 .i.xe4 0-0
;) 9 ... <iIi'xf7 10 ~xe4 d5 11 "f3+
<ili'g8 121Dc3 .i.e6 and Black is a lit-
tle better. The more faint-hearted
could try 8...0-0 with a solid game.
b) 6 ~c3 is best met by 6...lOf6!
(6 ...~ge7 7 .i.c4! looks good for
White; the idea is to play 8 0-0 and
then move the knight from c3.
stranding the bishop on b4. and if
Black plays ....i.xc3. then bxc3 fol-
lowed by .i.a3 will be very strong)
and now:
b1) 7.i.c4 is the only dangerous
move. when 7•••~xe4! (D) is critical.
w
There are two important vari-
ations (8 'ii'd5 and 8 'ii'f3 are not dan-
gerous after 8 ...~6):
bll) 8 .i.xf7+ and now:
bIll) Sveshnikov suggests the
odd-looking8•••<iIi'fS 9 0-0 ~xc3 10
bxc3 .i.xc3 11 :bl? <ili'xf7 12 "f3+
"f6 13 "xc3 d5 'with a double-
edged position'. This is one of his
less happy ideas. Instead of the timid
11 :b1.11.i.hS (threatening "f3+)
11.. ..i.xa1 (or 11.. ..i.b4 12 a3 .i.e7
13 "d5 g6 14 .i.h6+ <ili'e8 15 .i.g7,
etc.) 12 .i.a3+ ~e7 (12 ... <iIi'g8 13
"d5+) 13 "f3+ mates.
b1l2) 8 ••• <iIi'xf7 9 'ii'dS+ (D) and
again Black must choose the best
square for his king:
B
b1l21) 9•••<i1i'f8 10 "xe4 d5 11
"f3+ <ili'g8 12 .i.d2 .i.e6 13 0-0 h6
(13 .....f6 14 "e2 or 13 .....d7 14
"e2 h6 15 :ad1 <ili'h7 16 f4! ±) 14
"e2 <ili'h7 15 f4 e4 16 ~xe4! ±.
b1l22) 9••• <iIi'e8! 10 'ii'xe4 dS 11
'ii'e2 d4 12 a3 .i.e7 (not 12....i.aS 13
~xaS "xaS 14 b4 ~xb4 15 axb4
"xa116 "xe5+ <ili'f7 17 "f4+ <ili'e8
{17 ... <iIi'g818~d5!} 18 <ili'df'ii'xc3
19:e1+ 'ii'xe1+ 20 <ili'xe1 ±) 13lDe4
'ii'dS 14 0-0 .i.fS Duka -Engels.
San Paulo 1957) 15 ~b (15 ~g3
d3!? 16 'ii'd1 .i.g6 17 f4 :d8 is un-
clear) 15•••:18 (intending ...<iIi'f7 fol-
lowed by ...<iIi'g8. so White must act
fast; if Black's king escapes to safety
then Black will have a good game)

16 c4 dxc3 (16 .....d7 17 b4 looks
positionally bad) 17 bxc3 (D) (17
lOxc3 "d3 is unclear) and now:
B
b11221) If Black's king runs for
g8 with 17,..~ then he has a good
gaIr!:e after 18 (4 ci>g8, but White can
stop the king in its tracks with 18
"O!. Now 18•••~g8?? loses the
queen to 19 It!f6+, so Black is re-
duced to 18•••ci>e6 as the only way to
defend against the twin threats of 19
lOgS+! and 19 "xfS+.
b11222) Therefore Black has to
forego the plan of ... ci>f7-g8 and in-
stead complete his deployment with
17•••:d8 (defending the queen, so
there really is a threat of ... ci>f7 -g8),
e.g. 18 f4 "d3 and Black's active
pieces ensure he has fine play to
compensate for the slightly uncom-
fortable position of his king.
b12) After 8 0-0 Black has to be
very careful:
b 121) A cautionary tale is
Spassky-Kajan, Student OL 19S5,
which went 8,..lt!xc3 9 bxc3 i.e7 10
White avoids 5 lOb5 125
f4! 0-0 11 fS bS 12 i.dS i.b7 13
1i'hslt!as 14 i.xb71Oxb7 IS :f3 g6
161i'h61i'b6+ 17 i.e3 "f618 fxg6
"g719 gxf7+ci>h8 201Vh5 :fc8 21
i.h61-0.
b122) Instead, 8•••lt!r6! (D) looks
fine for Black.
For example, 9 f4 (or 9 i.gS
i.xc3 10 bxc3 dS 11 i.xf6 "xf6 ;)
9...i.xc3 10 bxc3 dS 11 i.e2 (a fee-
ble retreat, but White had little
choice: 11 i.bS? loses to 11 ...1i'b6+
while the alternative 11 fxeS dxc4 12
exf6 "xdl 13 :xdl cxb3 gives
White insufficient compensation
for the sacrificed piece) 11...0-0 12
fxeS lOxeS 13 i.gS (13 "d4 1i'b6)
13 ...1i'b6+ 14 lOd4 It!e4 leaves
Black with a clear advantage.
b2) After 7 i.gS, 7 ... h6! is the
complete answer. Now 8 i.h4 gS 9
i.g3 lOxe4 is bad for White, so 8
i.xf6 i.xc3+ 9 bxc3 "xf6 (D) and
Black is at least equal.
White's doubled pawns are at
least as weak as Black's d-pawn. A
126 White avoids 5 ~5
w
sample variation is 10 ~d2 (hoping
to re-route the knight to a better
square) 10... ~aS! (10 ... 0-0 111Dc4
'ii'g612 ~d6 could be awkward) 11
~c4 ~xc412 .ixc4 0-013 'ii'd3 d6
14 l%dl (140-0 .ie6:;:) 14....ig4! 15
f3 (15 l%d2 l%fd8) 15 ....ie6 16 .ixe6
'ii'xe6 17 'ii'xd6 'ii'xa2 18 'Wxe5
'ii'xc2 19 0-0 as :;:. Alternatively, if
from the diagram White continues
10 .ie2, then 1O... d6 11 0-00-0, fol-
lowed by ... l%d8, ....ie6 and ... l%ac8
is :;:. Kholmov-Sveshnikov, Varna
1987 went 10 .id3 d6 11 0-0.ie6 12
.ib5 'We7 13 f4 (White must play ac-
tively, or he will simply be worse)
13 ... exf4 14 ~d4 0-0 15 .ixc6 bxc6
16 l%xf4 c5 17 ~e6 fxe618 l%xf8+
l%xf8 and Black's superior pawn
structure gave him a clear advantage.
b3) 7 .id3 d5! (the obvious re-
sponse) 8 exd5 'ii'xd5!? (this looks
good; 8 ... ~xd5 was played in
Schlechter-Lasker, Vienna and Ber-
lin Wch (9) 1910, and a titanic strug-
gle developed after 9 .id2 ~xc3 10
bxc3.id6 11 'ii'h5 'ii'c7 120-0 .ie6
13 .ig5 h6 14 f4 exf4 15 l%ael <i>d7
16 .if5! l%af8 17 .ixf4 .ixf4 18
~c5+ <i>c8 19 .ixe6+ fxe6 20 ~xe6
.ixh2+ 21 'ii'xh2 l%xfl+ 22 l%xfl
'Wd7 23 ~c5 'ii'e7 24 'ii'h3+ <i>b8;
Black had the edge because of
White's ragged pawn structure, but
Lasker's famous resilience allowed
him to hold a draw after 65 moves)
9 0-0 .ixc3 10 bxc3 0-0 11 .ig5 .
(11 'ii'e2, which plans to embarrass
Black's queen with l%dl or .ic4, e.g.
11...h6?! 12 .ia3 l%d8 13 l%adl ±,
can be well answered with 11...e4)
11.. .e4 12 .ixf6 exd3 13 .id4 dxc2
14 'ii'xc2 .if5 :;: Zhandov-Kozyrev,
Cheliabinsk 1978.
b4) 7 'ii'O?! should not trouble
Black. Silman suggests 7 ...d5 8 exd5
'Wxd5 9 'ii'xd5 ~xd5 10 .id2 ~xc3
ll.ixc3 .ixc3+ 12 bxc3 and 'White
has no compensation for his weak-
ened pawn structure'.
c) 6 ~ld2 is unknown in prac-
tice. 6 ... ~f6 7 .id3 d5 gives Black
no problems.
6 .ie7 (D)
w

7 ..td3
Instead:
a) 7 c4 as!? (with the idea that 8
a4 weakens White's queenside) 8
~c3 (8 ..te3 a4? 9 ~3d2 ~f6 10
~3 'iVaS 11 c5! is bad for Black, but
8 .....tg5 looks OK, e.g. 9 'iVg4 ..txe3
10 'iVxg7 'iVf6 11 'iVxf6 ~xf6 12
fxe3 ~xe4) 8 ...a4 9 ~d2 "as (D)
and now:
al) 10 ~dS ~f6 (attacking e4)
11 ~xe7 ~xe7 (11...'it>xe7!?) 12
..td3 0-0 13 0-0 d6 and Black is at
least equal after ... ..te6, ... ':fc8 and
...~g6, etc.
a2) 10 ..te2 ~f6 11 0-0 0-0 in-
tending ... a3~.
a3) 10 "g4 is the critical move:
a31) 10...'it>f8!? is unclear.
a32) 10.....tf6 11 ~d5 ~ge7 12
~xf6+ gxf6 13 .td3 a3!? 14 "dl
(since 0-0 is impossible, and b3loses
a piece) 14....:g8 15 O-O~.
a33) 10....tf8 is interesting, in-
tending ... ~f6 and ...dS, e.g. 11 ~5
~ge7 12 ~xe7 ~xe7 =.
White avoids 5 ~b5 127
a34) 10...lDf6 11 'iVxg7 ':g8 12
1i'b6leads to complicated play, but is
clearly dangerous for White. Some
sample variations:
a341) 12.....CS (Black threatens
.....xf2+ or ...~g4) 13 'iVe3 ~4 14
'iVd3 ~g4 15 ~dl and White will
untangle himself with h3 ~.
a342) 12....:16 13 1Vh4 (better
than 13 'iVe3?!, met by 13 ...tDb4 in-
tending ....tc5 and ...~2+) 13 ...~4
14 ':bl ~g4 15 'iVg3 lOe3 161i'b3
d5 17 'iVxh7lOec2+ 18 'it>dl .tg4+
intending ... 0-0-0 is dynamically
balanced.
a343) 12...~4 13 ':bl ':g6 (or
13 ... .:a6!?) 141i'b3 (l41i'b4 is line
'a342') 14 ... d5 15 "d3 dxe4 16
~dxe4 ..tf5 followed by ...0-0-0 and
... .txe4~.
b) 7 ..tc4lDf68"d3is a clumsy-
looking build-up by White. After
8...0-0 9 0-0 d6 (D) White may try:
w
bl) 10 ~ld2 is met by 1O....te6
intending ...dS, with a slight plus for
Black.
128 White avoids 5lOb5

b2) 10 84 looks solid, but after Now the positional threat of

the continuation 10....ie6 11 :dl ... ilLlb4, exchanging the knight for
(11 .ig5 d5!) 11.. ..ixc4 12 "xc4 the bishop on d3, forces White to
:c8 13 "d3 'ii'b6 14ilLlld2 :fd8 15 lose further time with his queen.
c4 (or else ... d5 follows; the tricky 12 ""1 as!
15 ilLlc4 loses to 15 .....xb3 16 :a3 13 .ie3 84 (D)
ilLlb4!) 15 ...ilLlb4 Black has an edge.
b3) 10 W. Now the game Ban-
nik-Kuzminykb, Leningrad 1946
w
went 10•••.ie6 11 :dl a6 12 .ig5
ilLle8 13 .ixe7 ilLlxe7 14 .ixe6 fxe6
15 ilLlc4 ilLlg6! and Black is equal
since 16 ilLlxd6? ilLlf4 followed by
.....g5 is too dangerous for White.
But can't White be punished for his
rustic opening play? 10...86! looks
much better, e.g. 11 :d1 b5 12.id5
ilLlxd5 13 exd5 ilLlb8 followed by
... f5, ... ilLld7 and ... ilLlf6. Black has White is driven back by Black's
the two bishops and his pawns are energetic play.
better. Or 11 .igS ilLlh5! 12 .ixe7 14 lLlc1 lLlhs
"xe7 intending ...ilLlf4 and .....g5 or 1S .!De2 .igS!
....ie6 and ...:d8 etc. Black has an The thematic exchange of dark-
excellent game. White's knights on squared bishops.
a3 and b3 are mere spectators. 16 m .ixe3
7 lLlr6 17 lLlxe3 'iVgS
8 .igS 0-0 18 'iVc1 lLlr4!
9 'iVc2?! This attacks the bishop on d3, and
The queen proves exposed on this 19lLlxf4 exf4 loses the g-pawn.
square. The simple 9 0-0 is better, 19 'iVd2 lLlxg2+
though White cannot claim any 20 lLlxg2 'iVxg2
opening advantage. 21 :gl 'iVxf3
9 d6 22 'iVgS g6
10 ilLl1d2 .ie6 23 :13 1Vh1+
11 O? 24 :gl 'iVxh2
An unnecessary weakening of the 2S :g2 f6!
dark squares. 11 0-0 was still best. 0-1
11 ... :c8 The exchange of queens is fatal.

Gamel!
Cochrane - Staunton
wndon c. 1842
1 e4 c5
2 00 ~ poses to the Pelikan). Now:
3 d4 cxd4
4 lDxd4 e5
5 00
A good moment to look at some
other innocuous moves:
a) 5 lDe2. The idea of this move
is to play lDbc3, lDdS and lDec3,
consolidating White's hold on d5,
but it is much too slow. Black can re-
ply S•••.i.c5! and already White has
to worry about the f2 square, e.g. 6
lDbc3 'ii'f6 and now 7 f3lDge7 ; or 7
.i.e3 .i.xe3 S fxe3 lDge7 9 lDd5
'ii'h4+ 10 lDg3 (10 g3 'ii'xe4 11
lDc7+ ~dS) 10 ... 0-0 with again no
problems for Black. The 'theoreti-
cal' line is S...lDf6 6lDbc3 (6.i.g5
.i.c5 {threatening 7 ....i.xf2+} 7 .i.h4
lDxe4! is a nasty trap) 6 ... .i.c5 (not
quite so effective as 5 ... .i.c5) 7lDg3
"'6! S 'ii'd2lDg4 9lDdi 0-0 10 h3
lDf6 and Black can continue with
...:dS and ...d5 (analysis by Silman,
based on Euwe). White's position is
clumsy, undeveloped and uncoordi-
nated. No modern Grandmaster
would play this way (unless he was
having a very bad day). However, the
reader will not always play grand-
masters, and sometimes his oppo-
nents will adopt 'silly' moves like 5
lDe2 to avoid the critical lines.
White avoids 5lDb5 129
Therefore, it is useful to know the
prescribed 'punishment'.
b) 5 lDrs is a much more testing
move. Then S...dS (D) is the way to
keep it a Kalashnikov (5 ... lDf6 trans-
w
bl) 6 exdS .i.xrs 7 dxc6 'ii'xdl+
8 ~dl bxc6 is fine for Black.
Play could continue:
bll) 9 .i.a6 (to prevent ... 0-0-0)
9....i.c5 10 :e1 .i.xf2 11 :xe5+
lDe7 12lDc3 f6 13 :a5 (the rook is
short of safe squares, since 13 :e2
.i.g4 wins for Black) 13 ... .i.g4+ 14
.i.e2 :dS+ and White has serious
problems after 15 .i.d2 .i.e3.
b12) 9 .i.d2 when Black has a
choice:
b121) 9...lDr6 may be the best
move, with the annoying idea of
... lDg4 or ... lDe4, e.g. 10 1Dc3 lDg4
11 .i.e1 (11 ~el can be met by
11.. ..i.xc2 or 11.. ..i.c5) 11.. .:d8+
12 ~c1 and now both 12 ....i.c5 and
12 ... g6!? (intending ....i.h6+) look
good for Black.
130 White avoids 5 ltJb5
b122) 9.,,0-0-0 (it is in general a
good idea to castle queenside, since
not only is the rook brought quickly
into play, but also the king is at hand
to defend the c6- or a7-pawns,
should they be attacked) to j,a6+
~b811 ~c3 ~f612 ~cl j,b413 a3
j,aS 14 b4 j,b6 15 j,e3 j,d4 and
Black is better; Ristovich-Blokhin,
corr 1988.
b2) We should mention in pass-
ing that 6 ~g3 is harmless. White
has moved the knight three times to
end up on a worse square than f3. Af-
ter 6•••dxe4 7 'ii'xd8+ ~xd8 8 ~xe4
f5 Black's extra pawn in the centre
gives him a slight edge. More ambi-
tious moves such as 6•••d4 7 c3 j,c5
must also be good for Black.
b3) 6 "'xdS! is the only challeng-
ing move. After 6•••"'xdS 7 exdS
j,xfS (not of course 7 ...~b4 8 ~e3)
8 dxc6bxc6:
b31) 9 c3 0-0-0 (Uhlmann gives
9 ...:b8 to ~d2 j,c5 11 ~b3 j,b6
12 j,c4 ~7 130-00-0 =) 10 j,a6+
~c7 11 0-0 ~f6 12 ~d2 (12 f4?
j,c5+ intending ... ~g4; or 12 j,e3
~d51) 12... j,c5 13 ~b3 j,b6 14
j,g5 h6 15 j,xf6 gxf6 and I prefer
Black's active play. He can prepare
an attack with ...:g8 and ... h5-h4.
b32) However, 9 j,d3! (D) cre-
ated more problems for Black in
Yakovich-Stoinov, Sofia 1988.
b321) 9••• j,xd3?! was played in
this game, which continued 10 cxd3
0-0-0 11 ~e2 ~e7 12 j,e3 ~b7
B
(Lepeshkin and Yanovsky give
12 ... ~d5 as equal) 13 ~d2 ~d5 14
:hcl. Here the c-pawn proves
weaker than the d-pawn. White has
ideas of ~b3 and ~aS+. A novelty is
often successful because the oppo-
nent, taken by surprise, reacts badly.
b322) Instead, 9••• j,b4+ looks
interesting. Then after 10 j,d2 (to
c3? j,xc3+ and ... j,xd3 wins a
pawn) to ... j,xd2+ 11 ~d2 ~7 12
j,xf5 (after 120-0, White no longer
has ~e2 after ... j,xd3 and ... 0-0-0,
whilst after 12 0-0-0 j,xd3 White
cannot organize pressure on c6 so
readily) 12 ...~xf5 13 0-0-00-0-0,
Black's c-pawn won't be besieged in
this line and a very interesting
endgame is in prospect.
We now return to 5 ~f3. If we as-
sume that ~f3 and e4 by White and
...~6 and ... e5 by Black are equally
'healthy' developing moves, then
Black is now a tempo up! It is not
surprising that the extra move can-
cels out the slight weakness on d5.
5 ••• tDf6 (D)

6 .i.c4
Actually we have cheated with the
move order. It really began 1 e4 c5 2
d4 cxd4 3 'ii'xd4lDc6 4 'ii'dl e5 5
.i.c4lDf66lDf3.
Alternatives are:
a) 6 .i.g5 .i.b4+!? 7 c3 .i.e7 8
.i.xf6 .i.xf6 9 .i.e2 0-0 10 0-0 d6 11
lDa3 .i.e6 12 lDc2 d5 was fine for
Black in Youngquist-Silman, Los
Angeles 1990. Silman thinks White
should have played 9 lDa3 or 10
lDa3 d6 111Dc4 .i.e7 12lDe3, keep-
ing hold of the d5 square. However,
it seems more of a question of White
maintaining equality than of setting
his opponent any significant prob-
lems.
b) 6 lDc3 transposes to the
equivalent line of the Pelikan. Then
6....i.b4 is undoubtedly the most
natural move, whereupon:
bl) 7.i.d3 d5! is equal.
b2) 7 .i.g5 was answered by the
dynamic 7 ... d5!? (the solid 7 ... h6 is
also possible, when Black was
well-placed in Bordiansky-Gorelov,
White avoids 5lDb5 131
Moscow 1974, after 8 .i.xf6 .i.xc3+
9 bxc3 'ii'xf6 10 lDd2 transposing to
10 lDd2 in note 'b2' to White's sixth
move in Game 24) 8 exd5 'ii'xdS 9
lDd2 .i.xc3 10 bxc3 .te6 11 l:[b 1 0-
0-0 in the game Bronstein-Faibiso-
vich, Moscow-Leningrad 1977.
b3) 7 .tc4 (D) is critical:
B
b31) 7...d6 8 0-0 .te6 9 'ii'd3
.txc4! 10"xc4.txc311 bxc3d512
"'50-013 "xb7 "c8 and White's
weak pawns compensate for Black's
pawn deficit (analysis by Svesh-
nikov).
b32) Silman suggests grabbing
the e-pawn, 7...tOxe4!?, when he
thinks Black should survive after 8
"d5 lDd6 9 .tb3 0-0 (or 9 .....a5).
Also 8 0-0 lDxc3 9 bxc3 .te7!, as in
London-Ochoa de Echagiien, New
York 1989, is safe for Black. I would
be most afraid of 8 .txf7+ ~xf7 9
"d5+ ~f8 10 "xe4. According to
Sveshnikov, Black can prepare to
castle 'by hand' and has equal
chances. However, his king faces
132 White avoids 5 ~5
some anxious moments in the centre
before he can achieve this. Not a
variation for the fainthearted!
b33) 7...0-08 0-0 d6 9 tiJd5 (be-
fore Black plays ... j,xc3; in Muk-
hin-Tseitlin, Leningrad 1978, 9 j,g5
j,xc3 10 bxc3 h6 11 j,h4 j,e6 12
j,b3 g5 provoked the sacrifice 13
tiJxg5, but Black defends success-
fully by 13 ... hxg5 14 j,xg5 ~g715
~h1 j,xb3 16 axb3 'Wd7 17 'Wd3
tiJh7 18 j,h4 'Wg4) 9 ... h6 10 tiJxb4
tiJxb4 11 c3 tLJc6 12 'Wd3 'Wc7 13
j,b3 tiJaS 14 j,c2 d5 15 'We2 j,g4
16 h3 j,xf3 17 'Wxf3 (Ortega-Zinn,
Berlin 1968) and now Uhlmann says
that 17 ...dxe4! 18 'Wf5 'We7 is equal.
The antiquity of these source games,
which are quoted and requoted ad
nauseam in chess books through the
ages, is the best indication of the
harmless nature of this variation for
Black. If it is promising for White,
where are the recent grandmaster
games?
Returning to the position after 6
j,c4 (D):
B
6 ... j,cS
a) 6...j,b4+ 7 c3 j,e7 8 0-00-0 9
:e1 d6 10 j,g5 j,e6 11 tiJa3 (D)
with the lines:
B
al) In the encounter Gluzman-
M.Markovi6, Belgrade 1991, Black
played solidly (in fact too solidly):
11...a6? White is preparing a stran-
glehold on the d5 square. However,
it takes time for him to deploy all his
pieces to the requisite squares. Black
needed to play energetically to de-
feat, or rather prevent, this plan. Pas-
sive play is fatal. After this inert
move, Black quickly fell into a bind
after: 12 j,xf6 j,xf6 13 j,dS :c8 14
tiJc4 (with the threat of 15 tiJxd6!)
14 ... j,g4 15 :e3! j,e7 (White was
again threatening 16 tiJxd6, now that
16... j,xf3 could be answered by 17
:xf3) 16:d3 ~h8 17 j,xc6 bxc6 18
tiJcxe5 and White won a pawn and
shortly the game.
a2) Instead, Black should have
tried 11....!Das!, with the possible
continuations 12 j,xf6 tiJxc4! = or
 White avoids 5lbb5 133

12.txe6fxe613 'ifd2W 14.txe7

'ifxe7 intending ...:xf3 and ... lbf4.
e.g. 15 :adl :ad8 16lbbS?! a6! 17
lbxd6?? lbc4!. The reader may re-
call some similarities between this
active defence and that demon-
strated by Anand in his game with
Hubner (see the note to move 5 of
the previous game).
b) Silman recommends the direct
6•••lbxe4. After 7 .txf7+ (more or
less forced. since 7 'ifdS lbd6 8 12 lbe1 lbg4!
lbxeS? 'ife7 9 f4 f6 is inadvisable for Provoking a weakness in White's
White) 7 .. ,rJ;xf7 8 'ifdS+ ~e8 9 kingside.
'ifxe4 dS 10 'ife2 (or 10 'ifa4 .td7) 13 h3 lbf6
10... e4 a sharp struggle arises - Sil- 14 ~h1 lbh7!
man. I think Black has a fine position Now Black prepares the thematic
since he has the awkward threat of ... fS advance to open up the centre
11.. ..tg4. and l1lbfd2 'ifgS! (Sil- and exploit the advantage of the two
man) looks good for Black. The at- bishops. The knight retreat also
tempt to break up Black's centre clears the way for the queen to join
with 11 c4 is refuted by 11.. ..te7! in the attack on White's king.
and then 12 lbgS lbd4 is probably 15 lbd3 .ta7
winning for Black. 16 f4 (D)
7 0-0 0-0
8 lbc3 h6! (D)
Preventing 9 .tgS and 10 .txf6.
B
Evidently the importance of keeping
dS fortified was well understood by
Staunton. even in 1842!
9 a3 a6
10 .tdS
White begins a very bad plan
which strengthens Black's centre.
but in any case Black is very com-
fortable.
10 d6 White tries to pre-empt Black's
11 .txc6? bxc6 ... fS advance. but this further
134 White avoids 5liJb5

opeting of the position enhances 24 lCJel .tgl!

the power of Black's bishop pair. 25 :Xgl lCJf2+
16 1Wb4! 26 cRgl .th3+ (D)
17 "0 fS
18 exfS .txfS
19 g4?
This leads to a speedy collapse,
w
but even after 19 .td2 :ae8 Black
has an excellent position.
19 ... lClgSI
Staunton's manoeuvres with this
knight are noteworthy. Now 20 fxgS
is met by 20....txd3 21 "xd3 :xfl +
22 'ii'xfl :f8 23 'ii'g2 :f2, winning
since the queen crashes through on
h3. The rest of the game is a massa- 0-1
cre, though a very pretty one: A fitting end to our examination
20 "g2 lCJxh3 of the Kalashnikov. Not only was
21 1Wb2 "xg4 Staunton one of the first players to
22 "g2 1Wb4 extol the virtues of the Kalashnikov,
23 1Wb2 e4 he was also a fine positional player.
10 Winning Tactics For Black
The final chapter of this book con-
sists of 13 puzzles designed to
sharpen the reader's awareness of
common tactical themes in the Ka-
lashnikov. The examples have been
taken from Kalashnikov games
spanning the entire length of its ex-
istence, and range in difficulty from
very easy to very hard. However, if
you struggle to find the answers
there is at least the consolation that
you-Black-score 13/13! Yes, this
really is Winning With the Kalash-
nikov.
Tactics rarely, if ever, appear
'from nowhere' in an otherwise
equal position.
As a prerequisite, there has to be a
certain lack of coordination or 'ten-
sion' among the opponent's pieces.
The difficul ty in discovering a com-
bination is recognising where this
tension exists. Here, as a guide to
solving the puzzles, is a summary of
the top eight 'nurturing grounds' for
Black combinations in the main-line
Kalashnikov:
1 Pressure along the c-flle
White has just played 17 c!Dc2, chal-
lenging the black knight on d4.
However, after 17 .. :i'xc3! he had to
B
resign because of the fork on e2.
Here the tension was between the
squares c3 and g 1 which are sepa-
rated by a knight's fork. More often
than not White has a knight on c3
and a king on gl in the mainline Ka-
lashnikov, so if you get your knight
to d4, keep your eyes open! (This is
from one of Sveshnikov's games. Of
course, it is criminal for White to
miss the tactic in such a simple
form.)
2 Pressure along the g- and/or
h-flles
After 30... .txh3! White was ripped
apart: 31 c!Dxg3 .tg4+ 32 ~gl fxg3
(another tactical motif: the g3 pawn
is a lever for Black's queen to pene-
trate the kingside; now 33 ...1Wh2
mate can only be prevented at great
136 Winning Tactics For Black
B
material loss) 33 'iVel 'iVh2+ 34 ~fl
'iVhl+ 35 We2 'iVxg2+ 36 ~d3
'iVxf3+ 37 ~c2 'iVe2+ 38 :d2 'iVxel
39 :xel h5 and White resigned. The
passed pawns will soon decide mat-
ters. This was Poletaev-Khomeniuk,
Corr. 1990-91.
3 White has a weak back rank
B
White's queen has to maintain guard
of the rook on dl, but was crowded
out after 19 .. .f5! 20exf5 h5! 21 'iVf3
e4 22 'iVxh5 :xf5 0-1 in Ulybin-
Sveshnikov, Naberezhnye Chelny
1988.
4 Pressure along the f·flle
The winning scheme is similar to
that in scenario no. 3 above. The
white queen is driven from the de-
fence of f2 and then a winning
breakthrough is possible: 44 ...:c8
45 'iVa7:f7 46 'iVa4 'iVxf2+ 47 ~hl
'iVf3+ 48 ~gl 'iVf2+ 49 ~hl :cf8!
(Black threatens to win at least a
piece by 50...d2 51 :edl 'iVe2, when
the knight cannot move or be ade-
quately defended) 50 'iVdl d2 and in
Beilin-Kopaev, Lvov 1951, White
resigned since 51...'iVxfl + follows.
As a very general rule, a break-
through on the f-file involving
Black's queen is often more effec-
tive than a similar penetration on the
c file. This is because there is an ad-
ditional target in White's king.
However, if the queens have been
exchanged the king can be a useful
defender in containing a break-
through, since the threat of mate is
greatly reduced. In that case a break-
through as far distant as possible
 Winning Tactics For Black 137

from White's king is desirable

(which gives preference to the c-file
as an avenue of attack).

5 White has a weak seventh

rank

~hl "g3!! when White had nothing

The enormous power of the rooks on
the seventh rank was exploited to
win by direct attack on White's king:
41...:e3! 42 "g2'ifh4!. Now if 43
fxe3 then 43 .....g3+ wins instantly.
White has no defence to the threat of
...:g3 and after 43 :a4 :b2 44 e5
:g3 45 "a8+ ~g7 46 "c8 :g4! he
resigned since the f2-pawn cannot be
defended; Sznapik-Klinger, Dort-
mund 1989.
better than to give up his queen with
38 gxf3 lOxf2+ 39 "xf2 "xf2, etc.
The vulnerability of White's dark
squares is often the direct conse-
quence of the exchange of his dark-
squared bishop. Often he is left with
a feeble light-squared bishop which
can neither attack anything nor
contribute to the defence of vital
squares.
7 Black has passed pawns
B

6 Weak dark squares around

White's king

The reader may recall this position

from the game Suetin-Scherbakov,
Warsaw 1990. Black exploited the
weakness of the g3 square with the The reader has already seen the
beautiful continuation 36... lOf3+ 37 power of a passed pawn in example
138 Winning Tactics For Black

no. 4. Here White has a passed pawn,

but it is no match for Black's advanc-
ing horde: 32 .....el 33 l:tcl d2 34
"c5 l:tg8 35 l:tdl e3 36 "c3 "xdl
37 l:txdl e2 and White resigned;
McDonnell-La Bourdonnais, Paris
1834.

8 White has a vulnerable

centre

Black played 29 ...l:txe3 when the
door closed on his rook after 30
i.d3. Now White threatens to win
the trapped rook with 31 ~f2. How-
ever, Black had calculated further:
30... lbg5! 31 ~f2 l:txd3 32 l:txd3
lbxe4+ 33 ~gl (or 33 ~e3 lbg3
with ideas of e4 or a fork on f5 if d6
is captured) 33 ... l:txa2. Black has
dismantled White's centre and ac-
quired two powerful passed pawns.
White's own potentially dangerous
connected passed pawns have been
reduced to one sickly isolated pawn.
In the game Van der Wiel-Holzl,
Baden 1980, White was unable to
cope with the advance of Black's
centre pawns and lost in 61 moves.
Exercises

Now it's your turn to find the combi-

nation. The 13 positions are not
3
grouped in any particular order, nor B
are there any hints as to what you
should be looking for: it will be just
like a real game! Solutions will be
found at the end of the chapter, but
this doesn't mean you should cheat.
In all the puzzles it is Black to move.

2
B
140 Exercises

7
B

8 11
B B

Solutions
1) White resigned immediately af-
ter 14 ...:g5!. If the queen retreats to
dl, then 15 ....i.xh3 wins; if she goes
to h4 there is a fork on f3; 1511xf7
loses to 15 ....i.e6; and finally 15
1Ih6 .i.f8 1611xf6+ lIxf6 17lDxf6
.i.xh3 will win at least the exchange.
So White preferred to save postage
stamps in the game Vifliantsev-
Nasekovsky, Corr. 1990. A good ex-
ample of pressure along the g-file.
2) 21.. .e4! 22 lIxf7 :b8 23 .i.b5
lDf3+! and White resigned since 24
gxf3 allows mate in three, while af-
ter 24 ~hl the prosaic 24 ... lDd2 will
win the exchange; Yurkovich-Scher-
bakov, Belgorod 1991.
3) 22 ...:xc2! 23 .i.xc2 .i.xh2+! and
White resigned since it is mate in
two after 24 ~xh2, while 24 ~h 1
Exercises 141
1Ih4 also leads to a quick mate. An
interesting combination of pressure
on the kingside and along the c-file
(though the reader is permitted to ask
what White's queen is doing on b2).
4) Black won the battle for the c-
file by sacrificing his queen:
36.....xc3! 37 lDxc3 :xc3. White
has no counterplay since there are no
targets in Black's position. All he can
do is watch as Black infiltrates along
his weak back rank: 3811el (38"'2
loses to 38 ...:c2! because of a fork
on e3) 38 ...:cl 39 'iVb4 :dl 40
lIxd6 :cc1 and White resigned. A
possible finish was 41"ilb6 :h142
~f3 (in order to meet the threat of
42 ...:h2+ 43 ~f3 :n +) 42 ...:c3+
43 ~g2 :h2+ 44 ~f1 :cl+ 45 :el
:hl+ with decisive material gain;
Mencinger-Brurnen, Bled 1989.
142 Exercises
5) White resigned rather than allow
this position in Landenbergue-
Kishnev, Swiss Ch 1992. The reason
is that Black can now win with
19 ... lOf3+! 20 gxf3 gxf3+ 21lOg3
"g4 when the attempt to flee with
22 ~f1 allows a pretty smothered
mate: 22 .....h3+ 23 ~ellOg2+ 24
~fllOe3+ 25 ~e 1 "fl +! 26lOxfl
lOg2mate.
6) Black broke through on the king-
side in Santo Roman-Zsu.Polgar,
Royan 1988: 49 ... g5! 50 hxg5 h4!
(more effective than 50 ... l:txg5;
White is much more vulnerable on
the h-file than on the g-file since his
rooks cannot take part in the de-
fence) 51 l:tf5 (of course, if 51 gxh4,
then 51.. ...g4+ wins quickly, so
White attempts to shut Black's
queen out of the attack, but she finds
another route into White's position -
see move 53) 51...hxg3 52 £g4
l:th2+ 53 ~gl "c7! (threatening
54 .....h7; e.g. 54 £f3 'it'h7 55 gxf6
l:thl+! 56£xhl"h2+57~fl"f2
mate; White now makes a desperate
sacrifice but it cannot change things)
54 l:txe5 fxe5 55 l:txg3 'it'h7 56
"xd6 l:thl+ 57 ~f2 'it'h2+ 58 l:tg2
"f4+ 59 £f3 l:tf8 0-1.
7) A similar theme to position 6.
Once again Black has a dominating
bishop on e5 and once again he
broke up White's fragile kingside
with a timely pawn stab: 22 ... h5! 23
"e3 (if 23 gxh5, then 23 ...lOxh5 fol-
lowed by a winning fork on g3)
23 ... hxg4 24 "xg5 gxf3 25 l:txf3
£xh2 26 l:txf6 (of course, if 26
~xh2, then 26 ...lOg4+ wins at once)
26 ... £e5 27 l:tf5 £xf5 28 "xf5
'ii'h4 and White resigned.
8) The pin on White's bishop is the
key feature of the position, but Black
must be careful; for example
33 ...'ii'b5 34 "a8+ £e8? 35 l:tb3! is
a disaster. The solution is actually
very simple: 33 .....xa3 34 l:txa3 f5!.
Now there is no back rank mate and
so 35 ... £b5 is a real threat. White
therefore has no time to defend e4.
He eventually lost the endgame after
35 l:ta8+ ~f7 36 l:ta7 ~e8 37 l:ta8+
~e7 38 l:ta7 fxe4 39 g4 l:tdl 40 ~g2
l:txd5, etc. in Perenyi-HOlzI, Buda-
pest 1988.
9) Black seized control of the sev-
enth rank and won a pawn: 32.....c4!
33 l:tdl (White is unable to challenge
control of the e-file because his
queen has to remain defending the
"f3
bishop; hence 33 l:telloses a piece)
33 ... l:te2 34 l:txb2. Now White
forgot about his bishop, though it is
true his position is in the long term
hopeless: 35 l:td7? l:tbl+ 36 ~h2
l:tfl 0-1 Velimirovic-Holzl, Dubai
OL 1986.
to) Whose pawns are stronger,
White's kingside mass or Black's

central phalanx? Black provided the
answer with some telling blows:
28 ... fxg5 29 hxg5 ':f8! 30 <i>g4 (30
f6 i.xf6!) 30... i.e5 31.:n h5+! 32
~xh5 (if 32 gxh6, then 32 ... ':g8+
wins a piece) 32 ...i.xf4 and White
resigned; Hellers-Sveshnikov, Stock-
holm 1991.
11) We are back to our theme of an
attack along the g- and f-files. Black
began with 25 ...tl:lf4!. The main
threat is mate in two beginning with
26 ... ':xh2+, which is also the answer
to 26 gxf4. So White made an es-
cape square for his king with 26
':ge 1 but this did not stem the attack:
26 ...•g5! 27 tDe3 Wh5 28liJn Wh3
0-1 Chudinovskikh-Mukic, Yalta
1989. Mate follows on g2 or h2.
12) Black broke through with
22 ... g4! 23 fxg4 liJg3+!' Remem-
ber what we said about the weakness
of the g3 square? White would be
Exercises 143
quickly mated after 24 hxg3 fxg3
and a check on h4. So in the game
Mrdja-Ivanovic, Pula 1990 he acqui-
esced to material losses after 24 <i>gl
liJxe4 25 h3 (after 25 ':e2 i.xg4
Black wins the exchange, while 25
':d3 is even worse in view of the
variation 25 ... i.xd5 26 cxd5 Wb6+)
25 ... liJxd2 and Black soon won. Af-
ter 22 ... g4 White should have tried
23 "e1, but Black still has a strong
attack with 23 ...':g8 and 24 .....g5.
13) At ftrst glance it looks as though
Black should be trying to break
through on the e-file, perhaps with
the aid of a kingside pawn advance.
In fact there is a simple solution,
but it requires flexible thinking:
32... ':c8! and White must lose either
the c-pawn or the d-pawn because of
the pin on the c-file. White resigned
after 33 lLJc2 ':xd5 in Ivaniuk-Di-
vakov, Corr. 1990-91. An interesting
change of front.
Index of Variations

1 e4 cS 8 ... ~e7 77
2 00 lOc6 9 c4
3 d4 cxd4 9~gS 79
4 ~d4 eS 9c3 84
5 It)bS 9 ... It)d4
Slt)xc6 119 10 cxbS
Slt)b3 122 1O~e3 88
Slt)f3 129 10 It)c2 8S
Slt)e2 129 10 ... ~dS
Slt)fS 129 11 exdS ~d7 91
5 ... d6 11...~e7 91

A: B:
6 It)1c3 6 c4 ~e7
6~c4 97 7 It)1c3
6g3 100 7 ~e2 67
6a4 lOS 7 ~d3 72
6lt)Sc3 111 7 ... 86
6li)d2 111 8 It)aJ ~e6
6~d3 111 9 ~e2
6~e2 111 9lt)c2 26
6~e3 112 9li)dS 32
6~gS 113 9~d3 S4
6 ... 86 9b3 S4
7 It)a3 bS 9~e3 S9
8 It)ds It)ge7 9 ... ~gS 42
8 ... lt)ce7 76 9... li)d4 38
 WINNING WITH THE KALASHNIKOV
The 'quick-firing, semi-automatic strategic blood-brother' of
the Sveshnikov, the Kalashnikov Sicilian is a favourite
amongst free-thinking chess players, guaranteed to shock
those brought up on classical chess.
Black sacrifices control of the d5-square, but, as games by
such grandmasters as Anand, Shirav, Ivanchuk, Short and
Van der Wiel have shown, Black's active piece play
provides fine compensation . Play is sharp and often brutal
as both sides try to prove their case .
Thorough knowledge of the strategical and tactical themes
is essential to play the Kalashnikov with success . In this up-
to-the-minute survey, the author has taken great pains to
explain the key lines, while providing enough analysis to
equip the reader to win with the Kalashnikov against
opposition of all standards.
International Master Neil McDonald is an experienced
player, having gained a 2495 rating while still a
teenager. He is renowned for his extreme resourcefulness
at the board and has recently inflicted defeats on World
Championship candidates Valery Salov and Sergey
Tiviakov and won all three Baroque International
J

tournaments in London . This is his first book for Batsford.

Other titles in the 'Winning With ... ' series include:

Winning With the Benko Winning With the Dragon
Byron Jacobs Chris Ward
ing With the Modern
Norwood
ing With the King's
)it
dlagher

~or a complete list of these and other

Botsford chess books please write to: ISBN
7!

I
B.T. Botsford Ltd
4 Fitzhardinge Street
London W 1H OAH N
9 780