BATSFORD CHESS OPENING GUIDES

•
• •
•
The Spanish Exchange
BATSFORD CHESS OPENING GUIDES

Other titles in this series include:

0 7134 8462 4 Benko Gambit Andrew Martin

0 7134 8456 X Budapest Gambit Bogdan Lalic
0 7134 8461 6 French T arrasch John Emms
0 7134 8451 9 King's Gambit Neil McDonald
0 7134 8472 1 Modern Defence Jon Speelman
0 7134 8467 5 Queen's Gambit Accepted Chris Ward
0 7134 8466 7 Scotch Game Peter Wells

For further details for Batsford chess titles, please write to Batsford Chess
Books, 583 Fulham Road, London SW6 5BY.
 Batsford Chess Opening Guides

The Spanish Exchange

Andrew Kinsman

B. T.Batsford Ltd, London

First published 1998
Copyright rr> 1998 Andrew Kinsman

ISBN 0 7134 8471 3

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.

The Batsford Chess Opening Guides were designed

and developed by First Rank Publishing
Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton
Printed in Great Britain by
Biddies Ltd, Guildford & King's Lynn
for the publishers,
B. T. Batsford Ltd,
583 Fulham Road,
London SW6 SBY

To myfo mily

Chess set used in cover photograph courtesy of the

London Chess Centre

A BA TSFORD CHESS BOOK

General Manager: David Cummings
Advisors: Mark Dvoretsky, Raymond Keene OBE,
Daniel King, Jon Speelman, Chris Ward
 CONTENTS I
1 e4 e5 2 liJf3 lbc6
3 .i.b5 a6 4 .i.xc6 dxc6

Bibliography 6
Introduction 7

1 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 ..i.g4 7 c3 16
2 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 ..i.g4 7 dxe5 31
3 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 exd4 48
4 5 0-0 ..i.g4 66
5 5 0-0 ..i.d6 82
6 5 0-0 'ii'd6 95
7 5 0-0 tiJe7 118
8 Odds and Ends (including 4 ...bxc6) 132

Index of Complete Games 143

 BIBLIOGRAPHY I

Books
Encyclopaedia ofChess Openings volumeC (Sahovski Informator 1 997)
BatsfordChess Openings 2, Garry Kasparov & Raymond Keene (Batsford 1 989)
ModernChess Openings, W alter Korn with Nick DeFirmian (A&C Black 1 990)
New in Chess Keybook (Elsevier 1 983)
How to Open aChess Game, various authors (RHM 1 974)
From the Opening into the Endgame, Edmar Mednis (Cadogan 1 996)
Mastering the Endgame volume 1, Mikhail Shereshevsky & Leonid Slutsky
(Cadogan 1996)
My Sixty Memorable Games, Robert J. Fischer (Batsford 1 995)
The Application ofChess Theory, Efim Geller (Cadogan 1 994)
Timman's Selected Games, Jan Timman (Cadogan 1 995)

Periodicals
Informator
New in Chess Yearbooks
New in Chess Magazine
Chess Monthly
BritishChess Magazine
ChessBase MegaBaseCD-ROM
 INTRODUCTION I

Why play the Spanish Exchange? cripple your pawns. If you're not care­
The last few years have seen a marked ful I'll take control of the centre and
move by White players away from force all your pieces into passive posi­
traditional 'main line' openings, such tions. And if you reckon exchanging
as the Open Sicilian, Classical King's pieces is going to relieve your suffer­
Indian and Closed Spanish, and to­ ing, think again. Your pawn structure
wards less well-analysed openings such is so bad that most endings are going
as the c3 Sicilian (1 e4 c5 2 c3), Trom­ to be unpalatable.'
powsky (1 d4 tbf6 2 j,gS) and Scotch
(1 e4 e5 2 tbf3 tbc6 3 d4). Although to The Spanish Exchange Endgame
some degree this can simply be attrib­ Take a look at this diagram. Whose
uted to an increasing unwillingness on pawn structure do you prefer?
the part of White players to engage
their opponents in a theoretical battle,
this is only part of the story. In this
era of the information explosion
chessplayers are acutely aware of the
need to adopt openings that they un­
derstand, and which lead to common
types of position where this superior
knowledge and understanding can be
put to good effect. The Spanish Ex­
change is a perfect example of such an
opemng.
From the fourth move White If you said 'Black' then I suggest
adopts a clear and simple strategy, say­ you try defending the Exchange Span­
ing to his opponent, 'I'm going to ish as Black. After a few grovelled
7
Th e Spanish Exch ange
draws and effortless defeats you might
wish to reconsider. Black's main prob­
lem is that after the usual exchange of
his e-pawn for the white cl-pawn he is
left with a virtually worthless majority
on the queenside, while White has a
straightforward four vs. three advan­
tage on the kingside. This is enough to
ensure that nearly all king and pawn
endings will end in defeat for Black.
Try experimenting with Black's de­
fences in the next diagram and see
how difficult it is for him. White has
excellent chances of obtaining a passed
pawn which can either queen or cause
enough disarray for the white king to
wreak havoc, while Black's queenside
pawns are quickly immobilised. In­
deed you will soon discover that at­
tempts by Black to mobilise his
queenside pawns usually backfire quite
quickly, and simply concede entry
squares to the white king.
You may well be thinking, 'It's all
very well talking about king and pawn
endings, but that is irrelevant. They
never arise.' Well, despite the fact that
most Black players are well aware of
the need to avoid king and pawn end­
ings in the Spanish Exchange, they do
8
occur quite often. Here is a classic ex­
ample from a game between two
strong ex-Soviet players.
Malisauskas-Krivonosov
Riga open 1995
Despite the fact that White no
longer has a kingside pawn majority
here, Black was forced to resign fol­
lowing.
42 g5 fxg5 43 �xg5 1 -0
The king and pawn ending is lost
after, for example, 43 .. .<�e6 44 'iti>g6
r:3;e7 (or 44 ... �e5 45 'iti>f7 �e4 46 �e6
'iti>d3 47 r:3;d5 �c2 48 <ifi>xc5 �b3 49
�b5 <ifi>xb2 50 <ifi>xc4} 45 �f5 <itd6 46
�f6 �d7 (46...�d5 47 r:3;e7) 47 �e5
r:3;c6 48 <ite6 �c7 49 r:3;d5 �b6 50
�d6.
Adorjan-Perecz
HungarianChampionship 1975
In the next diagram it seems at first
sight that Black is over the worst, hav­
ing managed to blockade White's dan­
gerous e- and f-pawns. However,
White is able to force his way to a
quick victory with some fine technical
play.

35 �4 b4
This leaves the c4-pawn vulnerable,
but Black would have run out of good
moves eventually in any case. For ex­
ample, 35...�7 would have been met
by 36 ttJh2!, intending tbg4.
36 e5+! fxe5+
36 ...tbxe5 37 tbxe5 fxe5+ 38 �e4 a5
39 f6 <ite6 40 f7 leads to a won king
and pawn ending.
37 �e4 a5 38 tt:ld2 e4 39 tt:Jxc4+
�e 7 40 a3 bxa3 41 tt:Jxa3 �f6 42
tt:lc4 tt:Je7 43 tt:le3 1 -0
(See Game 30 for a full discussion of
this game.)
Wittmann-Thipsay
Manila Olympiad 1992
In troduc tion
Here too Black is tantalisingly close
to a draw. If only he could play ....tf4
or ...<ite5, but...
31 g5!
An excellent means of creating a
passed pawn, which forces rapid ca­
pitulation.
31 . . .fxg5 32 tt:lg4 �f8 33 hxg5 �e7
34 f4 �e6 35 �3 �d8 36 tt:lf2 �e7
37 tt:ld3 �f8 38 ..tg4 �d6 39 f5 1 -0
lvanchuk-Short
Amsterdam 1994
This time Black seems to have eve­
rything covered, but White is able to
exploit his better piece placement and
superior pawn structure with a power­
ful pawn sacrifice.
34 tt:ld5! tt:lxd5 35 exd5+ ..txd5 36
l:.f7 b6
This is a rather desperate attempt,
but after 36 ...�d6 37 �f3 b6 38 axb6
cxb6 39 �e4 Black is horrendously
tied up.
37 l:.xc7 bxa5 38 �f3 l:.f8+ 39 �e3
h6 40 l:.xg7 hxg5 4 1 l:.xg5 l:.f4 42
c4+ �c6 43 l:.g6+ �b7 44 b3 l:.h4
45 h6 e4 46 dxe4 l:.h3+ 47 �f4
l:.xb3 48 l:.g3 1 -0
9
The Spanish Exchange
Iskov-Villeneuve
Stockholm 1974
Here Black has managed to double
White's f-pawns. However, this is not
the end of the story. Despite the fact
that both sides now have doubled
pawns, White still enjoys the advan­
tage because he can play to exchange
one of his f-pawns for the black e­
pawn, thereby clearing the way for his
own passed e-pawn.
1 5 �g2! .:us 1 6 �g3 b6 1 7 l:d 1 +
�ea 1 8 �g4!
With this excellent king placement
White stamps his authority on the
game. Black now panics and exchanges
rooks. However, this merely con­
demns him to total passivity. He
would have been better advised to
keep the rooks on for the time being.
1 8 . . .l:d8 1 9 l:xd8 + �xd8 20 f4!
exf4 2 1 R.xf4 l2lxf4 22 �xf4 R.d6 +
23 e5 R.c5 24 l2le3 �e7 25 �e4
�e6 26 f4
White has complete control and vic­
tory is only a matter of technique.
26 . . . g6 27 f5+ gxf5+ 28 l2lxf5 R.f2
29 l2lg7+ �f7 30 l2lh5 R.g 1 31 h3
�g6 32 l2lf4+ �g5 33 l2le6+ �h4 34
l2ld4 �h5 35 l2lf3 R.c5 36 �f5 R.e7
10
37 �e6 R.c5 38 �f7 1 -0
Martinovic-Vukovic
Smederevska Palanka 1977
'All rook and pawn endings are
drawn' ... except in the Exchange
Spanish! Black is powerless to prevent
White from breaking through on the
kingside. Note that the white rook
cuts off the black king from the king­
side. Black can never challenge this
rook on the e-file since after an ex­
change of rooks he would be left with
a hopeless king and pawn ending.
24 . . . c5 25 �e2 b5 26 c4 l:d6 27 f4
g6 28 g4 b4 29 l:e5 �c6 30 l:e7
l:d4 31 �e3 l:d 1 32 l:xh7 l:a 1 33 f5
gxf5 34 g5 l:xa2 35 g6 l:g2 36 g7
...and White soon won.
Tactics in the Exchange Spanish
By now you will hopefully be con­
vinced that White has good prospects
for the endgame in the Exchange
Spanish. However, before the end­
game comes the middlegame. Some­
times a series of exchanges may mean
that the game goes practically straight
from the opening to the endgame, but
this is the exception rather than the
 In tro duc tion

rule. Most Black players are more the exchange White already has an
streetwise than that and recognise the overwhelming position. Black elects to
need to keep at least some pieces on in fall on his own sword.
order to generate counterplay in the 1 9 . . .'iixb2 20 'iid 7+ �b8 2 1 'iid 1
middlegame. 'iixc3 2 2 l:b 1 + <l;a7
As you play through the games in
this book will you come across many
fine attacking games in which this
strategy backfires for Black and he is
overwhelmed by a series of tactics that
catch his king in the centre or insuffi­
ciently defended on the queenside.
The following example 1s a case in
point.

Mecking-Rocha
Mar del Plata 1969
23 'iid4+!! 'iixd4 24 l2Jxc6 mate 1 -0
Samba chess!

Boensch-Litkiewicz
East Gemzan Championship 1974

Here Black has wasted a lot of time,

having already spent two moves with
each of his bishops and two moves
with his knight. Consequently he has
not yet managed to castle and the Bra­
zilian is able to exploit this with a fine
combinational flurry.
1 5 �xc5 'iixc5
1 5...bxc5 16 'ifb7 is obviously hope­
less.
1 6 l:xd7! �xd7 1 7 ltJxb6 + 'iixb6 1 8
'iixf7 + �c8 1 9 l2Jxe5
With two pawns and an attack for
Here Black has managed to castle
queenside, relying on the solid-looking
front of pawns to protect his king.
However, his pieces do not really have
any control on that side of the board
and White is able to blast open a hole
using his own pawns.
1 1 b4 cxb4 1 2 axb4 'iig6 1 3 �h 1 h5

11
Th e Spanish Ex change

This is as far as Black's counterplay
gets.
1 4 b5 axb5 1 5 .l:.xb5 'iic6 1 6 .l:.b2!
li:Jh6 1 7 'ifa 1 .i.xf3 1 S li:Jxf3 f6 1 9
.l:.fb1
White's major pieces have formed
an impressive barrage on the a- and b­
files.
1 9 .. .'�d7 20 .i.xh6 .l:.xh6 2 1 .l:.xb7
l:.hhS 22 'iib 2 .i.c5 23 'iib3 :as 24
li:Jh4 .l:.hfS 25 lt:Jg6 .l:.fdS 26 h3 .td6
27 'iif7 + �cS 2S 'iie6 + 'iid 7
Just in case you thought the previ­
ous two examples were untypical, take
a look at this game, which contains
startling echoes of both games
1 4 b5
First the pawn storm.
1 4 . . . axb5 1 5 axb5 exd4 1 6 .l:.a 1 'iPbS
1 7 lLlxd4 cxb5

And now the brilliant combina­

tional finish, incorporating a queen
sacrifice.
1 S .l:.aS + ! ! �xaS 1 9 'iia 1 + �b8 20
29 lt:Je7+ ! ! .txe7 30 .l:.bS+ 1 -0 'iia7 + ! �xa7 21 lLlc6 + �aS 22
Another beautiful finish. 30 ltxb8 ... .l:.a1 + 1 -0
31 'ifa6+ forces mate.
Maliutin-Komeev
Wahls-Lane Wisla open 1992
Malmo 1985

When Black has castled queenside,

12

White's attacking chances are not re­
stricted to the old-fashioned 'heave-ho'
of his queenside pawns. Often the
breakthrough can come from a piece
attack, exploiting the weaknesses on
c5 or aS.
1 9 tt::lxb7! �xb7 20 Wa3 �a7 2 1
tt::lc 5 ._,e2 2 2 l:.d2!
A quiet move in the middle of a tac­
tical storm.
22 . . ....b5 23 tt::lxd7 l:.he8 24 l:.ad 1
lle2 25 h3 tt::le 5 26 l:.xe2 ._,xe2 27
._,c5+ �b7 28 •b4+ �c8 29 •b8
mate
Another fine example of such a
piece attack can be found in Game 1 .
Santo Roman-Hauchard
French Team Championship 1991
One of Black's recurring problems
in the Exchange Spanish is the weak­
ness of his d6-square, which White can
often use as a target for a combination
or sacrifice, as we see here and in the
next example.
1 8 Wxb6! cxb6 1 9 tt::ld6+ �e7 20
tt::lxf7 �xf7 2 1 l:.d7+ �f6 22 l:.xb7
and White comfonably won the
endgame. See Game 3 for the whole
In tro duc tio n
of this game.
Benjamin-I.Sokolov
Amsterdam 1994
1 9 l:.xd6! !
The stan of a neat combination that
wins two pieces for a rook.
1 9 . . . cxd6
1 9...%:txd6 20 'ii'xg6! 'ii'xg6 21 �e7+
�b8 22 �g6 is very similar.
20 Wxg6! •xg6 2 1 tt::le7 + �c7 22
tt::lxg6 l:.he8 23 a4 l:.d7 24 a5 �g8
25 tt::\d 2 �h7 26 tt::lh4 d5 27 exd5
l:.xd5 28 tt::lhf3 �d3 29 c4 l:.d6 30
l:.e 1 �d7 31 �c5 l:.de6 32 l:.e3 e4
33 tt::le 1 1 -0
During the course of this book you
will find many other useful tactical
motifs that you may be able to use in
your own games. The selection here is
just a taster, highlighting the most
common. I hope that they have
helped to dispel the myth that the Ex­
change Spanish is 'boring', but if you
are not convinced then I suggest you
take a look at Games 22 and 52, which
are two of the most complicated
games you ever likely to come across!
13
A Suggested Repertoire for White
If you wish to play the Exchange Spanish with either side I would strongly rec­
ommend that you play through as many of the games in this book as possible.
This will enable you to develop a good feel for the types of position that arise in
every variation. For players seeking more precise guidance with regard to their
own repertoire as White, I suggest you look closely at the following games. In
some instances it should be possible to follow the game moves exactly if you
wish, while in others recommended improvements are given in the notes for
your consideration. In certain cases you may wish to substitute alternative lines
which are more suited to your own style of play.
There is no better way to study an opening than to look critically at master
games and try to find new moves for both sides yourself. All analysts are fallible,
and while every attempt has been made to provide fresh and accurate analysis, I
make no apology for any losses incurred as a result of routine repetition of the
lines in this book!

1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lt:lc6 3 �b5 a6 4 �xc6

4 dxc6 5 0-0
...•

5...f6 6 d4
6...iLg4 7 c3
7...exd4 8 cxd4-Games 1 -3
7...iLd6 8 iLe3
8...'ife7 9 tbbd2 -Game 6
8...tbe7 9 tbbd2 -Game 7
6...exd4 7 tbxd4 c5 8 tbb3 'ii'xdl 9 .l:.xdl
9...i.d6 10 tba5-Game 21
9...i.d7 10 i.f4 -Game 27
9...i.g4 1 0 f3
. 1 O ..i.d7 1 1 .tf4-Games 22 and 23
10...i.e6 1 1 i.f4-Game 26
5....tg4 6 h3
6...i.h5-Game 35
6...J.xf3-Game 36
6...h5 7 d3 'iff6 8 i.e3- Game 33
5...J.d6 6 d4 exd4 7 'ifxd4 f6 8 i.e3-Game 42
5...'ifd6 6 tba3
6...J.e6 7 "ii'e2 - Game 49
6...b5 7 c3 c5 8 tbc2- Games 50 and 51
5...tbe7 6 tbxe5 'i'd4 7 'i'h5 g6 8 "ii'g5 .tg7 9 ttJd3 f5 10 e5 c5 11 b3 h6
1 2 'ii'e3-Game 53
5.. .'ii'e7 6 d4-Game 59

14
 I n troduc tion

5...'iff6 6 d4 - Game 60
5....Ate7 6liJxe5 - Game 61
4... bxc6 5 0-0 - Game 65

A Suggested Repertoire for Black

My personal preference as Black is the 4... dxc6 5 0-0 .td6 line. However, if you
wish to play another line as Black there is plenty of material in this book to help
you with your particular favourite. Again I would recommend that you do not
just restrict yourself to looking at one or two chapters. It is remarkable how of­
ten the same positional and tactical themes recur in different variations.

1 e4 e5 2 tt::lf3 tt::lc6 3 .J\.b5 a6 4 .Jtxc6 dxc6

5 0-0 .td6 6 d4 exd4

7liJxd4liJe7 - Game 37
7 'ifxd4 f6
8 e5 fxe5 - Game 38
8 l:te1liJe7- Game 39
8 b3 'ii'e7- Game 40
8liJbd2 .Ate6 - Game 41
8 .Ate3liJe7 - Game 42
8 c4 c5 - Game 43
5liJc3 .Atd6 - Game 63
5 d4 exd4 - Game 64

15
 CHAPTER ONE I
5 0-0 f6 6 d4 i..g4 7 c3
1 e4 e5 2 lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 3 i.b5 a6 4
i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 i.g4 7 c3
At the 1966 Olympiad in Havana,
Bobby Fischer revitalised the Ex­
change vanat10n, scoring three
smooth wins and causing a total re­
evaluation of its long-standing but un­
deserved reputation as a boring draw­
ing weapon. In his victory over Sveto­
zar Gligoric in round eight, a game
which Fischer chose as one of his My
Sixty Memorable Games, he introduced
an important new move. After S...f6 6
d4 ..tg4, Fischer played 7 c3, bolster­
ing the white centre, creating the pos­
sibility of 'iib3 to attack the vulner­
able pawn on b7, and intending to
gambit a pawn with 7...i..xf3 8 'iixf3.
Neither Gligoric nor Jimenez, in a
later round at Havana, were bold
enough to accept the pawn, but both
were subjected to great pressure
straight from the opening and suffered
quick defeats. Of course, it was not
long before other players jumped on
the bandwagon and 7 c3 was soon es­
tablished as an important alternative
16
to 7 dxeS, although Fischer himself
switched to the latter move after Ha­
vana. Over the past thirty years 7 c3
has been played by several of the
world's leading players, including
Smyslov, Larsen, and most recently
Shirov, without ever superseding the
older 7 dxeS {see the next chapter).
Perhaps it is time for a reappraisal.
In this chapter we shall start by
looking at the Fischer-Gligoric and
Fischer-Jimenez games and then move
on to more resilient plans for Black. In
the model game Hecht-Chandler
(Game 5), Black maintains the tension
in the centre for as long as possible
and later takes advantage of the weak­
ness created at d3 by c2-c3. This strat­
egy seems to offer Black most chances,
but he must still play with great care
to avoid slipping into difficulties.
Game I
Fischer-Giigoric
Havana Olympiad 1966
1 e4 e5 2 lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 3 i.b5 a6 4

hc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 i.g4
6... exd4 is seen in Chapter 3.
7 c3
This was a new move at the time,
although, in his classic My Sixty Memo­
rable Games, Fischer points out that it
was in fact Gligoric's own suggestion
(after the game Lee-Gligoric, Hastings
1965/66)! In 1967 Fischer reverted to
the conventional 7 dxe5 in his game
against Smyslov at Monaco.
7 ...exd4
Nowadays 7...i.d6 is played almost
automatically (see Games 5-10).
8 cxd4 Wd7
It is very dangerous to accept the of­
fered material. After 8...i.xf3 9 "ifxf3
'ii'xd4 10 ltd1 White has plenty of play
for the pawn (see Game 3). Perhaps
Gligoric had forgotten his own rec­
ommendation, 8...c5 9 d5 i.d6, or
perhaps over the board he was scared
off by 9 'ii'b3 or 9 h3 i.h5 10 'ii'b3 (see
Game 4).
9 h3
White can also break the pin with 9
i.e3 followed by llJbd2 and 'ii'c2. In
view of the note to Black's 11th move,
this may actually be the most prudent
way to continue.
5 0 - 0 f6 6 d4 i.. g 4 7 c 3
9...i.e6
Fischer criticises this move on the
grounds that it gives White too much
freedom of movement, recommending
9...i.h5! 10 llJe5! i.xd1 1 1 llJxd7
<it>xd7 12 l:txd1, when Black should be
able to defend himself (although
Fischer actually outplayed Jimenez
from this position in a later round at
Havana - see Game 2). Note also that
the pawn grab 9...i.xf3 10 'iixf3 'iixd4
simply transposes to the previous note
with the addition of the, probably
helpful, h2-h3 for White.
1 0 ll:Jc3 0-0-0 1 1 i.f4 ll:Je7?
This seems too routine. Black
should have tried to exchange bishops
immediately with 1 1...i.d6. According
to Fischer, the sharp 1 1 ...g5!? 12 i.g3
h5 is refuted by the savage 13 d5! cxd5
14 .l:.cl and now:
a) 14... dxe4 15 llJa4! <it>b8 16 lhc7
'iixd1 17 ltc8+ <j;;a7 (17...�xc8 18liJb6
mate) 18 i.b8+ <j;;a8 1 9liJb6 mate.
b) 14...i.d6 15 llJa4! 'itb8 1 6 llJc5
'iie7(?) 1 7lDxa6+ bxa6 18liJd4 i.d7 19
'iib3+ cj;a7 20 :xc7+ i.xc7 21 i.xc7
i.b5 (or 21...'ii'c5 22 'ii'e3) 22 llJc6+
(Palacio) 22 ...i.xc6 23 'ii'b6+ with
mate next move.
These spectacular lines have been
quoted by numerous analysts without
question. However, it seems to me
that matters are from clear if Black
plays 16...i.xc5 17 .:txc5 dxe4 instead
of 16 ...'iie7? in the latter variation. For
example, 18 'iic2 cj;a8!? 19 :Xc7 'ii'd3
20 llJe1 'ii'xc2 21 lDxc2 leads to an un­
clear endgame.
Instead of 12 ...h5 ECO suggests
12 ...g4, when 13 hxg4 i.xg4 would
allow Black to apply pressure to the
17
Th e Sp anish Exc h ange
d4-pawn. In the game Petrushin­
Yudasin, USSR 1981, White chose 13
dS!? cxdS (13....1i.xd5?! 14 exdS gxf3 15
'i'xf3 cxdS 1 6 l:.ac1 is too risky for
Black) 14 exdS ii.xdS 15 �xdS 'i'xdS
1 6 hxg4, but was unable to make
much of the endgame. I prefer 16
'i'c2!?, when 1 6....1i.d6 17 l:tad1 'ii'c6
(17...'i'c5 18 'i'xc5 �xc5 19 l:txd8+
�xd8 20 �g5!? fxg5 [20...�h6? 21
�e6+] 21 ii.e5 g3 22 .:td1 + and .ltxh8
looks promising for White) 18 'i'xc6
bxc6 1 9 hxg4 may be a little some­
thing for White, whose own pawns
are slightly less disgusting than his op­
ponent's!
1 2 l:.c 1 lbg6 1 3 .tg3 .td6 1 4 lba4
1 4. . ..txg3?
Another inaccuracy. Fischer sug­
gests 14...�b8 1 5 �c5 'i'e7 to keep
some control over the c5-square, but
Black's position is already difficult.
1 5 fxg3 $>b8
Perhaps Gligoric had missed that
15 ...b6 runs into 1 6 dS! (16...cxd5 17
�xb6+).
1 6 lbc5 'iid 6 1 7 'iia4 $>a7?
Under great pressure Black commits
a fatal error. The only way to con­
tinue the struggle was to play 17 ...ii.c8
18
18 l:c3 �f8!, according to Fischer.
1 8 lbxa6! .txh3
18...bxa6 19 llxc6 would have cost
Black his queen to prevent mate.
1 9 e5!
This destroys Black's hopes of a
counterattack based on ...'i'xg3.
1 9 . . .lbxe5 20 dxe5 fxe5 21 lbc5+
$>b8 22 gxh3 e4 23 lbxe4 'iie7 24
l:.c3 b5
24 ... Resigns might have been more
appropriate.
25 'iic2 1 -0
A ruthless demolition by Fischer.
Does anyone still think that the Ex­
change Spanish is boring?
Game 2
Fischer-Jimenez
Havana Olympiad 1966
1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 .tb5 a6 4
.txc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 .tg4 7 c3
exd4 8 cxd4 'iid7 9 h3 .th5
see follo wing diagram
1 0 lbe5! .txd 1
The flashy 10...'i'xh3 leaves White
with a powerful pawn phalanx after 1 1
gxh3 i.xd1 12 .l:txd1 fxe5 13 dxe5 .ltc5

14 'iiil>g2 with f2-f4 to follow.
1 1 li:lxd7 <Ji>xd7 1 2 l:xd 1 l:e8 1 3 f3
After the game Fischer expressed a
preference for the immediate 13 tbc3
here.
1 3 . . l'Lie7
. 1 4l'Lic3 <Ji>c8 1 5 i.. e3 f5 1 6
l:ac 1 fxe4 1 7 fxe4 g6?
This is too slow. 17 ...tbg6 was nec­
essary.
1 8 i..f4! i.. g 7 1 9 d5 l:d8 20 li:la4
l:hf8 21 g3 g5?
Jimenez capitulates, jettisoning a
pawn without good reason. After
21...l:tf7 22 tbc5 White is clearly on
top, but Black can still fight.
22 i..x g5 l:f7 23 <Ji>g2 cxd5 24 exd5
<Ji>b8 25 l:e 1 i.. f8 26 l:f1 l:g7 27
i..f6 l:g8 28 l:ce 1 l:d7 29 d6 cxd6
5 0 - 0 f6 6 d4 �g4 7 c 3
30 i..xe7 i..xe7 3 1 l:f7 1 -0
31....:e8 is met by the fatal knight
manoeuvre 32 tbb6 l:tc7 33 tDdS.
Game 3
Santo Roman-Hauchard
French Championship 1991
1 e4 e5 2 l'Lif3 l'Lic6 3 i.. b5 a6 4
i..xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 i.. g4 7 c3
exd4 8 cxd4 i..xf3 9 1Vxf3 1Vxd4
A very risky pawn grab, but this is
the only way to justify Black's volun-
tary liquidation over the last two
moves.
1 0 l:d 1
This forcing move makes more ap­
peal than 10 tbc3 i.d6 (not 1 0... 0-0-0?
11 J:ld1 'i'eS 12 'i'h3+) 1 1 �f4
(Beliavsky suggests 1 1 'i'g4!?; when
11...'i'e5 12 f4 'i'e7 looks like Black's
best defence) 1 1 ...�xf4 12 'i'xf4 'ifeS
13 'i'g4 'i'e7 with equal chances, as in
Rozentalis-Beliavsky, USSR Champi­
onship 1990.
1 0 . . .1Vc4 1 1 i..f4 1Vf7
1 1 ...�d6 12 �xd6 cxd6 13 l:txd6
tbh6 14 tba3 'i'b4 1 5 .l:.ad1 0-0 was
played in Timman-Beliavsky, Linares
1988 (with the slight difference that
19
Th e Sp anish Exchange
the white pawn was on h3 rather than
h2). Here Timman suggests 16 'ife2!?,
when White retains some initiative
despite the exchanges. However, 13
'ifg3 appears to be more promising
than 13 .l:.xd6, as after 13 ...'iff7 14
:Xd6 lt:Jh6 15 lt:Jc3 and 16 :.ad1 White
is in control.
1 2 lt::l a 3
Timman recommends 12 'ifg3 with
a clear advantage to White. However,
Black can try 12 ... llc8 (12....td6 13
i..xd6 0-0-0? [13...cxd6 transposes to
the previous note] 14 e5! fxe5 15 'ii'g4+
'ifd7 16 .te7 'ifxg4 17 llxd8 mate was
the amusing miniature Volchok­
Kreslavsky, Kiev 1970) 13 lt:Jc3 g5 fol­
lowed by ...i.d6, when he can console
himself with an extra pawn in return
for his dishevelled kingside.
The straightforward 12 lbc3
(intending lld2 and .:tad1) should
probably be met by 12 ...g5!? or
12...h5!?, as 12...l:.d8 13 :.xd8+ �xd8
14 lld1+ <iii>c8 15 e5!? (15 'ife3 b6 16
'ifd3 �b7 17 'ifd8 also looks promis­
ing) 15 ...'ife6 16 'ifd3! i.e7 17 'iie3 b6
18 exf6 (the point of 16 'ifd3! now
becomes clear - the g7-pawn is no
longer defended) 18 ...'ifxe3 19 fxg7
'ifxf4 20 gxh8'if 'iff7 21 'ife5 1-0 was
completely disastrous for Black in the
game Nadanian-Mnatsakanian, Yere­
van open 1996.
1 2 . . ..i.c5 ? !
This loses too much time. Black
should have tried 12 ...i..b4 or 12 ...h5!?
instead.
1 3 l:.ac 1 .i.b6 1 4 lt::lc4 lt::le7 1 5 'ili'b3!
lt::lg 6 1 6 .i.g3 lt::le 5
16...0-0 would have been met by 17
:.d7!
20
1 7 .i.xe5 fxe5 1 8 'ili'xb6!
This spectacular pseudo-sacrifice al­
lows White to regain his pawn and
transpose to a won rook ending.
1 8 . . . cxb6 1 9 t'bd6+ r:J;e7 20 lbxf7
r:J;xf7 2 1 l:.d7+ r:J;f6 22 l:.xb7 b5 23
l:.xc6+ �g5 24 g3 g6 25 l:.e7 l:.ae8
26 l:.xe8 l:.xe8 27 l:.xa6 b4 28 l:.a4
l:.b8 29 r:J;g2 l:.b7 30 h4+ �f6 3 1
r:J;f3 r:J;e6 3 2 r:J;e3 l:.b6 3 3 �d3 l:.d6+
34 r:J;c2 l:.d4 35 f3 l:.c4+ 36 r:J;b3
l:.d4 37 l:.xb4 l:.d3+ 38 r:J;c4 l:.xf3 39
l:.b3 1 -0
Game 4
Wahls-Boudre
Aosta 1988
1 e4 e5 2 t'bf3 lbc6 3 .i.b5 a6 4
.i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 .i.g4 7 c3
exd4 8 cxd4 c5
Another critical test of White's
opening, bringing immediate pressure
to bear on the centre.
9 h3
Cleverly putting the question to the
bishop. Black seems to be fine after
the immediate 9 'ifb3 cxd4 10 'ifxb7 c5
or 9 d5 J.d6.
9 . . ..i.h5
 5 0 - 0 f6 6 d4 i.g4 7 c 3

A critical alternative is 9 ....i.xf3 10

'ifxf3 and now:
a} 10 ... cxd4 11 e5 c6 12 :et 'ife7
(12 ... .i.e7 13 'ii'g 3 g6? 14 exf6 lbxf6 15
'it'e5 ::tf8 16 .i.g5 is very dangerous for
Black) 14 .i.f4 0-0-0 15 lbd2, when
White has fine attacking chances for
the pawn.
b) 10...'ii'xd4 11 .:tdl 'ii'e5 12 i.f4
'ife7 (or 12 ...'ii'xb2 13 lbc3 'ifa3 14
.:labl} 13 tbc3 c6 14 lba4 ::td8 15 Wg4
leaves Black completely tied up.
1 0 1i'b3 cxd4 1 5 'ifc4+ �f8 1 6 1i'xd4 lt:lg6 1 7 l:.d 1
10 ...�xf3 should be met by 11 1i'c8 1 8 f5 lt:le5 1 9 1i'c3 g5 20 lt:la3
'ii'xf3, transposing to the previous l:.g8 21 �g2 g4 22 h4 �e7 23 lt:lc4
note, as 11 gxf3 cxd4 12 'ii'xb7 lbe7 13 g3 24 f3 lt:lxc4 25 1i'xc4 l:.b8 26 b3
.:ldl c5 14 b4 cxb4 (but not 14 ...c4 15 l:.b4 27 'ifc3 'ifb7 28 i..b2 i.. e 5 29
lba3 c3 16 :xd4!} 15 a3 'ifb8 16 'ifd3 'ii'b 6 30 'ifd7+ �f8 31 1i'd8+
'ifxb8+ .:lxb8 17 axb4 :Xb4 does not �g7 32 'ifd2 l:.d8 33 1i'e 1 ! l:.xd 1 34
seem to offer much to White. :Z.xd 1 1 -0
1 1 'ifxb7 i.. xf3
Here the advantage of flicking in 9
h3 �h5 is revealed compared to 9
'ifb3, as now on 11...c5 White can
play 12 'ifc6+ �f7 13 e5. Note also
that 11...lbe7 12 e5 �xf3 13 'ii'xf3 fxe5
14 :et lbg6 15 'ii'c6+ �f7 16 'ifc4+
'it>e8 17 f4 is very promising for
White.
1 2 1i'c6+ �f7 1 3 gxf3 i..d 6 1 4 f4
I prefer 14 .:ldl, when Black does
not seem to be able to hold on to the
d-pawn. A neat conclusion. 34 ...i.xb2 is met
1 4 .. .tLie7?! by 35 'ifxg3+ and a decisive penetra­
Since Black's king will be forced to tion of the white rook down the d-file,
f8 in any case, perhaps he should have while 34 ...i.d6 is refuted by 35 e5.
tried 14 ... �f8 15 .:tdtlbe7 and ...c7-c5.
After the game continuation Black is Game 5
simply a pawn down. His attempts to Hecht-Chandler
complicate matters are now calmly German Bundesliga 1981/82
dealt with by the German grandmas­
ter. 1 e4 e5 2 lt:lf3 lt:lc6 3 i.. b5 a6 4

21
Th e Sp anish Exc h ange
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 �g4 1 c3
�d6!
Nowadays Black invariably opts for
this move, holding firm in the centre.
8 �e3
White has also tried 8 dxeS, 8 �bd2
and 8 h3 here - see Games 8-10 respec­
tively.
8 . . .'ili'e7
An important alternative is 8 ... �e7
- see Game 7.
9 tt::\ b d2 0-0-0
This plan of development was in­
troduced by Geller at the 1973 Soviet
Championship and seems to offer
Black good equalising chances.
1 0 l:.e 1
10 'ifc2 looks more natural and is
considered in Game 6.
10 . . .tt::\h 6! 1 1 dxe5
1 1 .i.xh6 gxh6 presents Black with
the two bishops and opens the g-file
for the black rooks.
1 1 . . . �xe5 1 2 'ili'c2 tt::\f7 1 3 tt::\xe5
tt::\xe5
White's slow tenth move has al­
lowed Black to establish a powerful
piece on eS rather than an isolated
pawn. He now decides to remove the
knight by exchanging it for his bishop,
22
but this involves a further loss of time
which enables Black to develop good
control over the open d-file by advanc­
ing one of his c-pawns to c4.
1 4 f3 �e6 1 5 �d4 c5 1 6 �xe5 fxe5
1 7 l:.ad 1 c4 1 8 tt::\f 1 'ili'c5+ 1 9 'ili'f2
'ili'a5 20 l:.xd8+?!
Very tepid. White could still have
generated some counterplay with 20
"ii'a7 c6 21 l:td6!?, when 21...:txd6 22
'i'a8+ cl;c7 23 'i'xh8 is quite unclear.
20 . . .l:txd8 2 1 a3 'ili'b5 22 tt::\e3 l:.d3
White's insipid play has enabled his
opponent to establish a powerful bind.
23 l:e2 b6 24 h3 �b7 25 f4
This belated bid for activity soon
rebounds. White should have contin­
ued to do nothing with 25 �h2, when
it is far from clear how Black would
have been able to break through.
25 . . . exf4 26 'ili'xf4 'ili'c5 27 'ith2 g5!
28 'iif6
28 'i'g3 is well met by 28 ...h5 and
...h5-h4, according to Chandler, but
now White enters a lost ending.
28 . .. �xh3 29 gxh3 .:txe3 30 l:.xe3
'iixe3 31 e5 h5 32 e6 h4 33 'ili'f5
�c6 34 �g2 'ili'g3+ 35 �h 1 �d6 36
'iif8+
The pawn was lost in a case. Now

Black need only exercise some care in
evading the checks to secure victory.
36 . . .�xe6 37 ._e8+ �d6 38 ._g6+
�c5 39 ._f5+ �c6 40 ._e4+ �b5 41
._d5+ c5 42 a4+ �a5 43 •xc4
•xh3+ 44 �g 1 ._g3+ 45 �h 1 ._f3+
46 �g 1 ._e3+ 0-1
A fine demonstration of the perils
of playing the Exchange variation
with the sole aim of securing a draw.
Game 6
Smyslov-Geller
USSR Championship 1973
1 e4 e5 2 tt:lf3 tt:lc6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 �g4 7 c3
�d6 8 �e3 ._e7 9 tt:lbd2
9 . . . 0-0-0
The immediate exchange 9 ... exd4 10
cxd4 transposes to the main game after
10 ...0-0-0 1 1 'ii'c2 (1 1 l:.cl!? is also pos­
sible with this move order}, but does
actually avoid 9 ...0-0-0 10 'ii'c2 cxd4 1 1
tt:Jxd4 below. Black varied in Mali­
sauskas-Lakunza, Groningen 1992,
with the disastrous 10... c5? 11 dxc5
.itxc5 12 i.xc5 'ii'xc5 13 l:.cl 'ii'd6?! 14
'ii'b3 0-0-0 15 tt:Jc4 'ii'e7 16 tiJaS 'ii'xe4
17 l:.fe1 'ii'dS 18 'ii'b6 1-0. However,
5 0-0 f6 6 d4 i.g4 7 c 3
the flexible 9 ...tt:Jh6 is a perfectly valid
alternative to castling queenside, as
Black retains the option of going king­
side instead after ...tt:Jf7.
1 0 ._c2 exd4
In comparison with Game 5, here
10 ... tt:Jh6 could be met by 1 1 dxe5
i.xe5 (not 1 1...fxe5 12 i..g5} 12 tt:Jxe5
fxe5 13 f3, so Geller introduces a new
plan of applying immediate pressure
to his opponent's centre.
1 1 cxd4
After the first draft of this chapter
had already been written, an interest­
ing postscript occurred in the game
Shirov-Piket, Monaco (rapidplay}
1997, where Shirov experimented with
11 tt:Jxd4, leaving the black bishop on
g4 somewhat in limbo. Piket now
played 1 1...h5 in order to develop the
knight on h6 without allowing White
to double Black's pawns with i.xh6.
Instead 11...'ii'e5 12 f4 'i'h5 13 tt:Jc4 is
promising for White, but 11...'ii'f7 fol­
lowed by ...tt:Je7 was also possible, as
was the more forcing 1 1...c5 to meet
12 tlJ4f3 by 12 ... :e8, threatening
... i.xf3, and 12 tt:Jf5 by 12 ...i.xf5 13
exf5 'ii'd7 14 tlJe4 tlJe7 with equality,
so perhaps 12 tlJ4b3 i.e2 13l:tfe1 �d3
14 "ifd1 with interesting complica­
tions. The game continued 12 tt:Jc4
(1 1...'ii'f7 would at least have pre­
vented this} 12 ...tt:Jh6 13 h3 (it was
probably preferable to play the imme­
diate 13 f3) 13 ... i.d7 14 1Ue1 g5 15
:ad1 l:.he8 16 f3 with a complicated
game. Perhaps this encounter will
mark the beginning of a revival of in­
terest in the 7 c3 variation?
1 1 . . J%e8 1 2 e5? !
Geller suggests 12 l:.fe1, but after
23
The Spanish Exch ange
12 ....ltxf3 13 gxf3 'ii'e6 Black appears
to be fine, e.g. 14 tbc4 'ii'h3 15 tbxd6+
cxd6 16 d5 'ii'xf3 17 dxc6 'ii'g4+. If
White is prepared to allow his king­
side pawns to be doubled, he might as
well play 12 l:.fcl!?, aiming to generate
some play along the c-file.
12 ..• �b4
In The Application of Chess Theory,
Geller states that he declined the sacri­
fice because of 12 ... fxe5 13 .i.g5 tbf6?
14 dxe5 .i.xe5 15 :fe1, winning a
piece, but it is far from clear whether
White has enough compensation after
13 ...'ii'f8. In any case, from a practical
point of view it is sensible to decline
the sacrifice, since White's centre is in
danger of spontaneous combustion.
1 3 h3
BCO 2 gives 13 .i.f4 ('slightly better
for White') but 13 ...'ii'd7, threatening
....i.xd2, seems like a decent response.
1 3 . . . �e6 1 4 ltle4 'ii'f7 1 5 a3
15 tbc5 should be met by 15 ....i.d5
and not the greedy 15 ....i.xa2 16
tbxa6! bxa6 17 Wa4 .i.c4 18 'ii'xb4
.i.xf1 19 �xfl or 15 ....i.xc5?! 16 'ii'xcS
.i.xa2?! 17 'ii'a7 'ii'b3 18 d5! cxd5 19 e6!
:xe6 20 tbd4. Instead of 16 ... .i.xa2,
16 ... �b8 17 d5! and 16 ....i.d5 17 Wa7
24
cS 18 WxcS �xf3 19 gxf3 fxeS 20 dxeS
Wxf3 21 Wa7 also look very risky for
Black.
1 5 . . . �b3 1 6 'ii'b 1
The enterprising 16 tbeg5!? does not
quite work due to 16 ...fxg5 17 tbxg5
i..xc2 18 tbx£7 .i.b3! 19 tbxh8 i..a5.
1 6 . . .J.f8
Although this move proves effective
in the game, 16 ...�e7 may be a slight
improvement. The game Malisauskas­
Vyzmanavin, USSR Championship
1987, continued 17 tbfd2 �e6 18 f4
tbh6, when I slightly prefer Black's
position as White's central pawn
structure is rather static.
1 7 ltled2
It looks odd to retreat this knight
voluntarily from its central outpost.
Malisauskas's 17 tbfd2 seems equally
logical in this position, as 17...fxe5 fails
to 18 tbgS Wd5 19 tbxb3 Wxb3 20
'ii'f5+ <t>b8 21 'ii'f7! winning a rook.
After the game continuation, Black
gradually takes control of the light
squares.
1 7 . . . J.d5 1 8 b4 'ii'g 6 1 9 'ii'b 2 ltle7
20 a4 ltlf5 2 1 l:r.fe1 fxe5 22 dxe5
J.e7 23 l:r.e2 l:r.hf8 24 �c5 �xc5 25
bxc5

25 . . .lbd4!
A beautiful move that destroys
White's defences.
26 'ii'xd4 l:.xf3 27 lLle4 l:.xh3 28 lLlg3
l:.h5 29 l:.ae 1 l:.g5 30 l:.b2 l:.g4 3 1
'it'c3 h5
The final blow. White is powerless
to prevent the advance of this pawn,
shattering his defensive bastions.
32 l:.eb 1 h4 33 l:.xb7 hxg3 34 f3
'ii'h 6 35 l:.xc7+ <l;xc7 36 'it'a5+ �d7
37 e6+ <ltxe6 38 'ii'e 1 + �f6 0-1
In this hopeless position White lost
on time.
Game l
Kinsman-Kaabi
Cannes open 1998
1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 .i.b5 a6 4
.i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 .i.g4 7 c3
.i.d6 8 .i.e3 lLle 7
The immediate 8 .. .'ifd7 leaves Black
a little awkwardly placed after 9 h3,
e.g. 9 ...i.e6 (9 ...i.h5? 10 ltJxe5 or
9 ...exd4 10 i.xd4 i..e6 1 1 e5!) 10 dxe5
i.xe5 (10... fxe5 1 1 ltJg5) 1 1 'i'e2.
9 lLlbd2 'ii'd 7
Black prepares to castle queenside.
Note that 9 ...ltJg6 was well met by 10
'i'b3 'i'c8 11 c4 exd4 12 ltJxd4 c5 13
ltJf5 0-0 14 ltJxd6 cxd6 15 f3 i..e6 16
'i'b6 in Lobron-Khalifman, Brussels
(rapidplay) 1992. However, Black can
consider 'blundering' his pawn with
9 ... 0-0 1 0 'i'b3+ �h8, as after 1 1 'i'xb7
i.e6 it is hard for White to extricate
his queen (Black threatens ...'i'd7 and
.. J:Ub8). Rozentalis-Lautier, European
Club Cup 1994, concluded 12 dxe5 (12
c4 l:b8 13 'i'xa6 l:a8 14 'i'b7 l:b8 is an
immediate draw) 12 ... fxe5 13 ltJb3
5 0-0 f6 6 d4 i.g4 7 c 3
i.c4 13 l:fd1 l:b8 14 'i'a7 :as 15 'i'b7
with a draw by repetition. Perhaps
White should prefer the more conser­
vative 10 'i'c2, planning c3-c4.
Another idea is 9 ...cxd4 10 exd4 f5!?
(threatening .. .f5-f4) which leads to
very sharp play. After 11 'i'b3 fxe4
(10 .. .£4 1 1 e5) 12 ltJg5 lbd5 13 'i'xb7
0-0 14 lbgxe4 i.. e2! 14 l:fe1 i..b5
White's queen was in trouble in
Petrushin-Zakharov, USSR 1970,
while 11 e5 i.b4 12 'i'b3 lbd5 is also
fine for Black, so perhaps White
should prefer the unexplored 1 1 exf5!?
with i.g5 or 'i'b3 to follow.
1 0 dxe5
Now 10 'i'b3 can be defused easily
by 1 0...0-0-0.
1 0 . . . fxe5
1 1 h3
Putting the question to the bishop
at the appropriate moment since
1 1...i.h5? is again met by the standard
trick 12 lbxe5!
11 .i.e6 1 2 lLlg5
.•.
This seemed like a good idea at the
time. Now I would prefer Donev's 12
c4 lbg6 13 c5 i.e7 14 'i'c2 0-0 15 'i'c3
with a slight plus.
1 2 . . ..i.g8 1 3 'it'h5+?!
25
Th e Sp anish Exchange
This superficially attractive con­
tinuation leads to a series of forcing
moves, after which White has nothing
if his opponent is careful. A better
way to exploit the logjam in Black's
position is 13 c4 lL.lg6 14 'ii'e2.
1 3 . . . ll:lg6
13 ... g6 fails to 14 'ii'f3, threatening
15 'ii'f6.
1 4 l:lfd 1
White makes space for his knight to
come over to the kingside via f1 and
g3, but that is not the correct plan.
1 4 . . . 0-0-0 1 5 ll:lf1 ? !
Here White can still play for an ad­
vantage with 15 lL.lb3 followed by l:.d2
and l:.adl.
15 . . ."ii'e8 1 6 ll:lg3 h6 1 7 ll:lf3
Thus far this is Benjamin-I.Sokolov,
Amsterdam 1994, where Black played
the natural 17...i.. e6 18 lL.lf5 'ii'f7?? and
ran into 19 l:.xd6! (this elegant little
combination wins two pieces for a
rook) 19 ...cxd6 20 'ii'xg6 'ii'xg6 21
lL.le7+ <Ji;c7 22 lLlxg6 l:.he8 23 a4 l:td7
24 a5 i.. g8 25 lLld2 i..h7 26 lLlh4 d5 27
exdS l:.xdS 28 lL.lhf3 i..d3 29 c4 11d6 30
l:.e1 <Ji;d7 31 i..c5 !1de6 32 1Ie3 e4 33
lLle1 1-0. Unfortunately, my opponent
was somewhat less obliging!
26
1 7 . . .ll:lf4!
After the queens are exchanged
White has very little.
1 8 �xe8 l:lxe8 1 9 ll:lf5 �f8 20 g3
ll:lh5 21 g4 ll:lf6 22 ll:lg3 g6 23 �g2
ll:ld7 24 l:ld2 �d6 25 ll:lg1 ll:lf8 26
ll:l 1 e2 ll:le6 27 f3 1h-%
Here I offered a draw, which fortu­
nately my opponent accepted. I didn't
like the look of 27...l:th7 at all.
Game 8
Miles-Timman
Hastings 1973/74
1 e4 e5 2 ll:lf3 ll:lc6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 �g4 7 c3
�d6 8 h3 �h5
The correct retreat in this instance
as 8 ...i..e6 fails to the standard trick 9
dxe5 fxe5 10 lLlxe5 i..xe5 1 1 'ii'h5+.
9 �e3
Of course, 9 lL.lbd2 is playable here,
by analogy with Game 9 (Black can
respond with 9 ...'ii'e7 and ...0-0-0 or
9 ...lL.lh6 and ... lL.lf7), but 9 dxe5 fxe5 10
'ifb3 i..xf3 11 gxf3 is far worse than
Game 10 due to 11...lL.le7 12 'iixb7 0-0,
when the weakness of the h-pawn will
mean instant death.

9 . . JWe7
Here 9 ...0.e7 10 0.bd2 0-0 (but not
10 ...'ii'd7? 11 0.xe5) makes just as
much sense as in Game 7, since 11
1Wb3+ is well met by 11...ii..f7.
1 0 ltlbd2 exd4 1 1 cxd4 0-0-0 1 2
•c2 :ea?
The Geller approach (see Game 6) is
tactically flawed here, as the black
bishop is loose on h5. 12 ...'ii'e6 fol­
lowed by ...0.e7 was later suggested as
an improvement, when White may
regret the weakness caused by h2-h3.
1 3 e5 .i.xf3
Not 13 .. .fxe5?? 14 'iif5+.
1 4 ltlxf3 fxe5 1 5 dxe5 .i.xe5 1 6
.l:ae 1 !
A very clever choice. With the
other rook on e1, Black can wriggle
with 16 ... ii..f6 17 .ta7 'iid7, but now
16 ... ii..f6 loses to 17 Ji.. a7 'iid7 18 :td1
'iif7 19 'iif5+ 'iie6 20 ltfe1!, when the
rooks are the right way round.
1 6 . . .'ii'f7 1 7 .i.g5 .i.f6
Necessary as 17 ... Ji..d6 fails to 18
'iif5+ 'iixf5 19 :Xe8+ �d7 20 l:td8+
�e6 21 0.d4+.
1 8 'ii'f5+ �b8 1 9 ltle5 'ii'h 5 20 'ii'g4?
A terrible oversight by Miles, who
could have reached a very favourable
5 0-0 f6 6 d4 i.. g 4 7 c 3
endgame after 20 g4 0.h6 (or 20. . .0.e7
21 0.d7+ �a8 22 0.xf6 gxf6 23 'iixf6
'ii'xh3 24 l::txe7 'ifxg4+ 25 �h2 and
White is on top) 21 0.d7+ �a8 22
0.xf6 gxf6 23l'itxe8+ l:txe8 24 'ii'd7 (but
not 24 'iixf6 'iixh3 25 'i'xh6 'iixg4+ 26
'itth2 'iie2 with chances of a draw)
24 ... 'iif7 25 'ii'xf7 0.xf7 26 .txf6.
20 . . .'ii'xg4 2 1 ltlxc6+ bxc6 22 .l:xe8+
'ii'c8 0-1
Game 9
Waitzkin-I.Gurevich
New York open 1993
1 e4 e5 2 ltlf3 ltlc6 3 i..b 5 a6 4
.i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 i..g4 7 c3
.i.d6 8 ttJbd2
8 . . .ttJh6
Black must beware 8 ...0.e7 9 'iib3
and 8 .. .'i'd7?! 9 h3 Ji..e6? (9 ... ii..h5?
runs into the standard 10 0.xe5 so
Black must acquiesce in the feeble ex­
change on f3) 10 dxe5 fxe5 11 0.xe5
Ji..xe5 12 'ilih5+. Geller's favourite
8 ... 'ii'e7 might appear to be somewhat
risky at first sight, as White can use
the time he has saved in not playing
.te3 to probe the black queenside
with 9 0.c4 0-0-0 10 h3 ii..h5 11 0.a5,
27
Th e Spanish Ex change
as in Beliavsky-Radulovic, Ohrid
1972. However, 11.. ..i.c5! then makes
full use of both pins on the white
queen to undermine White's centre,
e.g. 12 'ii'b3 i..b6 13 ltk4 i..a7 14 ltla5
.i.b6 with a draw by repetition. In­
stead of the ambitious 11 ltla5, White
should perhaps prefer 11 'ii'e2, keeping
his options open and politely asking
Black how he intends to develop the
rest of his kingside.
Gurevich's move exploits the fact
that White's bishop is temporarily
unable to take on h6 in order to place
the knight on the attractive f7-square.
9 lt:Jc4
Here 9 h3 is simply met by 9 ....i.e6,
when the game Westerinen-Zinn,
Halle 1967, is a good illustration of the
advantages of Black's flexible set-up:
10 'ii'e2 'ii'e7 11 lt:lc4 lt:lf7 12 ii.e3 g5!
13 dxe5 fxe5 14ltlh2 h5 and Black was
well placed to exploit the weakening
of the white kingside caused by the
move h2-h3. A more critical test of
Black's idea is Keres's 9 'ii'b3, when
9 ...'ii'c8?! 10 dxe5 fxe5 11 lt:lg5!? leaves
Black's pieces somewhat tangled up, so
Black has to compromise his queen­
side with either 9 ...b6 or 9 ... b5 or play
the passive 9 ...ltb8.
9 ...lt:Jf7 1 0 lt:Je3 -'.e6 1 1 c4 c5!
Gurevich forces his opponent to
show his hand in the centre. Both 12
dxe5 and 12 dxc5 allow Black control
of the d4-square, so perhaps 12 d5
should have been preferred, in accor­
dance with the standard strategy of
closing the position when one's oppo­
nent has the two bishops.
1 2 dxe5 fxe5 1 3 'ii'c 2 0-0 1 4 b3 'ii'f6
1 5 -'.b2 l:ae8 1 6 -'.c3 lt:Jd8 1 7 lt:Je 1
28
'ii'g 6 1 8 f3 lt:Jc6 1 9 l:f2 l:f7 20 lt:Jf1
l:ef8 2 1 �h 1 'ii'h 5
Black has gradually improved his
position so that all his pieces are on
excellent squares, whereas his oppo­
nent's are a sorry picture, particularly
the two knights, which are very badly
situated on the back rank.
22 lt:Jd3 b5!
A fine move that allows White to
create an outside passed pawn, but
only at the cost of losing control over
the centre.
23 cxb5 axb5 24 a4 c4 25 bxc4
bxc4 26 lt:Je 1 -'.c5 27 a5 'ii'h4
This manoeuvre forces a fatal weak­
emng.
28 g3 'ii'h 5 29 a6 lt:Jd4
At last Black lands something on
the d4-square that was weakened by
White's 12th move. The end is merci­
fully quick.
30 -'.xd4 -'.xd4 31 l:a3 -'.c5 32 :a 1
-'.xf2 33 'ii'xf2 -'.g4 34 a7
The pawn finally reaches the sev­
enth rank, but there is no chance of a
'touchdown'.
34 l:xf3 35 lt:Jxf3 -'lxf3+ 36 �9 1
...
-'.xe4 37 'ii'e3 -'.aS 38 l:b1 'ii'f7 39
l:d 1 c5 0-1

Game 10
Larsen-Portisch
Rotterdam {9th matchgame) 1977
1 e4 e5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 ..ib5 a6 4
..ixc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 ..ig4 7 c3
..id6 8 dxe5 fxe5 9 'iib3
White tries to apply immediate
pressure against Black's b-pawn and
the exposed a2-g8 diagonal.
9 . . ...ixf3 1 0 gxf3
For no apparent reason, this artifi­
cial variation was quite popular with
White players for a time in the early
and mid-1970s. It hardly seems to
make sense to let one's kingside pawns
to be doubled with the queens still on
and the f-file open for Black.
1 0 . . . b6!
10...b5 allows White to justify his
play with 11 a4! and 10...'ii'c8 leaves
Black's queen and queen's rook in a
tangle.
1 1 'iic4liJe7 1 2 ..ie3 b5 1 3 'iie6
White would already have been in
trouble after 13 'ii'b3 �g6 14 ttJd2 'ii'f6.
13 •..'iid 7 1 4 'iig 4
A fourth move by the white queen
5 0-0 f6 6 d4 �g4 7 c 3
in the last six moves!
14 . . liJg6
. 1 5 liJd2 'iWe7 1 6 �h 1 0-0
1 7 l:tg 1 liJf4 1 8 a4 l:tf6 1 9 'iih4 l:taf8
19...'ii'f7, hoping to exploit the posi­
tion of the white queen, was also pos­
sible.
20 axb5 axb5 2 1 ..ixf4 l:txf4 22
'iWxe7 ..ixe7 23 l:ta7
After several accurate moves, White
has at least managed to activate his
rooks. However, the inevitable en­
trance of the black bishop into the
game promises Black good long-term
chances.
23 . . .l:td8 24 ttlb3 l:txf3 25 l:txc7 ..ifS
26 �g2 l:tf6 27 :n l:td3 28 liJa5
l:tdd6 29 b3 h6 30 c4 bxc4 3 1 ttlxc4
l:tde6 32 liJe3 l:tf4 33 f3 l:tg6+ 34
�f2 ..ic5 35 �e2 l:th4 36liJg4 ..id4
At last the bishop reaches its opti­
mum square, but ironically this move
costs Black a deserved victory. White
would have been helpless after the
forcing variation 36...h5 37 �eS
%hh2 + 38 �d1 l:d6 + 39 �cl :dd2
40 �4 :a2 41 �b1 iLd4 (as given by
Forintos).
37 l:tc8+ �h7 38 l:th 1 h5 39 ttle3 c5
40 :ts l:th3 41 l:tf7 �g8 42 :c7 l:tf6
43 liJf5 g6 44 l:tc6 l:txc6 45 liJe7+
�f7 46 ttlxc6 g5 47 b4 cxb4 48
ttlxb4 �f6 49 liJd5+ �e6 50 liJc7+
�f7 5 1 liJb5 ..tc5 52 ttlc7 �f6 53
liJd5+ �g6 54 l:tc 1 l:txh2+ 55 �d3
..id4 56 l:tc6+ �f7 57 l:tf6+ �e8 58
l:tf5 g4 59 fxg4 h4 60 l:th5 �f7 6 1
l:tf5+ �e8 6 2 l:th5 �f7 6 3 l:tf5+ % -%
A fine rearguard action by Larsen,
who was under pressure for practically
the whole game. But surely 8 i.e3 is
much better than this?
29
Th e Spa n ish Exchange

Summary
After the initial flurry of interest caused by Fischer's involvement, 7 c3 has never
quite matched the popularity of the older 7 dxe5. However, having been
adopted recently by Shirov and Rozentalis, it is becoming fashionable once
agam.
There are quite a few pitfalls for the unwary so both sides need to be well
prepared, particularly Black. The critical variations arise after 7...i..d6 8 i..e3
'iie7 (Games 5 and 6} and 8...tbe7 (Game 7}, neither of which have yet been ex­
hausted by theory.

1 e4 e5 2 ttJt3 ltJc6 3 .i.b5 a6 4 .i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 .i.g4 7 c3 .i.d6 (DJ

7...i..xf3 8 'ifxf3 cxd4 9 exd4- see below (7...exd4 8 cxd4 i..xf3 9 "ifxf3}
7...exd4 8 cxd4
8 .'iid7 9 h3
..

9...i..e6- Game 1
9....ths- Game 2
8 ..i..xf3 9 'ifxf3 'iixd4 Game 3
. -

8.. c5- Game 4

.

8 .i.e3 (DJ
8 h3- Game8
8 tbbd2 Game 9-

8 dxe5- Game 10
8. -.e7
..

8 ..tbe7-
. Game 7
9 ltJbd2 0-0-0 (DJ 1 0 ._c2
10 l!el - Game 5
1 0 . exd4
.. - Game 6

7
. . . .i.d6 8 .i.e3 9. . . 0-0-0

30
 CHAPTER TWO I
5 0-0 f6 6 d4 ..tg4 7 dxe5
1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 ltJc6 3 .i.b5 a6 4
.i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 .i.g4 7
dxe5
In this chapter we shall take a look
at the old main line, in which White
immediately heads for an exchange of
queens, hoping to exploit Black's iso­
lated e-pawn and doubled c-pawns.
One of the critical issues in this
chapter is whether or not Black
should take the opportunity to double
White's pawns with ...i.xf3. In Game
11 we see the immediate 7...'ii'xd1 8
lbd1 i.xf3 9 gxf3 fxe5, when White
has a pleasant choice between 10 f4, 10
i.e3 and 10 l:.d3!? (transposing to
Game 14). In order to reduce his op­
ponent's options, Black can also delay
the capture on f3 by playing 8 ...fxe5
and only playing 9....txf3 after 9 l:.d3.
Game 13 shows that 10 l:.xf3 leads to
an equal position, so White should
play 10 gxf3!, as in Game 14, with
chances of an advantage.
In view of the fact that 8...i.xf3 and
8...fxe5 9 .:td3 i.xf3 10 gxf3! are not
quite satisfactory for Black, theory
now recommends that Black should
play the flexible 8...fxe5 9 l:.d3 i.d6,
which has been extensively analysed
over the past 25 years (see Games 15-
19).
If White wishes to avoid these
highly theoretical lines he can experi­
ment with 9 liJbd2, which is quite
trendy at the moment (see Game 12)
or the relatively unexplored 9 b3 (see
Game 20).
We start our discussion with an­
other Fischer victory.
Game 11
Fischer-Rubinetti
Buenos Aires 1970
1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 ltJc6 3 .i.b5 a6 4
.i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 .i.g4 7
dxe5 'ifxd 1
Of course 7...fxe5 simply loses a
pawn to 8 'ii'xd8+ .l:txd8 9 lbxe5.
8 llxd 1 .i.xf3
This exchange seems too simplistic
but may be playable. Nowadays, how­
ever, Black usually prefers the more
31
The Spanish Exc h ange
flexible 8 ...fxe5 (see Games 12-20).
9 gxf3 fxe5
1 0 �e3
It is hard to resist the temptation to
remove the doubled pawn immedi­
ately with 10 f4, but Black has
10...tbf6!, when 11 tbc3 i.d6 12 f5 g6!
is promising for him. White could try
11 fxe5 tbxe4 12 f3 tbc5 13 tbc3; 11 f3
.td6 12 fxe5 i.xe5 13 f4 i.d6 14 �g2
or even Fischer's wacky 11 tbc3 i.d6
12 fxe5 iLxe5 13 tba4!? {threatening f2-
f4, to which Black's best response may
be 13... g5!?) but these all entail a de­
gree of risk.
The game move seems natural
enough, but it may be more accurate
to keep the option of moving the
bishop to g5 with 10 :d3!?, transpos­
ing to Game 14. This move is in itself
quite dangerous and has the added ad­
vantage that White need only learn
one line that can be played against
both 8 ...i.xf3 9 gxf3 fxe5 and 8...fxe5
9 :d3 .txf3.
1 0 . . .�d6
Here 10 ...tbe7?! is careless due to 11
f4! tbg6 {11...exf4 12 i.xf4 is awkward
for Black) 12 f5 tbh4 13 tbd2. Here a
draw was agreed in the game Kagan-
32
Smyslov, Hastings 1976, although
Black is a long way from equality.
However, 10...tbf6 is playable (and
was in fact Smyslov's choice when he
reached the same position four years
later!) and is probably better than the
text move. Iskov-Smyslov, Copenha­
gen open 1980, continued 11 tbd2
0-0-0 12 tbc4 l:e8! (12 ...i.d6 13 :d3
and 12...:Xd1+ 13 :xd1 only help
White) 13 :d3 l:e6 14 �fl iLe7 15
�e2 tbh5 16 l:g1 %U8 17 :dd1 g6 18
l:g4 b6 19 .th6 l:f7 20 i.e3 aS 21 a4
i.f6 22 l:gg1 .tg7 23 :d2 .tf6 �-�. It
is hard to see any obvious improve­
ments for White after 12 ...:e8!
1 1 tt::ld 2 tt::le 7
Now 11...tbf6 can also be met by 12
tbc4 followed by (l:d3 and :ad1),
when the black bishop is not particu­
larly comfortable on d6.
1 2 tt::lc4 0-0-0
1 3 :Z.d3
Probably because Fischer played it,
this move is universally recom­
mended, but it may be more accurate
to flick in 13 .tg5 l:he8 and only now
14 :d3, as after 14 ... h6 15 iLxe7 l:xe7
16 l:ad1 Black is still slightly tied up
and White has a 'good knight vs. bad

bishop' scenario.
1 3 . . . b5?!
The natural 13...lt:Jg6!? is usually
dismissed by 14 .tg5 'with a clear plus
for White', but in fact White does not
seem to have a great deal after 14 ...b5!
15 lt:JaS .te7! or 15 lt:Jxd6+ :xd6.
1 4 tt:la5 i.b4 1 5 tt:lb3 l:txd3 1 6 cxd3
tt:lg6
Or 16....l:.f8 17 d4!?
1 7 �f1 !
An excellent king centralisation.
1 7 . . ..:tf8 1 8 �e2 tt:lf4+ 1 9 i.xf4
l:txf4 20 l:tg 1
20 . . J�h4?
A totally bizarre decision, allowing
the white rook free passage to the sev­
enth rank. After 20 ...l:.f7 or 20 ...g6,
Black could have kept his disadvantage
within manageable bounds.
2 1 l:txg7 l:txh2 22 a3 i.d6 23 f4!
exf4 24 d4 �d8 25 tt:la5 c5 26 e5
i.f8 27 tt:lc6+ �e8 28 l:txc7 1 -0
Game 12
Timman-Beliavsky
FIDE World Ch., Groningen 1997
1 e4 e5 2 tt:lf3 tt:lc6 3 i.b5 a6 4
i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 i.g4 7
5 0-0 f6 6 d4 !i.. g 4 7 dx e5
dxe5 'it'xd 1 8 l:txd 1 fxe5 9 tt:lbd2
The modem treatment. The more
traditional 9 l:.d3 is considered m
Games 13-19 and 9 b3 in Game 20.
9 . . .0-0-0!
A refinement on one of Beliavsky's
earlier games, utilising the pin on the
d-file. After 9 ....td6 10 h3 Black can
play 10 ... .txf3 {10....th5 11 lt:Jc4) 11
gxf3 (or 11 lt:Jxf3 lt:Jf6 with equal
chances according to Beliavsky, al­
though I prefer White after 12 lte1
0-0-0 13 .tg5) when Beliavsky gives
11...b5!? 12 lt:Jb3 lt:Je7 13 .te3 llf8 14
�g2 lt:Jg6 with counterplay. However,
I would rather play White after 13
�f1-e2 instead of 13 .te3. Further­
more, 11...lt:Jf6 (instead of 11...b5) 12
lt:Jc4 0-0-0 leaves Black practically a
whole tempo up on the note to move
11 in the previous game, since h2-h3 is
not a useful move for White.
1 0 l:le 1 i.d6 1 1 h3 i.h5
Again White is slightly better after
11.. ..txf3 12 �xf3 �f6 13 .tgs. After
11...il.h5 the critical position of the 9
�bd2 variation is reached.
Here both Timman and Shirov
have elected to play ...
12 g4
33
Th e Spanish Exchange
However, White has had reasonable
practical results with 12 lt:Jh4 il..f7
(12 ... tt:Je7 13 lt:Jf5 lt:Jxf5 14 exf5 left the
black e-pawn somewhat vulnerable in
Maliutin-Mamadshoev, USSR Team
Championship 1991) 13 tt:Jf5 g6 14
lt:Jxd6+ cxd6 15 f4 exf4 16 lt:Jf3 h6 17
J..xf4. For example, 17 ...lt:Jf6 18 e5
tt:JdS 19 il..g3 opened up the position
to White's advantage in Maliutin­
Faure, Geneva 1991.
1 2 . . ..i.f7 1 3 t'Llf1 l:tf8!
An excellent defensive move. Black
is in no hurry and can gradually im­
prove the position of his pieces, confi­
dent that White has no real way to
make progress. In the earlier game
Shirov-Topalov, Linares 1997, Black
weakened his kingside unnecessarily
with 13... h6, and after 14 lt:Jg3 l:.e8 15
J.d2 g6 16 �g2 lt:Jf6 17 g5! hxg5 18
lt:Jxg5 il..g8 19 .l:te3 an unclear position
was reached, which White eventually
won.
14 t'Llg3 .i.e6 1 5 �g2 g6 1 6 .i.d2
This game is somewhat reminiscent
of Game 7. White has placed his pieces
on ideal-looking squares but does not
really have anywhere to go.
1 6 . . . h5 1 7 t'Llg5 .i.d7 1 8 f3 c5
34
In his notes in Informator 71 Be­
liavsky prefers 18 ...tt:Jh6 19 tt:Jfl lt:Jf7
with equal chances.
1 9 l:tad 1 t'Lle7 20 .i.e3 t'Llc6 2 1 c3
t'Lld8 22 b3 t'Lle6 23 t'Llxe6 .i.xe6 24
.i.g5 l:tf7 25 :n b5
Having completely neutralised
White's kingside play, Black is now
perfectly placed to exploit his queen­
side pawn majority, taking full advan­
tage of the two bishops.
26 l:td2 �b7 27 l:tff2 a5 28 l'Llf1 c4
29 bxc4 .i.xc4 30 t'Lle3 .i.e6 31 l'Lld5
.:lhf8 32 c4 bxc4 33 .i.h6 hxg4 34
fxg4 .i.xd5 35 exd5 c3 0-1
I doubt if we will be seeing too
much more of the committal 12 g4.
Game 13
Fischer-Smyslov
Monte Carlo 1967
1 e4 e5 2 l'Llf3 t'Llc6 3 .i.b5 a6 4
.i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 .i.g4 7
dxe5 �xd 1 8 J:txd 1 fxe5 9 l:td3 .i.xf3
1 0 .:lxf3?!
On the face of it, this looks more
natural than 10 gxf3, but the latter
move has its advantages (see the next
game).

1 0 . . .tllf6 1 1 tllc3
11 lbd2 0-0-0 is also perfectly satis­
factory for Black.
1 1 . . . i.b4
11...h6 12 .l:.d3 i.c5 also offers good
equalising chances.
1 2 i.g5 i.xc3
Efim Geller once fell for the trap
12...0-0-0? 13 lbf6! gxf6 14 i.xf6 and
went on to lose the endgame after
14 ...i.xc3 15 bxc3 l:.hfS 16 i.xdS
:xdS 17 �fl l;ld2 1S l:.c1 in Bednar­
ski-Geller, Siegen Olympiad 1970.
1 3 bxc3
White has avoided doubled f-pawns
but ended up with doubled c-pawns
instead! 13 l1xc3 lbxe4 14 .l:te3 lbxg5
15 llxe5+ �f7 16 .l:.xg5 lthdS! is abso­
lutely nothing for White, e.g. 17 :et
l:d2 1S l:tc5 :ads 19 �fl .:tsdS 20 l:.c3
.l:.f5 'h-'h Gipslis-Smyslov, USSR
Team Championship 1972. Even
worse is 13 i.xf6? i.xb2 14 l:tbl gxf6
15 lhb2 0-0-0!, when White emerges a
pawn down.
1 3 . . . .:lf8!
13 ...0-0? (13 ...lbxe4? 14 l:.el is also
inferior) 14 i.xf6 :xf6 (or 14 ...gxf6 15
l:tdl .f!adS 16 l:tfd3) 15 l:txf6 gxf6 16
:dt leaves Black ruing the fact that he
5 0-0 f6 6 d4 �g4 7 dx e5
has placed his king out of play on gS.
14 i.xf6 .:lxf6 1 5 .:lxf6 gxf6 16 .:ld 1
In My Sixty Memorable Games
Fischer claims that he should have
won this endgame. However, nowa­
days this position is regarded as com­
pletely equal.
1 6 . . .�e7?!
It was later discovered that the im­
mediate 16 ... a5!, preparing to develop
the rook laterally, is more accurate,
e.g. 17 �fl (or 17 l::td3 a4 1S l:h3
.l:dS!) 17...a4 1S �e2 :aS 19 :b1 b6!
(not 19 .. J:Ib5 20 .l:b4! a3 21 :b3) 20
�d2 �e7 21 l:.el llb5 22 a3 h6 23 �cl
l:!aS 24 l:te3 :as 25 l::tg3 �f7 26 �d2
c5 27 ild3 �e6 2S l:.g3 1h-'h Bednarski­
Hennings, Aarhus 1971 (Black has
2S ... b5-b4).
1 1 .:ld3! :ts
So as to meet 1S :th3 with 1S ...l::tf7.
1 8 �f1 a5 1 9 g4
It is not clear why White should be
in such a hurry to advance his kingside
pawns. 19 �e2 seems more logical.
1 9 . . ..:lg8 20 h3 b5 21 ..t>e2 �e6 22
�f3 .:lb8 23 �e3 c5! ?
Matanovic prefers the waiting move
23...:gs.
24 c4!? bxc4
35
Th e Spanish Exchange
25 l:.a3
Here Matanovic suggests that 2S
l:tdS would have led to a favourable
position for White. However, after
2S...llbS 26 a4 c6! it is hard to see why
it should be White who is playing for
a win. After the game continuation an
equal position is reached, although
Fischer was never averse to testing his
opponent's technique in circumstances
such as these.
25 . ..l:.b5 26 �d2 �d6 27 l:.f3 �e6
28 �c 1 l:.b8 29 l:.a3 l:.b5 30 l:.c3
�d6 3 1 a3 l:.b8 32 l:.xc4 h5 33 f3
�c6 34 l:.c3 l:.d8 35 l:.d3 l:.h8 36
�d2 c4 37 l:.e3 �c5 38 l:.e2 hxg4
39 hxg4 .:.h 1 40 l:.g2 � -�
Game 14
Adorjan-Tringov
Varna 1972
1 e4 e5 2 �f3 �c6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 �g4 7
dxe5 -.xd 1 8 l:.xd 1 fxe5 9 l:.d3 �xf3
1 0 gxf3!
This position can also be reached
from the move order 8.....txf3 9 gxf3
fxeS 10 l:td3!?
1 0 . . .�f6
36
Following the 'rule' - knights be­
fore bishops. After 10....Jid6 11 ttJd2
bS 12 tDb3 (12 f4 exf4 13 lDf3 followed
by e4-eS also looks promising) 12...cS
13 ltJaS c4 14 l::td1 ltJf6 (14...tDe7 lS
tDb7! �d7 16 f4! 'it>c6 17 lDxd6 cxd6
18 fxeS dxeS 19 .JigS was also unpleas­
ant for Black in Tisdall-Yilmaz, Thes­
saloniki Olympiad 1988) White is not
obliged to transpose to the note to
Black's 13th move in the main game
with lS a4 but can instead play lS b3!
to meet 1S...cxb3 with 16 axb3 and
1S...c3 with 16 l::td3.
It is also risky to play lO.....tcS 11
tDd2 lDe7 12 tDb3 .Jid6, when instead
of 13 ltJaS 0-0-0 14 .JigS, as in Adorjan­
Hernandez, Graz 1972, White can
play the immediate 13 .JigS, when
13... h6 14 .Jixe7 �xe7 lS ltJaS :labS 16
l:.b3 and 13...0-0-0? 14 :xd6 favour
White and 13...a5 14 a4 (14...cS lS
tDd2) also looks quite promising.
1 1 �d2
The Swedish IM Stellan Brynell has
enjoyed some success with 11 .JigS!?
here, intending to exchange on f6 at
the appropriate moment and keeping
tDd2-c4 in reserve. This may be
White's best plan.
 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 i.g4 7 dx e5

1 1 . . . b5
1 1...�d6 12 �c4 0-0-0 13 it..g5 al­
lows White to apply pressure on the
black position.
1 2 a4 .td6 1 3 ttlb3 0-0?!
This is too routine. Black should
play 13 ... c5! 14 �aS c4 (14 ..0-0 15 c4!
.

transposes back to the main game) to

cut across White's plan, when after 15
l:[dl �f7 I like the idea of 16 �f1-e2,
keeping the option of moving the
knight to c6 or b7.
1 4 ttla5?! 26 . . . c4?!
14 .:c3! would have been the best Here or on the next move Black
way to take advantage of Black's inac­ should have tried 26 .. .f5 to meet 27
curate 13th move. exf5 with 27...�g7-f6. After the game
14 .•. c5 1 5 c4! continuation White gradually exploits
This move cripples Black's queen­ the advantage of bishop vs. knight.
side pawns. 27 'it>e3 ttlb5?! 28 f4 exf4+ 29 �xf4
�f7 30 .td2 �e6 3 1 .tc3 c6 32 'it>g4
ttld6 33 f3 f5+ 34 exf5+ ttlxf5 35
�g5 c5 36 f4 ttld4 37 h3 ttlf3+ 38
'it>g4 ttld4 39 .ta5 �f6 40 h4 'it>g6
41 h5+ 'it>f6 42 .td8+ 'it>e6 43 'it>g5
tt:le2 44 f5+ 'it>f7 45 .ta5 ttlg3 46
.tc3 h6+ 47 'it>g4 ttle2 48 �f3 tt::\d4+
49 �e4 ttle2 50 .te5 ttlc 1 51 'it>d5
ttld3 52 'it>d6 ttlf2 53 'it>xc5 1 -0

Game 15
Kuzmin-Tal
1 5 . . . bxa4 1 6 ttlb7 l':fb8 USSR 1974
16 ...l:tab8 17 tiJxd6 ltfd8 18 l:txa4
llb6! might have been a better defence. 1 e4 e5 2 ttlf3 ttlc6 3 .tb5 a6 4
1 7 ttlxd6 l':d8 1 8 .te3 l':xd6 1 9 l':da3 .txc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 .tg4 7
ttld7 20 �f1 l':f6! dxe5 'Wxd 1 8 l':xd 1 fxe5 9 l':d3 .td6
Preparing 21...�b6. Black's most flexible set-up.
2 1 l':xa4 ttlb6 22 :Xa6 l':xa6 23 1 0 ttlbd2 ttlf6
:xa6 ttlxc4 24 l':xf6 gxf6 25 .tc 1 ! For 10 ...b5 see Games 18 and 19.
Obviously White must avoid 25 1 1 ttlc4
it..xc5 �xb2. 1 1 b3 is the subject of Game 17.
25 . . .ttld6 26 �e2 1 1 . . .0-0

37
Th e Sp anish Exchange
This move, carrying out a consis­
tent policy of maintaining the tension,
actually involves a pawn sacrifice.
1 1 ...�xe4 is the subject of the next
game, while 1 1..ii.xf3?! 12 gxf3 0-0-0
13 .i.g5 is very pleasant for White and
1 1...0-0-0?! 12 .ltg5 (there does not
seem too much wrong with the
straightforward 12 �fxe5 either)
12 ...h6 13 ii.xf6 gxf6 14 �e3 .i.e6 15
�h4 worked out well for White in
Sherzer-Anand, Philadelphia open
1987.
1 2 lt:lfxe5
12 .i.e3 �xe4 13 �fxe5 .ltf5 is
pretty harmless, while 12 �cxe5 led to
a catastrophe for White in Hiibner­
Tal, Wijk aan Zee 1982, after 12 ....th5
(12 ...ii.xf3 13 �xf3 �xe4 14 ii.e3 leads
to the note to White's 12th move in
Game 16) 13 .i.f4?? (13 ii.e3 l:tae8! 14
�c4 �xe4 is completely equal)
13 ...ii.xf3 0-1 (14 gxf3 �h5 or 14 l:hf3
�h5 wins a piece).
1 2. . . .te2 1 3 l:.e3
13 :d2 .i.xc4 14 �xc4 .i.c5 15 l:.e2
transposes to 13 lle3 .i.xc4 14 �xc4
ii.c5 15 lie2 below.
1 3 . . . .txc4 1 4 lt:lxc4 .tc5!
In a rapidplay game in Slovenia in
38
1996 Beliavsky tried the sharp
14 ...�g4 against Fritz 4, which was
well met by 15 l:.e2! .i.xh2+ (not
15 .. Jhf2? 16 :txf2 i.c5 17 �e3! �xe3
18 �hl �g4 19 J:e2) 16 �hl i.g3 17
f3 l:.ae8 (perhaps Black should try
Ustinov's 17...b5!?) 18 ii.d2 and White
had a slight edge.
1 5 l:.f3
In this heavily analysed pos1t10n
two other moves have been tried:
a) 15 :e1 l:.ae8 16 ii.e3 i.xe3 17
l:f.xe3 llxe4 18 :.Xe4 �xe4 with equal
chances in Ribli-Matanovic, European
Team Championship, Bath 1973.
b) 15 .l:.e2 l:.ae8 16 �d2!? (or 16 ii.e3
l:.xe4 [16 ... .i.xe3 17 1:xe3 l:.xe4 trans­
poses to the previous note] 17 .i.xc5
l:.xe2 18 ii.xf8 �xf8 19 .l:.c 1 �e4 with
equality, as in Stean-Geller, European
Tearn Championship, Bath 1973)
16 .. Jid8! (White planned 17 �fl [and
then f2-f3] which is now met by
17 ...�g4) 17 g3 (not 17 h3 �h5)
17 ...�g4 18 �b3 llxf2 19 :xf2 i.xf2+
(19 ...i.a7!? followed by 20...�xf2
would have led to a level position) 20
�g2 ii.e3 21 h3 i.xcl 22 :xc1 �e5
was fine for Black in Anand-Thipsay,
Coimbatore 1987.

1 5 . . .ltJxe4 1 6 �e3
1 6 . . .�xe3
The second time Tal reached this
position he preferred 16 ...l:.xf3 17 gxf3
ltJd6, when a draw was agreed in Kas­
parov-Tal, USSR Championship 1978.
After 18 �xc5 ltJxc4 19 Z:.e1 b6! 20
�d4 l:.d8 21 �c3 �f7 White has noth­
mg.
1 7 l:.xe3 ltJxf2 1 8 h3
Although the black knight is incar­
cerated in the heart of White's posi­
tion after this move, Black has suffi­
cient counterplay to secure the draw.
White could perhaps have tried for
more with the speculative 18 .l:te7
llad8 19 :txc7.
1 8 . . . l:.ad8 1 9 l:.e2 ltJd1 20 l:.e 1 b5
5 0-0 f6 6 d4 i.g4 7 dxe 5
2 1 l:.axd 1 bxc4 2 2 l:.xd8 l:.xd8 23
l:.e4 l:.b8 24 l:.xc4 l:.xb2 25 l:.xc6
l:.xa2 26 l:.xc7 a5 27 c4 l:.c2 28 l:.a7
l:.xc4 29 l:.xa5 % -%
Game 16
Adorjan-Harandi
Graz 1972
1 e4 e5 2 ltJf3 ltJc6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 �g4 7
dxe5 •xd 1 8 l:.xd 1 fxe5 9 l:.d3 �d6
1 0 ltJbd2 ltJf6 1 1 ltJc4 ltJxe4
This move is less reliable than
1 1...0-0 and is rarely seen nowadays.
1 2 lLlfxe5
12 ltJcxe5 is also promising in this
position, e.g. 12 .....txf3 13 ltJxf3 0-0 14
J.e3! b5 and now instead of 15 c4
:ab8 16 l:.cl bxc4 17 ltd4 l:.fe8 with
equal chances in Fischer-Spassky,
World Championship, Reykjavik
1972, White should have played 15
ltJdl! with a slight edge after 15 ...ltJc5
(or 15 ...ltJf6 16 ltJb3) 16 J.xc5 .txc5
17 ltJe4 ..tb6 18 �fl.
1 2 . . . �xe5
12 .....te6 transposes to the main
game after 13 f3 J.xe5 14 ltJxe5, since
13 l:.e3 ..txe5 14 lhe4 ..txc4 15 .:.xe5+
39
Th e Spanish Exchange
is nothing for White. However, there
is a very pretty trap here: 12 ....i.f5? 13
f3 lDf6 14 l:.xd6! cxd6 15 fud6+ rlte7
16 lDxf5+ �e6 17 lDxg7+ 'itxe5 18 b3!
with a crushing position, as originally
pointed out by Hecht.
1 3 tt::\x e5 .i.e6 1 4 f3 tt::\c 5
14 ... lDf6 15 .i.g5 and 14...lDd6 15
J.g5 both slightly favour White.
1 5 l:e3 0-0-0
1 6 l:e1
In the light of 16 .:.e1 l:.he8!, Walter
Browne's 16 b4!? .:.d1+ 17 �f2, with
the idea of lDxc6 once the knight
moves from c5, is also worth consid­
eration, or perhaps even the flashy 16
lDxc6!? l:.d1+ 17 <3i>f2 followed by b2-
b4.
1 6 . . . l:de8? !
16 .....tf5? is even worse after 17 .i.e3
{threatening the knight on c5 and
lDf7) 17...:dS 1 8 .i.xc5 .:.xc5 19 c4,
when the black rook on c5 was awk­
ward in Adorjan-Eley, Teesside 1973.
However, 16 ...l:.he8! should be
good enough to equalise, e.g. 17 .i.e3
lDa4 1 8 lDd3 h6 19 b3 lDc3 20 .i.d2
lDb5 2 1 l:.ac1 ..tf5 22 :Xe8 .:.xe8 23
lDe1 lDd4 24 rltfl c5 25 c3 lDc6 26 <iitf2
a5 27 .i.e3 c4 28 bxc4 .i.e6 29 l:.c2
40
.i.xc4 30 .:.d2 b6 'h-'h Kholmov­
Podgaets, Lvov 1973.
1 7 .i.d2 .i.f5 1 8 l:ac1
White's patient approach is justified
by the fact that it is difficult for Black
to improve his position.
1 8 . . . tl:\d7 1 9 tLlf7
White must avoid exchanges.
1 9 . . .l:hf8 20 .i.c3 tl:\f6 21 tl:\e5 g6
22 .i.b4 l:g8 23 c4
Starting the squeeze.
23 . . . tl:\d7 24 tLlf7 c5 25 .i.c3 .i.e6?
26 tl:\h6 l:gf8 27 .i.g7 l:f4
The black rook is very badly placed
here.
28 l:e3 tLlb6 29 l:ce 1
Now the combination of the threat
of trapping the rook on f4 and the pin
the e-file proves decisive.
29 . . . �d7 30 b3 tl:\xc4 3 1 bxc4 l:xc4
32 tl:\g4 �d6 33 tl:\f6 1 -0
Game 17
Van der Wiei-Van der Sterren
Dutch Championship 1997
1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tl:\c6 3 i.b5 a6 4
i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 i.g4 7
dxe5 1i'xd 1 8 l:xd 1 fxe5 9 l:d3 i.d6
1 0 tLlbd2 tl:\f6 1 1 b3

A popular alternative to 1 1 lDc4,
preparing to bring the bishop to b2 to
bear down on the e5-pawn.
1 1 . . . 0-0-0
1 1...0-0 (1 1...i..xf3 12 ltJxf3 lDxe4 13
l:.e3 ltJf6 14 lDxe5 0-0 or 14...0-0-0
transposes below) is also perfectly re­
spectable (and perhaps even preferable
to the game move). After 12 i.. b2
Black has:
a) Matanovic's 12 ...ttJd7 ('equal')
can be met by 13 h3 i..h5 (13 ...i.e6 14
ltJg5) 14 l:.d1 (14 ltJc4 lDc5) 14 ...ltJc5
15 l:.e3 with a slight plus for White.
b) 12 ...i.xf3 13 ltJxf3 (13 lhf3 l:lad8
is equal) 13 ...lDxe4 14 l:.e3 lDf6 15
lDxe5, as in Bordonada-J.Cooper, Nice
Olympiad 1974, is perhaps very
slightly better for White.
c) 12 .. Jlae8!, intending to meet 13
h3 with 13 ...i..c8 and 13 I:.e1 with
13 ... b5, seems fairly level.
1 2 .i.b2 l:.he8
12 ... i..xf3 13 lDxf3 lDxe4 slightly fa­
vours White after 14 l:.e3 lDf6 15
lDxe5, Ljubojevic-Tal, Montreal 1979.
1 3 l:.e1
After 13 lDc4 lDxe4 14 lDfxe5 Black
should play 14 ...i.e6 (not 14 ...i..f5?!
16 ttJf7) 15 l:.ad1 i..c5 16 l:txd8+ lbd8
5 0-0 f6 6 d4 �g4 7 dxe 5
17 l:txd8+ �xd8 with equal chances, as
in Kaidanov-I.Sokolov, Groningen
PCA 1993.
1 3 . . . b5
The immediate 13 ...i..b4 is also in­
teresting.
1 4 a3
A new move at the time, aimed at
preventing ...i..b4, although 14 h3
i..h5 15 ttJfl i..b4 16 ltJ3d2 (instead of
16 lled1 lDxe4 17 g4 i..g6 18 lDxeS
:Xd3 19 llxd3 i..c5 20 lDxg6?! [20 tDdl
was necessary] 20 ... hxg6 21 i..d4 i..xd4
22 l:.xd4 lDc3, when Black was in con­
trol in Brynell-Geller, Berlin open
199 1) is perhaps slightly better for
White.
1 4. . .ti:Jd7
In the later game Van der Weide­
I.Sokolov, Reykjavik 1998, Black
played the waiting move 14 ... l:.e7, but
White was still on top after 15 h3 i..h5
16 ltJh4 l:tee8 17 ltJf5 (although Black
later won the game). Wedberg's
14 ...ltJh5 is probably best met by 15
h3 i..dl 16 lDf1 with a slight plus.
1 5 ti:Jg5!
Preparing to swing the rook over to
the kingside.
1 5. . . ti:Jc5?!
41
Th e Sp anish Ex change
In Informator 71 Van der Wiel sug­
gests Black can equalise by playing
15 ... l2Jf6 with his tail between his legs.
However, after 16 h3 .i.hS 17 ttJfl h6
18 l2Jf3 I still prefer White.
1 6 l:.g3 h5 1 7 ltJf7 l:.d7 1 8 ltJxd6 +
cxd6 1 9 h3 J..e6 20 l:tg5!
Taking full advantage of Black's
ragged kingside pawns.
20 . . . l:.h8 2 1 lfjf1
In view of the next note 21 l2Jf3
might have been preferable.
2 1 . . . J..g 8 22 ltJg3 h4 23 ltJf5 l:.h7?!
This looks horribly passive. After
23 ....i.h7!?, suggested by Wedberg,
Black appears to have a defensible po­
sition.
24 l:.g6 J..e6
25 b4?!
After the game Van der Wiel rec­
ommended the sacrifice 25 l2Jxd6+!
%hd6 26 .i.xeS �d7 (or 26 ...11d2 27
b4) 27 .i.xd6 'litxd6 28 f4 with a very
promising position for White.
25 . . .J..xf5 26 exf5 ltJa4 27 J..a 1 ? !
White continues to go astray. 27
.ltc 1 was better according to Wedberg
27 . . .ltJb6 28 f4?! exf4 29 .:.e4 ltJd5
30 l:tee6 ri;c7 31 ri;t2 ltJe3 32 rJ;f3
ltJxf5? !
42
After White's series of inaccuracies
Black could even have taken over the
advantage here with 32 ...l2Jxc2! 33
.i.b2 l2Je3 34 'itxf4 l2Jc4.
33 ri;xf4 ltJe7?!
And here 33 ... l:tf7 would have been
better.
34 l:tg4 ltJd5+ 35 ri;g5 l:tf7?? 36 ri;g6
1 -0
Whoops!
Game 18
Timman-Kasparov
Hilversum (match) 1985
1 e4 e5 2 ltJf3 ltJc6 3 J..b5 a6 4
J..xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 J..g4 7
dxe5 'ii'xd 1 8 l:.xd 1 fxe5 9 l:.d3 J..d 6
10 liJbd2 b5
This move, seeking to prevent 1 1
l2Jc4, was once very fashionable but is
not seen very much anymore.
1 1 b3
White's other alternatives here are
discussed in the next game.
1 1 . . .ltJe7
The correct development of the
knight, heading for g6 to bolster the e­
pawn and threaten ...l2Jf4. Black sim­
ply has an inferior version of the pre­
vious game after 1 1 ...l2Jf6 12 .i.b2 l2Jd7
13 h3, as in Bronstein-Klovan, USSR
Team Championship, Moscow 1972.
1 2 J..b2 ltJg6 1 3 g3!
This move has invariably been
adopted by the leading players. Al­
though 13 h3 .i.d7 14 l2Jf1 and .l:tad1 is
also logical for White, as the black-e­
pawn is a constant worry, it is more
logical to limit the scope of the black
knight first with g2-g3 and 'itg2.
1 3 . . . 0-0
 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 i.. g 4 7 dx e5

White can carry out his plan after Zee 1985) 15....:.f7 (Portisch gives
13 ...0-0-0 14 �g2 h6 15 h3, followed 15 ...�f8 'equal' but Black seems to be
by l:.dl. under some pressure after 16 h3 J..h5
1 4 �g2 17 f4 �d7 18 �gf3) 16 f3 �e6 17
�3!? with a slight edge to White.
1 5 c4 l:ab8 1 6 a4!?
A very unusual sacrifice, giving up a
pawn with check to exploit Black's
shattered pawn formation and inactive
minor pieces. There was nothing
wrong with the standard 16 l:.cl, in­
tending �a3.
1 6 . . . bxc4 1 7 t2Jxc4 .i.xf3+ 1 8 l:xf3
l:xf3 1 9 �xf3 l:xb3+ 20 �e2

This position has arisen numerous

times in master chess since the 1970s,
with the conclusion that Black is very
close to equalising, but perhaps not
quite there yet.
1 4 . . . c5
It is perhaps significant that Kas­
parov chose this move in preference to
the more frequently seen 14 ....l:ae8
and 14 ... l::tf6. It is not clear yet where
Black should place his rooks: White certainly has enough for the
a) 14 ....:.ae8 15 c4 (or 15 ltcl fol­ pawn, but it is not really clear that he
lowed by a later c2-c4, as played by has anything more.
Timman in another game) 15 .. .l:U6 16 20 . . .�f7 2 1 �d2 �e6 22 .i.c3 t2Je7
:!cl c5 17 cxb5 axb5 18 �a3 (forcing 23 f4 exf4 24 �c2 l:xc3+!
the b-pawn forward and thereby inca­ Forcing a drawn endgame.
pacitating Black's queenside pawns) 25 <t>xc3 fxg3 26 t2Jxd6 cxd6 27
1 8 ... b4 19 �b2 was quite promising hxg3 h5 28 l:f1 t2Jc6 29 l:f8 g5 30
for White in Kasparov (this time play­ l:tf5 h4 31 l:xg5 hxg3 32 l:xg3 �e5
ing on the white side!)-Kharitonov, 33 l:e3 �4 34 l:d3 t2Jd4 % -%
Leningrad 1977.
b) 14 ... .:tf6 15 �g1! (this reserves the Game 19
option of 16 h3, 16 f3 or 16 f4 and is Dvoretsky-Southam
more accurate than 15 h3 �d7 16 �g1 Philadelphia 1991
c5 17 �e2 .:.af8, when Black had
equalised in Nunn-Portisch, Wijk aan 1 e4 e5 2 tiJf3 t2Jc6 3 .i.b5 a6 4

43
Th e Sp anish Exchange
.i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 .i.g4 7
dxe5 'ii'xd 1 8 l:.xd 1 fxe5 9 l:.d3 .i.d6
1 0 lt.Jbd2 b5 1 1 b4! ?
Kurajica's alternative to the normal
1 1 b3, intending to put immediate
pressure on Black's queenside and iso­
lated e-pawn with .i.b2 and c2-c4.
A similar idea is 1 1 c4 �f6 (1 1...�7
12 b4!? transposes to the next note,
while 1 1 ...c5!? 12 b3 �e7 13 .i.b2 �g6
leads to very similar play to Game 18)
12 c5 �xc5 13 �xe5, but Black can
force a draw with the spectacular
13 ... 0-0-0! (not 1 3 ... 0-0 14 �b3! �d6
15 �xc6 �d7 16 e5 with a clear ad­
vantage to White in Vaulin-Klovan,
USSR 1977) 14 .:xc6 ..5tb6 15 lhc6
0-0-0! 16 �f7 �xe4 17 �xh8 (the first
rook goes!) 17... �xf2+ 18 Wh1 �b6
19 h3 �xd2 20 �f7 �e4! 21 �xd8
(and now the second, but 21. .. �g3+ 22
'i.th2 �fl+ is a perpetual) �-� Kor­
sunsky-Klovan, USSR 1977.
1 1 . . . lt.Jf6!
White's idea is seen to good effect
after 1 1 . ..�e7 12 c4! (12 Ji.b2 �g6 13
c4? is careless due to 13 ...Ji.b4 14 �xe5
�f4!) 12 ... .i.xb4 (12 ....i.xf3 13 �xf3
bxc4 14 :c3 .i.xb4 15 %lxc4 .i.d6 16
..5tb2 �g6 17 .:.Xc6 is almost identical
44
to the main game except that the black
knight is on g6 instead of d7) 13 �xe5
.i.e6 (13 ....i.e2 14 .l:te3) 14 .i.a3 .i.xa3
15 .l:txa3 0-0 16 .:.c1 with a clear plus
for White in Kurajica-Gligoric, Novi
Sad 1979.
1 2 .i.b2 lt.Jd7 1 3 c4 .i.xf3
Black can also meet the threat of c4-
c5 with 13 ... .i.b4, when White should
probably prefer 14 cxb5 to 14 �xe5
�e5 15 .i.xe5 .i..e2!?, or 13 ...c5!? 14
bxc5 �xc5 15 :.e3 �d7 with an un­
clear position.
1 4 lt.Jxf3 bxc4 1 5 l:.c3 .i.xb4
Dvoretsky gives 15 ...�b6 16 .l:.c2
followed by �xe5 as clearly better for
White due to Black's horrible queen­
side pawns.
1 6 l:.xc4 .i.d6 1 7 l:.xc6
1 7 . . . 0-0
17 ...�e7, intending to use the king
in a defensive role in the centre, looks
preferable, although White would still
enjoy a slight pull.
1 8 lt:Jd2!
Intending �c4.
1 8 . . ..i.c5 1 9 .:n .i.b6?
This is a mistake according to
Dvoretsky, who prefers 19 ... .l:.ab8!,
when 20 ..5tc3!? keeps White's grip on

the position.
20 lt:lc4 l:f6?! 2 1 lt:lxb6 cxb6 22 l:c7
l:f7
Very passive. 22 ...lld6 looks better.
23 f3!
After this move, bolstering the e­
pawn and preparing 'ltf2-e3, White has
an almost winning position. The
knight is no match for the powerful
white bishop and the black e-pawn
must drop in the end.
23 . . .l:e8 24 l:d 1 lt:lc5 25 l:xf7 �xf7
26 l:d5 �f6 27 �f2 g5 28 �e3 l:e7
29 g3 l:e6 30 f4 gxf4+ 31 gxf4 �f7
32 f5 l:h6 33 .i.xe5 l:h3+ 34 .i.g3
h5 35 l:d6! 1 -0
Game 20
Rausis-Boudre
Lyngby open 1989
1 e4 e5 2 lt:lf3 lt:lc6 3 .i.b5 a6 4
.i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 .i.g4 7
dxe5 'iixd 1 8 l:xd 1 fxe5 9 b3 .i.d6
Black usually plays 9 ....id6 or
9 ...lbf6 and 10 ...i.d6, although in this
particular position 9 ...lbe7, intending
... lbg6, looks worth a try. After
9 ...lbf6 White should play 10 lbbd2
.id6 transposing to the main game
5 0 - 0 f6 6 d4 i.g4 7 dx e 5
instead of 1 0 i.b2?! lbxe4 1 1 l:te1
..txf3 12 gxf3 lbf6 13 :xe5+ 'ltf7 14
lbd2 i.d6 15 :e2 l:the8 16 ltJe4 ..tf4 17
:ael, when a draw was agreed in Vi­
tolins-Tal, Yerevan 1980.
1 0 lt:lbd2 lt:lf6
1 1 h3 .i.xf3
As a matter of principle, Black
should avoid this exchange with
1 1 ...i.h5, when after 12 .ib2 0-0 13 g4
.tg6 14 lbxe5 .txe4! White's desper­
ado 15 lbd7 .txc2 16 lbxf8 i.xd1 17
lbxh7 does not quite work due to
17...lbxh7 18 l:xd1 J:d8. White should
therefore content himself with the
solid 13 l:.el :ladS 14 l:.adl with a
slight plus.
1 2 lt:lxf3 0-0
White has a very pleasant endgame
after 12 ...lbxe4 13 :e1 lbf6 14 lbxe5.
1 3 .i.b2 l:ae8 1 4 l:e1 lt:lh5 1 5 l:ad 1
l:e6
Black now decides on an attempt to
complicate matters rather than risk
suffering a lingering death in the end­
game.
1 6 lt:lh2 lt:lf4 1 7 lt:lg4 l:g6 1 8 �h2?
This simply invites trouble. 18 'it>h1
would have kept everything under
control.
45
Th e Sp anish Exchange

:e2 30 l:te1 l:tc2 31 lte3 l:tc 1 + 32

tt:Je 1 c5 33 �d2 ltd 1 34 bxc5 �xc5
35 l:te2 �f2 36 �g2 l%xd2 37 l:txd2
�xe 1 38 l:td8 a5 39 l1g8 a4 40
l:txg7 1 -0

18 ... h 5 19 li:Je3 lt:Jxg2! 20 lt:Jxg2

ltxf2 21 l:tg 1 l:txc2 22 �a 1 l:txa2 23
�c3 l:tf2
23 ....1i.c5 24 .Ji.xeS ii.xgl+ 25 l:.xgl
.l:te6 26 ii.xc7 .l:.xe4 also looks logical.
24 :d3 h4 25 �h 1 :g3 26 l:txg3 Presumably Black lost on time here,
hxg3 27 :e 1 �f7 28 b4 �e6 29 :c1 as after 40 . a3 he seems to be winning.
. .

46
 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 i.g4 7 dx e5

Summary
Black should be basically fine as long as he is not suckered into taking on f3 too
early (Games 1 1 and 14). Since the old 7 dxeS Wxd1 8 .l:.xd1 fxeS 9 l:td3 .ltd6! 10
tDbd2 0-0 1 1 tDc4 0-0! line has been virtually analysed out to a draw (Game 15)
White needs an improvement earlier on if he wants to play this line. Either 1 1
b 3 (Game 17) or 9 b 3 (Game 19) might fit the bill, although if White really
wants to play for a win I would suggest taking a look at 7 c3 in Chapter 1.

1 e4 e 5 2 tllf3 tllc6 3 .i.b5 a 6 4 .i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d 4 .i.g4 7 dxe5 'iVxd 1

8 l:xd 1

8 . .fxe5 (D)
.

8.. ..ltxf3 - Game 11

9 l:d3
9 tDbd2 - Game 12
9 b3 - Game 20
9 . . . .i.d6
9 ....ltxf3
10 �xf3 - Game 13
10 gxf3 (D) - Game 14
1 0 tllb d2 tllf6
10... b5
1 1 b3 - Game 18
1 1 b4 - Game 19
1 1 tllc4 (D)
1 1 b3 - Game 17
1 1 . . .0-0
1 1...tDxe4 - Game 16
1 2 tllfxe5 - Game 15

8
. . . fxe5 10 gxf3 1 1 tllc4

47
 CHAPTER THREE
5 0-0 f6 6 d4 exd4
Ever since Bobby Fischer defeated
Lajos Portisch as White in crushing
style at the 1966 Olympiad in Havana,
the position after
1 e4 e5 2 �f3 l2Jc6 3 J.b5 a6 4
J.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 exd4 7
l2Jxd4 c5
has been the subject of much inter­
esting debate in grandmaster chess.
Since that game Black players have
discovered many new defensive re­
sources, but the conclusion remains
that White has slightly better chances
in the endgame (or 'middlegame with­
out queens') that arises after both the
old 8 li:Jb3 (Games 21-27) and the
modem 8 li:Je2 (Games 28 and 29). It is
not easy for Black to nullify his oppo­
nent's development advantage and
better pawn formation, which is per­
haps why nowadays this variation is
shunned by most of the leading Black
exponents of the Spanish (apart from
Michael Adams who, as we shall see,
suffered the indignity of three succes­
sive defeats in this line in 1995/96).
To all intents and purpose this
48
I
vanatton begins with the following
classic encounter, which was in fact
Bobby Fischer's Exchange variation
debut. No doubt 4 i.xc6 came as a
surprise to Portisch, and this would
perhaps explain why he chose to swap
queens so early.
Game 21
Fischer-Portisch
Havana Olympiad 1966
1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 l2Jc6 3 J.b5 a6 4
J.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 exd4 7
l2Jxd4
The simplistic 7 'iixd4 'iixd4 8
lZJxd4 i.d7 is completely harmless.
Black can complete his development
in harmonious fashion with ...0-0-0,
...i.d6 and ...lZJe7.
7 .. c5
.
Black must of course avoid the ob­
vious trap 7 ... i.c5?? 8 'iih5+ and 9
'iixcS, after which he finds himself a
piece down.
However, 7 ...lZJe7 and 7 ...i.d6 are
sometimes seen:

a) 7. .li:Je7 has been virtually aban­
doned since the game Fischer­
Unzicker, Siegen Olympiad 1970,
when Fischer continued powerfully
with 8 i..e3 lLlg6 9 lLld2 i..d6 10 lLlc4
0-0 1 1 1i'd3! lLleS 12 lLlxeS ..txe5 13 f4
..td6 14 f5! and went on to win.
b) After 7 .....td6 8 ..te3 lLle7 9 1i'h5+
lLlg6 10 lLlc3 0-0 1 1 lLlfS ..txf5! 12
1i'xf5 1i'e7 13 l'.tadl .:tad8 Black had
equalised in Romero Holmes­
Razuvaev, Palma de Mallorca 1991, so
White needs something more testing.
The immediate 8 1i'h5+, forcing a
weakness on the kingside, seems to fit
the bill, e.g. 8 ... g6 9 1i'f3 (but not 9
1i'h4 h5, when the white queen is em­
barrassed) 9 ...1i'e7 {9...i..xh2+ 10 'iittxh2
'ifxd4 1 1 l'.tdl 1i'c4 12 iLf4 gave White
more than enough for the pawn in
Hort•Gligoric, Teesside 1972) 10 ..tf4,
although Black's position is fairly solid
after 10 ...i..e5 1 1 i..xe5 fxe5 12 lLlb3
lLlf6.
8 ltJb3
In recent years 8 lLle2 has become
very popular - see Games 28 and 29.
8 . . .'ifxd 1
Black would certainly regret not
having exchanged queens after
5 0 - 0 f6 6 d4 exd4
8...i..d6? 9 tLlxcS or 8 .....te6?! 9 1i'e2
i..d6? 10 lLlxcS.
9 l:Lxd 1 �d6?!
The correct move here is 9 .....tg4
{Games 22-26), while 9 ...i..d7 is the
subject of Game 27. Note that al­
though 9 .....te6?! 10 ..t£4 c4 1 1 lLld4
{or 1 1 tLlaS b6 12 lLlc6 ..td7 13 lLld4
0-0-0) 1 1...0-0-0 12 lLlc3 i..f7 13 lLlfS {or
13 lLldS i..c5!) 13 ...l:.e8! is fine for
Black, by analogy to the note to
Black's 13th move in Game 26, 13 a4!
..tcS 14 i..e3 should favour White.
10 ltJa5!
It is now very difficult for Black to
complete his development, as 10...lLle7
is well met by 1 1 lLlc4! and 10 ... b6 1 1
lLlc4 ..te7 1 2 i..f4 is also slightly awk­
ward.
1 0 . . . b5
Here 10 ... ..tg4? is a blunder due to
11 f3 0-0-0, and now the zwischenzug
12 e5!, winning a piece, as in Hort­
Shelandinov, Havana 1967, and Ben­
jamin-Henao, St Martin open 1993!
In the game Bagirov-Keres, USSR
1967, Black grovelled a draw after
10 ...lLlh6 1 1 ..txh6 gxh6 12 lLlc4 ..te7
13 lLlc3 'iittf7 14 lLldS i..e6 15 lLlxe7
1;xe7 16 lLle3 �-�. However, it is not
49
Th e Sp anish Exchange
clear why White preferred 12 tLlc4 to
12 tLlc3, as the knight was doing a
good job on aS.
1 1 c4!
Fixing the black queenside pawns.
1 1 . Ji:Je7
Black would struggle to complete
his development after 1 1...il.e6 12
cxb5 axb5 13 tLlb7! .ii.e7 14 .ii.e3, while
after 1 1 ...b4?! 12 ttJd2 tLle7 13 ttJdb3
the c5-pawn will soon drop off.
1 2 �e3 f5
12 ... 0-0 gives White a pleasant
choice between 13 tLld2 and 13 tLlc3,
while 12 ...tLlg6 13 tLlc3 tLle5 14 tLldS
(Soltis) is also good for White and
12 ...�f7?! 13 tLlc3 .:b8 14 e5! .ii.xe5
(14... fxe5 15 tLle4) 15 .ii.xc5 left Black
in all sorts of trouble in Dvoretsky­
Ivanov, Moscow 1972.
1 3 tt:lc3
ECO suggests that 13 tLlb3 bxc4 14
lLlxc5 :b8 15 tLla3 f4 16 .ii. d4 ltJc6 17
tLla4 leads to a clear advantage to
White (Smit) but does not mention
the simple 17 ...0-0! (18 lLlxc4?! .Ub4).
1 3 . . . f4 1 4 e5! �xe5?!
14 ...fxe3 seems preferable, e.g. 15
exd6 exf2+ 16 �xf2 0-0+ 17 �gl cxd6
18 l:.xd6 .ii.f5 with a slight plus for
50
White in Meade-Clarke, British
Championship 1967.
1 5 �xc5 �xc3 16 bxc3
Despite the exchanges, Black is still
way behind in development and under
great pressure from White's well­
coordinated pieces.
1 6 . . . l2Jg6
In a subsequent game Grodzenski­
Nazaretski, correspondence 1973,
Black tried 16 ...�f7 and eventually
grovelled a draw after 17 .ii.xe7 �xe7
18 l:Xd4 g5 19 l:.dS (19 .l:lb1 .ii.f5 20 .l:b2
looks pretty good for White) 19 ...�f6
20 l:.c5 .ii.e6, but I cannot imagine
what possessed Black to repeat such a
famously bad line in a correspondence
game!
1 7 l2Jc6 �e6 1 8 cxb5 axb5 1 9 lLla 7
.l:r.b8
After this move the loss of a pawn
is inevitable, but 19 ....ii.c4 20 :d4 was
also very unpleasant. For example,
20 ....l:d8 21 a4! .:xd4 22 .ii.xd4 bxa4 23
.l:xa4 and White wins a pawn.
20 l:.db 1 �f7 2 1 l2Jxb5 l:thd8 22 l:b4
�xa2 23 lLlxc 7
Now the win is just a matter of
technique.
23 . . . l:tbc8 24 h4 l:.d2 25 �b6 f3 26

.te3 l:.e2 27 tt:lb5 l:.a8 28 h5 tt:le5 29
l:.f4+ �e7 30 l:.d 1 l:.e8 31 l:.e4 �f6
32 l:.d6+ �f5 33 l:.f4+ �g5 34
l:.xf3+ 1 -0
Game 22
Timman-Adams
Belgrade 1995
1 e4 e5 2 tt:lf3 tt:lc6 3 .tb5 a6 4
.txc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 exd4 7
tt:lxd4 c5 8 tt:lb3 -.xd 1 9 l:.xd 1 .tg4!
The point of this move is to force
f2-f3 before retreating to d7 or e6.
Black can then try and take advantage
of the weakness of the g1-a7 diagonal.
1 0 f3 .td7
10 ...�e6 is seen in Games 24-26.
The advantage of 10...�d7 is that
Black can castle queenside without
delay, but things are still not easy for
him, as we shall see.
1 1 .tf4
1 1 l2Jc3 0-0-0 12 �f4 comes to the
same thing, while 12 �e3 b6 13 a4 can
be met by 13 ...c4 14 l2Jd2 (14 l2Jd4
�d6) 14... �e6 15 l2Jd5 �xdS 16 cxdS
lbe7 17 d6 and here a draw was agreed
in Ljubojevic-Karpov, European Team
Championship, Skara 1980.
5 0-0 f6 6 d4 exd4
1 1 . . . 0-0-0 1 2 tt:lc3 c4
12 ...c6?? loses on the spot to 13
lba4, while the routine 12 ...�e6?!
leaves Black too far behind in devel­
opment after 13 l:.xd8+ ..t>xd8 14 l:.d1 +
..t>c8 15 l2Jd5, as in De la Villa­
Allahverdiev, Ubeda open 1997 (c.f.
Game 27 below with the white pawn
on f2 instead of f3).
1 3 tt:la5 ! ?
After 13 l2Jd2 �c5+ 14 �h1 �e6 15
l2Jf1 lbe7 Black had managed to acti­
vate his pieces in Burgos-Komeev,
Badalona open 1995.
13 l2Jd4 is also fine for Black after
13 ...l2Je7! (13 ...�c5 14 l2Jd5 c6 15 l2Je3
b5 16 a4 is risky for Black) 14 l:.d2
l2Jg6 15 �e3 (or 15 �g3 h5!? 16 l2Jd5
lbe5) 15 ...�d6 16 l'.'tad1 l:.he8, as in
Kotronias-Adams, Chalkidiki 1993.
13 . . ..tc5+ 14 �f1
14 ..t>h1 leads to similar play to the
game after 14... b5 15 l2Jd5. Although
White's king would normally be bet­
ter placed on f1 than on h1, 15 ...lbe7
can then be met by 16 �xc7 lbxdS 17
�xd8 lbe3 (not check!) 18 lbb7! with
the better chances for White
(Timman). The problem for White is
that in the main game after move 29(!)
he would much rather his king be on
f1 rather than h1 to avoid back-rank
mate problems. Instead of 15 l2Jd5,
however, White might try the rela­
tively unexplored 15 a4 lbe7 16 axb5
axb5 17 b3!? with good pressure
against the black king's position.
1 4 . . . b5
14 ...�b4? just loses a pawn to 15
�xc7! ..t>xc7 16 lDdS+ 'ittb8 17 lbxb4,
as m Rausis-Zude, Swiss Bundesliga
1991.
51
Th e Spanish Exc h ange
15 tbd5
The 15 a4 t'i:Je7 16 axb5 axb5 17 b3!?
idea may be even better here, with the
king on fl.
1 5 . . . c6
15 ...t'i:Je7 is seen in the next game.
1 6 b4 �a7
Not 16 ...cxb3? 17 cxb3 cxd5 18
:act and wins (K.orchnoi).
1 7 tbc7! ?
White takes up the gauntlet. After
17 i.e3 i.xe3 1 8 t'i:Jxe3 t'i:Je7 19 :d6
r;j;c7 20 :adt i.c8 2 1 :Xd8 :Xd8 22
:xd8 r;j;xd8 23 r;j;e2 r;j;c7 White's
knight was incarcerated on a5 in the
ecnounter Seirawan-Karpov, Monaco
(blindfold) 1993. It was particularly
unfortunate for Adams that in the
light of this game Timman had spe­
cially prepared this variation to play
against Karpov in their 1993 FIDE
World Championship match, but did
not get the chance to use it!
17 �b8
.•.
The only way to stop 18 t'i:Jxa6.
1 8 tbe6 �xf4
1 8 ...i.xe6 19 :Xd8+ r;j;xd8 20
t'i:Jxc6+ is obviously horrible for Black.
1 9 tbxc6!
19 t'i:Jrl4 was also possible, e.g.
52
19 ... t'i:Je7 20 :d6 -l;c7 21 :adt
(threatening ltlb7) 21...i.c8 22 :Xd8
:xd8 23 :Xd8 r;j;xd8 24 ltlh5!, al­
though the knight on a5 is something
of a worry.
1 9 . . .:es
19 ...i.c7 20 ltla7+ 'i;b8 2 1 t'i:Jxd8
loses on the spot (K.orchnoi) while
19 ...i.xe6 20 ltlxd8 (20 :Xd8+?! -l;c7
2 1 t'i:Jd4 i.c8) 20...i.d7 (20...i.d5 2 1
.:txd5 t'i:Je 7 22 ltle6 t'i:Jxd5 2 3 exd5
i.xh2 24 'i;f2 i.e5 25 :dt is good for
White) 2 1 t'i:Jf7 is clearly better for
White. Timman rightly received a
great deal of credit for his fine tactical
play in this game, but in fact the posi­
tion after 21 t'i:Jf7 had arisen more than
20 years before in the game Ribli­
Zuidema, Wijk aan Zee 1973 - except
that the white king was on hl (after 14
�hl). Timman confesses in New in
Chess magazine that he had even anno­
tated that game for the tournament
book! It finished in very pleasing style:
21...i.e6 22 a4 i.e5 23 axb5 i.xal 24
bxa6 i.e5 25 :d8+! 1-0.
20 tba7+ �b8 21 tbxf4
Not 2 1 l:txd7? %be6 22 .:tadl g6.
2 1 . . .l:te7
Now the knight on a7 is trapped,

but White is not finished yet!
22 lt:ld5 l:te8
22 .. JU7 and 22...:e6 both fail to 23
tLlb6.
23 lt:lf4 l:te 7 24 lt:ld5 l:te8
White is now at the crossroads.
Should he take the draw with 25 tLlf4
here?
25 lt:lb6! ?
Timman goes for the win!
25 . . .�e6 26 lt:lc6+ �c7
Not 26 ... �b7? 27 :d6 �xb6 28
tLld4+ r:l;c7 29 :xe6 (Ftacnik). After
26 .. .'tic7, however, one of the white
knights must drop.
27 lt:ld4 �xb6 28 lt:lxe6 l:txe6 29
l:td8
Even after all these adventures,
5 0 - 0 f6 6 d4 exd4
White, incredibly, still has his oppo­
nent completely tied up.
29 . . . h5?!
Korchnoi recommends 29... g6!,
when after 30 :ad1 fS or 30 ...:e7 the
game goes on.
30 l:tad 1 f5?
The losing move. Black could still
have fought on with 30.. g5 31 :b8+
.
'l;c7 32 l:dd8 l:d6 33 :xg8 llxg8 34
:xg8 :d2 or 30. . .:e7 31 :b8+ :b7.
31 exf5 l:teh6 32 l:tb8+ q;c7 33
l:tdd8 l:td6 34 l:tbc8+ �b7 35 l:txg8
l:txg8 36 l:txg8 1 -0
Game 23
Shirov-Adams
Tilburg 1996
1 e4 e5 2 lt:lt3 lt:lc6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 exd4 7
lt:lxd4 c5 8 lt:lb3 'ii'xd 1 9 l:txd 1 �g4!
1 0 f3 �d7 1 1 lt:lc3 0-0-0 1 2 �f4 c4
1 3 lt:la5 �c5 + 1 4 �f1 b5 1 5 lt:ld5
In his notes to the game Shirov
states that he had anticipated this posi­
tion in his pre-game preparation. Ad­
ams now reveals why he is happy to
repeat the variation.
1 5 . . .lt:le7!
53
Th e Sp a n ish Exchange
A pawn sacrifice that was first
played by the American Grandmaster
Alexander lvanov.
1 6 i..xc7
If White does not wish to play the
endgame that follows, he could also
consider Mednis' 16 .lte3 to meet
16 ....i.d6 with 17 lt.Jxe7+ .ltxe7 18 a4,
although here he would probably pre­
fer to have his king on h1, as the black
light-squared bishop will soon land on
b5.
1 6 . . .lt:Jxd5 1 7 l:.xd5 </ixc7 1 8 ltxc5+
<lib6 1 9 b4
19 ltd5?! .lte6! 20 ltxd8 llxd8 21 b4
.l:d2 gives Black sufficient compensa­
tion for the pawn.
1 9 . . . cxb3 20 lt:Jxb3
Black clearly has some compensa­
tion for the pawn, but he must still
play very accurately.
20 . . .i..e6
Or 20...a5 21 ltd5! .lte6 22 !:tddl.
2 1 l:lc3 l:.d6!
This was Timman's suggestion after
his game against Adams. The latter
had already had a highly unfortunate
experience in this position earlier in
the year after 2l. ..a5 22 a4 b4 (Byrne
and Mednis give 22 ... bxa4 23 lba4
54
J:c8! 24 ltxc8 ltxc8 25 lt.Jd4 :.c4 26
!hc4 i..xc4+ 27 'it>e 1 'it>c5 with a slight
edge for White, but I prefer 23 lt.Jc5!
with the idea of :b1+) 23 ltc5! .ltxb3
24 l:.b5+ 'iita6 25 cxb3 {the black king
is now horribly placed) 25 . ..:.d3 26
xtcl l:.xb3 27 J:c6+ 'it>a7 28 :cl+ 'it>a6
29 :cb7 1-0 Kelleher-Adams, New
York open (rapidplay) 1996.
21.. .:c8 22 J:xc8 .:.xc8 23 ti.Jd4 and
21...b4 22 l:.e3 :c8 23 lt.Jd4, as in Ben­
jamin-A.Ivanov, USA Championship
1993, are also insufficient for equality.
22 a4 i..c4+!
The first real new move of the
game. 22 ...b4 23 a5+! 'it>b7 24 ltc5 is
good for White according to Kelleher.
23 <lif2
23 'it>e1 l:thd8 offers Black full com­
pensation according to Shirov.
23 . . . ltc8! 24 axb5 axb5 25 l:.b 1 b4
26 l:.e3 i..x b3! 27 ltexb3 l:.xc2+ 28
</ie3 ltxg2 29 l:.xb4+
This endgame should be a draw, but
Adams now begins to go astray in the
face of some fine play by his oppo­
nent.
29 . . .�c5?! 30 ltb7 lta6 31 lt 1 b3
g5?! 32 h4 h6? 33 l:.d3!
Cutting off the black king from the

pawns.
33 . . . gxh4?! 34 l:tc7+ �b4 35 l:td 1 !
�b3 36 l:th 1 f5 37 exf5 l:tg5 38
l:tb7+ �c2! 39 l:th2+ �c3?
The fatal error, but Black's position
was already very difficult.
40 l':.bb2 �c4 41 l:txh4+ �c5 42
l:tc2+ �b5 43 l:th 1 l:ta3+ 44 �f4
l:ta4+ 45 �e5 l:ta5! 46 l:txh6 �b4+
47 �e4 l:.gxf5 48 l:tb6+ �a3 49
l:.c3+ �a2 50 f4 l:tf8 5 1 l:tcb3 l:tc5
52 l:tb2+ �a3 53 l:tb 1 �a2 54
l:t6b2+ �a3 55 l:tb5 l:te8+ 56 �d4
l:.xb5 57 l:txb5 �a4 58 l:tb 1 l:.f8 59
�e5 l:te8+ 60 �d6 l:tf8 61 l:tf1 1 -0
I don't think that we will be seeing
much more of 10....id7. The very best
that Black can hope for is a draw and
he has practically no winning chances
whatsoever.
Game 24
Fischer-Spassky
Sveti Stefan {9th matchgame) 1992
1 e4 e5 2 tt:lf3 tt:lc6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 exd4 7
tt:lxd4 c5 8 tt:lb3 'ii'xd 1 9 l:txd 1 �g4
1 0 f3 �e6! 1 1 tt:lc3
Similar positions are reached after
5 0-0 f6 6 d4 exd4
11 .lie3 b6 12 a4 (see next game), while
1 1 .if4 is considered in Game 26.
1 1 . . .�d6
1 2 �e3
This is more accurate than 12 a4?!
0-0-0 13 i.e3 c4!, when Black was fine
in Maliutin-Ivanchuk, USSR Tearn
Championship 1989, and 12 e5?! fxe5
13 tbe4 .lixb3! 14 axb3 <it>e7! with an
unclear pos1t1on in Motwani­
Agdestein, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990.
1 2 . . . b6 1 3 a4 0-0-0?!
13 ... <it>f7! is considered (by transpo-
sition) in the next game, while 13 ..a5 .
can be met by 14 tbb5 0-0-0 15 :.d2,
intending .l:t.ad1 or tbxd6+.
1 4 a S �b7
Since 14 ...iL.xb3?! 15 cxb3 <it>b7 only
55
Th e Sp anish Exchange
increases White's attacking options.
1 5 e5!
Several other moves have been tried
here:
a) 15 lDa4 lDh6! (15 ... il.c8 16 lDd2!,
intending lDc4 or b2-b4) 16 axb6 cxb6
17 1Lxc5 1Lxb3 18 :Xd6 :xd6 19
1Lxd6 1Lxc2 is roughly equal.
b) 15 il.f4 1Lxb3 (15 ...lDe7 16 i.xd6
cxd6 17 axb6 i.xb3 18 cxb3 �xb6
'h-'h Velimirovic-Matanovic, Yugoslav
Championship 1975, but White can
play 16 axb6 1Lxb3 17 bxc7 or
16 ....txf4 17 lDxc5+ and lDxe6) 16
cxb3 ltJe7 with equality.
c) It is possible to slip in 15 axb6
cxb6 and then 16 e5 .i.e7 17 .:xd8
.txd8 and now:
cl) 18 lDe4 i.xb3! 19 lDd6+ (here 19
cxb3 can be met by 19 ....tc7!)
19 .. .'�c6 20 cxb3 lDe7 21 .l:xa6 ltJdS
and a draw was agreed in Adorjan­
Ivkov, Skopje 1976.
c2) 18 .i.xc5!? lDh6 (18 ....i.xb3 19
.tf8!) 19 .td6, as suggested by Curt
Hansen, looks good for White.
1 5 . . .�e7
Not 15 ...fxe5? 16 axb6 cxb6 17 ltJe4
.i.e7 1 8 .l:xd8 .i.xd8 19 lDbxc5+ or
15...i.xb3? 16 exd6 .i.xc2 17 :del
.i.g6 18 dxc7 and White wins.
1 6 :xd8 �xd8 1 7 tLle4!
Threatening 18 lDbxc5 bxc5 19
ltJxc5+. 17 axb6 cxb6 transposes to
Adorjan-Ivkov above.
1 7 . . /�c6??
A disastrous choice. Black had three
possible defences:
a) 17 ... i.xb3 18 cxb3 f5 (not
18...fxe5? 19 axb6 cxb6? 20 ltJd6+ and
ltJf7, while if 18... ltJe7 19 axb6 cxb6 20
exf6 gxf6 21 :dl lDfS 22 .tf2 and if
56
22 ... �c6? 23 g4, but 18 ... i.e7 may be
playable, e.g. 19 axb6 cxb6 20 ltdl
fxe5 21 .l:dS lDf6 22 l:txe5 .td8!?) 19
l:dl! ltJe7 (19....i.e7 20 lDg3) 20 ltJg5
ltJc6 and now 21 axb6 .i.xg5 22 bxg5
'ltxb6 23 .l:d7 led to a won ending for
White in Biyiasas-Vukovic, Bar 1980.
It is not inconceivable that Fischer
knew of this game at the time of his
match against Spassky.
b) Seirawan gives 17 ...i.d5!? 18 .:dl
ltJe7 19 exf6 gxf6, but White can in­
stead play 18 axb6 cxb6 19 lDd6+ <:Jital
20 lDc8+ lDxc8 21 .l:xdS.
c) 17 ... .i.e7 18 .i.xc5! i.xb3 19 i.xe7
lDxe7 20 cxb3 fxe5 21 axb6 cxb6 22
lDd6+ is better for White (C.Hansen).
1 8 axb6 cxb6
1 9 tLlbxc5! �c8
Spassky must have missed 19 ...bxc5
20 l:xa6+ .i.b6 21 i.xc5 and wins.
20 tLlxa6 fxe5 2 1 tLlb4+ 1 -0
21. ..'1tb5 22 ltJd6+ <:Jilxb4 23 l:.a3!
and c2-c3 mate.
Game 25
Schmittdiei-Psakhis
Groningen open 1990
1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 �b5 a6 4

.i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 exd4 7
t2Jxd4 c5 8 t2Jb3 'ii'xd 1 9 llxd1 .i.g4
1 0 f3 .i.e6! 1 1 .i.e3 b6 1 2 a4 �f7!
Here the plan of castling queenside
is flawed due to 12 ...�d6 13 a5 0-0-0
14 e5! .i.xe5 15 :Xd8+ �xd8 16 axb6
cxb6 17 :.Xa6, while 12 ...a5 can be met
by 13 tt:Ja3 {Ivanchuk's 13 .i.f4 c4 14
tt:Jd4 0-0-0 15 tt:Ja3 is also good for
White) 13 ....i.d6 (13 ...c6 14 .i.f4! with
ideas of �cl and/or tt:Jd2-c4) 14 tt:Jb5,
as 13 tt:Jc3 c6! allowed Black to equal­
ise in Morovic Fernandez-Topalov,
Leon 1993.
However, 12 ...ltJe7 is playable, e.g.
13 �f4 c4 14 tt:Jd4 0-0-0 15 tt:Jc3 :Xd4!
(15 ...�d7 is given as equal by Mata­
novic in ECO, but then 16 b3 to open
lines against the black king seems to
offer White good chances) 16 :Xd4
tt:Jg6 17 .i.e3 .i.c5 1 8 .i.f2 (18 �f2
seems more natural) 1 8... .i.xd4 19
.i.xd4 tt:Je7 20 ltJe2 J:d8 21 g4 c5 22
.i.e3 tt:Jc6 23 a5 ltJxaS 24 �xc5 ltJb7
�-� Chandler-Ivanchuk, Thessaloniki
Olympiad 1988.
Finally, the tricky 12 ...c4!? led to
very sharp play in Malisauskas­
Yandemirov, Katowice 1993, after 13
tiJd4 0-0-0 14 tiJc3 .i.f7 15 a5 b5 16
5 0-0 f6 6 d4 exd4
tt:Jdxb5!? (16 tt:Jc6 J:d6!) 16...:Xd1+ 17
l:hd1 axb5 18 tt:Jxb5, when White's
extra two pawns and powerful passed
a-pawn provided enough compensa­
tion for the piece.
After the game move, the black
king turns out to be extremely well
placed in the centre.
1 3 t2Jc3
The American Grandmaster Joel
Benjamin has on a couple of occasions
tried 13 .i.f4!? l:.c8 14 tt:Jc3 here, e.g.
14 ...tt:Je7 (14 ... g5 15 �g3 h5?! 16 a5 c4
17 tt:Jd4 h4 18 �f2 b5 19 e5! fxe5 20
tt:Jc6 ltJf6 21 tt:Jd8+ :Xd8 22 ltxd8 .i.fS
23 tt:Jxb5 was very good for White in
Benjamin-Nikolic, Buenos Aires 1992,
but 14...c4 15 tt:Jd4 .i.c5 seems logical)
15 a5 c4 16 tt:Jd4 b5 17 �g3 g5 18 J:d2
tt:Jg6 19 �fl with a pleasant position
for White in the game Benjamin-Peng
Xiaomin, World Team Championship
1993.
13 . . ..i.d6 14 a5
14 ttJdS :b8 15 ttJd2 (or 15 a5 c4)
15 ...tt:Je7 is harmless.
1 4 . . . c4 1 5 l2Jd4 b5
1 6 t2Jxe6
In this highly theoretical position
various other ideas have also been
57
Th e Sp anish Exc h ange
tried for White:
a) 16 �f5?! i.xf5 17 exf5 �e7 18 g4
h5! with an advantage to Black in
Timman-Korchnoi, Leeuwarden 1976.
b) 16 �dS?! i.xdS 17 exdS �e7 is
also pleasant for Black, as in I.Wells­
Biyiasas, Lone Pine open 1981.
c) 16 f4 �e7 17 e5 fxe5 18 fxe5
i.xe5 19 .l:f1+ i.f6 20 i.g5 (or 20
llae1 i.d7 21 i.g5 llhe8!) 20... i.d5!
worked out well for Black in Blauert­
Onischuk, German Bundesliga 1993.
d) 16 �ce2 �e7 17 i.f4 i.e5! 17
i.xe5 fxe5 18 �xe6 'iit>xe6 transposes
to the main game.
1 6 . . . 'it>xe6 1 7 tt:le2
17 �dS also leads nowhere, e.g.
17 ... �e7 18 �xe7 i.xe7 19 'iit>f2 l:lhd8
20 �e2 llxd1 21 l:.xd1 lh-lh Videki­
Eisterer, Austrian Team Champion­
ship 1996/97.
1 7 . . .tt:le7 1 8 .itf4 .ite5 19 .itxe5
Another Psakhis game went 19
�d4+ �f7 20 i.xe5 fxe5 21 �f5 tt:Jxf5
22 exf5 l:tad8 23 'iit>f2 �f6 24 g4 h5 25
l:txd8 .:txd8 26 'iit>e3 .l:.d4 27 ltg1 c3
lh-lh Malisauskas-Psakhis, Moscow
open 1989.
1 9 . . .fxe5 20 'it>f2 l:thd8 21 'it>e3 ll:lc6
22 f4 tt:lb4 23 :xd8 :xd8 24 :c 1
ll:la2 25 :a 1 tt:lb4 26 l:tc 1 tt:la2 % -%
Neither side can make any real pro­
gress.
Game 26
Romero Holmes-Zak
Mesa open 1992
1 e4 e5 2 tt:lf3 tt:lc6 3 .itb5 a6 4
.itxc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 exd4 7
tt:lxd4 c5 8 tt:lb3 ,.xd 1 9 :xd 1 .ilg4
1 0 f3 .ite6! 1 1 .ilf4
58
1 1 . . . c4
A necessary advance, since 11...ltd8
12 �c3 or 12 l:.xd8+ �xd8 13 �c3
leaves Black a long way behind in de­
velopment.
1 2 tt:ld4
After 12 �aS, 12 ... b6 13 �c6 i.c5+
seems like the simplest way to equal­
ise, as in the game Romero Holmes­
A.Rodriguez, Terrassa open 1994.
1 2 . . .0-0-0 1 3 tt:lc3 :xd4
Black needs to act quickly, as
13 ...i.f7?! is too passive, e.g. 14 a4!
i.c5 15 i.e3 �e7 16 �f5! i.xe3+ 17
�xe3 with a slight plus for White in
Nadanian-Seredenko, correspondence
1992.
13 ...i.c5 14 �e2! �e7 15 i.e3 is
also a little too slow for Black:
a) 15 ...i.xd4 16 �xd4 i.f7 17 �f2
l1d7 18 �e2 l:thd8 19 !bd7 lbd7 20
g4! led to a small endgame advantage
for White in Romero Holmes-Van der
Sterren, Wijk aan Zee 1991.
b) 15 ..iH7 16 �f5 i.xe3+ 17 �xe3
.
was also very nice for White in
Rozentalis-Korzubov, USSR Junior
Championship 1985 .
14 :xd4 .itc5 1 5 ll:le2
This seems more testing than 15

.lie3 .lixd4 16 .lixd4 t:jje7 17 !te1 t:jjc6
18 i.e3 .l:d8 with equal chances in
Santo Roman-Miralles, French Cham­
pionship 1991.
1 5 . . . tt:Je7?!
It is perhaps preferable to take on
d4 immediately, in order to prevent
White from playing c2-c3 and then
recapturing on d4 with the pawn, e.g.
15 ... .lixd4+ 16 t:jjxd4 i.d7 17 lte1 (I
prefer 17 'i!tf2 t:jje7 18 l:.dl and then
perhaps g2-g4 at some point) 17 ...t:jje7
18 <;f;f2 !td8 19 c3 c5 20 t:jjc2 i.e6 21
g4 .l:.d3 and Black was fine in Rozenta­
lis-Psakhis, USSR Championship
1984.
1 6 c3 tt:Jc6 1 7 �1 .txd4
Or 17 ... t:jjxd4 18 cxd4 .lib6 19 d5!
and 20 .l:.cl.
1 8 cxd4 tt:Jb4 1 9 .tg3!
A nice waiting move, preparing to
meet 19 .. t:jjd3 with 20 (jjf4.
.
1 9 . . . c6
No doubt Black was afraid of 20 d5,
but this move severely weakens the
dark squares, allowing White's bishop
a free reign.
20 .td6 tt:Jd3 2 1 tt:Jt4 l:.d8 22 tt:Jxd3
cxd3 23 e5 fxe5 24 dxe5 c5 25 b3
Not 25 i.xc5 .lixa2.
5 0-0 f6 6 d4 exd4
25 . . .c4 26 bxc4 .txc4 27 �f2 �d7
28 f4 �e6 29 �e3 g6
At first sight the position might ap­
pear quite level as both passed pawns
are well blockaded However, White's
pawns are more mobile and he is soon
able to create two connected passed
pawns and force victory.
30 g4 l:.c8 31 a3 .tb5 32 a4 .tc4 33
l:.f1 d2 34 f5+ gxf5 35 gxf5+ �f7
36 l:.b1 b5 37 �xd2 l:.g8 38 axb5
l:.g2+ 39 �e3 .txb5 40 l:.c 1 l:.e2+
41 �f3 1 -0
Game 27
Santo Roman-Laclau
French Team Championship 1993
1 e4 e5 2 tt:Jt3 tt:Jc6 3 .tb5 a6 4
.txc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 exd4 7
tt:Jxd4 c5 8 tLib3 'it'xd 1 9 l:.xd 1 .td7?!
see following diagram
As we have already seen, this move
should be prefaced by 9...i.g4 10 f3 in
order to weaken the g1-a7 diagonal.
1 0 .tf4
10 .lie3 b6 11 t:jjc3 0-0-0 12 a4 is also
promising for White, but the text is
more direct.
59
The Spanish Exc h ange

.i.d6 16 .i.xd6 cxd6 17 l:.e1 �d7 18

lDa5 lDe7 ;2-;2 Timman-Adorjan, Am­
sterdam 1970.

10 . . .0-0-0 1 1 tt:lc3 i.e6

With 9 ....i.g4 10 f3 thrown in,
Black's defence here is ...c5-c4, lDa5
.i.c5+ and ...b7-b5, but here 1 1...c4 is a 1 5 . . . b6 1 6 tt:ld2
mistake as there is no check on c5, e.g. 16 .:td1 lDe7 17 lDd2 has also been
12 lDa5 b5 (12 ....i.b4? 13 .i.xc7 l:.e8 14 played quite a few times, but the rook
lDdS is terrible for Black) 13 lDdS .i.g4 is better placed on d3.
(13 ....i.d6 14 .i.xd6 cxd6 15 lDb4 is also 16 ... tt:le7 17 :d3 tt:lc6
pretty dire) 14 f3 .i.c5+ 15 �fl .i.h5 17 ... lDg6 18 i.g3 .i.e7 19 �f1-e2 is
16 lDc6! l:.d7 17 lDxc7! with a winning very similar.
position for White in Ribli-Medina, 1 a c3 i.e7 1 9 �f1
Wijk aan Zee 1972.
Although Black can try to exploit
the absence of f2-f3 with 1 1...l:.e8, this
seems risky after 12 lDdS! l:.xe4?! (both
12 ....i.c6? 13 lDxc7 l:.xe4 14 f3! .:te2
[14....:xf4 15 lDe6] 15 lDa8! b5 16
lDb6+ �b7 17 lDd7 .i.xd7 18 l:.xd7+
�c6 19 llc7+ �b6 20 .:tc8 lDh6 21
.:tb8+ 1-0 Barendregt-Sliwa, Marianske
Lazne 1961, and 12 ....i.d6 13 .i.xd6
cxd6 14 lDb6+ �d7 15 lDxd7 �xd7 16
.:td2! and llad1 [Mednis] also favour
White) 13 i.xc7 lDe7 14 lDc3 .:tc4 and 1 9 . . . b5 20 �e2 c4 21 :d5 :da 22
now instead of 15 i.g3, as in Benja­ :h5! ? h6 23 i.g3 i.ta 24 f4 g6 25
min-Rowley, Philadelphia open 1993, :h4 :ea 26 :g4 g5 27 fxg5 fxg5
I like the look of 15 i.b6. Having forced the black pawns
1 2 :xda+ �xda 1 3 :d 1 + �ea 1 4 forward, White has already managed
tt:ld5 i.xd5 1 5 :xd5 to create a passed pawn.
This is much better than 15 exdS 2a h4 i.e7 29 hxg5 i.xg5 30 tt:lf3

60

�c1 31 b3 cxb3 32 axb3 'iii>b 7 33
<i>d3 l:.e7 34 e5 a5 35 'ifi>c2 �e3 36
�h4 l:.e6 37 �f6 b4 38 c4 :ea 39
l:.e4 �c5 40 g4 �e 7 41 'ifi>d3 'iii>b6
42 �d4 l:.d8 43 �xe7 �xe7 44 'iii>c 2
l:.f8 45 e6 l:.f2+ 46 'iti>d 1 l:.b2 47 �f5
�c6 48 l:.e3 a4 49 bxa4 �c5 50 e7
1 -0
Game 28
Rausis-Yin Hao
Beijing 1996
1 e4 e5 2 �f3 �c6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 exd4 7
�xd4 c5 8 �e2 ! ?
In recent years this has become al­
most as popular as 8 .!bb3. It is a fa­
vourite of Grandmasters Rozentalis,
Rausis and Van der Wiel. The knight
is flexibly placed on e2, ready to sup­
port J..f4 in the case of a later ...i.d6.
8 . . .'ilt'xd 1
8 ...J..e6 9 .!bbc3 Wxdl 10 :Xd1 sim­
ply transposes to the next note
(8 ...'ifxd1 9 l:.xdl i.e6) while 8 ... i.d6
9 J..f4 .!be7 10 .!bbc3 probably leaves
Black wishing that he had exchanged
queens.
9 l:.xd 1
5 0-0 f6 6 d4 exd4
9 . . .�d6
The most common move, 9 ... J..d7,
is considered in the next game.
There does not seem to be any ad­
vantage in flicking in 9 ...J..g4!? in this
position, as f2-f3 is useful in that it
bolsters the e-pawn, thereby limiting
Black's counterattacking options, e.g.
10 f3 J..d7 11 .!bbc3 0-0-0 12 J..e3 J..d6
13 J..f4! J..xf4?! 14 .!bxf4 .!be7 15 l:.d2
.!bg6 16 .!bxg6 hxg6 17 l:.adl and
White was on top in Rausis-Sulskis,
Riga Zonal 1995.
9 ... J..e6 does not really help Black
either, e.g. 10 J..f4 J..d6 1 1 .!bbc3 0-0-0
12 l:d2! .!be7 13 l:.ad1, reaching an
identical position to that in note 'a' to
Black's 1 1th move in the next game,
but with one move fewer played by
each side.
1 0 �f4 �xf4
10 ...J..e6 transposes to 9...J..e6 10
i.f4 i.d6 in the previous note.
1 1 �xf4 �e7 1 2 �c3 �d7
12 ...0-0 13 l:.d2 g5?! 14 .!bfd5 .!bxd5
15 .!bxd5 l:.f7 16 e5 fxe5 17 l:.e1 h6 18
l:Ixe5 left White in control in Rozenta­
lis-Kislov, Budapest open 1989.
13 l:.d2 0-0-0
This position (with Black to move!)
61
Th e Sp anish Ex change
is also considered in the notes to
Black's 1 1th move in the next game.
Even there it seems good for White, so
it is no surprise that here White is
clearly on top.
1 4 l:tad 1 lbc6
Or 14 ...i..g4? 15 .Uxd8+ llxd8 16
:Xd8+ �xd8 17 f3 g5 (17...i.. d7 18
lt:Jh5 also wins a pawn) 18 ltJfdS ltJxdS
19 ltJxdS i..e6 20 lt:Jxf6 i..xa2 21 lt:Jxh7
b5 22 lt:Jxg5 a5 23 �f2 a4 24 �e3 b4 25
�d2 i..c4 26 h4 1-0 Rausis-Roa,
Oviedo (rapidplay) 1993.
15 f3 l:thf8 1 6 lbcd5 l%f7 1 7 �f2 f5
18 exf5 i.xf5 1 9 c3 b5 20 h4 �b7
21 lbe3 l:txd2+ 22 l:txd2
Although Black has managed to un­
ravel a little, White still has the better
piece placement and pawn structure.
22 . . .i.b 1 23 lbe6 .txa2 24 lbxc5+
�b6 25 b4 i.b1 26 l%d 1 i.f5 27 g4
.tea 28 �g3 �a 7 29 lbd5 lbe5 30
l:te 1 !
White gives up a pawn with check
to achieve a decisive infiltration of the
seventh rank.
30 . . . l:.xf3+ 3 1 �g2 tiJd3 32 l:te7
l:tf2+ 33 �g3 l:td2 34 tt:Je4 l:te2 35
l:txc7+ �b8 36 lbd6 .te6 37 l:.b7+
1 -0
62
Game 29
Rozentalis-Milos
Tilburg 1992
1 e4 e5 2 tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 3 i.b5 a6 4
i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 exd4 7
tt:Jxd4 c5 8 tt:Je2!? Wxd 1 9 l:txd 1 i.d7
10 tt:Jbc3
10 i..f4 usually transposes to the
next note after 10 ...0-0-0 1 1 lt:Jbc3,
since 1 1 c4 lt:Je7 12 lt:Jbc3 lt:Jg6 13 i.g3
lt:Je5 14 b3 i.d6 15 ltJdS was not terri­
bly promising for White in Hort­
Nunn, Zurich open 1984.
10 . . . 0-0-0 1 1 i.e3!
11 i.f4 is also very common, but
unfortunately it allows Black to de­
velop his king's knight with gain of
time after 1 1...lt:Je7 and now:
a) 12 .Ud2 lt:Jg6 (12 ...i.c6!? 13 .l:lxd8+
'li;xd8 14 :.d1 + �c8 may just about be
playable for Black now that White has
wasted time with l:d2) 13 i.g3 lt:Je5
(13 ... l:.e8?! 14 l:ad1 i..c6 15 ltJdS! is
risky for Black, as in Prie-Alzate, Novi
Sad Olympiad 1990) 14 i.xe5 (not 14
r!ad1 lt:Jc4!, but 14 b3 is a playable al­
ternative to the text move, which al­
lows Black two bishops against two

knights) 14...fxe5 15 :ad1 c4! 16 �fl
i.c5 and Black was fine in Fischer­
Spassky, 27th matchgame, Belgrade
1992.
b) 12 i.g3 {a useful waiting move,
preparing to drop the knight into d5
once the black knight moves from e7
and reserving the option of l:td2 and
l:ad1) 12 ... lbg6 {12 ...lbc6 13 lDdS tt:Je5
simply transposes, while Timman rec­
ommends 12 ....i.e6! and if 13 lbf4
.i.f7, as the ambitious 12...g5?! ran into
trouble after 13 f4! .i.g7 [13 ...gxf4? 14
lbxf4] 14 f5 b6 15 h3 h5 16 .i.h2
l:de8?! 17 a4! in Timman-Yusupov,
Moscow 1992) 13 lDdS lbe5 14 b3 {14
f4 lbf7 was equal in Ljubojevic­
Romanishin, Riga lnterzonal 1979)
14 ....i.d6 15 f3 .i.e6 16 c4 with equal
chances in Van der Wiel-Nikolic,
Wijk aan Zee 1988.
1 1 . . .l:.e8!
1 1.. ..i.d6 can be met by the para­
doxical 12 .i.f4! (White is even pre­
pared to give up a whole tempo just to
exchange the dark-squared bishops).
For example:
a) 12 ....1l.e6 13 :d2! lbe7 14 :ad1
.i.xf4 15 lhd8+ l:txd8 16 l:lxd8+ �xd8
17 lbxf4 ll.f7 with a pleasant endgame
for White in Glek-Hansen, Copenha­
gen 1995.
b) 12 ... .i.xf4 13 lbxf4 tt:Je7 14 l:td2!
ll.g4 {14 ...l:hf8 15 J:.ad1 lbc6 16 f3 f5
17 lbh5 was also very nice for White
in Rozentalis-Gretarsson, Liechten­
stein open 1996) 15 J:.xd8+ %hd8 16 f3
.i.d7 17 l:td1 lbc6 18 �f2 llf8 19 g4
with a clear endgame advantage in
Rozentalis-Van der Wiel, Mondorf
1991.
1 2 l:.d2 i.c6 1 3 l:.ad 1
5 0 - 0 f6 6 d4 exd4
White has now established control
of the open d-file. It is difficult for
Black to generate any counterplay, but
neither is it clear how White should
set about improving his position.
1 3 . . . b6
13 ....1l.d6 is met by the standard 14
i.f4 i.xf4 15 tt:Jxf4, when in Rozenta­
lis-Nikolic, Reykjavik open 1996,
White had a very pleasant endgame
after 15 ...tt:Jh6 16 lbh5 .:thg8 17 tt:Jg3
b6 18 f3 :gf8 19 �f2.
1 4 lbd5?!
It might be better not to rush this
move. In a later game Rozentalis pre­
ferred 14 f3 lbe7 15 lbf4 tt:Jg6 16 tt:JcdS
{16 lDfdS!?) 16 ...tt:Je5 17 b3 c4 18 lbh5
with an unclear position in Rozentalis­
I.Sokolov, Tilburg 1993.
A similar approach is 14 lbf4 lbh6
15 lDfdS lbg4 16 i.f4 tt:Je5 17 b3 fol­
lowed by f2-f3, as in Vysochin-Yeme­
lin, USSR Junior Championship 1992.
Note that White must be careful
not to weaken himself unnecessarily.
In the game Brunner-Adams, Biel ln­
terzonal 1993, White soon ran into
problems after 14 .ltf4 lbe7 15 g4?!
lbg6 16 ll.g3 h5 17 gxh5 l:txh5 18 lbf4
lbxf4 19 i.xf4 c4 20 .tg3 i.c5, when
63
Th e Spanish Exchange

the position had opened up for the
two black bishops.
1 4 . . . lt:Je7 1 5 e4 lt:Jxd5 1 6 exd5 .td7
1 7 .tf4 .td6 1 a .txd6 exd6 1 9 f3
�e7
The pos1t1on is now completely
level. Although Rozentalis is a very
fine endgame player, even he is unable
to make any significant inroads into
the black position.
20 'itf2 b5 2 1 b3 :te5 22 ltlf4 bxc4
23 bxc4 :tba 24 h4 a5 25 g4 g6 26
lt:Jd3 :r.eea 27 :te2 :r.xe2+ 2a �xe2
:ea+ 29 'itd2 .tea 30 :.e 1 h6 3 1 a3
:te7 32 ltlf4 g5 33 ltlh5 :tf7 34 hxg5
hxg5 35 lt:Jg3 f5 36 gxf5 .txf5 37
:tg 1 .tea aa c;te3 g4 39 f4 .ta6 40
:te 1 :te7+ 41 c;td3 :th7 42 :te 1 :th2
43 :te7+ 'itda 44 :ea .tea 45 :.e2
:th3 46 :ea :th2 47 :.e2 :th3 %-%

64
 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 exd4

Summary
White appears to have slightly better prospects after both 6 d4 exd4 7 liJxd4 c5 8
liJb3 and 8 liJe2. It is hard to recommend this variation to players of the Black
side who aspire to more than a draw, as that is pretty much the best that he can
hope for unless White goes off the rails in a big way.

1 e4 e5 2 lt:lf3 lt:lc6 3 i.b5 a6 4 i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 exd4 7 lt:lxd4 c5

8 lt:lb3
8 liJe2 'ii'xd1 9 ltxd1
9....i.d6 - Game 28
9 ....i.d7 - Game 29
8 . . .'ii'xd 1 9 l:txd 1 (0) i.g4
9... .i.d6 - Game 21
9 ....i.d7 - Game 27
1 0 f3 i.e6
10 ....i.d7 1 1 .i.f4 (1 1 liJc3 0-0-0 12 .i.f4 transposes) 11...0-0-0 12 liJc3 c4
13 liJaS .i.c5+ 14 ltf1 b5 15 liJd5 (D)
15 ...c6 Game 22
-

15 ... liJe7 - Game 23

1 1 lt:lc3
1 1 .i.f4 - Game 26
1 1 .i.e3 b6 12 a4 ltf7 13 liJc3 i..d6 - see below
1 1 . . .i.d6 1 2 i.e3 b6 1 3 a4 0-0-0
13 ...'iti>f7 - Game 25
1 4 a5 (0) - Game 24

9 :Xd 1 1 5 lL'ld5 1 4 a5

65
 CHAPTER FOUR I
5 0-0 �g4
1 e4 e5 2 ti:Jf3 tt:Jc6 3 J..b5 a6 4
J..xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 J..g4
The move 5 ....1i.g4 was described by
Fischer as Black's 'most ambitious
continuation'. Black meets the threat
to his e-pawn with a pin on the white
knight. However, after 6 h3 Black has
to decide what to do with the bishop.
Since 6....1i.xf3 (Game 36) is insipid
and 6 ... .1i.h5 'loses' a pawn to 7 g4 .1i.g6
8 lDxeS (although the enterprising
Swedish grandmaster Jonny Hector
has shown a willingness to play this as
a gambit on more than one occasion -
see Game 35) Black players have in­
variably gone for 6 ...h5. Although the
bishop is immune from immediate
capture, White is not under direct at­
tack and has a choice of two main
plans. First, he can allow Black to
double his f-pawns with either 7 c3
'i'd3 (the best move) 8 :e1 .1i.xf3 9
'i'xf3 fixf3 10 gxf3 (Game 34) or 7 d3
fif6 8 .1i.e3 (8 l:te1 .1i.xf3 9 'iixf3 'i'xf3
10 gxf3 and 8 tiJbd2 ltJe7 9 ltJc4 .1i.xf3
10 'ii'xf3 1i'xf3 1 1 gxf3 amount to
pretty much the same thing) 8 ....1i.xf3
66
9 fixf3 'i'xf3 10 gxf3 (Game 33) hop­
ing to arrange f3-f4 at some point. Al­
ternatively, White can simply develop
his pieces with 8 ttJbd2 lDe7 9 l:.e 1
lDg6 10 d4, reaching the main line po­
sition. After 10...1l.d6 the bishop can
then finally be taken: 1 1 hxg4 hxg4 12
lDh2 .l:.xh2 13 'ti'xg4, when the queens
are exchanged after 13 ...:th4?! 14 'ii'fS
(Game 30) or 13 .. .'ii'h4 14 'ii'xh4 l:xh4
(Game 31). The latter sequence is usu­
ally considered to be slightly better for
White and although Game 31 suggests
that Black may in fact be able to equal­
ise with best play, clearly Black has no
real winning chances in this line. It is
therefore perhaps not surprising that
recently Black players have experi­
mented with 13 ...lth7!? (see the notes
to Game 30) and 10 ...ltJf4!? instead of
....1i.d6 (Game 32).
Game 30
Adorjan-Perecz
Hungarian Championship 1975
1 e4 e5 2 ti:Jf3 tt:Jc6 3 J..b5 a6 4

..i..xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 ..i..g4 6 h3 h5
The standard move. 6 ....i.xf3 is con­
sidered in Game 35 and 6 ...i.h5 in
Game 36.
7 d3
The bishop is immune: 7 hxg4??
hxg4 8 l2Jxe5 ii'h4 9 f3 g3 and mates. 7
c3 is the subject of Game 34.
7 . .'Wif6 8 tLlbd2
. is very similar to 8 i.e3 i.xf3 9 'ili'xf3
Obviously it is still bad to take the
bishop: 8 hxg4 hxg4 9 l2Jg5 'it'h6 10
l2Jh3 ii'h4 and Black is on top. How­
ever, it has recently become fashion­
able to allow the f-pawns to become
doubled with 8 .i.e3 .i.xf3 9 'iixf3
'iixf3 10 gxf3 - see Game 33.
8 . . . l2:\e7
8 ... i.d6 9 lite1 l2Je7 10 d4 l2Jg6
transposes to the main game, as 10
hxg4?! hxg4 11. l2Jh2 llxh2 12 �xh2
'ilxf2 is too risky. However, 8 ...i.c5 is
inaccurate because after 9 l2Jc4! i.xf3
10 ii'xf3 ii'xf3 10 gxf3 White is able to
exchange his doubled pawn straight­
away with f3-f4, retaining the better
prospects. Likewise, after 8 ...g5 9 l2Jc4
{the safest move; 9 l:e 1 i.e6 with the
idea of ...g5-g4 is very complicated and
not very easy for White to play)
9 ...i.xf3 (not 9 ..i.d6? 10 i.xg5 i.xf3
. hxg4? hxg4 1 1 l2Jh2 (or 1 1 g3 i.c5!?)
5 0 - 0 i.. g 4
1 1 i.xf6 .i.xd1 12 .i.xh8) 10 'it'xf3
'ilxf3 1 1 gxf3 f6 12 h4! (another
Fischer idea) 12 ...gxh4 13 f4 exf4 14
i.xf4 0-0-0 15 �h2 White has slightly
better prospects, despite his pawn mi­
nus.
9 lle 1
9 l2Jc4 .i.xf3 10 ii'xf3 'ifxf3 1 1 gxf3
'ifxf3 10 gxf3 above. Note also that
although 9 hxg4 hxg4 10 g3 is given as
slightly better for White by Karaklaic
in Informator 70, Black has good pres­
sure down the h-file after 10 ... gxf3.
9 ... l2:\g6
9...i.d7 was recommended by
Stoica in Informator 68. However, af­
ter 10 l2Jc4 l2Jg6 1 1 d4! exd4 {1 1...i.d6
12 i.g5 'iie6 13 d5 cxdS 14 l2Jd4!! is
very strong - Stoica) 12 e5 ii'd8
(12 ...ii'e6? 13 tLld6+ cxd6 14 exd6 wins
the queen) 13 i.g5 i.e7 14 l2Jd6+! cxd6
15 exd6 f6 16 dxe7 l2Jxe7 17 i.f4 0-0 18
'iixd4 it is hard to find anything to
recommend the black position - his
position is full of holes and the h­
pawn is loosely placed on h5.
1 0 d4
The bishop still cannot be taken: 10
67
Th e Sp anish Exc h ange
1 1 ...i.c5! (1 1...l:.xh2 12 'aifxh2 'i'xf2
fails to 13 lt:Jc4 lt:Jh4 14 'i'xg4) 12 lt:Jdf3
gxf3 13 lt:Jxf3 .l:th5! 14 ..i.e3 lt:Jf4! 15
�fl l:.h1 + 16 lt:Jg1 'i'h4 17 d4 ..i.xd4
0-1 Alvarez-Lalic, Toulouse open
1990.
1 0 . ..id6
. l:.h5 in Prie-Anic, Budapest 1993.
After the 'natural' 10...0-0-0??
(10...exd4? 1 1 e5) the bishop can fi­
nally be taken: 1 1 hxg4 hxg4 12 lt:Jh2
l:hh2 and now 14 'i'xg4 is check. The
sharp 10...lt:Jf4 is considered in Game
32.
1 1 hxg4
Now is the time to take the bishop,
since 1 1 c3?! 0-0-0 12 hxg4 hxg4 13
lt:Jh2 :Z.xh2 14 'i'xg4+ 'aifb8 15 lt:Jf3 (15
�xh2 'ii'xf2) 15 ...exd4 16 lt:Jxh2 (or 16
..i.g5 l::tdh8) 16.....i.xh2+ is very dan-
gerous.
If White is determined to keep the
queens on, however, he could try 1 1
c4!?, intending c4-c5. After 1 1...c5 12
'i'a4+ i.d7 13 dxe5 i.xa4?! 14 exf6
gxf6 15 b3 i.d7 16 ..i.b2, White was on
top in Karaklaic-Scholl, Wijk aan Zee
1972, so Black should play 13 ...lt:Jxe5
with equal chances.
1 1 . . . hxg4 1 2 lZJh2
12 lt:Jxe5?? 'i'h4 13 �fl lt:Jf4 leads to
68
mate and 12 dxe5? ..i.xe5 is also good
for Black, while Black also achieved a
fine game after 12 g3 gxf3 13 lt:Jxf3
'i'e6! 14 lt:Jg5 'i'd7 15 dxe5 lt:Jxe5 16
..i.f4 'i'e7 17 lt:Jf3 0-0-0 18 lt:Jxe5 ..i.xe5
19 'i'g4+ 'it>b8 20 c3 ..i.xf4 21 'i'xf4
1 2 . . .:xh2
12 ... exd4?? fails to 13 e5!
1 3 Wxg4
13 'aifxh2? is too greedy: 13 ...'i'xf2
14 :e2 (or 14 'ii'xg4 'i'xe1) 14...exd4+
15 e5 ..i.xe5+ 16 'aifh1 'i'h4+ 17 'it>g1
0-0-0 with a very powerful attack.
1 3 . . .:h4?!
The main line 13 ...'i'h4 is consid­
ered in the next game. If Black wants
to keep the queens on he could try
13 ....:th7!?, e.g. 14 lt:Jf3 (not 14 'i'f5?
'i'h4) 14...lt:Jf4 (perhaps 14...'i'e7!?,
intending ... 'i'f8-h8) 15 dxe5?! (15
i.xf4 'i'xf4 16 "ii'xf4 exf4 should be
slightly better for White due to
Black's two sets of doubled pawns)
15 ..."ii'h6 16 �fl ..i.xe5 17 ..i.xf4 'i'xf4
18 'i'xf4 ..i.xf4 19 'it>e2 f6 20 .:th1 l:.xh1
21 :Z.xh1 �f7 and Black was okay in
Lautier-Piket, Monaco (blindfold)
1998.
14 Wf5!

This move was recommended by
Fischer in My Sixty Memorable Games.
Now 14.. ."ifxf5 15 exf5 tl:Je7 16 dxe5
wins a pawn, so Black is forced to ex­
change queens in an inferior manner.
1 4 . . .tt:Je7 ? !
14....:tf4 15 "ifxf6 l:.xf6 (15 ...gxf6 16
g3 l:.g4 17 ti:Jf3 is very pleasant for
White) 16 ti:Jf3 :e6 17 .lld2 0-0-0, as in
Sanchez Almeyra-Gadea, Ibercaja
open 1992, is probably Black's best
defence, but White is still slightly bet­
ter after 18 .llc 3.
1 5 _.xf6 gxf6
The two sets of doubled pawns
make an ugly impression.
1 6 tt:Jf3 l:h5
It might be better to play 16 ...ltg4,
preventing .i.e3, but 17 dxe5 fxe5 18
ii.g5 'itd7 19 ltad1 �e6 20 g3 still
looks slightly better for White.
1 7 .te3 0-0-0 1 8 g3 l:dh8 1 9 dxe5
fxe5 20 �g2 �d7 21 l:h 1 l::.xh 1 22
l:xh 1 l::.xh 1 23 'iPxh 1
A typical endgame has arisen.
White has excellent winning chances
because Black will never be able to
create a passed pawn.
23 . . . c5 24 �g2 tt:Jc6 25 c3 b5 26
tt:Jd2 c4 27 f4 exf4?
5 0-0 Ji.. g 4
27...ti:Jd8, intending to bring the
knight to c5 via e6 or b7, would have
offered better defensive chances.
28 gxf4 f6 29 �g3 tt:Je 7 30 'iPg4
�e6 3 1 tt:Jf3 c5 32 f5+ �d7 33 .tf4
tt:Jc6 34 .txd6 �xd6 35 �f4! b4
35 ... !i:Je7 would have been met by
36 ti:Jh2!, intending tl:Jg4.
36 e5+! fxe5+
36...tl:Jxe5 37 tl:Jxe5 fxe5+ 38 �e4 a5
39 f6 �e6 40 f7 leads to a won king
and pawn ending.
37 �e4 a5 38 tt:Jd2 a4 39 tt:Jxc4+
�e7 40 a3 bxa3 41 tt:Jxa3 �f6 42
tt:Jc4 tt:Je7 43 tt:Je3 1 -0
Game 31
Nataf-Anic
Enghien Les Bains 1997
1 e4 e5 2 tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 3 .tb5 a6 4
.txc6 dxc6 5 0-0 .tg4 6 h3 h5 7 d3
'ii'f6 8 tt:Jbd2 tt:Je 7 9 l:e 1 tt:Jg6 1 0 d4
.td6 1 1 hxg4 hxg4 1 2 lLlh2 l:xh2 1 3
_.xg4 'ii'h4 1 4 'ii'xh4 l:xh4 1 5 tt:Jf3
see following diagram
1 5 . . .l:h5!
This is more active than 15 ...l:h8,
when after 16 dxe5 tl:Jxe5 17 tl:Jxe5
69
Th e Sp anish Exch ange
.ltxe5 18 c3 g6 (18 ... 0-0-0 19 .lte3 lid3
20 ltad1 ltd8 21 ltxd3 I;lxd3 22 �f1-e2
is also pleasant for White) 19 .i.e3
0-0-0 20 g3 .l::the8 21 'iii>g2! .i.g7 22 �f3
White's king was able to enter the
game to good effect in Prie-Allouard,
Orange open 1994. The conclusion of
this game is a graphic illustration of
the perils of multiple exchanges in this
variation: 22 ... b6 23 :Iad1 c5 24 .l:.xd8+
�xd8 25 l:ld1 + �e7 26 .i.g5+ .i.f6 27
.ltxf6+ 'iii>xf6 28 .l::td7 :e7 29 .:lxe7
�xe7 (the king and pawn ending is
completely won for White) 30 e5 c6
31 'it>e4 a5 32 a4 'it>e6 33 c4 ci;;e7 34 f4
'iii>e6 35 g4 �e7 36 f5 'it>d7 37 e6+ fxe6
38 fxg6 1-0.
1 6 tllx e5
In view of the drawish nature of
this move, some White players have
also tried to keep the tension with 16
c3, but then Black seems to be able to
generate active play with 16... 0-0-0
(16.. .£6 is not terribly useful as long as
White avoids 17 .i.e3 �f7! and ...l:le8;
White can play g2-g3 and 'iii>g2 or even
consider a switch to 17 dxe5 lt:Jxe5 18
lt:Jxe5 .i.xe5 19 i.e3 followed by g2-g3
and 'it>g2) 17 g3 (or 17 .i.e3 l:te8!)
17 ...exd4 19 cxd4 .i.b4 20 l:e2 l:dh8
70
21 �g2 :h1 (22 lt:Jh4 lt:Jxh4+ 23 'iii>xh1
li:Jf3+ 24 �g2 li:Jxd4).
If White wishes to avoid the ex­
change on e5, he may do better to
play 16 .i.e3 0-0-0 17 g3, e.g. 17.. .£5?!
(17 ... exd4 18 i.xd4 f6 looks more
solid) 18 exf5 l:txf5 19 �g2 .:d£8 20
lDxe5 lt:Jxe5 21 dxe5 i.xe5 22 c3 with a
slight edge for White in Magem
Badals-Khalifman, New York open
1998 .
16 . . . tllxe5 1 7 dxe5 �xe5 1 8 c3 g5!
An important move, clamping
down on White's kingside majority.
The importance of boxing in the
white king is well illustrated by the
game House-Fox, Edinburgh open
1989, which now continued 18 ...0-0-0
(18 ....i.h2+ 19 'iii>fl .td6 20 g3 only
encourages White) 19 i.e3 (19 f4!?
.i.d6 20 .i.e3 f6 is a little risky, as
Black is ready to hit back with .... g7-
g5!) 19 .. .f6?! (19 ...g5 was still perfectly
playable, intending ... g5-g4 at some
point) 20 g3 l1dh8 21 �g2! l1h2+ (the
rook gets to the seventh, but there is
nothing for it to do there) 22 �f3 b6
23 ftad1 I;l2h5 24 i.f4 .i.xf4 25 �xf4
and White had obtained a very active
position.

1 9 g3 0-0-0
Black carelessly allowed the white
king into the game in Rogovskoy­
Petek, Litomysl open 1995: 19 .. .f6 20
'ltg2 'ltf7 21 i.e3 l:d8 22 l:ad1 l:thh8
23 �f3! .Uxd1 24 .l:!xd1 'lte6 25 �g4
and White was on top.
20 .te3 g4!
20 ... l:.dh8 21 �g2 g4! is also possi­
ble, but not 21...:t.h2+ 22 �f3 and the
white king comes in.
2 1 �g2 l:.dh8!
After 21...f5?! 22 exf5 l:hf5 23 l:iad1
White can once again think about ob­
taining a passed pawn.
22 l:.h 1 l:.xh 1 23 l:.xh 1 l:.xh 1
�xh 1
Although White has managed to
exchange rooks there are no winning
chances, because he is unable to create
a passed pawn on the kingside.
24 . . . �d7 25 �g2 �e6 26 .tf4
26 f4 gxf3+ 27 �xf3 is also a draw,
provided that Black always remembers
to meet ii.f4 with ... Ji.d6.
26 . . . .td6 27 �f1 f5 28 exf5+ �xf5
29 .te3 �e4 30 �e2 .te5 3 1 �d2
�f3 32 b4 b6 33 c4 b5 34 c5 .tb2
35 �c2 .tf6 36 �d3 .te5 37 �d2
.tb2 38 �c2 % -%
5 0-0 i.g4
Game 32
Shirov-Topalov
Madrid (rapidplay) 1997
1 e4 e5 2 tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 3 .tb5 a6 4
.txc6 dxc6 5 0-0 .tg4 6 h3 h5 7 d3
'it'f6 8 t2Jbd2 tt:Je7 9 l:.e 1 tt:Jg6 1 0 d4
tt:Jf4
This very tricky alternative to the
routine 10 ...Ji.d6 is surprisingly unex­
plored and would probably catch a lot
of players out.
24
1 1 dxe5
Here the acceptance of the piece
sacrifice is critical, i.e. 1 1 hxg4 hxg4
and now:
a) 12 tbf1? tbxg2! 13 tbdf1 (13 �xg2
�xh2+ 14 �xh2 'ii'xf2+ 15 �h1 g3 and
13 dxe5 'ii'h4 14 tbdf1 ii.c5! 15 l:.e2 g3!
16 'ltxg2 'ii'h3+! 17 �f3 'ii'h5+ 18 �g2
ii.xf2 are terminal) 13 ...tbxe1 14 'ii'xel
0-0-0 with a tremendous position for
Black in Brondum-Iskov, Esbjerg open
1972.
b) 12 g3! gxf3 (not 12 ... Ji.b4? 13 gxf4
'ii'h6 14 'ltfl 'i'xf4 [or 14...'ii'h3+ 15
�e2 gxf3+ 16 'ittd3] 15 tbxe5 l::th 1+ 16
�e2 %%.h2 17 tbd3 'ii'h6 18 tbfl 1-0
Adorjan-Horner, London 1975) 13
71
Th e Sp anish Exc h a n g e

'i'xf3 �e6! {13... �h3+?! 14 �g2 �g5 kingside pawns.

15 'i'xf6 gxf6 16 dxe5 fxe5 is slightly
better for White) 14 dxe5 (here 14
'ilfxf6 gxf6 15 dxe5 runs into
15 ...�d4!) 14...'i'h6 (14...'i'xe5 15 'i'f5
'i'c5 16 �f3 g6 17 'i'xc5 .i.xc5 18 ltd1
may be just a shade better for White)
15 �b3 'i'h2+ (it is possibly better not
to rush this move; 15 ...g5!? followed
by ... i.g7 is possible with unclear
complications) 16 'ifi>f1 .i.c5! 17 'ifi>e2!?
(17 'i'g2 'i'h5 18 �xc5 �xc5 19 f4 is
quoted in ECO as clearly better for
White, but Black can try 19 ...'i'g4!?, 1 5 J:.e 1 lt.Jxe5 1 6 lt.Jf3 lt.Jxf3+ 1 7
when 20 .i.e3 l:h3 21 .i.xc5 .:t.xg3 22 gxf3 i.b4 1 8 c3 i.c5 1 9 �f1 J:.d3 20
'i'h2 .:h3 led to a draw by repetition 'itre2 J:.hd8 21 J:.g 1 g6
in Elburg-Darmograi, correspondence Black should be fine here, but over
1986, while 17 i.e3 i.xe3 18 'i'xe3, as the next few moves he goes slightly
in Povah-Corden, Birmingham 1977, astray.
18 ... 'i'h3+ 19 'ifi>e2 'i'h5+ 20 'i'f3 'it'xe5 22 i.f4 b5
21 c3 is at least equal for Black) 22 ...a5 (intending ...a5-a4) 23 a4 b6
17 ... 0-0-0 18 .i.f4 with a slight plus for looks more solid, as the text opens up
White in Bosch-Van de Oudeweeter­ an avenue of attack for White with c3-
ing, Dutch Team Championship 1996. c4.
1 1 .. .'ili'g6 23 J:.ac1 �b7 24 J:.c2 a5
1 1...'ii'h6?! 12 �c4 l:d8 13 .i.xf4
'i'xf4 14 'i'cl 'it'xcl 15 .l:.axcl looks
good for White.
1 2 lt.Jh4
It is too late for 12 hxg4? due to
12 ... hxg4 13 �h2 .:t.xh2 14 'iiixh2 g3+!
with a winning attack for Black.
1 2 . . .i.xd 1 1 3 lt.Jxg6 lt.Jxg6
The strange 13 ...fxg6?! has also been
played several times, but it is hard to
see why. After 14 .:Xd1 0-0-0 15 h4,
intending g2-g3, Black is struggling to
justify his pawn sacrifice. 25 J:.f1 ?!
1 4 J:.xd 1 0-0-0 Defending the f-pawn so that White
Shirov claims that Black has equal­ can play l:d2 without allowing
ised here and I see no reason to doubt .. J:hd2 + , .i.xd2 .i.xf2. However, Shi­
his judgement, given White's crippled rov suggest the improvement 25 c4! b4

72

(not 25 ...i.b6 26 c5 !ii. a7 27 iLe3 or
25 ... bxc4 26 .l:xc4 !ii.b6 27 :gel with
an advantage to White in both in­
stances) 26 llg5! �b6! 27 !ii.xc7+ �xc7
28 l:txc5 �b6 29 :.e5 with a slight plus
for White.
25 . . . a4 26 l:.d2 l:.xd2+ 27 i.xd2 i.e7
28 i.e3 i.f6 29 i.c5 i.g5 30 l:.d 1
l:txd 1 31 'it>xd 1 'it>c8 32 b3 axb3 33
axb3 �d7 34 �e2 'it>e6 35 i.e3 i.e7
36 c4 i.d6 37 'it>d3 % -%
Game 33
Shirov-Topalov
Madrid 1997
1 e4 e5 2 ll'lf3 ll'lc6 3 i.b5 a6 4
i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 i.g4 6 h3 h5 7 d3
'it'f6 8 i.e3
This move has become very fash­
ionable in the past few years, although
in the play-off to the same tournament
Shirov reverted to the standard 8 .:le 1
- see the previous game.
8 . . .i.xf3
This exchange is played almost
automatically here, since after 8 ...ttJe7
(or 8 ...!ii. d6 9 tbbd2 tbe7 10 .l:te1 !ii.d7
1 1 d4) 9 tbbd2 tbg6 10 l:te1 (but not 10
hxg4? hxg4 11 tbg5 tbf4 12 'ii'xg4
5 0-0 �g4
"ifxg5! [13 "ii'xg5 tbe2 mate or 13 "iff3
"ifxg2+! 14 'ifxg2 tbe2 mate] 0-1
Bohm-Hernandez, Amsterdam 1979)
White really is threatening 1 1 hxg4
and thus holds the initiative.
9 Wxf3 Wxf3 1 0 gxf3 i.d6
Otherwise White can immediately
rid himself of the doubled pawns with
f3-f4.
1 1 ll'ld2
The traditional plan here is for
White to occupy the g-file with 1 1
�h1 (1 1 �h2 is very similar) 1 1...f6 12
l:tgl. A recent example of this idea in
action is 12 ...�f7 13 tbd2 tiJe7 14 tbc4
l:tad8 (after 14...tbg6 15 l:tg3 tbh4, in­
tending ... g7-g5, White can play 16 f4!
exf4 17 tbxd6+ cxd6 19 !ii.xf4 d5 20
!ii.d2 ltae8 21 f3 with a slight plus in
Ljubojevic-Spassky, Bugojno 1978,
although White soon went wrong and
lost the game) 15 .l:tg2 g5 16 h4! g4 17
fxg4 hxg4 18 l:txg4 tbg6 19 �g2
tbxh4+ 20 �g3 tbg6 21 :g1 tbf8 22
�f3 tbe6 23 �e2 lth7, when Black
had enough counterplay in Timman­
Piket, Wijk aan Zee 1998, and the
game was later drawn.
Another alternative idea is 1 1 c4!?
tbf6 12 c5 !ii.e7 13 tbd2, intending to
clamp down on the queenside with b2-
b4. The game Beikert-Conquest,
French Team Championship 1998,
continued 13 ..a5 (13 ..l:.d8 is met by
. .
14 tbc4) 14 a4 tbd7 15 l::tfcl 0-0 16
tbb3 l::tfd8 17 �fl tbf8 18 d4 exd4 19
tbxd4 .tf6 20 lted1 with roughly
equal chances.
1 1 . . . ll'le7 1 2 l:.fb 1 ! ?
Very original play by Shirov. In­
stead of playing on the g-file, Shirov
prepares to advance his pawns on the
73
Th e Sp anish Exchange

queenside, hoping to erect a 'big

clamp'.

1 9 . . . i.e7 20 �c2 .:td7 2 1 .:td 1 .:tad8

22 l:r.d2 g6 23 .:tad 1 i.f8 24 �b3 c5!
12 ...liJg6 13 b4 f6 14 a4 25 b5 a5
The game Rozentalis-Relange, Bel­ Now White has run out of pawn
fort 1997, followed a very similar breaks and can only sit and wait.
path: 14 �fl ti:Jf8 15 tbc4 tbe6 16 a4 26 �c2 i.g7 27 :th 1 f5 28 .:tdd 1 f4
�e7 17 ti:JaS ti:Jd8 18 c3 b6 19 tbc4 29 i.c1 i.f6 30 h4 �g7 31 .:th2 �h7
tbe6 and the game was eventually 32 .:tg2 �h6 33 .:tdg 1 .:tg7 34 :th 1
drawn. I prefer Shirov's move order �h7 35 l:lhg 1 l:ldg8 36 lth 1 �h6 37
because the black king stood well in �d2 g5 38 hxg5+ ltJxg5 39 �e2
this game on e7, whereas if the king liJe6 40 l:lgh2 h4
goes to e7 in the main game White can
consider playing c2-c4 to embarrass
the bishop.
1 4 . . .�f7 1 5 �f1 liJf8 1 6 �e2
16 tbc4 tbe6 17 ti:JaS may be the
most accurate move order, while 16 c4
tbe6 17 cS j_e7 18 ti:Jb3, intending
ti:JaS, also looks intereSting, although it
is rather committal.
1 6 . . .liJe6 1 7 c3?!
Here Shirov prefers 17 tbc4 g6
(17...b6!? may be playable, e.g. 18
tbxd6+ cxd6 19 j.xb6 tbf4+ 20 �e3 Although Black has a passed pawn,
tbxh3 with an unclear position) 18 Shirov claims that he could still have
ti:JaS .l:.ab8 19 c3 with a slight advan­ held the position with 41 �fl!, as
tage to White. there is no way for the black pieces to
1 7 . . ..:thd8 1 8 ltJc4 b6 1 9 �d2?! infiltrate. After the desperate-looking
The wrong idea. Shirov prefers 19 game move White gives himself real
ti:Jd2 with equal chances. losing chances.

74

41 l:.xh4+ �xh4 42 l:.xh4+ 'it>g5 43
l:.h 1 'it>f6 44 �b2 l:.g5 45 l:.h7?
45 l:h6+ 1:8g6 46 :h7 was White's
last chance (Shirov).
45 . . .l:.e8 46 l:.d7 l:.e7 47 l:.d5 l:.h7
48 d4 exd4 49 e5+ 'it>t5 50 cxd4
l:.g2 5 1 ltld6+ cxd6 52 exd6+ 'it>g6
53 d7 ltld8 54 dxc5 bxc5 55 �c3
'it>f7 56 �xa5 'it>e6 57 .l:.xc5 l:.xd7 58
�c7 l:.gg7 59 �xf4 ltlb7 60 l:.c6+
'it>d5 6 1 �e3 l:.g 1 62 l:.h6 'it>c4 63
l:tc6+ 'it>b3 64 b6 'it>xa4 65 f4 'it>b5
66 l:.c2 ltld6 67 l:.c5+ 'it>a6 68 l:td5
l:.gg7 69 'it>f3 ltlc4 70 l:.c5 ltlxb6 7 1
l:.c6 l:.b7 7 2 f5 l:.gc7 7 3 l:.e6 'it>b5 74
l:.e5+ 'it>c4 75 'it>e4 ltld7 76 l:.a5
ltlf6+ 77 'it>e5 l:.c6 78 �g5 l:.b5+ 79
l:.xb5 ltld7+ 80 'it>e4 'it>xb5 8 1 'it>d5
l:.c5+ 82 'it>e6 ltlf8+ 0-1
Game 34
De Wit-Van der Sterren
Amsterdam open 1985
1 e4 e5 2 ltlf3 ltlc6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 �g4 6 h3 h5 7 c3
ji'd3 ! ?
This is reckoned to be more precise
than 7 ...'ii'f6, which allows White to
sacrifice a pawn with 8 d4 i.xf3 9
'ii'xf3 exd4 (9 ...'ii'xf3 10 gxf3 i.d6 was
slightly better for White in Peresipkin­
Savon, USSR 1970, but Black may be
able to equalise with 10 ...cxd4 11 exd4
0-0-0 12 .te3 fS! - Marovic) 10 cxd4
'ii'xd4 1 1 tbc3 it.. d6 12 it..f4 ii.xf4 13
'ii'xf4 'ii'd6 14 e5 'ii'h6 15 'ii'b4! b6 16
f4 a5 17 'ii'a3 tbe7 18 :adl c5 19 tbe4
with a powerful initiative in Stein­
Kholmov, USSR Championship
1966/67.
Instead of these queen moves
5 0 - 0 i.. g 4
7 ...it..c5!? is possible but little explored.
White cannot get away with 8 d4 exd4
9 hxg4? hxg4 10 tbg5 'tid6 1 1 e5 'ii'h6
12 tbh3 'ii'g6 13 tbgS 'tihS, so perhaps
8 b4!? followed by d2-d3.
8 .l:.e1
White can take a draw here with 8
hxg4 hxg4 9 tbxe5 (not 9 tbel?? l:.hl+;
9 tbgS it..cS! 10 'ii'xg4 l:lhl+ 1 1 �xhl
'tixfl + 12 'ith2 tbf6! or 9 tbh2? g3!)
9 ....i.d6 10 tbxd3 it..h2+ 1 1 '.tihl
i.d6+, but not 10 tbxg4? tbf6! 1 1
tbxf6+ (even worse is 1 1 e5 tbxg4 12
'i'xg4 .l:h1+ 13 'itxhl 'tixfl+ 14 'ith2
ii.xe5+ 15 f4 i.xf4+ 16 g3 '.tie7 17 'ii'h3
'i'f2+ 18 'ithl i.xg3 19 d4 .l:.h8 20
'i'xh8 0-1 Polekov-Beradze, USSR
1967) 1 1...gxf6 12 e5 i.cS! 13 .:tel (13
'iWg4 fS! 14 'ii'g5 l:th1+ 15 �xhl 'ii'xfl+
16 �h1 .txf2 is horrible) 13 ...0-0-0
with a very strong attack.
8 . . . �xf3 9 ji'xf3 ji'xf3 1 0 gxf3
see follo wing diagram
1 0 . . . 0-0-0
10....:d8!? is also playable, as it is of-
ten useful to keep the king in the cen­
tre in such positions (see the note to
Black's 15th move).
1 1 'it>f1 �e7
75
Th e Spanish Exchange
1 1...tLle7 12 �e2 lZJg6 13 d3 fol­
lowed by �e3 and l:lg1 is a little better
for White.
1 2 �e2 �g5 1 3 tL!a3 tL!e7 1 4 :Z.g 1
�h6
In Rytov-Levchenkov, USSR 1971,
Black lost the plot with 14 ... ii.f6?! 15
d3 c5?!, which allowed White to carry
out the thematic 16 f4 with an advan­
tage. 14...�h6 was suggested as an im­
provement by Gipslis in Informator
12.
1 5 tLlc4
1 5 . . .f6
Here 15 ...tLlg6 can be met by 16
.:txg6! fxg6 17 tLlxeS followed by tLlf7
or tLlxg6. This possibility would have
been less effective if Black had chosen
76
10 ....:td8 instead of 10...0-0-0, although
even there White probably has
enough for the exchange. After the
game continuation Black does not
really have anywhere to put his
knight.
1 6 h4! c5 1 7 d3 �xc1 1 8 :Z.axc 1
:Z.hg8 1 9 :Z.g3 �d7 20 �e3 �e6 2 1
:Z.cg 1 g6
Slowly but surely White has built
up his position and now he is able to
achieve his thematic kingside ad­
vance...
22 f4! exf4+ 23 �xf4 :Z.d7 24 <li>e3!
:Z.gd8 25 �e2!
Full marks for patience!
25 . . .f5?!
This is very loosening, but Black
was probably fed up with being tied
down.
26 exf5+ gxf5 27 f4 tiJd5 28 <li>f3!
:Z.e7 29 :Z.e1 + �d7 30 tL!e5+ �ea 3 1
:Z.g5
Now Black must lose one of his
pawns.
3 1 . . .tLlf6 32 :Z.xf5 :Z.e6 33 :Z.g5 :Z.de8
34 :Z.eg 1 b5 35 :Z.f5 :Z.d8 36 :Z.g7
<li>b7 37 :Z.f7 :Z.dd6 38 :Z.g5 a5 39
:Z.gg7 tL!e8 40 :Z.h7 :Z.h6 41 :Z.xh6
:Z.xh6 42 f5 1 -0

Game 35
Djurhuus-Hector
Malmo 1995
1 e4 e5 2 lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 �g4 6 h3 �h5!?
This move is often given a question
mark, but Jonny Hector is never
afraid to give up a pawn in the open­
ing!
7 g4
White achieved an advantage after 7
d3 'tif6 {7 ... .td6 8 �bd2 �f6 9 �c4
�d7 is logical) 8 �bd2 .tc5?! {this
looks like a waste of time; 8....td6
seems more natural) 9 �c4 .txf3 10
'ifxf3 'iixf3 11 gxf3 .td6 12 f4 exf4 13
tbxd6+ cxd6 14 .txf4 0-0-0 15 'it>h2
tbe7 16 :g1 �g6 17 .te3 in
O'Donnell-Frolov, Slofok 1990, but
Black's play was fairly uninspired.
7 . .�g6 8 lt:Jxe5 �d6
. 15 �2 lbg6 16 :h1 'iih6 allows
Hector's patent treatment. Both
8 ...'iih4 {Black loses a piece after
8 ....txe4?? 9 .:te1) 9 'iif3 h5? {9....td6
10 �xg6 [10 �xc6 h5!] 10 ...fxg6 1 1
�g2 would transpose to the game) 10
�xg6 fxg6 11 d3 0-0-0 {1 1...hxg4 12
'iixg4 'iixh3 13 'iixg6+ 'iti>d7 14 'iig2 is
5 0-0 i.. g 4
also pretty bad) 12 g5 .td6 13 'iig2
tbe7 14 .te3 {the black queen is en­
tombed) 14 ... :hf8 15 �d2 c5 16 f4
:xf4 17 �f3 .Uxf3 18 :x£3 .te5 19
.tf2 .td4 20 .txd4 1-0 Barendregt­
J.Littlewood, Birmingham 1963, and
8 .. .f6 9 tbxg6 hxg6 10 'iif3 'iid7 1 1
lbc3, as in Benjamin-Van der Wiel,
Cannes {rapidplay) 1992, leave Black
struggling to justify his pawn sacrifice.
9 lt:Jxg6
The critical move. 9 d4 .txe5 10
dxeS 'iixd1 11 1bd1 ii.xe4 is harmless.
9 . . . hxg6 1 0 �g2
It may be better to play 10 'ii'f3
'iih4 1 1 e5!? .tcs 12 �g2.
1 0 . . ...h4 1 1 ..f3 �f4! ?
White was threatening 12 d3 or 12
d4.
1 2 lt:Jc3
Wedberg recommends 12 d3 g5
{12 ... .txcl?! 13 :xcl g5 14 lbc3 �e7
White to keep control with 17 'iie3)
13 .txf4 gxf4 14 �d2 �7 15 :h1
�g6 16 'iie2, intending �f3, with a
slight advantage to White, but it is
actually quite hard to see where
Black's compensation lies in this posi­
tion.
77
Th e Spanish Exchange
12 ... lDe7 13 d4
The restrained 13 d3 is also possible,
e.g. 13 ... g5 14 �e2 �g6 15 �xf4!? gxf4
16 .l::th 1 'i!fg5 17 �fl with chances of
consolidating the extra pawn.
1 3 . . . g5 1 4 lDe2
14 i.xf4 gxf4 15 �e2 �g6 16 :h1
'i'g5 17 ilb3 �h4+ 18 'it>fl 0-0-0 19 f3
is unclear according to Wedberg.
Black can consider 19 .. .f5!?, trying to
blast the position open.
1 4 . . . lDg6 1 5 l:.h 1 �h6 1 6 �f1 lDh4
1 7 �d3
Wedberg suggests 17 'i'b3!? 0-0-0 18
i.xf4 (18 'ilfxf7? l:.hf8 with an attack
on the f-file) 18 ...gxf4 19 f3 and this
does seem a big improvement on the
game continuation. Compared to the
previous note, the black queen is less
well placed on h6 than it was on g5.
1 7 . . . .txc1 1 8 l:.xc1 0-0-0
Remarkably, this position had also
arisen in an earlier Hector game,
which had continued 19 b3 'i'f6 20 c3
llhe8 21 .:tg1 'ilg6?! (21...'ilff3 22 'ifxf3
�xf3 23 lig3 �d2+ would have won
back the pawn) 22 �g3 'ii'h7 23 "iie3
f6 24 .:te1 I;:td7 25 .l:h1 l:lde7 26 f3 g6
27 �f2 (Black has dithered around
somewhat and White is very close to
78
consolidating his extra pawn, so...)
27 .. .f5!? 28 'i'xg5 fxe4 29 lhe4 (29
�xe4 looks like a reasonable winning
try) 29 ....l:!xe4 30 �xe4 .l:!xe4 31 fxe4
'ii'f7+ 32 �e2 'iif3+ 33 �d2 'ilf2+ 34
'it>d3 Vi'f3+ 35 <itd2 'ilg2+ 36 �d3
'ili'f3+ 37 �d2 lh-lh Brynell-Hector,
Limhamn 1992.
19 'iie3 l:.he8 20 l::tg 1 ?
White was understandably con­
cerned about his inactive rook on h1,
but this move blunders the pawn. 20
�g3 looks more solid.
20 . . .'iie6 2 1 lDc3 'ii'c4+ 22 lDe2
,.xa2 23 ,.xg5?
And this really is asking for trouble.
White should have tried to hold his
centre together with 23 b3 'i'a3 24
:el.
2 3. . .l::txe4 2 4 f3
Perhaps White had missed that 24
Vi'xh4 fails to 24 .. .'ifc4 25 l:e1 .l:tde8.
24 . . .lDxf3! 25 ,.f5+ l:.e6
26 l:.g3
26 'i'xf3 l:tf6 27 �f4 1hd4 is also
hopeless.
26 . . .Wc4 27 l:.xf3 ,.xe2+ 28 �g 1
llxd4 29 l:.cf1 l:.d7 30 'it'c5 b6 3 1
'ii'f8+ �b7 3 2 'i'xg7 l:.d2 3 3 l:.3f2
We3 34 'iic3 llxf2 35 l:.xf2 'i'c 1 + 36

:n 'ilt'h6 37 'tig3 f6 38 h4 a5 39 h5
.l:.e4 40 'ili'f3 .l:.b4 41 c.t>h2 'tig5 42
c.t>h3 .l:.xb2 43 'tixf6 'ii'e3+ 44 'ii'f3
'tic5 45 'tif5 'tia3+ 46 'tid3 'tia2 47
.l:.f2 .l:.b1 48 c.t>g2 'tig8 49 'ilt'd7 'tic4
50 'ii'f5 .l:.b5 5 1 'tif4 'tie6 52 c.t>g3
.l:.c5 53 h6 .l:.c3+ 54 c.t>h4 .l:.c4 55
'ili'g5 'ili'e4 56 c.t>h5 a4 57 .l:.f5 .l:.xc2
58 h7 l:th2+ 59 c.t>g6 'ili'e8+ 60 .l:.f7
.l:.xh7 6 1 c.t>xh7 'ili'xf7+ 0- 1
Game 36
Adorjan-Danov
Wijk aan Zee 1971
1 e4 e5 2 tl:lf3 tl:lc6 3 .t.b5 a6 4
.t.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 .t.g4 6 h3 .t.xf3
Although this exchange looks pas­
sive, it has been played by both
Spassky and Korchnoi, so perhaps it
should not be dismissed out of hand It
does seem anti-positional to relinquish
the two bishops voluntarily, however.
7 'tixf3 'ili'd7
In such a slow position, move order
may not seem very important. How­
ever, Black still needs to exercise some
care. For example, after 7. ..!De7 or
7 ... ii.d6 White can consider 8 'ii'b3!?,
posing some awkward questions,
5 0 - 0 i.g4
while 7...'ii'f6 (7...�c5 can also be met
by 8 'iig3 'iif6 9 d3) 8 'iig3 Ji.d6
(8...0-0-0 9 d3 with the idea of f2-f4 is
also promising for White) 9 d4!
(9...exd4 10 e5 �xe5 1 1 l:.el) is diffi­
cult to meet.
8 d3 tl:le7
It is tempting to castle queenside
and rush the kingside pawns forward,
but after 8 ... 0-0-0 9 tl:\d2 (9 .ii.d2! f6 10
b4 g5 11 a4 h5 12 'it'e3 �b8 13 is even
quicker ECO) 9 .. .f6 10 tl:\c4 h5 1 1
-
i.d2 �b8 1 2 b4 g5 1 3 a4 g4 1 4 'iig3
i.h6 15 i.xh6 tl:\xh6 16 h4 White was
the one with the attack in Bronstein­
Nei, Tallinn 1971.
However, instead of the game
move, it is more flexible to develop
the bishop first, as Black may not
want the knight on g6. For example,
after 8 ...Ji.d6 9 tl:\d2 tl:le7 10 tl:\c4 0-0
(10 ...tl:\g6 would transpose to the note
to Black's 1 1th move) 11 i.e3 (or 1 1
'ilg4 f5 1 2 exf5 tl:lxf5 13 i.g5 l:.ae8, as
in Hiibner-Nenashev, Moscow
Olympiad 1994, when I quite like the
look of 14 l':.ael with the option of
l:te4) 11...f5!? 12 exf5 .l:xf5 13 'iie2
tl:lg6 14 tl:\d2 .:taf8 15 tl:le4 �e7 16
'ilg4, Nunn-Korchnoi, Wijk aan Zee
79
Th e Spanish Exc h ange
1985, and now Nunn suggests 16...lbf4
17 il.xf4 exf4 18 'i!ff3 'ii'dS with a slight
plus for White.
9 lbd2 lbg6 1 0 lbc4 i.c5
10... il.d6 is more solid, but after 1 1
il.e3 0-0 White can still play 12 W'g4,
while 10 ...il.e7 1 1 'ii'fS! 0-0-0 12 il.d2
f6 13 'ifxd7+ !hd7 14 g3 was very
pleasant for White in Prie-Gervasio,
Meudon open 1992.
1 1 i.d2
1 1 iffS!? was also possible here.
1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 Wg4! Wxg4 1 3 hxg4
White is now ready to expand on
the kingside, using the h-file to breach
Black's defences. In the game Black
defends very passively, but White had
excellent chances in any case.
1 3 . . .f6 1 4 g3 b6 1 5 <t>g2 h6 1 6 f4
:ae8 1 7 b4 i.e7? !
Black completely loses his way
here, allowing his queenside pawns to
become immobilised. 17 ...i.d6 18 a4
80
�f7 would at least have kept him on
the board.
1 8 a4 c5?! 1 9 b5 a5 20 :h 1 exf4 2 1
gxf4 i.d8 2 2 :h5 lbh8
Now all Black's pteces have re­
turned to the back rank!
23 l:ah 1 lbt7 24 lbe3 lbd6 25 c4
:e6 26 lbd5?!
This hasty move allows Black to
wriggle for a while by giving up a
piece for three pawns. 26 �f3 would
have kept Black completely hemmed
m.
26 ... lbxc4 27 dxc4 :xe4 28 lbe3
:xt4 29 :d5 :e4?!
Losing the plot for a second time.
29 ...:e8 was better, although White
would still win in the end.
30 <t>t3 f5?! 31 gxf5 :d4 32 :xd4
cxd4 33 lbd5 :xt5+ 34 <t>e4 :t2 35
i.f4 :a2 36 i.xc7 i.xc7 37 lbxc7
:xa4 38 �xd4 :a2 39 lbd5 a4 40
lbxb6 a3 41 lbd5 1 -0
 5 0-0 i.g4

Summary
The main line with 6 h3 h5 7 d3 'iff6 8 tl'lbd2 tl'le7 9 .:le1 tl'lg6 10 d4 .i.d6 1 1
hxg4 hxg4 1 2 tl'lh2 l:txh2 13 'ii'xg4 'ifh4 1 4 'ifxh4 :txh4 15 tl'lf3 :th5! {Game 31)
may be good enough for Black to equalise, while 10 ...tl'lf4!? {Game 32) is interest­
ing and not yet fully explored The drawback of the 5 ...i.g4 line for Black is that
White can force an endgame if he so desires, the most natural route being 8 i.e3
.i.xf3 9 'ifxf3 'ii'xf3 10 gxf3 (Game 33), although 7 c3 'ii'd3 8 l:tel {Game 34) is
also interesting.
It is hard to believe that 6 ....i.h5 {Game 35) or 6 ... i..xf3 {Game 36) are good
enough to achieve equality.

1 e4 e5 2 lZJf3 tLlc6 3 .i.b5 a6 4 .llxc6 dxc6 5 0-0 .llg4

6 h3 h5 (D)
6 ...i.h5 - Game 35
6 ...i.xf3 Game 36
-

7 d3
7 c3 - Game 34
7 . . . 'it'f6
8 tLlbd2
8 i.e3 - Game 33
8 . . .lLle7
9 l:.e 1 lZJg6
1 0 d4 (0) .lld 6
10...tl'lf4 - Game 32
1 1 hxg4 hxg4
1 2 lLlh2 l:.xh2
1 3 'it'xg4 'it'h4 (0)
13 ...:th4 - Game 30
1 4 'it'xh4 - Game 31

6. h5
. .
1 0 d4 1 3. . . 'it'h4

81
 CHAPTER FIVE I
5 0-0 �d6
1 e4 e5 2 ltJf3 ttJc6 3 i.b5 a6 4
i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 i.d6
Despite the fact that the 5 ... ..td6 has
been popular with many of the lead­
ing English players {such as Hebden,
Flear and Wells) for over a decade, it
has yet to capture the interest of the
world's elite. This is somewhat sur­
prising since, as we shall see, it leads to
dynamic positions which offer quite
good counter-chances for Black. Fur­
thermore, unlike the S .. .f6 and 5 ...i..g4
variations, there is no easy way for
White to head for an endgame with an
early exchange of queens.
The main line of the 5 ...i..d6 varia­
tion arises after the sequence 6 d4 exd4
7 'ii'xd4 f6, when White has a wide
choice of plans:
a) The direct 8 eS and 8 :e 1 li:Je7
(Games 38 and 39) attempting to ex­
ploit White's slight lead in develop­
ment do not seem particularly effec­
tive - often White just finds that he
has opened lines up for the black
bishops.
b) White can also play to develop
82
his queen's bishop on b2 or a3 either
with the immediate 8 b3 (Game 40) or
8 �bd2 i.e6 and then 9 b3 {Game 41).
However, as we shall see, Black should
be able to equalise without too much
difficulty against such slow play.
c) Simple development with 8 i..e3
�e7 9 �bd2 i.e6 {Game 42). White
has been scoring good results with this
lately, particularly with 10 'fic3!?, in­
tending �d4.
d) The sharp and little explored 8 c4
(Game 43).
First let us see what can befall
White if he plays in routine fashion.
Game 37
Carlier-Hebden
London open 1988
1 e4 e5 2 ltJf3 ltJc6 3 i.b5 a6 4
i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 i.d6 6 d4 exd4
Of course 6 .. .f6? would be a bad
mistake: 7 dxeS fxeS? 8 �xeS i.xeS 9
'ii'hS+ and White wins a pawn.
7 ltJxd4?!
This natural-looking move is far less

effective than 7 'iixd4, as it allows
Black easy development.
Compared to the position after
5 .. .f6 6 d4 exd4 7 tbxd4 �d6?!, Black
has not wasted time on the weakening
.. .f7-f6.
7 . . .ti:Je7
The English Grandmaster Glenn
Flear has experimented with the
caveman-like 7 ...'ifh4!?, threatening
mate on h2. After 8 tbf3 (8 f4 lbe7 9
tbc3 0-0 10 �e3 l:.e8 was also fine for
Black in Basas-Flear, Castellar open
1995) 8 ...'iih 5 9 'iid4 (9 lbbd2 i.e6 10
'ife2?? �xh2+ 0-1 was the abrupt con­
clusion of Pineau-Lane, Avoine open
1993) 9 ...tbe7 10 e5 tbf5 1 1 'ifc3 �e7
12 lbbd2 �e6 Black had a fine game in
Badii-Flear, French Team Champion­
ship 1993.
8 i.e3
8 tbc3 0-0 9 l:.e1 at least prevents
Black from breaking out immediately
with 9 .. .f5 due to 10 e5, but after
9 ...tbg6 10 i.e3 tbe5 Black still has a
promlSlng game.
8 . . . 0-0 9 ti:Jd2
White lost even more quickly after
9 tbc3 f5! 10 exf5 tbxf5 1 1 tbxf5 i.xf5
12 lbe2 'iff6 13 �d4 'iVg6 14 c3 l:.ad8!
5 0 - 0 i. d 6
{threatening ...c6-c5) 15 'ifb3+? (White
had to play either the ugly 15 b4 or 15
f4 to stay on the board) 15 ...i.e6 16 c4
'iih 5 0-1 in Gauche-Van Riemsdijk,
Florianopolis 1989.
9 . . .f5!
Opening up the position for the
two bishops.
1 0 exf5 ti:Jxf5 1 1 ti:Jxf5 i.xf5 1 2 'it'e2
b5!
Of course the immediate 12 ...'ifh4
would have been met by 13 'i'i'c4+ and
an exchange of queens.
1 3 ti:Jb3 'it'h4 1 4 g3 'ii'h3 1 5 ti:Jd4
ltae8
All of Black's pieces are now lined
up against the white king. It is not
surprising that he is soon able to
weave a mating net.
1 6 :te 1 i.g4 1 7 'ii'f 1 'it'h5 1 8 'it'd3
c5 1 9 ti:Je2 i.f3 20 ti:Jf4 i.xf4 2 1
i.xf4 :xe 1 + 2 2 :xe 1 :xt4 0-1
Game 38
Ungure-Lane
Cappelle la Grande open 1995
1 e4 e5 2 ti:Jf3 ti:Jc6 3 i.b5 a6 4
i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 i.d6 6 d4 exd4 7
'ii'xd4 f6 8 e5 fxe5 9 ti:Jxe5
83
Th e Sp anish Exch ange
9 . . . tt:lf6
A speciality of the English IM Gary
Lane. Both 9 ...'iff6 10 tt:Jd2 lt:Je7 1 1
tt:Jdf3 h 6 1 2 b 3 with equal chances in
Matanovic-Gligoric, Yugoslav Cham­
pionship 1975, and 9 ...lt:Je7 10 .i.g5
.i.e6 1 1 lt:Jc3 0-0 12 lladl (12 l:Hel
transposes to the note to White's 12th
move in Game 39) 12 ...tt:Jf5! 13 'ifd2
'ife8 are also fine for Black.
1 0 .:.e1
The immediate 10 .i.g5 seems more
precise, but Black is still fine after
10....i.e6 1 1 tt:Jc3 c5, as in Schild-Lane,
Cannes open 1995.
10 . . .0-0 1 1 �g5 'ii'ea! 1 2 ttld2 e5
1 3 'ii'e4+ �e6 1 4 'ii'e 2
14 'ifh4 may have been better.
1 4 . . . �f5 1 5 tt:lde4 b5 1 6 tt:la5?
The knight ends up looking rather
dim on the rim. However, Black
would still have been slightly better
after 16 tt:Jxd6 cxd6.
1 6 . . .tt:le4!
see following diagram
Suddenly White's pieces are look­
ing horribly loose.
1 7 tt:lf3 tt:lxg5 1 a tt:lxg5 'ii'g 6 1 9 tt:le4
.:.aea 20 f3 �xe4 2 1 fxe4 .:.t4?!
84
This is sufficient for victory, but it
allows White to bail out to an ending
a pawn down. It is not clear how
White could have defended against
21...c4!, threatening both ....i.c5+ and
... .i.b4, e.g. 22 tt:Jb7 .i.f4 and now
...'ifb6+ is very hard to meet .
22 tt:lb7 .:.txe4 23 'ii'd 2 h6 24 .:.xe4
'ii'xe4 25 tt:lxd6 exd6 26 l:f1 'ii'e3+
27 'ii'xe3 .:.xe3 2a �f2 .:.e6 29 .:.d 1
�f7
With White's king cut off from the
queenside there is no real doubt that
Black will win in the end
30 b3 �e7 3 1 �f3 �d7 32 e4 �e6
33 h4 :as 34 .:.d2 bxe4 35 bxe4 d5
36 exd5+ .:.xd5 37 .:.e2 e4 3a :ea
�b5 39 �e2 h5 40 .:.ga .:.d7 41 :ha
�b4 42 .:.xh5 e3 43 :ha �a3 44
:ea �b2 45 h5 e2 46 .:.b8+ �xa2
47 :ea �b 1 4a .:.ba+ �e 1 49 g4
.:.d5 0- 1
Game 39
I. Polgar-Perenyi
Budapest 1979
1 e4 e5 2 tt:lf3 tt:le6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xe6 dxe6 5 0-0 �d6 6 d4 exd4 7
'ii'xd4 f6 a .:.e 1 tt:le7 9 e5

9 'ii'c4 is only temporarily incon­
venient, since after 9 ...�g6 10 .i.e3
'ii'e7 Black is ready to unravel with
... .i.e6 and ... 0-0. Note also the stan­
dard trick 9 �bd2 .i.e6! 10 �c4?
.i.xh2+ 1 1 �xh2 'ii'xd4 12 �d4 J.xc4
wmnmg a pawn.
9 . . . fxe5 1 0 tt:Jxe5 0-0
1 1 .i.g5
It is surprising how often White can
come unstuck with seemingly natural
moves in this variation. For example,
after 1 1 �c3 .i.e6 12 .i.f4?! (12 J.g5
transposes to the next note) Black had
the surprise 12 ...lhf4! 13 'ii'xf4 �g6
with a good game in Pinter­
Westerinen, Budapest 1976. The unde­
fended state of White's king is revealed
in the variation 1 1 'ii'c4+ �dS 12 �3
'ii'f6 with good play. The game move
threatens 12 'ii'c4+, but this is effort­
lessly parried.
1 1 . ..i.e6 1 2 tl:ld2?!
. d) There does not seem to be a great
12 �c3 looks more natural and
now:
a) 12 ...�f5?! 13 'ii'g4! 'ii'e 8 14 'ii'e4
'ii'h 5 15 .i.f4 left Black's pieces looking
very loose in Stean-Planinc, Hastings
1974/75. After 15 ...�6 16 �g6!
'ii'xg6 17 'ii'xg6 hxg6 18 .i.xd6 cxd6 19
5 0-0 i.. d6
l:txe6 d5 20 l:txg6 White had won a
pawn.
b) 12 ...l:tf5?! (again this leaves every­
thing rather loose) 13 �f3 l:txg5
(13 .. J:hf3 14 'ii'e4!) 14 .:Xe6, when
Black is unable to prevent his oppo­
nent from doubling rooks on the e-file
after, for example, 14 .. .lU5 15 'ii'g4
(but not 15 l:te2?? :.x£3 0-1 Matanovic­
Planinc, Yugoslav Championship
1975).
c) 12 ... 'ii'e8 and now:
et) 13 'it'h4? .i.xe5 14 .:Xe5 (14
i.xe7 l:f4 15 'it'g3 l:e4 16 'ii'f3 .i.xh2+
17 �xh2 lbe1 18 :xe1 'it'xe7 wins a
pawn) 14...�g6 and Black won the
exchange in Bergas-Flear, Palma de
Mallorca open 1991 .
c2) 13 �f3 �dS 14 �xdS cxdS 15
.i.h4 'it'd7 with equal chances in Ador­
jan-Rumens, Hastings 1976/77.
c3) 13 :.ad1 'it'h5 14 i.xe7 .i.xe7 1 5
�d7 i.f6 16 �f6+ :xf6 17 l:e5 'ii'g6
18 :de1 .l:af8 again with roughly
equal chances in Borghi-Van Riems­
dijk, Buenos Aires open 1990.
c4) 13 �c4!? �f5 14 'ii'e4 .i.dl 1 5
�xd6 (15 l:tad1 might have given
White a very slight pull) 1 5...cxd6 16
'ii'c4+ 'ii'f7 17 'it'xf7+ l:xf7 1 8 �4 h6
19 .i.d2 lle8 20 f3 :fe7 21 c3 petered
out to a draw in the game Wahls­
Zsu.Polgar, World Junior Champion­
ship 1988.
deal wrong with the simple 12...h6, as
after 13 .i.f4 (13 .i.xe7 'ii'xe7 gives
Black two bishops against two
knights) the 13 ...lhf4 14 'ii'xf4 �6
trick still seems to work, by analogy
to the Pinter-Westerinen game in the
note to White's 1 1th move.
85
Th e Sp anish Exchange
12 ... t'Llf5 13 Wg4 We8!
Although it looks slightly odd to
place the queen opposite the white
rook on e1, there is no way for White
to exploit it. Indeed, it is White who
must be careful.
1 4 t'Lldf3?
A horrible oversight. 14 lt:Jdc4
would have retained the balance
(14... lt:Je3 15 'ife2).
1 4 . . .t'Lle3 1 5 We4
15 'ifa4 b5 does not help as White
must stay on the c2-pawn.
1 5 . . .t'Llxg2! 1 6 l:.ed 1
Or 16 �xg2 .i.dS 17 'i'e3 .i.xe5.
1 6 . . .Wh5 1 7 h4 h6 1 8 'i!?xg2 �xe5
1 9 �e3 l:.xf3 20 Wxf3 �g4 2 1 'iie4
�xd 1 22 l:.xd 1 Wxd 1 23 Wxe5 Wg4+
0-1
Game 40
Van der Wiei-Pinter
European Cup, Rotterdam 1988
1 e4 e5 2 t'Llf3 t'Llc6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 �d6 6 d4 exd4 7
Wxd4 f6 8 b3
The advantage of the immediate 8
b3 compared to 8 tt:Jbd2 .i.e6 (see the
next game) is one of flexibility. White
86
at least hints that he might play 9 .i.a3
to exchange the dark-squared bishops.
Although this is hardly an earth­
shattering threat, Black invariably
chooses to prevent .i.a3 with ...
8 . . . We7
8 ...lt:Je7 gives White the choice of
transposing to the next game with 9
lt:Jbd2 .i.e6 or playing 9 .i.a3 .i.e6 10
.i.xd6 'ifxd6 1 1 'ife3 with chances of a
slight plus, as in Maliutin-K.iltti, Ku­
opio open 1992.
If Black is prepared to allow his op­
ponent to exchange bishops then he
should prefer 8 ....i.e6 9 .i.a3 (9 tt:Jbd2
lt:Je7 again transposes to the next
game) 9 ... lt:Jh6! 10 .i.xd6 'ifxd6
(10...cxd6?! 1 1 c4 0-0 12 lt:Jc3 lt:Jf7 13
'ife3 l:.e8 14 lt:Jd4 allowed White to
establish a bind in Kagan-Zwaig, Hast­
ings 1976/77) 1 1 'ifxd6 cxd6 12 c4 b5!
with an equal position in Prie-Van
Riemsdijk, Guarapuava open 199 1.
9 t'Llbd2
9 .i.b2 allows Black to complete his
development with 9 ...lt:Jh6 10 lt:Jbd2
0-0 (see Gobet-Hebden below), while
after 9 .i.e3 Black has a choice be­
tween the standard 9 ....i.e6 10 lt:Jbd2
'ii'f7 11 lt:Jc4 .i.xc4 12 bxc4 with equal
 5 0 - 0 i.. d6

chances in Prie-Hebden, Linares Zonal Black's play was improved slightly

1995, or the more enterprising with 12 ...0-0 13 l:.fe1 c5!? 14 'ifc3 b5
9 ...�d7!? 10 liJbd2 c5 1 1 'ii'c3 �c6 12 15 l1ad1 �b7 16 ttJd2 l:.fe8, but White
:fe1 0-0-0 with a sharp position in still enjoyed a small advantage after 17
which Black's bishops are nicely ltJfl! due to the weaknesses on f5 and
aligned against the white king in dS.
Ryan-Ferguson, Hastings open
1995/96.
9 • . • li:Jh6
9 ... �e6?! is premature here. After
10 ltJc4 i.c5 1 1 'ii'd3 litd8 (or 1 1 ...'ii'f7
12 liJaS) 12 li'e2 'i'f7 13 liJaS �b6?,
White could have achieved a winning
position in Timman-Piket, Brussels
(rapidplay) 1992, by playing 14 ltJxb7
l:.b8 15 'ii'xa6 �c8 16 'ii'xb6!, as
pointed out by V.Ivanov in Informator
65. It is much more flexible to develop
the knight first. Moreover, the bishop 13 ..b6!
may not want to go to e6 in any case. Taking advantage of the weaknesses
1 0 lt:Jc4 in the black queenside.
10 i.b2 allows Black easy equality 1 3 . . . o-o 1 4 li:Jd4 �ea
after 10...0-0 1 1 .:tael i.e6 12 h3 :aes A rather embarrassing retreat.
13 'ii'd3 i.f4, as in Gobet-Hebden, Biel 1 5 l':.fe 1 'Wd8 1 6 'Wxd8 l':.xd8 1 7
1983. l':.ad1 �f8 1 8 a4 �d7
1 0 . . .li:Jf7
In fact Black is not obliged to sur­
render the two bishops here. I prefer
10 ...�c5 1 1 'ifd3 ltJf7, when 12 i.e3
(12 i.b2 0-0 13 :ad1?! [13 h3 seems
preferable] 13 ...i.g4 14 ltd2 ltad8 15
ile2 ltJg5 16 lhd8 l:txd8 17 lle1 �xf3
18 gxf3 b5 0-1 was the disastrous con­
clusion of D.Parr-Lane, Paignton open
1993) 12 ... 0-0 13 �xc5 \i'xc5 14 :tfe1
�e6 15 'ii'e3 'ii'xe3 16 ltJxe3 :ads was
all fairly innocuous in Lalic-Hebden,
Hastings 1996/97. 1 9 li:Je2?!
1 1 li:Jxd6+ cxd6 1 2 �f4 �e6?! The knight stood very well on d4.
Again this natural move may not be A slow build-up such as 19 a4 and
best here. In a later game A.Martin­ then �g3, f2-f3, .:.d2 and :.ed1 would
Hebden, British Championship 1992, have been quite unpleasant for Black

87
Th e Sp anish Exchange
to meet. It is hard for him to do any­
thing constructive.
1 9 . . .�e7 20 a5 :ea 2 1 lLlc3 l:ada
22 h3 i.ca 23 lLla4 �fa 24 lLlb6
i.e6
The knight has finally reached the
weak b6-square. However, there is
nothing for it to do there but go
backwards again.
25 l:d2 lLle5 26 i.g3 ltJf7 27 l:ed 1
�e7 2a f3 g6 29 i.h4 g5 30 i.f2 h5
31 lLlc4 i.xc4 32 bxc4 �e6 33 i.b6
l:d7 34 i.d4 h4 35 �f2 l:eda 36
i.b6 :ea 37 i.d4 l:eda 3a i.b6 :ea
% -%
Game 41
Lutikov-Westerinen
Yurmala 1978
1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 i.b5 a6 4
i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 i.d6 6 d4 exd4 7
'tli'xd4 f6 a lLlbd2 i.e6
Here this move serves a very useful
purpose in preventing 9 tlJc4 due to
the standard trick 9 ....ltxh2+ 10 'ifi>xh2
'it'xd4 1 1 �xd4 .ltxc4, winning a
pawn. Instead 8 ...�h6?! 9 �c4 �f7 10
�xd6+ cxd6 11 .ltf4 0-0 12 :.ad1 is an
inferior version of the previous game
88
for Black, as White has not wasted
time with b2-b3.
9 b3
This renews the 'threat' of tlJc4. 9
.l:.d1 would seem to serve the same
purpose, but after 9 ... 'ife7! 10 �c4
l;td8 White is left vulnerable along the
d-file. In Martin Gonzales-Hebden,
Benidorm open 1983, White opted for
the unsightly 1 1 �h1, but after
1 1...'iff7 12 �e3 Black could have
played 12 ... .ltg4! (13 �xg4 .lte7) with
an excellent game.
9 'it'c3 is another way to arrange
�c4, but after 9 .. .'i!fe7! 10 �c4 .ltb4 1 1
'i'd3 :.d8 1 2 'ife2 'i!ff7 White's queen
moves had only served to help his op­
ponent in L.Schneider-Wedberg, Swe­
den 1987.
White can still play for e4-e5 if he
wishes, but after 9 e5 fxe5 10 �xe5
�f6 1 1 �df3 0-0, as in Perez­
Westerinen, Moncase 1993, or 9 l:.e1
�e7 10 e5 fxe5 11 �xe5 0-0, as in
Brinck Claussen-Wedberg, Novi Sad
Olympiad 1990, Black has equal
chances.
The Latvian grandmaster Igor
Rausis has enjoyed some success with
9 �b3, threatening �c5 and perhaps
c2-c4. For example, 9 ...b6 10 e5 fxe5
1 1 �xe5 and now:
a) 1 1...�e7?! 12 .ltg5 0-0 13 l:tfe1
(not 13 �c6? �xc6 14 .ltxd8 �xd4
15 �xd4 .i..c4 and Black wins a piece)
13 ...'it'e8 14 �c4 �f5 15 �xd6 �xd4
(15 ...cxd6 16 'i!fxb6) 16 �e8 .i..xb3 17
�xc7 %:.a7 18 cxb3 �c2 19 .i..e7!
(remarkably this position had arisen
before, in the game Crouch-Kaiszauri,
London 1980, which had continued 19
%:.eel? �a1 20 �e6 l:.e8 21 �d4 :.d7

22 tbf3 lDc2 23 :Xc2 with a winning
position for Black; all of which was
published in the second edition of
£CO!) 19 ...:Xc7 20 .i.xf8 �xf8 21 �fl
lbxa1 22 %ha1 and White won the
ending a pawn up in Rausis-Ernst,
Gausdal 1989.
b) 1 1 ...c5! 12 "ii'a4+ �f8 13 .i.f4
"ii'e 8! (this is more precise than
13 ...1i'f6 14 :ae1 tbe7 15 .i.g3! with an
advantage to White in Rausis-C.Flear,
Hyeres open 1992) 14 "ii'e4 tbf6 15
"ii'e2 'ifh5 16 :fe1 :es 17 h3 with a
very unclear position in Sigurjonsson­
Zwaig, Nice Olympiad 1974.
9 . . . lbe7
9 ... tbh6 10 lDc4 tbf7 1 1 tbxd6+ cxd6
12 :ad1 allowed White the usual
slight plus in Arencibia-Gomez, Ter­
rassa open 1996.
1 0 �b2
This is rather slow, but 10 lDc4
.i.b4! is not particularly promising for
White either, e.g. 1 1 tbe3 c5 12 "ii'xd8+
:Xd8 13 .i.b2 0-0 with a completely
level position in Schussler-Westerinen,
Copenhagen 1979.
1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 l:ad 1 "ii'e8
1 2 e5?!
As usual, it is risky for White to
5 0-0 J.d6
open up the position for the two black
bishops. 12 lDc4 was preferable.
1 2 . . .fxe5 1 3 lbxe5 c5 14 "ii'e4 �d5
1 5 "ii'g4 h5!
The queen is given the run-around
1 6 "ii'h 3 lbg6 1 7 lbxg6 "ii'xg6 1 8 c4
.tc6
The two bishops are now beauti­
fully lined up against the white king­
side. White now goes astray but even
after 19 :fe 1 it is hard to imagine that
he will survive in the long run.
1 9 f3? l:ae8 20 lbe4 .txe4 2 1 fxe4
l:xf 1 + 22 l:xf1 l:xe4 23 "ii'f3
23 'ifc8+ �h7 24 'ifxb7 :e2 25 i.cl
c6! leaves the white king completely
without cover.
23 . . .'�h7 24 .tc1 b5 25 cxb5 axb5
26 g3 h4 27 .tg5 c4 28 �g2 c3 29
"ii'd 3 h3+ 30 �h 1 l:e5 31 "ii'xg6+
�xg6 32 .tc 1 b4 0-1
Game 42
Rozentalis-Hebden
Hastings 1996/97
This game was a critical last-round
encounter. Rozentalis needed to win
to catch Hebden and seize a share of
first place.
89
Th e Sp a n ish Exchange
1 e4 e5 2 ti:Jf3 ti:Jc6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 �d6 6 d4 exd4 7
'iixd4 f6 8 �e3 ti:Je7
In an earlier game Hebden had pre­
ferred 8 ... .i.e6 9 lt:Jbd2 (9 c4 c5)
9...'ii'e7 10 lt:Jc4 ii.b4!? 1 1 b3 c5 12
'ifb2 it.xc4 13 bxc4 0-0-0 14 a3 ii.aS 15
e5 b6 16 .:.fd1 .:.xd1+ 17 l:.xd1 'ife6 in
Hachian-Hebden, Cappelle la Grande
open 1996. Perhaps he feared an im­
provement or perhaps he felt that this
line was too speculative for such an
important game. In any case this idea
might still be worth exploring.
9 ti:Jbd2 �e6
1 0 l:.ad 1
10 lt:Jc4? again fails to 10...it.xh2+ 1 1
'iti>xh2 'ifxd4 1 2 lt:Jxd4 .i.xc4, so White
must decide whether to play one of his
rooks to d1 or drop the queen back to
c3:
a) 10 l:tfd1 lt:Jg6 (10 ... c5 1 1 'ifc3 b6
12 lt:Jc4 0-0 13 l:td2 gave White un­
pleasant pressure in the centre in the
game Brynell-Koskinen, Stockholm
open 1996/97, and 10 ... 0-0 1 1 lt:Jc4
.i.b4 12 a3 'ifxd4 1 3 lt:Jxd4 .i.xc4 14
axb4, as in Wahls-Nunn, Munich
1991, is also very slightly better for
White) 1 1 lt:Jc4 ii.xc4 (1 1.. ..i.b4 12
90
lt:Jb6!) 12 'ifxc4 'ife7, as in Prie­
C.Flear, Hyeres open 1992, is almost
identical to the main game except that
the white rook is on a1 instead of fl.
This should not really make any dif­
ference to the assessment of the posi­
tion: pretty level.
b) 10 'ifc3!?, with the idea of 1 1
lt:Jd4 has recently become fashionable.
After 10 ...lt:Jg6 1 1 lt:Jd4 .tf7 12 lt:Jf5
White has a slight edge (Prie in Infor­
mator 70) so Black should play 10...0-0
and now:
b1) 1 1 lt:Jd4 i.f7 12 ltad1 'ii'd7!?
(12 ...'ifc8 13 lt:Jc4 bS 14 lt:Jxd6 cxd6 15
i.f4 left Black a little loosely placed in
Renet-Haba, European Team Cham­
pionship, Pula 1997) 13 lt:Jc4 :ad8 14
lt:Jxd6 and here a draw was agreed in
the game Sammalvuo-Wedberg, Stock­
holm open 1994. Black has a solid
enough position after either 14 ...'ii'xd6
or 14...cxd6.
b2) 1 1 lt:Jc4! i.xc4 12 'ifxc4+ 'iti>h8
13 l:.ad1 'ii'e 8 14 .i.c5 with a slight plus
for White in Rozentalis-Wedberg,
New York open 1997. This seems to
be White's most accurate way of han­
dling the 8 .i.e3 variation at present.
1 0 . . .ti:Jg6
This looks more solid than 10...0-0
1 1 lt:Jc4 i.b4 (Donev suggests
1 1...i.xh2+!? 12 'iti>xh2 'ifxd4 13 .l:.xd4
c5 14 l:.dS lt:Jxd5 15 exdS .i.xdS 16
lt:Jcd2 b6 with equal chances, but 14
lid2! i.xc4 15 .l:fd1 gives White tre­
mendous play for the pawn) 12 b3
(both 12 a3? 'ii'xd4 13 lt:Jxd4 .i.xc4 14
axb4 .i.xf1 15 �xf1 and 12 lt:Jb6!? c5
13 'ifxd8 l:taxd8 14 a3 .i.xa3 15 lt:Ja4
i.b4 16 i.xc5 i.xc5 17 lt:Jxc5 i.c8 18
lt:Jd4 'iti>f7 are nothing for Black to be

afraid of according to Donev) 12 ... �g6
13 �b6 'iixd4 14 �xd4 l:.ae8 15 �xe6
lhe6 16 �d7 J:He8 with unclear com­
plications in Prie-Lukacs, Budapest
1993.
1 1 t2Jc4
The white queen was pushed
around after 1 1 'iic3 'iie7 12 �d4 i.b4
13 'iid3 J:.d8 14 'iie2 in Markovic­
Gligoric, Yugoslav Championship
1998. Black has no real problems here.
1 1 . . ...txc4
Black has to concede the bishop
pair this time, since unfortunately
1 1 ...i.b4 fails to 12 �b6! c5 (or
12 ... cxb4 13 'iixb4) 13 'iixd8+ .l:.xd8 14
:xd8+ 'ittxd8 15 r!d1+ <:J;e7 16 �dS+
i.xdS 17 l:.xdS with a clear edge for
White in Pfannkuche-Jurasin, German
Bundesliga 1983/84.
1 2 'ii'xc4 'ii'e 7 1 3 :te 1 0-0-0
Although Black has doubled c­
pawns, he has enough counterplay
along the d- and e-files to maintain the
balance. First he will centralise his
pieces with ....:the8 and ...'iie6.
1 4 a4
This was the first new move of the
game, but it does not really change
anything. Black should be fine.
5 0 - 0 .i. d 6
1 4 . . .:he8 1 5 ..td4 'ii'e6 1 6 'ii'xe6+
:xe6 1 7 ..tc3 :deS 1 8 .!bd2 t2Jt4
18 ...l'l6e7, reserving the possibility
of .. .f7-f5, was also possible. Hebden's
plan of advancing the kingside pawns
gives White something to bite into.
1 9 �f1 g5 20 f3 .!bg6 2 1 g3 h5 22
.!bc4 ..te5 23 .!bxe5 .!bxe5 24 �f2 g4
25 ..txe5 :xe5 26 :ea b5 27 b3
gxf3?
This move lets the white king into
the game. Black should have main­
tained the tension with 27 .. J;[c5 or
27.. JI8e6 (Wedberg).
28 �xf3 f5? 29 J:de1 :ta 30 �t4!
:xe4+ 31 :xe4 fxe4+ 32 �g5!
After this move White has a won
endgame. The white king is just too
strong.
32 . . . :ea 33 c4 bxc4 34 bxc4 :e5+
35 �f6 :as 36 J:xe4 :xa4 37 �g6
:as 38 h4 :aa 39 g4 hxg4 40 :xg4
a5 41 h5 a4 42 c5 :a 1 43 h6 a3 44
h7 :h 1 45 J:a4 �d7 46 :xa3 :g 1 +
47 �f7 l:f1 + 48 �g7 :g 1 + 49 �h8
�e6 50 :as J:g5 51 J:g8 J:xc5 52
�g7 :h5 53 h8'ii' J:xh8 54 :xh8 c5
55 :h5 c4 56 :cs �d6 57 J:xc4 c5
58 �f6 �d5 59 :c1 c4 60 �f5 �d4
61 �f4 <t>d3 62 �f3 c3 63 J:d 1 + 1 -0
91
Th e Sp anish Exc h ange
Game 43
Rozentalis-Hebden
Hastings 1997/98
1 e4 e5 2 tiJf3 ttJc6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 �d6 6 d4 exd4 7
'it'xd4 f6 8 c4! ?
This move was not even mentioned
in the second edition of ECO but was
promoted to a main line for the third
edition! It is interesting that Rozentalis
chose it here in preference to 8 .te3,
which he had used to defeat both
Hebden and Wedberg in the preceding
12 months (see the previous game).
The immediate threat is c4-c5 and
whether Black meets this with 8 ...c5!?
or 8 ... 'ii'e7 White will eventually hope
to establish a bind on the queenside
with t2Jc3 and b2-b3.
8 . . . c5!?
In ECO 8...b6 is dismissed by 9 e5
fxe5 1 0 t2Jxe5 ttJe7 1 1 .tg5 'and White
has a winning position' (Mirkovic­
Lukacs, Belgrade 1984). However, is it
really so straightforward after 1 1...0-0
here? For example, 12 t2Jxc6 .txh2+
13 �xh2 tDxc6 14 'ii'xd8 t2Jxd8 15 t2Jc3
.te6 with good equalising chances.
92
Although 8 .. .'i'e7 seems a more
natural alternative to 8 ...c5!?, Black is
then deprived of a means of develop­
ing his knight. He must therefore play
in sharp fashion with 9 tlJc3 .te6
(9....tc5 10 'i'd3 .te6 1 1 b3 l:.d8 12
'ii'e2 �d7?! [12....tg4 was less provoca­
tive] 13 e5 'iifc8 14 t2Je4 .tg4 15 tDxc5
'ii'xc5 16 .tb2 left Black perilously
behind in development in Magem
Badals-Lalic, Moscow Olympiad 1994)
10 b3 0-0-0! (deliberately castling into
it; after 10 ....:.d8 1 1 'i'a7 .tg4, as in
Illescas Cordoba-Hebden, Montpellier
1988, White could have considered 12
c5 .txc5 13 'i'xb7 .txf3 14 'i'xc6+) 1 1
'i'a7 .tg4! {threatening ....txf3 and
...'ii'e5) 12 e5 (12 c5 .txc5 13 'i'a8+
�d7 14 'i'xb7 .td6 is also very
murky) 12 ...fxe5 13 tDa4 (13 t2Jd2!?
was possible) 13 ....txf3 (after this
move the game is soon resolved by a
perpetual check; 13 ... e4!? would have
been a winning try) 13 ...e4 14 c5 'i'e6
15 gxf3 'ii'g6+ 16 �h1 'i'h5 17 cxd6
'i'xf3+ 1 8 �g1 'i'g4+ �-� Romero
Holmes-Chiburdanidze, Salamanca
1990.
9 'it'e3
This solid move is much more
Rozentalis' style than 9 'i'dS ttJe7 10
'i'h5+ g6 11 'i'h4 {1 1 'i'h6 .tg4! -
I.Sokolov) 1 1 ...0-0, as in Illescas Cor­
doba-I.Sokolov, Linares 1995, when
instead of 12 t2Jc3?! 'i'e8! 13 l:.e1 g5 14
'i'h6 �h8!, when the white queen was
embarrassed, !van Sokolov suggests 12
.th6 :v 13 t2Jc3 with an unclear posi­
tion. Personally I still would not
choose to place my queen on h4.
9 . . .ttJe7 1 0 ttJc3 0-0 1 1 b3 'it'e8 1 2
�a3

1 2 . . . b6
I prefer the immediate 12 ... 'ii'h 5,
with the idea of ... .i.g4.
1 3 l:.ad 1 �b7 1 4 l:.fe 1 'iih 5 1 5 ltJe2
Having centralised his major pieces,
Rozentalis sets his sight on the f5-
square.
1 5 . . .l:.ae8 1 6 ltJg3 'iig 4 1 7 h3 'iie6
1 8 liJh4 ltJc6 1 9 liJhf5 liJd4 20 ltJxd6
cxd6 2 1 'iid 2
White has achieved his first objec­
tive of exchanging the bishop on d6.
Now all he has to do is play .i.b2 to
remove the pesky knight from d4 and
he will be in complete control.
21 • . . b5 22 cxb5 ltJxb5 23 �b2 l:.d8
24 'iia 5 l:.d7 25 l:.e3!
5 0-0 i.. d6
The rook is now well placed to
swing over to the kingside.
25 . . .ltJa7 26 'iie 1 ltJc6 27 �c3 ltJe7
28 ltJh5 'iif7 29 'iie 2! :ea 30 'iig4
ltJg6
Black's kingside is now ripe for col­
lapse.
31 �xf6 'iie6
Or 31...gxf6 32 'ii'xd7 'ii'xd7 33
ttJxf6+.
32 'iig 5 gxf6 33 ltJxf6+ �g7 34
ltJxd7 'iixd7 35 -.xc5
The black pawns are dropping like
flies.
35 . . .l:.e6 36 l:.ed3 'iif7 37 :Xd6 l:.e7
38 'iic3+ �h6 39 ._d2+ �g7 40 l:.d7
ltJe5 41 ._g5+ 1 -0
93
Th e Sp anish Exchange

Summary
The 5 ...i.d6 variation deserves to be more popular than it is. Indeed, I would
not hesitate to recommend this variation for Black, as it invariably leads to dy­
namic positions in which Black has his share of chances. In the main line after 6
d4 exd4 7 'ii'xd4 f6 White does not seem to have anything after 8 e5, 8 l:.el, 8 b3
or 8 ttlbd2 (see Games 38-41}. It seems that his only chances for an advantage lie
in 8 .i.e3 (Game 42} or 8 c4 (Game 43}.

1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 .ib5 a6 4 .txc6 dxc6 5 0-0 .id6

6 d4 exd4 7 'Wxd4 (DJ

7 ttlxd4 - Game 3 7
7 . . . f6 8 .te3
8 e5 - Game 38
8 :.el - Game 39
8 b3 - Game 40
8 ttlbd2 Game 41
-

8 c4 (D) - Game 43
8 . . .lL!e7 (DJ - Game 42

7 'Wxd4 8 c4 8. . . ttJe 7

94
 CHAPTER SIX I
5 0-0 "ifd6
1 e4 e5 2 lZJf3 lZJc6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 �d6
During the 1990s this line, which is
usually attributed to David Bronstein,
has emerged from relative obscurity to
become probably the most popular
choice among top grandmasters.
World Championship candidates Ni­
gel Short, Gata Kamsky and Evgenny
Bareev have all integrated it into their
repertoires, while it is also significant
that leading Exchange Spanish expo­
nent Jan Timman invariably plays this
line when he faces the Exchange varia­
tion as Black (although he has had
some success on the white side too!).
At first sight it may appear strange
to use the queen to defend the e-pawn,
but Black's position is very flexible.
He can choose between developing his
queen's bishop on e6 or g4 and Black
also has the option of quick queenside
castling. The e-pawn may still be bol­
stered by .. .f7-f6 if necessary. The
drawback of 5 ...'ii'd6 is, of course, the
fact that it does absolutely nothing for
Black's kingside development. Indeed,
in many variations the queen often has
to move again before too long.
White has four main ways to play
after 5 .. .'ii'd6:
a) The immediate 6 d4 (Game 44)
opening up the centre. Although this
plan works very well against 5 .. .f6,
here, as we shall see, it is much less
effective.
b) 6 c3, to support d2-d4 (Game 45).
c) 6 d3 (Games 46 and 47) planning
to develop slowly with 7 �e3 and 8
tbbd2 or 7 lDbd2.
d) The sharp 6 tba3!? (Games 48-51)
threatening to shift the queen immedi­
ately by 7 tbc4.
Each of these choices leads to the
kind of dynamic play which will ap­
peal to both White and Black players.
Game 44
Rozentalis-Aimasi
German Bundesliga 1996
1 e4 e5 2 lZJf3 lLlc6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0
The actual move order of this game
95
Th e Sp anish Exchange
was 5 lbc3 'ifd6 6 d4 exd4 7 lLlxd4
il.d7 8 il.e3 0-0-0 9 0-0.
5 . . .'ii'd6 6 d4
This simplistic approach has fallen
almost completely out of favour in
recent years. It does not really ask
Black enough questions.
6 . . . exd4 7 tt:Jxd4
7 'iWxd4 'iWxd4 8 lLlxd4 is completely
equal, while Black can also try
7 ...il.g4!? 8 'iWe3 (8 lLlbd2 'iixd4 9
lLlxd4 0-0-0 is an even better version of
the usual endgame) 8 ...lbe7 9 lLlbd2
lbg6 with balanced chances, as in the
game Kraidman-Hennings, Amster­
dam 1972.
7 . . .i..d 7
Of course Black should avoid
7 ...c5?! 8 lbb3 'iWxd1 9 :Xdl. There is
no need for him to weaken himself in
this position - he has very good
chances with the queens on. 7...'it'g6 is
interesting, though. After 8 lbc3 both
8 ... ..tc5 9 i.e3 lbe7 10 f4!? and
8 .....tg4?! 9 f3 0-0-0 10 fxg4 c5 1 1 'iWf3
cxd4 12 lLldS clearly favour White ac­
cording to Dolmatov, so Black should
prefer 8 ...i.d7, when the game Abra­
movic-Ivanovic, Yugoslav Champion­
ship 1989, ended in a quick draw after
96
9 'iWf3 (9 ..te3 0-0-0 would have trans­
posed to the main game) 9 ...0-0-0 10
h3 ..tb4 11 ..tf4 lbf6 12 tbde2 l:he8 13
e5 i.xc3 14 tbxc3 lbdS 15 tbxdS cxdS.
8 i..e3
If White intends to play tbc3 in any
case, he should probably do so
straightaway (for reasons explained in
the next note). In the game An­
dersson-Smejkal, Kottnauer Memorial
1996, White was successful with 8 lba3
c5 9 tbf5 'iWxd1 10 l:xd1 0-0-0 1 1 tbc4
.l:.e8 12 f3 g6 13 lbfe3 i.g7? 14 lbdS.
However, after 8 ... 0-0-0 9 lbc4 'iff6
White's knights would have created an
ugly impression.
8 . . 0-0-0
.
With this move order Black can also
put the white centre under pressure
immediately with 8 ...lbf6!? 9 f3 'it'e5,
when after 10 lbc3 i.c5 1 1 lbce2 0-0-0
12 'iWe1 h5 Black had a promising posi­
tion in the game Maliutin-Yurtaev,
USSR Championship 1991 .
9 tt:Jc3
9 lbd2, hoping to play lbc4 at some
point, also gives Black the choice be-
tween 9 ...'it'g6 and 9 ...lbh6:
a) 9...'iWg6 10 'i'e2 tbh6 1 1 f3 f5 12
l'.1ad1 (12 e5 l:e8) 12...i.d6 13 il.xh6
'it'xh6 14 e5 l:he8 15 f4 with a very
unclear position in Kupreichik­
Romanishin, Moscow 1974.
b) 9 ...tbh6 when White can prevent
...lLlg4 in two ways:
b1) 10 h3 'i'g6 1 1 'it'f3 f5 12 ltad1
{White is awkwardly placed after both
12 .:.fe1 fxe4 13 'i'xe4 lbf5 14 c3 l:e8,
as in Zarubin-Polovodin, USSR 1980,
and 12 exf5 lbxf5 13 lbxf5 i.xf5 14 c3
i.e7, as in Lindemann-Mainka, Gaus­
dal 1991, but 12 e5 was possible, by

analogy to the note to Black's ninth
move below) 12 ... fxe4 13 "ilixe4 l'Df5 (it
makes more sense to maintain the ten­
sion than to play 13 ..."ilixe4 14 l'Dxe4
lbf7 15 .l:fe1, when White had a slight
pull in Larsen-Portisch, Rotterdam
1977) 14 l'bc4 and now in Kurtenkov­
Sergiev, correspondence 1982, Black
sacrificed the exchange with 14 ...l:te8
15 l'be5 :xe5 16 "ilixe5 �d6 and the
game ended in a perpetual after 17
l'Dxf5 �xf5 18 "i!iaS h6 19 �h1 �xh3
20 gxh3 We4+ 2 1 �g1 "ilig6+ 22 �h1
"ilie4+ 23 <&ti>g1 "ilig6+. However, I am
not sure that this sacrifice was entirely
necessary, as 14 ... �d6, intending
....l:he8, seems perfectly adequate.
b2) 10 f3 f5 1 1 "ilie2 (1 1 l'Dc4 Wg6 12
e5? led to a disaster after 12 .. .f4!! 13
�xf4 ..te6 14 l'be3 c5 15 l'Dxe6 :Xd1
16 .:taxd1 "ilixe6 17 �xh6 'ii'xh6 18 f4
c4 19 :d5 "i!lb6 0-1 in Leow-Karklins,
USA 1976) 1 1 ...:e8! {1 1...fxe4 12
l'Dxe4 "ilie5 was fine for Black in Mei­
jers-Mikhalevski, Dieren open 1997)
12 :fe1 Wg6 13 .i.xh6 "ilixh6 14 e5 c5
1 5 l'b4b3 g5 with an improved version
of note 'a' in Ubilava-Romanishin,
USSR Team Championship 1975.
9 . Ji'g6
. 1 1 . . ltlf6 1 2 .tf4 .tb4
9 . . .l'bh6 is also possible here. After
10 h3 {10 f3 f5 1 1 "ilie2 .l:e8 is similar
to note 'b2' above) 10 ..."ilig6 1 1 Wf3 f5
12 e5 l'bf7 13 ..tf4 c5 14 l'bb3 J.c6 15
"ilig3 "ilie6 an unclear position was
reached in Castaneda-Hjartarson, Ca­
nadian open 1997.
1 0 1i'f3? !
10 f4 fails to 10... c5, but 10 'i'e2 is
more solid:
a) 10 ...l'Df6?! (Black should keep the
option of playing ...f7-f5) 1 1 f3 J.d6 12
5 0 - 0 Wid6
.:tad1 (12 l'bb3?! allows Black to build
up his forces with 12 ....l:.he8 13 iff2
'i'h5, when S.Szabo-Acs, Hungarian
Junior Championship 1994, was soon
decisive: 14 h4 "ilie5! 15 f4 "ilih5! 16 e5
l'bg4 17 'ii'g3 f6! 18 l:tae1 fxe5 19 l'be4
�e7 20 �f2 exf4 21 'ii'xf4 .l:f8 22 'ii'g3
llxf2 23 l'Dxf2 ..txh4 0-1) 12 ...h5 13
'ii'f2 h4 14 l'Dde2 with the better
chances for White in Gipslis­
Romanishin, USSR 1973.
b) 10... l'bh6! {thematic) 11 f3 ..td6
12 l:tad1 (or 12 "ilif2 f5 13 l'Dde2 .l:hf8!?
with equal chances) 12 ...lthe8 13 �f2?!
(13 l'Db3 led to a draw after 13 .. .f5 14
..tc5 ..tf4 15 ..te3 ..td6 16 ..tc5 ..tf4 17
�e3 �d6 in Spasov-Kamsky, Tilburg
1992) 13 ...'i'h5 14 J.g3 J.xg3 15 hxg3
f5 16 l'He1 'ii'g6 17 'iif2 fxe4 18 l'Dxe4
l'bg4! and Black was on top in Gipslis­
Romanishin, USSR 1973.
1 0 . . .:ea
In his notes in Informator 66 Almasi
awards this an exclamation mark.
However, Black is probably also doing
very well after 10 ...l'Df6.
1 1 :te 1
Or 1 1 'i'g3 i..d6 12 'ii'xg6 hxg6 with
a slight plus for Black.
.
97
Th e Spanish Exc h ange
13 e5
The white pawn 1s forced to ad-
vance.
1 3 . . . �xc3! ?
13 .tiJd5 would have allowed White
..
back into the game with 14 ltJxdS!
i..xe1 15 ltJxc7!, but 13 ...i..g4 14 'i'd3
'i'xd3 15 cxd3 would have given Black
a small but safe plus (Almasi).
1 4 �xc3 tt:ld5 1 5 �f3 �g4 1 6 �g3
c5 1 7 tt:lb3 b6 1 8 c3 h5 1 9 h4 .:Z.d8
20 f3 �f5 2 1 l:.ad 1 �xg3 22 �xg3
tt:le7!
Although Black has given up the
advantage of the two bishops, he re­
tains much the better chances in the
endgame. His bishop is far superior to
its white counterpart and White's po­
sition is full of holes.
23 tllc 1 �c2
Black quickly seizes control of the
d-file.
24 l:.xd8+ l:.xd8 25 �f2 �f5 26 �f4
lL:ig6 27 �g3 �e6 28 .l:te4 �b7 29
�e 1 �c6 30 a3 a5 3 1 l:.e2 a4 32
l:.d2 :ea!
Black decides that his rook still has
an important job to do, forcing White
into further weaknesses. The white
rook is unable to undertake anything
98
productive on the d-file, as there are
no entry squares.
33 �2 �c4 34 f4 lL:ie7 35 �g 1 lLif5
36 �f2 f6 37 exf6 gxf6 38 g3 lLih6
39 �g2 lL:ig4 40 �g 1 l:.e6 41 �g2 f5
42 l:.d 1 �d5+ 43 �g 1 �c4 44 �g2
ltd6!
Now the exchange of rooks ends
White's resistance.
45 .:Z.xd6+ cxd6 46 �g 1 �d5 47 �f3
b5 48 �e3 lLih2+ 0-1
Game 45
Romero Holmes-Bareev
Leon 1995
1 e4 e5 2 lL:if3 lL:ic6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 �d6 6 c3
In principle this move, intending
d2-d4, is very logical, but here Black is
able to counterattack quickly against
the white centre.
6 . . . �g4 7 h3
White might like to do without this
move, but unfortunately 7 d4 exd4 8
cxd4 0-0-0 9 i..e3 f5! allows Black to
generate immediate counterplay. In
Jacobs-Karklins, Lone Pine 1974,
White's position soon collapsed: 10 e5
'i'g6 1 1 ltJc3 ltJe7 12 'i'e2 h6 13 ltJa4?
 5 0-0 fid6

f4 14 �cl lhd4 15 b3 lld3 16 'i.tth 1

ttJf5 17 �xf4 .:txf3 0-1.

9 . . 0-0-0 10 lt:lbd2 exd4!

.

The correct moment for this ex­

7 . . . .th5 change.
7 ...�xf3 8 'iixf3 0-0-0 is an interest­ 1 1 cxd4 lt:Jh6 1 2 it'c2
ing pawn sacrifice. After 9 'ii'xf7 (the 12 i..xh6?! gxh6 opens a line of at­
counter-sacrifice 9 d4 exd4 10 �f4 tack for Black down the g-file.
'i¥e6 1 1 cxd4 llxd4 12 t2Jc3 ttJf6 13 1 2 . .g5
.

'iie3 �c5 leads to a very unclear posi­

tion) 9 ...ttJf6 10 'ifc4 (10 d4 exd4 1 1
cxd4 'iixd4 1 2 ttJc3 i..b4 1 3 �e3 'ilid7
is also unclear - Gipslis) 10 ... b5! 1 1
'ife2 Black was not afraid to exchange
queens with 1 1 . ..'ifd3 in the game
Rogoff-Reshevsky, USA Champion­
ship 1974. After 12 lle1 �c5 13 b4
�b6 14 'ifxd3 l:.xd3 15 t2Ja3 l:f8 16
ttJc2 ttJh5 17 ttJe3 ttJf4 18 a4 Wb7
Black had plenty of counterplay for
the pawn.
8 d4 f6! Black plays to exploit the weakness
There is no rush to exchange on d4: caused by h2-h3. However, White is
8 ...exd4 9 cxd4 0-0-0 allows White to very well centralised so objectively he
play 10 t2Jc3. should not be worse.
9 .te3 1 3 ltJc4!
We have now reached a position A clever regrouping. Both 13 .:tac1
from the 5 .. .f6 6 d4 i..g4 7 c3 i..d6 8 g4 14 hxg4 ttJxg4 15 t2Jc4 'iid7 16 i..f4
h3 �h5 9 �e3 variation (Chapter 1 , l:tg8 and 13 e5 'i¥d5 14 exf6 g4 were
Game 8) with one important differ­ dangerous (Bareev).
ence: the black queen rather than the 1 3 . . .it'd7 1 4 lt:Jfd2 f5
black bishop stands on d6! Now that the knight is no longer a

99
Th e Sp anish Exc h ange
target on f3, White was ready to meet
14 ... g4 with 15 h4 g3 16 f3, when
Black's assault has ground to a halt on
the kingside and White can launch his
own queenside attack.
1 5 i.xg5
Although it can hardly be a mistake
to capture the g-pawn with a gain of
tempo, this does open up the g-file for
the black rooks. It would have been
safer to play 15 f3! fxe4 16 fxe4 g4 17
h4! g3 18 tbe5 'it'e6 19 'it'b3 with a
very promising position regardless of
whether Black allows an exchange of
queens or not (Bareev).
1 5 . . .lle8 1 6 e5 l:g8 1 7 i.f4 0Jf7?
An inaccuracy which could have
had dire consequences. 17...<it>b8 18
'it'c3 4Jf7 followed by ...4Jd8 with bal­
anced chances was to be preferred.
1 8 0Je3?
White misses the opportunity to
strike in the centre with 18 dS! 'it'xdS
(not 18 ...cxd5 19 4Jb6+) 19 'it'xf5+
<it>b8 20 tbe3 'it'xd2 21 'it'xh5 with a
winning position (Bareev). After the
game move Black is able to randomise
the position completely.
1 8 . . .0Jd8! 1 9 ,.xf5 0Je6 20 ..-xh5
0Jxf4
100
White is temporarily two pawns up,
but the active black pieces provide
ample compensation, e.g. 21 'it'f3
4Jxh3+ 22 �h1 4Jg5 23 'it'f5 lle6 24
l:.fd1 'it'xd4! with excellent chances for
Black. In the game White tries to bail
out with an exchange of queens, but
his opponent's initiative soon proves
too much.
21 'ii'f5 'ii'xf5 22 0Jxf5 l:xg2+ 23
�h 1 l:g5 24 0Jg3 l:g6! 25 0Jf3
0Jxh3
The white king is now denuded of
pawn cover and Black has ...c6-c5 in
reserve to dismantle the white centre.
26 0Jf5 i.e7 27 �h2 0Jf4 28 l:g 1
i.d8 29 0J3h4 l:xg 1 30 l:xg 1 c5! 3 1
l:g4 tLld3 3 2 f4 h 5 3 3 l:g 1 cxd4?
According to Bareev, 33 ...4Jxf4 34
tbg7 l:tf8 35 4Jhf5 tbe2 36 l:td1 tbxd4
37 tbxd4 cxd4 38 l:txd4 .l:.f2+ would
have led to a won position. However,
in this variation 36 J:fl! tbxd4 37
tbd6+ cxd6 38 ltxf8 allows White to
continue the fight, so I prefer 34...l:tg8
35 4Jhf5 tbe2 and ...4Jxd4.
34 0Jg6?!
Here White could have muddied
the waters a little with 34 tbg7 l:tg8 35
4Jhf5 tbxf4 36 tbxd4, although after

36 ... ll'ld3 Black should still be wm­
mng.
34 . . .ttJxf4 35 l2Jxf4 l:tf8 36 l2Je6
l:txf5 37 l:tg8 <il?d7 38 l2Jxd8 l:txe5 39
l2Jf7 0-1 (time)
Game 46
Rozentalis-Timman
Yerevan Olympiad 1996
1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 l2Jc6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 'ii'd 6 6 d3 f6
This solid move prepares ...�e6
without allowing ll'lg5. However, in
Smyslov-Gligoric, Russia-Yugoslavia
1994, Black chose to ignore this with
6...i..e6 7 ll'lg5 f6 8 ll'lxe6 'ilxe6 and
after 9 ll'lc3 0-0-0 he achieved an equal
position. I would have thought that
either 9 f4 or 9 ll'ld2 followed by ll'lc4
would have been more of a test of
Black's idea.
6 ...ll'le7, intending to defend the e­
pawn with ...ll'lg6, is considered in the
next main game, while Black's other
main move, 6 ...�g4, is likely to trans­
pose to the note to Black's seventh
move after 7 �e3 f6.
7 �e3
7 ll'lbd2 usually leads to very similar
5 0-0 Wd6
pos1t10ns and may transpose. After
7 ...i..e6 (7 ... i..g4 8 ll'lc4 Wd7 9 �e3
ll'le7 10 h3 i..e6 1 1 We2 ll'lg6 12 d4 is
very similar, although the inclusion of
h2-h3 is not always in White's favour)
8 ll'lc4 Wd7 (the pawn structure in the
ending that arises after 8 ...i..xc4 9 dxc4
Wxd1 10 lhd1 slightly favours White)
9 i..e3 ll'le7 10 We2 ll'lg6 1 1 d4! Wf7 12
b3 exd4 13 ll'lxd4 i..xc4 14 bxc4 c5 15
ll'lb3 ll'le5 16 l:.ad1! 'ii'xc4 17 Wh5+
'Wf7 18 'i!fh3 White achieved very
promising play for the pawn m
Smyslov-Malaniuk, Calcutta 1995.
7 . . .�e6
7 ...c5 8 ll'lbd2 �e6 transposes to
variation 'c' in the next note, while
7 ...i..g4 is very similar to the game
after 8 ll'lbd2. White can flick in h2-h3
i..e6 at some point, after which the
position will be the same as the main
game except with the white h-pawn
on h3 rather than h2. This should not
really make a significant difference in
such a quiet position, although it
might give Black something to bite on
after ...g7-g5 at some point.
8 l2Jbd2 l2Je7
This is the most flexible, although
of course Black has a wide choice:
a) 8 ...'ii'd7?! is too passive. After 9
d4 exd4 10 ll'lxd4 �f7 11 'ii'e2 c5 12
ll'l4b3 b6 13 l:ad1 ll'le7 14 ll'lb1! 'ii'c6
15 ll'lc3 Black's king was stuck in the
centre in Adorjan-Timman, Hastings
1973.
b) 8 ...0-0-0?! (rather committal) 9
'i!fe2 g5 (9 ... c5 is more solid) 10 Z:.fbl
ll'le7 11 b4 ll'lg6 12 a4 g4 13 ll'le1 ll'lf4
14 'ifd1 and White was ready to crash
through on the queenside in Gaprin­
dashvili-Veroci, Yugoslavia 1974.
101
Th e Sp anish Ex c h ange
c) 8 ...c5 is also rather inflexible.
White has three tempting possibilities:
cl) 9 li:Jc4 'iic6 10 li:Jfxe5!? (a very
enterprising alternative to the routine
10 li:Jfd2 li:Je7 1 1 a4 b6 12 f4 exf4 13
.txf4 li:Jg6 14 .i.g3 .i.d6 15 li:Jxd6+
cxd6 16 li:Jc4 l:td8! with equal chances
in Glek-Almasi, Cattolica 1993)
10 ... fxe5 1 1 ltlxe5 'iid6 12 'iih5+ g6 13
ltlxg6 .tf7 14 'iie5+ 'iixe5 15 ltlxe5
ltlf6 16 f4 with three pawns for the
piece in a highly unclear ending in
Van der Wiel-Nikolic, Wijk aan Zee
open 1993.
c2) 9 'ife2 ltle7 10 c3 ltlc6 (Black
must try to slow down the d3-d4 ad­
vance; 10... 0-0-0?! 1 1 d4 cxd4 12 cxd4
exd4 13 ltlxd4 ltlc6 14 fuc6 'ifxc6 15
.l:fcl allowed White a promising at­
tack in Dvoretsky-Romanishin, Vil­
nius Zonal 1975) 1 1 .l:.fd1 'ii'd7! (a
clever prophylactic move; after
1 1...0-0-0?! 12 ltlc4 'iid7 White can
achieve the desired 13 d4) 12 ltlb3
.i.xb3 13 axb3 .i.d6 14 d4 cxd4 15 cxd4
exd4 16 ltlxd4 ltlxd4 17 .i.xd4 'i'e6,
and although White had finally
achieved d3-d4 in Dvoretsky­
A.Ivanov, Philadelphia 1991, too
many pieces had been exchanged to
promise any advantage.
c3) 9 a3! (the latest try, planning to
expand on the queenside with b2-b4
straightaway) 9 ...'ifd7 (9 ...ltle7 10 b4! ­
Krasenkov) 10 'ife2 .td6 (ECO gives
10 ... l:.d8 1 1 .l:fd1 .td6 12 c3 ltle7 13 d4
cxd4 14 cxd4 'iih5 with equal chances
in Grefe-Bisguier, USA Championship
1975, but 13 b4 would have led to
similar play to Rozentalis-Krasenkov)
1 1 c3 ltle7 12 b4 cxb4 13 axb4 ltlg6 14
l:.tfb1 0-0 15 ltlb3 and White's grip on
102
the queenside promised him a slight
plus in Rozentalis-Krasenkov, Polish
Tearn Championship 1996.
9 d4
The flexible 9 'i'e2 is also playable,
and if 9 ...c5 (Black can also consider
9... g5!?) 10 c3 ltlc6 1 1 a3 with similar
play to line 'c3' in the previous note.
White can also try 9 ltlc4, which will
transpose to the note to White's sev­
enth move after 9 ...'iid7 (again the
pawn structure after 9 ....txc4 10 dxc4
slightly favours White).
9 . . .exd4! ?
This was a new idea in this particu­
lar position, although Timman had
already played in very similar fashion
in his game against Adorjan more than
20 years previously! The other move,
9 ... ltlg6?!, allows White a pleasant
choice between 10 c4, threatening c4-
c5, and 10 c3.
1 0 ttlxd4 i.f7 1 1 'ife2 c5 1 2 ll:l4b3
b6
An identical position has been
reached to that which arises in varia­
tion 'a' in the note to Black's eighth
move, except that Black has played the
useful ...li:Je7 instead of ...'ii'd7. This
factor alone is sufficient to grant him

equal chances.
1 3 a4 a5 1 4 ttJc4 'Wc6 1 5 tiJbd2 g6
1 6 .i.f4 .i.g7 1 7 ttJe3?
This simply removes the knight its
best square. After 17 e5 0-0 18 .:ae1
Timman assesses the position as equal,
but now Black is able to start ganging
up on the white e-pawn.
1 7 . . .0-0-0! 1 8 l:.ad 1 l:.he8 1 9 b3 g5
20 .i.g3 .i.g6 21 f4 gxf4 22 .i.xf4
'.tb7 !
There is no need to hurry, as the e­
pawn cannot run away. This careful
move removes the king from any em­
barrassing check on the g4-c8 diagonal.
23 Wf3 l:.d4 24 ttJec4
24 . . . f5
Black is not tempted to snatch the
pawn due to the messy 24...�xe4 25
ttlxe4 :xe4 26 ttld6+ cxd6 27 l:txd6. In
the game Rozentalis timidly gives up
the e-pawn, but after 25 exf5 ttlxf5 the
two bishops and active black pieces
would soon have been overwhelming
m any case.
25 .i.e5 fxe4 26 We2 .i.xe5 27 ttJxe5
'ii'e6 28 tiJdc4 tiJd5 29 l:.de1 e3 30
g3 l:.e4 3 1 ltJxg6 hxg6 32 'ii'f3 �b8
33 'ii'f7 e2 34 l:.f3 'ii'xf7 35 l:.xf7
tiJb4 36 ttJa3 c4 37 l:.f3 cxb3 38
5 0-0 'ild6
l:.xb3 l:.e3?!
This unnecessarily allows White to
prolong the game. Timman points out
that after 38 ...ttla6 White could have
seriously considered resigning.
39 l:.xe3 l:.xe3 40 ltJc4 l:.c3 41 ttJe5
l:.xc2 42 �f2 b5 43 axb5 a4 44 l:.a 1
ltJa2 45 h4 ttJc3 46 tiJd3 l:.d2 47
ttJe 1 l:.d4 48 l:.c 1 ttJe4+ 49 'it?xe2
ttJxg3+ 50 �f3 ltJf5 51 h5 gxh5 52
l:.c5 tiJd6 53 l:.xh5 a3 54 ltJc2 l:.c4
55 l:.h2 l:.c3+ 56 �f4 ttJxb5 57 'it?e4
�b7 58 ttJe3 c6 0-1
Game 47
Benjamin-Kamsky
USA Championship 1991
1 e4 e5 2 tiJf3 ttJc6 3 .i.b5 a6 4
.i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 'ii'd 6 6 d3 ltJe7
This is Black's most uncompromis­
ing move at this juncture, trying to do
without .. .f7-f6.
7 .i.e3
Just as after 6...f6, 7 ttlbd2 is equally
playable and may transpose. Here,
however, it poses a more direct ques­
tion to the black queen after 7 ... ttlg6
(7... it.e6 8 ttlg5 ttlg6 9 ttlxe6 'ifxe6 10
ttlc4 .Jtc5 11 �e3 .Jtxe3 12 ttlxe3 gave
103
Th e Sp a n ish Ex change
White a slight but safe edge in Van der
Wiel-Barkhagen, London 1993, and
Ivanchuk-Short, Amsterdam 1994 [by
transposition] 8 ltJc4 'iff6 (8 ...'ife6 left
Black slightly awkwardly placed after
9 ltJe3 i.d6 10 ltJf5 in Glek-Kovalev,
German Bundesliga 1993) and now:
a) 9 d4 exd4 10 i.g5!? (White should
keep the tension in the position, as 10
'ifxd4 'ifxd4 11 ltJxd4 c5 12 ltJf5 i.e6
13 ltJce3 ltJf4 gave Black easy equality
in Filipovic-Mozetic, Yugoslav Cham­
pionship 1996) 10...'ife6 1 1 'ifxd4 (1 1
ltJxd4 'ifxc4 12 ltJb5 f6 13 ltJxc7+ �f7
14 ltJxa8 fxg5 15 ltJb6 looks quite
promising for White [Milu], so Black
should probably bail out with
12 ... i.d6 13 'ifxd6 'ifxfl + 14 �xfl
cxd6 15 ltJc7+ �d7 16 ltJxa8 h6 with a
roughly level position) 1 1...f6 12 i.e3!?
(12 .l:ad1 i.e7 13 i.cl 0-0 was nothing
special for White in Williams-Ivkov,
Caorle 1972) 12 ... i.e7 13 'ifd3 0-0 14
ltJd4 'iff7 15 f4 l:d8 16 'ife2 c5 17 ltJf3
f5 with chances for both sides in Milu­
Notkin, Ciocaltea Memorial 1997.
b) 9 i.g5 'ife6 10 i.d2 i.c5 11 b4
(or 1 1 i.e3 i.e7 12 l:e1 0-0 13 ltJg5
i.xg5 14 i.xg5 f5 with an equal posi­
tion in Velikov-Lukacs, European
Team Championship, Moscow 1977)
1 1...i.a7 12 i.e3 0-0 13 'ifd2 'ife7 14
i.xa7 l:xa7 15 'ifc3 f6 16 ltJe3 ltJf4 17
l:fe1 .:td8 18 l:lad1 .:ta8 and Black had
equalised in Van der Wiel-Almasi,
Groningen 1994.
7 . . .l2Jg6
The immediate 7 ... c5 is also possi­
ble, reserving the option of ...ltJc6 in-
stead of ...ltJg6. For example, 8 ltJbd2
ltJc6!? (8 ...ltJg6 transposes to the main
game) 9 ltJc4 (9 ltJb3 b6 10 c3 i.e7 1 1
104
d4 cxd4 12 cxd4 exd4 13 ltJbxd4 ltJxd4
14 i.xd4 merely opened up the posi­
tion for the two black bishops in
Tunik-Malaniuk, Sverdlovsk 1984)
9 ...'iff6!? 10 i.g5 'ifg6 with an unclear
position in Tatai-Hohler, St Vincent
open 1998.
8 l2Jbd2 c5
Of course 8 ...i.e6 allows the irritat­
ing 9 ltJg5. However, although the
straightforward 8...i.e7 is often dis­
missed on account of 9 d4 (9 'ife2 c5 is
also fine for Black) it is not clear
whether White has any improvement
over 9...exd4 10 ltJxd4 (10 ltJc4 'ife6!?
1 1 'ifxd4 0-0 12 ltJg5 'ifg4 is unclear)
10...ltJe5! 1 1 h3 c5 12 ltJ4b3 b6 13 f4
ltJc6 14 'ife2 f5! with equal chances in
Browne-Portisch, Wijk aan Zee 1975.
9 l2Jc4 'ii'e6
By analogy with 7 ltJbd2 ltJg6 8
ltJc4 'ifg6, Benjamin's suggestion of
9 ...'iff6!? looks perfectly playable.
Here Black has even ruled out the d3-
d4 advance already.
1 0 l2Jg5
1 0 . . .'ii'f6?!
10...'ii'e7?! would also have been
met by 1 1 'ifh5, but Benjamin gives
10 ...'ifg4! with equality.

1 1 ii'h5 �d6?!
This is a very provocative move. It
would have been more prudent to
throw in 1 1...h6 12 ltJh3 first.
1 2 f4! exf4
12 ...ltJxf4? 13 .i.xf4 exf4 also runs
into 14 e5!
1 3 e5! lt:lxe5!
13 ... .llxe5 14 ltJxe5 ltJxe5 15 .i.xf4
.i.g4 16 'ifh4 would also have given
White a very dangerous attacking po­
sition.
1 4 �xf4!
An excellent choice. White had
other tempting possibilities, but the
game move is superior to both 14
ltJxe5 g6! 15 'ifh6 'ifxe5 16 .i.xf4
'ifd4+ 17 'it>h1 .i.xf4 18 .:tae1+ .i.e6 19
ltJxe6 .llxh6 20 ltJxd4+ �d8 21 ltJb3
.:.es with equal chances (Benjamin)
and 14 1lxf4 'ifg6 15 'ifxg6 hxg6 16
ltJxe5 .i.xe5 17 .:x£7 ('with a clear ad­
vantage to White' according to Kam­
sky) 17....:.h5!, threatening ...:Xg5 and
... .i.xh2+.
1 4. . .lt:lxc4
14 ....i.g4 fails to 15 'ifh4 ltJxc4 16
'ifxg4 'ifd4+ 17 �h1 ltJe5 18 llae1 0-0,
when 19 'ifh5 h6 20 .i.xe5 .llxe5 21
ltJf3, picking up a piece, looks even
5 0-0 ild6
simpler than Benjamin's suggestion of
19 l'he5 .i.xe5 20 'iff5 g6 21 'ifxe5.
1 5 �xd6
Benjamin gives this an exclamation
mark, rejecting 15 .:tae1+ on account
of 15 ....i.e7 16 dxc4 .i.f5. However,
instead of 16 dxc4, 16 .i.xc7! looks
strong. For example, 16 ...'ifd4+ 17
�h1 g6 18 'ife2 with a powerful attack
or 16....i.f5 17 'ifxf7+ 'ifxf7 18 ttJx£7
�xf7 19 l:hf5+ �g6 20 ltd5 .i.f6 21
dxc4 with a plus in the endgame.
Ftacnik indicates that Black can de­
fend with 15 ... �d7, but then the sim­
ple 16 ttJx£7 is promising, e.g. 16 ....:.fs
(or 16....i.xf4 17 ttJxhs ttJd6 18 'ii'g4+
and 'iixf4) 17 .i.e3! 'ifxb2 18 'ii'g4+
�c6 19 'ife4+ �d7 20 dxc4 with an
overwhelming attack.
1 5 . . .ii'd4+ 1 6 �h 1 lt:lxd6
1 7 l:txf7??
This spoils all of White's good
work. After 17 1lae1+! (but not 17
ltJxf7? 0-0!!) 17...�d8 (or 17...'it>d7 18
ltJf3! 'ifxb2 19 ltJe5+ �d8 20 'ifg5+ f6
21 1lxf6!) 18 ltJxf7+ ltJxf7 19 'ifxf7
'ifd6 20 'ifxg7 lieS 21 .:txe8+ 'it>xe8 22
llf7! White would have had a winning
position (Benjamin).
1 7 . . .ii'g4!
105
Th e Sp anish Exchange
Turning the tables. After the ex­
change of queens White is left with
one piece less.
1 8 l:te 1 + 'it>d8 1 9 -.xg4 i.xg4 20
l:txg7 h6 2 1 lt.:lh7 i.d7 22 lt.:lf6 i.c6
23 'it>g 1 'it>c8 24 l:.ee 7 'it>b8 25 l:txc7
lt.:Je8 26 lt.:Jxe8 l:txe8 27 'it>f2 l:te6 28
l:tce7 l:tf6+ 29 'it>g3 'it>a7 30 l:tef7
l:txf7 0-1
Game 48
Arencibia-Giorgadze
Yerevan Olympiad 1996
1 e4 e5 2 lt.:lf3 lt.:Jc6 3 i.b5 a6 4
i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 ._d6 6 lt.:la3 i.e6
6 ... b5 is the subject of Games 50 and
51, while 6 .. .f6?! 7 �c4 'i'e6 8 b3 or 8
'i'e2 is very pleasant for White.
7 lt.:Jg5
The more promising 7 'i'e2 is con­
sidered in the next game.
7 . . .i.d7!
It seems that Black should not allow
an exchange on e6:
a) After 7 ... �e7?! 8 d3 �g6 9 �xe6
'i'xe6 10 �c4 .tc5 1 1 i.e3 i.xe3 12
�xe3 White had a small but comfort­
able edge in Ivanchuk-Short, Amster­
dam 1994. The same position can also
1 06
arise after 6 d3 �e7 7 �bd2 .i.e6 8
�g5 �g6 9 �xe6 'i'xe6 10 �c4 i.c5
1 1 i.e3 .il.xe3 12 �xe3 - see the previ­
ous game.
b) 7.. .f6 8 �xe6 'i'xe6 9 d3!? b5
(9 ....txa3 10 bxa3 followed by f2-f4
should be slightly better for White,
although Oleg Romanishin has been
happy to play this as Black on a cou­
ple of occasions) 10 �bl .td6 1 1 a4
�e7 12 .te3 0-0 13 �d2 again with a
slight plus for White in Christiansen­
I.Sokolov, Manila Olympiad 1992.
8 lt.:Jc4
8 d3 is rather slow. After 8 .. .f6 9
�c4 'i'e7 10 �f3 •f7 1 1 J.e3 �7! 12
'i'e2 (12 i.b6 0-0-0) 12 ...•h5 13 llfel
�g6 14 �fd2 •xe2 15 lbe2 c5 Black
had fully equalised in Rodriguez Ta­
lavera-Pinter, Spanish Team Champi­
onship 1993.
8 . . .-.g6
The best square for the queen.
Black was rather clogged up after
8. . 'i'e7 9 d4 f6 10 �f3 exd4 1 1 •xd4
.
c5 12 'i'c3 0-0-0 13 lle1 in Arencibia­
G.Garcia, Havana 1996.
9 d4
9 d3 is not very challenging. After
9 .. .f6 10 �f3 �e7 1 1 J.e3 J.g4 Black
had no problems in Malisauskas­
Romanishin, Novy Smokovec 1992.
9 . . . f6 1 0 f4! ?
Although this is the only way to
put real pressure on the black posi­
tion, it is not clear that this King's
Gambit style approach is effective
here. In any case, after 10 �f3 0-0-0!
1 1 'i'd3 (not 1 1 dxe5 .th3 12 �h4
'iixe4) 1 1 ...exd4 12 i.f4 c5 13 �fd2
'iig4! Black already stood much better
in the encounter Malisauskas-Tisdall,

Manila 0lympiad 1992.
1 0 . . . exf4
It is very dangerous to accept the
piece sacrifice. After 10 ...fxg5 1 1 f5
Wf7 12 tLlxe5 Wf6 13 tLlxd7 �xd7 14
e5 'ii'd8 15 f6! gxf6 16 'ii'g4+ White has
a tremendous initiative (Giorgadze).
However, 1 1 . .. Wh6 may be a better
try, so perhaps 1 1 tLlxe5 with the op­
tion of f4xg5 is more precise.
1 1 tiJf3
1 1 .i.xf4 fails to 1 1...b5!
1 1 . . .0-0-0
There does not seem to be great
deal wrong with 1 1...Wf7!? 12 b3 (or
12 'ii'e2 g5 13 e5 0-0-0 - Giorgadze}
12 ... g5, when after 13 e5 0-0-0 14 exf6
Wxf6 15 .i.b2 Wf5 16 d5 .i.c5+ 17 r.t>h1
tLlf6 White had less than nothing for
the pawn in Magem Badals-Rodriguez
Vargas, Terrassa open 1996. It is
worth noting that after this game
Magem Badals decided to revert to 7
We2 (see the notes to the next game).
1 2 .d3
12 .i.xf4 Wxe4 13 Wd2 is interest­
ing. In Brynell-Barkhagen, Swedish
Championship 1991, Black completely
missed the point with 13 ...g5? 14
.i.xc7! �xc7 15 WaS+ �c8 16 tLlb6+
5 0 - 0 fld6
�b8 17 l:.ael Wg4 (or 17...Wg6 18 tiJe5
fxe5 19 :xf8} 18 h3 Wh5 19 tiJe5,
when White had a very dangerous
attack for the piece. Instead of 13 ...g5?,
either 13 ....i.b4 14 c3 i.e7 (K.rnic) or
13 ....i.e6 14 l:.ae1 Wf5 would have
given Black good chances of consoli­
dating his extra pawn.
1 2 . . .J:.e8!
After the greedy 12 ...Wh6 13 tLlfd2
g5 White soon managed to crash
through on the queenside with 14 tLlaS
i.e6 15 tLldb3 .ltb4 16 tLlxc6! bxc6 17
d5 .i.xdS 18 Wxa6+ and won quickly
in Rausis-Herbrechtsmeier, Viernheim
1992. The precise text move forces
White to move his rook away from
the f-file.
1 3 J:.e 1 •g4
Now White is struggling to regain
his pawn.
1 4 �d2 t2Je7 1 5 �a5
This time White's queenside play
can be neutralised with a couple of
prec1se moves.
1 5 . . .�b8! 1 6 •b3 tiJcS 1 7 �h 1
.h5!
Vacating a path for the advance of
the g-pawn. White is already in very
deep water indeed.
107
Th e Sp anish Exch ange
18 .i.d2 g5 19 e5 g4 20 ltJg 1 f3 21
gxf3 .i.e6! 22 'W'd3 gxf3 23 l'lf1 l'lg8
24 lbe3
Or 24 tbxf3 .td5 2S l::tf2 l::tg3 and
the black pieces pour in.
24 . . . fxe5 25 dxe5 .i.h6 26 liJxf3
l'lg3! 0-1
Game 49
Timman-Onischuk
Wijk aan Zee open 1995
1 e4 e5 2 liJf3 ltJc6 3 .i.b5 a6 4
.i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 'W'd6 6 ltJa3 .i.e6 7
'W'e2
Renewing the 'threat' of tbc4 and
creating the possibility of :d1 fol­
lowed by d2-d4.
7 . . . f6
If Black ignores the 'threat' with
7 ...tbe7?! he ends up with a rather
prospectless position after 8 tbc4 i.xc4
9 'iixc4 cS {to stop d2-d4) 10 tbgS 'i'f6
(or 10...'iig6 1 1 d3 and f2-f4) 1 1 d3 h6
12 tbh3 tbc6 13 i.e3, as in Benjamin­
Hiibner, Munich 1994. Also in
White's favour is 7 ...i.g4 8 h3 (not 8
tbc4 'i'f6) 8 ... ..txf3 9 'fi'xf3.
8 l'ld 1
This move, which Timman has
108
used on numerous occasions, includ­
ing his famous victory over Nigel
Short in the 1993 Candidates final,
seems to be more critical than 8 tDc4
'i'd7 9 l:td1 (9 c3 0-0-0 10 d4 exd4 1 1
tbxd4 .tf7 1 2 i.e3 cS 13 tbf3 'fibS 1 4
b3 i.xc4 1 S bxc4 'iic6 was nothing at
all for White in Glek-Leko, Copenha­
gen 199S) 9 ...cS 10 c3 and now:
a) The Spanish grandmaster Magem
Badals has scored two victories on the
white side of 10.. .'iff7?! 1 1 b3, when
11...i.xc4 12 bxc4 i.d6 13 d4 left
White with a powerful mass of centre
pawns in Magem Badals-Slobodjan,
Pamplona 199S.
b) Wedberg suggests that 10...0-0-0
1 1 d4 cxd4 12 cxd4 exd4 13 :Xd4 'fibS
is 'unclear', but after the simple 14
:xd8+ 'it.?xd8 1S b3, threatening tbd4,
White has a huge lead in development.
c) 10 ...i.g4! 1 1 h3 (Magem Badals
had this same position no less than
three times in the 1996 Yerevan
Olympiad!) 1 1.. ...ths {1 1.. ..txf3 12
'i'xf3 tDe7 allows White to expand on
the queenside with 13 a3! tbc6 14 b4
bS 1S tDe3 cxb4 16 axb4 .td6 17 d4, as
in Shirov-Almasi, German Bundesliga
1996/97, when ECO gives 17 ...exd4 18
cxd4 0-0 as unclear, though I prefer
White after 19 tbd5, e.g. 19 .. .'ife6 20
.tf4!? tDxb4 21 tDxc7) 12 d4 cxd4 13
cxd4 exd4 14 g4 .txg4 (14.....tf7?! led
to a quick defeat for Black in Magem
Badals-Almasi, Yerevan Olympiad
1996, after 1S tDxd4 ..tcS 16 i.e3
i.xd4 17 :Xd4 'fi'e6 18 i.f4 l:c8 19
tbaS b6 20 tbb7 tDe7 21 i.xc7 0-0 22
tbd8 l:cxd8 23 :xd8 l:xd8 24 .txd8
..tg6 2S .tc7 hS 26 b3 bS 27 l:d1 1-0)
1S hxg4 'iixg4+ 16 �fl {16 �h1

l!fh5+) t6 ... 1!fh3+ t7 'iii>g t (t7 'iii>e t
i.b4+) t7 ...1!fg4+ t8 �fl 'ii'h3+ 'h-'h
Magem Badals-Iuldachev, Yerevan
Olympiad t996. No doubt Shirov
would have avoided this draw if Al­
masi had played t l...iL.h5 against him,
perhaps also with t2 a3 and b2-b4.
8 .....tg4
In the game Timman-Short, Estoril
(seventh matchgame) t993, mentioned
above, a rush of blood to the head
caused Short to play 8 ... g5? and he was
crushed after 9 d4 g4 t 0 lDe t 0-0-0
(tO...exd4 1 1 c3 c5 t2 ltJec2) 1 1 iL.e3
h5 t2 d5! cxd5 13 exd5 i.f7 t4 c4 1!fd7
t5 d6! l!fc6 t6 c5 ltJh6 t7 b4 l!fa4 t8
ltJc4 l:.d7 t9 ltJa5 c6 20 ltJd3 ltJf5 2t a3
�b8 22 ltJb2 l!fb5 23 Wet ltJxe3 24
fxe3 iL.h6 25 �ht h4 26 a4 l!fxa5 27
bxa5 g3 28 h3 JLg5 29 ltJd3 �aS 30
:abt :e8 3t l:.b6 iL.d5 32 e4 t-0.
If Black is prepared to allow d2-d4
he should either play the text move or
8 ... 0-0-0 9 d4 i.g4! (but not 9 ...exd4?!
tO l:txd4 1!fe7 1 1 i.f4! g5 t2 .i.g3 ltJh6
13 l:.xd8+ 'ifxd8 t4 l:.dt l!fe7 t5 ltJd4
i.d7 t6 l!fd2 with a fine position for
White in Greenfeld-Mikhalevski,
Beersheva t996) which transposes to
the note to Black's ninth move below.
It is also possible to slow down
White's d2-d4 advance with 8 ...c5,
when after 9 c3 i.g4 we reach the
same position as in the main game but
with ...c7-c5 and c2-c3 thrown in.
White can attempt to exploit this in­
sertion with tO h3 (Timman's tO ltJc2
is also interesting) tO ...iL.xf3 (tO...iL.h5
1 1 d4 cxd4 t2 cxd4 exd4 13 g4 i.f7 t4
ltJxd4 favours White) 1 1 Wxf3 ltJe7,
when a transposition to Shirov-Almasi
in the note to White's eighth move
5 0 - 0 'fld6
with t2 ltJc4 'ifd7 is simpler than t2
d4 cxd4 13 cxd4 exd4 t4 iL.f4 l!fd7 t5
!:tact ltJc6 t6 ltJc2 l:.d8!, when White
had enough for the pawn but perhaps
no more in Godena-Krasenkov, Reg­
gio Emilia t996/97.
9 d4!?
Here 9 h3 is met by 9...iL.h5 and 9
c3 is also too slow, as Black does not
need to play 9 ... c5 but can instead play
9 .. .'ife6! to meet tO ltJc4? with
tO ...i.xf3 and tO d4 with tO ...i.xa3.
After tO ltJc2 i.h5 t t d4 i.d6 t2 :et
ltJe7 Black had no real problems in
Magem Badals-Malaniuk, Moscow
Olympiad t994.
A solid alternative to the text move
is 9 ltJc4, when after 9 .. .'ii'e6 (threat­
ening ...iL.xf3) tO ltJe3 iL.xf3 t t Wxf3
0-0-0 t2 c3 ltJh6 t3 d3 ltJf7 t4 b4
White had quite a promising position
in Sulipa-Mikhalchishin, Lvov t995.
9 . . .exd4! ?
This looks rather risky. The natural
9 ...0-0-0, keeping the pressure on the
white centre, has been more popular
over the years, and now:
a) After tO d5?! cxd5 1 1 l:.xd5 li'c6
t2 :Xd8+ �xd8 t3 b3 �c8 Black was
already slightly better in Dobosz-
109
Th e Spanish Exchange
Smejkal, Trencianske Teplice 1979.
b) 10 c3 "ife6 1 1 ltJc2 l:le8 (in his
notes Leko suggested 1 1 ...ltJe7 12 dxe5
[12 ltJe3 Ji.h5] 12 ... l:!xd1+ 13 'i'xd1
fxe5 14 ltJe3 j_h5 with an unclear po­
sition; this would seem to be a big im­
provement on the game continuation)
12 l:e1 exd4 13 ltJcxd4 "ifd7 14 h3
j_h5 15 i.f4 ltJe7 16 .:tad1 c5 17 ltJb3!
and White had all his pieces on very
nice squares in Benjamin-Leko, Hor­
gen 1994, although he later contrived
to lose the game.
c) 10 j_e3 exd4 (I like the look of
10 ..."ife6, threatening ....i.xa3, here as
well; after 1 1 ltJc4 exd4! 12 j_xd4 ltJe7
Black was very close to completing his
development in Brynell-Almasi,
Malmo 1994) 1 1 .:txd4 'ike7 and now
in Timman-Almasi, Wijk aan Zee
open 1995, White quickly went
downhill with 12 l:Ia4?! (12 l:.xd8+
ii'xd8 13 :d1 'i!ie8 also leads nowhere)
12 ...ii'e8! 13 h3 j_h5 14 l:e1 ltJh6 15
e5?! j_xf3 16 'iiixf3 'iiixe5. However,
White has the significant improve­
ment 12 ltJc4! .l:.xd4 13 i.xd4 c5 14
i.c3 'fie6 15 b3! ltJe7 16 l:te1 ltJc6 (or
16... ltJg6 17 h3!) 17 ltJe3!, as in De la
Villa Garcia-Illescas Cordoba, Spain
1995. Here Illescas played 17 ...h5! lead­
ing to an unclear position, pointing
out in his notes in Informator 64 that
17 ...ii'xe4?? fails to 18 ltJxg4 'fixg4 19
'ii'e8+ ltJd8 20 .l:.dl. Nevertheless Black
fell for precisely this trap in the recent
game G.Szabo-Chrobak, Debrecen
1998, and was forced to resign.
1 0 c3 •e6?
10 ... c5 1 1 ltJc2 d3 12 lhd3 'ii'e6
slightly favours White (Timman), but
10 ...ltJe7 is interesting. After 1 1 h3
1 10
i.xf3 12 "ifxf3 ltJg6 13 cxd4 j_e7 14
ltJc4 'ii'e6 15 d5 'ii'f7 16 ltJaS!? cxdS 17
ltJxb7 ltJe5 18 'ii'e2 :b8 White should
perhaps have played 19 f4, and if
19 ...llxb7 20 'ii'xa6!, instead of 19
"iixa6 dxe4 20 'ii'a4+ c6 21 ltJd6+ i.xd6
22 .:txd6 'ii'e7 23 l:Id1 'ii'b4 24 'ii'xb4
l:.xb4, when he lost the endgame in
Brynell-I.Sokolov, Malmo 1995.
1 1 l2Jxd4! J..xe2 1 2 l2Jxe6 :ea
In Volzhin-Ibragimov, Russian Cup
1997, Black, having failed to do his
homework, tried 12...i.xd1 13 ltJxc7+
�f7 14 ltJxa8 j_xa3 15 bxa3 ltJe7 16
ltJb6 .l:.d8 17 i.e3 but lost the endgame
a pawn down in any case. (This whole
variation had been given by Timman
in his notes in Informator 62!) After
the game continuation Black does not
lose a pawn but faces a difficult strug­
gle all the same.
1 3 l:te 1 J..g4 1 4 liJxfa �xfa 1 5 f4
:ea 1 6 l2Jc2 J..ca 1 7 b3 g6?!
The preface to a rather artificial de­
velopment of the king's rook which
leaves Black with several weak pawns.
Timman prefers 17 ...�f7 both here
and on the next move.
1 a J..b 2?! h5 1 9 c4 l:h7 20 J..a3+
�f7 21 l:ad 1 l2Jh6 22 h3 l:thha

An ignominious retreat.
23 e5!
23 . . ..:d8
23 ...fxe5 would have been met by
24 .i.b2 with complete domination of
the long diagonal. However, the game
continuation is not really much better.
24 ltld4 .:he8 25 ltlf3 .:xd 1 26 .:xd 1
fxe5 27 ltlxe5+ �g7 28 i.b2 �h7 29
�f2!
White is in complete control and
this move serves to double underline
Black's powerlessness.
29 . . . i.e6 30 ltld7 ltlg8 3 1 i.e5 �h6
32 ltlc5 i.c8 33 i.xc7 ltlf6 34 i.e5
.:ts 35 .:d6 ltlg8 36 �f3 h4 37 ltle6
.:ea 38 f5 ltle7 39 i.f4+ �h7 40
ltlg5+ 1 -0
Game 50
Shirov-Short
Groningen 1996
1 e4 e5 2 ltlf3 ltlc6 3 i.b5 a6 4
i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 "iid 6 6 ltla3 b5! ?
This is Black's most testing response
to 6 ltJa3, temporarily at least cutting
the white knight out of the game.
However, this move does rather dam­
age Black's queenside pawn structure.
5 0-0 fid6
7 c3
The only real way to play for an
advantage. 7 d4 exd4 8 'ifxd4 'ii'xd4 9
ltJxd4 c5 is completely ineffective,
while 7 d3 ltJe7 8 .i.e3 ltJg6 and 7 c4
.i.g4 8 h3 .i.xf3 9 'ifxf3 ltJf6 leave the
white knight stuck out on a3.
7 . . . c5
This is practically forced, as other­
wise White can get in d2-d4 unim­
peded and later bolster the cl-pawn
with ltJc2 if necessary. For example,
7 ... ltJe7 8 d4 ltJg6?! (8 .. .f6 9 ltJc2 also
favours White) 9 ltJxe5 ltJxe5 10 .i.f4
f6 1 1 dxe5 and White simply won a
pawn in Prie-Liss, Budapest 1993 .
8 ltlc2
Here 8 d4 is too simplistic. After
8 ... cxd4 9 cxd4 exd4 10 ltJxd4 c5! 1 1
ltJb3 'ifxd1 1 2 ltxd1 ltJf6 1 3 f3 .i.e6 14
.1l.e3 ltJd7 15 ltJb1 ltc8 16 ltJc3 c4
Black had a good game in Timman­
Short, Riga 1995. Wedberg suggests 13
.1l.g5 instead of 13 f3, and claims that
White has a slight edge after 13 ...ttJd7
14 llacl. However, if Black continues
simply 14 ... c4 I would not have
thought that he has too many prob­
lems. In the long run his two bishops
and better pawn structure may even
111
Th e Spanish Exc h ange
give him the better chances.
8 ... �e7
8 ... ii.b7 is an important alternative
here - see the next game. In the game
Yusupov-Xie Jun, Linares open 1997,
Black played the provocative 8 .. .f6!?
instead and after 9 a4 i.b7 10 axb5
i.xe4 {or 10 ...axb5 1 1 :.xa8+ i.xa8 12
d4 i.xe4 13 lle1) 1 1 d4 cxd4 12 l:e1
i.b7 13 cxd4 axb5 14 :.xa8+ i.xa8 15
"ife2 e4 16 "ifxb5+ i.c6 17 WaS White
retained the initiative. Another possi­
bility for Black is the immediate
8 ...c4!?, as in Shaw-Hebden, Oban
1996, when an unclear position was
reached after 9 b3 i.e6 10 i.a3 c5 1 1
ltJe3 cxb3 1 2 axb3 "ifd3. Instead of 10
i.a3, 10 �3!? ltJf6 11 bxc4 �e4 12
'ifc2 would have been more testing.
9 a4
This move has practically replaced
the older 9 d4 cxd4 10 cxd4 exd4 1 1
ltJfxd4 in tournament play. After
1 1...c5 12 ltJb3 'ifxd1 13 :.Xd1 Black
has two possibilities:
a) 13 ...c4 14 ltJa5 ltJg6 15 b3!? cxb3
16 axb3 i.e7 17 i.a3 i.xa3 18 :.xa3
0-0 19 ltJe3 f5!? 20 exf5 i.xf5, as in De
la Villa Garcia-Leko, Pamplona
1993/94, when I quite like the look of
1 12
21 b4, cementing the queenside and
preparing an assault on the backward
a-pawn.
b) 13 ...ltJc6 14 �3!? i.e6 (not
14 ...c4? 15 ltJd5) 15 ltJd5 0-0-0 16 a4
bxa4! 17 :.xa4 ltJb4 18 l':.a5 and now
instead of 18 ...�d5, as in Rozentalis­
Mikhalevski, Netanya 1993, Black
should have played 18 ...c4! 19 ltJc5
ltJxd5 20 exd5 :.xd5 21 :.xd5 i.xd5 22
ltJxa6 i.c6! with a slight plus accord­
ing to Mikhalevski and J .Kagan. This
variation does just about seem to hang
together for Black, so 9 a4 is probably
best.
9 ....i.b7
9 ...b4?! led to a rare disaster for
Mark Hebden in Godena-Hebden,
Linares Zonal 1995: 10 �3 �6 1 1
cxb4 cxb4 1 2 b3! i.e6 13 i.b2 f6 14
l:cl 0-0-0?! 15 "ifc2 'iii>b7 16 d4! exd4 17
i.xd4 ltJaS (or 17...ltJxd4 18 ltJxd4
"ifxd4 19 'ifxc7+ �a8 20 "ifc6+ �a7 21
"ifxe6 and wins) 18 e5 "ifd7 19 exf6
i.xb3 20 'ife4+ �b8 21 fxg7 1-0.
However, 9 ...:.bs is playable, when
after 10 axb5 axb5 1 1 d4 Black has
tried:
a) 1 1...ltJg6 12 ltJxe5 cxd4 13 ltJxg6
hxg6 14 e5 Wb6 15 'ifxd4 c5 16 "iff4
i.e7 17 b4 cxb4 18 ltJxb4 "ife6 19 ltJd5
"ifxd5 20 e6 :.b7 21 "ifxf7+ �d8 22
i.f4 i.xe6 and now instead of 23
"ifxg7, as in De la Riva-C.Foisor,
Zaragoza open 1996, White could
have played 23 'ifxg6 which seems to
win on the spot (23 ...:.d7 24 'ifxe6!
Wxe6 25 :.as mate).
b) 1 1...cxd4 12 cxd4 exd4 13 ltJcxd4
c5 14 �b5!? 'ifxd1 15 �7+ �d8 16
l:xd1+ �xc7 17 i.f4+ �b7 18 i.xb8
'iii>xb8 19 ltJe5 f6, when Relange-

Geenen, Brussels Zonal 1993, ended in
a perpetual check after 20 tl:Jf7 l::lg8 21
l:td8 �b7 22 tl:Jd6+ �c7 23 .l:.a7+!
�-� . White could have kept the game
going with 20 tl:Jd7+ i..xd7 21 :xd7
tl:Jc8 22 l:.a3!? i..e7 23 .Ug3, when
Black's pieces are suffering from very
poor co-ordination.
1 0 axb5 axb5 1 1 l:xa8+ ..txa8 1 2
d4! ?
A typically uncompromising pawn
sacrifice from Shirov. The only way
for White to exploit his lead in devel­
opment is to open up the position.
The slow 12 'ife2 c4 13 l1d1 tl:Jg6 14 d3
cxd3 15 l:txd3 'ifc6 16 h4 h5 17 l:td1
i.. d6 led nowhere in Kotronias­
Ibragimov, Peristeri 1993.
1 2 . . . cxd4
In his notes to this game in Infonna­
tor 68, Shirov does not say what he
had in mind if Black had accepted the
sacrifice with 12 ...exd4 13 cxd4 i..xe4.
Presumably he felt that White's initia­
tive after 14 .l:te1 speaks for itself.
1 3 cxd4 ..txe4
13 ...exd4? 14 tl:Jcxd4 only opens up
yet more lines for the white pieces.
1 4 t2Jxe5
Not 14 l:tel?! 'ifc6!
5 0-0 fld6
14 . . .f6 15 t2Jd3 ..txd3
After 15 ... c6 16 tl:Jc5!? i..xc2 17
'i'xc2 'ifxd4 18 l:te1 White would have
had a fearsome initiative.
1 6 _.xd3 c6 1 7 ..td2!
Clearing the route for the rook to
come to the a-file.
1 7 . . . t2Jd5 1 8 l:ta 1 ..te7 1 9 l:ta8+ ..td8
20 ... b3! 0-0?
Black was very tied up, but this
move allows a winning combination.
After 20...�f7 21 :a7+ i..e7 22 tl:Je3
lieS 23 tl:Jxd5 'ifxdS 24 'ifxdS+ cxdS 25
..t>f1 �e6 26 .l:.b7 or 20...'ifd7 21 i..b4!
�f7 22 i..c5 l:te8 23 l:1a7 i..c7 24 tl:Je3
l:.e6 25 g3 White would still have been
on top (Shirov).
2 1 ..tb4 _.f4 22 g3 _.c 1 + 23 �g2
..te7 24 l:.a1 !
An unexpected switchback from
Shirov which wins material. Black
battles on but his task is basically
hopeless.
24 . . .'�xa 1 25 t2Jxa 1 ..txb4 26 t2Jc2
..te7 29 fxe3 l:td6 30 _.e4 ..tf8 3 1 g4
g6 32 _.ea �g7 33 h4 c5 34 dxc5
l:td2+ 35 �f3 ..txc5 36 g5 l:.d5 37
gxf6+ �xf6 38 _.c6+ �e5 39 e4
.:d3+ 40 �e2 l:te3+ 41 <t>d2 �d4 42
_.d5 mate 1 -0
1 13
The Sp anish Ex change
Game 51
Prie-Sorin
Yerevan Olympiad 1996
1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 l2Jc6 3 i.. b5 a6 4
i..xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 'ii'd 6 6 l2Ja3 b5 7
c3 c5 8 lLlc2 i.. b 7
9 J:.e 1 !
Prie's patent move, reserving the
option of either 10 a4 or 10 d4. Here 9
a4 and 9 'ii'e2 can be met by 9 ...c4!,
but 9 d4 is often played, when after
9 ...cxd4 (9 ...tt::lf6?! was given a severe
pasting in the game Rozentalis-Nicko­
loff, North Bay 1994: 10 ltel cxd4 1 1
cxd4 j_e7 1 2 tt::lxe5 tt::lxe4 1 3 f3! tt::lf6 14
b3 tt:JdS 15 .i.a3 'ii'd8 16 tt::lb4! 1-0) 10
cxd4 exd4 11 tt::lfxd4 (1 1 tt::lcxd4 c5 12
tt::lf5 'ifxdl 13 l:.xdl is nothing for
White) Black has a pleasant choice
between:
a) 1 1...c5 12 tt::lb3 0-0-0 13 'i'e2 (13
'i'g4+ 'i'd7) 13 ...'i'd3? {Wedberg sug­
gests 13 .. .'ilg6 14 f3 c4 15 tt::lbd4 .1i.c5
16 i.e3 tt::le7 17 a4 'i'b6 'unclear', but I
prefer White after 18 'iif2, intending
b2-b4; however Prie's 13 ... c4! seems
fine for Black) 14 'ifxd3 �xd3 15 i.e3
c4 {White stands better after either
1 14
15 ....ixe4 16 .ixc5 or 15 ...tt::lf6 16 f3)
16 tt::lbd4 .ixe4 (or 16 ... .ic5 17 a4 with
good pressure against the black queen­
side - Rozentalis) 17 tt::le l and White
won the exchange in Rozentalis­
Hjartarson, Tilburg 1994.
b) 1 1...0-0-0!? (reserving the option
of whether or not to play ...c7-c5) 12
.ig5 (12 'ifg4+ if'd7 13 'ifxd7+ .l:xd7
14 f3 .1i.c5 is also fine for Black)
12 .....ie7! (after 12 .. .f6? 13 ..ie3 is play­
able due to 13 ... c5? 14 l:cl!! cxd4 15
tt::lxd4+ '12tb8 16 .1i.f4!! 'ifxf4 17 tt::lc6+ -
Ernst) 13 'ii'g4+ 'iid7 14 tt::lf5 .i.xg5 15
'i'xg5 i.xe4 16 tt::lce3 g6!, when White
probably did not have quite enough
for the pawn in Kotronias-Van der
Sterren, Reykjavik 1994.
9 . . .J:.d8?!
This looks too slow, but after
9 ...tt::le7 10 a4 c4 (10 ... b4 is well met by
1 1 tt::le3, while after 10 ...tt::lg6?! 1 1 axb5
axb5 12 lha8+ j_xa8 13 d4 a draw was
agreed in Prie-Hjartarson, Iceland­
France 1993; however, White has
achieved an ideal position here and
should not have offered a draw) 1 1
axb5 axb5 12 l:txa8+ .1i.xa8 1 3 tt::la3 c6
14 b3 cxb3 15 'i'xb3 tt::lg6 16 d4 .1i.e7
17 tt::lc2 White had a slight plus in Prie­
Kolev, Elenite 1994. In Glek-Acs, Bu­
dapest 1998, White tried to improve
upon this with the sharp 16 c4!? b4 17
c5 'i'xc5 18 tt::lc4 j_e7 19 .tb2 0-0 20
tt::lfxe5 'ii'a7 and here instead of 21
:at, as played in the game, I prefer 21
tt::lxg6 hxg6 22 tt::le5, threatening tt::lxg6.
1 0 a4 lLlf6
In his notes in Informator 67 Prie
also gives the following line: 1 o... c4 1 1
axb5 axb5 12 tt::la3 tt::lf6 (12 ...c6 13 b3!)
13 lbxb5 'i'b6 14 tt::la3 .1i.c5 (or

14...tbxe4 15 "ii'a4+! and 16 "ii'xc4) 15
:.e2 tbxe4 16 tbxc4 .i.xf2+ 17 �f1
'ifb5 18 'ifa4 with a very good end­
game for White.
After 10....i.e7 1 1 axb5 axb5 12 'iie2
c4 13 tbe3 tbh6 14 b3 0-0 15 bxc4
.i.xe4 16 d4 exd4 17 tbxd4 'iig6 White
got rather carried away in Naiditsch­
Acs, Budapest 1998, with 18 tbg4?!
tbxg4 19 'ii'e4 and Black stood very
well. Black would have had to justify
his pawn sacrifice after 18 cxb5, while
13 b3!? would probably have been
better earlier on, e.g. 13 ...tbf6 14 tba3
or 13 ...'ifd3 14 'ii'xd3 cxd3 14 tba3.
1 1 axb5 axb5 1 2 d4 tt:lxe4
12 ....i.xe4 13 .i.g5 cxd4 14 cxd4
il.b7 (14...'iid5 15 tbd2!) 15 dxe5! is
even worse (Prie).
1 3 tt:lxe5 �e7
It was no better to exchange pawns
first: 13 ... cxd4 14 cxd4 .i.e7 15 l:.a7!
'ii'b6 (15 ...il.d5? 16 tbe3 .i.e6 17 'ii'c2!
is also very good for White - Prie) 16
.:txb7! 'ii'xb7 and now 17 'iie2 0-0 18
'ii'xe4 looks the simplest.
1 4 �e2
Although this move leads to the
win of a pawn, 14 l:ta7! was again the
correct response, e.g. 14 ...il.d5 (not
5 0-0 'ii d 6
14...'ifb6 15 lhb7 Wxb7 16 'ife2) 15
tbe3 .i.e6 16 Wd3 cxd4 (or 16...Wb6 17
'ifxe4 Wxa7 and now instead of 18 dS,
given by Prie, 18 tt:Jf5! .i.xf5 19 'ifxf5
0-0 20 tbc6 is the easiest way to win)
17 'ifxb5+ (not 17 cxd4?? 'ifxe5)
17 ...�f8 (or 17 ....i.d7 18 tbxd7 'ifxd7
19 Wxd7+ �xd7 20 tbdS) 18 cxd4
'iixd4 19 :Xc7 and White has won a
pawn while retaining the initiative
(Prie).
1 4 . . . 0-0
Black decides to bail out, as
14 .. ."ii'b6 15 f3 leaves him in dire
straits.
1 5 �xb5 llb8 1 6 �d3?!
White missed a chance here with 16
!tal .i.dS 17 'ifd7! (Prie).
1 6 . . . cxd4 1 7 ._,xd4?!
Again this complicates White's task
unnecessarily. There was nothing
wrong with the obvious 17 lbe4
.i.xe4 18 Wxe4.
1 7 . . .._,e6 1 8 tt:ld7 llfd8 1 9 tt:lxb8
:txd4 20 tt:lxd4 ._,g6?!
With two rooks and a pawn for the
queen White should still be winning,
but his task would have been more
difficult after 20...Wf6, since 21 f3?!
can then be met by 21...'ifh4!
2 1 f3 �c5 22 �e3?!
White must have been seemg
ghosts, since 22 fxe4 il.xe4 23 g3
should be completely winning for
him.
22 . . . tt:lf6 23 tt:ldc6 ._,g5 24 tt:le7+
'it>f8 25 �xc5 ._,xc5+ 26 ..t>h 1 g5?!
Prie points out that after 26 ...Wf2
27 :tad1 g6 Black would have had the
threat of making a perpetual with
.....txf3.
27 llad 1 g4 28 fxg4 ._,f2 29 tt:lbc6
1 15
Th e Spanish Ex change
i.xc6 30 l'bxc6 l'bxg4 3 1 l'bd4!
After this important centralisation
1 16
of the knight, White is able to estab­
lish some control over the position
again, although Black is still able to
muddy the waters for a while.
3 1 . . .'iixb2 32 l:tb 1 'iia2 33 l'bf5
l'bf2+ 34 <ttg 1 'iia7 35 l'bd4 l'bd3 36
:n �g7 37 �h 1 'iic 5 38 l:tf3 l'be5
39 :9a+ l'bg6 40 :n h5 41 :9ta
'iic4 42 l'bf5+ <ith7 43 l'be3 'iixc3 44
.:txf7+ <ith6 45 l'bf5+ <ttg 5 46 l'bg3
'iic 2 47 .:t7f5+ �h6 48 .:txh5+ <itg7
49 l'bf5+ �g8 50 .:tg5 <tth 7 51 h4
'iid 2 52 l:tf3 'iic 1 + 53 �h2 l'bf4 54
l:tg7+ �h8 55 l:tb3 1 -0
 5 0-0 'ii d 6

Summary
The 5 .. .'i'd6 variation is currently at the forefront of Exchange Spanish theory.
It leads to dynamic positions in which both sides have chances. 6 d4 and 6 c3 do
not seem to offer White any more than equality, while 6 d3 seems too quiet. The
sharp 6 ti:Ja3 is more promising, when White needs to be well prepared against
both 6 ....te6, against which 7 'i'e2 (Game 49) seems the most promising con­
tinuation, and 6 ... b5 (Games 50-51). Overall, in my opinion, the positions after
5 ...'i'd6 are harder for Black to handle as those after, say, 5 ....td6 - he can often
slip too far behind in development.

1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 i.b5 a6 4 i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 _.d6

6 lLla3
6 d4 - Game 45
6 c3 - Game 46
6 d3
6 .. .f6 (D) - Game 47
6 ... ti:Je7 - Game 48
6 . . . b5 (DJ
6 ....te6
7 ti:Jg5 - Game 48
7 'i'e2 - Game 49
7 c3 c5
8 lLlc2 i.b7
8 ...ti:Je7 - Game 50
9 l:.e1 (DJ - Game 51

6. . . f6 6. . . b5

117
 CHAPTER SEVEN
5 0-0 l2Je7
1 e4 e5 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 i.. b 5 a6 4
i..xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 l2Je7
In the first six chapters we have
looked at various different ways in
which Black can defend his king's
pawn: 5 .. .f6, 5 ...i.g4, 5 ...i.d6 and
5 ...'ifd6. In this chapter we shall con­
sider an altogether more ambitious
approach, 5 ... l2Je7, whereby Black is
prepared, at least temporarily, to sacri­
fice his e-pawn. Black reasons that
with the e-pawns 'exchanged', the po­
sition will be opened up and his two
bishops will come into their own in
the middlegame.
The 5 ...l2Je7 variation was intro­
duced at grandmaster level by Paul
Keres in the early 1970s but remained
something of a curiosity until a stun­
ning, and theoretically critical, game
between Timman and Short in the
1993 Candidates final. In this game
White not only put a rook en prise on
move 11, but left it there for a further
eight moves!
Let us start by taking a look at this
famous game which helped propel
1 18
I
Short towards his world title challenge
against Garry Kasparov in 1993.
Game 52
Timman-Short
El Escorial (9th matchgame) 1993
1 e4 e5 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 i.. b5 a6 4
i..xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 ltJe7 6 l2Jxe5
Taking up the challenge. The qui­
eter 6 d4 and 6 l2Ja3 are considered in
Games 57 and 58 respectively.
6 . . .'iid4 7 ..h5
Again this is the most critical move.
After 7 l2Jf3 'ifxe4 Black has excellent
equalising chances - see Game 56.
7 . . . g6
Forced. Black was just a pawn
down after 7...i..e6 8 d3 g6 9 'ii'g5 h6
10 l2Jf3 'ii'd7 1 1 'i'e5 ltg8 12 'ii'd4 in
I.Gurevich-Hauchard, World Junior
Championship, Santiago 1990, al­
though he drew in the end
8 'iWg5
8 l2Jf3 is the subject of Game 55.
8 . . . i..g7
8 ... 'i'xe4?? obviously loses to 9 "ii'f6.

9 lL'ld3
For 9 l2Jf3 see Game 54.
9 .. f5!
. lDc3 followed by it.. b2 wins the queen
Keeping the pressure on the white
e-pawn. After 9 ...'ifxe4 10 lle1 h6 1 1
'ii'g3 'ifg4 1 2 'ii'xc7 or 9 ....i.e6? 1 0 liJcS
Black is just a pawn down (Ftacnik).
1 0 e5!
White sensibly keeps the position
closed. After 10 exfS il.xfS the posi­
tion opens up for Black's two bishops.
1 0 . c5. . better chances:
10 ....i.xe5? fails to 1 1 lDxe5 'ifxeS 12
d4! 'ifxd4 13 .l:.e1, when both 13 ...'iig7
and 13 ... il.e6 can be met by 14 j,d2. It
is also hard to believe that Black can
equalise after Belov's 10 ...l2Jd5!?, e.g.
1 1 lDc3 0-0 12 lle1 lle8 13 lDxdS cxdS
14 'ife3 and Black is a long way from
regaining his pawn.
In Illescas Cordoba-Ivanchuk, Dos
Hermanas 1996, the new move
10 ...'ifg4!? was introduced, and after
1 1 f4?! 'ilfxgS 12 fxgS h6 13 gxh6 .l:xh6
14 l2Jc3 gS 15 lte1 �f7 16 lDf2 il.e6 17
d4 �g6 18 lDe2 a draw was agreed in
an unclear position. W edberg recom­
mends instead 1 1 'ii'e3 lDdS (1 1...£4 12
'ii'xf4 'ifxf4 13 lDxf4 .i.xeS 14 d4 il.f6
15 c3 clearly favours White) 12 'ife1
5 0 - 0 &D e l
CWedberg rejects 12 'ii'g3 on account
of 12 .. .£4 13 'ifxg4 .i.xg4 14 c4 .i..e2
and 14 lDc3 f3, while if White tries 14
.l:te1!?, intending c2-c4, Black has
14 ... 0-0-0 with excellent counterplay)
12 ... 0-0 (12 ...l2Jf4 13 l2Jxf4 'ifxf4 14 d3
'ifd4 15 'ifc3 or 12 .. .£4 13 f3) 13 f4,
when White can probably consolidate
his extra pawn.
1 1 b3!
This spectacular rook sacrifice had
in fact been known for twenty years
before this game, but it still has great
aesthetic appeal. If 1 1...'ii'xa1? then 12
for two rooks. Here this transaction
would greatly favour White as the
queen has far greater scope than the
rooks.
1 1 . h6
. .
Since this game took place several
players have tried to improve with
1 1. .. b6, but even then White has the
a) 12 il.b2 'ifg4 CWedberg suggests
12 ...'iid5 13 lDc3 'iic6, but after 14
l:.ae1 il.b7 15 f3 h6 16 'ifh4 it is hard
for Black to complete his develop­
ment) 13 'i'e3 lDdS 14 'ife1 l2Jf4 15
lDxf4 'ifxf4 16 'iie3 'ilfxe3 (or 16...'ii'g4
17 h3 'iihs 18 l2Jc3 il.b7 19 d4 with a
slight plus for White - Wedberg) 17
dxe3 il.b7 18 l:d1 �e7 19 f4! and
White managed to consolidate his ex­
tra pawn in Magem Badals-Izeta
Txabarri, Pamplona 1996.
b) 12 l2Jc3 il.b7 13 .tb2 h6 14 We3
'iixe3 15 dxe3 0-0-0, when Black can
follow up with ...liJdS with a slightly
improved version of note 'a'.
c) 12 'ife3!? 'ii'xa1!? (it looks safer to
play 12 ...'ifxe3 13 dxe3 il.b7 14 il.b2
1 19
Th e Spanish Exc h ange
0-0-0 15 tt:Jd2 g5 16 f4 h6 with similar
play to note 'b' above) 13 tbc3 i.b7 14
i.b2 'ii'xf1+ 15 �xf1 0-0-0 16 tDe2,
when the queen and pawn slightly
outweighed the rook in V.Ivanov-Bez­
godov, Russian Championship 1994.
1 2 ..g3
The more flexible 12 'ii'e3! is con­
sidered in the next game.
1 2 . . .f4 1 3 ..f3
13 'ii'xf4? fails to 13 ...'ii'xf4 14 tbxf4
i.xe5 15 tt:Jd5 i.xa1 16 tbxc7+ �d7 17
tbxa8 �c6 18 c3 i.f5 19 tDa3 b5 with a
clear plus for Black (Ftacnik).
1 3 . . .i..f 5!
Black continues to add fuel to the
fire. 13 ...'ifxa1 still favours White after
14 tbc3 i.d7 15 'ifxb7 0-0 16 i.b2
'ifxf1+ 17 �xf1 l:tfd8 18 'ifxc7 l:.ac8 19
'ifb6 tt:Jf5 20 'ifxa6, as in Frenkel­
Sternberg, Yurmala 1975.
14 _.xb 7 ! ?
The first new move of the game,
and a very risky one. After 14 il.b2
'ifdS 15 tbxf4? 'ifxf3 16 gxf3 0-0 17 d3
tbc6 Black had a fine game in Vladi­
mirov-Ivanov, USSR 1975, but 15
'ifxdS tDxdS 16 tDxc5 is quite interest­
ing. For example, 16... b6 (Speelman
suggests 16 ... tbb4, but then 17 l:lcl
120
puts a spanner in the works as
17...tbxc2? runs into 18 l:.xc2! i.xc2
19 tbe6 �f7 20 tbxg7+ �xg7 21 e6+)
17 tba4 i.xc2 18 d4 0-0-0 19 l:.cl i.f5,
as in Arbouche-Campos Moreno,
Hospitalet open 1993, when 20 tt:Jd2
would have left Black still with a lot to
prove.
1 4 . . ..te4 1 5 •xc7 .txd3 1 6 cxd3
.txe5
Unfonunately, in his notes to the
game in New in Chess Timman does
not say what he had in mind against
16...'ii'xa1!? here. After 17 tDc3 l:lc8
both 18 'ii'b7 i.xe5 19 il.a3 i.xc3 20
lha1 i.xa1 and 18 'ii'd6 l:lc6 19 'ii'b8+
�f7!? 20 e6+ l:.xe6 21 'ii'xf4+ i.f6 seem
to leave White struggling to justify his
material deficit.
1 7 _.b7 l:.b8 1 8 •xa6
Timman and Piket had extensively
analysed this position during their
preparation for the match, even man­
aging to predict Shon's reply.
1 8 . . .f3! ?
Shon declined to play 18...'ifxa1 be­
cause he was sure that his opponent
would have worked this through at
home and trusted his analysis. How­
ever, although Black has to give up his
 5 0-0 tOe 7

queen in some variations he seems to follow up with 'ii'c4.

have good chances after both: 21 'ii'e6+ :t7
a) 19 'iie6 llf8! (Speelman gives the
very attractive variation 19 .. .'ii'xb1?!
20 'fixeS �d7 21 'fixeS! I:.hc8 22 'ild4+
'.te8 23 �a3 'i!fxa2 24 �d6 'ii'xb3 2S
l:.e1 'ife6 26 �fl!) 20 l:;Ie1 lHS 21 ti:Ja3
(fimman suggests 21 ti:Jc3, but then
21...l:.b7! [Speelman] 22 '.tf1 �f8 23
.lta3 .ltxc3 24 1lxa1 .i.xa1 leaves White
struggling) 21...ltc8!! and Black is
winning because 22 ti:Jc4 can be met
by 22 ... llc6, trapping the white queen.
b) 19 'ii'a4+ 'it>f8 20 ti:Jc3 .ltxc3 21
.lta3 'ifxa2 22 dxc3 is assessed as un­ 22 tbd 1
clear by Speelman. After 22 ...gS 23 Timman is very critical of this
'ii'a6 llh7 24 'ii'f6+ �g8 2S .ltxcS move, claiming that after 22 lle2! .ltc7
White has three pawns for the rook, (not 22....ltxh2+? 23 �xh2 'ii'h4+ 24
but Black may be able to untangle his �xg2 ti:JfS 2S 'ife4! 'ii'gS+ 26 'it>h1
pteces. 'ii'hS+ 27 'it>g1) 23 .ltb2 'ii'f4 24 'ii'h3
1 9 tbc3 'White is totally winning'. However,
Obviously not 19 'iie6? .:.b6 20 23 ...'ii'h4 is a big improvement here.
'ii'xb6 'ii'g4 or 19 gxf3? 'ii'f4, both of After 24 f4 (forced) 24 ....l:lb6! 2S 'iid7
which win for Black. 'ii'xf4 26 I:txg2 :1bf6 (threatening
1 9 . . . fxg2 ...'ii'fl+) 27 �h1 'ii'eS 28 l:tag1 l:.fl 29
19 ...'ii'g4 is well met by 20 'ii'a4+, ti:Je2 l:.xg1 + 30 ti:Jxg1 'ii'xb2 31 'iixc7
but Black could have tried to bail out 'ii'xa2 Black has reasonable drawing
with a draw by 19 ....ltxh2+ 20 'it>xh2 chances.
'ii'h4+ 21 'it>gl fxg2, hoping for 22 22 . . .'ii'xa 1 23 'iVxe5 'iVxe5 24 :xe5
'it>xg2 'ilg4+, though after 22 'it'a4+!? tbc6 25 l:xc5 lbb4
'ii'xa4 23 ti:Jxa4 gxfl 'if + 24 'it>xfl
White would have had slight winning
chances in the endgame, as he can
soon pick up the c-pawn (fimman).
20 :e 1 0-0?
Timman criticises this move, pre­
ferring 20...llf8 21 ti:Jd1 (or 21 'ii'a4+
'iixa4 22 bxa4 .ltd4 with counter­
chances) 21...'ii'a1 22 .ltb2 .ltxb2 23
'ii'g6+ llf7 24 'ii'g8+ llf8 2S 'ii'g6+ with
a perpetual. White could perhaps con­
sider the greedy 21 lle2!?, intending to

121
Th e Sp anish Ex change
26 �a3?
Either 26 it.b2 or 26 d4 would have
been okay for White.
26 . . . ttJxd3 27 l:.c6 .l:.a8?!
27 ...!te8! was more precise and if 28
tt:Je3, 28 .. .'�h7! and the f2-pawn caves
m.
28 l:.d6 l:.xa3 29 l:txd3 l:.xa2 30
ttJe3?
Timman reckoned that after 30
tt:Jc3! White would still have had good
drawing chances.
30 . . . �g7 3 1 �xg2 l:.a5 32 l:.d4 l:.b5
33 b4 l:.bb7 34 l:.c4 l:.fc7 35 l:.g4
l:.d7 36 h4 h5! 37 l:tg5 l:.xb4 38 d4
l:.f7 39 l:.d5 l:tb2 0-1
Game 53
V . lvanov-Belotelov
Moscow Championship 1994
1 e4 e5 2 ltJf3 ttJc6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 ltJe7 6 ttJxe5 �d4
7 �h5 g6 8 �g5 �g7 9 ttJd3 f5 1 0
e 5 c 5 1 1 b 3 h6 1 2 �e3!
1 2 . . .f4
As usual 12 .. .'ifxa1?! allows 13 tDc3
b6 14 it.b2 'ii'xf1+ 15 �xfl, when after
15 ... it.d7 (White was threatening 16
tt:Jf4) 16 e6 it.c6 17 tt:Jd1! White had a
1 22
big plus in V.Ivanov-Korneev, Russia
1994. The endgame after 12 ...tt:Jc6 13
.ltb2 'ii'xe3 14 dxe3 also proved to be
favourable for White in the game
Brynell-Sanden, Swedish Tearn Cham­
pionship 1995/96.
1 3 �xd4
One of the advantages of 12 'ii'e3!
compared to 12 'ii'g3 is that White can
still transpose to the previous game
with 13 'ii'f3 here if he so wishes, but
not 13 'ii'e2 .ltf5!
1 3 . . . cxd4 1 4 ttJxf4
A big improvement over 14 .ltb2?!
it.f5 15 tt:Jxf4 i.xe5 16 tt:Je2 0-0-0 17 d3
:he8!, when Black had good compen­
sation for the pawn in Martin Gon­
zales-Medina, Olot 1973. The bishop
is very poorly placed on b2, where it
is blunted by the d4-pawn.
1 4 . . .�xe5 1 5 d3 �f7
Not 15 ...0-0 16 l:.el!
16 l:.e1
White also stood well after 16 tt:Je2
tt:Jd5 17 tt:Jd2 c5 (or 17 ...tt:Jb4 18 a3!) 18
tt:Je4 b6 19 i.d2 in P.Nielsen-Kruppa,
Minsk 1993, but the text looks even
more accurate.
1 6 . . . ttJc6 1 7 a3 l:.e8 1 8 ttJe2 g5
18 ...i.f5 19 tt:Jd2 St.g7 is more solid,

but even here White is really just a
pawn up.
1 9 ltld2 e;irg6? 20 f4! �g7?
20 ... gxf4 21 �f3 was very good for
White, but the game move loses on
the spot.
2 1 fxg5 hxg5 22 ltlf4+ 1 -0
Game 54
N unn-Bronstein
Hastings 1975/76
1 e4 e5 2 ltlf3 lt.Jc6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 lt.Je7 6 lt.Jxe5 ._d4
7 ._h5 g6 8 ._g5 �g7 9 ltlf3 -.xe4
1 0 l:.e1
10 d3 'ii'g4 11 'ii'e3 is also fine for
Black. After 11.. . .i.e6 12 h3 'i'a4 13
�c3 'iiaS 14 �d4 �f5 15 �xf5 'i'xf5
16 lle1 0-0-0 17 'ii'g3 h5 18 .i.f4 h4 19
'iih2 l:td7 Black was fine in Glek­
I.Zaitsev, USSR Championship semi­
final 1983.
10 . . ...b4 1 1 b3? !
It is risky to open the a1-h8 diago­
nal, although 1 1 c3 'ii'd6 12 d4 h6 13
'ii'g3 'i'ixg3 14 hxg3 .i.e6 15 .i.f4 0-0-0,
as in Adorjan-Ree, Wijk aan Zee 1974,
and 1 1 d4 .i.e6 12 c3 'i'ib6 13 �bd2 h6
14 'ii'h4 �f5 15 Wf4 0-0-0, Benjamin-
5 0 - 0 lt.J e 7
Deep Thought, 1993, also present no
problems for Black.
1 1 . . . h6 1 2 -.ea �e6 1 3 �a3 lt.Jd5
Black already stands much better
here - White's pieces are all over the
place.
14 -.e2 ._g4 1 5 lt.Je5
After the alternative 15 c3 �f4 16
'i'ifl 0-0-0 17 �e5 �h3+ 18 �h1 'ii'f5
19 d4 �xf2+ Black had won a pawn in
the game Mas-Yilmaz, Yerevan Olym­
piad 1996.
1 5 .. .'ibe2 16 .:txe2 0-0-0
The disjointed nature of White's
pieces and the vulnerable a1-h8 diago­
nal make his position virtually unten­
able.
1 7 �b2 l:.he8 1 8 d3 ltlf4 1 9 l:.e3
�d5 20 g3
Bizarrely, this whole game was re­
peated in Brajovic-Todorovic, Yugo­
slav Team Championship 1994, when
White varied with 20 f3 f6 21 c4,
though if Black had played 21.. ..i.e6
22 g3 fxe5 23 gxf4 exf4 24 l:te2 .i.h3!
he might have forced a quick resigna­
tion.
20 . . .lt.Jg2 0-1
After 21 l:e2 .i.f3 22 �xf3 .i.xb2
White loses material.
123
Th e Sp anish Exc h a n g e
Game 55
Sveshnikov-Volzhin
Yerevan open 1996
1 e4 e5 2 tt:\t3 tt:\c6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 tt:\e7 6 tt:\xe5 1Vd4
7 1Vh5 g6 8 tt:\t3 -.xe4
For no apparent reason Black chose
to bail out to a worse ending with
8...Wxf2+ 9 lhf2 gxh5 10 d3 .!Dg6 1 1
..i.e3 ..i.e6 1 2 .!Dc3 0-0-0 13 l:taf1 in
Volzhin-I.Zaitsev, Orel 1992.
9 -.as
A very aesthetic move, switching
the queen from one flank to the other
with the idea of 'ii'xc7 or 'ii'c3. How­
ever, it is perhaps surprising that 9
.!Dc3 has not been tried more often.
After 9 ...Wxc2 White has 10 'ii'e5 l:tg8
1 1 'ii'xc7 'ii'f5 12 l:.e1 'ii'd7 13 'ii'xd7+
i.xd7 14 .!De4, while after 9 ...'ii'f5 10
'ii'xf5 followed by l:.e1( +) and d2-d3
he should be able to exchange dark­
squared bishops, after which Black's
weak dark squares promise White a
small but definite plus, although Black
should be able to draw with accurate
play because so few pieces remain on
the board.
1 24
9 . . . �g4!
Black has two other possible de­
fences here, but neither is convincing:
a) 9 ...b6!? 10 'ii'c3 l:.g8 1 1 l:.e1 'ii'dS,
and now instead of the flashy 12 .!Dg5
i.g7 (12 ...'ii'xg5 13 'ii'xc6+) 13 1i'g3
'ii'd6 14 'ii'f3 i.f5 15 d3 h6 16 .!De4
'ii'd7 with equal chances in I.Gurevich­
Bronstein, Hastings open 1991, White
should play 12 d4 followed by i.f4,
when his control of the e5-square
promises an advantage.
b) 9 ...Wf4 10 d3 'ii'd6 1 1 .!Dbd2
(threatening .!De4 and i.g5) 11.. ..!Dd5
12 .!De4 (12 a3!? is also promising -
BCO) 12 ...'ii'b4 13 1ifxb4 .!Dxb4
(13 ...i.xb4 14 c4!) 14 i.d2! i.e7 (IJ.ot
14 ....!Dxc2 15 l:ac1 .!Db4 16 i.c3) 15 a3
.!DdS 16 c4 .!Db6, as in Timman­
Nikolic, Brussels 1988, and now 17
.:tfe 1! i.e6 18 .!Dd4 0-0-0 19 .!Dxe6 fxe6
20 :e3 would have been clearly better
for White according to Timman in
Informator 45.
1 0 l:e1
The greedy 10 'ii'c3?! l:.g8 1 1 .!Dg5
1Wf5 12 o!Dxh7 i.g7 only leads White
into trouble, but 10 d3!? is an interest­
ing alternative. If Black plays in the
same fashion as in the game with
10 ...'ii'd5?! 1 1 'ii'xc7 i.xf3 then White
can flick in 12 .!Dc3 because the g5-
square is now covered by the white
bishop. After 12 ...'ii'e6 13 gxf3 l:.c8 14
1i'xb7 .!Df5 15 i.g5 White managed to
consolidate his extra material in Eris­
mann-Boschetti, Swiss Team Champi­
onship 1996. Instead of 10 ...'ii'd5?!,
10...1Wf5 is probably better as 1 1 'ii'xc7
i.xf3 leads to similar play to the next
note. However, I still prefer White
after 1 1 'ii'xf5 i.xf5.

1 0 . . Ji'd5
1 1 �c3?!
A very risky new move, although it
is well known that 1 1 'if'xc7 leads no­
where for White: 1 1.. ..ltxf3 12 gxf3
'ii'xf3 13 'ii'xb7 led to a draw by per­
petual with 13 ...'iig4+ 14 'itfl 'ii'h3+
15 'itg1 'ti'g4+ 16 'itfl 'ifh3+ lh-lh in
Ljubojevic-Ivanchuk, Moscow Olym­
piad 1994, while if 13 d3 instead of 13
'ii'xb7 then 13 ...'ti'g4+ 14 'ii'g3 'ii'xg3+
15 hxg3 'litd7! 16 tLlc3 tbd5 17 tbxd5
cxd5 18 i.g5 i.d6 19 c4 dxc4 20 dxc4
l:.he8 and a draw was agreed in Al­
meyra-Alvarez, Matanzas 1993.
1 1 . . . ..txf3!
An excellent exchange sacrifice to
expose the light squares around the
white king. After the passive 11...llg8
White can continue 12 tbe5 i.g7 13
'ii'b4!?
1 2 �xh8 ..,g5 1 3 g3 ..,h5 14 ..,f6
0-0-0 1 5 d3 ..tg7!
Forcing the white queen to declare
itself.
1 6 �xf7? !
Obviously 16 'ifxe7 'ifh3 would
have led to mate, so White should
have bailed out with 16 'ifh4! 'ii'xh4 17
gxh4 tbf5 18 tbd2 with an unclear
5 0-0 liJ e 7
endgame in which Black's minor
pieces are very active. Both 18 ...tbxh4
and 18 ...tbd4!? are possible.
1 6 . . ...td5! 1 7 �xe7
White would also have been in
trouble after either 17 'i'f4 tbf5 18 c4
tbd4 19 cxd5 tbf3+ 20 'itfl tbxe1 21
'itxe1 .:t.e8+ 22 i.e3 i.xb2 (Chekhov)
or 17 "ii'xg7 'i'f3 18 Wfl 'ii'g2+ 19 We2
i.f3+ 20 'it>d2 'i'xf2+ 21 Wc3, and now
21...tbd5+ 22 Wc4 'i'xc2+ 23 tbc3
tbxc3 with a mating attack instead of
Chekhov's 21...'ii'xe1+ 22 i.d2 'ii'e6.
1 7 . . ....f3 1 8 \t?f1
18 .:te4 i.d4! 19 i.e3 i.xe3 20 fxe3
'i'd1+ 21 Wg2 'i'xc2+ 22 Wh3 i.xe4 23
'ii'xe4 'ii'xb2 was also hopeless
(Chekhov). After the game move a
classic king hunt ensues.
1 8 . . .�g2+ 1 9 'it>e2 ..tf3+ 20 'it>d2
Or 20 'ite3 i.h6+ and mates.
20 . . ."ii'xf2+ 2 1 l:.e2 ..th6+! 22 'it>c3
...d4+ 23 'it>b3
23 . . ...td5+??
Black gets carried away here. Chek­
hov gives 23 ... i.xcl 24 tbc3? (24 c3 or
24 c4 are necessary, but Black is obvi­
ously winning) 24...\lfb6+ 25 "ii'b4
'tWxb4+ 26 'it>xb4 i.xb2 27 l:ae 1 i.xe2
with a clear advantage for Black, but
125
Th e Sp a n ish Exchange
in fact Black has mate in four after
24... i.d5+! 25 ltJxdS 'ifxb2+ 26 ..t>c4
cxdS 27 ..t>c5 'i'b6 mate.
24 c4 �xd3+ 25 liJc3 i.xc4+ 26
�a4
White could still have lost with 26
'ita3?? i.f8.
26 . . . i.b5+ 27 �b3 i.c4+ 28 �a4
28 . . .i.b5+?? % -%
Unfortunately Black was in time­
trouble here, otherwise he might have
seen the spectacular 28 ... i.f8! 29 'ife4
'ifd6! (29 .. J1d4 30 'i'e8+ [but not 30
'if'xd3?? .iLxd3+ 3 1 'ita3 l1b4+! 32 �a3
iLxe2 33 tt:Jxe2 l:.e4+] 30...l:ld8 31 'i'e4
with a draw) 30 a3 'ii'd7!! (Yakovic) 31
ltd2 .tdS 32 'iie2 c5+ 33 'itaS b6+ 34
'itxa6 and now 34 ... 'iic6! is much
quicker than Volzhin's prosaic 34...c6
35 'itxb6 'iic7+ 36 �a6 ..t>b8!, when
the white king would perish in true
king-hunt style were it not for 37
tt:Jb5, prolonging the game for a few
more moves.
Game 56
Rozentalis-Piket
Groningen 1992
1 e4 e5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 i.b5 a6 4
126
i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 liJe7 6 liJxe5 �d4
7 liJf3 �xe4 8 liJc3
The inaugural master game in this
line went 8 :te1 'iig6 9 tt:Je5 'iff6 10 d4
.tf5 1 1 tt:Jc3 0-0-0 12 'ifh5 .tg6 with
equal chances in Ree-Keres, Amster­
dam 1971. Twenty years later Piket
improved upon this with an identical
plan to the main game: 9 .. .'iff5
(instead of 9 .. .'i'f6) 10 d4 h5! 1 1 c3
i.e6 12 tt:Jd2 f6 13 tt:Jec4 0-0-0 14 'iie2
i.f7 15 b3 tt:JdS 16 tt:Je3 'iig6 with ad­
vantage to Black in Knoppert-Piket,
Dutch Tearn Championship 1992
(played only a month before the main
game).
8 . . .�g6 9 liJe5 �f5 1 0 l:le 1 h5!
Radically preventing White's poten­
tial pawn advance g2-g4, which would
swiftly embarrass the exposed black
queen.
1 1 d4 i.e6 1 2 liJe4 0-0-0 1 3 liJg5
liJg6 1 4 liJxg6 �xg6 1 5 liJxe6 fxe6
Although Black has a weak pawn
on e6, his active pieces offer sufficient
compensation.
1 6 c3 c5 1 7 �b3?!
White should have bailed out to an
equal position with 17 i.f4 iLd6 ac­
cording to Piket.

1 7 . . .l:.d5!
A lovely square for the rook.
Strangely in the later game Mali­
sauskas-Rychagov, Vilnius Zonal
1993, Black opted for liquidation in­
stead with 17...cxd4 18 lhe6 .l:.e8 19
.l::txe8+ 'ilfxe8 20 ..if4 dxc3 21 'ilfxc3,
when White had a very comfortable
advantage.
1 8 it.e3
18 ..if4 would still have been prefer­
able. On d4 White's bishop will do
little to protect the kingside and is a
tactical liability.
1 8 . . . h4! 1 9 h3 cxd4 20 it.xd4 �d6
21 l:.ad 1 ?
Piket prefers 2 1 l:.e2 with good
chances of equality.
2 1 . . .l:.d8!
Having achieved near perfect cen­
tralisation of his pieces, Black is ready
to play on the queenside with ...r.tbS
or on the kingside with ...:.gs.
22 a4 �f4 23 'tic4 'tic2!
Clearing the way for the black g­
pawn and forcing another pawn
weakness, as 24 :tal?? is met by
24...l:txd4 25 'ilfxe6+ l:.4d7 (Piket).
24 b3 g5 25 l:.a 1 'iif5 26 b4 g4 27
hxg4 'tixg4
5 0 - 0 lD e 7
28 'tie2
Black was threatening .. J:�g8, but
sadly for White, the exchange of
queens just leaves White with a hope­
less endgame.
28 . . .'tixe2 29 l:.xe2 e5 30 �e3 l:.d 1 +
31 l:.e 1 l:.xa 1 3 2 l:.xa 1 �xe3 33 fxe3
l:.d3 34 l:.c 1 l:.xe3 35 �f2 l:.e4 36
l:.d 1 l:.f4+ 37 �e3 l:.c4 38 �d3 l:.g4
39 l:.d2 �d7 40 l:.f2 �e6 41 a5 �d5
42 l:.d2 l:.g3+ 0-1
Game 57
Boersma-Bellin
Wijk aan Zee 1976
1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 lLle 7 6 d4
Although this move is promising af­
ter S .. .f6, here it is too simplistic as
S ....!be7 is a very useful move in the
endgame which follows.
6 . . . exd4 7 lLJxd4
7 'ilfxd4 'ilfxd4 8 .!bxd4 cS 9 .!bb3 is
even worse than the game, since the
white rook is still on fl.
7 . . . c5
7 ...g6?! is probably too ambitious.
After 8 .!bb3 'ilfxdl 9 :.xdl ..ig7 10
.!bc3, as in Adorjan-I.Zaitsev, Sochi
127
Th e Sp a n ish Exc h a n g e
1976, it is not easy for Black to meet
the threat of .i.f4.
8 lt:Jb3
Just as in the 5 .. .f6 variation, 8 o!be2
'iixdl 9 J:ilxdl .i.d7 10 o!bbc3 0-0-0 11
.i.f4 is also playable. However, Black
has saved a move by not playing .. .f7-
f6 and can expand on the kingside
with 1 1...h6 12 f3 ltg8 13 .i.g3 g5 with
good chances in Rovid-Winants, Cap­
pelle la Grande open 1993.
8 . . .Wxd 1 9 l:txd 1 lt:Jg6
9 ...lDc6 allows 10 .i.f4, when Black
is forced to sacrifice a pawn with
10 ...c4 1 1 .!bel !? .i.g4 12 f3 .i.c5+ 13
�fl .i.e6 14 .i.xc7 o!bd4, although it is
not clear that he has sufficient com­
pensation after 15 .:ld2, intending o!be2
{V.Kovacevic).
1 0 .te3
This gives Black the additional op­
tion of fianchettoing his queen's
bishop. 10 o!bc3 .i.d7 (not 10 ....i.d6?!
1 1 .i.e3 b6 12 o!bdS, threatening o!bxb6)
1 1 ii.e3 b6 seems more precise, reach­
ing the note to Black's 1 1th move.
1 0 . . . b6 1 1 lt:Jc3
After 1 1 a4 aS 12 o!ba3 .i.d7 13 o!bc4
0-0-0 White loosened his position with
14 f4?! in P.Lopez-Bass, Valencia open
128
1990. The conclusion of the game
graphically illustrated the latent power
of Black's two bishops: 14 ....:le8 15
o!bbd2 f6 16 f5 o!be5 17 o!bxe5 l:.xe5 18
.i.f4 l:te8 19 .l:.el g6 20 g4 h5 21 g5 fxg5
22 .i.xg5 gxf5 23 exf5 l:.xel+ 24 .l:.xe1
.i.xf5 25 lte8+ �b7 26 .i.f6 llg8+ 27
�f2 .i.h3 28 �f3 .i.g2+ 29 'it>e2 .i.c6
30 .:td8 .l:.g2+ o-1.
1 1 . . ..tb7
In the game Sobolewski-Emms,
Leningrad 1990, this position was
reached by transposition and Black
chose 1 1.. ..i.d7, when after 12 a4 aS 13
o!bdS 0-0-0 14 f4 o!be7! 15 c4 f5 16
o!bxe7+ .i.xe7 17 e5 .i.c6 18 .l:d2 g5 19
�f2 .:.dgs 20 g3 h5 he also won
quickly.
1 2 lt:Jd5
This allows Black to castle straight­
away, but otherwise Black can follow
up with ... .i.d6 and ... 0-0-0 with a
comfortable position.
1 2 ...0-0-0 1 3 a4 a5 1 4 li:Jc1 li:Je7!
Removing White's only dangerous
ptece.
1 5 c4 li:Jxd5 1 6 exd5 c6!
Black pursues a consistent plan of
opening up the position for his bish­
ops.

1 7 lt:ld3 �d6 1 8 b4?!
A rather desperate move, hoping
for 18 ... axb4 19 a5 with vague attack­
ing chances. After Black's calm reply
he is left with a beautiful passed pro­
tected b-pawn which effectively de­
cides the game.
1 8 . . .cxb4 1 9 �xb6 �c7 20 �xc7
</;xc7 21 l:.ac 1 cxd5 22 cxd5+ </;b6
23 l:.c5 ltxd5 24 l:.xd5 �xd5 25
lt:lxb4 �b3 26 l:.b 1 axb4 27 l:.xb3
</;a5 0-1
Game 58
Rozentalis-Yilmaz
Berlin open 1991
1 e4 e5 2 lt:lf3 lt:lc6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 lt:le7 6 lt:la3!?
This is White's best choice if he
wishes to avoid the complications of 6
lt:Jxe5.
6 . . . f6
The natural 6 ...li:Jg6 is a little care­
less. After 7 lt:Jc4 Black cannot quite
equalise with either:
a) 7 .. .f6 8 d4 i..g4 9 dxe5 'iixd1 10
.:txd1 lt:Jxe5 1 1 lt:Jcxe5 fxe5 12 .:td3
i..d6 13 h3 i..e6 14 b3 0-0 15 i..b2 l:.f4
16 lt:Jg5, as in Rozentalis-Magomedov,
5 0 - 0 0. e 7
USSR Championship semi-final 1989;
or
b) 7 ... i..e6 8 lt:Jcxe5 lt:Jxe5 9 lt:Jxe5
'iid4 10 ti:Jf3 'iixe4 1 1 lt:Jg5 'iif5 12
lt:Jxe6 fxe6 13 d3 i..d6 14 'iie2, as in
Rozentalis-I.Zaitsev, Budapest open
1989.
However, 6 ... i..g4! is often recom­
mended as an antidote to 6 ti:Ja3, when
after 7 h3 i..h5 8 tt:Jc4 f6 9 b3?! c5 10
d3 li:Jc6 11 li:Je3 li:Jd4 Black had fully
equalised in Pinter-Kuligowski, Euro­
pean Junior Championship 1973. 9
b3?! is obviously a waste of time, so
White should play 9 d3 c5 10 'iie2
li:Jc6 with 1 1 c3 with the standard plan
of a2-a3 and b2-b4, although Black has
saved some time here.
7 lt:lc4 c5 8 d3 i.e6 9 lt:le3 'ii'd 7 1 0
a4 a5?!
Piket recommends 10...0-0-0 with
equal chances, as the game move
leaves Black's queenside structure
rather too static.
1 1 b3 b6 1 2 li:ld2 lt:lg6 1 3 li:ldc4
h5?!
Another poor rook's pawn move.
Black was probably afraid of 13 ...i..e7
14 'iih5, but after the game move his
king is caught in the centre.
1 29
Th e Spanish Exchange
14 �f5 .txf5 1 5 exf5 'ii'xf5 16 f4
exf4 1 7 'ii'f3 l:td8 1 8 .txf4 �xf4
1 9 'ii'e3 + !
A pleasing intermezzo.
1 9 . . .'ii'e6 20 'ii'xf4 .td6 2 1 'ii'f3 <t>f8?
This is almost suicidal. Black could
still have battled on by giving back the
pawn with 21...0-0 22 'i'xh5 .:i.fe8,
when he is probably not much worse.
22 .:tae1 'ii'g4 23 'ii'b 7 l:th6 24 l:.e4
'ii'd 7 25 l:tfe 1 l:tg6 26 l:te6
In the space of just a handful of
moves White has penetrated deep into
1 30
the heart of the black position. The
queen now goes into 'hyperspace' and
switches from b7 to h7!
26 . . ..tf4 27 'ii'f3 .td6 28 'ii'e4 l:tg4
29 'ii'h 7 l:tg5 30 h4 l:td5 31 'ii'e4 l:td4
32 'ii'g6 l:txh4 33 �xd6 cxd6
34 l:txf6 + !
The final nail in the coffin. After
34 ... gxf6 35 'i'xf6+ �g8 36 'i'g5+ �h8
37 lte7 "ifxe7 38 'i'xe7 the black rooks
are skewered.
34 . . . <t>g8 35 l:tfe6 'ii'xe6 36 'ii'xe6+
1 -0
 5 0-0 li:J e 7

Summary
It is hard to recommend the 5 ...ltJe7 variation for Black. After 6 ltJxe5 'ifd4 7
'ifh5 g6 White can either virtually force a draw by 8 ltJf3 'ifxe4 9 'ifaS i..g4 10
l:te1 'iidS 1 1 'ii'xc7 (see Game 55) or try for more with 8 'ifg5 i..g7 9 ltJd3! f5 10
e5 (Games 52 and 53). In fact the latter option seems to offer excellent winning
chances. However, if you do not have the time or inclination to go into the finer
details of this complicated line, then 6 ltJa3 leads to a typical Exchange Spanish
game with very little risk for White.

1 e4 e5 2 lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 3 .i.b5 a6 4 .i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 lt:Je7

6 lt:Jxe5 (D)
6 d4 - Game 57
6 ltJa3 - Game 58
6 . . ...d4 7 ..h5
7 tL'lf3 Game 56
-

7 . . . g6 8 ..g5
8 ltJf3 - Game 55
8 . . . .i.g7 (D) 9 lt:Jd3
9 ltJf3 - Game 54
9 . . f5 10 e5 c5 1 1 b3 h6
. 1 2 ,.g3
12 'ife3 Game 53
-

1 2 . . . f4 (D) - Game 52

6 lbxe5 8
. . . .i.g 7 12 . . . f4

131
 CHAPTER EIGHT I
Odds and Ends

1 e4 e5 2 lt::lf3 lt::lc6 3 .ib5 a6 4

.ixc6
In this chapter we shall tie up all the
loose ends. The first three games
(Games 59-61) deal with some offbeat
tries for Black after 4...dxc6 5 0-0,
none of which have ever really caught
on. We then move on to 5 tbc3
(Games 62 and 63) and 5 d4 (Game
64). Both of these have their adher­
ents, though neither has enjoyed any
sustained popularity since Bobby
Fischer championed 5 0-0 in the 1960s. 6 d4!
Finally, we see the unusual 4 ... bxc6 in The only way to pose Black any
Game 65. problems.
6 . . . exd4 7 "jjxd4
Game 59 7 tbxd4?! allows Black to carry out
Dvoretsky-Smyslov his plan of queensicle castling: 7 ...�d7
USSR 1974 8 tbc3 0-0-0 9 lbb3 tbf6 with a good
game in Barreras-Smyslov, Cienfuegos
1 e4 e5 2 lt::lf3 lt::lc6 3 .ib5 a6 4 1973 .
.ixc6 dxc6 5 0-0 "jje7 7 . . . .ig4
The former World Champion Va­ 7 .. .'ii'f6 8 'ii'a4 i..g4 9 e5 'ii'g6 10
silly Smyslov experimented with this tbg5 i..f5 1 1 'ii'b3 is clearly unsatisfac­
odd-looking move several times in the tory for Black (Geller).
early 1970s. However, this game 8 .it4 .ixf3
rather dampened his enthusiasm for it. The only consistent move. After

1 32
 O dds and Ends

8 ...l:td8 9 'ife3 h6 10 t"Llc3 g5 1 1 ..tg3 game Bednarski-Smyslov, Skopje Ol­

t"Llf6 12 l:tad1 ltxd1 13 l:txd1 ..tg7 14
'ifa7! ..tc8 15 'ifb8 0-0 16 'ifxc7 White
had won a pawn in L.Schneider­
Pachman, Reggio Emilia 1975.
9 gxf3 ll:lf6 1 0 ll:lc3
ympiad 1972. Note that the tempting
12 'ifa7 allows Black to play 12 ...t"Llxg3
13 hxg3 'ii'b4.

1 2 . . .ll:lxg3 1 3 hxg3 'ii'c 5

In the more recent game Dvoretsky­
1 0 . . . ll:lh5?! Arencibia, Terrassa 1996, Black varied
If Black wishes to play this line he with 13 ...'ife6 14 l::tad1 l:txd1 (14...J..d6
should probably play 10 ...l:tc8!? here, 15 e5 .i.xe5 16 l:.de1 wins the bishop)
intending to exchange queens with 15 .:txd1 and now instead of 15 ...h5?!
...'ifc5. For example, 1 1 l:tad1 'ifc5 12 16 'ifa7! 'ii'c8 17 'ifd4 with a large ad­
..tg3 (12 t"Lle2 is better) 12 ...'ifxd4 13 vantage for White, Black should have
l:.xd4 ..tc5 14 l:td3 h5!? with reason­ played 15 ... ..te7 according to Dvoret­
able counter-chances in Lodziewski­ sky in Informator 67.
Steinsapir, correspondence 1986. 1 4 :ad 1 "ifxe3 1 5 :xd8+ �xd8 1 6
1 1 .t93 :ds :d 1 + �c8 1 7 fxe3 g6
The knight against bishop ending
after 1 1 ...t"Llxg3 12 hxg3 'ifc5 13 l:.ad1
'ii'xd4 14 l:.xd4 ..tc5 15 l:.d3 rJie7 16
llfd1 llhd8 17 t"Lla4 J.. a7 18 b3 llxd3
19 llxd3 l:td8 20 llxd8 'it>xd8 21 t"Llb2
was very pleasant for White in
Gaprindashvili-Bohosian, Tbilisi 1974.
1 2 'ii'e 3!
A new move at the time, and one
that Dvoretsky had prepared at home.
An earlier Smyslov game had gone 12
'ifa4 t"Llxg3 13 hxg3 'ii'b4 14 l:.ad1
'ifxa4 15 l:txd8+ <itxd8 16 t"Llxa4 g6, An almost identical pos1t1on has
when a draw was soon agreed in the arisen to that of Bednarski-Smyslov,

1 33
Th e Sp anish Ex change
except that White's f2-pawn has gone
to e3. This difference is crucial, as it
means that once the front white e­
pawn is exchanged for the f-pawn
White will be left with a passed pawn.
1 8 e5 .ltg7 1 9 f4 f6 20 exf6 .i.xf6
2 1 e4 h5 22 'it>g2 .ltxc3 23 bxc3 b5
24 e5 aS 25 'it>h3 b4 26 'it>h4 :ea 27
'it>g5 l:e6 28 'it>h6! 1 -0
The threat of �g7 and �f7 is deci­
stve.
Game 60
Magem Badals-Morozevich
Pamplona 1995
1 e4 e5 2 tl:lf3 tl:lc6 3 .ltb5 a6 4
.ltxc6 dxc6 5 0-0 'tlt'f6! ?
1 34
This old move has recently been re­
vived by Adams and Morozevich.
6 d4! exd4
6 ... i.g4!? 7 dxe5 'ifg6 is a wacky
gambit. Instead of 8 'ifd3 ltd8 9 'ife3
i.c5! 10 'i'f4 (10 'i'xc5 i.xf3) 10... tLle7
1 1 i.e3 i.xe3 12 'ifxe3 'ifh5 and
... tLlg6, when Black soon regained his
pawn in Blokhin-Aguilar, Philadelphia
open 1994, Soltis recommends 8 e6 to
meet 8...fxe6 with 9 tLleS! and 8 ...'i'xe6
with 9 tLlgS. However, the simple
8 ...i.xe6 looks fine for Black. I prefer
8 'ifd3 l'.td8 9 'ifb3 (and if 9 ...'ifxe4? 10
'ifxf7+ �xf7 1 1 tLlg5+) with the idea of
tiJfd2.
7 .ltg5
The old game Schallopp-Harmonist,
Frankfurt 1887, is of theoretical as
well as historical interest: 7 e5?! 'ii'g6 8
tiJxd4 i.h3 9 'iff3 i.g4 10 'ifg3 0-0-0
1 1 c3 i.c5 with an initiative for Black.
According to Soltis, Harmonist was
also a famous ballet dancer!
7 . . . 'Wi'd6
A fairly recent invention. After
7 ... 'ii'g6 8 'ifxd4 i.d6 (8 ... i.e7 led to a
very pleasant endgame for White after
9 i.xe7 tLlxe7 10 tLleS 'ifd6 1 1 l:d1 in
Potinen-Takemoto, Teesside 1974)
White's simplest way to secure an edge
is 9 tiJbd2 i.e6 10 tLlc4.
8 tl:lxd4
8 'ifxd4 'ifxd4 9 tLlxd4 i.d7 is com­
pletely equal.
a . . ..i.d7
Or 8 ... i.e7 9 i.xe7 tLlxe7 10 tLlc3
0-0 (10 ... i.d7 would have transposed
back to the game) 1 1 tLlde2 .:f.d8 (after
1 1...'ifxd1 12 l1axd1 White has a slight
edge in the endgame) 12 'ii'c l i.g4 13
tiJf4 tLlg6 14 tLlxg6 hxg6 (14...'ii'g6 15
 Odds and Ends

f4!?) 15 'iigS with a slight plus for ttJxe2 ttJxf3+ 37 ttJxf3 �xg4+ 38
White in Magem Badals-Adams, Euro­ �f2 �g2+ 39 �e 1 j_xf3 40 �e3
pean Team Championship, Pula 1997. j_d5 0-1
9 ttJc3 j_e7 1 0 j_xe7 ttJxe7 1 1 ttJb3
0-0-0 1 2 �e2!
12 'iixd6 is again dead level.

Game 61
Sherzer-Djuric
1 2 . . . g5?! 1 3 �e3 Philadelphia open 1988
Threatening both WxgS and 'i!fa7.
1 3 . . . b6 1 4 �xg5 l:thg8 1 5 �e3 �g6 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 j_b5 a6 4
1 6 g3 h5 1 7 f3? j_xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 j_e7
This gives Black some counterplay,
whereas after 17 :.ad1 Black would
have been struggling to justify his
'pawn sacrifice'.
1 7 . . . f5 18 exf5 ttJxf5 1 9 �d3 �b8
20 ttJe4 l:g7 2 1 �c3 l:tf8 22 ::tae1
c5 23 :tf2 j_c6 24 ttJbd2 l:te7 25
b4?!
It would have been better to preface
this with a2-a3.
25 . . . cxb4 26 �xb4 ::td8 27 ttJb3 l:te5
28 �c3 :tde8 29 ttJbd2 j_b7 30 l:tef1
h4 31 g4 h3 32 :te 1 ttJh4 33 l:fe2 This move is only seen very rarely.
a5 6 ttJxe5
Play is now similar to the 5 ...ltle7 6
see follo wing diagram
ltlxeS 'ifd4 line (see the previous chap­
White now cracks under the pres­ ter) except that Black has a bishop
sure, but he was almost in zugzwang rather than a knight on e7. Black has
m any case. good equalising chances after the slow
34 ttJg3? l:xe2 35 ::txe2 l:.xe2 36 6 d3 �f6 (not 6 .. .f6 7 ltlh4!) 7 i..e3 (7

135
Th e Spanish Exchange
d4 is met by 7 ....i.g4! 8 dxe5 'ii'xd1 9
llxd1 .i.xe5 with equal chances)
7 ... 0Je7 8 0Jbd2 0Jg6 9 0Jc4 .i.e6! 10
b3 b6 11 a4, as in Brynell-Grivas, Len­
ingrad 1989, when Grivas recom­
mends 1 1...c5! with unclear chances.
6 . . -'ili'd4 7 'ii'h 5
7 0Jf3 'ii'xe4 8 0Jc3 (or 8 l:lel 'ifg6}
8 ...'ii'g6 9 0Je5 'ii'f5 10 d4 h5! is similar
to Game 56. Black had no problems
after 1 1 lte 1 .i.e6 12 'ii'f3 'ii'xf3 13
0Jxf3 0-0-0 14 .i.g5 h4 15 .i.xe7 0Jxe7
16 0Jg5 0Jf5! in Vainerman-Zigura,
USSR 1977.
7 . . .g6 8 ti:lf3
8 . . . 'ii'xf2+?
A poor decision. After 8 ... 'ii'xe4, 9
d3 'ii'dS 10 'ii'e5 'ii'xe5 1 1 0Jxe5 would
136
have offered Black equal chances, so
White should probably speculate with
9 'ii'aS!? by analogy with Game 55.
9 l:xf2 gxh5 10 d4 i.e6 1 1 ti:lc3
0-0-0 1 2 i.g5!
The start of an elegant combination.
1 2 . . . i.xg5 1 3 tt:lxg5 l:xd4
1 4 l:xf7! i.xf7 1 5 ti:lxf7 l:d8 1 6 l:d 1
l:f8 1 7 tt:lxh8 tt:le7 1 8 l:d3 l:xh8 1 9
l:h3 l:d8 20 l:xh5 l:d2 2 1 l:xh7 tt:lg6
22 l:g7 tt:le5 23 h4
The dust has settled and White's
pawns race home.
23 . . . b5 24 h5 l:d6 25 �h2 a5 26 g4
a4 27 a3 �d8 28 g5 �e8 29 �g3
�8 30 l:xc7 l:d2 3 1 �f4 tt:lc4 32
h6 l:f2+ 33 �g3 1 -0
Game 62
Eismont-Daniliuk
Moscow open 1995
1 e4 e5 2 ti:lf3 tt:lc6 3 i.b5 a6 4
i.xc6 dxc6 5 ti:lc3
Although this is seen from time to
time, it is not as challenging as 5 0-0.
5 . . . f6
5 ...'ii'd6 leads to similar play to
Chapter 6, Game 44, while 5 ....i.d6 is
the subject of the next game.

6 d4 exd4 7 �xd4
7 'i!i'xd4 'i!i'xd4 8 lbxd4 ..i.d7 9 ..i.e3
0-0-0 10 0-0-0 ..i.d6 was completely
equal in Brooks-Kaidanov, USA 1992.
7 . c5 8 �de2 -.xd 1 + 9 �xd 1
. .
Compared to 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 cxd4 7
lbxd4 c5 8 lDde2 'i!i'xd1 9 l:.xd1
(Games 28 and 29) White has not yet
castled and hence has a knight rather
than a rook on dt. While it is true that
in certain circumstances his king may
stand better in the centre, here Black is
under no pressure and can simply de­
velop his pieces to their best squares.
9 . . . .te6
This seems more precise than
9 ... ..i.d7, with the idea of placing the
bishop on c6 to hit the white e-pawn.
For example, 10 ..i.f4 0-0-0 1 1 lDe3
S..c6 12 f3 lDe7 13 l:.d1 l:txd1+ 14
�xd1 g5 (14...lDg6 15 ..i.g3 �e7 16 h4!
is also slightly uncomfortable for
Black) 15 ..i.g3 .ltg7 (15...S..h6 16 lDc3
f5 was successful in Yandemirov­
Stevic, Balatonbereny 1994, after 17
lDxf5 liJxf5 18 exf5 g4 19 liJe4 .:tf8 20
f6? gxf3 21 gxf3 .:txf6! 22 lDxf6 S..xf3+
23 cat>e1 ..i.xh1, but White should have
played 17 exf5 llf8 18 f6 l:.xf6 19 lDg4
l:.e6 20 l:.e1 with chances of a small
O dds a n d Ends
edge) 16 h4 h5 17 S..e 1! f5 18 exf5 g4
19 fxg4 l:.d8+ 20 cat>ct hxg4 21 l:.f1
..i.h6 22 lDf4 and Black did not have
enough for the pawn in Yandemirov­
Korneev, Russian Cup 1997.
1 0 .tf4 0-0-0 1 1 �e3 �e7 1 2 l:.d 1
12 h4, to prevent ...g7-g5, should
not be met by 12 ...h5 but rather by
12 ... lDc6! 13 l:.d1 ..i.e7 with the idea of
...lDd4.
1 2 . . .l:.xd 1 + 1 3 �xd1
A typical pos1t1on for this line
arisen (see also the previous note).
Black is well advised to open up the
position for his bishops, one way or
another.
1 3 . . .g5! ?
Here 13 ... lDc6 is slightly passive: 14
lDc3 ..i.d6 15 ..i.xd6 .:td8 16 cat>ct l:txd6
17 .:td1 liJd4 18 l:.d2 b5 19 b3 l:d8 20
lDcdS l:.e8 21 lDf4 S..d7 22 f3 lDe6 23
lDedS left White with a small plus in
Barkhagen-Onischuk, Hallsberg open
1993.
In a later game, Onischuk improved
upon his own play with the immedi­
ate 13 .. .f5! 14 exf5 (after 14 e5 lDdS
Black takes control of the light
squares) 14 ...lDxf5 15 lDxf5 ..i.xf5 16
l:.e1, and now instead of 16...S.. d6? 17
137
The Sp anish Ex change
i.xd6 cxd6 18 l'Dg3 %U8 19 lle7 with a
slight edge for White (Rozentalis­
Onischuk, Groningen open 1995},
Onischuk recommends 16 .. .'it'd7!? 17
l'Dc3 i.d6 18 l'DdS l:.f8 with equal
chances.
1 4 .tg3 f5 1 5 exf5
The exchanges should help Black,
but 15 i..e5 llg8 16 l'Dc3 g4 17 l'DcdS
l'DxdS 18 exdS i.. d7 19 i..f4 i..d6 20
ii.xd6 cxd6 was also completely level
in Moroz-Balashov, USSR Team
Championship 1990.
1 5 . . .tbxf5 1 6 lbxf5 .txf5 1 7 .te5
l:tg8 1 8 tbg3
This is more accurate than 18 :e1
ii.h6 19 f3 g4 20 f4 l!d8+ 21 'itcl lle8
22 �d1 ii.e4 23 g3 ii.f3, when Black
had the better of it in Yandemirov­
Kuzmin, USSR Team Championship
1990.
1 8 . . ..tg6 1 9 l:te1 .th6
19 ... g4 20 i.f4 i.. g7 21 l:e7 l:d8+ 22
'itcl .l:d7 23 lb:d7 �xd7, as in
Shchekachev-Barkhagen, Paris 1995, is
almost identical to the main game.
20 l:te2 l:td8+ 2 1 l:td2
In Spasov-Nikolic, Novi Sad
Olympiad 1990, White blundered a
pawn with 21 �e1 l:te8 22 f3? i.xc2 23
138
.:txc2 :Xe5+, although he still man­
aged to draw in the end After the
game move a rather sterile endgame
occurs.
2 1 . . .l:txd2+ 22 �xd2 g4+ 23 �d 1
�d7 24 f3 gxf3 25 gxf3 .tf8 26
ltle4 b5 27 �e2 .td6 28 .tg3 �c6
29 �e3 a5 30 a3 �d5 31 �d3 h5
32 �e3 b4 33 ltlxd6 % -%
Game 63
Ruiz-Hebden
Benidorm open 1993
1 e4 e5 2 tbf3 ltlc6 3 .tb5 a6 4
.txc6 dxc6 5 ltlc3 .td6
A good way to avoid the sterile
endgames of 5 .. .f6 6 d4.
6 d4 exd4 7 'ii'xd4
7 l'Dxd4 l'De7 8 ii.e3 0-0 followed by
....f7-f5 is pretty level.
7 . . .f6
Obviously if White castles kingside
here we reach a very similar position
to that considered in Chapter 5. How­
ever, White also has the option of go­
ing queenside here...
8 .te3
If White plays 8 l'De2 with the idea
of ii.f4, Black's most straightforward
 Odds and Ends

route to equality is 8 ...�g4 9 �f4 although Black was ready to double

�xf4 10 tt:Jxf4 .i.xf3 1 1 'ilxd8+ .l:.xd8 rooks on either the e-file or the d-file.
12 gxf3 �f7 12 �e2 tbe7.
8 . . .ttJe7 9 0-0-0 tiJg6
9 ... �e6 is also pretty solid After 10
Z:.he1 0-0 11 'ild2 'ile8 12 lt:Jd4 �c4 13
f4 �d8 14 'ilf2 �b4 15 lt:Jde2 .l:.xd1+
16 .:xd1 f5 17 e5 b6 18 a3 a draw was
agreed in Antonio-Nunn, Thessalo­
niki Olympiad 1988.
10 h4
10 'ifc4 'ife7 11 lt:Jd4 lt:Je5 12 'ilb3
seems more logical.
1 0 . . .'ti'e7 1 1 h5 ttJe5 1 2 liJh4?!
Ambitious. After 12 tbxe5 �xe5 13 24 l:.h3? l:.xe4 25 b3 'ii'e8 26 l:.xe4
'ii'd2 �e6 14 �f4 0-0 15 �xe5 fxe5 16 l:.d 1 + 27 �b2 'ii'xe4 28 'ii'f3 'ii'e5+
f3 a draw was agreed in Szabolcsi­ 29 'ii'c3 'ii'f4 30 l:.e3 �b7 31 g3
Varga, Ramat Hasharon 1992. 'ii'xf5 0- 1
1 2 . . .tLlg4 1 3 tiJf5?! i.xf5 14 exf5
ttJxe3 1 5 l:.de 1 i.c5 1 6 'ii'f4 0-0-0 1 7 Game 64
fxe3 l:.he8 Villavicencio-Hebden
Las Palmas open 1989

1 e4 e5 2 t2Jf3 ttJc6 3 i.b5 a6 4

i.xc6 dxc6 5 d4
This immediate exchange is really
too simplistic. Black can complete his
development without trouble.
5 . . . exd4 6 'ii'xd4 'ii'xd4 7 ttJxd4 i.d7
8 i.e3 0-0-0

The dust has settled and White is

left saddled with a weak e-pawn and a
bad knight against a good bishop.
1 8 e4 ..id4 1 9 'ii'f3 h6 20 tiJd 1 l:.d7
2 1 tiJf2 'ii'f7 22 �b1 i.xf2 23 'ii'xf2
b6
White now blunders a pawn but his
position was difficult in any case. He
could have tried 24 'ile2 �b7 25 llh3,

139
Th e Sp anish Exc h ange

9 tiJd2 completely hemmed in.

9 tLlc3 allows Black to strike at the
white centre with 9 ...l:.e8 10 0-0-0 �b4
1 1 ti:Jde2 f5 12 exf5 ii.xf5 13 a3 ii.d6,
when the open nature of the position
gave Black equal chances in Smyslov­
Keres, USSR Championship 1940.
9 . . .l:.e8
There is nothing wrong with the
super-solid approach 9 ... tt:Je7 10 0-0-0
f6 1 1 i3 tLlg6 12 h4 h5 with equal
chances in Miles-Karpov, Biel 1992.
1 0 0-0-0 c5 1 1 t2Je2 b6
In a later game Hebden preferred 23 . . .l:.xe5 24 l:.xe5 t2Jxe5 25 l:.e3
1 1...ti:Jf6 12 f3 tt:Jd5 13 ii.f2 ti:Jb4 14 a3 t2Jc4 26 l:.e6 l:.g8 27 a4 l:.g7 28 .i.h6
tLlc6 15 ti:Jf4 b6, although it is not clear <iird 7 29 l:.f6 l:.e7 30 �d 1 l:.e6 3 1
why this is any improvement over the l:.f7+ �c6 3 2 .t.c1 tiJd6 0-1
matn game.
1 2 t2Jc3?! Game 65
The knight never gets to d5. 12 Psakhis-Mithrakanth
l:.he1 tt:Je7 13 f3! was more logical, Calcutta 1988
when after 13 .. .f5?! 14 tLlg3 fxe4 15
tt:Jdxe4 White had a slight pull in Bir­ 1 e4 e5 2 tiJf3 t2Jc6 3 .i.b5 a6 4
mingham-Flear, Paris open 1988. The .i.xc6 bxc6
patient 13 ...g6 seems preferable to
13 .. .f5?!
1 2 . . .tiJe7 1 3 l:.he1 g6!
As usual 13 ...tLlg6 allows 14 tt:Jd5.
1 4 .i.f4 .i.g7 1 5 tiJf3
15 tt:Jd5 tLlxd5 16 exd5 was no bet­
ter.
1 5 . . . .t.xc3 1 6 bxc3 .i.e6 1 7 a3 f6!
Black seizes control of the dark
squares, luring White into blocking in
his own bishop.
1 8 e5 f5 1 9 t2Jg5 t2Jc6 20 h4 h6 2 1
t2Jxe6 l:.xe6 2 2 l:.d3 h5! This alternative recapture is seen
see following diagram
only rarely at master level.
5 0-0
23 .i.g5 5 tLlxe5 is greedy: 5 ...'ife7 6 d4 d6 7
A tactical oversight, but after 23 tLlxc6 'ifxe4+ 8 'ife2 'ifxe2+ 9 �xe2
�h2 l:.he8 24 f4 White's bishop is �b7 10 d5 �xc6 1 1 dxc6 tLle7 12 ti:Jc3

140

�xc6 and Black was fine in Pillsbury­
Fall, Wenen 1902. However, the im­
mediate 5 d4 is playable. For example,
5 ...exd4 6 �d4 (or 6 •xd4 'ii'f6 7
•d3!?) 6 ... g6 7 �c3 iLg7 8 iLg5!? with
a slight plus.
5 . . . d6
5 ..."iff6?! 6 d4 exd4 7 �xd4 iLb7 8
�c3 0-0-0 looks too risky. After 9
l.'tbl! �e7 10 b4 dS?! (10... g5 can be
met by 1 1 iLb2 'ifg6 12 a4, so 10 ...�g6
was better, although after 1 1 a4 White
still has a promising attack) 1 1 iLe3
"ii'g6 12 e5 �f5 13 �xf5 'ifxf5 14 .td4
h5 15 �a4 l:.h6 16 :et White was on
top in Luther-Krasenkov, Tilburg
1994.
6 d4
Having already castled, White is a
whole tempo up on the line 3 ...a6 4
iLa4 d6 5 iLxc6+ bxc6 6 d4 which is
thought to favour White in any case.
6 . . . exd4
6 .. .f6 7 iLe3 �e7 8 c4 �g6 9 �c3
iLe7 10 h3 is also very nice for White.
7 'ii'xd4
Of course 7 �xd4 is also possible.
After 7 ...�e7 8 b3 .td7 9 iLb2 �g6 10
�d2 'ifg5 {10....te7 11 �f5) 11 �2f3
'ilfh5 12 �f5 White had a good game
in Rausis-Kristensen, Gausdal open
1995.
7 . ..li:Je7 8 .tg5 f6 9 .td2 .te6 1 0
O dds a n d Ends
�3 •d7 1 1 •d3 c5
This move concedes the dS-square,
but otherwise it would have been dif­
ficult for Black to complete his devel­
opment.
1 2 l:fe1 ltlc6 1 3 ltld5 .te7 1 4 .tc3
0-0 1 5 ltlh4 .tdS 1 6 f4 'ii'f7 1 7 l:ad 1
White has a dream position. All his
pieces are well placed and Black has no
real counterplay.
1 7 . . . ltle7 1 8 f5 .tea 1 9 ltlf4 ltlc6 20
l:e3 ltle5 2 1 'ii'e2 'ii'c4 22 'ii'h 5 'ii'xa2
Black might as well take a pawn for
his trouble.
23 l:h3 ltlf7 24 ltlhg6 ltlg5 25 ltlxf8
ltlxh3+ 26 'ii'xh3 <it>xf8 27 'ii'x h7 'ii'g8
28 ltlg6+ <it>f7 29 'ii'h 5 .tb7 30 e5
White finally crashes through in the
centre.
30 . . . fxe5 3 1 .txe5 <it>e8 32 .txd6
cxd6 33 l:xd6 .te7 34 ltle5+ 1 -0
14 1
Th e Sp anish Exchange

Summary
None of the alternatives discussed in this chapter are seen very often. However,
if Black is looking for an offbeat line then 5 0-0 'i'f6!? seems the most promising
(see Game 60). I cannot really recommend 5 �c3 or 5 d4 for White as they both
lead to rather sterile positions compared to 5 0-0. Nor is 4 ... bxc6 particularly
attractive for Black.

1 e4 e5 2 tt:Jt3 tt:Jc6 3 .ib5 a6 4 .txc6

4 . . . dxc6
4 ... bxc6 (D) - Game 65
5 0-0
5 �c3
5 .. .f6 - Game 62
5 ...i..d6 (D) - Game 63
5 d4 - Game 64
5 . . .".e7
5 ... 'i'f6 - Game 60
5 ... i.e7 - Game 61
6 d4 (D) Game 59
-

4. . . bxc6 5 . . . .id6 6 d4

_· 1 \;

142
 INDEX OF COMPLETE GAMES I

Adorjan-Danov, Wijk aan Zee 1971................................................................ 80

Adorjan-Harandi, Graz 1972 .......................................................................... 40
Adorjan-Perecz, Hungarian Championship 1975 .......................................... 67
Adorjan-Tringov, Vama 1972 ........................................................................ 37
Arencibia-Giorgadze, Yerevan Olympiad 1996 .......................................... 107
Benjamin-Kamsky, USA Championship 1991.............................................. 104
Boersma-Bellin, Wijk aan Zee 1976 .............................................................. 128
Carlier-Hebden, London open 1988................................................................ 83
De Wit-Van der Sterren, A msterdam open 1985 .......................................... 76
Djurhuus-Hector, Malmo 1995 ....................................................................... 78
Dvoretsky-Smyslov, USSR 1974................................................................... 133
Dvoretsky-Southam, Philadelphia 1991 ......................................................... 44
Eismont-Daniliuk, Moscow open 1995 .......................................................... 137
Fischer-Gligoric, Havana Olympiad 1966 ..................................................... 16
Fischer-Jimenez, Havana Olympiad 1966...................................................... 18
Fischer-Portisch, Havana Olympiad 1966 ..................................................... 49
Fischer-Rubinetti, Buenos Aires 1970 ............................................................. 32
Fischer-Smyslov, Monte Carlo 1967................................................................ 35
Fischer-Spassky, Sveti Stefon 1992................................................................... 56
Hecht-Chandler, German Bundesliga 1981/82 ............................................. 21
Ivanov.V-Belotelov, Moscow Championship 1994....................................... 123
Kinsman-Kaabi, Cannes open 1998 ................................................................. 25
Kuzmin-Tal, USSR 1974 38
. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Larsen-Portisch, Rotterdam (match) 1977....................................................... 29

Lutikov-Westerinen, Yurmala 1978............................................................... 89
Magem Badals-Morozevich, Pamplona 1995.............................................. 135

143
Th e Sco tch Game

Miles-Timman, Hastings 1973/74 ................................................................... 26

Nataf-Anic, Enghien Les Bains 1997 ................................................................ 70
Nunn-Bronstein, Hastings 1975 .................................................................... 124
Polgar.I-Perenyi, Budapest 1979 ...................................................................... 85
Prie-Sorin, Yerevan Olympiad 1996 .............................................................. 115
Psakhis-Mithrakanth, Calcutta 1988............................................................ 141
Rausis-Boudre, Lyngby open 1989................................................................... 46
Rausis-Yin Hao, Beijing 1996 .......................................................................... 62
Romero Holmes-Bareev, Leon 1995 .............................................................. 99
Romero Holmes-Z ak, Mesa open 1992 ........................................................... 59
Rozentalis-Almasi, Germany 1996 ................................................................. 96
Rozentalis-Hebd.en, Hastings 1996/97 .......................................................... 90
Rozentalis-Hebd.en, Hastings 1997/98........................................................... 93
Rozentalis-Milos, Tilburg 1992........................................................................ 63
Rozentalis-Piket, Groningen 1992 ................................................................ 127
Rozentalis-Timman, Yerevan Olympiad 1996 ............................................ 102
Rozentalis-Yilmaz, Berlin open 1991 ............................................................ 130
Ruiz-Hebd.en, Benidomz open 1993............................................................... 139
Santo Roman-Hauchard, French Championship 1991 ................................. 19
Santo Roman-Laclau, French Team Championship 1993 ............................. 60
Schmittdiel-Psakhis, Groningen open 1990 ................................................... 57
Sherzer-Djuric, Philadelphia open 1988........................................................ 136
Shirov-Adams, Tilburg 1996 ............................................................................ 54
Shirov-Short, Groningen 1996....................................................................... 112
Shirov-Topalov, Madrid (rapidplay) 1997....................................................... 72
Shirov-Topalov, Madrid 1997.......................................................................... 74
Smyslov-Geller, USSR Championship 1973 ................................................... 23
Sveshnikov-Volzhin, Yerevan open 1996..................................................... 125
Timman-Adams, Belgrade 1995 ....................................................................... 52
Timman-Beliavsky, FIDE World Ch., Groningen 1997 ............................... 34
Timman-K.asparov, Hilversum (match) 1985 ................................................. 43
Timman-Onischuk, Wijk aan Zee open 1995 .............................................. 109
Timman-Short, El Escorial (ninth matchgame) 1993 ................................... 119
Ungure-Lane, Cappelle la Grande open 1995 ................................................. 84
Van d.er Wiel-Pinter, European Cup, Rotterdam 1988 ................................. 87
Van d.er Wiel-Van d.er Sterren, Dutch Championship 1997....................... . 41
Villavicencio-Hebd.en, Las Palmas open 1989.............................................. 140
Wahls-Boudre, Aosta 1988 20
... ............................................................................

Waitzkin-Gurevich.I, New York open 1993 .................................................. 27

144
The fi rst book on this importa nt ope n i n g fo r many years I
T h e Exc h a n g e Va riation of the S p a n i s h O p e n i n g ( R uy Lo pez) is a favo u rite with c l u b
p l ayers a n d g r a n d m a sters a l ike. lt is a s o u n d a n d hig hly res p e cted o p e n i n g where
u n d e rsta n d i n g the key i d e as, p l a n s and typ i c a l p awn stru ctures is m o re i m p o rta nt th a n
m e m o rizi n g l o n g va riations.

• An o p e n i n g c h a m p i o n e d o n the Wh ite s i d e by Fis c h e r, Ti m m a n and S h i rov, with th e

B l a c k s i d e b e i n g h a nd l e d by ( a m o n g st oth ers) Ad a m s, A n a n d a n d lva n c h u k

• F u l l expl a n ati on o f both t h e l atest theory a n d i m p o rtant t h e m ati c i d e a s

• P a rt o f t h e B a tsford C h ess O p e n i n g G u i d e s s e ries, p rovi d i n g a ra p i d u n d e rsta n d i n g of

fash i o n a b l e o p e n i n g s th ro u g h the u s e of m o d e l g a mes a n d c l e a r exp l a n atio n s

And rew Kinsman is a n E n g l is h I nternati o n a l M a ster a n d a fo rm e r

B a tsford c h ess e d itor. A s a th e o reti c a l exp e rt, h e b r i n g s s p e c i a l i st
knowl e d g e to this o p e n i n g s u rvey. H i s best c o m p etitive re s u lt to d ate
was h i s vi ctory at the 1 997 Wrex h a m G r a n d m a ster to u r n a m e nt,
w h e re he a c h i eved h i s fi rst g r a n d m a ste r n o rm .

OTHER BATSFORO CHESS O P E N I N G G U I DES:

GAMB IT
Bogdan La/i{; Peter Wells

U p-to-date c overage of a d a n g erous g a m b it. A c l a s s i c a l o p e n i n g b a c k i n vog u e thanks to

0 7134 8456 X G a rry Kaspa rov.

0 7134 8466 7

BIT
Neil McDonald

A modern view of a swa s h b u c k l i n g o p e n i n g .

D 7134 8451 9

£1 4.99
For further information about Batsford
chess books, please write to:

Batsford Chess Books,

583 F u l h a m Road,
London SW6 5BY

Batsford Chess Online: www.batsford.com