SPECIALIST CHESS OPENINGS series edited by R. G.

Wade

Ruy Lopez:
Breyer System
L. S. Blackstock
1

c4 c5

4 ila4

f3 -1iJc6 3 llb5 a6

[z:Jffi 5 00 Jle7 6 a el b5

7 Jl b3 d6 8 c3

00 9

h3 b8

S P E C I ALI ST C H E S S O P E N I N G S
G E N ERAL E D I T OR: R. G . W A D E

Ruy Lopez: Breyer System

L. S. BLACKSTOCK

B. T. Batsford Limited London

First published 1976

L. S. Blackstock, 1 976
ISBN 0713431245
Printed in Great Britain by
Willmer Brothers Limited, Birkenhead
for the publishers
B. T. Batsford Limited
4 Fitzhardinge Street, London WI H OAH

BATSFORD CHESS BOOKS

Advisor: .R. G. Wade

Editor: K. J. O'Connell

Contents

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Symbols
I n trod uction
1 1 2)bd2 : Introduction
1 1 2) bd2 Main Line except 15 a4
1 1 2)bd2 Main Line with 1 5 a4
1 1 2)bd2 : 1 3 b4 without 1 4 a4
1 1 2)bd2 : 1 3 b4 with 1 4 a4
1 1 2)bd2 with 1 2 . . . c5
1 1 2)h4
1 1 g5
1 1 c4 without 1 1 . . . c6
1 1 c4 c6
1 0 d 3 : Introduction
10 d3 Main Line with 1 5 2)h2
10 d3 Main Line with 1 5 b4
1 0 a4
1 0 d4 b7
I ndex of Complete Games
Index of Variations

VI
vu

4
13
20
24
32
38
47
55
60
70
80
85
91
93
97
101

Symbols
;t

+

+ +

slight advantage for White

slight advantage for Black
clear advantage for White
clear advantage for Black
White has a won position
Black has a won position

Introduction

The Breyer System involves a regrouping manoeuvre by Black in the main

line of the Closed Ruy Lopez (Spanish Game) . At first sight the queen's
knight being re-developed via its original square (c6-b8 ) appears to be a
bizarre retrogressive step.
I e4 eS 2 f3l')c6 3 A bS a6 4 A a4 ffi S00 A e7 6 . el bS 7 A b3 d6 8
c3 00 9 h3 and now 9 . . .
This idea is generally attributed to the hypermodern Hungarian master,
Gyula Breyer ( 1 894- 1 921 ) . He is quoted by Hans Muller as asking: 'Is
there no possibility of satisfactorily bolstering the key point eS without the
positional liability c7-cS , whereby Black can combine defence with
activating the bishop on c8 which is difficult to develop effectively?' There
is no further documentary evidence of this idea in more concrete form
either in theoretical articles or in tournament practice during Breyer's
lifetime. There is scope for further historical research in this direction (the
most likely source is the Becsi Magyar Ujsag-ed.).
I t was not until the early 1 9S0s that the idea was moulded into a viable
defensive system, largely as a result of the work and games of two
Leningrad players, Georgi Borisenko and Semyon Furman. A great deal of
theory on the Breyer accumulated during the 1 960s until it became (and
has remained) the most popular of Black's 9th move alternatives, having
replaced the classical 9 . . . aS .
The Breyer has been the favourite defence o f two world champions,
Boris Spassky and Anatoly Karpov, the latter, no doubt, being influenced
in his choice by Furman, his trainer! Otherl eading exponents of the system
are Lajos Portisch, Svetozar Gligoric, Alexander Matanovic and
Wolfgang Unzicker. It is a tribute to the flexibility of Black's position that
many leading players have constantly been prepared to play the variation
for either side.
To return the knight to b8 cannot be regarded as a waste of time,
considering how many times the Lopez bishop is moved and the trouble

viii

Introduction

often taken to bring the white knight from bl to d5 or f5. Furthermore, in

traditional lines, Black's counterplay on the Q-side involving . . . c6-a5c4-b6 or . . . a5, . . . c4 and . . . a5-b7-c5 necessitates lengthy
manoeuvres.
When the position after White's 9 h3 is examined it should be noted that
the black pawns b5 and a6 are isolated from most of Black's forces by the
physical barrier made by the black pawns c7 /d6 /e5 . White has prospects
of exploiting the advanced black pawns to force open lines on the Q-side,
gain manoeuvring space and, as a result, enjoy a prolonged initiative.
Black may have an urgent need to transfer pieces to that wing and will find
the pawn at c7 (and therefore the knight at c6) an obstacle. Traditionally a
certain harmony has been achieved by the manoeuvre 9 . . . a5 1 0 it c2
c5, while the Breyer-Borisenko-Furman idea is 9 . . . b8 and if 1 0 d4
<)bd 7 .
The black knight o n d7 i s less vulnerable t o pressure than when it i s o n a5
or returns to c6 and blocks neither the diagonal of the bishop at b7 nor the
c-file.
An attractive feature of the Breyer is the sustained pressure against
White's e-pawn which can be built up by . . . it b7, . . e8 and . . . it m ,
and i n some instances augmented b y . . . c5 .
Chess history i s full o f illustrations o f successful K-side attacks for White
after Black has been induced to play . . . e5x d4, and Steinitz went so far as
to insist that an essential requirement for the defence of such Lopez
positions was the maintenance of a pawn at e5 . While Steinitz's assertion
retains a good deal of validity, a timely exchange on d4 can present White
with awkward problems concerning the defence of his e-pawn.
The Breyer knight is not fixed at d7. It can go to b6 to prepare . . . d5, or,
if White has played b4, travel via b6 to c4 or a4; sometimes the knight can
be manoeuvred by way of m to e6 in order to eye the central dark squares
d4 and f4 ( as well as g5) , and to g6 with f4 and h4 within range ( besides,
once again, e5) .
Having such a wide range of options for carrying out strategic aims, The
Breyer appeals greatly to Lopez defenders.
.

1 1 4Jbd2: Introduction

Bobotsov, Belgrade-Sofia 1 9S7

b) 12
g6 1 3 i!Y e2 c6 14 iJfl iJhS
I S iJl h2 i!Y e8 16 A h6 iJg7 1 7 iJg4
proved much too artificial for
Black, Novopashin-Estrin, i -final
1
28th U SSR Ch 1 960.
B
12 . . .
.. e8
For 1 2 . . . cS see chapter 6. This
has been championed by Gligoric
in recent years, the idea being to
avoid the lines arising after 12
.
.. e8 1 3 b4 (chapters 4 & S ) . The
text intends to put further pressure
on White's e-pawn after . . . Am.
Now White has several alter
The 'natural' Lopez move
natives:
intending to swing the knight to the
K-side though, as will be seen, A 1 3 a4
White still retains options of B 1 3 c4
C 1 3 a3
playing on the Q-wing.
D 1 3 b3
11 . . .
A b7
E 1 3 iJf1
1 2 Ac2
1 3 b4 has enjoyed great
Already feeling the effect of the
popularity
in recent years, so much
Breyer set-up. If White wishes to
so
that
this
will be discussed
manoeuvre his QN to g3, the
separately
(see
chapters
4 & S).
'Lopez bishop' has to leave its fine
diagonal to defend the e-pawn.
A
1 2 a4 promises nothing, e.g. :
13 a4
Am
a) 12
c:51 3 i!Y e2 c4 1 4 A c2 i!Yc7
Perfectly play able is 1 3 . . . cS 1 4
IS iJfl .. fe8 16 iJg3 Am 1 7 Ae3 b 3 A m (Also sa tisfactory is 14 . . . ed
g6 18 iJd2 dS Nedeljkovic- I S cd ba 1 6 .. x a4 iJb6 1 7 .. a2 cd
1 e4 eS iJf3 iJc6 3 A bS a6 4 Aa4
iJf6 S 00 A e7 6 .. el bS 7 A b3 d6 8
c3 00 9 h3 iJ b8 1 0 d4 iJ bd7
1 1 iJ bd2 ( 1)

. . ..

11 lL:Jbd2: Introduction

Haag-Lengyel, Gyula 1 965 .} 1 5 d5

. b8 16 ab ab 1 7 i!r e2 A c8 1 8lL:Jfl
lL:Jh5 with equality, Leban
Robatsch, Sarajevo 1 968.
14 lL:Jfl
14 A d3 c6 15 lL:Jfl i!r b8 1 6 g4?!
d5! is very good for Black, Hoen
Filip, Siegen Olympiad 1 970.
14 . . .
('d
1 5 lL:Jx d4 c5 1 6 lL:Jf5 lL:JX e4 1 7
i!rg4 g6 1 8lL:Jh6+ A x h6 1 9 A x h6
f5+ Ravinsky-Bebchuk, i-final
33rd USSR Ch 1 965.
B
13 c:4
Am
1 4 b 3 e d 1 5 lL:J x d 4 b c 1 6 b clL:Jc5
1 7 f3 g6 1 8lL:J2b3lL:Jh5 1 9lL:Ja5 A c8
20 . bl i!r h4! with advantage to
Black, Ciocaltea-Barcza, Moscow
1 956 .

13 a3

Am
1 4 b4
After 1 4 d5 c6 1 5 dc A X c6 1 6
lL:Jfl i!rc7 1 7 lL:Jg3 i!rb7 1 8 lt g5 d5
Black stands better, Filep-Lengyel,
Hungarian Ch 1965 .
14 . . .
d5 !
1 5 de lL:Jx e4 16lL:Jx e4 de 1 7 e6
. x e6 1 8lL:Jg5 . e7 1 9lL:Jx e4 i!r e8
with excellent chances for Black,
Filep-Zinser, Reggio Emilia 1 96869.
D

13 b3

,ll m

1 4 ,ll b2
Or 1 4 d5 c6 and now both 1 5 dc
Ax c6 c4 bc and 15 c4 bc 16 bc
i!rc7 lead only to equality.
14 . .
g6
.

Also 1 4 . . . c5 when:
a) 15 de d e 1 6 c4i!rc717lL:JfllL:Jb8!
1 8 lL:Je3lL:Jc6 1 9lL:Jd5 i!rd8 2 0,lld 3
b4 2 1 lL:Jh2 lL:Jd4 is satisfactory for
Black, Ciric-Robatsch, Saraj evo
1 968.
b) 15 cl5 lt c8 1 6,lld 3 . bBI7 i!r e2
lL:Jb6 1 8 h2lL:Jh5 1 9 g3 g6 20 c4b4
21 i!r e3 ltg7 and, though White
has a spacial advantage, Black's
position is very solid, M. Kovacs
Portisch, Hungarian Ch 1965.
1 5 a4 '
1 5 de i-i Ciric-Parma, Saraj evo
1971 .
15 . . .
,1lg7
Unclear is 1 5 . . . lL:Jh5 1 6 c4 c6 1 7
lL:Jfl bc 1 8 bc ed 1 9 A x d4 i!rc7
Romanishin-A. Petrosian, USSR
Olympiad 1 97 2 .
1 6,1ld3
c6
1 7 i!r c2 (2)
2

. c8
17 ...
Alternatively:
i!r b6?118 b4 ed 1 9 cd c5 20
a) 17
bc dc 2 1 ab ab 22 dc x c5 23
. x a8 ,1lx a8 24 ,1ld4 lL:Jfd7 25
,1lx g7 <it'x g7 26 i!rb2+ i!rffi 27
i!rx b5 R. Byrne-Padevsky, Monte

11 bd2: Introduction
Carlo 1 968. Despite the loss of a
pawn Black has good drawing
chances with pawns on one side of
the board only.
b) 1 7 . . .c7 1 8 b4 b6! 1 9 a5
a4 gives equality,Haag-Forintos,
Hungarian Ch 1 965.
18 de?!
Korchnoi suggests 1 8 A fl as an
improvement.
18 . . .
de
19 b4 A m 20 . ed1 b6 2 1 b3
c5 22 ab ab 23 bc A x c5 24 x b5
A x 12+ with advantage to Black,
Korchnoi-Portisch, USSR-Rest,
Belgrade 1 970.
E

13 t1.

The ' normal' plan.

13 . . .
Am
1 4 g3
1 4 de de 1 5 3h2 c5 1 6 f3
e6 1 7 g4 x g4 1 8 X g4 g6
1 9 g3 A g7 20 h2 c5 2 1 g4
"&c7= Diickstein-Unzicker, Bam
berg 1 968 . The play here is similar
to variations arising from 1 0 d3
(chapter 1 2 ) .
g6
14 . . .
The basic position of the main
line of 11 bd2 which many
leading players, notably Karpov
and Spassky, are prepared to play
from either side. White's many
alternatives at this point are
considered in the next two chapters.

1 1.J bd2 Main Line excep t 15 a4

White now has several tries:

A 1 5 de
B l5 h4
C 1 5 b3
D 1 5 Ag5
E 1 5 Ad2
The most popular continuation
in the mid-70s has been 1 5 a4 which
is considered separately in chapter
3 owing to the wealth of material
now available. It should be noted
that 1 5 a4 as well as C: 15 b3 and D:
15 Ag5 can transpose to lines with
1 2 . . . c5 (chapter 6) with the

concurrence of either player.

Other ideas include:
a) 15 d5?! This surrenders the
initiative. After 1 5 . . . c6 16 dc
Ax c6 1 7 4:Jh2 d5 Matov-Wade,
Vinkovci 1 968, Black has a very
pleasant position.
b) 15 4:Jh2 d5! The usual recipe
when White takes his eye off the
centre. After 1 6 de 4:J x e4 1 7 4:J x e4
de 18 A x e4 J'l x e4 19 .x e4
4:Jx e5 20 x d8 .aX d8 21 Ag5
4:Jd3! 22 4:Jg4 . x e4 23 4:Jffi+
cJJ g7 24 4:J x e4 .e8 25 4:Jffi .e2
Sherwin-Benko, USA 1 959, Black
has a favourable ending which he
won quite comfortably.
c) 15J'lb3J'lg7 1 6 a4 c5 1 7 d5 c4 1 8
J'lc2 4:Jc5 1 9 J'le3 c7 20 d2
(White could have this position
without having wasted two tempi
with his white-sq uared bishop-see
chapter 3 . ) 20 . . eb8 21 . a3
A c8 22 . eal and now:
cl) 22
4:Jx a4 23 .Q,x a4 ba 24
. X a4 a5 25 e2 Ad7 26 . 4a2 a4
with equality, Lehmann- Portisch,
Malaga 1 964, is better than:
c2 ) 22
A d7 23 ab A x b5 24
e2 . b7 25 4:Jd2 . ab8 26 b l
. .

II hd2 Main Line except 15 a4 5

Ad7 2 7 x c4 Stein-Averbakh,
3 1 st USSR Ch 1 963.
A

!! adl
to
Skopj e 1 965.

J anosevic-Wade,

15 114(4)
d5 !
Black can also eq ualize wi th
Or 1 5 . . . x e5 1 6 x e5 de 1 7
x dS !!ax dS I S A g5 A e7 1 9 1 5 . . . Ag7 1 6 h5 d5 1 7 hg hg I S
!!adl g7 20 3 d5 2 1 l;l x e7 Ag5 cS I 9 dex e4 20 X e4 de
x e7 22 \fIf2 c8 23 !! x dS 2 1 l;lx e4 l;lx e4 22 !!x e4 X e5
USSR
!! x dS t-t Ivkov-Matanovic, Faibisovich-Tukmakov,
Students Ch, Dubna 1 970.
Beverwijk 1 965.
de
16 de
16 h2
x e4
1 7 x e4
1 6 e2 c5 1 7 l;le3 c7 I S a4 c4
I S xe4
l;lx e4
is not dangerous for Black, Arulaid
x e5
19 !!x e4
Lipnitsky, USSR Team Ch 1 955.
with an excellent game for Black.
16 . . .
c5
Or 1 6 . . . Ag7 1 7 g4 x g4 1 S 0lafsson-Benko, Candidates 1 959,
x g4 h 5 1 9 e2 c5 2 0 fl went 20 l;lg5 x dl+ 21 !! x d l
e 7 2 1 d2!!edS 22 b3 x b3 x 1'3+ 2 2 gf l;ld6 23 !!del
23 A x b3 c5 24 a4 t -t Raisa !! x e 4 24 fe !! eS 25 3 f5 26 \t> f2
f7 27 e3 fe 2 8 fe e6 2 9 h5 !! m
Unzicker, Leningrad 1 960.
1 7 3
30 hg hg 3 1 d3 !!3+ 32 !!e3
1 7 J,tg5 x d l l S !!ax dl l;lg7 !!fl 33 !!h3 !!dl+ 34 \t> c2 !! gl
1 9 g4 x g4 20 hg e6 35 d2 g5 36 !!h6+ f7 37
Dj urasevic-Furman, Belgrade d3 !!g3+ 3 8 'It'e2 !!g2+ 39
Leningrad 1 964, leads to equality. \t>d3 g4 40 e5 Ax e5 41 !!X a6 g3
17 . . .
e6
42 l;le3 !!x b2 43 a4 b4 44 cb g2 45
and Black held the balance after I S e4 !!e2 46 3 !!x e3+ 47
A e3 A d6 1 9 l;lh6 d 7 20 l;lb3 X g2 !!b3 48 b5 l;ld6 49 f2
f6 2 1 g4 l;lm 22 h5 e7 23
\t> e6 50 \t> e2'1t'd5 5 1 !!aS c4 52
!!a6 A c5 53 !!c6 !!e3+ 54 d2
!!e7 0-1 .
15c1e

de

C
15 b3(5}

15 . . .
Ag7
I t is far better to delay . . . c5 until
White has committed his QB.
Furthermore, with the bishop on
the long diagonal Black's chances of
achieving the central thrust . . . d5
are distinctly increased . However,

11 0,bd2 Main

Line except

15 a4
6
B

1 5 . . . c5 is playable and after 1 6 d5 Spassky tried for more with the

would transpose to lines arising enterprising q ueen sacrifice 19 . . . ef
from 1 2 . . . c5 when Black's most 20 i,lx d8 , ax d8 . R. Byrne
usual reply is then 1 6 . . . 0,b6 (see Spassky, 3 rd match game, SanJuan
1 9 74, continued 21 ab? ( White m ust
chapter 6) .
try 21 , e4 0,x e5 22 , d4 , x d4
Other possibilities are:
a) 16 . . . i,lg7 1 7 i!re2 i!rc7 1 8 i,l e3 23 cd , d8 24 ab ab 25 , a7 or 2 1
, ec8 1 9 0,d2 i,lffi 20 a4 b4 21 a5 ! e6. ) 2 1 . . . !::JX e5 2 2 b a , x d 1 23
with strong pressure on the Q-side , ex dl i,la8+ 24 gf 0,x 3+ 25
for White, Klovan-Holmov, U zhg 'it'fl i,lx c3 26 , acl0,d2+ 2 7 'it'gl
orod i -final 40th USSR Ch 1 972. i,la5 28 b40,3+ 29'it'fl 0,h2+ 30
b) 16 . . . i!r b6 1 7 a4 , eb8 18 i,le3 'it'gl 0,3+ 31 'it'fl i,lb6 32 , c2
0,e8 1 9 i!r e2 i,lc8 20 b4 i!rb7 2 1 0,h2+ 33 'it'gl 0,3+ 34 'it'fl 'it'ffi
, a b l c 4 22 0,h2 and White's 35 0,e2 0,h2+ 36 'it'gl 0,3+ 3 7
position is preferable, Enklaar 'it' fl A e4 3 8 , a 2 0,h2+ 3 9 g l
0,3+ 40 'it' fl 0,h4 41 0,f4 A3 42
Hartoch, IBM Amsterdam 1 974.
, d3 g 5 43 0,e2 Ag2+ 44 el
After 15 . . . i,lg7 Black has:
0,3+ 45 d l 0,e5 46 , c3 A d5
Cl 1 6 a4
47 , d2 Jl c4 48 , a3 , a8 49 f4 gf
C2 1 6 i,ld2
50 0,x f4 , x a6 51 EX x a6 Jl x a6 52
C3 1 6 d5
0,d5 Jl c4 53 0,x b6 cb 54 , d6 b5
Cl
16 a4
d5!?
55 d2 0,g6 56 e3 h5 0- 1 .
0,x e4
1 7 de
C2
1 8 i,lx e4
16 Jl b2
c5
1 8 0,x e 4 de 19 A x e4 A x e4 20
1 6 . . . d5!? was not adeq uately
, x e4 0, x e5 allows Black full tested in J anos evi c Tringov,
equality.
Titovo Uzice 1 966, which went 1 7
18 . . .
de
c4? 0,x e4 1 8 0,x e4 de 1 9 Ax e4
19 A g5(6)
.Q.,x e4 20, X e4 f5 21 , e2 e4 with
Now 1 9 . . . i!rc8 is eq ual, but great advantage to Black.
-

11 tlJbd2 Main Line except 15 a4 7

A better reply to 1 6 . . . d5 !? was
the 1 7 ed played by Klovan against
Podgayets, 41 st USSR Ch 1 973
( 2 nd Group) , the game going 17 . . .
tlJx d5 1 8 de tlJx e5 1 9 . x e5 !?
. x e5 20 c4 . e8 21 A x g7 x g7
22 cd i!rx d5 2 3 i!r c l d8 24 tlJg5
i!r d4 25 Ae4 i-i.
1 7 i!rd2
Or 1 7 de de 18 i!r e2 c7 19 a4
i-i Kraidman-Parma, Netanya
1971 .
17 . . .
i!r c7
Now White should try 1 8 d5 .
Westerinen-Spassky, Tallinn 1 973,
continued instead 1 8 A d 3 c4! 1 9 be
be 20 Jl c2 ed ! 2 1 tlJ x d4 (21 cd? c3!
22 i!r x c3 i!rx c3 23 A x c3 . ac8
24 . e3 Ah6+ ) 2 1 . . . tlJc5+ 22
i!r f4 tlJfd7 23 A a3 tlJe5 24 . e3
tlJcd3 25 i!r h4 a5 26 A b4tlJx b4
2 7 cb i!r x b4 28 tlJgf5 gf29 eftlJg6!
30 fg hg 3 1 . bl i!r d2 32 . dl i!ra5
33 . e7 . ab8 34 . bl . x e7 35
i!r x e7 A x d4 36 A x g6 fg 37
i!r x d6 i!r e5 0- 1 .
Cl

16 cI5
tlJb6
1 7 Jle3
Tal has suggested 1 7 . bl .
Less good is 1 7 e2? c6 1 8 c4 cd
1 9 cd tlJfx d5 ! 20 ed e4 2 1 tlJx e4
A x a l 22 Ag5 f6 23 A e3 (23 J;th4
Jl c3 24 i!rd3 bH ) 23 . . . tlJx d5!
24 . x al tlJx e3 25 x e3 .Q. X e4
26 A X e4 d5 0- 1 Unzicker-Tal, W.
Germany-USSR 1 960.
. c8
17 . . .
c6
1 8 d2
. x c6
19 de

Black has good counterplay.

Martinez-Spassky, San Juan J969,
went 20 . acl c7 2 1 A b l d5r 22
J;t g5? ! (22 Ax b6) 22 . . . de 23
tlJx e4 tlJfd5 ! 24 .,Q.h6 . c8 25
. edl f5 26 A x g7 x g7 27 tlJeg5
tlJx c3 28 d8+ m ! 29 x m+
. x m 30 &z:) x e5 tlJe2+ 3 1 fl
. x cl 0-1.
D

15 J;t gS
h6
1 5 . . . J;tg7 is rather passive, e.g.
16 d2 c6 1 7 . adl e7 18 &z:)h4
m 1 9 J;tb3 c5 20 d5 J.
Littlewood-Bely, Hastings 196364, or 1 6 i!rd2 c5 1 7 J;t h6 &z:)b6
18 J;t x g7 Shagalovich-Usachy,
USSR Team Ch 1 955.
1 6 J;t d2
In the lines with 1 2 . . . c5 and a
subsequent d5 by White ( chapter 6)
the bishop can retreat to e3
followed by i!rd2 connecting rooks
but here the e-pawn is still sensitive
and must remain defended by the
rook on el .
16 . . .
A g7 ( 7)
Alternatives are:
a) 1 6 . . . &z:)b6 1 7 b3 . e7 1 8 a4 Ag7
19 a5 &z:)bd7 20 b4 i!r e8 21 bl
. d8 22 . e2 d5 Gasic-Ayanski,
Plovdiv 1 973.
b) 1 6 . . . cS when :
bl ) 17 de &z:)x e5 18 &z:)x e5 de 1 9
e2 &z:) h 7 2 0 . adl i!t h4 Lein
Krogius, Sochi 1 965.
b2) 1 7 cI5 &z:)b6 18 &z:)h2 Ag7 19
i!tf3 A c8 20 &z:)gfl . a7 2 1 &z:)e3
<ifj?h7 22 hg4 h5 Ree-Lengyel,
Wij k aan Zee 1971, with a

8 11 t;J bd2 Main

Line except 15 a4

reasonable position for Black in all

cases.

White now has:

D l 1 7 i!r c l
D 2 1 7 .. c l
Other ideas are:
a) 17 t;J h2 ?1 d5 ! IS de t;Jx e4 1 9
t;J x e4 d e 2 0 A x e4 A x e 4 2 1
.. x e 4 t;J x e 5 2 2 Af4 i!r x d H 2 3
.. x d l t;J c4 with a good ending for
Black, J . Szabo-Kostro, Stary
Smokovec 1 97 2 .
b) 17 a4 c 5 ( Or 1 7 . . . t;J b6 1 8 a5
t;J c4 1 9 A c l d5 20 de t;Jx e4 21
f:jx e4 de 22 i!rx dS .. aX d8 23
Ax e4 .Q.x e4 .. x e4 t;Jx
Kruszynski- Manasterski,
Polish
Ch 1 973 ) 1 8 d5 c4 gives play similar
to 1 5 a4 lines in chapter 3. Now:
bI ) Sznapik-Vogt, Lublin 1 972,
went 19 t;J h2 h7 20 t;Jgfl t;J c5
21 i!r f3 d 7 22 t;J e3 .. eb8 23 a5
.. m 24 g4 and White has chances
on the K-side, while
b2) Klovan-Furman, 41 st USSR
Ch 1973 (2nd Group) , improved
with 19 h2 b51 20 t;J gfl t;J h7 2 1
t;J f3 .. b 8 22 A e 3 i!r c 7 2 3 t;J 1 d 2
t;Jc5 2 4 i!re2 AeS 2 5 a b a b 26 .. a2

J.i d 7 27 .. eal .. ecS 28 .. a 7 .. b 7

29 .. a8 .. bbS 30 .. 8a7 .. b7 t -t .
c) 17 a4 t;Jb6 1 8 ab ab 1 9 b3 t;J fd 7
2 0 A d 3 b 4 2 1 .. x a8 A x a 8 22 d e
t;J x e 5 23 t;J x e 5 d e 2 4 i!r c2 b c 25
Ax c3 i!r d6 26 t;Jfl .. d8 27 .Q.e2
i!rc5 2S t;J d2 i!r c6 29 A fl 1;1 b7 30
i!r b2 1;1 c8 31 t;J f3 ffi 32 t;J d2 J,l,e6
33 .. cl i!r c5 34 t;Jf3 i!rd6 35 J,l,a5
Am 36 i!r c3 c5 37 Ac4 .. b8 38
Ax b6 i!r x b6 39 t;Jh4 h 7 40
.. dl A x c4 41 bc .. dS 42 .. a l
i!rb7 43 i!r f3 A g7 44 .. a 5 .. d 4 45
.. x c5 b l + 46 h2 i!rx e4 47
i!rx e4 .. x e4 4S g4 h5 49 g3 hg
50 hg .. d4 51 .. c7 .. d3+ 52 f3 e4
53 .. e7 ef 54 t;J x f3 .. c3 55 .. c7
gS t -t
Karpov- Korchnoi,
training match 1 9 7 1 .
Dl
17 i!r cl
h7
18 h4
Or IS A b3 .. e7 1 9 de de 20 c4
when:
a) 20
cS 2 1 i!r c2 t-t Kaplan
Spassky, San J uan 1 969.
t;J cS 2 1 Ab4 t;J d 3 22
b) 20
Ax e7 i!rx e7 23 i!rc3 t;Jx el 24
.. x el Kaplan-Unzicker, Lugano
Olympiad 1 965, gives equal
chances.
18 . . .
c5
Black can also play 1 8 . . . d5
when :
a) 19 ed ed 20 t;J x d4 Ax d5 2 1 h5
.. x eH 22 i!rx el i!re8 23 t;J de2
t;J e5 24 t;J f4 .. dS 25 .. dl A b7 26
i!re2 .. d6 and Black has defensive
chances, Spassky-Berrois, SanJuan
1 969 .
.

. ..

11 <Ibd2 Main
b) 19 h5de 20 hg+- fg 2 1 <Ix e4 and
now:
b l ) 21
4jx et 22ltx e4 l;tX e4
2 3 .. X e4 ed 24 .. x e8 i!r x e8 25 cd
and now instead of 25 . . . .. c8? 26
i!rc6! , Geller-Rubinetti, Siegen
Olympiad 1 9 70, Black should play
25 . .. c5 !? 26 dc .. cB 27 l;te3 i!rffi
with an unclear position according
to Maric.
b2 ) 21 . . . eel! has been
recommended by some com
men tators.
Pinchuk-Agzamov,
Harkhov 1 9 7 1 , continued wildly
with 22 <Ieg5+ hg 23 <I x g5+
g8 24 A x g6 <Ie5 25 A x e8
i!r d5 26 f3 .. x e8 27 <Ie4 .. ffi 28
Ah6 4jd3 29 ,it x g7 4jx cl 30
<Ix ffi+ .. x ffi 3 1 A x l5 <Id3 32
.. e7 i!rd6 33 .. g7+ ffi 34 A e7+
and the game was eventually
drawn !
1 9 h5 (8)
.

19 . . .
<Ix h5 !
1 9 . . ; cd 20 cd ed 2 1 hg+- fg 22
<Ix d4 <Ig4! 23 <If3 .. cB is less
clear, Zlebcik-Sildo, corres 1 973.
20 <Ix h5
gh
21 Ae3
i!r ffi

Line except

15 a4 9

22 d2
cd
23 cd
<Iffi !
Black stands better. Jacek-,
Kretschmar, corres 1 973, con
tinued 24 a4 A c6 25 d5 (25 de!? de
26 A M) 25 . . . Ad7 26 <Id4 <Ig6
27 <115 <Ih4! 28 4jx h4 i!r x h4 29
.. fl .. g8 30 f4 A h3 3 1 .. 12 A ffi 32
ab? A x g2 ! 33 .. x g2 .. x g2+ 34
i!r x g2 .. g8 35 ba .. x g2+ 36
x g2 i!rg4+ 37 h2 i!r e2+ 38
h l i!r x e3 39 a7 i!r h3+ 40 gl
lt h4 41 .. a3 A g3 42 .. f3 i!r h2+
O- l .
D2

1 7 ..cl

1 8 d5
1 9 Ad3 (9)

c5
<Ib6

9
B

19 . . .
A c8 !
Inferior i s 1 9 . . . i!r c 7 ? 2 0 <Ih2
<Ia4 21 .. bl c4 22 A c2 <Ic5 23
<Ig4 h 7 24 i!rf3 <IX g4 25 hg
i!re7 (25 . . .a5 !) 26 b3 cb 27 ab A ffi
2 8 <Ifl ! A g5 2 9 <Ie3 A cB 3 0 g3
<Id7 3 1 i!r e2 <Iffi 32 f3 h5 33 g2
i!rd8 34 .. h i g8 35 .. bfl .1l h6
( 10). This position, taken from the
game Spassky-Unzicker, Santa
Monica 1 966, is well worthy of a
diagram :

10

11 t;J bd2 Main

Line except

150.4

. hi t;Jg8 22 e2 t;J c4 Hindle

Kuijpers, Clare Benedict, Brunnen
W
1 966.
c) 16 .. . -'t g7 when:
c l ) 17 b3 t;J b6 18 t;Jh2 ( I 8 cl
-'t c8? ! 1 9 a4! c 7 20 -'td3 A d 7 2 1
a5 t;J c 8 2 2 b4 Balashov
Zuidema, Wijk aan Zee 1 97 3 ; 1 8 . . .
e 7 != ) 1 8 . . . A c8 1 9 . fl . a7 20
f4 ef2 1 A x f4 e 7 22 d2 fB 23
Spassky sets up a winning attack . ael t;J fd 7 24 t;J g4 t;Je5 25 t;J h6+
with 36 t;Jf5 ! the game concluding \!i>h8 26 . e2 t;J bd 7 27 . ef2 t;J f6
36 . . . A x d2 37 x d2 gf 38 h6 28 t;J e2 . c7 29 g4 t;J g8 t-t
fg 39 fg A x g4 40 . x f6 e7 41 Liberzon-Portisch, Amsterdam
g5+ fB 42 Adl A x d l 43 1 969.
. x dl . ec8 44 . dfl . x c3 45 c2) 17 cl h8 1 8 Ag5 e7 1 9
t;J h2 fB 20 t;J g4 t;Jg8 2 1 h4 h 5 22
x h5 . c2+ 46 h l 1 -0.
t;J h2 t;J b6 23 dl f6 24 -'t e3 -'th6
20 t;Jh2
e7
Also possible is 20 . . . t;Ja4 2 1 25 t;Jhfl -'t c8 with a good game for
. b l c 4 22 A c 2 t;Jc5 retaining the Black. Rubinetti-Zuidema, Skopj e
queen on the d8-h4 diagonal to Olympiad 1 972, continued 26 -'td3
meet t;Jg4 with . . . t;J x g4 and . . . Ad7 2 7 d2 -'tx e3 28 t;J x e3
h6 29 f3 f4 30 <;!if2 -grx h4 3 1
h4.
. h i g5 32 . h 2 . e7 33 . a h l
2 1 . fl
. a 7
. h7 34 . h4 . fB 35 d l t;J e 7 36
22 A e3
. b7
23 d2 h 7 24 . cel t;J bd 7 25 a4 t;Jef5 t;J bc8 37 . I h2 -'t e8 38 t;J e3
c4 26 A c2 . c7 27 ab ab 28 . a l t;Jb6 39 h l . fl7 40 -'t e2 . fg7 41
t;Jc5 2 9 f3 t;Jfd7 30 t;Jg4 fB 3 1 t;Jgfl f5 42 t;J d2 f4 43 t;J d l t;Jg8 44
t;J f2 h 5 t-t Spassky-Krogius, -'td3 c4 45 A c2 d8 46 \!i>e2 t;Jf6
47 t;J f2 -'t d 7 48 t;Jfl g5 49 . x h5
Sochi 1 966 .
t;Jx h5 50 . x h5 e8 51 . h6\!i>g8
E
52 t;Jg4 -'tX g4 53 fg t;Jd7 0-1 .
15 -'t d2
Ag7
1 6 c l (11)
Also possible is 15 . . . c5 16 d5
Or 16 de t;J x e5 1 7 t;J x e5 . x e5
and now:
a) 16 . . . c41 7 b3 t;J b6 1 8 a4 cb 1 9 18 A f4 when:
-'t x b 3 t;J fd7 20 a5 t;J c8 2 1 c 4 t;J c5 a) 18 ... . e8 19 d2 t;Jd7 i -i
22 -'t a2 t;J a7 Balashov-Holmov, Yanofsky-Spassky, Lugano Olym
Moscow Team Ch 1 97 1 .
piad 1 968
b) 16 . . . h81 7 t;J fl t;J b6 1 8 g4 b) 1 8 .. . . e61 9 d2 e7 20 f3 c5
Ag7 1 9 t;J g3 -'t c8 20 g2 . fB 21 21 . ad l . d8 22 -'th6 (22 e5 t;J d5

10

11li::Jbd2 Main Line except 15 a4 11

23 Ag5 to 24 ef 11, x to 25 e4 is
better.) 22 . . . .Q.x h6 23 x h6 d5!
Gaprindashvili-Olafsson, Reyk
javik 1 964.

11
B

Abstinence from . . . cS proved very

useful for keeping the d5 square
under control in the later stages of
the game.

El

16 . . .

Now Black has:

E l 16 . . . cS
E2 1 6 . . . d5
Black also has other playable
alternatives, viz.:
. e7 17 A h6 A x h6 18
a) 16
x h6 m 1 9 d2 cS 20 a4 b6
2 1 de de 22 g5 fd7
Tseshkovsky-Furman, 41 st USSR
Ch 1 973 (2nd Group) .
fB 1 7 A h6 6d7 1 8
b) 16
. d l e7 1 9 A b3 e6 2 0 d e d ; 2 1
e3 ec5 2 2 A c2 b6 23 b3
. ad8 24 h2 A c8 25 hfl e6
26Ax g7 X g7 27 . x d8 .. x d8
28 . d l .. d6 29 cl (29 e2!) 29
. . . f4 30 e3 h5 3 1 ..x d6 x d6
32 fl as 33 e2 b4! 34 c4 e6 35
d5 d7 36 b2 c6 37 df4
ec5 38 g3 tO 39 h4 fx e4 40
A x e4 x e4 41 f3 c5 42 g2
tO 43 h3 d3 0-1 Liberzon
Averbakh, 36th USSR Ch 1 968. An
impressive game by Black whose
use of e6 and cS for the knights is
highly thematic of the Breyer.
.

cS
1 7 A h6
Or 1 7 d5 li::Jb6 1 8 A h6 fd7 1 9
b 3 as 2 0 a4 ba 21 b a A a& 2 2 fl
. b 8 23li::J l h2li::JtO 24li::Jg4li::J X g4
25 hg A c8 with equality,
Balashov-Spassky, Tallinn 1 973.
e7
17 . . .
1 8 A x g7
1 8 d2 A x h6 1 9 x h6 .. ac8
20 A b3 as 2 1 g5 c4 puts Black
under no pressure, Zhukhovitsky
Lein, Sochi 1 967.
ctJx g7
18 . . .
b6
1 9 d2
20 . adl .. ac8 2 1 A b l li::Jc4 22
c l li::Jd 7 23 b3 ! -! Unzicker
Karpov, Hastings 1 9 7 1 -72.
E2

16 . . .

1 7 Ag5 (l2)

cI5

12
B

c8 !
17 . . .
I t i s best t o break the pin
immediately. Inadeq uate is 1 7 . . .

i2 11 t[:jbd2 Main Line except i5 a4

de 1 8 A x e4 A X e4 1 9t[:j X e4 ed 20
cd i:!r c8 and now:
a) 21 !:Jx t6+- t[:jx ffi 22 . x e8+
,x e8 23 i:!r c6 Spassky-Antoshin,
Sochi 1 965.
b) 21 A x f6 Axffi 22 t[:jx ffi+
!:Jx ffi 23 . x e8+ {) x e8 24 i:!r c6
Penrose-Unzicker, Clare Benedict,
Brunnen 1 966, with advantage to
White in both cases.
1 8 {) x e5
Other moves also afford White
no advantage:
a) 18 de {)x e4 19 {)X e4 de 20
Ax e4 {) x eS 21 Ax b7 i:!r x b7
t-t
U nzicker- Portisch, Santa
Monica 1 966.
b) 18 ed ed 19 . x e8+ i:!rx e8 20
{)x d4 A x dS 2 1 i!rd2 i:!rffi 22 a4
cS 23 {) de2 A c6 24 ab t-t

Spassky-Unzicker, Siegen Olym

piad 1 970.
{)xe5
18 . . .
{) x e4
1 9 de
de
20 A x e4
,il x ffi
21 A ffi
e6
22 ef
Now White should be content
with 23 !:Jx e4 Ax e4 24 . x e4
i!rx ffi with a drawn ending.
Balashov-Spassky, Sochi 1 97 3,
con tinued 2 3 {) hS?! e3! 24 . x e3
i!r d5 2 5 {) f4 g5? (25 . . . i!r c6!+)
26 g3 i!r x ffi 27 {) h5 i!r e5 28
i!r h6 e6 29 . g5 i!r h8 30 . dl
ilc6 3 1 \t> h2 . ae8 32 d3 . d6
33 x d6? (33 dg3 ) 33 . . . cd
34 g3 . e2 35 i!rg5 t-t (35 . . .
i!r e5 36 i!r d8+ A e8 37 {) ffi+ \t> g7
38 {)x e8+ i!r x e8= ) .

1 1 4jbd2 Main Line with 15 a4

I e4 eS 2 4J f3 4J c6 311bS a6 4 ita4
4J ffi S 00 ite7 6 e l bS 7 it b3 d6 8
c3 00 9 h3 4J b8 1 0 d4 4J bd7 I I
4:Jbd2 it b7 1 2 it c2 e8 1 3 4J fl
it ffi 1 4 4Jg3 g6
I S a4 (J3)

a) !-! ! Hort-Kavalek, Wijk aan

Zee 1 975.
b) 16 it c12 4J b6 1 7 de de 18 ab ab
1 9 b3 d7 !-! Ciocaltea
Unzicker, Nice Olympiad 1 974.
c) 16 it d3dS?! ( 1 6 . . . c6!?) 1 7 itgS!
de 1 8 it x e4 it x e4 1 9 4:Jx e4 ed 20
4J x d4 cS 21 it x ffi ! 4J x ffi 22
4J x cS with advantage to White,
Karpov-O' Kelly, Caracas 1 970.
d) 16 d51 and now :
d l ) 16 . . . e7 1 7 b3 c6 1 8 c4 bc l 9
b e c d 2 0 cd a s 21 itd3 4J cS 2 2 ,1},bS
Gipslis-Stanciu , Lublin 1 969 .
d2) 16 . b8 1 7 b3 c6 1 8 c4 c7
1 9 as cS 20 4J h2 4Jffi 2 1 itd3 b4 22
a2 Ghinda-Kostro, European
Team Ch, Bath 1 973.
d3) 16 ... 4Jc5 1 7 b4 4:JX a4 18
it x a4 ba 1 9 x a4 d 7 20 c4 c6
21 4J d2 jansa-Milicevic, Kragu
jevac 1 9 74, with better prospects for
White in all cases.
1 6 dS
Less thematic are:
a) 16 de de and now:
a l ) 17 its5 h6 1 8 it e3 -gyc7 ( 1 8 . . .
c4!) 1 9 4J h2 c4 20 4J g4 2)x g4 21
-gyx g4 4J cS+ Parma-Pachman,
Sarajevo 1 964.
. .

This variation has been played a

great deal since 1 97 3 and leaves
many strategical options open .
(For White's other tries on move I S
see chapter 2 ) . White usually
intends to close the centre and
invade along the a-file or seal the
Q-side and attack on the other wing
with 4J h2 and f4.
IS . . .
cS
I S . . . itg7 is less satisfactory,
e.g. :

14 11 t;Jbd2 Main Line with 15 a4

a2) 17 e2 b61 8 lte3 c6 with
eq ual chances, Shishkov-Tarasov,
Sverdlovsk 1 965 .
a3) 17 b3 c7 1 8 .,Q.g5 .,Q.g7 1 9
e2 lt c6 2 0 a b a b t-t Karpov
Podgayets, 38th USSR Ch 1 970.
b) 16 bUI cd 1 7 cd d5 ! 18 de de 1 9
t;J x e4 t;Jx e4 20 lt x e4 lt x e 4 2 1
Et x e 4 t;Jx e 5 22 x d 8 t;Jx f3+
23 gf Et aX d8 24 lte3 Et x e4 25 fe
Et e8 26 ab ab 27 f3 f5 28 Et a5 t -t
Karpov-Tukmakov, 38th USSR
Ch 1 970.
c) 16 b3 l;tg7 1 7 de t;Jx e5 ( 1 7 . . .
de!) 1 8t;Jx e5 de 1 9 lte3 x d l ( 1 9
. . . t;Jd7 20 e2 ltc6 2 1 a b a b 2 2
lt d 3 b6 2 3 b4 lt ffi 2 4 Et ebl
b7! Keres-Spassky, Dortmund
1973,just maintains the balance) 20
Et ex dl l;t ffi 21 f3 Et ec8 22 lt d3
ltc6 23 t;JO c4 24 ab .1l x b5 t-t
Keres- Reshevsky, Petropolis in
terzonal 1 973.
d) 16 lt e3 c7 ( 1 6 . . . ed 17 cd
t;Jx e4 18 t;Jx e4 .,Q.x e4 1 9 lt x e4
Et x e4 20 d3 is in White's
favour.) 1 7 d2 cd 18 cd t;Jb6 1 9
ltg5 ltg7 2 0 Et ad t;J c4 21 c3 ed
22 t;J x d4 Keres-Szabo, Moscow
1 963, and now 22 . . . t;Jd7 gives
Black a solid position.
16 . . .
c4
A little-tried alternative is 1 6 . . .
t;Jb6 when:
a) 17.,Q.e3 t;Jc4 1 8 -'td t;Jb6 19
-'t e3 t;Jc4 20 -'td t;Jb6 t-t
Robatsch-Portisch, Malaga 1 964.
b) 17 as and now:
bl ) 17
t;Jbcl71 8 b4.,Q.g7 1 9 -'t a3
Et c8 20 -'td3 Et e7 21 Et b l c4 22

ltc2 t;Jffi t-t Tringov-Ivkov, Nice

Olympiad 1 9 74.
b2 ) 17 t;Jct 18 b4 cb 19 cb Et c8
20 ltd3 ltg7 21 Et a2 Et ffi 22 Et c2
d7 23 t;Jh2 h8 24 h4 h5 25 e2
'i!tg8 26 lt x c4 Et x c4 27 Et x c4 bc
28 x c4t;Je8 29 Et 0 t;Jc7 30 f4 ef
31 ltx f4 t;Jb5 32 d3 Et c8 33
-'t d2 Et c 7 34 t;J e2 oil c8 35 t;J f3
e7 36.,Q.g5 Ri 37 .,Q.f4 f5 38t;Jg5 fe
39 x e4 x e4 40 t;Jx e4 Et c4 41
t;Jx d6t;Jx d6 42 lt x d 6 Et x h4 43
.,Q.c5 Et e4 44 t;Jf4 h7 45 t;Je6
.,Q.x e6 46 de Et x e6 47 Et f7 h6 48
Et b7 Et e4 49 f2 Ad4+ 50 A x d4
Karpov-Portisch,
Et x d4 t -t
Madrid 1 97 3 . White won a pawn
on the Q-side but Black has
counterplay with possession of b5
and the c-file.
c) 17 b3 could transpose to lines
arising from 1 2 . . . c5 (chapter 6)
d) 17t;Jd2 c4 1 8 a5 t;Jbd7 19 b3 cb
20 .,Q.x b3 t;Jc5 2 1 .,Q.c2 ,il c8 22
.,Q.a3 c7 23 .,Q.b4 ltd7 24 f3
.,Q.g7 2 5 ,il d3 t;J x d3 26 x d3
El. ec8 27 El. ad t;J e8 t-t Karpov
Gligoric, Ljubljana/Portoroz 1 97 5 .
A little home analysis was tested
a few months later:
e) 17 e2I ?t;JX a4 1 8 A X a4 ba 1 9
El.x a4 lt g7 20 c4 Ac8 2 1 ltd2
Et b8 22 Et b l Et e7 23t;Jel Et eb7 24
t;Jd3 Et b3 25 Et bal t;Je8 26 A c3
h4 27 Et l a3 f5 28 A e l !
Karpov-Gligoric, Milan 1 975;
White can untangle his Q-side ana
eventually force b4, but Black is not
without counterplay cl. la King's
Indian.

11 cJbd2 Main Line with 15 a4

White now has two plausible
continuations:
A 1 7 A g5
B 1 7 A e3
A
17 Ag5(14)

14
B

considered in chapter 6 (another

transposition! ) .
20 .. a3 !
White prepares to infiltrate
along the a-file and sets Black tricky
defensive problems. With limited
space to manoeuvre Black must
decide whether to oppose the a-file
or abandon it in the hope that
White is beating into thin air. This
forms the theme of the whole
chapter. Two complete games
illustrate the strategical ideas of the
variation.
a) 20
c7 21 .. eal Ag7 22
i!t d l ! (intending .. l a2 and a l )
22 . . . .. ab8 2 3 a b ( lf23 cJ d2 Black
should play 23 .. . ,ilc8 but not 23
. . . cJ fd7 24 ab ab 25 .. a5 ! i!t b6! 26
b4 cb 27 l)x b3 .. a8 28 itd3
.. x a5 29 .. x a5 c7 30 .. a7
Hort-Hecht, Budapest 1 9 7 3 . ) 23
. . . ab 24 .. a7 i!t b6 25 .. l a5 .. a8
26 i!t a l (/5)
.

Black has a variety of moves in

this position:
Al 1 7 . . . h6
A2 1 7 . . . Ag7
A3 1 7 . . . Ae7
A4 1 7
.. b8
Naturally there are considerable
possibilities of transposition from
one line to another
.

. .

AI

17
h6
1 8 Ae3
cJ c5
Or 1 8 . . . i!f c7 1 9 i!t d2 \t>h7 20
cJ h2 Ag7 21 .. f1 .. e7 22 cJg4
cJ g8 23 f4 ef 24 .. x f4 cJe5 25
cJ x e5 A x e5 26 . f3 b4 Balashov
Vogt,
Leipzig 1 9 7 3 ; Black's
strongpoint on e5 compensates for
White's pressure along the f-file but
White eventually won after Black
had lost control of e5.
1 9 i!fd2
\t> h7
1 9 . . . h5 may be better and is

15

15
B

26 . . . .. x a7 27 .. x a7 cJfd7 28 h4
(28 cJ d2 !? threatening b4 could be
considered) 28 . . . .. b8 ! 29 h5 d8
30 cJ d2 .. a8 3 1 b4 {Another plan is
3 1 .. x a8 i!t x a8 32 i!t x a8 A x a8
33 cJ bl ltb7 34 cJ a3 A a6 35 hgt

16

JJ li::,bd2

Main Line with 15 a4

fg 36 li::, e 2 followed by li::, c l -a2- 16

b4.) 31 . . . cb 32li::, x b3 li::, x b3 33 W
x b3 . x a7 34 X a7 a8 35
x a8 x a8 36 c4 bc 37 a4
2)b8 38 a7 li::, a6 39 b5 b 7 40
.
x c4 f6 41 2)1 g5 42 b5
g7 43 hg fg 44 f3 f7 45 f2
e7 46li::, e3 x e3+ 47 x e 3 g5
48 d3li::, c 7 49 c4 c8 50 e3
d7 5 1 c6 c8 52 b5 d 7 53
c6 c8 !-! Geller-Karpov,
European Team Ch, Bath 1 973,
Budapest 1 97 3 .
but White could well continue,
b ) 2 0 . . . . b8 1 2 1 . e a l A c8 22 ab
pursuing the strategy typical of AI.
ab 23 c l . e7 24 . a7 (24 . I a2
If White wishes to play li::,h 2 and
and a l ) 24 . . . . x a7 25 . x a7
f4 he could preface that plan with
li::, fd7 26 a l b6 27 li::, d 2 (27
19 Ah6.
a5 !?) 27 . . . . b7 28 . a8 c7 29
h5
19 . . .
li::, e 2? ! (29 b4) 29 . . . li::,b6 30 . a3
20 li::, f3
f5! 3 1 f3 [4 32 A f2li::,d 3 33 b4li::, x f2
Now 20 A is met by 20 . . . ef 2 1
34 x f2 A e 7 35 . a6 d 7 36li::,1
x f4 b6 ! 22 A x f6 ( 2 2 h l
Ad8 3 7 li::,g l li::,c8 38 li::, e 2 . a7
li::,h 7+) 22 . . . li::,d 3+ 23 e3
(threatening 39 . . . b6+ !) 39 e l
x e3+ 24 . x e3 A x f6 25
b6 ! 4 0 . x a7 li::, x a7 41 a5
x d3 cd 26 . x d3 h4 with
x as 42 ba A x as 43li::, d 2 h5 44
advantage to Black-Kuzmin.
dl A b6 45 Abl h6 46 A a2
To avoid this awkward check
g5 47 el A c5 48 d l li::, c 8 49
Balashov-Baikov, USSR 1 974,
el li::, b6 50 d l h4 5 1 c2
continued 20 h1 1 and White had
A x h3 ! 0- 1 Enklaar-Zuidema,
better chances after 20 . . . c7 21
Dutch Ch play-off 1 97 3.
Ah6 A h8 22 f4 ef 23 x f4 . ab8
A2
24 ab ab 25 li::, f3 Ac8 26 . adl .
17
A g7
20 . . .
c7
li::, c 5 (J6)
1 8 d2
. ab8
21 . a3
1 8 . . . c7 1 9 A h6 h8 20
A h8
22 A h6
x g7+ x g7 21 h2 h6 22
Ac8
23 . eal
li::,h 4 li::,g8 23 f4 Gereben
The prospects are eq ual.
Grunfeld, Beverwijk 1 96 1 , was
Kuzmin Spassky, 41 st USSR Ch
rather passively played by Black.
1 973, continued 24 ab ab 25 e1
19 li::,h 2
Ad7 26 . l a2 . ec8! 27 h l li::,h 7
Or 19 . a3 . b8 20 ab ab 2 1 2 8 . a7 d8 2 9 Ae3 Ae8? (29 . . .
. eal ! -! Dueball-Matanovic, Af6!= ) 30 a 1 ? (30 li::,g l ! h4 31

I I &Llhd2

f4 ef 32 &Llf3 i!r ffi 33 d4 i!rd8 34

&Lle2 -Kuzmin} 30 . . . ffi 3 1
.. 2a5 d7 3 2 i!r e l i!r e8 33 .. a l
A d8 ! 3 4 &Lld2 b6+ 35 .. 7a2
i!r e7 36 i!r e2 i!rffi 3 7 .. a3 i!rh4 38
&Llf3 i!r e7 39 &Lld2 'll g 7 40 .. el
.. a8 41 .. aal h4 !-! A fine
illustration of Black's defensive
possibilities ID
this difficult
variation.

Main Line with 15 a4 17

!sl.x g4 27 ffi .. b7 28 !sl.d4 (The

sacrifice 28 &Llx h5 is met by 28 . . .
gh 29 i!r g5+ \fth7 30 e5+ &Lld3 31
ed i!r x d6 32 .. f3 .. e2!) 28 . . i!re7
29 !sl.ffi i!rc7 30 d4 i!r e7 31 ffi
!-!
Ljubojevic-Portisch, 2nd
match game, Milan 1 97 5 .
19 ab
ab
A g7
20 .. a2
2 1 .. eal
&Llc5( 17)

A3

17 . . .

e7

1 8 Ae3
Or 1 8 i!rd2 &Llc5 1 9 .. a3 &Llfd7
20 !sl.x e7 i!rX e7 2 1 .. eal &Llb6 22
ab ab 23 .. x a8 .. x a8 24 .. x a8+
!-! Tringov-Ciocaltea, Reykjavik
1 974.
18 . . .
i!rc7
19 .. a3
&Llc5
20 i!r e2
f8
2 0 . . . &Llfd7!? is another try but
then White will revert to the K-side
plan 21 &Llh2 , followed by f4 or
&Llh4 with an unclear position.
2 1 .. eal
Ciocaltea-Spassky , Dortmund
1 973 , ended 21 . . : g7 22 .. l a2
&Llfd7 23 i!r d l &Llb6 24 ab ab 25
.. x a8 !-! but White would still
have an edge after 25 . . . .. x a8 26
.. x a8+ x a8 27 i!r a l followed
by i!r a3 and i!r b4 .
A4
17

1 8 i!rd2

.. b8
!sl.c8

A recent divergence is 1 8 . . . &Llc5

1 9&Llh2 Ac8 20 ab ab 2 1 M (2 1 f3 !?}
21 . . . h5 22 f4 i!r b6! 23 'llh l ef 24
i!rx f4 &Llg4 25 fl i!rc7 26 &Llx g4

17
W

A typical position ID this

variation. White has a slight
initiative due to control of the a-file
and greater room to manoeuvre.
Spassky- Karpov,
1 0th match
game, Leningrad 1 974, continued
22 i!r e3 .. e7 23 &Lld2 .. c7 24 b3
(Another idea is 24 &Lle2 intending
to arrive at b4 via cl and a2.) 24 . . .
cb 25 &Llx b3 Ad7 26 &Llx c5.. x c5
27 i!r d2 i!r c8 28 &Lle2 &Lle8 29 .1ld3
f5 30 .1l e3 .. c7 31 f3 f4 32 .1la7
.. bb7 33 i!rel i!r d8 34 i!rf2 .. c8 35
.. a6 Jt ffi 36 b6 i!re7 3 7 .. a7
.. cb8 38 .. x b7 .. x b7 39'llfl (39
'llh l !) 39 . . . M 40 i!rgl \ftg7 41
.. a7? (41 .. a8 or 41 &Llcl preserve
some initiative.) 41 . . . .. x a7 42
x a7 i!rd8 43 i!r b6 i!rc7! 44

/8

/ / CiJ bd2 Main Line with /5 a4

x c7 CiJ x c7 45 b8 CiJ e8 46 CiJel

Ad8 47 Aa7 Aa5 48 c4 bc 49
x c4 f7 50 CiJb3Ac7 5 1 Af2 g5
52 e l h5 53 CiJel CiJffi 54 CiJ d3
g6 55 A a6 g4 56 hg hg 57 CiJ b2
CiJ h 7 58 CiJ c4 CiJ g5 59 f2 ffi 60
b4 CiJ f7 !-!.
B

17 e3
CiJ c5
1 7 . . . h6 1 8 CiJ h2 Ag7 1 9 . fl
c7 20 d2 h7 2 1 f4! ef 22
. x f4 CiJe5 23 . afl e7 24 CiJf3
CiJ fd7 25 CiJ d4 Cuasnicu-Grinberg,
San Isidro 1 974, allows White far
too free a hand .
1 8 e2
The queen could eq ually well be
developed on d2 as in A but leaving
d2 vacant for a knight has its points.
Other possibilities are:
a) 18llb2 d7?! 1 9 Ag5 e 7 20
f4 ef 2 1 x f4 h5 22 CiJ f3 CiJ h 7 23
A e3 CiJx a4?! 24 Ax a4 ba 25
Et x a4 Et ac8 26 CiJ hi f5 27 CiJ d2 fe
28 CiJ x c4;t Damjanovic-Vogt,
Lublin 1 974, but Black's play was
not thematic of the line.
b) 18 d2 and now:
fc17 1 9 h4 h5 20 CiJ g5
bl) 18
e7 2 1 . a3 A h6 22 Et eal CiJb6 23
ab ab 24 Et x a8 . x a8 25 . x a8+
Ax a8 26 CiJ fl !-! Jansa-Holmov,
Sochi 1 9 74.
b2 ) 18
. b8 19 . a3 A g7 20
Et eal A c8 21 ab ab 22 e l b7
23 . a7 CiJ fd7 24 Et l a5 b6 25
al A ffi 26 a3 d8 27 b4
Aa6? (27 . . . Ac8) 28 . x d 7!
x a 5 2 9 x a5 A x a5 30 . x d6
Ac7 31 . c6 with a winning

advantage,
Kuzmin-Rukavina,
Leningrad interzonal 1 973.
c7 (l8)
18 . . .
Spassky- Holmov, Sochi 1 97 3 ,
varied with 1 8 . . . . b8 1 9 . a3
Ac8 20 ab ab 21 . fal A b7 22
CiJd2 A a8 (22 . .. . a8 23 . x a8 !
A x a8 2 4 b3 cb 2 5 CiJ x b 3 b6 26
. a5 . b8 27 Ad3! is very strong
for White.) 23 b3 cb 24 CiJ x b3
CiJfd7 25 CiJd2 e7 26 CiJ gfl and
now Black blundered away
material with 26 . . . Ag5? 27
. x a8 ! . x a8 28 . x a8 x a8 29
x g5 .
/8
W

1 9 . a3
Alternatives are:
a) 19 c12 CiJfd7 20 A h6 CiJ b6 2 1
A x ill . x ill 22 a5 CiJba4 23
x a4 CiJ x a4 24 h6 ffi 25 . e2
CiJ c5 and Black has no problems,
Matov-Robatsch, Vinkovci 1 968.
b) 19 CiJ d2 . ab8 ( 1 9 .. . CiJfd7 !?) 20
. eel ! A c8 21 ab ab 22 b3 cb 23
CiJ x b3 CiJa4 24 Ad3 Ad7 25 d2
Et ec8 26 c4 b4 27 CiJ e2 A e8 28
. a2 . a8 29 . cal b7 30 f4 with
advantage to White, Jansa
Smejkal, Czech Ch 1 972.

11 hd2 Main Line with 15 a4 19

19 . . .
A g7
Or 1 9 . . . . ab8 20 . eal Ac8 2 1
ab a b 22 d2 Ad7 with the
standard
type
of pOSitiOn,
Padevsky-Pachman, Havana 1 964.
20 . eal
. ec8
Razuvayev-Furman, 4 1 st USSR
Ch 1 973 (2nd Group) , continued 2 1
d2 d8 2 2 . l a2 fd7 23 dl
b6 24 ab ab 25 a l . x a3 26
. x a3 . a8 27 gf1 Am 28 bl
b8 29 . a5 A c8 30 a3 A d 7 3 1
fd2 t-t Black unravelled his

forces very neatly and the,strategy

of not abandoning the a-file proved
successful.
Conclusion: 1 5 a4, if played in
this vein with a closed centre, is
q uite promising for White unless
Black defends with the utmost
accuracy and will certainly appeal
to those who prefer long games with
intricate manoeuvres. Further
examples of this type of middle
game will be found in chapter 6.

1 1 lLJbd2: 13 b4 without 14 a4

I e4 e5 2 <)(3 <)c6 3 Jl.b5 a6 4 Jl.a4

<)16 5 OO Ae7 6 el b5 7 J;t b3 d6 8

c3 00 9 h3 <)b8 1 0 d4 <)bd7 1 1
<)bd2 Ab7 1 2 Ac2 e8
1 3 b4 (l9)
19

Ab 7 1 7 a4 are good for White.

d5? 1 4 <)x e5 <)x e5 1 5 de
b) 13
<)X e4 1 6 <)x e4 de 1 7 g4 c5 1 8
Ax e4 A X e4 1 9 X e4 a5 2 0 bc
AX c5 21 A e3 and Black has lost a
pawn
without compensation,
Kavalek-Robatsch, Sarajevo 1 968.
851 4 <)b3 ab?! 1 5 cb b8
c) 13
1 6 <)a5 c6 Suetin-Tringov, Titovo
Uiice 1 966, and now 1 7 <)x b7
x b7 18 J;t b3 gives White the
better game. Instead of 14 . . . ab,
Matanovic recommends 1 4 . . . ed
15 <)bx d4 .ilm, as Dimitrij evic
played against him at Porec 1 9 7 3.
ed 1 4 cd a5 1 5 ba c5 1 6
d) 13
A d2 ( Less accurate is 1 6 e5 de 1 7 de
<)d5 1 8 <)e4 <)b4! l 9 Abl x a5)
16 . . . x a5 1 7 a4! b4 1 8 <)c4 c7
1 9 e5 de 20 de <)d5 2 1 <)fd2 <)7b6
with good attacking chances for
White, Ciric-Robatsch, Beverwijk
1 967 . I nstead of 22 g4 <)c3 as
played, Spassky recommended 22
e6! and if22 . . . fe 23 h5.
1 4 A b2
For 1 4 a4 see chapter 5.
Black now has a choice between:
A 14 . . . g6? !
B 1 4 . . . a5
C 14 . . . <)b6
Little explored is t 4 . . . c5 1 5 bc
. .

. . .

White gains space on the Q-side

and highlights the drawback of the
Breyer manoeuvre, i.e. there is no
black knight on c6 to pressurize the
squares d4 and b4. Furthermore,
the sq uare a5 is no longer protected
so Black has to worry about <)d2b3-a5 in many variations. White
plans A b2 followed eventually by
c4 after which Black's e- b- or c
pawns may become weak.
13 . . .
Am
Regarded a s the best. Other
possibilities are:
a) 13
e5 1 4 bc ed and now both
15 cd6! and 1 5 c6 Ax c6 16 <)x d4
. .

11 c:)bd2: 13 b4 without 14 a4 21
ed 1 6 cd6 dc 1 7 Ax c3 .Q.x d6 1 8 e5
d5 1 9 Ad4 A b4 20 i!f bl with a
sl igh t edge to White, Trofimov
Grigorescu, corres 1 970.
A

14...

p1l

1 5 a3
The most common reply, but not
the most dynamic. Other lines are:
a) 15 c4l ed 1 6 cb ab 1 7 x d4 d5 1 8
e d El x e l + 1 9 i!f x el A x d 5 20 a3
c6 21 c:)e4 Dueball-O' Kelly, W.
German Team Ch 1 970.
c6 2 1 c:)e4 with a definite
advantage to White, DuebaU0' Kelly, W. German Team Ch
1 970.
b) 15 Ac13 c:)b6 1 6 El bl Ag7 1 7
i!:Yc2 c:)fd7 1 8 c4 bc 1 9 c:)x c4
c:)x c4 20 Ax c4 ed 2 1 Ax d4;!;
Pokojowczyk- Moles, Groningen
1 968-69.
c) 15 i!fbl when:
c l ) 15
c:)h51 6 A b3 ed 1 7 cd d5
proved satisfactory, Filep-Fldi,
Hungarian Ch 1 966.
c2) 15
c6 1 6 a3 i!f c7 1 7 A b3
A g7 1 8 i!f a2 El e7 1 9 de c:)x e5 20
c:)x e5 de 21 c4 El d8 22 El adl
El ed7 1-1 Suetin-Lengyel, Bud
apest 1 9 70.
1 5 .. .
A g7
1 5 ... a5 could transpose to B.
1 5 ... c:)b6 transposes to C.
1 6 c4!
1 6 d5 is also quite promising, e.g.
1 6 ... c:)b6 and now:
a) 17 c4 bc 18 a4 c6 1 9 dc Ax c6 20
a5 cS 21 c:)x c4 El ba 22 Aa3
Ciric-Kuijpers, Beverwijk 1 967.
.

b) 17 a4 c:)x a4 1 8 Ax a4 ba 19
c4 c6 20 c:)a5 i!:Yc7 2 1 dc Ax c6
22 x c6 i!fx c6 23 i!f x af i!f b7
White has a faint initiative,
Smejkal-Unzicker, Bamberg 1 972.
16 . . .
ed
If 16 . . . bc then 1 7 de leaves
Black with a sickly pawn structure.
1 7 cb
ab
c6
1 8 c:)x d4
El cS
1 9 c:)4b3 !
20 a4! (20)
20
B

An ideal position for White in the

1 3 b4 variation . Black's pawns are
weak and his minor pieces have
little scope.
Ivkov-Filip, Vrsac 1 97 1 , con
cI5?1 21 e5 c:)h5 22
tinued 20
f3 i!:Yc7 23 c:)a5 Aa8 24 ab cb 25
J,td3 i!f b8 26 cl .
No better was 20
ba 2 1 c:)a5
A a8 22 c:)dc4! d5 23 d6 c:)x e4
24 El x e4! de 25 Ax g7 \t'x g7 26
ac4! and Black, despite his
material advantage, is very short of
moves. Hartston-Haygarth, British
Ch 1 972.

14...

&5(21)

22

1 1 t;Jbd2: 13 b4 without 14 a4

21
W

1 5 Ad3
The immediate 15 a3 could
transpose to the text. After 1 5 a3
i!tb8 1 6 de? ! de 1 7 t;J b3 ab 18 cb c5
19 bc t;J x c5 20 x c5 Ax c5 Black
had solved his opening problems,
Gufeld-Dely, Kecskemet 1 965.
15 . . .
c6
16 a3
1 6 t;J b3 !?
16 . . .
b6
White has some pressure after 1 6
. . . g6 1 7 b 3 a b 1 8 "C b cS 1 9 de
de 20 i!t d2 e7 2 1 ad i!t e6 22
llc2 t;J h5 23 a5 A aS 24 A b3
e7 25 cd l
Kavalek- M.
Kovacs, Salgotarjan 1 967.
17 d
Or 1 7 bI fd7 1 8 t;Jb3 ab 1 9
c b c 8 2 0 d ll a8 2 1 a5 g6 22
c2 i-i Gipslis-Podgayets, 38th
USSR Ch 1 970.
17 . . .
ed !
I S t;Jx d4
fd7
19 2b3
Gipsfis now considers that after
19 .. t;J et 20 llx c4 bc 21 t;Jx a5
Black has sufficient
x a5
compensation for the exchange.

Instead, Tal-Karpov, Lenin

grad interzonal 1 973, went 19
e5 20 t;Jx a5 x a5 2 1 ba t;Jbc4
22 c2 x a5 23 fl (23 c l
x d3 2 4 x d 3 d 5 2 5 ce2 c5 26
b3 might be better.) and the
exchange sacrifice is probably j ust
insufficient. The game continued
23 . . . t;Jx b2 24 x b2 x c3 25
b3 i!t a5 26 b l a7 2 7 d l
d7 2S f5 e6 29 d4 eS 30
Ax b5 ! cb 31 t;Jx b5 c5 32 t;Jx d6
Ax d6 33 x b7 f6 34 b3
ltc7?! (34 . . . e6!) 35 b5 c2
36 b l ! x bl 37 dx bl ll d6 3S
a4 x e4 39 dl (39 a5 !) 39 . . .
e8 40 a5 <if;ffi 41 a6 a4 42 a7
g5 ! 43 aS A e5 44 g3 (44 f4! x f4
45 ddS d4+ 46 <if;h2 e4 47
a7 offers more chances.) 44 . . . <if;e7
45 el f6 46 a7 c7 47 hS
x a7 i -i.
.

14 ...

b6

1 5 a3
15 bl t;Jfd7 1 6 Aal a5 1 7 Jt d3
a b I S cb x a2 1 9 Jtx b 5 c6 20 11 fl
ed 2 1 11x d 4 c 5 22 bc d c S . Garcia
Kuij pers. Wijk aan Zee 1 974, IS
roughly eq ual.
15 . . .
fd 7 ( 22)
Giving extra protection to the e
pawn in this way has proved most
popular as otherwise White's
imminent c4 can prove awkward.
Other possibilities are:
a) 15 ... as 1 6 A d3 c6 transposing
to B: 1 4 . . . a5
b) 15 ... g6 11 1 6 de de I 7 c4 bc IS
X e5 Ag7 1 9 t;Jdx c4 x c4 20

11 hd2: 13 h4 without 14 a4

x c4 .Q.x e4 2 1 .Q.a4 .. e6 22
i!rx d8+ .. x d8 23 .. adl .. d5 24
.Q. b3 .. e8 25 d2 .Q. c2 26 Ax f6
.. X el+ 27 ,,x el,,x d2 28 .. e8+
.Q. m 29 .Q.x c2 1 -0 Parma-Masic,
Vrsac 1973.
c) 15 ... h6 1 6 c4! when:
c l ) 16... ed 1 7 cb ab 18 x d4
a4 1 9 Ax a4 ba 20 i!r c2
M a t a novic- K u z m i n ,
U S SR
Yugoslavia 1971 is given as unclear
by Matanovic and as ;!; by Parma.
c2) 16...x et 1 7 x c4 be 18 de
de 19 x e5 c5 20 x c4 cb! (not 20
. . . i!r x d l 21 .. ax dl .Q. X e4 22
.Q.a4 .. e6 23 .Q.x f6 gf 24 Ad7) 2 1
e 5 d5 2 2 i!r x d 5 x d 5 Parma
U nzicker, Berlin 1 97 1 , and now,
instead of23 a5? .. ab8= , Parma
gives 23 d6!;!; .
22

Many moves have been tried in

this position (after 1 5 . . . fd7 ) :
a ) 16 et ?! be 1 7 de x e5 1 8 x e5
de 1 9 i!re2 c5 20 bdtx c5 21 x c4
x c4 22 x c4 i!r b6 with a slight
initiative for Black. Hartston
Spassky, European Team Ch, Bath
1 973, went 23 .. e2 x b2 24 .. bl
i!rx a3 25 .. x b7 .. e7 26 .. x e7

23

c l + 2 7 h2 .Q.x e7 28 i!r c6 .. d8
29 x a6 h5 30 .Q. b3 f4+ 3 1 gl
.Q. c5 32 a5 .. c8 33 i!r d2 f6 34
c2 .. c7 35 .. d2 g6 36 .. d3 .Q.e3
3 7 e2 .. cl+ 38 .. dl .. x dl+ 39
.Q.x dl i;td4 40 f3 t -t .
b ) 16bl c5 1 7 be de 1 8 a4 c7 1 9
a 5 c8 20 x e5 x e 5 2 1 de c4! is
reasonable for Black, Kupreichik
A. Petrosian, Kiev 1 9 7 3 .
c) 16 de X e5 1 7 X e5 de 1 8 e2
c5 1 9 fl c4 20 .Q. c l cb 2 1 cb a5
22 ba X a5 23 g3 x a3,
Triana-Vogt, Cienfuegos 1 975.
d ) 16.. cl g6 1 7 Abl .Q. h6 (A fair
alternative is 1 7 . . . c5 1 8 de dc l 9 be
{)a4 20 .Q.al Jix c5 2 1 i!rb3 b6
22 .. fl Inkiov-Ayansk i, Varna
1 974, and now Black should play 22
. . .. ad8.) 18 .. c2 a5 R. Byrne
Tukamakov, Leningrad interzonal
1 97 3 , and now instead of the game
continuation 19 c4? ab 20 ab ed 21
.Q.x d4 be 22 A a2 .. a4 23 bl
a8 ! + White could try 1 9 ba
.. x a5 20 c4 be 2 1 {)x c4 x c4 22
.. x c4;!; .
e) 16 .. bl g6 1 7 d5 i;t g7 (Better is
1 7 . . . c6! but after 1 8 de Ax c6 1 9
.Q. b3 d 5 2 0 e d .Q. x d5 2 1 .Q. x d5
x d5 22 c4 White still retains
some initiative.) 1 8 c4 c6 (Or 1 8 . . .
x c4 1 9 x c4 be 20 d2 ) 19
de .Q.x c 6 2 0 Ad3 b8 2 1 e2
a4 22 .Q.al m 23 b3 Stein
Hennings, Kizlovodsk 1 97 2 . White
has strong pressure on the Q-side.
The lines in this chapter
represent one of White's most
challenging tries against the Breyer.
=,

11 4:Jbd2: 13 b4 with 14 a4

I e4 e5 2 1'jf3 I'jc6 3 A b5 a6 4 A a4
I'jffi 5 00 l'je7 6 . el b5 7 A b3 d6 8
c3 00 9 h3 I'j b8 I D d4 I'j bd 7 I I
I'jbd2 A b7 1 2 A c2 .e8 1 3 b4 A m
1 4 a4 (23)
23
B

This move, which has long been

considered innocuous, was success
fully revived by Fischer against
Spassky in the 1972 World
Championship match. Since then a
considerable amount of theory has
developed .
Black has three main con
tinuations:
A 1 4 . . . I'jb6
B 1 4 . . . d5
C 1 4 . . . a5
A forgotten line is 14 . . . c5 and
after 1 5 bc ed 1 6 cd4 (Gipslis

suggests 1 6 c6!?) 16 . . . dc 1 7 e51'jd5

1 8 l'je4 Balashov- Podgayets,
USSR Team Ch, Moscow 1 966, 1 8
. . . c4 is not too bad for Black.
A

I'jb6
14 . . .
1 5 a5
Less challenging is 1 5 A b2 ed 1 6
cd I'jx a4 1 7 Ax a4 ba and now,
according to Spassky, White should
play 18 1!rc2 d5 19 e5 l'je4 20
1!rx a4 with an equal game.
Instead, Hennings-Spassky, Sochi
1 973, continued 1 8 d5 c6 ! 19 I'jc4
cd 20 l'ja5 I'jx e4! 21 I'jd4 (21
I'jx b7 is met by 21 . . . 1!rb6
threa tening 22 . . . 1!rx b 7 and 22 . . .
1!rx f2+ followed by 23 . . . 1!rx b2 .)
21 . . . A c8 22 f3 I'jg5 23 l'jac6
1!rd7 24 1!rd2? (24 1!rx a4!) 24 . . .
I'je6 25 f41'jx d4 261'jx d4 A b 7 2 7
.a3 .x eH 2 8 1!rx el . e8 29
1!rf2 1!re7 30 \t1h2 1!rel 3 1 1!rc2
1!re4 32 1!rf2 g6 33 .c3 A h6 34
.c7 . e7 35 . x e7 1!rx e7 361'je2
1!re4 37 d4 Jt g7 38 J;tx g7\t1x g7
39 .!)d4 a3 40 f5 1!re5+ 0- 1 .
15 . . .
I'jbd7
1 6 b2
Eyeing the square e5 after the

11 bd2: 13 b4 with 14 a4 25

intended break with c4. Harmless is

1 6 . bl d5 ! 1 7 ed ed 1 8 x d4
Ax d5 19 fl . x el 20 x e l
e8 2 1 Jld2 i-i Savon-Vogt,
Skopje Olympiad 1 972.
16 . . .
b8
Spassky's choice when playing
this position for the first time, but
now considered rather suspect.
Black has also tried:
a) 16
. . g6 1 7 c4 (Tringov
recommends 1 7 . bl ! as an
improvement.) and now:
ed?1I8 cb ab 1 9 xd4 c5
a l ) 17
20 x b5 A c6 21 J;td3 b6 22
a3 x b4 23 ac4 b8 24 c2
with advantage to White, Tim
man-Eslon, Islington 1 973.
a2 ) 17
be 18 d5 c6 1 9 dc Jlx c6
20 x c4 b8 2 1 A a4 Tringov
Ree, Skopje Olympiad 1 972, and
now Black could equalize with 2 1
. . . J;t x a4 2 2 x a 4 d5 .
.

. b8 1 7 . b l (Petrosian
b) 16
suggests 1 7 . e3!? whereas 1 7 Ad3
h6 1 8 c2 g6 1 9 c4 bc 20.Q.,x c4 ed
21 Ax d4 Ag7 22 e5 de 23 x e5
x e5 24 Jlx e5 . x e5 25 . x e5
d5 , Rossman-Vogt, E. German
Ch 1 975, is eminently satisfactory
for Black.) 1 7 . . . A a8 ( 1 7 . . . g6 1 8
c4 bc 1 9 x c4 d5 ! 2 0 ed J;t x b4 2 1
. fl J;tx d5 2 2 e3 , Litvinov
Mishnik, USSR 1 974, would turn
out well for Black after 22 . . . Jlx f3
23 x f3 e4.) 1 8 J;t a l g6 and now:
b l ) 19 Jld31 c5 20 d5 h5 21 Jl b2
f4 22 Afl . Black should now
admit to a slightly inferior position
with 22 . . . .1lg7 as after 22 . . . cb 23
.

cb f5 ? 24 g3 fe 25 x e4 x d) 26
b3 c7 27 . bdl c6 28 .)c3
7f6 29 . x d5! Vasyukov
Podgayets, Leningrad 1 974, White
has a manifest advantage.
b2 ) 19 et ed 20 cb ab 21 x d4- d5
with equal chances. Planinc
Spassky, Amsterdam 1 973, con
tinued in complicated vein: 22
4f3 de 23 g5 e3 24 fe Jld5 25
A b3 c6 26 e4 Ax b3 27 x b3
e7 28 df3? ! (28 . fl !) 28 . . ' h6
29 e5 d5 30 e6 hg 31 ed x d7 32
e5 d6+ 33 f3 f5 34 Jtd4
x b4 35 b3+ d5 (35 . . .
d5 !) 36 x d5+ cd 3 7 d7
. x eH 38 . x el . a8 39 !3 e6!
c2 40 A e5 A b4 i -i.
1 7 . bl
Fischer's preference at Reyjavik
but this has now been superceded
by 1 7 c4! bc 1 8 .1l a4 c6 ( 1 8 ...
. d8t is more tenacious.) 1 9
x c 4 with advantage t o White,
e.g. :
a ) 19 . . e7 20 cl (20 de! de 2 1
b3 ) 2 0 . . . . ac8? (20 . . . ed!
and if 21 x d4 d5! or 21 )( d4
x e4 22 f5 d5) 21 de de 22 b3
h6 23 c3 Jld6 24 . cdl . e6 25
J;l b3 . d8 26 x d6 .. x d6 27
. x d6 x d6 28 . dl e7 29
x e5 x e5 30 . x d8+ )( d8
3 1 x e5 c5 32 x c5 .1lx e4 33
a 7 J;ld5 34 J;lx f6 x f6 35
b8+ 1 -0 Savon-Mukhin, Mos
cow 1 973.
b) 19
ecIJ 20 x d4 (20 )( d4
d5!+) 20 ... d5 21 ed .>e el+ 22
.

x el x d5 23 d3 c7 244)e3

26

11 t;Jbd2: 13 b4 with 14 a4

t;J 7ffi 25 t;Jx d5 t;Jx d5 26 t;J c5

with strong pressure, Kavalek
Reshevsky, Chicago 1 9 7 3 .
17 . . .
c5
dc
1 8 bc
t;J X e5 (24)
19 de
24

White now has:

Al 20 t;Jx e5
A2 20 c4!
AI

20 x e5

x e5
2 1 c4
f4
22 .Q,x ffi
x ffi
f:!. ed8
23 cb
24 cl
c3
Safer is 24 . . . ab 25 f:!. x b5 .Q.a6
26 f:!. b6 c3 27 t;Jb3 g6 ! (27 . . . c4?
28 e5 g6 29 f:!. e3 !) 28 e5 .Q.h6! as in
Vasyukov-Smejkal, Polanica Zdroj
1 972, which continued 29 b l c4
30 t;J c5 x a5 3 1 t;J e4 Jl c8 32
t;Jd6 . a6! 33 f:!. b8 .Q.e6 34 f:!. e4
Jlffi 35 f:!. x d8 x d8 36 !zj x c4
c7 3 7 Jld3 f:!. c6 38 fl Jl f5 39
f:!. f4 e6 40 i!re2 Jlg7 !-! .
x a5
25 t;J f3
25 . . . ab!?
26 b3
with a dangerous K-side attack in

the offing. Fischer-Spassky, 1 0 th

match game, Reyjavik 1 972,
continued 26 . . . ab 27 f4 f:!. d 7 28
t;J e5 c7 29 f:!. bdl f:!. e7 (29 . . .
f:!. x d l ? 30 .Q.x f7+ h8 3 1 t;J g6+
or 29 . . . f:!. ad8 30 .Q.x f7+ as in the
game) 30 .Q.x f7+ f:!. x f7 3 1 x f7+
x f7 32 t;J x f7 .Q.x e4 33 f:!. x e4
x f7 34 f:!. d7+ ffi 35 f:!. b7
f:!. aI+ ? (35 . . . b4 36 fl f:!. c8 !;!; )
36 h2 .Q.d6+ 37 g3 b4 38 g2 h5
39 f:!. b6 f:!. d l 40 f3 f7 41 e2
f:!. d5 42 f4 g6 43 g4 hg H hg g5 45 f5
Ae5 46 f:!. b5 ffi 47 f:!. eX b4 .Q.d4
48 f:!. b6+ e5 49 f3 f:!. d8 50
f:!. b8 f:!. d7 51 f:!. 4b7 f:!. d6 52 f:!. b6
f:!. d7 53 f:!. g6 d5 54 f:!. x g5 .Q.e5
55 ffi d4 56 f:!. bl 1 -0.
A2

20 et!
t;J x f3+
Also unsatisfactory is 20 . . . t;J fd7
21 cb ab 22 .Q.x e5 t;Jx e5 23 f:!. x b5
x f3+ 24 x f3 c7 25 .Q.b3
lta6 26 f:!. b6 c4 27 t;Jx c4 (At this
point ! -! ! Matera-Shapiro, US
Open 1 973) 27 . . . A c5 28 t;J e3 !
Ax b 6 2 9 a b c3 30 .Q.x f7 + h8
3 1 f:!. d l with great advantage to
White, Micheli- Matanovic, Ma
donna di Campiglio 1 973.
2 1 x f3
d8
2 1 . . . t;Jd7 has been suggested by
Matanovic.
After 2 1 . . . d8 Kostro claims
an advantage with 22 .Q.c3 b4 23
lt x ffi x d2 24 f:!. e2 but not so
good is 22 f:!. bd l x a5 23 lt x ffi gf
24 x ffi? (24 g4+ ! .Q.g7 25 f:!. e3
.Q.c8 ! 26 h4 offers better
chances.) 24 . . . i;tg7 25 f5 c3 !

11 !Jbd2: 13 b4 with 14 a4
26 e5 X e5 27 x e5 i!fx e5 28
i!f x h7+ <it/fB 29 i!fd3 .Q.ffi 30 f3
i!f f4 with superior prospects for
Black, Kostro-Sznapik, Poland
1 97 2 .
I t would seem that 1 6 . . . i!Yb8
fails to eq ualize for Black and unless
improvements can be found at that
stage Spassky's 1 4 . . . b6 will
eventually be discarded from
tournament practice.
B

14

d5(25)

25
W

A radical solution of the central

problems. White can choose
between:
Bl 1 5 x e5 !
B2 1 5 de
BI

15 x eSt de
Alternatively:
x e4 1 6 x e4 X e5 1 7
a) 15
g5 g6 1 8 .Q.e3 h6 allows the
promising 'sacrifice' 19 x f7
<it/ x f7 20 i!f h5 i!f ffi 2 1 f4 Pioch
Terlecki, Polish corres Ch 1 973.
b) 15. . x eS 1 6 de x e4 ( 1 6 . . .
X e5? 1 7 f4 e8 1 8 e5 d7 19
f3 ! ) 1 7 x e4 de 1 8 i!fx d8!
eX d8 ( 18 . . . aX d8 1 9 ab ab 20
. . .

27

a7 ) 1 9 .Q.g5 e8 20 ab ab 21

X as .Q. x as 22 A x e4 A e4 (22

. . . X e5? 23 Ax h7+ ) 23 x e4
ffi 24 .Q. f4 Ad6 25 ed! X e4 26 dc
c4 27 Ad6 c6 28 c4! <it/f7 29 cb
cl + 30 <it/h2 <it/ e6 31 .Q. f4 1 -0
Ghinda- Majstorovic, Cacak 19 73.
Neat tactical control by White
which made 1 5 . . . x e5 appear
almost a forced loss!
1 6 f4
On 1 6 g4 Vasyukov recom
mends 1 6 . . . .Q.d5 as 1 6 . . . x g4 is
inferior: 1 7 hg ffi 1 8 g5 e3 1 9
X e3 X e 3 2 0 fe d5 2 1 e4
i!f d 7 22 ab ab 23 x a8 .Q. x a8 24
i!Y h5 when Black has nothing for his
pawn, Tarjan-Sully, Nice Olym
piad 1 974.
16 . . .
ef
1 7 dx f3 x e5
1 8 2:l x e5
.Q. d6
1 9 .Q.f4
Less exact is 1 9 Ag5 it x e5 20 de
i!fd5 2 1 e2 i!Yx d l + 22 x d l
d5 23 d3 b6 24 a 5 c4 2 5
d7 ac8 2 6 e 6 x e 6 2 7 X e6
fe 28 .Q.b3 1-1 Tukmakov
Vasyukov, USSR Teams 1 97 3 .
19 . . .
A X e5
20 .Q.X e5
d7
21 i!fd3
White's bishop-pair and strong
centre guarantee him a lasting
InitiatIVe.
Vasy ukov-Ho1mov,
Dubna 1 973, continued 21 . . . g6 22
A f4 b6 23 g3 x a4 {An
attempt to improve on 23
d5
24 A e5 i!Yd7 25 fl e7 26 ab ab
27 x a8+ J,tx a8 28 h4!
.

28 11 !i:J bd2: 13 b.4 with 14 a4

Balashov-Spiridonov, Sochi 1 973.)
24 Et x e8+ i!t'x e8 25 Et e 1 i!t'd7 26
.Q.h6! i!t'd6 (If 26 . . . Et e8 27
Et x e8+ x e8 28 i!t'x c7 .Q.x g2?
29 .Q. b3 .Q. c6 30 .Q.x f7+ i!t'x f7 3 1
i!t'x c6 i!t' e 7 3 2 i!t'd5+ wins) 27
Et e5 !i:J b6 28 i!t' e3 .Q. c6 29 .Q. b3
!i:J c4 30 .Q. x c4 bc 31 d5 f6? 32 Et e6
1 -0. If 32 . . . i!t'x d5 3 3 Et x c6
i!t'x c6 34 i!t'e7 wins.
B2
4::) x e4
1 6 !i:Jx e4
de
1 7 ltg5
1 7 .Q. X e4 .Q.x e4 1 8 Et X e4
!i:Jx e 5 allows Black comfortable
equality.
17 . . .
f6
.Q. x e4
1 8 .Q.x e4
1 9 Et x e4
!i:J x e5 (26)
1 9 . . . fg? is strongly met by 20
Et d4 Et e7 2 1 e6.

15 de

26
W

22 .Q. f4 c6 23 !i:J d2 Zhelyandinov

Usakovs.k y, Riga 1 964 .
20 . . .
!i:Jx f3+
Inferior is 20 . . . i!t'e7 2 1 !i:Jx e5 fg
(21 . . . i!t'x e5 22 .Q.f4) 22 b3+
i!t' e6 23 x e6+ Et x e6 24 !i:J f3 ba
25 !i:J x g5 Et c6 26 !i:J e4 g6 27 Et x a4
with a won ending for White,
Timman-Knaak, Sombor 1 9 72.
2 1 x f3
c8
22 .Q. e3
c5
23 d5+
h8
24 Et M
cb
h6
25 d3
Vasyukov-Zuidema, Wij k aan
Zee 1 97 3 , continued 26 cb ba 27
Et x a 4 Et e5 2 8 Et d 4 e8 29 al
i!t'b5 and the ending was drawn on
move 39.

C
14 . . .

&5 (27)

27

1 5 ba

20 Et d4
Black should hold the ending
after either:
a) 20 !i:Jx e5 i!t'x dl+ 21 Et x dl fg
or
b) 20 b3+ !i:J c4 21 Et x e8 i!t'x e8

15 ab ab 1 6 .Q.b2 ( 1 6 x a8

i!t'x a8 1 7 cb ed 18 !i:Jx d4 !i:Jx e4 is

clearly good for Black.) 1 6 . . . bc 1 7
.Q.x c3 c6 1-1 Kavalek-Portisch,
Wijk aan Zee 1 969.
An interesting idea was played in
a consultation corres game between

11 .!)hd2: 13 h4 with 14 a4 29
Dutch TV viewers and Polish radio
listeners in 1 974: 15 cl51 ? ab (If I S
. . . c6 1 6 dc x c6 1 7 ab x bS 1 8
c4 i s good for White.) 1 6 cb ba 1 7
.!) c4! c6 1 8 .!)aS c8 1 9 dc x c6
20 .!) x c6 x c6 2 1 Jt x a4 b7 22
E! b l and White stands well as
Black has difficulty in forcing . . . dS
to free his position .
IS . . .
E! X aS
1 6 E! b l
Now:
Cl 1 6 . . . Jt a6
C2 1 6 . . . a8

Cl

A a6
1 7 ab
The usual move in this position,
but possibly stronger is 1 7 dS a8
1 8 A a3 cS 1 9 dc x c6 20 itb4
E! x a4 21 x a4 ba 22 E! al .!) b6
23 ,1;t aS .!) fd7 as in Belyavsky-A.
Petrosian, Kiev 1 97 3. Black has
some compensation for the
exchange and drew in S8 moves,
but White's chances are preferable.
Another way to offer up the
exchange after I 7 dS is 1 7 . . . .!) b6
1 8 ,1;t a3 cS 19 dc dS 20 ,1;t b4 J;tx b4
2 1 cb E! x a4 22 Ax a4 .!)x a4 23
16 . . .

28
W

c2 d4 24 .!) b3 .!) c3 Golovei

Shul, USSR Women's Ch 1 974.
E! x bS (28)
17 . . .
At this point i -i ! Kuzmin
Adorjan, Hastings 1 97 3-74 .
White now has:
Cl l 1 8 ,1;t b3
C1 2 1 8 E! al

Cll

18 ,1;t b3
E! e7? !
I n Gruzman-Korabelnikov,
Moscow 1 973, Black overlooked
White's threat and lost a pawn after
18 . . . h6 ? 1 9 ,1;tx f7+ x f7 20
E! x bS x bS 2 1 i!r b3+ dS 22

x bS . This error was repeated

in Klovan-Zhelyandinov, USSR
Armed Forces Team Ch, Lenin
grad 1 974, and after 22 . . . ed 23
.!) x d4 cS 24 l) 4f3 i!r b6 2S a4
i!r e6 26 eS White had a solid extra
pawn .
A safer way of dealing with this is
18 . . . 001 1 9 c2 E! a 5 ! 20 ,1;t b2
i!r c7 2 1 E! al h6 22 E! x as i!rx as 23
E! al b6 24 ,1;ta3 dS 2S x ill
x ill i-i Razuvayev-Smejkal,
Lj ubljana 1 973.
19 c2
Razuvayev gives 1 9 E! al as
maintaining some initiative.
E! aS
19 . . .
Black gets into difficulties after 1 9
. . . E! b8 20 l) gS (threatening 21
.!)x f7 E! x f7 22 Ax f7+ x f7 23
a2+ ) 2 0 . . . A b7 2 1 f4! h6 (21 . . .
ef22 eS de 23 Aa3 cS 24 de wins) 22
fe de 23 l) gf3 cS 24 a3 and
White's bishops exert strong
pressure. Mecking-Reshevsky, Pet-

30

11 t;:J bd2: 13 b4 with 14 a4

ropolis interzonal 1 973, continued

24 . . . c7 25 t;:Jh4 ee8 26 a2
t;:J b6 27 de x e5 28 A x 7+
i!fx 7 29 i!fx 7+ x 7 30 x b6
t;:J d 7 3 1 b5 A a6? 32 n+ 1 -0. If
32 . . . g8 33 x b8 t;:Jx b8 34
x m+ x m 35 t;:J g6+ wins a
piece.
AX c4
20 t;:J c4
a8
21 Ax c4
R azuvay ev- F u rm a n ,
40 th
USSR Ch 1 972, continued 22 i;td2
a3 2 3 A b5 c6 24 A c4 d5 25 ed cd
26 i;t b3 e4 27 t;:J h2 t;:J b6 28 i;t g5
e6 with satisfactory counterplay
for Black.
C12
18 al

b6
h6
1 9 A b3
20 A a3
An alternative is 20 i!f e2 A b7
and now:
a) 21 A aof a6 22 i;t b2 i!f a8 23
i;t b5 x al 24 x al e8 25 e1
i!f a8 26 al i!fe8 27 el t-t
Matanovic- Karpov,
European
Team Ch, Bath 1 9 7 3.
b) 2 1 as and rather than:
bl ) 21 . . . ed 22 cd Ax e4 23 t;:J x e4
x e4 24 x e4 t;:Jx e4 25 A x 7+
x 7 26 i!f x e4 t;:J ili 27 e2 with
advantage to White, Kuzmin
Tukmakov, 41 st USSR Ch 1 973,
Kuzmin suggests
b2 ) 21 . . elSl 22 de t;:Jx e5 23
t;:J x e5 X e5 24 f4 x e4! 25
t;:J x e4 t;:J x e4 26 i;te3 c5 2 7 a7
i!f b8 with equality.
20 . . .
c5
2 1 de
t;:J x c5
.

22 A X e5
de
23 A e4
Ab7
23 . . . A x c4 24 t;:Jx c4 i!fx d l 25
aX d l b3 26 cl would keep
White's advantage to a minimum.
24 c2
Less challenging is 24 bl A e6
25 e2 x bl 26 i!fx bl i!f c7
Matanovic-Smejkal,
Lj ublj ana
1 97 3 , and a draw was soon agreed.
24 . . .
i!fe7?!
Better is 24 . . . b8 when Black
stands only marginally worse.
25 a7 !
White is well placed to exploit
the awkward positions of Black's
pieces. Tal-Tukmakov, 4 1 st USSR
Ch 1 97 3 , continued 25 . . . e7 26
i!f a2 i!r b8 27 al d7 28 A b3 g6
29 Ax 7+ ? ! (29 i!fa5 ! ) 29 . . .
x 7 30 t;:J e4 e6 3 1 t;:J cx e5
X e5 ! 32 t;:J x e5 Ad5 ! 33 ed
x a7 34 x a7 i!f x e5 35 El. dl ?
(35 e4;!; ) 3 5 . . . t;:J e4 36 b6 A d6
37 i!fd8+ 7 38 i!fd7+ m? (38
. . . e7+ ) 39 f4! x c3 t-t .
C2
16 . . .
i!f aB
Black puts pressure on the white
e-pawn, but he has to withstand
tactical threats after taking it.
1 7 ab
1 7 de t;:Jx e5 18 ab t;:J ed7 ( I 8 . . .
t;:J x f3+ 1 9 x f3 d5 20 e5 d4! , with
an unclear position is better.) 19 c4
t;:Jx e4 20 t;:Jx e4 Ax e4 21 x e4
x e4 22 t;:J g5 (White should play
along similar lines to the column
variation with 22 g3 !) 22 . . El. h4
.

11 {)bd2: 13 b4 with 14 a4 31
23 {) x f7 x f7 24 jl g5 e4 25
f3+ {) ffi 26 Ax ffi White has
reached the same position as
Geller-Portisch below, except with
a pawn on c4 instead of d4; this
means that simplification a la
Portisch is no longer so appetizing
as after
a) 26 . . . eH 27 x el x f3 28
gf X ffi the pawn on b5 is already
protected and White has time to
capture on h7 with a won ending.
b) Instead, Browne-Castro, Pan
American Ch, Winnipeg 1 974,
continued 26 . . . e61 (Black
stands better. ) 27 A d8+ x f3 28
gf a7 29 c5 ! dc 30 A b3 jl d6? (He
should have played 30 . . . e8 31
J;i x e6 x d8 or 31 jl x c7? g6+
with advantage) 3 1 b6 ! cb 32 e l
e8 33 x e6+ x d8 3 4
x d6+ and White won the ending
with his extra material .
ed
17 . . .
18 cd
{)x e4
J;ix e4
1 9 c!J x e4
20 x e4!
x e4
21 c!J g5
h4
21 . . . c!Jffi 22 {)x e4 c!Jx e4 23
d 3

22 g3!
22 c!J x f7?! x f7 23 .a,g5 Et e4
24 f3+ (24 d5? e8 and 24
.a, b3+ g6 are good for Black.) 24
. . . {)ffi 25 jlx ffi . eH (Black
could try for more with 25 . . e6
e.g. 26 d5 . x ffi 27 h5+ g6 28
x h7+ l;tg7 or 26 i!t x a8 . x a8
27 J;i g5 jl e7 28 .a, e3 d5.) 26 x el
i!t x f3 2 7 gfx ffi 28 jl d 3 a4 29
d5 d4 30 jle4 .a,e7 3 1 g2 g6 i
i Geller-Portisch, interzonal play
off, Portoroz 1 97 3 ; an imaginative
rook sacrifice met with good
tactical defence.
22 . . .
. h6
23 {) x f7 x h3 24 d5 {) ffi 25 l;t5
. h5 26 c!J g5 h8 (or 26 . . . g6 27
e6+ g7 28 g4 etc.) 27 Ae6
. x g5 28 A x g5 c!J e4 29 .a, h4 i!t e8
30 b4 c!J c5 3 1 . f4 and White has
strong threats on the K-side and
soon won material, Sznapik
Kostro, Polish Ch 1 974.
The conclusion is that 13 b4
followed by 1 4 a4 is still slightly
uncomfortable for Black and must
be regarded as one of White's most
promising systems.
.

1 1 2j bd2 with 1 2

1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 A b5 a6 4 Aa4
ffi 5 OO Ae7 6 . el b5 7 A b3 d6 8
c3 00 9 h3 b8 1 0 d4 bd7 II
bd2 Ab7 1 2 Ac2 c5(29)
29
W

c5

White has three main con

tinuations:
A 1 3 d5
B 1 3 b3
C 1 3 fl
Another possibility is 1 3 a4 . e8
1 4 d5 b6 1 5 b4 cb 1 6 cb x a4 1 7
Ax a4 ba 1 8 c4 Ac8 1 9 x a4
Ad7 with equal chances, Minic
Gligoric, Ljubljana 1 9 7 3 .
A

13 d5
g6
GligoriC's usual choice.
After 13
b6 1 4 fl A c8 1 5
g3 i;td7 1 6 x e5 de 1 7 d6 . e8
18 de x e7 1 9 f3 h6 20 f5
As 1 2 . . . . e8 1 3 b4 (chapters 4 A x f5 2 1 ef . ad8 Banas-Holmov,
and 5) can prove somewhat Luhacovice 1 9 7 3 , Black is well
restricting for Black, 1 2 . . . c5 is centralized but some would prefer
played to restrain White's Q-side the bishop pair.
13
c:4 is also possible, e.g. 1 4
expansion. This move order has
been adopted enthusiastically by fl . e8 1 5 A e3 c7 1 6 g4 c5
Gligoric since 1 972 and a fair 1 7 g3 Am 1 8 d2 a5 1 9 b3 . eb8
amount of theory has accumulated. Bronstein-Lengyel, Tallinn 1 975.
h5 !
1 4 fl
Sometimes
this line merely
1 4 . . . e8 has been played and
represents a transposition to
chapters 2 or 3 but the order of would transpose to Al below.
1 5 A h6
moves in the games cited has been
Or 1 5 a4 A ffi 1 6 b3 Ag7 1 7 Ag5
retained
for convenience of
c7 1 8 g3 ba 1 9 . x a4 b6 20
reference.
. . .

11 .!)bd2 with 12 . . . c5 33
E!. a3 a5 with level chances. Torre
Gligoric, Manila 1 974, continued
21 .!) 3d2 c8 22 h4 d 7 23 e2
E!. a7 24 E!. eal E!. fa8 25 d3 a4 26
b5 (26 b4) 26 . . . ab 2 7 j;td8? ! (27
E!. x a7= ) 27 . . . E!. x a3 28 ltx c7
E!. x al 29 .!)X b3 (29 lt x b6 j;th3!)
29 . . . E!. l a2 30 .!) bd2 E!. b2! 31
A x d7 .!)x d7 32 ltx d6 lt h6 3 3
e7 .!) hffi 34 i!r f3 lt x d 2 3 5
A x ffi? Ael 36 A g5 A x f2+ 3 7
<it( g2 E!. al 3 8 g4 A e3+ 39 <it( h3
E!. x f1 40 x d7 h5 O-l .
Black now has a choice between :
Al 1 5 . . . .!)g7
A2 1 5 . . . E!. e8 !
AI

15 . . .
.!) g7
Naturally this is compulsory if
Black had played 1 4 . . . .!) e8.
16 .!)e3
Or 1 6 g4 .!) ffi 1 7 .!) g3 <it( h8 1 8 a4
.!) g8 1 9 lt e3 E!. b8 20 b3 lt c8 2 1 ab
ab 22 <it(h2 Ad7 !-! Ciocaltea
Sigurjonsson, Wij k aan Zee 1 975.
16 . . .
.!) ffi
1 7 a4
<it( h8
E!. b8
1 8 b3

c8
1 9 e2
ab
20 ab
.!) g8
21 E!. a7
22 j;tx g7+ <it(x g7
23 E!. eal
.!) ffi
24 ltd3
j;td7
25 a2 (30)
Black's position is very difficult,
e.g. :
.!) el 26 a6 E!. b6 27 a5
a) 25
.!) ffi 28 .!) g4 E!. b8 29 .!) x ffi x f6
30 c7 with control of the 7 th

30
B

rank, Karpov-Gligoric, Leningrad

interzonal 1 97 3 .
b) 25
b6 26 .!) g4 E!. fd8 27
.!) x ffi x ffi !-! Gheorghiu
Gligoric, European Team Ch, Bath
1 9 7 3 . Much stronger was 27 d2!
(threatening to trap the queen with
28 E!. l a6) 27 . . . E!. b7 28 E!..7a6
c7 29 h6+ <it( g8 30 .!)x f6+
A x ffi 3 1 .!)g5 x g5 32 x g5
with an almost decisive advantage.

A2

15
E!. ell
1 6 b3
j;t ffi
1 7 a4
g7
1 8 Ag5
i!r c 7
1 9 g3
.!) hffi
Black has a satisfactory position.
H artston-Gligoric ,
E u ropean
Team Ch, Bath 1 97 3, continued 20
d2 .!) b6 2 1 .!) e3 h5 22 a5 .!)bd7
23 .!) g2 .!)h7 24 e3 .!) dffi 25 c4
j;t c8 26 <it( h2 bc 27 bc Ad7 28 .!)gl
E!. ab8 29 E!. ebl <it h8 30 f3 .!) g8 31
.!) e2 !-!.

13 b3
E!. e8
As White cl05es the centre after
13 . . . E!. e8 this move can well be
dispensed with. 1 3
g6 1 4 a4 h5

34

11 J;:J bd2 with 12 .

.

c5

1 5 J;:J O l1 f6 ! 1 6 dc J;:J x cS 1 7 ab ab
1 8 ll h6 Ag7, Suetin-Gligoric,
Yugoslavia-USSR 1 974, is satisfac.
tory.
1 4 dS
14 de is innocuous: 14 . . . de 1 5
J;:J h 2 J;:J ffi 1 6 'Y:'r e2 t-t Ciric
Matanovic, Yugoslav Ch 1 967 .
1 4 ll b2 A ffi I S de de 1 6 a4 g6 1 7
ab ab 1 8 c4 b4 1 9 J;:J O llg7 20
J;:J 3d2 J;:J ffi , Planinc- Matanovic,
Ljubljana 1 97 3 , leads to an even
position.
14 . . .
g6
After 1 4 . . . J;:Jffi I S a4 . bS
White should play 16 b4! c4 with a
slight edge. ( 1 6 . . . c7?! is worse:
17 bc 'Y:'r x cS IS . e3 J;:J 6d7 1 9
Aa3 'Y:'r c7 2 0 b l A cS 2 1 c4 ) .
Inferior is 16 c4 b4 1 7 J;:J 1 A cS I S
g4?! hS ! and Black stands better,
Suetin- Ma tanovic,
Lj u blj ana
1973.
I S a4
Or I S c4? ! b4 1 6 a3 as 1 7 a4 A ffi
I S J;:J O A g 7 1 9 Ae3 J;:J ffi 2 0 J;:J g3
hS 2 1 'Y:'rd2 J;:JSh7 ! t-t Razuvayev
Suetin, Ljubljana 1 97 3 .
IS . .
. bS
The latest refinement is I S . . .
J;:J hS but after 1 6 b4 c4 1 7 J;:J O ll to
1 8 . a3 J;:J b6 1 9 as J;:J d7 20 ll e3
. ffi 2 1 'Y:'r d2 'Y:'re7 22 J;:J g3 J;:J f4!? 23
Ax f4 ef 24 'Y:'r x f4 J;:J eS 25 <j X eS
AX eS 26 i!rd2 AX g3 2 7 fg 'Y:'r eS 2S
g4 f6 29 aal . ae8 30 . 0 r:t;g7
31 . f3 . e7 32 . a1 . ef7 3 3 i!rf2

Gligoric has further improvements

in store.
16 b4!
16 lld3?! only led to equality
after 1 6 . . A eS 1 7 h4 e4 I S A e2
J;:Jh S ! 1 9 J;:J f1 J;:J g7 20 ith6 J;:J tO 2 1
'Y:'r d2 r:t; hS 22 a b a b 2 3 J;:J 3h2 J;:J g8
Razuvayev- Matanovic, Lj ubljana
1973.
16 . . .
c4
Otherwise White plays 17 J;:J b3.

as

I 7 J;:J 0
it ffi
I S A g5
Ag 7
I S . . . h6!? should be tried .
J;:J b6
1 9 'Y:'r d2
J;:J bd 7
20 a5
2 1 g4! (31 )

Browne-Gligoric, Wijk aan Zee

1 975, Black's central blockade is
not fully worth a pawn. Doubtless

White can build up a K-side

attack at leisure while Black is
completely devoid of counterplay .
Kavalek-Gligoric, Nice Olympiad
1 974, continued 21 . . . r:t; hS (21 . . .
'Y:'re7 intending . . . 'Y:'r ffi and . . . h6
gives more chances of holding out)
22 J;:Jg3 . g8 23 r:t; g2 'Y:'r ffi 24 . h I
. eS 25 11e3 J;:J x d 5 (Desperation,
but otherwise 26 g5 followed by h4h5 instigates a winning attack.) 26

11 hd2 with 12 . . . c5 35
ed f6 27 g5 x d5 28 jt e4
x e3+ 29 fe d5 30 i;t x d5 e4 3 1
i;t x b7 e ft- 3 2 i,l, x .f3 !:! e5 33 h4
i!!/ e7 34 !:! adl !:! x e3 35 !:! hel
!:! x e l 36 !:! x el i!!/ c7 3 7 i!!/ e3 f5 38
e2 .Q.. e5 39 d4 .Q.. f4 40 x b5
1 -0.

C
13 t1
!:! e8
Alternatives are:
a) 13 . . . cd 1 4 cd and now:
al ) 14 . . . c7 1 5 g3 g6 1 6 A h6
!:! fc8 1 7 i;tb3 b6 1 8 g5 c4
1 9 de de 20 i!!/ f3;j; Gereben
Schifferdecker, Bad Mondorf l 974.
a2 ) 14 . . . !:! e8 1 5 g3 .Q.. ffi 16 b3
ed 1 7 i;tb2 !:! c8 1 8 x d4 d5 19 ed
!:! x el+ 20 i!!/ x el .Q.. x d5 21 !:! cl g6
with equality, Sznapik-Holmov,
Sochi 1 974.
b) 13 . g6 1 4 g4? ! ( I 4 0g3 !) 14 . . .
cd 1 5 cd d5 1 6 de x e4 1 7 g3
A c5 1 8 i;te3 x g3 1 9 fg !:! c8 with
advantage to Black, Bogdanovic
Ivkov, Yugoslav Ch 1 958.
14 g3
Also possible is 1 4 d5, e.g.
. .

a) 14 . . . A c8 1 5 e3 ( I 5 g4 h5
leads to complicated play.) 1 5 . . . g6
1 6 g4? ! ( I 6 c4 is better.) 1 6 . . . c4 1 7
h2 ( I 7 b3 ! cb 1 8 ab c5 1 9 d2
h5 20 b4 b7 2 1 c4 jtd7 Borisenko) 1 7 . . . c5 1 8 f3 h5! 1 9
!:! e2 hg 20 hg h7 with an edge
to Black, Zagorovsky-Borisenko,
Gorky t-final 22nd USSR Ch 1 954.
This was one of the earliest games
with the Breyer variation.
p l 5 b3 ( I 5 lt e3 .1l ffi 1 6
b) 14
l h2 ltg7 1 7 g4 X g4 1 8 hg
.

f6 i -i Spassky-Gligoric, Euro
pean Team Ch, Bath 1 97 3) 1 5 . . .
b6 and now:
bl ) 16 % e2 h5 1 7 lt h6 ltffi 1 8
A g5 .1l e7 1 9 lt h6 lt ffi 20 ltg5 t -i
Schmid-Gligoric, Nice Olympiad
1 974.
b2) 16 a4 ba 1 7 ba a5 18 e3 lta6
1 9 g4 x g4 20 hg A c8 2 1 g3 f6
with equal chances, Torre
Gligoric, Nice Olympiad 1 974.
14 . . .
i;t ffi
I t i s best not to weaken the dark
sq uares on the K-side while White
still has the option of keeping the
centre fluid, e.g. 14 . . g6 1 5 .1lh6
A ffi 1 6 i!!/ d 2 i!!/ e7 1 7 a4 A c6 1 8 b3
A x h6 19 i!r x h6 i!!/ ffi 20 %g5 %g7
21 d5! i,l,b7 22 ab ab 23 Ad3 with
strong Q-side pressure to follow,
Keres-Gligorii:, San Antonio 1 972.
15 d5
15 b3 g6 16 d5 would transpose
into the text (see also chapter 2 ) .
15 . . .
g6 (32)
.

32
W

A rare alternative at this stage is

1 5 . . . c4, e.g. :
a) 16 A sS % c7 1 7 f5 !:! ebB 1 8
h2 A c8 1 9 % f3 e8 20 .)g4

36

11 !0, bd2 with 12 . . . c5

!0, c5 2 1 b3 f6 22 Ad2 a5 Lein

Holmov, 40th USSR Ch 1 9 72 .
b) 16 J;t e3 !0, c5 1 7 !0, h2 g6 1 S d2
Ag7 1 9 a4 E! bS 20 ab ab 2 1 J;t h6
J;tcS 22 J;tx g7 x g7 23 f41;
Damj anovic-Rukavina, Sombor
1972.
White has tried two con
tinuations:
Cl 1 6 b3
C2 16 A g5
Cl

27 A c6 a7 2S ab ab 29 x a7
x a7 30 !0, g4 A X g4 31 hg f6 with
a solid position for Black, Tatai
Gligoric, Manila 1 973.
c) 17 a4 (see also chapter 3 ) when:
cl ) 17
.c7 ? 1 8 Ag5 Ag7 1 9
"t!rd2 ( 1 9 a5;t ) 1 9 . . . b a 2 0 b a a5 2 1
J.th6 J"t cS 22 E! e b l E! a6?! 23 c l
J;tx h 6 24 "t!r x h 6 dS 25 E! a 2 and
White is clearly better, Ivkov
Unzicker, Nice Olympiad 1 974.
c2 ) 17
bai l S ba a5 (also IS . . .
!0, c4-Tal) 1 9 E! bl ( 1 9 A g5 A a6
20 i!rd2 A g7 2 1 E! ebl !0, bd7 1 -1
I vkov-Gligoric, Manila 1 9 73) 1 9 . . .
A a6 20 jl g5 J;tg7 21 cl !0, bd7
22 !0,d2 c 7 23 a3 E! abS 24
E! x bS" E! x bS 25 E! bl E! x b l + 26
Ax bl !0, b6 27 jl e3 !0,c4 2S !0, x c4
J;tx c4 29 f4 ef 30 jlx f4 !0,d7 3 1
!0, fl A e5 1-1 Rotterdam players in
consultation-Ivkov, 1 974.
17 " . "
a5
l S Ad3
Or 18 c4 b4 1 9 a4 Ag7 20 A e3
!0, bd7 2 1 d2 e7 22 !0, h4 c;f7hS
23 Ag5 m 24 E! fl !0, gS 25 E! ael
1-1 Tal-Gligoric, Hastings 1 97374.
IS " .
b4
E! e7
19 A b5
Ag7
20 A d2
bc
21 a3

16 b3
White plans to close the Q-side
by 1 7 a4 b4 I S c4 and then
concentrate on the K-wing.
!0, b6
16 . . .
1 7 "t!r e2
Again White has several other
options:
a) 17 A lP h6 1 S J.te3 J.tg7 1 9 c l
h 5 ( 1 9 . . . h7 !?) 2 0 Ag5 "t!r e 7 2 1
J;t d 3 (21 a4!?) 2 1 . . . "t!r m 22 a 4 ba
23 ba E! ebS ! 24 a5 !0, bd7 25 A c2
!0, h7 with chances for both sides,
Ciocaltea-Gligoric, Ljubljana 1 973
b) 17 Ae3 and now:
bI ) 17 . . . J.t c8 1 8 a4 ba 1 9 ba !0, c4
20 J;tg5 J.t g7 2 1 e2 !0, a5 22 d2!
E! bS?! (22 . . . J;td7 or 22 . . . e7,
preparing . . . "t!rm and . . .
h6-Tal-is more exact.) 23 E! ebl
E! x bI+ 24 E! x bI Ad7 25 c4!
(planning c3 IAd2) gave White
the advantage, Tal-Gligoric,
Leningrad interzonal 1 9 7 3 .
b2 ) 17
as 1 8 A d 3 b4 1 9 A b5
!0, fd7 20 c4 Ag7 2 1 d2 E! m 22
J;th6 e7 23 a3 E! fb8 24 E! a2
Ax h6 25 -a x h6 !0, m 26 !0, h2 A c8

"

22 A x c3

The text is Jansa-Gligorii:, Nice

Olympiad 1 974. Bl aGk now tried an
enterprising s acri fice of a piece for
two pawns: 22 . . . !0, bx d5 23 ed
x d5 24 -'i, b2 b6 25 4)e4 Oansa
gives 25 a4!, when Black has

11 bd2 with 12 . . . c5 37
insufficient counterplay} 25 . . .
.!Dc7 26 i;t a4 d5 2 7 .!Ded2 e4 28
i;tx g7 x g7 29 .!D h2 e6 30
.. acl f5 3 1 f3 c4+ 32 i:!r f2 i:!rx f2+
3 3 x f2 c5 34 fe d3+ 35 e2
.!D x cl+ 36 .. x c l cb 3 7 Jlx b3
i;t a6+ 38 e3 de 39 .. c5 .. d8 40
i;t c4 i;tx c4 41 x c4 .. d3+ 42
e2 .. c3 43 O .. c2+ 44 el e3
45 .. e5 .. x e5 46 x e5 f4 47 g3 e2
48 d2 fg 49 x ("2 g2 50 ("f3
.. a2 5 1 f2 .. x a3 52 x g2 a4
0-1 .

C2

h6
16 A gS
Or 1 6 . . . A g7 1 7 i:!r d2 b6 1 8
A d 3 c4 1 9 A c2 bd7 20 h2
i:!re7 2 1 g4 i:!r m 22 h6+ is in
White's favour. Geller- Ivkov,
USSR-Yugoslavia 1 973 , continued
22 . . . h8 23 .. e2 g8 24 x g8
x g8 25 .. 0 ffi 26 A e3 i:!r e7 27
El. eel Jlc8 28 b3 m 29 bc bc
30 .. bl Ad7 31 .. b6 .. ec8 32
.. fbl Ae8 33 i:!r c l d 7 34 .. b7
i:!r d8 35 Aa4 c5 36 Ax c5 Jlx a4
3 7 i:!r a3 ! .. x c5 38 i:!r x a4 Am 39
.!D O i:!r a5? 40 i:!rd7 1 -0.
Ag7
17 A e3
h5 (33)
18 d2

1 9 b3
Alternative experiences from this
position have run 1 9 a4 c4 20 .. a3
.!D c5 which transposes to chapter 3
except that 1 8 . . . \fi h 7 was play("d
then instead o f l 8 . . . h5. Examples
with this minor difference are:
a) 21 Jl gS i:!rc7 22 .. eal .. eb8 23
ab ab !-! Kavalek-Gligoric, Wijk
aan Zee 1 975.
b) 21 .. eal h4 22 A x c5 dc 23 O
d 7 24 ab ab 25 .. x a 8 Ax a8 26
.. a7 b6 27 i:!r e3 i:!r b8 28 .. al
d7 29 x h4 A b7 30 h2 i:!rd6
3 1 g4 .. a8 32 .. x a8+ Ax a8 33
i:!r g5 i:!r m 34 g3 A b7 35 f4 i:!ra8 36
i:!r e7 i:!ral + 37 \fi g2 i:!rx b2 38
i:!r x d7 x c2+ 39 f2 ef 40
i:!r e8+ Am 41 gf i:!r x c3 42 f3
i:!r ffi 43 i:!rx b5 c3 44 i:!rx b 7 c2 45
.!D d3 c4 46 e5 cd !-! Geller
Gligoric, Wijk aan Zee 1 975 .
19 . . .
.. b8
Or 1 9 . . . b6 and :
a) 20 A h6 h 7 ! 2 1 A x g7 x g7
22 a4 ba 23 ba c4 24 i:!r e2 a5 !
! Gheorghiu-Gligoric, Los Angeles
1 974.
b) 20 i!r e2 a5 21 a4 ba 22 ba Aa6
23 Ad3 Ax d3 24 i:!r x d3 bx d5
25 ed e4 Buljovcic-Gligoric,
Yugoslav Ch 1 975, gives Black
excellent chances.
20 a4
A c8
2 1 h2
.!D h 7
22 .. 0 b4 23 c4 .. b 7 2 4 .. ael as
and Black should hav(" time to
organize a defensive set-up on
the K-side, Suetin-Matanovic
USSR-Yugoslavia, Belgrade 1 974.

1 1 h4

1 e4 e5 2 .!) f3 .!) c6 3 it b5 a6 4 it a4
.!) ffi 5 00 ,Ae7 6 el b5 7 .Q" b3 d6 8
c3 00 9 h3 .!) b8 1 0 d4 .!) bd 7
1 1 .!) h4(34)

This sharp line was introduced

by Simagin in 1 96 1 and was
accorded the accolade of re
spectability following Fischer's
successful adoption of it in the late
1 960s. Recently, however, it has
fallen out of fashion.
Black now has the following
defences:
A l l . . . .!) x e4
B 1 1 . . . .!) b6
C 1 1 . . . ed 1 2 cd .!) b6
D I l . . . g6
E I l . . . e8
F 1 1 . . . .Q., b7

11 . . .
1 2 .!) f5

.!)x e4
.!)dffi

Universally regarded as neces

sary, but 1 2 . . . .!) effi should not
be dismissed too lightly. The
original game in the variation,
Simagin-Estrin, Moscow Ch 1 96 1 ,
continued 13 i!r f3 bS 1 4 ,A g5 g6
1 5 ,!) x e7+ i!r x e7 1 6 .!)d2 J;t b7 1 7
i!rg3 r:;g7 1 8 i!r h4 h5 1 9 .!) fl i!r e8
20 f4! e4 2 1 f5 and Black's position is
very difficult. However, Black can
improve with 13 . . . e4! for if 1 4
i!rg3 .!) h 5 1 5 i!rg4 .!) dffi is
playable, while 1 4 x e4 .!) x e4 1 5
i!rx e4 ,A g5 1 6 f4 is answered by 1 6
. . . d5 ! e.g. 1 7 ,A x d5 .!) ffi or 1 7
i!r x d5 .!) b6-analysis by Moles.
Alternatively after 1 2 . . . .!) effi
White has 13 J;t g5 .!) b6 1 4 .!) x e7+
i!r x e7 1 5 .!) d2 ,A b7 when:
a) If 16 A e4 1 7 d5 .!) bx d5 1 8
.!) x e4 i!r d 7 1 9 .!) x f6+ .!) x ffi 20
,Ax ffi gfWhite has nothing to show
for his pawn, Shianovsky-Gufeld,
Kiev 1 964.
b) 16 ,A c2 i!r e6 ! and Black stands
better. If instead 16 . . . h6 1 7 it h4
i!re6 1 8 J;t b3 ! led to equality in

11 ClJh4
Bottlik-Nadin, 6th Corres Olym
piad prelim, but after 1 6 . . . if" e6 !
1 7 b3 if"f5 gains vital tempo.
1 3 f3
A strong alternative i s Bron
stein's recommendation 1 3 x e7+
if" x e7 1 4 .. e2 ! threatening 1 5 if" e l
followed b y f3 .
Less than convincing after 1 3
ClJ x e7+ if" x e7 is 1 4 .. x e4 ClJ X e4
1 5 d5 when:
151 1 6
a) Simagin preferred 15
if" f3 g6 1 7 lt x e4 ed 1 8 A x a8
if"el + 1 9 h2 if" x cl with ample
compensation for the piece.
x t2 1 6 x f2 .. b8 1 7
b) 15
A e3 A e6 1 8 il. b3 .. be8 1 9 de
if" hH 20 fl lt x h3 21 f2 if" e4
22 gh .. X e5 23 if" g4 if" h l + 24
ltgl h5 25 if" g3 .. fe8 0- 1
Bogdanovic- Lengyel,
Saraj evo
1 965 .
After 1 3 if" f3 Black can choose
between:
Al 1 3 . . . ltb7
A2 1 3 . . . Ax f5
AI
13 . . .
b7( 35)

35

1 4 Ac2

ClJ c5 !

39

Not 1 4 . . . d5 1 5 de ClJ d7 1 6
x e4 d e 1 7 if"g3 g6 1 8 .. d l with a
clear advantage to White, Kots
Zhelyandinov, Baku 1 964.
15 if" g3
ClJ e6
16 de
After 1 6 h6 Black should play
not 1 6 . . . ClJ e8? 1 7 de de 1 8 .. x e5
as in Vasyukov-Holmov, USSR
Tean Ch 1 964, but 1 6 . . . ClJ h5 1 7
i!Y g4 ClJ ffi 1 8 if" g3 ClJ h5 1 9 i!Yg4
( 1 9 if"d3 e4!) t -t Hort-Jansa,
Marianske Lazne 1 965 .
16 . . .
de
1 7 A b3
Alternatives are:
a) 17 if"x e5 .. e8 t-t Bogdanovic
Hort, Sarajevo 1 965 .
b) 17 A h6 h5 1 8 ClJ X e7+ if" x e7
1 9 if" x e5 if" c5 with eq uali ty.
c) 17 !:2J x e7+ if" x e7 1 8 if" x e5 with
some advantage--S hamkovich.
d ) 17 .. x e5 Ad6 18 ClJX d6 cd 1 9
.. e l . Holmov thought this position
to be better for White, Bronstein
gave it better for Black while
Averbakh and Furman considered
it equal ! Zakharov-Holmov, 32nd
USSR Ch 1 964-65 , continued 1 9
. . . d 5 2 0 J;t e 3 .. e 8 2 1 .. d l (if 2 1
ClJ d2 d4!) 2 1 . . . if" e7 22 ClJ d2 b4
and Black eventually won.
17 . . .
ClJ e4!
Both 1 7 . . . ClJd5 18 .. d l and 1 7
. . , lt d5 1 8 lt h6 are in White's
favour.
18 if"g4
g5 !?
Black should be able to hold the
position after 1 8 . . . ClJ ffi 19 ClJX eH
if" x e7 20 i!YM ClJ d5 21 i!Yx e7

40

11 tiiJ h4

tiiJ x e7, e.g. 22 -'1 x e6 fe 23 . x e5

. ad8 !
1 9 x g5
i!r x g5
J anosevic-Robatsch,
Venice
1 96 7 , continued 20 . x e4! Jlx e4
2 1 i!r x e4 i!r cl + 22 c;t> h2 . ad8 23
i!rx e5 . d7 and now according to
Petrosian White should play 24 c4!
bc 25 A a4 with advantage.
A2

13 . . .
il x f5
1 4 i!rx f5
ed
tiiJ X e4
1 5 . X e4
1 6 i!rx e4( 36)

36
B

16 . . .
il g5
Zakharov-Gufeld, Baku 1 964,
went 1 6 . . . ilffi 1 7 Jld2 c5 ( 1 7 . . .
. e8 1 8 i!r d5 i!rd7 is a possible try.)
18 cd -'1 x d4 19 Jlc3 . e8 20 i!r f3
. a7 2 1 tiiJ d2 Jlx c 3 with a
balanced position. 1 9 il c2 ! g6 20
tiiJ c3 would have been better for
White.
1 7 il-d2
ilx d2
18 tiiJ x d2
dc
i!r g5
1 9 bc
Black is already in some trouble.
If 1 9 . . . i!rd7 then 20 il d5 gives
him difficulties in rolling his Q-side

pawns, while if he cannot oppose

the e-file White can develop
attacking chances with tiiJ d2-f3-g5
or tiiJ h4.
i!r c5
20 tiiJ f3
c6
2 1 . el
Not 2 1 . . . i!rx c3 22 il x f7+ !
22 . e3
d5
g6
23 i!r e5
Now 24 h4! would give White
good winning chances. Zakharov
Krogius, USSR Team Ch 1 966,
continued instead 24 i!r ffi? . ae8 25
tiiJ e5 . e6 26 i!r f4 i!rd6 27 i!rd4 c5 !
28 i!r x d5 c4 29 i!rx d6 . x d6 30
il c2 . d2 3 1 -'1 e4 . x a2 32 g4
c;t>g7 33 il c6 . d2 34 g5 . d6 35
ilb7 a5 36 c;t> g2 a4 3 7 il c6 ffi! 38
gfl- . dx ffi 39 f3 a3 40 . e2 . e6
41 il x b5 . f5 O-\ .
One must conclude that I I . . .
!zJ x e4 followed by 1 2 . . . tiiJ dffi does
not equalize satisfactorily but the
retreat 1 2 . . . tiiJ effi deserves further
investigation.
B

11

tiiJ b6(37)

37
W

White now has a choice between:

BI 1 2 tiiJ f5? !

1 1 4J h4 41
B2 1 2 de
B3 1 2 4J d2
BI

1,tx f5
1 3 ef
ed
c5 !
1 4 cd
1 4 . . . d5 is not so good: 1 5 4Jc3
. e8 16 f3 c6 1 7 1,t c2 1,td6 IS
Ag5 4J bd7 1 9 g4 h6? {l9 . . . b6 is
better.} 20 . x eS+ x eS 21 d2
with advantage to White, Stein
Gligoric, Amsterdam interzonal
1 964.
1 5 4J c3
1 5 e3 c4 1 6 c2 t -t Peretz
Parma, Netanya 1 97 1 .
15 . . .
c4
Also good for Black is 1 5 . . . . a 7
1 6 g5 h6 1 7 e3 c4 I S c2
4J bd5 1 9 f3 4J x e3 20 . x e3
d5 Listengarten-Yudovich, Baku
1 964.
b4
1 6 c2
1 7 4J a4
No better is 1 7 4J e4 4J x e4 I S
A x e4 . a7 1 9 e3 f6 20 d2
a5+
Penrose-Unzicker, Clare
Benedict, Berlin 1 965 .
4J x a4
17 . . .
I S Ax a4
d5
1 9 g5
. a7
h6
20 . e2
2 1 Ah4
4J e4
Black stands better due to his
mobile Q-side pawn majority,
Suetin-Podgayets, USSR Olym
piad, Moscow 1 972.
12 4J 6 ?1

B2
12 de

13 4Jf5

de

13 x d8 x dS 14 4J d2 1,tb7
15 4Jf5 4J bd7 16 4Jf3 4J x e4 1 7
c2 4J 4c5 ! leaves Black very
comfortably placed, Tal-Spassky,
3rd game Candidates' match 1 965 .
13 4J d2 x e4 ( 1 3 . . . c5 would
transpose to B3.) 1 4 . x e4 Ax h4
1 5 . x e5 is best met by 1 5 . . . f6
but not 15 . . . b7 1 6 g4 4Jd7 1 7
. e2 4J c5 I S c2 g5 1 9 4J f3
Schmid-Tatai , Venice 1 966.
A x f5
13 . . .
. fX dS!
1 4 x dS
Less accurate are:
a) 14 . . . . a x d8 1 5 eft Pachman
Holaszek, European Team Ch
prelim, Veseli na Morave 1 967
1,tx d8 1 5 ef . eS 1 6 4Jd2
b) 14
c5 1 7 .Q. c2t Rittner-Yudovich,
Ragozin memorial corres 1 966.
1 5 ef
4J fd7
a5
1 6 4Jd2
a4
1 7 4J f3
f6
I S Ac2
1 9 1,te4
. a5
20 Ae3
4J c5
Black has a good position,
S h i anovsky- Liberzon ,
USSR
Team Ch 1 964.
. .

B3

c5
12 d2
Always played in practice.
1 2 . . . 4Jx e4!? is worth a try, e.g.
1 3 !z:J X e4 x h4 14 h5 d5 1 5
A g5 x g5 1 6 4J x g5 and now
either 1 6 . . . h6 or Euwe's 1 6 . . .
A f5 1 7 . x e5 A g6 should give
equality.
13 de
R . Byrne-Reshevsky, Chicago

42

11 t;:Jh4

1 973 , varied with 1 3 t;:J f5 b 7 1 4

t;:J fl c4 1 5 c2 . e8 1 6 t;:J I g3 lt m
1 7 A e3 t;:J bd7 1 8 d 5 <3i h8 1 9 b 4 cb
20 ab t;:J g8 21 Ad2 b6 22 t;:J e3
t;:Je7 23 f3 ffi 24 . eel . ac8 25
b4 d8 26 Ad3 t;:J b6 27 c4 be 28
t;:J x c4 !-! .
de
13 . . .
A x f5
1 4 t;:J f5
Or 1 4 . . . c4 1 5 Jt c2 Jt e6 1 6 t;:J f3
t;:J fd7 1 7 t;:Jx e7+ x e 7 1 8 t;:J g5
t;:J c5 Browne- Ivkov, Amsterdam
1 972, and now White could have
retained the initiative with 1 9 "rh5 !
h6 2 0 t;:J X e6 X e6 2 1 . e3 .
c7?
1 5 ef
A recommended improvement is
15 . . . t;:J bd7 so that if l 6 g4 h6 1 7 h4
c4 1 8 A c2 t;:J h7 1 9 t;:J f3 Black has 1 9
. . . A x h4 2 0 t;:Jx h4 x h4 2 1
x d 7 x g4+ and draws.
1 6 g4
Also giving White some edge is 1 6
f3 c4 1 7 Ac2 . ad8 1 8 t;:J e4
t;:J x e4 1 9 . x e4 t;:J d5 20 e2
Tseitlin- Liberzon, 38th USSR Ch
1 970
16 . . .
h6
1 7 h4
c4
1 8 A c2
t;:J h 7
1 9 t;:J f3
White has considerable attack
ing possibilities on the K-side.
Fischer-Benko, US Ch 1 965-66,
concluded 19 . . . ffi 20 t;:J d2 . ad8
21 f3 h5 22 gh t;:J d5 23 t;:J e4 t;:J f4
24 lt x f4 ef 25 <3ihl <3i h8 26 . gl
. f7 27 . g6 ltd6 28 . agl Am 29
h6 e5 30 g4 . 8d7 3 1 f3 A c5 32
t;:Jx c5 x c5 33 . x g7 . x g7 34

hg+ <3i g8 35 g6 . d8 36 Jl e4
c8? (38)

38

37 e8+ ! 1 -0.
C
11

1 2 cd

ed
t;:J b6( 39)

1 3 t;:J f3
Removing the knight from its
vulnerable spot to eye the central
dark squares seems White's best try.
Alternatives are:
a) 13 A c2 t;:J fd5! 1 4 t;:J f5 (Better is
14 t;:J f3 !) 1 4 . . . Ax f5 1 5 ef ffi 1 6
t;:J c3 t;:J x c 3 1 7 be c5! 1 8 A e4 . c8
1 9 A f4 t;:J a4 20 . el b6 21 de de
22 f3 . fe8 and Black has a

11 h4 43
fine position, Unzicker-Antoshin,
Sochi 1 965 .
b) 13 e5 de 1 4 de fd5 1 5 f3 has
been suggested by Krogius but
never given practical tests.
c) 13 d2 and now:
cl5 1 4 ed bx d5 15 i!tf3
c l ) 13
c6 16 f5 i;t b4 with equality
Janosevic-Donner, Wijk aan Zee
1 970.
x e4 ? 1 4 X e4 i;tx h4
c2) 13
1 5 i!t h5 d5 1 6 g5 i;tx g5 1 7
i;t X g5 ffi 1 8 i;t c2 g6 1 9 .Q. x g6
hg
20
i!i' x g6+
!i!I h8 2 1
f! e8! -Unzicker.
c5 1 4 .Q. c2 cd 1 5 hf3
c3) 13
f! e8 1 6 x d4 .1l m 1 7 b3 .1lb7
with full equality, R. Byrne
Spassky, Moscow 1 97 1 . The game
ended 1 8 .Q. b2 bd 7 1 9 i!tf3 c8
20 adl d5 ! 2 1 .Q. b l de 22 x e4
x e4 23 Ax e4 x e4 24 f! x e4
e5 25 i!i' e2 A x e4 t -t .
fc15 1 4 hf3 b4 1 5
c4) 13
d5 ! c5 1 6 dc x c6 1 7 f1 Affi 1 8
.Q. e3 a5 1 9 .Q. d4! and White
retained the initiative, Fischer
Forintos, Monaco 1 967.
c5
13 . . .
Inferior is 13
cI5 ? 1 4 e5 e4
1 5 bd2 x d2 1 6 i;t x d2 .1lf5?
( 1 6 . . . c4) 1 7 .1l c2 i;tx c2 1 8
i!t x c 2 cB 1 9 b 3 d 7 2 0 e6 ! fe 2 1
f! x e6 c5 2 2 .Q. a5 i!t x a5 2 3 f! x e7
i!t d8 24 g5 1 -0 Fischer-Barczay,
Sousse interzonal 1 96 7 .
Another plan i s 13
.1l b7 1 4
bd2 ( 1 4 de!?) 1 4 . . . c5 1 5 .1lc2
f! e8 1 6 dc dc 1 7 b3 fd7 1 8 i;t b2
m 1 9 a4 c7 20 e2 .1lc6 with a
. . .

. . .

fair posItIOn for Black, Bouaziz

Mades, Nice Olympiad 1 974.
1 4 .1l f4
.1l b7
de
1 5 dc
1 6 i!i' x d8
i;t x d8
Not 1 6 . . . f! aX d8? 1 7 .1lc7
1 7 .1ld6
f! e8
1 8 i;tx c5
bd7
19 AM
X e4
Better was 1 9 . . . f! x e4 .
20 c3
i;t ffi
Fischer-Robatsch ,
Vinkovci
1 968, continued 21 i;t d 5 ! .Q. x d5 (21
. . . ec5!? could be con
sidered .) 22 x d5 i;t x d4 23
x d4 effi 24 x e8+ x e8 25
a4! ba 26 x a4 c5 27 f! c4 d3
28 c6 ! and White had excellent
winning chances.
o
11

p (40)

40

Black prevents the knight

manoeuvre to f5 by drastic means
and trusts that the resulting dark
squared weaknesses will not prove
too serious.
1 2 .1lh6
Tal has suggested 1 2 f3

44

11 CiJh4

threatening -'l, h6 followed by CiJ gS

thus forcing 1 2 . . . cS , but this has
never been tested in tournament
play.
e8
12 . . .
1 3 f4
The
most consistent continuation. Alternatives are:
a) 13 CiJf3 cS 14 CiJ bd2 it ill IS it e3
it b 7 1 6 dS CiJ b6 1 7 it c2 -'l, c8 1 8
h2 as 1 9 gl b4 t-t R. ByrneUnzicker, Lj ubljamr 1 969, but
Black is a little better in the final
position.
b) 1 3 de CiJx eS ! (not 1 3 . . . de 1 4
itx f7 + ! ) when:
bl ) 14 fI i c4 IS J;tx c4 bc 16 CiJ f3
Darga-O' Kelly, Bordeaux 1 964,
leads to nothing for White after 1 6
. . . b8 !
b 2 ) 1 4 CiJ f3 "j x f3+ I S llrx f3
itb7 1 6 4j d2 J;t ill 1 7 it gS itg7 1 8
J;tdS! and White stands better,
V.
Nedelj kovic-Gaprindashvili,
Yugoslavia- USSR,
Leningrad
1 964.
13 . . .
cS !
Not 13
er? 1 4 eS CiJ hS I S
it x f7+ !
Also undesirable is 13 . . . it .. 1 4
-'t gS h 6 ( 1 4 . . . ef l S eS !) I S CiJ x g6
hg 1 6 fg CiJ h 7 1 7 llr hS (threat
Ax f7+ ) 1 7 . . . e6 1 8 .1lx e6 fe 1 9
CiJ x ill 4j hx ill 20 fl llr e7 2 1 4j d2
llrg7 22 f2 ed 23 cd x d4 24
f7+ h8 2S afl -'l, b7 26 g6
it c6 27 eS ! 1 -0 { l f 2 7 . . . x eS 28
f4!} Sauermann-Cording, 9th
W. German corres-Ch prelim 1 9646S .
.

c4
1 4 4j f3
.1l b7
I S .1l c2
-'l, ill
1 6 4j bd2
1 7 -'l,x ill
l-l
R. Byrne- Portisch, Amsterdam
1 969.
E
11
e8(41)

41

A natural move, preparing to

preserve the black-squared bishop.
1 2 CiJ fS
Innocuous is 1 2 CiJ d2 -'l, ill 1 3
CiJdf3 c S 1 4 d e CiJx eS I S 4j x eS de
16 J;t gS <:4 1 7 .1lc2 x d l 1 8
aX d l it e6 1 9 4j fS 4j d 7 2 0 e2
l-l Dueball-O'Kelly, Bad Pyr
mont 1 9 70.
12 . . .
-'l, ill
1 3 CiJ d2
Alternatively :
a) If l3 sf ed 1 4 gS CiJ x e4 I S -'l, dS
4j b6 !
b) Zuckerman-Nikolic, Beverwijk
1 968, went 13 f3 4j b6 ( 1 3 . . ed
1 4 cd A b 7 is more exact.) 1 4 -'l,g5
Ax fS l S x fS cS I 6 dc dc 1 7 dl
e7 1 8 -'l,x ffi x ffi l 9 x ffi gf20
CiJd2 c4 21 c2 ed8 22 CiJ f3 as 23
fl -'t cS 24 e2 ill 2S CiJh4 l -!.
.

11 4J h4 45
c) Robert Byrne has experimented
with 13 f3 to bolster the centre, e.g.
1 3 . . . J,t b7 ( I . Zaitsev prefers 1 3
. . . c6 with . . . d5 in mind and
answering 14 J,t g5 with 1 4 . . .
b6, while Taimanov has
suggested 1 3 . . . c5 .) 1 4 i;tg5 h6 1 5
i;t h4 and now:
c l ) 15 . . . g6 1 6 4J e3 i;t g7 1 7 4J d2
c6 1 8 4J dfl b6 1 9 i;t f2 c7 20
.. cl .. ad8 21 .. c2 4J b6 22 .. d2
4J h5 with roughly equal chances,
R. Byrne-Ree, Skopje Olympiad
1 972, though White eventually
won.
c2 ) 15 . . . d5 ? 1 6 ed ed 1 7 cd g6 1 8
4J e3 4J b6 1 9 4J c3 g5? 20 J,tg3
4J fX d5 2 1 4J ex d5 .. x el+ 22
x el 4J x d5 (42)

42
W

Sharp is 13 . . . A b7 1 4 4J f3 ed
( Dueball suggested 1 4 . . . h6 ! 1 5 d5
leading to difficult play for both
sides.) 15 4Jg5 d5 1 6 cd 4Jx e4 1 7
h5 (Dueball gives 1 7 .. x e4 as
only equal after 1 7 . . . .. x e4 18
h5 .. el+ 19 h2 4J f6 20
x 17+ h8 21 J,t f4 .. x al 22
e6.) 1 7 . . . 4Jx g5 1 8 .il x g5 and
White has compensation for his
pawn, Dueball-Tukmakov, W.
Berlin-Ukraine 1 970.
1 4 4J f3
White can try for a K-side attack
with a Rauzer-type centre but after
1 4 de de 1 5 4Jfl c4 1 6 A c2 c7 1 7
4J g3 4J c5 1 8 Ag5 4J fd7 1 9 g4
h8 20 .. adl f6 2 1 .ild 4J b6 22
f3 A e6 Dueball-Kane, Skopje
Olympiad 1 972, Black should have
adequate defensive resources.
ed
14 . . .
1 5 cd
I.
Zaitsev-Averbakh, 36th
USSR Ch 1 968, continued 15
c:f 1 6 A c2 d5 1 7 e5 4J e4 1 8 .. x e4?
(Better is 1 8 4J e3 !) 1 8 . . . de 1 9
A x e4 4J x e5 ! (not 1 9 . . . .. b8 20
4J g5 !) with equality.
A safer treatment would have
been t5 . . . .il b7 1 6 4J g3 cd 1 7
x d4 4J c5.

23 e4! 4Jx c3 24 g6+ Ag7 25

x 17+ <it> h8 26 bc b4 27 J,te5
i;t x e5 28 de bc 29 .. d l m 30
x c7 .. c8 31 x b7 c2 32 .. cl
.. d8 33 Ax c2 1 -0 R. Byrne
Rukavina, Leningrad interzonal
1 973 .
c5
13 . . .
13
g6 gives equality
according to some several com
mentators.

11 . . .

b7

A rare line which made a brief

appearance in 1 969 but which has
since been discarded from tourna
ment practice.
1 2 4Jf5
.. e8
1 2 . . . 4Jx e4 is met by 1 3 g4

46

11 ljh4

and 1 2 . . . .ll x e4 by 1 3 . x e4.

1 3 ljx e7+ . x e7
1 4 13 (43)

43
B

h6
14 . .
Another try is 1 4 . . . c5 ( I f l 4 . . .
d5 1 5 f4!) 1 5 d5 h6 1 6 lj d2 c4 1 7
1;t c2 b6+ 1 8 c;,t( h2 lj h5 1 9 lj f1
.

g5? 2 0 f4! Kavalek- Martinez,

San Juan 1 969.
1 5 lj d2
1 5 A e3 is also well answered by
1 5 . . . d5 but 1 5 Ac2, keeping
minor pieces out of range of Black's
central pawns, deserves examination.
15 . . .
d5 !
1 6 f4
ed
dc
1 7 e5
lj e4
1 8 bc
After 1 9 lj x e4 de 20 g4 (20
.ll a 3 !?) 20 . . . lj c5 21 A a3 lj d3 22
. ad l . e8 23 . e3 Ad5 24 . g3
g6 25 . gX d3 ed 26 . x d3 Black
has successfully defended himself,
R. Byrne-O' Kelly, San Juan 1 969.

1 1 A g5

1 e4 e5 2 .I fS 4J c6 3 A b5 a6 4 A a4
4J ffi 5 OO A e7 6 . e1 b5 7 lt b3 d6 8
c3 00 9 h3 4J b8 1 0 d4 4J bd7
1 1 Ag5 (44)

44
B

13 Ax e7
Also playable is 1 3 A e3, e.g. :
a) 13 . . . A m 1 4 g4 g6 1 5 Ah6
A g7 1 6 ltg5 .it ffi 1 7 h4 4Jg7 1 8
A h6 c5 1 9 d 5 and, though Black
eventually won,
White has
considerable attacking chances,
Ulvestad-Zinser, Malaga 1 966.
b) Much more reliable is 13
cS
1 4 a4 4J c7 1 5 i!Y e2 A ffi 1 6 de de 1 7
4J h2 Ag5= Minic-Matanovic,
Yugoslav Ch 1 96 7 .
i!Y x e7
13 . . .
1 4 4J fl !
1 4 a4 4J effi 1 5 i!Y e2 c6 1 6 .I n
4J h5=
Varnusz- M .
Kovacs,
Hungarian Ch 1 965-66.
g6
14 . . .
1 5 i!Y d2 c:tg7 1 6 . ad l 4J effi 1 7
4J g3 with a great advantage to
White, Schwarzbach-Karlsroetter,
Austrian Ch 1 965 .

White aims for rapid develop

ment and can often put pressure on
Black's e-pawn by playing his QB
to g3 . Another point is that the
bishop is ready to remove Black's
key defendu in some lines.
11 . . .
A b7
1 2 4J bd2
Black now has three mam
alternatives:
A 1 2 . . . 4J e8
B 1 2 . . . . e8
C 1 2 . . . h6
A
12 . . .

. e8
1 3 a4
Also 1 3 Ac2 is good as:
a) 13 . . . cS 1 4 .I n h6 1 5 A d2 Am
1 6 d5 c4 1 7 b3 cb 18 ab g6 1 9 g4 is in
White's favour, Murei-Bakulin,
12 . . .

48 11 5
Moscow Central Chess Club Ch
1 970.
b) 13 . fB 14 .j h2 ( 1 4 d5 h6 1 5
e3 c6 1 6 dc x c6 1 7 a4 d5 gives
Black no worries, Zatulovskaya
Shul, USSR Women's Ch 1 97374) 14 . . c5 15 de de 16 .j g4 b6
1 7 ,!} f3 d6 1 8 x d6 x d6 1 9
. adl c7 20 . d2 . ac8 2 1 .j e3
gives White some initiative,
Shamkovich-Kuijpers, Amster
dam 1 965 .
c5
13 . . .
1 4 de
If 14 a2 c6 (but not 14 . . .
ed?! 1 5 cd cd 1 6 .j x d4 .j c5 1 7 .j f5
ba I S e5 Bednarski-Grabczewski,
Poland 1 972) 15 de .jx e5 1 6
.j x e5 d e 1 7 x ffi x ffi I S c2 is
Tatai-Robatsch, Venice 1 967 , and
now instead of 1 8 . . . d7? 1 9
. ad l b7 20 d5 ! Black should
have played 18
c4 with
eq uality.
de
14 . . .
14 . . . .jx e5 15 .jx e5 de 1 6
x ffi .1l x ffi 1 7 ab ab I S e2 c4 1 9
c2 c 7 20 b 3 c b 2 1 x b3
. x al 22 . x al x c3 is quite
satisfactory for Black, Ostoj ic
Stupica, Yugoslav Ch 1 965.
.jx ffi !
1 5 .1l x ffi
Not 1 5 . . . .1l x ffi? 1 6 .Q. d5 x d5
1 7 ed .j b6 I S ab ab 1 9 . x aS
X aS 20 b3 ! a6 2 1 .j e4 c4 22
dl aS? 23 d6 d5 24 .j x ffi+
gf25 x d5 .jx d5 26 .j d4 m 27
.jx b5 . b8 2S .j a3 . x b2 29 . d l
} -O Ivkov-Robatsch, Palma 1 966.
1 6 ab
.

The immediate win of a pawn is

too hasty : 1 6 .jx e5? c4 1 7 c2
c5 I S .j df3 b6+ Matanovic
Robatsch, Maribor 1 967.
ab
16 . . .
1 7 ,bl x a8 .Q. x as 1 8 .jx e5 c4 1 9
.Q.c2 .Q. c5 2 0 .j ef3 b6 2 1 e2
.j h5 22 .j fl .j f4 with com
pensation for the pawn, Ivkov
Robatsch, Sarajevo 1 968.
The same position, but with . . .
h6 interpolated for Black, occurs in
the main lines and wiil be further
discussed under section C.
C

h6
1 3 .1l h4(45)
1 3 x ffi x ffi 1 4 d5 ( l 4 <i:\ fl ed
1 5 .j d4 <i:\ c5 ! -! Matulovic
Lengyel, Sarajevo 1 965) proved
good for White after l 4 . . . <i:\ c5? 1 5
.j fl a5 1 6 <i:\ g3 E . Nowak-Kozma,
Czechoslovak Ch 1 964, but much
better would have been 14 . . . <i:\ b6
followed by 1 5 . . . c6.
12 . . .

45
B

After 1 3 h4 Black has three

continuations:
Cl 1 3 . . . <i:\ h7
C2 1 3 . . . . eS
C3 1 3 . . . c5

11 .Q.g5 49
Cl

4J h7
Preparing to bolster Black's eS
strongpoint with . . . .Q. ffi and
aiming at relieving exchanges with
. . . 4JgS or . . . .Q. gS . This line has
never enjoyed a good reputation.
1 4 l1.g3
White gets nothing with 1 4
.Q.x e 7 i!t x e 7 I S 4J f1 4J gS 1 6 4Jg3
g6 1 7 e3 4J x f3+ l S x f3 4J ffi
1 9 i!td2 <ifi/ h7 and in fact on 20 e3
Black obtained the initiative with
20 . . . hS 21 f3 h4 22 4J e2 4J hS
Matulovic-Wade, Vinkovci 1 965.
.Q. ffi
14 . . .
I S i!te2
I S a4 cS 1 6 4J f1 4J gS 1 7 .Q.c2
eS IS dS? ! led to equality in
Bailey-Wade, British h 1 969, but
stronger was 1 7 4Jx gS Ax gS l S de
de 19 AdSt .
IS . . .
i!t e7
I S . . . 4JgS 1 6 ad l e8 1 7 de
4J x f3+ I S 4J x f3 de 1 9 4J h4 ! !
.Q.x h 4 2 0 i!tg4 gives White a clear
advantage, Tal-Krogius, 32nd
USSR Ch 1 964-6S .
1 6 a4
c6
1 7 4J f1
4J gS
I S ad l
g6
Black has a rather passive
position. Penrose-Wade, Ilford
1 968, continued 1 9 cJ l h2 4J x f3+
20 i!tx f3 .Q.g7 2 1 i!t e2 feS 22 f4
with the initiative to White.
13 . . .

C2

13 . .
e8(46)
Maintaining pressure against
White's e-pawn. 1 3 . . . e8 1 4 a4
.

cS and 1 3 . . . cS 1 4 a4 e8 are
common transpositions.

46

White can now choose between:

C2 1 1 4 i!tbl
C22 1 4 Ag3
C23 1 4 i!t e2
C24 1 4 Ac2
C2S 1 4 a4
C21
cS
14 i!tbl
1 5 a4 i!t b6 1 6 de 4J x eS l 7 ab ab 1 8
x a 8 j--j- Karpov-Stein, Alek
hine Memorial, Moscow 1 9 7 1 .
C22

14A g3
<ifi/ fB
I S 4J h4
Vasyukov-Holmov, 32nd USSR
Ch 1 964-6S, went 15 A d g6 1 6 a4
.Q. g7 1 7 .Q.d3 c6 I S i!t b3 i!t c7 1 9
a d 4J b6 with a n equal game,
while 15 i!tbl cS 1 6 a4 4J hS 1 7
.Q. h2 i!t ffi gave Black very active
play I D Korchnoi-Tukmakov,
Sochi 1 970.
cS
IS . . .
de
1 6 de
Manila
Lj uboj evic- Portisch,
1 9 74, varied with 1 6 . . . 4J x eS 1 7
lt c2 g6 1 8 4J hf3 4J x f3+ 1 9 i!tx f3

50

11 5

. e6 20 a4 . c8 (20 . . . e8
-Lj uboj evic-is a possible im
provement) 21 ab ab 22 d l b6
23 f3 . d8 24 Af2 Ag7 ( Lj ubojevic
also gives 24 . . . d5 as a possible
improvement.) 25 4J b3 A m 26
d2 . de8 27 4J a5 ,i}, a8 28 b4
c7 29 4J b3 4Jd7 30 . a6 ,il b7 3 1
. a7 . a8 3 2 . eal . X a7 3 3
. x a 7 b8 3 4 . a2 c 7 3 5 A d l
. e8 3 6 ,il e2 ,ilc6 37 . a 6 4J b8 38
. a5 cb 39 cb d5 40 ed ,il x d5 41
Ax b5 . d8 42 4Jd4 b7 43 4J c2
c8 44 ,il b6 . d6 45 A c5 . d8 46
Ax m . x m 47 Ad3 . d8 48
x A Ax ,
x + '\t> m 5 1 ffi+ '\t> e8 52
. e5 . d6 53 4Jd4 1 -0.
c4
1 7 f3
g6
1 8 Ac2
,ilg7
1 9 . adl
b6
20 4J fl
Black stands much better.
Browne-Smejkal, Wijk aan Zee
1972, continued 21 e3 4J c5 ! 22 f3
4J h5 23 A f2 Am 24 4J g3 4J f4 25
4J e2 ffi! 26 4J X f4 ef27 e2 e5
28 '\t> h2 4J e6 29 g4 A c5 ! 30 4J g2
h5 3 1 ,il x c5 x c5 32 h4 hg 33 fg
e5 34 f3 . ad8 35 b4 ffi 36'\t>gl

47
B

g5 3 7 h5 '\t> g7 38 a4 . x dl 39
. x dl . d8 40 . x d8 4J x d8 41
dl 4J f7 42 d7 (47)
42 . . . .ll x e4 43 h6+ '\t> 44
,ilx e4 x e4 45 h7 f3 '46 d8
'\t>x h7 47 x ffi '\t>g8 48 x a6
e2 0-1 .
C23

14 e2
c5
1 5 . ad l c 7 1 6 de de 1 7 c4 4J m 1 8
,ilg3 ,il d6 1 9 d3 b4 20 ,il h4 A e7
2 1 4J fl . ed8 22 bl . x d l 23
Ax dl 4J e6 24 Ax ffi ,il x ffi !-!
Gipslis-Matanovic, Zagreb 1 965 .
C24
14 A c2
Am
O r 1 4 . . . p l 5 b4 4J h5 1 6 A X e7
X e7 1 7 4J b3 4J b6 1 8 de de 1 9
4J c5 ,il c6 with equality, Novak
M. Kovacs, Harrachov 1 96 7 .
A sound alternative is the natural
14
cS. Now:
a) After 15 4J O Black should play
1 5 . . . cd but not 15 . . . 4J h7? 1 6
,ilg3 4J g5 1 7 de 4J x f3+ 1 8 x f3
4Jx e5 1 9 h5 g6 20 e2 A ffi 2 1
. ad l ;t
Shamkovich- Liberzon,
Moscow 1 96 7 .
b) Shamkovich-Holmov, Moscow
Ch 1 970, continued 15 de de 1 6
4J fl c4 1 7 4J e3 1 8 a4 4J c5 1 9
4J X e5 4J fX e4 20 Ax e7 . X e7 21
x d8+ . x d8 22 ab . x e5 23 ba
Ax a6 24 4J g4 . e6 25 ,ilx e4 h5
with great advantage to Black.
c) Velimirovic-Parma, Havana
1 9 7 1 , went 15 a4 c7 1 6 Ad3 c4 1 7
Ac2 -'t m !-!
1 5 a4

1 6 de

11 5 51
Or 1 6 d3 c6 1 7 b3 g7 1 8
A n c7 and Black has a solid
position, Grodetsky-Balashov, !
final 32nd USSR Ch 1 963.
de
16 . . .
1 7 e2 c6 1 8 b4 c7 1 9 g4 g7 20
c4 ba 21 El )( a4 a5 22 El bl ab 23
Tringov
Et aX b4 c5 ! -!
Lengyel, Sarajevo 1 965 .
as

14 "'(48)

48
B

cS
14 . . .
The most common reply. Other
possibilities are:
a) 14 . . . El cl 1 5 de X e5 1 6
x e5 de 1 7 ab ab 1 8 e2 !-!
Matulovic- Matanovic, Yugoslav
Ch 1 967.
h7 15 Ag3 Am 1 6
b) 14
A a2 ! {Threatening 1 7 ab ab 1 8
b3 winning a pawn-and thus
stronger than 1 6 e2 c6 1 7 El adl
e7 1 8 fl g5 1 9 e3 g6
Sergievsky-Zelinsky, RSFSR Ch
1 955.} 1 6 . . . e7 { 1 6 . . . c6 is
better.} 1 7 b3 ! El ab8 1 8 a5 c6
1 9 c4! d8 20 b4 with great
advantage to White. Kapengut.

Tukmakov, 39th USSR Ch 1 97 1 ,

continued 20 . . . b6 2 1 ab ab 22
c5 dc 23 de x e5 24 x e5 .Q.x e5
25 Ax e5 El x e5 26 d6 El ee8 27
bc d8 28 x b7 El x b7 29 X c6
e7 30 El acl g5 31 Ad5 El bb8
32 d6 e6 33 .Q. c6 x d6 34 cd
ed8 35 e5 b4 36 .Q. d5 f4 37
.Q. c4 El e8 38 g3 x h3+ 39 <ifjg2
g5 40 f4 e6 41 f5 1 -0.
edJ? and now:
c) 14
c l ) Not 15 cd x e4! 1 6 Ax e7
El x e7 1 7 x e4 El x e4 1 8 El x e4
Ax e4 1 9 d2 .Q.b7 20 h5 (A
little better was 20 ab ab 21 i!rh5
d5.) 20 . . . e8 ! 2 1 El c l c5 and
Black retained his extra pawn,
Tatai-Gligoric,
Lj ublj ana- Por
toroz 1 973.
c2) 15 x cK c5 {Georgescu-Botez,
Romanian Ch 1 965, went 15 . . .
x e4 1 6 .Q.x e7 El x e7 1 7 ab ab 1 8
El x a8 .Q.X a8 !-! , b u t Vidakovic
Knaak, Sombor 1 972, continued 1 9
X e4 El X e4 20 X e4 A X e4 2 1
f3 .Q. b7 2 2 x b 5 e5 and Black
won in 40 moves.} 1 6 f5 i;t fB
followed by 1 7 . . . g6 with a n eq ual
game according to Gligoric.
15 de
Less energetic are:
a) 15 e2 i!r b6 1 6 de de 1 7 i;tx m
A x m 1 8 Ad5 c4! 1 9 .Q. x b7 i!rx b7
20 b4 !-! Matulovic-Gheorghiu,
Belgrade 1 965.
b) 15 a2 b6 1 6 de {Black has no
worries after 1 6 a5 c7 1 7 b4 c4 1 8
.Q. g3 .Q.fB 1 9 .Q. b l g6 I . Zaitsev
Holmov, Moscow Team Ch 1 9 7 1 .}
16 . . . de 1 7 .Q. x f6 .Q.x f6 18 .Q.d5

52 1 1 Jtg5
c4 1 9 b4 cb 20 x b3 !-! Stein
Ivkov, Caracas 1 970.
Here Black has two possibilities:
C25 1 1 5 . . . de
C252 1 5 . . . x e5

C251
de
15 . . .
I t is possible to recapture with
the pawn, though this involves a
pawn sacrifice.
1 6 Ax fO
x fO
Not 1 6 . . . llx fO l 7 A d5 Et b8
I S ab ab !-! Sigurjonsson
Unzicker, Siegen Olympiad 1 9 70,
as after 19 %b3! Matulovic
Matanovic, Yugoslav Ch 1 965,
White has a considerable plus.
ab
1 7 ab
I S Et x aS
Ax aS
1 9 x e5
c4
20 Ac2
Ac5
% b6
21 e3
h5
22 i'r e2
23 fl
f4
24 i'rd2
Now !-! in Ivkov-Smejkal,
Palma 1 972, after which 24 . . .
cI3 was suggested as an unclear
possibility.
Smejkal-Parma, Siegen Olym
piad 1 970, continued 24 . . . i'r t6 25
l h2 Et dS ! (Ivkov-Ro batsch,
Sarajevo 1 968, but with the black
pawn on h7-see note to Black's
1 2 th-went 25 . . . h5 26 e5 ! i'r h6
27 Et d l .) 26 i'rcl h5 2 7 fl d3
28 A x d3 Et x d3 (28 . . . cd!?
-Parma) 29 gl A b7 30 Et e2
and now instead of 30 . . . g6? 3 1
el Et d7 32 h3 Et e7 33 e5

Black should play 30 . . . i'rd6! with

full compensation for the pawn.

C252
15 . . .
x e5
At this point !-! ! Maeder
Matanovic, Bad Pyrmont 1 970.
16 x e5
Alternatives are:
a) 16 A d ed7 1 7 A g3 A m
Kapengut- Lengyel, Kecskemet
1 972, and
b) 16 e2 x 3+ 1 7 i'rx 3 c4 1 8
i,tc2 4j d 7 1 9 A x e 7 x e 7 2 0 e3
c5 2 1 ab ab 22 Et x as Et x a8 23
e5 Et d8 24 ed !-! Tal-Stein,
Tallinn 1 9 7 1 .
de
16 . . .
1 7 -'l, g3
A move with which Matulovic
has had success.
1 7 i,tx fO is no longer dangerous
as White does not have i,t d5 to
follow-the point of capturing first
with the knight on e5-e.g. 1 7
-'l, x fO -'t x fO 1 8 ab ( I 8 e2 c4
!-t Sigurjonsson-Parma, Caracas
1970) 18 . . . ab 19 e2 c4 20 A c2
e6 2 1 b3 Et ea6 22 x a6 Et X a6
23 Et d l i'r a5 24 bc x c3 25 cb
Et a2 and Black has plenty of
pressure for the pawn. Ostojic
Smejkal, Polanica Zdroj 1 970,
concluded 26 Ad3 Ag5 27 4j b l
i'rb3 2 8 fl Et b2 29 i'r e l -'l, e7 30
d2 A c5 31 Et X b2 i'rx b2 32 d 2
i'ral 33 i'r c3 a 7 3 4 x e5?
Ax f2+ 35 fl e3 36 Ae2 ll, g3
37 e8+ h7 38 xf7 cl + 39
Adl x d l mate.
.Ad6
17 . . .

11 5 5"
Or 17
cf 1 8 A c2 and now:
a) 18 . ,il m 1 9 f3 c7 20 ab ab
2 1 E! x a8 Ax a8 22 ,il h2 .Jd7 23
e2 a5 24 M J;t c6 25 h5 d8 26
J;tg3 ffi 27 b3 with some edge to
White who eventually won,
Matulovic-Lengyel, Yugoslavia
Hungary 1 966.
b) 18 . . c7 ( i -i Tringov
Forintos. Titovo Uzice 1 966) 1 9
f3 J;t d 6 2 0 a b a b 2 1 E! x a8
,il X a8
i-i
Kostro-Lengyel,
Vrnjacka Banja 1 96 7 .
c) 18
.J c17 1 9 a b a b 2 0 E! x a8
Ax a8 21 .J f3 (21 .J O Ac5 22
e3 J;tx e3 i -i Bogdanovic
Tringov, Titovo U zice 1 966) 21 . . .
A ffi 2 .Jh2 .J c5 23 e2 ,il M 24
E! dl i!r e7 25 ,il x h4 i!rx h4 26 .J f3
i!r f4 27 g 3 ffi 2 8 e3 b6 29
h2 i!rc7 30 .J h4 and White
retains some initiative but later
missed a win in the ending,
Matulovic- Ivkov, Maribor 1 967.
g6
1 8 ,il c2
1 9 AM ,il e7 20 .J f3 i!r c7 21 .J h2
h5! 22 Ax e7 ilr x e7 23 .J g4
g7 24 ab ab 25 E! x a8 Ax a8 26
d2 .J f4 27 E! d l h5 28 .J e3 with a
tough struggle ahead. Matulovic
Gheorghiu, Vinkovci 1 968, ended
28 . . . Ac6 29 h2 c4 30 g3 .J e6
31 ilr d6 x d6 32 E! x d6 E! c8 33
.J d5 ,ilx d5 34 E! x d5 E! c5 35
E! d6 ffi 36 h4 e7 3 7 E! b6 d7
38 E! b7+ .J c7 39 g2 E! c6 40
E! a7 E! d6 41 E! al E! d2 42 E! cl
e6 43 f3 .J c5 44 e3 E! d6 45
E! al E! a6 46 E! x a6 .Jx a6 47 b3
.J c5 48 bc bc 49 A d l .J b7 50 f4

. .

e6 5 1 jia4 d6 52 ,il c6 f5 53
<i!i>f3 ffi 54 ef x f5 55 ,il e4 .J e7
56 ,il b7 .Jf5 57 A e4 e7 i -i .
o

13 . . .

&5(49)

49

14 a4
Other lines are:
a) 14 i!r e2 .J h5 1 5 A x e7 i!rx e7 1 6
g3 .J b 6 1 7 .J h4 ,!) f4 1 8 i!rg4 h5 1 9
f3 c4 2 0 Ac2 f5 with satisfactory
play for Black,
Lehmann
Robatsch, Havana 1 965 .
b) 14 A c2 E! e8 1 5 a4 i!r b6 1 6 .J O
A m 1 7 a b ab 1 8 E! x a8 Ax a8 1 9
de de 20 .J 3d2 and instead of20 . . .
A b7? 2 1 c4;!; Sakharov-Tringov,
Ukraine- Bulgaria 1 966, 20 . . . c4
gives equality and leadsato positions
typical of the previous section.
c) 14 A g3 i!rc7 1 5 h4 E! fe8 1 6 a4
A m 1 7 .J g6 ed 1 8 cd cd 1 9 E! cl
ilr b6 20 a5 i!rx a5 2 1 ,!) x m .J x m
22 ,ilx d6 E! ac8 and White has
inadequate compensation for the
pawn. Matulovic- Matanovic, Vin
kovci 1 968, continued 23 E! x c8
E! x c8 24 Ax m E! x m 25 e5 .Jd5
26 ,!) e4 .J f4 27 ,!) d6 ,il x g2 28

54

11 5

c;!t h2 d8 29 g4 g5?? 30 .t) x f7

x g4 3 1 .t) x h6+ + c;!th7 32
.t) x g4 A x h3? 33 c;!t g3 Ax g4 34
c;!t x g4 d3 35 e6 .t) e2 36 e7! 1 -0 (36
. . . . e8 37 A f7 . X e7 38 . h l
mate) .
c7
14 . . .
14 .
. e 8 transposes t o C25 .
c4
1 5 e2
. re8
1 6 A c2
1 7 b4
1 7 ltg3 !-! IS Fuchs.

Matanovic, Vrnjacka Banj a 1 96 7 .

17 . . .
.t) m
Not 1 7 . . . cb? 1 8 ltx b3 x c3 1 9
. eel a5 2 0 ab X b5 2 1 A c4
b6 22 . abl a7 23 A x ffi!
Ax ffi 24 lt x f7+ ! and White soon
won, Matulovic-Tringov, Bel
grade 1 965 .
de
1 8 de
1 9 A g3
!-!
Kostro- Matanovic, Vrnjacka
Banja 1 96 7 .

11 c4 without 11 . . . c6

1 e4 e5 .l f3 .l c6 3 A bS a6 4 A a4
.l ffi S 00 A e7 6 . e l bS 7 A b3 d6 S
c3 00 9 h3 .l bS 1 0 d4 .l bd7
1 1 c4 (50)

x d4 .l cS 1 4 A c2 A b7 I S .l c3
b4 1 6 .l d5 .l x d5 1 7 ed A ffi I S
f5 with a strong attack, Peli
Minsker, Israeli Ch 1 966.
A

50

b4
11
1 2 c5
More dynamic than 1 2 .l bd2
A b 7 1 3 A c2 .eS 1 4 d5 c6 Clarke
Blau, Ha tings 1 9S 7-5S . Ravinsky
suggests 1 2 a3 as preferable to 12 cS .
12 . . .
A b7
An alternative is 1 2 . . . ed 1 3 cd
cd 1 4 .l x d4 A b7 and now:
a) 15 f3 .l cS 16 A c2 g6 1 7 Ah6
. eS I S d2 b6 Koblencs
Chukayev, Tallinn 1 956 and
b) 15 .l ell .l cS 1 6 A c2 .eS
Shianovsky- Kots, Ukraine Team
Ch 1 95 7 , are both fine for Black.
Stronger is
c) 15 .l fSl .l c5 going:
c l ) 1 6 A c2 .eS 1 7 jl g5 (I 7 f3 d5 !
I S e5 .l fd7 Kotkov-Shamkovich,
RSFSR Ch 1 95 7) 1 7 . . . A m? (I 7
. . . Ax e4 would have been
better.) I S .ld2 .l e6 1 9 A h4 4J cS
20 f3 g6 21 . adl Arseniev
Zhilin, RSFSR Ch 1 95 7 .
c2) 16 A gSl-Shamkovich.

This move was first played by

Arseniev in 1 955 and scored
extremely well for White in the late
1 950s. White vacates c3 for a
knight and prepares to undermine
Black's centre with cS , creating
tension along the c- and d-files.
Black's most reputable reply is 1 1
c6! which is considered
seperately in chapter 1 0 .
Other possibilities are:
A ll . . M
B 1 1 . . . Ab7
C 1 1 . . . cS
Feeble is 1 1 . . . ed? 1 2 cb ab 1 3
.

56

11 c4 without 11 . . . c6

ed
1 3 c2
1 4 c6!
Ravinsky's suggestion. Arseniev
Krogius, RSFSR Ch 1 955, went 1 4
cd? c d 1 5 4) x d4 4) X e4!
14 . . .
d3
1 5 c4
4) b6
1 6 cb
4) x c4
x a8
1 7 ba
4) x e4 (51)
1 8 Ax c4
51
W

White has rook, bishop and

knight against queen and three
pawns but is momentarily lacking
in development.
19 Ax d3
After 19 4) bd2 d5 20 A x d5
x d5 21 Et x e4 Affi 22 Et c4 c5 23
Et bl Et e8 24 b3 Et e2 Black has
active play to compensate for his
material deficit.
19 . . .
d5
20 a3
20 4) bd5 5 is not so promising,
e.g. :
a) 21 ft c5 22 Ae3 A ffi 23 Et abl
as 24 Ac2 a 4 25 4) 3d2 c4
Zurakhov-Zamikhovsky, Kiev Ch
1 958.
b) 21 A cH A c5 22 4) 2f3 A x d4 23
4) x d4 a7 24 A e3 f4 25 c6

b7 Gaprindashvili-Kuznetsova,
Tbilisi-Rostov on Don 1 958.
c) 21 b3 d6 22 l;te3 c5 23 A fl
a5 2 4 a 4 b a 2 5 b a a4 2 6 4) c l f4 27
l;td2 a7 28 Et a2 Et b8 Choquart
Zinser, corres 1 963; Black's mobile
pawn centre assures him the
initiative.
c5
20 . . .
Or 20 . . . a5 21 Ae3 4) c5? (21
. . . b 7 22 4) bd2 5) 22 A fl b3 23
4) bd2 and White is co-ordinating
very q uickly, Geller-Filip, Amster
dam 1 956.
2 1 Et x e7 !
Less impressive are:
a) 21 A d b3! 22 Ax h7+ )ftx h7
23 Et x e7 4) e6 24 4)g5+ x g5 25
Ax g5 d8 ! threatening 26 . . . ffi,
Shamkov ich-Ragozin, Leningrad
1 957 .
b) 21 A ft b3 and now:
bl ) 22 Et a2 4) x cl 23 Et x cl b3 24
Et al c5 25 4) c3 A ffi 26 Et dl
Kotkov-Korchnoi, i-final 25th
USSR Ch 1 958. Instead of 26 . . .
AX c3? Ragozin suggests 26 . . .
Et d8 27 Et acl c6 as an
improvement.
b2 ) 22 Et x e7 x al 23 ab c6
24 4) c3 d6 25 Et e5 c6 26 Ad2
b3 2 7 jt f4 x b4 Bannik
Shianovsky, Ukraine Ch 1 958.
21 . . .
4) b3
22 Et x c7
Analysis by Suetin which
continues 22 . . . x al 23 ab b8
24 A f4 x b4 25 jt e5 4) b3 26
4) c3 and White's material
advantage must tell.

II c4 without II . . . c6 5i
B
11

52

1 2 c3

c6

Other replies are no improve

ment:
a) 1 2 . . . b4 1 3 dS when:
al ) 13 . . . c6 1 4 <'j X e7+ x e7 l S
h4 ed 1 6 f5 eS 1 7 f4
Kalinkin-Tiurin, RSFSR 1 9S9 .
a2 ) 13 . . . x d5 1 4 ed ed I S x d4
A ffi 1 6 A e3 cS 1 7 A c2 g6 1 8
d2 Shamkovich-Chukayev, !
final 23rd USSR C h 1 9S5.
a3 ) 13 . . . c5 14 de de 15 A a4
A x d5 1 6 ed A d6 1 7 A gS b8 1 8
c2 Matanovic-van Scheltinga,
Budapest zonal play-off 1 960.
b) 12 . . . be 1 3 A x c4 <'j b6 14 A b3
ed I S x d4 fd7 1 6 A e3 ! (Better
than 16 dS?, Shianovsky
Lipnitsky, Ukraine Ch 1 9S6, or 1 6
A d5 x d5 1 7 <'j x d S A ffi 1 8 Ae3
. b8 1 9 . cl ! A x dS 20 ed . x b2
21 c6 a8 22 A d4;;!; Bannik
Lipnitsky, Ukraine Ch 1 956.) 1 6
. . . <'j c5 1 7 f5 and now:
b l ) 17 . . . A fti 1 8 A x cS dc 19 eS
Lenchiner-Lazarev, Ukraine Ch
1 960.
b2 ) 17 . . . , x b3 1 8 X b3 . b8 1 9
A x b6 cb 20 . adl Gufeld-Kots, !
final 3 1 st USSR Ch 1 963, with
advantage to White in all cases.
1 3 a3 ! (52)
White can also preserve some
initiative with 1 3 cS ed 1 4 cd A x d6
I S x d4 Ac7 1 6 A gS cS 1 7 e3
c4 1 8 A c2 . e8 1 9 . adl Nilsson
Spassky, Havana 1 966.

Black has now tried :

BI 1 3 . . . c7
B2 1 3 . . . . b8
B3 1 3 . . . h6
Keres once suggested 1 3 . . . ed 1 4
<'j x d4 b c I S A X c4 d S 1 6 Ad3 de
1 7 <'jx e4 c5= but White can play
1 6 <'jx c6 Jlx c6 1 7 ed followed by
18 d6 regaining the piece with
advantage.
Bl
13 . . .
c7
1 4 Jlg5
Also q uite good are :
a) 14 <'j h4 b c I S Jl x c 4 dS 1 6 A a2
<'j x e4 1 7 f5 Jl ffi 1 8 <'j x e4 de 1 9
. x e 4 Ravinsky- Liberzon, Lenin
grad 1 9S6 and
b) 14 Jl a2 .. ad8 I S e2 h6 1 6
Jl e3 .. fe8 1 7 .. acl b8 1 8 b4
Romanovsky-Zelinsky,
Vilnius
1 9S 7 .
.. ae8
14 . . .
Or:
a) 14 . . . h6 I S Jl e3 .. ac8 1 6 .. cl
b8 1 7 A a2 A d8 18 b4 ed 19
<'jx d4 bc 20 A f4! Veselovsky
Bakulin, USSR 1 97 3 .
b) 1 4 . . . .. adS I S c2 b8 1 6

58

11 c4 without 11 . . . c6

ad l fe8 1 7 Aa2 h6 1 8 A cl
Clj b6 1 9 c5 ed 20 cd dc 2 1 de x d l
2 2 x d l x e7 23 e 5 Prakhov
Radovici, E. Germany 1 960, are
both in White's favour.
1 5 cl
b8
1 6 .Q. a2 !
T o answer 1 6 . . . b c with 1 7 de.
16 . . .
<it> h8
Geller-Spassky, 25th USSR Ch
1 958, continued 1 7 b4 c5 1 8 bc ed 1 9
c6 ! d c 2 0 cb7 x b 7 2 1 c b x b5
22 . x c3 Clj c5 23 ce3 Clj e6 24 e5 !
with great advantage to White who
is well placed for a central
break-through.

m 1 8 Clj 5 d5 1 9 ed x e H 20
x e l cd 2 1 A b3 a5 ! -! Jimenez
S. Garcia, Cienfuegos 1 972.
14 . . .
e8
1 5 cl
.Q.m?!
15 . . . ed is better according to
Hort.
cb
1 6 cb
If 1 6 . . . ab 1 7 de is better for
White.
1 7 d5! (53)
53
B

B2

13 . . .
b8
1 4 a2
1 4 e3, Boleslavsky-Ragozin,
22nd USSR Ch 1 955, is also good
for White.
a5
14 . . .
1 5 cb
cb
16 b4
ab
1 7 ab
ed
18 Clj x d4
d5
Now instead of 1 9 Clj x d5= ,
Matanovic-Smyslov, Yugoslavia
USSR 1 956, Boleslavsky gives 1 9
e5 ! .Q. x b4 2 0 ef .Q. x c 3 2 1 fg with
good attacking prospects.
B3

13 . . .

hi

1 4 j},e3
Or 1 4 j},a2 e8 with:
a) 15j}, e3 j}, m 1 6 de de 1 7 b4 Cljh7
1 8 c5 Spassky-Jimenez, Havana
1 962.
b) 15 bf ed 1 6 Clj x d4 bc 1 7 j},x c4

White has a clear advantage.

Hort- Pribyl , Czech Ch 1 97 2 , went
1 7 . . . c8 1 8 Clj d2 g6 1 9 c2 g7
20 Jtd3 <it> h 7 21 b4 Clj b6 22 Clj b3
Clj c4 23 A x c4 x c4 24 d 3!
d7 25 Clj a5 cc8 26 a4 b a 27
Clj c4 b8 28 Clj b6 d8 29 Clj cx a4
A m 30 Clj c4 d7 31 al ! A c8 32
Clj ab6 d8 33 Clj x c8 x c8 34
Clj b6 d8 35 x a6 e7 36 Clj c4
x b4 3 7 x d6 d7 38 c6
.Q.d6 39 cl Clj e8 40 3 b8 41
d2 h5 42 Clj b6 c7 43 x c7
Cljx c7 44 c6 Clj b5 45 Clj c4 bH
46 <it>h2 A b4 47 d3 al 48 1! b6
e8 49 Clj d2 .,Q.x d2 50 x d2
a4 51 A g5 Clj d4 52 Af6 a3 53
d6 a8 54 h4 c8 55 f2 Clj b5

11 c4 without 11
S6 . b6 Jlj d4 S7 . b7 . c2 S8 'tIrg3
. d2 S9 . e7 'tIr ID 60 . d7 gS 61 hg
c;t> g6 62 .. d8 h4 63 . x ID 1 -0.
C

11
cS
Jljx eS
1 2 de
Or 1 2 . . . de 1 3 Jlj c3 -'lb7 1 4 cb
ab I S Jljx bS Jlj x e4 Penrose-N .
Littlewood, British C h 1 963, when
1 6 -'l dS! would have given White a
clear advantage.
de(54)
1 3 Jlj X eS

54

1 4 Jlj c3
Alternatives are rather un
promising:
a) 14 -'l g5 -'l e6 ! I S 'tIr e2 .. b8 1 6
-'l x ffi -'l x ffi 1 7 Jlj c3 bc 1 8 -'l x c4
1,t x c4 19 'tIrx c4 . x b2 20 . ed l
'tIr aS 21 JljdS A gS 22 a4 hS !
Georgadze- Raz uvayev,
USSR
1 97 1 . Black stands better.
b) 14 'tIre2 b4 I S 1,tgS Jlj d7 1 6
A x e 7 'tIr x e7 1 7 A a4 . d8 1 8 A c6
. b8 1 9 a3 Jlj ID 20 ab Jlj e6! with a
beautiful position for Black.
Tringov-Holmov, Havana 1 965,
continued 2 1 1,t dS Jlj f4 22 f3
. x b4 23 . a2 . b6 24 c;t> h2 . ffi
2S e3 . g6 26 . gl J1. x h3 27 gh

. . c6 59

. x gl 28 c;t>x gl 'tIr gS+ 29 c;t> fl

'tIr g2+ 30 c;t> e l 'tIrgI+ 3 1 c;t> d2
x bl 32 b3 'tIr x e4 0- 1 .
14 . . .
'tIr b6
Other reasonable ideas are:
a) 14
-'l .rt 1 5 a4 bc 1 6 AX c4
A e6 1 7 'tIre2 1,t x c4 1 8 'tIrx c4 'tIrd4
1 9 'tIr e2 h6 20 . d l 'tIr b4 with equal
chances, Suetin-Forintos, Titovo
Uzice 1 966.
'tIrx dl I S . x d l . b8 ( I S
b) 14
. . . A b7 1 6 JtgS b4 1 7 A x ffi A x ffi
1 8 Jlj a4 ) 1 6 a4! A e6 1 7 ab ab 1 8
. a 7 ( I 8 JljdS !?) 1 8 . . . 1,td8 1 9
1,t e3 b c 20 i;i a4 1,t b6 (20 . . .
.. x b2 2 1 i;i x cS A b6 might give
Black some edge.) 2 1 . a6 h6 22
. d6 A c7 23 . dc6 A c8! 24 . a7
A b6 2S .. x b6 .. x b6 26 A x cS
. b8 1 -1 Geller-Holmov, Kislov
odsk 1972.
I S JljdS?!
Jlj x dS
1 6 ed
A d6
1 7 A e3
f5
1 8 .. cl
f4
f3
1 9 i;id2
Black has good atta<:king
chances.
Marolleau- Karafiath,
corres 1 966, ended in fine style: 20
g4 hS 21 . e4 A b8 22 cb g6 23
d6+ c;t>h8 24 dS hg 2S h4 .. a7 26
b6 . d7 27 .. x eS . x d6 28 .. gS
'tIr h 7 29 .. x cS 'tIr x h4 30 A e6
. dS ! ! 0- 1 .
Although rarely encountered, I I
. . . cS is eminently playable and
can lead to lively positions. I t
would appear that neither I I . . . b4
nor I I . . . 1,tb7 are sufficient for
equality.

10

1 1 c4 c6

1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 A b5 a6 4 A a4
ffi 5 00 A e7 6 , al b5 7 A b3 d6 8
c3 00 9 h3 b8 1 0 d4 bd7
1 1 c4
c6 (55)

final 23rd USSR Ch 1 955, played

1 2 i!r e2? which he described as a
waste of time, and suggested 1 2 a4
and 1 2 bd2 as more logical.
A

55
W

Since the early 1 960s 1 1 . . . c6

has proved to be Black's most
popular and reliable reply to 1 1 c4
and thus merits a chapter to itself.
Alternative replies to 1 1 c4 are
discussed in the previous chapter.
White can now choose between :
A 1 2 i!r c2
B 1 2 a4
C 1 2 A g5
D 1 2 a3
E 1 2 c3
F 1 2 cb
G 1 2 c5
Ravinsky, In the Leningrad t -

12 i!r c2
A b7
When first faced with 1 2 i!r c2
Portisch played 1 2 . . . a5 !? against
Geller in the interzonal play-off at
Portoroz 1 97 3 , the game continuing
1 3 a4 ( 1 3 a3 !?) 13 . . . bc 14 A X c4
d5 1 5 A d 3 de 1 6 Ax e4 x e4 1 7
i!rx e4 A b4? ! {Geller gives 1 7 . . .
ffi 1 8 i!r x e5 Ad6 as unclear.} 1 8
Ad2 A x d 2 1 9 bx d 2 ed 20

i!rx d4 ffi 21 , ad A d 7 22 c4
c5 23 i!r x c5 Ax a4 24 fe5 , b8
25 i!r a3 ! with a clear advantage to
White.
b4
1 3 c3
1 4 e2
ed !
1 5 eX d4 g6
After 1 6 e2 {Timman suggested
1 6 h2 !?} 1 6 . . . c5 1 7 g3
a) Tal-Timman, Sochi 1 97 3,
continued 17
as 1 8 i!r e2 fd7
1 9 A f4 e6 20 A h6 , e8 2 1 , adl
i!rc7 22 h2 Affi with the better
game for Black who controls the
central dark sq uares.

11 c4 c6

b) Hort-Lengyel, Tallinn 1 975,

varied with 17
fd7 18 Jl e3
c7 I !} a4 e5 20 h2 X b3 2 1
x b3 c5 2 2 A h6 fe8 23 f4 c6
24 g4 d4 25 d 3 ffi 26 f5 g5 27
h5 1 -0.
This line deserves further tests.

61

with equality, Lombardy-Mat

anovii:, Leipzig Olympiad 1 960.
C

h6

1 2 A g5 (56)

Black has several other good

alternatives against White's in
nocuous line:
B
a) Keres gave 12
be 1 3 Ax c4
12 a4
bc
The most reliable means of x e4 1 4 Ax e7 x e7 1 5 x e4
equalizing, though 1 2 . . . A b7 1 3 d5 as eq ual.
b5 1 3 Ax e7 x e7 1 4
ab ab 1 4 x a8 A x a8 1 5 cb cb 1 6 b) 12
c
b
a
b
1
5
c3 b 8 Trois-Wade,
c3 b4 1 7 d5 x d5 1 8 A x d5
Skopje
Olympiad
1 972, proved
Jl x d5 19 ed e4 20 X e4 ffi 2 1
adequate
for
Black.
e l x d5 22 b3 a8 proved
satisfactory for Black in Tal c) Also very comfortable was 12
Zurakhov, i-final 23rd USSR Ch A b7 1 3 bd2 c5 ! 1 4 de x e5 1 5
x e 5 d e 1 6 e2 b4 1 7 adl c7
1 955.
1 8 A c2 fd8 1 9 fl x dl 20
13 Jl x c4
x e4!

x dl d8 21 A x ffi Ax ffi 22
1 4 x e4
d5
e3 d4! 23 x d4 cd 24 d5
1 5 el
dc
A x d5 25 cd i -i Gheorghiu
16 a3
Black also has no problems after Portisch, European Team Ch,
1 6 e2 Ab4 1 7 A d2 Ax d2 1 8 Hamburg 1 965.
c7 1 3 bd2 e8 1 4
bx d2 ed 1 9 x d4 ffi 20 d) 12
x c4 c5 21 4f3 A b7 Foldi cl Ab7 1 5 c b a b 1 6 a4 a5 1 7
ab cb 1 8 A e3 h6 1 9 d5 ec8,
Barcza, Hungarian Ch 1 959.
Matanovic-O' Kelly,
Bordeaux
16 . . .
ed
1 964, is adequate for equality.
1 7 x d4
A ffi
1 3 Ah4
h5 !
1 8 x c6
c7
1 4 l.l, x e7
X e7
56
1 5 cb
ab
b4
B
16 c3
1 7 bl
f4
.

Black already stands a little

better. TukmaJWv-Karpov, Lenin
grad interzonal 1 9 7 3 , continued 1 8
bd2 ed! 1 9 x d 4 e5
(threatening 20 . . . Jl x h3 followed
by . . . i!rg5+ ) 20 2f3 ffi 21

62

11 c4 c6

.i) x e5 de 22 .i) f5 .Q. x f5 23 ef ad8

24 f3 ( lf24 c2 still 24 . . . d2!
and on 25 x d2 g5 wins.) 24 . . .
d2 25 e3 t! x b2 26 ael e8
27 e4 .i) d5 28 g3 .i) c3 29
x b4 e2+ 30 x e2 x e2 3 1
t! b 7 ? ( 3 1 g6 ! , threatening 32
b7, gives good drawing chances.)
3 1 . . . e7 32 t! b8+ \t>h7 3 3 \t>fl
d2 ! (and not 33 . . . b2 34
g6+ ! !) O-l .
o

12 a3
bc
1 3 Jl x c4
.i) x e4
An interesting gambit is 1 3 . . .
d5 !? 1 4 de .i) x e4 1 5jt x d5 cd 1 6
x d 5 b8 1 7 x e4 .i) c5 ! 1 8
c2 .i) b3 1 9 a2 it e6 (57) White
has two extra pawns but the bizarre
position of his QR makes his
situation unenviable.
57
W

DUckstein-Krogius, Le Havre
1 966, continued 20 .i) c3 c8 21
it e3 h6 22 e2 c4 23 c2 fd8
24 dl g6 (24 . . . c 7 ! and if 25
e2 it c4! maintains the block
ade.) 25 x d8+ x d8 26 .i) d2
.i) x d2 2 7 it x d2 d3 28 x d3
x d3 29 b3 r3;g7 30 h2 it x b3
3 1 b2 it e6 32 .i) b l .Q. c5 33 jt h4

.Q.x b4 34 ab g5 35 .i) d2 d5 36
.i)f3 b5 3 7 .i) d4 X e5 38
.i) x e6+ !-!.
1 4 x e4
An alternative is 1 4 de to which
Black can reply:
a) The weak 14
.i) b6 ? 1 5
x e4 d5 1 6 .Q. x d5 cd 1 7 el e8
1 8 .i) c3 Stein-Caro, Caracas
1 9 70.
b) 14
cI5 when:
bl ) 15 .Q. x cI5 transposes to
DUckstein- Krogius above,
to
which Black could r;eply 1 5 . . .
.i) x f2 !?
b2 ) 15 .Q. a2 b6 1 6 c2 .Q. c5 1 7
A e3 a5 and Black's game is already
slightly preferable, Jimenez
Robatsch, Havana 1 964.
b3 ) 15 .Q. ell .i) dc5 16 .Q. c2 a5 1 7
.i) d4 and now instead of 1 7 . . .
c7?! 1 8 f3 .i) g5 1 9 .i) c3 with an
edge to White, Kremenetsky
Baikov, Moscow Ch 1 974, Black
should play 1 7 . : . b6 ! with
eq uality .
d5
14 . . .
dc
1 5 el
1 6 e2
t! e8
ed
I 7 .i) bd2
Also satisfactory is 1 7 . . . .i) b6 1 8
.i) x e5 .Q. e6 1 9 .i) x c6 d5 20
.i)x e7+ x e7 21 .i)f3 b7
Matanovic- Barcza, YugoslaviaHungary 1 960.
1 8 .i) x d4
1 9 .i) x c4
Black has full equality, Penrose
Unzicker, Clare Benedict, Lucerne
1 963 and HUbner-Lengyel, Wijk
.

11 c4 c6
ann Zee 1 97 1 , the latter concluding
20 x e8+ x e8 21 x e8+
x e8 22 Ae3 c5 23 b3 Jid5 24
ba5 e5 i -i .
E
12 c3 (58)

63

ad8 1 8 a3 c7 1 9 ab cb 20 f3
c5 2 1 x c5 jl x cS is satisfactory
for Black, German-Cuellar, Stock
holm interzonal 1 962 .
a5
15 . . .
1 6 Jig5
jl b7
1 7 li c2 c7 1 8 h4 g6 1 9 f3
fe8 20 e3 a6 2 1 b3 m 22
f3 e6 with the better game for
Black, Walther-Unzicker, Zurich
1 959.
F
12 cb ( 59)
59
B

The natural follow-up to 1 1 c4

but it leads to no advantage for
White.
b4
12 . . .
1 3 a4
Or 1 3 b l c5 1 4 de de 1 5 bd2
A b 7 1 6 A a4 c7 1 7 Ax d7
x d7 18 f1 fe8 1 9 b3 m 20
i;t b2 li f6= Geller- Darga, Havana
1 963.
c5
13 . . .
1 4 dc
Also leading nowhere is 1 4 d5
e8 ( 1 4 . . . e8 1 5 Ji c2 lif6 1 6 b3
g6 is an alternative, Horton
Clarke, British Ch, RhyI 1 969.) 1 5
i;t c2 a5 1 6 b3 m 1 7 b2 g6 1 8
lid2 h6 1 9 a4 h7 20 h2 m
2 1 li e3 f5= R. Byrne-Darga,
Amsterdam 1 969 .
dc
14 . . .
1 5 a3
1 5 h2 li b7 1 6 li c2 a5 1 7 b3

This line enjoyed a spate of

popularity in the eary 1 970s but
gives nothing against exact defence
by Black.
12 . . .
ab
1 3 c3
Alternatives have proved 10nocuous:
a) 13 a3 .1l b7 1 4 li a2 c7 1 5 c3
b6 1 6 Jig5 a4 1 7 x a4
x a4=
Bogdanovii:- Pachman,
Sarajevo 1 964.
b) 13 a3 jtb7 1 4 .11. b2 ed 1 5
x d 4 g6 1 6 f3 c5 1 7 .11. h6
e8 1 8 g5 x b3 1 9 x b3 d5

64

11 c4 c6

with a defensible position, Haag

Lengyel, Szombathely 1 966.
it a6 !
13 . . .
Inferior i s 13
it b7 1 4 i;tg5
and now:
a) 14
tLJ e8 1 5 i;tx e7 x e7 1 6
d5 ! tLJ dffi 1 7 dc i;t x c 6 1 8 tLJ d5
i;t x d5 1 9 i;t x d5 tLJx d5 20 x d5
tLJc7 2 1 c6 and Black has
sensitive pawn weaknesses, Gufeld
Tukmakov, USSR Armed Forces
Team Ch, Leningrad 1 9 7 1 .
h6 1 5 de {Also good is 1 5
b) 14
i;tx ffi i;t x ffi 1 6 d5 b4 1 7 dc
followed by 18 tLJ d5.} 1 5 . . . de 1 6
i;t h4 . e8 1 7 a3! c7 1 8 i;t a2 !
. ad8 1 9 b 3 ! . f8 2 0 c2
Gufeld-Holmov, 40th U S S R Ch
1972.
c) 14
b4 1 5 tLJ b l when:
cl ) White still retains the initiative
cS 1 6 de tLJ x e5 1 7
after 15
tLJ bd2 tLJ fd7 1 8 i;t x e7 x e7 1 9
a4! b a 2 0 b a tLJ x f3 + 2 1 x f3 tLJ e5
22 c3 Mecking-Unzicker, Hast
ings 1 9 7 1 -72.
c2) 15
tLJ e8 1 6 i;tx e7 x e7 1 7
tLJ bd2 tLJ c7 1 8 tLJ c4 tLJ b5 and now
instead of l 9 . cl . fd8 20 tLJ e3 c5
21 de i -i Geller-Portisch, Palma
interzonal 1 970, the immediate 1 9
tLJ e3 leaves White with a slight
edge.
A line which needs further tests is
13
b4 e.g. 1 4 tLJ e2 !? tLJ x e4 1 5
c2 tLJ effi 1 6 tLJ g3 c7 1 7 ilg5
J;td8 1 8 de tLJ x e5 1 9 tLJ d4 c5 20
. ad cd proved adeq uate for Black
in Tukamov-Averbakh, i -final
40th USSR Ch 1972.
.

14 i;t g5
Or 1 4 a3 c5 1 5 de de 1 6 it g5 ( 1 6
tLJ d5 tLJ x d 5 1 7 ilx d5 i - i Gipslis
Portisch, Sousse interzonal 1 967) 1 6
. . . c4 1 7 i;t c2 c7 I 8 tLJ h2 b6 1 9
tLJ g4 . fe8 2 0 f3 ilb7 2 1 i;t x ffi
i-i Tukmakov-Karpov, Moscow
1971 .
h6
14 . . .
1 5 de
Less accurate is 1 5 il h4? ! . e8 1 6
a4? ( 1 6 de!) 1 6 . . . b4 1 7 tLJ bl e d 1 8
x d4 tLJ e5 1 9 tLJ d2 . c8 2 0 tLJ 4f3
tLJ fd7 2 1 tLJ X e5 tLJ x e5 22 i;t x e7
x e7 23 tLJ f3 c5 with a clear
advantage to Black, Unzicker
Smejkal, European Team Ch i
final Bamberg 1 972. The game
concluded 24 ild5 tLJd3 25 . e3 c4
26 c2 ffi 27 .bl tLJ f4 28 . dl
. c5 29 . d4 g6! 30 tLJ e l tLJx d5
31 ed . x e3 32 fe x c2 33 tLJx c2
b3 34 tLJ a3 c3 35 bc .x c3 36 . b4
b2 37 . x b2 . x a3 38 . b6 . x a4
39 . x d6 i;td3 40 . d8+ <it> h 7 41
d6 <it>g6 O-l .
15 . . .
Cij x e5
de
1 6 tLJ x e5
1 7 i;tx ffi
i;tx ffi
1 8 h5(60)

60
B

11 c4 c6
At this point t-t in Hort-Jansa,
Sarajevo 19 7 2. Geller has had this
position twice with the white
piec.es, but has been unable to
prove any advantage:
a) Geller-Unzicker, Kislovodsk
1 972, went 18
f!/ e7 19 ad l
i;i cS 20 e3 i;i e6 2 1 g3 hS 22
gd3 Ax b3 23 ab adS 24
x dS x dS 2S x dS+ f!/ x dS
26 f!/x f7 f!jd2! while
b) Geller-Karpov, 39th USSR Ch
adB 20
1 9 7 1 , varied with 19
{) e2 .,(;tgS 21 {) g3 f!/ffi 22 x dS
x dS 23 dl x d l + 24 f!jx d l
A cS with equality i n both cases.

f!/c7
I t is best to bolster the dark
sq uares d6 and eS . Alternatives
have come in for some rough
treatment:
a) 12
de 1 3 de {) eS 14 e6 ! fe I S
J;t x e6+ hS 1 6 {) c3 {) c7 ( 1 6 . . .
{) b6 is better) and now:
a l ) 17 A gt c4 I S A e3 1eaves Black
with a cramped position, Fuchs
Pietzsch, Berlin 1 96 1 .
a2) 17 J;t fSl c4 1 S i;i f4 {) e6 ( 1 S . . .
g6 1 9 {) d4! gf 20 {) x c6 f!j eS 2 1
ef ) 1 9 Ag3 {) ecS 20 {) d4 f!j b6 2 1
e S dS 2 2 A x h 7 ! x h7 2 3
f!/ hS+ gS 2 4 {) f5 .Q. m 2 S f!/ g6
<;t> hS 26 {) e4 {) e6 2 7 {) ffi ! {)x ffi
2S ef a7 29 e4 {) f4 30 x f4
i;i x f5 3 1 x f5 !! dS 32 x dS l -0
Averbakh-FuTman, 2Sth USSR
Ch 1 961 .
b) 12
.Q.b7 1 3 {) c3 when:
b l ) 13
h6 1 4 cd A x d6 1 S .Q. e3

65

f!/ c 7 1 6 cl ed 1 7 {) x d4 adS 1 8
{) dS is in White's favour,
Zakharov-Vitolins, U SSSR Team
Ch 1 962.
b2 ) 13
f!j e7 14 cd Ax d6 I S
.Q. gS ed and now instead of 1 6 eS
{)x eS 1 7 .Q.x ffi gf I S {) x d4 {)g6
with a good game for Black, Gilg
Unzicker, Freiburg 1 96 1 , White
should simply play 1 6 {) x d4 e.g. 1 6
. . . i;i h2+ 1 7 h l A f4 I S .Q. h4
adS 1 9 i;ix f7+ !--Duistermatt.
1 3 cd
i;i x d6 (61)

61
W

12 cS

1 4 Ag5
Black gets a good game after
either:
a) 14 {) cl ed {not 1 4 . . . b4 IS {) a4
ed 1 6 {) x d4 e8 1 7 A c2 {) b6 1 8
4) x b6 f!j x b6 1 9 {) f3 AcS 20
A e3;!; Gligoric-Bely, Hastings
1 963-64) I S {)x d4 {) cS 1 6 f!/ f3
.Q. eS 1 7 {) f5 {) x b3 1 8 ab .Q.e6 1 9
A gS A x b3 20 f!/e3! f!/ a 7!
Klovan-Korchnoi, 3 1 st USSR Ch
1 963, or
b) 14 a4 ed 1 5 {) x d4 {)c5 1 6
a b d8 ! 1 7 A e3 Jt e5 1 8 Jta2
d6 with a tremendous posi ti on

66

11 c4 c6

for Black, Quinones-Reshevesky,

Amsterdam interzonal 1 964.
ed!
14 . . .
Petrosian's solution to the
problems of the position. Despite
the resulting doubled pawns Black's
position is improved as his minor
pieces have plenty of scope.
Alternatives are distinctly less
promising:
a) 14 . . . cS 1 5 dc ltx c5 1 6 c3
ltb7 1 7 cl b6 1 8 e2 ! fe8 1 9
d5 lt x d 5 2 0 J.lx d 5 ad8 2 1
ec2 J.l e7 22 c 6 a5 23 ltd2!
b4 24 A x f7+ ! 'it>x f7 25 b3+
1 -0 Tal-U nzicker, Stockholm
1 960-61 .
b) 14 . . . hi when :
bl ) 15 deJ.lX e5 1 6 x e5 X e5 1 7
A e3 X e4 1 8 Ax h6 dc5
1 9 lt e3 x b3= Djuras"evic
Karaklaj ic, Belgrade 1 961 .
b2) 15 J;t ht h7 1 6 J;t g3 ! ( 1 6 c3
ed 1 7 x d4 c5 1 8 f5 x b3 1 9
a b lt e5= Boleslavsky-Padevsky,
Debrecen 1 96 1 ) and White main
tains his pressure, e.g. 1 6 . . . ed 1 7
e5 or 1 6 . . . g5 1 7 bd2.
c) 14 . . . A b7 and now:
cl ) 15 bd2 ad8 1 6 !:,! cl c5 1 7
dc A x c5 1 8 h4 b6 1 9 f3? ! h6
20 Ax h6 gh 21 f5 'it> h7 and
Black won,
Hindle-H artoch,
England-Holland 1 963.
c2) 15 c3 ed 1 6 x d4 (16 x d4
transposing to note b to Black's 1 2th
is probably- better.) 16 . . . c5 1 7
i!Yd2 c4 1 8 .ll c2 fe8 ( Euwe gives
18
b4 19 d5 x d5 20 ed c3
21 i!td3 g6 as an improvement.) 1 9
.

adl A e5? ( Minic prefers 1 9 . . .

J.lc5 or 1 9 . . . A M) 20 x e5
i!tx e5 2 1 f4 c5+ 22 'it> h2 h6 23
Ax ffi x ffi 24 e5 with a very
strong attack, Lehmann-Hartoch,
Amsterdam 1 963.
1 5 lt x ffi
1 5 x d4 is well met by either:
a) 15 . . . cS 1 6 e3 c4 1 7 lt c2 e8
18 A x ffi x ffi 19 e5 when:
al ) 19 . . . A cS is playable: 20 g5
d7 2 1 c3 J.l b7 22 A e4 Jl x e4
23 x e4 e6= Gligoric-Darga,
Enschede 1 963.
a2) 19 . . . J.l M 20 c3 A b7 21
f4 lt x c3 22 bc ltx f3 23 x f3
d7 24 e6 ffi ! Stein-Pachman,
Amsterdam interzonal 1 964, or
b) 15 . . . e5 1 6 bd2 fd 7 1 7
e3 c5 1 8 lt d5 b8 1 9 x e5
x e5 20 f3 c4 and Black stands
slightly better, Dubinin-Yudovich,
Ragozin Memorial corres.
15 . . .
gf(62)
1 5 . . . x ffi loses a piece.

62
W

Now White has:

GI 1 6 x d4
G2 1 6 x d4

11 c 4 c6 67
Gl

d3) Portisch gave 19

Jl b2+ 20
<it> hi . x d l + as equalizing, but
had to play for a win {in d2} .
17 . . .
.Q. x f5
. ad8
1 8 ef
19 h5(63)
1 9 g4+ h8 20 JLj c3 t-t
Janosevic-Parma, Saraj evo 1 9 7 1
and not 2 0 h4.Q. e5 2 1 JLj c3 . fe8
22 E! e3 . g8 23 . d l ?? blundering
away a piece, Pilnik-Panno, Mar
del Plata 1 965 .
.

16 JLjx cM

JLj c5
1 6 . . . JLj e5 was successful in its
only outing after 1 7 JLj d2? . d8 1 8
e2 .Q. b4 1 9 JLj 43 JLj x 3+
Nemet-Matanovic, Zagreb 1 964.
1 7 JLj f5
Enabling Black t o complete his
development at a stroke but
nothing else is very promising:
a) 17 .Q. c2 .Q. e5 1 8 h5 .Q.x d4 1 9
e5 f5 20 g5+ t -t Goldberger
Zinser, Basle 1 969 .
b) 17 JLj f3 . d8 1 8 c2 JLj x b3 1 9
x b3? ( 1 9 ab) 1 9 . . . .Q. e6 20 c3
.Q. e5 2 1 JLjx e5 x e5 22 c2
. d4+
Golikov-Yudovich, 7 th
USSR corres Ch.
c) 17 JLjc12 . d8 18 JLj 23 (18 JLj f5
.Q. x f5 1 9 e f A e5 + Littlewood
Yudovich, corres) 1 8 . . . JLj x b3 1 9
x b 3 c5 2 0 JLj f5 .Q. e6 2 1 c2 .Q. e5
with an excellent position for Black,
Gufeld-Stein, 3 1 st USSR Ch 1 963.
d ) 17 c2 . d8 18 . dl JLj x b3 1 9
JLj x b3 and now:
d l ) 19
e7 20 JLj c3? (better is
20 JLj l d2) 20 . . . e5 21 JLj d4
h2+ 22 fl .Q. e6 23 JLj x e6 fe 24
d3 . d7 25 3 . g7 26 e2
. ill 27 . d3 f5 28 . fl b4 29 JLj b l
. x g 2 0-1
Pietzsch-Liberzon,
Moscow 1 963.
d2) 19
b8 20 JLj c3 e7
2 1 JLj e2 c5? 22 JLj g3? (22 JLj x c5
. g8 23 . x d6 x d6 24
. d l -Portisch) 22 . . . . g8 23
. x d6 with an unclear position,
Cuellar- Portisch, Sousse interzonal
1 96 7 .
.

63
B

After 1 9 h5 Black has excellent

chances and should continue 19 . . .
b4 or 1 9 . . . JLjd3 20 . e4 a7. The
position has historical interest as it
featured in Petrosian's first loss as
world champion.
19 . . .
.Q. e5?!
20 JLj c3
. d4
21 . e3
Pal mo-Book, Helsinki 1 965,
ended dramatically 2 1 . ad l
. fd8? 22 . x d4 . x d4? 23 . x e5
fe 24 ffi 1 -0 but Black should have
played 21 . . . JLj x b3 22 ab . fd8 23
. x d4 . x d4 24 JLj e4= .
21 . . .
.Q. f4
22 . e2 Jld2 23 JLj d l itg5 24 g3

68

11 c4 c6

d6 25 4J e3 l;tx e3 26 E! x e3 <i!;>g7 Robatsch-Averbakh, Palma 1 972.

18 e3
4Jd3
(26 . . . 4Jx b3 !? 27 ab d5) 27
19 h6 !
.Q, f4
.1l c2 d5? (27 . . . a5) 28 a3 E! d2
To take the exchange Im29 g4+ 'It> h8 30 E! d l E! x dl+ 31
x d l x d l + ? 32 l;t x d l E! d8 33 mediately is too dangerous: 19 . . .
A f3 E! d3 34 E! e8+ 'It>g7 35 J.l x c6 4J x el 20 E! x el and now 20 . . .
E! b3 36 E! e7 E! x b2 3 7 .Q, d5 'It> h6 A f4 2 1 x ffi .Q, x d2 22 A x f7+
38 .1l x f7 <i!;> g5 39 .Q, e6 4J x e6 40 fe wins, or 20 . . . Ae5 2 1 4J x e5 fe 22
'It> f5 41 E! x h7 'It> x e6 42 E! a7 E! a2 A x f7+ .
20 x ffi
E! d6
43 E! x a6+ 1 -0 Gligoric-Pet
2 1 c3
4J x e l
rosian, Los Angeles 1 963.
22 E! x el
d8
G2
23 E! e2
E! g6 ( 64 )
16 x cH 4J e5
I . Zaitsev has shown that 1 6 . . .
.Q, c5 gives Black active play, e.g. 1 7
c3 ( I 7 d2 4J e5) 1 7 . . . a5 and 64
W
now:
a) 18 a3 g3 (Or 1 8 . . ,. .Q, b4) 1 9
x c 5 ( 1 9 E! fl 4J e5 !) 1 9 . . . 4J x c5
20 .Q, x f7+ 'It>x f7 2 1 fg 4J b3 22
E! a2 .Q, e6 and White is poorly co
ordinated .
b) 18 4J bc12 a4 1 9 .Q, c2 b4 20 d3
.Q, a6+
1 7 4J bd2
E! d8
Weaker would be 17
c5 1 8
White has some compensation
e3 c4 1 9 l;tc2 .Q,c5 2 0 h6 b6 for the exchange. Fischer-Portisch,
(20 . . . 4J g6 2 1 e5 fe 22 E! x e5) 2 1 Santa Monica 1 966, witnessed the
a4 .1l x f2 + 22 'It> h i .Q, x e l 2 3 following fierce struggle: 24 'It> hi
E! x e l with a dangerous attack for A e6 25 .Q,x e6 fe 26 g3 .Q, h6 27
White.
'It>g2 E! c8 28 e5 d5 29 4J e4 .Q, g7
A sound alternative is 1 7
30 b3 E! m 3 1 c2 E! f4 32 4J ed2 c5
<i!;> h8 1 8 4J h4 E! g8 1 9 4J f5 .Q, x f5 33 Et e3 c6 34 4J e4 c4 35 bc bc 36
20 ef E! ad8 and now:
4J ed2 .Q,h6 37 E! c3 E! g7 38 E! d3
a) 21 c3 A e7 22 l;t c2? b4! a8 39 4J x c4 c6 40 4J a3 x c2
0- 1 Maudsley-Blackstock, Oxford 41 4Jx c2 E! a442 E! d8+ 'It>f7 43 a3
1 970. Not 22 . . . E! x d2 23 E! x e5 ! E! g6 44 h4 Am 45 4Jg5+ 'It> e7 46
b) 21 'It> bl l;t e7 22 f4 E! d7 23 E! a8 h6 47 4J h7 l;tg7 48 E! a7+
4J f3? (23 c2 !) 23 . . . 4J d3 and 'It> e8 49 h5 E! 6g4 50 f3? (50 4J e3 !
Black has a better ending, wins) 5 0 . . . E! gc4 5 1 E! x g7

11 c4 c6 69
.. x c2+ 52 <it> h3 .. x a3 53 f4 .. f2
54 .i:) f5+ <it> ffi 55 .. g4 a5 56 .i:) e4
.. c2 57 .. g6 .. e3 58 .i:) d6 .. cc3 !
59 .. x e6 .. x g3+ 60 <it> M .. gl 61
f5 .. c2 62 .. e8+ <it> g7 63 f5+

<it> h 7 64 .. e7+ <it>g8 65 <it> h3

.. c3+ 66 <it> h4 .. c2 67 <it>h3
.. c3+' 68 <it> h2 .. cg3 69 f7+ <it>g7
70 .:'fj f5+ <it> ffi 7 1 .i:) x g3 .. x g3
i-i ,

11

1 0 d3 : Introduction

1 e4 e5 2 .!:) f3 .!:) c6 3 .ll b5 a6 4 .ll a4

.!:) ffi 5 00 .ll e7 6 . al b5 7 Jt b3 d6 8
c3 00 9 h3 .!:) b8
1 0 d3(65)
65
B

A 10 . . . c5
B 1 0 . . . .!:) bd7
1 0 . . . a5 has also been tried, but
after 1 1 .!:) bd2 a4 12 A c2 g6 1 3 d4
.!:) fd7 1 4 .!:) f1 A ffi 15 A h6 A g7 1 6
d2 White stands clearly better,
Lutikov-Lomaya, USSR 1 970. See
Bl below for a similar plan.
A

10 ...

cS

1 1 .!:) bd2
White gets nothing from 1 1 a4
J:ib7 1 2 ab ab 1 3 . x a8 J:i x a8 1 4
.!:) a3 b6 1 5 A a2 A c6 1 6 .!:) c2
a7 1 7 A b l . e8 1 8 .!:) e3 A m 1 9
.!:)
f5 .!:) bd7 20 .!:) h2 d5=
This move has always had its
Keres-Scholl,
Amsterdam 1 9 7 1 .
adherents since the Breyer first
11 . . .
.!:) c6
appeared on the tournament scene.
1 1 . . . h6 1 2 .!:) f1 .!:) c6 transposes
As Black's counterplay is based
almost exclusively on the sensitivity to the column.
An alternative is 11
c7 and
of White's e-pawn in these lines,
the first player contents himself now:
with a small centre until he is better a) 12 .Q. c2 .!:) c6 1 3 .!:) f1 d5 1 4 .!:) e3
placed to exploit the opening-up of de 1 5 de . d8 1 6 e2 g6 1 7 a4
the position. Black now has the . b8 1 8 ab dc 1 9 .!:) g5 (compare
option of defending along tradi with diagram 72, p. 1 09 The C/rued
tional Lopez lines with . . . c5 and Ruy Lopel;.. Here White is a tempo
ahead and the a-file is open.) 1 9 . . .
' " .!:) c6.
Black now has two main h6 20 .!:) d5 ( 1 -0, 35) Stein-Evans,
alternatives:
Amsterdam interzonal 1 964.

10 d3: Introduction

71

b) 12 b2 e6 1 3 df1 c4 1 4 dc
bc 15 c2 bd7 1-1 Kuraj ica
Parma, Saraj evo. 1 970.
c) 12 t1 c4!? ( 1 2 . . . c6 1 3 g3
d 7 1 4 d4 Stein-Rossetto, Mar del
Plata 1 965 leads to a position
typical of a 9 . . . a5 Lopez.)
when White has:
cl ) 13 A c2 cd 14 x d3 bd7 1 5
g3 c5 (Or 1 5 . . . A b7 1 6 h4
c5 1 7 f3 d5 1 8 ed Ax d5 1 9
e3 . fe8 2 0 hf5 A m 1-1
Tringov-Forintos, Vrsac 1 973) I t)
e2 Ab7 1 7 A g5 e6 with
equality, Minic-Antoshin, Zagreb
1 965 .
c2) 13 de bc 1 4 A c2 bd7 (Or 1 4
. . . A b7 1 5 A g5 . d8 1 6 e3
bd7 1 7 d2 b6 1 8 f5;t
Liberzon- M. Kovacs, Sarajevo
1 970) 1 5 g3 g6 1 6 A h6 . e8 1 7
d2 c5 1 8 b4! with advantage to
White, Ciocaltea- Moles, Siegen
Olympiad 1 970.
12 f1
1 2 a4 is best answered with 1 2 . . .
A b 7 ! but not 1 2 . . . b4? ! 1 3 c4
. b8 1 4 Ag5 bc 1 5 bc A e6 1 6 . bl
h6 17 Ax f6 A x f6 1 8 e3 when,
through his control of d5, White has
some initiative, Schmid-Radovici,
Tel Aviv Olympiad 1 964.
12 . . .
h6

b l ) 13 A c2 ?1 c7 1 4 e2 . fb8 1 5
e3 b4 Bannik-Koval, Ukraine
Ch 1 954.
b2) 13 g3 d7 1 4 Ax e6 fe 1 5
d4! cd 1 6 cd x d4 1 7 x d4 ed 18
x d4 Lein-Averbakh, USSR
Teams 1 973. White has a positional
advantage.
1 3 g3
Alternatives are less convincing:
a) 13 cKAd7 1 4 dc dc 1 5 e3 c.4 1 6
A c2 A e6 1 7 e2 c 7 1 8 g4 Ac5
Tal-Tukmakov, Moscow 1 97 1 .
The chances are equal in a position
akin to a traditional 9 ' " a5
Lopez.
b) 13 e3 a5! 1 4 A c2 . e8 1 S d4
c6 1 6 d5 aS 1 7 b4 b7 1 8 a4
Ad7 1 9 as h 7 20 A d2 g5 1 -l
Schmidt-Kostro, Poland 1 97 1 .
. e8
13 . . .
Ad 7 (66)
1 4 a4

Other replies are:

a) 12 . . . e8 1 3 {) e3 c7 1 4
d5! e6 1 5 x e7+ x e 7 1 6
c2 h6 1 7 d4 d7 1 8 e3
Browne-- Scholl, Amsterdam 1 97 1 .
Two bishops and a strong centre.
b) 12 . . . e6 when:

I S f5
Mter 1 5 A e3 ( I S d4!?) I S . . .
A m 1 6 d2 a5 1 7 Ac2 d5 !
Stein-Karpov, 38th USSR Ch
1 970, Black already stands slightly
better.
m
15 . . .

72

10 d3: Introduction

Ciocaltea-Ree, Skopj e Olym

piad 1 972, continued 16 g4 {) a5 1 7
c2 b4! 1 8 cb cb 1 9 d4 c7 20 g5
hg 2 1 jl x g5 {) h7 22 .. cl b7 23
d5 g6 24 <;t> h2 ! and White has good
attacking chances on the K-side.
B

10 . . .
{) bd7
1 1 {) bd2 (67)
1 1 d5? was played in the early
game Rudenko-Borisenko, Riga
1 954.
67
B

d4 lines; after 1 2 it c2 .J e6 ( I 2 . . .
itb7 1 3 d4! , Bebchuk-Karasev,
Riga 1 964, clearly loses the tempo.)
1 3 .J f1 there is:
cl ) 13 . . . cS 14 .Jg3 g6 1 5 A h6
.. e8 1 6 d4 with a clear advantage,
janosevic-Karaklajii:, Serbian Ch
1 963.
c2) 13 . . . c6 14 .J g3 g6 15 A h6
.. e8 1 6 d4 c7 1 7 d2 jl d 7 (Or
1 7 . . . <;t> h8 18 .. adl .J g8 19 J}, e3
16 20 b3 m 2 1 .. f1 !
V asyukov-U dovcii:, USSR -Yugo
slavia 1 964) 1 8 .. adl !;! ad8 1 9 .J g5
c5 20 .J 15 with attacking chances
for White, Gheorghiu-Kovacs,
Students Olympiad, Sinaia 1 965.
c6 favoured by M. Kovacs
d) 1 1
is too passive, e.g. 1 2 .J f1 with:
d l ) 12 . . c7 1 3 .Jg3 (Or 1 3 d4
h6 1 4 .J h4 Planinc- Kovacs,
Sarajevo 1 9 70) 1 3 . . . .J c5 1 4 J}, c2
.. e8 1 5 d4 .J e6 1 6 .J f5 A m 1 7
{) g5 Browne-Kovacs, Saraj evo
1 9 70.
d2 ) 12 . . .. e8 1 3 .Jg3 g6 1 4 A g5
.J c5 1 5 A c2 .J e6 1 6 A e3 c7 1 7
d4 jl b 7 1 8 a4 jansa-Kovacs,
Budapest 1 970.

Black now has two major replies:

Bi l l . . . a5
B2 1 1 . . . it b7
Also tried were:
cS 1 2 {)f1 {) b6 when:
a) 11
al ) 13 c2 .. e8 1 4 {) g3 g6 1 5 d4
Parma-A. Colon, San juan 1 969.
a2 ) 13 .J g3 c4 1 4 dc bc 1 5 jl c2
J}, e6 1 6 .J g5 c7 1 7 .J x e6 fe 1 8
e2 <;t> h8 1 9 J},e3 t-t Milii:
Petrosian, Yugoslavia-USSR 1 956.
g6 1 2 .J f1 .J h5?! 1 3 .J e3
b) 11
c6 1 4 d4 <;t> h8 1 5 a4 with advantage
to White, Bannik-Shianovsky,
Ukraine Ch 1 956.
.J cS is unsuitable as Black
c) 11
can readily fall a tempo behind the

Bl
a5
11 . . .
1 2 .J f1
O r 1 2 a 3 a4 1 3 Aa2 .J c5 1 4 c2
J}, e6 1 5 d4 A x a2 1 6 .. x a2 {) cd7
1 7 {)f1 c6 18 Ag5 !;! e8 with equal
chances, Unzicker-Reshevsky, Tel
Aviv Olympiad 1 964.

12 . . .
1 3 A c2

a4
.. e8 ()

10 d3: Introduction
1 3 . . . cS 1 4 cl) 3h2 cl) b6 1 5 f4 ef
1 6 lt x f4 cl) e8 1 7 cl) f3 a3 1 8 b3 d5
1 9 d4, Kudriashov-Zakharov,
USSR Cup 1 974, is in White's
favour.

68
W

a) 15 cl) b2 Aronson-Furman,
Leningrad Ch 1 954.
b) 15 e3 ltffi 16 b3 ab 1 7 ab
El, x al 18 '' x a l Averbakh
Taimanov, USSR Team Ch 1 955,
and now instead of l 8 . . . b4 19 cb
d5 20 d4! Black should play 18 . . .
J;ib7.
c) 15 cK and now :
cS 1 6 J;i h6 ''c7 l 7 cl) h2
c l ) 15
J;i ffi 1 8 J;ie3 b7 1 9 d5 g7
Strekalovsky-Tribushevsky, i-final
RSFSR Ch 1 956.
c6 16 b3 '' a5 1 7 ltd2
c2 ) 15
''a7 1 8 El, bl ab 1 9 ab A b7 20
e3;t Polugayevsky-Chukayev,
i -final 24th USSR Ch 1 956.
lt ftl 1 6 g5 h6 1 7 e3
c3) 15
cS? ! 1 8 dc dc 1 9 -gy d2 h 7 20 cl) h2
cl) b6 2 1 '' e2 cl) c4 22 El, adl '' e7 23
c l with a fine attacking position
for White, Medina-Szabo, Got
eborg interzonal 1 955.
15 . . .
ffi
1 6 ''d2
lt b7
x h6 1 7
Better than 1 6
'' x h6 '' e7 1 8 d4 cl) ffi 1 9 a3 cS 20
El, adl cl)6d7 Ivkov-Gufeld, Sar
ajevo 1 964; White won elegantly as
follows: 21 de de 22 El, d6 ! ! c4 ( l f 22
. . . '' x d6, 23 cl) h5 ! 4J e6 24 4J g5
wins.) 23 El, edl cl) c5 24 4Jx e5 !
lt e6 25 cJ c6 ''c7 26 e5 d7 27
El, l d5 cl)d3 28 El, x d7 ! ! cJ x d7 29
El, x d7 ''xd7 30 4J e4 El, e6 3 1
4J f6+ 1 -0.
''e7
1 7 El, ad l
Parma-O' Kelly, Havana 1 965,
varied with 1 7 . . . 4J b6 18 a3? !
''e7 1 9 cl) h2 -'L x h 6 2 0 ''x h6

1 4 cl) g3
Or 14 cl) ea J;i ffi 1 5 cl) f5 cl) cS 1 6
cl) g3 Sherbakov-Furman, 23rd
USSR Ch 1 95 5 . White has clearly
lost a couple of tempi and Black
could now have tried 1 6 . . It b 7 1 7
d4 ed 1 8 '' X d4 d5 1 9 e5 4J e4 with
a good game.
14 d4 ffi 15 cl) g3 g6 transposes
into Medina-Szabo-see c2 ) , note
to White's 1 5 th.
g6
14 . . .
1 4 . . i;t ffi would not weaken the
K-side dark sq uares so much but
after either:
a) 15 cK g6 1 6 d3 c6 1 7 lt e3
Kotkov-Holmov. RSFSR Team
Ch 1 965 or
b) 15 cl) IS cl) c5 1 6 cl) h2 cl) e6 1 7 d4
cS Zurakhov-Krogius, RSFSR Ch
1 955, Black still has Q-side pawn
weaknesses.
1 5 h6 !
More accurate than:

73

74

10 d3: Introduction

<i!t h8 2 1 i!rd2 4:) g8 22 4:) g1 ffi

which is tenable for Black. White
should play 18 x m with a slight
advantage.
Jt x h6
1 8 d4
1 8 . . . c6 was suggested by
Tsvetkov.
4:) m
1 9 i!rx h6
20 dS
V asyukov- Gufeld ,
Moscow
1 964. White has a persistent
initiative.
I I . . . as has never enjoyed a
sound reputation as Black's Q-side
pawns become targets while
White's attacking chances on the
K-side are in no way diminished.
B2

11 . . .

it h7 ( 69)

69
W

1 2 4:) 1
An alternative is 1 2 itc2
anticipating . . . . 4:) cS , but this is
not troublesome for Black:
a) 12 . . . cS 1 3 4:) 1 . e8 1 4 4:)g3
g6 I S gS Gheorghiu-Lengyel,
European Team Ch i -final Sinaia
1 964. Szabo now recommends I S
. . . dS.

b) 12
. ea 13 4:)1 (Or 1 3 a3
it m 14 b4 cS IS 4:) b3 . c8 16 4:) as
Jt a8 1 7 c4 i/rc7 1 8 4:) d2 dS I 9 ed cb
20 ab 4:) x dS 21 cS . cd8 i -i
Ciric-Sokolov, Novi Sad 1 965) 1 3
. . . it m when:
bl ) 14 4:) g3 cS IS 4:)5 dS 1 6 4:) h2
de 1 7 de c4 1 8 i!r f3 b6 1 9 A gS h6
( 1 9 . . . . e6 20 . adl with
initiative, Ciocaitea-Szabo, Euro
pean team Ch, Hamburg 1 965) 20
e3 i/r e6 21 . adl . ad8 with
eq uality, Ciocaitea-Filip, Har
rachov 1 966.
b2) 14 4:)3h2 dS ! IS i/rf3 g6 16 g4
4:) cS 1 7 4:) g3 4:) e6 1 8 gS Ciocaitea
Durao, Malaga 1 9 7 1 , and now 1 8
. . . d e= as 1 9 i!rx ffi Jte7 2 0 i!r x eS
A d6 leads to repetition.
12 . . .
4:) c5
I t is usual to drive the bishop
from the a2-g8 diagonal. Other
lines are:
a) 12 . . . h6 1 3 4:) g3 . e8 1 4 4:) h2
d5 1 5 f3 4:) c5 Penrose
Hemmassi, Siegen Olympiad 1 970,
with similar play to chapter 1 2 .
b) 12 . . . . ea and now:
bl ) 13 4:) g3 Jtm 1 4 4:) g5 d5!? 1 5
ed 4:) cS 1 6 c4 N ezhmetdinov
Forintos, Sochi 1 984. I nstead of 1 6
. . . 4:) x b3? 1 7 ab! c6 1 8 d e A x c6
1 9 e3 Black should play 1 6 . . . c6!
1 7 de it x c6 1 8 c2 (or 1 8 cb
4:) x b3 1 9 i/rx b3 Jtd5 20 i/r d l ab
2 1 b3 . a6 22 ..Q. b2 4:) d 7 23 4:) f3
i!r aB 2 4 i!re2 . x a 2 i -i
Lehmann-Durao, Malaga 1 9 70) 1 8
. . . be 1 9 d e e4 wi th coun terpla y for
the pawn .
.

10 d3: Introduction
b2 ) 13 g5 d5?! (Black must play
1 3 . . . f! m as 14 f4 can be met by 1 4
. . . ef 1 5 Ax f4 i'j d5.) 1 4 ed -'t d6
(Or l 4 . . . Ax d5 1 5 i'j e3 -'tx b3 1 6
x b 3 f! m 1 7 i'j f5 S . Garcia
Holaszek, Siegen Olympiad 1970)
1 5 c4 i'j c5 1 6 J;t c2 bc 1 7 dc h6 1 8
i'j f3 Liberzon-Barcza, Tallinn
1 969. Black has no compensation
for the pawn.
c) 12
c5 1 3 i'j g3 with:
cl ) 13
d5 14 ed i'jx d5 1 5
x e5 J;td6 1 6 d 4 f! e8 1 7 f4 with a
sound extra pawn, Bronstein
Wade, Moscow 1 956.
f!/ c7 14 i'j. f5 f! ae8? 1 5
c2) 13
A h6! gh 1 6 c l with a dangerous
attack, Kotkov-Afanasiev, RSFSR
1 959.
c3 ) 13
g6 1 4 A h6 f! e8 1 5 d2
(Not 15 c4 b4 1 6 i'j fl A f8= Suetin
Foldi, Lyons 1 955) 1 5 . . . Am 1 6
f! adl ( 1 6 d4!) 1 6 . . . -'t g7? ( 1 6 . . .
f! e7, preparing to exchange on h6
and follow with . . . m, would be
better.) 1 7 t x g7 \t(X g7 18 g5
with pressure on the dark squares,
Holmov-Chukayev, Lithuanian
Ch play-off 1 955.
f! e8
13 A c2
A solid treatment is 1 3 . . . i'j e6 1 4
i'jg3 g6 1 5 d 4 i'j d 7 1 6 A b3 A ffi
Simagin-Kolarov, Varna 1 966,
reminiscent of Ragozin's 9 . . . i'jd7
variation.
After 1 3 . . . f! e8 White has three
different knight moves:
B2 1 14 i'j e3
B22 1 4 i'j 3h2
B23 14 i'jg3
.

14 e3(70)

70
B

B21

75

14 . . .
Am
Also possible is 14 . . . g6 15 b4
e6 16 J;tb3 a5 1 7 g4 x g4 1 8
h g J;tffi 1 9 g3 d 5 with equal
chances, Westerinen-Tringov,
Leningrad 1 967.
1 5 b4
cd7
The usual retreat. Other replies
are:
a) 15
a4 ? 1 6 Ax a4 ba 1 7 c4!
c6 1 8 'f!! x a4 Evans-Robatsch,
Venice 1 967.
e6 and now Tal
b) 15
recommends 1 6 A b2 followed by
1 7 t b3. Practice has seen instead:
bl ) 16 c4 ?l g6 1 7 -'t b2 J;t g7 18 a4?!
be! 1 9 x c4 f4 20 J;t b3 6h5 2 1
e3 f! bB ! 22 J;t c4 J;t c8 23 i!Y b3
ffi with an excellent position for
Black, Tal-Furman, 40th USSR
Ch 1972.
b2) 16 f5 a5 1 7 Ad2 c6 1 8 a3 ab
1 9 cb c7 20 g5 d5 21 i!Yf3 de 22
de .E! ad8 23 i!Yg3 with K-side
pressure, Ree-Clarke, Holland
England 1 970.
h6
16 A b3
.

76

10 d3: Introduction

Alternatively:
J;t a4! Vasyukov-Razuvayev, 41 st
a) 16
b6 17 .Q.d2 h6 18 c4 c6 USSR Ch 1 973 (2nd Group) .
1 9 i!Y c2 E!, c8 20 E!, ad l bd7 21
17 . . .
c5 ( 71)
i!Y b l E!, c7 22 a3 b8 23 E!, cl .Q.c8
24 a4 t-t Rolland-Forintos, Le 71
Havre 1 966, but White stands
W
better in the final position.
b) 16
c6 1 7 c4 d5 1 8 cd cd 1 9
J;l d 2 b6 20 ed J;td6 ( Matanovic
suggests 20 . . . h6!?) 21 g5 h6 22
e4 bx d5 23 5 J;lffi 24 f3
with great advantage to White, viz:
bl ) 24
h7 ? 25 x h6 gh 26
Jtx d5
1 -0 Matanovic-Ilely,
Luxembourg 1 97 1 .
cb
1 8 a3
b2 ) 24
x d 25 de f4 26
1 9 ab
bc
J;l x f4 ef 27 x f4 J;l x f4 28 '' ed l
19 . . . d5! 20 ed .Q.x b4 is even
g5 2 9 x h6+ g h 3 0 x f7+ better.
h8 3 1 x b7 jtc5 32 .. d7 g6
20 jtx c4
d5 !
33 d5 Ax f2+ 3 4 X f2 f6+ 35
Black has fully equalized .
5 i!Y b2+
36 g3 1 -0 Matanovic-Hennings,
Helsinki
Matanovic-O' Kelly, Bad Pyrmont 1972, continued 21 x d5 x d5
1 9 70.
22 ed jtx b4 23 i;td2 i;tx d2 24
c) Spassky has suggested that 16
x d2 f6 25 x e5 jtx d5 26
c5 1 7 g5 c4 1 8 dc h6 might be f4 d6 (26 . . . i;tx c4! 27 dc
enough for equality.
c7) 27 d4 .. ed8 28 .. a5
J;lx c4 29 x c4 e6 30 x e6 fe
1 7 c4
3 1 f4 .. d4 32 .. eal d 7 33 . x a6
Other tries are:
a) 1 7 .4 c5 1 8 .Q.d2 ! -! Kavalek .. x a6 34 .. x a6 x e5 35 fe
Spassky, Vancouver 1 9 7 1 . Kavalek .. x d3 36 .. x e6 .. d5 !-! .
gives 1 8 . . . c7 as unclear, but not B22
d5
14 3h2
1 8 . . . c4 19 dc ba 20 J;tx a4 and if
20 . . . x e4 21 d5 or 20 . . .
Inferior is 14
g6 ? 1 5 f4 ef l 6
J;tx e4 2 1 g4.
jl x f4 h5? 1 7 f3 e6 1 8 .Q. h6 jtffi
b) 17 gt ?! d5 18 x d5 ( 1 8 ed e4!) 1 9 d2 with excellent attacking
18 . . . x d5 1 9 ed a5 20 ba c5 21 chances for White, Browne
c4 bc 22 dc e4 23 h2 .. x a5 ! 24 Reshevsky, Netanya 1 9 7 1 .
Similar to the text is 14
e6
J;t d2 E!, a6 and 25 . . . c6 with
excellent compensation for a pawn, 1 5 i!Y f3 Jl ffi 1 6 e3 d5 1 7 hg4
but not 23 . . . d3 24 .. e2 c6 25 x g4 1 8 X g4 f6 and Black
.

.. .

10 d3: Introduction
must defend accurately. Parma
Robatsch, Lj ubIjana 1 969, con
tinued 19 h4 c5 20 h5 e'l 21 i!r g3
i!r c 7 22 ed x d5 23 tL:J e3 b7 24
b3 m 25 tL:J g4 h8 26 h6 c4 27
dc bc 28 li c2 tL:J c5 29 hg+ x g7
30 i!r h4 tL:J d3 3 1 tL:Jx ffi x ffi 32
i!r x ffi+ i!rg7 33 i!r x g7+ x g7
34 .. dl .. ad8 35 e3 .. d6 36 f3
e4 37 x d3 ed 38 f2 .. de6 39
.. el g6 40 .. adl h5 t-t . White's
dangerous attack won a pawn but
Black was very active in the ending.
tL:J e6 ( 72)
1 5 i!r f3
1 5 . . . de 1 6 de a5 1 7 tL:J g3 .. a6
1 8 tL:J f5 lim 1 9 g5 he 20 .. adl
Kavalek-Forintos, Havana Olym
piad 1 966, gives White the better
prospects.
72

1 6 tL:J g4
After 1 6 tL:J g3 Black can
transpose to chapter 1 2 with 16 . . .
m which is preferable to 1 6 . . . g6
1 7 h6 m 1 8 x m .. x m 1 9
b3 de 20 tL:J x e4 tL:J x e4 2 1 de
e7 22 tL:Jg4 tL:J f4 23 .. ad l g7 24
tL:J e3 .. ad8 t -t Ivkov-Lengyel,
Venice 1 966.

77

16 . . .
tL:J x g4
Am
1 7 x g4
ffi
1 8 g3
Parma-Wade, Skopj e 1 968, con
tinued 1 9 tL:J e3 d4 20 tL:Jg4 h8
2 1 A d2 d7 22 b3 Ac5 23 c4 b4
with equal chances.
823
14 tL:J g3
Now Black has:
B23 1 14 . . . g6? !
B232 1 4 . . . m
823 1
14 . . .
g6 ?l
This weakens the dark sq uares
around Black's king. Play is similar
to the lines in Bl : 1 1 . . . a5 .
1 5 h6!
Alternatively:
a) 15 tL:J b2 tL:J e6 16 f3 m 1 7
li e3 g7 1 8 .. ad l c5 1 9 lib3 d5
20 ed j;tx d5 21 tL:J e4 with some
advantage to White, Westerinen
Holaszek, Students Olympiad,
Dresden 1 969, though White has
mixed his systems.
b) 15 cH tL:J cd7 and now:
bl ) 16 b4-see chapter 1 3 .
b2) 16 g5 t -t Karasev-Holmov,
38th USSR Ch 1 9 70.
b3) 16 tL:J h2 c5 1 7 d5 .1l m 1 8 g5
h6 1 9 A e3 h7 is not too bad for
Bivshev-Zamikhovsky,
Black,
USSR Team Ch 1 955.
b4) 16 tL:J g5 h6 1 7 tL:J f3 A m 1 8 tL:Jh2
is a shameless waste of a tempo,
t - final
Shianovsky-Ch ukayev,
23rd USSR Ch 1 955.
b5) 16 A h6 Am 1 7 d2? (1 7
x m!) 1 7 . . . e7 1 8 .. adl Ax h6

78

IO d3: Introduction

1 9 x h6 m 20 d2 c5! (20 . . .
g7? Ciocaltea-Nikolic, Bever
wijk 1 968) 21 4)h2 ad8 22 4)g4=
Parma-Filip, Zagreb 1 965 .
15 . . .
.Q.m
1 6 -'L x m
Or 1 6 d 2 Ag7 1 7 adl e7
18 -'1, x g7 c;!7x g7 1 9 M 4) cd7 20
g5 c;!7 h8 2 1 ll b3;t; Fuchs
Bikhovsky, Kislovodsk 1 964, but
better was 16 . . . -'Lx h6 a la Filip.
16 . . .
c;!7x m
If 1 6 . . . x m White should
play 1 7 d4! but not 1 7 "'d2 4) e6 1 8
d4 4) d 7 1 9 adl "' ffi when Black
consolidates, Strand-Sauermann,
5th corres Olympiad.
c;!7g7
1 7 d2
4) cd7
18 d4
h6
1 9 adl
"' e7
20 4)h2
21 f4(73)
White has a clear advantage.
73

Unzicker-Padevsky, Tel Aviv

Olympiad 1 964, continued 2 1 . . .
c5 22 4) f3 cd 23 cd ac8 24 -'L b3
c7 25 hl h7 26 e2 ed 2 7 e5

de 28 fe 4) g8 29 e6 fe 30 x e6
"'d8 3 1 x d4 -'Lx f3 32 gf 4) gffi
33 x a6 b8 34 x ffi 4) x ffi 35
"'x ffi c8 36 "'f4 -gy x h3+ 37
c;!7g1 d7 38 x d7+ "' x d7 39
4) e4 d4+ 4O c;!7hl d8 41 4) ffi+
1 -0.
8232

14 . . .

-'L fB( 74)

74

Here there is a further parting of

the ways:
a) 15 4) h2-see chapter 1 2
b) 15 b4-see chapter 1 3
c ) 15 .Q. g5 4) e6 1 6 .Q.e3 c5 1 7 M ed
1 8 cd cd 1 9 4) x d4 4) c5 20 f3 d5 2 1
ed 4) x d 5 22 Af2 4) b 4 with
advantage to Black, Yanofsky
Unzicker and Kuijpers-Portisch,
Tel Aviv Olympiad 1 964. The
games were played on the same
afternoon and were both won by
Black, not diverging until move 30!
d) 15 4) f5 d5 when:
d l ) 16 cH ed 1 7 e5 d3 18 -'L b l 4) fe4
1 9 4) 3d4 and now instead of l 9 . . .
d2= Wade-Robatsch, Vinkovci
1 968, Black should play 1 9 . . . g6
and if 20 4) e3 X e5 or 20 4) h6+

IO d3: Introduction
A x h6 21 A x h6 4J x f2 ! with great
advantage.
d2) 16 ed x d5 ( 1 6 . . . e4!?
-Yudovich) 1 7 Ag5 e4 18 de

79

4J fX e4 1 9 x d5 A x d5 with full
eq uality though a complicated
ending, Tal- Robatsch, Havana
1 963.

12

10 d3 Main Line with 15 {j h2

I e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 J't b5 a6 4 J'ta4
f6 5 00 J'te7 6 . el b5 7 J't b3 d6 8
c3 00 9 h3 b8 I D d3 bd7 I I
bd2 J't b7 1 2 o c5 1 3 J't c2
. e8 1 4 g3 J'tffi
1 5 h2 ( 75)
75
B

White prepares to bring his

queen to f3 to exploit the weakness
of the light squares g4 and f5 which
are readily available for his knights.
Black must react vigorously in the
centre before White develops a
strong K-side attack.
Now Black has a choice of three
serious alternatives:
A 1 5 . . . e6
B 1 5 . . g6
C 1 5 . . . d5
Not 1 5 . . . a5? 1 6 f4 L) e6 1 7 f5
.

c5 1 8 g4 x g4 1 9 x g4 d5 20
h5 Browne-Durao, Malaga
1 970.
A
15 . . .

e6
1 6 g4
Alternatively :
a) 16 f3 d5 transposes to the main
line, C: 1 5 . . . d5 below.
b) 16 f5 h6 1 7 g4 X g4 1 8
i! x g4 h7 ! - ! Matanovic
Ivkov, Palma 1 966.
c) 16 d4 ed 1 7 cd c5 18 f3 and
now:
c l ) 18 . . . x d4 1 9 x d4 cd 20
x d4 d5 2 1 e5 e4 22 x e4 !-!
Schmid-Spassky, San Juan 1 969 .
c2 ) 18 . . . d51+ but after 1 9 e5 !-p
Parma-O' Kelly, SanJuan 1 969 .
16 . . .
x g4
1 7 x g4
g6
J'tg7
1 8 J't e3
c5
19 J't b3
20 J'tx e6
. x e6
Black has emerged from the
opening with an excellent position
and in Nicevski-Parma, Yugoslav
Team Ch 1 970, proceeded to
demonstrate the win in a model
fashion: 21 J't g5 e8 22 d l c6

10 d3 Main Line with 15 Gz:jh2 81

23 f3 d5 24 a4 .. eeS 25 ab ab 26
i!r b3 c4 27 i!rc2 d4 2S .. eel h6 29
i;ld2 lta6 30 b3 ( 76)

i!rf3 A g7 20 .. f1 .. ill 2 1 .. ael

i!rc7 22 Gz:j g4 Gz:j X g4 23 i!r x g4
h5 24 Gz:j x h5 leads to unclear complications, Zhukhovitsky
- Liberzon, USSR 1 970.
c5
1 9 d4
20 d5 Gz:j ill 21 A f4 i!r e7 22 .. f1
h5 23 Gz:j f3 Gz:j6h7 24 i!rd2 Gz:jd7
and Black has satisfactory defen
sive chances, Gheorghiu-Portisch,
Monte Carlo 1 969.
C

30 . . . b4! 31 cd c3 32 e l ed 33 f4
A b5 34 Gz:j e2 .. adS 35 lt f2 .. x e4!
36 de d3 37 i!r d l i!rx e4 3S Gz:j g3
i!r x f4 39 .. a5 A c6 40 Gz:j f1 d2 41
.. cal d4 42 lt x d4 i!rx dH 43
h2 i!r f2 44 ilr g4 d l ilr 45 .. x dl
.. x d l 46 i!r cS+ g7 47 i!rx c6
.. x f1 0- 1 .
B
15 . . .
g6
1 6 f4
ef
Not 16 . . . .Q.. g7 1 7 f5 d5 1 S i!r f3
Kurajica-Zinser, Zagreb 1 969 .
1 7 x f4
Gz:j e6
Worse is 1 7 . . . A g7 1 8 i!r d2
Gz:j e6 1 9 Ah6 A h8 20 .. fl c5 2 1
ilr f2 followed b y .. al -el-e3f3, Ciocaltea-Stanciu, Bucharest
1 964.
1 8 Ad2
Or 1 8 Ae3 d5 1 9 e5 d4 20 A f2
Gz:j d5 2 1 Gz:j e4 with advantage to
White, Browne-Liberzon, Sarajevo
1 970.
IS . . .
j}, g7
The sacrifice after I S . . . c5 1 9

d5
15 . . .
1 6 i!rf3
! -! ! Kurajica-Unzicker, Hast
ings 1 97 1 -72.
16 . . .
Gz:j e6
Other possibilities are:
a) 16 . . . i!r c8 ? 1 7 A g5 de I S de
Gz:jfd7 1 9 .. adl Gz:j b6 20 Gz:j g4 and
White stands m uch better,
Browne-Spassky, -San Juan 1969 .
b) 16 . . . Gz:j ccl7 1 7 Gz:j f5 c5 1 8 Gz:j g4
Gz:j x g4 1 9 hg Gz:j b6 20 a4 Gz:j x a4 2 1
A x a4 b a 22 .. x a 4 i!r d 7 2 3 .. a l
de 2 4 d e .. ed8 25 <tI e3 i!r d3 with
full eq uality for Black, Jansa
Averbakh, Budapest 1 970.
c) 16 . . h6 1 7 Gz:jf5 a5 IS Gz:jg4
Gz:j X g4 1 9 hg a4 20 A e3 Gz:j e6
2 1 i!rg3 de 22 de i!r ffi with
level chances, Vasyukov-Karpov,
USSR Armed Forces Team Ch
1 97 1 .
d) 16 . . p l 7 j}, g5 j},e7 IS h4 (If
I S A h6 a5 ! 1 9 .. adl b 4 2 0 Gz:j g4
Gz:j x g4 2 1 hg d4! is good for Black,
Fuchs-Hennings, E. Germany
1 972.) and now:
d l ) 18 . . b5 1 9 ed A x d5 20 Gz:j e4
.

82

10 d3 Main Line with 15 t;Jh2

t;J fX e4 2 1 itx e7 x e7 22 de it c6
23 e3 a5 is balanced, Sanakoyev
Zagorovsky, 6th World Corres Ch
1 968- 7 1 .
d2) 18
aS I 9 h5 El. a6 20 .Q. h6 d4
2 1 cd t;J e6 (21 . . . ed! is fine for
Black) 22 hg hg 23 de t;J d4 24 dl
t;Jd7 Medina-Spassky, Goteborg
interzonal 1 955, and now 25
t;Je2 !
1 7 t;J f5
Alternatively:
a) 17 itb3 de 18 de c5 1 9 it e3 c4 20
it c2 c7 21 t;Jf5 h8 22 El. adl
El. ad8 23 t;Jg4 ! -! Penrose
Blackstock, London League 1 973.
b) Innocuous is 17 t;Jg4 t;J x g4 1 8
x g4 h8 1 9 f3 ffi ! -! Fuchs
Tringov, Leningrad 1 96 7 .
17 . . .
h8 ! ( 77)
This wise precautionary move
was first played by O' Kelly . and
avoids a later check on h6 in many
lines. Alternatives have a much
poorer reputation:
c:5 1 8 t;Jg4 t;J x g4 when:
a) 17
al ) 1 9 Jag El. c8 20 ed t;J g5? (20 . . .
it x d5= ) 2 1 .Q.x g5 x g5 22 c4
and Black has nothing for his pawn,
Gheorghiu-N. Littlewood, Hast
ings 1 964-65 .
a2 ) 19 x g4 c7? ( 1 9 . . . h8 is
esse ntial now.) 20 ed .Q.x d5 2 1
El. x e5 ! winning a pawn, Parma
Gligoric, Titovo U zice 1 966.
Naturally 21 . . . x e5 is im
possible on account of 22 t;J h6+
h8 23 t;Jx 17+ , but somehow
Gligoric escaped with a draw.
de 18 de c5 is ineffective as
b) 17

White can still attack on the K-side

and has more use for the open d-file
than Black:
bl ) 19 93 h8 (Not 19 . . . c7?
20 t;J h6+ h8 21 x e5 ! winning
a pawn with the same combination
as above, DUckstein-O'Kelly,
Zagreb 1 955.) 20 t;J f3 t;Jd7 21 h4 ffi
22 h5 c7 23 h4 with good
attacking chances for White, van
den Berg-GrUnfeld. Beverwij k
1 961 .
b2 ) 19 g4 g6? ! 20 t;J h6+ .Q. x h6 2 1
.Q.x h 6 e7 2 2 g3 Ciocaltea
Hartoch, Beverwijk 1 968.
b3 ) 19 h4 c4 (19 . . . c7 20 .Q. g5!)
20 .Q. g5 t;J x g5 2 1 hg t;Jd7 22 El. ad l
c7 23 h5 .Q. c5 24 t;J g4 El. e6 25
b4 .Q. m 26 El. e3 a5 2 7 El. f3 t;J b6 28
t;J ffi+ ! El. x ffi (Or 28 . . . gf 29
El. h3) 29 gfg6 30 g5 ab 31 t;J e7+
h8 32 El. h3 1 -0 Matulovic
Robatsch, Vinkovci 1 968.

77
W

White has tried the following

continuations:
Cl 1 8 g4
C2 1 8 t;J g4
C3 1 8 h4
C4 1 8 ed

10 d3 Main Line with 15 <lh2 83

Cl
c5
1 8 g4
de
1 9 g5
<ld7
20 de
c7
2 1 h4
Ciocaltea-O'Kelly,
Havana
1 965, continued 22 <lg4 c4 23
h5 <l ec5 24 g6 with unclear
complications.

x h5 fe 27 de d4 28 h4 e7 (28
. . . c4! 29 x f6+ g7) 29 cd cd
30 A b3 Ac8 31 f3 Ag7 32 g4
a7 33 g5 fg 34 A x g5 d6 35
f6! b4 36 h I ! B( 78)

78
W

C2

<lx g4
1 9 x g4
c5
Satisfactory alternatives are:
a5 20 g3 f6 2 1 h4 de
a) 19
22 de c5 Udovcic-Zinser, Zagreb
1 969.
t6 20 g3 de 2 1 de c5
b) 19
22 e3 c4 23 adl ad8 24
x d8 x d8 25 Ad g6 26 <l e3
f4= Tringov-Geller, Amsterdam
1 970.
20 h4
20 ed x d5 2 1 Ab3 !? x d3
22 Ah6 (threatening 23 adl
trapping the queen) is answered
by 22 . . . g6 23 Ax B
x f5-Shamkovich.
c7
20 . . .
21 e3?
Better is 21 h5 ad8 22 e3
with roughly equal chances. Now
Black seizes the initiative.
21 . . .
g6
<l f4!
22 g3
18 <l gt

with a good game for Black.

Shamkovich-O' Kelly,
Palma
1 966, concluded entertainingly: 23
h2 f6 24 h5 <lx h5 25 . h3 gf? !
(25 . . . f7 ! 26 h4 gf 27 x h5
x h5 gives a good ending.) 26

3 7 x h7+ ! \tJ x h7 38 \tJg3+ Ah6

39 hx h6+ 1 -0 .
el
18 h4
c5
<l x g5
1 9 Ag5
<l g8
20 hg
g6!
2 1 g3
Inferior is 21 . . . de 22 de c7 23
<l g4 . ad8 24 ad l x d l 25
x dl g6 26 <l fe3 with a slight plus
to White, Ciocaltea-O' Kelly,
Caracas 1 970.
22 <l e3
If 22 <l h4 Black can play 22 . . .
de 23 de d2 24 ad f4 with a
good game.
22 . . .
d4!
23 <l eg4
x g5
with a very sound position for
Black. Browne- Portisch, Wijk aan
Zee 1 972, went 24 <l f3 f4 25
<l gX e5 x g3 26 fg dc 27 bc <l h6
28 g adl ad8 29 A b3 \tJg7 30 g4
g5 3 1 Ad5 Ax d5 32 ed f6 33 c4 fe

84

10 d3 Main Line with 15 I-iJh2

34 I-iJx g5 \f; h8 35 l-iJ e6 .. d7 36

.. x e5 I-iJx g4 37 .. e4 I-iJ h6 38 .. fl
A d6 39 .. ffi I-iJg8 40 .. f5 be 41
de I-iJ h6 42 .. ffi 1-iJ f7 43 I-iJ g5 .. x e4
44 I-iJ x e4 \f; g7 45 .. e6 a5 46 \f; fl
h 6 47 \f; g l .. d 8 48 a4 .. d7 49 g4
A e5 50 \f; g2 Ad6 5 1 \f; h l \f; iB 52
\f; g2 .. e7 53 \f;fl A f4 54 I-iJx c5
.. c7 55 I-iJ b3 .. x c4 56 I-iJx a5
.. x a4 57 I-iJ c6 .Q.d6 58 .. g6 .. c4
59 \f; e2 .. c5 60 I-iJ d4 .. x d5 61
I-iJ f5 .Q. f4 62 .. a6 Ag5 63 \f; f3 .. e5
64 .. a8+ .. e8 65 .. a6 \f; g8 66
\f; g3 .. b8 67 .. g6+ \f; h8 68 .. a6
.. b3+ 69 \f; g2 .. b7 70 \f; g3 \f; h7
7 1 .. e6 I-iJ h8 72 .. a6 I-iJ g6 7 3 .. a5
l-iJ iB 74 .. a4 I-iJd7 75 1-iJ d4 l-iJ e5 76
I-iJ f5 .. c 7 77 .. b4 .. c4 78 .. b 7+
\f; g6 79 .. b6+ .. c6 80 .. x c6+
I-iJ x c6 81 I-iJ d6 \t> ffi 82 I-iJ eH \t> e5
83 1-iJ f2 \f; d4 84 \f; f3 l-iJ e5+ 85
\f; g3 A e3 86 I-iJ h3 \f; e4 87 \f; b4
1-iJ f3+ 88 W h5 I-iJg5 0- 1 .
C4

A x d5
19 i!f'g3
I-iJ h5
Black has the worst of it after 1 9
. . d 7 20 I-iJg4 ffi 2 1 f4! g6
22 fh6 !zj x f4 23 1t x f4 ef 24
i!f' x f4 A d6 25 i!f' f2 . Matulovic
Unzicker, Venice 1 969, continued
25 . . . \f; g7? (25 . . . .. x eH 26
.. x el i!f' iB;!; would have been
better.) 26 d4 .. iB 27 e3 A f7 28
I-iJ x f7 .. x f7 29 1;1 b3 .. e 7 30 I-iJ d5
.. x eH 31 .. x el l-iJ iB 32 i!f'f3 c6
33 l-iJ e3 .. c8 34 I-iJ g4! (threatening
35 .. e8!) 34 . . . h5 35 1-iJ f2 h 7 36
18 ed

l-iJ e4 A e7 37 1;1 c2 .. c7 38 g3
l-iJ iB 39 .. e4 c5 40 I-iJ x h5+ ! gh 41
i!f' x h5 f5 42 i!f'x f5 d6 43 i!f' h5
\t>g8 44 .. gH .. g7 45 de 1 -0.
A nice exploitation of K-side
weaknesses.
20 i!f' x e5
i!f' d7 ( 79)
79

2 1 e7
Kurajica-Geller, Belgrade 1 969,
varied with 2 1 I-iJ d6 x d6 22
i!f'x h5 i!f' c6 23 Ab3 x g2 24
Ax e6 fe 25 f3 1;1x h2+ 26 c;t> x g2
Ad6 27 d4 and now instead of 27
. . . i!f'd5 28 i!f' x d5 ed= , 2 7 . . . i!f' c4
gives Black some edge.
21 . . .
I-iJ ffi
22 x d5
1-iJ d4
I-iJ x d5
23 cd
24 f3
! -!
Tringov-Filip,
Siegen
Olympiad 1 970. After 24 . . .
.. x e5 25 de White has good
material and positional com
pensation for the queen though
Black's knight on d5 is hard to
dislodge.

13

10 d3 Main Line with 15 b4

I e4 e5 2 ll f3 ll c6 3 A b5 a6 4 A a4
ll ffi 5 00 it e7 6 . el b5 7 it b3 d6 8
c3 00 9 h3 ll b8 1 0 d3 ll bd7 I I
ll bd2 Ab7 1 2 ll fl ll c5 1 3 itc2
. e8 1 4 llg3 A m
1 5 .!> ()
80
B

White plays along lines similar to

1 3 b4 (chapters 4 and 5 ) . When he
follows up with 1 6 d4 he gains a
tempo over those variations (White
plays d3 and then d4, but Black has
played ll d7-c5-d7 thus losing two
moves) but on the other hand the
knight on g3 is not so well placed for
Q-side play; on d2 it would support
a subsequent c4 and could go to b3
and a5 with some effect in many
positions.
15 . . .
ll cd7
15 . . . ll e6 is a rare alternative:

a) 16 .4 when :
al ) 16 . . . cS 1 7 bc ll x c5 1 8 ab ab
1 9 . bl c6 20 A g5 h6 21 Ax ffi
x ffi 22 d4 ll a4 23 d2 d8 24
ll f5 a5 25 . e3 g6 26 ll h2;t
Savon-Vasyukov, Moscow 1 958.
a2) 16 . . . p l 7 e3 Ag7 18 c1
c5 19 bc llx c5 20 ab ab 21 b2
A c6= Bronstein-Krogius, 32nd
USSR Ch 1 964-65 .
b) 16 cH ed? ! ( 1 6 . . . lld7 !?) 1 7 cd
d5 1 8 e5 ll e4 1 9 a3 a5 20 . bl ab
21 ab ll x g3 22 fg c6 23 d3 g6 24
it e3 A c8 25 g4 A d 7 26 . fl and
White eventually won with a crush
ing K-side assault, Tukmakov-Ruk
avina, Leningrad interzonal 1973 .
Now White has three main
choices:
A 1 6 ll f5
B 1 6 A b3
C 1 6 d4
Less significant lines are:
a) 16 A cI2 d5 1 7 ed Ax d5 18 e2
g6 1 9 c4 Ac6 20 A c3 .1lg7 21 a4
. b8 22 ll e4 ll h5 23 ab ab 24 b3
ll f4 with chances for both sides,
Dtickstein-Unzicker, Clare Ben
edict, Chaumont 1 958.
b) 16 Ab2 g6 1 7 a3 A g7 when:

86

10 d3 Main Line with 15 b4

bl ) 18 et c5 1 9 A c3 i't c7 20 Jt b3
h6 2 1 a4 Jt c6= Polgar-Forintos,
Hungarian Ch 1 965 .
b2) 18 i't c12 i'te7 1 9 Jt b3 ad8 20
c4 c6 !-! Seslija-Moles, Groningen
1 966-67.

16 .i) f5
a5
Also good is 1 6 . . . d5 1 7 g4 a5 1 8
ba x a5 1 9 .i) d2 d e 2 0 d e .i) c5 2 1
ilr f3 i't a8 ! Barczay-Foldi, Hun
garian Ch 1 965 .
1 7 d2
18 cb
19 Jt b3
20 .i) 3b4
81
W

h4 h5 49 g3 x f4 50 h3 e4
0-1 Westerinen-Portisch, Raach
zonal 1 969.
21 . .
g6
22 i't f3
.i) b6
x d5
23 ed
.i) bx d5
24 Ax d5
Now after 25 c6 ilrd7 26 eel
gf 27 .i)x f5 e6 White had
insufficient compensation for the
piece. Westerinen-Smejkal, Tal
linn 1 97 1 , continued 28 6c2
ea6 29 g4 x a2 30 i't g3 x c2
31 x c2 al + 32 g2 .i) f4+ 33
Jl x f4 ef 34 i'tx f4 ilr d5+ 35 f3
ilrx d3 36 ilrx c7 ilr fl + 3 7 g3
ilr e l + 38 . f2 g8 39 ilr c8 ilr gl +
40 g2 ilr e l + 4 1 f2 . a2 0- 1 .
B
.

16 Ab3
Now
Bl 1 6 . . . a5
B2 1 6 . . . h6
16
cI5 1 7 a3 c5 1 8 ed A x d5
19 J1,g5 ilr c7 20 .i) d2 cb 21 cb
ac8 22 Ax d5 .i)x d5 23 ilr f3
.i) f4 !-!
Petrosian-Portisch,
European Team Ch, Hamburg
1 965 .
16
c6 is somewhat passive,
e.g. 1 7 c4!? ( 1 7 .i) h2, followed by
ilrf3 and .i) f5 , is also possible.) 1 7
. . . d5 1 8 cd cd 1 9 ltd2 ( 1 9 a3 !?
retains options of b2. ) 19 . . .
.i) b6 20 ed A d6 21 .i) g5 h6 22
.i)5e4 .i) x d5 23 .i) f5 and White has
an advantage, cf. note b to Black's
1 6th move on page 76.
.

21 cl
This was an attempt to improve
on 21 .i) e3 viz. 21 . . . .i) b6 22 cl
i't d 7 2 3 i't c2 ac8 24 ed .i) bx d5
25 d4 e4 26 Ax d5 .i)x d5 27 a3
f4 28 cdl .i)d3 29 fl ilrx d4
30 A c3 i't b6 31 i'ta2 i't e6 32 ilral
.i) f4 3 3 del .i) d5 34 J1, d4 cd8
35 f3 .i)x e3 36 x e3 A e7 37 fel
d7 38 x e4 Ax e4 39 x e4
Am 40 g4 e2 41 i't b l + g8
42 Ax g7 i'tdl + 43 i'tx d l
x d l + 44 h 2 x g 7 4 5 .i) f5
d 5 46 .i) x '57 m 4 7 f4 e4 48

Bl

16 . . .

a5

10 d3 Main Line with 15 b4 87

1 7 a3
White must first prepare the
retreat a2 for the bishop; if 1 7 'j g5
d5 1 8 ed a4!
ab
17 . . .
17
h6 1 8 d4 b8 1 9 A b2
'j b6 20 'j d2 ab 2 1 cb 'ja4 22
J;tx a4 x a4 23 de de 24 'j b3 c5=
Liberzon-Ree. Sukhumi 1 972.
1 . . . cS 1 8 'j g5 d5 1 9 ed 'j b6
20 be 'j bx d5 2 1 d4 h6 22 'jx f7 !
gives White a strong attack, e.g. 22
. . . x f7 23 de Ax c5 {or 23 . . .
'jh7 24 'j f5 i;t x c5 25 Ax h6! gh
26 h5+ wins} 24 ef X el + 25
x el x ffi 26 'j e4 e7 27 e2
d8 28 x b5 x e4 29 x b7+
m 30 Ae3! 1 -0 Tal-Tukmakov,
Sochi 1 970.
h6
18 cb
with two continuations:
a) 19 'j f5 d5 20 'j 3h4 c5 21 e3
c4 22 g3 h 7 ! 23 i;t c2 d4 24 f3
a6 2 5 'j x h6? gh 2 6 'j f5 a8 !
and Black refuted the sacrifice and
won, Tal-Spassky, 1 1 th game,
Canditlates' match 1 965 .
b) 19 cHI c5 20 be de 2 1 de 'jx e5
22 'jx e5 x e5 23 A b2 e8 24
i!rf3 with initiative to White, Tal
Smejkal, Tallinn 1 97 1 .

17 . . .
1 8 c2

c5
d5 ! (82)

B2

h6
1 7 a4
Or 1 7 J;tb2 a5 1 8 a3 when:
a) 18 . . . cS 1-1 Smejkal-Portisch,
Wijk aan Zee 1 9 7 2 .
b) 18 . . . ab 1 9 ab x al 2 0 x al
i!r a8= Trifunovic-Barcza, Yugo
slavia-Hungary 1 966.

16 . . .

1 9 ed
'jx d5
c4
20 a2
21 de
'jx c3
22 c2
ba
ab
23 x c3
24 Ab2
24 x b3 e4 25 'j d4 'j e5+
24 . . .
b6
25 c5 e6 with good chances for
Black. Gaprindashvili-Spassky,
Goteborg 1 97 1 , continued 26
'jx e5 'jx e5 27 x e5 x e5 28
x e5 x e5 29 i;t x e5 a5 30 ba
i;tx ca 31 'jf5 { 3 1 A c3!} 31 . . .
e8 32 Ad4? {32 A c3} 32 . . .
A e4! 33 Ax cS b2 34 el b8 35
'j e7+ h7 36 i;t b6 {36 a6? bl
3 7 x bl x b l + 38 h2 cl
wins} 36 . . . bl 3 7 x bl Ax bl
38 f3 i;td3 39 h2 . e8 40 'jd5
el 41 g3 al 42 h4 i;td 43
'j e3 J;ta6 44 'j d5 A b7 45 'j e3
g6 46 'j c4 ffi 47 'j d6 Aa6 48
'j e8 a2 49 h5+ f7 50 'j c7 An
5 1 f4 aH 52 g3 i;tc4! 53
f4 e7 54 e3 d 7 55 g4
. a3+ 56 f2 . a2+ 57 g3 a3
58 f4 b3 59 e4 c6 60 f5

88

10 d3 Main Line with 15 b4

After 1 7 . . . 4J b6 18 A d 3 ! ab 1 9
i;tf7 61 f4 . b2 62 \t> e4 . e2+ 63
\t>f5 . e7 64 gS i;t c4! 65 \t> g6 fg 66 c b A a6 2 0 AgS h6 2 1 A x ffi "l!rx 10
a6 (66 fg i;t d3 mate) 66 . . . \t>x b6 22 dS . ec8 23 "l!r e2 4J a4 24 .. eel
0- 1 . An interesting theoretical White has an excellent position;
Matanovic-Barczay, Sousse in
ending.
terzonal 1 967, concluded 24 . . .
C
. ab8 25 . c6 Ab7 26 A x bS !
16 d4
most energetic con- Ax c6 2 7 A x c6 4J b6 28 a4 . d8
The
29 as 4J c8 30 a6 4J e7? 3 1 A b7 1 -0.
tinuation :
ed
1 8 cb
Black now has three mam
Or 18 . . . cS 1 9 bc dc 20 de !:2J x eS
possibilities:
2 1 4J x eS . x eS 22 A b2 wi th a
Cl 1 6 . . . as? !
Vasyukov
clear advantage,
C 2 1 6 . . . h6
Averbakh, Moscow Ch 1 964.
C3 1 6 . . . g6!
dS(83)
1 9 4J x d4
Another try is 1 6 . . . 4J b6!? 1 7
i;td3 ( 1 7 .,Q,gS h6 1 8 de hg 1 9 ef
"l!rx 10+ ) 1 7 . . g6 1 8 .,Q, d2 .,Q,g7 1 9
"l!r c2 . c 8 2 0 . ad l t . Now Hort
suggests 20 . . . 4J fd7 or 20 . . .
"l!r e 7 . Instead Jansa-Hennings,
Karlovy Vary 1 973, continued 20
. . . c6? 21 de de 22 c4! bc 23 .,Q,x c4
4J x c4 24 "l!rx c4 "l!r c7 25 . el with
a clear advantage to White.
.

Cl
16 . . .

as ?!

1 7 a3
Alternatively:
a) 17 "l!r d3 gives no advantage, e.g.
1 7 . . . . b8 18 a4 ab 19 ab bc 20
"l!rx c3 A a8 21 . bl g6 22 dS 4J cS
23 i;t e3 4J fd7 Jansa-Unzicker,
Sochi 1 965 .
b) More promising is 17 A d2 4J b6
1 8 Ad3 c6? ! (Black should try 1 8
. . . 4J c4 1 9 Ax c4 bc 20 de de 2 1 ba
4J d 7 !) 19 ba . x as 20 c4 . a3 2 1
Ael . x d3 22 "l!r x d 3 Browne
Furman, Madrid 1 97 3 .
ab
17 . . .

This position has not proved

satisfactory for Black. Both:
a) 20 .,Q, g5 cS 21 eS . X eS 22 . X eS
4J x eS 23 bc h6 24 .,Q, f4 Ivkov
Lengyel, Amsterdam interzonal
1 964, and
b) 20 A R 4Jx e4 21 4Jx e4 de 22
3 1 st
Gufeld-Holmov,
4Jx bS
USSR Ch 1 963, were advantageous
for White and, as a result, 1 6 . . . as
is considered inadequate for
equality.
h6
Cl
16 . .
4J b6
1 7 .,Q,d2
18 A d3
.

10 d3 Main Line with 15 b4

Karpov has had two impressive
victories with the white pieces in
this position:
a) 18 . . . . c8 1 9 i'r c2 i'r d7 ( 1 9 . . .
ed !? 20 cd cS) 20 . ad l i'r c6 2 1 it e3
il a4 22 . cl il b6 23 i'r bl i'r d 7 24
il d2 cS 25 be de 26 dS il a4 27 c4
b4 28 . fl i'r c7 29 f4 il d 7 30 i'r c2
il c3 31 f5 il ffi 32 il e2 ilx e2+ 33
it x e2 itd6 34 g4 <it> f8 35 h4 <it> e7
36 g5 hg 37 hg il d 7 38 A g4 . g8
39 <it> f2 . h8 40 . h I . cg8 41 i'r d l
<it> d8 4 2 i'rgl il b 6 4 3 . h 2 i'r e 7 44
il b3 <it>c7 45 <it> f3 il d 7 (84)
84

46 a3 ! ba 47 . a2 . h4 48 . x a3
. gh8 49 . bl . b8 50 i're1 . x g4
5 1 <it>x g4 ,il c8 52 i'r a5+ 1 -0
Karpov-Gligoric, San Antonio
1 97 2 .
b) 18 . . . g6 1 9 i'r c2 il fd7 20 . ad l
A g7 2 1 de de 22 c4 be 23 ,il x c4
i'r e7? (23 . . . il x c4 ) 24 .Q.b3 ! c5
25 a4 c4 26 A a2 it c6 27 a5 A a4 28
i'r cl il c8 29 Ax h6 itx dl 30
. x d l il d6? 31 Ax g7 <it>x g7 32
i'r g5 ! ffi 33 i'r g4 <it>h7 34 il h4! 1 -0
Karpov-Spassky, USSR Teams
1 97 3 . If34 . . . . g8 35 Ax c4 . g7
36 . x d6 i'rx d6 37 il hf5 winning

89

the q ueen or mating, while if34 . . .

il f8 35 il x g6 il x g6 36 i'r h5+
<it>g7 37 . x d6 wins.
Cl

85

Now White can also play :

a) 17 A b3 .Q.g7 when:
al ) 18 d5 i'rc8 19 it e3 c6 20 de
i'rx c6 2 1 c4 be 22 . cl il b6 23
it x b6 i'rx b6 24 .Q. x c4 Ah6 with
full equality, Langeweg- Portisch,
Beverwijk 1 965 .
a2 ) 18 de ilx e5 1 9 il x eS . x e5
20 f3 il d7 21 A e3 i'r h4 22 il fl
. ee8 2 3 .Q. f2 i'r g5 2 4 .Q.e3 i'rh4
t-t Parma-Spassky, Tel Aviv
Olympiad 1 964.
b) 1 7 a3 ,il g7 1 8 it b2 d5 1 9 ed t-t
Bradvarevic-Sokolov, Yugoslav
Ch 1 965 .
c) 1 7 A b2 il b6 1 8 de de 1 9 it b3 c5
20 a3 i'rx dl 21 . aX d l a5 with at
least an equal game for Black, Lee
Gheorghiu, Hastings 1 965-66.
d) 17 .Q.c12 Ag7 18 a4 d5! t-t
Geller-Reshevsky, Petropolis in
terzonal 1 973.
e) 1 7 de and now:
el ) 17
ilx e5 18 ilx e5 de 1 9

90

10 d3 Main Line with 15 b4

f3 A g7 20 . d l e 7 2 1 lie3
gives White a faint edge, Janosevic
Pachman, Titovo Uiice 1 966.
e2 ) 17
del 18 e2 c5 1 9 a3 c7
20 A b2 b6 and Black has no
problems, Lee-Parma, Siegen
Olympiad 1 970.
o 17 AgS when:
fl ) Not 17
A g7 1 8 d2 c6 1 9 a4
c7 20 A b3 m 2 1 .1l h6 e6 22
Ax e6 fe 23 Ax g7 <i!{ x g7 24 de de
25 g5 Zagorovsky- Husak, 5th
World corres Ch 1 966-68, but
f2) 17 . . . h6 1 8 Ad2 Ag7 19 cl
<i!{h 7 20 a4 b6 21 a5 c4 22 Ad3
x d2 23 x d2 d7 24 d5 when,
though White has a spatial
advantage, Black's position is very
solid, Kuzmin- Furman, 33rd
USSR Ch 1 965 .
17 . . .
Ag7 (86)

W esterinen-Hennings, Helsinki
zonaI 1 9 7 2 .
1 8 Ad3!
Euwe had suggested 18 cI5 when
Suetin-Lipnitsky, USSR Team Ch
1 955, continued 18 . . . b6 1 9 ab
ab 20 . x a8 '/!rx a8 21 d3 c6 22
dc Ax c6 23 x d6 . d8 24
c7t .
18 de is harmless, e.g. 1 8 . . .
x e5 1 9 J x e5 . x e5 when:
a) 20 AA . e8 t -t Hecht
Matanovic, Bad Pyrmont 1 9 70.
b) 20 A ea . e8 2 1 Ad4 '/!r e7 22 ab
ab 23 . x a8 Ax a8 24 '/!rd3 c5=
Gheorghiu-Padevsky, Tel Aviv
Olympiad 1 964.
18 . . .
ba
After the passive 18 . . . c6 White
develops very strong pressure
against Black's centre with 19 A g5
h6 20 A e3 c7 2 1 . cl . ad8 22
d2 <i!{h7 23 a2 . e7 24 c4
Karpov- Lengyel, Budapest 1 9 7 3 .
1 9 de
I f I 9 . x a4 d5 !
x e5 !
19 . . .

Alternatively:
b6 was not given an
a) 17
adequate test in Kotkov-Jansa,
Sochi 1965, which finished 18 de de
19 x d8 . aX d8 20 ab ab t -t .
b) 17
h6 1 8 Ad3 c6 1 9 .1le3
Ag7 20 ty d2 <i!{h7 2 1 . adl c7
22 a2 is to White's advantage,

I nstead ,
Keres- Mat anovi c ,
Winnipeg 1 967, went 1 9 . . . de? ! 20
. x a4 c5 21 e2 Am 22 . dl cb
23 cb A c6 24 . x a6 . x a6 25
A x a6 A x b4 26 li c4 e7 27
Ah6 c5 28 b2? (28 g5;t ) 28
. . . cx e4 29 x e4 x e4 t,-t .
Spassky gives 30 x e5 '/!r x e5 3 1
x b4 x f2 3 2 <i!{ x f2 e4!
forcing a simplification.
. x e5
20 x e5
Black has achieved equality.

14

10 a4

1 e4 e5 2 2) 3 2) c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4
2) f6 5 00 e7 6 el b5 7 Ab3 d6 8
c3 00 9 h3 2) b8
1 0 a4(87)

This continuation has long been

regarded as innocuous, though
Matulovic did revive it with some
success in 1 97 2 . White plans to open
the a-file quickly and exploit the
slight weakness of Black's b-pawn.
Ab7
10 . . .
2) bd7
I I d3
1 2 ab
Neither 1 2 A c2 e8 1 3 2) bd2
Am 1 4 2) 1 c5 1 5 2) g3 g6 16 ,ll g5
c7 1 7 2) h2 d 5! with Black taking
the initiative in Milic-Spassky,
Student Olympiad, Lyons 1 955,
nor 12 e3 c5 13 2) bd2 c7 1 4

e2 d5 Uitumen-Hemmassi,
Singapore 1 969, are consistent with
White's strategy in this variation .
ab
12 . . .
13 x a8
x a8
If l 3 . . . x a8? White develops
good prospects on the K-side with
1 4 2) h4! g6 1 5 f4 but harmless is 1 4
2) a3 a5 1 5 g5 2) c5 1 6 c2
2) e6 1 7 d2 c5 ! -! Parma
Radulov, Vrsac 1 9 7 3 .
Naturally, after the bishop
capture, 14 2) h4? fails to 14 . . .
2) x e4.
1 4 2) a3 (88)
88
B

Black now has:

A 14 . . . b8
B 1 4 . . . ,ll c6

92

10 a4

b8
I') c5
1 5 I') c2
Or 1 5 . . . c5 1 6 1') e3 ( 1 6 itg5 c4
1 7 l;t x ffi I')x ffi t-t Matulovic
Lengyel, Sarajevo 1 9 7 1 ) 1 6 . . . g6
1 7 I') h2 c4? ! 1 8 de x e4 1 9 1') hg4
Matulovic-Sznapik, Skopje Olym
piad 1 972, is in White's favour.
h6
16 a2
1 6 . . . c6 1 7 1') e3 itd7 1 8 1') 5 !
l;t x 5 1 9 ef a8 20 l;t b l . e8 2 1 d4
ed 22 I')x d4! b7 23 g4 is
excellent for White, Matulovic
Barcza, Zagreb 1 973.
1 7 l') e3
a7
1 8 l;t b l . e8 1 9 b4 1') e6 20 b3
A m 2 1 I') d5 I')d7 22 J,i e3 and
White maintains a slight initiative,
Matanovic- Hecht, Helsin:ki zonal
1 972.
B
14 . . .
.Q, c6
1 5 I') c2
Or 1 5 l;tg5 1') c5 1 6 A a2 J;td7 1 7
I') c2 .Q, e6 1 8 .Q, X e6 1') x e6 1 9 h4
. e8 20 d4 1')d7 with level chances,
Matulovic- Matanovic, Yugoslav
Ch 1 975.
15 . . .
I') c5
1 6 I') b4
Matulovic prefers the immediate
1 6 J,i a2, e.g. :
a) 16 . . a8 1 7 I') b4 l;td7 1 8
14 . . .

J;tg5 l') e6 1 9 .Q,h4 c5 2 0 I') d5

I') x d5 2 1 J,ix d5 d8 22 J,ig3
b6 ! 23 c2 1') c7 24 it b3 it ffi 25
. a l c6 26 I') h2 b7 2 7 I') g4
e7 28 f3 h5 29 1') e3 g6 30 f4? (30
f2;t ) 30 . . . c4! 31 de J;tx e4 32
f2 be 3 3 fe? d5 34 J;tdl it c5 35
Af4 1') e6 36 h6 . b8 3 7 J;tf3 d4!
38 cd A x d4 39 AX e4 X e4 40
. f1 \t> h 7 ! 41 x f7+
0-1
Matulovic-Matanovic, Yugoslav
Ch 1 9 7 2 .
b) More accurate i s 16 . . . .1l d7 1 7
l') e3 a8 1 8 bl . e8 1 9 1') 5
x 5 2 0 ef m 21 d4 1') cd7 2 2 de
de 23 1') g5 h6 24 1') e4 c5 25 f3 c4
26 . d l a6 27 g4 I') c5
Matulovic- Matanovic, Helsinki
zonal 1 97 2 .
16 . . .
1 7 a2

l;t b7
I') cd7 !

Also satisfactory for equality is 1 7

. . . d 7 ! 1 8 ite3 1') a4! 1 9 c2 c5
Holmov-Filip, Sochi 1 97 3 , but not
1 7 . . . l') e6 18 I') d5 I') x d5 1 9
J;tx d 5 c 6 2 0 b3 J;t ffi 2 1 d 4 e 7
(2 1 . . . e d 2 2 cd c 5 was possibly
better.) 22 d5 1') c7 23 de Ax c6 24
I') h2;t Matanovic-Hecht, Skopje
Olympiad 1 972.
. e8
18 Abl
1 9 d4 c5 20 de I')x e5 2 1 I') x e5 t-t
Ivkov- Padevsky, Zagreb 1 965.

15

10 d4 J}, b7

I e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 i;l b5 a6 4 i;l a4
ffi 5 00 i;l e7 6 . el b5 7 i;l b3 d6 8
c3 00 9 h3 b8
i;lb7(89)
1 0 d4

A
II . .. .

1 2 e6!
The most convincing, though
other continuations are fairly
89
promising for White, e.g. :
W
a) 12 i;l c15 c5 1 3 .A x b7 x b7
1 4 a4 ba (or 1 4 . . . de 1 5 ab t
Zurakhov-Krogius, !-final 26th
USSR Ch, Rostov-on-Don 1 958) 1 5
x a4 c5 1 6 g4 f5 1 7 efA x ffi
1 8 b4 cd7 1 9 bd2 h8 20
Kondratiev-Artsukevich,
e4
Leningrad Ch 1 958, but a better try
When the variations arising from is 1 4 . . . b4 1 5 ed i;lx d6 16 cb
I I c4 (see chapters 9 and 1 0) were c6!?
proving troublesome for Black in b) 1211 c2 c5 1 3 ed (or 13 b4 e6
the late 1 950s the text was suggested 1 4 d3 g6 1 5 A h6 . e8 1 6 bd2
by Barcza with the intention of de 1 7 x e5 x d3 18 A x d3
transposing to chapter I after 1 1 .Affi= Aronin- Padevsky. RSFSR
bd2 bd 7 . However, after Bulgaria 1958) 1 3 . . . x d6 1 4
Benko's experiences in the 1 959 e2 A ffi 1 5 .A e3 bd 7 1 6 bd2
Candidates' the line has been c6 1 7 Af4 b6 with eq uality,
Kotkov-Krogius, ! -final 24th
regarded as unsatisfactory.
USSR Ch, Tbilisi 1 956, but better
I I de!
I I bd2 would result III the was 1 4 d4!t
c) 12 Aft when :
transposition Black is seeking.
Black can now try:
cl ) 12 . . . de 1 3 x d8 A x d8 1 4
A 1 1 . . . x e4
x e 5 c5 1 5 11 c2 c6 1 6 x c6
B I I . . de
i;lx c6 1 7 d2 e6 1 8 A e3 Uusi.

94

10 d4 Ab7

Zilber, i -final 26th USSR Ch,

Rostov-on-Don 1 958, gives White a
slight endgame pull.
c2) Stronger was 12
d5 1 3
4:] bd2 4:] c5 1 4 c2 4:] e6 1 5 g3 c5
1 6 ,," fl t:J c6 with a sharp position.
.

12 . . .

11

90

fe

Or 1 2 . . . f5 1 3 4:] bd2 d5 1 4 4:] fl

i!r d6 1 5 4:] e3 c6 1 6 4:] x f5 ! . x f5 1 7
. x e4 d e 1 8 i!rx d6 X d6 1 9 e7+
wins .
1 3 x e6+ h8
1 4 d5
4:] c5
1 5 .Q.x b7
4:] x b7
1 6 a4
White has a clear advantage.
Gligoric-Benko, Candidates', Bled
-Zagreb-Belgrade 1 959, contin
ued 1 6 . . . ba ( 1 6 . . . b4 1 7 cb 4:] c6
is not possible on account ofl 8 i!rd5
4:] x b4 1 9 i!r x b7 4:] c2 20 . a3.) 1 7
. x a4 4:] c5 1 8 . g4 4:] c6 1 9 4:] a3
.Q. to 20 4:] c4 . e8 2 1 g5 . x e 1+
22 i!rx el i!re7 23 i!r d l . ill 24 i!rd5
i!r d 7 25 .Q.x to . x to?! 26 4:] ce5 ! de
2 7 i!rx c5 i!rdl+ 28 h2 i!r d6 29
i!r x d6 . x d6 30 . a4 a5 31 4:] g5
g8 32 e4 . g6 33 g4 ill 34
g3 e7 35 f3 h6 36 h4 . e6 37 h5
d8? 38 c5 . e8 39 b7+ d7
40 X a5 . a8 41 b4 e6 42 . al
. a7 43 f2 e7 44 e2 d5 45
. a3 ! . a8 46 b5 ! f4+ 47 e3
. d8 48 c4 g2+ 49 f2 . d2+
50 fl e4 5 1 fe e5 52 c5 f4 53
b6 cb 54 cb e3+ 55 . x e3 1 -0 .

1 2 i!rx d8

Otherwise fl is unprotected .
1 3 x e5
x e4 (90)

de
.Q.x d8

1 4 e3
Less promising is 1 4 f4 c5
(not 1.4 . . . g5? 1 5 d2 G5 1 6 e3
e7 1 7 x c5 x c5 1 8 e4 e7
1 9 g3 Bogdanovic-Redolfi,
Varna 1 958) 1 5' d2 c6 16 c2
e6 1 7 .Q. g3 x e5 1 8 .Q.x e5 . e8
1 9 . ad l e7 and Black is holding,
Vasyukov-Borisenko, i-final 24th
USSR Ch, Harkov 1 956 .
14 . . .
to
White has a won ending after 14
e7 1 5 d2 x d2 1 6 A x d2
Ad6 1 7 a4 c6 1 8 x fl! . x fl l 9
ab e7 20 .Q.f4! Jansa- Illetsko,
Czech J unior Ch 1 959.
Another try is 14
c:6 1 5
d5 a5 1 6 A x e4 A x e4 1 7 A c5
. e8 1 8 . x e4 to but White still
retains the initiative .
d7
1 5 g4
1 6 d2
Less accurate is 1 6 x to+
eX to 1 7 a4 d5 1 8 ab ab 1 9 a3
x e3 20 . x e3 c5 2 1 c2 A c6
22 . d l . fe8 23 . del . x e3 24
. x e3 ill 25 . e5 i-i Kotkov

10 d4 i;tb7

Korchnoi, i -final 24th USSR Ch,

Tbilisi 1 956.
4J x d2
16 . . .
1 7 i;tx d2 . fe8 18 i;t f4 . x el + ?

95

( 1 8 . . . c5 was a better chance) 19

. x e l . c8 20 i;t c2 ! g6 2 1 . d l l -0
Keres-Benko, Candidates', Bled
Zagreb-Belgrade 1 959 .

Index of Com p lete Games

Bold indicates that the first named player had White

ADORJAN-Kuzmin 29
AVERBAKfI-Furman 65, Liberzon
11
BALASHOV-Spassky 12
BARCZAY-Fischer 43, Matanovii: 88
BENKO-Fischer 42 , Gligorii: 94,
Keres 95, Olafsson 5
BLACKSTOCK - Maudsley 68, Pen
rose 82
BOGDANOV I C-Hort 39, Lengyel
39, Tringov 53
BOOK-Palmo 67
BOTEZ-Georgescu 5 1
BRADVAREV I C-Sokolov 89
BROWNE- Portisch 83-4, Smejkal 50
BYRN E R- Portisch 44, Reshevsky
41-2, Rukavina 45, Spassky 6, 43,
Unzicker 44
C I O C A L T E A - S i g u rj o nsson
33,
Spassky 17, Tringov 1 7 , U nzicker 13
C IRIC-Matanovii: 34, Parma 2,
Sokolov 74
CORD l NG-Sauermann 44
DELY-Matanovii: 76
DUCKSTE IN- Krogius 62
DU EBALL- Matanovii: 16, 0' Kelly 44
DURAO- Lehmann 74
ENKLAAR-Zuidema 16
F I L I P-Tringov 84
F I SCHER-Barczay 43, Benko 42,
Portisch 68-9, Spassky 26

FORI NTOS-Rolland 76, Tringov 53,

71
FUCHS- Matanovii: 5 4, Tringov 82
FURMAN-Averbakh 65 , Klovan 8,
Razuvayev 1 9
GAPRI NDASHV I L I -Spassky 87-8
GARC IA S-J imenez 58
GELLER-Gligorii: 37, Holmov 59,
Ivkov 37, Karpov 16, Portisch 31,
64, Reshevsky 89
G EORGESCU-Botez 51
G H EORG H I U -Gligorii:
33,
37,
Matulovii: 5 1 , 5 3 , Portisch 61
G H I NDA- Majstorovii: 27
G I PSLIS- Matanovii: 50, Podgayets
22, Portisch 64
GLI GORI C-Benko 94, Geller 3 7 ,
Gheorghiu 33, 3 7 , Hartston 33,
I vkov 36, J ansa 36- 7 , Karpov 1 4 , 89,
Kavalek 34-5, 3 7 , Petrosian 68,
Schmid 35, Spassky 35, Tal 36, Torre
33
GOLDBERGER-Zinser 67
G U FELD- Ivkov 7 3
HARTSTON-Gllgorii: 33, Spassky 23
H ECHT -Matanovii: 90
H ENN INGS- Matanovii: 76, Spassky
24
HOLMOV-Geller 59, Jansa 1 8 ,
Karasev 7 7 , Tringov 5 9 , Vasyukov
27-8
HORT-Bogdanovii: 39, Jansa 39, 65,
Lengyel 61, Pribyl 58-9
HUBNER- Lengyel 62-3

98 Index of Complete Games

IVKOV-Geller 3 7 , Gligorii: 36,
Gufeld 73, Lengyel 77, Matanovii: 5,
80, Padevsky 92, Robatsch 48,
Rotterdam players 36, Smej kal 52,
Stein 52, Tringov 1 4
JACEK- Kretschmar 9
JANSA-Gligorii: 36-7, Holmov 18,
Hort 39, 65 , Kotkov 90
J I MENEZ-S. Garcia 58
KAPENGUT -Tukmakov 51
KAPLAN-Spassky 8
KARAFIATH- Marolleau 59
KARASEV-Holmov 77
KARPOV-Geller 1 6, Gligorii: 14, 89,
Korchnoi 8, Matanovii: 30, Pod
gayets 14, Portisch 14, Spassky
1 7- 1 8 , 89, Stein 49, Tal 22,
Tukmakov 14, 6 1 -2 , 64, U nzicker I I
KAVALEK-Gligorii: 34-5, 77, Por
tisch 28
KER ES-Benko 95, Matanovii: 90,
Reshevsky 14
KLOVAN- Furman 8, Podgayets 7
KORCHNO I- Karpov 8, Kotkov 94-5
KOSTRO- Lengyel 53, Matanovic 54,
Schmidt 7 1
KOTKOV-Jansa 90, Korchnoi 94-5
K R ETSCH MAR-Jacek 9
KROG I U S-Duckstein 62, Spassky 1 0,
Zakharov 40
K U RAJ ICA- Parma 71, U nzicker 81
K U Z M I N-Adorjan 29, Spassky 16-17
LEH MANN-Durao 74
LENGYEL-Bogdanovii: 39, Hort 61 ,
Hubner 62-3 , Ivkov 7 7 , Kostro 53,
Matulovii: 48, 92, Suetin 2 1 , Tringov
51
L I BERZON-Averbakh 1 1 , Pietzsch
67, Portisch 10
L:J UBQJ EVIC-Portisch 17.. 49-50
MAEDER- Matanovii: 52
MAJSTOROVIC-Ghinda 27
MAROLLEAU- Karafiath 59
MART I N EZ-Spassky 7

MAS I C- Parma 23
MATANOV I C -Barczay 88, Cirii: 34,
Dely 76, Dueball 1 6, Fuchs 54,
Gipslis 50, Hecht 90, Hennings 76,
Ivkov 5, 80, Karpov 30, Keres 90,
Kostro 54, Maeder 52, Matulovii: 5 1 ,
53-4, 92, O' Kelly 76
MATERA-Shapiro 26
MATULOVI C -Gheorghiu 51, 53,
Lengyel 48, 92, Matanovii: 51, 53-4,
92, Robatsch 82, U nzicker 84
MAUDSLEY-Blackstock 68
M E C K I NG- Reshevsky 29-30
M I L IC-Petrosian 72
MOLES-Seslija 86
M U K H I N-Savon 25
N I CEVS K I - Parma 80-81
N I KO L I C-Z uckerman 44
O' KELLY-Dueball 44, Matanovii: 76,
Parma 80, Shamkovich 83
OLAFSSON-Benko 5
OSTQ J I C-Smejkal 52
PAD EVSKY- Ivkov 92, Unzicker 78
PAL MO-Book 67
PAR MA-Cirii: 2, Kuraj ica 7 1 , Masii:
23, N icevski 80-8 1 , O' Kelly 80,
Peretz 41 , Radulov 91, Robatsch 77,
Sigurj onsson
52,
Spassky
89,
Velimirovii: 50
PENROSE-Blackstock 82
PERETZ- Parma 41
PETROSI AN-Gligorii: 68, Milii: 72,
Portisch 86
PI ETZSCH- Liberzon 67
PLANI NC-Spassky 25
PODGAYETS-Gipslis 22, Karpov 1 4,
Klovan 7
PORTISCH-Browne 83-4, R. Byrne
44, Fischer 68-9, Geller 3 1 , 64,
Gheorghiu 6 1 , Gipslis 64, Karpov 1 4,
Kavalek 28., Liberzon 1 0, Lj ubojevii:
1 7 , 49-50, Petrosian 86, Robatsch 1 4-,
Smejkal 87, Unzicker 1 2 , Westerinen
86
PR IBYL-Hort 58-9

Index of CompLete Games 99

RADULOV-Parma 9 1
RAISA-Unzicker 5
RAZUVAYEV-Furman 19, Smej kal
29, Suetin 34
R ESHEVSKY- R . Byrne 41 -2, Geller
89, Keres 1 4, Mecking 29-30
ROBATSCH- I vkov 48, Matulovii: 82,
Parma 7 7 , Portisch 14
ROLLAND-Forintos 76
RUBINETTI-Zuidema 10
RU KAVINA- R . Byrne 45
SAU ERMANN-Cording f4
SAVON-Mukhin 25, Vogt 25
SCH M I D-Gligorii: 35, Spassky 80
SCH M I DT- Kostro 71
SESLIJA- Moles 86
SHAMKOV ICH-O' Kelly 83
SHAPI RO-Matera 26
S I G U RJ O N S S O N - Ciocaltea
33,
Parma 52, U nzicker 52
SMEJ KAL-Browne 50, Ivkov 52,
Ostojii: 52, Portisch 87, Razuvayev
29, Unzicker 64, Vasyukov 26,
Westerinen 86
SOKOLOV-Bradvarevii: 89 , Cirii: 74
SPASSKY-Balashov 1 2 , R. Byrne 6,
43, Ciocaltea 1 7 , Fischer 26,
Gaprindashvili 87-8, Gligorii: 35,
Hartston 23, Hennings 24, Kaplan 8,
Karpov 17-18, 89, Krogius 10,
Kuzmin 1 6- 1 7 , Martinez 7 , Parma
89, Planinc 25, Schmid 80, Unzicker
9- 10, 12, Westerinen 7, Yanofsky 1 0

STE I N- Ivkov 52, Karpov 49, Tal 52

S U ETIN-Lengyel 21, Razuvayev 34
T AL-Gligorii: 36, Karpov 22, Stein 52,
Tukmakov 30, 87, Unzicker 7 , 66
TORRE-Gligorii: 33
T R I NGOV-Bogdanovii: 53, Ciocaltea
17, Filip Sf, Forintos 53, 71, Fuchs
82, Holmov 59, Ivkov If, Lengyel 51
TUK MAKOV- Kapengut 57, Karpov
1 4, 61-2, Tal 30, 8 7 , Vasyukov 27
U N Z I CKER- R . Byrne 44, Ciocaltea
1 3 , Karpov 1 1 , Kuraj ica 8 1 ,
Matulovii: 84, Padevsky 78, Portisch
12, Raisa 5, Sigurjonsson 52, Smejkal
if, Spassky 9- 1 0, 1 2 , Tal 7, 66
VASYU KOV- Holmov 27-8, Smejkal
26, Tukmakov 27
VELI M I ROV I C- Parma 50
VOGT-Savon 25
WESTERINEN-Portisch 86, Smejkal
86, Spassky 7
YANOFSKY-Spassky 10
ZAKHAROV- Krogius 40
Z I NSER-Goldberger 67
ZUCKERMAN-Nikolii: 44
Z U I DEMA-Enklaar 1 6, Rubinetti 1 0

Index of Variations

1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 A a4
f6 5 00 A e7 6 .. el b5 7 Ab3 d6 8
c3 00 9 h3 b8

10 cH

1 0 a4 9 1
1 0 d 3 bd7 ( 1 0 . . . c S 70-72) 1 1
bd2 Ab7 ( 1 1 . . . as 72- 74, 1 1 . . .
cS, 1 1 . . . c5 , 1 1 . . . c6, 1 1 . . . g6
72) 1 2 f1 ( 1 2 A c2 74) 1 2 . . . c5
( 1 2 . . . cS 75, 1 2 . . . .. e8, 1 2 . . . h6
74) 1 3 Ac2 .. e8 ( 1 3 . . . e6 75) 1 4
g3 ( 1 4 e3 75-76, 1 4 3h2
76- 7 7 ) 14 . . . A m ( 1 4 . . . g6? !
7 7-78) :
l S- b4 85-90
1 5 f5 78-79
15 Ag5 78
15 h2 80-84
10
bd7
1 0 . . . Ab7 93-95
11 bd2
1 1 c4 c6 ( 1 1 . . . b4 55-56, 1 1 . . .
Ab7 57-59, 1 1 . . . cS 59, 1 1 . . . ed?
55) 1 2 cS ( 1 2 a3 62-63, 1 2 a4 61 , 1 2
cb 63-65, 1 2 c2 60-61 , 1 2 c3
63, 1 2 bd2 60, 1 2 e2 60, 1 2 Ag5
61 -62) 1 2 . . . c7 ( 1 2 . . . Ab7 , 1 2
. . . de 65) 1 3 cd A x d6 65-69
1 1 Ag5 Ab7 1 2 bd2 47-54
1 1 -h4 38-46
.

11
12 A d

1 2 a4 1

A b7

12
.. ea
1 2 . . . cS 1 3 f1 ( 1 3 a4 32, 1 3 b3
33-35, 1 3 d5 32-33) 1 3 . . . . e8 ( 1 3
. . . cd, 1 3 . . . g6 35) 1 4 g3 ( 1 4 d5
35) 14 . . . Am ( 1 4 . . . g6 35) 15 d5
( 1 5 b3 35) 15 . . . g6 ( I S . . . c4
35-36) 16 b3 36-3 7 ; 1 6 Ag5 37
13 n
1 3 a3 2
1 3 a4 1 -2
1 3 b3 2-3
1 3 b4 Am ( 1 3 . . . a5 , 1 3 . . . c5, 1 3
. . . ed, 1 3 . . . d5? 20) 1 4 a4 ( I 4 Ab2
20-23) 1 4 . . . a5 ( 1 4 . . . b6
24-2 7 , 1 4 . . . c5 24, 14 . . . d5
27-28) 1 5 ba ( 1 5 ab 28, IS d5 29) 1 5
. . . .. x a5 1 6 .. b l 29-31
13 c4 2
13
Am
14 g3
1 4 de 3
14
g6
.

15 a4

15
15
15
15

b3 5-7
Ab3 4-5
itd2 1 0- 1 2
d5? ! 4

102

15
15
15
15

Index of Variations

de 5
.Q.g5 7 - 1 0
2) h2 4
h4 5
15 . . .

1 5 . . . .Q.g7 1 3
16 d5
1 6 b3 1 4

1 6 b4? ! 1 4
1 6 .Q.e3 1 4
1 6 d e 1 3- 1 4
16 . .
cS

et

1 6 . . . 2)b6 1 4
1 7 .Q. e3 1 8- 1 9
1 7 .Q.g5 1 5- 1 8

The B1T\Tr System. aner

q ej 2 '\f3 \Tc6 3

B:\TSFORD CHESS BOOKS

Bbja6-t Ba-t'\fU 50-0 Bq 6Rel bj 7 Bb3d68

c3 0-0 9 h3 '\b8, is a farnurite of l\\'O world

OTllF.R BOOKS I'.\" FHil .Rl:'\E AU;EBRAIC :'\OTATIO'.\"

champions, Karpm and Spassb, !Or coping

Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings

"ith

the

rSpanish I

strong.
opening.

popular
This

Rll\

Lupez

rnlume

or the

Specialist C:hrss Oprnings series prcsrnts a

detailed picture or the

USC

or the opening in

current tournament practice. Full games arc

included in the text.
The

uniH'rsalh

accepted

figurine

al

gebraic notation is used throughout the hook.

L. S. Blackstock. imernationalk Elo-rated
at 23t
- 5 \\'as openings achiser

10

England's

C: I et e6 and I et es
edited bY A. :\latano\ic
ro11lrib11ion: Rarr;;a. R. R_11w. (;ip1li.1. (;lzi:orit. Hori.
hknl'. Ai,r1'.1. Aiirrh11ni. l.r11:1r11.. l!t1it111mir. Pnr111a.
l'nl11gr!l't'l'.1kr. Robar.

Tai. l 'h/11101111. l '11;;irka

Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings

et= 1 . . c5, 1 . . Nc6,

I . . . g6, I . . d6, I . . c6
edited IJ\'. \. :\ latarnwic

B: 1

. . .

Nf6,

to11lrih11tnr.1: Bntri1111ik. /:'m1e. Filip. (;t'flrr. (;1/"li.1.

llorl. Ai'rt'I. Ai11d11111i. Lanni.. \laim1111'ir.1'111ma.

1972 Olrn1piad team. He has published two

Polnp/l_l'Pi'\l'. Sul'lin. 'Tnl. Toimnnor. TrUimorir.

prC\ ious works on the Brc\Tr.

Bat. lord's Specialist Chess Openings series

The Batsford Chess Yearbook

has as ad,ison editor the former British and

:\le"

Zealand

champion.

I ntt"rnatiunal

:\laster R. G. \\'ade. ,,ho helped brierRohen

Fischer for his 1971 and IC)/2 matches.
1 1'2

pages

!)O diagrams

I :i;ri111!l'ic. {

'h/111n1111. I 'e/i111irotic

7 /i,, b1.1/ of dlt'.11 in '.'JN

l'dit('d b, KcYin . J . oc.:onndl
The Complete Gantes of World
Champion Anatoly Karpov

Kc,in.J. oc:o1111cll. l);"id

.Jimmy .\darns
SPE<:J.\l .IST

Lt''"'

:111-.ss ( lPE'.'\J'\( ;s

Sl'ri<,editl'd IJ\ R.

(;, \\';idl'

./orlhmmin.t!, tiff,,:
The Sicilian Najdorf
.\lid1;id

St"""

The Nimzowitsch-Larsen Opening

I iJ:J
R'" 111011d Kt 1 111

King's Indian Defence: Siiin.isch

J .. S. Bl;icbt11tk

..\ R.\TSFORD CHESS BOOK