Angus Dunnington

The Chigorin
'
Queen s Gambit
The Chigorin Queen's Gambit

Angus Dunnington

B. T. Batsford Ltd, London

First published 1996
© Angus Dunnington

ISBN 0 7 1 34 8020 3

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

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

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be

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

Typeset by Petra Nunn

and printed in Great Britain by
Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wilts
for the publishers,
B. T. Batsford Ltd,
583 Fulham Road,
London SW6 5BY

This book is dedicated to my parents-in-law, Helene and Simon.

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

Editorial Panel: Mark Dvoretsky, Jon Speelman
General Adviser: Raymond Keene OBE
Specialist Adviser: Dr John Nunn
Contents

Symbols 4
Introduction 5

1 3l2Jf3 �g4 4l2Jc3 and 4 'ifa4 15

2 3l2Jf3 �g4 4 cxd5 �xf3 5 gxf3 44
3 3l2Jf3 �g4 4 cxd5 �xf3 5 dxc6 60
4 3l2Jf3 e5!? 73
5 3l2Jc3 dxc4 4l2Jf3l2Jf6 82
6 3l2Jc3 dxc4 4 d5 and 4 e3 104
7 3ltJc3ltJf6 and 3...e5 121
8 3 cxd5 131
9 3 Others and 1 d4 d5 2l2Jf3l2Jc6 153

Index of Variations 159

Symbols

+ Check
++ Double Check
# Mate
Good move
!! Excellent move
? Bad move
?? Blunder
!? Interesting move
?! Dubious move
1 -0 White wins
0- 1 Black wins
1h-1h Draw
Ch Championship
tt Team tournament
OL Olympiad
z Zonal
IZ Interzonal
Ct Candidates tournament
jr Junior event
worn Women's event
rpd Rapid game
corr. Postal game
(n) nth match game
(D) Diagram follows
Introduction
l d4 dS 2 c4 lLlc6
Mikhail lvanovich Chigorin (1850-
1 908) was an amazing chess talent.
Despite taking up the game at an age
when most players destined for
greatness are already at least experts
- he was over twenty - he became
one of the strongest players in St Pe­
tersburg after only a few years.
He contributed a great deal to the
development of modern opening the­
ory, ranging from the uncompromis­
ing defence which is the subject of
this book to a major variation of the
Ruy Lopez. Moreover, many of his
ideas in the Old Indian have been
taken on board by King's Indian
theoreticians.
One of the reasons why the Chi­
gorin Defence failed to attract a large
number of strong followers during
its early years - despite its inventor's
victories with it over the likes of
Steinitz and Lasker - is that it broke
certain 'rules', and this did not im­
press those who approached the game
according to Tarrasch's principles.
Modern chess is completely dif­
ferent in that we start a game armed
with knowledge which has been har­
vested from the experiments and ex­
periences of a century of top players.
We know now that the boundaries of
positional 'rights' and 'wrongs' are
no longer easy to clarify. The correct
'general' plan in one position may
make no sense in an ostensibly simi­
lar situation. Knights, for example,
often combine better with other
pieces in open positions, but we are
told they operate best in cramped cir­
cumstances.
Thanks to a combination of the
cut-and-thrust of international com­
petition and the easy availability of
games and theoretical information,
professionals have begun to seek
little-explored openings and de­
fences. This has entailed delving into
the past in search for the openings of
the future and, as many old assess­
ments are of dubious accuracy, he
who personally investigates and dis­
covers these mistakes has a useful
start on the rest of us.
The Chigorin Defence is a fine ex­
ample of a 'new-look' opening. Led
by top GM Alexander Morozevich,
one of Russia's new talents, a grow­
ing band of busy professionals has
6 Introduction
succeeded in revitalising this rich de­
fence.
I do not apologise for the fact that
Morozevich features heavily in this
book, whereas there are very few ex­
amples from Chigorin himself. The
rising star has made a mammoth
contribution to chess theory, putting
the Chigorin well and truly back on
the map as a perfectly viable weapon
against 1 d4. His excellent results
against a host of GMs around the
2600-mark are a testament to both
his penetrating preparation and the
defence's soundness.
Now we will have a brief look at
some of the more relevant positional
and tactical aspects of the Chigorin.
Black has good
knight(s)
The above position arose in Tjiarn­
Finegold, Groningen 1 99 1 , after the
moves 1 d4 d5 2 c4 tbc6 3 tLlf3 �g4
4 cxd5 �xf3 5 gxf3 'ili'xd5 6 e3 e5 7
tbc3 �b4 8 �d2 �xc3 9 bxc3 exd4
10 cxd4 tLlge7 1 1 �e2 0-0-0 1 2 'ili'b3
.l:.he8 1 3 0-0-0 f5 14 �c3 �b8 15
llhe l .
We have a classic situation of two
bishops vs two knights. All other
factors being equal, bishops are usu­
ally preferable to knights as they are
long-range pieces. Here, however,
certain positional factors are by no
means equal. White has three pawn
islands and his damaged central
pawn mass is almost immobilised,
which in turn severely restricts the
freedom of the bishops. Black, on
the other hand, has two 'clean' pawn
groups, control of the d5-square -
which can be used as an effective
outpost for a knight - and consider­
able influence on the central files.
Play continued: 15 . . .'ili'xb3 16
axb3 tLld5 1 7 �b2 .l:.d6 (of course
Black is not prepared to trade his all­
seeing, blockading knight for the
embarrassing c3-bishop, which is
often a problem piece for White in
the Chigorin). After some planless,
almost teasing manoeuvring (which
saw Black's rook come to h3 before
returning to the queenside !), Fine­
gold went on the offensive to reach
the following position (D).
Now it is OK for Black to ex­
change one of his knights: 27 �xd5
 Introduction 7

(forced) 27 ... lbxd5, and after a trade

of rooks White eventually managed
( ul last) to force the advance of his e­
pawn (D).

The following pos1t1on comes

from another Finegold game, this
time as Black against Krudde in
Groningen 1992.

As long as Black refrains from

laking on e4 he is effectively a pawn
up - White does have a kingside
pawn majority but the f2-pawn plays
no part in the game, and his centre
pawns can be comfortably block­
udcd. Meanwhile, Black's menacing
qucenside majority should create a
passed pawn. Consequently Black
.�imply ignored the enemy pawns
and concentrated on the progression
of his own: 36 . . . lbd7 ! 37 .l:tc l .l:td8
IH �g5 .l:ta8 39 .l:tal c5 40 �e3 .l:td8
,11 �e2 cxd4 42 �xd4 l:tc8 43 o;!;>e3
l,i)f8! 44 .l:tel lbe6 45 �f6 lbc5 46 e5
li)c6! (D).
With the bishop entombed and the
e)-pawn blockaded (indeed, White
has come to a complete standstill
on the kingside), the final, decisive
phase of the game is easy. 47 .l:td l
l:tc3+ 48 l:td3 a4 49 bxa4+ o;!;>c4 50
l:txc3+ bxc3 5 1 !i..e7 o;!;>b3 52 a5 c2
:)3 '>Pd2 lbd4 54 a6 �b2 55 �a3+
<J.lxa3 56 a7 �b2 0-1 . Notice how busy
Black's knight was in the ending.
White had not bothered to defend
his c4-pawn, opting instead to try
to profit from the opening of the g­
file that resulted from ... �g4xlbf3,
g2xf3. Clearly Black dominates the
light squares, and his queen is doing
a good job of keeping the bishop
closed out while at the same time oc­
cupying a nice central post. The
knight is well-placed, too, and Black
threatens simply . . . c7-c6 followed
by . . .b7-b5-b4, etc. Hence White's
second pawn sacrifice, daring Black
to open another line to his king: 2 1
'ii'g2 'ii'xh5 22 l::th l exf3+ 2 3 lhf3
8 Introduction
'ii'd 5 24 l:.g3 �h8 25 �d2? (White
was getting nowhere, anyway, with
nothing to show for the two-pawn
deficit) 25 ...tDf2 ! (D).
w
White is about to lose an ex­
change and the game.
Black dominates the
light squares
Control of the light squares by Black
is a recurrent theme in the Chigorin.
Here the great man himself gives us
a lesson in how to make the most of
the light squares, restraining the en­
emy pawns and securing a fine out­
post on d5 for a knight. It is almost as
if Chigorin was out to prove the effi­
cacy of his uncompromising inven­
tion, endeavouring to produce a
classic 'how to play' example.
Teichmann - Chigorin
Cambridge Springs I 904
1 d4 d5 2 c4 tDc6 3 tl')f3 ..tg4 4 cxd5
..txf3 5 dxc6 ..txc6 6 tDc3 e6 (6...tDf6
is also possible) 7 ..tf4?! (7 e4) 7 ...tDf6
8 e3 ..tb4 9 'ii'b3 tDd5 10 ..tg3 0-0 1 1
..td3 'ii'g5 ! 1 2 'ii'c2 ( 12 0-0 allows
12 . . ...txc3 13 bxc3 tDxe3 ! , etc.)
1 2 ... f5 ! 13 ..te5 .l:.f7 14 0-0-0 ..txc3
15 bxc3 b5 ! (D).
w
What can White do about the oc­
topus of a knight? Answer: nothing !
White does have considerable in­
fluence on the dark squares and his
bishop is sitting pretty on e5, but
Black overcomes this minor incon­
venience by simply operating on
the light squares, which are almost
entirely in his possession. Notice
how the f5-pawn not only prevents
White from chasing the knight away
with e3-e4 (the queen will not al­
ways be pinning the e3-pawn), but
also closes the b l -h7 diagonal, se­
verely restricting the scope ofWhite's
other bishop. Meanwhile the b5-
pawn controls the c4-square, but it is
ready to advance to b4 if and when
Black manages to infiltrate White's
rather airy queenside. The game con­
tinued: 16l:.hgl 'ii'e7 ! 17l:.dfl 'ii'a3+
18 �d2 b4 ! 19 c4 ..ta4 20 'ii'b l tDc3
(watch this knight) 21 'ii'a l l:.d8 ! 22
g3 tDe4+ 23 �e2 (after 23 ..txe4
fxe4 White is unable to defend d3, c3
and the f2-pawn simultaneously)
23 ... tDc5 24 'ii'b 1 (24 dxc5 'ii'x d3+

.''i Wf3 .tc6+) 24 . . . lLlxd3 25 'fi'xd3
�xa2+ 26 'it>f3 .tc2! (D).
White resigned. The Chigorin
made easy !
Black dominates the
dark squares
Some lines require Black to con­
rl'ntrate on dark-square control.
II
Black's build-up of pressure on
1 he kingside has resulted in a won­
derful, decisive bind on the dark
squares. The game Kordts-Radeker,
lluru.Jesliga 1 989/90, went 1 8 . . J:te5
(I hrcatening 1 9 ....l:th5) 19 lLlxf4 (or
I'J 'fixf4 .l:tg5 ) 1 9 ... lLlxg2 20 'ili'xg2
l:.g5 2 1 'ili'c2 (2 1 'ii'd2 .txf4 22 'ili'xf4
Introduction 9
.l:tg l +) 2 l . . ..txf4 22 .l:te2 .th3 23
.l:tgl .l:txg1+ 24 'it>xgl b5 ! (White has
a strategically lost position) 25 .td3
'ili'h5 26 'ili'd l b4 27 l2'lbl 'ili'xf3 0- 1 .
White's immobile
pawn complex
After the opening moves 1 d4 d5 2
c4 l2'lc6 3 l2'lf3 .tg4 4 cxd5 .txf3 5
gxf3 'ili'xd5 6 e3 Black has chosen to
steer the game towards a queenless
middlegame with 6 . . . e6, and then
met 7 lLlc3 with 7 . . .'ili'h5. White will
be practically forced to trade queens
sooner or later by pushing the f3-
pawn (otherwise White will have dif­
ficulty completing development, and
the black queen will create problems
on the kingside). Dumitrache-Ata­
lik, Bucharest 1995, is typical of this
variation: 8 .td2 0-0-0 9 f4 'fi'xdl +
10 .l:txd l l2'lf6 1 1 .tg2l2'le7 ! (Black's
knights play leading roles, as they do
in many lines of the Chigorin) 12 .:tel
'it>b8 13 'it>e2l2'lf5 14 .l:thdl h6 ! (D).
A brief study of the diagram posi­
tion reveals an important difference
between the two respective pawn for­
mations. Once again White has three
10 Introduction
pawn islands (compared with Black's
two), but more significant is the fact
that White has no realistic opportu­
nity to create a pawn break. If we
concentrate on the f2-e3-f4-d4 com­
plex, it looks quite impressive at first
glance. On closer inspection, how­
ever, we notice that the f4-pawn is
blockaded, and even if White did
want to push the e3-pawn (which
does not look like a good idea) this is
not possible because it is protecting
the d4-pawn, which in turn cannot
advance ! As for Black, he has two
possible breaks: the desirable . . . g7-
g5 and the less likely ... c7-c5. The
former is one of the key ideas upon
which the 6...e6, 7 . . .'fr'h5 variation is
based, giving the game a completely
different character to the more com­
plicated line that begins with 6...e5.
There is little for White to do but
wait: 1 5 'itfl i...e7 16 lbe2 g5 17
i...a5 l:td7 1 8 i...h 1 lLJd6 19 l:tc2 c6 20
l:tcc l lLJd5 (Black is making pro­
gress) 2 1 i...g2 f5 22 fxg5 hxg5 23 h3
l:tf8 24lDgl g4 25 lbe2 i...g5 26 i...d2
lbe4 27 lbc3 lbxd2+ 28 lhd2 f4 29
lbxd5 exd5 30 hxg4 f3 (D).
3 1 i...xf3 (3 1 i...h l l:th7 32 'it>g l
l:.h3) 3 1 ...l:txf3 32 'itg2 l:tf8 and Black
had superb winning chances, though
he somehow lost in the end.
Attacking White's king
This is one of the aspects of the
Chi gorin that attracts many players.
For one reason or other White is
often too busy attending to other
matters to find a safe haven for his
king, resulting in a ready-made tar­
get upon which Black can focus his
attention. Obviously White hopes
to generate sufficient initiative (or
distraction) to prevent his opponent
from launching an offensive, but this
is not always a realistic approach and
Black's prospects of attacking the
king are better in this opening than
they are in many others.
In the next diagram Black has
two knights, White has two bishops.
Black's king enjoys the safety of
having castled, White's king does
not! Notice also that leaving the king
in the centre hinders White's devel­
opment. In H.Olafsson-Hjartarson,
Reykjavik TV rpd 1995, Black acted
in the centre to break down the en­
emy king's rather flimsy defensive
cover: 17 ...c5 ! 1 8 l:tc l cxd4 19
 Introduction 11

i.xd4 l:txd4 !? 20 exd4 'ii'xf4 2 1 :c4 should come as no surprise because

lim 22 'iti>g2l'Llg6 23 .txg6 fxg6 (D). Black's castled position has no sig­
nificant weaknesses. Now attention
turns to the white king, stranded in
the centre since there is nowhere else
to go. At the moment the king seems
reasonably secure on the d-file, but
Black is now ready to prise open the
centre. In fact Black is virtually win­
ning. 24 ... c5 ! (putting the question to
the d4-pawn, which cannot be suffi­
ciently protected) 25 dxc5 bxc5 26
c4 l'Llec6 27 f4 l:tfd7 28 l:tg3 l'Llb3 !
(D).
In the initial diagram White may
have been concerned about the po­
lential weakness of his king; now
he knows his king is the problem.
B lack's exchange sacrifice has left
him with an advantage. His pieces
continue to work well together and
I he knight is worth at least as much
as a rook. White had no choice but to

return the exchange, thus going into

a lost ending.

The following position was seen Notice the harmony of Black's

in Douven-Osterman, Mitropa Cup forces compared with the complete
1993. disarray within the white camp (par­
White's attack down the g-file has ticularly the contrasting roles of the
b een comfortably rebuffed, which rooks). The game ended 29 l:tb2 (29
12 Introduction

.:.xb3 o!Dd4) 29... o!Dxd2 30 l:1xd2 o!Dd4

3 1 1i'fl 'ii'a 6! 32 'it>e1 1i'a5 and White
resigned. Again White pays the ulti­
mate price for underestimating the
Icing's vulnerability.

Even when White does castle there

is no guarantee that the king will not
come under attack, as the following
example illustrates.

Houshan - Wittmann king. Consequently Black seeks to

Lucerne OL 1982 undermine his opponent's king side:
22 ... h5 ! 23 .:.c 1 l:.d7 24 .l:.f2 h4 25 g4
f6 ! 26 exf6 gxf6 27 �fl e5 28 �d3
w e4 29 fxe4 �xe4 30 �xe4 1i'xe4 (D).

Black's bishop has just retreated

from b4 to c5, and the struggle now
revolves around the pressure on the
white centre:
1 2 .!De2 �b6 1 3 .!Df4 'ii'a5 + 14
�d2 'iVb5 15 �c3 .!Df6 16 a4 'ii'g5 17
e5 (White would probably prefer to
avoid this move, but 1 7 0-0? allows
17 . . .e5 !, and 17 a5 invites 17 ...�xd4
1 8 �xd4 e5) 17 ...o!Dd5 18 .!Dxd5 �xd5
1 9 �d2 ( 1 9 a5? 1i'e3+) 1 9 ...1i'g6 20
�e3 a6 2 1 a5 �a7 22 0-0 (D).
White has finally succeeded in
castling, but only after going to some
trouble. The price has been consider­
able - Black has two raking bishops
which are both pointing at the white
White's kingside has changed
for the worse, and his d-pawn's days
are numbered. The game ended: 3 1
'ii'f3 .l:.e8 3 2 .:.c3 �xd4 3 3 �xd4
1i'xd4 34 h3 l:.e 1 + 35 'it>g2 l:tb1 36
l:tb3 c6 37 1i'xf6 'ii'd 1 38 'ii'f 8+ .:.d8
39 'ii'f5+ �b8 40.l:.fl 'ii'xb3 4 1 l:txb1
.l:.d2+ 42 'iii>f l "itxh3+ 43 �e1 "ii'e3+
44 �fl "ii'e2+ 0- 1 .
O f course, s o far w e have looked
at a few examples which illustrate
some of the things that Black should
be looking out for. As a warning,

here are a couple of situations Chi-
�orin players would do well to avoid.
Exchanging
prematurely on f3
This position, from Fedorowicz­
Baumhus, Bundesliga 1 988/9, high­
lights one of the dangers of playing
... ..ig4xttlf3 automatically. It is true
that this (usually effective) exchange
is an important part of Chigorin the­
ory, but it does not necessarily fol­
low that as soon as White brings his
knight out to f3 we should rush our
hi shop over to g4 in order to damage
his pawn structure as quickly as pos­
sible. If, after the exchange, White
develops quickly and actively while
Black is lagging behind, then some­
thing has gone awfully wrong and
the exchange was badly timed, as.
was the case for the unfortunate
Baumhus in the above position.
Most players would castle here, but
the ever-alert Fedorowicz found the
crushing 14 d6!, after which Black
was unable to survive the might of
White's army: 14 ... 'i!Vxd6 15 l:td 1 'i!Ve6
16 ..ic4 'i!Ve7 1 7 ttld5 'i!Vd8 1 8 i.g5 f6
Introduction 13
19 i.xf6 b5 20 i.xb5 axb5 21 'ii'e4+
1 -0. A demolition for which Black
must take some of the credit.
And now a miniature which is re­
peated over and over by Chigorin
fans, much to the delight of their op­
ponents!
Tukmakov - Vincent
Lugano 1986
1 d4 d5 2 c4 ttlc6 3 ttlc3 dxc4 4 ttlf3
i.g4 ?! (4 ...ttlf6 is far better than this
surprisingly common inaccuracy) 5
d5 i.xf3 6 exf3 ttle5 7 i.f4 ttlg6 8
i.xc4 (D).
8
I have seen this position too many
times. Expecting the f4-bishop to re­
treat, Black watches in disbelief as
White simply furthers his develop­
ment with the capture of the c4-
pawn. Each game ends in defeat for
Black, and our example is no excep­
tion: 8 . . . ttlf6 (8 . . . ttlxf41oses imme­
diately to 9 i.b5+) 9 i.g3 a6 1 0 0-0
b5 1 1 ttlxb5 ! axb5 1 2 i.xb5+ ttld7
1 3 l:tc 1 l:ta7 14 'i!Vd4 'i!Vb8 (D).
15 'i!Vxa7 ! 'i!Vxa7 16 l:txc7 'i!Vxc7
17 i.xc7 ttlh4 1 8 l:tc 1 ttlf5 19 i.b6.
14 Introduction
Not a good advert for the Chigorin -
1-0.
Beware open lines!
The next position is from the game
Wells-Shannon, Hastings 1988 -
Black has just played 1 3 ...1i'e6. Gen­
erally Black has little to worry about
when White brings a rook to the g­
file in this kind of position. However,
Black must always be careful not to
let White advantageously open lines
for his long-range pieces. Here Wells
played the winning 14 d5 ! lt'lxd5 15
i.xd5 'ii'xd5 16 l:f.xg7+!. White's re­
maining bishop is about to spring to
life: 16 . . .'it>f8 ( 1 6 . . .'�xg7 1 7 .i.c3+)
17 ..tc3 1i'c4 18 'ii'b3 1i'xf4 19 1i'a3+
'ii'd6 20 'ii'xd6+ cxd6 2 1 .i.f6 lt'le5
22 l:f.xh7 and White is far too active,
and went on to win in short order.
1 3l2Jf3 �g4 4l2Jc3 and 4 i¥a4
4 ll'lc3 is a logical move. White in­
tends to develop his pieces, aiming
to prove that he stands better because
the c6-knight blocks the c-pawn and
is therefore misplaced. Black should
follow White's example and bring his
pieces out, too, starting with 4 e6!. .•.
Games 1-5 deal with different ideas
for both sides after this sensible
move. On the other hand 4 .i.xf3? !
•••
is premature, as it may help White
become rapidly active. At best Black
is struggling (Game 6); at worst he is
almost losing (Game 7).
4 '6'a4 (Game 8) is also intended
to 'punish' Black's second move, but
this rather na"ive approach is too am­
bitious.
4 4.Jc3 e6!
Game 1
Hulak - Muse
Vinkovci 1993
1 d4 dS
2 c4 tt:lc6
3 ti::lf3 .i.g4
4 ti::lc3
4 e3 is rather insipid, voluntarily
blocking in the queen's bishop. Black
must then choose how far to push his
e-pawn:
a) 4 e6 is safe and accurate. Pills­
.•.
bury-Chigorin, St Petersburg 1 895 ,
continued 5 tt:lc3 (5 ti::lbd2 ti::lf6 6 .i.e2
.i.d6 7 0-0 0-0 followed by ... e6-e5 is
fine for Black) 5 ....i.b4 6 'ii'b3 .i.xf3
7 gxf3 tt:lge7 8 .i.d2 0-0 9 f4 (ruling
out ... e6-e5) 9 . . ..l:r.b8 10 0-0-0 dxc4
1 1 .i.xc4 b5 (D).
w
12 .i.d3 ( 1 2 tt:lxb5? .i.xd2+ 1 3
.l:r.xd2 a6, or 12 .i.xb5? .i.xc3 1 3 .i.xc3
a6) 12 ....i.xc3 13 'iixc3 .l:r.b6 14 'it>b1
aS 15 .l:r.hg 1 ti::lb4 16 .i.e4 ti::led5 17
'ii'c5 'ii'a8 ! ? (threatening 1 8 . . . tt:lc3+)
18 .i.xb4 axb4 19 .i.xd5 exd5 20
'ii'xb4 l:r.a6! (Black has adequate
counterplay for the pawn) 2 1 "ifb3
(2 1 a3 .l:r.a4) 2 1 ....l:r.b8 22 .l:r.g5 c6 23
.l:r.dg1 g6 24 f5 b4 25 fxg6 hxg6!
(25 . . . fxg6 26 'ii'd 3 .l:r.xa2 27 .l:r.xg6+
'it>h8 28 'ii'f5 l:r.a1 + 29 'it>c2 b3+ 30
'it>d2 'ii'a5+ 3 1 'it>e2 'ii'a6+ 32 'iii>f3)
26 'ii'd 3 ! �f8 ! 27 .l:txg6 ! (going for
the draw, as White appreciates that
his own king is under pressure)
27 . . ..l:r.xa2 28 l:tg8+ 'it>e7 29 l:txb8
'ii'a4 ! 30 l:r.b7+ �e6 3 1 �c 1 ! (3 1
l:tg6+? f6) 3 1 . .J:ta1 + 32 �d2 l:txg1
16 3 0.j3 i..g4 4 0.c3 and 4 fia4
33 fic2 ! 'il'xc2+ 34 'i1txc2 l:tg2 35
l:.xb4 l:.xh2 36 l:.b7 l:.xf2+ with an
eventual draw.
b) More interesting, but without
doubt very risky, is 4 e5, which
•.•
gives the game a completely differ­
ent character and seems to justify
White's 4th move. In the l Oth game
of the Steinitz-Chigorin world cham­
pionship match in Havana 1 889, the
champion came up with 5 'il'b3 !, be­
ing clearly better after 5 . . . i.xf3 6
gxf3 (6 'il'xb7?? 0.b4) 6 exd4?! 7
•••
cxd5 0.e5 (7 ...0.b4 8 e4) 8 exd4 0.d7
9 0.c3 'il'e7 + 10 i.e3 'il'b4 1 1 'il'c2
0.gf6 1 2 i.b5 ! l:.d8 1 3 0-0-0. Later,
in the 14th game, Chigorin improved
with 6 0.ge7! 7 0.c3 ! (7 'il'xb7 l:.b8
•••
8 'il'a6 exd4, and 7 cxd5 'il'xd5 8
'il'xd5 0.xd5 9 dxe5 0.db4 ! both fa­
vour Black - Watson) 7 . . . exd4 8
0.xd5 l:.b8 9 e4 0.g6 10 i.d2 i.d6
l l f4 (D).
Now best is l l . . .'il'h4 ! (Soltis),
e.g. 12 0-0-0 ! ? ( 1 2 e5? i.xe5 1 3 fxe5
'il'e4+) 1 2 . . .0.xf4 ! 1 3 e5 i.xe5 14
l:.e1 0-0 15 l:.xe5 0.xe5 16 i.xf4
l:.fe8 chances for both sides.
4 e6
5 i.g5
5 e3 transposes to 'a' in the note to
White's 4th move.
5 cxd5 will be examined later, as
will the alternative development of
the bishop, 5 i.f4.
5
.•• i.e7
If Black wants to throw his oppo­
nent off balance he can consider hit­
ting the bishop with 5 f6, but this
..•
does have the potential drawback of
weakening the a2-g8 diagonal. In the
game Kumaran-Miladinovic, Matin­
hos jr Wch 1994, White had an edge
after 5 . . .f6 6 i.h4 i.b4 7 e3 0.ge7 8
cxd5 exd5 9 h3 i.e6 10 i.g3. Black's
more logical choice succeeds in ex­
changing his bishop for White's po­
tentially more active counterpart,
while developing a piece to boot.
6 i.xe7 0.gxe7
Now Black even has a lead in de­
velopment.
7 cxd5
White stood slightly better in the
game Onishchuk-Miladinovic, Koz­
hikode 1993, after 7 e3 0-0 8 i.d3 h6
9 h3 i.h5 10 0-0.
7 ... 0.xd5!? (D)
There is nothing wrong with cap­
turing on d5 with the pawn, which is

just as well as White can force the
central e3-d4 vs d5 structure by trad­
ing with 5 cxd5, before the knight ar­
rives on e7 (this happened in the
game Eisterer-Diickstein, below).
The idea behind 7 ... ltJxd5 is quite
straightforward. After 8 ltJxd5 cxd5
only half the minor pieces remain on
the board, considerably reducing
White's capacity to generate suffi­
cient problems with which to trouble
the second player. 8 Ji'xd5 also
••
comes to mind, after which Black
will bring his rooks to the centre and
subsequently open up the game with
...e6-e5 .
8 e3
Calmly continuing with develop­
ment. 8 e4 is aggressive but the re­
treat 8 . . .ltJge7 puts pressure on the
d4-pawn, which can no longer be de­
fended by ..ie3.
8 ... 0-0
9 ..ie2 ltJxc3
This voluntary exchange is aimed
at saddling White with a weak c­
pawn. Also possible is 9 'i!ie7 and
..•
. . .nad8.
10 bxc3 liJaS
Keeping an eye on the c4-square
and freeing the c-pawn in readiness
for a timely ...c7-c5.
11 'i!ia4 b6
12 ndt 'flid6
n o-o nrd8
14 nrel nac8! (D)
Black is in no hurry. Why not com­
plete his development first so that
the push of the c-pawn has maximum
effect? The c-file is a natural outpost
for a black rook (whether White's c­
pawn remains on c3 or comes to c4).
3 ltJf3 ..ig4 4 ltJc3 and 4 'ika4 17
t5 nd2
Threatening to put a stop to ... c7-
c5 by doubling rooks on the d-file.
However, Black is now ready to
carry out his plan.
15 ..ixf3
16 .ixf3 c5
17 h4
Seeing that Black has the upper
hand on the queenside, White turns
to the other flank to try for a territo­
rial advantage of his own.
17 .•• 'ilid7!
18 'ii'd l
The exchange of queens would
leave White in a rather passive posi­
tion. The queen retreat is the first
part of a reorganisation of the major
pieces with which White hopes both
to defend the queenside and create
counterplay.
18 ltJc4 19 .l:.c2 \i'a4 20 'fi'e2
..•
tiJd6 21 l:tccl
Note that White is not interested
in taking on c5 as the recapture ...l:txc5
gives Black a ready-made target in
the shape of the lonely c-pawn.
21 'ii'a3 22 'ft'd2
•••
22 . . cxd4 was threatened. 22 c4?
.
runs into trouble after 22 ... cxd4 23
exd4 liJf5.
18 3 Ci:Jf3 j,g4 4 Ci:Jc3 and 4 'illa4
22 h6
•••
Such logical play - taking time
out to improve one's position before
continuing with an intended plan - is
the mark of a master. Running short
of time, Black is content not to com­
mit himself for the time being.
23 hS Ci:Jc4 241i'c2 Ci:Jd6 251i'b1
Repeating moves with 25 1i'd2 by
no means forces Black to do the
same, so instead of giving his oppo­
nent the opportunity to wait until he
feels prepared to act on his queen­
side advantage, White finds a new
post for his queen. The resulting
slight (but significant) change in the
position demands work from Black.
25....l:f.c7
25 . . .Ci:Jc4 (threatening . . .Ci:Jc4-d2)
is tempting, especially when we dis­
cover that the natura126 .l:f.ed l cxd4
27 cxd4 fails to 27 . . .Ci:Jd2 ! . However,
after 25 . . . Ci:Jc4 White can spoil the
fun by returning the queen to d2.
Black's game choice is, anyway,
the thematic follow-up to his earlier
play. The intended build-up of pres­
sure on the c-file prompts White to
look for diversionary measures.
26 e4 cxd4 27 cxd4 .l:f.xc1 28
.l:f.xc1 Ci:JbS! (D)
Black benefits from the position
of the white rook (291i'xb5 'illxc 1 +)
to send the knight on another little
jaunt. Notice how the absence of
dark-squared bishops has hindered
White more than Black. The agile
knight is wholly capable of carrying
out the manoeuvres required to at­
tack the weak c3-pawn and the c4-
square, whereas White's bishop is
less well equipped to defend.
w
29 dS exdS 30 exd5 Ci:Jd4 31 j,g4
1i'd6
Black's forces continue to com­
bine harmoniously, resulting in the
win of an important pawn.
32 a4 'iVxdS 33 .l:f.c71i'e5?
Much better is 33 ...'it'g5 :
a) 34 .l:f.c8 .l:f.xc8 35 j,xc8 1i'xh5 .
b) 34 'iVdl Ci:Je6.
c) 34 j,d l ! is White's only move,
although Black is firmly in the driv­
ing seat after 34 . . ..l:f.e8.
34 .l:f.xa7 Ci:Je2+ 35 �h1
35 j,xe21i'xe2 361i'f5 ! looks like
a draw.
35 .l:f.e8 361i'xb6?
.••
Again 36 j,xe2 'i¥xe2 37 'iVf5 is
necessary. Instead White blunders,
leaving the back rank wide open.
36 1i'a1+ 37 �h2 'i¥g1+ 0-1
•.•
Game 2
Eisterer - Diickstein
Austrian League 1989/90
1 Ci:Jf3 Ci:Jc6
2 d4 dS
lltis strange move-order will prob­
ably appeal to Chigorin fans who
want to play this defence as often as
possible. However, do not forget that

White has other second moves avail­
able, 2 e4 being the most popular.
3 c4
White takes up the challenge to
face a genuine Chigorin.
3 .ig4
4 lLlc3 e6
5 cxd5
An immediate exchange forces
Black's hand and has the advantage
of avoiding ...dxc4, even if it does re­
lieve the tension rather early.
5 exd5
6 .ig5 .ie7
7 .ixe7 lLlgxe7
8 e3 0-0
9 .ie2 (D)
B for a win.
We can compare this position
with the Exchange Variation of the
Queen's Gambit. In this case the
dark-squared bishops have been re­
moved, and it is Black, not White,
who leads in development. Conse­
quently White's attacking chances
are considerably reduced, and the
first player must settle for a minus­
cule edge in the form of his slightly
better pawn structure (Black's queen­
side is a little more vulnerable than
White's).
3 !i:Jj3 .ig4 4 lbc3 and 4 'ila4 19
9 ••• l:te8
Black chose another course in
Matveeva-Miladinovic, Cappelle Ia
Grande 1995, redeploying the king's
knight to reinforce the queenside.
The game continued 9 . . . !i:Jc8 ! ? 1 0
0-0 !i:Jb6 1 1 .:tbl a5 ! 12 lbel (White
goes all-out for the draw) 1 2 ....ixe2
1 3 'ii'xe2 l::. e8 14 'ii'h5 g6 15 'ii'h6
lLle7 16 lbf3 !i:Jf5 17 'ii'f4 'ii'd6
(Black, too, seems content to share
the point; ... a5-a4 followed by ... c7-
c6 and ...lLlb6-c4 is a more ambitious
plan) 1 8 'ii'xd6 lLlxd6 1 9 !i:Je5 c6 20
l:tfc l f6 21 !i:Jd3 .l:e7 22 !i:Jc5 lLlbc4
23 b3 lLla3 and a draw was agreed.
Black's idea of queenside play is in­
teresting. There is certainly enough
life in the game to continue playing
10 0-0 'ii'd6
ll a3 !i:Jd8
Miladinovic's knight manoeuvre
(see previous note) is aimed at gain­
ing space on the queenside. Here
Black intends to swing the queen
over to the kingside (perhaps pre­
ceded with ...c7-c6) to combine with
the knights in an attack against the
white king. Not wanting just to sit
back and wait, White goes for the
'usual' queenside offensive.
12 !i:Jb5 'iib6
Now we see another point behind
Black's previous two moves. The
flexible queen pins the knight to the
b2-pawn, which White has no time
to defend (for example, 1 3 'ii'c2 .ixf3
damages the pawn cover in front of
White's king; 13 'ii'b 3? a6 wins
Black a piece). Again Black benefits
from the extra move or two he has
20 3li::Jf3 i.g4 4li::Jc3 and 4 'fia4
over analogous Exchange Queen's
Gambit positions.
13 a4 i.xf3
14 i.xf3 c6!
14 a6 15 li::Jc3 leaves Black's d5-
•••
pawn under attack. After the text
Black simply picks up a pawn in the
case of 1Sli::Jc3 'i!Vxb2, when 1 6 'i!Vd3
'i!Vb4 17 l:tab1 'i!Vd6 achieves nothing
for White, as the b7-pawn is de­
fended by the d8-knight.
1S li::Jd6 l:tf8 (D)
White's problem here is the safety
of the wayward d6-knight. While he
is busy constructing a lifeline to d6,
Black can pile on the pressure just by
improving his position. For exam­
ple, White would like to play 16 a5
to prevent Black from accentuating
the weakness of the b4-square by
pushing his own a-pawn two squares,
but 1 6 a5 invites 16 ...'i!Vb4rft'c7,
when the stranded knight must leave
the arena.
16 'fic2 aS!
Fixing b4.
17 l:ttb1
A necessary preparatory move.
The b2-pawn must be covered before
White's knight escapes to f5.
17 ••• fS!
Good timing. Once again the
knight appears to be in trouble as an­
other exit is closed, and White now
has to resort to desperate measures to
liberate his piece from the enemy
camp.
18 b4
Sacrificing a pawn to deny Black
the use of the b4-square for his queen.
18 ••• axb4
19 g4 f4
Black prefers to keep the bishop
out of the action.
20 li::Jfs li::JxfS
21 gxfS li::Jf7 (D)
In order to avoid losing a piece
White has had to weaken his king­
side considerably. If Black is able to
tidy up properly he should keep his
extra pawn as well as maintain his
positional superiority.
22 'iWcS 'i!VxcS
It is also possible to bring the
queen over to the kingside, but Black
has a clear-cut plan in mind which
involves no risks and should produce
a very useful advantage.
23 dxcS li::JgS 24 i.d1 fxe3 2S
fxe3 :xes 26 l:xb4 l:lf7

White, apart from being a pawn
down, has four isolated pawns. The
rest of the game is a matter of tech­
nique. Unfortunately after:
27 l:tabl
Black carne up with the careless:
27 .lDe6?
.•
I prefer the cruel 27 ...l:ta7 fol­
lowed by ...tt'lg5-e4/e6, after which
the c5-pawn's days are numbered
and Black is winning easily. How­
ever, 27 . . . tt'le6? allows exchanges
which make life easier for White, al­
though Black still won after a dozen
or so moves.
.•. 0-1
Game 3
Aseev - Morozevich
Russian Ch 1995
1 d4 d5 2 c4 tt'lc6 3 tt'lf3 ig4 4 tt'lc3
e6
5 if4
White also chose f4 for the bishop
(after 5 cxd5 exd5) in the game Sei­
rawan-B .Finegold, USA Ch 1994.
Black endeavoured to complicate
immediately and an unclear position
was reached after 5 cxd5 exd5 6 if4
ixf3 ! ? 7 gxf3 id6 8 ig3 tt'lge7 9
e3 0-0 10 a3 f5 1 1 f4 "ii'd 7.
5 ..• ib4 (D)
Black treats the position like a
Nimzo- or Bogo-lndian, a major dif­
ference here being the development
of his queen's bishop, which is usu­
ally locked in by the e6-pawn.
5 dxc4, as in Andersson-Sadler,
.••
below, gives the game a flavour akin
to the Queen's Gambit Accepted,
the posting of White's dark-squared
3 tt'lf3 ig4 4 tt'lc3 and 4 'ila4 21
bishop on f4 being perhaps the most
significant difference.
6 tt'le5
White hopes to punish his oppo­
nent's opening activity with an early
queenside strike - perhaps aiming to
prove that in this kind of situation the
best square for the black bishop is c8
after all !
The sober 6 e3 is, as one would
expect, far more popular, and trans­
poses to Van Wely-Morozevich, be­
low.
6 ... tt'lxe5
7 ixe5 ixc3+
With his queen's knight gone Black
must be careful not to fall for 8 "ii'a4+
and 9 "ii'xb4.
8 bxc3 tt'lf6
9 l:tb1
The logical follow-up to 6 tt'le5.
The continuation 9 f3 ih5 1 0 e3 0-0
1 1 ie2 c6 1 2 0-0 tt'ld7 1 3 ig3 "ii'a5
14 'ifd2 gives White a slightly better
game.
9 ..
. 0-0!
A typical reaction in the Chigorin.
9 b6 10 ixf6 'ifxf6 ( 1 0 . . . gxf6 1 1
•••
f3 ih5 1 2 e3 0-0 1 3 ie2 c5 14 0-0)
1 1 'iia4+ q;,f8 is not to most people's
taste.
22 3 CiJf3 .i.g4 4 CiJc3 and 4 'ika4
10 f3 .i.h5
As so often happens in this open­
ing, Black has removed both white
knights and then set about complet­
ing the development of his forces.
White, on the other hand, lags well
behind, so the planned capture of the
offered pawn is really the only way
forward.
11 l:.xb7 dxc4!
Black may need to use the d5-
square. White stands well after the al­
ternative ll ...cS. Good is 12 .i.xf6
'ii'xf6 1 3 e3 l:.ac8 14 cxd5 exd5 15
.i.d3 cxd4 1 6 cxd4 .:.fe8 17 'ittf2
'ii'g5 1 8 l:.e1 , and if White prefers to
keep his dark-squared bishop as well
as the advantage he also has 12 e3
CiJd7 1 3 .i.g3.
12 'i1Vd2
One justification of 1 l . ..dxc4 can
be seen in the variation 12 l:bc7
CiJd5 1 3 l:.b7 CiJxc3 14 'ii'c 2 CiJd5 15
e4 'i1Va5 +, when Black has a danger­
ous-looking initiative.
12 ... .:.c8
13 l:.b5
White makes use of a threat on the
fifth rank to provide enough time to
untangle his kingside pieces. The
immediate 13 e4? fails to 13 ...CiJxe4 !
14 fxe4 'it'h4+ 15 .i.g3 'ii'xe4+ and
1 6 . . . 'it'xb7. Black has a good game
after 13 e3 CiJd7 14 .i.g3 c5.
13 ... .i.g6
A necessary retreat as White was
threatening 14 .i.xf6 and 15 .:.xh5.
After 13...CiJd7? White still has an
effective discovered attack on the
bishop: 14 .i.xg7 ! .
1 4 e4 c6
15 .i.xf6
15 .:.b2!? is worthy of attention,
but in removing the knight White
hopes to prevent ...c6-c5 and sub­
sequently keep Black at bay.
15 ... 'iixf6
16 l:.cS
16 l:.b2 c5 is clearly better for
Black.
16 l:lb8!
17 'iic2 (D)
If Black does not strike while the
iron is hot he will be losing, as White
threatens simply 18 .i.xc4 and 19 0-0.
17 ... l:lb5!
18 .:.xc6
Others:
a) Taking the front c-pawn gives
Black more freedom to carry out his
attack because he does not have to
worry about back-rank checks. After
18 .:.xc4 .:.fb8 19 .i.e2 l:tb 1 + 20 .i.d 1
Black has at his disposal 20 . . . l:l8b2
(in the game this is not possible) 2 1
'ii'a4 l:.xg2 with a clear advantage.
b) The other main alternative to
1 8 .:.xc6 is 18 l:lxb5. Thus far White
has been able to content himself with
the fact that the doubled c-pawns at
least provide him with a target, and if
he can pick even one of them up and
 3 lDf3 i.g4 4 lDc3 and 4 'ii'a4 23

successfully withstand the pressure

he has been under since l l l:txb7, he
will emerge with an extra pawn. The
problem with 18 l:1xb5 cxb5 is that
the exchange eliminates Black's
only serious structural weakness. A
possible continuation is 19 i.e2 e5 ! ,
when i t i s White who has a weak
queens ide after 20 dxe5 'ii'xe5, while
20 d5 'ii'b6 ! (with ...f7-f5 coming) is
obviously very difficult for White.
c) Finally, we have 18 i.xc4 26 cxd4 'ii'xd4+ 27 �fl 'ii'xc5 28
l:txc5 1 9 dxc5 'ii'e5 ! - again White 'ii'xc4 'ii'a3 ! leaves Black firmly in
has problems securing a place for his control. Now Black must be careful
king. how he deals with the threatened 27
18 l:1tb8 l:1c8.
19 i.e2 l:1b1+ 26 'ii'f6!
•.•

20 .i.d1 'ii'd 8!? Not 26 . . . �h7?? 27 l:1c8 'ii'f6 28

Not 20 l:18b2?? 21 l:1c8+. Per­
.•• cxd4 'ii'xd4+ 29 �fl. when Black is
haps best is 20 h5!? immediately.
..• minus a rook.
21 0-0 27l:1c8+l:1d8 28l:1xd8+ 'ifxd8 29
At last. 'ii'xc4 'ii'd2! 30 �fl
21 •.• l:18b2 Throwing in a check makes little
22 'ii'a4 h5 difference: 30 'ifc8+ �h7 3 1 �fl
Black has obvious compensation l:1xa2.
for the sacrificed pawn. 30 ...l:1xa2 31 'ii'd4 'ii'g5 32 l:1d1
23l:1c5 �h7!
White must keep the black queen Why allow the trade of queens with
away from the g5-square. 23 'ii'xc4? 33 'ifd8+ when Black is so active?
'ii'g5 24 i.e2 'ii'e 3+ is something to 33 g3 e5 34 'ii'd3 a5
avoid. With White's forces huddled to­
23 l:1d2! 24 i.e2
•.• gether in defensive mode - looking
Or: after the king - the a-pawn has an
·a) 24 i.c2 l:1xfl + 25 �xfl 'ii'h 4! easy journey. Combining this with
wins for Black. the possibility of the . . . f7-f5 thrust
b) Again 24 'ii'xc4 falls short be­ results in a decisive advantage for
cause Black can still get away with Black.
24 . . . l:tdxd1 in view of the continu­ 35 'ii'b1
ation 25 l:1c8 l:txfl +. Or 35 c4 f5 !.
24 l:1bb2 25l:1e1 (D)
.•. 35...l:1d2 36 'ii'cl
Something must give . . . Or 36 l:1xd2 'ii'xd2 37 c4 a4 38
25 l:1xd4! 26 'ii'a6
.•• 'ii'a 1 'ii'b4 39 c5 a3 40 c6 'ii'b2.
24 3 lDf3 i..g4 4 0.c3 and 4 ika4

36 .:xd1+ 37 'fjxd1 'fje3! 38 c4

.•• 8 i..d3 0.g6 !? (D)
38 'fjc2 h4 ! 39 gxh4 (39 c4 hxg3
40 hxg3 1i'c5) 39 . . . i.. h5 40 'it>g2 a4!
41 i..d 1 a3 is too much for White.
38 ...f5! 39 exf5 i..xfS 40 g4 0-1
White cannot deal with the threats
on both flanks. After 40 g4 hxg4 4 1
fxg4 i..e4 White will soon run out of
moves. Or 40 'iti>g2 a4! 41 i.fl a3 42
1i'a1 1i'd2+ 43 'it>g1 \Wb2, etc.

Game 4
Van Wely - Morozevich
Iilburg 1993 9 h3 i..hS!?
9...0.xf4 1 0 hxg4 cannot be good
1 d4 dS because it opens the h-file for the
2 0.f3 0.c6 white rook, but 9...i..xf3 10 1i'xf3
3 i..f4 i..g4 0.xf4 ( 10 . . .e5 !?) 1 1 1i'xf4 0.e7 is
4 c4 quite OK for Black. With the text
More often than not White has Black preserves his light-squared
preferred to insert 4 e3 e6 before bishop long enough to contest the
pushing the c-pawn, but after the text b1 -h7 diagonal.
Black has nothing better than a trans- 10 i..h2
position. 10 i.g3 poses no threat and al­
4 ••• e6 lows Black to expand with 10 ...f5 .
5 e3 .tb4+ Positionally suspect is 10 g4? 0.xf4
For alternatives, see the following 1 1 exf4 i..g6, when White's reckless
game. pawn thrusts have merely provided
6 0.c3 0.ge7 Black with targets.
The game Thorsteins-Chaplin, 10 ... 0.h4
Paris 1 99 1 , saw Black using scare This is consistent with Black's
tactics against his much higher rated plan of dropping the bishop back to
opponent. Chaplin played 6 .0.f6 7.. g6. A sensible alternative is 10...f5 .
.l:tc1 0.e4 8 cxd5 1i'xd5 9 i..d3 0-0-0, 11 g4
resulting in White's advantage after Forced.
1 0 0-0 i.. xc3 1 1 bxc3. 8 . . .1i'xd5 is 11 0.xf3+
going a bit too far, so I suggest 12 'fjxf3 .tg6
8 exd5 as an improvement, when
..• 13 i..xg6 hxg6
Black is doing fine. 13...fxg6 has to be considered,
Of the two knight moves I prefer even if it does damage Black's king­
Morozevich's 6 ...0.ge7. side pawn structure more than the
7 .:tel 0-0 capture with the h-pawn. After 14
 3 ti:lj3 i.g4 4 ttlc3 and 4 'Wia4 25

'ii'e2 g5 White can still open the h­ 15

•.• tt:le7
file for his rook with 15 i.g3 &De7 The immediate 15 .i.xc3 1 6 lhc3
.•

( 1 5 . . . i.e7 16 cxd5 exd5 17 'ii'b5 l:tc8 avoids the possibility in the note
ti:lb4 18 a3 a6 19 'ii'f l ! tt:lc6 20 'ii'g2) to White's next move.
16 h4, so Black should play 14 tt:le7
.•. 16 h4
15 h4 c6 with chances for both sides. White gets on with the attack, but
1 3 . . . hxg6 is more compact, fol­ perhaps 16 ttle2 is better. Delaying
lowing the general rule that, when the charge for one move is a small
possible, pawn captures should be price to pay for keeping a potentially
made towards the centre. useful attacking piece on the board.
14 cxd5 exd5 (D) After 16 . . .c6 1 7 h4 'ii'd7 1 8 lL'lf4
Black can simplify anyway with
1 8 . . . i.d6, but at least White still has
his rook on c1 and will not lose time
as he does in the game.
16
••. i.xc3!
17 l:txc3
17 bxc3 is appropriate only if
White intends to follow up with a
subsequent c3-c4. Thus far White's
plan has been to launch a kingside
offensive.
17 c6
15 �fl! 18 h5 g5
By breaking the pin on his knight 19 h6
White now attacks the d5-pawn, thus The preparatory 19 i.g3 is also
forcing Black to make a concession. possible.
It would be silly for White to castle 19
.•• f6!
out of the pin because the rook is per­ 19 gxh6? 20 'ii'h 3 ! is precisely
•..

fectly placed to profit from Black's what White is hoping for.

impaired kingside pawns by pushing 20 hxg7 �xg7
the h-pawn all the way. 21 i.g3 'ii'd7
Note that the coming attack is not 22 �g2 l:th8
aimed at delivering mate - although 23 l:tcc1
a defensive error would boost the in­ Now we see why 16 ttle2 may
vasion down the h-file to decisive have been more accurate than 16 h4,
proportions. White will be satisfied which in turn suggests that Black
to chip away at Black's kingside in could indeed have improved on the
the hope of undermining it further at previous move.
a later stage by opening up the posi­ 23 l:txh1 24 l:txh1
•••

tion for the queen and bishop, either The exchange of a pair of rooks
with f2-f4 or e3-e4. has eased Black's defence to some
26 3 l£Jf3 J..g4 4 &Dc3 and 4 'fka4
degree, and his next move observes
the e4-square.
24...'i\Ve6 (D)
I suppose this is the kind of posi­
tion White was expecting to reach
when he set the ball rolling about ten
moves ago. The white king appears
to be the better protected of the two,
and if White could only use the h-file
and his kingside pawn majority to
clear a path for his bishop to run riot
on the dark squares, then surely he
would be well on the way to victory.
Well, the rest of the game indicates
that this assessment of the diagram
position is incorrect, and perhaps
White should now be content with a
roughly level game rather than insist
on breaking with f2-f3 and e3-e4.
Of course, we are all enlightened
after the event, and White can be for­
given for underestimating his oppo­
nent's resources. It must be said also
that Loek van Wely is a fighter and
never afraid to take risks.
25 'i\Ve2
If White is still intent on continu­
ing aggressively, then the main al­
ternative to the text is stepping up
pressure on the h-file, starting with
25 .l:th5. Accurate defence illustrates
the inadequacy of this plan, e.g.
25 ... l£Jg8 ! 26 �g1 &Dh6 27 'ii'h 1
.l:th8 ! 28 'ii'h3 'ii'xg4 29 l:txh6 'ii'xh3.
25 .:te8
.••
The struggle now revolves around
the e4-square. Black does not have
the power to prevent e3-e4, but it is
still a good idea to put the rook on
the e-file.
26 f3 l£Jg6 27 .:tel fS!?
Ironically, Morozevich voluntar­
ily contributes to the opening up of
the position. This decision is based
on Black's potential to create coun­
terplay on the light squares around
White's king, and . . . f6-f5 is made
possible since Black's knight guards
e5 and consequently keeps the en­
emy bishop at bay. Black's daring
thrust has an important psychologi­
cal significance in that White now
has to find the right balance between
attack and defence - it is too late to
change plans, and his king is no
longer well protected.
28 gxrs 'i\Vxrs 29 e4 'it'd7 30 ..We3
30 'ii'f2 carries no threat and gives
Black time to make something of his
new-found activity.
30 dxe4! 31 'it'gl
•••
3 1 fxe4 'ii'g4 highlights just how
exposed the white king has become,
and 3 1 'ii'xg5 'ii'xd4 puts Black in
control.
31. .'ii'f5 32 fxe4 'ii'g4
•
Van Wely's endeavours to rid his
opponent's king of sufficient cover
have backfired: not a single pawn
remains to shield the white king.
White's once ambitious bishop is now
pinned and several weak squares

(h3, h4, f3 and f4) need defending.
Moreover, White's queen and rook
are lined up on the e-file, protecting a
centre which is under pressure from
Black's major pieces. To make mat­
ters worse, Black's knight is ready to
jump in and menace White's king.
These factors combine to confer on
Black a decisive advantage, so White
initiates some spoiling tactics - cre­
ating a passed pawn in the process ­
in the hope of unbalancing his oppo­
nent.
The game ended:
33 d5 cxd5 34 'iii'c3+ 'iii>h6 35
exd5 l:tc8 36 'iii'e3 l:td8
36 ...lLlf4 ! wins, e.g. 37 l:tfl (Black
threatened 37 ...l:te8 !) 37 ...l:tc2, when
the ending after 38 l:.xf4 gxf4 39
'it'xf4+ 'it'xf4 40 ..txf4+ 'iii>g6 4 1 d6
� is winning for Black.
37 d6 l:bd6 38 'ii'f2 lLlf4 39 �fl
l:tf6 40 l:te4 'it'd1 + 0-1
Game S
Andersson - Sadler
Malmo 1995
1iLlf3 lLlc6 2 d4 d5 3 ..tf4 ..tg4 4 e3
e6 5 c4
5.•. dxc4
To those who know that Matthew
Sadler is an expert on the Queen's
Gambit Accepted, this capture will
come as no surprise. His plan is
. . . ..tf8-d6, a simplification which is
normally not available to Black in
the QGA . While Sadler's strategy
guarantees good prospects of nulli­
fying White's advantage of the first
move, it is not the most interesting of
Black's options.
3 lDf3 ..tg4 4 lDc3 and 4 'iWa4 27
The game Diederichsen-Panzer,
Hamburg 1 993, went 5 lLlf6 6 lLlc3
.••
..td6 (6 . . ...tb4 transposes to the note
to Black's 6th move in the game Van
Wely-Morozevich) 7 ..txd6 'it'xd6 8
c5 'it'e7 9 ..te2 0-0 10 0-0 l:tfd8 1 1
b4, when Black responded to this
flank attack correctly, countering in
the centre with 1 1 . ..lLle4 1 2 lLlxe4
dxe4 1 3 lLle5 lLlxe5 14 ..txg4 f5. Af­
ter 15 ..te2 f4 16 exf4 iLJd3 1 7 'it'b3
lLlxf4 18 i.c4 llxd4 19 l:.ad 1 l:.ad8
20 l:txd4 l1xd4 the game was equal.
However, the immediate ... ..tf8-d6
holds less chance of equality if it is
not preceded by ...dxc4, and does not
give Black anywhere near as much
play (and fun) as lines with . . . ..tf8-
b4.
6 ..txc4 ..td6
7 ..txd6 'it'xd6
7 cxd6 8 d5 ! is clearly better for
.•.
White.
8 0-0 lLlf6
9 ..te2
White breaks the pin so that he
can answer 9 ... 0-0 with 10 'it'b3 ! ,
with a slight edge.
9 e5 (D)
w
10 dxe5 'it'xd1
28 3 li:Jf3 i.g4 4 li:Jc3 and 4 'fka4

There is no reason for Black to white pieces the second player is not
saddle himself with an isolated pawn: allowed the luxury of making one or
10 0.xe5 1 1 'fkxd6 cxd6 1 2 li:Jbd2
•.• two second-best moves.
obviously favours White. 16 f4
11 i.xd1! White stakes a claim for central
111:1xd1 li:Jxe5. territory.
11 •.• li:Jd7 16 f6
Not 11 i.xf3 1 2 exf6 i.xd 1 1 3
••• 17 � l:tf8
fxg7. 18 l:txd8+!
12 li:Jc3 i.xf3! 18 li:Jd5 l:tf7.
12 li:Jdxe5 13 li:Jxe5 li:Jxe5 14
.•. 18 'ito>xd8
li:Jb5 is good for White. 19 l:td1+ 'ito>c8
13 i.xf3 li:Jdxe5 20 e4 ltd8
Capturing with the other knight 21 li:Jd5 l:td7
leaves Black with a fragile queen­ 22 l:td3 li:Je7
side: 13 0.cxe5 14 i.xb7 l:tb8 1 5
.•• The proposed knight exchange is
i.e4 l:txb2 16 l:tabl . to Black's benefit because his is the
14 i.xc6+ li:Jxc6 weaker of the two.
15 l:tfd1 l:td8 (D) 23 li:Jxe7+ l:txe7
24 'ito>e3 (D)

Compared with the previous dia­

gram, the character of the game has
changed completely - in only six
moves! With several exchanges the
players have succeeded in moving
straight from the opening stage to an
ending, without even the slightest
hint of a middlegame. White has a
very small advantage. Normally this
would not be enough to worry Black,
but when Ulf Andersson has the
White's pawns are more advanced
than Black's, and his king is better
placed. At the moment the black
king is cut off from the centre by the
enemy rook, so the dual-purpose
move 24 ...c5 comes to mind, prepar­
ing ...'ito>c8-c7-c6 followed by rolling
the queenside pawns forward in or­
der to create a passed pawn.
24 ••. f5?

Unfortunately for Black this is
one of those mistakes which cannot
be rectified. After 25 e5 Black hopes
to trade off the final pair of rooks and
enter a king and pawn ending in
which he can draw by successfully
blockading White's passed e-pawn.
Andersson, one of the greatest ever
endgame experts, makes full use of
the new situation.
25 e5 .l::.d7 26 .l::.a3 a6 27 .l::.d3 a5
28 .l::.xd7 'it>xd7 29 'it>d4
The rest of the game is an in­
structive illustration of how to use
tempo play in these endings. The
crucial difference between the two
sides here is the relative freedom and
flexibility of the kings. Black's king
is tied to the e5-pawn, whereas the
white king is hovering menacingly
on the queenside, waiting patiently
for a way in.
29 ... b6 30 'it>c4 c6 31 h3 'it>e6 32
b3
There is no need to rush. Black's
problem is that he will run out of
good waiting moves frrst.
32 g5
•••
King and pawn endings are noto­
riously complex (do not be fooled by
the small amount of material left on
the board), and the final phase of the
game should really be studied with
the help of a suitable manual for it to
be fully appreciated. For us this end­
ing is quite important in that the dis­
tribution of the pawns is typical of
the line with ... dxc4, and is conse­
quently relevant to the Chigorin.
32 . . . g5 sets a little trap: 33 fxg5 ?
'it>xe5 34 h4 f4 ! and 35 ... 'it>f5. An al-
ternative to the text is 32...h5, when a
3!Dj3 i..g4 4 lDc3 and 4 'illa4 29
possible continuation is 33 h4 'it>d7
34 a4 'it>e6 35 b4 axb4 36 'it>xb4 'it>d5
37 'it>c3 'it>e6 (37 . . . b5 38 a5; alterna­
tively 37 . . . c5 38 'it>d3 c4+ 39 'it>c3
'it>c5 40 e6 'it>d6 4 1 c;t>xc4 c;t>xe6 42
c;t>b5) 38 'it>c4 c;t>d7 39 c;t>b4 c;t>e6 40
a5 bxa5+ (40 ... c5+ 4 1 'iti>b5 bxa5 42
c;t>xc5 wins) 4 1 c;t>xa5 'iti>d5 42 c;t>b4
c5+ 43 c;t>c3 'it>c6 44 'it>c4 g6 45 g3
c;t>b6 46 c;t>d5 'it>b5 47 e6, etc.
33 g3! h6
33 ... g4 34 h4 ! h5 35 a4 will bring
about the same b3-b4 breakthrough
as we saw in the previous note.
34 h4 gxf4
Or 34 ... g4 35 a4.
35 gxf4 h5 36 a4! 'it>e7 37 b4
axb4
Or 37 ...'it>e6 38 bxa5 bxa5 39 'it>c5
c;t>d7 40 c;t>b6.
38 c;t>xb4 'it>e6 39 a5 1-0
There is no defence. 39 . . . bxa5+
40 c;t>xa5 c;t>d5 41 c;t>b4 c5+ 42 c;t>b3 !
c4+ 4 3 'it>c3 c;t>c5 44 e6 c;t>d6 45
c;t>xc4 c;t>xe6 46 c;t>c5 is a sample fin­
ish.
Black's strategy in this game may
not appeal to everyone as it is essen­
tially attempting to steer the game to
a draw, so prospects of winning are
far fewer than usual in the Chigorin.
However, White emerged with only
a tiny edge (after 24 . . .c5 Black's
forthcoming queenside expansion
should be enough to hold the draw),
and I doubt many of my readers will
encounter opponents with Anders­
son's endgame talent. The fact that
GM Sadler managed to reach a ten­
able ending against someone of this
calibre is indicative of the idea's
soundness.
30 3 &i:Jf3 i..g4 4 &i:Jc3 and 4 'ika4
4 ltJc3 .1xf3? !
Whereas Black is justified i n reply­
ing to 4 ii'a4 with 4 ...i..xf3, here the
capture has less going for it as 4 lUc3
is more flexible than 4 �a4. The
knight is coming to c3 anyway but,
depending on the circumstances, the
queen may be put to better use on b3,
or even left on d 1 until after White
has castled.
Of White's two fifth move options
only 5 exf3 ! is worth considering be­
cause it guarantees that Black's com­
mittal fourth move will be punished.
After 5 gxf3 ? ! Black is perfectly
OK.
Game 6
M.Gurevich - Miles
Groningen 1992
1 d4 &i:Jc6 2 ltJf3 d5 3 c4 i..g4 4 &i:Jc3
i..xf3
5 exf3!
Much better than 5 gxf3?!, which
does nothing to profit from Black's
inaccuracy. The game Shushpanov­
Reprintsev, Leningrad 1 990, contin­
ued 5 . . . e6 6 e3 'ifd7 7 i..d2 ltJf6 8
�a4 &i:Jb4 9 �xd7+ &i:Jxd7 10 0-0-0
dxc4 1 1 i..xc4 &i:Jb6 12 i..e2 0-0-0 1 3
a3 &i:J4d5 1 4 ltJe4 h6 15 'itib1 i..e7 1 6
!:.c I i..h4 with equality.
Now let us return to the position
after 5 exf3 (D).
In exchange for the doubled pawns
and potentially weak d-pawn, White
is guaranteed rapid development, ac­
tive pieces, queenside pressure and
the run of the light squares. With best
play Black should stand only slightly
worse, but there is not really any­
thing to attract the second player to
this variation.
5..• e6
Much worse is 5 dxc4?, allow­
•••
ing White to press forward with 6
d5, as in Hebden-Notkin (see the fol­
lowing game).
5 &i:Jf6 does not fit in with the
•••
pawn structure and is also good for
White after 6 i..g5 .
6 cxd5
It is only with this pawn exchange
and the subsequent pattern of devel­
opment that White can steer the
game to his advantage. Otherwise d4
may prove to be weak, and if Black is
allowed to play ...i..f8-b4 he then has
the option of capturing on d5 with
the queen.
6..• exd5
7 i.b5
7 'fi'a4 a6 leaves the bishop with­
out an effective outpost.
7..•
i..b 4!?
A new way of treating the posi­
tion. Previously 7 ltJe7 had been
•.•
played, but this has the handicap of
severely hindering Black's develop­
ment. After the continuation 8 0-0
�d6 (8 . . . a6 9 i.a4) 9 net 0-0-0 1 0

i.g5 f6 1 1 i.e3 �b8 12 .l:tc1 White's
pieces are menacing.
8 'i*'a4
a) In 1 993 in Zaragoza, Voiska
played 8 0-0 against Miles. The
game continued 8 . . . lDe7 9 i.g5 ! f6
10 i.e3 0-0 1 1 'i!Vb3 ! i.a5 12 llac l
( 1 2 i.xc6 ! bxc6 1 3 'ifa3 i.b6 14
lDa4 saddles Black with doubled c­
pawns and a hole on c5), when Black
should have reorganised his queen­
side with 12 lDb8!, intending . . . c7-
...
c6, restricting White to a slight edge
after 1 3 i.d3 ! ? i.b6 14 lDe4 ! c6 15
lDc5. Instead 12 i.b6? 1 3 i.xc6 !
••.
bxc6 14 lDa4 'i!Vd6 15 'i!Vc3 ! was
clearly better for White, although the
players eventually split the point.
b) If Voiska-Miles is any indica­
tion, then the immediate 8 i.xc6+!?
bxc6 9 0-0 is worth considering.
Black should then accept a slightly
inferior position rather than do the
same to White, as 9...i.xc3?! 10 bxc3
lDe7 1 1 i.a3 ! 0-0 12 'ilt'a4 ! puts the
c6-pawn under too much pressure.
8 ••• 'i!Vd7!
9 0-0
White should avoid the following
alternatives:
a) 9 'ilt'xb4?! is good enough only
for equality according to Gurevich,
who continues with 9 . . . lDxb4 10
i.xd7+ �xd7 1 1 �d2 lDe7 12 a3
lDbc6 13 �d3 .l:.he8. However, there
is certainly sufficient play in the po­
sition for Black to press for the win
(his pawn structure offers very good
prospects).
b) Even worse is 9 i.xc6?, which
hands the advantage over to Black
after the continuation 9 ...i.xc3+ 10
3 lDf3 i.g4 4 lDc3 and 4 'iia4 31
bxc3 'ilt'xc6 1 1 'ilt'xc6+ bxc6 12 i.a3
lbf6.
9 ... lDge7
10 i.gS! f6
Not 10 0-0?? 1 1 'iVxb4.
.••
11 i.d2
Forcing the move . . . f7-f6 is defi­
nitely in White's interest. Without a
light-squared bishop to help in the
defence of the e6-square Black could
have difficulties keeping his oppo­
nent's pieces out of this square as the
game progresses.
11 i.d6
12 l:tfe1 0-0
13 i.d3 a6
White was threatening 14 lDb5
followed by taking the bishop.
14 lDe2 (D)
8
14 ••• lbeS?!
14 f5!? is interesting, planning
•••
to expand further on the kingside
with . . . f5-f4. White can prevent this
by playing 15 f4 himself, but then
15 ...lDe5 !? 16 'iVxd7 lDxd7 is signifi­
cantly different to the game in that
White does not have the f4-square
available for his pieces.
After the text-move White is able
to retain an initiative in the queenless
32 3 liJf3 i.g4 4 liJc3 and 4 'fla4
middlegame, thanks in no small part
to the vulnerability of e6.
15 'ii'xd7 liJxd7
16 i.f4! liJc8
The alternative line 16 i.xf4 17
•••
liJxf4 l:tfe8 invites a temporary ex­
change sacrifice: 1 8 l:txe7 ! .l:txe7 1 9
liJxd5 l:tf7 2 0 i.c4.
Note that it is the thematic 10
i.g5 ! f6 1 1 i.d2 which has given
White this possibility. After 20...�f8
2 1 t£Jxc7 l:tc8 22 i.xf7 l:txc7 23 i.b3
Black is in trouble, as he is after
22 ... �xf7 23 t£Jd5, e.g. 23 ... l:tc2 24
l:te l l:txb2 25 l:te7+ �f8 26 g4 ! .
1 7 i.xd6 t£Jxd6
18 t£Jf4
Consistent. Also possible is 18
liJc3!? t£Jb6 19 a4 a5 20 t£Jb5 ! t£Jxb5
2 1 axb5 ! with a slight edge for
White.
18 ... t£Jb6
18...c6 19 l:te6 ! ? tiJb5 20 l:te7 is
very dangerous in view of 20 . . .l:tf7
2 1 i.xh7+ ! �f8? 22 t£Jg6 mate.
19 l:te7! l:tt7
20 l:te6!
The point of luring the rook to f7
is to maintain control of the e-file,
which is not possible if Black's
rooks are connected. The natural line
20 l:tae1 l:txe7 2 1 l:txe7 fails after
2 1 . . .l:te8 !, because 22 l:txc7? allows
22 ...l:te 1+ 23 i.fl t£Jbc4, etc.
20 l:te8
21 l:txe8+ t£Jxe8
22 l:te1 t£Jd6
23 .l:te6 (D)
White's systematic use of the e6-
square is exemplary. Often it is the
occupation and subsequent utilisa­
tion ofjust one such weakness which
proves too much for the defender,
whose task of constantly reassessing
its possible implications is never easy.
23...l:td7
23 . . .l:tf8 24 h4 ! l:te8 25 i.f5 !
keeps White on top.
24 h4!
Gurevich is really doing his ut­
most to undermine Black's kings ide
pawns. The plan is simply to push the
h-pawn all the way.
24...c6
Black releases the b6-knight from
the defence of the d-pawn, intending
to relieve the pressure by exchanging
the remaining pair of rooks with
. . .t£Jb6-c8 followed by ...l:td7-e7.
25 h5 h6
Better than 25 . . . t£Jbc8? ! 26 h6 !
l:te7 27 hxg7. The text move, which
is the lesser evil, leaves Black with a
sorry-looking kingside pawn com­
plex and a new hole on g6, for which
...f7-f6 is partly to blame.
26 �fl t£Jbc8 27 �e2 l:te7 28
i.g6!
Black's torture continues. The oc­
cupation of the newly acquired g6-
square means that even 28 . . . l:txe6+
29 t£Jxe6 offers Black no relief, for
the king would then be imprisoned

on g8. Guides to endings always re­
mind us of the king's importance in
the latter stages of the game. Here
White's king enjoys absolute free­
dom, whereas Black's is confined to
the kingside. This is now the decisive
factor, which once again is a direct
result of White's seizing the e6-
square.
That Black's problem stems from
a combination of the premature
4 .....txf3?! and the subsequent - and
indeed, virtually forced - 1 0 . . .f6 is
indicative of the inadequacy of this
particular variation for Black.
28...�f8 29 �d3
29 l:txe7 would be answered by
29 ...�xe7.
29 a5
•••
After 29 . . . l:txe6, 30 lDxe6+ either
picks up the g7-pawn or drives the
king back to g8.
30 b3 b6 31 l:te3!
White withdraws his rook from e6
since the knight is now ready to go
there. Obviously the best square for
the rook is e3, so that after 3 1 ...l:txe3
32 fxe3 ! White is still firmly in the
driving seat thanks to the possibility
of e3-e4.
31 l:td7 32 g4 a4 (D)
•••
33 bxa4?!
Thus far Gurevich has conducted
the queenless middlegame with Kar­
povian accuracy, not granting his op­
ponent the slightest glimpse of
counterplay. The text leaves the a2-
pawn weak, which will be a problem
when Black activates his rook on the
a-file, so 33 �c3 should have been
played. This is more compact and
keeps White's advantage safe, e.g.
3 lbf3 ..tg4 4 lbc3 and 4 'ila4 33
33 . . .l:ta7 34 �b4 axb3 35 axb3 l:ta2
36 lDe6+ 'it>g8 37 lDd8.
33...l:ta7 34 lDe6+ �g8 35 lbd8
c5!
35 . . .l:txa4 36 l:te6 is risky for
Black (White threatens 37 lDb7).
36 lDe6 c4+?!
36...cxd4 37 lDxd4 l:txa4 38 lDb5 !
is good for White (e.g. 38 ... l:txa2 39
l:te6). However, Black can steer the
game to equality with 36 . . .l:txa4 ! 37
dxc5 bxc5 38 lDxc5 l:txa2 39 l:te6
(threatening 40 lDb7) 39 ...l:ta7 ! (40
�d4 lDb5+).
37 'it>c3 l:txa4 38 lDc7 l:txa2
38 ...l:ta5 39 a4 ! .
39 lbxd5 lDa7?
Otherwise:
a) 39 . . .l:txf2 40 lDe7+ lDxe7 4 1
l:txe7 l:txf3+ 4 2 �c2 i s winning for
White, who threatens 43 l:te6 or 43
l:td7.
b) 39 . . . l:ta3+ 40 �b4 l:txe3 4 1
fxe3 i s also excellent for White. His
active king, active minor pieces and
mobile pawns are too strong for
Black.
c) The best chances of survival
are offered by 39 ... l:ta7, although
White still has very good prospects.
40 lDxb6
34 3 lDf3 i..g4 4 lDc3 and 4 'fla4
The fall of the b6-pawn heralds
the arrival of the white king into
Black's half of the board. The com­
ing invasion is decisive.
40 ... lDab5+ 41 'iti>b4 .l:.b2+ 42
'iti>c5 c3 43 lDc4! c2
43 ...lDb7+ 44 'iti>b6 ! .
44 .l:.e1 cl'ii'
After 44 ....l:.b1 45 .l:.xb1 cxb1 � 46
i.xb1 lDxc4 White has 47 i.a2 ! .
4 5 .l:.xcl lDb7+ 4 6 'iti>b6 .l:.b4 47
'iti>xb7 lDd6+ 48 'iti>c6 .l:.xc4+ 49 .l:.xc4
lDxc4 1-0
The d-pawn decides.
Game ?
Hebden - Notkin
Cappelle Ia Grande 1995
1 d4 d5 2 c4 lDc6 3 lDf3 i.g4 4 lDc3
i.xf3 5 exf3
5 •.• dxc4?
While Black has an uphill strug­
gle after 5 e6, he is really in dire
•.•
straits after 5 . . . dxc4. By attacking
the d4-pawn Black more or less
forces White to begin a strong attack.
It is not at all surprising that Black
finds himself in serious trouble if he
voluntarily leaves his queenside so
severely short of defenders. More­
over, 5 . . . dxc4 emphasises the influ­
ence of White's light-squared bishop
instead of trying to minimise it, and
if all this were not enough, White is
handed a massive advantage in both
development and space.
If you are not yet convinced of the
dubiousness of the text, then perhaps
Grandmaster Hebden will point you
in the right direction.
6 d5 lDe5
7 i.f4 lDg6?
This allows White an overwhelm­
ing game, but the others are also very
good for White:
a) 7 lDd3+ 8 i.xd3 cxd3 9 'ii'b3 ! .
•..
b ) 7 lDd7 8 i.xc4 a6 9 0-0 lDgf6
••.
10 .l:.e1 lDh5 1 1 i.e3 g6 12 d6! cxd6
1 3 'ii'b 3 gives White a clear advan­
tage, Donner-Keene, London 197 1 .
8 i.xc4! (D)
I hope that no-one will be tempted
into repeating Black's experimental
opening play (unless I am the one
playing White !), because it seems
that Black is already on the brink of
defeat. Even Notkin, who only a
couple of months before this disaster
was successful in the strong Gronin­
gen Open, fails to keep the wolves at
bay.
Of course, 8 i.xc4 does not lose a
piece to 8 lDxf4 due to 9 �a4+, or
..•
the more direct 9 i.b5+, when Black
is defenceless on the a4-e8 diagonal.
8 lDr6
9 i.g3 a6
10 0-0
White has just about completed
his development. Black is lagging
way behind, thanks chiefly to the
 3 tbj3 i.g4 4 tbc3 and 4 'iia4 35

bothersome d5-pawn which prevents

the liberating . . . e7 -e6. Consequently B
Black resorts to spoiling tactics.
10 •.• o!bd7
For 10 b5 1 1 o!Dxb5 ! see Tuk-
•..

makov-Vincent in the Introduction.

11 l:te1 o!bb6
12 i.b3 'ili'd7
13 Ir.cl
Simple chess.
13 ..• fS
What else? Black is facing the full From here on it is simply a matter
might of the white pieces, and trying of how White prefers to win.
to defend is absolutely futile, so he 22...'ild6 23 'ili'xfS g6 24 'ili'a5+
may as well make sure he gets in one �d7
threat before the end comes ! Ironi­ Or 24 ...b6 25 'ili'xa6 1i'd7 26 l:ted1
cally, White solves the problem of o!bd4 27 l:txd4. The game ended:
his threatened bishop by sacrificing 25 l:ted1 tbd4 26 'it'c7+! 'it'xc7 27
it! l:txc7+ �e6 28 l:txd4 o!bd6 29 .l:1d2
14 i.xc7! 'ili'xc7 tLlbS 30 l:tc8 o!bd6 31 .l:1e2+ �f6 32
15 d6 'ili'd7 l:tc7 o!DbS 33 l:txb7 i.h6 34 o!bb6
Not 15 'ili'xd6 16 'ili'xd6.
••. 1-0.
16 'ili'd4 .!DeS
17 i.e6 'ili'xd6 4 'ii'a4
18 o!DdS
I think it is safe to say that White Game 8
has more than enough compensation Malaniuk - Morozevich
for the piece! Black is completely Alushta 1994
tied up and can resign, but instead he
wants his opponent to actually dem­ 1 d4 dS 2 c4 o!bc6 3 .!Df3 i.g4
onstrate the win. In fact, humiliating 4 'it'a4 (D)
strong players is one of Mark's fa­ 4 ••• i.xf3
vourite pastimes, especially with a Neither Morozevich nor Belov
few hundred people watching. mentions the alternative 4 .!Df6. •••

18 .!Df4 This (and the fact that the exchange

19 o!bc7+ �d8 on f3 is almost always played) is in­
20 o!bxa8! (D) dicative of the superiority of the text,
Now 20 'ili'xd4 meets with 2 1
.•• although the knight move is quite
l:txc8 mate. playable:
20 o!bxe6 a) 5 .!DeS tries to punish Black for
21 'ili'c4 'ili'c6 ignoring the pin on the a4-e8 diago­
22 'ili'd3+ nal. However, White gets nowhere
36 3 0.j3 Jl..g4 4 0.c3 and 4 'fia4
after 5 . . . JI.. d7 ! 6 0.xd7 0.xd7 ! (also
possible is 6 . . . 'fixd7 7 e3 e5 8 cxd5
0.xd5 9 Jl.. b5 exd4 with a slight edge
to Black according to Milic):
a1) 7 cxd5 0.b6 8 'fid 1 il'xd5 9
e3 e5 10 0.c3 il..b4 1 1 Jl..d2 Jl.. xc3 1 2
bxc3 0.c4 (alternatively 1 2. . .0.a5) fa­
vours Black (Soltis), whose influen­
tial knights and better pawn structure
will prove more than a match for the
hampered bishops (the backward c3-
pawn and the c4-square are genuine
worries for White).
a2) 7 c5 practically forces Black
to play the thematic 7 ...e5 ! , which
puts White's centre under pressure
after either 8 e3 Jl..e7 9 0.c3 0-0!
(e.g. 10 0.xd5 exd4 1 1 exd4 0.xc5 ! -
Watson), or 9 Jl..b5 0.db8 ! 10 0-0 0-0
1 1 0.c3 il.. f6 ! 1 2 .l:Id1 0.e7, as in
Fridshtein-Terpugov, Moscow 1948.
Black is better in both cases.
b) 5 0.c3 is White's best reply,
when 5 JI..xf3 6 gxf3 ! transposes to
••.
the note to Black's 5th move in the
main game. Instead Black has two
other options:
b1) 5 dxc4 led to equality in
•••
Alekhine-Book, Warsaw 1 935, after
6 0.e5 (6 e4 Jl.. xf3 7 gxf3 0.d7 ! is
better for Black) 6...JI.. d7 7 il'xc4
Jl..e 6! 8 il'b5 a6 9 0.xc6 axb5 10
0.xd8 �xd8 11 0.xb5 .l:Ixa2.
b2) 5 il'd7!? is also equal.
.••
These variations demonstrate that
Black has little to fear after 4 il'a4,
and that pinning the c6-knight prom­
ises White nothing. How Black re­
acts on the 4th move is purely a
matter of taste, but the current trend
is to follow Morozevich's example
and damage White's kingside pawn
complex in true Chigorin style. The
onus is then on White to prove that
the queen is useful on a4.
5 gxf3
5 exf3?! only works out well for
White if Black obligingly opens up
the position:
a) The game Portisch-Mariotti,
Budapest 1975, illustrates the kind
of position White is hoping for when
he voluntarily weakens his d4-pawn.
Black played the terrible 5 ... dxc4?,
unleashing the now unchallenged
light-squared bishop: 6 Jl.. xc4 e6 7
0.c3 il'xd4 (7 . . . JI..d6 8 d5 ! exd5 9
Jl.. a6 ! il'c8 10 0.xd5 0.e7 1 1 0.xe7
Jl.. xe7 1 2 il'xc6+ ! bxc6 1 3 Jl.. xc8
.l:Ixc8 14 Jl..e3 is very good for White
according to Euwe) 8 0-0 il.. d6 9 .l:Id 1
il'e5 10 Jl.. a6 ! il'xh2+ 1 1 �fl 0.e7
1 2 Jl..xb7 0-0 1 3 Jl..xc6 .l:Iab8 14 Jl.. b5
il'h 1 + 15 �e2 il'xg2 1 6 Jl.. e 3 a6 17
il'xa6 0.f5 1 8 0.e4 il.. h 2 1 9 il'c6
0.xe3 20 Wxe3 (D).
Black has some play for the piece,
but not enough. Once White finds a
safe haven for his king he can go on
the offensive himself. The game con­
tinued 20 ...f5 21 0.c3 e5 22 �d3
'ii'xf2 23 'ii'd 5+ �h8 24 .l:Id2 'flh4 25
r.t>c2 Jl..f4 26 .l:Ig2 Jl..e3 27 'ii'c4 e4 28

'iVe2 exf3 29 1i'xf3 .td4 30 .tc6 l:b6
3 1 l:c 1 g5 32 �b1 g4 33 'iVd3 .tg7
34 .ta4 f4 35 1i'e4 'iVh3 36 .tb3 .l:.g6
37 .l:.gg1 ! 'iVh4 38 :h 1 11Vf6 39 .tc2!
.th6 40 'iVb4 .l:.gg8 4 1 00 1-0. Note
how White concentrated on operat­
ing on the light squares.
b) 5 e6! is by far the best. After
•••
recapturing on f3 with the e-pawn
White would prefer to let go of the
d4-pawn immediately to generate a
dangerous initiative, rather than be
saddled with the long-term weak­
ness to defend once Black has kept
the centre closed and is then ready to
turn his attention to the embarrassing
d-pawn. Now after 6 lbc3 (6 cxd5
gives Black the option of playing
6...'iVxd5 !?) the simplest is 6 lbe7!,
...
as recommended by Belov, who (jus­
tifiably) assesses the position as per­
fectly fine for Black, understandably
seeing no reason to explain why. In-
stead of developing with ....tf8-b4,
Black intends ...g7-g6 and ....tf8-g7,
a logical plan which was first played
by Bronstein:
b1 ) After 7 .te3 g6 8 cxd5 exd5 9
.tb5 .tg7 10 0-0 0-0, Fuster-Bron­
stein, Budapest-Moscow 1 949 saw
White spoil Black's plan ( ...'iVd8-d6,
3 lbf3 .tg4 4 lbc3 and 4 'ika4 37
... ltJc6-d8-e6, ... c7-c6, etc.) with 1 1
.txc6 lbxc6 1 2 'iVb5, but after
1 2 . . . lbxd4 1 3 .txd4 .txd4 1 4 .l:.ad 1
c6 ! 15 'iVxb7 1i'b6 Black stood better
thanks to his superb bishop.
b2) 7 cxd5 exd5 8 .tb5 a6 9
.txc6+ lbxc6 1 0 0-0 1i'd7 ! 1 1 .l:.e 1+
.te7 1 2 1i'b3 0-0-0 is given as equal
by Minev.
In any case, 5 gxf3 (D) is certain!y
the stronger of White's two options.
5 ...
e6!
Stronger and more popular than
the alternatives, although 'c' is quite
entertaining:
a) 5 lbf6 was seen in Portisch­
...
Smyslov, Portoroz (5) 1 97 1 , but has
not reappeared at master level since.
a1) With 6 lbc3 e6 7 .tg5 dxc4 8
0-0-0 .te7 9 'iVxc4 lbd5! Black had
already achieved an equal position
( 10 .txe7 lbcxe7 1 1 'itb1 lbxc3+ 12
'iVxc3 lbd5, etc.), though the posi­
tion is less interesting and offers less
prospects of an advantage than those
which result from 5 ...e6.
a2) Perhaps 6 e4 - Watson's sug­
gestion ( 1 9 8 1 ) - is another reason
why 5 . . .lbf6 is not popular. Then
6...e6 is forced (6...dxe4 7 d5), when
38 3 0.f3 i..g4 4 0.c3 and 4 'ila4
7 cxd5 exd5 8 i..b5 'ftd7 9 i.. g5 !
looks very good for White, for exam­
ple 9 i.. b4+ 1 0 0.c3 dxe4 1 1 i.. xf6
•••
gxf6 1 2 0-0-0, or 9 i.. e7 1 0 0.c3
.••
0-0 1 1 i.. xf6 i.. xf6 12 0.xd5 (Wat­
son).
b) In Schmidt-Grabarczyk, Pol­
ish Ch 1 99 1 , Black tried S dxc4?!.
•••
Surrendering the centre cannot be
recommended, and Black soon paid
the price: 6 e3 e5 7 dxe5 'ftd5 8 0.c3
'ii'xf3 9 l:.gl 0-0-0 10 i..e 2! 1 -0
( 1 0...1i'h3 and 10 ...'ftf5 both lose the
queen to 1 1 i.. g4). When I frrst dis­
covered this game it struck me as
very unusual. Already quite weak on
the light squares after exchanging
his bishop, Black decided to open the
centre and go pawn-grabbing with
his queen (on the light squares) - a
suicidal policy. Yet, remarkably, two
years later the game Novikov-Fine­
gold, New York Open 1993, fol­
lowed exactly the same course, and
one of the USA's strongest young
players had to resign after only 1 0
moves.
c) The game Kohler-Muse, Ber­
lin 1995, reached an original posi­
tion in a couple of moves: S eS!? 6
•••
dxe5 'ith4 ! ? (D).
It is precisely new ideas such as
this, discovered by the growing
number of top Chigorin specialists,
which have seen the re-emergence
of this rich and uncompromising
defence in international practice.
Obviously Muse's idea needs con­
siderable testing before an accurate
assessment of its merits can be made.
In this game, though, White had to
withstand tremendous pressure put
on him by an extremely determined
opponent: 7 0.c3 i..c5 8 cxd5 1i'xf2+
9 �d l 0-0-0 1 0 'ii'e4 0.ge7 1 1 i.. d2
0.xd5 12 0.xd5 .l:r.xd5 13 'ftxd5 .l:r.d8
14 i.. h 3+ 'it>b8 15 i..d7 i..b 4. Black
throws everything into the attack,
continuing to hit White on the d-file.
1 6 l:.e l i.. xd2 17 'ftxd2 ( 1 7 'iti>xd2
0.b4 gives Black at least equality,
e.g. 1 8 'ii'x n 'iVd4+) 1 7 . . . 0.xe5 1 8
�c2 l:.xd7 1 9 'ftc3 0.c6 20 l:r.ad 1
lhd 1 2 1 'it>xd 1 f6. After the storm
the position is still not so clear-cut.
Whether White can make the ex­
change tell is open to question, but at
the moment the king and rook are
getting in each other's way. Conse­
quently I would say that Black has
sufficient compensation. The game
ended as it began (wildly), with for­
tune ultimately favouring the brave:
22 b4 'ftxh2 23 'iVc5 a6 24 'iVf8+
'it>a7 25 'iVc5+ 'iti>a8 (Black still plays
for the win, though White does seem
to be helping him on the way) 26 a4
'ii'f4 27 b5 'ii'xa4+ 28 'it>d2 'fta5+ 29
'it>d 1 axb5 30 e3 0.e5 3 1 l:r.e2 '�Val +
3 2 'it>c2 'iVa2+ 3 3 'it>d l 'ifb1+ 34
'it>d2 0.c4+ 35 'it>c3 '�Val + 36 'it>b3
'iVd l + 37 .l:r.c2 'iVd3+ 38 l:.c3 'iVbl
mate (0- 1). Interesting!

6 lDc3
White chose to put his knight on
d2 in Kotronias-Vouldis, Greek Ch
1 993. After 6 e3 i.b4+ 7 lDd2 lDf6 8
a3 i.xd2+ 9 i.xd2 0-0 10 0-0-0 (D)
the following position arose:
We have a typical bishops against
knights situation, and the opposite­
side castling points to White attack­
ing down the g-file. As for Black, he
does not have a ready-made attack
down an open file, so a means to gen­
erate counterplay is to benefit from
his flexible pawn structure, com­
bining a pawn advance on the queen­
side with a timely central break. The
game continued 10 ... dxc4 1 1 i.xc4
a6 12 'ii'c2 'ii'd6 1 3 i.d3 b5 14 l:thg1
b4 (but not 14 ... 'ii'xh2? 15 .l:th 1 and
1 6 i.xh7+) 15 a4 e5 1 6 l1g3 exd4 17
l:tdg1 g6 1 8 f4 dxe3 1 9 fxe3 l1ad8 20
i.c4 'ii'xd2+ 21 'ii'xd2 l1xd2 22 'ittxd2
lDe4+ 23 'itte2 lDxg3+ 24 hxg3, and
White had compensation for the
pawn.
6 ... i.b4
It is also possible to fianchetto the
king's bishop, as in the game Novi­
kov-Danailov, Alicante 1992. Black
played 6 "ii'd7 7 e3 lDge7 8 i.d2 g6
.•.
3 lDf3 i.g4 4 lDc3 and 4 'ila4 39
9 i.h3 i.g7 10 cxd5 lDxd5 1 1 lDxd5
'ii'xd5 1 2 i.g2 e5 13 dxe5 0-0-0 with
a comfortable game. After 14 i.c3
i.xe5 15 0-0 i.xc3 16 bxc3 'ii'a5 1 7
'ii'b3 l:r.d7 1 8 f4 lDd8 1 9 .l:tab1 c 6 20
'ii'c4 l1e8 21 .l:tb4 .l:.e6 22 l:[fb1 .:ted6
23 'ii'b3 l1d2 24 i.h3 f5 25 .:ta4 'ii'c5
26 i.fl 'ittb8 27 .l:.d4 'ii'e7 28 l:tb2 a
draw was agreed, though 28 ....U.xb2
29 'ii'xb2 lDe6 seems to favour Black,
who was probably somewhat afraid
of his higher-rated opponent.
7 cxd5
It is a matter of taste whether
White should make this capture now,
later or not at all. Kiril Georgiev pre­
ferred to retain the tension against
Morozevich in Tilburg 1993, prepar­
ing to castle queenside with 7 e3
lDe7 8 i.d2 0-0 9 'ii'c2 lDg6 10 f4
lDh4 1 1 0-0-0, taking on d5 only af­
ter Black had prepared his forces ef­
fectively : 1 1 ... lDe7 1 2 'ittb 1 c6 1 3
i.d3 'itth8 ! 1 4 'ii'b3 a5 15 cxd5 exd5
1 6 i.e 1 i.xc3 1 7 'ii'xc3 lDc8 1 8 'ii'c2
lDd6 with advantage to Black.
7 exd5
8 a3 i.xc3+
9 bxc3 (D)
By inviting the exchange on c3,
White has foregone the opportunity
to provide a safe haven for his mon­
arch with queenside castling. Indeed,
there is no longer a truly secure place
for the king to go to. In return for this
inconvenience White has the poten­
tially useful bishop pair as well as
the b-file to add to the g-file for use
as outposts for the rooks.
Black has a sound pawn structure
and his pieces have enough flexibil­
ity to operate in the centre or on
40 3 l'Df3 i..g4 4 ll:.c3 and 4 'fla4
B this with 10...l'De7, but as I I i.g5
either flank. The game is well bal­
anced.
9 .•. l'De7
The more enterprising 9.. 'ii'f6 .
leads to some very interesting play.
The reply 10 l:lb1 is risky for White
after 10 ... l'De7 ! I I ltxb7 0-0, threat-
ening 1 2 ...l:lab8, so White's best is
10 h4 h6 1 1 'ii'bS ! ( 1 1 l:lb1 l'De7 !,
with the idea of countering 12 i.g5?
with the winning 12 ...'ii'g6), when
Black is struggling wherever he puts
his king:
a) After 11 ... 0-0-0 White still re­
plies 1 2 i.g5 !, e.g. 1 2 ... l'Dxd4 (alter­
natively 1 2 ... hxg5 1 3 hxg5 'ii'xg5 14
l:lxh8) 13 i.xf6 ( 13 cxd4? loses to
1 3 ... hxg5 14 hxg5 'ii'xd4) 1 3 ... l'Dxb5
14 i.h3+! .l:.d7 1 5 i.xg7 l:lh7 1 6
l:lg1 with a decisive advantage for
White.
b) 11 .. l'De7 dares White's queen
.
to go pawn-grabbing, but the follow­
ing variation shows that the chal­
lenge should be accepted: 1 2 'ifxb7
( 1 2 i.g5 ! ? slightly favours White)
1 2 .0-0 1 3 'ii'xc7 ! l'Dxd4 (otherwise
..
Black will remain two pawns down
for nothing) 14 cxd4 'ii'xd4 15 l:lbl
l:lfc8 16 'ii'f4 ! ( 1 6 'ii'xe7 l:lab8! 17
l:lxb8 'ifc3+ is amusing).
Of course Black can avoid all of
gains time and guarantees White an
edge, why bother bringing the queen
out in the first place?
10 l:lb1 l:lb8
11 h4?!
Too ambitious. When faced with
the Chigorin White is often fooled
into taking liberties. Better is the
sensible 11 i.f4 0-0 12 e3 with an
equal position.
Black should now deny White's
dark-squared bishop a natural post
on f4 with l l . ..'ifd6 ! , when Black
will find it much easier to complete
the development of his forces.
11 ... 0-0?!
12 hS?!
12 i.f4! is crying out to be played.
12 ... 'iid6!
At last one of the players makes
an accurate assessment of the posi­
tion. The automatic 12...h6 leads to
an unclear struggle after 1 3 i.h3
'ii'd6 14 e4.
13 h6 g6
14 e4!? (D)
We could be forgiven for wonder­
ing whether White knows how the

pieces move ! Apart from the early
queen sortie and the rook being
nudged across to b1, White's remain­
ing pieces are still on their original
squares. White has made ten pawn
moves (or captures) to Black's four ­
not an uncommon occurrence in the
Chigorin.
14 ... 'fi'e6
Thus far Black has defended the
threat to his b-pawn and then calmly
ignored his opponent's primitive
display of hostility. His strength is
his solidity and grip on the centre
(where the rooks are ready to take up
position).
Instead of the solid and strong
move 14 .. .'f!Ve6, Black has a flashy
(and bad) alternative in 14 dxe4 15
•••
fxe4 lbd5, hoping to snare one of
the rooks after 1 6 exd5 ( 1 6 'ii'c 2?
l:tfe8 gives Black a dangerous in­
itiative) 16 . . .'i!Vxd5. Then 17 l:th4 ! is
the only move to stop 17 ...'ii'e4+ and
18 . . .'ii'xb1 , but it is also good enough
to win: e.g. 17 . . . g5 1 8 l:tg4 ! l:tfe8+
19 i.e3 'ii'f5 20 'i!Vd 1 ! .
14 l:tfe8 15 i.e3 is not as effec­
..•
tive for Black as the text because it
fails to put White's frail centre under
di,rect pressure.
15 i.h3
After 15 e5, 1 5 . . .'ii'f5 hits b1 and
f3.
15.•. f5
15 'ii'f6 1 6 'ii'd l .
.••
16 0-0!?
A bizarre situation in which to
castle - particularly after the h-pawn
has marched down the board - yet
this may well be better than the alter­
natives:
3 lbf3 i.g4 4 lbc3 and 4 'ila4 41
a) 16 'ii'c2 'fi'f6 ! puts White in
difficulties regardless of how he con­
tinues - both 17 e5 and 17 exd5/f5
leave the white pawns looking ugly
and the bishops without a future,
while a waiting policy allows Black
to open the game at an opportune
moment.
b) 16 i.g5 dxe4 17 0-0!? lbd5 18
'fi'b3 requires careful handling:
b1) 18 lba5 19 'ilfc2 exf3 ! (not
••.
19 . . . lbc4? 20 fxe4 ! followed by
20 ... 'ii'xe4 21 'ii'xe4 fxe4 22 i.e6+)
20 c4 is terribly messy.
b2) Correct is 18 'fi'f7!. This
•••
multi-purpose move protects the
queen (on the a2-g8 diagonal) and
vacates both the h3-c8 diagonal and
the e-file, thus avoiding nasty pins.
c) 16 e5 lLlc8 1 7 0-0 lLlb6 1 8 'ii'c2
lbc4 is wonderful for Black.
16 ..• 'iif6
16 dxe4 1 7 l:te 1 'ii'f6 1 8 fxe4
•••
fxe4 19 'ii'c2 is unclear.
17 exd5!
Not 17 e5? 'fi'h4 ! .
17 ••• lbxd5
18 'ii'c4 l:tbd8
Black needs to keep the knight's
outpost on d5. The ultra-safe alterna­
tive 18 lbce7 19 i.f4 .:.n is slightly
•••
better for Black, if not as good as the
text.
19 l:lb5
19 l:txb7?? lba5.
19 'ii'd6
20 i.g5 l:td7
21 l:te1 a6 (D)
22 l:txd5?
It is understandable that White is
prepared to sacrifice in order to try to
inject some life into his game - and
42 3 l£:Jf3 i..g4 4 l£:Jc3 and 4 'ika4
hopefully lift the annoying blockade
- by reactivating the light-squared
bishop. In retrospect the exchange is
too big a price to pay for this slim
chance.
The alternatives:
a) 22 lbb7? still loses to 22...l£:Ja5.
b) 22 l:tbbl b5 23 'ii'a2 �h8 fa­
vours Black thanks to his strong
blockade and control of the light
squares.
c) Perhaps White's best chance
is 22 l:tb2!? with the idea of dou­
bling rooks on the e-file. However, it
is doubtful whether this plan con­
tains enough venom to compensate
for Black's dominance of the queen­
side.
22 'ii'xd5
23 i..n b5
24 'ii'xd5+ l:txd5
25 f4
Black threatened to trap the other
bishop with 25 ... f4, and 25 i..d2 runs
the risk of cutting vital communica­
tion with the h6-pawn. The text also
opens the h l -a8 diagonal.
25 ••. 1ld7
Defending a potentially weak sec­
ond rank.
26 a4 l:tb8 27 i..g2 tD&5 28 axb5
After 28 1le6?! .l:td6 29 1le7 bxa4
the passed pawn decides.
28...axb5 29 :tal
Now it is safe to play 29 l:te6,
when Black will find the realisation
of his material advantage more prob­
lematic than in the game.
29 ... l£:Jb3 30 l:ta7
After 30 l:.bl l£:Jd2 Black eyes
both e4 and c4.
30 ... b4 31 cxb4
Forced. 3 1 i..c6 l:td6 32 .l:f.xc7 bxc3
is final.
31...l£:Jxd4 32 l:.a5 c6!
Even though the line 32 . . . l:.xb4?!
33 i.. d 5+ .l:txd5 34 .l:txd5 is still bet­
ter for Black, there is no reason to re­
turn the exchange so early.
33 l:ta6 l:tc7 34 i..f6 l:txb4 35
l:.a8+ �f7 36 i..e5 l:td7 37 �h2
Or:
a) 37 i..xd4 l:.bxd4 38 i.. xc6 l:.c7
39 i..g2 .:txf4.
b) 37 l:th8 �e6 38 l:te8+ .l:te7.
37 ... llc4 38 1lh8 �e6 39 1le8+
l:te7 40 .:td8 l£:Jb5 41 i..f3 g5! 42
i..e2 l:.e4 (D)
The final phase of the battle be­
gins.
43 i..d3

Or else:
a) 43 i.xb5 cxb5 44 :d6+ �f7
45 l:.f6+ �e8 46 l:.xf5 gxf4.
b) 43 i.f3 l:.xe5 44 fxe5 0.a7 ! 45
.ixc6 0.xc6 46 l:.d6+ �xeS 47 .l:.xc6
l:.e6 48 :c5+ �f6 49 l:.c7 �g6.
43....l:.xe5! 44 fxeS �xeS
Black is winning. White can -
temporarily - reduce the deficit to
one pawn, but only by entering a
helpless rook and pawn ending.
45 i.xbS cxbS 46 l:.b8 :e6!
More to the point is 46 . . . �f4 47
l:.xb5 l:.e6 48 �g2 (48 l:tb4+ 'it>f3)
48 . . .g4.
47 �g3 ::xh6?!
3 0.j3 i.g4 4 0.c3 and 4 'iia4 43
47 ... 'it>f6 48 l:.xb5 'it>g6.
48 l:.xb5+ �f6 49 llb6+ cj;g7 50
llb7+ �g6 51 f4 g4 52 .l:.b6+ �g7?!
52... �h5 .
53 .l:.b7+ �g8 54 .l:.b8+ �f7 55
l:tb7+ �g6 56 l:tb6+ �hS!
After some dilly-dallying Black
makes progress.
57 .l:.b7
57 l1b5 l:.f6.
57 ... .l:.c6! 58 l:txh7+ �g6 59 l:ta7
l:tc3+ 60 'it>g2 .l:.f3 61 :a4 �hS 62
l:tb4 �h4 63 :a4 l:tg3+ 0-1
64 'it>h2 (or 64 'it>f2 �h3, etc.)
64 . . .l:tb3 65 lla2 l:tc4, or 65 �g2
:b2+ and 66 ... ..t.i>g3.
2 3 tt:Jf3 ii.g4 4 cxd5 ii.xf3
5 gxf3

The variation with 5 .'iVxd5 6 e3 e5

•• 5 ... 'iVxd5 (D)
(Games 10- 1 3) produces the classic
Chigorin situation in which Black
has two knights against two bishops.
Black often has a lead in develop­
ment, resulting in early occupation
of the central files with rooks, and
the central squares with pieces (queen
and knights). Meanwhile White en­
deavours to activate his bishops,
which tend to be hampered by their
own pawns.
6 e6 (Game 14), on the other
•••

hand, is not so hectic. The queens 6 i.e3

are exchanged early and the game
revolves around White's damaged
kingside pawns. I rather like this ap­
proach for Black.
First we should have a brief look
at the weak 5 exf3?.
Game 9
Svendsen - Reefschliiger
Gausdal 1995
1 d4 d5 2 c4 lLlc6 3 lLlf3 i.g4 4 cxd5
i.xf3
5 exf3
There is little to recommend this
move apart from its surprise value.
The d4-pawn is left terribly weak,
and even when White gambits it he
does not get enough compensation
The gambit with 6 lLlc3 'iVxd4 has
been tested in the 15 years since Wat­
son's book. Moutousis-Atalik, Peris­
teri 1994, is a good example of how
Black has little trouble consolidat­
ing after accepting the pawn: 7 'iVc2
(Watson assessed 7 'iVb3 'iVb4 and 7
'iVe2 0-0-0 8 i.e3 'iVb4 as comfort­
able for Black) 7 . . .'iVd7 8 i.b5 a6 9
i.a4 e5 I 0 i.e3 i.d6 1 1 lLle4 lLlge7
1 2 lLlc5 'iVc8 . Now Black is ready to
finish his development and White
has nothing to show for the pawn.
6 -· 0-0-0!?
A new idea. Black wastes no time,
developing actively and exerting
pressure on the d-pawn. Previously
Black had pushed the e-pawn:
a) Soltis has recommended 6 e6 •.•

(see note to White's 6th move). 7 lLlc3 'it'd? with equality. Again the
 3 lLlf3 ..i.g4 4 cxd5 ..i.xj3 5 gxf3 45

d4-pawn is weak, and Black threat­

ens to take control of the d5-square.
The immediate 8 d5 fails against
8 ...exd5 9 lLlxd5 (exchanging queens
leaves Black with a useful queenside
pawn majority) 9 ...0-0-0 (e.g. 10 ..i.c4
lLla5), and 8 ..i.c4 lLlf6 9 d5 exd5 1 0
lLlxd5 lLlxd5 with . . ...i.f8-b4+ to fol­
low is fine for Black (Watson).
b) 6 e5 7 lLlc3 ..i.b4 8 "ifa4 exd4
••.

9 "ii'xb4 lLlxb4 1 0 lLlxd5 lLlxd5 1 1

..i.xd4 lLlgf6 12 ..i.c4 (Sazontiev-Khro­ 0-1
pov, USSR 1 964) looks drawish to
me. White's powerful bishops com­ 6 e5
...

pensate for his damaged pawn struc­

ture. However, the ending after the This is the more forcing of Black's
continuation 8 ..i.xc3+ 9 bxc3 exd4
••• 6th move options, leading to the
1 0 cxd4 "ii'a5 + 1 1 "ifxa5 lLlxa5 is classic two bishops vs two knights
worth considering. struggle.
7 lLlc3 "ifaS 6 ...e5 is always followed by the
8 ..i.bS moves 7 lLlc3 ..i.b4 (D)
At least the d-pawn is safe after 8
"ii' b 3 (hitting the f7-pawn) 8 . . . e6 9
0-0-0, though 9 ...lLlf6 keeps the d5-
square under control and must there­
fore favour Black.
8 lLlxd4
9 ..i.xd4 e5
10 "ifc2 exd4
11 "iff5+ 'it>b8
12 0-0-0 (D)
White breaks the pin on the e 1-a5
diagonal and creates one himself
on the d-file. Unfortunately for the White has two ways to break the
first player Black continues the 'pin' pin on the knight: 8 ..i.d2 and 8 a3.
theme with decisive results. The former is seen in the majority of
12 .•• lLlh6 games, so we will investigate it first.
13 "iff4 After 8 ..i.d2 ..i.xc3 9 bxc3 it is
13 "ifes a6. Black's turn to choose. The two can­
13 ..i.a3! didates are the simplifying 9 ... exd4
14 bxa3 "ifxa3+ and 9 . . .1i'd6 (maintaining the ten­
15 'it>b1 dxc3 sion).
46 3 liJf3 j_g4 4 cxd5 j_xJ3 5 gxf3
9 ... exd4
Game 10
Smirin - Kosten
Tilburg 1992
1 liJf3 dS 2 d4 lbc6 3 c4 j_g4 4 cxdS
j_xf3 5 gxf3 'ii'xdS 6 e3 eS 7 liJc3
j_b4 8 j_d2 j_xc3 9 bxc3 exd4
10 cxd4
10 exd4 severs White's pawn mass
and is clearly illogical.
10 •.• liJge7 (D)
11 j_d3
This is by no means White's only
move here. Others:
a) 11 .l:tg1 prepares to develop the
bishop on the h l -a8 diagonal in an­
other fashion. Black can then castle
on either side:
a 1 ) The game Wells-Shannon,
Hastings 1 988, showed the sting in
1 1 .l:tgl when Black castles kingside:
11 ...0-0? 1 2 f4 .l:tfe8 1 3 j_g2 'ii'e6 14
d5 ! liJxd5 15 j_xd5 'ii'xd5 16 .l:txg7+!
�f8 17 j_c3 'ii'c4 18 'ii'b3 and Black
soon threw in the towel.
a2) In Savchenko-Furhoff, Ber­
lin 1 99 1 , White did not get the op­
portunity to carry out the desired
plan because, after 11 0-0-0! 12 f4,
•.•
Black celebrated the completion of
his development in true Chigorin
style with a long-term piece sacri­
fice: 12 ...liJxd4 ! ? 13 exd4 'ii'xd4.
Black has two pawns for the
knight but, more importantly, guar­
anteed pressure against White's king.
This is often a danger for White,
whose advantage of the two bishops
is usually acquired at the cost of sev­
eral tempi. The game proceeded: 14
j_e2 .l:the8 15 .l:tbl ltlf5 1 6 'ii'c2 g6
1 7 .l:td l 'ii'd6 1 8 'ii'c4 .l:txe2+ ! ? 1 9
'ii'xe2 ltld4 20 'ii'd 3 'ii'c6 2 1 'ii'h 3+ f5
22 .l:tg3 ltlc2+ 23 �fl 'ii'c4+ 24 �g1
'ii'e2 25 'ii'n .l:txd2.
Savchenko now traded queens,
producing an unclear ending which
finally ended in a draw another 26
moves later. Perhaps the slow 1 1
.l:tgl and 1 2 f4 is a luxury White can
ill afford - it does seem to be asking
for trouble. However, Black needs
good nerves and a lot of patience to
follow up the positional sacrifice.
b) l l .l:tcl 0-0-0 1 2 .l:tc5 was bet­
ter for White in Normantas-Kahn,
Corr 1990 (12 ...'ii'xa2? 13 d5 ! ltlxd5
14 j_c4 ). An improvement for Black
is 11 ...'ii'xa2 1 2 j_c4 'ii'a 3, with an
unclear game.
c) The speculative alternative
11 'ii'b 3!? leads to Skalkotas-Kourk­
ounakis (see below).
d) 11 j_e2 is Tjiam-Finegold,
which featured in the introduction.
Back to the game:
11 ... 0-0-0
12 j_e4 'ii'e6
Dropping the queen back to e6
prevents White from continuing with

f3-f4 and �d1-f3, although I'm not
sure why this is something Black
should be afraid of. One game which
has helped dissuade us from playing
the natural 12 �d6 is Kapetanovic­
••.
Baumhus, Vienna 1 99 1 , which fa­
voured White after 1 3 f4 'iVe6 1 4
�f3 f5 15 .i.xc6 tbxc6 1 6 0-0 g5? 1 7
fxg5 h6 1 8 g 6 ! - White tucked his
king on h 1 and put his rooks on g1
and bl. I do not like 1 6 . . .g5? very
much. 16...h6, preparing ... g7-g5,
seems sensible, giving Black a good
game thanks to his grip on the light
squares and the corning kingside ex­
pansion. Notice that White is with­
out an effective pawn-break.
13 'ifh3
It is hardly surprising that White
has other squares for the queen. The
b3-square must be a useful outpost ­
in Skalkotas-Kourkounakis White
plays 1 1 'iVb3 without even bother­
ing to defend the f3-pawn ! From b3
the queen works well with the light­
squared bishop (and - soon - the
queen's rook on b1) to concentrate
on the vulnerable b7-pawn and the
light squares around Black's king.
Black can now nip any mating
ideas in the bud by swapping queens.
According to Ftacnik White has a
small advantage after 13...'ifxb3 14
axb3 'it>b8 15 l:tg1 , but the resulting
situation is very similar to Tjiam­
Finegold (see Introduction) in which
Black had no problems whatsoever.
Kosten prefers to keep the queens
on the board, believing he can con­
tain White by clamping down on the
centre.
13 ... tLldS
3 tbf3 .i.g4 4 cxd5 .i.x/3 5 gxf3 47
14 l:tb1 b6
15 'ifa4 l:td6
Better than 15...'it>b7 1 6 .i.d3.
16 l:tcl
Having forced a positional con­
cession in ... b7-b6, the rook shifts to
another file. Smirin's move also sets
a nice trap.
16 ... g6!
16...f5 is tempting and, indeed,
what Black would like to play. Un­
fortunately White has the crushing
17 l:txc6 ! l:txc6 1 8 .i.xf5 'iVxf5 19
�xc6 'ii'b 1 + 20 'it>e2 'iVxh 1 2 1 'iVa8+
�d7 22 �xd5+ ! 'it>e7 23 .i.b4+ c5
24 dxc5.
17 'iVc4 �b7
Again Black must wait to chase
the bishop away, in view of 17...f5?
1 8 .i.xd5 �xd5 19 'iVxd5 l:txd5 20
l:txc6.
18 0-0 (D)
18 f5
Black finally manages to evict the
bishop.
19 .i.d3 l:thd8
Ftacnik gave 19 ... tbb8 20 e4 fxe4
2 1 .i.xe4 (2 1 fxe4 'iVg4+) as clearly
better for White, presumably be­
cause the white pieces look quite
48 3 &DJ3 .ig4 4 cxd5 .ixj3 5 gxf3

menacing. Nevertheless, I think that 26 .l:r.8d7 27 .l:r.xg5 &Dce7 28 .l:r.e5

.••

this assessment should be reversed 'fif7 29 .ig5 &Des

after 21 ...c6. Black's king is now 29 ...&Dg6 30 .l:r.f5 'ii'g 8 3 1 .l:r.g 1 still
very well protected behind a solid leaves White in control.
wall of pawns and pieces. The d5- 30 .if5!
square is firmly in Black's hands, White steps up a gear.
and he is ready to put his structural 30 c6 31 .ixd7 'ii'xf3+ 32 'it>g1
.••

superiority to good use (take a look &Df4 33 .ixc6+! :xc6 34 'ii'xc6+

at White's scattered, helpless pawns) 'ii'xc6 35 .l:r.xc6 1-0
by threatening to exchange a few
pieces. Game 1 1
20 'it>h1 'ii'f6 Skalkotas - Kourkounakis
21 f4 h6 Greece Ch 1994
21...g5 22 fxg5 'ii'xg5 23 .l:r.g l fa-
vours White, who is very active. 1 d4 d5 2 c4 &Dc6 3 &Df3 .ig4 4 cxd5
22 .l:r.g1 g5 .ixf3 5 gxf3 'ii'xd5 6 e3 e5 7 &Dc3
23 fxg5 hxg5 .ib4 8 .id2 .ixc3 9 bxc3 exd4 10
24 e4! (D) cxd4 &Dge7
White must continue to be aggres­ 11 'ii'b 3!?
sive. There is a thin line between safely
winning a pawn or two and losing
valuable time, and White considers
B that, after giving away the f3-pawn,
he will then generate an initiative by
harassing the queen. This is never
easy to judge for either player, al­
though in this case I believe that
Black is justified in taking up the
challenge because this variation nor­
mally produces unclear positions
anyway. Moreover, it is usually the
black king which is tucked away
24 fxe4 25 .ixe4 'ii'e6
•.. from any danger while White puts
25 . . . 'ii'xd4 26 .ixg5 .l:r.e8 27 f3 is his faith in a couple of open files for
difficult for Black. his rooks, leaving the king in the
26 f3 centre. If Black is able to reach the
White's bishops are finally dem­ usual kind of position with even the
onstrating their power. Attempting to smallest material gain, then he
swap one of them now with 26 ... g4 should take the opportunity.
27 .l:r.xg4 &Df6 loses: 28 'fixe6 :xe6 11 'ii'xf3
29 .l:r.xc6 ! .l:r.xc6 30 .ixc6+ 'it>xc6 3 1 12 .l:r.g1 0-0 (D)
.l:r.g6 .l:r.d6 32 .if4. 13 .ig2

13 ii'xb7 fails to 13 ...lt:Jxd4 !, with
a commanding position for Black af­
ter 14 ii'b2 lt:Jef5 !, for example 1 5
exd4 (15 ..tg2 iie2 mate) 15 . . .l:tae8+,
etc.
13 ..• iih5
14 l:tc1
Ricardi-Sanchez Almeyra, Argen­
tine Ch 1987, went instead 14 �fl
l:tab8 1 5 l:tc 1 lt:Jg6 1 6 l:tc5 iixh2 1 7
l:th 1 'i!id6 1 8 l:tch5 (an original way
of doubling rooks on the h-file !)
18 ... h6 1 9 ..tc3 lt:Jce7 20 d5 with a
complicated struggle in prospect, al­
though the onus is on White to prove
he has compensation for the two
pawns (I doubt that he has).
14 .•. iixh2
15 �fl 'ft'd6
Having journeyed round the king­
side picking up pawns the black
queen returns to the centre of the
board, ready to contribute to the es­
tablishment of a blockade and the
erection of a fortress which - hope­
fully - will enable Black to weather
the storm long enough to put the ex­
tra material to good use.
In fact, I don't believe that White
stands well enough to do any real
damage - there is nothing in the
3 ltJf3 ..tg4 4 cxd5 Lf3 5 gxf3 49
position to suggest that Black cannot
comfortably soak up the pressure.
16 l:tc5
White must meet 16 "ii'xb7 l:tab8
with 17 "ii'a6, when 17 ... l:tb6 still
leaves Black with an edge. 17 l:txc6
loses to 17 . . . l:txb7 1 8 l:txd6 l:tbl +
(19 .tel cxd6, or 19 �e2 l:txgl ).
16
.•. l:tad8
17 ..te4
Again it is not in White's interest
to grab the b-pawn, because this
time Black answers 17 'iiixb7 with
17 . . . lt:Jxd4 ! . The safety of the b7-
pawn is a surprising (and common)
feature of the Chigorin. Being able
to carry on with rapid development
by bringing the rook to the centre in­
stead of going passive and defending
makes Black's game all the more
pleasant to conduct.
With 17 .te4 White clears the g­
file while simultaneously activating
his light-squared bishop, which no
longer has a future on the h l -a8 di­
agonal. White plans to drop the
bishop back to c2, from where it has
the option of remaining on the b l-h7
diagonal or relocating to b3 or a4 at
some point. Even if Black stands bet­
ter and the two pawn advantage is a
substantial one, it is nevertheless im­
perative that Black defend precisely.
17
••• "ii'e6
18 'ilfh1 f5! (D)
Black must not be afraid of the
slight weakening of the a2-g8 diago­
nal since his pieces are ideally posi­
tioned to neutralise White's resulting
pressure. Moreover, . . . f7-f5 is an
essential part of Black's strategy,
which revolves around entrenching
50 3 li:Jf3 i.g4 4 cxd5 i.xf3 5 gxf3
a knight on d5 and maintaining the
blockade for as long as necessary.
The f5-pawn plays a vital role in this
operation, ruling out the thematic
e3-e4.
19 i.c2 b6
On the 5th rank White's rook ex­
erts unwelcome pressure on d5, so
Black chases it away before it causes
a problem. Nudging the b-pawn for­
ward from the exposed b7 -square
also dashes any hopes White may
have had of snatching it later. These
two pluses are enough to justify the
weakening of the c6-square and the
a4-e8 diagonal.
20 ..t b3 li:Jd5
I admit the bishop looks very
threatening as it bears down on
Black's queen and king, but with the
help of the flexible Chigorin knights
Black is able to tame it.
21 :c2 :d7!
Covering the second rank in this
type of position should become sec­
ond nature to Chigorin players.
22 'iVcl li:Jce7
23 ..tb4 :m
Rock-solid ! Nimzowitsch would
be proud of Black's display of block­
ade and over-protection. Now that
White has no threats Black can con­
centrate on going on the offensive
himself. One idea is to follow up the
preparatory 24 .. .'iith 8 (it is sensible
first to move away from the uncom­
fortable influence of the b3-bishop)
with 25 ...'fi'e4.
24 i.a3 'it>h8!
25 ..ta4
This useless move is an admission
that White has come to a standstill.
25 :ds
26 i.b3 f4! (D)
Obviously Black has no intention
of splitting the point. He is in total
control, has two extra pawns, and his
king is safe from attack.
From White's point of view the
potential drawbacks of this variation
have become reality. His attempts at
producing an initiative have come to
naught. Note how Black has not
yielded - he has not made a single
significant positional concession,
and he still has a completely sound
pawn formation.
Now Black threatens 27 ... fxe3,
and 27 exf4 'iVh3+ further exposes
the white king, so White's next is
damage limitation.

27 e4
White's third pawn sacrifice, but
this time it is aimed at fending off an
attack rather than creating one. For
the rest of the game Black must
make sure he gives nothing away.
27 ...'ii'xe4 28 l:.e2 'ii'd3 29 i.c4
..h3+ 30 �e1 tLlg8! (D)
After this tidy knight manoeuvre
Black no longer has to worry about
i.xe7 catching him overloaded. The
white bishop is now useless on a3 .
31 l:.e5 tLlgf6 32 i.b2 .l:f.fd7!
Sensible safety play. White is not
going anywhere, so why not remind
him who controls the all-important
d5-square?
33 .tn ..h4 34 .te2 'ii'h2 35 :n
tLlb4!? 36 'ii'c4 f3
With a comfortable three pawn
cushion and harmoniously posted
forces, Black is spoilt for choice as to
how to turn his decisive advantage
into a full point. As 37 ..xb4 fxe2 38
�xe2 (38 .l:f.xe2 c5) 38 ... d5 is out of
the question for White, he obligingly
'falls' into the trap. Some players
would resign instead.
37 i.xf3 ttJd3+ 38 'ii'xd3 'ii'xe5+
39 dxe5 .l:txd3 40 exf6
3 tbf3 i.g4 4 cxd5 i.xj3 5 gxf3 51
40 i.e2 l:d2.
40 ... .l:f.xf3 41 fxg7+ �g8 42 �e2
l:.fd3 43 i.e5 l:.d2+ 44 �e3 l:.d1 0-1
9 .'iVd6
..
Game l 2
Cvitan Maksimovic
-
Yugoslav Ch 1988
1 ttJf3 d5 2 d4 tLlc6 3 c4 i.g4 4 cxd5
i.xf3 5 gxf3 'ii'xd5 6 e3 e5 7 tbc3
i.b4 8 i.d2 i.xc3 9 bxc3
9 ... ..d6 (D)
Some players consider the alter­
native 9 . . . exd4 to be too simplistic,
maybe even obliging. The exchange
allows White to rid himself of the c3-
pawn and opens the e l -a5 diagonal
for the bishop and the c-file for the
rook. Black also gives up an influ­
ential central pawn. However, the
queen does not have as much scope
on d6 as it does on d5, and Black's
9th move loses time. 9 . . .exd4 and
9 . . .'ii'd6 both have their pros and
cons, and the choice is really just a
matter of taste.
10 l:.b1 b6
11 l:.g1
52 3 l:Df3 i.g4 4 cxd5 i.x./3 5 gxf3
Kasparov tried 11 f4 in his match
with Smyslov in Vilnius 1 984, lead­
ing to an entertaining draw: 1 l ...exf4
1 2 e4 l:Dge7 1 3 'ii'f3 0-0 14 i.xf4
'ii'a3 1 5 i.e2 f5 16 0-0 fxe4 17 'ifxe4
'ifxc3 1 8 i.e3 'ifa3 1 9 i.d3 'ifd6 20
1Wxh7+ �f7 2 1 l:lb5 (D).
2 1 .. .l:Dxd4 22 'ife4 l:lad8 23 i.xd4
'ir'xd4 24 l:lf5+ l:Dxf5 25 'ifxf5+ 'it>g8
26 'ifh7+ �f7 1h-1h.
11 ... l:Dge7
If Black does not feel comfortable
sacrificing the g-pawn he can follow
the example of the Belgian Chigorin
specialist Marc Geenen. In Ipek­
Geenen, Haifa Echt 1 989, Black
gave the second white rook the cold
shoulder with 1 1 . . . g6. After 1 2 1i'a4
0-0-0 1 3 i.b5 l:Dge7 White could
find nothing better than 14 i.c 1 , il­
lustrating one of the benefits of
B lack keeping the pawn on e5 - it
restricts White considerably. The
game went 14 . . .exd4 15 cxd4 'ifxh2
1 6 .l:lg3 .l:ld6 17 i.a3 .l:le6 1 8 i.xe7
lhe3+ 1 9 fxe3 'ifxg3+ 20 <;t>d2
l:Dxe7 2 1 'ifxa7 'itr>d8 22 'ifa8+ l:Dc8 23
f4 'ifh2+ 24 i.e2 l:te8 112-112. Black
could certainly have considered go­
ing for a win (he has an extra pawn).
12 l:lxg7 0-0-0 (D)
A typical feature in this variation.
Once again Black is content to make
a modest material investment in re­
turn for king safety and a lead in de­
velopment. In stark contrast White
has the usual problem of weighing
up the risk of winning a pawn at the
cost of a few tempi, as well as the
usual liability of an uncastled king
to contend with.
Black often enjoys a psychologi­
cal edge in the Chigorin because at
an early stage he is already gearing
up to launch an offensive.
13 'ifa4
Taking the f7-pawn is very risky:
Black answers 13 .l:lxf7 by 1 3 ...'ifg6,
intending 14 'iVb3 l:Da5 ! , or 14 i.c4
t:Dd5 . Therefore 14 .l:lxe7 is forced,
but Black has an initiative and will
still be able to line up his major
pieces against White's king.
13 ••• l:the8!
Black's set-up on the two centre
files is looking rather threatening.
14 i.b5
14 .l:lxh7/f7? 1i'g6 gives Black
one of the eager white rooks.
14 ••• 'ittb7

15 llb3 exd4
16 cxd4 'iWxh2
17 .J:tc3?
17 l:tg4 provides added protection
to the d4-pawn, with an unclear
game.
17 •.• �1+
18 �e2 (D)
1 8 ..tfl , though wimpish, would
at least avoid the following, almost
thematic, sequence.
B
18 ... ltJxd4+ 19 exd4 lDc6+ 20
lle3
20 .i.e3 lDxd4+ 2 1 'ii'xd4 llxd4
22 .i.xe8 'ii'd 1 mate.
20 ... ltJxd4+ 21 'ii'xd4 l':.xd4 22
.i.xe8 'ii'a l! 23 llg4 llxg4 24 fxg4
'ii'xa2
In most cases (other factors being
equal) a rook and two bishops are a
match for a queen, but here Black
has three (extra) connected passed
pawns which even provide excellent
cover for the king. Unfortunately for
White neither of his remaining
pawns is passed, and he will be too
busy defending to have the time to
generate one. The careful support
and advance of Black's a-pawn is
enough to guarantee victory.
3 ltJf3 .i.g4 4 cxd5 Lf3 5 gxf3 53
25 .i.bS aS 26 .i.d3 a4 27 lle8 a3
28 .i.e4+ c6 29 l:te7+ �a6 30 �e3
30 .i.xc6? 'ii'c 4+ and 3 I .. .'ihc6.
The game ended:
30 'iWb3+ 31 .i.d3+ bS 32 �e2
.•.
'iWb2 33 ..trs a2 34 .i.c8+ �b6 35
l:tb7+ �cS 36 �d3 alii' 0-1
8 a3
Game 1 3
Moskalenko - Morozevich
Moscow 1994
1 d4 dS 2 c4 ltJc6 3 lDf3 .i.g4 4 cxdS
.i.xf3 5 gxf3 'iWxdS 6 e3 eS 7 lDc3
..tb4
8 a3!? (D)
Although 8 a3 does not enjoy the
same level of popularity as 8 .i.d2, it
is a logical method of breaking the
pin if White intends to make use of
his queen's bishop on the a1 -h8 di­
agonal.
8 •.. ..txc3+
Consistent and forced. 8... .i.a5? 9
b4 more than justifies White's 8th
move, and 8 ... exd4?? loses on the
spot to 9 axb4.
9 bxc3 ltJge7
54 3 fi::.j3 �g4 4 cxd5 Lf3 5 gxf3
In J.Horvath-Z.Varga, Hungarian
Ch 1 995, Black anticipated a threat
to his queen, retreating with 9 'ifd6.
...
After 1 0 .:b1 b6 1 1 f4 ! ? exf4 12 e4
0.ge7 1 3 1i'f3 0-0 14 1i'xf4 1i'e6 1 5
.: g 1 the players agreed a draw in
what is a dynamically balanced, in­
teresting position.
10 c4 'ifd6
11 dS fi:Jb8
12 �b2
White reaches the position he was
hoping for when he played 8 a3. Fine
for Black are 12 .:b1 b6 and 12 a4
0.d7 1 3 �a3 0.c5.
12 ••• fi:Jd7
13 h4!?
Having the two bishops allows
White to make this aggressive thrust.
The idea is to push the pawn to h5 in
order to keep Black's pieces out of
g6. Should White manage to throw
in h5-h6 at the right moment, this
will weaken the dark squares around
Black's king, enhancing the influ­
ence of the b2-bishop.
13 0-0
14 �d3 (D)
A brief glance at the diagram po­
sition suggests that White is doing
very well. He has two raking - unop­
posed - bishops which may, at some
point, combine with the menacing h­
pawn and the rook (the g-file looks
inviting), creating opportunities to
attack Black's king. Even without a
kingside offensive, White knows that
long-range bishops generally prove
superior to knights in a reasonably
open game. The white king remains
on e 1 , but the mass of pawns in the
centre provides a reasonable shield,
as well as giving White more space.
However, a closer inspection tells
a different story. First, Black has no
serious weak points. As is often the
case in this variation, the six 'wing'
pawns have yet to move from their
original squares, presenting Black
with an array of options. White, on
the other hand, has made many pawn
moves (ten out of fourteen compared
to Black's two), and the 'space-gain­
ing' advances in the centre have
given Black a useful outpost on c5
(this may appear to have little sig­
nificance at the moment, but if it
does become an important factor
White will be powerless to do any­
thing about it). The d-pawn is sur­
rounded by black pieces, but poorly
supported, so if it is challenged
White will be forced into making a
positional concession of some kind.
Finally, Black enjoys a lead in devel­
opment.
We may conclude from all this
that Morozevich has sufficient re­
sources to avoid drifting into passiv­
ity. In fact, Black even has good
chances of seizing the initiative.
14•.. c6!

A thematic pawn break which is
not easy to meet. Of course White
would like to keep the pawn on d5
but this can be achieved only by
playing 15 e4, which not only leaves
a gaping hole on f4 ( ... lbe7-g6-f4),
but also closes the b1-h7 diagonal
and severely restricts the scope of the
light-squared bishop. Hence White's
choice in the game.
15 dxc6
Already White sees his space ad­
vantage disappear.
15••• 'ii'xc6
Now the c4-pawn is terribly weak,
and Black has free use of c5. One to
avoid is 15 tLlxc6?? 16 i.xh7+ and
•.•
17 'ii'xd6.
16 i.e4 'ii'e6!
17 .:.g1
Not 17 i.xb7 .:.ab8 1 8 i.d5 tLlxd5
19 cxd5 'i!t'a6 ! , when the threat of
... tLld7-c5 is unpleasant (White's un­
castled king is not invulnerable after
all !).
17 ••. f6!?
Black copes with the threat of
f3-f4 while simultaneously bolster­
ing the centre, judging correctly that
White cannot profit from his control
of the b1 -h7 diagonal.
Now 1 8 i.xb7 runs into the same
problem as on move 17 (see previous
note). Both 1 8 i.d5 tLlxd5 19 'ii'xd5
.:.res ! and 19 cxd5 'ii'd6 give Black
the better game.
18 'ii'c2 (D)
18 ••. �h8!
Black's king is quite safe tucked
away on h8, and White's 'active'
pieces are all dressed up with no­
where to go.
3 tLlf3 i.g4 4 cxd5 i.x./3 5 gxf3 55
19 .:.ct
White accepts that his kingside at­
tack will never materialise, turning
his attention to the sorry c-pawn. The
greedy 19 i.xb7? .:.ab8 20 i.e4 tLlc5
is asking for trouble, as is 19 i.xh7?
f5. It is too late to seek a hiding place
for the white king: 19 0-0-0 .:.ac8 20
�b1 .:.xc4 2 1 'i!t'd3 tLlc5, etc.
19 ..• tLlc5
Black's patient play and deep un­
derstanding of Chigorin structures
has paid dividends.
20 h5 h6 21 a4
Black should answer 21 i.d5 with
2 1 ...'ii'a6, preserving an advantage.
21 ....:.ac8 22 i.a3 b6 23 i.xcS?
Perhaps parting with the other
bishop is the lesser evil (at least
Black has less of a hold on the im­
portant c5-square after the capture
on e4). White's best seems to be 23
.:.d 1 ! tLlxe4 24 'ii'xe4 (24 fxe4? .:.xc4
25 'ii'b 3 .:.rc8) 24 . . . .:.xc4 25 'ii'b7
.:.n 26 'ii'xa7, when Black's advan­
tage is not as great as in the game.
23 .:.xc5 24 �e2 f5 25 i.d3
.•.
'i¥f7! 26 �e1
26 .:.h 1 ? e4 ! is final.
26 e4
•..
26...'ii'xh5 wins.
56 3 lDJ3 Jl..g4 4 cxd5 JLxj3 5 gxf3
27 Jl.. e2
Forced. Voluntarily clearing the
f-file for Black is suicidal : 27 fxe4
fxe4 28 Jl.. xe4 (or 28 Jl..f l .l:.xh5)
28 . . . .l:.xc4 ! 29 'ilfxc4 'ilfxf2+ 30 �d 1
.l:.d8+ ! 3 1 Jl..d 3 'ilfxg1+ 32 ..tc2 'ilfxe3
and White can resign.
27 ...exf3 28 Jl..xf3 f4 29 exf4
After 29 e4 tl:Jc6 Black dominates
the board.
29 'ii'xf4 30 1i'c3 .l:.e5+ 31 'ii?n
•••
'ii'xf3 0-1
6... e6
The point of 6 . . . e6 is to bring the
queen over to an active post on h5
after 7 tl:Jc3 'it'h5 (D) (other queen
moves are weak, and 7 . . .JI.. b4 is
much less effective here because
Black does not have the usual coun­
terplay down the e-file as the pawn is
on e6).
The character of the game is com­
pletely different from the line with
6 ... e5. 7 ...'it'h5 threatens to highlight
the weaknesses on h2, h3, f3 and on
the g-file, and in doing so virtually
forces White to offer an exchange
of queens with f3-f4 (either now or
in the next couple of moves) . The
resulting queenless middlegame re­
volves around White's broken king­
side pawn structure. White hopes
that the bishop pair and the g-file
will provide sufficient compensa­
tion, while Black will use his extra
knight to blockade and manoeuvre
around the pawns, breaking at the
right moment with ...h7-h6 followed
by .:.g7-g5.
White's chief problem is his in­
ability actually to do anything with
the f2-e3-f4-d4 complex. Black has
time to prevent f4-f5 and d4-d5
(which are desirable for White now
that Black's light-squared bishop has
been exchanged), and f2-f3 or e3-e4
could make matters even worse for
the first player. White should en­
deavour to combine his two bishops
on the light squares with play on the
g-file or c-file.
Incidentally, Miles drew his game
with Karpov in Bugojno 1 986 using
this line.
Game 14
Verat - Atalik
Cappelle Ia Grande 1995
1 d4 d5 2 c4 tl:Jc6 3 lDf3 Jl.. g4 4 cxd5
Jl..xf3 5 gxf3 'ii'xd5 6 e3
6 e6
7 tl:Jc3 'iVhs
8 f4
8 Jl..d2 0-0-0 9 f4 'it'xd l + 10 .l:.xd1
as in Dumitrache-Atalik (see Intro­
duction) comes to the same thing be­
cause the d 1 -square is not the best
home for a rook in these positions, so
White will eventually move the rook
 3 tl:Jf3 i.g4 4 cxd5 i.xj3 5 gxf3 57

and give back the tempo saved by a slow death, Brunner lashed out in
bringing the king directly to e2. the centre with 21 'iii'd 3 i.f6 22 e4,
8 ••• 'ii'xd1+ but after 22 .. .fxe4+ 23 fxe4 llh3+ 24
9 'it>xd1 0-0-0 i.e3 tl:Jg6 25 'it>d2 tl:Jh4 26 l:tf2
Black wants to challenge the f4- tl:Jf3+ 27 'it>d3 g4 28 i.d1 i.h4 ! 29
pawn with . . . h7-h6 and ... g7-g5, in­ llffl tl:Jxh2 30 i.xg4 l:r.xe3+ 3 1
tending to force the opening of the 'it>xe3 tl:Jxg4+ 3 2 'it?d3 e5 he found
h-file to attack the h2-pawn. There­ himself on the wrong side of a lost
fore it makes sense to castle long, ending, finally being put out of his
which also has the advantage of misery on move 64.
protecting the b7-pawn in anticipa­ 12 ... tl:Jrs
tion ofWhite's light-squared bishop The immediate 12 ...h6 occurred
coming to g2. in Bareev-Kamsky, Tilburg 1 99 1 .
10 'it>e2 ti:lf6 White essayed the same knight ma­
11 i.g2 tl:Je7 (D) noeuvre as the main game, but this
time chose to put the rooks on h1 and
g l . 1 3 tl:Jb5 'it>b8 14 tl:Ja3 g5 1 5 fxg5
w . ••• ""'-',•
... . • •
... . ... hxg5 1 6 l:r.ag1 tl:Jf5 1 7 tl:Jc4 i.e7 1 8
--- .. � - - - i.f3 tl:Jd5 19 tl:Je5 l:r.h7 20 i.e4 f6 2 1
. . ... . . tl:Jf3 l:r.h6 22 i.c2 tl:Jh4 2 3 a3 i.d6 24
• • • • tl:Je 1 c6 25 i.b3 tl:Jg6 26 tl:Jd3 l:r.dh8
.• u" " � .
.
27 e4 tl:Jdf4+ 28 i.xf4 tl:Jxf4+ 29
tl:Jxf4 lfl. lh .
. �
. � � �" . . 13 l:r.hc1
A �� '%;� •
o � �
•
�w.+,��[5-"8� .._
� �n
y; %J "S�
� It is never easy to decide where to
�
� - � . . • . .: put the rooks. Verat's choice is un­
derstandable, intending to mount an
12 i.d2 attack on Black's king. The g2-
White exchanged a pair of knights bishop points straight at b7 and the
in Brunner-Short, Germany 1986, rook and knight are ready to hit the
but Black soon built up a kingside c7 -pawn. Indeed, Black has concen­
advantage: 12 tl:Je4 tl:Jxe4 1 3 i.xe4 trated his forces on the other flank in
h6 14 i.d2 g5 15 fxg5 hxg5 1 6 l:tag1 preparation for a positional offensive
f5 17 i.c2 l:th5 18 i.b3 'it>d7 19 f3 there, so defending his king should
i.g7 20 l:tg2 l:tdh8. consequently be more demanding.
Black has a useful initiative, and In the game Levin-Kaminski, Bad
he can increase the pressure on the Endbach 1995, White anticipated
targets h2 and f3 by means of the fol­ Black's plans to expand on the king­
lowing sequence: ...i.g7-f6, ....U.h5- side, deciding to concentrate on
h3, ..Jlh8-h5, ...c7-c6 (putting a stop this area of the board himself. Levin
to ideas of d4-d5), . . . tl:Je7-g6 and chose 1 3 l:r.hg1 !?, which demanded
... i.f6-e7-d6, etc. Not wanting to die accurate play from Black. After
58 3 CDJ3 j_g4 4 cxd5 j_xj3 5 gxj3

1 3 . . . h6 ! (better than 1 3 . . . c5 14 dxc5 14 ... h6

j.xc5 15 l1acl r.ti>b8 1 6 CDe4 ! CDxe4 Black, too, continues his kingside
17 j.xe4 j_f8 18 j.c3, when White's expansion.
bishops have come alive) 14 j.h3 15 CDb5 l1d7
l1g8 1 5 f3 ( 1 5 l1ac 1 r.ti>b8 16 a3 a6 - 16 a5 a6
with the idea of . . .c7-c5 - is OK for 17 fDa3
Black) 1 5 . . . r.ti>b8 1 6 CDe4 CDd5 17 The knight is heading, via c4, to
j.xf5 exf5 18 CDg3 CDe7 ( 1 8 ...g6? 19 e5.
fDxf5) 1 9 j.c3 g6 20 e4! j_g7 2 1 17 ... g5
l1ad 1 Black should have played 18 CDc4
21 c6!? 22 j_b4 j_f6 23 j.xe7 j.xe7
••• A lesser evil is 18 fxg5 hxg5 1 9
24 exf5 j.d6 25 fxg6 fxg6 26 r.fi>e3 h3, limiting Black to a long-term but
l1gf8 27 fDe2 l1de8+ 28 'it>d3 l1f6 small positional edge.
with compensation for the pawn 18 gxf4!
(White's separated pawns are weak 19 CDe5 l1e7
and Black is active). Instead, 21...j.f6 20 l1a3
invited 22 d5 !, when White's posi­ 20 j.b4 l1e8.
tion was improving. 20 l1g8
13 ... 'it>b8 (D) 21 j.h1 CDd6
22 l1b3
Threatening 23 fDc6+ and 24
fDxe7.
22 ... CDb5
The knight is well placed on b5
because the only piece capable of
flushing it out is the h i -bishop
which, without the help of the knight
or a rook, is punching air from h 1 .
23 ..ib4 l1e8
24 fDxf7 fDd7! (D)
This clever move secures Black a
14 a4 clear advantage. The diagram posi­
Consistent with the policy of at­ tion is just the type which Black is
tacking the king, and introducing the aiming for in this variation. The nu­
possibility of l1a1 -a3-b3 in the event merous holes and weaknesses in the
of Black's bishop being obstructed white pawn formation have indeed
on the a3-f8 diagonal. An alternative proved to be of considerable signifi­
is 14 CDa4 h6 15 fDc5, when 15 ...CDds cance, and Black's last move signals
16 'it>fl fDh4 17 .th 1 g5 is better for the unavoidable elimination of the
Black, whose kingside initiative has white piece most adept in handling
more momentum than White's on these problems - the t7-knight.
the queenside. 25 l1d1

Even now the f2-e3-d4 pawn
complex is paralysed (if 25 exf4 ??,
25 . . .tDxd4+); hence White's shift to
the d-file.
25 ... fxe3 26 fxe3 i.xb4 27 ltxb4
ltg4! 28 �f3
After 28 tDxh6 1lh4 the h2-pawn
will drop and White will be left with
four weak pawns which Black will
have no problems attacking.
28 .:.g7 29 tDe5 .:.rs+ 30 �e4
•.•
White is correct to activate his
king. White's pawns are absolutely
helpless after 30 �e2 tDxe5 3 1 dxe5.
30 ... tDxe5 31 �xe5 tbd6!
The knight has carried out its duty
on b5. Now the white king is an irre­
sistible target, and the knight is free
to roam other avenues into White's
half of the board.
3 tD/3 i.g4 4 cxd5 i.xj3 5 gxj3 59
32 d5
Providing an escape route for the
wandering king against the threat­
ened 32 . . J:tf5+ 33 'itxe6 1lg6+ 34
�e7 .:.n+ 35 'itd8 1lg8 mate. 32
�xe6 1lg6+ ! mates.
32...exd5 33 i.xd5 llf2?
Much better is 33 ....:.e7+! 34 'itd4
tD£5+ 35 'itc5 (35 �d3 ltd8 !; 35 �c3
c6 ! ) 35 . . . c6 36 e4 tDe3 37 1ld3 tDc2
38 llc4 cxd5.
34 h4?
34 e4 ! at least puts the onus on
Black to work a little harder for the
full point. Now Black has a second
bite at the cherry.
34... lte7+ 35 �d4 tDf5+ 36 �c5
c6 37 e4
Tantamount to resignation, but a
bishop move meets with 37 . . . tDxe3
(the sadistic 37 . . . �c7 also looks
good), when White is defenceless.
37 tDe3 38 l:td3 tDc2 39 llbb3
•..
cxd5 40 exd5 .l:tc7+ 41 �d6 l:t.ff7!
Once Black has reorganised the
extra piece will decide.
42 llb6 llfe7 43 l:t.c3 l::tcd7+ 44
�c5 tDe3 45 d6 l:te4 46 l:tbb3 tDf5
47 �d5 tDxd6! 48 .l:td3
Or 48 llb6 l:.el !.
48....l:te8 0-1
3 3l2Jf3 i..g4 4 cxd5 ..txf3
5 dxc6

After 5 dxc6 i.xc6 6 lLlc3 (D) we ar­ 6 ttJf6

.•.

rive at the following position:

Game 15
Ksieski Pinkas
-

Poland 1980

l lLlf3 lLlc6 2 d4 d5 3 c4 i.g4 4 cxd5

i.xf3 5 dxc6 i.xc6 6 lbc3
6 ... lLlf6 (D)

White's most logical plan is to

erect a centre with pawns on e4 and
d4, and Black's most logical reply is
to put either or both of these pawns
under pressure. This line is particu­
larly complex and Black enjoys ex­
cellent attacking prospects; White
must work hard to hold his centre 7 f3
and his position together. An ambitious and popular move,
Black has two moves: 6...lLlf6 and aiming for a powerful pawn centre
6 e6.
.•. with e2-e4. The calm alternatives:
The former (Game 15) can lead to a) 7 i.g5 is good, and appears to
complications which are equally as offer White excellent prospects of
wild as those arising from 6 ...e6, but securing an advantage:
White has the option of slowing the a1) If Black is not content with a
game down if he so wishes. 'normal' game then he should try
6 e6 is much more fun. After 7
... 7 lbd5, but White should be a little
•••

e4 i.b4 8 f3 Black should play better in this unclear position.

8 Jli'h4+ (Games 16- 1 8) rather than
.• a2) The game Bohnsack-Menzel,
8 f5 (Game 19).
..• Bundesliga 1989/90, saw the bizarre

7 .l2Je4 8 l2Jxe4 .ixe4 9 f3 h6 1 0
..
fxe4? ! ( 1 0 .ih4 !) 1 0 . . . hxg5 1 1 1i'b3
l:th6. After 12 e3 .l:tb6 1 3 _.a4+ _.d7
14 1i'xd7+ �xd7 15 b3 e6 16 .ic4
.t b4+ 1 7 �e2 the game soon ended
in a draw.
a3) Normal is 7 ... e6, when after 8
_.d3 Black can then choose between
8 .te7 with a playable but rather
...
cramped position, or the slightly more
aggressive 8 .tb4, when again I
...
prefer White.
b) 7 .if4 is White's other sensi­
ble choice, although the bishop is
less actively posted here - where it
may come under attack from ...l2Jf6-
d5 - than it is on g5 . Siegele-Horn,
German Cup 1 992/3, went 7 ... e6 8
e3 .ib4 9 1i'b3 l2Jd5 10 .ig3 1i'd7 1 1
a4? ! a5 1 2 .te2 l2Jxc3 1 3 bxc3 _.d5 !
14 .tc4 1Wxg2, when White had no
compensation for the lost pawn.
7 ... e5!
Otherwise White will control the
centre with e2-e4.
8 dxe5 l2Jd7!
Exchanging queens is also possi­
ble - 8 .'ft'xd1+ and now:
..
a) 9 �xd1 is considered best on
account of 9 . . . 0-0-0+ 10 �c2 l2Jd7
1 1 e6 ! fxe6 1 2 e4 .ic5 13 .ic4 l1he8
14 .l:td1 with an edge for White (Wat­
son). However, in the game Ward­
Duchovny, London 1994, Black
played 10 . . l2Jd5, achieving equal­
. 1i'b3 ! 'iie7 1 1 0-0-0 l2Jc5 1 2 1i'c2
ity after 1 1 l2Jxd5 ( 1 1 f4 .ic5 gives
Black a dangerous lead in develop­
ment) 1 1 . .. .l:txd5 1 2 .id2 ( 1 2 f4
.l:thd8) 1 2 ... Axe5 1 3 .ic3 .l:tc5 14 e4
.ie7 1 5 Ae 1 .l:td8. The Englishman
even managed to lose an exchange
after 16 .id3 ? ! ( 1 6 .ie2) 1 6 ...a5 1 7
3 l2Jj3 .ig4 4 cxd5 .txj3 5 dxc6 61
a3? .ia4+ 1 8 �d2 .ib5 1 9 .l:te3
.ig5.
b) Attention may return to 9
l2Jxd1, when 9 . . .l2Jd7 1 0 .if4 ! 0-0-0
1 1 e4 .ib4+ 12 l2Jc3 .l:tde8 1 3 .ic4
.l:thf8 14 e6 ! fxe6 15 .ie3 favours
White according to Minev (Black
has no compensation for his inferior
pawn structure).
9 \Wd4?
Aggressive but certainly not best.
White should think about pushing at
least one of his e-pawns:
a) 9 e4 l2Jxe5! 10 .ie3 .ib4 pro­
duces a balanced game, rather than
the old 9 ..tb4 which invites 1 0 e6 !
..
fxe6 1 1 .ie3.
b) In Schlenga-Knippel, Bundes­
liga 1989/90, White chose the more
troublesome 9 e6! fxe6 10 e4, when
after 10 .tc5 (10 ... .td6 1 1 .te3
..•
_.h4+ 1 2 .tf2 1i'e7 1 3 1i'c2 ! with a
clear advantage to White - Gibbons)
1 1 .if4 .ib6 he should have played
1 2 _.d2 with a better game.
c) The greedy 9 f4? runs into
9 . . . f6 ! , with excellent chances for
Black after both 10 exf6 l2Jxf6 (with
more than enough compensation)
and 10 e6 l2Jc5 (e.g. 1 1 f5 1i'xd1 +
and 12 ... g6, etc.).
d) 9 .tr4 .tcs! ( 9 ... g5? ! 1 0 .tg3
.ig7 1 1 e6 ! fxe6 12 e4 and Black has
several weaknesses, and 9 ....tb4 10
gives White a safe edge):
d1) 10 a3 a6 1 1 _.c2 _.e7 12 0-0-0
l2Jxe5 1 3 l2Jd5 .ixd5 14 .l:txd5 .id6 !
is OK for Black.
d2) 10 e4 _.e7 is unclear.
9 .tcs
10 \Wg4
62 3 lDJ3 i.g4 4 cxd5 i.xj3 5 dxc6
10 'ii'c4? (inconsistent) 10 ... �e7
1 1 e6 fxe6 1 2 i.d2 0-0-0 1 3 0-0-0
lDb6 14 �b3 l:[d7 15 e4 l:thd8 (with
the idea of ...:xd2) put White in dif­
ficulties in the game Hadripetrov­
Szilagyi, Primorsko 1974.
10 ••. lDxe5!
11 'ii'xg7
1 1 'ii'f5? was catastrophic after
1 1 .. .�h4+ 12 g3 �d4 1 3 e3 lDxf3+!
14 �xf3 �xc3+ 1 5 bxc3 i.xf3 0-1
Dely-Boey, Amsterdam 1974.
11 ... i.f2+! (D)
12 �xf2 �d4+
13 �g3
13 �el ?? lDxf3+ reveals the idea
behind Black's opening strategy.
13 ••• 0-0-0
14 i.g5
The lesser evil. White is clearly in
trouble, but 14 e3? �d6 15 �f2
:dg8 1 6 �xh8 l:txh8 1 7 e4 �b4 !
1 8 :b1 f5 , as in Kagan-Radchenko,
USSR 1978, is even worse for White
than the text.
14 ... :hg8
15 �f6 :d6
15...lDxt'3! 1 6 �xd4 lDxd4 17 �h4
f6 ! (V.Ivanov) is also excellent for
Black.
16 �f4 (D)
16 ... :xg5+! 17 'ii'xg5 :g6 18
�xg6
1 8 h4 f6 1 9 �xg6 hxg6 has been
evaluated as unclear by Boey, but in
my opinion the queen seems to be far
stronger than the rooks (White may
find ... f6-f5 awkward to meet).
18 ... lDxg6! 19 e4 f5! 20 h3
20 exf5? �h4# is one to avoid.
20 ... fxe4 21 lDxe4 i.xe4 22 fxe4
�d2! 23 'iith2 lDe5
Black is in complete command.
24 i.b5 'ii'd6! 25 �g3
25 g3 �d2+ 26 �g1 �xb2.
25...lDg6+ 26 �f2
Or 26 �f3 �f4+.
26...'ii'c5+ 27 'iitg3 'ii'xb5 28
:bel �e5+ 29 �f2 'i¥xb2+ 30 �g3
�e5+ 31 'iitf2 lDh4 32 1:.adl �c5+
33 'iite2 lDxg2 0-1
6...e6
Game 16
Southam Day
-
Toronto Closed Ch 1995
1 d4 d5 2 c4 lDc6 3 lDf3 i.g4 4 cxd5
i.xf3 5 dxc6 i.xc6 6 lDc3

6 e6
7 e4 .ib4
8 f3 1i'h4+
9 g3 'ii'f6
10 .ie3 0-0-0
10...lL!e7 was shown to be weak
some 30 years ago. In V.Sokolov­
Tot, Belgrade 1 966, Black - for
some reason - wanted to bring his
knight round to g6 before castling.
This slow manoeuvre does nothing
to support a thematic . . . n-f5 thrust,
so Black is reduced to using his e­
pawn to challenge the centre. After
1 1 .id3 lL!g6 1 2 0-0 0-0-0 ( 1 2 ... 0-0
may be better) 13 .l:tc 1 .ia5 14 lL!e2
.ib6 15 'ii'd2 h6 1 6 b4 ! e5 17 d5 .id7
18 .ic5 .ih3 19 .l:tf2 �b8 20 a4
Black was struggling.
11 'fi'e2 (D)
B h4 'ii'g6 14 .ih3 ! �b8 (White threat­
A logical plan. White's queen
avoids any problems coming from
the pin on the d-file ( ....ib4-c5) and
clears the way to castle queenside. It
makes sense to tuck the king away
on the same flank as Black's, out of
reach of the menacing c6-bishop and
safe from the hostile black pawns
(e.g . . . .h7-h5, or ...n-f5). Castling
queenside also brings a rook to d 1 ,
3 lbf3 .ig4 4 cxd5 Lf3 5 dxc6 63
from where it adds extra protection
to the d-pawn and introduces the
possibility of d4-d5.
See the following game for alter­
natives.
11 ... .ia5
Black wants the option of bring­
ing his bishop round to b6. Then he
will have two bishops on the h 1 -a8
and g1 -a7 diagonals, bearing down
on White's centre while simultane­
ously providing his king with a sec­
ond defensive barrier. There are a
couple of alternatives:
a) Expansion on the kingside with
11 ...h5 is possible. Watson gave 12
.ig2 h4 and 12 h4 'ii'g 6 1 3 'fi'f2 f5,
with a comfortable game for Black
in both cases. However, 12 0-0-0 is
more to the point, when the game
Sinkovics-T.Ruck, Hungary tt 1 995,
proceeded as follows: 12 ...lL!e7 1 3
ened 1 5 d5, and 14 ...'ii'x g3 15 .l:tdg1
'ii'd6 - 15 . . . 'ii'xh4?? 16 .ixe6+ - 1 6
.l:.xg7 leaves Black much worse) 1 5
'fi'c4 .ixc3 16 'fi'xc3 f5 ( 16...'ii'xg3 1 7
.l:tdg 1 : 17 ...'ii'xh4 18 .ig5; 17 ...'fi'xf3
1 8 d5 exd5 1 9 .ixa7; 17 ...'ii'd 6 1 8
.l:txg7, etc.) 17 d5 ! exd5 1 8 'fi'c5 (D).
64 3 l'£:Jf3 i..g4 4 cxd5 i.xj3 5 dxc6
This is one of the traps which
Black should most definitely watch
out for, and the fact that there have
been several victims in international
competition is indicative of the ease
with which the position can arise.
White's bishops have come to life
and his pieces are cooperating won­
derfully, whereas Black's forces are
not even communicating any more!
White threatens both 19 'Wixe7 and
1 9 'Wixa7+; Black's only escape in­
volves the loss of the f5-pawn and
the subsequent crippling of the king­
side. After 1 8 . . . l'£:Jc8 1 9 i.xf5 'Wid6
20 'Wic3 l'£:Jb6 2 1 i.f4 White en­
joyed a huge advantage, and his
queen and bishops combined to de­
molish Black's kingside.
b) ll 'ii'g6!? is certainly more
...
appropriate than the structurally un­
sound 1 l ...h5 . Bayer-Baumhus, Bun­
desliga 1 989 went 1 2 i.h3 ( 1 2 a3
i.xc3+ 1 3 bxc3 f5 ! strikes when
White is sorely lacking in develop­
ment and illustrates the main idea of
the immediate 1 1 . ..'iWg6) 1 2 . . .�b8
1 3 'Wic4 i.xc3+ 14 bxc3 l'£:Je7 15
'WJc5 .l:the8 with a good game for
Black. Anticipating the central break
. . . f7-f5, White simplified with a
queen exchange, leading to a bal­
anced game after 1 6 'Wig5 'Wixg5 1 7
i.xg5 f6 1 8 i.d2 f5 19 i.g2 l'£:Jc8 due
to White's weaknesses on c3 and c4.
12 0-0-0 l'£:Je7
13 i.g2 'iWg6
14 'ii'c4 f5
15 d5 (D)
With his centre under fire White
initiates complications, hoping that
the change in the character of the
B
struggle will work in his favour. Per­
haps this is an over-reaction, albeit
an understandable one. Black's tidy
handling of the situation is surpris­
ingly simple, serving as a good illus­
tration of how difficult it is for White
to achieve d4-d5.
15 ••• exd5
16 exd5
This time 16 'ii'c5 does not work
due to 1 6 . . . i.b6 - another reason to
keep the dark-squared bishop on the
board with 1 l ...i.a5.
16 ••• 'Wit7 !
Pinning and winning the d5-pawn
( 1 7 f4 i.xc3 and 1 8 . . . i.xd5). White
now attempts to part with the pawn
under the best circumstances possi­
ble, even though ultimately he will
emerge with insufficient compensa­
tion. This implies that 15 d5 is in­
deed just short of accurate.
17 b4 i.xd5
17 i.b6? 1 8 i.xb6 axb6 1 9 f4.
•..
18 l'£:Jxd5 .l:txd5
19 .l:txd5
19 bxa5?? .l:txd1 + and 20... 'Wixc4.
19 •.• 'ii'xd5
20 'ii'xd5
20 'ii'c5 wins a piece for White,
but at the cost of leaving the king

exposed, e.g. 20 ... .ib6 2 1 'iVxe7
"lWc4+ 22 'it>d2 l:td8+ 23 'it>el 'iVc3+
24 'it>f2 l:td2+, or 22 'it>d1 'iVd3+ 23
.id2 l:td8 24 '�Vel (24 'iVe2 'iVbl
mate) 24 . . .1i'bl + 25 'it>e2 l:te8+ 26
'.t>fl 'iVd3+.
20 lDxd5
21 ..td4 .ixb4
22 .ixg7 l:tg8
23 ..te5 l:tg6
The forcing sequence begun on
Black's 15th move has ended and the
smoke has cleared. White has the
bishop pair and a target in the shape
of the vulnerable f5-pawn. Black has
an extra pawn, which will tell once
he gives the f5-pawn sufficient sup­
port - hence White's attempts to save
the game through activating his re­
maining forces. The game contin­
ued:
24 .ih3 lDe7 25 l:td1 l:th6 26 ..tn
l:txh2 27 .ic4
Threatening 28 .ie6+.
27 ... l:th6 28 'it>b2 .id6! 29 .ig7
l:tg6 30 .if8 'it>d7 31 .id3 l:txg3 32
.ixf5+ 0-1
After 32 ... 'it>e8 33 .ixe7 'it>xe7 the
ending is hopeless for White.
Game 17
Moiseenko - Kobaliya
St Petersburg 1995
1 d4 d5 2 c4 lDc6 3 lDf3 .ig4 4 cxd5
.ixf3 5 dxc6 .ixc6 6 lDc3 e6 7 e4
.ib4 8 f3 'iVh4+ 9 g3 'ii'f6 10 .ie3
0-0-0
11 .ig2
A new idea, designed to lessen
Black's counterplay on the h l -a8 di­
agonal. Apart from 11 'iVe2 (see
3 lbj3 .ig4 4 cxd5 Lj3 5 dxc6 65
Southam-Day) White has two other
alternatives:
a) 11 .id3. The break of the pin
on the d-file means that Black must
lose time if he wants to hit the d­
pawn, but the downside to White's
1 1 th move is that the queen no
longer protects the pawn. Conse­
quently Black is not without coun­
terplay, e.g. l l .. ...ta5 ! 1 2 0-0 ( 1 2
'it> f2 .ib6 1 3 lDe2 lDh6 14 'it>g2 'iVg6,
intending . . . f7-f5) 1 2 . . . ..tb6 1 3 e5
(with the e3-bishop undefended 1 3
lDe2? fails to 1 3 . . .e5) 1 3 . . . 'ii'e7 1 4
.ie4 .ixe4 l S lDxe4 f6 with a bal­
anced game.
b) 11 .ie2 makes little sense and
is rather passive. In Frieser-Bohm,
Germany 1994, Black was OK after
l l . . . ..ta5 1 2 'ii'd2 h6 1 3 0-0 'iVe7 14
a3 .ib6 15 l:tfd l f5.
11 .ic5 (D)
w
12 e5
The point of White's previous
move. In return for surrendering the
d5-square White will eliminate his
opponent's potentially dangerous
light-squared bishop with a timely
f3-f4, a pawn advance which also
supports the e5-pawn and maintains
66 3 4::Jj3 i..g4 4 cxd5 i.xj3 5 dxc6

a territorial advantage. 12 lbe2? e5 is 26 ... fxe5 ! 27 �xeS h4 ! is very

excellent for Black. good for Black.
12 �e7 27 'ito>g2 4:Jrs 28 'ifi>fl c6 29 a4
13 0-0 f6 i.c7 30 b4 fxeS 31 fxeS i.b6?
14 f4 i.xg2 Another error, presumably caused
15 'ito>xg2 i.b6 by a shortage of time. 3 1 . . .�xe4 32
Black still has a menacing bishop, 4:Jxe4 i.xe5 33 4:Jc5 l:td6 34 4:Je4
and the d-pawn is still under pressure l:td5 35 4:Jg5 i.xd4 36 4:Jxe6 i.xf2 is
- hence White's next. a second opportunity to leave Black
16 l:tf2 4:Jh6 in control.
17 l:td2 4:Jrs 32 �xg4 hxg4 33 4:Je2 gS 34 'ito>g2
18 i.f2 hS (D) a6?!
Black misses yet another move
that maintains an advantage, namely
34 . a5 ! , when White's pawns still
..

require careful defence. After the

It is clear that Black has the upper
hand. His next task is to double
rooks on the d-file and combine this
with activating the queen on the light
squares. White can counter on the c­
file, but this is not enough to distract
text White is able to fix the queen­
side pawns, leaving Black without
an effective break. Consequently the
game is now even, and the remaining
moves were:
35 aS i..c7 36 l:tcS l:tf8 37 4:Jc3!
l:th7 38 4:Je4 i.d8 39 i.gl i.e7 40
l:tc4 l:thf7 41 l:td1 4:Jg7 42 i.e3 l:tf3
43 i.xgS i.xgS 44 4:Jxg5 4:Jf5!? 45
4:Jxf3 4:Je3+ 46 'ifi>h1 4:Jxd1 47 4:Jgl
l:tf2 48 dS!? l:td2 49 dxe6 'ito>c7 50 h4
4:Jf2+ 51 'ito>g2 4:Jd3+ 52 'ifi>hl
Not 52 'ifi>fl ?? l:tf2 mate.
52 4:Jf2+ 53 'ito>g2 lf1.1f1
•..

Black. Black can try 53 . . .4:Jh3+ 54 'ifi>h l

19 l:tcl 'ito>b8 20 4:Ja4 l:tdS 21 l:tc4
White has no intention of taking
on b6 as this hands over the d5-
square for good.
21 �f7
•..
The h-pawn must be covered be­
fore the other rook comes to the d­
l:td l , but White has 55 l:txg4 4:Jxgl
56 l:tg7+ 'ito>d8 57 h5, etc.
The move 9 . . .�h5 is not even
considered in Watson's book, yet
over the last 15 years it has become
as popular as 9 ..�f6. Again White's
.

file. queen is, for the time being, tied to

22 4:Jc3 l:td7 23 'iie2 .U.hd8 24 the defence of the f3-pawn, but here
�e4 �g6 25 'ifi>fl �g4 26 l:td3 the d4-pawn will not be under as
4:Je7?! much pressure. Black hopes that he

will be compensated for this by the
freedom of the f-pawn, which is
ready to advance without losing a
move first with (for example) ...1Wf6-
g6. Sometimes Black will voluntar­
ily drop his queen back to g6, and
this may lead to a direct transposi­
tion to lines with 9 . . .1Wf6 ( . . .1Wf6-
g6), so both 9th move alternatives
should be studied closely. Because
9 . . .'ill'h5 gives the threat of . . . f7-f5
more impact, White's next task is to
decide where to post his light­
squared bishop. In the following
game White chooses to contest the
h1-a8 diagonal with a fianchetto.
Game 1 8
Akopian - Reprintsev
USSR Ch 1990
1 d4 d5 2 ll'lf3 ll'lc6 3 c4 ..tg4 4 cxd5
..txf3 5 dxc6 ..txc6 6 tt'lc3 e6 7 e4
..tb4 8 f3 1Wh4+ 9 g3
9 'ilnts
10 ..te3 0-0-0
11 ..tg2
a) 11 ..tc4 was seen in Schlenga­
Barthel, Bundesliga 1 990/ 1 . After
1 1 . . ...tc5 1 2 0-0 tt'le7, White lashed
out with 1 3 b4, when 1 3 .....txd4 14
..txd4 e5 1 5 b5 exd4 1 6 bxc6 dxc3
17 1Wb3 l::td2 1 8 1Wxb7+ 'it>d8 1 9 ..te2
l::txe2 20 l::ta d1 + l::td2 2 1 l::txd2+ cxd2
22 'Wb8+ tt'lc8 23 1Wb4 gave rise to
an unclear position in which only
Black has winning chances.
b) 1 1 ..te2 transposes to the en­
counter Granda-Morozevich, Am­
sterdam Donner mem 1 995. Black
found the thematic 1 1 . . .f5 ! 1 2 1Wb3 !
..txc3+ 1 3 bxc3 fxe4 14 1Wxe6+ (or
3 tt'lf3 ..tg4 4 cxd5 i.x/3 5 dxc6 67
14 fxe4 1Wg6) 14 .....td7 1 5 'ii'xe4
(D).
Play continued 15 Ae8?! 16 'ii'd3
••
tt'le7 17 c4 tt'lf5 18 ..tf4 ! ..ta4 19 'it>f2
l::thf8 20 h4 'ii'g 6 2 1 l::t a b1 'ii'f6 ! 22
..td1 ! ..td7 23 d5 1We7 24 l::tb 3 'ii'c5+
25 'it>g2 l::tf7 ! 26 'ii'd2 l::tfe7 27 ..tg5
l::te5 28 ..tf4, and now Black should
have repeated moves with 28 . . .l::t5e7
29 ..tg5 l::te5, etc. In the diagram po­
sition Black has an interesting alter­
native in 15...tt'lf6! 1 6 'ii'e5 'ii'f7,
when White is left to worry about
what may happen to him on the e­
file.
11 ... f5!
This energetic thrust is the logical
justification of 9 . . .1Wh5 and must be
best. In Teplitsky-J.Urban, Budapest
1 993, Black delayed this move for a
little too long with 11 ... tt'le7 1 2 'ii'b3
..ta5 13 'it>f2 ..tb6 14 1Wc4 l::th e8,
when 15 b4! allowed White to de­
liver the first blow and begin a dan­
gerous queenside offensive.
12 0-0 ll'lf6 (D)
It is this type of position which at­
tracts me to the Chigorin. Black has
saved time by making as few pawn
moves as possible, allowing him to
68 3 0.f3 i..g4 4 cxd5 i..xj3 5 dxc6

attack the white centre with pieces. An interesting exchange sacri­

Castling on opposite sides has unbal­ fice designed to reduce White to pas­
anced the game enough to wipe out sivity and worry White's king. I
White's advantage of the frrst move, don't see anything wrong with the
and once again Black's pressure on simpler 2 1 ....l:.f5, when White's only
the light squares is considerable. attempt to mix things is 22 d5 exd5
13 e5 i..xc3 23 e6 dxc4 24 e7, which is favour­
14 bxc3 0.d5 able for Black.
15 i..d2 f4! 22 i.. xf8 hxg3 23 'ii'e3 .l:.xf8 24
A nice 'spoiling' move which ham­ d5
pers both of White's bishops. As there is no avoiding .. .'ii'g6-h5,
16 'ii'e2 for example 24 .l:tac 1 'ii'h5, White
16 gxf4 .l:.hf8 is bad for White. wastes no time clearing the path for
16 'ii'g6 his e-pawn.
17 'ii'f2 fxg3 24 exd5 25 cxd5 i..xd5 26 e6
•.•

18 hxg3 'ii'h5 27 e7 'ii'h2+ 28 �fl i..c4+ 29

18 'ii'xg3 'ii'd3 . .l:.e2 .l:.e8 (D)
18 •.• h5!
Positive play on the kingside is
necessary to keep White on his toes, w
since otherwise the two bishops will
make their presence felt.
19 .l:.fe1 .l:.df8
Threatening 20 ... h4 ! 2 1 gxh4 0.f4,
when White's kingside disintegrates.
To avoid this White now tries to dis­
lodge a couple of his opponent's an­
noying pieces.
20 c4 0.b6
21 i..b4 (D) White's rook is pinned and his
21 h4!? kingside is tied up. His only chance
 3 tiJf3 .i.g4 4 cxd5 ..ixj3 5 dxc6 69

of staying in the game lies in com­ 47 b2 48 f7 bl'ii' 49 f8'ii'+

•••

bining play on the centre files with White's third queen joins the
the energy of the ambitious e-pawn. game !
30 .l:ldl 'ii'h4 49 �b7 50 'ii'f3+ �b6 51 'ii'c3
.•.

The threat was 3 1 .l:ld8+ .l:lxd8 32 ..ic4

exd8'ii'+ �xd8 33 'ii'e8 mate. This is tantamount to offering a
31 .l:ld8+ lhd8 32 e8'ii' ! �b8! draw, as Black has nothing better.
Not 32 . . ..l:lxe8 33 'ii'xe8+ 'ii'd8 34 52 'ii'd4+
i.h3+. 52 'ii'xc4 'ii'b2+.
33 'it>el 52 �b7 53 lbc7+ �xc7 54
•.•

If the new queen leaves the 8th 'ii'xc4+ �d6 55 'ii'xa4 Ifz.Ifz
rank Black's rook is free to come to A fitting finish to a dynamically
d1, e.g. 33 'ii'8e7 .l:ld1 mate. After the balanced encounter.
text move Black has no time for
33 .....ixe2 because White ignores the 8 f5?
...

bishop and instead keeps both his

queens on the board with, for exam­
ple, 34 ii'8e7 .
33 .l:lxe8 34 'ii'xe8+ tDc8 35 'ife4
•••
w
'ii'xe4 36 .l:lxe4 tiJd6 37 .l:lg4 ..ixa2
38 .l:lxg3 tiJe8 39 ..ih3
A strange ending has arisen.
Black has three connected passed
pawns to compensate for the ex­
change; White's saving grace is his
remaining pawn, which will have an
easier run through to promotion if
and when the g-pawn falls. With this
in mind 39 . . . ..if7 40 ..id7 g6 seems This advance is too enthusiastic
like a good idea to slow down the f­ and should create difficulties only
pawn, but 4 1 .l:lh3 followed by 42 for Black, an assessment which is
.l:lh8 wins for White. Consequently supported by the move's rarity in
Black gets his queenside pawns roll­ modern practice. However, for a
ing. couple of reasons I think it is worth­
39 a5 40 ..id7 tiJf6
••• while to have a close look at 8 ...f5 :
Also possible is 40 ... tiJd6 4 1 1 ) some people will still be at­
.l:lxg7 b5. tracted to such an aggressive thrust
41 .l:lxg7 tiJxd7 42 .l:lxd7 b5 and will want to give it a try anyway;
The race begins. 2) those who choose the 5 dxc6
43 f4 �c8 44 l:r.g7 b4 45 �d2 a4 variation v.·hen faced with the
46 f5 b3 47 f6 Chigorin may well meet someone re­
47 �c3 a3 is winning for Black. ferred to in note 1 .
70 3 0.j3 i..g4 4 cxd5 i.xj3 5 dxc6
Mr Thorsson, for example, could
have used a little help in the follow­
ing game:
Game 1 9
Thorsson - Halldorsson
Kopavogur l994
1 d4 d5 2 c4 0.c6 3 0.f3 i.. g4 4 cxd5
i..xf3 5 dxc6 i..xc6 6 0.c3 e6 7 e4
i..b4 8 f3
8 ... f5
9 i..c4
Obvious and best. White prepares
to castle, threatens Black's voluntar­
ily weakened e6-pawn and intro­
duces the possibility of crowding out
the c6-bishop with d4-d5.
The strange 9 e5? cedes the d5-
square and plays into Black's hands.
This was illustrated perfectly in the
game Pillsbury-Chigorin, St Peters­
burg 1895/6 - 9...0.e7 10 a3 (1 0 i..c4
0.d5 is also bad for White) 10 ...i.. a5
1 1 i.. c4 ( 1 1 b4 was tried in Reggio­
Chigorin, Monte Carlo 1 90 1 , which
went 1 1 . . .i.. b6 12 i..e 3 0-0 13 i..c4
i.. d5 14 'i!Vb3 c6 15 .l:td 1 0.g6 ! 1 6
i..xd5 exd5 17 f4 'i!Vh4+ 1 8 g 3 'il'h3,
when our hero added to his advan­
tage by bringing his knight round to
e6 and breaking with a timely . . . g7-
g5) 1 1 . . . i.. d5 (1 1 ... 0.d5 is possible)
12 'i!Va4+ c6 13 i..d3 'i!Vb6! (D).
Looking at the diagram makes me
wonder why any master could play
9 e5 . After several natural moves
Black has taken control of the d5-
square, and the d4-pawn is terribly
weak. As often happens in the Chi­
gorin Black rules the light squares.
The game went 14 i..c2 (the threat
was 14 . . .i.. b 3) 14 . . .'i!Va6 ! (threaten-
ing 15 ...b5) 15 i..d 1 i..c4 1 6 f4 0-0-0,
when Black was virtually winning
already.
9 .. . fxe4
Or:
a) 9.. 'i!Vh4+ 10 g3 'i!Vh3 is tricky
.
if White takes on f5 or e6, but there is
no satisfactory reply to the sensible
1 1 'i!Vb3 ! : 1 1 . . .i.. x c3+ 12 bxc3 'i!Vg2
13 .l:tfl fxe4 ( 1 3 ...'i!Vxh2 14 i..f4) 14
i.. xe6 exf3 (or 14 . . . 0.f6 15 i.. f7+
�d8 1 6 i..g5 ! ) 1 5 i.. f7+ �d8 1 6
i.. g 5+ �c8 17 0-0-0 left White way
ahead in Lengyel-Flesch, Hungarian
Ch 1962.
b) 9. .'i!Ve7 10 0-0 ! intends to an-
.
swer 10.. fxe4 1 1 fxe4 i.. xc3 12 bxc3
.
i..xe4 with 13 .l:te1 i..f5 14 g4, etc. A
lesser evil is 10 ... 0-0-0 1 1 'il'b3 ! ,
when 8.. .f5 has backfired completely.
10 0-0!
10 i.xe6 exf3 transposes to the
text.
10 ... e:xf3
What else?
a) 10 ..i..xc3 1 1 bxc3 'i!Vd7 12 fxe4
.
cannot be recommended as Black is
helpless on the dark squares.
b) After 10...0.f6 1 1 i.. xe6 there
is nothing better than 1 1 .. .exf3,

which transposes to the note to
Black's 1 1th move.
11 .ixe6! (D)
This position was known to be
very unpleasant for Black many
years ago, and nothing has changed.
It does not take an expert to point out
the root of Black's suffering - the
king is stranded in the centre (on an
open file!). To make matters worse
White has developed his forces at
maximum speed and they are now
poised to launch an attack.
11
..• 'ii'h4
Black has experimented with sev­
eral other moves, none of which of­
fers any hope:
a) Continuing the dismantling of
the h 1 -a8 diagonal with 11 fxg2 is•••
nicely refuted by 12 'ir'h5+! g6 1 3
i.D+ ! 'it>f8 ( 1 3 . . . 'it>e7 1 4 'ir'e5+) 1 4
.ih6+, etc.
b) Putting the queen on f6 instead
of h4 has also been tested. 11 'ir'f6
12 d5 is good for White: 12 f2+ 1 3 .•.
.l:txf2 ( 1 3 'it>h1 .ixc3 1 4 dxc6 'ir'xe6
15 cxb7 .l:tb8 16 bxc3 is equally ef­
fective) 1 3 . . . .ic5 14 lbe4 .ixf2+ 15
lbxf2; or 12 .tc5+ 1 3 'it>h 1 .l:td8
•••
( 1 3 . . . fxg2+? 14 'it>xg2) 14 .ixg8 !
3 lbj3 .ig4 4 cxd5 .ixj3 5 dxc6 71
fxg2+ 15 'it>xg2 'ir'g6+ 16 'it>h1 .l:txg8
17 'ir'e2+ and 17 dxc6.
c) In reply to 11 lbe7 White
•••
again has 12 d5 !, which allows the
queen to come to f3. Black's king is
in trouble after either 12 f2+ 1 3 •..
.l:txf2 .ic5 1 4 .if?+ 'it>f8 15 'i!Yf3 ! , or
12 .txc3 1 3 'i!Yxf3 ! .if6 14 dxc6
.••
lbxc6 15 .ie3, etc.
d) 11 lbf6 12 .ig5 ! followed by
.•.
d4-d5. ( 1 2 ...fxg2? allows 13 .l:txf6 !
gxf6 1 4 'ir'h5+)
12 .l:txf3?
Spoiling everything. 12 g3! , how­
ever, steers the game towards a size­
able advantage. Then 1 2 ...'ir'f6 1 3
d5 ! just about transposes to note 'b'
to Black's 1 1 th move; the only dif­
ference is that White's pawn now
stands on g3 instead of g2 (and the
extra move this entails). The game
Zelinsky-Karner, Riga 1976, went
down the same route with 1 3 . . . f2+
14 .l:txf2! (but not 14 'it>h 1 ? 'ir'xe6)
14 . . . .ic5 15 lbe4 .ixf2+ 16 lbxf2
(D).
•..
Black kindly played 16 lbh6? •.•
( 1 7 'ir'h5+), but 16 .id7 is more
.•.
stubborn, when 17 .ixd7 + 'it>xd7 1 8
'iYg4+ 'it>e8 1 9 .ig5 i s one way for
72 3 lDJ3 i..g4 4 cxd5 i.xj3 5 dxc6

White to put Black under tremen­ is perfectly safe, whereas White's is

dous pressure. now dangerously exposed.
Thorsson's choice parts with an
exchange without generating an in­
itiative powerful enough to harm
Black.
12 ••• i.xf3
13 gxf3
Unfortunately for White 13 'it'xf3
runs into 1 3 . . .1Wel +. Capturing with
gxf3 has resulted in White's king
being susceptible to attack, which
gives Black time to reinforce the se­
curity of his own king.
13 ... i.d6 14 f4 !De7 15 1i'e2 l:tf8 24 i.h3 l::tf3 25 'it'h8+ 'it>c7 26
16 !De4 i.xf4 17 i.xf4 1Wxf4 18 l::te 1 'ir'h7 1i'c5+ 27 'it>h1 l::te3 28 l::tfl
White looks to the e-file for help, 'it>b6!
prompting Black to go ultra-cautious White's pieces are too far from the
for a few moves. queenside to bother the black king,
18...c6 19 d5 l::td8 and they have no influence whatso­
Why allow White any fun? ever on the dark squares. Black now
20 d6 l::txd6 21 !Dxd6+ 'i!Vxd6 22 finished off quite well.
'it'h5+ g6 23 'i!Vxh7 <it>d8! (D) 29 i.g2 l::te2 30 l:tf7 'i!Vg5 31 i.n
Black is happy to give back the l::te 1 32 'fig7 'it'd5+ 33 'it>g1 'it'c5+ 34
exchange in return for a definite po­ <it>g2 l::te5 35 h4 'it'd5+ 36 <it>g1 'ir'd4+
sitional plus. Ironically Black's king 37 <it>g2 'it'g4+ 38 'iii>f2 'it'xh4+ 0-1
4 3 ttJf3 e5 ! ?
Watson gave this move the brief­
est mention, pointing out that White
can avoid 4 dxe5 d4, which trans­
poses to the Albin Counter-Gambit,
by instead playing 4 ltJxe5 ltJxe5 5
dxe5 d4 6 e4 !. Since then Black's in­
teresting alternative to 3 ...i.g4 has ­
like several variations - attracted
considerable attention thanks to the
rejuvenation of the Chi gorin (much
of the work has been carried out by
the Russian master Nikolai Volkov).
As the following games demon­
strate, Black does not even have to
reply to 4 dxe5 with 4...d4, and 4
ltJxe5 offers White very little.
Game 20
Fedorowicz - Boissonet
Buenos Aires 1991
1 d4 ltJc6 2 ltJf3 d5 3 c4
3 ... e5
4 dxe5
This is the critical reply.
4 ltJxe5 ltJxe5 5 dxe5 eliminates
Black's potentially useful c6-knight
but does little else. Instead of 5...d4,
which probably is slightly better for
White, Black invited a queen ex­
change in Kramer-Boey, Corr 1 984,
with 5 ...dxc4.
a) After 6 'ii'xd8+ 'it>xd8 7 e4 b5?
8 a4! White had a pull on the queen­
side. An improvement is 7 i.e6! ...
with the idea of answering 8 f4 with
8 ... g6 followed by ...i.f8-b4, when it
is Black who exerts pressure on the
queenside.
b) Black is also OK if the queens
are kept on the board, for example 6
'ii'a4+ c6 7 'fixc4 'ii'a5 + 8 i.d2 (8
ltJc3 'ii'xe5 is equal) 8 ...'fixe5 9 i.c3
'ii'e6, etc.
4 i.b4+ (D)
w
Much better than transposing to
the Albin Counter-Gambit (4 ... d4),
which is known to be difficult for
Black. However White blocks the
74 3 lt:Jf3 e5!?

check, Black will capture on c4, giv­ 8 ... lt:Jd4!

ing him a 4 v 2 queenside pawn ma­ Not 8 c3?, which fails against 9
•••

jority which generates sufficient b4 ! cxd2+ 10 i.xd2 lt:Jd4 1 1 lt:Jxd4

play to compensate for White's ma­
jority on the other flank. Sometimes
the c4-pawn will be given up in re­
turn for the e5-pawn, producing an
equal game in view of White's much
reduced influence in the centre.
5 lt:Jbd2
The more forcing 5 i.d2 is dealt
with in the next game. With the text
White hopes to be able to secure the
advantage of the bishop pair, but
alert play from Black denies him
this.
5•.• dxc4
6 a3 i.a5
6 ... i.xd2+ is weak since it hands
'f!ixd4 12 i.c3, when Black is about
to become very weak on the dark
squares.
9 lt:Jxd4 'i\Vxd4
10 l:tb1 lt:Je7!
Again 10...c3 runs into trouble,
e.g. 1 1 lt:Jf3 'i\Vg4 12 b4 i.f5 13 'i\Vxc3
i.xb1 14 'f!ic6+, etc.
11 e3!
White, too, must be careful: 11
bxc4? i.f5 ! 12 'f!ib2 'f!ixb2 1 3 l:txb2
bxc4 is clearly good for Black,
whose active pieces and menacing
c4-pawn are too much for White.
11 ... 'i\Vxe5
11 . ..tf5 1 2 'f!ixf5 'f!ixd2+ 1 3
. .

over the dark-squared bishop for no ..txd2 i.xd2+ 1 4 �xd2 lt:Jxf5 1 5 bxc4
reason and simply helps White, who leads to the dismantling of the black
has an edge after the continuation 7 queenside.
i.xd2 i.g4 8 i.c3 'f!ie7 9 'f!ia4. Obvi­ 12 bxc4 i.f5
ously it is desirable to maintain the 13 'i\Vb2
pin and restrict White's develop­ The game is equal after 13 i.d3
ment, particularly now that it has bxc4 14 'f!ixc4 0-0.
been established that White is at his 13 'i\Ve4?! (D)
most vulnerable on this side of the
board.
7 'f!ic2 b5! w
By continuing 7 . i.e6 8 e3 b5
. .

Black only denies himself the possi­

bility of using the d4-square. In fact
9 b3 ! would then be a difficult move
to meet. The text leaves more op­
tions available to Black, as well as
keeping the f l -a6 diagonal closed
for a few more moves.
8 b3
Now 8 e3 can be met by 8 lt:Jge7,
... One of the most useful skills in
defending the c6-knight so that b2- chess is the ability to recognise when
b3 has less punch. it is necessary to change the nature or

tempo of the game, and here Black
should accept the fact that his oppo­
nent has measured up to the task on
the queenside and accept the offer to
exchange queens. White probably
has an edge after 13...'ih:b2 14 1:hb2
bxc4 1 5 .txc4 because of the iso­
lated c-pawn, but Black has the more
active pieces and is not without
chances.
Perhaps not satisfied with a 'nor­
mal' game after putting pressure on
White during such an interesting
opening phase, Boissonet chooses
instead to throw more wood on the
fire, confident that White's king is in
his sights. However, with best play
White is able to emerge the stronger.
14 'ir'xb5+ lZ:lc6
15 .td3?
Letting Black off the hook. Cor­
rect is 15 .l:tb3! and now:
a) 15 ... .txd2+ 16 .ixd2 0-0 (not
1 6 . . . .l:tb8? since 17 'ir'xc6+ 'ir'xc6 1 8
.l:txb8+ �e7 1 9 .l:txh8 nets White two
rooks and a piece for the queen) 1 7
..Wd5 ! favours White, who i s gradu­
ally consolidating.
b) 15...'ir'c2 1 6 'ir'xc6+ �d8 1 7
..Wd5+ ! �e7 1 8 ..Wxa5 'ir'xc 1 + 19
�e2 and White has a decisive mate­
rial lead.
15 ... ..Wxd3
16 'ir'xc6+ �d8!
Not 16...�e7 17 ..Wc5+ �d7 1 8
..Wxa5.
17 ..Wxa8+
Neither 17 'ir'd5+ ..Wxd5 1 8 cxd5
.txb1 , nor 17 .l:tb5 .te4! is much use
to White.
17 �e7
18 .l:tb8?
3 lLlj3 e5!? 75
There are two routes to reach
equality:
a) 18 ..Wf3 .txd2+ 1 9 .txd2
'ir'xb1+ 20 ..Wdl .
b) 18 ..Wxh8 .ixd2+ 1 9 .txd2
..Wxb1 + 20 �e2 ..Wd3+ 21 �e 1 (21
�f3 ..We4+ comes to the same thing
since 22 �g3 allows 22.....Wg4 mate)
2 l . ..'ikb1+, etc.
18 ... .tg4?
It is not really fair to criticise the
players for making errors when the
character of the struggle is so terribly
complex. With so many critical vari­
ations to investigate even GMs and
IMs are liable to overlook something
relatively simple, especially when ­
as is probably the case in this game ­
both players are fighting for the win
(and growing short of time in the
process).
Black has a forced win here, al­
though Boissonet can be forgiven for
missing it since his choice in the
game also looks good. However, the
text should lead to a draw, whereas
18 ... ..Wxc4! ! leaves White without a
defence: 1 9 .l:txh8 (or 1 9 �d1 .ic2+
20 �e 1 .id3) 19 . . .'ii'xc 1 + 20 'it>e2
.tg4+ 21 �d3 (21 f3 ..Wxd2+ 22 �fl
..We 1 mate) 2 1 . . ...Wxd2+ and White's
king will soon meet its doom in the
middle of the board.
19 f3 ..Wxe3+
20 �d1 .td7
21 .l:tb3
21 .l:txh8?? .ta4+.
21 ... .ta4
22 �7
22 ..We4+ ..Wxe4 23 fxe4 .txd2
simplifies to equality.
22 ... ..Wd3? (D)
76 3 &i:Jj3 e5!?

The last chance to secure the draw There are several alternatives
was 22....txd2. which need to be dealt with:
a) The game Vasiukov-Welling,
CSKA-Eindhoven 1 986, went 6 e4
.te6 7 ..We 1 'i!Ve7 ! 8 .txb4 (Black has
an easy game after 8 .txc4 'ti'c5 ! 9
&i::Ja3 .txa3 10 .txe6 'ti'xc 1 + 1 1
.l:txc 1 .txb2 1 2 .l:tb1 fxe6 1 3 .l:txb2
0-0-0 - Boey) 8 . . . 'ti'xb4+ 9 &i::J bd2
0-0-0 10 .txc4 .txc4 1 1 'ti'xc4 &i::Jxe5 !
with equality.
b) 6 e3 .te6 7 'i!Vc2 1t'd5 8 .txb4
&i::Jxb4 9 'ti'a4+ &i::Jc6 10 &i::Ja3 is given
in ECO as slightly better for White,
Now White delivers the knockout which seems like a reasonable evalu­
blow. ation. However, in the game Klinger­
23 .l:tel+ <M6 Polzin, Oberwart 1 992 the Austrian
23 ...�d7 24 'ti'b5 + ! .txb5 25 GM played the equally good 10
.l:txd3+, etc. &i::Jc3, providing him with a nagging
24 'ti'c6+! 'i!Vd6 edge after 10 . . .'i!Vc5 (10 . . .'ti'a5 1 1
24 ... .txc6 25 .l:txd3. 'i!Vxa5 &i::Jxa5 1 2 &i::Jd4 favours White)
25 'i!Vxa4 1-0 1 1 &i::Jd4 .td7 12 'i!Vb5 !? 'ti'xb5 1 3
&i::Jcxb5 &i::J xd4 14 &i::J xd4 c5 1 5 &i::Jc2
Game 2 1 b5 16 a4 bxa4 17 .txc4 l:tb8 18 0-0-0.
Annakov - Volkov Although these two variations are not
Moscow 1992 so bad for Black, it is worth consid­
ering Volkov's suggestion of7 ...b5!?
1 d4 d5 2 c4 &i::Jc6 3 &i::Jf3 e5 4 dxe5 which is, in fact, a more thematic
.tb4+ 5 .td2 dxc4 (D) (and aggressive) method of support­
ing the c4-pawn, and it does not ex­
pose the queen to a timely &i::Jb 1-c3.
c) The continuation 6 'i!Va4 'fle7 7
e3 .te6 8 a3 .txd2+ 9 &i::Jbxd2 a6 has
had numew11s outings:
c 1 ) In h 1.Schmidt-Sarapu, Du­
bai OL 1986, Black had no difficulty
steering the game to a comfortable
equality after 10 .txc4. The players
agreed a draw after 10 ... .txc4 1 1
'i!Vxc4 &i::Jxe5 1 2 &i::Jxe5 'ti'xe5 1 3 &i::Jf3
'ti'e7 14 l:lc1 c6 15 &i::Jd4 l:.d8 1 6 0-0
6 a3 &i::Jf6 17 b4 0-0 18 .l:tc2 l:.d5 19 h3,

though there is obviously a lot of
play left in the game.
c2) White delayed the capture of
the c4-pawn in Notkin-Volkov, Mos­
cow 1 992, trying to improve the po­
sition of his d2-knight with 10 lLld4
i.d7 1 1 'ifxc4 'ifxe5 1 2 llJ2f3 . Then
12 'ii'e 7?! 1 3 l2Jxc6 i.xc6 1 4 lDd4
.••
i.e4 1 5 f3 ! i.g6 1 6 e4 put the onus
on Black to demonstrate that there
are adequate resources. Black per­
formed the task so expertly that it
was White who eventually resorted
to tactics to force the draw: 16 ... lLlf6
17 l:.c 1 l:.c8 1 8 i.e2 0-0 19 0-0 c5 20
l2Jc2 b5 (Black must activate his
queenside pawn majority - this is,
after all, one of the reasons behind
playing this variation) 2 1 1i'c3 lLld7 !
(rather than drift into passivity and
leave the knight to cover the d.5-
square, Black continues the queen­
side offensive) 22 lLle3 c4 23 .l:.cd 1
(or 23 lLld5 1i'c5+ 24 �h 1 l2Jb6)
23 . . . .l:.fd8 24 .l:.d4 f6 25 .l:.fd 1 l2Jb6 !
26 1i'd2 .l:.xd4 27 1i'xd4 ltla4 28
ltlxc4 ! bxc4 29 i.xc4+ �f8 ! (not
29 . . . �h8? 30 i.xa6 l:.a8 3 1 1i'xa4
'ifa7+ 32 �h 1 1i'xa6 33 1i'xa6 .l:.xa6
34 .l:.d8+, nor 29 . . . i.f7? 30 i.xf7+
1i'xf7 3 1 1i'xa4) 30 i.xa6 .l:.a8 112-112.
After 3 1 1i'xa4 1i'a7+ 32 �f1 1i'xa6+
33 'ii'xa6 .l:.xa6 neither side has
enough. An improvement on Black's
somewhat automatic 1 2th move is
12 'iff6! 1 3 l2Jxc6 i.xc6 14 lbe7 ! ,
•••
when White's advantage o f the first
move has already disappeared and
Black has free movement for his
pieces.
d) 6 g3!? treats the position like
an Albin Counter-Gambit, but here
3 lDf3 e5!? 77
Black is not a pawn down. In fact the
c4-pawn is an unwelcome visitor to
White's half of the board. 6 ...ltlge7 7
i.g2 0-0 8 0-0 .l:.b8 ! 9 'ifc 1 ..te6 10
i.xb4 lLlxb4 1 1 .l:.d 1 'ifc8 1 2 lLlbd2
.l:.d8 ! 1 3 'ii'c3 lLlbd5 led to complica­
tions in Korotylev-Volkov, Moscow
1993.
Let us return to the main game af­
ter 6 a3, which puts the question to
the black bishop.
6 •.• i.e7!?
Not the only option. Others:
a) 6 ..txd2+ 7 lLlbxd2 b5 ! ? leads
.••
to positions which are highly unclear
according to Volkov. I have a feeling
that when White is ready to chal­
lenge the c4-pawn with b2-b3 (pos­
sibly in conjunction with a3-a4)
Black will not enjoy the same pres­
sure he did in the previous game be­
cause the pin of the d2-knight on the
e 1 -a5 diagonal played a major role.
Without this restriction White is bet­
ter placed to act on the queenside
than Black would like.
b) 6 ..ta5 makes sense. After 7
•••
..txa5 lLlxa5 (8 'ifa4+ c6) White
would prefer to have his a-pawn
back on its original square since b3 is
now a weakness and the undermin­
ing b2-b3 is no longer effective. This
leaves 7 'ii'a4 'ifd.5 8 l2Jc3 ..txc3 9
..txc3 b5 when Black has a danger­
ous queenside initiative.
Volkov chose to retreat the bishop
because he has an interesting role for
the piece if the queens are exchanged
in the near future.
7 lLlc3
7 g3 is possible, a sample continu­
ation being 7 . . . ..te6 8 ..tg2 'ifd7 9
78 3 liJf3 e5!?
0-0 0-0-0 with a complicated game
in prospect. Again the c4-pawn re­
stricts White's capacity to generate a
queenside attack.
7 ..
. .tg4
8 .tf4
8 e3 liJxe5 is not very pleasant for
White.
8 ... a6
9 e3 'il'xd1+!
Otherwise White may side-step
the exchange and play 'ii'd 1 -c2 with
the idea of bringing the rook to the d­
file, forcing the black queen into a
passive position. Note that normally
one would try to avoid giving White
a free move with which to occupy
the d-file, but here the rook is not
necessarily well placed in the centre
since it may have been more useful
on its original square, from where it
supports the a3-a4 advance and de­
fends the a3-pawn should White
want to advance the b-pawn.
10 l:txd1 b5
11 .te2 .td8! (D)
Black had seen the importance of
this multi-purpose move when he
brought the bishop back to e7. The
c7-pawn is defended just in case
White was considering anything
clever involving e5-e6 and .tf4xc7,
and if the knight now comes to d5 the
bishop is out of reach. Moreover,
from its temporary base on d8 the
bishop covers the b6-square so that
the knight could be chased away
anyway with . . . c7-c6. 1 l . . . .td8 also
contributes to the completion of
Black's development, for now the
e7-square is free for the remaining
knight to enter the game. Once Black
is satisfied with the solidity of his
position he can then - if given the
choice - return the bishop to e7 after
the knight has moved on.
12 h3?!
White does better to let the g4-
bishop remain where it is, as this
planless nudge of the h-pawn serves
only to drive the bishop to a more
suitable square. A logical plan for
White is to double rooks on the d-file
so that he, too, can benefit from
Black's bishop being on d8. There­
fore 12 0-0 is the right way forward,
with an equal game after 1 2 ... liJge7
1 3 l:td2 0-0 14 l:tfd 1 liJg6.
12 •.. .te6
13 0-0 h6
Putting a stop to liJf3-g5 .
14 liJe4
While it is true that a knight on d5
does not threaten anything at the mo­
ment - hence White's plan to ma­
noeuvre the horse to c5 instead - it
does not necessarily follow that
White should forget about the d5-
square. There is always a good
chance that at some point in the
game such a central square could be
quite significant. With this in mind

White should leave the queen's
knight where it is and play 14 tbd4!
tbxd4 1 5 l:txd4 (15 exd4 c6 16 d5
cxd5 17 tbxd5 tbe7 is advantageous
to Black, whose pawn majority is the
more mobile). Then after 15 . . . tbe7
16 i..f3 Black is practically forced to
sacrifice a pawn: 16 ... c6 17 l:td6 i..c7
18 l:txc6 tbxc6 19 i.. xc6+ rt;e7 20
i..xa8 l:txa8 and in the resulting posi­
tion Black's bishop pair and queen­
side pressure compensate for the
pawn. Safer is 16 l:tfd1, when 16 ...0-0
maintains an equilibrium. Perhaps
Black's game is easier to play be­
cause he can get his queenside
pawns rolling quicker.
14 tbge7
15 tbc5 tbd5
16 tbd4 tbxd4
17 l:txd4 g6!
Obviously Black has no intention
of allowing 1 8 tbxe6 fxe6 19 i..h5+,
etc.
18 .tg3 i..e7
19 tbxe6?
Unfortunately for White his plan
of gaining the two bishops while si­
multaneously 'weakening' Black's
kingside pawn structure is a faulty
one. There is nothing wrong with 19
tbe4, but from a psychological point
of view it is never easy to retreat a
piece to where it just came from, es­
pecially when playing with White.
If White is insistent on continuing
to drive forward, then the only alter­
native is 19 lDb7!?. The idea behind
this odd-looking move can be seen in
the variation 19 0-0 20 i.. f3 c6 2 1
..•
tbd6 with a slight edge to White as
the d6-square is firmly in his grasp
3 tbf3 e5!? 79
and his bishops are working well to­
gether. More precise is the forcing
19 l:tb8 20 i.. f3 (20 tba5 l:tb6)
.••
20 . . . l:txb7 21 i.. xd5 i.. xd5 22 l:txd5
c6 23 l:td2 a5 !, intending to continue
...c4-c3.
19 ••• fxe6 (D)
Black is quite happy for the f­
pawn to come to e6, where it has an
influence on d5 and shares defensive
duties with the g6-pawn by adding
extra cover to f5. Whether or not the
two white bishops will prove to be
a true force is debatable, but there
is certainly no doubt that Black's
forces are better placed to work on
both sides of the board.
20 e4
White has to dislodge the knight
eventually, even if it means weaken­
ing the dark squares as well as result­
ing in both bishops now being
restricted by their own pawns. Of
course the knight has other options
and can operate with some flexibil­
ity, but there is no reason why White
should allow it to stay on d5 .
20 tbb6 21 l:td2
.••
Anticipating . . . tDb6-a4, which
would hit the b2-pawn.
80 3 l:£:.f3 e5!?

21 .tc5
••• which compensate for the sacrificed
Black's knight may have been piece.
evicted from d5, but at least his 28 l1xd8 .l:.xd8 29 .l:.g3 �h7 30
bishop is consequently given more .tg4 (D)
freedom.
22 �h2 0-0 23 f4 .te3!
Simple chess. The bishop's tem­
porary posting on e3 prevents White
from doubling on the d-file.
24 .l:.ddl .l:.ae8?! (D)
A imprecision brought on by be­
ing short of time. 24 ... .l:.ad8? is
worse (25 .l:.xd8 .l:.xd8 26 f5 ! , etc.),
but with 24...l:£:Ja4 ! Black could have
begun to tum the screw. Instead White
gets the opportunity to untangle.
30....th4?!
Or:
B a z •••
w .
$�
• •
" 3''� � lf;W;
1
a) 30 . . . l:£:Ja4? runs into 3 1 .txe6
"' -- Y-' l:£:Jxb2 32 f5 which gives White dan­
,- . . .,. .,� �� " " gerous attacking chances .
•,. D B b) 30 . . . l1d2 ! is strong. For the
BiB�D B entire game Black's strategy has re­
volved around nurturing his queen­
R •% •
uM ..f·-
�·� �
• side pawn majority in preparation
�" . . � for a timely strike. A possible con­
B B :t B � B tinuation is 3 1 .txb6 cxb6 32 .txe6
.l:.xb2 33 f5 .i.c5 !, leaving Black well
25 .l:.f3 .tcS 26 .th4 .te7 on top.
Now 26 . . . l:£:Ja4 has much less 31 .l:.f3 .txf2 32 .l:.xf2 .l:.e8 33
punch than it did a couple of moves .l:.d2 <j}g7 34 �gl
ago, e.g. 27 .l:.d2 .te7 28 .txe7 .l:.xe7 Over the next few moves both
29 .td1 ! l:£:Jc5 30 .tc2, and the revi­ players bring the kings to the centre.
talised bishop makes it difficult for 34 ... �f7 35 �f2 <l;e7 36 <l;e3
Black to make progress. .l:.f8 37 g3 l:£:Ja4 38 .tdl! l:£:Jc5 39
27 .tf2! l:r.d8 .tc2 h5 40 g4?
Again 27 . . . l:£:Ja4 is possible, when White's last move before the time
White's best course involves a piece control, and the final error of the
sacrifice: 28 .td4 c5 29 .tc3 b4 30 game. After 40 h4 Black's advantage
.txc4 ! bxc3 3 1 .txe6+ �h7 32 bxc3 is probably not enough to win be­
.l:.d8 33 .l:.xd8 .l:.xd8 34 f5 with a cou­ cause the bishop covers the knight's
ple of connected passed pawns entry squares. Now the black rook
 3 lLlf3 e5!? 81

has been given a passage into enemy

territory.
40 hxg4 41 hxg4 .l:th8 42 fS gS!
•••

Note how the e5-pawn has no sup­

port. White's pawn majority lacks
mobility.
43 fxe6
Or 43 f6+ 'ite8 44 .i.d l (44 'it>d4
meets with 44 ... lLld7 followed by
45 ...c5) 44 ...lLld7 45 f7+ rt;e7, etc.
43 lLlxe6 44 .l:tf2 .l:th3+ 45 rt;d2
•••

45 .l:tf3 .l:txf3+ 46 rt;xf3 lLld4+. White's position is without hope,

45 lLlf4 (D)
••• and continuing the struggle would be
0-1 futile.
5 3 t2Jc3 dxc4 4 t2Jf3 t2Jf6
w ..Wxc4 (9 dxc6? b5 !) 9 .. J:tc8 !, so this
A popular position. White now
has four major alternatives: 5 e4
(Games 22-24), 5 d5 (Game 25), 5
�g5 (Game 26) and 5 'it'a4 (Game
27).
5 e4
This is one of the best ways of meet­
ing the Chigorin. Instead of allowing
himself to be provoked into compro­
mising his centre by chasing the c6-
knight, White simply continues in a
calm and thematic manner, erecting
a handsome pawn centre and treating
the position like a Queen's Gambit
Accepted.
The only feasible plan available to
Black happens (fortunately) to be a
good one, namely 5 ... .i.g4, which
pins the f3-knight and consequently
puts the white centre under pressure
(6 ....i.xf3 is threatened). Now 6 d5?!
makes little sense (White may as
well push on the 5th move), e.g.
6 ... l2Je5 7 .i.xc4 l2Jxc4 8 'it'a4+ c6 ! 9
leaves 6 .ie3.
In his book Watson concentrated
on (and preferred) 6 .i.xf3 7 gxf3
•.•
e5 8 d5 l2Je7, saying that 6 e6 7 •..
.i.xc4 .i.b4 needed over-the-board
testing. Since then the former line
has all but disappeared due to a pow­
erful pawn sacrifice by White which
was not mentioned by Watson - see
Game 24.
6 ...e6, on the other hand, has now
received sufficient testing. In fact it
is partly because the variation has
done so well for Black at the very top
level that the Chigorin has found
new followers. Games 22 and 23
help to illustrate the ideas behind the
modern approach.
Game 22
Ki.Georgiev - Morozevich
Tilburg 1994
1 d4 d5 2 c4 l2Jc6 3 l2Jc3 dxc4 4 l2Jf3
l2Jf6
5 e4 ..tg4
6 .i.e3 e6
7 ..txc4 .i.b4 (D)
Now the e4-pawn comes under
fire.
8 ..Wc2
In the game Gulko-Miladinovic,
Elenite 1995, White was curiously
unsatisfied with the tried and tested

text, which is undoubtedly the best
move in the diagram position. Gul­
ko's 8 e5? is the kind of positional
error the average club player would
be ashamed of, so it should come as
no surprise that it has never been
seen (before or since this game) at
GM level . After the reply 8 . . . ltJd5
Gulko already had to be very careful,
for the natural 9 l:r.cl? fails against
9 ... ttJxe3 10 fxe3 .txf3 ! 1 1 'itxf3 (1 1
gxf3 ltJxe5 ! 12 dxe5 'ith4+ and
13 ...'itxc4) 1 1 . . .lLlxe5 ! 12 'itxb7 l:r.b8
13 .tb5+ ( 1 3 'ita6 'ith4+ 14 g3 'ite4)
1 3 ...c6! 14 .txc6+ �f8 15 'ita6 l:r.b6
and Black is winning. He played 9
'itd3, and the game soon became
wild: 9 ...lLla5 ! 10 .tg5 ( 10 .tb5+ c6
1 1 .ta4 .tf5 12 'itd2 ltJc4 1 3 'itc1
ltJxb2 wins for Black) 10. . . 'itd7 1 1
.txd5 'itxd5 1 2 0-0 .txc3 1 3 bxc3.
Now 13 h6! 14 .td2 .txf3 would
•••
have given Black a decisive strategic
advantage, but he tried the specula­
tive 13 f6?, after which both play­
...
ers really got into the spirit of things
to produce an entertaining comedy
of errors. Although the game falls
some way short of the quality re­
quired for a main, annotated game, it
would not be fair to keep it to myself,
3 lLlc3 dxc4 4 ltJf3 ltJf6 83
so here it is: 14 exf6 .txf3 15 'itxf3
'itxg5 1 6 l:r.fe 1 ? ( 1 6 fxg7 ! l:r.g8 { not
16 ... 'itxg7 17 'ith5+ } 17 l:tfe1 'itxg7
1 8 lhe6+ �d8 19 l:tae1 gives White
more than enough compensation for
the piece) 16 . . . tt:Jc6? ( 1 6 . . . 0-0 ! 17
l:r.e5 'itxf6 leads to an equal position)
17 fxg7? (17 llxe6+ ! �f7 { 17 . . .�d7
1 8 h4 !, alternatively 17 . . . �d8 1 8
f7 ! } 1 8 h4 ! 'itxh4 19 'itd5 �f8 20
'itc5+ �g8 21 l:r.xc6 ! bxc6 22 'itxc6
l:r.f8 { 22 . . .�f7 23 'itd7+ �xf6 24
lle1 } 23 'ite6+ llf7 24 'ite8+ llf8 25
f7 mate, or 20 . . . �f7 21 llxc6 ! bxc6
22 'ite7+ �g6 23 'itxg7+ �f5 24
lle1). During the rest of the game
chances were again missed by both
players: 17 ... 'itxg7 1 8 llxe6+ �d8
19 llae1 llf8 20 'itd5+? ! (20 'ith3 !)
20...'itd7 2 1 'ite4 �c8 22 f3 ? (22 d5;
22 lle8+) 22... a5 23 d5 ttJd8 24 l:r.e7
'itd6 25 llxh7 lla6 26 �h 1 llb6 27
h4 llg8 ! 28 'ite5 'itc5 29 d6 ! 'itxd6
30 'itxd6 l:txd6 3 1 h5 ltJe6? (3 1 ...lld2
32 g4 llxa2) 32 l:te7 lLlf4 33 g4 �d8
34 llf7 tlJe6 35 �h2 ltJg5 36 l:r.f5
l:r.d3 37 'i&i>g3 llxc3 38 h6? (38 .:.ee5 !)
38 . . Jlc6 39 l:td5+ l::td6 40 .l:txd6+
cxd6 41 .::tb 1 lLlf7 42 h7 l:th8 43
l:r.xb7 llxh7 44 lla7 �e8 45 f4 llh1
46 llxa5 l:tg1 + 1h- 1h. I doubt that the
move 8 e5 ? will get another serious
outing.
8 ... 0-0
Of course White's 8th move does
not leave a pawn hanging: 8 .txf3?! ...
9 gxf3 ltJxd4? 10 .txd4 'itxd4 1 1
'ita4+ actually gives White a piece.
If Black intends to put his queen
on e7 anyway, he may do so immedi­
ately: 8 Ji'e7. Play transposes back
..
to the game after, for example, 9
84 3 li:Jc3 dxc4 4 li:Jj3 li:Jj6
.te2 0-0 10 .l:.d 1 , but White has two
other moves:
a) 9 .tbS was played in Finegold­
Denefle, Paris 1989. Black failed to
appreciate the point and replied
9 0-0?, permitting 10 .txc6 bxc6
•••
l l li:Je5 ! c5 12 f3 .th5 1 3 li:Jc6 'ii'd7
14 li:Jxb4 cxb4 15 li:Je2 .tg6 16 'ii'c5
.l:.fb8 17 .l:.c 1 with a dominating po­
sition for White. Black must defi­
nitely prevent li:Jf3-e5, so best is
9 .txf3! 10 gxf3 li:Jd7 with a dy­
...
namically balanced game.
b) The game Darmogray-Krantz,
Corr 1 990, illustrated why Black is
sometimes happy to disclose his plan
one move earlier than usual. After 9
0-0-0?! Black pounced: 9 ....txc3 10
bxc3 li:Jxe4 ! ? ( 10...'ii'a3+ 11 'it>d2 e5
was unclear in Bouwmeester-Boey,
Corr Perfors mem 1 976-80) 1 1 'ii'xe4
.tf5 1 2 'ii'h4 ! ( 1 2 'ii'f4 is less accu­
rate because after 12 ...'ii'a3+ 13 'it>d2
'ii'b2+ 14 'it>e1 'ii'xc3+ 15 li:Jd2 Black
has 1 5 . . . 0-0-0 ! ) 1 2 . . .'ii'a 3+ 1 3 �d2
'ii'b2+ 14 �e1 'ii'xc3+ 15 li:Jd2 0-0 1 6
�e2 (if only White could get away
with castling for a second time he
would be OK ! ) 1 6 . . . ltad8 17 'ii'g 3
li:Jxd4+ 18 .txd4 'ii'xd4 19 .l:.he1 ? (19
'ii'b 3 avoids immediate defeat, but
Black is still in control) 19 ....tc2! 20
'ii'e 3 .txd 1 + 21 l:txd 1 'ii'g4+ 0- 1
(e.g. 22 f3 .i::r.xd2+ and 23 ...\Wxc4).
9 .l:.d1
White adds support to the d4-
pawn. In Shirov-Morozevich, Don­
ner mem 1 995, the experimental
Latvian tried to combine defence of
the pawn with queenside castling.
After 9 0-0-0 .txc3 10 bxc3 'ii'e7 ! 1 1
h3 Black found an improvement on
the old ll .thS 12 g4 .tg6 1 3
.••
.td3 ! , which favours White, opting
for ll .txf3! 1 2 gxf3 .l:.fb8 ! 1 3
•..
.td3 b5 ! with the makings of a wor­
rying queenside attack at the cost of
allowing damage to the defensive
wall of his own king after 14 e5 li:Jd5
15 .txh7+. The game went 15 ...'it>h8
( 1 5 . . . �f8 ! ?) 1 6 .te4 b4 ! 17 .txd5
( 1 7 c4? b3 ! 18 axb3 li:Ja5 ! 19 l:tdg1
{ 19 .l:td3 li:Jb4 } 19 . . . li:Jxe3 20 fxe3
'ii'a 3+ 21 �d1 .l:.xb3 22 .txa8 .l:.b2)
17 . . . exd5 1 8 'itd2 li:Ja5 19 'ite2 li:Jc4
20 .td2, and now 20 c5?! 2 1 .l:.hg1 !
•••
let White back into the game, so
Black should have retained his slight
advantage by playing 20 .l:.b6! with
•••
the idea of meeting 2 1 cxb4 with
2 1 . ..a5.
9.•• 'fie7
For the safe 9 li:Je7!?, which
•.•
Morozevich first played against Van
Wely in 1995, see Game 23.
10 .te2
10 .tbS was seen in two of Mor­
ozevich's losses in London. The first
was against Korchnoi in the I 994
PCA Rapidplay. After 10 li:Jb8?! ••.
I I 0-0 Black dug his own grave with
I I . . ..l:.d8?, inviting I 2 e5 ! li:Jd5 1 3
li:Jxd5 .l:.xd5 ( 1 3 . . .exd5 1 4 .tg5) I 4
.td3 h6 15 .te4, etc. All the same,
even without the poor I 1 th move
Black has a cramped position. A year
later Piket essayed Korchnoi 's move,
but this time the young Russian was
ready with an energetic response:
10 e5! 1 1 .txc6 (after 1 1 d5? ! li:Jd4
•••
White would prefer to have his
bishop on e2, as it is in the main
game) 1 l . . .bxc6 I2 dxe5 li:Jd7 1 3 a3
.ta5 14 .tf4 .txf3 I5 gxf3 li:Jxe5 I 6

.txe5 'iVxe5 17 0-0 and Black was
slightly better thanks to his active
queen and solid kingside. However,
perhaps too eager to mate his oppo­
nent's exposed king, Morozevich ­
not for the first time ! - got overconfi­
dent and was duly punished (in fact
he was mated).
10 0-0 alters the game enough for
Black to justify breaking the pawn
cover in front of White's king, with a
very pleasant game after 10 ... .txf3
1 1 gxf3 c!Dh5 .
10 ••. e5
11 d5
11 dxe5 abandons any hope of an
advantage: 1 l ....!Dxe5 12 .!Dxe5 1Wxe5
( 1 2... .txe2 1 3 'it>xe2 'iVxe5 14 f3) 1 3
f3 .te6 14 0-0 .tc5. White has prob­
lems on the dark squares.
11 ••• c!Dd4 (D)
This energetic pawn sacrifice is
undoubtedly Black's best way for­
ward. The alternatives are inferior:
a) 1 1 .txf3 12 .txf3 .!Da5 1 3 a3
•••
.td6 14 .te2, with b2-b4 coming.
b) 11 c!Dd8 12 0-0 c6 1 3 dxc6
•.•
lL!xc6 14 lL!d5 c!Dxd5 15 exd5 .txf3
16 .txf3. Black should only be pre­
pared to contest the centre with ...c7-
c6 when he can subsequently - after
the exchange on c6 - use the d4-
square before White can get in on d5 .
1 2 lL!xd4
12 .txd4 exd4 13 lL!xd4 lL!xe4
helps only Black, who has regained
his pawn with an excellent position
(dark squares). In the game Lukacs­
B igaliev, Budapest 1 995, the Hun­
garian GM also voluntarily swapped
his useful dark-squared bishop, but
he tried 13 llxd4. Not surprisingly
3 .!Dc3 dxc4 4 lL!f3 lL!f6 85
Black effortlessly maintained the
balance: 13 ...llae8 14 0-0 ( 14 e5 .txf3
1 5 exf6 1i'xe2+) 14 . . ..txc3 1 5 bxc3
c!Dxe4 16 .td1 .txf3 17 .txf3 c!Dc5
(White is powerless to contest the in­
fluential knight outpost on c5) 1 8 h3
'iVd6 19 lldd 1 lle5 20 nfe 1 .Ufe8 2 1
.l:txe5 llxe5 2 2 'iVd2 tL!d7 2 3 'iVd4 b6
24 1Wa4 a5 25 1i'c6 .7:.e8 26 1i'b5 lLlf6
27 g3 g6 28 'it>g2 ri;g7 29 c4 Ae7 30
'ili'b2 lle5 3 1 'iVc3 h5 32 c5 bxc5 33
'iVxa5 lL!xd5 34 'ili'd2 c6 35 a4 c4 36
'ili'd4 c3 37 1i'xc3 lf2_lh.
12 ••• exd4
13 Jhd4
White bravely decides to keep a
hold on the extra pawn, a somewhat
hazardous strategy which involves
allowing his king to be lured to e2.
13 .txd4 fails to present the sec­
ond player with any difficulties. Af­
ter 1 3 ... .txe2 ( 1 3 ... tL!xe4 14 f3) 14
'iVxe2 (14 .txf6 .txdl 15 .txe7 .txc2
1 6 .txb4 Afe8) 14 . . . lL!xe4 Black
simply brings his rooks to the centre.
13 ••• .txe2
14 'it>xe2 .tcS
An alternative is to play 14 lL!g4
•••
1 5 tL!d1 before 15 ... .tc5. White man­
ages to stay in the driving seat de­
spite the fact that his king reaches the
86 3 lt:Jc3 dxc4 4 lt:Jf3 lt:Jf6
third rank: 1 6 l:tc4 lt:Jxe3 1 7 lt:Jxe3
i.xe3 1 8 'ifi>xe3 (18 ...'iig 5+ 1 9 f4, or
1 8 ...l:tac8 19 l:tcl ).
15 l:td2!
White must play extremely ac­
curately at every turn, and often the
best moves are far from obvious.
a) Almost everyone would play
15 l:td3 in order to recapture on e3
with the rook. Then Black proceeds
with ( 15 ... i.xe3 16 l:txe3) 1 6 ...lt:Jg4
17 .:tg3 f5 1 8 h3 li::Jf6 19 l:te 1 fxe4 20
�fl 'iic 5. Also possible is the con­
tinuation 19 f4 20 l:td3 li::Jd7 2 1 f3
•••
lt:Je5 22 l:td4 'iic 5.
b) The exchange sacrifice 15 f3
i.xd4 16 i.xd4 is feasible, although
opening lines for the black rooks
with a timely ... c7-c6 will not be
easy to meet.
15 ... i.xe3
16 'it>xe3 lt:Jg4+
In reply to 16 ...l:tfe8 1 7 f3 li::Jh5
White brings his king back to safety
with 18 'it>e2! li::Jf4+ 19 'it>d1 , and not
18 'it>f2 'iih4+ 19 'it>e3 'iig5+ 20 'it>f2
'iih4+, etc.
17 'it>e2 'it'gS
After 17 ...f5 18 f3 fxe4 19 fxg4,
19 . . .e3 ! wins, but 19 lt:Jxe4! is an im­
provement which seems to keep the
white position intact. However, the
direct 17...'fih4!? is worth investi­
gating.
18 'it>d1!
Another 'only' move. The hidden
dangers of 17 . . ...Wg5 are revealed in
the following variations:
a) 18 h3 li::Je3 ! 19 fxe3 'iixg2+.
b) 18 h4 'iif4 19 f3 'iig3 ! .
c) 1 8 'it>n f5 19 h4 'iif4.
18 ... fS
Instead 18...lt:Je5 1 9 g3 li::J f3 20
.:td3 lt:Je5 21 l:te3 ! favours White.
19 ext'S (D)
White must open the e-file, as 19
l:te1 l:tae8 and 19 h3 li::Je5 give Black
adequate compensation.
19 l:tae8
Black plays energetically. There
are two alternatives:
a) Exchanging queens does not
make sense after the trouble Black
has gone to so far: 19...'iixfS 20
'fixf5 l:txf5 21 f3 li::Je 3+ 22 'it>c 1 .:td8
23 l:te 1 lt:Jc4 (23 . . . lt:Jxd5 24 g4 l:.g5
25 h4) 24 l:.de2, etc.
b) 19 ... l:.xf5 is interesting, when
20 lt:Je4 'iihS! (20 . . . 'iih6 21 it'xc7)
forces White to respond to the threat­
ened discovered check:
b1) 21 li::Jg3 leads to equality af­
ter 2I . . .li::Je 3+ 22 'it>c 1 lt:Jxc2 23
lt:Jxh5 li::Jb4 24 li::Jg 3 l:.xd5 (24...l:.xf2
25 l:txf2 li::Jd 3+ 26 'it>b1 lt:Jxf2 27
.:tc 1) 25 l:.xd5 lt:Jxd5 26 l:.d 1 c6.
b2) Better is 21 'it>cl, when Black
has little to show for the pawn
(2 1 . . .l:.xd5 22 'iib3 .:tad8 23 li::Jc 3).
20 h3
20 lt:Je4 'fixf5 2 1 l:.e1 allows
2I ..J:he4 22 .:txe4 lt:Jxf2+.

20 .•. lLle5
21 l:tel
21 g4 is an option, but White has
to tread carefully after 2 1 ...h5.
21 �xg2
22 l:tde2 �f3
23 �e4 'ii'h5
Faced with the might of White's
major pieces lined up menacingly on
the e-file, Black maintains the pin
instead of grabbing the h3-pawn,
although Black is still OK after
23... �xh3, as long as 24 f4 (D) is
met accurately:
a) 24 lLld3 leads to the black
.••
king being flushed out into the open:
25 �xe8 l:txe8 26 l:txe8+ <ttf7 27
l:t1e7+ <ttf6 28 lbe4+ <ttxf5 29 l:tf7+
<ttg6 30 l:te6+! <tth5 31 l:txg7 ! lLlxb2+
32 <tte 1 li'e3+ (32. . .li'h 1+ 33 <tte 2
�d 1 + 34 <tt f2 �d4+ 35 <ttf3 �xg7
36 lLlg3+! wins for White) 33 <ttf l
li'xf4+ (33 ...li'f3+ 34 lLlf2) 3 4 <ttg 2.
b) Not so foolhardy is 24 lLlg6!
•••
25 li'xe8 l:txe8 26 l:txe8+ lLlf8.
Perhaps best of all is 23 <ttf7 ,
.••
since an ending is perfectly accept­
able to Black due to White's scat­
tered pawns.
24 f3
3 lLlc3 d.xc4 4 lLlf3 lLlj6 87
The best method of breaking the
pin. Nudging the king away to the c­
file fails:
a) 24 <ttc2 lbf3 ! 25 li'xe8 lLlxe1+.
b) 24 <ttc1 l:txf5 25 f4 l:txf4 26
�xf4 lLld3+ 27 <ttb 1 l:txe2.
24 ••. h6
24...lLlxf3 25 li'xe8 l:txe8 26
l:txe8+ <ttf7 27 l:t1e7+ <ttf6 28 lbe4+
<ttxf5 29 lLlg3+.
25 f6!? (D)
25 gxf6
Too compliant, and not even
forced. 24 ... h6 created a flight square
on h7, so it is now safe to exchange
the rooks for White's queen. After
25 ... lLlxf3! 26 �xe8 l:txe8 27 l:txe8+
cttn (27 . . . <tth 7? 28 l:t 1e7 ! lLld4+ 29
lLle2 ! ) 28 l:t l e7+ 'it>xf6 the threat of
an awkward discovered check is in
the air, earning time for Black's king
to run to h7.
26 <ttc1 cttg7
a) Now it is too late for 26...lLlxf3:
27 li'xe8 l:txe8 28 l:txe8+ <ttf7 29
l:t 1 e7+ <ttg6 30 l:tg8+ 'iii>f5 3 1 lLle2 ! ,
etc.
b) 26...f5 27 �d4 lLlxf3 is refuted
by 28 l:tg2+ lLlg5 29 l:txe8 l:txe8 30
h4 l:1e1+ 3 1 'it>d2.
88 3 lDc3 dxc4 4 lDf3 lDf6

27 'ii'c2?! conducting the game which is not

27 d6! looks convincing, as both to everyone's taste. Of course one
27 c6 28 'ii'c2 lDxf3 29 l::te7+ l::txe7
••• could argue that a good number of
30 l:r.xe7+ l:r.t7 3 1 l:r.xt7+ 'ii'xt7 players may not feel 100% comfort­
(3 l . . .'it>xf7 32 'ii'h 7+ �e6 33 'iWe7+ able as Black, too. If this is the case,
'it>f5 34 'ii'e4+ �g5 35 d7) 32 'ii'g2+ then Black's approach in the next
lDg5 33 h4, and 27 cxd6 28 'ii'xb7+
••• game is worth considering.
'it>h8 29 'ii'd5 are very good for
White. Game 23
27 ••• 'iWxf3 Van Wely - Morozevich
28 'it>b1 'it>h8? Amsterdam 1995
28 l:r.e7!, intending 29 l:r.e3 'ii'h5
•••

30 lDb5 'ii'g 6. 1 d4 d5 2 c4 lDc6 3 lDc3 dxc4 4 lDf3

29 lDb5! l::tc8 lDf6 5 e4 .tg4 6 .te3 e6 7 .txc4
29...c6 30 lDc7 l:r.e7 3 1 .U.e3 'iWh5 .tb4 8 'fi'c2 0-0 9 l:td1
32 d6 lld7 33 l::td l . 9 ... lDe7!? (D)
30 lDxc7!
After a titanic struggle White's
bold approach finally pays off. The
new passed d-pawn is the decisive
factor, and Black has no resources
left.
30...llfd8
30 ... lDd3 3 1 l::te7 !.
31 l::te3 'fi'h5 32 llc3 'ii'g6 33
'fi'xg6 lDxg6 34 lle6 lld7
a) 34 ...'it>g7 35 d6 �f7 36 .U.f3.
b) 34 . . .lDf4 35 llxf6 llxc7 36
.U.xc7 lDxd5 37 llxh6+. An interesting move which gives
35 d6 l:r.f8 the struggle a completely different
35 ....U.cd8 36 lDe8 ! . character to the previous game. The
36 lDd5 lltT7 main idea is to replace the . . .e6-e5
36 .. .'�g7 37 .l:i.g3. break with a timely . . .c7-c5. White's
37 lDxf6 lDf8 38 .U.g3 .U.g7 39 next is practically forced.
.l:i.e8! l::tdf7 10 .te2 .txc3+
39 . . . .l:i.xg3 40 .l:i.xf8+ cj;g7 4 1 Others:
lDxd7. a) 10 ...lDg6 is direct if not en­
40 d7 1-0 tirely accurate, as it is not yet sure
An epic game which is full of in­ that the knight must definitely come
teresting ideas for both sides. White to g6: 1 1 0-0 'ii'c 8 1 2 h3 .txf3 1 3
soaked up an enormous amount of .txf3 c5 14 d5 e5 15 d6! .txc3 1 6
pressure just for a pawn, a way of 'iWxc3 lDh4 17 .te2 'ii'c6 1 8 f3 is

clearly better for White, Baikov-Bar­
sky, Moscow 1 995. With the white
bishops bearing down on the queen­
side, the knights are sorely missed
on the other flank.
b) Perfectly playable is 10 'l!Vc8,
•••
when Black has two choices after 11
0-0 c5 12 dxcS .i.xcS 13 e5!:
b1) 13 i.f5?! 14 .i.d3 and now
•••
(D):
b l l ) 14 lLld7 1 5 i.xf5 lLlxf5 1 6
.••
i.xc5 lLlxc5 1 7 lLlb5 ! b6 ( 1 7 ... a6 1 8
lLlbd4 b6 1 9 b4 lLlb7 20 iVe4 is very
good for White) 1 8 b4 lLlb7 1 9 iVe4
a6 20 lLld6 ! and White has a com­
fortable lead.
b12) 14 lLlg4 1 5 i.xc5 'ifxc5 1 6
•••
i.xf5 lLlxf5 17 iVe4 ! lLlgh6 1 8 .l:r.d7
b5 1 9 .l:r.fd 1 b4 20 lLla4 'ifaS 2 1 b3
again favours White.
b13) Best is 14 i.xd3 15 iVxd3 !
..•
lLle8 ! ( 1 5 . . . lLlfd5 16 i.xc5 'ii'xc5 1 7
lLlg5 ! g 6 1 8 'ii'h3 h 5 1 9 lLlxe6, or
1 5 ... lLlg4 1 6 i.xc5 iVxc5 1 7 'ii'd4 !
iVxd4 1 8 .l:r.xd4 lLlh6 19 .l:r.d7) 1 6
i.xc5 'ifxc5 1 7 lLle4 'ifb6 1 8 lLleg5
g6, as in Gavrilov-Barsky, Moscow
1 99 5. Now after 19 'ife4 Black could
have maintained a solid position
with 19 ... lLld5, e.g. 20 iVh4 h5, when
3 lLlc3 dxc4 4 lLlf3 lLlf6 89
the other knight is ready to come to
g7 and Black threatens to build up
pressure on the queenside.
b2) 13 lLld7!?:
•••
b21 ) 14 .l:r.xd7! ? .i.xe3 1 5 .l:r.fd 1
( 1 5 .l:r.xe7? .ic5) 1 5 . . . i.c5 1 6 iVe4
looks good for White but needs test­
ing.
b22) 14 lLle4 i.xe3 ! 15 'ii'x c8
lLlxc8 1 6 .l:r.xd7 lLlb6 17 .l:r.xb7 i.xf3
18 .i.xf3 .i.d4 is equal.
Certainly 10 . . .'ii'c 8 is the begin­
ning of a reasonable plan which is
worth further study.
11 bxc3 c5
12 0-0
Spoiling the centre with 12 dxc5?
is not worth a pawn. White must
keep the pawns intact and endeavour
to build on his space advantage. The
backward c3-pawn is the weak link
and, consequently, the c-file. White
also has to keep an eye on the e4-
pawn.
12
••• 'iic7
13 'it'b1 b6
14 b3 i.h5 (D)
15 g4
Black benefits more than White
from 15 dxc5 bxc5 because of the
90 3 0.c3 dxc4 4 lDJ3 0.!6
weak e4-pawn (and to a lesser extent
the c3-pawn). The text aims to ex­
pand on the kingside, an area of the
board where White has the potential
to generate an initiative. Advancing
pawns in front of the king always en­
tails an element of risk, and the pros
and cons of these aggressive thrusts
have to be seriously considered. Often
the problem is that the weaknesses
around the king become significant
only in the later stages of the game.
Having said all this, I do not see
how White can make progress with­
out pushing the bishop off the dl-h5
diagonal.
15 ... �g6
16 �d3 l::tfd8
Black is content to develop an­
other piece and add further pressure
to White's centre.
17 0.e5
Threatening to send the f-pawn
down the board. Obviously Black
cannot let this happen.
17 ... 'iib7 !
Now the e4-pawn is under attack,
White's f-pawn must settle for a role
as defender. After 17 ... 0.d7 1 8 f4
0.xe5 19 dxe5 there is no stopping
White's marching army of pawns.
18 f3
Forced. 18 dxc5 �xe4 highlights
White's draughty kingside.
18 ... cxd4?!
Why unnecessarily release the
tension so early?
a) 18...0.c6?! leads to a clear ad­
vantage to White after 1 9 0.xc6
'ii'xc6 20 'ii'b5 'ii'c7 21 �g2
. l::te8 29 l::te 1 (D)
b) Black should continue the­
matically with 18...l::tac8, e.g. 19
dxc5 'ii'c7 ! 20 f4 bxc5 with equal
chances. Even after White moves his
knight he still cannot play f4-f5 be­
cause Black's queen invades on g3.
19 cxd4 .l:lac8
20 .l:lcl l::txcl
21 lbc1 0.d7 (D)
22 0.xd7?
White could have secured a clear
advantage with 22 0.xg6! 0.xg6 (or
22 . . . hxg6 23 'ii'b5) 23 'ii'c 2. Note
that Black brought this on himself by
opening the c-file prematurely on the
18th move.
22 'ii'xd7
23 'ii'h5 'ii'd6!
24 �g2 h6
25 h4 f5 !
This pawn break was crying out
to be played. From here on Black
concentrates on the destruction of
the enemy king's defensive shield.
White's next aims to distract Black
with a passed d-pawn, but it is only a
matter of time until something gives
on the kingside.
26 gxf5 exf5 27 'ii'c4+ �h7 28 d5
White deals with the X-ray attack
on his e3-bishop.

29 fxe4 30 fxe4 'ii'd7
•••
Luring the king further forward.
31 'iti>g3 h5!
White's plan of kingside expan­
sion has backfired, although Black
was fortunate not to be punished for
the careless 1 8 ... cxd4?!.
32 'iti>f2
32 'iti>h2 'i!Vg4 33 e5 i.xd3 34
'i!Vxd3+ lLlg6 35 i.g5 .l:tf8 ! .
32...'ii'h 3!
Black is winning.
33 'iti>e2 lLlf5! 34 'iti>d2 lLld6 35
'i!Vc6 lLlxe4+ 36 i.xe4 .l:txe4
The presence of opposite-col­
oured bishops makes it impossible
for White to fend off the attack.
Black simply operates on the light
squares.
37 d6
This is as far as the pawn will go.
37 ...'ii'g2+ 38 'iti>c1 'ir'xa2 39 'iti>d1
.l:tc4 0-1
The game was about equal until
Black released the tension and con­
sequently helped White get rid of a
significant weakness in the c3-pawn.
The idea of ... lLlc6-e7 followed by a
timely ... c7-c5 is impressive. In hav­
ing the light-squared bishop on the
d 1-h5 diagonal - an option not open
3 lLlc3 dxc4 4 lLljJ lLlf6 91
to Black in related Nimzo-Indian
positions - Black hinders White's
progress on the kingside, and g2-g4
can have serious long-term conse­
quences, as Loek van Wely found to
his cost.
6 .ixf3?!
...
Game 24
Ligterink - Bartels
Dutch League 1986
1 d4 d5 2 c4 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 dxc4 4 lLlf3
lLlf6 5 e4 i.g4 6 i.e3
6 ... i.xf3?!
There is no doubt now that this
line is bad for Black.
7 gxf3 e5
8 d5 lLle7
8... lLlas?? 9 'i!Va4+ ! c6 10 b4 is vir­
tually winning for White. 8...lLlb8?!
9 f4 (Euwe recommended 9 i.xc4
lLlbd7 10 f4 with a clear advantage)
9 . . . i.d6 10 fxe5 i.xe5 1 1 i.g2 'i!Vd6
12 'i!Va4+ lLlbd7 13 lLlb5 'ir'a6 14 'i!Vb4
i.d6 15 'i!Vxc4 0-0 1 6 lLlxd6 'i!Vxd6
17 0-0-0 is superb for White, Kish­
nev-Baumhus, Gelsenkirchen 1 99 1 .
9 'i!Va4+!
9 h4 and 9 i.xc4 are the main al­
ternatives, both leading to positions
in which Black has good chances
thanks to his grip on the dark
squares. The text, however, com­
bined with White's next move, pre­
sents Black with serious problems to
solve regarding the light squares.
9 ... lLld7
9...c6 looks OK after 10 'i!Vxc4
cxd5 1 1 exd5 lLlf5 (Soltis), but 10
i.xc4! is unpleasant for Black, for
92 3 l"Dc3 dxc4 4 lDf3 lDf6

example 1 0 ...b5 1 1 i.xb5 ! cxb5 12 bxc6 1 8 'ii'xc6 l:thd8 19 'ilib7+ rtl;e6

l"Dxb5. 20 .l:ld5 l:txd5 21 exd5+ 1-0.
10 d6! (D) 11 i.xc4 dS
A sample 'old' line is 10 0-0-0 Forced. ll a6 1 2 'it'b3 d5 1 3
•..

l"Dg6 ( 10 . . . a6 - Minev) 1 1 h4 (in­ l"Dxd5 b5 fails to 14 l"Df6+ ! , while

tending 1 l . ..l"Dxh4 12 f4 ! - Euwe) ll l"Dc6 12 'it'b3 is also horrible for
.•.

1 1 ...i.d6 ! with a fine game for Black Black.

(Soltis). Remarkably, nobody con­ 12 l"Dxd5 l"Dc6
sidered I 0 d6 ! to be potentially 13 l:tg1!
strong, and it was first played only Even stronger than 13 0-0-0.
ten years ago by the Dutch 1M Lig­ 13 ••• a6
terink. Ligterink-Halldarsson, Reykj a­
vik 1986 was the aforementioned de­
but of 10 d6! . Black played 13 .l:lc8
•••

14 .l:ld 1 ! 'ft'a5+ 15 'ilixa5 l"Dxa5,

when after the clever 16 i.fl ! Black
had to play 16 ... l"Dc6 17 i.h3 l"Dd4,
though 18 i.xd4 exd4 19 .l:lxd4 still
leaves White with an extra pawn and
an initiative.
14 0-0-0 i.d6
Vanheste analysed 14 ...i.c5 1 5
i.xc5 l"Dxc5 1 6 'ft'a3 ! l"De6 1 7 l"De3
intending t"Df5 with a strong attack.
By clearing the d5-square White 15 l"Dc3! (D)
accentuates his already significant
hold on the light-squares in general.
Moreover, the key to Black's solidity
is normally the blockade on d6,
which erects a barrier behind which
Black is quite safe, thus providing
enough time to drum up activity on
the dark squares. With the blockade
no longer possible the rest of this
strategy cannot be proceeded with,
either, which is bad news for Black.
10 ••• cxd6
In G.Flear-Bell, British Ch 1988, Both rooks power down an impor­
Black tried 10 l"Dc6 1 1 dxc7 'i!/xc7.
••. tant file and the other pieces (nota­
The game continued 1 2 i.h3 ! i.b4 bly the c4-bishop) are also poised to
1 3 0-0-0 l"Df6 14 l"Dd5 'i!ia5 15 attack. White has far too much ac­
l"Dxf6+ gxf6 1 6 i.d7+ rtl;e7 17 i.xc6 tivity for him not to have a decisive

advantage. Ironically, in lnformator
41 ( 1 986) The Dutch IM gave this
position as winning for White, not
bothering to offer any further analy­
sis! In his defence, he does manage
to win the game in only eight more
moves.
15...ll:ld4 16 ..txd4 exd4 17 .l:.xd4
..tf4+ 18 'it>b1 b5
Complications are Black's only
chance.
19 ..txf7+! 'it>xf7 20 "i!ib3+ 'it>f8
21 "i!ie6
The end is nigh. Black can hardly
move, and White has a choice of
wins.
21 .l:.a7 22 e5 g5 23 "i!if5+ 1-0
.••
5 d5
Game 25
Ziiger - Ye Rongguang
Lucerne 1989
1 d4 d5 2 c4 ll:lc6 3 ll:lc3 lLlf6 4 ll:lf3
dxc4
5 d5
An obvious candidate maybe, but
at master level the move is thought to
be somewhat too committal as it pre­
sents Black with a target in the form
of the d5-pawn.
5 ••• ll:la5! (D)
6 ..tg5
This sensible-looking move had
not been seen in international prac­
tice before this game, probably be­
cause 5 d5 does not receive too many
outings. The reasoning behind the
text is simply to continue with nor­
mal development and ignore Black's
wayward knight.
3 lLlc3 dxc4 4 lLlf3 lLlf6 93
Apart from 6 ..tf4, which l acks
purpose and invites Black to chal­
lenge the centre with 6 . . .e6 (e.g. 7
dxe6 "i!ixd 1 + 8 .l:.xd 1 ..txe6), White
has two more natural alternatives:
a) The position after 6 "i!ia4+ c6
7 b4 b5 ! (here 7 ... cxb3? 8 axb3 e6 -
intending to answer 9 'itxa5 with
9 .. .'iha5 1 0 .l:.xa5 .i.. b4 fails to 9
-
b4 !) 8 'ii'xa5 'ii'xa5 9 bxa5 b4 10
tLld1 cxd5 is almost identical to that
reached after 3 ll:lc3 dxc4 4 d5 lba5
(discussed in Chapter 6), the only
difference being the development of
the knights on f3 and f6. This should
be to Black's advantage for two rea­
sons:
1 ) White no longer has the the­
matic e2-e4 break at his disposal;
and
2) (less important but significant
nevertheless) f6 is undoubtedly the
best square for Black's knight,
whereas White no longer has the op­
tion of using the e2-square.
b) One would expect to see 6 e4
e6 quite often, with another choice
for White:
b 1 ) The game Gomez Esteban­
Giulian, Thessaloniki OL 1984, con­
tinued 7 ..tg5 exd5 (Ye gives 7 .....te7
94 3 li:Jc3 dxc4 4 li:Jj3 li:Jf6
8 .txf6 gxf6 9 1i'a4+ c6 10 dxc6
li:Jxc6 1 1 .txc4 .td7 as unclear;
Black's dark-squared bishop has a
promising future, which compen­
sates for the damaged kingside
pawns) 8 li:Jxd5 .te7 9 1i'a4+ li:Jc6 10
0-0-0 .td7 1 1 .txf6 .txf6 12 1i'xc4
0-0 13 li:Jxf6+ gxf6 with a messy po­
sition.
b2) In Schlager-Treffert, Bundes­
liga 1990/1, 7 1i'a4+ was tried, when
7 . . . c6 8 dxc6 li:Jxc6 9 .txc4 .td7 10
1i'c2 .l:[c8 gave Black a comfortable
game.
6 h6
7 .txf6 exf6
8 e3
The point - White puts his faith in
the centre. He still has pawns there,
as well as potentially influential out­
posts for his knights. Black, on the
other hand, has yet to find a harmo­
nious pattern of development for his
minor pieces, but he does have an ex­
tra pawn.
8 e4 adds support to the d5-pawn,
but this is not necessary because
Black is not really in a position to
profit from such a challenge. At least
pushing the e-pawn only one square
has the advantage of keeping an eye
on f4 and d4, as well as leaving the
e4-square available for the c3-
knight.
Castling long does not appear to
be a good idea for White, e.g. 8
1Wa4+ c6 9 0-0-0 .td7 ! , when Black
has good attacking prospects.
8
•.• .td7!
Consistent. Black prepares to con­
centrate his efforts on his trump card
- the (extra) c4-pawn.
9 .te2 b5 (D)
w
A cursory glance at the diagram
position is not enough to make an ac­
curate assessment of the plans avail­
able to both sides. Black has gone to
considerable lengths to stop White
from restoring material equilibrium
with a subsequent positional advan­
tage to boot. Yet it seems that White
- as often happens following the
gambit of a pawn - has no need to
worry about his opponent's ostensi­
bly stubborn opening play. Sensible
development and control of the cen­
tre is often sufficient to generate a
worthwhile positional compensation
for a deficit of a pawn. Is that the
case in this game, or will Black's un­
derstanding of the opening prove su­
perior?
A closer inspection comes out in
favour of Black. White's general
plan involves the voluntary ex­
change of his dark-squared bishop,
and this may not be a good idea after
all, for its opposite number now has
greater influence. Black can also
turn a weakness into a strength by
pushing his f6-pawn at an opportune
moment in anticipation of e3-e4

from White. Add to this the fact that
Black is a pawn up, which contrib­
utes to a dangerous queenside pawn
majority, and we begin to see how
White will not have a comfortable
middlegame.
10 0-0 ..ib4?!
Not the best square for the bishop,
which would have a more promising
future on d6 (after ... f6-f5) or on the
h8-a1 diagonal. Black had probably
been considering this posting during
the last few moves, deciding b4 is as
good a square as any.
10 f5! is an improvement on the
•.•
text, e.g. 1 1 tiJd4 a6 with advantage
to Black, who will complete his de­
velopment with ... ..if8-d6 and ... 0-0,
safely emerging with an extra pawn.
10 . . .f5 also comes with the bonus of
preventing the coming exchange.
11 liJd4 a6
12 ..ig4!
A good decision. Without his
light-squared bishop Black will have
to be especially watchful of the im­
pressive d4-knight.
12 g6
13 ..ixd7+ 'ii'xd7
14 ltJe4 i.e7
Black faces facts and redeploys
his bishop, which has no role now
that the knight has left c3. The stub­
born 14 'ii'e7 leaves Black awk­
•••
wardly placed, the queen on the
e-file being a particularly tempting
target, e.g. 15 'ii'f3 ! f5 16 ltJg3 with
the idea of a quick e3-e4.
15 'ii'f3
Unfortunately for White his oppo­
nent is not obliged to meet 15 'ii'd2
by 15 b4 or the ugly 15 tiJb7. In-
••. •.•
3 tiJc3 dxc4 4 ltJf3 ltJf6 95
stead Black has 15 'ii'xd5! 1 6 'ii'xa5
••.
'ii'xe4 17 'ii'xc7 0-0 when (once
again) there is insufficient compen­
sation for the pawn. 1 8 ttJc6 gets
White nowhere after 1 8 ....U.fe8 (in­
tending ....U.ac8).
15 fS (D)
16 tiJg3
16 d6? needs checking: 1 6 ... fxe4
17 'ii'xe4 .U.c8 ! 18 'ii'xe7+ 'ii'xe7 1 9
dxe7 c5 ! and Black i s almost win­
ning. This line is indicative of both
the soundness of the 5 d5 ttJa5 vari­
ation for Black, and the frustration
that White experiences after a dozen
or so moves when, 'natural' develop­
ment over, he finds himself a pawn
down with little to show for it. It is
important to note that Black's game­
plan - once the gambit nature of the
struggle has been established - is to
make sure that his c4-pawn is well
protected and that his pawn structure
in general remains intact. If this
means having to wait a while to cas­
tle, then so be it - even with his king
still on e8 Black holds.
16 ••. .U.d8!
Black sees no need to castle while
there are more constructive moves.
96 3 l£:Jc3 dxc4 4 l£:Jf3 l£:Jf6

17 e4 fxe4 powerful bishop and a strong passed

18 l£:Jxe4 0-0 pawn.
At last! A good sense of safety is 24 l£:Jb7 25 d7 l£:Jd6
•..

an essential requirement for all Black is winning.

strong players, Petrosian being a per­
fect example. Here Black does not
fall for 18 .'iVxd5? 19 l:tad1!, after
••
which there is no satisfactory reply:
a) 19 0-0 20 l£:Jb3.
•••
b) 19 l£:Jc6 20 l£:Jf6+ �xf6 2 1
•••
'ii'xf6.
c) 19 'ii'e5 20 l:tfe l .
•••
26 l£:Jxa6 l:txd7 27 l£:Jc5
After 27 l£:Jxc7 l:txc7 28 l:txd6,
28 ... c3 wins for Black. It is not by ac­
cident that the c4-pawn features in so
many of these variations, more an
advert for the efficacy of Black's
opening and middlegame strategy.
27 l:te7 28 l£:Ja4 �g7 29 h4
•••

19 l:tad1 b4 What else?

20 l£:Jc2?! 29 f4! 30 l£:Je2 l£:Jf5 31 g3
•••

20 l:tfe1!? should keep Black on 3 1 l:tfd 1 l£:Jxh4 32 'ii'g4 g5 does

his toes. White is still a pawn down, not slow Black down.
but at least all his forces are being 31...fxg3 32 fxg3 l:txe2! 0-1
put to good use. 33 l:txf5 �d4+! 34 �h 1 'i!Vxf5,
20 ••• f5! etc.
A second pawn comes to f5 with
effect. 5 � g5
21 l£:Jg3 �f6!
22 l£:Jxb4 �xb2
23 d6 (D)

Surprisingly this perfectly natural

Rather than wait passively for
Black to shepherd home his patient
c4-pawn, White tries to complicate.
23 'ii'f7 24 l:td5
•••
24 dxc7 'ii'xc7 25 l£:Jd5 'ii'f7 yields
Black an excellent position. He has a
development of the bishop is not
played as often as one would expect.
In fact, it is only in the last few years
that the move has been taken up by
strong players.
In 198 1 Watson concluded that
the then untried 5 �g5 can lead to

great complications ... in Tilburg in
1 994 two talented juniors produced
the following exciting, instructive (if
not entirely sound) game:
Game 26
V.Milov - Morozevich
Tilburg 1994
1 d4 d5 2 c4 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 dxc4 4 lLlf3
lLlf6
5 �g5 h6
Black may as well put the ques­
tion to the bishop before deciding on
a plan. In fact, failure to do so could
lead to difficulties for the second
player, as was demonstrated in Khen­
kin-Ferron, Alcobendas 1994. After
5... a6?! 6 d5 (6 e4 �g4 is unclear)
6 . . . lLla5 (back in 1981 Watson said
that this 'should be tried, for better or
worse' ) 7 e4 h6 White chose 8 �f4.
a) The game continued 8. .b5 9 .
e5 lLlh5 10 �e3 g6 1 1 e6 �g7 1 2 g4!
lLlf6 13 exf7+ �xf7 14 lLle5+ and
White was almost winning already.
b) Black can try 8 .c6, which is
..
recommended in the note to Black's
8th move in the main game (with the
bishop on h4). The significance of
the bishop occupying the h2-b8 di­
agonal is seen after 9 dxc6 'ii'xd 1 +
10 l:l x d 1 b 5 1 1 lLld5, when 1 1 ...l:la7
no longer prevents 12 lLlc7+.
By hitting the bishop immediately
Black avoids this possibility, as 6
�f4 must help only Black (6 ...lLld5
springs to mind).
6 �h4
6 �xf6 exf6 7 e3 gives us a posi­
tion similar to those from the Trom­
powsky ( 1 d4 lLlf6 2 �g5 d5 3 �xf6
3 lLlc3 dxc4 4 lLlf3 lLlf6 97
exf6). I don't think that creating dou­
bled pawns is worth giving Black the
bishop pair, for with ...f6-f5 Black
still has sufficient influence in the
centre, and White is certainly going
to miss his dark-squared bishop
eventually.
a) 0stenstad-Gausel, Oslo 1 988
went 7 �d6 8 �xc4 0-0 9 0-0 f5 !
•••
1 0 l:lc 1 a6 1 1 a3 �d7, with a satis­
factory game for Black.
b) In the game Chemiak-Fine­
gold, New York 1992, Black retained
the position's Chigorin character by
7 lLlas!?, hoping to benefit from
...
his queenside pawn majority. The
game continued 8 e4 �d7 9 lLld2 b5
10 'ii'h5 g6 1 1 'ii'f3 �g7 1 2 �e2 0-0,
with an interesting tussle ahead
(White was unable to hold Black at
bay on the queenside, losing after 27
moves).
6
.•• a6!?
Black plans to keep his c4-pawn
without allowing his opponent suffi­
cient compensation. This is a good
idea now that White's dark-squared
bishop has drifted over to the king­
side.
Morozevich chose a more sober
approach against Dreev in Alushta
1 994, putting a stop to d4-d5 with
6 e6 before attending to matters on
•••
the queenside. The players split the
point after only 1 7 moves, but the
game was nevertheless quite inter­
esting: 7 e3 (7 e4 g5 ! leaves White's
centre exposed and favours Black)
7 . . . lLla5 8 lLle5 a6 9 'ii'a4+ c6 1 0
lLlxc4 lLlxc4 1 1 1Wxc4 1i'b6 1 2 0-0-0
�d7 13 e4 1Wa5 14 1Wb3 b5 15 e5 00
1 6 lLle4 c5 1 7 dxc5 1h-1h. However,
98 3 ltJc3 dxc4 4 ltJf3 ltJf6
I still prefer the uncompromising
6 ... a6, which puts the onus on White
to prove that his position is as good
as it looks - a task which is probably
not possible to accomplish.
6 .ig4?! 7 d5 is better for White.
..
7 d5
7 e4 .ig4 ! is good for Black.
Again the h4-bishop is away from
the action.
7 ltJaS
8 e4 (D)
B enough and consistent with Black's
8 b5?!
White has a lead in development,
a useful pawn centre and a space ad­
vantage. It is obvious, therefore, that
Black must not falter during the next
few moves, even if he does have an
extra pawn.
a) In Eslon-Ferron, lbercaja 1995,
Black lashed out rather recklessly
with 8 g5?, finding himself in a ter­
.••
rible mess after the continuation 9
.ig3 liJh5 10 'iia4+ c6 1 1 dxc6 ltJxc6
1 2 .ie5 b5 1 3 ltJxb5 axb5 14 'iixa8
ltJxe5 15 ltJxe5 .ig7 16 'iic6+ �f8
1 7 'iixb5 (even with a serious mate­
rial deficit and with his pieces hud­
dled together on the kingside, Black
stayed in the game until move 121 !).
b) Ftacnik, who criticises 8 ... b5,
suggests 8 c6 as an improvement. It
••.
is quite logical to contest White's
central authority. According to Ftac­
nik the position is unclear after 9
dxc6 'iixd 1 + 1 0 lbd 1 b5 . I prefer
Black, who is threatening to grab the
c6-pawn (his own c-pawn, on the
other hand, is well protected). I don't
see what White can do about this,
and I believe that 8 ...c6 is the right
way to emphasise the inadequacy of
5 .ig5.
Morozevich's 8 . . .b5 is natural
play thus far, but with best play
White should be able to create a
comfortable advantage
9 e5!
White will remain a pawn down
with nothing to show for it if he fails
to react aggressively. It is surprising
how many strong players overesti­
mate the positional compensation
for a pawn and continue with normal
development, finding out too late
that such an inaccurate assessment
has allowed the opponent to consoli­
date his material advantage and sub­
sequently convert it to a dangerous
initiative. In this case Milov does not
commit this error.
9 ••• b4
By leaving White's advanced
pawn centre intact Black would run
the risk of being bulldozed off the
edge of the board.
10 exf6
The alternative 10 'ii'a4+ leads to
some wild play and has to be investi­
gated. The sequence 10 ... c6 1 1 dxc6
bxc3 12 c7+ 'iid7 13 'iixa5 cxb2 14
 3 liJc3 dxc4 4 liJf3 liJj6 99

l:[b l (D) gives us the following in­ 15 'fi'xa3

triguing position: 15 'ifc2 .i.f5 ! ( 1 6 'ifxf5 'ifxc3+ 1 7
'it>fl 'ifxa1 + 1 8 iLle1 .i. b4) .
15 ... .i.xa3
B 16 0-0?
16 liJd4! is better, intending
16 ....i.b2 17 'it>d2 .i.xal 18 J:lxal 0-0
19 l:lbl J:ld8 20 .i.f3 with good win­
ning chances.
16 ... liJxc6
17 .i.xc4 0-0
Black aims to prove that the c­
pawn is not a strength but a weak­
ness, using his extra pieces on the
Black's pawn has reached b2 queenside to help in doing so. Note
while White's has journeyed all the that White's dark-squared bishop is
way to c7 (let's not forget that the c4- still a spectator on h4.
pawn is still standing). White is two 18 .i.d5 .i.d7
moves from completing his develop­ 19 l:lfd1 J:lac8
ment ( 1 5 .i.xc4, 16 0-0) and even 20 :tab1 l:[fd8 (D)
threatens to capture on f6. The obvi­
ous 14...liJd5 15 .i.xc4 lLlxc7 16 0-0
looks terrible for Black, but possible
is 14...'ifb5!. After 15 'ifxb5+ axb5
16 exf6 .r:r.xa2 17 .i.e2 exf6 1 8 0-0
.i.c5 the black pawn mass more than
makes up for the piece, so White has
nothing better than 16 lhb2 liJd5 17
1:1xb5 lLlxc7 with equality.
10 bxc3
11 bxc3 exf6
12 'li'a4+!
12 .i.xc4 c6 ! 1 3 'ii'e2+ 'ife7 is 21 h3
slightly better for Black. Not 2 1 .l:.b6? .i.e6 22 c4 liJb4.
12 ... c6 21. ...i.e6 22 c4
13 dxc6 22 .i.xe6 J:lxd 1 + 23 J:lxd 1 fxe6 is
13 .i.xc4 .i.d7 ! . excellent for Black.
1 3 ... 'fi'e7+! 22...liJa5?
White's initiative persists after More precise is 22....i.f8!.
13 'ifd5 14 l:[d l 'ifb5 15 'ifxb5
..• 23 l:td3 .i.f8
axb5 1 6 liJd4. Not 23 . . ..i.f5? 24 l:txa3 .i.xb1 25
14 .i.e2 'ifa3 lha5.
100 3 lDc3 dxc4 4 lDf3 lDf6
24 l:.bd1 l:.e8 25 l:.e1 ?!
White returns the favour. Instead
he can put up more resistance with
25 lDd4 lDxc4 26 lDxe6 fxe6 27 .ib7
l:.b8 28 l:.d7 (28 .ixa6 lDb2) 28...ll£5
29 l:.c7, which Ftacnik evaluates as
equal. However, Black can keep his
winning chances alive by swapping a
pair of rooks with 29 ...l:.e7 30 l:.xe7
.ixe7, intending 3 1 .ixa6 l:.a8.
25 lDxc4 26 .ib7 l:.c5 27 .ixa6
•..
l:.a8 28 .ib7??
White blunders, but he was mak­
ing life difficult for himself anyway.
28 .ixc4 is good - but not winning ­
for Black.
28 l:.a7 29 .ie4 f5 0-1
.•.
5 'iVa4
Game 27
Akopian - Brunner
Lucerne Wcht 1993
1 d4 d5 2 c4 lDc6 3 lDc3 dxc4 4 lL!f3
lLlf6
5 'ifa4 (D)
5 .•. lL!d5
A Chigorin player's choice. Of
course Black must do something to
disrupt his opponent's plans. Alter­
natives:
a) Worth considering is 5....ig4!?,
which transposes to Game 8 (note to
Black's 4th move) after 6 lL!e5 .id7.
b) Illescas-Wolff, Biel IZ 1993,
which started as a QGA, saw Black
treat the game more in the style of
that opening with 5 e6, and now:
..•
b 1 ) Illescas continued 6 'ifxc4,
after which Black secured a com­
fortable game with ease: 6 ...lL!b4 ! ?
( 6. . ..ib4?! 7 a 3 .ia5 8 .ig5 favours
White) 7 'ii'b3 c5 8 e3 (8 dxc5 .ixc5
=) 8 . . . cxd4 9 exd4 (9 lLlxd4 .ie7)
9 ... .ie7 10 .ig5 lLlc6 1 1 l:.d1 0-0 1 2
.id3 b6 1 3 a 3 .ib7 14 'ifc2 g6.
b2) Perhaps with line 'b1' in
mind White tried to improve in
Sosonko-J.Piket, Dutch Ch 1 995,
prefacing the capture with 6 a3 (pre­
venting . . . lL!c6-b4) 6 ... a6. However,
after 7 'ii'xc4 .id6 8 .ig5 h6 9 .ih4
0-0 10 l::td 1 g5 ! ? 1 1 .ig3 l:.b8 ! ? 1 2
e4 b5 (D) the following position
arose:
By now Sosonko was probably re­
gretting his refusal to enter a 'dull'
QGA. The game became even more
complicated: 1 3 'ii'e2 (not 1 3 'ifxc6?

i.b7) 1 3 ...b4 14 axb4 ..txb4 15 'ii'd 3
..ta5 ! 16 %1d2 lL!b4 17 'ii'b l lL!bd5 !
1 8 'ii'c 2 ( 1 8 exd5 ..txc3) 18 ...%1xb2 !
1 9 'ii'x b2 lL!xc3 20 lL!e5 lL!cxe4 2 1
lL!c6 ..txd2+ 22 'ii'xd2 lL!xd2 23
lL!xd8 l:.xd8 24 �xd2 .U.xd4+ 0- 1 .
An impressive uncompromising dis­
play, typical of Piket.
6 e4
Of the four alternatives only 'a' is
sound:
a) After 6 'ii'xc4 Black must de­
cide what he is to do with his d5-
knight:
a l ) 6 lL!db4 7 'ii'b3 with a fur­
•.•
ther branch:
a l l ) 7 lLlxd4 appears to be tan­
..•
tamount to a draw offer. Shipov­
Yakovich, S t Petersburg 1 995, went
8 lL!xd4 'ltxd4 9 i.e3 (9 lL!b5 'ltc5)
9 .....te6 (D).
10 'ii'a4+ ..td7 11 'ii'b3 i.e6 1 2
'lta4+ i.d7 and a draw was agreed.
Watson investigated the complica­
tions which result from 1 1 ..txd4
..txa4 12 ..tc5 !, concluding that Black
may be the one who benefits most.
The fact that Andersson-Korchnoi,
Johannesburg 1981 and Meissner­
Schlindwein, Altensteig 1 993 are
3 lLlc3 dxc4 4 lLlf3 lLlf6 101
two of a number of games which,
over the years, also featured the same
repetition of position is indicative of
the accuracy of Watson's evaluation.
a12) 7 e5!? is more interesting.
.••
After 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 'ii'a4 i.d7 10
'ltb3 lL!a5 ! ? 1 1 'ii'd 1 i.f5 1 2 e4
'ii'xd 1 + 1 3 �xd 1 0-0-0+ Black had a
dangerous initiative for the pawn in
Lilley-Sadler, Crewe 1992.
a2) 6...lL!b6 (Pachman) is possi­
ble. Ritter-Dlugy, New York 1 993
continued 7 'ii'd 3 e5 ! 8 e3 (8 dxe5
'ltxd3 9 exd3 ..tf5 followed by
...0-0-0 gives Black excellent com­
pensation) 8 ...exd4 9 lL!xd4 lL!xd4 10
exd4 ..te7 1 1 i.e2 0-0 1 2 0-0 i.e6 1 3
%1dl c6 14 ..tf4 .:.e8 1 5 ..tf3 lL!d5 1 6
..te5 'itd7 17 a 3 l:.ad8 with a better
game for Black thanks to both his
grip on the centre and White's inabil­
ity to generate a kingside attack.
b) In Odendahl-Dlugy, Philadel­
phia 1 985, White attempted to jus­
tify his early queen sally with the
faulty 6 lL!e5?!. Play went 6 ...lL!b6 7
lL!xc6 'itd7 8 lL!e5 lL!xa4 9 lL!xd7
i.xd7 10 lL!xa4 ..txa4 1 1 e3 i.c6 1 2
f3 b5 1 3 a4 bxa4 14 ..txc4 .:.b8 1 5
�d2 e6 1 6 �d3 i.d6 1 7 l:.a2 e 5 1 8
d5 i.d7 1 9 ..td2 �e7 20 i.c3 c 6 2 1
b 3 cxd5 22 ..txd5 a3 2 3 b4 %1hc8 24
%1xa3 a5 25 l:.aa1 axb4 and Black
was still a pawn up.
c) 6 ..tg5?! merely invites Black
to reply 6 . . . lL!xc3 7 bxc3 'ttd5 !, re­
sulting in just the kind of advanta­
geous position the second player is
looking for.
d) 6 lL!xd5 'ii'xd5 7 i.f4 featured
in the amusing miniature Krlimer­
Lach, Bundesliga 1 987/8. The game
102 3 lCJc3 dxc4 4 lCJf3 lCJj6

ended 7 . . . b5 8 1i"d1 1i"e4 9 i.xc7 e5 i.a3 23 1i"g8+ �e7 24 1i"h7+ �e8

1 0 e3 i.b4+ 1 1 �e2 exd4 1 2 lCJxd4 25 e5 1i"f4+ 26 �b1 1i"f5+ 27 �a1
lCJxd4+ 1 3 'ii'xd4 i.g4+ 14 f3 1i"c2+ 'ii'c2 28 1i"h8+ rtJf7 29 'ii'f6+ �e8 30
0- 1 . .l:tb1 i.e7 3 1 1i"e6 1-0.
6 lCJb6 9 ..• lCJg6
7 "ird1 i.g4 10 i.g3
8 dS 10 i.e3?! e6 gave the edge to
With the c4-pawn defended White Black in Botvinnik-Petrosian, Mos­
cannot allow 8 i.e3? i.xf3 9 gxf3 cow 1963.
e6, when his weaknesses on the 10 •.• e6
kingside could prove serious. 10 c6 1 1 h3 i.xf3 12 1i"xf3 e5 1 3
•••

8 .•• lCJeS (D) dxe6 fxe6 1 4 a4 i.b4 ! 15 a5 lCJd7 1 6

i.xc4 1i"f6 results i n an equal game
according to Michaelides. The posi­
tion is certainly unclear, but White's
bishop pair and sounder pawn struc­
ture should outlast Black's activity.
11 dxe6
If White does not go in for the
coming sequence of exchanges he
will simply find himself a pawn
down.
11 i.xe6
12 1i"xd8+ ltxd8
9 i.f4 13 i.xc7 ltd7
The game Crouch-Sadler, Cap­ 14 i.xb6 axb6
pelle Ia Grande 1993 varied from the 15 lCJgS lCJeS! (D)
more usual text with 9 "iWd4 (a sug­
gestion of Rajkovic) 9 . . . lCJxf3+ 1 0
gxf3 i.xf3 1 1 l:t.g1 'ii'd6 12 a4 a6 1 3
e5 1i"d7 14 e6 fxe6 15 i.h3 lCJxd5 16
ltg3 lCJxc3 17 1i"xd7 + �xd7 1 8 .l::K.xf3
li)e4, when Black was well in control
and went on to win. This was sweet
revenge for Sadler who, a couple of
months earlier in Hastings, had been
beaten by Crouch in the same vari­
ation - that game went 11 e6 1 2 •••

'ii'e 3 i.h5 1 3 'ii'h3 g6 14 dxe6 fxe6

15 1i"xe6+ i.e7 16 1i"e5 ltf8 17 i.h6 16 f4 lCJd3+ 17 i.xd3 .l:txd3 18
.l::K.f7 18 1i"h8+ .l::K.f8 19 i.xf8 i.xf8 20 lCJxe6 fxe6 19 .l:td1 :Xd1+ 20 'iitxd1
1i"xh7 'ii'f6 2 1 i.e2 i.c5 22 0-0-0 �d7! 21 �c2 �c6 22 l:.d1 i.cS
 3 lbc3 dxc4 4 lDf3 lDf6 I03

Accurate play from both sides. It
is now a question of whether either
player can make anything of his re­
spective pawn majority. Black's ap­
White accepts that the present
ending offers insufficient winning
chances.
27 i.xd4 28 .:.xd4 g5! (D)
•.•

pears less threatening because of the

doubled b-pawns, but his superior
minor piece is enough to save the
day.
23 lDe2 .:.rs 24 h4 b5 25 a3 g6!
Black must be careful if he is to
be successful in neutralising the en­
emy pawn mass. 25 ...e5 works out
well for Black in the variation 26 f5
g6 27 g4 gxf5 28 exf5 h5 29 lDg3
hxg4 30 h5 i.f2 3 1 lDe4 .l:.xf5 32
.:.n .:.f4 33 h6 g3 34 lDxg3 i.d4,
when Black stands better. However, The break comes anyway, steer­
26 g3 is an improvement, when the ing the game towards a draw.
possibility of the white rook coming 29 fxg5 hxg5 30 hxg5
to d5 suggests that 25 ...e5 may be Black holds after 30 h5 .:.f2+ 3 1
premature. .:.d2 ..:.n 32 g4 l::th l .
With the text Black plans a timely 3o.....:.f2+ 3 1 .l:.d2 .:.rs 32 l::td6+
break with ... h7-h6 and ... g6-g5 . The l!z.lfz
immediate 25 ... h6? runs into 26 h5 ! , After 32 . . . 'it>c5 33 lhe6 .l:.xg5 34
fixing Black's pawns. .l:.e7 .l:.xg2+ White cannot make pro­
26 e5 h6 27 lDd4+ gress.
6 3 'iJc3 dxc4 4 d5 and 4 e3
The committal 4 d5 (Garnes 28-3 1 )
i s certainly not White's best way to
meet the Chigorin. Indeed, Black is
obviously prepared for the attack on
his knight!
Surprisingly,4 e3 (Game 32) can
lead to complications.
After 4 d5 lLle5 White's three ma­
jor moves are 5 'ii'd4, 5 ..tf4 and 5 f4.
Minor alternatives are discussed in
the frrst game below.
5 'i¥d4
Game 28
Goldin - Morozevich
St Petersburg Z 1993
1 d4 d5 2 c4 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 dxc4 4 d5
lLle5
5 'ii'd4
Or:
a) 5 lLlf3 lLlxf3+ 6 exf3 e5 ! leads
to an easy game for Black. White got
nowhere in Hering-Fomina, Berlin
1994, after 7 ..txc4 ..td6 8 0-0 lLle7 9
f4 exf4 10 'ii'f3 0-0 1 1 ..txf4 lLlg6.
b) 5 e4 e6! is also fine for Black.
White takes the opportunity to
centralise the queen.
5 •.. lLlg6
5 f6!? (D) is not as silly as it
.••
looks.
The knight can now stay in the
centre for another move or so, and
when it vacates e5 the f6-pawn will
support the advance of the e-pawn to
this square. Note also that Black can
drop the knight back to f7 if it is
more suitable than g6.
White has four logical replies, of
which 'd' is the most interesting:
a) 6 lLlf3 lLlxf3+ 7 exf3 e5 ! (with
equality) illustrates the reasoning
behind 5 ...f6.
b) 6 ..tf4 lLlg6 7 ..tg3 also meets
with 7 . . . e5, when Black continues
with . . . a7-a6, . . . ..tf8-d6 with a grip
on the dark squares and excellent
prospects of generating an initiative
on the kingside. With a strong block­
ade on d6 it is not a problem for
Black that he is slightly exposed on
the a2-g8 diagonal.
c) 6 e4 presents Black with the
added opportunity of obtaining the
advantage of the two bishops by de­
livering a timely check on d3. 6 ...e6
7 f4 (otherwise Black has a comfort­
able game) 7 ...lLld3+ 8 ..txd3 cxd3 9
"ilfxd3 lLle7 (Watson) is fine for Black

as his light-squared bishop has no
natural challenger and should conse­
quently create problems for White.
d) The only true test of Black's
ostensibly strange 5th move is 6 f4
lLlf7! 7 1Wxc4 (7 e4 e5 is what Black
wants) 7 lbd6:
•••
d l ) 8 1Wd4 f5 9 lLlf3 lLlf6 produces
a position in which each player con­
trols a square in the other's half of
the board. One sample line given by
Watson is 10 lLle5 e6 11 g3 exd5 1 2
lLlxd5 lLlxd5 13 'Wxd5 c6 14 'ii'd4 .te6
1 5 .tg2 lLle4 ! when Black is doing
well due to his more active pieces.
Worse for White is 11 'i¥a4+ ?! .td7
1 2 lLlxd7 'Wxd7 13 dxe6 'ifxa4 1 4
lLlxa4 lLlde4 ! with a clear advantage
to Black (the e6-pawn is about to fall
and Black's iron grip on the e4-
square effectively cancels out the
white kingside pawn majority).
d2) Vilkov-Filin, Russia 1 993
went 8 'iib 3. By leaving the queen
on the a2-g8 diagonal White pre­
vents the freeing ...e7 -e6 and conse­
quently forces Black to fianchetto
his dark-squared bishop. The game
continued 8 .. .f5 9 lLlf3 lLlf6 10 g3 g6
1 1 .tg2 .tg7 12 0-0 0-0 13 .te3 l1e8
14 l:adl lLlg4 15 .te l e5 1 6 h3 e4 17
lLld4 lLlf6 with an interesting strug­
gle ahead.
Perhaps the best thing about 5 ...f6
is that the c4-pawn is still defended,
and White must find the most accu­
rate way of dislodging the knight
from the centre of the board. The
correct way to go about this appears
to be 6 f4, but most players would re­
ject such a course as too drastic and
opt for a safer move instead.
3 lLlc3 dxc4 4 d5 and 4 e3 105
6 e4
6 1Wxc4!? rules out 6 e5 in view
.••
of 7 dxe6 .txe6 8 'i¥b5+ 'ii'd7 9
'Wxb7. Black should first play 6 a6,
•••
taking time to cover b5, before push­
ing his e-pawn.
6 .•• eS
7 'Wxc4 .td6
Black judges that the usual 7 a6
•••
is not necessary.
8 rn
Belov suggests 8 g3 followed by 9
.tg2 and 10 lLlge2 as an alternative
pattern of development. This does
have the advantage of keeping Black
out of the often sensitive f4-square,
but on g2 the bishop is somewhat
passive, and the knights appear to be
in each other's way.
8 ... lLlf6 (D)
9 h4?!
Not satisfied with granting Black
a comfortable game after a 'normal'
developing move such as 9 .te2 (for
example 9 ... 0-0 10 0-0 h6 ! ? intend­
ing ... lLlf6-h7-g5 with counterplay
on the dark squares), White opts to
drive the knight away from g6 to
deny Black the possibility of secur­
ing a useful outpost on f4. However,
106 3 ltlc3 dxc4 4 d5 and 4 e3
the far-flung h-pawn should not re­
ally trouble Black, who will be well
placed to strike in the centre once
the knight is pushed to e7 . In addi­
tion, with the prophylactic h2-h3 no
longer available to White, the g4-
square may prove to be weakness.
9 h6
10 h5 ltle7
11 .ie3 0-0
Not ll .tg4? 1 2 'ii'b5+ ! . Black
...
need not be afraid of castling king­
side - his king has sufficient cover
and there is no danger of an attack. In
fact, the h5-pawn looks quite silly.
12 .ie2 a6
This useful move prepares a fu­
ture expansion with ... b7-b5-b4.
13 ltld2?!
The alternative 13 l:td1 is better,
aiming to dissuade Black from the
... c7 -c6 break.
13 ... c6!
A perfectly logical reaction to
White's insipid play. If White allows
the pawn exchange on d5 his new d­
pawn will be weak (and blockaded).
14 dxc6 ltlxc6
Black already has a better game
thanks to his lead in development
and grip on the dark squares - d4 in
particular. In opening up the game
Black is now free to seize the initia­
tive on the queenside by taking ad­
vantage of White's uncastled king
and the unfortunate position of the
queen.
15 l:td1?
This should have been played be­
fore the central break. 15 'iVb3 ltld4
and 15 0-0 .ie6 1 6 'ii'a4 b5 are both
good for the second player. 15 'iVa4
is preferable, limiting Black to a
slight edge.
15 ... ltlb4!
Threatening 1 6....ie6.
16 'iVb3 b5
Renewing the threat of 17 ... .ie6.
17 l:ta1
Not a pleasant move to have to
play, but there is nothing better.
a) 17 ltlf3? loses immediately to
17 ... .ie6 1 8 lCJd5 ltlxe4.
b) In response to 17 l:tcl Black
safely nets a pawn with 17 . . ..ie6 1 8
'fi'd 1 ltlxa2 1 9 ltlxa2 .ixa2. Then the
attempt to trap the bishop with 20 b3
fails: 20....ib4 2 1 l:ta1 (2 1 0-0 .ixd2
22 .ixd2 .ixb3 -+) 2 1 . . .ltlxe4 22
l::. xa2 ltlc3 23 'ii'a 1 ltlxa2 24 'ii'xa2
f5 ! 25 f3 f4 26 .if2 l:tc8 !, etc.
17 ..• ltlg4
18 ltln
By giving up the dark-squared
bishop White at least strengthens his
control of the d5-square, enabling
him to nip Black's activity in the bud
by planting a knight there.
After 18 .ixg4 White has two se­
rious weaknesses - the h5-pawn and
the d3-square: 1 8 . . ..ixg4 1 9 0-0 ( 1 9
f3 .ie6 20 'ii'd 1 ltld3+) 19 ....ixh5 20
f3 is clearly better for Black.
18 ... ltlxe3
19 ltlxe3 .ic5
The immediate 19 ltlc6 comes
•..
into consideration, as suggested by
Belov.
20 0-0 .ie6 (D)
Black's game more or less plays
itself.
21 lCJed5
Putting the other knight on d5 is
also possible, 21 ltlcd5 and now:
 3 lbc3 dxc4 4 d5 and 4 e3 107

Black can win a pawn by means of

25 lbxe2+ 26 'fixe2 .txe3 27 W'xe3
•.•

(27 fxe3 .tc4) 27 . . .'ii'xh5 but, with

his dominating forces, he twists the
knot tighter. He now threatens a
couple of nasty discovered attacks
on the restless white queen, hence
White's next:
26 lbcd5
26 'ii'b1 loses to 26 ... b4.
26 .•. f5!
a) 21 .txe3 22 'ii'xb4 .txd5 (al­
••• White's position is overloaded.
ternatively 22 ... .td4 23 .tf3 is good 27 b4 fxe4!
for Black, too) 23 exd5 .td4 favours 28 'fi'd2
the second player, because the pres­ 28 'ii'xe4 lbxe2+.
ence of opposite-coloured bishops 28 ••• .l:r.xd5
serves only to accentuate White's de­ 0-1
fensive task.
b) 21 tt:k6! 22 'ii'c3 tal4, intend­
•••
5 i.f4
ing to meet 23 'ii'xc5? by 23 . . .lbxe2+
24 'iti>h l 'ii'h4 mate. Game 29
The embarrassing 21 'ii'd 1 does Gligoric - Smyslov
not alleviate the pressure: 21 'ii'xd1
••• Amsterdam 1971
22 .l:r.axd1 lbxa2, or 22 .l:r.fxd1 .txe3
23 fxe3 lbc2, etc. Black also has 1 d4 d5 2 c4 lbc6 3 lbc3 dxc4 4 d5
21. .txe3 22 fxe3 'ii'g 5.
•• lbe5
21 lbc6 5 .tf4
22 'ii'd 1 lbd4 This is probably the most popular
23 l:tcl move at club level, even though it
The attempt to trade off a couple justifies Black's knight manoeuvre.
of pieces with 23 .tg4 is futile: 5 lbg6
Black has 23 . . .'fig5 24 .txe6 fxe6 ! , 6 .tg3 e5 (D)
threatening the deadly ...lbf3+. Life 7 dxe6
would be more tenable for White a) 7 e4 produces play similar to
with the h-pawn back on its original the previous game, but here the g3-
square. bishop is poorly placed and will only
23 .•• 'ii'g5 hamper White's attempts to prevent
24 lbe3 his opponent taking control of the
If 24 lbxb5?, then 24 . . . 'fixc l ! 25 dark squares on the kingside (Black
'fixc l lbxe2+, etc. no longer has to worry about g2-g3,
24 .l:r.ac8 for example). According to Smyslov
25 'ii'd3 l:tfd8 Black has a fine game.
108 3 ltJc3 dxc4 4 d5 and 4 e3

b) 7 e3 makes little sense to me. 15 �

Black can continue along normal 16 i.h2 c5
lines with 7...ltJr6, ...a7-a6 and . .i.f8-
. 17 l'j)f3
d6, etc., but 7 f5 looks strong.
..• After 17 ltJb5 i.c6 White's king
7 ... i.xe6 has one less defender, with ...'it'e7-g5
8 l'j)f3 and ...ltJg6-h4 corning.
8 'it'xd8+ l:txd8 9 i.xc7 l1d7 (fol­ 17 ... i.c6
lowed by . . .i.f8-b4) has been given 18 i.d3 f5
as clearly better for Black (Smyslov). A typical Chigorin position. No­
8 ltJf6 tice how Black 'closes' the h2-
9 ltJd4 i.d7 bishop out of the game by simply
10 e3 i.b4 ignorinP' · ·•ing on the light
11 i.xc4 0-0 square� .., . -�ured a wonderful
12 'it'c2 c6 outpost on e4 for his knight, the next
12 'it'e7 immediately is more to
•.• stage of Black's strategy is to exert
the point. pressure on the queenside, where he
13 h3?! has a useful majority.
White is mistakenly concerned 19 .l:.fd1 .l:.ad8 20 i.e2 1i'f6 21
about keeping his g3-bishop. How­ .l:.xd8 .l:.xd8 22 .l:.c1 h6! 23 i.d3
ever, Black - a former world cham­ �h8
pion and Chigorin expert - is The fact that Black has time to
thinking more along the lines of make a couple of sensible 'safe'
Chigorin themes such as dominating moves before concentrating on the
knights and light-square control. queens ide suggests he has a consid­
13 'it'e7 erable advantage. We will soon see
14 0-0 (D) the idea behind the text.
14 .•• i.xc3! 24 ltJe1 c4! (D)
15 bxc3 25 i.xe4
But not 15 'ii'xc3? ltJe4, when Forced as 25 i.xc4 lets Black in­
16 ...ltJxg3 will shatter White's king­ vade with 25 . . . .l:.d2 (hitting the f2-
side pawns. pawn).

25 fxe4!
••.
Stronger than the more natural
capture with the bishop because now
the well protected e4-pawn and the
c6-bishop work to restrain White's
kingside.
26 1i'e2 bS 27 .ig3 4Je7 28 'ii'b2
!iJdS (D)
Try dislodging this knight!
29 1i'a3 aS! 30 'iti>h2
Not 30 1i'xa5? l:ta8.
30 h5 31 h4 'tiffS! 32 'ilb2
•.•
A queen exchange does not alter
White's queenside weaknesses.
32 4Jf6 33 'iti>g1 4Jg4 34 'ife2
.•.
'iff6 35 f3
hnpatience, perhaps, but the pros­
pect of waiting for Black to create a
passed pawn is not a pleasant one.
3 4Jc3 dxc4 4 d5 and 4 e3 109
3S exf3 36 gxf3 !iJeS 37 e4 4Jd3
•••
38 l:tc2 4Jxe1 39 .ixe1 :d3 40 'iti>g2
'ii'g6+ 41 .ig3 'iti>h7 42 l:tcl 'ii'f6
Both f3 and c3 are weak, and White
cannot open the h l -a8 diagonal.
43 .ie1 'iff4 0-1
The threats are 44 . . .'ii'x c l and
44...1:.xf3 45 "ii'xf3 .ixe4.
5 f4
Game 30
Ivanchuk - Morozevich
New York Intel rpd 1995
1 d4 dS 2 c4 4Jc6 3 4Jc3 dxc4 4 d5
!iJeS
5 f4 (D)
Occasionally someone will try
out a 'refutation' of a variation, and
this aggressive thrust is one such
continuation. White's plan is clear:
erect a large, intimidating pawn
centre by attacking the audacious
knight. Working on the same princi­
ple as Black does in the Alekhine
Defence, the second player aims to
prove that White's centre is overex­
tended and therefore a target for
counterplay. While White must avoid
110 3 li:.c3 dxc4 4 d5 and 4 e3
pushing too far and leaving himself
with too many weaknesses, Black
could simply be pushed off the board
if he becomes complacent.
5 .•. li:.d7!?
Another recent idea of Moroze­
vich, the text is not mentioned in
Watson's book. Black intends to re­
turn the knight to the queenside, put­
ting it on b6 to defend the c4-pawn.
Previously Black concentrated on
kingside play:
a) 5 li:.g4!? (favoured by Wat­
•••
son) is the most provocative of the
three available moves and, not sur­
prisingly, the game can become terri­
bly complicated:
a l ) According to Watson 6 h3 is
best answered by 6...li:.4h6!? (un­
clear), because 6 li:.4f6 is good for
•••
White after 7 e4 e6 8 dxe6 ! 'ii'x d1 + 9
�xd 1 �xe6 10 f5 followed by
10 . . .�d7 1 1 e5 li:.h5 1 2 li:.e2! .
a2) The point of 5 . . . li:.g4 (apart
from trying to scare/amuse White) is
to meet the natural 6 e4 with 6 e5, ••.
when there is a further branch:
a2 1) 7 f5 has been investigated
by former world champion Vasily
Smyslov, with the conclusion that
7 h5 8 �e2 �c5 ! is fine for Black
•••
(9 �xg4 'ii'h4+ 10 g3 'ii'xg4 1 1
'ii'a4+ �d7 12 'ii'xc4 �b6 and Black
is ready to push the h-pawn).
a22) The direct 7 li:.f3 appears to
be the most dangerous for Black.
There is no turning back, so 7 . . . �c5
is the only consistent follow-up.
Then 8 'ii'a4+ �d7 9 'ii'xc4 'ii'e7 10
li:.xe5 li:.f2 !? 1 1 li:.xd7 �xd7 is given
by Watson as unclear, while the
game Gavin-Fuster, Ibercaja 1993,
saw 10 fxe5 �f2+ 1 1 �e2 �b6 1 2
�f4 li:.f2 1 3 d6 !?, when White got
the better of the wild play after
1 3 . . . cxd6 14 li:.d5 'ili'd8 1 5 exd6
li:.xh1 16 li:.e5 �e6 17 d7+ �xd7 1 8
li:.xb6 �g4+ 19 'ifi>el .
b) 5 li:.g6 6 e4 and now:
.•.
b1) Ludy-Klooitz, Germany 1991
continued 6 e5?! 7 f5 li:.6e7 8 li:.f3
•••
f6 9 �xc4 with a clear advantage to
White thanks to his territorial supe­
riority and freer development.
b2) 6 e6 makes more sense but
•.•
still favours White after the continu­
ation 7 dxe6 'ii'xd 1 + 8 �xd1 fxe6 9
�xc4. In Garcia Palermo-Colas, lber­
caja 1993, there followed 9 ... �d7 10
li:.f3 0-0-0 11 'it>c2 li:.f6 12 li:.g5 l:te8
13 e5 li:.g4 14 h3 li:.h6 15 g4 �c5 16
�d2 li:.f8 1 7 li:.ce4 �e7 18 �e3
�c6 19 11hd1 and White had a domi­
nating position.
Of the two alternatives above I
prefer 'a', but neither seems to be as
sound as the text.
6 e4 li:.b6
There is a variation of the Queen's
Gambit Accepted ( 1 d4 d5 2 c4
dxc4) in which Black plays an im­
mediate . . . li:.b8-d7-b6 in order to
force White into making some kind
of concession if and when he wins
the c4-pawn. Although in this case
the knight has taken four moves (in­
stead of two) to reach b6, it is reason­
able to assume that:
1 ) the advance of the f-pawn has
left White weak on the g 1 -a7 diago­
nal, and
2) the d-pawn is more likely to be
challenged on d5 than if it had re­
mained on d4.

The fact that White now attempts
to cut across his opponent's plan to
undermine his 'loose' centre is in­
dicative of the correctness of Black's
reasoning. Otherwise White would
simply continue with normal devel­
opment and claim to benefit from the
couple of extra moves he made har­
assing the knight.
7 a4
The exchange 7 i.xc4 ltJxc4 8
'ii'a4+ i.d7 9 'ii'xc4 is not clear, al­
though White would rather have his
f-pawn back on its original square
now that he is left with only the dark­
squared bishop.
7 aS
8 i.e3 e6
9 i.xb6 cxb6
10 i.xc4 (D)
The damage to Black's queenside
pawn structure has left White effec­
tively a pawn up as far as the near fu­
ture is concerned, and to achieve this
he has had to part with his dark­
squared bishop. Even under normal
circumstances this would be a diffi­
cult decision to make, but when
some important dark squares have
already been considerably weakened
3 lDcJ dxc4 4 d5 and 4 e3 Ill
by 5 f4, the capture on b6 involves a
greater element of risk.
10 ... i.b4
11 ltJf3 liJf6
Better than ll ...exd5?! :
a) 1 2 i.b5+?! and now:
a1) 12 i.d7? 1 3 'ii'xd5 liJf6 is
.••
strongly answered by 14 'it'e5+! with
a clear advantage to White, and not
14 'ii'xb7? i.xb5 1 5 axb5 'ii'c 8 ! 1 6
'ii'xc8+ .l:txc8 17 liJd2 i.xc3 1 8 bxc3
.l:txc3 19 1ti>e2 1ti>e7 when Black stands
slightly better.
a2) 12 \ti>fS! 1 3 'ii'xd5 'ii'xd5 14
...
exd5 liJf6 15 .l:td1 i.g4 gives Black
adequate counterplay.
b) 12 i.xd5 retains an edge for
White after 12 . . . ltJf6 1 3 0-0 0-0 14
'ii'd3 .
12 0-0 0-0
13 dxe6
With his centre under a certain
amount of pressure White elects to
deal with the matter himself.
13 ... i.xe6
14 i.xe6 fxe6
Worth considering is 14 'it'xd1!?
•••
1 5 i.xf7+ (15 .l:taxd 1 ) 15 ....l:txf7 1 6
.l:taxd1 i.xc3 17 bxc3 ltJxe4, when
1 8 ltJg5 ! maintains equality.
15 'ii'b3! 'iti>h8!
Tucking the king away in prepara­
tion for Black's kingside offensive.
16 ltJg5 ltJg4
Not 16 i.c5+? 1 7 'iti>h 1 ltJg4 1 8
••.
'ii'xe6 !, when White, too, threatens
an annoying check.
17 ltJxe6 (D)
White must be careful, e.g. 17
'ii'xe6? 'ii'd4+ 1 8 'iti>h 1 liJf2+ 1 9
.l:txf2 'ii'xf2 20 liJf7+? .l:txf7 2 1 'ii'xf7
'ii'xb2.
112 3 l"iJc3 dxc4 4 d5 and 4 e3

to do, while White's knight has the

B flexibility to combine play on the
light squares with support from the
king.
28 'iti'g8
•••

17 ii'h4?
•.•
Sometimes Morozevich's will to
win is his downfall. Correct but less
fun is 17 ... �c5+ ! 1 8 l"iJxc5 (18 'iti'h 1 ??
'jWh4 19 h3 'ikg3 20 hxg4 'jWh4 mate)
1 8 . . . 'jWd4+ 1 9 'iti'h1 bxc5 20 h3 (20
Or 28 . . . h4 29 g4 hxg3 30 'iti'g2,
etc.
29 g4 hxg4 30 hxg4 'iti'rs 31 'iti'g2
�c5 32 e5! 'iti'e7 33 'iti'f3 'iti'd7 34
'iti'e4 'iti'c6 35 l"iJd4+ �xd4 36 'iti'xd4
'iti'd7 37 'iti'd5 'iti'e7 38 e6 'iti'e8 39
'iti'd6 'it>d8 40 b3! 'it>e8 41 e7 1-0
After 4 l . . .b5 42 axb5 b6 White
queens the b5-pawn: 43 'iti'c6 'iti'xe7
44 ..ti>xb6 followed by 'iti'b6-a7, etc.
4 lt:Ja5
•••

'fkc2? l"iJe3) 20 ...l"iJf2+ 21 'iti>h2 l"iJxe4 !

(2 1 .. .1hf4? 22 l"iJe2) 22 l"iJxe4 (22 Game 3 1
.l:.ad 1 ? l"iJd2) 22 ...'jWxe4 leading to an Komljenovic - Insua
equal game. Linares 1994
18 h3 .l:.ae8 19 l"iJe2!
Covering the crucial g3-square 1 d4 d5 2 c4 l"iJc6 3 l"iJc3 dxc4 4 d5
and in so doing taking the sting out 4 ••• l"iJa5?! (D)
of Black's attack.
19 .l:.xe6 20 'it'xe6 �c5+ 21 'iti'h1
•.•

h5 22 llad1 lld8 w
22 ...l"iJf2+ 23 .l:.xf2 'fi'xf2 24 'ii'c4.
23 .l:.xd8+ 'it'xd8 24 'it'd5
24 g3 looks sensible.
24 ii'h4 25 'it'g5!
•••

This is the start of a forcing se­

quence, simplifying into an ending
which is winning for White.
25 l"iJf2+ 26 .l:txf2
•.•

26 'iti'h2 l"iJg4+.
26 'it'xg5
•.•
26 . . .'fi'xf2 27 'fi'xh5+ 'it>g8 28
'iti'h2 is hopeless for Black.
27 fxg5 �xf2 28 g6!
The passed e-pawn is the game­
winner. Black's bishop has nothing
Unlike the perfectly sound 4 l"iJf3
l"iJf6 5 d5 l"iJa5, I have never truly
trusted this provocative move, espe­
cially when the natural e5-square is
available for the knight.
5 'it'a4+

Other moves give Black time to
continue development with . . . e7 -e6
(except the uncompromising 'd'):
a) 5 lDf3?! transposes to Game
25 after 5 ...lDf6 (which Black should
be happy with), and Black can also
try 5 ...e6.
b) 5 e4 also poses no problems
after 5 e6:
•.•
b1) 6 .i.xc4?! lDxc4 7 'it'a4+ c6 8
'it'xc4 (8 dxc6? b5 !) 8 ....i.d7 ! 9 lDf3
lDf6 will leave White weak on the
light squares regardless of how the
situation in the centre clears up.
b2) Again after 6 lDf3 Black is
not obliged to follow suit with
6...lDr6. A logical alternative is 6...c6,
when I do not see how White can fa­
vourably deal with the challenge to
his d5-pawn.
b3) 6 'i1Va4+? is inconsistent - if
White wants to play like this he
should do so at the earliest oppor­
tunity (i.e. the 5th move). Now that
the e-pawns have moved Black can
choose how he reacts to the attack on
his knight after 6 . . .c6 7 b4. Then
7...b5 8 'i1Vxa5 'it'xa5 9 bxa5 b4 is still
playable, but more worrying for
White is the continuation 7 ...cxb3
8 axb3 'i1Vb6 ! (hoping for 9 'i1Vxa5
'it'xa5 1 0 l:txa5 .i.b4) 9 .i.d2 lDxb3
10 l:tb1 lDc5 .
c) After 5 .i.f4!? Chigorin, as
Black, soon found himself a piece
down against Marshall in Monte
Carlo 1 902:
c l) He followed the doubtful
5 .i.d7?! 6 e4 e6 7 dxe6 with the
...
suicidal 7 . . . fxe6??, only to see his
knight disappear after 8 'it'h5+ and 9
'i1Vxa5 .
3 lDc3 dxc4 4 d5 and 4 e3 113
c2) One of the reasons behind 5
.i.f4 can be seen in the variation
5.. c6?! 6 e4 lDf6 (6 .. .'ii'b6? 7 lDa4 !
.
1li'b5 8 lDe2 is terrible for Black -
Panov) 7 dxc6 ! 'i1Vxd1 + (a lesser evil
is 7 ...lDxc6 8 'it'xd8+ lDxd8 9 .i.xc4,
which is slightly better for White ac­
cording to Soltis) 8 l:txd1 bxc6
(8 ...lDxc6 9 lDb5) 9 .i.e? !.
c3) Once again - as is often the
case - the obvious move is the best
move, namely 5. .e6, e.g. 6 e4 lDf6 7
.
dxe6 'it'xd 1 + 8 lhd 1 .i.xe6 with a
dynamic game for Black.
d) In view of the efficacy of ...e7-
e6 in the lines above, 5 .i.g5 is actu­
ally more logical than it first appears.
Then 5 c6 aims to steer the game to
...
equality, but I like Watson's idea,
5...f6!? which leads to a strange po­
sition after only five moves. Wher­
ever the bishop goes Black will play
... e7 -e5 anyway, as demonstrated by
Watson:
d 1 ) 6 .i.h4 e5 7 'it'a4+ c6 8 dxc6
lDxc6 9 l:td 1 'it'a5 10 'i1Vxc4 lDd4 is
not what White is looking for.
d2) 6 .i.f4 e5 7 dxe6 'it'xd 1 + 8
l:txd 1 .i.xe6 is fine for Black, whose
intact queenside makes up for the
misplaced f-pawn.
Returning to the main game, ac­
cepting the 'sacrifice' of the aS­
knight offers White good prospects.
5 ... c6
6 b4
6 dxc6?! is too generous, and af­
ter 6 ... lDxc6 7 e4 .i.d7 8 .i.xc4 e6 9
li)f3 l:tc8 the threat of a discovered
attack forces the queen to retreat to
d 1 . This was the course of the game
Alapin-Chigorin, Monte Carlo 1901,
114 3 lDc3 dxc4 4 d5 and 4 e3
which was a complicated and enter­
taining battle: 10 'ii'd 1 i.b4 1 1 0-0
'ii'a5 ?! (typical Chigorin, but 1 l ...a6
followed by . . . liJg8-e7 and ...0-0
gives Black an easy game) 12 'ii'e2 !?
liJge7 ( 1 2 ...i.xc3 1 3 bxc3 'ii'xc3 14
i.b2 liJd4 15 liJxd4 'ii'xc4 16 'ii'g4 ! ­
Chigorin) 1 3 i.d2 liJe5 14 liJxe5
'ii'xe5 15 'it>h 1 (perhaps 15 a3 is more
to the point, e.g. 15 . . .i.d6 1 6 g3,
when the black queen is beginning to
look exposed on e5) 15 . . . 0-0 1 6 a3
.i.a5 1 7 b4 .i. b6 1 8 .:.ac l .:.fd8 1 9
liJb 1 ! i.c6 20 :fe 1 :d4 !? 2 1 f3 'ii'h5
22 i.e3 liJf5 ? ! (Black should with­
draw the rook and accept a slightly
cramped position) 23 exf5 :h4 24
i.xb6? (24 g4 ! :xg4 25 i.d5 ! ! -
Chigorin) 24 . . . .:.xh2+ 25 'it>g 1 axb6
26 fxe6 :h 1 + 27 �f2 'ii'h4+ 28 'it>e3
:d8 29 :ed 1 'ii'g 5+ 30 'it>f2 'ii'h4+
3 1 'iii>e3 'ii'g5+ 32 'iii>f2 1h-lf2.
6 ... b5
Practically forced, as 6 cxb3 7
...
axb3 e6 8 i.d2 liJxb3 9 'ii'xb3 exd5
favours White because the extra
piece is more important than the
pawns at the moment.
7 'ii'xa5
7 'iVc2?! works against 7 liJb7 (8
..•
dxc6 liJd6 9 a4 !), but Black has
7 cxd5! (fans of 4 . . . liJa5 are intent
...
on sacrificing a piece, anyway), as
in Chiong-Grabher, Liechtenstein
1 993. The game continued 8 bxa5
�xa5 9 i.d2 b4 10 liJxd5 (10 'ii'a4+
�xa4 1 1 liJxa4 e6 { or 1 l ...e5 } is
better for Black than the main game)
10 ...'ii'xd5 1 1 i.xb4 e5 1 2 i.c3 liJf6
1 3 .:.d1 'ii'e6 14 e3 i.d7 15 liJf3 i.d6
16 liJg5 'ii'e7 17 i.xc4 0-0 1 8 0-0
with a roughly level game.
The game Niklasson-T.Kristian­
sen, Oslo 1 977, saw Black's pawns
go on the rampage: 8 b4!? 9 'ii'a4+
...
i.d7 1 0 'ii'xb4 e6 1 1 'ii'b 1 ( 1 1 'ii'b2
d4 12 liJb1 c3, e.g. 1 3 lDxc3 :b8 !
with ... i.f8-b4 corning) 1 1 . . .'i\Vxa5
12 i.d2 i.b4 1 3 'ii'c 1 d4 1 4 liJb1 c3
15 i.f4 e5 16 i.g3 :c8 17 f3 c2+ 1 8
'it> f2 i.e1+! (D).
w
White now resigned in view of 19
'ii'xe1 'ii'xe1 + 20 'it>xe1 c 1 'ii'+, etc.
An amazing final position !
7 'iVxa5
8 bxa5 b4
9 lDa4!?
If this game is anything to go by,
the text is equally as strong as 9
liJd 1 which also favours White (re­
,
turning to base makes little sense be­
cause from b1 the knight can come
only to c3, which would invite a
timely ... c4-c3). In fact the knight re­
treat was first seen almost a century
ago in the game Vienna-S t Peters­
burg, played by cable 1 897-9. After
9 cxd5 White found the forcing 10
...
e4! e6:
a) The cable match went 1 1 liJe3
liJf6 12 exd5 exd5 13 i.b2 i.e6!
( 1 3 ... c3? 14 i.b5+) 14 i.xf6 gxf6 15

tLle2 ( 15 0-0-0? ! .th6 16 tt:'lf3 .l:tc8
followed by ....l:tc8-c5 puts White
under pressure on the queenside
according to Tartakower) 15 ....l:tc8
16 tt:'lf4 l:lc5 17 l:ld 1 ('The crisis' ­
Tartakower) 1 7 ... c3 ( 1 7 ....l:txa5? ! 1 8
llJexd5 favours White) 1 8 a6 .td6 1 9
tt:'lfxd5 (Tartakower gave 1 9 g3 0-0
20 .td3 d4 2 1 tt:'lxe6 fxe6 22 tL'lc2 e5
23 tt:'lxb4 e4 24 .txe4 .l:te5 25 l:.xd4
.txb4 26 lhb4 .l:tfe8 27 0-0 .I:.xe4 28
l:lxe4 l:lxe4 29 l:lc 1 l:lc4 with equal­
ity) 1 9 ...c2 20 l:.c 1 .txd5 21 tt:'lxd5
l:lxd5 22 .l:txc2 and a draw was agreed
a few moves later. 13 g3 is a sugges­
tion of Pachman - two lines given by
Watson are 13 l:lb8 14 .tg2 l:lb5
..•
and 13 .ta6 14 .tg2 l:.d8 15 llJe2
...
.tc5 (planning to meet 16 tt:'lf4 with
1 6 ...d4 !).
b) I believe that White should con­
centrate on occupying the d4-square,
so the natural 11 .teJ! springs to
mind, when after 1 1 ...tt:'lf6 1 2 exd5
exd5 1 3 .td4 the bishop is an enor­
mous piece which could not be more
effectively posted. One important
factor is White's influence on the
g 1-a7 diagonal, so significant that
after the logical 1 3 ....te6 Pachman's
plan to exert pressure on the d5-
pawn with 14 g3 and .tfl -g2 puts
Black in serious difficulties. Neither
of Watson's recommendations to
g2-g3 in ' a' , for example, is possible
here - ... l:la8-b8-b5 is out of the
question as the rook is tied down to
the defence of the a7-pawn, and the
f8-bishop can no longer come to c5. I
do not see what Black can do against
the simple plan of .tfl-g2, ttJd 1 -e3,
l:la1-d1 and tt:'lg1-e2-f4, etc.
3 tt'lc3 dxc4 4 d5 and 4 e3 115
Now let us return to the game after
9 tt:'la4 (D):
Dismissed by Watson for the rea­
son that White will lose a tempo to
. . ..tc8-d7, the text-move neverthe­
less looks like a good move. White
aims to prove that the knight has a
useful role to play on a4.
9 cxdS
10 e4! e6
11 exd5 exd5
It is the exchange of the e-pawns
(whether the knight stands on d 1 or
a4) which highlights the major draw­
back of the whole 4 . . . tt:'la5 line for
Black. Now the weak d5-pawn must
be defended with pieces (instead of
the convenient ...e7-e6), which in
turn reduces Black's options consid­
erably. Even more significant, per­
haps, is the fact that the elimination
of the e-pawns has created for White
a potentially powerful outpost on d4.
It is bad enough for Black that he
does not have . . . e7 -e6, but without
the possibility of pushing to e5 how
will he be able to break a blockade
on d4 should White manage to win
control of this crucial square? If
White does succeed in taking d4 the
116 3 li:Jc3 dxc4 4 d5 and 4 e3

black pawns will be stopped in their

tracks, and White's extra piece will
decide.
Having established the problems
Black has with the d4-square and the
d5-pawn it is clear why, after 1 d4 d5
2 c4 li:Jc6 3 li:Jc3 dxc4, the additional
moves 4 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 (before 5 d5 li:Ja5
6 ..Wa4+, etc.) dramatically improve
the variation for Black because the
f6-knight rules out the advance e2-
e4 . The latest dilemma for Black is
1 2 .te3! the development of the c8-bishop.
Again the obvious move is the Far from being a liability on c5, the
best. White sensibly combines de­ knight constantly threatens to jump
velopment with the supervision of to a6, hitting the b4-pawn.
the enemy queenside pawns. Note 17 li:Je4
.•.

that, for the time being, the a7-pawn What else? 1 7 . . . .tg4 1 8 f3 .th5
needs defending. 19 li:Ja6! with the threats 20 li:Jc7 and
12 .•. li:Jf6 20 li:Jxb4.
Rather than force White to lose a 18 li:Jxe4 .U.xe4 19 0-0-0 .td7 20
tempo, 12 .td7 backfires after 1 3
.•. .tf3 l:.e5 21 l:.be1 l:.ae8 22 .l:lxe5
li:Jc5, when the threat o f removing a l:.xe5 23 li:Jc2 1-0
much needed bishop (the d5-pawn An impressive game from White,
and light squares in general require who used a simple yet effective strat­
the bishop's help) means that Black egy.
must waste time.
13 .te2 .te7 4 e3
14 li:Jf3 0-0
15 .tc5! Game 32
This thematic exchange is prob­ Christiansen - Morozevich
ably what prompted Komljenovic to New York Intel rpd 1995
send the knight to a4. As long as he
will be able to neutralise the black 1 d4 d5 2 c4 li:Jc6 3 li:Jc3 dxc4
pawns, he is quite happy to trade off 4 e3 (D)
a couple of pieces. Black can meet this natural but
15 •.• l:.e8 modest move in two ways (both
16 li:Jd4! (D) starting with the ... e7-e5 push).
What a square ! And it is com­ 4 ••• e5
pletely out of Black's reach. White The only move to justify the
already has a decisive advantage. knight's posting on c6.
16 -txcS 17 li:JxcS
••• 5 d5

S lLlf3 exd4 6 exd4 transposes to a
line of the Queen's Gambit Accepted
which is perfectly acceptable to
Black. The game Gleizerov-Moroze­
vich, St Petersburg Z 1 993 followed
such an order of moves, and Black
emerged with a comfortable possi­
tion after 6 .....td6 7 ..txc4 lLlf6 8 0-0
0-0 9 h3 h6 10 a3 i.f5.
S ••. .!Llce7
Those of you addicted to the pro­
vocative lines in which Black volun­
tarily dispatches his knight to the
edge of the board will be happy to
know that s . lLlaS has been tried
. .
here, too.
a) In Stone-Johnstone, Canadian
Ch 1 995, White immediately went
on a hunt for the knight: 6 'ii'a4+ c6
and now:
a 1 ) The game continued 7 b4
cxb3 ! (7 ... b5? fails because after 8
11t'xa5 'ii'xa5 9 bxa5 b4 10 .!Lld1 cxd5
1 1 e4 ! White has actually benefited
from losing a tempo as ...e7-e6 is no
longer possible) 8 axb3 11t'b6 9 i.d2
lLlxb3 10 dxc6 !? (only 10 .l:[b1 is
given by Watson) 10 . . . bxc6 1 l lLld5
11t'b7 1 2 l:tb1 lLlcS 1 3 'ii'a 1 'ii'd7 14
lLlb6 axb6 15 11t'xa8, when the posi­
tion can best be described as unclear.
3 lDc3 dxc4 4 d5 and 4 e3 117
Black's easy development and two
connected passed pawns should pro­
vide sufficient compensation for
the exchange. However, A.J.Tait's
12 ..'ii'd7! looks like an improve­
.
ment.
a2) 7 ..td2 works against 7 ... bS?
(8 .!Llxb5 !), but 7.....td7! 8 b4 cxb3 9
axb3 b6 is fine for Black (Watson).
b) I like Watson's preparatory 6
lLlf3!, intending to meet 6. . . ..td6 by
7 'ii'a4+ c6 8 .!Lle4 ! . Then 8 ... ..tb8 !
(8 ... i.c7? 9 d6! i.b6 10 lLlxe5 threat­
ens 1 1 d7+ i.xd7 1 2 .!Lld6+ and is
good for White, as is 8 ... ..tf8 9 dxc6!
lLlxc6 10 .!Llxe5) 9 b4! cxb3 10 axb3
'ii'xd5 1 1 lLlc3 �xb3 12 'ii'xa5 b6 !?
1 3 1i'a3 'ii'xa3 14 i.xa3 (D) is un­
clear according to Watson.
I cannot really argue with an as­
sessment of unclear, but if I had the
choice I would prefer - at this stage -
to have the extra piece and the power
it provides. Black's pieces are far
worse placed than White's, and this
could prove to be an important factor
well before Black's three connected
queenside pawns come into play.
5 ....!Lla5 is interesting but prob­
ably less sound than 5 ....!Llce7.
118 3 li:Jc3 dxc4 4 d5 and 4 e3
6 .txc4 li:Jg6
As the knight is going to g6 any­
way, Black sorts it out immediately.
The alternative 6 li:Jf6 leads to the
.•.
main game eventually.
7 .tb5+
White's light-squared bishop usu­
ally has limited scope in these lines,
so White is happy to part with it
while he can. Others:
a) In Gerstner-Baumhus, Bun­
desliga 1 99 1 , White first played 7
'ii'b3. After 7 . . ..td6 (7 . . .a6 8 d6) 8
.tb5+ �f8 9 e4 li:Jf6 1 0 li:Jge2 li:Jh5
1 1 g3 .th3 the game was already in­
teresting. After 1 2 .td3 b6 1 3 li:Jd 1
lDf6 14 li:Je3 h5 1 5 .td2 li:Jd7 1 6
1i'c3 li:Jc5 17 .tc2 a5 1 8 a3 a4 19
l:tg1 1i'f6 20 lDc4 .tg4 2 1 lDxd6
cxd6 22 h4 1i'f3 23 1i'xf3 .txf3 24
li:Jc3 f5 25 exf5 li:Je7 there was still
just as much tension in the position,
and Black eventually ground out the
win nearly thirty moves later.
b) 7 e4 a6 produces play similar
to Goldin-Morozevich, Game 28.
7 .td7
8 li'b3 l::tb8
9 li:Jge2
9 e4 a6 1 0 .txd7+ 'tli'xd7 1 1 li:Jf3
.tc5 is equal, Yusupov-Henley, Lone
Pine 1 98 1 . Christiansen makes a
point of avoiding e3-e4 so that he
does not have to keep analysing
. . . li:Jg6-f4. Leaving the pawn on e3
also reinforces the g 1 -a7 diagonal on
which Black can put his bishop. Of
course the price White pays can be
seen in the lack of usual pawn sup­
port for the d5-pawn, which is cur­
rently being defended jointly by
White's queen and knight.
9 li:Jf6
10 0-0 .tcs
11 .txd7+ itxd7
12 .td2
In anticipation of an attack on his
d5-pawn White prepares to add fur­
ther protection with the queen's
rook.
12
... 0-0
13 l:tadl b5! (D)
A logical queenside expansion
which has the bonus of putting pres­
sure on the d5-pawn. It seems to me
that White is going to more trouble
than it is worth just to keep the e3-
pawn where it is. Anyway, Black has
enough space and mobility with
which to create an equally effective
alternative to operating on the dark
squares. Indeed, by refraining from
e3-e4 White is practically inviting
his opponent to push himself with
. . . e5-e4 which, as we are about to
discover, is an attractive plan for
Black.
14 'fi'c2 b4
15 li:Ja4 .td6
16 .tel
All part of the strategy. How
White is to bring his bishop into the

game is a mystery. Unfortunately it
is too late for White to play 16 e4 due
to 16 . . .lDxe4 ( 1 7 'il'xe4 'il'xa4), and
just to make a point, Black now rules
out the possibility for good.
16 ••• e4!?
As should become evident on
playing through some of the games
in this book, Morozevich likes to
have the initiative. He is especially
fond of attacks on the enemy king.
Nevertheless, a pawn is a pawn, and
the materialistic 16...'ih15 seems to
win one, because 17 'ii'b3 leaves the
e2-knight hanging and 17 e4 still
runs into 17 . . .lDxe4 (White's queen
is having a hard time). Perhaps the
young Russian was concerned that
after 17 b3 lDxd5 his pieces would
be rather awkwardly placed and that
it would be a while before he could
try to use his extra pawn (which is
backward and susceptible to attack
on the c-file).
At least the text guarantees Black
a clear-cut plan and therefore a game
which is easy to conduct. Notice also
that without the option of e3-e4
White still has a weak d5-pawn, and
Black may well seek to apply pres­
sure on it another way.
17 lDg3 l:lfe8
18 lDc5 'ii'e7
19 lDb3 lDh4
20 l:td4 l:tb5
21 l:tfd1 i..xg3!?
22 hxg3 lDf5 (D)
23 l:tc4
23 l:t4d2 l:td8.
23...l:txd5! 24 l:txd5 lDxd5
So Black won the d5-pawn any­
way, but under circumstances more
3 &i:Jc3 dxc4 4 d5 and 4 e3 119
to his liking than the earlier opportu­
nity. White's major pieces are dou­
bled on the c-file, but the d5-knight
is doing a good job of holding the
queenside together. Meanwhile the
exchange on g3 has provided Black
with a target for his h-pawn to aim at.
25 l:tc5 'ii'e6 26 i.. d2 h5! 27 i¥c4
l:td8 28 i..e 1
Another terrible square for the
bishop, although it is the only piece
helping the king.
28 ... h4 29 g4 lDfe7 30 lDd2 i¥xg4
31 'ii'xe4 i¥e2 32 lDf3 h3 33 gxh3?!
33 .l:f.c2 ! is an improvement, hop­
ing for 33 ...'ii'd 1 ? (33 ...'ifa6) 34 l:td2
1Wa4 35 lDg5.
33... l:td6! 34 �h2?
Again 34 l:tc2 is best, with an ad­
vantage to Black after 34 . . .'ifb5 35
lDe5 .l:f.e6.
34...l:te6?
Whoops ! 34 . . . f5 ! is crying out to
be played.
35 lDd4 'ii'xe1 36 lDxe6 'ii'xf2+ 37
i¥g2! 'ii'xg2+
Of course not 37 ... i¥xe3 ?? 38
'ii'xg7 mate.
38 �xg2 fxe6
Black has much the better of this
ending because the knights are too
120 3 liJc3 dxc4 4 d5 and 4 e3
strong for the rook. However, maybe
the rapid transition from compli­
cated middlegame to intricate end­
ing is the reason why both players
had problems adjusting during the
next few moves.
39 e4 liJf4+ 40 �f3 liJd3 41 l:.xc7
llJg6?
The compact 4 I . . .liJe5+ 42 'iti>e3
llJ5c6! 43 �d3 <bfl 44 �c4 �f6 re­
tains excellent winning chances for
Black, who must keep his queenside
together. Now the balance of the po­
sition has been tipped in White's fa­
vour.
42 b3 aS 43 l:ta7?
43 �e3 ! liJde5 44 l:.c5 ! picks up
the a5-pawn.
43 liJde5+ 44 �e3 liJc6 45 l:tc7
•••
llJgeS
Panic over.
46 �f4 �h7 47 .l:.c8 'iPg6 48 h4
�f6 49 hS gS+ SO hxg6 llJxg6+ 51
'iPe3 llJgeS?!
5 1 ...liJge7 is better.
52 .l:.c7!
Cutting off the king.
52...�g6
Black could try 52 . . .llJe7 !? fol­
lowed by 53 ... llJ5c6.
53 �f4 �f6 54 �e3 �gS 55
l:tg7+ 'it>f6 56 .U.c7 lfz.lfl
7 3 lt.Jc3 lt.Jf6 and 3 e5
I n the mid- 1 980s when 3 ... lDf6 was
quite popular, the most testing vari­
ation was established to be 4 lDf3
i.g4 5 cxd5 lDxd5 6 e4 lDxc3 7 bxc3
e5 8 d5 lDb8 9 'ii'a4+ lDd7 10 lDxe5
'ii'f6 with a complex position.
It is easy to understand why so
many players were attracted to this
particular variation, which is rich in
possibilities, and the notes to Game
33 do include some of the variations
which Black is looking for.
However, thanks to White's dev­
astating 1 1 th move the popularity of
the Chigorin declined in the late
1980s. Ironically, 4 tLlf3 does not, in
fact, spell doom and gloom for Black
because with 4 dxc4! he can trans­
.••
pose to Chapter 5.
White has two other ways to meet
3 . . . lDf6: 4 i.g5 (Game 34) and 4
cxd5 (Game 35). The latter is the
most forcing, which is why I prefer
3 ... dxc4 ! .
3 e 5 i s very provocative, but not
.••
really sound. With patient play White
maintains an advantage (Game 36).
4 ltJf3
Game 33
Stickler - Stem
Bundesliga 199112
1 d4 d5 2 c4 lDc6 3 lDc3 lDf6
4 lDfJ i.g4?!
. . .
4 dxc4! is Black's last chance to
•••
return to safe waters. The actual or­
der of moves in this game, in fact,
was 3 M i.g4 4 lDc3 lDf6?! (4...e6),
which is equally unwise.
5 cxd5!
5 lDe5?! lDxe5 6 dxe5 d4 (D) has
been played occasionally.
The game Zsu.Polgar-Lin Wei­
guo, Adelaide jr Wch 1 988, was in­
teresting : 7 lDb1 lDg8 8 i.f4 e6 9
lDd2 g5 10 i.g3 i.f5 1 1 'i!fa4+ c6 12
l:r.d 1 'ii'b6 1 3 'ifb3 i.b4 14 h4 g4 1 5
i.f4 0-0-0 16 h5 lDe7 1 7 l:r.h4 l:r.hg8
18 l:r.c 1 g3 19 fxg3 d3 20 exd3 l:r.xg3
2 1 c5 i.xd2+ 22 �xd2 1i'a5+ 23
l:r.c3 l:r.gg8 24 'ii'a3 'i!fxa3 25 l:r.xa3 a6
26 'itte 1 l:r.d5 27 l:r.c3 l:r.g4 28 l:r.xg4
i.xg4 29 h6 lDg6 ending in a draw.
5 lDxd5
6 e4 lDxc3
Or:
a) 6 lDb6 7 d5 is clearly better
•••
for White because 7 ... lDb8 is forced
122 3 (f)cJ (i)j6 and 3... e5
(7 . . . (i)e5? 8 (i)xe5 ! ..txd 1 9 ..tb5+ ­
Soltis).
b) 6 ..txf3 7 gxf3 (i)xc3 (7 ...(i)b6
•••
8 d5) 8 bxc3 'ii'd7 was seen in the
game Howell-Lin Weiguo, Frunze
1 989 (presumably Black was trying
to improve on the usual 8 . . .e5 9
.l:.b1 !, when White has a comfortable
advantage, although his choice does
not alter the evaluation). After 9 l:lb1
(i)d8 10 f4 e6 1 1 ..tg2 ..te7 12 c4 0-0
1 3 0-0 c6 14 ..te3 'iii>h8 15 1i'b3 1i'e8
White traded in his enormous centre
for open lines with 16 e5 f6 1 7 d5
fxe5 1 8 fxe5 exd5 1 9 cxd5 cxd5 20
'ii'xd5 . The remaining moves were:
20 . . .1i'g6 2 1 'iii>h 1 .l:r.c8 22 1i'd7 (i)c6
23 l:lxb7 ..ta3 24 l:tc7 l:txc7 25 1i'xc7
(i)b4 26 'ilfxa7 (i)c2 27 ..tc5 ..txc5 28
'ii'xc5 lld8 29 e6 'i!fd3 30 e7 llg8 3 1
llc 1 (i)d4 32 'ilfd5 1-0.
7 bxc3 e5
8 d5 (i)bS
9 'ilfa4+ (i)d7
10 (i)xe5 'ilff6 (D)
11 ..te2!!
There is no doubt that this move
is a very good one - some would say
it is a logical, indeed obvious choice,
and not worthy of two exclamation
marks. But in view of the fact that
several strong players (including a
former world championship candi­
date) failed to discover 1 1 ..te2, and
taking into account that the move
actually wins, I think that praise is
deserved. First played by Pia Cram­
ling against Landenbergue in Biel
back in 1987, the move was discov­
ered by Pia and Spanish GM Bellon
Lopez.
Earlier, two alternatives had been
tried:
a) In the game Renet-Maksimo­
vic, Vrnjacka Banja 1987, White
sacrificed the exchange with 1 1
(i)xg4 'ii'xc3+ 1 2 'iii>d 1 'ii'x a1:
a1) The game continued 13 ..t bS
0-0-0 14 ..txd7+ l:txd7 15 'iii>c2 ..td6
16 'fllxa7 l:le7 17 lle1 c5 18 dxc6 bxc6
1 9 'ii'a8+ 'iii>d 7, when White took a
draw with 20 'fib7+ (20 'ii'xh8 'ilfxa2+
is another draw) 20 ...'iii>d 8 2 1 1i'a8+
'iii>d7 22 1i'b7+ �d8 23 'ilfa8+ �d7
24 'f!lb7+ 'iii>d8 lf2-lf2.
a2) In Gligoric-Mariotti, Milan
1 975 White harassed the queen: 13
�c2 0-0-0 14 ..tb2 'f!le1 15 ..tc3. Hav­
ing reached boiling point, the game
calmed down, and after 1 5 . . . (i)c5 1 6
..txe1 (i)xa4 17 (i)e5 l:te8 1 8 (i)xf7
l:tg8 19 f3 ..te7 20 ..tb5 .l:.ef8 2 1 d6!
cxd6 22 ..txa4 l:hf7 23 ..tb3 .l:r.ff8 24
..txg8 .l:r.xg8 White's advantage did
not prove enough.
b) Boris Gulko played themati­
cally with 11 f4 against Andruet in
the 1987 New York Open. The game
soon ended in a draw, but the second
half of the battle was by no means
uneventful: 1 l . . . ..td6 1 2 ..tb5 (again
White has 12 ..te2 ! , with a better

game) 1 2...c6 1 3 dxc6 bxc6 14 i.xc6
0-0 1 5 i.xd7 i.xe5 1 6 fxe5 1i'h4+
17 g3 i.xd7 1 8 gxh4 i.xa4 19 0-0
l::ta c8 20 l:tf3 i.c2 21 l:te3 l:tc4 22
i.a3 1h-1h.
If we can drag ourselves back to
grim reality, the onus is now on
Black to find something in reply to
1 1 i.e2.
11 . .. c6
As is often the case when a power­
ful move which is a near refutation
makes its first appearance in interna­
tional practice, the ill-fated opponent
fails to put up enough of a challenge.
a) This is what happened in the
aforementioned game P.Cramling­
Landenbergue, Biel 1987, when con­
fusion immediately got the better of
Black, who played ll .. i.d6??. Un­
.
fortunately this allowed the simple
1 2 i.xg4 'ii'xe5 1 3 i.xd7+ �d8 14
i.d2 1 -0.
b) l l . .i.cS? is not much of an
.
improvement over 'a' : 1 2 i.xg4 !
1i'xf2+ 1 3 �d 1 0-0 14 11i'xd7 leaves
Black with a grave material deficit.
c) ll ..Ji'xe5 1 2 i.xg4 'ii'x c3+?
13 i.d2 1Wxa1+ 14 �e2 wins for
White, so 1 2 . . .l:td8 is forced, when
1 3 0-0 ! gives White a clear advan­
tage.
d) Finally, ll . .b5 led to another
. 1 0 liJxe5 is close to winning for
embarrassing miniature in Razu­
vaev-Maksimovic,Berlin 1987. The
game concluded 1 2 'ii'xb5 l:tb8 (or
1 2...1i'xe5 1 3 i.xg4 11i'xe4+ 14 11i'e2 !
'ii'xe2+ 15 i.xe2 is excellent for
White thanks to the bishop pair, as
in Garcia Palermo-Libeau, Bundes­
liga 1987/8) 1 3 'ii'a4 i.b4 14 0-0 !
1 -0. One possible continuation runs
3 liJc3 liJf6 and 3.. e5 123
.
14 ... i.h3 15 gxh3 1i'xe5 1 6 cxb4
1i'xa1 17 i.g4 0-0 1 8 11i'xd7 11i'xa2 1 9
'ii'xc7 l:txb4 20 d6 !, etc.
12 dxc6
12 i.xg4 liJxe5 1 3 i.e2 is simple
and good, but White has more fun
with the text.
12 ... "it'xe5
13 cxd7+
13 i.xg4 'ii'x c3+ 14 �e2 1i'xc6
15 'ii'xc6 bxc6 16 l:tb1 liJf6 17 i.f3.
13 i.xd7
14 "it'd4 (D)
White has emerged with an extra
pawn which Black can win back
only at considerable expense. As the
alternatives to Black's 1 1th move do
not succeed in preventing White
from obtaining a comfortable advan­
tage, it seems that the position after
White.
14 ... 'ii'c7
This is an attempt to improve on
the move 14...i.d6, which was tried
in Rey-Leski, San Francisco 1 987.
That game also failed to prove that
Black's disadvantage is not too seri­
ous: 15 i.e3 i.c6 16 f3 11i'e7 17 l:d 1
i.e5 1 8 1i'b4 1i'c7 1 9 g3 f5 20 exf5
124 3 tbc3 tbf6 and 3... e5

..txf3 2 1 ..tb5+ ..tc6 22 0-0 ltf8 23
..td4 0-0-0 24 ..txc6 bxc6 25 'ii'c4,
etc.
15 0-0 ..td6
16 g3
Also good - but less so than the
game - is 16 'ii'xg7 ..txh2+ 1 7 �h 1
..te5 1 8 'ii'g5 ..txc3 ( 1 8 ...'ii'xc3 1 9
especially the bishop on a3, which
prevents Black from connecting his
rooks. Consequently Black does not
have the necessary defensive re­
sources to stave off defeat - he is ef­
fectively playing without the rook on
h8 .
22 ..ta4 23 ltxd8+ ..txd8
..•

..td2) 1 9 ..ta3 'ti'e5 20 'ii'xe5+ ..txe5 23 ... �xd8? meets an even quicker
2 1 .l:.ac l , when White is very active. end after 24 ..tg4 ! , threatening 25
16•.• ..te5 ltc8 mate (24 .....td7 25 ltd1).
17 'li'e3 'li'xc3 24 l%c8 h5
After 17 ...txc3 White has a strong
•. Such a desperate method of bring­
exchange sacrifice in 1 8 ..ta3 !, e.g. ing the rook into the game is proof
18 ... ..txa1 19 ltxa1 ..tc6 20 e5 with a that Black is in dire straits.
menacing initiative and a terrific grip 25 :as a5 26 .l:.a7 .l:.h6
on the dark squares. 26...b5 27 ..tb2.
With the text Black assumes that 27 i.c4 l::tf6 28 ..tb2 b5
trading off the queens will relieve the 28 ...l::tf3 29 ..te2.
pressure, although White's lead in 29 ..txf6 ..txf6 30 .l:.xa5 bxc4 31
development still seems to contain a .l:.xa4 c3 32 l:tc4 1-0
good deal of force even after ex­
changes. 4 .t g S
18 .l:.b1 b6
19 'ii'xc3 ..txc3 Game 34
20 .l:.d1 .l:.d8 Huss - Rufenacht
21 ..taJ ..tf6 Switzerland 1987
22 .l:.bcl (D)
1 d4 d5 2 c4 tbc6 3 tbc3 ibf6
4 ..tg5 tbe4
By far the most interesting move.
5 tbxe4
Others:
a) 5 cxd5 tbxc3 6 bxc3 'ii'xd5 7
ibf3 i.g4 8 'ii'b3 e6 is fine for Black,
and Watson's 7...tba5!? looks OK.
b) 5 ..th4!? g5 6 ..tg3 ..tg7 7 e3
e5 !? is a suggestion ofMinev. Black
does seem to have adequate chances.
c) 5 ..tf4?! e5 ! helps Black.
White has an overwhelming posi­ 5 dxe4
tion. Every piece is ideally posted, 6 e3

This is the move which most peo­
ple play when unaware of the theory.
Many games continue 6 d5 e6! (D).
w
Now White must make an impor­
tant decision:
a) 7 dxc6? is the wrong choice.
After 7 'it'xg5 8 'it'a4 Tarrasch gave
••.
8 . . . b6 with equality, but the tricky
8... .l:.b8! is by no means easy to
meet:
a1) 9 'it'xa7?? i.b4+ 10 'iti>d 1
'fi'd2 mate.
a2) 9 cxb7+ i.d7 10 'ii'b 3?? ( 1 0
'fi'c2 prolongs defeat) 1 0...'fi'a5+ (D)
is a trap which is easy to fall into.
White is about to lose his queen.
a3) 9 e3 bxc6 is the lesser evil,
when White still stands much worse.
3 lt:Jc3 lt:Jf6 and 3... e5 125
b) 7 i.xd8 i.b4+ 8 'it'd2 i.xd2+
9 �xd2 lt:Jxd8 is normal:
b 1 ) Bangiev-Hermann, Bundes­
liga 1 992/3 went 10 e3 c6 1 1 dxc6
lt:Jxc6 12 lt:Je2 'iti>e7 1 3 lt:Jc3 .l:.d8+ 14
'iti>c 1 f5 15 i.e2 b6 16 .l:.d 1 .l:.xd1 + 17
�xd l i.b7 1 8 �e 1 g5, when both
players then concentrated on their
respective pawn majorities: 19 .l:.d 1
lt:Je5 20 .l:.d4 lt:Jc6 2 1 .l:.d2 lt:Je5 22
'iti>d 1 h5 23 �c2 lt:Jg4 24 i.xg4 hxg4
25 lt:Jb5 i.c6 26 lt:Jd4 i.d7 27 b4
.l:.c8 28 'iti>b3 e5 29 lt:Jc2 i.e6 30 lt:Ja3
.l:.h8 3 1 lt:Jb5 .l:.xh2 32 g3 f4. The
game ended: 33 'iti>c3 .l:.h3 34 c5 fxe3
35 fxe3 bxc5 36 bxc5 .l:.xg3 37 c6 .l:.g1
38 .l:.c2 a6 39 lt:Jc7 i.c8 40 lt:Jd5+
'iti>d6 41 lt:Jb6 'iti>c7 42 lt:Jxc8 'iti>xc8 43
'iti>c4 g3 44 'it>d5 .l:.fl 45 .l:.g2 .l:.f3 46
'iti>xe4 g4 47 'iti>xe5 .l:.xe3+ 48 'iti>f4
.l:.a3 49 'iti>xg4 'iti>c7 112-112.
b2) In Strobel-Joachim, Germany
1 988, White challenged the e4-pawn
with 10 f3. The game soon ended in
a draw after 10 . . . exd5 1 1 cxd5 i.f5
1 2 'iti>e3 exf3 1 3 exf3 c6 1 4 i.c4
cxd5. However, 12...0-0 13 'iti>f4 is
interesting. After 13 ... i.g6 14 fxe4
f6 15 lt:Jh3 lt:Jf7 16 g3 .l:.fe8 1 7 i.g2
lt:Jd6 18 lt:Jf2 .l:.e7 19 llhd 1 llae8 20
.l:.d4 f5 ! Black takes control, so more
accurate is 16 g4 .l:.fe8 1 7 i.g2 lt:Jd6
1 8 lt:Jf2 .l:.e7 19 .l:.hd 1 .l:.ae8 20 .l:.d4,
with an unclear position.
6 ... f6
7 i.h4 e5
8 d5 lt:Je7
Not 8 ... i.b4+? 9 �e2 lt:Je7 10
'fi'a4+.
9 lt:Je2 tt:Jrs
10 i.g3 h5!
11 h3 i.b4+
126 3 liJc3 liJf6 and 3... e5
12 liJc3 liJxg3
The first of a couple of exchanges
which give the game a peculiar char-
acter.
13 fxg3 ..txc3+
14 bxc3 f5
15 c5 (D)
8 mended 4 liJf3 simply invites Black
A strange position indeed ! Pawns
seem to be everywhere. White's 15th
move prevents Black occupying the
c5-square with ... 'ii'd 8-d6-c5, etc. I
would say that Black still has the bet­
ter of the diagram position, if only
because he strikes first.
15 ...1i'g5 16 ..tb5+!?
Putting the king on f2 cannot be
good, particularly when Black can
simply castle kingside.
16 c6!? 17 dxc6 'iWxe3+ 18 'ii'e2
•••
1 8 'itfl 'ii'xc5.
18 'ii'xc3+ 19 'ii'd2 'ii'xd2+
•••
Forced in view of the threatened
cxb7+ and bxa8'ii'.
20 �xd2 �e7 21 cxb7 ..i.xb7 22
�e3 l:tad8 23 .l:r.abl l:th6
White has no compensation for
the pawn.
24 l:thd1 l:txd1 25 l:txd1 ..i.c6 26
..txc6 l:txc6 27 l:tc1 l:ta6 28 l:tc3
l:txa2 29 g4 hxg4 30 hxg4 .l:r.xg2 0-1
4 cxdS
Game 35
Appolonov - G.Mastemak
Wisla 1992
1 d4 d5 2 c4 liJc6 3 liJc3 liJf6
4 cxd5
I prefer this move, as the recom­
to transpose to the perfectly accept­
able lines dealt with in Chapter 5.
4 ••• liJxd5
5 e4
Now 5 liJf3 requires alertness
from Black, because 5 ..tg4? leads
•••
back to Game 33. Instead Black has
5 e5! with a good game: 6 liJxe5 (6
•••
dxe5 liJxc3 7 'ii'x d8+ �xd8 8 bxc3
..i.g4) 6 ...liJxc3 7 bxc3 liJxe5 8 dxe5
'ii'xd l + 9 'it>xd l ..i.f5 10 e3 0-0-0+ 1 1
'iltel ..i.c5 { l l ...g6!? 1 2 ..i.c4 ..tg7,
intending 13 ..i.xf7 ..i.xe5 14 ..i.d2?
l:td7 !) 1 2 ..i.c4 l:the8 ! ? 1 3 ..i.xf7
l:txe5 14 ..i.b3 ..i.e4 15 'iii>f l lf2-lf2.
5 .•. liJxc3
After 5 liJb6? 6 d5 White has
•••
gained time (and space) over similar
lines.
6 bxc3 e5
7 liJf3!?
A rarely tried alternative to the
usual, automatic move 7 d5. Arnett­
Leveille, New York 1 994 then con­
tinued 7 ...liJb8 8 ..i.e3 a6 9 'ii'b3 liJd7
10 liJf3 ..i.d6 1 1 h3 0-0 1 2 g3 liJc5 1 3
..i.xc5 ..i.xc5 14 liJxe5 'ii'e8 1 5 f4 f6
16 'ii'c4. The position is very messy,
but Black managed to profit from his
opponent's over-extension: 16 ... fxe5
17 'ii'xc5 exf4 1 8 'ii'd4 fxg3 1 9 0-0-0
.l:r.f2 20 l:tgl 'ii'f8 ! (Black threatens
 3 ll'lc3 ll'lf6 and 3 .. e5 127
.

2 1 . . .1ifa3+) 2 1 d6 1iff4+ 22 'it>bl cxd6 13 11fxe2 (D)

23 �c4+ 'it>h8 24 1ifxd6 1ifxe4+! 25
�d3 1ife6 26 1ifd8+ 1ifg8 27 1ifxg8+
'it>xg8 28 l:r.xg3 �e6 with a won end­
ing.
Now let us return to the position
after 7 ll'lf3 (D).

The lack of light-squared bishops

favours White since Black is now
limited in terms of counterplay. By
organising his forces before pushing
the d-pawn White has gained time in
which to turn his attention to the
By not committing himself with queenside - if Black cannot profit
d4-d5 White denies Black his usual from the use of the c5-square he
play on the dark squares (c5 is not must therefore stand worse in view
available, for example). White is of White's space advantage.
content to support his more flexible 13 .•. tt:'ld7
centre and continue with develop­ 14 tt:'lb3!
ment, only pushing the d-pawn if Eyeing c5.
and when it is convenient. Mean­ 14 ••• b6
while Black must find a pattern of Not a nice move to have to play
development which is suitable to now that the light-squared bishop
both the present situation in the cen­ has gone, but White was threatening
tre and the possible d4-d5 advance. to bring his knight to a5.
7 �d6 15 a4 a5
8 �e2 0-0 16 l:r.fc1 'fie7
9 0-0 �g4 17 'iiVbS!
10 �e3 l:r.e8 White adds more cover to the c5-
1 1 d5 tt:'lb8 square.
12 tt:'ld2! �xe2 17 l:r.ab8
Although Black comes to miss his 18 l:r.ab1 l:r.f8
light-squared bishop in the game, af­ 19 f3 (D)
ter 12 �c8 he is at least a couple of
.•• Black's next move is a sign of des­
moves down compared to positions peration in a difficult, cramped posi­
after 7 d5 . tion. At least kingside activity gives
128 3 ttlc3 ttlf6 and 3. . e5
.
White a chance to go wrong, rather
than wait for White to play the deci­
sive c3-c4-c5, etc.
19 f5 20 exf5 :xes 21 ttld2!
•.•
The knight can now monitor c5
from the excellent e4-square.
21. i.c5 22 l:le1 i.xe3+
•.
Black seeks relief in exchanges.
23 l:r.xe3 'iVcS 24 �f2 'iVxbS 25
lhb5 ttlc5 26 ttle4 ttlxe4+
26 ...ttlxa4 runs into 27 c4 and 28
.l:la3. Retreating the knight leaves
White with an octopus on e4.
27 l:be4 l:tbf8 28 �e3
White's kingside is rock-solid,
while over on the queenside he can
choose between the two advances
d5-d6 or c3-c4-c5.
28 l:lf4
.•.
Hoping for 29 l:txe5 l:txa4, when
Black has a passed pawn.
29 c4 11xe4+ 30 fxe4 l:tf6 31 c5
Note that Black's queenside pawns
are fixed whereas White's are free to
wreak havoc.
31 ...'iPf7 32 'iPd3 'iPe7 33 d6+!
The decisive breakthrough.
33 'iPd7 34 dxc7 'iPxc7 35 cxb6+
.•.
l:r.xb6 36 .l:lxa5! l:lg6 37 g3 l:r.h6 38
lhe5 �d6 39 1ld5+ �c6 40 h4 .l:lg6
41 l:tg5 1ld6+ 42 �e3 1-0
3 l2Jc3 e5?!
This is not as sound as 3 ttlf3 e5,
since here the early thrust of Black's
e-pawn gives White a territorial ad­
vantage and with it an easier game.
As long as White does not push too
far and instead settles for normal de­
velopment he will retain a comfort­
able edge. Lautier's gradual build-up
is instructive.
Game 36
Lautier - Meulders
Lyon Z 1990
1 d4 d5 2 c4 tbc6 3 tbc3
3 ... e5
4 cxd5
4 dxe5? invites 4 ... d4, but two
less critical moves are sometimes
played:
a) 4 lDf3 was seen in Kohlweyer­
ReefschHi.ger, Bundesliga 1 990/ 1 .
The game went 4 ...exd4 5 tbxd4
dxc4 6 ttlxc6 'ii'xd 1 + 7 tbxd 1 bxc6 8
e4 i.e6 9 tbe3 lDf6 1 0 f3 i.b4+ 1 1
i.d2 l:.b8 ! 1 2 i.xb4 l:r.xb4 1 3 0-0-0
�e7 14 lld2 c3 ! 1 5 bxc3 lla4 1 6
i.e2 tbd7 1 7 llhd 1 tbc5 1 8 c 4 l::ta3

19 lbc2 l:.xa2 20 tt:Jd4 l:la6 21 l:lb2 g5,
after which Black's a-pawn proved a
valuable asset.
b) 4 e3 poses no problems what­
soever. In Van Esch-Reefschliiger,
Gausdal 1 995, Black continued in a
Chigorin theme with 4 ...exd4 5 exd4
.i.b4 6 a3 .i.xc3+ 7 bxc3 ti:Jge7 8
ti:Jf3 0-0 9 .i.e2 dxc4 1 0 .i.xc4 ti:Ja5 ! ?
1 1 .i.e2 .i.e6 1 2 0-0 .i.c4 1 3 .i.xc4
ti:Jxc4 14 'ii'd 3 'ii'd5, with a balanced
game.
4••• ti:Jxd4
4 ... exd4? 5 dxc6 dxc3 6 'ii'xd8+
'it>xd8 7 cxb7 nets White a pawn.
5 e3 ti:JfS
6 ti:Jf3!
After 6 e4 Black can put his
knight on d6, d4 or e7, with a com­
plicated game (i.e. exactly what
Black is looking for when he plays
this variation) in all cases.
6
•.• .i.d6
Black tried the experimental
6...f6!? in the game Kurajica-Milad­
inovic, Las Palmas 1994. After 7
.i.b5+ .i.d7 8 .i.xd7+ 'ii'xd7 9 e4
tt:Jd6 10 0-0 g6 1 1 'ii'c2 ti:Jh6 1 2 .i.d2
ti:Jhf7 1 3 l:tac 1 .i.e? he had a solid
but cramped position.
7 e4!
Simple chess.
a) 7 .i.d3 ti:Jgh6? ! 8 g4 ! ti:Jh4 9
l:lg1 (D) was featured in G.Burgess­
T.Clarke, British Ch 1988, a mini­
ature won by none other than
Batsford's editor!
Now 9 . . . ti:Jxg4? fails on account
of 10 l:lxg4 .i.xg4 1 1 'ii'a4+, so Black
opted for 9 . . . 0-0, throwing in the
towel after 1 0 g5 lLl6f5 ( 1 0. . . .i.g4 !
keeps Black alive - editor's note) 1 1
3 ti:Jc3 ti:Jj6 and 3... e5 129
B
ti:Jxh4 ti:Jxh4 1 2 .i.xh7+ ! �xh7 1 3
'ii'h5+ 'it>g8 1 4 'ii'xh4 c6 15 ti:Je4 ! 1 -0
( 1 5 . . . .i.e7 16 d6! .i.xd6 17 ti:Jf6+,
etc.).
b) 7 .i.b5+ .i.d7 8 'ii'b3 is slightly
better for White, but Black can try
7. .'it>f8!?, hoping to confuse White
.
and then catch him on the dark
squares (on the kingside) later. With
best play this must favour White, al­
though it is always a good idea in
these tricky variations to be content
with a slight, safe edge rather than
allow Black to unbalance the posi­
tion. The game Edvardsson-Reef­
schliiger, Gausdal 1995, is typical of
what can go wrong for White: 8 e4
ti:Jfe7 9 h3 ti:Jg6 1 0 'ii'e2 a6 1 1 .i.d3
ti:Jf6 12 .i.d2 tt:Jd7 13 0-0 h6 14 l:lfc 1
ti:Jf6 1 5 ti:Jh2 .i.d7 1 6 a4 'ii'e7 17 a5
l:le8 18 'ii'd 1 .i.c8 19 .i.fl ti:Jf4 (after
gathering his forces on the king side
Black finally strikes) 20 'ii'f3 ti:Jh7 2 1
.i.xf4 exf4 2 2 l:le1 ti:Jg5 2 3 'ii'd 3 f6
24 ti:Jf3 ti:Jxf3+ 25 'ii'xf3 'ii'e5 (now
Black has the run of the dark squares
and, consequently, an easy kingside
attack) 26 ti:Ja4 h5 27 'ii'c 3 g5 28
.l:tac l g4 29 h4 g3 30 'ii'f3 l:lg8 3 1
ti:Jc5 gxf2+ 32 'ii'x f2 f3 3 3 'ii'xf3
'ii'h 2+ 34 'it>f2 'ii'xh4+ 35 g3 l:lxg3
130 3 tDc3 lDj6 and 3 . . e5
.

0- 1 . You may have noticed by now
that Germany 's veteran IM is a big
fan of this cheeky variation.
The French grandmaster is too
wise to play into Black's hands like
this. By refusing to be provoked he
gradually improves his position on
both sides of the board.
7 lDfe7
8 .i.e2 a6
9 a4 .i.g4
10 lDd2! (D)
18...h6 19 l::tb1 0-0 20 0-0 tDe8 21
l::tfcl lDdf6 22 'i¥e2 �h7 23 'i¥f3 b6
24 lDc4 'i¥d7 25 g4!
At last. After an impressive, pa­
tient build-up White steps up a gear.
The plan is simply h2-h4 followed
by g4-g5.
25...g5
What else?
26 �f2 (D)

26...�g7 27 h4 lDh7
27 . . . gxh4 28 g5 is winning for
10 .i.xe2 White. With the text Black attempts
11 'i¥xe2 lDf6 to erect a blockade.
12 lDc4 lDd7? 28 l::th1 lDef6 29 tDe2 b5 30 lDd2
12...lDg6 is forced, when White's aS
extra space and more active pieces Token counterplay, for the barri­
guarantee a lasting advantage. Now cades on the other flank will be un­
White can advance on the kingside. able to withstand the pressure.
13 f4! lDg6 31 'i¥h3 l::th8 32 lDg3 axb4 33
14 f5 t7Jgf8 hxg5 lDxgS 34 'i¥h4 lDxg4+
15 .i.e3 lDf6 Or 34 . . . lDgh7 35 .i.xh6+ �g8 36
16 lDa5 'i¥c8 g5.
17 'i¥c4 lD8d7 35 'i¥xg4 f6 36 lDh5+ �f7 37
18 b4 lDxf6!
Black is in danger of being pushed Obviously White is happy to re­
off the board. It is now only a matter turn the piece.
of time until White begins a decisive 37 ... �xf6 38 l::txh6+ l::txh6 39
attack. 'i¥xg5+ �f7 40 'i¥xh6 l::tg8 1-0
8 3 cxd5
1 d4 d5 2 c4 lLlc6 3 cxd5 'ii'xd5
One of the general rules of open­
ing play which we are all taught is:
do not bring the queen out too early
(an obvious example of which many
beginners are guilty is 1 e4 e5 2
�h5?, when after 2 . .lLlc6 White will
. 4 e3
lose time when his queen is hit).
There are, of course, exceptions to
the rule which are quite sound, per­
haps the most striking being the
Scandinavian Defence ( 1 e4 d5 2
exd5 �xd5 3 lLlc3 �a5). The Chi­
gorin is similar in that Black's gen­
eral strategy involves piece play and
rapid development, a course of ac­
tion in which an active queen can
play a major role.
In the diagram position White
would like to chase away the queen
with 4 lLlc3 and then continue the
push with 5 d5, attacking the knight.
At the moment there is no time for
this because the d4-pawn is hanging,
so he must first defend it with 4 e3
(Garnes 37-38) or 4 lLlf3 (Garnes 39-
4 1 ) when, after either move, Black
has time to deal with the anticipated
lLlb1 -c3 by playing 4 ... e5 (intending
...�f8-b4xlLlc3). It is this struggle of
the bishop pair (White) vs quick and
active development (Black) which
best characterises the 3 cxd5 vari­
ation.
4 e3
Game 37
Khalifman Morozevich
-
Amsterdam Donner mem 1995
1 d4 d5 2 c4 lLlc6 3 cxd5 'ii'xd5
Considered less active than 4
lLlf3, Watson concluded that it is in­
nocuous. I would disagree, though I
do have the advantage over John
Watson of about 15 years' worth of
games to help me - when his excel­
lent book carne out in 198 1 a good
number of today's Chigorin experts
were still eagerly awaiting their lOth
birthday ! Anyway, 4 e3 is so effec­
tive that, until recently, Black was
having some problems. At least
White rules out the possibility of the
positional pawn sacrifice . . . e4-e3.
4 ... e5
This is the only continuation which
makes sense. It is true that 4 e6 5
•••
132 3 cxd5
t:Dc3 �b4 also pins the knight but, as
will soon become clear, having the
pawn on e5 gives Black the flexibil­
ity required to keep White on his
toes, whether he exchanges on d4 or
maintains the tension.
The next few moves are more or
less forced for both players.
5 lDc3 �b4
6 �d2 �xc3
7 bxc3 (D)
B occupation of the two centre files
This position has received consid­
erable attention during the last year
or so, resulting in a couple of impor­
tant new moves for Black, both of
which involve refraining from play­
ing ... exd4. Before examining these
recent developments we should have
a look at Black's old move, 7 exd4.
•••
Looking at this move now, armed
with Morozevich's fresh approach to
the Chigorin, it is difficult to under­
stand how the somewhat simplistic
(even obliging) 7 ... exd4 remained
the 'only' move for so long. First,
White no longer has to worry about
his backward c-pawn - its removal
has even provided another file for the
queen's rook. Secondly, the absence
of the e5-pawn means that Black
cannot incorporate a possible ... e5-
e4 or a timely . . . exd4 into his plans,
potential problems which White
does not even have to worry about
any more.
I have always had a feeling that
White has the better game after
7 . . . exd4, so I am happy to see new
life being injected into this particular
line in the form of a worthy 7th move
alternative. Nevertheless, it has to be
said that Black has some dangerous
tactical possibilities based on a quick
with the rooks, and it is by no means
easy for White to contain his oppo­
nent's aggression.
After 7 exd4 8 cxd4 lDf6 (D)
...
(8 ... lDge7 blocks the e-file) White
must decide whether Black can re­
ally profit from planting a knight on
e4.
a) If this is a genuine concern,
then 9 f3 is the natural choice, but
White cannot afford to postpone de­
velopment any longer. A classic ex­
ample of the Chigorin's attacking
potential is Abramovicius-Terpu­
gov, USSR 1950, which went 9 ...0-0
10 �d3 �f5 ! 1 1 �xf5 'ii'xf5 1 2 lbe2

l:tfe8 1 3 0-0 l:tad8. Black has an ad­
vantage which soon grew to near de­
cisive proportions after a couple of
inaccuracies from White: 14 l:tb1 (14
e4 lLlxe4 gives Black a dangerous at­
tack according to Neikirkh) 14 ... b6
1 5 'ita4? ! ( 1 5 'itb3 lba5 is a lesser
evil) 1 5 . . .'ifd3 ! 1 6 'itd 1 ( 1 6 l:tfd 1
'ifxe2 1 7 'ifxc6 l:td5 ! , threatening
1 8 ....l:tg5) 16 ...l:txe3 ! . The game con­
tinued 17 .l:tb3? 'ifxe2 1 8 .i.xe3
'itxa2 1 9 'itd3 lLle5 20 'itb1 'ilxb1 2 1
l:tfxb1 lLlc4 22 .l:ta1 a5 with a much
better ending for Black. White can
improve with 17 .i.xe3 'ir'xe3+ 1 8
'ifi>h 1 lLlxd4 1 9 lLlxd4 l:txd4 20 .l:te1
l:txd1 2 1 l:tbxd1 'ir'c5 22 l:ld8+ 'ir'f8,
though he would be better off avoid­
ing 9 f3 altogether.
b) 9 'ir'f3 is another radical way
of fighting Black's threatened occu­
pation of the central squares. After
the obvious 9 lLle4 White justifies
•••
his 9th move with 10 .i.d3 ! and 1 1
lLle2, etc. Instead Black has two vi­
able options:
b1) 9 0-0 seems fine, when after
•••
1 0 .i.d3 l:le8 1 1 lLle2 Black should
probably avoid l l .i.g4?! 12 'ir'xd5
•••
lLlxd5 1 3 l:lb1 l:lab8 14 f3 .i.d7 15 e4
with a good game for White (two
bishops, impressive pawn centre), as
in Pomar-Lezcana, Alicante 1977.
Far more sensible is Watson's sug­
gestion l l .i.e6, intending 12 lLlc3?
••.
lLlxd4 ! , or 12 e4 lLlxd4 ! 1 3 exd5
lLlxf3+ 14 gxf3 .i.xd5 (unclear ac­
cording to Watson).
b2) 9 .i.f5 is an uncompromis­
•..
ing reply. 10 'ir'g3? invites 10 ...0-0-0
and is asking for trouble, so White
should try 10 'ir'xd5 lLlxd5 l l .i.b5!.
3 cxd5 133
Watson assessed the position after
1 1 .. ..i.d7 as unclear. I would say that
White has an edge because his
bishop pair and sound pawn struc­
ture offer him good long-term pros­
pects. This is certainly better for
White than 11 a3, which was played
in the game Skomorokhin-Grabher,
Liechtenstein 1 993. After 1 1 . ..0-0 1 2
f3 .i.g6 1 3 'ifi> f2 f5 14 lLlh3 cJi>h8 1 5
l:lb1 lLlxe3 1 6 l:txb7 lLlxfl 1 7 .i.c3
lLld8 18 l:lxc7 lLle6 19 .l:tc6 .l:tfc8 20
l:lxe6 l:lxc3 21 .l:txfl the struggle was
heading for a draw.
c) 9 lLlf3 differs completely from
notes 'a' and 'b' in that here White
does not even bother to think about a
future ...lLlf6-e4. In Taylor-Watson,
Calgary 1 975 , White was soon dig­
ging his own grave: 9 . . .0-0 10 .i.e2
lLle4 1 1 0-0 l:le8 12 'ir'c2?! .i.f5 1 3
'ir'b3? 'ir'xb3 1 4 axb3 lLlxd2 1 5 lLlxd2
lLlxd4. Of course White did follow
up a planless 1 2th move with a worse
1 3 th, but I don't believe that he can
make effective use of his minor
pieces.
d) The most testing of White's
alternatives is undoubtedly 9 lLle2!
0-0 10 lLlf4 'ir'd6 (D).
134 3 cxd5
d1) 11 �d3 is best answered with
1 l . . .�g4 !?, a suggestion by Soltis
( 1 1 . . .tlJb4 12 �xb4 'it'xb4+ 13 'it'd2
'it'e7 14 'it'c2 c6 15 0-0 l:td8 was un­
clear in Gross-Gibbons, Saratoga
1 978). Then 1 2 f3 �h5 !? 13 tlJxh5
tlJxh5 brings about an interesting
bishops vs knights struggle. 14 0-0 is
not possible in view of 14 ...ttJxd4,
and even after 14 l:tb 1 l:tab8 White
must still be careful, e.g. 15 0-0
ttJxd4 ! 16 �b4 c5 17 �a3 l:tfd8.
d2) In the game Burmakin-Ma­
rinsek, Ljubljana 1 994, White opted
for the modest-looking 1 1 �e2,
emerging with a substantial queen­
side initiative after ll ...ttJe4 1 2 0-0
ttJxd2 1 3 'it'xd2 �f5 14 l:tfc l l:tfe8
15 �b5 �d7 1 6 l:tab l . Black devi­
ated with ll ..l:te8 in Zoler-Vodep,
. b1) 8 0-0 9 e4 'i!Vd6:
Oberwart 1 995: 1 2 0-0 tDe7 1 3 l:tb1
tlJg6 14 tlJxg6 hxg6 15 'it'a4 with a
commanding position for White ow­
ing to the bishop pair.
This ends our coverage of the pros
and cons of 7 . . . exd4. I agree that it
offers up some interesting positions,
but I prefer the latest treatment.
7 ... tiJf6 !?
Although it is still very much in
an early experimental stage, I would
not be surprised a few years from
now to see this new move (and also
7 ...'it'd6) replace the central exchange.
Holding on to the e5-pawn gives
Black more options while simultane­
ously cutting down the number (and
limiting the nature) of the plans
available to White.
The interesting and flexible move
7 . . . 'it'd6 is covered in the next main
game.
8 c4
White rises to the challenge. The
alternatives:
a) The game Razuvaev-Moroze­
vich, Rome 1 995 saw 8 tiJf3, when
both players made slight errors, lead­
ing to equality after 8 . . .0-0 9 'it'c2
l:te8?! 10 c4 'i!Vd6 1 1 dxe5 ! ttJxe5 1 2
ttJxe5 'it'xe5 1 3 �c3 1\Vg5 1 4 �d3?!
�g4 ! 15 �xf6 'ii'xf6 16 0-0 ( 1 6
�xh7+? �h8 leaves White faced
with both 17 . . . 'i!Vxa1+ and 17 ... g6)
16 ... g6. White could have kept up the
pressure on the kingside had he
played 14 h4!, which suggests that
the direct 9 �g4 is the right way to
•••
maintain the balance.
b) 8 f3!? is the young GM Sa­
kaev's contribution to this line:
.••
b1 1) 10 tlJe2!? ttJa5 (10 ... exd4?!
1 1 �f4) 11 tlJg3 c5 12 d5 is slightly
better for White.
b12) 10 d5 tlJe7 1 1 c4 ! ( 1 1 ttJe2
runs into 1 l .. .b5 !) 1 l . . .tiJd7 1 2 tDe2
ttJc5 13 tlJc3 f5 14 �e3 is again a lit­
tle better for White according to Sa­
kaev, although Black is certainly not
without kingside attacking chances.
b2) Sakaev-Bigaliev, St Peters­
burg 1995 continued 8 exd4 9 cxd4
••.
0-0 10 'ii'b 3! (10 ttJe2?! l:te8 ! 1 1 �f2
looks a bit clumsy) 10 ... 1\Vd6 1 1 �c4
�e6 12 ttJe2 l:tfe8 1 3 0-0 l:tad8?! 14
�xe6! l:txe6 15 l:tac 1 'it'd7 16 tlJf4
l:td6 17 i.e I ! with a clear advantage
to White now that his bishop is about
to find a new lease of life on g3.
Black should have replaced his 1 3th
move with 13... �xc4! 14 1\Vxc4 l:tad8
(14 . . . tiJd5 15 e4 tiJb6 16 'ii'd3 helps
only White), when Sakaev believes

that 1 5 'ifb3 ! just keeps White on
top.
8 'ifd6
9 d5 lbe7 (D)
10 'ifh1
On b1 the queen is particularly
productive. First, the e4-square is
covered, thus enabling White to rein­
force his centre with e3-e4. Khalif­
man chose b 1 rather than c2 because
posting his most powerful piece on
the b-file has the bonuses of both ty­
ing Black down to the b7-pawn and
introducing the possibility of a po­
tentially damaging .id2-b4 (when
Black may regret parting with his
own dark-squared bishop).
Perhaps the chief drawback of 10
liJf3 is that it gives Black a free hand
in the completion of his develop­
ment. There is always the danger of
White's d5-pawn running short of
support and such neglect being pun­
ished with a timely ... c7-c6, and with
all three of Black's minor pieces
within easy reach of the kingside,
the generation of an attack against
White's castled king, starting with
. . . e5-e4, is a worry White would
rather do without.
3 cxd5 135
10 ..• 0-0
11 e4
11 .ib4 c5 ! 12 dxc6 'ifc7 ! is too
risky for White, whose forces are still
huddled on the back rank. Moroze­
vich gives 11 liJf3 l:.e8 as unclear;
White's pieces look a bit awkward to
me.
11 ..• liJd7
A dual-purpose knight manoeu­
vre. Black senses that the time is
right to attack (White is lagging be­
hind in development, so for the next
few moves he will be trying to catch
up), and the best way to begin is to
throw his f-pawn down the board.
The text also has an important defen­
sive element - the knight is destined
for c5, where it will be responsible
for keeping White's pieces at a safe
distance. A good understanding of
how weak squares (created by
White's rash pawn thrusts) can be
put to full use by knights is an essen­
tial part of a player's arsenal.
Black has already achieved some­
thing by closing the centre. The next
stage of his strategy is to secure the
queenside in readiness for the launch
of an offensive on the other flank.
This is pretty standard stuff - the
best reaction to a flank attack is to
counter in the centre, but as this is
not an option for White here, he will
look to the queenside to perform the
diversionary measures necessary to
hurt Black. Black needs to be ready
for such an unfolding of events.
12 .id3 liJc5
13 liJe2 f5
Black is ready to take on d3 only
under favourable circumstances.
136 3 cxd5
14 0-0 (D)
B While White still has a queen or a
14 ••• f4!?
The young Morozevich is not a
player afraid to turn down the pros­
pect of a draw if he can fight for the
full point, even when he has Black
against one of the world's top GMs!
He could have steered the game to
equality by dismantling the centre:
14 fxe4 15 .txe4 lLlxe4 (not 15 ...-tfS
••.
16 -txf5 lLlxf5 1 7 .tb4! with an edge
to White) 1 6 'iVxe4 c6, etc.
15 f3 g5
Onward! Black makes hay while
the sun shines. White has only just
managed to connect his major pieces
and his last move was forced (other­
wise Black would gladly push his
own pawn to f3), so he has not yet
had enough time to get to work put­
ting together an assault on the queen­
side. So far the c5-knight has not
actually had to do anything since ar­
riving at the post, rather like a goal­
keeper whose team-mates have had
all the possession of the ball in the
other half of the field. Now White is
free to build up a counter and the ob­
vious target is the key blockader,
hence White's next.
16 lLJcl
If Black wants to bring his rook to
the g-file then this is the way to do it.
dark-squared bishop on the board it
is not wise to voluntarily place the
king on the a1-h8 diagonal with
16 'i!tb8?! (planning ...l:.f8-g8).
••.
16 a5 is worth considering, shut­
•••
ting the bishop out of b4. Having
said that, I do appreciate Black's
eagerness to keep piling on the pres­
sure and unsettle his opponent.
17 lLlb3 b6
Here Black has the opportunity to
set up another blockade without hav­
ing to saddle himself with doubled
c-pawns (as he does in the game) :
17 lLJxd3 1 8 'iVxd3 c5. However,
•••
this does result in White having a
protected passed d5-pawn which will
itself need blockading. To make mat­
ters worse the over-qualified queen
has the job of holding it up at the mo­
ment, which makes the opening up
of the position (e.g. 19 �h 1 ! g4 2.0
g3 !) undesirable for Black because
he is vulnerable on the dark squares
(at least with a pawn on c7 the d6-
square is covered). Moreover, White
can attack the c5-pawn anyway, fol­
lowing up the forced ... b7-b6 with
a2-a4-a5.
18 .tb4!
White needs to post the bishop on
the a3-f8 diagonal before taking on
c5. The immediate 18 lLlxc5?! is
slightly in Black's favour after
1 8 ... bxc5 .
18 ••• g4
Neither player can afford to waste
any time, yet both must be extremely
 3 cxd5 137

careful, too. As in life, one must find 28 g3, the f-pawn being pinned) 28
a balance. .i.xg2 f3, when Morozevich gives 29
19 fxg4 .i.xg4 l:td2 fxg2 30 .l:r.d7 as unclear in Infor­
20 l:tf2 l:tg7 mator 64. However, after the con­
2 1 lDxc5 bxc5 tinuation 30... lLlf3+ 3 1 'itf2 g l li'+
Now there is no turning back. 32 l:txg l lLlxg l 33 l:txg7+ 'itxg7 34
22 .i.a3 lLlg6 'itxgl l:te8 Black seems to be win­
23 'tib5 lLlh4 (DJ ning, so I would guess that this could
be a typo, and that 29 l:td2 should
read 29 l:td1, when 29 .. .fxg2 30 l:td7
is indeed unclear since 30... lLlf3+ is
not possible. Morozevich also sug­
gests 29 ...l:tb8 ! ?, which does have
more point against 29 l:td l (and is
probably stronger than 29 ... fxg2).
b) 26 .i.f3 is another natural
•••

choice, although this time White can

play 27 g3, when after 27 l:td8 •••

Black still has an initiative. Not good

for Black is 27 fxg3?! 28 hxg3
•••

24 li'xc5 l:txg3+ 29 'ith2, as his activity is

Against the 'safe' 24 'ith1 Black coming to an end and White is ready
has 24 ... lLlxg2. to take over.
24 ••• li'g6 c) Perhaps best is 26 .l:r.d8!, im­
•.•

25 'ii'c6! proving the worst-placed piece while

After 25 d6 both 25 . . .l:te8 and
25 . . . l:tc8 are good for Black, whose
queen adds extra weight to the at­
tack. Now Black has no choice but to
exchange queens.
25
..• li'xc6
26 dxc6 .l:te8
Not defending the e-pawn, but
preparing to double rooks on the g­
file (the only route available is
. . . l:ta8-e8-e6-g6 because the a3-
bishop covers f8 and d6). There are
three interesting alternatives:
a) The most forcing is 26....i.h3
gaining time. Then White should
continue 27 i.fl and accept that he is
slightly worse after 27 . . . .i.h5 ! 28
.i.b2 Ag5 29 'ith l .i.e8, rather than
the careless 27 .i.c2?, allowing
Black to play 27 ....i.h3 28 g3 fxg3 29
hxg3 l:txg3+ 30 'itth 2 l:txa3.
27 .i.b2!
White cleverly anticipates his op­
ponent's plan, attacking the e5-pawn
which Black has just defended in the
knowledge that it will soon be un­
protected again!
27 l:te6 28 c5
..•

27 .i.fl (not 27 g3? fxg3 28 hxg3 Threatening 29 .i.c4, and thus

l:txg3+ and 29 . . .Axd3) 27 ... .i.xg2 more or less forcing Black to con­
(27 ...'itf7, planning . . .l:tag8, allows tinue with his build-up on the g-file.
138 3 cxd5
28 l:.eg6 29 i.xe5 (D)
•.•
In the previous diagram the in­
creasing tension on the kingside
prompted White to seek a queen ex­
change in order to relieve the pres­
sure on his king. Six moves later and
Black has continued to nurture the
attack, trying so hard that he now has
all of his pieces (except the king) in­
volved ! Although White has not
been able to prevent the worrying
gathering of black pieces on the
kingside, he has prepared very well
for Black's actual strike, which is
coming now.
29...ttlf3+ 30 l:.xf3
Not 30 gxf3? i.xf3+ 3 1 'iti>fl l:.gl
mate.
30...i.xf3 31 i.c4+! 'it>f8 32
i.xg7+ r3Jxg7 33 i.n 'it>f6!?
The smoke has cleared but Black
has not given up hope. Once again he
refuses to simplify - 33 ... i.xg2 34
i.xg2 f3 35 l:.dl is equal. Black would
like to play 33 ... i.xe4? immediately,
but it runs into 34 l:.e l , for example
34 . . . i.xc6 35 l:.e7+.
34 r3Jf2?!
Both players were short of time at
this point (the time control is move
40), which may be the reason why
White did not force a draw with 34
l:.el ! i.xg2 (Black is no longer justi­
fied in insisting on going for the win
with 34 ... 'it>e5? because after 35 r3Jf2
i.xe4 White has 36 i.d3) 35 i.xg2
f3 36 l:.fl l:.xg2+ 37 'it>h l .
The text presents Black with an­
other bite at the cherry.
34 ... i.xe4 35 l:.d1 i.xc6 36 l:.d8
r3Je5 37 g3 fxg3+ 38 hxg3 l:.f6+ 39
r3Je1 l:.e6 40 'it>f2 l:.e8 41 l:.d2
Trading off rooks results in the
loss of the c5-pawn.
41 ...l:.f8+ 42 'it>el h6 43 i.g2
i.xg2?
This lets White off the hook. It
was possible to deal with the bishop
exchange in a way which simultane­
ously activates Black's rook, thereby
keeping his winning chances alive:
43 ... l:.f6! 44 i.xc6 l:.xc6 45 l:.h2 'it>d4
46 'it>d2 'it>xc5 and White must still
earn his draw.
44 l:.xg2 r3Jd4 45 l:.b2!
This is the game-saver.
45 ... c6 46 l:.b7 aS 47 l:.a7 .l:.f3 48
l:.xa5 l:.xg3 49 l:.a4+ r3Jxc5 50 l:.h4
lf2-lh
Game 38
Beliavsky - Miladinovic
Belgrade 1995
1 d4 d5 2 c4 ttlc6 3 cxd5 'ii'xd5 4 e3
e5 5 ttlc3 i.b4 6 i.d2 i.xc3 7 bxc3
7 ... 'ii'd6 (D)
Dropping the queen back retains
the tension without permitting White
to advance in the centre as Khalif­
man did in the previous game.
8 i.d3

White can also develop his knight:
a) The game Volke-Haubt, Bun­
desliga 1994/5, went 8 it:Jf3 i.g4 !
(the pin may prove unpleasant for
White) 9 h3 i.h5 10 dxe5 lt:Jxe5 1 1
'iia4+ c6 1 2 lt:Jxe5 'iixe5 1 3 'iid4
'iif6 1 4 l::tb l b6 15 e4 l::td8 1 6 'iixf6
lt:Jxf6 17 f3 it:Jd7 1 8 .te2 0-0 1 9 g4
i.g6 20 i.e3 f6 and Black had no
problems. The game concluded 2 1
'it>f2 lt:Je5 22 a4 .t f7 23 :tal i.c4 24
a5 i.xe2 25 'it>xe2 lt:Jc4 26 axb6 axb6
27 l::thd l l::txd l 28 l::txd l lf2.1f2.
b) 8 lt:Je2 prompted Black to go
on the offensive in Skembris-Mila­
dinovic, Greece 1 995, when the ex­
world junior champion anticipated
his opponent with 8 ... h5 !?. The game
continued 9 lt:Jg3 h4 10 lt:Je4 'iig6 1 1
f3 lt:Jge7 ( l l ...h3?! is, literally, going
too far, as after 1 2 g3 followed by
lt:Je4-f2 and i.fl -d3 White stands
well) 1 2 it:Jf2 i.e6 1 3 'lib! 'iix bl 14
l::tx bl 0-0-0 15 l::tb2 f6 ! 16 i.d3 lt:Ja5
with a pleasant advantage to Black
who, once again, controls the influ­
ential c4-square. As this particular
line is good for Black, Skembris sug­
gests the ugly 9 f4!?, which strikes
me as a desperate (and futile) at­
tempt to justify his 8th move. After
3 cxd5 139
9 ...exd4 I fail to see what compensa­
tion White has for the terribly ne­
glected e4-square, whichever way he
recaptures !
8••• it:Jf6
I like 8 lt:Jge7. When there is no
•.•
doubt that White intends sooner or
later to bolster the centre with f2-f3,
then the e7-square becomes a more
attractive post for the g8-knight than
does f6. Black first chose this square
in this position in the game Bren­
ninkmeijer-Skembris, Wijk aan Zee
1 995. The next few moves were 9
lt:Je2 0-0 10 0-0 b6! ( 1 0 . . ..te6? 1 1
'iib l ! leaves both h7 and b7 hanging)
1 1 f3 .te6 1 2 'iic l l::tad8 1 3 .tel ( 1 3
l::td l f5 gives Black the makings of a
dangerous attack) 1 3 . . .lt:Jg6 (now
1 3 . . .f5 meets with 14 i.h4 ! ). Now
after 14 .tf2 lt:Ja5 ! 1 5 l::te l ( 1 5 c4?
exd4 16 exd4 lt:Je5 ! is an important
possibility which is not available to
Miladinovic in the main game)
1 5 . . . .tc4 1 6 i.c2 c5 ! 17 lt:Jg3 'iic7
1 8 it:Jf5 i.e6! 19 e4 cxd4 20 cxd4
l::tc 8 Skembris this time found him­
self on the right side of a black ad­
vantage in the Chigorin. According
to Skembris, because 14 i.g3 invites
the aggressive and strong 14 ... f5,
White could consider the drastic 14
h4!?. But if that is the best White can
come up with, then perhaps it would
be advisable to look for earlier im­
provements or, indeed, another plan,
as the bishop manoeuvre has less
bite here on account of ... lt:Je7-g6 (in
the main game the knight stands on
f6).
9 f3 0-0
10 lt:Je2 l::te8
140 3 cxd5

A theoretical novelty which is in­ Black's 8th move, the knight is

tended to be an improvement on poorly placed on f6. This is one of
10 .i.e6?!, a natural-looking but
••• the reasons why I prefer e7 for the
inaccurate move tried by Ivanchuk knight against the f3-e3-d4-c3 pawn
in a game against Kasparov in the centre.
New York PCA-rapid 1 995. ThePCA 12 I:r.ad8
champion replied 1 1 0-0 and soon 13 .i.el .i.c8
got the upper hand. Morozevich has 14 .i.f2
offered 10... b6!? as a worthy alter­ Threatening simply 15 e4, when
native, and in view of what happens White is doing well thanks to the
to Miladinovic here, we could do dangerously mobile pawn centre and
worse than to take the young man's the rejuvenated f2-bishop. Black can
advice. prevent this, but at what price?
11 0-0 .i.e6 (D) 14 e4
l l...e4 is tempting, but the plan of 15 fxe4 tZ'lxe4
holding back White's centre pawns 16 .i.h4
backfires after 12 fxe4 tZ'lxe4 1 3 White's bishops are coming to
.i.xe4 ! l::he4 1 4 tZ'lg3 I:r.e8 1 5 e4. life, and they are soon to be joined by
other pieces in a powerful display.
Although Black's forces are sitting
w pretty the future is not bright - the
blockade on e4 cannot be main­
tained.
16 f6
17 'ii'c2 'ife7
18 tZ'lg3 (D)
Also very dangerous for Black is
18 l:tf4!? tZ'lg5 19 e4 tZ'lf7 20 I:r.afl .
The text is a more appealing method
of evicting the knight.
12 'ifcl!
The queen protects the e3-pawn,
thereby releasing the bishop on d2
which could be more effectively
posted elsewhere. 12 .i.e1 is prema­
ture, as the following variation dem­
onstrates: 1 2 . . . tZ'ld5 1 3 .i.f2 tZ'lb6 14
e4 .i.c4 ! 1 5 'ii'd2 tZ'la5 16 l::tad1 .U.ad8
17 d5 c6.
Note that if we compare the dia­
gram position with that in the
8 ... tZ'lge7 lines seen in the note to
 3 cxd5 141

18 lbxc3
•.• The white knight is immune be­
1 8 . . . lbxg3 1 9 i.xh7+ <iti>h8 20 cause the f8-rook must defend g8.
i.xg3 li'xe3+ 2 1 <iti>h 1 is very un­ 29 lbxh7! lbe5
pleasant for Black. Black chooses an attractive way to
19 l:tae1! lose.
White has played a superb game 30 dxe5 l:td1+ 31 i.n l:tg8 32
so far, so it would be a shame to spoil 'ifxg8+ 'it;lxg8 33 lDf6+ 1-0
it with 19 li'xc3? 'ii'xe3+ 20 <iti>h 1
'ii'xd4, when both of White's bishops 4 ltJf3
are attacked. The text forces a seri­
ously weakening, one way or an­ Game 39
other, in Black's kingside. S.Martin - MeUado
19 g5
••. Jbercaja 1994
Not quite as bad as 1 9 ...lbd5 20
i.xh7+ 'it;lhS 2 1 li'g6 lbxe3 22 lbh5 1 d4 d5 2 c4 lbc6 3 cxd5 'ifxd5
with a won game for White. 4 m e5
20 lbh5 l:tf8 5 lbc3
Black tries in vain to shore up the 5 dxe5? ! is a popular choice at
kingside. club level, in spite of being quite a
21 'ii'xc3 gxh4 22 l:tf4 negative move. Game 4 1 illustrates
The black position is completely how easily White can get into hot
hopeless. water after 5 ...'ii'xd1 +.
22 lbb4?!
•.• 5 ••• i.b4 (D)
Beliavsky suggests 22 ...h3 23 g3
as damage limitation, though the re­
sult would still be 1 -0. As it is Black
is unable to cope with so many
pieces aimed at his king.
23 i.c4+ <iti>h8 24 l:tefi h3 25
lbxf6 hxg2 26 l:tlf3 lbc6 27 'ii'c 2!
l:td6 28 'it'xg2 .l:1fd8 (D)

6 i.d2
This is the true Chigorin move,
but I believe it invites trouble and is
more risky than 6 e3, which nearly
always transposes, curiously enough,
to the Goring Gambit Declined and
is dealt with in the next annotated
142 3 cxd5
game. The other possibility is 6
dxe5. The only thing this capture has
going for it is that it is probably not
as bad as 5 dxe5 because the addi­
tional move (5 l2Jc3 i.b4) helps
White. In Carvajal-Boey, Thessalo­
niki OL 1988, Black chose a strategy
similar to Game 4 1 : 6 \i'xdl+ 7
•••
�xd1 i.g4 8 i.f4 (8 h3 i.xf3 9 exf3
0-0-0+ 10 'it>c2 was slightly better
for White in Steinitz-Chigorin, Vi­
enna 1 898, but there is no need to
give up the bishop so early, and I pre­
fer 8 . . . i.h5 with a balanced game)
8 ... l2Jge7 9 e3 i.xc3 10 bxc3 0-0-0+
1 1 �c2 l2Jg6 12 i.g3 h5 13 h4 i.xf3
14 gxf3 l2Jcxe5 15 i.e2 (D).
The diagram shows a typical bish­
ops vs knights Chigorin ending. The
pieces are involved in a kind of
stand-off - the knights hold their
ground and keep the enemy at bay,
while the bishops help to keep the
kingside pawns protected. White has
the option of taking on e5 if he so
wishes, but whether such a trade is to
his advantage or not is another mat­
ter. White's main worry can be found
on the other flank where he has sepa­
rated queenside pawns. These form a
permanent weakness, and if Black is
given enough time to consolidate
his kingside, the greater the likeli­
hood is of White being reduced to
passivity. Chances are roughly even,
but White allowed a deadly queen­
side invasion: 15 .. .f5 ! ? 16 l:.hg 1 l:.d7
17 i.xe5 l2Jxe5 1 8 l:.g5 l:.hd8 19
.l:.e 1 ? ( 1 9 l:.d 1 !) 1 9 . . . .l:.d2+ 20 �b3
l:.8d6 ! . White's king is in trouble, and
Black won as follows: 2 1 a4 l:.b6+
22 'it>a3 l:.bb2 23 l:hf5 .l:.a2+ 24 �b4
l:.ab2+ 25 'it>a3 l:.a2+ 26 �b4 l:.db2+
27 'it>c5 l2Jd7 + 28 �d4 l:.xe2 29
l:.xe2 l:.xe2 30 l:.xh5 c5+ 3 1 �d3
l:.xf2 32 f4 l:.g2 33 l:.h8+ �c7 34 h5
lDf6 35 h6 gxh6 36 .l:.xh6 lDd7 37 f5
l:.a2 38 e4 l2Je5+ 0- 1 .
Also fine for Black i s the alterna­
tive 6 i.xc3+ 7 bxc3 'ii'a5 with an
••.
equal position.
6 ..• i.xc3
7 i.xc3 e4!
It makes very little sense clearing
the a1-h8 diagonal for the c3-bishop
with 7 exd4 (more so now that
.•.
Black has given up his dark-squared
bishop). However, the move has been
seen occasionally, and in Unzicker­
Barden, Hastings 1950, White held a
comfortable lead after 8 l2Jxd4 l2Jf6 9
f3 0-0 10 e4. Forty years later in
Baden-Baden the game Alexandria­
Maahs went 8 l2Jxd4 9 'ii'xd4 'ii'xd4
•••
10 i.xd4 f6 1 1 l:.c 1 c6 1 2 e4. Al­
though White stands slightly better
in view of the two bishops, Black has
a solid position and a good grip on
the centre. After 1 2 ...i.e6 1 3 b3 l2Je7
14 i.e2 <i;f7 White played the hasty
15 f4? ! (she should have completed
her development first), allowing

Black to equalise immediately with
15 ....1:1hd8 16 .tal f5 ! .
The text i s much better. Not only
does the e-pawn's advance limit the
scope of the c3-bishop, it also pre­
vents White from developing his
forces as actively as he would like.
Black hopes to profit from his space
advantage and easier development to
contain White's two bishops, prefer­
ably exchanging light-squared bish­
ops at the right moment to leave
himself with a 'good' knight vs 'bad'
bishop ending.
Returning to the main game after
7 ...e4, White must decide where to
put his threatened knight.
8 ltJeS
The alternative is of course 8
ltJd2, but this is passive and is rather
easy for Black to handle. Neverthe­
less it is purely a matter of taste
where the knight goes, depending on
whether you prefer a reasonably
solid but lifeless position or tripled
pawns and a generous helping of
confusion!
Black can meet the knight retreat
in two ways, though both are aimed
at occupying the centre in one form
or another (and in so doing putting
White's kingside under pressure).
a) 8 e3! is crying out to be
...
played. The point is that after 9 fxe3
ltJf6 (D) White will have difficulty
freeing his kingside pieces, whereas
Black's forces can all home in on the
inviting e4-square.
a l ) Soltis gives 10 �b3. Black's
queen holds a commanding position
on d5 compared with White's, but
exchanging queens does not really
3 cxd5 143
reduce Black's control of e4, for ex­
ample 1 o.. �xb3 1 1 ltJxb3 .tf5, when
.
the white bishops are still hemmed
in.
a2) In Deze-Lanzendorfer, Del­
menhorst 1988, White was so con­
cerned about a black piece being
permanently stationed directly in
front of his doubled, backward e­
pawns that he (understandably) de­
cided to return the sacrificed pawn
immediately. There followed 10 e4
ltJxe4 1 1 ltJxe4 �xe4 12 d5, when
White had even succeeded in lifting
the blockade on d5, thereby liberat­
ing the c3-bishop in the process.
However, Black had the upper hand
after 12 ... ltJe5 13 �d4 'iixd4 14 .txd4
f6 15 g3 (15 .txe5 fxe5 leaves White
weak on the dark squares) 1 5 . . . .tg4
1 6 .1:1c 1 0-0-0 17 .tg2 l:1he8, as the
white pieces (including the bishops)
lack harmony, and the three pawn is­
lands are not looking too healthy.
b) Those of you with a fear of po­
sitional pawn sacrifices have another
option which involves simple de­
velopment and play on the light
squares. A classic example is Petrov­
Ravinsky, USSR 1 940, which con­
tinued 8 ltJf6 9 e3 0-0 10 'iic2 .1:1e8
..•
144 3 cxd5
1 1 .tc4 'it'f5 1 2 ltlfl 'ii'g6 1 3 ltlg3.
Now Black followed the thematic
over-protection of the e4-pawn with
13....te6, a move to which White has
no convenient reply as the d5-square
is about to belong to Black regard­
less of whether the bishops come off
or not. After 14 .txe6 l:be6 15 'i!Yb3
l:td6! 16 0-0 Black didn't bother de­
fending the b7 -pawn, and his judge­
ment was proved correct when
16 ...ltld5 17 'ii'xb7 l:te8 1 8 l:tae1 h5 !
gave him a dangerous attack. Wat­
son's suggestion, 13 h5!? also of­
•.•
fers good prospects of transforming
Black's kings ide (and central) space
advantage into something more con­
crete.
Notice how in these lines the c3-
bishop is reduced to spectator status,
and how dropping the knight back to
d2 does nothing to alleviate White's
cramped position. At least the text­
move - if only because it thrusts the
knight into enemy ranks and intro­
duces the possibility of an exchange
- obliges Black to react to White's
plan rather than give him carte
blanche to choose one of the (effec­
tive) schemes covered above.
8 •.• ltlge7
8 ltlxe5 transposes back to the
•••
main game after 9 dxe5 ltlge7 10 e3.
Both move-orders are used; maybe
some players are afraid of 9 ltlxc6,
though I cannot see why.
Now that we have seen the pre­
vious note there are no prizes for dis­
covering 8 e3!?.
•••
I prefer this spoiling move to the
more popular text, which is nowhere
near as much fun to play for Black.
Of the several options open to White,
'b' holds the most promise for the
first player, although they all lead to
messy positions:
a) 9 fxe3 ltlxe5 10 dxe5 .te6 pro­
duces a rarity in White's tripled e­
pawns. At least the three e-pawns are
capable of covering a total of six
squares on the neighbouring files
and, after all, White does have one
pawn more. Having said that, despite
having a 5-3 pawn majority on the
kingside White can do nothing with
it, whereas on the opposite flank
Black's mobile 3-2 majority should
eventually generate a passed pawn.
Consequently if anyone has an ad­
vantage it is Black.
b) As nobody really wants to
have three pawns falling over each
other on the same file, White may as
well allow his king to be displaced
and use the time to get on with some­
thing else - 9 ltlxc6!? exf2+ (if
Black insists on continuing the
theme he can try 9 ... bxc6) 10 'it>xf2
and now:
b1) In a few moves White had no
e-pawns at all in Tennant-Michael­
ides, New York 1979: 10 Ji'xc6 and
..
White played 11 e4, although after
1 1 . . .'it'xe4 ! 1 2 .tb5+ 'iii>d 8 he had
insufficient compensation for the
pawn since 1 3 l:te1 simply loses a
piece to 1 3 . . .'ii'f5+ and 14 ...'ii'x b5. I
suggest 11 d5 with the idea of meet­
ing 1 1 . . .'ii'g6 with 1 2 'ii'd 3, when a
queen trade is fine for White because
he can put pressure on the c7 -pawn,
and 12 . . . .tf5 fails to 1 3 'ii'b 5+ and
14 'ii'xb7. The game is about even af­
ter 1 1 d5.

b2) 10 bxc6! 1 1 e4 'jWxe4 1 2
•••
i.d3 ( 1 2 d5 lLlf6) 1 2 . . . 'jWf4+ favours
Black.
c) 9 'jWd3 was seen in Scheffner­
Baumhus, Bundesliga 1987/8, which
continued 9 . . . exf2+ (9 ...lLlxe5? 10
'jWxe3) 10 '1t>xf2 lLlf6 1 1 'jWf3 lLJxe5
1 2 dxe5 (but not 1 2 'jWxd5? lLleg4+)
12 ...lLle4+ 13 'it>e1 lLlxc3 14 'jWxc3 0-0
when White had a terrible game be­
cause his king is stuck in the centre
and obstructing the progress of the
other pieces. The game lasted only
ten more moves: 15 b3 i.f5 16 l:.d 1
'jWe4 1 7 l:.g1 'jWh4+ 1 8 g3 'jWxh2 1 9
l:.g2 'jWh 1 20 l:.d4 l:.ad8 2 1 e 3 i.h3
22 l:.f2 i.xfl 23 l:txfl 'jWg2 24 g4
'jWg3+ 0- 1 .
d) I suppose 9 f3 deserves a men­
tion, and it is not as silly as it first ap­
pears. White has not given up the
right to castle, the e4-square is de­
fended and the cheeky e3-pawn
could come to regret its confident
advance. Still, Black's game is easy
to play. He has more space, flexible
development and the potential to
make the most of his e-pawn.
9 e3 lLlxe5
10 dxeS (D)
Play now revolves around each
player's pawn majority. The e4-pawn
is a thorn in White's side (or centre!)
because it considerably restricts his
kingside pawn mass. On the queen­
side, on the other hand, the situation
is absolutely clear - nothing is hold­
ing up Black's pawns. Hence the
popularity of 8 ...lLlge7 (or 8 ...lLlxe5).
Why complicate when Black seems
to enjoy the better practical chances
in a theoretically level position?
3 cxd5 145
B
10 •.. 'ii'xd1+
Instead of the queen swap Black
can aim his bishop at White's queen­
side immediately with 10 i.e6, safe
.••
in the knowledge that White is
hardly going to put up with the
queen calling the shots on d5 much
longer. In Buddensiek-Voss, Mos­
cow 199 1 , White played 1 1 'jWa4+
i.d7 12 'jWc4. An interesting draw re­
sulted after 12 'ii'xc4 1 3 i.xc4 0-0
.•.
1 4 l:td1 l:tfd8 15 f3 i.c6 1 6 �e2
i.d5 17 l:td4 c5 1 8 l:.xe4 i.xe4 1 9
fxe4 (tripled pawns again) 19. . .a6 20
l:.fl l:.f8 2 1 e6 fxe6 22 i.xe6+ �h8
If2-lf2. As White had an even more
dangerous exchange sacrifice in 15
l:t.xd7 l:.xd7 16 e6, Black should fol­
low Henk-Maahs, Germany 1 993,
which went 12 c5 13 l:td1 'jWxc4 14
•••
i.xc4 i.c6. Now White played the
careless 1 5 'ii?e 2? ( 1 5 a3 is slightly
better for Black), kindly giving
Black's queenside pawn advances
added momentum and, ultimately,
leading to defeat: 15 ... b5 16 i.b3 b4
17 i.d2 i.b5+ 1 8 'ii?e 1 l:.c8 1 9 i.c2
i.c6 20 a3 a5 2 1 axb4 axb4 22 l:lal
0-0 23 l:.a5 i.d5 24 �d 1 (White
would be OK if he, too, could castle;
instead the h 1 -rook is shut out of the
146 3 cxd5
game) 24 . . J'Hd8 25 �c l l:r.a8 26
l:r.xa8 l:r.xa8 27 �bl lLlc6 28 b3 lLlxe5
29 l:tc 1 c4 30 ..txb4 cxb3 3 1 ..td 1
l2Jd3 0- 1 .
11 l:r.xdl ..te6
12 b3 lLldS
13 ..td4 0-0-0
14 ..tc4 lLlb4!
15 ..txe6+ fxe6 (D)
The removal of the light-squared
bishops is more important to Black
than the slight damage to his king­
side pawn structure. In fact, the
pawn does as good a job on e6 as it
did on f7, for not only does it rule out
any funny business involving e5-e6,
it also covers the f5-square (against
f2-f4-f5). Now weak on the light
squares, White's task of holding the
queenside together is even more dif­
ficult to manage.
16 0-0 l:r.d5
Black is more interested in a
breakthrough down the d-file than he
is in capturing the pawn on a2. White
is without defence against Black's
simple yet decisive plan, to drive the
bishop away with . . . c7-c5 and then
carry out an invasion of the queen­
side.
17 a4 c5 18 l:r.cl b6 19 l:r.c4 l:r.hd8
20 g3 �b7 21 ..tc3 lLla2 22 ..tb2
l:r.d2 23 ..ta3 l18d3
Now after 24 l:r.xe4 l:r.xb3 25 .te l
l:r.c2 White's 'bad' bishop has lived
up to its name and is trapped. Instead
he forces an exchange of rooks in the
hope that it will relieve the pressure,
but attempts at survival are futile.
24 .tel l:r.dl 25 ..ta3 l:r.xfl+ 26
�xfl l:r.xb3
The bishop must go, anyway.
27 ..txc5 bxc5 28 l:r.xc5 lLlc3 29
l:r.c4 aS 30 l:r.c5 �b6 31 l:r.c8 l:r.a3 32
l:r.e8 l:r.al + 33 lti'g2 l:r.xa4 34 l:r.xe6+
�c5 35 l:r.e8 l:r.c4 36 e6 �d6 37 e7 a4
38 l:r.g8 �xe7 39 l:r.xg7+ �d6 40
l:r.xh7 a3 0-1
Game 40
Berube - Finegold
New York 1992
1 d4 d5 2 c4 lLlc6 3 cxd5 �xd5 4
l2Jf3 e5 5 lLlc3 ..tb4
6 e3
More circumspect than 6 ..td2 (if
not quite as exciting).
6 ••• exd4!
Black should exchange now while
the recapture is forced. 6 ..tg4 7
••.
..te2 exd4 runs into 8 0-0 !, which
guarantees White an edge, as was
demonstrated in Quinteros-Kava­
lek, Lanzarote 1974. After 8 . . . ..txc3
9 bxc3 d3 10 �xd3 'i!Vxd3 1 1 ..txd3
..txf3 12 gxf3 0-0-0 13 l:r.d l lLlge7
14 ..tb2 l:r.d7 15 ..te2 l:r.hd8 16 l:r.xd7
l:r.xd7 1 7 l1d 1 l:r.xd l + 18 ..txd 1 the
white bishops soon took control.
Minev's l l l2Jge7 is probably bet­
•.•
ter, but the white bishops have more

freedom here than in most lines of
the Chigorin, which more than com­
pensates for the slightly weak queen­
side pawns.
After the text White's next is
forced because 7 i.e2? loses to
7 ... dxc3! 8 'ii'xd5 cxb2+, etc.
7 exd4 (D)
Somehow we find ourselves in the
Goring Gambit Declined ! This has a
reputation for being drawish, but
even if several pieces start coming
off there is still enough in the game
to press for the win. Moreover, Black
can avoid these lines if he so wishes
(see note to White's 8th move).
One advantage that Black usually
has is that it is highly unlikely a 1 d4
player will be well versed in the
complexities of a variation of the
Scotch Gambit which was first
played in 1 877 !
7 ... lLlf6!
7 ...tg4 is the 'boring' move which
. b) 10 'iib3 is a little more ambi­
leads to the queens coming off, so if
you like to try grinding out wins in
balanced (queenless) endings, then
this is for you. After 8 i.e2 0-0-0?! 9
0-0 'ii'a5 White has 10 i.e3 ! - e.g.
10 ... .txc3 1 1 bxc3 'ii'xc3 12 l:tc 1
3 cxd5 147
with excellent attacking chances - so
8. i.xf3 9 i.xf3 \Wc4! is best (D).
..
w
And now:
a) 10 i.xc6+ bxc6 ( 10 ...'ii'xc6? is
inconsistent and lets White castle)
with a further branch:
a 1 ) 11 'ife2+ 'ii'x e2+ 1 2 <&ti>xe2
0-0-0 13 i.e3 tLle7 is equal, and
often both players are happy with a
draw by the time they reach this posi­
tion. Ghizdavu-Sydor, Skopje 1 972,
is typical: 14 l:r.ac l lLlf5 15 l:r.hd 1
l:the8 1 6 q;.f3 lLlh4+ 17 q;.g3 lLlf5+
1 8 �f3 lLlh4+ with a draw by perpet­
ual check.
a2) 11 'iWbJ?! is a less accurate
method of removing the queens.
Kuzovkin-Tseitlin, USSR 1976, con­
tinued 1 1 . ..'ii'xb3 1 2 axb3 a5 1 3 0-0
0-0-0 14 tLla2 tLle7 15 lLlxb4 axb4 1 6
l:ta4 tLld5 1 7 i.d2 �d7, with an ex­
cellent game for Black in view of his
superior minor piece.
tious than the line ' a2' which we
have just seen. 10...'ifxd4? 1 1 i.e3
'ifd6 12 l1d1 'ii'e7 13 0-0 lLlf6 14 i.g5
spells trouble for Black. 10...'ii"xb3
is a big improvement, when after 1 1
axb3 Black does best to play safe
148 3 cxd5
with l l . . .lDge7, e.g. 1 2 0-0 a6 1 3
l:ta4 ..td6 14 ..tg5 f6 1 5 ..th5+ lDg6
1 6 l:.e 1 + lDe7 17 ..td2 0-0-0 with a
comfortable game, as in Ljubojevic­
Ree, Amsterdam 1972.
c) 10 ..te3 occurred in Marshall­
Capablanca, Lake Hopatcong 1926:
10 ... ..txc3+ 1 1 bxc3 'ii'x c3+ 12 �fl
'ii'c4+ 13 �g l lDge7 14 l:tc l 'ii'xa2
15 l:tal 'ii'c4 16 l:tc l lf2.lh.
Returning to the main game, Fine­
gold's choice is more in line with
Chigorin themes and gives Black
reasonable prospects of playing on
the light squares.
8 a3?!
A typical reaction to the pin by
many players who are not used to
this position. Who can blame them
for not knowing that Black is happy
to trade on c3 in any case? Not eve­
ryone is busy at home studying the
significance of the backward c3-
pawn, the hole on c4 and the sub­
sequent battle of wills between the
bishops and knights in this and simi­
lar positions !
8 ..te2 lDe4 9 ..td2 ..txc3 10 bxc3
is more accurate and was seen in the
game Nyholm-Alekhine, Stockholm
1 9 1 2. Nowadays lO lDxd2 is pre­
•.•
ferred, with a tiny edge for White af­
ter 1 1 'W'xd2 0-0 1 2 l:tbl ! b6 1 3 0-0,
but Alekhine opted to test his knights
against White's bishops - an ambi­
tious but entirely thematic strategy.
The game is instructive to Chigorin
fans: 10 0-0!? 1 1 0-0 lDa5 1 2 l:tel
•..
b5 1 3 ..td3 f5 (D).
Thus far Black's restraining pol­
icy has been a success, prompting
White to try to break the chains that
bind him: 14 a4 lDb3 15 l:ta3 bxa4 16
l::txa4 lDbxd2 17 lDxd2 lDxc3 ! 18
'W'c2 ! ( 1 8 'W'al is refuted by 1 8 ...'ii'd7 !
- not 1 8 ...lDxa4? 19 ..tc4 - 1 9 l:ta5
'ii'xd4 20 ..tc4+ 'it>h8 2 1 l:td5 lDe2+ !)
18 ...'ii'd7 19 1:ta5 'ii'xd4 20 l:tc l l:td8 !
2 1 'W'b3+ ..te6 ! (2 1 .. .lDd5 ? 22 lDf3
'ii'f4 23 l:txd5 ! 'ii'xc l + 24 ..tfl) 22
'ii'xe6+ 'itth8 23 l:te5 (23 lDb l 'W'xd3
24 lDxc3 'ii'x c3) 23 . . .'W'xd3 24 l:tcel
h6 25 'ii'g6?? (25 lDf3 has the advan­
tage of not losing immediately)
25 ...'W'xd2 0- 1 . A wonderful display
of Chigorin knights and light-square
control by Alekhine. It is a pity that
perfectly reasonable plans which do
not follow the modem 'draw is a
good result with Black' rule have
been forgotten by today's percent­
ages treatment of theory. Perhaps it
is precisely this uncompromising
nature of Black's play which has re­
cently attracted top young profes­
sional players to the Chigorin. One
such young man is the USA's Ben
Finegold who has the black pieces in
the main game, to which we will
now return.
8 ..txc3+
9 bxc3 0-0
10 ..te2 lDe4
 3 cxd5 149

Boguslavsky-Weidemann, Dort­ 13 h3 i.hS

mund 1 993 reached the position af­ 14 1i'a4 .:.res
ter White's l Oth move by a slightly IS c4 'i\Ve6
different order of moves - 1 d4 d5 2 16 ltfel .txf3!
c4 o!Llc6 3 cxd5 'ii'xd5 4 o!Llf3 e5 5 Black has calculated that he will
o!Llc3 i.b4 6 e3 .!Llf6 ! ? 7 a3 exd4 8 emerge from the coming simplifica­
exd4 i.xc3+ 9 bxc3 0-0 1 0 i.e2. tion with a slight pull.
Now Black concentrated on occupy­ 17 i.xf3 1i'xc4
ing the c4-square with IO o!Llas 1 1
... 18 i.xc6 bxc6!
0-0 o!Lle4 1 2 'ii'c2 o!Lld6, preparing a 18 1i'xc6 1 9 ..Wxc6 bxc6 gives
•.•

blockade which will be impossible White the move, whereas after the
to break (Black gave away a pawn text a queen exchange ( 1 9 'ii'xc4
but still managed to draw). o!Llxc4) results in White's bishop
11 i.b2 o!Lld6 coming under attack.
12 0-0 i.g4 (D) 19 1i'a5 'ii'c2!
20 1i'xc7 o!Lle4 (D)

Rather than having both knights

aimed at c4 (as in the previous note)
Black is content to exert pressure on
the square indirectly, operating on
the light squares and in the centre. If
Black is allowed to double on the e­
file White will experience problems
there and on the d l -h5 diagonal, as
well as having the usual weakness on
c4 to cope with. Meanwhile the b2-
bishop is waiting to be unleashed by
the advance of the c-pawn. Conse­
quently White endeavours to shep­
herd his c-pawn forward in order to
open up the game for his bishops.
21 f3 1i'xb2 22 fxe4 1i'xd4+ 23
�hl ltac8 24 1i'f4 cS
Black has an extra pawn which is
supported and passed, a well pro­
tected king and a target on e4. He
had no trouble converting these fac­
tors into a win.
25 l:r.adl 1Va4 26 1i'f3 c4 27 l:.cl
'li'c6 28 l:.c3 l:r.eS 29 1Vf4 l:r.ce8 30
l:r.ecl l:r.cS 31 l:r.bl gS 32 1Vf2 'li'xe4
33 .:.n l:tc7 34 l:tf3 l:r.ee7 35 'i\Vd2 h6
36 'li'd8+ <lilg1 37 1Vd6 l:r.c6 38 'iWb4
f6 39 ..Wc3 1i'e5 40 'iWb4 c3 41 :rs
'li'e4 421Vb5 c2 43 l:tcS l:tec7 44 :Xc6
150 3 cxd5
..Wxc6 45 'iixc6 l:txc6 46 l:lcl f5 47
�g1 'it>f6 48 'it>f2 �e5 49 'it>e2 'it>d4
50 'it>d2 l:tc3 0-1
Of course, White was not forced
to follow the c3-c4 plan, he was sim­
ply concerned about the queenside
weaknesses and was not too enthusi­
astic about waiting for Black's active
pieces to take control. The ftrst seed
was sown with 8 a3? ! , which turned
out to be a wasted move.
S dxeS
Game 4 1
Drzemicki -G.Mastemak
Slupsk 1992
1 d4 d5 2 c4 t"Dc6 3 cxd5 'iixd5 4
l"Df3 e5
5 dxe5 (D)
Harmless and not to be recom­
mended. It is perfectly natural that
some players wish to avoid the main
lines where Black achieves quick de­
velopment and active piece play, and
removing the queens looks like one
way of taking some of the sting out
of the Chi gorin. But losing the right
to castle cannot be good, and Black
still manages to generate an initia­
tive even without queens. White
does have an extra pawn, but usually
Black exerts enough pressure to
force its recapture.
5 ••• '6'xd1+!
In Lengyel-Kakuk, Hungary 1995,
Black turned down the opportunity
to displace the white king. Instead he
soon lost time moving his own king
after 5 .i.b4+?! 6 .i.d2 .i.xd2+ 7
.••
'iixd2 .i.e6 8 t"Dc3 'ifxd2+ 9 l"Dxd2
l"Dxe5 10 l"Db5, when 10 ...�d8 1 1 e4
a6 12 t"Dd4 left Black slightly worse.
6 �xd1 .i.g4
Watson's suggestion 6 .i.c5 is
.••
playable as well. Then 7 e3 locks in
the c 1-bishop and invites the pin
7 ... .i.g4 followed by 8 . . .0-0-0+, etc.
Defending f2 with the king leaves
the c2-square open to attack, e.g. 7
�e1 .i.g4 8 l"Dbd2 l"Db4.
7 i.f4
7 h3 0-0-0+ 8 l"Dbd2 gives Black a
choice:
a) 8 .i.h5, preserving the light­
•••
squared bishop, is logical. Then
White has problems progressing
with his development, as 9 e3 leaves
both the white knights pinned (and
the e5-pawn hanging), and 9 g4 .i.g6
merely chases the bishop to an excel­
lent position on the h7-b1 diagonal.
9 g3 .i.xf3 10 exf3 l"Dxe5 is clearly
better for Black due to White's mis­
erable kingside pawn structure and
awkwardly placed king.
b) 8 .i.xf3 9 gxf3 t"Dxe5 10 �c2
.•.
t"De7 is unclear. Again Black has hopes
of disturbing the enemy king, but
when White's light-squared bishop
ftnally comes to life it will require
 3 cxd5 151

some careful handling by the second 10 'it>cl .ib4

player.
7 C£Jge7
8 l"l)bd2 C£Jg6
9 .ig3 0-0-0 (D)
w
A typical position has arisen in
which the black forces enjoy a cer­
tain harmony that is missing in the
white camp. Even if Black could not
easily restore material equilibrium
he would be justified in claiming
compensation for the pawn. In one
more move his rooks will be con­
nected, while the white rooks are
completely unaware of each other's
existence.
White has only himself to blame
for his predicament. He chose to ex­
pose his king when he grabbed a
pawn on the 5th move, and he is still
paying the price now - d l is hardly a
safe haven (and by remaining there
both knights will be pinned when the
e2-pawn moves), e l looks even
worse and on c2 the king is left open
to . . . l"l)c6-b4+ or an inconvenient
. . . i.g4-f5+ (when blocking with e2-
e4 could create a hole on d4). By a
process of elimination this leaves the
c l -square.
1 1 a3 i.xd2+
12 C£Jxd2 C£Jgxe5
Now White's king is in the way
and three of his pieces are unmoved.
Black, on the other hand, has not
only regained the pawn but also ap­
parently sneaked in a few extra
moves while his opponent was not
looking.
13 f3 i.e6
14 e3
How else is White to begin untan­
gling? 14 e4 meets with the same re­
sponse: after 14 ... l"l)d3+ 15 .ixd3
l:txd3 followed by . . .l:thd8 White is
powerless against the terrible pres­
sure on the d-file. Black will simply
use the hole on b3 to paralyse White.
14••. l"l)d3+
15 'it>c2
It is never easy when there are no
satisfactory moves to be found. As
mentioned in the note to White's
14th move, 15 i.xd3 is awful.
15 ... l"l)xb2 (D)
16 i.b5 CiJa5
Black should not have any trouble
remaining a pawn up with an attack
to boot.
152 3 cxd5
17 �xb2
1 7 i.e5 Axd2+ 1 8 �xd2 lLlbc4+
is winning for Black.
17 Jixd2+ 18 'Otc3 l:r.hd8
••
Instead of resigning White forces
his opponent to work for the full
point.
19 �b4 Ab2+!? 20 �xaS J:ldS 21
a4 �b8 22 i.xc7+
Forced, e.g. 22 l:thd1 b6+ 23 'it>a6
i.c8 mate.
22 �xc7 23 11hc1+ 'it>b8 24 e4
•••
l:r.d6 25 i.fi lla6+! 0-1
Considering White's refusal to re­
sign towards the end he could have at
least allowed Black the satisfaction
of ending the torment with 26 i.xa6
b6 mate. White was hampered by his
king for almost the entire game, so it
is fitting that the hapless monarch
should be the piece which 'loses' the
game. I'm sure 5 dxe5?! can be han­
dled somewhat better than White
managed in this particular disaster
yet, even on a good day, the move
has very little going for it.
9 3 Others and 1 d4 d5 2 'iJf3
ltJc6

3 e3 is a rare move, but after 3 e5!

•••

(the logical and strongest reply)

White can still redeem himself with
4 cxd5, transposing to Chapter 8.
However, 3 e3 players tend not to
avail themselves of this opportunity,
and Game 42 is typical.
The opening sequence 1 d4 d5 2
lL!f3 lL!c6! ? 3 g3 is relevant to the
Chigorin, and the fact that this par­
ticular order of moves is growing in
popularity at master level is proof ..txe2) 8 . .0-0-0 9 ..te3 lL!c6 10 ..te2
.

that the Chigorin is once again a de­ lL!xe5 , but then he got his rook
fence which many players would trapped with the careless 1 1 lLif3
rather not face. See Games 43-44. ..txf3 12 gxf3 lL!d3+ 1 3 ..txd3 1hd3
14 lL!d5 lL!e7 15 �e2.
3 e3 a2) 8 f3 ..te6 9 ..te3 0-0-0 was
reached in Reti-Bogoljubow, Kiel
Game 42 1 92 1 . After 10 ..txd4 .:t.xd4 1 1 �e2
Weschke - Kahn lL!e7 12 lL!d2 lL!g6 13 ..txg6 ( 1 3 lLib3
Baden-Baden 1993 lLif4+ 14 �e3 .:t.xd3+ 15 �xf4 ..txc4)
1 3 . . . hxg6 14 b3 ..tf5 White was al­
1 d4 d5 2 c4 lL!c6 ready in deep trouble ( .....tf8-b4 and
3 e3 e5 ....:t.h8-e8 are coming).
4 dxeS?! b) Note that 5 lLif3? ..tb4+ 6
After 4 lL!f3 the game is already ..td2 dxe3 7 fxe3 ..tg4 is terrible for
equal. White.
4 ... d4 (D) 5 aS
5 a3 6 lDr3 ..tcS
a) 5 exd4 1i'xd4! 6 1Vxd4 lL!xd4 7 exd4 ..txd4!
7 ..td3 ..tg4 is also played, and now: 8 lL!xd4 1i'xd4
a1) In the game Donchenko-Mal­ 9 lL!c3
iutin, Smolensk 199 1 , Black was do­ This time 9 1i'xd4 lL!xd4 10 ..td3
ing fine after 8 lL!c3 (not 8 lL!e2?? runs into 10 ... lL!b3.
154 3 Others and 1 d4 d5 2 fi'..J3 fi'..c6

9 �xeS+ Also interesting is 3 ... e5 !?, in­

10 .i.e2 li'Jge7 tending 4 dxe5 d4, etc.
11 0-0 0-0
12 lle1 lld8 1 d4 d5 2 t2Jf3 t2Jc6! ?
13 .i.d2 .i.e6
14 .i.fl �f5 If White does not play 2 c4, Black
15 lle3 can still aim for a Chigorin by reply­
White tries to sort out his prob­ ing 2 . . .li'Jc6 !? (indeed, 1 fi'..f3 li'Jc6 2
lems on the d-file, but Black's grip is d4 d5 and 1 d4 fi'..c6 2 li'Jf3 d5 are
too strong. also possible). White can continue to
15.. .%1d7 16 'ife1 llad8 (D) be uncompromising by (temporarily,
at least) holding back the c-pawn,
and perhaps the only way to justify
this is with 3 g3.

3 g3
Game 43
McMahon - Thiel
Badalona 1993

17 lld1
17 .i.e 1 fi'..d4 .
17 �c2 18 fi'..d5 li'Jxd5 19 .i.d3
•..
'iVxd1! 20 �xd1 li'Jxe3 0-1
White's queen will soon be alone
against several black pieces.
3 .ltf4
This illogical development of the
bishop is asking for trouble and de­
serves to be a rarity ! Black can play
3 . . . dxc4, meeting 4 li'Jf3 by 4 . . . li'Jf6
(now the d5-square is all the more in­
viting because the hapless bishop is a
target on f4) and 4 d5 with 4 . . .e5 ! 5
.i.g3 li'Jce7 6 fi'..c3 li'Jg6 7 e4 a6,
when the bishop is poorly placed on
g3.
1 d4 d5 2 li'Jf3 fi'..c6
3 g3
The fianchetto is a logical choice
because Black is most probably go­
ing to develop his light-squared
bishop on f5 or g4 (rather than shut it
in with . . . e7-e6, although Moroze­
vich did just this against Miles - see
below), making the prospect of pris­
ing open the long h l -a8 diagonal
with c2-c4 all the more attractive to
White.
Ironically, Black's most effective
set-up involves castling long, di­
rectly into the line of fire of the g2-
bishop.
3 ••• .i.g4
Even though meeting 3 g3 with
3 ....i.g4 is perfectly natural, it is pos­
sible to adopt another pattern of de­
velopment entirely, namely 3 g6 •••
 3 Others and 1 d4 d5 2 lbf3 lbc6 155
followed by ...�f8-g7, . . . e7-e6, and
...lbg8-e7, etc. I would not have
thought too much about recom­
mending this set-up were it not for
the fact that it has been employed by
none other than Morozevich himself.
Miles-Morozevich, London 1994,
continued 4 �g2 �g7 5 0-0 e6 6 b3
lbge7 (Black does not obstruct the
g7-bishop so that achieving c2-c4
will require a certain amount of
preparation from White) 7 �b2 0-0
8 c4 a5 ! 9 e3 b6 10 'ii'd2 �a6 1 1 1:tc 1
with equality. Interesting, but I still
prefer 3 ... �g4.
4 �g2 'i!Vd7 (D)
Direct. Black justifies the early
development of his queenside forces
by preparing to unbalance the game
- and unsettle his opponent at the
earliest opportunity - by castling
queenside.
5 c4
The game Miles-Geenen, Mos­
cow OL 1 994 saw instead 5 0-0 0-0-0
6 l:t.e1 f6 !?. After 7 c4 dxc4 8 lbc3 e5
9 d5 lbb4 10 �e3 lbe7 1 1 d6 lbf5 1 2
�xa7 'i!Vxd6 1 3 'i!Va4 'iVc6 14 1:ted 1
'i!Vxa4 1 5 l:t.xd8+ �xd8 1 6 lbxa4
�d6 17 �c5 �xeS? ! 1 8 lbxc5 lbd6
1 9 lbd2 �xe2 20 lbxb7+ lbxb7 2 1
�xb7 a draw was agreed. Perhaps
17 b6 is an improvement, when
...
Black has good chances of keeping
his extra pawn.
5 ... e6
s...dxc4 6 d5.
6 0-0
White decided against castling in
Petursson-Fioramonti, Lyons 1 990,
thus saving a tempo which can be
used to get on with a queenside at­
tack. Play went: 6 cxdS exd5 7 lbc3
0-0-0 8 �f4 f6 9 h3 �e6 10 lbb5 ! ?
�b4+ 1 1 �fl �a5 1 2 h4 (White
must not let his bishop be chased
away by . . . g7-g5) 1 2 . . .lbge7 1 3 llc 1
with chances for both sides.
6 0-0-0
7 lbc3 dxc4
8 'i!Va4 �b8!
Black should avoid 8 lbxd4? 9
•..
'i!Vxa7 and 8 �b4? 9 lbe5 !, for
•..
which see the following game, the
miniature Kumaran-Miles.
9 ltdl (D)
White is ready to complete his de­
velopment and win back the pawn
with interest. Black has a clever way
to relieve the pressure through the
156 3 Others and 1 d4 d5 2 0.j3 0.c6

offer of a queen exchange, hanging

on - at least temporarily - to his ex­
tra pawn while doing so.
9.•• i.xf3!
10 i.xf3 0.b4
10 ... 0.xd4? 1 1 l:txd4 ! 'it'xd4 1 2
i.e3 is winning for White.
1 1 'ifxd7
Spassov-Thiel from the same
tournament did not see the queens
come off, since White preferred to
send his queen on a somewhat long­ Threatening simply to round up
winded journey back to base: 11 the d-pawn. White now endeavours
li'a5!? b6 12 'i!Ve5 0.f6 1 3 i.g2 h6 14 to salvage a draw.
'iif4 0.fd5 15 'ili'd2. However, Black 17 dxc5 l:txd1+ 18 0.xd1 l:td8!
stood much better after 15 . . .f5 16 f3 19 0.c3 i.xc5 20 �n i.b4 21 0.a4
0.f6 17 l:tb1 c5 - the queen sally has After 21 �e2 i.xc3 22 bxc3 0.e4
achieved nothing, and White has less Black eyes the c-pawn.
than no compensation for the pawn 21 ... l:td1+ 22 �e2 l:te1+ 23 �d3
deficit. 0.g4 24 a3 0.xf2+ 25 �c2 i.d6 (D)
11 ... l:txd7
Now the d4-pawn does need to
be defended against the threat of w
12 ...0.c2 1 3 l:tb1 0.xd4.
12 e3
This move also vacates the e2-
square so that the bishop can drop
back and attack the c4-pawn.
12 ... 0.f6
Instead of compromising his king
safety with . . . a7-a6 and . . . b7-b5
(after which White's light-squared
bishop dominates), Black is content Of course Black is winning, but
to trade the slight material advan­ can you believe that he will - with a
tage for a more promising positional little help from his opponent - de­
one. liver mate in five moves?
13 i.e2 0.d3! 26 h4 l:te2+ 27 �b3 0.d3 28 'iti>c4
14 i.xd3 cxd3 0.e5+ 29 �b5 a6+ 30 'iti>b6 0.c4
15 l:txd3 c5! (D) mate (0-1)
16 l:td1
Not 16 i.d2?? c4. Here is a wonderful miniature
16 ... i.e7 which illustrates how very careful
 3 Others and 1 d4 d5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 157

Black must be when he faces this Not to be recommended. Thiel's

'quiet' system. Black deviates from move 8 'iti>b8! keeps things under
..•

the previous game on the 8th move, control.

but I will give the entire game be­ 9 lLle5! (D)
cause, apart from starting differently,
it only lasts 15 moves !
B
Game 44
Kumaran - Miles
Dublin Z 1993

1 d4 lLlc6!?
2 lLlf3 .
An obvious question here is why
White does not hit the cheeky knight
with 2 d5. We get almost a mirror­
image Alekhine Defence after 2 . lbe5
. . 9 •.• lLlxe5
3 e4 e6, with a complicated game Others lose a piece.
ahead, which is probably why few 10 'ii'xa7! c6
players are prepared to take up the a) 10...'ii'xd4 1 1 .txb7+ 'it>d7 1 2
challenge. Also possible is a trans­ 1fxd4+.
position to a Chigorin proper with 2 b) 10 lLlc6 1 1 ..Wa8+ lLlb8 12
•..

c4 d5, while 2 . . .e5 is playable. Fi­ ..Wxb7 mate.

nally (apart from Kumaran's choice), 11 .tf4! .td6
White has 2 e4, inviting 2 . . d5 (the
. 12 'ii'a8+ <i;;c7
traditional Nimzowitsch Defence 13 lLlb5+! <i;;b6
move) or 2 . . . e5 ! ? (Miles's prefer­ 13 cxb5 14 ..Wxb7 mate.
•.•

ence). So, no matter how much 14 'ii'a7+ 'iti>xb5

l . . .lLlc6 ! ? may appeal to Chigorin 15 a4+ (D)
players, it actually requires a good
deal more work - in terms of learn­
ing theory - than the traditional, B
more sober l ...d5.
2
••• d5
We now return to our main sub­
ject.
3 g3 .tg4
4 .tg2 'i!Vd7
5 c4 e6
6 0-0 0-0-0
7 lLlc3 dxc4
8 'ii'a4 .tb4?? 1-0
158 3 Others and 1 d4 d5 2 lDj3 lDc6

Unbelievable. My apologies to game, then Black should simply de­

Tony for including this game - velop his pieces with instant equal­
knowing my luck he will beat me ity. Jimenez-Kosten, Oviedo rpd
with 1 d4 lDc6 !? the next time we 1 992, illustrates how Black should
meet! handle his opponent's passivity: 1
lDf3 d5 2 d4 lDc6 3 ..tf4 ..tg4 4
3 i.f4 lDbd2 e6 5 h3 ..th5 6 e3 ..td6 ! 7
..txd6 'ili'xd6 8 ..tb5 lDe7 9 c3 a6 10
Normally after 3 ..tf4 White will ..td3?! e5 ! 11 ..te2 ..txf3 1 2 lDxf3 e4
follow up with c2-c4 sooner or later, 1 3 lDd2 0-0 14 ljjf l lDf5 1 5 ..tg4
transposing to Chapter 1 . If instead lDh4 16 .U.g1 f5 17 ..te2 f4 and Black
White plays a quieter Queen's Pawn had a dangerous initiative.

___ , ·-

: · ,_

.·.....
'·· �-- .
Index of Variations

1 d4 d5 4 ...J..g4
2 c4 tLlc6 5 e4
5 J..g5 96
A: 3 tLlc3 5 d5 93
B: 3 tLlf3 5 'ii'a4 100
C: 3 Others 5 ... J..g4
D: 1 d4 d5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 6 J..e3 e6
6. . .J..xf3 91
7 J..xc4 J..b4
A 8 'fic2
3 tLlc3 8 e5 83
8 ... 0-0
A l : 3 ...tLlf6 8 ...'ife7 83
A2: 3 ...dxc4 9 l:Idl
9 ... 'ii'e7 84
3 ... e5 1 28 9 ... tLle7 88

Al
3 ... tLlf6 B
4 tLlf3 3 tLlf3 J..g4
4 J.. g5 124 3 ... e5 73
4 cxd5 126
4 ... J..g4 B l : 4 tLlc3
4 ... dxc4 82 B2: 4 cxd5
5 cxd5 tLlxd5
6 e4 121 4 J..f4 24
4 e3 15
A2 4 'ii'a4 35
3 ... dxc4
4 tLlf3 Bl
4 e3 Jl6 4 tLlc3 e6
4 d5 tLle5 (4 ... tLla5 1 12): 4 ... J..xf3 30
5 'fid4 104 5 J..f4
5 J.. f4 107 5 e3 15
5 f4 109 5 cxd5 19
4 ... tLlf6 5 J..g5 16
160 Index of Variations

5 .ib4 c
5 ...dxc4 27 3 cxd5
6 e3 24 3 e3 153
6 tbe5 21 3 .if4 154
3 ... 'ii'xd5
B2 4 ffi
4 cxd5 .txn 4 e3 e5 5 ltJc3 .ib4 6 .id2 .ixc3 7
5 gxf3 bxc3:
5 exf3 44 7 .. exd4 132
.

5 dxc6 .ixc6 6 tbc3 e6 (6 ...tbf6 60) 7 .. liJf6 134

.

7 e4 .ib4 8 f3 'it'h4+ (8 f5 69) 9

... 7 'ii'd6 138
...

g3: 4 e5
9 .. 'ii'f6 63
. 5 ltJc3
9 . . 'ii'h5 67
. 5 dxe5 150
5 1Wxd5 5 .ib4
6 e3 e5 6 .id2 141
6 ... e6 56 6 e3 146
7 tbc3 .ib4
8 .id2 D
8 a3 53 1 d4 d5
8 .ixc3 2 tbf3 lLlc6
9 bxc3 3 c4 - see B
9 . exd4 46
.. 3 g3 154
9 ...'ii'd6 51 3 .if4 158
·"=
.0
E
CCl
(.9 The Chigorin is no ordinary defence to the Queen's
,Cil
c Gambit . Black almost contemptuously ignores White's
<ll
<ll
:::! offer, and sets about attacking the centre.
d
c
·;: It has always been an excellent choice at club level , where
0
Ol activity and surprise value are worth their weight in gold.
..c:
u
<ll
..c: Until recently, the Chigorin lacked a firm, systematic theoretical
I-
foundation. Today, a young generation of Russian players, led by

the extraordinary talent Alexander Morozevich, has made the

Chigorin a fully respectable modern opening.

This book provides thorough coverage of all the key lines.

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

Batsford Chess Books, 4 Fitzhardinge Street, London WI H OAH

Angus Dunni ngton i s a yo u n g E n g l is h i nternat i o n a l master who

h a s been playing t h e C h i g o r i n for m o re than a deca d e . H e i s c h ess

co rrespo n d e nt for The Yorkshire Post and an O l y m p i a d tra i n e r.

Oth e r c h ess b o o ks from Batsford i n c l u d e :

Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Pawn Power

G a ry L a n e A n g u s D u n n i ngton

:vian Gambit

1y Kosten

ver i l l ustra t i o n

Anth o n y Lawrence