111

First published 2000 by Everyman Publishers pic, formerly Cadogan Books

pic, Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD

Copyright © 2000 Glenn Flear

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

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
prior permission of the publisher.

British library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

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

ISBN 1 85744 261 X

Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, 6 Business Park

Road, P.O. Box 833, Old Saybrook, Connecticut 06475-0833.
Telephone 1-800-243 0495 (toll free)

All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Gloucester

Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD
tel: 0171 539 7600 fax: 0171 379 4060
email: [email protected]
website: www.everyman.uk.com

To my family

The Everyman Chess Opening Guides were designed and developed by First
Rank Publishing.

EVERYMAN Chess Series (formerly Cadogan Chess)

Chief Advisor: Garry Kasparov
Advisory Panel: Andrew Kinsman and Byron Jacobs

Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton.

Production by Book Production Services.
Printed and bound in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press Ltd., Trowbridge,
Wiltshire.
 CONTENTS |

1 e4 e5 2 ^f3 ^c6 3 ±b5 a6

4 ^,a4 5 0-0 £ixe4

Bibliography
Preface
Introduction

6 d4 b5 7 ±b3 d5 8 dxe5 £e6

Part One: 9 c3 £.c5

1 10 4£>bd2 0-0 11 Ac? £3xf2 12 Sxf2 f6 (Dilwojth Variation) 10

2 10 £sbd2 0-0 11 J.c2 f5 21
3 10 £lbd2 0-0 11 J.c2 J.f5 32
4 Tenth Move Alternatives 46

Part Two: 9 c3 -&e7

5 Main Line with 10 4£>bd2 £lc5 11 Ac2 16

6 10 4?3bd2: Black avoids the Main Line 74
7 White avoids the Main Line 81
8 10 JLe3 96

Part Three: Other Systems

9 9 We2 109
10 9 £lbd2 ( 120
11 White’s Other Ninth Moves 138
12 Odds and Ends 147

Index of Complete Games 117

 bibliography]

Books
Encyclopaedia of Chess Opening Volume C (Sahovski Informator 1997)
C80-81, C82, C83, Victor Korchnoi (Sahovski Informator 1994-5)
The Open Spanish, Mikhail Krasenkov (Cadogan/Everyman 1995)
My 60 Memorable Games, Robert Fischer (Faber 1972)
Euwe, Drazen Marovic (Sahovska Naklada 1978)
Capablanca’s Best Games, Harry Golombek (Batsford 1996)

Periodicals
Informator
New in Chess Yearbook
British Chess Magazine
CHESS Monthly
Various Chess Computer Databases: Fatbase, Fidechess, The Week in Chess etc.
 PREFACE

The Open variation of the Ruy Lopez (or of the Open and by nature a provocative,
Spanish) starts with the moves counter-attacking player. Timman is more of
1 e4 e5 2 £}f3 ©c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 &a4 £sf6 a aggressive tactical player who is attracted to
5 0-0 ©xe4 the more critical lines (and like the other
What is the big attraction of the variation great Dutchman before him, Max Euwe, he
for Black? is happy and willing to play the Open with
In the Open variation (or simply ‘Open’) either colour), whereas Yusupov is a more
of the Ruy Lopez Black aims for active piece cautious positional player.
play and an asymmetric pawn structure Some lines of the Open involve long,
including a queenside majority. The Open is forcing tactical variations; others careful
a logically named variation involving fluid manoeuvring. In the Dilworth variation
piece pi ay and offers a more dynamic Black even takes the gamble of giving up two
struggle than the long-winded manoeuvres of active minor pieces for a modest rook and
the Closed Ruy Lopez. pawn in order to wrest the initiative from
The variation has remained in popular use White’s grasp. Overall in the following pages
since the 19th century and has a remarkable we shall see a rich family of variations with
pedigree. Virtually every World Champion something for everyone.
has played it - and most with both colours! In some opening books, the author tries
A number of great historical matches have to hype their choice of opening by pointing
included important games from this out ‘surprise value’, ‘attacking chances’, ‘easy
variation, including of course the World for the opponent to go wrong’ or whatever.
Championship clashes Alekhine-E uwe, None of these claims hold much water if the
Karpov-Korchnoi and Kasparov-Anand. opening is not fundamentally sound and
Over the last quarter of a century one robust against best play.
associates this opening primarily with A statistical analysis of a large database
Korchnoi, Timman and Yusupov, but in shows that the Open scores an average
recent years Anand has also included this percentage (44%) with an average length of
opening in his repertoire. 38 moves per game. Fair enough, but this is
The Open attracts players of all styles: hardly a persuasive argument! It is more
Korchnoi is a prolific analyst and Dractitioner significant that whereas manv active lines in
Open Buy Lopez

the Ruy Lopez come and go with fashion or some strange ideas are extolled and clear
the latest novelty, the Open remains, year in, improvements for the opponent are
year out, a popular option among the top conveniently ignored. Here I have tried to
players, providing interesting games, active point out the rough with the smooth, the
play and winning chances, while at the same good with the bad and, yes, sometimes even
time being positional^ rock-solid. the ugly. I trust that this book can be used
Although this book is written primarily with confidence by White players in their
from Black’s point of view, I have purposely efforts to obtain something against the
tried to be objective with my analysis, opening. However, at the same time it offers
judgements and recommendations. The a mainstream, sound but dynamic opening
illustrative games have been chosen for their that can stand at the heart of your repertoire
intrinsic worth, not because Black wins every against 1 e4.
one of them!
There is nothing more annoying than Glenn Flear
opening books with ridiculous bias, in which Baillargues, France, January 2000
The core of the Open variation is the tabiya Typical Themes for White
that arises after the eight standard moves Here are a summary of the typical plans (with
1 e4 e5 2 £ic6 3 Ab5 a6 4 &a4 £if6 game references as thematic examples) that
5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5 White commonly adopts. These are often
±e6 combined for added effect.
which forms the starting position of all 1. Push the f-pawn along with its
but one chapter in this book. counterpart on e5 to create a dangerous
attacking force (Game 32).
2. The pawn on e5 stops the black knight
from rett-eating to f6, so pressure on the bi¬
ll? diagonal can cause problems against the
h7-square (Games 24,31, 42, 52 and 59).
3. The knight on e4 is annoying so White
will try to exchange, undermine or at least
push back the beast, either with f2-f3 or
£3bl-d2 (most games!).
4. Create pressure on the d5-square and
along the d-file where Black’s queen is
generally resident (Games 36, 48-49 and
Chapter 9).
Here White has a kingside majority with 5. An early a2-a4 putting pressure on the
an advanced pawn on e5, whereas Black in b5-pawn and opening up the rook’s line of
compensation has a d-pawn and a queenside action (Games 16,25-26 and 47).
majority. Bla^p has a well-placed knight on 6. The advance b2-b4 timing to fix Black’s
e4 but this is prone to attack; by f2-f3 or queenside on rather passive squares (Games
exchange by £>bl-d2. Although White is 4, 37,41, 47-48, 77 and 88).
attacking the d5-pawn twice, it is sufficiently 7. Aiming to occupy the c5- and d4-
well defended. Finally, White has already squares with pieces in order to fix Black’s
managed to remove his king from the centre, majority and limit his scope for counteiplsy.
whereas Black is not yet ready to do so. This often involves the exchange of Black’s
Open Ruy Lopez

dark-squared bishop (Games 4,31 and 36). and 59).

8. With the black light-squared bishop on 7. Supporting the d-pawn with ...Wet7 and
the kingside, advancing the kingside pawns to ...Sd8 (Games 37-38 and 56-58).
harass and weaken the black king’s defences 8. The standard pin ....&g4, slowing down
(Games 14, 37 and 52). White’s kingside expansion and then using
9. Manoeuvring a knight to the useful f5- this bishop as a defender of the black king
square (Games 35 and 37-38). with ....&h5 and ....&.g6 (Games 31-39, 52, 55
10. Disruptive ideas based on e5-e6 either and 69).
to break-up Black’s pawn structure or as part 9. Pushing the a-pawn to harass a white
of tactical play on the kingside (Game 17, 36, knight on b3 and generally gaining space
38 and 57). (Games 29-30 and 68).
11. Allowing Black to capture the pawn 10. Developing quickly, allowing White to
on e5 in order to gain time (Games 18, 23 capture on e4 or d5. This sometimes involves
and 51). gambitting the pawn or perhaps just a
12. Recapturing away from the centre with weakening of the black structure (Games 31
c2xb3 in order to press on the c-file (Games and 48).
61, 78 and 81). 11. Simplifying by exchanging knights on
d2 (Games 40, 42, 58 and 88) or by
Typical Themes for Black eliminating the bishop with ...4£lxb3 (Games
For his part, Black also has several common 41, 61-62, 68,77 and 80-81).
ideas that occur time and again. Likewise, 12. Isolating his own d-pawn with the
Black may use several of these in one game. line-opening ...c7-c5 (Games 44, 46, 50 and
1. Development of the bishop to c5 with 88).
consequent pressure on the a7-gl diagonal, In summary. Black’s pieces can all be
particularly the f2-square (Part One and developed harmoniously, his king can usually
Game 69). castle and he has no permanent weak points.
2. Capturing on f2 with bishop and knight White has a number of interesting options
and following-up with ...f7-f6 (Chapter 1 and but no automatic route to an advantage. For
Game 13). each of White’s thrusts Black has a counter,
3. Supporting the knight with ...f7-f5, so and thus a fascinating struggle begins to take
that if White captures en passant the f-file is shape.
opened for Black and the knight can retreat
to the safe f6-square (Games 7, 24-27, 43, 49 The Structure of this Book
and 59). If White ignores the f-pawn (Games The first two parts of this book deal with the
8-12 and 44) then it can even threaten to standard move 9 c3, to which Black usually
advance to f4. replies 9..JLc5 (Chapters 1-4) or 9..Jte7
4. Pressure on the e5-point, sometimes (Chapters 5-8). However, in recent years 9 c3
just with pieces such as ...£k17 (Games 53- has been replaced by 9 £>bd2 as the most
54) or by simply seeking its exchange with popular move, since the latter reduces Black’s
...f7-f6 (Games 15, 20-21, 23 and 63). options and completely avoids the 9 c3 Ac5
5. Black plays the liberating ...d5-d4, variation. After 9 £>bd2 the most common
opening lines for his pieces (Games 29-30, 37 move is 9...4tlc5, when after 10 c3 Black can
and 70-76). choose between the 10...d4 of Chapter 10 or
6. Black plays for queenside expansion 10...^.e7 of Chapters 5 and 6. I personally
with ...c7-c5 with options of ...b5-b4 or ...d5- feel that 9 £>bd2 is overrated and we shall
d4 creating a passed d-pawn (Games 15, 52 see that Black has several ways of obtaining a
 Introduction

good game. Although 9 WleZ, intending Sdl possibilities for both sides, avoiding the main
with an early c2-c4 pressing down the d-line, line Chapter 11 covers White’s other ninth
is out of fashion, personalty-1 have found this moves and Chapter 12 wraps things up with
the most difficult to meet (see Chapter 9). a look at early deviations from the standard
The final two chapters deal with other move order.
 CHAPTER ONE |
9 c3 ±c5 10 £>bd2 0-0
11 Ac2 £>xf2 12 Sxf2 f6

1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £>c6 3 li>5 a6 4 iLa4 £f6 Black have? Is Black likely to invade on the
5 0-0 £>xe4 6 d4 b5 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe5 seventh or eighth ranks with his major
Jle6 9 c3 &c5 10 £bd2 0-0 11 i.c2 pieces? How well is White’s lung defended?
£lxf2 12 Sxf2 f6 And how effectively has White developed
In this chapter we shall consider the and can his pieces find firm footholds in the
famous Dilworth Variation, named after the centre?
English correspondence player who Yusupov, Mikhalevski and others have
promoted it for so long. The Dilworth leads shown that the Dilworth is a fully viable way
to sharp forcing variations where Black, for a to wrest the initiative and obtain realistic
modest material investment, obtains a winning chances with Black. Over the next
dangerous initiative. In some ways it is six games we will see an instructive batde
similar to the Marshall Attack, though it is between minor pieces looking for central
much less popular and less well regarded. outposts and rooks seeking open lines and
It gpes against one’s gut feeling to give up invasion.
two active minor pieces for an inactive rook
and pawn. However, it is more important to Game 1
concentrate on what remains on die board: Ljubojevic-Yusupov
an exposed white king and Black’s lead in Tilburg 1987
development with open lines for his rooks
after ...f7-f6. 1 e4 e5 2 £*3 £>c6 3 £.b5 a6 4 &a4 £*6
Typically, if the players (especially White) 5 0-0 £>xe4 6d4b5 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe5
avoid a labyrinth of traps we often see £e6 9 c3 iLc5 10 £>bd2 0-0 11 iLc2
simplification to an ending with three minor £lxf2 12 Exf2 f6 13 exf6
pieces against rook, bishop and two pawns. There is little point in avoiding this move,
Here theory has a slight preference for as allowing Black to capture on e5 and
White, but in reality Black’s activity is maintain a passed central pawn is dubious: 13
sufficient to earn good play and it is often the £td4? £ixd4 14 cxd4 &xd4 15 Wh5 g6 16
second player who has the better practical JLxg6 We7, as in LLarsen-Eriksen, Denmark
chances. Key factors in judging resulting 1965, is already winning for Black and 13
positions are: How many extra pawns does £ifl?! &xf2+ 14 &xf2 fxe5 15 &gl e4 16
 9 c3 §Lc5 10 *hbd2 0-0 1 1 ±c2 &xf2 12 1Lxf2 f6

£}g5 Wf6 17 &e3 4le5, as in Ionescu- completing his development, as in Krutnik-

Dihvorth, correspondence 1985, also clearly Klompus, correspondence 1986.
favours the second player. Note how the b) 15 4£*b3!? (a good try for White with
pawn on e4 limits "White’s minor pieces. surprise value) 15...£ie5 (15...g5 16 Wd3 Ef7
For the record, 13 We2 represents White’s and now 17 .&xg5! is a trick that crops up
best alternative to 13 exf6 and offers chances frequently in the Dihvorth) 16 £>c5! (16
for equality. For example, 13...fxe5 14 £>b3 <&g3?l Hae8 and 16 £ibd4? ±g4 17 b4 Eae8
iLxf2+ 15 Wxf2 e4 16 Wei ±g4 17 £tfd4 18 ±d3 Wh4+, as in Weir-Dilworth,
gys 18 £>c5 Wf6 19 A.e3 Bae8 20 Wg3? correspondence 1941, give Black strong
(after Van der Tak’s improvement 20 ±dl! attacking chances) 16...±g4?! (16...£*xf3!? has
White is probably okay) 20...h5 21 ±b3 ^8 been suggested by Velickovic) 17 Wxd5+
22 h3 Wd6 23 Wh4 &g6 24 Wei ic8 25 <&h8 18 We4 g6 (not 18...Wh4+ 19 <&gl
£le2 Axh3!, as in Kluger-Szabo, Hungarian £ixf3+ 20 gxf3 Sae8 21 ±g5!, as in Rey
Championship 1946, when Black was on top. Ardid-Kleczynski, Paris Olympiad 1924,
13...±xf2+ when Black is in trouble) 19 £.g5!!
Experience has shown that delaying this
capture enables White to limit the exposure
of his king: 13...Wxf6?l 14 Wfl! Eae8 15
£>b3 &xf2+ 16 Wxf2 £>e5 17 £>bd4 c5 18
-&g5 and in fact it’s Black’s long that is the
problem, e.g. 18...Wxg5 (or 18...Wf7?? 19
iLxh7+!) 19 ixh7+ &h8 20 £>xg5 Bxf2 21
<&xf2 (21 4tkbce61? also looks good) 21...cxd4
22 cxd4!
14*xf2Wxf6

(My own clear improvement on the

theoretical continuation 19 jth6 £lxf3 20
gxf3 &xf3 21 Wd4 ±dl+ 22 &e3 Wxd4+ 23
cxd4 Axc2 24 ^jrf8 Sxf8 with equality
according to Velickovic) and if 19...Wxg5
then 20 Wxa8.
15...5ae8
A sign that this variation is not particularly
troublesome is that even 15...g5 (I5...^.g4, as
in Babula-Simacek, Czech Republic 1998/89,
15*g1 is best met by 16 and White hits the d5-
Games 2-6 feature 15 ®tfl. There are two square) gives Black a good game: 16 Wei g4
other tries, thq*° st is bad, the second rather 17 Wh4?». ±f5 18 Wxf6 Sxf6 19 ±xf5 Bxf5
good: 20 £}h4 Se5 21 £ib3 was given as unclear by
a) 15 Wfl? g5 16 &gl g4 17 £id4 £>xd4 Korchnoi, but a recent practical test shows
18 Wxf6 £he2+ 19 &f2 Sxf6+ 20 &xe2 Eaf8 that Black is better after 21...Sel+ 22 <&’f2
with a clear advance to Black who is Eae8 23 £if5 (23 ,&f4 looks preferable but
coming into f2 whilst "White is far from doesn’t equalise) 23...S8e2+ 24 &g3 Egl 25
Open Ruy Lopez

J$.f4 Sexg2+ 26 <&h4 Sxal 27 4£ixal SLxb2, *d3 g6 (or even 17..Jkg8) 18 £>b3 if5 19
as in Ginzburg-Pereyra Ardja, Argentine ig5! (undear according to Korchnoi).
Championship 1996. 17 £xf5
The tricky 17 4bg5 is the best try and Korchnoi again concludes that things are
should lead to equal play according to the undear after 17 Jkb3 *d6 18 Wf2 Ad3 19
following analysis by Velickovic 17.. JLf5 18 *g3 *c5+ 20 <&hl (20 *f2 Bel+! was the
Ab3 Sad8 19 £>de4 *g6 20 £>g3 h6 21 end of that in Sibarevic-Rogers, Mendrisio
©xf5 Sxf5 22 *66+ *xe6 23 £lxe6 Se8 24 1987) 20...*h8 21 £>gl b4, when White is
<Sff4 Sel+ 25 <&f2 Sxcl 26 Sxcl Sxf4+ 27 tangled up but does Black have anything
*g3 MS. convincing?
16*f1 17.. .*xf5 18 b3
16 h3, 16 <SA3 and 16 £>fl are all well met Not 18 £>b3? &e5 19 £>bd4 £ixf3+ 20
by 16...£ie5. 5lxf3 *c2 with chronic paralysis of the
16... if 5 white camp in Muller-Cruz Lopez, French
16...ig4 is generally recommended here. I Team Championship 1998.
am happy with Black’s position after 17 h3 18.. .d4!
ixf3 18 £>xf3 (18 *xf3 *d6 19 *dl *g3 In Game 2 the early advance ...d5-d4
and wins, for instance 20 4£ifl Bel 21 proves to be a mistake, but here it creates
*xd5+ <&h8 22 id3 £>e5 23 if4 <Shtd3 - problems for White. There are some
Korchnoi) 18...£te5 19 idl g5 20 *f2 £>d3 differences, as here line-opening for Black
21 *d4 *xd4+ 22 cxd4 Bxf3 23 ixf3 Sel+ can be achieved without giving away airy
24 <&h2 c6! with a dear edge for Black in central outposts. In the next game White was
Ostojic-Karaklaic, Beverwijk 1967. However, able to occupy the centre, had access to e4
I feel uncomfortable with 17 *d3 4£ie5 18 and didn’t have such a weak c3-square.
*xh7+ <&{7. Alternatively, 18...£le5 19 Jta3 Bf6 20
£>xe5 *xe5 21 *d3, as in Kagan-Monin,
correspondence 1973, leaves White with the
better prospects as he has completed his
devdopment and Black only has one pawn
(note that 21...*e3+ 22 *xe3 Sxe3 23 Ac5!
Se2 24 £>f3 Bg6 25 g3 Sf6 26 Sel leaves
White in command).
19 cxd4
Given as a dedsive error by most
commentators who prefer 19 Aa3 dxc3 20
iLxf8 Sxf8 21 ^c4 (not 21 *cl £ld4)
21.. .*c5+ 22 *f2 *xf2+ 23 s£?xf2 bxc4 24
Bel cxb3 25 axb3 (Yusupov), when Black
The books prefer Black because of 19 has an extra pawn in the ending although
*h4 £)xf3+ 20 ©xf3 *xh4 21 £ixh4 Sel+ White has drawing chances.
22 <£f2 Be2+ 23 <&g3 Sxc2 24 <&xg4 Se8 25 19.. .6.d4 20 £ixd4?
if4, as in Pupko-Monin, correspondence This is the real mistake as White is now in
1974, but is this convincing? The black king trouble whereas after 20 Aa3! (my move) his
on f7 is ugly and it wouldn’t surprise me if position looks plsyable. Then 20...4£ie2+ 21
White has some clever resource. “&hl c5 would offer some initiative for Black
An untried alternative is 16...'&h8!? 17 but nothing concrete.
 9 c3 £lc5 lO <&bd2 0-0 11 &c2 &xf2 12 2x72 f

20.. .«c5 21 &b2 on e8 and f8 and there is no need to bla

“Ljubo’ banks on a blockade as 21 *13? open the centre.
fails to 21...Sel+ 22 fcfl *xd4+! 23 ttxd4 Nowadays, most grandmasters general
2fxfl mate! play 15...S3e5 16 Ae3 2ae8 or 15...2ae8 '
21.. .2xf1+ 22 Sxfl Se2 23 2f2 "&gl 53e5 17 Ae3 as in Games 3-6. Bad
On 23 2dl fh$! is awkward. 15.. .g5? in view of 16 *d3 2f7 17 £xg5!,
23.. .5xf2 24 *xf2 Wd5 in Andersson-Poletaev, correspondenc
Three pieces are often the equal of a 1960, when 17..Jfxg5 18 *ch7+ 2>h7
queen, but not here. Black’s extra c-pawn can Axh7+ &xh7 20 43xg5+ wins for White.
be used to dislodge the knight on d4 and the 16 &g1!
queen can invade on d3, c2 or bl. White has An excellent move, simply improving b
no central pawns and thus has serious worst-placed piece. Other moves are
difficulties in finding any solid outposts for found to be lacking:
the pieces. White now blundered but the a) 16 cxd4?! £>xd4 17 £e4 2ad8, as
defence was already problematic. Selke-Roth, correspondence 1986.
25 *e3? b) 16 *13?! g6 17 53g3 £>e5 18 *xd4 <
After 25 <S32f3 then 25...*e4 is a nuisance. 19 *dl 2ad8, as in Terenkov-Lazare
25.. .«e5+ 0-1 correspondence 1985.
Black will follow up by ...c7-c5 winning c) 16 £e4 dxc3 17 bxc3 (17 £xc6 cxb2
material. good for Black) 17...*xc3 and now:
cl) 18 ±e3 2ad8 19 *cl *xcl 20 2xc
Game 2 53e5 favoured Black in Monsalvo-Rot
Short-Popovic correspondence 1977.
Belgrade 1987 c2) 18 -&g5 was is given by Korchnoi .
an improvement, but surely after 18...2ae
1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 <S3c6 3 &b5 a6 4 &a4 53f6 (or even 18...*e5 19 Axc6 *c5+) 19 2c
5 0-0 <&xe4 6 d4 b5 7 -&b3 d5 8 dxe5 *d4+ 20 *xd4 53xd4 21 2xc7 Axa2 Blac
£e6 9 c3 &c5 10 «3bd2 0-0 11 ±c2 has all the chances.
®xf2 12 Sxf2 f6 13 exf6 £xf2+ 14 16.. .53e5
*xf2 *xf6 15 53f1 d4? On 16...dxc3 17 -Sl.g5 *f7 then 18 bxc
neatly tidies up. White is better as his mine
pieces are developed and working wel
whereas Black has only one pawn and n
pressure against the white monarch.
17 cx«14 ©xf3+ 18 gxf3
Inferior is 18 *xf3 due to 18...*cd4+ 1
*e3 Ac4! 20 Ad2 *xb2 (Short).
18.. .2ad8
On 18..JLd5 19 f4! Black has no pawn
and nothing against White’s kingside despit
first appearances.
19£e3 c5
After 19...*xf3 20 *xf3 2xf3 21 Ae-
White has great minor pieces in the ending.
20 *13 g6 21 53d2
Black will win back the pawn on d4 bu
Open Buy Lopez

White’s pieces are ready for action. <&xf2 12 Hxf2 f6 13 exf6 Axf2+ 14
*xf2 Wxf6 15 £>f1
The move order 15 ^gl Bae8 16 £}fl
£*e5 17 Mi transposes to the game.
15.. .£>e5 16 M3
White can also simply unpin a move
earlier with 16 &gl. The idea is that, by
giving up a pawn to exchange queens, the
white minor pieces can be activated in the
ending. However, my impression is that in
practical play it proves to be difficult to tie
down the black rook(s). Play may then
continue 16...£ixf3+ 17 gxf3 Wrxf3 18 Wxf3
Bxf3 19 Ag5! (after 19 Adi Ef7 20 £>g3
Ah3 2lAe2 He8 22 Ad2 c5, as in Morovic-
Popovic later proposed 21...fif7, but 22 Yusupov, Tunis Interzonal 1985, Black is
Af2 cxd4 23 £>e4 WxB 24 Wxf3 Sxf3 25 better due to his active pieces and fluid
£}g5 leaves the black position in ruins. majorities on both wings; the further 23 Afl
Otherwise the exchanges after 21..JLf5 22 Axfl 24 Exfl Hxfl+ 25 <&>xfl <&f7 26 <&f2
£>e4 Axe4 23 *xe4 Bfe8 (23. Jtfxf3 24 dxc5 <&e6 27M3 Sf8+ 28 <&e2 <&d6 29 £>h5 Sf/
Wxe4 25 Axe4 Sfe8 26 Ag5 is hopeless but gave good winning chances for Black)
23.. .cxd4!? is the best try to complicate 19.. .Eaf8 20 <&d2 Ef2 21 Efl Sxfl+ 22
White’s task) 24 Wf4 Wxf4 25 Axf4 Sxd4 26 ?3xfl c5 23 Ae3 d4 24 cxd4 cxd4 25 Axd4
Ae4 leave the two bishops dominating. Axa2 with drawish simplification in Nijboer-
22 We2 cxd4 23 Ah6 d3 Rogers, Netherlands 1987/88.
Or 23..J£fe8 24 5ie4 etc. 16.. .5.e8
24 Ab3+ *h8 25 Wf2 2de8 26 Ae3 The tempting 16...Wh4+?! 17 sfegl £>xf3+
Quicker but complicated is 26 Axf8! Se2 18 gxf3 Sf6 19 Ad4 Wg5+ 20 <&hl Ah3 21
27 M7 Wxb2 28 Sbl We5 29 f4 (Short). £le3 Bf7 22 Wgl, as in Kupreichik-Stoica,
26.. .fid8 27 £ks4 We5 28 Ad2 Sc8 29 Kirovakan 1978, just enables White to
Sel Wh5 30 Wd4+ 1-0 consolidate. Also imprecise is 16...4£ixf3?! 17
Blok’s rooks failed to pressurise gxf3 Ef7 (or 17...C6 18 Ac5 Sf7 19 We2
effectively and White’s minor pieces were Ag4 20 <hd2 a5 21 Sel Ad7 22 We5 Wxe5
able to gradually occupy key central squares. 23 Hxe5 a4 24 ^g3, when with only one
Black’s best results in the Dilworth come pawn and inactive pieces Black is worse) 18
from concentrating pressure on the &g2 Se8 19 f4 Af5 20 Axf5«xf5 21 £>g3
vulnerable f-file, as we shall see in the We6 22 Ad2 c5 23 Wf3 which yields a slight
following games. edge to White according to Velickovic.
Black’s rooks have no invasion squares and
Game 3 White has opportunities to further improve
Kaminski-Chekhov his position.
Lubniewice 1993 17*g1
The main alternative 17 Ac5 can be seen
1 e4 e5 2 £rf3 &c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 M4 &f6 in Games 4-6. Also common is 17 Ad4,
5 0-0 £uce4 6 d4 b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5 when after 17...Wh4+ 18 “&gl £>xf3+ 19
Me 9 c3 Ac5 10 £\bd2 0-0 11 Ac2 gxf3 Wg5+ 20 £>g3 Ah3 21 a4 Ee6 (21...h5?
 9 c3 Ac5 10 thbd2 0-0 1 1 &c2 &xf2 12 B.xf2 ft

22 f4 Exf4 23 Wxh5 leaves White on top) 22 Black has two pawns but White is ready tc
axb5 axb5, as in Enders-Chekhov, Dresden keep the black rooks at bay and control somi
1985, White has probably nothing better than key dark squares.
23 f4 Sxf4 24 4015, ditching the sickly f- 20 Af2
pawn to obtain a reasonable ending (Black, White has also investigated other bishoj
remains active but all White’s pieces are well moves:
placed, so it’s about equal). Fritz instead a) 20 Ad4 Ah3 21 &g3 g6 22 a4 <&f7 2.
suggests the aggressive 23 Ea7 but then axb5 axb5 24 Sdl h5 25 Ad3 h4 with sharj
White’s first rank may become open. play. The game Savon-Serper, Moscow 199C
Another tty is 17...Ag4 18 4£ild2<(but not continued 26 Axb5 hxg3 27Axe8+ &xe8 21
18 Axe5? Sxe5 19 £vfd2 «Tb6+ 20 *fl Bh5 hxg3 Sxg3+ 29 <&h2 Ef3 30 Eel+ follower
as in Jens-Emst, Netherlands 1998, with a by 31 Se3 with a drawn ending.
strong attack for Black) 18...'Brh4+ 19 <&gl b) 20 Adi Ef7 21 Ab3 c6 22 Ad4 (2.
43xf3+ 20 £hcf3 (also possible is 20 gxf3 Ac5 allows Black’s rook to use the e5-squan
Ah3 21 £>fl #g5+ 22 &g3 g6 23 <&hl h5 after 22...Ah3 23 £ie3 Se5; for instance, 2‘
24 Wd3 Se6 25 Egl <&h7 with chances for a4 bxa4 25 Axa4 d4! 26 Axd4 Eg5+ 27 ih
both sides in Apicella-Hardarson, France- c5, and Black held the initiative in Suetin
Iceland 1993, as all the pieces are in play and Mikhalevski, Cappelle la Grande 1999
both kings must watch their step, though 22.. .Ah3 23 £>g3 h5! 24 £>xh5 Se2 25 <&g.
Krasenkov’s 23...Wf4! looks like an Exb2 (Chekhov), when Black’s active piece
improvement in this line) 20...1firh5 21 ttd2 guarantee him the better chances.
(21 Wfl?! allows the enterprising exchange 20.. .AH3 21 £td2
sacrifice 21...Sxf3!?, which, however, only The continuation 21 £>g3 g6 22 Edl (2.
earns half a point 22 gxf3 Axf3 23 Af2 Se2 a4 leads to equality after 22...<M7 23 and)!
24 Adi #g5+ 25 Ag3 We3+ 26 Af2 with a axb5 24 Adi Ed3 25 4£ifl according t<
draw in Griinfeld-Mikhalevski, Israel 1992) Korchnoi) 22...c6 23 Ed2 used to be player
21.. .Axf3 (21...Bxf3?l is well met here by 22 frequently but has disappeared because o
gxf3 Axf3 23 #f4) 22 gxf3 #xf3 23 #d3 23.. .5.f8! 24 Ad3 h5! 25 Afl (not 25 Axg6
Wg4+ 24 S&hl g6 with unclear play in Ertl- in view of 25..h4 26 £>fl <&g7 27 Ah5 S3f5
Widenmann, correspondence 1988. White 25.. .Axfl 26 ‘Sixfl g5 and Black has som<
has two good bishops, but Black has initiative.
adequate activity and material compensation. 21.. .5.6 22 Ad3
17.. .6xf3+ 18 gxf3 #xf3 19 #xf3 Exf3 Exchanging a pair of rooks leads to equa
play after 22 Eel Bxel-f 23 Axel Ee(
(23...h51? is a suggestion of Chekhov’s) 2£
<£f2 Ef6+ 25 <&g3 Be6.
22.. .h5 23 Eel Sxe1+ 24 Axel c5
see following diagram

25 Ah4?'.
This allows Black the time to invade on g2
via a4! Instead Chekhov’s suggestion 25 Ag3
is judged as unclear by most commentators
Typically, the minor pieces can stop anything
nasty happening but are too preoccupied tc
indulge in anything particularly constructive
 9 c3 Ac5 10 &bd2 0-0 1 1 k.c2 foxf2 12 &xf2 f6

18 gxf3 Ef7 19 ©g3 Black is now a little tangled up and this

The fashionable 19 <&g2 is covered in allows White some tactical chances, e.g.
Games 5 and 6, whereas after 19 Ad3 Black 22.. .Ag4? 23 Axh7+ or 22...Ef4 23 Adi Sc4
has 19...Ah3! with good play (ineffective is unpinning, but in unfavourable circum¬
19-.--SSt.g4 due to 20 Ae2) as 20 Ae2? Wg5 21 stances.
53g3 will be killed by 21...d4! - a nice 23 b4
thematic trick; all three captures are hopeless. This move, fixing the queenside, enables
Instead, after 20 4£ig3 h5! 21 Afl (again after White to reinforce his dark-square control in
21 £lxh5? WgS 22 ®g3 then 22...d4! is too the centre.
strong) 21...Ag4 22 Ag2 h4 23 1 h3?! (it’s 23.. .C6
better not to give the g3-square so readily;
Yusupov suggests either 23...'fflrg6 or 23...Ee4
24 Ad4 #g6 with attacking chances) 24 Ahl
Be4, Short-Yusupov, Belgrade 1989, when
White is fine but Black went on to win.
19...£g4 20 <&g1 Wxf3 21 Wxf3

Inaccurate. Instead 24 Ad4! exploits

Black’s problems on the f-file and wins the c-
pawn: 24...Sf4 (or 24...Eff8 25 Af5 Ae4 26
Ad7) 25 Af5 (intending 26 Ad7) 25...Ee7 26
Ac5 Se5 27 Ad7 and so on.
24.. JLe2 25 Eel Ah5
This is considered a mistake by Yusupov Taking the opportunity to release the
who improved in a later game with 21..-Hxf3! white pressure, and now everything holds
22 &g2 h5 23 Ag6 Se6 -24 Axh5 Sxg3+ 25 together.
^xg3 Axh5, Leko-Yusupov, Horgen 1994, 26 5xe8+ Axe8 27 Ae7 Sh6 28 Ag5
though with only slight winning chances for Sd6 29 Ae7 Bh6 30 Ac8?!
Blade Naturally White has a draw with 30 Ag5
White can instead try the exchange of a but he tries for more by going for the a-
pair of rooks with 22 Sfl!? Sxfl+ 23 ^xfl pawn. This is a risky strategy as it leaves the
*f7 24 Ad3 Ee6 25 Ad4 Bh6 26 <&g2 bishop out of play whilst Black’s king walks
Ah3+ 27 S&f2 (Velickovic suggests 27 <&gl boldly onto the centre stage.
intending to play b2-b4, but Black can often 30.. .Af7 31 Ac5 Ae6 32 £xa6 Ad7 33
react with ...a6-a5 followed by ...Ha6 when he Ab7&f7
shouldn’t really be worse) 27...Ad7 28 £>fl Better than 33...Ee6? 34 a4 bxa4 35 b5
a5 29 Ae2 'A-‘A Groszpeter-Gyimesi, which gives dangerous play for White who
Kecskemet 1994; the ending is balanced would then be threatening 36 b6.
22 5f 1 Bf6 34 £le2 &e6 35 £>d4+ sf?e5 36 &b3 *e4

17
Open Ruy Lopt

37 Af2 Ah3 38 £ld4 £)g3 We3 27 ttxh5, as in Kupreichik-Shere-

With c6 about to fall Black decides that shevsky, USSR 1978, White is essentially two
bailing out with a draw is the safest course. pawns up and 27...Ae6 can be met by 28
Perhaps 38...Ad7, intending ...‘&d3, was £>f5! Sxf5 29 #xf5 Axb3 30 axb3.
worth a try. Similar to the text is 19...1i,g5+ 20 “&hl
38...ttg6+ 39 Ag3 Sf6 40 Af2 Hg6+ 41 (20 £>g3 d4 21 cxd4!? Ad5 22 Ab3 Se3, as
Ag3 Hf6 42 Af2 Sg6+ V5-V5 in Gara-Naes, Budapest 1999, which is not
An instructive tussle featuring an bad for Black) 20...d4.
imbalance in material that is typical of 20 Axd4
Dilworth endings. White has to be careful, e.g. 20 Wxd4??
Wxf3+ or 20 cxd4? Ad5 21 £kl2 #g5+ 22
Game 5 <&hl Sxf3! with the point 23 423xf3 Stel+.
Acs-Mikhalevski 20 £lg3!? is untried, when after 20...dxc3!
Budapest 1997 (rather than 20...Ad5?! 21 Wd3 ®xf3 22
Wxf3 Axf3+ 23 “&gl threatening 24 Ab3
1 e4 e5 2 £if3 £sc6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 £if6 and also the simple recapture on d4; White
5 0-0 5lxe4 6 d4 b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5 obtains a clear advantage as here two pieces
Ae6 9 c3 Ac5 10 «3bd2 0-0 11 Ac2 will be stronger than a rook and pawn and
£>xf2 12 Hxf2 f6 13 exf6 Axf2+ 14 after 23...Ad5 24 Axd4 g6 25 a4 etc. Blade
*xf2 ’ffl'xfC 15 £}f1 £ie5 16 Ae3 Sae8 has no entries and must wait while Whitd
17 Ac5 £>xf3 18 gxf3 Sf7 19 *g2 improves his position) 21 Ad4 Wh.4 22 bxc3
the struggle remains far from resolved.
20.. .'B'g5+ 21 *h1
21 53g3 is featured in Game 6.
21 ...Ad5 22 Ab3!?
22 £>d2 Sxf3 23 Wxft is given as undear
by Korchnoi. After 23...Axf3+ 24 £>xf3 #h5
25 Ab3+ *h8 26 Sfl Sf8 27 Adi, for
instance, things are still difficult to judge.
22.. .c5 23 Ae3?!
Dubious, but better than 23 Axc5??
Axb3 24 Wxb3 #xc5 or 23 Af2>? c4.
However, 23 Axd5! is critical, e.g. 23...1Brxd5
24 Af2 Wxf3+ (24...Wc6 25 <&g2) 25 *xf3
Making the king safer and defending the Sxf3 26 Axc5 (26 &g2 Sd3) 26...He2 27
h3-square. Sdl &f7 and Black may have enough
19.. .d4! activity to hold the draw.
Experience suggests that this is the best 23.. .Axb3 24 Axg5 Axdl 25 flxdl Sxf3
approach. Instead 19...Af5 20 Axf5 Wxf5 21
^g3 ®g5, as in Ilincic-Todoro vie,
see following diagram _
Yugoslavia Championship 1990, leaves Simplification has left Black with only one
White with a comfortable edge, while after pawn, but he cannot be held back from e2
19.. .h5 20 Wd3 (20 4^e3 looks too risky after and the rooks then prove to be too hard to
20.. .d4 21 cxd4 #g5+ 22 &f2 Wh4+ 23 <&gl
Ah3) 20...%5+ 21 &hl Af5 22 #xd5 c6 23 26 *g2 Hf5 27 h4
Wxc6 Ad7 24 #g6! #xc5 25 Ab3 See7 26 If 27 Ae3 then 27...Sxfl!

18
 9 c3 &c5 10 <&bd2 0-0 11 ±c2 &xf2 12 S.xf2 f6

27...Se2+ 28 &h3 Sxb2 29 5ie3 Hff2 23 &xf3

Here White’s pawns are split and his On 23 Wxf3 Black wins the queen by
minor pieces have difficulty creating any real 23.. £.d5.
threats. Black’s rooks are dominant. 23.. .6g4+ 24 &g2 £xd1 25 Bxdl

Again White has three pieces for queen

A tactical oversight which simplifies his and pawn (another curious material asym¬
opponent’s task, but his position was pretty metry that we have seen on several occasions
grim in ary case. in the Dilworth). The fight for the inkiatfve is
31...Sfe2! 32 Bxd2 Bxe3+ 33 *f4 Sxe7 important in the tactical play that follows.
34 Sd6 Sf7+ 35 *g4 Sf6 36 2d8+ <&f7 25.. .g6
37 Sc8 c4 38 a4 Sg6+ 39 *f5 Bf6+ 40 Not 25...h5?< due to 26 h4! »ch4 27 Shi
<&g4 Bfl 41 axb5 axb5 42 Bb8 Bbl 43 and 28 Bxh5 with preference for White. Nor
*f5 g6+ 44 *g5 Bg1+ ,45 *f4 h5 46 is 25...Bd8?! satisfactory as 26 Ae3 We7 27
Bb7+ *f6 47 Bb6+ *g7 0-1 •&.xc5! wins a pawn plus use of the d4-square
for the bishop. However, a reasonable
Game 6 alternative to the text is 25...Se2 26 h4 ®g4
Kudrin-Kaidanov (or even 26...Sxf2+) 27 Sd8+ <M7 28 £f5
USA Cb., Chandler 1997 Wxh4 with complications.
26 a4?!
1 e4 e5 2 &f3 &c6 3 £b5 a6 4 &a4 £tf6 26 &fl is less loosening.
5 0-0 £ixe4 6 d4 b5 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe5 26.. .Be2 27 h4 Bxf2+!? 28 <&xf2 'i'xh4
&e6 9 c3 Ac5 10 £lbd2 0-0 11 A.c2 White has rook, bishop and knight for the
®xf2 12 Bxf2 f6 13 exf6 Jkxf2+ 14 queen, but with a couple of pawns and a
*xf2 Wxf6 15 £rf1 &e5 16 &e3 Bae8 marauding queen Black is not worse.
17 &c5 &xf3 18 gxf3 Bf7 19 <&g2 d4! 29 &g2 ®g5
20 iLxd4 Wg&i- 21 &g3 Kaidanov suggests 29...bxa4 30 Sd7 Wg4
21 'fehl was considered in Game 5. 31 Sa7 as a way to play for an advantage for
21...C5 22 &f2 Bxf3! Black. I agree as after 31 ..®c4! Black seems
After 22....&d5?! then either 23 h4! or 23 to be better in a complex struggle.
-&e4 jk.xe4 24 fxe4 Bxe4 25 ,&xc5. 30 axb5 axb5 31 Ae4 We3 'A-'A

19
Summary
The Dihvorth is an excellent gambit-style practical variation. For White the 15 “&gl of Game 1
is less precise than 15 ©fl. After 15 ®fl, 15...d4 (Game 2) looks bad, but the endings
resulting from 15...£le5 16 .SLe3 2ae8 17 “&gl in Game 3 are sound for Black.
The complications of the main line following 17 -&c5 (Games 4-6) are unclear but Black has
no reason to be worried if he remembers the liberating 17...5lxf3 18 gxf3 2f7 19 "&g2 d4.

1 e4 e5 2 £ic6 3 &b5 a6 4 Aa4 £\f6 5 0-0 £we4 6 d4 b5 7 l.b3 d5 8 dxe5 £e6

9 c3 4tc5 10 £lbd2 0-0 11 ±c2 £lxf2

12 2xf2 f6 13 exf6 &xf2+ 14 *xf2 Wxt6 (D) 15 £if1

15 ^gl - Game 1
15.. .6e5
15...d4 - Game 2
16 &e3 Sae8 17 &c5 (D)
17 <&gl - Game 3
17.. .6xf3 18 gxf3 2f7 19 &g2
19 £>g3 - Game 4
19.. .d4 20 &xd4 *g&f (D) 21 £sg3
21<&hl -Game 5
21. ..c5 - Game 6
 CHAPTER TWO |
9 c3 J.c5 10 ^bd^O-O
11 &c2 f 5

1 e4 e5 2 £rf3 £ic6 3 iLb5 a6 4 £a4

5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 b5 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe5 Game 7
&e6 9 c3 &c5 10 ^bd2 0-0 11 &c2 f5 Apicella-Flear
In this chapter Black supports his centrally Clicby 1993
placed knight with the f-pawn rather than
giving up two pieces for a rook with 1 e4 e5 2 £kf3 £kc6 3 &b5 a6 4 £a4 £kf6
11...4hcf2. After 11...6 the knight is 5 0-0 £uce4 6 d4 b5 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe5
temporarily well placed, but can be £e6 9 c3 &c5 10 &bd2 0-0 11 &c2 f5
undermined by a later f2-f3. The struggle in 12 exf6
Games 8-12 revolves around White’s efforts This natural move has been abandoned as
to play this move and Black’s attempts to Black seems to obtain adequate play. The
seek rapid activity, as he is only too aware plan of undermining the knight with f2-f3 is
that his knight’s star role on the pivotal 64- more dangerous, as in Games 8-12.
stage are numbered. 12...£wf6 13 £kb3 &b6
In Game 7 White prefers to capture en
passant and the knight is forced back, but to
a safe square. The opening of the f-file is not
dangerous for Black.
It is more common for White to play 12
£>b3, after which the theory goes very deep
into the middlegame (the lines with queen
and passed pawns against rook and two
bishops for instance are mind-boggling - see
Games 9-10). One prime cause of the lack of
popularity of 11...B is that the forcing lines
have been too well examined, but in try
opinion there is still much that is unresolved.
Some memory work is required to pi ay 14 £sfd4?
these lines, but there is the reward that the A mistake. Better is 14 £3g5! -&g4 15
chapter is full of fascinating tactical ideas. .&xh7+! (Black has nothing to fear after 15
Open Ruy Lopez

Wdi h6 16 h3 hxg5 17 hxg4 &e4) 15...<&h8 Not 22 Sfel?! Sxel+ 23 Sxel d3 as the
and interesting complications have been d-pawn will make White suffer, but possibly
analysed (mainly by Korchnoi) to equality: 22 Ab3!?
a) 16 #d3 £le5 17 #g3 ®xh7 18 £>xh7 22...Wd5 23 b4
(18 #xe5>! #e8! 19 #xe8 Saxe8 gives
excellent play for the pawn) 18...&xh7 19
#xe5 #h4! (in the ending after 19...#e8?! 20
#xe8 Saxe8 21 Ae3 Axe3 22 fxe3 Sxfl-t-
23 Sxfl Sxe3 24 h3 White has the better
minor piece) 20 Ae3 Sae8 21 Wxd5 Ae2 22
Sfel Axe3 23 fxe3 #f2+ 24 <&hl Sxe3 and
Black has a strong attack for the pawn.
b) Another try is 16 Wc2 Wd6 17 Af5
&e5 18 &d4 c5 19 &de6 &e4 20 Axe4
Axe6 21 Axd5 Af5 22 Ae4 #g6, as in
Derenkov-Radchenko, USSR 1963, when
despite the two-pawn deficit Black is okay in
view of 23 Ae3 Sae8 24 fiael Axe4 25 White can grab a pawn with 23 Axc4
#xe4 £>f3+ 26 #xf3 Sxf3 27 «3xf3 with bxc4 24 Wxc7 d3, but Apicella was clearly^
equal chances according to Korchnoi. worried about the potential strength of the d-
14.. .£>xd4 15 cxd4 Wd6 16 1ffd3 pawn.
Black has free piece play and is ready to 23.. .5e5?!
take over the initiative. I should probably have tried 23...Axd3 24
16.. .5.e8 #xd3 #c4 25 #g3 #xb4 26 #xc7 Sff8
After 16...C6! 17 #g3 #d7 18 £ic5 Axc5 when the d-pawn is much the stronger of the
19 dxc5 Af5, as in Lilienthal-Botvinnik, two passed pawns.
USSR (match) 1941, Black will obtain good 24 fifdl h6 25 h4 Axd3 26 Sxd3 Sfe6
knight against bad bishop and has a 27 *h2?
protected passed pawn to boot Simpler was 27 Sadi Sel+ 28 Sxel
17 Wg3'B'd7 18£>c5?! Sxel+ 29 <&h2 Se7 and White is holding his
I prefer the neutral 18 Ad2.
18.. .Axc5 19 dxc5 d4 27.. .5h5 28 f3 WdS 29 Sadi Sxh4t- 30
Here 19...Af5 allows 20 Axf5 #xf5 21 <feg1 Se2 31 a3 ®f6?!
1iffxc7, so perhaps Botvinnik’s 16th move was A poor choice as White has big problems
more precise. after 31. Jiff e7!
20 Ag5 32 fiel fixe1+
Now after 20 Ad2? Black pushes with Not 32...1ifff4 in view of 33 lffxh4!
20.. .d3! 33 Wxel Sf4 34 ®e8+ 3?h7 35 g3 Sf5
20.. .Ac4 21 Axf6! 35...#f7 is best met by 36 #e2! Sf5 37
The lesser evil as 21 Hfdl Se2 and 21 #e4 #d5 38 <&g2! and 35...Sxf3?? loses to
Sfel Sxel+ 22 Sxel d3 are very difficult for 36#e4+Sf5 37g4.
White. 36 We4 We5 37 *g2! *xe4 38 fxe4 fif7
21 ...5xf6 39 Sxd4 <&g6 40 Sd8 4>g5 41 Sa8 'h-'h
21...Axfl? is punished by 22 c6! W7 23 The rook ending is fine for White. Not for
Axd4 Ac4 24 Ac5 and White takes charge. the first time in his career, Apicella has
22 Ad3 escaped!

22
 9 c3 &c5 10 Zhbd2 0-0 1 1 Slc2 f5

Game 8
Nurkic-Flear
Asti 1996

1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £sc6 3 3b5 a6 4 3a4 £if6

5 0-0 £>xe4 6 d4 b5 7 3b3 d5 8 dxe5
3e6 9 c3 3c5 10 £>bd2 0-0 11 3c2 f5
12£>b3 3b6 13£>bd4
Actually 13 &fd4 is more normal but this
comes to the same thing. However, 13 a4
deserves a closer look: I3...'@d7 14 axb5
axb5 15 2xa8 Exa8 16 3.e3 seems to be a
simple and effective way for White to avoid 17...Wh4 18 3d2
lots of theory and obtain a good game, e.g. The continuation 18 1@rd3 Sf5
16.. . b4 (instead 16..JLxe3 17 fxe3 b4 18 (threatening 19...#xh2+0 19 3.xf4 Sxf4 20
£}fd4 bxc3 19 &xe4, as in Suetin- hxg3 #xg3 21 #xh7+ &f7 is the most
Faibisovich, USSR 1975, left White with a analysed variation. The further 22 Sdl (22
big advantage; note that he has use of the c5- #h5+ <&e7 23 1@rg6 is equal according to
square) 17 iLxb6 cxb6 18 £ibd4 ?3xd4 Korchnoi) 22..£h4 23 #d3 c5 24 dxc5
(18...bxc3? 19 3.a4!) 19 cxd4 with a Sah8 25 <&fl Hhl+ 26 &e2 Sxdl 27 3.xdl
comfortable edge for White. Curiously this #xe5+ 28 <&d2 #xb2+ 29 3.c2 Wb4+ 30
analysis by Korchnoi hasn’t been tested in #c3 »f4+- 31 #e3 Sh4 32 g4 Wb4+, as in
practical play. Napolitano-Sapundziev, correspondence
13.. .£sxd4 14 £>xd4 3xd4 1973, is the last word. Despite considerable
The alternatives 14_'We7 15 f3 £lg5 and efforts I cannot find ary improvements on
14.. .#d7 15 f3 £>c5 16 &hl Sae8 17 b4 this excellent correspondence game.
leave Black with few prospects of creating The fact that these complications are well
counterplay. analysed, difficult to remember and offer
15 cxd4 nothing for White are three good reasons
15 Wxd4 is the subject of Games 11 and why nobody plays the line any longer!
12. 18. ..a5!?
15.. .f4 A new idea, stopping the bishop from
Black has little choice; he has to find a coming to b4 and preparing to switch the
solution to the threat of f3 and to seek some rook along the third rank.
freedom for his bishop. Another try 18...ELae8 led to a dramatic
16 f3 <£sg3 conclusion in Geller-Gi.Garda, Bogota 1978:
19 3b4 2f7 20 a4 3x8 (20...3d7, intending
see following diagram
...He6, was suggested by Filip) 21 axb5 Ke6
After 16...£>g5? 17 h4 <2lf7 18 ±xf4 #xh4 22 bxa6>? 1Brxh2+! (rather a sucker punch!).
19 Wd2 (Keres) White’s bishop pair has a Instead, after 22 h3 White rebuffs the attack
free hand. and stands better.
17 Sf2 Alternatively, after 18...£if5 19 3xf5
Taking on g3 is critical, see Games 9 and 3xf5, as in Ajanski-Sapundziev, Gabrovo
10. The text is still, however, rather complex 1969, the position is undear as the opposite-
as the option of h2xg3 still remains. coloured bishops gjve attaching chances for

23
Open Ruy Lopi

Black but the c-file is a source for concern. now missed my chance.
19 Ael Sa6 20 2d2 £d7
No prizes for guessing that I too was
hoping to play ...1Brxh2+!
21 hxg3 fxg3 22 £xg3 ®xg3

Immediately after the game Nurkic

showed me the win, which starts with 45..Ji5!
and now one sample line is 46 a4 4c2 47
Sc7+ 4xb2 48 Sb7+ 4c2 49 Sc7+ 4dl 50
23 Ab3! was correct, when defence of the a5 Sal 51 Sc5 d2 52 4f2 h4 53 4fl Sa4 54'
d-pawn would mean blocking the third rank 4f2 Sf4+ 55 4e3 4el 56 Sd5 Ef6 and
for the rook. After the text, I saw that
grabbing the pawn would give White activity 46 a4 4c2 47 2c7+4xb2 48 2b7+ 4c2
on the f-file but decided that it was worth the 49 2c7+ 4d1 50 a5 2h6 51 a6! 2xa6 52
risk. 2xh7 d2 53 444 2a4+ 54 445 4e2 55
23.. .2xf3! 24 Wxg3 Sxg3 25 fifl 2a8 2h1 2h4 56 2a1 2h5+ 57 4f6 2c5 58
26 2df2 £e6 27 £f5 £xf5 28 2xf5 2g6 g4 dlW V&-J&
29 2f7 c6 30 2c7 2f8 31 2d 2f4 32 Or 58...Bcl when 59 Sa2 holds.
2lxc6 2xc6 33 2xc6 2xd4 34 2c5
Black has no chance of winning the Game 9
ending without activating his king. T seshko vsky-T al
34.. .2d1+ USSR Ch.y Leningrad 1974
Unmspiring is 34...Sb4 35 Sxd5 Sxb2 36
a4 bxa4 37 Sxa5 Sa2 38 e6 *f8 39 Sa7 and, 1 e4 eS 2 £>f3 £tc6 3 &b5 a6 4 &a4 £lf6
since rook and g- and h-pawns versus rook 5 0-0 £ixe4 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5
and g-pawn is totally drawn. Black cannot &e6 9 c3 ±cS 10 £ibd2 0-0 11 ±c2 fS
make progress. 12 £lb3 itb6 13 &bd4 £lxd4 14 <&xd4
35 4h2 447! 36 2xb5 4e6! &xd4 15 cxd4 f4 16 f3 <&g3 17 hxg3
Retying on the d-pawn being faster than We saw what happened if the sacrifice is
the queenside. I’m not sure that Black should refused by 17 Sf2 in Game 8. The capture
realty win but the defence for White is not on g3 leads to long forcing variations that are
easy. still rather unclear after years of research and
37 2xa5 2b1 38 2b5 d4 39 Bb3 4xe5 practical testing.
40 4g3 4e4 41 2b7 d3 42 2e7+ 4d4 17...fxg3 18*d3
43 2d7+ 4e3 44 2e7+ 4d2 45 2xg7 18 Sel?! Wh4 19 ±e3 Hi2+ 20 4fl
After all the hard work and a few risks I ■&h3, as in Liberzon-Estrin, USSR 1940, may

24
 9 c3 Slc5 10 G3bd2 0-0 1 1 &.c2 f5

just about be playable. Then Korchnoi’s 21 23.. .c5 is considered by Korchnoi, who
<&e2 is best, when the king hunt will be fun gives 24 ±c3! d4 25 Sael #f4 26 Se4 #h6
but not necessarily strong enough to win. 27 ita5, intending &c7, with an advantage.
18.. .^.f5 24 &f4 d4
The only good move as after 18...#h4 19 24.. .c5? loses the important d-pawn after
Wxh7+ #xh7 20 -&xh7+ *xh7 21 3.g5 25 ±e6+ <&h8 26 ±xd5 Sd8 27 Sadi c4 28
White picks up the g-pawn. Even worse is ii.xg3 c3 29 Ae5 b4 30 Ab3 Bd2 31 f4
18.. .g6?? due to 19 We3 Wh4 20 Wh6 and (Black is going nowhere whilst White
wins. organises a direct assault on the black king)
19 Wxf5 31.. .h5 32 Sbl Sf2 33 Sfel Wd2 34 Sbdl
Forced as 19 Wd2?? allows a decisive ttb2 35 Sd8+ <&h7 36 ±g8+ <£>g6 37 Sd6+“
combination with 19...Hh4 20 Sel 'Sirh2+ 21 &f5 38 ±e6+ <&g6 39 £d5+ *h7 40 ii.e4+
<&fl -&xc2 22 #xc2 Sxf3+. 41 Ag6 1-0 Smyslov-Reshevsky, USSR-
19.. .5.f5 20 AxfB Wh4 21 ±h3 ’»xd4f USA 1945.
22 &h1 Wxe5 25 Jtxc7
25 Jixg3 is covered in Game 10.
25.. .d3

Black has queen and pawns for rook and

two bishops and intends to get his passed d-
(and sometimes c-) pawn going before 'White
can develop and harmonise his forces. If A mistake! White should pick off the g-
given enough time White has a strong attack pawn before trying to get an attack going. So
on the black king, but note the practical cornea is 26 &xg3 when 26...d2 27 Jie6+
effect of the pawn on g3. White is thus <&h8 28 f4 Sd8 29 Sadi (29 f5 has been
occupied with the defence of his own king suggested by Korchnoi) 29,..Sd3 30 Sf2! (30
and will lose precious time neutralising the Jif2? #f6 31 f5 g5! 32 ,SLb6 g4 gives Black a
pest! dangerous attack) 30...'ih4 31 ii.h2 We4 32
23±d2 Ag4 h5 33 -&xh5 Wel+ 34 Sfl Wh4 35 itf3
23 Sbl was suggested by Suedn but has yielded equal chances in Baturinsky-Estrin,
never been tested. White holds the b-pawn, cprrespondence 1946. Lines that go so deep
but this costs time so 23...C5 24 Ad2 b4! then were ideal for correspondence players in long
makes sense. The inferior 23 f4? We2 24 <&gl cold Russian winters!
g5 25 fxg5 Ef8 left Black with a winning game 26...&h8 27 Sadi Se8 28 &d7
in Kutianin-Estrin, USSR 1944. After 28 Sxd3?, 28...#e2 forks three
23...Wxb2
Open Ruy Lopez

28.. .Be2 29 Axg3 still be some nuances waiting to be found, so

29 Hxd3? leads to mate after 29.. -Bxg2. good luck!
29.. .d2!
The tempting 29...Bxg2? allows a
persistent attack on the queen with 30 Sbl
#xa2 31 Sal We2 32 Sfel etc.
30 f4 h5!
Freeing the back rank and stopping 31
Ag4. The d-pawn has a significant cramping
effect and White can find no release from its
stranglehold.
31 Ac6 *xa2 32 Af3 2e3 33 *h2 *c2
34 Bf2 2d3 35 2e2 2d8 36 2e5
Tal points out that 36 Sdxd2 #xd2 (not
36.. .5.d2? 37 Se8+ &h7 38 Ae4+) 37 fixd2
Sxd2 38 Axh5 b4 39 Ael Sd4 leaves Black
with a winning ending. Here Tiviakov introduces a new idea,
36.. .b4 37 Ah4 2d4 38 AxhB b3 39 where for decades 26 Bael was the only
Af2 2xf4 40 Ag3 2f6 41 Ae2 b2 42 move considered by theory. Then 26...d3 27
2e8+ 4>h7 43 2b8 *e4 0-1 Ae6+! (27 Ae5 «rxa2 28 Ad6 Wb2 29 Ae6+
If 43 Sxb2 Sh6+ 44 <&gl then 44...#d4+ <&h8 30 Ae5 #d2 31 f4 c4 32 f5 led to a
lively struggle in Boleslavsky-Botvinnik,
Sverdlovsk 1943) 27...<&h8 28 Ae5 is
Game 10 probably White’s best (Pelitov-Sapundziev,
Ti viako v-l .Sokolov Primorsko 1970), when Sapundziev proposes
Groningen 1994 the repetition 28...#c2 29 Bel #e2 30 Seel
#c2.
1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £>c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 &f6 26...2e8
5 0-0 £lxe4 6d4b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5 Ivan Sokolov considers 26...Wa3?
Ae6 9 c3 Ac5 10 £>bd2 0-0 11 Ac 2 f5 (intending ...d4-d3) to be too slow because of
12 £>b3 Aa7 13 £rfd4 £lxd4 14 <&xd4 27 Ae6+ &h8 28 f4 and White pushes the f-
Axd4 15 cxd4 f4 16 f3 £>g3 17 hxg3 pawn to open up the black king.
fxg3 18 *d3 Af5 19 *xf5 2xf5 20 27 f4 *62
Axf5 «M4 21 Ah3 *xd4+ 22 4>h1 ®xe5 Now 27...Wa3l? makes more sense as the
23 Ad2 *xb2 24 Af4 d4 25 Axg3 f-pawn doesn’t advance so easily.
28 fiael *h5
see following diagram
Both 28...*xa2 or 28..JM2!? are worth
25.. .C5 consideration.
25...d3 is considered dubious because of 29 Bel! d3
26 Sadi d2 27 Ae6+ 4?f8 28 Axc7 &e7 29 29...g5? is neatly refuted by 30 Sxc5 g4 31
Ad5 Sf8 30 Aa5 b4 31 Ef2 Sf6 32 Be2+ Axd4.
<M8 33 Ac7 Sh6+ 34 Ah2 Wd4 35 Bexd2 30 Bxc5 We2 31 Bgl Bd8
181x4 36 g4 with advantage for White Unfortunately 31...d2?l is strongly met by
(Minev). Such astonishingly long variations 32 Sd5 and if 32...g5? 33 Ac3 g4 then 34
were tested almost to exhaustion in the 1940s Axg4! Instead, Sokolov suggests 31..h6l? 32
to 1970s, but in the computer age there may Sc7 g5 with an undear game.

26
 c3 Slc5 10 *hbd2 0-0 1 1 &C2 f5

39 Hc8+ &d7 40 Sh8 Sxc3 41 Hxh7+

&d6 42 Sh6+ 4>d5 43 Sh5+ *d4 0-1
Naturally 44 Se5 is met by 44..J£e3.
Sokolov’s reintroduction of an almost
forgotten line has unfortunately not inspired
much of a following. The complications are
fascinating, albeit hard to follow at times, but
do promise Black quite reasonable chances.

Game 11
Short-Timman
El Escorial (12th matchgame) 1993

1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 ®c6 3 £b5 a6 4 iLa4

White threatens mate starting with 33 5 0-0 ®xe4 6 d4 b5 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe5
.£te6+. £e6 9 c3 &c5 10 £hd2 0-0 11 ±c2 f5
32.. .sfcf8! 33 ±xg7+ *e8 34 &g4? 12 £tb3 iLb6 13 £>fd4 &xd4 14 <&xd4
A time-trouble error. Tiviakov later ±xd4 15 «xd4
showed the way to keep an advantage: 34 In my opinion, the most challenging
£f6 d2 35 ±xd8 dlW 36 Ah4! (36 Sxdl move.
#xdl+ 37 &h2 *xd8 38 Sd7+ Wxd7 39 15.. .C5 16 Wdl h6
iLxd7 &xd7 should only be drawn) This innovation by Timman may be
36.. .'@dd2 37 Sccl, intending to come to the Black’s best course of action. White has the
e-file. A unique material balance, but the key bishop pair and slightly more options but the
factor is that Black’s king is too open. black position remains robust.
34.. .'»xg4 35 Se1+ We2 36 Sxe2+? 17 f3 «3g5 18 &e3 Sc8 19 Wd2 a5
A losing mistake. Either 36 Sccl &f7 37 Speelman, who analysed the game in
Sxe2 dxe2 38 Sel &xg7 or 36 itc3 1irxel+ Infamator, suggests 19—d4l? 20 cxd4 cxd4 21
37 &xel d2 38 iLxd2 Sxd2 should be Jl(2 (not of course 21 Jlxd4? because of
21.. .Hxc2) as an alternative try.
36.. .dxe2 37 £c3 Sd1+ 38 ^h2 Scl! 20 Sadi *e7 21 itbl <&h8 22 fifel

t have been overlooked by Short has developed his forces to active¬

looking squares, but has yet to threaten the
Open Buy Lopt

black defences.
22.. .5c7 23 iLf2 b4 24 h4 &h7 25 Wd3
g5!? 26 Wa6! Sfc8! 27 Se2
After 27 Wd6 1@rf7 the queen is in danger
of being trapped with ...Hc6.
27.. .2c6 28 *d3
Short judges that taking on a5 is too risky
(28 Wxa5) in view of the reply 28...gxh4 and
the queen is ‘sidelined’, whilst Black has
attacking chances on the g-file.
28.. .gxh4 29 f4 Sg8
Timman later proposed to improve the
position of his knight with 29...£>f8!? 30 Wf3
4lg6 as on g6 it defends the h4-pawn and
eyes f4. Short, in time pressure, misses the more
30 W13 bxc3 31 bxc3 2b6 32 Ac2 5g4 precise 38 J&a4 Se7 39 «U8+ Wf8 40 e6+
33&h2 &g8 41 %d6, tying Black up.
33 Ab3!? in Speelman’s opinion is best 38...*g3+?!
met by 33.. .£>f8!, intending to meet 34 Jbcd5 Speelman regards 38...Sfl! 39 e6 4lf6,
iLxd5 35 Sxd5 with the blockading 35...£ie6, threatening 40...^g4+ 40 g3 f4! 41 g4 <&g8T
when Black has the better minor piece. (not 41...£\xg4+? 42 <&’g2! £3e3+ 43 <&h3
33.. .fib8 Shl+ 44 2h2 fixh2+> 45 *xh2 &g4+ 46
‘Mil!) as unclear.
39 &g1 h3
Speelman suggests that Black could try for
a draw with 39...fixd4 40 cxd4 (40 ifxd4
4lg5) 40...Sc8, angling for ...Bxc2 and
...'@rel-g3+. I think the way to refute Speel¬
man’s idea is 41 #36! to meet an eventual
...#el+with#fl.

An enterprising exchange ‘sac’ to break up

the centre and enhance the power of the
bishops.
34.. .±xd5 35 Wxd5 Sxf4 36 itxc5 Wg7
37 ±d4
White threatens to advance the e-pawn,
exposing the black king and creating
problems on the back rank.
37.. .fie8
37..fflc7 is met by 38 #d6. Sg4 42 e7H #xd6 43 Ab3+ (Speelman).

28
 9 c3 &c5 10 &bd2 0-0 1 1 $Lc2 f5

40...h2+? 12 &b3 &b6 13 £>fd4 £sxd4 14 £>xd4

It was better to exchange into a worse, but Axd4 15 Wxd4 c5 16 Wdl f4
tenable, ending after 40...Bxd4 41 Wxd4
£>g5 (41...#xe5 42 gxh3!) 42 e6+ &g8 43
#f4 #xf4 44 Sxf4 &g7 45 &xf5 hxg2 46
Sa4 53xe6 47 &xg2 (Speelman).
41 *h1 fixd4
After 41..JXxf2? White picks up the queen
after 42 e6+.
42 ^xd4 £>f6
42...1Brxe5 falls short due to 43 Se2!
43 Se2! £>h5
Or43...£>g4 44iLxf5.
44 e6+ Wg7 45 <&xh2 f4?
Losing but 45...18rxd4 46 cxd4 4lf4 47
Se5 Sxe6 48 ixf5 Sxe5 49 dxe5 is pretty This is the main line, but theory suggests
hopeless anyway, as Speelman points out. that Black doesn’t quite equalise.
46±g6! 1-0 17 f3 €3g5
Here downright bad is 17...4t}g3? 18 hxg3
fxg3 19 Vd3 Af5 20 #xf5 Sxf5 21 ±xf5
1firh4 22 Jh3 and Black has a lost position.
Compare with Games 9 and 10 where Black
wins two central pawns.
18 a4
The man alternative is 18 b4 #b6 19
bxc5 Wxc5+ 20 Wd4 'Srxd4+ 21 cxd4, but
this can be met by Suetin’s instructive
manoeuvre 21...jbc8! 22 Ab3 ii.b7 and
23.. .£le6 with a blockade.
Black’s minor pieces both want to be on
e6, and with the text move White aims to
Timman resigned in view of 46...£ig3 47 soften up the queenside before his opponent
±xe8 <S3xe2 48 #xg7+ <&cg7 49 e7 &f6 50 can get organised.
ii.b5 winning the knight and the game. A 18.. .b4!
fascinating combat. An improvement over Haag-Estrin,
The consensus view is that White correspondence 1979, which was much
probably has an edge in this variation, but better for White after 18...bxa4 19 Sxa4 c4
further tests are needed to confirm this. 20 b3 #b6+ 21 &hl Sad8 22 #d4 #xd4 23
cxd4 Ad7 24 Sb4.
Game 12 19 cxb4
Rantanen-Ornstein 19 h4, aiming for a comfortable advantage
Reykjavik 1981 after 19...£tf7 20 Axf4 Wh4 21 Wd2, is met
by 19...£)h3+! 20 gxh3 Wxh4 21 Sf2 ±xh3
1 e4 e5 2 £rf3 £tc6 3 ±b5 a6 4 ±a4 £>f6 22 Sh2 Sae8 23 ®rxd5+ *h8 24 Ad2 Sxe5!
5 0-0 £>xe4 6 d4 b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5 (Averbakh-Szabo, Zurich Candidates 1953)
&e6 9 c3 iLc5 10 £>bd2 0-0 11 ii.c2 f5 with a draw because of 25 Mxe5 Wg3+ 26

29
Open Ruy Lopez

&hl #xf3+ 27 <&gl #g3+. &xc4 Wxc4 24 Sbl

24...&h8?
19.. .cxb4 20 #d4 ±f5 21 Ab3 £ie6 22 Ciric’s suggestion of 24...£ie6! 25 #b3
#xd5 #b6+ 23 <&hl Sad8 (or 23...<&h8!? 24 Efc8 is critical. White has an extra pawn and
a5 #b8 25 #<36! - Sapundiev) 24 a5! #c7 25 therefore the better game, but I spent some
#c4 #xe5 26 &xf4 #xb2 27 Sael, as in time looking at this position some years ago
Nokso Koivisto-Kaunonen, correspondence and concluded that Black’s well-placed pieces
1984. give him excellent drawing chances, for
20 b3! instance 26 Sdl #xb3 27 Sxb3 Sc4 28 3.d2
20 #d4 can be met with 20..JLf5! 21 Sac8 29 ’Ml M7 and it’s hard to find
£xf5 Kxf5 22 Bdl &e6 23 #xd5 #b6+ 24 anything convincing for White.
&hl Sd8 when White has to bail out for 25 Wb3 We2?
equality by 25 #xe6+ #xe6 26 Sxd8+ <M7 25...Eac8 is best but 26 b5 is difficult for
27 ii.d2, as in Varjomaa-Zerpe, Corres¬ Black.
pondence 1979. 26 h4 £>f7 27 Axf4 1-0
20.. .d4 21 bxc4 ±xc4 22 £b3 WdS 23 A collapse by Black at the end.

30
 9 c3 ±c5 10 thbd2 0-0 11 Slc2 f5

Summary
Against 11_f5 "White does best to play 12 £>b3 as capturing en passant (Game 7) liberates
Black’s game.
After 12..Jtb6 13 4ffd4 £3xd4 14 ®xd4 iLxd4 there is a major dichotomy at move fifteen.
The heavily analysed 15 cxd4 (Games 8-10) leads to wild variations but no obvious advantage
to White. Instead I recommend 15 Wxd4 c5 16 Wdl when the bishop pair offers White the
slightly better options and less memory work. In Game 11 Timman’s 16..h6 may not solve all
of Black’s problems but offers him hope for a rich middlegame where he is not without
chances.

1 e4 eS 2 £>f3 £>c6 3 itb5 a6 4 ita4 £>f6 5 0-0 £>xe4 6 d4 b5 7 iLb3 d5 8 dxe5 ite6
9 c3 iLc5 10 £>bd2 0-0 11 &c2 f5

12£>b3
12 exf6 - Game 7
12.. .±b6 13 £>fd4 £ixd4 14 £sxd4 &xd4 (D) 15 cxd4
15Wxd4c5 16#dl
16.. h6 - Game 11
16.. .f4 - Game 12
15.. .f4 16 f3 £>g3 (D) 17 hxg3
17 2f2 - Game 8
17.. .fxg3 18 Wd3 iLf5 19 WxfS Hxf5 20 ±xf5 «h4 21 ±h3 *xd4+ 22 4>h1 Wxe5 23
Ad2 Wxb2 24 Af4 d4 (D) 25 £xc7
25 Axg3-Game 10
25.. .d3 — Game 9

ixmxmm
mjmw

16...*hg3

31
 CHAPTER THREE
J
9 c3 Ac5<10 £ibd2 0-0
11 ±c2 Af5

1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £>c6 3 .S.b5 a6 4 ^a4 £>f6 5 0-0 £>xe4 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5

5 0-0 ®xe4 6 d4 b5 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe5 &e6 9 c3 _fi.c5 10 £>bd2 0-0 11 &c2 Jkf5
&e6 9 c3 &c5 10 £>bd2 0-0 11 &c2 &f5 12£ib3 &xf2+!?
This is the most solid and prudent choice A ‘delayed Dilworth’ popularised by
here and was very popular amongst the Muncy and then Piket. Although considered
wodd’s elite in die early 1980s. Black less effective than the normal Dilworth
supports his knight as in the last chapter, but (Chapter 1), as White can keep the e-file
this time with the bishop, which is no longer closed with 16 e6, it certainly seems playable
tied to the defence of the d5-pawn. By not and has the advantage of surprise-value.
committing his f-pawn. Black takes less The alternatives are 12.. JLg4?! (Game 14)
positional risks than in the previous chapter and the normal 12..JLg6 (Games 15-21).
and retains the important option of a later 13 Sxf2 £>xf2 14 *xf2 £xc2 15 »xc2
...f7-f6 to challenge White’s key e-pawn. For f6 16 e6
his part, White can again aim for f2-f3 to
undermine the knight.
Although White has several ways of
handling the position the critical lines are
dealt with in Games 19-21, where Blade just
about holds his own. The best plan in the
main line is to push the a-pawn to dislodge
the knight from b3 and then create problems
for White with ...a4-a3 (weakening the c3-
square), followed by hitting at the centre with
a timely ...f7-f6.

Game 13
Leko-Piket I In this way, White earns enough time to
Dortmund 1994 I complete his development. Black obtains a
second pawn but lacks the active play for his
1 e4 e5 2 £lf3 £lc6 3 ±b5 a6 4 ±a4 £lf6 rooks assodated with the normal Dilworth.
 9 c3 &.c5 10 &bd2 0-0 1 1 &c2 &f5

The alternatives are as follows: continuation of the main game, though Black
a) 16 Wf5 £ixe5 17 ±e3 Se8 18 Sdl c6 never seems in any danger.
19 iLc5 33c4 was satisfactory for Black in 21 a4
Ljubojevic-Piket, Monaco 1994. If the black queen wants to go to the
b) 16 exf6 is a poor psychological choice. kingside then it’s time to play on the other
Although it is not bad in itself it gives Black wing.
the fun he wants! For example, 16...1Srxf6 17 21...c6 22 b4 Bfe8 23 Wd3 2ad8 24 h3
<&gl £le5 18 Wdl Sae8! 19 Wxd5+ <&h8 20 2e4 25 axb5 axb5 26 Jkd4 2de8 27 2a2
iLd2 lSlxf3+ 21 gxf3 3e2 and Black had Wf5 28 Wc2 h5 29 *g1 g5!
dangerous play in Seirawan-Zak, Lugano
1989.
16.. .Wd6 17 ±e3 Wxe6 18 £tod4
Exchanging off Black’s last minor piece
and thereby limiting any counter-chances.
White got into trouble after 18 33c5 in
Apicella-Murey, Paris 1989, but only because
of later errors: 18...1Sre7 19 Wb3 (19 ±d4
was better according to Korchnoi who gives
the position as equal) 20 Sdl 33e5!
21 %xd5? (a bad error, 21 Sxd5 4?}g4+ 22
<&e2 Sae8 23 Sd3 was still okay) 21...®g4+
22 &e2 Sae8 23 Wxi7+ Sxf7 24 Sd3 Sfe7
and Black was winning. Giving sufficient counterplay to keep
18.. .<£)xd4 19 <Sxd4 White occupied.
The knight recapture is the most logical, 30 Wf2 24e6 Vi-Vi
though 19 &xd4 was successful in the game This variation is not as dangerous as the
Jirovsky-Macharacek, Czech Republic 1998, real Dihvorth, but the rook and two pawns
when after 19...Bfe8 (19...Sae8!P) 20 Bel seem to be sufficient compensation for two
®g4 21 1Brd2 Se4? White won an important minor pieces (if Black isn’t too passive) and
pawn with 22 .&xf6! as the d5-pawn is therefore the line is playable.
hanging. Black would have had a good
position after 21...c6 or 21...Sxel 22 Wxel Game 14
&f7. Karpov-Korchnoi
19.. .We5 Baguio City (14th matchgame) 1978
19.. .1U6?! just loses time: 20 £if5 We5
(20...Wxh2? 21 £ig3 threatens 22 Shi) 21 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 &c6 3 £.b5 a6 4 &a4 £lf6
<&gl Bfe8 22 Sfl We4 23 Wf2 Sad8 24 ±d4 5 0-0 £>xe4 6 d4 b5 7 Jkb3 d5 8 dxe5
and White had a strong attack in Morovic- ■ke6 9 c3 ±c5 10 £>bd2 0-0 11 &c2 ±f5
Murey, Thessaloniki Olympiad 1984. 12£>b3 &g4?!
20£>f3 Nowadays 12..Jkg6 (Games 15-21) has
Maybe White should consider 20 £rf5 become standard.
anyway, even if it doesn’t gain a tempo (see 13 h3!
the previous note). With this move Karpov introduces a
20.. .®h5 convincing plan. However, in earlier games
20.. .18rd6 21 b4 is given as slightly better from the match Karpov had failed to obtain
for White by Morovic, as indeed is the any real advantage out of the opening: 13

33
Open Ruy Lopez

£ixc5 £ixc5 14 Bel d4 (or even 14..JLh5 15 28 h4 Bc6

h3 Be8 16 a.f4 ^e6 17 a.d2 £ic5 18 ±f4
<53e6 19 ±d2 Karpov-Korchnoi, Baguio City
[4th matchgame] 1978, which was agreed
drawn immediately) 15 h3 jLh5 16 cxd4
£xf3 17 Wxf3 £>xd4 18 Wc3 Wd5 19 ±e3
«3xc2 20 Wxc2 ?3d3 21 Bedl Sfd8 22 *xc7
Wxe5 23 *xe5 «3xe5 24 b3 f6, Karpov-
Korchnoi, Baguio City (2nd match garhe)
1978, which was drawn a few moves later.

Black’s bishop was doing a good job to

hold everything together, so by sacrificing the
exchange White eliminates the main barrier.
Now Black is struggling.
29.. .exd5 30 Bxd5 Bce6 31 Jfid4 c6 32
Bc5 Bf8
Keene suggests 32^Sd8 33 <&xf3 Bd5 as
Black’s best chance of holding the game. The
excharge of rooks would avoid White’s plan
13..Jbcf3 14 gxf3 Qndl represents a more of the game.
interesting tty. Black will then obtain two 33 a4!
pawns and an unbalanced position. Winning either the a- or f-pawns and then
14 g4! £g6 15.fi.xe4 activating either the king or rook.
Introducing a forcing sequence that leaves 33.. .bxa4 34 bxa4 g6 35 Bxa5 Bee8 36
White with a safe edge in the ending. Ba7 Bn 37 Ba6 Bc7 38 Jfic5 Bcc8 39
15.. .dxe4 16 £>xc5 exf3 17 ,fi.f4 Wxdl &d6 Ba8 40 Bxc6 Bxa4 41 &xf3 H5 42
18 Haxdl £id8 19 Bd7 &e6 gxh5 gxh5 43 c4 Ba2 44 Bb6 *f7 45 c5
Black exchanges knights and so the Ba4 46 c6 &e6 47 c7 *d7 48 Bb8 Bc8
remaining pair of minor pieces are opposite- 49 *e3 Bxh4 50 e6+! 1-0
coloured bishops. This is often a drawish After 50...sfexe6 then 51 .fi.g3! wins a rook.
factor, but here Blade’s pawn structure is full A game of historic importance. Indeed as
of weak points and the defence is unpleasant. a result of Karpov’s team’s preparation
20 &xe6 fxe6 21 -fi.e3 Bac8 22 Bfdl 12.~a.g4 has been totally replaced by
A later game, Timoschenko-Sideif Zade, 12.~a.g6._
USSR 1979, continued 22 ±c5 Sfe8 23 Bel
h5 when White should play 24 gxh5 iLxh5 Game 15
25 &h2 with continuing pressure. Van der Wiel-Korchnoi
22.. ..£.e4 23 £.c5 Hfe8 24 B7d4 ,fi.d5 25 Wijk aan Zee 1983
b3 a5 26 *h2 Ba8 27 &g3 Ba6?l
Korchnoi foils to anticipate Karpov’s plan. 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £}c6 3 ,fi.b5 a6 4 a.a4 £)f6
Better was 27.. JLc6 or 27...a4. 5 0-0 ®xe4 6 d4 b5 7 Jfib3 d5 8 dxe5

34
 9 c3 AcS 10 &bd2 0-0 1 1 Ac2 Af5

Ae6 9 c3 AcS 10 £tod2 0-0 11 Ac2 &f5 The straightforward 14 axb5 axb5 15
12 £>b3 &g6 Kxa8 Wxa8 16 Wxd5 is not good as
16.. .£ixc3! 17 bxc3 Axc2 18 Wxb5, as in
Tukmakov-Savon, USSR Championship
1969, is a shade better for Black (better
bishop, pawn structure) after 18..JLxf2+ 19
3Sxf2Sb8 20We2±xb3.
14.. .£ixd4
In the game Ivanovic-Todorovic,
Yugoslavia 1990, Black played 14...Wd71
immediately and after 15 Ae3 £la5 16 axb5
axb5 17 <Sih4 ®c4 18 £lxg6 hxg6 19 2xa8
2xa8 20 e6 fxe6 21 Axe4 a draw was agreed.
15 £)xd4 Wd7
Black fell into a standard trap in Timman-
Geller, Moscow 1981: 15...c5? 16 5ic6 when
13 a4 16.. .Wd7 fails to 17 Wxd5 Wxd5 18 £le7+.
Here, as in a number of lines. White’s a2- 16 Ae3 Slc5
a4 push represents a sideline with some bite. The tempting 16...c5 is no good as after 17
Sometimes b5 or a6 become target points £fe2 the knight on e4 is threatened with 18
and the rook on al has an early entry into the f3.
game. The usual 13 £lfd4 is seen in Games 17 a5
18-21, while White’s other main alternatives Since the exchange on b5 doesn’t really
13 ±f4 and 13 £lbd4!? are covered in Games lead anywhere, White derides to gab a
16 and 17 respectively. Early simplification tempo and some space. Now, which is the
lacks bite: 13 4lxc5 £3xc5 14 ^.xg6 hxg6 15 most vulnerable pawn, White’s on a5 or
iLe3 £ie6 16 Wd2 Wd7, Radulov- Black’s on a6>
Suradiradja, Indonesia 1982, and 13 We2 5e8 17.. .6.7 18 f4
14 £tsc5 «3xc5 15 ±xg6 hxg6 16 ±g5 Wd7
17 Sadi £se6 18 Wd2 £>xg5 19 Wxg5 We7,
Ljubojevic-Timman, Hilversum 1987, both
give comfortable equality for Black.
Sharper is 13 e61? f5 (White’s idea is that
13.. .fxe6?! 14 ,&xe4 dxe4 15 4ixc5 exf3 16
£>xe6 gives Black the choice of which pawn
to lose, but 13....&b6 instead looks playable)
14 £>xc5 (14 Jkxe4 fxe4 15 GSxc5 exf3 16 e7
£ixe7 17 £ie6 Wd7 18 £>xf8 2xf8 19 h3
^.e4 gave Blade a strong attack in Losakov-
Ablouhov, correspondence 1987) 14...£>xc5
15 ^.g5 Wd6 16 e7 Sfe8 17 Sel 4le4 18
Ab3 A(7 19 a4, when Korchnoi judges the Black has to avoid the pawn roller, hence
position as undear. This idea requires further his choice of plan.
work as this long-forgotten sideline may 18...&XC2 19 &xc2 f6! 20 exf6 Sxf6 21
prove dangerous for the unwary. &h1 c6
13.. .£.b6 14&bd4 Korchnoi later preferred 21...£le4 22

35
Open Ruy Lopt

^.xa7 Sxa7 23 £sb4 Bd6 24 We2 Sag 25 eliminates the monster bishop.
£ld3 c5 with, in his opinion, equal chances. 37 fxe5 «rxb2
Black starts to get his majority rolling and has
a good knight on e4, but White has the e5-
outpost. However, I have a slight preference
for Black as e5 can be undermined and the
a5- and f4-pawns are potential weaknesses.
22 &d4 Bf7 23 £>b4
Interesting is 23 33e3 aiming for e5 via g4.
23...*d6 24 Wg4 &b3 25 -S.e5 Wd7 26
Wxd7 Sxd7 27 Ba2
A bit awkward but a5 needs some
support. Now White will pick up a pawn but
at a certain cost-
27. ..c5 28 £>xa6 Bc8 29 Bdl d4

A blunder. After 38 Haxb3 cxb3 39 £sc5

Wal 40 £lxb3 Wfxe5 41 a6 We7! (Korchnoi)
the position should be drawn.
38.. .Wxa3 39 a6 Wa5 40 Bf3+
If 40 a7 then Korchnoi analyses 40...£*d2!
(40...Wxa7 41 £>e6+ <&e7 42 Sg7+ <fece6 43
Bxa7 is no longer clear, but probably drawn)
41 a8W+ Wxa8 42 £ixa8 £>fl+ 43 <&h3
£lxg3 with a dear advantage for Black. This
looks winning to me, e.g. 44 £lc7 c3! 45
£le6+ &f7! 46 £id4 £if5! 47 £lc2 <&e6.
40.. .*e7 41 Bg3 £>c5 42 a7
With the knight on a6 and the rook on a2 Winning back the queen but Black still
rather out of touch, the advance of the d- wins the game.
pawn creates danger for White. 42.. .®rxa7 43 Hg7+ <&d8 44 ®>e6+ &xe6
So the a6-pawn proved to be the most 45 Bxa7 c3 46 Ba6 c2 47 Bc6 53d4 48
fragile of the a-file pawns, but that is certainly Sc3 *e7 0-1
not the end of the story! Intending to follow up with ...b5-b4 and
30 Ba3! ...b4-b3 etc.
Van der Wiel rejected 30 cxd4 because of A fascinating game in which Black’s
30.. .cxd4 31 5a3 Scl 32 Sxcl £txcl 33 Sal queenside pawns played a major part.
£lb3 34 Sdl £ixa5 with a comfortable edge
for Black. Now the pot boils over! Game 16
30.. .dxc3! 31 Sxd7 c2 32 h4 clW+ 33 Short-Timman
*h2
At present Black has queen for rook but
_ Tilburg 1988 _
various bits are hanging. 1 e4 e5 2 &f3 5ic6 3 &b5 a6 4 £a4 £>f6
33.. .C4 34 Bxa7 Se8 35 Bxg7+ &f8 36 5 0-0 &xe4 6d4b5 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe5
Bg3 Sxe5 &e6 9 c3 &c5 10 £ibd2 0-0 11 &c2 &f5
In time trouble, Korchnoi sensibly 12 &b3 &g6 13 &f4

36
 9 c3 &c5 10 Qbd2 0-0 1 1 $Lc2 M.f5

White decides to support the advanced e- 22 Wxb3» allows mate by 22...Sal+.

pawn before conducting an active plan. 22.. .Ha1 23 Wxal 53xa1 24 Jkc6 &e4
13.. .£.b6 14 a4 The smoke clears and the further ..~£.xf2+
Here 14 53fd4 should be met by 14...53e7! will leave Black a pawn up. Short manages to
(instead 14...?3xd4 15 cxd4 f6 16 Scl ^te.7 defend precisely by exploiting the absence of
17 £xe4 Axe4 18 £ic5 fxe5 19 iLxe5 Sf7 20 the knight from the centre.
1Hrg4, as in Popovic-Skembris, Bar 1997, 25 c4 53c2 26 £d2!
turned out to be passive for Black). The obvious 26 &xd5 &xd5 27 cxd5
14.. .Wd7 £lb4 28 d6 (or 28 *f 1 &xf2 29 <&xf2 £ixd5)
Black can seriously consider 14...b4 when 28.. .cxd6 29 exd6 <S3d3 30 g3 <&f8 will
15 a5 .&a7 16 £lfd4 VteSl looks satisfactory leave Black with king and three pawns
as 17 £)xc6 Wxc6 18 cxb4?? (on 18 53d4 against king and two on the same side, which
then 18...#b7 holds everything together) is standard win that can be found in all
18.J&xf2! wins. endgame books, so Short delays the knight’s
15 axb5 axb5 16 Bxa8 Hxa8 return temporarily before taking on d5.
Early simplification doesn’t mean peaceful 26.. .£>a3 27 -kxd5 Jkxd5 28 cxd5 £ic4
intentions on Short’s part! He aims to press 29&c3
against the weak points, such as b5, on Black still has slight chances but White has
Black’s queenside but Timman is ready. managed to get his pawn back and should
17 53fd4 b4 now hold the game.
Possibly 17...5M8, intending a quick ...c7- 29.. .6.8 30 g4 &e8 31 H4 g6 32 &g2
c5, was not bad either. &xf2 33 *xf 2 53b6 34 d6 c6
18 £d3 Black can again win a pawn by 34...cxd6
The threat is 19 ±b5 but Black ignores it! 35 exd6 &d7 36 iLb4 53c4 but then White is
This is a sign that he already stands well. in no real danger as this three vs. two is
18.. .bxc3! 19 £b5 £sxf2! 20 Bxf2 drawn if White avoids getting his pawns
fixed on dark squares.
35 <&f3 &d7 36 &d4 53d5 37 h5 &e6 38
*e4 53b4 39 &c3 53d5 40 Jkd4 53b4 41
&c3 53d5 'h-'h

Game 17
Zso.Polgar-Van der Sterren
Wijk aan Zee 1990

1 e4 e5 2 53f3 53c6 3 iLb5 a6 4 &a4 £>f6

5 0-0 53xe4 6 d4 b5 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe5
&e6 9 c3 &cS 10 53bd2 0-0 11 Jkc2 Jkf5
12 53b3±g6 13£ibd4!?
and now... At first sig)it this looks like a case of the
20.. .53xd4! 21 &xd7 wrong knight!? White’s normal plan after 13
True, after 21 53xd4 Wxb5 22 5lxb5 cxb2 53fd4 (see Games 18-21) is to have the
Black is a queen down, but his b-pawn wins option of f2-f3 hitting the black knight which
the game as 23 53c3 Sal is hopeless for may be embarrassed for a retreat square.
White. 13.. .53.d4
21.. .53xb3 22 bxc3 After 13..JLxd4 14 cxd4!? (14 £ixd4
Open Ruy Lopez

transposes to Game 18) could be awkward (it’s no longer check) 24 gxf7+.

for the knight on e4, but only after significant 21 ...f6?
preparation. It would probably be more This fails tactically. He should have tried
fruitful for White to try to seek action on the 21.. .Jbcd4 22 Axd4 iLf5 trying to block the
c-file whilst Black will counter with ...f7-f6 kingside majority’s advance.
and/or a timely ...c7-c5. 22 e6! Hxe6
14 £ixd4 If Black moves the queen then 23 f5 traps
Apicella-Komeev, Paris 1991, took a the unfortunate bishop.
different course: 14 cxd4 ±b6 15 ±e3 Sc8 23 f5!
J6 b4 (Black was ready for counterpity with Van der Sterren was probably expecting
...c7-c5, when the isolated d-pawn would be 23 £>xe6 ^.xe3 24 .&xe4 .&xe4 when Black
compensated by the loose e-pawn and the has good compensation, in the form of his
active disposition of Black’s army) 16..We7 dynamic bishop pair, for the exchange.
17 a3 a5 18 bxa5 iUa5 19 ,&b3 Sfd8 with 23-.fi.xf5
chances for both sides. Even worse is 23...ihcd4? 24 fxe6.
14.. .£b6 15 &e3 24 &xf5 Jkxe3 25 «Sxe3 ®xc3 26 Wg4!
15 £>c6 can be met by 15...We8 16 Wxd5 Precisely pkyed Less good is 26 bxc3
®xf2 or even by 15...£bcf2! immediately. Sxe3 when with three pawns for the piece
15.. .Be8?! there are fair drawing chances.
This turns out simply to lose time, but 26.. .6e4 27 £xe4 dxe4
Black wanted to avoid the well-known
tactical trap 15...c5? 16 &c6 Wd7 17 «?xd5!
More constructive were 15...#e8 16 f4 (or 16
f3 £ld6) 16...f6 or 15..J?d7 which he has to
pity soon anyway.
16 a4 Wd7 17 axb5 axb5 18 Bxa8 Bxa8
19.fi.d3 c6

A nice move on the theme of ‘pin and

28...Sd6 29 Wxd7 Hxd7 30 Bxc6 Bd3

31 Bc3 Hd2 32 Bc2 Hd3 33 He2 1-0

Game 18
Now that the queenside is stabilised J.Polgar-Hellers
Zsofia turns her attention to the other wing. Wijk aan Zee 1990
When White gets the f-pawn going, the
bishop on g6 is badly placed 1 e4 e5 2 ®f3 ®ic6 3 £b5 a6 4 Jka4 £yf6
20 f4! Be8 21 &h1 5 0-0 £ixe4 6 d4 b5 7 ,fi.b3 d5 8 dxe5
Threatening 22 f5 ±xd4 23 fxg6 ±xe3 .fi.e6 9 c3 ,fi.c5 10 £)bd2 0-0 11 &C2 ,fi.f5

38
 9 c3 $Lc5 10 &bd2 0-0 1 1 Slc2 M.f5

12 £>b3 £g6 13 £)fd4 &xd4 14 <Sxd4 18../»b6+?!

The most testing move here is 14 cxd4, A small but significant mistake. In the
when White then has the bishop pair, threats game Black will be obliged to capture on d4
of f2-f3 and play on the c-file and against (or allow the pawn-crippling 20 Wxb6) when
Black’s queenside. In Games 19-21 we shall White is able to put the c-file to good use.
see how Black can defend this position. Therefore Polgar suggests 18..Jirc5+ 19 ^4
14...Wd7 ±h5, when White has compensation for the
Here 14...<&xe5? fails to 15 f4 £k4 16 f5 pawn but no more.
tipping the bishop. 19 Wd4 Wxd4+ 20 cxd4 £h5 21 &f4 c6
22 h3 f6
Blaick secures a retreat for his bishop.
However, White’s pressure against the fragile
black queenside pawns is worth more than
the invested pawn.
23 Bfcl Sfd8 24 axb5

A speculative pawn sacrifice from the

world’s top female player who is typically in
an aggressive mood. Alternatives give Black a
satisfactory game;
a) After 15 £ixc6 1Srxc6 16 &.e3 Hfe8
Black has done well in practical play: 17 f3?
(or 17 f4? «3xc3! Korchnoi©-Karl, Perhaps Hellers should have chosen
Switzerland 1982) 17...£bcc3! Speelman- 24.. .axb51? 25 2xa8 2xa8 26 &xe4 (not 26
Timman, London (6th matchgame) 1989, .&b3 as 26....&e8 holds everything together)
and now after 18 bxc3 Wxc3 19 ±d4 *xc2 26.. .dxe4 27 2xc6 .&f7, when the presence of
20 Wxc2 ±xc2 21 Sfcl ±d3 22 2xc7 White opposite-coloured bishops offers Black good
has some drawing chances. drawing chances.
b) 15 f4 is no longer a feared weapon 25 £b3 JLf7 26 2c7 £sd6 27 jLxd6 Bxd6
since Korchnoi found the best course: 28 2b7
15.. .£lxd4 16 cxd4 f6! 17 ±e3 fxe5 18 fxe5 The threat is 29 2xb5 and unfortunately
2xfl+ 19 Wxfl 2f8 20 We2 We6 21 Sfl for Black 28....&e8 is met by 29 2el with the
2xfl+ lA-'A Leko-Korchnoi, Leon 1994. deadly threat of doubling on the seventh.
15.. .©xe5 28.. .2.d8 29 2a7 H5 30 Blxa6 Bxa6 31
Now that Black’s queen covers f5 this Sxa6 Be8
move is playable. After 31...2c8 White can avoid any
16 f4 <S3c6 17 £>xc6 Wxc6 18 f5 counterplay with 32 2al! and Black is left
Persistent. Black’s queen has been with his static weaknesses: poor pawns and
displaced and this thematic move is on again. an even poorer bishop.

39
Open Ruy Lopez

32 &f2 He4 33 Ba8+ <&h7 34 Hf8 3e7 15£e3

34...±g8? fails elegantly to 35 Sxg8! Hf4+ Alternatively:
36 <&e3! (not 36 &g3 Bxd4 with 37...Sd3+ a) 15 f4 is best met by 15 ..f5!
to come) 36...Se4+ 37 <&d3 *xg8 38 b) 15 .&.d3 soon simplified out to equality
JLxd5+. in Ljubojevic-Tal, Niksic 1983, after 15 ..a4
35 £c2 ±e8 36 Ad3 b4 37 g3 b3 38 h4 16 Axb5 axb3 17 £xc6 Sa6 18 f3 2xc6 19
Black is in zugzwang as there are no ‘pass’ fxe4 bxa2 20 2xa2 ±xe4 21 b3.
moves. c) 15 a4 leads to nothing after 15...£lb4 16
38...£c6 39 Bc8 &b7 40 Bc3 Hd7 41 ±bl bxa4 17 Bxa4 <£lxf2! Hence White’s
Bxb3 Hc7 42 Bc3 1-0 best is the most natural developing move
Polgar points out the reason for her available.
opponent’s early resignation: on 42...Sxc3 43 15.. .a4 16&d2
bxc3 .&c6 44 if3 ig8 White continues 45 The alternative retreat 16 £lcl is covered
iLa6, threatening ^.c8-e6-g8-h7-g6 and the in Games 20 and 21.
h5-pawn falls. Black can only defend the fa- 16.. .a3
pawn by putting his king on h6, which The continuation 16...£le7?! 17 f3 £lxd2
naturally allows White to create a passed d- 18 1Brxd2 c6 19 Sacl of Emst-Conquest,
pawn and win easily. Gausdal 1991, allows White a comfortable
edge. Instead 16...f6!? should be countered by
Game 19 17 f4! fxe5 18 dxe5 «3xd2 19 £xd2 Wd7 20
Karpov-Yusupov &xg6 hxg6 21 Wc2 We6 22 Sacl, as in
USSR Ch.y Moscow 1983 Prandstetter-Haba, Prague 1990, when the
pressure on the c-file leaves White with the
1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £>c6 3 Jkb5 a6 4 iLa4 £>f6 initiative.
5 0-0 &xe4 6d4b5 7 Jkb3 d5 8 dxe5 17 &xe4 axb2 18 Bbl &xe4
&e6 9 c3 £c5 10 «3bd2 0-0 11 £c2 &f5 18...dxe4!? 19 Sxb2 Wd5, as in Comet-
12 £>b3 £.g6 13 £>fd4 &xd4 14 cxd4 Ferret, World Computer Championship,
Jakarta 1996, might be worth a try.
19 Sxb2 Wd7

After this move Black must react quickly

before White completes his development and
plays on the c-file. The awkward move f2-f3 This position was very fashionable in the
is also in the air. early eighties. The pressure on the b- and c-
14...a5 files is enough for White to keep a slight but
Played in order to meet 15 f3 by 15...a4! persistent edge as our main game illustrates.

40
 9 c3 $Lc5 10 lhbd2 0-0 1 1 Ac2 &f5

20 kd3! 38...fxg4 39 *xh4 gxh3 40 f4! We6 41

Better than 20 ±xe4 dxe4 21 2xb5 £lxd4 Wh5 We7+ 42 *xh3 Wf7
22 £c5 Bfd8 which was only equal in
A. Ivanov-Yusupov, USSR Championship,
Frunze 1979.
20.. .kxd3
Not 20...b4? 21 ±b5 Sfb8 22 Sxb4,
which was very difficult for Black in Emst-
Ater, Berlin 1988, as he cannot recapture his
pawn due to 22...2xa2?? 23 ±xcf> Wxc6 24
Bxb8+.
21 Wxd3 Hfb8 22 Bfbl
More direct is 22 f4 aiming for f4-f5 and
e5-e6.
22.. .b4 23 H3
It’s true that 23 a3 bxa3 24 2xb8+ Sxb8 A tricky move to meet but Karpov has
25 2xb8+ £lxb8 26 Wxa3, as in Hiibner- seen everything.
Korchnoi, Chicago 1982, was still better for 43 Bh2!
White, but the extra simplification makes the Indirectly defending the queen and so the
game rather drawish. threat of ...2g3+ is met.
23.. .h6 24 Bel Hb6 25 Wbl Bab8 43...Wd7+ 44 f5 1-0
A later game Popovic-Timman, Sarajevo Karpov makes everything look so smooth!
1984, continued 25...Sa7 26 2c5 £la5 (too It seems that Black doesn’t quite equalise
optimistic) 27 Sxb4 &c4 28 Sb3 2ab7 29 against 16 £Sd2, although most players with
<&h2 c6 30 2a5! and Black was in trouble and the white pieces wouldn’t be able to make
soon lost. anything out of such a small edge.
26 Bc5 £>d8 27 Bcc2 £)c6
Black can only wait and see as 27...£le6 is Game 20
strongly met by 28 f4 etc. Chekhov-Gorelov
28 Wcl B8b7 29 Bc5 £xs7 30 *h2 Beskidy 1992
White can continue to probe on the
queenside and prepare g2-g4, f4-f4 and a 1 e4 e5 2 £if3 £ic6 3 kb5 a6 4 ka4 £>f6
steady advance on the other wing meanwhile 5 0-0 £ixe4 6 d4 b5 7 kb3 d5 8 dxe5
Black remains passive. Yusupov decides to ±e6 9 c3 kc5 10 £>bd2 0-0 11 kc2 ,kf5
play actively, but as so often happens, this 12 £>b3 kg6 13 £ifd4 ^.xd4 14 cxd4 a5
precipitates the end. 15ke3a4 16©c1 a3
30.. .£>f5 31 Bbc2 Hg6 32 Bxc7 Bxc7 33 In order to give Black access to the c3-
Bxc7 Wb5 34 g4 £>h4 35 Bc8+ *h7 36 square.
®d1 17 b3
Stopping the black queen from coming to The alternative 17 bxa3 doesn’t cause too
d3, e2 or fl. many problems: 17...2xa3 18 £ld3 (after 18
36.. .'Wa6 37 Bc2 ±b3 £»c3 19 Wd2 b4 20 «3d3 Jbcd3 21
Karpov holds everything and prepares to Wxd3 Va81, as in Nunn-Marin, Thessaloniki
play .&e3-f4-g3. Olympiad 1988, the knight on c3 gave Black
37.. .f5 38 &g3! an excellent game) 18...£3c3 19 Wcte £la5 20
A neat way of winning a piece. ±b3 £lxa2 21 £ic5 £lxb3 22 £>xb3, as in

41
Open Ruy Lopez

Hickl-Van dcr Sterren, Munich 1990, and jLxe4 dxe4! (20...Axe4 21 dxe5 wasn’t so
now 22...fixb3 (Korchnoi) was equal. easy for Black, who has the worse pawn
17...f6! structure, in Aseev-Komeev, Krumbach
The older 17...£>b4?! 18 A.bl c5 19 dxc5 1991) seems to equalise as White cannot use
4lc6 20 £te2, as in Tseshkovsky-Geller, his kingside majority. After 21 dxe5 Wxdl 22
USSR Championship 1980/81, is given by all Sfxdl Sfd8 23 h3 Af7 24 Sxd8+ ffxd8 25
the books as clearly better for White, but Hcl Sc8 26 Ac5 A.d5 27 <Ml c6 Black had
here Black should have played 20...£ie5 a blockade in Ivanchuk-Timman, Riga 1985.
which is not so clear. 19 Wei!
18©d3 A useful move, hitting b4 and getting
ready to undermine the knight if it ventures
to c3.
19.. .fxe5
If 19...ab8 20 f3 £>c3 21 £lxb4 £>xb4 22
Axg6 &bxa2 23 A.c2 fxe5 24 fif2!
(Chekhov) Black’s knights are horribly
tangled. He also gives 19...'Hre7 20 f4 fxe5 21
dxe5 d4 22 Ad2 as an edge for White, but
the continuation 22...£\c3 23 g4 Af7 24 f5
A.d5 is complicated and Black is not without
counterpity.
Instead 19...£*c3? is refuted by 20 £>xb4!
£lxb4 21 Axg6 £>bxa2 22 A.bl! £>xbl 23
18 exf6 is covered in Game 21, while 18 Sxa2 and White wins a piece.
f3 is met by a promising piece sacrifice 20 4£ixe5 £ixe5 21 dxe5 We7
18.. .fxe5! 19 fxe4 Sxfl+ 20 &xfl? exd4 21 21...d4? fails dismally to 22 Bdl c5 23
A.xd4 dxe4 22 Ae3>? (better is 22 Ac3 Wf8+ JLxd4, as Chekhov points out.
23 ^>el Sd8, although Black has excellent 22 f3 ihc3 23 Axg6 hxg6 24 Ad4 Bf5
compensation for the piece) 22...'8rf6+ 23 25 We3 c5?!
^gl fid8 24 Wg4 Wc3 0-1 Solomon-Van Chekhov instead suggests 25...Se8!? with
der Sterren, Sydney 1991. the plausible continuation 26 Sfel £>b5 27
White can improve with 20 Wxfl exd4 21 Ac5 We6 (27...Wxe5?? 28 Wf2) 28 f4 g5 29
Wxb5 (or 21 Af4 dxe4 22 Wxb5 W(6 and Wd3 c6 30 fxg5 Sxg5 (30..JSxe5? 31 Axb4!)
the two central passed pawns and active 31 Axb4 fixe5 32 Sxe5 Wxe5 33fiel Wd4+
pieces are fully worth the piece - Flear) 34 Wxd4 Hxel+ 35 Axel £lxd4 36 Ad2! (36
21.. .£\a7 22 'Hrxd5+ Wxd5 23 exd5 dxe3 24 &f2? £>xb3! 37 axb3 d4) 36...&f7 37 &f2
•&xg6 hxg6 25 £3d3 £>b5 with equal chances and the bishop is better than the knight but a
according to Nunn. draw is on the cards.
18.. .b4!? 26 £xc5 fixe5 27 &xe7 fixe3 28 £xb4
Unconvincing is 18...Se8?! as 19 D fxe5 d4 29 fif2!
20 £>xe5 <23xe5 21 fxe4 £kl7 22 e5 left White Black doesn’t have enough compensation
with an edge in Aseev-Haba, Germany 1994, for the pawn.
Mien he ■was able to win by using both c- 29.. .fic8
and f-files for his rooks.
see following diagram_
Therefore Black’s best chance may be
18.. .fxe5. The point is that 19 £ixe5 £>xe5 20 30 £xc3?!

42
 9 c3 £lc5 10 &bd2 0-0 1 1 $Lc2 $Lf5

After 30 ±xa3!? £>e2+ 31 &fl Sc2, has developed his rook before retreating the
Blade, just as he does in the double-rook bishop to bl, unlike the text continuation.
ending that follows, obtains too much 20 £b1
counterplay, so 30 Bd2! was more to the
point.

Not surprisingly, given that he has fully

activated his forces, Black has several routes
to full equality. White is not really organised
Eg4 *f7 34 Bf4+ *g8 35 Sg4 *f7 36 enough (as yet) to exploit the weaknesses in
h4 Bcc2 37 Eel Se2! Black’s pawn structure.
Not of course 37...Bxa2 38 Sf4+ 39 20.. .«e7
Se8+ *h7 40 Bff8 Rxg2+ 41 *fl g5 42 h5 Interesting is 20...c5, an untned
and White wins. suggestion, which was analysed by Nunn to a
38 Sxe2 draw following 21 JLxe4 JLxe4 22 dxc5 £>c2
38 Bel is naturally met by 38...Sec2. 23 Bel Axg2 24 <&xg2 Wf3+ 25 *gl £>xe3
38.. .Exe2 39 Ba4 Sxa2 40 &h2 Sal 41 26 fxe3 Wxe3+.
&g3 a2 42 *f4 Hbl 43 Sa7+ *g8 44 Best could be 20...Bae8! 21 £>g3 (after 21
Exa2 Exb3 45 *g5 *h7 46 Ea5 Ec3 Wcl c5! Black has a very active game)
16-'A 21.. .5e6, as in Liberzon-Stean, Beersheva
1982, when Black has equal chances
Game 21 according to theory. Note how active his
Short-Timman pieces are and how easy it is for White to gp
Yerevan Olympiad 1996 astray. The game continued 22 J$.xe4?l
(White should play 22 Wcl £lxg3 23 hxg3
1 e4 e5 2 ®f3 £>c6 3 ±b5 a6 4 &a4 €3f6 ikxbl 24 Wxbl Bc6 25 Scl with equality
5 0-0 £>xe4 6 d4 b5 7 iLb3 d5 8 dxe5 according to Liberzon) 22...dxe4 23 Wd2
£.e6 9 c3 ^.c5 10 £>bd2 0-0 11 ^.c2 £.f5 £>d3 and Black was already better.
12 £>b3 iLg6 13 €3fd4 £xd4 14 cxd4 a5 21 Eel
15£e3 a4 16 €3c1 a3 17 b3 f6 18exf6 White threatens £2-f3. Another Karpov-
18 £ki3 was covered in the previous Korchnoi encounter (6th matchgame,
game. Merano 1981) continued 21 Wei Sfe8 22
18.. .«xf6 19®>e2 £lb4! £>f4 M7, when 23 £ki3 £ixd3 24 ±xd3 is
Less logical seems 19...We7 20 Bel £)b4 given by all the books as a shade better for
21 Abl Bae8, as in Speelman-Timman, White. Then 24...b4! 25 Bel £\c3 is critical as
London (4th matchgame) 1989, since White the knight finds an excellent outpost, so the

43
Open Ruy Lopez

game is not clear at all (Flear). Bf8+ 25 £>f4

21...®>xf2! Forced, as after 25 ^gl We3+ 26 &hl,
Otherwise after 22 f3 Black would be the move 26...£>d3 gives Black a ferocious
denied the central outpost and he will be attack.
pushed back. In this variation Black has to 25.. .5xf4+ 26 *g1 Ke4!
keep going forward or end up with a ‘Swiss Timman rejeaed 26...'Hrf6 because of 27
cheese’ queenside in the ending. Be8+ &f7 28 Bc8 when the c-pawn and
Black’s king are exposed.
27«fd2£>d3! 28 Bfl!?
Trying for more than the draw that Results
from 28 Hxe4 «rXe4 29 Sdl «bcd4t- 30 *hl
&f2+.
28.. .£xd4 29 Hf3 £)f4
Unpinning cleverly as the rook cannot be
taken in view of 30...£>e2+.
30 «Tf2 g5 31 Se3 Ke4 32 Exe4 dxe4
Black has two pawns, which is sufficient
compensation here as his knight cannot be
denied an advanced outpost.
33 We3 &d3 34 fifl »e5 35 *h1 *g7
36 h4 g4 37 g3 h6 'h-'h

44
 9 c3 JLc5 10 &bd2 0-0 1 1 $Lc2 $Lf5

Summary
White has tried various move orders and nuances to obtain something concrete against the
solid ll.._S.f5. The most convincing idea is 12 £>b3 iLg6 13 £rfd4 JLxd4 14 cxd4 a5 15 J$.e3
a4 16 £3d2 of Game 19 where Black seems to be struggling to fully equalise.
Of the earlier deviations, 14 53xd4 (Game 18) looks like a dangerous surprise weapon but
this may be true only under the guidance of Judit Polgar. White has several 13th alternatives
but they dorit give him anything special. At move 12, 12-._S.g4 is best avoided but 12~JLxf2+
is playable, though less aggressive than in Chapter 2.

1 e4 e5 2 £if3 ®c6 3 ±b5 a6 4 £a4 5 0-0 £>xe4 6 d4 b5 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe5 £e6

9 c3 S.C5 10 &bd2 0-0 11 S.c2 S.f5

12 £>b3 S.g6 (D)

12.. .1Lxf2+ - Game 13
12.. _S.g4 - Game 14
13 £)fd4
13 a4 - Game 13
13 $Li4-Game 16
13&bd4 -Game 17
13.. _&xd4 14 cxd4
14 4ixd4 - Game 18
14.. .a5 15 S.e3 a4 (D) 16 <&c1
16 «3d2 - Game 19
16.. .a3 17 b3f6 18 exf6
18 £ki3 - Game 20

■i
18.. .Wxf6 (D) - Game 21

■ m M±m±
m m
i1
12...&g6
i

45
 CHAPTER FOUR] yms
9 c3 Jtc5: Tenth Move
Alternatives 9£M«B

1 e4 e5 2 &f3 £>c6 3 £b5 a6 4 ±a4 &f6

5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 b5 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe5 Game 22
&e6 9 c3 &c5 Gofshtein-Mikhalevski
Sometimes White prefers other moves to Beersheva 1994
10 ®bd2 and these alternatives are covered
in this chapter. The man advantage of I e4 e5 2 £if3 &c6 3,£.b5 a6 4 £a4 £>f6
keeping the knight temporarily on bl is that 5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5
the dark-squared bishop can be developed £e6 9 c3 £c5 10 £f4
rapidly or the white queen can come to d3. A rare move that provokes Black into
Lines with an early We2 can transpose from tricky complications, where he stands well if
9 We2 (see Chapter 9) and those with an he knows what to do. White reinforces the
early J$.e3 to the lines featuring 9 j£.e3 (see e5-pawn and prepares quick development
Chapter 11). and the undermining of the knight on e4 by
To provide a brief overview of the £)fd4 and f2-f3 or £sbd2 and 4<3xe4.
content of this chapter: 10 J$.f4 (Game 22) is Black should meet 10 a4 (a typical idea
tricky but doesn’t offer a theoretical edge; 10 seen in many variations of the Open; White
a4 (notes to Game 22) should be met by immediately creates threats against b5 and
10...b4; Game 23 gives a good model of how d5) with 10...b4! (10...£b8?! is inadvisable as
to handle 10 We2 followed by 11 Ae3; and II axb5 axb5 12 £>bd2 0-0 13 J$.c2 gives
10 WcLS followed by 11 4lbd2 (Games 24- White a better version of lines arising in
26) or 11 :$.e3 (Game 27) are complicated- several other chapters: White has already
Black is okay but some memorisation of long freed his queen’s rook for action on the a-file
lines is necessary. and thus has gained time on some main lines)
The fact that the theoretically strongest 11 £>d4 £ixe5 12 cxb4 ±xd4 (12...ibd>4!? 13
move is 10 4ibd2 should not hill the Open f3 leads to complications which Korchnoi
player into over-confidence if he faces one of judges as unclear after 13...Ac5! 14 ±e3 £>f6
these variations. Early deviations are 15 Wcl «fd6) 13 '@rxd4 #f6 14 ±e3 «3c6 15
sometimes deadly because of their surprise '0rxf6 4£lxf6 16 Scl £>xb4 17 Sxc7 0-0 with
value and readers intending to play 9.. JLc5 equal chances in Wedberg-Castro, Manila
should not skip over this chapter. Olympiad 1992.

46
 9 c3 3Lc5: Tenth Move Alternate

Compare this to 10 £>bd2 0-0 11 a4 when the black king is exposed.

for the same reason ll...b4 is Black’s most Most games have continued 15 Wei, but
logical course. The game Kupreichik- the correct defence has been worked out:
Mikhalchishin, Lvov 1988, continued 12 ±c2 15.. .Wd6! (15...0-0 16 Wg3 «fg5, as in
bxc3!? instead of this 12—&.f5! is better) 13 Metger-T arrasch, Frankfurt 1887, allows
®xe4 dxe4 14 -&xe4 Wxdl 15 Sxdl Bfd8 16 Perenyi’s 17 JLxd5!, when 17.. JLxd5 18 Bf5
Sel cxb2 17 ±xb2 Sab8 18 ±a3 &xa3 19 leaves the black position compromised
Sxa3 ±d5 20 g3 £le7 21 Sc3 c6 22 ±xd5 without even any material compensation) 16
Bxd5 23 Hc4, which turned out to be a little e4 (Mikhalchishin considers 16 Wh4 £>g6 17
better for White thanks to his superior pawn Wf6 We7 18 e4 Wxf6 19 Bxf6 0-0-0 to be
structure. unclear) 16...0-0-0 17 exd5 &xd5 18 £>f5
Despite this instructive counter-example, I We6 19 <S3d4! (not 19 We3? «3xb3 20 axb3
believe that Black should meet a2-a4 on J$.b7 Perenyi-Mikhalchishin, Linz 1988,
moves 9,10 or 11 with ...b4. when Black has consolidated the extra pawn)
10.. .g5! 19.. .Wd6 with a repetition. For those looking
Black does best to allow himself to be for winning prospects Korchnoi suggests
provoked! The text forces the win of the e- 19.. .We8 instead of 19...Wd6.
pawn at the risk of loosening the kingside. 15.. .6.b3 16 sxb3 0-0 17 Wei
However, White thus obtains some tactical White could have considered 17 We2 with
play against a less than fully secure black the point that 17...<£>g6 is then met by 18
king. £lxe6 fxe6 19 Wxg4, so Black would do
11 £e 3 better in that case to play 17...Wd6.
Not 11 &g3? h5! and White is already in 17.. .£)g6! 18 We3
trouble. Mikhalevski points out that Black has the
11.. .^.xe3 12 fxe3 g4 13 «kl4 £sxe5 14 slightly better ending after the exchanges that
<&d2 €lc5!? follow 18 exd5 ibcd5 19 We3! Se8 20 Wh6
Inferior is 14...£txd2?! 15 Wxd2, as in Wh4 21 £sf5 Wxh6 22 ^xh6+ *g7 23 £ixg4
Murey-Flear, Brussels 1992, when after He2 24 Sf2 Sxf2 25 <&>xf2 ±b7.
15.. .Wg5 16 a4 5lc4 White can cause 18.. .Be8! 19£ae1 c5!
problems by playing 17 Wf2! with threats on Forcing White to make a decision about
the a- and f-files. this knight.
20 &xe6
Mikhalevski shows the consequences of
20 £>f5 with some deep analysis: 20..Jbrf5
21 Sxf5 d4 22 Wh6! Se5! 23 Befl! Wf8 24
Wh5 Sae8 25 Wxg4 Wh6! and here he claims
an edge for Black. However, I think that
White is okay after the further 26 Sxe5 Sxe5
27 Wd7 Se7 28 Wc8+ <&g7 29 Sf2.
20.. .Bxe6 21 Wxc5
see following diagram

21 ...d4!
Sacrificing material to wrest the initiative.
The opening duel has been won by Black due
White wants to blast open the centre while to energetic play on his part.

47
Open Ruy Lopez

42.. .*h5! 43 *d5+

On 43 Wxb2 then 43...«rxe4+ 44 &h2
<&>g4 wins comfortably, for instance 45 Wxf6
We2+ 46 *hl »el+ 47 *g2 'Hrxg3+.
43.. .f5 44 Wd8 1tfxe44- 45 &h2
Better is 45 ‘&f2 but after 45...g5! White
can resign anyway.
45.. .b1» 0-1

Game 23
Kamsky-Anand
Las Palmas (6th matchgame) 1995

1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £ic6 3 £.b5 a6 4 &a4 ®>f6

Taking on d4 is fraught with danger: 22 5 0-0 £>xe4 6 d4 b5 7 -&b3 d5 8 dxe5
'0rxd4? fails to 22...Ed6 23 Wf2 Exd2 24 &e6 9 c3
'0rxf7+ &h8 and Black wins, while after 22 In fact, 9 ±e3 ±c5 (I recommend 9...±e7
cxd4?! Hc8 23 Wb4 a5! 24 1^5 Wxd+l- 25 - see Chapter 11) 10 We2 We7 llc3 0-0was
2f2 Sc2 White will be tied up to the defence the actual move order of this game.
of the second rank. 9.. ..6.C5 10 We2 0-0 11 &e3
22.. .Ba7! 23 *xg4!? White embarks upon a plan to exchange
Obtaining f3 for the knight at the cost of Black’s dark-squared bishop and to bring his
the queenside. rook to the d-file or to press against c5. With
23.. .dxc3 24 £>f3 cxb2 25 h4 accurate play Black has little to worry him
Following 25 2f2 (25 Wh5 is not but the position can become simplified too
dangerous after 25...f6) 25...'Hrf6 26 £>g5 quickly and a little dull
Wc3 27 2efl 2ee7 28 Wh5, the cool 11.. .»e7
28.. .'Hrg71 holds everything together, for The simplification ll...iLxe3 12 'Hrxe3
instance 29 2xb2? loses to 29..Ji6. allows White to obtain control of c5 too
25.. .*h8 26 Bdl?! easily and is what he is playing fori This
More consistent was 26 h5 4ie5 27 £>xe5 theme is developed in Game 27 (see 10 Wdl
«U4+ 28 &hl Wxe5 29 2dl 2e8, but Black ±xe3 and lO.-.^dT).
has held the extra pawn and is in control. Instead ll...f6 can be met by the active
26.. .Bd7! 27 £>g5 Bxdl 28 Bxdl ®b6+ pawn sacrifice 12 Sdl &xe3 13 'Hrxe3 fxe5
29 &h1 Se7 30 Bfl Wc6! 31 Wdl f6 32 14 £ibd2, when Korchnoi slightly prefers
#d4 *g8 33 h5 ®c1 34 «d3 Bd7! 35 White. Then the further 14...4tlxd2 15 'Hrxd2
Wxd7 «xf1+ 36 <4>h2 Wf4+ 37 g3 #xg5 Exf3! 16 gxf3 £>e7 might be worth
38 hxg6 hxg6 39 *Td3 investigation.
A chase of the king fails, as Mikhalevski 12 Bdl
points out: 39 'Hrd8+ &g7 40 '0re7+ &h6 41 Or 12 iLxc5 Wxc5 13 £>bd2 ±g4 14
Wf8+ *h5 42 Wh8+ Hi6! 43 Wxf6 *g4+ £ixe4 dxe4 15 ®rxe4 ±xf3 16 HTxB £ixe5 17
44*g2#d2+etc We4 Sad8 18 Sadi £>c4 19 itxc4 bxc4 20
39.. .*g7 40 *g2 «h6 41 «d8 «Tg4! 42 Sfel g6 and the game is drawish, as in
®d2+ Matanovic-Geller, Yugoslavia-USSR 1958.
42 Wxf6 is hopeless after first 42...'Hrxe4+ 12.. .Bad8 13 &xc5
and only then queening the pawn. An earlier game Kuijpers-Ekstrom, Bern

48
1988, continued 13 £>bd2 J$.xe3 14 WxeS £.e6 9 c3 £.c5 10 »d3 0-0 11 £>bd2
^xd2 15 Bxd2 £>a5 16 Sadi £lxb3 17 axb3 Andrei Sokolov’s pet-line. White
c5 and was pretty solid for Black. undermines the knight and intends to use his
13.. .'ffxc5 14&d4«b6! queen actively. The alternative is 11 iLe3 (see
An excellent move, freeing c5 for the Game 27).
knight. Always be ready for f2-f3 in the 11...f5
Open! Too passive is ll...£>xd2?! 12 ±xd2 £>e7
15f3&c5 I6*h1 (or 12...J$.e7 13 ±c2 g6 14 lh6) 13 £ld4
After 16 £3xc6 Anand gives ,16...'Hrxc6 17 «U7 14 &c2 g6 15 b4 ±xd4 16 Ibcd* &c6
£sd2 equal’ but 16...53xb3+ is npuch stronger, 17 Wh4 ©xe5 18 J.h6 f6 19 ±xf8 Sxf8 20
e.g. 17 *hl £lxal 18 £ixd8 Sxd8 19 £>a3 b4 a4 and Black had very little for the exchange
20 cxb4 Wxb4 21 Sxal Bb8 and Black is in Bonch OsmolovskyGhekhover, USSR
much better (Hear). 1956. This is a good illustration of Black’s
16.. .5fe8 17 £»3 ^.c8 18 £sxc6 «Txc6 problems on the kingside dark squares when
19 «3c2 £>xb3 20 axb3 f6 the bishop on c5 has no influence.
However, U...«3xf2 12 2xf2 Axf2+ 13
<&xf2 f6 14 exf6 '@rxf6 is worth a try, as 15
fLxdS?! £>e5 16 ±xe6+ Wxe6 lodes risky for
White.

Black has a clear advantage but Kamsky

keeps his cool and sacrifices the pawn
immediately. He has excellent drawing
chances as Black’s queenside majority is well
blocked by the knight. 12 exf6 £>xf6 13&g5
21 e6! Sxe6 22 Wf2 Wd6 23 b4 Bde8 24 Nowadays 13 a4 is considered more
Kd2 «re7 25 *g1 Ke5 26 &d4 Wd6 27 precise, leading after 13...Sb8 14 axb5 axb5
£tb3 Se3 28 Sadi c6 29 Wg3 We7 30 to similar play as the main game except that
W12 Se5 31 4Sd4 0c7 32 £>b3 Be3 33 White has an extra trump in the form of his
&d4 S3e5 34 £>b3 h6 35 Sfl Se336 control of the a-file - see Games 25 and 26.
&d4 S3e5 37 £>b3 Be3 38 £>d4 'h-'h 13...&e5!
More active than 13..JLf7?! 14 £lxf7 2xf7
Game 24 15 4lf3 when White has threats against d5
Khalifman-Kaidanov and controls the e5-square.
Kuibyshev 1986 14«g3#d6 15£c2
Now that Black has covered the d5-pawn
1 e4 e5 2 £lf3 £ic6 3 £b5 a6 4 ia4 &f6 the bishop switches to a more productive
5 0-0 &xe4 6d4b5 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe5 diagonal Black is better after 15 £>df3
Open Ruy Lopez

53xf3+ 16 43xf3 #xg3 17 hxg3 £3e4, and position. He is only one pawn up, but the
much better after 15 Bel? 33fg4 16 £kle4 white bishop is locked out of play.
dxe4 17 ±xe6+ &h8 18 ±e3 £lxf2! 19 «h4
h6 20 £>xe4 «3xe4 21 '@rxe4 Sae8!, as in
Schelfhout-Euwe, Amsterdam 1942. White is
also ill-advised to take the bishop pair
immediately with 15 £3xe6 because he will
then struggle to complete his development.
This option will later become annoying, so
now Black does best to retreat his bishop.
15.. .£d7 16 £>b3 &b6 17 £>d4 Bae8 18
£.f4
White develops and builds up his threats.
Black cannot leave this pin unchallenged.
18.. .6H5!
A pawn sacrifice which leads to the white
bishop becoming locked out of play on h7. Not 29..JLxe8?? 30 '@rxf4+ '@rxf4 31
19 &xe5 Sxe5 20 £xh7+ &h8 21 «li4 £se6+ 4&€7 32 G3xf4 and White comes out a
96 piece ahead.
The alternative 21...Wi6 is inferior as is 30 &xg&4- *e7
known from an analogous position (see A draw is also on the cards after the
Game 25; note to Black’s 23rd move). alternative line 30...'8rxg6 31 '8rxf4 1Brbl+ 32
22 f4 £xd4+ »fl.
Black could also consider 22...Bxg5 23 31 Wh7+ *f6
#xg5 (23 fxg5!? &xh7 24 Sxf8 Wxf8 25 Sf 1 31...*d8 32 £lf7+ 2xf7 33 Wxf7 gives
Wg7 26 *hl *g8 27 b4 is given by White nothing to fear.
Kaidanov as unclear) 23...'&ch7 24 f5 Sxf5 32 #h6! Sg4+ 33 &h1 «Tf4
25 Sxf5 &xf5 26 g4 WeS which is analogous Not 33...5xg5? 34 ±d3+ <&f7 35 #xg5
to Game 26. and White’s h-pawn gives him the better
23 cxd4 Bef5 chances.
I once played 23...Hxg5? here (the result 34 £h5+ *e7 35 Wg7+ *d6 36 Wg&4
of only half remembering the theory - a little *e7 37 Wg7+ <3?d6 38 *g6+- 'h-'h
knowledge is a dangerous thing..!), but after A great fighting draw.
24 «fxg5 «&xh7 25 f5 Sxf5 26 Hxf5 JlxfS 27 The next two games are similar except
g4 «b4 28 Sdl ±c2 29 «U2 White was that with the a-file open White has slightly
winning in Howell-Flear, Oakham 1994. more options.
24 g3 *g7 25 Eael
Game 25
see following diagram
A .Sokolov-Timman
25.. .6xf4!
Reykjavik 1988
Blade goes for liberation.
26 gxf4 Bxf4 27 Sxf4 Sxf4 28 Be7+ 1 e4 e5 2 £tf3 «3c6 3 £b5 a6 4 €»6
*f8 29 Se8+! 5 0-0 £lxe4 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5
A remarkable tactical reply. Instead 29 £e6 9 c3 iLc5 10 Wd3 0-0 11 ®bd2 f5
«h6+ 4hce7 30 %7+ *d8 31 £>f7+ Sxf7 12 exf6 ®xf6 13 a4 Sb8
32 1Hrxf7 J$.f5 leaves Black with a winning In try opinion 13...J$.f7 is rather passive.

50
 9 c3 £.c5: Tenth Move Alternatives

The game Andrei Sokolov-Yusupov, Tilburg Liosia 1999. This seemingly premature result
1987, continued as follows: 14 £>g5 £>e5 15 is justified after 25...'8rxg6 26 g4 Sxf4 27
Wg3 Wd6 16 £>xf7 &xf7 17 £>f3 Wxgi 18 gxh5 Axd4+ 28 cxd4 Sxfl+ 29 Sxfl Sxfl+
hxg3 c6 19 £ld4 Axd4 20 cxd4, when the 30 ^fl 'Hrd3+ with a perpetual check. More
two bishops offered White the better ambitious was 27...Sxh4!? 28 Sxf8+ WgS 29
chances. Sxg8+ ^xg8, but the ending seems okay for
14 axb5 axb5 15 £>g5 &e5 White after 30 Sa8+ &g7 31 Sd8.
15...1B?d6! is an excellent novelty that was 25 «fxg5 *xh7 26 Sael?
introduced a few years ago by Skembris. A mistake. Timman’s analysis shows that
Then 16 Ac2 g6 17 £\xe6 &g4 18 «fg3 the game is equal after 26 f5! Hxf5 27 Hxf5
lfxe6 19 £>f3 Bbe8 20 Ad2 Ad6 was agreed Axf5 28 g4 We5 29 gxf5 Axd4+ 30 cxd4
drawn in A-Sokolov-Skembris, Bar 1997, but «fxd4+ 31 &hl We4+.
Black is perhaps already better as his pieces 26.. .©g7
are so well placed. Black consolidates and White’s tactical
16 Wg3 *Td6 17 Ac2 Ad7 18 €3b3 Ab6 play is limited. The two pieces will beat the
19 Af4 rook in the long run.
Sokolov’s latest try is 19 4kl4 - see the 27 *h1 &xd4 28 cxd4 Af5 29 Se7 *g8
next game. 30 *h4 Ae4 31 h3 ^d8!
19.. .Bbe8 20 &d4 £lh5 21 Axe5 Sxe5 Preparing ...Bf7. White has to shed a
22 Axh7+ *h8 23 Wh4 g6! pawn to stay on the board.
After 23...#h6 Sokolov has shown how to 32 f5 £xf5 33 Kcl Ae4 34 &g1
obtain the advantage: 24 53df3 See8 25 Sfel 34 Scxc7 is not the sort of move Timman
Bxel+ 26 Sxel £rf6 (26...Sf4 27 g4 g6 28 h3 would allow without having something
Ac5 29 b4 Ad6 30 £se5 Sokolov-Kobese, prepared. In fact, after 34...Sfl+ 35 &h2
Groningen 1997, was even worse; Black is 'Hrd6+ Black comes out a dear piece up, e.g.
lost as he cannot defend all the weak squares 36 %3 Wxg3+ 37 <&xg3 £>f5+ 38 &h2
around his king) 27 Ac2 &g8, as in ®oce7.
A,Sokolov-Timman, Belfort 1988, when 28 34.. .5f7! 35 fixe4 g5!
'@rxh6 gxh6 29 £se6 was best with a clear The point. Black now has a whole piece
extra pawn for White (Sokolov). more.
24 f4 36 «g4 dxe4 37 ®xe4 Kf4 38 WeS
I was once faced with 24 g4?l (a new idea) ®xd4+ 39 *xd4 Sxd4 40 Sxc7 Bb4 41
but I managed to find a way out: 24...Bxg5! *f2 Sxb2+ 42 *f3 Bb4 43 Sb7 *h7 44
25 #xg5 Wf4! 26 Wxf4 -S3xf4 (Black g4 *g6 45 Sb6+ *f7 46 Kh6 £te8 47
abandons the exchange but the bishop is &e3 <Sf6 48 Bh8 *g7 0-1
trapped) 27 Axg6 £lxg6 (if 27_Axg4 then
28 f3! Ah3 29 Ac2 grovels on but Black is Game 26
still better) 28 f3 £lh4 29 h3 Bxf3 30 &h2 A.Sokolov-Sulskis
Sxfl 31 Sxfl ^>g7 32 b4 c5 33 bxc5 Axc5 Geneva 1998
34 ^>g3 VS-VS Solozhenkin-Flear, Chanac
open 1995. 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £>c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 £)f6
24.. JXxg5 5 0-0 &xe4 6d4b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5
In a recent game I borrowed 24..JSef51? Ae6 9 c3 Ac5 10 Wld3 0-0 11 ©bd2 f5
from an analogous position (see Game 24, 12 exf6 &xf6 13 a4 Sb8 14 axb5 axb5
after Black’s 22nd or 23rd move). After 25 15 «3g5 theS 16 ®g3 Wd6 17 Ac2 Ad7
Axg6 a draw was agreed in Sax-Flear, Ano 18 £>b3 Ab6 19 £>d4

51
Open Ruy Lopez

of 26...Sxf3! 27 gxf3 iLxf3 mate.

26 Ba3
The line 26 &b3 Sxf3 27 &xd5+ HP 28
Sa7 Ah5 29 Hd7 gives Black somewhat the
better chances as he -will eventually have two
pieces for rook and pawn.
26.. .11.xf3 27 gxf3 £ucd4 28 £b1
After 28 &b3 £ixb3 29 Hxb3 Sfc8 30
Sdl Sc2 31 Bxd5 Se8 32 <3?g2 See2 33
Hbxb5 jlxf2+ 34 &g3 White has good
drawing chances as the ending of rook plus
g- and h-pawns against rook and f-pawn
shouldn’t be winning.
28.. .5.f3 29 Hxf3 £>xf3 30 &a2 *f8 31
£xd5 &e5 32 Bel
Black has a clear extra pawn but White’s
activity should be sufficient to hold the game.
32.. .b4 33 f4 <$3d3 34 Sc7 Hb5 35 Bf7+
£sde6! (Sulskis). 35 Ac4 is naturally met by 35.. JSc5.
20 &f4 i.xd4! 35.. .6.8 36 ib3 2c5
An important intermezzo. Instead 36.. .41cl gets nowhere after 37 Ae6.
20.. .4£ih5? loses a pawn after 21 jfe.xe5 ®xg3 37 *g2 g5 38 Ef6 &xf4t- 39 *f3 £ld3
22 3Lxd6 &xfl 23 ±xf8 hxg5 24 Ae7. 40 2xd6 &xb2 41 *g4?!
21 cxd4 <£sh5 22 £.xe5?! 41 <&e4! leaves the knight looking rather
Sulskis prefers 22 dxe5 £ixg3 23 exd6 offside. White should win back one pawn,
®e2+ 24 4?hl £lxf4 25 dxc7 Sb7 26 £rf3 for instance 41...4^:4 (or 41...h5 42 Hb6) 42
Sxc7 27 Ab3 with chances for both sides Se6+ <&d7 43 <&d4 Sc7 44 Sxh6 and a draw
after 27.. JLf5. is not far away.
22.. .£>xg3 23 &xd6 £ie2+! 41 ...2c3 42 Jha2 Sa3
Now that this check is available, Black 42.. .b3 43 ±xb3 Hxb3 44 2xh6 Sb5 45
takes the initiative. Sg6 draws easily for White.
24 *H1 cxd6 25 £lf3 &g4 43 &b1 2a 1 44 £g6t-?
Sulskis suggests 44 i.f5 ®c4 45 Sxh6
£leS+ 46 &h5!
44.. .*e7 45 2b6 Shi 46 ±h5?! £>d3 47
*g3 Bel 48 2xh6 b3 49 ig6 2g1+ 50
*f3 £>e5f 51 *f2 &g4+!
A surprise but now Black has enougjh to
win.
52 *xg1 £lxh6 53 *g2 *f6 54 £d3
*e5 55 *f3 *d4 56 £b1 *c3 57 h3
*d2 58 *e4 *c1 59 id3 b2 60 *e5
£>f7+ 61 *d5
61 <4>f6 is too slow: 61...£kl6 62 &xg5
®b5 63 h4 £ia3 64 h5 ®c2 65 &xc2 4?xc2
White had probably overlooked the threat 66 h6 blW and wins.

52
 9 c3 &.c5: Tenth Move Alternatives

61 ...£>d8 62 £h7 £lb7 63 *d4 &e5 64 queen is a nuisance.

*c3 £ic6 65 £f5 £ws5 66 £h7 £>f3 0-1 The immediate ll...ibce3 seems to fall in
Black picks off the h-pawn. with White’s plan: 12 Wxe3 ®e7 13 Sdl h6
Sokolov has made the plan of 10 WcD and 14 ®bd2 &f5 15 a4 c6 16 &d4 &g6 17
11 $3bd2 into a useful weapon. Black has a ®xe4 ilxe4, as in Short-Yusupov, Linares
satisfactory game, but only if he can find his 1990, and now Yusupov prefers White after
way through the complications. the simple 18 &c2.
12 exf6 lfxf6 13 ©bd2
Game 27 Nobody ever plays 13 -&xd5 any more as
Kamsky-Anand it is well met by 13.~Sad8 when 14 Axe6+
Las Palmas (4th matchgame) 1995 (14 -&xc5?! is worse due to 14...4bcc5 15
Axe6+ Wxe6 16 We3 Wxe3 17 fxe3 ®d3
1 e4 e5 2 £rf3 £>c6 3 &b5 a6 4 ia4 £>f6 and Black wins back the pawn under
5 0-0 £ixe4 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5 favourable circumstances) 14...Wxe6 15 We2
&e6 9 c3 £c5 10 1U3 0-0 11 £e3 £lxf2! 16 *xf2 Sde8 17 Sel Wd6 18 Wd2
Sxf3+! gjves Black enough play for a draw,
e.g. 19 ^xf3?! (19 gxf3 is simplest as Black
has nothing better than 19...Wxh2+ 20 ^fl
Whl+ drawing) 19...£ie5+ 20 <3?e2 Wc6 is
gjven as ‘equal’ by Korchnoi. After 21 <&dl
(or 21 Axc5 ®c4+ 22 &e3 Wxg2+ 23 <3?dl
£lxd2 24 £lxd2 Wxh2 and Black shouldn’t
be worse) 21...&c4 22 Axc5 £ted2 23 Sxe8+
Wxe8 24 &xd2 (24 £hxd2?? Wh5+) 24...«rc6
Black picks off the kingside and is probably
better.
13.. .^.xe3
13...®e5 is unanimously regarded by
White hopes that the exchange of dark- theory as inferion 14 ®xe5 Wxe5 15 Ad4
squared bishops will reduce Black’s tactical •&xd4 16 cxd4 ^6 17 Sacl, as in Tal-
activity, making it easier for him to exploit Langeweg, Wijk aan Zee 1960, when Black
the weaknesses in the black pawn structure. has some ugly squares and a bad bishop.
11...f5 14Wxe3&xd2 15 Wxd2
The most precise as 1 l...f6 can be met by 15 £lxd2, with the idea of tucking the
12 ®bd2 £ixd2 13 Wxd2 &xe3 14 Wxe3 queen into the c5-hole, was adequately met in
®xe5 15 &xe5 fxe5 16 Wxe5 Wd7 17 a4! c6 a tussle between two correspondence
18 axb5 axb5 19 &c2 Sxal 20 Sxal &f5 21 legends: 15..JSad8 16 Wc5 7 17 Sadi
&xf5 Wxf5 22 Wxf5 Bxf5 23 Sa6 Hf6 24 ®d6 18 £ie4 Wxc5 19 ®xc5 a5 20 a4 b4
ibf 1, when 'White managed to win the ending with equal chances in Zagorovsky-Estrin,
in Berelovich-Mikhalevski, Groningen 1993. correspondence 1968-72. (Yes, that’s what I
Instead ll...Wd7 is passive: 12 ®bd2 £.xe3 meant to write. At least they had plenty of
13 Wxe3 f5 (Korchnoi examines 13...®xd2 time to get it right!). Note that Black used his
14 Wxd2 ®a5 15 &c2 c5 16 W& g6 17 We3 queenside pawns actively.
and White has an edge) 14 exf6 £lxf6 15 15.. .5ad8 16 Sfel &h8!
Wc5 Sae8 16 &d4 £le5 17 &c2, as in The alternative 16...®a5 has also been
Prasad-Bhave, Calcutta 1992, when White’s played, but White can keep an eye on the

53
dark squares by 17 We3 or 17 Wd-l. Sd7?? He8).
24.. .5xdl 25 Sxdl £>d6 26 £>e6 Sf7 27
f3
Black is not worried by 27 4ixc7 Hxc7 28
Sxd6 Sxc3 29 5xa6 b4 30 g3 b3, when the
ending is drawn.
27.. .5e7 28 ®c5 Be2?!
Simpler was 28...Se3!
29 £ixa6 £if5 30 $3xc7 £)xh4 31 Sd4

The game move, getting off the a2-g8

diagonal, is the best plan.
17 Be3
After 17 £td4 Black keeps everything
under control with 17..JLg8. Ftacnik points
out that 17 We3 JLg4 18 £td4 &3a5,
preparing ...c7-c5, gives adequate counter¬
chances.
17.. .6.8 18 Bdl?
A slip which allows Black to seize the A playable alternative was 31...£lxg2!?
initiative. After the normal 18 £td4 £le5 Either way Black has to play actively to hold
chances are balanced. the draw.
18.. .d4! 19 fieel 32 Se4 Bxa2 33 £ocb5 Bc2
Not 19 £lxd4? 4ixd4 20 cxd4 Sxd4 21 Or33..JSb2.
1B,xd4?? as 21...1B,xf2+ mates. 34 *h2 Sb2 35 £>d4?!
19.. .dxc3 20 Wxc3 Wxc3 21 bxc3 £>a5?! After 35 c4 h5 White retains some
Impatient! The slower plan of 21...h6 22 winning chances.
h3 $3a5 cuts out White’s counterplay and 35...&xd4 36 Bxd4 Bc2 37 Sc4 <447 38
leaves Black with the better pawn structure. f4 Bd2! 39 Sc6 Bd3 40 g3 h5! 41 *h3
22 li.xg8 *xg8 23 £>g5! £sc4 24 h4 g6 42 *g2 He3 43 Hc8 *g7 44 c4 Sc3
After 24 £>e6 Sxdl 25 Sxdl ®b2! Black 45 c5 Bc2+ 46 *h3 *f7 47 c6 *g7 48
stays afloat due White’s weak back rank (26 c7 *h7 49 *h4 <S?g7 50 g4
 9 c3 $Lc5: Tenth Move Alternatives

Summary
A well-prepared Black player should not have problems with the lines that we have seen in this
chapter.
White’s alternatives to 10 £ibd2 fall into two camps. The sharper tries 10 -&f4 (Game 22)
and 10 Wd3 followed by ®bd2 (Game 24-26) are double-edged, whereas the plan involving
the exchange of dark-squared bishops (Games 22 and 27) is positional but not very dangerous
for either colour. Recent experience suggests that the sharper tries are risky and in the case of
10 Af4, dubious.

I e4 e5 2 £tf3 £lc6 3 &b5 a6 4 £a4 £)f6 5 0-0 £ixe4 6 d4 b5 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe5 &e6
9 c3 £c5

10 Wd3
10 &f4 - Game 22
10 «Pe2 0-0 11 &e3 We7 (DJ - Game 23
10.. .0.0 11 £>bd2
11 Ae3 -Game 27
II ...f5 12 exf6 &xf 6 13 a4
13 £ig5 - Game 24
13.. .Bb8 14 axb5 axb5 15 ®g5 (D) &e5 16 ^g3 Wd6 17 ic2 £d7 18 <&b3 itb6 19
£f4
19 £ld4 h6 - Game 26
19.. .Bbe8 20 &d4 £h5 (D) - Game 25
 _ m#v mi
CHAPTER FIVE ] at m±m±

9 c3 M.e7: Main Line with

10£ibd2 £ic5 11 M.c2

1 e4 e5 2 £\f3 &c6 3 iLb5 a6 4 &a4 £>f6 to a matter of taste.

5 0-0 £ixe4 6 d4 b5 7 iLb3 d5 8 dxe5 The following guide summarises White’s
•£.e6 9 c3 Jie7 10 £>bd2 ®c5 11 £c2 three main strategies and how they are
This is a popular way of playing with employed against each of Black’s three main
Black. The knight on c5 hits the bishop on development plans.
b3 and Black typically follows up with ...&g4 White’s three main strategies are as
pinning the f3-knight, which slows down follows:
White’s logical kingside action. The knight 1.13 £ib3 (Games 31-32 and Game 36).
may later come back to e4 or go to e6 or 2. 13 £lfl without b2-b4 (Games 30 and
even a4 when challenged, depending on 33-35).
circumstances. White can choose as to which 3. 13 £ifl with b2-b4, hitting the knight
wing to concentrate his efforts and the play on c5 (Games 37 and 38).
that follows often gives chances for both In Game 39 the rare tries 12 Wei and 12
sides with Black preparing to react actively as We2 are discussed.
soon as White creates any weaknesses. Black’s three main development plans are:
In my experience only very well-prepared 1. A quick ...d5-d4 (Games 29 and 30).
players of the white pieces manage to cause 2. 12...0-0 and generally ...2e8 (Games 31-
any problems as Black’s position is 35).
fundamentally sound. 3. 12...Wd7, delaying castling to bolster the
The move order variations in this chapter centre (Games 36-38).
are subtle and memorising all the variations is Strangely enough, none of the main games
impractical, so I believe it is best to actually used the specific sequence 9 c3 &.e7
concentrate on typical plans and manoeuvres. at move nine and so I have taken the liberty
Some players have experimented with of fiddling the move orders. White players
ideas based on an early ...d5-d4 push, but often induce this variation via the fashionable
most games continue ll..JLg4 12 fiel when move order 9 £lbd2 £3c5 10 c3 -&e7 11
Black chooses between immediate castling which limits Black’s options (for instance,
followed by ...Ke8 or alternatively 12...'®d7 avoiding Part One) and indeed most games
and typically ...Sd8, temporarily leaving the transposed to this chapter via that move
king in the centre. The choice comes down order.

56
 9 c3 Ae7: Main Lint tth 10 &sbd2 QtcS 1 1 Slc2

holding his own in these variations.

Game 29 12.. .d3!
Xie Jun-Zsu.Polgar Much better than 12..JLd5 13 £lxc5
Cannes (10th matchgame) 1996 Axc5 14 £lxd4 Axd4 15 cxd4 Ac4 16 Ae4
Wd7 17 Sel with a dear advantage for White
1 e4 e5 2 £if3 £ic6 3 ib5 a6 4 £a4 £if6 in Tarrasch-Post, Mannheim 1914.
5 0-0 £«ce4 6 d4 b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5 The old main line ran 12...dxc3 13 £>xc5
&e6 9 c3 Ae7 10 £sbd2 &c5 11 Ac2 d4 Axc5 14 Ae4 #d7 15 bxc3 Bd8 16 Wxd7+
The normal ll...Ag4 is the subject of Axd7 17 Bdl and was shown to be good for
Games 30-39. White in a couple of Capablanca-Chajes
encounters: 17...4le7 (17...0-0? fails to 18
Ae3! Axe3 19 Bxd7! Bxd7 20 Axc6, as
pointed out by Capablanca, and 17...£h8 18
53d4 Ae7 19 Ae3, as in Capablanca-Chajes,
New York 1916, was no improvement for
Black) 18 £d4 h6? (objectively better is
18.. .Ag4, but White has* the initiative after 19
Bdl) 19 £3b3 Ab6 20 Aa3 and Black cannot
castle or compete for the c5-square, as in
Capablanca-Chajes, New York 1915.
13 £>xc5 dxc2 14 1S'xd8+ Bxd8! 15
£>xe6
Daniliuk, who was responsible for
introducing 12...d3, gives 15 <£lxa6? Ac4 16
12 £lb3 has been investigated recently; Sel b4 as winning for Black, but 17 £hcc7+
12...d3 13 Abl (13 53xe5 transposes back to <&d7 18 £kl2 is not dear at all as Black isn’t
the main game) 13...£lxb3 14 axb3 Af5 15 winning a piece.
Ae3 0-0 16 Ad4 Wd5 17 Hel Bfd8 18 Be3 15.. .fxe6 16 Ae3
?3xd4 19 cxd4 c5 20 Axcl3 cxd4 21 5e2 We6 Cvetkovic considers that 16 Af4?! 0-0 17
22 h3 Sd5? (Black should have prevented the Ag3 g5! 18 Sacl (18 £lel gives Black
redeployment of the knight by 22...Ab4 with dangerous play after 18...h5!) 18.,.Bxf3! 19
equal chances) 23 <£lel a5 (after 23...Sxe5? gxf3 Sd2 offers good compensation for
24 Sxe5 Wxe5 the fork 25 Wf3 wins) 24 Black.
Axf5 Wxf5 25 53d3 with a dear advantage to 16.. .Bd5 17 Bacl £ixe5 18 £ixe5 Bxe5
White in Topalov-Piket, Antwerp 1997. 19 Bxc2
Another try was 16 53d4 (instead of 16 The continuation 19 Ad4 Se2 20 <&fl
Ad4) 16...4lxd4 17 cxd4 c5 18 Axd3 cxd4 Sd2 21 Ae3 Bd5 22 Bxc2, as in Griinfdd-
19 Axd4 '®fxd4 20 Axf5 Wy&>2 with undear Greenfeld, Bid 1999, comes to more or less
play in Ulibin-Daniliuk, Krasnodar 1997. the same thing, although White then tried a
Instead, Leko played very simply in his different plan after 22...0-0?! (22...shf7) 23 a4
match against Khalifman (Budapest 2000): Ad6 24 g3 &f7 25 axb5 axb5 26 Sa7 with
12 cxd4 £bcd4 13 £lxd4 Wxd4 14 £if3 Wxdl slight pressure for the first player.
15 Bxdl Ag4 16 Ae3 dUi 17 h3 which 19.. .6.7 20 c4
doesn’t look like much but White was able to Another try is 20 Af4 Bc5 21 Bdl Bd8
win. 22 Sxd8 Axd8 23 Bd2 Bd5, as in Borriss-
Theoretically speaking, Black seems to be Pieper Emden, Budapest 1991, vhich also

57
Open Ftuy Lopi

ended in a draw. a clear advantage - Korchnoi; note that with

20...b4!? the rook on fl this line is equal as the e-pawn
Or 20-.Jfc.d6!?, as in Akopian-Daniliuk St. drops) 18 Se3 Sad8 19 &xd3 £>xd4 20 cxd4
Petersburg 1993, when Daniliuk judges the &g4 21 &e4 We6 22 #c2 with a clear
position to be equal with the plan of ...Ea8, advantage for White in Geller-Anand, New
...b5xc4, ...Sb5, ...a5-a4 giving Black Delhi 1987.
sufficient activity to compensate for his 13<&f1 d4?!
inferior pawn structure. This proves inadequate here. Best is
21 Bdl 2d8 22 Bxd8 &xd8 23 &f1 &g5 13.. .3.8 as in Games 34 and 35.
The rook ending is only equal so White 14 h3 £h5
tries to keep the tension. After 14..JLxf3 15 «xf3 d3 16 &bl
24 &a7i? Bf5 25 *e2 *e8 26 *d3 *d7 White will soon round up the advanced d-
27 f3 c5! pawn.
Stopping the bishop from coining back 15£>g3 £xf3
Now that White no longer has the same
28*362 £e7 29 ib8 a5!? control of d2, this move is justified.
Of course 29.~ifc.d6 would most likely be a leWxfS d3 17 b4!
draw, but now it is Black who is trying for 17 Abl?? loses to 17...d2, but 17 Wxc6 is
more! possible, when the continuation 17...dxc2 18
30 *e4 <£>c6 31 &.e5 g6 32 g4 3f8 33 Wf3 £>d3 19 Se2 &g5 20 ±xg5 «xg5 2f
Bd2 a4 34 &g3 h5 35 Bd3 hxg4 36 fxg4 Bxc2 £>xe5 22 We4 Sae8, Vehi Bach-
Bfl 37 b3 a3 38 Bd2 g5 39 3d3 Sal 40 Wedberg, Biel 1990, was equal.
Bd2 Bbl 41 *e5 Bb2 42 it el £d8 17.. .dxc2 18 bxc5 Wd7
Now the players correctly repeated moves Timman rejected 18...£lxe5 19 Bxe5
as analysis by Cvetkovic in Injorm/Or 66 Wdl+ 20 &h2 &f6 because of 21 Sf5
shows that it’s risky for other side to avoid threatening to take on f6.1 wasn’t sure about
the draw. this idea when I first studied it, and nor was
43 Bd6+ *c7 44 3d2 *c6 45 Bd6+ *c7 Open expert Mikhalevski who tried it in
46 Ed2 J6-% 1998. This game continued 21.~Bfe8 22
Sxf6 (22 ?3h5 may be worth a try) 22...gxf6
Game 30 23 «xf6 Se6 24 «g5+ Bg6 25 We5 Be6
Timman-Korchnoi (note that White has a draw if he likes) 26
Groningen 1996 Wxc7 Wei 27 a4 Sf8 28 axb5 axb5 29 £>f5
Wxf2 30 «Ui6+ <3?g7 31 &g4 Wi5 32 #g3
1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £>c6 3 &b5 a6 4 &a4 £rf6 Sg6 33 We3 h5 with fascinating
5 0-0 £>xe4 6d4b5 7 iLb3 d5 8 dxe5 complications that eventually led to a draw in
Ae6 9 c3 £e7 10 £>bd2 £>c5 11 £c2 Y.Griinfeld-Mikhalevski, Israel Champion¬
Jtg4 12 Bel 0-0 ship, Ramat Aviv 1998.
Here 12...d4?! is inferior, as after 13 ®b3 19£sf5
d3 14 jtbl 4<3xb3 15 axb3 Af5 we have a With the nasty threats of 20 Wxc6 and 20
variation from Game 29, note to White’s Wxd7.
12th move, except that here White has the 19.. .®xe5
extra move Bel. This helps White to obtain Korchnoi’s attempted improvement on
an advantage after 16 Jfc.e3 0-0 17 ±d4! WdS 19.. .<3?h8 20 %4 g6 21 £>xe7 Wx%4 22 hxg4
(or 17...£>xd4 18 <§3xd4! Ag6 19 &xd3 Axd3 £hce7, which was bad for Black in
20 £lc6 Wd7 21 &xe7+ Wxe7 22 Wxd3 with ARodriguez Wedberg, New York 1988 (the

58
 9 c3 ie7: Main Line with 10 thbd2 £>c5 1 1 §Lc2

c-pawn falls and the bishop dominates the Wf4.

knight). 25 &d4 ttxd4 26 cxd4 &xd4 27 Ba2
In the main game, in return for his piece Wxcl
Black has installed a queen on dl, restraining The alternative 27...ilxe3 28 Wxe3 should
White’s development. be ■winning for White.
20 Bxe5 Wd1+ 21 *h2 &f6 28 Bxc2
Not 28 1ifxd4? as Black queens after
28.. .Wdl
28.. .Wb1
Korchnoi rejected an inferior ending after
28.. .Axe3 29 Bxcl Jkxcl 30 «h7! b4 31
axb4 axb4 32 Wxb4 ,&g5.
29 See2 &f6

Timman finds a good, but perhaps not the

best, idea. Instead 22 Wg3! (not however 22
£h6+? *h8 23 Sf5 Wxf3 24 Hxf3 Ae5+
and Black wins back the piece) can be met by
22.. .5fe8 23 f4 Se6, when what can White
do with his queenside pieces? In fact. White
managed to find a winning continuation
without answering this question in 30 c6! is best when White is clearly better
Magomedov-Mamadzoev, Dushanbe 1997: after 30...b4 (30...Sb8? is bad after 31 Wf4)
24 £h6+ &f8 25 Bxe6 fxe6 26 &g4 $Le7 27 31 axb4 axb4 32 Sel W>3 33 Se3 Jx3 34
W2 <3?g8 28 £ie3 ±xc5 29 £txdl! fice2 (Timman).
As this line is convincing, Korchnoi’s 30.. .1f cl 31 b4 32 axb4 axb4 33
revival of 13...d4 looks frankly short-lived. Bd5
22.. .5ad8 In the ending after 33 Sd8 Wxe3 34
After 22...fiae8 Timman considers 23 Hxf8+ lfcdr8 35 Sxe3 &d4 Black eliminates
£lh6+ <&h8 24 £>xf7+ 4?g8 25 £lh6+ 4?h8 White’s last queenside pawn and should
26 £>g4 to be winning for White. therefore draw. In any case Black now has
23 a3 a5 just about enough compensation.
Renewing ideas of ...b5-b4. 33.. .1rc4 34 Wd3 Wxd3 35 Bxd3 Sb8 36
24 ^e4 Sb3 Bb5 37 c6 Bb6 38 Be4 &c3 39 Bc4
24 ^he7+ can be met by 24..JLxe7 25 *f8 40 Ebl
Sxe7 Sd3 26 5e3 2d2! and White has Not 40 Scxc3? bxc3 41 2xb6? as Black
enormous technical difficulties. wins with 41...c2.
24.. .h5 40.. .*e7 41 f4 *e6 42 Bdl f5 43 g4 g6
After 24...g6 Timman points out a win for 44*g3 3a6 %-%
White with 25 £h6+ <3?g7 26 ®g4 Sfe8 27 A sharp tussle in which Korchnoi was

59
Open Ruy Lopez

perhaps fortunate to draw. The thematic

...d5-d4 looks playable at move eleven (Game
29) but speculative when employed any later
than that.

Game 31
2. Atmasi-Korchnoi
Linz 1997

1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £x:6 3 Ab5 a6 4 &a4 £sf6

5 0-0 £>xe4 6 d4 b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5
Ae6 9 c3 Ae7 10 »bd2 £>c5 11 Ac2
Ag4 12 ffel 0-0
The alternative 12...Wd7 is considered in
Games 36-38. A dear improvement on the ‘book’ move,
13£>b3£>e4 but it has been played before, both in a
Black offers a pawn for the bishop pair computer tournament in 19910) and a later
and a lead in development though in fact, correspondence game which we now follow
Blade’s best try may be 13...Se8 (see Game for some time.
32). However, 13...£>e6?! is unsatisfactory, as Standard theory used to continue 17 £3g5'
for instance 14 Wd3 g6 15 Ah6 He8 16 h6 (17...g6?! leads to a strong attack for
Sadi Af5 17 Wd2 Axc2 18 Wxc2 Wd7 19 White after 18 £kxh7 &xh7 19 Wxg6+ <&h8
Sd3 Sad8 20 h3 Af8 21 «d2 left Black with 20 Se3 &d6 21 Axd6 cxd6 22 Sg3, as in
a passive game in Geller-Unzicker, Bad A-Rodriguez-Milos, Bogota 1991, or simply
Worishofen 1991. 20 h3 - Korchnoi) 18 £ih7 Sf7 19 h3
14 Af4 (Krasenkov recommends 19 4£>xf6+ Sxf6 20
Risky is 14 Axe4?! dxe4 15 Wxd8 Saxd8 tth7+ <3?f7 21 Ag3) 19...£h5 20 Wg6 &xf4
16 Sxe4 Sdl+ 17 ®el (17 Sel?? loses on 21 Wxg4 Wxg4 22 hxg4 g6 (22..JLd6 is
the spot to 17...Axf3) 17...Sfd8 with suggested by Korchnoi with the idea of
excellent play for the pawn. meeting 23 g5 by 23...£ie5, leaving White’s
14...f6 knight stranded) 23 g3 £lh3+ 24 3?g2 Sxf2+
14...f5 comes to the same thing as in the 25 ^xh3 fedi? 26 £3d4 with interesting
main game, while 14...Se8 is a recent idea of complications that led to a draw in Large-
Marin’s. Black doesn’t get full compensation Flear, British Ch., Eastbourne 1990.
after 15 Axe4 dxe4 16 5xe4 Wxdl+ 17 17.. .£oce5 18 Axe5 g6 19 Ufd4 c6 20 f3
Sxdl Axf3 18 gxf3 Sad8 19 Seel (19 Bxd8 20 £te5 Axc5 21 Wxc5 also gives White a
Sxd8 20 <53d4 4ixd4 21 Bxd4 Sxd4 22 cxd4 dear positional edge.
c6 should be a draw) 19...g5 20 Ag3 sS?g7 21 20.. .Af5 21 ±xf5 Wxf5 22 «rb6!
e6 Sxdl 22 Sxdl f5 23 Axc7 &f6, as in Black now lacks the time necessary to get
Kuczynski-Marin, Budapest Zonal 1993, but organised and keep everything intact. This is
will nevertheless retain good drawing chan¬ much more dangerous than the continuation
ces. 22 Ag3 Wd7 23 Sadi &h5 24 Ae5 Sf7 25
15 exf6 £lxf6 16 Wd3 ®d7 'Hrb6 Ah4 26 g3 Ad8, which led to a draw in
A famous trap is 16...£ie4? 17 Axe7! Berglund-Yerofeev, correspondence 1995.
(whoops!), 38 in Alekhine-Nimzowitsch, St 22.. .Wd7 23 a4 Bfc8 24 Wf2
Petersburg 1914. White wants to play Ae5-d4-c5 but first

60
 9 c3 ie7: Main Line with 10 *hbd2 £>c5 1 1 $Lc2

puts his queen out of danger. The alternative £e6 9 c3 &e7 10 £>bd2 £>c5 11 &c2
24 axb5 axb5 25 Sxa8 Sxa8 26 £sd4 Sc8 27 &g4 12 Bel 0-0 13 £>b3 Se8 14 £sxc5
Sal looks strong at first sight but can be met Topalov’s move. After the critical 14 h3
by 27..Me8 threatening ...£kl7. £lxb3 15 Wd3 g6 16 ±xb3 &e6 17 Sdl
24.. .5f8 Wd7 18 &xd5 Bad8 19 &e4 Wxd3 20 2xd3
With ideas of coming to g4 or e4 with the Bxd3 21 iLxd3 &d5 22 ±f4 ±c5 23 e6 fxe6
knight. 24 Jixc7 e5 Black had adequate counterplay
25 ^d4 for the pawn in Sax-Hubner, Budapest 1991.
Threatening to capture first on b5, then However, Krasenkov points out the
on a8 and finally on f6, to win a piece. powerful 15.. JLf5! 16 Wxf5 g6 when Blade is
25.. .^c8 26 &g3 c5? on top.
Almasi considers this a mistake and 14...ixc5
suggests 26...&d8, but in any case White has
a strong bind.
27 Wle3 Bf7 28 axb5 d4 29 «e6 axb5

The original 14 £lxc5 game was

instructive: 15 &f4 Wd7 16 h3 itxf3
Now a fine mini-combination to bring the (16...1h5? fails to 17 &xh7+ <&xh718 ®g5+
last piece into the attack. <3?g6 19 Wd3+ Wf5 20 %3 and White has a
30 Sa7! dxc3 winning attack) 17 Wxf3 £kl8 18 Badl c6 19
After 30...Wxe6 31 Sxa8+ wins a rook. h4 *he6 20 ±cl Sf8 21 Wg4?> (21 &f5 keeps
31 bxc3 c4 32 £id4 &d5 33 Seal! 1-0 the initiative) 21...f5! 22 exf6 (22 $Lxf5? Bxf5!
The clearest. 23 Wxf5 Sf8 and Black will capture on f2,
A terrible blow for a variation that was winning back the sacrificed material with a
hitherto considered playable. So after good game) 22..JSxf6 23 Ae3 Saf8 24 ,&.xc5
13...<23e4 14 Af4, Marin’s 14.JSe8 is £lxc5 25 Wxd7 £>xd7 and Black had
objectively better than 14...f6, but it is still a equalised in Topalov-I.Sokolov, Antwerp
bit of a grovel. 1997.
15...g6?! 16 £f4 £f5 17 *rd2 ±xc2 18
Gome 32 «Txc2 Wd7 19 Badl «id8 20 h3
Van den Doel-Haba Haba suggests 20 c4 as sligfitly better for
Cappelle la Grande 1998 White. However, 20...bxc4 21 1li,xc4 dxc4 22
Bxd7 4le6 is fully satisfactoiy for Black, who
1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £tc6 3 £b5 a6 4 &a4 £rf6 has an the interesting plan of ..JLb6,
5 0-0 £oce4 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5 followed by ...£sc5-d3.

61
Open Huy Lopez

20...£le6 21 &h6 ite7 22 «Mi2 Wc6 Black, a clear pawn down and with an
22.. .f5 23 exf6 &xf6 24 £>g4 £h8 is a exposed king, was almost certainty lost
shade better for White after 25 £le5 Axe5 26 anyway.
Sxe5 c6. 40 £sf7+! 1-0
23 £lg4 d4 24 f4 Wc5
24.. .dxc3 25 f5 <£lg5 was possible, aiming Game 33
for complications. I vanchuk-T ukmakov
25 *h1 dxc3 26 bxc3 New York 1988

1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 &c6 3 iLb5 a6 4 jka4 £sf6

5 0-0 £lxe4 6d4b5 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe5
ile6 9 c3 jke7 10 £lbd2 £sc5 11 &c2
jkg4 12 Bel 0-0 13 £lf1 &h5
This is considered less accurate than
13.. .2e8 (considered in the next main game)
as Black tends to become rather passive, as
we shall see.
14£lg3
The actual move order was 14 Jie3 Ag6
15 £}g3, but 14 Jie3 allows 14...Sixe5 when
best play leads to a draw (as analysed by
Ivanchuk): 15 -£Lxc5 4&xf3+ 16 Wxf3 Axf3
Natural but bad. Better was 26...£>g7, 17 Axe7 Wd7 18 &xf8 &xg2 19 &c5 Axfl
holding up the central pawns or at least 20 *xfl «h3+ 21 <£gl «g4+ 22 <&hl.
forcing the exchange of one of White’s 14.. .^.g6 15 &e3
dangerous minor pieces.
27 f5! Sxdl 28 fixdl £>d8
A bad sign but 28...gxf5 29 ®xf5 Wc6 30
4£lf6+ JLxf6 31 ®xf6 We4 loses to 32 Hd4!
(Haba).
29 &e3 Wc4 30 £lh6+ &h8 31 e6
Levering open Black’s king.
31. ..f6
31...<&g7 32 £lg4 gxf5 33 exf7 &xf7 34
®xf5 also looks difficult for Black.
32 fxg6 Wxe6 33 JLf4
33 gxh7! was even better as 33...Wxe3
loses to 34 Wg6.
33.. .1Ld6 34 iLxd6 cxd6 35 gxh7 £>f7 36 Here 15 £rf5 Wd7 16 g4 2ad8 17 h4 £>e4
&f5 18 <Shce7+ 4hce7 19 4£lh2, as in Kupreichik-
But not 36 4hcf7+ ®xf7 37 2xd6 because Kaidanov, Kuibyshev 1986, and now 19...f5!
of 37...Sel+ 38 <l^h2 ®c7 pinning and 20 f3 fxg4 21 fxe4 g3 22 £>g4 £Ji5
winning. (Korchnoi) or 17 533d4 (instead of 17 h4)
36.. .We2 37 Wb3 &g5 38 £>xd6 Se6 39 17„.<Shcd4 18 cxd4 £>e6 19 f4 Ab4 20 Sfl
WdS Wf2 f6, as in Van Mh-Kotronias, Sonnevanck
Objectivety better was 39...‘foch7, but 1992, are both double-edged.

62
 9 c3 iLe7: Main Line with 10 &bd2 G3c5 1 1 ±c2

15.. .5e8 term pressure against the centre and kingside.

After the alternative 15...Wd7 a new idea In return Black has a fairly solid position but
is 16 Axg6 (instead, 16 h4 £le6 17 h5 £.xc2 no real counterplay.
18 Wxc2 f6 19 exf6 iLxf6 20 h6 offers a very 22.. .C5 23 ttf5 Sa7
slight pull to White according to Korchnoi) Ivanchuk instead recommends 23...Wd7
when White continued naturally and 24 Se4 Sad8 25 Sg4 <&h8! when White
maintained an edge in Svidler-I.Sokolov, Pula cannot take the f-pawn nor easily increase the
1997, after 16...hxg6 17 Wc2 &e6 18 b4 a5 pressure.
19 a3 Sfb8 20 Sadi axb4 21 axb4 2>cd8 22 24 £se4 £lb6 25 «leg5 £xg5 26 JLxg5
h4 Wc6 23 Wb3 «c4 24 ®xc4 dxc4 25 4le4 Wc8 271 iLe3 h6 j
<&f8 26 g3 Sa3 27 <&g2. An error but after 27...Sd7 28 b3 it’s not
16 h4 so easy to find anything positive for Black to
The most aggressive, but 16 Scl, just do.
developing the last piece, has been played 28 £U*4!
with some success. Matanovic then suggests Heading for f5.
16.. .Wd7 17 b4 $Lxc2 followed by ...4fa4 but 28.. .5c7 29 Wg4 £ig5 30 ®f5
still prefers White. The kingside is about to collapse.
16.. .6xc2 30.. .5xe5 31 JLf4 Wxf5 32 WxfS Sxf5
Or 16.._S.f8 17 £g5 Wd7 18 ±xg6! 33 £xc7 £>d7 34 f4 £e6 35 g4 £xc7 36
(instead 18 h5 &xc2 19 Wxc2 h6 20 Sadi gxf5 *f8 37 Se2 £sb8 38 Se5 1-0
Wg4! 21 ±cl Sad8, as in Henao-Milos, An example of what to avoid with Black!
Bogota 1991, was solid for Black) 18..Jixg6
19 h5 gxh5 20 £\xh5 ^3e6 21 Ae3 and again Game 34
White has the better options (Henao). Wang Zili-Yusupov
17 Wxc2 £>d7 18 JLf4! £>f8 Novi Sad Olympiad 1990
18..Jbch4 is tempting but Ivanchuk
considers it too risky to grab the h-pawn 1 e4 e5 2 £Sf3 £sc6 3 iLb5 a6 4 ^.a4 £>f6
because of 19 4£tf5 $Le7 20 e6 £sf8 21 exf7+ 5 0-0 £ixe4 6 d4 b5 7 JLb3 d5 8 dxe5
&xf7 22 Sadi when White has a strong iLe6 9 c3 JLe7 10 £>bd2 <&c5 11 jkc2
initiative. A.g4 12 Bel 0-0 13 &f1 Be8!
19 h5 £«6 20 &e3 £la5 21 Sadi &c4
22 iLcI

Most games continue with 14 h3, when

White is well co-ordinated and has long¬ after 14..~&h5 White chases the bishop with

63
Open Ruy Lopez

15 4£*g3 or 15 g4, as in Game 35. game.

Here we discuss the alternatives: 17 ®xe5
a) 14 b4?! is too weakening to worry
Black, eg. 14...£>e4! 15 £>g3 £ixeS 16 £>xe4
Jlxf3 17 gxf3 dxe4 18 fxe4 Af6 (White has
the two bishops but serious problems with
his structure, thus Black is already better) 19
M4 £>g6 20 «xd8 Saxd8 21 £xc7 Sc8 22
e5 £>xe5 23 ^.xe5 Sxe5 24 Bxe5 Axe5 25
£.b3 g6 26 Scl ,&xc3 27 a4, when the
opposite-coloured bishops earned White a
draw in Yemelin-Komeev, Russian
Championship, St Petersburg 1998. Naturally
Korneev didn’t want to risk falling into his
opponent’s preparation with the risky-
looking 15...£ixc3!? but it seems playable: 16
Wd3 g6 17 «xc3 JLxb4 18 «xc6 Se6 Natural but Korchnoi recently tried
(18...^xf3 19 £.a3Q 19 £ki4 Sxc6 20 £>xc6 17.. JLh5!? and was at least equal after 18
Wf8 with an unclear material balance. Wf5 Af6 19 £>c6 £g6 20 Wxg6 fxg6 21
b) After 14 Af4 &h5 15 fte3, Black has 4&xd8 Saxd8 22 Sdl d4 with an activfe
15.. .d4 which simplifies comfortably, e.g. 16 position in Leko-Korchnoi, Ubeda 1998.
cxd4 &xf3 17 Wxf3 4hcd4 18 Wg3 ftxc2 19 18 ftc6
£>xc2 Wd3 20 $3e3 c6 21 Sedl 'A-'A Henao- 18 £lf5!? looks interesting. After
Ch.Toth, Bogota 1991. 18.. Jbtf5?! (18..JLf8! should be equal) 19
14.. .6.e5 Wxf5 Af6 20 Af4 ±xe5 21 i.xe5 c6 22 Se3
The exchange 14...ibd3 is given as bad by Black had problems in Daty-Glodeanu,
everyone, but perhaps unfairly, and certainty Bucharest 1993.
not for the real reason! Then 15 Wxf3 4£*xe5 18.„Wd6 19 £lxe7+ Sxe7
16 ®xd5 (the best way may be 16 WfS! 4&g6 Commentators are unanimous that Black
17 £>xd5 £d6 18 Sxe8+ Wxe8 19 Ae3 £>e6 has an equal game here.
20 Sdl Hd8 21 g3 with a comfortable edge 20 b3 £&d7 21 ^-b2
due to the bishop pair in Adams-Gi.Garcia, 21 a4 is preferred by Yusupov who
New York 1995) 16...£>ed3 17 Sdl ‘with a prefers Black from now on. It’s instructive to
clear advantage’ according to Yusupov, but see how Black expands the queenside, not to
17.. .Wxd5 (certainty not 17...4hccl? due to 18 create a passed pawn but to annex the d3-
£xh7+ &xh7 19 S!h5+) 18 £ixd5 £d6 and square.
Black is okay (Flear). Instead 14..Jke6?! is 21.. .5.e8 22 Sadi c5 23 f3 £le5 24
too passive and loses time. Wf2 c4! 25 Wg3 f6
15 Jkxh7+ Everydiing holds together nicety and
In order to unpin. The inferior 15 4£>xg4?! Yusupov is ready to further expand his
has been played but White realty doesn’t have majority.
enough compensation for the pawn. 26 Sd4 Wc5 27 bxc4 dxc4 28 £>c2 a5
15.. .*xh7 16 Wc2+ *g8 29 £a3?
Yusupov points out that 16...53ed3 17 29 sMil holds out longer.
4£>xg4 f5 fails to 18 Sdl fxg4 19 ®e5 and 29.. .b4 30 cxb4 Wa7
White recovers the piece with an excellent The pin is decisive.

64
 9 c3 $Le7: Main Line with 10 Qbd2 £>c5 11 ±c2

31 b5 Sd7 32 See4 Af5 33 Wf2 ±xe4 Wahls-Hubner, Munich 1991.

34 Bxd7 Wxd7 3B fxe4 Wd1+ 36 5ie1 Instead 15 b4l? led to unclear pity after
£>d3 0-1 15.. .£le4! 16 &e3 Axf3 17 gxf3 Slxf2 18
So the 14th move alternatives to 14 h3 ■&xf2 Ah4+ 19 &fl Axel 20 Wxel £>xe5
don’t worry Black. 21 %} Wf6 22 £ixd5 We6 23 £ie3 «3c4 24
Ae4 5ad8 25 4£rf5 Wf6 in Sznapik-
Game 35 Gi.Garda, Salamanca 1988.
Svidler-Adianto 15.. .jLg6 16 ®Jf5 £«s4!?
Groningen 1997 An interesting tty of Timman’s. Safer
seems to be 16...Af8! 17 Af4 &e6 (17...Wd7
1 e4 e5 2 £sf3 £sc6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 £sf6 was less convincing in Spraggett-Komeev,
5 0-0 £lxe4 6d4b5 7 Jl.b3 d5 8 dxe5 San Sebastian 1999, as White had a useful
Ae6 9 c3 Ae7 10 ®bd2 £sc5 11 iLc2 initiative after 18 4&3h4 33a4 19 Sbl ftb6 20
Ag4 12 Bel 0-0 13 £lf1 Be8 14 h3 Ah5 #g4!) 18 Ah2 4ba5 19 4£ie3 c6 20 &d4
&xd4 21 cxd4 £lc4 22 b3 Sixe3 23 Hxe3 c5
24 Axg6 hxg6 25 dxc5 Axc5 26 Bd3 d4 with
equal play in Wahls-Hubner, Germany 1991.
17 £>xe7+ Bxe7 18 Af4 Wdl 19 £>h4
£>c5
After 19...Bae8 'White can safely grab the
pawn with 20 £lxg6 hxg6 21 Axe4 dxe4 22
#xd7 Hxd7 23 Bxe4 (Svidler).
20 £>xg6 hxg6 21 Ae3 5ie6 22 f4 d4 23
Ae4 Bd8

15£lg3
The other method of pushing back the
bishop is 15 g4, when 15...Ag6 16 Axg6
hxg6 17 &e3 Wd7 18 Wxd5 (18 b4?! is again
too weakening due to 18...£3a4 19 £lxd5
Had8 and Black has good activity for the
pawn, e.g. 20 ®xe7+ Wxe7 21 Wc2 Wd7 22
&g2 Wd3 23 Wxd3 Sxd3 winning back die
pawn with interest in Onischuk-Timman,
Wijk aan Zee 1997. If immediately 18 £bcd5
then after 18..JSad8 19 £bce7+ Wxe7 20 We2
Sd5 Black has the added option ...£kl3.) Svidler’s improvement on Van den Doel-
18.. .5ad8 19 Sdl We6 20 Wxe6 fxe6 21 Timman, Dutch Championship, Rotterdam
£>d4 (on 21 <&g2 then 21...Bxdl 22 &xdl 1997, which continued 24 Acl t£x5 25 Af3
^d3 wins back the pawn with equal play) We6 and Black was doing very well.
21.. .£bce5 22 f4 £lf7 23 Bfl (23 b4 £»4 24 The text keeps the pressure on d4 and
£ixe6 Sxdl-t- 25 £>xdl Af6 gives Black all threatens 25 Ah4.
the play) 23...Af6 24 £tec2 e5 and Black 24...See8 25 Wg4 £le7
opened up the game to his advantage in 25...dxc3 loses material to 26 Badl.

65
Open Ruy Lopez

26 h4 c5 27 Sadi £sd5 28 f5 We saw the idea of 13 £ib3 against

The two bishops keep Black occupied in 12.. .0-0 in Games 31 and 32.
the centre, which in time gives White the 13.. .£>e6 14 h3
chance to prise open the black king. White can equally play 14 #d3 (stopping
28.. .gxf5 29 #xf5 £lf8 30 #f3 Black from castling kingside for the time
Now it’s cashing-in time as Black cannot being) 14...^h5 15 £>fd4 £icxd4 (15...it.g6
avoid losing the d-pawn. 16 S3f5 0-0 17 #h3 Bfe8 18 iLdl ±18 19
30.. .#e6 31 cxd4 cxd4 32 jLxd4 £>e7 £*4 Bad8 20 f4 ±e4 21 ±e3 ±e7 11 Ag4
33 a3 Sd7 34 £c3 Sed8 35 Sxd7 2xd7 was dangerous* for Black in Zso.Polgar-
36 h5 £lh7 37 Wg3 Wb6+ 38 *h2 #h6 Hracek, Brno 1991) 16 £xd4 Ag6 17 £f5
39 'Srg4 £sf8 40 Bf 1 &e6 41 Bf6 ^e3 42 Sd8 18 Wg3 with a complicated game in
h6£lg5 Hazai-Diesen, Helsinki 1989.
14.. .1th5 15 JLf5

Combination time: How does White

finish off the job?
43 e6! fxe6 44 «xg5! 1-0 After 15...Sd8 16 £hd4 0-0 the blow 17
With the point 44...#xg5 45 h7+ <&h8 46 .&xh7+! leads to a dangerous attack:
Sf8+ and mates. 17...<kxh7 18 £g5+ Axg5 19 #3*5+ Jlh6
20 Axh6 gxh6 21 £f5 Sh8 22 #3*6+ 4g8
Game 36 23 #f6 Sh7 24 Se3 &f8 25 Sg3, as in
Ehlvest-Hjartarson LIvanov-Sagalchik, USSR 1989.
_Belfort 1988 However, after the immediate 15...0-0 this
combination is only worth a draw. 16 Jbdi7+
1 e4 e5 2 4Esf3 4Elc6 3 Jl.b5 a6 4 jLa4 4Elf6 &xh7 17 £g5+ &xg5 18 #xh5+ £h6 19
5 0-0 &xe4 6d4b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5 £xh6 gxh6 20 #f5+ <&h8 (20...&g8
±e6 9 c3 ±e7 10 <&bd2 £ic5 11 &c2 provokes 21 Se3) 21 #f6+ <&h7 22 #f5+, as
±g4 12 Bel ®d7 in Ilincic-Lalic, Yugoslav Championship
Compared to 12...0-0, Black is better 1989.
prepared to support the d-pawn with .. JSd8 Another try is 15..JLg6 16 £rfd4 0-0
after this move. However, the king stays (Krasenkov recommends 16...£cxd4 17
longer in the centre and the king’s rook £lxd4 0-0 and then ...c7-c5) 17 ±g4 £cxd4
cannot come as quickly to the natural e8- 18 cxd4 a5 19 f4, when Nunn-Tal, Naestved
square. 1985, continued 19..h5 (Korchnoi instead
13 £sb3 suggests 19...a4 20 £c5 #c6 21 ±xe6 fxe6

66
Open Ruy Lopez

fixg6 Sxg6 37 Wxg6 £g7 38 0f7! more of a weakness than an asset) 15...£ie6
Black is totally tied up and White wants to 16 g4 Ag6 17 Af5 0-0 18 £3g3 £ia5 19 h4
bring his rook to the h-file. £ic4 20 &.cl h6!?, as in Gavrikov-
38.. .d4 39 cxd4 Axd4 40 Se6 &g7 41 Kharitonov, Sverdlovsk 1984, with an
g3 1-0 unclear position.
This stops any first rank nonsense and Heading the other way with 13 £ib3 (or
prepares 2e6-e4-h4. Black is totally paralysed 13 h3 Jfe.h5 14 £3b3) is another promising
and therefore resigned idea, as we saw in Game 36.
A fine win by the Estonian Grandmaster, 13.. .5d8
but not exactly what an Open player wants to After 13.._$.h5 14 £ig3! (now this is the
repeat! Possible improvements for Black are right way, as Black loses time) 14.. JLg6 15
15.. .£.g6, 15...0-0 (but this allows a draw), h4! (15 £kl4 ±xc2 16 «xc2 00 17 £3gf5
16.. Ab7 or 17..Jbcc5 (which is complex and 2fe8 also looks reasonable and at first sight
yields double-edged play). If none of this most White players would be happy here.
suits the critical reader, then 12...0-0 is However, piece play alone is insufficient to
recommended maintain the pressure, e.g. 18 2e3 iLf8 19
£bcc6 «xc6 20 &d4 «d7 21 b4 £3e6 22
Game 37 Eh3 g6 23 Ae3 c5 and Black had equalised
Haba-Marin in Prandstetter-Priehoda, Prague 1990.)
Budapest Zonal 1993 15.. .00 16 h5 ±xc2 17 Wxc2 f5 18 exf6
iLxf6, as in Mokry-Yusupov, Dubai
1e4eS2 £sf3 &c6 3 &b5 a6 4 £a4 £sf6 Olympiad 1986, ancf now 19 h6 g6 20 Ag5
5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 b5 7 ilb3 d5 8 dxe5 gives White an edge. The presence of die
£e6 9 c3 &e7 10 £Sbd2 £»c5 11 JLc2 pawn on h6 will be a cause for concern for
&g4 12 fiel 1iird7 13 £tf1 Black even deep into the ending.
14 £Je3 £h5 15 b4!
This plan seems to leave Black with a
passive game and has been largely
responsible for the fact that nowadays Open
players generally prefer 12...0-0 and 13...2e8.
The alternative 15 £lf5 is covered in
Game 38.
15.. .£le6 16 g4
The alternative continuation 16 £rf5 0-0
(after 16...d4 the move 17 Ae4! stymies
Black’s counterplay) 17 a4 Ag6 18 g4
(instead 18 iLe3 d4! 19 axb5 axb5 20 £\5xd4
£tcxd4 21 £ixd4 £.xb4 22 iLxg6 hxg6 23
White intends a dangerous plan; coming «T)3 £ixd4 24 jLxd4 iLe7 was equal in
to e3 with gain of time. It’s generally Vasquez-Marin, Andorra 1991) transposes
recognised that going via fl after the back to the main game.
intermediate 13 h3 JLh5 is less effective, e.g. Black can vary with 17...Sfe8?l but this
14 1?! 2d8 15 Ae3 (after 15 £>g3 Ag6 16 leads to a long forcing line with an
Ae3 0-0 17 -&xc5 ±xc5 18 a4 f6 19 e6 Wd6, unpleasant ending for Blade 18 axb5 axb5 19
as in Bomgasser-Behrmann, West Germany Wd3 Ag6 20 Wxb5 £3xe5 21 Wxd7 £3xd7
1985/86, Black has good play; the e6-pawn is (not 21...®xf3+? 22 gxf3 2xd7 23 Aa4) 22

68
 9 c3 Ae7; Mam Line with 10 &bd2 <£>c5 11 Ac2

<g}xe7+ Bxe7 23 Axg6 hxg6 24 £3d4 See8 than 20...&b8 21 Ae3 c5 (21...d4 is
25 <S3c6, as in AJlodriguez-Marin, Novi Sad complicated but inadequate, e.g. 22 ±xd4
Olympiad 1990, when the simplification has £>xd4 23 £i3xd4 Axb4 24 Axb5 c6 25
not liberated the black position. £lxc6 Axf5 26 gxf5 Axc3 27 1fxd7 £ixd7
Another dubious Black try is 17...f6?l 18 28 £ixd8 Bxd8 29 e6! and White is close to
axb5 axb5, as in Cuartas-Pilgaard, Ubeda winning according to Galkin) 22 bxc5 Axc5
1998, which looks bad for Black after 19 23 We2 Axe3 24 #xe3 &c7 25 Sa7 Wc6 26
#d3! £M6! and Black was in deep trouble in
16..Jkg6 17 ®Jf5 0-0 Galkin-Sorokin, Ekaterinburg 1997, as
The continuation 17...h5 18 h3 d4 26.. .5.d6 is yiet by 27 2xc7 Wxc7 28 exd6.
(18..Jixg4 19 hxg4 4?f81? 20 <&g2 f61? worked 19 axb5 axb5 20 Ae4 fife8 21 Wd3!
in the game Abramovic-Flear, Val Maubuee This is annoying for Black as the b5-pawn
1989, but leaves me unconvinced) 19 Ae4! requires defending. Less effective is 21 Ae3
^f8 20 a4 left Black with serious problems Af8 22 Wd2 h5 23 h3 £ixb4 24 cxb4 dxe3
to solve in Hjartarson-Korchnoi, St John (1st 25 «xd7 exf2+ 26 *xf2 Sxd7 27 Ac6 Edd8
matchgame) 1988. 28 fiebl &f4 29 Axe8 2xe8 30 &g3 53e2+
18 a4 31 &f2 £if4 32 <&g3 4ie2+ 33 <&f2 £>f4 with
a draw in Palkovi-Marin, Stara Zagora 1990.
21.. .£>b8 22 Ad2
Not best. Instead 22 cxd4! Axb4
(probably better than 22...£bcd4 23 £*3xd4
Axf5 24 £>xf5 Wxd3 25 Axd3 Sxd3 26
4hce7+ Exe7 27 Ba8 with a clear advantage
for White due to the bad knight - Haba) 23
Sdl c6 24 Ae3 Af8 and White keeps the
better prospects (Korchnoi). This hasn’t
been tested but is the critical assessment for
Black’s set-up. The central/kingside bind is
more immediately important than any long¬
term prospects offered by a queenside
outside passed pawn, but at least Black has
Black has worked diligently to get this something to pity for.
thematic counter going, but it probably isn’t 22.. .C5 23 cxd4 £lxd4 24 &3xd4 &xf5!
quite good enough for equality. On 24...cxd4 then 25 Sa5 picks up the b5-
The alternative 18...5fe8 should be pawn.
studied closely, e.g. 19 axb5 axb5 20 Ad3 25©xf5
Sb8 21 #e2 <53cd8 22 Sa7 d4 23 cxd4 Axf5 25 gxf5 Wxd4 26 Wxd4 Bxd4 gives Black
24 gxf5 £ixd4 25 £tacd4 ®xd4 26 2xc7 sufficient counter-chances.
Axb4 27 Ab2 Wf4 28 Ac3 Axc3 29 Sxc3 25.. .Hfxd3 26 Axd3 Sxd3 27 £>xe7+
Se7! (not 29...b4 30 Hc41Bh6 31 Sg4 with a Bxe7 28 Sa8
strong attack in Shabalov-Sorin, Biel 1992) Black has temporary problems with his
30 Abl g6 31 2g3, as in Zamicki-Sorin, badly placed knight but as soon as it’s
Argentine Championship 1996, when after liberated. White’s pawns prove to be too
31.. .£ic6 Black had counterplay against die weak to claim a significant advantage.
centre and managed to draw. This move 28.. .5.8 29 Af4 Sd4 30 Ag3 *f8 31
20.. .Hb8 looks more convincing for Black bxc5 Vi-Vi

69
Open Ruy Lopez

31 bxc5 ®lc6 32 Ba6 £>b4 33 Bd6 Sxg4 is b) 16 b4 can now be met with 16...£ie4!
fairly unclear, but some White players, with a with satisfactory counterplay; in Yudasin-
more ambitious frame of mind, may prefer to Petran, Budapest 1982.
play on here. - c) After the innocent-looking 16 h3 then
This line has been deeply investigated and 16.. .5.e8? is too routine (playable instead are
theoretically may just favour White. either 16..JLg6 or the introductory 16...£ie6
However, in practical play a well prepared 17 $Lti and only then 17...fife8, as after the
Open Ruy Lopez player can probably get by, further 18 g4 Ag6 19 a4 $Lc5 the game
as White has to play very precisely to Brodsky-Marin, Bucharest 1994, was unclear)
maintain an edge. 17 £>xe7+ £>xe7 (17...Wxe7 fails to 18(g4
Ag6 19 Ag5) 18 £.xh7+! <&ch7 19 £ig5+
Game 38 &g6 20 g4 with advantage to White (Marin).
A.Sokolov-Korchnoi 16.. .£lxe7
Tilburg 1987 After 16...Wxe7? 17 Ag5!, as in
AJRodriguez-Gi.Garda, Bayamo 1987, White
1 e4 e5 2 £sf3 £sc6 3 &b5 a6 4 ita4 £Sf6 wins at least a pawn.
5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 bS 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5 17 b4
£.e6 9 c3 $Le7 10 £>bd2£sc5 11 ilc2 Two other moves have been tried here:
&g4 12 Bel W&7 13 £>f1 Bd8 14 £le3 a) 17 #d4? £xf3 18 gxf3 £le6 19 #h4
^.h5 15 £sf5 £lg6 20 ®g4 d4 turned out better for Bla&k
The stronger 15 b4! was considered in in Griinfeld-Korchnoi, Zagreb Interzonal
Game 37. 1987.
15...0-0 b) 17 JLe3 is a tricky move, when 17...£le4
For 15...£te6 16 b4! (Black doesn’t mind is playable, as is 17...£la4 when 18 Jbth7+
16 a4 b4! 17 a5 £la7 18 £ixe7 #xe7 19 Wd3 (the simplistic 18 jLxa4 bxa4 19 &.c5 Bfe8
£sb5, as in Aseev-Agzamov, USSR 1984) see 20 $Lxs7 Bxe7 only yields equal chances
Game 37, note to White’s 16th move. [Korchnoi] as White cannot exploit the
doubled a-pawns and Black has counter¬
chances on the b-file; while 18 Wd3?! can be
met energetically by 18...£3g6! 19 b3 $Lxf3 20
gxf3 #h3! and Black stood well in Van der
Wiel-Hjartarson, Rotterdam 1989; and finally
18 Sbl £ig6 19 Wd3, as in Adams-Flear,
Leeds 1988, should be met by 19..Jbcf3 20
gxf3 Sde8 with advantage to Black) is well
defended by 18...&xh7 19 e6 £xf3! 20 #c2+
&e4 and Black wins.
However, the natural 17...£le6? fails to 18
Jbth7+! &xh7 19 £ig5+ <&g6 20 g4 and
Black was struggling in Geller-Hazai, Sochi
1982. Hie combination works if the queen
Alternatively: on d7 no longer defends g4.
a) The aggressive 16 h4!? iLg4 17 £3xe7+ 17.. .£le4
<&xe7 18 Wd4 £xf3 19 gxf3 &e6 20 Wg4 d4 Korchnoi once blundered with 17...£&4??
was very sharp and unclear in Ady-Flear, (he obviously became confused with the lines
Bamsdale 1989. in the previous note) 18 iLxh7+! &xh7 19 e6

70
 9 c3 ie7: Main Line with 10 Z&bd2 SicS 1 1 M.c2

1-0 Hiibner-Korchnoi, Tilburg 1987, since chances.

after 19..ixe6 (19...Axf3 20 Wd3+! Ae4 21 30 e5
\§rh3+ wins; compare to lines where White 30 2a7 also favours the second player
has already played Ae3 when this manoeuvre after 30...Slxe4+ 31 <&e2 2d4 32 2xc7 2xb4.
is not possible) 20 S3g5+ &g6 21 g4 the 30.. .4.f7 31 2a6 Sie4+ 32 &e2 Bc3 33
attack is overwhelming. Ae3 *e7 34 Ad4?
18 Axe4 dxe4 19 Wxd7 Bxd7 20 Sg5 34 2a8! 2c4 35 2g8 *f7 36 2d8 is
Ag6 21 e6! recommended by Korchnoi White must stay
active!
34.. <Sc4 35 *d3 Slg5 36 Ac5+ &d7 37
2a5 *c6 38 2a6+ 4>d5 39 2a5 Se6 40
Bxb5 Sixc5+ 41 bxc5 fixc5 42 Sxc5+7
The final error. Sokolov obviously
misjudged the rook ending after 42 2b8,
which is not good but may be tenable.
42.. .*xc5 43 *a4 *c6! 44 h4 *d7 45
4?d5 h5 46 e6+ <4e7 47 *c6 &xe6 48
*xc7 <445 49 4>d6 <4g4 50 4>e5 <4xh4
51 &f4 96 52 *f3 g5 0-1

Game 39
The simplification has led to an ending in Pedersen-Magomedov
which this move gives White a slight pulL Cappelle la Grande 1998
21.. .5d3
Korchnoi prefers White after 21...fxe6 22 1 e4 e5 2 Slf3 S)c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 Slf6
<&xe6 Sf7 23 a4 Hd6 24 ^g5 Sf8 25 Ae3 5 0-0 Slxe4 6d4b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5
with the point that 25..h6 can be met by 26 Ae6 9 c3 Ae7 10 <Sibd2 Slc5 11 Ac2
£)xe4! Axe4 27 Ac5 Se6 28 f3 Sf4 29 axb5 Ag4
axb5 30 Axe7 Sxe7 31 2e3! calmly
increasing the pressure.
22 exf7+ Axf7 23 Sixe4 Sld5 24 f3
24 a3 Sixc3 25 Sixc3 Sxc3 26 Ae3 Se8
27 2edl gave White a small but persistent
edge, despite the opposite-coloured bishops,
in Hiibner-Zak, Lugano 1989.
24.. .Jl.g6 25 &f2 2e8
Black has good play for his pawn and in
any case the c3-pawn will fall.
26 a4?!
26 4ic5 is more testing, when after
26.. .5xc3 27 5xe8+ Axe8 28 Ad2 Sc2 29
&el a5 30 a3 White is not worse.
26.. .£xe4 27 Bxe4 Bxe4 28 fxe4 Sixc3
29 axbS axb5 12 We2, intending either 13 We3
The target of the isolated e-pawn and (unpinning) or 13 2dl (pressure on the d-
good piece activity offers Black the winning file), is worthy of closer study, although

71
Open Ftuy Lopez

Black seems to be able to cope after 12...Wd7 Kostic, Carlsbad 1911, White’s aggressive-
and now: looking position is not that dangerous with
a) 13 Sdl Hd8 14 £rfl d4 (or 14...0-0 15 two pairs of minor pieces already exchanged,
£)e3 <£lxe5 16 Bxd5, as in Shamkovich- but he can claim a slight initiative.
McLaughlin, Chicago 1988, and now 16 f4 Axbl 17 Bxbl g6 18 £ig4
Korchnoi’s 16...'Sfe6! looks better for Black, 18 f5 £)g7 19 f6 ±c5+ 20 <&hl £>e6 21
although theory says its only equal) 15 £sg3 <§3b3 itb6 22 ite3 is suggested by Pedersen
d3 16 We3 &xf3 17 gxf3 We6 18 &xd3 as a favourable alternative for White. He has
£>xd3 19 Bxd3 Sxd3 20 Wxd3 £3xe5 21 a space advantage but the knight on e6 holds
We4 0-0 with no problems for Black in everything together for Black.
Shamkovich-Radashkovich, Israel 1974. 18...0-0-0!?
b) Unpinning doesn’t give anything either The struggle becomes complex after this,
due to 13 We3 £se6 14 b4 d4 15 cxd4 £)cxd4 an extremely rare option for the black king in
16 ite4 Sd8 17 a3, as in Westerinen- the Open.
Chekhov, Moscow 1982, and now the 19 ihb3 d4 20 cxd4
follow-up 17...c5 (Korchnoi) is equal 20 £*h6 dxc3 21 bxc3 ±f8 22 f5 gxf5 23
12.. .£te6 £>xf5 is unclear according to Pedersen.
This move, stopping White from coming 20.. .6cxd4 21 £e3 £if5 22 Bel 0d5 23
to d4 with the unpinned knight, is perhaps 0a5 &b7 24 £if6!
the most logical continuation, but castling is The point - see the previous note!
perfectly satisfactory for Black, e.g. 12...0-0 24.. .'»d3
13 £sd4 £ixd4 14 cxd4 <S3e6 15 £fo3 (15
lTe3?! c5! 16 dxc5 ibcc5 17 %3 ±e2 18
Sel £>d4, as in Blokhuis-COMP Wchess,
The Hague 1997, gave a strong initiative for
Black, who won easily) 15...a5, as in Gligoric-
Miagmasuren, Tel Aviv Olympiad 1964, is
gjven as the standard way to equalise. That
game continued 16 We3 f5!? 17 exf6 Sxf6 18
f3 Ah5 19 a4 bxa4 20 Sxa4 ±e8 21 Sal (or
21 Sxa5 Sxa5 22 £)xa5 c5 23 £fo3 c4 and
Black wins back the d-pawn under
favourable circumstances with 24...1Brb6)
21.. .a4 and Black was doing well
13h3 Ah5 14«3h2 Ag6 15&b1 24...iLxf6? allows White’s attack to get out
Distinctly inferior is 15 ilxg6 due to of hand with 25 <&c5+ £ixc5 26 Sxc5 Wd7
15.. .fxg6! (f-file) 16 £)b3 (or more recently 16 27 Bfcl 5c8 28 5c6!
<§3df3 04) 17 ±e3 Sf5 18 g4 Bf7 19 Wd2 25 Aa7!
»d7 20 Sadi Saf8, as in Lobzhanidze- A surprise, keeping the bishop in the
Komeev, Minsk 1998, with preference for attack. If instead 25 itf2 then 25...£ie3
the second player) 16...g5!? 17 ±e3 0-0 and defends painlessly. Now the complications
Black had the better game in Alekhine- quickly lead to a perpetual check.
Rubinstein, Vilnius 1912. 25...&xa7 26 Bf3 Ac5+ 27 Bxc5 «b1+
15.. /»d7!? 28 &h2 Bdl 29 Bxc7+ £ixc7 30 0xc7+
After 15...£)c5 16 f4 jSlxbl 17 Bxbl £>d3 S?a8 31 0c6f *a7 32 0c7+ 4?a8 33
18 Wg3 £3xcl 19 Bbxcl 0-0, as in Fahmi- 0c6+ 34-14

72
 9 c3 $Le7: Mam Line with 10 thbd2 thc5 1 1 Ac 2

Summary
This is perhaps the most difficult chapter for move order complexities and transpositions.
If Black wishes to play for a quick ...d5-d4 the best moment is move 11. Play in Game 29
suggests that the ending that follows is more or less equal, but note that the early simplification
offers few winning chances.
Black’s most consistent route to equality is ll..JLg4 12 Sel 0-0 and 13...He8. This is true
against either 13 £sb3 (Game 32) or 13 £sfl (Games 34 and 35).
The plan with 12...#d7 and ...2d8 doesn’t seem to equalise against either 13 £}fl (Games
37 and 38) or 13 <§3b3 (Game 36).

I e4 e5 2 £rf3 <&c6 3 £b5 a6 4 £a4 £if6 5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5 Ae6
9 c3 Ae7 10 <&bd2 £ic5 11 Ac2

II ...Ag4
11.. .d4 - Gome 29
12 Sel (D)
12 iTel - Game 39
12...0-0
12.. M&
13 ^3b3 - Game 36
13 £tfl 2d8 14 £>e3 Ah5
15 b4 (D) - Game 37
15 £tf5 - Game 38
13 £tf1
13<§3b3
13.. .41e4 - Game 31
13.. .5e8 - Game 32
13.. .5e8
13.. .d4 - Game 30
13.. .^h5 - Game 33
14 h3
14 £ie3 - Game 34
14.. .6h5 15 £ig3 iLg6 16 £if5 (D) - Game 35
 CHAPTER SIX 1
9 c3 M.e7 10 £>bd2:
Black avoids the Main Line

The well-researched variations of the 5 0-0 £ixe4 6d4b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5

previous chapter are not everybody’s cup of Ae6 9 c3 ±e7 10 £ibd2 Wd7
tea. Some players have sought other ways of An experiment of Anand that hasn’t
developing and ideas without 10...4?k5 are caught on. Games 41-45 feature 10...0-0.
covered here. 11 Ac2
Anand's 10...Wd7 (Game 40) hasn’t
caught on at all, whereas 10...0-0 (Games 41-
45) has a rich history but is out of fashion.
After 10...0-0 White can try 11 #e2
against which ll...£ixd2 (Game 41) often
goes wrong in practical play as White will
immediately probe awsy at Black’s rather
naked king. Black can get his queenside
majority going but it seems slow and
ineffective. I prefer ll...£>c5 (Game 42)
against which White has to play accurately to
obtain anything at all
The other dangerous 11th move is 11
.&c2 when Games 44 and 45 offer some
ideas as to keep an edge. White was much better after ll..JLf5 12
Overall, Black’s play in Chapter 5 is more £sd4 (interesting is the solid continuation 12
popular, which suggests that most top Sel £>c5 13 £rfl ±xc2 14 #xc2 0-0 15 ±e3
players believe 10...£>c5 to be best, but there <§3e6 16 Sadi f6 17 exf6 &xf6 18 <§3g3 Sad8
is certainly surprise value in trying 10...0-0. 19 £le4, as in Zapata-Rodriguez, Bogota
1991, when White has a sligjit initiative)
Game 40 12—&g6 13 a4 0-0 (Krasenkov proposes
J.Polgar-Anand D...4ixd2 14 Axd2 0-0 as an improvement)
Munich 1991 14 £txe4 &xe4 15 axb5 axb5 16 2xa8 Sxa8
17 Axe4 dxe4 18 e6 fxe6 19 &xb5, as in
1 e4 e5 2 £sf3 <»c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 ®f6 Luther-Krasenkov, Asti 1996, because of

74
 9 c3 §Le7 10 thbd2: Black avoids the Main Line

problems -with the black pawn structure. Be5 and White is winning (Polgar).
12 *xd2 £g4 19 £e3 g6 20 £h6+ 4?g8 21 *g4
After 12...0-0 White keeps the initiative White has good attacking chances for the
with 13 #d3. Typically when the knight on pawn. Exactly the type of position to avoid
e4 is exchanged for its counterpart on d2, the against Judit Polgar!
black position loses its potential dynamic 21.. .*f6 22 iLc2 jLfS 23 ±g5 *d6 24
qualities and White often has a safe edge. £f4 *d8 25 Badl ®a5 26 h4!
13*14 Black has long-term problems organising
his army, so White has the time to loosen the
opposing king’s defences.
26.. .C6 27 h5 £ic4 28 b3 £>d6 29 hxg6
hxg6

Polgar analyses 13...0-0 14 <§3g5 h6 15

<£lh7 Hfe8 16 h3 and then after either
16.. .±e6 or 16...±e2 the shot 17 £rf6+!
yields a strong attack. 30 £xg6! fxg6 31 Be6!
However, less entertaining but much Avoiding 31 Wxg6+?! itg7 32 ,&xd6 (32
better is 14..JLxg5! 15 Wxg5 h6! (15...Sae8?! Wxd6 'irxd6 33 .&xd6 ±xc3 is not clear)
16 f3) 16 «f4 (16 «Te3 AiS is eqpal) which is met by 32...2h6.
16.. .Hae8 17 f3 ^Ji5 with a good position. 31.. .BH7
Perhaps White should try 18 Wg3 4ixe5 19 Polgar points out why the other defences
.&xh6 but Black has no problems after fail: 31...Ba7 to 32 &xd6 ±xd6 33 iTxg&t-
19.. .±g6 (Flear). Bg7 34 Be8+ and 31...5ie8 to 32 Sxgfrt-
14 jLf5 ±g733'ire6+*f8 34Sd3.
Gaining time. 32 Axd6 Ag7 33 Bdel
14.. .*d8 15*xf3 33 5xg6 was simpler.
15 gxf3 also looks reasonable. 33.. .Bh6 34 g3 *d7 35 Af4 g5 36
15.. .£>xe5 16*e2*d6 &xg5 Bg6 37 *f5 Bxe6 38 *xe6+?
The continualion 16...4ic6? 17 Sdl 0-0 18 The clearest path to victory is 38 Sxe6
■&.e4 spells trouble for Black (Polgar). Se8 39 Sxe8+ #xe8 40 &f6 leading to a
17 Bel ®c6 18 £g5 *f8! winning queen ending, whereas the text gives
The only hope as others are clearly cfiances for Black to draw by mobilising his
lacking: 18...f6? 19 *h5+ 4?f8 20 Be6 *c5 queenside majority.
21 ite3 d4 22 JLxd4 with a clear advantage 38.. .*xe6 39 Bxe6 Bc8 40 -&d2 *f7 41
(Korchnoi) and 18...g6? 19 Sadi gxf5 20 Bel c5 42 &f1 c4 43 bxc4 Bxc4?
iLxe7 £ixe7 21 Sxd5 !Tf6 22 Bxf5 lTd6 23 43...bxc4 44 Sbl d4 would give

75
Open Ruy Lopez

reasonable drawing chances by creating a 11 ...<£>c5

dangerous passed pawn. ll...$ixd2 is inferior, as we shall see in the
44 Bel &e6 45 &e2 d4 46 cxd4 £xd4 next main game. Alternatively, ll..JLf5!? 12
47 Ae3 Ab2 48 Bxc4 bxc4 49 «d2 Edl <§3c5 13 £}fl 43xb3 14 axb3 Ae4, as in
The bishop ending with two connected Visser-Emst, Groningen 1997, could be met
passed pawns seems to be a comfortable win. by 15 Jif4 rather than 15 53g3 .&xf3 16
49....&g7 50 &c2 *d5 51 f3 £f6 52 gxf3?! (16 «Txf3 is equal) 16...lTd7 17 f4 lTe6
£h6 Ae5 53 g4 Ad4 54 Ad2 Ab6 55 18 Jie3 f6 when Blade was better.
£c1 Aa5 56 a4 *e5 57 Ag5 *d5 58 12£ri4
-&d2 Ac7 59 Ac3 J.f4 60 £f6 .&g3 61 After 12 itc2?! Black immediately frees
g5 iLh4 62 Ad8 Af2 63 g6 Ad4 64 Aa5 his position with 12...d41, when after 12 Edl
*e6 65 £c3 1-0 Wd7 13 itc2 f6, as in Vasiukov-Lutikov,
Moscow 1982, Black had already equalised.
G<*rae 4.7
Mecking-Korchnoi
Augusta (2ndmatchgame) 1974

1 e4 e5 2 £if3 £>c6 3 &b5 a6 4 l.a4 £if6

5 0-0 «3xe4 6 d4 b5 7 J.b3 d5 8 dxe5
Ae6 9 c3 Ae7 10 ®bd2 0-0 11 We2
Apart from 11 Jic2 (Games 43-45) there
are also some less common tries here:
a) 11 4Sd4 £ixd4 12 cxd4 £ixd2 13 Jbcd2
c5 14 dxc5 &xc5 with easy piece play for
Black, e.g. 15 Eel Ec8 16 Exc5 Exc5 17
Ab4 Wc7 18 lTd4 Bel 19 &xf8 *xf8 V4-V4
Keres-Fine, Amsterdam 1938. 12...&xb3
b) 11 Sell? (not previously considered a Another idea is to first capture on d4,
dangerous move order, but Anand has changing the pawn structure, e.g. 12...?3xd4
introduced a critical idea) ll...£>c5 and now: 13 cxd4 £lxb3 (13...4-M7 14 f4 f5 15 exf6
bl) 12 &d4 £&d4 13 cxd4 <§3d3 14 Ee3 Bxf6 16 f5! itf7 17 g4 was already very
33xcl 15 Bxcl c5 16 dxc5 Ec8 17 Bd3 &.xc5 difficult for Black in Znosko Borovsky-
and again Black had achieved ...c7-c5 Euwe, Broadstairs 1921) 14 £bd>3 Ec8, as in
painlessly in Kajumov-Buturin, Primorsko Botvinnik-Denker, Groningen 1946, when
1989. The further continuation was by now playing 15 Jkd2! followed by Eel
instructive: 18 4E)e4! dxe4! (a positional queen White stops the counter.c7-c5 and thus
sacrifice) 19 Sxd8 Efxd8 20 #el ^.xb3 21 keeps Blade tied down to the defence of his
axb3 jk.d4 and Black has equal chances. weakened queenside.
b2) Anand recently came up with 12 If 12...«rd7 13 £Lc2 f6 14 b4 &a4
•&c2!? d4 13 4i>b3!? previously 13 cxd4 (14...?3xd4! 15 cxd4 £la4 limits White’s
<53xd4 14 £>xd4 Wxd4 15 We2 Bad8 16 £rf3 advantage) 15 4l2f3 $3xd4 16 iS3xd4 c5 17
Wc4, as in KLGeorgjev-Piket, Bid 1993, was exf6 Bxf6 18 43xe6 !Txe6 19 Wd3 Bg6 20
known to be equal) 13...dxc3 14 bxc3 #xdl M4 Bf8 21 Bael Wd7 22 ±g3 Sf7 23 Se5
15 Sxdl Bad8 16 Ag5! and White kept an £3b6 24 Efel, as in Short-Unzicker, West
initiative in Anand-Komeev, VUlarrobledo Germany 1987, White has a dear advantage
1998. in view of his good bishops and rooks and

76
 9 c3 ie7 10 lhbd2: Black nds the Mt

Black’s awkwardly placed pieces. spot.

13 £}2xb3 17.. JLd7 18 b4
White should seriously consider 13 lS3xc6 On 18 <§3b3 then 18...'ire4 is an awkward
£>xcl 14 Saxcl #d7 15 £ixe7+ #xe7 16 f4
f5 17 exf6 #xf6 18 We3 &f5 19 #d4, as in 18.. .'ire4 19£d2
Janosevic-Lukic, Yugoslavia 1955, when he After 19 f4 f6 Black starts to open the
has a nice edge due to his better minor piece position for his bishops.
and, by following up with b2-b4, a blockade 19.. .Wxe2 20 £ixe2
of the pawn majority. In this typical Open Ruy Lopez ending the
13.. .Wd7 14 &xc6 Wxd6 15 Ae3 bishops compensate for a devalued majority.
Again, White is spoilt for choice. 15 f4 20.. .Bfe8 21 itf4 c6 22 £>d4 a5 23 a3
±f5 16 £Le3 *g6 17 #f2 f6 18 e61, as in axb4 24 axb4 Ba4 25 £>b3
Boleslavsky-Kenes, USSR Championship After 25 Sxa4 bxa4 26 Sal c5 Black has a
1947, also gives Black some problems. useful passed pawn.
15.. .Af5 25.. 2.a8 26 -&.e3 f6 27 Ad4 fxe5 28
After 15 ..Mc4 16 #d2! White obtained an ^.xe5 Af5 29 Bacl. &g5 30 f4 Ad8 31
edge in Fischer-Euwe, New York (2nd Bd2 Ae4 32 £>c5 itb6 33 Ad4 1jcc5 34
matchgame) 1957 - but the complete score fLxc5 Ba2 35 Bcdl h5 'A-'A
of this game has been lost! It is astonishing Neither majority looks dangerous with
that a matchgame of a former World opposite bishops.
Champion can be mislaid as recently as the This line used to attract many of the
1950s. This is better than 16 #02 Wg4 17 world’s top players, but Black’s prospects of
£>d4 2fc8 18 f4 c5, as in Stokz-Szabo, an equal game and active play are worse here
Groningen 1946, when Black has equalised. than in Chapter 5.
16 fffdl
Game 42
Hecht-Langeweg
Hangelo 1968
1 e4 e5 2 £lf3 <&c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 £>f6
5 0-0 &xe4 6d4b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5
Ae6 9 c3 &.e7 10 ®bd2 0-0 11 #e2
£>xd2
As we saw in the previous game, ll_.^3c5
is promising for White but this proves to be
an even more passive try. The exchange
...4fxd2 is tantamount to giving White a free
initiative and is rarely the correct approach in
16...Wg6! the Open.
An improvement on 16...2fd8 17 f3 ^.f8 12£xd2
18 #f2 a5, as in Botvinnik-Euwe, Leningrad Alter 12 #xd2 £sa5 13 ±c2 £>c4 14 #d3
1934, when after 19 Sacl a4 20 4fc5 White g6 15 -&h6 5fxb2!? (this cheeky move is
has an advantage despite the opposite- playable but dangerous and more double-
coloured bishops. edged than 15...Be8 16 #d4 f6 17 exf6 ±xf6
17&d4 18 #f4 c5 19 Bfel with a pleasant edge to
Not 17 Sxd5?? as 17...fLe4 wins on the White in Scholl-Zuidema, Netherlands 1967)

77
Open Ruy Lopez

16 We3 Black has tried two defences: Wg3 ±d6, as in Keres-Dyckhoff,

a) 16...Se8 17 Wf4 c5 18 £}g5! (better correspondence 1936, when 24 ^.f4 is best
than the 18 &.g5 d4 19 cxd4 cxd4 20 ,&e4, as with an advantage, according to Korchnoi,
in Tal-Korchnoi, Riga 1955, because since the game continuation 24 Wg5 Se5 25
20.. .5c8! is unclear - Van der Tak) 18...Wb6 <§3e3 m7 26 Wh4 &c4 27 fxg6 Wxg6 28 Bf6
19 Sael d4 20 4be4 with a strong attack in Sh5 29 Bxg6+ hxg6 30 Wf6 Sxh2+ 31 <&gl
Armali-Ko snicky, correspondence 1942. Sxh6 32 Wg5 ^>h7 was undear and
b) 16...£k4 17 ttf4 c51? (the best practical eventually led to a draw.
try as after 17...f6 18 £xf8 Wxf8 19 &d4 14 £c1 Wd7 15 b3 £lb6 16 Wd3 g6 17
Wf7 20 exf6 iLxf6 21 a4 Black had iLh6 Sfp8 18 Wd2 f5?!
insufficient play for the exchange in Psakhis- 18...c5 is probably better, because the text
Zaitsev, Yerevan 1982) 18 iLxf8 &xf8, as gives White a static target as Black no longer
given by Keres. Black may have a playable has the option of opening the centre with
game here (the white rooks are not as yet that ...f7-f6.
useful) but White is probably favourite. 19 h4! *h8 20 Sadi c5 21 Wf4 ±fS 22
12.. .6a5 13 Ac2 &xf8 Sxf8 23 ®g5 Sae8 24 Sd3
The storm douds are gathering!
24...Wg7 25 h5 h6

The alternatives are as follows:

a) In Vasiukov-Lukic, Reykjavik 1957,
Black tried 13...c5 14 Wd3 g6 15 ±h6 Se8 Much more dangerous than 26 £ixe6
16 Sadi £sc4 17 itcl f6 18 exf6 ±xf6 19 Sxe6 27 hxg6 Bxg6 28 Sg3 Sg5, which is
Sfel Wd6 20 ±b3, when White had a only a little better for White as his opponent
persistent initiative but no easy breakthrough. is holding the kingside together.
b) 13...1Srd7 and now: 26.. .hxg5 27 Wxg5?
bl) 14 Sadi c5 15 Sfel &c6 16 ±cl This is given as an error in bifarmrtor 5,
Sfe8 17 Wd3 g6 18 We3 ±f8 19 Wf4 h6 20 with the line 27 Sh3+ ^8 28 Wxg5 Wxe5
Wh4 ±g4 21 &f4 ±xf3 22 gxf3 ±g7 23 29 Sh7 proposed as stronger, indeed
Wg3 Sad8 24 h4 with an unclear position in 29.. .«f6 30 WhS! Se7 31 g7! seems to do the
Sznapik-Lalk, Copenhagen 1989. trick.
b2) Instead 14 Wd3! g6 15 ^Lh6 gives 27.. .f4 28 Sf3 4?g8 29 Sxf4 Sxf4 30
White a dangerous initiative, e.g. 15...Af5 16 Wxf4 Sf8 31 Wg5 d4 32 cxd4 £>d5?!
We2 Sfe8 17 £td4 &xc2 18 £ixc2 ^.d6 19 A more robust defence was 32...cxd4 33
f4 f6 20 Wd3 fxe5 21 f5 &c5+ 22 *hl e4 23 f4 £td5 34 f5 Wxe5 35 Wh5 Wg7 36 Wh7+

78
 9 c3 ie7 10 lhbd2: Black avoids the Mam Line

#xh7 37 gxh7+ <&xh7 38 feefrf <&g7 for White in the game AmRodnguez-Karl,
(Marie). Chiasso 1993.
33 dxc5 £if4 34 Bdl Ad5 35 «h4 b) 11...4ixd2 yet again proves tame after
35 b4 was more precise. 12 #xd2 f6 13 exf6 Axf6, as in Yates-
35.. .£xg2 36 Bd8 £ixg6 37 Axg6 Wxg6 Tarrasch, Bad Kiss ingen 1928, when
38 Sxf8+ *xf8 39 «d8+ &f7 40 e6+ Korchnoi’s 14 £}g5 Axg5 15 Wxg5 Wxg5 16
Black loses back the bishop and the game. Axg5 5la5 gives White a pleasant endgame
40.. .*g7 41 We7+ *h6 42 'irf8+ &h5 edge due to die bishop pair.
43 »h8+ &g4 44 &xg2 *f4+ 45 &h2 c) Black cannot realty support the knight
1-0 < with ll...Af5 12 £kl4 £bcd4 13 cxd4 c5
In the end it became rather messy but the (13...f6 proved too loosening in Ivanchuk-
early middlegame, and the notes, show that Korchnoi, New York rapidplay 1994, due to
although just about playable, this line gives 14 £3xe4 Axe4 15 Axe4 dxe4 16 'irb3+
White dangerous attacking chances. I feel *h817 Ae3 c6 18 We6 #e8 19 Sacl with
that 11...53xd2 is too co-operative and is a big problems in the black camp) 14 4ixe4
poor practical choice. Axe4 15 Axe4 dxe4 16 d5 He8, as in Geller-
Korchnoi, Budva 1967, when 17 f4! would
Gome 43 have maintained the advantage.
Arsenev-Zuhovicky 12 exf6
USSR 1967 Experience has shown that White has
more chances of obtaining something from
1 e4 e5 2 <&f3 £ic6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 £if6 the opening with 12 4ki4 or 12 £sb3 (see
5 0-0 £>xe4 6 d4 b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5 Games 44 and 45 respectively).
Ae6 9 c3 Ae7 10 £tfxJ2 0-0 11 Ac2 12.. .4.xf6 13£lb3
The continuation 13 £}g5?! Ag4 14 f3
Ac8 15 Sel «U6 16 #e2 Ad7 17 <§3b3
Sae8 gave Black superior development in
Kotov-Averbakh, USSR 1952. However, a
reasonable alternative to the text was 13 Sel
Ag4 14 £>fl Wd7 15 £ie3 Ac5 16 ^xg4
£>xg4 17 Ae3 Axe3 18 fxe3 Sad8 19 e4 d4,
as in Godena-Brunner, Novi Sad Olympiad
1990, which was more or less equal.
13.. JLg4! 14*d3
Korchnoi believes that 14 h3 Ah5 15 g4
can be met by 15...33xg4 16 hxg4 Axg4 17
«d3 Af5 18 *xf5 Sxf5 19 Axf5 with an
undear position. White has plenty of material
The most interesting as others give White for the queen but an exposed king.
a comfortable game: 14.. .£ie4
a) 11...£>c5 12 &b3 (12 &d41? is also The most dynamic. Instead a draw was
promising after 12...£lxe5 13 b4 53a4 14 agreed after 14...#d7 15 £ibd4 4lxd4 16
Wh5 £lg6 15 f4 £txc3 16 f5 Axb4 17 fxe6 cxd4 Axf3 17 #xf3 g6 18 Ah6 Bf7 19 Sael
fxe6 18 £l2f3, as in Ivanovic-Cvetkovic, <§3g4 20 1^3 Af6 21 Ae3 c6 22 Adi in
Yugoslav Championship 1974) 12...£lxb3 13 Rohde-Korchnoi, Beersheva 1987.
axb3 #d7 14 #d3 g6 15 Ah6 with an edge Worse is 14...Axf3?! which unnecessarity

79
Open Ruy Lopez

weakens the light squares. After 15 Wxf3 The immediate 20...fih5 fails to 21 ®xd5+
#d6 16 «h3 We5 17 £d2 £d6 18 &f5 Sxd5 22 iLxd5+ <&h8 23 &xa8.
£e7 19 ite6+ ^>h8 20 Sfel and White had 21 f3
an edge in Gufeld-Leverett, Cardoza 1998, Now, however, 21 Wxd5 Hxd5 22 &xd5
due to the pair of bishops and some light- can be met by 22...2f8 23 Axe4 ^.e2 etc.
square fragility in the black camp. However, 21 ...Bh5! 22 fxe4 Wh2+ 23 *f2 Bf8+ 24
another move 14..jkh5, intending ,...£.g6, is Af4
safe. Equally hopeless is 24 'ifeel ’tth4+ 25 g3
15 4bbd4 £txd4 16 £txd4 Ad6 Sxfl+ 26 Sbxfl 1tthl+.
p4...Wxf44- 25 &e1 Shi! 0-1
A nice mating attack which shows the
power of Blade’s active pieces after 13 exf6.

Game 44
Short-Prasad
Subotica Interzonal 1987

1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £ic6 3 Ab5 a6 4 &a4 4bf6

5 0-0 £>xe4 6 d4 b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5
Ae6 9 c3 Ae7 10 £ibd2 0-0 11 Ac2 f5
12 £sd4 £txd4 13 cxd4 £>xd2
After 13...C5 14. dxc5 iLxc5?! (14...£txd2!
Black’s minor pieces are active and given transposes to our main game) 15 £sb3 itb6
half the opportunity he is poised to pounce 16 £td4 White had an optimal position
at White’s Idng. (knight on d4 and play against the weak blade
17 &xb5? pawns on d5 and f5; potential for f2-f3 etc.)
This move, playing for tricks against the and thus a dear advantage in Adams-
exposed dS-pawn, proves to be fraught with Demarre, Paris 1989.
danger. Alternatively: 14 Axd2 c5 15 dxc5 i.xc5
a) 17 ±b3?! &h8 18 h3 Wh4 19 f4 «3c5
20 We3 Sae8 21 £lf3 ±xf3 22 #xf3 c6, as in
Gipslis-Suetin, Tallinn 1959, favours Black.
b) 17 £*6? Wh4 18 Wxd5+ *h8 19 h3
Sxf2 20 &xe4 Sxfl+ 21 &xfl Sf8+ is even
winning for the second player.
c) Instead 17 h3 is White’s most prudent
course, when after 17...1Brh4 18 <§3xb5 £lxf2
19 ±g5! £txd3 20 ±xh4 axb5 21 iLxd3 ±d7
he escaped with equality in Ragozin-
Ravinsky, USSR 1947.
The game continuation is an unforturure
move order reversal which allows Blade a
winning attack starting with...
17...Axh2+! 18 *xh2 Wh4+ 19 &g1 3f5 More precise is 16 Scl, when play may
Threatening 20..JSh5. continue 16...1Srb6 (Krasenkov prefers
20 ±b3 *h8 16...lrd7) 17 b4 Ad^the passive 17.._*e7?l

80
 9 c3 Ae 7 10 thbd2: Black avoids the Main Line

allows White a blockade by 18 Ae3 Wd8 19 21 Af4

1Hrd4, leaving the d5-pawn weak) 18 Ab3 Unconvincing is 21 Axd5 Axd5 22 #xd5
Sac8 19 lTf3 <&h8 (19...Axe5? leads to a as Black’s position is fine after 22.. Jbtf2+.
disaster after 20 Seel Wd6 21 Sxe5 #xe5 22 21 ...Bfd8 22 h4 h6 23 h5 a5 24 &h2
Bel Wd6 23 Sxe6) 20 Af4 and White kept Short would like to create chances in the
an edge due to the pressure on d5 and centre and on the kingside, but is constantly
Black’s slightly exposed pieces in Gufeld- restrained by tactical chances on the a7-gl
Prasad, New Delhi 1984. diagonal. Funnily enough, this move soon
16.. .Wb6 allows another tactical point, so perhaps hi is
Another reasonable move is 16...Wd7, e.g. the right square.
17 Bel Bfc8 (17...Bac8? allows 18 Bxc5 24.. .Wb5 25 Bd2
Sxc5 19 Ab4 simplifying positively as Black After 25 Bdl Prasad intended 25...#e8
is left with his ‘bad bishop’, for instance eyeing h5.
19.. .#c7 20 #d4! Bc8 21 Axc5 Wxc5 22 25.. .Ae3! 26 Bxc8
Wxc5 Bxc5 23 Bdl and White would expea The attack with 26 Wxe3 Bxcl 27 Axh6
to win with a plan involving f2-f4 and ^gl- is met by 27...We8, covering the king, as
f2-e3-d4 when the d-pawn will fall sooner or Prasad points out.
later. This nightmare scenario is always a 26.. .Axf4+ 27 #xf4 Bxc8
problem for Black when he liberates with Black has enough counterplay as he has
...c7-c5, isolating his own d-pawn, and then obtained control of the c-file and has ideas
plays too passivefy.) 18 Ac3 a5 19 a3 Ab6 20 such as ...a5-a4, gaining ground on the
Bc2 a4 21 Aa2 d4! and Black had equal play queenside.
in Ivanchuk-Hjartarson, Tilburg 1989. 28 g3 a4 29 Adi Bc4 30 Ae2
17 Wf3 Sad8 The ending that follows is about equal,
Slightly better was 17...'&h8, not ya but Black has to be careful as he has the
committing the rooks. White cannot take on slightly worse pawn structure.
d5 as the bishop hangs on d2. 30.. .Bxf4 31 Axb5 Se4 32 Axa4 Bxe5
18 Bacl b4! 33 Adi Af7 34 Af3 Be7 35 *g2 Sa7
Keeping White cramped. 18..A.d4? would 36 b3 Ba5 37 *f1 *g8 38 4?e2 *f8 39
have allowed 19 Ab4 followed by installing &e3 S?e7 40 4?d4 &d6
the bishop on d6, when the d5-pawn would Normalfy once the king is on d4 in such
not be long for this world. positions. Black would be in trouble, but the
19 Bc2 4?h8 20 Bfcl Bc8 semi-open a-file keeps the black position
alive.
41 Bc2 Ae6 42 Ae2 Af7 43 f4 Ba7?
A slip. It was more sensible to ‘pass’ with
43.. A.e6.
44 Ab5!
Creating winning chances as White can
now use c6.
44.. .Axh5 45 Bc6+ S?e7 46 Aa6 Af3
46...(&d7 is met by 47 ^c5 and Black,
despite being a pawn up, has several pawns
on the verge of falling.
47 Bb6 Ae4 48 &e5 Abl 49 *xd5
Axa2 50 &c4
Open Ruy Lopez

50 Ac4 followed by Sxb4 gives White an ®xb3 5lxb3 25 Axb3 Bb8 Black will win
edge according to Short. In the game, Short back the b2-pawn) 24...2b8, as in Akopian-
tested his less-experienced opponent but Krasenkov, Vilnius 1988.
Black had sufficient resources to hold on. 13.. .®xd4 14 ®xd4
50...£b1 51 *xb4 Ae4 52 *c3 2d7 53 White had nothing special after 14 cxd4 a5
Ac4 Hd6 54 Hxd6 *xd6 55 *d4 g5 56 15 f3 a4 16 fxe4 axb3 17 Axb3 fxe4 18 Ae3
Ae2 gxf4 57 gxf4 Ad 5 58 b4 Ae4 59 b5 Sxfl+ 19 #xfl Bf8 20 #e2 h6 in Griinfeld-
Ad5 60 Ah5 Ab7 61 *c4 itd5t- 62 *b4 Tal, Riga Interzonal 1979.
Ag2 63 *a5 *c7 64 *a6 itfl 65 ±13 14.. .C5 15 £>xe6 #xe6 16 f3 ®g5
Ad3 66 *a5 Ae4 67 Ah5 <2?b7 68 Ag6
*a7 69 b6+ *b7 70 *b5 Ad3+ 71 *c5
Ae4 72 Ah5 <*b8 73 Ae8 *b7 74 &g6
^6
Simpler was 74...Ac2.
75 Axf5!? Axf5 76 *c6 Ae4+ 77 *c7
h5 78 f5 h4 79 f6 h3 80 b7 Axb7 81 17
h2 82 f8« hi# 83 #f6+ #c6f 84
#xc6+ Axc6 85 *xc6 V4-V4
A good practical example with an isolated
d-pawn in the Open. White should not be
allowed to blockade the d-pawn with a
knight, nor to exchange the dark-squared
bishops too early. Black must compete for
the c-file and space on the queen’s wing and White can force opposite-coloured
generally remain active. bishops by 17 Axg5 but it’s far from
drawish. In fact, White keeps some pressure,
Game 45 e.g. 17—&xg5 18 f4 Ae7 (the idea 18...Ad8
Nunn-Korchnoi 19 a4 c4 20 axb5 Ab6+ 21 &hl axb5 is
Cologne (rapidplay) 1989 refuted by Vasiukov’s 22 Axf5!) 19 #f3 c4
20 Sfdl Sad8 21 Bd2 Ac5+ 22 *fl! (the
1 e4 e5 2 ®>f3 £>c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 £}f6 point is that 22 &hl d4 23 Sadi d3 24 Sxd3
5 0-0 &xe4 6d4b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5 Sxd3 25 Sxd3 cxd3 26 Ab3 #xb3 27 axb3
Ae6 9 c3 Ae7 10 £>bd2 0-0 11 Ac2 f5 Sd8 wins for Black as the -white king cannot
12 £*b3 #d7 13 ®>fd4 blockade the d-pawn - Vasiukov) 22...Sd7
Directly preparing f2-f3. If White delays 23 Sadi Bfd8 24 b3 g6 25 h3 h5 26 g3 &g7,
this idea then Black should seek play by as in Korsunsky-Chekhov, USSR 1979, when
expanding on the queenside, e.g. 13 Sel a5! White has chances for an attack by
(13...SM8, intending ...c7-c5 is not bad either, continuing with 27 Sg2 followed by g3-g4.
but 13..JIad8 14 We2 Sfe8 15 £>fd4 &xd4 17...g6 18#e2
16 ^xd4 c5 17 £lxe6 #xe6 18 f3 <&g5 19 a4 This offers nothing. A better try is 18
was too routine in Nunn-Wedberg, Novi Sad Axg5 Axg5 19 f4 Ae7 20 axb5 (or 20 #13
Olympiad 1990; compared to the main game b4!, as in Balashov-Korchnoi, West Germany
White is better organised) 14 Ad3 Sab8 15 1980) 20...axb5 21 Sxa8 Sxa8 22 g4, but
#e2 a4 16 53bd4 5lxd4 17 £lxd4 c6 18 f3 Black held on to equalise in Hiibner-
£>c5 19 Ac2 b4! 20 Ad2 b3 21 axb3 axb3 22 Korchnoi, Germany 1989, with 22...fxg4 23
Adi Sa8! 23 Sxa8 2xa8 24 Ae3 (after 24 f5 gxf5 24 Sxf5 Sa6 25 &hl &h8 26 #xg4

82
 9 c3 ie7 10 k±bd2: Black avoids the Main Line

Sal +27&g2'Brg8. about b2.

Another improvement on the game is 18 26.. .f4 27 £g1 Wd6 28 bxc4
&hl!? &h8 19 We2 c4 20 ^2 Sad8 21 axb5 Desperately trying to activate his position.
axb5 22 &e3 Sa8 23 Wd2, when White had The alternative was to go passive after 28
made more progress than usual in Milos- iLxd4 '8rxd4 29 Bdl, but this is met by the
Sorin, Villa Gesell 1996. However, even after annoying 29...We3.
losing time Black still drew without any great 28.. .5d2 29 We4 -&b4
difficulty. Preparing to attack g2 with his queen.
18...C4 30 Bfl WgS 31 Bf2 Bxf2 32 itxf2 £c3

White was on top after 18..Jfc6?! 19

3ixg5 3Ug5 20 f4 Ae7 21 g4 b4 22 Sadi in 33 e6 would be met by 33...b4 with
AJlodriguez-Passerotti, Malta Olympiad complications, when the extra exchange may
1980. not yet be a derisive factor.
19 Bel 33.. .*g7 34 e6?!
Compare the continuation after 19 JLxg5 The exchange of queens leaves White in
±xg5 20 f4 ±e7 21 axb5 axb5 22 Bxa8 great difficulties; Black can then use his king
Sxa8 23 g4, as in Rodriguefc-Sorin, Pan actively whereas the white monarch is out of
American Team Championship 1995, with play-
Hiibner-Korchnoi above. Here Black 34.. .'»xd5 35 cxd5 *f6 36 g3 Ba8 37
continued with 23...&h8 and held ,&e4
comfortably after 24 gxf5 gxf5 25 ^hl Sg8 Instead, 37 gxf4 loses to 37...Sal+! 38
26 #h5 Wg6. &g2Sa2.
19...%rb6+ 20 *h1 &e6 37.. .Ba1+ 38 *g2 Ba2 39 *f1 fxg3 40
Once Black has established a knight on hxg3 £b4
this excellent blockading square, it is he who Not 40...b4?l 41 Ac5 b3? 42 e7 and now
can start to look for an initiative. who is winning?
21 Bdl Bad8 22 axb5 axb5 23 £e3 d4 41 &d4f *e7 42 g4 ^.d6 43 *e1 b4 44
The opposite-coloured bishops are not a *d1 b3 45 g5 Ab4 46 itf&f *f8 47
problem for Blade He has a promising ±e5 Bg2 48 d6 and 0-1
queenside majority and White’s bishop has The ending after the continuation
no useful role. . 48.. .5.2+ (48...b2 49 e7+ wins for White) 49
24 cxd4 £>xd4 25 Sxd4 Sjid4 26 b3 &cl b2+ 50 &xb2 Sxd6 51 &c2 Sxe6
26 Ji.xd4 Wxd4 leaves White worrying should be won for Black.

83
Summary
There is some merit in trying to vary from standard play as early as move ten. White can
probably squeeze out a slight edge in Games 41 and Games 44 and 45, if he remembers the
theory. However, Games 40 and 42 are too easy for White and should be avoided by the
second player.
In conclusion, 10...0-0 is not bad but it is less precise and much less common than 10...£k5.

I e4 e5 2 £rf3 ®c6 3 £b5 a6 4 &a4 £>f6 5 0-0 ®xe4 6 d4 b5 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe5 ^.e6
9c3£e7 10®>bd2

10...0-0
10...Wd7 (D) - Game 40
II Ac2
llWe2
11.. .-5k5 (D) - Game 41
11.. .£lxd2 - Game 42
11 ...f5 12$>b3
12 exf6 - Game 43
12 £sd4 - Game 44
12...#d7 (D) - Game 43
 CHAPTER SEVEN]

9 c3 &el :
White avoids the Main Line

1 e4 e5 2 &f3 <&c6 3 ±h5 a6 4 ite4 ®f6

5 0-0 £>xe4 6d4b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5 Game 46
9 c3 ite7 Karpov-Korchnoi
In this position White generally plays 10 Baguio City (24th matchgame) 1978
£)bd2 (Chapters 5 and 6) or occasionally 10
•&e3 (Chapter 8). Here we examine other 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £>c6 3 £b5 a6 4 £a4 £>f6
lines in which these two moves are omitted 5 0-0 4&xe4 6 d4 b5 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe5
or significantly delayed. &e6 9 c3 &e7 10 &c2
In Game 46 Karpov employs 10 &c2 Not yet a divergence from Chapter 5 as
£)c5 11 h3 investing a tempo to stop ..Jk.g4, "White could meet 10...4k:5 with 11 £)bd2
whereas in Game 47 White allows the pin transposing. Here we deal with ideas where
with 11 fiel. White delays or avoids the standard knight
Games 48 and 49 involve the plan of c2- development.
c3, We2 and Sdl which sometimes arises via
9 We2. In Chapter 9 the similar plan of We2,
Sdl and c2-c4 will be examined.
In Game 50 Hiibner tries 10 Sel and 11
£ld4 and Game 51 takes a dose look at 10
a4, a favourite of Alekhine.
The games and notes here are less well
known than those in some of the other
chapters, and some of these lines are realty
quite obscure. I suggest that the reader
concentrate on development plans and
general prindples rather than memorising
various series of archaic moves parrot-
fashion. It will pay to be aware of
transpositional ideas and pay particular A reasonable alternative is 10..Jtg4 11 h3
attention to comparisons with play in the £xf3 (ll..Jdi5 is well met by 12 i.b3!) 12
more modem variations. gxf3 <&c5 13 f4 Wd7 (13...0-0?! 14 b4 <&a4 15

85
Open Ruy Lopez

Hel gave White good attacking chances in 13.. .46xd4 14 cxd4 £>b7 15 £k!2
Euwe-Cordever, Amsterdam 1945) 14 Wf3 Keene prefers 15 £>c3 c5 16 dxc5 &xc5
Bd8 15 Sdl (JPolgar prefers White after a 17 Ac3, intending 18 &d4.
different move order: 15 Ae3 0-0 16 Sdl) 15.. .C5
15.. .f5 16 Ae3 We6 17 £xd2 0-0 18 £>b3 Black does best to open the centre even at
JPolgar-Hiibner, Munich 1991, when Blade the risk of being stuck with an isolated pawn.
should continue 18...4fe4 19 Wg2 Sf7 20 f3 It’s the only way of getting his pieces active.
£if6 with undear play QPolgar). 16 dxc5 ®xc5 17 ®>f3 itf5
Also pliable is 10...0-0 11 We2 ftc5 12
£k!4 Wd7 13 £3d2 f6 1^ exf6 (Krasenkov
prefers 14 b4, when White had an edge after
14.. .£)a4 15 £>2f3 £lxd4 16 £lxd4 c5 17 exf6
Sxf6 18 £fxe6 Wxe6 19 Wd3 Sg6 20 AH in
Short-Unzicker, West Germany 1987)
14.. .^xf6 15 £>xe6 53xe6 16 Wd3 g6 17 <&e4
Ag7 18 £>g5 &e5 19 Wg3 £*xg5! (but not
19.. .5.e8? 20 £>xh7! *xh7 21 f4 with a
vidous attack in Kouranen-Sorensen,
correspondence 1978) 20 Axg5 when White
has a small edge due to the bishop pair.
11 h3
11 Sel is considered (by transposition) in
the next main game. White dearly shouldn’t grab the pawn
The continuation 11 AH Ag4 12 h3 idi5 (due to 18 iLxf5 Wxf5 19 Wxd5 Hfd8 20
13 &bd2 can be compared to Chapter 5, Wc6 Sac8 21 Wb6 £ld3 with excellent play)
except that White’s bishop is on g3 or h4. but Filip instead suggests 19 £3d4 Wd7 20
Then Perenyi-Karsa, Zalakaros 1988, led to Wf3 with an edge for White.
interesting play: 13...4ie6 14 Ag3 Ac5 15 18.. .fiac8 19 fid Axc2 20 Hxc2 £>e6
Wbl AgS 16 £>b3 £b6 17 Sdl 0-0 18 &h4 21 Hd2
Wd7 19 Jfe.f5 Sfe8. 21 Hee2 is suggested by Tal who then
11 £kl4 is suggested by various authors, prefers White; unlike in the game Blade
without much analysis. In fact, the idea of cannot take control of the c-file.
quickly pushing £2-f4 (whether or not the 21 ...Hfd8 22 Wb3 Hc4 23 Hedl Wb7
pawn is taken) is fairly dangerous in a Blade has good active piece play and the
number of other variations of the Open, so d-pawn is hard to pressurise.
why not here? Il...£ixe5 12 f4 (Krasenkov 24 a3 g6
suggests 12 Wh5 and only then £2-f4) 24.. 116 with the idea of ...Ag5 was also
12.. .£.g4 13 Wei 4k4 is unclear; Blade has a possible.
loose-looking position but an extra pawn. 25 Wa2 a5 26 b3 Hc3 27 a4 bxa4
11.. .0.0 12 Hel 27.. .b4 may have been a better
Instead 12 We2 d4 13 cxd4 £ixd4 14 continuation, e.g. 28 Jkd4? Hxf3! 29 gxf3
£fxd4 Wxd4 15 Sdl Wc4 16 Wxc4 jkxc4 Ag5 30 Ae3 d4 and the white queen is too
was equal in Palosh-Lukacs, Tuzla 1981. far away to save his king.
12.. .Wd7 13£>d4 28 bxa4 Hc4 29 Hd3 *g7 30 Wd2 Hxa4
Now White is again ready for the f-pawn It was better to keep the tension with
push, but without sacrificing the e-pawn. 30.. ..6b4. The text over-simplifies and a draw

86
 9 c3 ie7. White avoids the Main Lint

becomes likely. open) and White prepares a2-a4. The pawn

31 £.h6+ *g8 32 Bxd5 2xd5 33 Wxd5 on b5 can no longer advance and may
Wxd5 34 Bxd5 iLf8 35 ±xf8 &xf8 36 g3 become a static target.
*e7 37 Bb5 £>c7 38fic5 £>e6 39 Sb5 The downside is that the structure c3 and
<£id8 40 &g2 h6 41 £>d2 Sal 42 ®c4 b4 may become weak if White loses the
£}c6 43 Bc5 *d7 44 £>b&f *c7 45 ®c8 initiative.
*xc8 V4-V4 13.. .6.6 14 a4 Bb8 15 axb5 axb5 16
Don’t forget that in such positions the &bd2
isolated d-pawn is also a passed pawn. It’s a moot point whether 16 Ea6 helps
White or simply invites Bladj to make a
Game 47 useful developing move, e.g. 16...Wd7 17
Beliavsky-Dorfman £>a3 (or 17 £>bd2 0-0 18 £rfl Sa8 19 Exa8
USSR Ch.y Tbilisi 1978 Exa8 20 iLd3 Eb8 21 &g3 £g6 22 ^f5 d4!
[normal counterplay with this set-up] 23
1 e4 e5 2 £)f3 <£)c6 3 £.b5 a6 4 £a4 £>f6 5lxe7+ Wxe7 24 .£bcg6 hxg6 25 cxd4 Ed8 26
5 0-0 &xe4 6d4b5 7 £.b3 d5 8 dxe5 d5 Wd7, when Black had equalised in Short-
ite6 9 c3 ite7 10 itc2 &c5 11 Bel £g4 Yusupov, Reykjavik 1990) 17...0-0 (after
The actual move order was 9...4k5 10 17.. .£fcd8 White was able to re-deploy his
Ac2 Ag4 11 Bel &e7. minor pieces favourably with 18 if5 0-0 19
12 h3 £sc2 iLg6 20 <&fd4 Be8 in Kupreichik-Haba,
Here the natural 12 &bd2 leads bads to Prague 1990, when "White can keep up the
Chapter 5. pressure with 21 g4) 18 4lxb5 4ixb4! (not of
After 12 Ae3 £>e6 13 Ab3 4ixe5 14 course 18...Sxb5? 19 Wd3 and Blade loses
#xd5? #xd5 15 £xd5 &xf3 16 &xf3 material) with equal chances according to
®xf3+ 17 gxf3 f5! Black had a clear endgame Haba.
edge in Tseshkovsky-Tal, USSR Champion¬ 16.. .£*g5 17 Ba6 Wd7 18 We2 0-0
ship, Tbilisi 1978.
12..JLh5 13 b4

Theory gives this position as equal, but the

fight that follows contains a number of
A novelty at the time. However, the idea interesting ideas and is worth following more
of hitting the knight with this push is known dosely.
from a number of Open variations; Black is 19 £d3 &d8 20 We3 ®de6 21 £>d4
forced to immediately make a decision (he &xd4 22 cxd4
might otherwise like to keep his options "White has unpinned and is ready to push

87
Open Ruy Lopez

with f2-f4-f5 and g2-g4. Black has to claim

some space on the kingside as a first priority.
22.. .f5! 23 e6
23 exf6? Axf6 opens the posirion for
Black who threatens ...Sae8 etc.
23.. .#c8 24 Hc6 £le4 25 f3 Ag5
The complications that follow seem to
favour Black as White’s ‘centralised’ pieces
are getting in each other’s way.
26 We2 Ah4 27 1 i
Beliavsky offers the exchange to liberate
his position, but Dorfman prefers to keep
the initiative by exchanging White’s annoying
took on c6 which at present protects the e- Dorfman suggests instead 42...#f7! when
pawn. White has to go into a dubious ending with
27.. .Hb6!? 43 #f5 #xf5 44 gxf5 BxfS 45 Ae5 b5 46
A messy altemarive is 27...Axel 28 'Hfxel £*g3 3Sg5 47 &f2 b4 which he judges as
£id6 29#e5 or 29 Af4!? winning for Black.
Equally murky would be 27...Af2+ 28 The opening here looks satisfactory for
Wxf2! ®txf2 29 &xf2, intending Af4, when Black, so White does best to include the
Black has a material advantage but his flexible &bd2 in his plans, see Chapters 5
remaining pieces aren’t working together. and 6.
28 fixb6 cxb6 29 e7 Axe7
Black seems to be on top after 29...fie8. Gome 48
30 g4! Short-Timman
Creating havoc! El Escorial (6th matchgame) 1993
30.. .Ag6 31 fxe4 fxe4 32 Axb5 Ah4
White decides to again give up the rook 1 e4 e5 2 £)f3 £>c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 £>f6
on el as Black threatens to come into f2. 5 0-0 &xe4 6d4b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5
33 Ae3 Axel 34 #xe1 h5 35 #c1 #d8! Ae6 9 c3
The right decision as White’s kingside is The actual move order of the game was 9
looking shaky and Black can cause more We2 Ae7 10 2dl0-011 c3.
problems with queens on. 9...Ao7 10 #e2
36 Ag5 Wd6 37 #c6 #xb4 38 #xd5+
Af7 39 WeS Ac4 40 Axc4+ #xc4 41
Af4?
A mistake on the 41st move! Dorfman
considers 41 4&e3 to be equal, when
presumably Black has to take the perpetual.
41.. .hxg4 42 hxg4
see following diagram
42.. .#02? %-%
With the time-trouble over, now it’s White
who will take a perpetual, but with his last
move Black misses his chance!
 9 c3 JLe7: White avoids the Main Line

10... 0-0
With this move order I quite like 10...53c5!
as I don’t believe that White can obtain
anything after 11 &c2 d4! 12 Hdl (12 &e4
£sxe4 13 Wxe4 WdS is fine for Blade)
12.. .±c4 13 #el d3 14 53a3 (14 b3? #c8
wins immediately for Black, as in Peters-Van
Kempen, correspondence 1985) 14...#c8 15
Abl Ad5! (an improvement on Szabo-
Euwe, Amsterdam 1939, which continued
15.. .«tf5 16 5id4 53xd4 17 cxd4 53e6 18
5lxc4 bxc4 19 Wc3 and Black was in trouble
as 19...'B?g4 is met by 20 Sxd3!) 16 Jbcd3
Axf3 17 gxf3 5lxd3 18 Hxd3 *f5, when
Black has the better ending after 19 We4 (or The d5-pawn is exposed but immediate
19 He3?! Ac5 with an advantage - Euwe) attempts at refutation don’t work, as analysed
19.. .'HTxe4 20 fxe4 iLxa3 21 bxa3 53xe5 22 bySpeelman:
5d5 53c4 23 $L(4 c6 24 Hc5 Hc8 according a) 14 c4? is dearly bad after 14...53xb4 15
to Korchnoi &xa4 bxa4 16 a3 53c6 17 cxd5 5lxe5! 18
11 Hdl Wxe5 jLxf3 19 gxf3 &f6.
Both 11 Ac2 and 11 53bd2 are reasonable b) 14 Hiifd3?! doesn’t in fact win a pawn
alternatives here. due to 14...g6 15 1irxd5 WxdS 16 Sxd5 &xf3
11.. .45.5 17 gxf3 53b6 18 Hdl 53xe5.
ll—Wd7 is considered in the next main c) 14 Ab3 can be safely met by 14...53b6.
game, while the immediate 11_f5!? is d) 14 Axa4 ‘weakens’ Blade’s structure,
interesting, when 12 exf6 JLxf6 13 Ae3 is but the e5-pawn and the c3-b4 chain are also
given as undear by Kurajica. Note that 13 fairly weak and a source of counterplay for
#xe4? dxe4 14 jLxe6+ 4?h8 15 fixd8 Haxd8 the second player.
16 53fd2 leaves White too tangled up after 14...'»rd7
16.. Jtg5 and 13 Wdi is no good because of With the text move Black prepares to
13.. .£>c5. X offer the d-pawn and in compensation he
12 Ac2 &g4?! obtains rapid mobilisation, a theme common
Although this ‘double-pin’ seems natural it in the Open. Instead, 14...53b6 would be met
was previously untried at Grandmaster level. by 15 a4 and the rook comes into play.
The alternative plan 12...'Bd7 followed by 151U3
...Hd8 and then_&g4 or ..JLf5 is possible, 15 c4! is critical, when 15...53xb4 16 Jtxa4
but generally this is employed without bxa4 17 a3 makes more sense now as the e5-
immediate castling, as can be seen in the next pawn is better protected. Speelman then
main game. continues with 17...'Brf5l 18 £g3 53c2 19
13 b4! Ha2 Jbd3 20 Wxf3 (20 gxf31? 53d4 21 Hxd4
The later try 13 &e3 2e8 14 h3 Ae6!? 15 Wxbl+ 22 Hdl m3 23 cxd5 &xa3 looks
53bd2 53d7 16 .Stf4 f6 proved satisfactory for somewhat better for White) 20...53d4 21
Black in Peptan-Zso.Polgar, Moscow 1994. WxfS 53xf5 22 cxd5 without giving a
13.. .®>a4 condusion. After the further 22...Hab8 23
The d5-pawn is insuffidently defended £.f4 g5 24 id2 Hb3 I think Black is doing
after 13...53e6? 14 £b3. okay, he is more active despite an ugly pawn
Open Ruy Lopez

structure. keeping the better structure and

15...g6 16 WxdS WxdS 17 Bxd5 £>b6 development. This makes a fight of it.
24.. .f6?!
Simpler was 24...Bxe6 25 Hxe6 fxe6 26
axb5 axb5 27 3.e4 (27 2a6? 5klxb4!)
27.. .53e5 with an advantage according to
Speelman, with which one has to agree. One
possible continuation is 28 .&xd5 Sxd5 29
feg2 Bdl 30 2a8+ fee7 31 5k3 £>d3 32
£lxb5 5}f4+ 33 feg3 g5 with a crushing
attack. Understandably Timman wanted to
keep his structure intact but now his
opponent wriggles out.
25 axb5 axb5 26 <*f1 £>e5 27 £.e4 £)f4
Perhaps 27...f5 28 ±xd5 2xd5 29 feg2
£ld3 30 2e3 Sxe6 31 2xe6 53f4+ 32 feg3
Short should have played 18 Sd2! 53xe6 was a simpler way to keep an edge.
according to Speelman, who continues 28 £>a3 c6 29 &c2
18.. .£sc4!? (18...Sad8 19 &e4! and the knight
has no good squares) 19 Se2 JbdB 20 gxf3
a5 (20...2ad8!? 21 Sh6 Sfe8 22 f4 2d5 23
feg2 4kl8 is also a bit fishy for Black - Hear)
21 $Le4 Sa6 22 a4< (otherwise Black has
good positional compensation) 22...axb4 23
£lxc6 Sxc6 24 axb5 2c5 (or 24. JHb6 25 Se4
5la3 and now 26 cxb4) 25 cxb4 2xb5 26
53c3! Sb7 and White has liberated his
position and maintained an extra pawn (after
26.. .5xb4? then 27 £kl5).
18.. .Bad8 19 Bel
Now that 19 Ae4 isn’t pliable (unlike in
the previous note, here the rook on dl would
be en prise) White must cede ground on the Perhaps Timman intended 29...f5 but only
d-file and ...5M5 becomes a useful option. now saw 30 53d4! fxe4 31 2xe4 £)ed3
Black has excellent compensation and it is (31...53fd3 32 f4) 32 e7+ Sxe7 33 Sxe7
'White who has the problems. One small Hxd4 (33...fexe7 34 5lxc6+ fee8 35 5hcd8
imprecision and the game has turned. ■fecdS 36 2a5) 34 2aa7 with sufficient
19.. .6d5 20 Ah6 counterplay (Speelman).
After 20 &g3 &xf3 21 gxf3 &g5 Blade 30 Ba6 Sd6 31 53d4!
starts to control too many important squares. White is over the worse and has good
20.. .Bfe8 21 a4 drawing chances.
Speelman considers 21 £hd2 4lxc3 22 a3 31 ...&xd4 32 cxd4 Bxd4 33 ±xc6 £)xc6
(with an edge to Black) to be a lesser evil 34 Bxe8+ *xe8 35 Bxc6 *e7 36 Bc7+
21.. .6xf3 22 gxf3 &f8 23 Axf8 *xf8 &e6 37 Bxh7 Bxb4 38 Bb7 g5 39 Sb6+
24 e6! *e5 40 f4+! gxf4 41 *g2 Bb3 42 h3
Otherwise Black just picks up the e-pawn. *f5 43 Sc6 *g5 44 Sc5+ f5 45 Bd5

90
 9 c3 &.e7: White avoids the Main Li

Sb2 46 *f3 Bb3+ 47 *g2 b4 48 Bb5 22 Sxel d3 23 itbl <S3e5 (23..Ji6!? - Flear)
<&g6 49 2b6+ *h5 50 Bb8 *h4 51 Sh8+ 24 f4 Wa7+ 25 &hl <&g4 26 h3, which is
&g5 52 h4+ *g6 53 Bg8+ *f7 V4-'A given by Apicella as undear.
21 bxc3 £>e5 22 ith4 ®c4 23 Wd4 £f5
Game 49 24 jkxf5 Wxf5 25 &g3 Be2 26 h3?
Apicella-Flear 26 a4! was suggested by Apicella as the
Cappelle la Grande 1994 way to keep the balance. The move order in
the game has a big hole in id
1 e4 e5 2 £)f3 £>c6 3 &b5 a6 4 -&a4 £>f6 26.. .h5! 27 a4?
5 0-0 £lxe4 6d4b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5 27 h4 was the only move.
&e6 9 c3 $Le7 10 Ve2 0-0 11 Bdl Wd7 27.. .h4 28 axb5
12&e3f5 13 exf6
Alternatively, 13 £>bd2 <&a5 (or 13.._&f7!?
- Korchnoi) 14 £ki4 c5 15 £3xe6 WxeG 16
f4, as in Kurajica-Diesen, Osijek 1978, was a
little better for White, but Black is equal after
14.. .Efd8 according to Filip.
13.. JLxf6
Apicella criticised this move, preferring
13.. .5xf6 with only a slight edge, but he had
misjudged the position, as we shall see in the
next note.
14 Ac2?!
Apicella judges the position after 14 Wd3
as giving White a clear advantage, but Blade
is actually doing fine after 14...Sad8 15 '8rxe4 My hand automatically recaptured on b5,
(15 a4 £)a5 looks okay to me) 15...dxe4 16 sifter which the tussle is no longer dear.
Sxd7 ±xb3 17 Hxd8 Sxd8 and after either Instead 28..JSe4 simply wins a piece!
knight goes to d2 Black plays 18..Jtd5 with 29 2a7 Wg6 30 «Td5+ 3*7 31 Hd4!?
at least equality. Suddenly it’s the black king which is in
14 4ibd2 has been played a couple of danger. Naturally, 31 &xh4 was possible but
times, e.g. 14...<23xd2 (14...<S3d6!? is more the fight is now all about the initiative.
ambitious, as in Augustin-Kristinsson, 31.. J3e1+
Lugano 1968) 15 Wxd2 <&e7 16 &c5 c6 was After 31. ..Ufol-t- 32 &h2 hxg3+ I couldn’t
a little passive but Black held on in Aivanov- find anything convincing against 33 &xg3.
Wedberg, New York 1992. 32 *h2 hxg3+ 33 fxg3 Wf5 34 2h4+
14.. .1ff7 15®>bd2®d6! *g6 35 Wb7!
The exchange of knights looked only 35 2g4+?? fails to 35...'Hrxg4 36 hxg4
about equal to me, so I dedded to play for Sh8+.
more. 35.. .2g8 36 Sg4+ *h6
16 £>g5 Axg5 17 &xg5 d4!? Unfortunately 36...1H,xg4 is refuted by 37
17...Sae8 also seems good but I couldn’t Wf7+ <3bg5 38 «xg8.
resist the text. 37 Bh4+ <*g6 38 Bg4+ *h6 39 Bxg7
18 &e4 Sae8 19 &xd6 cxd6 20 Wd2 Bh8?
dxc3 39...£se3! would have drawn after 40
Also possible is 20..JLc4 21 Sel Hxel+ Sh7+ &g6 41 Sg7+ 4?h6 etc.
Open Ruy Lopez

40 Sf7 Wg6 41 Wf3! 13 fxe4 (13 iLf4 is nothing special: 13...4lc4!

Now that the time control had been 14 .&xd6 53exd6 15 fixe6 fxe6 16 £*xe6 #16
reached, I realised that there was no defence. 17 £txf8 Sxf8 18 Wxd5+ *h8 19 £*12
41...«te3 £3xb2 with equality according to Korchnoi)
Too late. 13.. .1.g4 (13...Wh4!?) 14 Wd2 (or 14 Wc2 c5
42 Wf4+ Wg5 43 Wxd6+ 1-0 15 iLxd5 cxd4 16 ibca8 Wh4 17 Sfl d3 18
An error-strewn game but a great fight. Vit2 'Hrxf2+ 19 Bxf2 Bxa8, as in Teichmann-
This typifies my battles against Apicella; I John, Wroclaw match 1913, with a complex
almost always get a good opening but when position which is judged about equal by
he wakes up, he turns the game and I’ve various commentators) 14...'Srh4 15 g3 (or 15
never beaten him (and I’ve lost quite a few!). h3 c5 16 Wf2 Wh5 17 Se3 dxe4 18 hxg4
£txg4 19 Sh3 #xh3 20 Wid7+ Bxf7 21
Game 50 ,&xf7+ <&xf7 22 gxh3 cxd4 23 hxg4 iLc5
Hubner-Piket with another unclear position from the
Dortmund 1992 Teichmann-John, Wroclaw match 1913)
15.. .tth5 16 Wg> lfh3 17 Wh4 (not 17 £>d2
I e4 e5 2 €>f3 &c6 3 £b5 a6 4 AaA £}f6 £sd3 18 Sfl ^.xg3 19 hxg3 ^3+ 20 *hl
5 0-0 &xe4 6d4b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5 h6 21 Wxd5 Ah3 and Black wins - Pliester)
±e6 9 c3 Ae7 10 ffel 0-0 17.Jflfxh4 18 gxh4 c5 19 £>f5 iLxf5 20 exf5
Objectively best is 10...£>c5! 11 iLc2 iLg4 £>f3+ 21 &f2 £>xel 22 *xel c4 23 Ac?
with a fully playable game, as we saw in iLxh2 with an unclear position (Pliester).
Game 47. 12 cxd4 h6
II &d4 Or 12...^.b4 13 Se2 «h4 14 a3 Aa5 15
Ac2 Ab6 16 f3 £)g5 17 Ae3 f6 18 Wd2
Sae8 19 exf6 gxf6 20 when White had
the better pawn structure in Engels-
Bogoljubov, Stuttgart 1939.
13 f3 £sg5 14 53c3
14 Ae3 Af5 15 £lc3 c6 16 Scl iLh7,
intending ...£le6, is given by Hubner as
unclear.
14.. .C5 15 f4 cxd4 16 ®e2!
Better than 16 Wxd4 Sc8 17 Wdl d4! and
Black fights back.
16.. .d3
The line 16...4te4?! 17 <£lxd4 iLc5 18 iLe3
just gives White what he wants: a strong
Certainty’ not ll..J?d7??, when 12 <$3xe6 square on d4, action m the centre and
wins, as in Tarrasch-Zukertort, Frankfurt nothing much for Black to attack.
1887. 17 Wxd3 Ac5+ 18 <Skl4 Af5! 19 »xf5
However there is a wild alternative in &e6 20 Ae3 £>xd4 21 Wd3
ll...'£ixe5!?, taking the bull by the horns! The Hubner later criticised this natural move,
variation that follows is great for those that preferring 21 ixd4 •fk.xd4+ 22 &hl ii.xb2
like to indulge in speculative complications, 23 Sadi d4 24 Sd3 when the opposite
whereas the text move is for the more sober! bishops give White promising attacking
After ll...£bce5!? play follows 12 f3 iLd6 chances as Black’s bishop is not helping with

92
5 0-0 &xe4 6d4b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5
Ae6 9 c3 ±e7 10 a4 In this position relatively best is 20
A favourite of Alekhine, this sensible dxe4 21 ttdl ±h4 22 Bfl AgS with equal
move often crops up as a sideline. play in Evans-Hanauer, New York 1949.
10...b4! Other tries seem lacking: 20 iLc2 dxe4 21
Both 10...£sa5? 11 axb5 axb5 12 iLc2 0-0 Ae3 ±h4 22 g3 AgS 23 &xg5 ttxg5 24
13 £3d4, as in Ahues-Montacelli, San Remo £xe4 ttd2 and Black was more active in
1930, and 10...Sb8 11 axb5 axb5 12 £>d4 Poletaev-Zbandutto, correspondence 1956,
£ixe5 13 f3 £sc5 14 iLc2 iLd7 15 b4, as in and 20 £>f6+?! _&xf6 21 tta2 ^.h4 22 g3
Alekhine-Rohachek, Munich 1941, were both iLe4 when Black is better (Korn) as the

93
Open Ruy Lopi

queen on a2 is decidedly out of play! 33 <S3xe3 c3 etc.) 31...'irb4 and the win is
13 f5 clear.
Natural but later analysts discovered 13
We2! £>a5 14 iLc2 0-0 15 £k!2! with
advantage to White, e.g. 15...iLc5 (15...£lxd2
16 £>xe6 fxe6 17 Wxe6+ *h8 18 iLxd2 and
15.. .$3f6 16 53xe6 fxe6 17 ttxe6+ *h8 18
4}f3 are not much better) 16 £*xe4 dxe4 17
Wxe4 £xd4+ 18 cxd4 g6 19 f5 Ad5 20 ttg4
with a decisive attack in Gibl-Sleihard,
correspondence 1954-56.
13.. .£c8 14 Wei
With the threat of taking on c4 (followed
by e4) or recovering the pawn on b4.
14.. ~S.b7 15 cxb4 c5!
The standard counter. Now the pin on the 31 Wxe3 We6 32 Hg3 Se8 33 Wg5 We5
a7-gl diagonal will be too strong, hence 34 Wxe5 Sxe5 35 Hg4 Se3?
White’s reaction. Consolidation starting with 35...2c5 was
16 f6!? ±xf6 17 «3f5 0-0 18 bxc5 Se8 called for. With an extra pawn Black should
19 Wb4«fc8 try to win slowly but surely. The text is met
The black pieces are well placed, whereas by masterful defensive work, up to a point!
White has not completed his development 36 *g1
and is in danger of simply bong a pawn Also possible was 36 Bxc4 Bxh3+ 37 &gl
down. Sg3 38 -S3e4! Sg6 39 Sc7 f5 (39...Sb6? 40
20 £xc4 a5 21 Wa3 dxc4 22 €>c3 £lxc5 £>c5) 40 Sxb7 fxe4 41 Se7 with a likely
Marovic recommends 22...£ixc3 23 bxc3
Se2 24 5a2 ±xg2, but then 25 Bxe2 iLxfl 36.. .Hd3 37 Sxc4 Sd2 38 b4 Hxg2+ 39
26 53d6 ttc6 looks rather messy. Instead a *f1 Sb2 40 Sd4! g6 41 bxa5 Hc2 42
simple wry to an advantage is 24...Sxa2 25 £\b5 *g7 43 *e1 Sc544 Hd6 ^.c6 45
ttxa2 Wxc5+. a6 £xb5 46 a7 ±c6 47 Bxc6 Ha5 48
23 ±e3 Wc6 24 Hf3 £id3 Bc7 Hxa4 49 &d2 g5 50 *c3 h5 51
24.. .5e5! 25 $3d4 We8 seems to win. 3?b3 Hal 52 &c4 g4 53 hxg4 hxg4 54
25 Hafl Hxe3! 3?d4 &g6 55 *e5?
A temporary exchange sacrifice which Giving an unnecessary chance; 55 &e3!
reduces White’s defensive capabilities. Now was cornea.
the a8-hl diagonal is a major problem. 55.. .f6+-
26 &xe3 £d4 27 We7 Instead 55...Ha4!, cutting the king and
If 27 53cdl then 27..JSe8 wins quickly. threatening ...f7-f5, looks winning to me, for
27.. .£te5 28 *H1 «lxf3 29 Hxf3 Hf8 30 instance 56 Hc4 f6+! 57 &e6 2a6+ 58 &d5
H3 Hxa7 59 Sxg4+ 4?f5 60 Sgl Hd7+.
56 ^4 Ha4+ 57 *g3 f5 58 *h4 *f6 59
see following diagram
Hb7 VS-J&
After 30 £if5 then 30...Wxf3! An important historic game which Euwe
30.. .£xe3? should have won. The opening chosen by
30.. .’Hrb6! leaves White with no defence Alekhine shouldn’t be dangerous for the well
31 £lxc4 (or 31 &cd5 ttxb2 32 Bfl Axe3 prepared player.

94
 9 c3 Jke 7: Whit >ids the Main Li

Summary
In this chapter we have seen a selection of older ideas and tricky move orders.
Against 10 iLc2,10 We2 and 10 Sel the simplest reply is the universal 10...4£lc5 with play as
in Chapter 5.
As with most lines involving an early a2-a4 by White, Black does best to react to 10 a4 with
10.. .b4.

1 e4 e5 2 &f3 &c6 3 £b5 a6 4 l.a4 &f6 5 0-0 £lxe4 6 d4 b5 7 l.b3 dS 8 dxe5 Ae6
9 c3 ±e7

10 We2
10 Sel - Game 50
10 a4 b4 (D) - Game 51
10 iLc2 5k5
11 h3 - Game 46
11 Bel iLg4 12 h3 ±h5 13 b4 (D) - Game 47
10.. .0-0 11 Bdl £>c5
ll...Wd7 - Game 49
12 iLc2 (D) - Game 48
 CHAPTER EIGHT

9 c3^.e7 10 &e3

1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 ®c6 3 £b5 a6 4 Aa4 &f6 move 13 is not yet clear.

5 0-0 &xe4 6d4b5 7 ±b3 d5 8 dxe5
±e6 9 c3 J.e7 10 ±e3 Game 52
With this move White develops his Dolmatov-Yusupov
queen’s bishop to control the key d4- and c5- Wijk am Zee (11th matchgame) 1991
squares. The move iLe3 is also popular one
move earlier, when Black may then react with I e4 e5 2 «tf3 «tc6 3 &b5 a6 4 J.a4 «3f6
9...&C5 or 9...«k5, whereas after 9.._2.e7 5 0-0 £sxe4 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5
White may delay or dispense with the move £e6 9 c3 £e7 10 ±e3 &c5
c2-c3. All these ideas are developed in 10.. .Wd? is the subject of Games 55-59,
Chapter 11. while after 10...0-0 transposition to Games
Black’s two main plans exploit the fact 57-59 is likely with 11 £>bd2 HTd7 and then
that with the bishop on e3 White has less ...2d8.
control of e4 and e5. The first three games in II J.c2
this chapter deal with 10...£k5, when besides The natural 11 53bd2?! is an error due to
the standard ll..JLg4 (Game 52), the plan 11.. .4kl3!, hitting both b2 and e5.
...£3c5-d7xe5 is feasible, as in Games 53 and 11 4kl4?! is no good either: ll...£ixe5 12
54. ^xe6 fxe6 13 iLd4 £>f7 14 ibcg7 Sg8 15
In Games 56 and 57 Black builds up in iLd4 £lxb3 16 axb3 e5 17 ^.e3 c5 with a big
the centre with 10...Wd7 11 £)bd2 Bd8 centre and a clear advantage for Black in
(ll..Jkg4?! is less effective, as we see in Laykan-Flear, Hastings Challengers 1988/89.
Game 55), allowing White to capture on e4 11.. .£g4
when the resulting endings are acceptable for Black prepares the retreat ...4k6 to the
Black, although White may retain a very blockading square. This same plan is covered
slight pulL in Chapter 5, the .difference being that there
Finally, in Games 58 and 59 White White delays the development of his queen’s
chooses to continue development with 12 bishop. Here, once iLe3 has been played, the
Sel 0-0 13 iLc2, forcing Black to finally plan is much less popular for Black See
make a decision about the knight on e4. Games 53 and 54 for the alternative,
These games are critical as Black’s best at 11.. .4£ld7.

96
 9 c3 ie7 10 ±e3

12 ©bd2 ®e6 13«b1! compensation for the sacrificed piece with

This neat move, unpinning and eyeing h 7, his good centre and chances of launching an
wasn’t available in Chapter 5 (with the attack against White’s fragile kingside.
bishop still on cl). Black now has to spend 16.. .0-0 17 €if1 £>a5 18 £>g3 c5 19 h4
time bringing his bishop back to g6 in order £lc4 20 iLcl Sfe8 21 b3 £>b6 22 H5
to castle. Finally forcing Blade to yield the f5-square
13...±h5 but he has had time to complete his
development.
22.. JLxf5 23 «>xf5 Af8
Black has played as solidly as possible. He
will try to make something of his queenside
majority whilst staving off attacking ideas by
White.

With Black losing time to get his king to

safety, White can obtain the bettor game by
immediately pitying on the queenside:
a) More to the point is 14 a4! b4 15 a5
iLg6 16 c4 0-0 17 Sdl dxc4 18 iLxg6 hxg6
19 tte4 £la7 20 £kxc4 Wfe8 21 Jixa7 Bxa7 24 J.e3 Wc6 25 &h2 a5 26 ®g4 fod7 27
22 4M4, as in Jansa-Kelecevic, Sarajevo Sd2 b4 28 Sadi «tc7 29 &f4 bxc3 30
1981, when White is somewhat better Wxc3 Wee 31 Wg3 3?h8
organised. Clearly not Sl.-.WxfS?? which loses on the
b) Another good plan is 14 b4 iLg6 15 spot to 32 £th6t-.
£lb3 0-0 16 a4 Wd7 17 axb5 axb5 18 ±xg6 32 £lfe3 d4 33 £>c4 £id5
hxg6 19 Wfd3 (Stoica), which also gives White has run out of steam. Blade covers
White slightly annoying pressure against d5 all his sensitive points and is ready for ...a5-a4
and b5. and ...®c3.
14.. .£g6 IS Sdl Wd7 16 Wc2 34 h6?
16 g4 is aggressive but risky, e.g. 16...0-0 Desperate stuff. Blade now uses the g-file
17 £fe4 (17 h4 h5! 18 &xg6 fxg6 19 Wxg6 and the doubled h-pawns to positive effect,
£)f4 20 ibcf4 Sxf4 provokes complications so White should have avoided this self¬
in which White’s king is the more exposed to destructive approach.
attack) 17...£\a5 18 £lg3 c5 19 h4, as in 34...gxh6 35 Sel Sa6
K mdermann-Kwatschevskyj Beersheva 1985. A useful defensive move but 35..Ji5
Here White’s attack looks dangerous but would have won further material.
Kindermann no longer believes in it, giving 36 Wf3 h5!
19.. .£k4! 20 iLcl f6 21 h5 £xf5 22 gxf5 Winning the exchange and the game.
fxe5 23 fxe6 Wfxe6 when Black has good 37 £>h2 £>xf4 38 Wxf4 J.h6 39 Wv4

97
Open Buy Lopez

Axd2 40 £ixd2 Wf5 41 f4 £>f8 42 Sfl bizarre fashion: 12...g5 13 Sel g4 14 4lfd2
2g6 43 £>c4 We4 44 2f2 d345 WxhS £>b8 15 b4 a5 16 a3 £lc6 17 £lb3 a4 18 £>cl
€>e6 46 Wf3 Wxf3 47 2xf3 ®d4 48 ®xd4 19 cxd4 5lb6 with an unusual
2xd3 &e2+ 49 *f1 £>xf4 50 213 <&xg2 position.
51 2xf7 *g8 522c7 218+ 53 &e2 £>f4+ c) 12 4id4!? leads to a long forcing
54 *e1 2g1+- 55 ®tf1 &d5 56 2xc5 variation which seems fine for Blade
2gxf1+ 57 *e2 28f2+ 58 *d3 £ib4+ 0-1 cl) 12...£ldxe5 13 f4 £>c4 14 £lxc6 £>xe3
A model illustration of defence combined 15 £>xd8 £>xdl 16 &xe6 &e3 17 £lxc7+
with gradual progress on the queen’s flank. *d7 18 £>xa8 ^xc2 19 £>b6+ (19 £>d2
Ac5+ 20 ^hl £ixal 21 Sxal Sxa8 22 Sel
Game 53 &d6 23 g3 Bc8 was agreed drawn at this
A.Sokolov-Flear point in Tal-Timman, Montpellier 1985)
Clichy 1993 19.. .*c6 20 £lxd5 Ac5+- 21 *hl &xd5 22
$3d2 (after 22 c4+ Black’s best is 22...<&e6!)
1 e4 e5 2 ®I3 <&c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 £>f6 22.. .£lxal 23 SxalBe8 24 Sdl Se2 with a
5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5 strong initiative that is worth a pawn in
Ae6 9 c3 £e7 10 Ae3 £>c5 11 Ac2 Denis-Flear, Le Touquet 1988.
£>d7 c2) Capturing with the other knight
12.. .41.xe5 looks dangerous but is not by ary
means fully worked out, e.g. 13 f4 £>c4 14
Af2 53b8 (is this really Black’s best?) 15 Sel
Wd6 16 f5 Ad7 17 Vf e2 *d8 18 b3 £>a5 19
Ag3 with attacking chances for the pawn in
Imanaliev-Sagalchik, Frunze 1989.
12.. .£)dxe5
If Black chickens out with 12...0-0 then
White should probably be better, e.g. 13 Af4
4^b6 14 4kl4 (I prefer 14 5^bd2 followed by
15 Wbl, as Black will have to make a
concession on the kingside and there is not
the same counterplay as in the game; White is
In my opinion, this is more logical than then fully deployed and has slightly better
ll...Ag4 as Black hits the e5-pawn which is chances) 14...£lxd4 15 cxd4 c5 16 £id2 £k4
less easy to defend now that the bishop 17 <&b3!? (fishing in troubled waters)
blocks the e-file. 17.. .£>xb2 18 W>1 c4 19 Axh7+ *h8 20
12 2e1 Se3 Vltc& (20...cxb3 is possible here but the
Alternatively: attack is rather dangerous after 21 Af5) 21
a) White cannot hold onto the pawn by 12 Ac2 c3 (after 21...cxb3 22 axb3 White wins
Af4? as 12—g5! is good for Black: 13 Ae3 back the piece and is doing well) 22 4k5?!
(13 Ag3 h5! invites Black to start a crushing Axc5 23 Bxc3 Axd4 24 Bxc8 Saxc8 and
attack) 13...4tkbce5 14 £lxe5 £bce5 15 Ad4 f6 Black was on top in Dolmatov-Yusupov,
16 £>d2 Ad6 17 Sel 0-0 and White had no Wijk aan Zee (7th matchgame) 1991. Instead
real compensation in ASokolov-Kaidanov, of 22 £>c5?! Yusupov gives 22 «el b4 23 a3
Vilnius 1984. as better for White, but I’m not sure why!
b) 12 Ad4 is worth a try, when the game After 23...a5 White’s only chance is to break
Sulskis-Komeev, Linares 2000, continued in through against Black’s king, but the
 9 c3 le7 10 $Le3

likelihood of this happening is questionable. Sh7 22 Wd2 Wd6

13 £>xe5 £lxe5 Theory prefers 22...^7 23 Wf4?l (23 g4!
Of course!) 23..Jft>8 24 Wg4 Wc8 25 Wf4
#b8 which was drawn without further play
in Kuczynski-Flear, Polanica Zdroj 1992, but
I’m not fully satisfied with Black’s position.
23 g4!
I remember being shocked when Andrei
came up with this totally unexpected move.
There is no real weakening of his own king
and the threat of squeezing Black for room
with g4-g5 is difficult to meet. If Black allows
g4-g5 then the king, bishop and rook on h7
step on each others’ toes. If he plays ...g6-g5
himself, he then has weaknesses on f5 and h5
as well as the ugly g5-pawn.
A sharp alternative is 14 f4 4ic4
(14...<S}g4? 15 iLd4 c5 16 f5! is much better
for White) 15 £d4 c5 16 &xg7 Sg8 17 f5
AxfS 18 AxB Sxg7 19 b3 £>b6 20 Sid2, as
in Novik-Sagalchik, Chorzow 1991. The
position is unclear. Black has an extra pawn
but some problems getting co-ordinated due
to his insecure king.
14.. .6.6
Everybody now seems to play this move
but 14...£lc6 is also possible, e.g. 15 iLxg7
Sg8 16 iLd4 (Krasenkov prefers 16 Wh5)
16.. .£\xd4 17 cxd4 £d6 18 £id2 ttfc 19 £>f3
0-0-0 with balanced chances in an 23...2d8 24 g5 £g7 25 Sael c5 26 h4
unbalanced position in Watson-Kaidanov, d4 27 cxd4 Jtxd4
Moscow 1985. Naturally after 27...cxd4 White blockades
15 J.xg7 2g8 16 iLxg6 2xg7 the pawn with 28 Wd3 which then becomes
16..,hxg6?! was once played by my wife. more of a weakness than a strength.
The problem is that after 17 iLe5 Black will 28 &g2 ±eS 29 Wc2 Ad4 30 frd2 Ae5
probably be obliged to exchange dark- 31 Wc2 £d4 32 2e4 2h8 33 b4 *g7 34
squared bishops and he will be left with a bad bxc5 l.xc5
bishop against the white knight. Black is finally forced off the long
17 2xe6 diagonal as 34...1M,xc5?? loses to 35 £txd4.
Black had the better chances after 17 35 Wc3f #h7 36 ®e5 J.d4
&h5>! &f8 18 £k!2 iLd6 19 £lfl Wf6 20 36..J2hf8 may be a better defence but
3Lf3 fidfi in Morozevich-Flear, Hyeres 1992, then 37 h5 gxh5 38 Wf3 yields White an
when the bishop pair became troublesome. attack.
17.. .hxg6 18 Se5 37 Wf3 Axe5
18 Se2 is considered in Game 54. Here 37.~fihf8 sheds a pawn and leads to
18.. .C6 19 £>d2 *f8 20 £rf3 £f6 21 2e2 a probably losing ending after 38 53xf7 ttdS

99
Open Ruy Lopez

39 Sf4 ttxf3+ 40 Sxf3 Sd7 41 Bdl Wc5, as in Tolnai-Gyimesi, Kecskemet 1993,

38 Wxf7+! the move 26 £>d4! (Gyimesi) would have
A neat finish given Black problems due to the pawn on c6
38...£g7 39 h5 1-0 and a general looseness in the black camp,
e.g. 26...Bc8 27 <£xb5!
20 €tf3 Af6 21 Wd2 Wd6 22 Wh6r-
22 g4 a la Sokolov is more to the point.
22...£g7 23 We3 Bh8 24 a4 bxa4!
Korchnoi finds a novel way of handling
the queen side pawns, note that 24..JEb8 here
seems inferior after 25 tta7!
25 Bxa4 £f6 26 5a5 *g7 27 Wc5 Bhd8
28 Wxd6 Bxd6 'A-'A
After the exchange of queens the slightly
worse pawn structure is hardly a worry for
Black, who has counter-chances on the b-file
and with ...d5-d4.
Black is killed along the h-file. Note how
the kingside ended all tangled up, which is Game 55
symptomatic of the variation. Lautier-Korchnoi
An excellent game by my opponent. Ubeda 1997
Before this game, I had never really had any
problems playing 10...5k5 and 11...53d7, but 1 e4 e5 2 «sf3 «3c6 3 Ab5 ®f6 4 0-0
this experience has put me off playing like &xe4 5d4a6 6 J.a4 b5 7 Ab3 d5 8
this again. dxe5 Ae6 9 c3 J.e7 10 J.e3 Wd7 11
£lbd2 Ag4?!
Game 54 A brand-new idea which is, however,
Khalifman-Korchnoi immediately refuted by Lauder. The normal
Ubeda 1997 11.. .5d8 is considered in Games 56-59, while
11.. .0-0 is possible and will probably
1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 ®c6 3 Ab5 €tf6 4 0-0 transpose to later games in this chapter.
&xe4 5 d4 a6 6 ±a4 b5 7 ±b3 d5 8 12 &xe4 dxe4 13 Wd5!
dxe5 Ae6 9 c3 Ae7 10 Ae3 £*c5 11
±c2 £id7 12 Bel £>dxe5 13 £\xe5 ®xe5
14 ±d4 ®g6 15 ±xg7 Bg8 16 ±xg6
Bxg7 17 Bxe6 hxg6 18 Be2
18 Se5 was the subject of Game 53.
18...&f8
Similarly 18...Sh7 19 $3d2 <4*8 20 £>f3
±f6 21 h3 *g7 22 Wd3 Sh8 23 Bdl c6 24
£3e5 1Sfd6 25 4ig4 Bae8 was equal in
Magem-Flear, Palma de Mallorca 1991.
19®d2Bg8
After 19..JLf6 20 £>f3 #d6 21 a4 Bd8
(better was 21...Eb8! with ideas of ...b5-b4)
22 «d3 c6 23 axb5 axb5 24 Ba6 Bh7 25 h3

100
 9 c3 ie7 JO $Le3

Black after ...iLg4, and this is a clear example. its advance.

The same move is known from the 29.. .Ab3 30 a5 Aa4 31 Bxg7 Bc7 32
analogous position in which Black has castled Sg8+ Bc8 33 Sg7 Bc7 34 Sg8-l- &c8 35
but his queen is still on d8. Bg5 Bxf4 36 e6 Be8 37 Bg7 Bg4 38
13.. .Wxd5 Sxg4 fxg4 39 Ad5
13...exf3 is out of the question: 14 Wxf7+ Korchnoi has complicated the task as
4>d8 15 «xg7! (15 Sfdl?! is less clear, e.g. much as possible, but now with an extra
15.. .1.d6 16 exd6 Wxf7 17 Axf7 £xg2 18 advanced passed pawn Lauder is winning.
dxc7+ S&xc7 19 Sd2, though White will soon 39.. .*c7 40 Se4 Adi 41 Ac4 Af3 42
have an extra pawn) 15...Se8 16 fifdl A.d6 Se3 £c6 43 *f1
17 Wf6+ with an attack plus an advantage in 43 Axa6?l is too hurried as 43...5a8 wins
material. bade the pawn immediately. It’s better to take
14 Axd5 0-0-0 time out to centralise the king, since the a-
Here 14...exf3 is not possible as the knight pawn is not running away.
on c6 is captured with check. 43.. .Ab7 44 Bb3 Af3 45 *e1 h5 46
15 Axc6 exf3 16 gxf3 Ad7 17 Ae4 Ae6 *d2 *d6 47 Sb6+ *c5 48 *c3 Ac6 49
18 a4 Bxa6 Bf8 50 e7 Sf3+ 51&d2 Aa4 52
The game is not yet over but with a clear Ae2 Bxf2 53 Ba8 Bxh2 54 Sc8+ &d6
pawn deficit it’s clear that Korchnoi’s idea 55 eSW Axe8 56 Bxe8 g3 57 a6 Shi 58
has failed a7 1-0
18.. .f5 19 Ac6 b4 20 cxb4 Axb4 21 f4
ib3 22 Bfcl Ad2 23 Axd2 2xd2 Game 56
Timman-Korchnoi
Open Ruy Lopez

the next main game and 12 Bel of Games 58 While’s pieces are better placed and he has
and 59. the d-file.
12.. .dxe4 13 Wxd7+
13 £kl4 leads to fascinating complications:
13.. .1.xb3 14 axb3 £lxe5 15 Wh5 £lc6?
turned out badly for Black in Timman-
Korchnoi, Tilburg 1987, when after 16 Bxa6
£>xd4 17 £xd4 0-0 18 We5 f6 (18...i.f6 19
Sxf6!) 19 Wxe4 Black was just a pawn down.
Seven years later Korchnoi unveiled the
improvement 15...Wd5! 16 4?3f5 Af8 (White
has the better pawn structure after 16...g6 17
gxh5 18 £>xd5 Sxd5 19 Sxa6) 17
Sfdl «3d3 18 ±d4 g6 19 Wi4? (Korchnoi
recommends 19 We2 but concludes that after
19.. .gxf5 20 &xh8 Sd6 Black has
compensation for the exchange) 19...'Hrxf5 20 b4
±xh8 ±e7 21 #g3 f6 22 Sxa6 *f7 23 ±xf6 The most ambitious.
£xf6 24 Wxc7+ Bd7 25 #g3 Anand- 24 &c4 &b7 25 Sael bxc3 26 fi.xc3
Korchnoi, Monaco (blindfold!) 1994, when .fi.f6!
25.. .£>f4! 26 Bxd7+ #xd7 27 Bxf6+ &g7! The doubled pawns are less of a factor
wins for Black. Rather them than me in a than the cramping effect of the e-pawn and
blindfold game© but seriously, Korchnoi’s the importance of exchanging White’s
improvement lS—WdS seems playable. dangerous bishop.
13.. ~&xd7 27 £xf6 gxf6 28 f3 Bd4 29 b3 f5
The other recapture 13...&xd7 might be Natural but Korchnoi now prefers 29...a5.
worth a try. Korchnoi then gives a plausible 30 fxe4 Sexe4 31 Bxe4 fxe4 32 *f2?
line 14 £>g5 ±xb3 15 axb3 ibcg5 16 &xg5 White may have an edge after 32 Sfl!
Sa8 17 Sfel judging it to be unclear. because of 32..JLd5 33 .&xd5 Sxd5 34 5f4
Black has a well-centralised king but the 36- e3 35 4?fl! Bdl+ 36 &e2 Bd2+ 37 &xe3
pawn is a problem. Sxg2 38 b4 Sa2 39 a5 Sa3+ 40 &d4 Sxh3
14&g5 £>xe5 15.fi.d4! 41 ^>c5 (Korchnoi) but a draw looks likely.
15 £lxe4 53d3 16 Sabi c5 offers no 32.. .5d2+ 33 Se2 Bxe2+ 34 ,fi.xe2 a5!
advantage for White. In the pure bishop ending Black has the
15.. .fi.xg5 16 ixe5 0-0 17 Jlxc7 Sc8 winning chances: He has a useful passed
18 fi.b6 Sfe8 pawn. White’s queenside is not going
anywhere for the time being and White’s
see following diagram
pawns are all fixed on light squares.
Material is equal, but with unbalanced 35 g4
pawns both sides have chances despite the After 35 g3 there is 35—f5! 36 gxh4 f4 and
early simplification. Black will win (Korchnoi).
19 Sfel h5 20 &d4?! 35.. .f6 36 &e3 *f7 37 ,fi.c4+ &e7 38
20 Sadi J&.c6 is a shade better for White &d4 &d6 39 &b5 e3!
according to Korchnoi Black can expand on The only chance to release the blockade.
the kingside with .. JLe7, ...g7-g6, ...<&g7 and 40 &xe3 fi.g2 41 *f4 .fi.xh3 42 g5 &e7
...f7-f5 and is probably doing alright, but 43 gxf6+ &xf 6 44 fi.c4 ,fi.c8

102
 9 c3 Ae7 10 Ae3

It may seem amazing that Black won this Aa4 Ae6 65 *h2 &d6 66 &g3 &c7 67
game. He only has two rook’s pawns and one Ac2 &c6 68 Aa4+ &b7 69 Ab5 b3 70
of them is the wrong one! True, Timman did Ad3 b2 71 &h2 *c6 72 &g3 &c5 73
miss a draw but it wasn’t obvious. &h2 Ac8 74 &g3 &b4 0-1
45 Ad5
Best is 45 b4! axb4 46 a5 &e7 47 a6 &d6 Game 57
48 a7 Ab7 49 &g4 and Black cannot win Bologan-Daniliuk
(Korchnoi). Russia 1997
45.. .h3 46 -&c4 &e7 47 &g3 &d6 48 b4
A possible alternative was 48 &h2 &c5 49 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £>c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 6
&g3 &b4 50 *h2 Af5 51 *g3 Ac2 52 5 0-0 53xe4 6 d4 b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5
4?xh3 Axb3 53 Ad3 Axa4 54 Af5 Ab5 55 Ae6 9 c3 Ae7 10 Ae3 Wd7 11 £sbd2
Ac2 Ac4 56 &g3 Ab3 57 Abl a4 58 4?f2 5d8 12 h3
a3 59 S&el &C3 and Black queens the pawn. Cutting out any ideas of.. A.g4.
48.. .axb4 49 Ab3 &c5 50 &h2 &b6 51 12...0-0
&g3 &a5 52 Ac2 Ae6 53 &h2 Ad7 54 As so often. White obtains comfortable
Ab3 development after 12...5hcd2, e.g. 13 #xd2
®a5 14 Ag5 c5 15 Hfel £>c6 16 Sadi h6 17
Axe7 #xe7 18 Ac2 0-0 19 #d3 g6 20 #e3
S&g? 21 a3, when in Short-Ljubojevic,
Linares 1989, White had the better prospects.
He continued with #14 and h3-h4 and wait
on to win.
13 Ac2

After the natural 54...Axa4 Korchnoi is of

the opinion that White draws by 55 Ae6,
presumably judging that Blade has
insufficient time to get the b-pawn going the
whole way. However, I think that Black can
still win! For instance, 55...'&b6 56 &xh3
&c5 57 &g3 Ab5 58 Ab3 (or 58 *f2 Ac4
59 Af5 b3 60 &e3 ^>b4 61 &d2 &a3 62 The latest try. A sharper alternative is
Ac2 b2 63 Abl &b3 and Black wins by 13—f5 14 exf6 5lxf6 15 £)g5?! Af5 16 Axfs
getting his king to al and then forcing out #xf5 17 «bl Wd7 and Black had no
the bishop with ...Aa2-bl etc.) 58...'&d4! 59 particular problems in Kengis-Anand, Riga
&f2 &c3 60 Adi Ad3. 1995. Instead 15 #bl! &h8 (worth
55 *g3 *c5 56 *h2 &d6 57 &g3 Ae6 investigating is 15..Ji6!? 16 ®h4 £te5) 16
58 Ac2 &c5 59 Adi &c4 60 &h2 &c3 5lg5 Ag8 17 Af5 (Anand) yields an initiative
61 a5 Ac8 62 &g3 &d463 Ab3 &c5 64 for White. In the analogous position in

103
Open Ruy Lopez

Game 59 (Georgjev-Ivanchuk) Black had entertaining but neither side misses any
access to the g4-square and thus better significant winning chances.
chances for counterplay. 30 &h2 &e2 31 JLe5 axc3 32 2g8 ad5
14 £»ce4 33 Sxg7+ *f5 34 id4 ®>xb4 35 Se7!?
White may have done better to keep the No better is 35 2xh7 c5 36 2h5+ (36
tension for another move with 14 Bel, since Jkxc5? loses time on the main line after
after, say, 14...Sfe8 then 15 £hce4 could be 36.. .6g6 37 2c7 53d3 etc.) 36...<&g6 37 2xc5
undertaken under slightly more favourable 2xc5 38 ±xc5 Gsd3 39 ±d4 b4 40 f3 exf3
circumstances. 41 gxf3 b3 42 &g3 b2 43 &xb2 £ixb2 with
14.. .£xe4 15 JLxe4 dxe4 16 #xd7 Sxd7 an immediate draw.
17 e6 Sd3!? 35.. .C5 36 ih8 53d3 37 g4+ &g5 38
An active approach, although the &g3 Sxf 2 39 2g7+ *f6
alternative 17...£xe6 18 £ld2 4ia5! is given as Not 39...&h6?? 40 &h4! 2f4 41 2g5 2f7
satisfactory by Anand. Black will obtain 42 2g8 and Black is mated!
counterplay by ...£k:4 (if White captures on 40 Sd7+ 4>e6 41 2xd3 2f8
e4) or by ...Bd3 (after 19 b3 by White). Black recuperates the piece and the rook
18 exf7+ Sxf7 19 ad2 ic5! ending is just a draw.
The point. Now capturing on e4 gives 42 2c3 Exh8 43 Bxc5 2b8 44 *f4 b4
White nothing so... 45 *xe4 b3 46 2c6+ *f7 47 Bc7+ *f6
20 ixc5!? Sxd2 21 b4 ®»5 22 Bfdl 48 Bc6+ *g5 49 Bc5f &g6 50 Zc&+
Daniliuk suggests 22 a4! with the variation &g7 51 Sc7+ &g8 52 Bel b2 53 Bbl
22.. .4V13 23 axb5 £lxc5 24 bxa6 £ixa6 25 Bb3 54 &d4 &g} 55 &c4 Bxh3 56 Bxb2
Sxa6 Bc2 26 Bc6 leading to an extra pawn Bg3 57 &d4 14-14
for White.
22.. JXfd7 23 Sxd2 2xd2 24 a4 &d3 25 Game 58
axb5 axb5 26 Sa8+ *f7 27 Sf8+ Khalifman-Mikhalevski
White can retain the better chances with Linares 1997
27 2d8! &e6 (27...2dl+ 28 &h2 £ixf2?? 29
2f8+) 28 Se8+ &d5 29 ±d4 (Daniliuk). 1 e4 e5 2 &f3 ac6 3 &b5 a6 4 &a4 &f6
Certainly the black pawns are more exposed, 5 0-0 5ixe4 6d4b5 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe5
but Black’s pieces may be active enough. &e6 9 c3 ie7 10 ie3 Wd7 11 abd2
27.. .6g6 28 Jie3 Sc2 29 &d4 acl! Bd8 12 Bel 0-0
The actual move order in the game was
10...0-0 11 abd2 #d7 12 Bel 2ad8.
13.fi.c2 axd2
The challenging 13...f5 is considered in the
next main game, whereas 13...iLf5 14 £lxe4
■&xe4 15 Axe4 dxe4 16 Wxd7 Sxd7 17 e6
fxe6 18 ?3d2 left White with an edge due to
better pawns and use of the c5-square in
Dolmarov-Yusupov, Wijk aan Zee (1st
match game) 1991; compare this with the
previous main game with the difference that
there White had played the less useful h2-h3
instead of Bel).
14'»xd2 &f5 15 Sadi

104
 9 c3 ie7 10 k,e3

compensation and covers the weak points

fairly well Then 22 b4 looks like the best try,
forcing Black to commit the bishop early, but
22.. .1.b6 23 Se7 d4! is only about equal
20.. .«f6 21 Axc7 Sd7 22 k.e5 «f5 23
Wd3
White settles for a slightly favourable
ending as Black has no compensation for his
isolated pawn. This is natural enough, but as
this proves insufficient to win perhaps 23
1Hrd4 could have been tried, trying to create
threats and weaknesses with the queens on.
23.. .Wxd3 24 Bxd3 f6 25 Ad4 &f7 26
f4 k.d6 27 f5 BeS 28 fixe8 &xe8 29 *f2
Se7 30 Be3 k.e 5
The simplified ending after 30...2xe3 is
with 16..Jbcc2 17 #xc2 f6) 16...#e6 17 ±g3 probably playable, but the bishop is happy on
Wg6 18 ibcf5 #xf5 19 #e3 when Black is this good defensive outpost and the defence
solid-enough but White has more options is simpler with rooks on.
(typically he will play £td4, to meet ...Wgfi by 31 k.c5 5d7 32 *f3 *d8?!
f2-f4-f5 and ...£ixd4 with c2xd4 and play on Black can generate counterplay with
the c-file). For example, 19..JLf8 (19...ttg6 32.. .g6 33 g4 gxf5 34 gxf5 Bg7 as pointed out
with the idea 20 4id4 k.c5 is a suggestion of by MikhalevskL
Krasenkov’s) 20 h3 h6 21 £>d4 1Hrg6 (less 33 g4h6
good is 21...£bcd4 22 cxd4, as in Anand- Passive, again 33...g6! should be tried.
Kamsky, Monaco rapidplay 1995, as the 07- 34 h4 &c7 35 g5 h5
pawn becomes an obvious target) 22 f4 Keeping the king out of g4 and h5 etc.
£>xd4 23 cxd4 c5! 24 dxc5 &xc5 25 #xc5
#xg3 26 Wf2 #xf2+ 27 *xf2 d4 28 &e2 g5
29 g3 f6 and Black had enough counterplay
in Lantier-Krasenkov, Yerevan Olympiad
1996.
An interesting alternative is 15...£>a5 16
£>d4 ±e4 17 Axe4 dxe4 18 Wc2 £)c4 19
Af4 (Krasenkov recommends 19 Wxe4
l£ixb2 20 Sal! with the better prospects)
19...c5 20 e6 fxe6 with satisfactory play for
Black in a lively position, as in Chemiaev-
Krasenkov, Russia 1992.
16 Wxc2 *g4 17 h3 We4 18 Wfd2 £>xe5
A fearless pawn-grab which looks suicidal
at first sight. 36 JLf8 gives winning chances according
19&xe5Wxe5 20&f4 to Khalifman, e.g. 36...Bf7 37 Ab4 Bd7 38
White must have contemplated 20 AjtcS g6 threatening Af8 followed by Sxe5 and f5-
®xel+ 21 Sxel JLxc5; it’s nice to win the f6.
queen but Black has adequate material 36...Bd8 37 &e2 &c6 38 &d4 &d6 39

105
Open Ruy Lopez

&d3 a5 40 a3 a4 41 fiel %-% 20 £\xe4 Sxf4+ 21 &gl dxe4 22 Sxe4 »f5

Black never fully equalised (until the end, 23 Be2 VSfxc2 and the players agreed to a
that is) but this variation has a certain solidity draw.
and some strong Open experts have been Khalifman has abandoned his earlier tty of
willing to play the black pieces here. 15 £>b3 Ag4 16 Ac5 Ad6 17 h3 Ah5 18
If the plan of 13...£txd2 and 14...Af5 Wfd3, as in Khalifman-Hiibner, Manila
seems a little dull, however, then the next Interzonal 1990, due no doubt to Korchnoi’s
game illustrates a more dynamic plan which suggestion of 18...Axf3 19 #xf3 £>e4 20
offers realistic winning chances for Black. Wi5 Bf5 21 Wg4 h5 when Black is on top.
15.. .h6
Game 59 Otherwise 16 £tg5 was threatened.
Ki.Georgiev-lvanchuk 16 £lh4
Manila Olympiad 1992 Worthy of consideration is 16 h3! which is
not mentioned by ECO, but I think is rather
1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 &c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 £>f6 annoying as Black’s counter-chances often
5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5 feature use of the g4-square. For instance,
Ae6 9 c3 Ae7 10 Ae3 Wd7 11 £>bd2 the variation 16 £>b3 £>g4! 17 £>c5 Axc5 18
Bd8 12 Bel 0-0 13 Ac2 f5 Axc5 Sxf3! 19 gxf3 £ige5 20 #dl Af5
Combative. The knight is supported and offers Black adequate compensation
there is even the threat of ...f5-f4 in the air, according to Kiri] Georgiev.
so White has no choice but to take the pawn. 16.. .£te5
14exf6&xf6 If 16...Ad6 17 fedf3 with advantage and
16.. .£>g4? 17 Ah7+ sfehS 18 £lg6+ winning
for White (Kiril Georgiev).
17 £>b3 £>fg4 18 £>c5 *c8 19 &xe6
*xe6 20 Ah7+ £>h8

This move, fighting for the bl-h7

diagonal, is a logical counter to the early
opening of the e- and f-files. A further ..Ji7-
h6 will leave the black kingside looking
exposed. Apparently the remarkable move 21 Ag5H
Instead 15 £>g5 Af5 16 Af4 (16 Axf5 (suggested by Ivanchuk) is best, when his
#xf5 leaves Black with a healthy game) following variation is beautiful: 21.. JLc5! 22
16.. .Ac5 17 £>b3, as in Khalifman- £>gfrf 1Brxg6 23 Axg6 Axf2+ 24 S&hl Axel
Hjartarson, Lucerne 1993, was met by 25 #xel £if2+! 26 &gl £lh3+ 27 &hl
17.. .Axf2+ 18 &xf2 Axc2 19 #xc2 £)e4+ £lf2+ with a repetition.

106
 9 c3 ie7 10 $Le3

21 ...Wf7 22 &g6+ £ixg6 23 ixg4 £«5 way to take the pawn was 39...Bxb2 with a
24 Ji.e2 c5! dominating position.
Black takes the initiative and thus gets his 40 «g4!
majority rolling. Threatening the a4-pawn and worse: 41
25 Bdl £tc6 26 Bfl Wh4+ followed by the capture of the rook
To cover f2 as the bishop is about to be on d8 with check.
booted away. 40.. .1.d7 41 «h4+ &g8 42 Bxa4 *d5
26.. .d4 27 cxd4 cxd4 28 J&.C1 £sb4 29 43 «g4 Be8 44 Wc4
£.d3 £ixd3 30 Wxd3 Wc4 31 Bdl &f6 White has the better chances in the
32 a4 Bfe8 33 &f 1 *c7 34 g3?! ending. The black pawns are split and his
White is struggling but this makes things counterplay is unconvincing.
worse. 34 S&gl was more prudent as now 44.. .Wxc4 45 Sxc4 d2
Black picks up a pawn. The only chance.
34.. .^06 35 &g1 bxa4 36 .&f4 Wb5 46 &f1!
To exchange his h-pawn for the white b- The d-pawn is immune! (46 2xd2??
pawn. This is okay in principle but Black B8xe3! or 46 &xd2? 2d8 47 Sc2 Ad4).
then has to be careful with such an open Now Black has to sacrifice the exchange.
king. 46.. .fi8xe3 47 fxe3 Hxh2 48 Bh4 Bxh4
37 ttg6 d3 38 &xh6 Se2 39 &e3 49 gxh4 &c1 50 &e2 a5 51 Bfl?
Kiril Georgiev showed later that 51 Sgl!
wins: 51...a4 52 &dl a3 53 Bg6 <M7 54 h5
&f8 55 Sa6 <&7 56 e4 &e7 57 e5 *f7 58
Ba7+ 4?e6 59 Sxg7 4>xe5 60 h6 a2 61 Sa7
alW 62 Bxal <&>f6 63 2a6+ *f7 64 h7 <4<g7
65 2h6 &h8 66 Bh5 M>2 67 *xd2.
51.. .a4 52 e4 a3 53 Bf5 g6!
Compared to the previous note, with the
h-pawn now only on h4 (a dark square!)
White cannot make progress.
54 Bf6 &g7 55 Ba6 *f7 56 &d1 &g7
57 &c2 *f7 58 Bc6 'A-'A
Georgiev points out that the winning try
58 Sc6 <4>g7 59 2a6 *f7 60 e5 M2 61 e6+
An imperceptible loosening which is &e7 62 4?xd2 Af6 63 *d3 a2 64 2xa2
cleverly exploited by his opponent. The safe 3?xe6 65 2a4 <M7 is only a draw.

107
Open Ruy Lopt

Summary
The idea of J&.e3, either on move 9 or move 10, is quite popular as Black’s defence is not so
simple.
The most reliable tries are the ...£k5-d7xe5 defence, as in Games 53 and 54, or ..ffld7,
...5d8, ...0-0 and then ...f7-f5 (Game 59). White can only maintain a nominal pull against these
lines. However, the defences based on ...iLg4 (Games 52 and 55) are less convincing and
cannot be recommended.

I e4 e5 2 £>f3 &c6 3 &b5 a6 4 &a4 £>f6 5 0-0 £}xe4 6 d4 b5 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe5 &e6
9 c3 &ej 10 £e3

10.. .6C5
10.. JM7 11 £>bd2
11.. JLg4 - Game 55
11.. .5d8
12 <Sixe4 (D) - Game 56
12h3 -Game 57
12 Hel 0-0 13 &c2
13.. .®xd2 - Game 58
13.. .B (D) - Game 59
II ic2 £>d7
11.. ~&g4 - Game 52
12 Bel £>dxe5 13 £>xe5 £lxe5 14 id4 £ig6 15 JLxg7 Sg8 16 ilxg6 Sxg7 17 Sxe6
hxg6 18 fie5
18 Se2 - Game 54
18.. .C6 (D) - Game 53
 CHAPTER NINE ‘±w±1
±m*L.
“±ji±
9 We2

1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £>c6 3 &b5 a6 4 &a4 £rf6 over analysed, whereas 9...iLc5 feels wrong
5 0-0 £»ce4 6 d4 b5 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe5 and in fact neither offer a convincing route
■ke 6 9 #e2 to equality. I believe that the complex
With 9 #62 White prepares to bring the positions resulting from 9...£k5 may offer
king’s rook to dl where it will bear down on Black the best practical chances.
the d5-pawn. Another point is that ..JLc5
can be met by iLe3, reducing Black’s Game 60
influence on the dark squares. Black has Antunes-Flear
three main responses: 9...&c5, 9..Ac5 and Pau 1988
9.. .1Le7) which we shall deal with in turn.
The early 9...J&.C5 is generally met by 10 1 e4 e5 2 £lf3 £>c6 3 ib5 a6 4 ia4 £tf6
Ae3 (Game 60) where Black ambitiously 5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 b5 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe5
tried to avoid dull lines involving.. Jtxe3. &e6 9 #e2 .&c5!?
After 9...£k5 (Games 61 and 62) White With the text move Black is not afraid to
sometimes plays for a quick c2-c4. exchange dark-squared bishops as this frees
Finally, 9..JLe7 is the most popular move, the e7-square for his queen’s knight or
when White usually tries 10 Sdl and 11 c4 queen.
with pressure on the d5-square. Black can try 10 Jte3
three main defences: 10...£k5 transposing Another try is 10 £ibd2 <§3xd2 11 Axd2,
back to Games 61 and 62,10...0-0 11 c4 dxc4 when experience suggests that White keeps
12 Jbcc4 #d7 and ...f7-f6 (Game 63); or the faintest of edges after 10...0-0 12 Sadi
10.. .0-0 11 c4 dxc4 12 ±xc4 ±c5 13 ±e3 Se8 (less logical is 12...#d7 13 Ae3 ±e7!>
&xe3 14 #xe3 #b8 (Games 64-65). Note 14 c3 £ia5 15 J&.c2 £ic4 16 £.cl c6 17 b3
that if instead of 11 c4 White tries 11 c3, then £ib6 18 £id4 c5 19 £>xe6 #xe6 20 #d3
we transpose to Chapter 7, Games 48-49. #g6 21 #d2 #h5 22 f4 f5 23 exf6 ±xf6 24
The 9 #e2 variation is curious in that Sf3, when in Wittman-Fossmeier, Austria
White’s results are good but the line is out of 1989, White held the initiative, backed up by
fashion. It is difficult to say which defence is his bishops) 13 J&.e3 (or 13 a4 Sb8 14 axb5
objectively best, but my conclusions are as axb5 15 -&e3 &xe3 16 #xe3 £le7 17 c3 c6,
follows: the main lines of 9..Jte7 have been as in Ljubojevic-Larsen, Linares 1981, when

109
Open Ruy Lopez

White is a shade more active but Black has

no particular worries) 13..Jbce3 14 Wxei
£>a5 (14...£)e7 is also solid) 15 £>d4 We7 16
c3 c5 17 4ixe6 fxe6 18 &c2 &c4 19 We2, as
in Smirin-Kaidanov, Norilsk 1987. This type
of position frequently occurs in the Open
Ruy Lopez. White has the better minor piece
but the black position is solid and he has a
useful queenside majority.
Instead of 12...Be8, the latest try is
12.. .Ae7, but 13 h3 (13 -&e3 £>a5 14 £>d2 c5
15 c3 £)xb3 16 £>xb3 d4 17 Hfel ±c4 18
Wg4 dxe3! gave Black adequate practical pity
for the queen in Doggers-Rapoport, Dieren
1999) 13...£>a7 14 c3 c5 15 &f4 £>c6 16 J&.c2 A speculative idea which sets different
#d7 17 Wd3 g6 18 We3 favoured White in problems. Alternatively, ll...iLxe3 12 1H,xe3
Svidler-Golod, European Cup 1999. £>e7 13 £>bd2 14 #e2 <53xd2 15 #xd2
10.. .0-0 c6 16 a4 Wh6 17 axb5 axb5 18 c3, as in
Safe but dull is 10..JLxe3 11 Wxe3 £)e7 Balashov-Smyslov, Tilburg 1977, was a touch
12 Bdl 0-0 13 c3 £>f5 14 We2 c6 (this better for White, while 11...4)e7 or ll...?3a5r
position can also arise via 9 J&.e3 and 9 c3 are similar. The exchange, of dark-squared
±c5 10 Wd3 04) 11 ±e3) when a recent bishops limits Black’s chances for
game Apicella-Skembris, Cappelle la Grande counterpity, but his position remains solid.
1999, continued 15 J&.c2 £lg5 16 £)d4 £)xd4 12 £)c3
17 cxd4 f5 18 £)d2 f4 19 f3 ±f5 20 £)b3 a5 12 &xe6! fxe6 13 ±cl! looks better for
with reasonable counter-chances. White.
Also pliable is 10...*fe7 11 Bdl Bd8 12 12.. .£>xc3 13 bxc3 dxe3
53bd2 £)xd2 (White obtains a strong attack The point of Black’s pity. For the queen
after 12...&xe3 13 Wxe3 *hc5 14 c3 J&.g4 15 he has rook, bishop and an advanced passed
Bel 0-0 16 £>d4 &xd4 17 cxd4 &e6 18 f4, pawn.
as in Rossetto-Schweber, Argentina 1970; the 14 Bxd8 exf2+ 15 *f1 Baxd8 16 We4
.. JLg4 idea seems ineffective when the queen The continuation 16 &xe6 fxe6 17 £)g5
is already on e3) 13 Sxd2 h6 14 Badl d4 Sf5 18 £)xe6 Sd5 (18...Bxe5? 19 Wg4 wins)
(Black cannot maintain the pawn on d5 but 19 Wg4 is given as better for White by
this move offers counterpity) 15 JLxe6 (if Antunes, but 19...g6 looks promising for
White just captures everything on d4 then Black, e.g. 20 5lxc7 Bdxe5 21 4)xa6 £>a5! 22
Black has ...c7-c5, hitting the rook and £)xc5 £)c4 etc. Antunes also suggests 16
threatening ...c5-c4 to trap the bishop) £)g5! iLxb3 17 axb3 h6 18 £)e4 with an edge
15...Wxe6 16 Jjtd4 &xd4 17 £lxd4 Axd4 18 to White, which looks about right but after
Sxd4 Bxd4 19 Sxd4 #xa2 20 e6! £xe6 21 18.. .Ab6 19 £lxf2 Bfe8 20 £id3 £)xe5 21
«h5+ &e7 22 Wc5+ *f7 (22...<&f6? 23 <£)xe5 f6 22 Bdl Bxdl+ 23 #xdl Bxe5 a
Wc3!) 23 g3 (23 h4 is more precise with a draw is the most likely result.
slight edge according to Parma) 23...'Srxb2 16.. .®e7
Parma-Korchnoi, Rome 1981, and White has 16...J^xb3 17 axb3 4)e7 was less
nothing better than a draw. weakening, when the position remains
11 Bdl unclear.

110
 9 We2

17 kxe6 fxe6 18 &g5 £>f5 19 &e2 ke6 9 We2 £>c5 10 Sdl ite7
19 4£>xe6? falls into a deadly trap: Theory takes a dim view of the immediate
19.. .£le3+ 20 &e2 Bdl!; and 19 g4? £ie3+ 20 10.. .£>xb3, e.g. 11 axb3 #c8 (or ll..JLe7 12
&e2 g6 also leaves White in trouble. c4!) 12 c4 5ib4 (or 12...dxc4 13 bxc4 JLxc4
19.. .ke3 20 £vf3 14 #64 £lb4 15 £la3 Ab3 16 £lxb5 Axdl
17 £txc7+ #xc7 18 «xa8+ &d7 19 ±g5
Axf3 20 Wxfc with a strong attack for the
piece in Gipslis-Haag, Pecs 1964) 13 cxb5
axb5 14 Bxa8 WxaB 15 Ad2 (it is considered
weaker to grab the pawn; it’s better to leave
Black with his weak points and attack them)
15.. .c6 16 £>d4 £ia6 17 b4 ±e7 18 Bel £>b8
19 f4 Wa7 20 #f2 with a strong initiative for
White in Jenkins-Wright, correspondence
1960.
11.fi.e3
The critical 11 c4 is considered in the next
man game, while 11 £tc3 is likely to lead to a
transposition to the main game after
An error. Antunes judges the position to 11.. .£lxb3 12 cxb3 0-0 13 Ae3. Also possible
be equal after 20...h5 21 Wc6 or 20..JLb6 21 is 11 -fi.xd5 &xd5 12 £ic3 Ac4! (Black seems
£ig5 Jke3 repeating. to have enough for the queen after this
After the game move I was expecting 21 move) 13 Sxd8+ Sxd8 14 #e3 b4 15 b3
Sfl in order to give the rook for the bishop Ae6 16 5ie4 (not 16 £>a4 4t3xa4 17 bxa4
and f-pawn, but Antunes had seen that White £lxe5!) 16...Bdl+ 17 £\el £)d4 18 ±b2
has an attractive forcing line leading to a win. £lxc2 19 We2 Bxal 20 itxal £bcal 21 £lxc5
21 g4! Bfd8 22 gxf5 ffdl 23 Sxdl Sxdl -fi.xc5 22 £)d3 ±b6 23 £&b4 0-0 24 £ic6 f6
24 Wa8+ *f7 25 fxe6+ *e7 26 Wg8 25 h4 fxe5! (an improvement on 25...&h8 26
flW+ <&h2 £.67 27 exf6, as in Boleslavsky-
Finally the passed pawn can Karaklaic, USSR-Yugoslavia 1957) 26 Wxe5
metamorphose but to no avail. Bf6 27 £ki8 -fi.f7 28 £txf7 *xf7 29 Wxal
27 *xe3 Se1+ 28 *#4 1-0 Bxf2 30 <&h2 a5 with equality in Timman-
After 28...#c4+ 29 &g3 Wxe6 30 #xg7+ Yusupov, Montpellier Candidates 1985.
White is ready to take on el.
Frankly, this game was unconvincing and
there is definitely scope for improvement
here. 9..JLc5 and ll...d4 is a risky winning
try that may be worth a punt, but do your
homework firsd

Game 61
A .Sokolov-Marin
Manila Interzonal 1990

1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £tc6 3 ib5 a6 4 ia4

5 0-0 £oce4 6d4b5 7 kb3 d5 8 dxe5

11 1
Open Buy Lopez

11. ..0-0 own king. Black should wait and see with
Here ll...£txb3 is playable: 12 axb3 Wc8 21...Se6 when the position is balanced.
13 53c3 53b4 (this knight is comfortable here
and in analogous positions; White has
difficulty in pushing it back with c2-c3 and it
performs a useful function bearing down on
c2 as well as defending the a6- and (15-
squares) 14 Ag5 iLxg5 15 &xg5 0-0 16
<S3ce4 (a tactical shot but Black has adequate
resources) I6..J16 (or 16...dxe4 17 'Hrxe4 Af5
18 Wxb4 £xc2) 17 <S3xe6 Wxe6 18 £>g3 (not
18 4lc5 We7 and the knight cannot be
maintained 18...c5 19 f4 f5 20 c3 53c6 21
Wf3 Sfd8 22 53e2 Ha7 with a good game for
Black in Novik-Sorokin, USSR
Championship, Moscow 1991. 21.. .£«s5?! 22«3d2«3d3
Equally unclear is Korchnoi’s analysis 16 After 22...c5 the move 23 Wf5! creates
Wd2 c5 17 53e2 h6 18 <S3xe6 fxe6 19 c3 $3c6 surprising difficulties.
20We3 £3e7 21b4d4. 23 «fc6
12«3c3 Winning a pawn and thereby enabling
12 c4!? only leads to equality after White to create a passed pawn, which tips the
U...bxc4 13 Axc4 4?3a5 14 ,&xd5 -&.xd5 15 balance in his favour.*
£>c3 £xf3 16 Wxti We8 17 b4 <S3d7 18 bxa5 23.. .2dd8 24 Wxa6 &xb2 25 Wxb5 &d1
<&xe5 19 Wf5 &g6 20 Sacl &a3 21 Sbl, as 26 &c4 £sxe3 27 £sxe3 2e7 28 a4 2d2
in Hubner-Korchnoi, Solingen (5th 29 a5 2a2 30 b4 2a1+ 31 &h2 2f7 32
matchgame) 1973. &g4 ±e7 33 &e5 £d6 34 Wd5 ixe5+
12.. .£ixb3 13 cxb3!? 35 «xe5 2b1 36 a6 2xb4 1-0
Capturing away from the centre always
needs justification; here it allows play on the Gome 62
c-file, while by retaining the a-pawn White Greenfeld-Pyernik
can push the knight away from b4. Israel 1983
13.. .Wd7 14 Sd2 2ad8
Not 14...f6?! 15 exf6 ikxf6 16 Sadi ±xc3 1 e4 e5 2 £if3 £>c6 3 ib5 a6 4 ia4 ®f6
17 bxc3 Sad8 18 c4 bxc4 19 bxc4 &g4 20 5 0-0 &xe4 6d4b5 7 ±b3 d5 8 dxe5
Sxd5 when Black has insufficient ie6 9 We2 £ic5 10 2d1 jLe7 11 c4 d4!
compensation for the pawn. Best. After ll...£yxfo3 12 axb3 53b4 (or
15 Sadi 2fe8 16 h3 12.. .0-0 13 cxd5 &xd5 14 *hc3 &xf3 15 gxf3
White will capture on d5 but first he wants Wc8 16 4kl5, as in Keres-Alatortsev, USSR
to be fully prepared. Championship, Moscow 1947, and now
16.. .f6 17 &xd5 &xd5 18 Sxd5 Wxd5 16.. Jk.d8 17 if4 $3e7 keeps White down to
19 Sxd5 Sxd5 20 exf6 £xf6 21 Wc2 an edge - Korchnoi) White has a pleasant
The material balance of two rooks for initiative after 13 £3c3.
queen and pawn is about equal White has 12 cxb5 d3!
some prospects with his kingside majority, Again 12...£3xb3 is not good: 13 axb3
but not without risk as it is potentially axb5 14 2xa8 Wxa8 15 Ag5 Axb3 16 Scl
weakening to push the pawns in front of his &xg5 17 £*xg5 h6 18 «3d2! (18 e6 hxg5 19

1 12
 9 We2

exf7+ is unsound after 19...4?d7! and 18 Note that the flashy 18 Ah6 loses material
0-0 19 Wxb5 iLa4 20 Wc5 Sb8, as in after 18...53b4.
Meddng-Korchnoi, Avgusta [4th 18.. .6C4
matchgame] 1974, was only equal) 18...hxg5 18...53b4 was suggested by Korchnoi as a
19 53xb3 0-0 20 e6 and White had more than possible improvement.
enough compensation for the pawn in 19 Axe7 Wxe7 20 a7
ARodriguez-Agzamov, Cienfuegos 1984. This annoying pawn will play the role of a
13 *f1 £>xb3! decoy so that White has time to get going on
Now is the time! Others are less the other wing.
promising: 20.. .0-0 21 £sbd2 Aa6 22 bfc Wb4
a) 13...Axb3 14 axb3 £>b4 15 &d2 &c2
16 Sa5 with the better game for White in
Kalinkin-Zaitsev, Krasnoyarsk 1960.
b) 13...&d4 14 &xd4 Wxd4 15 &xe6 fxe6
16 JLe3 Wxe5 17 ?3d2 with a fairly undear
position which Korchnoi judges as a little
better for White. For instance, after the
obvious continuation 17...axb5 18 £rf3 Wf5
19 -&xc5 £xc5 20 Wxd3 Wxd3 21 Sxd3
Sd8, White has the better pawn structure.
14 axb3 £sb4 15 &d2 ®tc2 16 Sxa6
Sxa6 17 bxa6 ,S.xb3

If now 23 «3c4 Wxb3 24 Wxd3 Wxd3 25

Sxd3 Axc4 26 Sc3 then Black has 26...Sa8!
27 Sxc4 Sxa7 using White’s back-rank
weakness to equalise.
23 g3
Now there is no bank-rank problem.
23.. .Wg4?
23...Wb7! is a dear improvement which is
not mentioned by theory. By keeping an eye
on the f3-knight. Black has time to round-up
the a7-pawn. Who is better here?
Instead, the natural 23...Sa8 fails to 24
This position was tested in the early £3c4 Hfcb3 25 &bl.
eighties but has not seen any recent 24 h3 Wf5 25 g4 Wf4 26 Wg2 fla8?
developments. Black obviously underestimated the
18 ig5! weakness of his back rank. Better was
Theory prefers this to 18 iLc3 ii.c4 19 26.. .6.7 27 Wg3 Wxg3+ 28 £xg3 Sa8 29
«3bd2 ±xa6 20 b3 0-0! 21 «3c4 Wb8 22 £tel £>xel 30 Sxel Sxa7 31 *f2, but
*xd3 Wxb3 23 &a5 Axd3 24 «3xb3 Af5 25 White’s active king gives him the better
?3bd4 43xd4 26 4£lxd4 Ad7 and the bishop ending.
pair and a passed pawn gave Black an edge in 27 £>g5! Sxa7 28 Wc6
AKodriguez-Yusupov, Toluca Interzonal The e8-square is a target.
1982. 28.. .Wxe5

1 13
Open Ruy Lopt

28.. .g6 29 We8+ &g7 30 e6! is very nasty The two main alternatives are fine for
indeed! Blade:
29 Wd7 1-0 a) 16 Wxe6+ is unimpressive after 16...
29.. .2a8 30 Wxf7+ <&h8 31 tth5 wins Wxe6 17 £xd5 #xd5 18 2xd5 £xc3 19
comfortably. 2bl &b4 20 2c5 &xa2 21 Ae3 (21 <&fl
2fb8 22 2xb8+ 2xb8 23 &f4 a5 24 2xc7
G<zrae 63 2a8 25 JLe5 is equal according to
Martens-Flear T-Paunovic) 21_&f6 22 2xc7 53c3 and
Hyeres 1991 Blade’s a-pawn guaranteed him the advantage
in McKenna-Flear, Hastings 1993.
1 e4 e5 2 £sf3 £sc6 3 ib5 a6 4 A.a4 £sf6 b) A defence against 16 3Lg5 has been
5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 b5 7 ib3 d5 8 dxe5 worked out but Blade must play precisely;
$Le6 9 We2 $Le7 10 Sdl 0-0 11 c4 bxc4 16.. .6h8! (16.. JLxc3 is tempting, but White’s
12&xc4«rd7 initiative is sufficient to win back the pawn
12—fi.c5 is dealt with in the next two main with the better of it after 17 2acl £i6 18
games, while 12...dxc4 is not too bad, though £xf6 2xf6 19 &g5 £»e7 20 2el dxc4 21
after 13 Sxd8 Bfxd8 14 £>c3 £>xc3 15 bxc3 4lxe6 £d5 22 £>c5 Wf7 23 £>e4 2g6 24
h6 16 &f4 Sd3 17 «3el 2d5 18 Sdl 2ad8 'Hrxc4 - Euwe) 17 ±xf6 (after 17 We3 then
19 2xd5 2xd5 20 h3, as in Augustin-Petras, Korchnoi’s 17..Jbcg5 18 £lxg5 JLg8 holds
correspondence 1978, Blade doesn’t quite everything neatly together) 17.~Sxf6 18 $3g5
have full compensation for the queen. £la5! (after the immediate 18...iLg8 White
13 <Sc3 can get away with 19* fLxa6) 19 #d3 (here
After 13 JLe3 Blade should simply play the cheeky 19 ibca6 can be met by 19.. Jlg4
13.. .f6. Instead 13...2fd8?! is speculative, 20 f3 2fxa6 21 fxg4 h6 22 «3f3 £>b3 23
although 14 -SLxa6 53b4 15 Ab5 c6 16 Ad3 2abl 2xa2 and Black recovered the pawn
<Slxd3!? 17 Wxd3 Af5 18 We2 c5 gave Blade with equality in Sigurjonsson-F.Olafsson,
reasonable play for his pawn in Brustkem- Geneva 1977) 19..jS.g8 20 £>e4 (20 &xd5 is
Sturua, Wichem 1999. safely met by 20..JSd6 21 c4 £sxc4!) 20...Sg6
13.. .£txc3 14 bxc3 f6 15 exf6 J.xf6 21 53g3 (21 &xd5 leads to an awkward pin
after 21..JSd8 22 c4 c6, when White then has
to play an unconvincing exchange sacrifice
with 23 &xg8 Wxd3 24 Sxd3 Sxd3 25 M7
Sg4) 21...£lxc4 22 #xc4 2c6 23 #d4 Wf7
24 Sel with equal chances according to
Korchnoi.
A new idea 16...£ie7!? (instead of
16.. .6h8) worked well in F.Braga-Rosito,
Mar dd Plata 1999, after 17 &b3 h6 18
■&a4»? (18 Sel immediately looks a better
try) 18...C6 19 Sel hxg5 21 '8rxe6+- #xe6 22
Sxe6 ±xc3 23 Sdl and Black drew easily.
16.. JLxg5 17 ±xg5 h6
Blade has liberated his pieces but White can The continuation 17...Sae8?! 18 'Hrd2 £>e5
keep an edge by obtaining the bishop pair 19 Axd5 #xd5 20 Wxd5 Axd5 21 Bxd5
with... Sf5 was refuted by 22 Sd8! in Geller-Larsen,
16 ®>g5 Copenhagen 1966, when after 22...33B+ 23

1 14
 9 We2

<&hl Bxd8 24 ±xd8 £sd2 25 f3 Sc5 26 Scl &d4 Wh5 28 Sel was distinctly unpleasant
Black was still a pawn light. for Black in Moiseev-Van Perlo, corres¬
18 £.e3 &e5 pondence 1977. Black shouldn’t allow the
18...Wd6 immediately can be met by 19 bishop to sit so snugly on d4, so 22...4kl7 (by
JLc5!P Wxc5 20 Wxe6+ <&h8 21 Axd5, but defending the c5-pawn) avoids the necessity
Black can unravel by 21...Wxf2+ 22 <&hl Hf6 of weakening the central dark squares.
23 We4 Saf8 with the threat of mate; 23.. .6g5!? 24 Sxf8+
otherwise 19 Ab3 53e5 transposes to the After 24 Sdl then 24...Sxf4 25 ^xf4
main game. 'Hrxf4?? fails to 26 #xe8+, but 24...'Hre5 looks
19 Ab3Wd6 okay.
24.. .5xf8 25 ilxg5 We5 26 Sdl
26 f4 is well met by 26...Wxc3.
26.. .C4
26..hxg5 looks dubious after 27 jLc2.
27 3Lc2 Wxg5 28 WxgS V4-V4
White should have played on as 28 #xg5
hxg5 29 Sbl (29 Sel &f7 and ...*f6 holds
nicety) 29.. jLf5 (or 29...*f7 30 Sb6 Sa8 31
&fl aiming for d4) 30 fbcf5 Bxf5 31 Sb6
yields him a safe edge.
This game convinced me that the
12.. M67 line doesn’t solve all of Black’s
problems.

Also promising is the idea 20 5d4 c5 21 Game 64

Sf4 g5 (Krasenkov prefers 21...4kl7 with Karpov-Korchnoi
equalising chances) 22 Sxf8+ Sxf8 23 f3 Baguio City (12th matchgame) 1978
•&f5, when in Vogt-Sydor, Genfuegos 1975,
White could have kept a small but annoying 1 e4 e5 2 £sf3 £>c6 3 ib5 a6 4 £a4 £sf6
edge by continuing 24 &dl c4 25 iLxc4 5 0-0 £>xe4 6d4b5 7 ,g.b3 d5 8 dxe5
£ixc4 26 Wxc4 Wfxh2+ 27 &xh2 dxc4 28 JLe6 9 We2 ±e7 10 Sdl 0-0 11 c4 bxc4
Sd5. 12 ftxc4 l.c5 13 £e3 £xe3 14 Wxe3
20.. .5ae8 21 Sd4 lh8 15 £b3
21 c4? allows the dangerous 21...iLxb3!
21.. .C5 22 Sf4£lf7?!
Black can cover his exposed pawns with a
solid game after 22...£kl7. Nevertheless,
White has mote options due to the bishop
pair. 22...g51? was played in a similar position
in Vogt-Sydor, see the note to White’s 20th
move.
23 Wh5
White threatens to increase pressure on
die centre with 24 Sdl, but in fact 23 Sdl!
immediately may be best, when 23..Me5 24
Wd2 c4 25 Ac2 £ld6 26 Sxf8+ Sxf8 27

1 15
Open Ruy Lopez

15.. .6.5 looks too risky to me.

After 15...Wb6 (or \5..Ms7) White does 19 axb3 &c5 20 b4 £>d7
best to keep queens on with 16 We2 53e7 (or 20...«3b3? 21 Sa3 d4 22 £sd2 £lxd2 23
16.. J3ad8 17 &c3 £lxc3 18 bxc3 £te7 19 Sxd2 will lose a pawn.
Sabi Wa5 20 c4 dxc4 21 ±xc4 &xc4 22 21 &d3
H8rxc4, as in Vogt-Strobel, Vraca 1975, when
White has somewhat the better chances due
to Black’s inferior pawn structure) 17 53c3!
£>xc3 18 bxc3 c5 19 53g5 (also promising is
19 Sabi Sab8 20 Ac2 #c6 21 ®g5 :fi.f5 2f
jSjcf5 £lxf5 23 e6) 19..h6 20 £»xe6 fxe6 21
Sel, intending Sadi, with slightly the better
chances for White. The bishop is the better
minor piece especially when it comes to the
c2-h7 diagonal
16&e1
16 53bd2 is more testing, see the next
main game.
16.. .«b6 21. ..g5?
Nowadays the main line is considered to A poor dioice. Keene suggests 21...Sfc^,
be 16...£bd>3 17 axb3 f5! (not here 17...«fb6? Korchnoi 21...d4 and Smyslov 21...a5, all of
18 Wxl^ cxb6 19 b4!, as in Hiibner- which give equal chances. In each case Black
Demarre, Dresden 1969, when White has a has sufficient activity to compensate for the
big advantage as f2-f3 is threatened) 18 exf6! exposed pawns on d5 and a6.
(otherwise after 18 f3 f4 19 #d4 c5 20 'Hrd3 The text aims to hinder White in the
&g5, 18 ^3d3 d4 19 #xd4 Sd8 or 18 4ld2 support of his e5-pawn but it loosens the
c5 19 Sdcl Wxe5 Black has good pky) blade kingside and is soon regretted
18.. .fixf6 19 f3 «3d6 20 -SM2 Sh6 21 «3fl (or 22 £tc3 2fc8 23 £tf2 d4!
21 Sdcl c5! with threats against h2 in 23...£ixe5 24 5hcd5 Axd5 25 Bxd5 f6 26
Sakharov-Oim, correspondence 1977) #3e4 is deceptive as, despite the symmetry.
21.. JLf7 22 «3d3 «3f5 23 Wc5 Wb6 when Black has suffident problems to lose a pawn
chances are balanced (Korchnoi). by force.
17 Wxb6 24 £k>2 d3!
This time 17 Wei simply loses a pawn Trying to complicate as 24...43xe5 25
after 17...£lxb3 etc. £>xd4 followed by £te4 leaves Black with
17.. .cxb6 18 f3 holes everywhere.
The pawn grab 18 ±xd5?! is dubious after 25 ®xd3 &c4 26 £tg3
18.. .5.d8, and hardly better was 18 Ac2?! After 26 £lc3 h6! 27 £>e4 ±xd3 28 Sxd3
4ic4 19 f3 Sk5 20 b4 £kl7 21 f4 Sac8 22 f5? £lxe5 29 Sd5 53c4! Black has good drawing
£>e3 23 fxe6 fxe6 24 -SM2 £bcc2 and White chances. Here 26 f41, hanging on to the
resigned in Lenz-Kolev, Vienna 1990. Even pawn, is recommended by most
if White hadn’t blundered with 21 f5. Black commentators, although Black’s active pieces
already had a good game. give him reasonable drawing chances.
18.. .€)xb3 26...£xd3 27 2xd3 £>xe5 28 2d5 £>g6!
Filip gives 18...£te5!? 19 Axd5 Axd5 20 Again ditching a pawn for active play.
Sxd5 £3c4 21 b3 4i3e3 as unclear but this Black is no longer in dinger of losing.

116
29 Bxg5 Sc2 30 b3 Sb2 31 £rf5 Bxb3 Black after 21...Bfe8) 20 Axf5 21 Axf5
32 h4 *f8 33 h5 £le7 34 &xe7 *xe7 35 Sad8 22 b3 (or 22 2el £k6 23 Sadi &d4
Be1+ *f8 36 Be4 a5 37 Seg4 *e7 38 24 Abl a5 25 2e3 f5 with chances for both
bxa5 Bxa5 39 h6 Bxg5 40 Bxg5 b5 41 sides in Jansa-Stean, Vrsac 1979) 22...Sfe8 23
Bg7 Bb1+ 42 *h2 Bdl 43 Bxh7 Bd8 44 Sel c4 24 Wg5 Wc7, mainly because of the
Bg7 Sh8 'h-'h identity of the player of the black pieces,
A good fight-back by Korchnoi Kavalek-Karpov(!), Montreal 1979, when
Black has a good position with at least
Game 65 equality. Ms central pawns are advancing and
Kr.Georgiev-Flear White’s kingside play is unconvincing.
Ano Liosia 1999 17 £sxe4!
Neither 17 Wxb6 cxb6 18 4ixe4 4lxb3 19
1 e4 e5 2 ®f3 &c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 £sf6 axb3 dxe4 20 £>g5 A:cb3 21 2d6 Ac2 22
5 0-0 &xe4 6d4b5 7 iLb3 d5 8 dxe5 Kxb6 h6 23 £ih3 Ad3 24 «rf4, as in
Ae6 9 We2 Ae7 10 Bd10-0 11 c4 bxc4 T-Martin-Behrmann, West Germany 1986,
12 Axc4 Ac5 13 ke3 Axe3 14 Wxe3 nor 17 -SM4 £ixd2 18 2xd2 c5 19 £txe6 fxe6
Wb8 15 ^.b3 £»5 16 ®bd2 Wb6 20 ficl 2ac8 21 2dc2, as in Koch-Murey,
Cannes 1989, and now 21...d4! (Korchnoi)
offer White anything.
17...Wxe3 18 fxe3 £sxb3 19 axb3 dxe4
20 5ld4

The main alternative is 16...Wa7, but this

can transpose back to the game after 17
£lxe4. Instead the exchange of queens on a7
is not worrying for Black; 17 Wxa7 Sxa7 18
4M4 (18 4ixe4 $lxb3 19 axb3 dxe4 20 $3d4 Black has three sensible moves, but which
c5 21 £lxe6 fxe6 22 Sd6 Sb7 23 Sa3 Hbf7, is best? The problem is that in each case,
as in Scherbakov-Ruderfer, USSR 1971, was Black has to play well just to hold a draw and
satisfactory for Black; note the importance of has no realistic winning chances.
the rook on the second rank which is useful 20...Bfb8
for doubling and stopping White coming to Skembris suggested to me that 20...2ab8
the seventh) 18...£ixd2 19 2xd2 c5 with might be the way to equality, but 21 2dcl
adequate counter-chances in Kuijpers- Axb3 22 2xc7 2b6 23 2a7! Ad5 24 b3 gave
Langeweg, Netherlands 1968. White good chances and he went on to win
After 16...Wa7, a notable alternative is 17 in Timman-Tal, Wijk aan Zee 1982. Here
£)d4 £ixd2 18 #xd2 m>6! 19 Ac2 c5 and in the main game the centrally posted
(19...£>c4 20 We2 c5 21 is also fine for knight is a far superior piece to the opposing
Open Ruy Lopez

bishop, so how about 20...c5!? obliging the With limited time available my opponent
knight to exchange itself? Then after 21 failed to find the win and only after extensive
<&xe6 fxe6 22 Hd6 (22 2d7 2f7) 22...Sfb8 analysis was the truth found.
(22...Sab8 23 Sa3 is uncomfortable for
Black, who will lose a pawn by force, e.g.
23...C4 24 2xe6 Sxb3 25 Sxb3 cxb3 26 2xa6
with a clear advantage - Timman) 23 Bxe6
(now 23 2a3 is met by 23...<&f7) 23..Jtd)3
24 2exa6 2xa6 25 2xa6 *f7 26 2a7+ *g6
(26...‘&e6 27 2xg7 2xb2 28 2xh7 allows
White connected passed pawns and is
therefore better for him) 27 2c7 2xb2 28
2xc5 Black still has a hard fight on his hands
to draw despite the fact that the extra pawn is
doubled.
21 Sdcl! ±xb3
21.. .2b7 was possible.
22 2xc7 g6?!
22.. .Ae6! is the best chance for full JLd5 38 £ic3 Ac6 39 £ixe4 &d5 when 40
equality, e.g. 23 2dl 2b6 24 b4 h6 25 4£lc6 £sd6 f6 41 exf6 *xd6 42 <&g5 Ae8 43 «&h6'
2e8 26 &f2 ^h7, as in Tal-Sturua, Yerevan was my opponent’s first try, but this is
1982. Here Black seems to be holding his thwarted by 43...&e5!l (Hear) 44 <&g7 &e6 45
own but White kept plugging away and won e4?l (45 &f8 Af7 46 <&g7 is equal) 45...Af7 46
in the end. e5 Ae8 47 *f8 *xe5 48 *xe8 <&xf6 and
It is interesting that after his loss to Blade has the only winning chances.
Timman, Tal then played the same line as An hour or so later 40 £ld2! Ad7 41 b3H
White later in the year. (Krum Georgiev) was found to do the trick,
23 h4 £d5 24 Sa5 2b7 25 2xb7 Axb7 as after 41...axb3 (4l...a3 42 £»bl a2 43
26 2c5 h5 $3c3+) 42 4fxb3 White cannot be prevented
Georgiev prefers 26...2c8, but the pure from using his knight with decisive effect on
knight versus bishop ending is also tough as the kingside. The knight comes to g5, d6 or
we shall see. d8 and with a timely e3-e4 or e5-e6 White
27 &f2 a5 28 *g3 a4 29 2b5 Ac8 30 liberates his king to invade and capture f7 or
£tc6! g6. In an extended post-mortem I vainly tried
The inferior 30 *f4 <&g7 31 *xe4 a3 32 to defend this position against my opponent
bxa3 2xa3 gives reasonable drawing chances and I am now convinced that it is lost.
as Black will seek an active defence involving 36...&d5 37 b3 axb3
...2b2 etc. 37...a3? 38 £>b5 a2 39 £>c3+ picks off the
30...&f8 a-pawn.
Although 30_&d7 31 2b8+ 2xb8 32 38 £>xb3 ±a6 39 £>d4 ±d3 40 £>b3 iLf 1
€3xb8 &b5 traps the knight. White will win 41 ®a5 ita6 42 £ib3 .fi.fi 43 £»5 &a6
after 33 &f4 <&f8 34 *xe4 *e7 35 *d5 Af 1 V4-V4
36 g3 JLg2+ 37 e4 as the knight can return to The presence of the e4-pawn is important;
the fray with a decisive effect. now die f3-square is defended and
31 2b8 Sxb8 32 £>xb8 *e7 33 £>c6+ consequently the bishop is able to stop the
*e6 34 *f4 i.a6 35 g3 AcS knight coming to the kingside.

1 18
 9 We2

Summary
The sensible 9 We2 is out of fashion but gives Black a difficuk choice.
The ‘solid’ 9...&e7 is deeply analysed but a well prepared White player can render it ‘passive’
and squeeze out a small but persistent edge, as in Games 63 and 65.
The double-edged moves 9..JLc5 (Game 60) and 9...4k5 (Games 61 and 62) are more fun,
particularly the latter. Despite losses in both illustrative games. Black has dear improvements
in the notes and 9...S3c5 should be okay.

1 e4 e5 2 £sf3 £sc6 3 &b5 a6 4 &a4 £>f6 5 0-0 £>xe4 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5 ,g.e6
9»e2

9.. ~S.e7
9.. .Ac5 - Game 60
9.. .£>c5 10 Hdl &e7
11 &e3 - Game 61
11 c4 (D) - Game 62
10 Sdl 0-0 11 o4 bxc4 12 &xc4.£.c5
12.. .Vtd7 (D) - Game 63
13 ite3 i.xe3 14 Wxe3 Wb8 15 itb3 ^a5 16 £ibd2
16 ^el - Game 64
16.. .Wb6 (D) - Game 65
 CHAPTER TEN |
9£>bd2

1 e4 e5 2 £sf3 £sc6 3 ib5 a6 4 ita4 £sf6 I think that these moves are also perfectly
5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5 adequate and have the advantage of avoiding
&e6 9 £>bd2 the need to learn the rest of the chapter. The
In recent years 9 53bd2 has become very disadvantage, particularly of the latter, is that
popular. Blade faces a decision as to whether the resulting ending is a little dull
to allow transposition to other chapters Finally, Game 68 examines some unusual
(particularly Chapter 5 by playing an early ways of handling 9 £lbd2. These realty do
..JLe7) or to tty and exploit the fact that require more practical experience at a high
White has temporarily less control of the d4- level and the conclusions here are
square. provisional
The sharpest method is 9 £lbd2 £lc5 10
c3 d4 (Games 70-76) which leads to great Game 66
complications. Black seems to have a fully Geller-Krasenkov
satisfactory game - if he knows the theory! Cappelle la Grande 1992
The resulting positions require study but the
reward for this investment in time will be 1 e4 e5 2 £sf3 £sc6 3 &b5 a6 4 £a4 £rf6
games rich in fascinating possibilities. 5 0-0 £uce4 6 d4 b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5
The dangerous-looking 11 £lg5 has been Ae6 9 £tbd2 Ae7
shorn of its terror as a study of Games 70-72 Here 10 c3 would return to Part Two.
will show, whereas other, more positional 10 &xe4 dxe4 11 £xe6 fxe6 12 £>g5
ideas for White are detailed in Games 73-76. Tarjan judges the position resulting from
However, Black is not obliged to play for 12 £sd2 e3 13 fxe3 £sxe5 14 «h5+ £lg6 as
an early ...d5-d4, as Games 66-69 will show. unclear.
In Game 66 Black seeks transposition to 12.. JLxg5
Part Two by pitying 9.. JLe7, which White Instead 12../HM5 13 1115+ g6 14 #g4
then avoids by means of the immediate 10 £xg5 15 -&xg5 £ixe5 16 ®f7 17 Af6
£)xe4. 0-0 18 Sadi WfS was about equal in Geller-
Game 67 invites transposition to Part One Unzicker, Bern 1987. However Black should
with 9..JLc5 but this often leads to early not hurry to exchange queens as after
simplification with 10 £lxe4. 12.. .Wxdl?! 13 Sxdl &xg5 14 Axg5 2f8 15

120
 9 &bd2

&h4 e3 (15...Ef5 16 Hd2 Sxe5 17 Sadi also Chekhov, Bulgaria 1985, 'White has a
looks awkward for Black) 16 fxe3 Bf5 17 a4 problem with the f2-square. Blade shouldn’t
b4 18 iLg3 Sd8 19 Sd3 Sf7 20 Sadi White be allowed to double on the f-file.
kept the better prospects in Sax-Tarjan,
Hastings 1977/78.

If 17...#d4 18 We2 #xb2 19 Wxe4 Wc3,

13 Wh5+ g6 14 Wxg5 0-0 Krasenkov proposes 20 f4 with an edge to
Again the exchange of queens is ill- White. However, after 17...£)xe5! 18 #xe4
advised: 14...Wxg5?! 15 Jkxg5 04) 16 Af6 Sd8 19 Af4 Wxe4 20 Bxe4 £)c4 21 ±xc7
53b4 17 Sael with the dearly better game for Sc8 22 iLg3 £ixb2 23 Sxe6 a5 24 Sa6 a
White whose bishop is a real nuisance. draw was agreed in Chandler-Beckemeier,
However, Krasenkov prefers the immediate Germany 1990/91.
14.. .Wd51? 18 Be2 Bd8
15 Wg4Wd5 16 Bel 18...£id4 19 Sxe4 4)b3 20 Sfl (Geller
White has an important alternative here in and Gufeld) leaves Black with no compen¬
16 J$.f4. After 16..JSad8 (inferior is 16...<£)xe5 sation for the pawn.
17 Wg3 £sc4 18 b3 £td6 19 Sadi, which 19 h4
allowed White an initiative in the rook ending A useful move with ideas of h4-h5 or
after 19...#c5 20 ±xd6 cxd6 21 #xd6 Wxd6 Ah6-g5 depending on circumstances and, of
22 Sxd6 Sac8 23 Sxa6 in Vogt-Chekhov, course, giving his king a boh hole.
Potsdam 1985) 17 h4 (not 17 Sadi £txe5 18 19.. .5d5 20 Sfl
We2 Wc4 19 'Hrxc4 £txc4 20 £xc7 Sxdl 21 Black can of course take the e-pawn off
Sxdl 4ixb2 and now it is Black who has the with 20...Sdxe5, but after 21 Sxe4 'firxc2 22
extra pawn) 17...£lxe5 18 #g3 Bf5, as in Sxe5 ?lxe5 23 ««4 «U3 24 Black’s
Subit-A*Rodriguez, Cuban Championship king is a major cause for concern.
1990, Black has managed to hold on to his 20.. .Wd4 21 b3 Wc3
extra pawn for the moment, but White will The best bet was a slightly worse ending
obtain adequate compensation by doubling after 21...£ixe5 22 Vlfxe4 #xe4 23 Sxe4 £>f7,
on the e-file. when the e-pawn is isolated and the bishop
16.. .5f5 will probably prove to be the stronger minor
The pawn grab 16...£)d4? 17 ^h6 5lxc2 piece.
18 Sadi loses the initiative. 22 h5! &e5 23 Wxe4 Sxh5 24 ^f4
17 Ah6 As soon as the e-pawn falls the bishop
After 17 Sxe4? Saf8, as in Hazai- leaps into life and the e-file becomes a

121
Open Ruy Lopt

problem for Black. 10.. .dxe4 11 &xe6

24...Bd4?? The immediate 11 £lg5!? is fashionable,
A blunder. After 24...2f5 25 Sfel c5! when White keeps a faint edge after
Black is just about hanging on. White’s best 11.. .Wxdl 12 2xdl Axb3 (12...0-0!? 13
may then be 26 Axe5 (26 Ag3 with ideas of £ixe6 fxe6 13 Axe6+ 9bh8, as in Gross-
2e3 and f2-f4 is interesting, but 26 2e3 Wb2 Sulskis, Budapest 1998, may be worth
27 c4? fails to 27...2d4) 26...2fxe5 27 Wxe5 investigating) 13 axb3 0-0 14 £ixe4 Ad4
2xe5 28 2xe5 Wxc2 29 25e2 Wc3 30 2xe6 (14.. Ab6 15 Af4 2fe8 16 £>c3 £>d4 17 2d2
with an edge. £ie6 18 Ae3! left Black with an uphill
25 «Ta8+ *g7 26 &xe54 1-0 struggle in Khahfman-Cjplod, Belgrade 1999)
Despite the result of this game, 9...Ae7 is 15 e6 fxe6 16 <&fl Ab6 17 c3 a5 18 f3 a4 19
a safe practical move which avoids the long bxa4 bxa4 20 £ig5, as in De Vreugt-
theoretical lines of 9...£ic5. Mikhalevski, Dieren 1999.
 9 &bd2

14 iLe3 proved to be nothing special after 15.. .«lxe5

14.. .6xe3 15 fxe3 £ixe5 16 £>xe6 Sf7 17 b3 Alternatively, 15...Bf5 16 &b2 Bf4 17
£sg4 18 Bel Be8 in Prasad-Krasenkov, Bel Saf8 18 Be2 Ad4 offers Blade
Gausdal 1991. satisfactory counterplay, when 19 c3 ,&b6 20
14.. .Ab6 iLcl Sxe4 21 Bxe4 Sxf2 22 iLe3 Be2 even
gave Blade an edge in Beudaert-Flear, Creon
1999.
16 Aa3
This stops the doubling of rooks.
16.. .5.4 17 Bel Bd8 18 Be2 £lc6 19 c3
e5?!
A poor strategic decision as Black will
inevitably have a passive game after this.
Instead 19...a5 looks unconvincing after 20
£3g5 but 19...Bd5! (covering c5 and g5) 20
Bael 33e5!, heading for d3, gives Black good
play.
20 Bael h6 21 Acl Bf7 22 Bd2 Bfd7?
This position received a lot of attention a A tactical oversight which leaves Blade in
few years ago, but experience has shown that trouble. Better was 22...Bxd2 23 iLxd2 <&f8
Black seems to have an equal game. White with a passive but playable game, as 24 Jie3
cannot maintain the extra pawn and Black is Bd7! holds everything together, despite
active enough to compensate his slightly Black’s poor pawn worse structure.
worse pawn structure. The main drawback is 23 Bxd7 Bxd7 24 l.xh6!
that it’s all a little dull and Black has difficulty Whoops! 'Where did that one come from?
creating any winning chances. Blade can save the pawn at the risk of
15 b3 allowing the white king a dominating role.
A sensible move, protecting the c4-square 24.. .1.xf2+
and preparing the bishop’s development to Not 24...gxh6?? because of 25 £rf6+.
b2 or a3. Other possibilities include: 25 &xf2 Bf7+ 26 &e3 gxh6 27 Bdl
a) 15 <&fl h61? (15...Bf5 16 f3 Baf8 17 c3 Now it is White who has the d-file.
4bce5 18 <&e2, as in Doggers-Emst, Dieren 27.. .b4 28 Bd5! bxc3 29 £>xc3
1999, or 17..JSxe5 18 Bel leaves White with Comparing pawns. Black’s are all isolated
chances of consolidating his better pawn whereas White’s are neat and tidy. Blade
structure) 16 c3 £lxe5 17 9be2 Sad8 18 Bxd8 must therefore get active or die.
Bxd8 19 b3 9bf7 20 f3 Bd5 with reasonable 29.. .Bf1 30 Bc5 £lb4 31 Bxc7
counter-chances in Zontakh-Skembris, Cutro Simplest was 31 Sxe5 Bel+ 32 £te2
1999. $3xa2 33 Be8+ <&f7 34 Bc8 £>b4 35 Sxc7+.
b) 15 g3 Bf5 16 c3 <Shce5 17 <&g2 Baf8 18 31.. .5.1+ 32 *f2
f4 4}g6 19 53g5 B5f6 20 Bel e5 and Black My opponent rejected 32 9bf31 because of
had enough activity in Glek-Komeev, 32.. .5.l 33 Bfl+ 34 &e2 £ixd5 and
Krumbach 1991. Blade escapes. But in this line 33 a3! is very
c) 15 a4£lxe5 16 h3 £lc4 17 Bel Bac8 18 strong as after 33...£lc2 34 &e4 the white
9bfl 4tkl6 and Black started to assume the king invades with a decisive effect.
initiative in Griinfeld-Mikhalevski, Tel Aviv 32.. .£>d3+ 33 *g3 £lf4 34 *f3 Bf1+ 35
1994. *e4 Bel-t- 36 &f3 Bf1+ 37 *e4 Be1+ 38

123
Open Buy Lopez

*f5 £>xg2 39 £le4 considered in Game 69 and Games 70-76

Perhaps 39 £>d5!? could have been tried. respectively.
39...5e2 40 £rf6+ *f8 11 £>xb3 A.e7 12 £>fd4
White cannot easily deliver mate as both The alternative 12 $Le5 can be met by
41 <3>e6 or 41 <&g6 are met by 41...£rf4+. 12....&g4, when 13 iLc5 4£lxe5! 14 $Lxe7
41 a4 e4! 42 ®xe4 &h4+ 43 *e5 £>f3+ Wxe7 15 Sel £xf3 16 gxf3 Wg5+ 17 <&hl
44 *d5 Bxh2 45 b4 Sh5+ 46 *d6 Sh4 0-0 yields equality for Black - Korchnoi
47 Bc3 Bxe4 48 Bxf3+ *g7 49 Bb3 *f6
50 b5 axb5 51 axb5 Se6+ 52 *d7 Se7+
53 *d8 Bh7! 54 b6 h5 55 b7 h4 56 b8W
Bh8+ 57 *d7 Bxb8 58 Bxb8 *f5 59
&d6 h3 60 Sb4 *g5 61 *e5
A thoroughly frustrating experience for
my opponent, who needed to win for a
Grandmaster norm.

Game 68
Tischbierek-Pahtz
Potsdam 1985

I e4 e5 2 &f3 £>c6 3 £.b5 a6 4 Ae4 £lf6

5 0-0 b5 6 l.b3 £lxe4 7 d4 d5 8 dxe5 Another sound idea is 12...£>xd4 13 cxd4
Ae6 9 &bd2 £>c5 10 c3 ®xb3 0-0 14 £.d2 f6! (another typical method to
This line that has never gained much liberate the black position) 15 Sel fxe5 16
popularity despite bong judged as equal by Sxe5 ^Ld6?l (optimistic, instead 16...iLf7
the books. followed by ...il.d6 is satisfactory) 17 iLg5
Korchnoi was punished emphatically by (after 17 Sxe6! .SLxh2+ 18 <&fl! Sxf2+ 19
Karpov after trying the experimental 10...g6?! <&>xf2 Wh4+ 20 <&e3 Wf4+ 21 <&d3 Wf5+ 22
II We2 iLg7 12 <&d4 £>xe5?! playable but &c3 Black doesn’t really have enough
uninspiring is 12...£txd4 13 cxd4 £lb7 14 compensation) 17...We8 18 Se3 Wg6 19
-&c2 c5 15 f4 cxd4 16 £>b3 11)6 17 lf2 0-0 We2 Wxg5 20 Sxe6 tth4 21 g3 Wh3 22
18 £ixd4 with a pleasant edge for White in Sel h5 and here a draw was agreed in
Fishbein-Murey, Moscow 1989) 13 f4 &c4 Henao-Obando, Los Angeles 1991.
14 f5 gxf5 15 £tod5 fig8 16 £lxc4 dxc4 17 However, 12...£>xe5? is a mistake as after
&c2 £id3 18 ±h6 &f8 19 Sadi and Blade 13 Sel £>g6 14 £>xe6 fxe6 15 £id4! £>f8 16
was in all sorts of trouble in Karpov- mg4, as in G.Kuzmin-Beliavsky, USSR
Korchnoi, Baguio City (8th matchgame) 1977, White was obviously much better.
1978. 13 f4 £>xd4 14 cxd4 a5 15 £.e3 a4 16
I quite like 10...1d7!? 11 thd4 £>xd4 &c1
(ll...<Sixe5 is too risky after 12 f4 £lc6 13 f5 After 16 £>c5 .&xc5 17 dxc5 Black has a
with attacking chances for White in Adams- light-squared blockade and can play for
Ziatdinov, Dublin 1991) 12 cxd4 £la4! 13 more with 17...iLf5 (with ideas of ...h7-h5,
-&xa4 bxa4 14 b3 c5 when Black had ...il.e4, ...Wf5 and bringing a rook to g6).
equalised in Guid-Sundararaj an, Yerevan Instead 17..h5? was disastrous for Black in
1999. Bejaoui-Flear, Tunis 1999, after 18 c6! Wxc6
The alternatives 10...iLg4 and 10...d4 are 19 f5 with a raging attack for White.

124
 9 lhbd2

16...C5!? e6-g4 and ...£te4-c5-e6. If White plays too

Introducing a double-pawn sacrifice to routinely then the black set-up is fine, but
obtain good play for the bishops. unfortunately this plan takes too much time
17 dxc5 d4 18 Wxd4 «xd4 19 Axd4 and White can retain the initiative, as we shall
0-0-0 20 Ae3 f6 see below.
11 £c2
White should at some point retreat his
bishop as otherwise he fails to maintain any
pressure, e.g. 11 Sel Wd7 12 £>fl £bd>3! 13
axb3 iLe7 14 h3 JLe6 15 iLg5 iLxg5 16 £>g5
0-0 with a comfortable game for Black in
Das-Sriram, Calcutta 1999.
11.. .«ie6
Quick central development was seen in
Ailodriguez-Kharitonov, Bayamo 1989:
11.. .Wd7 12 Bel Bd8 13 £>b3 £ie6 14 a4
&.e7 15 axb5 axb5 16 WcB. The plan of an
early ...'Hrd7 and ...Sd8 sometimes leaves the
Blade has great play for his pieces despite b5-pawn exposed and now ...0-0 will be hard
the two-pawn deficit. to achieve.
21 b3 fxe5 22 f5 Leko-Anand, Linares 1999, varied from
Returning a pawn, with gain of time, to this with 12...d4!? 13 £3b3 dxc3 14 '8rxd7+
obtain a kingside majority. Note that Black iLxd7 15 bxc3 £ld8 16 £>g5 h6 17 £>e4
remains particularly active after 22 fxe5 Sd5 £sxe4 18 iLxe4 iLc6 and Black had a
23 b4 Shd8 24 Jkf4 Bd4. reasonable game.
22...iLf7 23 bxa4 bxa4 24 Bbl *c7 25 12 Bel £c5 13£>b3
Sb4 Ae8 26 g4 h6 27 *f2 £.c6 28 *g3 Also effective is 13 a4 Bb8 (13...b4!? is a
Sd5 29 Bel Bhd8 30 h4 ±xc5 better try) 14 axb5 axb5 15 4lb3 with an
Finally winning back the sacrificed edge for White - AJRodriguez.
material, after which the game is equal. 13.. .±a7!
31 Sc4 £.d4 32 g5 hxg5 33 Axg5 B8d6 This is better than 13..jl.b6 14 a4 £le7 15
34 £>d3 Ac3 35 Bxc3 'h-'h axb5 axb5 16 Bxa8 Wxa8 17 Wd3 c6 18
Indeed 35...fixd3+ 36 Sxd3 Sxd3+ 37 £ifd4 £lxd4 19 <Sbcd4 Wc8 20 Ag5 h6 21
Se3 Sxe3+ 38 &xe3 is dead drawn. -&xe7 ■&xe7 22 WgS, which was distinctly
unpleasant for Black in Sax-Flear, French
Game 69 Team Championship 1990.
Lutz-Yusupov 14a4b4 15«rd3l.h5
Germany 1996 In order to play ...jtg6 followed by ...0-0.
16&M4!
1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £>c6 3 ib5 a6 4 Aa4 An enterprising pawn sacrifice.
5 0-0 £>xe4 6d4b5 7 l.b3 d5 8 dxe5 16.. .±xd4 17 cxd4 iLg6 18 Wdl ixc2
iLe6 9 £>bd2 £lc5 10 c3 l.g4 19 ®xc2 £)cxd4
Ibis opening is similar to the Black does best to take the pawn as
manoeuvring lines of Chapter 5. However, otherwise 'White follows up with iLe3 and
here Black aims to develop his bishop to c5 Bel to pressurise the c-file.
in one go, that is after having played ... jLc8- 20 &xd4 £>xd4 21 Wc5 0>e6 22 Wc6+

125
Open Ruy Lopez

22 ttxM wins back the pawn but after g6 47 *h4 Bxh2+ 48 *g5 Bg2 49 Bb7+
22.. .c5 Black will then castle and operate *g8 50 3b3 *g7 51 Ba3 Bgl 52 Ba7+
down the b-file with excellent play. &g8 53 &xg6 Sxg3+ 54 &xh5 'A-'A
22.. .*e7 23 iLe3 d4
Game 70
Kasparov-Anand
New York (10th matchgame) 1995

This is one of the most famous Open Ruy

Lopez games of all time.
1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £>c6 3 kb5 a6 4 ka4 £if6
5 0-0 &xe4 6d4b5 7 kb3 d5 8 dxe5
&e6 9 £>bd2 £>c5 10 c3 d4 11 £sg5!?
A seemingly crazy move that Karpov
managed to unleash on Korchnoi in their
1978 Baguio City match. Accepting the
sacrifice with ll..1Bfxg5 is possible (Game 72)
Stopping the bishop from coming to c5, and Black can also safely decline it (Game
which would create problems after 23..Md7 71). Here Kasparov launches a home-
24 &c5+ £ixc5 25 #xc5+ 4?e8 since Black’s prepared attack which kills off the defencfe
rooks are disconnected. inaugurated by Black’s previously well
24 £.xd4! &xd4 regarded 11th move.#
Not 24._Wxd4? as 25 Sadi Wc5 26 Sd7+ 11.. .dxc3?!
4?e8 27 #xa8+ wins. White also retains the better game after
25 Vc&f *e6 26 Sadi Wd5 11.. .£lxb3 12 5ixe6 fxe6 13 Wxb3 (or even
In this way the queens are exchanged. 13 axb3 d3 14 Wh5+ g6 15 Wf3 £>xe5 16
White has the more active rooks but the We4 kg7 17 f4 £td7 18 Bf3!, winning back
centralised king is now a positive feature. the pawn with interest in M.Gonzalez-
27 Wxd4 ®xd4 28 Sxd4 Shd8!? Rodriguez, Spain 1999) D-WcL) 14 Wxd5
This activating pawn sacrifice was exd5 15 £lf3 dxc3 16 bxc3, as in Angan-
preferred by Yusupov to 28...c5 29 Sd6+ tysson-Pokojowayk, Copenhagen 1980.
*e7 30 Sedl Hhd8 31 *fl when White has 12 £ixe6 fxe6 13 bxc3 Wd3
a bind.
29 2xb4 Bab8 30 Bo4 Sxb2 31 3c6+
&e7 32 Hxc7+ Bd7 33 Bc6 Sdd2 34 Bfl
Ba2 35 Sxa6 Bd4 36 g3 Saxa4
For club players, the ending of rook and
four pawns against rook and three on the
same side is notoriously difficult to defend.
But for players as technically proficient as
Yusupov the defence is not a major task.
37 Bb6 Bab4 38 Ba6 Ba4 39 Bxa4 Sxa4
40 *g2 Ba2 41 *H3 f6 42 exf6+ <±>xf6
Rods and three versus rook and two is
even easier to defend!
43 13 h5 44 Sbl Bf2 45 Bb&f *f7 46 f4

126
 9 &bd2

held in this line by Anand, but by the tenth White has a raging attack after both
game was ready with the plan of exchanging 16...Sd8 17 Wh5+ g6 18 Wg4 Wxe5 19 M>2
the c5-knight so that the defences around the and 16...Wxal 17 Wh5+ g6 18 Wf3.
black king are weakened. In fact, the attack is 17 Wg4 Wxal 18 Axe6 Bd8
so strong that White can even sacrifice his Another defensive try is 18...Wc3 but
queen’s rook! White then wins material by 19 $Ld7+ &d8
14 £.c2! 20 iLg5+ iLe7 21 ±xe7+ *xe7 22 Wxg7+
Kasparov’s new sacrificial idea. Previously &d8 23 Wxh8+ *xd7 24 Wxa8.
theory had continued 14 £lf3 Wxdl 15
jLxdl &.e7 16 £e3 £kl3 17 Ab3 *f7 18
Sadi £ldxe5 19 £3xe5+ (even better is 19
53g5+ -SLxg5 20 JLxg5 which is clearly better
for White - Korchnoi) 19...£bce5 20 &f4
£lc4 Karpov-Korchnoi, Baguio City (10th
match game) 1978, and now Tal’s 21 Sd7
yields White an edge.
This was the state of affairs until the sixth
game when 14...0-0-0 (instead of 14...Wxdl)
15 Wei £>xb3 16 axb3 *b7 17 iLe3 Jk.e7
Kasparov-Anand, New York (6th
matchgame) 1995, proved to be about equal
All this is just for the record as the text is
much stronger. Black escapes after 19 .&g5?! Wc3 20
14.. .Wxc3 15 £>b3! £txb3 £.xd8h5 2lWg6+&xd8.
A later try to rescue the variation was 19.. .Wc3 20 Axg7
15.. .5d8 16 iLd2 Sxd2 (or 16...Wxe5 17 Bel White threatens mate starting with 21
Wd5 18 Wg4 and the black monarch is in Wh5+.
mortal danger) 17 £ixd2 4£ixe5 18 £lb3 20.. .Wd3 21 Axh8 «Tg6
£>ed7 19 £>d4 iLd6 20 Bel, but Black’s king 21...£>e2+ 22 <&hl &g3+ 23 hxg3 Wxfl+
never found a safe haven in Khalifman- 24 <4>h2 Wd3 25 A6 Wc4 26 f4 leaves Black
Hracek, Pamu 1996. an exchange up but a king down.
16 Axb3 22 Af6 £e7 23 &xe7 Wxg4 24 l.xg4
&xe7 25 Bel
Open ftuy Lopez

After the vicious attack comes the slow - Herrera and Dominguez) 17 g4 2g8 18 f5+
torture of a lost ending. White has an extra gxf5 19 Bxf5 £.g7! and Blade should be able
pawn and his problems on the c-file mean to beat off the attack (Hear).
that Black cannot activate his pieces. Instead of 14 £le4 White successfully tried
25.. .C6 26 f4 a5 27 *f2 a4 28 &e3 b4 14 #g4+ in Svidler-Anand, Dos Hennanas
29 &dU 1999, when 14...<&e7 15 e6 &xe61? 16 Sel
White sensibly keeps an eye on the #d7 17 &xe6 £lxe6 18 43f3 Se8 19 £>g5
queenside before Black gets any further <SM8 20 iLd2 h6?l 21 £>f3 #d5 22 2e5 #d6
advanced. 23 cxd4 gave White more than enough
29.. .a3 30 g4 Bd5 31 Sc4 c5 32 *e4 compensation. This attack is far from
Sd8 33 Bxc5 ^e6 34 Bd5 Bc8 35 f5 convincing, however, as Blade has two dear
Bc4+ 36 *e3 £>c5 37 g5 Bel 38 Bd6 improvements: first 15...£>xb3 (instead of
1-0 15.. JLxe6) 16 £ixb3 Axe6 17 2el #d5 18
£>c5 <53d8 19 cxd4 h6 20 Af4 with
Game 71 compensation for White (SeJvanov); and
Onischuk-I .Sokolov later 20...1Brd5! (instead of 20..h6) intending
Wijk aan Zee 1997 21.. .9.d7, when White’s best is 21 £ixe6
£>xe6 22 2xe6+ #xe6 23 2el #xel+ 24
1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £>c6 3 £.b5 a6 4 l.a4 £>f6 .&xel dxc3 25 iLxc3 9bd8 and Black is okay
5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5 (Hear). '
£.e6 9 ®bd2 £>c5 10 c3 d4 11 £>g5 12.. .#xd5 13 £>b3 £ucb3
Ad5! I.Sokolov points out -why 13...2d8 is bad:
The best way to refuse the knight. 14 53xc5 ^.xc5 15 e6! fxe616 $3xe6!
14axb3 £.e7 15 £>f3

A critical alternative is the enterprising

piece sacrifice 12 £lxf7!? <&xf7 13 #13+ <&e6 This seems to equalise completely and
14 £>e4 £bce4 (not 14...£ixb3?! 15 #g4+ improves on 15...£ixe5 16 £ixd4 £3g6 17
7 16 #f5+ <&e8? 17 e6 .&xe6 18 #xe6+ #f3 Wxf3 18 53x£3 which gave White a safe
4t3e7 19 #xb3 and White had a dear edge in Anand-I.Sokolov, Lyon 1994.
advantage in Dominguez-Rios, Cuba 1996; 16 £e3 0-0 17 £.d4 Sfd8 18 #xd3
better was 16...<&g8) 15 #xe4 S3e7 16 f4 g6 An admission that White has nothing, but
(less good is 16.. Jbcb3 17 f5+ *f7 18 axb3 he has little choice in view of Sokolov’s line
#d5 19 #f4 when White has compensation 18 2el? £>xd4 19 cxd4 &b4 20 2e3 d2 21

128
 9 thbd2

Sd3 c5 22 £btd2 c4. JLxe8 Wxel 21 2xel iLxe8 22 £>f3 with

18.. .Wxb3 19 We2 We6 20 Sfdl Sd5 21 some compensation for the exchange but
h3 a5 White is still favourite) 17 f4 Wh6 18 ,&f3
Freeing his queen’s rook. <&>d8 19 fxe5 $L€7 20 4ib3 with a strong
22 Ae3 Bad8 23 2xd5 ®xd5 24 Af4 initiative for White in Wolff-Flear, London
Wd3 25 Wxd3 Bxd3 26 *f1 1990.
■White probably should have forced the There is another idea, 12...<&d7, but this
continuation 26 e6 fxe6 27 Jbcc7 a4 28 c4 leads to a better ending for White after 13
bxc4 29 Sxa4 c3 which was of course equal. £.d5 JLxd5 14 Wxd5+ Ad6 15 £lc4 (or 15
26.. .h6 27 *e2 Bd5 28 h4 a4 29 e6 cxd4 <Sixd4 16 £>c4, as in Brondum-Brinck
fxe6 30 Axc7 Af6 31 c4 £>d4+ 32 <»xd4 Qaussen, Denmark 1979) 15...Wg6
Sxd4 33 cxb5 Sb4 34 b6 (15...Wf5? 16 £>b6+! - Stean) 16 exd6 We6
A more comfortable way to draw was 34 17 Wxc5 Wxc4 18 Wxc4 bxc4 19 dxc7 <&xc7.
2a2 Axb2 35 Ad6 2xb5 36 Sxa4.
34.. .5.b2+ 35 'itfl Bb4 36 Bxa4 Bxa4
37 b7 Sb4 38 bS'&+ Bxb8 39 AxbS
£.xh4
The ending should be a draw especially as
the h-pawn is the notorious ‘wrong rook’s
pawn’.
40 *e2 &f7 41 *e3 *g6 42 g3 ^.f6 43
&e4 h5 44 f4 ^.c3 45 £e5 l.e1 46 *f3
*f7 47 &d4 g6 48 &b2 *e7 49 ±e5
d7 50 M6 *d6 51 Ae5f *d5 52 iLf6
*c4 53 g4 *d5 54 gxh5 gxh5 55 iLe7
h4 56 *g4 *e4 57 iLg5 h3 58 *xh3
*f3 59 Af6 Ag3 60 &g7 l.xf4 61 £.f6
e5 62 £.xe5 £.xe5 'A-'A 13 Wxc6 leads to equality after 13...Wxe5
14 £lf3 Wd5! (a novel way to exchange
Game72 queens) 15 &xd5 JLxd5 16 5ixd4 JLxc6 17
Shirov-Timman 5ixc6 Se8 (Stean).
_ Wijk aan Zee 1996 13.. .fxe6 14 Wxc6 Wxe5 15 b4
After 15 £if3 Wd5 16 Wxd5 exd5 17 cxd4
1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £ic6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 £lf6 £se4 the position is more or less equal.
5 0-0 £>xe4 6d4b5 7 l.b3 d5 8 dxe5 15.. .Wd5
£.e6 9 «3bd2 £>c5 10 c3 d4 11 &g5 15...dxc3 16 bxc5 cxd2 17 Wxa6+ 9bd7 18
Wxg5 12 Iff3 .&xd2 is clearly better for White (Korchnoi)
as Black’s king is a problem.
see following diagram
Instead, the text exchanges queens and
12...0-0-0! sacrifices a piece for a powerful pawn
12....&d7 is inferior as Black cannot hang phalanx in the centre.
on to the piece and has to give it back under 16 Wxd5 exd5 17 bxc5 dxc3 18 £>b3 d4
worse circumstances: 13 jLxf7+ 9be7 14 ,&d5 19 Jka3
£ixe5 15 We2 d3 16 Wei c6 (16..2e8 is A fairly recent try is 19 2dl d3 20 iLe3
regarded as the lesser evil by Korchnoi, e.g. £e7 21 &d4 2xd4 22 ®lxd4 ±f6 23 2xd3
17 f4 Wh5 18 fxe5 &d8 19 Af7 Wxe5 20 2d8, as in Gufeld-Ja.Torres, Los Angeles

129
Open Ruy Lopi

1995, which is given by ECO as “with 1999, continued 23 Sfdl!? *e6 24 Sacl (this
sufficient compensation’ but after 24 *fl way White stops the king coming to d5 due
White may be better. I suggest 20...d2 as a to the pin on the c-pawn) 24..JSd5 25 .&a5
possible improvement. fia8 26 fid3, when the pawns are stymied
However, after 19 a4?! b4 20 a5 d3 Black and White went on to win.
had great compensation in Gi.Garda- 23.. .*e6 24 Bfe1+
Timmermans, Moscow 1999. A curious alternative is 24 fid3 *<15 25
jLxc3 *>c4 (a family fork!) 26 Sfdl dxc3 27
4ia5+ *xc5 28 4ib7+ *c4 29 4ia5+ *>b4 30
4ic6+ *>c4 31 4ia5+ (Shirov) with a strange
perpetual check which neither side dare
avoid.
24.. .*d5 25 ixc3
25 £3a5 c2 26 Sd2 clW 27 Sxcl &h6 is
equally unclear (Shirov).
25.. .*c4 26 £a5 *xb3 27 Sb1+ *>c4 28
Hec1+ *>d5 29 c6 *d6 30 Bxb5 Bb8 31
iLb4+ *e6 32 Be1+ *16 33 ile7+ *17
34 Bd5 Bhc8?!
Up to here Black has played well, but the
19.. .g6! text is inferior to 34...She8 35 Sd7 *>g8 36
Timman’s improvement over one of his *fl (36 Sxc7?! Sbc8.37 Sxc8 Sxc8 38 Scl
own games from 17 years ago (what a &h6 - Flear) 36...d3 37 Bxd3 Sb6 with
memory he must have!) where he had White! equality (Shirov).
That game continued 19...iLe7 20 ,&b4 35 Bd7 *g8 36 g3 Bb6 37 Bel Bb3 38
21 a4 *>d7 22 axb5 axb5 23 Ba6 c6 24 Sdl Ac5 d3?
*e6 25 2xc6+ *>d5 26 Bxf6 *c4 and things Not 38...Sc3?? because of 39 Sxg7+, but
were still unclear in Timman-Smyslov, West 38.. JLh6 (Shirov) would still have put up a
Germany 1979. fight
Instead of 21...*>d7, worthy of note was 39 Bdl Bcb8 40 *g2
21.. .bxa4 22 c6 d3 23 Bxa4 d2 24 Sxa6 *>b8 Black will lose the d-pawn and the game
25 £lxd2 cxd2 26 Sdl She8 27 *fl fiel+ will be over.
28 Sxel dxel'8r+ 29 *xel Be8+ 30 *>fl 40.. .£f8 41 Axf8 Bxf8 42 Blxd3 Bxd3
&-d4 with just about enough compensation 43 Bxd3 Bf7 44 f4 Be7 45 g4 Be6 46
for the pawn in N-NinOv-K.Dimov, Bd8+ *f7 47 Bd7+ Be7 48 Bxe7+ *xe7
correspondence 1995. 49 g5! 1-0
20 £b4 ig7 21 a4 *d7 22 axb5 axb5 Black resigned because of the
23 Badl continuation 49...*>d6 50 h4 *xc6 51 f5 gxf5
The main point of having his bishop on 52 h5<&d6 53g6hxg6 54 h6.
g7, rather than f6, is that 23 Sa6 can be met
by 23...Ba8, whereas in the original Timman- Game 73
Smyslov game (see the previous note) Chandler-Yusupov
23.. .5.8 would have been met by 24 Sxf6! Hastings 1989/90
gxf6 25 4lxd4 with advantage.
However, a recent game looks important 1 e4 e5 2 £lf3 £>c6 3 &.b5 a6 4 Aa4 £lf6
Van den Doel-Timmermans, Netherlands 5 0-0 £>xe4 6 d4 b5 7 ±b3 d5 8 dxe5

130
 9 lhbd2

£e6 9 £tbd2 £>c5 10 c3 d4 11 &xe6 Polanica Zdro) 1995, with a faint edge to
4}xe6 12 cxd4 White who can continue with f2-f4 etc.
12 a4 was well defended by 12...dxc3 13 b) 13.~ii.c5 14 4ie4 (or 14 ^ib3 £ixb3 15
bxc3 b4 14 cxb4 &xb4 15 &a3 #d5 16 Sbl #xb3 0-0! [Chekhov’s move] 16 axb5 axb5
a5 17 £>b3 iLe7 18 #d2 #c6 19 &xa5 Sxa5 17 Sxa8 #xa8 18 #xb5 h61? with
20 Exb4 #a8! in Romanishin-Marin, compensation in Adams-I.Sokolov, Moscow
Dresden 1988, when White had nothing Olympiad 1994; Black can even play slowly
better than 21 Sb3 -&xa3 22 Sxa3 Sxa4 and as his more active pieces are difficult to
a draw was on the cards. dislodge) 14...0-01? (or 14~.ii.b6 15 £>fg5
12...^cxd4 13 a4 £ixg5 16 JLxg5 #(17, as in AJRodriguez-
13 £se4 is the most popular move here Komeev, Barbera del Valles 1994, when 17
(see Games 74-76), while 14 #f3 (14 #c2 is fiel offers some initiative for White) 15
best met by 14...Wd5) 14...Bd8 15 #c6+ 4ixc5 £3xf3+ 16 #xf3 4ixc5 17 axb5 axb5
#d7 16 #xa6 (a draw was agreed after 16 18 Ag5 Sxal (this shows self-confidence!)
#xd7+ in Rogers-Anand, Thessaloniki 19 JLxd8 Sxfl+ 20 *xfl Sxd8 21 g3 £ie6
Olympiad 1988, as the ending is totally equal) 22 #b7 g6 23 #xb5 c5, when the game
doesn’t win a pawn for long as after Topalov-Anand, Dos Hermanas 1996, was
16~.#d5, as in Cicak-Beckemeier, West soon drawn as White cannot make progress.
Germany 1988, the dual threats of 17..JSa8 Both the alternatives are reasonable, but
and 17...#xe5 win the pawn back the text offers the most potential for the
comfortably. second player to generate winning chances.
14 £>xd4 £>xd4
The continuation 14„.Wxd4 15 axb5
#xe5 16 bxa6 0-0 17 #a4 Sfb8 18 a7 Sb7
19 £lf3 #b5, as in Hjartarson-Smejkal, West
Germany 1990 (amongst others), is not bad
but White keeps a slight initiative into the
ending as the a-pawn will take time to round¬
up.
15£le4 0-0
After 15...£>e6?! 16 Ae3 0-0 17 f4 #xdl
18 Sfxdl Sfb8 19 Sd7 &f8 20 f5 -S3d8 21
a5! Black had a passive ending in Karpov-
Korchnoi, Merano (18th match game) 1981.
16 axb5 &xb5 17 l.e3 Wc8
Black’s queenside pawns are split. White
There has also been interest in two can press along the a- and c-files but in the
alternative defences: meantime Blade is able to activate his
a) 13„.Sb8 14 axb5 axb5 15 £>e4 ite7 16 position and search for counterplay in the
£.e31? (originally Korchnoi’s suggestion and centre.
improving on the dullish equality resulting 18#d5
from 16 <S3d6+ cxd6 17 £ixd4 £txd4 18 A good example of how Black can address
#xd4 dxe5 19 #xe5 0-0 in Nunn-Timman, White’s pressure against the weak pawns was
Amsterdam 1985) 16...£>f5 17 Aa7 Wxdl 18 18 #c2 #e6 19 f4 Sad8 20 Sa4 Sd7 21
Sfxdl Sd8 19 g4 Sxdl+ 20 Sxdl £)h4 21 Sfal #d5 22 h3 f6 23 exf6 ±xi6 24 £txf6+
?3xh4 -&xh4 22 £.e3, as in Smirin-Hubner, Sxf6 25 Sxa6 Sxa6 26 Sxa6 £ki4 with

131
Open Ruy Lopez

sufficient activity for the pawn in Adams- <&f2 &e5 49 ^?f3 <&d4 50 Ba7 &e5 51
Yusupov, Hastings 1989/90. Sa4 *f5 52 Bd4 *e5 53 Bc4 *f5 54 b4
e5 55 b5 £lb6 56 Sc6 1-0

Game 74
Van der Wiel-Korchnoi
Sarajevo 1984

1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 ©c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 £>f6

5 0-0 &xe4 6d4b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5
Ae6 9 £>bd2 £>c5 10 c3 d4 11 Axe6
£ixe6 12 cxd4 53cxd4 13 5>e4 Ae7
A good move which avoids reams of
theory is 13..JM5, e.g. 14 £lxd4 £lxd4 15
4}c3 Wc4l (15...#^7 gives White the better
of it, as after 16 Ae3 Ac5 17 Wh5 he
Yusupov believes that Black has enough threatens both 18 Sadi and 18 e6) 16 Ae3
counterplay with lS.-.WfS! 19 £3g3 (or 19 f4 Sd8 17 Axd4 Ac5 18 e6 Sxd4 19 exf7+
Sad8) 19...Wg6, intending ...Had8 with &xf7 20 W(3+ Sf4 21 Wi5+ g6 22 Wd5+
counterplay. Wxd5 23 &xd5 Sd4 24 £lxc7 Ab6 25 Sfdl
19Wc6 Wf5 Shd8 26 Sxd4 2xd4 27 £lxa6 Sd2 and
It might have been better to play 19...®d4 Black had, if anything, the better of it in
20 iLxd4 Hxd4 21 f4 a5, which in Yusupov’s Andrijevic-Todorovic, Panchevo 1989. In
opinion limits White’s advantage to a this line Korchnoi gjves 211Brb7 as better for
minimum. White, but if we look further with 21_Sf8!
20 f4 h5 21 h3 Bab8 22 Bfdl 22 g3! (not 22 &d5? as 22...Sxf2! 23 Hxf2+
22 fixa6?! Hd3 allows Black too much &g8 wins for Blade) 22...Sf5 23 &e4 &g8 24
play. £lxc5 (rather than 24 Had Axf2+! 25 £ixf2
22.. .AH4 23 Wc2 *h8 24 Wc4 Wg6 25 Hxf2) 24...#xc5 25 Had Wd4 26 Sxc7
&h1 Ae7 26 Ac5 Ah4 27 We2 #xb2 then Black has equalised (Flear).
'White has consolidated his position and 14 Ae3 £«5
now threatens Wf3 and f4-f5. 14...£lxf3+?! 15 #xf3 0-0 16 Sfdl gave
27.. .5.d1+ 28 Bxdl Be8 29 Wf3 Wf5 30 White comfortable development in Karpov-
Agl &g8 31 £ic5 g6 32 Wc6 Korchnoi, Merano (14th matchgame) 1981,
Note how Black’s knight on b5 is just a and after lk-WeS? 17 £tf6+! White was
spectator. simply winning, viz. 17...Axf6 18 exf6 Well
32.. .Wc8 33 e6! Bxe6 19 fxg7 Hd8 20 h4 c5 21 Had We7 22 h5
If 33...fxe6 34 We4 &h7 then 35 f5 is We5 23 h6 Wxb2 24 Hd7 Hxd7 25 Wxa8+
crushing. Hd8 26 #xa6 We2 17 Hfl Sdl 28 WzS +
34 &xe6 Wxe6 35 Wxe6 fxe6 36 Sal Bd8 29 Wc(> and White soon won.
The exchange down. Black has too many 15 Wc2 0-0
weaknesses to hold.
see following diagram
36.. .Ag3 37 Bxa6 *f7 38 Ah2 Af2 39
Bc6 *e7 40 Agl Ag3 41 Bc5 c6 42 Not of course 15../£sxe3? because of the
Bxc6 Axf4 43 Bb6 &c7 44 Ah2 g5 45 disruptive 16 Wc(y+.
Axf4 gxf4 46 &g1 £id5 47 Bb7+ 4>f6 48 16&f6+

132
 9 &bd2

21.. .6d4 22 f5 Sd5 23 iLxd4 Sxd4 24 ®f3

Sxdl 25 Sxdl c4 as a better way of
obtaining counterplay for Black.
22 ®«4 Sxdl 23 Sxdl Wc7 24 £>c3
On 24 f5 there is 24...1Hrxe5.
24.. .5d8 25 £>d5 Wb7 26 W13 *h8 27
£>xe7 Wxe7 28 Sxd8+ Wxd8 29 f5 £sd4
30 We4 *g8 31 <&41
White should probably play 31 e6.
31(..g6 32 g4 Wc8 33 e6 gxf5 34 gxf5
Wc6!
An excellent defensive move. After the
alternative 34...£xe6, Van der Wiel intended
mother World Championship game 35 ixd4 cxd4 36 'Hfxe64- 1Hrxe6 37 fxe6 Sfef8
:inued 16 £\eg5 &xg5 17 53xg5 g6 18 38 &e2 &e7 39 &d3 &xe6 40 &xd4 &d6 41
.■6 fxe6 19 Sael #d5 20 b3 Sac8, as in b4 and wins!
pov-Korchnoi, Merano (16th match- 35 1iTg4+ *f8 36 Ah6+ *e7 37 f64
e) 1981, but in this particular case Black *xf6 38 -£.g5+ *e5 39 exf7
okay. 39 e7 £>e6 40 <&>f2 Wd7 looks a little
he main alternative, 16 Sadi, is seen in delicate but Black can live with it
next two main games. 39.. .Wh1+ 40 *f2 Wxh2+ 41 Wg2
..±xf6 17 Wxf5 £e7 18 Sadi '»xg2+ 42 *xg2 43 &e7 c4 44 *g3
he continuation 18 Sfdl Wc8 19 Sacl a5 45 a3 *f5! 'h-'h
: 20 Sxd8+ Wxd8 21 #e4 c5 22 b3, as in White cannot avoid the exchange of his
in-Botterill, Swansea 1987, is best remaining pawns after 46 &h4 &g6 47 fSW
atered by 22...Sb8!, not allowing the £lxf8 48 JLxf8 &f5 49 &g3 &e4 50 &f2
:n to b7, followed by ...#(17 and .~Sd8. &d3 51 &el &c2 52 Ag7 b4 or a dead-
.Wc8 19 £}d2 Hd8 20 f4 drawn ending after 49 Ac5 &e4 50 ib6 b4
51 ixa5 bxa3 52 bxa3 &d5, as it’s the wrong
rook’s pawn.

Game 75
De Firmian-Hellers
Biel 1989

1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £ta6 3 £55 a6 4 £a4 £rf6

5 0-0 ®xe4 6d4b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5
£e6 9 ®bd2 £ic5 10 c3 d4 11 ±xe6
£>xe6 12 cxd4 &cxd4 13 £te4 ke7 14
&e3 £>f5 15 Wc2 0-0 16 Sadi «lxe3 17
fxe3
White’s doubled isolated e-pawns have a
l..£>d4! 21 We4 &f5 (Van der Wiel) is a positive side; they restrict Black’s minor
>ler way to equality. pieces and White can press on the f-file
fh3ffd3 against f7.
ran der Wiel instead offers the suggestion 17...Wc8

133
Open Ruy Lopez

22 2d3 Af8 23 2h3 g6 24 <&h6+ &xh6 25

2xh6 c5! and with the rook on h6 ‘offside’
Black had enough counterplay in Short-
Yusupov, Montpellier Candidates 1985)
22.. .2xe7 23 2f3 2d7 24 2c3 Wxa2 25 2xc6
2ad8 with equal chances in Smirin-
Mikhalchishin, Klaipeda 1988.
20.. .2ac8 21 Wa5 2c2 22 2f2

In this game, by playing an early £^d4,

White restores his structure to a semblance
of normality. Alternative plans not involving
£kl4 are discussed in the next main game.
18 £>d4
Or 18 &g3 Sd8 (ready to meet White’s
£lf5 with —SLf8; indeed Hellers, instructively,
is now able to stave off the king attack
without making any weakening pawn moves) 22.. .Wg4
19 £>d4 £fcxd4 20 exd4 c6 21 £lf5 Af8 22 Theory frowns upon 22..JSfc81? but this is
Hd3 We6 23 Wd2 Sd7 24 Sg3 &h8 25 Wg5 not justified in my opinion. On examining 23
#g6 26 Hx4 #e6 27 Sh3 #g6 28 Sf4 Sad8 We 1 2xf2 (23...Wxa2?! turned out badly after
29 Sg3 We6 30 Sh3 Wg6 with a draw by 24 £>d6 28c7 25 2xc2 2xc2 26 We4 2xb2
repetition in Sax-Hellers, Haninge 1989. 27 2fl as White had a powerful attack,
18.. .£>xd4 19 exd4 We6! Hubner-Ljubojevic, Tilburg 1985) 24 Wxf2
A pawn sacrifice linking the rooks which Wxa2 25 d5 Wb3 26 Wf3 Wxb2 27 d6 Ad8
are ready to come to the c- and d-files. 28 2fl, which led to a White win after
20 Wxc7 28.. .f6? in Gavriljansky-V.Balashov, corres¬
Taking up the challenge. The possibilities pondence 1988,1 spent some time analysing
after declining the pawn are also interesting: 28.. .Wa2!, after which 29 d7 (or 29 £>f6+
a) 20 Sd3 f6 21 Wxe7 (taking it after alH) ±xf6 30 exf6 We6) 29...ib6+ 30 &hl 2f8
21.. .£xe5 22 Wxe5 Sxfl+ 23 *xfl Ef8+ 24 looks fine for Black.
Sf3 Wc4+ 25 &f2 iLh4+ 26 *e3 Wcl+ 17 23 Wei &b4 24 £ic3 Sxf2 25 *xf2 f6
s£>d3 Wbl+, as in Chandler-Yusupov, Minsk 26 exf6
1982, with a perpetual check looking like best The ending after 26 e6 Se8 27 We4 Wxe4
play- 28 £sxe4 Sxe6 29 &c5 Sd6 30 4?e2 f5 as in
b) 20 &g3 c6 (after 20...f6?l 21 £rf5 fxe5? Gavriljansky-Hramov, correspondence 1988,
22 Wb3 Black is forced to shed a piece and offers equal chances.
he resigned, Tseshkovsky-Yusupov, Yerevan 26.. .Xxf6+ 27 *g1 8e6
1982; ugly is 20...c5>! 21 dxc5 Sfc8 22 K as Black cannot easily win back the pawn but
the protected passed pawn gave White a his pieces are so active that White struggles
positional advantage in Wedberg-Morovic, to consolidate. Thus a dynamic equilibrium is
New York 1988) 21 £>f5 2fe8 22 ®xe7+ (or achieved.

134
 9 &bd2

28 ffl &d6 29 Wf3 Wxf3 30 gxf3 Bh6 Korchnoi’s suggestion of 19 #06!? can be
31 Bd2 ±f4 32 Be2 Bd6 V4-V4 met by 19..J2b8 with ideas of ...Bb6.
Black certainly has nothing to worry about Black failed to keep White at bay in
after 33 d5 (or 33 Se4 Bxd4! 34 Sxd4 ie3+) Ioseliani-Ekstrom, Biel 1989, with the
33...b4 34 Se8+ *f7 35 Be4 ±xh2+ 36 dubious alternative 18—c5?l 19 fth2 Wc7 20
*xh2 bxc3 37 bxc3 Bxd5. &g4 &h8 21 £td6 53d8 22 Bd5 c4 23 £sf6!
We can conclude that the pawn sacrifice with a crushing attack. Again prematurely
gives adequate plsy. giving away control of the d6-square helps
White.
Game 76 19 £th2 4
Prasad-Ernst If 19 Bel then 19...c5 is the move (since
Gausdal 1991 here Black has adequate control of the d6-
square), when 20 Wf2 Wb7 21 53h2 1Hrxe4!
1 e4 e5 2 £rf3 £>c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 &a4 £>f6 22 Wx£7+ &h8 23 Wxeft ig5 led to equal
5 0-0 &xe4 6d4b5 7 l.b3 d5 8 dxe5 chances in Karpov-Yusupov, Linares 1983.
£e6 9 £ibd2 &c5 10 c3 d4 11 Axe6 19...Sxd1 20 Wxdl WeS
<S3xe6 12 cxd4 t)cxd4 13 &e4 ±e7 14
±e3 15 Wc2 0-0 16 Sadi £«e3 17
fxe3 Wc8 18 h3
White aims to bring his knights to such
threatening squares as f5 and g4.
After 18 2d3 I prefer Beliavsky’s
suggestion of 18...Sd8 (to exchange off a
potential attacking piece) to 18...c5, as I don’t
like the idea of letting die knight into d6 so
easily. White is better after 19 £id6 Wc7 20
Sfdl Sfd8 21 Sd5 iLf8 22 b3, as in Short-
Beliavsky, Barcelona 1989, since he has a
bind. Interesting was 19...1Brb8!? (instead of
19.. .Wc7) 20 b3 Sa7 21 Sfdl Bd8 22 Qxf7 A useful move. Black defends the f7- and
(why not 22 Bd5, keeping the tension?) b5-pawns and prepares to develop his rook
22.. .'&xf7 23 Sxd8, as in Stoica-Marin, by .~Bd8 or ...a6-a5 and ...Ba6.
Eforie-Notd 1988, when 23...&xd8 24 Wf5+ 21 &g4
&e7 25 #xh7 Bd7 26 Hi4+ &e8 27 Wh8+ Two other moves have been tried here:
^>e7 (Stoica) is immediately drawn. a) 21 #h5 £sc5 22 £ig3 a5! (an attractive
Blade equalised after 18 Weft We% 19 Bel manoeuvre which limits White’s scope for an
Wxc6 20 Bxc6 Sfd8 21 Bfcl Sd5 22 &c3 attack) 23 £lf5 Sa6 24 &g4 Bg6 25 b3 (or 25
Sc5 23 *he2 Bxcl+ 24 £\xcl ic5 25 <&f2 &h2 id8!) 25...±d8 26 Wc6 27 e4, as
.&b6 in G.Kuzmin-P.Thipsay, New Delhi in Tal-Korchnoi, Reykjavik 1987, when Black
1984, as his rook is now freed from its can even play 27...£ixe4 28 Wdl £id6 29
defensive task ®g4 £ib7 and escape with his booty.
18.. .3.8 b) Black’s manoeuvres were less
After 18...a5 19 £>d4 £3xd4 20 exd4 We6 convincing in Watson-Flear, London 1990,
21 &hl c6 22 £3g3 Bfd8, Klovan-F.Levin, when after 21 £lg3 a5 22 ®f5 Ba6 23 1U5
Groningen 1991, play is similar to Game 74, id8 24 &g4 h5 25 ®ih2 £lf8 26 &f3 Bg6
note to White’s 20th move. Instead 27 Bdl ie7 my opponent could have taken

135
Open Buy Lopez

a pawn with 28 4ixe7+ Wlhte7 29 WxbS. requires.

It’s not dear that 21...Sd8 (instead of
21...a5) 22 #c2 c5 23 &g4 Bd7 (23...c4!
transposes back to the main game) 24 £lf5
&h8 25 #e4 was any better in Mokry-Emst,
Gausdal 1989. After 25...#c8 26 &d6 Axd6
27 exd6 Sxd6 28 Bxf7 Blade had problems.

Prasad felt that Black has enough play

after 26 Wb7 Sc7 27 Wxa6 c3, but I think
that White should have tried 26 <5ld6! £xd6
27 exd6 and if 27...c3?! (the best chance is
27.. .a5 and if 28 Sdl then 28..JTa4) then 28
21...fid8 22 Wc2 c5 23 £lg3 c4! 24 We4 #xb4 a5 29 #b3 c2 30 Scl Wc6 31 Wd3 is
Bc8 much better for 'White.
The active 24...£lc5! has its points. If 25 26.. .gxh6 27 £\xh&+ *h8 28 £ixf7+ *g8
Wf4 then 25...£>d3, while on 25 Wf5 £>d3 or 29 Wg4+ £>g7 30 e6
even 25...b4. White’s attack is dangerous but only
25 £rf5 b4 seems to yield a perpetual check.
Ernst, with the benefit of experience from 30.. .6.5 31 Wg5 We7
his game against Mokry, finds a way to 31...1Hrxe6? fails to the artistic 32 ^3h6+
obtain counter-chances. A passed queenside &h8 33 Wxc5!
pawn is just the counterbalance that Black 32 £h8+ *h8 33 We5 Wc7

136
 9 lhbd2

Summary
Despite die great popularity of 9 <S3bd2, Black has several ways to achieve a good game. In
Games 66-68, Black avoids the main line and in each case should more or less equalise. The
surprise effect of 11 £ig5 has gpne and Black can confidently decline the sacrifice with
11.. .^.d5 (Game 71) which promises a safe position, or aim to navigate sharp unclear
complications by taking the knight (Game 72).
The well established 11 Axe6 (Games 73-76) requires accurate defence on Black’s part, but
he has no particular cause for concern.

I e4 e5 2 £>f3 £>c6 3 £b5 a6 4 £a4 £rf6 5 0-0 £>xe4 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5 ±e6
9&bd2

9.. .6.5
9.. .^Le7 — Game 66
9.. .Ac5 - Game 67
10 c3 d4
10.. .£bd>3 - Game 68
10.. .±g4 - Game 69
II JLxe6
ll&g5 (D)
11.. .dxc3 - Game 70
11.. .Ad5 - Game 71
ll-.WxgS - Game 72
11.. .£>xe6 12 cxd4 &cxd4 13 <&e4
13 a4 (D) - Game 73
13.. .£.e7 14 &e3 &f5 15 Wc2 0-0 16 Badl
16 £tf6+ - Game 74
16.. .6.e3 17 fxe3 Wc8 (D) 18 h3
18 £3d4 - Game 75
18.. .Bd8 — Game 76

PlinUPE^:' j
SjCjIO*'iIjBlZ

pm W
11 &g5 13a4 17..Mc8

137
 CHAPTER ELEVEN ]
White's Other Ninth Moves

1 e4 e5 2 £)f3 «3c6 3 ±b5 a6 4 ia4 ie6 9 ie3 £>c5

5 0-0 £>xe4 6d4b5 7 ib3 d5 8 dxe5 The safest move here is 9...ie7 (see
iLe6 Game 79).
So far in this book we have examined White is able to obtain an edge due <o
White’s most popular moves, 9 c3, 9 #62 control of d4 and c5 after 9...ic5 10 ixc5
and 9 £)bd2. The most commonly played (or, as quoted in older books, 10 #d3 0-0 11
alternative to these is 9 ie3 (Games 77-79), £)c3! &b4 12 #e2 &xc3 13 bxc3 ixe3 14
but in this chapter we shall also consider 9 #xe3 &c6 15 a4 £ia5 16 axb5 axb5 17 #c5,
Sel (Game 80) and 9 a4 (Games 81 and 82). as in Kholmov-Antoshin, USSR Champion¬
In Games 77 and 78 Black meets 9 ie3 ship 1967) 10...£bcc5 11 £sd4 &xd4 12
with the defence 9...<S3c5. The conclusion #xd4 £)b7 13 c3 c5 14 #f4 04) 15 £ld2
from these examples is that Black has a &a5 16 ic2 &c6 17 #g3 #d7 18 Sadi
difficult game. This suggests that the popular if5 19 ixf5 #xf5 20 £3b3, as in Imanaliev-
9..Jie7 is the best reply, as in Game 79, Mamadzoev, Azov 1991.
when a transposition to Chapter 8 arises after Another promising plan for White here is
10 c3. In Game 80, we see that Black has no 10 Sel (instead of 10 ixc5) 10...0-0 11 c3
particular problems after 9 Sel. ixe3 12 Sxe3 £\a5 13 £)bd2 £ixb3 14 axb3
However, 9 a4 has some surprise value. In <S)xd2 15 #xd2 c5 16 b4! with the better
fact, an early a2-a4 in a number of positions chances in Bologan-Ermeni, Basel 1999.
forces Black to make a decision on the 10 c3
queenside. In general the safest is to react Until the present game, theory didn’t
with ...b5-b4, as here, dosing the game in suggest that this creates problems for Black.
order to catch up in development See Game 78 for 10 40c3.
10.. .£>xb3 11 axb3 ie7
Game 77 A worthwhile alternative was tested in
L. Bronstein-Sorokin King-Kaidanov, Palma de Mallorca 1989:
General Pico City 1996 11.. .1g4 12 if4 ie7 13 ®a3 0-0 14 h3
ih5 15 £lc2 #d7 16 £le3 Sfd8 17 g4 ig6
1 e4 e5 2 £rf3 £>c6 3 ib5 a6 4 ia4 £>f6 18 £wd4 53xd4 19 cxd4 c5 with a tough battle
5 0-0 £>xe4 6 d4 b5 7 ib3 d5 8 dxe5 in prospect.

138
 White's Other Ninth Moves

problems finding a credible defence.

17.. .fffd8
After 17..JLe7, 18 £sf6+! &xf6 (18...gxf6
19 Wg3+ &h8 20 exf6 wins immediately for
White) 19 exf6 gives useful attacking chances
for White and after 17...c5 the attack
launched by 18 <S3g5 is strong.
18 £>g5 g6 19 £«4 &e7 20 We3
With strong pressure against the black
king.
20.. .*g7 21 £rf6 ±xf6 22 exf6+ *h8 23
Wh6 Kg8 24 5fe1

12«3bd2
The sharp move 12 £kl4!? can be defused
by 12...®xe5 (also sound is 12...^3xd4 13
cxd4 04) 14 &c3 f6 15 f4 fxe5 16 fxe5 SxfU-
17 &xfl ib4 18 &gl Axc3 19 bxc3 a5, and
Blade had winning chances in Ghinda-
Yusupov, Dubai Olympiad 1986, as he
threatens to create an outside passed pawn)
13 f4 £3g4 14 4lxe6 4)xe3 15 $3xd8 ®xdl
16 Sxdl 2xd8 17 5xa6 with equal chances -
Yusupov and Dvoretsky.
Another plan 12 h3 04) 13 b4 #d7 14
£sbd2 was rather elaborate in A.Kuzmin- Threatening 25 Se5, followed by doubling
Sorokin, USSR 1988, when Black was able to on the e-file. White has ideas based on 2xe6
equalise with 14...d4 15 53xd4 4)xe5. followed by f7+ or Sle4-h4. The attack is
12...0-0 particularly strong due to the presence of
With the benefit of hindsight, Blade would opposite-coloured bishops.
have done better to have tried 12...ig4, Blade rather desperately deddes to give up
when after 13 #c2 #d7 14 ig5 ±15 15 his queen to obtain some freedom, but to no
#dl Axg5 16 <&xg5 0-0 17 Sel Sfd8 18 avail.
£)gf3 d4 he seized the initiative in Timman- 24...c5 25 5e5 cxd4 26 Bxd5 £xd5 27
Yusupov, Tilburg 1987. Wg5 5gd8 28 cxd4 a5 29 h4 ±c4 30
13 b4 d4 14 £>xd4 £>xd4 Bel Sxd4 31 Wh6 Sg81-0
Not here 14...<&xe5 as 15 <S3xe6 fxe6 White mates with 32 Se8.
leaves the blade pawn structure
compromised. Game 78
15 £xd4 Axb4 16 &e4 #d5 17 Wd3! Dvoiris-Sorokin
A dear improvement on 17 W3 2fd8 18 Russian Ch., Voronezh 1988
Sfdl Af8 19 b4 #c4 20 £kl2 Wd5 with a
balanced position in Panchenko-Sorokin, 1 e4 e5 2 &f3 £>c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 ±sA &f6
USSR 1991. 5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5
After the game move White threatens 18 Jte6 9 &e3 £sc5 10 t>c3
cxb4 and 18 £)g5 and Blade suddenly has big Now the threat to the d5-pawn forces

139
Open Ruy Lopez

Black’s hand. attack

10...dxb3 11 cxb3 12 Wd2Sd8 13 kg5
By exchanging dark-squared bishops.
White hopes to obtain a ‘good knight versus
bad bishop’ middlegame. This would
particularly be effective if he were allowed to
blockade the centre on d4 and c5.
13...ke7 14 Had kg4 15 llxe7 dxe7
16 del c5
So Black has freed his c-pawn, but now he
experiences difficulties due to his lack of
development.
17 dd3 Wa7
Black could have considered 17...Sc8!?
and if 18 b4 cxb4 19 ®Bcb4 then 19...a5!
This recapture away from the centre offers 18 Wg5 Af5 19 df4 kg6
White the option of pressing along the c-file. Korchnoi proposes 19...d4 as an
11...WOT improvement, but still prefers White’s
Mikhalchishin suggests 1 l...db8, when prospects after 20 dh5 Sg8 21 de2.
Korchnoi’s 12 £ld4 can be met by 12...c5 13 20 Hfdl Wb7
dxe6 fxe6 14 Wh5+ g6 15 Wg4 Wd7 with a
playable position (Rear). Black’s suspicious-
looking kingside pawn structure is
compensated by flexible queenside pawns.
The natural move ll...ii.e7 is perhaps the
most popular but it fails to convince After
the continuation 12 Scl #<£7 (12...0-0? 13
dxb5 axb5 14 fixc6 5xa2 15 Wbl Sa8 16
Sfcl allows White a clear advantage as c7 is
fatally weak - Korchnoi) 13 h3 0-0 14 de2
Hfc8 15 &f4 a5 16 a3 £>d8 17 dd3 M5 18
dc5 Axc5 19 &xc5 de6 20 dd4, as in
Groszpeter-Brunner, Biel 1990, White
achieves the optimal central bind. 21 e6!
After 13 4be2 (instead of 13 h3) Black The d5-pawn is attacked by a fourth piece
fared better in Smagin-Mikhalchishin, and Black has yet to castle.
Moscow 1989, as after 13...Sc8 14 df4 0-0 21.. .f6 22 Wg4 d4 23 dxg6 hxg6 24
15 &c5 Sfd8 16 &xe7 &xe7 17 Wd4 he was de4
able to play 17..~&g4 with a reasonable game. Now the c-pawn comes under fire!
This explains why Groszpeter was quick to 24.. .C4 25 bxc4 bxc4 26 Wf4
play h2-h3. 26 Sxc4 allows Black to struggle on with
Black tried another way in Winsnes- 26.. .Wxb2 (26...f5 27 Wff4 Wxe4 is refuted by
Krasenkov, Stockholm 1989/90:13 Wd2 0-0 28 Scxd4), whereas the text move threatens
14 Sfdl Sad8 15 ,kg5 d4 16 de4 &d5 17 27dd6+.
Wf4 -kxg5 18 &feg5 We7, but after 19 26.. .Wd5 27 &d2 c3 28 bxc3 dxc3
5xc61! 3ixc6 20 df6+ White had a winning The black central pawns have crept

140
 White’s Other Ninth Moves

forward but with Black’s king still in the Relatively best, but not too worrying for
centre all is lost. Black is 11 £ld4 £}xd4 12 Axd4 Wd7 13 c3
29 trfl Wxe 6 £la4 14 Sbl c5 15 Ae3 0-0 16 Bad8 17
After 29_Wxdl 30 Sxdl Sxdl simply 31 We2 if5 18 Sbdl We6 with comfortable
Wa4-t- wins the rook. development for Black in Tseshkovsky-
30 Bxd8+ *xd8 31 Bxc3 Bh5 32 Wb8+ Balashov, USSR 1980.
£>c8 33 Wc7+ 1-0 11...0-0
Black’s position seems too difficult to An ambitious akemative is ll...d4!?, when
handle after 10 4tlc3, so 9...£k5 is not to be 12 £xe6 fxe6 13 Wh5+ g6 14 Wf3 Wd5
recommended. (Korchnoi) looks promising for the second
player.
Game 79 12 Wh5
Dvoiris-Kaidanov White would like to attack but this is not
USSR 1984 justified by Black’s solid position.
12...£xg5 13 £xg5 Wd7 14 Bael Bfe8
1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £>c6 3 ±b5 a6 4 Aa4 15Wf3 h6
5 0-0 «Sxe4 6 d4 b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5 Dvoiris believes that Black should
£e6 9 &e3 ±e7 10 £>bd2 dispense with this move and play 15...d4 16
Here 10 c3 is White’s best move, as in Wg3 &h8 when he already prefers Black.
Chapter 8. 16 £f4 Sad8 17 Wg3 *h7 18 c3
A poor alternative is 10 Wei?! 0-0 11 £lc3
&b4 12 Sdl Se8 13 Bd3 £le7 and White is
left with his pieces all tangled up, Zaitsev-
Unzicker, Moscow 1982.
10...£>c5

18,..^.f5
An imprecision. Instead, 18...d4 19 ,kc2+
Af5 leaves Black with full development and
his central play starting to rolL It is of course
logical for Black to push with ...d5-d4; White
has abandoned any pretence of central
11 c3?! is embarrassed by ll...£d3! control for rather naive attacking gestures
foridng two pawns. Then 12 Wc2 £>dxe5 13 and frankly deserves to be punished!
®xe5 £lxe5 14 id4 f6 15 Sfel, as in the 19 Bdl We7 20 Sfel a5 21 £*1 £txb3
game Tseshkovsky-Kaidanov, Moscow 1985, 22 axb3 We6 23 We3 ±c2?
should have been followed up with 15..JLf7 A dubious pawn exchange. Again 23...d4
16 iLxe5 fxe5 17 Sxe5 0-0 with the better was the move and when the smoke clears it
chances for Black in Kaidanov’s opinion. will be Blade who has the more active pieces:

141
Open Ruy Lopez

24 cxd4 ttd5 25 £ig3 $Lc2 26 Sd2 <S3xd4 27 (Bilguer).

#c3 ■$Lxb3 28#xa5. 9.. .£ic5 10 £.g5
24 Sd2 ^.xb3 25 Stfd3+ *g8 26 Stfxb5 After 10 £lg5 Black can simply pity
iLc4 27 Wc5 10.. .'®d7 11 £ixe6 fxe6 with a solid game.
Since White’s knight will be quite 10.. ~£.e7 11 7 £ote7 12 c3 Sixb3
threatening on e3, Black would do well to
exchange it off with 27....&xfl.
27.. .f6 28 £»3 S3xe5 29 £xe5 Stfxe5 30
Wxa5 f5 31 fiddl iLb3 32 Sal
White has the better minor piece but ^
Black still has enough counterplay after
Dvoiris’s suggestion of 32...d4.
32.. .fia8?
A time-trouble mistake, quickly made and
long regretted!
33 Wxa8 Sxa8 34 Bxa8+ *h7 35 fia3
£c4 36 fiaal iLb5 37 Sadi c6 38 «3xd5
Wb8 39 £»3 ^-a4 40 fid4 f4 41 Sxa4
fxe3 42 Sxe3 Wxb2 43 g3 Stfb1+ 44 *g2
Wb7 45 h4 Wf7 46 fiae4 c5 47 2e7 More logical was 13 axb3 c5 14 b4, wherf
Stfd5+ 48 *g1 Stfd1+ 49 *h2 Wd2 50 Yusupov feels that Black has an equal game
fif3 c4 51 2c7 We2 52 Hff7 *h8 53 Hf4 after 14...cxb4 15 cxb4 0-0. After continuing
&h7 54 *g2 Wd3 55 Hfxc4 Wd5+ 56 with some natural moves, 16 Sfd4 Wb6 17
*h2 Wd6 57 S4c6 Stff8 58 *g1 Wb8 59 £>a3 Sac8 18 <Sfac2 Sfd8 19 Sa3, Fritz 5
S17 Wb1+ 60 *h2 h5 61 fic5 Stfc2 1-0 then actually prefers Black - a controversial
judgement; it clearly doesn’t rate White’s
Game 80 blockade very highly.
Kupreichik-Yusupov 13...CS
USSR Championship 1981 13...d4 is premature as the sequence 14
ttdl dxc3 15 S3xc3 has just helped White’s
1 e4 e5 2 £if3 £>c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 £a4 €3f6 development.
5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 b5 7 ±b3 d5 8 dxe5 14 a4 0-0! 15axb5Wb6
£e6 9 fiel Black recovers the pawn with an equal
A sensible developing move, preparing to game.
meet 9.. JLc5 by 10 Lei. 16 Wa4 £d7 17 Sibd2 &xb5 18 Wh4
The self-weakening 9 €k3M is not good S3 g6 19lSg4
due to 9...53xc3 10 bxc3 S3e7! (this excellent It was better to play 19 ttg3.
move, threatening ll...c5, was first played by ig.-WeB 20 Wg3 Wf5!
Rubinstein, and is stronger than the solid Black’s pieces are well placed and he can
10.. .1.e7 11 «3d4 £bcd4 12 cxd4 ttd7 13 a4 start to take the initiative.
0-0 14 axb5 axb5 15 &AZ c5, when a draw 21 b4?
was agreed in Van Riemsdijk-A.Rodriguez,
see following diagram
Dieren 1989) 11 JLa3 a5 and White must
cede his dark-squared bishop to save its To obtain access to the d4-square but the
colleague. After 12 ±xe7 Axe7 13 a4 c5 14 resulting weaknesses on the c-file are a more
axb5 0-0 Black has the much better game significant factor.

142
 White's Other Ninth Moves

£>d4 £d7 14 f3 £>c5 15 b4 £se6 16 f4 Wa7

17 .£.e3 &xb4 with unclear play (Korchnoi).
It may be that instead of 15 b4, 15 f41? is
critical, when the game Di Bucchiano-Van
der Zijpp, Beverwijk 1984, continued
15.. .£>e4 16 f5 c5 17 e6 cxd4 18 exd7+ sfctd7
at which point 19 1Mrg4 looks like an
improvement on the game’s 19 Wd3 Wc(>,
which is again best judged as unclear.
10 a5
10 c3 §Le7 transposes to Game 51.
10.. .£ic5 11 £e 3
This move fails to impress. For the
alternative 11 Ag5 see Game 81.
23 2e3 is met by 23..Mc2 and the 03- 11 ...£)xb3 12 cxb3 Stfd7
pawn falls. Black can even consider 12...d4, as White
23.. JSXC3 24 e7 2e8 25 £>d4 fixg3 26 had nothing after 13 <2lxd4 5ixd4 14 Wxd4
£}xf5 Sc3! Wxd4 15 &xd4 0-0-0 16 £e3 &xb3 in
Kupreichik had probably missed this Campora-Murey, Moscow 1989. More
move, the point being that 27 £>d6 5xe7 28 dangerous is Korchnoi’s 13 1Mrc2!?, when
2xe7 xe7 29 £bcb5 axb5 30 Ha8+ is met 13.. .dxe3 14 Wxc6+ £d7 15 Wc2 e2 16 Bel
by 30...Sc8. Now White has nothing for the .£b5 17 £>bd2 Wd3 18 Wxc7 k&7 19 £>c4
pawn. 2d8 is murky. The strong e-pawn
27 €if3 Hc7 compensates for the loss of material.
Black will now take the e-pawn, but only 13 Wc2
when good and ready.
28 £>3d4 £c4 29 Sabi h6 30 Sb6 &d3
31 f3?
Losing immediately. Instead 31 h3 4ixe7
32 2e3 itxf5 33 &xf5 <&f8 34 &xe7 2cxe7
35 2xe7 2xe7 36 2xa6 offers some hope.
31.. .«3xe7 32 2e3 2c1+ 33 *f2 Hc2+
34 *g3 &xf5 35 fixe7 2xe7 36 &xf5
0-1

Game 81
Mowsesian-Motwani
Hastings 1996/97
1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £>c6 3 £b5 a6 4 £a4 6 Another gpod model for Black is the
5 0-0 &xe4 6d4b5 7 iLb3 d5 8 dxe5 following example. 13...4kl8! (moving off the
iLe6 9 a4 b4 exposed c-file and heading for e6 where it
The best move, as is generally the case in can support the c-pawn) 14 £.c5 Af5 15
response to an early a2-a4 by White. ttcl £>e6 16 Axf8 2xf8 17 £>bd2 0-0-0
However, 9..Aa51? is interesting, e.g. 10 (here the queenside is quite safe as White has
axb5 4£lxb3 11 cxb3 axb5 12 2xa8 ttxaB 13 no way through) 18 2el <&b7 19 4t3fl c5 20

143
Open Ruy Lopez

£>g3 £.g6 21 43h4 f5 22 exf6 Hxf6 with 24 fial fixal 25 Wxal a5 26 fidl Sa8
chances for both sides in L.Bronstein- 27 £ie1
Yusupov, Lucerne Olympiad 1982; indeed White now exchanges off the d-pawn and
Black went on to win. is past the worse.
14 Wcl fib8 15 5ih4 27.. .a4 28 ©xd3 We8 29 Wcl axb3 30
Changing tack as 15 £.c5 gets nowhere &c5 iLxc5 31 &xc5 fid8 32 £ie3
after 15..~&xc5 16 ttxc5 Sb5 and ...0-0. With opposite-coloured bishops it’s not
15...^.e6 16 f4 £e7 17 Wei d4 18 &c1 clear that Black can use his extra pawn.
d3 32.. .h6 33 h3 g6 34 *h2 fid7 35 fixd7
The immediate 18...Sb5 is suggested by Wxd7 36 Wal g5 37 Wfl *h7 38 Wf3
Kenworthy in the tournament bulletin. The gxf4 39 Wxf4 Wg7 40 «3xf5 Wxe5 V4-V4
fact that Black has many ideas is a sign that 41 Wxe5 £lxe5 42 £kl4 £f7 43 £xb4 is
White’s strategy has been far from simply equal.
convincing.
19 £)f3 Sb5 20 £e3 Sxa5 21 £ibd2 0-0 Game 82
22 ficl Ljubojevic-Y usupov
Linares 1991

1 e4 e5 2 £if3 &c6 3 &b5 a6 4 Jka4 £tf6

5 0-0 &xe4 6d4b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5
£e6 9 a4 b4 10 a5 £>c5 11 £g5 Wd7 12
©bd2h6 13&h4 -

Black has won a pawn with a gpod game,

but on such a chaotic board everything is still
possible.
22.. .f5
Black would like to liberate his position
with 22...f6!?, but would have to take account
of the combination 23 f5 ixf5 24 fixc6 Black must now allow the exchange of
Wxc6 25 ®d4 Wd7 26 <2M5 fixe5 27 Wf2 dark-squared bishops or play the potentially
Se8 28 4tlc4 when things are less clear. weakening 13...g5.
23 &c4 Sa2? 13...£e7
Just holding everything together with Risky and unclear is 13...g51? 14 &g3 £.g7
23.. Jtd5! was possible, or 23..Jtxc4 24 Sxc4 (an aggressive alternative is 14 ite7,
^ld8, exchanging the powerful white knight intending .„h6-h5) 15 c3 0-0 16 kcl bxc3 17
and intending ...4&e6. In either case White bxc3 &f5 (grabbing a pawn by 17...g4 18
would rely on a blockade to resist and there £kl4 ?3xe5 is deemed good for White by
would still be much work to do to exploit the Kindermann after 19 fiel f6 20 £)xe6 ttxe6
extra pawn. 21 f4 gxf3 22 4}xf3, but there is nothing

144
 White's Other Ninth Mo\

wrong with 17...Ag4! 18 h3 J&JbSl) 18 &xf5 improvement on what follows.

Wxf5 19 £ib3 (19 £d4! sets more problems)
19...«3e4 20 Wxd5 £ixg3 21 fxg3 £>xe5 22
£jfd4 Wd3 with an interesting fight in
prospect, Kindermann-Marin, Novi Sad
Olympiad 1990.
14 &xe7 £>xe7
The other sensible capture 14...Wxe7 is
also satisfactory, e.g. 15 c3 bxc3 16 bxc3
£ixb3 (16...0-0 17 &c2 f5 18 £d4 Slxd4 19
cxd4 ®e4 was also fine for Black in
Pokojowayk-Karsa, Tapolca 1981) 17 £lxb3
0-0 18 Sel Sab8 19 £>fd4 &a7 20 &xe6
(after 20 £se2? c5 21 £>f4 Sfd8 22 Wc2 «3c6
Black was bettor in Ljubojevic-Hjartarson,
Amsterdam 1991) 20...£xe6 21 Wd4 £>b5 22 Sxd2
Wc5 (22 *631?) 22...Wh4 (Hjartarson). The disappearance of the minor pieces has
Another example is 15 We2 0-0 16 We3 not diminished the interest; both sides have
Sfd8 (Korchnoi suggests 16...Hab8, winning chances.
intending ...Sb5) 17 c3 *hb7 18 &c2 bxc3 19 24 Wxc7!?
bxc3 4ibxa5 20 2a4, with complex play in 24 Sadi SLxdl 25 Sxdl Wxe5 give White
Vujadinovic-Kolev, Vmjacka Banja 1990. less than nothing.
15 £3d4 24.. .2.8 25 Wd6 fixc3 26 Wxa6 2cc2
Again 15 We2 0-0 16 We3 (eyeing the 27 Wb6
dark squares) comes into consideration, The pawn race is secondary to White’s
when the game Kindermann-Grivas, Haifa need to defend his king.
1989, was agreed drawn after the following 27.. .d4
moves: 16...&b7 17 c3 bxc3 18 bxc3 c5 19 Cutting off the queen from the defence of
£c2 £f5 20 ^xf5 &xf5 21 Wf4 £>e7 22 c4 f2.
£>d8 23 cxd5 Wxd5 24 Wc4 £«6 25 5fcl 28 Wd8+ *h7 29 Wh4
Sfd8 26 £le4 «3c6 27 ®d6. Black has a Holding the fort.
passed pawn but it is well blockaded. 29.. .g51?
15.. .0-0 16 c3 bxc3 17 bxc3 2ab8 Black could have tried 29...Wxe5 30 a6
Black took over the initiative after Sa2.
17.. .£.g4 18 WblM (a poor square; 18 Wei, 30 Wh3
as in the main game, or 18 f3 &.f5 19 £.c2 30 Wg3? is too dangerous, e.g. 30...2d3 31
offer about equal chances) 18...2ab8 in f3 Sdd2 32 a6? (32 s£?hl is met by 32..Ji5!)
Kristiansen-Yusupov, Esbjerg 1990. 32.. .Wf4 33 Wh3 g4 34 fxg4 We3+ and Black
18 Ac2 ±g4 19 Wei Sb2 20 We3 £f5!
Black has at least equalised Now neither 30.. .Wxh3!
21 £lxf5 Sxc2 22 £ice7+ Wxe7 (with a The simplest.
comfortable game for Black) nor 21 £l2b3?! 31 gxh3 Ba2 32 a6 Hxf2 33 Bxa2 fixa2
£ixb3 22 -£.xb3 Sb8 23 ±a4 Wc8 (and 34 Bxf7+ <&g8 35 Bd7 Hxa6 36 Sxd4
Black’s pieces are the more dynamic) are any *f7 37 h4 V&-%

145
Open Ruy Lopi

Summary
Neither 9 Sel (after 9...£>c5!) nor 9 a4 (met of course by 9...b4!) are dangerous.
After 9 Jte3 the plan of ...4lc5 followed by ...£lxb3 looks insufficient and Black is given a
rough time in Games 77 and 78. Black should therefore play 9...il.e7, when White’s efforts to
avoid transposing to Chapter 8 by 10 c3 aren’t impressive.

1 e4 e5 2 &f3 &c6 3 £b5 a6 4 &a4 £lf6 5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 b5 7 £b3 d5 8 dxe5 £e6
9£e3
9 Sel - Game 80
9 a4 b4 10 a5 £>c5
11 &e3- Game 81
11 &g5 (D) - Game 82
9.. .£ic5
9—fi.e7 10 £>bd2 £>c5 (D) - Game 79
10&c3
10 c3 £lxb3 - Game 77
10.. .6xb3 11 cxb3 (D) - Game 78
 CHAPTER TWELVE ^
Odds and End^

1 e4 e5 2 £)f3 «5c6 3 &b5 a6 4 £a4 £if6

5 0-0 ®ixe4 Game 83
This chapter features various deviations, Vitolinsh-Mikhalchishin
for both sides, between move she and move Uzhgorod 1988
eight.
6 Set (Game 83) and 6 d4 b5 7 Jtb3 d5 8 1 e4 e5 2 ©f3 £ic6 3 £b5 a6 4 £a4 £if6
4ixe5 (Game 88) illustrate rather timid lines 5 0-0 &xe4 6 fiel
where White would seem to be content with Some strong players occasionally employ
a draw; note that he failed dismally in the this as a surprise weapon, but in my
former example. However, Game 87 looks at experience this move is mainly used by
White’s speculative and eccentric eighth weaker players seeking to obtain a drawish
move alternatives. An aggressive opponent position.
may enjoy such perilous complications, Play is similar in some respects (pawn
indeed in one of them the author almost structure, for instance) after 6 We2, when the
came unstuck, although some sound recommended course of action is 6...£k5
preparation should enable one to avoid any (rather than 6...£>f6 7 &xc6 dxc6 8 £>xe5
danger. Jte7 9 Sel &e6 10 d3 0-0? [necessary are
Black can also vary at an early stage, as we first 10...®c8 or 10...£)d7] which was terrible
see shall in Games 84-86. The Riga variation after 11 &xf7! in Wedberg-Sellberg,
(Game 84) is sharp and looks like a useful Stockholm 1976/77) 7 Jixc6 dxc6 (more
surprise weapon, although White can bail out secure than 7...bxc6?! 8 d4 £ie6 9 dxe5 &.e7
with a draw, although In Game 85 Fischer 10 4lc3, as in Kholmov-Gurgenidze, USSR
shows the delayed version to be basically Championship 1957, when Black’s pawn
bad. Finally, Game 86 illustrates another structure is unwieldy) 8 d4 (8 ttxe5+ £ie6 is
tempting try for Black, 7..JLe7, where Tal’s nothing for White) 8...4te6 9 dxe5 £>d4!
attempt at refutation has a distinctly crude (9..JLcS 10 Sdl We7 11 £ic3 0-0 12 £>e4
feel to h. A number of other efforts are &b6 13 £>g3, as in Walbrodt-Bardeleben,
mentioned in the notes, but nothing realty Hastings 1895, offers more options and freer
serves to challenge the soundness of Black’s development for White) 10 £kd4 Wxd4 11
idea. h3 (Or 11 fidl £g4 12 2xd4 Jtxe2 13 £lc3

147
Open Ftuy Lopez

Ah5 14 Ag5 h6 15 Af4, as in Liangpv- £)xf7 is threatened.

Sehtman, Albena 1989, and now with 9 d4
15.. .Ac5 Black has the bishop pair and White The continuation 9 b3 0-0 10 Aa3 <2}e6
has a kingside majority, as in the Exchange 11 Axe7 #xe7 12 £ic3 Ad7 13 Se3 Sad8
variation. Here Black has a superior version 14 d3 Ac8 15 #115 looks aggressive, but
with the e-pawn already advanced to the e5- after 15...£sf4 16 #f3 #g5 White had
square [fixed on a dark square, the same nothing better than exchanging into an equal
colour as White’s bishop] and Black having ending with 17 #g3 #xg3 18 hxg3 ?3d5 19
an ideal blockading square on e6 for his king) £)xd5 cxd5 in Popovic-Prasad, Subotica
11.. .Ae6 12 Sdl #c4 13 Hd3 Ae7 14 b3 Interzonal 1987.
Wh4 15 <2kl2 0-0 and Black hatf managed to 9...£ie6 10 Ae3 0-0 11 c4
develop soundly but actively in Diickstein-
Unzicker, Munich Olympiad 1958. The
bishop pair compensates for White’s space
advantage and better pawn structure.
6.. .6.5 7 Axc6
7 £lc3 is deceptive. In the play-off for the
1995 blitz championship of Languedoc I fell
for 7...£lxa4? 8 &xe5 Ae7 (or even worse
8.. .£>xe5 9 SCxe5+ Ae7 10 £sd5 0-0 11
&xe7+ <&h8 12 #h5 and Black is losing
note the threat of 13 #xh7+!) 9 £id5 0-0 10
£>xc6 dxc6 11 «3xe7+ <&h8 12 #h5 with a
strong initiative, as in Hamdouchi-Flear,
Montpellier (blitz) 1995. In the game I lost White would like to obtain a pleasant
the exchange but eventually won on time. space bind as in the Kengis-Morris game
Correct is 7...Ae7! 8 £id5 e4! (8...0-0 is a above. However, the presence of the bishop
little passive after 9 Axc6 dxc6 10 £)xe7+ pair allows Black to generate dynamic
#xe7 11 d4 £ie6 12 Sxe5 f6 13 Sel Ad7 14 counterplay.
c4 2ad8 15 Wb3 #f7 16 Ae3 Sfe8 17 Sedl 11.. .f6 12©f3f5!
Ac8 18 Sacl £>f8 19 Af4 £ig6 20 Ag3 with Giving up the e5-square but chasing
a small edge despite the presence of Whke’s bishop.
opposite-coloured bishops in Kengjs-Morris, 13£ic3
London 1991) 9 Axc6 dxc6 10 4ixe7 #xe7 White has also experimented with the idea
11 d4 (11 b4?! proved to be too loosening of putting the bishop on c3, as Black is about
after ll...Ae6! 12 bxc5 exf3 13 #xf3 #xc5 to boot it away with ...f5-f4 anyway. Thus 13
14 Ab2 #g5 15 Ac3 0-0-0 in Kengis-Tal, Ad2, as in Gipslis-Averbakh, USSR
Yurmala 1983) ll...£sd7 12 Ag5 f6 13 £id2 Championship 1958, would be best met by
0-0 14 Sxe4 #f7 15 Af4 £ib6 16 £f3 «3d5 13.. .Af6 14 Ac3 £>f4 15 #d2 g5! with active
17 Ad2 b5 with a very solid position for counterplay.
Black in Schweber-Savon, Mar del Plata 13.. .f4 14 Ad2
1971. Vitolinsh had previously experimented
The presence of opposite-coloured with 14 Ael, when 14...£)g5 15 £>e5 f3 16
bishops is a common feature in such lines. Axg5 AxgS 17 g3 (17 «tacQ? is too
7.. .dxc6 8 &xe5 Ae7 dangerous after 17...Ag4) gave unclear play
If 8..A.e6?! then 9 #h5 is awkward as in VitoHnsh-Hermlin, USSR 1979.

148
 Odds and Ends

14.. .£f6!?
A double-edged alternative is 14...£>g5 15
£>xg5 &xg5 16 £se4 &e7 17 iLc3 f3 18 gxf3
We& 19 d5, as in Vitolinsh-Sagalchik, Minsk
1988.
15 d5?!
White could have tried 15 £le2 with the
iAr* that 15...£hcd4?l 16 £>fxd4 J0bcd4 17
£lxd4 Wxd4 is strongly met by 18 Ji.b4.
Better is 15...g5 with a complex game in
prospect.
15.. .£sc5 I6&e5?
16 ttc2 was better, trying to cover the
weakness ond3. White has several alternatives here:
16.. .6.e5 17 fixe5 £>d3 18 Be2 iLf5! a) ECO recommends Korchnoi’s analysis
18...43xb2!? 19 Wb3 £kl3 was playable, 8 &g5 &e7 9 &xe7 <foce7! 10 c4 dxc3 11
but Black prefers to keep a bind rather than £ixc3 £e6 12 -&XC6 bxc6 13 4ki4 £>xc3 14
give up the initiative for an unimportant bxc3 »d7 15 #g4 c5 16 £if5+ <&d8 17
pawn. #xg7 Se8 18 Wxh7 “with an edge to White’
19 jLel Wf6 20Wd2f3! but 18..JLxf5 19 Sxe8+ #xe8 20 «xf5 tte6
White’s tangled pieces cannot stem the looks equal to me.
tide. b) The sharp 8 c4 should be met by
21 Be3 &e5 22 Wd4 Hae8 23 g3 £c8! 8.. .dxc3 9 £>xc3 J$.b4! when 10 Ag5 (after 10
Preparing an eventual -Mg2 mate! #xd5 Wxd5 11 £lxd5 ilxel 12 3W+ <&d8
24 J£.d2 WfS 25 Wh4 &g6 0-1 13 £ixa8 JLxf2+ 14 <&fl Jte6 15 4kl2
If White removes the queen then 26..Jirh3 ®lxd2+ 16 <&xf2 £ie4+ 17 4?gl £>c5, White
mates. ‘may’ have enough compensation for the
This game illustrates that Black can obtain pawn according to Boll) 10...f6 11 <£le5 0-0
interesting play against the variation with 6 12 ^xc6 (12 &xc6 is no good after
Set. 12.. .£>xg5!) 12...bxc6 13 &xc6 Eb8 14
£xd5+ &h8 15 ±xe4 ttxdl 16 fiaxdl ficg5
Gome 84 is equal; the two bishops compensate for the
Westerinen-Geisdorf bad pawns.
German Bundesliga 1980 c) 8 £te5 provokes 8...^.d6 9 £)xc6
Jtxh2+ 10 &xh2 Hi4+ 11 *gl Wxf2+ 12
1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 4&c6 3 £b5 a6 4 iLa4 £if6 <&h2 1 * * * * * 7 8®h4+ with an immediate draw by
5 0-0 5ixe4 6 d4 exd4!? perpetual check.
The risky but playable Riga variation. 8.. .£d6 9 <&xc6 ^.xh2+
Black takes a second pawn but allows a nasty Perhaps the biggest drawback for
pin on the e-file. Although it has a dubious ambitious Black players is that Wliite can
reputation. White cannot in fact refute this now take the bishop and draw (10 &xh2
cheeky line. Wh4+ 11 <&gl «xf2+ etc.).
7 Bel d5 lO&hl
The other winning attempt 10 ^>fl has
see following diagram_
been extensively analysed, the main line
8 &xd4 running as follows: 10...Wh4 11 £kl4+ b5 12

149
Open Ruy Lopt

£e3 0-0 13 £lf3 Wi5 14 Ab3 &g4 15 Wxd5 21 ^4 itxb3 22 axb3 4?e6 23 £d4 2ad8
■$Lxf3 16 WxhS ±xh5 17 &d5 Sae8 18 with the better prospeas for Black in
•&xe4 fixe4 19 g3 f5 20 £>d2 Sg4, as in Nikolaiczuk-Scholten, Baden Baden 1980.
Nyholm-Leonhardt, Stockholm 1907, when 16.. .6.7
Leonhardt’s 21 £>£3!, leading to equal The alternative 16...fif8 is recommended
chances after 21..JLxg3 22 fxg3 2xg3, is a by Boll, but White then has several
clear improvement on the game which was promising ideas, such as 17 g4 g6 18 gxf5
quickly decided after 21 ^g2? f4 22 &.c5 2f5 gxf5 and Black’s king is no longer in a
23 £>e4 fxg3 0-1. positron to stop his counterpart’s invasion
10...tth4 11 Kxe4+ dxe4 12 Wd8+ Wxd8 (after 19 s£?g3 b5 20 &b3 Sg8+ 21 &f4 <&e7
13 &xd8+ ■4’xd8 14 *xh2 22 Sl?e5 or 17 f3 exf3 18 £>xf3 f4 19 Sdl+
^>c8 20 &.c5 Sd8 21 Sel with pressure.
17 f3!
The opening of the centre leaves the black
king short of squares.
17.. .b5 18 iLb3 exf3 19 &xf3 h6
A little slow but still playable. The natural
move is 19...Bhe8, developing!
20 ^.c5+ *f7 21 fiel 2he8??
A blunder. In fact the position after'
21.. JLxb3! 22 Se7+ <&f6 23 axb3 Sac8 24
Sd7 is still tenable with 24...g5(!). At first
sight, this looks loosening but Blade is now
ready to liberate his long’s rook and use his
White has two pieces for the rook but majority.
Black has two pawns and a solid game. 22 fixe6! Hxe6 23 £>d4 Sae8 24 <&xe6
14.. .^.e6 15£e3 fixe6 25 *xf8 26 £xe6 f4 27 b4
After 15 £lc3 Black: can win the bishop 1-0
with 15...C5! 16 itg5+ &C8!, as in Okhof- Despite the result of this game, my
Boll, Den Bosch 1987, which continued 17 condusion is that the Riga variation is
£ixe4 b5 18 £>xc5 bxa4 19 £ixa4 2b8 20 b3 playable.
Sb5 21 ite3 and White has only one pawn
for the exchange. Game 85
15.. .f5 16&d2! Fischer-T rif unovic
The historically more popular 16 £)c3 is Bled 1961
another reason why the Riga variation has
been unfairly treated. Theory has been 1 e4 e5 2 £)f3 &c6 3 ^.b5 a6 4 £a4
tainted by amply quoting the famous game 5 0-0 <&xe4 6 d4 b5 7 iLb3 exd4
Capablanca-Ed.Lasker, New York 1915, Compared with the previous game, the
which White dominated after 16...<&e7 17 g4 capture of the second pawn is now dubious.
g6 18 *g3 h5 19 gxf5 h4+ 20 *h2 gxf5 21 The key difference is that the bishop on b3
£>e2 b5 22 Ji.b3 Axb3 23 axb3 2hg8 24 gives White added tactical possibilities.
Sdl Sad8 25 Sxd8 *xd8 26 £}d4, picking 8 fiel
up the f-pawn with a -winning position. Black The continuation 8 £lxd4 £.c5?! 9 £}f5
didn’t defend that well, the clearest ttf6 10 Wd5 may also be dangerous for
improvement being 19...gxf5! 20 &b3 2hg8+ Black, according to Korchnoi, but Fischer

ISO
 Odds and Ends

23 Axf8 Bxf8 24 <£-f1 Bd8 point. Black gives back the pawn but has the
The power of the two bishops is better midcHegame in prospect as both of
overwhelming. White’s bishops are restricted by his ugly
25 c4 g5 26 BH3 g4 27 Bc3 b4 28 Bel pawn structure.
Bd4 29 g3 True to my nature, I decided to hold on to
Stopping the rook from coming to f4, but the pawn, and indeed grab more, but in the
now f3 is a handy square for Black. process I almost lost the house.
29.. .6f3 30 a3 a5 31 axb4 axb4 32 Ba5 11 £>h3 £xh3 12 Wh5+ g6 13 Wxh3 f5
£sd7 33 Ac2 e4 34 Bel Ab6 35 Ba8+ A solid-looking pawn centre perhaps, but
*g7 36 Bd8 f5 37 ita4 £>e5 38 Bxd4 with a centralised king and a few holes ‘here
Axd4 39 &d2 and there’ it proves to be rather shaky.
A belated development for a queen’s 14 f3 Wd7 15 fxe4 dxe4 16 a4 b4?
knight! Not in itself bad, the question mark is for
39.. .6xb2 40 £>b3 Ac3 0-1 underestimating White’s next move and
The e-pawn will go all the way. generally being too smug.
17 a5! bxc3 18.fi.a4 Ab4
Game 87 18...#xd44- 19 ^hl #04 is similar to the
Wagman-Flear game except that the bishop can now go to
Aosta 1990 g7 after 20 Ag5 (following 20 Sxf51? gxf5 21
Wh5+ <&>d8 22 Ag5+ Ae7 23 Wh6 Axg5 24
1 e4 e5 2 £if3 £>c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Jta4 £}f6 #xg5+ ^8 25 #16 Black stays on top with
5 0-0 &xe4 6 d4 b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 £>c3?! 25.. .£kl4!) but in any case after 20...Ag7 the
A fearless gambit line that is full of venom black king is still caught in the crossfire of
for the unwary. White’s bishops.
The insane-looking 8 c4 is best met by 19.fi.g5 h5 20 d5!
8.. .dxc4 9 Ac2 £)f6 10 dxe5 #xdl 11 Sxdl Open lines are worth more than pawns,
£>d7, while 8 a4 gives Black a wide choice. my opponent kept telling me!
Simply 8...b4! is the most sensible to modem Recently Wagman claimed a win for
eyes, but the main line in the early part of the White with 20 g4 (with the idea that 20...fxg4
century continued 8...£>xd4!? 9 <SSxd4 exd4 21 #e3 yields a winning attack). However,
10 axb5 (10 £ic3!? is sharp) 10...Ac5 11 c3 Black can defend with 20...#xd4-f- (or even
0-0 12 cxd4 Ab6 13 £)c3 Ab7 14 bxa6 Bxa6 20.. .0.0 21 d5 hxg4) 21 <&>hl hxg4 22 Axc6+
15 Bxa6 Axa6 16 Bel, when the game <&f7 with enough compensation for the
Lasker-Schlechter, Vienna/Berlin (8th piece.
matchgame) 1910, was balanced. 20.. .®xd5 21 Sadi Wc4 22 Ab3 #c5+
8.. .£ixc3 9 bxc3 e4! 23 Ae3 We7
More cautious is 9...Ae7 but after 10 dxe5
see following diagram
Ae6 11 53d4 White is not worse. The text
move is the ‘honourable’ choice for those 24 Aa4
who wish to punish White’s ‘crazy’ eighth The most testing is 24 Ad5 #f6 25 Axe4!
move. (not 25 Ag5? #xg5 26 Axc6+ <&e7 27 Axa8
10 £>g5 f6?! Sxa8 which simplifies, to Black’s relief) and
However, this is unnecessarily the important e-pawn falls. Black’s defences
provocative. Instead 10...Af5 11 f3 e3! 12 f4 are reduced and the pressure is maintained. I
#d7 13 #f3 Bd8 14 #xe3+ Ae7, as in think that 25..J5b8! is then forced (as
Sackes-Zuravlev, USSR 1962, is more to the 25.. .Bd8? 26 Axc6+ #xc6 27 Bxd8+ &xd8

163
24.. .we6 25 Wg3 Bh7
Not 25...0-0? as there is 26 Ab3.
26 Sxf5!
Less precise is 26 Axc6+ Wxc6 27 Hxf5,
as Black is then not obliged to capture and
can play a useful move such as 27..JU8. 10«W2
26.. .gxf5 27 &xc6+ Wxc6 28 ®g8+ £f8 Not an impressive winning try!
29 Wxh7 We6 30 Wxh5+ ®f7 31 Wh8 Typical of the 8 ®xe5 variation is 10 c3
Wg7l iLc5 11 We2 0-0 12 ±e3 Af5 13 £)d2 #b6
A move that evokes the defensive adage when wholesale minor piece exchanges are
‘A half-point is worth more than your on the cards, e.g. after the further 14 4*xe4
dignity.’ iLxe4 15 Sfel Had8 16 f3 Af5, the game
32 lTh5+ Wf7 33 ®h8 Wg7 34 tth&4- Keres-Korchnoi, USSR Championship 1973,
V4-% was equal.
Only a draw for White’s efforts, but he White could keep more tension with 10
certainty obtained his pound of grandmaster .&e3!? iLe7 11 c3 (11 £kl2 £}xd2 12 Wxd2
sweat for the three invested pawns! Even 0-0 13 Wc3 fails to impress as White cannot
now, years later, a friend of Mr Wagman’s maintain the bind on c5, e.g. 13..JLb7 14 f4
still talks to me of this game and claims that a5 15 a3 b4 16 Wd2 a4 and Black had an
White was winning. I haven’t found anything equal game in Fischer-Addison, US
convincing but if somebody finds Championship 1966/67) 11...0-0 (Krasenkov
something... prefers 11_f5!? or ll...£lc5!?) 12 f3 13
ilc2 f5 (on 13...53e6 14 Wd3 g6 15 Ah6
Game 88 4}g7 White can try Tokmakov’s risky
Short-Timman suggestion of 16 g4!?, keeping Black out of
El Escorial (8th matchgame) 1993 f5) 14 exf6 5xf6, Barle-Tukmako v,
Yugoslavia-Russia 1976, when 15 Ad4?! (15
1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £lc6 3 &b5 a6 4 &a4 £>f6 f4!> M5 16 £xf5 Sxf5 17 £td2 is instead
5 0-0 £>xe4 6 d4 b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 «Jxe5 considered by Tukmakov as slightly better
 Odds and Ends

for White, due no doubt to the potential Another aggressive gesture from Short,
trump card of his mobile kingside majority) but Black’s position is as tough as granite.
15.. .5f7 16 £>d2 £>e6 17 &e5 Ad6 18 Wei After the exchange of queens, note that
Saa7 was more than comfortable for Black. White’s bishop, denied the bl-h7 diagonal, is
10.. .6xd2 11 -fi.xd2 &e7 12 #h5 if anything the worse bishop.
Without knights this attractive looking 19...®f5 20 ®xf5 AxfS 21 h3 h5
‘long-move’ becomes feasible, but there is White’s last hope for anything positive
nothing for the queen to attack. was a pawn-roller with g2-g4, f2-f4-f5 eta
12.. JLe6 22 Bdel Bad8 23 &d1 g6 24 b4
Another way of defending would be
12.. Md7 13 c3 Wf5 14 Wdl Wg6.

The weak c3-pawn will keep White in

13 c3 Wd7 14 &g5 &f5! 15 Sfel check.
After 15 Jbce7 Black’s defence is tidied up 25 bxc5 Bc8 26 a4 Bxc5 27 axb5 axb5
with 15...Ag6. 28 g4 16-Vi
15....S.g6 16 Wh4 Jjcg5 17 Wxg5 0-0 18 28.~hxg4 29 ±xg4 is drawish.
Badl Bfe8 19 Be3

IBB
Open Ruy Lopt

Summary
White has nothing but a dull game after 6 Bel (Game 83), or 6 d4 b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 £lxe5
(Game 88).
White’s speculative 8 £)c3 (Game 87) is positionally unsound, see the note to move 10.
Taking the second pawn on d4 on move seven is bad (Game 85), whereas on move six it’s
provocative but certainty playable; die downside is that White can force a draw (Game 84).
Finally, the adventurous 7..JLe7 (Game 86) sets different problems.

1 e4 e5 2 &f3 &c6 3 &b5 a6 4 £a4£)f6 5 0-0 &xe4

6d4
6 Bel (D ) - Game 83
6.. .b5
6.. .exd4 - Game 84
7 ib3 d5
7.. .exd4 - Game 83
7.. .6.e7 — Game 86
8 &xe5
8 £>c3 (D) - Game 87
8.. .€hce5 9 dxe5 c6 (D) - Game 88
 INDEX OF COMPLETE GAMES \

Acs-Mikhalevski, Budapest 1997. 18

Alekhine-Euwe, Netherlands (13th matchgame) 1935. 93
AlmasLZ-Korchnoi, Linz 1997. 60
Antunes-Flear, Pau 1988.109
Apicella-Flear, Cappelle la Grande 1994. 91
Apicella-Flear, Clichy 1993. 21
Arsenev-Zuhovicky, USSR 1967. 79
Beliavsky-Dorfman, USSR Ch., Tbilisi 1978. 87
Bologan-Daniliuk,/?M55i<2 1997.103
BronsteinX-Sorolrin, General Pico City 1996.138
Chandler-Yusupov, Ha stings 1989/90.130
Chekhov-Gordov, Beskidy 1992. 41
De Fimuan-Hellers, Biel 1989.133
Dolmatov-Yusupov, Wijk aan Zee (11th matchgame) 1991.96
Dvoiris-Kaidanov, USSR 1984.141
Dvoiris-Sorokin,/?«jj*«» Ch., Voronezh 1988.139
Ehlvest-Hjaitarson, Belfort 1988. 66
Fischer-Trifunovic, Bled 1961.150
Gdler-Krasenkov, Cappelle la Grande 1992.120
Geoi^ievJii-Ivanchuk,Af^«j/<* Olympiad 1992.106
Georgierv.Kr-Flear, A no Liosia 1999.117
Gofshtein-Mikhalevski, Beersheva 1994. 46
Greenfeld-Pyemik, Israel 1983.112
Haba-Marin, Budapest Zonal 1993. 68
Hecht-Langeweg, Hangelo 1968. 77
Hubner-Piket, Dortmund 1992. 92
Ivanchuk-Tukmakov, New York 1988. 62

167
Open ftuy Lopez

Ivanchuk-Yusupov, Linares 1990. . 16

Kaminski-Chekhov, Lubniewice 1993. . 14
Kamsky-Anand, Las Palmas (4th matcbgame) 1993.... .. 33
Kamsky-Anand, Las Palmas (6th matchgame) 1993.... 48
Karpov-Korchnoi, Baguio City (12th matchgame) 1978. 113
Karpov-Korchnoi, Baguio City (14th matchgame) 1978... .33
Kaipov-Korchnoi, Baguio City (24th matchgame) 1978. 83
Karpov-Yusupov, USSR Ch., Moscow 1983. . 40
Kasparov-Anand, New York (10th matchgame) 1993 ..
Khalifman-Kaidanov, Kuibyshev 1986.
Khalifman-Korchnoi, Ubeda 1997. 100
Khalifman-Mikhalevski, Linares 1997. 104
Kudrin-Kaidanov, USA Ch., Chandler 1997. . 19
Kupreichik-Yusupov, USSR Championship 1981. 142
Lautier-Korchnoi, Ubeda 1997. 100
Leko-Piket, Dortmund 1994. 32
Ljubojevic-Yusupov, Linares 1991. 144
Ljubojevic-Yusupov, Tilburg 1987. 10
Lutz -Yu supov, Germany 1996. 123
Martens-Flear, Hyeres 1991. 114
Mecking-Korchnoi, Augusta (2nd matchgame) 1974 . 76
Mowsesian-Motwani, Hastings 1996/97. .143
Nunn-Korchnoi, Cologne (rapidplay) 1989 . 82
Nurkic-Flear,.djtt' 1996. .. 23
Onischuk-Sokolov.I, Wijk aan Zee 1997. 128
Pedersen-Magomedov, Cappelle la Grande 1998. .. 71
Polgar.J-Anand, Mun ich 1991. 74
Polgar.J-Hellers, Wijk aan Zee 1990. 38
Polgar.Zso-Van der Sterren, Wijk aan Zee 1990 . 37
Prasad-Ernst, Gausdal 1991 . 133
Rantanen-Omstein, Reykjavik 1981. 29
Shirov-Timman, Wijk aan Zee 1996. 129
Shcwt-Popovic, Belgrade 1987. .. 13
Short-Prasad, Subotica Interzonal 1987. 80
Short-Timman, El Escorial (6th matchgame) 1993. .88
Short-Timman, El Escorial (8th matchgame) 1993.... 134
Short-Timman, El Escorial (12th matchgame) 1993. .. 27
Short-Timman, Tilburg 1988. 36
Short-Timman, Yerevan Olympiad 1996 . 43
SokolovA-Flear, Clichy 1993. .. 98
SokolovA-Korchnoi, Tilburg 1987.. .. 70
SokolovA-Marin, Manila Interzonal 1990. 111

168
 Index of Complete Games

SokolovA-Sulskis, Geneva 1998. 51

SokolovA-Timman, Reykjavik 1988. 50
Svidler-Adianto, Groningen 1997. 65
Tal-Smyslov, USSR Championship 1977.151
Tinunan-Korchnoi, Groningen 1996. 58
Tinunan-Korchnoi, Reykjavik 1987.101
Tischbierek-Pahtz, Potsdam 1985.124
Tiviakov-Sokolov.I, Groningen 1994. 26
Tseshkovsky-Tal, USSR Ch., Leningrad 1974 . 24
Van den Doel-Haba, Cappelle la Grande 1998. 61
Van der Wiel-Korchnoi, Sarajevo 1984.132
Van der Wiel-Korchnoi, Wijk aan 7.ee 1983. 34
Van Ma-Flear, Oakham 1994. 122
Vitolinsh-Mikhalchishin, Uzhgorod 1988.147
Wagman-Flear, y4 osta 1990.153
Wang Zili-Yusupov, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990. 63
Westerinen-Geisdorf, German Bundesliga 1980.149
Xie Jun-Polgar.Zsu, Cannes (10th matchgame) 1996. 57

159