Download chess PDF

Titlechess
File Size7.3 MB
Total Pages244
Document Text Contents
Page 122

Part s

Chiburdanidze-Sveshnikov, 16 l!Je3
�h6 17 0-0 �gs lS l!Jg4 �f4 !-+ ; 14
c4? is warse, due to 14 . . . �xbS lS
cxbS l!Jd4 16 l!Je3 hg2 ! 17 l!Jxg2
\Was+ lS cj/fl WxbS+ 19 cj/el Wc6 20
f3 l!Jc2 + 21 cj/f2 l!Jxal-+) 14 . . . �g7 1S
b4 (An only move, as lS Wc4? ! cj/fS !
16 b4 l!Jd4 17 bxaS \WxaS+ lS cj/fl
WaS ! 19 l!Je3 l!JxbS favours Black)
1S . . . e4 16 Wxe4+ MS 17 bxaS \WxaS+
lS cj/dl (lS cj/fl? hal 19 hc6 hc6
20 We7+ cj/gS 2 1 WgS+ �g7 22 l!Je7+
cj/fS 23 l!Jxc6 \WbS+-+) lS . . . hal 19
\We7+ cj/gS 20 WgS+ cj/f8= leads to a
curious draw.

1 4 f6!?
14 0-0? ! is too slow and White's

compensation seems inadequate
after 14 . . . 0-0 lS �c4 (lS a4 l!Jd4+)
lS . . . WgS 16 a4 cj/hS 17 �a3 WxfS
(17 . . . e4 ! ?) lS l!Jb6 (lS l!Je3 was bad
for White in Sulskis-V an W ely, Mos­
cow 20 04) lS . . . �adS 19 as l!Je7 20
a6 �c6 2 1 a7 dSt ;

The tricky 14 Wf3? ! is tactically
refuted by 14 . . . cj/fS ! 1S f6 (lS c3 l!Jd4
16 cxd4 \Was+-+) 1S . . . l!Jd4 16 fxg7+
cj/xg7 17 Wg4+ Ms lS �c4 l!Jxc2 + 19
cj/e2 l!Jxal+.

1 4 ••• .bt6 1 5 Wt3 ire 7! 1 6
�b4

16 l!Jxe7? loses to \Was+ . After
the text White regains the piece re­
maining a pawn up, but in return
Black gets a very active rook:

1 6 ••• gc8 1 7 �xc6
17 hc6+? �c6 1S l!Jxc6 Wb6+.
1 7 ••• Wb6 1 8 �a7+
Alternatively:
lS l!JxeS+? WxbS 19 Wxf7+ cj/dS;
lS l!Jxe7+ cj/xeroo. (lS . . . \WxbS??

19 l!JxcS hf3 20 l!Jxd6++-)

120

1 8 ••• Wxb5 1 9 �xb5 i.xf3 20
gxf3 gxc2iii

To be fair, White has all the
chances to draw the game.

C. 1 1 ixb5 axb5 1 2 �xb5
ga4

In the early days of this varia­
tion Black used to play 13 . . . �a7, but
later the focus of interest shifted to
the text move. It not only evades the
knight f ark, but also attacks e4.

In the diagram position major
continuations are:

Cl . 13 llJ bc7
C2 . 13 b4
13 c4? is much weaker: 13 . . . �xc4

(13 . . . WaS + ! ? 14 b4 �b4 is not too
clear: lS 0-0 �xbS 16 cxbS l!Jd4 17
WhS �e6oo or lS l!Jf6+ cj/dS 16 0-0
�bs 17 cxbS l!Jd4-+) 14 0-0 �g7 lS
l!Je3 (1S l!Jf6+ MS ! 16 \Wxd6+ \Wxd6
17 l!Jxd6 �d4 lS l!JxcS hf6 19 �fcl
l!Jb4-+) 1S . . . �d4 16 \Wc2 l!Je7 17
l!Jxd4 exd4 1S l!JxfS l!JxfS 19 exfS 0-0
20 a4 (20 �acl WgS !+) 20 . . . WgS 21
aS .bfS+.

C 1 . 1 3 tll bc7+ <j;>d7 1 4 0-0
White has also tried:

Page 123

a) 14 b4 �xb4, when lS 0-0 trans­
poses to 13 b4, whereas lS WhS?
loses to 1S . . . �xe4+ 16 cj/fl Wh4 17
Wxf7+ (17 WxfS+ cj/d8 18 Wxf7 �e7)
17 . . . �e7- + ;

b) 14 WhS? �xe4+ lS cj/fl lLJe7 16
Wxf7 cj/c6+;

c) 14 c4? ! �xc4 lS 0-0 lLJd4 ! 16
lLJb6+ (16 WhS �xc7 17 Wxf7+ �e7-
+) 16 . . . cj/xc7 17 lLJxc4 �b7 18 �cl
cj/b8 19 �c3 �g8 -+ ;

d) 14 exfS? ! lLJe7 lS 0-0? �d4-+ .
1 4 . . J�xe4 1 5 \Wh5

1 5 . . . tl) d4
lS . . . lLJe7 16 Wxf7 cj/c6 17 c4 Wd7

18 lLJa8 ! lLJg6 19 lLJb4+ cj/b7 20 WdS+
cj/b8 21 liJc6+ ! cj/xa8 22 Wbs Wb7 23
Was+ Wa6 24 Wc7 Wb7 2S WaS+= is
a well known farced drawing line.

1 6 c3
16 Wxf7 + is a consistent alterna­

tive, which could be answered by:
16 . . . �e7 !?
16 . . . cj/c6 17 lLJb4+ cj/b7 18 lLJbS+

Wd7 19 WdS+ cj/b6 20 a4 (20 lLJxd4
�xd4 21 Wb3 cj/a7-+) 20 . . . lLJxbS 2 1
axbS �b4 2 2 c4 leads to a highly un­
balanced position, where 22 . . . �h6
appears to be in Black's favour, but
the game remains messy.

17 liJbS

6 tLJdbS d6 7 �gs a6

Or: 17 f3 �e2 18 c3 �f8 19 Wxh7
llJe6 20 lLJxe6 cj/xe6 21 �adl �b7+;
17 c3? ! Wf8 18 WhS (18 lLJf6 + cj/xc7
19 Wc4+ cj/b8 20 lLJxe4 lLJf3+ ! 2 1
gxf3 fxe4-+) 1 8 . . . �h4! 1 9 Wdl Wh6
20 h3 �xh3 ! - + .

17 . . . Wf8 1 8 lLJf6+ ( 18 liJb6+ cj/d8
19 WdS lLJxbS 20 WxbS We8 ! 21 Was
Wc6+) 18 . . . cj/d8 19 Wxf8+ �f8 20
lLJxe4 lLJxbSt or 20 . . . fxe4!? t with
Black's advantage in the sharp end­
game.

1 6 . . . tl)e2+ 1 7 <i> h 1 <i>c6 1 8 g3
18 Wxf7 Wd7 19 Wh S lLJf4+; 18

�ael? ! lLJf4-+.
1 8 . . . <i>b7 1 9 gae1 gc4 20 tl) a6!
20 Wxe2 �xc7 21 WbS+ cj/a8 22

Was+ (22 lLJxc7+ Wxc7+) 22 . . . cj/b8
23 Wxc7+ Wxc7 24 lLJxc7 cj/xc7 is
rather grim for White.

20 . . . ie6 !
In the game Mastrovasilis-Illes­

cas, Calvia 2004, Black went on to
win after 20 . . . cj/a8 21 b3 �xc3 2 2
Wxe2 �b7 23 cj/gl �xdS 24 �cl �c8
(24 . . . �xcl 2S �xcl Was 26 b4! ) 2S
Wbs �b7 26 Wa4 Wb6, but White
missed his chance to draw with
27 lLJb4+ Wa7 (27 . . . cj/b8 28 �xc8+
hc8 29 �cl) 28 :§!xc8+ hc8 29
Wc6+ Wb7 30 Wa4+= .

21 tl) ab4 gcs 22 \Wxe2
Now Black eliminates to a slight­

ly better ending, but other moves are
worse: 22 Wf3 e4 23 Wxe2 �xdS 24
lLJxdS �xdS 2S f3 e3 ! 26 Wxe3 hS+;
22 lLJe3 f4 23 Wxe2 fxe3 24 Wa6+
cj/b8 2S liJc6+ �xc6 26 Wxc6 �d7+.

22 . . . ixdS+ 23 tl)xd5 gxd5 24
\Wf3

Perhaps White should try 24
Wc4 ! ? �d2 2S Wxf7+ where Black

121

Page 244

ISBN 978-9-548782�6-1

9 7 8 9 5 4 8 7 8 2 6 6 1

• • •

Similer Documents