Info

We will dwell in detail on three replies for Black: C31: 7...dc C32: 7...c5 C33: 7...&c6

Instead, 7...&g4 8 &e2 is dubious, for example: 8...&xf3 9 &xf3 c6 10 0-0 &e7 11 «Tel 0-0 12 Wg3 <&h8 13 &e4 ± Tsiprianova-Chop-ova, Prague 1979, or 8...&c5 9 0-0 0-0 10 c4 &e7 11 Wei c5 12 Wg3 &h5 13 Sbl b6 14 *hl &g6 15 £\g5 ÍM7 16 Af3 Sc8 17 &d5 with a clear plus for White, Tseitlin-Kora-belnikov, Moscow 1972.

C31:

8 d4 &e6 9 &d3 £ic6 10 &e3 £}b4 ± is weak.

is also possible here. Sax-Plaskett, Lugano 1986, continued 11 Wxc3 (11 Wg3? Wd5! +) 11...0-0 12 $Le3 f6 13 d4 <&h8 14 Sadl (14 &c4 Ad5) 14...fe! 15 de &b4! 16 Wb2 We7 =.

9 &e3? £ib4! 10 0-0 is a mistake in view of 10...£id5 and then .,..&e7.

9 d4 &g4 10 &e3 &e7 11 0-0 £>b4 T Isakson-Spassky, Tel Aviv 1964.

Another continuation is 9...£id4 10 £ig5 &c5 (10...£>e2? is weak because of 11 Wxe2 &c5+ 12 *hl 0-0 13 Wh5 ±) 11 ¿hi 0-0 12 &h5 &e6 (Pachman; 12...g6 13 £te4 &e7 14 &h6 Se8 15 &g4 ± is weaker) 13 £>e4 &e7 14 £>xc3 with equal chances.

The game Alexander-Fairhurst, London 1932, featured 10...±e6 11

Wei «d5, after which White had to continue 12 ¿.f4! with enough coun-terplay for the pawn.

If ll...f6 then 12 ®xc3! ±d4 (or 12...®d5 13 d4! &xd4 14 &xd4 Wxd4 15 ®b3+) 13 ®c4+ <&h8 (13...Sf7 14 &g5) 14 &xd4 ®xd4 (14...&xd4 15efgf 16±dl) 15Wd4 ¿hxd4 16 ¿.dl, and White's chances are preferable.

White played 12 ®xc3 ±b6 13 Wd2 £ixf3 14 &xf3 &d4 in Ivano-vic-Basagic, Sarajevo 1973, but now he should have continued 15 Sbl &xe5 16 &a3 2e8 17 &xb7 &xb7 18 Bxb7, and if 18...«fh4 19 g3 ±xg3, then 20 %2 ±e5 21 ±c5 a5 22 d4 &xd4 23 &xd4 «xd4 24 2xc7 with at least equal chances.

12 ... f6 The continuation 12...£}xf3 (if 12...&b6, then 13 ®g3!) 13 &xf3 2e8 14 ®g3 2b8 (14...»d4 15 &h6 ®xe5 16 2ael +- is extremely bad for Black) is better for White. For example: 15&h6&f8 16&e3 c5 17 Sbl ± Madaev-Mogilevsky, Moscow 1963, or 15 &e4 ±e6 16 &g5 ®d7 17 Sf6 &e7 18 2afl and White has a clear advantage, Polaciek-Mikule, Prague 1982.

13 ®xc3 (D) Pavlov-Vogt, Tren£ianske Teplice 1974, went 13 &f4 &b6 14 Sbl (14 ®xc3 is worse because of 14...¿.e6, threatening .. .£ixf3 and .. .¿.d4) 14..M65 15 efSxf6, and now, according to Vogt, White should continue

16 &xd4! &xd4 17 ®e8+ Bf8 18 ¿.f3 with mutual chances.

In this position Black must play 13 &b6, which after 14 ¿.a3 leads to an approximately equal game, but not 13...b6? 14 &a3 &xa3 (14...fe 15 ±xc5 be 16 Wxc5 Wd6 17 *Txd6 cd 18 c3 19 &b3+ &h8 20 fog5 Sb8 21 £rf7+ &g8 22 £>xd6+ Bxb3 23 &xf5 led to a win for White in Ekebjaerg-Idema, corr 1986) 15 foxd4 fe 16 Af3 which leaves White with the advantage.

C32:

With this move White solidly defends the outpost on d4, but allows an attack of a different nature: ®dl-el-g3.

We shall examine two continuations:

C321:

10 ®el f6 (D) In the mid-1950s this variation was considered to favour Black. However, according to contemporary assessments, here Black must play 10...£ic6! which again leads to variation C322.

11 ef &xf6 12 c4! (if 12 ®g3, then 12...£ic6 with a position prepared for defence) is worth attention. Hromadka-Spielmann, Prague consultation 1924, continued 12...£ic6 13 &d2! &e7 (13...2e8 14 *f2!) 14 Af3 JifS 15 a3 &h8 16 Sbl &h4 17 ®e2 ®d7 18 &e4 b6 19 Af4 2ae8 20 ®d2 £ie5 21 &xe5 2xe5 22 &g4! ®e7 23 Axf5 2exf5, and after 24 g3 2xf1+ 25 2xfl 2xfl 26 *xf 1 White reached a winning endgame.

Other moves do not give Black better results. For example:

a) Il...&e6(ll...£ic6 12&h6± is variation C322) 12 &h6 2f7 13 ef ±xf6 14 £ig5 &xg5 15 &xg5 ®d7

16 2xf7 &xf7 17 ®e5 &a6 18 Afi 2b8 192el2e8 20 &h5 +- Tlapak-Kupka, corr 1969-71.

b) ll...&h8 12 ef (12 c4; 12 cd!7) 12...£xf6 13 2fl ®e7 14 &h5 g6 15 2el gh 16 2xe6 ®g7 17 2h6 2g8 18 h4 ®e7 23 ®f4 +- Plunge-Grzeskowiak, corr. 1966.

13 £ig5 is at least no worse, after which the usual reply is 13...®e7 (13...*h8? 14&xg7+&xg7 15*h4 1-0 Lirsch-Zigler, Hamburg 1964)

14 $Lf3, and Black has no visibly satisfactory defence. For example: 14...gh 15 £ie6+ <&h8 16 &xf8 ®xf8 17 &d5 fodl 18 2f3 *g7 19 Saf 1 Wxg3 20 2xg3 ±g7 21 2f7 +-(Heemsoth) or 14...&h8 15 &xh7! gh 16 fcxfS ®xf8 17 &d5 fodl 18 ®g6 ®g7 19 ®e8+ fcf8 20 2xf6+ and White wins; Becker-Denckens, corr 1960.

Let us examine Black's other possibilities:

a) 13...£xe5 14 ®xe5 2f6 15 &xg7! Se6 16 ®h5 +- Milner-Barry - Hanninen, Moscow 1956.

15 2xf6) 15 &e3! *Tb4 16 &c4+ &h8 17 &g6+! hg 18 2xf6 1-0 Busler-Zeloff, corr. 1958-9.

c) 13...£ic6 (Euwe's recommendation) 14 £>xc6 be 15 c4

Daniel-Gerber, corr. 1958, continued thus: 14&f3&h8(14 &xe5 15 &d5+ &h8 16 ®xe5 doesn't help either, and if 14...±e6 then 15 &e4

Axe5 16 Sxf8+ ¿xf8 17 ®xe5 is decisive) 15 Sael gh 16&d5! ®g7 17 Bxf6 winning for White, but Kirkby-Willen, corr 1961, featured the simpler 14 cd cd 15 &f3! Sd8 16 Sael! Wf8 17 &h5 ®d6 18 &f7+ ¿h8 19&xg7! 1-0.

This suggests the conclusion that 10...f6 doesn't give Black equality.

C322:

9...dc 10 £>g5 £>xe5 11 &h5 ®d4+ 12 ¿hi &e7 13 2xf7 g6 14 &f3 &xf3 15 ®xf3 gh 16 &g5 &xg5 17 2el+ ¿d8 18 ®g3 &d7 19 ®xg5+ ¿c7 20 2xd7+ ®xd7 21 2e7 b6 22 ®e5+ ¿c6 23 2xd7 ¿xd7 24 d4 Sae8 25 Wd5+ ¿c7 26 h3 cd 27 ®xd4 2el+ 28 ¿h2 2he8 V2-V2 Seret-Spassky, French Ch (Angers) 1990.

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment