Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Masterpieces of Postal
and E-Mail Chess
Tim Harding
Chess Mall
64 Great Chess Games
by Tim Harding
Acknowledgments
Numerous people have sent in games or notes, or provided facts or transla-
tions either specifically for this book or for my ‘Chess Mail’ magazine and my
‘Megacorr’ series of database CDs. To thank everyone who has assisted me in
various ways during the three years this book has been gestating would take too
much space and I would be sure to forget some names. So please forgive me if
you did assist but do not see your name below.
Many masters and grandmasters provided notes to their games or permission
to quote from their published notes, and are acknowledged in the introductions
to the games concerned. However, I particularly want to mention here Volker-
Michael Anton, Alexander Baburin (for more than one game), Hans Berliner,
Hans-Marcus Elwert, Peter Hardicsay, Olita Rause, Jørn Sloth, Gert Timmer-
man, Mikhail Umansky and Max Zavanelli. In particular, Elwert and Sloth have
essentially contributed original notes to their games especially for this book.
The book you are now going to read will, I hope, become a classic of chess
literature; if it does, much of the credit will be due to my editor CC-SIM Jonathan
Tait who has made countless improvements to my analysis and raw text. When
I invited him to perform this role, I expected a keen eye for detail and rigorous
checking of my analysis, but his contribution has been immense and far beyond
the call of duty. Any mistakes that still remain are entirely my fault.
Philip Penney gets the credit for the cover design. Finally, I wish to thank
my wife Joan and daughters, Angela and Claudia, for tolerating my long
disappearances into the study over a period of many months.
64 Great Chess Games 3
Contents
Introduction 5
Symbols and Abbreviations 8
1 J.J.van Oosterom—G.J.Timmerman, Wch15 Final, 1996 9
2 City London—City Vienna, intercity, 1872 13
3 G.Nielsen & W.Nielsen—A.van der Linde, friendly, 1875 19
4 W.Steinitz—M.I.Chigorin, thematic match, 1890 24
5 G.Maróczy—A.Csipkés, Hungary Ch, 1893 30
6 K.K.Betins—E.Shiffers, Shakhmatny Zhurnal, 1894 33
7 J.S.Hale—M.Morgan, Continental tourney final, 1896-7 36
8 R.Mikulka—F.Chalupetzky, Schweizerische Schachzeitung, 1910 40
9 A.Becker—F.Redeleit, Wiener Schachzeitung, 1914 44
10 T.Demetriescu—F.Becker, friendly postal, 1919 48
11 Alekseev—V.V.Ragozin, USSR, 1929 52
12 R.Rey Ardid—H.Geiger, IFSB Ch, 1932 56
13 N.Johansson-Tegelmann—R.Rey Ardid, Sweden-Spain, 1933 60
14 P.Keres—E.Weiss, IFSB Ch, 1935 66
15 C.Meyer—G.Stalda, Deutsche Schachzeitung, 1936 70
16 P.Keres—E.Dyckhoff, IFSB EU-OL, 1935-37 74
17 F.Herzog—M.Vidmar, IFSB ch, 1936-37 82
18 G.Barcza—J.Balogh, Hungary Jubilee, 1943 86
19 C.J.S.Purdy—M.Napolitano, Wch1 Final, 1950 90
20 T.Sanz—K.Gumprich, Dyckhoff Memorial, 1954 98
21 Y.B.Estrin—H.R.Rittner, Ragozin Memorial, 1963 105
22 P.Dubinin—A.M.Konstantinopolsky, Ragozin Memorial, 1963 109
23 M.Jago—J.E.Littlewood, England tt, 1964 114
24 A.Sundin—E.Andersson, WT/M/974, 1964 120
25 Y.B.Estrin—H.Berliner, Wch5 Final, 1965 124
26 H.R.Rittner—V.Simagin, Eberhardt Wilhelm Cup Final, 1966 135
27 C.H.O’D.Alexander—P.H.Clarke, England tt, 1969-70 140
28 R.Z.Altshuler—S.Gilezetdinov, USSR Cht, 1971 144
29 T.Mueller—N.A.Preo, NAICCC-1, 1971 147
30 H.Heemsoth—C.S.Hunter, CCOL7 Final, 1973 150
31 V.Zagorovsky—E.Arnlind, Wch8 Final, 1975 156
32 J.S.Morgado—Y.B.Estrin, Wch10 Final, 1978 159
33 J.A.Muhana—J.S.Morgado, Wch10 Final, 1978 164
34 I.A.Kopylov—S.I.Korolëv, Dobrovolsky Memorial, 1981 167
35 H.Tiemann—A.Khasin, Finjub-20, 1981 171
4 64 Great Chess Games
Dedication
This book is dedicated to the memory of my mother Sandra Harding (1916-
2002), who died when it was nearing completion.
Introduction
This book presents 64 exciting and requirements of championship play by
instructive chess games played by cor- the end of the present decade.
respondence. Many of these games have Traditionally, CC players may con-
extraordinary depth, subtlety and beauty; sult chess literature and they enjoy the
some are lighter but have moments of liberty to move the pieces on the board
high drama. What makes all the games while analysing and make notes of
different is that they were played over their calculations. These factors and the
a period of weeks and months between absence of the clock beside the board
opponents who were not seated facing enables the CC player to create games
one another. of a much higher standard than he or she
Chess has been played by correspond- might be capable of in an ordinary club
ence since the 18th century, with the or tournament context. Deep strategies
postal service being the usual method of or complex sacrificial combinations can
transmitting moves between distant op- be worked out in detail, sometimes over
ponents. The actual method of sending days or even weeks, and the intended
the moves does not change the essential move double-checked for blunders be-
nature of correspondence chess (CC) as fore it is sent to the opponent.
a mode of play where hours or even days I have aimed to make this book acces-
may be spent in analysing the position sible to chess players of all standards, and
and selecting the best move. to be valuable even to those players who
Many active OTB players participate do not play CC. When analysing games,
in CC too, but correspondence play par- original annotations (where available)
ticularly suits people with heavy business were critically re-examined both by me
or family commitments, or who live in and the book’s editor and we made many
remote locations far from opponents of new discoveries, in some cases overturn-
their skill level. The drink in the pub af- ing the accepted view of what was going
ter the game is replaced by international on in some famous games.
friendships that develop with messages The book would be over 400 pages
accompanying the moves. long if I retained in the text all the open-
In recent years, email has become the ings research and critical variations
primary method of sending CC moves (at which we examined when trying to find
least in international competition), mak- the truth about many of these games.
ing the process both faster and cheaper Necessarily, in many places the varia-
(once you have access to a computer). tions that illustrate or support my assess-
CC played by Internet web server looks ments have been omitted or truncated. A
set to become the “next big thing”: it is few games have been left with a lot more
already very popular for casual games detail than the others, to give a flavour of
and the software may be adapted to the the depth of CC analysis at master level.
6 64 Great Chess Games
If you have not yet tried CC and age player is most evident. It is true that
would like to do so, I recommend certain simplified positions (with only
that you seek out information and five or six men on the board) have been
contact addresses on the Internet, start- solved, so that a computer able to access
ing with www.chessmail.com and these ‘tablebases’ will play perfectly.
www.iccf.com (which have contact Until the late 1990s, however, most
details for national federations) and CC players did not have access to these
correspondencechess.com. bases, and anyway they are only relevant
to a small minority of games. Most end-
games cannot be reduced to such posi-
About computers tions and many programs still play them
like weak club players.
In the late 1980s, database programs Computers have changed the nature
first appeared and soon made a big dif- of CC in recent years. To see this, you
ference to openings research and prepa- only have to compare such exciting
ration for individual opponents. More games as numbers 23 and 27, in which
controversial is the use of programs the player with the greater imagination
which analyse positions and suggest and tactical ability came out on top
moves to the players. — but where the attacks would have
Some CC players consider their use failed against a computer — with mod-
unethical and a few CC organisations ern games like numbers 48 and 62 where
even try to ban them, but this is unen- strategy is paramount and computers
forceable. Inevitably, many of the top give little help.
players do now use analysis engines, Here I quote CC-grandmaster Gert
but with caution. At the almost infinite Timmerman from an interview he gave
time allowances of CC, the machine’s me just after becoming the world cham-
advantage over the human in speed of pion at the end of 2001.
calculation is nullified. “I do not use a chess-program to
Computers are virtually flawless at search for the moves for me. I am
short-range tactics but can give very mis- constantly looking for a principal running
leading results in quiet positions, where thread to give ‘structure’ to a game. The
strategy predominates, and in very deep difference between CC-players is not
and complex positions too, where their made any more by tactical opportunities,
calculations can go wrong at the ‘ho- but by ‘seducing’ the adversary into a
rizon’ or where unusual characteristics — for him, wrong — (positional) ‘train’
of a position can cause their assessment from which there is no escape anymore...
algorithms to prefer the wrong move. I think that an opponent who relies only
The power and weakness of the on the choice of a computer, and does not
computer is seen at its most extreme start from his own ‘natural’ resources,
in the endgame, where traditionally the will very quickly reach his chess peak
superiority of the master over the aver- with no room for improvement.”
Introduction 7
The Players: These two great Dutch About this game: This was one of
rivals have had parallel careers in CC the most important games in the 15th
for two decades. Timmerman, a math- World Championship Final, in which
ematician, is the current (15th) Cor- van Oosterom was also a contender
respondence Chess World Champion for a high placing. At the time this
and has also won several other major game was played, he had never beaten
tournaments. Timmerman, a psychological factor
For several consecutive years, he that may have counterbalanced his
was the world’s highest rated active colour advantage.
correspondence player. As Timmer- The world champion commented:
man is world champion, I have made “Van Oosterom is always a tough
a special exception and he is the only opponent, but I had the ‘luck’ that
player with two wins in this book. the outcome of the opening against
Van Oosterom (founder of Volmac him turned out favourably for me.
software, which is now part of the Cap The searching for the win remained,
Gemini corporation) is a wealthy man however, very difficult.” We shall
who lives with his family in Monaco. see that luck played very little part.
He is well known as a sponsor of both For the annotations, I have drawn
OTB and correspondence tournaments on comments that I wrote when the
(e.g. the Melody Amber series, named game was first released by ICCF, on
for his daughter, the NBC Millennium GM Hans Ree’s annotations for his
email tournament, and the ICCF Jubi- column ‘Dutch Treat’ on the Chess
lee Champions and Elite events). Café website, and on world champion
Van Oosterom was just starting Timmerman’s own comments for
the 14th World Championship Final ‘Chess Mail’ magazine.
in 1994 when illness forced him to 1 d4 Èf6 2 c4 g6 3 Èc3 ƒg7 4 e4 d6
defer his place and so he was fated 5 Èf3 0–0 6 ƒe2 e5 7 0–0 Èc6 8 d5
once more to be thwarted by Timmer- Èe7 9 Èe1 Èd7 10 ƒe3 f5 11 f3 f4
man in the next final which began two 12 ƒf2 g5 13 a4 (D)
years later. White follows a system introduced
10 64 Great Chess Games
The Players: Such matches between adjournment. There was also a break
clubs were frequent by the mid-19th of more than three months in mid-
century. London’s team originally 1873 in connection with the Vienna
consisted of Blackburne, Horwitz, Chess Congress (won by Steinitz).
J.J. Löwenthal, John Wisker, chess The match concluded in March
journalist William Norwood Potter 1874 when Vienna proposed a package
and future world champion Wilhelm deal whereby they would resign this
Steinitz. As a contemporary source game if London agreed a draw in the
has it, “For various reasons, Potter other (where they stood better). While
and Steinitz were eventually left the draw was tactical, with London
practically alone to sustain the match”. defending the Scotch with Steinitz’s
Two signatures of team members were pet variation 4...Ôh4, the present
required for a move to be valid. game, which actually decided the
Vienna originally submitted the match, was played in a very different
following team list: Dr. Meitner, and actually more modern style. The
Ignaz Kolisch, Dr. Max Fleissig, decisive factor was almost certainly
O.Gelbfuhs, Josef Berger and Adolf the superior strategic sense of Steinitz
Csank but Csank and Meitner who at this time had no equal in the
eventually resigned their places on world in positional games.
the committee. The final resignation 1 c4
message from Vienna was signed by The English, now one of the most
Berger and Fleissig. important openings, was then in its
About this game: London issued infancy. It got its name from Howard
the challenge and after Vienna asked Staunton’s adoption of 1 c4 in his
to play for money, the substantial 1843 match with French champion
stake of 100 Pounds was agreed. St. Amant.
As was customary, two games were 1...e5 2 Èc3 ƒb4 (D)
conducted simultaneously. The 2...Èf6 is normal, when two
match did not really get under way important variations are 3 g3 ƒb4
until late July because of an agreed and 3 Èc3 Èf6 4 g3 ƒb4. Vienna’s
14 64 Great Chess Games
“Black could safely sacrifice the „” the game would have proceeded thus:
by 22...Èxc5!, which liquidates to 26...Èf6 27 †xd8+ …xd8 28 …xd8+
an endgame where White’s pawns are ‡h7 29 c6 ƒxc6 30 …d6 ƒe4 31 g4
slightly better but Black has ƒ versus followed by h4, winning easily.” This
È: 23 †xc5 …ac8 24 Èc3 …xd1+ variation is not altogether convincing;
25 …xd1 …xc5 26 ƒxe6 ƒxe6 27 29 g4 is stronger, intending 30 f5
…d8+ ‡h7. It is hard to see any result †g5 31 ƒxf7.
other than a draw here, but objectively Computers prefer 26...†xd6 27
this is what White should play. …xd6 Èf6 28 …xd8+ …xd8 29 cxb6
22 Èe3! axb6 but the tricky endgame that
This is the key square for the È, actually arose was maybe Vienna’s
both for attack and defence. best practical chance.
22...‡g8 27 †e7 cxb4 28 …xd7 …e8 29 †d6
If 22...Èf6, White would have †xd6
sacrificed the † for two …s, “If Black had played here 29...…e6
“followed by …d6 with a splendid White’s only reply would have been
game”. … checks followed by †f8, as it
23 ƒc4 …ac8 24 …he1 ƒe4 would have been fatal for them to
If 24...ƒe6 25 g4 Èxc5 have made the more natural-looking
(25...ƒxc4 26 Èxc4 Èxc5 27 move of 30 †d4?? …xc4+ 31 Èxc4
†xd8+ …xd8 28 …xd8+ ‡h7 29 ƒb1 32 Èe3 …xe3”.
…ee8 Èd3+ 30 ‡d2) 26 †xd8+ 30 …xd6 (D)
…xd8 27 …xd8+ ‡h7 28 f5 †f6 29 XIIIIIIIIY
fxe6 †xd8 30 exf7 b5 31 …f1 Èd7 9-+r+r+k+0
32 …d1 bxc4 (If 32...†g5 33 …xd7
†xe3+ then 34 ‡d1 †~+ 35 ƒe2
9zp-+-+pzp-0
B
may ultimately win.) 33 …xd7 †f6 34 9-+-tR-+-zp0
Èf5 c3 35 b3. Steinitz summed up: 9+-+-+-+-0
“The foregoing variations afford most 9-zpL+lzP-+0
striking illustrations of a principle... 9+-+-sN-+-0
namely that … and one minor piece 9P+-+-+PzP0
and a well-supported passed pawn on
the 7th rank win in the large majority
9+-mK-tR-+-0
of cases against the †.” xiiiiiiiiy
25 b4 b6 26 †d6 bxc5
“This move involves the loss 30...ƒxg2!? 31 …d4
of a piece for three pawns, leaving London thought 31 ‡d2!? …xe3
Black two pawns ahead. Vienna must 32 ƒxf7+ ‡xf7 33 …xe3 was too
otherwise either have submitted to the drawish. They calculated that by
exchange of †s, with a bad position, giving up their kingside pawns they
or else, if attempting to win the †, could win with their a-pawn.
18 64 Great Chess Games
The Players: Govert Nielsen and ƒb4+ 7 Èc3 Èf6. Black has eaten
his cousin Wilhelm were members two pawns; the question is whether he
of the then 10-year-old Copenhagen can digest them. This line is risky to
Chess Society. The chess historian defend OTB but in CC Black may be
Antonius van der Linde (1833-97), able to hold the attack.
from Arnhem, lived much of his life XIIIIIIIIY
in Germany. His library formed the 9r+lwqk+-tr0
basis of the great chess collection
at the Royal Dutch Library in The
9zppzpp+pzpp0
W
Hague. As a player, however, he was 9-+n+-sn-+0
probably below master strength. 9+-+-+-+-0
About this game: The Danish Gambit 9-vlL+P+-+0
was very popular at the time. White 9+-sN-+N+-0
offers pawns, then a piece and finally 9PvL-+-zPPzP0
a … in the romantic style of that era.
1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 ƒc4
9tR-+QmK-+R0
cxb2 5 ƒxb2 Èf6 xiiiiiiiiy
The position reached after move
7 in the game could also arise via 8 †c2
5...Èc6 6 Èf3 ƒb4+ 7 Èc3 or This seems stronger than 8 0–0
5...ƒb4+ 6 Èc3 etc. although White as played by Dr K.Göring against
can try 6 ‡f1 in that case. Many W.Paulsen in 1877. The † prepares
players prefer to return a pawn by queenside castling and eyes h7.
5...d5 to limit White’s attacking ideas. 8...d6
6 Èc3 Èc6 8...†e7!? is a rare alternative.
Again 6...d5 7 ƒxd5 ƒe7 is a way 9 0–0–0 0–0
of avoiding the main lines. Afterwards, 9...ƒxc3 was tested,
7 Èf3 ƒb4 (D) when the critical line goes 10 †xc3
We now have a Göring Gambit, ƒe6 (10...†e7? 11 e5 Èxe5 12
reachable via 1 e4 e5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 d4 Èxe5 dxe5 13 …he1 Èd7 14 f4
exd4 4 c3 dxc3 5 ƒc4 cxb2 6 ƒxb2 0-0 15 …xd7!‹ P.Vinogradov-S.
20 64 Great Chess Games
unsure that White has enough to force ‡e8 26 …xe5 and now 26...†d8
a win after 23...…xe7 24 ƒb5+ †c6. allows mate in 8 starting 27 ƒb5+,
23 ƒxe7 Ège5 (D) while 26...†d7 27 ƒb5 wins the
It is probably now too late for the black †.
† sacrifice. 23...Èxe7 24 ƒb5+ 25 ƒxd6 Èxd6?
†c6 25 ƒxc6+ bxc6 26 …d4 is hard This is a blunder. Black could have
to meet; if 26...Èxf2 27 g6. created a more chaotic situation by my
XIIIIIIIIY new discovery 25...Èd2+!, with two
9r+q+-+-+0 possibilities after 26 ‡c1:
a) 26...†g8 27 †f5+ ‡e8 is not
9zpp+kvLQ+-0
W quite sufficient:
9-+nzp-+-+0 a1) 28 …e5+!? leads to a draw after
9+-+Rsn-zP-0 28...Èxe5 29 †xe5+ ‡d7 30 †e7+
9-+L+-+-+0 ‡c6 31 †c7+ ‡d5 32 †c5+ ‡e6 33
9+-+-+-+-0 †e5+ etc. and 28 g6 …d8 also looks
9P+-+-zPP+0 like it will end in perpetual.
a2) However, White has a spectacular
9+K+-vl-+-0 winning try in 28 ƒb8!!, hoping for
xiiiiiiiiy 28...…xb8?? 29 †d7+ ‡f8 30 …f5+
mating, while 28...†xd5 29 †xd5
24 †f6?! …xb8 30 g6! (30 †e6+!?) also looks
This went uncriticised in the past. like a win, e.g. 30...‡e7 (30...Èe7 31
a) Presumably the Nielsens rejected g7!) 31 †f7+ ‡d6 32 g7.
24 †f5+!? because it only draws: Finally, if 28...Èe7 29 †d7+ ‡f8
24...‡xe7 25 †f6+ ‡e8 (25...‡d7? 30 ƒd6 should work in the end, e.g.
26 …xe5 dxe5 27 ƒe6+ ‡c7 28 30...†g6 (30...†g7? 31 …f5+!) 31
†f7+.) 26 …xd6 Èxc4 27 †h8+ ƒxe7+ ‡g8 32 †xb7 †b1+!? 33
(After 27 …e6+ †xe6 28 †xe6+ †xb1 Èxb1 34 ‡xb1 ƒxf2; White
Èe7 White can only take one of the still has to win the endgame but
minor pieces.) 27...‡e7 28 †f6+ probably can do so.
‡e8 29 †h8+ ‡e7 30 †f6+ ‡e8=. b) On the other hand, 26...Èb4+!
b) 24 …xd6+! ‡c7 25 ƒd8+ ‡b8 really does seem to draw, e.g. 27
26 †f4 offers the best objective ƒc5+ Èxd5 28 †d6+ ‡e8 29 †f8+
chances of victory: 26...ƒb4 ‡d7 30 †d6+ with no significant
(26...†g4 27 †xg4 Èxg4 28 g6 advantage for White.
ƒc3 29 ƒe6 looks lost for Black) 26 †xd6+ ‡e8 27 †g6+! ‡f8 28
27 …xc6 †xc6 28 †xe5+ with ƒ …f5+ †xf5+ 29 †xf5+ 1–0
and two dangerous pawns against an I can certainly agree with Hen-
undeveloped …. driksen’s final comment on this classic
24...Èxc4 game: “What an Odyssey through the
24...Èxe7? is hopeless: 25 †xd6+ beautiful country of combinations!”
Game 4
White: Wilhelm Steinitz (USA)
The Players: Wilhelm Steinitz (1836- from his 1889 book ‘The Modern
1900), whom we first met in Game Chess Instructor’.
3, was now the first official World As an experienced correspondence
Chess Champion. Born in Prague, player in Russian events, as well as
Steinitz had moved to London in a painstaking analyst of complicated
1862 and to New York in 1882. He positions, Chigorin was in his element
defeated Chigorin in matches played in this contest against his great rival
in 1889 and 1892, before surrendering and deservedly won it 2-0. The match
the world title to Emanuel Lasker in ran from October 13, 1890 to April
1894. Steinitz is generally considered 28, 1891 and created tremendous
the forerunner of 20th century interest worldwide. It was unusual for
positional chess. However, he had a a CC event in that it was played by
stubborn dogmatic streak which was professionals for money: the winner
thoroughly exposed in this match. received US$750.
Mikhail Chigorin (1850-1908) was Both games were annotated by
the greatest player of combinational Steinitz as a serial while they were
attacks in the last quarter of the 19th in progress; his optimistic comments
century as well as an original thinker seem ironic in the light of his eventual
where openings were concerned. crushing defeat. Throughout the
About this game: ‘Thematic’ events, match, you get a misleading view of
in which the players agree to play events if you only read what Steinitz
a particular opening, have long thought. For the Russian viewpoint,
been a popular part of CC activity. I studied the extensive analysis of
Here Chigorin challenged Steinitz the game in ‘Shakhmatny Bulletin’
to uphold his published opinions 2/1958 (edited by Romanov).
about two different controversial 1 e4 e5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 ƒc4 Èf6 4
variations; in each case the Russian Èg5 d5 5 exd5 Èa5 6 ƒb5+ c6 7
gambited a pawn. Steinitz played dxc6 bxc6 8 ƒe2 h6 9 Èh3!? (D)
Black in an Evans Gambit and White This was the agreed starting point.
in the present game, where the world Of course the white „ normally
champion followed a recommendation retreats to f3 but then it is hit with
Game 4: Steinitz-Chigorin 25
tempo again in the variation 9 Èf3 two ƒs and the extra pawn on the
e4 10 Èe5, a main line about which queenside secure him the advantage”.
debate still continues. Chigorin saw it differently. He
Steinitz had written: “Much better didn’t want to capture the È because
than 9 Èf3 which seems to have “my ƒ is needed for the attack, while
been assumed, hitherto, as the only the È will soon be forced to go back
move for White.” His opinion was, to g1. That seemed to be all the more
however, largely disregarded until favourable for me as I could, for a
Bobby Fischer revived 9 Èh3 in a long time, prevent the È coming to
famous game against GM Bisguier in f3, and it is only after this move that
1963, which can be found in Fischer’s White can develop properly”.
book ‘My Sixty Memorable Games’. 10 d3
Nowadays, the move is considered 10 0–0 was preferred by Steinitz
playable, if eccentric. in the 6th game of their 1892 match,
XIIIIIIIIY continuing 10...0–0 11 c3? (For 11
9r+lwqkvl-tr0 Èc3 see below, but 11 d3, as in
Fischer-Bisguier, is better.) 11...Èb7
9zp-+-+pzp-0
B 12 †a4 ƒxh3 13 gxh3 †d6 14 d3
9-+p+-sn-zp0 Èd5! and Black won. Note that
9sn-+-zp-+-0 Chigorin only captured the È after
9-+-+-+-+0 White had castled.
9+-+-+-+N0 10...0–0 11 Èc3
9PzPPzPLzPPzP0 If 11 c3 (threatening the fork b2-
b4) Chigorin considered it to be of
9tRNvLQmK-+R0 paramount importance to prevent
xiiiiiiiiy White carrying out the manoeuvre
Èh3-g1-f3 followed by 0-0, and so
9...ƒc5 he intended 11...Èb7! to rule out
Black targets f2 and gets ready White’s fork tricks. Steinitz would
to castle without delay. Chigorin’s then be unable to play either 12 b4
choice has given good results in (because of 12...ƒxb4 13 cxb4 †d4)
practice. or 12 Èg1 (because of 12...†b6 13
9...ƒxh3 might seem the obvious d4 exd4 14 b4 ƒd6 15 †xd4 †xd4
reply, but 10 gxh3 †d5 11 ƒf3 e4 16 cxd4 ƒxb4+ when Black regains
12 Èc3 †e5 13 ƒg2 was given in his pawn with a good position).
Steinitz’ book, e.g. 13...ƒd6 14 †e2 11...Èd5!
0–0 15 d3 exd3 16 †xe5 ƒxe5 17 Fischer-Radoi›i™, played a few
cxd3 with the comment “White is a rounds later than the Bisguier game
Pawn ahead, and after bringing out in the New York State Open 1973,
his ƒ to e3 he may castle on the varied with 11...…e8?! 12 0-0 ƒxh3
queenside or even play ‡e2 and his 13 gxh3 †d7 and now White played
26 64 Great Chess Games
The Players: Géza Maróczy (1870- cluding until 1896. Maróczy had to
1951) is not known as a CC player, win this game to catch his friend and
but he and his great but short-lived rival. Afterwards, unfinished games
rival Rudolf Charousek (1873-1900) (of which there were many) were
shared first prize, each scoring 16/18. adjudicated and the final result was
The event was an important stage in declared in 1897.
the development of the future GM, 1 d4 e6 2 c4 f5 3 Èc3 Èf6 4 e3
who won the Hastings 1895 minor ƒb4!?
tournament midway through this CC This must have all been very
event. His breakthrough to the ranks experimental in the 1890s. 4...b6 and
of the world’s top players followed 4...ƒe7 are possible too.
in 1899 while Charousek was dying 5 ƒd3 0–0 6 Èf3 b6 7 0–0 ƒxc3 8
of tuberculosis. Csipkés finished a bxc3 ƒb7 (D)
respectable fifth with 13/18. This line of the Dutch has affinities
About this game: Very few round- with the Nimzo-Indian. Many years
robin CC tournaments were held in later, Maróczy reached this position
the 19th century (except in Russia) with Black by a different move order
so this was a pioneering event, slow (3 e3 Èf6 4 ƒd3 b6 5 Èc3 ƒb7 6
and chaotic though it was. Chess his- Èf3 ƒb4 7 0–0 ƒxc3 8 bxc3 0–0).
torian V.Charushin states that as Cha- XIIIIIIIIY
rousek’s father was a telegraph opera- 9rsn-wq-trk+0
tor, he had the advantage of being able
to send moves quickly without even
9zplzpp+-zpp0
W
leaving home! 9-zp-+psn-+0
In the early middlegame, Maróczy 9+-+-+p+-0
established an advantage. After Csip- 9-+PzP-+-+0
kés missed a couple of opportunities 9+-zPLzPN+-0
to create some complications, he was 9P+-+-zPPzP0
subjected to a demonstration of stra-
tegic superiority. This was one of the
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
longest games of the event, not con- xiiiiiiiiy
Game 5: Maróczy-Csipkés 31
9 Èe1 18...…f7?
This is rather a tame move. Black unpins his È and thinks
Presumably the idea is to play f3 later about ...g5 but he misses the chance
to eject an invading È from e4, but of a tactical shot, 18...ƒxf3!, taking
the prospects for White’s own È are advantage of the unfortunate position
not great. 9 ƒa3 is sometimes played of the … on e2. After 19 …xf3 bxc5 20
here instead, but 9 a4! is probably †b7 White still has queenside chances
best. Rubinstein-Maróczy, Teplitz- but Black now has kingside counterplay.
Schönau 1922, continued 9...Èc6 10 Other recaptures are more weakening: 19
Èd2 d6 11 Èb3 Èe7 12 a5 c5 13 f4 gxf3 bxc5 20 †b7 cxd4 21 exd4 Èh5
Èe4 14 †c2 †c7 15 Èd2 Èxd2 16 or 19 Èxf3 bxc5 20 †b7?! Èg4, and
ƒxd2 ‡h8 17 …fe1‹ (1–0, 33). certainly not 19 ƒxe7?? ƒxe2‰.
9...Èc6 19 ƒa3 Èh5 20 ƒc1 g5 21 g3!
Black could also play 9...d6 Maróczy avoids unnecessary
keeping the option of ...Èbd7 and tactical complications; e.g. 21 e4 f4
...c7-c5, but the fact that Maróczy 22 …ff2 Èg3! 23 …b2 (23 hxg3??
copied the ...Èc6-e7 manoeuvre fxg3) 23...…f6! 24 hxg3 fxg3 25 …fc2
against Rubinstein suggests he †h2+ 26 ‡f1 Èf5! is his analysis.
thought Csipkés’ plan was good. 21...Èg6 22 a4 ƒa8?!
10 ƒa3 d6 11 …b1 …b8 12 …b2 This is a complete waste of time
Èe7 13 †b1 and makes it hard to contest the a-file
White’s intention is to crack open later. Since Black is trying to work up
the b-file, while the line-up on the some kingside play, 22...e5!? would
b1–h7 diagonal deters ...e5. be logical, albeit risky.
13...†e8?! 23 e4 (D)
This standard Dutch Defence man- White starts to take command.
oeuvre leaves White a free hand in XIIIIIIIIY
the centre. 13...c5! keeps the position 9l+-+r+k+0
blocked for the Ès and shows why
Rubinstein’s treatment was better.
9z
B
p-zp-+r+p0
14 f3 †h5 15 c5 9-zp-+p+nwq0
White dissolves his doubled pawn 9+-+-+pzpn0
and starts to probe for weaknesses. 9P+PzPP+-+0
15...dxc5 16 ƒxc5 …be8 9+-+L+PzP-0
16...bxc5? 17 …xb7 clearly creates 9-+-+R+-zP0
new weaknesses and increases the
scope of White’s pieces.
9+QvL-sNRmK-0
17 c4 †h6! 18 …e2 xiiiiiiiiy
18 Èc2!Ÿ was obvious and good.
Relatively best would be 18...ƒa8 19 23...f4 24 g4 Èf6
ƒa3 g5!? or 18...Èd7. 24...Èg7 may be a bit better but
32 64 Great Chess Games
The Players: Betins (1867-1943) was position but if Black is going to play
the father of the great chess tradition ...d5 eventually, this would be the
in Latvia which culminated in Tal. He logical time to make that move.
was much involved in early analysis 7 Èbd2
of the Latvian Counter-Gambit. White’s idea is to transfer the È to
Shiffers (1859-1904) was Chig- g3 as a preparation for controlling f5
orin’s chief Russian rival. From 1894- and an eventual kingside attack.
98 Shiffers edited the Petersburg 7...Èc6
periodical ‘Shakhmatny Zhurnal’. Since White did not play the usual
Grodzensky & Romanov’s CC his- 7 h3, the move 7...ƒg4 would be
tory, ‘Khod v Konverte’, reports that consistent. Or Black could play simply
Shiffers won the third of its tourna- 7...0-0, as recommended in the Petroff
ments, in 1893-4, with 15½/18. monograph by Forintos & Haag, when
About this game: Betins beat if 8 Èf1 …e8 9 Èg3 ƒf8+.
Schiffers 2-0 in this event. With a 8 c3 d5
score of 9/12 he was second behind According to Yusupov’s book on
Romashkevich. From a quiet begin- the Petroff, 8...0-0 would be better,
ning, the pressure mounts and then continuing the waiting strategy.
White launches a murderous attack 9 Èf1!
with a … sacrifice. Clearly 9 0–0 is standard but since
1 e4 e5 2 Èf3 Èf6 3 Èxe5 d6 4 Black is unready to challenge the e-
Èf3 Èxe4 5 d4 ƒe7 file, Betins decides to accelerate his
5...d5 is more usual. plan and save a move (…e1).
6 ƒd3 Èf6 9...0–0 10 Èg3 ƒd6 11 0–0 ƒg4?!
The Petroff Defence was developed This achieves nothing. Black
principally by Russians in the 19th should try 11...…e8 or 11...h6. He
century; Black’s 5th and 6th moves are could double White’s g-pawn by
attributed to Semyon Alapin (1856– 12...ƒxg3 but he needs his ƒ to
1923). Retreating the È instead of defend the dark squares.
defending it avoids weakening the 12 h3 ƒe6 13 ƒg5
34 64 Great Chess Games
The Players: I have no information interesting game... not until the 29th
about Hale. Mordecai Morgan (1862- move was Mr. Morgan enabled to
1931) was a leading player of his day obtain any advantage. At that point
in Philadelphia. a brilliant play, apparently involving
About this game: The first great the sacrifice of a pawn, gave him a
North American postal tournament winning position. The play from this
was a two-stage event, starting 1894, point to the end abounded in intricate
organised by Walter Penn Shipley complications, and it required skill
and others for the Continental and accuracy to force a win...”
Correspondence Chess Association. 1 e4 e5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 c3 Èf6 4 d4
70 players from the USA and Èxe4 5 ƒd3
Canada contested five sections, the 5 d5 is the usual move.
leaders of which played off for the 5...d5 6 Èxe5 Èxe5 7 dxe5 Èc5
championship. The final winner was 8 ƒc2 ƒe6 9 0–0 ƒe7 10 f4 g6 11
C.W. Phillips from Chicago. ƒe3 †d7 12 †d4
This game is the most interesting EK: “12 †e2, followed by Èd2
one I have seen from the event; and …ad1, was probably better.”
Nimzowitsch would have loved to 12...b6 13 Èd2 Èb7
annotate it. It was rediscovered by This introduces a theme persistent
US chess historian John S. Hilbert, throughout most of the game,
who republished it on The Campbell Black’s attempt to play ...ƒc5 under
Report website with contemporary favourable circumstances.
notes by Emil Kemeny (indicated by 14 Èb3 c5 15 †d2 f5 16 a4
“EK”), a Hungarian emigrant to the Opening the centre would lead to
USA. I find these were accurate about a different type of game but White’s
the general shape of the game but his weakness on the diagonal g1-a7
attempts at analysing variations were would persist.
usually poor. 16...a5 17 ƒd1 ‡f7 18 †f2 h6 19
EK’s introductory remarks to the Èd2 …ag8 20 ƒe2 Èd8 21 ƒb5
game were as follows: “An unusually Èc6 (D)
Game 7: Hale-Morgan 37
XIIIIIIIIY
ƒxd4 †xd4 25 ƒxc6 Black may
9-+-+-+rtr0 be temporarily a pawn down but he
9+-+qvlk+-0 actually has some advantage! Possible
9-zpn+l+pzp0
W continuations are 25...†xb2 26 Èe4
9zpLzppzPp+-0 †xf2+, 25...…d8, and 25...†xf2+ 26
9P+-+-zP-+0 …xf2 …c8.
9+-zP-vL-+-0 22...g5 23 †d2
23 …fe1 would free f1 for the ‡
9-zP-sN-wQPzP0 but in reply to ...g4 the È would have
9tR-+-+RmK-0 to return to d2.
xiiiiiiiiy Now 23 …ad1 may well be good, foll-
Black has some strategic advantage owed by Èe1-c2 and then …fe1. After
— chiefly because the pawn levers 23...g4 24 Èe1 play would probably go
...g5 and ...d4 may be prepared, 24...†c7 or 24...h5. The snag about 23
whereas White’s options b2-b4 and †d2 is that Black could consider the
g2-g4 can be discounted: both moves pawn sacrifice 24...g3 25 hxg3 …g6 (or
would be too weakening. ...…g4) followed by the advance of the h-
Nevertheless, White is by no means pawn to force open kingside lines rather
lost. He has ...d5-d4 well under restraint than blocking the flank.
for the time being, with his b5-ƒ pinning 23...g4 24 Èe1 h5
the È and other pieces eyeing the 24...d4 is premature as White can
crucial square. If White can find the best answer 25 cxd4 cxd4 26 ƒf2, while
arrangement of his pieces, then perhaps 24...g3? 25 h3 blocks the flank in the
Black will not find a way through, and wrong way. Black at least wants to force
might sacrifice unsoundly. a weakness on the h1-a8 diagonal.
22 Èf3! 25 Èc2 h4 26 …ad1 h3
EK’s objection that “the text EK liked this move but my view is
move invites the advance of Black’s somewhat different. Black cannot win
g-pawn” seems rather vague; Black the game in one sector of the board
is going to play ...g5 soon whatever alone. Since Black has no immediate
White does. threats and can play ...h3 later anyway,
The manoeuvre Èf3-e1-c2 may it would seem sensible to leave the
seem laborious but it does bring the kingside fluid for the time being and
È to a good square for restraining prepare the central breakthrough. That
...d4 without getting in the way of would force White to be watchful on
White’s other pieces. two fronts without the attacker making
EK preferred 22 …ad1 saying any irrevocable commitment.
“Black could hardly answer 22...d4”, 27 g3 †b7 28 †f2
but it seems to me that this thrust EK suggested 28 …fe1, planning
might be Black’s best move! At the ‡f1 and ƒg1.
end of his variation 23 cxd4 cxd4 24 28...…d8 (D)
38 64 Great Chess Games
XIIIIIIIIY
30 ƒxc6
9-+-tr-+-tr0 EK did not analyse 30 cxd4 in any
9+q+-vlk+-0 detail but his view that Black wins is
9-zpn+l+-+0
W correct. Best is 30...cxd4! when:
9zpLzppzPp+-0 a) 31 Èxd4? Èxd4 32 ƒxd4
9P+-+-zPp+0 …xd4!, e.g. 33 …xd4 ƒc5 34 …fd1
9+-zP-vL-zPp0 …d8 35 ƒf1 …xd4 36 …xd4 ƒb3 when
White has absolutely no moves (37
9-zPN+-wQ-zP0 †e3? †d5).
9+-+R+RmK-0 b) The exchange sacrifice 31 …xd4
xiiiiiiiiy Èxd4 32 Èxd4! is unlikely to save
29 …d2 White in the long run, but he can fight
This seems to be the critical on, having averted disaster on the
moment. EK suggested 29 ƒc1 saying light squares, e.g. 32...ƒc5 33 ƒc6
“the advance of the d-pawn would then †c8 34 Èxe6 †xe6.
be less dangerous”. 30...†xc6 31 cxd4 †e4 32 …fd1
I do not agree, since after 29 ƒc1 ƒb3! 33 …c1
d4 30 cxd4 cxd4!, prospects look EK thought White had nothing
rather bleak for White. (Note that better than this unsatisfactory move.
Black would rather exchange his È It is true that White cannot allow 33
for a white ƒ than the opposing È.) dxc5 ƒxc2 (winning a piece), but his
31 …fe1 may be best but Black stands comment, “Nor can he play 33 d5,
well with 31...ƒc5. for 33...ƒxa4 would win”, is hard to
Accepting the pawn seems to lose, understand in view of 34 d6; instead
e.g. 31 ƒxc6 †xc6 32 Èxd4 …xd4! 33 Black obtains a good game with
…xd4 ƒc8 34 …e1 ƒb7 (threatens mate 33...…xd5 or 33...ƒxd5.
on h1) 35 ‡f1 ƒc5 36 ƒe3 ƒxd4 37 If 33 †e2 ƒxc2 34 …xc2 cxd4
ƒxd4 …d8 and wins (38 ƒe3 †h1+ 39 (EK), e.g. 35 ƒc1 d3 36 †xe4 fxe4
‡g1 ƒa6+ or 39 ‡e2 ƒf3+), or if 36 or 35 †c4+ …d5 36 ƒc1 d3.
e6+ ‡g6 37 ƒe3 …e8. 33...…d7 34 †e2
29...d4! If 34 Èa3, to defend d4 from b5,
EK: “This well-timed advance of the Black reroutes the ƒ to remove the
d-pawn gives Black a winning position... offending È: 34...…hd8 (34...ƒxa4?!
The move opens the diagonal for the 35 e6+! †xe6 36 Èc4 with an outpost
black † and queen’s ƒ. Since White at e5) 35 Èb5 ƒd5! (35...ƒxa4? 36
is forced to capture the pawn, Black Èc3) 36 ‡f1 ƒc6 and ...ƒxb5.
will be enabled to play ...ƒc5. White 34...…hd8 35 †d3 ƒxc2 36 …cxc2
cannot well gain the pawn, for if ƒxc6 cxd4 37 †xe4 fxe4 38 f5
and cxd4, Black answers ...†xc6 and EK: “...quite ingenious. Black
...†e4, threatening ...ƒd5, followed by cannot capture the ƒ on account of
mating in a few moves.” e6+ winning the ….”
Game 7: Hale-Morgan 39
Since the d-pawn does not need the future champion has the measure
protection at this time, White should of his opponent and decides a direct
have taken his last chance for queenside attack will bear fruit. On g4, the È
activity by 15 b4. Then he is just in time evidently thinks about occupying e5
to meet 15...ƒg7 by 16 ƒb2, linking his but there is also a latent threat which
…s and avoiding the coming disaster. White overlooks.
15...ƒg7 (D) 17 h3?!
XIIIIIIIIY Yudovich recommended 17 exf5.
9r+lwqr+k+0 However, rather than a recapture or
...Èe5, 17...ƒd4!? might be the reply,
9zp-sn-+-vlp0
W and the trap 18 …f1 ƒa6 19 Èb5
9-zp-zp-snp+0 †d7 could be the reason Ragozin
9+-zpP+p+-0 did not want to play 16...ƒa6. White
9P+Q+-+-+0 must probably answer 18 fxg6 ƒxf2+
9+-sN-zP-zP-0 19 ‡h1 (19 ‡f1? loses the † to
9-zP-sN-zPLzP0 19...ƒa6 20 Èb5 Èe3+.) 19...hxg6
with complications that look like they
9tR-vLR+-mK-0 will go Black’s way.
xiiiiiiiiy 17 Èf1 would be an attempt to
regroup for defence and would enable the
The future GM is outplaying the forgotten ƒ to play a role. Nevertheless,
amateur. The question of how to develop Black’s game is preferable after 17...ƒa6
the queen’s ƒ is clearly going to be 18 †b3 ƒd4 19 Èe3 ƒxe3!? forcing a
easier for Black to solve than White. weakness on the e-file.
16 e4?! 17...Èxf2!
White’s È on d2 doesn’t make Doubtless White had expected 17...
much sense without this move, but his Èe5, but the sacrifice cracks open the
kingside is looking too bare for this shell, subjecting White’s ‡ to an attack
impatient opening of the position. he is ill-prepared to counter with his
16 b4 is too late now that Black cluster of pieces on the queenside.
is first on the long diagonal, e.g. 18 ‡xf2 ƒd4+ 19 ‡f1?
16...Èg4! 17 ƒb2 Èe5 18 †b3 This is probably the decisive
cxb4 19 †xb4 Èd3 and ...Èxb2, or error; it costs a tempo as the ‡ has
17 bxc5 ƒa6 18 †b3 bxc5 19 ƒb2? to go to e1 soon in any case. White
…b8 20 †c2 f4! 21 exf4 (or 21 gxf4 should have played immediately 19
†h4) 21...Èxf2! 22 ‡xf2? ƒd4+ 23 ‡e1, when after 19...ƒa6 20 Èb5
‡f3 …e3+ 24 ‡g4 ƒc8+ and mates. (20 †b3!? £Èc4 is also possible.)
16...Èg4 20...†d7 21 …a3 (21 †c2!? Èxb5
16...ƒa6 is certainly possible, 22 axb5 ƒxb5 23 Èc4 fxe4 24 …d2
as suggested in Yudovich’s 1984 is another try.) 21...fxe4 22 Èxe4 (If
monograph on Ragozin. However, 22 …b3 †f7 23 †e2 ƒxb5 24 axb5
Game 11: Alekseev-Ragozin 55
Èe5 because Black still cannot play that formation is more flexible than
8...Èc2+ (due to 9 †xc2! ƒxc2 the one chosen by Geiger.
10 ƒxf7 mate!), while 8...e6 9 0-0 9 Èe5!
transposes to the game. This is a natural move, since Black
Not, however, 8 e4? Èxe4 9 does not have a È on d7 to exchange
Èxe4 ƒxe4 10 ƒxf7+ ‡xf7 11 the intruder, yet it took some years of
†b3+ (or 11 Èg5+ ‡e8 12 Èxe4 this 6...Èa6 line being played before
†xd4! because of 13 †xd4 Èc2+) that was understood.
11...e6! 12 Èg5+ ‡e8 13 Èxe4 Instead 9 Èh4 ƒc2 10 †d2
†d5! — all analysis by GM Efim Èe4 was better for Black in the
Bogoljubow, one of the strongest stem game Morrison-Geo. Marechal,
players of this era. Toronto 1924. 9 †e2 was also seen
8...e6 (D) in various games in the 1930s.
8...Èc2? is no good now because 9...ƒe7
of 9 e4! winning material: 9...ƒxe4 9...ƒd6 10 †e2 Èbd5 11 f3!
(9...Èxe4 10 †xc2 Èd6 11 †e2) †c7 12 e4 Èxc3 13 bxc3 ƒg6 14
10 Èxe4 Èxa1 11 Èxf6+ gxf6 12 ƒa3 ƒxa3 15 …xa3 0–0 16 Èd3!
ƒe3 — Marchisotti. had favoured White in Bogoljubow-
XIIIIIIIIY Pirc, Bled 1931.
9r+-wqkvl-tr0 10 †e2 0–0 11 e4 ƒg6 12 …d1 †a5
13 ƒg5!
9zpp+-+pzpp0
W This is sharper than 13 ƒb3 as
9-+p+psn-+0 Bogoljubow had recommended.
9+-+-+l+-0 13...…ad8
9PsnLzP-+-+0 Some other examples from
9+-sN-zPN+-0 contemporary practice:
9-zP-+-zPPzP0 a) 13...…fe8 14 Èxg6 hxg6 15
e5 Èd7 (or 15...Èfd5 16 ƒxe7
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 …xe7 17 Èe4 Èb6 18 ƒb3 …d8 19
xiiiiiiiiy †g4‹ Flohr-Chodera, Prague 1931)
16 Èe4! c5 17 ƒb5 Èc6 18 †g4!
If you compare this position with cxd4 19 ƒxe7 …xe7 20 †h4 Èdxe5
the line considered normal for the 21 Èg5 …ee8 22 …a3! …ad8 23 …h3
past 50 years or more (6...e6 7 ƒxc4 ‡f8 24 f4 with a strong attack (Peter
ƒb4 8 0–0 Èbd7), you can see that Korning-Bjorn Nielsen, corr Denmark
Black’s ƒ should be on b4, hindering 1935).
White’s e3-e4 advance, while the b) 13...ƒh5 14 f3 c5 15 d5! exd5
È stands ready to support central 16 exd5 Èfxd5 17 ƒxe7 Èxe7 18
operations. In that case, White has …d7 …ae8 19 Èe4!‹ Lorens-Kern,
various tries for advantage, but they corr 1933-34.
can be fairly well countered because 14 Èxg6 hxg6 15 e5 Èfd5 16 Èe4 f6
58 64 Great Chess Games
move but very weakening and might g4-g5 Black will then have only the
well have been answered by 27...f5. g-file to work with.
27 †c2!? does seem better, as a The move can also be criticized on
line like 27...f5?! 28 exf5 gxf5 29 the grounds that it puts yet another
Èe3 ƒxd3 30 †xd3 f4 31 Èc4 pawn on the same colour as the c7-
f3 32 g3 should not be dangerous to ƒ. Probably Black’s main mistake
White, who gains control of e4 while is strategic: he tries to win by attack
his ‡ has more protection. instead of keeping his ‡ as safe as
27...†h4 28 …e3 f5 29 exf5 gxf5 30 possible and aiming to consolidate
Èbd2 (D) a material advantage. What should
Who really stands better here? Old Black do instead?
annotations, which praise this game a) 30...‡h8 is a reasonable
so highly, pass over in silence the preparatory move, but it seems that Dr
crucial phase of the next few moves Rey did not want to let his opponent
— in which Black misses several capture on f5.
lines that would possibly have won, b) 30...e4!? is another idea but
spoils his strong position, and lays Black has no piece ready to take ad-
the foundation for White’s beautiful vantage of the vacated e5-square after
counter-attack. 31 ƒf1! and the game is unclear.
XIIIIIIIIY c) 30...fxg4! therefore looks like
9-tr-+-trk+0 the critical possibility, and if 31 …g3
‡h8 (not 31...…f4? 32 Èxe5!) 32
9+nvl-+-+p0
B hxg4 Èxa5! wins a pawn (33 Èxa5?
9p+-zp-+-+0 ƒxd3 34 …xd3? †xf2+‰) and
9zPlzpPzpp+-0 keeps the initiative, while 31 Èe4
9-+N+-+Pwq0 seems to give Black a choice of
9+-zPLtR-+P0 winning moves. In particular, both
9Q+-sN-zP-+0 31...…f3 and 31...‡h8 look like safe
ways for Black to play for a win, and
9tR-+-+-mK-0 even 31...gxh3 may be playable. It is a
xiiiiiiiiy mystery why previous annotators did
not highlight Black’s choice of the
30...f4!? incorrect plan at move 30.
This gains space without loss of 31 …f3 ‡h8
time but, to my way of thinking, it is This move allows both …s to
a superficial move that looks suspect come to the g-file. Note that 31...h5
once you have seen the rest of the is premature because of 32 Èxe5,
game. The idea is apparently to take when Black dare not take on e5
control of g3, so that Black’s later because of d6+. One may ask whether
breaking move ...h5 will be more the ‡ really belongs on the h-file
effective. The drawback is that after when Black evidently needs ...h5 as
Game 13: Johansson-Rey Ardid 63
a pawn lever, but it does preserve ‡f1 because of 37...e4! 38 ƒxe4 Èxa5
the initiative, whereas the alternatives 39 ƒd3 †xd5‰ but he may do better
31...…f7!? 32 Èe4 ƒd7 and 31...ƒe8 with 35 Èg3! …gg8 36 Èf5 followed
32 Èe4 ƒg6 are unclear. by 37 ‡h2, 38 …g1 and the position of
32 ‡g2?! the black ‡ on the h-file makes ...hxg4
White prevents ...h5xg4 and pre- less effective (due to …h3).
pares his next move, but as the game 35 g5 …g6 36 ‡h2 (D)
shows, this only holds up Black’s XIIIIIIIIY
attack temporarily. 32 Èe4 h5 33 g5 9-tr-+-+-mk0
(now forced) may be a better chance
in view of 33...…g8 (33...Èxa5 34
9+nvl-+-+-0
B
Èxe5! dxe5 36 d6 ƒd8 37 †e6) 9p+-zp-+r+0
34 ‡h2 which is similar to the 9zPlzpPzp-zPp0
game after White’s 36th move — the 9-+N+Nzp-wq0
differences being in White’s favour. 9+-zPL+R+P0
However, Black has a better response 9Q+-+-zP-mK0
in 33...ƒd7!, to meet 34 ‡g2 by
34...ƒf5 or 34 ‡h2 by 34...ƒg4, so
9+-+-+-+R0
it seems that White cannot hold the xiiiiiiiiy
balance whatever he does.
32...h5!? 36...ƒd8?
“Opens lines for the attack,” says This usually gets an ‘!’ but is
my Spanish source, while Purdy almost certainly a bad move. Not
wrote: “Both sides flirt with death”. only does Black fail to spot White’s
Black encounters problems in driving combination at move 38; he misses
home his attack because the pawn his own last winning chance. The ƒ
structure makes it easier for White to looks bad on c7 but it was performing
feed reinforcements to the kingside, a defensive function; the È would be
and in particular because Black’s 30th much better on f7, defending d6/e5
move ceded the fine e4-square to the and attacking the g-pawn.
È. Even so, 32...h5 should probably There are two reasonable moves:
have won if followed up correctly. 36...ƒd7!? may offer Black winning
The alternative 32...ƒd7 looks chances. Considerable complications
sensible, as White has shown himself could arise by 37 …b1 (If 37 …g1
ready to meet ...h5, but it does not ƒg4 38 Ècd2 Èxa5Œ) 37...ƒg4 38
give a clear advantage after 33 Èe4. Ècd2 …xg5 (38...ƒxf3?? 39 Èxf3
33 …h1 …f6 34 Èe4 …h6! traps the †.) 39 Èxg5 †xg5 but 37
Black’s plan is to provoke g4-g5 Èf6!?¢ is possible.
and then attack the pawn. After the Even better, 36...Èd8! (£...Èf7)
alternative 34...…g6, White cannot play was suggested by a Spanish annotator,
35 g5? …xg5+ 36 Èxg5 †xg5+ 37 and it really puts White in trouble.
64 64 Great Chess Games
The Players: Keres (1916-75) was After 4...Èc6 5 dxc5 ƒxc5 6 ƒd3
one of the world’s top half-dozen the strongpoint on e5 gives White the
players from 1938 to the mid-1960s. somewhat better game, said Keres.
The foundations for his success were After losing as Black against Stalda in
laid in a few years of intensive postal this line in a 1934 postal tournament,
chess, developing his tactical flair and he played it in several OTB games
openings knowledge. The pinnacle of with White, e.g. against Fine at the
his CC career was his victory in the 1935 Warsaw Olympiad.
IFSB Championship, with 10/13 in After the alternative 4...cxd4,
a true European championship field. Keres-Euwe, Zandvoort 1936, went 5
His result is all the more impressive †xd4 (5 ƒd3 is the modern gambit
when you consider that he was only treatment, similar to the game.)
19 years old, was playing about 70 5...Èc6 6 †f4?! (6 †g4!?) 6...f5
games at the same time and was also 7 ƒd3 Ège7 8 0–0 Èg6=. Keres
commencing his illustrious OTB ca- only played the line as a gambit
reer while this event was in progress. when Black forced it with this move
Weiss was treasurer of IFSB and order; White cannot now reply 5 dxc5
a Jew. Presumably he did not survive because ...ƒxc5 attacks the f-pawn.
the Holocaust. 5 ƒd3 cxd4 6 0–0 Èc6 (D)
About this game: It is a sad fact that XIIIIIIIIY
anthologies of Paul Keres’ best games 9r+l+kvlntr0
rarely include his best postal games;
we have two of them in this book.
9zpp+-+pzpp0
W
This was a typical attacking game by 9-wqn+p+-+0
the young grandmaster. Black offers a 9+-+pzP-+-0
Dutch (2 c4 f5) but Keres switches to 9-+-zp-+-+0
his pet line against the French. 9+-+L+N+-0
1 d4 e6 2 e4 d5 3 e5 c5 4 Èf3 9PzPP+-zPPzP0
4 c3 is more usual.
4...†b6
9tRNvLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Game 14: Keres-Weiss 67
9 a3
XIIIIIIIIY
White wants the ƒ pair. Other options 9r+lwq-trk+0
here include 9 e3 (maybe best), 9 e4 9zp-+p+-zpp0
†f6 10 0–0–0 b6 (Stahlberg-Kashdan, B9-zpn+p+-+0
Hamburg OL 1930) and 9 g3 d5! 9+-+-+p+-0
(Spielmann-Pirc, 5th match game 1931) . 9-zPP+n+P+0
9...ƒxc3 10 ƒxc3 f5
10...a5, to maintain the È on c5,
9zP-+-+N+-0
has often been played but White obtains 9-vLQ+PzP-zP0
an edge with 11 g3!, as in Stahlberg- 9tR-+-mKL+R0
Nimzowitsch, 3rd & 5th match games, xiiiiiiiiy
Göteborg 1934 (both won by White) and This wild move has two objectives:
Euwe-Evans, Hastings 1949/50. The text to weaken the black outpost on e4 and
move envisages a piece sacrifice to keep to open the g-file for a …, to combine
the white ‡ in the centre. with the b2-ƒ against the focal point
11 b4 g7. However, it creates weaknesses
After 11 e3 a5! 12 ƒe2 (12 b4? and gives Black a tempo for action.
axb4 13 axb4 Èxb4!) 12...†e7 13 a) 13 e3 ƒb7 14 ƒe2 …c8 (=
Èd2 e5! Black had good play in according to ‘ECO’) 15 0–0 Èe7 16
Eliskases-Herzog, corr 1932. …ad1 †e8 17 †a4 Èc6 18 c5 bxc5
11...Èe4 12 ƒb2 19 b5 Èd8 A.W.Dake-H.Steiner,
White wants to justify his previous Mexico City 1935 (0–1, 34) is often
play by keeping his ƒ. 12 e3 was cited, but it is not clear to me that
tried later, e.g. 12...Èxc3 13 †xc3 White is doing badly here; he just
b6 14 ƒd3 ƒb7 (Stahlberg-Alekhine, grabbed the a-pawn (not forced)
Hamburg 1939), or 12...b6 13 ƒb2 and defended badly later. However,
ƒb7 14 ƒd3 †e7! 15 ƒxe4 fxe4 16 14...†e7 is also possible, as in
Èd2 (16 †xe4 Èxb4) 16...†h4 with R.Dührssen-M.Seibold, corr 1941.
counterplay (Meyer-Seibold, corr 1948). b) 13 g3! ƒb7 14 ƒg2 …c8 15 Èd2
12...b6 (Euwe-Mulder, Amsterdam 1933) e.g.
12...d6, to continue with ...e5 and 15...Èxd2 16 †xd2 Èa5! 17 ƒxb7
...ƒe6, is given as equalising in ‘ECO’. Èxb7 18 …c1Ÿ Euwe (cited in ‘ECO’).
Black has a good share of the centre but H.Meyer-B.Rozinov, USSR-Germany
his d-pawn is backward and d5 requires corr 1957-61, continued 18...d5 19 cxd5
watching. The fianchetto, bearing down …xc1+ 20 ƒxc1 †xd5 21 †xd5 exd5
against the white kingside, appealed 22 ƒf4 …c8 23 ‡d2 ‡f7 (½-½, 43).
more to the players of the 1930s. 13...Èxf2!
12...a5 13 b5 Èe7 14 e3 b6 15 Black sacrifices a piece for two
ƒe2 ƒb7= is also in ‘ECO’, but why pawns and White will have to defend
should White develop his ƒ on e2? against a strong attack. Other tries:
13 g4?! (D) a) 13...Èd6 14 0–0–0 and White gets
72 64 Great Chess Games
the type of game he wants (1–0, 49 in ‡g1 and 18...†f4! by 19 ‡e1!. But
Berthoud-Iliesco, Buenos Aires 1931). 17...†h4+ 18 ‡e3 †h6+ 19 ‡f2 is
b) 13...fxg4? 14 †xe4 gxf3 15 an immediate draw by repetition, so it
…g1 …f7 16 0–0–0 and Black is in a is likely that 17 ‡d3 was played as a
precarious position. This was tested in a winning try by White!
few games at the time, e.g. Blum-Baron 17...d5!
von Feilitzsch, corr 1931. If 17...e5?! 18 †d2! †g6+ 19
c) 13...Èg5 14 †c3 (14 ƒg2!?) ‡c3 the white ‡ finds a secure
14...Èxf3+ 15 exf3 †e7 (15...e5!?) position (Marchisotti).
16 gxf5 exf5+ 17 ‡d2 …f6 18 …g1 18 …d1
…d6+ 19 ƒd3 Èd4 20 c5 Èxf3+ 21 This was a dubious innovation in
‡c2 Èxg1 22 cxd6 †g5 23 …e1 ƒb7 this game. Also bad are 18 …xg4? e5
24 …e7 …c8 25 ƒc4+ 1–0 Moller- or 18 Èe5? d4! 19 ƒxd4 (19 Èxg4
Mezgailis, Stockholm OL 1937; a Èe5+!) 19...Èxd4 — von Feilitzsch;
lively if unconvincing “hack”. while 18 †d2 †g6+! 19 ‡c3 †e4
14 ‡xf2 20 †d3? (20 cxd5) 20...gxf3! 21 cxd5
14 …g1 Èxg4 15 h3 Èf6 16 0–0–0 exd5! 22 †xe4 dxe4 23 ‡d2 g6 gave
looks less suicidal but clearly Black is Black a favourable ending in Egli-
doing OK, whereas accepting the Stalda, corr 1933.
piece forces Black to justify his play. Instead 18 †c1 is reckoned to be
14...fxg4 15 …g1 †h4+ 16 ‡e3 critical. Black has two tries here:
Not 16 …g3 gxf3 17 ‡g1 Èd4‰, a) 18...dxc4+ 19 †xc4 (19 ‡xc4
nor 16 ‡g2 gxf3+ 17 ‡h1 Èd4Œ. …f4+ 20 ‡b3 e5) 19...…d8+ when
16...†h6+ (D) according to ‘ECO’ Black has
XIIIIIIIIY an attack and a clear advantage.
9r+l+-trk+0 Marchisotti’s view that this line is
good for White seems doubtful. Play
9zp-+p+-zpp0
W can go 20 ‡c2 (20 ƒd4? …xd4+!)
9-zpn+p+-wq0 20...ƒb7 21 †xg4 (21 …xg4 is
9+-+-+-+-0 probably not good against 21...…ac8
9-zPP+-+p+0 — though White can take on g7,
9zP-+-mKN+-0 Black will hit back on the c-file.)
9-vLQ+P+-zP0 21...Èxb4+! and now:
a1) 22 axb4 …ac8+ 23 ƒc3 (not
9tR-+-+LtR-0 23 ‡b1 …d1+ or 23 ‡b3 †e3+
xiiiiiiiiy and mates) 25...…xc3+! 26 ‡xc3
†e3+ 27 ‡b2 (or 27 ‡c2 ƒe4+)
17 ‡d3!? 27...…d2+! 28 Èxd2 †xd2+ 29 ‡b1
17 ‡f2 is safer and sets a trap: 17... †d1+ 30 ‡b2 †d2+ with a draw
†xh2+? (not 17...gxf3? 18 …xg7+) by perpetual check in Botvinnik-
18 …g2 meeting 18...†h4+ by 19 Miasodov, Leningrad 1931 (though
Game 15: Meyer-Stalda 73
XIIIIIIIIY
with 17 ‡f2 †h4+ 18 ‡e3 †h6+ 9r+l+-trk+0
inserted before 19 ‡d3). 9zp-+-+-zpp0
a2) 22 †xb4!? …ac8+ 23 ƒc3 B9-zpn+-+q+0
ƒxf3 24 exf3 a5 and here Dr Meyer
proposed 25 †c4 “!” (25 …xg7+
9+-+pzp-+-0
†xg7) 25...…xc4 26 ƒxc4 †xh2+ 9-zPP+-+p+0
27 ‡b3 g6 28 ƒxe6+ ‡f8 29 a4 with 9zP-mK-+N+-0
an endgame favourable to White. I 9-vL-wQP+-zP0
don’t believe this, because of 25...b5! 9+-+R+LtR-0
26 †e2 (not 26 †xb5? †d2+ or 26 xiiiiiiiiy
…xg7+ ‡f8!) 26...…xc3+! 27 ‡xc3
†f6+ followed by 28...†xa1 and If 20 ‡e3 d4!+ 21 ‡f2 †h5‰.
Black wins. In this line White should 20...d4+! 21 ‡b3
prefer 24 …d1! which leads to a draw 21 Èxd4 exd4+ or 21...Èxd4
after 24...…xc3+! 25 †xc3 ƒe4+ 26 leaves Black a clear pawn ahead.
…d3 …xd3 27 exd3 †xh2+ 28 ƒg2!. 21...ƒe6!
b) 18...…f4! is stronger. Dührssen- The white ‡ becomes a target
Schmidt, corr 1939, continued 19 again. Black threatens 22...ƒxc4+ 23
†e3 ƒa6 20 Èe1 …d8 21 ƒg2 ‡xc4 Èa5+ and mates, e.g. 24 bxa5
…f3 22 ƒxf3 dxc4+ 23 ‡e4 †g6+ …ac8+ 25 ‡b3 †e6+ (or ...†f7+) 26
24 ‡f4 and now Black could have ‡a4 †c6+ and 27...†c4#.
taken a draw by 24...†h6+ 25 ‡e4 22 Èg5
†g6+ says Marchisotti; but in fact This rules out the ƒ sacrifice by
Black could have won with either preventing a black † check from e6 or
21...Èd4! or 19...e5!‰. White is f7 (as in the last note). If 22 ‡a2 a5!.
also in difficulties after 19 Èe5 ƒb7, 22...b5 23 Èxe6
e.g. 20 Èxc6 ƒxc6 21 ƒe5 †g6+ 23 e4 …xf1 24 …gxf1 ƒxc4+ 25 ‡c2
22 ‡d2 …xc4 23 †b2 …f8, while ƒxf1 26 …xf1 h6 regains the piece.
19 Èd2 can be met by 19...†xh2 or 23...bxc4+ 24 ‡a2 †xe6 25 ‡b1 a5
19...e5. 26 ƒg2
18...e5 If 26 b5 …ab8! 27 a4 c3! 28 ƒxc3
18...d4 £...†g6+ is also strong; (28 †c2? Èb4!) 28...†b3+ 29 ‡a1
White dare not capture on e5 because (29 ƒb2? Èb4 or 29 †b2? †xd1+)
of the reply ...ƒf5+. 29...dxc3‰.
19 †d2 †g6+ 26...axb4 27 ƒxc6
19...…f4!? also comes into If 27 axb4 …a2! and 28...c3.
consideration, but not 19...e4+? 20 27...c3!
‡c2 exf3 21 †xh6 gxh6 22 exf3 This crushes all resistance.
with a superior ending for White 28 ƒxa8 cxd2 29 ƒe4 bxa3 30 ƒxa3
— Marchisotti. †b3+! 31 ƒb2 †e3 32 ƒd5+ ‡h8
20 ‡c3! (D) 33 …g2 d3! 0–1
Game 16
White: Paul Keres (Estonia)
The Players: Keres was introduced in chances right down to the endgame.
Game 14. Dyckhoff (1880-1949) was My analysis reopens the question of
greatly involved as a player, writer and whether Keres missed a win at move
organiser in popularising postal chess 32; I think not, but the reply Dyckhoff
in Germany. IFSB champion in 1930, said he intended would have lost!
he made several important contribu- 1 e4 e5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 ƒb5 a6 4 ƒa4
tions to the development of Tarrasch’s Èf6 5 0–0 Èxe4 6 d4 b5 7 ƒb3 d5
Defence to the Queen’s Gambit, 1 d4 8 dxe5 ƒe6 9 c3 ƒe7 10 ƒe3 0–0
d5 2 c4 e6 3 Èc3 c5, which he played 11 Èbd2
all his life. In 1954-56 a large tourna- Although lines like 9 Èbd2 Èc5
ment was held in his memory, with 10 c3 d4 have become more critical,
about 2,000 players from 30 countries this position is also quite popular and
including a top section (won by GM can arise via 9 ƒe3.
Lothar Schmid) that was as strong as 11...Èxd2
a world championship. Black need not fear the immediate
About this game: This, one of the exchange on e4 and nowadays
most famous drawn games, is also a 11...†d7 is more usual. This move
clash of the generations, and a strug- was played against Keres in another
gle between a CC specialist and a postal game around the same time:
great talent who was fast approaching 12 ƒc2 f5 13 exf6 Èxf6 14 †b1
one of the first peaks of his career, the ƒg4? (14...‡h8!) 15 h3! ƒxh3?!
1938 AVRO tournament. 16 Èg5! (Accepting the sacrifice
This game has been analysed by would be dangerous.) 16...Èg4!?
many people but never completely 17 Èxh3 †d6 18 …e1! d4 19 cxd4
“solved”. After White achieves a †h2+ 20 ‡f1 ƒb4 21 ƒb3+! ‡h8
slight opening advantage and launch- 22 †e4! ƒxd2 23 †xg4 ƒxe1 24
es an attack, Black finds a courageous …xe1 …ae8 25 Èg1 †d6 26 Èf3
defensive plan. Keres declines to take with two ƒs for a … (1–0, 36) Keres-
an easy draw and the resulting struggle G.Friedemann, Estonia corr 1935.
gives both players winning and losing Later Keres proposed 12 …e1.
Game 16: Keres-Dyckhoff 75
White wants to retain the threat the game, but the hasty 25...Èc4?
of fxg6 and build up pressure, while loses in view of 26 Èg4 …xf5 27
Black is trying to create a situation Èf6+ …xf6 28 †xd5+. If 25...†e7
where his passed e-pawn will be White probably does best to play 26
significant. Both sides want to imp- †g4! †f7 27 ƒf4 transposing to the
rove the position of their queenside previous note.
…s and Ès without losing time. 26 †h4!
24...…e5! Heidenfeld wrote: “The peak of
Not 24...ƒe7? 25 f6 ƒd8 26 the attack. White threatens 27 fxg6
Èe3 and 24...†e7 25 †g4! †f7 26 †xg6 28 …f6 followed by †g3+”.
Èe3 …e5 (Better 26...Èc4) 27 ƒf4! However, since the attack does not
simply loses Black a tempo. win, attempts have been made to find
Then Wolfgang Heidenfeld, in a stronger line for White:
his book ‘Draw!’, gave the variation a) Baburin wrote that: “At first it
27...…ee8 (27...…e7 28 ƒxd6 cxd6 seems that the endgame after 26 fxg6
29 f6 …ee8 30 Èf5) 28 ƒxd6 cxd6 †xg6 27 †xg6+ hxg6 28 ƒf4 …e6
29 fxg6 †xg6 but here I disagree 29 Èxd5 is better for White, as his
with his continuation 30 †xg6+ hxg6 pawn structure is more sound. Yet,
31 Èxd5 “and wins” because after after 29...c6 30 Èe3 ƒc5 Black has
31...…e5 Black is back in the game. enough play, threatening to continue
Instead, White should probably with ...ƒxe3 and ...Èc4. If White
play 30 †h4 (30 †d1!?) 30...…e5 tries to stop it by 31 b3 then after
and now 31 …f6 or 31 …ad1. 31...…d8 32 …ad1 …d3 Black is fine
Also, White might do without again.”
ƒxd6, i.e. 27...…ee8 28 fxg6 †xg6 Heidenfeld gave similar play but
29 †xg6+ hxg6 30 Èxd5‹, though instead of 30...ƒc5, he suggested
there’s still a lot of play left. 30...ƒxf4 31 …xf4 …d8 32 …d1 …d3,
25 Èe3 †f7 (D) which seems even better.
Black needs to bring the È into This compares unfavourably for
White with the 24...†e7 25 †g4 †f7
XIIIIIIIIY 26 Èe3 …e5 variation, as there (27
9r+-+-+k+0 ƒf4) 27...…e6! was impossible since
9+-zp-+q+p0 he still had a pawn on f5. Furthermore,
W
9p+-vl-+pvL0 26 †g4(?) here reaches the same
position but with Black to move!
9snp+ptrPwQ-0 b) Heidenfeld gave quite a lot of
9-+-+p+-+0 space to a scornful rebuttal of 26 b3,
9+-zP-sN-+-0 which seeks to shut the black È out
9PzP-+-+PzP0 of c4. This move was recommended
9tR-+-+R+K0 by Dr Edmund Adam in the German
xiiiiiiiiy magazine ‘Caissa’, May 1949. Now:
Game 16: Keres-Dyckhoff 77
This is a critical moment to take Èf5 repeats the position, but instead
stock. White has “won” his opponent’s 34 Èe6! has a threat of mate and
†, but in return Black has …, ƒ and White looks much better here (e.g.
two pawns which is a full material 34...ƒh2+ 35 ‡f2 ƒe5 36 †g5 …h7
equivalent. Each side has an insecure 37 ‡e2!).
‡ position and an undeveloped …. So Black would reply 33...…f8
There are also weak pawns on both 34 †e6+ ‡h7 35 †d7+ ‡h8 36
sides but the passed black e-pawn is a …f1! …h1+ 37 ‡xh1 …xf1+ 38 ‡h2
real danger to White. (D) bringing about what I see as the
32 †g5! critical position for the 32 Èf5 line.
Instead 32 Èg4 ƒc5+ 33 ‡f1 XIIIIIIIIY
Èe3+ (33...…h1+) 34 ‡e2 Èxg4 35 9-+-+-+-mk0
†e6+ ‡g7 36 †d7+ ‡h8 37 †xg4
…f8 38 …f1 …xf1 39 ‡xf1 ƒb6 40
9+-zpQ+-+-0
B
†e6 …h1+ 41 ‡e2 ‡g7 42 †xd5 e3 9p+-+-+p+0
is a line from Heidenfeld’s book. 9+pvlp+-+-0
Dyckhoff said Keres’ move 32 9-+nsNp+-+0
†g5 was probably best, but his 9+-zP-+-+-0
analysis of the alternative 32 Èf5!? 9PzP-+-+PmK0
was deeply flawed. Since 32...gxf5?
33 †xh6 is out of the question, Black
9+-+-+r+-0
must play 32...ƒc5+ and now there xiiiiiiiiy
are two lines.
a) 33 ‡f1 is worth considering, Dyckhoff does not have a perpetual
because after 33...Èe3+ (where check, several of his pawns are
Heidenfeld stops) 34 ‡e2 (34 vulnerable, and the white È threatens
Èxe3?? …f8) 34...Èxf5 35 †e6+ to go to e6 creating mate threats.
Black will lose his ƒ! For example, So Black needs a definite forcing
35...‡h7 (35...‡g7 36 †xd5) 36 continuation. What should he play?
†f7+ (36 †xd5?! …h2) 36...Èg7 37 b1) Dyckhoff said he intended
†xd5 …h2 38 †xc5 (Not 38 †xa8?? 38...ƒd6+? 39 g3 Èe3 (Not 39...
…xg2+ and ...…g1+ wins the a1–….) Èe5? 40 †h3+ picking up the ….) 40
38...…xg2+ 39 ‡e3. However, Black Èe6 Èf5 41 †e8+ ‡h7 42 †f7+
can obtain sufficient counterplay here ‡h6, and here previous annotators
by 39...Èf5+ 40 ‡f4 (40 ‡xe4? examined 43 †g8 (£†h8#)
…e8+) 40...…e8 with a strong passed 43...ƒxg3+ 44 ‡g2 …f2+ 45 ‡g1
e-pawn and play against the exposed ‡h5 46 †h7+ Èh6 when 47 Èg7+!
white ‡. ‡g5 48 Èe6+ draws by perpetual
b) Therefore 33 Èd4 is the main check, but overlooking the defence
try, which has received the most 43...ƒe5! stopping all threats (e.g. 44
attention: Now if 33...ƒd6 then 34 Èf8 ƒxg3+ 45 ‡h3 …h1+ 46 ‡g2
Game 16: Keres-Dyckhoff 79
b) 33 Èxc4? bxc4 34 †xd5 …f8. but will also lose after 43 †h5+ ‡g8
Here Dyckhoff’s notes say the game 44 †xe5 c6 45 †e6+ and †xc6.) 43
will end in perpetual check, but Black †h5+ ‡g8 44 †xd5+ and †xa8.
is winning easily. 34...…f8 threatens 38 †f6+ ‡h7 39 †h6+ ‡g8 40
35...ƒh2+ 36 ‡h1 ƒf4+ 37 ‡g1 †g5+ ‡h8
ƒe3#, while if 35 g4 (or 35 g3) Against correct defence, Keres has
35...…h3! followed by 36...…g3+ and been unable to break down the black
White will soon have to give up his † position. However, he did not want
to avoid mate. to take the immediate draw since
c) 33 †xd5? …f8 is another line he can probe a bit more. That suited
which Dyckhoff says is a draw, but Dyckhoff too, as Black can set his
actually wins for Black, for if 34 Èg4 own traps.
…h5! enables ...ƒc5+. 41 †xd5!? (D)
Even after the move given by XIIIIIIIIY
Dyckhoff, namely 34...Èe3, White 9r+-+-+-mk0
is losing. Presumably he was thinking
of 35 Èxe3 ƒh2+ but this leads to
9+-zp-+-+-0
B
mate, not a perpetual; i.e. 36 ‡h1 9p+-+-+-+0
ƒf4+! 37 ‡g1 ƒxe3#. 9+pvlQ+-+-0
33...ƒc5+ 34 ‡f1 …h1+ 9-+n+p+N+0
Black could decline the … offer. 9+-zP-+-+-0
After 34...Èe3+ 35 Èxe3 …h5 9PzP-+K+P+0
36 †g4 ƒxe3 37 ‡e2 ƒb6 38 …f1
it’s Black who may need to be careful
9tr-+-+-+-0
according to Baburin. Dyckhoff’s xiiiiiiiiy
analysis continues 38...…g8 39 …f7+
(possibly not best) 39...…g7 40 …f8 Keres finds the best way to keep
ƒc5 and his final comment was “but the game going. In other lines it is
in this variation, White has more risky for White to spurn the perpetual
winning chances”. check, e.g. 41 Èe5 …f8 and if 42
So Keres would have welcomed Èg6+?! ‡h7 43 Èxf8+ ƒxf8 44
34...Èe3+ as giving Black an opp- †f5+ ‡g7 (Heidenfeld), or 41 †h6+
ortunity to go wrong. ‡g8 42 †g6+ ‡h8 and if 43 Èh6?
35 ‡e2 …xa1 36 †h6+ …f8 44 Èf7+ …xf7 45 †xf7 ƒd6.
36 Èf6+ ‡g7 37 Èh5+ ‡h7 is The main alternative was 41
just a draw, as Dyckhoff pointed out. Èf6 …h1 42 Èh5 ƒf8 and now if
36...‡g8 37 †xg6+ ‡h8! 43 †xd5!? (43 †f6+ still draws.)
Dyckhoff avoided a trap here: Black can choose between the safe
37...‡f8? 38 †f6+ ‡g8 39 Èh6+ 43...…b8 44 b3 Èd6 45 †e5+ ‡h7=
‡h7 40 Èf5! ƒf8 41 †f7+ ‡h8 (Dyckhoff), and 43...c6!? leading to
42 Èh4! ƒg7? (42...Èe5 is better a messy ending where Black has a
Game 16: Keres-Dyckhoff 81
5 Èa3!? ƒe6!, e.g. 6 Èg5 ƒd5 7 e4 against Smyslov (Moscow 1956; 1-0,
ƒc6 8 Èxc4 h6 (Dizdar-Korchnoi, 40) although, in a later game, Malich
Sarajevo 1984). got a draw.
5 cxd5! cxd5 6 †b3 (D) a2) 9...ƒb4?! 10 0–0 0–0 11 …ac1
XIIIIIIIIY †d7 12 e4 ƒg6 13 Èe5 Èxe5 14
9rsn-wqkvl-tr0 ƒxe5 ƒxc3 15 †xc3 dxe4 16 ƒxf6
gxf6 17 dxe4 e5 18 f4‹ (1–0, 46)
9zpp+-zppzpp0
B Barcza-Kopetzky, Baden-Vienna
9-+-+-sn-+0 1961.
9+-+p+l+-0 a3) 9...Èd7 10 0–0 Èc5 11 †d1
9-+-+-+-+0 f6?! 12 e4 dxe4 13 dxe4 ƒg4 14
9+Q+-+NzP-0 h3 ƒh5 15 e5‹ (1–0, 33) Barcza-
9PzP-zPPzPLzP0 E.Nievergelt, Belgrade 1954.
b) 6...Èbd7 7 Èc3 e5 8 Èxd5
9tRNvL-mK-+R0 Èc5 9 Èxf6+ †xf6 10 †e3 Èe6
xiiiiiiiiy 11 d3 ƒd6 12 0–0 0–0 13 ƒd2 Èd4
14 …ac1 ƒe6 15 ƒc3 Èc6 16 a3 h6
Black already faces an awkward 17 d4 and Black has nothing for the
choice. sacrificed pawn (Barcza-Rossolimo,
6...†c7?! Leipzig OL 1960).
This move soon loses a tempo, c) 6...†b6 7 †xb6 axb6 8 Èc3
and in later years 6...†c8 was mostly Èc6 9 d3 e6 10 ƒf4 (More energetic
played. You cannot blame Balogh for is 10 Èb5! Portisch-Smyslov, Wijk
getting it wrong. This was probably aan Zee 1974.) 10...ƒc5 11 0–0 was
one of the first, if not the earliest, another line where Barcza won several
game where what came to be known games, e.g. against Gawlikowski,
as the Barcza System was employed. Sczawno Zdroj 1950.
Anyway, Barcza almost always won d) 6...ƒc8 7 d3 Èc6 8 ƒf4 e6 9
from this position, whatever Black Èc3 ƒd6 10 ƒxd6 †xd6 11 Èb5
did. Here are some examples: †e7 12 …c1 0–0 13 Èbd4 ƒd7 14
a) 6...†c8 7 Èc3 e6 8 d3 Èc6 9 0–0Ÿ (1–0, 48) Barcza-Rossolimo,
ƒf4 and now: Venice 1949.
a1) 9...ƒe7 10 0–0 (10 Èb5 0–0 11 7 Èc3 e6 8 d3! Èbd7 9 ƒf4 †b6
Èd6 ƒxd6 12 ƒxd6 …d8 13 ƒf4Ÿ 10 †xb6!
Botvinnik) 10...0–0 11 …ac1 †d7 10 Èb5? allows Black to simplify
12 e4 (12 Èe5!? Korchnoi-Karpov, by 10...Èc5! 11 Èc7+ †xc7!.
15th match game 1974) 12...dxe4 13 10...Èxb6 11 0–0 a6 12 …ac1 ƒe7
dxe4 Èxe4 14 Èxe4 ƒxe4 15 Èe5 13 e4! dxe4 14 dxe4 ƒxe4 15 Èxe4
Èxe5 16 ƒxe4 Èc6 17 …fd1 †c8 Èxe4 16 Èd2! Èc5
18 †a4 and Barcza proved that his If 16...Èxd2 17 ƒxd2 Èd5 18
initiative is worth more than the pawn ƒxd5 exd5 19 …c7 …d8 20 …xb7
88 64 Great Chess Games
…d7 21 …b6 …d6 22 …b8+ …d8 and …dc1 Ècd3 27 …b1 — Barcza.
White achieves nothing. However, 20 23 …fd1
ƒa5! wins the pawn back with a clear Black has two pawns for the
advantage since 20...…d7? 21 …c8+ exchange but the white …s are very
ƒd8? 22 …e1+ ‡f8 23 ƒb4+ mates. active and the black Ès somewhat
17 ƒe3 insecure. Rather than castle, Balogh
According to the book ‘Reti tries to claim more space and establish
Opening’ by Viacheslav Osnos, White an outpost on d4.
already has a clear advantage here. 23...e5!?
17...…c8 18 Èc4 Èd5 (D) 23...Èe4 24 f3 Èf6 25 ‡f2 h6
XIIIIIIIIY was a suggested improvement from
9-+r+k+-tr0 Barcza. If 23...0–0 24 Èd7.
24 ƒe3 Èe6 25 …d7 Èed8 26
9+p+-vlpzpp0
W …cd1 f5
9p+-+p+-+0 If 26...0–0 Barcza indicated 27 …c7
9+-snn+-+-0 £ 28 …dd7. A more incisive option
9-+N+-+-+0 is 27 Èd5!, which wins material:
9+-+-vL-zP-0 27...ƒf6 28 ƒc5 …e8 29 Èc7, or
9PzP-+-zPLzP0 27...ƒb4 28 Èxb4 Èxb4 29 ƒc5,
or 27...ƒa3 28 …d3 ƒb4 29 Èxb4
9+-tR-+RmK-0 Èxb4 30 …xd8.
xiiiiiiiiy 27 Èc8 ƒf6 28 ƒb6 Èd4 (D)
XIIIIIIIIY
Up to here, it might seem that 9-+Nsnk+-tr0
White has only a minimal advantage,
but Barcza was in his element. His
9+p+R+-zpp0
W
first objective had probably been to 9pvL-+-vl-+0
curtail Black’s ambitions and achieve 9+-+-zpp+-0
an edge that he could work with in a 9-+-sn-+-+0
simplified situation. 9+-+-+-zP-0
19 b4! 9P+-+-zP-zP0
Since 19...Èd3 is answered by 20
Èd6+, Black must take on b4 but this
9+-+R+-mK-0
costs him the exchange. Black obtains xiiiiiiiiy
nominally sufficient compensation,
but Barcza has judged that this is a This strong È placement has
position where the …s can dominate. been bought at the price of White’s
19...Èxb4 20 Èb6 …c7 21 ƒf4 queenside piece invasion. Can Barcza
…c6 22 ƒxc6+ Èxc6 make a concrete gain in that region?
If 22...bxc6 23 ƒe3 Èbd3 24 If Black could liquidate the white a-
…c3‹, e.g. 24...0–0 25 …d1 Èb2 26 pawn, he might have a draw but it is
Game 18: Barcza-Balogh 89
XIIIIIIIIY
hard to see how he can do this.
29 …c7 0–0 30 Èe7+ ‡h8
9RtR-vl-tr-+0
The ƒ is needed to hold key points 9+-+-+-zpk0
like e5 and g7. If 30...ƒxe7 31 …xe7 9-+-+n+-+0
W
and a pawn will soon be lost. 9zp-+Nzpp+p0
31 Èd5! 9-+-+-+-+0
If 31 ƒxd4 exd4 32 Èxf5 Èe6 9+-+-+-zP-0
33 …xb7 …d8 (Barcza) and the passed
pawn offers some hope, although
9P+-+-zP-zP0
it is still doubtful whether Black 9+-+-+-mK-0
could hold the ending in the long xiiiiiiiiy
run because of the weakness of his 39 …xf8 Èxf8 40 …xf8 ƒd6
a-pawn (34 …b6). Not 40...‡g6?? 41 …c8 and the ƒ
31...È8e6 is lost; equally 40...g6 is impossible,
The outpost must be maintained, so Black cannot defend the f-pawn.
even at the cost of the b-pawn. Black 40...f4 is also insufficient in view
will still have one pawn for the of 41 gxf4 (or 41 …f7) 41...exf4 42
exchange. …f7 and another of the black pawns
32 …xb7 h5 must fall: 42...ƒb6 (42...ƒd6? 43 …
Against 32...ƒd8 White intended f5) 43 ‡g2 (better than 43 …f5 ‡g6)
33 …b1 Èc6 34 Èb4. 43...‡g6 44 …d7! (44 …xf4 would
33 ƒxd4! also be good enough) and Black has
Barcza decides to let the ƒ live no good move.
and force off a pair of …s instead — 41 …xf5 ‡g6 42 …f3 a4
excellent judgment, as his remaining Balogh makes a final attempt to
… can control the width of the board. create a compact formation where
If 33 Èxf6 …xf6 (the point of the everything can be defended but this
last move) and Black may defend his is doomed once the white ‡ gets into
a-pawn along the rank. the action.
33...Èxd4 43 …c3 ‡f5 44 …c4! a3 45 f3 g5 46 h3
33...exd4? 34 …b6 costs a pawn. In order to take control of g4
34 …db1 ‡h7 35 …b8 ƒd8 36 …a8 (preventing any slight annoyance with
a5 37 …bb8 Èe6 (D) ...g5-g4) so that White can force the
White now forces a simpler winn- black ‡ back (with g3-g4+) under the
ing endgame by a typical combinative most favourable circumstances.
liquidation. 46...ƒe7 47 ‡f2 h4 48 g4+ ‡e6 49
38 Èc7! ƒxc7 ‡e3 ‡d5 50 ‡d3 ƒd6 51 …a4 ƒe7
If 38...ƒxc7 39 …xf8 Èxa8 40 52 …a5+ ƒc5 53 ‡c3 ‡c6 54 ‡c4
…xf8. ƒd6 55 …a6+ ‡d7 56 ‡d5 1–0
Game 19
White: Cecil J.S. Purdy (Australia)
(33 …xa8 …xa8 34 †b8+ ‡g7 35 are misleading because Black could
†b2+ f6å) 33...†f3 (33...Èf3+ 34 now have played a move that not
‡h1) 34 ‡f1 Èf5 35 ‡e1 (35 …d3? only would have kept the draw in
Èxg3+!‰) 35...Èxe3 36 †xe3 hand but also in practice (if not for
might give drawing chances. certain) would almost certainly have
XIIIIIIIIY won the game — and the world
9r+-+r+k+0 championship!
In the diagram position, there
9zPR+R+p+-0
B are at least four “candidate moves”
9-+p+-+-+0 for Black: 31...e3, 31...†xc5,
9+-vL-+qzp-0 31...Èf3+?! (the fatal move actually
9-+P+p+-sn0 played by Napolitano) and 31...hxg2.
9+Q+-+-+p0 (Note that 31...Èxg2? is no good
9-+-+-zPPzP0 because after 32 …xf7 †c5?? White
has a forced mate beginning …g7+.)
9+-+-+-mK-0 However, in ‘How Purdy Won’ and
xiiiiiiiiy in other sources where this game is
annotated, you will only find analysis
We now reach a point where the of the first three of those moves.
published comments of the players do It is evident that neither during the
not easily tally with the realities of the game, nor immediately afterwards nor
situation as analysed by 21st century many years later did either player see
masters with the aid of computers. In 31...hxg2! as a real possibility. Yet
‘ASPC’s Guide to Correspondence it is such an obvious move, which
Chess’, Purdy says “in playing this, modern computers quickly select
I almost resigned myself to a draw, as best, that surely they must have
and yet I realised that a player examined it?
of Napolitano’s style is usually Can it be that both thought it had
optimistic, so I had good hopes of his an obvious refutation, so obvious that
going after a win”. How is this remark it wasn’t worth mentioning in their
to be reconciled with the true situation annotations? No such refutation exists
that White was close to lost? and it is hard to imagine what it could
Frank Hutchings and Kevin be. I suspect that subconsciously they
Harrison, the editors of the book ‘How both thought Black needed to keep the
Purdy Won’, explain: “Dr Napolitano white ‡ confined to the back rank, to
thought he could probe a little, still create mating threats there, and ...hxg2
keeping the draw in hand. Purdy did not fit in with that concept.
welcomed this, since he believed it First, let us look at the moves the
would turn the scales in his favour”. players did consider. Then I will show
That is indeed what happened. the actual end of the game and finally
However, all these comments I will analyse 31...hxg2.
Game 19: Purdy-Napolitano 93
the wrong position in his game with †e3 (41 †g3 does not offer much
Graham Mitchell of England, as a either.) 41...†f5 42 f3 (as given in
result of which he knew he was going ‘How Purdy Won’) Black has 42...
to lose that game and really needed to …fe8 43 †c1 †d5= or 43 †f2 †f4=
win this one. and sets the trap 43 …b8?? †xb1+!
Purdy later wrote that, had this 44 …xb1 …xe3 45 …b8+ …e8‰.
game already been out of the way 38 …b3 †e5 39 †xh3 †f4
as a draw, “I should almost certainly Napolitano later thought there
not have made my subsequent quasi- were drawing chances by 39...†e2+
clerical blunder against Mitchell”. 40 ‡g2 …e4 41 …g3 g4 but 42 †h5
That remark does not get to the full (even stronger than 42 †h6ˆ, given
truth either. In ‘How Purdy Won’, in ‘How Purdy Won’) wins easily,
Harrison proves that Mitchell was e.g. 42...…e6 43 …xf7 †e4+ 44 ‡h2
probably winning that game anyway! …xf7 45 a8†+.
At this point, Napolitano made a After the text move, wrote Purdy:
final error, which eased Purdy’s task “I wrote out analysis for 20 possible
considerably. 40th moves. At first I could not make
XIIIIIIIIY any of them win. Finally I found a
9-+-+rtrk+0 curious one.” If the queen captures
the c-pawn on c5 instead of c4, Black
9zP-+R+p+-0
B will soon run out of checks.
9-+p+-+-+0 40 c5!! †c4+
9+-+-wq-zp-0 If 40...†c1+ 41 ‡g2 …e1 then
9-+P+-+-+0 42 †f3! and if 42...…h1 43 †xf7+!
9+-+-+Q+p0 followed by promoting the a-pawn.
9-+-+-zP-zP0 41 ‡g2 …e4
The ‘curious win’ was by 41...†xc5
9+R+-+K+-0 42 †h6! g4 (to stop …h3) 43 …g3
xiiiiiiiiy …e4 44 †h4 and if then 44...†f5
45 …d8. However, 44 †f6 (£ 45
37...†xh2? a8†) also works: 44...†e5 45 †xe5
Napolitano is trying to mobilise his …xe5 46 …xg4+ ‡h8 (46...‡h7 47
h-pawn, but he possibly could have …xf7+) 47 …d3 …h5 48 …b3 and 49
saved the game with 37...†e6 when …b8, with an amusing line 48...‡h7
the key move for White is 38 …db7! 49 …b8 …a5 50 a8†! (50 …xf8ˆ)
e.g. 38...†xc4+ 39 ‡g1 and now: 50...…xa8 51 …b3 and …h3#.
a) 39...g4 40 †f5! †e2 41 …f1 42 †f5 †xb3
…e5 42 †f4 …a5 43 …b8! †f3 44 This accelerates the defeat but if
†xf3 gxf3 45 ‡h1!ˆ. 42...…g4+ 43 …g3 …xg3+ 44 ‡xg3
b) White probably cannot win after †c1 45 ‡g2 and 46 a8† decides
39...†e6 40 †c3 …a8 because if 41 the game.
96 64 Great Chess Games
…8b2+ winning a …, Heidenfeld’s White can force a draw or try for more
alternative 27 Èb1 c3 actually seems with no assurance of success:
less disastrous. a) 29 …xh7 leads to a fairly
25...fxg6 26 †e1 (D) straightforward perpetual check: 29...
XIIIIIIIIY ‡xh7 (or 29...…xb2 30 …xg6+ ‡xh7
9-tr-+l+k+0 31 †h4+ ‡xg6 32 †g4+ etc.) 30
†h4+ ‡g7 31 †e7+ ‡h8 32 …h2+
B
9+r+-+-vlp0 ‡g8 33 †e6+ ‡g7 34 †e7+.
9p+-zp-snpvL0 b) 29 Èa4!? and now if 29...Èc5
9+-+PzpP+-0 anyway then 30 Èxc5 †xc5 31 †c3
9-+pwqP+-+0 (threatens a breakthrough with f3-f4)
9+-sN-+P+-0 31...…g7 leaves the d1-ƒ restricted by
9PzP-+-+R+0 its own pawns. If 32 ƒe2? ƒxe4 33
…xg7+ ‡xg7, but White can target the
9+-mKLwQ-+R0 c4-pawn more slowly and maybe get a
xiiiiiiiiy plus by 32 …hh2! followed by 33 …c2.
However, 29...‡g7! 30 …hh2 (30 …d2
Heidenfeld praises this move, and †a7 31 …dh2 †d4 repeats) 30...Èf6
there doesn’t seem to be anything may be safe for Black, activating his
better. If White prevaricates, Black È while White’s is offside, e.g. 31
will strengthen his attack with …d2 †a7 32 …c2 …b4¢.
...Èd7-c5. If 26 †g5, hoping for 27 ƒe3 Èc5 28 ƒc2
26...Èd7 27 fxg6 ƒxg6 28 ƒxg7 Essential, although it interferes with
Èc5 (28...‡xg7? 29 …xh7+ mates) the defence of b2. Not 28 ƒxd4??
29 …xh7! Èd3+ 30 ‡b1 …xb2+ Èd3+ 29 ‡b1 (29 ‡d2 …xb2+) 29...
31 …xb2 …xb2+ 32 ‡a1ˆ, then Èxe1 30 …xe1 exd4‰.
26...…xb2! 27 …xb2 †xc3+ 28 …c2 White offered the conditional
†a3+ 29 ‡d2 †d3+ gets at least a “if 28...Èd3+ then 29 ƒxd3”, but
draw (30 ‡e1? Èxe4!). Gumprich saw the trap (though
26...Èd7!? his analysis was inaccurate). After
This move gets two exclamation 29...†xd3 play can go:
marks from previous annotators, but a) 30 …d2?? †xc3+ 31 bxc3 …b1+
is it not too good to be true? I expect 32 ‡c2 …8b2# was the bait.
that both men were playing for a win! b) 30 …c2 “followed by …h1–h2-
Gumprich’s notes say he had sought the d2” (Gumprich), but Heidenfeld
coming complications when he played pointed out that Black could free his
...†d4 and it is indeed these that give † by 30...gxf5 31 …hh2 f4.
the game its special character. c) White’s correct continuation is
I am surprised Heidenfeld did not 30 fxg6! ƒxg6 and only now 31 …c2
analyse 26...ƒxh6+ 27 …xh6 Èd7 (Heidenfeld) e.g. 31...ƒf6 32 …hh2
(£...Èc5-d3+) 28 fxg6 ƒxg6, when ƒe8 33 …hd2 ƒh4 34 †g1+ …g7 35
Game 20: Sanz-Gumprich 101
…g2 …bb7 36 …cd2 and the jaws of 32 ‡d1 d3!? — see 31 ‡d1 below)
the trap finally close on the black †. 32...Èd3+ (If 32...dxc3 33 †xh5
28...…xb2! ƒxf4+ 34 ‡d1 or 32...dxc3 33 …h3.)
Planned since move 24; White had 33 ‡d1 Èxf4 34 …g5! dxc3 35
overlooked the † sacrifice and there †xf4ˆ.
is no choice but to accept it. b) 31 †e7!? dxc3 32 ‡d1 (32
29 ƒxd4 exd4 30 †h4 (D) …hg1? ƒa4!‰) 32...ƒd4! (32...
Black has only a ƒ and pawn for …xa2 33 †xd6 Èd7 34 …hg1 …bb2
his † at present, but White must 35 †e6+ seems good for White) when
still be very careful. For example, 30 the position is very messy but Black
Èd1 would have led to insuperable may have sufficient play to draw,
difficulties after the simple 30... e.g. 33 †xd6 …2b6 34 †c7 Èd3
…xa2‰ (Heidenfeld) followed by and perpetual check is in the air after
...c3. 30...…xc2+!? 31 …xc2 Èd3+ such (unforced) continuations as 35
is less clear. f6 …8b7 36 †c8 …b1+ (36...‡f7!?)
XIIIIIIIIY 27 ƒxb1 …xb1+ 38 ‡c2 …b2+. Or
9-tr-+l+k+0 if first 33 f6 …2b7 34 †xd6 …b6 35
†f4 then 35...…b1+ 36 ‡e2 …1b2 37
9+-+-+-vlp0
B …d1 Èd3 (not 37...…xc2+ 38 ‡f1
9p+-zp-+p+0 …xg2 39 f7+!ˆ) 38 †c7 ƒxf6 39
9+-snP+P+-0 ‡f1 …2b7 and the … will return to b2
9-+pzpP+-wQ0 after the † retreats.
9+-sN-+P+-0 c) The prophylactic 31 ‡d1!? is also
9PtrL+-+R+0 possible; this side-step will be necessary
very soon anyway. Then 31...dxc3 32 f6
9+-mK-+-+R0 reaches the note to White 32nd move in
xiiiiiiiiy the game. Or Black can try 31...d3!? 32
f6 ƒh6 when White does not have an
30...dxc3 immediate kingside breakthrough so the
This is an interesting moment passed obscure fight goes on; e.g. 33 f4! dxc2+
over by previous commentators. Gum- (33...‡h7!?) 34 …xc2 Èd3 35 …xb2
prich says the È must be captured …xb2 (£...ƒxf4 and …d2#) 36 …h2!
because it is an important defender in …xh2 37 †xg2 ƒxf4 38 †g1 ƒe5,
some lines. But it cannot run away and and although Black has two strong ƒs
Black could have first played 30...h5!?, for the †, I suspect there should be a
with three possibilities: way for the † to triumph in the end.
a) 31 f6! is simplest, transposing to 31 f6!
the game after 31...dxc3 or 31...Èd3+ Black allowed the obvious 31
32 ‡d1 dxc3 33 fxg7 ƒa4. Black †xh7+!? ‡f8 because he believed
can try 31...ƒh6+!?, but this seems it to be a blind alley and White
insufficient after 32 f4! (Better than avoided it for the same reason. The
102 64 Great Chess Games
The Players: Yakov Estrin (1923-87), this particular clash is memorable for
was at this time an international mas- his delicate endgame play. Analysis
ter well known for his writings, most- in this game is based on Estrin’s
ly on classical 1 e4 e5 open games and own notes and the less useful ones by
gambits. Estrin divided his energies R.Mari™ in ‘Informator 2’.
between OTB and postal play and 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Èc3 ƒb4 4 e5 c5 5
his results were therefore somewhat †g4 Èe7 6 dxc5 Èbc6 7 ƒd2
erratic. His main CC achievement As a professional writer, Estrin
up to this time had been a tie for first was at a disadvantage in that his
place in the 5th USSR Championship. published views and analysis could
He later won the 7th CC World Cham- be used against him. I know from
pionship — under somewhat contro- my own experience that this can lead
versial circumstances, discussed in the to the choice of an inferior, or less-
notes to Game 32. explored alternative, in order to avoid
Horst Rittner, still an active grand- the opponent’s preparation, and that is
master and now in his seventies, went what happened to Estrin here.
on after this event to become the 6th In two articles he had examined
CC World Champion. He has achieved the possibility 7 Èf3, as played
more ICCF grandmaster norms than in a game Bronstein-Boleslavsky,
any other player: 10 so far. Kiev 1944. Estrin suspected that his
About this game: The Ragozin Me- opponent was acquainted with this
morial was an elite tournament held in analysis and so he chose a quiet line
memory of the 2nd CC World Cham- instead. Indeed, Aarseth-Rittner in
pion. Rittner won it with 8/10, two the 6th World Championship, 1968,
clear points ahead of Estrin and the saw summary execution by 7...d4! 8
3rd World Champion, O’Kelly. Rittner ƒb5 †a5 9 ƒxc6+ bxc6! 10 †xg7
worked as a chess editor for the Berlin …g8 11 †xh7 ƒa6! 12 Èg5 ƒxc3+
publishing house and had access to 13 ‡d1 0–0–0 14 Èxf7 d3! 0-1 (15
the latest theory, which made him a Èd6+ …xd6! 16 exd6 †a4 17 b3
very dangerous opponent. However, †g4+ and wins).
106 64 Great Chess Games
pawns on the kingside but first he has played in Estrin-N.Kopylov, USSR Cht
to solve the problem of developing his 1953, and many other games. According
pieces in a cramped space. to the book ‘Caro-Kann’ by A.Veits and
7...ƒe7 A.Konstantinopolsky (Moscow 1983)
Konstantinopolsky’s move order “Black can fight for the initiative”.
was probably influenced by a belief Now S.Toldaev-L.Gusev, from the 10th
that he could improve upon 7...Èe4 8 USSR CC Cht 1991, continued 12 Èe5
ƒb5! Èxc3 9 bxc3 ƒd7 10 0–0 ƒe7 †c7 13 f3!? (a pawn sacrifice to get
11 ƒf4 b6?! 12 †a4 …c8 13 c4‹ play on the dark squares and the c-file)
(1–0, 23) Dubinin-V.Bergraser, 4th CC 13...Èxc5 14 ƒf4 ƒd6 15 …ac1 …b8
World Ch 1962. It is often a good idea 16 †d2. While this is an interesting
to encourage opponents to repeat lines idea, it is not so clear and I expect that
where they have had an easy success, Black would have found something,
because they may be uncritical. e.g. 16...Èa6 now, instead of Gusev’s
8 ƒb5 0–0 16...ƒd7?.
‘ECO’ and ‘NCO’ instead rec- 9...Èe4 10 0–0
ommend an unconvincing line: 8... In an OTB game in Finland, double
ƒd7 9 ƒxc6 (White usually prefers CC world champion Tõnu Õim played
9 0–0 0-0 10 …e1 and has had good 10 ƒxc6 Èxc3 (10...bxc6!?) 11 bxc3
results with it.) 9...ƒxc6 10 Èe5 bxc6 12 †a4 †e8 13 0-0 f6 16 …fe1
(This is also not forced.) 10...Èd7! g5 with a messy position, (1-0, 60)
11 Èxc6 bxc6 12 0–0 (Z.Franco- Õim-Mertanen, Savonlinna 1990.
M.Voiska, Zaragoza 1993) 12...e5 13 10...g5! (D)
ƒe3 0–0 14 b4 ƒf6= — Voiska. XIIIIIIIIY
9 ƒf4 9r+lwq-trk+0
Instead of this, theory now
recommends 9 0–0 Èe4 when:
9zpp+-vlp+p0
W
a) 10 ƒxc6 Èxc3 11 bxc3 bxc6 12 9-+n+p+-+0
†a4‹ (Foltys-Opocensky, Munich 9+LzPp+-zp-0
1941) is cited, for example, in the 9-+-zPnvL-+0
book on the Caro-Kann by Egon 9+-sN-+N+-0
Varnusz. However, that example is 9PzP-+-zPPzP0
very misleading and I think Black is
OK here. After 12...†c7 13 Èe5?!
9tR-+Q+RmK-0
ƒxc5! 14 dxc5 †xe5 15 †xc6 and xiiiiiiiiy
here the immediate 15...†e2!? (and
if 16 †xa8 ƒa6 or ...†xf1+) looks Konstantinopolsky wrote that: “Black
stronger than Opocensky’s 15...…b8 can thank the move c4-c5 for making
16 †d6 †e2?, which loses the this advance possible. Black’s centre is
exchange to 17 ƒh6! ƒa6 18 †g3. very secure and the flank attack is not
b) 10 †c2 f5 11 ƒxc6 bxc6 was merely permissible, but necessary.”
Game 22: Dubinin-Konstantinopolsky 111
attention but may not be best. Those where White blundered with 10
readers who want more detail on this …g1?. According to his biographer,
wild gambit should consult my article Valter Heuer, Keres decided to get the
in ‘Chess Mail’ 5/2002. game over with quickly as he had “no
5 Èxd5 ƒg4+ 6 Èf3 Èc6 money for stamps”. Instead, Bangiev
In Mason-S.Rosenthal, Paris 1878, & Hergert suggest 10 †e1!?.
Black played 6...Èa6, which seems The game Littlewood knew was
a reasonable move, defending c7. M.Jago-A.R.B.Thomas, England
6...ƒd6!? is another way of saving the 1954, where White innovated with
…, when 7 d4 Èc6 is the critical line. 10 d4!? Èxf3 11 gxf3 ƒxf3+ 12
7 Èxc7+ ‡xf3 †h5+ 13 ‡g2 †xd1 14 ƒd3
This is the typical move of the †h5 15 ƒxf4 and Dr Jago won after
Mason Gambit. 7 d4 0–0–0 transposes 15...Èe7 (15...Èf6!?) 16 …hf1 f5?
to the aforementioned line of the 17 …ae1 ‡d7 18 …f2 fxe4 19 …xe4
Steinitz Gambit. †d5 20 ƒg3 g6 21 Èc7 †xa2 22 d5
7...‡d8 8 Èxa8 (D) a6 23 …f7 …g8 24 b3 …g7 25 …exe7+
XIIIIIIIIY ƒxe7 26 …xg7 †a5 27 d6 1–0.
9N+-mk-vlntr0 However, Arkhipkin-Klovans, Riga
1974, saw an improvement for Black
9zpp+-+pzpp0
B in 16...Èg6! 17 ƒg3 (17 ƒc7+
9-+n+-+-+0 ‡c8 18 e5 Èh4+ with counterplay)
9+-+-+-+-0 17...ƒe7 (17...Èh4+! 18 ƒxh4+
9-+-+Pzplwq0 †xh4¢) 18 a4? (18 Èc7!¢)
9+-+-+N+-0 18...Èh4+ 19 ‡h2 g5 20 ƒc4 g4 21
9PzPPzPK+PzP0 hxg4 †xg4 and Black won.
a2) Littlewood pointed out that Black
9tR-vLQ+L+R0 can at least draw by 9...ƒxf3+ 10 gxf3
xiiiiiiiiy †g3, i.e. 11 d4! †xf3+ 12 ‡e1 †g3+
13 ‡e2 †f3+ with perpetual check is
8...Èd4+!? very old analysis (but not 13...f3+? 14
This was the move Littlewood had ‡d2 ƒb4+ 15 c3 †f2+ 16 ƒe2 fxe2 17
cooked up 10 years previously. 8...f5!? †xe2 †xd4+ 18 ‡c2ˆ— Bangiev).
9 †e1 “!” (Bangiev & Hergert) is 11 d3!? †xf3+ 12 ‡e1 (not 12 ‡d2??
another hugely complicated line. Èc4+!) 12...†g3+ 13 ‡e2 †f3+
Most theory concentrates on draws too, but in this line 12...†xh1
8...Èe5, which is analysed in more comes into consideration.
detail in my CM article. Then 9 †e1!? 9 ‡d3 †f6!
has been revived recently but White Littlewood wrote that “as a brash
has normally played 9 h3 when: young man” he decided Black could
a) 9...ƒh5 was played in a famous do better than the 8...Èe5 line of
CC miniature Keres-Menke, 1933, Jago-Thomas. He had sent in analysis
116 64 Great Chess Games
“trying to show that after 8...Èd4+ “At this juncture, my thoughts were
White had no way of dislodging gloomy. So I decided to take the bull by
this È. Now, after all these years, I the horns and blast open the white ‡
suddenly had an opportunity to try out position by a fantastic series of moves.”
my line for the first time in a game... 11...ƒc5 12 b4! Èf6 13 bxc5 Èxe4!
Being older and wiser, I was no longer (D)
entirely convinced of my plan.” XIIIIIIIIY
10 c3! 9N+-mk-+-tr0
“The first surprise: this seemingly
innocuous move cleverly leads to the
9zpp+-+pzpp0
W
displacement of my †”. 9q+-+-+-+0
Bangiev & Hergert also suggest 9+-zP-+-+-0
10 b3!? and if 10...†a6+ 11 c4 9-+Psnnzpl+0
White has the extra move b2-b3 on 9+-+K+N+-0
the game, while after 10...Èxf3 9P+-zP-+PzP0
(not 10...Èxb3? 11 cxb3! †xa1 12
†c2) 11 gxf3 †xa1 12 fxg4 White
9tR-vLQ+L+R0
will be a pawn up even without the xiiiiiiiiy
Èa8. M.Fuegert-M.Barz, corr 1998,
saw 10...ƒc5 11 ƒb2 (£b2-b4) Littlewood: “White is faced with
11...†a6+ (If 11...†d6 12 ƒxd4! a difficult choice. Should he capture
ƒxf3 13 †xf3 †xd4+ 14 ‡e2 †xa1 one of the cheeky Ès or plump for the
15 †xf4ˆ — K.Morrison.) 12 c4 apparently safer move of the game?”
Èe7 13 b4! f5 14 bxc5 Èxf3 15 gxf3 14 †e1?!
fxe4+ 16 ‡c3 †a5+ 17 ‡b3 ƒxf3 Contemporary notes give this
18 ƒe2 ƒxh1 19 †xh1 f3 20 ƒxf3 “!” but perhaps this is where White
exf3 21 †xf3 †xc5 22 †xb7ˆ. missed the win.
10...†a6+ 11 c4 If 14 ‡xd4 †f6+ 15 ‡d3 Èf2+
Not 11 ‡xd4 †d6+ and mate in 16 ‡c2 Èxd1 “is enough to win
two: 12 ‡c4 ƒe6+ 13 ‡b5 †a6#. but there may well be better” —
Here Littlewood explained: “Black’s Littlewood. (In this line, White might
game suddenly looks most precarious. consider 15 Èe5.)
If 11...Èe7 12 b4! or 11...ƒb4 12 14 ‡xe4! is critical line, when:
a3! or 11...Èf6 12 ‡xd4! †d6+ 13 a) 14...†f6 15 ƒb2! (15 ‡d3?
‡c3 Èxe4+ 14 ‡c2 Èf2 15 †e2 Èxf3 16 gxf3 ƒf5+ 17 ‡e2 …e8+
ƒf5+ 16 d3 ƒxd3+ 17 †xd3 Èxd3 18 ‡f2 †d4+ 19 ‡g2 …e6 0–1
18 ƒxd3 and White has a won game. Dammkoehler-Romanski, IECG 1995)
This last variation is a good example of 15...ƒf5+ (15...…e8+!?) 16 ‡xf4 ƒc2+
the dangers of Black’s position: White 17 ‡g3 ƒxd1 18 ƒxd4 and Black has
is happy to give up his † if sufficient paid too high a price for the white †.
compensation is forthcoming. b) Littlewood intended 14...…e8+:
Game 23: Jago-Littlewood 117
b1) 15 ‡xd4 †f6+ 16 ‡d3 ƒf5#. crunching has the advantage over
b2) After 15 ‡xf4 he said he was human selective thinking!)
hoping to find a win but had not yet 14...…e8 (D)
found it. It looks to me that 15...ƒxf3! XIIIIIIIIY
16 gxf3 †f6+ draws immediately, 9N+-mkr+-+0
which is clearer than the Bangiev &
Hergert line 15...†g6!? 16 d3 ƒxf3
9zpp+-+pzpp0
W
17 gxf3 f6 18 h4 …e5 (£...Èe6#) 9q+-+-+-+0
because 19 ƒh3 prevents the mate 9+-zP-+-+-0
and after 19...Èe2+ 20 †xe2 Black 9-+Psnnzpl+0
is unlikely to have better than a draw. 9+-+K+N+-0
b3) 15 ‡d3! ƒf5+ 16 ‡c3 †a5+ 9P+-zP-+PzP0
and now:
b31) 17 ‡xd4 …e4+ 18 ‡d3 (18
9tR-vL-wQL+R0
‡d5 ‡c8!‰ — Littlewood) 18...b6! xiiiiiiiiy
£ 19...…e3+ 20 ‡d4 †xc5#. If 19
‡c2 Black mates by 19...…xc4+ 20 15 †xe4
‡b2 †b4+ 21 †b3 …c2+ 22 ‡b1 Dr Jago gives up his † for much
…xd2+ 23 ƒd3 ƒxd3#. An amusing material but misses Black’s 17th move.
corollary is that if instead 18...…e6+? 15 †h4+ g5! was also critical:
19 ‡e4 b6 White can try the insane a) Dr Jago thought afterwards that
20 Ìa3!!? and if then 20...…e4+ he should have played 16 †xg4 Èf2+
(20...†xa3 21 †b3 †xc5+ 22 ‡c3 17 ‡c3 Èxg4 18 Èxd4 with at least
wins) 21 ‡d5 †xa3 22 d4!!ˆ when … and two ƒs for the †. Littlewood
the white ‡ defends halfway down said that “I would not be unduly
the board in front of his pawns! depressed with Black’s position.
b32) White has 17 ‡b2!, which There might even be an improvement
unfortunately wins for him, e.g. with 17...†a5+ 18 ‡xd4 Èxg4
17...†b4+ (or 17...ƒc2 18 †xc2 when Black has mating threats, e.g.
Èxc2 19 ‡xc2 †a4+ 20 ‡c3 †a5+ 19 ƒb2? Èf2 20 …g1 …e4+ 21 ‡d5
21 ‡b3) 18 †b3! Èxb3 19 axb3 ‡c8 22 ƒe5 †a4! 23 Èd4 †d7+ 24
†xc5 20 d4 and White probably has too ƒd6 †e6+! 25 Èxe6 fxe6#.”
much material in the end. I believe this In that line, 20...‡c8! is stronger
book is the first time that the winning immediately. Another possibility
line for White against Littlewood’s is 17...Èd1+! 18 ‡b4 (18 ‡xd4?
ingenious idea has been shown. †f6+ 19 ‡d3 †g6+ 20 ‡d4 †e4#)
In the game White also gives up 18...Èc2+ 19 ‡b3 Èxa1+ 20 ‡b4
the † (albeit for …+È). But 18 Èc2+ with an unusual perpetual.
†b3, just putting the † en prise, b) 16 Èxg5! was the line that
is much more difficult to see. (One worried Littlewood far more, e.g.
example of where computer number- 16...Èxc5+ 17 ‡xd4 (Not 17 ‡c3
118 64 Great Chess Games
WT/M/974, 1964-65
The Players: Sundin (1914-99) was distracting the defenders, while the
a famous pianist and an enthusiastic rest of his pieces break through on the
postal player, who worked his way kingside.
up from Third Class to become a The fact that Black could have de-
CC International Master. He won fended much better at one point does
the tournament in which this game not seriously detract from the origi-
was played (scoring 5½/6) and then nality of the winning attack.
tied first in a World Championship 1 d4 e6 2 e4 d5 3 Èc3 ƒb4 4 e5
semifinal to qualify for the 7th CC †d7 5 ƒd2
World Championship Final. There he White prevents the thematic
finished 9th with 8½ points from 16 doubling of the c-pawn.
games, which seems to have signalled 5...b6 6 f4
his retirement from international play. One of many moves to be tried
The loser Erik Andersson (born June here, but not objectively dangerous.
8, 1917) was also Swedish. 6...Èe7 7 †g4 g6? (D)
About this game: Everyone loves XIIIIIIIIY
a † sacrifice and this game, which 9rsnl+k+-tr0
became known as ‘The Swedish
Immortal Correspondence Game’, was W
9zp-zpqsnp+p0
widely published when it first became 9-zp-+p+p+0
known. For example, it featured in 9+-+pzP-+-0
the book ‘Freude Am Fernschach’ 9-vl-zP-zPQ+0
by Werner Heinrich as an example 9+-sN-+-+-0
of the victory of spirit over material. 9PzPPvL-+PzP0
Certainly the position before the final
move — where Black has two †s and
9tR-+-mKLsNR0
White has none — cannot have had xiiiiiiiiy
many parallels outside the world of
chess composition. White allows his This is usually a serious mistake
† to be trapped on the queenside, when the dark-squared ƒ is outside
Game 24: Sundin-E.Andersson 121
the pawn chain; better 7...Èf5 8 Èf3 white †’s return to the centre and
ƒa6=. thence to the kingside — but White
8 ƒb5 c6 9 ƒd3 ƒa6 10 ƒxa6 doesn’t need the † for the attack!
Èxa6 11 †e2 †b7 12 Èf3 …b8?! 18 f5! Èc4 19 f6 Èc7
Heinrich observes that it is better Black must not let the † out of the
not to speculate about the meaning box: 19...Èa3? 20 †e2 Èxb1? 21
of this secretive move. Alex Dunne, †e3 followed by †h6 and mates.
in ‘Chess Life’ (1996), suggested 20 †b3 †c6
12...ƒxc3 (£...c5) while 12...0–0–0 Dunne and others say 20...Èxd2
was preferred in the Dutch magazine was the only move here. The
‘Schakend Nederland’ and other “official” view of the game is that
contemporary annotations. Black makes a poor position worse by
13 ‡f2 ƒxc3 failing to eliminate the dark-squared
Not 13...c5? 14 Èb5. ƒ. However, Black may have missed
14 bxc3 c5 a draw at move 25, in which case that
Heinrich suggests that it was more opinion must be revised.
urgent to play 14...h5 followed by 21 ƒh6 …fc8 22 h4 a5 (D)
...Èc7 to hold the kingside. Now there is a direct threat of
15 †b5+ 23...a4 to trap the † and if White
This lures the e7-È to c6, so prevents this by 23 a4 then 23...b5
making it easier to advance f4-f5. 24 h5 g5! when, compared with the
15...Èc6 16 …ab1 0–0?! game, Black gets play down the b-file
Castling into the attack was after 25...bxa4.
brilliantly punished in the sequel that XIIIIIIIIY
redeems the rather poor play in the 9-trr+-+k+0
earlier part of the game. While it is true
that improvements for the defence have W
9+-sn-+p+p0
been found lately, in the pre-computer 9-zpq+pzPpvL0
era it is not surprising that Black could 9zp-zppzP-+-0
not defend after this move. 9-+nzP-+PzP0
A more prudent policy (suggested 9+QzP-+N+-0
in several sources) would have been 9P+P+-mK-+0
16...c4 followed by ...Èc7 and the
‡ will find safety on d7, or at once
9+R+-+-+R0
16...Èc7. xiiiiiiiiy
17 g4! Èa5
Heinrich observes that ...Èe7 23 h5! a4
would probably not hold the position 23...g5 is ineffective: White will
any longer in view of h4-h5, so Black parry the threat of ...a4 (by moving
plays for swindling chances on the the b1–…) and then capture the g-
queenside. The idea is to obstruct the pawn at leisure.
122 64 Great Chess Games
The Players: Estrin was introduced three pawns each, apparently offering
in Game 21. Berliner (born in Ger- drawing chances. After the tempestu-
many in 1929) had a distinguished ous crescendos of the preceding play,
academic career and was a pioneer Berliner now treated the chess world to
in writing games-playing computer a “slow movement” in which he forced
programs. A member of the US team the win by delicate manoeuvres. This
at the 1952 FIDE Olympiad, he took endgame will repay careful study.
up postal chess and three times won In recent years there have been
the CCLA Golden Knights before intensive efforts to “bust” Berliner’s
winning the World Championship by variation, which he has resisted by
a record margin of three points. He strengthening Black’s play in several
was recently persuaded out of retire- places. I suspect White is now close
ment to meet all the other living CC to proving a refutation, although Ber-
world champions in an ICCF Jubilee liner himself denies this. If you show
tournament. positions from early in the game to a
About this game: GM Soltis judged computer running commercial soft-
this enduring classic the best game ware, you will almost invariably be
ever played. It also featured in ‘The told White is winning, yet continue
Mammoth book of The World’s down some of Berliner’s lines for a
Greatest Chess Games’ by Burgess, few more moves and you may see the
Emms and Nunn while in 1998-9 program suddenly change its evalua-
‘Chess Mail’ readers voted it the best tion to ‘equals’ or ‘better for Black’.
CC game ever played. I recommend you to play through
This is a symphony in three con- the whole game, skipping the theory
trasting movements, beginning with debates, and come back to them later.
a sensational sacrificial innovation, 1 e4 e5
which Berliner had prepared specially CC means “playing the board,
for Estrin. That was followed by an not the man” but if you know your
extremely dynamic middlegame in opponent’s style and preferences
which White came off worse but man- then opening choices can be made
aged to simplify to a … ending with accordingly. In his other World
Game 25: Estrin-Berliner 125
trying to refute 12 †e2 and his book On the other hand, White has
‘The System’ (Gambit Publications, a shattered pawn structure, his
1998) has mind-boggling analysis of queenside development is nonexistent,
12...ƒe6! (“the only sensible move”) his own ‡ is not particularly safe and
continuing to move 25 and claiming Black threatens ...ƒxg3+. Black is
that Black should at least draw. preparing to open the e-file for a …
However, after 13 †xb5+ ‡d8 check (after driving away the ƒ from
I see nothing wrong with 14 fxe4 b5) and his È is eyeing promising
ƒxg3+ 15 hxg3 †xh1 16 exd5‹ squares on b4 and f4. The next two
(Tait). Also, in his main line 13 fxe4 or three choices for each side will
Èb4! Berliner fails to consider the determine the assessment.
possibility 14 e5!? „c2+ (14...0-0-0 13 0–0
15 d3) 15 ‡d1 ƒg4 (or 15...„xa1 Castling seems obvious but a huge
16 †xb5+ ƒd7 17 †d5) 16 ‡xc2 amount of theory has developed
ƒxe2 17 ƒxe2 which looks ‹. without a firm conclusion in White’s
Since practical tests are lacking, this favour. Although 13 fxg4? ƒxg3+ 14
jury will return the Scottish verdict hxg3 †xh1+ 15 ƒf1 Èb4! 16 Èc3
“not proven”. I expect detailed anal- (better 16 d3!) 16...Èd3+ hardly
ysis of this and some other critical looks playable for White, two other
possibilities to be published by Jona- moves that have been getting serious
than Tait next year in a book he is attention recently.
writing on the Two Knights. a) The move 13 †b3!? (D) is the
12...‡d8 (D) reason why the Hungarian theoretician
XIIIIIIIIY József Pálkövi rejects 8...†h4 in his
9r+-mk-+-tr0 1999 book, though he was apparently
unaware of Dr. Berliner’s privately
9zp-zp-+pzpp0
W published 1998 monograph ‘From
9-+-vl-+-+0 the Deathbed of the Two Knights
9+L+n+-+-0 Defense’ which goes deeper.
9-+-zPp+lwq0 XIIIIIIIIY
9+-+-+PsN-0 9r+-mk-+-tr0
9PzP-zP-+PzP0 9zp-zp-+pzpp0
B
9tRNvLQmK-+R0 9-+-vl-+-+0
xiiiiiiiiy 9+L+n+-+-0
9-+-zPp+lwq0
At this stage, Black has sacrificed a 9+Q+-+PsN-0
piece and a pawn, he has lost the right 9PzP-zP-+PzP0
to castle and a ƒ is en prise. So is
Berliner right to be confident that his
9tRNvL-mK-+R0
attack is worth at least a draw? xiiiiiiiiy
Game 25: Estrin-Berliner 127
c4) 16 ƒxa6 …e8 17 Èc3 gives 26 ‡h2 (Tait) seems OK for White
Black a wide choice of attacking — so a draw may be the right result
possibilities: from the last diagram.
c41) 17...ƒxf3 18 †xf3 †xd4+ c5) 16 ƒf1! (once more, the best
was recommended by E.Heyken & square for the ƒ) and if 16...…e8 17
M.Fette in their 1989 edition of Euwe’s Èc3, we have a similar situation to
Open Game book, but 19 ‡h1 …e1+ line b1 above:
20 „f1 is unclear according Burgess, c51) 17...c6 (the old move, about
while Fritz suggests 19 ‡f1!?‹. which I have serious doubts) 18 d3 f5!
c42) 17...Èb4?! 18 ƒf1! creates a maze of complications again,
(Kasparov & Keene in ‘BCO2’) seems but 19 Èxd5!? seems to require
to defend successfully. Berliner’s old attention, e.g. 19...cxd5 20 ƒd2 …xb2
line 18...ƒxf3 19 †xf3 „c2 20 …b1 21 ƒa5+ ‡d7 22 †c1 (an idea of the
…e1 21 „ce4 „xd4 22 †d3 „e2+?? German CC player Schüler).
misses simply 23 „xe2ˆ (Tait). c52) 17...Èf6!? (Pliester, ‘NIC
c43) In his monograph, Berliner Yearbook 6’) was preferred by
recommends 17...Èf6!! (D). Berliner in his 1998 monograph.
XIIIIIIIIY However, it seems to be afflicted
9-tr-mkr+-+0 with the same flaw as in the line
with an immediate 15 ƒf1, viz.
9+-zp-+pzpp0
W 18 d3 ƒxf3 19 †xf3 Èg4 20 h3
9L+-vl-sn-+0 ƒxg3 21 †d5+!. Another snag is
9+-+-+-+-0 18 „ce2, when Berliner’s 18...ƒxf3
9P+-zP-+lwq0 19 gxf3 „h5 (as per 15 ƒf1 …e8)
9+-sN-+RsN-0 fails because White has 26 …a3!
9-zP-zP-+PzP0 threatening …d3 and wins (Tait).
This brings us back to 16...…b4!?
9tR-vLQ+-mK-0 (by analogy with Berliner’s new line
xiiiiiiiiy against 15 ƒf1, note b2 above) 17
„c3 …xd4 when the inclusion of 15
There are many complicated a4 a6 rules out some of White’s ideas,
variations, e.g. 18 ƒe2 ƒxf3 19 e.g. 18 „b5 or (18 „xd5 …xd5) 19
ƒxf3 †xd4+ 20 ‡h1 ƒxg3 21 †a4. However, 18 †e1!? is still
hxg3 (21 Èe2 †f2) 21...†f2 22 possible, and also there is the unique
Èe2 (22 ƒe2 Èe4) 22...Èe4 23 try 19 ƒxa6!? ƒxf3 20 †xf3 ƒc5
‡h2 Èg5 24 ƒh5 g6 25 d4 gxh5 26 21 „xd5 …f4+ 22 „e3 …xf3 23 gxf3
ƒxg5+ f6 27 ƒxf6+ †xf6 28 …a2 (Tait) with three pieces for the †.
h4‰ Berliner, 1998. There are some d) Finally, there is 15 ƒc6;
possible improvements here — e.g. Berliner says the ƒ will get kicked
23 d3! „xg3+ 24 „xg3 …e1+ (or around a lot after this.
24...†xg3 25 †f1) 25 †xe1 †xe1+ d1) 15...ƒxf3!? is the only move
Game 25: Estrin-Berliner 133
tried in practice, e.g. 16 †xf3 †xd4+ probably simpler, even though the
17 ‡h1 Èb4 18 ƒe4 ƒxg3 19 hxg3 endgame took a lot of work.
…b6 20 †e3Ÿ but Black eventually 17 ‡h1 ƒxg3 18 hxg3 …b6 19 d3
won in two German postal games: Èe3 20 ƒxe3 †xe3 21 ƒg4 h5 22
W.Rehe-Bruder, Germany 1974 and ƒh3 g5
K.Behrendorf-P.Leisebein, 1988. 22...h4? worked in a later game but
d2) 15...„b4 (15...„e7!?) and White should have replied 23 †d2
now 16 ƒa4 c6! 17 „c3 …e8 18 d3 when Black is no longer winning.
(not 18 „ce4? …xe4! 19 „xe4 ƒxf3 23 Èd2 g4 24 Èc4 †xg3 25 Èxb6
20 gxf3 †xh2+ 21 ‡f1 „d3‰) gxh3 26 †f3 hxg2+ 27 †xg2 †xg2+
18...ƒxf3 19 †xf3 †xd4+ seems 28 ‡xg2 cxb6!!
about equal (20 ‡f1 †xd3+), while Black must not allow White to
Fritz’s try 18 „ce2 looks drawn after eliminate more pawns by a4-a5.
18...ƒxf3 19 gxf3 „d3 20 ƒc2 …b5! 29 …f1
21 ƒxd3 …h5 22 f4 †xh2+ 23 ‡f1 A.Lopukhin-A.A.Semeniuk,
…h3 (Tait). Cheliabinsk 1975, reached this pos-
15...ƒxf3 (D) ition too, but how White thought he
After all that theoretical discussion, could improve is a mystery. That
Black has a terrific game. We are game went 29 ‡h3 …e8 30 …f1 …e3+
ready to see how he went on to win. 31 ‡h4 ‡e7 32 ‡xh5 ‡e6 33 ‡g5
XIIIIIIIIY …g3+ 34 ‡f4 …xd3 (0–1, 50 moves).
9-tr-mk-+-tr0 29...‡e7 30 …e1+ ‡d6! 31 …f1
(D)
9zp-zp-+pzpp0
W
9-+-vl-+-+0 XIIIIIIIIY
9+-+n+-+-0 9-+-+-+-tr0
9-+-zP-+-wq0 9z
B
p-+-+p+-0
9+-+-+lsN-0 9-zp-mk-+-+0
9PzP-zPL+PzP0 9+-+-+-+p0
9tRNvLQ+-mK-0 9-+-+-+-+0
xiiiiiiiiy 9+-+P+-+-0
9PzP-+-+K+0
Berliner wrote that the next 14
9+-+-+R+-0
moves were forced on each side. xiiiiiiiiy
16 ƒxf3 †xd4+
Actually 16...…e8!? (Tait) is a seri- 31...…c8!!
ous alternative but I cannot find any Berliner wrote: “One of the best
forced win, or significant improve- moves I have ever made... Instead of
ment for White later in the actual tying down the … to defend the weak
game. So Berliner’s 16...†xd4+ is kingside pawns, Black gives up one
134 64 Great Chess Games
White must withdraw the ƒ to avoid the opponent’s pieces. However, this
tricks like ...Èxe4 and ...d5. The is but the prelude to a Houdini-like
immediate 9 f4 is bad, as Black has display of escapology!
at his disposal the counterblow 9...d5! Rittner, as a professional chess
10 exd5 exd5 11 ƒe2 …e8 12 ‡h1 editor and CC specialist, achieved
ƒa3! 13 bxa3 …xe3Œ (E.Grünfeld- great success by following main
Taimanov, Sczawno-Zdroj 1950). lines (especially in the Ruy Lopez
This is why Bobby Fischer favoured 7 and Sicilian) where he knew all the
ƒb3 when he could meet 7...a6 by 8 latest theory and regularly refuted
f4!? or 7...ƒe7 with ƒe3 and 0–0. misguided attempts by his opponents
9...Èa5 10 f4 ƒd7 to avoid, or improve on, the books. In
10...b6 is the alternative, when this case, however, he met his match.
after 11 e5: Simagin was an original analyst
a) 11...Èe8 12 f5! (Geller’s move, who was often willing to take on
improving on 12 …f3 Èxb3 13 Èc6 the defence of Sicilian positions
†d7!Œ Neikirch-Botvinnik, 1966.) supposedly bad for Black and, by
12...dxe5 13 fxe6 when: giving them a new twist, would
a1) 13...fxe6 should be met by 14 breathe new life into them. Sometimes
…xf8+! according to the recent book these ideas (as is the way with the
on the Sozin by Mikhail Golubev, open Sicilian) might not stand the test
and not 14 Èxe6?! †xd1 15 Èxf8+ of time but would only be effective
Èxb3 16 …axd1 Èd4. for a game or two.
a2) 13...Èxb3! 14 Èc6 †d6 11 †f3 …c8 (D)
and now, since 15 Èd5 is refuted XIIIIIIIIY
by 15...ƒh4! 16 exf7+ …xf7 17 9-+rwq-trk+0
…xf7 Èxa1 18 †f1 ƒf6‰ (Bilek-
Petrosian, Oberhausen 1961) White W
9zpp+lvlpzpp0
seemingly must be content with 9-+-zppsn-+0
15 †xd6 ƒxd6 16 axb3 ƒxe6 17 9sn-+-+-+-0
Èxa7!?, with some advantage in the 9-+-sNPzP-+0
ending (Fischer-Korchnoi, Curaçao ct 9+LsN-vLQ+-0
1962). 9PzPP+-+PzP0
b) 11...dxe5 12 fxe5 Èe8! is
better and has been revived in recent
9tR-+-+RmK-0
years by Ruslan Sherbakov (but not xiiiiiiiiy
12...Èd7? 13 …xf7!).
Instead of all this, with which both 12 g4?!
players were undoubtedly completely Simagin wrote: “This continuation
familiar, Simagin employs a new gives the game great interest. Does
continuation, which allows White White have the right to launch a pawn
the possibility of a strong bind on attack against the ‡? I believe that
Game 26: Rittner-Simagin 137
The Players: Alexander (1909-74) was was also included in the collection
born in Cork, Ireland, but lived nearly of Alexander’s games, edited by Gol-
all his life in England. He was one of ombek & Hartston. Alexander himself
several chess players involved in the was probably the source for most of
WW2 ‘Ultra’ codebreaking operation at the lines cited in both books.
Bletchley. When its Cold War successor, 1 e4 e5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 ƒb5 a6 4 ƒa4
GCHQ, was established in Cheltenham, Èf6 5 0–0 ƒe7 6 d4
Alexander moved there; he and several Nowadays this variation is rare in
colleagues were the nucleus of strong master chess because it lacks strategic
Gloucestershire teams of the 1950s and depth compared with the 6 …e1 line.
1960s. He was twice British Champion In the pre-computer era, however, such
and a FIDE IM as well as an excellent sharp opening variations often paid off.
writer on the game. In the last decade of First, the opponent’s opening knowledge
his life he concentrated on postal chess would be tested, and then his analytical
and earning the ICCF IM title in 1970, abilities. In this game, Clarke passes the
playing on England’s olympiad team. first examination but fails the second.
Clarke (born 1933) wrote the first 6...exd4 7 …e1
books in English on Petrosian and Tal. This move allows Black to castle and
A British Master OTB, he played many retreat his È to e8, but on the principle
times for England; he had a reputation that you cannot have an attack without
for being an extremely hard player to development, it gives more prospect of a
beat. In the 1970s he took up CC more lasting initiative than 7 e5 Èe4.
seriously and obtained the ICCF IM 7...0–0 8 e5 Èe8
title (1976) and then GM (1980) before 8...Èd5 9 Èxd4 Èxd4 10 †xd4
giving up the game for health reasons. Èb6 11 ƒb3 d5 12 exd6 used to
About this game: It first appeared be thought good for White, but the
in ‘Gloucestershire Correspondence reputation of the move has improved.
Chess 1954-81’, which records Instead of 12...ƒxd6 13 ƒf4 or 12...
the feats of that team in the annual †xd6 13 †e4 (£ƒf4‹), ‘ECO’
inter-county competition organised gives 12...ƒf6! 13 †e4 cxd6! 14
by the British Chess Federation. It Èc3 ƒxc3 15 bxc3 d5 16 †e7
Game 27: Alexander-Clarke 141
The Players: Roman Altshuler (born central tension for as long as possible.
1919) was famous in the USSR for Instead 5 exd5 leads to standard
organising a series of CC contests positions.
by radio in 1959 between Moscow, 5...cxd4
where he lived, and teams from Sov- Black has many other moves here,
iet Arctic and Antarctic bases; later he though some of them are dubious.
organised similar events for players a) 5...ƒd6 6 e5! ƒb8 7 dxc5
on Navy ships. He became an ICCF Ège7 8 0–0 0–0 9 …e1 is known to
international master in 1967. I have no be a difficult line to defend.
information about Gilezetdinov. b) 5...a6 6 exd5 axb5 7 dxc6 bxc6
About this game: Apparently Altshul- 8 dxc5 ƒxc5 9 †e2 Èf6 10 0–0 0–0
er retired from international play after 11 Èb3 †e7 12 …d1 and White had
the 5th CC World Championship but the initiative (1–0, 34) in Alekhine-
played this fine attacking game a few B.Rabar, Munich 1941.
years later. It was published in the c) 5...ƒd7 was a move Alekhine
Latvian magazine ‘Shakhmaty’ sev- met several times and he considered it
eral years later, on the occasion of his a serious mistake; Black rapidly gets
reaching the age of 60. into difficulties due to the open e-file.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Èd2 c5 4 Ègf3 Alekhine-M.Bartosek, Prague 1943,
This is often played although 4 went 6 exd5 exd5 (6...Èxd4? 7 Èxd4
exd5 is the main line. cxd4 8 dxe6! ƒxb5 9 †h5ˆ) 7 0–0
4...Èc6 Èxd4 8 Èxd4 cxd4 9 †e2+ ƒe7 10
4...Èf6 is a common alternative, Èf3 ƒxb5 11 †xb5+ †d7 12 †e2
while 4...a6 transposes to 3 Èd2 0–0–0 (12...Èf6 13 …e1) 13 ƒf4!‹
a6 4 Ègf3 c5, which is a perfectly (1–0, 34).
playable line for Black. d) 5...Èf6 is probably best, e.g. 6
5 ƒb5 exd5 †xd5 7 c4 †d6 8 dxc5 †xc5
This was Alekhine’s favourite line 9 0-0 ƒd7 (½-½, 48) Alekhine-
against the French in his later years. B.Thelen, Prague 1942.
White is determined to maintain 6 0–0!?
Game 28: Altshuler-Gilezetdinov 145
However, White has no certainty of …d2 ƒxb3 nor 28 ƒxb7 ƒxb3! set
winning the endgame after 23...fxe4 White on the royal road to victory, and
24 ƒxe4 †d4+ 25 †xd4 ƒxd4+ 26 28 …de1 ƒxb3 29 ƒd5 is countered
‡h1 ƒxc4 27 ƒxh7+ ‡xh7 28 bxc4 by 29...b5! White is left with only the
b6 29 …fe1Ÿ. ghost of his advantage.
23...ƒc8 White can play more subtly but I
Others are weaker as White can hold don’t see an obvious way to get real
his material advantage. Two examples: winning chances. For example, if 26
a) 23...ƒd7 24 †g4+! ‡h8 25 …bc1 ƒb2 27 …ce1 Black forces
…f2! †b6 26 c5 (26 ‡f1? †e3! 27 exchanges by 27...…d2, e.g. 28 …e2
…d1 …xf2+!) 26...†a6 27 ƒf1 ƒb5 ƒd4+ 29 ‡h1 …xe2 30 Èxe2 …xe2
28 Èb4 ƒxb4 29 ƒxb5 †xb5 30 31 …xf5 …e1+! when after 32 …f1
…xa2 ƒxc5+ 31 ‡g2‹. …xf1+ 33 ƒxf1 b6 he finds salvation
b) 23...†d4+ 24 ‡h1 ƒxf5 (24... in an opposite-coloured ƒ ending a
ƒd7 25 Èf4!ˆ) 25 …xf5 …d2 26 pawn down, while if 32 ƒf1 …b1 33
†h5! and, in view of the mate threat, …f3 …b2 and it’s not clear how White
Black has no time to take the È. can improve his position.
24 Èf4?! Black must have his plan led to a
Heemsoth rejected 24 †g4+ draw by perpetual check, so he saw no
because of 24...‡h8 25 Èf4 †d4+ need to examine unclear lines leading
26 ‡h1 …ee2!, but White continues to endgames a pawn down. White,
27 †xe2! (27 †h5!? is also having won the game, probably never
interesting.) 27...…xe2 28 Èxe2 †e3 found reason to re-examine notes of
29 Èxc3 †xc3 30 f6!, obtaining …s variations that never occurred.
and two pawns for a †, with Black’s 25 ‡h1 ƒxf5 26 Èd5!! (D)
‡ in dire straits. This must be winning XIIIIIIIIY
for White, sooner or later. Now Black 9-+-wqr+k+0
missed a defensive possibility.
24...ƒd4+?!
9+p+-+p+p0
B
Played to avoid the † exchange, 9-+-+-+-+0
but Black should have welcomed it. 9+-+N+l+-0
Of the various other lines examined 9-+Pvl-+-+0
by Heemsoth and Hunter, there is only 9+P+-+-zP-0
one we need to examine. 9r+-+-+LzP0
The right line for Black was 24...
ƒxf5! 25 †xd8 …xd8 26 …bd1 ƒd4+
9+R+Q+R+K0
27 ‡h1 (threatening both Èd5 and xiiiiiiiiy
ƒxb7) when instead of 27...ƒc8? 28
ƒd5 (which should lead to a winning White’s play is very fine from this
endgame for White), 27...ƒc2! gives point to the end. Now that it is still a
good drawing chances. Neither 28 middlegame after all, he is back in the
154 64 Great Chess Games
driving seat — but with Black’s …s and After 28...‡h8 29 ƒd5! Black can
ƒs active, it is no easy matter to find have an early bath, e.g. 29...…ee2 30
the right line. Logic tells us that the È Èg4+! f6 (30...‡g8 31 ƒxf7+) 31 …xf6
must be activated to the maximum, …e1+ (31...ƒe4+ 32 …f3+) 32 …f1+.
but this move offers the exchange and 29 Èd7+!?
surrenders e2 to the black …s. Heemsoth thought White has no
26...ƒxb1 win after 29 Èxh7+ ƒxh7 30 †h8+
Not 26...…ee2 27 †xd4 …xg2 ƒg8 31 †h6+ ‡e7 32 …e1+ ‡d7
28 …xf5 when Black can resign, but 33 …d1+ ‡c8 34 …xd8+ …xd8. He
26...…xg2!? is interesting: gave the continuation 35 h4 …d1+ 36
a) Heemsoth planned another † ‡h2 …dd2, but after 37 †f8+ and an
sacrifice: 27 …xf5!? …g1+ 28 †xg1 exchange of ƒs, the † and passed h-
ƒxg1 29 ‡xg1, which both he and pawn are probably winning in fact.
Dr Hunter assessed as strategically 29...‡g8 (D)
won for White because of his central XIIIIIIIIY
È, but instead of Heemsoth’s line 9-+-wqr+k+0
29...…f8 30 …bf1 †a8 31 Èf6+ ‡g7
32 …g5+ ‡h8 (32...‡h6? 33 h4ˆ) W
9+p+N+p+p0
33 …h5! ‡g7 34 …xh7+ ‡g6 35 h4! 9-+-+-+l+0
…h8 36 h5+ ‡g5 37 Èe4+ ‡g4 38 9+-+-+-+-0
…f4+ ‡h3 39 …h4#, Black has the 9-+PwQ-+-+0
better defence 29...‡g7 30 …bf1 †d7 9+P+-+-zP-0
because the white queenside pawns 9r+-+-+LzP0
become vulnerable if he goes in for a
liquidation on f7.
9+-+-+R+K0
b) If 27 ‡xg2 ƒe4+! 28 ‡h3 †g5! xiiiiiiiiy
£...†h6+ (Heemsoth gave 28...…e6,
but then 29 †xd4 …h6+ 30 ‡g4 …g6+ This is the position on which Dr
31 ‡f4ˆ) 29 …f4 …e6 30 …xe4 …xe4 Hunter had pinned his hopes, but he
and Black’s activity is worth the pawn. totally misjudged it! Consider the
Maybe White should try 28 …f3 here. statement in ‘British Chess’ (based
27 †xd4 ƒg6 on Heemsoth’s notes) that: “After 30
27...…xg2 does not work: 28 Èf6+ ƒxb7 …ae2!, threatening ...…e1, the
‡h8 29 Èd7+ ‡g8 30 ‡xg2 …e2+ tables are quickly turned and White
(30...ƒg6 31 Èf6+ ‡h8 32 †b2!, or must seek the draw”.
31...‡f8 32 Èxh7+! ƒxh7 33 †h8+ On the contrary, after the awful
ƒg8 34 †h6+ ‡e7 35 …e1+, or 30...…ae2?! White’s winning chances
33...‡e7 34 …e1+ wins) 31 ‡g1 ƒe4 markedly revive by 31 Èf6+ ‡f8 32
32 Èf6+ ‡g7 (32...†xf6 33 …xf6!) †h4 and Black does not have time to
33 Èh5+ ‡h6 34 †g7+ and mates. play ...…e1. Instead, given a glass of
28 Èf6+ ‡f8 his favourite whisky, Dr Hunter would
Game 30: Heemsoth-Hunter 155
surely have found 30...ƒf5! 31 Èf6+ Èf6+ ‡g7 is also fatal on account of
‡h8!! (not 31...‡f8? 32 Èxh7+ the discovered check after 36 †e5!,
ƒxh7 33 †h8+ ‡e7 34 …e1+ ‡d7 e.g. 36...†b8 37 Èe8+ ‡h6 38
35 …xe8 †xe8 36 ƒc6+!) 32 Èd5+ †g7+ ‡h5 39 Èf6# (Heemsoth).
f6!! (not 32...‡g8, hoping for that c) 33...…h8 fails to 34 Èxh5+
perpetual, because of 33 ‡g1! and ‡h7 35 …xf7+! followed by mate.
Black’s counterplay vanishes) and d) 33...†e7 34 Èxh5+ ‡h7 35
Black is saved, maybe even with some Èf6+ ‡g7 and now in the original
advantage. For now if 33 †xf6+ †xf6 notes, 36 Èxe8+ †xe8 37 ƒd5! ‡h7
34 Èxf6 …ee2 with the notorious 38 h5?? is given, overlooking 38...
“blind swine”, while if 33 ‡g1 Black ƒe4+! and White gets mated. Instead,
sinks his anchor with 33...…e5. 36 h5ˆ as 36...…h8 does not work
Also, where is the perpetual check because of 37 h6+ …xh6 38 †xh6+! and
that Dr Hunter expected White to take? a È fork on g8 picks up the black †.
True, a draw by repetition could come e) 33...…a6! was not considered
about via 30 Èf6+ ‡f8 (30... ‡h8? 31 in the players’ notes but may be
ƒd5!) 31 Èd7+ ‡g8 32 Èf6+ etc. the lesser evil: 34 Èxh5+ ‡g8 35
but after the first check White could Èf6+ …xf6 36 †xf6 †xf6 37 …xf6
transpose to the note to White’s 29th …e3. However, the … ending must be
move by 31 Èxh7+! ƒxh7 32 †h8+ winning for White, given the extra
ƒg8 33 †h6+ ‡e7 34 …e1+ ‡d7 35 pawn on each wing.
…d1+ ‡c8 36 …xd8+ …xd8 37 h4. 34 Èxh5+ ‡g8
30 h4!! After 34...‡h7 Heemsoth found an
The threat is 31 h5 ƒxh5 32 Èf6+ elegant refutation in 35 …xf7+! …xf7
etc., so Black’s reply is forced. 36 †xd8 ƒxh5 37 †d5 ƒg6 38 h5.
30...h5 31 Èf6+ ‡f8 32 †f4! 35 ƒd5! ‡h7
Threatening 33 †h6+ ‡e7 34 Èd5+ This is the only defence against
‡d7 (34...‡d6 35 …xf7) 35 ƒh3+ White’s double threat of 36 †xg6+
winning. Black now tries to conciliate and 36 ƒxf7+, because 35...†d6 fails
White by returning the exchange, but to 36 Èf6+ ‡g7 37 Èe8+! …xe8 38
White builds up his position move by …xf7+ ‡g8 39 …d7+.
move, renouncing distractions. 36 Èf6+ ‡g7 37 Èg4!
32...‡g7 33 †g5! The last and most decisive move
After 33 Èxe8+ †xe8 the strong of the È, threatening 38 †h6+ ‡g8
black … hinders winning attempts, e.g. 39 Èf6#.
34 †f6+ (34 ƒxb7? †e2) 34...‡h7 37...†d6
35 †f3? (35 †f4 †e2) 35...…xg2!. The mate in two is thus prevented
33...…e7 but the h-pawn will strike the decisive
a) Not 33...…ee2? 34 Èxh5+ and blow, as the culmination of the
35 †xd8. combination begun at move 30.
b) 33...…f8 34 Èxh5+ ‡g8 35 38 h5 1–0
Game 31
White: Professor Vladimir Zagorovsky (USSR)
The Players: Estrin was introduced in 0–0, h3, c3 and the queen’s „ is
Game 21. Morgado won the GM title developed on d2 in most cases. 4 c4
by taking second place in this cham- would allow Estrin to reach a main
pionship. In the mid-1990s he was line of his favourite Grünfeld Defence
one of the pioneers of email CC with after 4...0–0 5 Èc3 d5.
both ICCF and IECG. His ‘Ajedrez de 4...Èh5!
Estilo’ is one of the leading Spanish- Most of Pereyra’s opponents chose
language chess websites. 4...d5 (transposing to the Barry) and
About this game: I include this some played 4...d6. Estrin takes the
flawed battle partly for the unusual game down independent paths, but
opening and middlegame, and partly this cost him a lot of reflection time.
because of the background story. 5 ƒe5
1 d4 5 ƒg5 h6 is the alternative:
Morgado opened 1 e4 in other a) 6 ƒh4 g5 7 ƒg3 d6 8 †d3
games but wanted to avoid Estrin’s Èxg3 9 hxg3 c6 10 e4 e5 11 dxe5
theoretical knowledge of open games. dxe5 12 †xd8+ ‡xd8 13 ƒc4 ‡e7
1...Èf6 2 Èf3 g6 3 ƒf4 14 Èd1! Èd7 15 Èe3 Èc5= and
Morgado decided to play an Black eventually won a tough struggle
irregular queen’s pawn game that was in Pereyra-Rinaldi, LIPEAP-15
the patent of his countryman, Manuel Peruvian Jubilee corr 1988-91. White
Pereyra Puebla. This is similar to the tried 16 Èd2 (£ 17 g4!) but Black
Barry Attack, which is popular among got in first with 16...g4.
British amateurs. The Barry goes 3 b) 6 ƒd2 d6 7 Èe4?! (White
Èc3 when Black must either play should have played 7 e4.) 7...e5 8
3...d5, or allow White to carry out his dxe5 dxe5 9 ƒc3 †e7 10 †d2 Èc6
“threat” to transpose to a Pirc Defence 11 Èg3 ƒg4 12 Èxh5 ƒxh5 13
after 3...ƒg7 4 e4 d6. e4 …d8 14 †e3 0–0å was 0–1, 29
3...ƒg7 4 Èc3!? in K.Vickers-S.Gerzadowicz, USCF
This is the Pereyra System. In the Absolute Ch 1986; that game is in
normal London System, White plays Gerzadowicz’s ‘Journal of A Chess
4 e3, 5 ƒe2 (or ƒc4) followed by Master’.
160 64 Great Chess Games
ed by registered post due to its having perpetual check, but through this
got lost in the mails; this was a com- return of material Black retains his
mon frustration when playing against advantage (White cannot play 20
USSR opponents. On account of the Èxe7 …hd8 21 Èf5+ ‡f6‰).
serious postal problems, Morgado At this point, Black (who had spent
later requested that both he and Estrin 57 days thinking time so far) originally
be obliged to play by registered post sent a card with an impossible move,
for the remainder of the game, which which incurred a 5-day penalty and
was approved by the Tournament Di- caused him to exceed the time limit.
rector. After move 21 Morgado sent (In ICCF postal play, it is necessary to
all his moves by registered post with exceed the time limit twice before you
“advice of delivery”. lose the game.) This meant that a new
13 †xd4+ ‡xh7 14 †d3+ ‡h6 time count started for Estrin, who had
(D) 30 days more to reach move 29.
XIIIIIIIIY 20 †xe7+ †xe7 21 Èxe7 …cf8! 22
9rsnlwq-+-tr0 …d1
22 0–0–0 was the alternative, with
9zppzp-+-+-0
W a similar position.
9-+-+-+-mk0 22...…xh2 23 …d7 …fxf2 24 Èd5+
9+-+p+-+-0 ‡f8 25 Èc3 …f7 26 …d8+ ‡g7 27
9-+-+-+-+0 ‡d2 …e7
9+-sNQ+-+-0 The game began at the end of October
9PzPP+PzP-zP0 1978 and it was now April 1981.
28 b3 b5?!
9tR-+-mKL+-0 Here Morgado claimed Black
xiiiiiiiiy exceeded the time limit again, but
this was rejected by the appeal judge.
This was the position Morgado Meanwhile, this move gives White
envisaged at move 10. hope. A better plan was 28...‡f7 and
15 ƒh3!? ...‡e6, preparing ...…d7.
The best possibility. If 15 0–0–0 29 a3 a5
†g5+ 16 f4 †xf4+ 17 e3 †c4 18 On this 29th move, the last of the
†d2 †h4Œ. new count, Estrin spent one day. On
15...Èc6! 16 ƒxc8 …xc8 17 Èxd5 Morgado’s calculations it seems to be
Without this move, the checks of irrefutable that the Russian had used
the white † would be ineffectual. 31 days on moves 19-29 and therefore
17...†g5 should have forfeited the game. ICCF
A critical moment. The position is did not agree, so the game continued
extraordinarily rich in possibilities. with Estrin having a further 30 days
18 †h3+ ‡g7 19 †d7+ Èe7! to reach move 39, on top of any time
It appears that White has a accumulated.
162 64 Great Chess Games
XIIIIIIIIY
29...c5!? was possible because if 9-+R+-+-+0
White captures on b5, his ‡ gets W
9+-+-+-mk-0
trapped on the back rank by the 9-+-+-+-+0
doubled …s and he will probably
lose all his pawns. But White would 9+N+-+-+-0
answer 30 b4 as in the game and 9-+-+-+-+0
30...a5 transposes to the next note. 9+p+-+-+-0
30 b4 axb4 9-+P+r+-tr0
30...c5 was possible here too but 9+-mK-+-+-0
after 31 bxc5 b4 32 axb4 axb4 33 xiiiiiiiiy
Èd5 …exe2+ 34 ‡xd3 …xc2 35
…d7+ (35 Èxb4?? …hd2+) White no accumulated time left from the
probably has a draw. If he is ever previous count, and apply the time-
able to give a check on d6, then the doubling rule (later abolished) that
… is protected and he can play Èxb4, after 12 days reflection time, every
while if the black ‡ stays back it extra day counted double. On this
cannot get out of check. basis, Morgado counted 24 days for
31 axb4 c5?! Estrin, making a total of 33: exceeding
Objectively, this is an error that the allowance by 3 days. The three
permits the liquidation of the game, days difference between when Estrin
but Estrin was presumably concerned actually received Morgado’s move
chiefly with finding a way not to lose. and when he said he received it
Forcing exchanges suited that policy. are doubled to 6 days and that is
31...c6 32 …d6 …c7 would have what makes the difference between
kept chances for Black, but not 32... exceeding the time limit or not.
…h6?! 33 …xh6! ‡xh6 34 e4! ‡g6 Since Estrin’s conditional left only
35 ‡e3 ‡f6 36 Èe2! followed by bare ‡s on the board, Morgado had to
Èd4 with an excellent disposition of stop playing and make his final claim,
the white forces. The white ‡ can go which was ultimately refused. Estrin’s
to d3 and threaten c2-c4 (Morgado). conditional had its desired effect and
32 …c8! ICCF declared the game a draw,
This is a clear drawing variation. presumably on the grounds that you
32...cxb4 33 Èxb5 cannot win on time with a bare ‡?
Now the pawn on c2 is defended. The row and the decision
33...…exe2+ 34 ‡c1 b3 (D) ½–½!? Argentina’s ICCF vice-president
Estrin proposed the continual Carlos Germán Dieta made an official
conditional 35 Èd4 …xc2+ 36 Èxc2 complaint but it was rejected. Estrin
…xc2+ 37 …xc2 bxc2 38 ‡xc2 and produced a hand-written certificate
offered a draw. Simultaneously he from a Russian post office official
exceeded the time limit for the fourth to support his case. Dieta claimed
occasion, if you agree that he had that Estrin’s certificate must be false
Game 32: Morgado-Estrin 163
Finjub-20, 1981-84
The Players: Eric Arnlind was intro- d5 20 g4 and, having quenched any
duced in Game 31. queenside counterplay and blocked
CC-GM Keith Richardson (born the centre, White went on to win on
1942) is a typical English amateur, the kingside (1–0, 44). Black’s play in
combining chess with family life and the opening was miserably passive.
a career as a bank manager. He has b) 4...c6 5 †d2 b5 is a main line
the best record of any British player but it had not been doing well at the
in CC world championships: two third time. After 6 Èf3 (6 f4!?) 6...Èd7
places, in the 7th and 10th Finals. He 7 ƒd3 ‘The Ultimate Pirc’ by Nunn
has played seldom in recent years. and McNab recommends 7...h6, e.g. 8
About this game: The Axelson Mem- ƒe3 Ègf6 9 h3 e5 10 0–0 a6 11 dxe5
orial was an all-GM tournament or- dxe5 12 …ad1 †e7 13 a4 h5 14 axb5
ganised by the Swedish CC federation axb5 15 …a1 …xa1 16 …xa1 0–0=
and the strongest postal event ever Atanasov-Todor›evi™, Varna 1977.
held until the mid-1990s. 5 ƒb5
1 e4 g6 2 d4 ƒg7 3 Èc3 d6 4 ƒg5 White meets the counter-attack on
This is a slightly unusual move in his d-pawn with a pin. An original
the Modern Defence but Richardson situation has developed already. Other
had played it himself not long before possible moves are 5 d5 and 5 Ège2.
— with White. 5...ƒd7 (D)
4...Èc6 Since Black ends up recapturing
Black could transpose to a Pirc with the b-pawn when White takes
Defence by 4...Èf6 but that would lose the È, he should have preferred a
the point of his move order. Richardson- different move here.
A.Backlund, NBC-15 Volmac-A 1982, 5...a6 accepts the doubled pawn
went instead 4...h6 5 ƒe3 Èf6 6 f3 c6 but plans to use the b-file and ƒ pair
7 †d2 †a5 8 Ège2 b5 9 Èc1 Èbd7 later: 6 ƒxc6+ bxc6 7 Ège2 …b8
10 ƒe2 †c7 11 Èd3 ƒb7 12 0–0 a6 8 b3 Èf6 9 0–0 and now 9...ƒb7
13 a4 Èb6 14 b3 Èfd7 15 a5 Èc8 (Winants-Speelman, Brussels 1988)
16 b4 0–0 17 …ad1 e6 18 f4 f5 19 e5 or 9...h6!? (Nunn).
176 64 Great Chess Games
XIIIIIIIIY
point of view, leaving Black with
9r+-wqk+ntr0 doubled isolated pawns. And his
9zppzplzppvlp0 structure is even worse after 9...Èg4
9-+nzp-+p+0
W 10 h3 f6 11 ƒf4! fxe5 12 dxe5 0-0
9+L+-+-vL-0 (or 12...Èxe5 13 Èxe5 dxe5 14
9-+-zPP+-+0 ƒg3 0-0 15 †e2) 13 †d2 Èxe5
9+-sN-+-+-0 14 Èxe5 dxe5 15 ƒh6 with a clear
advantage to White despite his pawn
9PzPP+-zPPzP0 minus; while if 10...Èh6 11 …e1!
9tR-+QmK-sNR0 puts pressure on e7 as in the game,
xiiiiiiiiy e.g. 11...0-0? 12 exd6ˆ or if 11...d5
6 Èf3 12 †d2 (12 Èa4!?) 12...Èf5? 13 g4
White does not want to exchange h6 14 gxf5 hxg5 15 e6.
until Black spends a tempo on ...a6, 10 Èxd5 cxd5 11 …e1
so he must defend the d-pawn. ‘The This pinpoints a serious weakness
Ultimate Pirc’ gives instead 6 Ège2 in Black’s position at e7, preventing
a6 7 ƒxc6 ƒxc6 8 †d2 Èf6 9 f3 e5 castling (11...0-0? 12 exd6ˆ).
10 0–0 0–0 11 …ad1 exd4 12 Èxd4Ÿ 11...ƒe6
Itkis-R.Gallego, Yerevan OL 1996. Black tries to mask the weakness
6...Èf6 and retain the ƒ pair. However, Arn-
The timing of this move is a little lind indicates that 11...dxe5 12 Èxe5
strange. Black might have played ƒxe5 13 …xe5 ƒe6 was the lesser
6...a6 7 ƒxc6 ƒxc6 and if 8 †d2 evil, and maybe in this line 12...f6!?
Èf6 counter-attacking e4 since, might be considered, e.g. 13 Èxd7
unlike the previous note, White cannot †xd7 14 ƒf4 0-0 playing for ...e7-e5.
defend the e-pawn by f2-f3 and since 12 c4!
he has not castled, he cannot defend Very forceful play, again
it by …e1. For this reason, Arnlind preventing castling, i.e. 12...0–0? 13
would perhaps have played 8 0–0, cxd5 ƒxd5 14 exd6ˆ.
when Black might reply 8...h6 or even 12...…a7? (D)
8...f6!?. XIIIIIIIIY
7 0–0 a6 8 ƒxc6 bxc6?! 9-+-wqk+-tr0
Black is trying to create a fluid,
unbalanced situation but 8...ƒxc6
9tr-zp-zppvlp0
W
would have been more consistent. 9p+-zpl+p+0
White’s next move highlights the 9+-+pzP-vL-0
fact that d7 is unavailable to the 9-+PzP-+-+0
black È. 9+-+-+N+-0
9 e5 Èd5 9PzP-+-zPPzP0
There is little choice since 9...dxe5
is clearly undesirable from a structural
9tR-+QtR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Game 36: Arnlind-Richardson 177
The idea is that if White now tries Not 17...‡f8 18 d7 ƒe6 19 †c5+
13 cxd5 ƒxd5 14 exd6, then 14... ‡g8 20 †xa7ˆ but 17...‡f6 is
cxd6 leaves the … defending e7, after tricky:
which Black can castle, followed by a) 18 dxc7 “and wins” was given
undermining the white centre and in Arnlind’s notes, but is not best
exploiting his ƒ pair. The logic of because 18...ƒh6!, allowing the black
Black’s last few moves is that he was ‡ to retreat to g7, is unclear.
playing for a win and just did not see b) 18 †d2 (preventing ...ƒh6)
the danger, a failing for which he is would be met instead by 18...ƒf8!
now murderously punished. and if 19 d7 ƒd6 20 †g5+ ‡g7 21
Since 12...dxc4? 13 d5 ƒg4 14 exd6 …e8 …xe8 22 dxe8† †xe8 23 †xd5
also breaks through to e7, the move †b5 and Black is still in the game.
12...h6 looks like Black’s last chance. c) 18 d7! is the right way: e.g. 18...
Then at least Black can get castled ƒh6 (or 18...…d8 19 …e8 …xe8 20
and fight on with some disadvantage; dxe8† †xe8 21 †xd5) 19 …e8 (or
e.g. 13 ƒh4 g5 14 ƒg3 0-0 (or first 19 †c5 ‡g7 20 …e8 …xe8 21 dxe8†
14...dxc4), or 13 ƒf6!? exf6 14 exf6 †xe8 22 †xa7) 19...…xe8 20 dxe8†
†xf6 (or 14...0-0) 15 cxd5 0–0. †xe8 21 †xd5 and White is a pawn
13 †a4+! up with a dominant position, while
This begins a combination that if now 21...†b5? 22 †d8+ ‡g7 23
forces a win, and it is quite possible …e1 £…e8 and wins, e.g. 23...†c6
that Arnlind had worked out a win 24 …e8 †c1+ 25 Èe1 ƒg5 26 †b8!
in all variations before playing 13 ƒd2 27 †xa7 ƒxe1 28 †xa6ˆ.
†a4+. Black has to move the ‡ 18 Èe5 (D)
since 13...ƒd7 would block the …’s XIIIIIIIIY
defence of e7, when Black loses a 9q+-+-+-tr0
central pawn after 14 †a5.
13...‡f8 14 cxd5 ƒxd5 15 †a5 †a8
9tr-zp-+pvlp0
B
Another point of Black’s ...…a7 9p+-mk-+p+0
was to allow this move with a 9wQ-+lsN-+-0
counter-attack against f3, which he 9-+-zP-+-+0
perhaps hoped would give him time 9+-+-+-+-0
to extricate the h8-… by ...h6 and 9PzP-+-zPPzP0
...‡g8-h7. Unfortunately the Swedish
GM totally refutes Black’s concept.
9tR-+-tR-mK-0
16 ƒxe7+! xiiiiiiiiy
This is an instructive piece
sacrifice against the black ‡, which is 18...ƒxe5
driven into the centre and subjected to 18...c6 looks like a tougher defence
a mating attack. at first but it also fails: 19 †c5+!
16...‡xe7 17 exd6+ ‡xd6 ‡c7 20 Èxc6! ƒxc6 (20...†xc6?
178 64 Great Chess Games
WT/M/GT/221, 1987-90
The Players: Grant R. Lambert is an dangers for both sides, they have been
untitled Australian player with a lot very deeply explored which, in my
of international experience; his cur- opinion, is more to Black’s benefit
rent ICCF rating is 2397. Manfred in CC. 5 e5 has also been deeply
Neumann, from eastern Germany, analysed but earlier departures from
is a regular competitor in European theory are more likely to be possible
and World master class postal tourna- than after 5 0-0.
ments; at the time he was rated 2220 5...d5 6 ƒb5 Èe4 7 Èxd4 ƒc5
but by early 2002 this rose to 2377. (D)
About this game: This was voted XIIIIIIIIY
the “Best Played Game — 1989” by 9r+lwqk+-tr0
the Correspondence Chess League
of Australia. When ‘Fernschach’
9zppzp-+pzpp0
magazine ran a readers’ competition W9-+n+-+-+0
in 1998, where games were published 9+LvlpzP-+-0
without notes or players’ identities 9-+-sNn+-+0
— this game yet again came out top. 9+-+-+-+-0
I am unconvinced by Lambert’s 9PzPP+-zPPzP0
opening innovation (at move 12) but
the decisive † sacrifice is highly
9tRNvLQmK-+R0
original and sound. xiiiiiiiiy
1 e4 e5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 ƒc4 Èf6 4 d4
Instead of 4 Èg5, as in Game 25, This sharp continuation for Black
White opens the centre. has largely replaced the older line
4...exd4 5 e5 7...ƒd7. Black does not bother to
After 5 0-0, Black can either choose defend his c-pawn, trusting in tactical
5...Èxe4 (see Game 55) or defend deterrents to its capture. Of course
the Max Lange Attack by 5...ƒc5 8 ƒxc6+?! bxc6 9 Èxc6? is not a
6 e5 d5 7 exf6 dxc4. Although the serious option because of 9...ƒxf2+.
complications in either case hold Great complications can arise if
180 64 Great Chess Games
since the piece can be regained by 30 ƒf4 c5, but clearly Black stands to
25...d3 with a favourable position. win with his extra pawn and superior
White loses if he tries to save the „: pieces. Also note that 24 ƒg1 is no
26 Èf4 (not 26 Èc1 c4+ with mate good; Black does not even take the
in 4) 26...c4+ 27 ‡f1 g5 and the piece † because 24...Èg5+ 25 Èe4 …xe4
is won back anyway. forces mate.
24 †c1 (D) 24...Èxe1+!?
XIIIIIIIIY This is a sure sign that the game
9-+-+rtrk+0 was played before the computer age
in CC: Black does not play the forced
9zp-zp-+-zpp0
B mate!
9-vll+-+-+0 Lambert wrote: “Tempting here is
9+-zp-+-+-0 24...Èg5+ instead, so as to answer 25
9-+-zp-+-+0 ‡g1 by 25...Èh3#. However, with
9+PzP-vLnsN-0 the reply of 25 Èe4, White prolongs
9P+-+N+KzP0 the game by giving up a piece to
make a flight square on g3 for his ‡.”
9+-wQRtR-+-0 However, 25 Èe4 fails to 25...…xe4!
xiiiiiiiiy 26 Èf4 (or 26 ‡g3 …f3+ 27 ‡g2
…g4+ 28 Èg3 …f8+ 29 ‡g1 Èh3#)
Lambert wrote: “Reasoning that 26...…exf4+ 27 ‡g3 …f3+ 28 ‡g4
since his ‡ will suffer anyway, he ƒd7+ 29 ‡xg5 h6+ 30 ‡h5 …h3+
may as well have a † to show for 31 ‡g6 ƒe8#.
it. The alternative is 24 ‡h3 (to By technically imprecise play,
avoid the discovered check) when Lambert actually managed a quicker
24...Èxd2 25 ƒxd2 …f2 now gives mate, because his opponent did not
a strong attack. Here I was unable to play the most tedious defence at move
calculate a forced win, but White’s 27.
position is unenviable. A possible 25 ‡g1
continuation is 26 Èf4 ƒd7+ 27 The alternative 25 ‡h3 ƒd7+ 26
‡h4 …xh2+ 28 ‡g5 …f8!, when the ‡h4 Èg2+ 27 ‡h5 Èxe3 leaves
noose has tightened around the white Black with a mating attack against the
‡ on g5. The threats include ...h6+ lonely white ‡.
followed by ...…f6# or ...c6 followed 25...Èf3+ 26 ‡f1 dxe3 27 c4
by ...ƒd8+.” 27 Èg1 would have prolonged the
The computer program Fritz7 game — albeit hopelessly.
thinks 26 Èf4 is a blunder and gives 27...Èxh2+ 28 ‡e1
instead 26 Èxd4 cxd4 27 …xe8+ 28 ‡g1 …f2 with a mating attack.
ƒxe8 28 Èh1 …e2 29 cxd4 ƒxd4 28...…f1+ 29 Èxf1 Èf3# 0–1
Game 38
White: Dr Jonathan Penrose (England)
The Players: Penrose (born 1933) is 4 but wanted Black to show his hand
a grandmaster of both ICCF and FIDE first (4...g6 is a major alternative).
(being awarded that title retrospec- 5...Èb6 6 ƒe2 Èc6 7 0–0 e6 8 Èc3
tively). An academic psychologist ƒe7 9 d5! exd5 10 cxd5 Èb4
by profession, he holds the record If 10...Èb8 White can choose
for winning the greatest number of between 11 ƒf4 and 11 Èe5. If
British OTB championships (ten). He 10...ƒxf3 11 ƒxf3 Èe5 12 ƒe4 is
took up postal play in the mid-1970s, somewhat better for White.
winning several master tournaments 11 †d4 ƒxf3 12 †xg7
and becoming ICCF’s top-rated play- GM John Emms wrote in ‘The
er. Dr Penrose retired from CC soon Scandinavian’ (1997) that: “This
after coming third in the 13th World leads to fantastic complications,
Championship. which seem to favour White.”
Goldenberg has been an ICCF IM The quieter alternative for White is
since 1986. 12 ƒxf3 when:
About this game: Penrose, typically a) 12...Èc2? 13 †xg7 ƒf6 14
for his style of play with White, finds †g4 Èxa1 15 …e1+ ƒe7 16 ƒg5
a direct and aggressive line which is Èc8 (16...…g8 17 ƒxe7! …xg4 18
still of theoretical relevance today. His ƒc5+ ‡d7 19 ƒxg4+ and mates) 17
original notes were greatly expanded Èe4! (£18 Èf6+ ‡f8 19 ƒh6#)
in ‘Chess Mail’ 6/2000. Most of the 17...ƒxg5 18 Èf6+ ‡f8 19 †xg5
variations below stem from him. h6 20 Èh7+ and †xd8+.
1 e4 d5 b) 12...0-0 13 †d1 Èc4 14 …e1
Goldenberg was a specialist in this …e8 15 a3 Èa6 16 ƒe2 Èd6 17
defence — not as popular then as it †c2 ƒf6 18 ƒe3Ÿ (Lau-Bücker,
later became. Bundesliga 1993-94) was discussed in
2 exd5 Èf6 3 d4 Èxd5 4 Èf3 Stefan Bücker’s German history-and-
ƒg4 5 c4 theory magazine ‘Kaissiber’ (1/1996
White can also play this at move page 13).
184 64 Great Chess Games
XIIIIIIIIY
12...ƒf6 13 ƒb5+ c6 14 …e1+ ‡d7
15 dxc6+! 9r+-wq-+-tr0
White’s alternatives include: 9zp-+k+pwQp0
a) 15 †g3 ƒxd5 16 †g4+ ƒe6 W9-snp+-vl-+0
17 †xb4 ƒxc3 18 …d1+ Èd5 19 9+L+-+-+-0
bxc3 ‡c8 20 †c4 †e8 21 ƒa6 9-sn-+-+-+0
(Kukk-Kularts, Estonia Email Ch 9+-sN-+l+-0
1999) 21...…b8¢ — Penrose.
b) 15 †xf7+ ‡c8 16 †e6+ Èd7 9PzP-+-zPPzP0
17 dxc6+ and now: 9tR-vL-tR-mK-0
b1) 17...bxc6 18 ƒc4 and White has xiiiiiiiiy
compensation thanks to the exposed 16 †g3!
position of Black’s ‡ according to Babachanov criticized this move,
Karen Babachanov (Armenia) in but Penrose’s analysis vindicates his
‘Kaissiber’. He gives the following choice.
continuation: 18...ƒxc3 19 bxc3 ƒd5 He thought his opponent might
20 ƒxd5 Èxd5 21 †xc6+ Èc7 22 have met the obvious 16 †xf7 in
…d1 …b8 (22...…e8? 23 ƒg5) 23 ƒg5 previous games. After 16...‡c8 17
†e8 24 ƒf4 †d8 25 …d4 …b6 26 †c4 †e6+ gives nothing on 17...‡b7
(26 †a4! …a6 27 †c4 Bücker) 26... (Babachanov), while if 17 ƒc4 Èxc4
…e8 27 …ad1 …be6 28 ‡f1 threatening 18 †e6+ ‡b7 19 †xc4 a5 20 †f7+
to win material by ƒxc7. ‡a6 21 †c4+ ‡b7 22 †f7+ ‡a6
b2) If 17...ƒxc6 (Goldenberg) then: 23 †c4+ ½-½ P.Kerkhof-J.De Wolf,
b21) Bücker recommended 18 ƒf4 Belgium Cht 1996/97. Or 17 gxf3
(£Èe4-d6+) but Penrose suggests †g8+ 18 †xg8+ …xg8+ 19 ‡f1
18...†g8¢ in reply. cxb5. Bücker suggests 17 ƒf1!?.
b22) 18 ƒxc6 Èxc6 (18...bxc6? 16...ƒxc3
19 a3) and now the possible moves a) Not 16...cxb5 17 †h3+! when
include: if 17...‡c7 18 ƒf4+ ‡b7 19 †xf3+
b221) 19 Èb5 (Babachanov) ‡a6 (19...‡c8 20 …ac1!ˆ) 20 a4!
19...†e7! (Penrose) 20 Èd6+ with a very strong attack. Or 17...‡c6
‡c7 21 ƒf4 †xe6 22 …xe6 …hf8 18 †xf3+ È4d5 (18...‡c7 19 †f4+
(Bücker). £†b4) 19 Èxd5 Èxd5 20 ƒh6
b222) 19 Èd5¢/‹ — Penrose. ƒxb2 21 …ad1 …g8 22 …e2 ƒc3 23
Black’s moves were coming back …e3! ƒb4 24 …e5! “seems to win”
almost by ‘return post’ so, Dr Penrose (Emms), and White has other tries too.
remembers, “I was looking for a line of b) Babachanov’s suggestion 16...
play that might be unexpected for him, ƒxg2 is interesting and may be
while still being reasonably good for Black’s best hope in this line. After 17
White.” †g4+ ‡c7 18 ƒf4+ ‡b7 19 †xg2
15...bxc6 (D) (D), Penrose’s assessment is Ÿ.
Game 38: Penrose-Goldenberg 185
XIIIIIIIIY
or 24 …ab1 †d7 25 …xb5 †c6. It’s
9r+-wq-+-tr0 a big mess, but there doesn’t seem
9zpk+-+p+p0 anything devastating for White.
B9-snp+-vl-+0 Instead of this, 20 ƒxc6+!?
9+L+-+-+-0 ‡xc6 21 …ad1 can be considered.
9-sn-+-vL-+0 Another possibility is 20 Èe4!? (£
9+-sN-+-+-0 21 Èc5+ ‡c8 22 ƒa6#) 20...ƒe7
21 …ad1! but maybe Black can
9PzP-+-zPQzP0 hold with 21...…c8! 22 Èc3 …g8!
9tR-+-tR-mK-0 23 ƒg3 ƒb4! 24 Èxd5 ƒxe1! 25
xiiiiiiiiy Èb4! ƒxb4 26 …xd8 …gxd8 27
From the analysis diagram above: †f3Ÿ.
b1) 19...È6d5 20 ƒxc6+ ‡xc6 21 So maybe Babachanov’s 16...ƒxg2
…ad1 (Penrose) or 21 …ed1, leaving is a reasonable try but I think the whole
the other … to go to c1; or else 21 5...ƒg4 line is looking unhealthy for
ƒg3!? leaving all options open (the Black.
black ‡ isn’t going anywhere!). 17 bxc3 cxb5
b2) 19...ƒxc3 20 bxc3 È4d5 17...ƒxg2 18 †g4+ ‡c7 19 ƒf4+
(the end of Babachanov’s analysis) ‡b7 20 †xg2 transposes to line b3)
and now Penrose gave 21 ƒxc6+! just above.
(21 c4 Èxf4 22 †xc6+ ‡b8 23 18 ƒg5 (D)
c5!Ÿ Bücker) 21...‡xc6 22 c4 …g8 XIIIIIIIIY
23 ƒg3 Èxc4 24 …ac1 ‡c5 (or 9r+-wq-+-tr0
24...…g4 25 …e4) 25 …xc4+ ‡xc4
26 †e4+ ‡c5 27 …c1+ ‡b6 28
9zp-+k+p+p0
B
…b1+ ‡a5 (If 28...‡c6 29 †a4+ or 9-sn-+-+-+0
28...‡c5 29 †c2+) 29 †e1+ ‡a4 30 9+p+-+-vL-0
†d1+ ‡a5 31 †d2+ ‡a4 32 †c2+. 9-sn-+-+-+0
b3) 19...È4d5 is harder to refute 9+-zP-+lwQ-0
although White evidently has more 9P+-+-zPPzP0
activity and can consider various
tactical ideas, but I don’t want to fill
9tR-+-tR-mK-0
several paragraphs with inconclusive xiiiiiiiiy
analysis. If you intend to play this
line, look at it for yourself. This attack on the black † is
Penrose’s line 20 …ed1!? ƒxc3 an essential zwischenzug in order
21 bxc3 cxb5 22 a4 does not quite to stop Black playing ...†f6 at
convince after 22...…g8! 23 ƒg3 …g5 some appropriate moment, observes
— having protected the d5-È Black Penrose. If instead 18 †xf3 È4d5 19
can answer 24 a5 with 24...Èc4, †xf7+ ‡c8.
while if 24 axb5 …c8, or 24 h4 …f5, We are now at the really critical
186 64 Great Chess Games
XIIIIIIIIY
juncture of the game, though you
would never guess from reading 9r+k+-+r+0
Emms’ book, which has no comments 9zp-+-+p+p0
on any of the moves from numbers 17 B9-snq+-+-+0
to 21. 9+p+-+-+-0
18...f6 9PzP-+R+-zP0
Bücker’s 18...…g8! 19 †xf3 9+-+-+Q+-0
†xg5 20 cxb4 ‡c7 is the critical
reply, as analysed in ‘Kaissiber’ and 9-+-+-zPP+0
‘Chess Mail’. I have no space for all 9+-+R+-mK-0
the ramifications, but here are the xiiiiiiiiy
salient points arising from White’s Now Penrose’s main line goes
best line 21 h4!. 25...bxa4 (If 25...Èxa4 26 …c4
a) 21...†d8 22 †xf7+ Èd7 (or or 25...a5 26 axb5 or 25...…e8 26
22...‡b8 23 …e7 …f8 24 †g7 …g8 …xe8+ †xe8 27 a5) 26 b5 †c7 (or
25 †e5+ ‡c8 26 …c1+) 23 …ac1+ 26...†xb5 27 …e7 …b8 28 †xf7 or
‡b8 24 …ed1. 26...†c5 27 †f4 ‡b7 28 †xf7+) 27
b) 21...†xh4 22 †xf7+ Èd7 23 …de1 …d8 (or 27...‡b8 28 …e7 Èd7
…ac1+. 29 …e8+) 28 …e7 …d7 29 …e8+ …d8
c) 21...†g4 22 …ac1+ Èc4 30 …1e7 …xe8 31 …xe8+ ‡d7 32
(22...‡b8 23 …e8+) 23 †xf7+ †xf7+ ‡d6 33 …e6+.
‡b8 (23...‡d8 24 †d5+) 24 g3! There is one other possibility,
†g6 (Other moves are no better: namely 25...…d8.
24...†g7 25 …e8+; or 24...†c8 25 Against this, Penrose gave 26
…e7; or 24...…c8 25 …e7 Èd6 26 †f5+ …d7 27 axb5 but Bücker
…xc8+ †xc8 27 †d5 †d8 28 …g7; showed that Black has the resource
or 24...…d8 25 …e7 Èd6 26 …b7+ 27...†xe4, and he suggests instead
Èxb7 27 †c7#) 25 †f4+ ‡c8 (If 26 …xd8+ ‡xd8 27 …d4+ ‡c7 28
25...†d6 26 …xc4, or 25...Èd6 26 †xf7+ Èd7 29 axb5 †xb5 30 …d5
h5 †d3 27 …ed1, or 25...‡b7 26 winning (‘Kaissiber’ 15, page 8).
…e7+ ‡a6 27 …xc4.) 26 …xc4+ Now we return to the actual finish
bxc4 27 †xc4+ ‡d7 (27...‡b8 28 of the game after 18...f6.
…e7 …c8 29 †f4+) 28 †d5+ †d6 19 †xf3 È4d5 20 ƒe3
29 †b7+. Threatening ƒxb6 and …ad1. If
d) 21...†d5 22 …e7+ ‡d8 (If 20...Èxe3 21 †b7+ ‡d6 22 …xe3
22...‡c8 23 …c1+ ‡d8 24 …e4 or ‡c5 23 …e6 and the black ‡ is
22...‡c6 23 …c1+ Èc4 24 …c7+ surrounded.
‡d6 25 …d7+.) 23 …e4 ‡c8 (If 20...‡c7 21 …ad1 …e8 22 a4!
23...‡c7 24 …d1 †c6 25 …e7+ or White’s whole plan (starting with
23...f5 24 …d1 fxe4 25 …xd5+ Èxd5 16 †g3) depended on this a-pawn
26 †d1‹.) 24 …d1 †c6 25 a4! (D). thrust to disrupt the black queenside.
Game 38: Penrose-Goldenberg 187
White soon regains his piece, and because of the variation 30 †xc6+
Black will still have problems because ‡xc6 31 …xd7 …xd7 32 …xd7 ‡xd7
of his weakened pawn structure 33 ƒxc7 ‡xc7 34 g4 ‡d6 35 f4
and slightly insecure ‡ position. ‡d5 36 ‡f2 ‡c4 37 g5 fxg5 38 fxg5
However, White must be careful not ‡xc3 39 h5 b4 40 g6 hxg6 41 h6 and
to let his back rank become weak, e.g. White queens with check.”
22 ƒxb6+? Èxb6!. Black might have just waited with
22...†d6 his ‡ but White can make gradual
If 22...bxa4 23 c4!. progress, e.g. with 29...‡c8 White
23 a5 …ed8 24 axb6+ axb6 25 g3 can play 30 †e4 ‡b7 (30...Èe7 31
†c6 26 ƒf4+ ‡b7 27 …d3 …d7 28 †xh7) 31 …d4 and/or h5-h6 followed
…ed1 …ad8 29 h4 (D) by preparing the advance of his g-
XIIIIIIIIY pawn.
9-+-tr-+-+0 30 †e4
The h-pawn cannot be captured yet
B
9+k+r+-+p0 but it will become a target after some
9-zpq+-zp-+0 consolidation.
9+p+n+-+-0 30...‡c8 31 …d4 ‡b7 32 ‡h2
9-+-+-vL-zP0 †c5 33 †f5 †c6 34 …4d2 †c4
9+-zPR+QzP-0 35 †xh5
9-+-+-zP-+0 It can be taken now, since Black’s
counterplay proves to be insufficient.
9+-+R+-mK-0 35...†e4 36 †g4 f5 37 †g6 Èxf4
xiiiiiiiiy 38 …xd7+ …xd7 39 …xd7+ ‡c8 40
…d8+!
29...h5?! This final tactic enables White to
Penrose observed that: “Black avoid disruption of his pawn structure
continues to have difficulty finding in the † ending.
playable moves. It is unfortunate for 40...‡xd8 41 †d6+ ‡c8 42 †xf4
him that 29...Èc7 does not work †e6 43 h5 1–0
Game 39
White: Ove C. Ekebjærg (Denmark)
NBC-25, 1991
The Players: Ekebjærg was runner-up once. First Black gains a little space
in the 14th CC World Championship, a and time.
few years after this game. Timmer- 6...g6 7 †f3 f5 8 †d5 †e7 9 Èxc7+
man is the 15th CC World Champion. ‡d8 10 Èxa8 b6 11 d3
About this game: NBC-25 was a A book like this cannot discuss the
mammoth tournament held to cele- intricacies of such a wild variation.
brate the Dutch CC Federation’s 25th The unbalanced nature of the position
jubilee. Timmerman was the winner makes computers an unreliable guide
and Ekebjærg was fourth. The game to what is going on. Ekebjærg follows
features a famous variation, in which a plan pioneered in the 1960s by his
Black sacrifices his … on a8. countryman, Julius Nielsen, who had
1 Èc3 some impressive wins with White.
The Danish GM always opens with 11...ƒb7 12 h4
this move, which is also a favourite of The idea of this move is to avoid
Dutch CC-GM van Geet. Timmerman being cramped on the kingside, but
makes the most flexible reply. the less explored 12 †f3 Èd4 13
1...Èf6 2 e4 †h3 is also playable.
White offers the choice of an 12...f4 13 †f3 Èd4
Alekhine’s Defence (2...d5), a Pirc An alternative is 13...ƒh6 14
(2...d6) or a Vienna. †g4? e4! as in J.Ost Hansen-J.Nunn,
2...e5 3 ƒc4 Èxe4 4 †h5 Èd6 5 student olympiad, Teesside 1972, but
ƒb3 Èc6 14 ƒd2 is an improvement for White.
This line is really an exchange Timmerman prefers to post his ƒ on
sacrifice by Black. A quieter game the long diagonal.
can result from 5...ƒe7. 14 †g4 ƒg7 15 ƒd2
6 Èb5 In T.Wibe-Timmerman, from
White has a crude threat to capture NBC-25, White played 15 Èxb6
on d6 and then checkmate on f7. axb6 16 ƒd2 È6f5 17 c3 and
Obviously the È cannot be taken managed to draw.
and if 6...†e7 White wins the … at 15...ƒxa8 (D)
Game 39: Ekebjærg-Timmerman 189
At last there is nothing better than ƒxg5 23 hxg5 †e7 24 ƒa4 …h7!
to capture the trapped È and see what 25 0–0–0 †xg5 26 f3 †g3!. Black
White intends. aims for an ending that emphasises
XIIIIIIIIY the advantages of his position: the
9l+-mk-+-tr0 potential ...g5-g4 break, active ‡ on
the dark squares and the passivity of
9zp-+pwq-vlp0
W the white …s. He won in 40 moves.
9-zp-sn-+p+0 16...ƒf6 17 ƒb4
9+-+-zp-+-0 Possibly 17 h5 first is better, as
9-+-sn-zpQzP0 Wibe played against J.van Oosterom
9+L+P+-+-0 in NBC-25.
9PzPPvL-zPP+0 A more recent idea for White is 17
…e1 when:
9tR-+-mK-sNR0 a) 17...È6f5 18 h5 g5 19 Èe2
xiiiiiiiiy Èh6 20 †h3 g4 (Again, Black is
looking for tactical solutions.) 21
16 0–0–0 †h2 g3 22 †g1! Èg4 23 f3 Èxb3+
M.V.Fiorito-Timmerman, 10th Dutch 24 axb3 Èf2 25 Èxf4 †c5 26 ƒe3
CC Ch 1981-82, had gone instead 16 †c7 27 Èe2 Èxd3+ 28 ‡b1 Èxe1
h5?! g5 17 c3 È4f5 18 …h2 Èh6 19 29 †xe1 …g8 30 …h3 and White,
†e2 g4 20 0–0–0 Èdf5 21 d4 ƒb7 having returned the exchange, is now
22 …e1 …e8 23 d5 ƒf6 24 ƒc2 and winning the g-pawn (M.Larsson-
Black took the initiative by 24...g3 25 J.A.Tait, North Sea tt corr 1998-99).
fxg3 Èxg3 and went on to win. b) An OTB team game M.Okkes-
In J.J.Carleton-Timmerman, 15th Timmerman, Amstelveen-Volmac2,
Wch Final 1996, White instead tried 1993 went instead 17...†g7 18 ‡b1
16 Èh3 hoping to follow Carleton- (18 h5 g5 19 h6!? may be stronger.)
J.A.Tait, British Postal Cht 1994, 18...h5 19 †h3 È6f5 20 Èe2
which went 16...È6f5? 17 Èg5 h5 Èxe2 21 …xe2 Èxh4 22 g3! Èf3
18 †h3 …f8 19 c3 Èxh4 20 †xh4 (22...ƒg2 23 †h2) 23 ƒc3 Èg5 24
Èxb3 (20...Èf5 21 Èe6+!) 21 axb3 †h2 ƒxh1? (24...„f3 25 †h3 „g5
ƒf6 22 …xa7 and White stood better. repeats.) 25 gxf4! ƒf3 26 fxe5 †f8
Timmerman’s comment on 27 exf6 †c5 28 …e5 †c7 29 †f4
this is that Tait sought a tactical 1–0. No doubt Timmerman has found
solution whereas Black should trust an improvement on this, perhaps
his positional compensation for involving 22...g5 or 22...ƒf3.
the exchange. So he improved by 17...a5 18 ƒxd6
16...ƒf6! (attacking h4 and guarding After 18 ƒa3 b5 19 c3 Èxb3+ 20
g5) 17 ƒb4 ‡c7 18 c4? (18 c3 È4f5 axb3 b4! 21 cxb4 Èb5 Black is much
is critical.) 18...a5 19 ƒa3 †g7 20 better.
Èg5 h5 21 ƒxd6+ ‡xd6 22 †h3 18...†xd6 19 Èh3 †c6
190 64 Great Chess Games
Timmerman does not fall for the 27...†c2+ 28 ‡a1 a3! 29 …b1 (D)
naïve 19...e4? 20 Èg5 Èxb3+ 21 Not 29 bxa3? e4‰. Instead the
axb3 †d4 when 22 Èe6+! dxe6 23 Danish GM sets a devious trap; Black
dxe4 wins the black †. could even lose this position.
20 Èg5 XIIIIIIIIY
After 20 c3 †xg2 21 †xg2 9l+-+-+-vl0
Èxb3+ 22 axb3 ƒxg2 23 …h2 ƒf3
24 …e1 h6 (not 24...ƒxh4? 25 Èg1 B
9+-mkp+-+p0
attacking both ƒs) 25 Èg1 ƒg4 26 9-+-+-+-+0
Èe2 …e8 Black’s two ƒs and pawn 9+-+-zp-zpP0
are at least the equal of White’s … 9-+-zP-zpQ+0
and „. 9zp-+p+-+-0
20...a4! 21 ƒc4 9PzPq+-zPP+0
It would be unwise for White to
repeat the trick of capturing a … in
9mKR+-+-+R0
the corner. After 21 Èf7+ ‡c7 22 xiiiiiiiiy
Èxh8? axb3 23 c3 bxa2 24 ‡d2
Èb3+ 25 ‡e2 ƒxh8 Black is 29...ƒe4!
winning. Now Black insists on giving Timmerman avoids 29...d2? 30
up the second exchange. †d1! ƒe4 31 †xc2+ ƒxc2 32
21...b5! 22 Èf7+ …hc1! dxc1† 33 …xc1 when after
White may as well accept the offer, the simplification Black would have
since after 22 c3 bxc4 23 dxc4 †xc4 a bad ƒ v … endgame.
the square f7 is guarded. 30 †d1 exd4!
22...‡c7 23 Èxh8 ƒxh8 24 h5! g5! Now a subsequent ...d3-d2 can be
The Dutchman comes off better backed up by ...d4-d3.
from the struggle but to win against 31 †f1! d6!
his tough opponent is far from easy. Yet another trap had to be
If instead 24...bxc4 White must circumvented. 31...d2? is still prem-
not play 25 hxg6?? (as given in the ature because of 32 †b5! axb2+ 33
tournament book) because of the †xb2 and ...d3 is prevented because
strong reply 25...c3!, but 25 c3! g5! the h8-ƒ would be en prise. The idea
transposes to the game. of the text move is to place the ƒ
25 c3 on the protected square e5. White is
Probably best because if 25 †xg5 running out of defensive resources.
bxc4 26 dxc4 †xc4 27 …xd4 †xd4 32 f3 ƒf5 33 †c1 d2 34 †xc2+ ƒxc2
28 †g8 e4 29 c3 ƒd5! 30 †xh7 (or 35 …hd1 d3 36 …xd2 ‡b6! 0–1
30 cxd4 ƒxg8Œ) 30...†e5 31 …d1 White is still two exchanges ahead
e3 Black has all the winning chances. but his situation is hopeless in view of
25...bxc4 26 cxd4 cxd3+ 27 ‡b1 37 h6 ‡b5 38 …f2 ‡b4 39 …d2 axb2
27 ‡d2? †c2+ 28 ‡e1 f3!‰. 40 …xb2 ‡a3‰.
Game 40
White: Peter J. Sowray (England)
XIIIIIIIIY
The Players: Despite his name, Got-
tardi (born 1961) is actually from the
9r+-+kvl-tr0
German-speaking part of Switzerland. 9zpp+-zppzpp0
He joined the CC elite when he won B9-snnwql+-+0
the Konstantinopolsky Memorial with 9+-+-+-+-0
13/14 and then scored an unbeaten 9-+-zp-+-+0
11/15 in the 15th World Championship 9sNLzP-+N+-0
Final. He is currently taking a break
from competition but I expect to see a
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
strong comeback from him in future. 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
Gritsaenko is a CC-IM. xiiiiiiiiy
About this game: Gottardi’s play is 10...dxc3
characterised by imaginative com- Black can also decline the offer with
binative attacks and deep openings 10...ƒxb3, meeting 11 axb3 by 11...a6,
preparation, but theory has moved and 11 †xb3 by 11...e6 or 11...†d5.
on since the game was played. I 11 †e2 ƒxb3 12 Èb5 †b8 13
particularly like the instructive final axb3 e5
attack with reduced material. In the same event, Gottardi-
1 e4 c5 2 c3 Brzózka went 13...e6 14 g3 (£15
Despite its quiet appearance, this ƒf4) 14...†c8!?, but Gottardi found
move can lead to complications. a way forward: 15 Èg5!? a6 16
2...Èf6 3 e5 Èd5 4 d4 cxd4 5 Èf3 †h5 Èd8 (16...g6 17 †f3 †d7 18
Èc6 6 ƒc4 Èb6 7 ƒb3 Èe4! Èd5 19 …d1 ƒg7 20 …xd5!)
White offers a gambit instead of 17 Èxc3 h6 18 ƒe3 Èd7 19 …fd1
recapturing on d4. Black can avoid Èe5? 20 …xd8+! ‡xd8 (20...†xd8
this line playing ...e6 at move 5 or 6. 21 Èxe6) 21 Èxf7+ Èxf7 22 †xf7
7...d6 1–0.
This reaches the same position as 14 Èbd4 Èxd4
after the usual 7...d5 because White Alternatives are:
captures en passant in that case. a) 14...f6!? as in Rytshagov-Sadler,
8 exd6 †xd6 9 0–0 ƒe6 10 Èa3 (D) EU Cht Pula 1997.
Game 42: Gottardi-Gritsaenko 199
NPSF-50, 1994-96
The threat of the family fork by the should have been used to improve the
È and the second threat to b5 give position of one of the …s or, as Grahn
White no time to take on g7 or b4. suggests, to move the white † out
18 ƒe2 of the reach of the black …: 23 †b2
Obviously not 18 Èd4?? ƒxb5 †d5 24 ‡g1 ƒc5 25 ƒe3 b6, with
19 cxb4 Èd3+. So Timmerman tries just a small advantage for Black.
to control the square f3, as 18 …g3 23...Èc6 24 ƒe3
fails to 18...ƒxb5 19 cxb4 Èd3+, Grahn pessimistically thinks this is
or if White exchanges the †s at d8 forced because after 24 Èxc6 ƒxc6
instead, the ƒ at h6 gets lost, e.g. 19 25 …d3 …xe2! Black wins easily, e.g.
†xd8 …axd8 20 ƒxg7? …fe8 and 26 ‡xe2 (26 †xe2 ƒb5 27 …ad1
Black wins. †a6) 26...†a6 27 c4 (27 …d1 …xd3
18...…e8 28 †xd3 ƒb5) 27...†xc4 28 …d1
This renews the threat of ...Èf3+ …xd3 29 †xd3 †xf4.
and forces White’s ‡ to move. In ‘Chess Mail’ 1/1997, I suggested
19 ‡f1 ƒf8 (D) that with 24 …d3 White has chances
The first phase of direct threats is of equality despite the difficulties on
over; everything is protected, White the light squares. This was seen in
has lost castling rights, and for the O.Lorentzen-E.Sterud, Norway corr
pawn Andersson has great piece Ch 1997: 24...Èxd4 25 …xd4 ƒc5
activity. Now it is time for the active 26 …xd8 …xd8 27 †b2 ƒd6 28
ƒs to retire. ƒxd6 †d5 29 f3 †xd6 30 †xb7
XIIIIIIIIY †h2 31 †xa7 …e8 32 …e1 ½-½.
9r+-wqrvlk+0 24...Èxd4 25 ƒxd4 …e4 26 †b2
ƒc5 27 …b1
9zpp+l+pzp-0
W If instead 27 ƒxc5 †xc5 28
9-+-+-+-vL0 …d3 …de8 (Harding, 1997) when
9+-+-snN+-0 Portuguese CC-GM Alvaro Pereira
9-+-+-+PzP0 analysed further in ‘Peao Distante’:
9+-zP-+-+-0 29 …e1 (29 …d2 …xe2 30 …xe2 ƒb5
9P+-wQLzP-+0 31 …ae1 †d5‰ or 29 ƒf3 ƒb5!
30 ƒxe4 …xe4 31 …ad1 …xg4‰)
9tR-+-+KtR-0 29...ƒb5 30 …e3 …xe3 31 fxe3 ƒc6
xiiiiiiiiy with clear advantage to Black.
27...ƒxd4 28 cxd4 ƒc6 29 …d1 …f4
20 ƒf4 †a5 21 …g3 …ad8 22 Èd4 30 d5?
ƒa4 23 h5 White returns the extra pawn in the
White tries to generate some hope of simplification but Andersson
attack but this move gives Black keeps the initiative. At this point,
the opportunity of an advantageous White had a better move that could
exchange on d4. So perhaps this tempo have kept his chances alive.
Game 43: Timmerman-U.Andersson 205
XIIIIIIIIY
30 †d2! is a better way of giving
up the pawn. After 30...†xd2 31 9-+-+-+k+0
…xd2 …fxd4 32 …xd4 …xd4 Black 9zpp+-+pzp-0
surely has a better position, but will it 9-+l+-+-+0
W
be enough to win the game? 9+-tr-+-+P0
Black can try for more by 30...†g5 9-+-+-+P+0
when the threat is ...ƒa4 and if the … 9+-+-mKPwq-0
leaves the square d1 then Black can
play ...…xf2+ as well as ...…dxd4. 9PwQ-+L+-+0
However, Timmerman could reply 31 9+-+R+-+-0
ƒc4! and the ƒ tries to go to b3 and xiiiiiiiiy
put pressure on f7; for example: Pereira comments: “The white
a) 31...†f6 32 g5! †xd4 33 †xd4 ‡ cannot get back under cover.
…dxd4 34 …xd4 …xd4 and White’s Andersson plays the attack very
ƒ is much more active than in the well.” Now that the retreat to f2 is
30...†d2 variation. cut off, Black’s threat is 38...…e5+,
b) If 31...ƒd5 32 ƒxd5 …xd5 33 followed by ...ƒxf3.
…e1 the black ‡ is in danger. Also 38 …d8+ ‡h7 39 ƒd3+ f5! 40 †d4
not 31...…fxd4? 32 †xg5 …xd1+ 33 40 ƒxf5+ fails to 40...…xf5 41
‡e2. So maybe there would be nothing gxf5 †g5+ and ...†xd8.
better than 30...†xd2 after all. 40...†xf3+ 41 ‡d2 †g2+ 42 ‡e3
30...…xd5 31 …gd3 †c5 32 f3 …xd3 After 42 ƒe2 …d5 43 …xd5 †xd5
33 …xd3 †g5 44 †xd5 ƒxd5 Black has a winning
Black threatens ...†xg4 and ƒ endgame — Grahn.
definitely stands better now. White’s 42...†g3+ 43 ‡d2 †h2+ 44 ƒe2
kingside pawns are meant to be an Not 44 ‡e3? …e5+ but Black
offensive weapon in the Keres Attack demonstrates a forced win against the
but now they are his problem. If the text move also.
black † can filter in behind them, 44...…e5 45 †c4 ƒf3
then the game is over. This wins a piece, so the game
34 ‡e1 …c4 could have ended here.
Andersson begins the final assault. White still has a series of checks
35 ‡f2 but the pawns on g4 and h5, meant
The ‡ returns to the kingside to attack the black ‡, now serve as
because 35 ‡d1 ƒa4+ 36 ‡e1 his shield.
…c2 37 †d4 †h4+ is even worse 46 †g8+ ‡h6 47 †h8+ ‡g5 48
for White. †xg7+ ‡h4 49 †f6+ ‡h3 0-1
35...†h4+ 36 ‡e3 The black ‡ reached safety and
Not 36 ‡g2?? …xg4+ and White resigned. This was a fine win
checkmate. by Andersson who revealed that he
36...…c5 37 …d1 †g3 (D) mostly analysed in his local cafe.
Game 44
White: Viktoras Milvydas (Lithuania)
but in view of the present game 22 White cannot take the È yet
ƒxd5 seems to be necessary. After because of 24 gxf4? ƒh3 (£...…g6+)
22...cxd5 23 …xa6 …fe8, a position and if 25 Èe5 …xe5 26 dxe5 †g4+
arises which used to be treated in or 25 …xe6 †g4+ 26 ‡h1 (26 ‡f2
theory books as a transposition to †xf4+) 26...ƒxf1.
21...…fe8 22 …xa6 ‡h8 23 ƒxd5 24...Èh3+!!
cxd5. After 24 †b5!, Black needs Nunn only analysed 24...Èxe6 25
an improvement upon 24...…h6!? 25 Èe5! f4 26 ƒxe6 ƒxe6 27 …xa6
Èf1 ƒf3 26 ƒc1 …f8 27 …e3 ƒe4 ‡g8 28 Èxc6! ƒh3 29 …a5! †h6
(Unzicker-Nunn, Bundesliga 1991) (29...†g4 30 Èe5) 30 †f3ˆ.
because of 28 b3!, which still awaits 25 ‡g2 Èg5!
practical tests. Black is a whole … down but
Fortunately, it is by no means a this does not matter for the moment
death-blow to the Marshall if this with the white … offside on a4.
line fails for Black, because he Black’s minor pieces are generating
has 18...†h5 as well as interesting tremendous firepower. The most
sidelines such as 15...…a8, 15...…a7 obvious threats are 26...Èxe6 and
or 11...ƒb7 to fall back on. 26...ƒh3+ followed by ...ƒxf1 but
22...ƒxf4!? these are not the only ideas Black
This ingenious move was analysed has.
by GM John Nunn in 1989. He thought 26 †f2!
it was inadequate but Muravyev’s 26 ‡g1 Èf3+ would be very
shocker at move 24 seems to mean unpleasant for White, who would have
Black draws and could easily win to choose between giving up his † or
if White goes wrong. 22...Èxe3 23 else playing 27 ‡f2 when the black …
Èxe3‹ was prior theory. also enters the attack by 27...f4.
23 ƒxf4 26...ƒf3+!
If 23 gxf4? …g6 — Nunn. Black could take the … on e6 but
23...Èxf4 24 …xe6 (D) that would give White time to get
XIIIIIIIIY organised. Given his success in the
9-+-+-tr-mk0 game so far, Black will certainly be
trying to win this position and he may
9+-+-+-zpp0
B have other ways of trying to do so,
9p+p+R+-+0 here or over the next few moves.
9+-+-+p+q0 Care is required, however. For
9R+NzP-snl+0 example, after 26...f4?! White has the
9+LzP-+-zP-0 amusing 27 …e3! when Black may
9-zP-+-+-zP0 be losing (27...Èh3 28 †f1 †d5+
29 …f3).
9+-+-+QmK-0 27 ‡f1 f4
xiiiiiiiiy 27...Èxe6!? 28 …xa6 f4 29 ‡e1
Game 44: Milvydas-Muravyev 209
The Players: Grigory Sanakoev was it specially for the 14th Final. The
the 12th CC World Champion, while point is to advance in the centre after,
Tõnu Õim had won the 9th Champi- for example, 7 ƒg5 c6 8 ƒa4 d5 9
onship and the Axelson Memorial, e5 ƒg4 “with interesting play” says
which was of comparable strength to GM Glenn Flear in his book ‘Offbeat
a world final. Winning the 14th Final, Spanish’. White’s next move forestalls
he became the first man ever to regain this plan.
the world title. 7 d5! a6 8 ƒa4 Èf6 9 Èc3 0–0 10 e5
About this game: This was the deci- The critical alternative is 10 d6
sive game of the championship. Õim when Õim indicates 10...cxd6 11
had never beaten Sanakoev, and twice †xd6 ƒc7 12 †d3 b5 (12...d5!?)¢.
lost, so here he made a special effort, Instead 10...Èg6 11 0-0 cxd6 12 ƒg5
beginning with an opening surprise. (Timmerman-Õim, won by White)
The notes are based on comments and 12 †xd6 ƒc7 13 †d4 (Franzen-
Tõnu Õim submitted to ‘Chess Mail’ Õim, both from the Hans-Werner
just after the game ended. I also von Massow Memorial 1996-99) are
looked critically at the comments in somewhat in White’s favour.
the book ‘Sajandi Parim Kirimaletaja 10...Èg4 11 0–0 d6 12 ƒf4 Èg6 13
Tõnu Õim’ edited by Taivo Kastan ƒg5 f6 14 exf6 (D)
(Tallinn, 1999) where the game was XIIIIIIIIY
analysed by computers. 9r+lwq-trk+0
1 e4 e5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 ƒb5 ƒc5 4 c3
ƒb6 5 d4 B
9+pzp-+-zpp0
White can’t win a pawn by 5 ƒxc6 9pvl-zp-zPn+0
dxc6 6 Èxe5 because of 6...†g5= 9+-+P+-vL-0
attacking e5 and g2. White can play 9L+-+-+n+0
5 0-0 but it leaves Black a freer hand 9+-sN-+N+-0
after 5...d6 6 d4 ƒd7. 9PzP-+-zPPzP0
5...exd4 6 cxd4 Èce7!?
This move was revived a few years
9tR-+Q+RmK-0
ago by Jonny Hector; Õim prepared xiiiiiiiiy
Game 45: Sanakoev-Õim 211
13 d5 b4 15...Èh5
If 13...exd5 White does not If 15...bxc3 16 exf6 ƒxf6 17 bxc3
recapture but continues 14 e5 Èg4 with massive control of the centre.
(14...Èh5 15 Èxd5) 15 Èxd5 ƒc5 16 ƒd2
16 Èe3 Èxe3 (16...†c8 17 †d2! Of course White does not want
with a double attack on the d7-ƒ his ƒ to be captured on f4. This
and a5-È) 17 ƒxe3 ƒxe3 18 †xe3 temporary piece sacrifice exploits
when Black has serious weaknesses. Black’s pair of “„s on the rim”. If
13...†c8 comes into consideration Black captures the white È, he will
still, but after 14 Èe5 (or 14 Èd4!? soon lose the material back with a
c5 15 Èc2Ÿ) 14...b4 (14...ƒe8 worsening position: 16...bxc3? 17
15 ƒh3‹) 15 dxe6 (15 Èxd7!?) ƒxc3 Èc6 18 Èg5 (18 Èe1!?)
15...ƒxe6 (15...fxe6 16 ƒh3‹) 16 18...†e8 19 …xd7! †xd7 20 …d1
Èd5 ƒxd5 (16...…e8!?) 17 exd5 †e8 21 Èxe6ˆ.
ƒd6 18 Èxc4 ƒxf4 19 Èxa5‹ 16...†e8!
White has regained the pawn. This is the best defence. Black
14 dxe6 protects the h5-È and unpins his
White creates a new weakness on ƒ. Now if 17 Èd4 (to open the long
e6 and sets up a pin on the d-file. diagonal) he has 17...c5!.
The alternative was 14 e5 at once: Instead 16...ƒc6?! would be met
a) 14...Èh5? 15 ƒd2! bxc3 by a neat ƒ switchback: 17 ƒg5!
(15...…b8 16 dxe6 fxe6 17 Èe4) 16 †e8 18 ƒxe7 (or 18 Èe4) 18...†xe7
ƒxc3 exd5 17 …xd5 Èb7 18 …ad1 19 Èe4 with an attack.
Èc5 19 e6ˆ. 17 Èe4 ƒa4 (D)
b) 14...bxc3? 15 dxe6 cxb2 16 Elwert points out that this move
†xb2 fxe6 (16...…b8 17 †c2‹) 17 is a loss of time — however, Black
exf6 ƒxf6 (17...gxf6 18 †d2 ƒa4 must calculate extremely far in order
19 †e1 ƒxd1 20 …xd1ˆ) 18 Èe5 to see why. White anyway has a clear
…b8 (not 18...†b8? 19 †xb8 …axb8 advantage after 17...ƒc6 18 ƒg5 or
20 Èxd7ˆ nor 18...c6 19 …ab1‹) 17...ƒb5 18 Èd4.
19 †a3 ƒxe5 20 ƒxe5 …b5 21 XIIIIIIIIY
ƒc3‹. 9r+-+qtrk+0
c) However, Black can defend
better by 14...Èxd5! 15 Èxd5 exd5
9+-zp-vl-zpp0
W
16 …xd5 c6 ¢. 9p+-+p+-+0
14...fxe6 15 e5 9sn-+-zP-+n0
The focus of play starts to shift 9lzpp+N+-+0
towards the kingside, where Black 9+-+-+NzP-0
hopes the half-open f-file gives him 9PzP-vLQzPLzP0
some activity. If instead 15 Èb1
ƒc5!.
9tR-+R+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
216 64 Great Chess Games
The Players: Mikhail Umansky can Probably the most striking comment
reckon, like Kasparov, that 13 is his that he made on that occasion was:
lucky number. He won both the 13th “I think that in CC the outcome of
USSR Correspondence Championship the game mostly depends on the
(a very strong event) and later the 13th opening”.
World Championship in which he was Important opening ideas are not
the “dark horse” who outpaced the the sole preserve of sharp openings
favourites, Bang and Penrose. Uman- like the Sicilian and King’s Indian.
sky, who is also a FIDE International Novelties of a strategic character
Master, has now emigrated with his are very important in high-level
family to Germany. correspondence chess. The following
Dr Hans Berliner has compared game, which began shortly after our
Umansky’s style to Mikhail Tal; the meeting, was played in the strongest
Russian’s best games are very sharp postal tournament ever held. It shows
and finely calculated but also have how Umansky applied his philosophy
strategic depth. to beat a tough opponent.
Heinrich Burger emigrated from 1 d4 Èf6 2 c4 g6 3 g3 ƒg7 4 ƒg2 d5
West Germany to the East during the 5 cxd5 Èxd5 6 e4 Èb6 7 Èe2 e5
Cold War. After the reunification of This possibility is not even
the country he found himself back in mentioned in the book ‘Fianchetto
the Federal Republic and playing on Grünfeld’ by Mikhalchishin and
the German national team! He became Beliavsky but a known position soon
a CC grandmaster in 1996. arises by transposition.
About this game: When I first met 8 d5 0–0 9 0–0 c6 10 Èbc3
Umansky in 1996 — at that time the This position more usually arises
new World Champion — I made a from 7...0–0 8 0–0 c6 9 Èbc3 e5
short interview with him, which was 10 d5.
published in ‘Chess Mail’ 2/1997. 10...cxd5 11 exd5 Èa6 (D)
Game 47: Umansky-Burger 219
XIIIIIIIIY
White has a very powerful central
9r+lwq-trk+0 passed pawn which breaks the
9zpp+-+pvlp0 opponent’s position into two halves
9nsn-+-+p+0
W and all White’s pieces are better
9+-+Pzp-+-0 placed than their opposite numbers:
9-+-+-+-+0 Black’s ƒ has no target and his Ès
9+-sN-+-zP-0 are particularly badly situated on the
edge of the board.
9PzP-+NzPLzP0 19 È2c3 h6 (D)
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 XIIIIIIIIY
xiiiiiiiiy 9-+rwq-trk+0
12 †b3
A novelty. 12 b3 is known from
9zpp+-+pvl-0
Antoshin-Tukmakov, USSR 1972, W9n+-+-+pzp0
while 12 a4 has also been seen. Now 9sn-+Pzp-+-0
if 12...ƒg4 13 ƒe3 …c8 14 …fd1. 9-+-+N+-+0
12...Èc5 9+-sN-+-zP-0
12...ƒg4 13 ƒe3 …c8 14 …fd1Ÿ. 9PzPQ+-zP-zP0
13 †a3 Èa6 14 …d1 Èc4 15 †b3
Èa5
9tR-vLR+-mK-0
15...Èd6 16 ƒe3 ƒd7 17 Èe4Ÿ. xiiiiiiiiy
16 †c2 ƒf5
If 16...f5 17 d6Ÿ or 16...ƒd7 17 Black prepares ...f5, ...e4 to bring
d6 Èb4 18 †e4Ÿ. his position to life. White, however,
17 ƒe4 has seen further.
Note how, whenever a black piece 20 b4 Èxb4
seems to come to an active square, Not 20...Èc4 21 d6 f5 22 d7 …c7
Umansky drives it back or (in this 23 Èb5 and wins, but now if 21 †a4
case) exchanges it, gradually gaining …c4 22 ƒa3 Èxa2.
control of more of the board. However, Umansky found what
The potential energy of White’s Kotov called a “creeping move”: a
passed pawn and the fact that it short † sidestep which significantly
controls key squares (especially c6) alters the tactical possibilities.
limits Black’s possibilities. 21 †b1 Èa6 22 ƒa3!
17...ƒxe4 With the point that if 22...…e8
If 17...ƒd7 18 d6 f5 19 ƒd5+ then 23 d6 †d7 24 Èd5 is winning.
‡h8 20 a3 …c8 21 b4 Èc6 22 †a2 Instead 22 d6?! f5 23 Èd5 doesn’t
Èab8 23 ƒb2. work because of 23...‡h7! 24 d7
18 Èxe4 …c8 …a8! (Umansky). The move chosen
If 18...h6 19 b4 Èxb4 20 †a4 effectively gives up two minor
Èa6 21 ƒa3 …e8 22 d6ˆ. pieces for a … but retains the strong
220 64 Great Chess Games
d-pawn and creates serious kingside variation, the È is further from the
weaknesses. passed pawn and if 30...Èbc6? then
22...f5 23 ƒxf8 ƒxf8 24 d6 …c4 31 †e8+ ‡g7 32 …d6 wins.
It’s all tactics now. Black 30...…xe4!? 31 †xe4 Èac6
presumably did not like the look of 31...Èbc6? 32 †e8+ ‡g7 33
24...fxe4 25 Èxe4 b6 26 †d3 Èb4 …xa1 Èc4 34 …e1ˆ.
27 †b5, e.g. 27...Èbc6 28 †d5+ 32 †xg6!
‡g7 and now maybe 29 d7 …c7 30 This strips the black ‡ of more
…ac1 £†e6, Èd6. cover. After 32 †e8+?! ‡g7 33
25 †b5 fxe4 26 Èxe4 ‡h8!? (D) …xa1 Èd3! Black has chances of
The idea is to prevent the † achieving a blockade.
invading on f7 with check: 26...‡h7 32...ƒe5
27 †d5 Èb4 28 †f7+ ƒg7 29 d7 The white † can beat three black
…xe4 30 …d6 …g4 31 …e6 wins minor pieces after 32...ƒg7 33 …e1
according to Umansky. †xd7 34 …e8+ †xe8 35 †xe8+
XIIIIIIIIY ‡h7 36 f4 etc.
9-+-wq-vl-mk0 33 f4 ƒc3
Against 33...†b6+ 34 ‡g2 Èd8
9zpp+-+-+-0
W 35 †e8+ ‡g7 the best line appears to
9n+-zP-+pzp0 be 36 †e7+ ‡g8 37 †xe5 Èbc6 38
9snQ+-zp-+-0 †f6 and White should win. If instead
9-+r+N+-+0 36 fxe5 Èbc6 37 …d6 (Umansky),
9+-+-+-zP-0 Black may hang on by 37...†b1!.
9P+-+-zP-zP0 34 …d6 1–0 (D)
9tR-+R+-mK-0 XIIIIIIIIY
xiiiiiiiiy 9-+-wq-+-mk0
B
9zpp+P+-+-0
Now White undoubtedly had to do 9-+ntR-+Qzp0
a lot of calculation to find the correct 9+-+-+-+-0
route through a maze of tempting 9-sn-+-zP-+0
variations. 9+-vl-+-zP-0
Umansky rejected 27 †xe5+ ƒg7 9P+-+-+-zP0
28 †e6 ƒxa1 29 d7 because after
29...Èc7 30 †xg6 …xe4 31 †xh6+
9+-+-+-mK-0
‡g8 32 †g6+ ƒg7 33 †xe4 Èc6 xiiiiiiiiy
34 …d6 ƒe5 Black’s pieces cooperate
well, despite the denuded kingside. Black resigned. The final point is a
27 †d5! Èb4 28 †xe5+ ƒg7 29 mating attack after 34...†f8 35 …e6
†e6 ƒxa1 30 d7 †c5+ 36 ‡g2 †d5+ 37 ‡h3 †xd7
By comparison with the previous 38 f5 Èe7 39 †f7.
Game 48
White: Volker-Michael Anton (Germany)
endgame. If †s are exchanged, White his ‡ position. This will prove wise
can advance his passed e-pawn and later on.
Black’s c-pawn is weak. 47...ƒf8 48 ƒd5 ƒxb4 49 axb4!
e) 35...…d6 (or 35...…e7) 36 †b3 This is much stronger than winning
maintaining the pin. back the exchange. White now has a
Van Geet tried for counterplay on powerful passed pawn.
the queenside but this also failed. 49...…e7 50 b5 Èd6 51 †c5 †d7
35...c5 36 bxc5 bxc5 37 ƒc3 52 Èb8 †c7 53 Èc6 …e8 54 b6
Black has to meet the threat of †d7 55 †b4 Èb7 56 e4 †d6 57
ƒa5 and his passed pawn is firmly †b2 Èd8 (D)
blockaded. XIIIIIIIIY
37...…a7 38 †b3! 9-+-snr+-mk0
The È comes to e6 and then
eliminates the danger pawn. W
9+-+-+-+p0
38...‡h8 39 Èe6 †g8 40 Èxc5 9-zPNwq-+p+0
…d8 41 ƒd5 (D) 9+-+Lzp-+-0
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+P+-zP0
9-+-tr-+qmk0 9+-+-+-zP-0
9tr-+-+nvlp0 9-wQ-+-zPK+0
B
9-+-+-+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0
9+-sNLzp-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy
9-+-+-+-zP0
9zPQvL-zP-zP-0 58 Èxd8!
9-+-+-zP-+0 The simplest. Naturally 58 Èa5 is
also good, and the b-pawn will cost
9+-tR-+-mK-0 Black a piece.
xiiiiiiiiy 58...†xd8
If 58...…xd8 59 f4.
41...…b8 59 ƒc6 …e6 60 b7 †b8 61 †a1
According to Black afterwards, …f6 62 f4 ‡g7
returning the exchange by 41...…xa3 On 62...‡g8 comes 63 †xe5
was perhaps better. However, it does †xe5 64 fxe5 …f8 65 e6.
not save the game because White has 63 †xe5 1-0
an extra pawn and superior piece Black resigned because of the
activity (42 †xa3 …xd5 43 Èe6). inevitable moves 63...†xe5 64 fxe5
42 ƒb4 …c7 43 …c4 †c8 44 ƒe6 …f8 65 ƒd7. He was the first to
†e8 45 Èa6 …xc4 46 †xc4 …b7 congratulate Anton on winning the
47 ‡g2! tournament, remarking that the game
White is in no hurry and improves deserved the beauty prize.
Game 49
White: Erik B.H. Bang (Denmark)
The Players: Erik Bang (born Octo- ‘Chess Mail’. A few additional
ber 25, 1944) has been an ICCF opening references have been added.
international master since 1974 and 1 d4 Èf6 2 c4 e6 3 Èc3 ƒb4 4 e3 c5
a grandmaster since 1979; he also 5 Ège2 b6
played many times for Denmark ‘over I am not an expert on this line, but
the board’. His wins in strong CC I believe that here Black is currently
tournaments include the Canadian 60th experiencing some difficulties.
Jubilee tournament and best result on 6 a3 ƒa5 7 …b1 Èa6 8 ƒd2
top board in 8th Correspondence Ol- The latest fashion here is 8 f3, for
ympiad Final. He was runner-up in the example 8...0–0 9 d5 …e8 10 ‡f2
13th World Championship and before exd5 11 cxd5 d6 12 Èg3 ƒxc3 13
that in the Axelson Memorial. bxc3 Èc7 14 c4 b5 15 e4 bxc4 16
Mikhail Umansky was introduced ƒxc4 with complicated play, as in the
in Game 47. game Aleksandrov-Serper, New York
About this game: Here Bang takes Open 1998.
revenge for his loss to Umansky, 8...0–0 9 Èg3 ƒb7
which decided the top two places in This is the first important moment.
the World Championship a few years Instead of the text move, 9...d5!?
earlier. On that occasion an almost looks like a better try. For example,
imperceptible strategic error by Bang in the game Knaak-Christiansen,
in the opening was punished. This German Team Cup Final, Porz 1997,
time it is Umansky who makes the Black obtained a reasonable position
slight but fatal error. I am grateful to after 10 cxd5 cxd4 11 exd4 ƒxc3 12
FIDE grandmaster Alexander Baburin bxc3 exd5 13 f3 Èc7 14 ‡f2 …e8 15
for permission to reproduce the notes h4 ƒa6 16 ƒxa6 Èxa6 17 h5 †d7.
he wrote specially for my magazine 10 ƒd3 (D)
226 64 Great Chess Games
XIIIIIIIIY
Of course, it’s important to make
9r+-wq-trk+0 sure that Black cannot just snatch the
9zpl+p+pzpp0 pawn with 13...ƒxg2. However, just
9nzp-+psn-+0
B a glance at the position arising after
9vl-zp-+-+-0 14 …g1 ƒb7 15 Èh5! confirms that
9-+PzP-+-+0 White’s attack is very strong and
9zP-sNLzP-sN-0 more than compensates for a minor
material loss. White’s c3-ƒ can join
9-zP-vL-zPPzP0 the offensive after timely thrust d4-d5,
9+R+QmK-+R0 while Black has major problems with
xiiiiiiiiy defence, where the awkwardly placed
10...…c8? a6-È does not play any role.
I don’t quite understand the point I believe that the following
of this move. It seems that Black is analysis is quite instructive: 15...g6
wasting a valuable tempo, jeopardising (15...Èxh5? 16 ƒxh7+! ‡xh7 17
his counterplay in the centre. †xh5+ ‡g8 18 †h6ˆ) 16 d5
Black later tried 10...d5 here. After Èxh5 17 †xh5 †e8. Now White can
11 cxd5 cxd4 12 exd4 ƒxc3 13 bxc3 win some material with 18 ƒf6 exd5+
†xd5 14 †e2 Èc7 15 f3 White 19 ‡f1 …c6 (19...†e6 20 ƒxg6!ˆ)
stood better in the game Lautier- 20 …e1 …xf6 21 …xe8 …xe8 but the
Beliavsky, Ubeda 1997. Then in final position is very unclear.
Shulman-Marin, Excelsior Cup, It’s better to play 18 …g3! and
Göteborg 1999, Black improved with then after 18...f5 19 ‡d2! e5 20 …e1
14...Èb8 15 f3 †a2 16 Èe4 Èxe4 d6 (20...e4 21 …eg1ˆ) 21 ƒxf5
17 fxe4 ƒa6! 18 0-0 ƒxd3 19 †xd3 …xf5 22 †xf5 …xc4 23 f4, White is
†xa3 20 †g3 f6 21 ƒf4 e5 22 dxe5 winning.
†c5+ 23 ‡h1 ½-½. I would be interested to know
11 †e2! why White preferred the strategically
Now ...d5 is no longer an option riskier text move to 13 ƒxc3.
for Black. Probably, though, this is a matter of
11...cxd4 12 exd4 ƒxc3 13 bxc3 style.
This is not a trivial decision. 13...Èb8
Obviously White counts on the Of course the line 13...ƒxg2? 14
kingside attack and therefore wants …g1 ƒb7 15 ƒg5 gives White a
to keep his ƒ on the c1–h6 diagonal. winning attack for a mere pawn.
Still, I would probably have played 14 0–0 d6 15 ƒg5! h6
the more elastic 13 ƒxc3. Then This move seriously compromises
Black cannot play 13...d5 because Black’s kingside, but after 15...Èbd7
of 14 cxd5. If he prepares it with 16 Èh5 h6 17 ƒh4 it would be
13...Èc7, then ...d5 can be met with almost impossible to break the pin.
c4-c5. 16 ƒf4 ƒa6?! 17 …fe1 d5 (D)
Game 49: Bang-Umansky 227
XIIIIIIIIY
After 23...†f6 White has a
9-snrwq-trk+0 pleasant choice between 24 †xf6+
9zp-+-+pzp-0 …xf6 (24...Èxf6 25 Èe7) 25 …e7,
9lzp-+psn-zp0
W or 24 Èe7 †xf2+ 25 ‡h1 †xc2 26
9+-+p+-+-0 Èxc8, or (possibly the best) 24 †e3.
9-+PzP-vL-+0 24 †e3 (D)
9zP-zPL+-sN-0 XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+QzPPzP0 9-snrwq-+-mk0
9+R+-tR-mK-0 B
9zp-+-+-+n0
xiiiiiiiiy 9-zp-+-tr-+0
Here Black probably thought that 9+-+p+N+-0
he was doing OK. Yet, the revelation 9-+lzP-+-+0
was just around the corner. 9zP-zP-wQ-+-0
18 †d2!! 9-+L+-zPPzP0
This is a brilliant concept: White
gives up a pawn to preserve his light-
9+R+-tR-mK-0
squared ƒ, which soon will play xiiiiiiiiy
a key role in the kingside attack. I
wonder whether White had foreseen Maybe when Black played
this idea when he played 13 bxc3, 19...Èh7, he believed that he would
though. still have reasonable chances here.
18...ƒxc4 19 ƒc2 Èh7 However, now he must have
At first glance Black’s defensive realised that his position was
task does not look too difficult, beyond repair: his ‡ has been
but a closer examination shows stripped of his pawn shield, while
that it’s nearly impossible to stop his pieces on the queenside are
White striking on h6, for example absolutely idle.
19...Èbd7? 20 ƒxh6 gxh6 21 †xh6 24...Èc6 25 †h3! †d7 26 †h5!
and Black cannot do anything about 1–0
the threat of 22 Èh5. Probably Black This nice † manoeuvre concludes
had to return a pawn by playing the attack, as now Black cannot
19...Èe4 20 Èxe4 dxe4 21 ƒxe4 prevent 27 Èe7. Since the line
with better chances for a defence. 26...†f7 (26...…e6 27 Èh4!) 27
20 ƒxh6! gxh6? †xf7 …xf7 28 Èd6 …cf8 29 Èxf7+
This is probably where Black …xf7 30 h4 is too grim, Black
crossed the borderline. Better was resigned.
20...†f6 21 ƒf4 Èc6 when Black is This was a fine game where White
still in the game. built up his attack on better strategy,
21 †xh6 f5 22 †xe6+ ‡h8 23 successfully exploiting Black’s not
Èxf5 …f6 very obvious mistakes.
Game 50
White: Janis R. Vitomskis (Latvia)
on the h-file and his pieces develop Èc6 11 0–0–0 0–0 12 Èh3 (The
rapidly after 8 Èh3 (Hector’s 8 Belarus master Silich recommended
†d3!? is also interesting.) 8...†e7 9 12 Èf3 ƒd7 13 g3 …e8 14 ƒh3.)
Èf4 (or 9 †g4!?). 12...ƒd7 13 ƒh6 …e8 14 f4 ƒxc5
Theory may say Black can survive, 15 h5‹ Sanguinetti-F.Benko, Buenos
but one slip will be fatal and 6...ƒxg5 Aires 1954.
cannot be recommended to most 8 exf6 Èxf6
players. Ironically, Carleton had Not 8...ƒxf6 9 Èh3! †e8 10
played this in an earlier game with †g4‹, e.g. 10...c5 11 Èb5 Èa6 12
Timmerman but went wrong, so Èf4 e5 (12...Èb6 13 ƒxf6 gxf6 14
understandably did not want to risk Èh5 †e7 15 †f4!) 13 Èd6 (Suetin)
the line again. or 13 Èe6+ˆ.
The critical continuation is 9...Èc6 9 †e2!
10 †g4 Èxd4 (10...g6!?) 11 0–0–0 White targets the weak e5-square
Èf5 12 Èfxd5 exd5 13 Èxd5 and — the square in front of the backward
now after 13...†xe5! 14 ƒb5 Black pawn — and leaves his È a choice
should play 14...0–0 instead of between f3 and h3.
14...Èe3?? 15 Èxe3 c6 (15...†xb5 Perhaps surprisingly, until recent
16 Èd5ˆ) 16 …de1ˆ (Vitomskis- years White has usually preferred 9
K.Koistinen, Baltic Sea tt5 1986). †f3 c5 10 dxc5, when Black’s best
Black has other ways of declining reply is probably 10...b6!? offering a
the pawn — for instance 6...c5 or pawn for rapid development.
6...a6 — but I have no space to review 9...c5
all the theory here. This is probably best.
7 †h5+! 10 dxc5 (D)
The reputation of 6...f6 was good XIIIIIIIIY
in the days when White normally 9rsnlwq-mk-tr0
answered 7 ƒd3, after which 7...c5
leads to wild complications, or 7 exf6
9zpp+-vl-zpp0
B
Èxf6 8 ƒd3 c5. 9-+-+psn-+0
For a time 6...f6 was even 9+-zPp+-vL-0
considered the refutation of 6 h4. 9-+-+-+-zP0
However, this view changed after 9+-sN-+-+-0
C.H.O’D.Alexander discovered the 9PzPP+QzPP+0
strength of the † check, which costs
Black his castling rights.
9tR-+-mKLsNR0
7...‡f8 xiiiiiiiiy
Black would prefer to play 7...g6
but 8 exf6! is a problem, e.g. 8...Èxf6 10...Èa6?
(8...gxh5? 9 fxe7 †xe7 10 ƒxe7 After the present game, this move
‡xe7‹ Alexander) 9 †e2 c5 10 dxc5 can be considered refuted.
230 64 Great Chess Games
Black needs just two more moves (or ...‡f7) 22 ƒxg4 hxg4 23 ƒxe7,
(...a4, ...b3) to set the queenside on but after exchanges on e6, Black has
fire, but his h8-… is an idle bystander. too many weak pawns to survive,
Now White has all his pieces in despite the opposite coloured ƒs. So
position and it is time to explode the he prefers to hope for a middlegame
kingside. swindle.
19 Èg4! h5 Now if 22 ƒxe6 Èxe3 23 ƒxe7+
If Black accepts the piece by ‡xe7 24 ƒxc8 ‡d8 25 …xe3 ‡xc8
19...Èxg4 there comes 20 ƒxe7+ 26 …xd5 White has … + two pawns
‡xe7 21 †g5+ ‡f8 (21...Èf6 22 versus ƒ+È, but he wants more.
†xg7+ ƒf7 23 Èf5+ wins) 22 †xg4 22 ƒxe7+! ‡xe7 23 †g5+ Èf6 24
with a strong attack, e.g. 22...ƒf7 23 ƒxe6 Èxe6 25 …xd5 ƒf7 (D)
…e5 …e8 24 …de1 Èe4 25 ƒxe4 If 25...‡f7 26 †e5 …c6 27
†xd4 26 ƒf5!‹. …xa5ˆ.
There is no time for 19...a4 because XIIIIIIIIY
of 20 ƒxf6 gxf6 (or 20...ƒxf6 21 9-+r+-+-tr0
Èxf6 gxf6 22 Èxe6+) 21 Èxe6+
†xe6 22 †h6+ˆ. Now the black
9+-+-mklzp-0
W
… covers h6 and the È is en prise, so 9-+-+nsn-+0
White needs a new line of attack. 9zp-+R+-wQp0
20 ƒf5! 9-zp-+-+-zP0
The pressure on the e-file reaches 9+-+-+-+-0
breaking point. 9PzPP+-zPP+0
20...Èxg4
If 20...hxg4 21 Èxe6+ ‡f7 the
9+-mK-tR-+-0
most convincing line is 22 ƒxf6! xiiiiiiiiy
ƒxf6 23 Èg5+ ƒxg5 24 hxg5ˆ,
while if 20...ƒd7 or 20...ƒf7 then Black has three minor pieces for
21 Èe5 is strong. The text move sets the † — but not for long!
the trap 21 ƒxg4?? ƒxg5+ but this is 26 …xe6+! 1–0
easily sidestepped. Black resigned for if 26...‡xe6 27
21 Èxe6+ †xe6 †e5#, or 26...ƒxe6 27 †xg7+ ƒf7
Black could have made more 28 …e5+, or 26...‡f8 27 …xf6 gxf6
work for his opponent by 21...‡g8 28 †xf6ˆ.
Game 51
White: Joop J. van Oosterom (Netherlands)
The Players: I introduced van Oost- positional player like van Oosterom.
erom in Game 1. However, Reynolds had played the
Professor Reynolds won the 6th US Budapest on his way to qualifying
CC Championship Final (1985-87) for the final and perhaps believed he
with the amazing score of 13½ out of understood it well.
14. He lost only one game on his way 3 dxe5 Èg4 4 ƒf4 ƒb4+
to the World Championship Final, 4...Èc6 5 Èf3 ƒb4+ 6 Èc3 †e7
qualifying for the IM title in 1994. 7 †d5 ƒxc3+ 8 bxc3 is another move
However, his subsequent perform- order to the first diagram below.
ances at the highest international level 5 Èc3
have been disappointing. 5 Èd2 is an important alternative,
About this game: To do well in a avoiding the doubled c-pawn, but
world championship, the contenders after 5...Èc6 6 Ègf3 †e7 7 e3
must score heavily against the back (not 7 a3 Ègxe5 8 axb4?? Èd3#)
markers. Reynolds handicaps himself 7...Ègxe5 8 Èxe5 Èxe5 Black
with an inferior opening variation and has regained his pawn with a fairly
his attempts to complicate the early satisfactory position. For example, 9
middlegame are refuted by an im- ƒe2 and then:
aginative, yet essentially quite simple, a) Morgado-Reynolds, CNEC-15
concept by White. corr 1993, went 9...d6 10 0-0 ƒd7 11
1 d4 Èf6 2 c4 e5 a3 ƒxd2 12 †xd2 g5!? 13 ƒg3 h5¢
The Budapest is considered not (1-0, 30, after a complicated struggle)
entirely ‘respectable’ because it aims while S.Stolyar-Reynolds, Russia-
at piece play without a deep strategic Rest of the World corr 1993, varied
foundation. While it can be very from that with 11 Èb3 ƒa4 12 †c2
effective at rapid and blitz chess, its g5 and again White won in the end.
positional shortcomings are liable However, I don’t think these games
to be exposed in CC by a quality were published until some time after
Game 51: van Oosterom-Reynolds 233
XIIIIIIIIY
the World Championship Final began,
and anyway, Reynolds presumably 9r+l+k+-tr0
would have improved upon them. B9zppzppwqpzpp0
b) A more standard treatment is 9-+n+-+-+0
9...0–0 10 0–0 a5 (10...d6 11 Èb3 b6 9+-+QzP-+-0
12 a3 ƒc5 13 Èxc5 bxc5 14 b4 Èd7 9-+P+-vLn+0
15 ƒg4Ÿ Karpov-N.Short, 1st match 9+-zP-+N+-0
game, Linares 1992) 11 a3 ƒxd2 12
†xd2 d6 which has been used by 9P+-+PzPPzP0
the one postal player to have success 9tR-+-mKL+R0
with the Budapest at a high level of xiiiiiiiiy
competition, Swiss CC-GM Gottardo 8...†a3
Gottardi. GM Bogdan Lali™, in his 1998
b1) 13 b4 …e8 14 †c3 †f6 15 book on the Budapest, said this move
‡h1 ƒf5 16 c5 axb4 17 axb4 Èd3 is a waste of time. Black should not be
18 †xf6 gxf6 19 ƒxd3 ƒxd3 20 interested in winning the unimportant
…fd1 dxc5 21 bxc5 ƒc2 22 …dc1 a-pawn. However, Reynolds’ plan is
…xa1 23 …xa1 …d8 24 ƒxc7 …d1+ not to win the pawn but — he hopes
25 …xd1 ƒxd1 26 h3 h5 ½–½ in view — to disrupt White’s optimal set-up.
of the opposite-coloured ƒs (P.Kindl- The alternative is the gambit-style
Gottardi, Wch16 3/4F 1992). 8...f6 9 exf6 Èxf6, reckoning the
b2) 13 b3 b6 14 e4 ƒb7 15 f3 †e6 extra white c-pawn is not worth much,
16 …fe1 f5 17 exf5 †xf5 18 ƒg3 but White has 10 †d3 d6 11 g3 0-0
…fe8 19 ƒf1 †f6 20 …ad1 …e6 21 12 ƒg2 Èe4 13 0-0 Èc5 14 †e3!Ÿ.
…e3 h5 22 h4 …ae8 23 …de1 †g6 Compare the note to Black’s 12th
and Black has managed to develop move below. I think the immediate
all his pieces actively (½–½, 54) van 11...Èe4 is Black’s best try.
Oosterom-Gottardi, Wch15 Final. 9 …c1! f6
Possibly van Oosterom did not 9...†xa2?! leaves Black too
want to “put all his eggs into one undeveloped after 10 h3 Èh6 11 e4.
basket” by playing the same 5th move Instead of 11...Èg8 12 c5! †a3 13
in both games — often a wise policy ƒc4 Èd8 14 ƒe3 Èe7 15 †d1‹
in CC events where games start (Gligoric-Westerinen, Venice 1971),
simultaneously. Mik.Tseitlin and Glaskov suggested
Maybe his game with the Swiss 11...†a3!? 12 c5 b6 in ‘The Budapest
opponent developed more rapidly so for the Tournament Player’ (1992).
he decided to switch variations after They analysed 13 e6? but Berliner
failing to achieve an advantage with 5 recommended the very strong reply
Èd2 against Gottardi. 13 Èd4! in ‘Kaissiber 13’, e.g. 13...
5...ƒxc3+ 6 bxc3 Èc6 7 Èf3 †e7 †xc5 (or 13...0–0 14 Èb5) 14 Èb5!
8 †d5 (D) 0–0 15 Èxc7 …b8 16 Èb5! when
234 64 Great Chess Games
which, although reducing the scope of White anchors his ƒ and keeps …s
the g2-ƒ, more significantly creates a on the board while he improves his
new weakness at d6. position.
22 …d1 †f7 23 ƒg2 †xc4 24 29...h6?!
ƒxd6 …fe8 25 ƒf1 †g4 I fail to see the point of this, which
The exchange phase is over. The creates a hole on g6. However, Black
rest of the game is a demonstration of doesn’t have any useful moves: he
why three minor pieces should beat a cannot find a target for his heavy
† if all else is equal. pieces, and 29...b6 would weaken c6.
Three fighting units are more 30 Èd4 …d7 31 Èe2 …e4 32 Èf4
useful than one for attacking defended †e8 33 ‡h2
spots in the enemy position. The † The immediate 33 ƒd3 …e1+ 34
might be stronger if White had loose ‡g2 would be sufficient, but as Black
pawns or an exposed ‡, but neither is cannot do anything White moves the
the case here. ‡ first, threatening 34 ƒd3 …e1? 35
26 …cd2 …ad8 27 c4 ‡h8 28 h3 …xe1 †xe1 36 …e2ˆ.
†h5 29 c5 (D) 33...b6?!
XIIIIIIIIY This is even worse now as it costs
9-+-trr+-mk0 the exchange.
34 ƒg2 ‡h7 35 ƒe5 …xe5 36 …xd7
B
9zpp+-+-zpp0 …e1 37 …d8 †e5 38 …1d6 1–0
9-+pvL-+-+0 Black has no defence to 39 Èg6
9+-zP-+-+q0 and 40 …h8# — if 39...†xc5 40 Èg6
9-+-+-+-+0 …e8 41 …xe8 †xd6 42 ƒe4ˆ. This
9+N+-+-zPP0 game is quite a good example of how
9P+-tR-zP-+0 a grandmaster can win economically
against an IM who tries too hard to
9+-+R+LmK-0 make something happen.
xiiiiiiiiy
Game 52
White: Christophe Léotard (France)
24 c5! 26...†xh6
Black has no time to get organised If 26...…xe4 27 ƒxf4 …xe1+ 28
and now faces a choice of two ways to ‡h2 and White threatens both †d2
lose. He can either let White’s † into and †xf6.
f6 and be rapidly mated, or else let the 27 Èxf6+ ‡f7 28 …xe8!
c-pawn live and be strangled by the White could still make things
passed pawn duo. difficult for himself with the slip 28
24...†f4 Èxe8? …xe8 29 …xe8 †xh3! 30
This is the only move to cut across …e3 (30 †e5 †f1+ and Black draws)
White’s plans. If 24...†xd5 25 30...†xg4+ 31 …g3 †d1+ 32 ‡g2
…e7ˆ or 24...†xc5 25 †xf6ˆ. ƒe4+ 33 f3 ƒxd5 when White’s
25 h3 winning chances are reduced.
White must protect against the 28...…xe8 29 Èxe8 ‡xe8
check on g4 before beginning the If now 29...†xh3 30 Èd6+ ‡g8
final assault. 31 †d4ˆ.
25...…e8 (D) 30 †e5+ ‡f7 31 c6
XIIIIIIIIY The two passed pawns are too far
9r+-+r+k+0 advanced for Black to have any hope
of escape.
W
9+-+-+-+p0 31...†c1+
9p+-+-zppvL0 If 31...†xh3 32 †f4+ ‡g7 33
9+pzPP+-sN-0 c7ˆ.
9-+-+-wqP+0 32 ‡h2
9+-+l+-+P0 Not 32 ‡g2? †f1+ 33 ‡g3 †g1+
9PwQ-+-zP-+0 34 ‡f3 †h1+ 35 ‡g3=.
32...†c2
9+-+-tR-mK-0 32...†c5 is not much better. White
xiiiiiiiiy can answer 33 ‡g3 or 33 †e6+.
33 ‡g3 1–0
If instead 25...…xd5 26 Èxh7 Black resigned. Now 33...h5 34 c7
†xh6 27 Èxf6+ ‡f7 28 Èxd5ˆ. h4+ 35 ‡xh4 †xf2+ 36 ‡g5 †d2+
So at last, Black challenges the open 37 †f4+ would have been a neat
file but it is too late. Now White lets finish. On 33...†c1 there could have
off the dynamite. followed 34 †e6+ ‡g7 (34...‡f8 35
26 Èe4! †f6+ ‡g8 36 d6 †g1+ 37 ‡h4ˆ)
A very satisfying unpin move, with 35 †e7+ ‡g8 36 c7 †g1+ 37 ‡f4
a discovered attack on the †. Black †xf2+ 38 ‡e5 and Black will soon
can capture the È in three different run out of checks. The white ‡
ways but they all lose; he must take and passed pawns provide mutual
the ƒ instead. protection and the black ƒ is useless.
Game 53
White: Jonny Hector (Sweden)
that this plausible move is a mistake. Black’s attack is getting too strong.
White wastes time with this … as If 31 Èxd6 Èb4! 32 …a3 †c2+ 33
it turns out he cannot carry out his ‡a1 …xa3+ 34 bxa3 †c3+ 35 ‡b1
threat. Alternatives to consider are 24 †d3+ 36 ‡b2 †xd4+ 37 ‡b1 (37
Èe3, 24 …b3 and 24 a3. ‡b3 Èd3 and...Èc5+) 37...†d3+
24...Èd5! (D) 38 ‡b2 †d2+ 39 ‡b1 Èd3 wins
Black has doubled isolated b- the ….
pawns but, as they are not on an open 31...ƒb4 32 …ee3 Èc1! 33 …f1
file, this is less significant than his This is the natural move, chall-
chances against the white ‡. enging Black to prove his idea
XIIIIIIIIY sound.
9-mk-tr-+-+0 a) 33 ‡xc1 …c8+ 34 …c3 (34 ‡b1?
gets mated in 10 after 34...†d1+ 35
9+p+-wqpzp-0
W ‡a2 …c1, and 34 †xc8+ ‡xc8 is
9-zp-vlp+-zp0 evidently hopeless for White in the
9tr-+nsN-+P0 long run.) 34...ƒxc3 35 †d6+ ‡a8
9-+-zP-zP-+0 36 …xc3 …xc3+ 37 bxc3 and now
9+-+-+-tR-0 37...†b3! is best as it wrecks White’s
9PzP-+Q+P+0 structure, i.e. 38 †b4 (38 Èc2? …a2)
38...†xb4 39 cxb4 …xa3‰.
9+KtR-+N+-0 b) 33 †c4 costs a pawn after 33...
xiiiiiiiiy …c8 34 †b5 †d1 (34...†xb5 35
Èxb5 …a5å) 35 …f1 †xd4 36
25 …f3 …e8 ƒxa3 37 …xc8+ ‡xc8 38
This concedes the initiative but …xc1+ ƒc5 and Black should win the
if 25 …xg7 Èxf4 26 †f3 ƒxe5 27 endgame.
dxe5 †f8! (Hansen) is very strong, 33...b5!
as Black follows with 28...Èd3 and Tempting alternatives here:
29...Èxe5, or if 28 …h7 †g8 29 a) 33...ƒd2?! loses the initiative
…xh6 Èd3. after 34 †e7! …c8 (Not 34...†xd4 35
25...f6 26 Èg6 Èb5 †d5 36 †c7+ ‡a8 37 †xd8+!
This is the È’s final contribution †xd8 38 …e8 †xe8 39 Èc7+ and
to the game; with hindsight, it might 40 Èxe8‹.) 35 †d6+ ‡a8 36 Èe7!
have been better to retreat 26 Èd3. ƒxe3 37 Èxc8 with a messy, and
26...†d7 27 Èd2 Èb4 28 Èc4!? roughly level, position.
Looking for counterplay as after 28 b) 33...ƒxa3!? must have come
a3 Èc6 both d4 and h5 are en prise, into consideration, e.g. 34 …xa3
while if 29 …d3 …d5 30 Èb3 ƒc5 (34 …xc1!?) 34...†b5 (attacking
wins the d-pawn. both …s) 35 …ff3 (35 †e7 †f5+
28...Èxa2 29 …e1 …a6 30 †xe6 36 ‡xc1 …c8+ 37 ‡d2 †c2+ and
†a4 31 Èa3 38...†xb2‰) 35...…xa3 36 …xa3
244 64 Great Chess Games
The Players: Peter Hardicsay (born Gábor Gyuricza translated for me the
1952) was Hungarian under-20 cham- notes by Hardicsay in the Hungarian
pion in 1972 and has been a FIDE IM magazine ‘Távsakk’, where this game
since 1986. He took up international first appeared, and Peter sent some
email chess in 1999 and this game extra comments on the opening.
was played in one of his first events. 1 e4 c5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
H-W. May was a very experienced Èxd4 Èf6 5 Èc3 e5 6 Èdb5 d6 7
CC master; runner-up in the 55th ƒg5 a6 8 Èa3 b5 9 ƒxf6
European Championship, he got the 9 Èd5 leads to a different set of
CC-IM title in 1997. May died in problems for both players. It may be
March 2002, aged 59. somewhat easier for White to keep the
About this game: A book of this kind draw in hand then but I suspect the
without an example of the Sveshnikov winning chances are also reduced.
Variation would be unthinkable; in 9...gxf6 10 Èd5 (D)
the past 10 years it has been one of XIIIIIIIIY
the most popular variations of the 9r+lwqkvl-tr0
Sicilian Defence in CC, rivalling even
the Najdorf and Dragon. I cannot
9+-+-+p+p0
B
attempt here to give an overview of 9p+nzp-zp-+0
the complex and rapidly-changing 9+p+Nzp-+-0
theory of the variation, but I shall 9-+-+P+-+0
mention a few of the significant CC 9sN-+-+-+-0
games played with the Sveshnikov. 9PzPP+-zPPzP0
Hardicsay improves on earlier
games played by both himself and
9tR-+QmKL+R0
May, who is soon forced to sacrifice xiiiiiiiiy
a piece in the hope of promoting a
pawn on the queenside. White keeps 10...f5
tactical control with some effective 10...ƒg7 leads to yet another nexus
moves and conducts an attractive ‡ of complications. One recent example
hunt, culminating in a … sacrifice. is 11 ƒd3 Èe7 12 Èxe7 †xe7 13
Game 54: Hardicsay-May 247
The Players: Professor Zavanelli Canibal heads for the Two Knights
— respectfully known in American instead, but he gets a crazy position in
CC circles as ‘Max the Axe’ because a few moves anyway!
of his decisive solution to organisa- 5 0–0 Èxe4 6 …e1 d5 7 ƒxd5 †xd5
tional problems there some years ago 8 Èc3 †d8
— returned to active play recently. 8...†a5 and 8...†h5 are more
He immediately won the Gillman ‘E’ popular but also complicated.
with a huge score and qualified for a 9 …xe4+ ƒe7 10 Èxd4 f5 11 ƒh6!
long overdue IM title. (D)
Dr Canibal is ICCF delegate for the Zavanelli had been waiting 20 years
Czech Republic. to play this move: White develops at
About this game: Max is a very high speed, threatening ƒxg7; he will
dangerous attacking player who likes wreck the black ‡ position by 12
original situations. Highly unbalanced †h5+ if the ƒ is captured. Black is
positions that arise after Black is fine after the standard 11 …f4 0-0 12
forced to give up his †. Èxc6 †xd1+ 13 Èxd1 bxc6.
1 e4 e5 2 ƒc4 Èf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Èf3 XIIIIIIIIY
Recently there has been a 9r+lwqk+-tr0
considerable revival of interest in
Sergei Urusov’s gambit idea.
9zppzp-vl-zpp0
B
4...Èc6 9-+n+-+-vL0
Zavanelli-R.Pope, corr 1987, went 9+-+-+p+-0
4...Èxe4 5 †xd4 Èf6 6 ƒg5 ƒe7 9-+-sNR+-+0
7 Èc3 c6 8 0-0-0 d5 9 …he1 ƒe6 10 9+-sN-+-+-0
†h4 Èbd7 11 ƒd3 Èc5 (11...c5) 12 9PzPP+-zPPzP0
Èd4 Èg8 13 ƒxe7 †xe7 14 †g3
Èf6?! (14...g6) 15 Èf5 †f8 16 †c7
9tR-+Q+-mK-0
…d8 17 …xe6+! Èxe6 18 †xb7 g6? xiiiiiiiiy
(18...Èd7) 19 †xc6+ …d7 20 †c8+
Èd8 21 …e1+ Èe4 22 Èxe4 gxf5 The ƒ shot is known from the
23 Èd6# 1–0. Canal Variation, 7 Èc3!? (instead
252 64 Great Chess Games
†g8!) 45 ‡g7 followed by g6, ‡h6, the e1-a5 diagonal, so that †e1 can
†xe8, g7 and wins. The alternative be met by ...…ae8!, while if 44 †g7
43...ƒd2? also fails to 44 †b2! ƒe3 …h8 45 †a7 ƒd2! 46 †xa4 …e5
45 f7! …e5 46 ‡g7 or 45...…ef8 46 succeeds again.
†h2+ and †h3+ or †e5+ wins the This is why 43 †h6 received ‘?’.
ƒ. Thus Black has nothing better than White should have first played 43 a4!,
43...a5, with lines similar to those in fixing the black pawn at a5 before
the next note. commencing his † manoeuvres.
43 †h6? Fortunately Black replies with an
Now 43 †a7 (or 43 †b7) doesn’t even more careless move.
achieve anything as Black simply 43...ƒe5?
passes with 43...ƒb4, so the † Now White doesn’t have to
returns to make manoeuvres. bother with subtleties since he has an
As noted above, Black will have immediate win.
to play ...…a8 to defend the pawn at 44 ‡f5! (D)
some point — if 43...…h8 44 †h2+ XIIIIIIIIY
ƒe5 45 †d2+ ƒd4 46 †xa5 …a8 9-+-+rtr-+0
47 †e1 …a7 48 †h4! and †h6-g7
wins — so we may as well make him
9+-+-+-+P0
B
play it immediately: i.e. 43...…a8 44 9-+pmk-zP-wQ0
†h2+ ƒe5 45 †d2+ ƒd4, but now 9zp-zp-vlKzP-0
White plays his key move, 46 †e1! 9-+P+-+-+0
£†e7# — the point being that 9+-+-+-+-0
46...…fe8? loses at once to 47 h8†!, 9P+-+-+-+0
and 46...…ae8 drops the a-pawn.
Blocking the e-file by 46...ƒe5
9+-+-+-+-0
fails to 47 ‡f5, while 46...‡c7 47 xiiiiiiiiy
†e7+ ‡b6 allows the sacrifice 48
†xf8! …xf8 49 ‡g7 since the black Exploiting the black ƒ as a target.
‡ is too far away to stop the pawns. Now if 44...‡d7 45 †xf8! …xe5 46
This leaves only 46...…a7, but ‡xe5 and the pawns overcome the ….
then 47 †g3+ ƒe5 48 †d3+ ƒd4 44...ƒd4 45 f7+ ‡c7 46 g6 ‡d7 47
49 ‡h5! £g6-g7 etc., and if Black ‡g4! 1–0
defends against that, e.g. by 49... If the attacked … moves along
…af7, then 50 †g6! and White finally the back rank White wins by 48 g7!
achieves the winning formation after ƒxg7 49 †xg7 and 50 †g8 etc.,
50...…d7 51 †g8! …dd8 52 f7. while if 47...…e4+ 48 ‡h3 …e3+ 49
The one spoiler in all this is †xe3 ƒxe3 50 g7 “with three pretty
43...a4!, removing the a-pawn from pawns like peas in a pod.”
Game 56
White: Garry Kasparov (Russia)
but White would still win according to line for White with 68 ‡e6!, when
Regan & Krush (the main line begins after a lot more obscure manoeuvres,
57 †a5+ ‡b2 58 †b5+!). the white ‡ captures the black d-pawn
58...†e4? and the database says “mate in 53”.
This was the second controversial 59 †g1+ ‡b2
moment. Irina Krush suggested a The official website for the match
better move — 58...†f5 — but it noted that: “On move 59, the Gaming
was not posted on the match website Zone found indication of quite
in time to influence voters. After this, significant ballot stuffing (improper
she refused to participate any more, ratio of votes to unique PCs) for
but the Microsoft Network organizers the sacrificial move ...†e1. ... We
said that she was late submitting her disqualified this move from voting and
analysis to the MSN site. recomputed the votes accordingly.”
Later, Kasparov provided detailed This is one of the hazards of
analysis to prove he was winning organizing such matches with a
anyway after 58...†f5, saying “This large number of participants and I
position has more to do with geometry believe there have been cases in other
and mathematics than chess.” matches where organizers overruled
Baburin explains: “White can the apparent majority choice for a
gradually force his pawn up the board, similar reason.
using the enemy pawn as a shield and MSN’s statements are disputed by
also exploiting the fact that Black Krush, who suspected vote-stuffing
cannot afford to trade †s. For those at move 51, but here says 59...†e1
interested in this line, Kasparov’s was chosen by The World as a protest
main line goes like this: 58...†f5 59 against MSN’s failure to post her
‡h6 †e6 60 †d1+ ‡b2 61 †d2+ recommendation for 58...†f5.
‡b1 62 †d4! ‡a2 63 ‡g5 †e7+ 60 †f2+ ‡c1 61 ‡f6 d4 62 g7 1-0
64 †f6 †e3+ 65 †f4 †g1+ 66 ‡f6 Kasparov announced a forced
†b6+ 67 ‡f7 †b7+ 68 ‡g8 †c8+ mate, discovered by the computer
69 †f8 †e6+ 70 ‡g7 †e5+ 71 †f6 program Deep Junior. The World
†c7+ 72 †f7 †c3+ 73 ‡f8...”, team was given an option to vote for
which concludes in a win for White resignation and 51% opted to do this,
at move 96. ending the game after four months of
However, Regan & Krush (using intensive analysis.
the tablebases) criticise this variation, “It is the greatest game in the his-
saying that 68 ‡g8 †c8+ 69 †f8 tory of chess. The sheer number of
†e6+ 70 ‡g7? fails to win after ideas, the complexity, and the contri-
70...†e5+ 71 †f6 †c7+ 72 †f7 bution it has made to chess make it the
†e5+! 73 ‡g8 †b8+ 74 †f8 †e5 most important game ever played.”
75 g7 d4!. Instead they give a winning — Garry Kasparov.
Game 57
White: Arild Haugen (Norway)
The Players: Haugen is a Senior the loss of time with his d-pawn.”
International Master. McNab is both Clearly McNab wanted to keep his
a FIDE GM and ICCF SIM; he has own secrets!
been a member of Scottish postal and 5...dxe4 6 Èxe4 ƒg7 7 ƒc4 Èh6
over-the-board teams for many years, 8 c3
including Scotland’s bronze medal- 8 h3 Èf5 9 c3 0–0 10 ƒb3 Èd7
winning team in CC Olympiad XI. 11 g4 Èd6 12 Èf2 c5 13 ƒe3 b6 14
About this game: McNab is a po- ƒd5 ƒb7 15 ƒxb7 Èxb7 16 †e2
sitional player who rarely varies his cxd4 17 ƒxd4 ƒxd4 18 Èxd4 e5
solid opening repertoire. Haugen 19 fxe5 …e8 and Black was OK in
tackled the challenge of winkling him N.McDonald-McNab, Hastings II
out of his shell with great creativity 1993/94 (0-1, 29).
and created a position with enormous 8...0–0 9 Èe5 Èd7 10 h4!?
problems for both players. Black sur- At last White is able to go his
vived the first wave of the attack but own way. Haugen thought this direct
the second washed him away. approach with the h-pawn was justified
1 e4 g6 2 d4 d6 3 Èc3 c6 in view of the three tempi expended
Haugen’s research showed that by Black on the manoeuvre ...d7-d6-
it wouldn’t be possible to surprise d5xe4. So he varied from 10 0–0 Èf6
McNab. The Scotsman has faced for 11 Èf2 Èf5 12 †f3 Èd6 13 ƒb3
example 4 a4, 4 ƒe3, 4 ƒc4, 4 Èf3, a5 (A.Zanetti-McNab, CNEC–15 corr
4 g3 and 4 h4 in this position. 1993); Black seems OK there although
4 f4 d5 5 Èf3 White eventually won.
Although McNab has been play- Instead 11 †e2 Èxe4 12 †xe4
ing 1 e4 g6 2 d4 d6 3 Èc3 c6 since †d6 13 f5!? Èxf5 14 g4 ƒxe5 15
1992, his book ‘The Ultimate Pirc’ dxe5 †c5+ 16 …f2 Èg7 17 b4 †b6
(with GM John Nunn) says almost 18 ƒe3 †c7 19 ƒh6 ƒe6 20 ƒxe6
nothing about this line except the fxe6 21 …af1 …xf2 22 …xf2 …f8 23
explanation that after 4 f4 d5 5 e5 h5 …xf8+ ‡xf8 24 †d4 b6 25 a4 c5
“the benefit to Black from not having led to a draw in a 1992 OTB game
played ...ƒg7 slightly outweighs Shirov-McNab.
266 64 Great Chess Games
21 …xh6+ ƒxh6 22 †f7+ ƒg7 as long castling, but in the end he did
White can’t get the other … to the neither.
h-file) 21...bxc6 22 ƒxh6 (22 g4 e6) 18...†d6
22...ƒxh6 23 …h5 ‡g7 24 ‡f2 ƒd7 18...†c7 was the most difficult
25 …e1! …e8 and now 26 c4 or 26 a4 possibility for White to analyse, if
or 26 g4. after 19 ‡f2 (to cover g3) Black
Whether Black sits tight or plays sought counterplay with 19...e5!,
for ...e6 and a … exchange, White similarly to the game.
will obtain at least one passed pawn Haugen analysed other lines to
on the queenside and the defence will advantage for himself:
be arduous. a) 18...†c7 19 ‡f2 e6? 20 ƒd3
16 f5 †xf7 21 …h7 ‡g8 22 †h3 †g6 23
More fuel on the fire: the dark- …h5 †f7 24 ƒd2 Ède7 (24...†c7
squared ƒ now enters the game. 25 ƒxf5 exf5 26 …h1 †b6 27 b3ˆ)
16...Èxf5 17 gxf7+ ‡f8 (D) 25 …h1 Èg6 26 †f3 Èfe7 27 ƒh6
XIIIIIIIIY f5 (27...ƒh8 28 ƒf8!) 28 ƒxg7
9r+lwq-mk-+0 †xg7 29 †g3 †f6 (29...‡f8 30 …h7
†g8 31 …1h6ˆ) 30 …h7 f4 31 †g4
9zpp+-zpPvl-0
W e5 32 †h5.
9-+p+-zp-+0 b) 18...e5 19 ƒd3 Èd6 20 b3!
9+-+n+n+-0 exd4 21 ƒa3 †e7+ (21...‡xf7 22
9-+LzP-+-+0 †h5+ ‡f8 23 0–0–0 †c7 24 …df1
9+-zP-+-+-0 with a strong attack) 22 ‡f2 ƒe6
9PzP-+-+P+0 (22...‡xf7 23 …ae1 ƒe6 24 …h7
†d7 25 †h5+ ‡g8 26 ƒxd6ˆ) 23
9tR-vLQmK-+R0 …h7 Èe3 24 …e1ˆ.
xiiiiiiiiy c) 18...e6 19 …h7 ‡xf7 20 g4 ‡g8
21 †h3 and now:
The black ‡ hopes to hide behind c1) 21...Èfe7 22 ƒd2 †d7 23
the pawn and capture it later. 17...‡xf7 0–0–0 Èg6 (23...e5 24 †h5) 24 …h1
might have been possible, as after 18 Èf8 25 g5 f5 (25...Èxh7 26 †xh7+
†h5+ ‡g8 19 †h7+ ‡f7 20 ƒd3 ‡f8 27 ƒxd5) 26 …h8+ ‡f7 27 †h5+
e6 21 g4 Èfe7 22 ƒd2 Haugen gives ‡e7 (27...Èg6 28 …h7) 28 …g8ˆ.
22...f5! (better than 22...†g8 23 †h5+ c2) 21...Èd6 22 ƒd3 Èf7 (22...f5
‡f8 24 c4 Èb6 25 ƒb4Ÿ) 23 †h5+ 23 ƒh6 ƒxh6 24 …xh6 Èf7 25
‡f8 24 gxf5 exf5 (24...Èf6 25 †g5 …g6+ ‡f8 26 †h7 ‡e7 27 …g7ˆ)
Èxf5 26 0–0–0ˆ) 25 0–0–0 †e8, 23 †h5 f5 24 g5 Èd6 (24...†c7 25
calling the position unclear. g6 †g3+ 26 ‡e2 †g2+ 27 ‡d1
18 †f3 Èf6 28 gxf7+ ‡f8 29 †h1 †xh1+
Haugen said there were many inter- 30 …xh1 ‡xf7 31 ‡e2 with a clear
esting variations with both short and advantage) 25 ‡e2 †e8 26 g6 Èf6
268 64 Great Chess Games
powerful bind for the sacrificed piece; Note that 26 h4 would not be as
White threatens to break open the good because of 26...…ac8! 27 …b3
black ‡ position by h4-h5 or f4-f5. †c6 28 …xb2 ƒe7 29 Èd5 ƒxh4.
Or if 21...†xc6 22 †h5! and now: The white … on b2 then only plays a
a) 22...bxc3 23 …xg6 ƒe7 24 defensive role.
…g7ˆ. 26...…ac8?
b) 22...Èxe4 23 …xg6 Èxf6 24 This appears to be a serious
…xf6 bxc3 25 b3 †e8 (25...…c7 26 mistake. Black should be thinking in
…g1) 26 †g4!ˆ. terms of eliminating the mighty È
c) 22...ƒe7 23 …xg6 …f8 without delay.
(23...ƒxf6 24 …xf6 bxc3 25 …xf7 26...ƒxh6 was his best chance to
cxb2+ 26 ‡b1 †xe4 27 f3) 24 …g8+ hold the game.
…xg8 25 †xf7 ƒxf6 26 †xf6+ ‡h7 Now Palciauskas gives 27 …h3
27 †e7+ ‡h8 28 …xd6ˆ. ‡g7 28 †g4! …h8 (28...…xd5 is
22 ƒxb7 cxb2+ 23 ‡b1 †xb7 similar.) 29 †h4 …xd5! (29...g5
If 23...Èa4 24 ƒd4 †xb7 25 f4 30 †h5 †c6 31 …f3 †e8 32
with a strong attack. Èe3ˆ) 30 exd5 but does this
24 ƒd4 e5 position really favour White at all?
Black cannot live constantly with His line is 30...†c8 31 …b3 ƒf4
the threat of a discovered check, but 32 †e7 …xh2 33 …b7 †f8 34 †c7
now the È has the ideal square d5 £…b8, but 30...†d7 or 30...†c7
available to it. (both preventing †e7) are possible
25 ƒxc5 …xc5 26 Èd5 (D) improvements for Black.
XIIIIIIIIY 27 …b3 †a7 28 c3
9r+-+-vl-mk0 The c-file is effectively closed.
Black belatedly decides to destroy the
9+q+-+p+-0
B c-pawn’s protector with an exchange
9p+-zp-+pzP0 sacrifice.
9+-trNzp-+-0 28...…b5
9-+-+P+-+0 28...ƒxh6 29 h4 …b5 transposes
9+-+-+-tR-0 to the game, although 29...f5!? comes
9PzpP+QzP-zP0 into consideration.
29 h4! ƒxh6
9+K+R+-+-0 The pendulum swings back to
xiiiiiiiiy White. Only now does Black begin the
defensive scheme that he should have
Material is level, except that instituted at move 26. Alternatives are
White’s È, occupying the hole at worse:
d5 (forced by 24 ƒd4) is superior a) 29...†b7 30 h5! …xb3 31 axb3
to Black’s ƒ. Both sides have some †xb3 32 †f3! g5 33 †f6+ ‡h7 34
weak pawns and slightly insecure ‡s. …e1 †c4 35 †xg5ˆ.
274 64 Great Chess Games
7 Èb3
XIIIIIIIIY
In the early days of the Najdorf 9r+-wqk+-tr0
White played the slow 7 Ède2, e.g. 9+-+nvlpzp-0
7...ƒe7 8 h3 ƒe6 9 Èg3 g6 10 ƒd3 W9p+-zplsn-+0
Èbd7 11 0–0 0–0 12 †f3 ‡h8 13 9+p+-zp-+p0
…ad1 b5 with counterplay (0–1, 69) 9-+-+P+-+0
Rossolimo-Fischer, USA Ch 1966-67.
In ‘The Complete Najdorf: Modern
9+NsN-vLP+-0
Lines’ by Gallagher & Nunn, there 9PzPPwQ-+PzP0
is lots of theory on both 7 Èb3 and 9+K+R+L+R0
7 Èf3 (the reasons why 6 ƒe3 was xiiiiiiiiy
revived) but 7 Ède2 is not mentioned. 12 f4!
7...ƒe6 8 †d2 Èbd7 9 f3 h5 Olita Rause explains the context of
Najdorf theory develops fast. This this game as follows: “The Najdorf
game (started in December 1999) Variation is not only extremely topical
features a move not even mentioned in very high-level OTB games, but
in the book written a year earlier also in CC. This variation leads to very
(principally by Gallagher). There 9...b5 unbalanced and complex positions.
and 9...ƒe7 are the main lines while The last few years of debates around
9...…c8 also gets a mention. By playing 6 ƒe3 (or 6 f3 followed by ƒe3)
9...h5 Black rules out White’s principal provided a huge collection of high-
idea of g2-g4 and forces a rethink. rated games but they showed that
10 0–0–0 White’s plan involving 0–0–0 was not
a) Álvarez had the same position safe at all. Maybe 12 f4 (a novelty in
with White against Sanakoev in the this game) could slightly change this
CAPA Jubilee, but preferred 10 ƒe2 statistic.”
Èb6 11 0–0–0 †c7 12 ‡b1 ƒe7 13 “Very soon in the game, White
ƒxb6 †xb6 14 Èd5 ƒxd5 15 exd5 obtains a dangerous initiative against
0–0 16 g3 …fe8 17 …hf1 †c7 18 g4 the black monarch, so Black’s next
…ac8 19 c4 e4 20 g5 exf3 which is move seems dubious.”
unclear (½-½ in 59 moves). 12 g3, 12 †f2, 12 Èd5 have also
b) 10 a4 has also been seen in been played.
several games, to take advantage of 12...0–0?! 13 f5 ƒc4 14 h3 ƒxf1
the fact that Black delayed ...b5. Olita Rause said in a recent int-
c) 10 Èd5 is a totally different erview that when starting a new event
plan, e.g. 10...Èxd5 11 exd5 ƒf5 she always consults her husband about
12 ƒe2 a5 13 0–0 ƒe7 14 f4! when opening theory trends. Since 14...h4
White had a good position and went on ½-½ occurred in Rausis-A.Sokolov,
to win in J.Neumann-R.Maliangkay, Schacknytt GM 2000, I guess there
CCOL12 Final 1998-99. were non-chess reasons why White
10...b5 11 ‡b1 ƒe7 (D) did not play for a win there.
286 64 Great Chess Games
Probably Black didn’t want to allow as a decoy to get his ‡ across to the
46...e4 47 …f1+ ‡g7 48 …ff6, but he queenside.
can play instead 47...‡e7! 48 …xg6 58 …xg6 ‡c7 59 ‡b4 …e5 (D)
e3 followed by ...e2 and ...…he4. For XIIIIIIIIY
example, 49 …e1 …he4 50 a5 e2 51 9-+-+-+-+0
‡c1 (only move) 51...…d5 52 a6 …a5
53 ‡b2 ‡d7 when swapping a6 and
9+-mk-+-+-0
W
g5 for b4 and e2 (with a … exchange 9-+-+-+R+0
on e2) should be a drawn … + a&c- 9+-+-tr-+-0
pawns v … endgame. 9PmK-+-+-+0
47 …h1! 9+-+-+-+-0
One of the golden rules of … 9P+P+-+-+0
endings is to avoid a purely defensive
role for the pieces. Now the g-pawn
9+-+-+-+-0
falls and c2 is potentially vulnerable, xiiiiiiiiy
but more importantly the white pieces
cooperate to drive the black ‡ to a In the classic ending with only
dangerous position on the edge. two pawns, it is known that the
47...…xg5 48 …h7+ ‡g8 49 …b7 stronger side often cannot win (unless
…d8 50 …e6 e4 the pawns are far advanced or the
White threatened to march the a- defending ‡ and … badly placed).
pawn so Black must make a sacrifice Here, however, the third pawn gives
in order to enable the g5-… to stop additional winning chances.
a4-a5. 60 c4 …e2 61 a3 …b2+ 62 ‡c3 …a2
51 …xe4 …c8 52 …bxb4 63 ‡b3 …a1 64 a5 …b1+ 65 ‡a4
White has three pawns against …c1 66 ‡b5 …b1+
one, but the fact that the pawns White would like to use the extra
are split on the a- and c-files (the a-pawn to shield the ‡ from vertical
hardest files to gain a win in … checks, but Black insists that she
endings) means that there is still a plays the ‡ to the c-file.
lot of technical work to do. 67 ‡c5 …h1
52...‡f7 53 ‡b2 …c6 Álvarez follows the general advice
Black needs to get his ‡ in front of of Botvinnik that the defending …
the pawns to have drawing chances, should be stationed in the corner
and would like to get counterplay opposite the advancing pawns.
with ...…g2. White forces off a pair A variation illustrating how the
of …s before attempting to advance backward a-pawn can be of use is
the pawns. 67...…a1 68 …g7+ ‡b8 69 ‡b6
54 …ec4 …xc4 55 …xc4 ‡e6 56 (threatening mate) 69...…b1+ 70 ‡c6
‡b3 …a5 57 …c6+ ‡d7 …a1 71 …b7+ ‡a8 72 …b3 and the
Black must sacrifice his last pawn black … cannot defend on the a-file.
288 64 Great Chess Games
In his 1996 book ‘Beating the Anti- castle into a compromised kingside.
King’s Indians’, GM Joe Gallagher I think Tarnowiecki must have
examines this variation in his second intended to meet 11...f5 by 12 b4!
chapter. The moves considered in this when 12...fxe4! might be met by 13
position are 10 †d2, 10 …g1 and 10 Èd2 Èd3+ 14 ƒxd3 exd3 15 Ède4
Èd2. Most often White inserts 10 followed by 16 †xd3. Or if 12...Èxe4
…g1 ‡h8 and then decides what to 13 Èxe4! fxe4 (13...h6 14 ƒe3 fxe4 15
do. But there’s no harm in holding Èd2 or 14 Èf6+!?.) 14 Èd2! and now,
back …g1, and it’s a clever choice since 14...h6 15 ƒe3 †e7 16 Èxe4 is
by Tarnowiecki. Already we have not too promising, Black might consider
an almost unknown position where 14...Èb8, or the exchange sacrifice
Black has yet to find a good plan; in 14...…f4!? 15 ƒxf4 exf4, although I am
particular, he must be careful he does sceptical of its soundness in a CC game.
not find himself in an inferior line White probably does best to answer 15
should White throw in …g1 after all. †b3 deferring the capture of the ….
10...Èdc5 11 …b1 12 b4 Èa4 13 Èb5
White prepares b2-b4 and waits White does not want to exchange a
for the thematic ...f5 advance. Then good È for a poor one.
Tarnowiecki hopes to gain control of the 13...Èb6
square e4 for his pieces while Black will 13...ƒxb5 ruins Black’s position after
not have the use of the corresponding f5- 14 cxb5 Èc3 15 †d3 Èxe2 16 bxa6.
square because of the pawn on g4. 14 a4 Èc8
The usual method is a2-a3. By Black is still reluctant to play ...f5 but
playing …b1, White moves the … off the his attempts to improve his queenside
long diagonal (so that later tricks with jumble of pieces are laborious. The
...e5-e4 are eliminated), accelerates his È defends the a7-pawn so that the …
queenside play (he can now play a2-a4 in may move to b8, after which ...c6 and
one go), and the … might even be further eventually ...b5 might become possible.
activated via b3. The drawbacks are that 15 Èc3 …b8 16 ƒe3 (D)
White cannot castle on the queenside, XIIIIIIIIY
and if (when) Black plays ...f7-f5, the 9-trn+qtrk+0
usual plan of taking twice on f5 is ruled
out as ...ƒxf5 would attack the ….
9zppzpl+pvlp0
B
11...ƒd7 9n+-zp-+p+0
Black decides to play around the 9+-+Pzp-+-0
blocked centre rather than concede e4. 9PzPP+P+P+0
However, in view of the difficulties he 9+-sN-vLN+P0
experiences, perhaps he should play 9-+-+LzP-+0
the obvious 11...f5 after all, especially
as White has now committed his ‡
9+R+QmK-+R0
either to remain in the centre or to xiiiiiiiiy
Game 62: Tarnowiecki-van Oosterom 291
…h4+ ƒh6 38 Èe3 threatening Èg4 the minor pieces in the middlegame,
and …gh1 to win the pinned ƒ. Even but is often good for the … in an
worse is 36...…xh7? 37 f6 with mate endgame where it can attack enemy
on g8 if the È moves. pawns. Qualitative factors are always
37 ‡d3 Èb4+ 38 ‡c3 axb5 39 axb5 important: the scope of Black’s pieces
Strategically, Black is lost. White is restricted by the pawn structure and
can use his passed pawns and piece White can set up a queenside threat
activity to force kingside concessions which, in conjunction with his passed
and then invade on the queenside. f-pawn, overstretches the defences.
39...Èc8 40 Èf2! Èb6 44...Èd7 45 …a1 ‡g8 46 …a7 ‡f7
This concedes control of a7, where 47 …xb7 ‡e8 48 …a7
the white … will later penetrate, but 48 b6 Èa6 49 …a7 Èab8 would
what can Black do instead? If 40...ƒg7 give Black some hope of setting up a
41 Èh3 and 42 Èg5, or 40...Èe7 41 blockade on both wings.
Èh3 ƒh6 42 Èg5 …f6 43 Èe6 b6 44 48...‡d8 49 f6!
…g8+ ‡xh7 45 …b8ˆ. By this pawn sacrifice White forces
41 …g8+! transposition into a ‡ and pawn
White decides to clarify the h-pawn ending, in which his protected, passed
situation. He will simplify and win and extra b-pawn ensures no more
Black’s b-pawn by means of …a1-a7. defence is possible.
41...‡xh7 42 …8g3! 49...ƒxf6
The threat of 43 …h3+ ƒh6 44 If 49...Èxf6 50 …xg7, so Black
…gh1 …f6 45 Èg4 forces Black to has no choice.
exchange …s. 50 …xd7+ ‡xd7 51 Èxf6+ ‡e7 52
42...…g7 43 …xg7+ ƒxg7 44 Èg4 Èg4
(D) Heading to d3 for the final piece
XIIIIIIIIY exchange, which Black cannot avoid
9-+-+-+-+0 as his È is corralled by White’s b5-
pawn and ‡.
9+p+-+-vlk0
B 52...‡d7 53 Èf2 Èa2+ 54 ‡d2
9-sn-zp-+-+0 Èb4 55 Èd3 Èxd3 56 ‡xd3
9+PzpPzpP+-0 White only needs to force
9-snP+P+N+0 penetration with his ‡ to win.
9+-mK-+-+-0 56...‡c7 57 ‡e2 ‡d7 58 ‡f3 ‡e7
9-+-+-+-+0 59 ‡g4 ‡e8
Black’s ‡ must not leave the square
9+-+-+-tR-0 of the protected passed pawn. So it
xiiiiiiiiy cannot roam on to the f-file to keep the
white ‡ out (59...‡f6 60 b6).
White has …+pawn vs ƒ+È, a 60 ‡f5 1–0
material balance which tends to favour At last Black resigned.
Game 63
White: Yin Hao (People’s Republic of China)
The Players: Yin Hao (born January averaged at 20 players per move.
28, 1979) is an IM who was rated A previous game had ended in a
2576 by FIDE at the time of the fairly short draw, so when this game
game. His country has many strong also looked as if dull equality might
OTB masters but no tradition of CC, arise, Yin Hao took the brave decision
although a few players recently began to complicate the game. With a fast
entering ICCF email events. He was time-limit and the normal majority
assisted by American CC player voting, this might have succeeded but
Richard P. Fleming, so I refer to them the rate of play was slower than the
sometimes as “YH+”. Kasparov match, with a basic three
About this game: The match, which days per move. The game spun out of
those involved describe as “a serious White’s control and the World team
game among friends”, was coordinated found a strong attacking line, which
by Tom Hendricks, who has helped YH+ were unable to withstand.
me a lot in compiling a digest of 1 c4 c5 2 g3 g6 3 ƒg2 ƒg7 4 e3 Èc6
the players’ analysis from the game. 5 Èc3 e6
Further games are sometimes in play It is very hard for White to play for
at the gamers.com chess strategy site; a win in this 5 e3 line. YH+ expected
the URL <http://boards.gamers.com/ 5...e5, but a game that apparently
messages/overview.asp?name=WTCh influenced the voters against
ess&page=1> may still work. choosing the move was A.Anastasian-
Unlike Game 56, this one involved B.Alterman, Rostov 1993, which then
a relatively small team of 33 continued 6 Ège2 Ège7 7 0–0 0–0 8
players who kept in constant touch, d3 d6 9 a3 a5 10 …b1 ƒe6 (10...…b8
exchanging ideas and analysis on a is more accurate, to answer Èc3-d5
bulletin board. This set-up makes with ...b7-b5.) 11 Èd5 …b8 12 Èec3
it very hard for the master to win b6 13 ƒd2 †d7 14 †a4 …fd8 15 b4
because the players consult about axb4 16 axb4 ƒf5 17 bxc5 dxc5 18
the analysis and decision-making ƒe4 Èb4 19 †xd7 …xd7 20 Èxb4
instead of being isolated. Participation cxb4 21 Èd5 Èxd5 22 cxd5 ƒxe4
294 64 Great Chess Games
XIIIIIIIIY
23 dxe4 …c7 24 ƒxb4 and White won
the endgame. 9r+lwq-trk+0
6 Ège2 Ège7 7 d4 cxd4 8 Èxd4 W9zpp+-+pvlp0
0–0 9-+n+-+p+0
Books tend to give 8...d5 but 9+-+-+-+-0
there seems nothing wrong with the 9-+-zp-+-+0
text move, which several GMs have 9+-+-zP-zP-0
played. Now White could return to
standard positions with 9 0–0. 9PzP-+NzPLzP0
9 Ède2!? d5! 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
Instead of the known 9...a6, but xiiiiiiiiy
the World offered a pawn! They Black must not become tied
considered they had a tempo which to defending an isolated d-pawn.
they should use immediately, and were White was probably hoping to make
already looking ahead at the games something of the ƒ pair after 12...
mentioned in the note to move 14. ƒg4 13 h3 ƒxe2 14 †xe2 although
10 cxd5 Èxd5 11 Èxd5 exd5 12 here too Black probably stands well
0–0 with 14...d4 15 …d1 (or 15 †b5).
White cannot win the d-pawn: 13 ƒxc6?!
a) 12 †xd5 †xd5 13 ƒxd5 Èb4 Theory in this line goes 13 Èxd4
when after 14 ƒb3 Èd3+ 15 ‡f1 Èxd4 14 exd4 †xd4 15 †xd4 ƒxd4
ƒh3+ 16 ‡g1 White is struggling 16 …d1 ƒg7 17 ƒe3 and now:
for survival and Black has several a) Botvinnik-Stein, Moscow (USSR
dangerous moves, e.g. 16...Èe1!?, Cht) 1966, went 17...ƒxb2 18 …ab1
£...Èf3# or ...ƒg2. Also 14 ƒc3 19 ƒxb7 ƒxb7 20 …xb7 a5 21
ƒe4 …e8 gives Black a very strong …d3 …ac8 22 ƒh6 ƒg7 23 ƒxg7
initiative for the pawn, because on 15 ‡xg7 24 …b5 …c7 25 …xa5 …b8 26
a3 …xe4 16 axb4 …xb4 Black regains ‡g2 …b2 27 …f3 h5 28 …f4 …d7 29
the pawn with the ƒ pair and better h3 …c2 30 g4 hxg4 31 hxg4 …dd2 32
structure, while after 15 ƒb1 Black ‡g3 …c3+ 33 ‡g2 …c1 34 a4 …c8
can choose between two promising 35 ‡g3 …c1 36 …a6 ½–½.
moves, 15...ƒg4 and 15...ƒh3!?. The Team was aware of that game,
b) 12 ƒxd5 Èb4 exposes the but they considered Black had a
white ‡ to even more danger, e.g. 13 ‘cleaner draw’ by following:
ƒg2 (If 13 e4 ƒh3 and White cannot b) 17...ƒg4 18 …d2 …ad8 19
castle.) 13...†xd1+ 14 ‡xd1 …d8+ …xd8 …xd8 20 ƒxb7 ƒxb2 21 …b1
15 Èd4 (15 ƒd2 Èd3) 15...ƒg4+! ƒd4 ½–½ R.Weyerstrass-J.Wright,
and White is in big trouble, e.g. 16 f3 CCOL11 Final 1992. (In these games
(16 ‡d2 …ac8) 16...ƒxd4 17 ‡e2 White only retreated his È to e2 at
ƒf5 18 exd4+ …e8+. move 12.)
12...d4!? (D) YH+ recognized that playing 13
Game 63: Yin Hao-The World 295
ƒxc6 involved some risk of losing, YH+ began to feel some pressure
but after all this was an exhibition here. They were worried about the
game: “Our choice was a rather variation 15 ƒd2 ƒh3 16 …e1 ƒg4
‘uneventful’ draw in the symmetrical 17 ƒc3 †e7 18 …c1 †e4 19 †d2
English or an exciting, analysis-filled †f3 but thought the move played was
game with ƒxc6 ... We wished to satisfactory.
keep the game in a positional struggle 15...ƒg4 16 †d2
and move toward an endgame where 16 …e1 was rejected because of
we could have a slight edge.” 16...†f6 17 …c1 ƒf3å.
13...bxc6 14 exd4 (D) 16...ƒf3!
This leaves White with an isolated The Team used its first time
d-pawn, but it closes the long extension here. 16...c5 had some
diagonal, restrains ...c5 and prepares support but they decided that this was
to develop the queenside. If 14 Èxd4 a draw trap after 17 d5!.
the Team liked 14...†b6 — not the To quote one of them: “The most
most obvious reply, because 14... difficult point was when we decided
c5 and 14...ƒh3 also came into early on to prevent f3 with ...ƒf3. His
consideration. ƒ was far weaker on e3 than b2 and it
XIIIIIIIIY allowed us to take over the e-file and
9r+lwq-trk+0 lever against that ƒ”.
17 Èf4 †d7 18 Èg2 …e7
9zp-+-+pvlp0
B Black plans to double …s with
9-+p+-+p+0 great pressure on the e-file. A critical
9+-+-+-+-0 moment has arisen.
9-+-zP-+-+0 19 a4?!
9+-+-+-zP-0 The plan begun with this move
9PzP-+NzP-zP0 may be to blame for White’s
defeat, because the …a3 follow-up
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 compromises White’s back rank.
xiiiiiiiiy YH+ was expecting Black to adopt an
attacking strategy involving ...h6 and
Now, in exchange for the sacrificed ...g5, against which this would have
pawn, Black has the ƒ pair and a lot been effective.
of open lines for his pieces: the b-file, Instead 19 ƒh6?! returns the pawn
the e-file and a choice of diagonals for without equalizing after 19...†xd4,
the c8-ƒ. Finding the most effective while White is certainly uncomfortable
plan is quite a challenge, however, after 19 ƒg5 …e2.
because it is a little too early to speak 19 †c3 is probably best and the
of forcing variations leading to clear Team planned to meet it by 19...
gains. …ae8.
14...…e8! 15 ƒe3 19...…ae8 20 …a3 h5! (D)
296 64 Great Chess Games
XIIIIIIIIY
ways to counter this and putting the …
9-+-+r+k+0 on the long diagonal means that it can
9zp-+qtrpvl-0 be vulnerable to Black’s dark-squared
9-+p+-+p+0
W ƒ. Then 21...†h3 threatens mate and
9+-+-+-+p0 play could go:
9P+-zP-+-+0 c1) 22 Èe1 ƒd5 (£23...h4 foll-
9tR-+-vLlzP-0 owed by 24...hxg3 25 hxg3 ƒh6!),
e.g. 23 f3 h4 24 †f2 hxg3 25 hxg3
9-zP-wQ-zPNzP0 and now 25...c5! explodes the white
9+-+-+RmK-0 centre: 26 Èc2 cxd4 27 Èxd4 (27
xiiiiiiiiy ƒxd4 …e2) 27...…xe3 (or 27...ƒxd4
The Team used their second time 28 ƒxd4 …e2) 28 …xe3 …xe3 29
extension to find this move, proposed †xe3 †xg3+ 30 ‡h1 †h4+ and
by former Canadian CC champion wins the È.
Kurt Widmann. Most attention had c2) 22 Èf4 †g4 (22...†c8!?) 23
focused on 20...f6 but ultimately they h3! (23 h4 g5 24 hxg5 h4 fractures the
considered it to be another draw trap white ‡ position.) 23...†d7 and the
after 21 †c3!, and they also found position is complicated although Black
20...h6 to be a dead draw. obviously has a lot of compensation.
21 b4 21...ƒxg2!
Since the position of White’s pieces This was a unanimous choice by the
cannot be improved, this is probably Team; as one of them put it: “his È
best, trying to create some counterplay was peskier than our ƒ was strong”.
and awaiting developments. Yin Hao admitted he underestimated
a) The Team half-expected 21 it. Only after Black’s next move did he
Èh4 which attempts to drive Black realise what had happened. “However,
back; they would have answered 21... it was too late to save the game.”
ƒd5 with the threat of ...†h3, then 22 ‡xg2 h4 23 d5? (D)
...g5, and ...h4. If White pushes his I would assess this as the choice
queenside pawns, Black just presses that turns a difficult position into a
on with the attack, while if 22 f3 clearly lost one but it was hard to
†b7! preparing the ...c6-c5 pawn find a move here. For example, Yin
lever at the right moment. Hao pointed out that if 23 †d1 h3+
b) 21 d5 also seems inadequate, 24 ‡f3 …e4‰ or 23 …g1 †d5+ 24
with 21...ƒxd5 22 Èf4 ƒc4 prob- ‡f1 h3 and “the … on g1 is really
ably being the optimal reply. stupid”.
c) 21 …c3, with minimal disad- Possible improvements are:
vantage, is favoured by Fritz7, which a) 23 …d3 (Fritz7), but YH+ could
had not been released at the time of the not find a way to hold after 23...h3+
game. There is a threat of ƒg5 attacking 24 ‡h1 †d5+ 25 f3 ‡h7!, which
the f3-ƒ and e7-… but Black has many threatens 26...…xe3 27 …xe3 ƒh6.
Game 63: Yin Hao-The World 297
The Players: Tim Harding is the found in recent years. The sharp reply
author of this book: ICCF IM (1997) 7 ƒe3!? is possible but 7 Èa3 seems
and now Senior International Master to be played more often.
(2002). He played on the Irish team at 7 Èc3
the 1984 FIDE Olympiad. Neishtadt, in ‘Katalonskoye Nach-
Alan Borwell has been President alo’ (1969), observed that Black is
of ICCF since 1997, doing a great job obliged to defend his extra pawn in a
guiding the transition of the world’s way that strengthens White’s centre.
most important CC organisation from 7...Èd5 8 ƒd2 b5 9 a4!
the postal into the Internet era. An ac- 9 0–0 is possible but I preferred to
tive player (CC-IM since 1993), Alan strike against Black’s pawn structure.
was board 6 and captain of the Scot- 9...ƒxc3
tish team which won the bronze med- Neishtadt and ‘ECO’ warn against
als in the 11th CC Olympiad Final. 9...ƒb7 because of 10 Èxd5 ƒxd2+
About this game: I found an open- 11 †xd2 ƒxd5 12 e4 ƒb7 13
ing novelty involving a surprising axb5 axb5 14 …xa8 ƒxa8 15 †a5,
positional piece sacrifice which belies attacking both the a8-ƒ and the b5-
the commonly-held view that CC has pawn. However, this is not clear after
been killed off by computers. 15...0-0 (15...f6!?) 16 †xa8 †xd4
1 d4 Èf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 d5 4 ƒg2 dxc4 when White’s best is 17 Èg4!Ÿ.
5 Èf3 a6 6 Èe5!? 10 bxc3 f6?
I thought White was not scoring as I expected 10...ƒb7 11 e4 when:
well lately with 6 0-0 (see Game 46). a) Neishtadt-Prokopp, ICCF M/54
6...ƒb4+ corr 1959, went 11...Èb6? 12 †g4
6...…a7 7 0–0 b6 (7...b5? 8 a4 or ‡f8 13 f4 È8d7 14 0–0 c5 15 f5
7...c5 8 ƒe3) 8 Èc3 ƒb7 9 †a4+ Èxe5 16 dxe5 exf5 17 †xf5 1–0.
Èfd7 10 ƒxb7 …xb7 11 Èc6! was b) Neishtadt & ‘ECO’ like White
good for White in Ya.Neishtadt- after 11...Èf6 12 †b1. Black even-
G.Scheffer, 2nd EU CC Ch 1964. tually won in V.B.Quist-D.Bryson,
b) 6...c5!? was thought bad but CCOL9 1977, after 12...0–0 13 Èxc4
improvements for Black have been (13 0–0!?) 13...c5 14 0–0 (Better 14
Game 64: Harding-Borwell 299
Select Bibliography
It would take far too much space CC game yet published, together with
for me to list every CC publica- many excellent games, articles about
tion and general chess source that I the various national CC bodies, etc.
consulted when preparing this work. While there are still relatively
Moreover, a fairly thorough CC few readable books about CC (as
bibliography is available at <http:// opposed to reference works), certain
www.chessmail.com> and several CC correspondence masters and GMs have
titles are mentioned in this book in the annotated their own games excellently.
annotations. The following should be For this reason, they are not represented
taken principally as suggestions for in this book; go to the originals! In
further reading. order of unmissability, these are:
MegaCorr2 CD-ROM edited by World Champion at the Third
Tim Harding, Chess Mail 2001. The Attempt by Grigory Sanakoev,
largest and most authoritative CC da- Gambit Publications 1999 (also
tabase currently available, with much available in German and Russian
supplementary material in PDF and editions). Simply the best book ever
HTML. See also page 304. published on CC before the year 2002.
Winning at Correspondence A new edition with extra games is on
Chess by Tim Harding, Batsford the way, I believe.
1996. Although written when the The Chess Analyst by Jon
email chess scene was just beginning, Edwards, Thinkers’ Press 1998.
I think this is still the best overview Princeton academic Edwards tells how
of CC with advice on technique and he won the 10th US CC Championship
rules, plus games and pen-pictures of in erudite and entertaining fashion.
the world champions. 52-54-Stop Fernschach, Tips
Startling Correspondence Chess und Tricks vom Weltmeister by
Miniatures by Tim Harding, Chess Fritz Baumbach, Sportverlag 1991
Mail 2000. A slim companion to the (in German). The 11th CC World
present volume, this has over 100 Champion on his rise to the throne.
games of 25 moves or fewer, and Journal of a Chess Master by
tactical exercises, plus advice on Stephan Gerzadowicz, Thinkers’
avoiding errors and how to exploit Press 1992. A highly original book
opponents’ mistakes. with a literary flavour.
ICCF Jubilee Book edited by 34-mal Schach Logik by
Pedro Hegoburu, ICCF 2002. Due A.O’Kelly, Walter de Gruyter
out in October 2002, I expect this to 1963 (in German). The third CC
be the most complete historical and world champion annotates his most
organizational reference work on the interesting postal games.
Indexes 303
Index of Openings
Opening name and page number in Petroff Defence 6/33
bold; Game number in normal type. Polish Defence 41/195
Bird’s Opening 33/164 Ponziani Opening 7/36
Budapest Defence 51/232 QP London System 9/44
Caro-Kann Defence 22/109, 53/241 QP Pereyra System 32/159
Catalan Opening 46/213, 64/298 Queen’s Gambit Accepted 10/48
Dutch Defence 5/30, 11/52, 48/221 Queen’s Gambit Declined 17/82
English Opening 2/13, 30/150, 52/ Queen’s Gambit Slav 12/56
237, 63/293 Reti (Barcza System) 18/86
French Defence 14/66, 21/105, 24/ Ruy Lopez (Spanish) 8/40, 13/60,
120, 28/144, 35/171, 50/228 16/74, 27/140, 29/147, 44/206, 45/
Göring Gambit 3/19 210, 60/278
Grünfeld Defence 47/218 Scandinavian Defence 38/183
King’s Gambit 23/114, 40/191 Sicilian Defence 26/135, 31/156, 34/
King’s Indian Defence 1/9, 20/98, 167, 42/198, 43/202, 54/246, 56/257,
62/289 58/270, 59/275, 61/284
Modern Defence 36/175, 57/265 Two Knights Defence 4/24, 25/124,
Nimzo-Indian Defence 15/70, 19/90, 37/179, 55/251
49/225 Vienna Game 39/188