Tim Harding, Janis Vitomskis

The Total Marshall
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-zp-vlpzpp0 9p+n+-sn-+0 9+p+pzp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+LzP-+N+-0 9PzP-zP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
An exhaustive study of the Marshall Counter-Gambit in the Ruy Lopez By Tim Harding, Janis Vitomskis and Martin Bennedik
With contributions from John Elburg, Henk de Jongh and Boris M. Shkurovich-Khazin.
Note that this PDF book is designed to print out on either A4 or US Letter size paper. It is part of an overall CD product comprising chess databases, an HTML web and PDF booklet. The ISBN number below is for the CD product. This book is licensed for printing out single copies by purchasers of the CD. It is not for separate sale or distribution. International copyright laws apply.
American Grandmaster Frank James Marshall, inventor of the Marshall Attack against the Ruy Lopez (Spanish Opening)
Contents
2 About the authors 3 About this work & how to use it 4 Acknowldegments 5 About the Marshall Attack 5 How to use this book 6 How to play the Marshall 8 Our recommendations 9 Theoretical Overview 18 Why The Total Marshall? 19 Evolution of the Marshall Attack 22 Fifty Illustrative games 57 Index to annotated games
ISBN 0953853632
Tim Harding, Janis Vitomskis and Martin Bennedik, 2002. All rights reserved Chess Mail Ltd., 26 Coolamber Park, Dublin 16, Ireland.
The Total Marshall
About the authors

The Total Marshall is a collaborative effort between several writers and analysts who have each contributed something in their areas of expertise. The deviser of the project and its overall editor is Correspondence Chess International Master Tim Harding, who is also editor of Chess Mail. It is published by Chess Mail, the company owned by Tim Harding, who has been well-known as a writer and player for 30 years. Tim has been a CC-IM since 1997 and expects to receive the Senior International Master title before too long. For the research on this e-book, he found all his original card index material from the 1970s and transcribed everything additional to what had appeared in his earlier books. His co-authors are CC-Grandmaster Janis Vitomskis (from Riga in Latvia) and FIDE-rated German amateur player Martin Bennedik who is a finalist in the IECG Email World Championship 2000. Martin has contributed numerous games and analyses and has spent a lot of time critically checking the surveys written by Tim and Janis, from the point of view of an ordinary reader. As Tim and Janis tend to favour Black in Marshall positions and Martin tends to prefer White, this has been an important balancing act. Janis Vitomskis has been playing the Marshall since the 1960s in both over-the-board and postal chess. He was a finalist in the 15th CC World Championship (began 1996) and earned the CC-GM title with an excellent performance on top board in CC Olympiad XII Final where his team will finish with either silver or bronze medals. Janis is Games Editor of the magazine Latvian Correspondence Chess and Latvian Gambit. Russian CC-IM Boris Mikhailovich ShkurovichKhazin was invited to contribute on the Herman Steiner (9...e4) Variation on which he is a particular expert. Additional contributions and checking in certain areas have been done by two Dutch correspondence players. John Elburg has in particular contributed the survey on the little-known Simmelink Variation, while Henk de Jongh has given us his extremely detailed analyses of the Pawn Push variations. However, they do not bear any responsibility for any errors that may be found outside their areas. Tim was first invited by FIDE IM Robert G. Wade OBE almost 30 years ago to write a book with him on the Marshall for the early Batsford openings book series. Research for this book (The Marshall Attack by Wade & Harding, English descriptive notation, 1974) involved hundreds of hours collecting games and analyses in Bob Wades extensive library, studying books and articles in numerous languages. Numerous lines were subjected to new analysis and that book was really the first to study the Marshall in depth. Next up was the first edition of the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings, published in Belgrade in the mid-
Tim Harding (left) and Janis Vitomskis... met in Latvia at the ICCF Congress in 1998. Below: Martin Bennedik.
1970s. The Marshall section was edited by ex-world champion Mikhail Tal, assisted by GM Lev Gutman and with contributions from Janis Vitomskis who also helped with the second edition a few years later. A lot of new ideas for Black were first published in this early ECO. In 1977, Tim wrote a second edition of his book (Spanish/Ruy Lopez: Marshall), this time in algebraic notation and without the various Spanish sidelines that had been in the earlier book. Then in the late 1980s, GM John Nunn asked Tim to work with him on a new book (The Marshall Attack, Batsford, 1989) where John concentrated on the main lines resulting from 11...c6 while Tim wrote on the lesser lines and Anti-Marshalls, but obviously with a considerable exchange of information elsewhere too. The idea for the collaboration on an electronic book began when Tim and Janis met at the ICCF Congress in Riga in 1998, after which Janis made several contributions to Tims magazine. As Janis does not think his English is good enough to include much text in the surveys he has written, the text passages have been largely written by Tim.
The Total Marshall
About this work

The Total Marshall is a multiformat electronic book, dealing with the Marshall Attack in the Ruy Lopez (Spanish Opening). For more details about this famous counter-gambit, please read the article About the Marshall Attack. Unlike other electronic chess books which present the information either in the form of a ChessBase database only, or else in proprietary formats that do not permit incorporation of the material in a database we have opted for a multiple format. databases will help you. Also the 50 specially chosen annotated games (available in all three formats) provide both an historical view of the Marshalls deveopment and a lot of specific information about the state of theory in most of the main variations. games and over 100 game fragments, many with light notes and some with detailed annotations. The games are provided in a variety of formats (new and old Chessbase, PGN and Chess Assistant) but the CBH version of the database has a custom openings key which readers can refine further as they wish, plus ChessBase tactical, strategic and endgame keys. However, the quality of the games in the complete database varies a lot. It includes games played by computers, by unknown players or players whose names may be incorrect. Many of these games were played on the Internet at blitz rates etc. Some people do not like to include such games in their own databases.
Multiple databases
To be more precise, there is not one games database on The Total Marshall CD but several. These are: a) The C89Notes database has 50 selected annotated games, which you will also find on the CD in other formats: as text later in this booklet, and in HTML/Javascript. You can play through the games on your computer using your web browser. That is the best way to start, especially if you are not an expert in the Marshall already, but we also included these notes as a database for the benefit of people who prefer to use their chess database program rather than a browser. b) The Surveys database has 37 articles including the overview survey by Tim Harding and specific variations surveys by Tim, Janis, Martin and the other contributors. These include some text and a lot of references to games which you will find in the main database, but largely consist of deeply-nested variations intended to represent the most theoretically-significant material on each variation together with suggestions. Some of these surveys are extremely detailed and much of this information is not in the CD in any other format. Everyone should look at the main lines and the light text in the surveys and refer to the more complex detail as and when you need it. Some of the analysis in these surveys is principally for the more advanced players among the readers. c) The complete games database (AllMarsh) so-called because it has all the Marshall. This contains over 7,500 complete Marshall
Three ways to study the Marshall

In The Total Marshall, you are getting: ! A games database (ChessBase/ PGN/Chess Assistant formats). ! An Adobe Acrobat PDF booklet, which you can print out on your own computer. ! HTML files containing the introductory texts and illustrative games; with these you can play through the games onscreen even if you dont have a database program installed yet. The information in the HTML files is largely the same as in this PDF booklet but presented in a different way. The advantage of the PDF book is that it gives you a portable format but you can also print it out and bring selected pages or the whole book with you to a tournament, or read it in bed or by the fireside. On the other hand, the HTML games web enables you to play through the games onscreen, rather like a database program although you cannot save your own analysis. The database format is the most powerful and enables us to present the most detail, but you can also get lost among mazes of sub-variations. When you need to be re-oriented in general, the PDF book and the HTML web can help. When you want specific guidance about a variation, then the survey
Select database and tree book

Therefore this has been refined to give a fourth and a fifth database: d) Selected database (C89elite) containing only the games where the quality of the data is high. Games with unknown players or doubtful data, Internet blitz games (except a few that are really significant theoretically) and games agreed drawn in under 20 moves have mostly been removed in order to give a more accurate view of the Marshall as played in serious games by strong players. There are still well over 5000 games in this database. e) A tree (opening book) database (Marshall.ctg) has been generated from the C89elite database, for the benefit of readers who like to work with tree databases, which show the structure of the variations and can yield (sometimes misleading) statistical information. If you want to generate your own tree from the AllMarsh database, you can but we dont recommend it. ChessBase trees can also be used as opening books for chess engines like Fritz.
The Total Marshall
Acknowledgments
Tim Harding is principal author and editor-in-chief of this work. He wishes to acknowledge the excellent work done by his two co-authors but also several other people who have made contributions of various kinds. Henk de Jongh, without being asked, volunteered a deep analysis of the Pawn Push line and ideas in the Kevitz Variation. Janko Bohak was the source for most of our information on the Slovenian Pawn Push. Boris Mikhailovich ShkurovichKhazin contributed an article about his experiences with the 9...e4 variation on which he is a particular expert. His article is not a complete survey of this double-edged line, but it gives new insights on how this variation can be approached. His article should be studied in conjunction with the survey on the variation written by Janis. John Elburg whose book and CD reviews you have probably read on the Chess Mail website provided the Simmelink Variation survey and many games (some with notes from his friends) and checked a lot of the work, making numerous useful suggestions. Artis Gaujens provided our email link to Janis Vitomskis and helped in various ways. Numerous other players (including some eminent grandmasters) also contributed analysis and games, or responded to queries about their games. Hanon W. Russell supplied the photograph of Frank Marshall. Alexander Baburin helped translate a few sentences from Boris Shkurovich-Khazins article. Joe at Reprint did the CD face and cover design. Clarinda Noonan helped with proof-reading. Adobe Inc. gave permission to include their Acrobat Reader and ChessBase GmbH gave permission for us to include ChessBase Light on the CD; the rights to both these free software products of course remain with the original publishers, Adobe and ChessBase. The Palview team at www.palamede.com deserve special thanks for making the latest version of their PGN-to-HTML free software available. Though they did not know it, Palview3 was released just in time to be used in the game web on this CD, and Andrew Templeton (their Canadian programmer) was especially helpful in providing assistance here. He has asked me to stress, however, that this web is essentially a free bonus that you are getting on the CD; we cannot give any guarantees about it. It may not work on some early browsers and it may not work with some operating systems like Windows XP which was being developed at the dame time as Palview3. You should be lucky; let us know of any successes or disappointments, but dont be expecting your money back if the javascript pages do not work on your system. Finally, my wife and daughters put up with me, especially in the difficult final stages when everything becomes subordinated to getting the CD off to mastering.
Chess Mail magazine

Your best move for news and games about postal and Internet chess. http://www.chessmail.com MegaCorr2 CD-ROM Over 350,000 game CC database plus many extras 64 Great Chess Games (book: summer 2002) Tim Hardings new book with the very best CC games of all time Startling Correspondence Chess Miniatures (book) 100 exciting and instructive games annotated by Tim Harding More good things to come from us in future!
The Total Marshall
About the Marshall Attack

This famous counter-gambit variation was first devised and further developed by American grandmaster Frank J. Marshall in the first half of the 20th century, and it nearly always leads to exciting play where Black has more winning chances, and at least as good drawing chances, as in the quiet defences to the Lopez. cases, we cover positions that can arise via other move orders also.) Alternative 8 th moves for White (Anti-Marshalls) are not included because we believe the Marshall itself is a self-contained subject large enough to require thorough treatment on its own and we did not want to be distracted by the non-gambit lines arising from 8 a4, 8 d3, 8 h3 and 8 d4. In the Marshall, Black offers a pawn at the 8th move. White has few chances of an advantage if he declines this gambit. Black can select from a wide choice of variations at moves 9-11, after which White must reveal his response and the main line (11...c6) divides into several possible paths, each one of which is a major main line in its own right. Some of these lines are suitable for all-out attack while in others Black obtains positional compensation for his sacrifices. Consequently the Marshall suits a wide range of players. Many Russian and Soviet grandmasters employed the Marshall including Spassky and Geller. Among the grandmasters who have often played the Marshall in recent years we can name the English grandmasters Michael Adams, Mark Hebden, John Nunn and Nigel Short, as well as numerous grandmasters from other countries e.g. Vasily Ivanchuk, Gata Kamsky, Jozsef Pinter, Ivan Sokolov and many more. The Marshall has long been popular in correspondence play, where many important variations have been discovered, and it also features a lot in Internet Chess Club and other Internet games. For general guidelines on playing the Marshall especially if the variation is new to you see the short article How to play the Marshall and then study the illustrative games before proceeding to look at the detailed surveys and games in the database.
The Marshall arises via 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 (see diagram) and only positions arising from this sequence are discussed. (In a few
How to use this book

Everyone will have their own ideas about how to use this ebook and it will depend on your playing strength, whether you intend to play White or Black (or both) and how much you know about the Marshall. However, we recommend printing out this PDF e-book so that you have something to refer to when your computer is not switched on (you can bring it to tournaments etc.). When studying at your computer, we recommend beginning with the HTML files that contain much of the same information as this e-book but presented in a more interactive way, which will assist learning. If you are a Marshall expert or aficionado, you will probably want to dive straight in and see what you say about your favourite variations. Even so and especially if you are a relative novice, or just an average-to-strong player for whom the Marshall is new territory we recommend that you start with the PDF book and/or the HTML files and then decide which sections of the database you want to investigate. Another way to proceed is to take a player who has been involved in a lot of Marshall games (e.g. Adams or Nunn for Black, Anand for White) and review their games with the Marshall chronologically or variation by variation. Finally, when you need to know more about a specific variation, then study the surveys in conjunction with the AllMarsh, C89Elite and/or tree databases. Also, of course, you can add the games from these files to your own collection of databases, but please do not distribute them to other people who have not paid for their copy of The Total Marshall; doing that would be a breach of copyright. By all means, show friends a printout of the PDF book or some of the HTML files, and encourage them to buy their own copy. If readers like this format, we shall probably do more like it in the future, based in part on printed books that Tim Harding has written in the past, but brought up to date with new games and analysis. Titles under consideration include The Total MacCutcheon and The Total Bishops Opening; suggestions for other titles are welcome. If you have games to send us that are not included in this edition, or have specific analysis or criticisms to contribute, we shall be glad to hear from you. Important new ideas may find their way into a future printed book.
The Total Marshall
How to Play the Marshall

Some guidelines on the Marshall Attack
Here are some general points which Marshall players and their opponents should take note of. White is normally a pawn ahead after move 11 but that does not mean he automatically wins endgames. Blacks compensation sometimes takes the form of an attack and sometimes is more positional (an initiative or a bind) which can persist long into the game. In cut-and-thrust middle-game play, a pawn either way frequently makes no difference. The better player will usually see more and calculate more accurately, leading to victory whichever colour he plays. Black can win when: a) White falls into an opening trap (of which there are many) and does not get out of the book phase alive. b) White plays into a bad variation (and there are many such variations) resulting in Black achieving a firm bind, even when there is no direct forced win. c) Black is able to generate a direct kingside attack, concentrating more local force near the white while Whites queenside is underdeveloped or unable to help the defence. d) Blacks attack wins material, which can be converted in an endgame or second wave of the attack. e) White makes a tactical blunder under pressure or in time trouble; even in objectively favourable positions, the defender often goes wrong and loses. White can win when: a) He is able to repulse the attack and take the initiative with his pieces on the queenside or in the centre. b) Black over-sacrifices and is left without sufficient compensation. c) Black chooses a poor line and doesnt get enough compensation in the first place. d) Black gets a piece trapped out of play (typically a bishop on g4 or h3 with a blocked pawn at f5). e) White sacrifices a piece for several pawns and establishes a queenside pawn roller. A draw can result when: a) Blacks sacrificial attack is good enough for perpetual check but not mate. b) Black regains his pawn and the position levels out. c) Black reaches an opposite coloured bishop ending in which White has no dangerous passed pawn. d) Black gets strong pressure but White is able to offer the exchange of queens on pairs of squares (e.g. f1/h3 and d3/f5), resulting in a draw by repetition. e) White gets his queen (usually via d5) or his rooks into play (typically via e1-e8 and a1-a7) just in time to force a perpetual or repetition when Black is about to win on the kingside. f) White loses his queen for rook and minor piece but establishes a fortress. g) A position arises when neither player can accomplish anything constructive without too much risk. (This can happen, for example, with queens off and a black on the first rank pinning an undeveloped white or against the on a1.) although there are exceptions. b) The ...g7-g5 thrust. This is typical of the Pawn Push lines and can occur elsewhere, usually (but not always) when the f-pawns are locked as in idea a) just mentioned. The thrust ...h5 can also occur, but more rarely. c) Infiltration down the e-file. In many variations, Black threatens to infiltrate the white position down the e-file, either after a queen exchange or if the white queen has gone on an excursion to f3. Black has two rooks quickly in play whereas Whites a1-rook is slow to help in the centre, so an exchange of rooks on e1 or e8 can lead to Black controlling the important efile. White often must play Be3 to keep the file blocked. d) Sacrifices on f4: many situations arise when Black can play ...d6-f4 (or sometimes ... d5-f4) even though there is a white pawn on g3. This can happen whether or not there is a white pawn on f4. If the pawn is still on f2, it usually means a pseudo-sacrifice (gxf4 would open the g-file for a fatal check by a black queen or rook) whereas if the white pawn is on f4, then the motif is often a pin on the e-file. e) The rook lift ...e8-e6-g6/h6. The move ...e6 occurs in a lot of games but sometimes the idea is just to double rooks sometimes pinning a white bishop on e3. f) Exchange sacrifices on e3 or e4. These tend to be associated with the Pawn Push variation but, except in certain circumstances, they are usually incorrect. g) The Minority Attack. This only occurs in a few cases but can be effective when Black has restricted Whites development, has a strong position and he is looking for a way to make progress. Generally in the Marshall, Black has the initiative on the kingside and e-file while trying to hold fast on the queenside, with his three queenside pawns restraining Whites four. However, the advance ...b5-b4 can sometimes
Typical tactical themes

There are some typical tactical themes that occur in a lot of Marshall games. You have to be ready to apply these and recognise when they are appropriate. The main ones are the following. Attacking Ideas for Black a) The ...f5-f4 thrust. This usually occurs after White has been induced to play g2-g3 and generally White has to answer ...f7-f5 by f2-f4 in order to prevent ...f5-f4,
The Total Marshall
expose weaknesses in the white queenside. Also the move ...c6c5, challenging the white d-pawn, sometimes has merit. h) The long white diagonal. Except in the variation 11...b7, the diagonal a8-h1 is usually partially closed, but there are some cases where Black can make use of this diagonal to bring pressure on g2 which is a sensitive square in Whites castled position. The diagonal can also be important in cases where Whites xd5 can be met by ...xd5 (rare, but bad news for White if it happens) or by ...xd5 (in the Spassky Variation. Main Ideas for White a) The main idea for White to gain counterplay in most variations is the advance a2-a4. The dual purpose is to get the a1-rook into play and to destabilise the queenside pawn structure of the Marshall player. Depending on circumstances, Black may capture on a4, play ...b5-b4 to keep the a-file closed (and try to create a weakness on c3), or he may allow White to capture on b5. b) The exchange on d5. Playing b3xd5 is a double-edged sword for White. The knight is often pinned (if Black has played ...f5) and does not need to be captured unless Black expends a tempo on ... h8. Also the bishop on b3 is potentially a strong piece. Nevertheless the resulting black pawn on d5 can sometimes be a weakness, forcing Black to gambit a second pawn. c) The queen manoeuvre to f1/ g2. When Blacks queen goes to h4, forcing g2-g3, and then appears on h3, White has light-square weaknesses near his king and usually must challenge the black queen. So -d3-f1 (sometimes d1-f1, as in the 13 e2 line) offers the exchange of queens and usually drives the black queen back to h5 (sometimes f5/g4) after which the white queen can go to g2 (or occasionally f2). However the queen is not always well placed on g2, especially if ...h3 is coming next to attack her. Sometimes the two queens play hide-and-seek
and a draw by repetition occurs. d) The thrust c3-c4. This only occurs in a few variations and is rarely good because the result is a weakened white d-pawn and often a weakened b-pawn also. e) Whites knight. After winning the pawn on e5, each player has only one knight and White has the problem of how to develop his to make it of comparable value to its counterpart, the black (or the black light-squared in cases where xd5 has been played). Sometimes the can effectively go to a3, but almost always it goes to d2 and then its future depends on the specific variation. Generally speaking, Black must never, if he has already played ...f5, allow White to play -f3-e5 and must be ready to exchange one of his bishops for the knight in that case. There are also some cases where the can be effective on e4. If Black can keep the confined to a defensive role on d2 or f1 then he should be doing well. In lines where Black opens the g-file or h-file, White may need his Knight to protect h2 or to interpose on g3 against a rook check.
Strategic guidelines on the 17...Re6 line (By Martin Bennedik)

Black has sacrificed a pawn. Blacks pieces are actively developed on the kingside. The e-file is open and blocked by Whites dark-squared . Whites dark-squared is bad. It can not easily be activated. The white squares on Whites kingside are weakened and occupied by Blacks and . Whites a1- is not yet in the game. Black certainly has compensation for the pawn. White will go for a4, intending to disrupt Blacks queenside pawns and thereby activating his rook a1.
Black is going for ...f5, intending ...f4 followed up by play against the White King. After Black has played ...f5, Whites light-squared is actually quite a strong piece, x-raying the diagonal up to the Black K on g8. Black often has to play ...Kh8 (or sometimes even ...Kf8) to unpin his pieces before he can continue with his attack. Therefore White should only exchange his bishop for knight d5 if this leads to concrete advantage, or after Black has removed his king from the diagonal. White has to react in some way to ...f5, otherwise he will soon have problems. There are two ways: Blocking with f4: White plays f4 to slow down Blacks attack. He must however pay attention, that the square f4 is under control, or Black will follow up with a piece sacrifice on f4. A good example is what happened in the game Novopashin-Spassky, Leningrad 1962: 18 a4 bxa4 19 xa4 f5 20 f4?. Spassky played 20...xf4! (See the annotated game). If a piece sacrifice is not possible, Black can continue to open up Whites kingside with ...g5, sometimes sacrificing a third pawn with ...f4, after White has captured with fxg5. A disadvantage of the f4-block is, that Whites dark-squared becomes even worse. Another drawback of the f4-block is that Black is now able to exert some pressure on the e-file with ...fe8 and ...Kh8. Another reaction to ...f5, which has been analysed recently is the counter-attack. White is continuing to disrupt Blacks queenside pawns and he is ready to sacrifice a piece on f4 himself, this time to eliminate the dangerous Black f-pawn, not allowing it to open up his kingside. Whites counter attack is successful, if he is able to win enough material back on the queenside. Examples for the method of counter-attack include Quigleys bust and Ivanchuks game against Short.
The Total Marshall
Our recommendations
Most readers will probably be eager to have a quick summary of our discoveries. Which lines are viable for Black, which should be avoided and what is Whites best approach? The first and last of those questions cannot really be answered completely, as it is partly a matter of taste which sound variation you want to play. Even the unsound lines can be great fun and profitable in blitz play. However if we are talking about important games where the result matters, then here are our main recommendations. 1. Black should certainly avoid 9...e4, and play 9...xd5. After 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 he should play either 11...c6 or 11...b7. 2. If White does not want to accept the Marshall, 9 d4 is the best choice but he would be better off not playing 8 c3 in that case. 3. After 11...c6 (which occurs in a high percentage of Marshall games), these are the lines which offer White the main chances of an advantage: a) The main line with 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 followed by 18 a4, intending to play Quigleys refutation if Black replies 18...f5. b) The line 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e4. This was claimed as a refutation of the Marshall in the early 1970s, but methods were found against it. Nevertheless there are still several unclear lines where play is not easy for either side. Often Black wins the exchange and has to defend, which is rather different from most lines of the Marshall. However, White is also running risk in this line. c) The line 12 d3, also intending to follow up with e4. There has been considerable development in this variation in the past 12 years. d) The line 12 d4 d6 13 e2 where a lot of the earlier conclusions are suspect. 4. Black is advised to decide early in the game (not later than move 11) whether he is going all out for a win, wants to keep the draw in hand or intends to be as flexible as possible in the hope the opponent will make the irrevocable commitments. A consistent mindset is important for both players to guide their decisions at critical moments in the late opening/ early middle-game. If Black really wants to play for a win, then the Classical Pawn Push (involving ...ae8 and ...f5) definitely puts White under early pressure, but we must warn you that if White keeps finding the absolutely best moves, then you may end up with a lost position. The same goes for the 9...e4 line, which wins a lot of games but is not recommended against masters. A little-known line suitable for beating weak opponents is the Slovenian Pawn Push but White has one line that must be very carefully checked (see the end of the variation survey). 5. Most Marshall games are decided in the phase between moves 12 and 25 where one player may know all the theory and the other may not: who knows most, wins! Theory in some variations goes even beyond move 30. If you dont feel happy as Black about getting into a deep theoretical debate with your opponent, the most suitable variations are 11...b7 or 11...c6 followed by 15...e8 (or 15...a7 which often leads to the same position). These little-known lines give Black sufficient positional compensation, dont require deep theoretical knowledge and can get White out of the book quickly. 6. For the player with a deep knowledge of the Marshall, we recommend that you follow the main line with 17...e6 when White allows it and then meet 18 a4 by Spasskys 18...h5. Fischers phrase best by test applies here and you have the comfort of knowing that you are following in the footsteps of most of the strongest GMs who have played the Marshall. The tendency in the 1990s and early 21st century for White to play lines like 12 d3, 13 e2 or the Kevitz testifies to the fact that few masters and grandmasters are confident of obtaining any advantage against the Spassky Variation. 7. Against the 12 d3 d6 13 e1 line, which is probably the most dangerous alternative to the main line, it seems that 13...f5 is perhaps not good enough, although we have found some improvements for Black and maybe you can develop them. Also after 13...h4 14 g3 h3 15 e4 the line with ...d7 and ...b7 is looking suspect. However the line with ...f5-g6 (as in KilgourVitomskis) is recommendable and also the supposedly refuted plan with 15...f6 looks OK for Black in view of the two improvements we recommend. (The dramatic improvement by Vitomskis at move 26 in Whites supposed model game Anand-Cooper seems to overturn the assessment of that line). 8. Against the Kevitz line, Vitomskis has made some new discoveries for Black and we think there is nothing to fear here. 9. Possibly the 13 e2 line is more important as in many cases Black seems to get just general Marshall compensation: this is OK when the second player is stronger but when White is the stronger player you would like something specific to follow. In this case, Tim Harding has taken a new look at the game Mithrakanth-Geller. 10. In this Internet era, many games are appearing in databases which were played on the Internet and which sometimes feature interesting and sharp ideas. 11. Finally, both White and Black need to remember that there are numerous sidelines and tricks that are playable in occasional games, if not as the mainstay of your repertoire. Studying these sidelines (such as the alternatives at moves 12 and 15) will improve your feel for the Marshall and general knowledge of the variation, which may stand you in good stead in the future.
The Total Marshall
Theoretical Overview of the Marshall

1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 This is the start of the Marshall Attack. All positions considered in this electronic book can arise via the sequence, although we have included some side variations that normally come about by different sequences. Those are highlighted in the respective surveys. Nevertheless, Black has scored some remarkable combinative wins in this variation and it would hardly be possible for White to find the right line at the board without preparation. In reply, 10 Ng5?! gives Black good chances so White must play 10 dxc6 and after 10...exf3 the question is whether 11 d4 (normally recommended) or 11 Qxf3 is the better move. In the Surveys database, see the article by CC-IM Boris M. Shkurovich-Khazin and the full survey by CC-GM Janis Vitomskis. They tend to think 11 Qxf3 is correct. 10 xe5 Other 10th moves for White are discussed by Tim Harding in the Move 10 Sidelines survey. The most important of these sidelines is 10 a4, which sometimes transposes to positions normally classed as C88 (Anti-Marshall). The a-file is opened after 10...Bb7 11 axb5 axb5 12 Rxa8 Bxa8 and now 13 Nxe5? Nxe5 14 Rxe5 Nf4 has been a catalogue of disasters for White, although people keep falling into this trap. So White has to decline the gambit pawn at move 13, with about equal chances. 10...xe5 11 xe5 This is the main line of the Marshall today and brings about a major crossroads.
Note: it is not practical to include in text/HTML form all the major twists and innovations we discovered while preparing this work. This chapter is a summary and overview of the theory only. The surveys should be read, as intended, in the database format.
9 exd5 Other 9th moves for White are discussed by Tim Harding in the Marshall Declined survey. The most important of these possibilities is 9 d4, after which we recommend Black to keep play independent with 9...exd4 10 e5 Ne4. Books often recommend 9...Nxe4, which is playable as a transposition to a sideline of the Open Spanish (C83) but in this case, we reveal a serious problem with the line normally proposed. Following 10 dxe5 Be6 11 Nd4!? Nxe5! 12 f3 Bd6 13 fxe4 Bg4 14 Qd2 Qh4 15 h3 the move 15...c5? was refuted by 16 Rf1!! in a Botvinnik training game from 1951 which was only published a couple of years ago. 9...xd5 9...e4!? (the Herman Steiner variation) is exciting but unfortunately not quite sound despite the best efforts of some correspondence players to revive it.
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-zp-vlpzpp0 9p+-+-+-+0 9+p+ntR-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+LzP-+-+-0 9PzP-zP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
a) 11...f6 was Frank Mar-
shalls original, but unsuccessful, attempt. Despite some lively play, this move has never been truly established as a viable line. Statistics in the database may show that Black does as well in practice with this move as any other, but the theoretical standing of the move is not so good. See Tim Hardings survey The Original Marshall. b) 11...b7 is a different matter. The title of Tim Hardings survey The solid 11...Bb7 line speaks for itself. Reinforced by some significant improvements never before published, we confidently recommend this move to Black as a fairly dynamic alternative to 11...c6. c) 11...b6!? and 11...f4?! are dealt with in Tim Hardings survey Lesser Knight Moves. Possibly 11...b6 can be played as an occasional surprise weapon but 11...f4 unfortunately has a tactical drawback which can probably not be repaired. d) 11...e6!? has been played in one computer game which you can find in the database. The move is essentially defensive but perhaps not completely ridiculous. The bishop would become powerful if it could get to d5 after an inadvisable xd5 by White.
The Total Marshall
10
The move most often played by Black, because of its reliable reputation and the example of numerous grandmasters, is: 11...c6
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-+-vlpzpp0 9p+p+-+-+0 9+p+ntR-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+LzP-+-+-0 9PzP-zP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
12 d4 White has several other moves, which vary in importance. a) 12 d3 d6 13 e1 is the most important alternative for White according to current theory. Then if 13...f5 (see the Survey by Tim Harding) Black does not quite seem able to equalize. Consequently, he usually plays 13...h4 14 g3 h3 and now comes 15 e4. (White often prefers this system because, by comparison, with the 12 d4 and 15 e4 line, the d-pawn protects the rook, ruling out some tactical opportunities for Black.) This line is covered by CCGM Janis Vitomskis in three surveys, and he draws attention to the games Kilgour-Vitomskis and Granski-Vitomskis (see the database) in which he chose different lines for Black. It seems on present evidence that Black should either play the 15...f5 plan (followed by g6) or the 15...f6 variation. In the oncepopular defensive scheme involving 15...d7 and ...b7, the line seen in Almasi-Tseshkovsky and Leko-Slobodjan looks good for White. Vitomskis also comments on the game Harding-Rybak where Tim tried
a new line for White but Black reached a drawn ending by careful defence. Other 12 th moves are also often seen, some of which may transpose into the 12 d3, 15 e4 line, or back into variations of the 12 d4 main line at a later stage. b) 12 e1 can soon lead to standard positions by a different move order: 12...d6 13 g3 (13 d3 see 12 d3) 13...d7. (See Tims survey for cases where Black gives the variation independent significance by playing other moves here.) With 13...d7, the black queen finds an alternative route to the h3 square: 14 d4 (14 d3 h3 is the 12 d3 main line.) 14...h3 is the 12 d4 main line. c) 12 g3 see Tim Hardings survey Various 12th moves for White and the annotated game Fischer-Spassky. The main independent line starts 12...f6!? (12...d6 13 e1 see 12 e1; 12...f6!?) 13 e1. d) 12 f1 is an old move rarely seen nowadays; this move has nothing to recommend it wrote GM John Nunn in 1989. See Tim Hardings survey Various 12th moves for White, along with other moves such as 12 f3 and 12 h3 which are not played by masters nowadays. e) 12 c2? d6 13 e1 David Bronstein found some interesting possibilities after the routine 13...h4, but unfortunately... 13...xh2+!! 14 xh2 h4+ 15 g1 g4 16 f3 xf3! 17 gxf3 (17 xf3 xe1+ 18 f1 ae8 19 d4 g3 20 d2 e3!) 17...g3+ 18 f1 (18 h1 ae8!) 18...f4 19 e2 xf3+ 20 e1 ae8 21 xe8 g2# So I never tried that line - GM D.Bronstein, 1946 (MS notes given to Bob Wade). f) The second most important alternative for White after 11...c6
is to play immediately 12 xd5, which gives up the bishop pair to fix the central structure. Now after 12...cxd5 13 d4 (For 13 f3 and other rare moves, see Tim Hardings survey The Exchange at d5.) 13...d6 the semi-retreat move 14 e3 is the Kevitz Variation, for which see the two-part survey by GM Janis Vitomskis which is extremely detailed even more so than the abridged version which appeared in Chess Mail magazine 5/01 and 6/01. Of course White can also play 14 e1 h4 15 g3 h3 (see 15 xd5 below) but the main purpose of the Kevitz move is to defend h2 by advancing the h-pawn instead of the g-pawn. 12...d6 13 e1 13 e2 (see diagram) is also a significant variation.
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+pvl-+-+0 9+p+n+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+LzP-+-+-0 9PzP-+RzPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
An advantage of the move is that White can play f1 in one go; a disadvantage is that the is exposed to tactics. This was once thought to be a minor sideline but Whites play has been improved in recent years consequently, it has been causing some problems for Black, although we believe he can handle them. See the summary of the variation in my Overview database survey and then go on to the detailed review by GM Vitomskis. Black sometimes replies 13...c7!? (which threatens 14...d6 15 g3 g4) but White usually replies 14 d2 (in order
11
The Total Marshall
to cover f3) 14...f4 (14...d6!?) 15 e3 and there are several games in the database, without a clear conclusion. Variations in the Vitomskis survey show that the bishop move may not be quite good enough. Therefore 13...h4 is normal but after 14 g3 Black has to decide where to place his queen. Both 14...h3 and 14...h5!? have pros and cons; see the illustrative games and Vitomskis survey for details. For a general assessment, Vitomskis has discussed this line with World Seniors Champion, GM Janis Klovans, who plays this line (after Hellers suggestion) for many years. His opinion (after the Anand-Khalifman game) is pretty close to that of Vitomskis: standard Marshall compensation, play for a pawn. So these Latvian grandamsters conclude that maybe 13 e2 is less dangerous for Black as other lines. Martin Bennedik however feels that when you look at specifics, Black is not equalising, so it may be time to take another view of the line and come up with a whole new plan for Black. Tim Harding believes that the plan Black used in Mithrakanth-Geller definitely deserves more attention. Other 13th moves for White are rarely seen: a) 13 g5?! c7 14 e1 (14 f4? h6+ Marshall or 14 xd5?! cxd5 15 xd5 xh2+ 16 h1 a7 17 g3 xg3 18 fxg3 xg3 +) 14...xh2+ (StojadinovicHbner) returns the pawn for no apparent good reason. b) 13 h5!? is the kind of amateur/computer move more often seen nowadays on the Internet than in the early years of the Marshall. Generally speaking, it is unwise for the white rook to leave the
e-file unguarded and go on kingside adventures, because the threats it can generate are easily met whereas Black can combine attacks down the e-file and threats to trap the rook itself. There can follow 13...e8 (13...f6 14 h4 e8 is also playable; see PerrenotTinture) 14 g5 c7 (Threatening ...g4!; the immediate 14...g4!? 15 f3 was unclear in Piqueras-Arellano.) 15 d2 h6 16 xd5 cxd5 17 e3 has no obvious refutation but with the bishop pair, solid structure and active pieces, Black must have adequate compensation for the sacrificed pawn. c) 13 g5 has all the disadvantages of 13 h5 and none of the good points; it simply does not threaten anything. 13...e8 is probably the best answer. White cannot win a pawn by 14 xd5 cxd5 15 xd5?? because of 15...xh2+. Now we return to the main line, namely 13 e1. 13...h4 Other moves such as 13...c7 and 13...f5 can be found in the database but the direct h4 is the only move to find favour with masters. There is a direct threat to h2 and Whites choice is limited, 14 g3 Not 14 h3? xh3! 15 gxh3 xh3 16 e5 (16 f4 ae8) 16...xe5 17 dxe5 fe8. 14...h3
This is the second major crossroads. White has tried many moves here, but most of them are obsolete and only 15 e4 and 15 e3 are really current variations. a) 15 xd5 cxd5 is not seen as often as in the early days of the Marshall. If White intends to follow up with e3 etc. then he may as well postpone this exchange until later. For lines of independent significance, see the survey The exchange at d5. Usually 16 e3 (16 f3!?) 16...g4 17 d3 ae8 18 d2 e6 transposes to 18 xd5. b) 15 f3 g4 16 g2 has generally been seen as a good line for Black, but after the standard refutation 16...h5 17 e3! f3 18 f1 f5 19 d2 f4 White improves by 20 xf4! xf4 21 xf3 xf3 22 d1 ending with +2 v + and probably an edge to White. Consequently, the options 17...ae8!? and 17...fe8 need to be revaluated. (For this and other minor options see Tim Hardings survey Various Options at Move 15.) c) 15 e4 is the main alternative.
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+pvl-+-+0 9+p+n+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+LzP-+-zPq0 9PzP-+-zP-zP0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+pvl-+-+0 9+p+n+-+-0 9-+-zPR+-+0 9+LzP-+-zPq0 9PzP-+-zP-zP0 9tRNvLQ+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
See the survey by Janis Vitomskis and additional analysis by Tim Harding. The most promising line for Black at present may be 15...g5 (countering the threat of h4) 16 f3 f5 and now 17 c2 is the older move, and after 30 years of debate it is still unclear!
The Total Marshall
12
Tim Harding tried to make 17...f4!? work, but this is still considered dubious or unclear by many people (see his survey of the variation). Generally Black avoids this and plays instead 17...xe4 18 xe4 e6 19 xg5 (19 f5 gives White a draw at best and he can easily fall into a losing trap: see my notes to PecarevicTuominen.) 19...f5 20 d3 (20 xd5? Topalov-Adams) 20...h6 (20...f4!?) 21 d2! a7 (Nunn, 1989) 22 a3! f4 23 e1 f6!. The postal game Pyrich-Reis is puzzling and seems to be the line requiring deep analysis here. Instead of 17 c2, the exchange 17 xd5 is apparently critical. After 17...cxd5 18 e3 ad8 19 d2 fe8 20 b3 xe3 Black, with precise play, neutralised Whites material advantage in Maliangkay-Vitomskis. Instead 18...e4 allows Black to gain the exchange and many theoreticians give this line or (mostly on general assessments). The move may still be viable but when it was played in the game Timmerman-Vitomskis, 15th CC World Ch Final, Black got an unwelcome surprise. However, the later game Timmerman-Tarnowiecki indicates another way for Black to reach the draw haven. Now we return to the main line. 15 e3 This has been clearly established as the main line.
15...g4 Black has alternatives here and, although they are rarely played, at least two of these moves are perfectly OK in my opinion. See the Various Options at Move 15 survey for all these. 15...e8!? is an eminently logical continuation, this is the main other move to demand serious attention at this point. 15...a7 can transpose to it: see the notes to Quigley-Harding for the main issues and unanswered questions. 16 d3 Not 16 f3?? xg3 17 hxg3? xg3+ 18 f1 xf3.
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+pvl-+-+0 9+p+n+-+-0 9-+-zP-+l+0 9+LzPQvL-zPq0 9PzP-+-zP-zP0 9tRN+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
16...ae8! This is often played automatically but that was not always the case. Other moves deserve a look but are probably inferior. Gellers move 16...xe3?! had a brief vogue but is no longer considered correct. Black does not get enough for the pawn if White plays accurately and even if he does have drawing chances, the positions are unpleasant, e.g. 17 xe3 c5 (17...h8 18 d2 f5 19 f1 is worse, e.g. Tomsons-Euole) 18 f1 xf1+ (18...h6 or 18...h5 19 d2 ae8 20 d1) 19 xf1 ad8 20 g2! (PoleshchukRapoports) 20...cxd4 21 cxd4 c7 22 d3 f5 23 d1 fe8 (23...b6 24 d5 fe8 25 c3 b4 26 a4 a7 27 ac1) 24 c3 b4 25 a4 e2?! 26 ac1 and c4 Nunn, Harding (1989). 16...f5 is an important option,
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+pvl-+-+0 9+p+n+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+LzP-vL-zPq0 9PzP-+-zP-zP0 9tRN+QtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
however, leading to the Pawn Push complex, which we have subdivided. If White meets 17 f4 by 17...ae8 see the Classical Pawn Push below (note to Blacks 17th move). Otherwise Black can keep play independent by 17...g5!? and now White has little choice but to play 18 f1. (Others are blunders e.g. 18 fxg5? f4 19 gxf4 xf4 20 d2 f3 or 18 d2? gxf4 19 xd5+ cxd5 20 gxf4 xf4 analysis by Janko Bohak). After 18 f1 h5 19 d2 (19 fxg5 is usually said to be inferior, but White may be able to draw.) Black has three possibilities: a) 19...h6!? is the little-known and dangerous Slovenian Pawn Push; see the survey by Tim Harding. b) 19...h8 20 xd5 cxd5 is the main line of the Radical Pawn Push; see Tim Hardings survey. Here 21 a4 seems to be critical, as analysis of 21 fxg5!? suggests Black can draw. In a top-level postal game in the 21 a4 line, im got a draw with Morgado but it looks as if White should have an improvement. c) 19...ad8 is an untested ECO suggestion; see the Radical Pawn Push survey for details. Instead of 17...g5 Black occasionally plays 17...h8 which unpins and virtually forces White to exchange: 18 xd5 cxd5 19 d2 g5 is the same as the main line of the Radical Pawn, while 19...ae8 transposes to the main line of the Classical Pawn Push, below; not, however, 19...g8? 20 f1 h5 21 a4 EuweDonner, Dutch ch 1950). 17 d2 e6 Black has two major alternatives here. a) 17...h5!? 18 a4 f5 is the Adams Variation, which has gone out of fashion. See the
13
The Total Marshall
survey by Martin Bennedik. (For 18...e6 see the Spassky Variation, 18 a4 h5, below.) b) 17...f5 is the Classical (or you might say, restrained) Pawn Push. This is both considered in the survey by Tim Harding and the additional contribution by Henk de Jongh, which readers can compare for themselves. There are two main lines, with transpositional possibilities from 16...f5. The play is exciting with good winning chances for Black against inferior defence, but if White plays very accurately then Black is struggling to survive. c) Another legal move is 17...h8 which is designed to induce xd5 but has no apparent merit. Either it will transpose to some normal lines or just prove a waste of tempo in the end. Now we return to the main line at 17...e6.
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+pvlr+-+0 9+p+n+-+-0 9-+-zP-+l+0 9+LzPQvL-zPq0 9PzP-sN-zP-zP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
In our Surveys database, the lines following this position are considered in a separate survey entitled Marshall 17...e6 Overview. There are also numerous detailed surveys of the specific lines. For alternatives up to this point, see the survey Marshall Attack Overview and the specific variation surveys. In this position, Whites most critical move is 18 a4 but he often plays 18 f1 (which can transpose) and sometimes other moves are tried.
I will get those out of the way first. a) 18 f4?? is a weak computer move. Black continues 18...f5 and wins a piece on the e-file. b) 18 c4 f4!. For details see the survey by Janis Vitomskis. The main line goes 19 cxd5 h6 20 e4 xh2+ 21 f1 and now Black has two promising lines discussed in the survey: 21...f5 and 21... xe3. Instead if 19 f1 xe3 20 xh3 xh3 21 cxb5 c2 22 xe6 fxe6! 23 gxf4 xa1 24 xa1 xf4 (Feldmus-Vitomskis, corr 1983). White scored one shock win in 1975 with 19 xf4?! but Black can refute it by 19...xf4 20 f1 e2+. c) 18 d1 is tricky but fine for Black if he knows what to do. The move was reintroduced by Ljubojevic in 1988 although Spassky had met it in one of his earliest Marshall games more than 20 years earlier! After 18...xd1! 19 axd1 f5 20 f3! Black is OK with 20...g6! following Ljubojevic-Nunn. d) 18 g5!? (with the idea of exchanging rooks on e6) is not in the books; it is an Internet move which has a plus score in our database because it has never been played against a strong master. Vitomskis says it is good but not a winning move and Black can equalize e.g. 18...fe8 (18...h6!?) 19 xe6 xe6 20 e4 f5 21 f3 xg3! (see Zimmermann-Schwetlick in the database). e) 18 xd5 cxd5 gives a position that can also arise if the exchange at d5 was made sooner. (See Tim Hardings survey.) White has various plans now, but the only one to cause Black concern is 19 a4 f5 20 f1 h5 21 axb5!?; this was dismissed as a draw for many years until Whites play was improved in the 1990s. Now it is the critical line, for example
21...f4 is playable (For 21...h3!? see the illustrative game Halamus-Tsvetkov.) 22 xf4 xf4! (Not 22...h3? 23 xe6! refuting the old ECO drawing line) 23 xe6 xe6 24 gxf4. See Kronborg Kristensen-Olano Aizpurua in the database. This position definitely needs more attention; maybe Black can find something new here? One possibility is 20...bxa4 as proposed by John Elburg. Returning to the last diagram, if White plays 18 f1 rather than opening the queenside, Black is not in a position to permit the queen exchange but must play 18...h5.
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+pvlr+-+0 9+p+n+-+q0 9-+-zP-+l+0 9+LzP-vL-zP-0 9PzP-sN-zP-zP0 9tR-+-tRQmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Now Black threatens to regain the tempo by attacking Whites queen with his . Here 19 a4 will transpose to lines considered elsewhere under 18 a4; probably best is 19...h3 which is a transposition to the Spassky Variation, considered below. However, if he prefers Black can also play 19...f5 (see note to Whites 19th below) or 19...bxa4 heading for what we call the Old Main Line, 20 xa4 f5 21 f4. There are also some noncritical independent lines where White does not play a4. See the surveys and database. If 19 xd5 cxd5 then once more see the survey on The Exchange at d5; Now we return to considering Whites most popular variation
The Total Marshall
14
against the whole Marshall, which is 18 a4. This is a logical move, trying to get the white rook into play and threatening the security of Blacks queenside. Before discussing in detail the replies which have been historically the most popular here, we want to make our recommendation for Black absolutely clear. 18...h5! =
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+pvlr+-+0 9+p+n+-+q0 9P+-zP-+l+0 9+LzPQvL-zP-0 9-zP-sN-zP-zP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This is the Spassky Variation, which we recommend for Black. See the three-part survey by Janis Vitomskis and the illustrative games, starting with TalSpassky (1st game). To avoid confusing matters unduly, we wont go into much detail here except to say that we believe the Spassky line is not only Blacks soundest continuation, but that it also offers good dynamic chances. When White plays for a win, or does not know the best lines, this often creates winning chances for Black too. Apart from the possibility already mentioned (19 f1 h3, which is in Part 1 of the survey) White normally plays 19 axb5 axb5 and now, since 20 xd5 can be answered by 20...xd5 there are three main possibilities for White. There was a vogue for 20 e4 during the 1990s but Black seems to have found a reliable drawing line against this (see Part 1 of the survey). The move 20 f1, intending to place the queen on g2, is
not dangerous and Black can choose between 20... fe8 (see Olafsson-Harding) or 20...h3 (Herbrechtsmeier-im). Part 3 of the survey deals with 20 f1, which is generally considered the critical line. Nevertheless, Black once more has two playable continuations: the older 20...fe8 (as in our annotated game Rittner-Sarink) and 20...f5!? putting the question to the white queen at once. This move, which proved sound in such games as Karpov-Short and Ljubojevic-Nikolic, is essentially a development of the 1990s. It is really no mystery why White has been playing lines such as 12 d3 in recent years. At the highest level, he is getting nowhere against the Spassky Variation. Now we shall outline what is happening with other replies by Black after 18 a4.
18...f5?, Black has some other moves. a) 18...b4!? is the Simmelink Variation; see the survey by John Elburg. This line probably should leave White an edge, because Blacks 18th essentially gives White a tempo, but the move does have one advantage: older books hardly mention it (if at all) so many opponents will have to start thinking for themselves immediately. Dutch players have investigated this variation in recent email events but there is still a lot to discover. b) 18...bxa4!? is still sometimes played but its survival is on a knife-edge. The critical line seems to go 19 xa4 (19 xa4 f4) 19...f5 20 f1 (20 f4? xf4! see the annotated game Novopashin-Spassky) 20...h5
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+pvlr+-+0 9+p+n+-+-0 9P+-zP-+l+0 9+LzPQvL-zPq0 9-zP-sN-zP-zP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
18...f5? For the purposes of this survey only, I give this as the main line here because it has been played very frequently and most books give this as the main line. However, we think the fpawn move has been refuted in recent years. Many of the old positions formerly considered by theoreticians under 18 a4 f5 can be (and in practice often are) still reached via 18 f1 h5 19 a4 f5. Apart from 18...h5! and
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9p+pvlr+-+0 9+-+n+p+q0 9R+-zP-+l+0 9+LzP-vL-zP-0 9-zP-sN-zP-zP0 9+-+-tRQmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Black is steering for the old main line, which would arise now if White played 21 f4. However, this is another position where the 1989 Nunn book (see page 26) has been overturned by 21 xa6! This move, given as losing by Nunn and most earlier authorities, is actually playable and may even be winning for White because 21...f4 22 xf4 h3 is not a refutation at all: White can sacrifice his Queen by 23 xe6. See the annotated game Ivanchuk-Short and the survey by Martin Bennedik. Ivanchuk did not follow up correctly but later games and analysis show Black could be in trouble here. There are some other inter-
15
The Total Marshall
esting possibilities in the last diagram position. 21 f4 is perfectly playable, transposing to the Old Main Line.21 c4 is probably not a good way for White to avoid the Old Main Line. See Martin Bennediks survey where he develops John Nunns 1989 opinion that 21...xe3 is probably a better choice for Black, giving chances to win. 21 f3!? remains to be refuted by some keen analyst. Is the obvious reply 21...h3 actually the best? In the 1995 ICC computer game Ferret-Crafty, the play was awful: Whites 22 f2? should have been answered by 22...f4! but see my notes. White should have dared to play 22 xa6 with the idea -c4-e3 and its not so clear that Black is doing well unless a concrete tactical solution can be found. Now it is time to look at the famous position arising after 18 a4 f5.
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9p+pvlr+-+0 9+p+n+p+-0 9P+-zP-+l+0 9+LzPQvL-zPq0 9-zP-sN-zP-zP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
19 f1? This move is historically important but White really ought to play 19 axb5!. The strength of this move, which is not even mentioned in most books, depends on a subsequent piece sacrifice for several pawns, which seems to be correct. Daniel J. Quigley published his analysis of this move on the internet in the newsgroup rec.games.chess in an article called Marshall Gambit: Busted! in 1998. Quigley stated in his article that he already had
discovered the move in the late 80s, but could not come to a definitive conclusion then. It must however be said that Quigley was not the only one to discover this move, and more important to discover the piece sacrifice 19...f4 20 xf4. The whole line had been successfully played in correspondence games by Andreas Uhlig in 1987 and 1995. And probably some grandmasters like Spassky and Adams, who never played the move order with 18...f5, may have discovered the move also. The Quigley idea was publicised in my Chess Mail magazine and one of my columns in The Kibitzer series at The Chess Caf website; gradually it has become better known and the analysis has firmed up. For the details on 19 axb5, see the Bennedik survey of the Quigley Bust variation. To summarise, 19...f4?! is the move that was supposed to refute 19 axb5; Black does an alternative in 19...axb5 but it does not look good. However, after 19 axb5 f4 Quigley found 20 xf4 xf4 21 xe6 xe6 and here Bennedik in his survey shows two lines giving White good winning chances: 22 bxa6 is the clearer line while after 22 bxc6 xd2 23 xd2 f4 24 xe6+ xe6 the complications should favour White but the play is more difficult. Our annotated game Oliveira-Maffei is quite instructive. I am quite often asked why this line has not appeared in grandmaster games if it really is so strong? The answer is twofold. In former days, it seems to be the case that analysts overlooked the possibility and anyway Spassky (in particular) never played 18...f5; many of the games in the Old Main Line actually came about via 18 a4
bxa4 or via 18 f1. Then in recent years, grandmasters have found out about the Quigley Bust on the grapevine so there have been no high level takers for 18...f5 in recent years. Despite the strength of the Quigley line, it is still necessary to examine the old alternative 19 f1, because it leads to positions that frequently come about through other move orders. 19...h5 Of course this position can also arise via 18 f1 h5 19 a4 f5, which is how many of the games in the line did in fact develop.
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9p+pvlr+-+0 9+p+n+p+q0 9P+-zP-+l+0 9+LzP-vL-zP-0 9-zP-sN-zP-zP0 9tR-+-tRQmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
20 f4 White usually wants to stop Black from playing ...f4 but there are two other possibilities. a) 20 axb5!? may cause a few problems, but (as often happens in the Marshall when a rare move wins a game for White) maybe it is just a question of doing more thorough analysis than was hitherto thought necessary. In the games that White won, he only seemed to get a tiny edge but Black had no clear draw or equalising line. In view of the improvement for Black in the 20 f4 g5 line, possibly White should play this if he can firm up some of the variations in my notes to the games. Obviously Black wants to play 20...f4 here but now you need to look at the unclear game McKenna-Chandler, Mousessian-T.Andresen and Kamergrauzis-Vitomskis.
The Total Marshall
16
b) Once more 20 xd5 is possible. After 20...cxd5 (the same position as can arise via 17...Re6 18 Bxd5 cxd5 19 a4 f5 20 Qf1 Qh5) 21 f4 bxa4 returns to the line below, but White can also play 21 axb5 when Black (as we show in my Exchange on d5 survey) has to be careful to get a draw, as the old theory is unsound. 20...bxa4 Although this is the timehonoured move, probably it is not best and Black should play 20...g5 instead! This line has been radically improved for Black. 21 axb5 axb5 22 xd5 (This is the critical line as otherwise the draw soon becomes self-evident. If 22 fxg5 f4! see Loginov-Yerofeev) 22...cxd5 (This can arise by transposition from the Exchange on d5 lines.) 23 g2 fe8 24 xd5 f7 25 a8 g7 26 xe8 xe8= ECO, following Matsukevich-Staruk. On the other hand, the 1960s line 20...fe8? is discredited because of 21 axb5 xe3 22 xe3 xe3 and now 23 bxc6!+as in Gurvich-Grzeskowiak; 23 bxa6? is inferior because of 23...b8 24 a7 xa7 25 xa7 when published grandmaster theory was overthrown in 1972 by 25...h6!= Suetin-im. 21 xa4 The alternative yet again is 21 xd5 cxd5; this is an important position because, even though it does not represent best play for either side after 18 f1 or 18 a4, it can also arise by transposition from the lines where White makes an earlier exchange at d5. However, Black has a clear draw. Since 22 xa4? e8 is a well-known trap, White must play 22 g2 fe8 (22...e4 also comes into consideration; although it may be less reliable; see the annotated game MullerRacoce) 23 xd5 h8 24 f2
and now 24...xe1+ (Seems better than 24...e2!? which may draw, but not so surely.) 25 xe1 xe1+ 26 xe1 e8 27 f2 h6! (27...b8? 28 c4 V.Agzamov-G.Agzamov) 28 xd6 (28 g2 e2 29 c4 xf4 30 gxf4 h3+! mating) 28...e2.
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-mk0 9+-+-+-zp-0 9p+-wQ-+-zp0 9+-+-+p+-0 9p+-zP-zPl+0 9+-zP-+-zP-0 9-zP-sNqvL-zP0 9+-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Here Nunn commented that: Surprisingly enough, White cannot avoid a draw despite his large material advantage. Indeed White can easily make a fatal error, as the following shows: 29 f1 (This led to a draw in two games from Matsukevichs 1983 100game correspondence simultaneous in the Marshall, but he should have lost one of them!) 29...h3! 30 b8+? (30 e3! d3 31 f8+ h7 32 g2 seems to end in a draw by repetition after 32...e4 33 e1 e2 34 g2 etc.) 30...h7 31 e3 d3!+ (Threatens mate starting ...b1+) 32 g2 and now in Matsukevich-Shevchenko, Black (and subsequent commentators) missed the win: 32...b1+! 33 e1 a3! very neatly exploiting a pin on the b2-pawn. Finally, Black won a game like this in Ernst-Sammalvuo, Osterkars 1995. Returning to the position after 21 xa4, we are now in what I call the Old Main Line, which was really established as such in the mid-1970s by the first edition of ECO. Black has tried a wide variety of moves now.
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9p+pvlr+-+0 9+-+n+p+q0 9R+-zP-zPl+0 9+LzP-vL-zP-0 9-zP-sN-+-zP0 9+-+-tRQmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This Old Main Line stem position is like a railway junction because many routes lead to it and many departures lead from it. Black now has the wellknown choice between A: 21...g5?! B: 21...h8 C: 21...b8 and D: 21...fe8. Black is in trouble in all these to varying degrees. A: 21...g5?! The oldest version of the OML. It was already considered refuted by Nunn in 1989 and there is not much more to say about it. 22 xa6! gxf4 (22...h8? was refuted in Schuler-Hallier.) 23 xf4! (The older 23 xc6 is not to be feared.) 23...xf4 24 xe6! (24 xc6 e3+ 25 xe3 xe3 26 xd5+ h8 led to a draw in Tal-Geller, 1975). This is the problem for Black. After 24...xd2 25 xd5! cxd5 26 g2 Nunn, 1989, commented: There are no visible improvements... so this must be considered the refutation of 21...g5. See Hauptmann-Sieberg in the database. Four subsequent games in the database confirmed this line wins for White. B: 21...h8!? 22 xd5! This is logical and seems to be necessary. After 22 c4 xf4!? 23 xf4 xf4 24 xe6 (24 gxf4? h3) 24...h3+!! leads
17
The Total Marshall
to incredible complications: this is an important idea if it works! See the annotated game Milvydas-Muravyev, corr 1994. 22...cxd5 23 xa6
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-tr-mk0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9R+-vlr+-+0 9+-+p+p+q0 9-+-zP-zPl+0 9+-zP-vL-zP-0 9-zP-sN-+-zP0 9+-+-tRQmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This critical position can also arise from the Classical Pawn Push via 16...Rae8 17 Nd2 f5 18 f4 Kh8 19 Bxd5 cxd5 20 Qf1 Qh5 21 a4 bxa4 22 Rxa4 Re6 23 Rxa6. Black has tried several moves here but only one is any good: 23...fe8!. (Nunn treats this position as a transposition to the line 21...Rfe8 22 Rxa6 Kh8 23 Bxd5 cxd5 . However, we think it properly belongs here as a critical line for 21...Kh8 whereas in that sub-variation Black has the strong move 22...Rxe3). Now if White wants to play for a win, he should probably opt for 24 b5! which grabs a second pawn and challenges Black to find concrete compensation. He needs an improvement now. (24 f2 won for White in Arppi-Lyly, corr 1996, but Black went wrong on move 27 in that game.) 24...h6!? 25 f1 f3 26 c1 f8 27 e3 e4 (UnzickerNunn) 28 b3! and Black cannot equalise. C: 21...b8!? This threatens ...xb3 but the move may waste time and again Blacks position becomes uncomfortable. Nevertheless, this line may be just about playable for Black.
XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-+-+k+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9p+pvlr+-+0 9+-+n+p+q0 9R+-zP-zPl+0 9+LzP-vL-zP-0 9-zP-sN-+-zP0 9+-+-tRQmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
22 xd5 (If 22 f2!? e2! but 22 xa6!? may not be as bad as was thought, although it allows Black to carry out his threat.) 22...cxd5 23 xa6! (23 g2 is not dangerous although it is often played; 23 b3 is at best a draw for White and maybe not even that.) 23...e8 (Recommended by Nunn in 1989 instead of the old line 23...be8 when 24 b5! refutes Blacks system.) 24 f2! when Black may be able to hold but this is not exactly a Marshall players dream position. Best may be 24...xe1! (24...d7!?) 25 xe1 d7 26 a1 g5 (RyabikinVitomskis) needs more investigation. D: 21...fe8 This is the principal variation of the Old Main Line now.
can force a good endgame with an extra pawn, maybe that is not the right conclusion to draw. 22 f2! As pointed out by Nunn in 1989, this is the critical reply. a) 22 c4? fails to 22...xf4!. b) 22 xa6 is fine for Black: 22...xe3 23 xe3 xe3 24 xc6 e8 25 xd5+ f8 see the annotated game DragunovKonstantinopolsky where the important variations are given. White can draw by 26 xd6! or even with the perilous 26 e4?! if he finds all the right moves thereafter. 22...g5
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9p+pvlr+-+0 9+-+n+pzpq0 9R+-zP-zPl+0 9+LzP-vL-zP-0 9-zP-sN-wQ-zP0 9+-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
From this position two major variations have developed in recent years. 23 fxg5! This is the main line in ECO but the follow-up they give is possibly not Whites best plan. 23 xa6 is the alternative, but it seems OK for Black: 23...gxf4 24 gxf4 h8 25 xd5 (25 xc6 xf4!) 25...cxd5 (This position has been played a lot in the past decade, including correspondence and computer games.) 26 f1 and now 26...h3! is strong; the idea is ...g4, h7-h5-h4 which comes quicker than in the 26...g8 line, proposed by Nunn. The onus is on White to prove he can draw here. He managed it in Sanakoev-Buj, 14th CC World Ch Final 1994-98, but many other games in our database were won by Black. 23...f4 24 gxf4 h3
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9p+pvlr+-+0 9+-+n+p+q0 9R+-zP-zPl+0 9+LzP-vL-zP-0 9-zP-sN-+-zP0 9+-+-tRQmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
In some articles on his gambit website, Dr Thomas Stock calls this the Sleeping Beauty Variation (Dornrschenvariante) but I am not sure why...The current state of theory appears to be that it is more playable for Black than the alternatives, but in view of the discovery (at the end of the survey) that White
The Total Marshall
18
A good line for White...is hard to find wrote Nunn in 1989. Some tries can be found in the database. It seems that Whites position is apparently better than he thought. 25 c4!!
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9p+pvlr+-+0 9+-+n+-zPq0 9R+NzP-zP-+0 9+LzP-vL-+l0 9-zP-+-wQ-zP0 9+-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This could be a critical move. White hopes to simplify to a won endgame, exploiting the wrecked black queenside. Therefore Black needs a concrete attacking continuation but despite his apparently promising build-up it is hard to find anything. However, this is an important position if something can be found then Blacks posi-
tion in the Old Main Line would be healthy after all. Other 25th moves for White are not dangerous. 25 h1?! has been played in about 40 games and results are not encouraging for White. 25 xa6!? seems to be a drawing line. 25...xf4 This is obvious but doesnt quite work for Black. 26 e5 xe5 27 dxe5 xe5 28 g3
However, the line so far lacks any high-level tests. 28...xg5 29 xa6! xg3+ 30 hxg3 e6 31 f2 xe1+ 32 xe1 c7 33 xe6+ xe6 After a sequence virtually forced since 25 c4!, Black has to grovel in an endgame a pawn down; White won in Nemec-Talla. However, even in the Old Main Line fails for Black, joining the Quigley bust and IvanchukShort lines in the recycle bin, it must be remembered that White cannot force any of these disadvantageous lines on Black. Black should meet 18 a4 by 18...h5!. With the Spassky Variation and several of the other improvements on the way, there is no need for Black to end up in such a bad position. With the theoretical best play, a draw is still the right result and Black gets a lot of winning opportunities.
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9p+p+-+-+0 9+-+ntr-zPq0 9R+-+-+-+0 9+LzP-vL-wQl0 9-zP-+-+-zP0 9+-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
The crunch. Black is still a pawn down, his is in an awkward pin, his is no safer than Whites and his queenside pawns are about to drop off.
Why do we call it the Total Marshall?

You have probably seen printed books with titles including the words Complete or Ultimate or something similar, but by their very nature a printed book will never be complete or ultimate. Almost invariably, the authors will concentrate on the currently most fashionable variations and a few of their pet lines. Games and analysis from a decade or two ago is just ignored or cut drastically back for reasons of space and cost. This approach may be all very well for modern opening variations where almost everything from the theory of the 1970s or earlier has been superseded by new grandmaster games, but readers often complain that their opponents play lines which are not in these books. They nd themselves going back to older books to nd something about lines that used to be fashionable or cutting-edge but are now rejected by openings book authors. This is particularly true in a lot of 1 e4 e5 openings, where ideas from former times may often be usefully resurrected, with a new twist. Therefore, the total concept is to include all the old games and analysis that could be found, in order to provide a complete reference work for those who like to do their own research and delve in the back catalogue where (in the Marshall at any rate) forgotten strong moves are denitely still lurking. However, the modern openings book approach of treating everything in terms of annotated games does have some merit too at least didactically. Therefore, we also have the variation introductions and illustrative games to serve as your guide to the main lines and interesting sidelines, after which you can spend countless hours looking deeper for yourself among the wealth of information provided here.
19
The Total Marshall
Evolution of the Marshall Attack

The Marshall Attack has undergone several phases of development in its 80+ years, and has gone in and out of fashion several times. Theoreticians have delved very deeply into many of the possibilities and yet this counter-gambit has been constantly renewed by fresh ideas. Black has found both new tactical combinations in critical lines and new positional plans to guide his approach to the Marshall. White, too, has sought different ways to counter Blacks initiative and yet there are some leading players of the Spanish Game (Ruy Lopez) who have such respect for Blacks chances after 8 c3 d5 that they always avoid it: notably Kasparov! Relatively little is remembered nowadays about American grandmaster Frank Marshall (18771944) and his ideas except that he lost the famous game to Jose Raoul Capablanca in which he revealed his secret preparations (see the first illustrative game below). Despite this setback, Marshall continued to believe in his brainchild and kept refining his ideas, employing his variation successfully against amateurs in several games and later publishing his new ideas. Marshall Attack (pre-1945) the principal creative input came from American players. Marshall himself introduced the lines 9...e4 (against Frere in 1917), 11...f6 (against Capablanca in 1918), and 11...c6 (against Battell in 1937). He also tried 11...Bb7 but no games of his with this move have been preserved. The Hungarian-born American master Herman Steiner developed the 9...e4 variation, which is named after him, in the 1930s, although his best-known games with the Marshall are actually in the 11...c6 line. For White, Alexander Kevitz developed the idea, still current today, of countering against 11...c6 by a minor piece exchange on d5 in order to place the kings rook on e3. After World War II, the Marshall started to appear in international tournaments and correspondence play, while many important games were played in internal USSR events. During this period, both the 9...e4 and 11...c6 variations started to become developed in considerable detail although the lines now considered critical were rarely seen. However, the theoretical reputation of the Marshall went into a decline at the end of this period as two aggressive lines came to be virtually solved in Whites favour: neither Marshalls original 11...f6 nor the ultra-sharp 9...e4 line could stand the test of time. Nevertheless, attempts are sometimes made to improve Blacks play with 11...f6 while in the latter case, intensive analysis by correspondence players (notably A.Ptszch, Radchenko and B.M. Shkurovich-Khazin) led to the discovery of many beautiful variations by which slight mistakes by White could be drastically punished; this 9...e4 line is one in which amateur players can hope to score many points, especially in Internet and blitz events. For mission critical situations, however, the Herman Steiner Variation (9...e4) cannot be recommended. Some other ideas that were tried in the experimental 1950s and 1960s, involving early rushes of the g- or h-pawns, or 11th moves by the knight to f4 or b6, never looked like becoming major lines although such novelties may score the occasional point. However, the 11...b7 line is soundly based positionally and has never been refuted; this remains a good alternative to the better-known 11...c6 variations.
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+pvl-+-+0 9+p+n+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+LzP-+-zPq0 9PzP-+-zP-zP0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Most of the attention by the early 1960s came to focus on the lines with 11...c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 (see diagram above), where the principal plans involved the early ...f5 and ...g5 (pawn push variation) against 15 e3 . The more positional line involving the rook manoeuvre ...ae8-e6 was also sometimes seen. In many games from this period, White exchanged bishop for knight on d5 at move 12 or 15, which nowadays is generally considered premature unless White wants to play the Kevitz variation, in which the white rook retreats to e3. The Marshall at this time was still scoring many points for Black, but mostly at amateur, correspondence or minor master level.
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-zp-vlpzpp0 9p+n+-sn-+0 9+p+Pzp-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+LzP-+N+-0 9PzP-zP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This is the starting position of the Marshall, following 8...d5 9 exd5. After White captures the d-pawn, Black must either recapture with his kings knight (leaving his epawn to be taken) or advance his e-pawn, offering a second gambit (9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5). In the first phase of the
Spasskys impact
In the years 1963-1965, everything changed. Spasskys reinvention of the Marshall as a drawing weapon for use at the highest level of grandmaster play, as well as a good way of beating lower-rated opponents, stimulated
The Total Marshall
20
a re-examination of the plans Black was adopting in the 11...c6 line. He was not the only player adopting that sort of approach in the occasional game (e.g. Bob Wades draw with Fischer at Havana 1964), but Spassky made the Marshall the lynch-pin of his strategy in his 1965 candidates match against ex-world champion Mikhail Tal. In that match, Spassky made three draws with Black from three outings with the Marshall and so laid the basis for winning the match with White. Spassky had played the Marshall twice previously so no doubt Tal had prepared something for it, but the future world champion unveiled two prepared improvements on known theory in this match: both solid positional moves to which Tal could find no answer. In Game 1, Tal met 11...c6 12 d4 d6 by the standard 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 e6 18 a4 (see diagram). This move by White, opening a second front on the queenside with a view to disrupting Blacks attack and creating a passed pawn, had been introduced to master play only in 1963 (except for a couple of forgotten games played by Dake in Poland in the late 1930s).
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+pvlr+-+0 9+p+n+-+-0 9P+-zP-+l+0 9+LzPQvL-zPq0 9-zP-sN-zP-zP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
In Novopashin-Spassky, 31 st USSR Ch (1963), Spassky had replied 18...bxa4, which attempts to buy time to pursue the kingside attack. Around the same time, A.M. Konstantinopolsky and some correspondence players introduced the aggressive but dubious reply 18...f5, which most theory books today still consider to be the main line. No doubt Tal had some ideas for White in both these lines, but
Spassky played a third move, 18...h5. Spassky variation has a somewhat wimpish reputation which we believe is unjustified. Superficially, the move gives far fewer winning chances than the other moves but actually it makes it virtually impossible for White to achieve any significant advantage. By minimizing concessions on the queenside, Black actually retains prospects of keeping control of the whole board rather than allowing the game to degenerate to a race between Black on the kingside and White on the queenside. Of course it is fun to attack the kingside but the sharper lines are more suited to blitz play or defeating lower-rated opposition, while the subtler play after 18...h5 is more suited to correspondence play and slowerpaced over-the-board contests. 18...h5 is by no means totally drawish. More than three decades have passed and there is still no model game for White to follow and play for a win. Many players do not know what the most critical lines against it really are. White can easily become frustrated and get into a lost position after a few moves. In Game 3, Tal avoided the Marshall while in Games 5 and 7, he switched to the Kevitz variation which he had earlier played against the Estonian master, Aarne Hermlin. Spassky was ready for this too: after 12 xd5 cxd5 13 d4 d6 14 e3 he played 14...h4 15 h3 and now introduced the novelty 15...f4. Both these games were drawn too. After Spasskys success with the Marshall in this match, he played some more games with it and other grandmasters, notably Geller but even Tal himself, were seen on the black side. The Marshall really achieved recognition at this point as an attacking line suitable for use anywhere from amateur friendlies to the highest level of grandmaster play. The Marshall then became a mature opening variation having several set lines of play where master games often did not really
begin until move 16, 19 or even well beyond move 20. Nunn, especially, codified the main lines in great detail in his 1989 book, which included a lot of new analysis, and demonstrated fairly clearly which lines were considered playable (at that time) and which were analysed to death. His book (in which Tim Harding wrote the chapters on the lines other than 11...c6, and the anti-Marshalls) also included a good deal of original analysis and correction of mistakes by earlier theoreticians. It essentially drew a line under all that had gone before and for a time there was less interest in the Marshall main lines among professional players. Developments in the 1990s included the Adams variation which the young British GM employed to defeat Ivanchuk at Terrassa in 1961: after 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 instead of the usual 17...e6 he accidentally introduced a new plan beginning 17...h5 which was further refined in later games. For White, interest started to concentrate on lines in which White develops his rook at e4, to reduce Blacks chances of kingside play. The line 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e4 had had a brief vogue in the early 1970s but never established itself. Now it has made a come-back and the analogous line with 12 d3 where the pawn protects the rook has also become one of the most important lines in the Marshall. Other developments since the 1989 book by Nunn and Harding include revivals of the Kevitz and the 12 e2 lines, and some new ideas for White in the 12 d4/ 15 e4 line. Most significant of all, perhaps (and never before published in a book) is the refutation of the line 18 a4 f5 which many books still give as the main line of the whole Marshall. However, as you will see when you read the detailed material on the 18 a4 line, Black can comfortably side-step these problems and obtain a good game with Spasskys 18...h5.
21
The Total Marshall
The Internet era

General chess competitive conditions have changed a lot since the era of five hour master tournament sessions with adjournment after 40 moves. In the late 1990s and early years of the 21st century, the game has been speeded up. This makes sharp openings like the Marshall even more effective than they were before. Nowadays, games are rarely adjourned but instead are played to a finish, often with a fast rate of play after 40 or 60 moves. A lot of master chess and high-level amateur chess is played at rapid rates, often with blitz play-offs to decide ties, and most Internet play is blitz. These conditions favour the re-emergence of sharp openings like the Marshall, as somewhat unsound moves now have a much greater chance of success when the opponent has limited time to calculate. The new conditions also put an even greater premium on advance preparation and the discovery of novelties or forgotten ideas which can shock the opponent, gain time on the clock
and provoke mistakes. In our Marshall database there are more than a thousand games, for example, played at the Internet Chess Club. Many of these were decided by gross errors, with the loser (and sometimes the winner too) making mistakes whose refutation was discovered and published long ago. However, many strong masters practice and experiment at the ICC and other chess servers which means that a proportion of these games test critical positions at the cutting edge of Marshall theory. The same goes for many of the games played between computer programs in recent years. One of the most important theoretical discoveries in the Marshall in the past decade was first published in an Internet newsgroup (discussion board). This was American expert Dan Quigleys important idea on how to meet 18 a4 f5. See the theoretical section for details. Another difference in recent years is the wide availability of game databases which until a
few years ago were primarily the preserve of professional players, chess writers and the wealthy. Internet downloads and cheap CD-Rom products now make large numbers of games available to almost everyone. The impact of this development is particularly noticeable in correspondence play, where the contestants have always been able to consult books and other printed reference sources but now can consult databases too. A word of warning: judging a move by its statistical performance in your database is particularly hazardous in an opening like the Marshall where one good new idea may overturn a variation that has scored heavily for one side in the past. Free resources like The Week In Chess web magazine make it much easier, quicker and cheaper for the ordinary player to see new master trends. A few years ago, it was only the games of top GMs that traveled the world quickly. Nowadays, an important new idea played in an international open or national championship can be known to everyone within 10 days.
Scheduled for the year 2003

The Correspondence Chess Championships of the Soviet Union Book and CD-ROM by CC-GM Sergey Grodzensky and Tim Harding A record of the most important national championship series in the history of correspondence chess. Over half a century, many grandmasters and great champions participated. MegaCorr3 CD-ROM Our goal is to have the most complete history of CC yet presented, with a database of half a miillion well-edited CC games, by Easter 2003. Help us reach this target by sending in your own collections! To learn more about our plans in future read Chess Mail magazine and www.chessmail.com
The Total Marshall
22
Fifty annotated Marshall games

Game 1 Jose Raoul Capablanca (Cuba) Frank J. Marshall (USA) Manhattan Chess Club Ch New York, 1918 (A synthesis of notes from many sources) 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 the main line and Marshall also pioneered the 11...b7 and 9...e4 variations. 12 e1 Capablanca held back the obvious advance d2-d4, hoping to sidetrack Marshall from the main lines of his preparation. Later, however, many masters believed that the rook would be better placed for defence on e2, protecting f2, in which case 12 d4 would be the right move. 12...d6 The variation usually leads to an open, attacking game for Black and that is undoubtedly why I prefer it to the close, defensive lines against the Ruy Lopez opening. Black gives up a pawn to obtain a strong attack against the white king. However, this does not state the whole case in favour of the variation. It is not just one of those attacks which White can weather by good defence and end up a pawn to the good. There is more to it than that. The pawn sacrifice can be justified on purely positional grounds. In other words, Whites opening leaves his queenside underdeveloped and Black can capitalize on this lack of development. If White just tries to block the attack, Black can continue with comparatively quiet moves and obtain adequate positional compensation for the pawn sacrifice. 13 h3 Imprecise; 13 d4 is more accurate. 13...g4 The knight cannot be safely captured: Indicative of the tactical difficulty of the variation is that Capablanca himself published an incorrect refutation of 14 hxg4 h4 15 f3 viz. 15...h2+? (15...h2+! is correct, as demonstrated by GM Shamkovich in the 1950s: 16 f1 xg4 17 e4 f4! 18 g3 h2!+) 16 f1 xg4 17 xg4 h1+ 18 e2 ae8+ (Capablanca) 19 e6!! xe6+ 20 xe6+- E.Palkin, 1954. 14...h4 Now Capablanca transposed to what later became the main line. 15 d4 15 hxg4? transposes to the previous variation. 15...xf2
This was the first time that Marshall unleashed his idea in a master tournament, after the end of World War I. He had been saving it for some years, in the meantime playing the Petroff Defence. In Chess Review 3/1943, Marshall looked back on his experience with his innovation: I had been analysing the variation for many years and came to the conclusion that the attack must be sound. I am still of the same opinion. By this I do not mean that Black necessarily wins; I merely claim that the attack gives Black many winning chances and should be good for at least a draw. 9 exd5 xd5 Actually, I lost my game against Capablanca. The first attempt failed. With admirable courage and skill, Capa accepted my pawn sacrifices and defeated the attack, although playing against a prepared variation he had never seen before. However, the result of one game is not sufficient to judge the true merits of a new variation and I used the attack in many subsequent games, with varying success. In these games, I continually tried different moves, seeking the best combination. 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 f6 After this game, Marshall recognised that he had perhaps not chosen the best variation. Later 11...c6 became
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+-zp-+pzpp0 9p+-vl-+-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-wq0 9+LzP-+Q+P0 9PzP-+-snP+0 9tRNvL-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This move is the main point of Blacks build-up but as it seems to lead to a lost position, attempts were made to find an alternative. 15...h5 (Shamkovich) is the best try but does not quite equalise. 16 e2 Capablancas choice, which is good enough for White. Later analysis showed that a possibly superior continuation is 16 d2! as in the intercity match Rostov v Pensa. 16...g4 16...g4 (once given as an equalising line by ECO) is crushed by 17 g3! (found by former US champion John Grefe). 17 hxg4 17 xf2? g3 18 hxg4 at best draws for White (18 f1 xe2 19 xe2 ae8+). 17...h2+ 17...g3 18 xf2 h2+ 19 f1 h1+ 20 e2 reaches the same position as after Whites 19th move in the 17...h2+ line. 18 f1 g3
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-zp-+pzpp0 9p+-vl-+-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+n+0 9+LzP-+-+P0 9PzP-zP-zPP+0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This offer is a recurring theme in the 11...f6 variation, but in this particular position other moves might be considered, for example 13...f5!? has been tried. 14 f3
23
The Total Marshall
Black appears to have created numerous threats but his attack has peaked and White simplifies to a winning position. Whites well-placed queen and pressure against f7 enable him to cope with the dangers. 19 xf2
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+-zp-+pzpp0 9p+-+-+-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-+Pwq0 9+LzP-+Qvl-0 9PzP-+-tRP+0 9tRNvL-+K+-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This is the stock position White should aim for in the CapablancaMarshall line. Black has swindling chances only. 19 e1 might be better said Capablanca. 19...h6 is unclear, claimed Golombek, but 20 d2, 20 e3 and 20 d2 are all promising for White. (19...ae8?? 20 xf7+ Capablanca). 19...h1+ 20 e2 xf2? 20...xc1 makes White work harder for the win. 21 xg3! (21 xf7+? could even have lost for White in Yates-OHanlon, played a few years later.) 21...xb2+ 22 d3! xa1 23 c2 b4 24 g5!+Tartakower, proved many years later in an English postal game Bird-Beckett. 21 d2! Black must retreat his and White gains a decisive tempo. The sequel proves yet again that Bishop, Knight and the initiative beat a Rook. Once Black runs out of momentum, he must lose. 21...h4 22 h3 ae8+ 23 d3 f1+ 24 c2 f2 25 f3 g1 25...e2 has been refuted in various ways. A recent Russian book on Capablanca gives 26 a4! (26 a3 was the line, also attrributed to Capablanca, given in Golombeks book: 26...xd2+ 27 xd2 xa1 28 xf2 xb2+ 29 c2 c5 30 d5) 26...e1 27 axb5 e3? 28 c4 (28 xe3! Khalifman, Yudasin) 28...xd2+ 29 xd2 xd2+ 30 b3 axb5? 31 xf7+! Capablanca. 26 d5 c5 27 dxc5 xc5 28 b4 d6 28...e3 29 xe3 xe3 30 d2 xa1 31 xe3. 29 a4! a5 30 axb5 axb4 31 a6
bxc3 32 xc3 b4 33 b6 xc3 34 xc3 h6 35 b7 e3 36 xf7+! 10 And in view of inevitable mate, Black resigned: 36...xf7 (36...h7 37 f5+ h8 38 xh6#) 37 b8+ h7 38 xh6+ xh6 (38...gxh6 39 xf7#) 39 h8+ g6 40 h5#. An historic game! Game 2 J.Battell Frank Marshall New York, 1937 Notes by Marshall, Harding. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-+-vlpzpp0 9p+p+-+-+0 9+p+ntR-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+LzP-+-+-0 9PzP-zP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Marshall pioneered this move also, though he may not have been the first to play it. In My 50 Years of Chess Marshall recommended this move. I have made some changes in my variation of the Ruy Lopez... Here our analysis deviates from previous play. In this position, 11...f6 and 11...b7 have hitherto been played. We now recommend the following: 11...c6! 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4! 14 g3 h3 15 xd5 cxd5... 12 xd5 cxd5 13 f3?! Naive and plausible. This line is generally reckoned to be bad for White. Frank Marshall comfortably beat this amateur who played this against him. 13 d4 d6 14 e1 h4 15 g3 h3 16 f3 f5! was the main line of Marshalls analysis. 17 xd5 White carries out his threat and takes the second pawn; other moves are not reckoned to be dangerous. 17...ae8 18 d2 but now (18 xe8? xe8 19 d2 e4 and Black should win. was Marshalls analysis.) 18...e6 (Marshall, American Chess Review, March 1943) is looking dubious after 19 a3! (Heemsoth, Fernschach 10/1960; for the probably superior
18... f4 see Lehikoinen-Sarink, below.) 19...h5 or good for White (19...fe8?? 20 xd6!+-; 19...d8!?). 13...d6 14 e2 14 xd5 b7 15 xd6 e7+ threatening mate in one, the queen and (for good measure) the also. 14 e1 e8 (14...g5 does not work here because the c1 is defended and White can play 15 d4.) 15 xe8+ (White has back rank problems as usual in the lines with an early f3.) 15...xe8 16 e3 f5 17 d4 f4 18 xe8+ xe8 19 e3 xe3 20 fxe3 xe3 and Black regains his pawn with a much superior endgame. 14...g5 15 h3 White has to prevent...g4. 15...f5
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+-vl-+-+0 9+p+p+lwq-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-zP-+Q+P0 9PzP-zPRzPP+0 9tRNvL-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
16 e1? White decides he would like to play d4 after all, and so he wastes a tempo. He stands worse anyway. He might as well have grabbed the second pawn by 16 xd5 (met by 16...h5 or 16...ad8) or else played a3 to get some development. 16...ae8 17 f1? From bad to worse. White loses the exchange. 17...e4 18 xe4 xe4 19 a3 e5 20 c2 h2 21 e3 Black can now pick his favourite way to win. 21...f4 22 b3 xe3 23 fxe3 fe8 24 e2 8e6 25 d3 4e5 26 d2 g5 The rest is silence. 27 e1 f6 28 g3 xg3 01 Game 3 A. Dulanto (Peru) C.H.OD. Alexander (England) Buenos Aires ol prelim-A bd.1, 1939 Marshall, Alexander, Harding. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
The Total Marshall
24
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 This was one of the earliest games to follow Frank Marshalls final concept of his gambit. 12 xd5 Dulanto exchanges pieces first but returns to Marshalls variation after a slight transposition. 12...cxd5 13 d4 d6 14 e1 h4 15 g3 h3 16 f3 f5
34 c1?? 34 f1 gxh2+ 35 xh2 (35 h1 g2+!) 35...d6+ 36 g3 xd5 37 e5+ with a draw. 34...f2+ 35 h1 e4+ 01 Game 4 A.Wolfers R.E. Armati Australia corr, 1942 Notes based on those by Purdy. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 xd5 cxd5 13 d4 d6 14 g5 Wolfers, though surprised by Blacks 11th move, sees the danger his is in, and sees this unorthodox move as his best chance. 14...e8! 15 d2 h6 16 h5 e4! To force a weakness in Whites kingside. The White rook cannot be trapped. 17 f3 h4! 18 xh4 xh4 19 g3 h5 19...xg3=. 20 e3 h3! 21 d2 e8 22 f2 f5! 23 b3 f4 24 e1 f8 Prevents f1 and so forces a further weakening. 25 g4 f7
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+-vl-+-+0 9+p+p+l+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-zP-+QzPq0 9PzP-+-zP-zP0 9tRNvL-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Over a hundred games in our database stem from this position. 17 g2 An attempt to improve on Marshalls line by driving back the black queen. Marshalls analysis continued 17 xd5 (as...e4 was threatened) 17...ae8 18 xe8 xe8 19 d2 e4 and Black should win.. 17...h5 18 xd5 ad8 19 g2 de8 19...h3 is an alternative: if 20 c6 (20 h1 g4 21 d2 de8 gives Black an enormous attack - Nunn) 20...e6 21 xe6 fxe6 22 d2 d1+ and...c2. 20 e3 h3? 20...e4 would regain one of the pawns and keep the initiative. 21 h1 e6 Black had intended 21...f5 and if 22 d2 f4, but now observed that after 22 d5+ h8 23 d2 g6 24 f4 his attack completely disappears. 22 d2 d5 23 f3? f5 24 f2 g5 25 g2 g4 26 xe8 xe8 27 e1 g6 28 b3 gxf3 29 h3 f4 30 f1 h8 31 e3 xe3+ 32 xe3 f4 33 xd5 fxg3
generation played the Marshall, but this experience seems to have put Paul Keres off the variation. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 xd5 The early exchange on d5 occurred frequently in the early decades of the Marshall but in this case it transposes to normal 15 e3 lines because White does not try to win the d5-pawn. 15...cxd5 16 e3 g4 17 d3 f5 18 f4 g5 19 f1 19 fxg5 f4 20 gxf4 xf4 21 d2 xe3+ 22 xe3 f1+ winning Whites . 19...h5 20 d2 ae8 We now have a line from the Classical Pawn Push variation, normally reached nowadays via 15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 f5 18 xd5+ (by no means forced) 19...cxd5 20 f1 h5 21 f4 g5. 21 g2
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+qzp-0 9p+-vl-+-zp0 9+p+p+-+-0 9-+-zP-zpP+0 9+QzP-+P+l0 9PzP-sN-vL-zP0 9+-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
26 h4 This results in a fatal loss of time. White has defended well so far, and could continue with 26 h1 or 26 a4, though Blacks attacking position still outweighs the pawn minus. 26...g5 27 f2 h5 28 gxh5 g4! 29 d1 xh5 30 fxg4 xg4 31 c1 g6 32 h1 f3 33 g1 xh2! 34 f1 f4 01 Game 5 Goldberg Paul Keres Tallinn, 1944 This little-known Keres game was played during World War II. It was possibly an informal game; after the war, many Soviet players of his
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+rtrk+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9p+-vl-+-+0 9+p+p+pzpq0 9-+-zP-zPl+0 9+-zP-vL-zP-0 9PzP-sN-+QzP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
21...e4?! 21...gxf4 transposes to 18 f4 g5 19 f1 h5 20 g2 gxf4. See Unzicker-Pfleger. 21...h8 is another transposition: to 18 f4 h8 19 xd5 cd 20 f1 h5 21 g2 g5. But why move the when White has already exchanged on d5, so there is no unpin necessary? 22 fxg5 This is probably stronger than 22 xe4 when Black has tried recapturing with the f-pawn, an unclear line. 22...f4?! 22...h8 may be better as this seems a safer coloured square for the king. Then 23 a4 is a transposition to a line which Nunn said is satisfactory for Black (18 f4 h8 19 xd5 cxd5 20 f1 h5 21 g2 e4 22 a4 g5 23 fxg5). However, Blacks counterplay can be seriously damaged by 23 h4
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-tr-mk0 9+-+-+-+p0 9p+-+-+q+0 9+p+N+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+PzP-+pzpQ0 9P+-+-+-zP0 9+-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
25
The Total Marshall
when: a) 23...ee8!? 24 f2 f4 (See LangYegorov in the database.) 25 gxf4! with probably insurmountable problems for Black Bennedik. b) The obvious 23...f4 fails 24 xe4 dxe4 25 xf4 xf4 (25...f3 26 h3 xf4 27 gxf4 xf4 28 c8+ g7 29 c7+ f7 30 g3) 26 gxf4 xf4 27 xe4! f3 28 xf4 xg2 29 xg2 and, as Nunn pointed out, Black has no perpetual check. This was analysed long before e.g. the variation given in Granssons monograph, which probably stemmed from Unzicker or Soviet sources: 29...e2+ 30 f2 g4+ 31 f1 xh4 32 e1. 23 xe4 dxe4 23...f3 24 g4. 24 gxf4 xf4 25 xf4 xf4 26 g3 26 xe4 f3 27 xf4 xg2 28 xg2 e2+=. 26...f3 27 e5
a2. 35 e4 f2 36 d5 xb2 37 c4 d2 38 e5+ 38 cxb5 axb5 39 c1 xd5 40 c7+ g8 41 xd5+ xd5 42 h4 d4. 38...g8 39 b8+ g7 40 e5+ g8 41 b8+ g7 A close call for the great Keres. Game 6 Dr Martin Christoffel (SWZ) Herman Steiner (USA) Hastings 1945-46 Notes by Tim Harding. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 Herman Steiner declined to play the variation that is named after him. 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 d3 This was one of several sequences tried by White before it was established that the only dangerous moves for Black are 15 e3 and 15 e4. 15...f5 16 f1 h5 17 e3 ae8 18 d2 e6 19 a4 The normal route to this position would be 15 Be3 Bg4 16 Qd3 Rae8 17 Nd2 Re6 18 Qf1 Qh5 19 a4 (or 18 a4 Qh5 19 Qf1). This is actually a critical variation today! 19...h3 20 d1 f5 21 e2
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+k+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9p+-+-+-+0 9+p+-wQ-zPq0 9-+-zPp+l+0 9+-zP-+r+-0 9PzP-+-+-zP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Nunn (1989) gives this position as good for White but didnt cite the present game which is not well known. White is the exchange ahead but will have to return it; more significant is that he now has several extra pawns. 27...f5 28 xe4 xe4 29 xe4 f7 29...xg5+ 30 h1 f4 31 e6+ f8 32 g1+-. 30 g2? This timid move jeopardises the win. 30 h4 and if 30...h6 31 e1 hxg5 32 hxg5 xg5+ 33 g2+is recommended in the notes published in the Latvian magazine Sahs. 30...f5 31 h1 f7 32 g1 e7 33 h1 f7 34 g1!? Instead of a further repetition. 34...g7 34...f2? loses to 35 g6 hxg6 36 xg6+ xg6 37 xg6+ f7 38 xa6 xb2 39 b6 c2 40 xb5 xc3 41 b2 d3 42 a4 xd4 43
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+pvlr+-+0 9+p+n+q+-0 9P+-zP-+-+0 9+-zP-vL-zPl0 9-zP-sNQzP-zP0 9tR-+LtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
21...f4?! Piece offers on f4 are very thematic in the Marshall, but Black must always calculate what happens when they are declined. 21...f4 (Fine) keeps Whites advantage minimal. For a long time this was theory and supposedly equal but 22 f3 may pose problems for Black. 21...c5 (Vitomskis) seems to be best and is analysed by him in part 1 of his Spassky Variation survey. 22 f3 22 gxf4?? walks into forced mate starting 22...g6+. 22...h5
If 22...g6 23 b3 g2 24 d1 so 22...d3 23 xf5 xf5 24 c2 g6 may be best. 23 b3 23 gxf4 still might be too risky. 23...xf4 (23...g6+?! 24 h1 g2+ 25 xg2 xg2 26 xg2 may be too high a price to pay for the white Queen.) 24 c2 (24 axb5!?) 24...xc2 25 xf4 g4 (25...g6+!? might make more sense now the black is making inroads.) 26 g3 g6 27 e4 (27 ac1!?) 27...e6 (27...e2!?) 28 g5 d5 29 axb5 axb5 30 h4 (30 c4! xc4 31 a3! f6?? 32 xf8+!) 30...f6 31 xh5 fxg5 (Arpiainen-Eronen, corr Finland 1986); Black regained his piece and eventually the game was drawn. 23...g2?! Black failed to make the most of his chances in this game, and this move seems a tactical error which the Swiss amateur now exploited. 23...g4 (23...g6!? maybe) 24 xc6 h3+ 25 h1 xe3! is not completely clear, although a possible continuation is (25...e4 probably accomplishes little after 26 f4!? or 26 d1!? but not 26 xe4?? f3#.) 26 fxe3 bxa4 27 f1 (27 xa4 f2; 27 xa4 c8 28 f1 f2+ 29 xf2 xf2 30 g2 xe3 is messy) 27...f2+ 28 g2 h3+ 29 g1 xf1 30 xf1 axb3 31 xf2 White starts to take control. 24 d1! 24 xe6!? could be dangerous as White goes on the defensive on the f-file. 24...h3 24...d5 allows the simplification 25 xf4 xe1+ 26 xe1 xf4 27 xd5 xd2 28 xf7+! xf7 29 xd2 with White two clear pawns ahead. 25 xf4 xf4
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzp-0 9p+p+r+-+0 9+p+-+-+p0 9P+-zP-vl-+0 9+LzP-+-zPq0 9-zP-sN-zPlzP0 9tR-+QtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
26 xe6!? 26 xe6 may be playable but White wants to kill the attack rather than be greedy. 26...xd2 27 f4!?
The Total Marshall
26
Good and simple, based on correct calculation of the subsequent exchanges, but Black could have defended better next move. 27 e5 is the computers preference. 27...xf4? This allows White to carry out his idea. 27...fxe6 28 xd2 d5 29 xd5 exd5 30 axb5 axb5. 28 e2! f3 28...xg3 fails to 29 xg2. 29 xf3 fxe6 30 e1 Threatening to win the black queen with a bishop fork. 30...f6 31 xf4 xf4 32 xe6+ xe6 33 xe6 f6 34 xf6 gxf6 35 axb5 axb5 White has a comfortably won endgame. 36 f2 f7 37 f3 e6 38 e4 f5+ 39 f4 d5 40 xf5 c4 41 g4 hxg4 42 xg4 b3 43 h4 xb2 44 h5 xc3 45 h6 10 Game 7 Abe Yanofsky (CAN) Edward Lasker (USA) USA ch Corpus Christi, 1947 Notes by Tim Harding. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 xd5 cxd5 13 d4 d6 14 e3 f5 This game shows the Kevitz Variation can blot out Blacks counterplay if he chooses an inferior line. 14...h4 was later recognised to be stronger. Then if 15 g3 g4 16 f3 Black has 16...xg3. 15 e1 f4 16 f3 16 d2 transposes to the old main line of the Kevitz, 15 d2 f4 16 e1. 16...g5 17 h1 d7 18 d2 h4 19 f1 f5 19...g5!? has been suggested (by Gransson?). Maybe 19...ae8. 20 e2 h5 21 e1 f6 22 d2 f8 23 h3 f5 24 h2 h5 25 f2 f7 26 a3 g5 27 ae1
White is now clearly better and starts to break out. 27...f6 28 c4 dxc4 29 b4 e8 30 xe8+ xe8 31 xd6 xd6 32 e5 d5 33 e1 xe5 34 xe5 g6 35 f1 g4 36 hxg4 hxg4 37 fxg4 d7 38 xf4 xg4 39 xg4+ xg4 40 e3+White has a sound extra pawn and the black cannot attack Whites queenside. Now White will bring the King into play. 40...e2 41 g1 a5 42 f2 d3 43 e1 f7 44 d2 e4 45 g3 d3 46 b3 e6 47 bxc4 bxc4 48 c3 e2 49 xc4 a4 50 e3 b5 51 b4 e8 52 c5 h5 53 c4 10 Game 8 A.Chomsky E.L. Abelmann Shakmaty-222 corr USSR, 1955 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 f1 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h5 15 d4 h3! Pachmans recommendation. 16 d3 f5 17 f1 h3 18 d1 18 d3 could lead to repetition. 18...f5 19 e2 ae8 20 e3 e6
31...g2+ 32 h1 ee2. 31...xf2 32 a7 h6 33 c4 g2+ 34 h1 h2+ 35 g1 g2! Black naturally has an easy draw by perpetual check. He prefers to make a winning attempt, with a really astounding point. 36 a8 f3 37 xe8+ h7
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+Q+-+0 9+-+-+-zpk0 9-+p+-+-zp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+NzP-+-+0 9+-zP-+lvl-0 9-zP-vL-+-tr0 9tR-+R+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
White has a and extra, but mate is threatened on h1! 38 g6+! The only move. 38...xg6 39 e5+ xe5 40 dxe5 h1+ 41 f2 xd1 42 xd1 xd1 43 b4 f5 44 c4 b3 45 c3 g5 46 b5 Game 9 L.A. Fink B. Kantorovich USSR corr, 1955 Heemsoths scrapbooks show this game was played in a semifinal of the 4th USSR Correspondence Championship and that the original notes by Kantorovich from Shakhmaty v SSSR 1/1956 were translated for a German publication by H.Kretschmar. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 f6 Now and then, there are still people willing to try the Original Marshall. White apparently chose not to follow the example of Capablanca because he was misled by recent analysis. 12 e1 d6 13 h3 g4 14 hxg4? h4 15 f3
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+pvlr+-+0 9+p+n+q+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-zP-vL-zPl0 9PzP-+QzP-zP0 9tRN+LtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
White has gained a tempo over the 15 d3 f5 line. 21 c2 f4 22 xf5 xe2+ 23 xe2 xf5 This game illustrates how Black can often have excellent play even after the queen exchange in the Marshall, especially when he has the bishop pair and control of the e-file. 24 d2 fe8 25 a4 h3 26 a3 f5 27 dd1 f4! 28 d2 Naturally not 28 gxf4 g6+ 29 h1 g2+ and Black wins the exchange (A.Ptzsch, Fernschach). 28...e2 29 axb5 fxg3 30 hxg3 xg3! 31 bxa6 If 31 fxg3 White gets mated by
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+l+q+-0 9p+-vl-+-+0 9+p+p+rzpp0 9-+-zP-zp-+0 9zP-zP-+P+P0 9-zP-vLRwQPsN0 9+-+-tR-+K0 xiiiiiiiiy
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+-zp-+pzpp0 9p+-vl-+-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+Pwq0 9+LzP-+Q+-0 9PzP-zP-zPP+0 9tRNvL-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
27
The Total Marshall
15...h2+! 15...xg4? 16 g3 h5 17 g2 ae8 18 e3! but not 18 f1 f3 19 h2 xh2+ 20 xh2 e5!+ Gransson. Not 15...h2+?! 16 f1 xg4? 17 xg4 h1+ 18 e2 ae8+ 19 e6! and White comes out with an extra piece - Palkin, 1954. 16 f1 xg4 17 e4! The best defence. On 17 e4 comes 17...f4! with material advantage to Black, e.g. 18 g3 h2! 19 e3 (19 xf7+ xf7 20 xf4+ g8) 19...ae8 20 d5 xg3 21 xg3 (Black also wins after 21 fxg3 h3+ 22 e1 g1+ or 21 xf7+ h8! 22 xe8? h1#) 21...e2+ 22 e1 f3+ mating Gransson, probably citing analysis by Shamkovich or Kantorovich. And if 17 g3 then 17...h5. Also 17 c6 does not help White: 17...d6 18 g3 xg3 19 fxg3 xg3 20 d5 ad8 21 g2 d6 22 e4 f6+ 23 g1 f3+. 17...h8? Black misses the correct continuation, 17...f4! 18 g3 h2!! with an attack, as Shamkovich, pointed out after the game was published. 18 d4 h5
Game 10 S. Sakhalkar (India) Lazslo Barczay (Hungary) CC Olympiad 4 prelim, corr ICCF, 1960 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 xd5 cxd5 13 d4 d6 14 e1 h4 15 g3 h3 16 f3? f5 17 xd5 ae8! 18 d2
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+rtrk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+-vl-+-+0 9+p+Q+l+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-zP-+-zPq0 9PzP-vL-zP-zP0 9tRN+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This move leads to a famous brilliancy which, however, does not quite survive modern scrutiny. It is easy for both players to go wrong but Black has a strong initiative and White will only survive if he finds the very best moves. 18 e3 is possibly better. 18...f4!? This is generally reckoned to be stronger than the line given by Marshall himself in American Chess Review, March 1943: 18...e6 19 xe6 (However, Marshalls own idea could be in trouble after 19 a3 Heemsoth) 19...fxe6 20 g2 h5= and if 21 f3? h3 22 g4 xg4!. 19 g2? The Hungarian magazine Magyar Sakkelet gave the following alternatives: a) 19 gxf4 xe1+ (19...g4+ is inferior as on 20 h1 e4 Black only forces a draw.) 20 xe1 g4+ 21 h1 (21 g2 d1! 22 f1 d3) 21...e6 22 e4 d1! with the deadly threat ...e8, ...d7. (Goransson gave 22...h5 but this is incorrect, e.g. 23 f3 d5 24 d3 xf3+ 25 g1 h3 26 f1.) b) 19 c6 xe1+ 20 xe1 h5! 21 f3 g5 22 a3 c1!. c) The critical line is 19 xe8! xe8 and now White has two possibilities explored in subsequent games: c1) 20 g2 h5! 21 gxf4? and now the right move is 21...h3!+ found by Tim Harding in 1970s analysis and confirmed by modern
computers. (21...d3?! was given in Magyar Sakkelet but is incorrect: 22 f3 e6 23 h1 e2!). In fact White can improve with 21 f3 (Jonathan Tait); although I think Black still has the preferable game with 21...h3, it is not much. c2) 20 c6! (not considered in Magyar Sakkelet); White has enough to draw and if Black isnt careful, he will lose e.g. 20...d7 (20...f8? 21 c4!) 21 g2 (21 f3 was a CC Yearbook recommendation of Popescu; see two games Femmelv.d.Kooij in our database) 21...h5 22 f3 Harding; see e.g. LehikoinenSarink. (Not 22 gxf4?? h3). 19...xe1+ 20 xe1 c1!
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+-+-+-+0 9+p+-+l+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-zP-+-zPq0 9PzP-+-zPQzP0 9tRNvl-vL-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Transposing to a won endgame. 21 xh3 21 a4 e8 22 d2 bxa4 23 xa4 xd2 24 xd2 e1+ 25 f1 xg2+ 26 xg2 e4+! 27 f3 d3 and Black wins. If 21 d2 xg2+ (probably better than Granssons line 21...xb2 22 d1 h5 which, however, also favours Black; maybe 22 xh3) 22 xg2 xb2. 21...xh3 22 d2 xb2 23 b1 xc3 24 b3 c8 25 f3 f5 01 White resigned. If 26 c1 (26 d1 c2 27 c1 b2) 26...xd4+ 27 f2 xc1+ 28 xc1 b2. Game 11 Evgeni Vasiukov Aleksandr Tolush Moscow, 1961 This is one of the most significant games for the Herman Steiner Variation. Two Russian grandmasters who were noted tacticians slug it out and White easily came off best. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 e4 10 dxc6 exf3 11 d4 11 xf3 is possibly even better. 11...fxg2 12 f3
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-tr-mk0 9+-zp-+pzpp0 9p+-+-+-+0 9+p+-+-+q0 9-+-zPQ+l+0 9+LzP-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPvl0 9tRNvL-tRK+-0 xiiiiiiiiy
19 d5? After this further mistake, Black is probably winning again. 19 d2! f5 20 c6 f4 21 f3 h1+ 22 e2 ae8+ 23 e6! when Heemsoth wrote in Fernschach that White has the upper hand but this assessment may not be accurate, as 23...xg2 is perhaps. 19...f5 20 d3 Also 20 c2 was not better. There follows 20...f4 21 xa8 g3 a plan which Black could also have employed after the text move. 20...f4 21 g3 xc1 22 xc1 ae8 23 g1 23 d2 e4. 23...f4 24 c4 e2 25 a3 f6 26 d2 h6 27 f1 f3 01
The Total Marshall
28
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-zp-vlpzpp0 9p+P+-sn-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+LzP-+Q+-0 9PzP-+-zPpzP0 9tRNvL-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
12...e8 12...a5!? is the best try: see Melnikov-Lukyachenko. 13 g5 a5 14 a3 g4 15 xg2 f5 16 d2 b4? Weak but White stands better anyway. 17 e5 g6 18 ae1 bxc3 19 bxc3 a4 20 a2 f8 21 c4 h6 22 h4 22 xf6!? gxf6 23 5e3+-. 22...c2 23 e3 d3 24 f3 24 g4!+-. 24...g5 25 g4 d6 26 g3 10 This was one of the most influential games that put the Herman Steiner Variation out of business in master play. However, it is sometimes revived in correspondence games. Game 12 V.N. Dragunov Aleksandr M. Konstantinopolsky USSR ch06 6364 corr, 1963 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 e6 18 a4! 18 xd5 cxd5 19 a4 f5 20 f1 h5 21 f4 bxa4 22 xa4 fe8 23 xa6! xe3 24 xe3 xe3 25 c6 Sokolsky. 18...f5 19 f1 h5 20 f4 bxa4 20...fe8 was considered equal by Estrin. 21 xa4
This position can also arise via 18 a4 bxa4 19 xa4 f5 20 f1 h5 21 f4. 21...fe8 The pin against the white e1rook intensifies Blacks pressure. It is clear that Black is in danger on the queenside so he must rapidly create threats against the white and . 22 xa6?! Original notes to this game appeared in the Central Chess Bulletin. The line has been much reassessed in recent years. This move received an ! in contemporary notes by Konstantinopolsky, but GM Nunn in his 1989 book wrote On the basis of the main line, this move is a mistake, and after it White will be very lucky to draw. He said 22 f2 is critical. 22...xe3 23 xe3 xe3 24 xc6 e8! 25 xd5+ f8 26 e4?!
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+qmk-+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9-+Rvl-+-+0 9+-+L+p+-0 9-+-zPNzPl+0 9+-zP-tr-zP-0 9-zP-+-+-zP0 9+-+-+QmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
An unexpected answer for Konstaninopolsky and he erred in reply. He noted that 26 b5 or 26 a6 would allow the infiltration of the black queen by 26...e1+ 27 f1 e3+ and he thought that 26 f2? e1+ 27 f1 e2 and 26 xd6 e1 27 e6 xf1+ 28 xf1 b5 lead to advantage for Black. However, he was wrong about 26 xd6! which is Whites best move, because after 26...e1 White can play 27 e6! and hold on for a draw with assorted pieces against the queen. 26...xe4? Instead of the text move, wrote Konstantinopolsky, I had the choice between 26...e7? and 26...fxe4!. If 26...e7? 27 f2! d8 with advantage to White. As Dragunov showed me afterwards, he can then play 28 xg4! e1 (28...fxg4 29 f2!) 29 e5 xf1+ 30 xf1.
26...fxe4! 27 xd6 d3 28 a6 b5 with threats of ...d1 and ...d5, appears to be the best answer. However, the way I played in the game was also tempting. TH: This line has become theoretically important again, with the better move 28 b3! being found for White (28...b8 29 a1=). Dutch theoretician A.C. van der Tak then claimed that Black wins with 28...e3! and several games have been won by Black after 29 Rd8? Qxd8 30 Qxd3 e2. Yet even here White can save himself by 29 xd3 e2 30 e6! which leads to a draw. The battle around the passed epawn, with Black trying to land a deadly queen check on e3, or elsewhere on the a7-g1 diagonal, is mirrored in the game but under inferior circumstances for Black. 27 xe4 fxe4 Black places his hopes on the passed e-pawn. How is it possible to stop it? 27...xe4 28 xd6 h3 (28...e2 29 c1!) 29 xh3 e3+ 30 f1 c1+ 31 e2 xb2+ 32 d3 b1+ 33 c4 White wins, as Dragunov correctly said. 28 xd6 e3
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+qmk-+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9-+-tR-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-zPl+0 9+-zP-zp-zP-0 9-zP-+-+-zP0 9+-+-+QmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
29 b1!! V.Dragunov finds the right solution to his problem. By watching the square e4 he refutes the combination begun at Blacks 26th move. 29 a1 e2 30 f2 e4 31 d5? (Better is 31 d8+ e7 32 a3+ xd8 33 d6+) 31...f3+ 32 g1 e3+ 33 g2 e1+ leads to mate. 29...a8 29...e2 30 f2 a8 31 e3 (31 d5? a7+ and...e3) 31...f3+ 32 d2 f1 33 e1 f3 34 h3! and the e-pawn is liquidated 34...h5 35 e6. 30 d5 Now the other important entry line for the black is closed. 30...e2
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9p+pvlr+-+0 9+-+n+p+q0 9R+-zP-zPl+0 9+LzP-vL-zP-0 9-zP-sN-+-zP0 9+-+-tRQmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
29
The Total Marshall
Now threatening...a7+ and...e3 but once more White has the answer to his opponents plan. 31 g2! e7 31...a7 32 e4!. If 31...e8 then immediately 32 e6! (not 32 f2 a4 33 e1 a7+ 34 g2 e3 35 e6 xe6 36 dxe6 g6 followed by...e7 and Black can hold) 32...h5 (32...xe6 33 dxe6 xe6 34 f2) 33 e5 h3+ 34 g1 f3 35 f5+. Also the manoeuvre 31...a4 threatening...d1 32 b3! a3 (32...e8 33 e6!) accomplishes no more after 33 e6 c5 34 c4 d4 (34...xe6 35 dxe6 e3 36 f5+! e7 37 f7+ d6 38 d7+ c5 39 a7+) 35 e4 d1 36 e8+. 32 c6! d7 32...a4 33 xh7! e1+ 34 f1; 32...a5 33 e6+! d7 34 e5. 33 h3+- a5 34 hxg4 xd5+ 35 f2 xc6 36 xh7! e6 37 h1+ 10 Konstantinopolosky concluded that If 37...c7 38 e1. Dragunov played this game very skilfully, overcoming dangerous threats and hidden traps. Game 13 A. Novopashin Boris Spassky USSR ch-31 Leningrad, 1963 Notes by Martin Bennedik. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 e6 18 a4 bxa4 19 xa4 f5 20 f4? 20 f1 is the main line, please see the surveys. 20...xf4!
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9p+p+r+-+0 9+-+n+p+-0 9R+-zP-vll+0 9+LzPQvL-zPq0 9-zP-sN-+-zP0 9+-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This position is best analysed with your favourite chess engine, which of course wasnt available in 1963. 21 f2? xe1+ 22 xe1 e8 01
Novopashin apparently was so shocked by the Bishop sacrifice, that he lost without putting up a fight. Instead, returning to the diagram, what else could he do? Not 21 f1? f3 22 d2 xg3 23 xg3 f4+. However, accepting the sacrifice gives at least some chances for a draw. For example, 21 gxf4 g6 22 xd5+ and now: a) 22...h8. (This move is usually recommended, but as I and Fritz think White can defend better here, I am recommending a simpler line.) 23 h1 (23 f2 cxd5 24 g1 (24 h1 e8+) 24...xh2+ 25 e1 h4+ 26 f1 e8+) 23...h6 24 e2 cxd5 (This position is actually not so clear.) 25 g2 (25 f2 e8 26 xa6 xa6 27 xa6 xe3) 25...g6 e.g. 26 g1? xg2+ 27 xg2 e2+ + was given in The Marshall Attack by Nunn and Harding, but White can defend better, e.g. with 26 f2. (For more details of my analysis, see the annotations in the database.) b) 22...cxd5 leads by force to a position which I think provides very good chances for Black, although it is not immediately over. For example, 23 xa6 e2+ 24 xg6 xd3 25 g3 h6 (25...h5) 26 f3 (26 a1 b6 is awkward.) 26...a8 27 e5 e4. I think Black has some chances to crack Whites fortress-like setup. In this position, your favourite engine will be a bit useless, so I am just giving a sample line here. 28 c1 a1 29 d7 a6 30 e5 (Okay, this was useless, but what should White do?) 30...b1 31 f2 a1 32 gg1 xb2+ 33 xb2 xb2+ 34 e2 xc3 35 d1 h6 36 dd2 g5 White can also reverse the order and play 21 xd5 cxd5 22 gxf4 (22 xa6? xg3 23 hxg3 xg3+ 24 f1 f4+ or 22 f1? f3 23 d2 xg3 24 xg3 f4+) but then 22...g6 gives the same position as recommended above. Game 14 Wolfgang Unzicker Helmut Pfleger West Germany ch-match (2), 1963 Notes by Harding. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 xd5 cxd5 13 d4 d6 14 e1
h4 15 g3 h3 16 e3 g4 17 d3 f5 18 f4 ae8 19 d2 g5 20 f1 h5 21 g2 gxf4!? For 21...e4 22 fxg5! h8 (Euwe) 23 h4! (Unzicker) see LangYegorov in the database. That line is not so easy for Black. 22 xd5+! The suggestion 22 xf4 xf4 23 gxf4 h8 24 h1 (in the Latvian notes to Goldberg-Keres) is probably fine for Black after 24...e4. 22...g7 22...h8 23 xd6 fxe3 24 xe3!. 23 xf4 23 gxf4? f6!. 23...xf4 24 gxf4
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+rtr-+0 9+-+-+-mkp0 9p+-+-+-+0 9+p+Q+p+q0 9-+-zP-zPl+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9PzP-sN-+-zP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Chess Mail Back Year sets

We have a limited number of back issue sets of Chess Mail magazine for sale. Y ou can order by post or fax or at www.chessmail.com/ backnumber_form.html. Prices including basic postage are as follows: 2001 (8 issues) 36 Euros, 2000 (8 issues) 36 Euros, 1999 (11 issues) 42 Euros, 1998 (11 issues) 45 Euros, 1997 (11 issues) 50 Euros, 1996-7 (as 1997 with the 8/96 issue also: very few of these left!) 70 Euros. For airmail, add 15% (Europe) or 25% (rest of the world). Single back issues (when available) cost 5 Euros each including surface mail postage.
The Total Marshall
30
24...e2?! After this, Blacks attack soon runs out of steam. Instead, 24...h8! is correct; see Bravo-Jaime, below. 25 g2+ 25 f1 xf1 (25...f3 26 g3 g4 27 d7+!) 26 xe8 g4+ 27 xf1 xf4+ 28 g1 xe8 29 f1 Gransson; 25 h1 also seems good for White. 25...h8 26 f2 g6+ 27 h1 27 g3?? h6 28 h1 g8 29 f2 c6+. 27...c6+ Better is 27...e6. 28 g2 e6 29 f1 c4 30 g3 d3 31 d2 c6+ 32 g1 f3 33 f2 g4 34 e5 h5 35 h3! g6 35...xh3 36 h2 xh2+ 37 xh2 h4 38 h1 and f2+-. 36 h2 h4 37 f1 h6 38 d2 xe5 39 dxe5 g8 40 g1 10. Did Black lose on time? He might have continued for a few more moves. Game 15 Herman Pilnik (ARG) Efim Geller (UKR) Santiago de Chile, 1965 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 e6 18 xd5 cxd5 19 f1 h5 20 f4 Pilnik was apparently trying to unsettle his opponent by minor transpositions of move order. However, this move turns out to be a novelty. It is strange to play f2-f4 before Black goes ...f7-f5. 20...fe8 20...g5?! was an extremely dubious suggestion published in Granssons monograph: 21 fxg5 f5 22 f4 e2 23 f2 (Better is 23 xd6 xf1 24 xe6) 23...xf4 24 xf4 h6+. This is very hard to believe! 21 f2 f5!? 21...f5!= as in a game ZuidemaNei. 22 a4 Gransson asked, Has there ever been a game in this line where the move a2-a4 was played so late? 22...g5 This is dubious. 22...bxa4!? was advisable. 23 fxg5 f4
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9p+-vlr+-+0 9+p+p+-zPq0 9P+-zP-zpl+0 9+-zP-vL-zP-0 9-zP-sN-wQ-zP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
24 xf4? 24 gxf4! is unclear or a bit better for White after 24...bxa4 (24...h6 (Botterill) but Nunn points out that 25 gxh6 xh6 26 f1 transposes to Grootjans-de Boer, where White withstood the attack). 24...e2 25 xe2 xe2 26 xe2 Sacrifices of the white queen for rook, minor piece and assorted pawns occur in many variations of the Marshall. Sometimes they are good, sometimes not so good and sometimes they are played in desperation. 26...xe2 27 xd6 bxa4 28 e1 b5 29 f4 g6 30 c1 b6 31 a1 d7 32 a2
g1 e4+ (or 24...h3+) 25 f1 d3+ Goransson. 22...fxe3 23 xe3 23 fxe3 Plunge-Bohringer. 23...xe3 23...xe3 Szabo-Barczay. 24 fxe3 e7 25 e4! This move and the continuation to move 28 was recommended by Keres and others as an improvement on Stein-Spassky, Moscow zt 1964, in which Black easily drew after 25 xc6? g5!. 25...g5 26 exd5 xd2 26...e3+ 27 h1 f2 28 d6+ causes a back rank disaster - Nunn. 27 dxc6+ h8 28 a1 g6 28...g5 is no better; see SchwartzDahlhaus. 29 d5 e3+ 30 h1 f2 31 c7 Surely White should have been able to demonstrate a win from this position? But if so, where did he go wrong? 31...xb2 32 e1 xd4
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+k+0 9+-+l+-+p0 9pwq-+-+-+0 9+-+p+-zP-0 9p+-zP-vL-+0 9+-zP-+-zP-0 9RzP-sN-+-zP0 9+-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
White has too many weaknesses. 32...b5 33 f2 g4 34 c4 dxc4 35 e4 b3 36 c3 c2+ 37 e1 a3 38 xa3 xb2 39 d6 c1+ 40 f2 d2+ 01 Game 16 Bruno Parma (Yugoslavia) Boris Spassky (USSR) Vrnjacka Banja, 1965 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 e6 18 a4 bxa4 19 xa4 f5 20 f1 f4?! After this game, it was realised that Black should play 20...h5. 21 xh3 xh3 22 xa6! 22 gxf4 g6+ 23 h1 g2+ 24
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-mk0 9+-zP-+-+p0 9-+-+-+p+0 9+-+L+-+-0 9-+-vl-+-+0 9+-zP-+-zPl0 9-tr-+-+-zP0 9+-+-tR-+K0 xiiiiiiiiy
33 cxd4? 33 g4! xg4 34 cxd4 c2 35 e7 as the white king can escape from the corner 35...f5 (35...h3 36 g1) 36 b7 d2 37 d5!+- White has the wrong for the h-pawn so must retain the d-pawn. 33...c2 34 f3 xc7 35 g1 g7 36 f2 h5 37 e2 c4 38 d2 f6 39 d5 d7 40 b2 f5 41 e2 d4 42 b2 . Only a draw but a critical game between two top GMs in the early theory of the Marshall. Game 17 Boris Spassky Efim Geller 2nd match game, Riga 1965 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 This game is interesting as a clash between the two greatest Soviet grandmasters to really know the Marshall well. Spassky played the white pieces for once. 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5
31
The Total Marshall
11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 xe3 This variation pioneered by Geller was popular for a while but did not stand the test of time. Nevertheless, Whites advantage is not that great if Black plays the most accurate moves. 17 xe3 White avoids the traps like 17 xe3?? ae8 18 xe8 f3+ (19 xf7+ h8) and 17 fxe3? xg3!. 17...c5 The idea is to create a target on d4 for Blacks bishop pair to exploit. 18 d5 18 f1 is now reckoned to be the critical reply. 18...ad8 19 d2
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-tr-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+-vl-+-+0 9+pzpL+-+-0 9-+-zP-+l+0 9+-zPQtR-zPq0 9PzP-sN-zP-zP0 9tR-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
19...b8 19...c7!? was later tried. 20 g2 h6 equalised in Barczay-Adorjan, Budapest 1970. The point of the precise bishop and queen moves is to meet 21 d5? by 21...c4 22 d4? b6. 20 g2 h5 20...h6 is also possible, to go to f6 or d6 (Tal); this was later tried. 21 ae1 e6 21...cxd4 22 cxd4 a7 23 b3 e6 24 e5! Salo Flohr. 22 b3 f5 23 e4 cxd4 24 cxd4 c8 25 f3 h6 26 g2 a7 27 f3
28...xd4 29 xg4 g5! Black regains all the sacrificed material and should draw, but White has some positional advantage. 27...b7 28 e7 xf3 29 xa7 xg2 30 xg2 b6 31 ee7 xd4 32 f3 g6 33 a8 Bondarevsky. 28 e5 g6 29 d5 b7? 29...d6 30 e7 b6 31 d4 b7 Gransson. 30 e7! b8 31 7e2 bd8 32 e5 h5 33 a4 b6 34 axb5 axb5 35 d2 d6 36 g5! g7 This loses the exchange for the d-pawn and White wins by technique. 36...d8 fails combinatively to 37 xd8 fxd8 (37...dxd8 38 c6) 38 xf7! xf7 39 e7+. 37 e7 xd5 38 xd5 xd5 39 d7 xd7 40 xd7 d8 41 e7 d5 42 a1 This forces Black to relinquish his threat against f2 and the rest is easy. 42...b8 43 e3 d6 44 e8 b7 45 e4 c6 46 d3 c5 47 xc6 xc6 48 g2 b4 49 a7 f8 50 d7 e7 51 e3 c5 52 e4 a6 53 c4 d6 54 f3 g7 55 d4 10 Game 18 Mikhail Tal Boris Spassky 1st match game, Tbilisi 1965 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 e6 18 a4 h5
which were probably extremely detailed. (One may speculate that Tal might have played the line which later surfaced in GurvichGrzeskowiak.) Note that Spassky NEVER played 18...f5? which most theoreticians subsequently gave as the main line in books and articles. 19 axb5 axb5 20 c4 bxc4 If 20...f5 21 e2 g4 22 cxd5! was a queen sacrifice idea analysed by Pachman: 22...xe2 23 dxe6 fxe6 24 xe6+ h8 25 ac1. Instead 22 f1 is possible, when Shamkovich & Peterson analysed 22...h3 23 d1 xf1 (23...f5? 24 e2 f4 25 f3 d3 26 xf5 xf5 27 c2!) 24 xh5 xc4 25 xc4 bxc4 26 ac1 b4 27 e2 c3 28 bxc3 xc3! 29 ec2 d5 30 xc6 xe3 31 xe6 fxe6 32 fxe3 d2=. 21 xc4 b4 22 ec1 e2 23 d1 xh2+ A slight inaccuracy by Spassky. Better is 23...xd3= ParmaGeller. 24 xh2 xd3 25 e5 b5 If 25...e4 26 b3 or 25...xe3 (best?) 26 xd3 xd1 27 xb4 xb2 28 xc6 e2 29 c2! Pachman. 26 b3 d8 27 a7 f6
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ltr-trk+0 9vl-+-+pzpp0 9p+-+-+-wq0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+P+QtRNzP-0 9P+-+-zPLzP0 9+-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
27...f6? 27...g4 was the last chance 28 e5 (28 e7 c5 29 c7 b6)
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+pvlr+-+0 9+p+n+-+q0 9P+-zP-+l+0 9+LzPQvL-zP-0 9-zP-sN-zP-zP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
The debut of this important variation. Black does not risk a wild attack against his great opponent but trusts his positional compensation for the sacrificed pawn. Previously Spassky had played 18...bxa4 (against Novpashin, Stein and Parma) so he thus avoided Tals preparations
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-tr-+k+0 9tR-+-+-zpp0 9-+p+rzp-+0 9+l+nsN-+-0 9-vl-zP-+-+0 9+L+-vL-zP-0 9-zP-+-zP-mK0 9+-tR-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Here Tal missed his chance to put on some pressure. 28 xc6 White could have played instead: a) 28 d7 xd7 29 xd7 d6 30 b6 d8 31 xd5 cxd5 32 c7 f8 33 b7 e8 34 a2 f7 35 b4 etc. (Sakharov & Peterson), or b) 28 f7 b8 29 xd5 cxd5 30 f4 be8 31 b7 Simagin. 28...xc6 28...xc6 29 a8 cd6 30 cc8 a5 31 xd8+ xd8 32 f4 d7 33 c7!!. 29 a6 f8 30 axc6 xc6 31 xc6 xe3 32 fxe3 d2= 33 c4 33 e6 b8. 33...xe3 34 d5 d2 35 b6 e7 36 e6+ f8 37 g4
The Total Marshall
32
Game 19 Mikhail Tal Boris Spassky 5th candidates match game, Tbilisi 1965 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 xd5 cxd5 13 d4 d6 14 e3 h4 15 h3 f4 16 e5 f6 17 e1 Not 17 xd5? b7 18 g5 fe8+ Pachman. 17 e3 f4 is a repetition. 17...g6 18 f3 f5 18...e6 was played in the 7th match game, continuing 19 f4 (19 d2 ae8 threat...g4) 19...xf4 20 xf4 xh3 21 g3 xg3 22 fxg3 f5 23 d2 fe8 24 b3 f8 (24...f6 was simpler 25 c5 xe1+ 26 xe1 f7 27 a4 bxa4 28 xa4 Lilienthal) 25 c5 a5 26 xe8+ xe8 27 a4 bxa4 28 xa4 e2 29 b4 (29 b3! was critical) 29...axb4 30 cxb4 b2 31 a8+ e7 32 b8 d2 33 b7+ (33 b5 xd4 34 b6 d6 35 b7 b4 36 c8 d4) 33...d6 34 xf7 g6 35 a7 c6 36 e6 e4 37 xg7 xg2+ 38 f1 b2 39 d8+ b5 40 c7 d2 41 e1 g2 42 f7 xb4 43 g5 d3 44 xh7 c4 45 f6 e2+ 46 d1 e6 47 d7 c3 48 e5 h6 49 xc4 dxc4 50 e2 e6+ 51 f3 d3 52 f4 d6 53 g4 1/21/2. It is noteworthy that Spassky drew both games with the Kevitz Variation in this match, quite comfortably in fact, despite making inaccuracies. 19 e3 19 xd5 ae8 20 e3 xe3 21 xe3 xb1. 19...e4 20 g4 h5 20...f6 21 d2 f5 22 g5 Pachman. 21 xg6 xg6 22 d2 f6 23 b3 f5 24 c5 White now has a lasting endgame advantage for White, which is why Spassky preferred 18...Be6 the next time. 24...xc5 25 dxc5 d7 26 ad1 c6 27 h4 A better plan was 27 f3 and eventually g4. 27...fe8 After the inevitable rook exchanges on the e-file, the opposite coloured bishops will guarantee a draw. 28 f3 f7 29 f2 h8 30 d2 ae8 31 de2 e6 32 f4 xe2+ 33 xe2 e8 34 xe8 xe8 35 g4
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+l+-+0 9+-+-+kzp-0 9p+-+-zp-+0 9+pzPp+-+p0 9-+-+-vLPzP0 9+-zP-+P+-0 9PzP-+-mK-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy
35...g6 Not 35...hxg4? 36 fxg4 e6 37 e3 c6 38 h5! or; 35...g6 36 e3 d7 37 d4 c6 38 d6. 36 b4 c6 37 e3 e6 38 d4 f7 39 c7 e7! Not 39...e6? 40 d8 and White wins e.g. 40...f7 (40...d7 41 gxh5 gxh5 42 c6 xc6 43 c5 b7 44 b6) 41 g5! fxg5 42 e5 gxh4 43 xh4. 40 d6+ e6 41 f4 In view of 41...f7 42 h6 e6 43 g7 f7 44 h8 e6 45 a3 f7 46 g5 fxg5 47 e5 gxh4 48 d6 a8! 49 c6 g5 50 c7 b7 (variations from Shamkovich). Game 20 A. Gurvich (USSR) Felix Grzeskowiak (W.Germany) 4th European Corr Ch, 1966 Many sources wrongly give Whites name as Gurevich. The original source of this game was Fernschach 1970 p.149. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 e6 18 f1 h5 19 a4 f5 The f-pawn advance is playable in this position where the f1/h5 move pair has occurred, 19...h3 (Jovcic, Informator 10) is an important alternative, with a form of the Spassky Variation. 20 f4 fe8 This move was all the rage in 1963 but was refuted in the present game. Black has two better possibilities: 20...bxa4 21 Rxa4 which became what we call the Old Main Line, or the very sharp 20...g5!?. 21 axb5 xe3 21...axb5 22 xd5 cxd5 (Note that in the Spassky Variation, where the move pair f4/...f5 has not been played, Black recaptures with the queen and is OK.) 23 xb5 and
Black seems to be busted, e.g. 23...f7 (23...xf4? 24 xd5!!+-) 24 f2! e.g. Ertl-Erpel. 22 xe3 xe3
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+k+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9p+pvl-+-+0 9+P+n+p+q0 9-+-zP-zPl+0 9+LzP-tr-zP-0 9-zP-sN-+-zP0 9tR-+-+QmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
23 bxc6!! Nunn: In view of the strength of this move, analysis of the unclear 23 bxa6 b8 24 a7 xa7 25 xa7 h6! is redundant. This was played in Suetin-im, 1972, won by Black after White rejected a drawing line. Various games seemed to show that the position after the older 25...e8?! 26 a1 e2 27 c4 h8 28 e5 e3 29 f7! was good for White (contra analysis by Henkin, Euwe etc.) e.g. Prochazka-Benner and Rehberg-Gudat. 23...e2 GMs Boleslavsky & Suetin had reached this position in analysis, but incorrectly considered it favourable to Black. 24 xd5+ f8 If 24...h8 then 25 h3! wins after: a) 25...xh3 26 f3! xf1 (26...g6 27 xe2 xg3+ 28 h1) 27 xh5 xd2 28 xf1 xb2 29 xa6+- g6 30 e2 b3 31 a8+ (or 31 c4+-) e.g. 31...g7 32 a7+ f6 33 d7 b8 34 c7. b) 25...xd2 26 xa6 e8 (26...e2 27 c8+) 27 hxg4 xb2 (27...fxg4 28 b7) 28 gxf5 h5 29 f6! gxf6 30 c7 xc7 31 xf6+ h7 32 f5+ g7 33 e4!+- Levy in CHESS 605-6. 25 h3! xh3 25...xd2 also loses in the end according to the winners notes in Europe-Echecs; see the database for details. Also if 25...xf4 26 xf4 xh3 27 d6+ mating; or 25...xh3 26 xh3 xh3 27 c4+threats xd6, xa6. 26 f3! After the exchange of queens, Whites pawn armada renders the opposite colour bishops only a minor obstacle to victory. 26...xf1 26...g6 27 xe2 xg3+ 28 h1 xf4 29 f1! h4 30 h2. 27 xh5+- xd2 28 xf1
33
The Total Marshall
xb2 28...e7 29 xa6 c7 30 a7 d6 31 f3. 29 xa6 g6 30 e2 b8 31 a5! h5 32 d5 h4 33 d8+ e7 34 d7+ e8 35 gxh4 xf4 36 g7 10 White threatened c7 and if 36...d8 37 xg6. Game 21 Robert J. Fischer (USA) Boris Spassky Santa Monica, 1966 This game appeared in Informator 2, game 282. Although drawn, any game between these two great champions is relevant, of course. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 g3 Fischer rewrites theory. His plan is to prevent...h4-h3 but it doesnt really as Black could have played...d7-h3 instead. Black has other plans available, e.g. 12...f6 as in Braga-Geller. 12...f6 12...e8!? (Ivkov) but there have been no takers for this suggestion. 13 d4 d6 SInce Black intended to play this, why did he not do it last move? 13...c5!? (Spassky) also has not been taken up. 14 e1 g4 14...c7 15 g5 d5 16 e3 f5 17 f4 h8= Junge-Brookings, Teesside 1973. 14...d7 15 g5 Blatny.
b) 15...f5 16 g5 c5 with compensation for Black (Ftacnik and Blatny); 16 e3 was suggested way back in Informator 2. c) 15...h3 16 g5 c7 might be considered (Yudovich-Zapletal, 7th Corr World Ch 1972). 15...c5! 16 dxc5 Fischer said afterwards that he missed a chance to establish some advantage with 16 c2! but opinions differ about this: a) 16...c4 17 f1 d7 18 f3 h3 19 f2 Nunn. b) 16...e8 17 e3 cxd4 18 cxd4 c8 Ftacnik and Blatny. 16...xc5 17 xd8 axd8 18 f4 18 g5 fe8 19 d2 xe1+ 20 xe1 h6 21 xf6 xd2= Nunn. 18...h6 19 a3 g5 20 e3 20 e5 d2 and not 21 xf6? xf2+ Spassky. 20...xe3 21 xe3 d2= 22 c2 22 c4 b8 (22...e2? 23 e1 e8 24 xe8+ xe8 25 cxb5 axb5 26 b1 xb2 27 c3+-) 23 cxb5 axb5 24 e7 h5 Ftacnik & Blatny. 22...e8 23 xe8+ xe8 24 e3 f3 25 c2 d6 26 b3 f8 26...e4 27 xe4 xe4 28 a4 Ftacnik/Blatny. 27 a4 e4 28 xe4 28 axb5 xf2 29 f5 g4! Spassky. 28...xe4 29 axb5 axb5 30 b4 b2 31 g4 g7 32 f1 f6 33 a5 b1+ 34 e2 b2+ 35 f1 Game 22 G. Mueller (East Germany) X. Racoce (Romania) EU/H/314 corr ICCF, 1972 Notes by Tim Harding. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 e6 18 xd5 This exchange is supposed to be inaccurate but it is not always so easy to prove that and in practice White has often captured the knight. 18...cxd5 This is the central position of the xd5 lines (other than Kevitz variation) because it can arise from White making the central piece exchange at many junctures from moves 1218 (or even at move 19 after 18 a4 f5/...bxa4).
19 a4 White can also play 19 f1 h5 20 g2 but it is hard to challenge Black without the a4 advance. 19...f5 This has been the main move in the past, but since the latest theory shows that Black barely scrapes a draw, he should prefer 19...bxa4, while 19...b4!? (favoured by some Dutch correspondence players) also comes into consideration. 20 f1 Forced. 20 f4? fe8 21 axb5 xf4! 22 gxf4 h6 23 f1 f3 24 d2 g6+ 25 g3 xg3+ 26 hxg3 h1+ and White is mated (Nunn). 20...h5
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9p+-vlr+-+0 9+p+p+p+q0 9P+-zP-+l+0 9+-zP-vL-zP-0 9-zP-sN-zP-zP0 9tR-+-tRQmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
20...bxa4 has hardly ever been played but is worth attention. 21 f4
Chess Mail is looking for games!

Have you played a publishable email, postal or web server CC game recently? We are looking for contributions at any time from readers of all playing strengths, including text notes and variations to explain your thoughts. We prefer to receive games in PGN or ChessBase format, by email or on disk. We also seek special contributions from readers for our annual Gambit Issue (fifth issue each year) which is always popular. Submissions for this issue should reach us by the end of May but preferably sooner. Marshall games played over the board are always welcome too!
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+pvl-sn-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-+l+0 9+LzP-+-zP-0 9PzP-+-zP-zP0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
15 d3!? 15 f3 also comes into consideration. Then: a) 15...h5 16 d2 c5! 17 e4 xe4 18 xe4 c4 19 c2 f5 20 e1 f4 21 g4 xg4! 22 fxg4 f3 threat 23...h4 V.Mikenas. Or White can try 16 e3 when Mikenas suggested 16...d7 rather than 16...e4 17 d2 xd2 18 xd2 f6 19 g2 ae8 20 xe8 xe8 21 f1 c5 22 f2 VukcevicMorozov, corr 1975.
The Total Marshall
34
21 axb5 was dismissed as a draw for many years until Whites play was improved in the 1990s. Now it is the critical line: 21...f4 (21...h3!? is interesting but possibly not good enough) 22 xf4 xf4! (22...h3 was once supposed to be a drawing line, but its refuted by 23 xe6! xf1 24 xd6 xb5 25 xf8 xf8 26 c1! Kwolek-Nowicki, corr 1990) 23 xe6 xe6 24 gxf4 and Black may be OK here, but it needs more analysis and tests. 21...bxa4 Now we get a variation of the main line 17 d2 e6 18 f1 h5 19 a4 f5 in which White normally does not play xd5 as early as this. 22 g2 22 xa4? e8 is a well-known trap into which White has nevertheless fallen a few times; Black forks the a4- and e3- in an unusual way. 22...e4!?
33 a7 f6 34 f7 c4 35 xf6 gxf6 36 f1 g7 37 a1 c7 38 f2 d3 39 e1 xc3 40 d2 b3 41 c1 b1 42 c7+ h6 43 c1 d1 44 f5+ xc1 01 S.Durnik,SJ.Struhar, Kubin Open 1978. c) 24...g5 25 xa6 (25 fxg5 f3 26 d2 xg3 27 f1 xh2+ 28 xh2 g4+ 29 f2 g2+ 10 R.StroherE.Poscher, corr 1989) 25...gxf4 (25...f3 26 f2 xf4 27 a5 f5 28 c4 White won in GosnchiorKling, corr 1987) 26 xd6 fxe3 was played in Lang-van der Zwan, corr 1981, transposing to the note to Whites 26th move below. 23...g5! 23...h3?! is inferior e.g. 24 f2 Kovacevic-Rapoports (or24 e2 g4 25 f2 Hoyos MillanHernandez). 24 xa6 gxf4
g1 xg1+ 34 xg1 g4+ 35 f1 d1+ 36 g2 g4+ 37 f1 Jiu Shihan-Levitina,Tbilisi 1982. a32) 26...f3 27 xd6 (27 f2 xf4 28 gxf4 xf4 29 e3 g5+ 30 f1 g2+ 31 e1 xf2 32 xf2 f4+ 01 H.Jongman-Roloff, corr 1986) 27...xg2 28 xf8 f3 29 d6 h3 30 f2 xh2+ 01 Bobic-Belis, corr 1982. b) After 25 xd6 fxe3 26 xe4 fxe4 (This variation was mentioned in the earliest analysis of this game by Vasilescu, in the Romanian magazine Revista de Sah 3/1973.) 27 xe3 h3 (27...f5? 28 h4! Romanchuk-Belokopyt, 1978) 28 g4 h4 29 xh3 f2+ 30 h1 a8 31 d8+ xd8 (see analysis diagram)
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9p+-vl-+-+0 9+-+p+p+q0 9p+-zPrzPl+0 9+-zP-vL-zP-0 9-zP-sN-+QzP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This exchange sacrifice is more thematic in the Pawn Push lines. Blacks light-squared bishop becomes very strong if the offer is accepted. 22...fe8 23 xd5 h8 is the main line now, e.g. 24 f2 xe1+ (24...e2!? is unclear) 25 xe1 xe1+ 26 xe1 e8 27 f2 h6 28 xd6 e2 and although Black is a piece down, his queen is very powerful. White cannot avoid a draw and has even lost sometimes. 23 xa4 23 h4 e8 is an alternative, e.g. Borell-Grainys in the database. This possibility has not been explored much. 23 xe4 fxe4 24 xa4: a) 24...f3 25 f2 g5 26 xa6 xf4 27 xf4 gxf4 28 ea1 e3 29 e1 e2 30 h6 xh6 31 xe2 f3 01 Knebel-F.Rosselli, corr 1968. b) 24...f6 25 xa6 f3 26 f2 e8 27 b4 c8 28 a3 h5 29 h4 g6 30 h2 e7 31 g1 h7 32 e1 g4
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9R+-vl-+-+0 9+-+p+p+q0 9-+-zPrzpl+0 9+-zP-vL-zP-0 9-zP-sN-+QzP0 9+-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
25 gxf4!? Nunn, in our 1989 book, remarked: that this move is optimistically assessed as clearly better for White by ECO. I think that in the light of present day theory, his remark has become misleading. On the other hand, computers think White is winning now, whereas lots of games have shown that a draw is really all White can hope for if he captures on d6 and/or e4. There are two other lines: a) 25 xe4 fxe4 (25...dxe4? 26 xd6 fxe3 27 xe3 f3 28 g4! fxg4 29 g3 g5 30 e1+- MatsukevichSamchuk, corr simul 1983) and now: a1) 26 xd6 fxe3 see line b below. a2) 26 gxf4 h8 27 xd6 g8 28 d8 xd8 29 f2 h3 30 h1 g8 31 g1 g2 32 xg2 xg2+ 33 xg2 f3+ 34 g1 xe3+ 35 f2 g7 36 f5 f6 37 f1 h3+ 38 e1 d3 39 e2 e3 01 Z.SiklosiPletsch, St.Ingbert op 1987. a3) 26 xf4 and now: a31) 26...xf4 27 gxf4 h8 28 ea1 g8 29 a8 c8 30 xc8 xc8 31 h1 g8 32 f2 f5 33
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-tr-+k+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+-zPp+P+0 9+-zP-tR-+Q0 9-zP-+-wq-zP0 9+-+-+-+K0 xiiiiiiiiy
All forced until here. Experience in our database shows that Black has sufficient play for the two pawns and a draw almost always results. Sometimes White loses if he tries too hard to win: b1) 32 g3 xb2 33 e1 ( Matsukevich-Nasybullin, corr simul 1983) 33...f8 34 e5 b7. b2) 32 g3 may be good: 32...xb2 33 h4 e8 (better 33...b6) 34 g5+ h8 35 xd5 a1+ 36 g2 b2+ 37 h3 and White may win. b3) 32 g5 a8 (32...f7!? can be tried if Black really wants to avoid the draw; see Krause-T.Mueller.) 33 e6+ g7 and now White can give perpetual check at once (34 e5+ g6 35 e6+ g7 Tarantino-Versili, corr 1989) or play 34 f6+ xf6 35 gxf6+ xf6 36 g2 (36 e2? g5 Lang-van der Zwan) 36...f5 led to a draw in Alberti-Morjan, corr 1991. 25...f6 26 xe4 fxe4 27 f2 The real question now is: does Black have enough for a draw or not? However the sequel shows Black can win if White loses the plot... 27...g6
35
The Total Marshall
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+k+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9R+-vl-+r+0 9+-+p+-+q0 9-+-zPpzPl+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9-zP-+-vLQzP0 9+-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
28 g3!? White could, and perhaps should, have returned the exchange here. However, computers continue to prefer White strongly.If 28 xd6! (Else 28...f3) 28... xd6 and now 29 f5!? comes into consideration. For if 29 g3 f3 30 f1 g6 31 f2 is not at all clear, Blacks strong pressure compensating for the two pawns (Nunn). Instead 29 h3 xh3 30 xh3 xh3 may be a drawn ending. 28...f3 29 f2 g4!? Black bravely continues to play for a win. 29...xf4 regains one pawn but reduces the pressure: 30 xg6+ xg6 . Nevertheless White does not have a clear advantage yet: 31 b3 h5 32 f1 (32 a1 h4) 32...a6+ 33 c4 h6 and winning is still problematic for White. 30 e3 Instead White could have tried 30 f5!? (favoured by computers) but the endgame after 30... f6 (30...xf5?? 31 xd6) 31 ea1 h5 32 h3 xh3 33 h2 xh2+ 34 xh2 xg3+ 35 xg3 xf5 is not a clear win for White: 36 b4 e2. 30...h5! Black wants to exploit the pin on the g-file rather than regain the pawn on f4 which is a possible but by no means certain draw after 30...xf4 31 xg6+ hxg6. 31 xf3 White decides to eliminate the annoying bishop. 31 f5! looks as if White should draw at least: 31...f6 32 f1 e7 33 xf6 xf6 and White now has various possibilities to make Black struggle for a half point, viz. 34 b4!?, 34 e5 or 34 b3. Instead 31 f1? does not prevent 31...h4 because after 32 xh4 h3+ 33 e1 g2 White loses material: 34 xd6 xf2 35 xf2 g2 gives Black winning chances. 31...exf3 32 f5 After this White loses by force.
32 h1 might seem logical but White still has problems because of his bad bishop and now Blacks rook may be able to use the e-file. 32...e6 33 g1 h7. 32...h4! 33 fxg6 hxg3 34 hxg3 xg3
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+k+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9R+-+-+P+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+-zP-+q+0 9+-zP-+pvl-0 9-zP-+-wQ-+0 9+-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
35 f1? This gets mated. White could have tried for perpetual check here, though it fails to correct play. Thus: 35 a8+ g7 36 a7+ but Black wins with 36...h6! 37 h7+ g5 38 f1! (38 c2 f2+! 39 xf2 g2+ 40 e3 xc2 41 xf3 xb2) 38...f2+ 39 g2 h4+ 40 h2 f4+ 41 h1 e4+ 42 h2 (42 g2+? g3! threatening...f1Q+) 42...f3 43 g2+ g3+ 44 xg3+ xg3+ 45 xg3 f1 and White cannot achieve a fortress because his King is too far from the pawns. 35...f2+?! Inefficient. Black could have mated in four by 35...f4+! 36 h1 h4+ etc. 36 g2 h4+ 01. Black mates by 37 h1 f3+ 38 h2 g3+ 39 h3 f4+ 40 h4 g3+ 41 h5 g5#. Game 23 Melnikov A.Lukyanchenko Central Chess Club Corr Ch quarter-final, USSR 1975-76 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 e4 10 dxc6 exf3 11 d4 fxg2 12 f3 a5!?
We saw that 12...e8 failed in Vasiukov-Tolush. 12...a5 is probably Blacks best try. This idea to revive the Herman Steiner Variation was analysed by Tim Harding and George Botterill back in 1971. Instead of trying to play only on the kingside, Black creates complications on a wider front by threatening to drive back the b3-. 13 a3 13 g5 g4 (13...a4 14 c2 e6 15 d3) 14 xg2 f5 15 d2 a4 16 d1 d5 Botterill & Harding. 13 a4 bxa4! 14 xa4 is another possibility, when 14...d6!? comes into consideration but Blacks best may be 14...e8 15 e3 g4 16 xg2 c8! Markidis-Skembris, Greece ch 1998. 13 xg2 e8 14 g5 (14 f4 a4 15 c2 e6 16 e5!? Blatny) 14...a4 15 d1 e6 16 d2 b4! 17 a3 bxc3 18 bxc3 d5 Barbulescu-Sofronie, Romania 1993. 13...e6! 14 xe6 fxe6 15 xe6 d5 16 e4N After 16 xg2 h4, compared with the analogous 13 a4 line, Black stands better as his queenside is not ruptured and White does not have such an easy development of his a1- and . Then 17 f3 f6 18 e4 xc6 19 d2 e3! Lukyanchenko, in Shakmaty Riga 17/1977. 16...h4 17 f4 17 f3 g5. 17...f2+!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+-zp-+-zpp0 9-+P+R+-+0 9zpp+n+-+-0 9-+-zPQzP-+0 9zP-zP-+-+-0 9-zP-+-vlpzP0 9tRNvL-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This sacrifice works because White accepts it but it may not be the best move. 18 xf2? 18 xg2 is obviously better and it is not clear how Black continues, since 18...h4?? does not work when it is not check; White would simply answer 19 xd5. 18...h4+ 19 g1 19 xg2 xf4+ 20 xf4 xf4 21 e8+ xe8 22 xe8+ f8 23 e6+ h8 24 e2 g5+ 25 h1 c1+ 26
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-zp-vlpzpp0 9-+P+-sn-+0 9zpp+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+LzP-+Q+-0 9PzP-+-zPpzP0 9tRNvL-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
The Total Marshall
36
g2 h6! Lukyanchenko. 19...xf4 20 xf4 xf4 21 e8+ xe8 22 xe8+ f8 23 e2 23 e6+ h8. 23...f1+ 24 xg2 e1! 25 f3 g5+ 26 g3 d5+ 27 f2 27 h3 f5+; 27 f3 g1+. 27...e4 28 f3 f1+ 01 Game 24 Mikhail Tal Efim Geller 43rd USSR ch, Yerevan 1975 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 e6 18 a4 f5 19 f1 h5 20 f4 bxa4 21 xa4 g5 The old main line, now more or less refuted - Nunn, 1989. NB: We use the term Old Main Line to describe the whole complex of variations arising from 21 xa4. 22 xa6 gxf4 23 xf4 Tal found the right move back in 1975 but not the follow-up which took another decade to emerge. Part of the reason was no doubt the eminence of the players in this game which deterred searches for improvements? 23 xc6 had been given by Tal in ECO followed by a flawed variation: 23...fxe3! 24 xd5 exd2 (This was later shown to be an error; 24...h8 seems satisfactory for Black.) 25 xe6 h8 26 exd6? (26 b3!) 26...d1 Pachman. Geller probably found some or all of this but Tal got his improvement in first. 23...xf4
24 xc6?! 24 xe6! xd2 25 xd5! (25 axc6 f4 Yudovich, INF 20/322; 25 e5!?) 25...cxd5 26 g2 and we agree with Nunn, 1989, that: There are no visible improvements... so this must be considered the refutation of 21...g5. Hauptmann-Sieberg, corr 1989, continued: 26...f4 (26...f3 27 xd2 e4 28 h6 f3 29 g5+ +-; 26...g5 27 xd5+-) 27 xd2 fxg3 (27...xe6 also loses; see examples in the database.) 28 f6! e8 (28...xf6 29 xf6 gxh2+ 30 xh2 g5 31 b8+ mates) 29 hxg3 e2 30 h6 e1+ 31 f1 xf1+ 32 xf1 f5+ 33 f4 d3+ 34 g1 xa6 35 xg4+ f7 36 h5+ f8 37 f2 10. Four subsequent games in the database confirmed this line wins for White. 24...e3+ 25 xe3 xe3 26 xd5+ h8 Threatening ...f4. 27 f4 e1+ 28 f1 h3 29 c4 29 g2 xg2 30 xg2 e2+ (30...fe8 Yudovich) 31 h1 h3 32 f3 xb2 Wade. 29...d1 29...fe8 30 h6 Yudovich. 30 d5! 30 h6 xf1 31 xf1 fe8 32 f6 xf1+ 33 xf1 e1 34 xf5 should also be a draw - Nunn, 1989. 30 f2 fe8 threat...xf1+ Yudovich. 30...xf1 31 xf1 xd5 . Game 25 F. Riszt B. Kti Hungary corr 1982-84 This game is often seen with the names reversed but according to the eminent Hungarian chess historian Ivan Bottlk, Riszt was White and Kti was Black. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 f5 17 f4 g5 18 f1 h5 19 d2 h8 For an attempt to improve this attacking line with 19...h6, see Game 49. 20 xd5 cxd5 21 fxg5 Nunn said in 1989 that if his analysis of the 28...f2 possibility below holds up (leading to a draw), then White should play 21 a4 followed by either (...bxa4) xa4 or fxg5. 21...f4 22 xf4 xf4 23 gxf4
f8 24 e5! xe5 25 dxe5 h6!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-tr-mk0 9+-+-+-+-0 9p+-+-+-zp0 9+p+pzP-zPq0 9-+-+-zPl+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9PzP-sN-+-zP0 9tR-+-+QmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
The theoretical basis for this variation was examined in two articles in Fernschach: by O.M.Ermakov (March 1967) and Raimo Lindroos (Sept 1971). These articles were employed by Tim Harding in preparing his 1970s monographs on the Marshall. 26 e1! The game shows that this is best. a) 26 gxh6 g8 27 f2!? xh2+ (Bottlk gives only 27...h3 28 d3 g2+ 29 e3 g4 30 h1 e2+ 31 d4 f5 32 g3 xd2+ 33 c5 xh6 34 g1 h7 35 b6! c8! 36 g6! b7+ 37 c5 a7+= R. Kas-B.Hund, Buenos Aires womens olympiad 1978) 28 e3 g3+!+ (not 28...h3 29 f3 g3 30 e2 and White went on to win in Hansel-Lehmann, corr 1980) 29 f3 (29 d4 f8) 29...f8 Nunn. b) 26 d3 hxg5 27 xd5 (27 f1 gxf4 28 d4 h3! 29 f3 h4 30 e6+ h7 31 f1 g4+ 32 g3 fxg3 33 xg4 xf1# Wikman-Lindroos, corr 1969) 27...gxf4 28 d6 g8 29 f6+ g7 30 h4 d1+ 31 h1 g4 32 d8+ g8 33 f6+ h7 34 f7+ g7 0-1 Roselli-Lindroos, corr 1971. c) 26 e6 hxg5 27 e7 xf4 28 e1 e2! Ermakov. d) 26 a4 hxg5 27 axb5 e2 28 f2 xf4 29 e3 xb5 30 e6 d4 the move given for Black by Nunn though he just says it is unclear according to Lindroos (30...g8? 31 e7 d4 32 e6+ f7 33 xa6 xe6 34 xe6 dxc3 35 bxc3 e8 36 e3 Salonen-Lindroos, corr 1971; 30...c6). d) 26 g2 hxg5 27 f5!? xf5 28 e1= h3 29 xd5 g4+ 30 h1 f2 31 g1 e2 32 d8+ h7 33 e7+ h8= Dr.Fldi. 26...hxg5 27 f5!? 27 e6 xf4 28 g2 xe6! 29 xe6? d1+ (29...g4? 30 h6+) 30 f1 g4 Bottlk in Fernschach 3/1984 p.69.
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9R+p+r+-+0 9+-+n+p+q0 9-+-zP-vll+0 9+LzP-+-zP-0 9-zP-sN-+-zP0 9+-+-tRQmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
64 Great Chess Games

We expect this important book by Tim Harding to be out in June 2002.
37
The Total Marshall
27...xf5!? This was an early Harding suggestion (without analysis). Not 27...h3 28 e2 g4 29 d3 h3 30 f6! Lundblad-Lindroos, corr 1974. 28 d3
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-mk0 9+-+-+-+-0 9p+-+-+-+0 9+p+pzPrzpq0 9-+-+-+l+0 9+-zPQ+-+-0 9PzP-sN-+-zP0 9+-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This is a critical moment as the d5-pawn is attacked and the white passed pawn can become dangerous. 28...h3?! Black does not find the way to expand the dynamism in his position. Bottlk noted the possibility 28...f2! and in fact this is the correct continuation. White cannot play 29 xf2?? xh2+ so there are two lines to consider: a) After the reply which he gave, 29 f1, Black can keep the initiative with 29...xb2 e.g.: a1) 30 e6 f3 31 d4+ g8 32 d2 h3 33 f2 analysis by Leander. Nunn, 1989, continued 33...g4+ 34 f1 g2+ 35 xg2 xg2+ 36 xg2 xd2+ and 37...f8 when only Black has winning chances; a2) 30 d2 h3 31 d4 xd2 32 xd2 g4+ 33 f2 g2+ 34 e3 e4+ drawing by perpetual check Leander. a3) 30 xd5 f3 31 d8+ g7! (not 31...h7 32 d7+ h8 33 d2 g4 34 d8+ h7 35 e3! Klatt-Leisebein, corr 1986) 32 d7+ f7 33 xf7+ xf7 with a drawn ending (Nunn). b) 29 h3 when: b1) 29...h4 30 f1 f5 31 e3 xf1+ 32 xf1 xh3 33 e6 g4+ is a safe draw (A.Sokolov-Ehlvest, Rotterdam 1989). b2) 29...f4!? 30 e6 (30 hxg4? xg4+ 31 h1 f2+) 30...xh3 threatens 31...g4+ (Nunn). 29 e6 29 xd5? h4 30 e4 f4 Nunn. 29...f4 30 e2! h4! Alternatives given by Bottlk: a) 30...g4+ 31 h1 g2+ (31...e8 32 e7 d4 33 f3+- Nunn) 32 xg2!
xg2 33 xg2 e8 34 e7+-; b) 30...g4 31 e3 f5 32 e7 e4 33 xe4 xe4 (33...dxe4 34 f1) 34 d4+! xd4 (34...h7 35 xe4) 35 e8+ +-. 31 h1 31 e5+? h7 32 e2 g4+ 33 h1 f1+ +. 31...f2 32 e5+ h7 33 e7! d7!
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+lzP-+k0 9p+-+-+-+0 9+p+pwQ-zp-0 9-+-+-+-wq0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9PzP-sN-tr-zP0 9+-+-tR-+K0 xiiiiiiiiy
33...xd2 34 h8+!! (34 e8? g2+ 35 g1 f2#) 34...xh8 35 e8+ g7 36 e7+ +-. 34 f3!!+White threatens xg5+ and forces a favourable liquidation. 34...xf3 35 e8 xe8 36 xe8 Material is now level but the black king is more exposed and his pawns are weak. So White is winning. 36...f6 37 e7+ h6 38 h8+ g6 39 g7+ f5 40 e2! g4 40...h6 41 d7+ g6 (41...f4 42 xd5) 42 e8+ f5 43 f2+ g4 44 e2+ h4 45 g2 f4 46 h3+- Bottlk. 41 g8 d6 41...g3 42 xd5+ g4 43 e4+ f4 44 xf4+ xf4 45 d4+ g5 46 xh4+ xh4 47 g2! gxh2 48 xh2+- Bottlk. 42 f7+ f6 43 xd5+ g6 44 g8+ f5 45 g7 f4 45...h6 46 d7+ f4 47 f7+ g5 (47...f6 48 xf6+) 48 e5# Bottlk. 46 xf6+ xf6 47 f2+ g5 48 xf6 xf6 49 g2 f5 50 g3 a5 51 b3 e4 52 xg4 d3 53 c4 bxc4 54 bxc4 xc4 55 h4 a4 56 h5 a3 57 h6 c3 58 h7 b2 59 h8+ xa2 60 c3 b1 61 xa3 10 Game 26 Readers of Prisyv Yakov Borisovich Estrin USSR, corr 1982 Estrin, the 7 th Correspondence Chess World Champion, played a two-game match with the readers
of Prisyv (German spelling: Prisyw), a newspaper for the township and district of Vladimir in Russia. Estrins notes appeared in Fernschach 4/ 51983 pp.104-5. The exact date of the match is unknown but this was probably Estrins last game in the Marshall. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 e1 d6 13 d4 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 e6 18 a4 h5 19 axb5 axb5 20 xd5 After 20 c4 Estrin intended 20...xe3 (for other possibilities see part 1 of the Spassky Variation survey by Vitomskis) 21 xe3 e2! 22 c2 h6 23 h4 f4! but this is not completely clear. 20...xd5 21 f1? Estrin wrote: The exchange on d5 and following queen manoeuvre is not justifiable. Thus White condemns himself to a wearisome and chanceless defensive strategy. After the text move, Blacks attack continues unimpeded. Instead, White should, instead of dismissing his proud Spanish bishop, continue 21 c4! bxc4 22 xc4 and thereby obtain chances of an advantage. However, several subsequent games have shown that Black has sufficient chances with 22...h5. 21...fe8 22 g2 h5
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9-+pvlr+-+0 9+p+-+-+q0 9-+-zP-+l+0 9+-zP-vL-zP-0 9-zP-sN-zPQzP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
23 a6 White has tried many moves here but it is doubtful whether any really can challenge Nunns assessment if Black replies properly. 23 c4 was played in BarconsBigorra Nosas: a bad game where the notes show Black missed several opportunities to get at least an equal game, e.g. with 23...b4!?. 23 h1?! f5 24 ec1 f4 25 gxf4 g6 26 xc6 (Mauro-Canovese) 26...f8!!+. 23 f3 might need more attention.
The Total Marshall
38
Black should be OK but as yet there is no convincing game for Black to follow: 23...h3 24 f2 f5 (24...g5?! Schlage-Adam) 25 f4 (25 f1 Drygalski-Ziese; 25 d5!? cxd5 Dauga-Kristoffel) 25...g4 (25...h6 Crafty v Rebel computer game; 25...g5!? immediately seems possible too.) 26 a6 BorowiecKremer (26 d5 Lee-Pe Ang; 26 b3!?). Other moves that have been tried are 23 b3 f3 (RheinheimerHoybak) and 23 f1 f5 (KrabbeZiese). 23...f5 24 d5
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9R+pvlr+-+0 9+p+P+p+q0 9-+-+-+l+0 9+-zP-vL-zP-0 9-zP-sN-zPQzP0 9+-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
The only move, as it frees the square d4 for the white . Estrin said that 24 xc6 would be met by 24...f4 25 gxf4 g6 whereupon the White position is critical. That may be true but 25...h3 is also promising for Black. 24 ea1 has also been seen: 24...f4 25 gxf4 h3 26 f3 (26 xc6 g6+ 27 h1 f8 28 f3 g4 29 g2 e6) 26...g6+ 27 h1 xf3+ 28 xf3 g2+ 29 g1 xf3+ 30 f1 g2 31 a8 xh2 01 Zang-Kaiser, corr 1984. 24...h6! Estrin wrote that Black also finds the only correct move to give him possibilities of continuing the attack: the e3- is pinned and the threat...f4 is very unpleasant. 24...g6 is suggested by some computer programs but it does not even prevent the reply 25 f4 on account of 25...xf4 26 f2. 24...h3 comes into consideration, however: 25 f3 g4 26 g2 and now 26...h6 with the on a different square, or 26...h3 repeating moves. 25 f3?! It is surprising, especially in view of his previous comment, that Estrin does not say what he intended against the superior move 25 f4. Maybe he was keeping this secret for a future game that was never
played. At any rate, it is not hard to see that Black has good compensation for the pawn but not easy to see a way to develop this into a significant advantage. For analysis of this move, see below, the game Olafsson v Harding. 25 xc6 is the other possible improvement, but Black is better after 25...f4 26 gxf4 g6 27 xd6 xd6 28 f1 f3 29 g3 xd5. 25...h3 26 f2 26 e2 f4 27 e4 fxe3 28 dxc6 f5 is also very bad for White. 26...f4 27 d4 xe1+ 28 xe1 c8 With a double threat to the a6- and h2-pawn. 29 a8 xh2+ 30 f1 h3+ 31 e2 cxd5 The white pawn is captured at last. 32 d1 d7 33 g4 b4! 34 a7 34 b3 also lost in the end, in the game van Willigen-Ziese: 34...e6 35 d2 c6 36 a7 c4 37 xg7+ f8 38 c1 f1+ 39 c2 xf3 40 xh7 e4+ 41 d3 a6 42 xe4 dxe4 43 a7 e7 44 b3 d3+ 45 d2 c4 46 c5 e3+ 47 c2 b3+ 48 xb3 h6 49 xe3 xb3+ 01. 34...b7 35 c4 This loses rapidly, but what can be recommended instead? 35...dxc4 36 xc4 c5 01 Game 27 Fernando Braga (Argentina) Efim Geller Amsterdam OHRA II 1986 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 g3 f6 13 e1 c5 A different plan from FischerSpassky. 14 d4 14 d3 is best met by 14...b4!. 14...b7N 14...cxd4 15 cxd4 b7 16 c3 xc3 17 bxc3 d7 18 e3 fe8 draw (Matanovic-Geller, Sousse izt 1967) . Afterwards it was suggested that White could have got an edge with 18 b2 instead, so Geller comes up with a new idea two decades later. Maybe he had prepared it years earlier. 15 dxc5 15 a4 doesnt help development so Nunn thought it would be risky. 15...e8 16 d2 xc3! 17 bxc3 xc3
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqr+k+0 9+l+-+pzpp0 9p+-+-+-+0 9+pzP-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+Lvl-+-zP-0 9P+-sN-zP-zP0 9tR-vLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
18 c6!? 18 b1 d7 gives Black more than enough compensation for the piece according to Nunn, but this remains to be proved. 19 xe8+ xe8 20 f1 is critical; see van AsperenMcCorry in the database; if instead 20 f3 c6 21 e3 xf3 22 xf3 xf3 Nunn. 18 xe8+ xe8 19 b1 d8 20 b2 (20 c2 c6 21 f3 xd2 22 xd2 xf3 23 f4 e8) 20...xb2 21 xb2 c6 22 f3 xc5+ 23 g2 e3 24 c1 c3 25 e1 g5 26 g4 (26 e7? xd2+ 27 xd2 xf3++) 26...f8 idea...a5-a4 or ...b4 and ...c8 (Nunn). 18...xc6 19 xe8+ xe8 20 b1 d8 21 c2 a) 21 b2 a5! 22 c2 e4 23 f3 d4+ 24 g2 a4 25 xc3 xc3 26 c2 (26 c2 b4+) 26...xf3+ 27 xf3 xc2+. b) 21 h5 g6 22 g5 e1+ 23 f1 e4 24 xd8+ g7 25 f3 xf3 26 e3 h1+ 27 f2 e1#. I am unsure if these lines originated with Nunn or Geller himself. 21...xd2 21...e1+? 22 f1 e4 23 g5. 22 xd2 e4 23 xf7+ 23 e1 xc2 24 xe8+ xe8 25 xc2 e2+. 23...xf7 24 b3+ d5! 24...e6 25 e1=. 25 b4 e4 Better is 25...xa2 Braga. 26 xe4 xe4 27 b2 d4!
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+kzpp0 9p+-+-+-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-trl+-+0 9+-+-+-zP-0 9PtR-vL-zP-zP0 9+-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
White suffers from a weak a-pawn so even with opposite coloured
39
The Total Marshall
bishops, GM Geller eventually manages to win against his 2470rated opponent. Probably a GM could have held the position with White. 28 h3 d5 29 c2 a4 30 c7+ e6 31 g4 xa2 32 e3 b4 33 d4 g5 34 xh7 d2 35 h8 d1+ 36 h2 h1+ 37 g3 g1+ 38 h2 g2+ 39 h1 xg4+ 40 h2 h4 41 xh4 gxh4 42 f4 a5 01 Game 28 Pertti Lehikoinen (Finland) Henk Sarink (Netherlands) Dr J. Bannet Memorial corr, 1986 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 xd5 cxd5 16 f3 f5 17 xd5 ae8 18 d2 f4 19 xe8 For alternatives see SakhalkarBarczay, above, and the notes to that game. 19...xe8 20 c6 d7 20...f8? has been suggested but it lost in Lehikoinen-Szewczyk, from the same event. 21 g2 21 xa6? h5. After 21 f3 (Popescu) both 21...g5 and 21...h6 were tried without success in two Femmel-v.dKooij games. So I suggest 21...g5!?. White has to work out how to escape the bind e.g. 22 g2 (22 a4 bxa4) 22...f5 or 22...e2 may give Black some advantage but this all needs more tests. 21...h5 22 f3 Nunn, 1989, wrote: This position is assessed as clearly better for White in ECO 2nd edition, but according to my analysis Black has good chances. Actually it seems to be a forced draw after Whites 23rd. 22...c6!
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+l+-+-+0 9+p+-+-+q0 9-+-zP-vl-+0 9+-zP-+PzP-0 9PzP-vL-+QzP0 9tRN+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
23 g4 23 gxf4 e6! (23...xf3 24 g3 e2 25 f5 h6 26 a4 xf5 Popescu, CC Yearbook 5/362) 24 f2 (24 f5 xf5 doesnt help - Nunn) 24...g6 25 h1 h4+ with a tremendous attack e.g.: a) 26 e3 e6+ 27 d3 f2; b) 26 e2 h3 (or 26...g3!?); c) 26 f1 g3 Nunn. If instead 23 xf4 xf3 and Black wins after 24 f1 (or 24 g4 e1+ 25 f2 e2+ 26 xf3 d5+ 27 xe2 xg2+) 24...e2 25 h3 (or 25 h4 g2+ 26 xg2 xg2 27 xg2 e2+ 28 h3 xb2+ Popescu) 25...g2+ 26 xg2 xg2 27 xg2 e2+ Nunn. Finally, if 23 f2 xf3! 24 xf3 xh2+ 25 f1 xd2 Nunn. 23...g5!? Black tries for a win but this seems risky. There is an alternative but I think it only draws against correct defence. 23...h4 is very bad for White said Nunn but he didnt say what to do against 24 f2 when it seems White can hang on: a) 24...xh2+ 25 xh2 e1+ 26 xe1 xe1+ 27 g2 e2+ draws (A.Skuja-M.Svagers, Latvia corr 1998). b) 24...g5 is also equal: 25 xg5 e1+ 26 g2 xg4+ 27 g3 xf3+ 28 f2 e2+ 29 f1 e1+! 30 xe1 (30 f2 e2+ repetition; 30 xe1?? g2#) 30...e4+ 31 f2 (31 f1 is the same) 31...e2+ 32 g1 d1+ with perpetual check. 24 xf4 xf4 25 d2 h5 26 gxh5 b4! 27 h1 27 cxb4 xd4+ 28 h1 xb2 29 g1 d8 30 e4 xe4! 31 fxe4 d2 32 g3 d4 Popescu. 27...bxc3 28 bxc3 e3 29 g1 f6 Here Popescu blindly suggested 29...xf3, overlooking 30 xg7#. 30 f1 xc3 31 e4 xe4 32 fxe4 xd4 33 h6 g6 34 e5 Maybe 34 g4!?; if 34 h7+ h8 (34...xh7? 35 xf7+). 34...d7 Not 34...xe5? 35 a8+ h7 36 xf7+ xh6 37 f8+ g5 38 d8+ g4 39 d1+ Popescu. I think 34...c4 followed by ...c1 comes into consideration if Black wants to try a squeeze in a queen ending. 35 a8+ c8 36 f3 e6 37 h7+ g7 38 f6+ xf6 39 xf6 e8 40 g2 xe5 41 xf7+ h8 42 f6
Game 29 P. Mithrakanth (India) Efim Geller New Delhi, 1987 Notes by Tim Harding. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e2 This is an important variation where Black would dearly love a forcing attacking continuation but may have to be satisfied with normal Marshall positional compensation as Vitomskis puts it. 13...h4 14 g3 h5 For 14...h3 see Sax-Nunn, below. 15 d2 h3 16 f3 ae8!? 16...c7 is more usual but maybe there is a problem with it? EhlvestGeller (see the database) turned out badly for Black. 17 xe8 xe8 18 e4 This strong is the key to Whites defence in the variation. Sometimes it can be exchanged for the on d6 but only when White is ready. 18...g6!
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+pvl-+q+0 9+p+n+-+-0 9-+-zPN+-+0 9+LzP-+PzPl0 9PzP-+-+-zP0 9tR-vLQ+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This idea by the great GM Geller, one of the worlds top players for decades, has received insufficient attention. He was nearing the end of his career here, but he knew the Marshall very well. For 18...c7!? 19 d2 see GarciaPinter. 19 xd5 19 xd6 xd6 20 d2 h5 see Brustman-Kaidanov. 19 a4? has been suggested but it loses by force to 19...xe4! (19...b4) 20 fxe4 xg3!+ Harding. The critical move is 19 c2!? (Nunns improvement for White) and now: a) 19...e6 20 a4 (20 xd6 xd6) 20...f5 21 xd6 (21 axb5 fxe4 22 fxe4 axb5 23 exd5 cxd5) 21...xd6 22 axb5 axb5 23 b3
The Total Marshall
40
e7 (or 23...h8 24 xd5 xd5) 24 d2 Blacks problem is the on h3 which cannot easily be moved to a different battle-zone. b) 19...h6 20 a4; c) 19...c7 20 a4; d) 19...f5?! 20 g5 (20 xd6 xd6 would be OK for Black.) 20...h5 21 xh3 xh3 22 f1. e) 19...h5!N and now Tim Harding analysis (2002) goes: e1) 20 g5 f5 21 xf5 xf5 22 e4 c7 23 a4 h4. e2) 20...h4 21 g4 (21 g5 f5 see note e1) 21...xg4! 22 fxg4 xe4 and now: e21) 23 xe4?! xe4 24 axb5 h3 25 f1 xg4+ (25...cxb5!?) 26 h1 e4+ draws at once, but Black can also try for more if he dares with 26...cxb5!? 27 xa6?? e3. e22) 23 h3 e1+ (23...bxa4!? is also possible as an attempt to play for a win.) 24 xe1 xc2 White is tied up and probably has to force a draw by repetition: 25 f2 d1+ 26 f1 c2 27 f2= Harding. 19...cxd5 20 xd6 xd6= This gave Black reasonable play for the pawn commented Nunn. 21 f4 e7 22 f2 g5 22...h5!? seems playable: a) 23 d2!? f5 leads to a draw after the heavy pieces are exchanged on e1 24 e1 xe1+ 25 xe1 xe1 26 xe1 b1 Black has nothing to fear as White cannot manufacture a passed pawn. b) 23 a4 h4 24 g4 is unclear; it depends on whether the h3- is strong or weak: 24...bxa4! 25 xa4 f6 26 d2 xg4! 27 fxg4 e4 28 f3 g5. 23 d2 h5 24 e1 d7 24...d8!?. 25 g1 f5 The opposite coloured Bishops mean that a draw is virtually inevitable. 25...f6!? 26 e1 xe1 (26...c8!?) 27 xe1 e6 is a certain draw if the queens are exchanged. 26 e1 e4 27 xe4 dxe4 28 d1 28 f4!? Vitomskis. 28...g4 29 xg5 f6 30 f4 xf3 31 b3+ g7 32 e3 h3 33 d5 Game 30 Christof Herbrechtsmeier (Germany) Tnu im (Estonia) Bertl von Massow Memorial corr, 1988 Comments based on notes by
Herbrechtsmeier. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 e6 18 a4 h5 19 axb5 axb5 20 f1 This game shows that 20 f1 is better, wrote Herbrechtsmeier. Blacks method of drawing now is important for the theory of the Spassky Variation. 20...h3 21 d1 f5 22 e2 fe8! 23 f1 23 f3? f4!. 23...c5
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9-+-vlr+-+0 9+pzpn+q+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-zP-vL-zPl0 9-zP-+QzP-zP0 9tR-+LtRNmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
24 c2 24 dxc5!? xc5 25 f3 xe3 26 xe3 xe3 27 xe3 xe3 28 fxe3 h6 29 a8 xa8 30 xa8+ h7 31 f3 b1 32 g4 g8 and White cannot exploit the extra pawn. 24...xc3 24...f6 25 h5. 25 bxc3 d5 26 f3 xf1 27 xf1 27 xf1?! xe3 28 xb5 b8! and White must return the gambit pawn. 27...xe3 28 e4 28 xe3 xe3 29 xb5 xf3 will not serve as a winning attempt for White, but after 28 e4 xe1! 29 xe1 b3 30 xh7+ (30 d3 g6) 30...f8 31 xe8+ xe8 32 e2+ f8 33 c2 the extra P is meaningless. Game 31 Gyula Sax (Hungary) John Nunn (England) Brussels, 1988 Notes based on comments by the players and by Hazai. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e2 h4 14 g3 h3 For 14...h5 see MithrakanthGeller, illustrating an unfashionable
but promising way for Black to treat this variation. 15 d2 15 f1 h5 16 f3 f5! 17 f2 g6 18 xd5 cxd5 19 d2 d3 20 e3 f5! 21 f4! e4 22 e1 ae8 23 xe4 fxe4 24 e3 h5. 15...f5! 16 a4!? Nunn: Saxs important innovation. Black is not threatening anything, so White activates the a1 rook while waiting to see Blacks intention. 16 f1 h5 17 d1 g6 18 g2 ae8! 19 f1 e4! 20 f3 d3 21 xe8 xe8 22 d2 xf1 23 xf1 xg3! 24 hxg3 xg3+ 25 g2 e1+! 26 xe1 xe1+=. 16...ae8?! a) 16...d3! 17 e1 ae8 18 f3! xe1+ 19 xe1 h6 (Sax, Hazai; INF 45/396). After 20 axb5 axb5 21 a7 f6 a curious position arises in which neither player has any obviously constructive moves. Black is tied down to the defence of f7, while White must cover f1 and prepare to meet...e4 or...g4. Therefore the position must be judged as unclear, although if White can break the deadlock his extra pawn might be important Nunn. b) 16...f4 17 gxf4 ae8 18 e5! Nunn; c) 16...b4 17 e4 g4 18 xd6 h5 19 c4 Nunn. 17 xe8! 17 axb5? f4! 18 gxf4 g4+. 17...xe8 18 f1! 18 xd5 cxd5 19 axb5 axb5 20 f1 h6! 21 e3 e4 22 g4 xg4 23 xg4 f5 24 e3 f4. 18...h5 Since g3 is well defended, White may answer ...e4 or ...g4 by f2f3. If 18...b4 19 c4 f6 20 f3. 19 xd5 cxd5 20 axb5 axb5 21 e3 The sequel shows how in practice the Marshall player may well win even from a position.
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+-+-+pzp-0 9-+-vl-+-+0 9+p+p+l+p0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-zP-sN-zPq0 9-zP-+-zP-zP0 9tR-vLQ+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
21...g6 If 21...h4 22 f1 hxg3 23 xh3
41
The Total Marshall
gxf2+? 24 g2+- or 21...e4 22 f1 d7 23 f3. 22 f1 Better is 22 xd5 e4 23 e3. 22...d7 23 a5 23 xd5 xg3 24 f6+ gxf6 25 fxg3. 23...b8 24 g2 24 xd5! xg3 25 f6+ gxf6 26 fxg3. 24...b4! 25 d2 bxc3 26 xc3 c7 27 c5 27 a1. 27...e4 28 f3 c2 29 e3 29 a5 xa5 30 xc2. 29...b3 30 d2? 30 a5. 30...b6 31 c1 xd4+ The bishop pair is now very strong. 32 d3 xb2 33 e1 a2 34 a6 c4! 35 a5 d4 36 c3? xe3+ 37 xe3 d4 38 e5 d8 39 b2 f6 40 c5 dxe3 01 TH: An interesting practical Marshall game. Under the stress of OTB play and the clock, an edge for White (but with Black having positional compensation) can turn into a win for Black. Game 32 Hieronim Halamus (Poland) Aleksei A. Tsvetkov (Russia) EU/M/GT/292 1988-92 corr ICCF, 1988 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 e6 18 a4 f5 19 f1 h5 20 xd5 cxd5 21 axb5 h3?!
present game, White found 23 xe6! which may refute the old theory: 23...xf1 24 xd6 xb5 25 xf8 xf8 26 c1! g5 27 e3 h5 28 b3 10 D.Kwolek-A.Nowicki, corr 1990). b) 22...xf4 appears to draw with care, although White has an edge. See Kronborg Kristensen v Olano Aizpurua. 22 d3 22 e2. 22...f4 23 xf4 f5 24 f3 24 f1. 24...g4 This was thought to be a draw by repetition. However, White now played: 25 xe6 xf4 After 25...xf3 26 xd6 White gets too much for the . 26 d3 xe6 27 gxf4 27 bxa6. 27...f5 28 f3 g4 29 g3 29 g2. 29...axb5 30 f3 Others can be considered too. 30...e6 31 a7 f7 32 g5 h3 33 f5 e8 34 f6 g6 35 g4 35 e7. 35...h6 36 f4 f8 37 f3 a8 38 e7 10. This is a critical game according to Martin Bennedik. Game 33 Lothar Grtig (Germany) Libor Danek (Czech Republic) 3rd European Team Corr Ch Final, 1988 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 f5 17 f4 h8 17...g5 18 f1 h5 19 d2 h8 20 xd5 cxd5 transposes. 18 xd5 cxd5 19 d2 g5 19...c7 Aseev-Dvoirys. 20 f1 h5 21 a4 bxa4 21...h6!? Lepeshkin, Danek. 22 xa4?! 22 c4 ab8 23 ab1 h3 24 f2 g4 25 cxd5 gxf4 26 xf4 xf4 27 xf4 xf4 28 gxf4 b4 Short-Ehlvest, Skelleftea World Cup 1989. 22...ae8! 23 aa1 23 xa6? gxf4 24 xf4 e2; 23 fxg5!? Ulmanis-v.d.Heijden. 23...e6 23...a5 Schlosser-Nunn, Krefeld 1986. 24 fxg5
24 f2 was played in LukacPavlovic and McClelland-Gillam. 24...fe8 25 f2 f4 26 gxf4 26 xf4 e2+. 26...h6! 26...h3!? Liang Jingrong-Blatny, 1990. 27 gxh6?
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+-mk0 9+-+-+-+-0 9p+-vlr+-zP0 9+-+p+-+q0 9-+-zP-zPl+0 9+-zP-vL-+-0 9-zP-sN-wQ-zP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
An instructive mistake. White now has four extra pawns but he has opened the g-file and Blacks pieces are extremely active. 27 f1 was tried in DolmatovVladimirov; 27 c4!? was suggested by Vladimirov. 27...h3! Perhaps White expected a rook to go to the g-file, when he just replies h1, but now there is a triple attack on his e3-bishop. 28 f1 White tries to hold the kingside instead of simplifying to a drawn endgame by 28 xa6 xe3 29 xe3 xe3 30 xd6 e2 31 g3 xd2 32 xh3 xh3 33 xd5 g2+ 34 h1 xb2 35 g5 c2 36 g1 xc3= Danek. 28...f3! Not 28...g6? 29 g3. Danek claimed he was now winning by force, but this is not the case. 29 xa6? This is the losing move 29 b4? g6+ 30 g3 xg3+ 31 xg3 g8 32 xg8+ xg8 33 a2 e7+ Danek. 29 g3? xe3! 30 xe3 xe3+ Danek. 29 h7 is better since after 29...xh7 30 xa6 Black cannot finish as in the game; h6+ will come at an awkward moment. Black is still better if he avoids traps but he may end up with Queen versus Rook and Bishop in an unwinnable position. The best move, however, is 29 d2 which would definitely have saved White. Black must switch the focus to the g-file: 29...g8+ 30 g3 eg6 when if 31 xf3 (31 e8? xe8 32 xf3 eg8) 31...xg3+ 32 xg3 xg3+ 33 hxg3 xg3+ Black
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9p+-vlr+-+0 9+P+p+p+q0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-zP-vL-zPl0 9-zP-sN-zP-zP0 9tR-+-tRQmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Not played before in master games and only seen in a few amateur and computer games since. 21...f4 was the only move cited in Nunn/Harding. Then comes 22 xf4 when: a) 22...h3? is suspect since, instead of 23 d3 giving the same position as after move 23 in the
The Total Marshall
42
has a draw but no more. 29...g8+ 29...g6+? 30 g3 xg3+ 31 xg3 g8 32 a8!. 30 g3 xf4! 01 Because of 31 xf3 xg3, 31 xf4 xe1+ or 31 xe6 xg3+. Game 34 Jason F. McKenna (ENG) Clifford R. Chandler (ENG) BPCF Open Final-2 corr, 1989 Notes by Tim Harding. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 e6 18 a4 f5 19 f1 h5 20 axb5!?
24 bxc6!? also comes into consideration: 24...h8 25 xd5 (25 e4!?) 25...xd5 26 e4. 24...h8 24...xd2 25 bxc6 or 24...axb5 25 gxf4. 25 f1 If 25 d1 h6 but maybe 25 bxc6 xc3 26 e7 (not 26 bxc3 xd2). 25...e8 26 d3 axb5 27 gxf4 xf4 28 g3 h4!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9p+pvlr+-+0 9+P+n+p+q0 9-+-zP-+l+0 9+LzP-vL-zP-0 9-zP-sN-zP-zP0 9tR-+-tRQmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Shamkovich & Schiller suggested this as an alternative to the normal 20 f4. It is not so easy to refute the idea. 20...f4 21 xf4 xf4 Nunns move. If 21...xf4 22 xe6 xe6 23 bxa6. 22 xe6 xe6 23 e1!? 23 gxf4 axb5 (regaining the pawn on f4 with good play for the other pawn - Nunn, 1989) 24 e1!? now seems the critical line as it was a bit better for White in MousessianT.Andresen. Black went gradually downhill and it is hard to pinpoint anywhere that he missed a clear draw. 23...h3 Not 23...h6 24 gxf4. Instead 23...e8!? 24 bxc6 (24 gxf4?? h3) 24...h8! is very complicated e.g. 25 e4 (25 d1 f7 or 25 gxf4?? xf4 26 e4 h3+ 27 g2 g5+ 28 f1 g1+ 29 e2 xf2+) 25...c7 when Black retains his extra piece but White has many pawns in return. It could continue 26 c5 (26 xa6 h3=) 26...g4 27 xd5 xe1+ 28 xe1 h6 and the position remains very obscure. 24 e4!
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+-mk0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9-+p+-+-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-sn-wq0 9+LzPQ+-sNl0 9-zP-+-zP-zP0 9tR-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This gives Black a dangerous, but unclear, attack because the white King is bottled up. In an overthe-board game, I would not put much money on White surviving but correspondence play (even in 1989 without todays computer aids) it is much easier to calculate accurately in depth if you have the vision and motivation. Instead 28...xd3 would be the safe move as 29 xh5 g6 30 g3 xb2 should draw. 29 f3 h5 30 xc6 e7 31 xb5?! I think this move indicates that either White expected a forced draw or did not see what was coming? Better 31 c2 (idea e4 to force off queens) 31...f8 (31...e1+ 32 f1 e7 (32...e2 33 e3 or 32...xa1?? 33 xe8#) 33 e3) 32 xb5 and Black has nothing clear. 31...h4!? A bold, if risky, winning try. Black could have played 31...e1+!= 32 f1 (32 xe1 xe1+ 33 f1 (33 f1 e2+ 34 h1 xf1+ or 34 xe2 xf1#) 32...e2+ 33 h1 g3+ 34 g1 (34 hxg3?? e4+ and mates; 34 fxg3?? is the same) 34...e2+ with a draw by repetition. 32 e5 xe5 33 dxe5 xe5 33...hxg3 34 hxg3. 34 c4!? White gets three pawns for a piece but hardly has winning chances. 34 a8+ h7 35 c2+ is not clearly to Whites advantage. Instead 34 c2 threatens mate,
but maybe White was afraid of the continuation 34...g6 35 e4 (saves the and stops...g5+) 35...e2+ 36 h1 g4 (Threatens mate in one!) 37 g2 f4+ 38 f1 f3 39 a4 and White is two pawns up but in a bind. 34...hxg3 35 hxg3 35 fxg3 doesnt give the the h2 square. 35...e2+ 36 h2 h5 37 a8+ h7 38 g8+ g6 39 a6+ g5 40 f4+ g4 41 e6+ f3
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-zp-0 9R+-+L+-+0 9+-+-+-+r0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9+-zP-+kzPl0 9-zP-+n+-mK0 9+-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Looks dangerous for the white , but his defence comes in time. He reaches a Rook ending with two extra pawns but its a dead draw. 42 xh3 xg3 43 g6 f1+ 44 g1 xh3 45 xf1 h1+ 46 g1 h2= 47 xg7 xb2 This threatens mate, so wins the f-pawn. 48 e1 xf4 49 d1 e5 50 d7 h2 . A fascinating game with several unclear points. Game 35 Horst Rittner (Germany) Henk Sarink (Netherlands) Armando Silli Memorial corr, 1990 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 e6 18 a4 h5 This game is included for the illumination of those readers who may believe the Spassky Variation gives Black at best a draw. 19 axb5 axb5 20 f1 fe8 20...f5 is possibly even better. 21 d1 xd1 22 xd1 f5 23 d2 23 a6 is not any better: 23...h5 24 xc6 h4 25 d2 as Black can play either 25...h3!? (Metz-im) or first exchange rooks on e1, with roughly equal chances in either case. 23...xe1 24 xe1 White thought that exchanges would ease his task but Blacks B
43
The Total Marshall
is active on d6 whereas Whites is buried on e1. 24...h5 25 h4 c5 26 g2?
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+-+-+pzp-0 9-+-vl-+-+0 9+pzpn+q+p0 9-+-zP-+-zP0 9+-zP-+-zP-0 9-zP-+-zPK+0 9tR-+QvLN+-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Sarink said that move was recommended in Fernschach but shown to be bad in this game. 26...cxd4 27 xd4 27 cxd4 is also possible but White was hoping to avoid incurring an isolated pawn. 27...c5!N This possibility was created by Whites 26th. 28 d1 28 xc5? f4+. 28...e5 29 b1 29 f3 is probably a bit better. 29...e6 30 b4 c6 31 g1 b6!? Black assesses that his position is good enough to play for a win. 31...xc3 could also be played to force an early draw: 32 xc3 xf2+ 33 xf2 (33 h2 e2) 33...f6+ 34 g1 b6+ 35 h1 c6+ (Vitomskis). 32 d3 f6 33 h2 e4 34 c1 White tries to create counterplay based on the c3-c4 advance but Black is ready: 34...g5 35 c4 gxh4 36 c5! Opening the g-file by gxh4 is always favourable for Black. 36...hxg3 37 fxg3 g5 Threatening... h3+ leading to mate. 38 f1 c7 39 d2 e4 40 d1 f5 41 g2 d4+ 42 h1 f2 43 e1 xg2 44 xd4 xh2+ 0-1. If 45 xh2 f3+. A good win for the ICCF auditor against the 6th CC World Champion. Game 36 D.Kwolek Wladyslaw Olszewski 34th Polish Corr Ch semifinal, 1990 This is an important game for the theory of the Restrained Pawn Push variation. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 f5 18 f4 g5 19 f1 h5 20 g2 h8 21 xd5 cxd5 22 xd5 d8 23 c6 gxf4 24 xf4 xf4 25 gxf4 e2 This position was considered equal and Nunn had played it for Black, achieving two easy draws. 26 h1 de8 27 g1 This is much stronger than 27 g2? e3! 28 g1 (28 g5 d3 29 xh5 xh5 30 f1 g8 31 g3 f3+ 32 g1 d2+ Kwolek) 28...g4 29 ae1 fe8 30 xe3 xe3 31 a8+ e8 32 c6 e2 33 g2 e1+ 34 g1 e2 draw (Popovic-Nunn, Lucerne EU Cht 1989). 27...h4
according to Malcolm Pein in Chess Monthly 3/1992 where we first saw this game. 31 xf3 h6 Now it is just a technical exercise, particularly in CC, commented Pein. 32 e2 f4 33 xe8 xe8 34 f1 e3 35 a8+ g7 36 g1+ f7 37 g8+ f6 38 d8+ f7 39 d7+ f6 40 d6+ e6 41 d8+ f5 42 d7! h3 43 f7+ e4 44 xe6+! xe6 45 e1+ f5 46 xe6 xe6 47 g2 10 Game 37 Viswanathan Anand (India) John Nunn (England) Wijk aan Zee, 1990 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 xd5 cxd5 13 d4 d6 14 e3 h4 15 h3 g5!? This is a risky line for Black against the Kevitz Variation but at this time Nunn was rated higher than Vishy and was going for the win. 15...f4 is solid and 15...f5!? is interesting. 16 b3 Here 16 f3 is critical. 16...f5!
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+rtr-mk0 9+-+-+-+p0 9p+Q+-+-+0 9+p+-+p+-0 9-+-zP-zP-wq0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9PzP-sNl+-zP0 9tR-+-+-tRK0 xiiiiiiiiy
28 g2! 28 f3!? is also strong: 28...xf4 29 g5 g4 30 f7+ g7 31 af1+Kwolek; A.Sokolov. Old theory follows A.SokolovNunn, Rotterdam World Cup 1989: 28 g2 g8 29 c6 gf8 30 g2 g8 31 c6 draw. 28...xf4
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+rtr-mk0 9+-+-+-+p0 9p+Q+-+-+0 9+p+-+p+-0 9-+-zP-wq-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9PzP-sNl+RzP0 9tR-+-+-+K0 xiiiiiiiiy
29 e1!! Deflecting the queen from f4. Not 29 ag1 h4. 29...xd2 30 eg1! Threatens 31 g8+ xg8 32 f6+ with the black cut off from the defence. 30...f3 If 30...h6 31 g6! e7 32 xe2!+-
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9p+-vl-+-+0 9+p+p+pzp-0 9-+-zP-+-wq0 9+PzP-tR-+P0 9P+-+-zPP+0 9tRNvLQ+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
17 f3 17 a3 f4 18 e5!? xa3 19 xa3 f3 20 g3 xh3 21 xg5+ h8 22 f1 h6 23 c1 h3 24 f1=. 17...b7 18 e6? Instead of chasing the active bishop, White should exchange it by 18 a3! g4 19 e2 f4 20 xd6 but Black is fine: 20...fxe3 21 xf8 exf2+ 22 xf2 xf2+ 23 xf2 xf8+ 24 g1 gxh3 25 gxh3 c8 (= Anand) 26 d2 xh3 Nunn. 18...ae8! 19 xe8 19 xd6 e1+ 20 h2 xc1 creates a pin which it will not be easy to escape. 19...xe8 20 f1 g4 20...f4 21 a3. 21 xf5 gxh3 22 xh3
The Total Marshall
44
22 gxh3? c8 23 xd5+ e6 24 g2+ h8 25 g5 xg5! 26 xg5 xh3+ 27 g2 xg2+ 28 xg2 e1 29 c4 bxc4 30 bxc4 g7+ Anand. 22...xh3 23 gxh3 c8 24 e3 xh3+ 25 e2 g4+ 26 d3 f5+ 27 e2 g4+ 28 d3 f5+ 29 e2
d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 f5 17 f4 g5 18 f1 h5 19 d2 ae8 20 g2 gxf4 21 xd5+ cxd5 22 xd5+ g7 23 xf4 xf4 24 gxf4
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9p+-vl-+-+0 9+p+p+l+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+PzP-vL-+-0 9P+-+KzP-+0 9tRN+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Black decides that despite his one pawn deficit he can play for a win, since Whites queensside is undeveloped. Blacks bishops and rook are tremendous. 29...c8! 30 f3 f7 30...h5? 31 d2 xc3 32 g1+ f7 33 g5 was what Anand was hoping for. 31 d2 h5 32 c4 White tries to break out but this leads to Black obtaining a second passed pawn. I suspect time trouble was a factor in this game. 32...e8+ 33 f2 d3 34 e3 h4 35 f4 dxc4 36 bxc4 bxc4 37 d2 b8 38 f3 c3 39 e4 b4 40 d1 xe4+ 41 xe4 c2 01 White resigned for if 42 c1 c8 43 h1 e8+ 44 d3 xe3+ 45 xe3 a3+ and in the long run Blacks a-pawn will decide the game. Game 38 J. Bravo Castillero Armando Jaime Chavez Hans-Werner von Massow Memorial, Cuba corr 1991-92 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+rtr-+0 9+-+-+-mkp0 9p+-+-+-+0 9+p+Q+p+q0 9-+-zP-zPl+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9PzP-sN-+-zP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
24...h8! This is a critical position for the whole Pawn Push, which can also be reached in 26 moves via 18 f4 h8 19 xd5 cxd5 20 f1 h5 21 g2 g5 22 d5 d8 23 c6 gxf4 24 xf4 xf4 25 gxf4 c8 26 d5 ce8!. Not 24...e2? as in UnzickerPfleger, above. 25 e5 25 e6!? xe6 26 xe6 e8 27 f6+ g8 28 g5+ xg5 29 fxg5 e2 30 d1 f4 31 h4 f3 Fornaris-Jaime Chavez, corr 1993-95. 25...g8 26 h1?! This move used to be recommended on the basis of old Euwe analysis (cited in Nunn 1989 etc.) but it was busted by Cuban theoretician Jaime Chavez in this game. Instead 26 xe8 (pointed out by Jaime) 26...xe8 27 d6 (threatening f6+) saves White because if 27...g8 (NCO) White has an immediate perpetual check, while if 27...h4 28 f1 f3 29 g3 h3 (seems to force a draw) 30 f6+ g8 31 g5+ h8! 32 f6+ - Dikmen-Simmelink, IECG email 1998. Not, however, 29...g8?? 30 e5+ 10 (30...g7 31 xg7+ xg7 32 xf5+) Gleichmann-Jaime Chavez, ICCF World Cup corr 1991. 26...d8! This is Jaimes major improvement and it wins for Black. Euwes old line went 26...h3 27 xe8 xe8 (27...g2+ 28 xg2 or 27...xe8 28 f3) 28 e5+ xe5 29 dxe5 g2 30 d1 with advantage to White. 27 c6 The must remain on the diagonal, but if 27 b7 d7! 28 c6 d6 01 Eubanks-Hurt, corr 1989. 27...d6! 28 g2
White also loses after 28 b7 d1!! or 28 xd6?? f3+ 29 xf3 xf3#. 28...h3 29 f2 g2+ 30 xg2 xg2 31 xg2 g6+ 32 f1 xh2 01 Game 39 Viswanathan Anand (India) Nigel Short (Short) Amsterdam 1993 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 b7 Another of Marshalls ideas, Black aims for play on the long diagonal. 12 d4 12 f3 is the alternative for White, trying to block the diagonal. An earlier game between the same players went 12...d6 13 xd5 (13 xd5 is dangerous only for White after 13...e8!) 13...c6 14 e2 cxd5 15 d4 c7 16 g3 ae8 17 d2 b4 18 cxb4 c2 19 e3 c8 20 f1 xb4= 21 a3 a5 22 b4 (22 xd5 e1 23 f3 b7!?) 22...b6 23 xe8 xe8 24 e3 e6 25 d1 c8 26 d2 Anand-Short, Manila olm 1992. 12...f6 12...d7 13 d2 f4 is another treatment for Black, as in HenaoDjuric. 13 e1
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+lzp-+pzpp0 9p+-+-vl-+0 9+p+n+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+LzP-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
13...c5 Personally, I prefer the move 13...e8 in this position: a) 14 a3 b4 15 c4 bxc3 16 a5 and now: a1) 16...xd4 17 xe8+!N xe8 18 xb7 cxb2 19 xb2 xb2 20 xd5 xa1 21 xa1 b5 22 d1! e8 23 g3 g6 24 a4 e2 25 b3 and White won in Hansen-Hector, Malm 1997. However, if White expects to follow this game, he will get a real shock. a2) 16...b8!= The great thing about this move is that once Black plays it, the game is a dead draw!
MegaCorr 2
Our best-selling CC database and info CD is still available. Over 350,000 games. Price: 35 Euros plus postage & packing. Buyers will get a discount on Mega3 in 2003.
45
The Total Marshall
17 xb7 xb7 18 xe8+ xe8 19 xd5 cxb2 20 b1 b5 was soon drawn in S.L.Jones-Harding, Email olympiad 2000. The two-time US CC Champion could find nothing against my plan. b) 14 xe8+ xe8 15 a4 b4! (The key idea) 16 d2 (16 c4 can be met by 16...f4 and if xf4 e4 threatening mate on g2) 16...f4 17 f3 e6 with good compensation for Black. 14 dxc5 e8 15 a3 a) 15 xe8+ xe8 16 xd5 xd5 17 e3 e4 18 f1 c2 19 c1 g6 20 f1=. b) 15 d2 f4 16 f3 xg2! 17 xg2 xe1 18 xe1 d7 19 h3 xf3+ 20 xf3 xh3+ 21 e2 h5+! 22 f1 h1+=. 15...c7?! Black is now really in trouble. 15...d7 is only a little better.. 16 xe8+! xe8 17 xd5 d8 18 f4 xf4
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-tr-+k+0 9+l+-+pzpp0 9p+-+-vl-+0 9+pzPL+-+-0 9-+-+-wq-+0 9sN-zP-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+Q+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
19 f3? After 19 xb7! xd1+ 20 xd1+White would have had rook, knight and two pawns for queen with good winning chances. Now Black reduced the deficit and managed to draw. 19...xf3 20 xf3 xf3 21 gxf3 b4! 22 c2 bxc3 23 bxc3 c8 Black wants to eliminate the more dangerous c5-pawn rather than let White get his rook behind it. 24 b1 h6 25 c4 xc5 26 e3 d4 27 c1 xe3 28 fxe3
White has an extra pawn, but it is blockaded by a rook that has a fairly active post. Whites other pawns are not so healthy. 28...f8 29 f2 e7 30 f4 g5 More active play. 31 f3 gxf4 32 xf4 e6 33 e4 h5 34 c2 h4+ 35 d3 f5 36 f2 e5 37 c2 d6 38 g2 h3 39 f2 39 g6+ c5 40 xa6 f4 41 e6 fxe3 42 xe3 xh2 is a book draw. 39...e5 40 c5 e6 41 c2 d7 42 d4 White has managed to improve his king position so care is still required. 42...c6 43 e2 43 f2 h4+ 44 e5 e4+ 45 xf5 xe3 is similar to the game. 43...h5 44 c2 h4+ 45 e5 e4+ 46 xf5 xe3 47 g5 e5+ 48 h4 a5 49 h3 d5 . Black need only shuffle his rook. Game 40 Viktoras Milvydas (Lithuania) Sergei K. Muravyev (Ukraine) 5th European Corr Team Ch prelims, 1994 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 e6 18 a4 f5 19 f1 h5 20 f4 bxa4 21 xa4 h8 22 c4 22 xd5 cxd5 23 xa6 is also critical: a) After 23...fe8, Nunn treats this position as a transposition to the line 21...fe8 22 xa6 h8 23 xd5 cxd5 but I think it properly belongs here as a critical line for 21...h8. The reason is that in the other line, Black has the strong move 22...xe3 so there is no reason for him to move the king. b) 23...e8 24 f2! (24 f2 b5 25 a2 fe8 gives Black reasonable play.) and not now 24...e2? 25 xd6+- Nunn. 22...xf4!? Ingenious but maybe inadequate, this move was analysed by GM John Nunn in 1989. The improvement at move 24 seems to mean Black draws and could easily win if White goes wrong. 22...xe3 23 xe3 was prior theory. 23 xf4 23 gxf4? g6 Nunn. 23...xf4 24 xe6
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-tr-mk0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9p+p+R+-+0 9+-+-+p+q0 9R+NzP-snl+0 9+LzP-+-zP-0 9-zP-+-+-zP0 9+-+-+QmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
24 gxf4? h3 25 xe6 g4+ 01 Qaw-Macarena, Internet Chess Club 1997. 24...h3+!!N Nunn only analysed 24...xe6 25 e5!. The arrival of a horse on the e5 square after...f5 has been played nearly always spells a terminal prognosis for Black in the Marshall. Black has regained his material but suffers from bad pawn structure. 25...f4 (Or 25...e2 26 g4 Kristensen-Weissleder) 26 xe6 xe6 27 xa6 g8 28 xc6! (Not 28 f3? f5 29 a1 d5 because on the other hand, a black supported on d5 usually spells Curtains for White...) 28...h3 29 a5! h6 (29...g4 30 e5) 30 f3+- and Blacks attack has run out of steam Nunn. 25 g2 g5! 26 f2! f3+ 27 f1 f4 27...xe6!? 28 xa6 f4 29 e1 e8 30 d2 fxg3 but I am not sure if Black has more than a draw Elburg. 28 g4 28 e1 but looks as if Black should have something somewhere: 28...xe6 (28...fxg3!? 29 xg3 xe6) 29 xa6 e8 30 d2 g5 31 d6 fxg3 32 hxg3 h1 (32...h6) 33 a5 c5 34 dxc5 e2+? 35 xe2 xe2 36 xe2 (10, 67) Computer test game Nimzo-Rebel, 1999. 28...h3+ 29 e1 xe6 30 e5 g5 31 xa6!! xg4 32 c4!! With an amazing drawing idea. White loses after: a) 32 xc6?? d3 33 a1 f3+ 34 xf3 xf3 35 d2 e2+ 36 c1 e1+ 37 c2 f5#. b) 32 xc6?? e4; c) 32 xg4?? xg4 33 h3 e8+ 34 d2 g3 35 xg3 fxg3+. 32...e4 Black can try to win but it may be risky. Moves to be considered are 32...g6 (to stop the perpetual check but going into an ending after 33 xg4 xg4 34 e2) and 32...f3 33 a7! (but not here 33 d3
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+k+0 9+-+-+pzp-0 9p+-+-+-zp0 9+-tr-+-+-0 9-+P+-+-+0 9+-+-zPP+-0 9P+-+-+-zP0 9+-tR-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
The Total Marshall
46
e6 34 xc6 g2 nor 33 xc6?? e4+ nor 33 xg4 xg4+). 33 f3!! h4+ A.Bandza, in Informator, gave other variations. If 33...xf3 34 f7+ g8 35 h6+ (35 g5+ or other discoveries with same result: a draw.) or if 33...xf3 34 f7+ again forcing repetition because the black rook cannot leave the back rank. 34 g3 It will be a repetition by 34...fxg3 35 f7+ g8 36 h6+ because the threats balance. Game 41 Viswanathan Anand (India) Gata Kamsky (USA) 3rd Candidates match game, Sanghi Nagar, India 1994 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 e8 15...a7!? is a similar approach, and perhaps a psychologically more shocking move for White if he has not met it before. Tim quite likes this variation for Black against opponents who may be bookedup. See our survey on the move 15 alternatives for Black. 16 xd5 If 16 a4? xe3 while 16 f3 will transpose after 16...a7 (16...g4 was suggested by Geller but is less reliable.) 17 d2 ae7 18 xd5 (18 f1? f4!) 18...cxd5 to the game. 16...cxd5 17 f3 Nunn said it was important for White to counter-attack d5. 17 d3?! a7 18 d2 ae7 19 a4 f5 20 f4 g5! (Euwe). 17...a7 18 d2 Not 18 xd5?? b7+. 18 g2? h5 19 d2 ae7 20 a4 b4 21 c4 dxc4 22 xc4 b7 Tseshkovsky-G.Kuzmin, USSR ch 1975. 18...ae7
set-up with the rooks doubled on the e-file and not obstructing the bishops. The onus is on White to find something to do. 19 a4 Whites 18th and 19th were a plan recommended by Nikitin in Shakhmatny Bulletin 2/1976 page 37. White tries to transpose to Unzicker-Rossolimo. For 19 g2? h5 see 18 g2. 19...bxa4 The critical move. 19...b4 20 c4 dxc4 21 xc4 b7 (21...b8 22 d2! xe1+ 23 xe1 xe1+ 24 xe1 e6 25 e3 UnzickerRossolimo, Cheltenham 1952) 22 d5 (Geller) 22...c7 (Castellanos Salinas-Lopez Gomez, Cuba corr 1996) 23 ed1! Jaime Chavez & Perez Perez. 20 xa4 h5 20...h8 21 ea1 Geller-Jansa, Amsterdam 1974. 21 a5 b7 21...h4? is not good, as shown in analysis by Blatny and Ftacnik e.g. 22 xd5 hxg3 (22...b7 23 f5 xf5 24 xf5 hxg3 25 hxg3 xg3 26 fxg3 xe3 27 xe3 xe3 28 f2+-) 23 hxg3 b7 24 h5 (24 f5 h8!?; 24 h5 d7 25 g5 f6 26 g6 c6) 24...xg3+ (24...c8 25 d5) 25 fxg3 xf3 26 xf3 xe3 27 xe3 xe3 28 f2 with a winning endgame for White. 22 aa1 c8!N 22...h4 23 h5 c8 24 f3 hxg3 25 xh3 xh3 26 hxg3 xg3 and now 27 fxg3 (TseshkovskyI.Ivanov, Minsk 1976) and 27 xa6 (Blatny) are both somewhat better for White. 23 a5! b7 24 f1! After the repetition, White tries a new tack.
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+l+r+k+0 9+-+-trpzpp0 9p+-vl-+-+0 9+p+p+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-zP-vLQzPq0 9PzP-sN-zP-zP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Black has achieved his planned
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+l+-trpzp-0 9p+-vl-+-+0 9tR-+p+-+p0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-zP-vLQzPq0 9-zP-+-zP-zP0 9+-+-tRNmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
24...h4?! 24...e6!? (Blatny, CBM 42) gives White a slight edge. 24...f5 is probably best, e.g. 25 aa1 f4! 26 d2 f8! 27 xe7 fxg3 28 e3! xe7 29 xg3 d7
(Analysis by Cuban players Jaime Chavez & Perez Perez). 25 aa1 e4 26 d2 hxg3 27 hxg3 f5 White would face a lot of technical difficulties to win after the double rook exchange if Black did not weaken his kingside in this way. Blatny and Ftacnik recommend 27...8e6 f6 with counterplay. 28 g2! If 28 e3? f4! or 28 h1 xh1+ 29 xh1 xe1 30 xe1 xe1 31 xe1 a5 h1. 28...h5 29 f3! 29 xe4? dxe4!? (29...xe4) 30 e3 e2 31 d2 f4! 32 gxf4 xf4 33 xf4 e3. 29...xe1 30 xe1 xe1 31 xe1 e8 Better is 31...f4 but 32 g4 g6 33 e2 (Blatny). 32 d2 a5 33 e3 g6? 33...e6 34 h3 g6 Ftacnik. 34 f2 a4 35 g2 a3 36 bxa3 xa3 Black has made progress in establishing a queenside blockade using his bishop pair, but his kingside is vulnerable. 37 f4 Planning e5, f4 g8. 37...c6 38 e5 f8 39 f4 g5 40 g2! e6 41 e3 f7 42 c2 d7 If 42...g6 43 g4!+-. 43 h2 Blatny suggests 43 b3 c6 44 b1 d7 45 b7+-. White is manoeuvring to win a second pawn after which the end is just a matter of time. 43...g6 44 a2 e6 45 xd5 xd5 46 xd5 c6 47 c4 e6 47...xd5 48 cxd5 is also a lost endgame for Black. 48 c7+ d7 49 f2 a3 50 e2 b2 51 b5 g4 52 fxg4 fxg4 53 d3 a1 54 c2 e4+ 55 b3 d3 56 c3 56 a3 e2! when White must avoid the pin 57 c2? d1. 56...e6 57 d5 f5 58 b4 e2 59 c5 d1+ 60 c4 e6 1-0. White is ready to advance his pawns by 61 c6 f3 62 f4+-. Game 42 Vasily Ivanchuk (Ukraine) Nigel Short (England) Tal Memorial, Riga 1995 Notes by Martin Bennedik 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
47
The Total Marshall
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 e6 18 a4 bxa4 19 xa4 f5 20 f1 h5 21 xa6 f4 22 xf4!N 22 xc6? Lilienthal-Hallier; 22 gxf4? g6. 22...h3 23 xe6! 23 xc6 would probably transpose to the main line after 23...xf1 24 xe6 xf4 25 xf1. 23 xd5? xd5 (Not 23...cxd5 24 xd6) 24 xh3 xe1+ 25 f1 xf4 (Dolmatov) 26 gxf4 (Bennedik). 23...xf1 24 xf1 24 xc6 again should transpose to the main line after 24...xf4 25 xf1. 24...xf4
practical experience, to see if this is enough. 25...f3
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9-+R+R+-+0 9+-+n+-+-0 9-+-zP-vl-+0 9+LzP-+qzP-0 9-zP-+-zP-zP0 9+-+-+NmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
a) If 25...b8? 26 f4 (clearer than 26 e3 f7 27 f6 xf6 28 xf7+ xf7) 26...h8 27 c5+-. b) 25...h8? seems to be too slow: 26 xd5 xd5 27 gxf4 f3 28 g3 h5 29 c5 xf4 30 xh5+ g8 31 e2+-; c) 25...xg3? 26 xg3 f3 27 e2 h8 28 xd5 xd5 29 c5+-. d) Not 25...b8? 26 b6! or 25...h6?? 26 e5+- (Ernst). 26 xd5 Better is 26 gxf4 xf4 27 e8+ f7 28 xd5+ xd5. (Ernst observed that in the game Black could have forced this position with 27...xf4 instead of 27...f3.) 29 cc8 with a critical position of the line invented by Ivanchuk (see analysis diagram).
very interesting moves: c1) 30 g3 f3 (30...h5! 31 f8 xf8 32 xf8 b7=) 31 e2 h5 32 ce8 h4 33 8e3 g4 34 g2 Enst (34 h1 h3!); c2) 30 e2 Bennedik; c3) 30 e3 b7 (30...g4+?! 31 g3 h5 32 h3 33 c5) 31 ce8 (31 e6+ f7 32 ce8 xb2 33 8e7+ drawing, not 31...g5? 32 c5+) 31...xb2 32 8e6+ (32 f3!?) 32...f7 33 e7+ g6 34 7e6+ Ernst. c4) 30 f8 I proposed this move in my article in Chess Mail 5/1999. The whole line has never been tried in practice, however. Now 30...xf8 31 xf8 b5 32 c8 xb2 33 d5 e2 34 e3. 26...xd5 27 gxf4
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9R+p+R+-+0 9+-+n+-+q0 9-+-zP-vl-+0 9+LzP-+-zP-0 9-zP-+-zP-zP0 9+-+-+NmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
25 axc6 25 exc6!? is an interesting, yet untested alternative: a) 25...xg3 26 hxg3 (Even after 26 xg3 f3 27 xd5+ xd5 28 e6 f3 29 e2 h5 Fritz stubbornly defends with 30 h4.) 26...f3 27 xd5+ xd5 28 f4. As long as no way to undermine Whites kingside can be demonstrated, the conclusion must be that this position is better for White. b) 25...f3? 26 c5 f5 27 xd5 xd5 28 a5 Ernst. c) 25...h8 26 xd5 xd5 27 gxf4 f3 28 e6 and now: c1) 28...h5 29 e3 xf4 (29...g4+ 30 g3 xf4 31 g2 h4 32 h3) 30 f3. c2) 28...g5 29 f5 (29 f6 xf6 30 xf6 gxf4 or 29 e7 gxf4 30 h6 g4+ 31 g3 fxg3) 29...xf5 30 e8+ g7 31 a7+ f6 32 f8+ e6 33 xf5 xf5. I think this position is Blacks best chance against 25 exc6. Whites one rook coordinates far less well with the knight than Whites two rooks in the other lines. Also, Black now can push his h-pawn and still create counterplay against Whites king. Still, it would require
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9-+R+R+-+0 9+-+q+-+-0 9-+-zP-zP-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9-zP-+-zP-zP0 9+-+-+NmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
27...f3 27...xf4 28 e8+ f7 - 26.gxf4. 28 d5 28 g3 is a try to avoid the draw, but it looks rather risky. Compare with the note to 25 exc6, e.g.: 28...xf4 (28...xf4 29 e2 Ernst) 29 c8+ f7 30 e2 h5 31 ce8 (31 h4 xh4 32 ce8 f4 33 8e7+ g8 34 7e3 g4 35 h2 h4 36 e4 f3) 31...h4 32 8e7+ g8 33 7e3 g4 34 b4 hxg3 35 hxg3 f3. In this line, Ernst thought 32 8e3 was necessary, but liked the Black attack after 32...g4 33 f3 g6 ( g3) 34 e8 d3. 28...h5? Nigel Short did not want to play a draw but probably overstretched his position and lost in the end. Better is 28...xf4!= Fernandez-Harding ended here with a draw. Indeed White has to give a perpetual check now because of ...xf2+. 29 c4 h4 29...g4+ maybe was a better try. 30 g6 d3 31 gc6 31 cc6? xf4. 31...xd5 31...f3 32 e3!. 32 c8 h3 33 e3 d2 34 f1? This nearly spoiled the win. 34
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+R+R+-+0 9+-+-+kzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+q+-+-0 9-+-zP-tr-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9-zP-+-zP-zP0 9+-+-+NmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
In contrast to the game continuation where Black could have played 28...xf4 (see below), White can answer 29...f3 with 30 f8+ and 31 xf4, defending against the threat...xf2. For example: a) 29...f3 30 f8+ e7 31 xf4 xf4 32 e3 g5+ 33 h1 b5 34 c5 xb2 35 g2 White seems to be better, but the position is still very complicated. b) 29...g4+ 30 g3 h5 31 h3 g5 32 f8+ g6 33 c5 b3 34 xg5+ xg5 35 f5+ g6 36 xh5 xb2 37 c5. c) 29...g6 when there are several
The Total Marshall
48
xf8+ xf8 35 f1 (Dolmatov) is correct. 34...xb2 34...c1+!? 35 e2 xb2+ would have drawn in view of 36 f3? b7+ 37 8c6 f6 38 d5 xc6+ (Dolmatov). 35 xf8+ xf8 36 c8+ f7 37 h8 xc3 38 xh3+-
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+kzp-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9+-wq-sN-+R0 9-+-+-zP-zP0 9+-+-+K+-0 xiiiiiiiiy
38...d3+ 39 e1 e4 39...g8!? or 39...g6!? was a better defence. 40 e2 g8 41 f5 f7 42 g3 h1 43 h3 e4 44 g4 h1 45 h4 h2 46 f1 e5+ 47 f3! d5+ 48 e4 d1+ 49 g2 d5 50 g3 c6 50...g6!? was the last chance. 51 h3 c2 52 f3 d1 53 g4 g1 54 e6 d4+ 55 e4 d7 56 g5+ g8 57 h5 d8 58 g6 d7 59 h5 b5 60 e4 10 If 60...a4 61 d6+-. Game 43 Gert Jan Timmerman (Netherlands) Janis Vitomskis (Latvia) 15th CC World Ch Final, 1996 Notes by Vitomskis and Harding 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e4
which are different from most of the 11...c6 Marshall lines. 15...g5 Black prevents Whites h4 idea by direct means, justified by the variation 16 xg5? f5 attacking two loose pieces. As this obviously weakens Blacks kingside and does not lead to a clear resolution in Blacks favour, other moves are sometimes tried. However, 15...g5 is probably best. For a less reliable approach, see Leko-Adams. 16 f3 f5 17 xd5 cxd5 18 e3 e4 19 xe4 dxe4 20 f6! g4 20...f4!? is an idea that has rarely been tried: 21 xf4 gxf4 22 xf4 f5 23 d2 g7 24 f1 h6 draw (Stean-Radulovic, Schilde 1970). 21 xg5+ If 21 xg5 ae8 threatening ...e6. In Timman-Ivanchuk, Linares 1991, a draw soon followed 21 d2!? but this was a last round game and may not prove much. 21...xg5 22 xg5 f5 This endgame was thought fine for Black until some postal games in the 1980s. It should still be OK for him, with care. 23 d2
- Timmerman-Tarnowiecki, NBC Millennium Email 2000. 24 f1 e6 25 e2 d5 I got a surprise. 26 e3!N Instead of 26 f1 f4 Shamkovich. White has a clear plan. Maybe Black can play better somewhere, but the main thing here is that unlike other lines in Marshall, White has the initiative while Black has material, so it is hard psychologically to adopt to the changed scenario. 26...ac8 27 f4 xf4+ 28 xf4 b4 29 c1 b8 30 c2 bxc3 31 bxc3 a5 32 e3 a4 33 c4+ d6 34 d5 a3 35 c3 h5 36 d4 b2 37 c5+ e7 38 c4 xf2 39 xa3 xh2 40 c6 c2 41 a7+ f6 42 c7 c8 43 a6+ e7 44 c6 xc4+ 45 xc4 d7 46 a4 10 Game 44 David A. Kilgour (Scotland) Janis Vitomskis (Latvia) CC Olympiad XII Final, board 1, 1998-2000 Notes by Vitomskis. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 e1 In this case it is immaterial whether White plays 12 d3, or 12 e1 and 13 d3. 12...d6 13 d3
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9p+-vl-+-+0 9+p+-+pvL-0 9-+-zPp+-+0 9+-zP-+-zP-0 9PzP-sN-zP-zP0 9tR-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
23...f7 Nunn suggested 23...g7. If 23...ae8 24 a4!. This move was recommended for White by Nunn (1989) on the basis of the postal games Trautmann-Nikolic and van der Weijer-Jackson. However Black seems to get satisfactory play with 24...f4! e.g.: a) 25 e1 e3 26 fxe3 fxg3 27 hxg3 xg3 28 f1 bxa4 29 e4 xf1+ 30 xf1 b8 31 c4 xb2 32 d5 b3 33 d6 xd6 01 M.JonssonR.Berzinsh, Hallsberg junior tournament 1993. b) 25 axb5 axb5 26 gxf4 xf4 27 xf4 xf4 28 e1 f7 29 e3 f6 30 f1 f5 31 e2 h5 32 g3 g4 33 f1 xg3 34 hxg3 a8 35 e3+ g5 36 d2 a2 37 c2 a6 38 d2 a2 39 c2 a6 40 d2 a2
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+pvl-+-+0 9+p+n+-+-0 9-+-zPR+-+0 9+LzP-+-zPq0 9PzP-+-zP-zP0 9tRNvLQ+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This has been a controversial variation for 20 years. It can lead to positions, difficult for both players,
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+pvl-+-+0 9+p+n+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+LzPP+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Black has tried several plans against this popular system. See the surveys by Tim Harding and Janis Vitomskis for the detailed analyses. 13...h4 The old line with 13...f5 is not looking so reliable these days but maybe it will see a revival. 13...f5 14 f3 e8 15 xe8+ xe8 16 d2 e1+ 17 f1 g6 18 xd5 is usually recommended (After 18 g3! may we draw your attention to the critical possibility 18...f6!? as played in the game Colucci-
49
The Total Marshall
Riegsecker. Unfortunately, White can probably maintain an edge, because 18...e8 does not look viable after 19 d1!.) 18...cxd5 19 xd5 but we think Black draws by 19...d8 20 g5 xa1 21 xd8 xh2+ 22 xh2 xf1 23 a8 h6 24 d4 e2 as White has no dangerous discovered check. 14 g3 h3 15 e4
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+pvl-+-+0 9+p+n+-+-0 9-+-+R+-+0 9+LzPP+-zPq0 9PzP-+-zP-zP0 9tRNvLQ+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This is an important position in recent theory. White prevents ...g4 and threatens h4 in some lines to repel the black Queen. Compared with the position after Whites 15th move in Game 43, the only difference is the position of the white d-pawn, but this is a very significant difference. As the rook is defended by a pawn, Black cannot play 15...g5 (as he does in the analogous position with the white pawn on d4) because White would simply reply 16 xg5 and 16...f5 is not a fork. Black has tried a variety of plans, e.g. 15...d7 with...b7 (or b7 first), 15...d7 (not so good), 15...f6, and the manoeuvre f5g6 as in this game, which is a fairly solid line. 15...f5 For the playable variation with 15...f6 see the computer versus human game, Hiarcs v Bergmanis, below. 15...d7 16 d2 b7 has been played a lot, but 17 e1 c5 18 e4 e7 19 a4 b4 20 g5 is the critical line, good for White: 20...xg5 21 xg5 bxc3 22 bxc3 and now: a) 22...h6 23 e4 c6 (It looks as if Black is getting counterplay on the long diagonal, but White can neutralise this with his own threats.) 24 h5 ad8 25 f5 xc3 26 xc5 xd3 (26...xe4 27 xc6 xc6 28 dxe4 d4 29 e5 b8 30 e3) 27 c4 xc5 28 xc5 d4 29 f1! c6 30 ec1! xa4 31 e6 fxe6 32 xc6 f6 33 xa6!. This is an awkward ending for
Black who has the inferior minor piece. (Almasi-Tseshkovsky, Niksic 1997). b) 22...c6 23 f3 ad8 24 d4 (24 e4 also gives chances of an edge to White; Black has to defend precisely with no winning chances.) 24...cxd4 25 cxd4 h6 26 e4 a8 27 ad1 (27 ac1!? is another possibility offering White an edge.) 27...b6 28 c5 f6 29 f5 d6 30 e7 d5 31 e5 f6 32 d3 Leko-Slobodjan, Groningen 1997. 16 e1 g6 17 d2 f5
xd5+ 20 f1!?. 20...cxd5
XIIIIIIIIY 9rvll+-trk+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9p+-+-+q+0 9+p+p+p+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-zPP+QzP-0 9PzP-sN-+-zP0 9tR-vL-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
21 b3! Kilgour uses commonly used tactics against gambits he gives back the pawn and starts positional play against Blacks weakness: his limited space for a pair of bishops. 21 f1 b7 22 e7 c6 23 e3 (Popovic - Pavlovic, Yugoslavia 1993) 23...f6 24 g5 d6 25 xg6 xg6 (Pavlovic) 26 e2!? f4. 21 xd5+ h8 22 f3 xg3 23 hxg3 xg3+ 24 f1 f4. 21...b7 21...f7 may be inferior: 22 d4 (Tnu im has recently tried the immediate 22 f4 here.) 22...a7 23 f4 d7 24 e5 b4 25 ae1 (25 xd5 xd5 26 xd5 b5 27 d1 bxc3 28 bxc3 ac8) 25...ae8 26 f1 bxc3 27 bxc3 (Leko-Adams, Linares 1999). 22 f4 22 e7 a7+ 23 d4 (or 23 e3 d4 24 xb7 dxe3 25 d4 (25 g2 f4 Am. Rodriguez) 25...f4) 23...f7 24 e2 b6 25 f4 ff8; 22 f2. 22...a7+ 23 d4 ae8 24 xe8 24 e5 e7=. 24 f2 e4 25 d2 h6?! (25...ee8!?) 26 xe4 dxe4 27 h4 g4 28 e2 (28 d6? f4 29 xf8 e3!+ Am.Rodriguez) 28...h3 29 f1+- (Am. Rodriguez-Perez, Cuba ch 1998). 24...xe8 25 f1 f7!? 26 g2 d7 27 a3 e4 28 d2 28 c1!? e7 29 d3 e2+ 30 f2 xf2+ 31 xf2 (Gipslis). 28...e8 29 d3 f7 30 f3 30 e5 c8=. 30...h5 31 e5 b6 32 f2 Game 45 Peter Leko (Hungary) Michael Adams (England) Dortmund 1999 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9p+pvl-+q+0 9+p+n+p+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+LzPP+-zP-0 9PzP-sN-zP-zP0 9tR-vLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
18 f4 18 c4 is not so dangerous: 18...f4 19 e4 (19 cxd5 fxg3 20 dxc6+ h8 21 fxg3 xg3!) 19...fxg3 20 fxg3 g4 21 c2 bxc4 22 dxc4 (22 xc4!? c7 23 c2 h8 24 xd5 b6+!?) 22...ae8 23 cxd5 f3 24 dxc6+ h8 (see analysis diagram)
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+rtr-mk0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9p+Pvl-+q+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+N+-+0 9+L+-+lzP-0 9PzPQ+-+-zP0 9tR-vL-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Now 25 d5 (if 25 c7 xe4 26 c8 xc8 27 xe4 c5+) 25...xg3 26 hxg3 xe4 27 f4 (Andrijevic-Pavlovic, Yugoslavia 1988) 27...xe1+ 28 xe1 xc2 29 xf3 followed by c1 wins (Nunn). Let me take the liberty of expressing a different view: 29...xb2!? 30 c7 h5 31 e2 (31 xh5 d4+ 32 g2 d5+ 33 f3 xa2+ (33...f5 34 d1) 34 e2 f7) 31...c3 32 d2 (32 xh5 c5+ 33 h1 xf4 34 gxf4 xc7) 32...xf4 33 d8+ h7 34 c8 xc8 35 xc8 xf3 (Vitomskis). 18...xf4 19 f3!? b8 20
The Total Marshall
50
4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e4!? b7?! Adams tries another approach against the 15 e4 line, following a suggestion by Korchnoi. 15...g5. 16 h4 The logical follow-up to Whites previous move, although Nunn did not mention it in his 1989 book. 16...e6 16...d7? fails to 17 xd5 cxd5 18 h5 h6 19 xh6! gxh6 20 xh6+so the queen stays on the 3rd rank to prevent this. 17 d2 f5!? Adams attempts to improve upon 17...fe8 18 e4 e7 19 c5 xc5 20 dxc5 Nunn-Hebden, London 1990. 18 h5! 18 c4 bxc4 19 xc4 (Shamkovich) 19...e7! targetting the rook on h4. 18...h6 19 f3 e7 20 h3 c5! Leko said Black has counterplay here, but he did not have a clear improvement to suggest in the sequel. 20...ae8 21 f4 22 e1. 21 dxc5! White prevents...c4 to keep open the diagonal a2-g8. 21...xc5 22 f4 If Black captures the bishop, the white on g3 will come to life again. 22...ae8 23 d1! 23 e1? xe1+! 24 xe1 xe1+ 25 g2 h7 26 xd5 xd5+ 27 f3 g1#. 23...e7 23...e2? 24 d2+- but not 24 xh6? xf2+ 25 h1 e2 26 g1 e6!! 27 xg7 xg1+ 28 xg1 f4+ and it is Black who wins. 23...a5? 24 xh6! gxh6 25 xd5 xd5 26 xd5 xd5 27 g6+ and White wins. 24 g5! White starts to unravel his pieces with tactics. 24...d7 24...ef7 25 xh6!! gxh6 26 g5! d6 (or 26...xf2+ 27 f1! e3+ 28 e2) 27 xf7 xf7 28 f3 d7 29 h5+-; 24...ee8 25 xh6!+-. 24...hxg5? 25 h7+ f7 26 xg5+ and wins. 25 e1 b6 If 25...f7!? 26 e5 (26 h4 e8) 26...xh5 27 xh5 e8 28 d2
de7 29 d3 (29 xf5?! g6 30 f6 xe5 31 xe5 xe5 32 xg6+ f7 33 xh6 g7) 29...xe1+ 30 xe1 g6 31 xh6 g7 32 d2 and Black has a two pawn deficit. 26 e2 h7
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-tr-+0 9+l+r+-zpk0 9pwq-+-+-zp0 9+pvln+pvLQ0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+LzP-+NzPR0 9PzP-+RzP-zP0 9+-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
26...b4 27 e5 d6 28 e7+-. 27 h4!! a5?! 27...d6 28 c2+-. 28 xh6!! xh6 28...gxh6 29 e6!! xf2+ (29...xe6 30 g5+) 30 f1 (30 h1?? xe6 31 g5+ g8 32 xe6 e3++) 30...e3+ 31 e2 xf3+ 32 xf3+(or 32 xf3!?). 29 g5! a4 30 e6 10 Game 46 Nevio Joo (Brazil) Antonio Jose Tavares (Brazil) 12th Latin-American Corr Zonal Final 19992001 Notes based on those in Ajedrez Postal Americano 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 e6 18 a4 h5 19 axb5 axb5 20 e4
the battle for the focal point e4.) 24 f1 xe4 25 fxe4 xe4 with level material. After 26 f4 Black can choose between 26...d3 (Svidler-Kamsky, Groningen 1995) and 26...xf4 (Roos-Vitomskis, corr 1996). 21 d2 fe8 22 d1 xd1 23 exd1 f5 24 g5 e2 25 xf5!? 25 f3? 8e3! Anand-Kamsky, Sanghi Nagar; maybe 25 f3. 25...f6!? 25...f8 26 h3 g6 27 g4 ee8 28 f3 Blatny. 26 f3! xf3 27 xf3 e4 Black has a temporary initiative but it is not enough. 28 c1 28 e1 xb2 29 a6 c5 30 dxc5 xc5 31 c6 e6 32 d2 Vitomskis. 28...xf2 29 g5 e2 30 xe4 8xe4 31 a8+ e8 31...f7? 32 a7. 32 xe8+ xe8 33 f2 f7 34 f3 a8 35 f4 White exchanges his bad Bishop and reaches a rook ending with a sound extra pawn.
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+-+0 9+-vl-+kzpp0 9-+p+-+-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-vL-+0 9+-zP-+KzP-0 9-zP-+-+-zP0 9+-+R+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy
35...xf4 36 xf4 a2 37 d2 e6 38 e2+ d6 38...d5!?. 39 e4 a1 40 b4 c1 41 e3 c2 42 h4 f2 43 h5 h2 44 g4 f2 45 f3 g2 46 f4 d5 47 g5! e6 47...e4? 48 f7! h6+ 49 h4 h2+ 50 g3 c2 51 xg7+-. 48 e3+ d7 49 e1 49 h3!?. 49...a2 50 f1! e7 51 f5 a7 52 d5! d6?! 53 dxc6 xc6 54 c5+ b6 55 c8! d7 56 h8 d5+ 57 f4 h6 58 g8 d7 59 f5 10. Game 47 Computer Hiarcs Olgerts Bergmanis Victoria Open, Australia 1999 Notes by Vitomskis, Latvain Correspondence Chess & Latvian Gambit magazine
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9-+pvlr+-+0 9+p+n+-+q0 9-+-zPN+l+0 9+LzPQvL-zP-0 9-zP-+-zP-zP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This move was popular in the 1990s as an attempt to refute the Spassky Variation. 20...c7?! 20...f5 seems to be necessary, but also sufficient. The main line goes 21 d2 xe4! 22 xe4 f6 23 f3 g6 (Everything piles on to
51
The Total Marshall
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 e1 d6 13 d3 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e4 f6 16 h4 f5
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+pvl-sn-+0 9+p+-+q+-0 9-+-+-+-tR0 9+LzPP+-zP-0 9PzP-+-zP-zP0 9tRNvLQ+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
17 f4 If 17 d4 g6!? (17...e8!?) with the idea 18...f5 or 18...g4. Then if 18 c2 f5 (18...g4 19 xg6 xd1 20 d3) 19 xf5 xf5 20 e3 ae8 (20...fe8!? 21 d2 g5 22 g4 d5 23 h3; 20...g5 21 g4 d5 22 h3) 21 d2 d5 22 f1! (Almasi-Lukacs, Austrian league 1996) 22...g6! 23 h5 (23 g4 e6! f5-f4) 23...xh5 24 xh5 f5= Almasi, Informator 66. 17...g5 17...e7 followed by 18...g6 after either 18 c2 or 18 d4, also seems just about viable for Black. See the Vitomskis survey on the 15...f6 line and our notes to HulleyAllenby. 18 xd6 gxh4 19 xf8 xf8 19...hxg3 20 hxg3 xf8 21 d2 xd3 22 f3 ECO. 20 d2 Theory gives 20 e2 b7 21 d2 c5 22 f3 hxg3 23 hxg3 g5 24 f2 d8 25 c2 h5 26 f1 AnandCooper, British Ch, Blackpool 1988; but now comes 26...f4!! Vitomskis! (See the survey for details.) 20...g4 20...c5 21 h6+ (21 d4 b7) 21...g8 22 xh4 b7 23 d2; 20...hxg3 21 fxg3 g6 22 a3 f5 23 f1. 21 d4 xh2! A very bold step, but later the senior champion of Victoria (born Riga 1924) overlooks a fine chance to decide the game in his favour and loses instead. Not 21...hxg3 22 fxg3 e6 23 a3. 22 xh2 hxg3+ 23 g1!? White could have settled for a draw but maybe the computer was programmed to avoid that.
23 fxg3 h3+ 24 g1 xg3+ 25 g2 e1+ with perpetual check. 23...gxf2+ 24 xf2 g5+ 25 h1 h6+ 26 g2 h3+? He should have played 26...a7! 27 d2 (27 d5 e7 28 d6 xd6 29 a3 g6+ and wins) 27...f6 28 f3 e7 29 e4 g4+ and Black wins. 27 g1 f5 27...a7 28 d2 e7 29 f4+-. 28 d2 e8 29 f1 g4+ 30 g2 xg2+ 31 xg2 10 Game 48 Marcio Barbosa de Oliveira (Brazil) Umberto Maffei (Italy) Coppa Latina Europe-America 4 team tournament, Email 2000 Notes by Martin Bennedik. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 e6 18 a4 f5? 19 axb5! For an introduction to this line refer to the corresponding survey about Quigleys bust. 19...f4 20 xf4! xf4 21 xe6 xe6
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9p+p+l+-+0 9+P+n+-+-0 9-+-zP-vl-+0 9+LzPQ+-zPq0 9-zP-sN-zP-zP0 9tR-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
22 bxa6 For 22 bxc6 refer to the survey. 22...xd2 23 xd2 If 23 a7 then: a) 23...a8 was considered by Quigley in his article. He also showed that it is insufficient: 24 xd2 f7 25 c4 (25 e2 a6 also looks strong) 25...f6 26 a3 with the idea of d1 to defend against ...g4 and then activate the Queen. b) 23...c7 24 xe6+ xe6 25 xd2 a8 and now: b1) 26 c4!? (an idea of Stefan Bcker) 26...xc4 27 f4 f7 (27...a6 28 e5 h6 29 e7 b5 30 d5!+- Bcker) 28 d6 f8 29 f4 e8 Bennedik. b2) 26 f4 c8 27 e4 b5 28 e7
f5 29 a6 (Quigley in a follow up to his article.) 29...xa7 30 xa7 xa7 31 xa7 b1+ (Bcker gives this as drawish, in personal correspondence.) 32 g2 e4+ 33 f1 b1+ 34 e2 xb2+ 35 f3 xc3+ 36 g2. However, when I showed this position to GM Peter Leko, he said that White still has real winning chances in this endgame. Anyway, after some difficulties in realizing the advantage were found with 23 a7, attention turned toward 23 xd2. 23...c7 Black probably wants to transpose to the lines with 23 a7. For other Black moves, see the supplementary games in our database. 24 c2! A very good move by Oliveira. Now with most sensible piece moves by Black, White gains a tempo over the lines with 23 a7. White will then have his queen on c2 and be able to play his pawn to c4. As the game shows, this is probably enough to win the game. 24 xe6+ xe6 25 a7 transposes to 23 a7. 24...a8 Black could try not to lose a tempo with 24...h5!?. Then if 25 xe6+ xe6 26 a7 a8 27 c4 d6 28 e4 b4 29 b3 c3 30 a4 xb3 31 xc6 c2. (With the pawn on h5, this position is much harder to win for White, most of all because there is no threat of mate to the Black king.) However, White can play another strong move here: 25 e1! (xe6) 25...xb3 26 xb3+ h8 27 b7 f5 28 f1 c8 29 xc6 xa6 30 xc8 xc8 31 a1. 25 a7 h6 26 xe6+ xe6 27 c4
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+k+0 9zP-sn-+-zpp0 9-+p+q+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-+-+-zP-0 9-zPQ+-zP-zP0 9tR-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Now this pawn is defended by the c2. I think Black finds the best defence. 27...d6 28 e4 28 b3 xd4 29 b8+ d8 30
The Total Marshall
52
xd8+ xd8 31 b4 f7 32 b5 cxb5 33 cxb5 a8 is probably not enough. 28...b4 29 b3 29 xc6 xb2. 29...c3 29...xb3 30 b1. 30 a4 xb3 31 xc6 c2 Hoping for...f8 to get counterplay. 32 a1 b2 33 e1 f8 33...xa7 34 e8+ would lead to a mate. 33...b4!? 34 e2 (34 a1 b2=) 34...xa7 might be tried as there is no mate after 35 e8+ xe8 36 xe8+ f8. So White can play 35 d5 h6 (Black hopes for ...a1+ followed by ...b1, for if 35...a1+ 36 g2 b1 37 e8+) 36 g2 b1 37 e7 a1 38 xc7 f1+ 39 f3 d1+ 40 f4 (40 e4 e2+ 41 f4 xf2+ 42 g4 h5+ draws) 40...d4+ 41 f5 xf2+ 42 f4 c2+ 43 e4 f1+ 44 g4 d1+ 45 h4 and White seems to win. 34 f1 a8 35 c5 e2 36 d5 d3 37 d6 e8 38 d5+ xd5 39 cxd5 d8 40 b1 f8 41 b7 h5 42 g2 g6 43 b8 e8 44 h4 d7 45 f3 10 This was a very good game by White. This line gives White most excellent winning chances and the assessment has far-reaching consequences for the evaluation of the moves 18 a4 (and 18 f1). Game 49 Herman-Josef Falke (Germany) Tim Harding (Ireland) ICCF World Cup 12 preliminaries, 2000. Notes by Tim Harding. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 d3 f5 17 f4 g5 18 f1 h5 19 d2 h6!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9p+pvl-+-zp0 9+p+n+pzpq0 9-+-zP-zPl+0 9+LzP-vL-zP-0 9PzP-sN-+-zP0 9tR-+-tRQmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This game was a fascinating test for the Slovenian Variation,
a little-known line that was successful until recently. The line was pioneered several years ago by masters from Slovenia (a former Yugoslav republic which is now an independent state) but did not get into theory books until now. In our database you can find several examples played by Slovenian players and a few games from the Internet. Black would like White to capture on g5 so that he can get mobile pawns again; he would also like White to waste a lot of time with the queen chasing pawns around d5/c6/a6. Apart from protecting f5, the move...h6 also opens up the square h7 for a rook or the king. The downside is that it is a tempo not used for development or threats. 19...ad8 is recommended in ECO but has been little tried. 20 f2 (20 fxg5 (Buhnen-Fuegert, corr 1993) needs to be investigated.) 20...h8 21 xd5 cxd5 22 a4 h6 23 axb5 axb5 24 b3 c8 25 c4 bxc4 26 bxc4 dxc4 27 d5 c3 28 f1 c2 Safvat-Pomar, Munich 1958. For the usual 19...ae8 see Bravo Castillero-Jaime Chavez above. 20 g2 20 xd5+ cxd5 21 g2 h7! was the move order in SmoljanGostisa. For 20 f2 see my notes to HenryJaimes-Monster Mash in the database. These games were good for Black. 20 a4! is close to being a refutation of the variation, however, and I lost in the later game BurmesterHarding without really finding any answer to this move. However, Black later got a draw in RivaBohak, which is the game Black needs to study first if he wants to revive this variation. Defending the honour of the Slovenian Variation, Bohak found 20...bxa4 21 xa4! h7 and now the critical line seems to be 22 xd5 cxd5 23 a5. 20...h7 Gostisas move. In an earlier correspondence game I played 20...ad8!? because White offered it as a conditional. After 21 xd5+ cxd5 22 xd5+ (22 a4!?) 22...h7 we reached the same position as in Falke-Harding (22...h8 also might be worth examining.). 21 xd5 21 a4!? gxf4!? is untested. 21...cxd5 22 xd5 After 22 f2?! White lost badly in Ciganovic-Radoicic, corr 1980.
Maybe 22 a4 is playable: 22...gxf4 23 xf4 (23 gxf4) 23...xf4 but this seems good for Black too e.g. 24 xd5 (24 gxf4 g8) 24...ad8. Probably not good is 22 fxg5, a move which seems to assist Black: 22...hxg5 23 xd5 ad8 and now: a) 24 g2 f4! 25 f2 f3 26 f1 h8! and Black won in Z.KindjicL.Gostisa, corr 1989. Previously, 26...f6 was seen in LenarcicGradisnic, corr 1975; note the pretty queen sacrifice to force the draw in this game. b) 24 b7+ is more critical: b1) 24...h8 loses tempo: 25 d5 f7 (25...f7 26 xa6 f4 27 d4+ g8 28 e4) 26 xf7 xf7 27 xg5 and White eventually won in an ICC game, KillerGrob v. K6-Krafty. b2) 24...f7! is better: 25 g2 (25 xa6 f4 transposes to KaniakHarding, below.) 25...f4 26 f2 f3 and Black went on to win in A.Mano-E.Efendiyev, IECG 1999. 22...ad8 23 c6 23 g2 transposes to N.SmoljanF.Gostisa, corr 1973, which ended 23...gxf4 24 xf4 xf4 25 gxf4 g8 26 b7+ h8 27 h1 g7 28 c6 dg8 29 e6 h7 30 ae1 h3! 31 e7 h4! 01. If instead 23 b7+ f7 24 c6 (24 b6 see 23 Qc6 Rf7 24 Qb6) 24...gxf4 White is in trouble on the g-file. 23...f7 This is my move. Janko Bohak sent me a game Alvebring-Efendiyev which went instead 23...gxf4?! (I think more subtlety is needed.) 24 xf4! (To open the e-file for his Rook.) 24...xf4 25 gxf4 (Also critical is 25 e7+ h8 26 gxf4) 25...f7 (25...g8?? 26 e7+) 26 e3 g8 and Black managed to draw in Alvebring-Efendiyev but I was doubtful this line should this be good enough. 24 fxg5 I analysed also: a) 24 xa6?! gxf4 25 xf4 (25 gxf4 g7 or 25 f2 fxg3 26 xg3 f4) 25...xf4 26 b3 (26 gxf4 g8) 26...c7 threat...f4. b) 24 b6 c7 (24...gxf4 25 xd8 fxg3 26 h4) 25 e6 (25 xa6 gxf4 see 24 xa6 line.) 25...gxf4 26 xf4 xf4 27 gxf4 g7 28 f1 f3+! (28...e8 29 xe8 e2+ 30 g3 xe8 31 f2 b8 32 xe2) 29 g3 h3. 24...hxg5 Black gets the open h-file which is one of the main ideas of the
53
The Total Marshall
Slovenian Variation. This position can possibly also arise via an earlier fxg5. 25 f2!N In an earlier game I had 25 xa6 f4 when White probably has no defence. a)26 e4 f3 (26...fxg3 27 xg5+!?) 27 xd6 ()27 c6 g7 28 d5 h3 or 28...fxg3) 29 d4+ g8 30 e2 fxg3) 27...fxg3. b) 26 f1 fxe3 27 e4 e7 28 xf7+ xf7 29 xb5. c) 26 f2 fxg3 0-1 Kaniak-Harding, email 1999. White resigned by silence but he was lost anyway: 27 xg3 (27 hxg3 xf2+) 27...xg3 28 hxg3 f3! (28...f2 29 e7+ h8=) 29 xf3 xf3+ 30 e6 xg3+ 31 h1 h4+ 32 g1 f2+ 33 h1 h8.
e5+ . 26...e7! 26...f3? 27 xg5+. 27 xa6 27 a4 would be met by kingside attack.
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-tr-+-+0 9+-+-vlr+k0 9Q+-+-+-+0 9+p+-+-zpq0 9-+-zPNzpl+0 9+-zP-+-zP-0 9PzP-+-vL-zP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Consistent since his cant get back as his is in the way. Now Black is three pawns in arrears, with a big decision to make. 27...h8! After a lot of analysis. One idea is...g7 or...g8. Black even wins in some lines but in the main line a drawn ending arose. 27...b4!? also comes into consideration but I rejected 27...f3?! because of 28 e6 h8 29 g4! (or maybe 29 h4) and 27...d7?! because of 28 b7 f3 29 d2 g4 30 h4 gxh3 31 e5. 28 xb5 The most greedy and most critical move. Now Black can have a lot of fun analyzing inferior defences for White. 28 d5? should lose to 28...h3 (28...f3!?) but 28 d2 is about equal after 28...h3. 28...f3! 28...g8?! 29 h4!. 29 gxf4 a) 29 h4? g4 30 d3 (30 d5 fxg3 31 xg3 gxh4) 30...g8 31 xg5 (31 d2 fxg3+) 31...xg5 32 g6+ (32 e8+ g7 33 xh8 xh8) 32...f8 33 d6+ g7 and Black wins. b) 29 xg5+ xg5 30 gxf4 g4+. c) 29 e3 g8 (or maybe 29...xe4 but not 29...fxe3? 30 xe3) 30 h4 g4. d) 29 g4 xg4+ (29...h3 30 f1 xg4+). 29...g4+ White has two pieces to interpose: one draws, one loses. 30 g3 If 30 g3 gxf4! when: a) 31 h5+?! xh5 32 xh5 xh5 With queens off; Black has Bishop plus initiative for 4 queenside pawns.
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-tr-+-+0 9+-+-+r+k0 9p+Qvl-+-+0 9+p+-+pzpq0 9-+-zP-+l+0 9+-zP-+-zP-0 9PzP-sN-vL-zP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
For a time I wondered if 25 f2 was the refutation of Blacks attack. However, I managed to find a way to keep the initiative and put White under a lot of pressure. 25...f4 25...f6 was the alternative but neither move seemed 100% correct and I thought...f4 set more traps. A possible continuation is 26 g2 f4 27 e4 (27 gxf4) 27...h6 28 xd6 f3 29 h1 dxd6 with compensation because of Whites awful position. 26 e4?! As I hoped and expected. 26 e5? xe5 27 e4 g7 28 a4 f5 29 axb5 axb5 30 e1 e8. 26 xa6? loses as in KaniakHarding above. 26 f1!? is playable but probably Black holds the balance? 26...g7 27 e1 (27 d5) 27...h8 (27...f6 28 h1) 28 h4 b8 29 d5 gxh4 30 xh5 xh5=. 26 a4 is probably Whites best winning try. Does Black enough play? I am not sure what the best move is now, e.g. 26...f3 (26...g7!? may be best; if 26...f6 27 e4+ h8 28 axb5) 27 e3 g7 28 axb5 h8 29 h4 gxh4 30 xd6 hxg3 31
b) 31 b3 hf8! seems right. Now if 32 e6 we transpose to the next line. c) 31 c4 hf8! 32 e6! (32 d3+ h8) with two possibilities. 32...fxg3 33 xg3 is a messy position where Black has Bishop for 5 pawns; in fact 33...g5 34 e3 d5 may be winning for Black after 35 e5 h6!. Black also can consider 32...h4 33 e4 g7 34 ae1 f6+. 30...gxf4 31 f2 White finds the critical line. Not 31 d2? fxg3. If 31 c4 g7 32 f2 g6 33 d3 xd3 34 xd3 fxg3 and, like the game, Black is not worse although he has no pawns. The bishops give him chances. 31...g6 31...fxg3 32 xg4 and 32 d3+ were also examined in detail but this seemed unreliable. 32 d3 xd3 32...fxg3 is similar. 33 xd3 fxg3 34 hxg3 d6 34...g7 draws at best after 35 e5 h1+ 36 f2 h2+. 35 e5 35 f2 g7 36 f4 d5 37 e3 xf4+ 38 gxf4 e7+ 39 d3 h3+ is slightly better for Black but probably drawn. 35 f4 was the move I originally gave most attention to (35...xf4= as others seemed risky). 35...xe5 36 dxe5
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-tr0 9+-+-+r+k0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-zP-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-zP-+lzP-0 9PzP-+-+-+0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
I suspect this is a winning try by him based on advancing the epawn. Computers prefer Whites five pawns to Blacks bishop at this stage. 36 xe5 was maybe expected but I think Black has a safe draw then. 36...g7 (36...g6!? is more complex) 37 ae1 h1+ 38 f2 b7+ 39 e2 and Black wins the b-pawn after a check, which removes most of the danger from the white pawns. 36...f5! This is soundest as later his e5-e6 does not attack the Rook. Black may be able to pick up the e-pawn
The Total Marshall
54
through threats to his King. Anyway this seems to ensure a safe draw and White must be a bit careful now. Instead 36...g6 gives Black no winning chances as the white King breaks out. Then Black will struggle to stop all Whites pawns, though it should be possible. 37 g4 If 37 f1 g6! while 37 f2! d1+! will draw by repetition: 38 g2 f3+ 39 f2 d1+; 37 a4 g6 38 g4 f4 39 f2 d5+ 40 e3 e4+ 41 d3 h3+ 42 d2 h2+ 43 d3 h3+=. 37 e6 g6 is complex but probably better for Black who still has threats to the white King and should be able to win at least two of the pawns soon. 38 f2 (38 e7 h1+ 39 f2 d1+ 40 g2 xe1 41 xd1 e2+! 42 h3 f7) 38...d5+ 39 e3 xe6. 37...xg4 38 e3 f3 39 f2 39 f1?? g8+ 40 f2 (40 h2 h5#) 40...g2+. If 39 xf3 xf3 Black should win, and 39 e6 g8+ probably is also good for Black. 39...g4+ 40 g1 White acquiesces in a draw. 40 e1? g6! could turn nasty for him: 41 g3 h1+ 42 d2 xa1 43 xg4+ f7 when Black wins another pawn to get 2 Rooks v Rook + 3 pawns. 40...f3 . Great fun; fantastic drawn game! Game 50 Thorhallur B. Olafsson (Iceland) Tim Harding (Ireland) ICCF Officials 50th JT / IM-A, Email 2001 Notes by Tim Harding. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 This was my last Marshall game before finalising this e-book. 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 e6 18 a4 h5 This move, Spasskys second thought in the 18 a4 variation, has the reputation of being solid but not very macho. Instead of crude direct threats, Black will work with subtle touches to obtain sufficient positional compensation and draw. That is the official version but in
practice the truth may be somewhat different. If White is unwilling to tread the well-worn path to an early draw, he must take some risks and can very soon find himself turning over his king... 19 axb5 Nunn wrote that there is no reason for White to delay this capture, but there is an alternative: 19 f1 h3 See Part 1 of the Vitomskis survey of the Spassky Variation. 19...axb5 20 f1 This is an important decision point for Black. There are two distinct lines. 20...fe8 20...h3 is favoured by Nunn in our book, and has usually been preferred but I avoided it because I thought Black may have a problem in this line. (Later I found Herbrechtsmeier-im which gets around the problem.) The rook move is probably less clear but therefore it maybe gives more winning chances. 21 xd5 21 g2 (Kobe-Roskar) should not be good. I didnt give much thought to Whites alternatives in the early stages, just trusting I could research and analyse whatever my opponent came up with, but probably I would have answered 21...e2!?. 21...xd5 22 g2 This move was scorned by Nunn (1989) but is often played and is not easy to refute. 22 h3 f5 23 g2 h5!? 24 xd5 cxd5 25 g2 d3 26 a5 (Better is 26 b3 Vitomskis) 26...f5 27 f3 e4 28 g1 g6 29 a6 ee6 30 h4 e7! was fine for Black in Wallwork-C.Chandler, corr 1989. 22 c4 (the only move in ECO) is not dangerous to Black:. 22...f5 (22...bxc4 is also possible - Nunn) 23 cxb5 b4! 24 c4 and now both 24...xb5 and 24...xd2= (Nunn) are fine. 22...h5 23 a6?! When he played this, I decided Olafsson must be aiming for the apparent 24 f4 improvement on the Readers of Prizyv v Estrin game. I already began analysing the various possibilities, especially the 25...xf4 line. For Whites alternatives, see the notes to the Estrin game. 23...f5 This move seems obvious; and Blacks attack is good enough for at least a draw. The alternative 23...h3 (see Dahne-Rut) scored
0.5/2 in my database, whereas this move never lost and often won. 24 d5 For alternatives, see the notes to the Estrin game. 24...h6 25 f4
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9R+pvl-+-tr0 9+p+P+p+q0 9-+-+-zPl+0 9+-zP-vL-zP-0 9-zP-sN-+QzP0 9+-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Nobody ever played this before, to my knowledge, nor was the refutation previously published anywhere. Indeed, so far as I can discover, the position was not discussed. In the famous Readers of Prizyv v. Estrin game, above, White played 25 f3 instead. I had to work out what Estrin intended now (since he didnt say in his notes). 25...xf4!? I think this must be what Estrin wanted to keep secret. If he had found a clear win, would he have shown it? Here is a summary of the possibilities I examined over several days. a) 25...g5?! 26 fxg5. b) 25...h3 could lead to an immediate repetition, or maybe not even that? c) 25...c5!? (idea...xf4) was interesting, but White has at least one good reply in 26 a7 (26 aa1; 26 f2?!). d) 25...cxd5!? is very interesting but not necessary: 26 xd5+ (26 a8!?) 26...h8 27 h4 (27 f1 f3 28 d2 h3 29 f2 b7) 27...xf4 28 a8!. e) 25...c5!? was the obvious alternative but it is inconclusive: 26 f1 f3 (26...f8 27 d2 c5 repetition) and now: e1) 27 d2 f8 28 xc6! (28 dxc6! xc6 29 xc6 xc6 30 d5+ ee6=) 28...xc6 29 dxc6 xc6 30 d1! is about equal. If instead 30 e2 Black is still a pawn down but with attacking chances. e2) 27 f2 may be slightly better: 27...f8!? (27...xe3 and...xd5 recovers the pawn but not much more?) 28 dxc6 xc6. f) Finally, 25...xe3?! does not work: 26 xe3 c5 27 a8+ f7
55
The Total Marshall
28 ae8 e.g. 28...h3 29 f3 g4 30 f2 (30 g2 repeats) 30...cxd5 Black regains his pawn but eventually he must capture on e3 for full material equality but a positional minus. 26 gxf4 a) 26 f2?? not possible here because h2 hangs after 26...xe3 27 xe3 xe3. b) 26 f1?! concedes a good game to Black but is the only other playable move. After 26...f3 27 d2 xe3+ and ...xd5 is again good for Black. Or if here 27 f2 xe3 28 xe3 xd5 Black has won a pawn because if 29 xe8+ xe8 30 xf5 then comes 30...f6 with a winning attack for Black. c) 26 xf4? xe1+ 27 f1 (27 f2 e2+) 27...h3 28 a8+ f7 29 a7+ g6 30 e5 (30 f2? d1) 30...xe5+. d) 26 f2?! xe3+ (26...h3) 27 xe3 xe3 28 xe3 might be tried in a pinch, e.g. 28...e8+!? (One of several possibilities) 29 f2 (29 d3 d6) 29...e2+ 30 g1 e3+ 31 f2 xf2+ 32 xf2 xh2+ 33 e3 cxd5 and Black is at least one pawn up in an endgame. 26...h3! 26...g6 seems worthless: 27 xc6 (27 f1) 27...h3 28 xg6 xg2 29 xg2 when White has far too much for the Queen. Most of the rest of the game revolves around working out when the Queen is better, or only drawing, or actually worse. The material count is not the only factor; the activity of the other pieces, the strength of passed pawns and possible pawn breaks all come into the equation. 27 g3! This must be best. a) 27 e2?? g6+ 28 h1 xe3! 29 a8+ f7 30 a7+ f6 31 e7 (31 xe3 allows forced mate by 31...g2+ 32 g1 f3+; or 31 xh5 xe1+ 32 f1 xf1#) 31...xe2 32 xe2 xe7 33 xe7 g2+ 34 g1 xd5+ and wins. b) 27 f2!? is the main alternative: 27...g6+ 28 h1 g2+ 29 xg2 xg2 30 xg2 g4+! (30...cxd5 allows consolidation by 31 f3) and now 31 f2 (the critical reply) 31...h4+ 32 f1 (32 e2? xe3+ 33 xe3 xe1+ 34 d3 cxd5+) 32...h3+ (32...g5!? also comes into consideration.) 33 f2 xh2+ 34 f1 with several possible lines for Black here, he should win.
See the notes in the database for detailed variations. 27...g6
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9R+p+-+r+0 9+p+P+p+q0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9+-zP-vL-wQl0 9-zP-sN-+-zP0 9+-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
28 xc6 I am not sure if this is the right choice here; I kept changing my mind about it. 28 dxc6 is possibly his best try, to make his pawn as dangerous as possible? 28...xg3+ might then be premature? (28...b4!? and 28...h6!? are possible.) 29 hxg3 xe3 (29...g5!? may be better?) 30 a8+ (30 xe3 d1+ 31 f2 xd2+ 32 e2 d8 33 e5 h5 34 e2 g4+ 35 e3 d1+) 30...f7 31 xe3 d1+ 32 f2 xd2+ 33 e2 d5 34 a7+ f6 (34...g6!? 35 c7 c6) 35 c7 c6!. Not, however, 35...g2+?! 36 e1 xg3+ 37 d1 d3+ 38 c1 c4 39 d2! and I dont see how Black can win. In fact he has to be careful not to lose. 28...xg3+ The result of the game now depends on the black queens fight against Whites rook, minor piece and pawns. This sort of material balance arises quite often in the Marshall and is not always good for Black. Here Blacks Bishop is potentially bad and if it cannot contribute to a mate then he would like to exchange it for the white Knight. Blacks chances are improved if his rook is not exchanged because then it can be responsible for dealing with Whites passed pawn and this leaves the queen free to do damage without having to undertake defenisve duties. Of course Black wants a kingside pawn breakthrough if possible, because as we shall see this simplifies the win. Black must watch for counterplay based on Whites passed pawn and he must also avoid positions later in the game where a rook and pawns might set up a barricade against the black queen and obtain a positional
draw. Not 28...g4 29 e6 xe6 30 dxe6 e8 31 d4 xg3+ 32 hxg3 a8 33 e2 g4 34 e1 and Black has only a draw by repetition: 34...h3 35 e2 g4 etc. 29 hxg3
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+-+-+-zpp0 9-+R+-+-+0 9+p+P+p+q0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9+-zP-vL-zPl0 9-zP-sN-+-+0 9+-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This is a critical position that can arise by force from 25 f4. How well does the queen fight against assorted material? Black has some chances in the main line but at this stage I thought a draw seemed probable. Several moves were examined here. 29...f7! I decided on this after many days analysis. It seemed to give more winning chances than alternatives by keeping my Rook and/or eliminating his advanced pawn At first I thought 29...g5 30 e6 (30 f1?? f3) 30...xe6 (30...d8; 30...h6) 31 dxe6 e8 looked like a possible way to make progress, albeit dangerous. Eventually I decided it was too risky. 30 c5 This is one of only two reasonable moves from him, but maybe the inferior of the two? 30 c4 bxc4 (30...g5!?) 31 c5 g5 looked bad for White. 30 d6!? may be necessary, and I had not yet found a clear win at the point when my opponent played 30 c5 instead. On d6 the Rook prevents...g6 but on the other hand it may open other possibilities 30...g6! White may be lost now. Instead 30...g5!? 31 f3 gxf4 32 xf4 xe1+ 33 xe1 a7 34 d3 a1+ 35 f2 f1+ 36 e3 g1+ probably only draws. 31 f2 31 h2 is perhaps no better. If 31 f2? xe1+ 32 xe1 e8 33 f2 (33 f2 g4) 33...e2. 31...g4 32 f3 If 32 d4?! xe1 33 xe1 e8+ 34 e5 h5. Now White can pick off
The Total Marshall
56
g7 but the Black will penetrate the kingside: 35 c8+ f7 36 c7+ e8 37 c8+ d7 38 c7+ d8 39 xg7 (39 f1 h1 40 d6 e4+ mates.) 39...h1+ 40 f2 (40 f1? e4+ 41 f2 e2+ 42 g1 f3) 40...h2+ 41 e3 xg3+ 42 d4 f2+ 43 d3 e2+ 44 c2 e1 45 g8+ e7 46 g7+ e8 47 g8+ f7 48 g7+ f8+. 32...xf3 33 xf3 h5 34 f2 Maybe not best. 34 xb5 is unplayable because of 34...h4 35 gxh4 (35 g1 xe3+ 36 xe3 e8+ and...xb5) 35...g4+ 36 f2 xh4+ 37 f1 (37 e2 xe3+ 38 xe3 xe1+) 37...g3. or if 34 h1 xe3+ 35 xe3 xg3+. Some other moves might survive longer, e.g. 34 f2!? or 34 g2 h4 35 f2!? or 34 c6. 34...h4 35 gxh4 If 35 g1 h3 36 d4 (36 h1?? xe3) 36...d6 37 h1? (37 b4 a6) 37...e7. 35...g4 36 d6 Not 36 h1? xe3 37 xe3 g3+ 38 e2 (38 d4 xf4+ (38...f2+ 39 e5 xc5) 39 d3 e4+ 40 d2 g2+) 38...g2+. 36...xh4+ 37 f1 h1+ 38 f2 h2+ 39 f1 39 f3? is hopeless because 39...g5! threatens mate in one!. 39...d8 39...h3+ does not give a clear win: 40 f2 d8 41 d5 h2+ 42 f3 xb2 43 d3 c2 44 ed1 d7 45 1d2 and White pieces defend each other and the strong d-pawn; there may be a good continuation here but it is far from clear. 40 d1
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-tr-+k+0 9+-+-+-zp-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+ptR-+p+-0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9+-zP-vL-+-0 9-zP-+-+-wq0 9+-+R+K+-0 xiiiiiiiiy
If 40 d7 xd7 or 40 xb5 xd6 Black should win I think. Once the d-pawn goes, Black has less counterplay to worry about. 40...g5! This is an important break for Black, creating a passed pawn in most lines. It works because if 41 fxg5?? f4!, so I felt that having achieved ...g5 I was probably winning. 40...h1+ will only draw: 41 e2 g2+ 42 e1 f3 43 e5 h1+ 44 e2 g2+ 45 e1. Also 40...xb2 is risky because of 41 d7. 41 e5?! Whites will to resist seems to have weakened over the last few moves. 41 d7 gxf4 42 g1 is maybe the trickiest line to refute? Again there are many detailed variations in the database and you can try to analyse it for yourself. 41...gxf4! This is clearer than giving queen checks. There is no reason not to capture. 41...g4? 42 d7=. 42 d2 42 g1 h3+. 42...h1+
42...h3+ 43 g2+ f8 44 xf4 xd6 also wins. The fall of this pawn virtually always means defeat for White. 43 g1 43 e2? f3+ 44 f2 (44 d3 b1+ (44...xd6+)) 44...g2+ 45 e1 g3+ and Qxe5; 43 f2? fxe3+ (43...h4+). 43...h3+ 44 e1 Again I thought this an inferior option for White; maybe he wanted to get the game over. 44 e2 g4+ 45 f1 f3 and; 44 g2+ f8 (threat ...f3) are hopeless in the long run. 44...h4+ 0-1. White resigned. As before in correspondence chess, I have found opponents are more likely to resign if you DONT send a conditional. I needed more time to work out all the details and anyway conditionals in email chess are, in a way, an invitation to prolong a lost game. The main line would be 45 e2 g4+ 46 f1 46...f3 47 d4 h3+ 48 e1 (48 g1 xd6 or 48 f2 g2+ 49 e1 h1+ 50 f2 xd6 now he cannot play h2) 48...xd6 (or 48...h1+ 49 f2 xd6). It was very sporting of the vetrean Icelandic correspondence player Mr Olafsson to allow the Marshall Attack when he knew I was writing a book about it, and to play quickly so that the game was finished in good time to be included! After Whites 23rd move in this line, Black has nothing to fear. It is only a question of whether he will win or draw.
Chess Mail website

The best website for CC since 1997: http://www.chessmail.com Information about CC events and players Monthly book and chess software reviews by John Elburg Games to play though online Links to all the important chess sites More good things to come from us in future!
57
The Total Marshall
Index of Annotated Games

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 White Capablanca,J.R. Battell, J. Dulanto, A. Wolfers, A. Goldberg Christoffel, M. Yanofsky, Abe Chomsky, A Fink, L.A. Sakhalkar, S. Vasiukov, E. Dragunov, V.N. Novopashin, A. Unzicker, W. Pilnik, H. Parma, B. Spassky, B. Tal, M. Tal, M. Gurvich, A. Fischer, R.J. Mueller, G Melnikov Tal, M. Riszt, F Readers of Prizyv Braga, F. Lehikoinen, F. Mithrakanth, P. Herbrechtsmeier Sax, G. Halamus, H. Grtig, L. McKenna, J.F. Rittner, H.R. Kwolek. D. Anand, V. Bravo, J. Anand, V. Milvydas, V. Anand, V. Ivanchuk, V. Timmerman, G. Kilgour, D.A. Leko, P. Joo, N. Hiarcs Oliveira, M.B.de Falke, H-J. Olafsson, .B. Black Marshall, F.J. Marshall, F.J. Alexander, C. Armati, R.E. Keres, Paul Steiner, H. Lasker, Edward Abelmann, E.L. Kantorovich, B. Barczay, L. Tolush, A. Konstantinopolsky Spassky, B. Pfleger, H. Geller, E. Spassky, B. Geller, E. Spassky, B. Spassky, B. Grzeskowiak, F. Spassky, B. Racoce, X. Lukyanchenko, A Geller, E. Kti, B. Estrin, Ya.B. Geller, E Sarink, H.B. Geller, E. im, T Nunn, J. Tsvetkov, A.A. Danek, L. Chandler, C.R. Sarink, H.B. Olszewski, W. Nunn, J. Jaime, A. Short, N. Muravyev, S.K. Kamsky, G. Short, N. Vitomskis, J. Vitomskis, J. Adams, M. Tavares, A.J. Bergmanis, O. Maffei, U. Harding, T. Harding, T. Place New York New York Buenos Aires Australia corr Tallinn Hastings USA ch USSR corr USSR corr corr Moscow USSR Corr Ch USSR ch Germany Santiago Yugoslavia Riga m-2 Tbilisi, m-1 Tbilisi, m-5 EU Corr Ch Santa Monica corr USSR corr USSR ch corr USSR corr Amsterdam cor New Delhi corr Brussels corr corr corr corr Poland corr Wijk aan Zee Cuba corr Amsterdam corr Sanghi Nagar Riga World Corr Ch corr Dortmund corr Australia email corr email Year 1918 1937 1939 1942 1944 1945 1947 1955 1955 1960 1961 1963 1963 1963 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1966 1966 1972 1975 1975 1982 1982 1986 1986 1987 1988 1988 1988 1988 1989 1990 1990 1990 1991 1993 1994 1994 1995 1996 1998 1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 Marshall Variation 11...Nf6 11...c6 12 Bxd5 cd 13 Qf3 11...c6, 15 Bxd5, 16 Qf3 11...c6, 12 Bxd5, 14 Rg5 15 Bxd5 (to Classical Pawn Push) 15 Qd3 (18 Qf1 Qh5 19 a4 Bh3) 12 Bxd5 Kevitz Variation 11...c6 12 Qf1 11...Nf6 12 Bxd5, 16 Qf3 9...e4 10 dc ef 11 d4 17...Re6 Old Main Line, 21...Rfe8 17...Re6 18 a4 bxa4 12 Bxd5 (to Classical Pawn Push) 17...Re6 18 Bxd5 cxd5 19 Qf1 17...Re6 18 a4 bxa4 11...c6, 16...Nxe3 17...Re6 18 a4 Qh5 Spassky Var. 12 Bxd5 Kevitz Variation 17...Re6 18 Qf1 Qh5 19 a4 f5 11...c6 12 g3 17...Re6 18 Bxd5 cd 19 a4 f5 9...e4 10 dc ef 11 d4 Old Main Line, 21...g5 Pawn Push 17 f4 g5 with ...Kh8 17...Re6 18 a4 Qh5 Spassky Var. 11...c6 12 g3 12 Bxd5, 16 Qf3 11...c6 12 d4 Bd6 13 Re2 17...Re6 18 a4 Qh5 Spassky Var. 11...c6 12 d4 Bd6 13 Re2 17...Re6 18 a4 f5 19 Qf1 Qh5 Pawn Push 17...Kh8 17...Re6 18 a4 f5 19 Qf1 Qh5 20 ab 17...Re6 18 a4 Qh5 Spassky Var. Classical Pawn Push 12 Bxd5 Kevitz Variation Classical Pawn Push 11...Bb7 17...Re6 Old Main Line, 21...Kh8 11...c6, 15...Re8 17...Re6 18 a4 bxa4 11...c6 12 d4, 15 Re4 11...c6 12 Re1, 13 d3, 15 Re4 11...c6 12 d4, 15 Re4 17...Re6 18 a4 Qh5 Spassky Var. 11...c6 12 Re1, 13 d3, 15 Re4 17...Re6 18 a4 f5? 19 axb5! Slovenian Pawn Push, 19...h6!? 17...Re6 18 a4 Qh5 Spassky Var.
The Total Marshall
58

Tim Harding, Janis Vitomskis

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Tim Harding, Janis Vitomskis

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

About the authors

The Total Marshall

About this work

Three ways to study the Marshall

Select database and tree book

The Total Marshall

Chess Mail magazine

The Total Marshall

About the Marshall Attack

How to use this book

The Total Marshall

How to Play the Marshall

Typical tactical themes

The Total Marshall

Strategic guidelines on the 17...Re6 line (By Martin Bennedik)

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

Theoretical Overview of the Marshall

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

Why do we call it the Total Marshall?

The Total Marshall

Evolution of the Marshall Attack

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

The Internet era

Scheduled for the year 2003

The Total Marshall

Fifty annotated Marshall games

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

Chess Mail Back Year sets

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

Chess Mail is looking for games!

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

f8 24 e5! xe5 25 dxe5 h6!?

64 Great Chess Games

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall

The Total Marshall