.

THE BIG CLAMP

An Anti-Sicilian System

Lawrence Day I.M .

.

•

THE BIG CLAMP

An Anti-Sicilian System

Lawrence Day I.M.

LANGE'" 437 M a r l, Priv.t; "58 7"

The Chess Player, Nottingham

First published 1984

C The Chess Player Ltd 1984

ISBN 0906042356

Printed and bound in England by The Chess Player Ltd.,

12 Burton Ave., Carl\on, Nottingham NG4 1 PT

The two articles which form the major part of this

book were originally published in Modern Chess Theory

SICILIAN - THE BIG CLAMP

The 11th game of the 1978 World Championship. Korehnoi-Karpov was a clear strategic triumph for the white player.

1 g3
2 .Ja2
3 e4
! from Larsen
3
4 d3
5 f4
6 .f3
7 0-0
8 c3
9 .2
10 .te3
11 d4 c5 k6

g6 .Ja7 d6 .f6 0-0 ab8 .. 8 .e7

There is already enormous pressure on Black's position. The position has some similarities to Closed Sicilian-type middlegames but with the critical difference that Black does not h.ave control of d4. True Black's

bishop, knight and c-pawn attack it, but their efforts are in vain, foiled by the bulwark pawn at c3. White's ON, which would go to c3 early in a Closed Sicilian, can still make it to this natural post, since Black must exchange pawns to create a target at d4.

For a wh iJe Karpov defended very logically:

11 cxd4

12 cxd4 .Ja4

13 ad1 d5

14 85 'ld7

15 k3 afeS

16 *'1 b5

Larsen considers this nervous, recommending .A)a8 or ... f5, but conceding White the advantage.

17 h3 hfS 18 hf3 b4 19 .Ig4 .6 20 .. 4 .. 5 21 k5 .8 22 .te2 .b7 23 kb7 axb7 24 .de1 'ld7 25 ac2 b3? 26 axb3 axb3 27 itc11 .b7 28 ~6.

Winning the exchange and soon the game. Karpov's blunder at move 25 ended what moght have been an interesting struggle. White has an eventual break with g4 and f5 which will make it uncomfortable for the black king. If Black exchanges the major pieces to reduce the risk to his king, he will be left in an ending where the b4 pawn could be a target for White's dark-squared bishop, while the light-squared bishop tied the black king down to f7.

Wh.lh., ill ",,' 111,1, ~ IHdtl~ the 141111N Itl tftu UII"UI1I1'!! tho opening 11111.' It. I ~Iud ,1'1 II (lllIllt success for Whltll ItIIHIUIi II IN not exactlv clear wt'IHU 111,11 ~ ", piny can be improved. I wn', VIII y in tureated in the initial ,,1111·,11 III this game because I had lid, 'jlllllJ this cramping strategy, nicknuruad the Big Clamp, in a number of games played in Toronto during the previous year, e.g. Day-Macleod, Toronto Clond, February 1978:

1 e4 c5

2 d3 k6

In my opnuon Black should play 2 ... d5 along the lines of the EnglJsh Opening, but with reversed colours.

3 g3 4 _2 5 f4

Here 5, .. d6 transposes into the previous game.

6 .f3 7 c3

Better than 7 ... d6, chiefly because d3-d4 is prevented.

8 .e2 9 .. 3

b6 .la6

Up to this point White could answer d5xe4 with d3xe4. Now however the pin on the d-pawn would force open the centre giving Black a sl ight structural advantage since the pawn at d3 is weak.

10 e5 .f6

The critical point is d4 about which the tactics are revolving. On 10 ... d4 11 cxd4, cxd4 is necessary because of the long dillgonal pin. With 1O ... lc8. unpinning. Whlto

would have to cover d4 again with a piece, either by ~2 or Ae3, or else answer d5-d4 with c3-c4. Black probably avoided 1:c8 because he wanted to preserve the option of castling queenside.

11.le3 h5

12 .lf2

Because of the tactics White has been able to post the "bad" bishop on a very effective square where it aids the kingside play - h3 is possible since g3 is covered· as well as preventing b6-b5 or for the moment d5-d4.

12 'Itt 7

13 .c1

This discourages 13 ... 0-0-07 which would allow 14 b41

13

.t.f8

Threatening c5-c4 followed by -'l.f8xa3.

14 k2 15 h3 16 'ltt2

.la7 .cS

Unpinning the d-pawn as well as supporting an eventual b2-b4 .

16

*f871

Since White has control of the opening of Jines on the kingside, the black king is not safe there.

17 "'21

Very strong, connecting the rooks.

Because of h-flle pins 17 __ .()h6 18 g4! anyway.

17 b5

18 g4 _7

19 b4!

White controls the play on both wings.

19

d4

The best hope for complications.

20 cxd4 cxb4

21 ... 1 Jlb7

22 4W)3 ..nt8

23 'h3 a5

24 ahg11

An all-purpose move, guarding g2 and avoiding the exchange of rooks. Because of White's advantage in space, the black army has little communication between the flanks, specifically the King rook cannot participate in the battle for the c-file. It is along this line that White is planning the decisive invasion.

24 .b8

25 axeS .AxeS

26 .fd2

Taking control of the long diagonal.

26 .. 6

27 ac1 a4

28 .. 51

A finesse after which everything comes with tempo.

28

29 "b7 30 k5

Jd7 ..,6

.Ic6?

A blunder in a bad position.

31 .xaS+ fxaS 32 axc6 .a7 33 acS+ .... 8 34 'h4 'Md7 35 -.c& 'lxc6 36 .Axc6 "c7 37 f5 gxf5 38 gxf5 ed5 39 d5 *f7 40 d6 .xd641 axh8 b3 42 axb3 a3 43 exd6 a2 44 Jd4 .11645 dxc7 .Axd4 47 aa8 Resigns.

The critical issue in this game was the placement of the kings. As a general principle White can preserve his options longer and more usefully than Black.

Nickoloff-BraDe, Student Olym-

piad, Mexico City, 1978:

1 84 c5

2 d3 k6

3 g3 96

4.ta2 .ta7

5 f4 86

6 c3

A better move order than 6 4::If3 as in the previous game.

Transposing, but 7 ~3!? seems
stronger.
7 0-0
8 .. 3 abB
9 0-0 b5
10 tlc2 b4
11 d4 cxd4? After this Black soon gets into a passive position. The logical idea was to open as much space on the queenside as possible by 11...bxc3 12 bxc3 cxd4 13 cxd4 'l)a5 or 13 ... -'la6 with a struggle in prospect.

12 cxd4

d5

Note Black's d- and b-pawns have both gone to the fourth rank in one jump. This is why 7 ~3 would have won a tempo.

13 e5 b31

14 ub3 "xb3

15..a 'M'b6

16 .. f2 .5

17 .tf11

Last move 16 •.. .Qa6? 17 axa6.

Now 1 7 ... -'la6? 18 Axa6.

17 .Ad7

18.Ad3 "b8

19 J.c2 .. b4

20 ~I

The bishop has found a very fine post. The threat is ~2.

20 ..... 7

214M:2 .. 4b6

22 b3 "c7

23.td2 M8

24..,1 ~4

25 "xb4 ub4

26 "c1 ....,7

27 .ixd7 itxd7

28 141

Black's pieces are tied to the defence of the b-pawn, and to preventing f4-f5.

28

29 ... 1

30 ....,1

31 'l'd3

32 .. an

33 .... 3

34 ..,,4 35 f5 36 M3

"c6 "02 "c7 ".7 ....,5

.. b.8 .. c6 ....,6 •• 1

Black finally forces an exchange of rooks, reducing the Hile pressure.

37 ..,4 38 .. xf1 39 .te3 40 h4 41 h5

.xf1+ 147 h6

""'5

Finally forcing open the kingside since 41...g5 42 ()xg5 gives a deadly attack.

gxf5 exf5 4I.d8 ..1+ 'l'c6 ... 6 .. b1?1

After a tenacious defence Black makes one aggressive gesture - one too many.

41

42 gxf5 43 itxf6 44 .. f2

45 .... 2

46 .. h2

47 "'3

48 "a21 49 ~ 50 M6+

Having patiently nurtured his positional advantage White now decides the game with a spectacular and decisive combination.

51 .td21 h4

51 !:lxf3 .i1xb4+ and mates.

52 .. 81 .1xf6

Now 51 !:lxf3 gxd8+ mates.

53 gxf61

The queen magically continues to hang! Despite the lack of material on the board, the attack is decisive.

53 ..... 8 54 'I'g4 'k6 55 'l'g8+ ed7 56 'itxd8+ "6 57 "7+ and Black resigned.

This game has a remarkable queen sacrifice culminating a very smoothly prosecuted middlegame. The break on the f·file is a strong and logical plan and it is difficult for Black to find any counterplay on the queenside. In the early middlegame the bishop manoeuvre from 92 to a4 is a remarkable theme which leads to White obtaining the initiative on the queenside, and forcing the pawns to lock in such a way that the white target at b3 is covered from the black rooks.

From Black's point of view it is sensible to play the advance f7 -f5 ~ particularly if his king is located on the kingside). This forms a sort of left-handed Benoni structure in which Black maintains a strong point against White's kingside mass.

Day·Ross, Toronto 1979:

1 a4 2 f4

05 96

3 d3 Jid7

4 c3

Probably the most flexible move order, producing a pawn structure familiar from Antoshin's Ukrainian variation of the Dutch Defence. Instead 4 g3 d51 5 e5 f6 6 exf6 exf6 7 Ag2 €::.a 7 8 4Jf3 4Jbc6 9 0-0 occu rred in Dav-Anqantvsson, World Open 1979, when Black adopted the faulty strategy of allowing d3-d4 which could be prevented now by d5-d4! with Black holding the space advantage. Instead 9 ... -'te6 10 ael 'ltd7 11 d4 cxd4?! (better 11...c4) 12 4Jxd4 4Jxd4 13 'ltxd4 0-0 14 4Jc3 ,;1,f7 1 5 ikc5! a fe8 16 .I1.e3 gec8 17 ita3 d4 18 !:lad1 f5 19 ,;1,f2 -tlc6 20 -'r.::lb5 .I1.d5? 21 itd6 ikxd6 22 4::Ixd6 .I1.xg2 23 4::Ixc8 ,;1,f3 24 r!e8+ ,;1,f8 25 !:ld3 .I1.e4 26 4::Ie7+ 'ifff7 27 r!xa8 Resigns.

4 _c6

5 .le31?

Again 5 g3 d5 when Day-Benko, World Open 1979, continued 6 ite2 d4 7 c4 e5 8.11.h3 -tlge7 9 .i1xc8 'i'xc8 10 4Jf3 f6 11 fxe5 fxe5 12 0-0 0-0 13 oila3 a6 14 4:lc2 b5 15 b3 'ikd 7 16.11.d 2 !:lab8 17 {)cel ab7 18 gcl b4 with an eventual draw.

5 d6

6.1a2 .b8

Against 6 ... 4:lf6 White has the very sharp possibility of 7 g417 aiming for an immediate kingside expansion with h4-h5. Also a plan is 6 ... e5 as in Bolton-Sofrevskv, Canadian Open 1978, aiming to open some play in the centre.

Here 8 ... b5 makes more sense, but castling kingside is a common error.

9 llbel2 10 h3

11 nb6 12 d4

13 cxd4 14 85

Q.O b5 nb5 cxd4 d5 lIeS

On 14 ... 0tJe4 15 ()xe4 dxe4 16 .Qg5 ~f5 17 g4 h6 18 gxf5 hxg5 19 fxg6 with a big edge; hence Black is driven back to a passive position.

15 94

Preventing ~f5.

15 k7

16 1Ib3 f6

17 .e1 .b6

18 oc f6

19 -'1 86

With Black's f5 bulwarked he is safe from a direct attack on the kingside. In order to make progress White must combine play on both wings. The first step is to take possession of the c-file.

20 .f2 af7

21 ~3

Securing c2 for the rook by preventing ~4.

21

22 Jl1

Jl8 ...

23 .fa l1li7

Black's knights effectively cover the possible entry squares on the c-line.

24 Jd2 b4
26 .. 1 .b8
26 .... 3 ·17
27 -'1 'lb6
28 ~3
Preventing ()b5 and threaten ing
nxc8.
28 AIl7
29 .. 1
Simpler was 29 ()f3 but White's
retreat induces Black to overextend
on the queenside.
29 lIe7
30 .te3 kb5
31 .af2 .ce
32 .. 6 &04
33 a.1 age7
34 .... 2 .xc2
35 lIxe2 1Ic371
".-
-,~ Superflcally this appears strong, but It Is refuted by a long tactical sequence.

38 Jh41 .oS 37 gxf6 8xfS 38 bxc3 •• 03 39 "2 .xb3 40 86 ab2 41 87 .ax.7 42 h.7 b3 43.lc5 frc6 44.Je12

axc2 45 .. 7 (Decisive penetration) 45 ... axc:5 46 dxc5 ..,5 47 ~8+ *'7 48 a.1 and Black resigned.

This game shows the long term disadvantage of Black's lack of space. White had more lines of communication betvveen the two halves of the board and just at the moment when Black seemed to make in-roads on the queenside, the field of battle shifted to the other wing where the king could not fend for himself. Notice the tactics do not appear until close to the time control. This is an important practical consideration.

A very double edged plan for Black is to establish a strongpoint bulwark at f5 without locking the centre (by d6-d5 and e4-e5) as in the next illustrative game.

Makarichav-Dolmatov.

Ch.mpion.hip 1979: .

USSR

1 e4 c:5

2 g3 k6

The test of White's move order is 2 ... d5 3 exd5 'ltxd5 4 4)f3.Qg4 5.Qg2 "e6+ 6 <&>11 when Black can choose between 6 ... 4)c6 7 h3 Ah5 or 6 ... .ah3!? 7 b4!?cx

3..ta2 g6

4 d3 .,7

5 f4 d6

6 "IIf3 06

6 ... e57 c3 4)ge7 8 4)a31? 0-0 9 0-0 d5? 10 exd5 fud5 11 fue54)xe5 12 fxe5 -'l..xe5 13 *b3 '£)b6 14 'itb5 "c7 15 ~3 .Qd6 16 "a51± Day-Vranesic, Canadian Championship 1978.

7 0-0 4g.7

8 c3 0-0

9 b3

A precise developing order retaining options for the knight while impeding d6-d5 because of the c5 pressure.

9 b6

10 .lf21

Here the bishop is effectively posted where it cannot be attacked by the advancing d-pawn or the 4)e7. Note also that after g3-g4 it can suddenly appear at h4, hitting the weak f6 square. Finally the retreat clears the e-file for occupation by the rook.

10

jkt7

Preparing for f7 -f5 by bolstering the e6 square.

11 •• 1 h6

Necessary to prevent 4)g5.

12 d4 13 cxd4 14 tlc3 15 h4 16 .lh3

cxd4 .lb7 eh7 a •• 8 f5

This thrust marks the culmination of Black's strategy. The f5 square appears completely cemented with five defenders coordinated in its defence, however the stability is

illusory as White can knock out the defending pawns by distraction tactics after which the critical square falls into White's possession.

17 h51 gxh5

18 d51 Ixd5

19 Ixf5 .xf5

20 aXI8 heS

21 hf5 axf5

22 _2 .Ic8

23 a,1 'l'd7

24.h4 ega

25 ~f5 hf5

26 hf5 hf5

The combinational transaction on f5 has left White with a decisive material advantage.

27 .xd5 .,7 28 ac1 J.d7 29 b3 ..Ib2 30 ac2 ,.t.f6 31 b4 J.d8 32 b5 .. 5 33 a4 .lt5 34 ac3 .b7 35 .b4 k5 36 ~6 .lt6 37 J.d4 ka4 38 a.3 .tc2 39 ,ixf6 *.xf6 40 .b4 J.d 1 41 ~5+ and Black resigned.

Day-Benko. Continental Open.

New York 1980:

1 e4 c5

2 f4 96

3 d3 .187

4 c3 k6

5.le3 d6

6.le2 .f6

In Day-Christiansen, World Open 1980, 6 ... f517 7 4::d2?1 (also 7 exf5 or 7 ()h317) 7 ... (:)f6 8 h3?1 e5! 9 g4 0-0 10 gxf5 gxf5 11 'l*b3+ ~8 12 fxe5 (:)xe5 13 0-0-0 "e 71 14 "c2 Ad7 15 4::I9f3 (:)xd3+11 soon led to a decisive plus for Black, although after a series of adventures the game was ultimately drawn.

This Is certainly a faulty strategy

as White obtains a natural kingside attack without allowing any serious counterplay on the queenside or in the centre.

8 g41 b5

9 83

Now 9 ... b4 10 axb4 cxb4 only increases White's central control. Hence, in order to enforce b4 Black must occupy a5 with a pawn, thereby robbing his queen and c6-knight of an active post.

9 ..Ib7

10 ,.t.f31

It is a wise precaution to reinforce the e4-bulwark as otherwise the lever c5-c4 may force open the centre. On the other hand 1 0 ~f3 also contributes to White's kingside attack as the second ran k becomes an avenue for the white queen to reach the h-file.

10

11 h4 12 h5

a5 b4

White has a winning advantage already.

12

13 hxg6 14 ac1

~7 hxg6 e6

A useful move creating the poss- The following game shoWl III simi

ibility of reinforcing the shaky king- lar pattern.

side defence by an eventual 'itf6.

15 .2 18 *h2

_e8 bxc3

Black picks this moment to exchange in the hope of 17 'l'h7+? 'il>f8 18 bxc3 <tIffil and ()g81 when Black prevents the exchange of blacksquared bishops and easily holds off the attack.

17 bxc3 _b8

The rook later becomes a target here while counterplay by ,Q,a6 and ab2 is easily foiled. An alternative defensive strategy involved placing the knights at f8 and f7. trying to guard the h-file intrusion squares.

18.h2 d6

19 ~ d4

20 cxd4 kd4

21 f5 exf5

22 gxf5 .xf5

23 J.f4 ~4

24 ..... 7+ M8

26 Jd6+ _e7

28 .xd4

Also possible was 26 'l'h8+ Axh8 27 Axh8+ ~7 28 Axd8 axd8 29 Axe7 winning a piece immediately.

26 ... .lxd4 27 "=3 "=6 28 "6+ eras 29 .lxbB hbB 30 ..,8+ and Black resigned.

In this game Black fell under an attack which may not appear too devastating at first but succeeds because Black is unable to generate any central action. The combination of prophylactic measures with straightforward attacking play is the essence of the clamping strategY.

Day·Blumenfeld, Marshall Invlta· tionaI1980:

1 e4 c5

2 f4 .c:6

3 .f3 .6

4 .. 2 d6

For the natural 4 ... 4)f6 see the next game.

After 4 ... ()ge7 5 b31? d5 6 .Qb2 dxe4 (better than 6 .•. d4 7 c3 e5 8 'itf21 ()g6 9 f5± Bohatirchuk-Heidenheld, carr 1954) 7 'l'xe4 <tIf5 8 <tIa3 White held a small edge in DavRantanen, Malta 1980.

A purer form of the Big Clamp would occur after 4 ... ()ge7 5 d3 d5 6 c3 g6 7 <tIa3 AQ7 8 "f2 b6 9 Ae2 a6 10 0-0 Ad7 11 Ad2 "c7 12 Aac1 0·0 13 'l'h4 f6 14 oIX:2 Aad8 15 ~3 f5 1695 h6 17 'itlh1 As8 18 -txt1 d4 19 c4 "a7 20 4lf2 'il>f7 21 Ag1 Ah8 22 g4 .. b7 23 h3 4lh8 24 '&Ih2 ~6 25 "i'g3 Adg8 26 b4 -txt7 27 bxc5 bxc5 28 Ab1 -Ikc7 29 gxf5 exf5 30 h4 ~f8 31 "h3 '&Ie6 32 ()e4 Axe4 33 dxe4 *17 34 Ad3 "c6 35 abe 1 ~8 36 h5 fxe4 37 Axe4 "a4 38 hxg6 ~7 39 "e6 af8 40 f5 "xa2 41 ~6 1"() Bohatirchuk-Yanofsky, Csnadian Championship 1951.

5 c3 6 .. 3 7 k2 8 d3 9 93

(DiB(Jram)

10 .th31

White intends g4~5 to knock the knight from f6 and eliminate pressure on e4, thus central prophylaxis

combines with kingside expansion.

10 .Ab7

11 0-0 .fea

12 g4 c4

13 d41

After 13 dxc4 4':Ia5 the centre would open which is completely contrary to White's strategy. Now 13 •.• d5 14 e5 ~4 15 4ld2 would leave a strong White attack on the f-Jine.

13 .. 5

14 .. 2 M8

15 as "7

16 'lf2 •• 7

Guarding f7 in order to set up e6-e5, Black's last hope for central play.

17 .. 3 g67

On 17 .•. e5 18 <tIf5 is strong but the weakness of f6 is decisive. 17 ... f6 was a better try.

18 eg41 _7 19 '1M M 20 ._2 .06 21 ~ .... 8 22 .f3 .& 23 .h3 h& 24 SlxhS and Black resigned.

egy whereby Black succeeds in slowing down the attack by obtaining targets on the queenside.

Day-Tild8l1, Brighton 1980:

1 e4 c5

2 f4 a6

3"2 .c6

4.n ti6

5 c3 b6

Alternatives include the direct 5 ... d5 6 e5 tlg8 7 d4.()h6 8.Q.e3 cxd4 9 <tixd4 -tlxd4 10 .Q.xd4 €:If5 as in Day-MacPhail, Hamilton 1980, when 11 Af2 leaves a slight edge for White, or 5 ... .Qe7 6 <tIa3 0-0 7 <tIe2 b6 8 d3 .ila69 IIb1 b5 10 a3 b4 11 e5 <tIg4 12 axb4 cxb4 13 lIa1 ~7 14 d4 a5 15 'ltdl .()h6 16 Ad3 with a large edge in Day-Stofl, Toronto Closed 1980.

6 g3 _7

7 .. 3 .Ab7

8 d3 86

9 ok2 b&

10 ~ _7

11 Q.O 0-0

12 .... 1 .. 6

13 -.s17

Black was threatening c5-c4 undermining e4. The most solid defence was 13 4::d2, preventing the counterplay which now ensues.

13

14 c4

1& .. 3

18 .x82 17 .h3

b4 b3 bxa2 .,,3

Preparing the advance of the g-pawn.

17

In the two previous games Black

lacked serious counterplay. The There were good arguments for following game shows a better strat- oflxc1 as later White controls the

timing of the exchange of these Against 32 ..• ~2 33 €lf3 is very
pieces. strong.
18 "kI1 dS 33 .xf6+ axf6
19 .ld2 a5
20 Jc3 ~7
21 14 .tc6
22 95 afb8
23 ..,5 .4 During the game both sides felt they held a slight advantage in this delicately balanced position.

This combines defence, by guarding d3, with attack involving €lg4- h6+. The direct 24 f57 I allows 4le5 protecting f7 while hitting d3.

24 &b3

25 a.3 axa3

2S bxa3 ab8

27 .214

With control of e5 ensured, f4-f5 becomes serious and Black must fall back to the defence.

27 "kIS

28 ,hd4 cxd4

29 k2 .c5

30 kd4 ""S

31 f51 ,hg5

32 181 .txf8

34 JIl37

The right move order was 34 .h6! ~xd3 35 Jth3 4le5 36 ~g1+ ~6 37 ~xe6! fxe6 38 Axe6+ ~f7 (38 ... ~8 39 ltf8+! 4.:lxf8 40 .!::lg8 mate) 39 Axf7+ '!?<:f7 40 'li'xh7+ ~6 41 'li'xg6 i\'h8 42 c51 with a winning position.

34

35 'l'xh7

"8 .. 57

In time trouble Black falls apart.

Neoessary was 35 ... ~7.

36 .ix,S I .xe4 37 'l'xe4 lxeS 38 'l'xeS_8+ 39 ~1 ab2 40 'l'xIS+ *tI8 41 ti8+ .... 7 42 &f7+ and Black resigned.

In the next game Black adopts a different strategy aimed not at counterplay so much as neutralizing White's pressure by exchanges. Larsen instructively reduces his opponent to virtual zugzwang despite a severe reduction of the armies.

Larsen-orK,lIy. Havana 1967:

1 14 c5 2 .13 U6 3 e4 .lt7 4 .ta2 .c6 5 0-0 d6 6 d3 ,671 6 ... Ab8; 6 ... f517

7 e4 _7 8 e3 d6 9 .. 3 b6 10 a5 h5 11 W .'6 12 b4lt .lf8 13 ab1 JA7 14 d4 cxb4 16 cxb4 a5 16 b5 -IIb4 17 kb4 .lxb4 18 ab31 J.d7 19 J.d2 JA7 20 'I'c2 0-0 Black has been trying to avoid castling since White can pry open the kingside, however he needs the aha to contest the c·file and so, reluctantly commits the king 21 ac1 acS 22 ac3 axc3 23 bc3 .tb4 24 'lb2 ... 7 25 J.d3 4197 26 .i.e1 'lb8 27 .th4 .lxh4 28 tilxh4 acS 29 .,2 axe1 30 'he1 'l'd8 31 .f3 -IIf5 32 h31 .... CS 33 'lb21

White retains the queens since the opening of the kingside will imperil the black monarch 33 ... eg7 34 g4 hxg4 35 hxg4 -IIh6 36 eg3 .S8 37 "a5 'i'c7 38.3.lc8 39 -IIf3 'lb7 40 'l'd6 J.d7 41 .,2.lc8 42 'l'd8 J.d7 43 "2 .lc8 44 .. 2 and Black resigned as he has no constructive moves while White continues simply with g4-g5, ollh2-g4-f6 winning.

In this game Black erred towards passivity while in the next he plays overarnbitiouslv.

Bron.taln-PldaVlky, Zagrab 1886:

1 f4 g6

2 t.f3 ,,7

3 t4 aI

4 03 dIS

15.15 ....

Better 5 ... .QQ4.
6 .lb5+17 J.d7
7 .lxd7+ bd7
8 d4 cxd4
9 cxd4 O~
10 .c3 .c6
11 h3 f6 Hoping to open the centre, there· by embarassing White's king but this does not prove to be possible.

12 'lb3 fxa5

13 dxa5 .6

14 -11.21 aacS

15 J.d2 -IIf5

16 g4 .fa7

17 "ld31 d4?1

Black continues in an ambitious vein but this advance has the very serious drawback of rendering 94 accessible to White's knights.

18.3 'l'd6

19 O.{l afd8

20 M1 ad7

21 a01 as

22.li2 acd8

23 _6 h6

24 ~ af8

Necessary to protect the king from 4:lf6+ but now the queen gets trapped.

The primary advantage of controlling more space lies in the ability to coordinate play on both wings. This next thematic game illustrates how the flow of the armies to one side of

the board may allow a sudden and The first step is to force Black to

decisive switch of fronts. defend the exposed h-pewn .

25 1c5 .. 2 26 b4 g5 27 k1 .. , 28 ..,3 ~5 29 16 ... 3 30 1.1 .x.5 31

- Ix.5 _.5 32 ~3 'Ix., + 33 _.1 Id5 34 .ac5 .lf6 35 .l.d2 ad6 36 kaS af7 37 ~c5 ~5 38 .&4 add7 39 .6c5 Id8 40 kb7 and Black resigned.

24 .lb7
Oay-CIayton, World Open 1979: 25 &82 ebB
26 .f4 hf3
, a4 c5 27 'lxf3 .. 7
2 f4 e6 28 .h3 hg5
3 .f3 d5 29 hxg51 •• 7
4 85 .c6 30 a82± *':7
5 g3 &987 31 ah2 *d7
6 .ia2 .f5 32 .. 2 ",7
7 d3 h5 33 af4 .b7
8 c3 h7 34 "3 &d8
9 .. 31 .l.d7
10 -.:2 1617 As 35 .a8 can be met by 35, .. ~8
11 .Jh3 fxe5 Black succeeds in transferring his
12 fxe5 g671 knight to the kingside.
12 ... 0·01 with the idea of ~8-g6 35 a8~ "8
could lead to very unclear play after 36 ah4 6b71
13 .Qxf5 D.xf5 14 4le3 J::lxf3!? 15 37 ",21
.xf34.::1xe5.
Not 37 '1;>g2? .xf3+ 38 ~f3 .ru7
13 bf5 gxf5 39 <&>f4 J::lh7 tJ. -0h8-g6 '+.
14 h4+- .c7
15 J:f4 0-0-0 37 'hg2+
16 .82 '8b8 38 exg2 .f7
'7 0-0 .. 8 39 -M4 ka5
18 .3 d4
19 c4 ab8 Now Black's army is committed
20 b41 b6 to the kingside and the change of
21 b5 .. 5 fronts decides the game .
22 a4 .bg8
23 Jg5 .lc8 40 851 .. 7
24 ke11 41 a82 aa8 42 axh5 43 .xh5 44 axb6+ 45 aa6+

46 011141

axh5 ec7 exb6

"'7

Nat 46 ~7? I:1g81 47 <tlxe6 otlxe6 48 I:1xe6 f4 with counterplav nor 46 !:le6?? a5! and Black wins.

46 8e8

47 ad61 .e7

Necessary to meet the threat 48 !:1d7+ and I:1g7 trapping the knight but now material goes and the rest is not difficult.

48 aeG 85 49 a86 +- ae8 50 aX85 .17 51 .a1 tlxe5 52 8e1 tld7 53 axe6 axe6 54 ke6 '*b6 55 .,3 tle5+ 56 _2 ¥ 57 tlg7 .e3 58 *'3 *7 59 ef4 ~1 60 *"15 tlf2 61 "6+ and Blaek resigned.

THE BIG CLAMP II

It has always struck me as strange that systems involving 1 d4 and 2 c4 should be so common and theoretically respectable while a similar strategy on the other side of the board, 1 e4 and 2 f4 remains a rarity, regarded by the theoreticians as suspect.

Obviously to a certain extent the advance f2-f4 exposes the wh ite king and since a weak king position is the one factor which can override any other strategic consideration many strong players would reject a move such as f4 on principle.

The purpose of this article is to explore various systems where White opens with 1 e4 and then eschews the classical central thrust d2-d4 in favour of an advance on the right flank.

Day-Williams, Quebec Open 1979 Alekhine's Defence

1 e4 .f6

2 d3

For 2 tx:3 see the next game.

Against either of these moves Black can, and perhaps should, transpose into an open game by 2 ... e5 reaching either a Vienna Game or a Reversed Philidor, neither of which is considered overly dangerous for the second player.

2

d5

3 e517

In Day-Shamkovich, Canadian Open 1978, 3 tK:I2 4Jc6 4 €lgf3 (4 f471 e5!) 4 ... e5 5 c3 (5 ~2.ac5 6 c3 dxe4 7 dxe4 a5 S 0-00-09 'litrc2 geS 10 ~4 'litre7 11 Ag5 += Keres-Allan, Vancouver 1975) 5 ... .Qe7 (This is natural but 5 .. ,a5 or 5 ... g6 may be better (6 b417 a6 7 a3 0-0 8 ~2 ~e8 9 'litrc2 .af8 10 .Qe2 (10 g3 g6 [10 ... Ag4 11 Ag2 'itrc8 did not equalise in Bronsteln-Balashov, Moscow 1967] 11 Ag2 ~7 120-0 h6 13 ~fel dxe4 14 dxe4 ..Ile6 15 nad1 += Day-Nickoloff, Canadian Closed 1978) 10 ... g6 11 0-0 ..Ilg7 12 nfel dxe4 13 dxe4 otIh5 and after 14 nad1?1 otIf415 .af1 'itrf6 Shamkovich attained equality. White may be able to keep a small edge by 14 ~417

3

4 f4

.fd7 c5

5 c3 .e6

6 .. 311

The knight aims to support the critical d4 square.

6 a6

7.c2 f61

Black's knight appears awkwardly placed at d7 but Williams discovers a plan to bring it to a very active post.

8 d4

The alternative was 8 "lth5+ g6 9 ~3

8 cxd4

9 cxd4 fxa5

10 dX85

White must give up control of c5 as 10 fxe5 fails to 10 .. :I*h4+ and the exposure of the king becomes extremely significant.

Here 11 .Qe3 was certainly safer.

11

12 "31

job61 kd3+1

Black's' knight should be kept for the attack. Either 12 ... <tl>4 13 o{)xb4

*xb4+ or immediately 12 .. .'16a5+ were better. In either case White must move the king as interposing on d2 drops the ~d3.

I

1

13 bd3 .ld7

14 .le31

Black probably overlooked this.

14

Certainly 14 ... *xb2 150-0 threatening :fb1 gives White good play.

15 .xb4 16 .r2 17 .Axe5

18 -.:14

19 *&31

.Axb4+ .Ic5 "hc5+ 0-0

White's long term plusses - more space and the better minor piece - now outweigh the temporary disadvantage of the peculiar king position. One could joke about the "well-developed" king but it actually is performing the important function of guarding f4.

19

20 iht21

21 a.e1

22 axeS

a.e8 "h7 "Itf1 .axeS

Probably 22 ... 'Mg6+ was better.

23 h3 h5

24 af1 h4+7

25 ~h4 g5+

26 ~g51

The cheeky white monarch eats everything it is offered.

26

'4fg7

No better is 26 ... tWg7+ 27 '#i4 'flf7 28 g4 followed by ~3 +-

27 eg4 lItg6+

28 et3 b6

29 b4 .... 8

30 g4 ~7

31 *93 "h4

32 8e11-0

An exciting, if not exactly correct game. The following example is more rational:

doubtful if this equal ises, for instance 5 d3 €:g5 6 otlf4 e6 7 exf6 "l6'xf6 8 "itg4! ~4+ 9 ~ 11 0-0 10 otlh5 "l6'xf2 11 otlf3 ~xf3 12 "l6'xb4 ~6 13 *:12 lbd2+ 14 .ilxd2 af5 15 94 Se5 16 ~f4 winning the exchange in Burger-Alburt, New York 1980

After 3 ... d4 White can get a small edge by 4 exf6 or try for more with 4 ~e2!? otlg4 5 f4 ~6 6 otlf3 f6 7 h3 .r.h6 8 c31 fxe5 9 fxe5 d3 (9 ... otlf5 10 g41) 10 .t:.ed4 'i4'd511 .ilxd3 .r.xe5 12 .Qe2 -'W 7 13 0-0 otlQ6 14 "«m3 'lItxb3 15 axb3 e5 16 <tb5 ~5+ 17 d4 ~6 18 ~2 exd4 19 tlfxd4 and White's active disposition of forces gives a definite endgame advantage as in Tal-Bohrn, Wijk aan Zee 1976

4 f4

The alternatives are 4 .r.xd5, 4 e6 Nimzovich-Alekhine, SImmering 1926 and 4 d4

Alekhine', Defence

1 e4 2 k3 3 e5

(Diagram)

Dubious seems 3 ... .t:.e4 on account of 4 ~2! leaving Black's knight out on a limb. Black can create great complications with 4 ... f6 but it is

4

a6

(Diagram)

The disadvantage of 4 ... d4 is that it loses control of e4_ Gufeld-Vukic, USSR-Jugoslavia match 1979, went 5 €le4 e6 6 4:)f3 -tlc5 7 4:)xc5 bc5 8 ~31 h6 9 0-0 ~ 10 a3 a511 ~1 .t:.e7 12.Qe4 ab8 13 d3 ~7 14-'W2 a4 15 'hl g6 16 c31 Ac6 17 cxd4

.I1xd4 18 ~4! with White much
better.
5 411if3 c5
6 g3 4111c6
7 .1;2 h7 8 O.()

After 8 d3 Black could play 8 ... b5!? directly as 9 €lxb5? ~5+ 10 ?::lc3 d4 11 iJxd4 cxd4 12 Axc6 Hb8 favours Black. A I ivelv struggle resulted in Kupreich ik-Sveshni kov, USSR Championship 1979, after 9 0-0 b4 1 0 -te2 0-0 11 ~ 11 ( 11 g4 immediately allows 11 ... f61 with counterplay) 11 ... a5 12 g4 f6 13 exf6 4::Jxf6 (13 ... Axf6 is answered 14 951 Ae7 15 ~3 with strong pressure) 14 ~31) +0: according to Sveshni kov) 14 ... ~8 15 .Qe3 ~6 16 itf2 d4 17 ~2 4::Jel 18 4::Jg5 ~519 It{J21 h6 20

4::Je4 lla7 and now according to Sveshnikov 21 f5?1 should be replaced by 21 g51 Haf7 22 gxh6 with unclear chances. This game arose from a Sicilian Defence (1 e4 c5 2 <tx:3 4::Jc6 3 g3 e6 4 .Qg2 -tlf6 5 d3 .Qe7 6 f4 d5 7 e5 ~7 8 ?Jf3 b5) so White did not have the option of 8 a-a which avoids Sveshnikov's active defence.

8

0-0

Considering that White has staked out the ~side as his sphere of action, Black may consider delaying a-a. After 8 ... a6 9 a4 i*a5 (9 ... ~b6 10 d3 transposes to Balashov-Dankert, Munich 1979 where 10 ... g6 11 Ad2 Hab8 12 ~1 <tla81? [Would Alekhine approve of this knight?} 13 *e2 4::Jc7 14 .tJdl b6 15 ?Jf2 +. 1-0, 56) 10 d3 b5 11 f5! b4 12 fxe6 fxe6 13 ?Je2 ?Jdxe5 14 ?Jxe5 iJxe5 15 ~f4 .I1f6 16 *115+ g6 17 Tie2 .Qg7 18 .t:xd 5! exd5 19 .I1h61 .Qg4 20 ~3 Y1Ic7 21 .I1xg7 flxg7 22 Hael 0-0-0 23 flxc5+ 'l#c7 24 ofkxc7+ 'llxc7 25 Hxe5 with a winning endgame in Balashov-Shmit, USSR 1975

9 d3 .b6

9.,.f6 10 exf6 iJxf6 11 ~2 += lle8 (11. __ ?Jd4 12 fud4 cxd413 4X:I1 +-=) 12.lld2 ~6 13 h3! h6 14 Hael e5? 15 fxe5 €lxe5 16 ?Jxe5 D.xe5 17 'IUd 1 ± a6 18 .Q.f4 Hxe1 19 flxe1 .I1xf4 20 ~xf4 d4 21 ~5 €lxd5 22 .I1xd5+ ~8 23 *e51 1.0 Balashov-Schmidt, Halle 1976

10 411i8211 d4

Nimzovich recommended the plan 10 ... f6 11 exf6 Axf6 intending ... e6-e5

11 g4 16

And here Nimzovich liked the prophylactic 11...lIe8 12 ~3 Af8 and the masked pressure on e5 prevents f4-f5

12 axf6 pl6

13 ~3 .. 5

14 ..... 2 .ld6

16.h4 ke7

Otherwise 16 -'b<d5+ will create a serious hole at f5.

16 .ld2

Here or on the next move White should play ()h5 with a serious attack. As it goes Black obtains central counterchances and the play becomes extremely sharp.

16

17 *'2 18 dxc4 19 .lxa3 20 *'3 21 .... 22 b3 23 c3 24 ..... 1

'fIc7 c417 1).31 dxe3 bc4 11;7 ~ itb6 "571

This was probably the moment to complete development by 24 ... Ad7

25 15

As in Kupreichlk-Sveshnlkov,

White advances the wrong pawn, Nimzovich gives 25951 f5 26 -iWh5! as the right line.

25

26 aid 1 27 .if11 28 p15 29 &a1 30 axa3 31 a.a1

t'if4 ..... 8 exf5 ~ .ld7 Js;6 ~57

Black recovers the pawn but his king position caves in. 31 .. .I::l.ae8 or 31...lIg8 were better.

32 ad3 4xc3

33 .g6+1 hxg634 'M'g411 a17 35 ah3+ *17 36 11;41 .ld5 37 IxgB 4xe4 38 gxf7+ 'M8 39 &xe4 .lxe4+ 40 'i'xe4 "741 f8it+ axf8 42 itd5 'Md6 43bb7+ '*dO 44 ad3 .ld4 45 ih4 &e8 46 axd4 1-0

Caro-Kann Defence

1 e4 c6

2 d3

Relatively unexplored is 2 f4 d5 3 e5 immediately staking out a territorial advantage. Some examples:

a) 3 ... h5!? 4 d3 c5 5 c3 ()C6 6 ()a3 .Qg4 7 ~2 (7 'M'd2!? I;,. l'6i2) 7 ... e6 8 ()c2 ()h6= Dav-Bass, New York 1980. The game was agreed drawn

here as Bass needed only a draw for the I nternational Master norm.

b) 3 ... c5 4 c3 ~6 5 ,{'a3 e6 6 ~2 ~e7 7 ~f31? (7 d4 is more straightforward) 7 ... d4 8 .Qd3 ot:d5 9 g3 ~7 10 ~ 0-0 11 c4 1i:Y:;7? IBlack should avoid doubled-pawns with 'l l ... ot:db4 12 4:»<b4 4:»<b4 13 a3 ('a6) 12 ~c61 bxc6 13 d3 .Qd7 14 0-0 f6 15 exf6 gxf6 16 f5! e5 17 ~6 Af7 18 ot:d2! and Black has serious weaknesses in the pawn structure, Day-Hjartarsson, World Open 1980

c) 3 ... Af5 (Thls natural move may be an error as the bishop robs the .tl/g8 of its best post) 4 d3 e6 14 ... h5 5 ~2 g6 6 .Qe3 .rtJ6 7 h3 h4?! 8 ~f3 e6 9 c3 ot:d7 10 Af2 ~ 7 11 otlbd2 4:x::5 12 ~flJ a5 13 l'td2 ~8 14 ~3 ~8 15 0-0 ~7 16 ~ad1 a417 <&112 b5 18 Ag1 ~7 19 ~1 ~8 20 4:x::21 !::lc8 21 ~d4 !::lh7 22 ~51 wins material, as in Day-Bonin, New York 1980. Black's A/f5 cuts a particularly bad impression here, not only preventing ~f5 but also being in danger of getting trapped by 92"94 after the h4 pawn disappears) 5 ~2 h6 6 c3 4:x::I7 (6 ... c5) 7 ~3 .Qc5 8 d4 Af8 18 ... Axb1 +=J 9 4:x::I2 c5 10 ~f3 ~711 'llra4! += '«Ie7 111...c4 12 b31) 12 dxc5 Axc5 13 ~c5 ~c5 14 4:x::I4 ~7 15 ~b3 l'tb6 16 .Qb5 O,()-O 17 'lttb4! ~f5 18 Axd7+ Axd7 19 ~b6 axb6 20 4:»<f5 ~f5 IWhite's better minor pieces and Black's doubled pawn add up to a substantial endgame advantage) 21 4:x::I4 ~4 22 O.() g6 23 Aad1 h5 24 !::lfe1 ~8 25 ~5 ~7 26 ~d4 !::la8 27 a3 Af5 28 Ab4 !::la6 29 Ae3 Ad8? 30 1i:Y:;7 Aa5 31 Axb6 +- Day-Youngsworth, Washington 1979

2 d5

3 -.:12

Another method of avoiding the exchange of pawns is Suttle's 3 l'te2 for instance 3 ... dxe4 (3 ... g6 4 g3 ~7

5 ~2 ~f6 6 4:x::3 dxe4 7 dxe4 e5 8 ~3 l'te 7 9 f3 O-D 1 0 l'tf2 b6 11 ~e2 ~d7 12 O.() .lU> 7 gives equalising chances, as in Suttles-Matanovic, Belgrade 1969) 4 dxe4 e5 5 ~3 ~f6 6 f3 ~6 7 l'tf2 ()bd7 8 ~2 ~4 9 c3~510.Qc4'ite711 ~e6~e612 .rtJ3 h6 13 0-0 += Suttles-Schaufelberger, Siegen 1970

3

U6

[For 3 ... dxe4 4 dxe4 e5 5 ~f3 .Qc5? 6 4:»<e51 ± see MeT vol. 2 p 98-99 - Ed Notel

The attempt to prevent f4 by 3 ... *c7 provoked a gambit reaction in Grefe-Denker, Lone Pine 1979 after 4 f4!7 *xf4 5 ~f3 ~f6 64::lb3 l'tc7 7 e5 ~4 8 d4 Af5? 9 .rtJ4.Qd7 10 .Qe2 .rtJ6 11 ~h6 gxh6 12 O.() ('a6 13 ~a6 bxa6 14 ~5 e6 15 l'th5 Ac8 16 nf6 ~c5 17 dxc5 Ab8 18 Aafl nf8 19 l'txh6 *xe5 20 l'6xh7 Axb2 21 Axf7 Axf7 22 'l*g8+ 1-0

[This gambit looks highly speculative, so 4 ~f3 may be preferable. I have then tried 4 ... ~4 on two occasions - Maninang-Keene, Sydney 1979, and Lobron-Keene, Dortmund 1980 - with satisfactory results - Ed. Note)

4 f411

This is more ambitious than the commonly played 4 ~f3

(Diagram)

4

This is not very useful and Black may be better off to proceed directly with 4 ... ~f61? e.g. 5 e5 ~4 6 4:x::If3 c5 7 d4 4:x::6 8 c3 l'tb6 9 h3 ~h6 10 g41 cxd4 11 cxd4 f5 12 g5 ~f713

(le2 e6 14 h4 ~7 15 h5 ~c8 16 ""'2 (::a5 17 b3 .Qb5 18 ~2 .te6 19 h6 ~f8 20 <tg3 .Qb4 21 .Qb2 r&d7 and although Black's position is very cramped he succeeded in holding a draw in Bronstein-Filip, Budapest 1977

5 a5

More common is 5 <tgf3, e.q,

a) 5".(:)f6 6 e5 <tg4 7 4:lb3 4:lh6 (7." h5) 8 d4 b6 9 ~3 (::a610a4 ~711 a5 ~7 12 ~3 += (le6? 13 4:lh4! .te7 14 0-0 ~4 15 fre1 ~f5 16 ~f5 ~f5 17 ~f2 h5 18 axb6 axb6 19 thb4 nbS 20 na7 0-0 21 ..Qxf5 gxf5 22 ~4 +- Kurajica-Csom, Hungary 1976

b) 5 ... dxe4 6 dxe4 ~4 7 h3 Axf3 S lbf3 (:)f6 9 ~3 0-0 10 94! 4:la6 11 c3 4:lc5 12 ..Qc2 ± Kurajica-Pomar, Montilla 1972

c) 5" . .I1g4 6 h3 (6 c3 Axf3 7 lbf3 e6 8 e5 h5 9 d4 4Jh6 10 ~3 <td7 favoured White in Hazai-Lederman, Skara 1980) 6 ... Axf3 7 lbf3 e6 8 c3 f5 9 g4! (le7 10 gxf5 exf5 11 h4 <td7 12 h5 f1c7 13 e5 0-0-07 (13 ... otx:;5 11 ~6) 14 -tb3! ± Day-Angers, Canadian Open 1980. As 14",(:)f8 loses to 15 h6 it is too late for Black to manoeuvre his knight to e6.

d) 5".4:lh61? 6 g3 f6 7 ~2 0-0 8 fre2 4:la6 9 h3 4:lc7 100-0 a5 11 a4 (:)t7 12 4:lb3 b6 13 exd5 cxd5 14 ~3

nbS 15 'ltf2 'ltd6 16 c4!? ~6 17 c5 bxc5 18 Axc5 'ltd7 19 ~a5 ~fcSI« Black has active play in exchange for his pawn, Dav-Hebert, Canadian Ch 1975

5 c5

6 c3 41c6

7 .b31 b6

8 .182

We are following Petrosian-Bhend, Havana 1966, Petroslsn's move order does not give Black a chance to exchange off his white-squared bishop via g4 .

8

e6

Perhaps the active 8",f6 was preferable, Now White gets a very nice clamp.

9.le3 h5

10 .f3 4t.h6

11 .tf2 .f5

12 d4 c4

13 4t.bd2 b5

14 0-0 .td7

15 itc2 .its

16 b317

(Diagram)

Before proceeding with the 'ilt-side breakthrough (g3, h3, g4 etc) White neutralises Black's "-side counter-

play. A common problem for Black in this type of position is that his king's rook is a long way from an open file on the .-side. In order to develop the rook, Black has to commit his king which in turn strengthens the power of White's eventual line-opening on the ~side.

16 JB7

17 .fb1 0-0

18 ""1

This knight will be ideally posted at e3 after the (:)/f5 is driven back.

18 *te7

19 bxc4 bxc4

20 h3 .ab8

21 g4 hxg4

22 hxg4 .h6

23 .e3 ita5

Simplification by 23 ... a.xb1+ and 24 ... a.b8 may have offered better chance. Black is playing for a trap.

24 .h4 .ta3!

The hidden threat is 25 ... 4:lxd4 26 cxd4 .I1a4 trapping the queen.

25 .hi 1 1 .e7

26 .f3 'llg7

27· JB11 *te7

28..1h4 .hgS

29 iH12

Black has done his best to keep the lines shut on the 'tr-side but the deadly threat of 30 Af6+ ~f6 31 exf6+ ~f6 32 g5+ ~7 33 'itrh6+ "1::18 34 ~4 with a mating net forces his next move and allows White to blow open the position.

29

30 f51 31 .ta3 32 fxe6 33 -.5 34 .xd5

f6 fxeS .c6 .lxe6 1.17

1-0 Petrosian-Bhend, Havana Olympiad 1966

French Defence

Although I have tried 1 e4 e6 2 f41? a couple of times I would hardly recommend it as after 2 ... d5 3 e5 c5 4 ~f3 4:lc6 5 g3 4::ge7 Black equalises without much trouble, e.g. 6 d3 *b6!? 7 c3 ~7 8 4:la3 h5 9 4:lc2 4:lf5 10 ~3 ~7 11 O-O? (11 'iWe20r 11 .I1xf5) 11...0-0-0 12 a.f2 f6 13 d4 h4! 14 g4 ~3! 15 <tle3 fxe5 16 dxe5 c4 17 '!g2 4:le4 18 !:!e2 a.hf8 19 .t>xc4 *a6 20 4:le3 l'1xf4 -+ Day-J Meyer, Washington 1979; or 6 4:lc3 {)f5 7 .>1g2 h 5 '8 0-0 c4!? 9 {)e2 ~5+ 1 0 ~1 h4 11 g4 h3a: Aronin-Kan, USSR Championship 1954

An even more extreme anti-

French method is 1 e4 a6 2 ,51? which Steinitz played in a few games a hundred years ago. We will follow Steinitz-Schwarz, Vienna 1882

2

c5

Other tries were 2 ... f6 (Winawer) and 2 ... b6!? 3 f4 Ab7 4 ~3 f6 5 d4 ttl6 6 .QcI3 f5 7 0-0 ~7 8 c4 c5 9 d51 ± Steinitz-Blackburne, London 1883, and 2 ... d5 which Steinitz took en passant reaching fairly normal looking positions after 4 d4

3 f4

3 ... d5 4 exd6 ~d6 5 g3 .QcI7 (Steinitz was probably hoping for the incorrect sacrifice f> ..• ~f4? 6 gxf4 'lih4+) 6 €lf3 k6 7 -"92 4.:lf6 8 0-0 4.:lbd7 9 d3 0-0 1 0 4.:lbd2 4.:lb6? I 11 'lI\'e2 'fIc7 12 b3 ~7 13 Ab2 a5 14 a4 €lfd5 15 4.:lc4 4.:lb4 16 Aae 1 4.:l5d 5 1 7 -tlfe5 ~f6 18 'fIf2 ~8 19 g4 Ad 8 20 g5 ~7 21 ~4 .tlc6 22 'fIh4 .tld4 23 ~I +- Stelnltz-Weiss, Vienna 1882. Black is in a mating net.

4 .. .16 5 exf6 fuf6 6 g3 ~7 7 ~2 'fIe7 80-0 0-09 .tlc3 a6 10 b3 b5 11 Ab2 ~7 12 d3 4.:ld8 13 'fIe2 -tlf7 14 4.:ld 1 Aae8 1 5 .tle3 .Qd8 16 c4a:

Stei n i tz-Winawer, Vien na 1 882

5 g3 ~7

5 ... b6 6 -"92 tlf5 7 c3 nb8?! (extra mysterious) 8 'fIe2 Ab7 9 d3 ~7 10 otlld2 d5 11 exd6 fud6 12 0-00-013 nd1 'fIe8 14 4.:lfl ndS 15 ~3 ~6" Steinitz-Mason, Vienna 1882

6.tg2 0.0

7 d3 f6

8 ,xf6 J.xf6

9 0-0 .f7

10 c3 .b8n

The beginning of a manoeuvre of rare depth - the knight is heading for B lack's '&1-side I

11 b6

12 .. c2 ..lb7

13 ... 3 d5

14 "g41 85

15 .xf6+ gxf6

15 .. .'ibxf6 16 fue5 tl (either) xe5 17 fxe5 'fIxe5 18 ~f4 wins the exchange.

The weakness of Black's '&1-side weighs more heavily than his central control.

16

•• 7

17 fX85 fX85

18 ~+ .... 8

19 -.th5 'ite8

20 d4!

Knocking out the e5 pawn opens up a powerful post for White's OS at f4.

20

21 .e1 22 cxd4 23 M4

.la6 cxd4 84 ad8?!

On 23 ... l!c8 24 ~3 is strong, but now Steinitz infiltrates in straiqhtforward fashion.

24 aac1 ega 25 ac7 .. h8 26 'l'g5+ .hg6 27 axa7 .ld3 28 ac1 .. c6 29 axh7 "xf4 30 ah6 ad6 31 "x1l6 1·0

As is often the case in Stelnitz's conduct of the opening it is difficult to tell where strategy runs into provocation.

A similar problem arises with Chigorin's 1 e4 86 2 'ite211 which he admitted first occurred to him as a joke. We will follow ChiqorinRubinstein, 3rd Russian Championship 1903.

The indirect pin on the e-file discourages 2 ... d5 since after 3 exd5

Black would have to play 3".'i4'xd5. Black has many options:

a) 2 ... b6J? 3 f4 .I1b7 4 ~t3 ~7 5 .tlc3 d5 6 d3 d4 7 otrl1 g6 S otIf2 ~7 9 .Q.d2 ~6 10 h4 h5 11 g4 'ltd7 12 ~3 itb5 13 O-O·017a:: ChlqorlnBlackburne, Ostend 1905

2) 2 .. _!J27 (Breaking the pin!) 3 b3!? d5 (3 ... €lh6!? 4 .I1b2 0·0 514 f5 6 e5 b6 7 g3 .I1b 7 8 .Qg2 l'tc8a:: DayKourkounakis, Toronto 1980) 4.11b2 Af6 5 Axf6J (5 e5 ~7 6 'l6'g4 Af8 7 <tlf3 c5 8 .I1b5+ .Q.d7 9 .Ilxd7+ 'lttxd7 10 .tlc3 .tlc6 11 0-0 +=/a:: is an earlier Chigorin-Tarrasch match game) 5 ... -tlx16 6 e5 <tlfd7 7 t6'g4 0-0 8 f4 .tlc6 (Better 8 ... c5) 9 c3 d4 10 -tlf3 dxc3 11 ~c3 ~5 12 d4 f5 13 exf6 'lttxf6 14 l!dl += Chigorin-Tarrasch, match 1893

2

k6

! from Suttles.

3 f4

3 ~3 e5 4 g3 (4 d3 -tlf6 5 f4 ~5 6 fxe5 ~e5 7 -tlf3 d6 8 ~5 h6 9 Ah4 g5 10 .Qg3 .Qg4 11 0-0-0 gave White good play in Chigorin-Boyarkov, 1st Russian Championship 1899) 4 ... <tlf6 5 .Qg2 ~5 6 d3 d6 7 .Qg5 (Schlechter suggested 7 t:a4. Fine 7 ~3) 7 ... h6 8 Axf6 'lttxf6 9 otrl5 'ltd8 10 c3 ~7 11 ~e7 'lttxe7 12 0-0-0 .Q.d7 1314 0-0-0 and Black has

no problems, Chlqorin-Lasker. London 1899

3 ~4

4 'ld3 c5

5 .f3 .c6

6 'h2

This position can also arise from 2 ... c5 or 1 ... c5

6

7 k3

h7

Chigorin invariably chose this central development of the ON. Aside from 7 c3 considered in the previous article White can also try 7 d3 d5 8 93 ~f6 9 e5 as in EvansWhitehead, Lone Pine 1977 which arose from a Sicilian and hence had two moves less in the sequence. After 7 .. .!ixJ7 8 '(u'3!? titc7 9 ~3 b6 10 ~d2 ~4 11 {)f1 d412 Af2 ~7 13 ~2 Black overpressed with 13 ... g5? and after 14 a3 g4 15 axb4 c4 16 Axd4 White had a winning position.

7

8 d3 9 g3

9

a6

In Chiqorin-Gottschai, Barmen 1905, Black played the direct 7 ... d4 8 ~1 b5 9 ~2 ~6 (Sokolsky

recommends 9 ... a5 first) 10 0-0 ~c8 11 b3 c4 12 ~1 cxd3 13 cxd3 O.{) 14 ~2 l'tb6 15 {)f2 .tlb4 16 'ltd1 ~7 17 a3 ~6 18 g4 a5 19 g5 ru7 20 ~4 b4 21 a4 ~5 22 ~f3! and White has a very strong attack. Left alone he will play 23 ~h3, 24 {)f6+! and 25 '¥'h5 with a mating attack. Hence Gottschall played 22 ... f5 but after 23 gxf6 Axf6 24 ~h3 White had a fine attack.

10 Jg2 11 0-0

0.0 .id7

Sokolsky recommends 11 ... b5 intending ~7

12 .,51 d4

Better perhaps was 12 ... ~8

13 4lIxd7 .xd7

14 .d1 85

15 .. 1 itc7?1

16 .Ah31

The bishop will playa critical role in the 'itl-side attack.

16 _adS

17 b3 .id6

18 f5 f6

19.ig41 b5

20 .Ah5

The possibility of ~6!? followed by 'ith5 causes Black severe difficulty.

The coming advance of the ~side pawns will prove decisive.

20 abS

21 14 h7

22 h4 .feB

23 g5 4IIdS

24 c4!

A useful prophylactic measure.

On 24 ... dxc3 25 otlxc3 ~b6 26 .I1g6! hxg6 27 fxg6 ~8 28 'IMl5 ~8 29 gxf6 Af8 30 Ah6 White has tremendous play for the piece.

24 •.. 4IIfS 25 &g1 4IIb7 26 .f2 411d6 27 "14 .. S 2S OXf6 OXf6 29 tlh6 .g6 (Desperation) 30 fxg6 .tfS 31 "f7+ 4IIxf7 32 OXf7 'ld7 33 BgS mate

Both Steinitz's 2 e5 and Chigorin's 2 ite2 are rare in modern praxis and if White wants to avoid 2 d4 his usual alternative is 2 d3 which was popularised in the early sixties by Vasyukov and Stein.

After 2 ... d5 3 ~2 <t)f6 White does not have anything better than 4 4Jgf3 as 4 f4? is too risky and 4 g3 dxe4 5 dxe4 Ac5 6 Ag2 4::lc6 7 4::I9f3 e5 equal ises easily.

White's chance to play for a clamp occurs when Black plays an early c5, but even then White must be careful.

An unqualified disaster was GrefeLevy, Lone Pine 1975: 1 e4 c5 2 f4 a6 3 d3 .. c6 4 4IIf3 d5 5 tlbd2?1 tlf6 6 g3 ~4! 7 'h2 tlb4! 8 tlb3 c4! 9 dxc4 dxc4 10 bc4 J.d7 11 'h2 *b6 12 h3 ReB with tremendous pressure.

On the topic of disasters it is also worth mentioning Bellon-Uhlmann, Madrid 1973: 1 e4 a6 2 ite2 c5 3 d3 tlc6 4 c3 .. f6 5 93 d5 6 tld2 (This clogs the development) 6 ••• h7 7 f4 0-0 S Jg2 b51 (Black utilises the c3- pawn to open lines for counterplay)

9 4IIgf3 c4110 a5? (Uhlmann gives 10 d4 ~e4 11 otlx e4 dxe4 12 ltxe4 Ab 7 as comfortable for Black, but 12 tle51 preserves a I ittle something) 10 ... cxd3 11 bd3 tld7 12 4IIb3 (12 ltxb5? 4::lc5! 6. ~6) 12 ... b4 13 tlbd4 "a5 14 0-0 bxc3 with initiative for Black.

SuttleS-Smith, San Antonio 1972

1 93 d5

2 Jg2 4IIf6

3 d3 e6

4 tld2 h7

5 84 c5

6 ~h3 4::lc6 7 0-0 0-0 (7 ... h5 8 f3 -'W7 9 <t)f2 "lkc7 10 !lel 0-0-0 11 <tJf1 h4 12 f4 hxg3 13 hxg3 .Qe8 14 .Qd2 g6 15 c3 <tJh5 16 .-t3 f5 17 !lad1 Af7 18 94 fxg4?! 19 otlxg4 Ah4 20 !le2 d4 21 Ah3 ~8 22 !lh2! lildf8 23 ~2 fle7 24 b4! cxb4? (24 ... .Qe8!? 25 b5 ~8 26 cxd4 g51a:) 25 cxb4 g5 26 b5 ~8 27 I:1b1 .Qe8 28 Ab4 'fIc7 29 e5 I:1xf47 30 -'W6 I:1xf3 31 Axc7+ ~c7 32 Axf3 ~f4 33 I:1c2+ >td7 34 <t)f6+ 1-0 Dav-Krstlc, Toronto Closed 1974) 8 f4 b5 (8 ... dxe4 9 dxe4 e5 10 f5 h5! 11 c3 b5 12 a4 b4 13 Af3a: Day-Upton, Malta 1980) 9 ~f2 a510 g4 ~6 111:1e1 dxe412 dxe4 c4 13 g5 ~7 14 tlf1 fle7 15 .Qe3 IUd8 16 'l*f3 !:Iac8? (Uhlmann

gives 16 ... e5 17 f5 <t04 as the path to equality) 17 ()g4 ~5 18 ilW2 <t07 19 ()g3 Ab7 20 l1ad1 (t)4 21 f51 .te5 22 l1xcj8+ Axd8 23 ~e5 'ia'xe5 24 ~4± 'i4'd6 25 fxe6 'ltxe6 26 l1fl l1c7 27 ~f5! Hd7 (27 ... 96 28 ~6+ ~8 29 Ab6 +-J 28 ~g7 i'lg6 29 4:lf5 Axg5 30 h4 -'W8 31 h51 'iirxh5 32 'iirg3+ i6g6 33 'iire5 f6 34 'iire6+ llf7 35 Hf3 ~7 36 4:le7+ 1-0 SuttlesPietzsch, Lugano 1968

6 .c6

7 O..() 0-0

7 .•. b6 8 h3 Ab7 9 f4 0-0 10 g4 .te8 11 g5 f6 12 h4 dxe4 13 4:lxe4 <t06 14 4:lxd6 Axd6 15 ()g3 'iird7 16 ~2a: Suttles-Haines, Vancouver 1973

8 h3

It is still too early for 8 f4 on account of 8 ... ()g4 and White is embarassed by his weak e3 square.

8 b5

9 f4 Jlb7

10 94

10

041

This is a strategic error wh ich allows White to close up the centre and expand on the ~side in a leisurely fashion. In the tournament book

David Levy recommends 10 ... dxe4 keeping some play in the centre. He considers White should answer 11 4:lxe4, with equality, since 11 dxe4 c4 12 ()g3 'i4'd4+ 13 'itrh2 c3 gives Black some play. Still after 14 bxc3 'ltxc3 15 llb 1 'iira5 16 95 <t07 17 4:lb3 or 17 Ab2 leaves the position qu lte unclear.

11 85 cxd3

12 cxd3 ~7

13 d4 f6

The best chance as otherwise White will control the timing of the ~side line opening .

14 .f3

15 fxe5

16 ehl 17 .f4 18 b3 19 agl 20 h4

21 .. h3

fxe5 *b6 b4 .. 5

Ja6 .f71 8af8

Black has brought his two pieces to the most active posts available to them but he has run out of ways to strengthen his position. The plan to bring the Ala6 to e4 via d3 can be foiled, for example 21.. .. ~b5 22 gel 'iira6 23 ge3. The double exchange sacrifice 21 ... lhf3!? 22 Axf3 llxf3 23 'iirxf3 'i?<d4 was the best practical chance.

21

22 .ib2 23 a.1 24 "21 25 a.3

Overprotecting f3 White liberates his queen.

25 g6

26 'k2 ~bc6

27 ad1

That White has managed to complete his development is a bad sign for Black. The overprotection of d4 rnoblllses the ~f3.

21 &97

28 95 .n

Black prepares h5 as otherwise a white knight will arrive (via g4) at f6 with decisive effect.

29 a .. 1 h5

30 eg31

The king functions usefully by guarding f4

30

31 ~f4 32 ad2 33 .Ah3 34 .1 35 af2

This allows a combinational break· through. Levy recommends 35 ... 'l'a6.

36 .ba61 ~xa6 31 .xd5 j&ob8 38 ..,6+ axf6 39 gxf6 ad1 40 ita4 83 41 J.c1 'idS 42 ..Ig5 .,7 43 ad2 ad5 44 ac1 'ld1 45 adc2 .ta6 46 ac11 ~c1 41 axc7 bc7 48 itxd6+ .S 49 h6+ 1-0

Day-Jakovljevski, Canadian Open
1983
1 e4 e6
2 *e2 c6
3 f4 -k6 This is not the most flexible move order for Black as he gives up control of a6. Compare the next game.

4 ... 3 5 c3 6 d3 7 e6 8 d4 9 .183

10 g3

11 h4!?

.187 d6 ... 6 -tld7 0-0 b6 85

White could prevent the exchange of light bishops by 11 .ah3 since 11 ... Aa6 1 2 "iird2 cxd4 13 cxd4 {i)4 14 ~21 shows Black's threats to be ephemeral. The move played has a positional point, to play .ah3 without blocking the h-pawn, which serves to disgu ise a tactical surprise.

11

.Ja61

12 'te21

So that if 12 ... hfl 13 'b.:l51 forces a weakening of the klnq's field.

12 f5

13 ex16 41)(16

14.lxa6 • xe6

Black's a-pawn is decidedly weak .

15 4Ibd2 41114

16 'ld3 ·kS

17 4195 .f6

18 •• 2 h5

19.Af2 a511

He rids himself of the backward pawn but his rooks are in no position to contest the file.

20 dxe5 4Ixe5

21 0-0 .lxg5

22 hXg5 4196

23 .8e1 ef7

24 c41

The opening of one more line is more than Black's king can survive .

24 ...• 87 25 cxd5 .xd5 26 -k4 ab7 27 'it3 .... c6 28 f5 4187 29 &e6 'jjd7 30 afa1 -tlc6 31 1ltxd5 1ltxd5 32 g6+ ,·0

Day-Kuznecov, Toronto 1983

1 e4 c5

2 f4 16

3 itl2 b6

4 93

The alternative is 4 b3.

4

5 .lg2 6 c3ll

Also inferior is 6 e5?1 ~g2 7 'li'xg2 ~5 8 c4 Fix7 =+ 6 b3 or 6 4Ja3 (6 ... d5 7 e5 otIfd7 8 c4 .tIc61 9 cxd5 ~4 10 'tI\'d3a:) were better.

6

7 e5 B d4 9 Ja3

10 h41l

d5 .,d7

*71 Ja7 hSll

Black has prepared the variation up to White's 10th but did not consider the move played which intended 10 ... 0-01 11 ~3 ~fc8 12 ~h2 though after 12 ... ~6 13 'tI\'d 1 cxd4 White has major problems. In this case the deep point of leaving out Fix6 is revealed - the c-file remains open.

11.1h3 g6

12.,3 .la6

13 . itd1 k6

14 a3 ~5

Possibly better was 14 ... cxd4 15 cxd4 (forced) 1 5 ... otIa5 . avoid ing the game continuation.

15 b4 k4

16.1e1 cxd4

17 ~41l

Certainly this tempts Black to sacrifice his knight at e5 but it is not clear.

17

.lb7

Threatening ... a5 but White solves the problem of his pinned a-pawn economically.

1B •• 21 19 .e2 20 axb4 21 -.c2

a5 axb4 .b8 .le8

White threatened a "sacrifice".

The curious th ing about the position is the posting of Black'sknight at c4. OPtically it looks great but it has no moves and blocks both the c-tlle and the a6-f1 diagonal.

22 0-0 k6

23 .f3 0-01

The losing move. The king should go the other way _

24 g4 hxg4 25 Jx04 eg7 26 &02 .g8 V h5 *18 28 hxg6 .x06 29 .ff2 "8 30 .lhS .xg2+ 31 &x02 .-d832 'l'h7 &a1 33 .-d4 J:fB 34 .b3 &.7 35 .08 '1'&7 36 ...,8 ~ 37 b5 ~5 38 "4 .lb7(1) 39 .xe6 'i'xe6 40 .xfB+ ed741 .x17+ 1-0

CPENING TI£(RY BOOKS FRCI-t TI£ oess PlAYER

I

.~

.~ .. . ~ 11

Bird's Opening Schliemam/Jaenisch Gambit Najdorf Poisoned Pawn Torre Attack

King's Indian Defence, 4 Pa.ns Attack NimzovIchDefence

b6!

SpanIsch Exchange VarIation LatvIan GantlIt

Sicilian c3

Sokolsky Opening

Trompovsky Attack

Spanish 5 d4

Averbakh System, PirclKing's Indian Defence Penzian! Opening

French Defence, Tarrasch Variation Richter-Veresov System

Sicilian Najdorf, Polugaevsky Variation

I •

Petroff's Defence, A Line for White Pirc Defence, A Line for White

Pirc Defence, A Second Line for White The Old Indian Renewed

The Big Clamp

Modern Chess Theory 1981/2

King's Gambit· A Game Collection Philidor's Oefence