THE BIG CLAMP
An Anti-Sicilian System
Lawrence Day I.M.
THE BIG CLAMP
An Anti Sicilian System
Lawrence Day I.M.
The Chess Player, Notthingham
First published 1984
© The Chess Player Ltd 1984
ISBN 0 906042 35 6
Printed and bound in England by
The Chess Player Ltd.
12 Burton Ave., Carlton, Nottingham NG4 1PT
The two articles which form the major part of this
book were originally published in Modern Chess Theory
Word.docx and pdf versions 2012
www.fam-lysgaard.dk/TBC.html
Jørgen Lysgaard
[email protected]
SICILIAN – THE BIG CLAMP
The 11th game of the 1978
World Championship, KorchnoiKarpov was a
clear
strategic
triumph for the white player.
1
2
3
g3
Jg2
e4
c5
Kc6
! from Larsen
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
…
d3
f4
Kf3
0-0
c3
Me2
Je3
d4
g4
Jg7
d6
Kf6
0-0
Lb8
Ke8
Kc7
There is already enormous
press-ure on Black’s position. The
position has some similarities to
Closed Sici-lian-type middlegames
but with the critical difference that
Black does not have 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 QN, 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 while Karpov defended
very logically:
11
12
13
14
15
16
…
cxd4
Ld1
e5
Kc3
Mf1
cxd4
Jg4
d5
Md7
Lfc8
b5
Larsen considers this nervous
recommending …ka8 or …f5, but
conceding White the advantage.
17 h3 Jxf3 18 Jxf3 b4 19 Jg4 e6
20 Ka4 Ka5 21 Kc5 Me8 22 Je2
Kb7 23 Kxb7 Lxb7 24 Ldc1 Md7
25 Lc2 b3? 26 axb3 Lxb3 27
Mc1! Lb7 28 Ja6.
Winning the exchange and
soon the game. Karpov’s blunder
at move 25 ended what might
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.
Whether or not Black holds
the draw in the endgame, the
opening must be rated as a great
success for White, though it is not
exactly clear where Black’s play
can be improved.
I was very
interested in the initial phase of
this game because I had adopted
this cramping strategy, nick- named
the Big Clamp, in a number of
games played in Toronto during the
previous year, e.g. Day-MacLeod,
Toronto Closed, February 1978:
1
2
e4
d3
c5
Kc6
In my opinion Black should
play 2…d5 along the lines of the
English Opening, but with reversed
colours.
3
4
5
g3
Jg2
f4
g6
Jg7
e6
Here 5…d6 transposes into the
previous game.
6
7
Kf3
Kge7
c3
d5
Better than 7…d6, chiefly
because d3–d4 is prevented.
8
9
Me2
Ka3
b6
Ja6
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 slight
structural
advantage since the
pawn at d3 is weak.
10
e5
Kf5
The critical point in d4 about
which the tactics are revolving. On
10…d4 11 cxd4, cxd4 is necessary
because of the long diagonal
pin. With
10…lc8,
unpinning,
White would have to cover d4
again with a piece, either by kc2 or
je3, or else answer d5–d4 with
c3–c4, Black probably avoided lc8
because he wanted to preserve
the option of castling queenside.
11
12
Je3
Jf2
h5
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 pre-venting b6–b5 or
for the moment d5–d4.
12
13
…
Lc1
Md7
This discourages 13…0-0-0?
Which would allow 14 b4!
13
…
Jf8
Threatening c5–c4 followed by
Lf8xa3.
14
15
16
Kc2
h3
Md2
Je7
Lc8
Unpinning the d-pawn as well as
supporting an eventual b2–b4.
16
…
Nf8?!
Since White has control of the
opening of lines on the kingside,
the black king is not safe there.
17
Ne2
Very strong, connecting the
rooks. Because of h-file pins
17... kh6 18 g4! anyway.
17
18
19
…
g4
b4
b5
Kg7
White controls the play on both
wings.
19
…
d4
The best hope for complications.
20
21
22
23
24
cxd4
Ka1
Kb3
Me3
Lhg1!
cxb4
Jb7
Md8
a5
Taking
dia-gonal.
26
27
28
…
Lxc8
Kfd2
control
…
Lc1
Ka5!
Kb8
Jxc8
of
the
28
29
30
…
Kb7
Kc5
Jd7
Mb6
Jc6?
A blunder in a bad position.
31 Kxe6+ fxe6 32 Lxc6 Ma7 33
Lc8+ Ke8 34 Me4 Md7 35 Mc6
Mxc6 36 Jxc6 Kac7 37 f5 gxf5
38 gxf5 exf5 39 d5 Nf7 40 d6
Kxd6 41 Lxh8 b3 42 axb3 a3
43 exd6 a2 44 Jd4 Jf6 45 dxc7
Jxd4 47 La8 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-Brage,
Student
Olym-piade, Mexico City, 1978:
An all-purpose move, guarding
g2 and avoiding the exchange of
rooks. Because
of
White's
advantage in space, the black
army has little communications
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
25
26
comes with tempo.
1
2
3
4
5
6
e4
d3
g3
Jg2
f4
c3
c5
Kc6
g6
Jg7
e6
A better move order than 6 kf3
as in the previous game.
6
7
...
Kf3
Kge7
Transposing, but 7 je3!? seems
stronger.
long
Ka6
7
8
9
10
11
...
Ka3
0-0
Kc2
d4
0-0
Lb8
b5
b4
cxd4?
a4
A finesse after which everything
After this Black soon gets into a
passive position. The logical idea
was to open as much space on the
queen-side
as
possible
by
11...bxc3 12 bxc3 cxd4 13 cxd4
ma5 or 13...ja6 with a struggle in
prospect.
12
cxd4
28
g4!
Black's pieces are tied to the
def-ence of the b-pawn, and to
prevent-ing f4–f5.
d5
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
...
L a1
Mb1
Md3
L af1
Me3
Kh4
f5
Kf3
L c8
L c2
L c7
L a7
Mb5
L ba8
Kc6
Mb6
L a1
Black
finally
forces
an
exchange of rooks, reducing the ffile pressure.
Note Black's d- and b-pawns
have both gone to the fourth
rank in one jump. This is why 7
je3 would have won a tempo.
13
14
15
16
17
e5
axb3
Ke3
Lf2
Jf1!
b3!
Lxb3
Mb6
a5
Last
move
16...ja6?
lxa6. Now 17...ja6? 18 jxa6.
17
18
19
20
...
Jd3
Jc2
Ja4!
...
Kc2
b3
Jd2
Mel
Kxb4
Lc1
Jxd7
17
Jd7
Lb8
Lb4
Ma7
L4b6
Mc7
Jf8
Kb4
axb4
Mb7
Mxd7
M14
L xf1
Ja3
h4
h5
L xf1+
Jg7
h6
Mb5
Finally forcing open the kingside
since 41...g5 42 kxg5 gives a
deadly attack.
The bishop has found a very fine
post. The threat is kc2.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
37
38
39
40
41
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
...
gxf5
Mxf5
L f2
Ng2
Kh2
Mf3
gxf5
exf5
Kd8
L a1+
Mc6
Me6
L b1?!
After a tenacious defence Black
makes one aggressive gesture one too many.
48
49
50
La2!
Kg4
Kf6+
Mc6
Lxb3
Nf8
Having patiently nurtured his
positional advantage White now
decides
the
game
with
a
spectacular
and
decisive
combination.
51
Jd2
Mc4
51 lxf3 jxb4+ and mates.
52
La8!
Jxf6
Now 52...lxf3 53 lxd8+ mates.
53
gxf6!
The queen magically continues
to hang! Despite the lack of
material on the board, the attack is
decisive.
53…Ne8 54 Mg4 Mc6 55 Mg8+
Nd7 56 Mxd8+ Ne6 57 Ma7+ 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 queen- side.
In the early middlegame the
bishop manoeuvre from g2 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
2
e4
f4
c5
g6
3
4
d3
c3
Jg7
Probably the most flexible move
order, producing a pawn structure
familiar from Antoshinis Ukrainian
variation of the Dutch Defence.
In-stead 4 g3 d5! 5 e5 f6 6
exf6 exf6 7 jg2 ke7 8 kf3 kbc6 9
0-0 occurred in Day-Angantysson,
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 adventage. Instead 9... je6 10 le1 md7
11 d4 cxd4?! (better 11...c4) 12
kxd4 kxd4 13 mxd4 0-0 14 kc3
jf7 15 mc5! lfe8 16 je3 lec8 17
ma3 d4 18 lad1 f5 19 jf2 kc6 20
kb5 jd5? 21 md6 mxd6 22 kxd6
jxg2 23 kxc8 jf3 24 le8+ jf8 25
ld3 je4 26 ke7+ nf7 27 lxa8
Resigns.
4
5
...
Je3!?
Kc6
Again 5 g3 d5 when Day-Benko,
World Open 1979, continued 6
me2 d4 7 c4 e5 8 jh3 kge7 9 jxc8
mxc8 10 kf3 16 11 fxe5 fxe5 12
0-0 0-0 13 ka3 a6 14 kc2 b5 15
b3 md7 16 jd2 lab8 17 kce1 lb7
18 lc1 b4 with an eventual draw.
5
6
...
Je2
d6
Lb8
Against 6...kf6 White has the
very sharp possibility of 7 g4!?
aiming
for an
immediate
kingside
expansion with h4–h5.
Also a plan is 6...e5 as in
Bolton-Sofrevsky, Canadian Open
1978, aiming to open some play
in the centre.
7
8
a4
Kf3
a6
Kf6
Here 8„.b5 makes more sense,
but castling kingside is a common
error.
9
10
11
12
13
14
Kbd2
h3
axb5
d4
cxd4
e5
On 14...ke4
16 kg5 jf5 17
hxg5 19 fxg6
hence Black is
passive position.
15
0-0
b5
axb5
cxd4
d5
Ke8
15 kxe4 dxe4
g4 h6 18 gxf5
with a big edge;
driven back to a
20
21
Lf2
Kd3
...
Kb3
Lc1
0-0
Ke1
21
22
...
Jf1
Jf8
Ke6
23
Lfc2
Ka7
Black's
knights
effectively
cover the
possible
entry
squares on the c-line.
24
25
26
27
28
Jd2
Me1
Mg3
Ke1
Md3
Preventing
threatening lxc8
Kc7
f6
Lb6
f5
e6
28
29
...
La1
b4
Lb8
Lg7
Mb6
kb5
and
Jb7
Simpler was 29 kf3 but White's
retreat
induces
Black
to
overextend on the queenside.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
With Black's 15 bulwarked he
is safe from a direct attack on the
king- side. in order to make
progress White must
combine
Lf7
Securing c2 for the rook by preventing kb4.
g4
Preventing jf5.
15
16
17
18
19
play on both wings. The first step
is to take possession of the c-file.
...
Je3
Jf2
La5
La1
Nh2
Kxc2
Kc7
Kcb5
Lc8
Lc4
Lxc7
Lxc2
Kc3?!
Superfically
this
appears
strong, but it is refuted by a long
tactical sequence:
36 Jh41 Lc8 37 gxf5 exf5 38 bxe3
Lxc3 39 Me2 Lxb3 40 e6 Lb2 41
e7 Jxe7 42 Jxe7 b3 43 Jc5 Mc6 44
Jg2 Lxc2 45 Me7 (Decisive
penetration) 45...Lxc5 46 dxc5
Kb5 47 Md8+ Nf7 48 Le1 and
Black resigned.
This game shows the long term
disadvantage of Black's lack of
space. White had more lines of
communica-tion between 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.
Makarichev-Dolmatov,
Championship 1979:
1
2
e4
g3
USSR
c5
Kc6
The test of White's move order
is 2...d5 3 exd5 mxd5 4 kf3 jg4 5
jg2 me6+ 6 nf1 when Black can
choose between 6...kc6 7 h3 jh5
or 6... jh3!? 7 b4!?
3
4
5
6
Jg2
d3
f4
Kf3
g6
Jg7
d6
e6
6...e5 7 c3 kge7 8 ka3!? 0-0 9
0-0 d5? 10 exd5 kxd5 11 kxe5
kxe5 12 fxe5 jxe5 13 mb3 kb6 14
mb5 mc7 15 je3 jd6 16
ma5!Day-Vranesic,
Canadian
Championship 1978.
7
8
9
0-0
c3
Ja3
Kge7
0-0
A precise developing order
retain-ing options for the knight
while impeding d6–d5 because of
the c5 pressure.
9
10
...
Jf2!
b6
Here the bishop is effectively
posted where it cannot be
attacked by the advancing d-pawn
or the ke7. 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
...
Md7
Preparing
for
f7–f5
bolstering the e6 square.
11
Le3
h6
Necessary to prevent kg5.
12
13
14
15
16
d4
cxd4
Kc3
h4
Jh3
cxd4
Jb7
Nh7
Lae8
f5
by
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
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
h5!
d5!
exf5
Lxe8
Jxf5
Mc2
Le1
Kh4
Kxf5
Mxf5
gxh5
exd5
Kxf5
Mxe8
Lxf5
Jc8
Md7
Ng8
Mxf5
Jxf5
The combinational transaction
on f5 has left White with a
decisive material advantage.
27 Kxd5 Nf7 28 Lc1 Jd7 29 b3
Jb2 30 Lc2 Jf6 31 b4 Jd8 32 b5
Ka5 33 a4 Jf5 34 Lc3 Kb7 35 Kb4
Kc5 36 Kc6 Jf6 37 Jd4 Kxa4 38
La3 Jc2 39 Jxf6 Nxf6 40 Kb4
Jd1 41 Kd5+ and Black resigned.
Day-Benko, Continental Open,
New York 1980:
1
2
3
4
5
6
e4
f4
d3
c3
Je3
Je2
c5
g6
Jg7
Kc6
d6
Kf6
In
Day-Christiansen.
World
Open 1980,
6..f5!?
7 kd2?!
(also 7 exf5 or 7 kh3!?) 7...kf6
8 h3?! e5! 9 g4 0-0 10 gxf5
gxf5 11 mb3+ nh8 12 fxe5 kxe5
13 0-0-0 me7! 14 mc2 jd7 15
kgf3 kxd3+!! soon led to a decisive
plus for Black, although after a
series of adventures the game was
ultimately drawn.
7
Kd2
0-0?
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
9
g4!
a3
b5
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,
there-by
robbing
his
queen and c6-knight of an active
post,
9
10
...
Jf3!
Jb7
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 10 jf3 also con-tributes
to White's kingside attack as the
second rank becomes an avenue
for the white queen to reach
the h-file
10
11
12
...
h4
h5
a5
b4
White has a winning advantage
already.
12
13
14
...
hxg6
Ld1
Kd7
hxg6
e6
A useful move creating the
poss-ibility of reinforcing the
shaky king- side defence by an
eventual mf6.
15
16
Me2
Mh2
Le8
bxc3
Black picks this moment to exchange in the hope of 17 mh7+?
nf8 18 bxc3 kf6! and kg8! when
Black prevents the exchange of
black-squared bishops and easily
holds off the attack.
17
bxc3
Lb8
The rook later becomes a
target here white counterplay by
ja6 and lb2 is easily foiled. An
alternative defensive
strategy
involved placing the knights at
f8 and f7, trying to guard the hfile intrusion squares.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Ja2
Kgf3
cxd4
f5
gxf5
Jf4
Mh7+
Jd6+
Kxd4
d5
d4
Kxd4
exf5
Kxf5
Kd4
Nf8
La7
Also possible was 26 mh8+
jxh8 27 lxh8+ ng7 28 lxd8 lxd8
29
jxe7 winning a piece
immediately.
26...Jxd4 27 Kf3 Kf6 28 Mh6+
Ne8 29 Jxb8 Mxb8 30 Mxh8+ and
Black resigned.
In this game Black fell tinder 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.
The following game shows a
simi-lar pattern.
Day-Blumenfeld,
Invita-tional 1980:
1
2
3
4
e4
f4
Kf3
Me2
Marshall
c5
Kc6
e6
d6
For the natural 4...kf6 see
the next game.
After 4...kge7 5 b3!? d5 6
jb2 dxe4 (better than 6...d4 7 c3
e5 8 mf2! kg6 9 f5± BohatirchukHeiden-held, corr 1954) 7 mxe4
kf5 8 ka3 White held a small edge
in Day-Rantanen, Malta 1980.
A purer form of the Big
Clamp would
occur
after
4...kge7 5 d3 d5 6 c3 g6 7
ka3 jg7 8 mf2 b6 9 je2 a6 10
0-0 jd7 11 jd2 mc7 12 lac1 00 13 mh4 f6 14 kc2 lad8 15
ke3 f5 16 e5 h6 17 nh1 je8 18
kd1 d4 19 c4 ma7 20 kf2 nf7
21 lg1 lh8 22 g4 mb7 23
h3 kb8 24 nh2 jc6 25 mg3
ldg8 26 b4 kd7 27 bxc5 bxc5
28 lb1 mc7 29 gxf5 exf5 30
h4 jf8 31 mh3 ne6 32 ke4
jxe4 33 dxe4 nf7 34 jd3
mc6 35 lbe1 ne8 36 h5 fxe4
37 jxe4 ma4 38 hxg6 jg7 39
me6 lf8 40 f5 mxa2 41 jc6
1-0 Bohatirchuk-Yanofsky, Canadian Championship 1951.
5
c3
Mc7
6
7
8
9
Ka3
Kc2
Kf6
Ja7
d3
g3
0-0
b6
(Diagram)
10
Jh3!
White intends g4–g5 to knock
the knight from f6 and eliminate
press-ure on e4, thus central
prophylaxis
17
Ke3
g6?
On 17...e5 18 kf5 is strong
but the weakness of f6 is decisive.
17...f6 was a better try.
18 Kg4! Jg7 19 Mh4 Kf8 20
Jg2 Kc6 21 Kf6+ Nh8 22 Lf3 e5 23
Lh3 h5 24 gxh6 and Black
resigned.
In the two previous games Black
lacked serious counterplay. The
following game shows a better
strat-egy whereby Black succeeds
in slow-ing dawn the attack by
obtaining targets on the queenside.
Day-Tisdall, Brighton 1980:
1
2
3
4
5
combines with kingside expansion.
10
11
12
13
...
0-0
g4
d4!
Jb7
Lfa8
c4
After 13 dxce1 ka5 the
centre would open which is
completely contrary to White's
strategy. Now 13...d5
14
e5
ke4
15 kd2 would leave a
strong White attack on the f-line.
13
14
15
16
,..
Kd2
g5
Mf2
Ka5
Jf8
Kd7
Le7
Guarding f7 in order to set
up e6–e5, Black's last hope for
central play.
e4
f4
Me2
Kf3
c3
c5
e6
Kc6
Kf6
b6
Alternatives include the direct
5...d5 6 e5 kg8 7 d4 kh6 8 je3
cxd4 9 kxd4 kxd4 10 jxd4 kf5
as in Day-MacPhail,
Hamilton
1980, when 11 jf2 leaves a slight
edge for White, or 5...je7 6 ka3
0-0 7 kc2 b6 8 d3 ja6 9 lb1 b5
10 a3 b4 11 e5 kg4 12 axb4 cxb4
13 la1 jb7 14 d4 a5 15 md1
kh6 16 jd3 with a large edge in
Day-Stoll, Toronto Closed 1980.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
g3
Ka3
d3
Kc2
Jg2
0-0
Nh1
Kg5!?
Ja7
Jb7
a6
b5
Mc7
0-0
Ka5
Black was threatening c5–c4
undermining e4. The most solid
defence was 13 kd2, preventing
the counterplay which now ensues.
13
14
15
16
17
...
c4
Ke3
Lxa2
Kh3
Preparing
the g-pawn.
17
the
...
b4
b3
bxa2
Kb3
advance
of
Kd4
There were good arguments for
timing of the exchange of these
pieces.
Md1
Jd2
Jc3
g4
g5
Mh5
...
La3
bxa3
K2g4
Lb3
Lxa3
Lb8
With control of e5 ensured, f4–f5
becomes serious and Black must
fall back to the defence.
kxc1 as later White controls the
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
d6
a5
Kd7
Jc6
Lfb8
a4
27
28
29
30
31
32
...
Jxd4
Kc2
Kxd4
f5!
f6!
Md8
cxd4
Kc5
Je8
Jxg5
Jxf6
Against 32...jd2 33 kf3 is very
strong.
33
Kxf6+
34
Jh3?
gxf6
The right move order was 34
During the game both sides
felt they held a slight advantage in
this delicately balanced position.
24
Kf2!
This combines defence, by
guard-ing
d3,
with
attack
involving kg4– h6+. The direct 24
f5?! Allows ke5 protecting f7 while
hitting d3.
mh6! kxd3 35 jh3 ke5 36 lg1+ kg6
37 kxe6! fxe6 38 jxe6+ jf7
(38...nh8 39 mf8+! kxf8 40 lg8
mate) 39 jxf7+ nxf7 40 mxh7+
ne6 41 mxg6 mh8 42 c5! with a
winning position.
34
35
...
Mxh7
Nf8
Ma5?
In time trouble Black falls apart.
Necessary was 35...ne7.
36 Jxe6 Kxe4 37 Mxe4 fxe6 38
Mxe6 Ma8+ 39 Ng1 Lb2 40 Mxf6+
Ng8 41 Mf8+ Nh7 42 Lf7+ 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. Lar-sen instructively
reduces his oppo-nent to virtual
zugzwang
despite
a severe
reduction of the armies.
Larsen-O'Kelly, Havana 1967:
1 f4 c5 2 Kf3 g6 3 e4 Jg7 4 Je2
Kc6 5 0-0 d6 6 d3 e6?! 6…lb8;
6…f5!? 7 a4 Kge7 8 c3 d5 9 Ka3
b6 10 e5 h5 11 Kc2 Kf5 12 b4
Jf8 13 Lb1 Je7 14 d4 cxb4 15
cxb4 a5 16 b5 Kb4 17 Kxb4
Jxb4 18 Lb3! Jd7 19 Jd2 Je7 20
Mc2 0-0 Black has been trying to
avoid castling since White can
try open the kingside, however he needs the lh8 to contest
the c-file and so, reluctantly
commits the king 21 Lc1 Lc8 22
Lc3 Lxc3 23 Mxc3 Jb4 24 Mb2
Je7 25 Jd3 Kg7 26 Je1 Mb8 27
Jh4 Jxh4 28 Kxh4 Lc8 29 Nf2
Lxc1 30 Mxc1 Md8 31 Kf3 Kf5 32
h3! Mc8 33 Mb2!
imperil
the
black
monarch
33...Ng7 34 g4 hxg4 35 hxg4
Kh6 36 Ng3 Kg8 37 Kg5 Mc7 38
Ma3 Jc8 39 Kf3 Mb7 40 Md6 Jd7
41 Nf2 Jc8 42 Md8 Jd7 43 Ne2
Jc8 44 Nd2 and Black resigned as
he has no constructive moves
while White continues simply
with g4–g5, kh2–g4–f6 winning.
In this game Black erred
towards passivity while in the next
he plays overambitiously.
Bronstein-Padevsky,
1965:
1
2
3
4
5
g6
Jg7
c5
d5
Kh6
Better 5...jg4.
6
7
8
9
10
11
Jb5+!?
Jxd7+
Jd7
Mxd7
d4
cxd4
Kc3
h3
cxd4
0-0
Kc6
f6
Hoping to open the centre,
there-by embarrassing White's king
but this does not prove to be
possible.
12
13
14
15
16
17
White retains the queens since the
opening of the kingside will
f4
Kf3
e4
c3
e5
Zagreb
Mb3
dxe5
Ke2!
Jd2
g4
Md3!
fxe5
e6
Lac8
Kf5
Kfe7
d4?!
Black
continues
in
an
ambitious vein but this advance
has the very serious drawback of
rendering e4 accessible to White's
knights.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
a3
0-0
Je1
Lc1
Jf2
Kg5
Ke4
Md5
Lfd8
Ld7
a6
Lcd8
h6
Lf8
Necessary to protect the king
from kf6+ but now the queen gets
trapped.
25 Lc5 Ma2 26 b4 g5 27 Kc1 Mal
28 Mb3 Kd5 29 f5 Ke3 30 Lal Kxe5
31 Lxe5 Jxe5 32 Kd3 Mxel+ 33
Jxe1 Ld5 34 Kec5 Jf6 35 Jd2 Ld6
36 Kxe6 Lf7 37 Kdc5 Kd5 38
Ke4 Ldd7 39 K6c5 Ld8 40
Kxb7 and Black resigned.
11
12
Jh3
fxe5
fxe5
g6?!
12...0-0! with the idea of je8–g6
could lead to very unclear play
after 13 jxf5 lxf5 14 ke3
lxf3!? 15 mxf3 kxe5.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Jxf5
h4
Jf4
Me2
0-0
a3
c4
b4!
b5
a4
Jg5
Kce1!
gxf5
Mc7
0-0-0
Nb8
Na8
d4
Lb8
b6
Ka5
Lbg8
Jc8
The primary advantage of
control-ling 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 decisive
switch of fronts.
The first step is to force Black to
defend the exposed h-pawn,
Day-Clayton,
1979:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
e4
f4
Kf3
e5
g3
Jg2
d3
c3
Ka3!
Kc2
World
c5
e6
d5
Kc6
Kge7
Kf5
h5
Je7
Jd7
f6!?
Open
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Kce1
Kg2
Kf4
Mxf3
Kh3
hxg5!
La2
Lh2
Me2
Lf4
Mf3
Jb7
Nb8
Jxf3
Md7
Jxg5
Me7
Nc7
Nd7
Mg7
Kb7
Kd8
As 35 ma8 can be met by
35...ne8 Black
succeeds
in
transferring
his knight to the
kingside.
35
36
37
Le2
Lh4
Mg2!
Ne8
Mb7!
Not 37 ng2? mxg2+ 38 nxf3
kf7 39 nf4 lh7  kh8–g6-+.
37
38
39
...
Nxg2
Kf4
Mxg2+
Kf7
Kxg5
Now
Black's
army
is
committed to the kingside and
the change of fronts decides the
game.
40
41
a5!
La2
Nd7
La8
42
43
44
45
46
Lxh5
Kxh5
Lxh5
Nc7
Nxb6
Nb7
axb6+
La6+
Kf4!
Not 46 kg7? lg8! 47 kxe6
kxe6 48 lxe6 f4 with counterplay nor
46 lc6?? a5! and Black wins.
46
47
…
Ld6
Le8
Le7
Necessary to meet the threat 48
and lg7 trapping the
knight but now material goes and
the rest is not difficult.
ld7+
48 Lc6 a5 49 La6 +- Le8
50 Lxa5 Kf7 51 La1 Kxe5 52
Le1 Kd7 53 Lxe6 Lxe6 54 Kxe6
Nb6 55 Nf3 Ke5+ 56 Ne2 Kg4 57
Kg7 Ke3 58 Nf3 Nc7 59 Nf4
Kd1 60 Nxf5 Kf2 61 Ke6+ and
Black 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
theoretic-ally
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
white 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
2
e4
d3
Kf6
For 2 kc3 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 con-sidered
overly dangerous for the second
player.
2
…
3
e5!?
d5
In
Day-Shamkovich,
Canadian Open 1978, 3 kd2 kc6
4 kgf3 (4 f4?! e5!) 4..e5 5 c3 (5
je2 jc2 6 c3 dxe4 7 dxe4 a5 8 0-0
0-0 9 mc2 le8 10 kc4 me7 11 jg5
+= Keres-Allan, Vancouver 1975)
5...je7 (This is nat-ural
but
5...a5 or 5...g6 may be better
(6 b4!? a6 7 a3 0-0 8 jb2 le8 9
mc2 jf8 10 je2 (10 g3 g6
[10… jg4 11 jg2 mc8 did not
equalise in Bronstein-Balashov,
Moscow 1967] 11 jg2 jg7 12 00 h6 13 lfe1 dxe4 14 dxe4 je6
15 lad1 +=
Day-Nick-oloff,
Canadian Closed 1978) 10...g6
11 0-0 .jg7 12 lfe1 dxe4 13
dxe4 kh5 and after 14 lad1?! kf4
15 jf1 mf6 Shamkovich attained
equality. White may be able to
keep a small edge by 14 k41?
3
4
…
f4
Kfd7
5
6
c3
Ka3!?
Kc6
c5
The knight aims to support the
critical d4 square
6
7
..
Kc2
e6
f6!
11
12
...
Jd3!
Mb6
Kxd3+?
Black's knight should be kept
for the attack. Either 12...kb4 13
kxb4 mb4+
or
immediately
12...ma5+ were better. In either
case White must move the king as
interposing on d2 drops the j/d3.
13
14
Mxd3
Je3!
Jd7
Black probably overlooked this.
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 mh5+ g6
9 mh3
8
9
10
...
cxd4
dxe5
cxd4
fxe5
White must give up control of
c5 as 10 fxe5 fails to 10...mh4+
and the exposure of the king
becomes extremely significant.
10
11
...
Kf3?
Kc5
Here 11 je3 was certainly safer.
14
...
Kb4
Certainly 14...mxb2 15 0-0
threat-ening lfb1 gives White good
play.
15
16
17
18
19
Kxb4
Nf2
Jxc5
Kd4
Ng3!
Jxb4+
Jc5
Mxc5+
0-0
White's long term plusses more
space and the better minor
piece - now outweigh the
temporary dis-advantage 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
21
22
...
Md2!
Lac1!
Lxc8
Lac8
Me7
Mf7
Jxc8
Probably 22...mg6+ was better.
23
24
25
26
h3
Lf1
Nxh4
Nxg5!
...
Ng7
No better is 26...mg7+ 27 nh4
nf7 28 q4 followed by nq3 +–
27
28
29
30
31
32
Ng4
Nf3
b4
g4
Ng3
Le1 1-0
Dubious seems 3...ke4 on
account of 4 kce2! leaving Black's
knight out on a limb. Black can
create great complications
with
4..f6 but it is
h5
h4+?
g5+
The cheeky white monarch eats
everything it is offered.
26
(Diagram)
Mg6+
b6
Nh8
Jd7
Ma4
An exciting, if not exactly correct
game. The following example is
more rational:
doubtful if this equalises,
for in-stance 5 d3 kg5 6 kf4
e6 7 exf6 mf6 8 mg4! jb4+ 9
nd1! 0-0 10 kh5 mxf2 11 kf3
lxf3
12
mxb4 kc6 13 md2
mxd2+ 14 jxd2 lf5 15 g4 le5 16
jf4 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 kce2!? kg4 5 f4
kc6 6 kf3 f6 7 h3 kh6 8 c3!
fxe5 9 fxe5 d3 (9... kf5 10 g4! )
10 ked4 md5 11 jxd3 kxe5 12
je2 jd7 13 0-0 kg6 14 mb3
mxb3 15 axb3 e5 16 kb5 jc5+ 17
d4 jb6 18 nh2 exd4 19 kfxd4
and White's active disposition of
forces gives a definite endgame
advantage as in Tal-Bohm, Wijk
aan Zee 1976
4
Nimzovich-Alekhine, Semmering
1926 Alekhine's Defence
1
2
3
e4
Kc3
e5
Kf6
d5
Kfd7
f4
The alternatives are 4 kxd5, 4
e6 and 4 d4
4
...
e6
(Diagram)
The disadvantage of 4...d4 is
that it loses control of e4. GufeldVukic, USSR-Jugoslavia
match
1979, went 5 ke4 e6 6 kf3 kc5 7
kxc5 jxc5 8 jd3! h6 9 0-0 jc6 10 a3
a5 11 nh1 ke7 12 je4 lb8 13 d3
jd7 14 jd2 a4 15 me1 g6 16
c3! jc6 17 cxd4
jxd4 18 jb4! With White much
better.
5
6
7
Kf3
8
0-0
g3
Jg2
c5
Kc6
Je7
After 8 d3 Black could play
8... b5I? directly as 9 kxb5?
ma5+ 10 kc3 d4 11 kxd4 cxd4 12
jxc6 lb8 favours Black. A lively
struggle resulted in KupreichikSveshnikov, USSR Championship
1979, after 9 0-0 b4 10 ke2 0-0
11 me1! (11 g4 immediately allows
11...f6! with counterplay)
11...a5
12
g4
f6
13 exf6 kxf6
(13....jxf6 is answered 14 g5! je7
15 jh3 with strong pressure) 14
jh3!) += according to Sveshnikov)
14…ke8 15 je3 jd6 16 mf2 d4
17 jd2 ke7 18 kg5 kd5 19 mg2! h6
20 ke4 la7 and now according to
Sveshnikov 21 f5?! Should be
replac-ed by 21 g5! laf7 22
gxh6 with unclear chances. This
game arose from a Sicilian
Defence (1 e4 c5 2 kc3 kc6 3 g3
e6 4 jg2 kf6 5 d3 je7 6 f4 d5
7 e5 kd7 8 kf3 b5) so White
did not have the option of 8 0-0
which avoids Sveshnikov's active
defence.
8
...
0-0
Considering that White has
staked out the n-side as his sphere
of action. Black may consider
delaying 0-0. After 8...a6 9 a4
ma5 (9...kb6 10 d3 transposes
to
Balashov-Dankert,
Munich
1979
where
10…g6
11 jd2
lab8 12 nh1 ka8!? [Would Alekhine
approve
of
this
knight?] 13
me2 kc7 14 kd1 ba 15 kf2
+=, 1-0, 56) 10 d3 b5 11
f5! b4 12 fxe6 fxe6 13 ke2
kxe5 14 kxe5 kxe5 15 kf4
jf6 16 mh5+ g6 17 me2 jg7
18 kxd5! exd5 19 jh6! jg4 20
me3 mc7 21 jxg7 mxg7 22 lae1
0-0-0 23 mxe5+ mc7 24 mxe7+
nxc7 25 lxe5 with a winning
endgame
in
Balashov-Shmit,
USSR 1975
9
d3
Kb6
9...f6 10 exf6 kxf6 11 me2
+=. le8 (11...kd4 12 kxd4 cxd4
13 kd1 +=) 12 jd2 jd6 13 h3!
h6 14 lae1 e5? 15 fxe5 kxe5
16 kxe5 lxe5 17 md1 a6 18 jf4
lxe1 19 mxe1 jxf4 20 lxf4 d4 21
kd5 kxd5 22 jxd5+ nh8 23 me5!
1-0 Balashov-Schmidt, Halle 1976
10
Ke2!?
d4
Nimzovich recommended the
plan 10...f6
11
exf6
jxf6
intending ...e6-e5
11
g4
f6
And here Nimzovich liked the
prophylactic
11...le8
12 kg3
jf8 and the masked pressure on
e5 prevents f4-f5
12
13
14
15
exf6
Kg3
Me2
Kh4
gxf6
Kd5
Jd6
Kce7
Otherwise 16 jxd5+ will create a
serious hole at f5.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
...
Mf2
dxc4
Jxe3
Mf3
Ke4
b3
c3
Nh1
Mc7
c4!?
Ke3!
dxe3
Mxc4
Jc7
Md4
Mb6
Kd5?!
This was probably the moment
to complete development by
24...jd7
25
f5
As in Kupreichik-Sveshnikov,
White advances the wrong pawn.
Nimzovich gives 25 g5! f5 26 mh5!
as the right line.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
...
Lfd1
Jf1!
gxf5
Le1
Lxe3
Lae1
Kf4
Nh8
exf5
Je5
Jd7
Jc6
Kd5?
Black recovers the pawn but
his king position caves in. 31...lae8
or 31...lg8 were better.
32
16
Ld3
Kxc3
Jd2
Here or on the next move White
should
play
kh5
with
a
serious attack . As it goes Black
obtains central counterchances and
the play becomes extremely sharp.
33 Kg6+ hxg6 34 Mg4 Lf7
35 Lh3+ Ng7 36 Jc4 Jd5 37
fxg6 Kxe4 38 gxf7+ Nf8 39 Lxe4
Jxe4+ 40 Mxe4 Ne7 41 f8=Q+
Lxf8 42 Md5 Md6 43 Mxb7+ Nd8
44 Ld3 Jd4 45 Me4 Le8 46 Lxd4
1-0
Caro-Kann Defence
1
2
e4
d3
c6
Relatively unexplored is 2 f4
d5 3 e5 immediately staking out
a
terri-torial advantage. Some
examples:
a) 3...h5!? 4 d3 c5 5 c3 kc6 6
ka3 jg4 7 je2 (7 md2!?  mf2)
7...e6 8 kc2
kh6= Day-Bass,
New York 1980. The game was
agreed drawn here as Bass
needed only a draw for the
International Master norm.
b) 3...c5 4 c3 kc6 5 ka3 e6 6 kc2
kge7 7 kf3!? (7 d4 is more straightforward) 7…d4 8 jd3 kd5 9 g3 je7
10 je4 0-0 11 c4 kc7? (Black
should avoid doubled-pawns with
11...kdb4 12 kxb4 kxb4 13 a3 ka6)
12 jxc6! bxc6 13 d3 jd7 14 0-0
f6 15 exf6 gxf6 16 f5! e5 17
jh6 lf7 18 kd2! And Black has
serious weaknesses in the pawn
structure, Day-Hjartarsson, World
Open 1980
c) 3...jf5 (This natural move
may be an error as the bishop
robs the k/g8 of its best post) 4 d3
e6 (4...h5 5 je2 g6 6 je3 kh6 7
h3 h4?! 8 kf3 e6
9 c3 kd7 10
jf2 je7 11 kbd2 kc5 12 kf1! a5 13
md2 kg8 14 ke3 nf8 15 0-0 ng7
16 lad1 a4 17 nh2 b5 18 lg1
mc7 19 me1 md8 20 kc2! lc8
21 kcd4 lh7 22 kg5! wins
material, as in Day-Bonin, New
York 1980. Black's j/f5 cuts a
particularly bad impression here,
not only pre-venting kf5 but also
being in danger of getting trapped
by g2-g4 after the h4 pawn
disappears) 5 je2 h6 6 c3 kd7
(6...c5) 7 je3 jc5 8 d4 jf8 (8... jxb1
+=) 9 kd2 c5 10 kgf3 jh7 11 ma4!
+= mc7 (11...c4 12 b3!) 12
dxc5 jxc5 13 jxc5 mxc5 14
kd4 ke7 15 k2b3 mb6 16 jb5
0-0-0 17 mb4! kf5 18 jxd7+
lxd7 19 mxbe axb6 20 jxf5 jxf5
(White's better minor pieces and
Black's doubled pawn add up to
a
substantial
end-game
advantage) 21 kd4 je4 22 0-0 g6
23 lad1 h5 24 lfe1 nd8 25 kb5 ne7
26 ld4 la8 27 a3 jf5 28 lb4 la6
29 le3 ld8? 30 kc7 la5 31 lxb6
+Day-Youngsworth,
Washington 1979
2
3
...
Kd2
d5
Another method of avoiding the
exchange of pawns is Suttle's 3
me2 for instance 3...dxe4 (3...g6
4 g3 jg7 5 jg2 kf6 6 kc3 dxe4
7 dxe4 e5 8 je3 me7 9 f3 0-0 10
mf2 b6 11 kge2 kbd7 12 0-0 jb7
gives equalising chances, as in
Suttles-Matanovic, Belgrade 1969)
4 dxe4 e5 5 je3 kf6 6 f3 je6 7
mf2 kbd7 8 kd2 jb4 9 c3 ja5 10
jc4 me7 11 jxe6 mxe6 12 kh3 h6
13 0-0 += Suttles-Schaufel-berger,
Siegen 1970
3
...
g6
[For 3...dxe4 4 dxe4 e5 5 kgf3
jc5? 6 kxe5!± see MCT vol. 2 p
98-99 - Ed Note]
The attempt to prevent f4 by
3...mc7
provoked
a
gambit
reaction in Grefe-Denker, Lone
Pine 1979 after 4 f4!? mxf4 5
kgf3 kf6 6 kb3 mc7 7 e5 kg4 8
d4 jf5? 9 kh4 jd7 10 je2 kh6 11
jxh6 gxh6 12 0-0 ka6 13 jxa6
bxa6 14 kc5 e6 15 mh5 jc8 16
lf6 jxc5 17 dxc5 lb8 18 laf1 lf8
19 mxh6 mxe5 20 mxh7 lxb2
21 lxf7 lxf7 22 mg8+ 1-0
5
e5
More common is 5 9gf3, e.g.
[This
gambit
looks
highly
specula-tive, so 4 kgf3 may be
preferable. I have then tried 4...jg4
on two occa-sions - ManinangKeene,
Sydney 1979,
and
Lobron-Keene, Dortmund 1980 with satisfactory results - Ed.
Note)
4
f4!?
This is more ambitious than the
commoniy played 4 kf3
(Diagram)
4
...
Jg7
This is not very useful and
Black may be better off to proceed
directly with 4...kf6!? e.g . 5 e5
kg4 6 kdf3 c5 7 d4 kc6 8 c3 mb6
9 h3 kh6 10 g4! cxd4 11 cxd4
f5 12 g5 kf7 13
a) 5...kf6 6 e5 kg4 7 kb3 kh6
(7... h5) 8 d4 b6 9 je3 ka6 10 a4
kc7 11 a5 jd7 12 jd3 += ke6?
13 kh4! kc7 14 0-0 jg4 15 me1 jf5
16 kxf5 kxf5 17 jf2 h5 18 axbe
axbe 19 mb4 lb8 20 la7 0-0
21 jxf 5 gxf5 22 jh4 +— KurajicaCsom, Hungary 1976
b) 5...dxe4 6 dxe4 jg4 7 h3
jxf3 8 mxf3 jf6 9 jd3 0-0 10
g4! ka6 11 c3 kc5 12 jc2ø
Kurajica-Pomar, Montilla 1972
c) 5...jg4 6 h3 (6 c3 jxf3 7
mxf3 e6 8 e5 h5 9 d4 kh6 10 jd3
kd7 favoured White in HazaiLederman, Skara 1980) 6...jxf3 7
mxf3 e6 8 c3 f5 9 g4! ke7 10
gxf5 exf5 11 h4 kd7 12 h5 mc7
13 e5 0-0-0? (13...kc5 ke6) 14
kb3!
Day-Angers, Canadian
Open 1980. As 14...kf8 loses
to 15 h6 it is too late for Black to
manoeuvre his knight to e6.
d) 5...kh6!? 6 g3 f6 7 jg2 0-0 8
me2 ka6 9 h3 kc7 10 0-0 a5
11 a4 kf7 12 kb3 b6 13
exd5 cxd5 14 je3 lb8 15 mf2
md6 16 c4!? ja6 17 c5 bxc5 18
jxc5 md7 19 kxa5 lfc8! Black has
active play in exchange for his
pawn, Day-Hebert, Canadian Ch
1975
5
6
7
8
ke2 e6 14 h4 jd7 15 h5 lc8 16 nf2
ka5 17 b3 jb5 18 jg2 kc6 19
h6 jf8 20 kg3 jb4 21 jb2 nd7 and
although Black's position is very
cramped
he
succeeded
in
holding a draw
in
BronsteinFilip, Budapest 1977
…
c3
Kb3!
Je2
c5
Kc6
b6
We are following PetrosianBhend, Havana 1966. Petrosian's
move order does not give Black a
chance to exchange off his whitesquared bishop via g4.
8
…
e6
Perhaps the active 8...f6 was
preferable. Now White gets a
very nice clamp.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Je3
Kf3
Jf2
d4
Kbd2
0-0
Mc2
b3!?
h5
Kh6
Kf5
c4
b5
Jd7
Jf8
(Diagram)
Before proceeding with the nside breakthrough (g3, h3, g4 etc)
White neutralises Black's m-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 mside. 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 n-side.
16
17
18
…
Lfb1
Kf1!
Je7
0-0
This knight will be ideally
posted at e3 after the k/f5 is driven
back.
18
19
20
21
22
23
…
bxc4
h3
g4
hxg4
Ke3
Mc7
bxc4
Lab8
hxg4
Kh6
Ma5
Simplification by 23...lxb1+ and
24...lb8 may have offered better
chance, Black is playing for a trap.
24
Kh4
Ja3!
The hidden threat is 25...kxd4
26 cxd4 ja4 trapping the queen.
25
26
27
28
29
Jd1!
Kf3
Je1!
Jh4
Mh2
Black has
keep the lines
but the deadly
kxf6 31 exf6+
33 mh6+ ng8
Ke7
Ng7
Mc7
Khg8
done his best to
shut on the n-side
threat of 30 jf6+
nxf6 32 g5+ ng7
34 kg4 with a
mating
net forces
his
next
move and allows White to blow
open the position.
29
30
31
32
33
34
…
f5!
Jg3
fxe6
Kg5
Kxd5
3
f4
3
…
f6
fxe5
Kc6
Jxe6
Jf7
1-0 Petrosian-Bhend, Havana
Oly-mpiad 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 kf3 kc6 5 g3
kge7 Black equal-ises without
much trouble, e.g. 6 d3 m6!? 7
c3 jd7 8 ka3 h5 9 kc2 kf5 10 jh3
je7 11 0-0? (11 me2 or 11
jxf5) 11...0-0-0 12 lf2 f6 13 d4
h4! 14 g4 kg3! 15 ke3 fxe5 16
dxe5 c4 17 ng2 ke4 18 le2 lhf8
19 kxc4 ma6 20 ke3 lxf4 Day-J
Meyer, Washington 1979; or 6
kc3 kf5 7 jg2 h5 8 0-0 c4!? 9
ke2 jc5+ 10 nh1 h4 11 g4
h3
Aronin-Kan,
USSR
Championship 1952
An
even
more
extreme
anti-French method is 1 e4 e6 2
e5!? Whitch Steintz played in a
few games a hundred years ago.
We will follow Steintz-Schwarz,
Vienna 1882
2
…
c5
Other
tries
were
2...f6
(Winawer) and 2...b6!? 3 f4 jb7
4 kf3 f6 5 d4 kh6 6 jd3 f5 7
0-0 je7 8 c4 c5 9 d5!
Steinitz-Blackburne,
London
1883,
and
2...d5
which
Steinitz took
en
passant
reaching
fairly normal looking
positions after 4 d4
Kc6
3...d5 4 exd6 jxd6 5 g3 jd7
(Steinitz was probably hoping for
the incorrect sacrifice 5... jxf4? 6
gxf4 mh4+) 6 kf3 jc6 7 jg2 kf6
8 0-0 kbd7 9 d3 0-0 10 kbd2
kb6?! 11 me2 mc7 12 b3 je7 13
jb2 a5 14 a4 kfd5 15 kc4 kb4 16
lae1 k6d5 17 kfe5 jf6 18 mf2
je8 19 g4 ld8 20 g5 je7 21 kg4
kc6 22 mh4 kd4 23 je4! +Steinitz-Weiss, Vienna 1882. Black
is in a mating net.
4
Kf3
Kh6
4… f6 5 exf6 kxf6 6 g3 je7 7
jg2 mc7 8 0-0 0-0 9 kc3 a6 10 b3
b5 11 jb2 jb7 12 d3 kd8 13 me2
kf7 14 kd1 lae8 15 ke3 jd8 16
c4 Steinitz-Winawer, Vienna 1882
5
g3
Je7
5…b6 6 jg2 kf5 7 c3 lb8?!
(extra mysterious) 8 me2 jb7 9
d3 je7 10 kbd2 d5 11 exd6
kxd6 12 0-0 0-0 13 ld1 mc8 14
kf1 ld8 15 je3 ja6=SteinitzMason, Vienna 1882
6
7
8
9
Jg2
d3
exf6
0-0
0-0
f6
Jxf6
Kf7
10
c3
Lb8?!
On 23...lc8 24 jh3 is strong, but
now Steinitz infiltrates in straightforward fashion.
24 Lac1 Ng8 25 Lc7 Kh8 26
Mg5+ Khg6 27 Lxa7 Jd3 28 Lc1
Kc6 29 Lxh7 Lxf4 30 Lh6 Ld6
31 Kxg6 1-0
As is often the case in Steinitz's
conduct of the opening it is
difficult to tell where strategy runs
into provocation.
11
Ka3!
The beginning of a manoeuvre
of rare depth - the knight is heading
for Black's n-side!
11
12
13
14
15
…
Kc2
Ke3
Kg4!
Kxf6+
A similar problem arises with
Chigorin's 1 e4 e6 2 Me2!? which
he admitted first occurred to him
as a joke. We will follow
Chigorin-Rubinstein, 3rd Russian
Champion-ship 1903.
b6
Jb7
d5
e5
gxf6
15...mxf6 16 kxe5 k (either)
xe5 17 fxe5 mxe5 18 jf4 wins
the exchange.
16
Kh4
The weakness of Black's n-side
weighs more heavily than his
central control.
16
17
18
19
20
…
fxe5
Mg4+
Mh5
d4!
Ke7
fxe5
Nh8
Me8
Knocking out the e5 pawn
opens up a powerful post for
White's QB at f4.
20
21
22
23
…
Le1
cxd4
Jf4
Ja6
cxd4
e4
Ld8?!
The indirect pin on the e-file
discourages 2...d5 since after 3
exd5 Black would have to play
3...mxd5. Black has many options:
a) 2...b6!? 3 f4 jb7 4 kf3 ke7
5 kc3 d5 6 d3 kd4 7 kd1 g6 8 kf2
kg7 9 jd2 ka6 10 h4 h5 11 g4
md7 12 jh3 mb5 13 0-0-0!?
Chigorin-Blackburne, Ostend 1905
b) 2... je7 (Breaking the pin!) 3
b3!? d5 (3...kh6!? 4 jb2 0-0 5
f4 f5 6 e5 b6 7 g3 jb7 8 jg2
mc8ø Day Kourkounakis, Toronto
1980) 4 jb2 jf6 5 jxf6! (5 e5 je7 6
mg4 jf8 7 kf3 c5 8 jb5+ jd7 9
jxd7+ mxd7 10 kc3 kc6 11 0-0
+=/ is an earlier Chigorin-Tarrasch
match game) 5... kxf6 6 e5 kfd7 7
mg4 0-0 8 f4 kc6 (Better 8...c5) 9
c3 d4 10 kf3 dxc3 11 kxc3 kc5
12 d4 f5 13 exf6 mxf6 14 ld1
+= Chigorin-Tarrasch, match 1893
2
…
Kc6
! from Suttles.
3
6
7
…
Kc3
Je7
Chigorin invariably chose this
central
development
of
the
QN. Aside from 7 c3 considered in
the previous article White can
also try 7 d3 d5 8 g3 kf6 9 e5 as
in Evans- Whitehead, Lone Pine
1977 which arose from a Sicilian
and hence had two moves less
in the sequence. After 7...kd7 8
jh3!? mc7 9 je3 b6 10 kbd2 kb4
11 kf1 d4 12 jf2 jb7 13 jg2 Black
overpressed with 13... g5? and
after 14 a3 g4 15 axb4 c4 16 jxd4
White had a winning position.
7
8
9
…
d3
g3
d5
Kf6
9
…
a6
f4
3 kc3 e5 4 g3 (4 d3 kf6 5 f4
jc5 6 fxe5 kxe5 7 kf3 d6 8 jg5
h6 9 jh4 g5 10 jg3 jg4 11 0-00 gave White good play in
Chigorin-Bojar-kov, 1st Russian
Championship 1899) 4...kf6 5 jg2
jc5 6 d3 d6 7 jg5 (Schlechter
suggested 7 ka4, Fine 7 je3)
7...h6 8 jxf6 mxf6 9 kd5 md8
10 c3 ke7 11 kxe7 mxe7 12 00-0 jd7 13 f4 0-0-0 and Black
has no
problems,
ChigorinLasker, Lon-don 1899
3
4
5
6
…
Md3
Kf3
Me2
Kd4
c5
Kc6
This position can also arise from
2...c5 or 1...c5
In
Chigorin-Gottschal,
Barmen 1905, Black played the
direct 7...d4 8 kd1 b5 9 jg2 ja6
(Sokolsky recommends
9...a5
first) 10 0-0 lc8 11 b3 c4 12
ke1 cxd3 13 cxd3 0-0 14 jd2
mb6 15 kf2 kb4 16 md1 j b7 17
a3 kc6 18 g4 a5 19 g5 k d7 20
kg4 b4 21 a4 kc5 22 lf3! and
White has a very strong attack. Left
alone he will play 23 lh3, 24
kf6+! and 25 mh5 with a mating
attack. Hence Gottschall played
22...f5 but after 23 gxf6 jxf6 24
lh3 White had a fine attack.
10
11
Jg2
0-0
0-0
Jd7
Sokolsky recommends 11...b5
intending jb7
12
Ke5!
d4
Better perhaps was 12...je8
13
14
15
16
Kxd7
Kd1
Nh1
Jh3!
Kxd7
e5
Mc7?!
The bishop will play a critical
role in the n-side attack.
16
17
18
19
20
…
b3
f5
Jg4!
Jh5
Lad8
Jd6
f6
b5
A
useful
prophylactic
measure. On 24...dxc3 25 kxc3
kb6 26 jg6! hxg6 27 fxg6 nf8
28 mh5 ne8 29 gxf6 jf8 30 jh6
White has tremen-dous play for the
piece.
24 … Kf8 25 Lg1 Kb7 26 Kf2 Kd6
27 Kg4 Nh8 28 gxf6 gxf6 29 Kh6
Kg6 (Desperation) 30 fxg6 Jf8
31 Kf7+ Kxf7 32 gxf7 Md7 33 Lg8
mate
Both Steinitz's 2 e5 and
Chigorin's 2 me2 are rare in
modern praxis and if White wants
to avoid 2 d4 his usual alternative
is 2 d3 which was pop-ularised in
the early sixties by Vasyukov and
Stein.
After
2...d5
3
kd2 kf6
White does not have anything
better than 4 kgf3 as 4 f4? Is too
risky and 4 g3 dxe4 5 dxe4 jc5 6
jg2 kc6 7 kgf3 e5 equalises 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
Grefe-Levy, Lone Pine 1975: 1
e4 c5 2 f4 e6 3 d3 Kc6 4 Kf3 d5
5 Kbd2?! Kf6
6 g3 Kg4! 7 Me2
Kb4! 8 Kb3 c4! 9 dxc4 dxc4 10
Mxc4 Jd7 11 Me2 Mb6 12 h3 Lc8
with tremendous pressure.
The
possibility
of
jg6!?
followed by mh5 causes Black
severe difficulty. The coming
advance of the n-side pawns will
prove decisive.
20
21
22
23
24
..
g4
h4
g5
c4
Ldb8
Je7
Lc8
Kd8
On the topic of disasters it is
also worth mentioning BellonUhlmann, Madrid 1973: 1 e4 e6 2
Me2 c5 3 d3 Kc6 4 c3 Kf6 5 g3 d5
6 Kd2 (This clogs the development)
6... Je7 7 f4 0-0 8 Jg2 b5!
(Black utilises the c3-pawn
to
open lines for counterplay) 9
Kgf3 c4! 10 e5? (Uhlmann gives
10 d4 kxe4 11 kxe4 dxe4 12 mxe4
jb7 as comfortable for Black,
but
12 ke5! preserves a little
something) 10...cxd3 11 Mxd3 Kd7
12 Kb3 (12 mxb5? kc5! ø ja6)
12...b4 13 Kbd4 Ka5 14 0-0
bxc3 with initiative for Black.
Suttles-Smith,
1972
1
2
3
4
5
g3
Jg2
d3
Kd2
e4
San
Antonio
d5
Kf6
e6
Je7
c5
path to equality) 17 kg4 kc5 18
mf2 kd7 19 kg3 jb7 20 lad1
kb4 21 f5! ke5 22 lxd8+ jxd8
23 kxe5 mxe5 24 jd4 md6 25
fxe6 mxe6 26 lf1 lc7 27 kf5!
ld7 (27...g6 28 kh6+ nf8 29 jb6
) 28 kxg7 mg6 29 kf5+ jxg5
30 h4 jd8 31 h5! mxh5 32 mg3+
mg6 33 me5 f6 34 me6+ lf7
35 lf3 jc7 36 ke7+ 1-0 SuttlesPietzsch, Lugano 1968
6
7
…
0-0
Kc6
0-0
7...b6 8 h3 jb7 9 14 0-0 10
g4 ke8 11 g5 f6 12 h4 dxe4 13
kxe4 kd6 14 kxd6 jxd6 15 kg3
md7 16 jd2
Suttles-Haines,
Vancouver 1973
8
6
Ke2
6 kh3 kf6 7 0-0 0-0 (7...h5 8
f3 jd7 9 kf2 mc7 10 le1 0-0-0 11
kf1 h4 12 f4 hxg3 13 hxg3 je8
14 jd2 g6 15 c3 kh5 16 mf3 f5
17 lad1 jf7 18 g4 fxg4?! 19
kxg4 jh4 20 le2 d4 21 jh3 nb8
22 lh2! ldf8 23 jg2 me7 24 b4!
cxb4? (24…je8!? 25 b5 kd8 26
cxd4 g5! ) 25 cxb4 g5 26 b5
kd8 27 lb1 je8 28 jb4 mc7 29
e5 lxf4? 30 jd6 lxf3 31 jxc7+
nxc7 32 jxf3 kf4 33 lc2+ nd7
34 kf6+ 1-0 Day-Krstic, Toronto Closed 1974) 8 f4 b5
(8...dxe4 9 dxe4 e5 10 f5 h5!
11 c3 b5 12 a4 b4 13 jf3ø
Day-Upton, Malta 1980) 9 kf2 a5
10 g4 ja6 11 le1 dxe4 12 dxe4 c4
13 g5 kd7 14 kf1 mc7 15 je3
lfd8 16 mf3 lac8? (Uhlmann
gives 16...e5 17 f5 kd4 as the
h3
It is still too early for 8 f4 on
account of 8...kg4 and White is
embarrassed by his weak e3
square.
8
9
10
…
f4
g4
b5
Jb7
11
…
c4?
This is a strategic error which
allows White to close up the
centre and expand on the n-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 kxe4, with equality, since 11
dxe4 c4 12 kg3 md4+ 13 nh2
c3 gives Black some play. Still
after 14 bxc3 mxc3 15 lb1 ma5
16 g5 kd7 17 kb3 or 17 jb2 leaves
the position quite unclear.
11
12
13
e5
cxd3
d4
cxd3
Kd7
f6
The best chance as otherwise
White will control the timing of
the n-side line opening.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Kf3
fxe5
Nh1
Kf4
b3
Lg1
h4
Kh3
fxe5
Mb6
b4
Ka5
Ja6
Lf7!
Laf8
sacrifice
21...lxf3!?
22
jxf3
lxf3 23 mxf3 mxd4 was the best
practical chance.
21
22
23
24
25
…
Jb2
Le1
Nh2
Le3
Overprotecting
liberates his queen.
25
26
27
…
Mc2
Ld1
Kc6
Kd8
Kb8
Jb5
13
White
g6
Kbc6
That White has managed to
com-plete his development is a
bad
sign for Black. The
overprotection of d4 mobilises the
k/f3.
27
28
…
g5
Lg7
Kf7
Black prepares h5 as otherwise
a white knight will arrive (via g4)
at f6 with decisive effect.
29
30
Lee1
Ng3!
h5
The king functions usefully by
guarding f4
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
j/a6 to e4 via d3 can be foiled,
for example 21...jb5 22 le1 ma6
23 le3. The double exchange
30
31
32
33
34
35
…
Kf4
Ld2
Jh3
Mb1
Lf2
Kh8
Kd8
Lff7
Jf8
a5
a4?
This allows a combinational
break-through. Levy recommends
35...ma6.
36 Jxe6! Kxe6 37 Kxd5 Mb8
38 Kf6+ Lxf6 39 gxf6 Ld7 40 Me4
a3 41 Jc1 Md8 42 Jg5 Nf7 43 Ld2
Ld5 44 Lc1 Md7 45 Ldc2 Ja6 46
Lc7! Kxc7 47 Lxc7 Mxc7 48
Mxd5+ Ne8 49 Me6+ 1-0
Day-Jakovljevski, Canadian
Open 1983
1
2
3
e4
Me2
f4
e6
c5
Kc6
This is not the most flexible
move order for Black as he gives
up control
of a6. Compare the
next game.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Kf3
Je7
c3
d3
e5
d4
Je3
g3
h4!?
d5
Kf6
Kd7
O-O
b6
a5
White
could
prevent
the
exchange of light bishops by 11
jh3 since 11... ja6 12 md2 cxd4
13 cxd4 kb4 14 nf2! shows
Black's threats to be ephemeral.
The move played has a positional
point, to play jh3 without blocking
the h-pawn, which serves to
disguise a tactical surprise.
11
…
Ja6?
12
Mc2!
So that if 12...jxf1 13 kg5!
Forces a weakening of the king's
field.
12
13
14
Black's
weak.
15
16
17
18
19
…
exf6
Jxa6
e-pawn
Kbd2
Md3
Kg5
Me2
Jf2
f5
Kxf6
Lxa6
is
decidedly
Kg4
Mc8
Lf5
h5
e5!?
He rids himself of the backward
pawn but his rooks are in no
position to contest the file.
20
21
22
23
24
dxe5
O-O
hxg5
Lae1
c4
Kcxe5
Jxg5
Kg6
Nf7
The opening of one more line
is more than Black's king can
survive.
24…La7 25 cxd5 Lxd5 26 Kc4
Lb7 27 Mf3 Mc6 28 f5 Ke7 29
Le6 Md7 30 Lfe1 Kc6 31 Mxd5
Mxd5 32 g6+ 1-0
Day-Kuznecov, Toronto 1983
1
e4
c5
2
3
4
f4
Me2
g3
e6
b6
The alternative is 4 b3.
4
5
6
…
Jg2
c3?!
better.
…
e5
d4
Je3
h4!?
d5
Kfd7
Mc7!
Je7
h5?!
Black
has
prepared
the
variation up to White's 10th but
did not consider the move played
which intended 10...0-0! 11 jh3
lfc8 12 lh2 though after 12...ja6
13 md1 cxd4 White has major
problems. In this
case
the
deep point of leaving out jc6 is
revealed – the c-file remains open.
11
12
13
14
Jh3
Kf3
Md1
a3
b4
Jc1
Kxd4!?
Jb7
18
19
20
21
La!2
Le2
axb4
Mc2
a5
axb4
Kb8
Jc8
White
threatened
a
"sacrifice". The
curious
thing
about the position is the posting of
Black's knight at c4. Optically it
looks great but it has no moves and
blocks both - the c-file and the a6f1 diagonal.
22
23
O-O
Kf3
Kc6
O-O?
The losing move. The king
should go the other way
g6
Ja6
Kc6
Ka5
Possibly better was 14...cxd4
15 cxd4
(forced)
15...ka5
avoiding the game continuation.
15
16
17
…
Threatening ...a5 but White
solves the problem of his pinned apawn economically.
Jb7
Kf6!
Also inferior is 6 e5?! jxg2 7
mxg2 kd5 8 c4 kc7 =+ 6 b3 or
6 ka3 (6...d5 7 e5 kfd7 8 c4
kc6! 9 cxd5 kd4 10 md3ø) were
6
7
8
9
10
17
Kc4
cxd4
Certainly this tempts Black to
sacrifice his knight at e5 but it is not
clear
24 g4 hxg4 25 Jxg4 Ng7 26 Lg2
Lg8 27 h5 Nf8 28 hxg6 Lxg6
29 Lff2 Ne8 30 Jh5 Lxg2+ 31
Lxg2 Kd8 32 Mh7 La1 33 Kd4 Jf8
34 Kb3 La7 35 Lg8 Me7 36 Mh8
Kc6 37 b5 K6a5 38 Kd4 Jb7 39
Kxe6 Mxe6 40 Lxf8+ Nd7 41
Lxf7+ 1-0
.
OPENING THEORY BOOKS FROM THE CHESS PLAYER
Bird's Opening
Schliemann/Jaenisch Gambit
Najdorf Poisoned Pawn
Torre Attack
King's Indian Defence, 4 Pawns Attack
Nimzovich.Defence
b6!
Spanisch Exchange Variation
Latvian Gambit
Sicilian c3
Sokoisky Opening
Trompovsky Attack
Spanish 5 d4
Averbakh System, Pirc/King's Indian Defence
Ponziani Opening
French Defence, Tarrasch Variation
Richter-Veresov System
Sicilian Najdorf, Polugaevsky Variation
Petroff's Defence, A Line fox White
Pirc Defence, A Line for White
Pirc Defence, A Second Line for White
The Old Indian Renewed
The Big Clamp
Modern Chess Theory l981/2
King's Gambit - A Game Collection
Philidor's Defence