THE LOUI5 D.

STATHAfTI
CHE55 TOURNAmENT5
1 9 7 1 -1 9 0 0

The Best of

John Grefe and Dennis Waterman

In te r n a tio n a l M aster N a tio n a l M a ster

introduction by Florin Gheorghiu

In tern a tio n a l G ra n d m a ster
LONE PINE
L o u is D . S ta th a m
 The Best o f

LONE PINE
The Louis D. Statham Chess Tournaments 1971-1980

John Grefe, Dennis Waterman

Special Material by
Myron A . Lieberman

Introduction by
Florin Gheorghiu

S id n ey F rie d , P u b l i s h e r

L u b o m ir K a v a le k , E d i t o r - i n - C h i e f

B urt H o c h b e rg , E x e c u t i v e E d i t o r

R .H .M . Press
a division of R.H.M. Associates of Delaware, Inc.
417 Northern Boulevard, Great Neck, N.Y. 11021
 Copyright 1981
R.H.M. Press
a division of R.H.M. Associates of Delaware, Inc.
417 Northern Boulevard, Great Neck, New York 11021

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, except for brief passages in a review, stored in a
retreival system, or transmitted, in any form of by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording and/or
otherwise without the prior written permission of the publishers. This book may not be lent, resold, hired out or other­
wise disposed of by way of trade in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published, without the
prior written consent of the publishers.

ISBN 0-89058-049-9

Typesetting and Production by Burmar Technical Corporation, Carle Place, Long

Island, New York

Manufactured in the U.S.A. by Accurate Web

 CONTENTS

The History and the Statistics

M y ro n A . L ie b e rm a n

A Little H istory...................................................................................................... 1
The Effect o f Tightened E lig ib ility .................................................................. 3
FID E Title N orm s and R a tin g s .......................................................................... 4
Lone Pine N o r m s ................................................................................................. 5
G eographic D istrib u tio n ..................................................................................... 6
T op Ten by R a ti n g ............................................................................................... 6
P rizew inners........................................................................................................... 7
Player K e y ............................................................................................................. 8
Player S u m m ary .................................................................................................... 11
“ Batting Averages” ............................................................................................. 16
T ournam ent S u m m a ry ........................................................................................ 20
The A nnual C ro s s ta b le s ..................................................................................... 21

The Tournaments and the Games

1971: The Dawn o f an E r a ................................................................................. 39

1972: The Philosopher S to n e d .......................................................................... 51
1973: A ll B O N IT O ............................................................................................. 67
1974: Quiet Before the S to rm ............................................................................ 81
1975: Q uantum L e a p .......................................................................................... 91
1976: G ood Grefe, W alter B ro w n e !................................................................ 119
1977: The (W om en’s) Liberation o f Lone P in e ............................................. 145
1978: Som ething W onderful from D e n m a r k ................................................ 167
1979: The Russians A re(n’t) C o m in g .............................................................. 193
1980: In Search o f the “ Swiss G am bit” ......................................................... 209
Index o f P la y e r s .................................................................................................... 233
Index o f O penings................................................................................................. 235

v
 Chess N otation
Two chess notation systems are currently in use. In the English Descriptive system,
each square on the board has two names, one used when it is White’s move, the other
when it is Black’s move. The files are named for the pieces which stand on them at the
start of a game; the ranks are numbered from 1 through 8 starting from the White side
when it is White’s move and from the Black side when it is Black’s move.
The algebraic system is recommended by the World Chess Federation (FIDE) and is the
system used by R.H.M. Press. In this system, the files are lettered from a through h
beginning at White’s left, and the ranks are numbered from 1 through 8 starting at
White’s first rank. The designation of any square is simply the letter of the file combined
with the number of the rank. Each square therefore has only one name. In this system, a
plus sign (+ ) is used to indicate check.
We use "figurine algebraic,” in which a picture of the piece being moved is used in­
stead of its initial letter. Pawn moves are indicated merely by the square to which the
pawn is moved. Study the diagrams and illustrative game below.

Black Black

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

White

DescripCive Algebraic
W hite Black W hite Black
1 P-K4 P-QB3 1 e4 c6
2 P-Q4 P-Q4 2 d4 d5
3 N-QB3 PxP 3 Nc3 dxe4
4 NxP N-B3 4 Nxe4 Nf6
5 Q-Q3 P-K4 5 Od3 e5
6 PxP Q-R4ch 6 dxe5 Qa5 +
7 B-Q2 QxKP 7 Bd2 Qxe5
8 0-0-0 NxN 8 0-0-0 Nxe4
9 Q-Q8ch KxQ 9 Qd8 + Kxd8
10 B-N5ch Resigns 10 Bg5 + Resigns

Sym bols
! A good move. ?? A blunder or very bad move.
!! An excellent orbeautiful move. !? A risky move worth trying.
? A weak move. ?! A risky move of dubious merit.
 R .H .M . Press

Sidney Fried, P u b lis h e r

Lubom ir Kavalek, E d it o r - i n - C h ie f
Burt H ochberg, E x e c u tiv e E d ito r

Editorial Board
A natoly K arpov, W o r ld C h a m p tio n 1 9 7 5 -
Boris Spassky, W o r ld C h a m p io n 1 9 6 9 -1 9 7 2
Tigran Petrosian, W o r ld C h a m p io n 1 9 6 3 -1 9 6 9
Vasily Smyslov, W o r ld C h a m p io n 1 9 5 6 -1 9 5 7

Contributing Editors
Svetozar Gligoric V iktor Korchnoi
Vlastimil H ort Bent Larsen
Borislav Ivkov Tigran Petrosian
A natoly Karpov Lajos Portisch
Lubom ir Kavalek Boris Spassky

A ck n ow led gm en ts
The editors wish to thank M ary Lasher, Jeffrey Kastner, and Carol
H ochberg for their invaluable help in the preparation o f this book.

PHOTO CREDITS

Carl Budd: xii (bottom ), 31, 35 (top), 50 (left), 66 (top), 144 (right), 147, 166,
142 207 (top). Ron Chan: frontispiece, xii (top), 35 (bottom ), 38, 50 (right),
52, 80, 92, 165. Burt Hochberg: viii, 69, 83, 118, 144 (left), 169, 207 (bottom ).
Nigel Eddis: 208. Ed Houghton: 66 (bottom ).

C o v k r D e s ig n by E r ic M e it n e r
JEROYAN ENTERPRISES
Doris Slat ham, an accomplished painter and a skillful pianist, entertains guests
at her elegant home.
 “A Little Olympiad”

Every chess player in the w orld, every chess fan, has heard o f the Louis D.
Statham tournam ent in Lone Pine. It is one o f the m ost prestigious events of
the chess calendar, and as the years go by it grows ever m ore interesting and
m ore popular, not only am ong the chess public b u t also am ong the best players
all over the w orld. Merely to be able to Qualify for this very special tournam ent
is a definite m ark o f prestige.
Louis D. Statham conceived the tournam ent in 1971, and for ten years now
he has succeeded in bringing to this tiny town virtually all the brightest in­
ternational chess stars: K orchnoi, Polugaevsky, Petrosian, Portisch, Larsen,
Geller, H o rt, Balashov, G ligoric—to name just a few—and, o f course, the very
best A m erican players as well as the most talented American youngsters. For
two weeks in every year, Lone Pine becomes the chess capital o f the w orld, a
place where the elite o f our splendid intellectual sport come together. Despite
its dim inutive size, the tow n o f Lone Pine during a tournam ent feels very much
like a little Olym piad. Except for the Olympiad itself, there is no other occasion
which brings together so many strong grandm asters. On alm ost any street, in
any restaurant or shop, in any tavern or motel lobby, you can encounter a well-
known grandm aster. H ow lucky is the chess fan who finds him self in Lone
Pine during a tournam ent!
As a com petitor, I find the playing conditions here very good indeed. The
playing room can serve as a model for alm ost any international tournam ent
anywhere in the world. The tournam ent itself creates unusual excitement, not
only am ong the delighted citizens o f Lone Pine but also am ong the players, and
this excitement is felt just as strongly by the grandm asters—in fact, it con­
tributes to the intensity o f the com petition and m eans that the games are that
much harder fought.
The Lone Pine tournam ent is conducted according to the Swiss pairing
system. This m eans that any player, no m atter how high his rating, can finish
anyw here at all in the standings, even at the very bo tto m , unless he plays at his
very best in every game. There are fam ous players who have never been a big
winner a t Lone Pine, and m ore than one unheralded m aster or prom ising
youngster has become fam ous overnight by beating a couple o f grandm asters

IX
 T H E B E ST O F L O N E P IN E

whom he might not even have had the o p portunity to play were it not fo r M r.
Statham ’s m arvelous conception. Lone Pine has a trad itio n o f upsets, and this
is yet another factor that has m ade it so exciting and p opular the world over.
There are m any other interesting and unique features o f the Lone Pine
tournam ents, all o f which are described in this book. F or me, one o f the great
pleasures o f playing here is th e personal cam araderie am ong the players.
Despite the intense rivalry, m ost o f us are real friends. There are extremely few
problem s for the rem arkable team o f directors headed by G randm aster Isaac
K ashdan. In the five times I have com peted in Lone Pine, I have come to ex­
pect an extremely high standard o f fairness, a very im portant factor when you
realize w hat is at stake. For not only does this tournam ent offer the very
highest tournam ent prizes in the m odern chess w orld but also opportunities to
achieve international norm s and titles. For all these reasons and others,
grandm asters and international m asters from all over the world aspire to come
to Lone Pine— even though only a few o f them can be big winners and even
though the difference between winning many thousands o f dollars and going
hom e em pty-handed can depend on a few seconds on the clock.
The strength o f the players and the incentives provided by M r. Statham
insure that the best games played here would win beauty prizes at any to u r­
nam ent in the w orld. For at Lone Pine you must try your very best. A
“ grandm aster draw ” is o f no value here, and thus the percentage o f decisive
games is one o f the highest in m odern tournam ent practice.
N ot only is the percentage high, but so is the average quality. I d o n ’t envy
John G refe and Dennis W aterm an their im possible task o f selecting games for
this book! The m any factors associated with the Lone Pine tournam ents—the
form at, the tow n, the m ountains, the people, the prizes, the players, the young
hopefuls—all seem to bring o u t the utm ost in all o f us. I would venture to say
that no other tournam ent in the world has consistently produced so many
beautiful chess fights.
All o f us—those who have fought at Lone Pine and those who hope to fight
here—offer our gratitude to M r. and M rs. Statham . M ay the Lone Pine
tradition continue forever.

Florin G heorghiu
I n te r n a tio n a l G r a n d m a s te r
The History and the Statistics

xi
 Chief Director Isaac
Kashdan (left) and his
s ta ff (below, left to right):
Carl Budd, Myron Johnson,
Ted Yudacufski, Myron
Lieberman, Kashdan,
Richard Gardner, and
Jerry Han ken

xii
 The History and the Statistics
Myron A. Lieberman

A Little History
The Louis D. Statham tournam ent in Lone Pine started quietly in 1971 as an
event open to all m asters and Experts.* Thirty-three players competed. The
average rating o f everyone in the field was 2190. G randm aster Larry M. Evans
won the seven-round event with a score o f 6-1.
The following year the form at was the same, but Experts could play only if
they were juniors; that is, under twenty-one years o f age. The average rating of
the thirty-five players in 1972 was 2262. The winner was Svetozar Gligoric of
Yugoslavia, who scored 6-1.
Requirem ents for the 1973 event were stiffened. All m asters, international
m asters, and grandm asters were eligible, as were Experts under twenty-one—
but this time an Expert had to have a rating over 2100. The field increased to
forty-eight participants, and the average rating went up to 2322. Once again a
score o f 6-1 determ ined a clear winner: A rthur Bisguier. W ith a rating o f 2426,
he was the low est-rated player so far to win a Lone Pine tournam ent.
The inevitable took place in 1974: Experts were no longer eligible. The jum p
in the num ber o f participants from thirty-five in 1972 to forty-eight in 1973
gave evidence that the tourn am en t’s reputation was spreading. To include
Experts would be to risk an unm anageably large field. For the first time, even
som e m asters were excluded; those who were not juniors needed a rating over
2249 or an IM or GM title to qualify. Even so, fifty-three players entered, with
an average rating o f 2310. The victory went to W alter Browne, the first time
the highest-rated player (2612) won the tournam ent. Browne had entered every
Lone Pine event and would continue to do so throughout the decade.
By 1975 it was clear that the prestige o f the Statham tournam ent was in­
creasing faster than its eligibility requirem ents could control the num ber o f
players. Many m ore foreign players sought to enter. As an experiment, en­
trance requirem ents became m ore stringent; those w ithout an IM or GM title

* An Expert is a player rated 2000-2199 on the U.S. Chess Federation rating scale, a master
2200-2399, a senior master 2400 and higher. In 1980 the USCF replaced the term Expert with
Candidate Master.

1
 T H E B E ST O F L O N E P IN E

needed a rating o f 2350 (2250 for juniors) or higher. The number o f entrants
dropped to forty-four, but the average rating was up to 2428. A ten-round
form at was introduced this year, and this meant that, for the first time, the
event would be rated both by the U.S. Chess Federation (as previously) and by
the W orld Chess Federation (FIDE), making it possible for players to earn
international titles and norms at Lone Pine. The decision to maximize title and
norm opportunities by adjusting certain pairings to meet FID E title
requirements led to the first controversy at the Lone Pine tournam ents, a
disputed pairing in the last round. The winner this year was Vladimir Liberzon
o f Israel, who scored I V i - l ' A .
By now Lone Pine had clearly become a m ajor international competition.
The tougher eligibility requirem ents had succeeded in keeping the number of
entrants within manageable limits, so it was felt that they could be loosened
slightly for the 1976 tournam ent. The rating requirem ent for adult masters was
therefore reduced to 2300. As a result, the number of entrants jum ped to fifty-
seven while their average rating dropped to 2371. Form er W orld Cham pion
Tigran Petrosian o f the U .S.S.R. won with S ' / i - l ' A , the lowest score ever to
win a seven-round Lone Pine tournam ent. A fter the 1975 controversy over
pairing adjustm ents, this year the event reverted to a seven-round form at, and
FIDE was sent a report o f the results for its inform ation only, since seven-
round tournam ents did not satisfy FIDE rating requirem ents. In this case,
however, FIDE made an exception and did rate the tournam ent—which
touched o ff another controversy. H enceforth, the Lone Pine tournam ent
would consist o f nine rounds and would be rated by FIDE.
The size o f the 1976 field again dictated that requirements be tightened, so
Lone Pine 1977 reverted to the eligibility standards o f 1975. The nine-round
event attracted forty-eight players, whose average rating was 2410. For the first
time, there was no clear winner. Yuri Balashov (U .S.S.R .), Oscar Panno
(Argentina), D ragutin Sahovic (Yugoslavia), and the W om en’s W orld
C ham pion, Nona Gaprindashvili (U .S.S.R), tied for first with 6 Z2 - 2 Z2 .
Gaprindashvili earned a men’s GM norm (and ultimately became the first
woman ever to obtain a m en’s GM title).
For 1978 neither the requirements nor the form at were changed. Never­
theless, a record sixty-eight players took part, with ratings averaging 2431. The
tournam ent’s international character was underlined as several countries were
represented by entire “ team s” of players. Bent Larsen o f Denmark won with
71/2-1 Z i, the best score ever achieved at Lone Pine.
Requirements for the 1979 event were tightened to adm it only titled players,
senior masters, and juniors rated over 2300. Nonetheless, another record was
set when seventy-three competitors took part in this strong (average rating
2444) and very crowded tournam ent. Even the w inners’ circle was crowded, as

2
 T H E H IS T O R Y A N D T H E S T A T IS T IC S

four players achieved the same top score—two o f them becoming the first
players to have won two Lone Pine tournam ents. Vlastimil H ort
(Czechoslovakia), Gligoric (1972 Cham pion), Florin Gheorghiu (Rumania),
and Liberzon (1975 Cham pion) all scored six and a half points.
By the end o f a decade o f Lone Pine tournam ents, an IM title was no longer
a sufficient credential to qualify for entry. The specter o f another seventy-
player field led officials to augment the requirements yet again. The 1980
tournam ent consisted o f grandm asters, adults rated over 2450, and juniors
rated over 2350. With forty-three players, the field was just over half as large
as 1979’s, but the average rating soared to an astonishing 2487. Israel’s Rom an
Dzhindzhikhashvili scored 7-2 to win.

The Effect of
Tightened Eligibility
If 1980’s eligibility standards had been used in the early tournam ents, very
few players could have qualified. O f those who participated in the 1971 event,
only W alter Browne, Larry M. Evans, and Svetozar Gligoric had ratings high
enough to qualify by current standards. Their ratings (rather than their titles)
would have entitled them to enter also in 1972. G randm aster A rthur Bisguier,
however, would have gained adm ittance in 1972 not on the strength o f his
rating—which was too iow—but on the basis o f his grandm aster title. Yet he
won the 1973 event! O f the 1 9 7 3 'com petitors, Browne, Evans, Lubosh
Kavalek, and Laszlo Szabo would have qualified by rating, Bisguier again by
title. In 1974, Pal Benko, Browne, Evans, Florin Gheorghiu, John Grefe,
Levente Lengyel, and N orm an Weinstein could have met today’s rating
standards, as could GM Bisguier. In short, if the 1980 standards had been in
effect during the first four years, there would have been three participants
instead o f thirty-three in 1971, four instead o f thirty-five in 1972, five instead
of forty-eight in ,1973, and by 1974, when the requirements had been sub­
stantially tightened, only eight o f the fifty-three entrants would have been
eligible to enter.
Conversely, if the 1971 standards had remained unchanged, the 1980 event
could have expected a field o f over four hundred players!
An unfortunate side effect o f m ore stringent eligibility requirements is that
those who compete one year may find that they are no longer eligible the next
year. It has been suggested that anyone who plays at Lone Pine be
autom atically eligible for all future events in the series. The problem is, on that
basis alone two hundred thirty players could now qualify, and as more become
eligible each year the size of the tournam ent would quickly become un­
manageable.

3
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

FIDE Title
Norms and Ratings
Unlike the U.S. Chess Federation, FIDE rates only masters (and women
rated over 1800). The FID E rating system is sim ilar to that used by the USCF
except for these factors:
1. FIDE ratings are updated for each player only once a year.
2. FIDE does not use a “ bonus” or “ feedback” system.
3. Only master tournam ents and matches o f certain specific form ats are
rated.
4. Unrated players enter the FIDE rating pool at 2200 rather than at their
first perform ance level.
These factors tend to generate lower ratings in FIDE than in the USCF for
players of com parable strength, and this tendency is accentuated for rapidly
improving juniors.
FIDE titles are based not only on the achievement o f a certain rating but also
on the achievement of perform ance levels above the rating expectation. A t least
two performances (norms) which include a total o f at least tw enty-four games
and during which a certain specific score is achieved are necessary to earn a
title; in addition, FIDE ratings o f at least 2450 for grandm aster, at least 2350
for international m aster, and at least 2250 for FIDE m aster are required. If the
two performances do not include twenty-four games, a third perform ance at
the necessary level is required. For a Swiss-system tournam ent, such as Lone
Pine, to be eligible for FID E rating, at least nine rounds must be played, and
for a player to be eligible for a norm , he and his opponents must constitute a
field in which no more than two-thirds o f the players are from the same
country and in which at least half are titled players. There are certain other
restrictions, having to do with time controls and other details o f form at. The
score a player needs to achieve a norm is determined by the average rating o f
the entire field (the player plus his opponents). In a Swiss-system tournam ent,
where the pairings are determined by the players’ scores after each round, the
requisite norm score may not be known until rather late in the tournam ent,
sometimes not until the last round. This is why pairings at Lone Pine are
sometimes modified, to avoid depriving a player o f a norm opportunity due to
an insufficient number o f foreign players among his opponents or too low an
average rating in his field. Such pairing modifications are very minor in nature
and are not made if they would create pairing problems on other boards or
unfairly affect other players.

4
 T H E H IS T O R Y A N D T H E S T A T IS T IC S

Lone Pine Norms

Many future chess stars have been “ discovered” at Lone Pine. O pportunities
for title norms are better at Lone Pine than at any other event except perhaps
the W orld Team C ham pionship (Olympiad). Norm and title opportunities were
present in Lone Pine in 1975, 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980. The 1976 tour­
nam ent had only seven rounds and thus did not meet FIDE norm requirements.
Here is a list o f the players who have achieved FIDE norm s at Lone Pine in
each year.

1975. GM norm : Norm an Weinstein (U .S.A.). IM norms: Kim Commons

(U .S.A .), Alla Kushnir (Israel).

1977. GM norms: D ragutin Sahovic (Yugoslavia), Nona Gaprindashvili

(U .S.S.R .). IM norms: Jack Peters, Roy Ervin, Ken Regan (all U .S.A.).

1978. GM norms: Jack Peters (U .S.A .), Vitaly Zaltsman (U .S.A.), Ken
R ogoff (U .S.A .), Peter Biyiasas (Canada). IM norms: Yasser Seirawan
(U .S.A .), Tim Taylor (U .S.A .), Jaime Sunye (Brazil), Jon Speelman
(England), H aukua Angantysson (Iceland), M argeir Petursson (Iceland), Helgi
Olafsson (Iceland).
Opportunities in 1978 were greater than in other years due to the large
num ber of players and the presence of a great many foreign “ team s.” The
eleven norms achieved in this year set a record for individually paired Swiss-
system or round-robin events. (The Olympiad is paired by team rather than by
individual.)

1979. GM norm: Yasser Seirawan (U .S.A.). IM norms: W alter M orris, Jack

Peters, Joe B radford, Nick DeFirmian (all U .S.A .), Paul van der Sterren
(H olland). FM (FIDE Master) norms: Doug Root, David Strauss (both
U .S.A .).
The FIDE M aster title had just been created by FIDE. Earning this title
requires a somewhat lower achievement than the IM title does. The primary
benefit o f this title to the player is that, as a titled player, he may now be invited
to international tournam ents because his presence helps the tournam ent to
achieve FIDE title requirements.

1980. IM norms: Michael W ilder, Jay W hitehead, Doug Root, Ron Henley
(all U.S. A.). FM norm: Joel Benjamin (U.S.A.).

Thirty-two norm s in all were achieved at Lone Pine during the first decade.
O f these, Jack Peters has collected three, Yasser Seirawan and Doug R oot two
each. Thus, twenty-eight individual players have earned norms here.

5
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

Geographic Distribution
During its first ten years Lone Pine attracted players from twenty-seven
countries. Those who represented more than one country during this period are
counted for both. (Victor Frias o f Chile competed as an American, so Chile
does not appear on this list.)

United S ta te s ...................................................................................................... 141

Y ugoslavia......................................................................................................... 12
C a n a d a .............................................................................................................. 10
H u n g a ry ............................................................................................................ 8
H o lla n d .............................................................................................................. 7
Iceland................................................................................................................ 7
U .S .S .R ............................................................................................................... 7
E n g lan d .............................................................................................................. 6
Is ra e l................................................................................................................... 6
A rgentina............................................................................................................ 5
B razil................................................................................................................... 4
Philippines......................................................................................................... 3
A u s tra lia ............................................................................................................ 3
M exico................................................................................................................ 2
W est G erm any.................................................................................................. 2

A ustria, Bulgaria, Colom bia, Czechoslovakia, Denm ark, Ecuador, Finland,

Iran, New Zealand, R um ania, Scotland, Venezuela . . . 1 each.

Top Ten by Rating

Ratings given are those in effect during each player’s participation in Lone
Pine. For players who have played in more than one Lone Pine tournam ent,
the highest rating is given. USCF ratings are used for players active in the U .S.,
FID E ratings for others.

1. K orchnoi.................................................................................................. 2695
2. P etrosian............................................................................................... ..2 6 3 5
3. Portisch.................................................................................................... 2630
4. P o lu g aev sk y ........................................................................................... 2620
5. L arsen....................................................................................................... 2620
6. B ro w n e......................................................................................................2612
7. G heorghiu................................................................................................ 2605
8. H o r t .......................................... , ............................................................ 2600
9. B alashov.................................................................................................. 2600
10. G ligoric................................................................................................... 2593

6
 T H E H IS T O R Y A N D T H E S T A T IS T IC S

Prizewinners
On both the following lists, only tournam ent winnings are included; special
game prizes and minimum guarantees paid to grandm asters are not counted.

Top 10
1. Larsen, B e n t .................................................................................$16,949.00
2. Dzhindzhikhashvili, R om an...................................................... 15,000.00
3. Gheorghiu, F lo r in ...................................................................... 13,565.00
4. Liberzon, V la d im ir.................................................................... 12,875.00
5. Miles, A n th o n y ........................................................................... 11,970.00
6. Gligoric, S v e to z a r...................................................................... 11,795.00
7. Balashov, Y uri............................................................................. 9,690.00
8. H ort, V la stim il........................................................................... 8,875.00
9. Petrosian, T igran........................................................................ 8,650.00
10. Panno, O scar............................................................................. 8,432.00

Other Winners of over $1,000

Sahovic, D ra g u tin .......................................................... $6,884.00
Browne, W a lte r............................................................... 5.793.25
Gaprindashvili, N ona...................................................... 5.750.00
Polugaevsky, L ev............................................................. 5.700.00
Evans, Larry M ................................................................. 4.675.00
Peters, John I I I ............................................................... 4.130.75
Geller, Y e fim .................................................................... 3.940.00
A lburt, L e v ...................................................................... 3.940.00
Lein, A natoly.................................................................... 3.610.75
Portisch, L ajos................................................................. 3.267.00
Lom bardy, W illiam ........................................................ 2.259.00
Q uinteros, M ig u e l.......................................................... 2.162.00
Rogoff, K e n n e th ............................................................. 2,162.00
Bisguier, A rth u r............................................................... 2.149.50
Ree, H a n s ........................................................................ 1.659.00
Christiansen, L a r r y ........................................................ 1.612.00
Benko, P a l ........................................................................ 1.526.25
Forintos, G yozo............................................................... 1.512.00
Smyslov, V a sily ............................................................... 1.512.00
N ajdorf, M iguel............................................................... 1.512.00
Grefe, J o h n ...................................................................... 1.500.00
T arjan, J a m e s ................................................................. 1.112.50
Sosonko, G e n n a d i.......................................................... 1.009.00
Gruenfeld, Y ehudah........................................................ 1.009.00

7
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

Player Summaries
The Player Key is an alphabetical list o f all the players who have appeared in
the Lone Pine tournam ents. The second column gives the year(s) in which each
player competed. Where a hyphen separates two years, the player appeared in
those years and the ones in between. The third colum n is the player’s ten-year
rank based on total points scored, as used in the Player Summary.
In the Player Summary, a player’s ten-year rank is based on his total official
points, including byes and forfeit wins. Ties have not been broken; players with
the same number of points are listed in declining rating order. Ratings for
players active in the U.S. are USCF ratings; FIDE ratings are used for foreign
players. The rating itself is the highest that the player had at the start o f a n y
Lone Pine tournam ent in which he played. “ Y rs.” indicates the num ber o f
years in which the player competed.

Player Key
Player Tnmts Rank Player Tnmts Rank
A bbott 71 171 Binet 72 159
A lburt 80 102 Bisguier 72-74, 76-80 2
Anderson 71 190 Biyiasas 74-80 7
Angantysson 78 127 Blocker 79 174
A rnason A 78 208 Blumenfeld 76 222
Arnason J 80 132 Bogdanovic 78 144
Avery 71 206 Bohm 78,79 80
Ayyar 79 228 Bradford 79 137
Baczynskyj 76 195 Brandts 72,73 87
Balashov 77, 80 48 Brasket 72, 73, 76-78 23
Balinas 78,79 110 Brent 71 196
Balshan 78 226 Browne 71-80 1
Barle 79 145 Brummer 76 229
Barnes 71,73-76 40 Burns 74 198
Baroudi 73 184 Burstow 74 199
Batchelder 73 215 Celorio 74 227
Benjamin 79, 80 86 Chandler 79 140
Benko 74-79 8 Christiansen 72-74, 76, 77 3
Berner 72 212 Cleghorn 72-76, 78 30
Berry D 72, 7 3 ,7 5 ,7 6 44 Commons 72-74, 76,78 18
Berry J 74 166 Costa 72 232
Bilek 75 118 Coudari 78 157
Bills 71 150 Csom 75 115

8
 T H E H IS T O R Y A N D T H E S T A T IS T IC S

Player Tnmts Rank Player Tnmts Rank

Dake 73-77 39 Goichberg 72-74 70
Damjanovic 75 122 Goodman 77 160
Davidson 72 231 Grefe 71,73-77,
Day 75, 77, 79 65 79, 80 6
Dean 71 205 Gross 7 1 ,7 3 ,7 4 60
DeFirmian 76, 79, 80 49 Gruchacz 76,78 112
Denker 72-77,79 16 Gruenfeld 79 103
Diesen 74, 76, 77, 79 35 H anken 73 216
Dobrich 74 165 H arm on 73 223
Donaldson 78 164 Hay 72 169
Dzh’vili 80 90 Henley 76-78, 80 41
Erlingsson 78 230 Hook 73 200
Ermenkov 80 108 Hort 79 97
Ervin 71-78 15 lvanovic 80 121
Evans L D ■76 163 Jacobs 74 142
Evans L M 71-75, 77, 78 4 Janosevic 78, 79 69
Fauber 74 181 Jones 7 1 ,7 3 ,7 4 , 76 52
Fedorowicz 76-80 29 Kaplan 74, 77, 79, 80 27
Filguth 78 158 Karklins 71-75 26
Fischheimer 71 151 K aufman 74, 80 74
Fitzgerald 73,74 95 Kavalek 73 128
Flacco 72 219 Klein 71 220
Forintos 75,76 62 Koploy 72 203
Form an 71 221 Korchnoi 79 105
Form anek 73,74,76-79 22 Krystall 74 204
Frankie 74 213 Kushnir 75 126
Frey 76, 77 81 Larsen 78-80 28
Frias 80 172 Lein 77-80 24
Fritzinger 7 2 ,7 3 ,7 6 68 Lengyel 74 153
Fulkerson 71 188 Levy D 75 162
Gaprindashvili 77 98 Levy L 74 148
Garcia 78 193 Liberzon 75, 79, 80 32
G arcia-Palerm o 77, 78 93 Ligterink 78,79 63
Geller 80 100 Loftsson 71, 72, 74,
Gheorghiu 74, 75,78-80 11 76, 78 36
Ghizdavu 75 139 Lombardy 77-79 34
Gilden 72-74 67 Maffeo 74 187
Ginsburg 80 192 M anetti 72 214
Gligoric 71, 72, 75, 79, M archand 71 182
80 10 M artinowsky 71-74,76, 77 25

9
 T H E BEST O F L O N E P IN E

Player Tnmts Rank Player Tnmts Rank

M artz 71-73, 75-77 14 Remlinger 73 178
M atera 79 152 Reshevsky 75,77-80 21
Mayer 71 217 Reynolds 73 224
McCambridge 77, 79 91 Rohde 75-78 42
McCormick 71,73 113 Rigo 79 176
Mengarini 71, 73 88 Rind 79, 80 85
Mestel 78 120 Robatsch 75 119
Mestrovic 78 133 Rodriguez 74 143
Meyer 77, 78 72 R ogoff 76, 78 57
Meyers 76 211 Root 79, 80 77
Middleton 73 185 Rossetto 75 134
Michaelides 80 194 Rubin 71 225
Miles 73, 76,78-80 17 Sahovic 77-79 33
M orris 78, 79 73 Saidy 72, 74, 76 50
N ajdorf 76 116 Savage 72,73 104
Nelson 74 167 Schmid 75 129
Newbold 71, 74 99 Seirawan 76-79 37
Nickoloff 77 179 Shamkovich 75-80 9
Nikolic 79 173 Sherwin 76 161
Odendahl 78-80 51 Shipman 73 147
Olafsson 77-79 46 Shirazi 79 156
Ostojic 79 136 Shuey 71 207
Pachm an 79 107 Sigurjonsson 75, 79 58
Panno 75-78, 80 12 Silman 75, 76, 79 64
Paolozzi 79 149 Simms 71 189
Parr 75 177 Sisniega 76 170
Peters 76-80 19 Smyslov 76 114
Petrosian 76, 78 54 Soltis 79 131
Petursson 78-80 43 Sosonko 79 101
Pilnik 75 123 Speelman 78 135
Poilowitz 72 186 Stean 78 117
Polugaevsky 78 89 Stone 74 197
Portisch 78 96 Stoutenborough 71-73 59
Pupols 74, 76 180 Strauss 73,74, 76,
Quinteros 75-77, 79, 80 20 77, 79 38
Raicevic 80 138 Street 76 183
Rajkovic 79, 80 79 Sullivan 73 218
Ramirez 72 168 Sunye 77, 78 78
Ree 78, 79 53 Sutherland 74 209
Regan 77 111 Suttles 75 109

10
 T H E H IS T O R Y A N D T H E ST A T IST IC S

Player Tnmts Rank Player Tnmts Rank

Szabo 73, 77 66 W atson 76,79 82
Tarjan 71-73, 75, Weber 72 191
77-79 5 Weinberger 73,76 141
Taulbut 78 125 Weinstein 74-79 13
Taylor 74, 76, 78 55 Westerinen 78 130
Thibault 79 210 W hitehead J 77-80 47
Thornally 73,74, 76 84 W hitehead P 78, 79 92
Tim man 78 106 Wilcox 73 202
Tisdall 75-77 56 Wilder 79, 80 83
Torre 75, 80 61 Winslow 74 201
Van der Sterren 78, 79 76 Yanofsky 75 124
Van der Wiel 79 146 Youngworth 78-80 71
Van Riemsdyk 78, 79 75 Zaltsman 78-80 45
Verduga 77,78 94 Zlotnikov 79 175
Vranesic 75 154 Zuckerm an 73 155
W aterman 71-76 31

Player Summary
10-Yr
Rank Player, Residence Rating Sc. Yrs. W innings
i. Browne, Walter, CA/Ausl........... 2612 50 10 $ 5,793.25
2. Bisguier, Arthur, N Y ................... 2538 361/2 8 $ 2,149.50
3. Christiansen, Larry, CA............... 2534 36 Vi 8 $ 1,612.00
4. Evans, Larry M., N V ................... 2565 34'/ 7 $ 4,675.00
5. Tarjan, James C A ....................... 2535 34/2 7 $ 1,112.50
6. Grefe, John O R ........................... 2484 33 8 $ 1,500.00
7. Biyiasas, Peter, CA/Can.............. 2519 32 7 $ 265.00
8. Benko, Pal, N J............................. 2514 31/2 6 $ 1,526.25
9. Shamkovich, Leonid, NY/Isr. . . . 2543 30/2 6 $ 530.75
10. Gligoric, Svetozar, Yug................ 2590 30 5 $11,795.00
11. Gheorghiu, Florin, Rum............... 2605 28/2 5 $13,565.00
12. Panno, Oscar, Arg........................ 2580 28/2 5 $ 8,432.00
13. Weinstein, Norman, M A ............ 2504 28/ 6 $ 737.00
14. Martz, William, W I..................... 2446 28 6 $ 567.00
15. Ervin, Roy, C A ........................... 2356 28 8 $ 348.25
16. Denker, Arnold, F L ..................... 2385 27/2 7 $ 20.00
17. Miles, Anthony, Eng.................... 2565 27 5 $11,970.00
18. Commons, Kim, CA..................... 2521 27 6 $ 392.00
19. Peters, John, C A ......................... 2516 27 5 $ 4,130.75
20. Quinteros, Miguel, Arg................ 2555 26 5 $ 2,162.00
21. Reshevsky, Samuel, N Y .............. 2510 25 Vi 5 $ 343.75
22. Formanek, Edward, 1L................ 2434 25 6 $ 333.00

II
 T H E BEST O F L O N E P IN E

10-Yr.
Rank Player, Residence Rating Sc. Yrs. W innings

23. Brasket, Curt, M N ....................... 2364 221/2 6 s 184.00

24. Lein, Anatoly, O H ....................... 2536 211/2 4 $ 3,610.75
25. Martinowsky, Eugene, IL............ 2399 21 Zi 6 $ 137.00
26. Karklins, Andrew, IL ................... 2395 20 Vi 5 $ 975.00
27. Kaplan, Julio, C A ....................... 2469 20 4 $ 337.50
28. Larsen, Bent, Den ....................... 2620 191/2 3 $16,949.00
29. Fedorowicz, John, N J ................. 2458 19 5 $ 520.00
30. Cleghorn, Peter, CA..................... 2378 181/2 5 $ 227.00
31. Waterman, Dennis, I L ................. 2373 18‘/2 6
32. Liberzon, Vladimir, Isr................. 2545 18 3 $12,875.00
33. Sahovic, Dragutin, Yug................ 2520 18 3 $ 6,884.00
34. Lombardy, William, NY ............ 2534 17 3 $ 2,259.00
35. Diesen, Mark, M D ....................... 2487 17 4 $ 62.50
36. Loftsson, Julius, C A ................... 2375 17 5
37. Seirawan, Yasser, W A ................. 2495 161/2 4 $ 62.50
38. Strauss, David, CA....................... 2435 1654 5
39. Dake, Arthur, O R ....................... 2370 16 5 $ 20.00
40. Barnes, Craig, C A ....................... 2276 16 5 $ 20.00
41. Henley, Ronald, TX ..................... 2455 141/2 4
42. Rohde, Michael, N J ..................... 2404 14/2 4
43. Petursson, Margeir, Ice................ 2425 14 3
44. Berry, David, C A ......................... 2294 14 4
45. Zaltsman, Vitaly, NY................... 2505 1354 3 $ 650.00
46. Olafsson, Helgi, Ice...................... 2440 1354 3
47. Whitehead, Jay, CA..................... 2441 13 4
48. Balashov, Yuri, USSR................. 2600 12/2 2 $ 9,690.00
49. DeFirmian, Nicholas, CA............ 2514 12/2 3
50. Saidy, Anthony, CA..................... 2425 12/2 3 $ 720.00
51. Odendahl, Steve, MD................... 2405 12/2 3
52. Jones, C. Bill, C A ....................... 2275 12/2 4 $ 100.00
53. Ree, Hans, Hoi............................. 2500 12 2 $ 1,659.00
54. Petrosian, Tigran, U SSR............ 2635 1154 2 $ 8,650.00
55. Taylor, Timothy, P A ................... 2383 11/2 3 $ 20.00
56. Tisdall, Jonathan, N Y ................. 2316 11/2 3
57. Rogoff, Kenneth, M A ................. 2519 11 2 $ 2,162.00
58. Sigurjonsson, Gudmundur, Ice. . . 2490 11 2 $ 120.00
59. Stoutenborough, Ross, CA.......... 2387 11 3
60. Gross, Ronald, CA....................... 2281 11 3
61. Torre, Eugene, Phi....................... 2520 10/2 2 $ 120.00
62. Forintos, Gyozo, Hun.................. 2490 10/2 2 $ 1,512.00
63. Ligterink, Gert, Hoi..................... 2440 10/2 2 $ 125.00
64. Silman, Jeremy, IL....................... 2428 10/2 3
65. Day, Lawrence, Can..................... 2375 10/2 3
66. Szabo, Laszlo, Hun...................... 2555 10 2 $ 1,000.00
67. Gilden, Larry, M D....................... 2415 10 3 $ 100.00
68. Fritzinger, Dennis, C A ................. 2301 10 3 $ 117.00
69. Janosevic, Dragoljub, Yug........... 2455 9/2 2
70. Goichberg, William, NY............... 2248 9/2 3 $ 20.00

12
 T H E H ISTO R Y A N D T H E STA TISTICS

10-Yr.
’Rank Player, Residence Rating Sc. Yrs. Winnings
71. Youngworth, Perry, CA.............. 2417 9 3
72. Meyer, Eugene, D C ..................... 2360 9 2
73. Morris, Walter, IA ....................... 2336 9 2 $ 62.50
74. Kaufman, Larry, MD................... 2466 8>/2 2 $ 20.00
75. Van Riemsdyk, Herman, Bra. . . . 2435 8'/2 2
76. Van der Sterren, Paul, Hoi........... 2400 81/2 2
77. Root, Douglas, CA....................... 2381 8'/2 2
78. Sunye, Jaime, Bra......................... 2360 8>/2 2
79. Rajkovic, Dusan, Yug.................. 2495 8 2
80. B5hm, Hans, Hoi......................... 2410 8 2
81. Frey, Kenneth, Mex...................... 2390 8 3
82. Watson, John, N E ....................... 2371 8 2
83. Wilder, Michael, N J..................... 2353 8 2
84. Thornally, Frank, C A ................ 2331 8 3 $ 20.00
85. Rind, Bruce, PA........................... 2442 IV i 2
86. Benjamin, Joel, N Y ..................... 2442 IZ i 2
87. Brandts, Paul, N Y .......................... 2263 IV i 2 $ 700.00
88. Mengarini, Ariel, NY................... 2251 V h 2
89. Polugaevsky, Lev, U S S R .............. 2620 1 1 $ 5,700.00
90. Dzhindzhikhashvili, Roman, Isr. . 2570 7 1 $15,000.00
91. McCambridge, Vincent, CA ........ 2395 7 2
92. Whitehead, Paul, C A ................... 2394 7 2
93. Garcia-Palermo, Carlos, Arg . . . . 2385 7 2
94. Verduga, Denis, Ecu..................... 2355 7 2
95. Fitzergerald, Kenneth, C A .......... 2316 7 2
96. Portisch, Lajos, Hun.................... 2630 6 Zi 1 $ 3,267.00
97. Hort, Vlastimil, Cze..................... 2600 6 /2 1 $ 8,875.00
98. Gaprindashvili, Nona, USSR . . . . 2430 6 /2 1 $ 5,750.00
99. Newbold, Robert, C A ................ 2242 6 /2 2
100. Geller, Yefim, U SSR ................... 2565 6 1 $ 3,940.00
101. Sosonko, Gennadi, Hoi................ 2535 6 1 $ 1,009.00
' 102. Alburt, Lev, NY........ .................. 2515 6 1 $ 3,940.00
s 103. Gruenfeld, Yehudah, Isr............... 2430 6 1 $ 1,009.00
104. Savage, Allan, MD....................... 2223 6 2
105. Korchnoi, Viktor, Swit................. 2695 5'/2 1 $ 62.50
1 106. Timman, Jan, Hoi........................ 2585 5'/2 1 $ 125.00
107. Pachman, Ludek, W. Ger............ 2510 5'/2 1 $ 62.50
108. Ermenkov, Eugene, Bui............... 2495 5'/2 1 $ 520.00
109. Suttles, Duncan, Can.................... 2440 5'/2 1
110. Balinas, Rosendo, Phi.................. 2440 5 /2 2
111. Regan, Kenneth, N J..................... 2394 5 /2 1 $ 281.25
112. Gruchacz, Robert, N J ................. 2352 5 /2 2
113. McCormick, James, W A ............ 2292 5 /2 2
114. Smyslov, Vasily, USSR................. 2580 5 1 $ 1,512.00
115. Csom, Istvan, Hun....................... 2530 5 1
116. Najdorf, Miguel, Arg................... 2510 5 1 $ 1,512.00
117. Stean, Michael, Engl..................... 2510 5 1
118. Bilek, Istvan, Hun........................ 2495 5 1

13
 T H E BEST OF L O N E PIN E

10-Yr.
Rank Player, Residence Rating Sc. Yrs. W innings
119. Robatsch, Karl, A ust.................... 2455 5 1
120. Mestel, Jo n ath an , Eng.................. 2450 5 1
121. Ivanovic, Bozidar, Yug................. 2440 5 1
122. D am janovic, M ata. Yug............... 2435 5 1
123. Pilnik, H erm an, Ven..................... 2430 5 1
124. Yanofsky, A braham , C an ............ 2415 5 1
125. T aulbut, Shawn, E ng.................... 2405 5 1
126. Kushnir, Alla, Isr........................... 2365 5 1
127. Angantysson, H aukua, Ice.......... 2350 5 1
128. Kavalek, Lubomir, D C ................. 2575 4'/2 1 $ 100.00
129. Schmid, L othar, W. G er.............. 2540 4'/2 1
130. W esterinen, Heikki, F in............... 2450 4'/2 1
131. Soltis, Andrew, N Y ..................... 2443 4'/2 1
132. A rnason, Jon, Ice........................... 2435 4'/2 1
133. M estrovic, Zvonko, Yug.............. 2435 4'/2 1
134. Rossetto, H ector, A rg................... 2430 4 'A 1
135. Speelman, Jonathan, E ng............ 2410 4'/2 1
136. Ostojic, Predrag, Yug................... 2410 4'/2 1
137. B radford, Joseph, T X ................. 2398 4'/2 1
138. Raicevic, Vladimir, Yug............. 2390 4'/2 1
139. Ghizdavu, Dumitru, O H .......... 2387 4'/2 1
140. Chandler, Murray, N. Zea.......... 2380 4'/2 1
141. Weinberger, Tibor, C A ............. 2376 4'/2 2
142. Jacobs, John, TX ....................... 2251 4'/2 1 $ 100.00
143. Rodriguez, Ruben, Phi............... 2432 4 1 $ 20.00
144. Bogdanovic, Rajko, Yug............ 2430 4 1
145. Barle, Janos, Hun....................... 2420 4 1
146. Van der Wiel, John, Hoi............ 2400 4 1
147. Shipman, Walter, NY................. 2388 4 1
148. Levy, Louis, NY......................... 2324 4 1 $ 20.00
149. Paolozzi, Marcos, Bra................ 2310 4 1
150. Bills, William, C A ..................... 2202 4 1
151. Fischheimer, Daniel, I L ............ 2183 4 1
152. Matera, Sal, NY......................... 2482 3>/2 1
153. Lengyel, Levente, Hun............... 2450 3>/2 1
154. Vranesic, Zvonko, Can............... 2430 3'/2 1
155. Zuckerman, Bernard, NY.......... 2388 3'/2 1
156. Shirazi, Kamran, Iran................. 2370 V/l 1
157. Coudari, Camille, Can............... 2352 3'/2 1
158. Filguth, Rubens, Bra.................. 2350 3 '/ 2 1
159. Binet, Laszlo, CA....................... 2346 VA 1
160. Goodman, David, Eng............... 2340 3 '/ 2 1
161. Sherwin, James, NY................... 2339 3 '/ 2 1
162. Levy, David, Scot....................... 2325 3 '/ 2 1
163. Evans, Larry D., N Y ................. 2320 3 '/ 2 1
164. Donaldson, John, W A............... 2279 3 '/ 2 1
165. Dobrich, Walter, Can................. 2264 3>/2 1
166. Berry, Jonathan, Can................. 2251 VA 1

14
 T H E H IS T O R Y A N D T H E ST A T IST IC S

10-Yr.
Rank Player, Residence Rating Se. Yrs. W innings
167. Nelson, Keith, A Z ................... 2205 3/2 1
168. Ramirez, Gilbert, C A ............... 2205 3/2 1
169. Hay, Trevor, Ausl..................... 2200 3/2 1
170. Sisniega, Marcel, Mex............... 2191 3/2 1
171. Abbott, William, A Z ............... 2097 3/2 1
172. Frias, Victor, C A ..................... 2466 3 1
173. Nikolic, Stanimir, Yug.............. 2440 3 1
174. Blocker, Calvin, OH................. 2401 3 1
175. Zlotnikov, Mikhail, N Y ........... 2400 3 1
176. Rigo, Janoz, Hun...................... 2385 3 1
177. Parr, David, Ausl...................... 2355 3 1
178. Remlinger, Larry, C A ............. 2321 3 1
179. Nickoloff, Bryon, Can.............. 2300 3 1
180. Pupols, Viktors, W A ............... 2275 3 2
181. Fauber, Richard, C A ............... 2272 3 1
182. Marchand, Erich, NY............... 2208 3 1
183. Street, Frank, CA..................... 2207 3 1
184. Baroudi, Ziad, C A ................... 2205 3 1
185. Middleton, Ervin, N Y ............. 2201 3 1
186. Pollowitz, Michael, C A ........... 2112 3 1
187. Maffeo, Nicholas, N Y ............. 2053 3 1
188. Fulkerson, Greg, O H ............... 2041 3 1
189. Simms, Gary, T X ..................... 2028 3 1
190. Anderson, Robert, O H ............. 2018 3 1
191. Weber, John, M D ................... 2016 3 1
192. Ginsburg, Mark, M D ............... 2408 2/2 1
193. Garcia, Gildardo, Col............... 2365 2/2 1
194. Michaelides, Evan, C T ............. 2338 2/2 1
195. Baczynskyj. Boris, P A ............ 2300 2/2 1
196. Brent, Richard, N Y ................. 2269 2/2 1
197. Stone, Jeff, C A ....................... 2268 2/2 1
198. Burns, Robert, O H ................... 2266 2/2 1
199. Burstow, John, Can.................. 2259 2/2 1
200. Hook, William, D C ................. 2258 2/2 1
201. Winslow, Elliott, MO............... 2241 2/2 1 *
202. Wilcox, Rex, ID ....................... 2233 2/2 1
203. Koploy, Paul, CA..................... 2146 2/2 1
204. Krystall, Dan, C A ................... 2128 2/2 1
205. Dean, Donald, C A ................... 2086 2/2 1
206. Avery, Robert, M I................... 2078 2/2 1
207. Shuey, Paul, CA....................... 2051 2/2 1
208. Arnason, Asgeir, Ice................. 2350 2 1
209. Sutherland, Donald, CO........... 2312 2 1
210. Thibault, James, M A ............... 2310 2 1
211. Meyers, Jerald, N J................... 2286 2 1
212. Berner, George, Can................. 2284 2 1
213. Frankie, Jon, IA....................... 2214 2 1
214. Manetti, Pete, C A ................... 2202 2 1

15
 T H E BEST O F L O N E PIN E

10-Yr.
Rank Player, Residence Rating Sc. Winnings
215. Batchelder, William, C A ........ 2202 2
216. Hanken, Jerome, C A ............... 2200 2
217. Mayer, Harry, C A ................... 2155 2
218. Sullivan, Martin, C A .............. 2123 2
219. Flacco, Rick, C A ..................... 2052 2
220. Klein, Robert, C A ................... 2002 2
221. Forman, Gary, N Y ..................... 2001 2
222. Blumenfeld, Rudi, 1L.............. 2317 m
223. Harmon, Clark, O R ................... 2220 1M
224. Reynolds, David, C A .............. 2210 P/2
225. Rubin, Sidney, C A ................... 2009 1 Vi
226. Balshan, Amikam, Isr.............. 2415 i
227. Celorio, Eduardo, F L ................ 2320 i
228. Ayyar, Rajan, C A ................... 2315 i
229. Brummer, David, F L ............... 2312 i
230. Erlingsson, Jonas, Ice............... 2270 i
231. Davidson, Charles, CA............ 2103 i
232. Costa, Marcos, CA................... 2031 l

“ Batting Averages”
Here the players are ranked qualitatively; i.e., according to averages derived
by dividing the total points scored in actual play by the number o f games ac­
tually played, n o t c o u n tin g byes, forfeits, and other unplayed games. Four
games were won and lost by forfeit in the ten-year history o f the tournam ent,
and twenty-two players each received one bye.
It should be noted that some single-year performances exceeded these
cumulative results. For example, Polugaevsky’s .778 average, though unex­
celled, is based on a single tournam ent (1978)—yet it was not the best per­
formance that year. Bent Larsen played at a .833 pace in Lone Pine 1978. Seven
o f the top ten averages are based on only one tournam ent; these averages are
statistically less significant than averages based on more data.
Note also that ratings are not a factor here. Because o f increasing rating
requirements, players who were active in the early tournam ents and not the
later ones may have competed against lower-rated opponents than those who
played only in the later years. A .500 average against grandm asters could be
better than a .600 average against weaker opposition. Moreover, in the ten
years of Lone Pine, the players have aged ten years; and juniors have a way of
improving with time. For these reasons, the following list should be used
cautiously as an indicator o f perform ance and should by no means be con­
sidered an absolute scale.

16
 T H E H IS T O R Y A N D T H E STA T IST IC S

Rank Name Games Pts. Avg. Rank Name Games Pts. Avg.
1 Polugaevsky 9 7 .778 50 Bills 7 4 .571
2 Dzhindzhikhashvili 9 7 .778 51 Fischheimer 7 4 .571
3 Larsen 27 19 Vi .722 52 Bisguier 64 36/2 .570
4 Portisch 9 694 .722 53 Christiansen 64 36/2 .570
5 Hort 9 6'/2 .722 54 Weinstein 51 28/2 .559
6 Gaprindashvili 9 694 .722 55 Stean 9 5 .556
7 Petrosian 16 1194 .719 56 Mestel 9 5 .556
8 Gligoric 42 30 .714 57 Ivanovic 9 5 .556
9 Smyslov 7 5 .714 58 Taulbut 9 5 .556
10 Najdorf 7 5 .714 59 Angantysson 9 5 .556
11 Balashov 18 1294 .694 60 Reshevsky 46 25/2 .554
12 Sahovic 27 18 .667 61 Torre 19 10/2 .553
13 Ree 18 12 .667 62 Suttles 10 5/2 .550
14 Geller 9 6 .667 63 Karklins 38 20/2 .539
15 Sosonko 9 6 .667 64 Brandts 14 7/2 .536
16 Alburt 9 6 .667 65 Mengarini 14 7/2 .536
17 Gruenfeld 9 6 .667 66 Biyiasas 60 32 .533
18 Miles 41 27 .659 67 Diesen 32 17 .531
19 Browne 77 50 .649 68 Kaufman 16 8 /2 .531
20 Gheorghiu 44 28 94 .648 69 Stoutenborough 21 11 .524
21 Panno 44 28 94 .648 70 Gross 21 11 .524
22 Liberzon 28 18 .643 71 Petursson 27 14 .519
23 Kavalek 7 494 .643 72 Formanek 47 24 .511
24 Jacobs 7 494 .643 73 Grefe 65 33 .508
25 Benko 50 30/2 .630 74 Ervin 56 28 .500
26 Lombardy 27 17 .630 75 Cleghorn 37 I 8 /2 .500
27 Peters 43 27 .628 76 Zaltsman 27 13/2 .500
28 Evans L M 55 34/2 .627 77 Olafsson 27 13/2 .500
29 Szabo 16 10 .625 78 DeFirmian 25 12/2 .500
30 Forintos 17 1 0 /2 .618 79 Taylor 23 11/2 .500
31 Rogoff 18 11 .611 80 Gilden 20 10 .500
32 Korchnoi 9 5/2 .611 81 Morris 18 9 .500
33 Timman 9 5/2 .611 82 Meyer 18 9 .500
34 Pachman 9 5 /2 .611 83 Janosevic 17 8 /2 .500
35 Ermenkov 9 5/2 .611 84 Watson 16 8 .500
36 Regan 9 5/2 .611 85 Thornally 16 8 .500
37 Lein 36 21/2 .597 86 Csom 10 5 .500
38 Martz 47 28 .596 87 Bilek 10 5 .500
39 Tarjan 58 34/2 .595 88 Robatsch 10 5 .500
40 Saidy 21 12/2 .595 89 Damjanovic 10 5 .500
41 Quinteros 44 26 .591 90 Pilnik 10 5 .500
42 Kaplan 34 20 .588 91 Yanofsky 10 5 .500
43 Ligterink 18 10/2 .583 92 Kushnir 10 5 .500
44 Sigurjonsson 19 11 .579 93 Westerinen 9 4/2 .500
45 Shamkovich 53 30/2 .575 94 Soltis 9 4/2 .500
46 Commons 47 27 .574 95 Arnason J 9 4/2 .500
47 Rodriguez 7 4 .571 96 Mestrovic 9 4/2 .500
48 Shipman 7 4 .571 97 Speelman 9 4/2 .500
49 Levy L 7 4 .571 98 Ostojic 9 4/2 .500

17
 T H E BEST O F L O N E PIN E

Rank Name (lames I’ts. Avg, Rank Name Games Pis. Avg.
99 Bradford 9 4'/: .500 148 Fulkerson 7 3 .429
100 Raicevic 9 4!: .500 149 Anderson 7 3 .429
101 Chandler 9 4'/: .500 150 Henley 34 14'/: .426
102 Lengyel 7 3!i$ .500 151 Fedorowicz 45 19 .422
103 Zuckerman 7 3 Vi .500 152 Rind 18 7'/: .417
104 Binet 7 3h .500 153 Benjamin 18 1'A .417
105 Sherwin 7 3 /: .500 154 Ramirez 6 V/i .417
106 Evans L D 7 3 34 .500 155 Rohde 35 141/2 .414
107 Dobrich 7 3 'A .500 156 Strauss 38 15'/2 .408
108 Berry J 7 3 V i .500 157 Silman 26 10'/: .404
109 Nelson 7 VA .500 158 Dake 40 16 .400
110 Hay 7 3'/i .500 159 Frey 20 8 .400
111 Sisniega 7 3'/: .500 160 McCormick 14 5/2 .393
112 Abbott 7 3'A .500 161 Barnes 36 14 .389
113 Berner 4 2 .500 162 McCambridge 18 7 .389
114 Brasket 46 22'/: .489 163 Whitehead P 18 7 .389
115 Martinowsky 44 21 Vi .489 164 Garcia Palermo 18 7 .389
116 Waterman 44 21 Zi .489 165 Verduga 18 7 .389
117 Denker 55 2614 .482 166 Matera 9 3/2 .389
118 Fritzinger 21 10 .476 167 Shirazi 9 3/2 .389
119 van Riemsdyk 18 814 .472 168 Coudari 9 3/2 .389
120 van der Sterren 18 814 .472 169 Filguth 9 3/2 .389
121 Root 18 814 .472 170 Goodman 9 3/2 .389
122 Sunye 18 814 .472 171 Donaldson 9 3/2 .389
123 Newbold 14 614 .464 172 Savage 13 5 .385
124 Odendahl 27 1214 .462 173 Day 28 10/2 .375
125 Fitzgerald 13 6 .462 174 Paolozzi 8 3 .375
126 Loftsson 37 17 .459 175 Whitehead J 36 13 .361
127 Seirawan 36 1614 .458 176 Baczynskyj 7 2/2 .357
128 Berry D 31 14 .452 177 Brent 7 2/2 .357
129 Goichberg 21 914 .452 178 Stone 7 2/2 .357
130 Schmid 10 414 .450 179 Burstow 7 2/2 .357
131 Rossetto 10 414 .450 180 Hook 7 2/2 .357
132 Ghizdavu 10 414 .450 181 Wilcox 7 2/2 .357
133 Jones 28 1214 .446 182 Koploy 7 2/2 .357
134 Rajkovic 18 8 .444 183 Dean 7 2/2 .357
135 Bohm 18 8 .444 184 Vranesic 10 3/2 .350
18 8 .444 185 Levy D 10 3 / 2 .350
136 Wilder
137 Bogdanovic 9 4 .444 186 Gruchacz 16 5/2 .344
138 Barle 9 4 .444 187 Youngworth 27 9 .333
139 van der Weil 9 4 .444 188 Nikolic 9 3 .333
Tisdall 26 1 1 / 2 .442 189 Blocker 9 3 .333
140
Remlinger 7 3 .429 190 Zlotnikov 9 3 .333
141
7 3 .429 191 Rigo 9 3 .333
142 Fauber
Marchand 7 3 .429 192 Nickoloff 9 3 .333
143 6 2 .333
144 Street 7 3 .429 193 Maffeo
7 3 .429 194 Simms 6 2 .333
145 Baroudi 2 .333
7 3 .429 195 Weber 6
146 Middleton
7 3 .429 196 Manetti 6 2 .333
147 Pollowitz

18
 T H E H IS T O R Y A N D T H E ST A T IST IC S

Rank Name Gaines Pis. Avg. Rank Name Games Pis. Avg.
197 Sullivan 6 2 .333 215 Shuey 6 P/2 .250
198 Balshan 3 1 .333 216 Celorio 4 1 .250
199 Balinas 18 5V4 .306 217 Blumenfeld 7 P/2 .214
200 Parr 10 3 .300 218 Harmon 7 P/2 .214
201 Sutherland 7 2 .286 219 Reynolds 7 1 /: .214
202 Meyers 7 2 .286 220 Rubin 7 P/2 .214
203 Batchelder 7 2 .286 221 Frankie 6 1 .167
204 Hanken 7 2 .286 222 Mayer 6 1 .167
205 Ginsburg 9 2 Vi .278 223 Flacco 6 1 .167
206 Garcia 9 2Vi .278 224 Klein 6 1 .167
207 Michaclides 9 2'A .278 225 Forman 6 1 .167
208 Weinberger 13 V/i .269 226 Pupols 13 2 .154
209 Frias 8 2 .250 227 Thibault 8 1 .125
210 Arnason A 8 2 .250 228 Erlingsson 9 1 111
211 Burns 6 iVl .250 229 Costa 6 0 .000
212 Winslow 6 V/l .250 230 Brummer 5 0 .000
213 Krystall 6 P/z .250 231 Ayyar 4 0 .000
214 Avery 6 1Vi .250 232 Davidson 3 0 .000

It is notew orthy that the top ten averages are over .700 and that none o f the
others are. All the top ten players except Dzhindzhikhashvili have participated
in world cham pionship com petition at the candidates match level or higher,
including three form er W orld Cham pions (Smyslov, Petrosian, and
Gaprindashvili).
A lthough Roman Dzhindzhikhashvili, who has the highest average (with
Polugaevsky), has indicated that he will rem ain in the U .S., at Lone Pine he
played as a representative o f Israel. The top American perform ance is therefore
that of Lev A lburt (.667), 16th on the list. W alter Browne’s .649 was m ain­
tained over the full ten-year period. A lthough he played for A ustralia as well as
for the U .S., his can be considered the finest sustained American performance.
Other Americans to achieve .575 or better are:

Lubom ir Kavalek .643 Kenneth Regan .611

John Jacobs .643 A natoly Lein .597
Pal Benko .630 W illiam M artz .596
William Lombardy .630 Jam es T arjan .595
John Peters .628 A nthony Saidy .595
Larry M. Evans .627 Julio Kaplan .588
Kenneth R ogoff .611 Leonid Shamkovich .575

H ans Ree, Yehudah G ruenfeld, John Jacobs, John Peters, and Ken Regan
are the only nongrandm asters to score over .600.
The top ten to have confirm ed their perform ances over a span o f at least
tw enty-four games, the minim um considered to be statistically established, are:

19
 T H E BEST O F LO N E PIN E

Bent Larsen .722/27 Florin G heorghiu .648/44

Svetozar Gligoric .714/42 Oscar Panno .648/44
Dragutin Sahovic .667/27 Vladimir Liberzon .643/28
Anthony Miles .659/41 Pal Benko .630/50
W alter Browne .649/77 William Lombardy .630/27

Tournament Summary
1971 1 1 -2 4 W e in s te in , B is g u ie r,
1 Evans L M, 6-1, $1,000 R o d rig u e z , B iyiasas, Saidy,
2 -5 G lig o ric, B row ne, M artz, Levy L, Thornally, Kaufman,
T arjan, 5 'A - l 'A , $350 each M artinowsky, Taylor, Denker,
6 Grefe, 5-2, $100 Dake, Goichberg, Barnes, 4-3,
$ 2 0 each
1972
1 Gligoric, 6-1, $2,000 1975
2 - 5 Saidy, T a rja n , K ark lin s, 1 Liberzon, 7 Vi-2 'A , $4,000
Brandts, 5-2, $700 each 2 Evans L M , 7-3, $2,500
6- 11 M artz, C leghorn, M artin- 3 -8 Browne, Panno, Gheorghiu,
ow sky, B rask et, C om m ons, Q uinteros, Weinstein, Gligoric,
Fritzinger, 414-214, $117 each 6 / 2 - 3 / 2 , $650 each
9-13 Torre, Shamkovich, Benko,
1973 Sigurjonsson, Biyiasas, 6-4, $120
1 Bisguier, 6-1, $2,000 each
2-3 Szabo, Browne, 5/2-1 'A , $1,000
each
4-6 Form anek, Grefe, Miles, 5-2,
1976
$333 each 1 Petrosian, 514-1 !4, $8,000
7- 11 Kavalek, Martz, Cleghorn, 2 -1 0 Browne, Smyslov, Quinteros,
Christiansen, Jones, 414-2 'A , Panno, Miles, N ajdorf, Rogoff,
$100 each F o rin to s, C h ristian sen , 5-2,
$1,511 each
1974 1 1 - 1 6 S h a m k o v ich , W einstein,
1 Browne, 6-1, $2,000 Bisguier, Grefe, Brasket, Ervin,
2-3 Benko, Grefe, 514-1 'A , $1,000 4 / 2 -2 / 2 , $67 each
each
4 -7 Evans L M, Kaplan, Commons, 1977
Karklins, 5-2, $275 each 1 -4 B alashov, P an n o , Sahovic,
8 - 1 0 Gheorghiu, Gilden, Jacobs, Gaprindashvili, 6 / 2 -2 / 2 , $5,750
4 / 2 -2 / 2 , $100 each each

20
 T H E H IS T O R Y A N D T H E STA T IST IC S

5 - 6 L om bardy, Christiansen, 6-3, The Annual Crosstables

$1,250 each The following tables give the
7 - 1 4 B ro w n e , L e in , B enko, results in full o f each Lone Pine
Shamkovich, Reshevsky, Peters, tournam ent, year by year. The first
Regan, Ervin, 514-3 7 i , $281 each colum n gives each player’s rank in
order o f finish in that tournam ent.
The next columns give the results,
1978 round by round, o f every game. The
1 Larsen, 7 9 4 - m , $12,000 numbers following the letters W
2 Polugaevsky, 7-2, $7,500 (win), D (draw), and L (loss) refer to
3-5 Portisch, Lein, Peters, 694-2 94, the o p ponent’s rank as given in the
$3,267 each first colum n. A dash denotes that the
6 - 10 Rogoff, Evans L M, Ree, player was not paired in that round
Zaltsm an, Petrosian, 6-3, $650 and did not play. CR (crossround)
each denotes a game played out o f
1 1 -1 6 T im m a n , M iles, B enko, sequence to make up for an unplayed
Sahovic, Ligterink, Biyiasas, 5 A - bye. The score column gives the total
3 / 2 , $125 each points officially scored by each
player in that tournam ent, in c lu d in g
b y e s a n d f o r f e i t s , and the “ BA ”
1979 colum n gives the players’ “ batting
I- 4 H o rt, G ligoric, G heorghiu,
averages” (derived from points
Liberzon, 6 / 2 -2 A , $8,875 each
scored in actual play, n o t c o u n tin g
5 -1 0 Larsen, Sosonko, Sahovic,
b y e s a n d f o r f e i t s , divided by the
Lom bardy, Ree, G ruenfeld, 6-3,
num ber o f games actually played)
$1,008 each
for that tournam ent. For con­
I I - 2 2 K o rc h n o i, T a rja n ,
venience in making com parisons, the
Shamkovich, Lein, Pachm an,
last two colum ns give the ten-year-
S eiraw an, D iesen, B isg u ier,
score (not counting unplayed games)
R eshevsky, K a p la n , P eters,
and “ batting average” for each
M orris, 5 / 2 -3 'A , $62.50 each
player, as found in the Player
S u m m ary an d th e “ B attin g
1980 A verage” tables. Note again that the
averages are not an absolute measure
1 D zhindzhikhashvili, 7-2, $15,000
o f perform ance and should be used
2 Miles, 6 / 2 -2 / 2 , $10,000
with caution.
3 -7 L arse n , G e lle r ,
A lb u r t ,
Balashov, G heorghiu, 6-3, $3,940
each
8 - 1 2 F e d o r o w ic z , E rm e n k o v ,
Peters, P anno, Gligoric, 5 9 4 -3 / 2 ,
$520 each

21
 T H E BEST O F L O N E P IN E

1971
March 14-20

1971 1971 1971 10-yr. 10-yr.

Rank Player 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sc. BA Sc. BA
1 Evans L.M. L 19 W16 w io W2I W20 W6 W3 6 .857 34 Zz .627
2 Browne W30 W15 W9 L3 W22 W7 D4 5 Zz .786 50 .649
3 Tarjan WI7 W19 W22 W2 W5 D4 LI 5Z l .786 34'/> .595
4 Gligoric W10 W11 W6 D5 W8 D3 D2 5'/2 .786 30 .714
5 Martz W18 W21 W7 D4 L3 W8 W14 5 Zz .786 28 .596
6 Grefe W16 W33 L4 W14 Wl 1 LI W9 5 .714 33 .508
7 Stoutenborough W25 W27 L5 D12 W24 L2 W20 4Z z .643 11 .524
8 Martinowsky D20 W26 WI9 W13 L4 L5 D ll 4 .571 21 Zz .489
9 Karklins W28 W32 L2 L22 W10 Wl 3 L6 4 .571 20Zi .539
10 Waterman L4 W29 LI W31 L9 W27 W28 4 .571 21 Zz .489
11 Loftsson W24 L4 W32 D20 L6 W25 D8 4 .571 17 .459
12 Gross W29 L22 D24 D7 W19 D20 D18 4 .571 11 .524
13 Mengarini L22 W28 W33 L8 W16 L9 W24 4 .571 IZ z .536
14 Bills L33 W25 W27 L6 W32 W22 L5 4 .571 4 .571
15 Fischheimer W31 L2 L20 L25 W23 W32 W22 4 .571 4 .571
16 Ervin L6 LI W18 W30 L 13 D19 W21 3Z z .500 28 .500
17 Jones L3 L20 W29 L32 W31 D18 W25 3 Zi .500 \2 Z z .446
18 Newbold L5 D23 LI6 W28 W26 D17 D12 3Z z .500 6 Zz .464
19 McCormick W1 L3 L8 W33 L12 D16 W29 3Z i .500 5Zz .393
20 Abbott D8 W 17 W15 D ll LI D12 L7 3 Zz .500 3 Zz .500
21 Marchand W23 L5 W31 LI D25 D24 L16 3 .429 3 .429
22 Fulkerson W13 W12 L3 W9 L2 L14 L15 3 .429 3 .429
23 Simms L21 D18 L26 D27 L15 Bye W32 3 .333 2 .333
24 Anderson LI 1 W30 D12 W26 L7 D21 L13 3 .429 3 .429
25 Barnes L7 L14 Bye W15 D21 LI 1 L17 2 Z: .250 14 .389
26 Brent D27 L8 W23 L24 L18 L29 W33 2Zi .357 2>/2 .357
27 Dean D26 L7 L14 D23 D33 L10 W3I 2Z z .357 2Zz .357
28 Avery L9 L13 D30 L18 Bye W33 L10 2Z z .250 1Zz .250
29 Shuey L12 L10 L17 Bye D30 W26 L19 2Z z .250 1Zz .250
30 Mayer L2 L24 D28 L16 D29 L31 Bye 2 .167 1 .167
31 Klein L15 Bye L21 L10 L17 W30 L27 2 .167 1 .167
32 Forman Bye L9 LI 1 W17 L14 L15 L23 2 .167 1 .167
33 Rubin W14 L6 LI 3 L19 D27 L28 L26 1Zi .214 1Zz .214

22
 T H E H IS T O R Y A N D T H E STA T IST IC S

1972
March 12-18

1972 1972 1972 10-yr. 10-yr.

Rank Player 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sc. BA Sc. BA
1 Gligoric W7 D17 W22 W15 D2 W4 Wl 1 6 .857 30 .714
2 Tarjan W II D16 W23 W18 D1 D8 D4 5 .714 34/2 .595
3 Karklins W27 L2I W32 D ll WI8 D6 W7 5 .714 20/2 .539
4 Saidy W28 W31 D9 W17 W8 LI D2 5 .714 12/2 .595
5 Brandts D6 L14 D25 W35 W23 W16 W17 5 .714 7/2 .536
6 Martz D5 D12 W28 W3I D9 D3 D8 4 l/2 .643 28 .596
7 Commons LI W20 D26 W14 W15 W9 L3 4'/2 .643 27 .574
8 Brasket DI8 W26 W14 W2I L4 D2 D6 4 l/2 .643 22/2 .489
9 Martinowsky D29 W25 D4 W12 D6 L7 W 14 4/2 .643 21/2 .489
10 Cleghorn D32 L23 L29 W30 W25 W27 W20 4/2 .643 18/2 .500
II Fritzinger L2 W33 W13 D3 WI7 W21 LI 4/2 .643 10 .476
12 Christiansen D14 D6 W35 L9 L20 W33 W24 4 .571 36/2 .570
13 Denker D23 D32 LI 1 L20 W35 W25 W18 4 .571 26/2 .482
14 Browne D12 W5 L8 L7 W29 W22 L9 3/2 .500 50 .649
15 Bisguier W19 W24 D21 LI L7 D20 D16 3/2 .500 36/2 .570
16 Waterman W35 D2 L17 W29 D21 L5 D15 3/2 .500 21/2 .489
17 Binet W20 D1 WI6 L4 LI 1 W19 L5 3/2 .500 3/2 .500
18 Berry D D8 WI9 W24 L2 L3 W32 L13 3/2 .500 14 .452
19 Ramirez LI5 L18 W34 W26 D22 L 17 W27* 3/2 .417 2/2 .417
20 Hay L17 L7 W30 W13 W 12 D15 LIO 3/2 .500 3/2 .500
21 Evans L M W30 W3 D15 L8 D16 LI 1 — 3 .500 34/2 .627
22 Loftsson D25 W29 LI D23 DI9 LI4 D26 3 .429 17 .459
23 Stoutenborough D13 wio L2 D22 L5 L24 W33 3 .429 11 .524
24 Gilden W33 L15 L18 L25 W26 W23 L12 3 .429 10 .500
25 Pollowitz D22 L9 D5 W24 L10 L13 W30 3 .429 3 .429
26 W'eber Bye L8 D7 LI9 L24 W28 D22 3 .333 2 .333
27 Ervin L3 W30 L3I D32 W28 LIO LI9* 2/2 .417 28 .500
28 Savage L4 W34 L6 D33 L27 L26 Bye 2/2 .250 5 .385
29 Koploy D9 L22 WIO LI6 L14 CR W35 2/2 .357 2/2 .357
30 Goichberg L21 L27 L20 LIO CR W35 L25 2 .286 9/2 .452
31 Berner W34 L4 W27 L6 — — — 2 .500 2 .500
32 Manetti DIO D13 L3 D27 D33 LI8 — 2 .333 2 .333
33 Flacco L24 LI 1 Bye D28 D32 LI 2 L23 2 .143 1 .167
34 Davidson L31 L28 L19 Bye — — — 1 .000 0 .000
35 Costa L16 Bye L12 L5 L13 L30 L29 1 .000 0 .000
'U n p la y e d f o r f e it. C R = C ro ssro u n d (a g a m e p la y e d o u t o f sequ en ce): 3 0 b e a t 29.

23
 T H E B E ST O F L O N E P IN E

1973
March 18-24

I '<7.1
Hank n » u r 1973 1973 10 -yr. 10 -yr
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sc. BA Sc. BA
i Btsguscr \\ 32! W18 W 2 ‘.' 04 W13 \V5 02 .857 36' 4
: Bum no \\ 231 .570
W 16 013 W8 05 w i: : 0 1 .786
S/.i ho
'/i 50 .649
031 014 W33 023 W9 w r 7 W7
-i Circle 5 '; .786 10 .625
U 3.S 05 W2S» 01 1.7 W14 W12
< M ilo .714 33 .508
W6 04 W 15 W36 02 1.1 W13 .714 27 .659
I ormanek 15 O' W47 038 W20 W16 W21 .714
"
24 .511
( hri'liari'cn 045 1)6 02? W25; W4 W27! 1.3 4: : .643 36' .570
s Mart/ 014 \V4" W3i I 2 023 029 o n .643 28 .596
9 ( icchorn \\ 26 I 13 035 W10 13 W25 W27 1; .643 18' .500
in lone1' o r 1 24 \\ 32 1.9 W391 \V3() W31 :• .643 1 2 '- .446
11 kus .lick 1)20 W42 036 W 16 1.12 W28 08 .643 4' .643
i: 1 su n s1 M W4 3 029 W24 013 w n 1.2 1.4 4 .571 34' .627
11 I .ir jail U 19 \\9 02 012 1.1 W31 L5 4 .571 34' .595
14 Irvin 08 03 \\*22 1)17 021 1.4 W29 4 .571 28 .500
15 ( 'ominous \\ 40 027 1.5 031 019 035 W32 4 .571 77 .574
u» Uuiske? W.34 1 2 W48 1 11 W46 1.6 W35 4 .571 2 2 ;; .489
r Martmowsks Old 030 W20 014 W27 L3 019 4 .571 2 1 ': .489
lh Sirauss \\ 3 5 LI 030 046 025 D26 W37* 4 .500 15: .408
19 I hoi nall> 1 13 W26 1)28 029 015 W36 017 4 .571 8 .500
20 1 11/ccrald 01 1 0 3 ' I 17 W48 1.6 W34 W30 4 .571 6 .462
21 Shipman 1 25 W40 W39 027 014 W23 L6 4 .571 4 .571
:: Dcnkci I 48 W4I 1.14 \V45 W38 L.7 D26 3 .500 26'/: .482
21 U at ci man I2 W34 W37 03 08 L21 D28 3 .500 2 1 ': .489
24 Slotucnboiough 039 W10 1 12 1.30 L.26 W38 W41 3 .500 11 .524
25 ( If OSS W21 U 28 LI 1.7 D18 L9 W39 3 .500 11 .524
26 <nnchberg 1.9 1.19 041 W47 W24 018 D22 3 .500 9 ': .452
2” Mcngarmi W46 015 07 021 1.17 VV 37 L9 3 .500 IV 2 .536
W41 1 25 019 W35 030 1.11 D23 3 .500 3/2 .500
2K /ticker man
Kaikhns \V44 012 L4 019 W34 L.8 LI4 3 .429 2 0 /i .539
29
033 017 018 W24 028 L10 L20 3 .429 14 .452
30 Berry P
W48 1.8 D15 W36 L13 L10 3 .429 10 .476
31 1 rit/uipcf 03
3 .333 3'/: .269
32 Weinberger U 1.35 1.10 W40 W48 W46* L15
L42 045 W47 D36 3 .429 3 .429
.33 Remlinger 030 039 L3
3 .429 3 .429
34 Burundi r 16 123 W40 W43 1.29 L20 W46
3 .429 3 .429
35 Middleton us W32 09 L28 W42 D15 L16 .400
L3 I L19 D33 2Zz .357 16
36 Dake 047 W45 O il L5
.417 10 .500
3? ( kil Jen 042 020 1.23 039 W41 L27 L18* 2V

L22 L24 D40 2V .357 7'/: .536

38 Brandis l4 046 W44 06
.357 5 .385
024 033 1.21 037 L10 W42 L25
2 /z
39 Sas age
1.15 1.21 1.34 L32 W44 W43 D38
2V .357 2/2 .357
40 Hook 2 .357 2 /2 .357
41 Wilcox L.28 1.22 D26 W44 L37 W45 L24 14 .389
.286
037 1.11 L46 W33 L35 L39 D45
2
42 Barnes .286 5 /2 .393
LI 2 044 1)45 L34 1.47 L40 W48
2
43 McCormick .286 2 .286
1.29 043 1.38 L4I L40 D48 W47
2
44 Batcheldcr 2 .286 2 .286
45 [Ianken 07 1.36 043 L22 033 L41 D42 .333
L34 .333 2
1.27 D38 W42 D18 L 16 L.32*
2
46 Sullivan IVz .214 1 '/: .214
036 L8 L6 L26 W43 L33 L44 .214
47 Harmon D44 L43 V/2 .214 l'/l
48 Re> nolds W22 1.31 L.16 L20 L32
• ( u p la v c d ( io rj ci I

24
 T H E H ISTO R Y A N D T H E STA TISTIC S

1974
March 24-30

1974 1974 1974 10-yr. 10-yr.

Rank Player 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sc. BA Sc. BA
1 Browne W15 W36 L23 W26 WI8 W4 W2 6 .857 50 .649
2 Grefe W27 W53 D6 W23 W5 WI 1 LI 5'/2 .786 33 .508
3 Benko D28 W30 W5I D21 D9 W23 W8 5Z i .786 30/2 .630
4 Evans L M W14 D26 W50 W6 D ll LI W2I 5 .714 34/2 .627
5 Commons W43 W22 W8 D ll L2 D2I W16 5 .714 27 .574
6 Karklins W44 w io D2 L4 DI5 W38 WI 1 5 .714 20/2 .539
7 Kaplan D47 D38 W44 W4I D21 D16 WI9 5 .714 20 .588
8 Gheorghiu W48 W4I L5 W36 D23 W9 L3 4 Vi .643 28/2 .648
9 Gilden D29 W32 DI3 W40 D3 L8 W27 41/2 .643 10 .500
10 Jacobs W25 L6 D35 W50 W24 DI5 D22 4'/2 .643 4/2 .643
11 Bisguier WI6 W33 W40 D5 D4 L2 L6 4 .571 36/2 .570
12 Biyiasas D32 L50 D30 D45 W47 W34 D14 4 .571 32 .533
13 Weinstein WI9 D5I D9 D15 L16 D29 W38 4 .571 28/2 .559
14 Denker L4 L17 W43 W49 W35 D18 DI2 4 .571 26/2 .482
15 Martinowsky LI W45 W46 D13 D6 D10 D23 4 .571 21/2 .489
16 Dake LI I D37 W52 W3I W13 D7 L5 4 .571 16 .400
17 Barnes L26 WI4 L4I W46 LI9 W39 W36 4 .571 14 .389
18 Saidy W42 D21 D26 W33 LI D14 D20 4 .571 12/2 .595
19 Taylor L13 D52 D32 W44 WI7 W25 L7 4 .571 11/2 .500
20 Goichberg L36 D24 W28 D35 W41 D22 DI8 4 .571 9/2 .452
21 Kaufman W46 D18 W47 D3 D7 D5 L4 4 .571 8/2 .531
22 Thornally W52 L5 D34 W32 D38 D20 DIO 4 .571 8 .500
23 Rodriguez W39 W49 W1 L2 D8 L3 D15 4 .571 4 .571
24 Levy L L49 D20 W42 W34 LI0 D31 W40 4 .571 4 .571
25 Christiansen LI0 W43 D38 D29 W39 L19 D32 3 Vi .500 36/2 .570
26 Ervin W17 D4 D18 LI L33 W50 D29 3/2 .500 28 .500
27 Waterman L2 L34 W37 D30 W45 W33 L9 3/2 .500 21/2 .489
28 Diesen D3 L40 L20 D47 D44 W45 W46 3/2 .500 17 .531
29 Loftsson D9 D42 D3I D25 D36 D13 D26 3/2 .500 17 .459
30 Gross D3I L3 D12 D27 W40 D36 D33 3/2 .500 11 .524
31 Lengyel D30 D47 D29 LI6 D42 D24 W43 3/2 .500 3/2 .500
32 Dobrich D12 L9 DI9 L22 W52 W35 D25 3/2 .500 3/2 .500
33 Berry J W35 LI 1 W53 LI8 W26 L27 D30 3/2 .500 3/2 .500
34 Nelson L53 W27 D22 L24 W50 L12 W4I 3/2 .500 3/2 .500
35 Formanek L33 W39 DIO D20 L14 L32 W42 3 .429 24 .511
36 Brasket W20 LI W49 L8 D29 D30 LI7 3 .429 22/2 .489
37 Fitzgerald L4I DI6 L27 L42 Bye D47 W48 3 .333 6 .462
38 Newbold D50 D7 D25 W5I D22 L6 LI 3 3 .429 6/2 .464
39 Fauber L23 L35 W48 W53 L25 L17 W47 3 .429 3 .429
40 Maffeo Bye W28 LI I L9 L30 W48 L24 3 .333 2 .333
41 Strauss W37 L8 W17 L7 L20 D42 L34 2/2 .357 15/2 .408
42 Stone LI 8 D29 L24 W37 D3I D4I L35 2/2 .357 2/2 .357
43 Burns L5 L25 L14 Bye D46 W49 L3I 2/2 .250 1/2 .250
44 Burstow L6 W48 L7 LI9 D28 L46 W52 2/2 .357 2/2 .357
45 Winslow L5I L15 Bye DI2 L27 L28 W50 2/2 .250 1/2 .250
46 Krystall L21 Bye L15 L17 D43 W44 L28 2 /2 .250 1Zi .250

(c o n tin u e d o n n e x t p a g e )

25
 T H E BEST O F LO N E PIN E

1974
(continued)

1974
1974 1974 10-yr. 10-yr.
Rank Pla>er 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sc. BA Sc. BA
47 Jones D7 D3I L21 D28 L12 D37 L39 2 .286 12'/2 .446
48 Sutherland L.8 L44 L39 W52 W49 L40 L37 2 .286 2 .286
49 Frankie W24 L23 L36 LI4 L48 L43 Bye 2 .167 1 .167
50 Cleghorn D38 WI2 L4 LIO L34 L26 L45 .214
1 /2 l8'/2 .500
51 Frey W45 DI3 L3 L38 _ _ _ 11/2 .357 8 .400
52 Pupols L22 D19 L16 L48 L32 Bye L44 1Vi .083 2 .154
53 Celorio W34 L2 L33 L39 _ _ _ 1 .250 I .250
N o te : T o u rn a m en t S p o n so r L o u is D . S la t ham p la y e d m a k eu p g am es against 4 0 a n d 46, d received byes in the
f i r s t tw o r ou n ds.

1975
April 13-24

1975 1975 1975 10-yr. 10-yr

Rank Player 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Se. BA Sc. BA
! Liber/.on D37 W36 W34 D6 D3 W8 D2 W12 W ll D4 IV .750 18 .643
2 EvansL M L28 W38 W26 W17 w io Dl 2 Dl W3 D8 D5 1 .700 34 '/, .627
3 Browne W26 W9 D10 D8 Dl W14 WI2 L2 L5 WI6 6’/ .650 50 .649
4 Gligoric W19 D14 L1 W43 D24 DIO D26 W27 W17 Dl 6/ .650 30 .714
5 Gheorghiu W18 D27 D7 D24 D14 W19 D ll D10 W3 D2 6'/ .650 281/2 .648
6 Panno W39 D24 W25 D1 L1 W17 D8 LI I W19 W15 6'/ .650 28'/2 .648
7 Weinstein Wl 1 D8 D5 D25 D13 D20 D18 W9 W24 D10 6'/ .650 28l/ 2 .559
8 Quinteros W42 D7 W43 D3 W31 LI D6 W22 D2 D ll 6 / .650 26 .591
9 Biyiasas W29 L3 DI3 D12 W28 W3I L.10 L7 W30 W25 6 .600 32 .533
10 Benko W38 W28 D3 D31 L2 D4 W9 D5 DI3 D7 6 .600 30 Vi .630
11 Shamkovieh L7 W42 D33 W34 D27 W18 D5 W6 LI D8 6 .600 30'/: .575
12 Sigurjonsson D40 W37 W4 D9 W6 D2 L3 LI W22 D13 6 .600 11 .579
13 Torre D33 W15 D9 D19 D7 D27 D24 W26 D10 DI2 6 .600 10'/2 .553
14 Tarjan W44 D4 D24 D27 D5 L3 D15 Dl 8 W34 D17 5/ .550 34/2 .595
15 Denker D23 L13 D35 LI6 W34 W25 D14 W32 W26 L6 5V .550 26/2 .482
16 Forintos D36 L43 D40 W15 L1 W33 W38 D 19 W28 L3 5 '/ .550 10/2 .618
17 Sullies W35 L3I W44 L2 W33 L6 W43 W20 L4 DI4 5'/ .550 5/2 .550
18 M art/ L5 D22 D21 W40 WI6 LI 1 D7 D14 D20 D28 5 .500 28 .596
19 Commons L4 W30 W32 D13 D20 L5 W3I DI6 L6 D22 5 .500 27 .574
20 Reshevsky D43 D33 D28 W39 D19 D7 D27 L17 D18 D23 5 .500 25 /2 .554

(c o n tin u e d on n e x t p a g e)

26
 T H E H ISTO R Y A N D T H E STA TISTIC S

1975
(c o n tin u e d )

1975 1975 1975 10-yr. 10-yr.

Rank Player l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 So. BA Sc. BA
21 Tisdall W41 L25 D18 L38 W39 L26 D34 L23 W43 W29 5 .500 11'/: .442
22 Csom L27 D18 W36 D28 W25 D24 W32 L8 L12 D19 5 .500 5 .500
23 Bilek D15 L34 W37 D33 D32 D43 L28 W21 D27 D20 5 .500 5 .500
24 Robatsch W30 D6 D14 D5 D4 D22 D13 D28 L7 D27 5 .500 5 .500
25 Damjanovic D34 W21 L6 D7 L22 L15 W40 W36 W31 L9 5 .500 5 .500
26 Pilnik L3 W29 L2 D44 W37 W21 D4 L13 L15 W35 5 .500 5 .500
27 Yanofsky W22 D5 D31 D14 D ll D13 D20 L4 D23 D24 5 .500 5 .500
28 Kushnir W2 1.10 D20 D22 L9 W35 W23 D24 L16 D18 5 .500 5 .500
29 Barnes L9 L.26 D42 W36 L43 L34 W44 W38 W32 L21 4'/: .450 14 .389
30 Berry D L24 L19 1.38 D41 W42 W44 D37 W43 L9 D31 4 /: .450 14 .452
31 Schmid W32 W17 D27 DIO L8 L9 L19 W37 L25 D30 4'/; .450 4/2 .450
32 Rossetto L.31 W40 L 19 W35 D23 W38 L22 L15 L29 W34 4Vz .450 4/2 .450
33 Ghizdavu D13 D20 D ll D23 L17 L16 L35 D41 W39 W37 4Vi .450 4Vi .450
34 Ervin D25 W23 1.1 1.11 LI 5 W29 D21 W35 L14 L32 4 .400 28 .500
35 Silman L17 D39 D15 L32 W40 L28 W33 L34 W38 L26 4 .400 10 Vi .404
36 Karklins D16 L.l 1.22 1.29 D41 W42 D39 L25 1.44 W43 3'/’ .350 2 0 Vi .539
37 Dake D1 L12 L.23 W42 L26 W39 D30 L31 D41 L33 3 Vi .350 16 .400
38 Day 1.10 L.2 W30 W21 W44 L32 L16 1.29 L35 D41 V /i .350 10'/: .375
39 Vranesic L.6 D35 W41 L20 L21 L37 D36 W40 L33 D42 3 Zi .350 3 '/2 .350
40 Levy D D12 L.32 D16 L 18 L35 W41 L25 L39 D42 W44 V /i .350 3/2 .350
41 Grefe 1.21 L44 L39 D30 D36 1.40 D42 D33 D37 D38 3 .300 33 .508
42 Waterman L8 LI 1 D29 L37 1.30 L36 D41 W44 D40 D39 3 .300 21 Vi .489
43 Parr D20 W16 L8 1.4 W29 D23 L17 1.30 L21 L36 3 .300 3 .300
44 Rohde 1.14 W41 L17 D26 L38 L30 1.29 L42 W36 L40 2 /2 .250 \4 /i .414

1976
March 7-13

1976 1976 1976 10-yr. 10-yr.

Rank Player 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sc. BA Sc. BA
1 Petrosian W32 W20 D14 W ll D18 W6 D4 5'/: .786 11 ’/2 .719
2 Browne D37 L27 W54 W44 D20 W29 W12 5 .714 50 .649
3 Christiansen W26 W34 D10 D4 D7 W13 D9 5 .714 361/: .570
4 Panno W33 W42 D ll D3 D17 W18 D1 5 .714 28'/: .648
5 Miles W50 D23 W44 L18 W ll D17 W20 5 .714 27 .659
6 Quinteros W57 L12 W29 W24 W14 LI W17 5 .714 26 .591
7 Rogoff W54 1.28 W47 W33 D3 D20 W18 5 .714 11 .611
8 Forintos D44 L29 W43 W37 W46 D19 W23 5 .714 10'/2 .618

(c o n tin u e d on n e x t p age)

27
 T H E BEST O F L O N E PIN E

1976
(c o n tin u e d )

1976 1976 1976 10-yr. 10-yr.

Rank Player , 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sc. BA Sc. BA
9 Smyslov W22 D24 W28 D 14 W13 D12 D3 5 .714 5 .714
10 Najdorf W25 W47 D3 D13 L12 W22 W19 5 .714 5 .714
11 Bisguier W45 W49 D4 LI L5 W39 W26 4/2 .643 36'/: .570
12 Grefe W40 W6 L13 W28 W10 D9 L2 4'/: .643 33 .508
13 Shamkovich W56 WI6 WI2 DIO L9 L3 W32 4 /i .643 3 0/i .575
14 Weinstein W43 W30 D1 D9 L6 D26 W25 4/2 .643 28/2 .559
15 Ervin L24 W22 W31 LI7 D32 W42 W35 4/2 .643 28 .500
16 Brasket W19 L13 L17 D42 W37 W3I W24 4 /i .643 22'/: .489
17 Benko D27 D46 W16 W15 D4 D5 L6 4 .571 30'/: .630
18 Martz D29 W39 W23 W5 D1 L4 L7 4 .571 28 .596
19 Commons L16 W56 W48 D46 W24 D8 L10 4 .571 27 .574
20 Peters W48 LI W40 W34 D2 D7 L5 4 .571 27 .628
21 Rohde L49 D26 D51 W40 L29 W38 W39 4 .571 \4'A .414
22 Silman L9 LI 5 W53 W30 W49 L10 W40 4 .571 \0 /i .404
23 Watson W51 D5 L18 D29 W47 W27 L8 4 .571 8 .500
24 Denker WI5 D9 W27 L6 L19 W48 L 16 3Vz .500 26'/2 .482
25 Formanek L10 W38 L34 D41 W45 W28 L14 y /i .500 24 .511
26 Cleghorn L3 D21 D52 W36 W35 D14 LI 1 3/2 .500 \8 /i .500
27 Diesen D17 W2 L24 D35 W34 L23 D29 3/2 .500 17 '531
28 Dake W38 W7 L9 L12 D48 L25 W46 3/2 .500 16 .400
29 Henley D18 W8 L6 D23 W21 L2 D27 3/2 .500 14'/2 .426
30 DeFirmian W36 L14 L33 L22 D50 W54 W42 3/2 .500 \2 /i .500
31 Saidy D46 D37 LI 5 D49 W54 L16 W48 3/2 .500 \2/2 .595
32 Sherwin LI L48 W56 W51 D15 W46 L13 3/2 .500 3/z .500
33 Evans L D L4 W53 W30 L7 L39 W49 D34 3/2 .500 3/2 .500
34 Sisniega W41 L3 W25 L20 L27 W47 D33 3/2 .500 3/2 .500
35 Biyiasas L47 D43 W45 D27 L26 W41 L15 3 .429 32 .533
36 Martinowsky L30 D45 D39 L26 W51 L40 W49 3 .429 21 Vz .489
37 Loftsson D2 D31 D49 L8 LI6 W44 D4I 3 .429 17 .459
38 Barnes L28 L25 Bye L47 W43 L2I W50 3 .333 14 .389
39 Berry D D52 L18 D36 W50 W33 LI 1 L21 3 .429 14 .452
40 Taylor L12 W57 L20 L21 W53 W36 L22 3 .429 11'/: .500
41 Street L34 D54 D50 D25 W52 L35 D37 3 .429 3 .429
42 Strauss W53 L4 L46 D16 W44 LI5 L30 2/2 .357 15'/2 .408
43 Jones L14 D35 L8 L54 L38 W53 W52 2/2 .357 \2/z .446
44 Tisdall D8 W52 L5 L2 L42 L37 W54 2/2 .357 W /2 .442
45 Fritzinger LI 1 D36 L35 W56 L25 D50 D47 2/2 .357 10 .476
46 Frey D31 D17 W42 D19 L8 L32 L28 2/2 .357 8 .400
47 Gruchacz W35 L10 L7 W38 L23 L34 D45 2/2 .357 5'/2 .344
48 Baczynskyj L20 W32 LI9 W52 D28 L24 L3I 2/2 .357 2'/2 .357
49 Fedorowicz W2I LI 1 D37 D31 L22 L33 L36 2 .286 19 .422
50 Seirawan L5 D51 D41 L39 D30 D45 L38 2 .286 16'/2 .458
51 Meyers L23 D50 D21 L32 L36 D52 D53 2 .286 2 .286
52 Weinberger D39 L44 D26 L.48 L41 D51 L43 1Z2 .214 3'/2 .269
53 Pupols 1.42 L33 L22 W55 1.40 L43 D51 1Zz .214 2 .154
54 Blumenfeld L7 D41 L2 W43 L31 1.30 L44 \/2 .214 l/z .214
55 Waterman — — — L53 W56 _ — 1 .500 21 Zz .489
56 Brummer LI 3 L19 L32 L45 1.55 Bye — 1 .000 0 .000
57 Thornally L6 L40 — — — — — 0 .000 8 .500

28
 T H E H IS T O R Y A N D T H E ST A T IST IC S

1977
March 20-30

1977 1977 1977

Rank Player 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sc. BA
I Panno W39 L)19 D18 W34 D 11 W4 W3 D8 D2 6!/ .722
2 Sahovic L10 W24 W23 D4 D18 W32 W5 W ll Dl 6/ .722
3 Balashov W 14 D ll WI9 W10 D6 W21 LI D7 W8 61- .722
4 Gaprindashvili W48 W15 L6 D2 W13 LI W9 W21 W ll 6' .722
5 Christiansen W28 D10 D32 L2I W36 W29 L2 W14 W18 6 .667
6 Lombardy D31 W40 W4 W20 D3 LI 1 D21 D12 W16 6 .667
7 Browne D18 D30 L10 W45 W3 5 D16 W20 D3 D12 5!/ .611
8 Benko D26 D41 W38 D32 W20 W34 D ll D1 L3 5 !■' .611
9 Shamkovich D23 D38 D26 W41 D29 D14 L4 W34 W24 S' .611
10 Ervin W2 D5 W7 L3 D16 D12 D27 D24 W21 5 .611
11 Peters W45 D3 W43 W13 D1 W6 D8 L2 L4 5'/ .611
12 Reshevsky D43 D26 W46 D18 D32 D10 W34 D6 D7 5 .611
13 Lein D38 W31 W35 LI 1 1.4 W25 L14 W40 W23 51 .611
14 Regan L3 W48 D36 D43 W33 D9 W13 L5 W27 51 .611
15 Tarjan W24 L4 W30 D29 L21 D26 D19 D20 W32 5 .556
16 Weinstein D46 D23 D41 W19 D10 D7 D18 W26 L6 s .556
17 Quinteros D30 L18 W28 D35 L34 W46 D40 W25 D19 5 .556
18 Kaplan D7 W17 D1 D12 D2 D37 D16 W28 L5 5 .556
19 Rohde W27 D1 L3 LI 6 D47 W22 D15 W37 D 17 5 .556
20 Grefe W47 W36 D34 L6 L8 W43 L7 D15 D26 4'/ .500
21 Biyiasas D33 D46 W42 W5 W15 L3 D6 L4 L10 4 'A .500
22 Martz D14 L43 D33 D46 D28 L19 D38 W47 W40 4/ .500
23 Formanek D9 D16 L2 D30 D40 W33 W29 D27 LI 3 4 'A .500
24 Cleghorn L15 L2 W48 L33 W39 W42 W37 D10 L9 4 '/ .500
25 Diesen L34 D28 W44 D36 D26 LI 3 W43 LI 7 W38 4 '/ 2 .500
26 Sierawan D8 D12 D9 D27 D25 D15 W35 L16 D20 4 'A .500
27 Szabo L19 D42 W31 D26 D43 W38 D10 D23 LI 4 4 /2 .500
28 Meyer L5 D25 L17 W44 D22 W30 W32 LI 8 D29 4'/? .500
29 Bisguier L36 W47 W45 D15 D9 L5 L23 D38 D28 4 .444
30 Denker D17 D7 L15 D23 D46 L28 D41 W43 D34 4 .444
31 Fedorowicz D6 LI 3 L27 L42 D45 W48 D47 W46 D35 4 .444
32 Olafsson D37 W44 D5 D8 D12 L2 L28 W33 LI 5 4 .444
33 Tisdall D21 L35 D22 W24 LI4 L23 W48 L32 W45 4 .444
34 Sunye W25 W37 D20 LI W17 L8 L12 L9 D30 4 .444
35 Frey D44 W33 L13 D17 L7 W47 L26 D36 D31 4 .444
36 Verduga W29 L20 D14 L25 L5 L40 W39 D35 D37 4 .444
37 Evans L M D32 L35 D40 D38 W42 D18 L24 L19 D36 3/2 .389
38 Brasket D13 D9 L8 D37 W41 L27 D22 D29 L25 3 /2 .389
39 Strauss LI L45 L47 W48 L24 D44 L36 W41 W46 3/ .389
40 Garcia Palermo D41 L6 D37 D47 D23 W36 D17 L13 L22 3/2 .389
41 Goodman D22 D8 D16 L9 L38 D45 D30 L39 W48 3/z .389
42 Whitehead J D40 D27 L21 W31 L37 L24 L44 L48 W47 3 .333
43 Day D12 W22 LI 1 D14 D27 L20 L25 L30 D44 3 .333
44 McCambridge D35 L32 L25 L28 L48 D39 W42 D45 D43 3 .333
45 Nickoloff LI 1 W39 L29 L7 D31 D41 D46 D44 L33 3 .333
46 Dake D16 D21 L12 D22 D30 L17 D45 L31 L39 2/ .278
47 Henley L20 L29 W39 D40 D19 L35 D31 L22 L42 2/ .278
48 Martinowsky L4 L14 L24 L39 W44 L31 L33 W42 L41 2 .222

29
 T H E BEST O F L O N E P IN E

1978
April 1-12
1978 1978 1978
Rank Player , 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sc. BA
1 Larsen L40 W67 W39 W38 W47 W28 D2 W27 W10 I'A .833
2 Polugaevsky W23 W26 W49 W33 D28 W22 D1 D9 D4 7 .778
3 Peters D67 W68 W12 D5 D9 W17 D4 D20 W24 6/2 .722
4 Lein D57 D11 W58 W49 W46 D5 D3 W12 D2 6/2 .722
5 Portisch D66 W36 W62 D3 W13 D4 L9 W34 WI7 6/2 .722
6 Evans L M D64 L52 W54 D34 W57 D23 W33 Dll W19 6 .667
7 Zaltsman W63 L33 W6I D43 D37 W47 W13 L10 W27 6 .667
8 Ree D37 W50 D40 D ll D43 W46 D34 D19 W26 6 .667
9 Petrosian W47 D62 D18 W26 D3 D27 W5 D2 DI2 6 .667
10 Rogoff L35 D53 W60 W62 D18 W39 W22 W7 LI 6 .667
11 Biyiasas D21 D4 W32 D8 L27 W40 W15 D6 DI4 5 /i .611
12 Benko W45 D34 L3 W29 W33 D13 W 14 L4 D9 5'/: .611
13 Miles W58 W39 D33 W25 L5 DI2 L7 D18 W34 5'/: .611
14 Sahovic D6I D37 W64 D40 D25 W43 L12 W47 D ll 5'/: .611
15 Ligterink D68 L25 W55 W65 D16 D24 LI 1 W43 W35 5 (/> .611
16 Timman L33 W56 W66 D18 D15 L34 W46 D28 W30 5'/2 .611
17 Browne W29 D18 W34 L28 W40 L3 W23 D8 L5 5 .556
18 Bisguier W55 D17 D9 D16 DIO D20 D29 D13 D28 5 .556
19 Shamkovich W54 D43 D52 L46 W60 W37 D20 D24 L6 5 .556
20 Gheorghiu D52 D66 W57 L23 W49 D18 D19 D3 D25 5 .556
21 Panno D ll D57 L23 D53 D58 W52 D43 D33 W47 5 .556
22 Reshevsky W53 D40 D46 W52 W23 L2 L 10 L30 W45 5 .556
23 Formanek L2 W44 W2I W20 L22 D6 LI7 D37 W46 5 .556
24 Lombardy L46 L63 W48 W64 W38 D15 W28 D19 L3 5 .556
25 Petursson D28 Wl 5 W42 L13 D14 L26 W39 D32 D20 5 .556
26 Janosevic W65* L2 W36 L9 W52 W25 L27 W29 L8 5 .500
27 Stean D50 D64 D37 W35 W ll D9 W26 LI L7 5 .556
28 Mestel D25 W61 W35 W 17 D2 LI L24 DI6 D18 5 .556
29 Taulbut L17 D55 W68 L12 W65 W62 DI8 L26 W41 5 .556
30 Angantysson L42 L47 W59 L41 W50 W38 W31 W22 L16 5 .556
31 Christiansen W56 D46 D43 L47 L34 W54 L30 W55 D33 4/2 .500
32 Commons W51 L49 LI 1 W56 L39 W53 D37 D25 D40 4'/: .500
33 Seirawan W16 W7 D13 L2 LI2 W4I L6 D2I D3I 4/2 .500
34 Olafsson W60 D12 L17 D6 W3I W 16 D8 L5 LI 3 4/2 .500
35 Taylor WI0 D42 L28 L27 L4I W65 W62 W49 LIS 4/2 .500
36 Meyer W38 L5 L26 L57 W64 D42 L49 W62 W58 4/2 .500
37 Sunye D8 DI4 D27 W42 D7 L19 D32 D23 D39 4/2 .500
38 Westerinen L36 W48 W63 LI L24 L30 D55 W56 W52 4/2 .500
39 Mestrovic W44 LI 3 LI W63 W32 1.10 L25 W5I D37 4/2 .500
40 Speelman Wl D22 D8 D14 L17 LI 1 W48 D41 D32 4/2 .500
41 Tarjan L43 D54 L47 W30 W35 L33 W58 D40 L29 4 .444
42 Weinstein W30 D35 L25 L37 D53 D36 D61 D44 D43 4 .444
43 Henley W41 D19 D31 D7 D8 L14 D21 L15 D42 4 .444
44 Odendahl L39 L23 D45 D50 W63 W57 L47 D42 D49 4 .444
45 Van Riemsdyk L12 L60 D44 D54 D55 D57 W53 W6I L22 4 .444
46 Van der Sterren W24 D31 D22 W19 L4 L8 LI6 W54 L23 4 .444
47 Bohm L9 W30 W41 W31 LI L7 W44 L14 L.21 4 .444
48 Whitehead P L62 L38 L24 W67 W56 D49 L40 D58 W61 4 .444

(c o n tin u e d o n n e x t p a g e)

30
 T H E H IS T O R Y A N D T H E ST A T IST IC S

1978
( c o n tin u e d )

1978 1978 1978 10-yr. 10-yr.

Rank Play er I 2 3 4 5 ft 7 8 9 Sc. BA Sc. BA
49 Bogdanovic W59 W32 L2 1.4 1.20 D48 W36 1.35 D44 4 .444 4 .444
50 Loftsson D27 L8 1.65 D44 1.30 L56 W60 W64 D54 3'/: .389 17 .459
51 Morris 1.32 D65 D53 D58 L62 D45 W63 1.39 D57 3'/: 389 9 .500
52 Garcia Palermo D20 W6 1)19 1.22 1.26 L21 D56 W59 1.38 3'/: .389 7 .389
53 Coudari L22 DIO D51 D21 D42 L32 L45 W65 D55 3 V: .389 3 / .389
54 Filguth L19 D41 L6 D45 W59 L31 W57 1.46 D50 3'/: .389 3 / .389
55 Donaldson L.18 D29 L.15 W61 D45 D58 D38 1.31 D53 3'/: 389 3 '/ .389
56 Brasket L3I L16 W67 L32 1.48 W50 D52 1.38 D60 3 .333 12/ .489
57 Fedorowicz D4 D21 L20 W36 1.6 L44 L54 D63 D51 3 .333 19 .422
58 Rohde L13 W59 L.4 D51 D21 D55 L41 D48 L.36 3 .333 14'/ .414
59 Whitehead .1 1.49 L58 1.30 D60 1.54 W67 W65 L52 D64 3 .333 13 .361
60 Youngworlh L.34 W45 1.10 D59 L19 1.61 1.50 W67 D56 3 .333 9 .333
61 Verduga D14 L.28 1.7 1.55 W67 W60 D42 1.45 L48 3 .333 7 .389
62 Balinas W48 D9 L5 L 10 W51 L29 L35 L36 D63 3 .333 5 '/ .306
63 Gruchacz L7 W24 1.38 1.39 1.44 W64 1.51 D57 D62 3 .333 51/ .344
64 Garcia D6 D27 L14 L24 L36 L63 W67 L50 D59 2 /i .278 IV .278
65 Arnason A 1.26* D51 W50 L15 1.29 1.35 1.59 L53 D67 2 .250 2 .250
66 Balshan D5 D20 L16 1 .333 1 .333
67 Erlingsson D3 LI 1.56 1.48 1.61 1.59 1.64 1.60 D65 1 .111 1 .111
68 Ervin D15 1.3 1.29 — — — — — — .167 28 .500
* U n p la y e d f o r f e i t

R u ssia n em ig re s V ita ly Z a lts m a n (le ft) a n d L e o n id S h a m k o v ic h (s e c o n d f r o m

rig h t) to u r in g L o u is D . S ta t h a m ’s h o m e w ith S o v ie t G ra n d m a s te rs Tigran
P etro sia n a n d L e v P o lu g a e v s k y (center). A le x S u h o b e c k is a t right.

31
 T H E BE ST O F L O N E P IN E

1979
M arch 25-April 4
1979
Rank Player 1979 1979 lO-jr. lO.yr.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sc. BA Sc BA
1 (iligonc W46i 1)45 DI5 W2i ! D191 W18 D7 WI7 D5
(ihcorghiu 64 .722 30 .714
~ tt'48 \ v i ? i D19 0 3 \V8 Dl 7 D6 D7 W12
3 64 .722 28'/: .648
Liber/on W’67 1)28 W55 1)2 W2|1 D9 D19 W6 D4
4 6’/; .722 18 .643
Mori D39 W”4(!i 1)45 WI5; D7 D24 W29 W19 D3
5 64 .722 64 .722
1 arson W47 1.19 W6(li D37 1)31 W32! WI6 D9 Dl 6 .667 19*/: .722
6 Sabos ic W66 1.37 W40| W45 W57’ Wifii D2 L3 D8 6 .667 18 .667
Lombards W43 1)51 1)32 W42 1)4 \V21 Dl D2 D9 6 .667 17 .630
8 Roc W52 1)26 W30 D13 12 W44 DI2 W24 D6 6 .667 12 .667
9 -Sosonko W42 W41 D27 1)19 W37 D3 Dl 7 D5 D7 6 .667 6 .667
10 Cir uon fold D23 1)16 D12 1)30 1.36 W58 W44 VV41 W31 6 .667 6 .667
11 Bisguier 1)60 W49 1.21 1)68 W55 D57 D14 W47 D16 54 .611 364 .570
12 Tar jan 1.51 W’43 1)10 W69 1)14 W'48 D8 W25 L2 5!) .611 344 .595
13 Shamkov uh W38 W65 D37 D8 L17 1)14 W28 D20 DI8 5 ': .611 30! : .575
14 Rotors 1.21 W38 \V58 1)24 D12 DI3 Dll D27 W36 54 .611 27 .628
15 Reshes sk> W58 1)21 Dl 1.4 W40 D36 W26 D31 DI9 54 .611 25'/ .554
16 I oin D56 DIO W54 W'51 W29 L6 L5 W55 D ll 51': .611 21 .597
17 Kaplan 1)30 W70 D26 W23 W13 D2 D9 LI D21 54 .611 20 .588
18 Diescn 1)68 1)29 W7I W44 D26 LI W57 D2I D13 5!/’ .611 17 .531
19 Scirauan W64 W’5 D2 D9 Dl W26 D3 L.4 D15 54 .611 164 .458
20 Morris 1.41 W48 W'65 D31 D27 W23 D24 D13 D22 54 .611 9 .500
21 Korchnoi W 14 1)15 W ll W27 L.3 1.7 W45 DI8 DI7 51 .611 5V .611
22 Pachman W53 1)55 D28 1.29 1.48 W66 W51 W40 D20 51/: .611 5/ .611
23 Bioss no DIO 1)56 W39 1.17 D47 L20 D50 W57 W'55 5 .556 50 .649
24 Biyiasas 1,40 W53 W66 D14 W41 D4 D20 L8 D28 5 .556 32 .533
25 Bonko D7I D44 W56 L57 W5I D28 W'37 L12 D29 5 .556 30'/ .630
26 Miles W69 1)8 1)1 7 W32 DI8 L19 LI5 D43 W'48 5 .556 27 .659
27 Zaltsman W54 W72 1)9 1.21 D20 L29 W48 DI4 D32 5 .556 13'/ .500
28 Olatsson W57 1)3 1)22 LI W72 D25 L13 W45 D24 5 .556 13! .500
29 Dol-irmian 1)31 1)18 W34 VV22 1.16 W27 1.4 D32 1)25 5 .556 12! .500
30 Odondahl 1)17 W35 L8 DIO D34 D33 1.55 W51 W47 5 .556 12! .462
31 Sigurjonsson 1)29 W68 1)51 1)20 D5 D37 W43 D15 1.10 5 .556 11 .579
32 Ligionnk D50 W62 1)7 1.26 W'58 L.5 W56 D29 D27 5 .556 10* .583
33 Raj k o\ ic W63 1.2 1.44 W54 1)43 D30 L40 W67 W’50 5 .556 8 .444
34 Clirislianscn 1 )4 4 1)71 129 1)56 1)30 VV67 D42 D50 D38 4 1• .500 36*' .570
35 Weinstein 1)70 1.30 D49 1.43 1)50 W63 W60 D42 D40 4 1: .500 28! .559
36 Quinteros I 55 W67 1.42 W50 VVIO Dl 5 L.41 VV37 1.14 4‘ : .500 26 .591
37 ledoross ic/ W73 \V6 1)13 D5 1,9 D31 L25 L36 W60 41: .500 19 .422
Janoses ic L. 13 I 14 1.64 D53 W70 W’54 D59 W'52 D34 41: .500 81 .500
*8
39 Van Ricmsdyk 1)4 D50 1.23 158 \\'64 L56 W71 W68 1)43 41: .500 8* .472
W24 1.4 1.6 W73 1.15 W'65 W33 L22 D35 44 .500 8! .472
40 Van dor Storren
W20 1.9 D50 W60 1.24 D68 W36 LI0 D42 44 .500 4* .500
41 Soltis
4! .500 4* .500
42 Ostojic 1 9 W61 W36 1.7 D59 D47 D34 D35 D41
4'/, .500 4* .500
43 Brad lord 1.7 I 12 W46 W 3 5 1)33 W59 L3I D26 D39
44 .500 4* .500
44 (handler 1)34 1)25 W 33 1.18 W'65 L.8 1.10 D46 W59
4 .444 33 .508
45 Circle W61 Dl D4 1.6 1)68 W60 L2I 1.28 D56
4 .375 24 .511
46 lorm anek 1.1 1 54 1.43 1 67 Bye W62 W 5 3 D44 D57
4 .444 15* .408
4’ Strauss L5 W64 1.57 W49 1)23 D42 W 6 8 1.11 L30

(c o n tin u e d on n e xt page)

32
 T H E H IS T O R Y A N D T H E S T A T IS T IC S

1979
( c o m m u t 'd )

1979 1979 1979 10-yr. 10-yr.

Rank Player 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sc. BA Sc. BA
48 Petursson L2 1.20 W53 W62 W22 1.12 1.27 W63 1.26 4 .444 14 .519
49 Da> 1)59 1.11 D35 L47 1.66 W70 1)69 1)54 W67 4 .444 10' : .375
50 Root 1)32 1)39 1)41 1.36 D35 W69 D23 1)34 L33 4 .444 8' 2 .472
51 Bohm W 12 D7 D31 1.16 1.25 W72 1.22 1.30 W64 4 .444 8 .444
52 Watson L8 1.58 W6I D71 1.60 D53 W72 L38 W68 4 .444 8 .500
53 Rind 1.22 1.24 I 48 1)38 W73 D52 1.46 W58 W63 4 .444 7 '-i .417
54 McCambridge 1.27 W46 l 16 13 3 D62 1.38 Wr61 D49 W65 4 .444 7 .389
55 Baric W36 1)22 1.3 1)59 1 11 W71 W30 1.16 1.23 4 .444 4 .444
56 Van der Wiel D16 1)23 1.25 D34 1)63 W39 1.32 D59 D45 4 .444 4 .444
57 Paoloz/i L28 Bye W47 \V25 1.6 D ll 1.18 L23 D46 4 .375 3 .375
58 Benjamin LI 5 W52 1.14 W39 1.32 1.10 D64 L53 W69 3 '/i .389 7'/’ .417
59 Matcra 1)49 1.60 VV72 1)55 1)42 1.43 D38 D56 1.44 3I/: .389 3'/: .389
60 Shirazi D11 W59 1.5 L41 W52 1.45 1.35 W69 1.37 312 .389 3'/: .389
61 Dcnker 1.45 1.42 1.52 Bye 1.67 D64 1.54 D62 W72 3 .250 26' > .482
62 Young worth 1.65 1.32 W67 1.48 D54 L46 1.70 D61 W71 3 .333 9 .333
63 Wilder 1.33 D69 L68 W70 1)56 L35 W66 1.48 1.53 3 .33.3 8 .444
64 Whitehead P 1.19 1.47 W38 L65 1.39 D61 D58 VV66 1.51 3 .333 7 .389
65 Nikolic W62 1.13 1.20 W64 L44 L40_ 1.67 W71 1.54 3 .333 3 .333
66 Blocker 1.6 W73 1.24 1.72 W49 1.22' L63 L64 W70 3 .333 3 .333
67 Zlotnikov L3 1.36 L62 W46 W6I L34 W65 1.33 1.49 3 .333 3 .333
68 Rigo D18 1.31 W63 Dll D45 1)41 1.47 L39 L52 3 .333 3 .333
69 Silman L26 D63 W70 1.12 D71 1.50 D49 L60 1.58 IZi .278 10'/2 .404
70 Balinas D35 1.1.7 L69 1.63 L38 L49 W62 W72 1.66 2 /2 .278 5 Vi .306
71 Whitehead J 1)25 D34 LIS D52 D69 L55 1.39 L65 1.62 2 .222 13 .361
72 Thibault Bye L27 1.59 W66 L28 L51 L52 L70 L6I 2 .125 1 .125
73 Ayyar 1.37 L66 Bye 1.40 L53 — — — — 1 .000 0 .000

33
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

1980
M arch 16-26
1980 1980 1980 10-yr. 10-yr
Rank Player 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sc. BA Sc. BA
1 Dzh’vili D43 L24 D40 W35 W28 W 15 W13 W'4 W7 7 .778 7 .778
2 Miles LI I D19 W43 W42 D7 D12 W15 W 16 W6 6'/: .722 27 .659
3 Gheorghiu W37 LI 3 W24 W32 W 15 D6 L7 D12 W 17 6 .667 28'/: .648
4 Larsen W40 D23 W28 D13 W25 W10 D6 LI D5 6 .667 19/2 .722
5 Balashov W 19 D ll D23 D25 W 13 D16 W22 D6 D4 6 .667 12/2 .694
6 Geller W20 W33 W17 DI5 W9 D3 D4 D5 L2 6 .667 6 .667
7 Alburt W4I LI6 W8 DI7 D2 W25 W3 W9 LI 6 .667 6 .667
8 Gligorie W38 L 15 L7 W40 W20 L13 W36 DI4 W23 5 ’/ ; .611 30 .714
9 Pan no W35 D42 D ll W23 L6 W19 D16 L7 W25 5'/; .611 28/2 .648
10 Peters W36 L25 W26 D ll W 17 L4 D14 W 19 D12 S' /i .611 27 .628
11 Fedorowicz W2 D5 D9 D10 W29 D22 L 12 D13 W20 SZi .611 19 .422
12 Ermenkov L16 D4I W 14 D28 W27 D2 W ll D3 DIO 5'/: .611 5/2 .611
13 Quinteros W34 W3 D25 D4 L5 W8 LI D ll D 14 5 .556 26 .591
14 Petursson D22 L32 L12 W43 W35 W29 DIO D8 D13 5 .556 14 .519
15 Whitehead J W27 W8 W16 D6 L3 LI L2 D28 W32 5 .556 13 .361
16 Wilder W12 W7 L15 D22 W39 D5 D9 L2 D18 5 .556 8 .444
17 Ivanovic W30 W29 L6 D7 LI0 D32 W34 W22 L3 5 .556 5 .556
18 Christiansen L25 L35 W38 W26 L19 W42 D23 D24 D16 4/2 .500 36/2 .570
19 Reshevsky L5 D2 W4I D27 W18 L9 W32 L10 D24 4 /i .500 25/2 .554
20 Kaplan L6 D39 D30 W37 L8 D26 W27 W3I LI 1 4/2 .500 20 .588
21 Henley L29 D30 L39 D41 W37 D3I W26 D25 D22 4/2 .500 14/2 .426
22 Torre DI4 D26 W33 DI6 W34 D ll L5 LI 7 D2I 4/2 .500 10/2 .553
23 Kaufman W31 D4 D5 L9 D32 D34 D18 W30 L8 4/2 .500 8/2 .531
24 Root D28 Wl L3 L39 L31 W38 W42 D! 8 D19 4/2 .500 8/2 .472
25 Arnason J WI8 W10 D13 D5 L4 L7 W29 D2I L9 4/2 .500 4/2 .500
26 Raicevic D32 D22 L10 L18 W38 D20 L2I W42 W36 4/2 .500 4/2 .500
27 Bisguier L15 W38 D35 D19 L12 D33 L20 W34 D28 4 .444 36/2 .570
28 Biyiasas D24 W43 L4 DI2 LI L36 W40 D15 D27 4 .444 32 .533
29 Shamkovich W21 L17 W37 D34 LI 1 L14 L25 W35 D33 4 .444 30/2 .575
30 Lein L17 D21 D20 D33 L42 W41 W35 L23 D3I 4 .444 21/2 .597
31 Liberzon L23 D40 L34 D36 W24 D21 W33 L20 D30 4 .444 18 .643
32 DeFirmian D26 W14 D42 L3 D23 D17 LI9 W36 L15 4 .444 12/2 .500
33 Benjamin W39 L6 L22 D30 D36 D27 L31 W37 D29 4 .444 1 /2 .417
34 Odendahl L13 CR W31 D29 L22 D23 LI 7 L27 D37 3 /2 .389 12/2 .462
35 Rind L9 W18 D27 LI L14 W40 L30 L29 W41 3 /2 .389 1 /2 .417
36 Youngworth L 10 L37 CR D31 D33 W28 L8 L32 L26 3 .333 9 .333
37 Rajkovic L3 W34 L29 L20 L21 D43 W41 L33 D34 3 .333 8 .444
38 Frias L8 1.27 L18 Bye L26 L24 W43 D40 D42 3 .250 2 .250
39 Browne L33 D20 W21 W24 LI6 — — — — 2 /2 .500 50 .649
40 Zaltsman L4 D3I D1 L8 D41 L35 L28 D38 D43 1 /2 .500 13/2 .500
41 Ginsburg L7 D 12 L19 D21 D40 L30 L37 W43 L35 1 /2 .278 2/2 .278
42 Michaelides CR D9 D32 L.2 W30 L18 L24 L26 D38 1 /2 .278 2/2 .278
43 Grefe D1 L28 L2 L.14 CR D37 L38 L41 D40 1Vi .167 33 .508
C R = Crossround: 34 beat 43; 36 beat 42

34
 T H E H IS T O R Y A N D T H E S T A T IS T IC S

Above, one o f the most fam ous ‘'openings” in chess. Below, part o f the
playing area in the new Town Hall, which was opened in 1975.

35
 THE WORLD
CHESS
CHAMPIONS
T o th an k you fo r your interest in R .H .M .
p u b licatio n s, we have p rep ared a u n iq u e guide to the
lives and achievem ents o f the W o rld Chess C h am p io n s
from W ilhelm Steinitz to A n ato ly K arpov.
I t ’s the perfect w ay to learn a b o u t the g reatest players
o f the past an d present, and to in tro d u ce the cham pions
to youngsters an d o thers ju s t startin g to learn a b o u t
chess. W e’re sure y o u ’ll find it a u th o rita tiv e , en­
tertain in g , and p ractical.
Best o f all, it’s free! T o receive y o u r c o p y — along
w ith v a lu a b le in f o r m a t io n about R .H .M .
p u b licatio n s— sim ply send y o u r nam e an d address,
clearly p rin ted , to one o f the addresses below . T h ere is
no charge o r obligation.

U.S., Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico Europe and Elsewhere

CHAMPIONS CHAMPIONS
R.H .M . Press R.H.M . Europe
417 Northern Boulevard 110 Strand
Great Neck, New York 11021 London WC2R OAA, England

36
The Tournaments and the Games
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

Larry Evans, winner o f the first Lone Pine tournament (1971)

38
 1971
The Dawn of An Era
Like the first gray light o f dawn, which carries no hint o f the brilliance soon
to follow, Louis D. Statham ’s now world-famous Lone Pine tournam ent had a
modest beginning. It began in 1971 when International G randm aster Isaac
Kashdan, a world-class player in the 1930’s who is now writing a weekly chess
column for the Los Angeles T im e s and directing m ajor tournaments, paid a
visit to the National Open tournam ent in Reno, Nevada, to invite the players to
a brand-new tournam ent.
“ It’s going to take place at Lone Pine, a flyspeck of a town about two
hundred miles south of Reno on Highway 395,” he told the players assembled
at the N ational’s closing banquet. “ The first game of a seven-round swiss will
begin this Sunday, two days from today, at p re c ise ly one P .M .” Kashdan
spoke emphatically, with an air o f authority that left no doubt who would be in
charge. “ Mr. Louis D. Statham ,” he continued, pronouncing the name state-
'em , “ a wealthy retired inventor who recently moved to Lone Pine, is the
tournam ent’s sole sponsor. There’s no entry fee, anyone holding at least an
Expert’s rating is eligible to play, and the prize fund totals twenty-five hundred
dollars! See you at the players’ meeting in Lone Pine tom orrow evening at
seven.”
Beaming, Kashdan left the podium as the room exploded with the excited
chatter o f the chess masters. Their talk ran the gam ut from keen anticipation to
skepticism of what was then an unusually large prize fund. Then, too, there
: was disappointment for those not qualified to play. To make sure that those
who were qualified didn’t get sidetracked, the generous Mr. Statham, true to
the traditions of the Old West, was offering a bounty of ten dollars a head to
anyone who would ferry players from Reno to Lone Pine.

A lthough spring was only a week away, the chilly mountain breezes o f early
evening sent the thirty-three newcomers who had made the four-hour drive
from Reno scurrying for the warmth of the V.F.W . hall. A low, L-shaped
building that had once been a barracks, the V.F.W . hall stood at the end o f an
unpaved street at the south end o f town, about one block west of Main Street, a
euphemism for that short segment o f U.S. Highway 395 which splits the town

39
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

in two with an endless stream of automobile and truck traffic. The players
boisterously entered the main hall and found seats at the tables upon which
they would soon be playing out their strategies. K ashdan, lean, bespectacled,
his lip adorned by a Groucho mustache, stood at the far end o f the room
impatiently shuffling some papers as he waited for the hubbub to subside.
Finally he began to speak.
“ Welcome to Lone Pine and the first Louis D. Statham Masters-Experts
Chess Tournam ent,” he began. “ This tournam ent will be played under the
rules o f FIDE, the International Chess Federation. The time control is forty-
five moves in two-and-a-half hours . . .”
Immediately a hand shot up. It belonged to twenty-two-year-old Walter
Shawn Browne, the young firebrand of American chess. “ Uh, K ash,” he began
haltingly, weighing his words as though they were moves in a critical position
during a game, “ why isn’t the time limit f o r t y in two and a half, the same as a
normal international event?” A confirmed time-pressure addict, Browne was
understandably concerned about the time limit.
“ Because,” came the casual response, “ this way there’ll be fewer adjourned
gam es.” And Kashdan went on with his prepared remarks: “ The second time
control will be sixteen moves per hour . . . ”
Again Browne’s hand shot up. “ But Kash, when the time limit’s forty in two
and a half, then it’s sixteen in one. So shouldn’t the second playing session here
be similarly proportional to the first?”
Kashdan hesitated. The furrowed brow of the captain o f the S.S. Lone Pine
revealed that he hadn’t expected his passengers to start rocking the boat even
before they’d cast off. “ Well, W alter, it’s just simpler this w ay,” he answered
patiently, as though speaking to a five-year-old who’d just asked a question
about quantum mechanics.
“ But K ash,” persisted Browne, “ I . . .”
“ Sorry W alter,” Kashdan cut in. “ T hat’s the way I ’ve decided it will be, so
th at’s the way it’s going to b e.” The tone o f irrefutable finality in his voice
silenced not only Browne, who looked piqued, but also anyone who might have
been thinking of taking his side. “ The games will be played from one to six
P .M .,” Kashdan went on. “ Adjournm ents will follow two hours later.” There
followed a short discussion concerning the length o f the first adjournm ent
session and the distribution o f the prizes, and then the meeting broke up.
The players spilled from the stuffy hall into the peaceful night. Countless
stars twinkled overhead, beckoning to be touched. The crickets and other night
creatures sang their choruses—did they sense that their Lone Pine would never
be the same after tomorrow? The players quietly hurried to their rooms for a
good night’s sleep or last-minute reviews o f their favorite openings. Everything
presaged a wonderful tournament.

40
 1971: T H E D A W N O F A N E R A

It was ten o’clock on a bright, sunny Sunday morning. Grandmasters

Svetozar Gligoric of Yugoslavia and Larry Evans o f Reno were breakfasting in
a small cafe. Bobby Fischer had recently won the Palm a de M ajorca Interzonal
by a convincing margin. “ Bobby’s going all the way this tim e,’’ Evans
declared. “ It’ll be the biggest thing th at’s ever happened to chess. In fact, it’s
impossible to gauge the effects his winning the world championship will have
on chess in A m erica.”
“ Yes, Bobby seems to be reaching his peak,” agreed Gligoric. The words of
the handsome, dapper Yugoslav, known throughout the world as Gliga, the
dom inant force in Yugoslav chess since the 1950’s, were weighted with the
authority of one who had personally conducted numerous memorable games
with Fischer.
Just then James T arjan entered the cafe. Intense and ambitious, the young
C alifornia master curtly greeted his colleagues and took a corner table by
himself. With Fischer, who had just turned twenty-eight, now reaching for the
world championship, Americans were looking hopefully at its younger talents.
Already the 20-year-old Tarjan was being compared to the legendary Alekhine,
for they shared a propensity for ferocious attacking play, both had a
preference for solitude, and both had the obsessive habit o f twirling a lock of
hair during play. The grandmasters in the cafe must have been speculating
about Tarjan at that moment. The idea of an American world champion was
intoxicating—though Fischer was still to face one-on-one matches with
Taimanov, Larsen, Petrosian, and, if successful, finally Spassky. Through the
window of the cafe could be seen Mount Whitney, a towering, jagged, snow­
capped peak over fourteen thousand feet high, the highest point in the con­
tiguous United States. Could Tarjan, like Alekhine before and perhaps Fischer
now, move such mountains?

“ The Lone Pine Experience,” as Kashdan dubbed it, confronted the players
with one new phenomenon after another. Up to now, many o f them had never
experienced such a small town or such a big mountain. Or had faced the
possibility of meeting world-renowned grandmasters over the board. Or had
met a man as impossibly wealthy as Louis D. Statham.
He was dressed in a short-sleeve gray jum psuit, his husky frame contrasting
sharply with K ashdan’s leanness. W arm, friendly eyes flashed above a strong
nose and a wide, thin-lipped mouth, which opened in a Texas-sized smile as he
spoke. “ On behalf of my wife Doris and myself, I’d like to welcome you all to
Lone Pine.” His folksy drawl, not what one would expect from a financial
wizard, was disarming. “ We hope to be seeing more of you as the tournament
progresses. Good luck to you all.” And Mr. Statham, a man of action rather
than words, almost immediately left the hall. The pretournam ent jitters

41
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

common to all chess players at im portant encounters began to evaporate as

they started their clocks and settled down to the serious business of playing
chess. The first Lone Pine tournam ent had begun.
Except for a m ajor upset in the very first round—“ Dirty Jim ” McCormick
of Seattle defeated Evans when the former U.S. Champion overpressed in a
drawn ending—everything proceeded normally for the top players. The
tournam ent’s best game came in round four, when T arjan made Browne a
Knight offer he couldn’t refuse and then forced an easily won pawn ending.
A fter five rounds T arjan had a perfect score and enjoyed a half-point lead. His
streak was broken by a draw with Gligoric in round six, but he still held a half­
point edge over Evans, Browne, and Gligoric. In the final round Evans
defeated Tarjan in a dramatic game whose outcom e was in doubt for many
moves, and thus he captured the winner’s purse of one thousand dollars with
an unmatched 6-1 score. The Browne-Gligoric encounter finished in a draw.
William M artz o f Wisconsin also finished with five and a half points.
A fter each round, the Stathams invited five or six players to their home for
dinner. The engaging conversation, the elegant surroundings, and the
Statham s’ cordial hospitality made this tournam ent a truly enjoyable ex­
perience for every player, no m atter what his score. A lavish cocktail party
following the last round was equalled by a sumptuous awards lunch the next
afternoon. During the banquet Kashdan confidently predicted that Lone Pine
would soon become known throughout the chess world as the home of the
world’s premier chess tournam ent. At the time, no one could have known how
true his prophetic words were.

42
 1971: T H E D A W N O F A N E R A

Round One
Larry Evans, winner of the first
Lone Pine tournam ent, was also the
first of many grandm asters to lose
here against an untitled player.

Black: J. McCormick

5 3 ... g4?

The road to victory is 53 ... gxh4

54 <2?e4 c5 55 ® f3 # 4 7 56 <S>g2 <g>(6
57 <$>h3 # c 5 58 ® xh4 ® d4 59 ® xh5
® c3 60 # g 5 a5 61 <S»f5 ® b2 62 ^ e 5
<$>xa2 63 ^ d 5 <$>xb3 64 ®xc5 a4 65
White: L. Evans
® d5 a3, etc.

White has been trying very hard to

54 ®>e4 <S>f7 55 b4 <S>e6 56 a3 ®>d6
make something out of nothing for
57 <S>f4 <§>c7 58 # e 3 ® b6 59 # d 3 c5
many moves. Now he sees that after
60 <2?e4 cxb4 61 axb4 a5 62 bxa5 +
48 <S>c2 # c 3 + 49 <§>dl # a l + Black
<S>xa5 63 c5?
picks up the Queenside pawns, so he
has little choice.
Due to Black’s erroneous 53rd
move, White can hold the draw with
48® a3
63 <2?d3! ® a4 64 ® e 4 ® b4 65 ® d4,
etc. Now he is lost again, this time
But now, by means of a little for good.
combination, Black brings the game
to a winning pawn ending, and a very
63 ... ® a6 64 <S'd4 # b 7 65 <S?e4
interesting one.
<$>c7 66 # e 3 ® d7 67 ®d3 # c 6 68
<$>d4 <5>b5 69 ® d5 g3 70 c6 ®>b6 71
48 ... # x c 5 + ! 49 # x c 5 J if8 50 ® d 6 g2 72 c7 g l # 73 c 8 # # d 4 + 74
# b 4 iS,xb4 + 51 ® xb4 h5 52 <S>c5 g5 >®e7.#xh4 + 75 ®*f8 # 1 4 + 76 ® c8
53® d 4 # e 5 + White resigns.

43
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

Round Four 15 Axg7 ®>xg7

16 4 3 d l exf5
Sicilian Defense 17 c3 43e6
18 exf5 .^xg2
J. Tarjan W. Browne 19 <§>xg2 43 c7
1 e4 c5 20 £)e3 g5?
2 4)f3 d6
3 43c3 a6 Weakening the Kingside proves
4 g3 •&g4 fatal. Black should have preferred 20
5 iS.g2 4)c6 ... # d 7 and 21 ... S ae8 .
6 d3
21 £)f3 h6
The game Biyiasas-Timman (Wijk 22 d4! fie8
aan Zee 1980) contained a wicked 23 Sael 43 e4
trap: 6 h3 Jixf3 7 # x f3 g6 8 e5! dxe5 24 #d3 c4
9 # x c 6 + ! bxc6 10 ,§.xc6 + # d 7 11 25 #dl 43f6
JS,xd7 + Sf?xd7 12 43a4, and Black’s 26 d5 #d7
weak pawns cost him the game. 27 h4 g4
28 43d4 Se4
6 g6
7 ie 3 ^g7
8 #d2 4)f6

The game will now transpose into

a normal Closed Sicilian line in
which Black’s 3 ... a6 and 4 ... JS,g4
are simply lost tempos whereas 10 h3
is a useful move for White. Thus 8 ...
&xf3! is the correct move.

9 43 h4! 0-0
10 h3 JS,d7
11 0-0 4)d4 29 4)e6 + !!
12 f4 Ac6
13 f5 b5 “ W aiter, there’s a horsefly in my
14 e6 soup!”

Trying to snatch material only 29 ... 43xe6

backfires: 14 ... jfi,xh6 15 # x h 6 b4
16 43d1 4)xc2 17 e5! S ,x g 2 18 exf6 Acquiescing to an elementary
exf6 19'2?xg2 4)xal 20 4)e3. losing endgame rather than enduring

44
 1971: T H E D A W N O F A N E R A

the slaughter of 29 ... fxe6 30 fxe6 5 ... 0-0 6 &M3 c5 7 d5

# e 8 (30 ... &xe6 31 H xf6! <2>xf6 32
£)xg4 + , etc.) 31 <Sf5 + ® h7 32 7 Jle 2 cxd4 8 53xd4 transposes to
S xe4 £)xe4 33 # x g 4 . Declining the a Maroczy Bind in which Black has
offer doesn’t help because of 30 little trouble equalizing because of
# d 2 !. the loosening effects of 5 f4.

30 fxe6 fxe6 7 ... e6 8 Jile2 exd5 9 exd5

31 Hxf6! ® xf6
32 43xg4 + Bxg4 The more dynamic 9 cxd5 pits
33 #xg4 He8 W hite’s central majority against
34 dxe6 Hxe6 Black’s Queenside majority, which is
35 Hxe6 + #xe6 supported by his powerful fian-
36 #xe6 + ®>xe6 chettoed Bishop. Approximately
37 g4 ® e5 equal chances in a complex struggle
38 <S>f3 d5 is theory’s judgm ent.
39 g5 Ii5
40 ® e3 a5 9 . . .£>h5 1 0 # d 2 ?
41 ® f3 b4
42 ® e3 a4 As bad as it looks. On 10 0-0 Black
43 cxb4 d4 + can try 10 ... Jilxc3! 11 bxc3 £)g7,
44 ®>d2 a3 planning to hem in W hite’s Bishops
45 bxa3 d3 behind their own pawns. The
46 <£>e3 Black resigns sacrifice 12 f5!? then leads to in­
teresting play.

Gligoric is noted for preferring 1 0 .. . H c8 11 <3?f2 JS,g4! 12 g3

quiet, methodical play, but here he
smokes out the White King with a The threat was 12 ... Jix f3 13
series of sharp sacrifices. J^,xf3 Jid 4 + .

King’s Indian Defense 1 2 .. .£>d7 13 h3?

E. Martinowsky S. Gligoric 13 B e l! might hold; e.g., 13 ...

1 d4 £)f6 2 c4 g6 3 £)c3 4 e4 A x e l 14 # x c 3 £>df6 15 # c 2 £>e4 +
d6 5 f4 16 <S>g2 # a 5 17 & e3!, and Black
can’t play 17 ... Qexg3 because o f 18
The Four Pawns A ttack gives Jid 2 . Perhaps Black planned 14 ...
White the option of steering for a b5>.
razor-edged battle or a quiet
positional game. 1 3 .. . 6 . c 3 ! 14 bxc3

45
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

14 # x c 3 ? loses to 14 ... B xe2 + also playable) 20 ... B e8 21 S ,d 2 ,

and 15 ... 5)xg3 + . and Black’s attack peters out. 16 ...
# x g 4 ! gives at least a draw, but no
1 4 ... 4)df6 more than that if White finds the
right moves; e.g., 17 S g l # h 3 18
The most accurate continuation 42>g5 4)g4 + and 19 ... 43h2 + , etc. If
may be 14 ... E)hf6 15 A d3 (15 ® g2 17 ... B e4!? 18 # d l ! (1 8 # c 2 B ae8
£)e4 16 # c 2 £)xc3!) 15 ... 16 19 Jid 2 # h 3 , or 19 4)g5 B e l! , and
<S?xf3 b5! 17 cxb5 c4!, etc.. Black wins) 18 ... B ae8 19 <?3g5! (not
19 <Sd2? B x f 4 + !!) and Black is
15 ^.d3 repulsed. Now the Black attack
gathers hurricane force.

16 ... JS.xf5 17 g4 Axg4 18 hxg4

S3xg4+ 19 <S>gl Be3+ 20 # d l
Bae8 21 Bh4 43f4 22 Jixe3 Bxe3 23
& fl h5!

Black already has three pawns for

his Rook, and his mass of pieces on
the Ringside completely dominates
that sector, allowing him to slowly
build his attack while White looks on
helplessly.
15 ...# d 7 ! ?
24 B b l # e 7 25 Bb2 # e4 26 Bf2
A courageous move, but one £>xf2 27 ®xf2 Bxc3 28 Bxf4 #xf4
which gives White drawing op­ 29 # e 2 g5 30 'S>g2 Be3 31 # f2
portunities. 15 ... J^.f5! 16g4! 4)xf4! # g 4 + White resigns.
17 gxf5 H e 2 + ! 18 ^.xe2 £)e4 + 19
<S>fl £3xd2+ 20 ^.xd2 £)xe2 21 Round Five
® xe2 # e 7 + 22 <$>f2 (22 <§>d3 # f 6 ) T his gam e is an excellent
22 ... # e 4 , mopping up W hite’s illustration of the maxim that once
pawns and continuing to harass the the initiative is lost through inac­
King, is probably best. curate play, it swings strongly to the
opposite side.
16 f5?l
Czech Benoni
J. Loftsson J. Grefe
16hxg4£)xg4+ 1 7 ® g 2 £ )e 3 + 18
# x e 3 ! (18 <S>f2 <Sxg3!) 18 ... Bxe3 1 d4 &f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e5 4 £)c3 d6
19 ^.xe3 # g 4 20 S h 3 (20 Hxh5 is 5 e4 &,el

46
 1971: T H E D A W N O F A N E R A

White has great freedom in thinkable because then W hite’s King

deploying his pieces whereas Black’s Knight easily hops to the excellent
coming moves are practically forced. square e3.
In any case, the blocked center
necessitates pawn advances on the 16 bxc5 bxc5 17 fxe5 dxe5 18 43d3
wings.
Although White stands better, his
6 £)f3 0-0 7 ,ke2 «Be8 8 0-0 g6 9 a3 counterpart’s solid assets cannot be
f5 ig n o red — the ideal square d6
beckoning Black’s King Knight, the
Som ew hat p rem atu re. Black open g-file, and the dynamic
should preface this break with ... potention of his central phalanx.
4Dg7 and ... 43d7.
18 ... # e 7 19 £>a4&d7
10 exf5 gxf5 11 4Del <£>h8

Continuing to court disaster by

ignoring development. The natural
11 ... Jig5, intending to exchange his
inferior Bishop, leads to a White
advantage after 12 f4 Jix f4 13 ilx f4
exf4 14 £)d3.

12 b4 b6 13 ^.b2!

An unusual square for the Bishop

in this opening, especially since
White plans to operate on the b-file. 20 # e 3 ?
But the Bishop’s bead on the distant
Black King is very disconcerting to Is the f-pawn taboo? White
his opponent. wrongly rejected 20 flx 15! because
o f 20 ... £)d6 21 Hxf6! £)xc4,
13 ... Jif6 14 # d 2 Hg8 15 f4 a6 overlooking 22 £)xe5!l and White
wins in all variations: 22 ... 4Ddxe5
15 ... 5lM 7 is definitely better, 23 i£.xc4 # x f 6 24 # e 3 ; 22 ... 4Dxb2
since now White succeeds in blasting 23 £>f7 + ; 22 ... £>cxe5 23 B e6; 22
open the center while Black’s pieces ... £>xd2 23 £>xd7 # e 3 + 24 ® h l
languish on the back rank. With the Jlxd7 25 B f7 + . Also insufficient is
text move Black rather optimistically 21 ... # x f 6 22 43dxc5 £>xc5 23 ©xc5
planned the Rook transfer ... H a7- & h3 24 g3 (24 ^ .f l? ©xc41, and
g7. The advance 15 ... e4 is un­ Black lacks one tempo for seizing the

47
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

initiative). Now White is thrown on This loses quickly, but after 27

the defensive. Sl?hl # f 6 White is soon overrun.

20 ... # g 7 ! 27 ... £)f3 + 28 ® h l &xf2 29

# x d 6 J&gl!
Not 20 ... f4? 21 H xf4!.
The King Bishop has the final
21 B f 2 S b 8 ! 22 & t l word. A curious sidelight is that its
colleague, the Queen Bishop, doesn’t
If 22 £)dxc5 f4 23 # c l £)xc5 24 budge for the entire game.
43xc5Bxb2! 25 # x b 2 e4, and Black
wins. 30 gxf3

22... £)d6! On 30 h3 f4 31 # x f 4 ^.xh3! 32

gxh3 (32 gxf3 ^ .x fl) 32 ... A e3 33
# x e 3 # g l + 3 4 # x g l H xgl is mate.

30 ... J if2 31 -&H3 # g l + White

resigns.

Round Six
Here is the game that decided first
place.

Sicilian Defense
If 23 £>axc5 f4 24 # c l £)xc5 25
J. Tarjan L. Evans
S x c5 B xb2! 26 # x b 2 (26 Bxb2
# a 7 ) 26 ... e4 27 # b 6 & ,x a \ 28 1 e4 c5
# x d 6 Jie5 29 # b 6 Jid 4 , and Black 2 £>c3 S)c6
wins. W hite’s best is probably 23 3 f4 e6
# c l ! , though Black would continue 4 43f3 d5
as in the game, the dark-square 5 Jib5 £)f6
Bishop being worth at least a Rook.
On 23 B e l, Black would o f course Theory considers 5 . .. <5ge7 bi
continue23 ... Jig5.
6 isLxcb + bxc6
23 ... Bxb2! 24 £>xb2 e4 25 B b l 7 d3 i^,a6
A d4 26 # f 4 £)e5 27 <Sb3 8 e5

48
 1971: T H E D A W N O F A N E R A

White wishes to keep the position 19 #g4 #h7

closed in order to restrict Black’s 20 ®g2!
potentially dangerous Bishop pair.
20 # x e 6 + ? ends in zugzwang for
8 ... £)d7 White after 20 .. . ® d8 21 <$>g2
9 0-0 c4 # h 2 + 22 <§>f3 B f8 + 23 <S>e2
10 d4 &,el # h 5 + 24 g4 # h 3 . Black threatens
11 3&.e3 B b8 25 ... B b 6 and 26 ... c5, while 25
12 Bbl g6! B g l loses to 25 ... S x f2 + 26 <S?xf2
JsLe3 + .
B lack alertly refrain s from
prematurely committing his King, 20 ... #h2 +
since it may prove safer in the 21 ®>f3 #h5
middle. 12 ... 0-0 13 g4 'f5 14 h3 22 #xh5 Hxh5
provides White with a clear plan of 23 ® g2 j£,e7
attack; e.g., !$ )h2, S g l-g 2 , •Se2-g3,
etc. Chances are roughly equal with
lots of play left, but White goes
13 g4 h5 astray trying to force matters.
14 f5
24 £>f3 c5
A risky decision, though not 25 g4 H h8
necessarily a bad one. Simple and 26 A e3 Sb7
good is 14 h3. 27 dxc5?!

14 hxg4 27 B h l ! is equal.
15 fxe6 fxe6
16 © el -S.g5 27 ... © x c5
17 AS2 g3! 28 £)d4 ^.d8!
18 hxg3 #e7 29 t£)c6 Jib 6
30 £)b4 Bbh7
31 4c)xa6

White realizes the sudden danger

to his King too late. 31 iix c5 loses to
31 ... S h 2 + 32 ® f3 B 8 h 3 + 33
® f4 Jixc5, threatening 34 ... Jie3
mate!

31 ... B h2 +
32 ® g3 H8h3 +

49
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

33 <S>f4 Sidestepping the final trap: 33 ...

43e4?, menacing both 34 ... Jkxe3
mate and 34 .. . g5 mate, permits
W hite to slip the noose with 34
S c 7 + <$>d7 (34 ... Jixc7 35 ©xe4)
35 £}7xd5!, etc.

34 ^.d8 +
35 Hf6 £3xe5
36 £>c7 + ® d7
37 B b fl S x e3
38 £>xe6 Jk.xt 6 +
39 B xf6 £)f3 +
White resigns

J a m e s T a rja n J o h n G re fe

50
 1972
The Philosopher Stoned
If you happen to live in Berkeley, California, Walter Browne’s home town,
there are several ways to reach Lone Pine during early spring. You can take
Interstate 5 south to Bakersfield, head east along 178, skirting Sequoia
National Forest, and then backtrack north on 395 for about a hundred miles.
Or you can fly over the Sierra Nevada Mountains from Fresno to Mammoth
and then drive the remaining hundred miles south. Or, if you’re W alter’s
friend, you might catch a ride with him in his BMW, taking U.S. 80 east to
Tahoe, then turning south to Lone Pine, a trip of just over four hundred miles.
Dennis W aterman and Larry Gilden had opted for this latter course. Now
the three chess masters were in Browne’s car, zipping along the mountain roads
south of Tahoe. The conversation had just switched from movies to
philosophy, Gilden’s favorite subject. As he tried to enlighten his companions
on various abstruse points, he could see that they were becoming more and
more puzzled.
“ Stop the car, stop the car!” he yelled. Browne glanced at him in the rear­
view m irror and, sensing the urgency in his voice, pulled off the road. Larry
jumped from the car, got Walter to open the trunk, and removed a large piece
o f cardboard from a tattered suitcase. He climbed back into the car. “ This will
explain everything,” he said, flashing a trium phant, slightly maniacal smile.
“ W hat’s th a t1. ” asked Waterman.
" T h i s , ” said Larry proudly, thrusting the printed side o f the cardboard into
W aterm an’s face as if it were the world’s rarest diamond, “ is my philosophy
chart.”
“ Your w h a t1 ” said Browne incredulously.
“ My philosophy chart,” repeated Gilden. Browne groaned. “ You see,
W alter, this chart is my attempt to organize all existing philosophical systems
into a cohesive w hole.”
“ O h-h-h,” groaned the other two in unison.
“ H ere,” said Gilden, pointing to something scrawled in pencil in the upper
left corner, “ we have epistemology.” The chart, his listeners saw, was
crisscrossed with vertical and horizontal lines that divided it into about twenty
squares. “ And here we have . . .”

51
T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

Svelozar G lig o ric

52
 1972: T H E P H IL O S O P H E R S T O N E D

Gilden went on like this for what seemed like a long time, as though he was
trying to explain the maze o f concepts to himself. His captive audience couldn’t
make sense o f what he was saying, so they ^ank into silence. But on he went, his
enthusiasm undampened.
Meanwhile, the other players, chugging along in a chartered bus on the hot
dusty road from Los Angeles to Lone Pine, were engaged mostly in more
down-to-earth topics. Uppermost in their minds were Bobby Fischer’s recent
successes in the candidates matches and his eagerly awaited match with World
Champion Boris Spassky. In the past year Fischer had successively dispatched
three of the world’s best grandmasters by unheard-of margins. He seemed
destined to explode the idea propounded by Botvinnik that the world champion
is merely “ foremost among equals.” The prospect o f an American world
champion especially excited the younger masters who were coming to Lone
Pine with the intention of scalping some renowned grandmasters. Eventually,
they hoped, they too would become full-time chess professionals capable of
beating anybody.
In fact this was one of the ra iso n s d 'e tr e ehind the Lone Pine tournaments:
to provide an arena where America’s young stars could joust with the world’s
best. Louis Statham, seated in his favorite leather arm chair one evening after
dinner, explained his idea to a diverse group of eager listeners, most o f them
players in the tournament: “ After I retired, my interest in chess was rekindled
and I began playing postal chess. Then I heard about the tournament in Reno
and thought about all those chess masters being so near at hand. One thing led
to another and I got in touch with Kash to discuss the possibility of holding a
tournam ent here in Lone Pine. There seemed to be so many good reasons to do
it that I soon gave the go-ahead. The players wouldn’t have all the distractions
of Reno and could enjoy a full week of fresh, clean air. And our talented
youngsters wouldn’t have to travel half way around the world to earn their
spurs. W e’d bring the grandmasters to t h e m ."

Most of the players stayed at the Dow Villa, a hotel-motel complex fronting
on Main Street. The modern motel is indistinguishable from countless others
exactly like it, but the hotel, its halcyon days long gone, possesses a per­
sonality. The stucco facade of the two-story building is painted light green. The
rooms are small, cheap, and clean, the mattresses well worn. Several heartily
snoring old-timers occupy threadbare chairs in the lobby. When awake, they
give their attention to a battered TV set upon which rests a sign admonishing
OFF BY 11:30! The walls are hung with faded paintings depicting the lore of
the Old West.
When the tournam ent’s night people lose interest in the adjourned games
they commandeer the lobby. They sprawl across the floor, watch TV, play five-

53
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

minute chess and backgammon, and loudly analyze the day’s best games. Other
players, eschewing the conviviality at the Dow and preferring isolation and
study, are rarely seen except in the tournament hall.
Between rounds the players keep busy swimming, playing tennis and soft-
ball, horseback riding, and taking short excursions into the surrounding
countryside. One o f the most compelling natural attractions is the Alabama
Hills. To reach them, you drive four miles west on Whitney Portal Road, then
turn north onto Movie R oad—so named because in the early movie days
Hollywood production companies would flock here to film action-packed
Westerns against the dram atic backdrop of the Hills.

Although Louis Statham more than doubled the prize fund this year, to fifty-
five hundred dollars, and an advertisement in C h e ss L i f e & R e v ie w magazine
announced the tournam ent well in advance, attendance increased by a mere
two players over last year, to thirty-five. Nevertheless, the tournam ent was
significantly stronger, with a jum p in the average rating from last year’s 2190
to this year’s 2262. A rthur Bisguier’s Lone Pine debut made a total of four
grandmasters, as Browne, Gligoric, and Evans all returned. Two international
masters added clout—Dr. Anthony Saidy of C alifornia and Arnold Denker of
Florida, the latter a former United States Champion.
The juniors and unknown masters grabbed most of the headlines, however,
as the tournam ent turned into a grandmaster W aterloo. In round one, fifteen-
year-old Larry Christiansen o f Riverside, California, held Browne to a draw.
Grandmaster Browne then lost in round three, again in round four (to twenty-
year-old California Champion Kim Commons), and once again in the last
round, to finish with a miserable (for him) fifty percent score. Bisguier chalked
up the same result by drawing three and losing two, while Evans, who couldn’t
play the last round because o f an emergency, scored only three points. Only
Svetozar Gligoric upheld the honor of the grandmasters, winning the tour­
nament with a convincing 6-1 score. After an early draw with the Venezuelan
master Laszlo Binet in round two, he split a point only once more, with Tarjan
in round six. A four-way tie at 5-2 included Tarjan, Saidy, Karklins, and
Brandts.
Larry Christiansen, whose future would include a tie for first place in the
U.S. Invitational Championship in 1980, posted a 4-3 result here, and Kim
Commons, who would also later be invited to his country’s most prestigious
invitational tournam ent, scored 41/2-2 V i.

54
 1972: T H E P H IL O S O P H E R S T O N E D

R ound One wins, as in Kupper-Olafsson (Zurich

1959). With his next move White
Sicilian Defense secures his advantage, and it is
difficult to begin recommending
W. Goichberg L. Evans ways for Black to save the game. He
1 e4 c5 2 £)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 S x d 4 should have tried 11 ... e6.
£>f6 5 £>c3 a6 6 f4 # c 7 7 ^.d3 g6 8
0-0 &g7 9 £>f3 <E)bd7 10 a4 16 g4!

An im portant alternative is 10 Not 16 Hf3?! 43h5! with a slight

Sl?hl. The game Shamkovich-Grefe edge for Black.
(New York 1978) continued 10 ... 0-0
11 # e l e5 (11 ... e6 may be better) 12
16 ...# c 5 + 17 <3?hl b5 18 axb5
15!? (also possible is 12 fxe5, hoping axb5 19 H f3
to continue as in the game) 12 ... b5
13 a3 A b l 14 A g5 & .c 6 15 63d2 # b 7
19 Jixb5 43xe4 is satisfactory for
16 # h 4 , with a small advantage for
Black.
White.
The gam e Polugaevsky-S ax
(Hilversum 1973) entered unclear 19 ... b4 20 £>e2 # e 7 21 S h 3
complications immediately with 10
# e l S)c5!? 11 'S ’hl b5 i2e5. Another way to win is 21 £)g3
S a 8 22 S g l ”# c 5 (22 ... ilh 8 22
£)xh7, or 22 ... S fe 8 23 £)f5) 23
©f5!j&,h8 24 Jix f8 , etc.

21 ... Jih 8 22 H f l

Not 22 43xh7? £>xe4! (22 ...

£)xh7? 23 JS.g5! f6 24 ^.c4 + ) 23
‘S ’gl # x h 4 24 S x h 4 H a8, putting
Black on top.

22 ... Hc8 23 Jix f8 S x f8 24 <Sg3

10 ... 0-0 11 # e l e5 12 # h 4 b6 13 0 x 7 25 b3! & g7 26 £>xf7! ®>xf7 27
fxeS dxe5 14 .£.h6 J ib 7 15 £>g5 g5 .Sx8 28 gxf6 ,S.xf6 29 ^.c4 +
Hae8 S xc4

After 15 ... £)h5? 16 JsLxg7 'S ’xg? O r 29 ... ® g7 30 # h 6 + <$>h8 31

17 S x f7 + ! <®g8 18 S g 7 + ! White £)h5! Jixh3 32 0 x f6 , etc.

55
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

along the open e-file present a

greater liability than the weakened
dark squares of Black’s Kingside.

7 bxc3 # a 5

The gam e Q u in tero s-F isch er

(Buenos Aires 1970) continued 7 ...
& f6 8 f3 d6 (8 ... # a 5 9 & d2 d5 10
cxd5 # x d 5 11 e4 # c 5 12 # e 2 0-0 13
# e 3 # x e 3 + 14 43xe3 b6 led to
equal chances in Stein-Matulovic,
1968) 9 e4 & e6 10 ^.e2 Hc8 11 £le3
30 # x h 7 + ??
# a 5 12 Jid 2 £)e5 13 # b 3 £)fd7 14
f4 S c 5 15 # c 2 4l)c6, giving Black
This colossal blunder loses the
the better position.
game. White should win after 30
bxc4 Jixh3 31 # x h 3 ; e.g., 31 ...
® g8 32 # c 8 followed by 33 c5.

30 ... <S ’e8!l 31 # x e 7 + &,xel 32

bxc4 Jkxh3 33 H a l JLe6 34 £ )fl
&xc4 35 £>e3 &e6 36 Ha5 £)d7 37
£)d5 &xd5 38 Hxd5 ^,c5 39 <S>g2
® e7 40 ® f3 ® e6 41 Hd2 .6(14 42
Hg2 <S>f6 43 <5>e2 <Sc5 44 ®>f3 £>e6
45 Hg4 ^ c 5 46 <S>e2 £>f4+ 47 ®>d2
Jid4 48 ®>el fl?e6 49 'S?d2 <g>d6 50
Hh4 &c3 + 51 <$>dl <$>05 52 Hh8
9£?d4 White resigns.

R ound Three This daring idea should not change

the evaluation of this line if Black
English Opening responds accurately.
C. Brasket W. Browne
8 ... d6
1 c4 c5 2 £)e3 g6 3 £)f3 Jig7 4 d4
cxd4 5 ©xd4 S)c6 6 S c 2 JS,xc3 + 1 B lack’s position looks very
unappetizing after 8 ... # x c 3 + 9
Grandmaster practice during the J k d 2 # a 3 10 £>d5 ® f8 (10 ... # d 6
past decade has clearly demonstrated 11 J ic 3 e5 12 f4 f6 13 h4!) 11 Jkc3 f6
that the doubled isolated pawns 12 # d 2 .

56
 1972: T H E P H I L O S O P H E R S T O N E D

9 g3 -&e6 10 &g2 B c8 11 0-0 a piece) 22 S x c l f6 23 # x b 7 # d 8

£)f6?! (otherwise 24 AdS + <§>118 25 # e 7 )
24 ,fexa3 £)xa3 25 # a 6 wins a piece.
11 ... b6! preserves Black’s ad­
vantage. 21 &.T6 # b 4 22 # e 3 £)d4 23 J if l!
Q de2+ 24 itx e2 £)d5 25 # d 4
12 ® d5 &xd5 13 cxd5 £>e5 14 B xcl + 26 S x c l # a 3 27 ,&g5 £>e7
^,e3 0-0 15 JS,d4 £)c4 16 e4 £)a3 17 28 iid 3 f6 29 &h6 £)c6 30 # d 5 +
e5! £)xd5? §>h8 31 S e l Hg8

The high cost of feeding this

ravenous horse two White pawns—
namely, the opening of both long
diagonals—bankrupts the Black
kingdom. The more restrained 17 ...
dxe5 18 & x e 5 S fd 8 19 Ji.xf6 exf6 20
# b 3 leads to unclear play.

18 exd6 exd6 19 # f 3 43xc3 20

Hfcl

32 # x g 8 + ! <§>xg8 33 &c4 + Black

resigns.

Alekhine Defense
A. Karklins P. Manetti
1 e4 £)f6 2 e5 £)d5 3 d4 d6 4 £>f3
g6 5 c4

5 Jlc 4 is decidedly the most pop­

ular continuation. A recent example
is Olafsson-Larsen (Reykjavik 1978),
2 0 ... £)ab5 which continued 5 ... £)b6 6 JLb3
S .g 7 7 £>g5 d5 8 0-0 £lc6 9 c3 & f5?
Condemning this horse to the glue 10 g4! J ix b l 11 # f 3 ! with great
factory. But 20 ... 4Dcb5 also fails to advantage to White.
ransom the Black King; e.g., 21
Jib2! (with the threat 22 # f 6 ) 21 ... 5 ... £)b6 6 exd6 cxd6 7 h3 A g 7 8
B xc! + (21 ... f6? 22 # d 5 + ®>g7 23 £)c3 £ ) c6 9 j£.e3 0-0 10 # d 2 d5 11 c5
B xc8 Bxc8 24 Jslxa3 and White wins £>c4 12 .&xc4 dxc4 13 0-0 AtS

57
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

13 ... b6 is a good alternative.

14 S f d l &d3

And here 14 ... 52b4 also deserves

a try.

15 £ k l e5?

The correct move is 15 ... Jbcd4

with equality. Now White seizes the
initiative.
Much stronger is 20 B xb7; e.g., 20
16 d5 £)b4 17 b3 ... A xc 3 21 # x c 3 # x d 5 22 ^ .h 6 f6
23 B b 4 , or 20 ... ^,xd5 21 £)xd5
# x d 5 22 B b 3 , or 20 ... # a 5 21
53xe4 # x d 2 22 43xd2 Jslxd5 23 B d7,
or, finally, 20 ... 43xel 21 H xel (21
# x e l # a 5 ! ) 21 ... # a 5 (21 ... Axc3
22 # x c 3 &Lxd5 23 ih i 6 f6 24 B g7 +
<g>h8 25 B d l) 22 A d4. White has a
substantial advantage in every case.

20 ... £3xel 21 # x e l ^,xa2 22

Bxb7 &xd5 23 c6

Black holds on after 23 Jih 6

# h 4 1 , or 23 & g 5 # c 8 ! (23 ... f6 24
Bxg7 + 1), or 23 B b 4 a5.

17 ... f5 leads to delightful

complications and is probably 23 ... # c 8 24 Hxd5 # x e 4 25 # d 2
Black’s best chance. One possibility a5 26 13 # e 6 27 c7 # c 6 !
is 18 A g S (18 a3 f4 19 axb4 fxe3 20
# x e 3 e4 21 B a d # h 4 ) 18 ... # c 7 Not 27 ... a4? 28 H d8 a3 29
19 a3 <Sa6 20 b4 e4 21 d6 # f 7 . H bb8, and White wins.

18 bxc4 ^.xc4 19 B a b l £>d3 28 Bdb5 &e5?

58
 1972: T H E P H I L O S O P H E R S T O N E D

® h8 36 B b8 & ,c5 + 37 <g>fl J l e 7 38

^.h6 S fe 8 39 Jig7 + ® g8 40 & f6 +
® f8 41 & Lxel + <&xel 42 B e3 +
i;3?d7 43 Bxe8 Black resigns.

R ound Five

Sicilian Defense
D. Waterman L. Evans
1 e4 c5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £)xd4
£>f6 5 £)c3 a6 6 &g5 e6 7 f4 ile 7 8
Black becomes dizzy from the # f 3 # c 7 9 0-0-0 ©bd7 10 g4 b5 11
merry-go-round of complications jS,xf6 S)xf6
just when he could have snatched the
elusive brass ring of the draw with 28 Some players have tried to revive
... a4! 29 fi5b6 # c 4 30 S b 4 # c 6 31 the move 11 ... gxf6 lately, but the
H 4b6 # c 4 , etc. Winning attempts game Hubner-Hort (Wijk aan Zee
by White are futile; e.g., 29 Jic5 1979) dealt it a serious blow: 12 f5
S fc 8 [not 29 ... a3? 30 Jix f8 a2 31 S c 5 13 fxe6 fxe6 14 b4! 4)a4 15
Jitxg7 ®xg7 32 S b l ! (32 # b 2 + ? £)xa4 bxa4 16 B d3 0-0 17 Bc3 # d 7
# f 6 33 # x f 6 + <2>xf6 34 S b l 18 53c6 with advantage for White.
a x b l # + 35 H x b l S c 8 with a draw,
or 33 # x a 2 Hxa2 34 c 8 # # d 4 + 12g5£)d 713f5£>e5?l
with perpetual check) 32 ... a l # 33
H x al S x a l + 34 <$>h2 # x b 7 35 Black has two better choices here:
# c 3 + ! and White wins] 30 # d 6 13 ... &xg5 + 14 ® b l £)e5 15 # h 5
# e 8 1 , or 29 & ( 4 a3 30 # a 2 £ id 4 + # d 8 16 H g l & f6 17 fxe6 0-0 18
31 ® h 2 (31 ® h l # c 3 ) 31 .. ^ c 5 ! J^.h3 g6 19 4Dd5 with a slight edge for
. and Black stands well. White, as in Mecking-Quinteros
(Manila 1976), and 13 ... 4)c5 14 f6
29 # c l ! # x c l + 30 A x e l -&g3 31 gxf6 15 gxf6 ,&f8 16 # h 5 ^ d 7 17 a3
f4 Hac8 32 S b 3 JtLel B g8 18 # x h 7 B g6 19 # h 4 0-0-0
with equality, as in Matulovic-Bukic
If 32 ... Jih 4 33 H fe8 34 g3 (Uljma 1976).
&e7 (34 ... JS.f6 35 J k d 6 , or 34 ... a4
35 S3b5 ^.xg3 36 & ,d 6 a3 37 H b8 14#h5
a2 38 H a5, etc.) 35 He3! and White
wins. 14 # g 3 puts Black under greater
pressure; e.g., 14 ... b4 15 43ce2 Jslb7
33 fS! gxf5 34 & f4 ^.b4 35 B g3 + 16 fxe6 Jixe4 17 Jig 2 ^.xg2 18 # x g 2

59
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

0-0 19 £>f4 # c 4 20 £>d5 S a 7 21 b3 Inexplicably losing his last chance

# e 5 22 £ )f5 (P avlov -M in ic, for g6, W hite permits Evans another
H amburg 1965). Houdini-like escape. White wins
with 22 g6! 0-0 23 S x g 4 fxg4 24
14 ... b4 15 £>ce2 g6 16 # h 4 h6 17 # x h 6 fxg6 25 # x g 6 + ® h8 26 A d 3 ,
B g l gxf5? or 22 ... # e 5 23 gxf7+ <S>d8 24
S xg4! # e 3 + (24 ... fxg4 25
Best seems 17 ... # d 8 18 f6 & f8 S c 6 + !) 25 <$>bl fxg4 26 # a 5 + <S>c8
19 £>f4 ^.d7 20 ®>bl (20 ^.h3 # a 5 ! 27 £)d5 & d8 28 ^ x a 6 + .
21 Jixe6 Jixe6 22 *E)fxe6 fxe6 23
£>xe6 # x a 2 ) 20 ... # b 6 21 2 g 3 with 22 ... # e 5 ! 23 <£)g6
unclear play.
Not 23 J^xa8? hxg5.
18 exf5 exf5 19 # h 5 ! £)g4
23 ... fxg6 24 # x g 6 + ®>f8 25
j&.xa8

25 £>xf5? J&xf5 26 B g fl £>f2! 27

S x f2 # e 3 + is curtains for White.

2 5 ... B g8 2 6 # h 7 H h 8 Drawn.

Round Six

Black: J. Tarjan

For maximum effectiveness White

deliberately delays the devastating
breakthrough at g6. Obviously 20 g6
Jig5 + 21 <3>bl 0-0 22 h3 <Bf6 (22 ...
£>e5? 23 Sxg5) 23 gxf7+ ® h7 24
# f 3 is bad for Black.

20 ... JS.d7 21 <£>f4?l

21 g6! completely tumbles Black’s

house of cards.
This extremely rare material
21 . . . # c 5 22 A g2? distribution arose from a wild time

60
 1972: T H E P H I L O S O P H E R S T O N E D

scramble. White’s thundering herd 17 ... exf4 18 Jlxf4 £>e6! 19 ^,e3

on the Ringside seems to balance the £)g5! 20 Hf2
chances.
After 20 £)d5 H a 2 + 21 H f2
50 g5 €)d5 51 £>e4 Ha7 52 Hd2 # h 3 + 22 <g>hl H xf2 (22 ... £>f3 is
<3?g6 53 -Q xc5 Sxa5 54 £)e4 Hb5 55 foiled by 23 & d2) 23 & xf2 £)f3 24
® g4 43e3 + 56 ® f4 <£>c4 57 Hc2 J ig l i£d4 25 £>e3 0-0 White is
S f 5 + 58 <5>g3 S e 5 59 Hc3 Hxb2 60 curiously im potent against the
£)d6 H f8 61 f4 S f 7 62 f5 + ®>g7 63 Rook’s decisive invasion via a8-a2.
H c7 Slr’gS 64 S e 4 £)xg5 65 hxg5
H xf5 Drawn. 20 ... 4)h3 21 Hc2 h5!

English Opening
L. Evans D. Fritzinger
1 c4 e5 2 a c 3 £)c6 3 g3 g6 4 iS,g2
Jig7 5 f ib l a5 6 a3 d6 7 d3 JS,e6?!

Black plays the opening somewhat

inaccurately. He should first develop
his King Knight and then castle.

8 «M3 h6 9 &d2 £)ge7 10 # c l

22 d4
White stands slightly better.
The more aggressive 22 4)d5 is one
10 ... # c 8 11 b4 axb4 12 axb4 move too late: 22 ... h4 23 c5 hxg3 24
&h3 13 0-0 ^.xg2 14 <S>xg2 £)f5 15 hxg3 (24 cxd6 <Sf2! 25 4i)xc7 + <^ >f8
!'e4? 26 hxg3 £)xd3 27 # g l # h 3 + 28
<S>f3 £)e5 + 29 <£>e2 # g 4 + 30 <£>f2
White maintains his plus with # f 3 + 31 <S>el # x e 4 32 £>xa8 # x c 2 )
either 15 e3 or 15 4Dd5. 24 ... ^,e5! 25 d4 (25 cxd6 €2»g5! 26
^.xg5 # h 3 + 27 <®gl # h 1 + 28 <$>f2
15 ... a fd 4 16 £)xd4 £)xd4 17 f4?! Jid 4 + mates) 25 ... # g 4 ! 26
£)xc7 + <S>f8 27 <Sxa8 (27 dxe5
This is the logical followup to his # x e 4 + 28 ® f l # f 3 + 2 9 ® e l £)g5!
previous move, but the White King 30 <3?d2 H h 2 + 31 ® d3 Ha3 + ! 32
proves to be the more exposed. 17 # x a 3 # e 4 + 33 <S>c3 # x c 2 + 34
H a l H x a l 18 # x a l c6 brings equal <5>d4 # e 4 + , etc.) 27 ... # x g 3 + 28
chances. ®T1 £)f4 and mates.

61
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

2 2 ... h 4 2 3 # d 2 g 5 ! 24'S>f3?!

24 S h i offers better defensive

chances; e.g., 24 ... hxg3 25 hxg3
£>f4 + 26 A xf4 S x h l 27 'S'xhl gxf4
28 <S>g2 A h 6 29 'S ’fS S a l 30 # g 2
# e 6 31 gxf4! (31 £ld5? B a3 + 32
<£>f2 fxg3 + 33 # x g 3 S xg3 34
£)xc7 + 'S W 35 £3xe6 B b3 leaves
the Knight without a retreat) 31 ...
# x c 4 32 £)d5 S a 3 + 33 <2>g4 # x d 4
34® f5.
43 ® d l?
24 ... hxg3 25 hxg3 f5 26 # g 2 0-0!
27 B h l g4 + ?
The losing move. 43 'S ’fl draws
after 43 ... S x d 2 44 ® x g l ® f3 (44
The win is obtained by 27 ... f4! 28 ... B xd4 45 e6!) 45 S f 7 + <$>g3 46
gxf4 £>xf4 29 & xf4 S x f4 + 30 <$>e3 B f l B x d 4 47 B e l.
(30 ® e2 # f 8 31 & d5 B x e 4 + 32
# x e 4 B e8) 30 ... # f 8 . With time 43 ... ® d3 44 J ic l
pressure afflicting both players, the
position rapidly simplifies into an Or 44 B xg4 S x d 2 + 45 'S ’cl
even endgame. 4 )e2+ 46 ‘S ’b l 4)c3 + and mate next
move.
28 ® e2 f4 29 gxf4 B xf4 30 £ld5!
an 31 B f l # d 7 32 B xf7 ® x f7 33 44 £)e2 45 e6 B a l 46 <§>el g3
# f l + ® g8 White resigns.

Not 33 ... <3?g6?? 34 £)e7 + l. R o u n d Seven

The large number o f sharp, un­
34 £lf6 + JS,xf6 35 # x f 6 # f 7 36 clear variations which might have
# x f 7 + ® xf7 37 c5 <$>e7 38 cxd6 + arisen in this game make it ideal for
®>xd6 39 e5 + ? those who like to work out the
possibilities before reading the notes.
White should content himself with
a draw. This move is not the decisive Modern Benoni
error, but it starts White down the
M. Pollowitz W. Goichberg
wrong path.
1 d4 £)f6
39 ... ®>d5 40 S x c7 <$>e4 41 S g 7 2 c4 c5
S a 2 + 4 2 A .d 2 © g l + 3 d5 e6

62
 1972: T H E P H I L O S O P H E R S T O N E D

4 4)c3 exd5
5 cxd5 d6
6 e4 g6
7 f4 & g7
8 4) f3

Now we get a position which can

also arise from the Four Pawns
A ttack of the King’s Indian Defense.
Eighth-move alternatives with a
strict Benoni slant are 8 JSlb5 +
4)fd7 9 a4 0-0 10 4)f3 and 8 e5 4)fd7
9 4)b5 dxe5 10 4)d6 + ‘S'e?! with a 18 H el ^.b7?
tense battle to come in both cases.
This hands White the initiative.
8 0-0 Black successfully maintains his
9 JsLe2 He8 tightrope walking act with 18 ... 4)d4
10 4)d2 4)a6 19 e5 dxe5 20 fxe5 <Qd7 (20 ... 4)xf3
11 0-0 H b8 21 # x f3 4)g4 comes to the same
12 'S ’h l 43c7 thing) 21 & f4 H b4 22 43d6 (22 # d 3
13 a4 a6 4)xf3 23 gxf3 # h 4 24 H e4 f5!) 22 ...
14 a5 b5 4)xf3 (22 ... Hxe5!?) 23 # x f3 4)xe5
24 Jkxe5 Hxe5 25 # x f7 + ®>h8 26
14 . .. & d7, intending to plant a S xe5 ^.xe5 27 4)xc8 # x c 8 28 H el
piece on b5, is also good. S b 7 , etc.

15 axb6 Hxb6 19 43xb5 axb5

16 43c4 H b8 20 4)a5 Jb8
21 Ad2
A fter 16 ... H b4 17 e5 dxe5 18 d6
4)b5 (18 ... 43e6 19 fxe5 4)d7 20
4)d5 leads to similar consequences)
19 fxe5 4)d7 20 43d5 Black doesn’t
get enough for the Exchange.

17 JS.f3 43b5

The advantage is W hite’s after 17

... H b4 18 4)a5 & A 1 19 4)c6! (19
S e l 4)b5 20 e5 H d4 21 H d2 dxe5 22
fxe5 ^.h6) 19 ... & x c 6 20 dxc6.

63
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

21 ... 43d7?l 31 g4! 43 e6

32 B b7 B e8
Black offers stiffer opposition 33 f5 43g7
with 21 ... # b 6 22 b4 & d7 (22 ... 34 iig 5 B c8
B e7 23 bxcS dxc5 24 A.c3!) 23 B b l 35 A el Jixe 7
,kd4. 36 Hxe7 Bxc6
37 e5 B b6
22 4ic6 -§.xc6 38 A d5 dxe5
23 dxc6 43b6 39 S x f7
24 Sa7 Se7
25 # a l! Sa8 White wins the Exchange, and the
rest is easy. A very fine game by
If 25 ... ^.xb2 26 Bxe7! ^ .x a l 27 Pollowitz.
c7 # c 8 28 c x b 8 # # x b 8 29 B x a l
and White wins. 39 ... B d6 40 S d 7 + S x d 5 41
S x d 5 c4 42 fxg6 hxg6 43 B xe5 c3 44
26 Bxa8 #xa8 b3 ®>f7 45 S e 4 £)e6 46 S x b 4 c2 47
27 #xa8+ 43xa8 B c4 S d 4 48 b4 <S>f6 49 b5 £>xb5 50
28 Sal 43c7?l S x c2 £)d4 51 S c 5 43e6 52 Ha5 g5
53 <S>g2 43f4 + 54 <S>f3 £)h3 55
28 ... B e8 is more tenacious. S f 5 + ® g6 56 ®>g2 43f4 + 57 Hxf4
gxf4 58 <2?f3 Black resigns.
29 Sa7 b4
30 &e3! I'.f8

Sicilian Defense
A. Karklins K. Commons
1 e4 c5
2 43 f 3 d6
3 d4 cxd4
4 43xd4 43f6
5 43c3 e6
6 g1* A e7

Nowadays this is far less popular

than Black’s other options, 6 ... h6, 6
... a6, and 6 ... 4l)c6.
On 30 ... JS.xb2 White wins with 31
e5!; e.g., 31 ... Jid4 32 Sxc7!! Bxc7 7 g5 Sifd7
33 exd6 S a 7 34 ^.xd4 cxd4 34 h3. 8 h4

64
 1972: T H E P H I L O S O P H E R S T O N E D

8 E g l keeps alive the possibility 12 ... fxe6

Sg3-h3. 13 # d 4 S)c4

8 ... a6 No more palatable is 13 ... £)8d7

9 A e3 4 # x g 7 S f8 15 # x h 7 £)e5 16
-0-0.
Unclear complications developed
in Planinc-Garcia (Varna 1970) after 14 #xg7 ® d7
9 & h 3 £)b6 10f4d5 11 f5. 15 Jkxc4 bxc4
16 0-0-0 # f8
9 ... b5
10 a3 Ii.b7 Black’s optimum strategy is 16 ...
11 # d 2 £)b6? & c6 17 B x d 6 + ! 'S ’xde 18 S d l +
l®c7 19 B xd8 B axd8, but he would
still face grave difficulties after 20
# f7 1 .

17 Sxd6 + ?

Taking aim at the sitting duck on

d7 with 17 # d 4 ! clearly points up
Black’s predicament. Now White has
losing chances.

17 ®xd6
18 #d4 + ® c7
19 #b6 + <2? c8
Rewriting the ancient history of
20 #xe6 + 43d7
Fischer-N ajdorf (Leipzig 1960),
21 Bdl
which brought White an advantage
through 11 ... 4) c5 12 f3 # c 7 13
0-0-0 5)c6 14 Jixb5 axb5 15 4)dxb5
# b 8 16 £>xd6 + ^.xd6 17 # x d 6
# x d 6 18 B xd6.

12 £lxe6!!

White makes his own outstanding

contribution to opening theory with
this winning sacrifice. Black will
have to try 11 ... S c 6 the next time
he wishes to play this line.

65
 THE BEST OF LONE PINE

21 ... #d 8 ? ? bizarre ending after 23 # x e 8 +

Bxe8 24 £ ) xc5 £}xc5 25 Jslxc5 Hxe4,
This loses outright, as would 21 ... since after 23 # x c 4 # x e 4 24 # c 3
# e 8 22 £>a4 ^.d 8 23 # x c 4 + <3>b8 # x a 4 25 # x h 8 + ®>c7 26 # c 3 # c 6
(23 ... A c7 24 & f4 £>e5 25 £>b6 + the party’s over.
® b8 26 &xe5, or 23 ... £>c5 24
# x c 5 + -fec6 25 Hxd8 + ! ®>xd8 26
# d 6 + ‘g ’cS 27 Jfi.f4) 24 & f4 + <S>a7 22 ©a4 Jslc6
(24 ... £ie5 25 2 x d 8 + ) 25 S x d 7!, 23 #xc6 + #c7
etc. But 21 ... # e 8 22 <&a4 &c5M 24 #xa8 + #b8
forces White to try his luck in the 25 #xa6 + Black resigns

A t left, Anthony Miles

(left) and Edward
Formanek. Below,
William Martz (left) and
Lubomir Kavalek.

66
 1973
AI! BONITO
Pindrop silence reigned in the crowded playing hall. The first round had been
in progress for about an hour, and most o f the forty-eight combatants sat
staring fixedly at their games. Many had reeled off well-prepared opening
variations in a matter of minutes and were now lost in contemplation o f the
uncharted depths of the middlegame.
Grandmasters Browne, Bisguier, and Evans had returned for yet another
crack at fifty-five hundred dollars o f Louis Statham ’s money. They were
joined this time by their grandmaster-colleagues Laszlo Szabo of Hungary and
Lubomir (Lubosh) Kavalek. The latter, an athletic twenty-nine-year-old with a
ready smile, had recently emigrated to the United States from Czechoslovakia.
At only nineteen, he had won the championship of his country. Dr. Szabo, a
large, dark, studious-looking man of fifty-six, had won the championship of
Hungary many times. Anthony J. Miles, a master from England, would also
bear watching this year. This fair, lively young man with long, unruly, straw-
colored hair had tied with Ed Formanek for first place in the National Open a
few days earlier. His burning ambition was to become England’s first grand­
master and thus to earn the ten-thousand-dollar bounty for this feat that was
being offered by international financier Jim Slater. Slater, you may recall, was
the man who had salvaged the Fischer-Spassky W orld Championship Match at
the last minute by doubling the $125,000 purse when delays by Fischer had
threatened to scuttle the match.
As the games progressed, the incessant ticking of the chess clocks seemed to
grow louder, and an air of tension became palpable. Time, the great nemesis of
the sportsm an, was growing short. Its passage was especially noticeable in the
gyrations of Walter Browne. Hunched over the board, his face contorted by the
strain of five hours’ intense concentration, he looked like a small windup toy
gone haywire. Every part o f him twitched, jerked, bounced, squirmed, or
wriggled. In graphic contrast to this display of synaptic acrobatics was the icy
calm of John Grefe, who was sitting just a few boards away. He barely moved
a muscle as he pondered his position, and his face betrayed no emotion
whatsoever.

67
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

Round one brought a few surprises, as Szabo and Kavalek could only draw
their games. After five rounds Bisguier stood alone at the top with four and a
half points, hotly pursued by Browne, Evans, and Miles with four apiece.
Bisguier knocked off Miles while Browne disposed of Evans, setting the stage
for the last round. Although Browne pressed hard with the White pieces,
Bisguier defended carefully and the game was drawn, giving Bisguier un­
disputed first place with 6-1, the same winning score of the previous two years.
After three early draws, Szabo forged ahead with three straight wins to equal
Browne’s score o f five and a half. Next, with five, came Formanek, Miles, and
Grefe, who had defeated Evans in the final round with a spectacular Queen
sacrifice.

Every evening the Stathams entertained small groups of players at intim ate,
informal dinners. Bobby Fischer, newly crowned chess champion of the world,
was naturally the central topic of conversation. A fter winning the title, Fischer
had flatly declared that he would be the most active world champion ever.
Then, after enjoying a few brief moments of glory in the media, he had gone
underground, and no one outside of a small circle of friends had heard from
him for half a year. His strange behavior angered and perplexed most chess
players, who had been counting on him to lead chess into a new era of
popularity and plenty.
The energetic Mrs. Statham enlivened these dinners and endeared herself to
everyone by her genuine enthusiasm and support for the players and the
tournam ent. Besides possessing a considerable talent for music and foreign
languages, she surprised everyone with tales of her adventures as a
microbiologist during World W ar II.
The Statham home itself, heralded by a sign above the front gate exclaining
AIBONITO (“ Oh how purty!” is Mr. Statham ’s down-home translation),
proved to be a highlight of the tournam ent. In front of the main house is a well-
executed garden featuring a trout pond, cottonwoods, and willows; many other
types o f local flora also abound. The carved wooden doors o f the entranceway
offer a warm welcome; as they open they reveal an airy, spacious room. Im­
mediately to the left stands a brightly polished grand piano. Sweeping
clockwise, your eyes encounter a cozy conversation nook where several divans
flank a large fireplace. The snowy Sierras offer a majestic vista through a wall
of glass. Directly to the right of the foyer is the dining area, which is dominated
by a long glass-topped table. Original paintings by Bosch and Rembrandt look
down from the walls.
An eight-foot wall conceals Mr. Statham ’s favorite spot. Directly behind the
wall, a desk holds a wooden chessboard which displays a position from one of
his forty-odd correspondence games. A few steps away is the leather arm chair

68
 1973: A I! B O N 1T O

in which his visitors frequently find him. (Lest this create the wrong im­
pression, it should be pointed out that despite a steadily worsening back
problem, the sixty-six-year-old Statham still begins his busy days at four A.M .)
Capping the evening, Mr. Statham leads a guided tour of his ham radio
shack for those fortunate enough not to have to hurry back to continue an
adjourned game. He gives a photo dryer he has invented to a player who shares
his avid interest in photography. Time permitting, he will peruse his more
interesting postal games with the masters present, unhesitatingly pointing out
moves and ideas he considers good. Clearly, he’s a man w ho’s familiar with
good ideas.

A r th u r B isguier

69
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

R ound One because 7 ... 0-0 leaves White

When White allows himself to be frightfully behind in development.
caught up in his opponent’s gam­
bling fever instead o f consolidating 6 ... £)e5 7 # h 5 + <Bg6?l
his advantage with simple devel­
opment, both Kings are sent scram­ Preferable is the stodgy 7 ... 53f7.
bling for cover.
8 a3 & e 7 9 e5! £ k 6 10 & gf3 0-0
11 & d3 # e 8
Budapest Defense
R. Gross W. Shipman
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 e5

The characteristic move of the

Budapest, a potent H ungarian brew
full of head-spinning traps.

3 dxe5 <Sjg4 4 e61?

The Budapest has practically

disappeared from master chess
because it promises White a com­ 12 h41?
fortable advantage so long as he
refrains from greedily clinging to the Trying for a quick knockout, but
pawn at e5. However, it is unusual objectively best is 12 b4! followed by
for White to return his booty so the fianchetto at b2. The stereotyped
quickly, the most common moves development 12 0-0?! allows Black to
being 4 e4, 4 4}f3, and 4 JS,f4. pluck the thorn at e5 with 12 ... d6.

4 ... fxe6 12 ... # f 7 13 £3g5 j£,xg5 14 hxg5

# x f 2 + 15 ® d l £)cxe5 16 # x h 7 + '
Naturally 4 ... dxe6 is safer, but <$>f7 17 Hh6!
it’s hardly the type o f move a
Budapest player would relish. O f course not 17 S f l ? # x f l + 18
£>xfl H h8.
5 e4 JS,b4 + 6 £)d2
1 7 ... 53xd3 1 8 S x g 6 # g l + ?
White has no desire to set traps of
his own like 6 4l)c3 # f 6 ! 7 # c 2 18 ...<S>e8! leads to a very obscure
£)xf2? 8 e5!, winning a piece, situation: 19 S x g 7 (19 b4 # g l + 20

70
 1973: A I! B O N IT O

<$ >c2 B e l + gives Black coun­ B b 5 (Bronstein-Filip, Amsterdam

terchances, too) 19 ... B f4 ! (19 ... 1956).
■Bel? 20 H e7 + <g>d8 21 g6, etc.) 20
b4 B xg2 21 <3?c2 B e3 + . Now Black 8 B d 4 B c6 9 B xe6 fxe6 10 e3
is smashed. # a 5 11 JS.e2 e5!

19 ® c2 B e l + 20 'g ’lrf b5 21 The tempting 11 ... B e4 only

H f6 + g e 8 22 # g 6 + <$>el 23 leaves W hite in possession of the
# x g 7 + Black resigns. initiative after 12 0-0 Jixc3 13 cxd5!
Jibcb2 14 dxc6 J ix c l 15 cxb7 B c3 16
b x a 8 # S x a 8 17 # c 2 B x e 2 + 18
Round Three # x e 2 # x c 5 19 h4 (Yudovich-
Altschuler, 7th U.S.S.R. Corre­
spondence Championship).
Griinfeld Defense
L. Evans R. Stoutenborough 12 cxd5 exf4 13 dxc6 bxc6
1 c4 B f6 2 B c3 d5 3 d4 g6 4 B f3
On 13 ... fxe3? 14 cxb7 exf2+ 15
A gl 5 J if4 0-0 6 H c l
g ’fl S a b 8 16 c6 W hite’s King is safe
and his advanced pawns formidable.
White refrains from 6 e3 so that he
can play e2-e4 in one move if Black
captures on c4, and so that in some
variations the Queen Bishop can
return to defend the Queenside dark
squares. On the minus side, W hite’s
Kingside development is lagging.

6 ... c5

The natural reaction, striving to

open the center.

7 dxc5 Jie6
14 # a 4 !
7 ... # a 5 ? drops a pawn after 8
cxd5 S d 8 9 Jid 2 ! # x c 5 10 e4 B g4 This novelty forces Black to find
11 # e 2 (Portisch-Rosetto, Havana some new moves over the board.
1964). And White retains a slight but
clear edge on 7 ... dxc4 8 '&xd8 14 ... # x a 4 15 B x a4 fxe3 16 fxe3
Hxd8 9 e4 B a 6 10 e5 B g 4 11 h3 ^ h 6 17 & t 3 & .xe3 18 S c 3 & d4 19
B h 6 12 & .xc4 Bxc5 13 ® e2 -&e6 14 H c4 H ad8 2 0 <g ’e2

71
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

20 Jixc6? £)g4! 21 J£.f3 &e5 c-pawn lacks the support of a Rook

favors Black, and 20 H fl (Evans- on its march to the 8th rank.
Kavalek, U.S. Championship 1973)
20 ... Ji.e5! 21 ^.xc6 (21 g3 £)d5) 21 23 S x d4!
... ,S.xh2 offers White nothing.
Black was counting on 23 B ccl
20 ...e5? £>xg2! 24 Jixg2 S f 2 + .

20 ... £)h5! maintains the balance, 23 ... exd4

for White finds it difficult to make
progress after 21 g3 H f6. Now, Spurning the completely passive
however, W hite’s passed pawn will option o f 23 ... S x d 4 24® xe3 B xa4
be a constant menace. 25 c6! B c8 (25 ... Bxa2? 26 .&d5 + ;
25 ... ® f7 26 B e l <S>e7 27 c7 ® d7 28
21 iixc6 <Sg4 j£lc6 + ) 26 B e l B c7, Black hopes
for some counterplay based on his
21 ... £>h5 22 g3 B f2 + 23 'S ’e l, passed d-pawn.
threatening 24 B xd4, forces the
Rook to withdraw. 24 c6 B fe8 25 <®d3 £)d5 26 B e l
£)c7 27 B c5 B e 3 + 28 ® d2 ® f7 29
22 Js!.f3 £)e3 B a5 a6

A little better is 29 ... B a8 ,

preventing the White Knight from
immediately entering the battle.

30 <Qb6 B e6 31 £>c4 <^f6 32 'S'dS

B e l 33 h3 B b l 34 B a4! ® e6 35
B b 4 © b5 36 a4 £>d6 37 c7 B c8 38
B b 6 Black resigns.

A more resourceful defense lies in W hite’s calm refusal to enter the

22 ... £>f2 23 B f l e4 24 Bxf2! cut-and-thrust main lines of the
(stronger than 24 Jixe4 Bfe8! 25 Sicilian belies his determination to
B xf2 H xe4+ 26 <$>fl E de8!) 24 ... win at any cost. Since Black feels
A xf2 25 Bxe4 H d4 26 B xd4 ^.xd4 exactly the same, the fierce struggle
27 r<??d3 Jie5 28 h3. White has two to the last piece rages for eighty-nine
pawns for the Exchange, but the moves.

72
 1973: A I! B O N 1T O

Sicilian Defense 14 43d2 b5

15 axb5 axb5
J.T a rja n W. Browne
16 d4 b4
1 e4 c5 17 e5
2 43e2

A move introduced into tour­

nament play by the late Paul Keres.

2 ... d6
3 g3 .&-V.4

Committing himself to the sur­

render of the Bishop pair. Black’s
compensation lies in his firm grip on
the im portant central square d4 and
his strong fianchettoed Bishop. W hite’s central “ flying wedge”
has more than just esthetic value. It
4 iig 2 43 c6 blunts the Black King Bishop and
5 h3 Jkxe2
provides maximum range for his own
6 #xe2 g<> Bishop at g2. The chances are
7 0 -0 A g7
roughly equal, though, since Black’s
8 d3 43f6 Queenside chain applies great
9 c3 0-0 pressure to the White center.
10 iie 3 43d7
11 f4 H b8 17 #c7
18 #e2 bxc3
B lack’s chances lie on the 19 bxc3 B b2
Queenside, where he plans to pry 20 H fb l B fb8
open the b-file, and White con­ 21 Sxb2 B xb2
centrates on the center and the 22 #d3 c4!?
Ringside.
The complicated opening has
12 a4 already eaten into the players’ time,
and now Black, underestimating the
At the cost of weakening a few strength of W hite’s position, begins
squares, White obtains an open file some provocative play. He should
for his Queen Rook. play 22 ... A f8 .

12 ... a6 23 #e4 £)b3

13 # f2 4)a5 24 Sa8 + 43f8

73
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

25 £)f3 He2 40 ® f2 Hc5

41 H a7
Threatening to win a piece with 26 42 52 f 7 + <2>h7
... d5. 43 52e5 ® h8
44 h4 52xe6
26 exd6! #xd6? 45 dxe6 Jixe5
46 Sa8 + ® g7
Now Black will have to fight for 47 e7! A d4 +
the draw. 26 ... exd6 is equal. 48 <S'g2

27 JS.fl! f5
28 #b7 S x e3
29 ^,xc4 + SPhS

29 ... e6 gives better survival

chances; e.g. 30 H a7 # d 7 ! (not 30
... 53d7 31 M .x M Hxc3 32 H a6) 31
# x d 7 (31 # a 8 # d 6 32 # e 8 Jih 6 !)
31 ... &xd7 32 ^.xb3 S xc3 33
JS.xe6+ <§>f8.
The following mad scramble to
beat the clock to move forty-five
takes its toll on the quality o f the With neither player keeping score
game, but it provided an exciting and both unaware that they have
spectacle for the crowd of spectators. made it past move forty-five, the
moves continue to fly, giving us the
30 <Se5! # f6 chance to study an interesting
31 <S>f2 theoretical ending. Naturally 48 *3?e2
wins outright.
31 Jixb3 S x g 3 + leads to a draw
after 32 ... # h 4 . 48 ... H c2+
49 ® f l S f2 +
31 Sxc3 50 ® e4 H f3
32 .S.xb3 h(» 51 e 8 # H e3 +
33 # b 4 Sc7 52 # x e 3 iS.XL‘3
34 # a 5 Scl 53 ® e2 -&,d4
35 # d 5 e6 54 H a4 & ,b 6
36 # x e 6 #xe6 55 S b 4 & a5
37 >&xe6 ®>h7 56 S a 4 JS,b6
38 d5 ac2+ 57 S b 4 Jid 8
39 <S>f3 Sc3 + 58 <S>d3

74
 1973: A I! B O N IT O

58 H b8! is better; e.g., 58 ... ii.f6 100 B xf5 ^ .c l 101 S g 5 + ! ® f8 102

59 H b 7 + ® g8 60 h5! gxh5 61 S b 5 , Hxh5 g3 103 B f5 + <S>g7 104 Hg5 +
or 58 ... Jie7 59 B b7 <S>f6 60 h5 ®>h6 105 <$>f5 £.e3 106 Bxg3 and
gxh5 61 ® d3. After Black’s next Black resigned.
move the critical pawn structure for
this endgame arises. White can win 65 B d2! Jlc3
only by a well-timed g3-g4. 66 H d3 ■&b2
67 g4! hxg4
58 ... h5 68 h5 gxh5

If 68 ... ® g7 69 hxg6 ® xg6 70

B d5 J&cl 71 Hxf5 & xf4 72 Hxf4
® g5 73 ® e5 g3 74 <$>e4 g2 75 B f8
'S ’hS 76 Hg8 the game is hopeless for
Black.

69 ® xf5 <§>g7!
70 H d7+ <g>h6
71 Sd6+ ® g7
72 B g6 +

If 72® g5 & c l holds.

59 <®d4 ii f 6 +
60 ®>d5 A c3
72 ... ® h7
61 B b3 J ia l
62 <g>e6 M .d4
63 B d3 ^.b2 On 72 ... 73 Hg5 & d4 74
64 B d7+ ®g8! Bxh5 g3 75 Hg5 & S 2 76 <£>e5 & el
11 f5 _ffi,c3 + 78 <$>e4 & e l 79 B g6
Neither C heron’s nor Fine’s classic Je.f2 80 ®e5 J ie l 81 H f6 + ! ®g7
works cover this ending, but it has (81 ... ® e7 82 B b 6 ^ .c 3 + 83 <S>f4
occurred several times in in­ J&el 84 f6 + , and it’s all over) 82
ternational tournaments over the ® e6, etc.
past twenty years. The position on
the board (but with Black’s King on 73 ® g5 H4
f8) came up in the game Marovic- 74 f5?
Bertok (Yugoslav Championship
1964). That game concluded 97 g4! Time pressure again. The winning
hxg4 [97 ... fxg4 98 f5 gxf5 (98 ... g3 line is 74 ® f5! ^ .d 4 75 S x g 4 Jlf2
99 f6) 99 ®>xf5) 98 h5 gxh5 (98 ... g3 76 B g5 followed by *3?g4 and the
99 H d3 g2 100 fig3) 99 B f7 + ® g8 advance of the f-pawn.

75
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

74 ... h3 18 h5 c4 19 hxg6 cxd3 20 # h 6 +

75 H h 6+ <S>g7 ‘S ’hS 21 cxd3 fxg6 22 H d g l “ with a
76 B h5 g3 very com plex and d iffic u lt
77 S xh 3 Jie5 position.”
78 Shi &d4!

Guaranteeing the draw.

79 f6 + J&.xf6 + 80 <S>f4 <®g6 81

® xg3 ® g5 82 S b l A e 5 + 83 ® f3
'§>f5 84 S b 5 ® e6 85 <S>e4 „S,d6 86
Hb6 ® d7 87 ‘S ’dS Jif4 88 Hb7 +
^ c 8 89 S n Drawn.

Round Six
Attack and counterattack remain
in perfect balance until Black’s
crucial error on move twenty-four 11 ... b4
creates a Frankenstein at g6.
11 ... d5, keeping the Knight out
Modern Defense of the center, may be better.
R. Wilcox J. Hanken
12 4)e4 d5 13 e6! fxe6 14 4)g5 £>f8
1 e4 d6 2 d4 g6 3 £)c3 A%1 4 f4 c6 15 &h3 4)h6 16 4)xe6 4lxe6 17
5 4)f3 A g4 6 A e 3 # b 6 7 # d 2 ■&xe6 B f8 18 A n 4)f5 19 h4 4)d6
20 h5 43 b5
In the game Suetin-Gufeld (Tiflis
1969), 7 # d 3 led to a good position Threatening 2 1 ... 4)c3 + .
for Black after 7 ... 4)f6 (7 ... # x b 2 ?
8 B b l # a 3 9 B xb7 4)f6? 10 21 'S'al B b8 22 # d 3 Bb6! 23
Bxe7 + 1)8 0-0-0 d5! 9 e5 £>e4. #b3

7 ... Jkxf3 8 gxf3 4)d7 9 0-0-0 # a 5 Not 23 hxg6? 4)c3!, etc.

10<®bl b5 11 e5
23 ... B xf4 24 hxg6 h6?
Keene and Botterill, in their book
T h e M o d e r n D e fe n c e (1972), offer On 24 ... hxg6 a draw seems likely
the following fascinating and after 25 B h7 A f6 26 H d h l £>xd4 27
plausible alternative: 11 f5 4)gf6 12 S h 8 + -&xh8 28 B xh8 + S f 8 29
& d3 b4 13 43e2 0-0 14 J&h6 c5 15 B xf8 + <&xf8 30 ^.xd4 c5! 31 # x d 5
A x g l <S>xg7 16 h4 B fc8 17 b3 4)b6 B xe6 32 # x e 6 cxd4.

76
 1973: A I! B O N IT O

and he must now lose another one.

With correct play W hite’s extra
material should tell, but many’s the
slip . . .

27 ... £)hg2!
28 £lxc6 #d6
29 d5 h5
30 #dl £)h4!
31 &.b4 # f6
32 'S’hl

25 Jke3!! S x f3 If 32 & xf8 # g 5 + 33 <S>f2 A xf8

and Black has too many dangerous
Other Rook moves lose the h- threats.
pawn and the game.
32 ... #g5
26 Jslxh6!! fixb3 27 -S,xg7 <$>68 28 33 #d2
& e S 53d6 29 g7 Black resigns.
33 S g l allows Black to escape
with a draw by 33 ... £3h3!!.

Round Seven 33 ... an

34 Jie7??
Black: J. Grefe
After 34 # f 2 ® h7 35 £ le l White
holds everything. But doesn’t the text
move eliminate that pesky Knight on
h4?

Black has optimistically sacrificed

a pawn to denude the White King,

77
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

34 ... £>h3H 6 ... 4Dxe5

7 dxe5 #xdl +
The type o f move everyone dreams 8 ‘S ’x d l £)g4
o f playing—and there’s even better 9 <g>el
to come.
9 Jsfb5 + deserves attention: if 9 ...
35 #e2 # d 2 !! Jsld7 10 e61, or if 9 ... ®>d8 10 ®e2
White resigns £)xe5 11 & f 4 f6 12 S a d i + <g>c7 13
£)d5 + ® b8 14 4i>e3.

9 ... £)xe5
10 £)b5 <$>d8

The following game could have Probably 10 ... ® d7! is best, since
been full o f incredible problem-like the King ventures to c6 anyway.
variations had White chosen the
correct course at move fifteen. 11 JS,f4 43g6?
Because o f the unusual and in­
structive nature of the position, I 11 ... f6! gives fair chances of
give the decisive variations in detail. survival.
I recommend that you work out your
own analysis first and then compare 12 & ,c l + <$>d7
it with the text. 13 g3!l a6

Sicilian Defense M ost tenacious is 13 ... f5, but

after 14 0-0-0+ (14 ... ® c6 15
J. Tarjan A. Miles
a4e5 16 & c4, etc.) 15 S d 8 + ® f 7 16
1 e4 c5 £)xa7 Black’s prospects appear dim.
2 <Sf3 d6
3 43c3 £>f6 14 S d l +!
4 e5 dxe5
5 £)xe5 £)bd7 The attem pt 14 0-0-0+ ® c6 15
a41? axb5 16 -&d8 c4 (16 ... bxa4? 17
For the more precise 5 ... a6!, see c4) 17 & ,g 2 + <§>c5 18 S d 5 + <S’b4 19
Benjam in-Gruenfeld (Lone Pine c3+ ® b3! (19 ... ® ’xa4? 20 <S ,d2
1979). and mates soon) 20 Hxb5 + <3?a2 21
.ft-d5 Js.e6 is an exciting ride, but the
6 d4!? exiled Black monarch seems to be
protected by a guardian angel.
This pawn sacrifice holds out good
chances for a White initiative. 14 ... <S>c6

78
 1973: A I! B O N 1T O

® c l ! and mate in two] 19 lS !d2 a5 20

b3 + ® b5 21 c4+ ® b 4 22 H a4 +
® xb3 23 H b l + ® xa4 24 ® c3 and
25 H a l mate.
C ) 16... ® xa4 17 H a l + ® b5 18
H a5 + ® c 4 (fo r 18 ...® b4see£> ) 19
<§>d2! e6 20 H a4 + ® b5 21 c4 +
tS?xa42 2 Sl?c3 and 23 H a l mate.
D) 16 ... ® xa4 17 H a l + <§>b5
18 H a 5 + <§>b4 19 A d5! c4 20 c3 +
<S>b3 21 ® d2 A f5 (21 ... e6 22 A e4
and mate in two) 22 H h a l (22 B a4
leads to mate as in B ) 22 ... <2?xb2 (22
15 Aa5? ... e6 23 <$>cl) 23 H la 2 + <$>bl 24
Axc4 and mate in three.
Reprieving the condemned man at E ) 16 ... t2?b4! 17 c3+ ® b3 18
the gallows. Instead of this losing H a l!! (18 A d5 + c4 19 H a l A f5!
move White needed to play 15 apparently rescues Black) 18 ... A f5
A g 2 + !! ® xb5 16 a4 + !, and now: (18 ... e6 19 <S>d2 threatens 20 .feed)
19 ® d2 e6 (best; if 19 ... ® xb2 20
A d 5 , or 19 ... Hc8 20 <§>cl! e6 21
H a3 + ® c4 22 <2?d2 threatening 23
b3 mate) 20 ® c l! c4 (Black is forced
to build his own tom b, because 20 ...
A e7 21 H a3 + <S’c4 22 H d l A d3 23
A a5! mates) 21 A f3 A c2 22 H d l!
& ,b4 (22 ... A e7 23 A d 6 threatening
24 H a3 mate) 23 Hd2! (less clear is
23 A d 6 a5 24 cxb4 axb4) 23 ... Hhc8
24 A d 6 a5 25 Hxc2 A xd6 26 A d i
and mate next move.

After 16 a4+(analysis) 15 Ag4!

16 £)c7 A f3!
A ) 16 ... <S>c4? 17 JS,a5 and 18 b3 17 <£)xa8 A xhl
i mate. 18 A h3 e6
B ) 16 ... <3?xa4 17 H a l + ® b4 19 ^e2 A e4
•(for 17 ... ® b5 see Q 18 c3+ ® c4 20 f3 A xc2

[ 1 8 . . . <S>b3 19 ® d2 A f5 20 A d5 +
c4 21 Ha41! A d3 (21 ... ® xa4 22 And Black easily turned his
Jixc4 mates in four) 22 H h a l e6 23 material advantage into a win.

79
T H E B E ST O F I O N F P IN F

Waller Browne

80
 1974
Quiet Before the Storm
Bobby Fischer may have let the chess world down, but Louis Statham did
not. His fourth annual tournam ent at Lone Pine provided the battleground for
fifty-three masters boasting a hefty 2329 average rating. This year the tour­
nament was rechristened “ M asters-Plus” because o f increased eligibility
requirements: a minimum U.S. Chess Federation rating of 2250 for players
older than twenty-one, 2200 for the younger ones. With a growing reputation
world-wide and a large prize fund, the tournam ent this year attracted the chess
elite of several countries, including the United States.
But, though elite, some were in for a few surprises. Although Florin
Gheorghiu, many times champion of Rumania, achieved the best result among
the foreign contingent, he was clearly disappointed with his 4 V i - 2 Vi score.
Reuben Rodriguez, one of the strongest players in the Philippines, registered
only a 4-3 plus score but in the process nicked tournam ent winner Walter
Browne for his only defeat. C anada’s second-strongest player (in 1974), In­
ternational Master Peter Biyiasas, equaled Rodriguez’ score. Levente Lengyel,
a grandmaster from Hungary, could only manage fifty percent.
When the last round started, the leader was John Grefe, then U.S. Co-
Champion, with a half-point lead over Browne, who was to win the U.S.
Championship himself a few months later. Playing White, Browne con­
vincingly refuted his opponent’s offbeat opening strategy and quickly built a
decisive initiative to win the game and the tournam ent (6-1). Grefe and
Grandmaster Pal Benko shared the next two places with 5 lA - l Vi apiece. Larry
Evans, Julio Kaplan, Kim Commons, and Andrew Karklins tied at 5-2.
Plans were under way this year to build a new town hall for Lone Pine that
would comfortably accommodate the ever-growing number o f players and
spectators. Mr. Statham would provide most of the money, and the towns­
people would allow the hall to be used each year for the tournament.
The townspeople, in general, have reacted to this annual spring invasion
extremely favorably, although occasionally a waitress or desk clerk may suffer
an attack of frazzled nerves caused by a week o f daily contact with chess
masters and their strange, intense world of tournam ent chess. The women of
the Senior Citizens’ Council look upon the players as their personal guests; they

81
 T H E B E ST O F L O N E P IN E

invite some o f them to dinners at their homes and provide homemade cookies,
coffee, and sandwiches for the players during the games. The local newspaper
reports the daily progress o f the tournament, and people from surrounding
communities come to watch the games—and to get a good closeup look at the
famous chess masters.
The players’ diverse personalities, professions, and backgrounds completely
dispel any stereotyped notions about the type o f people who play chess.
Born in Argentina and bred in Puerto Rico, Julio Kaplan (K a -p la h n ) now
lives in Berkeley, California, where he is majoring in m ath and computer
science at the University of California. This affable young man with the full
red beard and the head o f flaming red curls is an International Master who
seven years previously, in 1967, had won the W orld Junior Championship
ahead of Raymond Keene, Jan Timman, and Robert Hiibner, among others.
Florin Gheorghiu speaks several languages fluently. This is a useful skill for
a chess professional who spends much o f his time with friends and colleagues
from many countries. His face is mobile; at one moment his expression
displays some unfathomable emotion provoked by his position, and at another
he fixes his opponent with a penetrating stare as if he were trying to see directly
into his brain. He plays hard, but he loves to walk around during his games. He
has the disconcerting habit of asking anyone, even the veriest tyro, “ W hat do
you think of my position?”
Larry Gilden, he of the philosophy chart, wears a rumpled suit and faded
white shirt with a narrow tie as he sits staring intently into space, silently
communing with his Muse. His long fingers gently massage his chin. His
shadowed, angular face variously displays grimaces, grins, and tragic frowns,
as he considers his move.
Dr. Anthony Saidy, an International Master from Los Angeles, is the author
of two popular chess books, T he W o rld o f C hess (with Norm an Lessing) and
T he B a ttle o f C hess Id eas (published by R.H.M . Press). The urbane Dr. Saidy,
who is a medical doctor working in public health, holds the dubious honor of
having been Bobby Fischer’s last victim in his unprecedented 11-0 sweep of the
1964 U.S. Championship. Saidy had reached a Bishop-vs.-Knight endgame
that he should have drawn with accurate defense to ruin Bobby’s bid for a
record, but he failed to stand up under Fischer’s indomitable technique and the
tremendous psychological pressure of the occasion.
International Masters Arnold Denker of Florida and A rthur Dake o f Oregon
represent the old guard. The robust, outgoing, dapper and deeply tanned
Denker turned sixty just weeks before the tournament. He had won the U.S.
Championship in the 1940’s and then had a successful business career (meat
packing). He has continued to play in chess tournaments here and in Europe.
Dake s heyday was in the twenties and thirties, when he was a member of

82
 1974: QUIET BEFORE THE STORM

powerful U.S. Olympiad teams which also included Horowitz, Fine,

Reshevsky, and Kashdan. It is said that Dake used to beat the legendary
Alekhine consistently at five-minute chess.
The Lone Pine Tournament Director, Isaac Kashdan, was one of America’s
leading players thirty years ago. As an active grandm aster his specialty was the
endgame, and his playing style was likened to C apablanca’s. To some, the man
behind the mustache bears some slight resemblance to another man behind a
mustache, Groucho Marx. Kashdan, in fact, once appeared as a contestant on
G roucho’s TV show, “ You Bet Your Life,” when the grandmaster of the
pointed barb kept referring to Kashdan as Mr. Ashcan. His audience laughed
every time. Maybe that sort of thing seemed funny then.
During the prize-giving ceremonies at the end o f this year’s tournament,
Kashdan spoke of some surprises in store for next year’s event. While
promising even bigger prizes, he warned that this would mean stiffer com­
petition. None of us could quite appreciate then just how great a change was to
occur.

PaI Benko

83
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

Round Two fire. His opening idea must be

A good example o f the fierce and stamped a complete failure.
rapid counterattacking potential of
the N ajdorf Variation.

Sicilian Defense
C. Brasket W. Browne

1 c4 c5 2 © f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 43xd4
£>f6 5 £} c3 a6 6.&g5

The sharpest and most popular

continuation.

6 ... £>bd7 14 g3 0-0 15 JsLh3 & ,x d 5 16 cxd5

Hac8 17 JLfl &b6 18 a3 Hc2 19
Black defers 6 ... e6 and 7 ... Jle7 # x a 6 # c 5 20 # e 2 b3 21 A h3 £>xe4!
with Kingside development, in favor 22 # x e 4
of Queenside action.
On 22 Jtx d 7 Black has 22 ... <S3xd2
7#e2 23 £)xd2 B xd2! 24 <S>xd2 ^.a5 + 25
® d l # x d 5 + , etc.
In a game at the Nice Olympiad
later this same year, Stean continued 22 ... <Sf6 23 # e 3
more incisively against Browne: 7
Jitc4 e6 8 0-0 h6 9 &xf6! <Sxf6 10 If 23 # e 2 e4 and 24 ... e3.
JS.b3 b6 11 f4 & ,b l 12 # d 3 13
43xe61, with advantage for White. 23 ... # x e 3 + 24 Jixe3 jS.xe3 25
d 6 & f2 + 26 <g>fl £)d5
7 ... b5 8 f4 e5!9<&d5 j£,b7!
Mate in one looms.
9 ... exd4 10 e5 ©xd5 11 Jkxd8
'S’xdS is good for White in view of 27 H e l J ix e l 28 £)xel 42)e3 + 29
Black’s exposed King and un­ 'S’g l Hd8! 30 d7 f5 31 JixfS £)xf5
developed position. 32 £>xc2 bxc2 33 <S>f2 Bxd7 34 B e l
£)d4 35 ®>e3 Hc7 36 'g’dS £)b3
10 fxc5 dxe5 11 £)f3 # a 5 + 12 White resigns.
&d2 b4 13 c4 & .c5\

W hite’s King, unable to flee to H ere’s a game guaranteed to keep

either wing, soon comes under heavy you on pins and needles.

84
 1974: Q U IE T B E F O R E T H E S T O R M

Slav Defense 11 dxe6 fxe6

T. Taylor V. Pupols A fter 11 ... cxd3 12 exd7+ # x d 7

13 0-0 Jib 7 14 S e l l White had the
1 d4 d5
edge in Karpov-Tal, Bugojno 1980.
2 c4 c6
3 £)c3 e6
12 A c2 #b6
4 e3
H ot off the presses is 12 ... Jib 7 13
Adventurous types prefer 4 e4
0-0 # c 7 14 # e 2 A d 6 15 £)g5 £)c5
dxe4 5 <Sxe4 ,ffi,b4 + 6 A d 2 # x d 4 7
16 f4 e5 17 a4 b4 18 £>d5 £)xd5 19
& xb4 # x e 4 + 8 A e 2 with lively play
exd5 0-0-0 (Lukacs-Panchenko,
to follow.
Dubna 1979).
4 ... £)f6
13 e5 £>g4
5 £>f3 £)bd7
14 0-0 4)gxe5
6 ^.d3 dxc4
15 S e l Jid 6
7 Jixc4 b5
8 &d3 a6
If 15 ... £)xf3 + 1 6 # x f3 Jib 7 17
■S)d5 # c 6 18 Sxe6! # x e 6 19 S c 7 +
8 ... b4 9 ® e4 © xe4 10 Jixe4 j£.b7
^ P e l 20 A%S + (20 # x b 7 ? ? # e l
11 # a 4 # b 6 12 4)d2 saddles Black
mate) 20 ... &3f6 21 # 'x b 7 > and
with permanent Queenside liabilities.
White wins.
9 e4 c5 16 E)xe5 -m.xeS

White is at a crossroads: should 10

Forced. If 16 ... £)xe5 17 Sxe5!
e5 or 10 d5 be played?
A xe5 18#h5 + .

10 d5
17 #h5+ g6
The E n c y c lo p e d ia o f C h e ss O p e n ­
in g s offers the delightful line 10 e5
S g 4 11 4)g5 cxd4 12 <£)xf7 # h 4 13
g3 # h 5 14 4Dxh8 dxc3 15 Jle4 Jib 4
16 <ST1 S a 7 17 J if4 g5 18 h3 gxf4
with equality.

10 ... c4

The immediate 10 ... e5 leaves

Black cramped after 11 b3.

85
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

18 Jlxg6 + !? hxg6
19 #xg6 + 'S’fS

Not 19 ... ® d8? 20 S x e5 43xe5 21

# f 6 + , etc.

20 Bxe5 43xe5
21 ^.h6 + <S>e7

On 21 ... B xh6 22 # x h 6 + White

bags the Knight; e.g., 22 ... ® f7 (22
. . . <S ’e7? 23 43d5 + !) 23 # f 4 + .

22 #g5 + 30 ... J&.b7!

31 B el
22 £)d5 + ® d6 leaves the White
Queen en prise, too! If 31 gxh5? S g 8 + 32 ^.g5
Bxg5 + ! 33 £>xg5! £)f3 + ! (33 ...
22 ... <%>eS # x f4 ? 34 4)xe6 + ) and Black wins.

31 ... Sg8
If 22 ... <S>d6 23 A g7 £)f7 24
# f 4 + , etc. 32 h4?

32 g5! brings about an unclear

23 £)d5! #d6
24 4)f6 + 3?d8 ending after 32 ... Bhxg5 + 33 Jixg5
25 £)e 4 + #e7 (33 4)xg5 # x f 4 34 A x e S + # x e 5 35
26 # d 2 + #d7 Bxe5 <S?d7 is also obscure) 33 ...
27 ^ .g5+ <S>c7 H xg5+ 34 43xg5 # x f 4 35 42>xe6 +
28 # f 4 #d4 ® d 6 36 £>xf4 43f3 + 37 ® f l £)xel
38 <S>xel ® e5.
29 & f6 Bh5
30 g4!?
32 ... Sxg4 + ?
Black has been leading a charmed
T h a t old devil ag a in —tim e
life, but what can he do now?
pressure. 32 ... B f5 ! stops White
cold.

33 # x g 4 £)xg4 34 A x d 4 Bxh4 35
f3 S)h6 36 ^.f6 B h5 37 43g3 B d5 38
Bxe6 B d l + 39 <S>f2 £>g8 40 &g5
a5 41 B g6 i^d5 42 ,&f4 + <S>b7 43
4)e4 b4 44 43c5 + ® c8 45 43a4 £)e7

86
 1974: Q U IE T B E F O R E T H E S T O R M

46 B d6 Hd3 47 ,&.g5 S,c6 48 £)b6 + # c 7 (22 ... # a 6 ? 23 A f l # a 5 24

'S’c7 49 S \d 3 cxd3 50 £>c4 £>f5 51 £)xc8 H xc8 25 A c4 and White wins)
£>xa5 j£.d5 52 <£)b3 <$>06 53 £ )c l 23 # c 4 £)a51. On the other hand, 21
<g>b5 54 b3 £ld4 55 £>xd3 £>xf3 56 ... S f8 ? loses to 22 c5 '&'c7 23 Jixc6
Ae7 £>d4 57 £)xb4 ,§,xb3 58 axb3 # x c 6 24 # c 4 + «>h8 25 S f 7 +
£>xb3 59 ® e3 £lc5 60 £>c2 £)d7 H xf7 26 H xd 8 + S f 8 27 B xf8 +
Drawn. & xf8 28 # f 7 & g 7 29 S d l . A fter 21
... B c7 White gets a Rook and three
R ound Five pawns for his Bishop and Knight,
but also terribly weak light squares:
Black: E. Form anek 22 c5 # c 7 23 A x c 6 # x c 6 24 £)xf5
^.xf5 25 B x d 8 + Be8.

22 Qxe8 Bxe8 23 Jlx f6 ,S.xf6 24

#a4

19 <Qxc 6 !?

An enterprising sacrifice that 2 4 ...& b 7 ?

promises White very active play.
The losing move. A fter 24 ... B e6
19 ... 43 xc6 20 4 3 b 5 # b 6 25 ^.d5 S§?g7 26 Jixe6 iix e 6 it’s still
a long, long way to Tiperrary.
It’s hard to say w hat’s best in this
complicated situation; e.g., 20 ... 25 B d7 -fea8 26 B c7 # b 6 27
# d 7 !? 21 Bxd6 # x d 6 22 £)xd6 Bxc6 ,&xc6 28 .fexefi H c8 29 JS,d5 +
S x d 6 23 A a3 Hde6 24 A d5 S e 5 is
possible. White handily converts his ad­
vantage.
21 4Dxd6 # c 5
29 ... ® f8 30 ®>g2 B c7 31 h4 ® e7
21 ... H e6 is playable: e.g., 22 c5 32 h5 gxh5 33 # c 2 # b 2 34 # x f5 !

87
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

# x c l 35 # e 6 + ®>d8 36 # x f 6 +
<S>c8 37 # e 6 + ® b8 38 # e 8 + B c8
39 # b 5 + ® c7 40 # b 7 + <®d8 41
A c6 S c7 42 # b 8 + ® e7 43 # x c 7 +
® xe6 44 # x h 7 # a 3 45 # e 4 + ® d6
46 # d 5 + Black resigns.

R ound Six

King’s Indian Defense

L. Evans W. Browne
I d4 ©i'6 2 c4 g6 3 £)c3 & g7 4 e4 17 bxc4 £> xc 4 18 Jslxc4 Jix c4 19
d6 H f2 43d7

Black can get into hot water very Headed for d3. Every Black piece
fast by trying to enforce the thematic is ideally placed, so it’s just a m atter
counter ... c5. Gheorghiu-Ivanovic of time before he regains material
(Lone Pine 1980) continued 4 ... 0-0 and gets a positional advantage to
5 Jie3 c5 6 dxc5 £)a6 7 f3 # c 7 8 boot.
£>b5 # c 6 9 <£)e2 £)e8 10 # d 2 <Sxc5
11 <S)ed4 i£ra6 12 b4 £)e6, and now 20 Jid 4 £)e5 21 ^.xe5 & ,xe5
13 c5! £)xd4 14 £>xd4 # f 6 15 S d l
would have emphasized W hite’s
advantage.

5 f3 0-0 6 S g e2 c5 7 >S,e3 b6

7 ... cxd4 8 £)xd4 brings about the

-Maroczy Bind.

8 d5 £)bd7 9 # d 2 £>e5 10 b3 a6!

11 £>g3

Permitting a type o f Benko

Gambit favorable for Black. 11 a4 is The clumsy Knights will be no
better, to prevent it, but Evans loves match for the bionic Bishops.
to grab material.
22 f4
II ... b5! 12 cxb5 # a 5 13 H c l
axb5 14 Jixb5 &a6 15 &e2 B fb 8 16 22 B c2 loses to 22 ... j£,xc3 23
0-0 c4 # x c 3 (23 Bxc3 H b l + 24 Q f l # b 5

88
 1974: Q U IE T B E F O R E T H E S T O R M

25 H c l S x a 2 26 S x b l # x b l 27 7 g4!? is an interesting, though

# d 4 H xf2 28 # x f 2 f5!, with ad­ risky, idea.
vantage for Black) 23 ... H b l + 24
£ )fl J f x f 1! 25 S x f l # b 6 + 26 S c f2 7 ... a5 8 a4 f5
H xa2, etc. And 22 53ge2 brings a
quick demise via 22 ... iS.xe2 23 Since W hite’s King Knight has
Hxe2 # c 5 + ! 24 ®>hl Hc8 25 S e3 retreated from the center, it seems
J if4 , etc. logical for Black to increase his
influence in that sector.
22 ... iS,xc3 23 # x c 3 # x c 3 24
Hxc3 S b l + 25 £ )fl Ha4! 9 h 4 !? £ )f6 1 0 h5 £>xe4

Preparing to pluck the fruit. 10 ... fxe4 11 g4! favors White.

26 g3 f5 27 S e 3 fxe4 28 <®g2 11 S x e4 fxe4 12 hxg6 hxg6 13

H xh8+ &xh8 1 4 # d 5
White had planned 28 S xe4?,
overlooking 28 ... J b tfl! 29 Hxa4
Jih 3 + and mate, but he’s lost in any
case. The rest needs no comment.

28 ... &xd5 29 ® h3 &xa2 30 Hc3

JS.e6 + 31 ® h4 Ha2 32 Hxa2 .fexa2
33 £)e3 M.e6 34 Hc7 <$>f7 35 g4 Hb3
36 £)c2 Jid5 37 £)d4 Hb4 38 £)e2
Hc4 39 S a 7 Hc2 40 £)d4 Hxh2 +
41 <§>g3 Hd2 42 43b5 S d 3 + 43
<S>h4 jj,c6 44 £>a3 d5 45 S c 7 Sxa3
46 S x c6 e3 White resigns.

14 ... £)b4!

Round Seven Not 14 ... A f5? 15 g4 £lb4 16

Original opening play and sharp # g 8 + <S>d7 17 ilb 5 + 18
tactics predominate. # c 4 + and 19 gxf5.

Sicilian Defense 15 ^ .b 5+ *2?f8 16 ^ .h 6+ ^.g7 17

# d 2 e3?l
L. Gilden D.Waterman
1 £)f3 c5 2 e4 £)c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Leads to equal chances. 17 ...
£)xd4 g6 5 £) c3 Jkg7 6 © b3 d6 7 £lxc2 + 18 # x c 2 iS,xh6 19 # x e 4
Ae2 <2?f7! favors Black.

89
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

18 Jixg7 + <S>xg7 19 fxe3 -&f5 20 31 iS,c4 + ?

<Qd4 Jig4 21 £>f3 J&.xf3 22 gxf3 # f 8
23 & e2 # f 5 24 e4 # c 5 25 0-0-0 Hh8 Missing the simpler 31 c3! # c 2 +
26 Jib5 Bh3 27 ® b l Bxf3? (31 ... 4)d3 32 Jkc4 + and mates) 32
'S 'al B f2 (32 ... # b 3 33 B h7 + <$>e6
Unnecessarily endangering his 34 # g 8 + drops the Black Queen) 33
King. 27 ... # e 5 is right. cxb4.

2 8 B h l # e 3 29 #1)2 # f 2 31 ... d5 32 Jlxd5 + £)xd5 33 exd5

g5 34 # h 5 + <S>f6 35 # h 6 + <2>f5 36
29 ... Bg3 allows the Black King # e 6 + <S>f4 37 # x t 7 # g 2 38 # f 6 +
only four more breaths: 30 # h 8 + <2>g4 39 # e 6 + i*?f4 40 B e l ® g3 41
31 B h7 + ® e6 32 B x e 7 + !# e 5 + <$>h4 42 # h 8 + 43
<$>xe7 33 # g 7 + ‘g ’eb 34 S.d7 mate. # b 8 + B f4 44 # e 5 <S>g4 45 # e 6 +
®g3
30 # h 8 + ® f7
Now that the time control has been
passed White finds an easy way to
finish Black off.

46 d6 # c 6 47 B g l + # h 2 48 #e.3
# f 3 49 # x f 3 B xf3 50 Bxg5 B f l +
51 ® a2 B d l 52 S x a 5 Bxd6 53 B g5
Black resigns.

90
 1975
Quantum Leap
Mix carefully and stir together these ingredients: a remote mountain hamlet
engaged in a running fifty-year feud with the powerful politicians who run Los
Angeles; an international conclave o f some of the world’s most imaginative,
scheming, devious minds; an immensely rich recluse inventor; a bevy of young
and beautiful women. All you need is a plot and you’ve got the makings of a
terrific spy novel. W ithout the plot, you’ve got the 1975 Lone Pine chess
tournament.
Nestled in the Owens Valley between the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the
west and the Inyo Range to the east, Lone Pine is one of the valley towns whose
life is still strongly affected by certain events that took place half a century ago.
That was when some far-sighted but ruthless individuals, realizing that a
sufficient supply of water was vital to the seemingly limitless development of
the Los Angeles area, set about securing the water supply by questionable
means. Most of that water still comes from the Owens Valley, whose residents
bitterly claim that th e’Los Angeles Water Department is turning their once-
ferdle valley into a desert. Although the gunfights that once were common are
things of the past, many here have not given up the fight to save their valley.
Of the forty-four imaginative, scheming, devious minds that attended the
conclave, exactly half were grandmasters. They had been lured by the sub­
stantial $12,500 prize fund (more than double last year’s amount) and by Mr.
Statham ’s generous offer to reimburse their travel expenses. Ten international
masters were also in the field. All together, the average rating reached a
whopping 2428. Fourteen nations were represented.
Louis Statham, our immensely rich recluse inventor, and his tournament
director, Isaac Kashdan, were pleased by the turnout. They had again raised
the eligibility requirements, to 2350 for adults and 2250 for juniors, and felt
that forty to fifty players would fit perfectly in the new town hall. The previous
fall, at the chess Olympiad in Nice, Kashdan had personally invited the world’s
best players to Lone Pine, and there was some fear that the tournament would
be deluged with too many players.
The international beauties were Seattle-born Mary Lasher, the blonde
girlfriend of International Master John Grefe; Yugoslavia-born Dobrila

91
THE BEST OF LONE PINE

Vladimir Liberzon

92
 1975: Q U A N T U M L E A P

Suttles, the wife of Canadian Grandmaster Duncan Suttles; and Philippines-

born Benji Quinteros, the wife o f Argentine G randm aster Miguel Quinteros.
The Quinteroses are an extraordinarily handsome couple: Miguel himself has
that romantic Latin look that causes people to stare at him as though he were a
movie star, and Benji is just one of a large family o f beautiful women (her
sister won the Miss World beauty pageant a few years back).
Alla Kushnir of Israel was yet another member o f the fair sex who drew a lot
of attention. The first woman ever to compete at Lone Pine, the former
Russian finished with an even score and earned an international master norm,
along the way defeating Grandmasters Istvan Bilek of Hungary and Larry
Evans. It was reported that this latter result prom pted a phone call during the
tournament from Bobby Fischer to Pal Benko: Fischer wanted to know how
Evans could have lost to a woman.

The new town hall, a solid brick edifice at the north end of town just a few
blocks from the Statham estate, pleased everyone. It hummed with activity
from morning to night. At eleven in the morning, the players would start
trickling in to check the day’s pairings and the results of the previous night’s
adjourned games. Dashing off for lunch or a late breakfast and a hurried look
at their upcoming opponent’s most recent games, they would reappear two
hours later, at one o’clock, for. the start of the round.
You enter the hall through a set o f glass doors, where you are greeted by a
few women from the Senior Citizens’ Council who have set up a checkpoint in
the lobby. Players, identified by name-tags, are allowed to pass freely, but
others must pay the modest sum of twenty-five cents to view the games. The
main hall lies straight ahead, just beyond another set of doors. It’s a plain,
brightly-lit, windowless room with bare brick walls. A cluster of tables for use
by the directing staff is at the far end o f the room and is highlighted by a
brilliant floral centerpiece made up of flowers from the Statham s’ garden. Two
large roped-off areas are separated by a wide center aisle running practically
the whole length o f the room; these two areas form the playing arena. The
players face each other across long plastic-topped folding tables. The chess
clocks face the center aisle in full view o f the director and his eagle-eye
assistants..

A hush fell over the milling spectators as Kashdan called for silence and then
gave the order to begin play. Shutterbugs flitted anxiously from table to table
trying to catch their favorite players in novel or characteristic poses. The
photographers tried to squeeze as many shots as they could into the fifteen
minutes allotted to them; after that, photography in the hall was strictly
forbidden.
By six o ’clock most of the games were over and many o f the players had gone

93
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

to dinner. A few lingered at their boards to decide on their sealed moves. By

six-thirty Kashdan had herded everyone out o f the building. Some were
compelled to return at eight to wind up adjourned games; others came back to
watch the games, others still to visit the skittles room and play blitz chess or
backgammon or look at the games their friends had played that afternoon.
An unusual incident occurred in the round-two game between Browne and
Biyiasas. After the second adjourned session Biyiasas had to seal his move, but
when he did so he forgot to place his scoresheet in the sealed-move envelope.
According to the rules, he was duly forfeited. An appeals committee, taking
into account various extenuating circumstances, reversed this decision, but on
further appeal they overruled themselves, and Browne finally got the point.
According to the pundits, the actual game, had it continued, could have been
drawn with best play.
The possibility of gaining an international title norm or a FIDE rating was
one of this year’s critical changes, and it meant a lengthening of the tour­
nament to ten rounds (nine is FID E’s minimum requirement for title norms).
Another change, a direct by-product o f the foregoing, was the additional
leeway granted to the director in pairing players to maximize their title chances.
The basic tenets o f the Swiss system—to pair players in the same score group
who had not yet played each other—remained theoretically intact, but now a
player aspiring for a title norm might be paired against a titled foreigner whom
he might not have played if the pairings were made according to the strictest
formula.
This discretionary power did not come without problems. Entering the final
round, Liberzon had seven points, Evans six and a half, and Gligoric,
Gheorghiu, Quinteros, and Weinstein six each. The first two had already
played each other, so the pairing Liberzon-Gligoric was natural. Evans and
Weinstein had both already played Quinteros. Evans and Gheorghiu now
argued vehemently that the correct pairing of the other four leading players
was Evans-Weinstein and Gheorghiu-Quinteros, for to pair b o th Weinstein and
Quinteros against players in a lower score group would be completely contrary
to the spirit of Swiss-system pairings. Several hours of heated discussion
culminated in some phone calls to the USCF’s main office to get an opinion on
Kashdan’s decision to pair Evans with Gheorghiu and to “ pair down” the
other two. In the true tradition of baseball umpires, the implacable Kashdan
stuck by his original decision, which led Evans to vow that he would complete
this tournament but would never again compete in Lone Pine.
Liberzon drew quickly with Gligoric, and soon, when Gheorghiu-
Evans was drawn, he emerged in clear first place. Evans thus wound up alone
in second place. Tied for third through eighth with six and a half points were
Browne, Gheorghiu, Weinstein, Panno, Quinteros, and Gligoric.

94
 1975: Q U A N T U M L E A P

R ound Two
White sends his Queen Rook on a
kamikaze mission.

Sicilian Defense
L. Shamkovich D. W aterman
1 £>f3 c5 2 e4 £}f6 3 £)c3 g6 4 d4
cxd4 5 ®xd4 S c 6 6 e4 Jig7 7 Jke3
£)g4

Black welcomes exchanges because 1 0 .. . # a 5

of his spatial inferiority.
If Black doesn’t intend to pocket
8 # x g 4 S x d 4 9 # d l 53e6 the a-pawn he should keep his Queen
on d8 for now.
Making room for the Queen
Bishop at c6. I l i i e 2 d6 12 0-0 &d7

10 H cl 1 2 .. .^ .x c 3 13 H x c 3 # x a 2 1 4 # c l
# a 5 15 f4 gives White an irresistible
B row ne-W aterm an (C alifornia initiative.
1974) provides a superb example of
the exciting play that might occur if 13 -E)d5! Axb2?!
Black is willing to accept the inherent
risks of the unorthodox line 10 # d 2 All part of Black’s plan, but White
d6 11 Jid 3 JLd7 12 0-0 # a 5 13 S a c l has seen further. 13 ... Jic 6 14 b4
& ,c 6 14 J ib l # h 5 (a key move in # x a 2 15 f4 Hc8 16 f5 ,S.xd5 offers
Black’s plan) 15 £id5 g51? 16 f3 ^ e 5 stouter resistance.
17 g3 S g 8 18 # f 2 Jif4 19 ® h l
iix e3 20 # x e 3 f6, and now the 14 S b l ^ g7 1 5 S x b 7 S,c6
dram atic finish: 21 f4 gxf4 22 gxf4
® d7 23 f5 £>g5 24 c5 4)f7 25 £>f4 If 15 ... # x a 2 16 c51, threatening
# h 6 26 # b 3 S g 7 27 cxd6 £)xd6 28 17 S3xe7 while Black cannot capture
# e 6 + ®'e8 29 Hxc6! bxc6 30 e5 on c5.
Hb8! 31 b3 H b4 32 exf6 (White
should content himself with a draw 16 Sxe7+!<ST8
by 32 exd6 H xf4 33 # c 8 + , etc.) 32
... S x f4 33 H el # x h 2 + l , White
resigned.

95
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

30 B e l B e2 31 S a l a5 32 a4 B e4 33
f3 B c4 34 <S>f2 <§>c5 35 g4 <S>b4 36 h4
■$>03 37 ® g3 \Pb2 38 B h l B xa4 39
h5 gxh5 40 gxh5 B c4 41 h6 B c8 42
h7 B h 8 43 ® g4 a4 44 <$>g5 a3 45
®>g6 a2 46 <&>g7 a l # 47 S x a l Black
resigns.

R o u n d T h ree
W hite’s silky-smooth play calls to
mind the legendary Capablanca.

17 c5! Pirc Defense

V. Liberzon R. Ervin
Allowing the King Bishop to par­
ticipate in the attack and threatening 1 e4 d6 2 d4 4)f6 3 43c3 g6 4 4313
to rescue his Rook. &g7 5 &e2 0-0 6 0-0

17 ... 4)xc5 Let’s see how the two best players

in the world handled this position.
If 17 ... Jkxd5 18 # x d 5 <®xe7? 19 Karpov-Korchnoi (Leningrad Inter­
c x d 6 + , etc. And 17 ... dxc5 leads to zonal 1973) went 6 ... 43c6 7 d5 43b8
18 Bxe6 fxe6 19 43 f4 <S>e7 20 4)xe6! 8 h3 c6 9 a4 a5 10 A g S & d 7 11 B e l
® xe6 21 & c 4 + <S>e7 22 A g5 + 43a6 12 dxc6 & x c 6 13 43b5 43b4
Jlf6 23 e5! ^.xg5 24 # d 6 + <S>e8 25 with unclear play. The decisive
# x c 6 + , etc. thirty-second game of their 1978
W orld Championship match pro­
18 Jic4 i2,xd5 ceeded 6 ... c5 7 d5 4 la6 8 J if4 43c7
9 a4 b6 10 B e l Jib 7 11 A c4 4)h5 12
The better 18 ... B e8 means only a &g5 43f6 13 # d 3 , and W hite’s
slower death. central bind gave him a small ad­
vantage.
19 # x d 5 ®>xe7 20 # x f 7 + <g>d8 21
# x g 7 He8 22 Ji.d5 H b8 23 # x h 7 6 ... 43c6

White couldn’t ask for more. He A popular idea is 6 ... Jig 4 , in

easily converts to a winning ending. order to exert maximum pressure on
d4 and force W hite to commit
23 ... 43xe4 24 M c 6 # c 7 25 himself in the center.
# x c 7 + ® xc7 26 B e l 4)c5 27 ,&xe8
Bxe8 28 A xc5 dxc5 29 S x c5 + ® d6 7 d5 43b8

96
 1975: Q U A N T U M L E A P

The loss of two tempos is not 19 H exdl Hed8 20 £>c4 S x d l

harm ful because the center has
become stabilized. 20 ... S d 5 21 H d4 leaves Black in
a quandary as to how to meet S a d i ,
8 S e l c6 9 JLf 1 2 e 8 g3, Jig 2 , etc.

Black should make use o f the 21 S x d l b5 22 £)b6

opportunity to simplify with 9 ...
&g4. More accurate seems 22 axb5 axb5
23 £>a31.
10 h3 a6 11 a4 cxd5 12 <Sxd5
22 ... Hb8 23 a5 24 c4 bxc4
12 exd5!, planning a4-a5, 53d2-c4, 25 &xc4 e6?l
etc., puts Black under greater
pressure. White prefers a simpler Black can still put up a dour
approach. struggle with 25 ... © e8, but not 25
... £)e4? 26 S d 7 <§>f6 27 2 x b 7
12 ... b6 13 c3 iib 7 14 £>xf6 + Hxb7 28 A d5.
i£,xf6 + 15 A g j 53d7 16 &.xt6 £ixf6
17 e5! dxe5 18 £)xe5 26 S d 6 S2d5?

Now it’s a lost cause. 26 ... <3?f8

stays alive, for 27 H d7 can be an­
swered by 27 ... Jbcg2! and if 28
® xg2 Hxb6.

27 ,S.xd5 -S.xd5 28 £)xd5 exd5 29

S b 6 ! Hc8 30 S x a 6 H c l + 31 '§>h2
S b l 32 Hb6 d4 33 Hb3 d3 34 Hxd3
S xb 2 35 Ha3

18 ... # x d l?

18 ... # c 7 ! 19 & .c4 e6 20 # d 4

S a d 8 21 # f 4 # e 7 ! (21 ... ® g7? 22
£ixg6!) is only slightly advantageous
for White. Now Black faces an uphill
struggle to draw.

97
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

Once the White Rook supports the 9 # x d 8 + ® xd8 10 &xc4 © bd7 11

passed pawn from behind, victory is 0-0 ®>e7 12 e4 b6 13 f3; his strong
near. pressure on the Queenside and two
powerful Bishops bring him a d ear
3 5 ... Hb7 36 a6 Ha7 3 7 ® g 3 ® f6 advantage.
38 <g>f4 h6 39 h4 ® e6 40 ® e4 ® d6
41 f4 h5 42 f5 43 ®>f4.'®b8 7 ... Jie7
8 c5
Black lost on time.
The inferior position o f W hite’s
King Knight would make it im­
possible for him to exploit Black’s
isolated d-pawn (after exchanges
Evans’s mail-order lessons from on d5), so he tries to establish a
H arry Houdini pay off.
Queenside majority while restraining
Black’s majority in the center.
Nimzo-Indian Defense
L. Evans C. Pilnik 8 0-0
9 b4 b6
1 d4 £)f6
10 g3 a5
2 c4 e6
11 H bl axb4
3 -;.jc3 A b4
12 axb4 bxc5
4 e3 c5
13 dxc5 £2)a6
5 £)e2
Gligoric-Szabo (Helsinki 1952)
Botvinnik often played this line.
continued 13 ... <E)c6 14 Jkg2 H b8 15
The idea is to avoid doubled pawns
A a3 A d i 16 0-0 £)a7 17 S e l S e 8 ,
on the c-file.
with approximately equal chances.
5 ... d5
14 £)d41?
If Black wants to keep his King
Bishop he should exchange on d4
immediately.

6 a3 cxd4?l
7 exd4?!

White should jum p at the chance

for 7 axb4! dxc3 8 $jxc3 dxc4 (no
better is 8 ... 0-0 9 cxd5 exd5 10 A e2
£>c6 11 b5 £>e7 12 0-0 A e6 13 b3 a6)

98
 1975: Q U A N T U M L E A P

Provoking the following danger­ 22 ... d4, winning for Black. And
ous piece sacrifice. A steadier course after 20 £ )b l # d 7 White faces the
is 14 i£.g2 H b8 15 A a3 & d7 16 0-0 awkward threat 21 ... # f 5 .
43c7, with double-edged play.
20 ... Jilg4?
14 ... 43xb4!
15 Hxb4 Jixc5 Black gets carried away by dreams
16 Hb5 o f glory. A fter 20 ... # d 7 ! 21 Hb8
(not 21 # c 2 £3e4, threatening 22 ...
The storm gathers even more force Jia 6 and ... Hc8) 21 ... S e 4 [21 ...
on 16 H a4 (16 H b3 e5 17 £ld2 d4 or # a 4 22 Jke2 £)d7 23 # x f 8 + ! (23
17 ... ile 6 ) 16 ... & d7 17 Hxa8 # x c 8 £lxb8) 23 ... £)xf8 24 Bxc8 d4
# x a 8 18^.g2 # a 7 . 25 JS.g5 is also obscure] 22 # c 2 f5,
and it’s still anyone’s game.
16 ... #c7
17 fie 3 iix d 4 21 Jie2 #xc5

Another way to play is 17 ... e5 18 Reality sinks in. 21 ... # d 7 now

(De6 Jixe6 19 Hxc5 (19 Jixc5 loses to 22 # x f 8 + ! ® xf8 23 &c5 +
H fb8!) 19 ... # e 7 20 £>xd5! £)xd5 <S>g8 24 H b 8 + £le8 25 A x g 4 , etc.
21 Bxd5 &xd5 22 # x d 5 H a l + 23 Black is bankrupt.
® ’e2, giving Black a dangerous
initiative without risk. 22 A xc5 ,S'.xe2 23 '2?xe2 Hc8 24
-&d6 h5 25 &xe5 H c2 + 26 <S>d3
18 # x d 4 e5 Haa2 27 Jib2 Hc6 28 £>c3 £>g4 29
19 # c 5 H al + Qxa2 £>xf2 + 30 <$>d2 £lx h l 31 &d4
20 43dl Ha6 32 43c3 H a l 33 H b l H xb l 34
£>xbl g5 35 <g>e2 f5 36 <S>f3 Black
resigns.

White attains a superior position

by quiet maneuvering, then brings
home the point with power tactics.

Reti Opening
I. Bilek A . D ak e

20 H b l is unplayable due to 20 ... 1 g3 d5 2 JsLg2 £>f6 3 £>f3 g6 4 0-0

H xbl + 21 £)xbl # b 7 followed by Jig7 5 d4 0-0 6 c4 c6

99
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

The pawn at c4 is now in peril. 15 c5 bxc5 16 Jixf6 4)xf6

7£>bd2 The Exchange sacrifice 16 ... Jbd'6

17 £>e4 cxd4 18 £)d6 # c 7 19 £>xe8
It’s difficult for White to make Bxe8 20 B a d l # d 6 (20 ... # b 6 21
anything of his extra tempo in the # a 4 ) 21 £>xd4! & xd4 22 # a 4 e5 23
symmetrical line 7 cxd5 cxd5 8 £)c3 B xd4! fails to balance the chances.
S c 6 (8 ... 53e4 is also playable) 9
£)e5.

7 ... £>bd7?l

Black should not allow his op­

ponent so much freedom in the
center. 7 ... Jif5 8 b3 <E)e4 fights for
im portant terrain and adds breathing
space by exchanging a piece.

8 # c 2 b6

Black’s Queen Bishop is all

dressed up with no place to go. Passive, but 17 ... 4)d5 18 <Sxc5 is
extremely unattractive for Black.
9 e4 dxe4
18 £>xc5 B b8 19 B a d l Qxc5 20
An alternative strategy based on dxc5
holding the central strongpoint is 9
... Jib 7 10 B e l e6, etc. Transferring his strong outpost
from c5 to the more advanced d6.
10 ©xe4 JLb7 11 B d l # c 8 12
S)c3 B e8 13 B e l 20 ... # c 7 21 £)d2 a5 22 £>c4 ^.a6
23 £>d6 B ed8 24 b3 25 # c 3
Having pushed the Black Queen to Jie7?l
an inferior square, the King Rook
now hinders the life-giving ... e5. Black should take his chances in
the inferior ending after 25 ... JsLxd6
1 3 ... a6 14 Jig5e6 26 cxd6 B xd6 27 B xd6 # x d 6 28
# x a 5 c5.
Black tires of waiting moves and
plans 15 ... c5, striking at the White 26 B d2 S d 7 27 B e d l Bbd8 28
center. #e5

100
 1975: Q U A N T U M L E A P

If Black were to exchange on d6 44 # h 7 + 45 # h 6 + ® f7 46

now, White would have a m on­ £)d6 + ® g8 47 # e 6 + ® f8 48
strously strong passed pawn and #e8 +
easy access to Black’s Queenside
weaklings. There’s no shelter for Black’s
King.
28 ... JLfS 29 Ilh 3 Jslg7 30 # e 3
<§>f8 31 # f 4 f5? 48 ... <$>g7 49 £>f5 + <$>16 50 g4
^.xh2 51 # h 8 + <&e6 52 # h 6 + <§>f7
Panicking in time pressure. 53 # g 7 + <&e6 54 & d 4 + Black
resigns.
32 # e 3 eS 33 # g 5 e4

Round Four
Black’s simple, straightforward
moves stand in sharp contrast to
W hite’s bizarre maneuvers, and they
prove to be significantly stronger.

Bird’s Opening
D. Suttles L. Evans
1 d3 g6 2 g3 J^,g7 3 itg 2 c5 4 £)c3
£) c6 5 f4 d6 6 .Qf3 £)f6 7 0-0 0-0 8 h3
White now decides the game with a £}e8
simple yet pleasing demolition
sacrifice, obtaining four pawns and a Preparing f7-f5 should it be
powerful attack for a piece. necessary to forestall a Kingside
pawnstorm, and sending the Knight
34 & xf5! gxf5 35 # x f 5 + ® g8 36 toward the central outpost at d4.
# c 6 + <$>f8 37 # x e 4 S e 7 38 # x h 7
S e 6 39 S f5 ! B xd2 9 ®>h2 £ic7 10 &e4?

If 39 ... Bde8 40 <5^2! # e 5 (40 ... Losing time and misplacing the
&Lc8 41 H d7!) 41 H e ll. Knight. White should transpose to
the Closed Sicilian with 10 e4.
40 f i x d 2 H e l + 41 ® g 2 A f l + 42
<S>f3 A e S 43 # h 6 + ®>f7 10 ... f5 11 £3f2 e5

If 43 ... ® g8 44 # e 6 + <S>f8 45 Having no reason to fear the hole

£>h6L at d5 now that its natural squatter

101
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

has strayed far afield, Black alertly 20 JS.el axb4 21 axb4 £>e5 22
grabs more o f the center. S x e 5 ,§,xe5 23 J ii3 S a 8

12 c3 <§>1 1 8 ! 13 e4 exf4 14 &xf4 24 bxc5 dxc5 25 # e 2 # f 6

14 gxf4 results in a horrid pawn W hite’s purposeless moves are

structure for White after 14 ... fxe4 directly responsible for his inability
15 dxe4 d5. to organize any effective resistance,
and he is gradually pushed off the
14 ... £3e6 15 Jkd2 f4! 16 g4 H b8 board.

Having won domination o f the 26 £ )d l Ha3 27 'S'hl Hfa8 28

dark squares and having neutralized Jig2 b4! 29 S)e3 bxc3 30 £)c4 £)d4
W hite’s Ringside ambitions, Black 31 # d l c2 32 S x c2 £)xe2 33 # x c 2
turns his attention to the opening of S a 2 34 # b 3 A e6 35 # b 5 &.xc4 36
lines for his more effective pieces. # x c 4 S a l 37 g5 # x g 5 38 # f 7
H x el! White resigns
17 a3 b5 18 b4 a5
If 39 S x e l # g 3 , with 40 ... f3 on
Black will not be denied, and tap. Precise play by Black from start
meanwhile White has created fresh to finish.
weaknesses.

19 S c l Jid7 Ruy Lopez

L. Shamkovich R. Ervin
Step by step Black begins to seize
more im portant, and deadlier, points 1 e4 e5 2 & f3 £)c6 3 & b5 a6 4
of attack. A a 4 S f 6 5 0-0 b5

102
 1975: Q U A N T U M L E A P

The apparently insignificant in­ with the better game for White
version of Black’s fifth and sixth (N e z h m e td in o v - S h a m k o v ic h ,
moves allows White to omit the U.S.S.R. 1956).
customary 6 H el in favor o f a more
energetic continuation. This is the 13 # g 4 dxc3 14 <&xc3 £)d4 15
cause o f all Black’s subsequent # x h 5 gxh6 16 f4 £>xb3
troubles.
This allows the White Rooks to get
6 Jib3 A e l 7 d4! d6 at the Black King. Letting W hite’s
Bishop live would hardly be better.
White stands better after 7 ... exd4
(7 ... £>xd4? 8 £>xd4 exd4 9 e5) 8 e5 17 axb3 istf6 18 # x h 6 b4?l
Se4 9 ^ d 5 .
Underestimating the danger. He
8 c3 &g4 9 h3! &xf3 10 # x f 3 should keep W hite’s horse at bay for
exd4 11 # g 3 as long as possible by 18 ... c6.

Also 11 H d l dxc3 12 4l)xc3 prom ­ 19 £)d5 &g7

ises White a sustained initiative.
If 19 ... JsLxb2? 2 0 e51.

20 # h 5 c6 21 £)e3 # b 6 22 H f3
<®h8

Perhaps Black overlooked 22 ...

iid 4 23 Sl?hl! when making his
eighteenth move.

2 3 ® h l# d 4

A snappy finish would be 11 ... g6

12 Ji,h6! £)xe4? 13 ^.d5! £lxg3 14
Jit,xc6 + , etc.

12 ^.h6 £>h5

The original game in this line ran

12 ... £)e8 13 & ,d5 # d 7 14 # g 4 1 ,

103
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

24 Hg3! # x b 2 8 iS,d3

If 24 ... # x e 4 25 S xg7! ® xg7 26 8 h3 and 8 h4 have also been

£>f5 + <$T6 (26 ... <g>h8 27 # g 5 ) 27 played, but this is the most natural
# g 5 + ® e6 28 <Qg31, and Black’s move, developing a new piece.
Queen must abandon the e-file.
8 .. . A d6
25 H d l H g8 26 £>c4 # f 2 27
£>xd6 H af8 28 S g 4 # c 2 29 S g l ! Making room for the King Knight
at e7, but Black must beware of
Not 29 S h 4 ? „Slh6!. falling too far behind in develop­
ment.
29 ... # x b 3 30 Sh4 h6 31
# x h 6 + ! Black resigns. 9 # f3 !

An improvement on Taimanov-
M arovic (Skopje 1970), which
Round Five
brought W hite a tiny edge after 9
A spicy blend of strategy and
# e 2 h5 10 g5 £>e7 11 £)f3 & x f 4 12
tactics.
exf4 & g4 13 h3 & xf3 14 # x f 3 , etc.
Queen’s Gambit Declined
9 . . .^ .x f4 ? l
L. Evans P. Benko
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 <&c3 Ife7 Underestimating W hite’s Kingside
pawn roller. Either 9 ... £De7 or 9 ...
Black’s move order is designed to h5 is more appropriate.
avoid the pin JLg5.
10 exf4! h5 11 f5 J£,d7
4 cxd5 exd5 5 ,fef4 c6 6 e3 JkfS 7
g41? If 11 ... hxg4? 1 2 #e31.

Botvinnik’s move. White wins a 12 gxh51?

tempo as he gains space on the
Kingside, but he slightly weakens his The logical positional course is 12
pawn front. h3 hxg4 13 hxg4 H x h l 14 # x h l ,
etc., but White is looking for a quick
7 ... Jsle6 tactical kill.

Black must not fall for 7 ... ^.g6?l 12 ... # f 6 13 0-0-0 £>e7
8 h4! ^.xh4 9 # b 3 b6 10 S xh4!
# x h 4 11 43xd51, etc. In view o f W hite’s next move, this

104
 1975: Q U A N T U M L E A P

is preferable to the immediate 20 ... 0-0 is a little better.

capture of the d-pawn.
21 S h e l ■S’db 22 £)c5 a h 6 23 f4!
14 S e l £)a6? S f6

B lack’s uncoordinated pieces Now everything is hunky-dory,

cannot utilize the b-file effectively, thought Black.
and his weak Queenside will surely
tell against him. He should snatch 24 f5! £>xf5 25 H x e6 + ! fxe6 26
the d-pawn and try to survive after Hxe6 + !
15 £>ge2 # f 6 (15 ... # c 5 ? 16 f6) 16
&g3. Or he can try 14 ... <3?f8 or 14 W hite’s unusual double Exchange
... 0-0, with unclear play in either sacrifice in the endgame leaves Black
case. at the mercy of two wild stallions.

15 Jslxa6! bxa6 16 S g e2 Jixf5? 26 ... 2Sxe6 27 £)xf5+ <S>c7 28

£)xe6 + &'(i7 29 £)exg7 Hc8 30 h6
Black can still squirm and shout a5 31 ® d2 a4 32 h4 a5 33 <$>e3 Hb8
after 16 ... <S>f8 17 £>a4. Now he’s 34 ® f4 Hxb2 35 h7 S b 8 36 ®>g5
busted, since he cannot resist the Black resigns.
pressure along the e-file.

17 £)g3 # h 6 +

W orse is 17 ... Jie6 18 # x f 6 gxf6

19£)a4. Round Six
White sells his King Bishop for an
18 # e 3 ! # x e 3 + 19 Hxe3 ^.e6 20 advantage that turns out to be
£la4 ® d7 Black’s.

105
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

English Opening 11 Jslxc6 Jixc6 12 £>xe5 iS.e8 13

#b3
K. Commons F. Gheorghiu
1 £)f3 e5 2 c4 ©fft 3 £>c3 d5 4 cxd5 Trying to win time for the thrust
£>xd5 5 g3 £ ) c6 6 JS.g2 £)c7 7 d3 e5 d3-d4, which would bring White the
better game. 13 f4?! weakens the
Black opts for a mirror-image Kingside, and 13 e4? JS.f6 14 £)g4
Maroczy Bind. Another plan begins Jkd4 15 43e3 Jstc6 16 £)f5 43e6 gave
w ith 7 ... g6. Black fine counterplay in Petrosian-
Vaganian (U.S.S.R. Championship
8 0-0 & , t l 9 £>d2 J£.d7 1976). A promising continuation for
White is 13 ^,e3 £)e6 1 4 H cl JS,f6 15
Else White will capture on c6. <Bc4 iS,c6 16 53e4, though this line
Hort tried a new plan against may be strengthened for Black.
Timman at Montreal 1979: after 9 ...
# d 7 10 £)c4 f6 11 # a 4 © d8 12
13 ... b6 14 A.e3 <STi8 15 H fd l f6
# x d 7 + ^ x d 7 13 f4 exf4 14 jSlxf4
16 © f3 ,&.f7 17 # a 4 S d 5 18 £)xd5
White had a slight plus.
^.xd5 19 a3 a6 20 £>d2?
10£lc4 0-0!?
The coming moves, the logical
sequel to this retreat, fatally weaken
the King’s fortress. In all fairness,
however, it is difficult to suggest
something constructive for White.

20 ... # c 8 ! 21 f3 # e 6 22 <2>f2 f5
23 f i e l A f6 24 # c 2

Enterprising players were winning

some sparkling games with this
invention of Polugaevsky’s in the
mid-1970’s, but it is currently
considered too risky. The alternative
10 ... f6 11 f4 b5 12 £)e3! exf4 13
gxf4 favors White.

106
 1975: Q U A N T U M L E A P

There’s no mate after 24 ... 7 ... 0-0 8 43c3 43xe5 9 Hxe5 Jsl,f6
# x e 3 + 25 'S ’xeS ,§,d4 + 26 ®>f4 10 He3 g6
S a e 8 27 g4!.
Alertly forestalling 11 Jixh7 + , 12
25 JS,xf4 # h 5 + . etc.

If 25 g x f4 ??# x e3 + l. 11 b3 b6

25 ... g5! 26 e4 gxf4 27 exd5 # h 3 Black would be foolhardy to give

28 ^Ifl ^ .d4+ 29 ®>e2 H ae8+ 30 up his valuable King Bishop to
'S’d l S e l + 31 ® x e l S e 8 + White double W hite’s pawns.
resigns.
12 iS.a3 c5

But White might have been

Both sides conspire to give the prepared to exchange his dark-
stuffy Berlin Defense a decidedly square Bishop to give Black doubled
Bohemian cast. is o la te d pawns.

Ruy Lopez 13 # g 4 JiLd4 14 S e 2 ,&b7 15

L. Shamkovieh W. Martz S a e l f5

1 c4 e5 2 «M3 £>c6 3 ,&b5 £>f6 Black strives to complete his

mobilization and seize the initiative.
The Berlin Defense is rarely played
by modern masters. A notable ex­ 1 6 # f4 # f6 1 7 h 4
ception is American Grandmaster
A rthur Bisguier, who plays the The strong threat was 17 ... g5.
endgames which arise from the main
lines with great skill.

4 0-0 <Sxe4 5 S e l

The line 5 d4 £3d6 6 Jixc6 dxc6 7

dxe5 £>f5 8 # x d 8 + ® xd8 9 £)c3 is
ill-suited to Shamkovich’s daring
temperament.

5 ... £)d6 6 £>xe5 &e7 7 iS,d3

Standing ready for an attack on

the castled King.

107
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

Black cannot oppose Rooks, for 27 S x d 4 ! S x e4 28 S dxe4 # g 7 29

his Queensidc pawns would be too S e 7 # d 4 30 B b l <§>g8 31 Ab2 B b8
vulnerable after 17 ... S a e 8 18 Hxe8 32 Ilx d 4 H x b l 33 A g l Black
Sxe8 19 Sxe8 + £>xe8 20 # b 8 # e 5 resigns.
21 # x b 7 # e l + 22 <$>h2 A e S + 23
g3 # x f 2 + 24 # g 2 A x g 3 + 25 ® h3 Mate is unavoidable.
# x g 2 + 26 <S>xg2 JLxh4'27 £)b5.
And 17 ... a6 18 S e 7 also favors R o u n d Seven
White.
Black: G. Sigurjonsson
18 Jslc4+ ®>h8 19 <£)d5 # g 7

If 19 ... # f7 1 ? 20 £)xb6 d5 21
■Sxa8 dxc4 22 £3c7 and the nimble
Knight still lives.

20 d3 b5 21 dxe4 bxc4 22 bxc4 fxe4

23 # x e 4 # f 7

It looks as though Black will

obtain sufficient activity to console
him for the loss of a pawn, but
W hite’s next few moves dispel all
illusions.
W hite’s Knight has just returned
24 <2?h2! A a6 25 f4! d6 from dancing school and is eager to
strut his stuff.
If 25 ... Jbtc4 26 isfxc5!.
62 £ )g 3 ® g 6
26 S d 2 ! B ae8
O f course not 62 ... S x f4 ? 63
■S3h5 + .

63 £)e2 B d2

63 ... B e4 may be better, but after

64 <S>f2 White activates his King and
his a-pawn will soon become a
serious threat.

64 f5 +1 '2?g5 65 fxe6 fxe6 66

h4 + 1 ® f5

108
 1975: Q U A N T U M L E A P

In order to avoid a fatal check 84 S f 4 + <S>g7 85 H f2 B a5 86 ®>g2

Black’s King must bob and weave B b5 87 <S>h3 B a5 88 B e2 <®f6 89
like a prizefighter. B e4 S a 7 90 B g4 <S>f7 91 h6 B a8 92
£3h5 Black resigns.
67*£lg3 + ® g4

If 67 ... ® f4? 68 <Sh5 + ® g4 69

<&f6 + H?g3 7 0 £ k 4 + , etc. Round Eight
The Old Indian goes on the
68 £>fl! S x a2 warpath!

Unfortunately for Black, if 68 ... Old Indian Defense

B d 4 69 Bxc4 B xc4 70 ®e3 + . 1. Csom M. Quinteros

69 B xc4 + <S>f5? 1 E)f3 d6

2 d4 S f6
3 c4 c6
4 <Sc3 £>bd7
5 g3 e5
6 Jig2 J§,e7
7 0-0 0-0
8 #c2 Be8
9 h3 is.f8
10 e4

Black threatened to establish an

advanced strongpoint in the center
with 10... e4.

69 ... ‘S ’fS! gives some drawing 10 ... a6

chances because White would have a 11 fid l
hard time activating his Knight while
also keeping his im portant h-pawn. 11 d5 offers White chances for an
Now White efficiently dispatches his opening advantage. Black cannot
opponent. then obtain Queenside counterplay
with ... b5 without allowing the c-file
70 £ie3 + ! f£7xc5 71 Q g4 + <S>f5 to be opened, but that would favor
72 & xh6 + ® g6 73 £)g4 ®>h5 74 White because of his spatial ad­
£)H2 B b2 75 £>fl 'S'gO 76 £>g3 S a 2 vantage.
77 B f4 B b2 78 B g 4 + ® f7 79
B f4 + ®>g6 80 H g 4 + ®>f7 81 h5 11 ... b5
B a7 82 H f4 + ®>g7 83 B g 4 + <3?f7 12 c5?

109
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

This type of attack on Black’s 17 ... 43xd5

center often proves devastating in 18 ^,xd5 #b6
similar circumstances, but the sub­ 19 Jslxa8 c4 +
sequent play graphically demon­
strates that each position in chess
must be judged on its own merits.

12 ... exd4
13 4Dxd4 dxcS
14 Q xc6 #b6
15 43d5

If 15 e5 JS,b7! 16exf6 £}xf61.

20 <2?h2

Black annihilates the various alter­

natives with equal ruthlessness:
A ) 20 ® g2 & .b l + 21 &xb7
# x b 7 + 22 <g>f2 S g 4 + ! 23 hxg4
A c 5 + 24 A e3 ^ .x e3 + 25 ® e2
# g 2 + 26 ‘SPel iS,d2 mate.
B ) 20 <g>fl JS,xh3 + 21 Jig 2 £)f3!
22 # f 2 i&h2+ 23 'S ’gl # x f 2 + 24
15 ... #xc6! <S >xf2 Jic5 + 25 H d4 JS,xd4 mate.
C) 20 <$>hl £>d3 21 ® h2 &xh3!
Black has charted the treacherous 22 <$>xh3 # h 6 + 23 ® g2 S e l l ! 24 .
twists and turns of his combination H x d 3 # h l + 25 <3?f2 # f l mate.
with the utm ost precision, as we shall
see. 20 ... £)g4 + l!
21 hxg4 Jixg4
16 e5 S x e5 22 H hl
17 f4
If 22 Jkg 2 # h 6 + 23 <$>gl ^.c5 +
Even if he had an inkling of 24 <§>fl # h 2 .
Black’s plans, it’s doubtful that
White would have changed course by 22 ... Hxa8
17 43e7 + is!,xe7 18 JS.xc6 43xc6 19 23 #e4 H e8!l
® h2 JS,b7. White resigns

110
 1975: Q U A N T U M L E A P

The depth, imagination, unex­

pectedness, and power of Black’s
combination rank it among the best
ever played.

A sparkling endgame crowns this

multifaceted contest.

Sicilian Defense
P. Biyiasas N. Weinstein
1 e4 c5 2 E m d6 3 £)c3 £ k 6 4 g3
This serious error not only
g6 5 J^,g2 6 0-0 £>f6 7 d3 0-0 8
surrenders control o f the important
Jkg5 Hb8 9 # d 2 b5 10 A h 6
e5-square but virtually eliminates all
prospects of a Kingside attack as
The first harbinger o f W hite’s
well. White retains a small advantage
intended Kingside attack: he elim­
after 16 gxf4! £)d7 [16 ... £)xe4? 17
inates the Black King’s staunchest
dxe4 # x h 4 18 c3, etc., clearly favors
defender.
White; 16 ... £>g4 (16 ... © h5 17
# e l ! , ' but not 17 # f 2 ? £)xf4! 18
10... -Sd4 11 Jixg7 ^ x g 7
# x f 4 £3e2 + ) 17 £>xg4 # x h 4 18
S3e3 f5 19 c3 is similar to the main
Naturally Black would like to
line except that here Black’s Knight
eliminate W hite’s King Knight is misplaced] 17 # T 2 f5 18 c3 bxc3 19
because it is one of W hite’s prime bxc3 43e2 + ! 20 # x e 2 # x h 4 .
attacking pieces, but after 11 ...
43xf3 + 12 Jixf3 <&xgl 13 d4! cxd4
14 # x d 4 # b 6 15 # x b 6 Hxb6 16 16 ... © d7 17 c3 bxc3 18 bxc3
<E)d5 43xd5 17 exd5 White has the # a 5 ! 19 H a fl f6!
better ending.
An embarrassing error would be
12£3h4! e5!? 19 ... # x c 3 ? ? 20 # x c 3 , pinning the
Queen Knight and preventing 20 ...
Preferring to challenge White <E3e2+. Also, 19 ... iix a 2 ? loses
directly rather than allow him to after 20 S 4 f2 .
build up his attack undisturbed.

13 £ )d l b4 14 £le3 Ae6 15 f4! e.\f4 20 S 4 f2 £>b5 21 S c l £la3 22 c4

111
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

White gives the active Black Queen £)3c2 39 JkUl ® f7 40 B)a4 B)b4 41
an ultimatum: exchange or retreat. <g>e3 <$>e7 42 A g 4 Bdc6

22 ... # x d 2 23 S xd 2 S b 4 24 B)f3 White can only pass while Black

S fb 8 25 & d l ^ g 4 ! tries to hit on the right plan.

Preparing a general 'exchange 43 £> c3 £)e5 44 j£.e2 B?e6 45 B)b5

which will leave White with a bad a6 46 B e 3 BiecO 47 j£.dl B e5 48
Bishop against a good Knight. A e2 h6 49 h4

26 h3 &xf3 27 &xf3 £>e5 28 Ae2

£ )b l 29 Hdc2 B)c6

A critical decision. White hopes to

reduce the number of pawns, but this
attem pt weakens a sector which
30 a3 Black will try to infiltrate.

White should go into suspended 49 ... ® d7 50 Bla4 ® c7 51 <S>d2

anim ation with 30 JsLfl B3d4 31 H f2. ® b7 52 ® e3 B k2 + 53 Bed2 B d 4 54 .
Now Black, with a d m irab le A d i £>d7 55 <S>e3 B b 6 56 B)c3 ® c7
technique, patiently nurses his extra 57 <S>f4 'S'd? 58 J£,g4 + ® e7 59 ® e3
pawn to victory. a5

30 ... Bb3! 31 B a2 B)d4 32 ®>f2 Setting the stage for the King’s
Sxa3 33 Bxa3 <B)xa3 34 B a l B b3 decisive invasion. Even with his
35 B a2 B)dc2 36 B b2 pawn still at h3 White would be lost.

He cannot tolerate the active Black 60 Jsldl g5 61 hxg5 fxg5 62 ® d2

Rook. ^>f6 63 ® e3 <§>e5 64 BT12 B e6 65
£3b5 Bid4 66 ®t.3 B d 7 67 B c7 B f6
36 ... Bxb2 37 B)xb2 £>d4 38 A g4 68 £>d5 B ) c6 69 ® b3 B)b4 70 ® c3

112
 1975: Q U A N T U M L E A P

£)bxd5 71 cxd5 h5 72 <$>1-4 h4 73 10 &e3 £)e8

gxh4 gxh4 74 <S>b5 h3 75 & f3 h2 76
rt!?xa5 <3g4 White resigns. 10 ... <Sh5 11 # d 2 g5 is more
enterprising, but also riskier.
R o u n d N ine
11 # d 2 ® h7
One of the tournam ent’s most
12 Ad3
crucial and hard-fought games.
W hite’s dilly-dallying will make
King’s Indian Defense
the execution of g2-g4 very difficult.
L. Shamkovich V. Liberzon 12 g4 f5 13 gxf5 gxf5 14 exf5 ibcf5 is
the logical course.
1 £)f3 £>f6
2 c4 86
12 f5
3 £)c3 ^,g7
13 exf5 gxf5
4 e4 d6
14 <E)gl £>b4
5 d4 0-0
6 h3
More natural is 14 . .. £)c5 15
# e 7 16 g4 17 £)ge2 £>f6, with a
Black is not known as an openings
complicated struggle.
connoisseur, so White tests him with
a seldom-played variation. 6 h3
com bines attack and defense, 15 0-0-0?
preparing to blow open.the Kingside
with g2-g4 once Black has played the The light-square Bishop is such a
thematic ... f5, and “ mining” the g4- valuable piece in this type of position
that White should preserve it even at
square.
the cost o f a few tempos.
6 ... e5
15 ... £)xd3 +
Quinteros-Timman (Wijk aan Zee 16 #xd3 a4
1974) immediately set upon each 17 4ige2 a3
other with hammer and tongs: 6 ...
c5 7 d5 e5 8 g4 £)a6 9 .ffi.d3 <Sc7 10 Loosening the long diagonal pro­
Jie3 H b8 11 <Sd2 a6 12 a4 ,&d7 13 vides Black with a valuable tactical
a5 b6 14 axb6 2 x b 6 15 b3 £)fe8 16 trump.
h4 Jkf6 17 # f 3 £>g7, and the fun
was just beginning. 18 b3 £)f6
19 g4?l
7 d5 as
8 &g5 © a6 T h ro u g h o u t the to u rn a m e n t
9 #c2 h6 Shamkovich has been successful with

113
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

provocative pawn sacrifices, but they damned by Black’s h-pawn. Con­

were made from strong positions fessing his sins will not save him
against players of lesser stature than either: 23 43g3 A g6 24 ii.xf6 (24
Liberzon. Here White gets no second hxg4 43xg4 25 Axg7 B xf2 and wins)
chance. Correct is 19 f4, and Black is 24 ... A xf6! 25 <&cxe4 (25 £>gxe4?
only slightly better. A xc3; or 25 hxg4 A g5 + 26 'S’dl e3
27 £)f5 exf2 28 # x f 2 # e 5 ) 25 ...
A b 2 + 26 ® b l H f4; or 23 A xf6
19 ... e4
jS,xf6 24 hxg4 A g5 + and 25 ...
20 #c2 fxg4
A g6; or, finally, 23 hxg4 £)xg4 24
21 Ad4
A xg7 # x g 7 ! (24 ... e3? 25 Bxg4!
A xc2 26 S x h 6 + and White wins) 25
21 <Sxe4 is easily repulsed by 21 ... 53g3 3 a e 8 with a winning position
£)xe4 2 2 # x e 4 + JS,f5. for Black.

23 ... S a e8
21 ... #e7
24 hxg4 4!)xg4
22 Sdgl
25 A xg7 #xg7
26 £)d4 e3!
Useless for White is 22 Jb tf6 # x f 6
23 Hxe4 # b 2 + . 26 ... A d7 is also good, but 26 .
e3! virtually eliminates W hite’
22 ... A fS cheapo potential

27 fxe3 Bxe3
28 #xe3

This is what White had in mind on

move twenty-three, and without it he
would be paralyzed.

28 5)xe3
29 Bxg7 + <$?xg7
30 B el ©g4
31 B e7 + ® g6
32 Bxc7 h5

23 #d2
This pawn hurtles down
sidelines like a fleet-footed halfback
Seeking salvation in an ending who refuses to be denied a touch­
with equal material, but he will be down.

14
 1975: Q U A N T U M L E A P

33 S)ce2 Black could put this Knight on c6

without fear if he first played ... b6
If 33 £>xf5 Hxf5 34 c5!? h4! and and JStb7.
Black will win the race.
9 &e3 0-0 10 B e l B e8 11 f4 &f8
33 ... £,d3 12 © b3
34 Hd7 S f6
35 B d8 ^.xe2! The Knight has carried out its task
o f hindering Black’s Queenside
Taking out a downfield blocker. development, and this retreat avoids
White makes a desperate bid to trip 12 g4 e5!, giving Black fine coun­
Black up at the goal line, but with his terplay.
King, Rook, and Knight running
interference, Black must score. 12 ... b6 13 # f3 ? !

36 ©xe2 h4 37 B g8 + ^ h 5 38 This delay allows Black to equal­

H h 8+ ® g5 39 H g8+ ® h 5 40 ize, whereas the aggressive 13 g4!
B h 8 + S3h6 41 ® d2 h3 42 !&g3 + steps up the pressure.
<S>g4 43 &Mil h2 44 ® e2 <S>h3 45 c5
dxc5 46 B h7 ® g2 47 Bxb7 ®xh1 48 13 ... Jib7 14 B c e l Bb8!
S g 7 Si'S 49 B g5 £)e7 50 He5 £3g6
51 B g5 £)f4 + 52<$>el £>g2 + White Threatening 14 ... b5.
resigns.
15 g4

H ere’s an excellent game with

clearcut problems that provide a
wealth of instruction.

Sicilian Defense
W. Browne F. Gheorghiu
1 e4 e5 2 £3f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ©xd4
a6 5 &d3 4316 6 0-0 d6 7 c4

Consolidating his hold on the

center. Black’s position is solid, but
he will find it difficult to execute the
freeing moves b7-b5 and d6-d5. The equalizer!

7 ... J i e 7 8 <S3c3 £> bd7 , 16 cxd5

115
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

16 g5 dxe4 17 £>xe4 S x e 4 18 JS,xe4 ponent in their mutual time pressure,

Jixe4 is agreeable for Black. hangs two pawns and, with them, the
game.
16 ... exd5 17 exd5 !kb4\ 18 A d4
32 £ld2 £>c5 33 f5 # d 7 34 ^,c3
The only move, for if 18 iS,d2 £>a4 35 ® e4 # b 5 ! 36 # f 2 # d 3 37
£)c51. # e l # c 2 + 38 ® f3 <Sxb2 39 # e 2
# x e 2 + 40 <3?xe2 Jkxa3 41 &64 £)c4
18 ... S x e l 19 H x e l £>xd5 20 42 ® d3 b5 43 f6 & f8 44 fxg7 -S,xg7
&e4! £ ) xc3 21 Jlxb7! 45 &c5 A e5 46 h4 ® g7 47 h5 f6 48
Jie7 <S>f7 49 A d 8 h6 White resigns.
If 21 ^,xc3 &xc3 22 # x c 3 £)f6 23
Jkxb7 a.xb7 and W hite’s exposed
King and overextended pawns spell
trouble.

21 ... £)d5 22 S d l S x b 7 23 # x d 5 The next game answers many

# c 8 24 h3 questions pertinent to the Closed
Sicilian.
Playing for a win. 24 Jixg7 <2?xg7
25 # d 4 + 43f6 26 # x b 4 # x g 4 + Sicilian Defense
doesn’t perturb Black. P. Biyiasas M. Damjanovic

24 ... & f8 25 S c l S c 7 26 S x c7 1 e4 c5 2 £>f3 £ k 6 3 £>c3 d6 4 g3

# x c 7 27 ® g2 # c 2 + 28 ® g3 # d 3 + g6 5 Jlg2 Jig7 6 0-0 e6 7 d3 43ge7
29 # f 3 # b l 30 a3 # e l + 31 <S>g2
#e6 Black has deployed his pieces with
maximum flexibility.

8 J^,g5 h6?l

He wants to avoid the exchange of

Bishops that would follow 8 ... 0-0 9
# d 2 and then jsLh6.

9 Jie3

Threatening 10 d4, and on 10 ...

cxd4 Black suffers from a backward
d-pawn.
The result should be a draw, but
White, trying to outplay his op­ 9 ... 4 3 d 4 1 0 # d 2 e 5

116
 1975: Q U A N T U M L E A P

10... 0-0? is unplayable because of ... g4 24 £>h2 h5 (24 ... 'S ’h7 25 h5
11 Jixh6 Jix h 6 12 # x h 6 43xc2 13 <Qe7 26 S f 4 also favors White) 25
S g 5 and mate in two. :2,h6 and White overruns the
Kingside dark squares.
11 £>el S,e6 12 f4 # d 7 13 £>e2
23 ... gxh4 24 <Sxh4 43xh4 25 gxh4
A plausible alternative is 13 £ )d l, #e7?
planning 14 c3 followed by £Df2,
£)f3, and d4. 25 ... ® h7 is stronger than this
tempting counterattack.
13 ... Hd8 14 c3 £)xe2 + 15 # x e 2
b6 16 £)f3 0-0 17 d4 26 ^,xh6 # x h 4 27 AgS # h 7 28
S f 2 Hc7 29 H a fl Hfc8 30 # f 4
Hc2

Black was fighting with one hand

tied behind his back while his King
was stuck in the middle, and as a 31 S f3 ! Hxb2 32 B g3 H8c2 33
result White is able to grab some ^.h3!
vital terrain.
Not 33 Jih 6 ? H x g 2 + !. Now
17 ... cxd4 18 cxd4 exf4 19 Jlxf4 Black can no longer fend off W hite’s
g5 20 JS.e3 ’Z)g6 decisive threats, the first being 34
Jih 6 .
If 20 ... d5 21 e5 S f 5 22 ^ .f2 g4 23
<SQel h5 24 <Qd3, and White 3 3 ...® f 8 34^,h4
maintains his central bind.
Threatening 34 Jfkxe6.
21 # d 2 d5 22 e5 Hc8 23 h4
34 ... Ji.xe5 35 # x e 5 # x h 4 36
White begins to reap tangible # d 6 + # e 7 37 B g 8 + ® xg8 38
benefits from his fine play. A fter 23 # x e 7 Black resigns.

117
T H E B E ST O F L O N E P IN E

Tigran Petrosian

118
 1976
Good Grefe, Walter Browne!
The world of chess has never suffered from a dearth of intense rivalries.
Consider Alekhine and Capablanca, Fine and Reshevsky, Botvinnik and
Smyslov, to name only a few. In recent years we have seen another, though
perhaps less spectacular, version of the relentless duel for supremacy.
John Grefe and Walter Browne both made their U.S. Championship debuts
in 1973. On his way to tying for first place (with Kavalek) in that tournam ent,
Grefe demolished Browne in a brilliant sacrificial miniature that was quickly
published all over the world. Browne extracted his revenge six months later, at
Lone Pine 1974. Now, two years later, these two were at it again!
Tigran Petrosian o f the Soviet Union, a former W orld Champion, had
quickly drawn his last-round game with Grandmaster Oscar Panno, giving
Petrosian the lead with a final score of 5 Ci—1 '/2 and leaving Panno tied for
second with five points. About an hour later, Vasily Smyslov, another former
World Champion from the Soviet Union, drew with Larry Christiansen,
putting both in a tie with Panno. Now only Grefe could equal Petrosian’s
score—by beating Browne. A win would give Grefe a $6,500 share of the top
prize money, whereas a draw would be worth $1,500 and a loss would “ earn” a
miserable sixty-seven dollars and change.
The game opened with Grefe defending the Black side o f one of the sharpest
openings in chess—the N ajdorf Sicilian. Browne, in the middlegame, sacrificed
a pawn to create a dangerous passed pawn supported by his Queen, and as the
time control approached it looked as if he had the win in hand. But Grefe
refused to fold. With both players in desperate time trouble and crushed by
spectators, Browne made a couple of inaccurate Queen moves. Suddenly the
perpetual check that Grefe needed to salvage the game was there: a Bishop
sacrifice to force the White King into the open. Instead, Grefe grabbed his
Queen and gave a check which allowed Browne to sequester his King, and after
a few more rapid-fire moves Grefe was forced to tip his King in resignation.
The crowd responded to the players’ heroic efforts with tumultuous applause.
No less than nine players were logiammed in second place. They were,
besides the five mentioned above, Grandmasters Miguel N ajdorf and Miguel
Quinteros of Argentina, Tony Miles o f England, Gyozo Forintos of Hungary,
and International Master Ken Rogoff of New York.

119
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

The minimum rating requirement for adults had been reduced to 2300 this
year, but the turnout of fifty-seven players made it likely that next year’s event
would demand a higher rating. The average rating was 2371, fifty-seven points
lower than in the previous year, but the presence of several living legends
greatly boosted the tournam ent’s prestige.
The winner, no stranger to the highest honors in international competition, is
a short, swarthy Armenian possessed of an unusually expressive face. When his
own games were finished he would eagerly follow those o f his nearest rivals.
Any player wanting to know what Petrosian thought of his position had merely
to glance at the expressions o f surprise, joy, consternation, perplexity, and
triumph that registered in turn on his rubbery features.
Ebullient, white-haired Miguel N ajdorf has been ranked among the world’s
top players for thirty years. A former Pole and now a citizen of Argentina,
N ajdorf’s playing style matches his personality—his games sparkle with bold,
witty sacrifices and hair-raising complications. One of Argentina’s largest
newspapers, the C la rio n , had hired him to cable daily reports of the tour­
nament—such was Lone Pine’s status in world chess—and this assignment
doubled the enthusiasm with which he followed the postmortems of practically
every game in the tournament.
In the mid-1950’s, Vasily Smyslov engaged arch-rival Mikhail Botvinnik in
three titanic World Championship matches, producing some of the finest
games ever seen on M ount Olympus, considerably enriching the theory o f the
King’s Indian, Sicilian, and French defenses, and enshrining Smyslov as one of
Caissa’s immortals. A bespectacled giant of a man with wavy reddish-brown
hair, the taciturn Smyslov is also a trained opera singer, and his rich voice
thrilled the Stathams and their guests at an informal dinner party during the
tournament.
Although this year’s tournam ent was not the last to be won by the favorite,
future tournaments would attract so many great stars that there would no
longer b e any one clear favorite!

120
 1976: G O O D G R E F E , W A L T E R B R O W N E !

R ound Two Tarrasch himself made a similar

Black is gradually reduced to error against Lasker (St. Petersburg
aimless wood-shifting as Petrosian 1914). 12 ... & e 6 is indicated.
treats us to a classic display o f the
subtle maneuvering chess th at 13 ©d3
brought him the world cham-
pionship. Although the Knight remains here
for the rest o f the game, it com­
Queen’s Gambit Declined pletely dominates the ensuing play
from this invulnerable outpost.
T. Petrosian J. Peters
13 ... S,b6
1 c4 © f6 14 Jid2 He8
2 © c3 c5
3 g3 © c6 14 ... a4 runs into trouble after 15
4 &g2 e6 B e l, intending Bc4.
5 © f3 JS,e7
6 d4 d5 15 B el iig 4
7 cxd5 ©xd5 16 B el Bc8

7 ... exd5 leads to the main lines of 16 ... # d 7 17 # b 3 J5,a7 18 © f4

the Tarrasch Defense. also favors White.

8 0-0 0-0 17 h3 JS,f5

9 ©xd5 exd5 18 # b 3 JS.e4?l
10 dxc5 &xc5
18 ... © e5 is more active, but after
Black has purchased the easy 19 Bxc8 JS.xc8 20 © f4 Black is no
development of his minor pieces at better off. The exchange o f Bishops,
the cost of an isolated d-pawn. In the paradoxically, emphasizes W hite’s
normal Tarrasch he can count on p o sitio n a l ad v a n ta g e because,
tactical counterchances because each although his strong fianchettoed
side has four minor pieces, but here, Bishop disappears, his Queen will
with three, he can only hang on completely dom inate the light
grimly, a thankless job against squares.
Petrosian.
19 Jixe4 Bxe4
11 a3 a5 20 # b 5 !

1 1 . .. iS>f5 is a lso p lay a b le. Here you are well advised to study
the chapter on alternation in
12 © e l! d4?l Nimzovich’s C h ess P raxis. Com-

121
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

bining threats on both wings with a 33 h5 43e7

carefully considered King-march, 34 <$>el!
Petrosian gradually reduces his
opponent to utter helplessness. White moves his King to the
Queenside in preparation for a
Kingside pawn storm.

34 ... 43d5
35 #b5 <52)16

35 ... 43xf4 36 53xf4 leaves White

with the better minor pieces.

36 'S’d l 43d5
37 &Le5

Trying to provoke a weakness.

20 ... 43a7
21 Bxc8 53xc8 37 53e7
38 g4! 43 c6
Not 21 ... 43xb5? 22 S x d 8 + 39 43a7
^g3
.&xd8 23 43c5 S e 7 24 43b3. 40 #b3 43 c6
41 <$>01!
22 AgS #d6
23 B el 53a7 41 43f4 d3! allows some coun­
24 # f5 Be8 terplay.

If 24 ... Bxe2 then 25 # f 3 and 26 41 ... B e4

#xb7. 42 13 Be3
43 'g’bl 43e7?l
25 J ll4 #d8
26 Hc2 43c6
27 h4 h6

Otherwise 28 h5 would force this

anyway.

28 #b5 43a7
29 #15 43 c6
30 <$>11! He6
31 #b5 43a7
32 #b3 43e6

122
 1976: G O O D G R E F E , W A L T E R B R O W N E !

This simplifies W hite’s task. White deliberately refrains from

playing e2-e4, preferring to keep the
44 Jih4! # d fi hl-a8 diagonal open.
45 A \e l Hxe7
46 H e8+ ®h7 12 ... £)xd4 13 # x d 4 S fd 8
47 Hf8! #c7
O f course not 13 ... A c61 14 © d5
Worse is 47 ... S xe2 48 # x f 7 # e 6 with advantage.
49 # x e 6 S xe6 50 £)f4, intending
£}g6, and 47 ... # e 6 48 # x e 6 fxe6 14 Jkf3!?
49 <Qe5 offers no hope to either.
The beginning of an unusual
48 f4 A cS attacking idea.
49 #d5 B e5
50 B xf7 Black resigns 14 Hab8 15 # f 4 # a 5 16 a3
#b6?!

This whole maneuver appears

suspect. 16 ... b5 is the correct idea.
W hite’s original and enterprising
play turns a sedate positional game
17 b4 A eS 18 g41? h6 19 g5 <Bh7!
into a wild free-for-all.

English Opening The only way to keep the position

closed. 19 ... hxg5? 20 ’©'xg5
J. Watson A. Miles threatens 21 £>e4 with disastrous
1 c4 c5 2 7' c3 -'7 f6 3 g3 e6 4 -' 713 results for Black.
a6 5 M°2 A e l 6 0-0 0-0 7 d4 cxd4 8
S3xd4 # c 7 20 gxh6 A g5 21 # g 3 &xh6 22
fie 4
This system is characterized by
heavy maneuvering behind closed
lines. White enjoys the freer game
and some attacking chances, whereas
Black must play for ... d5 an d /o r ...
b5

9#d3

9 b3? d5! equalizes immediately.

9 ... d6 10 t>3 A d i 11 ^,b2 £>c6 12

B ad

123
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

White stands considerably better,

and threatens 23 B c d l e5 24 Bxd61.

22 ... ^.a4 23 c5 dxc5 24 Bxc5

Threatening 25 B h5. Black must

resort to drastic measures.

24 ... fS 25 B c7

Also good is 25 53f6 + 53xf6 26

& xf6 H f8 27 A e5 B be8 28 &c7 35 B c7 B b3 36 ^,d4 b5 37 B c6
# a 7 29 # d 6 , with a dominating Bxa3 38 Bxe6 <3?f7 39 B e4 a5 40
position. bxa5 Bxa5 41 Jic5 B a4 42 B e7 +
® f6 4 3 B b 7

25 ... JS.d7! 26 Bxd7

Rooks belong behind passed
pawns!
26 43c5? f4 brings a dramatic
reversal of fortunes. 43 ... S a l + 44 <S>g2 B b l 45
Jkd4 + ®>g6 46 j2,e3 'S’fS Drawn.
26 ... Bxd7 27 # x b 8 + B d8 28
#g3

The simplest is 28 # x b 7 ! # x b 7 29 An exciting neck-and-neck race,

S3f6 + gxf6 30 JS,xb7, transposing to pitting a thoroughbred passed pawn
a pawn-up ending. against a mating attack, is pre­
maturely cut short by the clock.
28 ... fxe4 29 &xe4 £)g530 .!S.d3?!
King’s Indian Defense
Better is 30 Jig2, intending 31 M. Diesen W. Browne
^.xg71.
1 53 f3 £>f6
2 c4 g6
30 ... # c 6 31 B e l # d 5 32 S c 5 3 g3
£>f3 + 1 33 # x f 3 # x f 3 34 exf3 Bxd3
This positional line still gives
White is only slightly better now, Black headaches.
and Black continues to defend ac­
curately. 3 ... &g7

124
 1976: G O O D G R E F E , W A L T E R B R O W N E !

4 0-0 A mistake is 12 ... 53fxe4? 13

5 0-0 d6 5)xe4 iix d 4 14 islg5!.
6 d4 £)bd7
13 Jie 3 a4
Old but still very popular. Other 14 H adl 53fd7
tries are 6 ... 5)c6 7 53c3 J£.g4, 7 ...
& f5, 7 ... e5, and 7 ... a6. W hite’s chances lie in exploiting
the “ weak” pawn at d6 and in
7 53c3 e5 Ringside pawn expansion. Black’s lie
8 e4 in Queenside play and central piece
pressure.
An alternative is 8 # c 2 , intending
9 f i d l with immediate pressure on 15 H e2 #a5
the d-file. 16 Hed2 53 e5!

8 ... exd4

Releasing the central tension. Also

possible is 8 ... c6; a typical game
is B otvinnik-T al, 1960 W orld
Championship Match: 9 h3 # b 6 (9
... # a 5 is an alternative) 10 d5 5)c5
11 5)el cxd5 12 cxd5 & d l 13 5)d3
£>xd3 14 # x d 3 H fc8 15 H b l 53h5
16 &,e3 # b 4 17 # e 2 Hc4 18 H fcl
Hac8 19 <g>h2 f5 20 exf5 ^.xf5 21
H a l 53f4!?, with trem endous
complications. An improvement on 16 ... # b 4 17
53bl! 5)b6 18 53a3, and Black’s
9 5)xd4 Se8 Q ueenside p lay d isap p eared
10 H el 53c5 (Averbakh-Dittmann, 1956).

Interesting is 10 ... 53g4!?. 17 A fl

11 h3 a5 If now 17 53bl, then 17 ... 53a6! is

12 #c2 good for Black.

12 H b l and 12 5)db5 are also 17 a3

played here. 18 b3 £>f3 +
19 -Sjxf3 isfxc3
12 ... c6 20 Hxd6 53xe4

125
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

21 B 6d3 JsLg7 instead o f 31 B d 6 White has an

22 ^.d4 4 ) c5 interesting winning line with 31 b41;
e.g.:
Permitting White to develop some A) 31 ... # x b 4 32 # c 7 B f8 (32 ...
Kingside pressure. 22 ... <Qf6, Jke6 33 53xe6 + and 34 g5 wins) 33
threatening 23 ... J if5 , equalizes, H d8! B c6 34 # e 7 Hxd8 35 # x f 7 +
since 23 g4 can be effectively an­ ^>h6 36 B xf6 wins (36 ... ® xg5 37
swered by 23 ... h5. B xc6 bxc6 38 # e 7 + <S>h6 39 # x d 8 ,
etc.).
23 .ffi.xg7 <$>xg7 B) 31 ... cxb4 32 B d5! and only
after 32 ... # a 4 33 Bd61, for now
If 23 ... £)xd3? 24 & c 3 £)b4 25 Black does not have the good
# d 2 c5 26 # h 6 is crushing. defensive move # d 8 , as in the game.

24 Sd4 .S,f5
25 #cl 4)e4 31 ... B xd6
26 c5 32 #xd6 #d8
27 B 4d3 JS.e6 33 #xc5 B el
28 # f4 £)f6
29 'S)g5 B a6 White has won a pawn, but his
first-rank weakness combined with
Not 29 ... h6? 30 B f3. the strong Black pawn at a3 (after
the inevitable ... B alx a2 ) deny him
30 B f3 ^,c8 winning chances.

34 Se3

The threat was 34 ... # d 1.

34 ... Sal
35 #e7

35 B e? # d l 36 B x f7 + <2?h6
brings sudden death to W h ite ’s King.

31 B d6
35 ... #xe7
The Swedish correspondence 36 B xe7 B xa2
player Ekstrom later found that 37 E x f7 + <S>h6

126
 1976: G O O D G R E F E , W A L T E R B R O W N E !

®>xfl a2 45 f7 a l # + 46 ® g2 # a 8
47 B f3 + .

41 <S>xfl ^.xh3 +
42 (3?e2 a2
43 Hxh7 + ® g4
44 Sh4 + ® f5
45 £)d4 + ® g5
46 £ ) c2 Black resigns

Round Three
38 £>f3! Although Black plays on for forty
moves, the game is clearly decided in
White sticks to the right path. 38 the opening. White insists on
f4? loses to 38 ... B d2! (but not 38 sacrificing a pawn early in the game
... S a l ? 39 S x f6 a 2 4 0 S f 7 S x f l + to endanger Black’s King, which has
41 <g>xfl a l # + 4 2 ® g 2 # b 2 + with lingered too long in the middle.
perpetual check; and not 38 ... S b 2 ? Black consistently declines the
39 S x f6 ® g7 40 H f7 + ® g8 41 admittedly dangerous offer and
H c7!, etc.) 39 S x f6 (39 S e 7 a2 manages to save his King, but the
40 S e l S b 2 41 S a l ® g7 leaves price is a fatally cramped and lifeless
White defenseless against the Black position.
Knight’s incursion on the Queenside)
39 ... a2 40 H f7 B d7, etc. Sicilian Defense

A. Denker M. Diesen
38 ... Sal
1 £)f3 c5 2 e4 d6 3 -&.b5 +
The more stubborn 38 ... £3e4
keeps Black well above water after 39 This move has skyrocketed in
S e 7 S a l ! . But not 3 9 ... ®g5 (3 9 ... popularity during the past five years.
B xf2? 40 g 5 + ) 40 ©xg5 ® xg5 41 Its initial idea o f avoiding the
B c7 & e6 42 B xb7 S a l (42 ... B b2 sharper Sicilian lines has been
43 ® g2!, but not 43 b4? a2 44 B a7 supplemented by more aggressive
B b l !) 43 B a7 a2 44® g2!. designs.

39 g5 + ® h5 3 ... £)d7 4 0-0 £)gf6 5 B e l

40 gxf6 S x fl +
5 d4!? is interesting.
O r 40 ... J&,xh3 41 B x h 7 + ® g4 42
£)e5 + ®>f5 43 S x h 3 S x f l + 44 5 ... a6 6 JsLfl b 5 ? !

127
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

This pawn becomes a target; now

Diesen prefers 6 ... b6. The prudent
6 ... e5, attending to Kingside
development, would lead to a
position closely related to the Ruy
Lopez, with equal chances.

7 a4! .S.b7 8 axb5 axb5 9 S x a 8

#xa8

9 ... JsLxa8 10 e5! favors White.

10 £> c3 b4
White obtains tremendous posi­
tional advantages: Black’s pieces
10 ... £)xe4 11 £)xb5 # b 8 12 d4!
have no scope, his Queenside is
hands White a strong initiative
weak, and White owns the beautiful
gratis.
c4-square for a Knight.

I l £ lb 5 # b 8 12 d4! e5 16 ... Jlb 7

Snatching the e-pawn here with 12 Not 16 ... iS,a8? 17 # x a 8 .

... Jkxe4 runs into 13 dxc5 <Sxc5 14
A gS, with great activity for White. 17 £ )d 2 0-0 18 £ ic4 Jia 8 19 # a 5 !
If 12 ... £)xe4 13 d5! £)df6 (13 ...
& gf6 14 Jif4 ) 14 # d 3 ^.Xd5 15 Preventing 19 ... 43b6 and
£>g5!. planning to meet 19 ... Jid 8 with 20
# a 6 , winning the d-pawn.
13 c3 & c 6 ?
19 ... £)e!8 20 £)e3 g6 21 & d3 ^.d 8
13 ... £)xe4 14 dxe5 dxe5 15 # c 2 , 22 # a 2 S g 7 ?
threatening S x e4 and cxb4 followed
by £3c7 + , is too risky for Black, as It’s hard to suggest a good plan
is 13 ... Ji.xe4. But 13... & e 7 is quite here, but 22 ... c4!, sacrificing a
playable, or even the daring 13 ... pawn for some activity, is surely
bxc3 14 bxc3 iix e4 . Black’s best chance. Now White
simply wins some pawns.
14 # a 4 bxc3 15 bxc3 &.vH
23 £)xd6 # x d 6 24 # x a 8 ^.g5 25
If 15 ... £)b6 1 6 # a 5 . # c 6 # c 7 26 d6 # d 8 27 .&1>5 S b 8 28
# x c 5 £>e6 29 # b 4 B d7 30 .Sixd7
16 d5 # x d 7 31 £jd5 ii d 8 32 .S,h6 S e 8 33

128
 1976: G O O D G R E F E , W A L T E R B R O W N E !

H b l g5 34 # b 5 # x b 5 35 S xb 5 f6 36 11 ... £>a6 12 itd 2 £>b6

d7 S e 7 37 £)xe7 + A xc7 38 h4 <$T7
39 hxg5 fxg5 40 S xe5 Black resigns Black had no fear o f 13 JS,xa6; the
half-open b-file and the two Bishops
Denker conducted the entire game would compensate fully for his
in exemplary style. inferior pawn structure.

13 .6,1)3
R ound Five
H ere’s a superb performance by 13 Jid 3 43c5 is terrible for White.
Smyslov, despite his lapse on move
fourteen. 13 ... c5! 14& e3c4?

Pirc Defense 14 ... # c 6 consolidates Black’s

L. Shamkovich V. Smyslov advantage.

1 £>f3 d6 2 e4 £}f6 3 £>c3 g6 4 d4

15 Jixb6?
&g7 5 &,el 0-0 6 0-0 c6 7 h3 # c 7 8
e5
Now White, too, overlooks the
8 a4 is less impulsive. surprising tactical line 15 ©B5! # c 6
16 £)xa7! Hxa7 17 # a 5 , bringing
8 ... dxe5 9 dxe5?l him the edge in every variation.

From here on Black is never in 15 ... axb6 16 &a4 &Lf5 17 # e 2

trouble, since his opening problems £3b4!
have been solved for him. White
should play the level-headed 9 43xe5,
though this presents no challenge to
Black either.

9 ... Sd 8!

Attentively cancelling W hite’s

only active idea, though it is a
speculative one: 9 ... 43fd7 10 e6!?.

10 # e l £>d5 11 &c4

Or 11 £)xd5 cxd5 12 & d3 £>a6!

and ... 43c5.

129
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

Worse is 18 a3 S xa4! 19 £)xa4 Sicilian Defense

£Dxc2 and 20 ... JS,d3, and 18 g4
B xa4! 19 gxf5 B a5 20 fxg6 fxg6 M. Quinteros N. Weinstein
riddles the White position with
1 e4 c5 2 £>13 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £ x d 4
weaknesses.
£>16 5 £>c3 a6 6 g3

18 ... S x d l + 19 B x d l 43xa2! 20 Though rather tame, this system

£)xa2 Bxa4 21 £)c3 B a8 22 £)b5 nevertheless demands precise han­
dling by Black.
If 22 £>d5 # c 5 . White must
constantly worry about the pawns at 6 ... e6
e5 and c2.
Fischer, Polugaevsky, and other
22 ... # c 8 23 <Qbd4 iLd7 24 # e 4 connoisseurs o f the N ajdorf prefer 6
e6 25 c3 # c 7 26 B e l B a5 27 # h 4 ... e5.
&e8
7 Jig2 Jie7 8 Jie3 0-0 9 g4!?
Not 27 ... JLxe5? 28 £3xe5 Bxe5
29 Bxe5 # x e 5 30 # d 8 + . White has a change of heart and
begins a mad pawn rush on the
28 # e 4 h6 29 h4 # d 7 30 # e 3 Ha2 Kingside.
31 B e2 H a l + 32 B e l # a 4 33 ® h2
B x e l 34 # x e l ,fe.c6 35 £)xc6 9 ... £ c 6

White cannot tolerate the presence Not bad, but Black’s stereotyped
of this Bishop at d5. opening play soon lands him in
trouble. 9 ... d5! directly challenges
35 ... # x c 6 36 # e 3 # c 5 37 # e 2 W hite’s setup, which is essentially
b5 38 # e l # d 5 39 # e 3 fi.1'8 40 r# g 3 a Keres Attack with a tempo less
41 # 1 4 # d 3 (the two moves spent advancing the
g-pawn).
Black steadily infiltrates the White
position. Exchanging Queens would 10 g5 £ d 7 11 h4 £ x d 4 12 # x d 4
mean a winning Bishop-vs.-Knight b5 13 a4!?
ending for Black.
Deciding that long castling would
42 # 1 6 + ® g8 43 # 1 4 &,gl 44 seriously endanger his own King,
# e 3 # c 2 45 # c 5 # x b 2 46 # c 8 + White abandons the idea of a mating
A f8 47 # x b 7 b4 W'hite resigns. attack in favor of Queenside action.

130
 1976: G O O D G R E F E , W A L T E R B R O W N E !

£ ■r
mm Xx
x
mm
X I *
-

Hi± &
£ s
m. k ■fi
Sm
a 'dm.B

13 ... Jib7 2 2 ... &3c5?

Now Black gets the worst of it Resulting in a bad cramp. Best is

because o f his feeble b-pawn. But 13 22 ... ® f8 , but not 22 ... d5? 23
... b4! buys good counterplay for a exd5! iS,xb4 24 dxe6 £)c5 25 e7! and
pawn: 14 '#xb4 (14 £)a2 a5 15 0-0 White wins.
# c 7 ) 14 ... H b8 15 # a 3 43e5 16
# a 2 £>g4 17 Jkcl # b 6 18 0-0 d5! 19 23 B d4 H a l + 24 <$>f2 S b l 25
exd5 # c 7 , etc. B xc4 Bxb2 26 e5! d5

14 axb5 axb5 15 0-0 Not 26 ... ilx g 2 ? 27 ® xg2 ®T8

(27 ... d5 28 Hxc5) 28 exd6 S.xd6 29
Too risky is 15 B xa8 # x a 8 16 i£,xc5 JkxcS 30 £)d3, winning.
£>xb5 # a l + .
27 Bxc5 Bxb4 28 B c7 &f8
15 ... JS,c6 16 <Qa2! # c 7
If 28 ...<S’f8 ? ? 2 9 fix e 7 !.
16 ... d5 fails to obtain suffi­
cient counterchances after 17 exd5 29 h5!
Sa4, 18 b4! ^.xd5 19 &xd5 exd5 20
#xd5. Black escapes on 29 c4 g6 30 c5
d 4 !.
17 £)b4 &.bl 18 f4 H xal 19 B x a l
S a 8 20 B f l # c 4 2 9 ... J&.a6 30 c3 B c4

Trying to ease the pressure Black strangles on 30 ... H b8 31

through exchanges. f5.

21 # x c 4 bxc4 22 H d l 3 lH a 7 ^ .c 8

131
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

f5! exf5 44 e6 f4 + 45 <$>d3 S b 3 + 46

Sl?c2 Black resigns

The tactical battle from move

twenty-six on, played with great
energy by White, will repay careful
study.

H ere’s a good example of Black’s

practical difficulties in this defense.
He constructs an unsinkable ship
Falling into the “ tra p .” through accurate play, but a single
slip smashes it on the reefs.
32 ... Bxc3
Philidor Defense
Forced, because of the threat 33
J. Grefe M. Najdorf
Ji.fl H c6 34 Jib 5 , etc.
1 c4 e5
33 JS.fl! 2 Q f3 d6
3 d4 S f6
The next phase concerns this 4 £ ) c3
Bishop’s attempt to reach e8. Black
prevents this, but it doesn’t end his The main line. 4 dxe5 S3xe4 5 # d 5
troubles—White has another Bish­ Q c5 promises White only a slight
op! edge at best, and relieves Black’s
cramp.
33 ... B a3 34 B c7 B a8 35 ^,1)5
Jia6 36 Jbta6 Eixaft 37 Hc8 4 ... t)bd7
5 islc4 &e7
And now White bends all his 6 0-0
efforts to conquer the a3-f8
diagonal. Violent attempts to storm the
Black position by sacrificing on f7
37 ... B a5 38 A b6 Hb5 39 £.d8 are premature.
Hb7 40 'SPc3!
6 ... 0-0
Zugzwang! 7 #e2 c6
8 a4 #c7
40 ... h6 41 g6 fxg6 42 hxg6 h5 43 9 h3 exd4

132
 1976: G O O D G R E F E , W A L T E R B R O W N E !

The Philidor is a rare guest in attack on the Ringside, realizing that

modern tournaments; Larsen played the entombed Bishop on a2 will be
it a few times some years ago. Black unable to participate in the assault.
usually tries to hold the strongpoint Meanwhile, Black will press his edge
at e5 while developing with ... h6, ... on the Queenside.
B e 8 ,... b6, etc.
16 f4
10 £)xd4 Be8
11 A f4 16 exd5?? is suicide: 16...© g 4 1 .

More precise is 11 iS.a2! j&.f8 12 16 ... £>ed7

# f3 . 17 e5 53b6

11 ... £>e5 Black loses time capturing the a-

12 &b3 pawn, but passive defense with g7-g6
is unattractive. And 17 ... 43f6?
When a Black Knight lands on c5 contains the flaw 18 # f 3 43fe4 19
it will win a tempo by attacking this 43xd5!cxd5 20 Jkxd5.
valuable Bishop. But the natural 12
Jia 2 runs afoul of 12 ... # b 6 ! 13 18 a5 <Sbd7
# d 2 J^,xh3! 14 gxh3 # x d 4 , etc. 19 # h 5 £>e6!
20 £)f5 #xa5
12 £>fd7 21 H f3 Sb6
13 B adl A f8 22 S g 3 g6
14 A rt 43c5 23 # h 4 £la4?
15 Jb2 d5!

Continuing his development with

23 ... Jid 7 confronts White with the
A double-edged but sound de­ serious problem o f how to press his
cision. Black encourages White to attack. He would retain some

133
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

practical chances, but the Black now thought everything was secure
pieces are ideally posted for defense. because W hite’s Queen Knight
cannot reach e4.
24 3xd5H
26 Sb51!
Once W hite’s remaining pieces
join the King-hunt Black’s extra An echo of move twenty-four.
Rook will be meaningless. Black must now surrender his Queen
under much worse circumstances
24 ... #b6+! than on the previous move. His
undeveloped and scattered forces are
Accepting the Rook at once loses: soon overwhelmed.
24 ... cxd5 25 £>xd5 ^,g7 26 £>xg7!
[less clear is 26 4)f6 + Jlx f6 27 # x f 6 26 43x c3
# c 5 + (27 ... # c 7 ? 28 © h 6 + <S>f8 27 Sxb4 4De2 +
29 f4 smashes Black) 28 ®>h2 # f 8 ] 28 <3?h2 43xg3
26 ... ®xg7 (26 ... £)xg7 27 £)f6 + 29 #xg3! ^xb4
^ f 8 28 £)xh7 + <S>g8 29 £)f6 + ® f8 30 £>h6 + 'ShS
30 # h 8 + ^ e l 31 # x g 7 , etc.) 27 f5, 31 f5! £)d8
and Black cannot meet all the 32 fxg6 fxg6
threats. 33 # f4 ^.f8
34 £)f7 + £)xf7
25 Jie3 #b4? 35 # x f7

Black must lose a piece, ending

serious resistance.

35 ... ike6
36 Jixe6 &gl
37 Jid4 Had8
38 Jic3 b5
39 Jid7 3 f8
40 #e7 Black resigns

25 ... £lxc3! 26 ^.xb6 <Be2 + 27 R ound Six

<S>h2 £>xg3 28 S a 5 ! (28 # x g 3 axb6!) Although Black’s King bounces
28 ... 43xf5 29 # f 2 axb6! 30 H xa8, around the full board like a pinball,
bringing about a very obscure White never decisively tilts the scales
situation, is the best defense. Black in his favor.

134
 1976: G O O D G R E F E , W A L T E R B R O W N E !

Caro-Kann Defense £>g5 + ^.xgS 13 # x g 4 , since the

Black Queen no longer hits the e-
D. Fritzinger Y. Seirawan
pawn.
1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 f3

A natural reaction—White wants

to recapture in the center with a
pawn. Ironically, it’s called the
Fantasy Variation.

3 ... dxe4

The E n c y c lo p e d i a o f C h e s s
O p e n in g s recommends 3 ... e6 4 .w.e3
£>f6 5 £>c3 # b 6 6 H b l c5 7 exd5
exd5 8 Jib 5 + 4l)c6 9 S g e2 , with
equality.

4 fxe4 e5
Black is murdered after 11 ...
Threatening 5 ... # h 4 + . <$>xe6 1 2 # b 3 + <$>f5 (12 ... ® d6 13
A f4 + or 12 ... <$>f6 13 0-0) 13 0-0
5 43f3 exd4 6 Jic4 ® g6 (13 ... # b 6 + 14 £>d4 + ) 14
£)h4 + Sl?h5 (14 ... &xh4 15 # f 7
White plays in true gambit style. mate) 15 S f 5 + .

6 . . . # a 5 + 7c3! i£.e7 8e5 12 exd7 + Jix d 7 13 0-0 <5>d8

8 0-0 is also good, because 8 ...

dxc3, threatening 9 ... # c 5 + , is Black begins a dubious King
powerfully answered by 9 # b 3 ! (9 march. Developing the King Knight
Jb tf7 + accomplishes nothing) 9 ... is best, though everything remains
J&,e6 (9 ... # b 6 + 10 # x b 6 axb6 11 unclear after 13 ... 47)f6 14 # e 2 <2?f8
S e 5 ) 10 Js!,xe6 fxe6 11 # x e 6 . 15 £>g5.

8 . . .dxc3 9£)xc3 £)d7 14 J if4 ® c8 15 &e5 & e 6 16 # e 2

Q f6
Risky, but how else can Black ex­
tricate himself? 9 ... i£,g4 runs into
1 0 # b 3 , and 9 ... b5 1 0^,b3 Jk.g4 is Not fearing 17 S)g6 JsLc5 4- 18
refuted by 11 A x H + ! ® xf7 12 <§>hl He8.

135
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

23 H e l £)e4

If 23 ...& e 4 ? 24 & ,g5.

24 # h 5 + ® f8

If 24 ... g6 25 # e 5 ; or 24 ... ® d7
25 # f 5 + .

2 5 # f5 +

25 ... 4c)f6 would permit Black to

turn his material advantage to ac­
17£)xc6!?
count eventually.
17 H fe l He8 grants Black time to
26 Hxe4 e.xe4 27 + <2>f7 28
consolidate.
# d 7 + <S>g6 2 9 # g 4 + Drawn.
17 ... # b 6 + 18 <2?hl # x c 6 19
H ad

19 H fe l He8! (19 ... ®>d7? 20 Petrosian even manages to draw

H a d l + ® e8 21 Hd6! wins) 20 the sting from the dynamic Benoni,
# x e 6 + # x e 6 21 Hxe6 <$>d7 22 He2 reducing his opponent to playing for
H ad8! allows Black to squirm out. cheap tricks.

19. . . <g ,d7 Modern Benoni

It’s the gallows for Black after 19 T. Petrosian M. Quinteros

... Jtlc5 20 42b5, with irresistible 1 d4 g6 2 c4 Jlg 7 3 £ )c3 c5 4 d5 d6
threats. 5 e4 e6 6 €)f3 £>f6 7 <kel 0-0 8 0-0
He8
20 H fdl-t-
The latest fashion. Black delays
If 20 43b5 # e 4 ! holds. the central exchange for as long as
possible, hoping that White will
20 ... ®>e8 21 £)d5 ^.xd5! 22 commit himself.
Hxc6 bxc6
9© d2
W hite’s attack has petered out, but
Black’s shortage o f time allows his Also possible is 9 h3 (9 dxe6 islxe6
opponent to salvage the draw. 10 i i f 4 43c6 11 ^.xd6 # a 5 is un-

136
 1976: G O O D G R E F E , W A L T E R B R O W N E !

clear) 9 ... exd5 10 exd5 JS.f5 11 ^,d3 Black provokes White to play f2-
53e4 12 5Lxe4 Jixe4 13 Jixe4 S xe4 f4, hoping for counterplay against
14 'S3'c2 S e 8 15 &Lf4, as in Gligoric- the e-pawn and the weakened
Tal (Milan 1975). Black now Ringside. The idea is dubious
transposes into the main line. because o f the loss of time involved.

9 ... exd5 10 cxd5 £)bd7 17 f4! £)ed7 18 ® h l H b 4 19 b3!

Other systems are possible; e.g., Eschewing the a-pawn to deny

10 ... <Ba6 11 f3, reaching positions Black any Queenside play.
which became popular in the 1960’s,
with Tal the pre-eminent player of 19 ... £)b6 20 J ,b 2 # e 7 21 H aal
the Black side. £)g4 22 iS,xg4 ^.xg4 23 £)a2!

11 a4 a6 12 H a3 Not 23 hxg4? because o f 23 ...

# h 4 + and 24 ... J£,d4 + .
Petrosian likes this maneuver,
having played it in several other 23 ... Jie2 24
games. In general he seems to have a
good record against the Benoni. I White can play 23 S f e l ^,d3 25
recall an old game with Lothar # x d 3 here.
Schmid and a recent one against
John Nunn. 24 ... J i x f l 25 £)xb4 i£.b5 26 £>c6
&xc6 27 dxc6 ® xg7 28 S x a 6 £)c8
1 2 ... IS b 8 1 3 a 5 # c 7 14h3 b5 29 # c 3 + ® g8 30 # d 3 # h 4 31 # f l
£>e7
Black sometimes plays ... g5 to
inhibit White’s f2-f4.

15 axb6 Hxb6 16 # c 2 £)e5

W h ite’s ad v an tag e is over­

whelming. Petrosian parries Black’s
tactical pinpricks to secure the point.

137
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

32 c7 S c 8 33 S x d 6 S x c7 34 ® h2 # h 7 ) 29 gxf6 exf6 30 # x g 6 <g>f8 31

Hc8 35 g3 # h 5 36 g4 # h 6 37 e5 S x f6 ! iix f6 32 # x f6 , with an
S b 8 38 # f 2 H, 1)4 39 <$>g3 <®g7 40 irresistible initiative.
# e 3 ® h 8 41 S d 8 + <S>g7 42 43e4
43c6 43 Hc8 25 ... ® xf7 26 Jste6+ rl?f8 27
S f l + & f6
43 43f6 wins in an amusing way:
43 ... 43xd8 44 g5 traps the Queen, or W hite’s Queen penetrates de­
43 ... # x f 4 + 44 # x f 4 S x f4 45 cisively on 27 ... 438f6 28 # g 2 43e5
B g8 + wins a Rook. 29 gxf6 exf6 (29 ... Jix f6 30 # h 3 ) 30
# h 3 , followed by # h 7 .
43 ... g5
28 # g 2 4)g7 29 gxf6 43e5 30
Black overstepped the time limit. fxg7 + ® xg7 31 # g 5
However, after 44 f5 # h 4 + 45 ® g2
4)xe5 46 # x c 5 , White mates in a Threatening mate at h6.
few.
31 ... Hh8 32 # x e 5 + ! Black
resigns

32 ... dxe5 33 H f7 + ® g8 34
Black: A. Saidy
Hxe7 + is a massacre.

R o u n d Seven
W hite’s im aginative play is
matched blow for blow by resource­
ful defense.

Nimzo-Indian Defense
A. Miles J. Peters
1 c4 43 f6 2 43c3 e6 d4 .£.1)4 4 AgS
White: C. Brasket
25 Hxf71! The Leningrad Variation. Spassky
first brought it to the attention of the
A powerful sacrifice that cannot international chess set, and lately
be refused; e.g., 25 ... 43e5 26 Jie6 Timman has championed it.
43x0 27 S f 1 4>f6 28 # g 2 S x b 3 (28
... '3V8 29 gxf6 exf6 30 # x g 6 43e5 31 4 ... c5 5 d5 h 6 6 jS,h4 £.xc3 +

138
 1976: G O O D G R E F E , W A L T E R B R O W N E !

Other tries here are the gambit 6 ... Black to put his pieces in poor
b5, and 6 ... exd5. positions.

7 bxc3 e5 8 e3 18 # b 2 # c 7 19 f4 gxf4 20 exf4

£)g6 21 # f 6 # d 7 22 B e l ® f8 23
The older 8 d6 is discredited now. T?f2 b5 24 . i ll4 <S>g8 25 A g5 a6

8 ... d6 9 i d 3 £)bd7 10 £>e2 Black can do little about the

#e7?! mobilization of W hite’s Rooks on
the e-file, so he counters on the
Dubious, as the White Knight Queenside.
comes into play. 10 ... g5 11 Jig3 e4
12 ,&c2 'M'e? 13 h4 S g 8 is a normal 26 . i f 3 b5 27 He3 bxc4 28 B h e l
course. id 3

11 <Qg3! e4

Black compounds his error by

trying to complicate matters. The
opening of the position favors
W hite’s Bishops.

12 ©xe4 g5 13 £)xf6 + # x f 6 14
i g 3 # x c 3 + 15 ® f l £>e5 16 i e 2
£ k t5 17 # c l # a 5

®g3!

White wants to attack with every

piece, including his King.

31 ... h4+ 32 ® g4 # f 2 33 B d7
B h7 34 i h 6

Threatening 34 B d8 + .

34 ... £ )f 8 35 Hde7
The ending would favor White,
but now the awkward pins along the The threat 35 B e8 forces a
diagonals al-h8 and h2-b8 force decisive simplification.

139
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

35 ... & g6 36 <S>g5 # d 4 37 # x d 4 45 d7 JS,a4 46 ® d 4 Hd8 47 He8 +

cxd4 38 ,fexf8 33xf8 Hxe8 48 d x e 8 # + S,xe8 49 H d l
Black resigns.
Now simply 39 f5 wins easily.
After playing so well, Miles errs in
time pressure.
This exciting game had a decisive
39 d6? S,c2 effect on the top prizes. The last (7th)
round pairings on the top boards
Black’s passed pawns offer him were Panno (4!/2)-Petrosian (5);
excellent counterplay. Christiansen (4!/2)-Smyslov (4 'A);
and Browne (4)-Grefe (4'/2). The
40 JS,e4 Hg7 + 41 ® f6 d3 42 S a l first two games were quickly drawn,
and then all eyes focused on this one.
W hite’s idea is d6-d7 followed by
S e8 . Sicilian Defense
w. Browne J. Grefe
4 2 ... H g6+ ! 43 Jixg6?l
1 e4 c5
43 Sl?e5! is a better winning a t­ 2 £)f3 d6
tempt. 3 d4 cxd4
4 £>xd4 $3f6
43 ... fxg6 + 44<S>e5! 5 £Dc3 a6
6 £g5 e6
7 f4 &e7

The Poisoned Pawn Variation, 7

... # b 6 , is still quite popular.
Portisch is its main adherent among
the top players.

8 # f3 #c7
9 0-0-0 &bd7
10 Jsld3 h6

Browne’s favorite move in this

position. The continuation 10 ... b5
44 ... d2? 11 S h e l iib 7 17 # g 3 0-0-0, first
encountered in the fifteenth game
This loses. 44, ... H d8! forces of the Spassky-Fischer W orld
White to take a draw by doubling Championship Match (Reykjavik
Rooks on the seventh rank. 1972), was virtually refuted in

140
 1976: G O O D G R E F E , W A L T E R B R O W N E !

Velimirovic-Kazzaz (Nice Olympiad 16 g4 0-0-0

1974) by 13 &xb51. 17 # f3 43c5

11 #h3 White now consolidates his grip on

d5. 17 ... g5 offers better fighting
Iv a n o v ic -B u k ic (Y u g o sla v chances.
Championship 1978) followed a
different path: 11 Jih 4 g5 12 fxg5 18 Jixc5 dxc5
£>e5 13 # e 2 © fg4 14 £>f3 hxg51? 15 19 A c4 S x d l+
Jkxg5 Jixg5 + 16 47)xg5 # c 5 17 20 Sxdl Sd8
•Sf3!? £)f2 18 43xe5, with obscure 21 £)g3
complications.
21 S d 3 ! is also promising.
11 ... £)b6
12 f5 21 ... Sxdl +
22 #xdl Jid 8
12 Jih 4 involves a risky Queen 23 Ad5 &e»
sacrifice. 12 ... e5 13 4)f5 g6! 14
<Sxe7 Jixh3 15 Jkxf6! Ji.e6! 16 f5
S f8 , in Timman-Kavalek (Amster­
dam 1975), saw Black go on to
victory.

12 ... e5
13 £)de2!

This is the best square for the

\ Knight, bearing on d5 eventually.

13 ... J&,d7
14 <S>bl jS,c6 Black’s pieces have little scope,
15 ^.e3 4)bd7?! but it takes some fine play by White
to step up the pressure.
If Black cannot get in ... d5 he will
have difficulty finding play to 24 h4 c4
counter W hite’s coming Ringside 25 g5 hxg5
pawn advance. The critical line is, 26 hxg5 4)xd5
therefore, 15 ... d5!? 16 J ix b 6 # x b 6 27 exd5!
17 exd5 © xd5 18 © xd5 Jixd5 19
S c 3 Jic6 20 Ji.e4, with only a tiny W hite’s pawn offer obtains a dan­
edge for White. gerous passed pawn and a beautiful

141
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

haven at e4 for a Knight. 27 £)xd5 39 ... #b3?

# c 5 unnecessarily gives Black
counterplay. 39 ... Jlxc2 + ! is an obvious
perpetual.
27 JS,xg5
28 ©ge4 A d8 40 #c5+ ® b8
29 drt #c6 41 #xe5 + Black resigns
30 #g4 A f6
31 a3 <S>b8
32 £>xf6! gxf6
33 #g8 ® a7
34 #h8 Adi Both players display great in­
35 # x f6 #c5 ventiveness in a battle which rages
36 # x f7 #xd6 over the entire board.
37 f6 &15
38 #e7? Sicilian Defense

Both combatants are severely K. Commons M. N ajdorf

pressed for time, and W hite almost 1 e4 c5 2 S3f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 S3xd4
loses the fruits of his fine play. A fter a6 5 &d3 £)f6 6 0-0 d6 7 c4 b6 8 4)c3
38 # g 7 !, Black runs out of tricks. A b l 9 # e 2 Jke7 10 f4 £>bd7 11 ® h l
#c7
38 ... #b6!
Black has willingly conceded to his
opponent an advantage in space, for
in order for White to penetrate
Black’s solid edifice he will have to
create weaknesses in his own camp.
Meanwhile, Black is constantly ready
for the incisive counterpunches ... b5
and ... d5.

12 A d i 0-0 13 H a d Hfe8 14 b4
Hac8 15a3 J .f8 16£>f3

The advance e4-e5 may be useful.

39 &3a4?
16 ... # b 8 17 H eel g6 18 £>g51?
Throwing away the win. A fter 39
# x e 5 ! # g l + 40 ® a2 A xc2 41 a41, 18 e5 dxe5 19 fxe5 £3g4 is unclear.
and the f-pawn is unstoppable. White now threatens 19 e5.

142
 1976: G O O D G R E F E , W A L T E R B R O W N E !

18 ... e5 19 f5 J k g l 2 0 # 1 2 H 1 8 21 Having contained the attack by

# h 4 h6 2 2 <&h3 g5 returning the piece, Black hits back
on the Queenside and in the center, a
common m otif in the Sicilian.

31 cxb5 axb5 32 S g l

To prevent the possibility of ...

5_>g4. Capturing the b-pawn is lunacy
because of 32 ... d5!.

32 ... # a 8 ! 33 £>xb5?l

And here it’s still very risky. The

spectators were now treated to a
2 3 4 3 x g 5 !? hair-raising blitz match.

White has little hope of a Ringside 33 ... d5 34 S g 7 dxe4 35 J if l Hc2

breakthrough without this sacrifice, 36 h3 # d 8 37 # g 3 ®18 38 # g 5 # b 6
but it has unclear consequences,
since his own King soon comes under Not 38 ... # d 2 ? 39 H xf7 + !
heavy crossfire.
39 a4 B e l 40 a51? B x f l + 41 r3?g2
23 . . . h x g 5 24 .S .x g 5 H fe8 # d 8 42 <S>xfl ,C'.a6 43 ® e l ii.xb5 44
Sg3
To provide an escape for the King.
Threatening 45 B xf7 + and 46
25 B e 3 f / f 8 2 6 g 4 ® e 7 2 7 „& xf6 + #g7 + .
J i x f 6 2 8 g5 H h 8 2 9 g x f 6 + £ ) x f 6 3 0
# e l b5! 44 ... # e 7 45 B c3 ^,e8!

143
 THE BEST OF LONE PINE

Not 45 ... # x b 4 46 3 x 0 + . 49 B c8 #-xb4 + 50 ® f l # b l + 51

Having consolidated, Black begins to ® e2 # x f5
pick apart the White position.
The rest is easy.
4 6 B c 5 # d 6 47 # g 2 e3
52 S a 8 £)d5 53 # x d 5 # f 2 + 54
® d 3 # d 2 + 55 ® c4 B h4 + 56 <S>c5
Threatening 48 ... B xh3.
After 56 B g4 B x g 4 + 57 hxg4
#xd5+ 58 ® xd5 e2, W hite’s
48 B g3 # d 4
prospects are also nil.

Simpler is 48 ... ■Se41. 56 ... # b 4 mate.

Larry Christiansen Vasily Smyslov

144
 1977
The (Women’s) Liberation of Lone Pine
“ Those Georgia girls really knock me out, they leave the West behind . .
So runs a popular Beatles song glorifying the women of Soviet Georgia. The
fabled foursome from Liverpool probably did not have the girls’ chess-playing
abilities in mind, since it’s unlikely that they had ever heard of Nona
Gaprindashvili, a Georgian woman who has dominated the women’s World
Championship for some fifteen years. Constructed more like a bricklayer than
an object of romantic ambitions, she flattened grandmasters Tarjan, Lein, and
Shamkovich in bulldozing her way to a 6 ‘A ~ 2 lA score worth $5,750.
Mustached Muscovite Yuri Balashov was one o f three others who tied with
Nona. The steady performance of this pale, always correctly attired grand­
master of twenty-eight made it clear why he is one of the most respected
members of the “ Karpov generation,” which also includes former whiz kids
Romanishin, Vaganian, and Belyavsky. Balashov’s play faithfully reflects his
personal qualities of solidity and steadiness. Honed by many years o f com­
petition at the highest levels o f international chess, these traits allowed him to
emerge unruffled from an unusual incident that could easily have knocked him
off stride.
Late in the middlegame of his second-round encounter with Jack Peters,
Yuri had let slip most of his advantage. The complicated struggle had left both
■players with very little time, and the Russian had stopped keeping score around
; move thirty-eight. Peters, despite having played in last year’s Lone Pine,
unaccountably thought he needed to make forty moves, rather than forty-five,
to reach the time control. So, when the complications ended around the forty-
third move, he paused to survey the situation—and his flag fell. Balashov,
naturally, claimed a win on time.
In international tournam ents played under FIDE rules, it is the director’s
responsibility to keep track of the number of moves made and to forfeit those
who exceed the time limit. Although the players are required to keep score,
there is no provision in international rules concerning the completeness o f their
scorekeeping. U.S. Chess Federation rules, however, differ from those of
FIDE in this respect, and Lone Pine is a USCF as well as a FIDE event. At the
players’ meeting just before the tournam ent started, Kashdan had taken great

145
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

pains to clarify the fact that a player could not claim a win on time if more than
three moves were missing from his seoreshect. U nfortunately, he had assumed
that those who d id n ’t understand English would have this point explained by a
countrym an who did. But such was not the case with Balashov (and Gaprin-
dashvili).
Balashov’s claim against Peters was disallowed, since Balashov, as noted
above, had stopped writing down his moves during time pressure. Realizing
from the confused look on Balashov’s face that the Russian did not understand
why his claim was being disallowed, K ashdan appealed for help to Alex
Suhobeck. A loyal and enthusiastic spectator at Lone Pine for several years,
Alex is a chess m aster who long ago emigrated from the Soviet Union and now
teaches Russian at the A rm y’s M onterey Language School. As he explained
K ashdan’s decision to Balashov in rapid-fire Russian, the look of perplexity
vanished from Balashov’s face and was replaced by a glower. He was un­
derstandably unhappy with the decision, which gave him a draw instead of a
win, but after consulting with G aprindashvili and making what he considered a
justifiable attem pt to have the ruling reversed, he capitulated.
Jack “ the giant-killer” Peters, like many other young men, had come to
Lone Pine in search of fame and fortune. A pparently the gods had blessed his
quest, for after seven rounds this soft-spoken, am iable southern Californian,
untitled and in possession o f a mere 2370 rating, was leading the tournament
with five and a half points, a score equaled only by Panno. During his climb up
the magic Swiss beanstalk, Jack had slain the giants Lein and Lombardy, in the
latter case with a classic sacrificial attack that convinced not only the spectators
but also Jack himself o f his invincibility. This, alas, proved to be his undoing,
for he was not the hero o f a fairy tale that must inevitably turn out happily, but
a flesh-and-bone chess m aster. In rounds eight and nine he met the “ villians”
Sahovic and G aprindashvili, spurned a sure draw in one game and a solid
approach in the other, and finished the tournam ent with two goose-eggs and
very little gold.
The last round was a typical pocket-calculator affair, with each player
carefully figuring the minim um and maximum prize he could win if he won or
drew his game and what the effects o f various other likely results might be. On
board one Panno and Sahovic drew in ten moves. P anno, with White, couldn’t
even muster a half-hearted attem pt to win, although he was rated a hundred
points higher than his opponent. A win for P anno would have been worth
$10,000, a draw at least $5,750, and a loss perhaps as little as $1,375.
The critical games on boards two and three offer insights into two radically
different approaches to playing the last round.
Benko, as Black against Balashov, chose the ultraconservative Petroff
Defense. He probably reasoned that his opponent, higher rated by a hundred

146
 19 77 : T H E ( W O M E N ’S) L I B E R A T I O N O F L O N E P I N E

points, would most likely go for the win; if Benko played solidly he would have
good chances for a draw and a reasonable prize, and there was always the
chance that Balashov might overplay his hand and lose. Balashov played well,
however, and Benko lost.
Against Gaprindashvili, Peters put all his eggs in the ultrasharp Lasker-
Pilnik basket. The tense, complex game could easily have gone his way if his
opponent had lost her footing in the treacherous complications, but she didn’t,
and Peters lost.

Yuri Balashov Nona Gaprindashvili

O sca r P a n n o D ra g u tin S a h o v ic

147
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

Round Two 18e4<Se7 19 H fd l <Bh5

W hite’s single-minded strategy
finally overcomes his noted op­ Except for the Queen Bishop,
ponent’s dogged resistance. Black’s minor pieces have trouble
finding good squares.
English Opening
20 # c 2 £)cfT21 Jib 2 Jig 4 22 B d2
J. Sunye L. Evans # d 7 23 £)c3 H a7 24 £)d5 £)d6 25
d4!
1 £)f3 .Qf6 2 c4 g6 3 g3 .fcg7 4
Jig 2 0-0 5 0-0 d6 6 <Sc3 £k-6 7 d3 The scattered Black army cannot
cope with the opening of the
White declines the invitation to position.
grapple with the more complex
King’s Indian Defense after 7 d4. 25 ... exd4 26 Jix d 4 43xc4 27
Black’s next move makes it a Closed # x c 4 Jix d 4 28 Hxd4 # c 8 29 B e l
Sicilian Reversed. Jie 6 30 iLf3 Jixd5 31 exd5 # f 5 32
®>g2 <Qg7 33 # c 6 !
7 ... e5 8 B b l a5 9 a3 h6 10 b4
axb4 1 1 axb4 iS.e6 12 b5 £)e7 13 £)d2
dS 14 # b 3 B e8

14 ... c6! would transpose to

Sunye-Grefe, played in the very next
round. Black seized the initiative
after 15 Jka3 e4! 16 Jic5 exd3 17
exd3 He8 18 bxc6 bxc6 19 # b 4 dxc4
20 dxc4 # x d 2 21 H fd l # c 2 22
H dcl # f 5 23 J ix e 7 £)g41, etc.

15 & a 3 dxc4

This opening of the position White never strays from his

clearly favors White. 15 ... c6 is fundamental idea: Queenside attack
better. based on the power of his King
Bishop. But Evans is not without
16 £) xc4 <£)ed5 17 & a4! b6 resources.

Black cannot permit the invasion 33 ... h5!

of c5, but this creates a sickly c-pawn
and further loosens the long white Black, in turn, conjures up threats
diagonal. against the White King.

148
 1977: T H E (W O M E N ’S) L IB E R A T IO N O F L O N E P IN E

34 d6 cxd6 35 # x b 6 B a3 36 S f 4 ... S x d 5 44 # x e 7 # x b 6 45 Bc8

# e 5 37 # c 6 B f8! 39 ^.d5 H5d8 46 H2c6 'M'aS brings the draw.

The Knight must be kept from e6. 44 S c8 ! Bxc8 45 S x c8 + <2h7

38 ... £)f5 39 Be4! 45 ... fares no better after 46

# e 5 + f6 47 # e 6, etc. White con­
Tactics echo strategy: 39 ... £)e7 cludes the technical phase of the
loses to 40 Bxe5! 4)xc6 41 bxc6 dxe5 game with precision, first forcing the
42 c7,etc. Queens off, then penetrating with his
King, and finally transposing to a
39 ... # b 2 won pawn ending.

And here 40 ... 43e3+ is 46 # e 5 S)f6 47 # x a 5 # e 4 + 48

threatened. 2 f l # d 3 + 49 2 e l # b l + 50 2>e2
# b 2 + 51 # d 2 # x b 6 52 # c 3
40 S c 2 # b l 41 Eec4 # b 5 + 53 # c 4 # x c 4 + 54 S x c4 g5
55 h3 2 g 6 56 2>d3 g4 57 h4 £>d7 58
Black can draw after this, but the <3?e4 f6 59 S d 4 £>e5 60 2d 5 ®>f7 61
determined 41 B e8 S a l 42 JS,xf7 + S f 4 £)g6 62 He4 -Be7 + 63 2>d6
fails after 42 ... ® h 7 !. 43c8 + 64 £>e7 65 2 d 7 £)f5 66
S b 4 £lg7 67 B b5 2 g 6 68 2 e 7
41 ... E a5! 42 b6! £)e7 43 # x d 6 £>f5 + 69 S x f5 + 2 x f 5 70 2 f 7 2>e4
71 <2g6 ® f3 72 2>xh5 f5 73 2 g 5
2 x 1 2 74 2 f 4 Black resigns.

Round Three
W hite’s planless opening play
hands Black the initiative, and Ervin
masterfully shows how to handle it.

Ruy Lopez
W. Browne R. Ervin
1 e4 e5 2 4)f3 £)c6 3 ilb 5 a6 4
j£,a4 d6 5 c3 &d7
43 ... £lxd5?
If you’re looking for a way to
The play has been outstanding wake up the generally plodding Ruy,
despite the severe time pressure, but try the delightful Siesta Variation; a
now Black’s greed is his undoing. 43 typical line runs 5 ... f5 6 exf5 Jixf5

149
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

7 0-0 Jid3 8 # b 3 b5 9 # d 5 £>d4, W hite’s Knight will accomplish

etc. nothing on d6. Meanwhile, it can’t
go back to d4 and White must now
6 d4 £>ge7 7 jS,b3 h6 8 £lbd2 deal with Black’s menacing pawns.

The gam e T ukm akov-L arsen 23 A c l e4 24 S e l © g6 25 S a 3

(Leningrad 1973) demonstrated that S c 6 26 £)d2 £)e5 27 f4
8 <Sh4 exd4 9 cxd4 «&xd4 10 # x d 4
£)c6 11 # d 5 # x h 4 12 # x f 7 + ^ d 8 Losing his nerve. 27 Bg31, in­
is fine for Black. tending to answer 27 ... f4 with 28
B x g 7 + 'S ’x g l 29 Jix e4 , and 27 ...
8 ... g6 9 dxe5 'SdtS with 28 b3, is the best defense.

In round four, Balashov achieved 27 ... exf3 28 gxf3 # f 7 29 Bae3

a powerful bind against Ervin with 9 30 S x e 6 S x e6 31 Bxe6
£ ) xc 4!
h4 ,iS.g7 10 dxe5 dxe5 11 £)c4 JLe6 12 £)xd2 32 # e 2 £>xbl 33 £)d6 # h 5
# x d 8 + Bxd8 13 h5 g5 14 £>e3.
The weakness o f W hite’s Kingside
9 ... dxe5 10 0-0 A g7 11 # e 2 proves fatal.
0-0 12 S d l # c 8 13 £)c4 Jie6 14
Jie3 b6 15 a4 a5 16 iS.c2 f5! 17 exf5 34 # g 2 ® h 7 35 B e l # g 6 ! 36 Be8
gxf5 18 €)a3 # e 8 18 £)b5 Hc8 # x g 2 + 37 <2?xg2 B xe8 38 Bxe8
£>d3 39 &e3 <Bxb2 40 S b 8 <Sxa4 41
S b 7 ® g6 42 h4 &M 43 ® g3 Sbc3
44 h5+ ® xh5 45 S h 7 J&h4+ 46
lS Jh3 Jlg5 47 f4 J if6 White resigns. \

Round Four

Black: M. Rohde

W hite’s men have no targets and

his pawns lack mobility, while the
exact opposite is true for Black.

20 c4 # h 5 21 # f l & b4 22 ^ .b l
c5!

150
 1977: T H E (W O M E N ’S) L IB E R A T IO N O F L O N E P IN E

W hite’s horse has deliberately Round Five

made an ass of itself in getting into
position to take the Bishop. White Black: P. Biyiasas
figures he will then have an outside
passed pawn and a superior King
position.

33 ... f5 34 ® e2 h5! 35 S x b 6 axb6

36 <®e3 <S>e7 37 <§>d4 ®>d6 38 c4 bxc4
39 a4 g5 40 <S?xc4

Having mishandled the opening,

Black faces the unpleasant threat f2-
f4 followed by e4-e5, so he tries to
relieve his cramped position through
exchanges, at the same time setting
what appears to be a clever trap.

40 ... h4 41 gxh4 gxh4 42 ‘S ’d l 14 ... ® g4 15 Js!.xe7 Hxe7 16 f4

<S>e6 43 a5 bxa5 44 bxa5 '*416 45 a6 # b 7 17 h3 £>f6 18 e5 Hbe8 19 # g 3
®>c6 46 ® e5 ® b6 47 <S>xf5 <S>xa6 48 £>h5 20 # g 5 £)xf4
!3?xe4
20 ... g6 is ludicrous. Besides, this
Everything has gone according to is all part o f Black’s plan.
W hite’s calculations, and his op­
ponent now resigned. The position 2 1 # x f4 d x e 5 2 2 # e 3 ?
after 40 Sl?xc4, however, is winning
for Black, not White: 40 ... f4! 41 The last several moves have turned
gxf4 (41 <$>d4 e3 42 fxe3 f3! 43 gxf3 the board into a deadly mine field,
h4, etc.) 41 ... gxf4 42 (2?d4 e3 43 and this careless move detonates a
fxe3 f3! 44 gxf3 h4, etc., gives birth mine right in W hite’s face. Borel
to a Black Queen. Menas, who delights in finding
improvements on the play o f the
masters, pointed out the winning
line: 22 # h 4 ! # b 4 23 £>f5! # c 5 +

151
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

24 <§>112 iS,xf5 25 b4! # x c 3 26 T his idea o f the creative

# x e 7 !. H ungarian master Breyer has found
favor among the greatest defenders
22 ... exd4 23 # x e 7 Hxc7 24 E xe7 o f the Ruy L opez—S passky,
# c 8 ! 25 ©c2 Gligoric, Portisch, and others. Black
redeploys his Queen Knight to d7 so
25 B xd4 gets the same answer, that it can defend the e-pawn without
followed by ... ® f8. obstructing his Bishop’s pressure on
W hite’s e-pawn after ... JS,b7.
25 ... ii,e6 26 £)xd4 # d 8 !
10 d4
The final point. Naturally not 26
...® f8 ? 27 <Qxc6.
10 d3, postponing the opening of
27 <2?h2 the game until a more favorable
moment, contains more than a little
If 27 B d3 # x e 7 28 £>xc6 # c 5 . poison. A sampling: 10 ... Slbd7 11
£3bd2 J i b 7 12 £ lf l £)c5 13 &Lc2
27 ... h 5 28 B xe6 fxe6 B e8 14 43e3 -&f8 15 b4 S c d 7 16
Jib 3 h6 17 g41? (V asiukov-
And Black won easily. Razuvaev, U .S.S.R. Championship
1973).

10 ... £sbd7
11 c4 v
Round Six
White crowns a dazzling sacrificial
display with a picturesque mate. 11 <Sh4 and 11 JS,g5 are also
played occasionally, but the main
Ruy Lopez line is 11 £)bd2; a typical followup is
J . Peters W. Lombardy demonstrated by the game Kavalek-
Spassky (Montreal 1979): 11 ... Jlb 7
1 e4 e5 12 J&.C2 S e 8 13 <Sfl & f8 14 £)g3 g6
2 £>f3 4l1c6 15a4c5 16 d5 c4 17 &,g5 £>c5.
3 AbS a6
4 Jsla4 £)f6
5 0-0 H e7 11 & b7
6 B el b5 12 £>c3 c6
7 -«l.3 d6 13 iigs b4
8 c3 0-0 14 -Qa4 exd4
9 h3 £)b8 15 4)xd4 g6

152
 1977: T H E (W O M E N ’S) L IB E R A T IO N O F L O N E P IN E

22 e5!

This pawn will batter down the

Black King’s last line o f defense.

22 ... Bae8
23 e6! fxe6

This ambitious sacrifice brings the

White King Bishop to life while
burying the one at b7, and it also
clears the way for W hite’s e-pawn.

16 ••• dxe5
17 £)f3 B e8?l

Black will be kept on the run and 24 Bxe6! <g>h8

never gets time for the ideal
regrouping ... Jif8-g7. He should W hite’s Rook is clearly inviolate.
play 17 ... <Sh5 immediately.
25 £ )g S ! £)f6
18 #c2!
If 25 ... & x g 5 26 Hxe8 Bxe8 27
The pressure against the sensitive
A x g l + , or if 25 ... 4)xe6 26 4i)xe6
f7 intensifies.
# c 8 27 S x f8 B xf8 28 &xf8.
18 ... <£>h5 26 H eel A cS
19 # c 4 B f8
27 <Qf7 + ®g8
20 JS,h6 £)g7
28 47)d6 + £)d5?l
21 B a d l
28 .. . ‘S M is imperative.
W hite’s army is seizing all the
im portant lines with time-winning 29 Bxd5! exd5
threats.
30 #.xd5 + iie 6
31 Bxe6 •Sjxefi
21 ... #c7 32 #xe6 + ®>h8

153
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

33 #g8 + ! Hxg8
34 £)f7 mate!

Here’s a quintessential Balashov

game.

Ruy Lopez

Y. Balashov P. Biyiasas 19 d5

1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £>c6 3 A b 5 a6 4 The advantage W hite would

A a4 £>f6 5 0-0 A e7 6 H e l d6 7 c3 obtain if the position were opened
has prevented Black from executing
the thematic f7-f5, which normally
Another way is 7 A xc6 + bxc6 8 grants him counterplay in this
d4 exd4 9 £lxd4 A d7 10 # f 3 . Now variation. Now, after thorough
we get the Steinitz Defense Deferred, preparation, White is ready to open
a solid though somewhat passive lines on the Queenside.
line.
1 9 ... £)d8 2 0 c5 f5 21cxd6 cxd6 22
7 ... 0-0 8 h3 A d 7 9 d4 H e8 10 exf5! Jstxf5
£3bd2 A f8 11 a3 g6 12 A c2 A h 6
Thanks to his inexact fourteenth
move, Black cannot play the natural
Black relieves his cramped posi­
22 ... gxf5 because 23 fic7 would
tion and at the same time gets rid of
subject him to unbearable pressure;
his inferior Bishop. Nevertheless,
e.g., 23 ... S f 7 (the threat was 24
White makes steady inroads with
£)xe5! dxe5 25 d6) 24 Sxe5! dxe5 25
simple, strong moves.
d6 # f 8 26 A xf7 # x f7 27 £)g5.

13 S f l A x e l 14 S x c l ®g7?! 23 S e 3 # f 6 24 A c2 ® h8 25 A e4
S e 7 26 S ec3 £)f7 27 # d 2 Hfe8 28
S c 7 <Sgh6 29 # e 3 ® g7 30 # b 6 !
14 ... ® h8 is correct.
Hxc7 31 S x c7 A c8 32 # e 3 !

15 a g3 a g8 16 b4 # e 7 17 A b3 W hite’s Queen radiates influence

S f 8 18 c4 S ae8 in every direction, and Black will

154
 1977: T H E (W O M E N ’S) L IB E R A T IO N O F L O N E P IN E

soon feel the absence o f his King Black: A. Dake

Bishop.

32 ...<£>f8 33 # c l # d 8 34 a4

The task of prying open the

position and creating assailable weak
points falls to the pawns.

34 ... £)g8 35 b5 axb5 36 axb5 £>f6

37 h4! £)d7

White: M. Quinteros

This harum-scarum tableau re­

sulted from a furious time scramble,
and now the players settled down to
a long think. But it doesn’t take long
for time pressure to develop again.

49 ... # a l !

Black, though lost, astutely places

According to Nimzovich, the
all his hopes in harassing the White
inferior side is unable to keep up
King.
with the opponent who alternates
threats from one side of the board to
50 £)xh8 # h l 51 # c 3 ! H a l 52
the other. Indeed, just when Black
# x a l ! # x a l 53 d7 # a 7 + 54 ® e2
plugs the hole on the Queenside, he is
inundated by White pieces on the
54 4c)d4? 43c6 plays into Black’s
other wing.
hands.
38 h5 x V g l 39 b6 £)c5 40 S x f7 + !
5 4 ... £)d5! 55 Hxd5
<§>xf7 41 # h 6 Hg8 42 # x h 7 + ® f8
43 # h 6 + H g7 44 # h 8 + B g8 45
If 55 d 8 # # e 3 + , and it’s ring-
# h 6 + S g 7 46 hxg6 <£lxc4 47 <Sxe4
around-the-rosy forever.
® g8 48 S fg 5 Black resigns.
55 ... # a 2 + 56 H d2 # x e 6 + 57
® d l # b 3 + 58 < 8 t2 # e 6 + 59 ® f l?

155
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

“ No time, no tim e!” 59 <2?f2! 0-0 8 H e2 d6 9 0-0 43xd4 10 Axd4

# b 6 + 60 fid 4 # d 8 61 43h4! ® xh8 ^ .d711 S c l
62 43xg6 + 'S’g7 63 43e7 leaves Black
at a loss for an answer to 64 4ic6. The characteristic pawn structure
c4 and e4 versus the Dragon
Variation is known as the Maroczy
Bind. Although it gives White a
space advantage and a bulldog
central grip, Black has no weak­
nesses and White will have to commit
himself in order to make progress.

1 1 . . . JiLc6 12 f 3 # a 5 13 a3

White plans to annex more

territory on the Queenside with an
eventual b2-b4.

Having had to perform miracles of 1 3 .. . S fc 8 1 4 # d 2 4 3 e 8

defense thus far, Black has no time
for calm reflection. Otherwise he The threat was 15 b4, since 15 ...
would find 59 ... # e 3 ! 60 d 8 # # x a 3 ? would lose material.
# x f3 + , and all the King’s horses
and all the King’s men could never 15 Jie3
bring White the full point again.
Perhaps it is better to exchange the
60 <$>f2 # c 5 + 61 43d4 # d S 62 fire-breathing King Bishop.
43e6 + # x e 6 63 d 8 # Black resigns.
15 ... 43c7 16 S c 2 43e6 17 S d l
# d 8 18 b4 b6 19 & f l # e 8 20 S e l

Avoiding the effects of 20 ... Jia 4 .

Round Seven
One rarely meets such humble 20 ... 43f8 21 S c c l 43d7
Bishops as those in this game.

Sicilian Defense
Y. Balashov O. Panno

1 e4 c5 2 43f3 43c6 3 d4 cxd4 4

4)xd4 g6 5 c4 Jkg7 6 lte 3 43f6 7 43c3

156
 1 9 7 7 : T H E ( W O M E N ’S) L I B E R A T I O N O F L O N E P I N E

<2?f7 30 A e3 # c 6 31 # b 3 <15! 32 b5
# d 6 33 exd5 exd5 34 # a 4 # c 7 35
# d l ®e6!

White has better chances for active

play after 23 exd5 followed by
frontal pressure on the e-pawn.
Black’s King is remarkably in­
2 3 ...£ )e 5 2 4 # e 2 vulnerable—and extremely active.

Threatening the invasion # a 6 and

36 A f2 £)c4 37 a4 # 1 4 38 # c 2 +
A b 5 , which would give White com­
A e5 39 g3 # d 2 40 f4 # x e 2 41 Axe2
plete ownership of the Queenside.
A c3 42 A d i
24 ... e6!
W h ite’s advanced Queenside
This generally constitutes a fatal pawns prove to be deadly liabilities.
weakening of Black’s d-pawn, but in
this case his actively placed pieces 42 ... Q b 2 43 A b3 £>d3 44 A e3?l
never allow White to get at it. £)c5 45 A d i d4 46 A f2 ® d5 47 ® f l
d3 48 g4
25 # a 2 B x c l 26 H xcl E c8 27
dxe6?l
Black snuffs out this desperate bid
Now Black gets an active central for counterplay with ease.
majority which he gradually ad­
vances in masterly fashion. White 48 ... ®'e4 49 f5 gxf5 50 gxf5 ® xf5
has nothing to fear if he just sits 51 A g3 A e5 52 A f2 A d 6 53 A g4 +
tight, for the exchange ... exd5 ® e4 54 ® g2 £>xa4 55 A f3 + ® e5 56
would only help White. A g3 + ® e6 57 A d i &c3 58 A b 3 +
® d7 59 A e l £)e4 60 A d i d2 White
27 ... fxe6 28 h3 E x c l 29 A x e l resigns.

157
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

Only the initiative can satisfy the

cravings of some chess junkies—and
these two players will pay any price
for a fix.

Nimzo-Indian Defense
L. Szabo R. Ervin

I d-4 £)f6 2 c4 e6 3 £lc3 ^ b 4 4 e3

0-0 5 a3.

Fritz Samisch’s committal vari­

ation currently ranks low in popu­
larity but has long been a favorite Enterprising, but Black’s actively
with Szabo. posted forces hold W hite’s ambitions
in check.
5 ... Jixc3 + 6 bxc3 b6 7 <Se2 &)c6
8 £>g3 e5 9 &d3 He8 10 0-0 e4 11 17 ... gxf6 18 e4 # e 6 19 & f4 <S>h8
JLe2! 20 H fl c6 21 d5 cxd5 22 exd5 Had8
23 c4 £)xc4! 24 # x c 4 # x d 5 25 # c l
Taking advantage of Black’s # d 4 + 26 <g>hl Hc8 27 # b l S c 3 28
imprecise move order. The line with # a 2 # c 4 29 # a l # c 6 30 :&d2
the Queen Knight at c6 usually runs 6 Hxg3! 31 hxg3 He2 32 # x f 6 +
... £}c6 7 Jid3 e5 8 £fe2 e4 9 jSLbl # x f 6 33 S x f6 S x d 2 34 S x f7 a6 35
b6, etc. S a 7 a5 36 Hb7 S b 2 37 a4 S b 4 38
g4«®g8 39 ® h 2 Drawn.
II ... Jla6 12 f3 exf3 13 Hxf3
R o u n d E ight
Another enterprising scheme is 13 The standings as this round started
JS.d3!? fxg2 14 H f5 d5 15 cxd5 ^.xd3 were Peters and Panno 5 'A , Sahovic,
16 # x d 3 £>xd5 17 e4 £)de7 18 H f3. Balashov, and Benko 5, and six
players in close pursuit with 4 V i.
13...£)a514,fi.d 3d 5!
Owen’s Defense
15 e4 cannot be allowed.
J. Peters D. Sahovic
15 cxd5 .&xd3 16 # x d 3 # x d 5 1 e4 b6 2 d4 &b7 3 £)c3 e6 4 ^,d3
£)f6 5 £>ge2 d5 6 e5 £)fd7 7 £)f4
16 ... £)b3 17 H b l £)xcl 18 S x c l Jie7
# x d 5 also provides good coun­
terchances to Black. The continuation 7 ... c5 8 # h 5

158
 1 9 7 7 : T H E ( W O M E N ’S ) L I B E R A T I O N O F L O N E P I N E

cxd4 (8 ... g6 9 4)xg6! fxg6 10 obscure) 10 ... £)f8 is more level­

& xg6+ hxg6 11 # x g 6 + ® e7 12 headed.
Jig5 + and White wins) 9 £)xe6 g6
10 4)xd8 gxh5 11 £>xb7 dxc3 12 9 ... fxe6 10 Jslxg6 + hxg6 11
0-0! favors White. # x g 6 + <®f8 12 h4 13 H h3
# e 8 14 ^.h 6 + S x h 6 15 # x h 6 +
8 # g 4 g6 ■fi,g7 16 # h 7 # f 7 17 B f3 £)f6 18
exf6 A xf6 19 # h 6 + <®>e7 20 # f 4
If Black wants to find out how the £>a6 21 43b5 i§,c6 22 £)xc7 £)xc7 23
Czar felt when the Bolsheviks # x c 7 + J£.d7 2 4 # c 3
stormed the Winter Palace, he
should play 8 ... 0-0. White can then Having parried all W hite’s threats
grab material with 9 <Qh5 g6 10 JsUi6 and shielded his King securely behind
S e 8 11 £)g7 B f8 (11 ... Jkf8 is a his solid center pawns and active
little better) 12 £}xe6! fxe6 13 3S.xg6 Bishops, Black faces a bright future.
® h8 14 «S,xh7 H H 15 &Lg6, etc., or
can bring up the reserves with 9 h4 c5 24 ... B c8 25 # a 3 + ’S/eX 26 # d 3
(9 ... S e 8 10 £>h5 g6 11 £)f4 c5 12 # g 7 27 c3 ,&.xh4 28 S h 3 M ,el 29
h5 g5 13 <£>xe6! fxe6 1 4 # x e 6 + ’S ’hS ®>fl ® d8 30 H h7 Jib5! 31 Bxg7
15 # f 7 £>f8 16 h6 -S,f6 17 Jixg5) 10 ■S.xd3 + 32 ® g l ® d7 33 B e l B h8
H h3 cxd4 11 B g3 g6 12 & .x g 6 \. 34 B e3 A b l 35 g47

9£>xe6!? W hite’s unjustified winning at­

tempts create welcome targets for the
A bold decision with so much at Black Bishops. The trap is 35 ...
stake, but in this case fortune favors Jlx a2 ? 36 Bg6.
the defense. 9 h4 h5 10 # g 3 (10
# x e 6 !? fxe6 11 & ixg6 + 12 35 ... 'S ’db 36 <2?g2 B h7 37 Bxh7
£)xe6 + ® g8 13 £)xd8 A xd8 is -fexh7 38 ® g3 & b l 39 B e l .feg6 40

159
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

S h i J£f8 41 f3 <®e7 42 S c l A g l 43 The symmetrical pawn structure

a4? a5 44 ® f2 ,&h6 45 S h i J if4 46 offers few opportunities for pawn
® e2 ^,c2 play and the single open file presages
exchanges, and so it will be difficult
Two Black vultures soar gracefully for W hite to turn his extra tempo
over the battlefield, feeding on the into something concrete.
carrion o f White’s pawns.
8 fef4 feg4 9 £tbd2 0-0 10 c3 £3d7
47 S h 8 A xa4 48 S h 7 + <g>f6 49 11 # c 2 g6 12 B a d !
S b 7 ^,b3 50 S h 7
There’s little mystery behind this
If 50 B xb6 a4 and 51 ... & .c l. fine Rook move. W hite prevents 12
... fef5, since then 13 fexd6 fexd3 14
50 ... .feci 51 B h lf e c 4 + 52 'S ’d l fexe7 fexc2 15 fexd8 leaves Black a
fexb2 53 !2?c2 fe.a3 54 f4 b5 55 piece down.
Hh6 + <g>f7 56 S h 7 + ®>g6 57 Hb7
b4 58 cxb4 axb4 59 Hb6 b3+ 60 12 ... S e 8 13 h3 fee6 14 B fe l
® c3 <8>f7 61 B b 7 + ® f6 62 g5 + £>f8
® g6 63 B b6 ® f5 64 g6 <$>xg6 White
resigns. A bit passive. Black bolsters g6 in
anticipation o f the White h-pawn’s
advance.
Round Nine
Panno and Sahovic drew quickly 15 £ )fl c6 16 £)g3 a5 17 h4 b6 18
h5 fef6 19 # d 2
to finish with six and a half points
each, leaving the four players on the
next two boards, who each had five
and a half, to battle for the big HPm |||mp mHp^
m
X.
W ti x i l i i
money. Let’s see what happened.

Petroff Defense X
Y. Balashov P. Benko Wt
1 e4 e 5 2 £ )f3 £ )f6
2 m M 'M & M
P etroff’s Defense has a well- w t S &
deserved reputation as a reliable
drawing weapon. W hite’s patient buildup has made
Black feel cramped. Impatient to
3 £>xe5 d6 4 £)f3 £>xe4 5 d4 d5 6 free himself, he overlooks a small
fed3 £)d6 7 0-0 fee7 combination.

160
 1977: T H E (W O M E N ’S) L IB E R A T IO N O F L O N E P IN E

19 ... c5 20 &e5 cxd4 21 cxd4 an all-or-nothing proposition.

5 jc4? 22 ,fi.xc4 dxc4 23 d5! S.xe5 24
B xe5 f6 25 S x e6 43xe6 26 dxe6 8 ... a6 9 £)a3 b5 10 A xf6 gxf6 11
#xd2 27 £>xd2 Bac8? <Sd5f512g3

Black is probably lost after this. 28 Most players prefer either 12 Jid3
... b5! holds out chances for a draw or 12 exf5, while those with a
after 29 a4 bxa4 30 S xc4 (30 &3xc4 gambling instinct might bet on 12
B ac8) 30 ... S a b 8 . A xb5 (fo r 12 <Sxb5, see
Shamkovich-Fedorowicz, Lone Pine
28 2 x c 4 S x c4 29 S x c 4 B xe6 30 1980) 12 ... axb5 13 S)xb5 B a4 14
hxg6 hxg6 31 ® f l S c 6 32 b3 b5 £>bc7 + ® d7 15 c4 S xc4 16 0-0
# g 5 , with seductive complications.
Else 33 a4 fixes the b-pawn.
12 ... fxe4 13 &g2 ^.e6 14 i§,xe4
33 £>xa5 B e l + 34 ® e2 B c2 + 35 ^,g7 15 # h 5 B c8 16 0-0 S e 7 17
® e3 Bxa2 36 £)c6 B b2 37 £3d4 S a d i B c5 18 £)e3

The lonely b-pawn is doomed.

37 ... f5 38 £)ge2 <3?f7 39 f4 ®>e7

40 ® d3 ® d6 41 £>xb5+ ® c5 42
£>bd4 ® b4 43 <£>e3 H b l 44 ® f2
H d l 45 <$>g3 H hi 46 £)c6 + ®xb3
47 £)e5 S h 7 48 £>d4 + ^ 4 49
£>df3 ® c5 50 £>xg6 ^ d 5 51 £)g5
S a 7 52 £>h4 B a3 + 53 <S>h2 B a4 54
g3 Black resigns.
■
No punches were pulled on the
next board either. A more promising continuation is
18 ... b4 19 <S)bl d5, though 20 c4
Sicilian Defense leaves things very unclear (but not 20
f4? exf4 21 g x f4 # b 6 ).
N. Gaprindashvili J. Peters
1 e4 c5 2 ai'3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Qxd4 19 b4! Bc7?l
£>f6 5 £lc3 £ ) c6 6 £)db5 d6 7 & f4 e5
8 Jig5 Now W hite’s initiative gathers
momentum. 19 ... B c3 20 43bl Bc8,
A fter a small detour we have ar­ keeping alive the possibility ... # b 6 ,
rived at the Lasker-Pilnik Variation, is not unattractive for Black.

161
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

20 c4! bxc4 21 f4 W hite’s passed pawn, more active

pieces, and the crippled Black pawns
If 21 <Saxc4? Bxc4 22 53xc4 # c 7 , add up to a White victory, though an
etc. additional thirty patient moves are
required to make it official.
21 ... # b 8 22 f5 # b 6 23 £)c2 dxe4
24 fxe6 0-0 3 4 ... B h6 + 35 <2?g2 B c7 36 B d l
B f6 37 £ld5 B d6 38 £)ce3 c3 39
Nor is 24 ... # x e 6 25 B d6! # x d 6 B el
2 6 # x f 7 + <2?d8 27 B d l encouraging
for Black. Avoiding the blatant 39 £)xc7??
B x d l 40 53xdl c2.
25 exf7 + <®h8 26 <§>g2 # e 6 27
#h3! 39 ... S cc6 40 b5 axb5 41 axbS
B c5 42 b6 Bb5
The pearl at f7 will fetch a hand­
some price. If 42 ... Bcxd5 43 £)xd5 Bxd5 44
B d8, threatening 45 b7.
27 ... # x h 3 + 28 ® ,xh3 £>c6
43 Bxc3 <S>g7 44 <Qf5+ <S>xf7 45
Rightly preferring active resistance £)xd6 + ^ x d 6 46 B d8 B b 2 + 47
to the slow but certain death of 28 ... 'S’f l ® e6 48 £)c7 + 49 B h8
£>c8 29 B f5 B cxf7 30 S x f7 B xf7 £)f8 50 B e6 -&a3 51 £)d 5+ ® f7 52
31 S d 8 + B f8 32 S x f8 + & xf8 33 B c 7 + ® e6 53 B a7 ® xd5 54 S x a 3
£>xc4. £>e6 55 B xh7 £>g5 56 S a 5 + ®>e6
57 B h 6 + <&f5 58 B h5 <S>g6 59
29 S d 6 £fb8 30 a4 S fc 8 31 S e 6 S x g 5 + <®>xg5 60 H xe5+ <S>g4 61
■kf» 32 B e8 £>d7 33 & d5 Hc6 34 B x e 4 + <®f3 62 B f4 + ® e3 63 B f6
£)e7 <2?e4 64 h4 Black resigns.

Black executes a profound and

original combination.

Sicilian Defense
S. Reshevsky W. Browne
1 e4 c5
2 £)f3 e6
3 d4 cxd4

162
 1977: T H E (W O M E N ’S) L IB E R A T IO N O F L O N E P IN E

4 £)xd4 £>f6 17 ... b4

5 4l)c3 d6 18 £>dl
6 & e2 & ,e l
7 0-0 4 ) c6 18 43a4 is not as bad as it looks,
8 Jile3 a6 since the Knight will soon find a
happy home on c4 after b3, O b2,
In Balashov-Larsen (Lone Pine etc. But 18 4)e2?! leaves White
1980), Black chose a somewhat novel awkwardly placed after 18 ... H ad8.
deployment, anticipating W hite’s
Ringside pawn storm by regrouping 18 ... £)h5
his pieces before attempting any 19 #h3?
Queenside activity: 8 ... 0-0 9 f4 jS,d7
10 £)b3 # c 7 11 j2T3 H fd8 12 # e l It’s hard to believe, but White is
Jie8 1 3 ® h l £id7. lost after this natural “ Scheven-
ingen” move. 19 # f 2 maintains the
9 f4 #c7 balance.
10 # e l 0-0
11 # g 3 £)xd4
12 Jixd4 b5
13 e5

If White wishes to sidestep a check

along the gl-a7 diagonal, a critical
line is 13 a3 Jib 7 14 ‘S ’hl g6!? 15 f5
e5 16 &e3 d5! 17 exd5 £)xd5 18
4)xd5 iix d 5 19 f6 JS.c5, with a sharp
struggle (Zuckerman-Grefe, U.S.
Championship, Mentor 1977).

13 ... dxe5
19 ... f6H
14 Jixe5 #c5 +
15 ®>hl ^b7
C ondem ning W h ite ’s Queen
16 Jid 3 Bishop to purgatory.

White aims for £)e4. 20 #xe6+ H f7

21 &c4 S f8
16 ... g6 22 i&b8 ®h8!
17 H ael 23 £)f2

17 a3, slowing Black on the If 23 # x f7 H xf7 24 & xf7 # c8 25

Queenside, is more promising. S xe7 4 )g 3 + ! 26 ^ g l (26 hxg3?

163
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

# h 3 + ) 26 ... # c 5 + 27 Be3 £>f5! saw that 26 ... # x c 4 was impossible

28 & d6! (28 ® f2 £ixe3 29 43xe3 because of the loose Rook at f8.
# f 8 , or 28 B e l <Sxe3 29 Bxe3
# x c 2 ) 28 ... # x c 2 ! ends all 26 ... £)g3 + !l
resistance, whereas 28 ... <Sxd6 29
iie 6 allows White to put up a Black had to see this devastating
stubborn defense. A nd 23 f5 is resource at move nineteen. Naturally
inadequate because of 23 ... H g7 24 the Knight is immune because of
J^.g3 (24 J if4 <£)xf4 25 S x f4 Jid 6 , mate in two, but Black’s task is far
threatening both 26 ... Jix f4 and 26 from easy even after he wins the
... B e7) 24 ... gxf5 25 B xf5 Bxg3! Exchange for a pawn.
26 Bxc5 (26 hxg3 # x f5 !) 26 ...
^ .x g 2 + 27 ®>gl AxcS + 28 43 f2 (28 27 'S’g l £>xfl
S e 3 Jih 3 + 29 hxg3 .^lxe6 30 Jixe6 28 ®>xfl a5
Be8) 28 ... B g7!! and W hite’s 29 £ic5 #b8!
Queen has no place to hide.
The first step is to exchange or
23 ... B g7 dislodge W hite’s well-placed pieces.
24 £>d3 #c8!
25 ^,d6
30 #d4 B d8
31 #e3 JS,d5
25 # x c 8 Bxc8 loses a Bishop, and
32 Jixd5 Bxd5
25 iia 7 # a 8 is also futile.
33 £ld3 #c8
34 B e2 B f7
25 ... iix d 6
26 #xd6
34 ... B c7 is more active.

35 b3 ® g7
36 £)b2 #g4
37 h3 # f5
38 S3d3 h5
39 # f3 #d7
40 g4!

Time pressure afflicts both con­

testants, but W hite’s best chance is to
mix it up even if it means a quicker
loss.

Perhaps Reshevsky had reached 40 ... hxg4

this position in his calculations and 41 hxg4 B f8

164
 1977: T H E (W O M E N ’S) L IB E R A T IO N O F L O N E P IN E

42 ® g2 Sd4 46 ... # c 3 + ?!
43 £>f2 B d2

43 ... B e8! exchanges Black’s 46 ... g5! efficiently ends the

passive Rook. game; e.g., 47 £>h3 # d l + 48 <S>g3
# e l + 49 ®>g2 # e 2 + 50 <S>g3
44 Bxd2 #xd2 # e 3 + 51 ® g2 Be81. But not 46 ...
S e8 ?? 47 g5 + .
45 #b7 + ® h6

This last move before the time 47 ® g2 Be8??

control unneccessarily exposes the
King, but it does no essential harm. This is like drawing a mustache on
the Mona Lisa, coming as it does
46 i*?f3 after adjournm ent. The way to win is
not 47 ... # x c 2 48 # e 7 , but 47 ...
#d21.

48 gS + ! fxg5
49 #d7! Be3
50 ® g4 + ®h5
51 £)xe3 #xe3
52 #h7 + ® g4
53 #d7 + ® xf4
54 # f7 + ®g4
55 #d7 + Drawn

K im C o m m o n s (le ft) a n d R o y E rv in , w a tch ed b y A s s is ta n t D ire c to r C arl B u d d

165
mm T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

B e n t L a rsen w ith L o u is D . S ta th a m

166
 1978
Something Wonderful from Denmark
A record-shattering sixty-eight players representing seventeen nations
jammed the Lone Pine town hall as the world’s chess elite vied for a total of
$36,000 in prize money, fully one-third of which was the winner’s share. With
so much money at stake in an event boasting almost ideal playing conditions
and beautiful natural surroundings, it’s not surprising that the tournament
roster included much of the cream of international chess.
Four of the illustrious names belonged to the “ supergrandmaster”
category—those with FIDE ratings over 2600—an exclusive club indeed, with
only twelve members in the whole world in the spring of 1978. Former World
Champion Tigran Petrosian was making his second Lone Pine appearance, but
the others, all. former or current world championship contenders, were
newcomers here: Bent Larsen of Denmark, Lev Polugaevsky of the Soviet
Union, and Lajos Portisch of Hungary.
A betting man would be rash, however, to plunk his money down on one of
the four mentioned above without weighing the chances that some other
contestant might cart away the $12,000 first prize. Tony Miles, for example,
had not only achieved his goal o f becoming England’s first grandmaster, but
his bold and enterprising play had also made him one of the most successful
players on the international circuit. Another young man with his sights set on
first place was Grandmaster Jan Timman o f Holland, who seemed determined
to become permanent champion o f his country and was rapidly approaching
supergrandmaster status. Florin Gheorghiu and W alter Browne, though they
had experienced curious failures here in the past, could certainly not be
relegated to the dark-horse category; Gheorghiu had scored a continuous string
o f successes in top-flight events, and Browne, the winner here in 1974, had just
captured the U.S. Championship title for the third time running. Although
Oscar Panno’s full-time engineering job and the responsibilities of family life
had severely curtailed his tournament activity in recent years, he was still
considered one of the world’s finest strategists. Add to these the names of
several lesser-known but battle-hardened veterans and a herd of hungry
newcomers who knew no fear and brooked no compromise, and you’ve got the
most exciting Lone Pine yet.

167
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

The spectators flocked here in droves to watch the greats in action, and the
town hall was filled to capacity during every round. Some took advantage of
the weekend to make the four-hour drive from Los Angeles to catch the first
round. They were not disappointed.
The Englishman Jonathan Speelman, rated 2410, upset Larsen in a good
game, but the sensation o f the day was the stunning positional victory by
seventeen-year-old Yasser Seirawan o f Seattle over Jan Timman. Defending
the Black side o f the French Defense, Seirawan gradually equalized the
chances, and when Timman weakened his position trying too hard to win, the
youngster seized the advantage and never let up. Portisch and a few other top-
ranked grandmasters were held to draws in this eventful round.
Although he ended up scoring only fifty percent, Seirawan’s performance
was an indication that this was a great talent about to explode, for that score
was earned against eight grandmasters, including Portisch, Timman, Miles,
and Evans.
Bent Larsen is known everywhere as a great optimist. There are those who
claim that his outlook has been the cause o f some o f his failures. Here at Lone
Pine, however, the reverse was true. He simply shrugged o ff his first-round
defeat and convincingly knocked o ff his next five opponents. Meanwhile,
Polugaevsky was blazing a trail of his own, and after six rounds he led the field
with five and a half points. After Larsen, with five, came Portisch, Lein, and
Peters, with four and a half each.
The two leaders drew a careful game in round seven, but their pursuers came
no closer—Portisch lost to Petrosian, and Lein and Peters drew their respective
games. Larsen, sensing the kill, now won two fine games against Stean and
Rogoff. Finally, he stood alone at the top with seven and a half, for in the
meantime Polugaevsky could only draw with Petrosian and Lein. Portisch,
Lein, and Peters each squeezed two points out o f the final three rounds and
shared the next three spots with six and a half. Petrosian could not overcome
the solid Benko in round nine, and tied with Rogoff, Evans, Ree, and Zaltsman
for sixth through tenth places. Six more players had five and a half, followed
by fourteen players with five, most of them grandmasters!

“ Motorcycle M ax” Burkett did his usual superb job o f turning out the
tournam ent bulletins. A scruffy-looking fellow with a gruff manner but a good
heart, Max and his crew stay up through the night banging away at an old
typewriter and coaxing a mulish mimeograph machine so that the bulletins will
be ready by the start o f each round. These bulletins not only provide an im­
portant record of this great event, but also add to the quality of the games by
making it possible for the players to bone up on their rivals’ latest opening
ploys.

168
 1978: S O M E T H IN G W O N D E R F U L F R O M D E N M A R K

The good people of Lone Pine usually suffer more than their fair share of
culture shock through their contact with the players. This year their for­
bearance was stretched to the limit. A big, roly-poly young man with a shaved
head, David Smith by name, came to town to watch the tournament. An avid
follower o f Lord Krishna and a devotee o f the Hare-Krishna sect, David saw it
as his mission to shed some light on the world’s great spiritual mysteries for
these unenlightened country folk. So he took his copy of the Bhagavad-Gita in
hand and began preaching in the streets, causing many Lone Piners to pause
and wonder about the possible harmful side effects of too much chess. Ap­
parently, David was satisfied that his message had been well received and that
the people possessed quick understanding, for in a few days he disappeared and
was not heard from again.

Above, Anthony Miles (left) and Jack Peters. Below, John Fedorowicz (left)
analyzing with Oscar Panno as Diane Savereide watches.

169
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

Round One maneuvers without worry that White

Young Seirawan chalks up a fine is better developed.
positional win over his renowned
opponent. 11 £ )d l c5 12 dxc5 bxc5 13 c4 d4
14 £>el h5 15 £>d3 £)f5 16 f4 # b 7 17
French Defense £ )lf2 £)d7 18 # e 4 # x e 4 19 £>xe4
J . Timman Y. Seirawan

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £lc3 -&,b4 4 e5
#d7

A move popularized by Bronstein

and championed a few years ago by
Timman himself.

5 -fi,d2 b6

Black’s chief idea is to exchange

his bad Bishop for W hite’s dan­
gerous King Bishop.
The position offers approximately
6 £)f3 JS.f8 equal chances.

Black will most likely retreat the 19 ... a5 20 g3 &,e!21 <S>f2 &h6
Bishop here anyway; he wants to win
a tempo by waiting for W hite’s King
Bishop to move before he forces its Anticipating W hite’s plan of h3,
exchange. H h l, g4, etc.

7 Jie2 22 h3 f5 23 exf6 gxf6 24 H a el xVil

25 ®>e2 S h g8 26 <S>dl £>f5 27 S g l
£>b6 28 b3 a4! 29 <Bdxc5 axb3 30
7 Js!.d3 J&,a6 8 # e 2 holds more
axb3 £>xg3! 31 Hxg3
potential for an opening advantage.

7 ... Jia 6 8 0-0 53e7 9 Jix a6 £)xa6 If 31 £)xe6? White loses a piece
10 # e 2 £>b8 after 31 ... 53xe4 32 Hxg8 S a l + 33
J ic l ® xg8 34 B xe4 Ji.a3.
The closed position allows Black
to carry out such long-winded 3 1 . . . B x g 3 32 43xg3 J ix c 5

170
 1978: S O M E T H IN G W O N D E R F U L F R O M D E N M A R K

White will keep the center closed

while building a Kingside attack.

10 ...a6

Black counters on the opposite

side.

11 Ah2 Hb8 12 b3 ^.a8 13 iib 2

b5 14 # e 2 £)d7 15 £ td l

So that 15 ... A f6 c a n be met by 16

e5.
The exchanges have left Black with
the much better game in view o f his 15 ... bxc4 16 dxc4 a5 17 £)c3!
more active pieces and W hite’s
poorly placed King. Preferable now Slowing Black’s Queenside play
and preventing 17 ... Jif6 because of
is 33 <2?e2.
18 £)b5.
33 ... exf5 34 £)xf5 d3! 35 ,&,c3
B a3 36 ® d2 B xb3 37 S a l ^ .b 4 38 17 ... <Qd4 1 8 # d 2 e 5 ?
B a7 + <®g6 39 £)e7 + ® g5 40 X.xb4
&xc4 + 41 <£>el Hxb4 42 B d7
S b l + 43 <$>f2 H b 2 + 44 ®>gl d2
White resigns.

Round Two
W hite’s play is a model of con­
sistency.

English Opening
Y. Seirawan V. Zaltsman
1 c4 £)f6 2 &c3 e6 3 e4 c5 4 f4 S)c6
5 E)f3 b6 Missing a great opportunity either
to exchange his passive King Bishop
5 ... a6 and 5 ... d5 are worthwhile for W hite’s strong Bishop on b2 or
alternatives. to plant it solidly at d4 after 18 ...
& f6!; e.g., 19 £)e2 (19 5)xd4 Axd4
6 g3 JS.b7 7 d3 d6 8 j£.g2 9 20 £)b5 ^.xb2 21 # x b 2 d5! offers
0-0 0-0 10 h3 Black fine counterplay) 19 ...

171
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

£>xf3 + 20 & xf3 -fexb2 21 # x b 2 a4, 38 ... Se3?!

with a good game.
A desperate gesture in severe time
19 S ael fe.c6 20 <&xd4 exd4?' pressure. 38 ... Jie5! leaves White
searching for the knockout.
20 ... cxd4, providing an outpost
at c5 for his Knight, is correct, 39 &xe3 S x e3 40 # h 4 A e5 41
though White would retain a clear S x f7 ! # x f 7 42 S x f7 ® xf7 43
advantage. hxg6 + ® g8 44 .feg4 &,gl 45 # f 2
£)xg6 46 .fee6 + ^ h 8 47 # f 7 £>h4 +
21 £>d5 iix d 5 22 exd5 & f6 23 48 ® g l Black resigns.
■fee4! g6 24 &c2 a4 25 .feci axb3 26
axb3 Ha8 27 # d 3 S e 8 28 jfed2

Avoiding the pin 28 ... H a l.

White has marshalled all his forces to
Black: R. Ervin
support the coming breakthrough,
and Black can do nothing but try to
weather the gathering storm.

28 ... # c 7 29 ® g2 ® g7 30 g4 h6
31 g5 hxg5 32 fxg5 AeS 33 Se2 £>f8
34 Hcf2 He7 35 jfedl S ac8 36 h4
'S’gS 37 h5 -feh8 38 # h 3

White: J. Peters

Black’s foolhardy King, strolling

blithely out amid the heavy artillery,
belatedly realizes that White is using
him for target practice.

2 6 S d 4 # g 5 + 27 S g 4

“ Ready!”
Threatens 39 hxg6 <E)xg6 (39 ...
fxg6 40 S x f8 + ) 40 S h i , etc. 27 ... # x f 5 28 # e 2

172
 1978: S O M E T H IN G W O N D E R F U L F R O M D E N M A R K

“ A im !” Round Three
Mayhem on the dark squares leads
28 ... # b 5 to an exciting footrace.

Continuing his suicidal course. 28 King’s Indian Defense

... # d 5 + 29 <§>gl # f 3 (29 ... S f3 ?
30 S g 3 H cf8 31 ® g2) 30 # c 2 g5 (30 L. Christiansen R. Henley
... # f 5 ? 31 S e5 !; 30 ... H f5 31 S e3
1 c4 43f6
# d 5 32 # e 2 # b 5 33 S d 3 ) 31 3 e 3
2 £>c3 e5
# f 5 32 # e 2 'S’gb offers at least a
3 43 f3 d6
temporary reprieve.
4 d4 exd4

29 H g5 + ? Black usually maintains his central

strongpoint with 4 ... «Sbd7.
Instead of a deafening blast (29
5 <Qxd4 g6
# e 7 !) we hear the hollow click of a
6 g3
misfire.
A more aggressive way to deal
29 ... <S>xg5 30 # g 4 + xyffi 31 with Black’s unorthodox move order
# e 6 + '3?g5 32 f4 + H xf4 is 6 Jig5 £>bd7 (6 ... h6? 7 Jslxf6
# x f 6 8 43db5 43a6 9 <Sd5 # d 8 10
# d 4 ) 7 e4.
So far, so forced.
6 ... A g7
33 3 e 5 + # x e5 ? 7 Jkg2 0-0
8 0-0 43bd7
9 b3 S e8
W hite’s plan would have backfired
10 Jlb2 c6
after the unexpected 33 ... <3?h4! 34
11 S b l
S x b 5 (34 # e 7 + g5) 34 ... S c f8 ,
simultaneously threatening mate and
11 e4 would transpose to a well-
the Rook on b5.
known position in which W hite’s
Queen Bishop stands poorly.
34 # x c 5 + H f5 35 h4+ <§>g4 36
# e 4 + S f 4 37 # g 6 + ® xh4 38 H a5
# g 3 + ®>h5 39 # x f 4 H d8 40 # f 3 + 12 e3 43 c5
<$>g6 41 # x c 6 + ® h7 42 a4 H d2 + 13 a3 #b6
43 ® f3 S b 2 44 # c 3 H a2 45 a5 14 & al 43g4
Black resigns. 15 h3

173
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

22 B x g l # x d 3 23 H b d l, when
White wins a piece.

21 # f2 dxc5
22 # x f7 + <®h8
23 H bdl

15 ... £)xe3?

Initiating an unsound combination

which is foiled by the vulnerability of
his back rank. Simply 15 ... ©6.5
gives Black cause for optimism, since
16 b4 axb4 17 axb4 H x al! 18 H x al
# x b 4 offers excellent play for the
Exchange. 23 ... & f5 is slightly more
resilient: 24 # x b 7 Hc8 (24 ... H b8
16 fxe3 Bxe3 25 Hxd4! cxd4 26 Jix d 4 + # x d 4 27
17 ®h2! # x b 8 + ® g7 28 g4, etc.) 25 H f4!
(25 # a 7 ® g8! is less clear, but not
Also good for White, but less 25 ... H d3 26 Hxd3 ^.xd3 27 H f7
clear, is 17 Sce2. # g 8 28 Jkxd4+ cxd4 29 # e 7 , etc.)
25 ... # g 5 (25 ... He7 26 Hfxd4!
17 ... Sd3 cxd4 27 Hxd41, etc.) 26 H xf5! # x f5
18 # c 2 #d8 27 H xd4 and White wins.

If 18 ... Jkd7? 19£>a4. 24 ^xb7 Hc8

25 H f4?
19 ^3e4 j£,xd4
Black’s King, trapped at the end of
If 19 ... B xd4 20 JLxd4 -S,xd4 21 a long dark alley, would have to
H b d l and White wins. pay a heavy ransom to W hite’s
malevolent bruisers after 25 # a 7 !
20 £>xc5 He3! 5l?g8 (26 # x c 5 was the threat) 26
B xd4! cxd4 27 Jix d 4 B c7 28 # x a 5
N o t 20 ... dxc5? 21 # x d 3 ! A g l + # x d 4 2 9 # x c 7 Hxb3 3 0 # e 7 , etc.

174
 1978: S O M E T H IN G W O N D E R F U L F R O M D E N M A R K

25 ... #g5! A brief outline o f some other

26 Bg4! possibilities: 35 ... h5!? 36 gxh5 gxh5
37 c5 h4 38 # f 4 + ! # x f 4 39 gxf4 +
Preferring active defense to the ® xf4 40 c6! (40 b5 Bxa3? 41 c6 Hc3
cowering 26 H f3. And 26 Bdxd4 42 b6 wins for White, but 40 ... h3!
# x g 3 + 27 ® h l B e l + 28 H fl 41 ,©.xh3 ® e5 42 b6 ® d5 wins for
B x a l is terrible for White. Black, or 41 c6 hxg2 42 c7 Bc3 43 b6
® f3 and wins) 40 ... axb4 41 axb4
26 ... JtLxg4 B b3 42 c l Bc3 43 b5 S x c7 44 b6
27 Bxd4 cxd4 Bc3 45 b7, and White just draws.
28 Jixd4 + B e5
29 hxg4 B d8 36 c5 Hxa3
30 JiLxe5 + #xe5 37 b5 B b3?!
31 #xc6 B d3
32 #a8 + ® g7 37 ... Bc3! 38c6 a3 39 b 6 a2 40b7
33 #a7 + ® h6 a l # 41 # f 4 + ! # x f 4 42 gxf4 +
34 # f2 ® g5 ® xg4 43 b 8 # # c l (43 ... # d l 44
c7! # d 7 45 c 8 # # x c 8 46 # x c 8
After 34 ... Bxb3 35 # f 8 + ®g5 Bxc8 47 JsUi3 + seals the peace) 44
(35 ... # g 7 ? ? 36 g 5 + ) 36 # d 8 + # c 8 + lS ’xf4 45 # f 8 + probably
<S?h6 (36 ... <2?xg4 37 # d l + or 3 6 ... gives a draw by perpetual check.
# f 6 37 # d 2 + <S>xg4 38 # d l +
wins) 37 # f 8 + draws. 38 b6 a3

35 b4

39 c6

A captivating position! 39 # d 2 + leads to some fancy

dancing:
35 ... a4 A) 3 9 ... IS 'x g 4 ? 4 0 # d l + .

175
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

B ) 39 ... # e 3 40 # x e 3 + Hxe3 41 W hite’s ambitious operations on

b7 S b 3 42 c6 a2 43 c7 a l # 44 b 8 # both flanks strand his King in the
and White is a winner. middle.
C) 39 ... <2?f6 steps into a deadly
crossfire: 40 # d 8 + # e 7 41 g5 + , or English Opening
40 ... <S>g7 41 # c 7 + ®>f6 42 g5 + .
J. Speelman H. Ree
D ) 39 ... S e 3 ! 40 # d 8 + draws:
D l ) 40 ... <$>116 41 # f 8 + (41 g5 + I c4 e5 2 £)c3 d6 3 £)f3 fS 4 d4 e4 5
'S’hS!, but not 41 ... # x g 5 ? 42
&g5
# x g 5 + ®xg5 43 b7 3 b 3 or 43 ... a2
44 b 8 # a l # 45 # f 4 + <®>h5 46 # h 4 5 © g5, headed for the fine outpost
mate) 4 1 ... Sl?g5 42 # d 8 + , etc. at f4, might lead to 5 ... h6! 6 4ih3
D 2 ) 40 ... # e 7 41 # d 2 ! (41
g5! 7 f3 exf3 8 exf3 iig 7 , as in
# x e 7 + Hxe7 42 ^.d5 S e 2 + 43 Seirawan-Browne, Berkeley 1979.
®>h3 S b 2 44 c6 a2! 45 & ,xa2 S x b 6
46 Jkd5 S b 5 favors Black) and 5 ... £)f6 6 £)d2 S,e7 7 e3 0-0 8 h4
because of the threat 42 b7 Black has c6
nothing better than to repeat moves
with 41 ... # e 5 42 # d 8 + , etc. Consolidating his central pawn
wedge is Black’s main concern.
39 ... a2
40 c7 Sxg3! 9 & e2 £>a6 10 a3 S c 7 11 g4

Assuring the draw. 40 ... a l# ? 41 The tension grows with every

c 8 # places Black’s King in mortal move.
danger.
II ... d5 12 cxd5 cxd5 13 # b 3
41 #xg3 #xg3 + £Dxg4
42 <$>xg3 a l#
43 c8# #e5 + 13 ... ®>h8 14 gxf5 S b 8 15 ^ .f4
44 ® f3 # f6 + JsLd6 is worth exploring.
45 <2>e2 #b2 +
46 ® fl #bl + 14 ,fexg4 ,$.xg5 15 hxg5 fxg4 16
47 ® f2 #xb6 + £>dxe4 ,-S,e6 17 £)g3
48 ® g3 #d6 +
49 ® h3 #d3 + The zealous 17 £)c5 exposes White
50 ^>h2 Drawn to many hazards after 17 ... Jif5 18
e4 (18 £)xb7 # x g 5 threatens both ...
A struggle in the grand manner. S b 8 and ... g3) 18 ... b6.

17 ... # x g 5 18 # x b 7 # e 7 19 # b 3

176
 1978: S O M E T H IN G W O N D E R F U L F R O M D E N M A R K

S a b 8 20 # c 2 g6 21 B e l S b 5 22 £)f5 + (30 # h 8 + ® f7 31 # g 8 +
4Da4 ® f6 32 B f8 + <S>g5 33 B f5 + <®h4!,
but not 33 ... <2?h6? 34 B h5 + ! gxh5
Hoping to dam the Queenside at 35 £>f5 mate) 30 ... gxf5 31 # h 8 +
c5. 32 # g 8 + <S>f6 33 S f8 + # x f8
34 # x f8 + , and White has no more
than a draw.

28 ... gxf5 29 S x h 7 + ! <$>xh7 30

# x f 5 + ® g7 31 # x g 4 + <S>f6 32
# f 4 + <S>g6 33 # g 4 + ® f6 34
# f 4 + Drawn.

W hite’s lethargic Queenside pieces

22 ... 4)xd4! enter the fray too late to save their
battered King.
B lack’s ingenious efforts to
denude the White King meet with Bird’s Opening
equally p raisew o rth y c o u n te r­
T. Taylor J. Mestel
measures.
1 f4
23 exd4 Jid7 + 2 4 ® d l
The brainchild of the old-time
If 24 ® f l A x a 4 25 # x a 4 # e 3 26 English master Henry Bird.
B c2 # x g 3 , and White loses.
1 ... e5
24 ... Bxf2! 25 # x f2 ! xa4 + 26
b3! From ’s Gambit, which sells a
pawn for volatile piece play against
White rescues himself with this W hite’s weakened Kingside.
problemlike interference.
2 fxe5
26 ... Bxb3 27 B c8 + ® g7 28
£)f5 + ! White can transpose to the King’s
Gambit with 2 e4.
Winning attempts can backfire: 28
B xh7 + ® xh7 29 # h 2 + ® g7 30 2 ... d6 3 exd6 -&xd6 4 £)f3 S f 6

177
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

The bloodthirsty 4 ... g5 also has 1 4 .. . # d 8 15 JS,b5 +

its adherents.
White can pocket the draw with 15
5 d4 £)g4 6 # d 3 c5 7 # e 4 + ^.e6 # e 6 + # e 7 1 6 # c 8 + , etc., since 15
8 S)g5 ,CJ.\h2 9 £>xe6 # h 4 + 10 <g>d2 ... ® f8 16 # f 5 + ® e7 17 # x c 5 +
fxe611 Bxh2 favors White.

Filip-Fichtl (Czechoslovakia 1957) 1 5 .. . £>c616#xb7?!

was catastrophic for White on 11
#xe6+ 12 ® c3 £>f6! 13 W hite’s materialism is his un­
# d 6 + <E)bd7 14 B xh2 # e l + 15 doing. 16 J bLxc6 + bxc6 17 # x c 6 +
Jid 2 £)e4 + and Black won. <^ >f7 18 # x c 5 leaves the outcome in
doubt.
11 ... # g 5 + 12 e3 £)xh2 13
#xe6 + # e7 16 ... 0-0 17 &xc6 S b 8 18 # d 7
# f 6 19 £>c3 cxd4 20 exd4 Sb d 8 21
A deviation from Gigas-Favre Se4
(correspondence 1961/62), which
generated unclear play after 13 ... Trying to make amends.
® d8 14 # d 6 + £>d7 15 # x h 2 H fs
16 JS,e2 cxd4. 21 ... # g 6 22 &d5 + <S>h8 23 # e 7
# x g 2 + 24 xVc3 Hfe8 25 # g 5
# f 3 + 26 xPc.4 # e 2 + 27 rl?c3
# f 3 + 28 <S>c4 # e 2 + 29 <$>c3 £)f3
30 # 1 5 Bxd5 31 # x d 5 Bxe4 32 -&f4
h6 33 # f 5 £>xd4 34 # f 8 + ‘g ’h7 35
B e l <S)b5 + 36 <3?b3 # c 4 mate.

Black launches a novel form of the

14 # c 8 + N oah’s A rk Trap (1 e4 e5 2 £)f3 £)c6
3 ^.b5 a6 4 & ,a4 d6 5 d4 b5 6 Jkb3
14 jS,b5 + accomplishes little after S x d 4 7 £)xd4 exd4 8 # x d 4 ? c5 9
14 ... £)c6! (Black achieves less with # d 5 & .e6 10 # c 6 + A d i 11 # d 5 c4,
14 ... <®>d8 15 # h 3 cxd4 16 # x h 2 etc.), but his two minor pieces are no
dxe3 + 17 ® e2) 15 is,xc6 4- bxc6 16 match for W hite’s Rook and three
# x c 6 + 'S'H 17 # d 5 + <S>g6. pawns.

178
 1978: S O M E T H IN G W O N D E R F U L F R O M D E N M A R K

Ruy Lopez 12 # g 4 c4 13 # x g 7 B f8 14 ,&h6

Jic5
J. Timman A. Balshan

1 e4 e5 2 <Qf3 £)c6 3 &b5 a6 4

-&a4£)f6 5 0-0J&e7 6d4

A radical departure from the

normal Ruy. White usually takes
great pains to build a full pawn
center with 6 B e l, c3, h3, d4, etc.

6 ... exd4

6 ... b5 7 idb3 £)xe4 8 dxe5 0-0 9

,S.d5 43c5 10 <Sd4 JsLb7 is worth a
gamble, but 6 ... 43xe4 7 S e l f5 8 A little better is 14 ... S ,b 7 , in­
dxe5 0-0 9 ^ .b 3 + «>h8 10 £>c3 tending to meet 15 # x h 7 with 15 ...
favors White. # c 7 16 Jix f8 ^.xf8 17 <Sc3 cxb3 18
axb3 0-0-0 19 # x f 7 Jic5.
7 Sel
15 £)d2 J&b7 16 £)e4 &xe4 17
7 e5 £>e4 8 £)xd4 0-0 9 £)f5 d5 10 S x e4 # c 7 18 # x h 7 0-0-0 19 ,S.xf8
Jilxc6 bxc6 11 £)xe7-t- # x e 7 12 S e l B xf8 20 c3 cxb3 21 axb3
B e8 13 f3 &)d6 14 b3 f6 puts the
initiative in Black’s hands (Mar- The forced play after Black’s
janovic-Honfi, Subotica 1978). eleventh move has left him with weak
pawns and ineffectual pieces.
7 ... b5 8e5<£)d5
21 ... ® b7 22 b4 JsU7 23 S d l # c 6
8 ... 43xe5 is playable. 24 Bed4 ® c7 25 # e 4 f5 26 exf6
# x e 4 27 S x e4 ,&xf6 28 S f 4 £)a4 29
9& b3£lb610£> xd4 b3 £ ) xc3

The pawn sacrifice 10 c3 dxc3 11 Throwing himself on his sword.

£>xc3 0-0 12 .& f4 d6 13 exd6 ,fexd6
14 iix d 6 cxd6 15 # d 3 doesn’t offer 30 B e l B e8 31 S x f6 <£>b7 32 <S>fl
White very much. Black resigns.

1 0 .. .£ lx d 4 1 1 # x d 4 c5 ? R ound Four
W hite’s surprising twelfth move is
1 1 .. . 0-0 keeps Black alive. not only happily free of dogmatism

179
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

but also reveals a penetrating

positional insight.

King’s Indian Defense

B. Larsen H. Westerinen

1 £>f3 & f6 2 g3 g6 3 b3

This quiet treatm ent is a good

psychological choice in view of
W esterinen’s penchant for hand-to-
hand fighting.
12 & x c 6 l
3 ... Agl 4 JsU)2 0-0 5 istg2 d6 6 d4
& f5 White feels no compunction about
surrendering his pride and joy
An enterprising departure from because Black’s Queenside pawns
the usual 6 ... £3bd7 7 0-0 e5 8 dxe5 will be completely robbed of their
S)g4 9 h3 £3gxe5. mobility. White has nothing to fear
from the open b-file.
7 c4 # c 8 8h3?l
12 ... bxc6 13 g4 Jie6 14 # c 2 a5 15
A loss of time which allows Black £»a4 £ld7 16 £le4 f6 17 f3 # b 8 18 h4
to equalize. 8 0-0 Jih3 9 £ k 3 is more
natural. White is understandably eager to
get his attack rolling, but 18 0-0-0 is
8 ... He8! 9 <£)c3 more precise.

9 e3, to avoid masking the Queen 18 ... # b 4 + 19 Jic3 # e 7 20

Bishop’s central influence, should be 0-0-0 S eb 8 21 h5 f5
considered.
21 ... g5 22 £)g3 is no im­
9 ... e5 10 dxe5 provement.

10 d5 e4 11 £}d4 e3 leads to a more 22 £ )g 3 # a 3 + ?!

complicated struggle.
Slightly better is 22 ... fxg4 23
10 ... dxe5 11 £Dd2 £k6? hxg6 # g 5 + 24 <S>b2 # x g 6 25 £>h5,
etc.
11 ... £)bd7 or 11 ... 53a6
equalizes. 23 Jkb2! 'S'xa2 24 hxg6 fxg4

180
 1978: S O M E T H IN G W O N D E R F U L F R O M D E N M A R K

Black arrives one move too late 2 c4 e6

with 24 ... Hxb3 25 gxf5 # x a 4 26 3 g3 d5
fxe6 S c 5 27 e7!. 4 Jig2 £>bd7

25 Hxh7 £)f6 4 ... dxc4 leads to more open play.

5 £>f3 c6

Threatening to capture the pawn

at c4 for keeps.

6 #c2 & ,e l
7 0-0 0-0
8 b3 b6

A more venturesome scenario

folds after 8 ... b5 9 Q bd2 bxc4 10
bxc4 &,a6 11 ^ .b 2 B b8 12 B a b l
# a 5 13 Jslc3 & b4 14 Hxb4 B xb4 15
26 Bxg7 + !
B e l (15 a3? # a 4 ) 15 ... # a 4 , with
Black’s unguarded Queen permits equal opportunities in Geller-Larsen,
White to engineer a winning sim­ Candidates Match 1966.
plification.
9 Bdl J^b7
26 ... ® xg7 27 <Sh5 + Sl?f8 28 10 Q c3 B c8
S x f6 # x b 3 29 # x b 3 Bxb3 30 S c 5 11 e4
B b4 31 £)xe6+ ® e7 32 S x c7
S x c4 + 33 <S>bl B c8 34 £lxg4 Bxc7 White begins central operations to
35 £>xe5 B b4 36 g7 B b8 37 f4 ® e6 convert his spatial advantage into
38 e4 Bxg7 39 f5 + Black resigns. something tangible.

Round Six 11 ... c5

Overcoming his redoubtable foe
by the simplest of means, White Portisch-Radulov (Moscow 1977)
contributes yet another masterpiece led to a considerable White plus after
to the archives of positional chess. 11 ... dxe4 12 £)xe4 ©Sxe4 13 # x e 4
# c 7 14 iLf4 Jkd6 15 Jb(d6 # x d 6 16
Catalan System c5!.

L. Polugaevsky S. Reshevsky 12 exd5 exd5

1 d4 £>f6 13 .&b2 a6
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

Not 13 ... dxc4?! 14 d5! cxb3 15 An unusual post for the Rook, but
axb3, etc. one dictated by the logic o f the
position. The pressure on W hite’s a-
14 cxd5 cxd4 pawn prevents his Queen Rook from
15 £)xd4 entering the fray and gives Black
time to catch his breath.
15 B xd4 is not without merit.
24 h3 B e8
15 ... jS.xd5 25 B el h5
16 £>f5 &xg2 26 a4 <®h7?
17 ® xg2 ^.b4
18 # d 3 Bc5 26 . . ■S3e5 + ! 27 Bxe5 Bxe5 28
19 # f 3 Jslxe5 Hxe7 29 Jid 4 shakes o ff some
of the pressure.

27 b4!

Black’s Rook is sent wandering,

and soon it is lost in the wilderness.

2 7 ... B g5 28 (2?f4 <2?h6 29 £>f5 +

® g 6 30 £)h 4+ <2>h6 31 B xe8 £)xe8
32 £>f5 + ® g6 33 £>e7 + ® h 6 34
B e l £>f8 35 A e3 £}g6 + 36 ® f3
£)xe7 37 h4 £)d5 38 H c6 + ® h 7 39
hxg5 b5 40 B xa6 Black resigns.
19 & .xc3

The immediate 19 ... # a 8 permits

20 £)e7 + ® h8 21 43cd5, increasing When opportunity knocks, White
W hite’s sphere o f influence. is quick to answer.

20 Jixc3 #a8 Sicilian Defense

J. Peters W. Browne
Black might have considered 20 ...
# c 7 instead o f this purely passive 1 e4 c5 2 £>f3 d6 3 ,&b5 +
resistance.
Peters swears by this simplifying
21 £>e7 + <S>h8 positional approach.
22 ^.d4 # x f3 +
23 ‘S W Ha5 3 ... J&.d7

182
 1978: S O M E T H IN G W O N D E R F U L F R O M D E N M A R K

Kuzmin-Dorfman (Lvov 1978) After 28 ... B xd2 29 £3xg6!

displayed the delightful potential of decides.
the less humble 3 ... £)c6: 4 0-0 Jid 7
5 # e 2 g6 6 e5 dxe5 7 ©xe5 £)xe5 8
# x e 5 Jixb5! 9 # x h 8 J ix fl 10 # x g 8
islxg2! with advantage for Black.

4 Jilxd7 + 'S'xd? 5 c4 53c6 6 4)c3

e6 7 0-0 £>f6 8 d4 cxd4 9 £>xd4 A e 7
10 -^e3 0-0

Both sides now complete their

mobilization before undertaking
anything definite. White holds a
slight edge due to his command of
greater terrain.
29 £>xe61?
11 # e 2 B fd8 12 H fd l b6 13 H acl
a6 14 13 # b 7 15 b3 Hac8 16 2>hl The culmination o f his previous
S c 7 17 # f 2 Bdc8 play. White will lay bare the Black
King at any price.
Seeking an opening with the threat
18 ... b5 19 cxb5 £)xd4 20 bxa6 29 ... fxe6
# x a 6 21 Jbcd4 e5, which would gain
material. 29 ... 4)xe6? fails to 30 # h 3 ! and
29 ... Hxd2 leads to a draw after 30
18 <Sde2 £)d7 19 a4 £)c5 20 B b l ©xg5 (30 # h 3 ? f6) 30 ... 2T 8 31
g<> £)cxe4! £)xe4 32 £>h7+ ® e8 33
# g 8 + 2>d7 34 # g 4 + , etc.
20 ... Jif8 is less risky, but, having
been stymied on the Queenside, 3 0 # h 3 Jif6 ?
Black contemplates trying his luck
on the other wing with a future ... f5. 30 ... Bxd2 31 # h 8 + ‘S ’f? 32
# h 5 + <2>f8 33 # h 8 + , etc., would
21#g3 be the logical course of events. Black
would be playing with fire on 30 ...
Pressuring the dark squares. J&,f8 31 # h 8 + <2^7 32 # h 5 + ®e7
33 # x g 5 + <2>e8 34 # g 6 + B f7 35
21 ... S b 4 22 h4 Hd7 23 h5 £>cd3 £)xe4 £)xe4 36 fxe4. But not 36
24 Hd2 -Sc5 25 S.f'4 d5 26 hxg6 hxg6 # x e 6 + ? A e l 37 fxe4 Sc61, and
27 Jie5 dxe4 28 S)f4 g5 Black seizes the initiative.

183
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

31 S xd 7 £ixd7 32 # x e 6 + ® g7 33 Both flags were poised to drop.

£)xe4! Js,xe5 Correct is 40 # h 5 + ! <$>xf4 (40 ...
<S>e4 41 # f 3 + , or 40 ... <5>e6 41
33 ... # c 6 cannot save Black # g 4 + and mate next move) 41
because of 34 Jslxf6 + 4Dxf6 35 # f 3 + 'S'eS 42 S e 7 + ! and White
# e 7 + <3?g6 36 # x b 4 , etc., but it’s a wins the Queen or mates.
good try.
40 ... '2>e4?
34 f i d l S c 7 35 £)xg5 ^.16
With 40 ... ® ’xg4! Black still has a
If 35 ... E)f6 36 # x e 5 S e 7 37 good chance. Now the curtain falls.
<Se6 + <$>f7 38 £)d8 + .
41 # e 6 + <5>f3 42 S h 7 # x f 4 43
36 # f 7 + <S>h6 37 S xd7! ®xgS S h 3 + <S>f2 44 S h 2 + ® g3 45
# e l + 'S>xg4 46 # g l + Black
37 ... ££xd7 allows mate in four: resigns.
38 # x f 6 + <S>h5 39 g4+ <$>h4 40
£)e4 + ® h3 41 # h 6 mate.

38 S xc7 # b 8 ? !
Round Seven
Black conducts the entire game
White has no immediate crusher
with such consummate ease that it’s
after 38 ... # a 8 ; e.g., 39 f4 + <S>f5 40
hard to believe his opponent is a
# d 7 + ® xf4 41 # d 2 + <S>f5 and the
fellow “ super-grandm aster.”
Knight is taboo: 42 # x b 4 # h 8 + 43
<S>gl Jsld4+ , etc. W hite’s best after
Nimzo-Indian Defense
38 ... # a 8 is probably 39 ® g l .
L. Portisch T. Petrosian
1 d4 <5f6
2 c4 e6
3 £)c3

There has been a great revival of

interest lately in the Queen’s Indian
Defense, 3 S)f3 b6.

3 JS,b4
4 e3 0-0
5 Jid3 d5
6 <Sf3 b6
7 0-0 &b7

184
 1978: S O M E T H IN G W O N D E R F U L F R O M D E N M A R K

This line has given Portisch passive Black will slowly increase his
trouble in the past. Portisch-Rogoff R ingside pressure to decisive
(Las Palmas 1976) resulted in a Black proportions, but this move merely
advantage after 8 exd5 exd5 9 <&e5 emphasizes the strength of Black’s
£)bd7 10 [4 c5 11 A f 5 g6 12 Jkh3 centralized Rooks.
JsLxc3! 13 bxc3 <Qxe5 14 dxe5 43e4.
17 ... exf3
8 a3 ^.d6 18 ,fexf3 ,§.xf3
9 b4 dxc4 19 £)xf3
10 iS,xc4 a5
11 b5 £)bd7 It may have been psychologically
preferable to take his chances in a
There’s no stopping the equalizing complex middlegame with 19gxf3.
... e5.
19 Se4
12 JS,b2 e5 20 43xe4 #xe4
13 H el 21 # x e 4 Hxe4
22 £)d2 He6
Exchanging on e5 would prevent 23 e4?l
Black from monopolizing the center
with his next move.

13 e4!
14 £>d2 #e7
15 Jie2 Had8
16 # c 2 S fe 8

He threatens 24 e5 followed by 25
d5; and 24 ... f6 robs Black’s Knight
of an important square. Apparently
White has steered for this position
from move seventeen, but his plan
has a hole in it big enough to drive an
17 f3 eighteen-wheeler through.

White fears that if he remains 23 ... £> c5!

185
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

Winning a pawn. O f course, if elementary endgame books. After

White had played 23 £>c4, his end­ tying W hite down, he improves the
game prospects, on a scale o f one to positions o f his pieces and follows up
ten, would be about two because o f with a decisive pawn breakthrough.
his bad Bishop, hanging center
pawns, and overall w eakened 39 <5>f3 g4 +
position (not to mention Petrosian’s 40 <S>f2 B h7
strength in the endgame). 41 B d2 h4
42 ®e4
24 £>e4 43 B d l £)e3 +
44 J^xe3 <&xe3
24 d5 fails to 24 ... B h6 25 g3 (25
45 £)c3 h3 +
e5 Jie7) 25 ... £>d3 26 B e b l £lxb2
White resigns
27 B xb2 Jie5 , and 24 B a b l fails to
24 ... 53d3 25 Be3 &)xb2 26 Bxb2
After 46 'S’fl Black’s King would
J if4 , etc.
have to beat a hasty retreat: 46 ...
24 ... S f 7 47 £)d5 + <$>e4 48 <Sc3 + <S>f5
S x e4
25 B a d 49 S)d5 S£>e6, but then White would
■fi.f8
26 43e5 be helpless against the advance o f the
<S)d6
27 a4 f-pawn.
f6
28 & f3 Bxel-t-
29 43xel Sd7 Round Eight
30 £)f3 £>f5 Black’s relentless prosecution of
31 <$>f2 h5 his advantage is more noteworthy by
virtue of the fact that his operations
Black has not only swallowed a are restricted to one wing.
pawn but he also still controls the
game. White can only shuffle his Queen’s Indian Defense
pieces ineffectively, and at ad­
M. Stean B. Larsen
journm ent he gives up his hopeless
cause. 1 c4 £)f6 2 £)f3 b6

32 B c2 g5 This move order, rather than 2 ...

33 Bc4 .&d6 e6 3 &3c3 b6, avoids the more
34 g3 <&n double-edged 4 e4 & b7 5 JS.d3, etc.
35 £)gl &e7
36 £>e2 £)d5 3 g3 ^,b7 4 Jtg2 e6 5 0-0 A e l 6
37 i5.cl ®>e6 43c3 0-0 7 d4 £)e4 8 # c 2 £)xe3 9
38 B c2 ‘S ’fs # x c3

Black’s strategy can be found in The starting position of many

186
 1978: S O M E T H IN G W O N D E R F U L F R O M D E N M A R K

battles in international events in

recent years. White wants to enforce
e4 or d5, consolidating his spatial
advantage in the center.

9 ... d6

Black has six other worthwhile

moves: 9 ... # c 8 , 9 ... c5, 9 ... d5, 9
... f5, 9 ... A f6, and 9 ... A e4. The
most popular is 9 ... c5, a recent
example being 10 B d l d6 11 b3 Ji.f6
12 A b2 # c 7 13 # c 2 £)d7 14 B d2 21 S c d l B f7 22 S d 2 B af8 23
cxd4 15 A xd4 B fd8 16 B a d l Hac8 # c 3 # h 5 24 # e 3 ,S.h3 25 # c 3 g5 26
with a small plus for White in A h l # g 6 27 # e 3 A g4 28 # c 3 &f3
Bagirov-Balashov (Lvov 1978).
W h ite’s shilly-shallying has
10#c2 handed Black the initiative.

10 b3 led to equal chances in Peev- 29 A xf3 B xf3 30 S d 3 B 3f5 31

Kovacs (Decin 1978) following 10 ... S d 2 h5! 32 # d 3 g4 33 S e 3 ® g7 34
£>d7 11 A b2 £>f6 12 B fd l £>e4 13 <§>g2 £>f6 35 53x16 B 8xf6 36 # e 4
# c 2 f5 14 B a d # e 8 15 £)el # g 6 . # g 5 37 Bee2 h4

1 0 ... f5 11 d5 e5 12 e4 Ac8! White can no longer save himself

in this classic major-piece battle.
An improvement over the pre­
viously played 12 ... fxe4, which 38 <S>gl S f3 39 Be2 # h 5 40 B e l
promises White an edge. Chances are hxg3
now level.
Black has made certain that his
13 exf5 A xf5 14 # e 2 £)d7 15 £)d2 opponent cannot recapture with the
A g5 16 £>e4 A x e l 17 B a x c l a5 18 h-pawn and then challenge that file
# e 3 # e 8 19 b3 # g 6 20 B f e l h6 (41 hxg3? B h6 wins).

Now that mobilization o f his 41 fxg3 # h 3 42 S g 2 <S>f8 43 B b l

entire army is complete, White <S>e7 44 B e l ® d8 45 B b l # h 5 46
should begin advancing his foot B c2 ®>e7 47 B e l B f8 48 B d2 # f 7 !
soldiers on the Queenside with 21 a3, 49#e2
planning to breach the enemy lines
with an eventual c5. | If 49 B d d l Bxg3 + ! 50 hxg3

187
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

# f 2 + 51 ® h l B h8 + and mate next This maneuver results in a White

move. initiative. 10 ... a6 is best.

49 ... # f 5 50 H b2 B f6 51 B c2
11 JLgl £>d4 12 ^.xd7 # x d 7 13 h3
<S>f7 52 H d2 e4 53 B d d l © xf3 14 S x f3 <£)f6 15 f5 # c 6 16
B a f l b5 17 ^.e3
White resigned, since he is de­
fenseless against ... # e 5 and ... e3,
threatening ... H f2. The try B d3
after ... e3 falls flat on ... S xg3 + ,
etc.

H ere’s a hard-fought game with

three distinct stages, all o f them
instructive.

Sicilian Defense
A. Lein P. Benko
1 e4 c5 2 £)c3 d6 3 f4 £>c6 4 A b 5
The opening scuffle has ended
Lein has an unpretentious ap­ with W hite taking aim at Black’s
proach to the openings, and this line Kingside, so it seems natural for
is well suited to his style. Black to counter in the center. 17 ...
c4, however, seems a better way to
4 ... & d7 5 43f3 g6 6 0-0 -ffi,g7 7 d3 go about it, e.g., 18 Jkxa7 b4 19 &3e2
£>f6 8 ® h l c3 20 bxc3 bxc3 21 # e 3 # a 4 , etc. If
White doesn’t capture on a7 Black
If White d o e s harbor ambitions, can proceed with ... cxd3, ... b4, and
he can begin active Kingside play ... # x c 2 ,
with 8 # e l , followed by # h 4 ,
ii,xc6, f5, etc.
18 exd5 £>xd5 19 i&,h6 £>xc3 20
8 ... 0-09 Jsle3 B c8 bxc3f6?!

The immediate 9 ... a6 is more Black, instead of presenting his

active. opponent with a ready-made target,
should make him spend a few moves
10 # d 2 £)g4?! to provoke it.

188
 1978: S O M E T H IN G W O N D E R F U L F R O M D E N M A R K

21 S g 3 g5 22 .&xgl ®>xg7 23 h4 38 Bxc5 B xc2 39 d4 a6 40 ® h 2 h5

h6 24 S e 3 S c 7 25 # e 2 B f7 41 <®g3 <$>f7 42 'STO <$>e7 43 g4

25 ... # e 8 is more tenacious, but White naturally hastens to create a

Black wants to keep his Queen at its passed pawn to distract Black’s
active post. active Rook.

43 ... hxg4+ 44 Sf?xg4 B g 2 + 45

26 # h 5 'S’gS 27 'S’gl S g 7 28 S f 2 ®>h3 B c2 46 h5 ® d 7 47 h6 B e l 48
29 E h3 g4 30 S g 3 B c8 31 «>g2 B c 2 + 49 ® g3 B e l 50 d5
B xg4 Bxg4 32 # x g 4 S g 8 33 # f 3 B g l + 51 <S>f4 B f l + 52 ® e4
# x f 3 34 S x f3 B e l + 53 'S’dS B d l + 54 <S>c2 B h l

White begins the endgame holding W hite’s King has been driven far
an extra pawn, but his numerous from his sensitive f-pawn, but he will
weaknesses give Black some drawing obtain two irresistible connected
chances. passed pawns against Black’s one.

34 ... S g 4 35 He3 S a 4 36 55 B c6 Bxh6 56 Bxa6 <&el 57

Bxe7+<S>g8 37 Hc7 Sxa2? B e 6 + ® f7 58 B b6 B h5 59 B b7 +
® e8 60 Bxb5 S x f5 61 ®d3 ® d7 62
® d4 ®'c7 63 <S>c5 B h5 64 c4 Bh4 65
B b l f5 66 d6+ ® c8 67 ® d5 f4 68
\J?c6 Black resigns.

R o u n d N ine
Larsen finished the tournament
with seven and a half points. Polu-
gaevsky was next with seven, so
Browne, who started this round with
five points, had to win if he was to
garner a decent prize (Portisch had
An error somewhat similar to the five and a half).
one committed by Gligoric against
A lburt (see Lone Pine 1980). Black Queen’s Gambit Accepted
misses an opportunity to favorably
W. Browne L. Portisch
alter the pawn structure by 37 ... c4!;
if 38 dxc4 bxc4 White would be left 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4
with doubled c-pawns rather than
two connected passed pawns. Portisch’s experience with this

189
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

opening is extensive. With Black, 5 Jslxc4 c5 6 0-0 a6 7 a4

he’s faced Gligoric in a number of
theoretically im portant contests, and Originally championed by the
with White he’s met both Spassky great Rubinstein, this variation was
and Miles o f late (especially in the thoroughly tested in the Botvinnik-
Iine3<& f3£)f64e3 jS,g4). Petrosian W orld C ham pionship
Match o f 1963. White surrenders
3£>f3 control o f the im portant square b4
and in return squelches Black’s plans
for Queenside expansion.
Preferred by most top players in
order to prevent the equalizing
7 ... £ ) c6 8 # e 2 cxd4 9 B d l A e l
tactical blow, 3 ... e5. The Russian
10 exd4 0-0 11 £lc3 £)d5 12 -S.d3
grandmaster Bagirov, however, has
£)cb4 13 J i b l b6 14 a5 bxa5!
been very successful with 3 e4, and it
has been taken up by other players;
Im proving on Gligoric-Portisch
e.g., Alburt-Romanishin (Kiev 1978)
(Pula 1971), which ran 14 ... Jkd7 15
went 3 ... e5 4 © f3 J ib 4 + 5 £)c3
£)e5 bxa5 16 B a3 f5 17 £)xd5 43xd5
exd4 6 £)xd4 # e 7 7 ^.xc4! # x e 4 + 8
18 S)xd7 # x d 7 19 B xa5, clearly
® f l l , with a sharp struggle brewing.
favoring White.

3 ... £)f6 4e3 15 £)e5 Jslb7 16 £>e4 Hc8 17 H a3

f5
Playing 4 £)c3, to sidestep 4 ...
Jig 4 (because o f 5 e4, etc.), involves
a real gambit: 4 ... a6 5 e4 b5 6 e5
£)d5 7 a4 £)xc3 8 bxc3 # d 5 9 g3
,&b7 10 Js!.g2 # d 7 11 Q h4 c6 12 f4
e6 13 f5!?, with an all-out war in
Kavalek-Miles (Wijk aan Zee 1978).

4 ... e6

Portisch-Miles (Tilburg 1978) is a

good example of play in the 4 ...
ia.g4 line: 5 J&.xc4 e6 6 S)c3 £Dbd7 7 18 £)c5
0-0 ^.d 6 8 h3 Ji.h5 9 e4 e5 10 S ,e 2 0-0
11 dxe5 £3xe5 12 4)d4 jix e 2 13 The point o f W hite’s fourteenth
# x e 2 4)g6 14 B d l, and White held move was to obtain c5 for this
a small plus. Knight.

190
 1978: S O M E T H IN G W O N D E R F U L F R O M D E N M A R K

18 ... A ,x c 5 19 dxc5 Hxc5 20 B g3 31 # h 5 # c 5 + 32 <$>h2 # e 7 33

Hc7 21 h4 # c 8 22 JS,g5 43 f6 23 h5 £ )c 6 # d 7
£)e4 24 ^.xe4 Jlxe4 25 h6 £)d5 26
hxg7 Hxg7 27 B e l # b 7 28 J^h6 Not 33 ... # f 7 ? 34 # g 5 + ® h8 35
S x g 3 29 fxg3 B c8 30 S xc8 + # x c 8 # d 8 + # g 8 36 # d 6 # f 7 (36 ... # g 6
37 # f 8 + # g 8 38 & g 7 mate) 37
# b 8 + # g 8 38 # e 5 + , etc.

34 # g 5 +

White can force a draw with 34

43e5, but instead he tries to exploit
his o p p o n e n t’s time pressure.
Defending accurately, Portisch
nullifies all W hite’s winning ideas
and pockets the point.

34...<§>h8 35 & f8

With the threat 35 43e7.

The game has followed a logical
course. In return for his sacrificed 35 ... # f 7 36 Jih 6
pawns, White has some practical
chances based on Black’s open King 36 J id 6 should still draw.
position and the attacking potential
afforded by opposite-color Bishops. 36 ... # f 6 37 # h 5 # g 6 38 # h 4
The centralized Black pieces, how­ 43f6 39 <S>gl ,w.xe6 40 # f 4 e5 41
ever, are proof against being forcibly # d 2 £>e4 42 # d 8 + A e S 43 JS,f8 h6
overrun. White resigns.

191
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

S v e to z a r G ligoric V la d im ir L iberzor,

F lo rin G h e o rg h iu V la stim il H o r l

192
 1979
The Russians Are(n’t) Coming
One of this year’s more interesting games actually took place months before
the tournam ent began. Lone Pine tournament director Isaac Kashdan and
Viktor Baturinsky, Secretary o f the U .S.S.R. Chess Federation, played an
instructive game of international chess politics which ended in a stalemate after
only four moves.
Kashdan made the first move in December 1978 when he asked the Russians
to name two players who would come to Lone Pine the following spring. The
quiet response, naming Vitaly Tseshkovsky and Oleg Romanishin, promised a
peaceful game, and Kashdan replied with the standard questions concerning
the players’ anticipated time of arrival, length o f stay, and so on. Now he was
confronted by the unfamiliar, but not entirely new, Russian gambit called the
“ Viktor Lvovich” : it was a cable from Baturinsky requesting a list of all the
grandmasters who would be competing in this year’s event. Kashdan
neutralized the gambit by responding that no one was especially invited but
anyone whose rating was high enough could play. The Russians went into a
long think. Their next move did not arrive until March 20th, five days before
the tournam ent was due to begin. It was an urgent question: Was Viktor
Lvovich Korchnoi going to play? Kashdan made the forced reply in the af­
firmative, and in a few days the Soviets’ “ book” move arrived: a cable saying
that no Soviet players would be coming to Lone Pine this year.
One week later, the man around whom this episode revolved stood in the
lobby of the Dow Villa surrounded by an attentive crowd. He was extremely
pale, as if he had spent most o f his life indoors. This was Korchnoi. In broken
English, he spoke vehemently against the KGB and the Soviet government. He
talked about the hell that had been his life before he defected in 1976, and
about the political and psychological pressure that the Soviets had subjected
him to during his 1975 and 1978 matches with Anatoly Karpov for the world
championship. He became particularly incensed when he mentioned the sinister
parapsychologist Dr. Zukhar, and he delighted in recalling his alliance with the
“ M argies” in combatting the mysterious doctor’s mind-control schemes.
K orchnoi’s preoccupation with these matters, perhaps combined with his
exhausted state after losing the world championship match only months earlier
and then immediately participating in the Olympiad (where, as a representative

193
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

of Switzerland, he won the gold medal on first board) and a tough tournament
in South America, kept his final score here well below expectations. Korchnoi
jum ped to an early lead with three and a half out o f four, and everyone was
expecting him to do no worse than tie for first. Lightning struck twice in the
next two rounds, however. Against Liberzon, he overlooked a simple com ­
bination that would have netted him a pawn and succumbed to the Israeli’s
powerful technique. In the next round, when Lombardy refused to crack under
V iktor’s continuous pressure, Korchnoi lost patience and sacrificed a piece for
two pawns. It was good enough for a draw, but at the critical moment he went
all out for the win and tasted his second bitter defeat. Korchnoi won against
Grefe in the next round, but something was obviously wrong: more than once
in that seesaw battle, the w orld’s number two player stood on the verge of
defeat. He still had good chances to share in the prize money, but then he
managed only draws with Diesen and Kaplan, and he finished with a disap­
pointing five and a half points.
Yasser Seirawan may have been disappointed with the paltry prize earned by
his tie for eleventh through twenty-second places, but he was justifiably proud
that he scored his five and a half points against the toughest field in the
tournament. Seirawan’s great leap into the top ranks of international chess was
accomplished with victories over Larsen and Miles and draws with Liberzon,
Gheorghiu, Gligoric, Sosonko, and Reshevsky.
The four who tied for first with six and a half points reached their
destinations by entirely different routes.
Vladimir Liberzon of Israel, Lone Pine’s 1975 champion, pursued a steady
course of wins and draws. His supersolid approach insured that he was rarely
in trouble in any game. He drew quickly with H ort in round nine to virtually
guarantee a first-place tie.
Florin Gheorghiu o f Rumania also went through the tournam ent un­
defeated, but he had to overcome James T arjan in the final round to pull
himself up into the winners’ circle. This probably w ouldn’t have been necessary
if he had won against Kaplan in round six. In a well-played game that had
metamorphosed into an easily won ending for Gheorghiu, the Rumanian
inexplicably allowed Kaplan to escape into the extremely rare drawn position
of two Knights versus a pawn. Obviously upset by this unexpected turn of
events, Gheorghiu drew quickly in the next round, even though he had White
against the much lower-rated Sahovic. He claimed later that he hadn’t been
able to sleep all night after his disaster with Kaplan, and his bloodshot eyes
attested to this.
At the age of sixty Svetozar Gligoric remains one o f the most popular figures
in chess, and one of the most heroic players. Suffering uncomplainingly from
the flu in the early rounds, he managed to snatch several wretched positions

194
 1979: T H E R U S S IA N S A R E (N ’T ) C O M IN G

from the jaws of defeat by dint of pure fighting spirit. Later, he recovered his
form; Larsen was hard pressed to hold him to a draw in the final round.
Vlastimil H ort, the gentle giant from Czechoslovakia, completed the quartet
o f winners by scoring two and a half points in his last three games. This huge
cuddly teddy-bear, as a spectator called him, played in the early rounds as if
just awaking from a long winter’s hibernation. Once he was aroused, however,
his determination to reach the top proved irresistible. This lover of American
Westerns, with his charming East European custom of addressing his listener
by his first name preceded by Mister or Miss, was thrilled by his first visit to a
“ real Western tow n.”
Five of the six players who ended up with six points—Lombardy, Sosonko,
Ree, Sahovic, and Larsen—drew in the last round. Any of them might easily
have shared the top honors had they won. This interesting fact, as well as the
multiple tie for first place, attests to the hard-fought nature of the tournament.
The sixth player with six points was the relatively unknown Israeli In­
ternational M aster Yehudah Gruenfeld, who distinguished himself with a
number of sharp, well-played games.
Korchnoi was not the only top-ranked player disappointed with his result.
During the tournam ent, Jim Tarjan was prophetically featured in an article in
the Los Angeles T im e s entitled “ The Tragedy of an American Chessmaster,”
about how difficult it is for a top American chess professional to earn money
and recognition. T arjan managed to turn more than one “ hopeless” position
into a win, but in his critical last-round encounter with Gheorghiu he simply
hung a pawn in the opening and was routed.
More was expected also of Grandmasters Miles and Browne, who had been
doing well in other events. Browne, especially, seems to be jinxed here.
The reader will note the sparsity of games by some of the stars in 1979. The
reason is not that they played no good games but rather that too few had the
qualities we had decided would guide our selection for this book. A surprising
upset or a game that decided the tournament winners may have been exciting at
the time it was played, due to the significance o f the result, but unless it also
had a high degree of ch ess interest and met a certain standard of quality, it
would not be high on the list for inclusion here.
Despite the stiff 2400 and 2300 (junior) rating restrictions, seventy-three
players and hordes of spectators filled the town hall to overflowing. This meant
that next year the entry requirements would he even tighter. Overcrowding was
the tournam ent’s only real problem, but even that had its bright aspect: for this
remote speck on the California roadm ap to have become a focal point for
virtually every top player in the world, sooner or later—in this respect the Lone
Pine tournament is second only to the Olympiad—is a tribute to the foresight
and determination of the tournam ent’s creator.

195
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

Round One Another path is 13 JS.h5, for on 13

... JS,e6 1 4 ^ ,x f7 + ! Jbcf7 15 2 x f7 ,
Caro-Kann Defense the Rook is immune because o f mate
in a few moves.
J. Grefe A. Denker

1 e4 c6 2 d3 13 ... bxa6 14 £>c5 e6 15 # h 5 A c8

1 6 fif6
This “ quiet positional continu­
ation” has brought White many
spectacular blitzkrieg victories.

2 ...d 5 3<& d2#c7 4f4?l

“ Let’s see how quickly I can make

that restless royal lady a black
widow,” I thought. The theoretical
correctness o f this pawn sacrifice
may be doubtful, but with the
tournament only a few minutes old,
it is psychologically devastating.
16 ... isfxc5
4 ... # x f 4 5 <E)gf3 <&)f6
The threat was 17 £)xe6.
5 ... #"c7 and 5 ... JsLg4 are also
good moves.
17 dxc5 H b8 18 S a f i S f 8 19
# x h 6 # x e 5 20 # x h 7 S x b 2 21 S x f7
6&b3
S x f7
Not 6 e5? # e 3 + , etc.
On 21 ... # d 4 + 22 <$>hl S h 8 23
S f 8 + ! S x f8 24 2 x f8 + ® xf8 25
6 ... # c 7 7 e5 <Bg4?!
■Sg6 + ® e8 26 # e 7 mate.
7 ... S fd 7 ! is better.
22 # x f 7 + Black resigns.
8 d4 JS,f5?

Now Black gets into serious Ruy Lopez

trouble. 8 ... hS is more tenacious.
P. van der Sterren P. Biyiasas
9 £)h4! jid 7 10 ^.e2 £)h6 11 1 e4 e5 2 £)f3 £)c6 3 & b5 a6 4
Jifxh6 gxh6 12 0-0 £fa6 13 Jslxa6 iS,a4 d6

196
 1979: T H E R U S S IA N S A R E (N ’T ) C O M IN G

Biyiasas is well known as one of

only a handful of regular supporters
of the Steinitz Defense Deferred. As
we shall see in a few moves, his
opponent came to do battle fully
armed.

5 c3 JsLd7 6 d4 £)f6 7 0-0 # e 7 8

dxe5

White usually defers this ex­

change. For example, Ligterink- 18 ... 0-0 19 £)d4 &d5 20 £)a5
T im m an (D utch C ham pionship S fe 8
1979) went 8 f ie l g6 9 £)bd2 JS.g7 10
dxe5 dxe5 11 £>f 1 0-0 12 & g 5 . 20 ... c5 21 £)f5 # e 6 is a plausible
alternative.
8 ... dxeS 9 B e l g6 1 0 ilg 5
21 # h 5 # c 5 22 £)ab3 23
£)xb3 # b 5 ?
The young D utchm an’s idea is
becoming clear: by delaying the Black, playing uncompromisingly
development of his Queen Knight he for the win, will soon regret pro­
maintains the option of swinging it voking the following pawn sacrifices.
to the Queenside instead of the Correct is 23 ... # c 6 24 h4 # g 6 25
Ringside as in the previous note. # f 3 c6 26 43c5, leaving the issue in
doubt.
10 ... h6 11 Jkh4 Jig7 12 £>bd2
24 fid 4 ! # x b 2 25 c6! fxe6 26
B d 8 1 3 # e 2 g5
S a b i # x c 3 27 £)xe6 Hb8 28 h4
# f6
13 ... 0-0 14 Jbtc6 JL \ c6 15 S c 4
favors White. On 28 ... gxh4, trying to deny g5 to
the bucking White bronco, the move
29 S e4 ! leads to a Ringside rout.
14 Jig3 £)h5 15 JS,xc6 Jixc6 16
4)c4 £)f4 17 Jbtf4 exf4 18 e5 29 hxg5 hxg5 30 <E)xg5 H xel +

The opening skirmish has left 30 ... B e5 makes W hite’s task

White in possession of a small ad­ more arduous, but he still reaches his
vantage. goal after 31 Bxe5 # x e 5 32 # f 7 +

197
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

<g>h8 33 # g 6 ® g8 34 B b4! # a l + ! 13 £ ) c4 A c5 14 b3
(34 ... # f 6 35 # h 7 + <$>f8 36 Bxf4!
wins at once) 35 ® h 2 # f 6 36 # h 7 + 14 e3, threatening 15 £)xe5, also
<S>f8 37 £)h3. gives Black serious problems.

31 B x e l # f 5 32 B e6 B f8 33 B g6 14 ... axb3 15 # x b 3 £)c6 16 e3

a n 34 # h 7 + <$>f8 35 <Se6 + ® e7 <Sa5
36 43xg7 # e 5 37 # g 8 Black resigns.
16 ... # e 7 at once is probably
better.
R ound Two
17 # b 5 ! # e 7 18 £>xa5 .S.d7 19
English Opening
# b 3 Bxa5 20 # x b 7 # d 6 21 B d l
Y. Seirawan B. Larsen .§.xa3 22 d4 exd4
1 c4 f5 2 £ ) c3 © 16 3 g3 e5 4 A g 2
On 22 ... e4 23 ^.xa3 B xa3 (23 ...
A el
# x a 3 24 # x c 7 B c8 25 B b8) 24 £)b5
Jbtb5 25 B xb5, Black is in trouble.
This Bishop would be more ac­
tively placed at g7, but Larsen wants
23 Bxd4 # c 5 24 A d i B a7 25
to create unorthodox opening
# b 3 # e 7 26 £)b5 Axb5 27 # x b 5
problems for his young opponent.
# e 6 28#b8!
5 £)f3 d6 6 0-0 0-0 7 d3 ^ h 8 8
B b la 5 9 a 3 # e 8

Following a strategy akin to the

Dutch Defense, Black begins shifting
his pieces to the Kingside, hoping to
build up an attack there. The World
Junior Champion-to-be consistently
strives to open lines on the
Queenside, however, forcing Larsen
to abandon his aggressive intentions.

10 c5! a4 11 cxd6 ,ffi,xd6 12 £)d2 W hite’s position is the picture of

Ha7 harm onious cooperation, Black’s of
disorder.
That Black must resort to such
awkward contortions to complete his 28 ... &c5 29 S d 8 # g 8 30 S x f8
development speaks ill of his opening # x f 8 31 # x f 8 + JS,xf8 32 B b8 ® g8
strategy. 33 Jib4

198
 1979: T H E R U S S IA N S A R E (N ’T ) C O M IN G

Fortunately, this inexactitude White can sacrifice a pawn or two

doesn’t spoil anything, and White with 6 i£,d3 cxd4 7 cxd4 Jld 7 8 0-0
proceeds to exploit his winning £>xd4 9 <S3xd4 # x d 4 10 £)c3, with a
advantage in the same mature style sharp struggle in the offing.
that he’s shown so far. Best is 33
A f l;e .g .,3 3 ... c6 34 J ic 4 + <&d5 35 6 ... c4
B f7 36 & c 5 , w ith a
stranglehold. Based on their advanced pawns at
c4 and e5, the players stake their
33 ... S a l + 34 £ .f l c5 35 A c 3 territorial claims to areas clearly
S d l 36 <^g2 <S>f7 37 &c4 + ® e7 38 defined by the central pawn chains.
&xt6 + gxf6 39 B b7 + S d 7 40 Hl*6
B d6 41 5 b 5 Hc6 42 H b 7+ <2>d6 43 7 <Sbd2 Jld7
S x h 7 Hb6 44 £.d3 S b 2 45 Bh4! 8 g3 0-0-0
^ d 5 46 ,&xf5 c4 47 fid 4 + ® c5 48 9 Jih3 f5
M,e6 Hb4 49 '2?f3 c3 50 Hd8 Hb6 51 10 43g5
JS.f5 &,e7 52 B d7 ^ d 6 53 h4 S b 2 54
Hd8 ® c6 55 B t8 + A c l 56 B f8 c2 10 exf6 seems more logical.
57 B xf6 + .&d6 58 .&xc2 Bxc2 59 g4
<§>07 60 h5 61 S f 5 A h4 62 ® g2 10 ... £>h6
® e6 63 h6 &M 64 e4 &.<14 65 ® g3 11 0- 0 ?
S e 2 66 f3 Jie5 + 67 B x e5 + Black
resigns. 11 f4 would avoid the coming
debacle, but the advantage would
Round Three still be Black’s.

French Defense 11 ... &e7

12 f4 Jixg5
E. Formanek J. Bradford
13 fxg5 £)f7
1 e4 e6 14 >$>hl h6
2 d4 d5 15 gxh6 Bxh6
3 e5 16 <S.g2 Sdh8
17 h3
The legendary Nimzovich often
used the Advance Variation, but 17 43 f3 also fails to shake the
nowadays it is rarely seen. pressure. One sample line is 17 ... g5
18 S b l &e7 19 b3 (19 &e3 f4!) 19
3 ... c5 ... 43g6, threatening 20 ... g4!.
4 c3 ■S3c6
5 £>f3 #b6 17 ... g5
6 a3 18 b4 g4

199
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

19 h4 20 gxh4 Sxh4 +
21 'S ’g l £ixd4!
22 <$>f2

Forced.

22 ... £)xe5

Best. 22 ... £ )c2 + 23 <&g3 £>e3 24

# e 2 leads to nothing, and 22 ... f4
23 £lxc4 and 22 ... £ ) f3+ 23 <g>g3
f4+ 24 <S>xf4 £)7xe5 25 <S>g3 are
equally fruitless.

19 ... Bxh4 + ?!

The supremely logical Mr. Spock

(the Vulcan, not Dr. Spock the
physician) would surely disapprove,
since 19 ... £)cxe5! clearly, though
rather more prosaically, wins for
Black. If 20 dxe5 B x h 4 + ! 21 gxh4
B xh4 + 22,S,h3 Sxh3 + 2 3 ® g 2 d 4 ,
overrunning W hite’s position. Or if
20 £>b 1 H h5 (also good is 20 ... £)d3
21 Jixh6 S x h 6 22 # e 2 # d 6 23 # e 3
f4, etc.) 21 dxe5 Bxh4 + ! 22 gxh4 23 ® g3
B xh4 + 23 Jih 3 B x h 3 + 24 ® g2
B d3 25 # e 2 d4, leaving White tied 23 cxd4? obviously loses. Besides
in knots. Bradford, however, a full- the text move, another way to refute
fledged member of the Old West the attack is 23 £)xc4! dxc4 24 cxd4
S h o o t-fro m -th e-H ip S chool of g3 + ! 25 <3?xg3! [White is massacred
Chess, cannot be blamed too harshly on other moves: 25 ® g l 53d3 26
for failing to resist such a tempting A e 3 f4; or 25 & e3 S x d4! 26 # x d 4
sacrificial attack that is practically £)g4 + ; or 25 <S'e2 B h 2 26 dxe5 (26
incalculable over the board. Indeed, B g l <Sd3 27 'S ’fl # x d 4 28 # e 2 f4)
the game’s outcome—White finally 26 ... S x g 2 + 27 <S>el B g l! 28 # e 2
goes astray a fter successfully (28 S x g l? ? # f 2 mate) 28 ... g2; or
avoiding numerous perils—cannot 25 <$>el B xd4 26 # c 2 £)d3 + 27
but bring joy (and perhaps new ®>e2 # c 7 28 .&d2 (28 B f3 A c 6 ) 28
adherents) to the OWSHSC. ... # e 5 + 29 ®>dl Jka4!] 25 ...

200
 1979: T H E R U S S IA N S A R E (N ’T ) C O M IN G

3 g 4 + 26 <$>h2 (26 <$>f2? Hxd4! 27 On 29 # f 4 , a simple drawing line

i£.e3 S g 4 + wins) 26 ... 2 x d 4 27 is 29 ... # g 2 + 30 ®>f6 # g 6 + ! 31
# h 5 1 , when W hite’s material ad­ ^ x e 5 # g 7 + , etc. But 29 # f 2 ! soon
vantage should tell, though it’s still puts an end to Black’s fun; e.g., 29
complicated. ... S)f7 + 30® g6! (30 <S?f6? # h S +
forces the draw) 30 ... 4D)e5 + 31
23 ... #c7 ® g7 # h 5 32 # c 5 + , and White
24 £)xc4 £)xc4 + wins; or 29 ... # h 8 30 # g 3 £)f7 +
25 <S,xh4 31 <S>f4 # e 5 + 32 ®>f3 # x c3 ! 33
<S'g2! (33 iie 3 d4 34 H a d &Lc6 + )
If 25 <S>f2 # h 2 26 cxd4 g3 + 27 33 ... # x a l 34 # g 8 + £)d8 35
® f3 Jie8 . # x d 8 + !, etc. Now White loses.

25 ... #h2+ 29 ... #g3 +

26 ®>g5 £>f3+ 30 ®>f6 <Sg4 +
27 Jixf3 31 ® e7

If 27 Hxf3 gxf3 28 _txf3 (28 # x f3 31 ® f7 meets a similar fate.

# h 8 ! ) 28 ... # g 3 + 29 ® h6 £)e5 30
Jih 5 # h 4 leads to a draw. 31 #c7
32 <ST7 &Le8 + !
27 ... gxf3 33 'S’xeS S)f6 +
28 # x f3 34 <S>f8
White resigns
If 28 & f4 # g 2 + 29 ® f6 # g 8 ,
with equal chances.
Round Four
28 ... £>e5
French Defense
N. Weinstein J. Bradford
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ^3d2 £)f6 4 e5
£lfd7 5 A d3 c5 6 c3 4)c6 7 £>e2 cxd4
8 cxd4 f6 9 exf6 £>xf6 10 0-0 -&d6 11
Q f3 # c 7 12 £)c3 a6 13 ^.g5 0-0 14
&h4 g6! 15 -&g3 -&xg3 16 hxg3 # g 7

White has developed according to

a standard plan aimed at exploiting
the dark-square weaknesses in his
opponent’s camp, but Black’s orig-

201
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

inal Queen maneuver guarantees him R ound Six

adequate counterplay.
Sicilian Defense
1 7 # d 2 © g 4 1 8 ^ .c 2
J. Benjamin Y. Gruenfeld
White blithely continues to make
1 e4 c5
routine moves, but he is in mortal
danger.
The young Israeli Gruenfeld, an
international master with a decided
18 ... JS.d7 19 S a c l?
flair for tactics, played several fine
games during his Lone Pine debut
and finished the tournam ent with an
excellent score.

2 53 f3 d6
3 53c3 5316
4 e5

White cannot expect any opening

advantage with this move, which
avoids the main lines.

4 ... dxe5
#dl 5 53xe5 a6!
6 a4 #c7
The best White can do is 21 J id l 7 53c4 53c6
53e5! 22 ®>g2 53c4 23 # d 3 53xb2 8 j&,e2 He6
with a clear advantage for Black— 9 0-0
but not 21 <$>g2? 53h21. 10 b3 ^.g7
11 Jib2 0-0
21 ... 53e5! 22 f4 53ef3 + 23 <5>g2 12 f4
e5! 24 f ih l
Weakening his position in the
24 ... Jsl.h3 + ! was threatened. hope of beginning some sort of
active play.
24 ... &,g4 25 53xd5 5302 26 S x h 2
■&xdl 27 ,'Sixdl # f 7 28 53e3 exf4 29 12 Sad8
gxf4 # x f 4 30 Mh3 + 53xb3 31 axb3 13 <Se3 5}d4
S d 8 32 Hc4 # g 5 + 33 Hg4 # e 5 34 14 JsLc4 jslxc4
fihh4 # x b 2 35 53f5 S f8 36 53e7 + 15 bxc4 e6
<l?g7 White resigns. 16 d3 £)h5!

202
 1979: T H E R U S S IA N S A R E (N ’T ) C O M IN G

17 g3 f5 slower, but just as certain, demise)

18 H bl #d6 24 ... 4)g3! 25 H e l (25 hxg3 leads to
19 &a3 positions like those in the game) 25
... f4! 26 4)g2 (if 26 £>g4 f31, or 26
If White plays 19 4)e2 followed £>fl 43df5!) 26 ... 4)df5! [26 ... f3
by a double exchange on d4, his wins after 27 4ie3 4)de2 + , but 27
remaining Knight will have trouble hxg3 is not so clear; e.g., 27 ... fxg2
finding an effective post. (27 ... # x g 3 28 £> e4 # h 3 29 He3) 28
Hxf7! (28 £)e4 H xf2!l 29 £>xd6
19 ... S f7 4)f3 + ! 30 'S)xf2 £>xel + ) 28 ...
20 #d2? # x g 3 29 4)e4!].

It is imperative for the White 22 ... #xg3 +

Queen to maintain surveillance of 23 4)g2
Black’s King Knight to inhibit the
following breakthrough. Naturally not 23 'S ’hl 43f3 24
S x f3 # x f 3 + 25 4)g2 # h 3 + 26
20 ... g5! <5>gl ^ .d 4 + .
21 fxg5
23 ... Jie5
24 S f4 #xg5

Threatening 25 ... 43f3 + .

25 S b fl Hg7

Now threatening 26 ... Jlx f4 27

H xf4 43f3 + .

26 A cl

On 26 S lf 2 , hoping for either 26

... h5 27 i£ c l h4? 28 S x d4! or 26 ...
A deep and subtle sacrifice. <2?h8 27 iS.xc5, Black plays the
crunchy 26 ... 4)xc2!!.
22 hxg3
26 ... ®h8!
Declining the sacrifice by 22 S f2
is no guarantee o f survival—or even White is curiously helpless against
o f longevity: 22 ... 4)h5 23 S b f l the calm trebling of Black’s major
fid f8 ! 24 # d l (24 4)e2 &e5 brings a pieces along the g-file.

203
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

27 S lf2 35 £ )c 3 ^ g 7 3 6 a 5 ^ T 6 3 7 £ ia 4
53e5 + 38 r&f4 5 3 d 7 3 9 5 3 c 3 h5 40
If 27 <&f2 't’jrh? 28 # h 4 29 5 3 b l h 4 4 1 5 3 d 2 e 5 + 4 2 ^ T 3 ® g 5 43
H \h 4 H dg8 30 rif 2 H.xt-2 • 31 53 b l 53 b8 44 53c3 53c6 45 53a4
a x g2 ^ f 3 *. 53d4 + 4 6 T&T2 5 3 e 6 4 7 5 ) b 6 f4 48
v , g 2 A 15 4 9 5 k 8 ® g 4 5 0 5 ) e 7 f3 +
27 ... B dg8 5 1 S h 2 5 3 f 4 5 2 ® g l h3 5 3 5 3 g 8 ® g 3
W h i t e r e s ig n s .

28 # e 3 loses to 28 ... .£.xf4 29

# x ( 4 # h 5 , threatening 30 ... # h 3 .
28 # e l loses to 28 ... # x g 2 + l! 29
S xg2 Sxg2 + 30 <$>fl (30 <S>hl W h it e : L . C h r is t ia n s e n
53f31!) 30 ... S g l + 31 & f2 H8g2 +
and m ate in two. A nd 28 'S 'd l loses This delightful position arose after
to 28 ... # g 3 29 # f l # h 3 , leaving Black’s thirty-eighth move, just
W hite defenseless against 30 ... seven moves before the time control,
53 f3 + ! when precious thinking time was fast
running out.
28 .S.xf4
29 # x f4 # x f4 39 B xf7! S.xf7 40 # e 8 + # h 7 41
30 il.xf4 Sxg2 + ! # x f 7 ‘S>h6!
31 Sxg2 53e2 +
32 ® f2 Sxg2 + Not 41 ...# g 6 ? ? 4 2 .& e 4 !.
33 «>xg2 53xf4 +
34 \Vf3 53g6 42J&.f3a2! 43 53f4! Bxf3?

W hite can resigni with a clear The way to win is 43 ... a l # 44

conscience. # e 6 + & f6 45 # h 3 + 46

204
 1979: T H E R U S S IA N S A R E (N ’T ) C O M IN G

# d 7 + (46 £3e6 + ® g8 47 £)xg5 # f5 + ..w.f6 60 # d 7 + ® g6 61

# a 2 + ! 48 Jslg2 Jixg5) 46 ... Jie 7 47 #g4+ ® h 6 62 # h 3 + 8>g5 63
<Qe6 + 'S’hb 48 42)xg5 # a 2 + ! and 49 # h 4 + <S>f5 64 # f 4 + <8>e6
... Jixg5.
Beginning a suicidal trek.
4 4 # e 6 + & f6
65 # g 4 + <8>d566 # f 5 + <8>c4 67
Also 44 ... <S>h7 45 # e 4 + 'S ’gS 46 #c5+ ® b3 68 # b 5 + ® c2 69
# e 6 + draws, but if 44 ... # f 6 ? ? 45 #a4 +
# h 3 + <2?g5 46 # h 5 is mate.
Black gets the bad news: W hite’s
4 5 # h 3 + <8^7 46 £)e6 + Queen having reached the a-file with
a tempo-winning check, White can
If 46 # d 7 + ? <S>h8, and Black unleash his own passed pawn.
escapes the checks.
69 ... Sl?d3 70 # a 3 + <S )e4!
46 ... <8>g6 47 £)xg5 B f 2 + 48
'S’gl S b 2! Clever, but unavailing.

71 c7! & xd 4+ 72 'g’h l S c 2 73

c 8 # S x c 8 74 # x a 2

W hite now demonstrates fine

technique to garner the point.

74 ... B c3 75 <2?g2 Jie5 76 # b l +

® d 5 77 # d l + ® e6 78 g4 B a3 79
# c 2 B g 3 + 80 m 2 B c3 81 # f 5 +
<g>d5 82 g5 B c7 83 <S>f3 ® d 6 84
# g 6 + <§>d5 85 # g 8 + ® d 6 86 <S>e4
A g l 87 # d 5 + m i 88 m s S d 7 89
# e 6 + 'S/d8 90 # b 6 + ® e7 91
This unique position should end in # c 5 + S d 6 92 g6 i>.d4 93 # c 4 S d 7
a draw, but Black, thinking he
94 # f 7 + <8>d6 95 # f 8 + <$>c7 96
should win, later sends his King on a
<g>e6 J ia l 97 # c 5 + Black resigns.
long march.

49 # h 7 + & xg5 50 # h 4 + ® g6 R ound Eight

51 # g 4 + Ji.g5 52 # e 6 + <8>g7 53 W hite b rin g s his R ingside
#d7 + <8>f6 54 # d 8 + ^ g 6 55 stranglehold to fruition with some
#e8 + m s 56 # d 7 + <S>f6 57 subtle Queen maneuvers on the
#d8+ <S>f7 58 # d 7 + 59 opposite wing.

205
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

French Defense Ringside, but perhaps that is the

lesser evil.
V. H ort Y. Seirawan
11 h6 g6 12 £ )f l Jie7 13 -S.d2
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £)d2 iix e 2 14 # x e 2 £)c6 15 E e l S c 8 16
£ )lh 2 # c 7 17 0-0 0-0 18 £)g4 # b 7
Dr. Tarrasch’s trademark. Ironi­
19 2 c 3 £>cb8
cally, it generally finds White
working against an isolated Black d-
Passive defense is useless against
pawn, which is the hallmark o f the
W hite’s incisive play. 19 ... b5 at
learned doctor’s preferred defense to
least stirs up the Queenside.
1 d4.
20 Jlg5! ,&xg5 21 .SxgS Hxc3 22
3 ... £ ) c6
bxc3 # c 8 23 S c l © c6
The advance of the c-pawn
constitutes Black’s main blow
against the White center in the
French Defense, and blocking that
pawn is normally tantam ount to
heresy. But W hite’s somewhat
passive third move allows his op­
ponent a greater choice of plans.

4 £>gf3 & f6 5 eS £>d7 6 A el

£>cb8

The most logical plan is the swift

dismantling of White’s center with 6
... f6. Black instead embarks on a Reinforcements for the cavalry.
time-consuming plan which attempts
to take advantage o f the closed 24 ... ® h8
position to achieve the dream French
setup. White, however, knows If 24 ... 43a5? 25 # x d 7 !.
exactly how to deal with this
unorthodox approach. 25 # a 4 £>a5 26 # a 3 # d 8 27 f4
'S’gS
7 h4! b6 8 hS c5 9 c3 cxd4 10 cxd4
Jia6 Black is almost in zugzwang. If 27
... £)c6 28 'S'db £)cb8 29 c4, Black is
10 ... h6 would create a convenient smashed. But shifting the Queen
target if Black castled on the back and forth between d8 and e8

206
 1979: T H E R U S S IA N S A R E (N ’T ) C O M IN G

gives White a number o f winning 28 # d 6 ® h8 29 Ci f6! £)xf6 30

plans; e.g., penetrating to c7 with the S x f 7 + H xf7 31 # x d 8 + <Sg8 32
Queen and then playing g2-g3, Hc2, # e 8 S e 7 33 # f 8 <Sc4 34 <S>f2 -4)d2
and S x h 7 !, when ... ® xh7 is an­ 35 ® e3 £)c4 + 36 ® e2 b5 37 H b l a6
swered by # x d 7 and £)f6 + , 38 a4 Hd7 39 axb5 axbS 40 S xb 5
preserving the h-pawn because of Ha7 41 S b 8 H a2+ 42 <§>el Black
Uh2-h7 mate. resigns.

Viktor Korchnoi W illia m L o m b a r d y

Sammy Reshevsky receiving some good advice from Helen Kashdan.

207
T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

R o m a n D z h in d z h ik h a s h v ili

208
 1980
In Search of the “ Swiss Gambit”
Ancient mysteries have always intrigued the mind of man. Consider the
countless people, among them some of the most respected men o f science, who
have invested enormous sums and untold hours o f research attempting to
unravel the secrets of Stonehenge and the Great Pyramid and trying to prove or
disprove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot. Such fervent
devotion to truth pales, however, in comparison with the chess player’s never-
ending search for the answers to these questions: Does the “ Swiss G am bit”
really exist? If so, is it any good?
The basic assumption of those who believe in the Swiss Gambit is simple. A
player who does well at the beginning of a Swiss-type tournament will, due to
the requirements ol the Swiss pairing system, find himself “ penalized” by
being paired against the toughest possible competition as the tournament
progresses (the system pairs winners against winners, losers against losers,
etc.). Unless he is vastly superior to the rest o f the field—or is very lucky—he
will be forced to yield a half a point here and there, and he may even lose a
crucial game against a rival for one of the top prizes. To avoid such
heavyweight clashes, a practitioner o f the Swiss Gambit may deliberately draw,
and in rare cases even lose, in an early round in order to get “ easier” pairings
later on.
The efficacy of this “ gam bit” has never been proved. But it has its believers.
Were any of them playing in the Lone Pine 1980?
Let’s begin with the strange case o f tournam ent winner Roman Dzhind-
zhikhashvili, the Genie from Georgia. In round one he drew with International
M aster John Grefe, in the second round lost to teenager Doug Root, and in
round three drew again, with International M aster Zaltsman. Thus he found
himself at the bottom of the heap with the tournam ent one-third over. What
did he do then? He went on to win six straight games and finished alone at the
top with seven points! Was it a Swiss Gambit?
Tony Miles of England took clear second with six and a half. He ac­
complished this feat by scoring one and a half points in the first three rounds
and winning consecutively in rounds seven, eight, and nine. Swiss Gambit?

209
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

Meanwhile, Bent Larsen, who finished in a five-way tie for third through
seventh, seemed unable to make up his mind. In the first round, playing White
against Zaltsman, he handed his opponent a tremendous advantage after only
fifteen moves, but ingenious defense by Larsen and several time-pressure errors
by his opponent combined to give Larsen his first win. In round two he seemed
about to lose an endgame to Larry Kaufman, but he rallied in a time scramble
to save the draw. Then came a long, dull endgame in round three which
required a lot of cooperation by Peter Biyiasas for Larsen to chalk up his
second victory. During the postmortem of his fifth-round win over Jon Ar-
nason of Iceland, the Dane freely admitted that he had had an absolutely lost
position. But all this self-made luck may have been his undoing: during his
complicated encounter with Dzhindzhikhashvili in the eighth round, Larsen
spurned a certain draw by perpetual check and went on to lose.
A few months before Lone Pine, fifty-six-year-old Yefim Geller had cap­
tured his second Soviet Championship by playing the same clear, dynamic
chess that has been his trademark for three decades. He has played in very few
Swisses and is not a believer in the Swiss Gambit. Perhaps his experience here
will make him a convert. After five rounds he led the tournam ent with four and
a half points and was trailed by only two players with four points each. In the
last four rounds, however, he could only score one and a half points against the
players who finished in second, third, sixth, and seventh places. Geller was one
of the oldest competitors here, and that factor underscored an im portant ad­
vantage of the Swiss Gambit (if it exists)—the energy saved by meeting lesser
opposition in the early and middle rounds is often vitally useful during critical
late-round encounters.
Young Jay W hitehead’s five points brought him an international master
norm , but only after a last-round victory over Nick DeFirmian. Jay ’s con­
vincing wins in the first three rounds over Wilder, Bisguier, and Gligoric,
followed by an easy draw with Geller, had the spectators wondering whether
the new Messiah had finally come to fill the void left by Bobby Fischer’s
elevation to another plane. He hadn’t: Jay continued by losing horribly to
Gheorghiu, Dzhindzhikhashvili, and Miles.
Alburt, Balashov, and Gheorghiu each scored six points by taking the,
straight and narrow path, and they would probably scoff at the notion o f the
Swiss Gambit, as well might those mentioned above. I leave it to the reader to
decide for himself whether the Swiss Gambit is a reality and, if so, whether it
delivers the advantages claimed for it.

The Statham tournament always takes place in early spring, but the starting
date may vary by as much as three weeks in order to avoid schedule conflicts
with other international events. The variable starting date frequently means

210
 1980: IN S E A R C H O F T H E “ S W IS S G A M B IT ”

that the players don’t know what kind of weather to expect, for it is extremely
changeable at that time of the year. Though rain is rare, a few snowy, windy
days are almost inevitable when the tournament begins in early March. Along
toward April, however, bright, warm, sunny days often prevail throughout the
tournam ent, although the nights can be chilly. This year, record late snowfalls
around the country affected also the eastern Sierras, and this freakish
weather—warm and agreeable one day, wintry and hostile the next—was no
doubt partly responsible for some strange occurrences.
It was definitely the culprit in the case of the three Bay Area chess players
whose intended one-day visit to Lone Pine in a private plane—a two-hour flight
in each direction—turned into a three-day vacation when the weather grounded
the plane twice in Fresno.
Two other strange incidents also had no direct bearing on the tournament.
Grandmaster Oscar Panno and Kenny Fong, a California chess organizer, were
nonchalantly strolling along a quiet street not far from the tournam ent hall one
evening when they were startled by a loud report. Moments later they were
startled again, this time by a gruff voice directly behind them. “ Hold it!” said
the voice. “ Up against the wall!” Their first thought was that they were about
to be robbed, but when they glanced behind them they encountered two cold
eyes and a crew-cut, both belonging to a sheriff who was brandishing his pistol
in their direction. “ I’m investigating a reported gunshot,” the sheriff said as he
frisked them. A fter determining to his satisfaction that they were not criminals,
he let them go. P anno’s initial angry reaction later gave way to amusement
when he recalled the incident. “ It was a good thing,” he joked, “ that I had left
my gun back at the hotel.”
During the evenings some o f the players frequent the Double-L, Lone Pine’s
real-life version o f the fabled Western saloon. Here one can find genuine
cowpunchers listening to country music, swilling beer, and occasionally doing
to people what they’re supposed to do to cows. This can be unnerving to city
folk unused to the rather conservative outlook o f these tough hombres and
their need to let o ff steam by vigorous physical activity. One night a few o f the
chess players were belligerently challenged: “ Why d o n ’t you folks go out and
make a living like normal people instead of pushing little dolls around?”
Fighting words. But wisely, the masters swallowed their pride and declined the
invitation to a brawl. They just smiled and wondered when the weather would
improve.
The full-blown rhubarb between Walter Browne and Isaac Kashdan,
however, which may have spelled the end o f Browne’s participation in Lone
Pine, sounded a much sadder note. Although he was slightly fatigued at the
start, Browne was riding high on his two very fine performances earlier this
year at Wijk aan Zee and Reykjavik, and felt confident of breaking the Lone

211
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

Pine jinx which had haunted him ever since his victory in 1974. Disaster struck
in the very first round, however, in the person o f Joel Benjamin, who dazzled
Browne with some tactical sleight-of-hand. W alter recovered his balance with
two wins and a draw, and in round five faced another talented youth, Michael
Wilder. In the middle o f the game, with Brow'ne holding a d ear advantage,
Kashdan was told that the clock being used in the Browne-Wilder game was
running slow. Kashdan picked up the clock to check it, and, finding it to be
three minutes behind, decided to subtract ninety seconds from each player’s
remaining time, an established procedure in such cases. Browne protested
vehemently, which disturbed some of the players seated nearby, and things
became very confused. Kashdan told Browne that he was not taking away any
of his time but was merely replacing the defective clock with a sound one, but
Browne thought Kashdan was giving back the same defective clock. The upshot
of the whole incident was that Browne, who had become extremely annoyed,
blundered in severe time pressure and lost the game. Although he still had a
chance to win a substantial prize, Browne withdrew in a huff. He vowed never
again to play at Lone Pine or at any other tournam ent directed by Kashdan.
Mr. Statham declared that Browne would not be welcome back.

The field this year had been pared to forty-seven, an ideal number, by the
new entry requirements of 2450 for adults and 2350 for juniors. A new
provision was that an international master title alone was no longer sufficient
to enter; a rating of at least 2450 was also required. The average rating in 1980
was a whopping 2487.
Although Yasser Seirawan did not play this year—he was busy serving as
Korchnoi’s second in the candidates matches—a number of other juniors did
very well, to the great delight of Louis Statham. He allowed it to become
known that a trust fund had been established to insure that the Statham In­
ternational would continue as a vital training ground for young players and as
one of the world’s premier tournaments for many years to come.

212
 1980: IN S E A R C H O F T H E “ S W IS S G A M B IT ”

Round One 14 g3
Refreshing originality highlights
the w u n d e r k in d Benjamin’s stunning
It is better to let Black’s Knight
upset.
reach its destination at e6 with
tempo, with 14 H e l S)f4 15 H f l
Sicilian Defense &3e6 16 J k f2, than to weaken the
(by transposition) long light-square diagonal.
W. Browne J . Benjamin
14 ... %7
1 d4 £)f6 15 f4 f5
2 £)f3 g6
3 c4 c5
4 £)c3 Playing for complications is best.
After 15 ... d6 16 b3 £)e6 17 A f2
Declining the invitation to enter £)c5 18 JS.f3 f5 19 e5, White has the
the ultrasharp Modern Benoni after advantage.
4 d5 (or perhaps the Benko Gambit,
4 ... b5, a former Browne favorite).
16 H d2 Jk c6

4 ... cxd4
5 <Sxd4 £ tg l Not 16 ... d6? 17 & x g 7 & x g 7 18
6 e4 e5 # c 7 19 exd6 exd6 20 © b 5 1.

Transposing into the Maroczy 17 e5 4)e6

Bind.
18 & e3 g5!
19 Jkf3 #e8
6 0 -0 20 -&h5 #d8
7 ie 2 4 l)c6 21 JS,f3 #e8
8 &Le3 b6 22 &h5 #d8
23 £)b5?
For the more familiar 8 ... d6 9
0-0 £)xd4 10 JS.xd4 & d 7 , see
Pugnaciously spurning the draw
Balashov-Panno, Lone Pine 1977.
by triple repetition after 23 i&.f3.

9 0-0 JS.b7
10 f3 Sc8 23 ... gxf4
11 H cl © xd4 24 gxf4
12 Jsl,xd4 JS,ii6 25 H ff2 Hg8 +
13 Sc2 £)h5 26 ®>fl

213
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

26 ... Hg7! 28 ... & x f4 + !!

27 £)x a7 29 Jtxf4 #xc4 +
30 Sd3 &xf4
31 43xe6
If 27 £)d4 # g 8 28 <®>e2 S g l 29
# c 2 -&e4 30 # c 3 Bxc4! 31 # x c 4
If 31 A f 3 ^ .x f 3 + 32 S x f3 B g2 +
£)xf4 and Black wins.
33 S f 2 (33 ® f l S d 2 , or 33 'S'el
S g l + 34 S f l # e 4 + ) 33 ... # c 2 + .
27 ... #g8 Or if 31 £>xc8? # e 4 + 32 <g>fl
28 <S>e2 S g l + 33 'g ’xgl # h l mate.

31 #e4 +
28 'S’el makes it a little harder for 32 'S’fl S cg 8
Black: 28 ... &xf4! 29 & xf4 [29 33 S g 3 Sxg3
S x c8 S g l + 30 S f l £)g2 + 31 ® e2 34 hxg3 #hl +
(31 Hxg2 B x fl + 32 «>xfl # x g 2 + 35 <S>e2 #xh5 +
33 ® e l ^.xe3 34 # e 2 ^ g l + 35 # f l 36 S f3 Sxg3
^.d2 + 36 ® e2 # e 3 + 37 'S’dl ^ c 3 ! 37 £)d4 B g2 +
38 bxc3 >S.a4 mate) 31 ... # x c 4 + 32 38 ® d3 Sd2 +
S d 3 £)xe3 33 S x g l £>xdl 34 S x d l 39 # x d 2 &xd2
&b5, etc.] 29 ... S g l + 30 S f l 40 <S>xd2 #h2 +
B x fl + 31 <$>xfl # x c 4 + 32 B e2! 41 e6
(32 # e 2 # x f 4 + 33 # f 2 &,£ + ! 34 White resigns
«>xg2 B g8 + 35 <®f 1 # x d 2 , or 32
'S’gl Bg8 + 33 &g3 ^ .e3+ 34 S f2
f4, or 32 ®>el S g 8 ) 32 ... # x f 4 + 33 Round Two
S f2 ^ ,g 2 + ! 34 &xg2 # g 5 + 35 An ill-considered exchange of
'SM (35 Jlg4 H cl 36 # e 2 fxg4 and Bishop for Knight turns White into a
Black wins) 35 ... Bc4, etc. punching bag.

214
 1980: IN S E A R C H O F T H E “ S W IS S G A M B IT ”

English Opening

J. Peters J.Arnason

1 c4 e5 2 £>c3 £)f6 3 g3 d5 4 cxd5

© xd5 5 Jkg2 £)b6 6 £>13 £)c6 7 0-0
& e7 8 d3 0-0 9 a4 a5 10 .fee3 f5 11
ilx b 6 ?

This instructive error, and Black’s

incisive followup, show just how
strong a Bishop can be in such
positions when unopposed by its This missile heads straight for the
same-color counterpart. The weak­ White King’s dark-square bomb
ening o f Black’s pawn structure is shelter. White should play 17 h4 and
inconsequential. pray; instead, he allows a valuable
guardian o f his King to be
1 1 ... cxb6 12 £ld2 J£,e6 13 b3 eliminated.

On 13 £)c4, e4 is unpleasant. 17 e3 h4 18 £)e2 ^ d 5 ! 19 # c 3

■&xg2 20 3?xg2 14! 21 gxf4
13 ... Js,c5! 14 £>c4 # f 6 15 # d 2
A horrible way to go is 21 exf4
White will find it impossible to £>d4 22 S d e l exf4 (22 ... & . b4 wins
generate any counterplay after this. too) 23 £>xf4 g5 24 £>h3 # f 3 + 25
He should place all his hopes on 15 ® g l hxg3 26 hxg3 £>e2 + 27 Hxe2
£)d5; e.g., 15 ... # f 7 16 £>dxb6 (16 # x g 3 + . After 21 exf4 4Id4 White
e4 also deserves a try, but not 16 had to play 22 £)xd4 & .xd4 23 # d 2 ,
£)cxb6? S a 6 ) 16 ... H ad8 (a although he is clearly worse.
gruesome error is 16 ... ,S.xb6 17
£)xb6 Jixb3 18 # x b 3 ! # x b 3 19 21 ... A b 4 22 # c 2 exf4 23 ® h l
iid 5 + , and White can smile again) # g 5 24 d4?
17 J5.xc6 bxc6 18 £)xe5 # c 7 19 £>bc4
,& d 4 20 £)f3 & .x a l 21 # x a l , with W h ite’s c o u n te ra tta c k is a
some compensation for the Ex­ phantom , and it quickly disappears.
change. However, 15 ... ^.xd5 does Shattered pawns result from 24 exf4
not offer White much relief: 16 # d 5 + 25 f3 £)d4, so White must try
-&xd5+ <S>h8 17 e3 S a d 8 18 # f 3 24 £)xf4 £)d4 25 # b 2 , and he’s still
Q b4. breathing.

15 ... II,ad8 16 S a d i h5! 24 ... h3 25 S g l # h 5 26 # e 4

215
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

# x e 2 27 Bxg7 + ®>xg7 28 B g l + B g 2 + 55 ® f7 B f2 + 56 ® g7
■ $>118 29 Qe5 B f 6 30 S g 6 + S x g 6 B g 2 + Drawn.
31 B xg 6 # e l + 32 B g l # x f 2 33
exf4 # x d 4 34 # 1 3 # d 5 White White’s King must avoid both the
resigns. e-file and the h-file.

Round Three

Black: B. Larsen Black: S. Gligoric

Black has curled up like a por­

Despite his two-pawn deficit, cupine to protect his sensitive
Black has no trouble drawing against Kingside, but White flushes him out
White’s awkwardly placed forces. with a mind-blowing Rook sacrifice.
All Black’s men are actively situated,
and the pawn at e3 provides ad­ 20 ... £)b 8
ditional persuasion.
A sampling of Black’s problems: ,
50®>g5 20 ... &.bl 21 A c2 &.c6 22 Hd3 <S>e7 ''
23 -&g3 £)b 8 24 J5.h4 + f6 25
What else? 50 Hxa5 + ®xb3 51 c5 Hxg7 + ; or 20 ... f6 21 exf6 £)xf 6 22
®c3 52 ®g5 H c 6 53 £)d7 B c7 54 •&d6 + <S>e8 (22 ... ® f7 23 JS.g6
® e5 <®b4 55 H a 8 Hxc5, and 50 mate) 23 Bxg7.
£>a4 S f 2 51 c5 B xe 2 52 c6 S c 2 53
S c5 Bxc5 54 ®xc5 S f 2 are equally 21 B e3 £>c6 22 &g3 £>e7 23 JS.h4
unconvincing for White. i£.b7
50 ... H f2 51 h5 Bxe2 52 h6 23 ... £)f5 fails miserably: 24
B g2+ 53 <S>f6 B f2 + 54 ® g7 ■&xf5 exf5 25 B f4 ! (25 Bd3? g5!) 25

216
 1980: IN S E A R C H O F T H E “ S W IS S G A M B IT ”

... g5 26 hxg6 fxg6 27 & f 6 S h 7 28 36 S f3 + <2?e8 37 B d3. In the actual

B d3, etc.
Rook endgame, White still has the
edge.
24 Jic2 £)f5 25 & xf5 exf5 26
a g6!? 34 iix f6 gxf6 35 g3 Hxg6 36 t/d2
f5 3 7 a h 4 ® x e 7
Striving for beauty, White allows
Black to live. A fter 26 H f4 g5 (if 26 Since the game continuation loses
... iic 8 27 3 d 3 f6 28 exf6 <g>f7 29 both Ringside pawns, Black should
fxg7 Black still has problems) 27 have tried 37 ... B h6; but after 38
hxg6 fxg6 28 S . f 6 S h 7 29 e6 ties ®e3 <g>xe7 39 ®>f4 ®>f6 40 B h l and
Black up. The sacrifice has to be 41 3 d l his life still isn’t easy.
accepted; e.g., 26 ... & c 8 27 Hd31.
38 3 x h 5 ® e6 39 ® e3 a6 40 3 h 7
26 ... fxg6 27 hxg6 ,&e4 3 g 4 41 B h 6 + ® e7 42 B h4 3 g 6 43
® f4 b5 44 f3 b4 45 cxb4 cxb4 46
A lovely way to die is 27 ... h5 28 3 h 7 + ® d6 47 3 f 7 ® c5 48 3 x f5 +
S d 3 Jic6 29 3 d 8 + iie 8 30 e6 B h6 ® xc4 49 g4 B d6 50 g5 H d 4+ 51
31 e7 mate.
® e5 S d 2 52 g6 3 x a 2 53 g7 3 g 2 54
S f 4 + <2?c3 55 3 g 4 3 e 2 + 56 ® d5
28 a el f4 29 B xe4 ® e8 30 3 x f4 3 e 8 57 g 8 # Bxg8 58 Hxg8 b3 59
B f8 31 a e4 h5 32 e6 B h6 33 e l ® c5 Black resigns.

Round Four
Black filches a pawn and lives to
tell the tale. Was his judgment
sound, or was his guardian angel
working overtime?

Sicilian Defense
N. DeFirmian F. Gheorghiu
1 e4 c5 2 5)f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ©xd4
33 ... B f6? a6 5 JS,d3 £)f6 6 0-0 d6 7 £)c3 £)bd7
8 f4 # b 6
Black can force a draw with 33 ...
S fh 8 ; e.g., 34 S e3 ! (34 B e6? ® d7 A less nerve-racking plan is 8 ... b5
35 B e3 3 x g 6 36 B d3 + B d 6 and 9 # f 3 & b7 10 &e3 J&e7 11 B a e l
Black wins) 34 ... Bxg6 35 3 d 3 <$>f7 0- 0.

217
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

9 Jie3 # x b 2 10 £>cb5 Gheorghiu considered 17 ... 4)f5 18

J if2 h5! 19 A xf5 exf5, and his King
The only way to make Black slithers to safety on the Ringside or
sweat. on the e-file, barricaded behind its
pieces), Black decides to keep the e-
10 ... axb5 1 1 4)xb5 # b 4 file closed. Indeed, after 17 ... 43f5?
18 J^.xf5 exf5 19 c6H, it would be
White threatened to cut off the time to call in the mortician: 19 ...
Queen’s retreat with 12 a3, and 11 ... £>f6 [19 ... bxc6 20 B e l f6 (20 ...
B a5 is inadequate because o f 12 <§>f6 21 # h 5 ) 21 # b 3 ® d8 22 S a d i ,
B b l # x a 2 13 £>c3 # a 3 14 S b 3 . etc.] 20 A b 6 bxc6 (20 ... & e6 21
cxb7, or 20 ... <$>e6 21 # d 4 A d 6 22
12 £>c7 + <2?e7 B a e l + 43e4 23 g4, or 20 ... 43e4 21
# d 8 + ®>e6 22 c7!) 21 # d 8 + <®e6
12 ... <3^8 might seem to be safer 22 B a e l + ! 42)e4 23 B x e4 + fxe4 24
for Black, but after 13 43xa8 # a 5 14 f5 + and mate next.
4)b6! 4)xb6 15 # e l ! White wins.
18 f5 f6?l
13 4)xa8 # a 5 14 e5 £)e8
It is better to avoid this weakening
Another thorny path is 14 ... 43d5 move in favor of beginning the
15 exd6 + <S>d8 16 ^.d4 &xd6. gradual disentanglement of his pieces
with 18 ... 43df6, and if 19 Jk.g5
15 exd6 + £)xd6 16 c4 # x a 8 17 c5 # a 3 !.

19 isld4! 4)eS

If 19 ... e5 20 B e l, and Black’s

pieces are denied stable squares in
the center.

20 JslxeS fxeS 21 ,&c4 #1)8 22

,ftxe6 43 f6

The devastating 23 #h5 was

threatened.

17... £le8! 23 # b 3 # c 7 24 'S'hl

Though sorely tempted to win a 24 B a b l! steps up the pressure,

tempo with 17 ... 43f5 (during play but W hite’s flag was already rising.

218
 1980: IN S E A R C H O F T H E “ S W IS S G A M B IT ”

24 ... JSd7 25 A xd7 £>xd7 26 Either 16 ... JS.b7 or 16 ... # b 7 is

H a d #c6 better, though W hite’s more active
pieces still run the show. Now White
The pretzel that was Black’s alertly sacrifices a pawn to open the
position starts to untwist itself. game while Black’s development is
lagging.
27 H fd l ®>e8 28 Hc2 &e7 29
Hcd2 £)xc5 30 # g 3 M.fO 31 Hd6? 17 a4! b\a4 18 b5
£>e4! 32 # a 3 £)xd6 33 Hxd6 # c 7
34 # a 4 + ® e7 White resigns. If 18 £>xa4? Hxa4 19 # x a 4
#xd4.

18 ... c5 19 £)c6a3 20 # b 3 g5

White batters the Old Indian

without reservation.

Old Indian Defense

M. Petursson J. Grefe
1 d4 £if6 2 c4 d6 3 £>c3 £)bd7

3 ... e5 can be played at once. A

tricky specimen is 4 <E)f3 e4 5 45g5
JS,f5 6 # c 2 h6 7 £)gxe4 4)xe4 8
© xe4 # h 4 9 © xd6 + Jixd6 10 # x f5 21 iS,c4!
JS,b4 + .
A decision requiring precise
4 e4 e5 5 £)f3 A e7 6 &e2 0-0 7 calculation. White retains a big
0-0 c6 8 H e l He8 9 H b l ^.f8 10 advantage also on 21 Jig3: 21 ...
JS.fl a6 11 b4 # c 7 12 a3 exd4 13 Q e5 22 JS,xe5 dxe5 23 & ,c4 A e 6 24
£)xd4 b5 £)d5! (24 £>xe5 JS.g7 allows Black
counterchances) 24 ... .fitxd5 25
13 ... g6 is playable. Black now JS.xd5 £)xd5 26 exd5, and the Knight
accepts a cramped game, but one on c6 owns the board.
which leads to challenging com­
plications. 2 1 ... gxh5 22 JSxf7 + 'S'hS

14 cxb5 axb5 15 JS,g5! h6 16 JS,h4 On 22 ... <S>g7 23 ,S.xe8 £>xe8 24

#b6?l © d5 # b 7 25 £>d8! # b 8 26 <Se7!,

219
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

Black is trampled by two wild Sicilian Defense

stallions.
Y. Balashov M. Quinteros
23 Jixe8 c4 24 # x c 4 £)xe8 25 # f 7 1 e4 c5 2 53c3 d6 3 g3 £)c6 4 JS,g2
£lef6 26 e5! dxe5 27 £lxe5 iig 7 28 g6 5 d3 A g l 6 f4 e6 7 <Bf3 £)ge7 8
£)g6 + <S>h7 29 He7 £)h5 30 £}f4! 0-0 0-0

Black is defenseless, but he tries a White is poised for Ringside ac­

few tricks before expiring. tion; Black will operate on the other
wing.

9 Jie3

Threatening 10 d4, for the ex­

change ... cxd4 would saddle Black
with a weak d-pawn.

9 ... ® d4 10 B b l Jid7 11 <Se2

©xe 2 +

The first inaccuracy. He should

eliminate the more active steed on f3.
30 ... a2 31 <Sxa2
12 # x e 2 f5 13 A f 2 £lc6 14 c3 # c 7
31 # f 5 + also wins efficiently: 31
... ® h8 (31 ... ® g8 32 43xh5) 32
14 ... b6, solidifying, maintains
H e8+ £)f8 33 S x f8 + ^.xf8 34
equality. Now White gets a slight
# x f 8 + ® h7 35 # f 7 + , etc.
initiative.

31 ... £)e5 32 # x h 5 ! # f 6 33 £>d5

# d 6 34 £fac3 42lg4 35 # x h 4 JS,f5 36 15 b4! b6 16 B f c l Bac8
S b e l B f8 37 b6 ® g6 38 S x g 7 + 1
® xg7 39 # e 7 + Black resigns. The immediate 16 ... S ae8 is also
worth a try.

17 exf5 exf5?
Round Five
Balashov makes winning look like
Handing White all he could ask
child’s play.
for. 17 — gxf5! keeps it close.

220
 1980: IN S E A R C H O F T H E “ S W IS S G A M B IT ”

White also effects decisive pene­

tration after 31 ... ® g8 32 # e l ® f8
3 3 # f2 !.

32 # x e 2 ,S.xc6 33 dxc6 # c 7 34
# f 3 <§>e7 35 # e 3 + <S>f8 36 # d 4 !
43xc6 37 # h 8 + <S>e7 38 # x h 7 +
<$>d8 39 # x c 7 + <&xcl 40 l J.xc6
'S’xcO 41 \J?f2 Black resigns.

18 d4! Sce8

Had Black opted for 17 ... gxf5, he A game marked by extreme

could now reply 18 ... cxd4. White polarization: White operates almost
would then have no check on c4, and exclusively on the light squares, his
would have to play 19 b5 (19 cxd4? opponent on the dark.
£)xd4!) 19 ... d3 2 0 # x d 3 43a5, with
excellent play for Black. Sicilian Defense
L. Shamkovich J. Fedorowicz
19 # d 2 c4 20 d5! 43d8 21 H e l
bS?! 1 e4 c5 2 <Bf3 43c6 3 d4 cxd4 4
£)xd4 43f6 5 43c3 e5 6 4)bd5 d6 7
Black’s minute errors are rapidly -&g5 a6 8 43a3 b5 9 ,w.xf6 gxf6 10
adding up. This one presents White 43d5f51l43xb5!?
with an extra target.
There has been little practical
22 Jid4 experience with this line.

Eliminating Black’s only active 1 1 ... axb5 12&xb5 &d7

piece.
Not 12 ... # a 5 + ? 13 b4!, etc.
22 ... Jilxd4 23 £>xd4 a6 23 h3!
13 exf5 # g 5
White is in no hurry.
Among Black’s other options are
24 ... &c8 25 ^ e 2 # f 7 26 a4 13 ... H b8, 13 ... S g 8 , and 13 ...
S x e l + 27 fix e l He8 28 He2 &d7 A g7.
29 axb5 axb5 30 43e6 ^ f 8 31 # d 2
S xe2 14 g4

221
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

Foolhardy is 14 5)c7 + ? ,S'd8 15 28 Js(d3, heading for e4, better

£>xa8 # x g 2 16 B f l £>d4 17 Jixd7 inhibits Black’s designs.
# e 4 + 18 ® d2 Jlh 6 + 19 <g>c3
# x a 8 , and White’s King has good 28 ... S f 4 29b4e4!
cause to be alarmed.

14 ... Hb8 15 h4 # d 8 16 a4 This pawn is designed for a

# a 5 + l l c 3 cm n starring role.

Black’s King will find no shelter

on the Kingside anyway. Now he
wants to move his Queen Knight If 32 Hxe4 S x e4 (32 ... S 8 f6 33
without allowing a Knight check at # d 5 H xf3? 34 Hxe5 dxe5 35 # c 4 +
f6. and wins) 33 fxe4 £)xg4! lays bare
the White King.
18 0-0 # a 8 19 £>f6
32 ... B 8f6 33 # d 5 exf3 + 3 4 ® f l
19 b4 is more thematic, since 19 ... f2 35 Bee4
£>e7 20 53 f6 A x b 5 21 # x d 6 + is
unthinkable for Black. 35 Bxe5 dxe5 36 # c 4 + <S>b7 37
B xd8 S x c4 38 B d7 + 'S'cS brings
19 ... Jste7 20 53xd7 ®>xd7 21 # d 5 White only regret.
Shg8 22 f3 ® c7! 23 f6 .&xf6 24
# x f 7 + JS,e7 25 S a d i 35 ... 3 x e 4 36 Hxe4

Black had the resource 25 ... Black can meet the more resolute
# a 7 + ! if White captured on c6. 36 # x e 4 with 3 6 ...# c 8 ! [36 ... £>f3
leads to a difficult ending after 37
25 ... B bf8 26 # d 5 S g 6 27 h5 # c 6 + (37 B d l is also possible) 37
Hgf6 28 <$>g2 ... ® b8 38 S d 5 # c 8 39 # x c 8 +

222
 1980: IN S E A R C H O F T H E “ S W IS S G A M B IT ”

H?xc8 40 <S>xf2] 37 # x h 7 (37 S c 4 + Black looks for chances on the

&xc4 38 # x e 7 + <g>b8 39 # x f 6 Kingside.
<Se3 + 4 0 ® x f2 ©ixg4 + ) 37 ... # e 6
(37 ... S f7 ? 38 # x f 7 and 39 B c4 + ) 9 ... A d 6 10 A e2 0-0 11 0-0 He8
38 # e 4 (38 A e2 £txg4! 39 S x g 4 12 B e l A b8 13 £ ) xc6
# x e 2 + ) 38 ... d5! 39 Bxd5 £)xg4 40
S d 7 + # x d 7 !,e tc . A logical alternative is 13 ^3a4
#d6 (13 ... £)e5 14 Bxc8 # x c 8 15
36 ... ® b8 37 A e2 # b 6 Sb6 guarantees White a plus) 14 g3
<Se5 15 # c 2 .
Such a complicated game has, as
usual, led to time pressure, and the 1 3 ... bxc6 14 JsLf3
remainder exhibits less than accurate
play. Immediate pressure on the pawns
by 14 £)a4 is preferable.
38 # g 8 + S f 8 39 # x h 7 # c 7 40
S e 3 # a 7 41 # e 4 # a 8 42 ® g2 # a 7 14 ... # d 6 15 g3 A a7!
43 A f l S g 8 44 B g3 A h4 45 # d 5
# a 8 46 # x a 8 + ® xa8 47 He3 ®xg4
White resigns.

Round Seven
Even Sherlock Holmes would have
trouble pinpointing W hite’s errors in
this game.

Queen’s Gambit Declined

A. Bisguier J. Kaplan
Having provoked a weakness on
1 d4 & f6 2 c4 e6 3 £>f3 c5 4 e3 d5 5 W hite’s Kingside, the Bishop now
4)c3 a6 6 cxd5 exd5 7 b3 keeps watch over the sensitive
squares c5 and e3.
Another way is 7 A e2 S c 6 8 0-0
Jsle7 9 dxc5 A xc5. 16 B e l A f5 17 £)e2 £)e4 18 £>d4
A d 7 19 A g 2 B a d 8 2 0 # c 2
7 ... £>c6 8 A b2 cxd4 9 ©xd4
After 20 # h 5 S e5 ! 21 # h 4 , Black
White plans to exchange pieces keeps good chances by rejecting the
and exploit the isolated d-pawn or adventurous 21 ... g5 in favor of 21
the hanging pawns (after Qxc6). ... S de8.

223
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

20 ... c5 21 £>f3 # h 6 22 -&al Ag4 28 # f l # f 5 29 g4 # e 6 holds on

longer, but th a t’s all.
On the surface White’s position
seems to be only slightly passive, but 28 ... JLd3! 29 Hxd3
ominous clouds are gathering over
his King. Moving the Queen loses to 29 ... f6
30 <Qg4 h5, while 29 43xd3 S x e3 30
23 £>e5 # f 2 cxd3 allows no defense to 31 ...
He2.
It would seem more natural to ease
the pressure through exchanges, but 29 ... cxd3 30 # x d 3 d4! 31 # x a 6
after 23 £)d2 £>g5 24 h4 £lh3 + 25 dxe3 32 Sld3
<S»fl a5! 26 A h l (26 # d 3 c4! 27 bxc4
dxc4 28 # c 2 «Sxf2!) 26 ... c41, To prevent 32 ... B d2.
Black’s pressure has, if anything,
increased. 32 ... £ x d 3! 33 # x d 3 e2+ White
resigns.
23 ... &f5 24 # b 2 A b6 25 S e d l?

Round Eight
At this stage Geller led with five
and a half points, hotly pursued by
Balashov, A lburt, Larsen, and
Dzhindzhikhashvili with five each.

Bogo-Indian Defense
R. Dzhindzhikhashvili B. Larsen
1 d4 £}f6
2 c4 e6
3 E>f3 jS.b4+
4 ^d2
25 a3 keeps White in the game.
Now it’s a horror show. A recent example o f the more
restrained 4 S b d 2 is Rogoff-Tarjan,
25 ... c4 U.S. Championship, Pasadena 1978:
4 ... c5 5 e3 0-0 6 a3 ^ .x d 2 + 7 # x d 2
Threatening both 26 ... c3 and 26 b6 8 ^.e2 d5 9 0-0 ^ a 6 ! with
... £)xf2. equality.

26 &xe4 &xe4 27 # e 2 # h 3 28 f3 4 ... #e7

224
 1980: IN S E A R C H O F T H E “ S W IS S G A M B IT ”

D o rfm an -D v o retsk y (V ilnius 19 #b3 bxc5

1978) showed another way to play: 4 20 dxc5
... JS,xd2 + 5 # x d 2 d6 6 £>c3 0-0 7
g3 # e 7 8 Jig2 e5 9 0-0 B e8 10 e4 a5 20 bxc5 gives White nothing to
11 h3, giving White a slight plus. shoot for after either 20 ... Jka6 or
20 ... B ab8.
5 £>c3
20 ... Beb8
5 g3 0-0 6 &,g2 ^.xd2 + 7 &bxd2 21 c6 ,&a6
d6 8 0-0 e5 9 e3 h6 10 # b 3 e4 11 <Qel
c5 brought balanced play in Browne- On 21 ... S ,c 8 22 b5 White will
Kurajica, Banja Luka 1979. soon generate a passed pawn by
effecting the advance b6 (S c 4 , S a l ,
5 ... 0-0 etc.).
6 a3 J k x c3
7 Jlxc3 b6
00

© e4
o>

9 #c2 Ab7
10 Jie2 d6
11 0-0 £>d7
12 S f d l a5
13 b4

13 ... a4, destroying the mobility

of W hite’s Queenside pawns, cannot
be allowed.

13 ... £l)xc 3 22 b5 iix b 5

14 #xc3 B fe8 23 Jixb5 Sa5
15 Sacl £>f6 24 Sbl Haxb5
16 £)d2 h6 25 #xb5 Hxb5
17 c5 26 S xb 5 4l)c3
27 Sb8 + ® h7
B oth sides have cautiously 28 Sal
completed mobilization, and now
White makes the first aggressive The rash of exchanges has greatly
thrust, threatening 18 cxb6 cxb6 19 clarified the situation. Chances and
# c 7 , with advantage. m aterial—Queen and pawn against
two Rooks—are level, and the
17 ... axb4 position holds great potential for
18 a.\b4 £)d5 lively play. White may be able to

225
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

gang up on the c-pawn, but this plays winner-take-all despite the

means his King will have to fend off complexity o f the position and
the sniping of Black’s Queen and imminent time pressure. 32 ... # c 2
Knight all by itself. 33 S x f7 # x f 2 + 34 H?hl £)g3 + 35
® h 2 £ ) f l + 36 ® h l S g 3 + (36 ...
28 ... d5 £>xe3?? 37 £)g5 + ) 37 ® h 2 draws at
once.
28 ... f5! secures d5 for Black’s
Knight (f2-f3 and e3-e4 would be too 33 ® h2 £>xf2
loosening) and initiates some tricky 34 Hxf7 #hl +
play; e.g., 29 H a7 could be answered 35 <S>g3 £)e4 +
by 29 ... f4! 30 exf4 (30 S b b 7 fxe3 36 <S>f4 #xg2
31 fxe3 # g 5 32 £ )fl # f 5 sends
White into retreat, and 30 e4 # g 5 31
S)f3 # c 5 is equally unappealing, for
if 32 Sxc7? £)b5) 30 ... £>e2 + 31
<§>fl © xf4, threatening 32 ... 43xg2.

29 £ )f3

Not 29 S a 7 # c 5 30 Hxc7 £)e4,

etc.

29 ... # f6

29 ... e5 is exciting: 30 S a 7 d4 31 36 ... ^$ 6 doesn’t help: 37 £)e5 +

exd4 exd4 (31 ... e4 32 £)e5 £)e2 + ® h5 38 g4 + <S’xh4 39 £)f3 + ! <§>h3
33 ® fl 43xd4 34 £)d7, but after 34 40 c l .
... h5, threatening 35 ... £)xc6 or 35
... e3 or 35 ... # g 5 , Black is better; 37 'g’eS #g3 +
e.g., 35 Sxc7 # a 3 ) 32 H bb7 d3 33 38 S f4 £)d2
Hxc7 # e 2 34 S e7 , and after 34 ...
d2 Black has the advantage. But Black loses also on 38 ... g5 39 c7
probably there is a stronger move gxf4 40 c 8 # fxe3 + 41 'S ’xeO # g 4 +
than 30 H a7 in this line. 42<®xd5, etc.

30 )=(a7 £T)e4 39 c7 £)c4 +

31 h4 #c3 40 ® d4 e5 +
32 Sxc7 # a l +? ! 41 ® e5 ®xe3
42 c8# # x f4
Larsen, always the daring knight, 43 4)g5 + ! ® g6

226
 1980: IN S E A R C H O F T H E “ S W IS S G A M B IT ”

44 #e8 + <§>f5 # d 4 , as in Korchnoi-Miles, Austria

45 # e 6 mate 1979, also favors White) 18 JS.c5
He8 19 d6, which brought White a
nice edge in Miles-Gligoric, Portoroz
1979.

Julio Kaplan, co-columnist of 11 Jic4 43c6 12 0-0 43a5 13 ,-S.d3

“ The ABC’s o f Chess,” a regular b6 14 h4!
feature in C h ess L ife magazine, had
just completed a series of articles on Black’s failure to apply pressure
stock Bishop sacrifices. Here he on W hite’s powerful center justifies
shows how it’s done under practical this blatant aggression.
conditions.
14 ... Jib7 15 h5 gxh5?
Griinfeld Defense
Best is 15 ... Hc8 16 hxg6 hxg6 17
J. Kaplan V. Liberzon # e 2 (17 Bxc8 #xc81), though Black
1 d4 4)f6 2 c4 g6 3 43c3 d5 4 4)f3 must still struggle to hold on.
<S.g7 5 cxd5 43xd5 6 e4 4)xc3
16 d5!exd5
Entering the main lines of the
Exchange Variation, in which Black On 16 ... $£fe7, 17 4)d4 is un­
has been pummeled lately. 6 ... 4Jb6 pleasant.
7 h31, a rarely seen line, favors
White. 17 e5 d4

7 bxc3 c5 8 JLe3 0-0 9 H c l

White is privy to the latest

wrinkles. For many years the scheme
Jlc4 , 4)e2 (avoiding the pin ...
i£,g4), iS,e3, 0-0, etc., was almost
obligatory, but Black eventually
discovered how to equalize.

9 ... cxd4 10 cxd4 e6

Trying to improve on 10 ... 4)c6

11 d5 4)e5 12 4)xe5 JS,xe5 13 & .c4 b5
14.&b3 a5 15 0-0 a4 16 ^ c 2 e6 17 f4 19 43g5 + ? <S>g6! 20 # d 3 + f5 21
iig 7 (17 ... ^.c7 18 ,&c5 ^.c6 19 exf6+ H?xf6 leads White down a

227
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

dead-end street, though he could Jslb4+ B d 6 26 £)e6 + speaks for

draw with 22 Jsbfd4+ ® xg5 23 itself.
# g 3 + ® f5 24 # x g 7 , etc.
24 # f 5 + ® g8 25 # f 7 + ^118 26
19...<$>g8 20 £>g5f5? B c7 # f 6 27 # x h 5 + <3>g8 28 # h 7 +
® f8 29 &b4 B d8 30 £)e6 + Black
Now Black is blown away. 20 ... resigns.
Be8 forces White to earn the point.
Kaplan intended 21 Jid 2 , when 21 ...
He7! is best. Other tries fail:
A ) 21 ... £)c6 22 # h 7 + ® f8 23 Round Nine
# x h 5 (23 f4 also deserves con­ The pairings on the top three
sideration) 23 ... Be7! (23 ... # d 7 ? b o ard s: A lb u rt (6)-D zhindzhi-
24 Bxc61, or 23 ... 'SkdS 24 e6! 4)e5 khashvili (6); Miles (5‘/2)-Geller (6);
25 -S.b4 + Be7 26 f3 B c8 27 exf71, Balashov (5 '/z)-Larsen (51/2). Four
or 23 ... £>xe5 24 ^ .b 4 + B e7 25 f4 others trailed with five points each.
# d 5 26 A x e l + ^ x e l 27 B c7 + and At stake: $50,000 in prize money,
28 Bxb7) 24 f41, and Black is $15,000 to the winner.
helpless against this paw n’s further
advance. Reti Opening
B ) 21 ... Jid5 22 f41.
Q 21 ... Bxe5 22 # h 7 + ® f8 23 A. Miles Y. Geller
jS.b4 + ® e8 24 # g 8 + <5>d7 25 1 c4 e6 2 g3 d5 3 &Lgl £>f6 4 £)f3
# x f 7 + B e7 26 M ,x e l # x e 7 27 itle7 5 b3 0-0 6 &M2 c5 7 0-0 £)c6 8
Bc7 + . e3 d4
D ) 21 ... ® f8 22 ^ .b 4 + B e7 23
e61. Black has a less committal alter­
E ) 21 ... B c8 22 # h 7 + ® f8 23 native in 8 ... b6, bringing about a
& b4 + S e7 2 4 # f 5 . Queen’s Indian formation.
Following 21 ... Be7! 22 f4! # d 5
23 B f2, White threatens 24 Jib 4 as 9 exd4 cxd4 10 B e l! B e8 11 a3 a5
well as # h 7 + , f4-f5-f6, and, in
some cases, £ )e 6 + . White made his Black cannot permit his opponent
initial Bishop offer based mainly on to annex space on the Queenside
intuition, and these variations bear without a fight.
out the soundness of his conception.
12 d3 JS.c5
21 exf6 B xf6 22 # h 7 + <S>f8 23
&d2! B (16 12 ... Jslf8 at once may be better.

23 ... £)c6 24 Bxc6! A xc6 25 13 £)bd2 e5 14 £>g5 Jlg4

228
 1980: IN S E A R C H O F T H E “ S W IS S G A M B IT ”

A d iffic u lt decision. Black 20 ... A e l 21 h5 # f 8 22 # f 5 Bb8

eliminates W hite’s powerful King 23 g4 b5 24 ®>h2 bxc4 25 bxc4 S b 3
Bishop but at the same time gives up 26 S g l isLxa3 27 Hxa3 S x a 3 28
the chief defender of his own light A xa3 # x a 3 29 g5 # f 8 ? l
squares.

15 &f3! &xf3 16 # x f 3 h6 17
£}ge4 £)xe4 18 <E)xe4 j&f8 19 J&cl!

Now was the time to fight for his

life w ith 29 ... <E)e7! 3 0 # g 4 g 6 1 .

The Bishop aims at Black’s 3 0 £ )f6 + !

Ringside and, if needed, can play to
d2 to support the b-pawn’s advance. Good Knight!

19 ... He6?!
30 ... gxf6 31 gxh6+ <S>h8 32 Hg7
# x g 7 33 hxg7 + ®xg7 34 # g 4 +
Black lacks a productive plan, and ® h7 35 h6! «>xh6 36 # g 8 He7
the one he hits upon allows White
too much leeway on the Ringside. 19
... # d 7 , intending 20 ... f5 and The last-ditch effort 36 ... <Sb4 37
perhaps provoking White to loosen # x f7 S a 6 collapses following 38
his Ringside with 20 g4, is somewhat ® g3 ® g5 39 # g 7 + ® h5 40 f41, etc.
better.
37 #c8 B e6 38 # h 8 + Black
20 h4! resigns.

I t’s almost unbelievable how The foundation-stone of Black’s

simple, straightforward, and strong position disappears after 39 # g 8 + ,
W hite’s next few moves are. etc.

229
 T H E B E S T O F L O N E P IN E

Board one featured an uncom­ 5 . . .£>c6

promising struggle from beginning to
end. Black pondered over this move for
fifty minutes.
English Opening
6 cxd5 exd5 7 .&b5 -&c5 8 0-0
L. Alburt R. Dzhindzhikhashvili 0-0 9 # a 4 £> xc3 10 dxc3 ^.d7 11
Jkg5 A e l 12 A xel # x e 7 13 E fe l
# e 6 14 S a d i a6 15 A x c 6 Js(xc6 16
1 c4 © f6 2 S)c3 e6 3 e4 d5
# b 3 H fe8 17 S e 3
After 3 ... c5 4 e5 &3g8 5 S)f3 43c6
6 d4? cxd4 7 &3xd4 43xe5 8 5)db5 (8 The opening skirmish has given
& .f4 is also playable) 8 ... f6 9 .S,f4 White a small advantage due to his
a6 1 0 © d 6 + jS.xd6 11 # x d 6 £)f7 12 more actively posted forces.
# a 3 White has strong pressure for a
pawn. 17 ... S ad 8 18 S d 4 h6 19 h3 b6 20
# d l . t b 7 21 £)h4
4 e5 43e4!
White utilizes his space advantage
An idea recently revived by to develop Kingside threats.
Shamkovich. 4 ... d4 5 exf6 dxc3 6
bxc3 # x f 6 7 d4 c5 8 £)f3 h6 9 A d 3 2 1 .. . f6! 22 H g4
cxd4 10 cxd4 ^ .b 4 + 11 <$>fl!?
brought Seirawan (White) a spec­
tacular win over Korchnoi at Wijk
aan Zee 1980.

5£>f3

Theory condemns 5 -53x64 dxe4 6

# g 4 £)d7 7 # x e 4 as bad for Black,
but Shamkovich’s new idea, 6 ...
& .d l\ 7 # x e 4 A c6, leads to fine play
for the pawn: 8 # e 3 53a6 9 53>f3 (9
d4 S b 4 10 <S'd2 is best, and led to
unclear consequences in Seirawan- 22 ... g5!
Timman, Wijk aan Zee 1980) 9 ...
iic 5 10 # e 2 ? (10 # c 3 is correct) 10 22 ... fxe5 23 H g6 # f 7 24 # g 4 !
... £>b4 11 d3 ikxf3! 12 gxf3 # h 4 ! (24 Heg3 S e 6 25 S x g 7 + # x g 7 26
left White without a single good S x g 7 + Sl?xg7 is not dangerous for
move in Lobo-Grefe, San Jose 1980. Black, and 24 # h 5 accomplishes

230
 1980: IN S E A R C H O F T H E “ S W IS S G A M B IT ”

nothing after 24 ... S d 6 ) 24 ... jfi.c8 46 ... Jif3 !

25 # g 3 favors White.

23 exf6 # x f 6 24 S x e8 + E xe8 25
4)f3 S e 4 26 S x e4 dxe4 27 43d4

With proper play the game should

be drawn.

27 ... <g>f7 28 # h 5 + <5>f8 29 # g 4

7 30 # e 2 c5 31 £)c2 # e 6 32 4Te3
# x a 2 33 43f5 + <§>d7 34 £)xh6 # d 5
35 4)g4 <g>c7 36 # e 3 <S>b8 37 43 f6
# f 5 38 # g 3 + ®>a7 39 £)e8 e3 40
# x e 3 # b l + 41 ® h2 # x b 2 42 £)d6
# b 3 43 # x g 5 # e 6 44 # d 8 The game was adjourned here,
Black making his sealed move openly
Time-pressure errors have blessed on the board. Although White plays
White with an extra pawn, and 44 his last trum p, there’s no way to save
4-)xb7! ® xb7 45 h4 would give Black the game.
serious problems in the unusual
ending; e.g., 45 ... a5 46 h5 a4 47 h6 47 # f 7 + <S>b8 48 # g 8 + Wcl 49
a3 48 'S3fg7 + (48 h7 wins too). 4 )e8 + ®>c6 50 # g 6 + ®>b5 51
# b l + <g>a4 52 <8>gl # x e 8 53 # a 2 +
44 ... # e 5 + 45 g3 # e 2 46 # f8 ? ? ® b5 54 c4 + ! ® c6! 55 # a 4 + b5 56
# x a 6 + <S>c7 57 # a 5 + <2?b7 58 cxb5
A $7,000 blunder! 46 4)xb7 leads # g 6 59 <S>h2 c4 60 # a 3 Jvd5 61 h4
to a draw, which would have meant a # f 6 62 f4 c3 63 # c 5 # e 6 64 f5
triple tie for first place and a lot of # e 2 + 65 ® h3 ^ g 2 + 66 ® h2
money for Lev Alburt. | JS,f3 + While resigns.

231
 THE R.H.M. SURVEY OF
CURRENT CHESS OPENINGS

The R.H.M . Survey of Current Chess Openings is a completely

integrated system designed to provide you with up-to-date p ra c tic a l
information on the openings you’re interested in and to k e e p you
informed about them,
Each Survey section is devoted to a single opening or group of
variations, sometimes to only one major variation. Y o u decide
which openings and variations you want to learn about. Each
section contains articles on theory, deeply annotated “ model”
games, reviews of the latest innovations, and hundreds o f recent
games from all over the world, all logically arranged so you can
easily find what you’re looking for. The articles and analysis are by
the world’s top grandmasters and theoreticians: there is no more
authoritative opening information available anywhere, in any
language.
The Surveys are printed on looseleaf, 3-hole-punched pages for
easy filing in various ways, according to your own system. Every
page is clearly identified and indexed by opening, variation, and
move. We even supply the binders.
The R.H.M . Survey of Current Chess Openings may be the most
practical tool ever developed b y chess players f o r chess players. To
receive complete information, send your name and address, clearly
printed, to:

U .S., C anada, Mexico, Puerto Rico: Europe and Elsewhere:

SURVEY SURVEY
R .H .M . Press R .H .M . Europe
417 Northern Boulevard 110 Strand
Great Neck, New York 11021 London WC2R OAA, England

232
 In d e x o f P la y e r s

Italics denote partial gantes

A lburt: Dzliindzhikhashvili 230; Gligoric Formanek: Bradford 199; Denker 87

216 Fritzinger: Evans 61; Seirawan 135
Arnason: Peters 215 Gaprindashvili: Peters 161
Balashov; Benko 160; Biyiasas 154; Geller: Miles 228
Panno 156; Quinteros 220 Gheorghiu: Browne 115; Commons 106;
Balshan: Timman 179 DeFirmian 217
Benko; Balashov 160; Evans 104; Lein Gilden: Waterman 89
188 Gligoric: Alburt 216; Martinowsky 45
Benjamin; Browne 213; Gruenfeld 202 Goichberg: Evans 55; Pollowitz 62
Bilek: Dake 99 Grefe: Browne 140; Denker 196; Evans
Bisguier: Kaplan 223 77; Loftsson 46; Najdorf 132;
Biyiasas: Balashov 154; Damjanovic Petursson 219
116; Tarjan 151; van der Sterren Gross: Shipman 70
196; Weinstein 111 Gruenfeld: Benjamin 202
Bradford; Formanek 199; Weinstein 201 H anken: Wilcox 76
Brasket; Browne 56, 84; Saidy 138; Henley: Christiansen 173
Tarjan 60 H orl: Seirawan 206
Browne; Benjamin 213; Brasket 56, 84; Kaplan: Bisguier 223; Liberzon 227
Diesen 124; Ervin 149; Evans 88; Karklins: Commons 64; Manetti 57
Gheorghiu 115; Grefe 140; Peters Kaufman: Larsen 216
182; Portisch 189; Reshevsky 162; Larsen: Dzhindzhikhashvili 224;
Sigurjonsson 108; Tarjan 44, 73 Kaufman 216; Seirawan 198;
Christiansen: Henley 173; Zlotnikov 204 Stean 186
Commons: Gheorghiu 106; Karklins 64; Lein: Benko 188
Najdorf 142 Liberzon: Ervin 96; Kaplan 227;
Csom: Quinteros 109 Shamkovich 113
Dake: Bilek 99; Quinteros 155 Loftsson: Grefe 46
Damjanovic: Biyiasas 116 Lombardy: Peters 152
DeFirmian: Gheorghiu 217 M anetti: Karklins 57
Denker: Diesen 127; Formanek 87; M artinowsky: Gligoric 45
Grefe 196 Martz: Shamkovich 107
Diesen: Browne 124; Denker 127 McCormick: Evans 43
Dzliindzhikhashvili: Alburt 230; Larsen Meslel: Taylor 177
224 Miles: Geller 228; Peters 138; Tarjan 78;
Ervin: Browne 149; Liberzon 96; Peters Watson 123
172; Shamkovich 102; Szabo 158 Najdorf: Commons 142; Grefe 132
Evans I. M: Benko 104; Browne 88; Panno: Balashov 156
Fritzinger 61; Goichberg 55; Peters: Arnason 215; Browne 182; Ervin
Grefe 77; McCormick 43; Pilnik 172; Gaprindashvili 161;
98; Stoutenborough 71: Sunye Lombardy 152; Miles 138;
148; Suttles 101; Tarjan 48; Petrosian 121; Sahovic 158
Waterman 59 Petrosian: Peters 121: Portisch 184:
Eedorowicz: Shamkovich 221 Quinteros 136

233
 T H E BEST O F L O N E P IN E

Pelursson: Grefe 219 Sigurjonsson: Browne 108

Smyslov: Shamkovich 129
Pilnik: Evans 98
Pollowilz: Goichberg 62 Speelman: Ree 176
Polugaevsky: Reshevsky 181 Slean: Larsen 186
Porlisch: Browne 189: Petrosian 184 Sloulenborough: Evans 71
Pupols: Taylor 85 Sunye: Evans 148
Quinleros: Balashov 220; Csom 109; Sullies: Evans 101
Dake 155; Petrosian 136; Szabo: Ervin 158
Weinstein 130 T arjan: Biyiasas 151; Brasket 60;
Ree: Speelman 176 Browne 44, 73; Evans 48; Miles
Reshevsky: Browne 162; Polugaevsky 78
181 Taylor: Mestel 177; Pupols 85
Rohde: Weinstein 150 Tim m an: Balshan 179; Seirawan 170
Sahovic: Peters 158 van der Slerren: Biyiasas 196
Saidy: Brasket 138 W aterm an: Evans 59; Gilden 89;
Seirawan: Fritzinger 135; Hort 206; Shamkovich 95
Larsen 198; Timman 170; Zalts- W atson: Miles 123
man 171 Weinstein: Biyiasas 111; Bradford 201;
Shamkovich: Ervin 102; Fedorowicz Quinteros 130; Rohde 150
221; Liberzon 113; Martz 107; Wilcox: Hanken 76
Smyslov 129; Waterman 95 Zailsm an: Seirawan 171
Shipman: Gross 70 Zlotnikov: Christiansen 204

234
 In d e x o f O p e n in g s
Alekhine Defense: 57
Benoni Defense: 46, 62, 136
Bird's Opening: 101, 177
Bogo-Indian Defense: 224
Budapest Defense: 70
Caro-Kann Defense: 135, 196
Galalan System: 181
English Opening: 56, 61, 106, 123, 148, 171, 176, 198,215,230
French Defense: 170, 199, 201, 206
Griinfeld Defense: 71,227
King’s Indian Defense: 45, 88, 113, 124, 173, 180
Modern Defense: 76
Nimzo-Indian Defense: 98, 138, 158, 184
Old Indian Defense: 109, 219
Owen's Defense: 158
Pelroff Defense: 160
Philidor Defense: 132
Pirc Defense: 96, 129
Queen’s Gambit Accepted: 189
Queen’s Gambit Declined: 104, 121,223
Queen’s Indian Defense: 186
Reli Opening: 99, 228
Ruy Lopez: 102, 107, 149, 152, 179, 196
Sicilian Defense: 44, 48, 55, 59, 64, 73, 78, 84, 89, 95, 111, 115, 116, 127, 130 140 142
156, 161, 162, 182, 188,202,213,217,220,221
Slav Defense: 85

235
NOTES
 BOOKS FOR THE CHESS PLAYER

My Best Games The Gruenfeld Defence

Anatoly Karpov Botvinnik and Estrin
TalfBotvinnik World Championship The Modern Defence
Mikhail Tal Vlastimil Hort, Edmar Mednis
The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal The Art of Chess Analysis
Mikhail Tal Jan Timman
How to Open a Chess Game How to Get the Most From Your
Evans, Gligoric, Hort, Keres, Larsen, Chess Computer
Petrosian and Portisch Julio Kaplan
Understanding the French Defence Understanding the
Svetozar Gligoric and Wolfgang Uhlmann Caro-Kann Defense
With contributions by Botvinnik, Karpov and Raymond Keene, Andy Soltis, Edmar
Korchnoy Mednis, Jack Peters, Julio Kaplan
The Chess Opening for You Understanding the Open Games
Larry Evans (Except Ruy Lopez)
Portoroz/Ljubljana Grandmaster Andy Soltis, Edmar Mednis, Jack Peters,
William Hartston
Chess Tournament 1975
Vlastimil Hort. With Notes by the Players The Best of Lone Pine
Psychology in Chess Isaac Kashdan, John Grefe
Nikolai Krogius Understanding the
The Najdorf Variation, Queen’s Indian Defense
Sicilian Defence Pal Benko, Raymond Keene,
Edmar Mednis, John Grefe
Yefrim Geller, Svetozar Gligoric,
Lubosh Kavalek, Boris Spassky
Wijk aan Zee
Grandmaster Tournament 1975
Notes by the Players
Edited by David Levy

ASK FOR THESE FINE CHESS BOOKS

AT YOUR FAVOURITE BOOKSELLERS’

I S B N 0 - 8 9 0 5 8 - 0 4 9 - 9