C�_A_PTER

5
Contents O pen games
./ Peculiarities of the
In the open games, the sides come into contact more
open games
quickly. It is comparatively easy to get the minor
./ Seizing the initiative
pieces to active posts and to open lines. A lead in
./ Gambit variations for Black
development plays a very important part, it may be
possible to work up an initiative, and a quick attack
cannot be discounted. Black especially must waste no
time in the open games and must pay close attention
to what is happening.
But in this chapter we shall concentrate on one
specific situation, when Black tries to seize the
initiative. That can either happen after a mistake by
the first player, or as a result of a bold pawn sacrifice.
Some variations, such as the Marshall Attack, offer
a long term initiative for the pawn. We shall study in
this chapter how to deal with such a situation.

There follow two examples from the German

Championship of 200 5 .

D.Baramidze - A.Graf
German Ch, Altenkirchen 2005

l .e4 e5 2.ltlf3 llJ c6 3.i.b5 a6 4.i.a4 ltlf6 5.0-0 i.e7

6.gel b5 7.i.b3 0-0
This move signals the second player's readiness
to aim for a sharp gambit variation (the Marshall
Attack) .
7 . . . d6 is a quieter option.
Diagram 5-1 Diagram 5-1
8.a4
The typical reply, aiming to avoid the Marshal!
Attack.
After 8.c3 White must take into account the pawn
sacrifice 8 . . . d5.
8 .h3 is the other Anti-Marshall variation. After
8 . . . �b7 9.d3 d6 we have a complicated position,
which is considered to be perhaps a slightly improved
version of the Ruy Lopez for the second player.
8 ... b4 9.a5
This cheeky move provokes the opponent. 9.d3 is a
safer variation.
a b c d e f g h
9 ... d5!?

54
 Open games

Of course Black can also play 9 . . . d6, but Graf is an

aggressive player who always fights to win.
10.exd5 e4!?
One standard idea is 1 0 .. .tt'lxd5 l l .CLlxe5 CLl xe5
1 2.!he5 c6 1 3 .d4 and it is not quite clear who gains
the most from this version of the Marshall Attack.
l l .dxc6 ex£3= 8
Diagram 5-2 7
12.'\Wx£3?
6
White is playing very greedily and neglecting his
development. 5
1 2.d4! is better: 12 . . . fxg2 1 3 .ig5 ( 1 3 .c4!? or 1 3.CLld2!? 4
are also possible) 1 3 ... lt:Jd5 After this White completed
3
his development without any problems and was then
able to seize the initiative. (Black should try either 2
13 . . . ig4!? or 13 . . . E:e8!? here.) 14.ixe7 CLlxe7 1 5 .d5
CLlg6 16.ttJd2 lt:J f4 Suetin - I.Zaitsev, USSR 1 983, and
now 1 7.ttJe4 leads to a better position for White.
12 1g4
•••

Diagram 5-3
13.�d3?!
In order to exchange queens and be able to ward off
the possible attack on the kingside, White sacrifices
his pawn structure. The doubled cl-pawns are not only
weak, but they get in the way of the development of
the knight on b l and the bishop on c l .
1 3.1Mfe3 E:e8 1 4.d3 ic5 1 5 .1Mfd2 is also ugly. How
can White then develop his queenside?
1 3.1Mig3 id6 1 4 .1M/h4 E:e8 1 5 .f3 would also be
very dangerous in view of 1 5 . . . ic5 t 1 6.�h l E:xe l t
1 7.Wxe l We8 1 8 .Wfl ie6.
And 1 3 .Wf4!? is followed by: 1 3 . . . id6 1 4.1M/c4 E:e8 a b c d e f g h
1 5 .Wxf7t �h8 1 6.E:xe8t Wxe8 1 7.Wxe8t E:xe8 1 8 .f3
E:el t 1 9 .�f2 E:xc l 20.fxg4 ttJ e4t� Diagram 5-4
13 ... Wxd3 14.cxd3 .ic5 8
Diagram 5-4
Black is attacking and has three pieces more in 7
play! 6
1 5.1c4
5
Perhaps intending b2-b3 and ib2 . . .
The only way for White to solve his problems 4
of development was with the courageous sacrifice 3
1 5 .CLlc3!?+.
2
15 . JUe8
.

Of course Black wants to exploit the open file.

a b c d e f g h
55
 Opening 1

16J�e3
This is forced, because otherwise the white king
is left alone and without any protection. But now
White gets no time to mobilize his queenside.
16 ....ixe3 17 .dxe3
Diagram 5-5 T Diagram 5-5
17 ....ie6!+
8
Graf swaps off his opponent's developed pieces so
7 as to be able to attack the white pawns more easily.
6 18.ttld2 .ixc4 19.ttlxc4 �adS 20.'it>fl
20.id2 �xd3 2 l .f3 b3 22.'it>f2 �e6 23.'it>e2 �d5
5 24.ic3+ would perhaps have been slightly more
4 resilient.
3
20 ... �xd3 2I .'it>e2 �d5 22.�a4
22.id2 �c5 23.b3 ll:Jd5 24.f3 f5 25 .'it>d3+ would
2 not be much better.
22 ... b3 23 ..id2?!
White loses the game without putting up any
a b c d e f g h
resistance.
He should have at least tried 23 .lL! d2 with the idea
of 23 . . . l::k 5 24.ll:Jxb3+. However, Black is doing very
well after the simple 23 . . . �b8.
23 ... �c5! 24.ttla3?!
24.ic3 ll:J e4 25 .id4 �xc6 is certainly very good
for Black, but he would still have some technical
difficulties to overcome.
24 ... �e4!
Mter the exchange of rooks White has no more
counterplay. White resigned at this appropriate
moment.
0-1

A.Graf - . Gustafsson
8 German Ch, Altenkirchen 2005

7 I .e4 e5 2.l!Jf3 ttl c6 3.ib5 a6 4 ..ia4 ttlf6 5.0-0 .ie7

6 6.�e1 b5 7 ..ib3 0-0 8.c3 d5
Diagram 5-6
5
Frank Marshall's idea is still very topical in modern
4 times. Black's active piece play compensates for the
3 opponent's slight material advantage.
9.exd5 ttlxd5 10.ttlxe5 l!Jxe5 l l .�xe5 c6 12.hd5
2
This variation has not been popular since the
1 legendary match between Tal and Spassky. Nowadays
a b c d e f g h 1 2.d4 is played much more frequently.

56
 Open games

12 cxd5 13.d4 i.d6

••.

Black brings his bishop to a more active position so

as to be able to attack the kingside. The rook has to
take a step back.
14J�e3
1 4J!xd5? loses material to 1 4 . . . ixh2t.
14 �h4 15.h3
•.•

After 1 5 .g3 the light squares are weak and Black

still has good counterplay.
Diagram 5-7
15 �£4
.••

8
1 5 . . .f5 (� . . . f4) is an interesting alternative. White
then plays either 1 6.'1MI'f3 followed by lt:J d2, and tries 7
to coordinate his forces rapidly, or the immediate 6
1 6.lt:Jd2.
16.�e5 �f6 17.�el 5
1 7.!'!:xd5 is too dangerous: 17 . . . i.b7 1 8 .!'!:g5 E:fe8 4
and Black's attack is strong.
3
17 �g6 1 8.�f3 id7!?
•.•

Black wants to keep the e6-square free for his rook. 2

1 8 . . . i.e6 1 9 .i.e3 E:ac8 20.lt:Jd2 b4 was also okay 1
for Black in the game J.Polgar - Almasi, Groningen
a b c d e f g h
1 997.
18 . . . i.f5 is not so accurate, because after 1 9.i.e3
i.e4 White has 20.Wfg4.
Diagram 5-8
19.ie3
8
Playing for a win here is very risky.
1 9 .i.f4!? i.xf4 20.Wfxf4 i.xh3 2 l .Wfg3= is a safer 7
way out for White, known since the game Tal - 6
Spassky, Tbilisi (4) 1 96 5 .
5
19 �ae8 20.� d2 �e6 2 1 .�hl?!
•.•

White wants to protect the h3-pawn, but makes his 4

king position worse. 3
If 2 l .Wfxd5? then 2 l . . .i.c6 22.Wfg5 !'!:xe3! 23.Wfxg6
!'!:xe 1 t 24.E:xe 1 hxg6-+ . 2
2 1 .lt:Jb3 E:f6 22.Wfxd5 i.xh3 23 .Wfg5 (23.lt:Jc5!?) is
a principled continuation.
a b c d e f g h
2 l .Wfg4 Wfc2 22.Wff3 Wfxb2 23.Wfxd5 Wfxc3 24.lt:Je4
would lead to equality.
2 I . i.b8!? 22.�b3
•.

It is now very difficult for White to defend.

If 22.lt:J fl , then 22 . . . E:f6 23 .Wfe2 !'!:e8 and Black
continues attacking.
22.!'!:g 1 is worth considering.

57
 Opening 1

22 JU6
••

Diagram 5-9
8 23.�e2?
The only move is 23.Wd l ! , so that after 23 . . . ixh3
7
24.gxh3 We4t 25 .\t>gl E:g6t 26.\t>fl = the white king
6 retains the option of escaping via e2.
5 23 ixh3!-+
••.

Now this sacrifice wins.

4
24.£4
3 White overlooked that 24.gxh3 We4t 2 5 . f3 E:xf3
2 26.lLld2 is answered by a double check and mate.
Diagram 5-l 0
24 .ixg2t 25.�xg2 �h5t 26.�h2
•••

a b c d e f g h Or 26.\t>gl E:g6-+ .
26 �f3t 27.�g2 gh6t 28.i>gl gg6
•.•

Diagram 5-l 0 ... 0-1

8
These examples show that the first player also has to
7 be careful in open positions and that he must not
6 neglect his development.
It is sometimes better not to accept a 'present' from
5
one's opponent, or else to return it later.
4 Of course, there is also a sort of inverted logic
3 saying that one should jump at a material advantage,
neutralize the opponent's initiative and later turn the
2
material advantage into the full point. But not many
1 players are able to defend in such a clever way.
a b c d e f g h

58
 Exercises

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

a b c d e f g h

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

59
 Exercises
)- Ex. 5-7 -( ** !:::,.
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3

1
a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

60
 Solutions
Ex. 5-l Here too, the computer finds an alternative
win: 29 . . . gf5 and it is only after 30.Wd3 that
P.Leko - M.Adams
Dortmund 1999
30 . . . tt:l e3! (also 2 points) is played.
30.fxe3
I .e4 e5 2 . tt:l f3 tt'l c6 3 . .ib5 a6 4 . .ia4 tt'l f6 5 . 0-0 30.Wxe3 Wxd i-+
.ie7 6.gei b5 7 . .ib3 0-0 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 30 Wfe2
••.

tt:lxd5 I O.tt:lxe5 tt:lxe5 l l .gxe5 c6 I 2.d4 .id6 (another I point)

1 3 .gei Wh4 I 4.g3 Wh3 I 5 .ge4 .ib7 I 6.gh4 Threatening . . ,gf} #.
We6 I 7. tt:l d2 f5 I 8 .Wh5 h6 I 9. tt:l f3 .ie7 3 I .i.f2 YNxflt 32.<;!;>hi YNxg3 33.axb5 grs
20.gh3 c5 2 l .dxc5 .ixc5 22 . .if4 gae8 23.gdl 34.YNdst <i!?h7 35.Wfd3 YNg6
ge7 24 ..ig5 gd7 25 .gei Wb6 26.ge2 g;,h7 0-1
27.gh4 a5
Diagram Ex. 5-1 Ex. 5-3
28.i.xh6! R.Ponomariov - V.Anan
(2 points) Linares 2002
The decisive combination.
The computer move 28 .ge8! (also 2 points) I .e4 e5 2.tt:lf3 tt:l c6 3 . .ib5 a6 4 . .ia4 tt:l f6 5 . 0-0
is enough for a win as well: 28 . . . gxe8 .ie7 6.ge i b5 7 . .ib3 0-0 8.c3 d5 9.exd5
(28 . . . .ixf2t 29.'�?fl .ic5 30.gxf8 .ixf8 tt:lxd5 I O.tt:lxe5 tt:l xe5 l l .gxe5 c6 1 2. d4 .id6
3 1 ..ixh6 gxh6 32.Wxf5 t+-) 29 .Wxe8 Wc6 1 3 .ge l Wh4 I 4 . g3 Wh3 I 5 .ge4 g5 I 6.We2
(29 . . ..ixf2t 30.<it>fi +-) 30 . .if4+- f5 I 7 . .ixd5t cxd5 1 8 .ge6 f4 I 9.gxd6 .ig4
28 Wfxh6
.•. 20.Wfl Wxfl t 2 l .g;,xfl gae8 22 . .id2 .ih3t
28 . . . gxh6 29.tt:lg5t <;t>gs (29 . . . <;t>hs 30.ge6 23.<;t>gi fxg3 24.hxg3 ge2 25 . .ie3
.ixf2t 3 I .<;t>fl tt'l e3t 32.<;t>e2 .if3t 33.tt'lxf3+-) Diagram Ex. 5-3
30.ge6 .ixf2t 3 I .<;t>fl tt:l e3t 32.gxe3t+- 25 .. J::& xe3!
28 . . . .ixf2t 29.<;t>fl Wxh6 (29 . . . gxh6 ( I point)
30.tt:lg5t <;t>gs 3 I .ge6+-) 30.Wg5 +- This forces the draw.
29.Wfg5! a4 30.ge6! Black should avoid 25 . . . ge i t 26.g;,h2 .if5 ?
1-0 27.gxd5 .ie4 28 .gxg5 t g;,f7 29.tt:l d2!+-,
although in this line Black can play 26 . . . g4!?
Ex. 5-2 (I point) and retain drawing chances.
P.Leko - P.Svidler
26.fxe3 gn t 27.<i!?h2 g4
(another I point)
Dortmund 1 998
Threatening a perpetual check with . . . gfzt.
l .e4 e5 2 . tt:l f3 tt:l c6 3 . .ib5 a6 4 . .ia4 tt:l f6 5 . 0-0 28.gxd5
.ie7 6.ge l b5 7 . .ib3 0-0 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 28.tt:ld2?! gxa i 29.gxd5 gxa2t
tt:lxd5 1 0 .tt:lxe5 tt:lxe5 l l .gxe5 c6 1 2.d3 llz_llz
.id6 1 3 .gel Wh4 1 4.g3 Wh3 1 5 .ge4 Wf5
1 6. tt:l d2 Wg6 1 7.ge l f5 I 8 .tt:lf3 f4 I 9 .tt:le5 Ex. 5-4
.ixe5 20.gxe5 fxg3 2 1 .hxg3 .ig4 22.We l .if3
23 . .id2 gae8 24.a4 h6 25 . .id i gxe5 26.Wxe5
.ixd i 27.gxd i Wxd3 28 .Wd4 Wf3 29 . .ie i
Diagram Ex. 5-2 l .e4 e5 2 . tt'l f3 tt:lc6 3 . .ib5 a6 4 ..ia4 tt'l f6
29 tt:le3!!
••• 5 . 0-0 .ie7 6.gei b5 7 ..ib3 0-0 8 . c3 d5
(2 points) 9.exd5 tt:lxd5 I O.tt'lxe5 tt:l xe5 l l .gxe5 tt:l f6

6I
 Solutions
1 2.�e 1 .id6 1 3 .h3 tt:l g4 1 4 .Wff3 Wfh4 1 5 .d4 A more resilient try is 2 1 .gxf4 and now:
tt:'lxf2 1 6.�e2 .ig4 a) 2 l . . .�g6!? 22 . .ixd5t cxd5 23.�xa6 .ie2t
Diagram Ex. 5-4 24.�xg6 .ixd3+
17.hxg4! b) 2 1 . . .�h6! is even stronger: 22.�e2 �e8
(2 points) 23.�g2 �xe3 24.Wffl ie2! (24 . . . �g6? 25.�xa6)
1 7.Wfxf2? is bad: 1 7 . . . .ig3 1 8 .Wffl ( 1 8 .Wfxg3 2 5 .Wff2 ib5 26.�a 1 �e2-+
Wfxg3 1 9.hxg4 �ae8-+) 1 8 . . . .ixe2 1 9 .Wfxe2 (another 1 point for 2 l . . .�g6 or 2 1 . . .�h6)
�ae8-+ 2l. .. :Sxe1 t 22.he1 :Se8!
17 ... i.h2t 1S.c;f;>fl i.g3 If 23 . .if2, then 23 . . . .ie2! 24.Wfc2 .ixd2-+ .
1 8 . . . tt:'l h 1 is followed by 1 9 .�e3 tt:l g3t 0-1
20.� e 1 tt:l f5t 2 1 .�e2+-.
19.:Sxfl �h1 t 20.c;f;>e2 i.xfl Ex. 5-6
If 20 . . . Wfxcl , then 2 1 .-ixflt 'it>h8 22.Wfxg3
A.Boucchechter - B.S ass
Wfxb2t 23.tt:ld2 Wfxa 1 24.�fl Wfb2 25 .Wfd3+-. Tel Aviv Olympiad 1964
2l .id2!?±
(another 1 point) l .e4 e5 2 . tt:l f3 tt:l c6 3 . .ib5 a6 4 . .ia4 tt:l f6 5 . 0-0
2l. .. i.h4 22.�h3 :SaeSt 23.c;f;>d3 �fl t .ie7 6.�e 1 b5 7.ib3 0-0 8 . c3 d5 9.exd5
24.c;f;>c2 i.fl 25.�f3! �g1 26.i.d5 c5 tt:lxd5 1 0. tt:lxe5 tt:lxe5 1 l .�xe5 c6 1 2.d4 .id6
27.dxc5 i.xc5 28.b4! id6 29.a4! aS 30.axb5 1 3 .�e 1 Wfh4 1 4.g3 Wfh3 1 5 . .ie3 .ig4 1 6.Wfd3
axb4 3 l .:Sa6 bxc3 32.lthc3 i.b4 33.b6 i.xc3 �ae8 1 7. tt:l d2 �e6 1 8 . .id 1 ?! .ixd 1 1 9.�axd 1
34.i.xc3 h6 35.b7 :Se3 36.Lf7t! f5 20.Wffl Wfh5 2 l .Wfe2
In this famous game Capablanca had to Diagram Ex. 5-6
demonstrate all his ability in defence. 2l. ..�g6!
1-0 (2 points)
Of course Spassky wants to hang on to the
Ex. 5-5 queens and to attack.
2 1 . . .Wfxe2 offers too little: 22.�xe2 f4
A.Novo ashin - B.S ass
( 1 consolation point) 23.gxf4 tt:lxf4 24 . .ixf4
USSR Ch, Leningrad 1963
�xe2 25 . .ixd6 �fxf2 26.tt:l e4+
1 .e4 e5 2.tt:lf3 tt:l c6 3 . .ib5 a6 4 . .ia4 tt:l f6 5 . 0-0 22.c;f;>h1
.ie7 6.�e 1 b5 7 . .ib3 0-0 8 . c3 d5 9.exd5 tt:l xd5 Or 22.Wfd3 f4! 23 .Wfxg6 �xg6-+ and Black
1 0.tt:'l xe5 tt:'lxe5 1 1 .�xe5 c6 1 2.d4 .id6 1 3 .�e 1 wins a piece.
Wfh4 1 4.g3 Wfh3 1 5 . .ie3 .ig4 1 6.Wfd3 �ae8 22 ... f4! 23.gxf4 ltlxf4 24.�fl ltl d3 25.�g2
1 7. tt:l d2 �e6 1 8 .a4 bxa4 1 9 .�xa4 f5 20.f4 �h5 26.ltlfl �xe3! 27.llhe3
Diagram Ex. 5-5 27.�xe3 Wfxd 1 -+
20 ...ixf4!! 27 ... :Sxfl 28.:Sxd3 :Sxg2 29.c;f;>xg2 �g6t!
(2 points) 0-1
Spassky destroys his opponent's castled
position. Ex. 5-7
2l .if2 R.Fischer - .Donner
This does not help at all. Santa Monica 1966
Not much better is: 2 l ..ixd5 cxd5 22.gxf4
(22.�xa6 .ixg3-+ )22 . . . �h6 23.�e2 �e8 l .e4 e5 2.tt:lf3 tt:lc6 3 . .ib5 a6 4 . .ia4 tt:l f6 5 . 0-0
24.�g2 �xe3 25 .Wffl �g6 26.�xa6 �xa6 .ie7 6.�e1 b5 7 . .ib3 0-0 8 .c3 d5 9.exd5 tt:lxd5
27.Wfxa6 �e1 t 2 8 . tt:l f1 Wfe3t 29.�f2 h6-+ 1 0 .tt:lxe5 tt:lxe5 l l .�xe5 c6 1 2 .d4 .id6 1 3 .�e 1

62
 Solutions
'1Wh4 1 4.g3 '1Wh3 1 5 .j,e3 j,g4 1 6.'1Wd3 lL'lxe3 1 8 .'1Wc2 j,g4 1 9.j,e7 can be met by
1 7.:1l:xe3 c5 1 8 .'\Wfl '1Wh6 1 9.lt:'ld2 �adS 20.lt:'lf3 1 9 . . . '1Wf4±, with the point 20.�e4 j,f5 .
j,xf3 2 l .�xf3 cxd4 22.cxd4 '1Wd2 23.�d3 1 8 .'\Wb l ! i s more precise: 1 8 . . . j,g4 1 9.j,e7
'1Wg5 24.�c l �c8 2 5 .�dc3 �xc3 26.bxc3 j,a3 '1Wh6 ( 1 9 . . . '1Wf4 20.E:e4! j,f5 2 l .�xf4 j,xb 1
27.�c2 �c8 28 .c4 bxc4 29.j,xc4 '1Wf5 22.�xb 1 j,xf4 23.j,xf8+-) 20.h3+-
Diagram Ex. 5-7 18 ig4 19.ie7 i.x£3 20.ixd6 ixe2
.•.

30.id3? 2 I .ixf8± ih5

White is better, but on account of the 2 1 . . . 'it>xf8!? 22.E:xe2 lL'l d3 23.�d 1 lL'l c5 ±
bishops of opposite colours he must avoid all 22.ia3 l£lc4 23.ixc4 bxc4 24.E:e7 ia5
unnecessary exchanges. Fischer's careless move 25.E:cl h6?? 26.E:e5
allows Black to force the draw. 1-0
White should defend his rook with 30.'1Wb 1 ! ?
or 30.'1Wd 1 ! ? or 30.'1We2!?. Ex. 5-9
( 1 point for any of these)
P.Leko - V.Anand
30 �xc2! 3 I .ixf5 E:cl
•••
Cap d'Agde (rapid) 2003
(another 1 point for this variation)
32.'\Wxcl bel 33.@fl h6 34.@e2 @£8 l .e4 e5 2.lL'lf3 lL'l c6 3.j,b5 a6 4.j,a4 lt:'l f6 5 . 0-0
lf2-1f2 j,e7 6.�e 1 b5 7.j,b3 0-0 8.c3 d5 9.exd5
lt:'lxd5 1 0.lL'lxe5 lL'l xe5 1 l .�xe5 c6 1 2.E:e 1 j,d6
Ex. 5-8 1 3 .g3 j,f5 1 4.d4 '1Wd7 1 5 .j,e3 �ae8 1 6. lt:'l d2
j,g4 1 7 .'1Wc2 j,f5 1 8 .'\Wc l h5 1 9 . lt:'l f3 j,g4
P.Le o - N.S ort
20.lt:'lh4 �e6 2 l .j,d 1 f5 22.j,xg4 hxg4 23 .j,g5
Cap d'Agde (rapid) 1996
f4 24.'1Wd2 �fe8 25.E:xe6 '1Wxe6 26.gxf4 We2
l .e4 e5 2 . lL'l f3 lL'l c6 3.j,b5 a6 4.j,a4 lt:'l f6 5 . 0-0 27.f5 '1We4 28.�fl j,f4 29.j,xf4 lt:'lxf4 30.f3
j,e7 6.E:e 1 b5 7.j,b3 0-0 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 gxf3 3 l .lt:'lxf3 �f8 32.'1We 1 '1Wxf5 33.c;t>h1
lt:'lxd5 1 0.lt:'lxe5 lt:'lxe5 1 l .�xe5 c6 1 2.d3 j,d6 Wh3 34.'1Wf2 lL'l h 5 3 5 .'it>g1 �f4 36.'1We3 Wg4t
1 3 .�e 1 j,c7 1 4.lt:Jd2 lt:'l f4 37.c;t>h 1
Diagram Ex. 5-8 Diagram Ex. 5-9
37 �g3t!
•••

(1 point) (1 point)
White quickly finishes his development and 38.hxg3 f«h3t 39.@g1 f«xg3t 40.@h1
takes the initiative. E:h4t!
1 5 l£lxd3
••. (another 1 point)
1 5 . . . '\Wf6 1 6.j,xf4 j,xf4 1 7.d4! j,g4 1 8 .h3 j,h5 4I .l£lxh4 f«xe3-+ 42.�g2 f«e2 43.E:f5
1 9.'1Wd3± Almasi - Blatny, Germany 1 995. f«xb2 44.E:c5 f«xa2 45.E:xc6 a5
16.ig5! 0-1
(another 1 point)
16 f«d6 17.E:e3
••• Ex. 5-10
1 7.j,e7+- is also good.
V.Kramnik - P.Leko
17 c!£Jxb2
•.•
World Ch (6), Brissago 2004
1 7 . . . lt:'l f4 1 8 .j,e7 '1Wg6 1 9 . lt:'l h4 '1Wh6
20.j,xf8+- 1 .e4 e5 2.lL'lf3 lL'l c6 3.j,b5 a6 4.j,a4 lt:'l f6 5 . 0-0
1 7 . . . lt:'l c5 1 8 .j,e7 'IWxd l t 1 9 .E:xd 1 lt:'l xb3 j,e7 6.�e1 b5 7.j,b3 0-0 8 .h3 j,b7 9.d3 d6
20.j,xf8± 1 0.a3 lt:'l a5 1 l .j,a2 c5 1 2. lt:'l bd2 lt:'l c6 1 3 .c3
18.f«e2 Wd7 1 4.lt:Jfl

63
 Solutions
Diagram Ex. 5-10 Ex. 5-12
14 d5!
•••
V.Anand - M.Adams
(2 points) Dorrmund 2000
A typical pawn sacrifice.
The alternative is 14 .. . lt:J d8 1 5 .lt:Je3 tt:l e6 l .e4 e5 2 . tt:l f3 tt:l c6 3 .ib5 a6 4.ia4 tt:l f6 5 . 0-0
( 1 point) . ie7 6.E!:e 1 b5 7.ib3 0-0 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 tt:lxd5
15.ig5!? 1 0.tt:lxe5 tt:lxe5 1 l .Ei:xe5 c6 1 2.Ei:e l id6 1 3 .d3
1 5 .exd5 tt:lxd5 1 6.tt:lxe5 tt:l xe5 1 7.E!:xe5 if6 Wfh4 1 4.g3 Wfh3 1 5 .E!:e4 Wff5 1 6. tt:l d2 Wfg6
1 8 .E!:e 1 :!::!: adS� 1 7.l:!e l f5 1 8 .a4 E!:b8 1 9 .axb5 axb5 20.tt:l e4
1 5 . tt:l g3= fxe4 2 1 .dxe4 ig4 22.Wfd4 if3 23.exd5 c5
1 5 .Wfe2= 24.Wfh4 E!:be8 25 .ie3 Wff5
15 dxe4 16.dxe4 c4! 17.llJe3
••• Diagram Ex. 5-12
1 7.ixf6!? Wfxd 1 1 8 .E!:axd 1 ixf6 1 9 .tt:le3 26.E:acl!
E!:fd8 20.lt:Jd5= ( 2 points)
17 J�fd8 18.llJf5 We6 19.We2 if8 20.ib 1
.• White defends actively by threatening ic2.
h6; The computer finds equality after 26.if4
lf2-lf2 E!:xe 1 t 27.E!:xe 1 ixf4 28.Wfxf4 Wfh3 29.d6t
c4 30.ixc4 t bxc4 3 1 .'1Mfxc4 t 'it>h8 32.Wffl
Ex. 5-1 1 ( 1 point) , but I do not like the final position
for White.
V.Anand - Z.Hracek
Bundesliga 2002
26 ie4?!
.••

26 . . . E!:e4? 27.ic2 E!:xh4 28.ixf5 +-

l .e4 e5 2.tt:lf3 tt:l c6 3 .ib5 a6 4.ia4 tt:l f6 5 . 0-0 26 . . . h6! is better: 27.ic2 ie4 (27 . . . Wfxd5
ie7 6.l:!el b5 7.ib3 0-0 8 . c3 d5 9 . exd5 28 .Wfh3;!;) 28 .ixc5 ixc5 29 .ixe4 Wfxf2t
tt:lxd5 1 0.tt:lxe5 tt:lxe5 l l .Ei:xe5 ib7 1 2.d4 if6 30. m h 1 ie3�
1 3 .Ei: e 1 l:!e8 1 4.id2! a5 1 5 .tt:l a3 b4 1 6. tt:l c2 (another 1 point for this variation)
E!:xe l t 1 7.Wfxe 1 a4 1 8 .ixd5 Wfxd5 1 9. tt:l e3 3 l .Ei:fl (3 l .Ei:cd 1 E!:f4!) 3 1 . . .Wfe2 32.E!:fe 1
Wfe6 20.h3 bxc3 2 l .bxc3 ig5 Wff2=
Diagram Ex. 5- 1 1 27.id1 ixd5?!
22.tt:lfl !? 27 . . . Wfxd5 28 .ih5;!;
(2 points) 28.ic2 WO??
It is quite logical for White, who has an 28 . . . ie4 29.ixe4 l:!xe4 30.Wfg5 ±
extra pawn, to try to simplify the position. 29.Wxh7t 'it>f7 30.Wf5t+- �gs 3 t .Wxa
22.E!:b 1 ?! ie4 23 .Ei:b2 a3 would give Black ixa 32.id3 c4 33.ifl l:!e5 34.ig2 ih5
good counterplay. 35.id4 E:xe1 t 36.E:xe1 if7 37.l:!a1 b4
22 if6?
•.. 38.cxb4 ixb4 39.l:!a8 E:xa8 40.ixa8 g5
22 . . . Wfc6! 23.f3 l:!e8 24.Wff2 ie7� gives 41.�g2 �h7 42.ie4t �h6 43.ie3 �h5
Black better chances of drawing. 44.h3 ie6 45.g4t
23.Wxe6 fxe6 24.if4± c5 25.dxc5 l:!c8 1-0
26.id6 ixc3 27.l:!cl ib2 28.l:!c4 ic6
29.llJ e3 !!aS 30.!!b4 ic3 3 I .l:!b6 ie8
32.llJc4 E:c8 33.if4! g5
33 . . . E!:xc5 34.tt:ld6+-
34.ie3
1-0

64
 Scoring
Maximum number of points is 28

24 points and above .

..
.
. .
.
.. . >- Excellent
1 9 points and above · .. . . . . .. ..
. >- Good
14 points· . .. . · · · · . . . . . .. ..
.
>- Pass mark

Ifyou scored less than 14 points, we recommend that you read the
chapter again and repeat the exercises which you got wrong.

65