THE BIG CLAMPAn Anti-Sicilian System

Lawrence Day I.M.

THE BIG CLAMPAn Anti-Sicilian

System

Lawrence Day I.M.

The Chess Player, Nottingham

First published 1984© The Chess Player Ltd 1984ISBN 0 906042 35 6Printed and bound in England byThe Chess Player Ltd.12 Burton Ave., Carlton, Nottingham NG4 1PTThe two articles which form the major part of thisbook were originally published in Modern Chess TheoryWord.docx and pdf versions 2013www.fam-lysgaard.dk/TBC.htmlJørgen Lysgaardjoergen@fam-lysgaard.dk

SICILIAN – THE BIG CLAMP

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

1 g3 c52 Jg2 Kc63 e4

! from Larsen3 … g64 d3 Jg75 f4 d66 Kf3 Kf67 O-O O-O8 c3 Lb89 Me2 Ke8

10 Je3 Kc711 d4

There is already enormous press-ure on Black’s position. The position has some similarities to Closed Sici-lian-type middlegames but with the

critical difference that Black does not have control of d4. True Black’s

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

For a while Karpov defended very logically:

11 … cxd412 cxd4 Jg413 Ld1 d514 e5 Md715 Kc3 Lfc816 Mf1 b5

Larsen considers this nervous recommending …ka8 or …f5, but conceding White the advantage.17 h3 Jxf3 18 Jxf3 b4 19 Jg4 e6 20 Ka4 Ka5 21 Kc5 Me8 22 Je2 Kb7 23 Kxb7 Lxb7 24 Ldc1 Md7 25 Lc2 b3? 26 axb3 Lxb3 27 Mc1! Lb7 28 Ja6.

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

Whether or not Black holds the draw in the endgame, the opening must be rated as a great success for White, though it is not exactly clear where Black’s play can be improved. I was very interested in the initial phase of this game because I had adopted this cramping strategy, nick- named the Big Clamp, in a number of games played in Toronto during the previous year, e.g. Day-MacLeod, Toronto Closed, February 1978:

1 e4 c52 d3 Kc6

In my opinion Black should play 2…d5 along the lines of the English Opening, but with reversed colours.

3 g3 g64 Jg2 Jg75 f4 e6

Here 5…d6 transposes into the previous game.

6 Kf3 Kge77 c3 d5

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

8 Me2 b69 Ka3 Ja6

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

10 e5 Kf5

The critical point in d4 about which the tactics are revolving. On 10…d4 11 cxd4, cxd4 is necessary because of the long diagonal pin. With 10…lc8, unpinning, White would have to cover d4 again with a piece, either by kc2 or je3, or else answer d5–d4 with c3–c4, Black probably avoided lc8 because he wanted to preserve the option of castling queenside.

11 Je3 h512 Jf2

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

12 … Md713 Lc1

This discourages 13…O-O-O? which would allow 14 b4!

13 … Jf8Threatening c5–c4 followed

by jf8xa3.14 Kc2 Je715 h3 Lc816 Md2

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

16 … Nf8?!

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

17 Ne2!

Very strong, connecting the rooks. Because of h-file pins 17... kh6 18 g4! anyway.

17 … b518 g4 Kg719 b4!

White controls the play on both wings.

19 … d4

The best hope for complications.

20 cxd4 cxb421 Ka1 Jb722 Kb3 Md823 Me3 a524 Lhg1!

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

24 … Kb825 Lxc8 Jxc826 Kfd2

Taking control of the long dia-gonal.

26 … Ka627 Lc1 a4

28 Ka5!

A finesse after which everything comes with tempo.

28 … Jd729 Kb7 Mb630 Kc5 Jc6?

A blunder in a bad position.31 Kxe6 fxe6 32 Lxc6 Ma7 33 Lc8 Ke8 34 Me4 Md7 35 Mc6 Mxc6 36 Jxc6 Kac7 37 f5 gxf5 38 gxf5 exf5 39 d5 Nf7 40 d6 Kxd6 41 Lxh8 b3 42 axb3 a3 43 exd6 a2 44 Jd4 Jf6 45 dxc7 Jxd4 47 La8 Resigns.

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

Nickoloff-Brage, Student Olym-piad, Mexico City, 1978:

1 e4 c52 d3 Kc63 g3 g64 Jg2 Jg75 f4 e66 c3

A better move order than 6 kf3 as in the previous game.

6 ... Kge77 Kf3

Transposing, but 7 je3!? seems stronger.

7 ... O-O8 Ka3 Lb89 O-O b5

10 Kc2 b411 d4 cxd4?

After this Black soon gets into a passive position. The logical idea was to open as much space on the queen-side as possible by 11...bxc3 12 bxc3 cxd4 13 cxd4 ma5 or 13...ja6 with a struggle in prospect.

12 cxd4 d5

Note Black’s d- and b-pawns have both gone to the fourth rank in one jump. This is why 7 je3 would have won a tempo.

13 e5 b3!14 axb3 Lxb315 Ke3 Mb616 Lf2 a517 Jf1!

Last move 16...ja6? 17 lxa6. Now 17...ja6? 18 jxa6.

17 ... Jd718 Jd3 Lb819 Jc2 Lb420 Ja4!

The bishop has found a very fine post. The threat is kc2.

20 ... Ma7

21 Kc2 L4b622 b3 Mc723 Jd2 Jf824 Me1 Kb425 Kxb4 axb426 Lc1 Mb727 Jxd7 Mxd728 g4!

Black’s pieces are tied to the def-ence of the b-pawn, and to prevent-ing f4–f5.

28 ... Lc829 La1 Lc230 Mb1 Lc731 Md3 La732 Laf1 Mb533 Me3 Lba834 Kh4 Kc635 f5 Mb636 Kf3 La1

Black finally forces an exchange of rooks, reducing the f-file pressure.

37 Mf4 Lxf138 Lxf1 Jg739 Ja3 h640 h4 Mb541 h5

Finally forcing open the kingside since 41...g5 42 kxg5 gives a deadly attack.

41 ... gxf542 gxf5 exf543 Mxf5 Kd844 Lf2 La145 Ng2 Mc646 Kh2 Me647 Mf3 Lb1?!

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

48 La2! Mc649 Kg4 Lxb350 Kf6 Nf8

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

51 Jd2! Mc4

51 lxf3 jxb4 and mates.52 La8! Jxf6

Now 52...lxf3 53 lxd8 mates.

53 gxf6!

The queen magically continues to hang! Despite the lack of material on the board, the attack is decisive.53…Ne8 54 Mg4 Mc6 55 Mg8 Nd7 56 Mxd8 Ne6 57 Ma7 and Black resigned.

This game has a remarkable queen sacrifice culminating a very smoothly prosecuted middlegame. The break on the f-file is a strong and logical plan and it is difficult for Black to find any counterplay on the queen- side. In the early middlegame

the bishop manoeuvre from g2 to a4 is a remarkable theme which leads to White obtaining the initiative on the queenside, and forcing the pawns to lock in such a way that the white target at b3 is covered from the black rooks.

From Black's point of view it is sensible to play the advance f7–f5 (particularly if his king is located on the kingside). This forms a sort of left-handed Benoni structure in which Black maintains a strong point against White’s kingside mass.Day-Ross, Toronto 1979:

1 e4 c52 f4 g6

3 d3 Jg74 c3

Probably the most flexible move order, producing a pawn structure familiar from Antoshin’s Ukrainian variation of the Dutch Defence. In-stead 4 g3 d5! 5 e5 f6 6 exf6 exf6 7 jg2 ke7 8 kf3 kbc6 9 O-O occurred in Day-Angantysson, World Open 1979, when Black adopted the faulty strategy of allowing d3–d4 which could be prevented now by d5–d4! with Black holding the space advent-age. Instead 9... je6 10 le1 md7 11 d4 cxd4?! (better 11...c4) 12 kxd4 kxd4 13 mxd4 O-O 14 kc3 jf7 15 mc5! lfe8 16 je3 lec8 17 ma3 d4 18 lad1 f5 19 jf2 kc6 20 kb5 jd5? 21 md6 mxd6 22 kxd6 jxg2 23 kxc8 jf3 24 le8 jf8 25 ld3 je4 26 ke7 nf7 27 lxa8 Resigns.

4 ... Kc65 Je3!?

Again 5 g3 d5 when Day-Benko, World Open 1979, continued 6 me2 d4 7 c4 e5 8 jh3 kge7 9 jxc8 mxc8 10 kf3 f6 11 fxe5 fxe5 12 O-O O-O 13 ka3 a6 14 kc2 b5 15 b3 md7 16 jd2 lab8 17 kce1 lb7 18 lc1 b4 with an eventual draw.

5 ... d66 Je2 Lb8

Against 6...kf6 White has the very sharp possibility of 7 g4!? aiming for an immediate kingside expansion with h4–h5. Also a plan is 6...e5 as in Bolton-Sofrevsky, Canadian Open 1978, aiming to open some play in the centre.

7 a4 a68 Kf3 Kf6

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

9 Kbd2 O-O10 h3 b511 axb5 axb512 d4 cxd413 cxd4 d514 e5 Ke8

On 14...ke4 15 kxe4 dxe4 16 kg5 jf5 17 g4 h6 18 gxf5 hxg5 19 fxg6 with a big edge; hence Black is driven back to a passive position.

15 g4

Preventing jf5.15 ... Kc7

16 Kb3 f617 Lc1 Lb618 O-O f519 Ke1 e6

With Black's 15 bulwarked he is safe from a direct attack on the king- side. In order to make progress White must combine play on both wings. The first step is to take possession of the c-file.

20 Lf2 Lf721 Kd3

Securing c2 for the rook by pre-venting kb4.

21 ... Jf822 Jf1 Ke6

23 Lfc2 Ka7

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

24 Jd2 b425 Me1 Lb826 Mg3 Lg727 Ke1 Mb628 Md3

Preventing kb5 and threatening lxc8

28 ... Jb729 La1

Simpler was 29 kf3 but White’s retreat induces Black to overextend on the queenside.

29 ... Kc730 Je3 Kcb531 Jf2 Lc832 La5 Lc433 La1 Lgc734 Nh2 Lxc235 Kxc2 Kc3?!

Superficially this appears strong, but it is refuted by a long tactical sequence:36 Jh4! Lc8 37 gxf5 exf5 38 bxe3 Lxc3 39 Me2 Lxb3 40 e6 Lb2 41 e7 Jxe7 42 Jxe7 b3 43 Jc5 Mc6 44 Jg2 Lxc2 45 Me7 (Decisive penetration) 45...Lxc5 46 dxc5 Kb5 47 Md8 Nf7 48 Le1 and Black resigned.

This game shows the long term disadvantage of Black's lack of space. White had more lines of communica-tion between the two halves of the board and just at the moment when Black seemed to make in-roads on the queenside, the

field of battle shifted to the other wing where the king could not fend for himself. Notice the tactics do not appear until close to the time control. This is an important practical consideration.

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

Makarichev-Dolmatov, USSR Championship 1979:

1 e4 c52 g3 Kc6

The test of White's move order is 2...d5 3 exd5 mxd5 4 kf3 jg4 5 jg2 me6 6 nf1 when Black can choose between 6...kc6 7 h3 jh5 or 6... jh3!? 7 b4!?

3 Jg2 g64 d3 Jg75 f4 d66 Kf3 e6

6...e5 7 c3 kge7 8 ka3!? O-O 9 O-O d5? 10 exd5 kxd5 11 kxe5 kxe5 12 fxe5 jxe5 13 mb3 kb6 14 mb5 mc7 15 je3 jd6 16 ma5!Day-Vranesic, Canadian Championship 1978.

7 O-O Kge78 c3 O-O9 Ja3

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

9 ... b610 Jf2!

Here the bishop is effectively posted where it cannot be attacked by the advancing d-pawn or the ke7. Note also that after g3–g4 it can suddenly appear at h4, hitting the weak f6 square. Finally the retreat clears the e-file for occupation by the rook.

10 ... Md7

Preparing for f7–f5 by bolstering the e6 square.

11 Le1 h6

Necessary to prevent kg5.12 d4 cxd413 cxd4 Jb714 Kc3 Nh715 h4 Lae816 Jh3 f5

This thrust marks the culmination of Black's strategy. The f5 square appears completely cemented with five defenders coordinated in its defence, however the stability is illusory as White can knock out the defending pawns by distraction tactics after which

the critical square falls into White's possession,

17 h5! gxh518 d5! exd519 exf5 Kxf520 Lxe8 Mxe821 Jxf5 Lxf522 Mc2 Jc823 Le1 Md724 Kh4 Ng825 Kxf5 Mxf526 Mxf5 Jxf5

The combinational transaction on f5 has left White with a decisive material advantage.27 Kxd5 Nf7 28 Lc1 Jd7 29 b3 Jb2 30 Lc2 Jf6 31 b4 Jd8 32 b5 Ka5 33 a4 Jf5 34 Lc3 Kb7 35 Kb4 Kc5 36 Kc6 Jf6 37 Jd4 Kxa4 38 La3 Jc2 39 Jxf6 Nxf6 40 Kb4 Jd1 41 Kd5 and Black resigned.

Day-Benko, Continental Open, New York 1980:

1 e4 c52 f4 g63 d3 Jg74 c3 Kc65 Je3 d66 Je2 Kf6

In Day-Christiansen, World Open 1980, 6...f5!? 7 kd2?! (also 7 exf5 or 7 kh3!?) 7...kf6 8 h3?! e5! 9 g4 O-O 10 gxf5 gxf5 11 mb3 nh8 12 fxe5 kxe5 13 O-O-O me7! 14 mc2 jd7 15 kgf3 kxd3!! soon led to a decisive plus for Black, although after a series of adventures the game was ultimately drawn.

7 Kd2 O-O?

This is certainly a faulty strategy as White obtains a natural kingside attack without allowing any serious counterplay on the queenside or in the centre.

8 g4! b59 a3

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

9 ... Jb710 Jf3!

It is a wise precaution to reinforce the e4-bulwark as otherwise the lever c5–c4 may force open the centre. On the other hand 10 jf3 also con-tributes to White's kingside attack as the second rank becomes an avenue for the white queen to reach the h-file

10 ... a511 h4 b412 h5

White has a winning

advantage already.12 ... Kd713 hxg6 hxg614 Lc1 e6

A useful move creating the poss-ibility of reinforcing the shaky king- side defence by an eventual mf6.

15 Me2 Le816 Mh2 bxc3

Black picks this moment to ex-change in the hope of 17 mh7? nf8 18 bxc3 kf6! and kg8! when Black prevents the exchange of black-squared bishops and easily holds off the attack.

17 bxc3 Lb8

The rook later becomes a target here white counterplay by ja6 and lb2 is easily foiled. An alternative defensive strategy involved placing the knights at f8 and f7, trying to guard the h-file intrusion squares.

18 Je2 d519 Kgf3 d420 cxd4 Kxd421 f5 exf522 gxf5 Kxf523 Jf4 Kd424 Mh7 Nf825 Jd6 Le726 Kxd4

Also possible was 26 mh8 jxh8 27 lxh8 ng7 28 lxd8 lxd8 29 jxe7 winning a piece immediately.26...Jxd4 27 Kf3 Kf6 28 Mh6 Ne8 29 Jxb8 Mxb8 30

Mxh8 and Black resigned.

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

The following game shows a simi-lar pattern.

Day-Blumenfeld, Marshall Invita-tional 1980:

1 e4 c52 f4 Kc63 Kf3 e64 Me2 d6

For the natural 4...kf6 see the next game.

After 4...kge7 5 b3!? d5 6 jb2 dxe4 (better than 6...d4 7 c3 e5 8 mf2! kg6 9 f5± Bohatirchuk-Heiden-held, corr 1954) 7 mxe4 kf5 8 ka3 White held a small edge in Day-Rantanen, Malta 1980.

A purer form of the Big Clamp would occur after 4...kge7 5 d3 d5 6 c3 g6 7 ka3 jg7 8 mf2 b6 9 je2 a6 10 O-O jd7 11 jd2 mc7 12 lac1 O-O 13 mh4 f6 14 kc2 lad8 15 ke3 f5 16 e5 h6 17 nh1 je8 18 kd1 d4 19 c4 ma7 20 kf2 nf7 21 lg1 lh8 22 g4 mb7 23 h3 kb8 24 nh2 jc6 25 mg3 ldg8 26 b4 kd7 27 bxc5 bxc5 28 lb1 mc7 29 gxf5 exf5 30 h4 jf8 31 mh3 ne6 32 ke4 jxe4 33 dxe4 nf7 34 jd3 mc6 35 lbe1 ne8 36 h5 fxe4 37

jxe4 ma4 38 hxg6 jg7 39 me6 lf8 40 f5 mxa2 41 jc6 1-0 Bohatirchuk-Yanofsky, Can-adian Championship 1951.

5 c3 Mc76 Ka3 Kf67 Kc2 Ja78 d3 O-O9 g3 b6

(Diagram)

10 Jh3!

White intends g4–g5 to knock the knight from f6 and eliminate press-ure on e4, thus central prophylaxis

combines with kingside expansion.

10 ... Jb711 O-O Lfe812 g4 c413 d4!

After 13 dxc4 ka5 the centre would open which is completely contrary to White's strategy. Now 13...d5 14 e5 ke4 15 kd2 would leave a strong White attack on the f-line.

13 ,.. Ka514 Kd2 Jf815 g5 Kd716 Mf2 Le7

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

17 Ke3 g6?

On 17...e5 18 kf5 is strong but the weakness of f6 is decisive. 17...f6 was a better try.18 Kg4! Jg7 19 Mh4 Kf8 20 Jg2 Kc6 21 Kf6 Nh8 22 Lf3 e5 23 Lh3 h5 24 gxh6 and Black resigned.

In the two previous games Black lacked serious counterplay. The following game shows a better strat-egy whereby Black succeeds in slow-ing down the attack by obtaining targets on the queenside.

Day-Tisdall, Brighton 1980:

1 e4 c52 f4 e63 Me2 Kc64 Kf3 Kf65 c3 b6

Alternatives include the direct 5...d5 6 e5 kg8 7 d4 kh6 8 je3 cxd4 9 kxd4 kxd4 10 jxd4 kf5 as in Day-MacPhail, Hamilton 1980, when 11 jf2 leaves a slight edge for White, or 5...je7 6 ka3 O-O 7 kc2 b6 8 d3 ja6 9 lb1 b5 10 a3 b4 11 e5 kg4 12 axb4 cxb4 13 la1 jb7 14 d4 a5 15 md1 kh6 16 jd3 with a

large edge in Day-Stoll, Toronto Closed 1980.

6 g3 Je77 Ka3 Jb78 d3 a69 Kc2 b5

10 Jg2 Mc711 O-O O-O12 Nh1 Ka513 Kg5!?

Black was threatening c5–c4 undermining e4. The most solid defence was 13 kd2, preventing the counterplay which now ensues.

13 ... b414 c4 b315 Ke3 bxa216 Lxa2 Kb317 Kh3

Preparing the advance of the g-pawn.

17 ... Kd4

There were good arguments for kxc1 as later White controls the timing of the exchange of these pieces.

18 Md1 d619 Jd2 a520 Jc3 Kd721 g4 Jc622 g5 Lfb823 Mh5 a4

During the game both sides felt they held a slight advantage in this delicately balanced position.

24 Kf2!

This combines defence, by guard-ing d3, with attack involving kg4– h6. The direct 24 f5?! Allows ke5 protecting f7 while hitting d3.

24 ... Lb325 La3 Lxa326 bxa3 Lb827 K2g4

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

27 ... Md828 Jxd4 cxd429 Kc2 Kc530 Kxd4 Je831 f5! Jxg532 f6! Jxf6

Against 32...jd2 33 kf3 is very strong.

33 Kxf6 gxf6

34 Jh3?

The right move order was 34 mh6! kxd3 35 jh3 ke5 36 lg1 kg6 37 kxe6! fxe6 38 jxe6 jf7 (38...nh8 39 mf8! kxf8 40 lg8 mate) 39 jxf7 nxf7 40 mxh7 ne6 41 mxg6 mh8 42 c5! with a winning position.

34 ... Nf835 Mxh7 Ma5?

In time trouble Black falls apart. Necessary was 35...ne7.36 Jxe6 Kxe4 37 Mxe4 fxe6 38 Mxe6 Ma8 39 Ng1 Lb2 40 Mxf6 Ng8 41 Mf8 Nh7 42 Lf7 and Black resigned.

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

Larsen-O'Kelly, Havana 1967:

1 f4 c5 2 Kf3 g6 3 e4 Jg7 4 Je2 Kc6 5 O-O d6 6 d3 e6?! 6…lb8; 6…f5!? 7 a4 Kge7 8 c3 d5 9 Ka3 b6 10 e5 h5 11 Kc2 Kf5 12 b4! Jf8 13 Lb1 Je7 14 d4 cxb4 15 cxb4 a5 16 b5 Kb4 17 Kxb4 Jxb4 18 Lb3! Jd7 19 Jd2 Je7 20 Mc2 O-O Black has been trying to avoid castling since White can try open the kingside, how-ever he needs the lh8 to contest the c-file and so, reluctantly commits the king 21 Lc1 Lc8 22 Lc3 Lxc3 23 Mxc3 Jb4 24 Mb2 Je7 25 Jd3 Kg7 26 Je1 Mb8

27 Jh4 Jxh4 28 Kxh4 Lc8 29 Nf2 Lxc1 30 Mxc1 Md8 31 Kf3 Kf5 32 h3! Mc8 33 Mb2!

White retains the queens since the opening of the kingside will imperil the black monarch 33...Ng7 34 g4 hxg4 35 hxg4 Kh6 36 Ng3 Kg8 37 Kg5 Mc7 38 Ma3 Jc8 39 Kf3 Mb7 40 Md6 Jd7 41 Nf2 Jc8 42 Md8 Jd7 43 Ne2 Jc8 44 Nd2 and Black resigned as he has no constructive moves while White continues simply with g4–g5, kh2–g4–f6 winning.

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

Bronstein-Padevsky, Zagreb 1965:

1 f4 g62 Kf3 Jg73 e4 c54 c3 d55 e5 Kh6

Better 5...jg4.6 Jb5!? Jd77 Jxd7 Mxd78 d4 cxd49 cxd4 O-O

10 Kc3 Kc611 h3 f6

Hoping to open the centre, there-by embarrassing White's king but this does not prove to be possible.

12 Mb3 fxe513 dxe5 e614 Ke2! Lac815 Jd2 Kf516 g4 Kfe717 Md3! d4?!

Black continues in an ambitious vein but this advance has the very serious drawback of rendering e4 accessible to White's knights.

18 a3 Md519 O-O Lfd820 Je1 Ld721 Lc1 a622 Jf2 Lcd823 Kg5 h624 Ke4 Lf8

Necessary to protect the king from kf6 but now the queen gets trapped.25 Lc5 Ma2 26 b4 g5 27 Kc1 Ma1 28 Mb3 Kd5 29 f5 Ke3 30 Le1 Kxe5 31 Lxe5 Jxe5

32 Kd3 Mxe1 33 Jxe1 Ld5 34 Kec5 Jf6 35 Jd2 Ld6 36 Kxe6 Lf7 37 Kdc5 Kd5 38 Ke4 Ldd7 39 K6c5 Ld8 40 Kxb7 and Black resigned.

The primary advantage of control-ling more space lies in the ability to coordinate play on both wings. This next thematic game illustrates how the flow of the armies to one side of the board may allow a sudden and decisive switch of fronts.

Day-Clayton, World Open 1979:

1 e4 c52 f4 e63 Kf3 d54 e5 Kc65 g3 Kge76 Jg2 Kf57 d3 h58 c3 Je79 Ka3! Jd710 Kc2 f6!?11 Jh3 fxe512 fxe5 g6?!

12...O-O! with the idea of je8–g6 could lead to very unclear play after 13 jxf5 lxf5 14 ke3 lxf3!? 15 mxf3 kxe5.

13 Jxf5 gxf514 h4 Mc715 Jf4 O-O-O16 Me2 Nb817 O-O Na818 a3 d419 c4 Lb820 b4! b621 b5 Ka522 a4 Lbg8

23 Jg5 Jc824 Kce1!

The first step is to force Black to defend the exposed h-pawn,

24 … Jb725 Kg2 Nb826 Kf4 Jxf327 Mxf3 Md728 Kh3 Jxg529 hxg5! Me730 La2 Nc731 Lh2 Nd732 Me2 Mg733 Lf4 Kb734 Mf3 Kd8

As 35 ma8 can be met by 35...ne8 Black succeeds in transferring his knight to the kingside.

35 Le2 Ne836 Lh4 Mb7!37 Mg2!

Not 37 ng2? mxg2 38 nxf3 kf7 39 nf4 lh7 kh8–g6.

37 ... Mxg238 Nxg2 Kf739 Kf4 Kxg5

Now Black's army is committed to the kingside and the change of fronts decides the game.

40 a5! Nd741 La2 La8

42 Lxh5 Lxh543 Kxh5 Nc744 axb6 Nxb645 La6 Nb746 Kf4!

Not 46 kg7? lg8! 47 kxe6 kxe6 48 lxe6 f4 with counterplay nor 46 lc6?? a5! and Black wins.

46 … Le847 Ld6! Le7

Necessary to meet the threat 48 ld7 and lg7 trapping the knight but now material goes and the rest is not difficult.48 Lc6 a5 49 La6 Le8 50 Lxa5 Kf7 51 La1 Kxe5 52 Le1 Kd7 53 Lxe6 Lxe6 54 Kxe6 Nb6 55 Nf3 Ke5 56 Ne2 Kg4 57 Kg7 Ke3 58 Nf3 Nc7 59 Nf4 Kd1 60 Nxf5 Kf2 61 Ke6 and Black resigned.

THE BIG CLAMP II

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

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

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

Day-Williams, Quebec Open 1979 Alekhine’s Defence

1 e4 Kf62 d3

For 2 kc3 see the next game. Against either of these moves Black can, and perhaps should, transpose into an open game by 2..,e5 reaching either

a Vienna Game or a Reversed Philidor, neither of which is con-sidered overly dangerous for the second player.

2 … d5

3 e5!?

In Day-Shamkovich, Canadian Open 1978, 3 kd2 kc6 4 kgf3 (4 f4?! e5!) 4...e5 5 c3 (5 je2 jc2 6 c3 dxe4 7 dxe4 a5 8 O-O O-O 9 mc2 le8 10 kc4 me7 11 jg5 Keres-Allan, Vancouver 1975) 5...je7 (This is nat-ural but 5...a5 or 5...g6 may be better (6 b4!? a6 7 a3 O-O 8 jb2 le8 9 mc2 jf8 10 je2 (10 g3 g6 [10… jg4 11 jg2 mc8 did not equalise in Bronstein-Balashov, Moscow 1967] 11 jg2 jg7 12 O-O h6 13 lfe1 dxe4 14 dxe4

je6 15 lad1 Day-Nick-oloff, Canadian Closed 1978) 10...g6 11 O-O jg7 12 lfe1 dxe4 13 dxe4 kh5 and after 14 lad1?! kf4 15 jf1 mf6 Shamkovich attained equality. White may be able to keep a small edge by 14 k4!?

3 … Kfd74 f4 c5

5 c3 Kc66 Ka3!?

The knight aims to support the critical d4 square

6 .. e67 Kc2 f6!

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

8 d4

The alternative was 8 mh5 g6 9 mh3

8 ... cxd49 cxd4 fxe5

10 dxe5

White must give up control of c5 as 10 fxe5 fails to

10...mh4 and the exposure of the king becomes extremely significant.

10 ... Kc511 Kf3?

Here 11 je3 was certainly safer. 11 ... Mb6!

12 Jd3! Kxd3?

Black's knight should be kept for the attack. Either 12...kb4 13 kxb4 mb4 or immediately 12...ma5 were better. In either case White must move the king as interposing on d2 drops the j/d3.

13 Mxd3 Jd714 Je3!

Black probably overlooked this.

14 ... Kb4

Certainly 14...mxb2 15 O-O threat-ening lfb1 gives White good play.

15 Kxb4 Jxb416 Nf2 Jc517 Jxc5 Mxc518 Kd4 O-O19 Ng3!

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

19 ... Lac820 Md2! Me721 Lac1 Mf722 Lxc8 Jxc8

Probably 22...mg6 was better.

23 h3 h524 Lf1 h4?25 Nxh4 g526 Nxg5!

The cheeky white monarch eats everything it is offered.

26 ... Ng7

No better is 26...mg7 27 nh4 nf7 28 q4 followed by nq3

27 Ng4 Mg628 Nf3 b629 b4 Nh830 g4 Jd7

31 Ng3 Ma432 Le1 1-0

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

Nimzovich-Alekhine, Semmering 1926 Alekhine's Defence

1 e4 Kf62 Kc3 d53 e5 Kfd7

(Diagram)

Dubious seems 3...ke4 on account of 4 kce2! leaving Black's knight out on a limb. Black can create great complications with 4...f6 but it is

doubtful if this equalises, for in-stance 5 d3 kg5 6 kf4 e6 7 exf6 mxf6 8 mg4! jb4 9 nd1! O-O 10 kh5 mxf2 11 kf3 lxf3 12 mxb4 kc6 13 md2 mxd2 14 jxd2 lf5 15 g4 le5 16 jf4 winning the exchange in Burger-Alburt, New York 1980

After 3...d4 White can get a small edge by 4 exf6 or try for more with 4 kce2!? kg4 5 f4 kc6 6 kf3 f6 7 h3 kh6

8 c3! fxe5 9 fxe5 d3 (9... kf5 10 g4!) 10 ked4 md5 11 jxd3 kxe5 12 je2 jd7 13 O-O kg6 14 mb3 mxb3 15 axb3 e5 16 kb5 jc5 17 d4 jb6 18 nh2 exd4 19 kfxd4 and White's active disposition of forces gives a definite endgame advantage as in Tal-Bohm, Wijk aan Zee 1976

4 f4

The alternatives are 4 kxd5, 4 e6 and 4 d4

4 ... e6

(Diagram)

The disadvantage of 4...d4 is that it loses control of e4. Gufeld-Vukic, USSR-Jugoslavia match 1979, went 5 ke4 e6 6 kf3 kc5 7 kxc5 jxc5 8 jd3! h6 9 O-O kc6 10 a3 a5 11 nh1 ke7 12 je4 lb8 13 d3 jd7 14 jd2 a4 15 me1 g6 16 c3! jc6 17 cxd4

jxd4 18 jb4! with White much better.

5 Kf3 c56 g3 Kc67 Jg2 Je7

8 O-O

After 8 d3 Black could play 8... b5I? directly as 9 kxb5? ma5 10 kc3 d4 11 kxd4 cxd4 12 jxc6 lb8 favours Black. A lively struggle resulted in Kupreichik-Sveshnikov, USSR Championship 1979, after 9 O-O b4 10 ke2 O-O 11 me1! (11 g4 immediately allows 11...f6! with counterplay) 11...a5 12 g4 f6 13 exf6 kxf6 (13....jxf6 is answered 14 g5! je7 15 jh3 with strong pressure) 14 jh3!) according to Sveshnikov) 14…ke8 15 je3 jd6 16 mf2 d4 17 jd2 ke7 18 kg5 kd5 19 mg2! h6 20 ke4 la7 and now according to Sveshnikov 21 f5?! should be replac-ed by 21 g5! laf7 22 gxh6 with unclear chances. This game arose from a Sicilian Defence (1 e4 c5 2 kc3 kc6 3 g3 e6 4 jg2 kf6 5 d3 je7 6 f4 d5 7 e5 kd7 8 kf3 b5) so White did not have the option of 8 O-O which avoids Sveshnikov's active defence.

8 ... O-O

Considering that White has staked out the n-side as his sphere of action. Black may

consider delaying O-O. After 8...a6 9 a4 ma5 (9...kb6 10 d3 transposes to Balashov-Dankert, Munich 1979 where 10…g6 11 jd2 lab8 12 nh1 ka8!? [Would Alekhine approve of this knight?] 13 me2 kc7 14 kd1 b6 15 kf2 , 1-0, 56) 10 d3 b5 11 f5! b4 12 fxe6 fxe6 13 ke2 kdxe5 14 kxe5 kxe5 15 kf4 jf6 16 mh5 g6 17 me2 jg7 18 kxd5! exd5 19 jh6! jg4 20 me3 mc7 21 jxg7 mxg7 22 lae1 O-O-O 23 mxe5 mc7 24 mxc7 nxc7 25 lxe5 with a winning endgame in Balashov-Shmit, USSR 1975

9 d3 Kb6

9...f6 10 exf6 kxf6 11 me2 le8 (11...kd4 12 kxd4 cxd4 13 kd1 ) 12 jd2 jd6 13 h3! h6 14 lae1 e5? 15 fxe5 kxe5 16 kxe5 lxe5 17 md1 a6 18 jf4 lxe1 19 mxe1 jxf4 20 lxf4 d4 21 kd5 kxd5 22 jxd5 nh8 23 me5! 1-0 Balashov-Schmidt, Halle 1976

10 Ke2!? d4

Nimzovich recommended the plan 10...f6 11 exf6 jxf6 intending ...e6-e5

11 g4 f6

And here Nimzovich liked the prophylactic 11...le8 12 kg3 jf8 and the masked pressure on e5 prevents f4-f5

12 exf6 gxf613 Kg3 Kd514 Me2 Jd615 Kh4 Kce7

Otherwise 16 jxd5 will create a serious hole at f5.

16 Jd2

Here or on the next move White should play kh5 with a serious attack. As it goes Black obtains central counterchances and the play becomes extremely sharp.

16 ... Mc717 Mf2 c4!?18 dxc4 Ke3!19 Jxe3 dxe320 Mf3 Mxc421 Ke4 Jc722 b3 Md423 c3 Mb624 Nh1 Kd5?!

This was probably the moment to complete development by 24...jd7

25 f5

As in Kupreichik-Sveshnikov, White advances the wrong pawn. Nimzovich gives 25 g5! f5 26 mh5! as the right line.

25 ... Kf426 Lfd1 Nh827 Jf1! exf5

28 gxf5 Je529 Le1 Jd730 Lxe3 Jc631 Lae1 Kd5?

Black recovers the pawn but his king position caves in. 31...lae8 or 31...lg8 were better.

32 Ld3 Kxc3

33 Kg6 hxg6 34 Mg4!! Lf7 35 Lh3 Ng7 36 Jc4! Jd5 37 fxg6 Kxe4 38 gxf7 Nf8 39 Lxe4 Jxe4 40 Mxe4 Ne7 41 f8=M Lxf8 42 Md5 Md6 43 Mxb7 Nd8 44 Ld3 Jd4 45 Me4 Le8 46 Lxd4 1-0

Caro-Kann Defence

1 e4 c62 d3

Relatively unexplored is 2 f4 d5 3 e5 immediately staking out a terri-torial advantage. Some examples:a) 3...h5!? 4 d3 c5 5 c3 kc6 6 ka3 jg4 7 je2 (7 md2!? mf2) 7...e6 8 kc2 kh6 Day-Bass, New York 1980. The game was agreed drawn here as Bass needed only a draw for the International Master norm.

b) 3...c5 4 c3 kc6 5 ka3 e6 6 kc2 kge7 7 kf3!? (7 d4 is more straight-forward) 7…d4 8 jd3 kd5 9 g3 je7 10 je4 O-O 11 c4 kc7? (Black should avoid doubled-pawns with 11...kdb4 12 kxb4 kxb4 13 a3 ka6) 12 jxc6! bxc6 13 d3 jd7 14 O-O f6 15 exf6 gxf6 16 f5! e5 17 jh6 lf7 18 kd2! and Black has serious weaknesses in the pawn structure, Day-Hjartarsson, World Open 1980c) 3...jf5 (This natural move may be an error as the bishop robs the k/g8 of its best post) 4 d3 e6 (4...h5 5 je2 g6 6 je3 kh6 7 h3 h4?! 8 kf3 e6 9 c3 kd7 10 jf2 je7 11 kbd2 kc5 12 kf1! a5 13 md2 kg8 14 ke3 nf8 15 O-O ng7 16 lad1 a4 17 nh2 b5 18 lg1 mc7 19 me1 md8 20 kc2! lc8 21 kcd4 lh7 22 kg5! wins material, as in Day-Bonin, New York 1980. Black's j/f5 cuts a particularly bad impression here, not only pre-venting kf5 but also being in danger of getting trapped by g2-g4 after the h4 pawn disappears) 5 je2 h6 6 c3 kd7 (6...c5) 7 je3 jc5 8 d4 jf8 (8... jxb1 ) 9 kd2 c5 10 kgf3 jh7 11 ma4! mc7 (11...c4 12 b3!) 12 dxc5 jxc5 13 jxc5 mxc5 14 kd4 ke7 15 k2b3 mb6 16 jb5 O-O-O 17 mb4! kf5 18 jxd7 lxd7 19 mxb6 axb6 20 kxf5 jxf5 (White's better minor pieces and Black's doubled pawn add up to a substantial end-game advantage) 21 kd4 je4 22 O-O g6 23 lad1 h5 24 lfe1 nd8 25 kb5 ne7 26 ld4 la8 27 a3 jf5 28 lb4 la6 29 le3 ld8? 30 kc7 la5 31 lxb6 Day-Youngsworth, Wash-ington

19792 ... d53 Kd2

Another method of avoiding the exchange of pawns is Suttle's 3 me2 for instance 3...dxe4 (3...g6 4 g3 jg7 5 jg2 kf6 6 kc3 dxe4 7 dxe4 e5 8 je3 me7 9 f3 O-O 10 mf2 b6 11 kge2 kbd7 12 O-O jb7 gives equalising chances, as in Suttles-Matanovic, Belgrade 1969) 4 dxe4 e5 5 je3 kf6 6 f3 je6 7 mf2 kbd7 8 kd2 jb4 9 c3 ja5 10 jc4 me7 11 jxe6 mxe6 12 kh3 h6 13 O-O Suttles-Schaufel-berger, Siegen 1970

3 ... g6

[For 3...dxe4 4 dxe4 e5 5 kgf3 jc5? 6 kxe5! see MCT vol. 2 p 98-99 - Ed Note]

The attempt to prevent f4 by 3...mc7 provoked a gambit reaction in Grefe-Denker, Lone Pine 1979 after 4 f4!? mxf4 5 kgf3 kf6 6 kb3 mc7 7 e5 kg4 8 d4 jf5? 9 kh4 jd7 10 je2 kh6 11 jxh6 gxh6 12 O-O ka6 13 jxa6 bxa6 14 kc5 e6 15 mh5 jc8 16 lf6 jxc5 17 dxc5 lb8 18 laf1 lf8 19 mxh6 mxe5 20 mxh7 lxb2 21 lxf7 lxf7 22 mg8 1-0[This gambit looks highly specula-tive, so 4 kgf3 may be preferable. I have then tried 4...jg4 on two occa-sions - Maninang-Keene, Sydney 1979, and Lobron-Keene, Dortmund 1980 - with satisfactory results - Ed. Note)

4 f4!?

This is more ambitious than the commonly played 4 kf3

(Diagram)

4 ... Jg7

This is not very useful and Black may be better off to proceed directly with 4...kf6!? e.g. 5 e5 kg4 6 kdf3 c5 7 d4 kc6 8 c3 mb6 9 h3 kh6 10 g4! cxd4 11 cxd4 f5 12 g5 kf7 13

ke2 e6 14 h4 jd7 15 h5 lc8 16 nf2 ka5 17 b3 jb5 18 jg2 kc6 19 h6 jf8 20 kg3 jb4 21 jb2 nd7 and although Black's position is very cramped he succeeded in holding a draw in Bronstein-Filip, Budapest 1977

5 e5

More common is 5 kgf3, e.g.a) 5...kf6 6 e5 kg4 7 kb3 kh6 (7... h5) 8 d4 b6 9 je3 ka6 10 a4 kc7 11 a5 jd7 12 jd3 ke6? 13 kh4! kc7 14 O-O jg4 15 me1 jf5 16 kxf5 kxf5 17 jf2 h5 18 axbe axbe 19 mb4 lb8 20 la7 O-O 21

jxf5 gxf5 22 jh4 Kurajica-Csom, Hungary 1976b) 5...dxe4 6 dxe4 jg4 7 h3 jxf3 8 mxf3 kf6 9 jd3 O-O 10 g4! ka6 11 c3 kc5 12 jc2 Kurajica-Pomar, Montilla 1972c) 5...jg4 6 h3 (6 c3 jxf3 7 mxf3 e6 8 e5 h5 9 d4 kh6 10 jd3 kd7 favoured White in Hazai-Lederman, Skara 1980) 6...jxf3 7 mxf3 e6 8 c3 f5 9 g4! ke7 10 gxf5 exf5 11 h4 kd7 12 h5 mc7 13 e5 O-O-O? (13...kc5 ke6) 14 kb3! Day-Angers, Canadian Open 1980. As 14...kf8 loses to 15 h6 it is too late for Black to manoeuvre his knight to e6.d) 5...kh6!? 6 g3 f6 7 jg2 O-O 8 me2 ka6 9 h3 kc7 10 O-O a5 11 a4 kf7 12 kb3 b6 13 exd5 cxd5 14 je3 lb8 15 mf2 md6 16 c4!? ja6 17 c5 bxc5 18 jxc5 md7 19 kxa5 lfc8! Black has active play in exchange for his pawn, Day-Hebert, Canadian Ch 1975

5 … c56 c3 Kc67 Kb3! b68 Je2

We are following Petrosian-Bhend, Havana 1966.

Petrosian's move order does not give Black a chance to exchange off his white-squared bishop via g4.

8 … e6

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

9 Je3 h510 Kf3 Kh611 Jf2 Kf512 d4 c413 Kbd2 b514 O-O Jd715 Mc2 Jf816 b3!?

(Diagram)

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

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

on the n-side.16 … Je717 Lfb1 O-O18 Kf1!

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

18 … Mc719 bxc4 bxc420 h3 Lab821 g4 hxg422 hxg4 Kh623 Ke3 Ma5

Simplification by 23...lxb1 and 24...lb8 may have offered better chance, Black is playing for a trap.

24 Kh4 Ja3!

The hidden threat is 25...kxd4 26 cxd4 ja4 trapping the queen.

25 Jd1! Ke726 Kf3 Ng727 Je1! Mc728 Jh4 Khg829 Mh2

Black has done his best to keep the lines shut on the n-side but the deadly threat of

30 jf6 kxf6 31 exf6 nxf6 32 g5 ng7 33 mh6 ng8 34 kg4 with a mating net forces his next move and allows White to blow open the position.

29 … f630 f5! fxe531 Jg3 Kc632 fxe6 Jxe633 Kg5 Jf734 Kxd5

1-0 Petrosian-Bhend, Havana Oly-mpiad 1966

French DefenceAlthough I have tried 1 e4

e6 2 f41? a couple of times I would hardly recommend it as after 2...d5 3 e5 c5 4 kf3 kc6 5 g3 kge7 Black equal-ises without much trouble, e.g. 6 d3 mb6!? 7 c3 jd7 8 ka3 h5 9 kc2 kf5 10 jh3 je7 11 O-O? (11 me2 or 11 jxf5) 11...O-O-O 12 lf2 f6 13 d4 h4! 14 g4 kg3! 15 ke3 fxe5 16 dxe5 c4 17 ng2 ke4 18 le2 lhf8 19 kxc4 ma6 20 ke3 lxf4 Day-J Meyer, Washington 1979; or 6 kc3 kf5 7 jg2 h5 8 O-O c4!? 9 ke2 jc5 10 nh1 h4 11 g4 h3 Aronin-Kan, USSR Championship 1952

An even more extreme anti-French method is 1 e4 e6 2 e5!? Whitch Steintz played in a few games a hundred years ago. We will follow Steintz-Schwarz, Vienna 1882

2 … c5

Other tries were 2...f6 (Winawer) and 2...b6!? 3 f4 jb7 4 kf3 f6 5 d4 kh6 6 jd3 f5 7 O-O je7 8 c4 c5 9 d5! Steinitz-Blackburne, London

1883, and 2...d5 which Steinitz took en passant reaching fairly normal looking positions after 4 d4

3 f4

3 … Kc6

3...d5 4 exd6 jxd6 5 g3 jd7 (Steinitz was probably hoping for the incorrect sacrifice 5... jxf4? 6 gxf4 mh4) 6 kf3 jc6 7 jg2 kf6 8 O-O kbd7 9 d3 O-O 10 kbd2 kb6?! 11 me2 mc7 12 b3 je7 13 jb2 a5 14 a4 kfd5 15 kc4 kb4 16 lae1 k6d5 17 kfe5 jf6 18 mf2 je8 19 g4 ld8 20 g5 je7 21 kg4 kc6 22 mh4 kd4 23 je4! Steinitz-Weiss, Vienna 1882. Black is in a mating net.

4 Kf3 Kh6

4… f6 5 exf6 kxf6 6 g3 je7 7 jg2 mc7 8 O-O O-O 9 kc3 a6 10 b3 b5 11 jb2 jb7 12 d3 kd8 13 me2 kf7 14 kd1 lae8 15 ke3 jd8 16 c4 Steinitz-Winawer, Vienna 1882

5 g3 Je7

5…b6 6 jg2 kf5 7 c3 lb8?! (extra mysterious) 8 me2 jb7 9 d3 je7 10 kbd2 d5 11 exd6 kxd6 12 O-O O-O 13 ld1

mc8 14 kf1 ld8 15 je3 ja6=Steinitz-Mason, Vienna 1882

6 Jg2 O-O7 d3 f68 exf6 Jxf69 O-O Kf7

10 c3 Lb8?!

11 Ka3!

The beginning of a manoeuvre of rare depth - the knight is heading for Black's n-side!

11 … b612 Kc2 Jb713 Ke3 d514 Kg4! e515 Kxf6 gxf6

15...mxf6 16 kxe5 k (either) xe5 17 fxe5 mxe5 18 jf4 wins the exchange.

16 Kh4

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

16 … Ke717 fxe5 fxe518 Mg4 Nh819 Mh5 Me820 d4!

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

20 … Ja621 Le1 cxd422 cxd4 e423 Jf4 Ld8?!

On 23...lc8 24 jh3 is strong, but now Steinitz infiltrates in straight-forward fashion.24 Lac1 Ng8 25 Lc7 Kh8 26 Mg5 Khg6 27 Lxa7 Jd3 28 Lc1 Kc6 29 Lxh7 Lxf4 30 Lh6 Ld6 31 Kxg6 1-0

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

A similar problem arises with Chigorin's 1 e4 e6 2 Me2!? which he admitted first occurred to him as a joke. We will follow Chigorin-Rubinstein, 3rd Russian Champion-ship 1903.

The indirect pin on the e-file discourages 2...d5 since after 3 exd5 Black would have to play 3...mxd5. Black has many options:

a) 2...b6!? 3 f4 jb7 4 kf3 ke7 5 kc3 d5 6 d3 d4 7 kd1 g6 8 kf2 jg7 9 jd2 ka6 10 h4 h5 11 g4 md7 12 jh3 mb5 13 O-O-O!? Chigorin-Blackburne, Ostend 1905b) 2... je7 (Breaking the pin!) 3 b3!? d5 (3...kh6!? 4 jb2 O-O 5 f4 f5 6 e5 b6 7 g3 jb7 8 jg2 mc8 Day Kourkounakis, Toronto 1980) 4 jb2 jf6 5 jxf6! (5 e5 je7 6 mg4 jf8 7 kf3 c5 8 jb5 jd7 9 jxd7 mxd7 10 kc3 kc6 11 O-O / is an earlier Chigorin-Tarrasch match game) 5... kxf6 6 e5 kfd7 7 mg4 O-O 8 f4 kc6 (Better 8...c5) 9 c3 d4 10 kf3 dxc3 11 kxc3 kc5 12 d4 f5 13 exf6 mxf6 14 ld1 Chigorin-Tarrasch, match 1893

2 … Kc6

! from Suttles.

3 f4

3 kc3 e5 4 g3 (4 d3 kf6 5 f4 jc5 6 fxe5 kxe5 7 kf3 d6 8 jg5 h6 9 jh4 g5 10 jg3 jg4 11 O-O-O gave White good play in Chigorin-Bojar-kov, 1st Russian Championship 1899) 4...kf6 5 jg2 jc5 6 d3 d6 7 jg5 (Schlechter suggested 7 ka4, Fine 7 je3) 7...h6 8 jxf6

mxf6 9 kd5 md8 10 c3 ke7 11 kxe7 mxe7 12 O-O-O jd7 13 f4 O-O-O and Black has no problems, Chigorin-Lasker, Lon-don 1899

3 … Kd44 Md3 c55 Kf3 Kc66 Me2

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

6 … Je77 Kc3

Chigorin invariably chose this central development of the QN. Aside from 7 c3 considered in the previous article White can also try 7 d3 d5 8 g3 kf6 9 e5 as in Evans- Whitehead, Lone Pine 1977 which arose from a Sicilian and hence had two moves less in the sequence. After 7...kd7 8 jh3!? mc7 9 je3 b6 10 kbd2 kb4 11 kf1 d4 12 jf2 jb7 13 jg2 Black overpressed with 13... g5? and after 14 a3 g4 15 axb4 c4 16 jxd4 White had a winning position.

7 … d58 d3 Kf69 g3

9 … a6

In Chigorin-Gottschal, Barmen 1905, Black played the direct 7...d4 8 kd1 b5 9 jg2 ja6 (Sokolsky recommends 9...a5 first) 10 O-O lc8 11 b3 c4 12 ke1 cxd3 13 cxd3 O-O 14 jd2 mb6 15 kf2 kb4 16 md1 jb7 17 a3 kc6 18 g4 a5 19 g5 kd7 20 kg4 b4 21 a4 kc5 22 lf3! and White has a very strong attack. Left alone he will play 23 lh3, 24 kf6! and 25 mh5 with a mating attack. Hence Gottschall played 22...f5 but after 23 gxf6 jxf6 24 lh3 White had a fine attack.

10 Jg2 O-O11 O-O Jd7

Sokolsky recommends 11...b5 intending jb7

12 Ke5! d4

Better perhaps was 12...je813 Kxd7 Kxd714 Kd1 e515 Nh1 Mc7?!16 Jh3!

The bishop will play a critical role in the n-side attack.

16 … Lad817 b3 Jd618 f5 f619 Jg4! b520 Jh5

The possibility of jg6!? followed by mh5 causes Black severe difficulty. The coming advance of the n-side pawns will prove decisive.

20 … Ldb821 g4 Je722 h4 Lfc823 g5 Kd824 c4!

A useful prophylactic measure. On 24...dxc3 25 kxc3 kb6 26 jg6! hxg6 27 fxg6 nf8 28 mh5 ne8 29 gxf6 jf8 30 jh6 White has tremens-dous play for the piece.24… Kf8 25 Lg1 Kb7 26 Kf2 Kd6 27 Kg4 Nh8 28 gxf6 gxf6 29 Kh6 Kg6 (Desperation) 30 fxg6 Jf8 31 Kf7 Kxf7 32 gxf7 Md7 33 Lg8 mate

Both Steinitz's 2 e5 and Chigorin's 2 me2 are rare in modern praxis and if White wants to avoid 2 d4 his usual alternative is 2 d3 which was pop-ularised in the early sixties by Vasyukov and Stein.

After 2...d5 3 kd2 kf6 White does not have anything better than 4 kgf3 as 4 f4? Is too risky and 4 g3 dxe4 5 dxe4 jc5 6 jg2 kc6 7 kgf3 e5 equalises easily.

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

An unqualified disaster was Grefe-Levy, Lone Pine 1975: 1 e4 c5 2 f4 e6 3 d3 Kc6 4 Kf3 d5 5 Kbd2?! Kf6 6 g3 Kg4! 7 Me2 Kb4! 8 Kb3 c4!

9 dxc4 dxc4 10 Mxc4 Jd7 11 Me2 Mb6 12 h3 Lc8 with tremendous pressure.

On the topic of disasters it is also worth mentioning Bellon-Uhlmann, Madrid 1973: 1 e4 e6 2 Me2 c5 3 d3 Kc6 4 c3 Kf6 5 g3 d5 6 Kd2 (This clogs the development) 6... Je7 7 f4 O-O 8 Jg2 b5! (Black utilises the c3-pawn to open lines for counterplay) 9 Kgf3 c4! 10 e5? (Uhlmann gives 10 d4 kxe4 11 kxe4 dxe4 12 mxe4 jb7 as comfortable for Black, but 12 ke5! preserves a little something) 10...cxd3 11 Mxd3 Kd7 12 Kb3 (12 mxb5? kc5! ja6) 12...b4 13 Kbd4 Ka5 14 O-O bxc3 with initiative for Black.

Suttles-Smith, San Antonio 1972

1 g3 d52 Jg2 Kf63 d3 e64 Kd2 Je75 e4 c5

6 Ke2

6 kh3 kc6 7 O-O O-O (7...h5 8 f3 jd7 9 kf2 mc7 10 le1 O-O-O 11 kf1 h4 12 f4 hxg3 13

hxg3 je8 14 jd2 g6 15 c3 kh5 16 mf3 f5 17 lad1 jf7 18 g4 fxg4?! 19 kxg4 jh4 20 le2 d4 21 jh3 nb8 22 lh2! ldf8 23 jg2 me7 24 b4! cxb4? (24…je8!? 25 b5 kd8 26 cxd4 g5!) 25 cxb4 g5 26 b5 kd8 27 lb1 je8 28 jb4 mc7 29 e5 lxf4? 30 jd6 lxf3 31 jxc7 nxc7 32 jxf3 kf4 33 lc2 nd7 34 kf6 1-0 Day-Krstic, Tor-onto Closed 1974) 8 f4 b5 (8...dxe4 9 dxe4 e5 10 f5 h5! 11 c3 b5 12 a4 b4 13 jf3 Day-Upton, Malta 1980) 9 kf2 a5 10 g4 ja6 11 le1 dxe4 12 dxe4 c4 13 g5 kd7 14 kf1 mc7 15 je3 lfd8 16 mf3 lac8? (Uhlmann gives 16...e5 17 f5 kd4 as the path to equality) 17 kg4 kc5 18 mf2 kd7 19 kg3 jb7 20 lad1 kb4 21 f5! ke5 22 lxd8 jxd8 23 kxe5 mxe5 24 jd4 md6 25 fxe6 mxe6 26 lf1 lc7 27 kf5! ld7 (27...g6 28 kh6 nf8 29 jb6 ) 28 kxg7 mg6 29 kf5 jxg5 30 h4 jd8 31 h5! mxh5 32 mg3 mg6 33 me5 f6 34 me6 lf7 35 lf3 jc7 36 ke7 1-0 Suttles-Pietzsch, Lugano 1968

6 … Kc67 O-O O-O

7...b6 8 h3 jb7 9 f 4 O-O 10 g4 ke8 11 g5 f6 12 h4 dxe4 13 kxe4 kd6 14 kxd6 jxd6 15 kg3 md7 16 jd2 Suttles-Haines, Vancouver 1973

8 h3

It is still too early for 8 f4 on account of 8...kg4 and White is embarassed by his weak e3 square.

8 … b59 f4 Jb7

10 g4

11 … c4?

This is a strategic error which allows White to close up the centre and expand on the n-side in a leisure-ly fashion. In the tournament book David Levy recommends 10...dxe4 keeping some play in the centre. He considers White should answer 11 kxe4, with equality, since 11 dxe4 c4 12 kg3 md4 13 nh2 c3 gives Black some play. Still after 14 bxc3 mxc3 15 lb1 ma5 16 g5 kd7 17 kb3 or 17 jb2 leaves the position quite unclear.

11 e5 cxd312 cxd3 Kd713 d4 f6

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

14 Kf3 fxe515 fxe5 Mb616 Nh1 b417 Kf4 Ka518 b3 Ja619 Lg1 Lf7!

20 h4 Laf821 Kh3

Black has brought his two pieces to the most active posts available to them but he has run out of ways to strengthen his position. The plan to bring the j/a6 to e4 via d3 can be foiled, for example 21...jb5 22 le1 ma6 23 le3. The double exchange sacrifice 21...lxf3!? 22 jxf3 lxf3 23 mxf3 mxd4 was the best practical chance.

21 … Kc622 Jb2 Kd823 Le1 Kb824 Nh2! Jb525 Le3

Overprotecting f3 White liberates his queen.

25 … g626 Mc2 Kbc627 Ld1

That White has managed to com-plete his development is a bad sign for Black. The overprotection of d4 mobilises the k/f3.

27 … Lg728 g5 Kf7

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

29 Lee1 h530 Ng3!

The king functions usefully by guarding f4

30 … Kh831 Kf4 Kd832 Ld2 Lff733 Jh3 Jf834 Mb1 a535 Lf2 a4?

This allows a combinational break-through. Levy recommends 35...ma6.

36 Jxe6! Kxe6 37 Kxd5 Mb8 38 Kf6 Lxf6 39 gxf6 Ld7 40 Me4 a3 41 Jc1 Md8 42 Jg5 Nf7 43 Ld2 Ld5 44 Lc1 Md7 45 Ldc2 Ja6 46 Lc7! Kxc7 47 Lxc7 Mxc7 48 Mxd5 Ne8 49 Me6 1-0

Day-Jakovljevski, Canadian Open 1983

1 e4 e62 Me2 c53 f4 Kc6

This is not the most flexible move order for Black as he gives up control of a6. Compare the next game.

4 Kf3 Je75 c3 d56 d3 Kf67 e5 Kd78 d4 O-O9 Je3 b6

10 g3 a511 h4!?

White could prevent the exchange of light bishops by 11 jh3 since 11... ja6 12 md2 cxd4 13 cxd4 kb4 14 nf2! shows Black's threats to be ephemeral. The move played has a positional point, to play jh3 without blocking the h-pawn, which serves to disguise a tactical surprise.

11 … Ja6?

12 Mc2!

So that if 12...jxf1 13 kg5! Forces a weakening of the king's field.

12 … f513 exf6 Kxf614 Jxa6 Lxa6

Black's e-pawn is decidedly weak.

15 Kbd2 Kg416 Md3 Mc817 Kg5 Lf518 Me2 h519 Jf2 e5!?

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

20 dxe5 Kcxe521 O-O Jxg522 hxg5 Kg623 Lae1 Nf724 c4

The opening of one more line is more than Black's king can survive.24…La7 25 cxd5 Lxd5 26 Kc4 Lb7 27 Mf3 Mc6 28 f5 Ke7 29 Le6 Md7 30 Lfe1 Kc6 31 Mxd5 Mxd5 32 g6 1-0

Day-Kuznecov, Toronto

1983

1 e4 c5 2 f4 e6 3 Me2 b6 4 g3

The alternative is 4 b3.4 … Jb75 Jg2 Kf6!6 c3?!

Also inferior is 6 e5?! jxg2 7 mxg2 kd5 8 c4 kc7 6 b3 or 6 ka3 (6...d5 7 e5 kfd7 8 c4 kc6! 9 cxd5 kd4 10 md3) were better.

6 … d57 e5 Kfd78 d4 Mc7!9 Je3 Je7

10 h4!? h5?!

Black has prepared the variation up to White's 10th but did not consider the move played which intended 10...O-O! 11 jh3 lfc8 12 lh2 though after 12...ja6 13 md1 cxd4 White has major problems. In this case the deep point of leaving out kc6 is revealed – the c-file remains open.

11 Jh3 g612 Kf3 Ja613 Md1 Kc614 a3 Ka5

Possibly better was 14...cxd4 15 cxd4 (forced) 15...ka5 avoiding the game continuation.

15 b4 Kc416 Jc1 cxd417 Kxd4!?

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

17 … Jb7

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

18 La2! a519 Le2 axb420 axb4 Kb821 Mc2 Jc8

White threatened a "sacrifice". The curious thing about the position is the posting of Black's knight at c4. Optically it looks great but it has no moves and blocks both - the c-file and the a6-f1 diagonal.

22 O-O Kc623 Kf3 O-O?

The losing move. The king should go the other way

24 g4 hxg4 25 Jxg4 Ng7 26 Lg2 Lg8 27 h5 Nf8 28 hxg6 Lxg6 29 Lff2 Ne8 30 Jh5 Lxg2 31 Lxg2 Kd8 32 Mh7 La1 33 Kd4 Jf8 34 Kb3 La7 35 Lg8 Me7 36 Mh8 Kc6 37 b5 K6a5 38 Kd4 Jb7 39 Kxe6 Mxe6 40 Lxf8 Nd7 41 Lxf7 1-0

.

OPENING THEORY BOOKS FROM THE CHESS PLAYER

Bird's OpeningSchliemann/Jaenisch GambitNajdorf Poisoned PawnTorre AttackKing's Indian Defence, 4 Pawns AttackNimzovich Defenceb6!Spanisch Exchange VariationLatvian GambitSicilian c3Sokolsky OpeningTrompovsky AttackSpanish 5 d4Averbakh System, Pirc/King's Indian DefencePonziani OpeningFrench Defence, Tarrasch VariationRichter-Veresov SystemSicilian Najdorf, Polugaevsky Variation

Petroff's Defence, A Line for WhitePirc Defence, A Line for WhitePirc Defence, A Second Line for WhiteThe Old Indian RenewedThe Big ClampModern Chess Theory l981/2

King's Gambit - A Game CollectionPhilidor's Defence