lilil bam m m
M MI
Surprisingly, the game which did most to popularise tllis plan was not a Sicilian
Defence but an English Opening. The game in question is Saidy-Fischer, New York 1969 which went: 1 c4e5 2 ftc3 ftc6 3 g3 f5 4 Ag2 ft f6 5 d3 Ac5 6 e3 f4 7 efO-O 8 ftge2 #e8 9 0-0 d6 10 fta4 Ad4! 11 ftxd4 ed 12 h3 h5! 13a3a5 14 b3 fgó 15 ftb2 Af5 16 #c2 ftd7 17 Sel ftc5 18 Afl 2a6! 19 Ad2 2b6 20 Axa5 2xb3.21 Ad2 2a8! 22 a4 2a6 23 a5 4'h7 24 ledl b6 25 lei ba 26 fta4 2xd3! 27 Axd3 Axd3 28 Wa2 ftb4 29 Wa3 ftc2 30 Wb2 ftxal 31 2xa 1 ftxa4 32 2xa4 We4 33 ¿xa5 2xa5 34 2xa5 fel+ 35 <¿>h2 fxa5 0:1
Brilliant! And imagine what White can do with his extra tempo!
The system based on 5 Ac4 is one of direct aggression. White will play 15, even at the cost of a pawn, and play for mate.
The positions that arise are often hair-raising to say the least. Both Black and White need a light breakfast and nerves of steel.
Black's methods'of defence can be di vided into three categories. This section will deal with 5 ... eft 6 f5 ftge7. Section 14 will deal with 5 ... d6 6 0-0 ftf6 and section 15 with 5 ... d6 6 0-0 e6.
After 5 ...• e6 6 f5 ftge7 White plays 7 fe. Game 49 shows the solid 7 ... de in action although White seems to have some pressure.
The alternative 7 ... fe leads to wild complications. White can choose, between 8 d3 and 8 0-0. The former allows 8 ... d5 9 Ab3 bS!? (game 50) but keeps the possibility of 8 d3 0-0 9 Ag5 (game 51). This is not the case with 8 0-0 (game 52).
Black won all four games with 7 ... fe but that does not necessarily indicate what is happening. White had clear improvements in all of them.
Game 49
Varna 1970
I e4 c5 2 ftc3 ftc6 3 f4 g6 4 ftf3 Ag7 5 Ac4 e6 6 f5 [6 e5 is interesting when Ammann-Nikolaic7.uk. Biel 1976 continued 6 ... d6 7 ed Wxd6 8 fte4 We7 9 0-0 ft 1)6 10 fte5 ftxe5 I I fe Axe5 I2d4!7 witli a dangerous initiative for White. But Black can do better with 7 ... ft(6 as in Barle-Ribli. Bled/Portoroz 1979. Play continued 8 d4 cd 9 ftxd4 0-0 10 ftxc6 be
II 0-0 ftd5 12 fte4 f5 13 ftg5 Wxd6 with an interesting struggle in prospect] ftge7 [6 ... gf is very risky. Gik-Kimelfeld. USSR 1968 continued 7 d3 ftgc7 8!)-Od5
9 ed ed 10 ¿b3 ¿c6 11 <&g5 #d7 12 ©e2 h6 and now 13 £>h3 looks even more dangerous than Gik's choice of 13 ©f3.] 7 fe de 8 0-0 0-0 9 (13 ¿d7 [9 ... %a5 10 ¿b3 ©xb3 11 ab ©c6 is Hodgson-Silva, London 1978. 12 Ae3 looks slightly better for White. Other possibilities are 9 ... a6 10 a4 ©d4 11 ©xd4 cd 12 £se2 ©c6 13 Wei £sa5 14 ¿a2 ¿d7 15 ¿d2 ©c6 16 i3f4 (Geljzinis-Eljanov, USSR 1981) and
9 ... ©d4 10 ©xd4, both of which are slightly in White's favour] 10 Wei ©d4
11 ©xd4 ed 12 ©e2 ©e6 13 ¿(12 <Sh8 14 «Sf4 e5 15 <&e2 #e7 16 b4 ©d8 17 b5 %e6 18 ¿b4 v.icS 19 c3 Sac8 20 cd ed 21 £>M b6 22 a4 ¿e6 23 £>xc6 fe 24 Wg3 e5 25 Wg4 ¿h6 26 g3 ¿e3+ 2^ *g2 Ixfl 28 Ixfl IIS 29 £xc5 fxc5 30 We6 <4>g7 31 217+ 2x(7 32 Wxf7+ •¿'he 33 h4 Wc8 34 ¿e6 «<c2+ 35 &h3 #f2 '/,:'/,
Game 50
Israeli Ch 1978 1 e4 c5 2 ©c3 £sc6 3 f4 g6 4 £sf3 ¿g7 5 ¿c4 e6 6 15 ©ge7 7 fe fe 8 d3 dS 9 ¿b3 b5
10 a4 [10 ©xb5 looks bad after 10 ... Wa5+ II £sc3 d4 12 0-0 dc 13 be 0-0 14 £>g5 (Bilek-Ribh, Hungary 1969) and now either 14 ... Sxf1+ 15 Wxfl ©d8 or the immediate 14 ... <5id8, 10 a3 is the most solid move leading to complicated play after 10 ... a6 11 0-00-0 12 ¿g5 c4 13 ¿a2 de 14 £sxe4 cd 15 cd #b6. Last but not least White can sacrifice a piece with either 10 ed ed 11 ©xb5 Wa5+ 12 <?)c3 d4 13 0-0 dc 14 be fixe3 15 Sbl unclear or 10 ed ed 11 '£ixd5H unclcar) b4 II ©e2 ©a5! +
see fallowing diagram
12 0-0 de 13 ©g5 ©xb3 14 cb Wxd3 15 Wei € J f5 16 ©f4 f?d4+ 17 A 111 ffe5 18 g4 ';„!(, 19 ©fxe6 ¿xe6 20 ¿14 ft (15 21
Game 51
British Ch 1982
I e4 c5 2 f4 g6 3 <£>f,3 ¿g7 4 ©c3 £>c6 5 ¿c4 e6 6 15 ©ge7 7 fe fe 8 d3 0-0 9 ¿g5 h6 10 ¿114!? [10 ¿xe7] g5 11 iLi2dS[ll ... b6] 12 ¿b.3 g4 |T2 ... ©d4 was played in Knezevic-Smejkal, S i n e d e r c v s k a Pa lank a 1971. Play proceeded 13 ¿xd4 cd 14 ©c2 Wb6 15 0-0 de 16 ©d2 2xfl + 17 Wxfl e3 1,8 £se4 fad5 19 h4 gh 20 ©t'4 ¿d7 21 ©xd5 ed 22 ¿xd5 + ¿e6 23 W5 ¿xd5 24 #xd5+ AhS 25 ©d6 21«. White's attack fell short and he lost, but only by a whisker. | 13 <Ssd2 c4 14 dcd4 15 ©a4 2x12 16 <&xf2 ffa5 17 2fl ¿(17 18 ¿gl £)e5 19 c3 ¿xa4?! [S peel man gives 19 ... d3 unclear] 20 cd €id3 21 Wg4 [?? according to Spcelman who gives 21 ¿xa4] Wxdl 22 #xe6+ &hK 23 ¿xa4 Wxb2 24 Sadl Wxd4+ 25 A hi ©c6 26 Hd2 We3 27 ¿\ch Wxd2 0:1
Game 52
British Ch 1982
1 e4 c5 2 14 go 3 li'iD ¿g7 4 5!C3 ©c6 5 ¿c4 e6 6 15 ¿£jge7 7 fe fe 8 0-0 0-0 9 d3 d5 10 ¿b3 d4 [Howcll-Horvath, Groningen 1983-84 went 10... ©aS lled©xb3 I2ab ed 13 ¿g5 d4 14 Wcl ScH 15 ©e4 when
White was clearly better.] II ©a4 bS 12 ©xc5 Wd6 13 ©g5 «xc5 14 1x18+ AxfB 15 Wfl ©e5 16 ©xh7 ©7c6 17 ©f6+ &g7 18 ©e8+ 4?h7 19 ©16+ <&g7 20 ©e8+ &h7
Post a comment