Game No. 6 Yusupov-Kasparov
USSR Ch 1988
1 d4 �£6 2 c4 g6 3 �c3 d5 4 cd �xd5 5 e4 �xc3 6 be .i.g7 7 .i.c4 c5 8 �e2 �c6 9 .i.e3 0-0 10 0-0 .i.g4 11 £3 �a5
12 .i.d3
12 .i.xf7 + attained wide popularity after the World Champion
ship match in Seville, but capturing on f7 is, of course, not obligatory - the bishop may retreat instead. It is most securely placed on d3, although occasionally 1 2 .i.d5 is also seen.
12 cd
13 cd .i.e6
14 .:t el (18)
The once fashionable Sokolsky attack, 14 d5 .i.xa 1 1 5 "tl'xa1 f6, has now practically fallen into disuse. Black is the exchange up and can extricate himself without too much difficulty.
18 B
14 .i.xa2
15 "tlra4
This is more precise than 1 5 d5 at once.
42 Exchange Variation with 7 J.c4 - other systems
15 J.e6
16 d5 J.d7
17 'lfb4 (19)
An alternative is 1 7 'lfa3, whereupon, apart from the more conventional 1 7 . . . e6, Black has 17 • • • bS!?. After 18 :. fd1, the reply 18 . . . J:.b8 is rather slow, for example : 1 9 'lf b4 a6 20 l0d4 J:. e8 2 1 J.e2 J.e5 22 J:. a l ! J.c7 23 l0e6! J.d6 24 'lfxd6! fe 25 'lfe5 1 -0; Piskov-Lputian, Belgrade 1 988. In Ilic-Fercec, Kladovo 1 989, Black introduced the important innovation 18 . . . b4!, giving the pawn back but obtaining adequate counterplay : 19 'lfxb4 :. b8 20 'lfel l0b3 21 J:. b l a5 22 .tc2, and now 22 . . . a4 is logical, with a complicated game.
19 B
In this diagram we have a standard position in contemporary practice. Black can now choose between 1 7 . . . e6 (the game continuation) and 1 7 . . . b6. Before going any further, let us examine the latter.
1 7 . . . b6
Safer than 1 7 . . . b5, for example : 18 : fd 1 J.e5 19 J.c5 �b7 20 J.xe7 'lfb6+ 21 �h1 aS 22 'lfd2 J:. fc8 23 f4 J.g7? (the bishop should have been placed on d6) 24 e5 b4 25 J.c4 b3 26 J.a3 ! with a won position for White; Balashov-Sibarevic, Lugano 1988.
18 f4
Or 1 8 .ta6 J.c8 1 9 J.b5 a6 20 J.d3 b5 2 1 f4 e5! 22 J.c5 J:. e8 23 J.d6 'lfb6+ 24 J.c5 (24 �h1 J.g4! 25 J.c7 'ife3) 24 . . . 'lfd8 25 J.d6, with a draw; Savchenko-Lputian, Tallinn 1988.
18 . . . e5
Stronger than 18 . . . e6 ( 1 8 . . . J:. c8 1 9 l0c3 l0b7 20 J.a6 l:. c7 2 1 e5 l0c5 22 J.c4 'lfb8 23 'lf a3! J:. cc8 24 J:. fd 1 J:. fd8 25 .ixc5!
Exchange Variation with 7 J.c4 - other systems 43 and Black is in serious trouble; Vyzhmanavin-Ivanchuk, Tashkent 1 987) 19 d6 eS 20 f5 : c8 2 1 .!Llc3 J.c6 22 .!Llb5 1Wd7 23 f6! with a clear plus; Balashov-Hansen, Malmo 1 987/8. However, after 19
. . . .!Llc6 20 1Wb3 e5! 21 f5 : c8 22 .!Llc3 .!Lld4 23 J.xd4 ed 24 .!Lld5
: xc 1 25 .!Lle7 + �h8 26 : xc 1 gf 27 ef J.f6, Black has everything in order; Dolmatov-Gavrikov, Kiev 1 986.
19 :j2
In Vaiser-Gavrikov, Tallinn 1 988, Black seized the initiative after 19 fS?! :e8 20 J.a6? J.f8 2 1 1fc3 b5. At move 20, White should have played 20 d6 J.f8 2 1 J.c4 .!Llxc4 22 1fxc4 1Wf6 23 fg (23 .!Llc3? : ec8 24 gf : xc4! 25 gh + �xh7 26 : xf6 J.e6 27 .!Llb5 : xe4, with advantage to Black; Heinig-Gauglitz, Berlin 1 988) 23 . . . 1fxg6 24 : f3 1fe6, with complex play (Gauglitz).
19 ... : c8 20 : cf1 1Wc7
It is hard to give a preference to either side.
17 e6
This position occurrred as far back as 1 954, in the game Geller
Liliental from the 2 1 st USSR Championship. Play continued 18
In the same Soviet Championship as the game we are annotating ( 1 988), Belyavsky-Kasparov continued as follows : 18 .!Llc3 ed ( 1 8 . . . b6 is also interesting: 1 9 f4 ed 20 .!Llxd5 J.e6 2 1 : fd 1 J.xd5 22 J.b5 1ff6 23 : xd5 : ac8 24 : xc8 : xc8 25 e5 1fe6 26 1We4 J.f8 27 J.d7 : c4 28 1Wd3 1fe7 29 e6, with approximate equality;
Naumkin-Krasenkov, Vilnius 1988) 19 ed (Black similarly has a good game after 1 9 .!Llxd5 J.e6 20 : fd l J.xd5 etc.) 19 • • • : e8
The next two examples are identical with Belyavsky-Kasparov up to move 20.
Yusupov-Timman, Rotterdam 1 988, continued sharply with 20
44 Exchange Variation with 7 J..c4 - other systems
. • . J..e5 2 1 .!tJe4 .tfS 22 .tbS .C. f8 23 J.c5 b6! (not 23 . . . .txe4?
24 fe 11Vh4 2S g3 .txg3 26 .C. c2! and White has an obvious plus) 24 .txf8 11Vxf8 2S 11Vxf8 + �xf8 26 .C. fe 1 ! (after 26 .C. fd 1 ? the exchange on e4 is good for Black : 26 . . . .txe4 27 fe �e7) 26 . . . .!tJb3 27 .C. cd l .!tJd4 28 .ta6 .!tJc2 29 .C. e2 .!tJd4 30 .C. ee l .!tJc2 3 1 .C. e2 .!tJd4 t-t.
One other game by Yusupov likewise ended in a quick draw :
20 . . . b5! 2 1 .C. fd l (or 21 .!tJe4 .!tJb7 22 .txbS aS 23 11Va4 .txbS
24 11VxbS .!tJd6, with equality; Naumkin-Mokry, Nemestovo 1 987) 21 . . . .!tJc4 22 J..xc4 aS 23 11Vb3 be 24 11Vxc4 .C. c8 2S 11Vd3 !-t;
Yusupov-Smejkal, Munich 1 988.
18 .C. fd1
It seems to me that a very strong move here is 18 .!tJd4, but it doesn't appear to have occurred in practice yet.
18 ed
19 ed .C. e8
20 .tf2 b5!
This looks like a serious weakening, but Black secures for his knight (via c4) the shortest route to the centre, where the main action is going to take place.
21 .!tJd4 .!tJc4 22 .!tJc6
By exchanging the troublesome knight on c4, White would restore the material balance but could hardly count on an advantage : 22 J.xc4 aS 23 11t'cS be 24 11Vxc4 a4. Yusupov endeavours to extract the maximum from the position.
20 w
22 .txc6
23 de .!tJb2! (20)
Exchange Variation with 7 J.c4 - other systems 45 24 J.xbS!
White would lose after the hasty 24 c7? 'irxd3 25 l: xd3 etlxd3 26 cS('ir) : axeS 27 : xeS : xeS and 2S . . . l: c l + .
24 etlxdl
25 c7 'irdS!
It looks as if both sides are playing to win. As Kasparov has pointed out, a draw would result from 25 . . . 'ireS 26 J.xeS etlxf2!
(26 . . . etlc3? 27 l: e l ! 'irxc7 2S l: e7) 27 'ire7 etlh3 + 2S gh 'irxeS 29 'irxeS + : xeS 30 cS('ir) J.d4+ 3 1 �g2 : xeS 32 : xeS + �g7.
26 J.xe8
The ingenious 26 J.c6 is answered by the calm 26 . . . 'ire6 27 J.xeS etlxf2, and now 2S 'irbS would lose to 2S . . . 'ire3!. On the other hand, 26 'irc4 'irxc4 27 : xc4 etlxf2 2S J.xeS etlh3+ 29 �fl : xe8 30 c8('ir) : xeS 31 : xeS + J.fS 32 gh �g7 leads to a draw.
26 etlxf2
27 c8('ir)
27 J.c6 would be met by 27 . . . etlh3 + . Two other variations also lead to drawn endgames : 27 J.xf7 + �xf7 2S 'irf4+ �e7 29 cS('ir) : xeS 30 : xeS etlh3+ 3 1 gh 'ird1 +, or 27 'irc4 etlh3+
2S �fl 'irxc4+ 29 : xc4 : xeS etc., as in the note to White's 26th move.
21 w
27
28 : xc8
: xc8 et:Jh3 + ! (21)
The knight has sped right the way across the board to get its king out of trouble.
29 gh
29 �fl ?? loses to 29 . . . 'ird3 + 30 �e 1 'ire3 + 3 1 �dl etlf2+
32 �c2 'ird3+ 33 �c1 'irdl mate.
46 Exchange Variation with 7 .tc4 - other systems (Exchange Variation) of the Griinfeld, but turn our attention to a line in which White postpones castling by one move, resulting in play of a wholly different character.
In passing, we should also mention the innovation 10 .:t b 1 !?, employed in Korchnoi-Kasparov, Reykjavik 1 988. There fol
lowed : 10 . . . �aS 1 1 .td3 cd 1 2 cd b6 1 3 0-0 (immediate kingside adequate defensive resources; instead, he commits the decisive error) 23 .tf2? : a8! 24 1i'd3 (24 1i'c4 bS) 24 . . . .:t a3, winning the
Exchange Variation with 7 J..c4 - other systems 47
22 B
1 8 de fe 1 9 e5! and White gained a clear plus. At move 1 4, Black introduced a valuable novelty in Shirov-Epishin, Daugavpils 1989: 14 . • . e6! 15 f4 .!Dg4 16 c4 ( 1 6 de J.xe6 17 J.xe6 fe 18 J.f2 : cd8 19 1rc2 .!Dxf2 20 : xf2 1r a6, with the better prospects owing to the threat of . . . 1rc4) 1 6 . . . 1rxd2 1 7 J.xd2 ed 1 8 cd J.b5 1 9 ..tc4 J.xc4 20 : xc4 b 5 2 1 : c2 .!Df6 2 2 .!D g 3 (in Shirov's opinion White could have maintained equality with 22 .!Dc3 b4 23 e5 be 24 ef cd 25 fg �xg7 26 : xd2, or 24 . . . J.xf6 25 J.xc3) 22 . . .
: fe8! 23 d6 .!Dd7! and the initiative passed to Black.
1 1 cd 1ra5+
12 �n J.d7
An inferior choice is 12 . . . : d8 13 h4 h5 14 1rb3 e6 1 5 d5 .!DeS 16 de .!Dxc4 17 ef+ �h7 18 1rxc4 J.g4 19 f3 : ac8 20 1rb3 : xc1 + 2 1 J.xc l J.e6 22 1rxe6 :t d 1 + 23 �f2 : xh 1 24 1rd6!
'iltxa2 25 1re7!. However, 12 . . . 1ra3!? deserves attention. This novelty occurred in Savchenko-Dimov, Varna 1 989. After 1 3 1rb3 1rxb3 14 J.xb3 :t d8 15 d5 .!Da5 16 J.a4 e6 1 7 . J.g5 f6 18 J.f4 e5 1 9 J.d2 b6, the game is about level.
23 B
13 h4 (23)
48 Exchange Variation with 7 J.c4 - other systems
13 l:l. ac8
In the diagram position Black has various options. Let us look at them. examining will also end quickly in his favour. Does this mean that the outlook as a whole is grim for Black? No - it turns out that 13 . . . l:l. fc8! is a good deal more accurate. After the end of the main game, we shall consider what a difference it makes to occupy the c-file with the other rook.
14 h5 e5
Without this central advance Black can hardly hope for counter
play. Let us look at the alternatives :
Exchange Variation with 7 J..c4 - other systems 49 vanat10ns : 1 9 . . . l:l. e8 20 �xg6 � xg6 2 1 "ifh5 J..e6 22 "ifh7+
�f8 23 J..c5 + �e7 24 J..xe6 fe 25 l:l. h3, and wins; or 1 9 . . . b4 20 �d5 l:l. e8 2 1 J..g5 J..b7 22 �g1 J..xd5 23 J..xd5, etc.) 20
�xg6! �xg6 2 1 "ifh5 1 -0; Dautov-Huzman, Kecskemet 1 989.
Black resigned because he cannot simultaneously defend the knight on g6 and the h7-square.
15 hg hg
16 d5!
More energetic than 1 6 J..d2 1Wb6 1 7 l:l. b 1 "ifc7 1 8 d5 �aS! 19 J..d3 �c4, with a good game for Black; Guseinov-Huzman, Baku 1988.
16 �d4
After 1 7 . . . �e7 1 8 J..g5, White has a solid advantage.
17 �xd4 l:l. xc4
17 • • • eel 18 ..txd4 l:l. xc4 1 9 l:l. xc4 11fa6 ( 1 9 . . . J..b5 20 J..xg7,
and wins) 20 1Wd3 transposes into the game continuation. At move 1 8, it might seem that Black can improve with 18 . . . J..b5 19 J..xg7 l:l. xc4 ( 1 9 . . . J..xc4+ 20 l:l. xc4 !) 20 l:l. xc4 ..txc4+ 21 �g1
�xg7 22 11fd4+, and after 22 . . . f6 23 "if xc4 "ife1 + 24 "iffl 11fxe4 the endgame is more pleasant for Black (Huzman and Vaikerman).
However, in place of the check on d4, Polugayevsky unearthed the quiet move 22 "ifcl!! (24) .
24 B
In spite of his extra piece, Black is helpless :
(a) 22 ... l:l. c8 23 "ifh6+ �f6 24 "iff4+ �e7 25 1We5+ �d7 26 l:l. h7 l:l. f8 27 "ife6+ �d8 28 1Wd6+ �e8 29 "ilb8 + �e7 30 d6 + ! (b) 2 2 • • • 11fc5 (22 . . . "ilb4 2 3 a3!) 2 3 1i'b2 + ! f6 24 11f xb7+ l:l. f7 25 l:l. h7 + �xh7 26 "if xf7 + �h6 27 "if xf6, and Black has no defence.
50 Exchange Variation with 7 J.c4 - other systems
(c) 22 • . • f6 l3 .l:l h3! (another quiet move, looking for all the world
like a study; instead, the straightforward 23 'lrh6+ �f7 24 'lrh7+
�e8 2S 'lrxg6+ �d8 26 l:l h7 'lre1 + 27 �h2 'lrxf2 28 'lrg7 'lrf4+
leads only to a draw). Now Polugayevsky gives two variations : (c1 ) l3 . . . 'lrxa2 24 'lrh6+ �f7 2S 'lrh7 + �e8 26 'lr xb7 'lra1 + 27 �h2 'IreS + 28 g3 'lrd4 29 'lrc8 + �f7 30 'lrd7+ �g8 3 1 'lrh7 mate.
(c2) 23 . . . J.a6 24 'lrh6+ �f7 2S 'lrh7+ �e8 26 d6! 'IreS 27 'lrc7 J.bS 28 .l:l h7, and it is all over.
18 .l:l xc4 'lra6
As we already know, 18 . .. ed 1 9 J.xd4 J.bS loses to 20 J.xg7.
25 w
19 'lrd3! ed 20 J.xd4 J.b5 (25)
One's first impression is that Black has defended himself while keeping the extra piece. But the unexpected continuation was :
21 'lrh3! J.xc4+
22 �g1 f6
23 'lrh7+ �f7
l4 .l:l h6!
1-0
A fine game. But let us go back to move 1 3, where Black could have played a little differently with 13 . . . .l:l fc8!. This innovation was used in Nogueiras-Ljubojevic, Barcelona 1 989. Now, after 14 hS e5 1 S hg hg 16 dS �d4 1 7 �xd4 ed 18 J.xd4 .l:l xc4! 19 .l:l xc4 ( 1 9 J.xg7 'lra6!) 1 9 . . . 'lra6 20 'lrd3 J.b5, we reach the same position as in diagram 2S, with the difference that Black's rook is on a8, not f8. This little nuance reverses the verdict on the position.
Black has an escape square on f8 for his king, and already holds
Exchange Variation with 7 i.c4 - other systems 51 victory in his hands, seeing that 2 1 1Wh3 (which settled matters in Polugayevsky-Kudrin) is unplayable; there is no threat of 1Wh7 mate, and Black simply captures the bishop on d4.
I should add that in answer to 14 h5, Ljubojevic refrained from 14 . . . e5, preferring to retreat to the back rank with his knight :
14 • • • ll:ld8. Incidentally, this retreat too was made possible by . . .
l:l. f8-c8 - the rooks are not now disconnected. There followed : 1 5 hg hg 16 i.d2? (a most unfortunate move) 1 6 . . . 1Wa4! (Black seizes the initiative. Mere equality results from 1 6 . . . 1Wb6 1 7 l:l. b 1 i.a4 1 8 1W e 1 1Wf6 1 9 l:l. c 1 ll:le6, while in this line 1 8 . . . 1Wc7?
actually loses to 19 l:l. c 1 1Wd7 20 f3 i.xd4 21 1Wh4 1Wd6 22 i.b4!;
Dragomai:etsky-Krasenkov, Moscow 1 989) 17 i.b3 1Wa6 1 8 �g1 1Wd3 1 9 l:l. xc8? (it isn't so clear after 1 9 i.h6) 1 9 . . . l:l. xc8 20 e5 i.e6! 2 1 �fl i.xb3 22 ab l:l. c2! and Black won.
One month later, the position after 1 3 . . . l:l. fc8 arose in a game Polugayevsky-Ftacnik, Haninge 1 989. Polugayevsky now innovated with 14 e5!, and only after 14 . . . ll:ld8 continued with 1 5 h5. Alas, a third beautiful win was not to be: 1 5 . . . i.b5 1 6 i.xb5 1Wxb5 1 7 h g h g 1 8 � g 1 l:l. xc l 1 9 ll:lxcl ll:le6 2 0 1Wg4 l:l. c8 21 1Wh4? (in Polugayevsky's view, 2 1 1We4 would have kept some initiative for White) 2 1 . . . 1Wb1 22 1Wh7+ �f8 23 �h2 1Wf5 24 ll:le2 l:l. c2 25 l:l.c1? (this allows Black to pick up a pawn and go into a won ending; it was essential to play 25 l:l. e1 , with drawing chances) 25 . . . l:l. xc l 26 ll:lxc l ll:lxd4! 27 f4 1We4 28 1Wh3, and now instead of 28 . . . ll:lf5 (after which Black took 35 moves to win), Ftacnik demonstrated a quicker method : 28 . . . ll:le6 29 i.d2 g5 30 1Wc3 �g8 3 1 g3 gf 32 gf ll:lxf4 33 1Wc8+ �h7 34 1Wg4 i.xe5 etc.
So the keen debate about the fascinating variation 10 l:l. c 1 is far from being resolved.