Vassily Ivanchuk

Nikolai Kalinichenko

Vassily Ivanchuk
100 selected games

New In Chess 2013

© 2013 New In Chess
Published by New In Chess, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
www.newinchess.com

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission from
the publisher.

All photos: NIC Archives

Cover design: Volken Beck

Supervisor: Peter Boel
Proofreading: René Olthof
Translation: Steve Giddins
Production: Anton Schermer

Have you found any errors in this book?

Please send your remarks to editors@newinchess.com. We will collect all relevant
corrections on the Errata page of our website www.newinchess.com and implement
them in a possible next edition.

ISBN: 978-90-5691-427-1
Contents

Chapter 1
Vassily Ivanchuk, a Portrait . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Selected Games
Chapter 2
1985 – 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Chapter 3
1994 – 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Chapter 4
2002 – 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Chapter 5
2008 – 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Vassily Ivanchuk's Principal Tournament Successes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

Rating Chart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Game List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Index of Openings and ECO Codes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
Index of Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311

5
Chapter 1
Vassily Ivanchuk, a Portrait

Vassily Mikhailovich Ivanchuk was born other way, we call it the search for truth
on 18 March 1969, in the town of in chess.
Kopychintsy (in the Ternopolskaya Oblast His first big successes came in 1985.
of Ukraine), into a family of intelligent Vassily won the USSR junior champion-
parents: his father was a lawyer and his ship and won the bronze medal in the
mother a physics teacher. championship of Ukraine. A year later, he
‘At first, nobody dreamt I had any talent for
chess’, he recalled in one interview. ‘At first,
I just very much wanted to play. I was capti-
vated by this form of sport. It all started
when my father gave me a magnetic chess
set for my birthday. I liked the pieces and
asked my father to tell me about the game
and to show me how the pieces moved.
Then I wanted to know more and more,
and my mother brought me a few books
from school. My first book was A Journey in
the Kingdom of Chess, by Averbakh and
Beilin. Then I started solving chess prob-
lems in newspapers, which I copied out. It
was my first trainer, Gennady Vassilenko,
who predicted I would become a successful
player – “You will become at least a grand-
master”, he said.’
Amongst the chess books he has loved all
his life, Vassily mentioned Lasker’s Man- joined the chess faculty of the Lvov state
ual of Chess, Bronstein’s 1953 Zurich Can- university of physical culture. From his
didates’ book, and Alekhine’s and student days onwards, he has loved the
Botvinnik’s game collections. Openings city of Lvov, which became his home.
he loved to study from Keres’ books. In 1986, the 17-year old master won the
But that is in the future. For now, the life European Youth Championship (this
of the 13-year-old Vasya Ivanchuk had event was traditionally held in the Dutch
undergone a great change – he was a real city of Groningen, over the start of the
sportsman. Into his life had come the new year).
thing that would forever define it, filling Here are several examples of his play in
it with the joy of victory, the pain of de- those years.
feat, constant work and never-ending The following game, played in the last
concern with self-improvement. Put an- round, decided the fate of second place.

7
 Vassily Ivanchuk

í Ivanchuk,Vassily For the exchange, Black has a pawn, the

n Savchenko,Stanislav advantage in the centre and prospects of
Jurmala 1985 an attack on the king. It seems White
needs to show accuracy in defence, but
Vassily demonstrates a concrete approach
._._._Tm to the position:
_._._QjJ 29.g4!
._J_._.d It turns out that Black’s pieces are unsta-
j.b.j._. bly placed.
I_Il._._ 29...Àh4?
_R_B_._. 29...Ãxc3 was essential.
Kr._._.t 30.g5!
Suddenly, the bishop on d4, the pride of
_._._._.
Black’s position, is hanging.
Savchenko was in very bad time-trouble. 30...©f4 31.Àxd5! ©g4 32.Àe3
This circumstance played a decisive role – Ãxe3 33.fxe3 Ãb5
now the simplest win was 31...Õxb2+ Or 33...Àxg2 34.©xd7+ Õf7 35.©d4+.
32.Õxb2 Ãxb2 33.®xb2 ©d2+ 34.Ãc2 34.Õf2 Àf5 35.Õc7+ ®g8 36.e4
Õb8+, but Black played Black resigned.
31...Ãxb2?
There followed Petroff Defence (C42)
32.©xg8+!! ®xg8 33.Õb8+ í Howell,James
and in the space of two moves, Vasya n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Ivanchuk had jumped from a share of Groningen 1986/87
3–7th places, up to 2nd place in the tour- 1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àf6 3.Àxe5 d6 4.Àf3
nament. After Àxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Ãd3 Àc6 7.0-0
33...®f7 Ãg4 8.c4 Àf6 9.Àc3 Ãxf3 10.©xf3
Black was mated: Àxd4 11.©e3+ Àe6 12.cxd5 Àxd5
34.Õf8+ ®e6 35.Ãf5 13.Àxd5 ©xd5 14.Ãe4 ©b5 15.a4
Mate. ©a6 16.Õd1 Ãe7 17.©f3
In the sixth game of the return match
í Ivanchuk,Vassily Kasparov-Karpov, London 1986, play
n Brenninkmeijer,Joris continued 17.b4 0-0 18.©h3 g6 19.Ãb2
Groningen 1986/87 ©c4 20.Õd7 Õae8 21.Ãd5 ©xb4
22.Ãc3 Àf4, with strong counterplay for
._._.t._ Black.
_J_L_.mJ 17...Õb8
J_._JdJ_ A novelty. In the game Timman-Yusupov,
_._J_S_. Hilversum match 1986, Black played
17...Õd8, and the game soon ended in a
._.l._._ draw.
_.n._.i. 18.b4
Ii.qRiBi It was worth considering 18.©h3.
_.r._._K 18...0-0 19.Õd7?

8

.t._.tM_
jJjRlJjJ
D_._S_._
_._._._.
Ii._B_._
_._._Q_.
._._.iIi
r.b._.k.
Instead of this apparently active, but mis-
taken rook penetration to the seventh
rank, White should have played 19.Ãb2.
19...Õbd8! 20.Ãxb7
It turns out that the black bishop is invul-
nerable: 20.Õxe7? ©d6 21.Ãa3 ©xe7
22.b5 Àc5 23.Ãxh7+ ®xh7 24.©f5+
(nor is 24.©h5+ ®g8 25.Ãxc5 ©f6 any
better) 24...g6 25.Ãxc5 ©e2, and Black
wins.
Nor can the bishop be taken in other
ways: 20.Ãd3 ©c6 21.©h3 g6 22.Õxe7
©c3 23.Õxe6 Õxd3 or 20.b5 ©b6
21.Õxe7 ©d4.
20...©c4 21.Õxd8
21.Õxe7? ©d4.
21...Õxd8 22.Ãe3 ©xb4 23.Ãe4
23.Ãxa7 is bad, because of 23...c5 24.a5
Ãf6 with a decisive advantage to Black.
23...Ãc5 24.Ãxc5
After 24.Ãd5, this is a possible variation:
24...Ãxe3 25.Ãxe6 Ãxf2+ 26.©xf2
fxe6 27.©xa7 c5 28.Õf1 ©d4+ 29.®h1
©f4 30.®g1 ©e3+ 31.®h1 h6, and
Black should win.
24...©xc5 25.h4 ©d4 26.Õe1 ©xa4
27.h5
27.Ãxh7+ ®xh7 28.©xf7 doesn’t work,
because of 28...Õd6!.
27...Àg5 28.©f5 Àxe4 29.Õxe4
©d1+ 30.®h2 g6 31.hxg6 hxg6
32.©g5 Õd5 33.©f6 ©h5+ 34.Õh4
©xh4+!
White resigned.
Vassily Ivanchuk, A Portrait
For the rapidly-improving youngster, the
end of the 1980s was the start of a period
of especially fast progress. Much has been
said and written about this.
After his victory in the New York Open
1988, where Vassily outstripped such ex-
perienced grandmasters as Larsen,
Gligoric and Byrne (not to mention many
others – the grandmaster entry at this
tournament numbered 37 players), sto-
ries appeared in the American press about
the appearance of a new star of Soviet
chess. Anatoly Bykhovsky drew attention
to his enormous all-round chess knowl-
edge, considering his main weapon to be
his deep and accurate calculation.
Alexey Suetin, who had worked with
Ivanchuk at training sessions, emphasised
his speed of thought, phenomenal mem-
ory and combinational sharpness, com-
paring him with the young Tal. And Tal
himself, summing up the results of the
55th national championship, in which
the young Ukrainian player occupied an
honourable 5–6 place, wrote in his piece
of the ‘Vasya Ivanchuk phenomenon’:
‘Looking at the 19-year-old master, I
drew some analogy (I hope this does not
seem out of place) with myself. I also first
played in the USSR Championship at 19,
and my result was roughly the same’
(«64». 1988, No 18).
Ivanchuk later shared his own impres-
sions of Tal:
‘What Tal succeeded in doing in chess
needs a complete re-evaluation in con-
temporary chess. There is some sense in
looking in great deal, from the com-
puter’s viewpoint, at the positions where
Tal made his famous sacrifices. And then,
as well as his unique combinational tal-
ent, there is also his subtle psychology.
For example, I remember his comment
9
 Vassily Ivanchuk
on one of his games: “I will let you in to a
secret – I love to play against timid oppo-
nents (…) I also love to sacrifice pieces,
even when it’s not totally correct’ (from
an interview with Yury Vasiliev,
news.sport-express.ru).
By the start of the 1990s, Vassily Ivanchuk
was one of the strongest players in the
world. Here is a partial extract from his
‘track record’:
- in 1988 and 1990, he won the Chess
Olympiad, as part of the USSR team,
showing outstanding individual results;
- in 1989, ahead of Anatoly Karpov, he
took first place at Linares, shared first
place at Biel with Lev Polugaevsky, and
won the Tigran Petrosian Memorial in
Yerevan;
- in 1990, he shared 1–2 places with Gata
Kamsky at Tilburg and 1–2 places with
Boris Gelfand in the Interzonal tourna-
ment in Manila;
The summit of his achievements was his
triumphal performance at the very strong
international tournament at Linares in
1991. With a score of 9.5 out of 13 (six
wins and seven draws), Vassily Ivanchuk
occupied outright first place, ahead of
Kasparov and Karpov, and defeated both
of them. This had not happened in the
chess world for many years – nobody had
broken the hegemony of the two K’s!
The 22-year old grandmaster reacted cau-
tiously to his success, acknowledging the
great part in it played by his first wife, in-
ternational grandmaster Alisa Galliamova:
‘In all my current successes, one can find
part of her work. Having learnt to use the
computer, she mastered all the games of
the players at Linares. With such help,
one’s strength is doubled’ (Sovietsky
Sport, 29-03-1991).
(To this day, Ivanchuk has a double-edged
relationship with the computer:
10
‘The computer is a good assistant. If the
player leads the computer, and it helps
him, this is good. But if the computer
leads the player, this is bad. When there is
time, it is best to work by oneself, or at
least, to try to do so. The computer is an
essential element in one’s work, but I, for
example, always take a full-sized board
and set with me to a tournament. Many
young players see this as an anachronism’
– interview with Yury Vasiliev,
news.sport-express.ru.)
Even so, the winner of the Linares
super-tournament of 1991 will remem-
ber it for all of his life. Many years later,
when asked about the significance of this
event for him, he replied as follows:
‘When one achieves something for the
first time, it is always pleasant and cannot
be compared with anything else’ (Evgeny
Atarov, www.chesspro.ru).
From the games which have not made it
into the main part of the book, the minia-
ture played in this event against Boris
Gelfand is especially interesting:
Grünfeld Indian Defence (D77)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Gelfand,Boris
Linares 1991
1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 g6 3.Àf3
In Tilburg 1990, Ivanchuk played 3.g3
against the same opponent.
There followed 3...Ãg7 4.Ãg2 d5 5.cxd5
Àxd5 6.Àf3 0-0 7.0-0 Àb6 8.Àc3 Àc6
9.d5 Àa5 10.e4 c6 11.Ãg5!? cxd5
12.Àxd5 Àxd5 13.exd5 Ãxb2 14.Õe1
Ãf6 15.Ãxf6 exf6 16.Õc1 with White
having the initiative for a pawn. The game
was drawn in 44 moves.
3...Ãg7 4.g3 0-0 5.Ãg2 d5 6.0-0
dxc4 7.Àa3 c3 8.bxc3 c5 9.e3 Àc6
10.©e2 ©a5 11.Ãb2 Àd5?!

More accurate is 11...Ãf5, but Black
wants to develop the bishop to b7.
12.Õac1 b6 13.Àd2!
With the intention of harassing the black
queen.
After 13.Àe5?! Àxe5 14.Ãxd5 Ãa6
15.c4 Õad8 Black’s pieces are very ac-
tively placed.
13...e6
He should have tried 13...Õd8!?.
14.Àb3!
A significant improvement.
The continuation 14.e4 Ãa6 15.Àdc4
Àde7 16.e5 ©a4 leads to a complicated
game, with approximately equal chances.
14...©a6
After 14...©a4? 15.dxc5, Black loses a
pawn.
15.c4 Àdb4
T_L_.tM_
j._._JlJ
DjS_J_J_
_.j._._.
.sIi._._
nN_.i.i.
Ib._QiBi
_.r._Rk.
16.Àb5!
With the threat of 17.Àc7.
16...©a4?
Not spotting the danger! However, even
after the best reply 16...©xa2, White ob-
tains a clear advantage by means of
17.Àxc5! bxc5 18.Õa1 ©b3 19.Õa3
©c2 20.©xc2 Àxc2 21.Ãxc6 Àxa3 (or
21...Õb8 22.Õxa7±) 22.Ãxa3! Õb8
23.Ãxc5 a6 (23...Õd8 24.Ãxa7)
24.Ãxf8.
17.Àc3! ©a6 18.a3
The knight manoeuvres have brought
White victory. The black pieces are
Vassily Ivanchuk, A Portrait
grouped on the edge of the board, and he
cannot avoid large material losses.
Black resigned.
In the meantime, the 1991–1992 Candi-
dates’ cycle started even before Linares.
Vassily began in spectacularly successful
style in the first round, easily beating
Leonid Yudasin 4,5-0,5.
Modern Benoni (A63)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Yudasin,Leonid
Riga, 1st match game 1991
1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 c5 4.d5 exd5
5.cxd5 d6 6.Àc3 g6 7.Àf3 Ãg7
8.Ãg2 0-0 9.0-0 a6 10.a4 Àbd7
11.Àd2 ©c7
By transposition we have reached one of
the variations of the Modern Benoni,
which Yudasin loves to play.
12.©b3!
Posing the opponent a novelty.
12...Àe8?!
Too passive. It was worth considering
12...Àe5!? 13.f4 c4 14.©a2 ©c5+
15.®h1 Àeg4 16.Àxc4 Õe8, with the
initiative for a pawn.
13.Àc4 Õb8 14.Ãf4 b5?
This desperate pawn sacrifice, with the
aim of weakening White’s pressure, does
not succeed. Better was 14...Àe5.
15.axb5 Àe5 16.Ãxe5 Ãxe5 17.b6
Ãf6 18.Õa3 ©b7 19.Õfa1 Ãd8
20.Àa4 Ãd7
By exchanging on a4, Black gets rid of the
b6-pawn, but allows White to control the
a-file.
21.Àa5 Ãxa4 22.©xa4 ©xb6
23.Õb3 ©c7 24.Õxb8 ©xb8
25.Àc6 ©c7 26.©xa6 Ãf6
Black is a pawn down with a bad posi-
tion, but it is hard to imagine that the
game will only last two more moves.
11
 Vassily Ivanchuk
._._StM_
_.d._J_J
Q_Nj.lJ_
_.jI_._.
._._._._
_._._.i.
.i._IiBi
r._._.k.
27.Ãh3!! Ãg7
After 27...Ãxb2, the reply 28.Õb1 de-
cides, as the bishop cannot retreat be-
cause of 29.Õb7, and the queen is lost.
28.©b5!
There is no satisfactory defence to the
threat of 29.Õa7.
Black resigned.
After two brilliant victories, in Linares
and the Candidates’ match, Vassily’s rat-
ing rose sharply, at one time being second
only to Kasparov’s. In the next Candidates’
match, against Artur Yusupov, he was
considered a firm favourite. Without ex-
aggeration, millions of players around the
world were supporting him. In his sup-
port, his country established a five-year
fund ‘Bring the chess crown to Ukraine’.
In all this, in reply to a joke question put
to him by the correspondent from the
magazine «64» («64» Chess Review
1991, 5), as to what his attitude was to
luck, he answered quite seriously:
‘It plays a great role.’
And he had his reasons.
Unexpectedly for all, the first eight games
of the match Ivanchuk-Yusupov saw the
score tied at 4-4. And in the two extra
games, even more surprisingly, Ivanchuk
scored only one draw.
Immediately afterwards, he explained his
defeat by the fact that he suffers from
moods – he can work for days and nights,
12
but three hours later, has lost all interest.
Before the match, he fell into one of these
black moods.
‘Admittedly, I did not feel the crisis. Be-
fore the match, I regarded myself as a
strong player, but now I think that anyone
could beat me. That is the thing with me’
(«64» Chess Review 1991, 21).
After this, he went to the World Cup tour-
nament in Reykjavik, where he scored
10,5 out of 15 (6 wins, 9 draws, no de-
feats), sharing 1-2 places with Karpov.
If that isn’t luck!...
In reality, the issue is about the phenome-
non of a deeply creative personality, who
reacts to circumstances around him and
his position in them.
From what Ivanchuk said in 2011, we can
conclude that the most difficult time for
him is the period before an important
competition, or even an important game.
When a certain result is expected from
him, he starts to expect it of himself. Con-
sequently, the tension grows and his abil-
ity to generate ideas and prepare goes
down, as his organism begins to protest
at the pressure from all sides!
But Ivanchuk would not be Ivanchuk, if
he did not find a way of combatting these
nerves.
Vladimir Kramnik once observed that for
Ivanchuk, every tournament is the most
important one of his life. The opposite is
also possible – just another tournament,
no more or less important than any other.
But every opponent for Ivanchuk is just
an opponent:
‘I prepare for every opponent individu-
ally, regardless of his level. I try to play ac-
cording to the position and do not take
on myself any particular obligations, that
I ought to show something to somebody,
or must win all my games – not in any
circumstances! Such pressure usually

leads to exactly the opposite result’
(Evgeny Atarov, www.chesspro.ru).
Another way for him to reduce the time
spent waiting between games is to play
rapid or blitz games:
‘Maybe I play best in tournaments with
faster time controls, which end within
one or two days. But not all tournaments
are like that, which means that I have to
prepare and accept the pressure between
games.’
And further:
‘I believe that I can still become world
champion, but only on condition that I
can look at this championship and the as-
sociated qualification events as ordinary
tournaments, and nothing special. Then I
will be able to prepare’ (Daniel Mokrik,
Zaxid.net.).
This was said recently, and with absolute
truth.
After more than 25 years of his profes-
sional career, Vassily Ivanchuk remains
one of the strongest players in the world.
On 1 January 2013, he was rated number
twelve in the world on 2758 (equal with
Alexander Morozevich).
He was closer than ever to the world
championship in 2002, when he played
Ruslan Ponomariov in a match for the
FIDE version of the title.
Before this, he had an amazing series of
victories and prizes in such strong events
as Linares and Dortmund (1992), Am-
sterdam, Munich and Novgorod (1994),
again Linares and Dortmund (1995),
Wijk aan Zee, Novgorod and Amsterdam
(1996), Belgrade (1997), Monaco and
the FIDE President’s Cup (1998).
In 1999, he won the tournament in Lvov,
in 2000 the international festival in
Montecatini Terme, and in 2001, shared
3-4 places with Vladimir Kramnik at Wijk
aan Zee.
Vassily Ivanchuk, A Portrait
The FIDE world championship was held
in Moscow, on the knockout system. Hav-
ing beaten a series of well-known grand-
masters in short matches, including
Anand, Sutovsky and Lautier, Ivanchuk
reached the final.
Few doubted that he would beat his
18-year old countryman, but once again,
his ‘black moods’ hit him, this time
blacker than ever. The 8-game match
ended early: after losing two games and
drawing five, Ivanchuk was on his way
home.
The turning point was the fifth game, in
which he confidently outplayed his op-
ponent:
í Ponomariov,Ruslan
n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Moscow, 5th match game 2002
._TdT_._
_L_._.lM
J_._SjJj
_JjJj._.
._._I_I_
i._I_N_.
BiIb.iIq
_._Rr.k.
26...Àd4!
By forcing the exchange of knights, Black
opens lines for his rooks.
27.Àxd4 cxd4 28.c3 dxc3 29.bxc3?
Now White’s isolated queenside pawns
come under attack. Stronger is 29.Ãxc3
d4 30.Ãd2 Õc2 31.Ãc1 Ãc8 32.Ãb3
Õc7 33.Ãd2 ©d6 with mutual chances.
29...dxe4 30.dxe4 ©e7 31.a4 bxa4
32.©h3 Õed8
Defending against the threat of 33.Ãxh6!
Ãxh6 34.g5.
33.©f3 Õc7!
13
 Vassily Ivanchuk
The doubled rooks on the d-file will
strengthen Black’s advantage.
34.Ãc1 Õcd7 35.Ãb1
The bishop leaves the important diagonal.
More accurate is 35.Õxd7 Õxd7 36.Ãc4
©c5 37.Ãa2ç.
35...©e6 36.Õxd7 Õxd7 37.Ãc2
Ãc6 38.Õd1 ©a2 39.Õxd7 Ãxd7
40.©d1 Ãb5
Black has an overwhelming advantage. He
could also win with 40...Ãxg4!?
41.©xg4 ©xc2 and if 42.Ãxh6!? f5 (less
clear is 42...©xc3 43.Ãxg7 ®xg7
44.©d7+ ®h6 45.©xa4 a5) 43.exf5
©xf5 44.©xf5 gxf5 45.Ãc1 Ãf8, win-
ning.
41.Ãe3 ©c4 42.®h2 Ãc6 43.©a1
Ãf8 44.Ãb1 a3 45.f3 ©b3 46.©a2
Ãa4! 47.®g3 ®g7?
Fatal hastiness, which may have prevented
Ivanchuk becoming world champion. He
could win easily with 47...g5 48.Ãa7
®g7 or 47...Ãe7, or even 47...a5.
._._.l._
_._._.m.
J_._.jJj
_._.j._.
L_._I_I_
jDi.bIk.
Q_._._I_
_B_._._.
48.©d2!
Radically sharpening the game.
48...g5
After 48...©xb1?! 49.Ãxh6+ ®g8
50.©d5+ ®h8 51.Ãxf8 Black has to ac-
cept a draw by perpetual check by
51...©e1+ 52.®h2 ©h4+, in view of
the threat of 52.©f7.
49.Ãa2 ©b7 50.©d3 Ãe8 51.©d5
©xd5 52.exd5
14
Now the connected passed pawns give
White good drawing chances.
52...a5 53.c4 Ãb4 54.c5 ®f8
55.®f2 Ãb5 56.c6 ®e7 57.Ãa7
®d8 58.Ãb6+ ®c8?!
More solid is 58...®e8 59.®e3 ®e7
60.Ãa7 Ãa6 61.®e4 Ãd6 with equality.
59.®e3 a4?
Losing. He could hold the balance with
59...Ãf1! 60.g3 (or 60.®e4 Ãxg2
61.Ãc4 Ãd6 62.Ãxa5 Ãh1ì) 60...Ãa6
61.Ãb1 Ãd6 62.Ãa2 a4.
60.®e4 Ãe2 61.®f5 e4 62.®e6
exf3 63.d6 Ãxd6 64.®xd6
Black resigned.
In 2004, having already won a tourna-
ment in the Swedish city of Malmö, and
the 5th individual European Champion-
ship (2004), Vassily Ivanchuk lead the
Ukrainian team to victory for the first
time, in the Olympiad at Calvia. The team
leader also scored more points than any
other team member, showing a result on
top board of 9,5 out of 13 (+6, –0, =7).
Question:
’Did Ivanchuk have to change anything
within himself, to become a leader of his
team?’ (Evgeny Atarov, www. chesspro.ru).
‘Probably not. It seems to me that I was just
ready for the situation which existed within
our team. I enjoyed every aspect – walks to-
gether, conversations, contemplating the lo-
cal landscapes… All the various circum-
stances worked positively for me!…’
After his victories in the Tigran Petrosian
Memorial in Yerevan and the Carlos Torre
Memorial in Merida (2004), in two
Capablanca Memorials in Havana (2005
and 2006), second places in the European
Championship, Foros and Barcelona
(2006), a new period of achievement
started.

In 2007, he won in succession tourna-
ments in Havana, Foros, Odessa, Montreal
and Merida, and in September, assumed
second place on the FIDE rating list.
Highs in his career have often been fol-
lowed by lows, but as Vassily himself said:
‘Everyone has their setbacks. One cannot
always be at the peak of one’s form... In
general, I have managed to overcome
temporary crises’ (Evgeny Atarov, www.
chesspro.ru).
In addition, he has played an extremely
large amount in recent years.
Having suffered a failure in the Tal
Memorial in Moscow (2007), Vassily
Ivanchuk found consolation in the fact
that, just one day later at the GUM depart-
ment store, where the new championship
started, he became world champion at
blitz, ahead of Anand and Kramnik.
And in 2008, after a not very successful
performance at Wijk aan Zee and
Morelia/Linares, he achieved a triumph
at Sofia.
In a tournament of two cycles, with the
participation of six of the strongest players
in the world, Vassily showed a phenome-
nal result, winning six games and drawing
four, for a score of 8 points out of 10 (the
reader will find all six of his remarkable
victories in the pages of this book).
In the same year, he won the Tal Memo-
rial in Moscow and took second place in
Foros (2008), and the following year
won in Bazna and at the FIDE Grand Prix
in Jermuk.
In 2010, he won the Capablanca Memo-
rial in Havana and as part of the Ukrai-
nian team scored 8 out of 10 (+7 –1 =2)
and again became Olympiad champion in
the Olympiad at Khanty-Mansiysk.
Amongst his recent triumphs are first
place at the 9th chess festival in Gibraltar
in 2011 and two more victories (the 5th
Vassily Ivanchuk, A Portrait
and 6th in all!) in the Capablanca Memo-
rial in Cuba (2011 and 2012). In the
summer of 2012 he won the ACP Golden
Chess Classic in Amsterdam with 5 out of
6 (+5 -0 =2), an event which experi-
mented with the return of adjourned
games. At the end of the year Ivanchuk
tied for first place in the King’s Tourna-
ment in Bucharest with 3½ out of 6 (+1
-0 =5).
It is interesting to hear Ivanchuk’s views
on the aesthetics of the chess struggle:
‘Have I ever played a game free of mis-
takes? Obviously. But the ones with mis-
takes usually end up as the most beautiful
and popular. If the opponent does not put
up much resistance, then it is much easier
to play a game without mistakes. The
most memorable games are those where,
despite being objectively lost, one man-
ages to avoid defeat’ (from an interview
with Elena Sadovnik, www.sport-ex-
press.ua).
His style is universal in the best sense of
the word.
Amongst professionals, the general opin-
ion is that Vassily is exceptionally danger-
ous in positions without risk, where he
has a small positional advantage. This
does not prevent him from happily play-
ing strategically complicated positions,
with unusual material balances, and he
has been equally successful with a queen
against assorted pieces, or vice versa, with
the pieces against the queen.
And, in addition, his play of course fea-
tures many striking sacrifices, energetic
attacks and sudden tactical blows.
If one adds to this his enormous chess er-
udition and the vast number of new ope-
ning ideas he has generated, many of
which have produced extremely original
positions on the board, then it is right to
15
 Vassily Ivanchuk

speak not merely of his universality, but 9...Àc6 10.Àge2!?

of a unique creative footprint, of a great
player.
His encyclopaedic knowledge permits
him to play a vast range of different ope-
nings, rare continuations in well-known
lines, and often to decide the outcome of
a game in the very opening.
The following game starts with the exotic
Trompowsky Opening:
Trompowsky Opening (A45)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Jobava,Baadur
Havana 2005
1.d4 Àf6 2.Ãg5 Àe4 3.Ãf4 d5 4.e3
c5 5.Ãd3 Àc6?!
looks risky; it was worth considering
5...Àd6.
6.Ãxe4! dxe4 7.d5 Àb4
After 7...e5 the game Löffler-Perunovic,
Warsaw 2005, continued 8.Ãg3 Àe7
9.Àc3 Àg6 10.©h5 Ãe7 11.Ãxe5 0-0
12.Ãg3 f5, and now 13.Àh3! Ãf6
14.0-0 would have left White with good
prospects.
8.Àc3 e6
Insufficient is 8...Ãf5 9.a3 Àa6 10.f3
with advantage to White, Kornev-
Prokopchuk, Neftyugansk 2002
9.d6
T_LdMl.t
jJ_._JjJ
._.iJ_._
_.j._._.
.s._Jb._
_.n.i._.
IiI_.iIi
r._Qk.nR
The battle rages around the d6-pawn,
which prevents the normal development
of the black pieces.
A novelty! After 10.Àxe4 f5 11.Ãg5
©d7!? (dubious is 11...©b6?! because of
12.Àf6+! ®f7 13.Àxh7! Õxh7 14.d7
Ãe7 15.Àf3! ©xb2 16.0-0 ©b6
17.dxc8© Õxc8 18.Õb1 with a clear ad-
vantage to White, Speelman-Wang
Yaoyao, Beijing 1997) 12.Àxc5 ©xd6
White’s chances are superior.
10...f5?
This natural move allows White to exe-
cute an interesting idea. It was essential to
settle for 10...e5!? 11.Àb5 exf4 12.Àc7+
®d7 13.Àxa8 fxe3 14.fxe3 Ãxd6 with
counterplay for the exchange.
11.Àb5! ®f7 12.Àc7 Õb8
.tLd.l.t
jJn._MjJ
._SiJ_._
_.j._J_.
._._Jb._
_._.i._.
IiI_NiIi
r._Qk._R
13.g4!
This pawn sacrifice completely destroys
Black’s defences.
13...g6? is bad because of 14.gxf5 gxf5
15.Àd4! h5 16.Àxf5!, whilst after
13...g5?, decisive is 14.gxf5! gxf4
15.Àxf4! Ãxd6 16.©h5+ ®f6
17.©h6+ ®xf5 18.Àcxe6 with a crush.
13...fxg4 14.Àg3 Àb4
There is already no satisfactory defence.
Black loses at once after 14...g5?
15.©xg4! gxf4 16.©h5+ ®g8 17.Õg1
Ãg7 (or 17...fxg3 18.Õxg3+ Ãg7
19.©h6 ©f8 20.Àe8!) 18.Àxe4ê.
15.a3 Àd5 16.Àxe4 Àxf4 17.exf4
®g8 18.©xg4 h5
He also loses after 18...Ãxd6 19.Àe8!
Ãf8 20.Õg1 g6 21.À8f6+ ®f7

16

22.Àxh7!, with a decisive attack for
White.
19.©g3 b5 20.Õg1 Õh6 21.0-0-0
®h8 22.Àxc5 b4 23.axb4 Õxb4
24.d7 Õc4 25.À5xe6 1-0
In this further example of a miniature,
Ivanchuk’s opponent is the world cham-
pion:
Nimzo-Indian Defence (E55)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Anand,Viswanathan
Leon 2008
1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 e6 3.Àc3 Ãb4 4.e3
0-0 5.Ãd3 d5 6.Àf3 c5 7.0-0 dxc4
The alternatives are 7...Àc6 8.a3 Ãxc3
9.bxc3 dxc4 10.Ãxc4 ©c7 with chances
for both sides, or 7...Àbd7.
8.Ãxc4 Àbd7 9.©e2 cxd4 10.exd4
b6
The players are following the game
Portisch-Karpov, San Antonio 1972.
It was worth considering 10...Àb6, e.g.
11.Ãb3 Ãd7 12.Ãg5 Ãe7 13.Àe5 Àfd5
14.Àxd5 Ãxg5 15.Àxb6 axb6 16.d5
exd5 17.Ãxd5 ©e7 18.Õfe1 Ãe6
19.Ãxe6 ©xe6 with equality, Graf-
Gashimov, Sanxenxo 2007.
11.d5! Àc5?!
Giving White the initiative.
In the aforementioned game, Karpov
played 11...Ãxc3, and White won
quickly, but only after a serious blunder
by his opponent:
12.dxe6 Ãb4 13.exd7 ©xd7 14.a3 Ãd6
15.Õd1 ©c7 16.h3 Ãb7 17.Ãe3 Õae8
18.Õac1 ©b8 19.Ãb5 Õe7 20.Ãc6
Ãxc6 21.Õxc6 Ãc5 22.Õxf6!? (after
22.Àd4, chances are equal) 22...gxf6
23.Àd4 Ãxd4 24.Õxd4 (here, White
could force a draw by means of 24.©g4+
®h8 25.Ãxd4 Õe6 26.©f3 ®g7
27.©g4+ ®h8 28.©f3) 24...©e5
Vassily Ivanchuk, A Portrait
25.©f3 ®h8? (correct is 25...f5!, with
the better game) 26.Õd5, and in view of
the variation 26...©xb2 27.Ãd4 ©b1+
28.®h2 Õe6 29.Õg5!, Black resigned.
Admittedly, after 11...Ãxc3 12.dxe6 Ãb4
White can instead of 13.exd7 try the in-
teresting line 13.Àg5!?. It may be that
this was what Ivanchuk was intending,
going into this line.
12.Õd1 ©e8
Not much better is 12...©e7 13.d6 ©b7
14.Õd4!, with pressure for White.
13.Àb5!
Creating the threats of 14.Àc7 and 14.a3.
13...exd5 14.Àc7 ©e4?
The last chance was 14...©xe2 15.Ãxe2
Õb8 16.Ãf4 Àe6 (weaker is 16...Õb7
17.a3 Àh5 18.Ãd6 Àb3 19.axb4 Àxa1
20.Õxa1±) 17.a3 Ãe7 18.Àxe6 Ãxe6
19.Ãxb8 Õxb8, and Black has lost the ex-
change, but with a defensible position.
T_L_.tM_
j.n._JjJ
.j._.s._
_.sJ_._.
.lB_D_._
_._._N_.
Ii._QiIi
r.bR_.k.
15.Õd4!
The only winning move!
After 15.Àxd5?! ©xe2 16.Àxf6+ gxf6
17.Ãxe2 Àe6, Black holds.
Now, however, after 15...©xe2 16.Ãxe2,
rook and bishop are both attacked.
15...©g6 16.Àh4! 1-0
It is hopeless after 16...©h5 17.©xh5
Àxh5, and here both 18.Ãxd5 Àe6
19.Àxe6 Ãxe6 20.Ãxa8 Ãa5 21.Õd5
Ãxd5 22.Ãxd5, and 18.Ãe2, with three
black pieces attacked, are decisive.
17
 Vassily Ivanchuk

Despite his worldwide fame, Vassily
Ivanchuk remains a modest and open in-
dividual:
Question:
‘How to you react to the fact that many in
the chess world call you a genius?’ (Dan-
iel Mokrik, Zaxid.net).
‘It is hard to say how I react to this…
Sometimes, perhaps, it gives me extra
motivation to work harder, but some-
times, as they say, one gets “dizzy with
success’1 . Then one has trouble reacting
objectively to defeats, thinking “How can
I play like that?” and I cannot always re-
turn myself to a good mood.’
In another interview, he answered this
question differently:
‘It seems to me that it is not quite correct to
compare myself with the great masters of
the past. Because these people have already
achieved a great deal, whereas I hope that I
will still achieve much in the future. And as
to the concept of “genius”, this is a ques-
tion of taste. Tal was called a genius, but no-
body ever called Botvinnik one, for exam-
ple. Or Lasker, who was world champion
for 27 years – he was never labelled a ge-
nius. One can argue about genius, but it has
no definite characteristics’ (Yury Vasiliev,
news.sport-express.ru).
Question:
‘Is your greatest ambition to become
world champion?’ (Daniel Mokrik)
‘Not to become world champion. That,
after all, is just one event. Of course, I
would like this to happen. But some-
how I feel that it is precisely this desire
that has put me under some kind of
pressure in my chess career, and not al-
lowed me to focus on other tourna-
ments.’
Question:
‘For over 20 years now, you have been
part of the absolute elite of world chess.
What is your secret?’ (Daniel Mokrik)
‘Maybe the fact that, to this day, I retain a
great interest in chess, an interest that
borders on fanaticism. It is still interesting
for me to sit down and analyse games,
study new openings, and try to under-
stand better the particular characteristics
of my opponents’ styles. I still feel that
stimulus, that enables me to get in the
mood for serious work over and over
again.
Maybe the most important thing in all
this is a love for chess as art.’
It is surprising, but with each year that
passes, he plays better and better.
To Vassily Ivanchuk, from whose games
more than one generation will learn to
master the game, we wish many years of
creative achievement and new sporting
heights.

1 Translator’s Note: This last phrase has a resonance with ex-Soviet

readers that it lacks for us. Back in the 1930s, in a famous speech, Stalin
admitted that, ‘dizzy with success’, some Party cadres had become
carried away and had committed ‘excesses’ in enforcing the campaign
for the collectivisation of agriculture. In reality, of course, this
appallingly brutal campaign had been carried out on Stalin’s orders.

18
Chapter 2
Selected Games 1985 – 1993
ger is 17...Àc6Ç) 18.Àd4! Ãe8
1985 19.Àdxe6 fxe6 20.Àxe6 ©a7 21.e5!
Game 1 with an attack, Kasparov-Gelfand, Linares
Sicilian Defence (B88) 1993) 13.Àce2 Ãf6 14.Ãg5 Ãxg5
í Ivanchuk,Vassily 15.©xg5 Àf6 16.©e3 e5 17.Àf3 a5
n Mishra, Neeraj Kumar 18.c3 a4 19.Ãd5 Àxd5 20.Õxd5 Ãe6
Sharjah 1985 21.Õd2 Àc6 with mutual chances,
1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 d6 Tomczak-Swiercz, Chotowa 2010.
This continuation is seen more often in 8.Ãe3
the Sicilian than 2...Àc6, and retains the White prepares queenside castling.
opportunity for Black to transpose into Another plan is also possible: 8.0-0 ©c7
several different systems. 9.®h1 Ãe7 10.f4 0-0 11.f5 Àxd4
3.d4 cxd4 4.Àxd4 Àf6 5.Àc3 e6 12.©xd4 b5, Ivanchuk-Salov, Linares
Black chooses the Scheveningen Varia- 1991, and here after 13.Ãg5 h6 14.Ãh4
tion, which owes its name to the Dutch exf5 15.©d3! fxe4 16.Àxe4 Àg4! (but
city of the same name, where it was first not 16...Àxe4? 17.©xe4 Ãxh4
played in 1921.
6.Ãc4
White, in his turn, replies with the Sozin
T_L_.tM_
Attack, which has not lost its popularity _.d._Jj.
to this day. J_.j._.j
6...a6 7.Ãb3 _J_._._.
._._Q_.l
TsLdMl.t _B_._._.
_J_._JjJ IiI_._Ii
J_.jJs._ r._._R_K
_._._._. analysis diagram

._.nI_._ 18.Õxf7!) 17.Ãg3! Ãe6! (he loses after

_Bn._._.
IiI_.iIi
r.bQk._R
7...Àc6
Another continuation is 7...b5, e.g.: 8.0-0
Ãe7 9.©f3 ©c7 10.©g3 0-0 11.Ãh6
Àe8 12.Õad1 b4 (on 12...Ãd7 a good
reply is 13.Àf3! b4 14.Àe2 a5 15.Àf4!
®h8 16.Ãg5 Àf6 17.©h4 Ãb5? (stron-
17...Àe5? 18.Ãxe5 dxe5 19.Õxf7! Õxf7
20.Õf1 ®h8 21.Õxf7 Ãb7 22.Àg5!)
18.Àxd6 White’s chances are slightly
better (analysis by Ivanchuk).
8...Ãe7 9.f4 0-0 10.©f3 ©c7
11.0-0-0 Àa5 12.g4 Àxb3+
13.axb3 Àd7
Black wants to meet 14.f5 with 14...Àe5,
occupying an active square with his
knight, but he runs into something unex-

19
 Vassily Ivanchuk
pected.
Worthy of attention was 13...Àe8 14.g5
b5 with a sharp game with mutual
chances.
T_L_.tM_
_JdSlJjJ
J_.jJ_._
_._._._.
._.nIiI_
_In.bQ_.
.iI_._.i
_.kR_._R
14.Àf5!
This brave sacrifice by the Ukrainian
youngster forces his opponent onto the
defensive.
14...exf5 15.Àd5 ©d8 16.gxf5 Àf6
The best reply. On 16...g6, possible is
17.fxg6 fxg6 18.h4 a5 19.h5 g5
20.Õhg1 a4 21.Ãd4 h6 22.bxa4 Õxa4
23.b3 Õa6 24.©e3 with mounting
threats against the black king.
17.Àb6 Õb8 18.Õhg1!
Not allowing Black the possibility after
18.e5 of 18...Ãxf5! 19.exf6 Ãxf6
20.Õd5 Ãe6 21.Õd3 Õe8 22.f5 Ãd7
23.Àxd7 ©xd7 24.Ãc5 Ãe5 25.Õhd1
Õbd8, obtaining sufficient counterplay.
18...®h8 19.Ãd4 Õg8 20.Õg3! Ãd7
21.Õh3
White brings the rook into the attack, and
refrains from the immediate 21.e5 be-
cause of 21...Ãxf5.
21...g6?
Avoiding the threat of 22.Ãxf6+ Ãxf6
23.Õxh7+ mating, but seriously weaken-
ing the dark squares around his king.
Significantly stronger was 21...h6, and af-
ter 22.©e3 (or 22.Àxd7 ©xd7 23.Ãxf6
Ãxf6 24.e5 ©xf5) 22...Ãc6 23.Ãxf6
Ãxf6 24.e5 Õe8! 25.©g3 dxe5 26.Õxd8
20
Õbxd8 Black holds.
22.Àd5
A good alternative to the continuation
chosen was 22.Ãxf6+ Ãxf6 23.Õxd6
Ãe7 24.Õxd7 ©xb6 25.Õxe7 Õg7
26.fxg6 fxg6 27.Õxg7 ©g1+ 28.©d1
©xd1+ 29.®xd1 ®xg7 30.Õc3, and
with two extra pawns in the rook ending,
White should win.
22...Õg7 23.Àxe7 ©xe7 24.e5
Àh5?
Not the best retreat for the knight!
Better defensive chances were offered by
24...Àe4! 25.f6 ©e6 26.fxg7+ ®g8
27.Õh4 ©e7 (27...d5 28.f5!) 28.Õh6 d5
with advantage to White.
25.f6 ©d8 26.fxg7+ ®g8
Bad is 26...®xg7? 27.e6+ f6 28.exd7,
whilst 26...Àxg7 27.exd6 ®g8 28.Õg3
Àf5 29.Õgg1 is also cheerless.
.t.d._M_
_J_L_JiJ
J_.j._J_
_._.i._S
._.b.i._
_I_._Q_R
.iI_._.i
_.kR_._.
27.Õxh5!
White gives back the extra exchange and
destroys the enemy’s defences.
27...gxh5 28.©xh5 ©c8 29.©g5
Ãf5 30.c3 d5
No better is 30...dxe5 31.Ãxe5 Õa8
32.©e7! ©e8 (otherwise 33.Ãd6)
33.©xb7 with a decisive advantage to
White.
31.Ãa7! Õa8 32.Õxd5 ©c6
Of course not 32...Õxa7? because of
33.Õd8+ winning the queen.
33.c4 Ãe6 34.Õd6 ©e4 35.Ãc5!
Announcing the final attack!
 Game 2 - 1988

35...Õe8 36.Õd4 ©e3+ 37.®b1

©xb3 38.Õd8 Ãf5+ 39.®a1 ©a4+
40.Ãa3 Ãe6 41.f5 Ãxc4 42.©e7!
On 42...Õxd8 there follows 43.©f8+!
Õxf8 44.gxf8© mate.
Black resigned.

1988
Game 2
Nimzo-Indian Defence (E20)
í Malaniuk,Vladimir
n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Moscow 1988
1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 e6 3.Àc3 Ãb4
The Nimzo-Indian Defence has always
been popular at the very highest level, of-
ten being seen in world championship
games. As in the Queen’s Indian, Black es- 5.a3 Ãe7
tablishes control of e4, after which he ei- On 5...Ãd6 (an idea of Simagin) there is
ther attacks the white centre (...c7-c5), or the strong move 6.Ãg5, and Black must
strengthens the dark squares in his camp spend another tempo to escape the pin –
(d7-d6 and e6-e5). Sometimes, as in the 6...Ãe7!?.
Queen’s Gambit, Black sets up a defence In our day, the most common line is
based on ...d7-d5. 5...Ãxc3+, e.g. 6.bxc3 c6 7.e3 0-0
This defence is one of the favourites of 8.Àh3 Õe8 9.Àf2 e5 10.Ãe2 Àbd7
the Ukrainian grandmaster. 11.0-0 Àf8 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.dxe5 Õxe5
4.f3 14.c4 Õe8 15.Õe1 with slightly better
White adopts a set-up, where his aim is chances for White, Ivanchuk-Bareev, Ha-
the enlarge his centre, even at the cost of vana 2010.
some lag in development. 6.e4 dxe4
He does not fear doubled pawns. The ex- Inadequate is 6...c5 because of the ener-
change on c3 strengthens the white cen- getic 7.e5 Àfd7 8.cxd5 exd5 9.f4.
tre, and he will try to advance e2-e4, to 7.fxe4
open play and exploit the advantage of
the two bishops. TsLdM_.t
A similar idea is characteristic of the jJj.lJjJ
Sämisch Variation (4.a3) and Rubinstein ._._Js._
System (4.e3), and so play after 4.f3 of- _._._._.
ten transposes into variations similar to
those lines.
._IiI_._
4...d5 i.n._._.
Black prevents his opponent’s aim of oc- .i._._Ii
cupying the centre. r.bQkBnR
The alternative is 4...c5.

21
 Vassily Ivanchuk

7...e5! More accurate is 15.Õa2, and after

With this advance, Black deprives the en-
emy centre of its mobility, obtaining ac-
tive counterplay on the dark squares.
8.d5
Mistaken is 8.dxe5? ©xd1+ 9.®xd1
Àg4.
8...Àg4?!
Leading to incalculable complications.
Quieter is 8...Ãc5 9.Àf3 Ãg4 10.h3
Ãxf3 11.©xf3 c6 12.Ãg5 Àbd7
13.0-0-0 h6 14.Ãd2 ©c7 15.®b1 Ãd4
16.Àe2 c5Ç, Berkes-Papp, Zadar 2010.
9.Àf3 Ãc5 10.b4?!
Worth considering was 10.Àa4!? Ãf2+
11.®e2 Ãd4 12.Àxd4 exd4 13.©xd4
with chances of an advantage, Shirov-
Dautov, Daugavpils 1989.
10...Ãf2+ 11.®e2 c5!
Strengthening control over d4.
12.Àb5 a6!
In deciding on this move, Black had to as-
sess the position arising after the rook
sacrifice.
13.©a4
TsLdM_.t
_J_._JjJ
J_._._._
_NjIj._.
QiI_I_S_
i._._N_.
._._KlIi
r.b._B_R
13...axb5!
A forced decision, which, however, gives
Black a strong attack.
14.©xa8 Ãd4!
By sacrificing another piece, Black de-
prives the white king of the only piece
currently defending it.
15.Àxd4
15...Àd7 16.®e1 Àgf6 17.Ãg5 h6
18.Ãxf6 Àxf6 19.©a5 b6 20.©xb5+
Ãd7 21.©a6 White retains some chances
of defence.
15...cxd4 16.©xb8 0-0
Threatening to transfer the queen to f6.
17.®e1
If the king tries to save himself by fleeing:
17.®d2 ©f6 18.®c2, there follows
18...Ãf5! 19.©c7 Ãxe4+ 20.®b3 ©f2
21.cxb5 Àe3!
._._.tM_
_Jq._JjJ
._._._._
_I_Ij._.
.i.jL_._
iK_.s._.
._._.dIi
r.b._B_R
analysis diagram
22.Õa2 (22.Ãxe3 ©xe3+ 23.®b2 ©d2+
24.®b3 Ãxd5+ 25.Ãc4 ©c3+ 26.®a4
Õa8+ 27.©a5 ©c2+ 28.Ãb3 Ãxb3#)
22...Ãxd5+ 23.Ãc4 Ãxc4+ 24.©xc4
©xa2+ 25.®xa2 Àxc4, winning.
17...©h4+ 18.g3 ©f6 19.Ãf4
The only defence. The threat was
19...©f2+ 20.®d1 Àe3+ 21.Ãxe3
Ãg4+, whilst after 19.Õa2 Black wins by
19...©f3 20.Ãg2 ©b3 21.Õd2 bxc4
22.©c7 ©e3+ 23.®f1 c3 24.Õc2 ©d3+
25.Õe2 ©d1+ 26.Õe1 ©c2 27.Õe2
©xc1+ 28.Õe1 ©b2 29.Õe2 ©b1+
30.Õe1 ©d3+ 31.Õe2 f5 with an irre-
sistible attack.
19...g5?!
A quicker win results from 19...d3! 20.Õc1
(20.Õa2 bxc4 21.Ãh3 Ãf5!) 20...exf4
21.©xf4 ©d4î, continuing the queen’s
victorious march on the dark squares.

22
 Game 3 - 1989

20.c5! 26.©g5 h6 27.©h5

White exploits the fleeting chance, man-
aging to bring his queen into the defence
via d6.
20...exf4
It was worth considering 20...gxf4, and
in the variation 21.©d6 ©g5 22.h4 ©g7
23.gxf4 Àf6! 24.©xe5 ©g3+ 25.®d1
Ãg4+ 26.®c2 ©c3+ 27.®b1 ©b3+
28.®c1 ©e3+ 29.®b2 Àxe4 30.Õh2 f6!
31.©e7 ©c3+ 32.®b1
._._.tM_
_J_.q._J
._._.j._
_JiI_._.
.i.jSiLi
i.d._._.
._._._.r
rK_._B_.
analysis diagram
32...Àd2+ 33.Õxd2 Ãf5+ 34.Ãd3
Ãxd3+ 35.Õxd3 ©xd3+ 36.®c1 ©c3+
37.®b1 ©b3+ 38.®c1 d3 Black wins.
21.©d6 ©g7 22.Ãd3 Àe5 23.®d2
On 23.Õd1 Black decides by 23...f5
24.gxf4 gxf4 25.exf5 Àxd3+ 26.Õxd3
©g2 with a massacre.
23...f3
Also good is 23...f5.
24.©e7
Also after 24.©c7 f2! (weaker is 24...g4?
25.®c2! Àc4 26.a4 Àe3+ 27.®b3 with
advantage to White) 25.Ãxb5 ©f6
26.®c2 d3+! 27.®c3 (not 27.Ãxd3? be-
cause of 27...Àxd3 28.®xd3 Õe8!)
27...d2 Black retains the initiative.
24...g4 25.Ãxb5 Àg6
A draw results from 25...©h6+ 26.®c2
©e3 27.©xe5 ©c3+ with perpetual
check. The knight move contains a hid-
den trap.
._L_.tM_
_J_._Jd.
._._._Sj
_BiI_._Q
.i.jI_J_
i._._Ji.
._.k._.i
r._._._R
27...d3! 28.Ãxd3?
Now White loses the queen and the fate
of the game is decided.
Maintaining the tension by 28.Õhb1
©d4 29.©xh6 ©xe4 (29...f2!?) gives a
sharp game with mutual chances.
28...Õe8!
With the irresistible threat of 29...Õe5.
29.h3 Õe5 30.hxg4 Õxh5 31.gxh5
Àe5 32.Õae1 ©g5+ 33.®c2 f2
34.Õd1 ©e3 0-1
Hopeless is 35.Ãb5 because of 35...Ãg4.
A sharp game and a great creative
achievement by the nineteen-year-old
master!
Regarding this game, Mikhail Tal wrote of
the brilliant attacking ideas which lay at
its foundation, that they ‘are beyond
good and bad’. ‘That is how he can play
and that is how he should play!’ was the
ex-world champion’s summary of
Ivanchuk’s style.
1989
Game 3
Ruy Lopez (C64)
í Beliavsky,Alexander
n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Linares 1989
1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.Ãb5
The Ruy Lopez was especially popular at
the end of the 19th century, when virtu-

23
 Vassily Ivanchuk
ally half of all tournament games begun
with this opening. Today too, it is re-
garded as one of the deepest strategic
openings in chess theory.
3...Ãc5
Black avoids the main continuation 3...a6,
choosing the old Cordel Defence. In reply
to White’s pawn advances in the centre,
Black prepares counterplay with his
pieces.
4.c3
On 4.Àxe5 a good reply is 4...Àd4
5.Ãc4 ©g5!.
This same move 4...Àd4 is also possible
after 4.0-0, e.g. 5.Àxd4 Ãxd4 6.c3 Ãb6
7.d4 c6 8.Ãc4 d6 9.Õe1 Àf6 10.Ãg5 h6
11.Ãh4 ©e7 12.a4 g5 13.Ãg3 a5
14.Àd2!? with slightly better chances for
White, Sengupta-Prasanna, Hastings
2011.
4...Àf6 5.d4 Ãb6
T_LdM_.t
jJjJ_JjJ
.lS_.s._
_B_.j._.
._.iI_._
_.i._N_.
Ii._.iIi
rNbQk._R
6.Àxe5!?
White goes in for an interesting variation,
leading to sharp play and mutual chances.
No advantage is given by 6.0-0 0-0 7.Õe1
(stronger seems 7.dxe5 Àxe4 8.©d5
Àc5 9.Ãg5 Àe7 10.©d1) 7...exd4
8.cxd4 d5 9.e5 Àe4 10.Àc3 Ãg4
11.Ãxc6 bxc6 12.Àxe4 dxe4 13.Õxe4
Ãxf3 14.©xf3 Ãxd4, with equal
chances, Unzicker-Fischer, Leipzig 1960.
In the game Ivanchuk-Gulko, Linares
1989, White tried 6.dxe5 Àxe4 7.©e2,
24
and after 7...d5!? 8.exd6 0-0 Black ob-
tained reasonable play with a pawn sacri-
fice: 9.dxc7 Ãxc7 10.0-0 Õe8 11.Ãe3
Ãg4 12.Àbd2 Àxd2 13.©xd2 ©f6
14.Ãe2 Õad8 with somewhat better
chances for White.
6.Ãg5 has also been seen: 6...exd4 7.e5
dxc3 8.exf6? (White falls into a hidden
trap; correct was 8.Àxc3 h6 9.Ãh4 g5
10.exf6 gxh4 11.Àd5) 8...cxb2 9.©e2+
T_LdM_.t
jJjJ_JjJ
.lS_.i._
_B_._.b.
._._._._
_._._N_.
Ij._QiIi
rN_.k._R
analysis diagram
9...©e7!! 10.fxe7 bxa1©, and Black
wins, Akvist-Hvenekilde, Copenhagen
1975.
6...Àxe5
On 6...0-0 in the game Naiditsch-Golod,
Germany Bundesliga 2009/10, there fol-
lowed 7.Àd2 ©e8 8.Àd3 Àxe4 9.0-0
Àxd2 10.Ãxd2 d5 11.Àe5 ©e6 12.Õe1
Àxe5 13.Õxe5 ©d6 14.Ãd3 Ãe6
15.©h5 g6 16.©h6 ©d7 17.Õae1 Õae8
18.©h4 f6 19.Õ5e2 c6 20.Ãh6 with ad-
vantage to White.
7.dxe5 Àxe4 8.©g4 Ãxf2+ 9.®e2
Also quite good is 9.®d1. After 9...©h4
10.©xg7 Õf8 11.b4 ©h5+ (weaker is
11...f6? because of 12.e6! ©h5+
13.®c2) 12.®c2 ©g6 (on 12...Ãh4?!
13.Ãh6 Ãe7 14.Õf1 b6! 15.e6 Àd6,
Ree-Zuidema, Groningen 1962, there is
the strong move 16.Àa3! ®d8 17.Õae1
dxe6 18.Ãc6 with advantage to White)
13.©xg6 fxg6 14.Àd2 White stands
 Game 3 - 1989

better, according to analysis by Max

Euwe.
In addition, instead of 11.b4, it appears
that the move 11.Ãh6 is possible, since in
the variation 11...Ãc5 12.Õf1 Àf2+
White is not obliged to give up the ex-
change by 13.Õxf2 (as was thought pre-
viously), but can play 13.®c2 a6 14.b4!
Àg4 (or 14...Ãe7 15.Ãc4! ©xc4
16.Õxf2) 15.Ãg5

T_L_Mt._
_JjJ_JqJ
J_._._._
_Bl.i.b.
.i._._Sd
_.i._._.
I_K_._Ii
rN_._R_.
analysis diagram
15...Àe3+ (15...©h5? 16.Ãe2 h6
17.Ãxg4 ©xg4 18.Ãxh6) 16.Ãxe3
Ãxe3 and now he can sharpen play with
the pawn sacrifice: 17.e6! ©e4+ 18.Ãd3
©xe6 19.Àd2, with the initiative.
9...©h4 10.©xg7 Õf8 11.Àd2!?
On 11.b4?!, preventing the bishop re-
turning to c5, there is 11...f6! 12.Ãh6
Õf7 13.©g8+ ®e7 14.e6!? ©h5+
(better is 14...®xe6!? 15.Ãc4+ d5
16.Ãxd5+ ®xd5 17.©xf7+ ®c6 with a
sharp game) 15.®d3 ©d5+ 16.®c2
©xe6 with the better chances for Black.
Also interesting is 11.Ãh6!? Ãc5 12.Àd2
c6?! (12...Àf2!?) 13.g3 ©h5+ 14.g4
©h3 15.Àxe4 ©g2+ 16.®d3 ©f3+
17.®d2 ©g2+ 18.Ãe2 ©xe4 19.Õhe1
with the better game for White, Kritz-
Golod, Biel 2010.
11...Ãc5
More accurate, it seems, is 11...Àxd2
12.Ãxd2 Ãc5 13.Õhf1 ©e4+ (this is
Alexander Beliavsky
stronger than 13...c6, as seen in the game
Short-Gulko, Linares 1989) 14.®d1 ©g6
with good chances of equalising.
12.Àf3 ©f2+
In the game Giliazetdinov-Tolush, corr.
1970, Black continued 12...©h5 13.Õe1
(worth considering was 13.Õd1!?) 13...b6
14.®f1 Ãb7 15.e6!? 0-0-0, and after
16.exd7+? (on 16.©e5 there is the very
strong 16...©g4! 17.e7 Õg8 18.exd8©+
®xd8 19.Õxe4 ©xg2+ 20.®e1 ©f2+
21.®d1 ©xf3+ 22.Õe2 f6!
._.m._T_
jLjJ_._J
.j._.j._
_Bl.q._.
._._._._
_.i._D_.
Ii._R_.i
r.bK_._.
analysis diagram
23.Ãg5! fxg5 24.®c2 Ãd6 25.©d4
©f5+ 26.Ãd3 ©f4, and Black’s chances
are preferable) 16...®b8 17.©e5 ©g6

25
 Vassily Ivanchuk

18.Àh4 ©g4 19.©f4 f5 Black obtains 18.Àxh7 ©xe4 19.©xf8+ Ãxf8

the advantage. 20.Àf6+ ®e7 21.Àxe4 Ãb7 22.Àc3
13.®d1 Ãe7 14.Õe1 ©b6! Ãxg2 he regains the pawn, with the
Black holds the balance by tactical play. better prospects.
White is better after 14...©c5?! 15.Àd4 17...d5! 18.exd6 ©xd6+ 19.Õd4
©d5 16.©xh7 Àxc3+ 17.bxc3 c5 It was worth considering 19.®e2, e.g.
18.©e4 ©xe4 19.Õxe4 cxd4 20.Õxd4. 19...Ãe6 20.Ãh6 0-0-0 21.Ãxf8 ©d3+
15.Õxe4?! 22.®f2 Õxf8 23.®g1 Õd8 24.Àe5
A move which allows the opponent to (weaker is 24.Õae1 because of 24...Ãb4)
fight for the initiative. 24...©c2 25.Õae1 Ãc5+ 26.®h1 Ãf2
Inadequate is 15.c4?! (15.Ãc4 d5!) be- 27.Àxf7! Ãxe1
cause of 15...Àc5 16.©xh7 a6 17.b4
axb5 18.bxc5 ©xc5 19.Ãh6 bxc4!
20.Ãxf8 Ãxf8, and Black has two pawns
._Mt._._
and convenient play for the exchange. jJj._N_Q
However, after 15.Àd4! c5 16.Õxe4 cxd4 ._._L_._
17.a4! dxc3 18.bxc3 ©g6 19.©xg6 _._._._.
hxg6 20.a5 White, having simplified play ._I_R_._
with the exchange of queens, retains _._._._.
chances of an opening advantage. IiD_._Ii
15...©xb5 16.c4
_._.l._K
Now Black’s central counter-blow gains
analysis diagram
in strength.
More accurate is 16.©xh7 ©d3+ 28.Õd4!! Õxd4 29.©xc2 Ãxf7 30.©f5+
17.Ãd2 b6 18.Àe1 ©b5 19.®c2 d5 Õd7, and in the resulting difficult end-
20.a4 ©a6 21.Õf4 Ãe6 with a compli- game, White has winning chances by
cated battle, in which White’s chances are pushing his passed pawns on the king-
slightly better. side.
The foregoing analysis is not exhaustive,
but it illustrates the hidden resources
T_L_Mt._ contained in this variation of the Ruy
jJjJlJqJ Lopez.
._._._._ 19...©b6 20.©e4 Õg8!
_D_.i._.
._I_R_._ T_L_M_T_
_._._N_. jJj.lJ_.
Ii._._Ii .d._._._
r.bK_._. _._._._.
16...©c6! 17.©xh7 ._IrQ_._
In the event of the rook retreat to d4 or _._._N_.
e2, Black completely equalises by means Ii._._Ii
of 17...©g6 18.©xg6 fxg6 whilst in the
r.bK_._.
interesting variation 17.Àg5 b6

26
 Game 4 - 1989

21.Ãe3?
Probably, when playing 20.©e4, White
had been planning to meet 20...Õg8 with
21.Ãg5, but now saw that after
21...Õxg5!! 22.Àxg5 Ãf5! 23.©xf5 (or
23.©e3 ®f8 24.Àf3 ©xb2 25.Õc1
©xg2 with an attack) 23...©xd4+
24.®e2 (24.®c2? ©xc4+ 25.®d2
Õd8+) 24...©xb2+ 25.®f3 ©c3+
26.®g4 ©xc4+ Black obtains the advan-
tage.
The move played loses quickly.
Returning to the last diagram, there is the
move 21.©h7. Black must reply 21...Õf8,
because the exchange of queens after
21...©g6 is not favourable for him, and
he cannot play 21...Õxg2? because of
22.©h8+ Ãf8 23.Õd8+! ®xd8
24.©xf8+ ®d7 25.©xf7+ ®d8
26.©f8+ ®d7 27.Ãf4 with a winning
attack.
White can also try 22.Õb1 Ãe6 23.b3
Ãf6 with mutual chances, or return the
queen to e4.
Besides this, instead of 21.Ãe3 White has
at his disposal the useful defensive re-
source 21.Õd2.
21...©xb2 22.Õb1 ©xg2 23.Õb5
The last chance to prolong resistance was
23.Õxb7!? ©f1+ 24.®c2 Õg2+ 25.®c3
Ãg4! (not so clear is 25...Ãxb7 26.©xb7
Ãb4+! 27.©xb4 ©xf3) 26.Àd2 ©c1+
27.©c2 ©a1+ 28.©b2 ©xb2+
29.Õxb2 Ãf6 with a decisive advantage
to Black.
23...Ãg4!
Now White’s defensive barriers collapse.
24.Õf5 ©f1+ 25.®c2
After 25.®d2 Ãxf5 26.©xf5 Õg2+
White cannot escape a quick mate.
25...©e2+
Hopeless is 26.Õd2 Ãxf5 27.©xf5
©xe3.
White resigned.
Game 4
Nimzo-Indian Defence (E20)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Csom,Istvan
Yerevan 1989
1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 e6 3.Àc3 Ãb4 4.f3
These moves were all seen in Game 2.
4...c5
White’s delay in developing his kingside
allows Black to begin active counterplay
in the centre.
5.d5
The main continuation.
On 5.e4 Black replies 5...cxd4 6.©xd4
Àc6, preparing to open the centre with
d7-d5.
And after 5.a3 Black can either take on c3
at once, or after 5...Ãa5 6.d5, entering a
favourable variation of the Sämisch.
TsLdM_.t
jJ_J_JjJ
._._Js._
_.jI_._.
.lI_._._
_.n._I_.
Ii._I_Ii
r.bQkBnR
5...Ãxc3+
One of the two main ways to obtain
counterplay. The other line involves
5...Àh5, e.g.: 6.Àh3!? (6.g3 d6 7.e4
exd5 8.cxd5 f5 9.exf5 0-0 10.Àe2 Ãxf5
11.Ãg2 c4 12.0-0 Ãd3ì, Khenkin-
Ivanchuk, Germany Bundesliga
2006/07) 6...d6 (more principled is
6...©h4+ 7.Àf2 ©xc4 8.e4 with the ini-
tiative for the pawn) 7.g4 Àf6 8.e4 ©e7
9.Ãd2 exd5 10.cxd5 0-0 11.Àf2 Àbd7
12.Ãe2 Àe5?! (choosing the wrong
plan, better is 12...a6) 13.g5! Ãxc3
14.bxc3 Àxd5? 15.f4 Àxf4 16.Ãxf4

27
 Vassily Ivanchuk
with advantage to White, Sandipan-Seyb,
Bad Wiessee 2010.
After the attempt to seize the initiative
with the gambit 5...b5 (or 5...0-0 6.e4
b5 7.a3 Ãxc3+ 8.bxc3 bxc4 9.Ãxc4
Àxd5!ì, Sandipan-Motylev, Germany
Bundesliga 2010/11), White does best to
reply 6.e4 bxc4 7.Ãxc4 exd5 8.Ãxd5
Àxd5 9.©xd5 Àc6 10.Àe2 Ãa6 11.Ãe3
Àe7 12.©d6 ©b6 13.0-0-0Ç, Partos-
Mititelu, Bucharest 1965.
Practice has also seen 5...d6 6.e4 0-0
7.Àe2 exd5 8.cxd5 b5 9.Àg3 ©b6
10.Ãe3 Àbd7 11.a3 Ãxc3+ 12.bxc3
Àe5 13.Ãe2 ©a5 14.©d2 Õe8
15.0-0.h6 with slightly better chances for
White, Genocchio-Sax, Bratto 2009.
6.bxc3 Àh5
Intending 7...f5, an idea of Csom. The al-
ternative is 6...©a5 7.Ãd2 d6 (bad is
7...exd5 8.cxd5 Àxd5? because of 9.c4
Àb4 10.a3) 8.e4 0-0 9.Ãd3 Àbd7
10.Àe2 Àe5 11.Ãg5 Àfd7 12.dxe6
Àb6!? 13.exf7+ Õxf7 14.0-0 h6 15.Ãd8
Ãe6 16.Ãxb6 ©xb6 with mutual
chances (analysis by Taimanov).
7.g3 f5 8.e4 f4
In his rich tournament practice, the Hun-
garian grandmaster has played this inter-
esting but questionable continuation sev-
eral times.
After 9.Àe2 e5 10.Ãh3 0-0 11.0-0 d6
12.Ãg4
TsLd.tM_
jJ_._.jJ
._.j._._
_.jIj._S
._I_IjB_
_.i._Ii.
I_._N_.i
r.bQ_Rk.
analysis diagram
28
12...fxg3! 13.Ãxh5 gxh2+ 14.®h1
©h4, Martz-Csom, Skopje 1972, or
9.Ãxf4 Àxf4 10.gxf4 ©h4+ 11.®e2
©xf4 12.Àh3 ©f6, Szabo-Csom, Hun-
gary 1973, he managed to create interest-
ing complications.
9.dxe6!
The most principled reply, and the stron-
gest!
Bad is 9...dxe6? 10.©xd8+ ®xd8
11.gxf4, so White forces his opponent to
declare his intentions.
9...fxg3?
Black aims for the line 10.©d5 g2
11.exd7+ Àxd7 12.Ãxg2 ©h4+
13.®f1 Àf4, not suspecting the threats
which hang over him.
A better decision was 9...©f6
(Arkhipov-Foisor, Tbilisi 1986) 10.Àe2
(worth considering was 10.®f2!?)
10...fxg3 11.Ãg2 gxh2 12.Õxh2 g6, and
here White could seize the initiative with
the pawn sacrifice 13.Ãh6! dxe6 14.f4.
10.©d5 g2
The variation 10...Àf6 11.exd7+ Àbxd7
(or 11...Ãxd7 12.©xc5) 12.©e6+ ©e7
13.©xe7+ ®xe7 14.hxg3 is clearly in
White’s favour.
TsLdM_.t
jJ_J_.jJ
._._I_._
_.jQ_._S
._I_I_._
_.i._I_.
I_._._Ji
r.b.kBnR
11.©xh5+!!
A magnificent idea! For the sake of the at-
tack, White allows another enemy queen
to appear on the board.
11...g6 12.©e5 ©h4+ 13.®e2 gxh1©

He loses after 13...gxf1©+ 14.®xf1 0-0
15.e7 Õe8 16.Ãg5 with an overwhelm-
ing advantage to White.
14.©xh8+ ®e7 15.©g7+ ®xe6
Having sown the wind, Black reaps the
whirlwind! After 15...®d8 there is
16.©f8+ ®c7 17.Ãf4+, and in order to
avoid mate after 17...®b6 18.Õb1+ ®a6
19.©xc8!, Black must give up one of his
queens: 17...©xf4 18.©xf4+ ®d8
19.©f6+ ®c7 20.e7 ©xh2+ 21.®d3,
and White will get another queen.
16.Ãh3+ ®d6
On 16...©xh3 there is the decisive
17.©g8+! ®e5 (17...®e7 18.Ãg5+
®d6 19.Õd1+ ®c6 20.©xc8+ ®b6
21.Õb1+)
TsL_._Q_
jJ_J_._J
._._._J_
_.j.m._.
._I_I_._
_.i._I_D
I_._K_.i
r.b._.nD
analysis diagram
18.Ãf4+!! ®f6 19.e5+ ®f5 20.©f7
mate or 19...®e7 20.Ãg5 mate.
17.©f8+ ®c7
No better is 17...®c6 (17...®e5
18.Ãf4+! ©xf4 19.©e7 mate) because
of 18.©xc8+ ®d6 19.©f8+ ®c6
20.Ãf4.
18.Ãf4+ ©xf4
Otherwise the game ends with a familiar
scenario: 18...®b6 19.Õb1+ ®a6
20.©xc8.
19.©xf4+ d6 20.Õd1 Àc6
21.©xd6+ ®b6 22.©g3! h5
23.Ãxc8 Õxc8 24.Àh3 h4 25.©f2
Black resigned.
Game 5 - 1989
It is not often that an expert on a variation
suffers such a crushing early defeat in it!
After this game, the Hungarian has never
repeated the variation with 6...Àh5.
Some years later, in a game with Ivar
Bern, he avoided a theoretical argument
and chose instead of 6...Àh5 the move
6...b6, Bern-Csom, Gausdal 1993.
Game 5
Grünfeld Indian Defence (D88)
í Georgiev,Kiril
n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Reggio Emilia 1989
1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 g6 3.Àc3 d5
In the Grünfeld Indian Defence, Black
does not prevent his opponent from set-
ting up a strong pawn centre, against
which he later counts on developing
piece pressure, aided by pawn breaks
where appropriate. In this sharp opening,
the value of each move is very high. One
incorrect move can sharply change the as-
sessment of the position.
4.cxd5
White chooses one of the main systems
of development.
4...Àxd5 5.e4
The most logical continuation.
5...Àxc3 6.bxc3 Ãg7
Black decides to advance ...c7-c5 one
move later.
At one time, it was thought White can
obtain the advantage now with 7.Ãa3,
but Simagin showed that this is not so:
7...0-0 8.Ãc4 Àd7 9.Àe2 c5 10.0-0
©c7 11.Õc1 Õb8 with good counterplay
for Black, Nikitin-Simagin, Moscow
1951.
7.Ãc4
In this variation, recommended by
Alekhine back in 1924, White intends to
develop his knight to e2. Another possi-
bility is 7.Àf3.
29
 Vassily Ivanchuk
7...c5 8.Àe2
Here after 8.Àf3 0-0 Black already threat-
ens 9...Ãg4.
8...0-0 9.Ãe3 Àc6 10.0-0 Ãg4
Black provokes his opponent into playing
f2-f3, which may later allow a check on b6.
11.f3 Àa5
Too passive is 11...Ãd7 12.Õb1 ©c7
13.©d2 with the better chances for White.
T_.d.tM_
jJ_.jJlJ
._._._J_
s.j._._.
._BiI_L_
_.i.bI_.
I_._N_Ii
r._Q_Rk.
12.Ãxf7+
A widely known position, seen many
times in games between Karpov and
Kasparov in their 1987 match in Seville.
White wins a pawn, but gives Black
chances of counterplay.
Before this match, it was thought that
Black could equalise easily, but the match
showed that he needs to play with excep-
tional accuracy.
The alternative is 12.Ãd3 cxd4 13.cxd4
Ãe6. In this position, many hours of
midnight oil have been devoted to the ex-
change sacrifice 14.d5!?.
It is not so easy for White to attack, e.g.
14...Ãxa1 15.©xa1 f6 16.©d4 Ãd7
17.e5 e6 18.Àf4 fxe5 19.©xe5 ©f6
20.©c7 ©d8 21.©d6 Ãc8 22.©e5 ©f6
23.©c7 ©d8 24.©e5 ©f6 25.©c7 with
a draw by repetition, Zhou Jianchao-Li
Chao, Xinghua Jiangsu 2009.
As well as this, there is also Zak’s interest-
ing gambit idea 14.Õc1!? Ãxa2 15.d5
Ãb3 16.©e1 with dangerous threats.
30
12...Õxf713.fxg4 Õxf1+ 14.®xf1cxd4
Garry Kasparov considers the best reply to
be 14...©d6, as he played in games 5 and
7 of the match, whereas the continuation
14...cxd4 15.cxd4 ©b6?! 16.®g1 ©e6,
seen in game 9, is to be consigned to the
ranks of the experimental. According to
his analysis, after (14...©d6) 15.e5 ©d5
16.Ãf2 Õf8 17.®g1 Ãh6 18.dxc5 ©xe5
19.©d3 ©f6 20.Õf1 ©e6! 21.Àd4
©xa2 22.©e4 Õf7 Black obtains solid
equality.
Instead of 15.e5, 15.®g1 ©e6 16.©d3
©c4!, as played in game 11 of the match
in Seville, gives mutual chances – on
16.Àg3 strong is 16...Õd8!.
15.cxd4 e5!?
The most well-worked out line today,
leading to equality.
After 15...©d7 16.h3 ©e6 17.©d3
©c4, Spassky-Kortchnoi, Moscow 1955,
White obtains the better chances by
means of 18.©xc4+! Àxc4 19.Ãg5 e6
20.Õb1.
16.d5
On 16.®g1 possible is 16...Õc8 17.Õb1
b6 18.dxe5 Ãxe5 19.©xd8+ Õxd8
20.Ãf4, Varga-Gyimesi, Miskolc 2004,
and after 20...Àc4 Black obtains suffi-
cient compensation for the pawn.
16...Àc4 17.Ãf2 ©f6 18.®g1 Õf8!
Black activates his forces on the kingside,
trying to keep control of all points of po-
tential enemy counterplay.
On 19.Ãxa7 a good reply is 19...Ãh6
20.Àg3 b6 21.®h1 Ãf4.
19.©e1 Ãh6 20.Àg3 ©a6 21.®h1
©a4 22.©e2 b6!
Necessary prophylaxis against Ãc5 or
Õb1.
If 22...Ãg5 White can continue 23.Õb1
b5 24.Àf1, but not 23.Àf1 Àd6
24.Ãc5? Àxe4!, Dzevlan-Hjelm, Stock-
holm 1993, and after 25.Ãxf8
 Game 5 - 1989

there is 25.Õe1 Àd6 26.©g4, and Black

._._.bM_ must retreat the rook to e8, in order not
jJ_._._J to allow the white rook into his camp.
._._._J_ 24...Àd6 25.Õe1 Õc8 26.g3 Õc2
_._Ij.l. 27.©f3 ©xa2 28.®g1
D_._S_I_ Th sharp variation 28.Ãxb6!? axb6
_._._._. 29.gxf4 Õf2 30.©c3 Õxf4 31.©xe5
I_._Q_Ii Àxe4! (or 31...©f2 32.©xd6 ©h4+
with perpetual) 32.©xf4 Àf2+ 33.®g2
r._._N_K
Àd3+ 34.©d2 Àxe1+ 35.®f2 Àd3+
analysis diagram
leads to an equal ending, but out of iner-
25...©d4! (threatening a smothered tia, White continues to play for a win.
mate) 26.Ãc5 ©xa1 Black obtains the 28...Ãh6 29.g5 Ãg7 30.Àe3 Õc7
better game. 31.Àg4 Õf7 32.©e3 ©c2 33.h5?!
23.h4 Counting on the strength of the passed
Insufficient is 23.h3 Ãf4 24.©d3 Àd6 d-pawn, White over-estimates his posi-
25.©b3 ©xb3 26.axb3 Õc8 27.®g1 tion. Now the h-pawn is lost, the g5-
Õc2! with equality, Gomez Esteban- pawn becomes weak, and after the ex-
Hellers, Debrecen 1992. changes, the balance starts to shift in fa-
vour of Black.
He could maintain the balance with
._._.tM_ 33.®g2.
j._._._J 33...Àc4! 34.©c1 ©xc1 35.Õxc1
.j._._Jl gxh5 36.Õxc4 hxg4 37.Õc8+ Ãf8
_._Ij._.
D_S_I_Ii ._R_.lM_
_._._.n. j._._T_J
I_._QbI_ .j._._._
r._._._K _._Ij.i.
The critical position of the variation. ._._I_J_
23...Ãf4! _._._.i.
The strongest continuation! On 23...Õf4 ._._.b._
White does best of all to play 24.Õe1 Õf7
25.g5 Ãf8 26.Àf1 with chances of ob-
_._._.k.
taining an opening advantage. 38.Ãe1?!
Weaker is 24.Ãe1 Ãf8 25.Õc1 b5 An imperceptible, but real error. White re-
26.Õc3, Ftacnik-Kudrin, Reno 1991, and moves the bishop from the diagonal on
here 26...Ãc5 equalises. which it holds up the enemy pawns, and
24.Àf1 prevents the enemy bishop from occupy-
An inaccuracy, allowing Black to regain ing the square c5. Stronger is 38.®f1 Õd7
the pawn, with control of the c-file. 39.Ãe3 ®f7 40.®e2 Õb7 41.®d3 Ãd6
Better is 24.g5!, freeing the square g4 for 42.Õh8 ®g7 43.Õd8, and it is not clear
the queen. In this case, after 24...Õc8 how Black can strengthen his position.

31
 Vassily Ivanchuk

38...®g7 39.Ãc3 Ãd6 40.Õc6 Ãc5+ Black gives mate first: 52...b1©+
41.®g2 Õf2+ 42.®h1 Ãd4 43.Ãb4?! 53.®g2 ©g1#!
It seems that the best chance for White 52.d8À+
was 43.Ãxd4 exd4 44.Õc7+ ®g6 Forced!.
45.®g1 Õf8 46.Õxa7 b5, seeking salva- We have that rarest of game positions,
tion in the rook ending. where under-promotion to a knight is the
43...Õf7 44.Õe6 least of the evils.
More accurate is 44.®g2. 52...®e7 53.Õf1 ®xd8 54.Õb1 ®c7
44...Õb7 45.Õc6 a5 46.d6 Black needs only to transfer his king to
Nor is he saved by 46.Ãc3 Ãxc3 a2, from where it will control b1, and ad-
47.Õxc3 a4 48.d6 Õb8 49.Õc7+ ®g6 vance the second b-pawn to b3, so as to
50.d7 Õd8. deprive the white king of the strong de-
The move played allows Black to turn the fensive square c2. White has no way to
game in a tactical direction, with a beau- oppose this plan.
tiful blow: 55.®g2 ®c6 56.®f1 ®c5 57.®e2
®c4 58.®d2 ®b3 59.Õf1 b5
60.®d3 ®a2 61.®c2 b4 62.g6 hxg6
._._._._ 63.Õh1
_T_._.mJ Missing the moment to resign.
.jRi._._ 63...b3+ 64.®d3 b1©+ 65.Õxb1
j._.j.i. ®xb1 66.®d2 b2 67.®d3 ®a2
.b.lI_J_ 68.®c4 b1© 69.®d5 ©g1 70.®e6
_._._.i. ©xg3 71.®f6 ©f4+ 72.®g7 ©xe4.
._._._._ White resigned.
_._._._K 1990
46...axb4!! 47.Õc7+ ®f8! Game 6
But not 47...Õxc7? 48.dxc7, and White Nimzo-Indian Defence (E38)
wins. í Ivanchuk,Vassily
48.Õxb7 b3 49.Õb8+ ®f7 50.d7 b2 n De Firmian,Nick
51.Õf8+! ®e6! Manila 1990
1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 e6 3.Àc3 Ãb4 4.©c2
Capablanca’s system in the Nimzo-Indian
._._.r._ has been popular for a long time.
_._I_._J The queen move prevents the doubling of
.j._M_._ the c-pawns after the exchange on c3.
_._.j.i. Also, the queen takes control of the
._.lI_J_ square e4, and, in the event of the ex-
_._._.i. change on c3, it goes to c3, exerting pres-
.j._._._ sure on e5.
_._._._K The minus of the early queen move is the
delay in developing White’s minor pieces,
An extremely beautiful position! White and, in addition, the queen leaves the
can queen first with 52.d8©, but then protection of d4.

32
 Game 6 - 1990

This systems contains many possibilities On 9.©b2 in the game Greenfeld-Mokry,

for both sides, and with accurate play, Haifa 1989, there followed 9...d5 10.c5
Black can count on equality. h6 11.Àh3?! (stronger is 11.f3 Àg5
4...c5 12.h4 Àgh7) 11...d4 12.f3.
A logical reply. Black immediately ad-
vances in the centre, attacking the unde-
fended d4-pawn.
T_LdM_.t
5.dxc5 jJ_._Jj.
The only way to fight for the advantage, ._._Js.j
as practice has shown. White opens the _.i._._.
d-file, counting on exerting pressure .i.jS_._
against the backward d7-pawn. i._._I_N
The unhurried 5.e3 Àc6 6.Àf3 cxd4 .q._I_Ii
7.exd4 d5 does not bring White any ad-
r.b.kB_R
vantage.
analysis diagram

12...e5!! 13.fxe4 Ãxh3 14.gxh3 Àxe4,

TsLdM_.t and as a result of the unexpected piece
jJ_J_JjJ sacrifice Black obtains a wonderful attack-
._._Js._ ing position.
_.i._._. 9...d5 10.c5
.lI_._._ Equality results from 10.cxd5 ©xd5
_.n._._. 11.Ãb2 0-0 12.f3 ©xd4 13.Ãxd4 Õd8
IiQ_IiIi 14.Ãb2 Àd6 15.e4 Àfe8, Simutowe-
Lenic, Nova Gorica 2009.
r.b.kBnR
10...b6
5...Àa6 After 10...h6 11.f3 (11.Àh3 0-0 12.f3 e5
Black’s idea is, by the manoeuvre 13.©xe5 Õe8ì, M. Gurevich-Kortchnoi,
....Àb8-a6xc5 to regain the pawn and Wijk aan Zee 1990) 11...Àg5 12.h4
strengthen his control over e4. However, Àgh7 13.Ãf4 0-0, Haik-Hort, Malta
with his next move, White easily prevents 1980, White retains the better chances by
this plan. means of 14.e3.
Therefore, a more subtle move is 5...0-0, 11.f3 bxc5 12.bxc5 ©a5+ 13.©b4
and if White plays 6.Àf3 (giving up the
chance to play f2-f3), then 6...Àa6.
Another possibility is 5...Ãxc5, e.g.,
T_L_M_.t
6.Àf3 ©b6 7.e3 ©c7 8.a3 a6 9.b4 Ãe7 j._._JjJ
10.Ãb2 b6 11.Àe4 Ãb7 12.Àxf6+ ._._Js._
Ãxf6 13.Ãxf6 gxf6 14.©b2 ®e7 d.iJ_._.
15.Ãe2 Õg8 16.0-0 Àc6, and White’s .q._S_._
chances are somewhat preferable, i._._I_.
Beliavsky-D’Costa, Gibraltar 2009. ._._I_Ii
6.a3 Ãxc3+ 7.©xc3 Àxc5 8.b4
r.b.kBnR
Àce4 9.©d4

33
 Vassily Ivanchuk

An important psychological moment in

the game.
.t._.tM_
It is obvious that after 13...©xb4+ j._._JjJ
14.axb4 Àc3 15.e3 White’s advantage is ._._._._
not in doubt. d.i.qL_.
However, at the time this game was ._._._._
played, the whole of this variation, and its i._._._.
assessment, was well-known. Most of all, ._.nI_Ii
it was known to De Firmian, who as far
r._.kB_R
back as 1978, had exchanged queens
analysis diagram
here against Forintos and been forced to
resign in 28 moves, Forintos-De Firmian, 21...Ãb1! (cutting off the rook on a1
London 1978. from the defence of the king) 22.g3 Õfd8
After a long interval, the variation sud- 23.©e3 Õe8 24.©f4 (after 24.©d4
denly reappears in the American grand- Õed8 25.©e3 Õe8 the game ends with a
master’s practice. It is only logical to as- draw by repetition, whilst after
sume that he has prepared some improve- 24.©xe8+ Õxe8 25.Õxb1 Õd8 26.Õd1
ment. Clearly, Ivanchuk will have to face ©xc5 Black is not worse) 24...©c3
over the board his opponent’s home 25.Ãg2! (weaker is 25.Õxb1 Õxb1+
analysis. 26.®f2 ©xc5+ 27.®g2 Õb2 with the
One way or another, Black has only one initiative for Black) 25...©xa1 26.0-0
way to create complications. ©a2 with roughly equal chances.
13...©c7! 15...Ãd7 16.c6!?
The piece sacrifice leads to very compli- After 16.©c2 Àxe4 17.Àf3 0-0 18.e3
cated play, in which White’s chances are Õfc8 19.Ãd2 Àxc5 20.Ãe2 ©b6
somewhat better. 21.©a2 Àe4 Black has sufficient com-
14.fxe4 Õb8 pensation for the sacrificed piece.
After this game, the move 13...©c7 at-
tracted various supporters.
Weaker is 14...Àxe4?! 15.e3 0-0 16.Àf3
.t._M_.t
e5 17.©b2 f6 18.Ãd2 Àxd2 19.©xd2 j.dL_JjJ
©xc5 20.Õc1 ©xa3 21.©xd5+ ®h8 ._I_Js._
22.©c5 ©xc5 23.Õxc5 with advantage _._J_._.
to White, Gen. Timoschenko-Derichs, Q_._I_._
Passau 1994. i._._._.
15.©a4+! ._._I_Ii
Weaker is 15.©d4, for example: 15...e5! r.b.kBnR
16.©d3 Àxe4 (but not 16...©xc5?
17.exd5 Ãf5 18.Ãe3 ©c8 19.©d2 Àe4 16...0-0!?
20.©c1 with advantage to White, as was On 16...Ãxc6 there is 17.Ãf4! ©d7
seen in S. Nikolov-Kopasov, Albena 18.©d4.
2009) 17.©xd5 Ãf5! 18.Àf3 0-0 However, Black had the very strong and
19.©xe5 ©a5+ 20.Ãd2 Àxd2 striking continuation 16...©e5!
21.Àxd2 17.cxd7+ ®e7.

34

Now White has four moves deserving of
attention:
A) On 18.Õa2?! there is 18...©c3+ and
if 19.®d1 (bad is 19.Ãd2 in view of
19...Õb1+), then 19...Àg4 20.©xa7 (he
is not saved by 20.e3 Õb1 21.®e2 ©xc1
22.d8©+ Õxd8 23.®f3 ©xe3+
24.®xg4 h5+ 25.®xh5 g6+ winning,
Truta-Brulic, Zadar 2008)
.t._._.t
q._ImJjJ
._._J_._
_._J_._.
._._I_S_
i.d._._.
R_._I_Ii
_.bK_BnR
analysis diagram
20...Õb1! 21.d8©++ (or 21.Õc2 Àe3+
22.©xe3 ©xe3, Ionov-Aseev, St Peters-
burg 1997) 21...®xd8 22.©a8+ ®e7
23.©a7+ ®f6 24.e5+ ®g6, and Black
wins, Roumegous-Verat, Paris 1999;
B) Also dubious is 18.exd5?! ©xa1
19.©c6 exd5 20.©c5+ ®d8 21.e4
Àxd7 22.©e3 Õc8 23.Àe2 Õe8 24.©d2
Õxe4 with advantage to Black;
C) The continuation 18.©xa7 gives
Black the possibility after 18...©c3+
19.®d1 ©b3+ 20.®e1 ©c3+ 21.®d1
to end the game with perpetual check; if
he wants to continue the fight, then after
21...Õhd8 22.Õa2 ©b3+ 23.Õc2 Õb6
24.Àf3 Õxd7 25.Àd4 ©xc2+ 26.®xc2
Õxa7 he has the better chances, Candela
Perez-Garcia Carbo, La Coruna 1996;
D) That leaves 18.Ãg5!? ©xa1+
19.®f2 dxe4 20.©xe4 h6 (or 20...©xa3
21.e3 ©b4 22.Ãc4 ©b7 23.d8©+
®xd8 24.©d4+ ®e7 25.©c5+ ®e8
26.Ãxf6 gxf6 21.Àf3Ç, Farago-Csiszar,
Game 6 - 1990
Balatonlelle 2006) 21.Ãxf6+ ©xf6+
22.Àf3 Õhd8 23.e3 Õb2+ 24.Ãe2 Õxd7
25.Õb1 Õxb1 26.©xb1, and White’s
chances in the resulting endgame are
slightly better.
17.Ãd2!
Not 17.cxd7? because of 17...©c3+
18.®d1 Àxe4 19.Àh3 ©xa1, whilst the
continuation 17.exd5 ©e5! 18.Õa2
©c3+ 19.®f2 (19.Ãd2 Õb1+ 20.®f2
©c5+ 21.e3 ©xd5 22.cxd7 ©xa2 with
the better play for Black, Van Wely-Palo,
Halkidiki 2002) 19...©xc1 20.Õc2 (or
20.cxd7 ©c5+ 21.e3 ©xd5 22.Õc2
Àe4+ 23.®e2 Õb2! 24.©xe4 ©xe4
25.Õxb2 ©a4) 20...Àg4+! 21.©xg4
©xc2 22.cxd7 ©c5+ 23.e3 ©xd5 leaves
White slightly the better chances.
In the game Schandorff-Volzhin, Gistrup
1996. White tried 17.Àf3!? and after
17...Àxe4 18.e3 Õb6 19.Ãd3 Õxc6
20.©d1 Àc3 21.©d2 e5 22.Ãb2 e4
23.Àd4 exd3 24.Àxc6 Àe4 25.©xd3
©xc6 26.0-0 obtained a small advantage,
which he carried to victory.
17...Ãxc6 18.©a5 Õb6
The queen exchange is unfavourable to
Black, but it was worth considering
18...©e5!? 19.©c3 ©xe4!, and now not
20.©xc6? because of 20...Õfc8, winning
the queen.
In the game M. Gurevich-Timman,
Linares 1991, there followed 18...©e5
19.Õc1 Àxe4 20.Àf3 ©b2 21.e3 with
mutual chances.
19.e3 Õfb8 20.Õc1!
He loses after 20.exd5? Õb1+ 21.Õxb1
Õxb1+ 22.®f2 Àe4+ 23.®f3 (23.®e2
Ãb5+ 24.®f3 Õxf1+ 25.®xe4 f5+
26.®d4 e5 mate) 23...Àxd2+ 24.©xd2
Õxf1+ 25.®e2 Ãb5+.
20...Àxe4 21.Àf3 ©e7
Roughly equivalent chances are offered
by 21...Àxd2 22.©xd2 ©d6 23.Ãd3
35
 Vassily Ivanchuk

Õb2 24.©c3 Ãe8 25.0-0 Õ2b3 26.©d2
Õxa3 with the better game for White.
22.Ãb4 ©b7?
Black’s idea of attacking along the b-file is
not correct, because White can prevent
this. As a result, Black loses the initiative
and is gradually outplayed.
He could maintain the tension with
22...©f6 23.Ãd3 ©h6 24.®e2 e5.
23.Ãd3 Ãb5 24.Ãxe4!
But not 24.Ãxb5? Õxb5 25.©a4 a5
26.Ãd2 Õb2, and Black obtains fully-
fledged play.
24...dxe4 25.Àd4
.t._._M_
jD_._JjJ
.t._J_._
qL_._._.
.b.nJ_._
i._.i._.
._._._Ii
_.r.k._R
An extremely unusual position!
White blockades the whole enemy army
on the dark squares.
25...Ãd3
On 25...e5 there follows 26.Àxb5 Õxb5
27.©c7 ©xc7 28.Õxc7 a5 29.Ãd2 Õb3
30.Ãc1 with a decisive advantage.
26.®f2 f6 27.Õhe1 h6 28.®g1
After consolidating the position, White
prepares a breakthrough along the c-file.
28...©f7 29.Àc6 Õa8 30.Àe7+ ®h7
31.Àc8! Õb5
On 31...Õbb8 there is the decisive
32.Õc7 ©g6 33.Àd6 Õb6 34.Õxa7
Õxa7 35.©xb6.
32.©c7 ©h5 33.Õc5 Õxc5 34.Ãxc5
a5
Or 34...©d5? 35.Ãf8 ©g5 36.©b7, and
the rook is lost.
35.Ãf8 ©g5 36.©b7 Õa6 37.Àd6
©g6 38.Àe8! ®g8 39.Àc7
The simplest! Now after 39...©f7
40.Ãc5 ®h7 41.Ãb6 a4 42.©b8 the
rook is lost all the same! Black resigned.
Game 7
English Opening (A29)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Timman,Jan
Tilburg 1990
1.c4
This move was often used in the 19th
century by Howard Staunton, who thus
caused the opening’s name. In our time,
the English is one of the most common
openings, because it contains numerous
possibilities for both sides.
1...e5 2.g3
White allows a counter-blow in the cen-
tre, counting on having the initiative on
the queenside.
GERARD DE GRAAF

But now one black rook is shut in the cor-

ner, and the other, the active one, White
exchanges, and he carries his advantage
to victory. Jan Timman

36
 Game 7 - 1990

More often seen is 2.Àc3, e.g. 2...Àf6 Worth attention is 13...Àd5, simplifying
3.Àf3 Àc6 4.g3 Ãb4 5.Ãg2 0-0 6.Àd5 by exchanges.
Ãc5 7.d3 Àxd5 8.cxd5 Àd4 9.Àd2 d6 14.©c2 Õfd8?!
10.e3 Àf5 11.Àc4 a5 12.Ãd2 a4 After this inaccuracy White has the ad-
13.b4Ç, Ivanchuk-Anand, Nice 2008. vantage. Better is 14...f5 15.Ãxc6!? bxc6
2...Àf6 3.Ãg2 d5 4.cxd5 Àxd5 16.f4 Àd7 17.Àa5 c5 with counterplay.
5.Àf3 Àc6 6.0-0 Àb6 7.Àc3 Ãe7
8.a3
Another plan is also possible: 8.d3 0-0
.t.t._M_
9.Ãe3 Ãe6 10.Õc1 f6 11.a3 Àd4 jJj.lDjJ
12.Àe4 Ãb3 13.©d2 Àxf3+ 14.Ãxf3 .sS_Lj._
Ãd5 15.©c2 c6 16.Àd2 ®h8 17.Õfd1 _._.j._.
f5 18.b4 Ãg5 19.Ãxg5 ©xg5 20.a4 .i._._._
©e7 21.a5 Ãxf3 22.Àxf3 e4 23.dxe4 iNnI_.i.
fxe4 24.Àd2 e3! with roughly equal ._Q_IiBi
chances, Ivanchuk-Kramnik, Nice 2009.
_Rb._Rk.
8...0-0 9.b4 Ãe6
15.Ãxc6! bxc6 16.Àa5
By comparison with the above variation,
T_.d.tM_ White, by exchanging his strong bishop,
jJj.lJjJ has not only spoilt his opponent’s pawn
.sS_L_._ structure, but also won an important tempo.
_._.j._. 16...©e8 17.Ãd2
.i._._._ Also good is 17.Àe4 Ãd7 (17...Ãd5?!
i.n._Ni. 18.f4 f5 19.Àc3±) 18.Ãe3 f5 19.Àc5
._.iIiBi Ãxc5 20.Ãxc5 f4 21.d4 Ãh3 22.Õfd1,
fixing the doubled pawns, but in this
r.bQ_Rk.
case, the weakness of the light squares in
10.Õb1!? White’s camp is more noticeable.
A small subtlety. On 10.d3 Black can play 17...f5 18.Õfc1 Õd6
10...a5!? 11.b5 Àd4 12.Àd2 c6 13.bxc6 It seems that by agreeing to the loss of a
Àxc6 14.Õb1 a4 15.Ãxc6 bxc6 16.©c2 pawn, Black readies his forces for an at-
©c7 17.Ãb2 Õfc8, with equal chances, tack on the kingside.
Navara-Gen. Timoschenko, Czech Repub-
lic 2004/05.
10...f6 11.d3 ©e8
.t._D_M_
More energetic is 11...a5 12.b5 Àd4 j.j.l.jJ
13.Àd2 c6 14.bxc6 Àxc6 15.Àc4 Àxc4 .sJtL_._
16.dxc4 Ãxc4 17.Õxb7 Àd4 with equal n._.jJ_.
chances, Marin-Cebalo, Reggio Emilia .i._._._
2008/09. i.nI_.i.
12.Àd2 ._QbIi.i
The knights heads towards the square a5.
_Rr._.k.
12...©f7 13.Àb3 Õab8

37
 Vassily Ivanchuk
19.b5! ©h5?!
Since the attacking chances are not very
great, more cautious was 19...c5
(19...Ãd7?! 20.bxc6 Ãxc6 21.Àe4!
Ãxe4 22.dxe4±) 20.Àc6 Õa8 21.Àxe5
Ãf6 22.Àf3 (22.Àc6?! a6! 23.Ãf4 axb5)
22...c4, obtaining some counterplay in
the centre, in compensation for the pawn.
20.Àxc6 Õe8 21.Àxe7+
The most purposeful. White carries out
prophylactic operations, so as to meet
Black’s activity with all of his forces.
The win of a second pawn by 21.Àxe5
Ãf6 22.Àf3 (22.f4 Àd7 23.Àc6?! Ãd5!)
22...Ãxc3 23.Ãxc3 Ãd5 gives Black
good chances to complicate the game.
Equally, after 21.a4!? Àd5! 22.a5 (or
22.Àxe5 Ãf6 23.f4 g5) 22...Àxc3
23.Àxe7+ Õxe7 24.Ãxc3 Ãf7 25.Ãb4
Õh6 26.h4 Õe8 27.e4 g5 the position re-
mains tense, despite White’s advantage.
21...Õxe7 22.f3 g5
Black must undertake something, since
he has no prospects with the normal de-
velopment of events.
23.Õf1 g4 24.f4 e4!? 25.dxe4 Àc4
26.Ãc1 fxe4
._._._M_
j.j.t._J
._.tL_._
_I_._._D
._S_JiJ_
i.n._.i.
._Q_I_.i
_Rb._Rk.
27.f5!
An excellent tactical blow, to crown his
strategic aims. White opens lines for his
rooks, blocks the black queen’s path to c5
and brings his own queen to the queen-
side with tempo.
38
Weaker is 27.©xe4?! ©c5+ 28.e3 ®f8
with counterplay for Black.
27...Ãxf5 28.©a4
Mistaken is 28.©a2? Ãe6 29.Àxe4 Õf7!
30.Õxf7 (30.Àxd6? Õxf1+ 31.®xf1
Àe3+) 30...Õd1+!! 31.Õf1 Õxf1+
32.®xf1 ©f5+ 33.Àf2 (33.®g1? ©xe4
34.e3 Ãd5î) 33...Àe3+ 34.Ãxe3
Ãxa2 35.Õb4 h5, and Black’s chances are
slightly better.
28...Àb6
After 28...Àe5?! 29.Ãe3 Õed7 30.Õbd1
Black’s initiative comes to nothing.
29.©xa7 e3 30.Õb4!
Preparing just in time to double rooks on
the f-file.
30...Õh6 31.h4 gxh3 32.Õbf4 h2+
33.®h1 Ãh3
._._._M_
q.j.t._J
.s._._.t
_I_._._D
._._.r._
i.n.j.iL
._._I_.j
_.b._R_K
At first glance, Black has succeeded in cre-
ating more threats, but White has an ex-
cellent way to assure himself a stable ad-
vantage.
34.©b8+ Õe8
On 34...Àc8 there is 35.Õh4 ©e8
36.Õxh6 Ãxf1 37.Àd5 Õf7 38.Àf6+
with a decisive advantage.
35.Õf8+! ®g7 36.©xc7+ Àd7
37.Õ1f7+ ©xf7 38.Õxf7+ ®xf7
39.©f4+
The queen and passed pawns are clearly
stronger than Black’s rooks.
39...®g6
 Game 8 - 1991

Things are not changed by 39...Õf6 49.Àd5 Õg6 50.©e3+ Àf4+

40.©d4! Õh6 (or 40...Õf1+ 41.®xh2 51.Àxf4 Õxf4 52.b6 ®f5 53.©c5+
Ãe6 42.Ãxe3) 41.®xh2. ®e4 54.©e7+ ®f5 55.©xh7 Õe4
40.®xh2 Õh5 56.b7 Õe3+
On 40...Õf8!? a strong reply is 41.©xe3 And Black resigned.
Õh5 42.g4! Ãxg4+ 43.®g1 Õg8 (or
43...Õhf5 44.©h6+ ®f7 45.Àe4) 1991
44.©d4 Ãe6 45.Ãf4, preventing the Game 8
rooks cooperating. Sicilian Defence (B51)
41.©d6+?! í Ivanchuk,Vassily
Complicating his task. Simpler is n Kasparov,Garry
41.Ãxe3 Õf8 42.©d6+ Õf6 43.©d4 Linares 1991
Õf1 44.g4! Ãxg4+ 45.®g2 Ãh3+ 1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 d6 3.Ãb5+
46.®g3 with an advantage sufficient for In this way, White refrains from the
victory. well-studied 3.d4.
41...Àf6 42.®g1 Õf5 43.©d3 ®h5? 3...Àd7
Missing the chance to fight for the initia- Leads to a complicated struggle. More of-
tive with 43...Õe5!, and now not ten seen is: 3...Ãd7 4.Ãxd7+ ©xd7 5.0-0
44.Ãxe3?? because of 44...Õxe3! Àf6 6.Õe1 e6; or 3...Àc6, e.g. 4.0-0 Ãd7
45.©xe3 Õf1+ 46.®h2 Àg4+. 5.Õe1 Àf6 6.c3 a6 7.Ãxc6 Ãxc6 8.d4!?
Ãxe4 9.Ãg5 Ãd5 10.c4 Ãxf3 11.©xf3
cxd4 12.©xb7 ©c8 13.©f3 e5 14.Àd2
._._T_._ Àd7 15.Àb3 f6 16.©e2 Àb6 17.Õac1
_._._._J with the initiative for the pawn,
._._.s._ Ivanchuk-Topalov, Roquebrune 2003.
_I_._T_M 4.d4 Àf6 5.0-0
._._._._ On 5.Àc3 a possibility is 5...cxd4
i.nQj.iL 6.©xd4 e5 7.©d3 h6 8.Ãe3 Ãe7
._._I_._ 9.0-0-0 a6 10.Ãc4 b5 11.Ãb3 Ãb7 with
_.b._.k. mutual chances, Movsesian-Ivanchuk,
Nanking 2008.
44.g4+! 5...cxd4
It is paradoxical, but now the white king It is dangerous to accept the pawn sacri-
is more reliably protected than with the fice – after 5...Àxe4?! 6.©e2 Àf6 7.dxc5
pawn on g3, and, most important of all, dxc5 8.Õd1 White develops pressure in
White can finally take the e-pawn. the centre.
44...®xg4 6.©xd4 a6
Or 44...Ãxg4 45.Ãxe3 Õg8 46.®h2ê. Here too, 6...e5!? deserves attention. Also
45.Ãxe3 Õg8 46.®h2 ®h4 interesting is 6...g6 7.e5 dxe5 8.©xe5
47.Ãg5+! Ãg7 9.Õe1 e6 10.©d6 a6 11.Ãa4 ©e7
Ending Black’s last illusions 12.©xe7+ ®xe7, and on 13.Ãd2?! (more
47...Õf(g)xg5? 48.©xh3 mate. accurate is 13.c4) – 13...Àd5! with equal-
47...®xg5 48.®xh3 Àh5 ity, Rublevsky-Ivanchuk, Frankfurt 2000.
More stubborn was 48...Õe8. 7.Ãxd7+ Ãxd7 8.Ãg5

39
 Vassily Ivanchuk

The most energetic. No advantage is 19.c5!! (but not 19.©d5? h4 20.©f5

given by 8.c4 g6 9.Àc3 Ãg7 10.Õe1 0-0 ©xf5 21.exf5 h3 22.Õe1 Ãxg2+)
11.©d3 Ãe6 12.Ãd2 Àd7 13.b3 b5!?, 19...e5 (nor is he saved by 19...Ãxe4
and Black’s chances are not worse, 20.©c3 or 19...h4 20.c6!) 20.©d5 h4
Tiviakov-Ivanchuk, Montreal 2007. 21.cxd6 b6 (or 21...h3 22.©a5+ ®e8
8...h6 23.d7+ winning) 22.Àxb6! Ãxe4 23.f3!
More cautious is 8...e6 9.c4 Ãe7 10.Àc3 Ãxf3 24.©c5 Ãxg2+ 25.Õxg2 ©d1+
0-0. After the exchange on f6, the black 26.©g1, and after beating off the attack,
king will have trouble finding a refuge. White has a decisive advantage (analysis
9.Ãxf6 gxf6 by Ivanchuk).
11.Àc3 Õc8 12.®h1
T_.dMl.t Necessary prophylaxis against the threats
_J_LjJ_. along the g-file.
J_.j.j.j 12...h5 13.a4 h4 14.h3 Ãe7
_._._._.
._.qI_._ ._TdM_.t
_._._N_. _J_LlJ_.
IiI_.iIi J_.jJj._
rN_._Rk. _._._._.
10.c4!?
I_IqI_.j
An important improvement! Weaker is _.n._N_I
10.Àc3 e6 11.©d3 Ãe7 12.Àd4 ©a5 .i._.iI_
13.a4 Õc8 with roughly equal chances, r._._R_K
Fernandez Garcia-Csom, Malaga 1981. 15.b4
10...e6 The queenside pawn storm has the aim of
In the event of the active 10...©a5 restricting the activity of the enemy
11.Àc3 ©h5 12.Àd5 Õg8?! Black has light-squared bishop after b4-b5. Admit-
insufficient forces for a flank operation, tedly, in this case, White relinquishes the
e.g. 13.Àc7+ (also possible is 13.Àe1 important outpost on c5.
Õc8 14.f4) 13...®d8 14.Àxa8 Õxg2+ 15...a5 16.b5 ©c7
15.®h1 Ãg4 16.Õg1 Ãxf3 17.Õxg2 On 16...Õc5 good is 17.Àd1 Ãc8
©g4 18.Õg1 h5 18.Àe3 Õg8 19.Õad1 b6 20.Àh2 Ãb7
21.f3, and White’s chances are somewhat
N_.m.l._ better.
_J_.jJ_. 17.Àd2 ©c5 18.©d3 Õg8 19.Õae1
J_.j.j._ ©g5 20.Õg1 ©f4?!
_._._._J Since after 21.Õef1 the reply 21...d5?!
fails to 22.Àe2! ©e5 23.f4 ©d6 24.exd5
._IqI_D_ exd5 25.cxd5, the queen turns out to
_._._L_. have nothing to do on this square. More
Ii._.iRi accurate was 20...b6 21.Õef1 ©c5, re-
_._._.rK turning to the queenside.
analysis diagram 21.Õef1 b6 22.Àe2 ©h6

40
 Game 9 - 1991

32.©d8 ©g6 33.f5!

._T_M_T_ The quickest and most elegant way to
_._LlJ_. win!
.j.jJj.d 33...©h6
jI_._._. On 33...©f6 decisive is 34.©xe8 ©e5
I_I_I_.j 35.Õg2 ©a1+ 36.Àg1.
_._Q_._I 34.g5
._.nNiI_ Depriving Black of his last chance –
34.©xe8 ©e3!?.
_._._RrK
34...©h5 35.Õg4 exf5 36.Àf4 ©h8
23.c5!? 37.©f6+ ®h7 38.Õxh4+
With a courageous pawn sacrifice, White Black resigned.
frees a square for his knight.
Also good is 23.f4 ®f8 24.f5 with a Game 9
growing initiative. Ruy Lopez (C89)
23...Õxc5? í Kamsky,Gata
This leads to problems. After 23...dxc5 n Ivanchuk,Vassily
(23...bxc5? 24.Àc4±) 24.Àc4 Õb8 Linares 1991
25.Õd1 Ãc8 26.f4 ®f8 27.f5 ®g7 1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.Ãb5 a6 4.Ãa4
28.©f3 Ãd8, the position remains un- Àf6 5.0-0 Ãe7
clear. With this move, the main variation of the
24.Àc4 ®f8 25.Àxb6 Ãe8 26.f4 f5 Spanish begins.
27.exf5 Õxf5 28.Õc1! 6.Õe1
Threatening to penetrate along the c-file. Taking aim at the e5-pawn.
28...®g7 29.g4! 6...b5 7.Ãb3 0-0
Exploiting the fact that Black cannot take A move which indicates Black’s intention
en passant, 29...hxg3? 30.©xg3+ ®f6 to sacrifice a pawn for a lasting initiative.
31.©c3+ winning, White makes a cor- Otherwise he could play the main line,
rection to his plan, preparing a break- starting with 7...d6.
through on the kingside. 8.c3
29...Õc5 30.Õxc5 dxc5 31.Àc8 Ãf8 Taking up the gauntlet. The Marshall At-
He also loses after 31...Ãd8 32.Õc1 ©f6 tack can be avoided with 8.a4 or 8.h3.
33.Õxc5 ©a1+ 34.®h2 with a decisive 8...d5
advantage.

._N_LlT_ T_Ld.tM_
_._._Jm. _.j.lJjJ
._._J_.d J_S_.s._
jIj._._. _J_Jj._.
I_._.iIj ._._I_._
_._Q_._I _Bi._N_.
._._N_._ Ii.i.iIi
_._._.rK rNbQr.k.

41
 Vassily Ivanchuk
This very sharp gambit was worked out
by the American grandmaster Frank Mar-
shall and first used by him against
Capablanca (New York 1918). It has not
lost its popularity with the passing years
and is still seen at the very highest level.
9.exd5 Àxd5
The main continuation.
Weaker is 9...e4 because of 10.dxc6 exf3
11.g3! Õe8 12.d4 Ãg4 13.Ãg5 h6
14.Ãxf6 Ãxf6 15.Àd2 ©d6 16.h3 Ãh5
17.©c2 Ãg5 18.Àe4 ©xc6 19.Àxg5
hxg5 20.©f5 with the better game for
White, Nakamura-Short, London 2010.
10.Àxe5 Àxe5 11.Õxe5 c6
If 11...Àf6 12.d4 Ãd6 13.Õe2 Àh5
14.©d3 Ãg4 15.Õe1 ©h4 16.g3 ©h3
17.Ãd5 White’s advantage is unarguable.
12.d4
In the game Anand-Cooper, Blackpool
1988, there was seen 12.Õe1 Ãd6 13.d3,
and after 13...©h4 14.g3 ©h3 15.Õe4
Àf6 16.Õh4 ©f5 17.Ãf4 g5!? Black had
decent chances.
12...Ãd6 13.Õe2
The alternative is 13.Õe1 (see Game 18).
T_Ld.tM_
_._._JjJ
J_Jl._._
_J_S_._.
._.i._._
_Bi._._.
Ii._RiIi
rNbQ_.k.
13...Ãg4
This reply is rarely seen. The usual move
is 13...©h4 14.g3 ©h3 (or 14...©h5
15.Àd2 Ãh3 16.a4 Õae8 17.Õxe8 Õxe8
18.Àf1 h5 with a complicated game, De
Firmian-Adams, New York 1996)
15.Àd2 Ãf5 16.Ãc2 Ãxc2 17.©xc2 f5
42
18.c4 ©g4 19.Õe1 f4 with mutual
chances, Azarov-Kaplan, Dresden 2007.
14.f3 Ãh5!?
In the game Anand-Aronian, Mexico City
2007, Black chose 14...Ãf5.
There followed 15.g3!? ©c7 16.®f2
©d7! 17.Ãxd5 cxd5 18.Àd2 Ãd3
19.Õe3 Ãg6 20.Àf1 a5, and the players
agreed a draw.
15.Ãxd5
On 15.Àd2 strong is 15...Àf4, although
also not bad is 15.a4 ©h4 16.g3, main-
taining the tension.
15...cxd5 16.Àd2 f5 17.©b3?!
After 17.Àf1 f4 18.a4 Ãe8 19.b3 Õc8,
Perenyi-Blatny, Hungary 1987, White re-
tains equal chances with the move
20.Ãb2.
17...Ãf7 18.Àf1 f4 19.Ãd2 ©d7
20.Õae1?!
White doubles rooks, but he has no entry
points on the e-file. Stronger is 20.a4.
T_._.tM_
_._D_LjJ
J_.l._._
_J_J_._.
._.i.j._
_Qi._I_.
Ii.bR_Ii
_._.rNk.
20...a5! 21.a3
Worth consideration is 21.h3 a4 22.©d1.
21...a4
By seizing space on the queenside, Black
reduces to naught his opponent’s pawn
advantage. In addition, the white knight
loses the b3-square for manoeuvring.
22.©d1 Ãg6
Transferring the bishop to a strong diago-
nal.
23.Ãc1 Õf7 24.h3 Ãf5 25.Àh2 h5!
 Game 9 - 1991

In view of what follows, better is 34.b4,

T_._._M_ which admittedly does not eliminate the
_._D_Tj. weakness on c3, but forces Black to return
._.l._._ to his plan of attacking the kingside.
_J_J_L_J 34...b4!!
J_.i.j._ Black breaks through at the most
i.i._I_I heavily-defended point in the enemy po-
.i._R_In sition!
35.axb4
_.bQr.k.
Or 35.cxb4 Ãc2 36.©a1 axb3 37.Àd2
A glance is enough to reveal the terrible Õa8 38.©c1 ©b5 with advantage to
position of the white minor pieces, espe- Black.
cially the knight, which has no moves in 35...a3 36.Ãxa3
the foreseeable future. On 36.Ãa1 there follows 36...Õxc3!
26.Õf2 Õaf8 27.Àf1 Õf6 28.Àh2 37.Ãxc3 Õxc3 38.Õa2 Ãxb4, and for the
®h8 29.b3?! exchange, Black has a strong passed pawn
Creating weaknesses on the queenside and every chance of winning.
and giving Black a clear plan of attack. It 36...Õxc3 37.®h2 Õa8 38.Ãb2 Õd3
was better to maintain waiting tactics, in 39.©c1 Õc8
the hope that by deciding on the advance Also good was 39...Õxb3 40.®g1 Õxb4
...g7-g5-g4, Black will weaken his own with complete domination by the black
position. pieces.
29...Õc8 30.Ãb2 ®h7 31.Àf1 Õff8 40.Õc2 Õxc2 41.©xc2 Ãg6
32.Õfe2 Here it was also possible to end the game
Defending against the threat of 32...Ãe7 with a direct attack: 41...Õxf3! 42.©d1
followed by ...Ãe7-h4. (or 42.©e2 Õxh3+ 43.gxh3 f3+)
32...Õc7 33.Àh2 42...Õf2! 43.©xh5+ ®g8 44.Õe8+ Ãf8
Interesting, although hardly objectively with the decisive threat of 45...Ãe4.
justified, is 33.Àd2 Õfc8 34.c4 bxc4 42.©f2 Ãxb4 43.Õe5
35.bxc4 dxc4 36.Ãc3 Ãxa3 37.Àe4, and
White remains a pawn down, but with
active pieces. ._._._._
33...Õfc8 34.Àf1?! _._D_.jM
._._._L_
_._Jr._J
._T_._._ .l.i.j._
_.tD_.jM _I_T_I_I
._.l._._ .b._.qIk
_J_J_L_J _._._N_.
J_.i.j._
iIi._I_I 43...Õd1!
.b._R_I_ Stronger than 43...Õxb3 44.Õxh5+ ®g8
(44...Ãxh5? 45.©c2+) 45.Õg5, since
_._QrNk.
with the rook on d1, in this variation

43
 Vassily Ivanchuk

Black wins at once with 45...Ãd3.

44.©e2 Õb1 45.Õg5 ©c6 46.Õe5
©c2!
Now the white bishop cannot be saved. It
is noteworthy that, from move 34, the
white bishop and knight have not moved.
47.Õxh5+ ®g8 48.©e6+ Ãf7
49.Õh8+ ®xh8 50.©xf7 ©c6!
Destroying the last hope of perpetual
check.
51.Ãc3 Ãxc3 52.©f8+ ®h7
53.©f5+ ©g6 0-1

Game 10
Queen’s Indian Defence (E12) Alexander Khalifman
í Khalifman,Alexander
n Ivanchuk,Vassily On 6...Àbd7 a decent reply is 7.cxd5
Reykjavik 1991 Àxd5 8.Àxd5 Ãxd5 9.©c2.
1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 e6 3.Àf3 7.©c2
This way, White avoids the Nimzo-Indian The only way to fight for the advantage.
Defence, trying instead to develop his After 7.©xd7+ Àbxd7 8.Àb5 Ãd6 or
kingside pieces as quickly as possible and 7.©b3 dxc4 8.©xc4 c5 chances are equal.
not fighting at once for control of the
centre. Black, in his turn, plans to organ-
ise control over the squares e4 and d5, by Ts._Ml.t
developing his light-squared bishop on jLjD_JjJ
the long diagonal. .j._Js._
3...b6 4.Àc3 _._J_._.
Another possibility is 4.g3: 4...Ãb7 ._Ii._._
5.Ãg2 Ãe7 6.Àc3 0-0 7.Ãf4 Àa6 8.a3 i.n._N_.
d5 9.cxd5 exd5 10.0-0 c5 11.©c2 ©d7 .iQ_IiIi
12.Õfd1 Õfd8 13.dxc5 Àxc5, and
r.b.kB_R
White’s chances are slightly better,
Ivanchuk-Tomashevsky, Kallithea 2009. 7...dxc4 8.e3
(see also Game 61). On 8.e4?! a good reply is 8...b5! 9.Ãe2
4...Ãb7 5.a3 d5 6.©a4+ a6.
These days, one often sees 6.cxd5, e.g. 8...c5
6...Àxd5 (6...exd5 7.g3 a6 8.Ãg2 Ãd6 In the variation 8...Ãxf3 9.gxf3 b5
9.Àh4 g6 10.Ãg5 Ãe7 11.©a4+ c6Ç) 10.Ãg2 c6 11.f4 Àd5 12.0-0 Àa6 13.e4
7.©c2 Àxc3 8.©xc3 h6 9.e3 Ãe7 Àxc3 14.bxc3 Àc7 15.a4 White has suf-
10.Ãb5+ c6 11.Ãe2 Àd7 12.0-0 c5 13.b4 ficient compensation for the pawn.
Õc8 with roughly equal chances, Almeida 9.Ãxc4 ©c8
Quintana-Ivanchuk, Merida 2007. Also interesting is 9...a6!? 10.dxc5 Ãxc5
6...©d7!? 11.Àa4 Ãe4! 12.Àxc5 (or 12.©b3 ©c7

44
 Game 10 - 1991

13.Àxc5 bxc5) 12...bxc5 13.©c3 ©b7 20.Ãd5! exd5 21.Àxe5 ©b5 22.©xb5+
14.Ãe2 Àbd7 with counterplay. axb5 23.Ãxa3, and the strong passed
10.©e2 Àbd7 11.0-0 a6 c-pawn ensures White the advantage in
It was worth considering 11...Ãd6 the endgame.
12.Õd1 0-0 13.e4 cxd4 14.Àxd4 ©b8 19.Àd4 ©xc5 20.f3
with mutual chances.
12.Õd1 b5 13.Ãa2 Ãe7 14.e4 b4 T_._M_.t
15.Àa4! _L_.lJjJ
White continues to fight for the initiative, J_._J_._
with a pawn sacrifice. _.d.i._.
If 15.e5 bxc3 16.exf6 Àxf6 17.bxc3 ©c7
18.Àe5 0-0 19.Ãf4 Ãd6 20.Õac1 cxd4
._.nS_._
21.cxd4 ©e7 Black completely equalises. j._._I_.
Bi._Q_Ii
T_D_M_.t r.bR_.k.
_L_SlJjJ 20...Õd8!
J_._Js._ After 20...©xe5?! 21.fxe4 Õd8 22.Ãe3
_.j._._. Ãd6 23.Àf3 ©xb2 24.©c4 White is
slightly better.
Nj.iI_._ 21.Ãe3 axb2 22.©xb2 ©c3!
i._._N_. 23.©e2 Àc5
Bi._QiIi Black wins a pawn, but the position re-
r.bR_.k. mains difficult.
15...©c6 24.Õac1?!
Taking the pawn is risky: 15...Ãxe4 An inaccuracy. Maintaining the tension
16.dxc5 ©c6!? (or 16...Ãxc5?! 17.Àg5 with 24.Ãc4 0-0 25.Õdc1 ©b4 26.©c2
Ãf5 18.Àxe6!) 17.Àb6 Àxb6 18.cxb6 ©b6 27.Àb3 leads to an approximately
©xb6 19.Ãe3 ©b7 20.axb4 Ãxb4 21.Ãc4 equal position. Now the queen acquires
Ãxf3 22.gxf3 a5 (or 22...0-0 23.Ãxa6) an excellent post.
23.Ãb5+ ®e7 24.Ãd4 with pressure. 24...©a5 25.f4 g6 26.f5?
16.Àxc5 Àxc5 17.dxc5 bxa3 18.e5 More defensive chances were offered by
Àe4 26.Ãb1 0-0 27.f5 Õd5.
Mistaken is 18...Àd7? 19.b4 Àxe5 26...gxf5 27.Àxf5 Õxd1+ 28.Õxd1

T_._M_.t ._._M_.t
_L_.lJjJ _L_.lJ_J
J_D_J_._ J_._J_._
_.i.s._. d.s.iN_.
.i._._._ ._._._._
j._._N_. _._.b._.
B_._QiIi B_._Q_Ii
r.bR_.k. _._R_.k.
analysis diagram 28...Õg8!

45
 Vassily Ivanchuk
Black goes over to a counterattack.
29.Àg3 h5
Also good is 29...Õg5.
30.Ãxc5 ©xc5+ 31.®h1 h4
32.Ãxe6 hxg3 33.Ãxf7+ ®xf7
34.©h5+ ®g7?!
A time-trouble error. After 34...®e6!
35.©h6+ ®xe5 36.Õe1+ Ãe4 Black
wins easily.
35.©g4+ ®h6 36.©h3+ ®g6
._._._T_
_L_.l._.
J_._._M_
_.d.i._.
._._._._
_._._.jQ
._._._Ii
_._R_._K
37.©xg3+?
White misses his fleeting chance. Also
bad is 37.©e6+? ®h5 38.©f5+ Õg5
39.©h7+ ®g4 with a decisive advantage
to Black, but after 37.©g4+! Ãg5 (or
37...®f7 38.©f5+ ®e8 39.©d7+)
38.Õd6+ ®f7 (there is no advantage af-
ter 38...©xd6 39.exd6 Õe8 40.hxg3
Ãd5) 39.©e6+ ®f8 40.©f5+ White
draws by perpetual check.
37...Ãg5 38.©d3+
He is not saved by 38.Õd6+ ®f7
39.©b3+ ®f8, and the checks run out.
38...®g7 39.©d7+ ©e7 40.©xe7+
Ãxe7 41.Õd7 Õd8 0-1
Game 11
Scotch Opening (C45)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Gulko,Boris
Reykjavik 1991
1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.d4
This opening acquired its ‘right of exis-
tence’ after the 1824 correspondence
46
match between Edinburgh and London,
in which it was first used by the Scottish
players. By means of exchanges, White
eliminates the black centre pawn at e5,
and tries to obtain a preponderance in the
centre. Admittedly, in doing so, he loses
time. The fact that this opening is still
used by some of the world’s best players
attests to its sound positional basis.
3...exd4 4.Àxd4
T_LdMlSt
jJjJ_JjJ
._S_._._
_._._._.
._.nI_._
_._._._.
IiI_.iIi
rNbQkB_R
4...Ãc5
Other continuations are seen more rarely.
On 4...Àge7?!, good is 5.Àc3 Àxd4
6.©xd4 Àc6 7.©d2!?, and on 7...Ãb4 –
8.a3 Ãa5 9.b4! Ãb6 10.Àd5 0-0
11.Ãb2 Õe8 12.0-0-0! d6 13.f4 with the
better play for White.
Dubious is 4...d5?! on account of 5.Ãb5
dxe4 6.Àc3! (no advantage is given by
6.Àxc6 ©xd1+ 7.®xd1 a6! 8.Ãa4 Ãd7)
6...Ãd7 7.0-0 f5 8.Ãxc6 bxc6 9.f3 c5
10.Àb3, and Black has problems with his
development.
The old continuation is too risky:
4...©h4 5.Àc3 Ãb4 6.Ãe2! (sacrificing
the pawn is the best reaction to the ag-
gressive queen raid) 6...©xe4 7.Àb5!
Ãxc3+ 8.bxc3 ®d8 9.0-0 with the ini-
tiative for White.
Another possible way of developing is
4...Àf6, e.g. 5.Àxc6 bxc6 6.e5 ©e7
(6...Àd5 7.Ãd3!) 7.©e2 Àd5 8.c4 Ãa6
9.Àd2 g6 10.Àf3 ©b4+ 11.®d1 Àb6

12.b3 Ãg7 13.©d2 ©e7 14.Ãb2 0-0
15.®c2 c5 16.h4Ç, Nepomniachtchi-
Svidler, Moscow 2010.
5.Ãe3
Worth consideration was 5.Àxc6 bxc6
(or 5...©f6 6.©f3 dxc6 7.Ãc4 Àe7
8.©xf6 gxf6 9.Ãf4 Ãb6 10.Àc3 Àg6
11.Ãg3 h5 12.h4 Àe5 13.Ãe2Ç,
Rublevsky-Naiditsch, Khanty-Mansiysk
2009) 6.Àc3 d6 7.Àa4 Ãb6 8.Àxb6
axb6 9.Ãd3 Àe7 10.Ãg5 f6 11.Ãd2 0-0
12.©e2 Ãe6 13.0-0 ©d7 14.f4 with the
better prospects for White, Jones-Avrukh,
London 2010.
5...©f6
The classical reply, which had shown its
reliability many times. In choosing it, the
experienced grandmaster playing Black
can hardly have suspected that within one
more move, he would commit the deci-
sive, indeed, practically the only mistake,
in the game.
6.c3
Against Blumenfeld’s Attack, 6.Àb5, first
launched at the beginning of the 20th
century and recently quite popular, a
good response has been found: 6...Ãxe3
7.fxe3 ©h4+ 8.g3 ©d8 (Alekhine’s
8...©xe4 9.Àxc7+ ®d8 10.Àxa8 ©xh1
11.©d6 Àf6 (11...©e4!?) 12.Àd2 Àe8
is less convincing) 9.©g4 g6 (9...g5!?)
10.©f4 d6 11.Ãc4 Àe5 12.0-0 (this is
supposed to be the point of White’s play)
12...Ãh3! 13.Ãxf7+ (13.À1c3 ©d7!)
13...®d7 14.À1c3 g5!, with advantage,
Wang Hao-Harikrishna, Tiayuan 2005.
6...Àge7 7.Ãc4!?
A continuation which suddenly became
the topical one. Prior to this, theory had
concentrated in the main on 7.Àc2
(Steinitz’ continuation 7.f4 leads to the
better game for Black after 7...©g6
8.©f3 Àxd4 and then ...d7-d5) 7...d6
8.0-0 d5 with equality.
Game 11 - 1991
White can also play 7.g3, for example:
7...h5 8.h3 h4 9.g4 Àg6 10.©a4 0-0
11.Àd2 a6 12.g5 ©e5 13.0-0-0.b5!?
with a sharp game and mutual chances,
Bitalzadeh-D’Amore, Porto Mannu
2009.
7...©g6?
A move which gives White a strong at-
tack. Black had two ways to maintain the
tension:
A) 7...Àe5 8.Ãe2 ©g6 (perhaps
8....d5 9.0-0 0-0 10.f4 À5c6 11.e5 ©h4
12.©d2 Ãb6 with roughly equal
chances, Khusnutdinov-Torre, Guang-
zhou 2010) 9.0-0 d5 10.Ãh5!? (stronger
than 10.exd5) 10...©xe4 11.Àd2 ©d3
12.À4f3 Ãd6 13.Àxe5 Ãxe5 14.Ãc5
with the initiative, Ehlvest-Beliavsky,
Reykjavik 1991;
B) 7...0-0 8.0-0 Ãb6 9.Ãb3 (in the
game Kasparov-Kamsky, Tilburg 1991,
White played 9.®h1) 9...Àa5!? 10.Àc2
©g6 11.Õe1 d6ì, Nijboer-Van der Wiel,
Eindhoven 1991.
8.Àxc6 ©xc6
Bad is 8...©xg2? because of 9.Õf1 Ãxe3
10.Àxe7.
T_L_M_.t
jJjJsJjJ
._D_._._
_.l._._.
._B_I_._
_.i.b._.
Ii._.iIi
rN_Qk._R
9.Ãxf7+!
Of course, it is not about the pawn, which
is soon regained, but about White’s
growing initiative.
9...®xf7 10.©h5+ Àg6 11.©f5+
®e8 12.©xc5 ©xe4
47
 Vassily Ivanchuk

Or 12...©xc5 13.Ãxc5 b6 14.Ãe3 with 1992

advantage to White. Game 12
13.Àd2 ©c6 14.©h5 d6 15.0-0 Sicilian Defence (B65)
Ãe6 16.Ãd4 ®d7 í Ivanchuk,Vassily
Black needs to look for an escape for his n Anand,Vishwanathan
king. Linares, 7th match game 1992
No better is 16...®f8 17.f4 Ãf7 18.Õae1 1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Àxd4
®g8 19.©g4, and it is hard for Black to Àf6 5.Àc3 Àc6 6.Ãg5
coordinate his rooks. Rauzer’s recommendation. By threatening
17.f4! to double the pawns, White wants to dis-
Preparing a combination. courage Black from playing 6...g6. Even
17...Àe7 so, Black sometimes goes in for exactly
this line; after 7.Ãxf6 exf6 he brings his
bishop to g7 and then plays ...f6-f5, ope-
T_._._.t ning the diagonal for the bishop, and ini-
jJjMs.jJ tiating complications.
._DjL_._ 6...e6
_._._._Q After 6...Ãd7 7.©d2 Õc8 8.f4 h6 9.Ãxf6
._.b.i._ gxf6 10.Àf5 ©a5 11.Ãd3 Àb4 12.0-0
_.i._._. Àxd3 13.©xd3 ©c5+ 14.®h1 e6
Ii.n._Ii 15.Àe3 h5 16.Õad1 Ãe7 17.f5 ®d8
r._._Rk. 18.Õf3 White held the initiative in the
game Ivanchuk-Salov, Reykjavik 1991.
18.f5! Ãxf5 19.Õae1! 7.©d2 Ãe7 8.0-0-0 0-0 9.f4
But not 19.Õxf5? g6 20.©e2 Àxf5 Here, White has a rich choice of possibil-
21.Ãxh8 Õe8 22.©f2 Õxh8, and the ities 9.Àb3, 9.Àdb5, 9.®b1, 9.Ãe2,
advantage unexpectedly goes over to which often depends on the player’s style.
Black. 9...Àxd4
19...g6 20.Õxe7+! ®xe7 21.©g5+ In the event of 9...h6 the sharp 10.h4 is
®d7 22.Ãxh8 promising, and on 9...e5 White can con-
Now White remains with an extra piece. tinue 10.Àf5 or 10.Àf3.
On 22...Õxh8 White decides by 23.Õxf5 10.©xd4 ©a5
gxf5 24.©g7+.
22...©b6+ 23.Ãd4 ©xb2 24.g4
Ãe6 25.Õb1 ©xa2 26.©b5+ ®e7 T_L_.tM_
27.©xb7 Õd8 28.Õf1! jJ_.lJjJ
The last trick! White commences the final ._.jJs._
attack on the king. d._._.b.
28...©xd2 29.©xc7+ Ãd7 ._.qIi._
Or 29...Õd7 30.Ãf6+ ®f7 31.Ãg5+ _.n._._.
®g7 32.©b8!. IiI_._Ii
30.Ãf6+ ®e6 31.©c4+
On 31...d5 there follows 32. ©a6+.
_.kR_B_R
Black resigned. 11.Ãc4

48

Also good is 11.e5.
After 11...dxe5 12.©xe5 (but not
12.fxe5 Õd8!) 12...©xe5 (bad is
12...©b6? on account of 13.Àe4)
13.fxe5 Àd5 14.Ãxe7 Àxe7 15.Ãd3
White stands more actively, whilst Black
still has to develop the bishop from c8.
On 15...Ãd7? there is 16.Ãxh7+, whilst
after 15...b6 16.Ãe4 Õb8 17.Õhe1
White’s position is preferable, Erenburg-
Kharlov, Internet blitz 2004.
11...Ãd7 12.e5 dxe5 13.fxe5 Ãc6
14.Ãd2 Àd7 15.Àd5 ©c5
16.Àxe7+ ©xe7 17.Õhe1 Õfd8
In the game Gulko-Psakhis, Aruba 1992,
play continued 17...©c5 18.©f4 Ãb5
19.Ãb3 ©c7 20.©g3 Àc5 21.Ãg5 f5
22.exf6 ©xg3 23.f7+ Õxf7 24.hxg3
Àxb3+ 25.axb3 Ãc6, and Black equalised.
18.©g4 Àf8 19.Ãd3
T_.t.sM_
jJ_.dJjJ
._L_J_._
_._.i._.
._._._Q_
_._B_._.
IiIb._Ii
_.kRr._.
19...Õxd3!?
This interesting exchange sacrifice had al-
ready been seen in Anand’s games, with
him playing White: 20.cxd3 Àg6 21.®b1
©d8 22.Ãc3 a5 23.g3 Àe7 24.Ãd4 ©d5
25.Ãg1 a4 with chances for both sides,
Anand-Lobron, Manila 1992.
20.cxd3 ©d7
An improvement on the above game.
21.®b1!
A superb idea! In trying to turn events in
his favour, White gives up the weak pawn,
to open the d-file for his rooks.
Game 12 - 1992
Instead, after 21.Ãc3 ©d5 22.®b1
©xg2 or 21.Õe3 ©d5 22.®b1 Àg6
23.Ãc3 ©xg2 Black has good chances of
a draw.
21...©xd3+ 22.®a1 ©f5
It was worth considering the move
22...h5!? 23.©e2 (on 23.©xh5?! possi-
ble is 23...Ãa4! 24.Ãc3 (or 24.b3
©d4+ 25.®b1 Ãb5 26.a4 Ãd3+
27.®a2 Ãc2 with the initiative for
Black) 24...Ãxd1 25.©xd1 with equal-
ity) 23...©xe2 24.Õxe2 Õd8 25.Õde1
Àg6 26.g3 Õd3 27.Ãb4 h4, although it
is true that White’s chances are prefera-
ble here too.
23.©g3 Àg6
More accurate is 23...©c2!? 24.Õg1 (but
not 24.h4?! h5! 25.©g5 ©a4 26.Ãc3
Ãd5) 24...Õd8 25.©c3 with a minimal
advantage to White.
24.Ãc3 h6 25.Õf1 ©e4 26.Õd2!
Defending the second rank.
An unclear game results from 26.©f2
Õf8 27.©xa7 ©xg2.
26...Ãd5
With the threat of 27...©a4.
T_._._M_
jJ_._Jj.
._._J_Sj
_._Li._.
._._D_._
_.b._.q.
Ii.r._Ii
k._._R_.
27.b3!
Mistaken is 27.©f2? because of
27...©c4.
27...Õc8
On 27...a5 good is 28.Õff2! (28.Õe1
©h4 29.©xh4 Àxh4 30.Õee2 a4 leaves
White slightly better chances) 28...©h4
49
 Vassily Ivanchuk

29.©xh4 Àxh4 30.Õd4! with a notice-

able advantage.
._._._M_
28.®b2 a6 _J_TsJj.
Also after 28...b5 29.Õe1 ©f5 30.Õf2 J_._J_._
©h5 31.h3 White has the better chances. _._Li._I
29.Õdf2 Õc7 30.Õe1 ©h4 31.©xh4 ._._._R_
Àxh4 32.Õd1! Àg6 _Ib._._.
Bad are 32...Àxg2 33.Õxd5 or 32...Ãxg2 Ik._.r._
33.Õd4.
_._._._.
33.g3 Àe7 34.Õd4 Àc6 35.Õdf4
39...Ãc6
On 39...Àf5 decisive is 40.Õxf5!! exf5
._._._M_ 41.Õxg7+! ®h8 (or 41...®xg7? 42.e6+
_Jt._Jj. ®f8 43.exd7 ®e7 44.h6 ®xd7 45.h7,
J_S_J_.j and White gets a new queen) 42.e6 Ãxe6
_._Li._. 43.Ãf6! Õd6 44.Õxf7+ ®g8 45.Õg7+
._._.r._ ®f8 46.h6 Õd2+ 47.®c3 Õh2 48.h7
_Ib._.i. Ãf7 49.Õxf7+ ®xf7 50.h8© Õxh8
Ik._.r.i 51.Ãxh8 winning.
40.h6 Àg6 41.hxg7 ®xg7 42.Ãb4
_._._._.
Ãd5
35...Õd7 Or 42...Õd5 43.Ãe7!, transferring the
The queenside pawn advance offered bishop to f6.
somewhat more chances, e.g. 35...b5!? 43.Ãd6 b6 44.a4 b5 45.a5 f5
36.h4 a5 37.Õe2 b4 38.Ãe1 Õb7 39.g4 46.exf6+ ®f7 47.Ãe7!
f6! or 39...a4!?, and the knight on c6 Obtaining a decisive advantage.
turns out to be a big support to Black’s 47...e5 48.Õh2 Àxe7 49.fxe7 ®xe7
counterplay. After 49...Õxe7 50.Õh7+ ®f6 51.Õg6+
36.h4 h5 ®xg6 52.Õxe7 White has a theoretically
Here too, more active was 36...b5, re- winning position.
turning to the previous variation. 50.Õg6! e4 51.Õxa6 1-0
37.g4! hxg4
After 37...Àe7?! 38.gxh5! (dubious is 1993
38.Õxf7?! hxg4 39.Ãb4 g3 40.Õf8+ Game 13
®h7 41.Õ2f7 g2 42.Ãc5 Õc7 43.Ãg1 Petroff Defence (C42)
Ãe4 with unclear play) 38...Àf5 39.Õc2 í Ivanchuk,Vassily
®h7 40.Ãe1 White’s winning chances n Bareev,Evgeny
are growing, rather than shrinking. Linares 1993
38.Õxg4 Àe7? 1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àf6
A mistake, which loses. Significantly In the Petroff Defence, Black does not
more tenacious was 38...b5 39.h5 b4 spend a tempo defending his own pawn,
40.Ãxb4 Àxe5 41.Õg3 f5! 42.Ãc3 Àg4 but immediately counterattacks. This sys-
43.Õf4 ®h7, and Black holds. tem, worked out in the middle of the
39.h5 19th century by the Russian masters

50
 Game 13 - 1993

Petrov and Jaenisch, is in our day part of

the repertoires of the best grandmasters
in the world.
3.Àxe5
On 3.Ãc4 Black equalises with 3...Àxe4!.
The alternative is 3.d4: 3...Àxe4 4.Ãd3
d5 5.Àxe5 Àd7 6.Àxd7 Ãxd7 7.0-0
Ãd6 8.c4 c6 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.Àc3 Àxc3
11.bxc3 0-0 12.©h5 g6 13.©f3 Õe8
14.Ãf4 Ãxf4 15.©xf4 Õc8 16.Õac1
©a5 with roughly equal chances,
Golubev-Ivanchuk, Odessa 2006.
3...d6
It is not possible to preserve the symme-
try – 3...Àxe4?! 4.©e2 ©e7 (4...Àf6?
5.Àc6+) 5.©xe4 d6 6.d4 f6 7.Àc3 dxe5
8.Àd5 ©d6 9.dxe5 fxe5 10.Ãf4 Àd7 Evgeny Bareev
11.0-0-0, and Black is in trouble.
4.Àf3 12...b6
The Cochrane Gambit does not promise A natural move, which, however, lost
White an advantage: 4.Àxf7 ®xf7 5.d4 most of its supporters after the present
c5!? 6.dxc5 Àc6 7.Ãc4+ Ãe6 8.Ãxe6+ game.
®xe6 9.0-0 d5, and White’s piece activity In the game Topalov-Shirov, Wijk aan Zee
hardly compensates for his sacrificed piece. 2004, play continued 12...Àd7!? 13.h3
4...Àxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Ãd3 Ãd6 Ãh5 14.Õb5 Àb6 15.c4 Ãxf3 16.©xf3
At the current moment, the most com- dxc4 17.Ãc2 ©d7 18.a4 g6 19.Ãe3
mon line of defence is 6...Àc6 7.0-0 Ãe7 Õac8 20.Õfb1 c3 21.a5 Àc4 22.Õxb7
(see Game 69). ©e6 23.Õa1 Õc7 24.a6 Àxe3 25.fxe3
7.0-0 0-0 8.c4 c6 9.cxd5 cxd5 ®g7 26.e4 f6 27.©xc3 Õff7 28.©b3,
10.Àc3 Àxc3 11.bxc3 and the players agreed a draw.
A well-known theoretical position. White 13.Õb5 Ãc7
strengthens his centre and opens the 13...a6? is a mistake, because of 14.Õxd5
b-file for his rooks. Ãxh2+ 15.Àxh2!.
11...Ãg4 12.Õb1 14.h3 a6

Ts.d.tM_ Ts.d.tM_
jJ_._JjJ _.l._JjJ
._.l._._ Jj._._._
_._J_._. _R_J_._.
._.i._L_ ._.i._L_
_.iB_N_. _.iB_N_I
I_._.iIi I_._.iI_
_RbQ_Rk. _.bQ_Rk.
51
 Vassily Ivanchuk

15.hxg4! Black’s chances are not worse, Short-

The exchange sacrifice itself had been Gelfand, Brussels 1991.
seen before, whilst 15.Õxd5!? had also 17...©d6 18.g3! Õa7?!
been tried here, but Ivanchuk finds his Passive tactics are not justified. It was
own, original way of playing the posi- worth considering 18...Àc6 (not
tion. 18...Àd7? because of 19.Ãf4) followed
15...axb5 16.©c2 g6 by ...Àc6-e7.
19.Õe1 Àd7 20.g5 Õd8 21.a4 Àb8
White methodically strengthens the pres-
Ts.d.tM_ sure. Black loses after 21...Àf8? 22.©a2!
_.l._J_J Õda8 23.Ãa3 ©d8 24.Õe8.
.j._._J_ 22.Àh2!
_J_J_._. Beginning the decisive knight transfer
._.i._I_ h2-g4-f6.
_.iB_N_. 22...©f8 23.Àg4 Ãd6 24.®g2 ®h8
I_Q_.iI_ 25.Õh1 ©g7
He is not saved by 25...Ãe7 26.Ãf4 ®g8
_.b._Rk.
27.©e2! h5 28.gxh6 ®h7 29.©a2 f6
17.Ãxb5! 30.Àe3 ©f7 31.Àxd5!.
Shifting the play into positional lines. 26.Àf6 h5
Suddenly it becomes clear that the light-
squared bishop controls all the important
squares in the enemy camp, and does not .s.t._.m
allow the black rooks to develop any ac- t._._Jd.
tivity. In addition, the black bishop is shut .j.l.nJ_
in by its own pawn on b6, and the knight _B_J_.iJ
cannot come to d7 at once, because of I_.i._._
Ãb5-c6. In addition, there is a threat of _.i._.i.
Ãc1-h6, although no other threats are ._Q_.iK_
visible.
_.b._._R
The attempt to decide matters by a direct
attack does not bring success: 17.Ãh6 27.©d1! 1-0
Õe8 18.Ãxb5 Õe4 19.g5 ©d6 20.Àe5 There is no satisfactory defence against
©e6 21.f4 Àc6! 22.Àxc6 Õxf4 23.Õxf4 the threat of 27.Õxh5+.
Ãxf4 24.Àe5 Ãxe5 25.dxe5 ©xe5, and A ‘clean’ victory!

52
Chapter 3
Selected Games 1994 – 2001
1994
Game 14
Sicilian Defence (B93)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Kasparov,Garry
Amsterdam 1994
1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Àxd4
Àf6 5.Àc3 a6
Black plays the Najdorf System, one of the
most popular variations of the Sicilian
Defence nowadays.
6.f4
Other lines include 6.Ãc4 e6 7.0-0 b5

ENRIQUE ALONSO
8.Ãb3 Ãe7 9.f4 with sharp play, or
6.Ãg5 (see Game 86).
6...©c7
More common is 6...e6 7.©f3 ©b6,
Almasi-Kasparov, European Club Cup, 10.fxe5 dxe5
Lyon 1994.
Also possible is 6...e5 7.Àf3 ©c7 8.Ãd3 TsL_M_.t
Àbd7 9.0-0 and then 9...Ãe7 or even _Jd._JlJ
9...g6 10.®h1 Ãg7. J_._.sJ_
Black also decides to fianchetto his king’s _._.j._.
bishop, choosing a slightly unusual
._.nI_._
move-order for the purpose.
7.©f3
_.n.bQ_I
Practice has also seen 7.a4, immediately IiI_._I_
or after 7.Àf3 Àbd7, for example: 8.a4 r._.kB_R
g6 9.Ãd3 Ãg7 10.0-0 b6 11.©e1 Ãb7 11.Ãh6!
12.e5 dxe5 13.fxe5 Àg4 14.e6 fxe6 This energetic move places a question
15.Ãe4 Àc5 16.Ãxb7 ©xb7 with mark over the value of the opponent’s
roughly equal chances, Kindermann- opening novelty.
Hoffmann, Münster 1993. 11...Ãxh6?!
7...g6 8.Ãe3 Ãg7 9.h3 e5!? Not 11...0-0? because of 12.Ãxg7 ®xg7
A rather questionable move, evidently 13.©xf6+! ®xf6 14.Àd5+ ®g7
part of Kasparov’s home preparation. It 15.Àxc7; however, after Ivanchuk’s sug-
was worth considering 9...0-0 10.0-0-0 gestion 11...Àh5! 12.Ãxg7 Àxg7
e5. 13.Àd5 ©a5+ 14.b4 ©d8 15.Àf6+

53
 Vassily Ivanchuk

®f8 16.Àb3 Àf5! Black holds. Now, 20.Õf3!

however, the initiative passes to White.
12.©xf6 0-0 13.Àd5 ©a5+ 14.b4
©d8?
This unfortunate queen sacrifice gives
White a sufficient material advantage to
win. Significantly stronger was 14...Ãg7!
15.bxa5 Ãxf6 16.Àxf6+ ®g7
TsL_.t._
_J_._JmJ
J_._.nJ_
i._.j._.
._.nI_._
_._._._I
I_I_._I_
r._.kB_R
analysis diagram
17.Àxh7 (slightly worse is 17.Àd5 exd4
18.Àb6 Õa7 19.0-0-0 Àc6 20.Ãe2
Ãe6) 17...®xh7 18.Àb3 (not so clear is
18.Àf3 Àc6 19.Ãc4 f6 20.Ãd5 Àxa5)
18...Àc6 19.Ãc4 Ãe6 20.Ãxe6 fxe6
21.0-0-0 with a small advantage to
White.
15.Àe7+ ©xe7 16.©xe7 exd4
17.Ãc4 Àc6 18.©c5 Ãe3 19.Õf1
Àd8
On 19...a5 20.b5 Àb4 there is 21.©e7!,
and not 21...Àxc2+ 22.®d1 Àxa1 be-
cause of 23.Õxf7 with a quick mate.
White chooses the simplest path to realis-
ing his advantage, getting ready to sacri-
fice his rook for the active enemy bishop
and a pawn.
20...Ãe6 21.Õxe3! dxe3 22.Ãxe6
Àxe6 23.©xe3 a5 24.b5 Õac8
25.0-0-0 Õc5 26.Õd5 b6
Or 26...Õfc8 27.Õxc5 Õxc5 28.b6! with
a decisive advantage.
27.©g3 Õc7
On 27...Õfc8 strong is 28.Õxc5 Àxc5
29.©d6 Àa4 (29...Àxe4 30.©xb6)
30.e5 Õe8 31.e6! fxe6 (31...Õxe6?
32.©d8+ ®g7 33.©d4+ and 34.©xa4)
32.©d7ê.
28.©d6 Õfc8 29.Õd2 Õb7
After 29...Àc5 30.©xb6 Àxe4 31.Õd8+!
the passed b-pawn settles things.
30.g4 Àc5 31.©f6 h6
Not 31...Àxe4 because of 32.Õd8+
Õxd8 33.©xd8+ ®g7 34.©d4+ Àf6
35.g5, and the black knight is lost.
32.e5 Õe8
Now on 32...Àe4 there is the decisive
33.©f3 Àc5 34.Õd6 Õe8 35.Õc6 Õbb8
36.Õc7 Õf8 37.©f6.
33.h4 ®h7
Or 33...Àe4 34.©c6.
34.h5 g5
If 34...Õe6 35.hxg6+ fxg6 36.©f8 Õxe5
37.Õd8 Black cannot avoid mate.
35.Õd6 Õe6 36.©d8

T_Ls.tM_ ._.q._._
_J_._J_J _T_._J_M
J_._._J_ .j.rT_.j
_.q._._. jIs.i.jI
.iBjI_._ ._._._I_
_._.l._I _._._._.
I_I_._I_ I_I_._._
r._.kR_. _.k._._.

54
 Game 15 - 1994

36...®g7 Àxd5 14.©xd5 Ãe6 15.©d2 d5

On 36...Õxe5 there follows 37.Õxh6+! 16.bxa6 Ãxa3 17.Ãb5+!? with a clear
®xh6 38.©h8 mate. advantage.
37.a3 a4 38.®b2 Õbe7 39.Õxb6 11.Àd5 Ãg7
Despite stubborn defence, Black has to For 11...f5, see Game 37.
admit defeat. Equally hopeless are both 12.c3 f5 13.exf5
39...Õxb6 40.©xe7 Õxb5+ 41.®c1 Àe6 Worth attention is 13.Ãd3 Àe7 14.Àxe7
42.©f6+ ®g8 43.©xh6 Õxe5 44.©f6, ©xe7 15.Àc2 ©g5 16.©e2!? Ãb7
and: 17.Àe3 Ãxe4 18.Ãxe4 fxe4 19.h4 ©g6
39...Õd7 40.©b8 Õxb6 41.©xb6 20.g4 with White having the initiative for a
Àe6 42.©c6 1-0 pawn, Al Sayed-Ganguly, Amsterdam 2004.
13...Ãxf5 14.Àc2 Àe7
Game 15 More accurate, it seems, is 14...0-0
Sicilian Defence (B33) 15.Àce3 Ãe6.
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Kramnik,Vladimir T_.dM_.t
Novgorod 1994 _._.sJlJ
1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.d4 cxd4 J_.j._._
4.Àxd4 Àf6 5.Àc3 e6 6.Àdb5 d6 _J_NjL_.
7.Ãf4 e5 8.Ãg5
With one extra move on each side (by
._._._._
comparison with 5...e5 6.Àdb5 d6 _.i._._.
7.Ãg5), we have reached the sharp IiN_.iIi
Cheliabinsk Variation. r._QkB_R
15.Ãd3!?
A new idea – the bishop is effectively
T_LdMl.t brought into the battle for the central
jJ_._JjJ squares. Another possibility is 15.Àxe7
._Sj.s._ Ãxc2 16.©xc2 ©xe7 17.Ãe2, and
_N_.j.b. White’s chances are slightly better.
._._I_._ 15...Àxd5?!
_.n._._. Stronger is 15...Ãe6 16.Àxe7 ©xe7
IiI_.iIi (16...®xe7 17.Ãe4! d5? 18.Àb4!)
17.Àe3 with mutual chances.
r._QkB_R 16.Ãxf5 Àe7 17.©g4 0-0
8...a6 9.Àa3 White also holds the initiative after
It is better not to rush the exchange on f6 17...Àxf5 18.©xf5 0-0 19.Àe3.
– 9.Ãxf6 gxf6 10.Àa3 helps Black, who 18.Õd1 d5
has the extra option of 10...f5. Now after 18...Àxf5 19.©xf5 d5
9...b5 10.Ãxf6 20.Àe3 d4 there is 21.©g4!, and the
Another line is 10.Àd5 (see Game 44). white knight reaches f5.
10...gxf6 19.Àe3
After 10...©xf6 White gains a valuable With the threats 20.Àxd5 and 20.Ãe4.
tempo: 11.Àd5 ©d8 12.c4 Àe7 13.cxb5 19...d4

55
 Vassily Ivanchuk

A necessary decision, because the varia- 25.Ãxa6 Õfd8 26.©xb5 Õd2+

tion 19...©d6 20.Àxd5 Àxd5 21.©f3 27.®g3
e4 22.Ãxe4 Õfe8 23.0-0 Õxe4 24.©xe4
Õd8 25.Õd2 leads to an obvious advan- ._.t._M_
tage to White. _._.s.lJ
20.Ãe4 B_._._._
_Q_.jJ_.
T_.d.tM_ ._._._._
_._.sJlJ _.i._.k.
J_._._._ Ii.t._Ii
_J_.j._. _._._._R
._.jB_Q_ 27...e4
_.i.n._. At first glance, Black looks to have man-
Ii._.iIi aged to create threats against the enemy
king, but White’s defence is built upon
_._Rk._R some small nuances. Thus, after
20...dxe3!? 27...Õ8d3+? (27...f4+ 28.®h3!) there is
Black tries to obtain sufficient counter- the decisive 28.©xd3! Õxd3+ 29.Ãxd3
play with the aid of a queen sacrifice. e4 30.Ãc4+ ®f8 31.Õd1, whilst in the
Prospectless is 20...Õb8 21.0-0 ©d6 event of 27...Àg6 White wins by 28.Õf1
22.©h5 h6 23.Àf5 Àxf5 24.©xf5 ©g6 Àf4 29.Õxf4! exf4+ 30.®f3.
25.©xg6 fxg6 26.cxd4 exd4 27.Ãxg6 28.Õe1 Àg6
with an extra pawn for White. And again, after 28...Õ8d3+? there fol-
Slightly stronger is 20...f5 21.Àxf5 Àxf5 lows 29.©xd3! exd3 30.Õxe7 h6 (or
22.Ãxf5 ©f6 23.Ãe6+ ®h8 24.0-0 30...Õxb2 31.Ãc4+ ®f8
Õad8 with some compensation for the
sacrificed pawn.
21.Õxd8 exf2+ 22.®xf2 Õaxd8
._._.m._
23.©e2! _._.r.lJ
The tempting 23.Ãxh7+?! gives Black ._._._._
counter-chances after 23...®xh7 _._._J_.
24.©h4+ ®g8 25.©xe7 Õd2+ 26.®g3 ._B_._._
Õxb2. _.iJ_.k.
23...f5 24.Ãb7! It._._Ii
Going after the queenside pawns. Weaker _._._._.
is 24.Ãc2 Àg6, and Black holds. analysis diagram
24...Õd7
Utilising his last chance: Black takes the 32.Õf7+ ®e8 33.Õxg7 d2 34.Ãe2 Õb1
open d-file. 35.Õxh7 d1© 36.Ãxd1 Õxd1 37.®f4)
On 24...Õd6 White has 25.Õd1! Õfd8 31.Ãc4+ ®h7 32.Õd7 Õxb2 33.Ãxd3
26.Õxd6 Õxd6 27.a4! bxa4 28.Ãxa6, ®g6 34.Ãxf5+! ®xf5 35.Õxg7, win-
and by creating a passed c-pawn, White ning.
has a technically winning position. 29.Õe2 Ãe5+ 30.®f2 Õd1

56
 Game 16 - 1994

Nothing comes from 30...Õxe2+ Game 16

31.®xe2 Àf4+ 32.®f2 Õd2+ 33.®e1 Nimzo-Indian Defence (E37)
Õd5 34.©e8+ ®g7 35.g3 with a deci- í Bareev,Evgeny
sive advantage to White. n Ivanchuk,Vassily
31.Õe1 Õ8d2+ Novgorod 1994
Nor is anything changed by 31...Õ1d2+ 1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 e6 3.Àc3 Ãb4 4.©c2
32.®g1 ®g7 33.g3! h5 34.Õf1 Õf8 d5
35.Õf2ê. One of the principal responses to the
32.®f1 Õxe1+ 4.©c2 system.
32...e3? fails to 33.©b3+ ®g7 Black, by threatening 5...dxc4, takes con-
34.©xd1!. trol of the light squares in the centre (the
33.®xe1 Õxg2 34.Ãc8 f4 move 4...c5 was seen in Game 6).
But not 34...Àf4? 35.©e8+.
TsLdM_.t
._B_._M_ jJj._JjJ
_._._._J ._._Js._
._._._S_ _._J_._.
_Q_.l._. .lIi._._
._._Jj._ _.n._._.
_.i._._. IiQ_IiIi
Ii._._Ti r.b.kBnR
_._.k._.
5.a3
35.Ãf5! In this way, White practically forces the
Not so clear is 35.©d5+ ®g7 36.©xe4 exchange on c3, obtaining the advantage
Õxb2, and Black suddenly has drawing of the bishop pair. However, this plan also
chances. loses time, and Black can count on ade-
35...Ãf6 quate counterplay.
Defending against the threat 36.Ãxg6 5...Ãxc3+ 6.©xc3
and 37.©xe5. The recapture 6. bxc3 would not be con-
36.Ãxe4 Õxh2 37.a4 Àe5 38.a5 f3 sistent. After 6...c5 7.Àf3 Àc6 we reach a
39.a6 Õh1+ variation of the Sämisch System, where
Other replies also fail to save the game, Black has convenient play.
e.g.: 6...Àe4
39...Õe2+? 40.©xe2!; The most energetic. Black immediately
39...Ãh4+ 40.®d1 Õh1+ 41.®c2 Õh2+ begins the battle in the centre.
42.®b3; 7.©c2
39...f2+ 40.®f1 Àg4 41.©e8+ ®g7 On 7.©b3 there is the unpleasant reply
42.©d7+ ®f8 43.©xg4. 7...c5 with the threat of 8...©a5.
In all cases, White obtains an easily win- 7...c5
ning position. This extremely effective break opens the
40.®d2 Õh2+ diagonal d8-a5, along which the queen
Black lost on time. can take up active operations.

57
 Vassily Ivanchuk
8.dxc5 Àc6 9.Àf3 ©a5+ 10.Àd2
After 10.Ãd2 Àxd2 (or 10...©xc5 11.e3
Àxd2 12.Àxd2 d4!, Forintos-Wedberg,
Malmö 1988) 11.Àxd2 dxc4 Black’s
chances are not worse.
T_L_M_.t
jJ_._JjJ
._S_J_._
d.iJ_._.
._I_S_._
i._._._.
.iQnIiIi
r.b.kB_R
10...Àd4
Leading to extremely sharp play, with
chances for both sides.
The alternative is 10...Àxd2 11.Ãxd2
©xc5 12.e3 dxc4 13.©xc4 ©xc4
14.Ãxc4 Ãd7 15.Ãc3, and White’s
chances in the resulting endgame are
slightly superior, Reshevsky-Capablanca,
AVRO 1938.
11.©d3 e5 12.b4
Mistaken is 12.cxd5? Àxc5 13.©c4
Àcb3 14.Õb1 Ãf5 with a decisive advan-
tage for Black.
12...©a4 13.Õa2
The most deleterious effects result from
13.Àxe4? dxe4 14.©d1 Àc2+ 15.®d2
e3+! 16.®c3 (or 16.fxe3 Ãf5î)
16...Ãf5 17.Ãxe3 Õd8 18.Ãd2 0-0 with
a very strong attack.
13...Àxd2
The main line involves 13...Ãf5, e.g.
14.cxd5 (dubious is 14.Àxe4?! Ãxe4
15.©c3, Galliamova-Lerner, Rostov
1993, and here 15...Àc2+ 16.Õxc2 d4!
gives Black the advantage) 14...Àxc5
15.©c3 Àcb3 16.Àxb3 ©xb3 17.©xb3
Àxb3 18.Ãd2 Ãe4 with sufficient com-
pensation for the pawn.
58
14.Õxd2?!
A not entirely successful novelty. More
solid is 14.©xd2 dxc4 15.e3 Àb3
16.©c3 Ãe6 17.Ãxc4 Ãxc4 18.©xc4
Àxc1 19.©xc1 a5 with roughly equal
chances, Bronstein-Boleslavsky, Stock-
holm 1948.
14...Ãf5 15.©e3
On 15.©c3 strong is 15...Àc2+ 16.Õxc2
d4! 17.©b2 ©xc2 with the better game
for Black.
15...0-0-0!
After 15...Àc2+?! 16.Õxc2 ©xc2
17.cxd5 (stronger than 17.©xe5+ ®f8
18.©b2 ©xc4 with unclear play) 17...f6
18.f3 a5 19.Ãd2 White does not have
any particular problems.
16.g4
He loses after 16.©xe5? (16.cxd5?
Õxd5) 16...Àc2+ 17.Õxc2 ©xc2
18.Ãf4 ©b1+ 19.®d2 dxc4+ with a
massacre.
._Mt._.t
jJ_._JjJ
._._._._
_.iJjL_.
DiIs._I_
i._.q._.
._.rIi.i
_.b.kB_R
16...©c2!
With this nice queen sacrifice, Black
forces a favourable endgame. The contin-
uation 16...Àc2+ 17.Õxc2 after
17...Ãxc2 18.Ãg2 dxc4 19.0-0 f6 20.c6!
gives White active counterplay, whilst af-
ter 17...©xc2 18.gxf5 dxc4 19.Ãd2
©b1+ 20.Ãc1 ©c2 the game ends in a
repetition of moves.
Also, after 16...Ãxg4?! 17.cxd5 Àc2+
18.Õxc2 ©xc2 19.d6 White’s chances
are not worse.
 Game 17 - 1994

17.Õxd4
The lesser evil. Weaker is 17.Õxc2
._M_._.t
(17.gxf5?? ©xc1+ 18.Õd1 Àc2#) jJ_._.j.
17...Àxc2+ 18.®d2 dxc4+ 19.®c3 ._._.jL_
Àxe3 20.Ãxe3 (or 20.gxf5 Àxf1 _.iT_._J
21.Õxf1 Õd4ç) 20...Ãxg4 with a clear .i.j.bI_
advantage for Black. i._._I_.
No better is 17.©xd4? ©xc1+ 18.Õd1 ._._IkBi
©xa3 19.©xe5 ©xb4+ 20.Õd2 Ãc2
_._._._R
21.f3 dxc4 22.©f4
24...Ãc2!
Black voluntarily transfers the bishop to
._Mt._.t a4, blocking the advance of the queenside
jJ_._JjJ pawns.
._._._._ 25.h4 Õe8 26.Õc1
_.i._._. Better is 26.g5, not helping the bishop
.dJ_.qI_ with its work.
_._._I_. 26...Ãa4 27.gxh5?!
._LrI_.i One imagines White’s inaccuracies are
explained by time-trouble. Here, 27.g5 f5
_._.kB_R
28.Ãf1 gives a defensible position.
analysis diagram
27...Õxh5 28.Ãg3
22...a5! 23.e4 Õxd2 24.©xd2 Õd8 Now it already hard to know what to ad-
25.©xb4 axb4 26.®f2 Õd1, and the vise White. He can only prolong his resis-
passed pawns bring Black victory. tance with 28.Ãh3+ Ãd7 29.Ãxd7+
17...exd4 18.©d2 ®xd7 30.Õd1 ®e6 31.Ãg3 Õd5ç.
White defends by means of only moves. 28...Õe3! 29.Õc4 Õd5 30.Ãd6
Bad is 18.©f4? Ãe4 19.Õg1 (19.f3 Ãxf3!) No better is 30.Õxd4 Õxe2+ 31.®xe2
19...dxc4 with a decisive advantage. Õxd4î.
18...©xd2+ 19.Ãxd2 30...Õc3 31.f4 Õxd6!
Saving the g-pawn. After 19.®xd2 it is After 32.Õxc3 dxc3 33.cxd6 c2 the black
possible to play 19...Ãxg4 20.Õg1 Ãh5 pawn cannot be stopped. White resigned.
21.cxd5 Õxd5 22.Õxg7 Ãg6, whereas
after the capture on d2 with the bishop, Game 17
taking on g4 is unfavourable for Black, Sicilian Defence (B48)
since in this same variation, after 23.Ãg2 í Ivanchuk,Vassily
Õe5 24.Ãh3+ ®d8 25.Ãf4, White ob- n Ljubojevic,Ljubomir
tains convenient play. Buenos Aires 1994
19...Ãe4 20.f3 Ãg6 21.cxd5 Õxd5 1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.d4 cxd4
22.Ãg2 f6 23.®f2 h5 24.Ãf4 4.Àxd4 e6 5.Àc3 ©c7 6.Ãe3
An inaccuracy. It was worth considering On 6.f4 there is 6...a6 7.a4 Àf6 8.e5 Àd5
24.h4!? with the idea of g4-g5, whilst af- 9.Àxd5 exd5 10.Àf5 d6 11.exd6 Ãxd6
ter 24...hxg4 25.fxg4 Õe5 26.Ãf4 the 12.Àxd6+ ©xd6 with mutual chances,
white bishops are very actively placed. Luther-Ivanchuk, Kusadasi 2006.

59
 Vassily Ivanchuk

6...a6

T_L_MlSt
_JdJ_JjJ
J_S_J_._
_._._._.
._.nI_._
_.n.b._.
IiI_.iIi
r._QkB_R

BAS BEEKHUIZEN
A characteristic of the Paulsen System,
which Black adopts here, is leaving his
pawn on d7. Ljubomir Ljubojevic
Black’s plan is firstly to develop active play
on the queenside, and to force positional 14.f3 h6
concessions from White, after which Black defends against the threat of 15.e5
Black plays ...d7-d6 and goes into a Àd5 16.©g5.
Scheveningen-type position, favourable On 14...b4 possible is 15.Àe2! ©b6 (or
to himself. 15...©c5 16.e5 ©xe5 17.©xb4) 16.e5
7.Ãd3 Àf6 8.0-0 Àxd4 Àd5 17.Àg3, and the queen’s visit to d4
In the game Kasparov-Ivanchuk, proves a waste of time.
Novgorod 1994, play continued 8...Àe5 15.e5 Àd5
9.h3 Ãc5 10.®h1 d6 11.f4 Àed7
(weaker is 11...Àc6? 12.e5 with advan-
tage to White, Kasparov-Anand, Tilburg
T_._M_.t
1991) 12.a3!? 0-0 13.©e1, and here _L_J_Jj.
Black equalised with 13...b5. J_._J_.j
9.Ãxd4 Ãc5 10.Ãxc5!? _J_Si._.
After 10.Ãe2 d6 11.©d2 b5 12.Õad1 ._.d._._
Ãb7 the chances are equal, Golubev- _.nB_I_.
Tregubov, Alushta 1994. IiIq._Ii
10...©xc5 11.®h1 _._.rR_K
No advantage is given by 11.Àa4 ©c7
12.c4 b6 13.©e2 Ãb7 14.Õac1 d6 16.Àxd5
15.©e3 Àd7 16.Õfd1 0-0 17.Ãf1 Õfd8, Worth attention was 16.Õe4!? ©c5
with mutual chances, Anand-Ljubojevic, 17.Àxd5 ©xd5 (or 17...Ãxd5 18.Õg4!)
Linares 1991. 18.a4 ©c5 19.b4 ©c7 20.Õg4 with the
11...b5 12.©d2 Ãb7 13.Õae1 ©d4 initiative for White.
Black has almost equalised, but this is a 16...Ãxd5 17.c3 ©c5 18.Ãe4 Ãxe4
mistake. The queen move does not bring More accurate is 18...Ãc6.
any real benefits, whilst it fails to further his Black himself helps the white rook to be-
development. Better are 13...d6 or 13...0-0. come active on e4, from where it can

60
 Game 17 - 1994

transfer to either the kingside or the It is surprising, but Black’s activity allows
queenside, as appropriate. him to contain White’s dangerous ideas
19.Õxe4 Õa7 20.Õfe1 ®e7? just in time.
Now White’s advantage becomes serious. For example, after 33.g4 a good reply is
Black had to settle for 20...0-0 21.Õg4 33...©d3 34.®h2 Õc2+ 35.Õg2 d4,
f5!? (but not 21...®h8 22.Õee4) 22.Õd4 whilst after the preparatory 33.Õf1 there
Õf7, although here too, White is better. follows 33...©g6, and on 34.g4 there is
21.Õg4 Õg8 22.©f4 again 34...©d3 35.®g2 Õc2+ 36.Õf2
Good, and maybe even better, was Õxf2+ 37.®xf2 ©d2+ 38.®g3 d4 with
22.©d3 g6 23.©d2 g5 24.Õd4, continu- mutual chances.
ing to undermine the black position. Only in the variation 33.f4! Õc8 (better,
evidently, is 33...©f5!?) 34.®h2 ©e2
._._._T_ 35.©h4 ®d7 36.Õe1 ©d2 37.Õf1 Õh8
t._JmJj. 38.Õf3 d4 39.Õg3 ©c2 40.©f6 ©h7
J_._J_.j 41.Õh3 does White obtain pressure and
_Jd.i._. maintain his advantage.
After missing this chance to complicate
._._.qR_ the game, Black falls under a positional
_.i._I_. press.
Ii._._Ii 23.Õd1! Õb7 24.h3 a5 25.a3 Õb6
_._.r._K 26.©g3 ®f8 27.Õgd4! Õb7 28.f4!
22...©c7 Using his presence in the centre, White
The turning point of the game. Black re- prepares the advance f4-f5.
frains from 22...d5 because of the forcing 28...g5
line 23.Õxg7!? Õxg7 24.©f6+ ®e8 On 28...a4 it is already possible to play
(24...®f8?? 25.©d8 mate) 25.©xg7 29.f5! exf5 30.©f4 ©c6 31.©xf5 with a
©f2 26.Õg1 ©xb2 27.©xh6 ©xc3 combined attack on two semi-open files,
28.©h8+ ®e7 29.h4, and the passed the d- and f-files.
h-pawn looks threatening. 29.Õf1 Õg6 30.©d3 ©c6
However, concrete analysis shows that it
is far from easy to win from here:
29...Õc7 30.©f6+ ®e8 31.h5 ©c2 ._._.m._
32.h6 Õc4!. _T_J_J_.
._D_J_Tj
._._M_._ jJ_.i.j.
_._._J_. ._.r.i._
J_._Jq.i i.iQ_._I
_J_Ji._. .i._._I_
._T_._._ _._._R_K
_._._I_. 31.f5! exf5 32.Õxf5 Õe6 33.Õd6 ©c4
I_D_._I_ There is no salvation in 33...Õxd6
_._._.rK 34.exd6 ©c4 35.©e3 with an attack on
analysis diagram the e-file.

61
 Vassily Ivanchuk

34.©d1 ®e8 35.©f3 Õxd6 36.exd6

Õb8
T_.d.tM_
Having outplayed his opponent _Lj.lJjJ
positionally, White finishes off with a J_._._._
striking combination: _J_Sr._.
._._._._
.t._M_._ _Bi._Q_.
_._J_J_. Ii.i.iIi
._.i._.j rNb._.k.
jJ_._Rj. analysis diagram

._D_._._ 12...Ãd6!? 13.Ãxd5 (after 13.Õxd5?!

i.i._Q_I ©e7 14.®f1 Õae8 15.©d1 Ãxd5
.i._._I_ 16.Ãxd5 ©e5 17.Ãf3 ©xh2 18.g3 Õe6
Black develops a strong attack) 13...c6
_._._._K
14.Õe2 cxd5 15.d4 ©c7 16.g3 Õae8
37.Õxg5! hxg5 38.©f6 (also good is 16...Õfe8 17.Ãe3 a5
Black resigned. 18.Àd2 b4 19.Õc1 ©d7 20.Õee1 bxc3
21.Õxc3 Ãb4 with roughly equal
1995 chances, Sutovsky-Short, Montreal 2007)
Game 18 17.Àd2 b4 18.cxb4 ©c2! 19.Õe3 Ãc8
Ruy Lopez (C89) 20.Àf1 Ãxb4 21.a3 Ãa5 22.b4 Ãb6
í Ivanchuk,Vassily 23.Õxe8 Õxe8 24.Ãe3 Ãe6 25.©d1 Õc8
n Short,Nigel 26.Àd2, and the players agreed a draw.
Riga 1995 12.d4
1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.Ãb5 a6 4.Ãa4 Leko chose 12.d3 against the same oppo-
Àf6 5.0-0 Ãe7 6.Õe1 b5 7.Ãb3 0-0 nent, and after 12...Ãd6 13.Õe1 Ãc7
8.c3 d5 14.Àd2 Àf4?! (better is 14...©f6
Once again we have the Marshall Attack 15.Àe4 ©g6) 15.Àf3! Àxd3 16.Ãg5
on the board (see commentary to Game ©d6 17.Õe3 Àxb2 18.©e2 Ãg4
9). 19.Ãe7 Ãxf3 20.Ãxd6 Ãxe2 21.Ãxf8
This time the Ukrainian Grandmaster Ãh5 22.Ãa3 White obtained the advan-
plays White. tage, Leko-Short, Cap d’Agde 1996.
9.exd5 Àxd5 10.Àxe5 12...Ãd6 13.Õe1 ©h4 14.g3 ©h3
It is also possible to decline the pawn sac- 15.Ãe3
rifice: 10.a4 b4 11.a5 Ãf6 12.h3 Ãf5 15.Õe4!? is also known. In the game
13.d4 exd4 14.cxd4 Ãe6 15.©d3 Õe8, Kramnik-Leko, 8th match game, Brissago
Morozevich-Harikrishna, Odessa 2007, 2004, there followed 15...g5 16.©f1
and here 16.Ãa4!? led to a roughly equal ©h5 17.Àd2 Ãf5 18.f3 Àf6 19.Õe1,
game. and the attempt to hold the exchange
10...Àxe5 11.Õxe5 c6 brought White into difficulties.
Following the main variation. In the Stronger, it seems, is 19.a4 Àxe4
game Anand-Short, Manila 1992, there 20.Àxe4 ©g6 21.Àxd6 ©xd6 22.Ãxg5
was played 11...Ãb7 12.©f3 ©g6 23.©c1!? Ãd3 24.axb5 axb5

62

25.Õxa8 Õxa8 26.®f2 Ãc4, Shirov-
Aronian, Moscow 2006. White has two
pawns for the exchange, which gives the
players approximately equal chances.
15...Ãg4 16.©d3 Õae8 17.Àd2 Õe6
On 17...©h5 possible is 18.Ãc2 f5
19.f3!? Ãxf3 20.Àxf3 ©xf3 21.Ãd2
©xd3 22.Ãxd3 f4 23.Õxe8 Õxe8
24.®f2 fxg3+ 25.hxg3 c5 26.c4 Àb6
27.cxb5 c4 28.Ãf1 axb5, and White’s
chances in the resulting endgame are
somewhat superior, Ponomariov-Leko,
Moscow 2008.
18.a4
Bad is 18.c4? because of 18...Ãf4!
19.cxd5 (or 19.gxf4 Õh6) 19...Õh6
20.©e4 ©xh2+ 21.®f1 Ãxe3 22.Õxe3
Õf6, and Black won, G. Kuzmin-Malinin,
Sudak 2002.
._._.tM_
_._._JjJ
J_JlT_._
_J_S_._.
I_.i._L_
_BiQb.iD
.i.n.i.i
r._.r.k.
18...bxa4!?
An old move, played by Boris Spassky. A
line which was popular not so long ago is
18...f5 19.©f1 ©h5 20.f4 bxa4!? 21.Õxa4
Õb8 22.Ãxd5 cxd5 23.Õxa6 Õbe8
24.©b5 ©f7 but after 25.h3!? it leads to
White’s advantage, it would appear.
More often played is 18...©h5 19.axb5
axb5. Anand in his match against Kamsky
(Sanghi Nagar 1994) continued
20.Àe4!? Ãc7 21.Ãd2 Õfe8 22.Ãd1!
Ãxd1 23.Õexd1 f5 (23...Õxe4?
24.©xe4!) 24.Àg5 Õe2, and here
25.©xf5 served to underline White’s ad-
vantage.
Game 18 - 1995
However, a year later, Gata rehabilitated
the variation: 20...Ãf5! 21.Ãd2 Õxe4
22.Õxe4 Àf6 23.f3 ©g6 with chances
for both sides, Svidler-Kamsky, Gronin-
gen 1995.
Also worthy of consideration is
20.Àf1!? Õfe8 21.Ãd1 Ãxd1 22.©xd1
©f5 23.Ãd2 Õxe1 24.Ãxe1 h5 25.h4
g6 26.b3 b4 27.c4 Àc3 28.Ãxc3 bxc3
29.c5 c2 30.©d2 Ãc7 31.Õc1 ©f3
32.Õxc2 ©xb3 with the better game for
White, Gashimov-Shirov, Poikovsky
2008.
19.Õxa4
On 19.Ãxa4 the reply 19...Ãf4! is strong.
19...f5 20.©f1
But not 20.f4 Ãxf4!ç, Novopashin-
Spassky, Leningrad 1963.
20...©h5
._._.tM_
_._._.jJ
J_JlT_._
_._S_J_D
R_.i._L_
_Bi.b.i.
.i.n.i.i
_._.rQk.
21.Õxa6!?
A largely forgotten continuation! Fearing
his opponent’s home preparation,
Ivanchuk finds a way to avoid the theoret-
ical 21.f4, giving White good chances.
21...f4 22.Ãxf4!
Bad is 22.Õxc6? (or 22.gxf4? Õg6)
22...fxe3 23.Õxe3 Àxe3 24.Ãxe6+
Ãxe6 25.©e1 Ãd5, S. Lilienthal-Hallier,
corr. 1965, and Black wins, since after
26.Õxd6 to reply 26...Àg4 27.h4 Àxf2
decides.
22...Ãh3
Winning the queen gives Black a difficult
task.
63
 Vassily Ivanchuk
However, even after 22...Õxe1 (on
22...Ãxf4 a good reply is 23.Õxe6 Ãxe6
24.gxf4 (24.Õxc6?! Ãe3!) 24...Àxf4
25.Ãxe6+ Àxe6 26.f3 with a promising
game) 23.©xe1 Ãxf4 24.Õxc6! (bad is
24.gxf4? because of 24...Õe8! followed
by 25...Ãh3) 24...Ãxd2 25.©xd2 Ãf3
26.©e1 ©f7 27.Õc5 Õe8 28.©f1 g6
29.Ãc4 White’s chances, with four
pawns for the piece, are somewhat better.
23.Õxe6!
Mistaken is 23.Ãxd5? ©xd5 24.©xh3
Õxe1+ 25.Àf1 Õxf4ç.
23...Ãxf1 24.Àxf1 Ãxf4 25.Õaxc6
On 25.Õexc6 perfectly possible is
25...®h8!? (but not 25...Ãc1? 26.Õa5!
©e2 27.Ãxd5+ ®h8 28.f3±) 26.Ãxd5
©xd5 27.gxf4 ©f3, and despite White’s
powerful pawn phalanx on the queen-
side, Black has counterchances on the
other wing.
25...©f3
The black bishop cannot move away.
After 25...Ãb8? 26.Àe3 ©f7 (or
26...©e2 27.Àf5!)
.l._.tM_
_._._DjJ
._R_R_._
_._S_._.
._.i._._
_Bi.n.i.
.i._.i.i
_._._.k.
analysis diagram
27.Õf6! (the same blow follows after
26...©f3) 27...Àxf6 28.Ãxf7+ ®xf7
White wins, whilst in the event of
25...Ãxg3?! 26.Àxg3 ©f3 27.Õe2 ®h8
28.Ãxd5 ©xd5 29.Õc5 he obtains the
advantage.
26.Ãxd5?!
64
According to Ivanchuk, more accurate
was 26.gxf4! Õxf4 27.Õe8+! ®f7
28.Ãxd5+ ©xd5 29.Õcc8 with a small
advantage, whereas now Black obtains
counterchances.
26...©xd5 27.gxf4 ©f3! 28.d5!?
A silent draw offer. On 28...Õxf4 there
follows 29.Õc8+ ®f7 30.Õc7+ with
perpetual check.
28...h5 29.Õc4 h4
Black stubbornly refrains from perpetual:
29...©g4+ 30.®h1 ©f3+.
30.Õg6
Not 30.Àe3? because of 30...Õa8 with an
attack on the first rank.
30...©d3 31.Õgc6 ©xd5
._._.tM_
_._._.j.
._R_._._
_._D_._.
._R_.i.j
_.i._._.
.i._.i.i
_._._Nk.
32.Õc8
The position is stabilised.
32...h3 33.Àe3 ©d2 34.®f1 ©xb2?
A mistake, giving White some winning
chances. Stronger was 34...©c1+
35.®e2 ©xb2+ 36.®e1 (36.®f3?
©b7+ 37.Õ8c6 Õf6 38.Àd5 Õxc6î)
36...©b1+ 37.®e2 ©h1 38.Àf1 with an
approximately equal game.
35.Õxf8+ ®xf8 36.Õc8+ ®f7
37.Õh8 ©xc3 38.Õxh3 ©d3+
39.®e1 ©e4
He should have tried 39...©b1+ 40.®e2
©b5+ 41.®f3 ©c6+ 42.®g4 ©g6+,
continuing to chase the white king.
40.®e2 ®g8 41.f5 ®f7 42.Õg3 ©h1
43.h3 ©e4 44.Õg4 ©h1 45.h4 ©h2
 Game 19 - 1995

46.Àf1 ©e5+ 47.®f3! ©d5+ This opening is part of the repertoire of

48.Õe4 ©d1+
Allowing the knight to come to g3, closer
to the kingside pawns.
More accurate was 48...©d3+ 49.Àe3.
49.®g2 ©d5 50.Àg3
._._._._
_._._Mj.
._._._._
_._D_I_.
._._R_.i
_._._.n.
._._.iK_
_._._._.
50...©c6?!
Another barely-noticeable inaccuracy, af-
ter which White activates his king.
Better is 50...©d2 51.®f3 ©d1+ 52.Õe2
©d4 53.Àe4 ©d1, not giving the king
any space to work.
51.®h3! ©c2 52.f3 ©d1 53.®g4
©g1 54.Õe6 ©d4+?
This leads to defeat. It was essential to
play 54...©g2, although after 55.Õe2
©g1 56.Õc2 ®e7 (or 56...©d4+
57.Àe4 ©g1+ 58.®f4) 57.®f4 ©b6
58.Àe4 White, having concentrated his
forces, has excellent chances of success.
55.Àe4 ©d7 56.Àg5+ ®g8 57.®h5
The king completes a decisive transfer.
57...©d8 58.®g6 ©d7
Nothing is changed by 58...©f8 59.h5
©c8 60.Àe4 ®f8 61.Àd6.
59.h5! ©b5 60.Àe4
Game 19
French Defence (C16)
í Kasparov,Garry
n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Horgen 1995
1.e4 e6
many leading players, such as Viktor
Kortchnoi, Artur Yusupov, and Alexander
Morozevich. Ivanchuk is another.
The main drawback of the French De-
fence is the cramped position of the
bishop on c8.
2.d4 d5 3.Àc3 Ãb4
Black chooses the Winawer Variation,
leading to a complicated and interesting
battle.
4.e5
White has several possible replies, but
only closing the centre and playing to
limit his opponent’s space offers chances
of an advantage. Other continuations lead
to equality.
4...b6 5.a3
The game Ivanchuk-Vaganian, Riga 1995,
continued 5.h4 ©d7 6.h5 Ãa6 7.Ãxa6
Àxa6 8.Àe2 Ãf8 9.a4 Àh6 10.Ãxh6
gxh6 with the better chances for White.
5...Ãf8
The same retreat is also good after 5.©g4.
6.Àf3 Àe7 7.h4 h6
After 7...h5 8.Ãg5 Ãa6 9.Ãxa6 Àxa6
10.0-0 ©d7 11.©d3 Àb8 12.Àe2 Àbc6
13.c4 dxc4 14.©xc4 Àd5 15.Õac1 Àce7
16.Ãxe7 Ãxe7 17.Àc3 0-0-0 18.Àxd5
exd5 19.©a6+ ®b8 20.e6 ©c8
21.©xc8+ ®xc8 22.exf7 White ob-
tained a good endgame in the game A.
Sokolov-Portisch, Moscow 1990.
8.h5 a5
Black prepares to bring his bishop to a6.
Also interesting is 8...©d7!? with the
1-0 same idea.
9.Ãb5+ c6
On 9...Ãd7 White can favourably reply
10.Ãd3.
10.Ãa4 Àd7
Also good is 10...Ãa6 11.Àe2 b5
12.Ãb3 a4 13.Ãa2 c5 14.c3 Àd7 with
mutual chances.

65
 Vassily Ivanchuk

11.Àe2 b5 12.Ãb3 c5 13.c3 Àc6 good time, out of the x-ray from the en-
14.0-0 ©c7 emy bishop.
20.Àg4
It was hardly good to play 20.f4, but by
T_L_Ml.t continuing 20.Àf4!? Àa4! (weaker is
_.dS_Jj. 20...b4 because of 21.axb4 axb4 22.©g4
._S_J_.j 0-0 23.Àg6!, whilst on 20...Ãh4 the
jJjJi._I move 21.Õe3 looks quite good) 21.Õb1,
._.i._._ White, with the move 22.©g4, forces his
iBi._N_. opponent to castle, which gives him
.i._NiI_ chances to develop the initiative.
Now, however, Black gets going first.
r.bQ_Rk.
20...b4 21.axb4 axb4
The two sides’ plans are revealed. Black
will answer White’s attack on the kingside
with counterplay on the queen’s wing. .tLdM_.t
15.Õe1?! _._.lJj.
An inaccuracy. By threatening 16.dxc5 .sS_J_.j
followed by Àed4, White forces his op- _._Ji._I
ponent to play 15...c4, but this is part of .jJi._N_
his intentions anyway. More in the spirit _.i._.b.
of the position was 15.Ãf4 followed by .iB_NiI_
Ãf4-g3, Àf3-h2 and the advance of the
r._Qr.k.
f-pawn.
15...c4 16.Ãc2 Àb6 17.Ãf4 22.cxb4?!
After losing time, White returns to the Finally giving the initiative to Black.
plan indicated above, but the unfortunate Better is 22.Àf4 b3 23.Ãb1 Õa8
position of the rook on e1 does not help 24.Õxa8 Àxa8 25.Àe3 Àb6 with mutual
him. chances.
17...Ãe7 18.Ãg3 Õb8 19.Àh2 ©d8! 22...Àxb4 23.Ãb1 Ãd7
Intending 24...Õa8 or even 23...Àd3!?,
depending on the situation.
.tLdM_.t 24.b3 Õa8 25.Õxa8 ©xa8 26.bxc4
_._.lJj. Àxc4
.sS_J_.j
jJ_Ji._I D_._M_.t
._Ji._._ _._LlJj.
i.i._.b. ._._J_.j
.iB_NiIn _._Ji._I
r._Qr.k. .sSi._N_
Necessary prophylaxis! In defending _._._.b.
against the threat of f2-f4-f5, Black gets ._._NiI_
the queen off the dangerous diagonal in _B_Qr.k.

66

27.Àc1?
Overlooking a decisive blow!
Now the pawn on d4 is not defended,
and the battle ends. It was possible to
hold with 27.Ãf4 ©a6 28.Ãd2 Ãa4
29.©c1 Ãb5 with the better game for
Black.
27...Ãa4 28.©e2
Nor does he save himself by 28.©f3 ©a7
29.©f4 Ãg5 or 29.©c3 Àc6.
28...©a7! 29.Àe3 ©xd4 30.Àxc4
dxc4 31.©f1 0-0 0-1
On 32.Õe4 there is 32...©b2.
1996
Game 20
Slav Defence (D44)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Shirov,Alexey
Wijk aan Zee 1996
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6
An old move, pointed out by the Italian
writers Polerio and Salvio at the end of
the 16th/beginning of the 17th century.
Compared with the orthodox Queen’s
Gambit, Black defends his centre pawn,
without shutting in his queen’s bishop.
However, the knight on d7 is deprived of
its best square.
3.Àc3 Àf6
On 3...dxc4 possible is 4.e4, and after
4...b5 5.a4 b4 6.Àa2 Àf6 7.e5 Àd5
8.Ãxc4 White is better, Kasparov-I.
Sokolov, Sarajevo 1999.
4.Àf3 e6 5.Ãg5 dxc4
Black chooses a variation developed by
Botvinnik, which leads to sharp and forc-
ing play.
The alternative is 5...h6, in order after
6.Ãh4 (more cautious is 6.Ãxf6)
6...dxc4 7.e4 g5 to be able to drive away
the bishop and then play ...b7-b5.
In a recent game with Anand (Anand-
Shirov, Wijk aan Zee 2011) the Latvian
Game 20 - 1996
GM preferred 5...Àbd7, taking play into a
Cambridge Springs Variation of the
Queen’s Gambit: 6.e3 ©a5 7.cxd5 Àxd5
8.©d2 Ãb4 9.Õc1 h6 10.Ãh4 c5 11.Ãc4
Àxc3 12.bxc3 Ãa3 13.Õb1 a6 14.Ãe2
0-0 15.0-0 b5 16.c4! Ãb4 (in the event of
the queen exchange, White’s chances are
slightly better) 17.©c2 Ãb7 18.Õfd1
bxc4 19.dxc5, and after 19...Àxc5?!
(better is 19...Ãc6) 20.Õd4 Õab8
21.Àe5! and White had the initiative.
6.e4 b5 7.e5 h6 8.Ãh4 g5 9.Àxg5
hxg5
An interesting struggle, in which White
has the better chances, results from
9...Àd5 10.Àxf7 ©xh4 11.Àxh8 Ãb4
(11...Ãg7? 12.Àg6 ©g5 13.Ãe2!)
12.Õc1 ©e4+ 13.Ãe2 Àf4 14.©d2!?
Àd3+ 15.®f1 Àxc1 16.Àxe4 Ãxd2
17.Àxd2 Àxa2.
10.Ãxg5 Àbd7 11.exf6 Ãb7 12.g3
T_.dMl.t
jL_S_J_.
._J_Ji._
_J_._.b.
._Ji._._
_.n._.i.
Ii._.i.i
r._QkB_R
12...c5
The most topical continuation.
In the event of 12...©b6 13.Ãg2 0-0-0
14.0-0 Àe5 White can obtain a serious
advantage by a queen sacrifice: 15.dxe5!
Õxd1 16.Õaxd1, and now both 16...Ãc5
17.Àe4 Ãd4 18.Àd6+ ®c7 19.Ãf4!,
Hollis-Jovcic, corr. 1975, and 16...b4
17.Àe4 ©a5 18.Ãf4, Yermolinsky-
Machulsky, Lvov 1982, give him the ad-
vantage.
13.d5 ©b6 14.Ãg2 0-0-0 15.0-0 b4
16.Àa4
67
 Vassily Ivanchuk

Practice has also seen the sharp 16.Õb1!? An interesting reply is 20...©d7!?
Ãh6 (or 16...©a6 (16...bxc3? 17.bxc3 21.©xd7+ Àxd7, and if White continues
©a6 18.Õxb7! ®xb7 19.dxe6+) 22.Ãxa7, then after 22...®c7 23.Õfd1
17.dxe6 Ãxg2 18.e7 Ãxf1 19.®xf1, Õa8 24.Ãe3 Õa5! 25.Àc3! Õxa1
Kamsky-Kramnik, Dos Hermanas 1996) 26.Àb5+ ®c6 27.Àd4+ ®b6! 28.Õxa1
17.Ãxh6 Õxh6 18.b3! with mutual Ãc5 29.h4 Àxf6 the game is equal.
chances, Khalifman-Galkin, Elista 1998. After the move in the game, White can
16...©b5 win a pawn by means of 21.Àxc5 Ãxc5
Another line is 16...©a6, and in a game 22.©g7 Õdd8 (or 22...Õhd8 23.Ãxc5
between the same opponents, after 17.a3 ©xc5 24.Ãh3) 23.Ãxc5 ©xc5
Ãxd5 18.Ãxd5 Àe5! 19.©c2 Õxd5 24.©xf7, but instead, Vassily thinks up a
20.axb4 cxb4 21.Àc3 ©c6!? (also good fantastic combination.
is 21...Õa5) 22.Àxd5 ©xd5 23.f3 Ãc5+
24.®g2 Àd3 a complicated battle re-
sulted, in which White eventually won,
._M_.l.t
Ivanchuk-Shirov, Novgorod 1994. jL_T_J_.
17.a3! ._._.i._
Kharitonov’s move. White has the initia- _DsJ_._.
tive, but Black’s defensive resources are NjJ_._Q_
also very great. _._.b.i.
17...exd5 .i._.iBi
On 17...Àb8 White can reply 18.axb4
r._._Rk.
cxb4 19.©d4! Àc6 20.dxc6! Õxd4
21.cxb7+ ®c7 22.Ãe3, obtaining prom- 21.©g7!!?
ising play for the queen, Kamsky- One of the most brilliant moves in mod-
Kramnik, New York 1994. ern chess practice!
18.axb4 cxb4 19.Ãe3 Àc5 The sacrifice of queen for two minor
Insufficient for equality is 19...Àe5 pieces does not lead to a quick win, but
20.©d4! Àc6 21.©g4+ Õd7 22.Õfd1 gives White a lasting initiative.
Àe5 23.©f5 Ãd6 24.Ãd4 Àc6 25.Ãc5! 21...Ãxg7 22.fxg7 Õg8
d4 26.Ãe4 Ãe5 27.Ãxd4±, Nikolic- Another way to defend is 22...Õhd8, e.g.:
Westerinen, Esbjerg 1982. 23.Àxc5 Õc7 24.Àxb7 (the continuation
Worth considering was 19...a6 20.©g4 24.Ãh3+ ®b8
Ãd6 21.Õfe1 Õde8 22.Àb6+ ®c7
23.Àxd7 ©xd7 24.©d4 ©c6 25.Õa5 .m.t._._
Õe5 with reasonable play. jLt._Ji.
20.©g4+ Õd7 ._._._._
He does not escape from his difficulties _DnJ_._.
after 20...®b8 21.©d4 Àxa4 22.©xa7+
®c7 23.Õxa4! Õa8 24.©xa8 Ãxa8
.jJ_._._
25.Õxa8 c3 26.bxc3 bxc3 27.Ãf4+ ®d7 _._.b.iB
28.Õd1 ®e6 29.Õe1+ ®xf6 30.Ãe5+ .i._.i.i
®g6 31.Ãxh8 with advantage to White, r._._Rk.
Agzamov-Chandler, Belgrade 1982. analysis diagram

68

25.Àe6!! fxe6 26.Ãxa7+ leads after
26...®a8 27.Ãb6+ to a draw by repeti-
tion, whilst in the event of 26...®c8
27.Ãxe6+ Õcd7 28.Ãd4 ©c6 29.Õfe1
c3 30.g8© the battle flares up again with
renewed strength) 24...Õxb7 25.Ãxa7
c3! 26.Ãd4 ®d7 27.bxc3 b3 28.Õfd1 b2
29.Õab1 ®e6 30.c4! ©xc4 31.Ãxb2
©g4 32.Õe1+ ®f5 33.Ãxd5! with sharp
play and chances for both sides.
23.Àxc5 d4?!
Unclear consequences result from
23...Õc7 24.Àxb7 Õxb7 25.Õfd1 Õd7
26.Ãd4!? f5 27.h4, threatening the fur-
ther advance of the h-pawn.
Seven years later, in his game with
Ponomariov (Ponomariov-Shirov, Wijk
aan Zee 2003) Black tried to improve his
play and break the bonds with
23...Õxg7!?. But White did not react in
the best way:
._M_._._
jL_T_Jt.
._._._._
_DnJ_._.
.jJ_._._
_._.b.i.
.i._.iBi
r._._Rk.
analysis diagram
24.Àxd7?! (significantly stronger was
24.Ãh3! f5! (he loses after 24...Ãc6?
25.Õxa7 f5 26.Àxd7 Ãxd7 27.Õfa1 b3
28.Õa8+ ®c7 29.Ãf4+ ®c6
30.Õ8a6+ with a decisive attack)
25.Ãxf5 Õf7 26.Ãg4 Ãc6 27.Õxa7 c3
28.Àxd7 Ãxd7 29.bxc3 bxc3 30.Ãf4!
Ãxg4 31.Õxf7 d4 32.Õe1 Ãf3 33.Ãe5,
and White’s chances in the resulting
endgame are slightly superior)
24...©xd7 25.Õxa7 Õg6 26.Õfa1 Õe6
Game 20 - 1996
27.Ãd4? (active counterplay is retained
by 27.Õ7a5! f5 28.Õd1) 27...Õe2
28.h4 Õd2 29.Ãe3 Õxb2, and Black
won.
24.Ãxb7+ Õxb7 25.Àxb7 ©b6
Not 25...dxe3?? because of 26.Àd6+,
whilst after 25...©xb7 there is the strong
26.Ãxd4.
._M_._T_
jN_._Ji.
.d._._._
_._._._.
.jJj._._
_._.b.i.
.i._.i.i
r._._Rk.
26.Ãxd4! ©xd4 27.Õfd1 ©xb2
Black wants to exploit the strength of his
passed pawns, but he does not succeed.
Slightly better chances were offered by
27...©xg7 28.Õxa7 ®b8 29.Õda1 Õe8!
30.Àd6 Õe1+ 31.Õxe1 ®xa7 32.Àxc4
f5, but the most tenacious is 27...©g4!
28.Àd6+ ®b8 29.Õd5 c3! 30.bxc3 bxc3
31.Õb1+! ®a8 (on 31...®c7? White de-
cides things with 32.Àxf7 ©a4 33.Õc5+
®d7 34.Õb7+ ®e6 35.Õbc7 c2
36.Õ5c6+) 32.Àb5 ©c8 33.Õc1 with
the better game for White.
28.Àd6+!
Less clear is 28.Õxa7 ®b8! 29.Õda1
©xa1+ 30.Õxa1 ®xb7 31.Õa4 ®c6
32.Õxb4 ®c5 33.Õb7 Õxg7 34.®f1
Õg5! 35.®e2 Õd5 36.h4 c3 with
counterplay.
28...®b8 29.Õdb1 ©xg7?
This speeds up the defeat, but also after
29...©d2 30.Àxc4 ©c3 31.Õa4! b3
32.Àa5 ©xg7 33.Õxb3+ ®c8 34.Õa4+
it is not simple for Black to defend.
30.Õxb4+ ®c7
69
 Vassily Ivanchuk

._._._T_
j.m._Jd.
._.n._._
_._._._.
.rJ_._._
_._._.i.
._._.i.i
r._._.k.
31.Õa6!

With the decisive threat of 32.Õb7+ ®d8
33.Õaxa7.
31...Õb8
He also loses after 31...Õa8 32.Õb7+
®d8 33.Àxf7+ ®e8 34.Àd6+.
32.Õxa7+ ®xd6 33.Õxb8 ©g4
Or 33...c3 34.Õc8ê.
34.Õd8+ ®c6 35.Õa1 1-0
The white rooks prove stronger than the
black queen, and the loss of the c-pawn is
unavoidable.
‘Such creative achievements put one in a
great mood. The hand, as its were, gains
in confidence.’ (Ivanchuk)
Game 21
Sicilian Defence (B92)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Topalov,Veselin
Novgorod 1996
1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Àxd4
Àf6 5.Àc3 a6 6.Ãe2 e6
One of the main defensive ideas in the
Scheveningen is to prevent White advanc-
ing e4-e5.
7.0-0 Ãe7 8.f4 0-0 9.®h1 ©c7
Black concentrates his attention on the
squares d5 and e5, to the maximum.
10.a4
Directed against ...b7-b5.
10...Àc6 11.Ãe3 Õe8 12.Ãf3 Õb8
In the 9th match game Anand-Kasparov,
New York 1995, play continued 12...Ãd7
GERARD DE GRAAF
Veselin Topalov
13.Àb3 Àa5 (13...b6 14.g4 Ãc8 15.g5
Àd7 16.Ãg2 Ãb7 17.©h5 g6?! 18.©h3
Àb4 19.f5 Àxc2? 20.fxg6 fxg6
T_._T_M_
_LdSl._J
Jj.jJ_J_
_._._.i.
I_._I_._
_Nn.b._Q
.iS_._Bi
r._._R_K
analysis diagram
21.Õf7!!, and White won, Tiviakov-Van
Wely, Groningen 1995) 14.Àxa5 ©xa5
15.©d3 Õad8 16.Õfd1! Ãc6 17.b4 ©c7
18.b5 Ãd7 19.Õab1! axb5 20.Àxb5!
with the better game for White.
However, five years later, Kasparov fol-
lowed Van Wely with 13...b6, but instead
of 17...g6?! he continued 17...Àb4.
There followed 18.Õf2 g6 19.©h3 Ãf8
20.Õaf1 Ãg7 21.Ãd4 e5 22.fxe5 Àxe5
23.Ãxe5 Õxe5 24.Õxf7 Õe7 25.Õxe7
©xe7 26.©e3 Õe8 27.©xb6 Ãxc3
28.bxc3 Ãxe4! 29.©xb4 Ãxg2+

70
 Game 21 - 1996

30.®xg2 ©xg5+, and the players agreed 16.Ãxd4 b5

a draw, Anand-Kasparov, Frankfurt 2000. Black allows his opponent’s rook onto the
13.g4 Ãf8 14.g5 Àd7 15.Ãg2 7th rank.
It was worth considering 16...b6, al-
.tL_TlM_ though after 17.Õf3 Ãb7 18.Õh3 g6
_JdS_JjJ White’s chances remain slightly superior.
J_SjJ_._ 17.axb5 axb5 18.Õa7 ©d8
_._._.i. On 18...©c6, a good reply is 19.f5! Àe5
(doubtful is 19...b4?! 20.fxe6 fxe6 21.e5
I_.nIi._ d5 22.©f3 Õe7 23.Àxd5!) 20.f6!? with
_.n.b._. the initiative.
.iI_._Bi
r._Q_R_K .tLdTlM_
15...Àxd4 r._S_JjJ
A rare continuation for those days. More ._.jJ_._
often seen was 15...g6 or 15...Àa5, e.g.: _J_._.i.
15...g6 16.Õf3!? Ãg7 17.Õh3 Àb6
18.Àde2 Àc4 19.Ãc1 d5 20.b3 d4?
._.bIi._
(stronger is 20...Àd6 with sharp play and _.n._._.
mutual chances) 21.bxc4 dxc3 22.e5! .iI_._Bi
with promising play for White, _._Q_R_K
Fishbein-Dorfman, New York 1989; 19.b4!
15...Àa5 16.Õf3 Àc4 17.Ãc1 e5 18.Àf5 Cutting out Black’s counterplay on the
exf4 19.Ãxf4 Àce5 20.Õh3 g6 21.Àd5 queenside.
©d8 22.©e1 gxf5? (correct is 22...h5!) 19...e5
23.©h4 h6 24.exf5 b5 25.Õg1 Ãb7 Weaker is 19...d5? because of 20.exd5
26.Àf6+ ®h8 27.Ãxb7 Õxb7 Ãxb4 21.dxe6 Õxe6 22.Àd5 Ãd6 23.f5
Õe8 24.©h5 Ãe5 25.g6 fxg6 26.fxg6 h6
._.dTl.m
_T_S_J_. .tLdT_M_
J_.j.n.j r._S_.j.
_J_.sIi. ._._._Ij
I_._.b.q _J_Nl._Q
_._._._R ._.b._._
.iI_._.i _._._._.
_._._.rK ._I_._Bi
analysis diagram _._._R_K
analysis diagram
28.©xh6+!!. Winning, since Black’s
position is hopeless after 28...Ãxh6 27.Ãxe5 Àxe5 (27...Õxe5 28.Õxd7!)
29.Õxh6+ ®g7 30.Õh7+ ®f8 31.Õh8+ 28.Àf6+! and on 28...®h8 29.©xh6+!
®g7 32.Õxe8, Gluzman-Arbakov, Sibenik gxh6 30.Õh7 mate.
1990. 20.Ãe3 exf4 21.Ãxf4 Àe5

71
 Vassily Ivanchuk

Black has solved the problem of his bad 28.Õxg7+! ®xg7 29.©c3+ ®g8
knight, but he has weakened the square 30.Ãh6 Àf5 31.exf5 ©e7 32.fxe6 with a
d5, whilst the rook on a7 has obtained decisive attack.
freedom of action. More tenacious is 24...f6!?, but here too,
22.Àd5 Ãg4?! after 25.Õa6!? (on 25.Õc7 the reply
More accurate is 22...Ãe6, after which 25...Àe7 is good) 25...©d7 (25...Ãd7
White can, for example, continue 26.gxh7+ ®h8 27.Ãf3 ©c8 28.Õaa1±)
23.Ãxe5 (nothing comes from 23.©d2 26.Àxf6+! gxf6 27.©d5+ Ãe6 (or
Àc6 24.Õaa1 Àe5ì) 23...dxe5 24.©h5 27...®h8 28.Õxc6 hxg6 29.Ãxd6)
Ãxd5 25.exd5 g6 26.©g4 Õe7 27.Õa6 28.©xc6 ©xc6 29.gxh7+ ®h8 30.Õxc6
Õc7 28.Õaf6 with the initiative. White’s advantage is unarguable.
23.©d2 Àc6? 25.gxf7+ ®h8
Now 23...Ãe6 was simply essential. Of course, not 25...®xf7? 26.Ãg5+.
26.Ãg5!
Not settling for 26.fxe8© ©xe8 27.Àe3,
.t.dTlM_ White instead strengthens the pressure.
r._._JjJ 26...©d7 27.fxe8À Õxe8
._Sj._._ 27...©xe8 loses to 28.Àf6! gxf6
_J_N_.i. 29.Ãxf6+ Ãg7 (29...®g8? 30.e5! Ãe6
.i._IbL_ 31.Ãd5) 30.Ãxg7+ ®xg7 31.©d4+
_._._._. ®g8 32.e5! (stronger 32.©xa7) with a
._Iq._Bi slaughter.
28.©f2! ®g8
_._._R_K
24.g6!! ._._TlM_
Exploiting the fact that the square f7 is s._D_.jJ
undefended, White gives the game a tac- ._.j._._
tical turn, with a brilliant combination. _J_N_.b.
24...Àxa7
Both 24...fxg6 25.Ãg5 Ãe7 26.Àxe7+
.i._I_L_
Àxe7 27.©f2 Ãe6 28.©h4, and _._._._.
24...hxg6 25.Õxf7! Ãe6 26.Ãg5 Ãe7 ._I_.qBi
27.Àxe7+ Àxe7 lose: _._._R_K
29.e5!
.t.dT_M_ The final nuance. The light-squared
_._.sRj. bishop comes into play with decisive
._.jL_J_ effect.
_J_._.b. 29...h6
On 29...dxe5 there follows 30.Àc7!
.i._I_._ ©xc7 31.Ãd5+ ®h8 32.©xf8+! Õxf8
_._._._. 33.Õxf8 mate.
._Iq._Bi 30.Àb6 ©c7 31.Ãd5+ ®h7
_._._R_K Or 31...®h8 32.©xf8+ Õxf8 33.Õxf8+
analysis diagram ®h7 34.Ãe4+ g6 35.Ãf6! winning.

72
 Game 22 - 1996

32.Ãe4+ ®g8 33.Àd5 ©d7 12.©e1

34.Àe7+!
It is hopeless after 34...Ãxe7 35.©f7+
®h8 36.©g6.
T_.dLtM_
Black resigned. jJ_.lJjJ
._S_J_._
Game 22 _.sJi._.
French Defence (C11) ._._.i._
í Ivanchuk,Vassily i.n.bN_.
n Morozevich,Alexander .iI_B_Ii
Amsterdam 1996
r._.qRk.
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Àc3 Àf6
Along with 3...Ãb4, one of the main 12...Õc8?!
continuations. Missing the right moment to break in the
4.e5 centre: 12...f6!? (but not 12...d4 13.Õd1)
The alternative is 4.Ãg5 Ãe7 5.e5 Àfd7 13.b4 (or 13.exf6 Õxf6) 13...Àd7
6.Ãxe7 ©xe7 7.f4 0-0 8.Àf3 c5 9.Ãd3, 14.Àd4 Àxd4 (not so good is 14...Ãf7
and White has slightly the better chances. 15.Ãg4 Àxd4 16.Ãxd4 a5 17.Õb1!)
4...Àfd7 15.Ãxd4 with a complicated battle with
Black’s plans involve fighting for the mutual chances.
centre with ...c7-c5. 13.Õd1
5.f4 Now on 13...f6?! there is the effective
After 5.©g4 c5 6.Àf3 Àc6 7.dxc5 f5! 14.Ãc4!!.
8.exf6 Àxf6 9.©g3 Ãxc5 10.Ãg5 0-0, Now both 14...©a5 15.Àxd5 exd5
Black has nothing to complain about. 16.Ãxd5+ Ãf7 17.©xa5 Àxa5
5...c5 6.Àf3 Àc6 7.Ãe3 Ãe7 8.dxc5 18.Ãxf7+ ®xf7 19.b4, and 14...©c7 are
Àxc5 bad:
It is worth considering 8...Ãxc5!? 9.©d2
0-0 10.0-0-0 ©b6 11.Ãg1 Ãxg1
12.Õxg1 Àc5 with sharp play and
._T_LtM_
chances for both sides, Ivanchuk- jJd.l.jJ
Kortchnoi, Monaco 1992. ._S_Jj._
9.Ãe2 0-0 _.sJi._.
The queen raid 9...©b6 is met by ._B_.i._
10.Õb1!. i.n.bN_.
10.0-0 Ãd7 .iI_._Ii
Black does not hurry with the advance _._RqRk.
10...f6, wanting first to transfer the analysis diagram
bishop to e8, from where it will control
the kingside. 15.Õxd5!.
11.a3 Ãe8 There only remains 14...©b6 15.Àxd5
Now 11...f6? would be a mistake because exd5 16.Ãxd5+ ®h8 17.b4, which leads
of 12.exf6 Õxf6 13.b4 Àe4 14.Àxe4 to an advantage for White.
dxe4 15.Àg5 with advantage to White. 13...©c7

73
 Vassily Ivanchuk

On 18...g6 a good reply is 19.©h6 a6

._T_LtM_ 20.Àd6! Ãxd6 21.Àg5 Õf7 22.exd6
jJd.lJjJ ©xd6 23.Àxf7 winning the exchange,
._S_J_._ whilst in the event of 18...a6? 19.Àbd4
_.sJi._. Àxd4 20.Àxd4 Ãf7 21.g4, White’s ad-
._._.i._ vantage is obvious.
i.n.bN_. 19.Ãxb6! axb6 20.g4 g6 21.gxf5
.iI_B_Ii exf5
If 21...gxf5, then 22.c4!.
_._RqRk.
22.Õf2 Àd8 23.Àbd4 ®h8?!
14.b4! Stronger is 23...Õc3!?, but then the blow
White begins combined play on both on f5 retains the advantage for White:
flanks, weakening his opponent’s 24.Àxf5! gxf5 25.Ãxf5 Ãg6 26.Ãxg6
queenside and developing an attack on hxg6 27.Õg2 g5 28.©h5! Õxf3 29.©xf3
the other wing. As a result, the black ©xe5! 30.Õe2 ©g7 31.©xd5+ ®h8
pieces are separated and end up scattered 32.Õd3!? gxf4+ 33.®h1 f3 34.Õxf3
around the corners of the board. Õxf3 35.©xf3 with good winning
14...Àd7 chances.
Bad is 14...Àe4?: 15.Àxe4 dxe4 16.Àd2 24.Õg2 Õc3 25.Àh4!
Àd8 17.Àxe4 ©xc2 18.Àd6 Ãxd6 Pressing further on the opponent. The
19.exd6 ©a4 20.©h4 with an attack. position is so good that there is no need
15.Àb5! ©b8 16.Ãd3 f6 17.©h4 f5 to hurry with the blow on f5.
A necessary measure. On 17...g6 strong is 25...Àc6
18.©h3 Ãf7 19.c4!, whilst after On 25...Õg8, White decides by
17...Ãg6 there is 18.Ãxg6 hxg6 19.©g4 26.Àdxf5! gxf5 27.Õxg8+ ®xg8
®f7 20.c4!. 28.Àxf5 ©c7 29.Àe3 Õxd3 30.Õxd3
18.©h3 with an overwhelming advantage.
Also possible is 18.Ãxa7!? Ãxh4 26.Àe6
19.Ãxb8 Àdxb8 20.Àxh4, but the game Also good is 26.Àb5 Õxd3 27.cxd3.
continuation is stronger. 26...Õg8
White is ready to attack with g2-g4,
whilst on the queenside, Black does not .d._L_Tm
have sufficient counterplay. _J_.l._J
18...Àb6 .jS_N_J_
_._JiJ_.
.dT_LtM_ .i._.i.n
jJ_.l.jJ i.tB_._Q
.sS_J_._ ._I_._Ri
_N_JiJ_. _._R_.k.
.i._.i._ 27.Àxf5!
i._BbN_Q The crowning of White’s strategy!
._I_._Ii 27...gxf5 is not possible because of
_._R_Rk. 28.Õxg8+ ®xg8 29.©h6! ®f7

74

30.©xh7+ ®xe6 31.Ãxf5 mate, whilst
after 27...Õxd3 28.Õxd3 gxf5 there fol-
lows 29.©xh7+!.
27...©c8 28.Õg3! h5
Defending against the threat of
29.©xh7+.
29.Àh6 Õg7 30.Ãf5
White uses the f5-square as a transit point
for his pieces.
30...Õxg3+
Or 30...Õh7 31.Àf8! Õxg3+ 32.©xg3
©c7 33.Àxh7 ®xh7 34.Õxd5 ®xh6
35.Õd7 ©xd7 (35...Ãh4 36.©xh4
Ãxd7 37.©g5+) 36.Ãxd7 Ãxd7
37.©e3, winning.
31.©xg3 ©b8 32.Õxd5 Õh7
33.Ãxg6 Õxh6 34.Ãf7! 1-0
Game 23
King’s Indian Defence (E81)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Kramnik,Vladimir
Las Palmas 1996
1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 g6 3.Àc3 Ãg7
In the King’s Indian Defence, Black tem-
porarily refrains from contesting the cen-
tre, trying instead to complete his devel-
opment as quickly as possible and then
counterattack against his opponent’s
pawn bastions.
4.e4
As well as this main continuation, the sys-
tem 4.Ãg5 c5 5.e3 0-0 6.Àf3 has also
been seen, after which the pawn sacrifice
6...cxd4 7.exd4 d5!? deserves consider-
ation.
4...d6 5.Àge2
In this move-order, White keeps the
option of developing his dark-squared
bishop on either e3 or g5.
5...0-0 6.f3
A key move, after which we have on the
board the basic position of the Sämisch
System.
Game 23 - 1996
6...c5
Also possible is 6...e5 or 6...Àc6!? fol-
lowed by ...e7-e5 and the seizure of the
point d4, which makes it easier for Black
to develop counterplay.
7.d5
In the event of 7.dxc5 dxc5 8.Ãe3 Àfd7
9.©d2 Àc6 10.Õd1 ©a5 Black has good
chances of equalising.
7...e6 8.Àg3 exd5 9.cxd5 Àbd7
10.Ãe2 a6 11.a4 h5 12.Ãg5
Also good is 12.0-0 h4 13.Àh1 Àh5
14.Ãe3 g5 15.©d2 Àf4 16.Ãxf4 gxf4
17.©xf4 Àe5 18.©d2 Àg6 19.f4 Ãd4+
20.Àf2 f5 21.®h1 ©e7 22.Ãd3 ©g7
23.exf5 Ãxf5 24.Ãxf5 Õxf5 25.Àh3
Õaf8 with the better chances for White,
Sune Berg Hansen-Mortensen, Tonder
1993.
T_Ld.tM_
_J_S_Jl.
J_.j.sJ_
_.jI_.bJ
I_._I_._
_.n._In.
.i._B_Ii
r._Qk._R
12...©e8
An experimental continuation.
Black usually plays 12...©a5 or 12...©c7,
for example:
A) 12...©a5 13.©d2 Õe8 14.0-0 c4
15.Ãe3 Àe5 16.Àh1 Àfd7 17.f4 Àd3
18.Ãxd3 cxd3 19.Àf2 Àc5 20.Ãxc5
©xc5 21.®h1 Ãd7 with mutual
chances, Antonsen-Tseshkovsky, Copen-
hagen 1996;
B) 12...©c7 13.©d2 c4 (more accurate
is 13...Õe8 14.0-0 c4 15.Õab1 Õb8
16.Õfc1 b5 17.axb5 axb5 with equality)
14.0-0 Õb8 15.Ãh6 h4 16.Àh1 b5
17.axb5 axb5 18.Àf2 b4 19.Ãxg7 ®xg7
75
 Vassily Ivanchuk
20.Àa4 Àc5 21.Àxc5 ©xc5 with the
better game for White, Christiansen-
Fedorowicz, San Francisco 1991.
The move in the game is directed against
the advance 13.f4, which after 13...Àh7
14.Ãh4 Ãf6 15.Ãxf6 Àdxf6 16.Ãf3 h4
or 16...g5 gives Black sufficient counter-
play.
White, however, chooses another path,
placing Black’s idea in doubt.
13.©d2 Àh7
On 13...Õb8!? 14.0-0?! is dubious be-
cause of 14...Àh7 15.Ãh6 Ãd4+, but af-
ter 14.Ãh6 Àe5 15.Ãxg7 ®xg7 16.f4
Àeg4 17.h3 h4 18.hxg4 hxg3 19.f5 Õh8
20.Õxh8 ©xh8 21.©f4! ©h1+ 22.Ãf1
Àe8 23.©xg3 White obtains the advan-
tage.
14.Ãh6
Worse is 14.Ãh4 Ãd4 15.f4 Àdf6 and
on 16.Ãf3? – 16...Àxe4!.
14...©e5
Black prevents his opponent castling,
15.0-0 after which there follows
15...©d4+ 16.Õf2 (or 16.®h1? ©xd2
17.Ãxd2 h4) 16...©xd2 17.Ãxd2 Ãd4
winning the exchange.
A transposition of moves results from
14...Ãxh6 15.©xh6 ©e5 16.Àf1 ©g7
17.©d2, but in this case, the exchange of
queens is also favourable for White –
17.©xg7+ ®xg7 18.Àe3 with a promis-
ing position.
15.Ãxg7 ©xg7
T_L_.tM_
_J_S_JdS
J_.j._J_
_.jI_._J
I_._I_._
_.n._In.
.i.qB_Ii
r._.k._R
76
16.Àf1!
Before castling, White carries out an im-
portant strategic manoeuvre – the knight
march g3-f1-e3-c4.
Weaker is 16.0-0 h4 17.Àh1, Disconzi da
Silva-Leitao, Americana 1996, and here
Black can obtain decent counterplay with
17...g5!? 18.a5 Àe5.
16...f5?!
Worsening his position. More accurate, it
seems, was 16...©f6!? 17.Àe3 ©h4+
18.g3 ©e7 19.Àc4 Àhf6, although here
too, White’s chances are superior.
17.exf5 gxf5 18.Àe3 ®h8
No better is 18...Àe5 19.f4 Àg4 20.Àc4!
Àxh2 (or 20...©d4 21.h3! ©f2+
22.®d1 Àgf6 23.Àxd6±) 21.0-0-0
Àg4 22.Ãxg4 ©xg4 23.Àxd6 with
strong pressure for White.
19.Àc4 ©f6
If 19...©xg2?! 20.0-0-0 ©g6 21.Õhg1
©f6 22.Õg2 Àe5 23.Àb6 Õb8 24.Õdg1
the threats against the black king grow.
20.0-0 Õb8
On 20...Àe5? strong is 21.Àb6 Õb8
22.f4 Àg4 23.h3 ©d4+ 24.©xd4+
cxd4 25.hxg4 dxc3 26.g5 cxb2 27.Õab1
h4 28.Õxb2 with an overwhelming ad-
vantage.
21.Õfe1 b5 22.axb5 axb5
.tL_.t.m
_._S_._S
._.j.d._
_JjI_J_J
._N_._._
_.n._I_.
.i.qB_Ii
r._.r.k.
23.Àa5!
Black not only has numerous positional
weaknesses on b5, d6, f5 and h5, but the
 Game 24 - 1999

squares c6 and e6 are excellent outposts

for the white pieces.
23...b4
Nothing is changed by 23...c4 24.Àc6
Õb6 25.b4! cxb3 26.Ãxb5 Àe5 27.Àd4
with advantage to White.
24.Àb5 Ãa6 25.Àc7 Ãxe2 26.Õxe2
Õg8
More tenacious is 26...Àg5 27.Àc6 Àe5
28.Àxe5 dxe5 29.©e3 ©g7±.
27.Àc6 Õbc8 28.Àe6

._T_._Tm
_._S_._S
._NjNd._ Vladimir Kramnik
_.jI_J_J
.j._._._ 38.©d5! Õf8 39.Õe8 or 35...©xf4
_._._I_. 36.©xf4 exf4 37.d7 Õa8 38.Õe8) 36.d7
.i.qR_Ii Õa8 37.Õxe5, and White is ready to pick
off the pawns, cut off on the fifth rank.
r._._.k. 32.Õe6!
A picturesque position! After 32.Àxh5? ©xh4 33.Àf4 Àg5!
The white knights dominate. Black suddenly obtains counterchances.
28...Õa8 32...Àdf6
He also loses after 28...Õg6 29.Õa7 Àe5 Or 32...Àdf8 33.Àd8! with the threat of
30.Õxe5! dxe5 31.Àe7î. 34.Õe7, and not 33...Àxe6? because of
29.Õae1 Õa2 30.Àf4 ©g5 31.h4! 34.Àf7+ ®g7 35.Àxh5+.
©g3 33.Àe7 Õga8
On 31...©xh4 possible is 32.Àe7 ©g5 Now Black loses his queen. He could re-
33.Àxg8 Àe5!? sist further with 33...b3.
34.Àfg6+ 1-0
._._._Nm On 34...®g7 there follows 35.Àxf5+.
_._._._S
1999
._.j._._
_.jIsJdJ Game 24
English Opening (A30)
.j._.n._ í Topalov,Veselin
_._._I_. n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Ti.qR_I_ Linares 1999
_._.r.k. 1.Àf3 c5 2.c4
analysis diagram Symmetrical set-ups in the English are
34.Õxe5! dxe5 35.d6! ©xg8 (he is losing very popular in contemporary tourna-
after 35...exf4 36.Àh6! ®g7 37.d7 Õa8 ment practice, because in such lines, the

77
 Vassily Ivanchuk
battle can assume many very different
characters.
2...Àc6
More common is 2...Àf6, for example,
3.Àc3 e6 4.g3 b6 5.Ãg2 Ãb7 6.0-0 a6
(6...Ãe7 7.d4 cxd4 8.©xd4 d6 9.b3 a6
10.Ãa3 0-0 11.Õfd1 Àe8 12.Àe4 with
the better game for White, Ivanchuk-
Carlsen, Cap d’Agde 2008) 7.b3 d6
8.Ãb2 Ãe7 9.e3 0-0 10.©e2 Àbd7
11.Õfd1 Õe8 12.d4 Àe4 with chances
for both players, Gelfand-Ivanchuk,
Monaco 2004, or 3.g3 b6 4.Ãg2 Ãb7
5.0-0 e6 6.Àc3 Ãe7 7.Õe1 d5 8.cxd5
Àxd5 9.Àxd5 ©xd5 10.d4 cxd4
11.©xd4 ©xd4 12.Àxd4 Ãxg2
13.®xg2 Àa6, and White’s chances are
preferable, Gelfand-Ivanchuk, Moscow
2008.
3.d4 cxd4 4.Àxd4 e6 5.g3
Also possible is 5.Àc3 Ãc5 6.Àb3 Ãe7
7.Ãf4 Àf6 8.e4 d6 9.©d2 0-0 10.Õd1,
Ivanchuk-Bologan, Warsaw 2010, and
here, with the move 10...e5!? Black can
fight for equality.
Worthy of consideration is 5.Àb5!? d6
6.Ãf4 e5 7.Ãg3 Àh6! 8.Àd2 Ãe7 9.e3
0-0 10.Ãe2 f5 with sharp play, Seirawan-
Gulko, Seattle 2000.
5...Ãb4+
Forcing White to determine the position
of his queenside pieces.
T_LdM_St
jJ_J_JjJ
._S_J_._
_._._._.
.lIn._._
_._._.i.
Ii._Ii.i
rNbQkB_R
6.Àc3
78
More accurate, perhaps, is 6.Ãd2, e.g.
6...©b6 7.Àb3 Àe5 8.©c2 a5 9.Ãg2 a4
10.Àc1 Àf6 11.0-0 Ãxd2 12.Àxd2 0-0
13.c5 ©b5 14.©c3 d6 15.cxd6 Õa6
16.Àf3 Àxf3+ 17.Ãxf3 Õxd6 18.Àd3
Ãd7 19.©c7 with a minimal advantage
for White, Polugaevsky-Ornstein, Buenos
Aires 1978.
The move in the game leads to a compli-
cated fight, in which Black has good
counterchances.
6...©a5!
But not 6...Àf6 7.Ãg2 ©a5?!, and after
8.0-0 Ãxc3 9.bxc3 0-0 (bad is 9...©xc3?
because of 10.Àxc6! dxc6 (10...©xa1
T_L_M_.t
jJ_J_JjJ
._N_Js._
_._._._.
._I_._._
_._._.i.
I_._IiBi
d.bQ_Rk.
analysis diagram
11.©d6!) 11.©d6 Ãd7 12.Õb1, and
White wins, Meins-Schumacher, Bremen
1998) 10.©b3 d5 11.cxd5 exd5 12.Ãe3
Àe5 13.Õfd1 Ãd7 14.a4 Õac8 15.Ãf4
Õfe8 16.©b4 ©a6 17.Àb5 White is
better, Taimanov-Y. Sakharov, Tallinn 1965.
7.Àb5
No advantage is offered by 7.Àxc6 dxc6
(7...bxc6 8.Ãd2 ©c7 9.Ãg2 Õb8 10.0-0
Àf6? (correct is 10...Ãe7 with equality)
11.Àb5! ©a5 12.Ãxb4 ©xb4 13.a3
©c5 14.b4 ©e5 15.Àd6+ ®e7 16.c5
Ãa6 17.©a4 Ãxe2 18.Õfe1 with advan-
tage to White, King-Arnason, Reykjavik
1984) 8.Ãd2 ©c7 9.Àe4 ©a5 10.Ãg2
e5 11.Ãc3 Ãxc3+ 12.bxc3 Àf6, and the
chances of the two sides are equal, ½-½
Adorjan-Wedberg, Oslo 1984.

7...d5(!)
Apparently the best reply.
Dubious is 7...a6?! 8.Àd6+ ®e7
(8...®f8 9.Ãg2!) 9.Àxc8+ Õxc8
10.Ãd2 Àf6 11.Ãg2 Õhd8 12.a3 Ãxc3
13.Ãxc3 ©g5 14.0-0 d5 15.©b3±,
Mlynek-Novak, Brno 1996.
And after 7...Àf6 8.Ãg2 0-0 9.0-0 a6
10.Àd6 ©c7 11.Àce4 Àxe4 12.Àxe4 f5
13.a3 Ãe7 14.Àc3 Ãf6 15.Ãf4 Àe5
16.Õc1 d6 17.b3 Ãd7 18.©d2 Õad8
19.e4 g6 20.Õfd1 Ãc8 21.exf5 gxf5
22.Ãg5 Ãxg5 23.©xg5+ ©g7
24.©xg7+ ®xg7 25.f4 Àf7 26.Àa4
White’s chances are superior, Jo.
Horvath-Schlosser, Budapest 1991.
8.a3
Now Black solves his opening problems.
On 8.Ãd2 a good reply was 8...a6!
(8...dxc4?! 9.a3 Ãxc3 10.Àd6+!) 9.cxd5
exd5 10.Àa3 Ãxa3 11.bxa3 d4 12.Àe4
©xa3 with mutual chances.
But it was worth seriously considering
8.Ãf4!?, for example, 8...e5 9.Ãd2 dxc4
(or 9...d4 10.Àd5 Ãxd2+ 11.©xd2
©xd2+ 12.®xd2 Õb8 13.Ãg2) 10.a3
Ãxc3 11.Àd6+ ®f8 12.Ãxc3 ©c5
13.Ãg2 with promising play for White.
8...Ãxc3+
T_L_M_St
jJ_._JjJ
._S_J_._
dN_J_._.
._I_._._
i.l._.i.
.i._Ii.i
r.bQkB_R
9.bxc3
In the event of 9.Àxc3 d4!? 10.b4 Àxb4
White must go in for an exchange sacri-
fice – 11.axb4 (11.Ãd2? is bad because
Game 24 - 1999
of 11...Àd3+!), and after 11...©xa1
12.Àb5 ®f8! (also good is 12...Àf6!?
13.Àc7+ ®e7 14.Àxa8 Ãd7 15.Ãg2
Õxa8 with roughly equal chances,
Lerner-Khuzman, Kuibyshev 1986)
13.Ãg2 Ãd7 14.0-0 Ãxb5 15.cxb5 Àe7
Black’s chances are preferable in the
forthcoming battle.
9...Àf6 10.Ãg2
Bad is 10.Ãf4? e5 11.Ãg5 (11.Ãd2
dxc4) 11...Àe4 with advantage to Black,
but he can maintain equality by
10.Àd6+ ®e7 11.cxd5! ©xd5 12.©xd5
Àxd5 13.Àe4.
10...0-0 11.©b3?!
Definitely better was 11.cxd5 Àxd5
12.a4 a6 13.Õa3!, but even then, after
13...Õd8 14.©b3 Àf6 15.0-0 e5 Black
has the initiative.
11...dxc4 12.©xc4 e5!
Black is ready to take the initiative.
13.Àd6
On 13.0-0, there is the unpleasant
13...Ãe6 14.©d3 Õad8 15.©b1 Ãc4,
whilst after 13.Ãg5? Ãe6 14.©d3 Õad8
15.©b1 a6 White remains a piece down.
13...Ãe6 14.©d3
T_._.tM_
jJ_._JjJ
._SnLs._
d._.j._.
._._._._
i.iQ_.i.
._._IiBi
r.b.k._R
14...e4!
The signal for the attack! By a pawn sacri-
fice, Black activates his forces, preparing to
occupy the d- and e-files with his rooks.
15.Àxe4
White loses immediately after 15.Ãxe4
Àxe4 16.Àxe4 Õad8 17.©b1 (or
79
 Vassily Ivanchuk
17.©e3 Ãh3!) 17...Àd4 18.Ãe3 f5
19.Àg5 ©xc3+ 20.®f1 Ãc4 with a
slaughter.
15...Àxe4 16.Ãxe4 Õad8 17.©c2
Bad is 17.©e3 because of 17...Õfe8!
18.0-0 Ãh3, whilst on 17.©f3 there fol-
lows 17...Àd4 18.©e3 Ãf5 19.0-0
©xc3! 20.©xc3 Àxe2+ 21.®g2 Ãxe4+
22.©f3 Ãxf3+ 23.®xf3 Àd4+ with ad-
vantage to Black.
17...Àd4 18.©b2
On 18.©b1 Black decides things with
18...©xc3+ 19.Ãd2 (or 19.®f1 Ãh3+
20.Ãg2 Àxe2 21.Ãxh3 ©f3î)
19...Àc2+! 20.Ãxc2 ©xd2+ 21.®f1
Ãh3+ 22.®g1 ©xe2î.
18...Àxe2!
Keeping the white king in the centre.
19.®xe2
Not 19.©xe2? ©xc3+.
19...Õfe8 20.©b4
Other continuations also fail to save the
game: 20.f3 f5 21.Ãxb7 Ãc4+ 22.®f2
©c5+ 23.®g2 Õe2+ or 20.Ãe3 Ãg4+
21.f3 (21.Ãf3 ©a6+) 21...Õxe4 22.fxg4
©c5 23.©c1 Õde8, in both cases with a
quick win.
20...©h5+ 21.f3 f5! 22.g4
The attempt to keep the piece meets with
an effective refutation.
22...©h3 23.gxf5 Ãxf5 24.©c4+
Or 24.®f2 Ãxe4 25.fxe4 Õf8+, and
mate in a few moves.
24...®h8 25.Õe1
._.tT_.m
jJ_._.jJ
._._._._
_._._L_.
._Q_B_._
i.i._I_D
._._K_.i
r.b.r._.
80
25...Õxe4+!
On 26.fxe4 there follows 26...Ãg4+
27.®f2 ©xh2+ 28.®f1 (28.®e3 ©g3
mate) 28...Ãh3 mate.
White resigned.
Game 25
Nimzo-Indian Defence (E39)
í Shipov,Sergey
n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Las Vegas 1999
1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 e6 3.Àc3 Ãb4 4.©c2
c5 5.dxc5 0-0 6.a3
(The preceding moves are examined in
Game 6.)
This way, White escapes from the un-
pleasant pin, but at the cost of a tempo.
On 6.Ãe3 strong is 6...b6! 7.cxb6 axb6
8.a3 d5 9.Õd1 Ãxc3+ 10.©xc3 Àbd7
11.Àf3 Ãa6 12.cxd5 Àxd5 13.©d2
À7f6 with excellent counterplay for the
sacrificed pawn.
6...Ãxc5 7.Àf3 b6
It is worth considering the sharp varia-
tion 7...Àc6 8.Ãf4 e5 9.Ãg5 Àd4
10.Àxd4 exd4 11.Àd5 ©a5+ 12.Ãd2
(12.b4? Ãxb4+ 13.Àxb4 ©xg5)
12...©d8 13.b4 Àxd5 14.bxc5 Àc7
15.Ãa5 b6 16.cxb6 Àe6 with equality, as
was played in Elianov-Ivanchuk, Moscow
blitz 2008.
In the game Bocharov-Ivanchuk, Sochi
2007, White met 7...Àc6 with 8.Ãg5,
and after 8...b6 9.e3 Ãb7 10.Ãe2 Ãe7
11.0-0 h6 12.Ãh4 Àh5 13.Ãxe7 ©xe7
14.Õfd1 Àf6 15.b4 Õfd8 16.©b3 d6
Black also equalised.
8.Ãg5
Regarding 8.Ãf4, see Game 38.
8...Ãb7 9.e3 h6 10.Ãh4 Ãe7 11.Õd1
The alternative is 11.Ãe2.
11...d6
Also good is 11...Àc6 12.Ãe2 Õc8
13.0-0 Àh5 14.Ãxe7 ©xe7 15.b4 Àf6
 Game 25 - 1999

16.©b3 Õfd8 with mutual chances, Che-

khov-Reeh, Gausdal 1990.
._Tt._M_
12.Ãe2 a6 13.0-0 ©c7 _Ld.lJj.
Jj.jJs.j
_.s._._.
Ts._.tM_ ._In._.b
_Ld.lJj. i.n.i._.
Jj.jJs.j .iR_BiIi
_._._._. _Q_R_.k.
._I_._.b
i.n.iN_. 18...Àce4!?
.iQ_BiIi Also interesting is 18...Àfe4!? 19.Ãxe7
©xe7 20.f3 Àxc3 21.Õxc3 g6 22.b4 Àa4
_._R_Rk.
23.Õc2 e5 with the initiative for Black.
14.Õd2 19.Ãf3
An inaccuracy, allowing the black knight After 19.Àxe4 Ãxe4 20.Ãd3 Ãxd3
to come into the centre via b8-d7-c5. 21.Õxd3 ©d7! (with the threat of
Equality can be maintained by 14.b4 ...e6-e5) 22.Àe2 Õc5 23.©c1 Õdc8
Àbd7 15.h3. Black retains the better prospects.
14...Àbd7 15.Õfd1 19...Àxc3 20.Õxc3 Ãxf3 21.gxf3
Now 15.b4 is already not so good, be- Or 21.Àxf3 ©b7 22.Õcc1 g5 23.Ãg3
cause of 15...Õac8 16.Ãg3 Àh5 17.Õc1 Àe4 24.Àd2 Àxg3 25.hxg3 d5, and
Àxg3 18.hxg3 Õfd8, and Black, having Black’s chances are slightly better.
exchanged knight for bishop, has the 21...©b7 22.®g2?!
better chances, Knaak-Hort, Leipzig The unfortunate position of the king,
1973. which walks into a pin, gives Black a clear
15...Õfd8 16.©b1?! plan of attack.
White wants to strengthen the pawn on Significantly stronger was 22.©c2 Õc7
c4, transferring the rook to c2, but this 23.e4 Õdc8 24.Ãg3 Àd7 25.©e2, and
plan is too passive. White holds.
Also dubious is the move 16.Ãg3?! Àc5
17.b4 Àce4 18.Àxe4 Àxe4 19.Õd4
Àxg3 20.hxg3 a5 with better play for
._Tt._M_
Black, Kaposztas-Eperjesi, Salgotarjan _D_.lJj.
1979. Jj.jJs.j
More energetic is 16.Àd4 Õac8 17.f4!? _._._._.
Àc5 18.Ãxf6 Ãxf6 19.b4 Àd7 or even ._In._.b
16.b4!? Ãxf3 17.gxf3 Õac8 18.Ãg3 Àe5 i.r.iI_.
19.Ãxe5 dxe5, not allowing the black .i._.iKi
knight to develop activity.
_Q_R_._.
16...Àc5
It was also worth considering 16...g5!? 22...g5! 23.Ãg3 g4
17.Ãg3 Àc5. Things would not be so bad for White if
17.Õc2 Õac8 18.Àd4 his queen were on c2 and could come to

81
 Vassily Ivanchuk

the help of the f3-pawn. However, at the The decisive blow!

crucial moment, she finds herself far
away and unable to influence the devel-
oping situation.
24.h3?
Sharply worsening White’s position.
Chances of defence were offered by 24.e4
(24.Õcc1 e5 25.Àf5 does not escape
from the blow on f3) 24...gxf3+
25.®xf3 Õc5! (with the threat of
26...Õg5) 26.h4 Õdc8 27.Õdc1 d5
28.cxd5 exd5 29.e5 Àe4, although here
too, Black retains the advantage.
24...gxf3+!
24...e5 is not so strong because of
25.hxg4! (but not 25.Àf5? ©xf3+
26.®h2 gxh3! 27.Àxe7+ ®f8 28.®xh3
®xe7) 25...exd4 26.Õxd4 with counter-
play.
25.®h2
On 25.Àxf3 good is 25...Àe4 26.Õcc1
Àg5 27.e4 Àxe4ç.
25...®h8
Black prepares the final attack on the op-
ponent’s king, by taking his king off the
dangerous file and freeing a space for the
rook.
The other rook will come to the kingside
by roundabout route.
26.Õcc1 Õc5! 27.b4 Õh5
With the threat of 28...Àg4+.
28.Õh1 Õg8 29.©d3
30.®xg3
Hopeless is 30.fxg3 Àg4+ 31.®g1 f2+.
30...Õg5+ 31.®h4
On 31.®f4 there follows 31...e5 mate,
and on 31.®h2 – 31...Õg2 mate.
31...Àe4
Mate in a few moves is unavoidable.
White resigned.
2000
Game 26
Reti’s Opening (A11)
í Lputian,Smbat
n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Montecatini Terme 2000
1.Àf3 d5 2.g3
The idea of Reti’s Opening is to establish
piece control over the centre. To do so, he
usually fianchettoes one or both bishops.
More common is 2.b3 or 2.c4, e.g.
2.b3 Ãg4 3.Ãb2 Ãxf3 4.exf3 Àf6 5.f4
e6 6.©f3 Àbd7 7.Àc3 Ãb4 8.g4 0-0
9.0-0-0 c6 10.Õg1 ©a5 11.®b1 Àc5
12.g5 Àfe4 13.Àxe4 Àxe4 14.Ãd3
Ãxd2 15.Ãxe4 dxe4 16.©xe4 Õfd8

._._._Tm
_D_.lJ_.
Jj.jJs.j
_._._._T
.iIn._._
i._QiJbI
._._.i.k
_.r._._R
Smbat Lputian
29...Õxg3!

82

(Efimov-Sveshnikov, Brescia 2009) or
2.c4 c6 3.e3 Àf6 4.Àc3 a6 5.©c2 g6
6.b3 Ãg7 7.Ãb2 0-0 8.Ãe2 b5 9.0-0
Ãf5 10.©c1 Õe8 11.Àd4 Ãd7 12.f4 c5
13.Àf3 bxc4 14.bxc4 e6 15.Ãa3 ©a5,
transposing into a King’s Indian Defence,
Navara-I. Sokolov, Mainz rapid 2009, in
both cases with roughly equal chances.
2...g6
A move which makes it harder for White
to develop his dark-squared bishop to the
long diagonal with b2-b3.
Also possible is 2...c6 3.Ãg2 Ãf5 4.d3 e6
5.0-0 Àf6 6.c4 dxc4 7.dxc4 ©xd1
8.Õxd1 Ãc2 9.Õf1 Àbd7 10.Ãf4 Ãe7
11.Àc3 0-0 12.Õac1 Ãg6 13.Õfd1 Õfd8
with equality, Urban-Ivanchuk, Warsaw
2002.
3.c4
In the event of 3.Ãg2 Ãg7 4.d3 e5
5.Àbd2 Àe7 6.0-0 0-0 7.e4 Àbc6,
White can hardly claim to have an open-
ing advantage.
3...c6 4.©a4 d4
TsLdMlSt
jJ_.jJ_J
._J_._J_
_._._._.
Q_Ij._._
_._._Ni.
Ii.iIi.i
rNb.kB_R
5.b4
Other continuations have also been seen
here:
5.d3 Ãg7 6.Ãg2 e5 7.0-0 Àe7 8.Àbd2
0-0 9.©c2 a5 10.c5 Àa6 11.Àe4 Ãe6
12.Àfd2 h6 13.Àc4 f5 14.Àed2 Àd5
15.a3 ©e7 with the better game for
Black, Yermolinsky-Khuzman, Pavlodar
1982;
Game 26 - 2000
5.Ãg2 Ãg7 6.0-0 e5 7.e3 dxe3 8.dxe3
Àd7 9.Õd1 Àh6 10.e4 f6 11.c5 0-0
12.b4 with mutual chances, Gutman-J.
Böhm, Dortmund 1985.
5...Àd7
In the game Nikolaidis-Kapnisis,
Korinthos 1999, Black chose 5...Ãg7 and
after 6.d3 e5 7.Àbd2 Àe7 8.Ãg2 0-0
9.0-0 ©c7 10.Ãb2 Õd8 11.a3 h6
12.©c2 a5 13.Àb3 a4 14.Àbd2 c5
15.Àe4 b6 he had equalised.
6.Ãb2 e5 7.e3 Ãg7
Black plays actively in the centre, trying to
neutralise White’s potential initiative on
the queenside.
T_LdM_St
jJ_S_JlJ
._J_._J_
_._.j._.
QiIj._._
_._.iNi.
Ib.i.i.i
rN_.kB_R
8.Ãg2
On 8.exd4, both 8...e4 9.Àg1 Àgf6
10.©b3 0-0, and 8...exd4, with the idea
9.Àxd4? (correct 9.Ãg2) – 9...©e7+!
10.Ãe2 Ãxd4 11.Ãxd4 ©e4 12.Ãxh8
©xh1+ 13.Ãf1 Àe5!?, with the initiative
for Black, are possible.
8...Àh6 9.0-0
If 9.exd4 e4 10.Àe5 Àf5 11.Ãxe4?!
(better is 11.Àxd7) 11...Àxd4! 12.Ãxd4
Àxe5, Black has excellent play.
9...0-0 10.Àa3?!
More accurate is 10.c5, although even in
this case, after 10...a5! 11.a3 Õe8 12.Õc1
Àf8 (dubious is 13.b5?! cxb5 14.©xb5
Ãd7) 13.e4 Ãe6 14.©c2 ©c7 Black has
solid equality.
10...a5!
83
Forcing weaknesses on the white queen-
side.
11.exd4 e4
On 11...exd4 the reply 12.c5 is good.
12.Àe1 Àb6 13.©b3 axb4 14.©xb4
Àa4
After 14...Ãxd4 15.Ãxd4 ©xd4
16.Àec2 ©d8 17.Ãxe4 White has no
problems.
15.Ãc3

T_Ld.tM_
_J_._JlJ
._J_._Js
_.T˝/F3 fter is go d.

In provoking Black to play the active
...e7-e5, White has a concrete idea in
mind.
6...e5
The continuation of the Czech master
Karel Opocensky. The move 6...e6 leads
to the Scheveningen Variation.
7.Àb3
The basic continuation.
More rarely played is 7.Àf3, e.g. 7...Ãe7
8.0-0 0-0 9.a4 ©c7 10.Ãe3 b6 11.©d3
Ãb7 12.Àd2 Àbd7 13.Ãf3 Õac8
14.Õfd1 Õfd8 with a minimal advantage
to White, Holmsten-Berg, Stockholm
2010/11.
7...Ãe7
Premature is 7...Ãe6 on account of 8.f4
©c7 9.g4 (also not bad is 9.f5!?) 9...exf4
10.g5! Àfd7 11.Ãxf4 and then ©d2,
0-0-0 with the initiative for White.
8.0-0 Ãe6
The continuation 8...0-0 9.Ãe3 Ãe6
10.©d2 is met in Game 78.
9.f4 ©c7
On 9...exf4 possible is 10.Ãxf4 0-0
11.Àd4 Àc6 12.Àxe6 fxe6 13.Ãc4 ©c8
14.Ãb3, and White’s chances are prefera-
ble, Vogt-Tseshkovsky, Halle 1984.
10.®h1 Àbd7 11.a4 0-0 12.g4 Ãxb3
13.cxb3 Àc5
T_._.tM_
_Jd.lJjJ
J_.j.s._
_.s.j._.
I_._IiI_
_In._._.
.i._B_.i
r.bQ_R_K
14.g5!?
Home preparation by Ivanchuk – White
sacrifices a pawn for the initiative.
Game 27 - 2000
No advantage is promised by 14.Ãf3 exf4
15.Ãxf4 h6 16.b4 Àcd7 17.Àd5 Àxd5
18.©xd5 Àe5 with roughly equal
chances.
14...Àfxe4 15.Àd5 ©d8
On 15...©d7 there is the unpleasant
16.Ãg4.
16.b4 Àd7
If 16...Àe6 17.f5! Àc7 (risky is
17...À6xg5 because of 18.©d3 Õc8
19.h4) 18.f6 gxf6 19.Àxe7+ ©xe7
20.gxf6 and White has good attacking
chances.
Now he wins the exchange, but the posi-
tion remains tense.
17.©c2 f5 18.Àc7 Õc8 19.©b3+
._Td.tM_
_JnSl.jJ
J_.j._._
_._.jJi.
Ii._Si._
_Q_._._.
.i._B_.i
r.b._R_K
19...®h8
Fewer chances are offered by 19...Õf7
20.Ãc4 ©f8 21.fxe5 Àxe5 22.Ãxf7+
©xf7 23.©xf7+ Àxf7 24.Àd5 with the
better game for White.
20.Àe6 ©e8
After 20...©b6 21.Àxf8 Àxf8 22.b5
Àg6 23.a5 ©d4 24.Õa4 Àc5 25.Õxd4
Àxb3 26.Õc4 White obtains a clear ad-
vantage.
21.Àxf8 Ãxf8 22.fxe5 Àxe5
Worse is 22...©xe5 23.Ãf4. All of Black’s
hopes of counterplay are associated with
the weakened position of the white king.
23.Õxf5 g6?!
Black loses time, helping his opponent’s
rook to occupy an active position. The
85
 Vassily Ivanchuk

move 23...©c6!? was worth serious con- 26...©xc1+!?

sideration. Now after 24.Ãf3?! Àf2+ Black’s beautiful combination meets with
25.®g2 ©d7! a subtle refutation.
Hopeless was 26...Àf2+ 27.®g1! ©xf3
28.Õxf3 Àg4 29.Ãf4 with a decisive ad-
._T_.l.m vantage for White.
_J_D_.jJ 27.Õxc1 Õxc1+ 28.®g2 Õc2+
J_.j._._ 29.®g1
_._.sRi. But not 29.®h3?? Àxg5+, or 29.®f1??
Ii._._._ Àd2+ and Black wins.
_Q_._B_. 29...Õc1+
.i._.sKi On 30.®g2 Black again checks with the
rook – 30...Õc2+. Is it perpetual check?
r.b._._.
30.©f1! Õxf1+
analysis diagram

26.Õxe5 dxe5 27.®xf2 Õxc1! 28.Õxc1 ._._.l.m

©d2+ 29.Ãe2 ©xc1, Black equalises. _J_._._J
Better is 24.®g1! ©d7 25.Õf1 (weaker is J_.j._J_
25.Õf4 d5 26.Ãe3 ©h3 with _._._.i.
counterplay) 25...d5 26.Ãf4 Àg6
27.Õad1 Õd8 28.Ãh5 Ãe7 29.Ãxg6
Ii._Sr._
hxg6 30.®g2 ©g4+ 31.®h1 Õf8 with _._._._.
unclear play. .i._._.i
24.Õf4 ©c6 25.Ãf3! _._._Tk.
The bishop move leads to a quicker win 31.®xf1!
than 25.®g1, since in the event of A double attack on Black’s minor pieces!
25...Àf2+, White dodges the ‘underwa- 31...Àd2+ 32.®e1 Ãe7!
ter reefs’: 26.®g2 (26.®g1? Àh3+) Indirectly defending the knight –
26...Àxf3 27.Õxf3 (27.©xf3?! Àd3 33.®xd2? Ãxg5 and Black wins.
28.©xc6 Àxf4+ 29.Ãxf4 Õxc6 30.Õd1 33.h4!
with equality) 27...Àe4 28.Ãe3 ©c2+ White has the last word. After 33...Àb3
29.©xc2 Õxc2+ 30.®g1, and obtains a 34.Õf7 Black suddenly loses a bishop.
theoretically winning ending. Black resigned.
25...Àxf3 26.©xf3
2001
._T_.l.m Game 28
_J_._._J English Opening (A32)
J_Dj._J_ í Kasimdzhanov,Rustam
_._._.i. n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Ii._Sr._ Yerevan 2001
1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3
_._._Q_. White refrains from 3.Àc3, with a possi-
.i._._.i ble transition into the Nimzo-Indian De-
r.b._._K fence.

86

3...c5 4.Àf3 cxd4 5.Àxd4
TsLdMl.t
jJ_J_JjJ
._._Js._
_._._._.
._In._._
_._._.i.
Ii._Ii.i
rNbQkB_R
5...©c7
Quite a rare continuation.
A more problematic reply is 5...d5 6.Ãg2
e5 7.Àf3 d4 8.0-0 Àc6 9.e3, with a
complicated battle.
Often seen is 5...©b6, e.g., 6.Ãg2 Ãc5!,
and White has to reply 7.e3 Àc6 8.0-0!,
which after 8...Àxd4 9.exd4 Ãxd4
10.Àc3 e5 11.Àb5 0-0 12.Àxd4 exd4
13.b3 d5! leads to equality, Nogueiras
Santiago-Psakhis, Szirak 1986.
Also possible is 5...Àc6 6.Ãg2 Ãc5
7.Àb3 Ãe7 8.Àc3 0-0 9.0-0 d6 10.Ãf4
Àh5 11.e3!? (worth attention is
11.Ãe3!? Àe5 12.c5 d5 13.Ãd4 Àc6
14.e4 Àxd4 15.©xd4 dxe4 16.©xe4
Àf6 17.©e5! with the better chances for
White, Kasparov-Oral, Prague 2001)
11...Àxf4 12.exf4 Ãd7 13.©d2 ©b8,
and White’s chances in the ensuing battle
are preferable, Karpov-Topalov, Linares
1994.
On 5...Ãb4+ a good reply is 6.Ãd2 ©b6
7.Ãxb4 (after 7.Ãg2 Black does best to
continue 7...Àc6 – after 7...©xd4
8.Ãxb4 ©xc4 9.Ãa3 White has more
than impressive compensation for the
pawn) 7...©xb4+ 8.Àc3!? ©xb2
9.Àdb5 ©b4 10.Àc7+! ®d8 11.©d2
Àe4 12.Àxe6+ fxe6 13.Àxe4 ©xd2+
14.®xd2 with comfortable play for
White, Zilberstein-Vasiukov, Baku 1972.
Game 28 - 2001
6.Àd2
The game Aronian-Ivanchuk, Warsaw
2005, saw 6.Àc3 a6 7.b3 d5 8.Ãg2 Ãb4
9.Ãd2 dxc4 10.0-0, and here 10...0-0!?
11.a3 Ãc5 led to play with chances for
both sides.
6...Ãc5
More accurate than 6...a6 7.Ãg2 Ãe7
8.0-0 0-0 9.b3! with the better chances
for White, Bagirov-Grigorian, Leningrad
1977.
7.À2b3 Ãe7
TsL_M_.t
jJdJlJjJ
._._Js._
_._._._.
._In._._
_N_._.i.
Ii._Ii.i
r.bQkB_R
8.Ãf4?!
White goes in for a forcing variation,
which leads to complications favourable
to the opponent. Stronger is 8.©d3 0-0
9.Ãg2 Àc6, and then 10.Ãf4 e5 11.Àb5
©b8 12.Ãg5 with a small advantage to
White.
Rustam Kasimdzhanov later said that he
thought for 20 minutes over his move
and that, having played it, he was satis-
fied.
This is a rare event for the ex-FIDE
World Champion, that his calculation
lets him down at an early stage of the
game.
8...e5 9.Àb5 ©c6 10.Ãxe5 ©xh1
11.Àc7+ ®d8 12.Àxa8 Ãb4+!
Black wants to deflect the white bishop
from the b8-h2 diagonal, where it con-
trols the square c7, which is needed as a
decent retreat square for the knight.
87
 Vassily Ivanchuk

NsLm._.t
jJ_J_JjJ
._._.s._
_._.b._.
.lI_._._
_N_._.i.
Ii._Ii.i
r._QkB_D
13.Àd2?
Given that after Black’s reply the bishop
has to retreat to c3 anyway, it was rather
stronger to play this at once, without
moving the active knight, e.g.:
13.Ãc3 Ãxc3+ 14.bxc3 b6!? (also good
is 14...©c6 15.Àd4 ©xc4 16.Ãg2 d5
(on 16...Àc6, good is 17.©b3 Àa5
18.©b4 ©xb4 19.cxb4 Àc6 20.Àc2
Àe7 21.Õc1 with a complicated, roughly
equal game) 17.©b3 ©c5 18.Õd1 Àc6
with mutual chances) 15.f3 Àe8 16.©d4
©xh2 17.©f4 Àc6 18.c5!? bxc5
19.0-0-0 ©h5 20.e4 ©e5 21.©d2 ©b8
NdLmS_.t
j._J_JjJ
._S_._._
_.j._._.
._._I_._
_Ni._Ii.
I_.q._._
_.kR_B_.
analysis diagram
22.Àxc5 d6 23.©g5+ f6 24.©d5 ©xa8
25.Ãb5 Ãd7 26.f4, and White’s initiative
fully compensates for the piece deficit.
13...Àe4 14.Ãc3
Not 14.Ãc7+? ®e8 15.Ãf4 because of
15...©xh2, and there is no defence
against the blow on f2 – this is what
White missed at move 8!
14...Ãxc3
Also good, and apparently more accurate,
is 14...Àxc3 15.©b3 Àxa2 16.©e3 b6
17.©g5+ f6 18.©xg7 Õf8 19.Õxa2
©xa8 20.Õa4 Ãd6 21.©xh7 Àa6 with a
noticeable advantage to Black.
15.bxc3 Õe8
After 15...Àxc3? 16.©c2 the knight has
no retreat square.
16.Àxe4 ©xe4 17.©b3
A transposition into the game occurs after
17.©d6 Àa6 18.0-0-0 b6 19.Àxb6, but
after 17.©d4!? ©xd4 18.cxd4 b6 White
can support his knight trapped in the cor-
ner by means of 19.c5!, e.g. 19...bxc5
20.Õb1 Àc6 21.dxc5 Õe5 22.h4 Õxc5
23.Ãg2 d5, and the position remains un-
clear.
17...Àa6 18.0-0-0 b6 19.Àxb6 axb6
20.©xb6+ Àc7 21.e3?!
This weakens the light squares in the cen-
tre and on the kingside, thus worsening
White’s position. Better is 21.©d4.
21...©f3! 22.©b2 Õe6 23.Ãd3 Àa6
24.c5
Otherwise after 24...Àc5 25.Ãb1 Õc6
Black concentrates his forces on attacking
the weak pawns on the c-file.
24...Àxc5 25.Ãc4 Õf6 26.©b4 d6!
._Lm._._
_._._JjJ
._.j.t._
_.s._._.
.qB_._._
_.i.iDi.
I_._.i.i
_.kR_._.
Black has managed to consolidate his po-
sition, and the win is just a question of
time.
27.Õd2

88

Rustam Kasimdzhanov
A mistake is 27.©xc5? ©xd1+.
27...©h1+ 28.Õd1 ©c6 29.Ãd5
©a6 30.Ãc4 ©a7 31.f4 ®c7 32.Õd4
Ãb7
The bishop comes into play with decisive
effect.
33.g4 Õh6 34.©b2 Õh3
The attempt to defend the e3-pawn by
means of 35.©d2 fails to 35...Àe4
36.©d3 ©a3+ 37.®d1 Àf2+, whilst in
the event of 35.Ãxf7, Black wins by
35...Õxe3 36.©b4 Ãc6 37.Ãc4 Õe1+
38.®d2 Õh1.
White resigned.
Game 29
Italian Game (C54)
í Fedorov,Alexey
n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Leon 2001
1.e4 e5 2.Ãc4 Àc6 3.Àf3 Àf6 4.d3
White refrains from the main lines of the
Two Knights Defence with 4.d4 or
4.Àg5, and after Black’s reply, the game
goes into quiet contours of the Italian
Game.
Game 29 - 2001
4...Ãc5
T_LdM_.t
jJjJ_JjJ
._S_.s._
_.l.j._.
._B_I_._
_._I_N_.
IiI_.iIi
rNbQk._R
5.c3
Continuing in the spirit of the Ruy Lopez.
A common move is 5.Àc3, e.g., 5...d6
6.Ãg5 (on 6.Ãe3 a good reply is 6...Ãb6
7.©d2 Ãe6 8.Ãb5 0-0 9.Ãxc6 bxc6
10.0-0 Àd7, and Black does not stand
worse, whilst after 6.0-0 Ãg4 the knight
comes under an unpleasant pin) 6...h6
(the sharp 6...Àa5 is also possible)
7.Ãxf6 ©xf6 8.Àd5 ©d8 9.c3 a6 with
slightly the better chances for White,
Bosch-Van den Doel, Leeuwarden 2004.
5...d6
The preliminary 5...a6 is also possible. In
the game De la Paz Perdomo-Ivanchuk,
Merida 2006, there then followed: 6.Ãb3
Ãa7 7.h3 d6 8.Àbd2 h6 9.Àf1 Ãe6
10.Àg3 ©d7 11.Ãe3 0-0 12.0-0 Õfe8
13.Àh2 d5 with equality.
6.Ãb3
Practice has also seen 6.©e2 Ãb6 7.Ãg5
h6 8.Ãh4 ©e7 9.Àbd2 g5 10.Ãg3 Ãg4
11.Àf1 Àh5 12.Ãb5 Àf4 13.Ãxf4 gxf4
14.À1d2 Õg8 15.g3 fxg3 16.fxg3 0-0-0
17.a4 Àb8 with mutual chances,
Ivanchuk-Shirov, Linares 1998.
6...a6 7.0-0 Ãa7 8.Õe1
It was worth considering 8.Ãe3.
In the event of 8...Àe7 (8...Ãxe3!?)
9.Ãxa7 Õxa7 10.Àbd2 Àg6 11.Õe1 0-0
White’s chances are slightly better,
Alexeev-Ivanchuk, blitz, Moscow 2008.
89
 Vassily Ivanchuk
8...0-0 9.h3 Ãe6
Seemingly the simplest path to equality.
T_.d.tM_
lJj._JjJ
J_SjLs._
_._.j._.
._._I_._
_BiI_N_I
Ii._.iI_
rNbQr.k.
10.Ãc2
A questionable decision. In order to keep
his light-squared bishop, White retreats it
to a passive position.
On 10.Àbd2, Black has a choice of sev-
eral continuations:
A) 10...Ãxb3 11.©xb3 Õb8 12.Àf1
©d7 (it was worth considering
12...Àh5!? 13.Ãg5 ©d7 14.Õad1
(14.g4!?) 14...©e6 15.d4? (correct is
15.Ãe3) 15...exd4 16.cxd4 ©xb3
17.axb3 f5 18.d5 Àe5 19.À1h2 fxe4
20.Õxe4 Õbe8 with advantage to Black,
Waitzkin-Xie Jun, San Francisco 1995)
13.Àg3 Õfe8 14.Ãg5 ©e6 15.©xe6
Õxe6 with roughly equal chances,
Dolmatov-Rodriguez Cespedes, Minsk
1982;
B) 10...h6 11.Àf1 Õe8 12.Ãe3 Ãxe3,
Adams-Anand, Wijk aan Zee 2000, and
after 13.Àxe3 White’s chances are
slightly better.
C) Also interesting is 10...Àd7!?
11.Àf1 Ãxb3 12.©xb3 Àc5 13.©c2
Àe6 14.Ãe3 Ãxe3 (on 14...d5 possible
is 15.exd5 ©xd5 16.Ãxa7 Õxa7
17.Àe3 ©d7 18.Àg4 f6 19.d4 exd4
20.©f5 Õe8, Waitzkin-Levin, Budapest
1997, and here with the move 21.cxd4
White could have posed his opponent
some problems) 15.Àxe3 Àf4 16.®h2
90
(more accurate is 16.Õad1) 16...©f6
17.Àg1 Õae8 18.Õf1 ©d8 19.g3 Àh5
20.Õae1 Àf6 21.f4 d5 22.f5 d4 23.Àg2
dxc3 24.bxc3 ©d6 25.Õd1 Õd8 26.Àf3
©c5 27.©b2 b5 28.Õfe1 Õd7 with mu-
tual chances, Waitzkin-Adams, New York
1996.
10...d5!?
Preferring active counterplay. Also good is
10...h6 11.Àbd2 d5 12.exd5 ©xd5
13.Àf1 Õfe8 14.Ãe3 Ãxe3 15.Õxe3
©d6 16.Õe1 Àd5 17.d4 exd4 18.Àxd4
Àxd4 19.©xd4 ©b6 with equality,
Rossiter-Parker, England 1996/97 (by
transposition).
Passive defence allows White to seize the
initiative: 10...Àe7 11.d4 Àg6 12.Ãe3
h6 13.Àbd2 Õe8 14.a4 c6 15.a5,
Nevednichy-Gligoric, Herceg Novi
2000.
11.Àg5?!
Exploiting the fact that Black has not
played 10...h6, White hurries to ex-
change the strong black bishop, but he
does not choose the best moment for
this.
Better is 11.exd5 ©xd5 (on 11...Àxd5
the reply 12.Àg5! is strong, but not
12.Àxe5? because of 12...Àxe5
13.Õxe5 Ãxf2+!) 12.©e2 (or 12.Ãb3
©d6 13.Ãxe6 ©xe6 14.d4 e4 15.Àg5
©f5 16.©c2 Õae8 17.Àa3 h6 18.Àf3
©g6 with excellent play for Black)
12...Õae8 13.Àbd2 h6 14.Àe4 Àxe4
15.dxe4 ©d8 16.Àh2 ©h4 17.Àf1
Ãc4! 18.©f3 Ãxf1 19.Õxf1 Õe6
20.Ãe3 Õf6 21.©e2 Ãxe3 22.©xe3
©f4 with equality, Nisipeanu-Parker,
Siofok 1996.
11...dxe4! 12.Àxe6?
It was still not too late to play 12.dxe4,
and after 12...©xd1 13.Õxd1 Ãc8 return
the knight to f3.
12...fxe6
 Game 29 - 2001

and after the knight manoeuvre

T_.d.tM_ 24...Àe7!?, as occurred in the game,
lJj._.jJ there is 25.Õc1.
J_S_Js._ 21...Õd2 22.Õd1 Õfd8 23.Õxd2
_._.j._. Õxd2 24.®f1
._._J_._
_.iI_._I ._._._M_
IiB_.iI_ _Jj._.jJ
rNbQr.k. J_S_J_._
13.Ãe3 _._.j._.
It turns out that 13.dxe4? runs into ._._.s._
13...Àg4! 14.Ãe3 (or 14.©xg4 Ãxf2+ n.i.r._I
15.®h2 (15.®f1? Ãb6+) 15...Ãxe1) IiBt.iI_
14...Àxf2, and White is in a bad way.
_._._K_.
13...exd3 14.©xd3
No better is 14.Ãxd3 Ãxe3 15.Õxe3 e4 24...Àa7!
with advantage to Black. The start of a remarkable idea, which
14...©xd3 15.Ãxd3 Õad8 pursues the idea of attacking the white
The problem with White’s position is not queenside.
so much the pawn minus (especially as 25.Õxe5
Black’s extra pawn is doubled) as the lack Bad is 25.®e1? because of 25...Õxc2!
of development of his pieces. All of 26.Àxc2 Àxg2+ 27.®d2 Àxe3
Black’s pieces are in play, whilst White has 28.®xe3 ®f7, winning.
not yet completed his development. 25...Àb5! 26.Ãb3
16.Ãc2 Nor is 26.Àxb5 Õxc2 27.Àxc7 Õxb2 any
After 16.Ãc4 Ãxe3 17.Ãxe6+ ®h8 help, but after 26.Õe4!? Àxa3 27.Ãb3!
18.Õxe3 (or 18.fxe3 e4) 18...Õd1+ Àd5 28.bxa3 ®f7 White holds.
19.®h2 Àd5 20.Ãxd5 Õxd5 21.f3 Õd1 26...Õxb2 27.g3 Àd3
Black retains an edge, with equal material. The h-pawn is invulnerable because of
16...Ãxe3 17.Õxe3 Àd5 18.Õe1 Àf4 28.Ãxe6+ and 29.Ãxh3.
19.Àa3 Àd3 28.Õxe6
More accurate is 19...Õd2 20.Õad1 Õfd8 Fewer defensive chances are offered by
21.Õxd2 Õxd2 22.®f1 b5 23.Õc1 h6 28.Ãxe6+ ®f8 29.Õf5+ ®e7 30.Àxb5
24.Àb1 Õd5, not allowing his opponent ®xe6.
to develop any activity. 28...®f8
20.Õe2 Àf4 Dubious is 28...Õxb3?! 29.axb3 Àxa3
Mistaken is 20...Àxb2? 21.Õb1 (but not 30.Õe7 Àb5 31.c4 Àd4 32.Õxc7 Àxb3
21.Ãxh7+? ®xh7 22.Õxb2 b5 with ad- 33.Õxb7 Àdc5, and Black has two
vantage to Black) 21...Àd3 22.Õxb7, and knights for rook and pawn, but the game
the chances are balanced. has drawish tendencies.
21.Õe3 29.Àxb5
Worth considering was 21.Õee1 Õd2 More tenacious is 29.Õe3 Õxf2+ 30.®g1
22.Õad1 Õfd8 23.Õxd2 Õxd2 24.®f1, Àxa3 31.Õxd3 Õf6 32.Õd7 Àb5, al-

91
 Vassily Ivanchuk
though Black also retains a healthy extra
pawn.
29...axb5 30.Õe3 Õxf2+ 31.®g1
Õd2 32.Õf3+ ®e8 33.Õf7 c5!
For victory, Black is ready to part with al-
most all (!) of his pawns, except one – ei-
ther the b-pawn or the h-pawn.
34.Õxg7
On 34.Ãd5? there follows 34...Àe5,
whilst after 34.Ãe6 the rook returns to
the 7th rank – 34...Õe2 35.Ãg4 Õe7
36.Õxe7+ (or 36.Õf5 Õe3 37.Õf3 Õe1+
38.Õf1 Õc1) 36...®xe7 37.Ãe2 Àc1,
and Black obtains a clear advantage.
34...c4 35.Õxb7
._._M_._
_R_._._J
._._._._
_J_._._.
._J_._._
_BiS_.iI
I_.t._._
_._._.k.
35...Àc1!
The bishop is not going anywhere, but
Black will manage to take one of the
pawns, g- or c-.
36.Õxb5 Àe2+! 37.®f2
Speeding up defeat, but even after
37.®f1 cxb3 38.axb3 Àxg3+ 39.®e1
Õc2 40.Õb8+ ®f7 41.c4 h5 42.®d1
Õc3 Black has every chance of winning.
37...Àxc3+ 38.®e1 Õe2+ 39.®f1
Àxb5 40.®xe2 Àd4+ 41.®e3 cxb3
Ironically, the bishop dies on the same
square it unwisely left at move 10.
42.axb3 Àxb3
Reaching a theoretically winning end-
game.
43.g4 ®f7 44.h4 h6 45.®e4
On 45.g5, of course, there follows 45...h5.
45...®e6 46.®f4 Àc5 0-1
92
Game 30
French Defence (C11)
í Macieja,Bartlomiej
n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Moscow 2001
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Àc3 Àf6 4.e5
Àfd7
TsLdMl.t
jJjS_JjJ
._._J_._
_._Ji._.
._.i._._
_.n._._.
IiI_.iIi
r.bQkBnR
5.Àce2
This old continuation is rarely seen these
days. White wants to create a strong pawn
centre by means of c2-c3 and f2-f4, but
the time he needs to achieve this allows
Black to organise active counterplay, at-
tacking the centre with ...c7-c5 and
...f7-f6.
(Regarding 5.f4 and the previous moves,
see Game 22.)
5...c5 6.f4
In the event of 6.c3 Black can continue
6...cxd4 7.cxd4 f6 8.f4 fxe5 9.dxe5 Àc6
10.Àf3 Ãb4+ 11.Àc3 Àc5 12.Ãe3 ©a5
13.©c2 0-0 14.Õc1 d4 15.Àxd4 Àxd4
16.Ãxd4 Õxf4 with mutual chances,
Shirov-Ivanchuk, Tilburg 1993.
6...Àc6 7.c3 Ãe7 8.Àf3 0-0 9.a3
On 9.g3 a possible reply is 9...f5, e.g.
10.Ãg2 cxd4 11.Àfxd4 Àc5 12.Ãe3
Àe4 13.0-0 Àa5, and the strong knight
in the centre promises Black good play,
Vasiukov-Vifian, Leningrad 1991.
9...a5
Also good is 9...c4, but Black must pay
careful attention to the kingside then:
10.Àg3 Àb6 11.h4 Ãd7 12.b4 cxb4
 Game 30 - 2001

13.Ãd3 ©c8? (correct is 13...h6 with the In this original manner, White opens a
better game for Black) path for his bishop, but in the process,
holds up his own development too much.
The game Berkvens-Hummel, Hooge-
T_D_.tM_ veen 2000, continued 11.Àg3 b6
_J_LlJjJ 12.Ãd3 Ãa6!? (not preventing the
.sS_J_._ bishop sacrifice by 12...h6) 13.Ãxh7+!?
j._Ji._. ®xh7 14.Àg5+ ®g8 15.Àxe6 ©e8
._.i.i.i 16.©g4 ©f7 with a sharp game and
iJiB_Nn. chances for both sides.
._._._I_ 11...cxd4 12.cxd4 ©b6 13.Ãd3
This allows Black to execute his intended
r.bQk._R
piece sacrifice without hindrance. More
analysis diagram
accurate is 13.Àh3.
14.Ãxh7+! ®xh7 15.Àg5+ ®g8 13...fxe5 14.fxe5
16.©h5 Ãxg5 17.hxg5, and Black re-
signed, Skaperdas-Hatzileonidas, Kor- T_L_.tM_
inthos 2000. _J_Sl.jJ
10.h4 .dS_J_._
This provocative move contains the idea j._Ji._.
of bringing the bishop to d3, with the
threat of a blow on h7, but it weakens
._.i._.i
White’s own position. i._B_N_.
It was worth considering 10.Àg3 cxd4 .i._._I_
(or 10...f5 11.Ãd3 cxd4 12.cxd4 Àb6 r.bQk.nR
13.Àe2 a4 14.0-0 Àa5 15.®h1 Ãd7 14...Àdxe5!? 15.dxe5 Àxe5 16.Ãc2
with equality, Lanka-Lupu, Calimanesti The open position of the white king and
1992) 11.cxd4 f6 12.Ãd3 fxe5 13.dxe5 the delay in his development compen-
Àc5 14.Ãb1 b6 15.h4 ©e8 with sates for Black’s small material deficit.
roughly equal chances, Klimov-Volkov, St On 16.Ãe2 a good reply is 16...Àg4
Petersburg 1998. 17.Àh3 Ãd6, whilst after 16.Ãxh7+?!
10...f6 ®xh7 17.©c2+ ®g8 18.Àxe5 Black has
a beautiful blow:
T_Ld.tM_ T_L_.tM_
_J_Sl.jJ _J_.l.j.
._S_Jj._ .d._J_._
j.jJi._. j._Jn._.
._.i.i.i ._._._.i
i.i._N_. i._._._.
.i._N_I_ .iQ_._I_
r.bQkB_R r.b.k.nR
11.Àeg1!? analysis diagram

93
 Vassily Ivanchuk

18...Ãxh4+! 19.®d2 ©d4+ 20.Àd3 20...Õxe2+ 21.®xe2 Ãb5+ 22.®e1

©g4 21.Àe2 e5! 22.©c5 Ãf6 with a Ãa6 23.a4 (defending against the threat
threatening initiative. of 23...©b5) 23...Õf5 24.Õh1 Õxe5+!
16...Ãd7 17.©e2 25.Àxe5 ©b4+ 26.®d1 ©d4+ 27.Ãd2
The continuation 17.Ãg5?! Ãc5 18.©e2 ©xb2 28.Õc1 ©xe5 with a decisive ad-
Àg4 19.Àh3 Ãb5 20.©d2 h6 leads to vantage to Black.
an advantage for Black, but serious con- 18...®xh7 19.©xe5
sideration could have been given to Not 19.Àxe5 because of 19...Ãb5
17.©d4!? Àxf3+ 18.Àxf3 ©c7 19.©d3 20.Àd3 (or 20.©h5+? ®g8 21.Àgf3
©g3+ 20.®d1 g6, with unclear play. Õxc1+!) 20...©d4, and Black regains the
17...Õac8 18.Ãxh7+? piece.
White wants to add another pawn to his 19...Ãd6 20.Ãe3
store, but he comes under a strong attack. More tenacious was 20.©g5 Õc2
It seems a better decision was to return 21.Àh3 Õf5 22.©e3 Ãc5 23.©d3+
the pawn: Õxg2.
18.Ãe3!? ©xb2 19.Õa2 ©c3+ 20.Ãd2 20...©b3!
Àxf3+ 21.Àxf3 ©c7, with chances of Now White is defenceless against the nu-
defending. merous threats.
The tempting 18.Àxe5? is refuted by 21.Àd2
18...Ãxh4+! 19.Õxh4 (19.®d1? Ãa4! Hopeless is 21.©xd6 ©xe3+ 22.Àe2
20.Ãxa4 ©d4+ 21.Àd3 ©xa4+ or Õc2, winning.
19.®d2? ©d4+ 20.Ãd3 Ãa4 leads to a
quick mate).
._T_.t._
_J_L_.jM
._T_.tM_ ._.lJ_._
_J_L_.jJ j._Jq._.
.d._J_._ ._._._.i
j._Jn._. iD_.b._.
._._._.r .i.n._I_
i._._._. r._.k.nR
.iB_Q_I_
21...Õf1+!!
r.b.k.n.
Ending the game with a wonderful tacti-
analysis diagram
cal blow!
19...Õxc2!! (but not 19...©xg1+? 22.®xf1
20.®d2 Õxc2+ (20...Õf2 21.Ãxh7+ Or 22.Àxf1 Ãxe5.
®f8 (21...®h8 22.Àg6 mate) 22.Õf4+! 22...©d3+ 23.®f2 Ãxe5 24.Àgf3
Õxf4 23.Àg6+ ®f7 24.Àxf4, and White Ãxb2 25.Õab1 Õc2 26.Õhd1 e5
wins)) 20.Àgf3 (hopeless is 20.©xc2 27.g3 Ãg4
©xg1+ 21.®d2 Õf2+ 22.®c3 d4+) White resigned.

94
Chapter 4
Selected Games 2002 – 2007
2002
Game 31
Ruy Lopez (C88)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Adams,Michael
Linares 2002
1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.Ãb5 a6 4.Ãa4
Àf6 5.0-0 Ãe7 6.Õe1 b5 7.Ãb3 0-0

T_Ld.tM_
_.jJlJjJ
J_S_.s._
_J_.j._.
._._I_._
_B_._N_.
IiIi.iIi
rNbQr.k.
8.a4
Preventing Black’s intention of playing
the Marshall Attack after 8.c3.
Another way to do so is 8.d4, either
transposing into the line 8...d6 9.c3 Ãg4
or else leading to 8...Àxd4 9.Àxd4 exd4
10.e5 Àe8 11.©xd4 Ãb7 (see Game
57).
White chose yet another interesting idea
in the game Ivanchuk-Anand, Monaco
2004: 8.h3 Ãb7 9.d3 d6 10.a3 Àa5 (on
10...Àb8 a possibility is 11.Àbd2 Àbd7
12.Àf1 Õe8 13.Ãa2 Ãf8 14.Àg5 Õe7
15.f4 h6 16.Àf3 d5 with the better
chances for White, Gashimov-Ivanchuk,
Astrakhan 2010) 11.Ãa2 c5 12.Àbd2
Ãc8 13.Àf1 Ãe6 14.Ãg5 Àd7 15.Ãd2
Àc6 16.Àe3 Àb6, and White’s chances
are preferable.
8...Ãb7
Black completes his development, prepar-
ing to undertake active operations in the
centre.
White is better after 8...Õb8 9.axb5 axb5
10.c3 d6, whilst in the event of 10...d5
11.exd5 Àxd5 12.Àxe5 Àxe5 13.Õxe5
White, as distinct from the main Marshall
Variation, controls the a-file.
The game Ivanchuk-Aronian, Sochi 2006,
continued 8...b4 9.d4 d6 10.dxe5 Àxe5
11.Àxe5 dxe5 12.©f3 Ãb7 13.Àd2
Ãc5 14.Àf1 ©c8 with approximate
equality.
9.d3 Õe8
Keeping the possibility of playing
...d7-d5 without loss of a tempo.
After 9...d5 10.exd5 Àxd5 11.axb5 axb5
12.Õxa8 Ãxa8 13.Àxe5 Àd4 14.Àd2
Ãd6 White’s chances are slightly supe-
rior, Ivanchuk-Bacrot, Odessa 2007.

95
 Vassily Ivanchuk

Weaker is 9...Àa5?! 10.Ãa2 d6 11.Ãd2 18.Ãb3 ©f6 19.Ãd2 Àxd3 20.cxd3

Àc6 12.Àc3 Àd7 13.d4 with advantage exd4 21.Ãb4+ Õe7, the position is far
to White, Keres-Ivkov, USSR-Yugoslavia from clear.
match, Belgrade 1956. Stronger in this variation is 16...g6!?, e.g.
10.Àa3 17.Ãxf7+ ®xf7 18.©xh7+ ®f6
Worth consideration was 10.axb5 axb5 19.Àe6!? Õxe6 20.h4 ®f5 21.Ãg5 ©f8
11.Õxa8 Ãxa8 12.Àc3 b4 13.Àd5 h6 (21...Õf6 22.Õe4!?) 22.©xc7 Õb8!, and
14.Àxe7+ ©xe7, retaining slightly the Black, having beaten off the attack, stands
better chances. better.
10...Ãxa3 11.bxa3 d5!
The counterattack in the centre gives T_.dT_M_
Black a roughly equal game. _Lj._JjJ
12.exd5 Àxd5 J_S_._._
_J_.j._.
T_.dT_M_ I_._._._
_Lj._JjJ iB_I_N_.
J_S_._._ ._I_.iSi
_J_Sj._. r.bQr.k.
I_._._._ 15.Àg5!
iB_I_N_. Exploiting his chance, White goes over to
._I_.iIi a counterattack. Bad is 15.®xg2? Àd4.
r.bQr.k. 15...Àxe1
13.Ãb2?! An equal game results from the sharp
It was in order to be able to develop this 15...Àd4!? 16.Ãxf7+ ®f8 17.Ãa2 g6!
bishop to the long diagonal that White (but not 17...©xg5? 18.Ãxg5 Àxe1
recaptured with the pawn on a3 at move 19.©h5, and White wins) 18.Àf7!
11, but now Black has an interesting tacti-
cal possibility.
More accurate was 13.Àg5 h6 14.Àe4
T_.dTm._
Àd4 15.c4 with chances for both sides. _Lj._N_J
13...Àf4! 14.Ãc1 J_._._J_
Not 14.Àxe5? because of 14...Àxe5 _J_.j._.
15.Õxe5 (or 15.Ãxe5 ©g5 16.g3 Àh3+ I_.s._._
17.®f1 Õxe5) 15...Õxe5 16.Ãxe5 ©g5 i._I_._.
17.©f1 ©xe5, and Black wins. B_I_.iSi
14...Àxg2?!
r.bQr.k.
Leading to head-spinning complications
analysis diagram
that appear to favour White, but even af-
ter 14...Àd4!? 15.Àxd4 Àxg2 16.©h5!? 18...Àf3+ (or 18...©h4 19.Ãh6+ ©xh6
(also possible is 16.Àf5!? Àxe1 17.©xe1 20.Àxh6 Àxe1, and White retains
©f6 18.Àg3 e4 19.d4!? ©xd4 20.Ãe3 slightly the better chances) 19.©xf3
©e5 21.c4 with some compensation for Ãxf3 20.Ãh6+ ®e7 21.Ãg5+ ®d7
the exchange) 16...Àxe1 17.Ãxf7+ ®f8 22.Ãxd8 Àxe1 23.Õxe1 Õaxd8 24.axb5

96
 Game 31 - 2002

axb5 25.Àxe5+ Õxe5 26.Õxe5 Ãc6 with After 21.Ãxe8?! Õxe8 22.©xg5 ®g8
a favourable transposition into the end- 23.axb5 axb5 Black has no worries.
game. 21...Õe7 22.Õxe5 Àxf7 23.Õxe7
16.©h5! ©d7 ©xe7 24.Ãxe7+ ®xe7
Black shows that he is in a decisive mood,
refraining from the perpetual check by
16...h6 17.Àxf7 ©f6 18.Àg5+ ®h8
T_._._._
19.Àf7+. _Lj.mSjJ
17.Ãxf7+ ®f8 J_._._._
_J_._._Q
T_._Tm._ I_._._._
_LjD_BjJ i._I_._.
J_S_._._ ._I_.i.i
_J_.j.nQ _._._K_.
I_._._._ 25.©c5+!
i._I_._. This manoeuvre allows White to win one
._I_.i.i of the pawns, and with equal material, he
r.b.s.k. has the better prospects.
18.Ãe3! 25...®d7
Having fallen into a dangerous position, On 25...®e6 there is the possibility of
Ivanchuk shows miraculous resourceful- 26.©xc7 Ãd5 27.©b6+ Àd6 28.©e3+
ness! ®d7 29.©e5 Ãf7 30.©xg7 Õc8, and
A tempting move is 18.Àxh7+?!, but after White’s chances are significantly better.
18...®e7 19.Ãg5+ ®d6 20.Õxe1 Àd4 26.©d4+ ®e7 27.©xg7 bxa4?!
21.®f1 ©c6 22.©g6+ (or 22.Õe4 ©xc2 More accurate is 27...Ãd5 28.©xh7 Õh8
23.Õxd4+ exd4 24.Ãf4+ ®d7 29.©g6! c6 30.©g3 Õh5, not weakening
25.Ãxe8+ Õxe8) 22...Õe6 23.©e4 ©xe4 the queenside.
24.dxe4 Àxc2 25.Õd1+ Àd4 26.Ãxe6 28.©c3!
®xe6 Black has a clear advantage. Regaining the pawn.
18...Àd4 19.Õxe1 Àf3+ 28...®d7
The English GM goes in for a forcing vari- Or 28...Õc8 29.©b4+.
ation, at the end of which he gets enough 29.©d4+ Àd6 30.©xa4+ ®e6
material for the queen. 31.©g4+ Àf5
It was worth considering 19...g6
20.©h6+ ®e7 21.©h4 ©c6 22.f3 Àf5 T_._._._
23.Ãxe8 Àxh4 24.Ãxc6 Ãxc6 25.axb5 _Lj._._J
axb5 26.Ãf2 Àxf3+ 27.Àxf3 Ãxf3 J_._M_._
28.Õxe5+ ®d7 with equality. _._._S_.
20.®f1!
Not 20.Àxf3? ©xf7 21.Ãc5+ ®g8
._._._Q_
22.©xf7+ ®xf7 23.Àxe5+ ®g8 with i._I_._.
advantage to Black. ._I_.i.i
20...Àxg5 21.Ãc5+ _._._K_.

97
 Vassily Ivanchuk
32.©c4+
Continuing to collect pawns! Black does
not manage to coordinate his forces.
32...Ãd5?
Worsening the position, giving White
connected passed c- and d-pawns, al-
though even after 32...®d7 33.©f7+
Àe7 34.©xh7 it is not easy for Black to
defend.
33.©xc7 h5 34.c4 Ãh1
On 34...Ãf3 strong is 35.©f4 Ãb7
36.d4, with a decisive advantage.
35.f4 Õf8
Hopeless is 35...Àe7 36.©e5+ ®d7
37.f5 Õf8 38.©e6+ ®d8 39.©d6+ ®e8
40.f6ê.
36.©b6+ ®f7
Nothing is changed by 36...®d7
37.©a7+ ®d8 38.©xa6.
37.©a7+ Àe7 38.©xa6 Õb8 39.d4
Õb1+ 40.®e2 Õb2+ 41.®d3 Õb3+
42.®d2 Õh3 43.d5! Õxh2+ 44.®d3
Àxd5
The knight sacrifice does not save him.
45.cxd5 Ãxd5 46.f5 Õa2 47.©a7+
®f6
Black has to give up more and more with
every move. On 47...®g8, White decides
things by 48.f6 Ãf7 49.©a8+ ®h7
50.©f8, and the bishop is lost.
48.©d4+ ®g5 49.©xd5 Õxa3+
50.®e4
Black resigned.
Game 32
Sicilian Defence (B42)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Vallejo Pons,Francisco
Linares 2002
1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Àxd4
a6
We have on the board the old Paulsen Sys-
tem, still extremely popular today.
98
5.Ãd3
If White immediately plays 5.c4, then af-
ter 5...Àf6 6.Àc3 Ãb4 Black has an ac-
tive position.
Another good continuation is 5.Àc3, e.g.,
5...©c7 6.Ãd3 Àf6 7.0-0 Ãc5 8.Àb3
Ãe7 9.Ãe3 d6 10.a4 b6 11.a5!? b5
12.Ãb6 ©c6 with sharp play, Anand-
Rublevsky, Dortmund 2004.
TsLdMlSt
_J_J_JjJ
J_._J_._
_._._._.
._.nI_._
_._B_._.
IiI_.iIi
rNbQk._R
5...Àf6
In the game Anand-Ivanchuk, blitz, Mos-
cow 2007, Black played 5...Ãc5 6.Àb3
Ãa7 7.©e2 Àc6 (or 7...d6 8.Ãe3 Àf6
9.Ãxa7 Õxa7 10.c4 Àc6 11.Àc3 0-0
12.0-0 b6 13.©e3 ©c7 14.Ãe2 ©b8
15.Õfd1 Õd8 16.Õd2 e5 17.Õc1 Ãe6,
and White’s chances are superior,
Ivanchuk-Kamsky, Wijk aan Zee 2006)
8.Ãe3 d6 9.À1d2 Àf6 10.f4 0-0
11.Ãxa7 Õxa7 12.g4 b5 13.0-0-0 Õc7
14.Õhg1 ©e7 15.®b1 Àd7 16.g5 Ãb7,
with slightly the better chances for
White.
Instead of 6...Ãa7, it is worth consider-
ing 6...Ãe7!? 7.©g4 Ãf6 8.©g3 Àc6
9.Àc3 Àge7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Ãg5 Ãxg5
12.©xg5 d6 13.f4 b5 14.f5 Àe5
15.Õad1 ©b6+ 16.®h1 f6 17.©g3 ®h8
with equality, Leko-Ivanchuk, Dresden
2008.
6.0-0 d6
Preventing 7.e5.
7.c4

White assures himself of a space advan-
tage.
Weaker is 7.Àd2?! Àc6 8.Àxc6 bxc6
9.b3 Ãe7 10.Ãb2 d5 11.f4 0-0 12.e5
Àd7, and the chances are equal, Geller-
Hübner, Teesside 1975.
7...Ãe7 8.Àc3 0-0 9.f4
Also possible is 9.Ãe3.
In the game Ljubojevic-Bellon Lopez,
Linares 1981, there followed 9...Àbd7
10.f4 Õe8 11.©f3 Ãf8 12.Õad1 ©c7
13.©h3 g6 14.Àf3 b6 15.©h4 Ãb7
16.Àg5!?, and White held the initiative.
9...Õe8 10.®h1 Àbd7 11.©e2
T_LdT_M_
_J_SlJjJ
J_.jJs._
_._._._.
._InIi._
_.nB_._.
Ii._Q_Ii
r.b._R_K
11...g6
Other continuations have also been seen:
11...Àf8 12.Àf3 À6d7 13.Ãd2 Àg6
14.©f2 b6 15.Õae1 Ãb7 16.a3 Õc8
17.b4 Õf8 18.Àe2 Àf6 19.Àg3 e5
20.fxe5 Àg4 21.©e2 À6xe5 22.Àxe5
Àxe5 with approximate equality, Rodri-
guez Cespedes-Darga, Buenos Aires
1978;
11...©c7 12.Ãd2 (after 12.Àf3 e5 13.f5
Àc5 14.Ãc2 b5 15.b4 Àcd7 16.Àd5
©d8 17.Ãd3 bxc4 18.Ãxc4 Ãb7
19.Àxe7+ Õxe7 and Black is no worse,
Kruszynski-Adamski, Warsaw 1981)
12...g6 13.Õae1 e5 14.Àc2 exf4
15.Ãxf4 ©d8 16.Àe3 Àh5 17.Àcd5
Àxf4 18.Àxe7+ Õxe7 19.Õxf4 Àb6
20.Õef1 Ãe6 21.©d2 Àd7 22.Àf5! with
Game 32 - 2002
advantage to White, Howell-S. Kovacevic,
Cannes 1995.
12.Ãd2!?
With such a development of the bishop,
White does not lose control of the strate-
gically important pawn on f4. On 12.b3,
possible is 12...Ãf8 13.Ãb2 e5! 14.Àc2
exf4 15.Õxf4 Àe5 16.Àe3 Ãg7 with
equality.
12...Ãf8 13.Õad1 Àh5
With risky play, Black tries to provoke his
opponent into some hasty action, but the
Ukrainian GM plays the game very artisti-
cally.
Also after 13...e5!? 14.Àf3 exf4 15.Ãxf4
Àc5 16.Ãg5 Ãg7 17.Ãb1 ©b6 18.b3
Àcd7 White’s chances are preferable.
14.Àf3!
Premature is 14.f5?! exf5 15.Àxf5 Àe5
16.Ãc2 Ãxf5 17.exf5 ©h4! 18.Ãe1
©xc4 19.©xc4 Àxc4
T_._TlM_
_J_._J_J
J_.j._J_
_._._I_S
._S_._._
_.n._._.
IiB_._Ii
_._RbR_K
analysis diagram
20.Ãb3! Àe3 21.fxg6 hxg6 22.Ãxf7+
®g7 23.Ãxe8 Õxe8 24.Ãf2 Àxf1
25.Õxf1 g5, and Black faces no threats.
14...b6 15.e5 Ãb7 16.Àg5 Àg7?!
Defending against the threat of
17.Àxh7, but now White occupies the
square e4 and obtains a positional ad-
vantage. Stronger is 16...©c7!? 17.Àxh7
dxe5 18.Àxf8 Õxf8 19.f5 exf5 20.Ãxf5
Àdf6 21.Ãc2 Õfe8 with a defensible
position.
99
 Vassily Ivanchuk

17.Ãe4 ©c7
T_.dTlM_
_._S_Js.
T_._TlM_ Jj.iJ_J_
_LdS_JsJ _._._.i.
Jj.jJ_J_ ._I_N_._
_._.i.n. _._._._Q
._I_Bi._ Ii.b._Ii
_.n._._. _._R_R_K
Ii.bQ_Ii
He threatens 23.Ãc3 followed by
_._R_R_K
24.Àf6+ or 24.Õxf7, whilst after
18.©f3! Ãxe4 19.Àcxe4 h6 22...Àf5 a possibility is 23.Ãc3 Ãg7
After 19...©xc4?! Black comes under at- 24.g4 Ãxc3 25.©xc3 Õc8 26.Õd3! with
tack, e.g. 20.Õc1 ©xa2 21.©h3! h5 an irresistible attack.
22.Õc7 d5 23.Àf6+! Àxf6 24.exf6 22...e5? 23.©xd7! 1-0
©xb2 25.Ãc3 ©b5 26.Õe1 d4 (or A decisive blow! On 23...©xd7 there fol-
26...e5 27.Õxf7 exf4 lows 24.Àf6+ ®h8 25.Àxd7, and the
two extra pawns guarantee White victory.

T_._TlM_ Game 33
_._._Rs. Ruy Lopez (C96)
Jj._.iJ_ í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Yuldashev,Saidali
_D_J_.nJ Hyderabad 2002
._._.j._ 1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.Ãb5 a6 4.Ãa4
_.b._._Q Àf6 5.0-0 Ãe7
._._._Ii Following the main line. The other possi-
_._.r._K bility is 5...Àxe4, going into the Open
analysis diagram Variation.
6.Õe1 b5 7.Ãb3 d6 8.c3
28.Õxg7+! Ãxg7 29.f7+ ®h8 White secures his bishop from exchange
30.Ãxg7+ ®xg7 31.©c3+ ®h6 and prepares d2-d4.
32.fxe8© Õxe8 33.Àe6, winning) 8...0-0 9.h3
27.Àxf7! dxc3 28.Àe5 Ãe7 29.f7+
®h7 30.©g3! g5 31.fxg5 Àf5 32.©f3 T_Ld.tM_
®g7 33.fxe8© ©xe8 34.Àc6 ©f8 _.j.lJjJ
35.Õxe6 c2 36.©c3+ ®g8 37.Õexe7! J_Sj.s._
c1©+ 38.©xc1, and Black is defence- _J_.j._.
less.
20.exd6 ©d8 21.©h3! hxg5
._._I_._
22.fxg5 _Bi._N_I
In sacrificing a pawn, White is hardly Ii.i.iI_
risking anything. rNbQr.k.

100

Prophylaxis. After the immediate 9.d4
there follows the typical move 9...Ãg4.
9...Àa5
This continuation, coupled with ...c7-c5,
characterises the Chigorin Variation.
The alternative is 9...Àb8 (the Breyer
Variation), e.g. 10.d4 Àbd7 11.Àbd2
Ãb7 12.Ãc2 Õe8 13.a4 Ãf8 14.Ãd3 c6
15.b3 g6 16.©c2 ©b6 17.Ãb2 Àh5
18.Ãf1 Àf4 19.Õad1 exd4 20.cxd4 d5
with a minimal advantage to White,
Ivanchuk-Kamsky, Nice 2009.
10.Ãc2 c5 11.d4 Àd7
After the popular 11...©c7 a good line is
12.Àbd2 Õd8 13.b3 Ãd7 14.Àf1 Àc6
15.d5 Àb8 16.a4, and White’s chances
are slightly better, Ivanchuk-Graf, Yucatan
2004.
Ivanchuk-El Tahir, Manila 1992, continued
11...cxd4 12.cxd4 Ãb7 13.Àc3 Õc8 14.d5
©c7 15.Õe2 Àh5 16.Ãd3 Àf4 17.Ãxf4
exf4 18.Õc2 ©b6 19.b3, and after
19...f5?!, White obtained the advantage.
12.b3 cxd4 13.cxd4 Àc6 14.Àc3
exd4 15.Àd5 Àde5 16.Àxd4 Àxd4
17.©xd4
T_Ld.tM_
_._.lJjJ
J_.j._._
_J_Ns._.
._.qI_._
_I_._._I
I_B_.iI_
r.b.r.k.
The players are following the game
Kasparov-Ponomariov, Moscow 2002,
which continued 17...Ãf6 18.®h1 Ãxh3
(it was worth considering 18...Õe8
19.Ãe3 Ãb7 20.Õac1 Õc8) 19.gxh3
©c8 20.Àxf6+ gxf6 21.Õg1+ ®h8
22.©e3 ©xc2 23.©f4 with the better
chances for White.
Game 33 - 2002
17...Ãxh3?!
Black decides to nick a pawn in comfort
(18.gxh3?? Àf3+), not appreciating that
now White’s pieces become very active.
18.f4 Àc6 19.©c3 Ãd7 20.Ãb2 f6
21.Õad1
White’s positional dominance is obvious.
T_.d.tM_
_._Ll.jJ
J_Sj.j._
_J_N_._.
._._Ii._
_Iq._._.
IbB_._I_
_._Rr.k.
The battery formed by the centrally-
placed rooks, the centralised knight, and
the two bishops, pointing together with
the queen at the black kingside, looks ex-
tremely powerful. White’s immediate
plan involves the advance e4-e5.
21...Õc8 22.©d3 Ãg4
The attempt to bring the bishop over to
defend the king fails: 22...Ãe8 23.e5
Ãg6 24.f5 Ãh5 25.exf6 Ãxf6
26.Àxf6+, and Black has to surrender the
exchange – 26...Õxf6 27.Ãxf6 ©xf6, be-
cause 26...gxf6 27.©g3+ ®h8 28.Õxd6
is hopeless.
23.Õd2 Õe8
Exploiting the fact that the d-pawn is in-
directly defended (24.Àxe7+? Àxe7,
and the queen cannot take on d6 because
the Ãc2 is undefended), Black prepares
to transfer the bishop to f8.
24.b4
White, in his turn, before launching his
storm frees the square b3 for his bishop.
24...Ãf8 25.e5 f5
Defending against the threat of
26.©xh7+.
26.e6 ©h4
101
 Vassily Ivanchuk

On 26...Àe7, strong is 27.Ãb3 h5 In the Queen’s Gambit Accepted, Black

28.Ãd4! Àxd5 29.Ãxd5 ®h7 30.©a3, prefers quick development to a battle to
transferring the attack to the queenside. hold the centre. He is not willing to de-
27.g3 ©h5 fend his central pawn, but instead, after
bringing his pieces out, plans a counter-
._T_TlM_ attack against the white centre with
_._._.jJ ...c7-c5.
J_SjI_._ 4.e3 e6 5.Ãxc4 a6
_J_N_J_D More often played is 5...c5 6.©e2 (avoid-
ing the possible queen exchange), e.g.
.i._.iL_ (by transposition) 6...b5 7.Ãd3 cxd4
_._Q_.i. 8.exd4 a6 9.0-0 Ãe7 10.Ãg5 Ãb7 11.a4
IbBr._._ bxa4 12.Àc3 Àc6 13.Õxa4 0-0 with
_._.r.k. slightly better chances for White,
28.e7! Lautier-Ivanchuk, Belgrade 1995.
With every move, White strengthens his 6.0-0 c5 7.dxc5 Ãxc5
position without apparent effort. Ope-
ning the central lines gives him a decisive
advantage. TsLdM_.t
28...Ãxe7 _J_._JjJ
On 28...Àxe7 29.Ãb3 ®h8 there follows J_._Js._
the effective 30.Àf6! gxf6 31.Ãxf6+ _.l._._.
Ãg7 32.Ãxg7+ ®xg7 33.©d4+ ®h6 ._B_._._
34.Õh2 winning. _._.iN_.
29.Àxe7+ Àxe7 30.©xd6 Àg6 Ii._.iIi
He is not saved by 30...Àc6 31.Õxe8+
©xe8 32.Ãb3+ ®h8 33.Ãe6 Ãf3
rNbQ_Rk.
34.©d7 ©xd7 35.Õxd7 Õg8 36.Ãxg8, 8.©e2
and White wins. The idea of this variation belongs to
31.Ãb3+ ®h8 32.Õe6! ©h3 grandmaster Semen Furman. White gen-
32...Õxe6 is bad because of 33.©xe6 Õf8 erally strives for the further advance of his
34.Õh2. e-pawn, to gain space.
33.©d7! 1-0 8...b5
On 33...Õg8 there follows 34.Ãxg7+. Immediately forcing the bishop to clarify
It is noteworthy that in the final position, its intentions. Admittedly, now Black
Black even has an extra pawn. must reckon with the advance a2-a4.
Another possibility is 8...©c7 9.Àbd2
2003 (more energetic is 9.e4) 9...Àc6 10.a3
Game 34 Ãd6 11.b4 0-0 12.Ãb2 Àg4 13.h3
Queen’s Gambit Accepted (D28) Àge5 14.Õac1 Ãd7 15.Õfd1 Õfd8
í Ivanchuk,Vassily 16.Àe4 Àxc4 17.©xc4 Ãe7 with ap-
n Ponomariov,Ruslan proximately equal chances, Nogueiras
Wijk aan Zee 2003 Santiago-Karpov, Belfort 1988.
1.Àf3 d5 2.d4 Àf6 3.c4 dxc4 9.Ãd3 Àc6

102
 Game 34 - 2003

ing) 16...©b7 17.Ãc3 0-0 chances were

equal.
Ruslan Ponomariov chooses another line,
of similar merit.
11...b4 12.Àbd2 Ãb7
Another classic game, Alekhine-Flohr,
Bled 1931, went 12...0-0 13.Àb3 Ãe7
14.e4 Àd7 15.Ãe3 Àde5?! (according to
Alekhine, a stronger line is 15...Ãb7
16.Õac1 ©b8) 16.Àxe5 Àxe5 17.Õac1
©b8 18.Ãc5! Ãxc5 19.Àxc5 ©b6
20.©h5! with advantage to White.
13.Àb3

Ruslan Ponomariov T_._M_.t

_Ld._JjJ
The most active continuation. J_S_Js._
Black prevents 10.e4, by threatening the _.l._._.
move 10...Àb4.
Weaker is 9...Àbd7 10.a4 bxa4 11.Õxa4
Ij._._._
0-0 12.Àc3 Ãe7 13.Õd1 ©b6 14.e4 _N_BiN_.
Àc5 15.e5, and White’s chances are pref- .i._QiIi
erable, Nogueiras Santiago-Thorhallsson, r.bR_.k.
Calvia 2004. 13...Àa5?!
9...Ãb7? is a mistake because of Black voluntarily presents his opponent
10.Ãxb5+!, and Black loses a pawn. with the advantage of the two bishops; at
10.Õd1 ©c7 the same time, the knight on the edge of
the board is not much of a replacement
for the bishop. More accurate was
T_L_M_.t 13...Ãd6 14.Ãd2 0-0 15.Õac1 Õfd8
_.d._JjJ 16.e4 Àg4 17.h3 Ãh2+ 18.®f1 Àge5
J_S_Js._ 19.Àxe5 Ãxe5 with approximate
_Jl._._. equality.
._._._._ 14.Àxc5 ©xc5 15.e4 Àb3 16.Õb1
_._BiN_.
Ii._QiIi T_._M_.t
rNbR_.k. _L_._JjJ
J_._Js._
11.a4 _.d._._.
In this well-known position, in the game
Botvinnik-Flohr, Leningrad 1933, Black
Ij._I_._
chose 11...bxa4, and after 12.Õxa4 Àb4 _S_B_N_.
13.Ãb5+ Ãd7 14.Ãxd7+ Àxd7 15.Ãd2 .i._QiIi
a5 16.Õc1 (16.©b5!? is worth consider- _RbR_.k.

103
 Vassily Ivanchuk
16...0-0
A necessity.
It turns out that after 16...Àxc1?!
17.Õbxc1 ©a5 (17...©h5 18.Õc7)
18.Àd2 0-0 19.Àc4 White has a clear
advantage, on account of the weakness of
the squares b6 and d6.
17.Ãe3 ©h5
No better is 17...©c6 18.Ãc2 Àc5 19.e5,
or 17...©e7 18.Ãc2 Àc5 19.Õbc1 Àg4
20.Ãd4 with pressure for White.
18.©c2 Àa5 19.Õbc1
Weaker is 19.©c5?! because of
19...©xc5 20.Ãxc5 Õfd8 21.Ãxb4
Õxd3! 22.Õxd3 Ãxe4 with equality.
19...Õad8
Based on an oversight, but even after
19...Õac8 20.©e2 Àxe4 21.Õxc8 Õxc8
22.Ãxa6 Àf6 Black faces a difficult de-
fence.
20.Ãb6 Õd6?
More defensive chances were offered by
20...Õc8 21.©e2 Àd7 22.Ãe3 Õxc1
23.Õxc1 Õd8, with advantage to White.
Now, however, Black loses the exchange,
and with it, the game:
._._.tM_
_L_._JjJ
Jb.tJs._
s._._._D
Ij._I_._
_._B_N_.
.iQ_.iIi
_.rR_.k.
21.©c5! ©xc5
On 21...Õxd3 there is the decisive
22.Õxd3 Ãxe4 23.©xh5 Àxh5 24.Õe3.
22.Ãxc5 Õd7 23.Àe5 Õdd8
24.Ãxb4 Àb3 25.Õc3 Õfe8
Or 25...Àd4 26.Ãxf8 ®xf8 27.Õc7,
winning.
104
26.Õxb3 Ãxe4 27.f3 Ãf5 28.Õd2
Õb8 29.Ãxa6
Black resigned.
This was the first meeting between the
two players after their battle for the FIDE
World Championship in Moscow (2002),
and Vassily Ivanchuk took a definite
moral revenge.
Game 35
Ruy Lopez (C78)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Hector,Jonny
Malmö 2003
1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.Ãb5 a6 4.Ãa4
Àf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Ãb3 Ãb7 7.d3 Ãc5
T_.dM_.t
_LjJ_JjJ
J_S_.s._
_Jl.j._.
._._I_._
_B_I_N_.
IiI_.iIi
rNbQ_Rk.
By a transposition, we have the Möller
Variation, in which Black tries to meet
White’s positional pressure with early
piece counterplay.
The bishop is more often brought to c5 a
move earlier, e.g.: 6...Ãc5 7.a4 Õb8 8.c3
0-0 9.d4 Ãb6 10.axb5 axb5 11.Àa3 d6
12.Àxb5 Ãg4 13.Ãc2 (or 13.Õe1 Ãxf3
14.gxf3 Àh5 15.®h1 ©f6 with chances
for both sides, Ivanchuk-Shirov, Wijk aan
Zee 2010) 13...d5!? 14.h3 Ãxf3
15.©xf3 exd4 16.Ãg5 dxc3 17.Àxc3
Àd4 18.©d3 h6 19.Ãxf6 ©xf6
20.Àxd5 ©e5, and Black has some
compensation for the sacrificed pawn,
Ivanchuk-Shirov, Foros 2006.
8.Ãe3!?
 Game 35 - 2003

An unusual continuation of an idea 19.h3! Ãxf3

which had been seen previously. White is
prepared, after the exchange of bishops,
to accept doubled pawns, but in so doing
to open the f-file, and, most importantly
of all, to make it hard for Black to become
active.
8...d6 9.Ãxc5
The most consequent. Now Black’s
queenside pawn structure is seriously
weakened. Not so good is 9.Àc3 because
of 9...Ãxe3 10.fxe3 Àa5!, and White
loses his valuable light-squared bishop,
Beliavsky-Murey, Graz 1996.
9...dxc5 10.c3 0-0 11.©e2 ©d6
12.Àbd2 Õad8
A few days later, at the same event, Hector
tried 12...Àe7, but was unsuccessful,
McShane-Hector, Malmö 2003.
13.Ãc2 Ãc8 14.Õfe1 Àe7 15.a4!
Starting to soften up the enemy queen-
side, whilst waiting for the right moment
to seize the a-file.
15...Àg6 16.g3 Àh5
Since neither ...f7-f5, nor the knight sac-
rifice on f4 works, Black only loses time
with this pseudo-activity.
More accurate is 16...Ãe6 17.axb5 axb5
18.Õa5 c6 19.Õea1 h5!? 20.Õa7 h4
21.®g2 Õfe8 with counterplay.
17.©e3! Ãg4 18.©g5 ©e6?!
This allows White to force a favourable
exchange of Black’s light-squared bishop,
by tactical means. Better is 18...Àf6.
._.t.tM_
_.j._JjJ
J_._D_S_
_Jj.j.qS
I_._I_L_
_.iI_Ni.
.iBn.i.i
r._.r.k.
Not 19...Àgf4? 20.gxf4 (20.©xg4??
Àxh3+) 20...Àxf4 21.©xe5 Àxh3+
22.®f1! ©h6 23.©h2, and White keeps
the extra piece.
20.Àxf3 Àf6
On 20...©xh3?!, strong is 21.©f5! ©xf5
22.exf5 Àe7 23.Õxe5 with the better
game for White.
21.®h2 Àd7 22.©e3 Àe7 23.Àd2
®h8 24.©e2 Õb8 25.h4 Àc8
26.Àf3 Àd6
Now White carries out the break-
through on the a-file in a more effective
way, because the knight blocks its
queen’s path to the queenside. However,
opening the game by means of 26...b4
27.d4 a5 28.dxe5 bxc3 29.bxc3 Àxe5
30.Àxe5 ©xe5 gives White the better
prospects.
27.axb5 axb5 28.Õa6! h6 29.®g1
Õa8 30.Õea1 Õxa6 31.Õxa6 Õb8
32.©d1
Transferring the queen to the open lines.
32...©e8 33.Õa7 Õb7 34.Õxb7
Àxb7 35.©a1 Àd6 36.©a6 Àb6
37.®g2 g6 38.©a3 Àd7
._._D_.m
_.jS_J_.
._.s._Jj
_Jj.j._.
._._I_.i
q.iI_Ni.
.iB_.iK_
_._._._.
39.Ãb3!
Gradually, step by step, White strengthens
his position.
The threat is Ãb3-d5-c6.
39...c4

105
 Vassily Ivanchuk
A small, but significant inaccuracy. After
the exchange, the doubled c-pawns will
be in need of defence.
It was worth considering 39...©c8 with
the idea of meeting 40.Ãd5 with 40...c6.
40.dxc4 Àxc4?
And this is a direct mistake, leading to the
loss of a pawn. It was essential to play
40...bxc4 (40...Àxe4?! 41.cxb5) 41.Ãa4
f6 42.Ãc6 ©d8 43.Àd2 ®g7 44.Àf1
Àb6 45.Àe3 ©b8 with a passive, but de-
fensible position.
41.Ãxc4 bxc4 42.©a5!
Preventing the knight from defending the
c4-pawn from the square b6.
42...c5 43.Àd2 ©e6
._._._.m
_._S_J_.
._._D_Jj
q.j.j._.
._J_I_.i
_.i._.i.
.i.n.iK_
_._._._.
44.©a4!
More accurate than 44.©b5?! ©d6!
45.Àxc4 ©d3 46.Àa3 ©xe4+ 47.f3
©d5, and Black equalises.
44...f5
If 44...Àb6, then 45.©b5 ®g7
46.©xc5.
45.Àxc4 f4
No chances are offered by 45...fxe4?
46.©a8+ ®g7 47.©xe4 Àf6 48.©b7+
©d7 49.©xd7+ Àxd7 50.b3, with an
extra pawn in the knight ending.
46.©a8+ ®g7 47.©d5 ©e7 48.g4
Not allowing Black any counterplay at all.
48...®f8 49.®h3 ®g7 50.f3 ®f6
51.®g2 ®g7 52.®f1 ®f8 53.®e2
®e8 54.Àd6+ ®d8
106
On the queenside, the black king is vul-
nerable, but otherwise, White wins easily
by creating a passed b-pawn.
55.©a8+ ®c7 56.Àb5+ ®b6 57.c4
Àf6 58.©b8+ ®a5
He does not save himself by 58...©b7
(58...®a6 59.Àc7+; 58...®c6 59.Àa7+
®d7 60.©c8+ ®d6 61.©c6#)
59.©d8+ ®a6 60.©xf6+.
.q._._._
_._.d._.
._._.sJj
mNj.j._.
._I_IjIi
_._._I_.
.i._K_._
_._._._.
59.Àd4!
Effective and striking!
On 59...©d7 there follows 60.Àb3+
®a4 61.Àxc5+ ®a5 62.b4#.
Black resigned.
Game 36
Ruy Lopez (C66)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Alexeev,Evgeny
Istanbul 2003
1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.Ãb5 Àf6 4.d3
White avoids the main line of the Berlin
Defence, shifting play into a manoeuv-
ring battle. On 4.0-0 there is 4...Àxe4
(the Steinitz Defence results from 4...Ãe7
5.Õe1 d6 6.d4 exd4 7.Àxd4 Ãd7 8.Ãf1
0-0 9.Àc3 Àxd4 10.©xd4 Ãc6 with the
better chances for White, Ivanchuk-
Portisch, Manila 1990) 5.d4 Àd6 6.Ãxc6
dxc6 7.dxe5 Àf5 8.©xd8+ ®xd8 9.Àc3
®e8 10.h3 b6 11.Õe1 Ãb4 12.Ãd2 Ãe6
13.g4 Àe7, and Black is not worse,
Anand-Ivanchuk, Linares 2009.

T_LdMl.t
jJjJ_JjJ
._S_.s._
_B_.j._.
._._I_._
_._I_N_.
IiI_.iIi
rNbQk._R
4...d6
In the game Sutovsky-Ivanchuk,
Heraklion 2007, Black chose 4...Ãc5 and
after 5.Ãxc6 (or 5.Àxe5 Àxe4 6.©e2
Àxe5 7.©xe4 ©e7 8.d4 Àc6 9.©g4 h5
10.©xg7 Ãxd4 11.©g3 a6 12.Ãc4 h4
13.©f4 d6 with sharp play and mutual
chances, Svidler-Ivanchuk, Moscow
2009) 5...dxc6 6.Ãe3 Ãxe3 7.fxe3 Ãg4
8.h3 Ãxf3 9.©xf3 Àd7 10.Àc3 ©h4+
11.®d2 ©e7 12.Õaf1 f6 13.g4 0-0-0
and obtained equal chances.
5.0-0 Ãe7 6.Õe1 0-0 7.c3 Ãd7
8.Àbd2 Õe8 9.Àf1 Ãf8 10.Ãg5 h6
Practice has also seen 10...Àe7?!.
White does best to continue 11.Ãc4 b5
12.Ãb3 Àg6 13.a4 h6 14.Ãxf6 ©xf6
15.axb5 Ãxb5 with chances of obtaining
an opening advantage.
Weaker is 11.Ãxf6 Ãxb5 12.Ãg5 ©d7
13.Àg3 f6 14.Ãe3 ®h8 15.d4 ©e6 16.a4
Ãd7 17.d5 ©f7 with a good game for
Black, Marta-Spano Cuomo, Palocco 1998.
11.Ãh4 Ãe7 12.a4
T_.dT_M_
jJjLlJj.
._Sj.s.j
_B_.j._.
I_._I_.b
_.iI_N_.
.i._.iIi
r._QrNk.
Game 36 - 2003
Although objectively White cannot pre-
tend to an advantage, Ivanchuk is happy
to play such positions. His subtle posi-
tional understanding allows him to ex-
ploit even the smallest error from the op-
ponent.
12.Àe3 was played in Browne-Keres,
Vancouver 1975, Keres’ last tournament
game.
12...Àh7
Also good is 12...Àh5, forcing White to
exchange – 13.Ãxe7 ©xe7 14.Àe3 Àf4
with roughly equal chances.
13.Ãg3 Ãg4 14.h3 Ãh5 15.À1h2
a6
It is worth considering 15...Àg5 16.Àg4
Ãxg4 17.hxg4 a6 18.Ãc4 ©d7 19.Àh4
Àe6 20.Àf5 Ãg5, maintaining the bal-
ance.
16.Ãc4 ©c8 17.©c2 ®h8
More accurate is 17...Ãf6 18.Àh4 Àe7.
18.Àh4 Ãg5 19.f3 ©d8
Despite the fact that Black has not played
badly, the picture is gradually changing,
because White’s pieces are just that bit
better placed.
20.©f2 Ãf4 21.Àf5 Ãg6 22.Àe3
Ãxg3
On 22...Ãxe3 a good reply is 23.Õxe3
©d7 24.f4 Àa5 25.Ãa2 exf4 26.Ãxf4
©xa4 27.Àf3 ©d7 28.Àh4 with the ini-
tiative.
23.©xg3 Àf6
T_.dT_.m
_Jj._Jj.
J_Sj.sLj
_._.j._.
I_B_I_._
_.iInIqI
.i._._In
r._.r.k.
107
 Vassily Ivanchuk

24.©f2 White’s pressure brings definite gains. On

White’s task consists in developing play
on the kingside, without allowing the op-
ponent’s counterblow in the centre with
d6-d5.
24...Àh5 25.g3 Õf8 26.®h1 ©d7
27.h4 Àe7
Black strengthens control over the square
d5.
28.Àg2 Ãh7
Bad is 28...©h3? because of 29.g4 Àg3+
30.®g1 Õae8 31.f4 exf4 32.Àxf4 ©xh4
33.Àg2 ©h3 34.Õe3, winning.
29.Ãb3 ©c6 30.g4 Àf6
After 30...Àf4 31.Àxf4 exf4 32.Àf1 d5
33.Àd2 Õad8 34.d4 dxe4 35.fxe4 g5
36.Àf3!, White’s chances are preferable,
although the ensuing battle would be
more complicated.
31.a5 ©d7 32.d4
The main drawback of Black’s position is
the cramped position of the bishop on
h7, so White can create activity in the
centre and on the queenside, where his
bishop has no opponent.
32...Àc6
He should have considered the move
32...©b5!? 33.Õa3 Õad8 34.Àe3 exd4
35.cxd4 d5 36.e5 Àfg8, going onto the
defensive.
33.Àf1 h5 34.g5 Àg8 35.Ãa4
©h3+ 36.Àh2 f6
T_._.tSm
_Jj._.jL
J_Sj.j._
i._.j.iJ
B_.iI_.i
_.i._I_D
.i._.qNn
r._.r._K
37.f4! ©c8
37...fxg5 the reply 38.f5?! is dubious be-
cause of 38...Àf6! 39.hxg5 (39.Õe3?
Àg4) 39...Àg4 40.©h4 Àxa5! with mu-
tual chances, but after 38.hxg5! there is
nothing better than 38...exf4 (or
38...Àce7 39.f5±) 39.Àxf4 ©e6!
40.©e3 ©f7 41.Õf1 ©e7 42.g6 Õxf4
43.©xf4 Ãxg6 44.Ãxc6 bxc6 45.e5
with advantage to White.
38.©g3 Àge7 39.Ãxc6 bxc6
On 39...Àxc6? the reply 40.g6 decides,
whilst 40...Ãg8 is impossible because of
41.©f3.
40.f5! Ãxf5
Black is forced to give up a piece, since af-
ter 40...fxg5 41.hxg5 exd4 42.g6 Ãg8
43.Àh4, he is completely tied up.
41.exf5 Àxf5 42.©f3 g6 43.gxf6
exd4 44.Àf4 Õxf6 45.Õg1 ®h7
T_D_._._
_.j._._M
J_Jj.tJ_
i._._S_J
._.j.n.i
_.i._Q_.
.i._._.n
r._._.rK
46.Àxg6!
The counter-sacrifice of the knight is the
simplest and quickest way to win. White
decides matters with a direct attack on the
king.
46...Õxg6 47.Õxg6 ®xg6 48.Õg1+
®f6
Or 48...®h6? 49.Õg5.
49.©xh5 c5 50.Õg5 dxc3
On 50...Àe7 there follows 51.©h6+
®f7 52.Õg7+ ®e8 53.©h5+ ®d8 (or
53...®d7 54.©g4+ ®d8 55.©e4!)
54.©f3 ®d7 55.©f5+ ®c6 56.©e4+
®b5 57.Õxe7, winning.

108
 Game 37 - 2003

51.Àg4+ ®e6 52.Õxf5 ©e8 ever, 7...a6!? gives Black sufficient

53.Õf6+ ®d7 54.©f5+ ®c6 counterplay, it would seem.
55.Àe5+ At one time 7.Àd5 was popular, striving
Playing for mate. to avoid a loss of time with the retreat of
55...®b5 56.Õe6 ©h8 57.©d3+ the knight from b5. But after 7...Àxd5
®xa5 58.©xc3+ ®a4 59.©a3+ 8.exd5 the pawn on d6 is no longer a
Black resigned. weakness and Black obtains the possibil-
ity of a pawn offensive on the kingside.
Game 37 The game Ivanchuk-Babula (Bled 2002)
Sicilian Defence (B33) continued 8...Àb8 9.c4 Ãe7 10.Ãd3 a6
í Ivanchuk,Vassily 11.Àc3 0-0 12.0-0 f5 13.f3 Àd7
n Van Wely,Loek 14.®h1 Ãg5 15.b4 Ãxc1 16.Õxc1 b6
Rethymnon 2003 with slightly the better chances for
1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.d4 cxd4 White.
4.Àxd4 Àf6 5.Àc3 e5 6.Àdb5 7...a6 8.Àa3
The main line of the Cheliabinsk Varia- The hasty 8.Ãxf6 gxf6 9.Àa3 is more
tion. convenient for Black.
The extremely ‘accurate’ move 6.Àb3 8...b5 9.Ãxf6
does not lead to any advantage after The other option is 9.Àd5, e.g. 9...Ãe7
6...Ãb4 7.Ãc4 Àxe4 8.0-0 Àxc3 9.bxc3 10.Ãxf6 Ãxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Àc2 Ãg5
Ãxc3 10.©f3 d5 with equality. 13.Ãe2 Àe7 14.Àcb4 a5 15.Àxe7+
Bronstein suggested 6.Àf5!?. In this case, ©xe7 16.Àd5 ©b7 17.©d3 Õb8 18.0-0
the energetic 6...d5!? 7.exd5 Ãxf5 Ãe6 19.Õad1 h6 20.a3 Õfc8 21.g3 Õc5
8.dxc6 bxc6!? 9.©f3 ©d7 10.Ãg5 e4 22.h4 Ãd8 with mutual chances,
gives Black at least equal chances. Almasi-Ivanchuk, Roquebrune 2003.
6...d6 9...gxf6 10.Àd5 f5
Weaker is 6...h6 7.Àd6+ Ãxd6 8.©xd6 10...Ãg7 is also possible, e.g. 11.Ãd3
©e7 9.©xe7+ ®xe7 10.Ãe3 d6 11.f3 Àe7 12.Àe3 Ãe6 13.c4 ©a5+ 14.©d2
Ãe6 12.0-0-0 with advantage for White. ©xd2+ 15.®xd2 b4 (15...bxc4!?)
16.Àac2 a5 17.b3 ®d7 18.a3, and
White’s chances are slightly better, B.
T_LdMl.t Savchenko-Zaslavsky, Bansko 2010 (see
jJ_._JjJ also Game 15).
._Sj.s._
_N_.j._.
._._I_._ T_LdMl.t
_.n._._. _._._J_J
IiI_.iIi J_Sj._._
r.bQkB_R _J_NjJ_.
._._I_._
7.Ãg5 n._._._.
In his time, Carl Schlechter suggested IiI_.iIi
7.a4, cutting off the advance ...b7-b5 at
r._QkB_R
the roots and preparing to seize d5. How-

109
 Vassily Ivanchuk
Loek van Wely
11.g3
An interesting piece of preparation from
the Latvian player Zigurds Lanka.
In the battle for the light squares and the
blockade of the centre, White fianchet-
toes his bishop, temporarily sacrificing a
pawn.
Another positional decision involves de-
veloping the bishop to d3: 11.Ãd3 Ãe6
12.0-0 Ãxd5 13.exd5 Àe7 14.Õe1 Ãg7
15.c3 (or 15.Õb1 0-0 16.c4, Anand-Van
Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2005) 15...0-0
16.©h5 e4 17.Ãf1 Õe8, with mutual
chances, Lutz-Krasenkow, Calvia 2004.
In the event of 11.©d3 Ãg7 Black is
ready to part with a pawn, in order to be-
come active in the centre; after 12.exf5
0-0 13.©e4 Àd4 14.g4 Ãb7 15.Ãd3
Ãxd5 16.©xd5 ©g5, his game is not
worse.
Yet another continuation is 11.exf5 Ãxf5
12.c3 Ãg7 13.Àc2 Ãe6 14.Àce3 Àe7
15.g3 Àxd5 16.Àxd5 0-0 17.Ãg2 ®h8
18.0-0 a5 19.©e2 Õb8 with approxi-
mately equal chances.
11...fxe4 12.Ãg2 Ãg7
110
More often seen is 12...Ãe6 13.Ãxe4
Ãg7 14.©h5! Õc8 15.c3 Àe7 16.Õd1
Õc5 17.Àb4 ©b6 18.©g5 ®f8, whilst if
he defends the pawn with 12...Ãf5, he
must reckon with the break 13.f3!, lead-
ing to double-edged play: 13...e3 14.f4
Õc8 15.0-0 Àd4 16.fxe5 dxe5 17.Àxe3
Ãg6 18.c3 Àe6 19.Àd5 Ãg7 20.©e2
0-0, Suarez-Real-Stross, Internet blitz
2003.
13.Ãxe4 Õb8!?
Black avoids the main line 13...Ãe6.
14.©h5 Àe7
A roughly equal game results from
14...Ãe6 15.Õd1 Àe7 16.c3 Àxd5
17.Ãxd5 0-0, Stolz-Kalinitschew, Ger-
many Bundesliga B 1991/92.
.tLdM_.t
_._.sJlJ
J_.j._._
_J_Nj._Q
._._B_._
n._._.i.
IiI_.i.i
r._.k._R
15.Àxe7!?
A new idea. Before this, White usually
played 15.Õd1 Àxd5 16.Ãxd5 0-0, en-
suring the bishop the square d5.
Ivanchuk keeps the bishop on the b1-h7
diagonal for now, where it prevents Black
castling.
15...©xe7 16.c3 Ãe6 17.Õd1 ©d7
Since control of d5 has been weakened,
Black regroups, intending to solve his
opening problems with the advance
...d6-d5.
On 17...Ãxa2?! a possible line is 18.Àc2
Ãb3 19.Õd2, and Black, in order to pre-
vent 20.Àe3 with a grip on the light

squares, must after 19...d5!? (dubious is
19...Ãxc2?! 20.Ãxc2, and the light-
squared bishop has no opponent)
20.Ãxd5 Ãxd5 21.Õxd5 settle for the in-
ferior position.
.t._M_.t
_._D_JlJ
J_.jL_._
_J_.j._Q
._._B_._
n.i._.i.
Ii._.i.i
_._Rk._R
18.0-0!
A brilliant decision!
Realising that Black’s light-squared
bishop is absolutely vital for him, White
offers to exchange it for a rook.
18...h6?
Later, Van Wely regretted not taking the
exchange.
After 18...Ãg4 19.©g5 (less good is
19.©h4 Ãxd1 20.Õxd1 h5 21.h3 Õh6,
and Black’s chances are slightly prefera-
ble) 19...f6 20.©h4 Ãxd1 21.Õxd1 h5
22.Àc2 f5 23.Ãd5 f4 24.Àb4 ®f8
25.Àxa6 Õc8, a complicated battle en-
sues, with slightly better chances for
White.
After the move played, the white knight
manages to transfer via c2 and e3, and
thence to d5, which significantly reduces
the activity of Black’s pieces.
Stronger was 18...b4!? 19.Àc2 bxc3
20.bxc3 Ãg4 21.©g5 0-0! 22.Õb1 Ãh3
23.©h4 h6 24.Õfd1 Õxb1 25.Õxb1 d5
with mutual chances.
19.Àc2 0-0
Here after 19...Ãg4 20.©h4 Ãxd1
21.Õxd1, White has a strong initiative,
since 21...f5? 22.©h3! is bad for Black.
Game 37 - 2003
20.Àe3 f5 21.Ãd5 ®h8 22.Ãxe6
©xe6 23.Àd5 f4
Another consequence of Black’s unfortu-
nate 18th move: because of the weakness
of the g6-square, he cannot play ...e5-e4,
after which there would follow Àd5-f4.
In addition, this square is out of bounds
for the black queen.
24.Õd2
White has simple ways to strengthen his
position, whilst Black needs to come up
with something to do, otherwise he will
gradually be squeezed.
24...Õf5 25.©e2
.t._._.m
_._._.l.
J_.jD_.j
_J_NjT_.
._._.j._
_.i._.i.
Ii.rQi.i
_._._Rk.
25...fxg3
After the tempting 25...f3, White has
26.©e4 Õbf8 27.Àe3! (but not
27.Õfd1?! Õh5 28.h4 ©h3 29.Àe3 Õf4!
30.gxf4 Õxh4, and White has to give per-
petual check: 31.©a8+ ®h7 32.©e4+
®g8 33.©d5+) 27...Õh5 28.©g4 with
the advantage.
26.hxg3 e4
It is worth considering 26...h5 27.Àe3
Õg5 28.Õfd1 Õd8 29.Àg2 Ãf8, al-
though here too, White has the better
game.
27.Õfd1 Õbf8?!
Black’s attempt to organise counterplay
on the f-file is easily parried, and
27...Õg5 was stronger.
28.f4! ©g6?
111
 Vassily Ivanchuk

Black loses patience! Game 38

This desperate counterattack leads to Nimzo-Indian Defence (E39)
deadly consequences, whereas it was pos- í Bareev,Evgeny
sible to hold the position after 28...Õg8 n Ivanchuk,Vassily
29.®h2 Ãf8. Rethymnon 2003
1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 e6 3.Àc3 Ãb4 4.©c2
c5 5.dxc5 0-0 6.a3 Ãxc5 7.Àf3 b6
._._.t.m 8.Ãf4
_._._.l. Regarding 8.Ãg5 and the previous move,
see Game 25.
J_.j._Dj 8...Ãb7
_J_N_T_. At the same European Club Cup, a game
._._Ji._ was played which sharply reduced the
_.i._.i. popularity of the move 8...Àh5: 9.Ãg5
Ii.rQ_._ Ãe7 10.h4!? Ãb7 11.0-0-0 Àc6 12.e4!
_._R_.k. Àf6 13.e5 Àg4 14.Ãf4 Õc8 15.®b1 f5!?
16.exf6 Àxf6 17.Àg5 ©e8 18.Àb5 e5
29.©xe4! ©xg3+ 30.Õg2 ©h3 19.Ãd3!? e4!? 20.Ãe2 h6 21.Àd6 Ãxd6
Nothing changes after 30...©h4 31.Àe7. 22.Ãxd6 hxg5? (defensive chances could
31.Àe7 have been retained by 22...Àe7) 23.hxg5
Black suffers disaster on the g6-square! Àh7
31...Õh5 32.Àg6+ ®g8 33.Àxf8
©h1+ 34.®f2 ©xd1 ._T_DtM_
jL_J_.jS
.jSb._._
._._.nM_ _._._.i.
_._._.l. ._I_J_._
J_.j._.j i._._._.
_J_._._T .iQ_BiI_
._._Qi._ _K_R_._R
_.i._._. analysis diagram
Ii._.kR_ 24.Õxh7! ®xh7 25.Ãxf8 ©xf8
_._D_._. 26.©xe4+ ®g8 27.©d5+, and Black re-
signed, Kasparov-Chuchelov, Rethymnon
35.©h7+! 2003.
Forces a mating attack. 9.Õd1 Àc6
35...®xf8 36.©xg7+ ®e8 37.©g8+ An interesting continuation, containing
®d7 38.Õg7+ ®c6 39.©a8+ ®b6 an original idea.
40.©b7+ On 9...Ãxf3 possible is 10.exf3 Àc6
On 40...®a5 (40...®c5 41.Õc7 mate) 11.Ãd3 Àh5 12.Ãe3 f5 13.0-0 Õc8
there follows 41.b4+ ®a4 42.©xa6 14.f4 g5 15.b4 gxf4 16.Ãc1 with the
mate. better chances for White, Ivanchuk-
Black resigned. Zviagintsev, Elista 1998.

112

10.e4
T_.d.tM_
jL_J_JjJ
.jS_Js._
_.l._._.
._I_Ib._
i.n._N_.
.iQ_.iIi
_._RkB_R
10...Àe7!?
The knight transfers to the kingside,
whilst after 11.b4 there is 11...Àg6!, and
the black bishop can return to e7.
It is noteworthy that, in subsequent
games, Bareev did not allow such a knight
transfer: 10.b4!? Ãe7 11.e4 Õc8 12.e5
Àh5 13.Ãe3 ©c7 14.Àb5 ©b8 15.Àd6
Ãxd6 16.exd6 f5 17.Ãe2 Àf6 18.0-0
Àd8 19.Àe5 Àf7 20.Àxf7 Õxf7 with
the better game for White, Bareev-
Korotylev, Moscow 2004.
11.h3
White wants to preserve his bishop.
After 11.Ãe2 Àg6 12.Ãg3 (weaker is
12.Ãc1 a6 13.0-0 ©c7 14.Àd4 Õac8
15.®h1 Õfe8 16.f4?! Ãxd4 17.Õxd4 e5!
18.fxe5 ©xe5 with the better game for
Black Krush-Serper, Seattle 2003)
12...Àh5 13.©d2 (no advantage is given
by 13.Ãd6 Ãxd6 14.Õxd6 ©e7)
13...Àxg3 (or 13...Ãc6 14.Àd4 Àxg3
15.hxg3 ©f6 16.b4 Ãxd4 17.©xd4
©xd4 18.Õxd4 with equality, S. Ivanov-
Serper, Azov 1991) 14.hxg3 Ãc6 15.Õh5
©b8 16.®f1 Õd8, the chances are equal,
Suba-Grünberg, Sochi 1983.
11...Àg6 12.Ãh2 Àh5
Taking aim at the square f4.
13.©d2 Àf6
A silent draw offer.
It seems that Ivanchuk’s peaceableness is
explained by the specifics of team com-
Game 38 - 2003
petition, which requires leaders, who can
guarantee results.
It was worth considering 13...f5!?
14.exf5 Ãxf3 15.gxf3 Àh4 16.Ãe2 ©f6
17.©d3 Àg2+ 18.®d2 Àhf4 19.Ãxf4
Àxf4 20.©e4 ©h6 21.®c2 Õae8
22.®b1 exf5 with convenient play for
Black, Harikrishna-Macieja, Bermuda
2005.
14.©c2 Àh5 15.©d2 Àf6 16.b4
White turns down the peace offer.
Also not bad is 16.e5 (on 16.Ãd3?! Black
equalises with the move 16...d5!)
16...Àe4 (but not 16...Ãxf3? 17.gxf3
Àh5 18.b4 Ãe7 19.f4!, and White ob-
tains the advantage) 17.Àxe4 Ãxe4
18.Ãe2 (dubious is 18.©xd7?! Ãxf3
19.gxf3 ©h4 20.Ãg3 ©h5 with the ini-
tiative for Black) 18...a5 with mutual
chances.
16...Ãe7 17.Ãd3
On 17.e5 possible was 17...Àe4
18.Àxe4 Ãxe4 19.Ãe2 (19.©xd7?! a5)
19...a5 20.0-0 axb4 21.axb4 ©c7, and
Black achieves fully adequate play.
T_.d.tM_
jL_JlJjJ
.j._JsS_
_._._._.
.iI_I_._
i.nB_N_I
._.q.iIb
_._Rk._R
17...a5!
Black is fully mobilised and ready for ac-
tive operations.
18.©b2
The alternative is 18.bxa5!? (on 18.e5? a
strong reply is 18...axb4 19.axb4 Ãxb4!
20.©b2 (20.Ãxg6? fxg6 21.exf6 Ãxf3
22.fxg7 Ãxd1 23.gxf8©+ ©xf8 24.0-0
113
 Vassily Ivanchuk
Ãb3î) 20...Ãxc3+ 21.©xc3 Àe4
with advantage to Black) 18...Õxa5 19.e5
Àh5 20.Ãe2 Ãxa3 21.Àb5 with com-
pensation for the pawn.
18...Àh5 19.0-0 Àhf4
The black knight has reached its destina-
tion.
20.Õfe1
White waits to see what his opponent
will do. It was hardly good to play
20.Àe5?! Ãd6 21.Àxg6 fxg6! 22.Ãb1
Ãe5, and Black’s chances are superior.
20...axb4 21.axb4 f5!
Including the bishop on b7 in the game.
22.Àd4?
He could maintain the tension with
22.Õe3!?, not allowing Black to exchange
knight for bishop, since 22...Àxd3?
23.Õexd3 d6 24.exf5 Õxf5 25.Àd4 Õf6
26.Àdb5 e5 27.Àd5 leads to White’s ad-
vantage.
However, after 22...©c8 23.Ãc2 Ãf6
Black’s position still deserves preference.
22...Àxd3 23.Õxd3 ©c8
Defending against the threat of 24.Àxe6.
24.Àdb5
24.exf5 is bad because of 24...©xc4,
whilst after 24.©b3?, Black has the unex-
pected tactical decision 24...fxe4
25.Àxe4 Ãxe4 26.Õxe4
T_D_.tM_
_._Jl.jJ
.j._J_S_
_._._._.
.iInR_._
_Q_R_._I
._._.iIb
_._._.k.
analysis diagram
26...©xc4! 27.©xc4 Õa1+ 28.Õd1
Õxd1+ 29.©f1 Õxf1+ 30.®xf1 Õc8
114
(30...Ãxb4? 31.Àxe6) with advantage to
Black.
24...fxe4 25.Àd6
Not 25.Àxe4? because of 25...©xc4.
T_D_.tM_
_L_Jl.jJ
.j.nJ_S_
_._._._.
.iI_J_._
_.nR_._I
.q._.iIb
_._.r.k.
25...exd3!!
A deeply thought-out and accurately cal-
culated queen sacrifice, which gives Black
good winning chances! Less convincing
is 25...Ãxd6 26.Õxd6 e3! 27.fxe3 ©xc4
28.Õed1 (28.Õxd7? ©c6) 28...e5 with a
minimal advantage to Black.
26.Àxc8 Õaxc8 27.©d2
White cannot defend all his weaknesses at
once.
On 27.©b3 possible is 27...Àf4 28.Õa1
Ãh4!? 29.Ãxf4 Õxf4 30.Àd1 Õcxc4
31.©xd3 Õfd4 32.©a3 Õxb4, and Black
obtains the advantage.
27...Ãxb4 28.©xd3 Àh4!
The strongest continuation.
After 28...Ãa6 29.Ãd6 Ãxc4 30.©g3
Ãxc3 31.©xc3 Õf5 both sides have
chances.
29.Õb1
Other replies also fail to offer White a sat-
isfactory defence. Bad is 29.f3? Àxf3+!
30.gxf3 Õxf3, when after 31.©xd7? –
31...Ãc5+ 32.®g2 Õf2+ 33.®g3 Õg2+
34.®f4 Õf8+ 35.®e5 Õg5+ 36.®xe6
Õf6 mate, and in the event of 29.Õc1 a
strong reply is 29...Ãxg2! 30.Àa2 (or
30.Ãg3 Ãc6! 31.Ãxh4 Õf3 32.©f1
Ãxc3î) 30...Ãc5! 31.Ãg3
 Game 39 - 2003

Or 34.®g2 Àd2+ 35.®g1 e5!? 36.©a2

._T_.tM_ (36.Ãxe5 Àf3+) 36...Õa8 with a deci-
_._J_.jJ sive advantage.
.j._J_._ 34...Àd2+ 35.®g1
_.l._._. He is not saved by 35.®e1 (35.®e2 Õc2)
._I_._.s 35...Õc2 36.Õb8 Õxb8 37.Ãxb8 Àf3+
_._Q_.bI 38.®f1 d5î.
N_._.iL_ 35...Õcc8!?
Preventing the exchange of rooks.
_.r._.k.
Also good is 35...e5!?, following the
analysis diagram
same line as indicated above.
31...Ãc6!! 32.Ãxh4 Õf3 33.©f1 Õa8! 36.Õb4 h5 37.h4 Õf3
34.Õa1 (34.Àc3 Õa3 35.®h2 Ãd6+ Black builds a mating net.
36.®g1 Õfxc3 37.Õxc3 Õxc3î) 38.©b2 Õc2
34...Õfa3 35.®h2 Ãd6+ 36.®g1 Õxa2
37.Õxa2 Õxa2 with a clear advantage.
29...Ãxc3 30.©xc3 Ãxg2 31.Ãg3
._._._M_
Not 31.©g3? Õxc4. _._J_.j.
31...Ãe4 ._._J_._
An important zwischenzug. _._._._J
32.Õxb6 .r._L_.i
Not much better is 32.Õd1 Àf3+ 33.®f1 _._._Tb.
Ãd5! 34.©b2 Ãxc4+ 35.®g2 Ãd5ç. .qTs.i._
_._._.k.
._T_.tM_ 39.Õb8+
_._J_.jJ After 39.©a1? the ‘mine’ explodes –
39...Õxg3+! 40.fxg3 Àf3+ 41.®f1 Ãd3
.r._J_._ mate.
_._._._. 39...®h7 40.©b5 Õc1+ 41.®h2 Õf5
._I_L_.s The last subtlety. To avoid mate on h1,
_.q._.bI White must give up the queen.
._._.i._ White resigned.
_._._.k.
32...Õxc4! Game 39
Ivanchuk conducts the whole game at the English Opening (A18)
peak of his creative strength! Probably, af- í Ivanchuk,Vassily
ter this move, his teammates watching n Nielsen,Peter Heine
the game will have breathed a sigh of re- Skanderborg 2003
lief – the result is guaranteed! 1.c4 Àf6 2.Àc3 e6 3.e4
White loses after 33.©xc4? Àf3+ The Mikenas System is the sharpest line in
34.®g2 Àd2+ 35.©xe4 Àxe4. the English Opening. He we do not get
33.©a3 Àf3+ 34.®f1 the closed set-ups characteristic of the

115
 Vassily Ivanchuk
opening, but play takes on a dynamic
character.
White threatens the further advance of
the e-pawn, and on 3...d6 or 3...e5 the
move 4.f4! is strong.
TsLdMl.t
jJjJ_JjJ
._._Js._
_._._._.
._I_I_._
_.n._._.
Ii.i.iIi
r.bQkBnR
3...d5
The other main reply is 3...c5, e.g. 4.e5
Àg8 5.Àf3 (White plans to sacrifice a
pawn for the initiative. Instead, 5.d4 cxd4
6.©xd4 Àc6 7.©e4 f6 8.Àf3 ©a5
9.Ãd3 Àxe5 10.Àxe5 ©xe5 11.©xe5
fxe5 12.Àb5 ®d8 13.Ãe3 Ãb4+
14.®e2 b6 15.f4 exf4 16.Ãxf4 a6
17.Ãc7+ ®e7 18.Àc3 Àf6 19.Ãxb6
Ãb7 gives approximately equal chances,
Vitiugov-Alexeev, Moscow 2009) 5...Àc6
6.d4 cxd4 7.Àxd4 Àxe5 8.Àdb5 f6
9.Ãe3 a6 10.Àd6+ Ãxd6 11.©xd6 Àe7
12.Ãb6 Àf5 13.©c5 d6 14.©a5 ©d7
15.f4 Àc6 16.©a3 Àce7, and White’s
activity fully compensates for the sacri-
ficed pawn, Reinderman-Werle,
Groningen 2009.
4.e5
4.cxd5 exd5 5.e5 Àe4 6.Àf3 Àc6 7.d4
Ãb4 8.©c2 0-0 9.Ãd3 Ãg4 10.Ãe3 f5
was seen in Bobotsov-Fuchs, Leipzig
1965.
4...d4
After 4...Àe4, the game Ivanchuk-
Aronian, Warsaw 2003, continued 5.Àf3
(after 5.Àxe4 dxe4 6.©g4 c5!? 7.©xe4
Àc6 8.Àf3 ©d7 9.Ãe2 b6 10.0-0 Ãb7
116
Black has good play for the sacrificed
pawn) 5...Àc6 6.d4 Ãb4 7.©c2 f6
8.exf6 ©xf6 9.a3 Ãxc3+ 10.bxc3 0-0
11.Ãd3 Àa5?! (better is 11...b6) 12.0-0
b6 13.Àe5 ©h4 14.a4 Ãa6 15.Ãa3
Õfe8 16.Õae1 Àd6 17.Ãxd6 cxd6
18.cxd5 Ãxd3 19.Àxd3 exd5 with ad-
vantage to White.
5.exf6 dxc3 6.bxc3
An equal game results from 6.fxg7
cxd2+ 7.Ãxd2 Ãxg7 8.©c2 Àc6!
9.Àf3 ©e7.
6...©xf6 7.Àf3 e5
TsL_Ml.t
jJj._JjJ
._._.d._
_._.j._.
._I_._._
_.i._N_.
I_.i.iIi
r.bQkB_R
8.d4
The once popular 8.d3 has lost ground to
the energetic text.
Another interesting try is 8.Ãd3!?, e.g.
8...Àa6 9.0-0 Ãd6 10.Õe1 0-0 11.©c2
®h8 12.Ãe4 Àc5 13.d4 Àxe4 14.©xe4
exd4 15.cxd4 c6 16.Ãg5, and White’s
chances are slightly preferable, Miles-Oll,
Szeged 1997.
8...exd4 9.Ãg5 ©e6+ 10.Ãe2 Ãe7
On 10...f6?!, a good reply is 11.Àxd4
©f7 12.Ãh6! g6 (12...gxh6?? 13.Ãh5)
13.Ãf4 with the better game for White.
11.cxd4 Ãxg5 12.Àxg5 ©e7
13.©d2 Àc6
The continuation 13...h6 14.Àf3 0-0
15.0-0 c5 (dubious is 15...Ãg4!? because
of 16.Õab1! b6 17.h3 Ãh5 18.Õb5 Ãxf3
19.Ãxf3 c6 20.Õbb1 ©d6 21.Õfd1±,
Har-Zvi-Liss, Rishon-le-Zion 1991)

16.d5 ©d6 17.Õfe1 gives White a prom-
ising game, Timman-Naiditsch,
Dortmund 2002.
T_L_M_.t
jJj.dJjJ
._S_._._
_._._.n.
._Ii._._
_._._._.
I_.qBiIi
r._.k._R
14.d5
The only way to fight for an advantage.
After 14.0-0 Àxd4 15.Ãh5 Ãe6
16.Àxf7 Ãxf7 17.Ãxf7+ ®xf7
18.©xd4 Õhd8 the chances are equal.
14...Àe5
Weaker is 14...Àd4?! 15.©xd4 ©xg5
16.0-0 0-0 17.Ãf3 a5 18.Õfe1 Õa6
19.Õe5 ©d8 20.Õae1 Õf6 21.©e3 with
an obvious advantage to White, Gulko-
Pliester, Aruba 1992.
15.0-0 0-0 16.Õfe1
The game Cu. Hansen-Nielsen, Esbjerg
2000, continued 16.f4 Àd7 17.Ãd3 Àf6
18.Õae1 ©c5+, and after 19.©f2
©xf2+ 20.®xf2 (more accurate is
20.Õxf2) Black achieved equality.
16...Ãf5 17.©f4
On 17.Õac1 Black does best to continue
17...Õfe8 18.©f4 ©f6, but not 17...b6
18.©f4 f6 19.Àf3 Ãd7?! (19...Ãg6)
20.Àxe5 fxe5 21.©e3 c5 22.dxc6 Ãxc6
23.c5 b5 24.Ãd3 with the better game
for White, Rasmussen-Rozentalis, Linares
2002.
17...©f6 18.Àf3 Õfe8
White is better after 18...Àxf3+?!
19.Ãxf3 Õac8 20.g4! (less clear is
20.Õe5 Ãd3) 20...Ãd3 21.©xf6 gxf6
22.c5±.
Game 39 - 2003
T_._T_M_
jJj._JjJ
._._.d._
_._IsL_.
._I_.q._
_._._N_.
I_._BiIi
r._.r.k.
19.Àh4!
A significant improvement!
Previously, 19.Àd4 was played. The point
of Ivanchuk’s move is that after 19...Àg6
20.©xf5 ©xh4 the black queen is worse
placed than in the event of 19.Àd4 Àg6
20.©xf5 ©xd4.
However, if in this line, after 19.Àd4
Àg6, White plays 19.©d2, then Black
can regroup: 19...Ãd7 20.Ãf1 b6
21.Àf3 Õad8, blockading the c- and
d-pawns.
Ivanchuk wants to use his queen to create
play in the centre and on the queenside,
so as to weaken the latter and prevent
Black establishing a blockade of the white
pawns.
19...Àg6
Other replies give White the advantage:
19...Ãd7 20.©xf6 gxf6 21.g3±;
19...Àd7 20.Àxf5 Õxe2 21.Õab1±.
20.©xf5
20.Àxg6? would be a terrible mistake,
because of 20...Õxe2! 21.Àe5 Ãb1!!, and
Black wins.
20...©xh4 21.Ãf1 ©d4
By comparison with the move 19.Àd4,
White has won an important tempo.
22.©d7! Õxe1
The first achievement. Black concedes the
open file, since it is unsatisfactory to play
22...Àe5 23.©xc7 ©f4 24.©c5 Õec8
25.©a3 Àxc4 26.Ãxc4 Õxc4 27.©xa7!.
23.Õxe1 ©c5
117
 Vassily Ivanchuk

In this sharp manner, White deflects the

T_._._M_ black queen from the defence of the
jJjQ_JjJ c7-pawn.
._._._S_ 32...©f8
_.dI_._. Bad is 32...Õxe8? 33.Õxe8+ ©f8
._I_._._ 34.Ãh7+! winning the exchange.
_._._._. 33.©e7 ©xe7
I_._.iIi Hardly better is 33...Àa6 34.©e3 Àc5
35.Ãb1 with pressure for White.
_._.rBk.
34.Õxe7 ®f8?
24.h4! After 34...Àa6 35.c5 ®f8 36.Õd7 ®e8
With the idea after 24...Àxh4 (or 37.d6 c6 38.Õc7!? Black retains definite
24...Àf8 25.©e7) 25.Õe7 ©d6 defensive chances. Now, however, he
26.©xc7 of seizing the seventh rank. loses quickly.
24...®f8 25.©f5 ®g8 35.Õxc7 Àa6
Unlike the white king, its black counter-
part is uncomfortably placed. .t._.m._
On 25...h6 possible is 26.h5 Àe7 jJr._Jj.
27.©h7, and White has at his disposal S_._._.j
the strong attacking manoeuvre _._I_B_I
Õe1-e3-g3.
26.h5 Àf8 27.©g5 ©d6
._I_._._
27...f6?! 28.©g3 is too weakening. _._._.i.
28.g3! I_._.i._
Preparing to bring the bishop to the _._._.k.
h3-c8 diagonal. 36.d6!
28...h6 29.©e7 Àd7 30.Ãh3 Àc5?! The rook is secured on c7 and Black can-
Now the weakness of the back rank not prevent the further advance of the
comes into play. Stronger is 30...Àf6 c-pawn.
31.Ãf5 Õb8 32.a4! with the better 36...Õd8
chances for White. 36...Àxc7 37.dxc7 Õa8 38.c8©+ or
31.Ãf5 Õb8 36...b6 37.Õxa7 are both hopeless.
37.c5 b6 38.c6 Àb8
On 38...Õxd6 decisive is 39.Õxa7 Õxc6
.t._._M_ 40.Õxa6.
jJj.qJj. 39.Ãe4 Õxd6 40.Õc8+ 1-0
._.d._.j
_.sI_B_I 2004
._I_._._ Game 40
_._._.i. Caro-Kann Defence (B12)
I_._.i._ í Morozevich,Alexander
_._.r.k. n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Calvia 2004
32.©e8+! 1.e4 c6

118

In the Caro-Kann, as in the French, Black
prepares the advance ...d7-d5, but here
he does not shut in his light-squared
bishop. On the other hand, in many cases
Black will end up playing ...c6-c5, which
will involve the loss of a tempo.
As a rule, this defence gives Black a solid,
reliable position, but it requires accurate
handling.
2.d4 d5 3.e5
An old continuation, leading to a ma-
noeuvring game.
The move 3.Àc3 is also seen often, e.g.
3...dxe4 4.Àxe4 Ãf5 5.Àg3 Ãg6 6.h4
h6 7.h5 Ãh7 8.Àf3 e6 9.Ãd3 Ãxd3
10.©xd3 Àf6 11.Ãf4 Ãd6 12.Ãxd6
©xd6 13.0-0-0 Àbd7 14.©e2 0-0-0ì,
Polgar-Ivanchuk, Mexico City 2010 (see
also Game 58).
The interesting Panov Attack 3.exd5 cxd5
4.c4 is seen in Game 89.
3...Ãf5
Ts.dMlSt
jJ_.jJjJ
._J_._._
_._JiL_.
._.i._._
_._._._.
IiI_.iIi
rNbQkBnR
4.f4!?
A rare choice.
If 4.Ãd3 Ãxd3 (dangerous is 4...Ãg6?!
5.Ãxg6 hxg6 6.e6! fxe6 7.©g4) 5.©xd3
e6 Black gets rid of his bad bishop and al-
though his position is a little cramped, he
has no weaknesses.
More popular are 4.Àf3 and 4.h4:
– 4.Àf3 e6 5.Ãe2 c5 6.Ãe3 Àd7 7.c4
dxc4 8.Àc3 Àe7 9.Ãxc4 Àc6 10.d5
Àb6 11.Ãb3 exd5 12.Àxd5 Ãe7 13.0-0
Game 40 - 2004
Alexander Morozevich
0-0 14.Õc1 Àxd5 15.Ãxd5 Àb4 16.Ãc4
a6 17.e6!? fxe6 18.©b3 ©c8 19.a3 b5?!
(it is worth considering 19...Àc6!?)
20.axb4 bxc4 21.Õxc4 Õb8Ç, Anand-
Ivanchuk, Moscow 1995. (see also Game
50);
– 4.h4 h6 5.g4 Ãd7 6.Àd2 e6 7.Àb3 a5
8.a4 Àa6 9.Ãe3 ©c7 10.Àf3 h5
11.gxh5 Õxh5 12.c3 Àe7 13.Ãd3 Àf5
14.©e2 ©b6 15.Àbd2 c5 with chances
for both sides, Kurnosov-Ivanchuk,
Kusadasi 2006.
4...e6 5.Àf3 c5 6.Ãe3!?
White attempts an improvement. After
6.Àc3 Àc6 7.Ãe3 Ãg4 8.Ãe2 Àh6
9.dxc5 Ãxf3 10.Ãxf3 Àf5 11.Ãg1 g5!?
12.©d3 ©a5 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 14.©b5
©xb5 (weaker is 14...©c7?! 15.Àxd5!
Õxd5 (or 15...exd5 16.Ãg4 Àe7
17.©d3 ©d7 18.c6! bxc6 19.Ãc5±)
16.Õxd5 exd5 17.Ãg4 gxf4 18.Ãxf5+
®b8 19.Ãf2 with advantage to White,
Granda Zuniga-Aderito, Calvia 2004)
15.Àxb5 gxf4 chances are equal.
6...cxd4
After 6...Àc6, the game Stefansson-
Johanssen, Gausdal 1986, continued
119
 Vassily Ivanchuk
7.dxc5 ©a5+ 8.c3 Ãxc5?! (8...Àh6)
9.b4 Àxb4 10.cxb4 Ãxb4+ 11.Ãd2 Õc8
12.Àd4 Ãg4 13.Ãe2 Ãxe2 14.Àxe2
Àh6 15.0-0, and White obtained the ad-
vantage.
7.Àxd4 Àe7 8.Ãb5+
More accurate is 8.c4!? dxc4 9.Àc3 Àbc6
10.©a4 a6 11.Õd1 Ãg4 12.Õd2 ©a5
13.©xc4 Õc8 14.©b3, with a minimal
advantage to White.
8...Àd7
Also possible is 8...Àbc6!? 9.0-0 a6
10.Ãxc6+ bxc6 11.g4 Ãe4 12.Àd2 h5
with a roughly equal game.
9.0-0 a6 10.Ãe2
No advantage is offered by 10.Ãa4 b5
11.Ãb3 ©c7 12.a4 b4 13.g4 Ãe4
14.Àd2 Àc5.
T_.dMl.t
_J_SsJjJ
J_._J_._
_._JiL_.
._.n.i._
_._.b._.
IiI_B_Ii
rN_Q_Rk.
10...g5!?
Radically sharpening the game!
In the event of 10...h6 11.Àc3 Õc8
12.©d2 Àc5 13.Õad1 ©c7 14.a3 Àe4
15.Àxe4 Ãxe4 16.Ãd3, White’s chances
are preferable.
11.g4
Counting on 11...Ãe4 12.f5! with the
initiative. However, Black has a highly
original retort.
It was worth considering 11.fxg5 Àxe5!?
(on 11...©c7!? White has an interesting
possibility to bring about head-spinning
complications – 12.Àc3 Ãg6 13.Àdb5!?
axb5 14.Àxb5 ©b8 15.Àd6+ ®d8
120
16.Àxf7+ Ãxf7 17.Õxf7 Àc6 18.c4
©xe5 19.©b3 Ãb4 with unclear conse-
quences) 12.Àxf5 Àxf5 13.Õxf5! exf5
14.Àc3 d4! 15.Ãxd4 Ãg7 with mutual,
roughly equal chances.
11...gxf4 12.gxf5 Àxf5!
Ivanchuk offers his opponent the chance
to win a piece.
T_.dMl.t
_J_S_J_J
J_._J_._
_._JiS_.
._.n.j._
_._.b._.
IiI_B_.i
rN_Q_Rk.
13.Àxf5
The best reply.
Dubious is 13.Àxe6?! Àxe3 14.Àxd8
Àxd1 15.Õxd1 Õg8+ 16.®h1 Õxd8
17.Àc3 Ãg7 18.Àxd5 Ãxe5 19.Ãf3 f6,
and Black’s chances are slightly superior,
whilst after 13.Ãf2 (13.Ãxf4? Àxd4)
possible is 13...Õg8+ 14.®h1 Àg3+!
15.Ãxg3 fxg3 16.Õg1 Àxe5 17.Õxg3
Õxg3 18.hxg3 ©g5 19.®g2 Ãc5 20.c3
0-0-0 with excellent play for Black.
13...fxe3 14.Àc3
White maintains the tension. With
14.Àd6+ (14.Àxe3? Ãc5 15.Õf3 ©g5+
16.®h1 Ãxe3ç) 14...Ãxd6 15.exd6 he
could have turned the game in a different
direction, e.g. 15...©b6 16.Àc3 0-0-0
17.Õxf7 ©xb2 18.Àa4 ©e5 19.c4
©e4!? 20.Õf3 d4 21.Ãd3 Õhg8+
22.Õg3 ©f4 23.®g2 ©xd6 with dou-
ble-edged play, in which Black’s chances
are not worse.
14...Õg8+ 15.®h1
Also possible is 15.Àg3 ©g5 16.©d4
©xe5 17.©f4 ©xf4 18.Õxf4 Ãg7
 Game 40 - 2004

19.Ãh5 Àe5 20.Õaf1 Õf8 21.Àd1 Õc8

22.c3 Õc7 23.Õh4 (23.Àxe3? Ãh6)
T_._MlT_
23...Õc4 with approximate equality. _J_._J_J
15...©g5 J_._._._
_._N_Jd.
._._._S_
T_._MlT_ _._.jB_.
_J_S_J_J IiI_Q_.i
J_._J_._ r._._.rK
_._JiNd. analysis diagram
._._._._ 19...Àf2+!! 20.©xf2 exf2 21.Àc7+
_.n.j._. ®d8 22.Õxg5 Õxg5 23.Àxa8 Ãc5
IiI_B_.i 24.Ãg2 f4 25.Õd1+ ®e7 26.h4 Õg8
r._Q_R_K 27.®h2 f3 28.Ãf1 Õxa8 with the advan-
tage.
16.Ãf3?! 18.Ãxd5 ©h3!
After 16.Àg3 ©xe5 17.©d3 Õg7 Black concentrates his forces on the
18.Ãf3 Àc5 19.©e2 0-0-0 20.Õae1 d4 kingside. Less clear is 18...©g4 19.©xe3
21.Àce4 Àxe4 22.Àxe4 f5 23.Àg3 Õc7 ©g5.
24.©d3 ©c5 25.Õe2 ©c4 White has 19.Ãxb7 Õa7 20.Ãf3
blockaded the black pawns and the game On 20.Ãg2 a good reply is 20...©h6
is equal. 21.Õae1 f5 22.©xe3 ©xe3 23.Õxe3
White’s desire for active counterplay runs Ãd6 with a noticeable advantage for
into a strong refutation. Black in the endgame.
16...Àxe5 20...Ãh6
Bad is 16...©xf5? 17.Ãh5. It was also worth considering 20...Ãe7
17.©e2 21.©xe3 Àxf3 22.©xf3 ©xf3+
Not 17.Ãxd5? nor 17.Àxd5? because of 23.Õxf3 Õd7ç.
17...0-0-0 with advantage to Black. 21.Àe4
17...©xf5
The continuation 17...exf5 leads to an ._._M_T_
equal battle after 18.Àxd5 Ãd6 19.Õg1 t._._J_J
Àg4 20.Àxe3 0-0-0 21.Àxf5 h5. J_._J_.l
However, if instead of 18...Ãd6 Black _._.s._.
plays 18...0-0-0, then the game ends in
perpetual check – 19.Õg1 Àg4 20.©c4+
._._N_._
®b8 21.©c7+ ®a7 (21...®a8?? _._.jB_D
22.Àb6+ ®a7 23.©xb7 mate) IiI_Q_.i
22.©b6+ with a draw. r._._R_K
It is interesting that, with a simple trans- 21...®e7!
position of moves, 18.Õg1 Àg4 The strongest continuation.
19.Àxd5, Black has a paradoxical way to On 21...Õg6!? there is 22.Ãh5 Õg7
play for a win: 23.Õad1 (23.Õf6 Ãg5) 23...®e7

121
 Vassily Ivanchuk

24.Àf6 (24.Õf6 ©h4!) 24...©h4 25.c3 23...Ãf4!! 24.Ãxb7 Àg4 25.©e2

Ãf4! 26.Õd4 ©xf6 27.Õdxf4 ©g5, and Ãxg3 26.©g2 ©h5! 27.©xg3 Àf2+
after 28.Õe4! 28.®g2 Õxg3+ 29.hxg3 ©b5, Black
wins.
23.©b4+ ®f7
._._._._
t._.mJtJ
J_._J_._ ._._._T_
_._.s.dB t._._M_J
._._R_._ J_._J_.l
_.i.j._. _._.sJ_.
Ii._Q_.i .q._N_._
_._._R_K _._.jB_D
analysis diagram IiI_._.i
r._._R_K
28...Àd3 29.Õxe3! Àf4 30.©f2 Àxh5
31.Õe5! ©xe5 32.©xa7+ ®e8 24.©d4
33.©a8+ a draw is unavoidable. White passes by the chance offered to
22.©e1! him: 24.Àd6+ ®f6 (bad is 24...®g6?
White has established a dangerous coor- 25.Ãg2 ©g4 26.Ãe4!) 25.Àe4+!
dination between queen and knight, re- (25.©d4? Õag7ç) 25...®f7 (unsatisfac-
quiring exceptionally accurate play from tory is 25...®g6?! (25...fxe4? 26.Ãg4+)
Black. 26.Õg1+ ®f7 27.Ãg2!? Õxg2 28.Õxg2
22...f5?! fxe4 29.©c5 Õd7 30.©xe5) 26.Àd6+
A move which squanders the advantage. with a draw by repetition.
A draw also results from 22...Àxf3?! However, the move in the game does not
23.©b4+ ®d7 24.Õad1+ ®c7 spoil anything.
25.©a5+ ®b7 26.Õd7+ ®a8 27.Õxa7+ 24...Àxf3 25.©f6+
®xa7 28.©c7+; however, by continuing 25.©xa7+? is a mistake because of
22...Õb7! 23.Àg3 (he is not saved by 25...®g6 26.Õg1+ Ãg5 27.Õxg5+
23.©c3 Àxf3 24.©f6+ ®e8 or 23.©e2 ®h6! 28.Õh5+ ©xh5 29.©xe3+ Õg5!,
Õb6 24.b4 f5) winning.
25...®e8 26.©xe6+ ®f8
._._._T_
_T_.mJ_J ._._.mT_
J_._J_.l t._._._J
_._.s._. J_._Q_.l
._._._._ _._._J_.
_._.jBnD ._._N_._
IiI_._.i _._.jS_D
r._.qR_K IiI_._.i
analysis diagram r._._R_K

122

27.©f6+?
The decisive mistake!
After 27.©c8+ ®f7 28.©c4+ ®g7
29.©c3+ ®g6 30.©c6+ ®h5 31.Àf6+
®h4 32.©xf3 ©xf3+ 33.Õxf3 Õf8
34.Õxf5 Ãg5 35.Õg1! Ãxf6 36.Õf4+
®h5 37.Õf5+ ®h6 38.Õf3! White can
still draw, by repeating moves.
Now, however, the black king escapes
from the danger zone.
27...Õf7 28.©d6+ ®g7 29.Õg1+
®h8 30.Àf6
Now the simplest win is 30...Àxg1
31.Àxg8 ©f3+ 32.®xg1 Õg7+.
White resigned.
Not without its errors, but a game of rare
fighting and uncompromising play.
Game 41
Sicilian Defence (B32)
n Ivanchuk,Vassily
í Radjabov,Teimour
Calvia 2004
1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.d4 cxd4
4.Àxd4 e5
The so-called Kalashnikov Variation,
which has been well-known since the fa-
mous game De La Bourdonnais-
McDonnell (1834), and still popular in
our day. Unlike the Cheliabinsk Variation,
here Black has not brought the knight out
to f6, and nor has White brought his
knight to c3.
In the opinion of Sveshnikov, who has
done an enormous amount in working
out both variations, the absence of the
knight from f6 stops White’s c1-bishop
taking part in the battle for the d5-square,
by coming to g5, and threatening to spoil
the black pawn formation by taking on
f6. This gives Black additional possibili-
ties.
5.Àb5
Game 41 - 2004
T_LdMlSt
jJ_J_JjJ
._S_._._
_N_.j._.
._._I_._
_._._._.
IiI_.iIi
rNbQkB_R
5...d6
More rarely seen is 5...a6.
After 6.Àd6+ Ãxd6 7.©xd6 ©f6 (on
7...©e7 good is 8.©d1 Àf6 9.Àc3 h6
10.Ãe3 d6 11.©d2 Ãe6 12.0-0-0 Õd8
13.Ãb6 Õd7 14.Àd5 Ãxd5 15.exd5 Àd8
with the better game for White, Lopez
Hernandez-Elissalt Cardenas, Guines
1998) 8.©xf6 Àxf6 9.Àc3 Àb4 (weaker
is 9...d5 10.exd5 Àb4 11.Ãd3 Àxd3+
12.cxd3 Ãf5 13.Ãg5 Ãxd3 (or 13...0-0
14.Ãxf6 gxf6 15.®d2±, Furlan-Markun,
Slovenia 2002) 14.Õd1 Ãb5 15.Ãxf6
gxf6 16.Àe4 with advantage to White, De
Firmian-Hreinsson, Gausdal 1999)
10.®d2!? d6 11.a3 Àc6 12.®e1 Ãe6
13.f3 d5 14.exd5 Àxd5 15.Àxd5 Ãxd5
16.Ãe3 0-0-0 17.®f2 Ãe6 18.Ãd3 Àd4
19.Õhe1 Õhe8 White’s chances are
slightly better, Korneev-Tomczak, Ger-
many Bundesliga 2006/07.
6.À1c3
At one time, 6.c4 was considered stron-
gest, but Black learned how to meet this
continuation, e.g., 6...Ãe7 7.À1c3 a6
8.Àa3 Ãe6 9.Àc2 Õc8 10.b3 Àf6
11.Ãd3 0-0 12.0-0 Àd7 13.Ãb2 Àc5
14.Àe3 Ãg5 with mutual chances,
Ivanchuk-Kramnik, Paris 1996.
6...a6
The move 6...Àf6 transposes into the
Cheliabinsk Variation.
7.Àa3 b5
The most active reply.
123
 Vassily Ivanchuk
Black takes control of the square c4 and
threatens ...b5-b4.
8.Àd5 Àce7
On 8...Àge7 interesting is 9.c4!? (no ad-
vantage is given by 9.Ãg5 h6 10.Ãxe7
Àxe7 with comfortable play for Black),
and in order to create counterplay, Black
must sacrifice a pawn:
9...Àd4 10.cxb5 Àxd5 11.exd5 Ãe7 (or
11...Ãd7 12.Ãe3! axb5 13.Ãxd4 exd4
14.Ãd3 ©a5+ 15.®f1!? Ãe7 16.©e2
Õb8 17.Àc2!, and White’s chances are
slightly better, Motylev-Shariyazdanov,
Tomsk 2004) 12.Ãd3!? 0-0 13.0-0 f5
14.bxa6 ©b6 15.Ãe3! Ãxa6 16.Ãxa6
©xa6 17.Àc2 with mutual chances.
T_LdMlSt
_._.sJjJ
J_.j._._
_J_Nj._.
._._I_._
n._._._.
IiI_.iIi
r.bQkB_R
9.Àb4!?
A paradoxical idea, remarkably character-
istic of Ivanchuk’s creative manner. It
seems that the white knight can easily be
driven back by the enemy pawns, but in
reality, this turns out to be far from sim-
ple. At the same time, the black kingside
has its development paralysed and White
will manage to carry out the pro-
grammed move c2-c4.
The usual move is 9.c4 at once: 9...Àxd5
10.exd5 bxc4 11.Àxc4 Àf6 12.Ãe3 Õb8
13.Ãe2 (after 13.a4?! there is the unpleas-
ant 13...Àg4) 13...Ãe7 14.a4 0-0 15.0-0
Ãb7 16.Àb6 Àd7 17.a5 f5 18.Õc1!? f4
19.Ãg4! Àf6 20.Ãe6+ ®h8, and the
space advantage gives White the better
chances, Haslinger-Ansell, England 2002.
124
Weaker is 9.Àxe7 Ãxe7 10.c4 Àf6
11.Ãd3 0-0 12.0-0 Ãb7 13.©e2 bxc4
14.Àxc4 d5 15.exd5 ©xd5 16.f3 Õad8
17.Ãc2 e4 with equality, Ciganovic-
Rukavina, Rabac 2004.
9...Ãd7?!
An inaccuracy. It was worth considering
9...Àf6, and in the event of 10.c4 Àxe4
11.cxb5 d5 (on 11...a5 possible is
12.Àa6!? d5 13.©c2 Ãxa6 14.bxa6 f5
15.Ãb5+ ®f7 16.0-0 with an unclear,
roughly equal game) 12.bxa6 Ãd7! Black
has good counterchances for the pawn.
10.c4 a5
Now after 10...Àf6?! there follows 11.cxb5
Àxe4 12.Àxa6 d5 13.Ãd3 Àg6 14.0-0
Ãe7 15.©b3 with advantage to White.
11.Àbc2 Àf6
More logical is 11...b4, although after
12.Àb5 Ãxb5 13.cxb5 Àf6 14.Àe3 d5
(on 14...Àxe4 strong is 15.b6 with the
threat of Ãb5+, and 15...©xb6? is bad be-
cause of 16.f3 Àf6 17.Àc4) 15.b6! ©xb6
16.exd5 White’s chances remain superior.
12.Àxb5 Ãxb5
On 12...Àxe4 there is the interesting
13.©xd6!? Ãxb5 (13...Àxd6?? 14.Àxd6
mate) 14.©xd8+ Õxd8 15.cxb5 Àd5
16.f3 Àb4 17.Àa3 Àd6 18.Ãe3 with an
extra pawn for White.
13.cxb5 Àxe4 14.Ãe3 d5 15.b6 f5
After 15...Àd6?! 16.Àa3 ©d7 17.Õc1 f5
18.Õc7 ©e6 19.Àb5 the white knight
comes into play with great force.
T_.dMl.t
_._.s.jJ
.i._._._
j._JjJ_.
._._S_._
_._.b._.
IiN_.iIi
r._QkB_R

16.©e2!?
The development of an original idea!
In order to bring the rook into play as
quickly as possible, White is prepared to
take his king to the queenside, where it
will feel less comfortable than on the
kingside.
Also good is 16.Ãb5+ ®f7 17.f3 Àd6
(or 17...Àf6 18.0-0 d4 19.Ãc4+ Àed5
20.Ãf2 ©xb6 21.f4 with the initiative
for White) 18.Ãc6! Àxc6 19.©xd5+
®g6 20.©xc6, winning a pawn.
16...®f7
With 16...d4?! 17.©b5+ ®f7 18.0-0-0!
©b8 19.©b3+ ®g6 20.©e6+ Àf6
21.Ãd2 h6 22.f4 White develops a
strong attack, whilst in reply to 16...f4, a
possible answer is 17.f3 Àf6 (bad is
17...fxe3? 18.©b5+ ®f7 19.fxe4±)
18.Ãf2 Àd7 19.g3! Àc6 20.0-0-0 with
the initiative.
17.0-0-0! ©d7
Black transfers his queen to e6, so as to
defend the central pawns.
The move suggested by several commen-
tators, 17...Õb8, is hardly any better. For
example: 18.f3 Àf6 19.©b5 ©c8 (on
19...©d6 there is the strong 20.Ãc4!,
whilst after 19...f4 possible is 20.Ãf2
Àc8 21.b7 Àd6
.t.d.l.t
_I_._MjJ
._.s.s._
jQ_Jj._.
._._.j._
_._._I_.
IiN_.bIi
_.kR_B_R
analysis diagram
22.Õxd5!! Àxb5 23.Õxd8 Õxd8
24.Ãxb5 Ãd6 25.Õe1 Õb8 26.Ãc6 g5
Game 41 - 2004
27.a4 Ãc7 28.Ãa7, and the sacrifice of
the exchange brings its trumps) 20.f4
Àg4 21.®b1 ©e6 22.fxe5 Àxe3
23.Àxe3 Õxb6 24.©xa5 with advantage.
The Ukrainian GM himself recom-
mended that, both now and on the previ-
ous move, Black play ...g7-g6, so as to
bring the bishop to g7.
18.®b1 ©e6 19.f3
T_._.l.t
_._.sMjJ
.i._D_._
j._JjJ_.
._._S_._
_._.bI_.
IiN_Q_Ii
_K_R_B_R
19...Àd6?!
A step in the wrong direction.
The knight aims for c4, but now Black
cannot meet 20.f4 with 20...exf4, since
after 21.Ãxf4 the knight turns out to be
under attack (21...Àe4 is impossible be-
cause of 22.b7), and Black’s defences col-
lapse like a house of cards.
He could retain chances by 19...Àf6 and
on 20.f4!? – 20...exf4 21.Ãd4 Àe4.
20.f4! Àc4
No better is 20...e4?! 21.©d2 Àb7
22.Õc1 a4 23.Àd4 ©f6 24.Àc6!? or
24.Õc7 with complete dominance by the
white pieces.
21.fxe5 Õb8 22.g4! f4
Black, in avoiding transposition to a
hopeless ending after 22...©xe5 23.Ãd4
©xe2 24.Ãxe2 Àxb6 25.gxf5 h5
26.Àe3 Õh6 27.Ãf3 Àc4 28.Ãxd5+
Àxd5 29.Àxc4, tries to complicate play,
but comes under attack. Evidently, of the
two evils, he should have chosen the
queen exchange.
125
 Vassily Ivanchuk

23.©f3 g5 24.Ãxc4 dxc4 25.h4 kingside pieces as rapidly as possible, not

©c6 bothering to try to establish control over
He could resist longer with 25...®e8 the centre, whilst Black endeavours to or-
26.Ãd4 gxh4 27.©xf4 Õg8 28.Õdf1 ganise pressure against the squares e4 and
Àc6 29.Õxh4 h6 30.Õh5ê. d5, developing his queen’s bishop on the
long diagonal.
However, in this game, we see some spe-
.t._.l.t cial features of the opening.
_._.sM_J
.iD_._._
j._.i.j. TsLdMl.t
._J_.jIi j.jJ_JjJ
_._.bQ_. .j._Js._
IiN_._._ _._._._.
_K_R_._R ._Ii._._
_._._N_.
26.e6+! Ii._IiIi
The beginning of the end! Not
rNbQkB_R
26...®xe6?? because of 27.Àd4+, whilst
after 26...©xe6 White decides by 4.Ãg5
27.hxg5. A rare continuation.
It is noteworthy that Black has still not More often played is 4.Àc3, and only af-
managed to develop his kingside pieces. ter 4...Ãb7 – 5.Ãg5, e.g.: 5...Ãe7 6.e3
26...®g6 27.©f2! ©xe6 0-0 7.Ãd3 d5 8.0-0 Àbd7 9.cxd5 exd5
On 27...fxe3? there follows 28.©f7+ 10.©a4 a6 11.Õad1 h6 12.Ãf4 Õe8
®h6 29.©f6+ Àg6 30.hxg5 mate. 13.Ãb1 Àf8 with a solid, but slightly
28.Ãd4 Ãg7 29.hxg5 Õbd8 passive position for Black, Campos
30.Õde1 ©d6 31.Ãc5 ©d2 Moreno-Fleming, Banyoles 2003.
32.Õe6+ 1-0 The move 4.a3 is also sometimes seen
On the website www.davchess.com, this (see Game 55).
game was voted the best of 2004, in a 4...h6 5.Ãh4 Ãe7 6.Àc3 c5!?
poll in which 29 leading grandmasters After 6...Ãb7 play transposes into the last
took part. note.
7.e4
2005 After 7.d5 there could follow 7...Àxd5!?
Game 42 8.Àxd5 Ãxh4 9.Àxh4 Ãb7! 10.Àf3
Queen’s Indian Defence (E12) exd5 11.cxd5 ©f6 or 10.Àf5 exf5
í Jobava,Baadur 11.©d3 Àc6 12.©xf5 Àe7 13.©e4
n Ivanchuk,Vassily Ãxd5 14.cxd5 0-0 with chances for both
Havana 2005 sides.
1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 e6 3.Àf3 b6 7...cxd4 8.Àxd4 d6 9.Àdb5
In the notes to Game 10, we have already The most active.
said that, in the Queen’s Indian Defence, No advantage is given by 9.©c2 0-0
White usually strives to develop his 10.Ãe2 Ãb7 11.Õd1 Àbd7 12.Ãg3

126
 Game 42 - 2005

©b8 13.0-0 Àe5 14.h3 Õc8 15.b3 a6 The key position of the variation.
16.f4 Àc6 17.Àxc6 Ãxc6 18.a4 b5ì, A surprising situation! Notwithstanding
Koch-Capraro, Ascona 2003. that his king is unable to castle and he has
no direct threats, by quietly continuing
TsLdM_.t his development, Black will obtain excel-
j._.lJj. lent play on the dark squares in the centre
.j.jJs.j and on the queenside, e.g.: 13.©f3 (or
_N_._._. 13.Ãe2 Ãxc3+ 14.bxc3 Õd8 14.©c2
©c5) 13...©c5 14.Ãe2 Àc6 15.0-0
._I_I_.b Õhd8 16.Õad1 Àd4 17.©e3 Ãg5
_.n._._. 18.©d3 ®e8 19.®h1 Õac8 20.f4 Ãe7
Ii._.iIi 21.g3 (21.b3? Àxb3) 21...Àxe2
r._QkB_R 22.©xe2 ©xc4, and Black regains the
9...a6! pawn, retaining the better prospects.
The introduction to a brilliant pawn sac- 13.Àa4?!
rifice. White does not want to admit that his ad-
10.Ãxf6 Ãxf6!! vantage is illusory, and he tries to develop
Not only does Black sacrifice a pawn, but the initiative on the queenside, although
he also voluntarily allows his king to he is insufficiently prepared for this.
come under check! 13...Õd8 14.©b3 Àd7 15.©a3+
After 10...gxf6 11.Àd4 ©c7 12.©g4 15.Àxb6? is mistaken, because of
Ãb7 13.©g7 Õf8!? 14.©xh6 Àd7 15...Àxb6 16.©xb6 Õb8! 17.©e3 Ãd4
15.h4!? White’s chances are slightly better. 18.©a3+ Ãc5 19.©g3 Õxb2 with an ir-
11.Àxd6+ resistible attack.
Also after 11.©a4 0-0 12.0-0-0 Ãe5
13.©a3 Àc6 14.®b1 ©f6 15.f3 Õd8
16.Àxd6 ©e7 17.Àxc8 Õaxc8 Black has T_Dt._._
good counterplay for the pawn. _._SmJj.
11...®e7 12.Àxc8+ Jj._Jl.j
The cautious 12.c5 bxc5 13.Àc4 ©xd1+ _._._._.
14.Õxd1 Àc6 15.Ãe2 Õb8 leads to N_I_I_._
equality, but it is not obvious why White q._._._.
should decline the extra pawn. Ii._.iIi
12...©xc8
r._.kB_R
TsD_._.t 15...Àc5!
_._.mJj. An excellent reply!
Jj._Jl.j After 16.Àxb6?! ©c6 17.Àa4 (or
_._._._. 17.Àxa8? Ãxb2! 18.©xb2 ©xe4+
19.©e2 Àd3+ 20.®d2 Àf4+, winning
._I_I_._ the queen and the game) 17...©xa4
_.n._._. 18.©xc5+ ®e8 19.e5 Õac8 20.©e3
Ii._.iIi ©a5+ 21.©c3 ©xc3+ 22.bxc3 Ãxe5
r._QkB_R 23.Õc1 Õb8 24.g3 Õb2, the activity of

127
 Vassily Ivanchuk

Black’s pieces promises him the advan-

tage.
16.Ãe2 ©c6 17.Àxc5 ©xc5!
Black is not afraid of the exchange of
queens, since the extra pawn does not
play any particular role, and the endgame
arising after 18.©xc5+ bxc5 19.Õb1
Õab8 20.b3 Ãc3+ 21.®f1 Õd2 22.a4
Õa2 23.g4 Ãd4 24.h4 Õxa4 is definitely
in his favour.
18.b4?!
Even so, it was better to go in for the
queen exchange after 18.Õc1!?, since
now Black has a still more unpleasant ini-
tiative.
18...©g5! 19.Õd1 Baadur Jobava
Weaker is 19.Õb1?! ©xg2 20.Ãf3 ©g5
21.®f1 Ãd4 22.Õg1 ©f4 23.Õg2 a5! 26...©xa2 27.©xg7?
24.b5+ Ãc5 25.©c3 Õd2, with a deci- Allowing a decisive blow. It was possible
sive advantage for Black. still to hold after 27.a7!? (on 27.Õg1 a
19...©xg2 20.b5+ ®e8 21.Õxd8+ good reply is 27...g6) 27...©xa7
Õxd8 22.Ãf3 ©g5 (27...g6? 28.©b8!) 28.©xg7 ©a2
29.©f6 Õd2 with advantage to Black.
._.tM_._
_._._Jj. ._.tM_._
Jj._Jl.j _._._Jq.
_I_._.d. Ij._J_.j
._I_I_._ _.l._._.
q._._B_. ._I_I_._
I_._.i.i _._._._.
_._.k._R D_._Bi.i
_._._K_R
23.bxa6
White tries to seize the chance, by creat- 27...Õd1+! 28.®g2
ing a passed pawn, but he does not man- Or 28.Ãxd1 ©xf2 mate.
age to bring his rook into play, and the 28...Õxh1 29.©h8+
black pieces dominate the entire board. He is not saved by 29.®xh1 ©xe2 30.a7
Hopeless is 23.©xa6? ©c1+ 24.®e2 ©xe4+ 31.©g2 ©b1+ 32.©g1 ©a2
©xc4+. 33.©g8+ Ãf8 winning, whilst after
23...©d2+ 24.®f1 Ãd4! 25.Ãe2 29.©g3 there is the decisive 29...©a1
Ãc5 26.©g3 30.©b8+ ®e7 31.a7 ©g1+ 32.®h3
Nor is 26.©b3 ©d4 27.©f3 ©a1+ Ãd6.
28.®g2 ©xa2ç any better. 29...®d7 30.a7 ©xe2!

128
 Game 43 - 2005

Effective finishing play! If White gets a Weaker is 8.Àxc6?! because of

second queen, he is mated: 31.a8© 8...©xe4+ 9.Ãe2 dxc6.
Õg1+ 32.®xg1 ©xf2+ 33.®h1 ©f3#. 8...©xe4 9.Àb5 ©e5
White resigned. Practice has also seen 9...®d8 10.©d5!?
©xd5 11.cxd5 Àb4 12.Õc1 Àxd5
13.Ãxa7 e6 14.Ãc4 with mutual
Game 43 chances, Hippe-Klawonn, Neumünster
Sicilian Defence (B32) 1999.
í Ivanchuk,Vassily 10.©d2 a6
n Movsesian,Sergey In the game Palecha-Djukic, Chalkidiki
Warsaw 2005 2000, Black continued 10...b6 11.Ãe2
1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.d4 cxd4 ©b8 12.0-0-0 a6 13.Ãf3!? Àe5
4.Àxd4 ©c7 5.c4 14.Ãxa8?! (significantly better is
Geza Maroczy’s idea. White wants to re- 14.©d5, and on 14...Àxf3? – 15.©xa8!)
strict Black’s activity in the centre and on 14...axb5 15.Ãe4 Àxc4 16.©d5 e6
the queenside. 17.©xb5 Àxe3 18.fxe3 Ãc5, and for the
5...Àf6 exchange, Black has fully adequate play.
Black refrains from 5...e6, which indi-
cates his willingness to enter a sharp vari-
ation, where he grabs a pawn.
T_L_Ml.t
6.Àc3 _J_JjJjJ
J_S_._._
_N_.d._.
T_L_Ml.t ._I_._._
jJdJjJjJ _._.b._.
._S_.s._ Ii.q.iIi
_._._._. r._.kB_R
._InI_._
_.n._._. 11.f4!
Ii._.iIi By driving the queen to a totally passive
position, White ensures himself an obvi-
r.bQkB_R
ous advantage in development.
6...Àxe4!? 11...©b8 12.Àc3 e6 13.0-0-0 b5!?
Black obtains an extra pawn, but commits Black opens lines on the queenside, try-
himself to a difficult defence. ing to obtain some kind of counter-
Other developments are possible after chances. In the event of 13...Ãe7
6...e6, e.g. 7.Ãe3 b6 8.Õc1 Ãb7 9.f3 14.Ãb6!? 0-0 15.®b1 Õe8 16.c5, his
Ãe7 10.©d2 0-0 11.Ãe2 Õac8 12.0-0 queenside is blockaded.
©b8 13.Õfd1 Ãd6 14.g3 Ãc5 15.a3 14.cxb5 axb5 15.Ãxb5 ©c7 16.f5!
Õfd8 16.b4 Ãe7 17.Àxc6 Ãxc6 18.Ãf4 Ãe7?!
d6 19.g4 ©a8 20.©e1 Ãb7 with the An unfortunate novelty, giving White a
better chances for White, Ivanchuk- strong initiative.
Kamsky, Dortmund 1992. Practice has also seen 16...Ãb4 17.fxe6
7.Àxe4 ©e5 8.Ãe3 fxe6 18.a3 Àa5 19.®c2 Ãe7 20.Ãf4

129
 Vassily Ivanchuk
©d8 21.Õhf1 0-0 22.Ãd6 Àb7 23.Ãxe7
©xe7 24.®b1 Õxf1 25.Õxf1 d5?! (more
accurate is 25...Àc5 with chances for
both sides) 26.©e3 ©d6 27.©f3 Àd8
28.Ãd3 Ãa6 29.Ãxh7+! ®xh7
30.©h5+ ®g8 31.©e8+ ®h7 32.Õf3
with attack, Fontaine-Fressinet, France
1999.
17.fxe6 fxe6
On 17...dxe6 possible is 18.Ãf4 ©b7
(18...©b6!?) 19.Ãd6 Ãf6 20.Ãe5! 0-0
(20...Ãxe5?? 21.©d8 mte) 21.Ãxf6
gxf6 22.©f4±, but now it is more diffi-
cult for Black to get his king out of the
centre.
18.Õhf1 Ãf6 19.Ãc5!
T_L_M_.t
_.dJ_.jJ
._S_Jl._
_Bb._._.
._._._._
_.n._._.
Ii.q._Ii
_.kR_R_.
19...©e5
By attacking the bishop, the Armenian
GM also wants to gain a tempo by means
of the threat of 20...Ãg5, but White is al-
ready prepared for the start of the storm.
On 19...Àa7 strong is 20.©f2!, and
now not 20...Ãxc3? because of
21.©f8+!, whilst in the event of
19...Àe7 20.b4! h6 (20...0-0?
21.Õxf6) 21.®b1 ®f7 22.©e2 Àf5
23.Àe4 White has an overwhelming
advantage in the centre.
Also unsatisfactory is 19...Õa5 20.Õxf6!
gxf6 21.Àe4 Õxb5 (worse is 21...®f7?
22.©h6 ©e5 23.Õf1! f5 24.Àg5+ ®e8
25.©h5+ ®d8 26.Àf7+ winning)
22.Àd6+ ®d8 23.Àxb5 with advantage
130
to White, but at least in this variation,
Black would have more chances of saving
himself.
20.Õxf6!
Triggering the attack!
20...©xc5
Bad is 20...gxf6? 21.Ãxc6 dxc6
22.©d8+ ®f7 23.©xh8 or 20...©xf6?
21.Àe4 ©g6 22.Ãxc6.
T_L_M_.t
_._J_.jJ
._S_Jr._
_Bd._._.
._._._._
_.n._._.
Ii.q._Ii
_.kR_._.
21.Õxe6+!
The point of White’s play. Since the
knight on c6 is pinned, after the opening
of the d-file, the square d8 will be avail-
able to the white queen.
21...dxe6 22.©d8+ ®f7 23.©xh8
©g5+ 24.®b1 Ãb7 25.©xh7 ©xg2
Losing by force, but after 25...Àe5
26.Àe4 Ãxe4+ 27.©xe4 Black remains
two pawns down, without any compen-
sation at all.
26.Õf1+ ®e7 27.©h4+ ®d6
Or 27...g5 (27...®d7 28.Õf7+)
28.©h7+ ®d6 29.Àe4+ ®e5 30.©c7+
®xe4 31.Ãxc6+ with a massacre.
28.©f4+ e5 29.Õd1+ ®c7 30.©f7+
The last act of the drama.
30...®b6 is bad because of 31.Àd5+
®xb5 (31...®a7 32.Ãxc6) 32.©xb7+
®c5 33.b4+ ®d6 34.Àb6+, and White
wins.
30...®b8 31.©f8+ ®c7 32.Àd5+!
©xd5 33.©xg7+
Black resigned.
 Game 44 - 2005

Game 44
Sicilian Defence (B33)
.tLd.tM_
í Ivanchuk,Vassily _._._JjJ
n Johannessen,Leif Erlend ._Sj._._
Saint Vincent 2005 j._Nj.l.
1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.d4 cxd4 R_B_I_._
4.Àxd4 Àf6 5.Àc3 e5 6.Àdb5 d6 _.i._._.
7.Ãg5 a6 8.Àa3 b5 .iN_.iIi
_._Qk._R
T_LdMl.t 16.b3
_._._JjJ White retains the possibility of using the
second rank to transfer his queen’s rook
J_Sj.s._ to the kingside, or vice versa (although
_J_.j.b. the latter is harder to imagine).
._._I_._ 16...®h8 17.0-0
n.n._._. Also interesting is 17.Àce3 g6 18.h4!?
IiI_.iIi Ãxh4 19.g3 Ãg5 20.f4 with the initia-
r._QkB_R tive for a pawn, Topalov-Leko, Linares
2005.
9.Àd5 17...f5
Taking play into quiet positional channels
(for 9.Ãxf6 and the preceding moves, see
Game 37). .tLd.t.m
9...Ãe7 _._._.jJ
Dubious is 9...Ãe6?! because of 10.Ãxf6 ._Sj._._
gxf6 11.c3 Ãg7 12.Àc2 f5 13.exf5 Ãxf5 j._NjJl.
14.Àce3 with pressure for White, R_B_I_._
Olafsson-Larsen, Zurich 1959. _Ii._._.
10.Ãxf6 Ãxf6 11.c3 ._N_.iIi
White wants, after 12.Àc2, to start a bat-
tle against Black’s queenside pawns with
_._Q_Rk.
a2-a4, opening the square c4 for the 18.Õe1!?
bishop. An idea of Ivanchuk, which involves an
No advantage results from 11.c4 b4 original manoeuvre with the rook via
12.Àc2 a5 13.Ãe2 0-0 14.©d3 Ãe6ì. e1xe4-e2-a2.
11...Ãg5 In the same year, he found yet another
The alternative is 11...0-0 12.Àc2 Õb8!? interesting way to fight in this
13.Ãe2 Ãg5 14.0-0 a5 15.©d3, and al- well-studied variation: 18.exf5 Ãxf5
though Black has a solid position, White 19.©e2 (instead of the customary
retains some initiative, Kamsky-Illescas 19.Àce3 Ãg6 20.Ãe2) 19...Ãg6
Cordoba, Dos Hermanas 1996. 20.Õd1!? (novelty!) 20...©c8 21.Àce3
12.Àc2 0-0 13.a4 bxa4 14.Õxa4 a5 e4 22.Ãb5 Àe5 23.Õxa5 Àd3 24.Õf1
15.Ãc4 Õb8 Ãd8 25.Ãa6 ©c6 26.Õa3 with the

131
 Vassily Ivanchuk

better play for White, Ivanchuk-

Kramnik, Monaco 2005.
.t._.t.m
18...fxe4 19.Õxe4 Ãf5 20.Õe2 _._._.jJ
©d7?! ._.j.dL_
Allowing White to carry out his idea _I_.s._.
without hindrance. R_.qJ_._
Worthy of attention was 20...Ãg4 21.f3 _._.n._.
Ãh5 22.®h1 (22.Àce3?! e4) 22...Ãe8 R_._.iIi
23.Àce3 Àe7 24.Õa1 Àxd5 25.Àxd5
_._._Bk.
Ãh5 or 20...Ãg6 21.©e1 Ãh5 22.f3
Àe7, with mutual chances. 29.h3
21.Àce3 Ãg6 22.Õea2 e4 23.Ãf1 Despite the fact that White has the advan-
Ãd8 tage on the queenside and his king is ade-
White threatened with 24.Àc4 to attack quately defended, he needs to exercise
the a5-pawn, so Black transfers his bishop caution. Thus, on 29.Õd2 (29.Õa7??
to its defence voluntarily, but now it turns Àf3+) possible is 29...©g5 30.®h1
out that the Ukrainian has another idea in Àd3 31.Ãxd3 exd3 32.b6 ©c5 with
mind as well. counterchances.
29...©e6
More active is 29...Ãf7!? 30.Õd2 d5.
.t.l.t.m White cannot take the pawn at once, be-
_._D_.jJ cause of 31.Àxd5? Ãxd5 32.©xd5 Õfd8
._Sj._L_ 33.©a2 Àf3+! 34.gxf3 ©g5+, whilst in
j._N_._. the variation 31.®h1 Ãg8 32.Õa6 ©g5
R_._J_._ 33.Õc2 Õf4 34.b6 Àd3!? 35.Ãxd3 exd3
_Ii.n._. 36.©xd3 Õb4 37.Õc7 Õ4xb6 38.Õxb6
R_._.iIi Õxb6 39.Õc8 Õe6 Black, on account of
the limited material remaining on the
_._Q_Bk.
board, retains some counterchances.
24.b4! 30.Õa7 ©f6 31.©d2 Àd3
Reaping the fruits of his opening strategy,
White creates a passed pawn on the
queenside and seizes the a-file. Weaker is
.t._.t.m
24.Àc4 Ãf7 25.g3 Àe5!? 26.Àxe5 r._._.jJ
(26.Àxa5? Àf3+ 27.®h1 ©e6 28.Àc6 ._.j.dL_
©h6 29.h3 Ãe6! 30.Àf4 Ãxb3ç) _I_._._.
26...dxe5 27.c4 Ãb6 28.Ãg2 Ãxd5 ._._J_._
29.cxd5 e3 30.fxe3 Ãxe3+ 31.®h1 Ãb6 _._Sn._I
with roughly equal chances. R_.q.iI_
24...axb4 25.cxb4 Àe5 26.©d4
_._._Bk.
©e6 27.b5 Ãf6
On 27...h6?! strong is 28.Õa6 Ãg5 32.b6!
29.©b4 Õfd8 30.b6±. The pawn advances one step nearer to
28.Àxf6 ©xf6 promoting, since Black loses after

132

32...Õxb6? 33.Àd5, whilst on 32...Ãf7
there follows 33.Õ2a5!, and now not
33...Õxb6? because of 34.Õf5 ©e6
35.Õfxf7!, winning. Better is 33...Àc5,
although after 34.Õb5, Black’s position
remains difficult.
32...©d4?!
Allows White to reduce the pressure in
the centre and transfer his forces to the
queenside.
33.b7 ©b6 34.Ãxd3 exd3 35.©b2
©c5?
Stronger is 35...©c7. In that case, after
36.Õa8? there is 36...Ãe4 37.Õ2a7 Õg8,
and the b-pawn is lost.
White would have to play 36.Õ2a4!, which
after 36...d2!? 37.©xd2 Õxb7 38.Õxb7
©xb7 39.©xd6 gives him an extra pawn,
but Black retains defensive chances.
36.Õa8 Ãe4
Leads to a quick finish, but other continu-
ations do not save the game either, e.g.:
A) 36...d2?! 37.Õxb8 Õxb8 38.Õa8;
B) 36...©c7?! 37.Õxb8 Õxb8 38.Õa8
h6 39.©b5;
C) 36...©c6 (the most tenacious)
37.Õ2a6 ©e4 38.Õxb8 Õxb8 39.Õxd6
©e7 40.©d4! Õxb7 41.Õd8+ Ãe8
42.Àf5 ©e6 43.©d6, and White wins.
37.Õxb8 Õxb8 38.Õa8 ©c7
Rt._._.m
_Id._.jJ
._.j._._
_._._._.
._._L_._
_._Jn._I
.q._.iI_
_._._.k.
39.©b6!
The queen cannot be taken because of
mate, and Black can only give one last
Game 45 - 2005
‘spite check’: 39...©c1+ 40.®h2. Fur-
ther resistance is hopeless.
Black resigned.
Game 45
French Defence (C13)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Volkov,Sergey
Saint Vincent 2005
1.e4 e6 2.Àc3 d5 3.d4 Àf6 4.Ãg5
The only real alternative to the move 4.e5
(see Game 22) in the fight for an opening
advantage.
In the event of 4.Ãd3 c5 5.exd5 cxd4
6.Àb5 Àxd5 7.Àf3 (on 7.Àxd4 the re-
ply 7...e5 is unpleasant) 7...Àc6
8.Àbxd4 Àxd4 9.Àxd4 Àb4 10.0-0
Àxd3 11.©xd3 Ãe7 12.Ãf4 0-0
13.Õad1 ©b6 chances are equal,
Ljubojevic-Bednarski, Bath 1973.
4...dxe4
This interesting concession of the centre,
worked out by Akiba Rubinstein, has re-
tained its popularity to our day, although
White’s prospects here are slightly
superior.
5.Àxe4 Ãe7
Also possible is 5...Àbd7, e.g. 6.Àf3 h6
7.Ãh4 c5 8.c3 ©b6 9.dxc5 Ãxc5
10.Àxc5 ©xc5, Colovic-Vysochin,
Kemer 2007, and by continuing 11.©d4,
White would retain the better chances.
6.Ãxf6 gxf6
This variation is usually chosen in the
hope of a double-edged game. A quieter
line is 6...Ãxf6 7.Àf3 0-0 8.©e2 Ãe7
9.0-0-0 b6 10.©e3 Ãb7 11.Ãc4 Àd7
12.d5 exd5 13.Ãxd5 Ãxd5 14.Õxd5 c6
15.Õd2 ©c7Ç, Leko-Ivanchuk, Wijk aan
Zee 2006.
7.Àf3 f5 8.Àc3 a6
The modern way to handle the line.
Also quite solid is Alekhine’s 8...c6 9.g3
Àd7 10.Ãg2 ©c7 11.©e2, Bogoljubow-
133
 Vassily Ivanchuk
Alekhine, 18th game, World Champion-
ship match, Germany 1929, and after
11...b6 followed by ...Ãb7, Black com-
pletes his development satisfactorily.
9.g3
Yet another possibility is 9.©d2 b5
10.0-0-0 Ãb7 11.©e3 b4 12.Àa4 ©d5
13.b3 Àd7 14.Ãc4 ©e4 15.©d2 ©g4
16.d5 e5 with sharp play and mutual
chances, Romanov-Wang Hao, Yerevan
2006.
9...b5 10.Ãg2 Ãb7 11.0-0 c5
Other replies have also been seen:
11...©d6 12.Àe5 Ãxg2 13.®xg2 0-0
14.©f3 Õa7 15.Õad1 c5 16.©e3 b4
17.Àe2 Àc6 18.Àxc6 ©xc6+ 19.d5
exd5 20.©f3Ç, Geo. Timoshenko-Lupu,
Bucharest 1993;
11...0-0 12.Àe5 Ãxg2 13.®xg2 b4
14.©f3 c6 15.Àe2 ©d5 16.Õfd1 Õa7
17.Àf4 ©xf3+ 18.®xf3 Õc8 19.Õg1
Ãd6 20.g4 fxg4+ 21.Õxg4+ ®h8
22.Õag1Ç, Tseshkovsky-B. Kovacevic,
Borovo 2005.
Ts.dM_.t
_L_.lJ_J
J_._J_._
_Jj._J_.
._.i._._
_.n._Ni.
IiI_.iBi
r._Q_Rk.
12.d5!?
A difficult move to find, involving a piece
sacrifice, which radically changes the
character of the battle.
With 12.Àe2 0-0 13.c3 Àd7 14.©d2
Àf6 15.Õad1 ©c7 16.dxc5 ©xc5
17.©h6 Àg4, Naer-Chebotarev, Kazan
2005; or 12.dxc5 ©xd1 13.Õfxd1 Ãxc5
14.Àe5 Õa7 15.Õd3 Ãxg2 16.®xg2
134
®e7 17.Õad1 Õc8 18.Àe2 f6 19.Àf3
Àd7 20.Àf4 Àe5, Tseshkovsky-
Chebotarev, Kazan 2005, Black obtained
satisfactory play.
12...b4
Weaker is 12...exd5? 13.Àe5 Àd7
14.Ãxd5 Àxe5 15.Ãxb7 or 12...Ãxd5?
13.Àxd5 exd5 (13...©xd5? 14.Àd2)
14.Àe5 0-0 15.Ãxd5 with advantage to
White.
13.dxe6! bxc3
Nothing is given by 13...fxe6 14.©e2
bxc3 15.Àe5, and by threatening check
on h5, White regains the piece.
14.exf7+ ®f8
In the event of 14...®xf7? 15.Àe5+ ®f6
16.©h5! Ãxg2 17.©h6+ ®xe5
Ts.d._.t
_._.l._J
J_._._.q
_.j.mJ_.
._._._._
_.j._.i.
IiI_.iLi
r._._Rk.
analysis diagram
18.Õad1!, there comes about a surprising
position in which White, despite being
three pieces down, has a decisive advan-
tage!
Black loses after 18...Ãxf1? 19.f4+ ®e4
20.©e6+ ®f3 21.Õxf1+ ®g4 22.©e2+
®h3 23.©g2+ ®g4 24.©f3+ ®h3
25.©h5+ Ãh4 26.©xf5 mate.
And after the superior 18...©d2 19.f4+
®d4 (or 19...®d5 20.bxc3 Ãxf1
21.Õxd2+ê) 20.Õxd2+ cxd2
21.®xg2 ®d5 22.Õd1 Àc6 23.c4+,
Black cannot maintain the approximate
material balance, losing a further knight.
15.©e2 cxb2 16.Õad1 ©b6 17.Õfe1
 Game 45 - 2005

White’s heavy pieces are in play, and exert

strong pressure on the open files. Dubi-
._._._.t
ous is 17...Ãe4?! because of 18.Àe5 _._.lM_J
©b7 19.f3 ©c7 20.fxe4 ©xe5 21.©h5, J_St.d._
with attack. _.j._._.
17...©f6 18.c3 Ãe4 ._._Q_._
On 18...Àc6 good is 19.©xb2 Õb8 _.i._Ni.
20.Àh4, and it is hard for Black to organ- Ir._.i.i
ise counterplay.
_._.r.k.
Ts._.m.t 25.Õb6
_._.lI_J By threatening a blow on c6, White takes
J_._.d._ aim at the a6-pawn.
_.j._J_. In addition to this, the queen is still at-
tacking the pawn on h7, making it hard
._._L_._ for the black king’s rook to come into
_.i._Ni. play, whilst White has at his disposal a se-
Ij._QiBi rious reserve threat of bringing his knight
_._Rr.k. via h4-f5.
19.Àh4! Black cannot break this Gordian Knot with-
Astonishing equanimity! out losses, so he should have considered
Ivanchuk does not rush to take on b2, 25...®g7!? 26.Õxa6 (after 26.Õxc6 Õxc6
preferring first to exchange the active 27.©xe7+ ©xe7 28.Õxe7+ ®f6 play goes
black bishop and obtain another pawn for into an equal ending) 26...Õf8! 27.®g2
the piece. (dubious is 27.Õxc6?! Õxc6 28.©xe7+
19...Àc6 ®g8 29.©xf6 Õcxf6) 27...Ãd8 28.a4
Bad is 19...b1©? 20.Õxb1 Ãxb1 Ãc7, with a defensible position.
21.Ãxa8 Ãe4 22.Ãxe4 fxe4 23.©xe4 25...®e8?! 26.Õe3! Õf8 27.©xh7
with advantage to White, whilst after Õf7 28.©g8+ Õf8 29.©c4 a5
19...Ãxg2 possible is 20.®xg2 ©xf7 Not 29...Àe5? 30.Õb8+ Õd8 31.Õxd8+
21.Àxf5! with the initiative. ®xd8 32.Àxe5 ©xf2+ 33.®h1 and after
20.Ãxe4 fxe4 21.©xe4 Õd8 33...©xe3 – 34.©d5+ ®c8 35.©d7+
The exchange of rooks would noticeably ®b8 36.Àc6+ ®a8 37.©a7mate.
weaken the white position, but it can
scarcely be accomplished. ._._Mt._
If 21...Õb8, then 22.Õb1 Õb6 _._.l._.
(22...®xf7?! 23.©d5+ ®f8 24.Õe6) .rSt.d._
23.Àf5! ©xf7 24.©f4 with the threats of j.j._._.
25.©h6+ and 25.©c7.
22.Õb1 Õd2 23.Àf3 Õd6 24.Õxb2
._Q_._._
®xf7 _.i.rNi.
Mistaken is 24...©xf7? 25.Õb7 Õg8 I_._.i.i
26.Àe5 Àxe5 27.©xe5 Õg7 28.Õe4, _._._.k.
and White wins. 30.®g2! Õf7

135
 Vassily Ivanchuk
The attempt to defend the pawn with
30...©f5 does not bring success, e.g.
31.Õb5 Õd5 32.h4 Õf7 33.g4 ©d7
34.Õxc5, and White retains the advantage.
31.©xc5 ®f8
After 31...Õe6 32.Õb8+ Àd8 (32...Ãd8?
33.©xc6+) 33.©b5+ ®f8 34.Õd3 Õd6
35.Õa8 Black loses his last pawn.
32.©h5 ®g8 33.©g4+ Õg7 34.©c4+
Õf735.©g4+ Õg736.©c8+ Ãf8
On 36...®h7 decisive is 37.c4 Àd8 (or
37...Àb4 38.c5! Õxb6 39.cxb6 ©xb6
40.a3, and the knight is lost) 38.Õxd6
©xd6 39.©f5+ ©g6 40.©xa5ê.
37.Õe8 Õg6?!
More tenacious is 37...Õf7 38.©g4+
©g6, not taking the rook off the 7th rank.
38.h4 ©f7 39.Õb7 ©f6 40.Àg5 Àe5
Or 40...Õd8 41.©c7 Õg7 42.©xg7+
©xg7 43.Õxg7+ ®xg7 44.Àe6+ ®f7
45.Àxd8+ ®xe8 46.Àxc6, winning.
._Q_RlM_
_R_._._.
._.t.dT_
j._.s.n.
._._._.i
_.i._.i.
I_._.iK_
_._._._.
41.Õf7! 1-0
It is hopeless after 41...Àxf7 42.Õxf8+
®g7 43.Õg8+ ®h6 44.©f8+ ®h5
45.Àxf7 Õc6 46.f3ê.
2006
Game 46
English Opening (A30)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Aronian,Levon
Morelia/Linares 2006
1.Àf3 Àf6 2.c4 b6 3.g3 Ãb7 4.Ãg2
c5 5.0-0 g6 6.Àc3
136
With this move-order, White avoids the
symmetrical line with the double
fianchetto.
6...Ãg7 7.d4 cxd4 8.©xd4
Another equally good line is 8.Àxd4
Ãxg2 9.®xg2 0-0.
Weaker is the formerly popular 9...©c8
10.b3 ©b7+ 11.f3 d5 on account of
12.cxd5 Àxd5 13.Àxd5 ©xd5 14.Ãe3!,
and Black has some problems.
8...d6
The best reply.
The tempting 8...Àc6 is weaker on ac-
count of 9.©f4! (not 9.©h4? h6!, Tal-
Botvinnik, 13th match game , Moscow
1960), and Black risks coming under at-
tack: 9...Õc8 10.Õd1 d6 11.b3 Àe4?!
12.Àxe4! Ãxa1 13.Ãa3 Ãg7 14.Àfg5
0-0 15.Àxh7!, Ribli-Kouatly, Lucerne
1985.
9.Ãe3
After 9.Õd1 Àbd7 (dangerous is 9...0-0
10.©h4!) 10.b3 Õc8 11.Ãb2 0-0
12.©e3 Õe8 13.Õac1 a6 14.Ãa1 Õc5!
Black has good play, Karpov-Kasparov,
23rd match game, Leningrad 1986.
9...Àbd7 10.Õac1 Õc8 11.b3 a6
12.Õfd1 0-0
._Td.tM_
_L_SjJlJ
Jj.j.sJ_
_._._._.
._Iq._._
_In.bNi.
I_._IiBi
_.rR_.k.
13.©d2
White is the first to leave well-trodden
paths.
More popular is 13.©h4, as played in
Linares against the same opponent, by

Vallejo Pons: 13.©h4 Õc7 (on 13...Õe8,
interesting is 14.Ãh3 Õc7 15.g4!?)
14.g4 h6 15.Ãxh6!? Ãxh6 16.©xh6
Àxg4 17.©h4 Àgf6 with mutual
chances, Vallejo Pons-Aronian,
Morelia/Linares 2006.
13...Àe4
And this is already a novelty by Levon
Aronian. Black simplifies the game, but it
is not clear whom this favours.
Worth consideration was 13...Õe8
14.Ãh3 ©c7!? (or 14...Õc7 15.Ãh6 Õc5
16.Ãxg7 ®xg7 17.©d4 ©c7 18.e4 ®g8
19.©e3 ©b8 20.Àd5 b5! 21.cxb5 axb5
22.Àxf6+ Àxf6 23.Õxc5 dxc5 24.©xc5
Àxe4 25.©e3 Õd8ì, Gulko-Grischuk,
Beer-Sheva 2005) 15.Àe1 ©b8 16.Àc2
Õed8 17.Àb4 e6! 18.Ãf4 Àe5 19.©e3
Ãa8 20.f3 Àc6 21.Àxc6 Õxc6 22.a4
©b7 23.Õd3 d5 with chances for both
sides, Chuchelov-Nikolic, Ohrid 2001.
14.Àxe4 Ãxe4 15.Àe1 Àf6
On 15...Ãxg2 a good line is 16.Àxg2
Àf6 (premature is 16...b5 17.cxb5 axb5
18.©b4 Õa8 19.Õd2 ©b8 20.Õdc2!)
17.Ãd4!?, and after 17...Àe4 18.©e3
Ãxd4 19.©xd4 Àf6 20.Àe3 ©c7 21.g4
©c5 22.h4 ©xd4 23.Õxd4 b5 24.g5
Àd7 25.Àd5 White’s chances are slightly
better, but even so, Black should have ex-
changed the bishops, because he will not
get the chance again.
._Td.tM_
_._.jJlJ
Jj.j.sJ_
_._._._.
._I_L_._
_I_.b.i.
I_.qIiBi
_.rRn.k.
16.Ãh3!
Game 46 - 2006
The paradox of the situation is that the
bishop looks good on the long diagonal,
but it has little actually to do, whilst the
white light-squared bishop interferes
with the cooperation of the black pieces.
16...Õb8 17.Àd3 Ãa8 18.f3!
Limiting the activity of two enemy pieces
– the Ãa8 and Àf6.
18...e6 19.Ãf2
Useful prophylaxis against the advance
...d6-d5-d4 and preparation for a strong
knight manoeuvre.
The immediate 19.Àb4?! is bad because
of 19...a5 20.Àa6 Õb7! 21.c5
(21.©xd6? Õd7) 21...Õa7 22.©d3
Àd5! (threatening 23...Àxe3 24.©xe3
Õxa6) 23.Ãf2 bxc5 with the loss of a
pawn.
19...Õe8?!
Black does not notice the danger.
On 19...d5?! a strong idea is 20.c5 bxc5
21.Àxc5 ©d6 22.©a5; however, after
19...Ãb7 20.e4 ©c7 21.Àf4 Àe8
(21...Õfd8 22.Ãxe6!?) 22.Ãe3 ©c6 it
was possible to hold.
Lt.dT_M_
_._._JlJ
Jj.jJsJ_
_._._._.
._I_._._
_I_N_IiB
I_.qIb.i
_.rR_.k.
20.Àb4!
By unconventional tactical means, White
wins a pawn.
20...a5 21.Àa6! Õc8
The beauty of White’s idea consists in the
variation 21...Õb7 22.c5 Õa7 (22...bxc5
23.Àxc5 Õb6 24.©xa5±) 23.©d3! Ãb7
(23...bxc5 24.Àxc5±).
137
 Vassily Ivanchuk

26...Ãe5?!
._.dT_M_ Incalculable complications result from
tL_._JlJ 26...bxc4!?, and it seems this is how Black
Nj.jJsJ_ should have played, although in the varia-
j.i._._. tion 27.Àc7! Õf8
._._._._
_I_Q_IiB L_T_.tM_
I_._Ib.i _.nR_JlJ
_.rR_.k. ._._J_J_
analysis diagram
j._._._.
24.Àc7! ©xc7 25.cxb6, and the knight ._J_._._
raid into the enemy rear has brought vic- _Is._IiB
tory. I_.rIb.i
22.©xd6 ©xd6 23.Õxd6 Àd5!
_._._.k.
Aronian finds an excellent possibility to
analysis diagram
sharpen the game, underlining the vul-
nerability of White’s rook and knight, cut 28.Àxe6!! cxb3 (weaker is 28...fxe6?!
off from the rest of their forces. 29.Ãxe6+ ®h8 30.Õxg7! Àxe2+
31.Õxe2 ®xg7 32.Ãd4+ ®h6 33.Ãxc8
Õxc8±) 29.Àxf8 bxa2 30.Õxa2 Àxa2
L_T_T_M_ 31.Àe6! Ãe5 32.Àg5 f5 33.Õa7 Àb4
_._._JlJ 34.Õxa5 White retains an extra pawn and
Nj.rJ_J_ chances of a win.
j._S_._. 27.cxb5?!
._I_._._ Another, seemingly more convincing
_I_._IiB path was 27.f4! Àe4 (bad is 27...Ãh8
I_._Ib.i 28.Àc7 Ãc6 29.Àxe8 Ãxd7 30.Àd6±)
28.fxe5 Àxd2 29.Õxd2 bxc4 30.Ãf1
_.r._.k.
cxb3 31.axb3 Õc3 32.b4 axb4 33.Àxb4,
24.Õd1 giving White a clear advantage.
An inaccuracy. According to Ivanchuk, a In the following complicated battle,
quicker way to the target was 24.Õe1! Ãe5 Black’s pawn minus is partly compensated
25.Õd7 Ãc6 26.Õa7 Àb4 (or 26...Àc3 for by the activity of his pieces.
27.Ãxb6 Àxa2 28.Àc7 Õe7 29.Àb5!) 27...Àxb5 28.Ãf1 Ãc6 29.Õ7d3 Àa3
27.Àxb4 axb4 28.Ãxb6 Õa8 29.Õd1, 30.f4 Ãf6 31.Àc5 Ãe7 32.Õd1 Àb5
with an obvious advantage to White. 33.Àa4
Now, however, the battle is prolonged. Worth consideration was 33.Õc1!?, not
24...Àc3 25.Õ1d2 b5 26.Õd7 conceding the c-file.
Here, White had several continuations of 33...Ãe4 34.Õd7 Ãb4?!
equal merit. After the preliminary 34...Ãc6! 35.Õ7d2,
Also possible was 26.c5 Ãh6 27.Õc2 b4 on 35...Ãb4 a possibility is 36.Àb6!?
28.e4 or 26.cxb5 Àxb5 27.Õb6 Àc3 Ãxd2 37.Àxc8 Ãxf4 38.Àe7+ Õxe7
28.e4 with the better play. 39.gxf4 Ãd5 40.Õc1 Àd6 41.Ãd4, and,

138
 Game 47 - 2006

despite the material equality, White’s po-

sition deserves preference. However, this
would still be better for Black than the
game continuation.

._T_T_M_
_._R_J_J
._._J_J_
jS_._._.
Nl._Li._
_I_._.i.
I_._Ib.i
_._R_Bk. Levon Aronian
35.Ãg2!
It is symbolic that now the exchange of A problem-like finish!
bishops gives White a strong initiative, al- 44...exf4
lowing him to regroup his rooks on the Not 44...fxe6 45.Õg7+ ®h8 46.Õxh7+
7th rank. ®g8 47.Õbg7# or 44...Õe8 45.Õe7!
35...Ãxg2 36.®xg2 Õc2 37.Õb7 Õxe7? 46.Õb8+ Õe8 47.Õxe8 mate.
Àa3 38.Õdd7 Õf8 39.®f3 Àb1 45.Õxf7! 1-0
On 39...Õxa2 it is already possible to play After taking the rook, Black is mated on
40.Àc5 Àb1 (or 40...Õb2 41.Àxe6! the back rank, whilst after 45...f3+ there
Õxb3+ 42.®g2 Õe8 43.Àd4±) is the intended retort 46.®h3!.
41.Àxe6! with advantage to White.
40.Ãe3 Õxa2 41.Ãc5 Àd2+ Game 47
42.®g2 Ãxc5 43.Àxc5 e5? Grünfeld Indian Defence (D80)
Ending the game prematurely, but Black’s í Ivanchuk,Vassily
position was already difficult. n Svidler,Peter
Defensive chances remained after Morelia/Linares 2006
43...Àb1 44.®f1 Àd2+ 45.®g1 Õc8!±. 1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 g6 3.Àc3 d5 4.Ãg5
A continuation first seen in the game
Alekhine-Grünfeld, Vienna 1922.
._._.tM_ Then also, Black found the strongest re-
_R_R_J_J ply.
._._._J_ 4...Àe4
j.n.j._. Weaker is 4...c6 because of 5.Ãxf6 exf6
._._.i._ 6.cxd5 cxd5 7.©b3 Àc6 8.e3 (but not
_I_._.i. 8.©xd5?! ©b6! with counterplay), and
T_.sI_Ki White’s chances are slightly superior.
However, 4...Ãg7 is worth considering.
_._._._.
In the game Ivanchuk-Dominguez Perez,
44.Àe6! Havana 2010, there followed 5.Ãxf6

139
 Vassily Ivanchuk
Ãxf6 6.cxd5 c6 7.Õc1 0-0 8.dxc6 ©xd4
9.©xd4 Ãxd4 10.Àf3 (10.cxb7!?;
10.c7!?) 10...Ãxc3+ 11.Õxc3 Àxc6, and
Black achieved full equality. The latest
development is 6...c5!? and if 7.dxc5,
then Gopal’s clever continuation 7...Àd7.
7.Àf3 cxd4 8.Àxd4 is innocuous.
5.Ãh4 Àxc3
Also possible is 5...c5 6.cxd5 Àxc3
7.bxc3 ©xd5, Azmaiparashvili-Ivanchuk,
Beer-Sheva 2005; or 5...Ãg7 6.cxd5
Àxc3 7.bxc3 ©xd5 8.e3 c5 with mutual
chances, Bareev-Ivanchuk, Monaco 2005.
6.bxc3 dxc4
Taking play into different channels.
This move was used by Bobby Fischer.
7.e3
Or 7.©a4+ Àd7 8.e3 Ãg7 9.Ãxc4 c5
10.Àf3 0-0 11.©a3 ©c7 12.Ãb5 Àf6
13.Ãg3 ©b6 14.Ãd3 Ãf5 15.Ãxf5 gxf5
16.0-0 Àe4 17.Õab1 ©c6Ç, Kir.
Georgiev-Melkumian, Benasque 2009.
7...Ãe6
Defending the c4-pawn is Black’s idea.
Without this reply, the capture on the last
move would make no sense.
8.©b1
After 8.Õb1, the game Mecking-Fischer,
Buenos Aires 1970, continued 8...b6 (in-
teresting is 8...Ãg7!? 9.Õxb7 0-0 10.Àe2
Ãd5 11.Õb2 Ãh6 12.Ãg3 Àc6 with the
initiative for the pawn, Gladyshev-Ni
Hua, Cappelle-la-Grande 2007, or
8...Àd7!? 9.Àf3 Àb6 10.e4 Ãg7 11.Ãe2
c5 with mutual chances, Halkias-l’Ami,
Amsterdam 2006) 9.Àf3 Ãg7 (also pos-
sible is 9...c6 10.a4 Ãg7 11.Àd2 0-0
12.Ãe2 a6 13.Àxc4 Àd7 14.Àd2 b5
15.c4, and here by means of 15...Àb6!?
Black could have obtained equal chances,
Kasimdzhanov-Vallejo Pons, Wijk aan Zee
2009) 10.Àd2 0-0 11.Àxc4 Ãd5
12.©d2 ©d7 13.Àa3 c5 with perfectly
reasonable play for Black.
140
Ts.dMl.t
jJj.jJ_J
._._L_J_
_._._._.
._Ji._.b
_.i.i._.
I_._.iIi
rQ_.kBnR
8...c5(?!)
A novelty – Black invites his opponent to
re-establish material equality.
The main line involves 8...b6, e.g.: 9.Àh3
(the move 9.Àf3 transposes into the
same position) 9...Ãh6 10.Ãg5 Ãxg5
11.Àxg5 ©d5 12.Àxe6 fxe6 13.e4 ©a5
14.©b2 ©a4 15.Ãe2 Àd7 16.e5 Õf8
17.0-0 c5 18.f4 cxd4 19.cxd4 Õc8
20.©c3 ©a5 21.©e3 b5 with approxi-
mately equal play, Goldin-Kudrin, San
Diego 2004.
9.©xb7 Ãd5 10.©b5+ Àd7 11.Àf3
Threatening to win a pawn. Weaker is
11.Àe2?! Ãh6 12.Ãg3 0-0 13.Àf4
Õb8 14.©a4 Ãa8 with counterplay for
Black.
11...Õb8 12.©a4 cxd4
If immediately 12...©c8, then after
13.Õc1! Black must either return to the
game continuation with 13...cxd4, or go
in for the variation 13...Ãc6 14.©c2!?
(also good is 14.©xc4) 14...Ãxf3
15.gxf3 ©a6 16.Ãg3 Õc8 17.d5 Ãg7
18.Ãh3, giving White excellent
prospects.
13.cxd4 ©c8
Black does not solve his problems after
13...c3?! because of 14.Õc1, and
14...©c8 is not possible because of
15.Ãa6! with advantage.
14.Õc1!
Methodically surrounding the c-pawn.
14...e6
 Game 47 - 2006

A bad mistake would be 17...Õxc4??

.tD_Ml.t 18.Õxc4 ©xc4 19.©d8 mate, whilst af-
j._S_J_J ter 17...Ãd5 there follows the effective
._._J_J_ finish 18.Àe5! Ãxg2
_._L_._.
Q_Ji._.b ._D_Ml.t
_._.iN_. j._S_J_J
I_._.iIi ._._J_J_
_.r.kB_R q._.n._.
15.Ãxc4! .tBi._.b
A tactical shock! It turns out that _._.i._.
15...Ãb4+ 16.®d1 Ãxc4 allows I_._.iLi
17.Àe5, and after 17...©b7 18.Õxc4
_.r.k._R
White regains the piece, retaining the ad-
analysis diagram
vantage.
15...Õb4 16.©a6! Ãb7 19.®d1!! ©b8 (or 19...Ãxh1 20.Ãxe6!
Other continuations are no better: on Ãf3+ 21.Àxf3 Õb1 22.Ãxd7+ ©xd7
16...©xa6 17.Ãxa6 f6 18.0-0 Ãxa2? (in 23.Õxb1ê) 20.Ãb5! Õxb5 21.©xb5!
the hope of regaining the pawn) decisive ©b7 22.©xb7 Ãxb7 23.Õc7! Àxe5
is 19.Õc8+ ®e7 20.Õc7 ®d8 24.Õxb7, winning.
21.Õxa7ê; and after 16...©c7 there is 18.Àd2 Ãxg2?
the following nice variation: 17.Àe5! Õb6 Black regains the pawn, but falls under an
attack. It was possible to hold the defence
with 18...©c6! 19.a3! Õa4 (19...©xg2?!
._._Ml.t 20.axb4 ©xh1+ 21.Àf1 ©c6 22.Ãxf6!)
j.qS_J_J 20.©b5 Ãxa3 21.Õb1 ©xb5 22.Ãxb5
Dt._J_J_ Õb4 23.0-0 a6 24.Ãd3±.
_._Ln._. 19.Õg1 ©c6
._Bi._.b Once again, after 19...Ãd5 there is the ef-
_._.i._. fective 20.Ãxf6! Õg8 (or 20...Õxc4
I_._.iIi 21.Àxc4 ©b8 22.©a4 ©b4+ 23.©xb4
Ãxb4+ 24.Àd2!ê)
_.r.k._R
._D_MlT_
analysis diagram

18.0-0! (no less interesting is 18.©a4 j._S_._J

Õb4 19.Àxd7!, and now not 19...Õxa4? ._._JbJ_
because of 20.Àf6+ ®d8 21.Àxd5+) q._L_._.
18...Õxa6 19.Ãxa6 ©b8 20.Õc8+ (the
move 20.Ãb5!? also retains the advan-
.tBi._._
tage) 20...©xc8 21.Ãxc8 Àxe5 22.Ãf6 _._.i._.
Àf3+ 23.gxf3, and White retains the ex- I_.n.i.i
tra pawn with the better position. _.r.k.r.
17.©a5! f6 analysis diagram

141
 Vassily Ivanchuk

21.Ãxd5!! ©xc1+ 22.®e2 ©c8 6...b5

(22...©xg1 23.©d8+ ®f7 24.©xd7+ A rarely-played continuation, leading to
®xf6 25.Àe4+ ®f5 26.©xe6#) the Slav Defence and not enjoying a great
23.Õc1! ©b8 24.Ãxe6 Àxf6 25.Õc8+ reputation.
©xc8 26.Ãxc8 with a massacre. More common is 6...c5, after which play
A quick finish also awaits Black after the transposes into the classical Vienna Varia-
game continuation: tion, e.g. 7.Ãxc4 cxd4 8.Àxd4 ©a5
9.Ãb5+ Ãd7 10.Ãxf6 Ãxb5 11.Àxb5
._._Ml.t gxf6 12.0-0 Àc6 13.a3 Ãxc3 14.Àxc3
j._S_._J Õg8 with mutual, roughly equal chances,
._D_JjJ_ Kramnik-Anand, 8th match game, Bonn
q._._._. 2008, (see also Game 53).
7.a4 c6
.tBi._.b The transposition of moves is not without
_._.i._. significance.
I_.n.iLi Unlike the variation with 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6
_.r.k.r. 3.Àf3 Àf6 4.Àc3 e6 5.Ãg5 dxc4 6.e4
20.Õxg2! ©xg2 21.Ãxe6 Ãd6 b5 7.a4, Black cannot now play 7...Ãb7,
Nothing is changed by 21...©h1+ because he has already developed his
22.Àf1 ©b7 23.Õc7 Õb1+ 24.®e2 bishop to b4.
©b6 25.Ãxd7+ê. 8.e5 h6 9.exf6 hxg5 10.fxg7 Õg8
22.Õc8+ ®e7 23.Õxh8 ®xe6
24.©d8 ©g1+ 25.®e2 TsLdM_T_
Black resigned. He loses after 25...©g4+ j._._Ji.
26.f3 ©xh4 (26...©g2+ 27.Ãf2) ._J_J_._
27.Õe8+ ®f5 28.©xd7+. _J_._.j.
Game 48
IlJi._._
Slav Defence (D44) _.n._N_.
í Ivanchuk,Vassily .i._.iIi
n Vallejo Pons,Francisco r._QkB_R
Morelia/Linares 2006 11.g3!?
1.d4 Àf6 2.Àf3 d5 3.c4 e6 4.Àc3 A move that is not without a drop of poi-
Ãb4 5.Ãg5 dxc4 6.e4 son. To prevent a possible attack on his
kingside, White fianchettoes his king’s
TsLdM_.t bishop, strengthening his king position.
jJj._JjJ The alternative is 11.h4.
._._Js._ In the game Cheparinov-Vallejo Pons,
_._._.b. Cuernavaca 2006, there followed 11...g4
12.Àe5 Õxg7 13.h5 f5 14.g3 ©d5
.lJiI_._ 15.Õh2 ©e4+ 16.Ãe2 Àd7 17.h6 Õh7
_.n._N_. 18.Àxd7 Ãxc3+ 19.bxc3 ®xd7 20.©d2
Ii._.iIi Ãb7 21.®f1 Õah8 22.Õe1 ©d5 23.Ãd1
r._QkB_R ©d6 24.Õe5 a6, with a complicated

142
 Game 48 - 2006

struggle, in which White’s chances re- 15...Õxg7

main somewhat better. The previously-seen 15...cxd4 is more ac-
11...Ãb7 12.Ãg2 c5 13.0-0 g4 curate.
14.Àh4 In the game Sakaev-Yakovich, Kazan
On 14.Àe5 a possibility is the sharp 2005, play continued 16.Àxb5 Àc6
14...Ãxg2 15.®xg2 cxd4 16.©xg4 dxc3 (weaker is 16...Õxg7 because of
17.Õad1 ©c7 18.©e4 Õxg7 19.axb5 17.Àxd4) 17.©xg4 a6! (17...Õc8?!
18.Õad1 Ãc5 19.Àf4 a6 20.Àxe6 fxe6
Ts._M_._ 21.©h5+ ®d7 22.©xc5 axb5 23.axb5
j.d._Jt. Àe7 24.©xd4+ Àd5 25.f4 ®e7 26.f5
._._J_._ ©b6 27.©xb6 Àxb6 28.Õfe1ê,
_I_.n._. Shtirenkov-Rodin, Briansk 1995)
18.©e4 Õc8 19.©h7 (19.Õfd1!? Ãc5
.lJ_Q_._ 20.©h7 ®d7 21.Àa3 Ãxa3 22.Õxa3
_.j._.i. ©g5 23.Àe3 Õxg7 24.©e4Ç
.i._.iKi Yusupov-Van Wely, Groningen 1994)
_._R_R_. 19...Àe7 20.Àf4!? axb5 21.Àh5 f5
analysis diagram 22.©h6 ©d6 23.axb5 ©e5 24.Õa6, and
19...f5 20.©xa8 ©xe5 21.Õfe1 ©xb5 here 24...®f7 gave Black counterchances.
(worth consideration is 21...c2!? 16.axb5 cxd4 17.Àe4 f5?
22.Õd8+ ®xd8 23.Õxe5 c1© With this aggressive thrust, Black goes for
24.©xb8+ ®e7 25.©xa7+ ®f6 26.©d4 more than the position warrants.
©d2 27.Õxf5+! ®xf5 28.©xg7 Ãc5 His position remains awkward after
with roughly equal chances) 22.bxc3?! 17...Ãe7 18.Àd2 (if 18.Õc1 ©d5
(stronger is 22.Õxe6+ Õe7 23.Õd5!) 19.Õe1 the reply 19...e5?! is dubious be-
22...Ãxc3 23.Õxe6+ Õe7 24.Õxe7+ cause of 20.Àf4! ©xb5
®xe7 25.©xa7+ Àd7 26.Õxd7+ ©xd7
27.©e3+ ®f7 28.©xc3 ©b7+ 29.©f3
©c8 30.©d5+ ®g6 31.©d6+ ®f7
Ts._M_._
32.©d5+ ®g6 33.©d6+ ®f7, and after j._.lJt.
fierce complications, the game goes into ._._._._
a drawish ending, Duhayon-Yakovich, _D_.j._.
Port Erin 2005. ._JjNnJ_
14...Ãxg2 15.Àxg2 _._._.i.
.i._.i.i
Ts.dM_T_ _.rQr.k.
j._._Ji. analysis diagram
._._J_._
_Jj._._. 21.©xd4!, but 19...Àd7 20.Àf4 ©xb5
21.©xd4 Àe5 22.®g2 ®f8 is already in
IlJi._J_ Black’s favour) 18...c3!? (weaker is
_.n._.i. 18...©d5 19.©a4 Àd7 (19...®f8
.i._.iNi 20.Àxc4) 20.b6! (20.Àxc4? Àc5)
r._Q_Rk. 20...®f8 21.Àxc4 and on 21...Àc5?!

143
 Vassily Ivanchuk
there is 22.©xa7! with advantage)
19.bxc3 dxc3 20.Àe4 ©xd1 21.Õfxd1
a5 22.Àxc3 Àd7 23.Àe3 Õg5 with mu-
tual chances.
As well as this, after 17...Ãe7 another in-
teresting try is 18.Õa4!? ©d5 19.©c2 f5
20.Àd2 Ãg5 (20...©xb5?! 21.Àf4 ®f7
22.Õxc4) 21.Õd1, and White’s chances
look more impressive.
Ts.dM_._
j._._.t.
._._J_._
_I_._J_.
.lJjN_J_
_._._.i.
.i._.iNi
r._Q_Rk.
18.Àf4!
With this accurate blow, White immedi-
ately targets the newly-created weakness
in Black’s position, namely the pawn e6.
18...®f7
The knight cannot be taken – 18...fxe4?
19.Àxe6 ©e7 20.Àxg7+ ©xg7
21.©a4!, and Black can only buy his way
out at the cost of a piece – 21...Àd7
22.©xb4, since other continuations are
even worse:
21...Ãc5 22.b6+ ®f8 23.©xc4 Àd7
24.©d5 Õd8 25.bxa7 Ãxa7 26.Õxa7ê;
21...Ãe7 22.b6+ Àd7 23.©c6 Õd8
24.bxa7ê;
21...©e7 22.b6+ ®f7 23.©xa7! Õxa7
24.bxa7 ©b7 25.a8©ê.
19.Õc1! fxe4
The sacrifice must be accepted, because
there is little other choice.
After 19...e5?! both white knights are fac-
ing an early death, but his heavy pieces
come into action: 20.Õxc4 exf4
(20...fxe4? 21.©b3! ®e7 22.Õc7+!
144
©xc7 23.Àd5+ê) 21.Õxd4 ©e7
22.Õxb4! ©xb4 23.©d5+ ®f8 24.©xa8
©xe4 25.©xb8+ ©e8 26.©xf4 gives
White a clear advantage.
20.Õxc4 Ãc5
Nor is it any better to play 20...Ãe7
21.Õxd4 ©c8 22.Õxe4 Àd7 23.Àxe6
Àf6 24.Õe5 Ãf8 25.©b3 ®g6 26.f3!
®h7 27.fxg4 Õg6 28.Àxf8+ ©xf8
29.g5 with a winning attack.
If we take up the idea of returning the
piece, it is possible to suggest 20...Ãd2!?
21.©xd2 e5, although after 22.b4! ©e8
(or 22...exf4 23.Õxd4 ©g5 24.Õxe4 f3
25.©d6ê) 23.Õc7+ Àd7 24.©a2+
White’s advantage is indisputable.
21.Õxc5 Àd7 22.Õh5 Àf6?
Too cooperative. He could retain defen-
sive chances with 22...©b6 23.Õe1 Àf6
24.Õe5 Õe8±.
23.Õe5 ©d6 24.Õxe6
After 24...©d8 White decides with
25.©b3 ®f8 26.Õc6, with irresistible
threats, whilst after 24...©xe6 25.Àxe6
®xe6 26.©xd4 resistance is hopeless.
Black resigned.
Game 49
English Opening (A30)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Elianov,Pavel
Fügen 2006
1.Àf3 c5 2.c4 Àc6 3.d4 cxd4
4.Àxd4 e6
In the game Malakhov-Ivanchuk,
Villarrobledo 2007, play continued
4...Àf6 5.Àc3 (5.g3 ©b6 6.Àc2 h5
7.Ãg2 h4 8.Àc3 hxg3 9.hxg3 Õxh1+
10.Ãxh1Ç, Ivanchuk-Edouard, Warsaw
2010) 5...e6 6.e3 Ãb4 7.Àb5 0-0 8.a3
Ãe7 9.Ãe2 d5 10.cxd5 exd5 11.0-0 Ãe6
12.b4 a5 13.bxa5 ©xa5 14.Ãb2 Õfd8
15.a4 Õac8 with chances for both sides.
5.g3 Ãb4+ 6.Àc3 ©a5 7.Àb5 Àf6
 Game 49 - 2006

The previous moves and Ivanchuk’s reply In response to Black’s aggressive play,
7...d5!? are looked at in detail in Game White responds in similarly non-standard
24. fashion. Weaker is 11.f3 Àxd2 12.©xd2
Now he plays the position with white, and 0-0 with the threats of 12...Àa5 and
Black chooses another, less accurate plan. 12...d5, whilst after 11.Àxe4 ©xe4 12.f3
©xc4 13.e3 ©d5 White has sufficient
compensation for the pawn, but not more.
T_L_M_.t 11...Àxc3
jJ_J_JjJ On 11...Àa5, an interesting exchange
._S_Js._ sacrifice is possible: 12.Àxe4 ©xe4
dN_._._. 13.Ãxa5!? ©xh1 14.©d6 ©c6 15.Ãb4
.lI_._._ ©xd6 16.Ãxd6, and in the resulting end-
_.n._.i. game, White is strategically winning,
Ii._Ii.i whilst after 11...0-0 12.Ãg2 Àxd2
13.©xd2 the move 13...Àa5 is met by
r.bQkB_R
14.Àd5! Àxc4 (or 14...exd5 15.©xa5)
8.a3!? 15.Àe7+ ®h8 16.Àxf5 Àxd2 17.Àd6
Immediately clarifying the bishop’s in- Àb3 18.Õd1 with an obvious advantage.
tentions. The alternative is 8.Ãg2 0-0 12.Ãxc3 ©e4 13.Õg1 ©e3
9.0-0 a6 10.Àd6, with a minimal advan- Scarcely any better is 13...©xc4 14.Ãxg7
tage to White. ©c5 15.Õg2 Õg8 16.Õc1 ©b6 17.Ãf6
8...Ãxc3+ 9.Àxc3 Àe4 Õg6 (17...d5? 18.e4! Õg6 19.e5±)
Black should act energetically, otherwise 18.Ãc3 d5 19.e3!? e5! (dubious is
White will complete the development of 19...©xe3+?! 20.Õe2 ©c5 21.b4 ©d6
his kingside and obtain the advantage. 22.f5), and here 20.©d2 or 20.Ãxe5
10.Ãd2 Àxe5 21.fxe5 ©xe3+ 22.Õe2 gives
Now after 10...Àxd2 11.©xd2, the White a promising game.
weakness of the square d6 tells. 14.Õg2 0-0
After 10.©c2 d5 11.Ãg2 Àd4 12.©d1 After 14...d5?! 15.Ãxg7 Õg8 16.Ãc3
e5!? or 10.©d3 Àc5 11.©c2 Àd4 dxc4 17.©a4 Black has to give up the
12.©d1 Àdb3 13.Õb1 0-0, Black has c-pawn, since 17...©e4 18.Õf2 ©d5
good counterplay. 19.©c2 Õg6 20.e4 ©c5 21.0-0-0 b5
10...©f5! 22.f5 Õg8 23.Ãf6 gives White an over-
whelming positional advantage.
T_L_M_.t
jJ_J_JjJ T_L_.tM_
._S_J_._ jJ_J_JjJ
_._._D_. ._S_J_._
._I_S_._ _._._._.
i.n._.i. ._I_.i._
.i.bIi.i i.b.d.i.
r._QkB_R .i._I_Ri
11.f4! r._QkB_.
145
 Vassily Ivanchuk

15.©d6! Black had an interesting possibility by

A highly unusual position. means of 22...Ãb7!? to try to go into a
White could go into a better ending by rook ending – 23.Õxd7!? Àe5 24.Ãxe5
15.©d3 ©xd3 16.exd3, but the move in
the game is more accurate.
Now Black must himself seek the ex-
T_._.tM_
change of queens, because after 15...Õe8 jL_R_.jJ
16.Õf2 e5 17.f5 f6 (or 17...©e4 18.f6! ._._.j._
©xc4 19.fxg7) 18.Õd1 ®h8 19.Ãg2, _.j.b._.
the situation becomes threatening. ._I_IjI_
15...b6 16.g4! Ãa6 17.Õg3 ©c5 i._._R_.
18.©xc5 bxc5 19.e4 .i._._.i
Directed against ...d7-d5.
_.k._B_.
White bases his play on his control of the
analysis diagram
d-file, but weakens the dark squares in the
centre. 24...Ãxe4! 25.Õxf4 fxe5 26.Õxe4 Õxf1+
It was worth considering 19.e3, e.g. 27.®c2 Õb8 with drawing chances, al-
19...Àe7 (not 19...d5? 20.cxd5 Ãxf1 though admittedly, White stands slightly
21.dxc6!, whilst after 19...d6, a good re- better.
ply is 20.0-0-0 Õad8 21.b4) 20.Ãe5 d5 23.Õxf4 ®f7?!
21.Ãd6 Õfe8 22.Ãxc5 dxc4 23.b4 Àd5 The king heads for e7, so as to drive off
24.Õc1 Ãb7 25.Õxc4 with advantage for the white rook, but now the knight can-
White. not get to e5 and White happily carries
19...f6 20.0-0-0 e5! out the programmed b2-b4.
After 20...Õad8 21.b4! Black has no More chances were offered by 23...Ãb7
counterplay. 24.Ãh3 Àe5 25.g5 Àf7 26.Õxd7 Õxd7
27.Ãxd7 Àxg5 28.e5 fxe5 29.Ãxe5 Õf7.
24.b4! ®e7
T_._.tM_
j._J_.jJ
L_S_.j._ ._.t.t._
_.j.j._. j._Jm.jJ
._I_IiI_ L_Sr.j._
i.b._.r. _.j._._.
.i._._.i .iI_IrI_
_.kR_B_. i.b._._.
._._._.i
21.Õd6!?
_.k._B_.
Now the rook occupies the weak point.
On 21.Õxd7 (21.f5? Àd4) there is the 25.Õd5!
unpleasant 21...exf4 22.Õf3 Àe5, al- Not worrying about dubious material
though after 23.Ãxe5 fxe5 24.Õd5, gains, White retains his active queenside
White wins a pawn. pawns.
21...exf4 22.Õf3 Õad8?! 25...cxb4 26.axb4 Ãb7 27.c5 a6

146

Now not 27...Àe5? because of 28.Ãxe5
Ãxd5 (28...fxe5?? 29.Õxe5#) 29.Ãd6+
®f7 30.Ãxf8, and White wins.
28.Õd6 Õb8 29.Õf2
Preparing to double rooks on the d-file.
29...Àe5 30.Õfd2
In a few moves, White has noticeably
strengthened his position.
On 30...Ãxe4 there is 31.Ãxa6! (less
good is 31.Ãxe5 fxe5 32.Õxd7+ ®e8
33.Ãxa6 Õf6, and on 34.b5? –
34...Õxa6!) 31...Ãc6 32.g5 with a clear
advantage.
30...Ãc6 31.Ãxa6 Àf7
.t._.t._
_._JmSjJ
B_Lr.j._
_.i._._.
.i._I_I_
_.b._._.
._.r._.i
_.k._._.
32.Õ6d5!
A positional exchange sacrifice!
In the opinion of Tigran Petrosian, a great
master of such sacrifices, the ‘main diffi-
culty’ here is ‘the psychological hurdle of
sacrificing rook for minor piece. The sec-
ond difficulty is that the exchange is sac-
rificed without it being forced.’
32...Ãxd5
After the acceptance of the sacrifice, the
phalanx of white pawns, supported by
the bishops, becomes extremely strong,
but even after 32...Õfe8 33.Õh5 h6
34.e5!? fxe5 (or 34...Àxe5 35.Ãxe5 fxe5
36.b5!) 35.Ãc4 Àg5 36.h4 Àf3 37.Õf2,
White has the advantage.
33.exd5 Àe5 34.b5 Õa8 35.g5
Also possible is the immediate 35.c6!?
dxc6 36.dxc6 (weaker is 36.Ãb4+ c5!
Game 50 - 2006
37.Ãxc5+ ®d7) 36...Àxc6 37.Ãb7 Àe5
38.Ãb4+ ®f7 39.Ãd5+ ®g6 40.Ãxf8
Õxf8 41.b6! Àxg4 42.b7 with the advan-
tage, but it is risky to enter such a line.
35...h6 36.gxf6+ gxf6 37.Ãb4 ®f7
He is not saved by 37...Õxa6 38.bxa6
Õa8 39.c6+ d6 40.®c2 Õxa6 41.®b3
with a decisive advantage for White.
38.c6 Õg8 39.c7 Õg1+?
An unnecessary check, which drives the
white king closer to the b3-square, from
where it defends the bishop.
The last chance to put up some resis-
tance was 39...Õg4! 40.Ãa3 Õa4 41.Õa2
Àc4 42.d6! (less convincing is 42.c8©?!
Õxc8 43.Ãxc8 ®e8! 44.h4 Àxa3)
42...Àb6±.
40.®c2 Õg4 41.®b3
The white pawns are unstoppable.
Black resigned.
The Russian grandmaster Ildar Khairullin
named this extremely striking game as
one of the most impressive he had ever
seen.
Game 50
Caro-Kann Defence (B12)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Ruck,Robert
Fügen 2006
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Ãf5
In our day, this move has practically re-
placed the formerly popular move 3...c5.
After 4.dxc5 Àc6 5.Ãb5 e6 6.Ãe3 Àe7
7.c3 Ãd7 8.Ãxc6 Àxc6 9.f4 g5 10.fxg5
Àxe5 11.Àf3, Bosch-Van der Werf,
Enschede 1996, and now 11...Àxf3+
12.©xf3 ©c7 13.0-0 0-0-0 leaves White
a small, but stable advantage.
4.Àc3
See Game 40 for the alternatives.
4...e6
The most accurate.
147
 Vassily Ivanchuk

White prepares the advance of his kingside

pawns, with the aim of driving back the
T_._._St
bishop, whilst after the immediate 4...h5 it jJ_._MnL
favours him to exchange bishops: ._.dJi._
5.Ãd3 Ãxd3 6.©xd3 e6 7.Àf3 Àh6 _.lJ_.b.
(better is 7...©b6, preparing queenside ._.s._Ii
castling) 8.0-0 Àf5 9.Àe2 Àd7 10.Àg3! _.n._._.
Àh4 11.Àxh4 ©xh4 12.Ãe3 ©d8 IiI_.iB_
13.Õfd1 Õc8?! 14.b3 c5 15.c4 cxd4
r._Qk._R
16.cxd5! Àxe5 (or 16...dxe3 17.dxe6
analysis diagram
exf2+ 18.®f1 Õc7 19.exf7+! ®xf7
20.e6+ with annihilation) 17.©xd4 15.Àh5! Àxc2+ 16.®f1 Àxa1 17.©xa1,
©xd5 18.©a4+! Black resigned, Nunn- and after 17...d4? (stronger is 17...Ãg6
Dlugy, London 1986. 18.Àe2 Ãxh5 19.gxh5 e5!) 18.Àe4
5.Ãe2 has also been seen, e.g. 5...e6 6.a3 Ãxe4 19.Ãxe4 White obtained the ad-
h4 7.Àf3 Àd7 8.0-0 Àe7 9.Ãg5 h3 vantage.
10.g3 Ãg4 11.b4 f6 12.exf6 gxf6 It is possible that this sequence of moves
13.Ãf4 Àg6 14.Àd2 Ãxe2 15.Àxe2 is what led the Ukrainian grandmaster to
Àb6 16.c3 ©d7, Ivanchuk-Dautov, Istan- his original idea.
bul 2003, and after 17.a4!? White’s 9...Àc6
chances are somewhat better. It was worth considering 9...cxd4, after
5.g4 Ãg6 6.Àge2 c5 which a possible reply is 10.Àb5
This central break characterises the (10.g6!? Ãxg6 11.Àxg6 fxg6 gives Black
so-called Freiman System. quite good chances, Mann-Von
7.h4 h5 Alvensleben, Kecskemet 1990) 10...Ãf5!?
On 7...h6, an interesting reply is 8.Ãe3 (dubious is 10...Àc6?! because of
©b6 9.f4!? Àc6 (9...©xb2? 10.f5!) 11.©xh5, whilst after 11...©d7?,
10.f5 Ãh7 11.©d2 0-0-0 12.0-0-0 with Pletsch-Sarosi, St Ingbert 1987, there is
the better chances for White, Timman- the crushing 12.Àxe6!) 11.Àxd4 Àe7
Seirawan, 2nd match game, Hilversum with unclear play.
1990. 10.©xh5! Àxd4
8.Àf4 Ãh7
At the cost of a pawn, Black retains his T_.dMlSt
light-squared bishop. Also possible is jJ_._JjL
8...Àc6!? 9.Àxg6 fxg6. ._._J_._
9.g5!? _.jJi.iQ
Ivanchuk has prepared an extremely rare
continuation for his opponent. For de-
._.s.n.i
cades, the practically automatic move has _.n._._.
been 9.Àxh5. IiI_.i._
The game Grischuk-Bareev, Moscow r.b.kB_R
2002, continued 9...Àc6 10.dxc5 Ãxc5 11.Ãe3! Àe7?!
11.Ãg2 Àd4 12.Ãg5 f6!? 13.Àxg7+ White’s idea is based upon the fact that
®f7 14.exf6 ©d6 after 11...Àxc2+ 12.®d2 the move

148
 Game 50 - 2006

12...Àxa1? is not possible because of is 23...Àg3+ 24.®f3 Àxh1? 25.Õf1!)

13.Ãb5+ ®e7 14.Ãxc5+, and White 24.©xf6+ gxf6 25.Àe4, and White has
wins. the advantage in the ending.
Nor can one trust 12...Àxe3 13.Ãb5+ Be that as it may, by refraining from the
®e7 14.fxe3 d4 15.Õad1 a6 16.Ãa4 b5 capture on c2, Black falls into a difficult
17.g6!! fxg6 18.©g4 position.
12.Ãxd4 cxd4 13.Àxe6!
Winning a pawn.
T_.d.lSt 13...©b8 14.Ãb5+ Àc6 15.Àxd4
_._.m.jL ©xe5+ 16.Àce2
J_._J_J_
_Jj.i._.
B_.j.nQi T_._Ml.t
_.n.i._. jJ_._JjL
Ii.k._._ ._S_._._
_._R_._R _B_Jd.iQ
analysis diagram
._.n._.i
_._._._.
18...dxc3+ 19.®e2 ©c8 20.Õhf1 Àh6 IiI_Ni._
21.Àxg6+ ®e8 22.©h5 Ãxg6
r._.k._R
23.©xg6+ ®e7 24.Ãc2!, with a decisive
attack. 16...0-0-0!
Stronger, however, is, 12...Àe7!?, after The best decision – Black seeks salvation
which White intended 13.Àxe6!, bring- in counterattack.
ing about enormous complications, for The passive 16...Õc8?! leads after
example: 17.Õh3! Ãf5 18.Õe3! Õxh5 (or
18...©xe3 19.©xh8 ©e5 20.f4 ©e4
21.Àxf5 ©xf5 22.0-0-0±) 19.Õxe5+
T_.dMl.t Ãe6 20.Àxe6 fxe6 21.Õxe6+ to a clear
jJ_.sJjL advantage to White.
._._N_._ At this moment, the Hungarian grand-
_.jJi.iQ master had just five minutes on the clock,
._._._.i to reach the time control.
_.n.b._. 17.Ãxc6 bxc6 18.Àxc6 ©e4 19.f3
IiSk.i._ ©e3 20.Àxd8?!
Accepting the sacrifice gives Black coun-
r._._B_R
terchances.
analysis diagram
More solid is 20.©g4+ Õd7 21.Õd1
13...©a5 (or 13...©b6 14.Ãb5+ Àc6 Ãd6 22.Àd4 with advantage.
15.Õad1! and on 15...d4?! – 16.Àd5 Õc8 20...Ãb4+ 21.c3 Õe8! 22.Õh2
17.g6!) 14.Ãb5+ Àc6 15.Àxf8 ®xf8 On 22.©g4+ ®xd8 23.Õh2 there is
16.e6! fxe6 17.g6 À2d4 18.Ãxc6 bxc6 23...Ãxc3+! 24.bxc3 ©xc3+ 25.®f2
19.gxh7 Àf5 20.©g6 d4 21.©xe6 ©xa1, and Black’s chances are not worse.
dxe3+ 22.fxe3 ©d8+ 23.®e2! ©f6 (bad 22...©g1+ 23.®d2

149
 Vassily Ivanchuk

34.Õd1!
._MnT_._ Now the king completes its artificial cas-
j._._JjL tling manoeuvre, and White will be the
._._._._ first to give mate.
_._J_.iQ 34...Õxe2+ 35.®c1+ ®e8 36.©c8+
.l._._.i ®f7 37.©f5+ ®e8 38.©g6+ ®e7
_.i._I_. 39.©xg7+ ®e8 40.©g6+ ®e7
Ii.kN_.r 41.©f6+
Black resigned.
r._._.d.
23...©xh2?!
Missing a rare chance to end the game 2007
with a nice perpetual check: 23...Õxe2+! Game 51
24.Õxe2 ©d4+! 25.®c1(e1) ©g1+ and Sicilian Defence (B90)
draws. í Ivanchuk,Vassily
24.Õe1 Ãd6? n Topalov,Veselin
This attack is going nowhere. Black has Morelia/Linares 2007
better defensive chances after 24...Ãxc3+ 1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Àxd4
25.bxc3 Ãg6 26.©g4+ ®xd8. Àf6 5.Àc3 a6 6.Ãe3
25.©xh7 Ãg3 26.©f5+ ®xd8 A continuation which became popular in
27.©xd5+ ®c7 28.©xf7+ ®d8 the 1970s.
29.©d5+ 6...e5
With a series of checks, White manages The most principled reply.
to get his rook out from under attack, The move 6...e6 takes play into a Scheve-
without losing his attacking momentum. ningen Variation, whilst after 6...Àg4
29...®c7 both 7.Ãc4 Àxe3 8.fxe3, and 7.Ãg5 are
On 29...®e7 there is 30.©c5+ ®f7 possible, e.g., 7...h6 8.Ãh4 g5 9.Ãg3
31.©c4+ ®f8 32.Õc1ê. Ãg7 10.Ãe2 h5 11.Ãxg4 hxg4,
30.©c4+ ®b6 31.©d4+ ®c7 Almasi-Edouard, Warsaw 2010, and here
32.©xa7+ ®c8 33.©c5+! 12.h4 gives White slightly the better
Drawing the king onto the d-file. Not chances.
now 33...®b7? because of 34.©b5+. 7.Àf3
33...®d8 The alternative is 7.Àb3 Ãe6 8.©d2
Àbd7 9.0-0-0 Ãe7 10.h3 b5 11.g4 0-0
12.®b1 ©c7 13.Ãg2 Àb6 14.Ãxb6
._.mT_._ ©xb6 15.f4 Ãc4 with slightly the
_._._.j. better chances chances for White,
._._._._ Anand-Ivanchuk, Morelia/Linares
_.q._.i. 2007.
._._._.i 7...Ãe7 8.Ãc4 0-0 9.0-0 Ãe6
_.i._Il. Practice has also seen 9...©c7 10.Ãb3
Ii.kN_.d Ãe6 11.©d2 Õc8 12.Àg5 Ãc4 13.f4
_._.r._. Àbd7 with mutual chances, Ivanchuk-
Anand, Leon 2008.

150
 Game 51 - 2007

Ts.d.tM_ .s.d.tM_
_J_.lJjJ _T_.l.jJ
J_.jLs._ J_.jJ_._
_._.j._. _J_Nj._.
._B_I_._ ._._I_._
_.n.bN_. _._.qN_.
IiI_.iIi IiI_.iIi
r._Q_Rk. r._._Rk.
10.Ãxe6!? 16.©d2!
This little studied continuation, in con- White tries to keep the knight in the cen-
junction with the next move, is White’s tre as long as possible, because it inter-
idea. feres with Black’s counterplay.
The usual line is 10.Ãb3 Àc6 11.©e2 16...Àc6?!
Àa5 12.Õfd1 Àxb3 13.cxb3 Àd7 More accurate is 16...Àd7!? 17.Õad1
14.Àd2 ©c7 15.Õac1 Õfc8 16.Àd5 Ãh4 18.Õfe1 Àc5 19.b4 Àa4 20.Àe3
©d8, and White’s chances are slightly Ãe7Ç.
better, Carlsen-Ivanchuk, Morelia/Linares The move in the game leads to a loss of
2008. tempo.
10...fxe6 11.Àa4! 17.Õad1 Õd7 18.©c3! Àb8
It turns out that the square b6 needs de- After 18...exd5 19.©xc6 d4 20.c3 dxc3
fending, and after 11...Àbd7? (11...Àc6? 21.©xc3 Black has weaknesses on the
12.Àg5!) there follows 12.Àg5 ©a5 light squares.
13.b3 b5 14.Ãd2! b4 15.Àxe6 with ad- 19.Àxe7+ ©xe7 20.Õd3 h6 21.Õfd1
vantage. Õfd8
Also unsatisfactory is 11...b5? 12.Àb6
Õa7 13.Àg5.
11...Àg4
.s.t._M_
Scarcely good is 11...Àxe4?! 12.Àb6 Õa7 _._Td.j.
13.Àd5 Õa8 14.Ãb6 ©e8 15.Àc7 ©c6 J_.jJ_.j
16.Àxa8 Àd7 17.Ãe3 Õxa8, but it is _J_.j._.
worth considering 11...Àfd7!? 12.©d3 ._._I_._
b5 13.©b3 bxa4 14.©b7! (14.©xe6+? _.qR_N_.
®h8 15.©d5 Àb6! 16.Ãxb6 ©xb6 IiI_.iIi
17.©xa8? Àc6) 14...Àc6 15.©xc6 a3!
_._R_.k.
with a complicated struggle, with mutual
chances. 22.h4!?
12.©d3 Àxe3 13.©xe3 The main drawback of Black’s position is
Apart from 14.Àb6, there is also a threat the passive position of his knight, which
of 14.©b3. is practically locked out of play. Exploit-
13...b5 14.Àb6 Õa7 15.Àd5! Õb7 ing this, White steps up his pressure on
15...exd5? is bad because of 16.©xa7 all fronts.
dxe4 17.Àd2 d5 18.Õad1±. 22...®h7 23.Õ1d2 ©f8

151
 Vassily Ivanchuk

On 23...Õc7? there is the strong The game goes into the technical stage of
24.©a3!, and a pawn is lost – 24...Õcd7? realisation of the material advantage.
25.Àxe5!. 35...Õa7 36.©e3 Õa6 37.©e2 Àc4
24.©b3 ©e8 25.a4 ©g6!? 38.Õa2 Õac6 39.Õa7 Õ6c7 40.Õda1
Black tries to sharpen the game. ©f7?
Prospectless is 25...bxa4 26.©xa4 ©e7 Ending the game early. He could prolong
27.h5 ®h8 28.c4 with pressure for resistance with 40...Õf7.
White.
26.axb5 axb5 27.Õe3
Ensuring the win of a pawn, as 27...Õb7?
._T_._._
is bad because of 28.Àxe5. r.t._DjM
27...Àa6 ._.jJ_.j
Transferring the rook to the queenside _._.j._.
offered slightly better defensive chances, .iS_I_.i
e.g. 27...Õa7!? 28.Õe1! (defending _.i._N_.
against the check from a1) 28...Àd7 ._._QiI_
29.©xb5 Õb8 30.©c4 Õb6 31.b4 ©e8
r._._.k.
32.c3 Àf6, and Black holds.
28.©xb5 Àc5 41.©xc4!
After 41...Õxa7 42.Õxa7 ©xa7 43.©xc8
Black loses a knight.
._.t._._ Black resigned.
_._T_.jM
._.jJ_Dj Game 52
_Qs.j._. Ragozin Defence (D38)
._._I_.i í Ivanchuk,Vassily
_._.rN_. n Aronian,Levon
.iIr.iI_ Morelia/Linares 2007
1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 e6 3.Àf3 d5 4.Àc3
_._._.k.
Ãb4
29.©c4 The Armenian grandmaster’s favourite
Maintaining his accuracy. In the event of scheme of development. In appearance,
29.b4?! Àxe4 30.Àxe5 ©f5 31.Õde2 the Ragozin reminds one of a Queen’s
dxe5 32.Õxe4 Õd1+ 33.®h2 Õ8d5 Gambit, but strategically, it is more like
34.©b7 Õ1d2, the position is far from the Chigorin Defence.
clear. 5.Ãg5 Àbd7 6.cxd5 exd5 7.©c2
29...Õa7 30.Õe1 ©e8 31.b4 Morozevich against Aronian played 7.e3,
Also possible is 31.Àxe5!? dxe5 32.Õxd8 and after 7...c5 8.Ãe2 ©a5 9.0-0 0-0
©xd8 33.©xc5 ©d4 34.©xd4 exd4 10.Àd2!? Ãxc3 11.bxc3 ©xc3 12.Õc1
35.Õd1 e5 36.c3 dxc3 37.bxc3, and the ©a3 13.dxc5 ©xa2 14.Ãf4 Õe8
two extra pawns guarantee White the ad- 15.Àf3!? Àe4 16.Ãb5! White held the
vantage in the rook ending. initiative, Morozevich-Aronian, Morelia/
31...Àa4 32.©b3 Àb6 33.Õed1 Linares 2007.
Õad7 34.©d3 Õc8 35.c3 7...c5

152

Weaker is 7...0-0 8.e3 c5 9.Ãd3 ©a5
10.0-0 c4 11.Ãf5 with some pressure for
White, Karpov-Milov, Cap d’Agde 2002.
8.a3 Ãxc3+ 9.©xc3 h6 10.Ãxf6
The continuation 10.©e3+ ©e7
11.©xe7+ ®xe7 12.Ãf4 b6 13.dxc5
bxc5 14.b4 a5 15.bxc5 Àxc5 16.Àd4
Ãd7 17.f3 gives White slightly better
chances, Van Wely-Aronian, Wijk aan Zee
2007.
10...©xf6 11.e3 0-0 12.Ãe2 b6
13.0-0 Ãb7
In the game Yakovich-Sargissian, Moscow
2007, play continued 13...a6!? 14.Õac1
c4 15.Àe5 b5 16.f4 ©d6 17.Ãf3 Ãb7
18.g4 Õfe8 19.Õce1 Àf8 20.g5 hxg5
21.fxg5 Õxe5!? (21...f6!? was good
enough) 22.dxe5 ©e7 23.h4 Àg6
24.©d4 Àxe5 25.Ãg2 Õe8 26.Õe2 with
the better play for White.
T_._.tM_
jL_S_Jj.
.j._.d.j
_.jJ_._.
._.i._._
i.q.iN_.
.i._BiIi
r._._Rk.
14.Õfc1!?
A novelty! After the possible 14...c4
15.b3 b5 16.a4 a6 17.Àe5 White leaves
the rook on a1.
As well as 14.b3 (or even 14.b4!? c4
15.b5 a6 16.a4 ©e7 17.Àd2 Õa7
18.Ãf3 Àf6 19.Õfb1 a5 20.Õe1 Ãa8
21.Õab1 ©d6 22.Ãd1 Õe8 23.Ãc2 Õc7
24.f3 Õd8 25.Àf1 Ãb7 26.Àg3 g6
27.Àh1 Õe7 with mutual chances,
Goldin-Voitsekhovsky, Novgorod 1997),
previous practice had also seen 14.Õac1
©e7 15.Õfd1 Õac8 16.Ãf1 Àf6 17.dxc5
Game 52 - 2007
bxc5 18.b4 c4 with a complicated strug-
gle, Sakaev-Renet, St Petersburg 1999.
14...Õac8 15.dxc5 ©xc3 16.Õxc3
Õxc5
On 16...bxc5, possible is 17.b4!? c4
(weaker is 17...cxb4 18.Õxc8 Õxc8
19.axb4) 18.Àd4, with a blockade of the
pawn duo.
._._.tM_
jL_S_Jj.
.j._._.j
_.tJ_._.
._._._._
i.r.iN_.
.i._BiIi
r._._.k.
17.Õcc1!
A paradoxical manoeuvre! White is pre-
pared to concede the c-file to his oppo-
nent, in order to leave him with an iso-
lated pawn and a bad bishop.
17...Õfc8
The exchange of a pair of rooks with
17...Õxc1+ 18.Õxc1 Õc8 would con-
demn Black to a passive defence, but even
so, this deserved consideration, because
of the limited material remaining on the
board.
18.Õd1!
Black cannot achieve anything out of his
control of the open file, whilst White has
a clear plan to attack the d5-pawn.
18...Õc2 19.Ãb5 Àf8 20.Õab1 Õ2c7
21.Ãa4
Gradually accumulating positional advan-
tages, White transfers his bishop to b3.
The Ukrainian grandmaster has few
equals in playing such positions.
21...Àe6 22.Ãb3 ®f8 23.h3 Õc5
24.®h2
Preparing to double rooks on the d-file.
153
 Vassily Ivanchuk
24...®e7 25.Õd2 Õb5
Black cannot play 25...Õc1?, because the
rook is tied to the defence of the pawn.
26.Ãa2 Õbc5 27.Àe1 a5 28.Õbd1
Õd8 29.®g3 Õb5 30.f3
._.t._._
_L_.mJj.
.j._S_.j
jT_J_._.
._._._._
i._.iIkI
Bi.r._I_
_._Rn._.
30...Õc8?
Now the rook on b5 turns out to be in
danger.
He could maintain the tension with
30...Õc5 (or the sharper 30...Àc5!?
31.Õc2 a4) 31.Àd3 Õc6 32.Àc1!? Õcd6
33.Àe2 Ãc6 34.Àd4 Àxd4 35.Õxd4
Ãd7 with the better chances for White.
31.Àd3!
With the threat of 32.a4, whilst after
31...a4?! possible is 32.Àb4 Àc7
33.e4! dxe4 34.Õd7+ ®e8 35.Õxf7
Õg5+ 36.®f2 Õd8! 37.Õxc7 Õxd1
38.Õxb7 Õd2+ 39.®e3 Õxb2 40.®xe4
Õe2+ 41.®d3 Õgxg2 42.Ãd5, and two
pieces for the rook ensure White the ad-
vantage.
31...d4
Allowing White to win a pawn.
Nothing is changed by 31...Àc5 32.Àf4
Àa4 33.Ãxd5 Ãxd5 34.Àxd5+±.
32.Ãxe6 ®xe6 33.Àf4+ ®e7
34.Õxd4 Õc7 35.Õ1d2 Õbc5 36.e4
Õc4
Black strives to exchange a pair of rooks,
to preserve defensive chances.
37.Õd6 Õ4c6?!
More tenacious is 37...Ãc6.
154
._._._._
_Lt.mJj.
.jTr._.j
j._._._.
._._In._
i._._IkI
.i.r._I_
_._._._.
38.e5!
Winning a second pawn and securing a
decisive advantage.
38...Õc2
Or 38...Õc5 39.e6 Ãc8 40.exf7 ®xf7
41.Õxb6ê.
39.Õxc2 Õxc2 40.Õxb6 Ãc6 41.b4
g5 42.Àh5 axb4 43.axb4 Ãd5
44.Àg7 Õe2 45.Àf5+ ®e8 46.Àxh6
Ãe6
Hopeless is 46...Õxe5 47.Àg4 Õf5
48.Õf6.
47.Õb5 Õb2 48.Õb8+ ®d7 49.Õg8
Black resigned.
Game 53
Queen’s Gambit (D39)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Nisipeanu,Liviu-Dieter
Foros 2007
1.d4 d5 2.Àf3 Àf6 3.c4 dxc4 4.Àc3
e6 5.e4 Ãb4 6.Ãg5 c5 7.e5
The sharpest line of the Vienna Variation.
The other possible continuation is
7.Ãxc4, e.g.: 7...cxd4 8.Àxd4 Ãxc3+
(or 8...©a5 9.Ãd2 ©c5 10.Ãb5+ Ãd7!?
11.Àb3 ©e7 12.Ãd3 Àc6 13.0-0 0-0
14.a3 Ãd6 15.®h1 Ãe5 16.f4 Ãxc3
17.Ãxc3 e5 18.f5 Õfd8 19.©e2 b6ì,
Kramnik-Anand, Bilbao 2010) 9.bxc3
©a5 10.Ãb5+ Àbd7 11.Ãxf6 ©xc3+
12.®f1 gxf6 13.h4 (the rook prepares to
come into play via h3) 13...a6 14.Õh3
©a5 15.Ãe2.
 Game 53 - 2007

Ever since the game Fine-Euwe, AVRO

1938, the usual line has been 10...Ãe7
11.exf6 gxf6 12.Ãh4 Õc8 (12...Àb4?

T_.dM_.t
jJ_LlJ_J
._._Jj._
_._._._.
QsJjN_.b
_._._N_.
Ii._.iIi
_.kR_B_R
analysis diagram
Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu 13.©xb4! Ãxb4 14.Àxf6+ ®f8
15.Õxd4±) 13.®b1 Àa5 14.©c2 e5
In this critical position, Black can hardly 15.Àxd4 exd4 16.Õxd4 ©b6, and after
afford to make an unnecessary king 17.Õd5!? White’s chances are superior.
move: 15...®e7 16.Àb3! ©b6 17.©c1 11.Ãxd8 Õxd8 12.Àxd4 Ãd2+
with an attack, Akopian-S. Ivanov, St Pe- No equality is given by 12...Àxf2
tersburg 1993. 13.Ãxc4!? (also good is 13.Àxc6 Àxd1
Stronger is 15...Àc5, completing his 14.©xb4 Ãxc6 15.Ãxc4 Àf2 16.Õf1±)
development. After 16.Àb3 Àxb3 13...Àxd1 14.Õxd1 Ãc5 15.Àxc6 Ãxc6
17.©xb3 b6! (Black needs to do some- 16.Ãb5, and White is better.
thing about his light-squared bishop) 13.Õxd2 Àxd2
18.Õd1 Ãb7 19.©b2!? ©e5! 20.©xb6 On 13...Àxd4?! White continues
Ãxe4 21.Õg3 f5 22.®g1 h6! Black has a 14.©xa7 Àxd2 15.©xd4 Ãc6 16.©c5
good game, Olssen-Kalinichenko, corr. Õd5 17.©a3 with advantage.
2002. 14.Àxc6
7...cxd4 8.©a4+ Àc6 9.0-0-0 Ãd7 Insufficient is 14.Àb5ì! 0-0! (but not
10.Àe4 14...Àxf1 on account of 15.©a3!)
15.®xd2 Àxe5! 16.©xa7 Ãxb5+
T_.dM_.t 17.®c3 Àd3 with chances for both sides.
jJ_L_JjJ 14...Ãxc6
._S_Js._
_._.i.b. ._.tM_.t
QlJjN_._ jJ_._JjJ
_._._N_. ._L_J_._
Ii._.iIi _._.i._.
_.kR_B_R Q_J_._._
10...Àxe4!? _._._._.
Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu surprises his oppo- Ii.s.iIi
nent with a little-studied queen sacrifice. _.k._B_R
155
 Vassily Ivanchuk

15.©a3! 26...e4
Only this subtle move, keeping the enemy On 26...Õf5 a possibility is 27.©b6 ®f7
king in the centre, ensures White an ope- 28.©xb7+ ®f6 29.©b6±.
ning advantage. 27.©b5 Ãf7
After 15.©a5?! (or 15.©xa7 0-0 16.©e3 27...e3 does not work because of 28.©b6
Àxf1 17.Õxf1 Õd3Ç) 15...0-0 16.Ãe2 Õf1+ 29.®b2 ®f7 30.©xb7+ ®f6
Ãxg2 17.Õd1 Õd5 18.©xa7 Õfd8 31.©e4 Õf2+ 32.®a3, and not 32...e2?
chances are equal. because of 33.©h4+.
15...Àxf1 16.Õxf1 Õd3 28.©xb7 e3
Hardly any better is 16...f5 17.exf6ep
gxf6 18.Õe1! ®f7 19.©c5 and on
19...Ãd5? – 20.©c7+ ®g6 21.Õe3 with
._._.tM_
a decisive attack. _Q_._LjJ
17.©b4 a5 18.©xc4 Õd5 ._._._._
Allows White to simplify the position by _._._._.
exchanges, but even after 18...Õd8 ._._._._
19.Õd1 Õc8 20.®b1 White has a stable _I_.j._.
advantage. I_._._.i
19.Õd1 0-0
_.k._._.
Downright bad is 19...Õxe5? 20.©d4!
Õd5 21.©xg7, and Black’s defences 29.©b5
crumble. White’s first task is to eliminate the
20.Õxd5 Ãxd5 21.©a4 Ãxg2 e3-pawn. After that, he can start the ad-
22.©xa5 Ãd5 23.f4 f6 vance of his own pawns.
It was worth considering 23...g6. Bad is 29.©e4? Õe8, whereas now after
29...Õe8 there follows 30.®d1 e2+
31.®e1, and the rook is tied to the e-file.
._._.tM_ 29...h6 30.®d1 g5 31.©e2 Õd8+
_J_._.jJ 32.®e1 Õd2 33.©xe3 Õxa2 34.b4
._._Jj._ Õxh2 35.b5
q._Li._. Black has eliminated almost all the enemy
._._.i._ pawns, but he cannot stop the b-pawn
_._._._. without losing material.
Ii._._.i 35...Õb2 36.b6 g4
Nor is he saved by 36...Ãd5, e.g., 37.©c5
_.k._._.
Õb1+ 38.®d2 Ãe4 39.©c4+ ®g7
24.f5! 40.©d4+ ®f7 41.©xe4 Õxb6 42.©h7+
Tactical motifs arise in a purely technical ®f8 43.®d3 winning.
ending. 37.©xh6
24...fxe5 25.fxe6 Ãxe6 26.b3! The black pieces are too scattered for ac-
White wants to create passed pawns on tive operations.
the queenside, by winning the b-pawn. After 37...g3 White settles things with
After 26.©xe5? Ãxa2 Black has more 38.©g5+ ®h7 39.©h4+ winning.
drawing chances. 37...Õb1+ 38.®f2 Õb3 39.©c6

156

Now hopeless is 39...g3+ 40.®g2 Õd3
41.©c8+ ®g7 42.b7 Ãd5+ 43.®h3
g2+ 44.®h2
Black resigned.
Game 54
Ruy Lopez (C91)
í Shirov,Alexey
n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Foros 2007
1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.Ãb5 a6 4.Ãa4
Àf6 5.0-0 b5
With the different move-order 5...Ãe7
6.Õe1 b5 7.Ãb3 0-0 8.c3 d6, the game
Shirov-Ivanchuk, Moscow 2007, saw a
sharp line, with the bishop prevented
from coming to g4: 9.h3 Ãb7 10.d4 Õe8
11.Àg5 Õf8 12.Àf3 Õe8 13.a4 h6
14.Àbd2 exd4 15.cxd4 Àb4 16.d5 Ãf8
17.Àf1 c6 18.Ãd2 Àd3 19.dxc6 Ãxc6
20.Ãxf7+ ®xf7 21.©b3+ d5 22.©xd3
dxe4 23.©c3 exf3 24.©xc6 fxg2, and
the chances were equal (see also Game
71).
6.Ãb3 Ãe7 7.d4
Instead 7.Õe1 leads to a transposition.
7...d6
Not 7...exd4? because of 8.e5 Àe4
9.Ãd5 with advantage to White.
8.c3 0-0 9.Õe1
Here, too, 9.h3 is an alternative.
9...Ãg4 10.Ãe3
Another line is 10.d5 Àa5 11.Ãc2 c6
with a complicated game, with mutual
chances.
10...exd4 11.cxd4 d5 12.e5 Àe4
13.Àc3
Or 13.h3 Ãh5 14.Àc3, returning to the
game variation.
13...Àxc3 14.bxc3 ©d7 15.h3
Now this advance is not so favourable, be-
cause it is connected with the move
g2-g4, which allows Black counterplay
by means of ...f7-f5 or ...h7-h5. It was
Game 54 - 2007
worth considering 15.Ãc2, e.g. 15...Ãh5
(parrying the threat of ©d1-d3) 16.©b1
Ãg6 (16...Ãxf3? 17.Ãxh7+ ®h8
18.Ãf5!) 17.a4 Õfb8 18.axb5 axb5
19.Ãg5Ç, Korneev-Blagojevic, Arco
2003/04.
15...Ãh5 16.g4
A roughly equal game arises from
16.Ãc2 Àd8 17.©b1 Ãg6 18.Ãg5 Àe6
19.Ãxe7 ©xe7, Milman-Onischuk, San
Diego 2004.
16...Ãg6 17.Àd2
T_._.tM_
_.jDlJjJ
J_S_._L_
_J_Ji._.
._.i._I_
_Bi.b._I
I_.n.i._
r._Qr.k.
17...a5!
It was also possible to play ...f7-f5 at
once, but Black wishes first to strengthen
his presence on the queenside, by ex-
changing light-squared bishops.
In the game Arencibia-Servat, Matanzas
1995, there followed 17...f5 18.©f3
(more accurate is 18.exf6) 18...Õad8
19.©g3 (or 19.g5 Àa5 20.Ãf4 ©e6
21.Ãd1 Ãe8 22.Õb1 Àc4 23.Àb3 a5
24.Ãe2 a4 25.Àc1 Àa3 with mutual
chances, Polzin-Postny, Germany
Bundesliga 2006/07) 19...Àa5 20.Ãf4
©e6 21.g5 c5 22.Ãd1 c4 23.Ãf3 b4
24.Ãg2 Õb8, and Black obtains comfort-
able play.
18.f4
After 18.a3ì! a4 19.Ãa2 Ãxa3 20.Ãxd5
©xd5 21.Õxa3 f6 or 18.a4ì! b4 19.c4
dxc4 20.Àxc4 Õfd8 Black’s position
deserves preference.
18...a4 19.Ãc2 Ãxc2 20.©xc2
157
 Vassily Ivanchuk

24.g5? is bad because of 24...©xh3

T_._.tM_ 25.Àh4 ©g4+ 26.Àg2 Ãd8ç, but even
_.jDlJjJ after 24.f5!? hxg4 25.hxg4 g6! 26.©d3!?
._S_._._ gxf5 27.g5 Ãe7 28.©xb5 f4 29.©f1
_J_Ji._. ®g7 30.©g2 Õh8, Black has the initia-
J_.i.iI_ tive.
_.i.b._I 24...Õe4!
I_Qn._._ Continuing to erode the white defensive
barriers.
r._.r.k.
25.Õxe4
20...f5! 25.Àd2!? was worth attention, e.g.
Following the indicated idea! 25...Õxe1+ (25...Õxf4? 26.Ãg3)
Also good is 20...f6!? 21.Õab1 fxe5 26.Õxe1 hxg4 27.hxg4 ©d6!? (the con-
22.fxe5 h5 23.©g6 hxg4 24.©xg4 tinuation 27...b4 28.cxb4 ©d6 29.®g2
©xg4+ 25.hxg4 Õab8 26.®g2 ®f7 ©xf4 30.Ãe3 ©d6 31.Àf3 ©xb4
27.Õf1+ ®e6, and Black is not worse. 32.Õh1 Àxd4 33.©h7+ ®f7 34.Àxd4
21.exf6 Ãxd4 35.Ãxd4 ©xd4 36.©f5+ ®g8
On 21.g5 possible is 21...Àd8 22.Àf3 37.©e6+ Õf7 38.©c8+ leads to a draw
Àe6, preparing ...c7-c5. by perpetual check) 28.©h5 b4 29.g5
21...Ãxf6 22.Àf3 Õae8 g6! 30.©xg6+ Ãg7 31.©xd6 cxd6
32.cxb4 Àxb4 33.Õb1 Àxa2 34.Õa1
Àc3 35.Ãe3, and White obtains an equal
._._TtM_ ending.
_.jD_.jJ 25...dxe4 26.Àh2?
._S_.l._ Overlooking a decisive combination.
_J_J_._. More tenacious was 26.©xe4 hxg4
J_.i.iI_ 27.hxg4 ©xg4+ 28.®f1 Àe7 29.®e2
_.i.bN_I ©h5 30.®d3 ©f7 with a growing initia-
I_Q_._._ tive for Black.
r._.r.k.
23.Ãf2?!
._._.tM_
White prepares to exchange rooks on the _.jD_.j.
open file, but allows his opponent to at- ._S_.lQ_
tack the far-advanced pawns on the _J_._._J
kingside. J_.iJiI_
More accurate is 23.f5!? Õe4 24.Àd2 _.i._._I
Õee8 25.Ãf2, maintaining the balance. I_._.b.n
Also interesting is the variation 23.Àe5
Ãxe5 24.dxe5 and after 24...g5!? –
r._._.k.
25.e6!? Õxe6 26.f5 Õe5 27.Ãxg5 Õfe8 26...Àxd4!!
28.©d2 d4 29.Ãf4 with chances for After this brilliant blow in the centre, the
both sides. clear lack of coordination amongst the
23...h5! 24.©g6 white pieces becomes obvious.

158
 Game 55 - 2007

27.cxd4 Ãxd4 28.Õb1 Game 55

Other rook retreats are no better. Queen’s Indian Defence (E12)
Bad is 28.Õc1? (28.Õd1? Ãxf2+) í Miton,Kamil
28...Ãxf2+ 29.®xf2 ©d2+ and equally n Ivanchuk,Vassily
so is 28.Õf1? because of 28...e3, whilst Montreal 2007
after 28.Õe1 Black decides by 1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 e6 3.Àf3 b6 4.a3
28...Ãxf2+! 29.®xf2 ©d2+ 30.Õe2 A move introduced into practice by
Õxf4+ 31.®g3 h4+! 32.®xh4 ©xe2 Tigran Petrosian. White prevents the
33.©e8+ Õf8 34.©e6+ ®h8, and Black bishop from coming out to b4, but at the
wins. cost of a tempo.
28...e3 29.Ãg3 4...Ãa6
It is hopeless after 29.Ãe1 Õxf4 30.®g2 Immediately forcing White to concern
©d5+ 31.®g3 Ãe5 32.®h4 Õf6 himself with the defence of the c-pawn.
33.©g5 Õh6 34.©f5 hxg4+ 35.®g5 5.e3
©d8+ 36.®xg4 ©d4+ 37.®f3 Õf6, More common is 5.©c2, e.g. 5...Ãb7
with a massacre. 6.Àc3 c5 7.d5!? exd5 8.cxd5 Àxd5
29...h4! 9.Ãd2 Àc7 10.e4 Àc6 11.0-0-0 Àd4
Including the rook in the attack on the 12.©d3 Àce6 with the initiative, in re-
f-file. turn for the pawn, Bayram-Ivanchuk,
30.Ãxh4 Õxf4 31.©d3 blitz, Saraybahce 2002.
An attempt to defend against the terrible 5...Ãe7!?
threat of the e-pawn advancing. Black chooses a rare continuation. More
After 31...e2+ there follows 32.®g2 usual is 5...d5 6.Àbd2 Ãe7 7.b4 0-0
©d5+ 33.Àf3 ©xa2 34.Õe1 with a de- 8.Ãb2 Àbd7 9.©c2 h6 10.Ãe2 dxc4
fensible position. 11.Ãxc4 Ãb7 with mutual chances,
31...©d5 Jaracz-Ivanchuk, Warsaw 2005.
Despite his extra piece, White cannot re- 6.Ãd3 d5 7.cxd5 Ãxd3 8.©xd3
pulse the attack. exd5 9.0-0 0-0
32.Àf1
Ts.d.tM_
._._._M_ j.j.lJjJ
_.j._.j. .j._.s._
._._._._ _._J_._.
_J_D_._. ._.i._._
J_.l.tIb i._QiN_.
_._Qj._I .i._.iIi
I_._._._ rNb._Rk.
_R_._Nk.
10.Àbd2?!
32...Õf2! 33.Àxe3 The position reminds one of a Queen’s
Or 33.Ãxf2 exf2+ 34.®h2 Ãe5+, and Gambit, with light-squared bishops ex-
the queen is lost. changed. In addition, on d2, the knight
33...Õg2+! 34.®h1 ©f3 0-1 does not occupy a particularly suitable

159
 Vassily Ivanchuk
post. Significantly stronger was 10.Àc3
and after 10...a5?! (better is 10...Õe8
11.Àe5 a6) – 11.Ãd2 c5 12.Àe5 Ãd6
13.f4 with a growing initiative for White,
Ruck-Istratescu, Hungary 2005/06.
10...Àbd7 11.b3 Ãd6!
T_.d.tM_
j.jS_JjJ
.j.l.s._
_._J_._.
._.i._._
iI_QiN_.
._.n.iIi
r.b._Rk.
The Ukrainian grandmaster refrains from
the typical advance ...c7-c5, instead sol-
idly defending the pawn on c7. Now it
will be hard for White to make anything
out of his control of the c-file, whilst
Black, in his turn, prepares for operations
in the centre and on the queenside.
12.Ãb2 ©e7
This same move would have followed
12.a4 as well, preventing White from ex-
changing bishops.
13.Õfc1 Õfe8 14.Õc2 Àe4 15.Õac1
After 15.©b5, an interesting line is
15...a6!? and after 16.©xd5?! –
16...Àxf2! 17.®xf2? ©xe3+ 18.®f1
©d3+ 19.®g1 ©xc2 winning.
15...©e6 16.Õc6 Àb8 17.Õ6c2 Àd7
18.Õc6 ©f5!
Continuing to play for the attack.
19.©f1?!
The queen occupies the square which
would be convenient for the knight, as
well as depriving the king of its only re-
treat square. It was worth considering
19.Àxe4 dxe4 20.©c2 Õe6 (20...©h5?!
21.Àe5) 21.Àd2 Õae8 22.Àf1 with a
passive, but defensible position.
160
19...Õad8 20.Àxe4 dxe4 21.Àd2
._.tT_M_
j.jS_JjJ
.jRl._._
_._._D_.
._.iJ_._
iI_.i._.
.b.n.iIi
_.r._Qk.
21...Õe6!
In meeting the threat of 22.Àc4, after
which there would follow 22...Ãxh2+!
23.®xh2 Õxc6, Black at the same time
prepares to transfer the rook to the
kingside.
22.a4
The exchange sacrifice 22.Õxc7?! is not
correct. Black can continue 22...Ãxc7
(22...Àc5!?) 23.Õxc7 a5 24.a4 Àf6
25.Ãa3 Àd5 26.Õc1 (or 26.Õa7 Õc6,
seizing the c-file) 26...Õf6 27.Àc4 h5
with a promising position.
22...Àf6 23.Àb1
Obviously, the knight’s path to c4 is
blocked – on 23.g3 there could follow
23...©h5 24.Àc4? Ãxg3!.
23...Àd5 24.Ãa3
Now not 24.Àc3? because of
24...Ãxh2+! with the same idea.
24...Àe7!
Not so clear is 24...Ãxh2+!? 25.®xh2
Õxc6 26.Õxc6 Àxe3 27.©e2 Àg4+
28.®g1 ©h5 29.©xe4 ©h2+ 30.®f1
©h4! 31.®e2 ©xf2+ 32.®d3 Àf6
33.Õxf6! ©xf6 34.Ãe7 ©f1+ 35.®c2
©f2+ 36.Àd2 Õe8 37.©c6! ©f5+
38.®b2 ©c8 39.Ãb4, and White
holds.
25.Õ6c3?
Allowing Black to carry out his idea logi-
cally.
 Game 56 - 2007

Here the only chance to put up some re- ©f3+ 37.®e1 Àg2+ 38.©xg2 ©xg2,
sistance was 25.Õxc7 Ãxc7 26.Õxc7 and Black wins.
Àd5 27.Õxa7 Õc6, with some defensive 28...Àf5 29.Àd2
chances. On 29.f4 a strong reply is 29...c5, whilst
after 29.®f2 Black wins by 29...©h4+
30.®g1 ©h2+ 31.®f2 exf3 with the de-
._.t._M_ cisive threat of 32...©h4+ 33.®xf3 Õf6.
j.j.sJjJ 29...©h2+ 30.®f2 ©h4+ 31.®g1
.j.lT_._
_._._D_.
I_.iJ_._ ._.t._M_
bIr.i._. j.j._JjJ
._._.iIi .j._._.t
_Nr._Qk. _._._S_.
I_.iJ_.d
25...Ãxh2+!! bIr.iI_.
The start of the decisive storm! ._.n._I_
26.®xh2 ©h5+ 27.®g1 Õh6 28.f3
_.r._Qk.
It seems improbable, but White has no
satisfactory defence. 31...Àg3! 32.©d1
After 28.f4 possible is 28...Àf5 29. 29.b4 He is not saved by 32.©e1 exf3 33.Àxf3
(or 29.©e1 c5! 30.Àd2 ©h2+ 31.®f2 ©h1+ 34.®f2 Àe4+.
cxd4 32.Õc8 (32.exd4 ©xf4+) 32...exf3! 33.©xf3
32...©g3+ 33.®g1 ©xe1+ 34.Õxe1 Once again, after 33.Àxf3 there follows
Õxc8 winning) 29...Õxd4! (also good is 33...©h1+ 34.®f2 Àe4+ 35.®e2
29...Àg3!? 30.©c4 Àe2+ 31.®f2 ©xg2+ 36.®d3 Àf2+ 37.®c4 Àxd1
Àxc1) 30.Õxc7 (but not 30.exd4? winning.
e3î) 30...©h2+ 31.®f2 g5! 33...©h2+ 34.®f2 Õf6
Winning the queen, and with it, the
game.
._._._M_ 35.©xf6 gxf6 36.e4 Àh1+ 37.Õxh1
j.r._J_J Or 37.®f1 ©f4+ 38.®g1 ©xd2
.j._._.t 39.®xh1 Õxd4î.
_._._Sj. 37...©xh1 38.Ãe7 ©h6! 39.Õg3+
Ii.tJi._ ®h8 40.Àf3 Õe8 0-1
b._.i._.
._._.kId Game 56
_Nr._Q_. Petroff Defence (C42)
analysis diagram
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Harikrishna,Pentala
32.Õc8+ (32.exd4 ©g3+ 33.®g1 e3! Montreal 2007
34.©e1 ©h2+ 35.®f1 Àg3+ 36.©xg3 1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àf6 3.Àxe5 d6 4.Àf3
©xg3î) 32...®g7 33.©g1 ©g3+ Àxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Ãd3 Ãd6 7.0-0 0-0
34.®f1 Àxe3+ 35.®e2 Õh3! 36.gxh3 8.c4 c6

161
 Vassily Ivanchuk

TsLd.tM_ .sLd.tM_
jJ_._JjJ _._.tJj.
._Jl._._ J_Jl._.j
_._J_._. _J_.n._.
._IiS_._ ._.iQ_._
_._B_N_. _B_._._.
Ii._.iIi Ii._.iIi
rNbQ_Rk. r.b.r.k.
analysis diagram
The previous moves, and 9.cxd5, are ex-
amined in Game 13. 17.Ãxh6!, and Black resigned, Klovan-
9.Õe1 Levchenkov, Riga 1971.
White chooses an old continuation, to 10.©b3
which Paul Keres once devoted atten- Other continuations have also been seen:
tion. A) 10.Àc3 Àxc3 11.bxc3 Ãxd3
9...Ãf5 12.©xd3 dxc4 13.©xc4 Àd7 14.Ãg5
A move which became popular in subse- ©c7 15.Ãe7 Àb6 16.Ãxd6 ©xd6
quent years. 17.©b3 Õae8 18.c4 ©c7 19.a4 Àd7
A) The alternative is 9...Õe8, e.g. 20.Õab1 b6 21.g3 ©d8 22.a5 ©f6
10.Àc3 Àxc3 11.bxc3 Ãg4 12.Ãg5 23.axb6 axb6 24.®g2 with a minimal
Õxe1+ 13.©xe1 ©c8 14.Àh4! with the advantage for White, Ivanchuk-Gelfand,
initiative, Kovalev-Rozentalis, Glogow Lvov 2000;
2001. B) 10.©c2 Ãg6 11.c5 Ãc7 12.Àc3 f5
B) Weaker is 9...f5 because of 10.Àc3 (it is worth considering 12...Àf6 13.Ãg5
®h8 11.©b3 Àa6 12.cxd5! cxd5 Àbd7 14.Àe5 Ãxd3 15.©xd3 ©c8
13.Àb5! (not 13.Àxd5? because of 16.f4 Ãa5!, Shirov-Piket, Wijk aan Zee
13...Ãe6 14.©xb7 Àac5!) 13...Ãb8 2001) 13.©b3! Õf7 14.Àg5! b6
14.Ãd2 Ãe6 15.Õac1 Õf6 16.Ãg5! 15.Ãxe4 fxe4 16.Àxf7 Ãxf7 17.cxb6
Àxg5 17.Àxg5 Ãg8 18.Àf3 with the axb6 18.Àe2 ©f6 19.Ãe3 Àd7
better game for White, Naiditsch-Meiers, 20.Õac1, and Black does not have full
Senden 1999. compensation for the exchange, Anand-
Other replies also fail to give Black equal- Morozevich, Roquebrune 2003.
ity:
C) 9...Àa6? 10.Àc3 Àxc3 11.bxc3
dxc4 12.Ãxc4 ©a5 13.©b3 Àc7
Ts.d.tM_
14.Àe5 Àd5 15.Ãd2±, Renet-Miralles, jJ_._JjJ
Marseilles 1988; ._Jl._._
D) 9...Àf6?! 10.Àc3 dxc4 11.Ãxc4 _._J_L_.
h6?! (stronger is 11...Ãg4 12.h3 Ãxf3 ._IiS_._
13.©xf3 Àbd7, although here too, _Q_B_N_.
White’s chances are superior) 12.Àe5 b5 Ii._.iIi
13.Ãb3 a6 14.©f3 Õa7 15.Àe4 Àxe4
rNb.r.k.
16.©xe4 Õe7

162

10...Àa6
The pawn is indirectly defended, as
11.©xb7 fails to 11...Àb4!.
After 10...©d7, the game Svidler-
Ivanchuk, Morelia/Linares 2007, contin-
ued 11.Àc3 Àxc3 12.Ãxf5 ©xf5, and
after 13.©xb7! (a novelty!) 13...©d7
14.©xd7 Àxd7 15.c5! Ãxh2+ 16.Àxh2
Àe4 17.Ãf4 White obtained the better
chances.
11.Àc3 dxc4
In the event of 11...Àec5?! 12.dxc5 Àxc5
13.Ãxf5 Àxb3 14.axb3 dxc4 15.bxc4
Ãb4 16.Ãg5 ©b6 17.Ãe3 ©c7 18.g3
Õfe8 19.®g2, the advantage is on
White’s side, Khalifman-Rozentalis,
Vilnius 1988.
12.Ãxc4
Not 12.©xc4? because of 12...Ãxh2+!
followed by 13...Àd6.
12...Àxc3 13.bxc3 b5 14.Ãf1 Àc7
15.Ãg5
Also good is 15.a4 a5 16.Ãg5 ©d7
17.Àe5 Ãxe5 18.dxe5 Ãe6 19.Õad1
Ãxb3 20.Õxd7 Õfc8 with a complicated
battle, Oll-Rozentalis, Klaipeda 1988.
T_.d.tM_
j.s._JjJ
._Jl._._
_J_._Lb.
._.i._._
_Qi._N_.
I_._.iIi
r._.rBk.
15...©d7
In this position, without the inclusion of
the moves 15.a4 a5, this move was seen
for the first time here.
In the game Svidler-Morozevich, San Luis
2005, Black continued 15...©c8, and af-
ter 16.Ãh4!? a5 (more accurate is
Game 56 - 2007
16...Àd5) 17.Ãg3 a4 18.©b2 Ãxg3
19.hxg3 Àd5?! (better is 19...Ãe6!?)
20.c4 bxc4 21.Ãxc4 Õb8 22.©d2 ©b7
23.Àe5 ©b6 24.Õac1 Ãe6 25.a3! White
obtained the advantage.
16.Àe5 ©e6
Black prefers a tactical way of defending
the pawn on c6: after 17.©xe6 (17.Àxc6
Ãxh2+) there follows 17...Àxe6, and the
bishop on g5 turns out to be under attack.
Serious attention could have been given to
16...Ãxe5 17.dxe5 (bad is 17.Õxe5? Ãe6
18.©c2 f6) 17...Àe6 18.Ãe3 ©c7 19.a4
a6 with a minimal advantage to White.
17.c4! Ãxe5
A necessary measure.
17...Õae8?! is insufficient because of
18.Àxc6 Ãxh2+ 19.®xh2 ©xc6
20.cxb5, and White has an extra pawn
with a good game.
18.Õxe5
Now, however, the rook recapture gains
in strength.
18...©g6
T_._.tM_
j.s._JjJ
._J_._D_
_J_.rLb.
._Ii._._
_Q_._._.
I_._.iIi
r._._Bk.
19.©f3!?
White decides to exchange a pair of bish-
ops, which leaves him with the light-
squared bishop in an open position,
which is stronger than the knight, and the
weak pawns on the queenside may well
have their say, too.
The alternative is 19.Ãe7 Õfe8 20.cxb5
Ãe6 21.©a3 Àxb5 22.Ãxb5 cxb5, and
suddenly it turns out that 23.Õxb5 ©e4
163
 Vassily Ivanchuk

or 23.Õg5 ©h6 24.Õxb5 ©d2 gives Black

active counterplay, whilst after 23.©f3!?
Ãd7 24.Õae1 Õac8 chances are equal.
19...f6!
Weaker is 19...©xg5?! 20.Õxf5 ©d2 (or
20...©g6 21.cxb5 cxb5 22.Ãxb5 Àxb5
23.Õxb5±) 21.Õd1 ©xa2 22.Õc5! bxc4
23.©xc6, with an obvious advantage for
White.
20.Õxf5 fxg5 21.Õxf8+ Õxf8
22.©e3
Nothing comes from 22.©b3 ©f6!
23.cxb5+ ®h8 24.©b2 Àxb5.
22...©f6 23.Õc1! bxc4
On 23...b4 a good reply is 24.d5!, but it
was worth considering 23...a6!?, main- Pentala Harikrishna
taining the integrity of the pawn phalanx.
24.Ãxc4+ ®h8 25.g3 h6 27.©d2 Õe8 28.©d3 Õf8 29.©d2
More accurate is 25...g4, not allowing the Õe8 30.©d3 Õf8 31.Õf1!
weakening of the b1-h7 diagonal. Having gained time on the clock, the
Ukrainian grandmaster returns to a ma-
noeuvring struggle.
._._.t.m 31...©d6?!
j.s._.j. More defensive chances were offered by
._J_.d.j 31...g6 32.©e4 Àe7 33.©e5 Àf5.
_._._.j. 32.Õe1 ©d7
._Bi._._ Now after 32...g6, there is 33.Õe5 ®g7
_._.q.i. 34.©e2 Õf5 35.Õe8 a5 36.©e1 with ad-
I_._.i.i vantage.
_.r._.k.
._._.t.m
The position has stabilised, and the strong j._D_.j.
bishop gives White a small advantage. ._J_._.j
26.Ãb3 Àd5 _._S_.j.
Here the knight, although it looks good,
is limited in its operations and can if nec-
._.i._._
essary be exchanged off favourably. _B_Q_.i.
Nor are all the problems solved by I_._.i.i
26...Àb5 27.d5 Àd4 28.dxc6 Àxc6 _._.r.k.
29.Ãd5 Àe7 (or 29...Àb4 30.Ãe4 Àxa2 33.Ãc2!
31.Õc6 ©a1+ 32.®g2 ©e5 33.Õc5 ©e7 With an original manoeuvre, White
34.©d4 Õd8 (34...©f6? 35.©d2) seizes control of the strategically impor-
35.©c4 a5 36.Õxa5) 30.Ãe4 a5 31.Õc5 tant points on the board.
a4 32.Õe5 with strong pressure for White. 33...Àf6 34.©a3! Õd8 35.©c5! ©f7?

164
 Game 56 - 2007

35...©xd4? is bad after 36.Õe8+!, but This move runs into the striking blow
more tenacious is 35...Àd5 36.Õe5 38.Õe8+!! Àxe8 39.©f8+ ®h7
©f7±. 40.Ãg8+ ®h8 41.Ãf7+ ®h7
36.Ãb3! 42.©g8#) 38.©xd6! (the simplest)
Now Black loses a pawn. 38...Õxd6 39.Õxa7 Õxd4 40.a4, with an
36...©f8 easily winning endgame.
After 36...©d7 White decides with 37.©xa7 Õe8?!
37.Õe7 ©d6 (or 37...©xd4? Black could hold on for longer after
37...Àg4 38.©f7 ©xf7 39.Ãxf7
._.t._.m Õxd4±.
j._.r.j. 38.Õe5 Àg4 39.Õxe8 ©xe8 40.©f7
._J_.s.j ©d8 41.a4
_.q._.j. Black resigned. He has no hope after
41...Àf6 42.a5 Àe4 43.a6 Àd6 44.©g6
._.d._._ Àb5 45.©xc6.
_B_._.i.
I_._.i.i
_._._.k.
analysis diagram

165
 Vassily Ivanchuk

Chapter 5
Selected Games 2008 – 2012
8...Àxd4
2008 Frank Marshall’s continuation.
Game 57 Alekhine played 8...d6 9.c3 Ãg4 10.d5
Ruy Lopez (C88) Àa5 11.Ãc2 c6, and Black’s chances are
í Ivanchuk,Vassily not worse, Perez Perez-Alekhine, Almeria
n Leko,Peter 1945.
Morelia/Linares 2008 In the game Zaragatski-Kir. Georgiev,
1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.Ãb5 a6 4.Ãa4 Kemer 2007, Black avoided 11...c6 in fa-
Àf6 5.0-0 Ãe7 6.Õe1 b5 7.Ãb3 0-0 vour of 11...©c8, and after 12.h3 Ãd7
13.Àbd2 c6 14.b4 Àb7 15.dxc6 ©xc6
T_Ld.tM_ 16.Ãb2 Àd8 17.Ãd3 Àe6 18.c4 ©b7
_.jJlJjJ 19.a3 Àf4 20.Ãf1 Ãc6...
J_S_.s._
_J_.j._. T_._.tM_
._._I_._ _D_.lJjJ
_B_._N_. J_Lj.s._
IiIi.iIi _J_.j._.
rNbQr.k. .iI_Is._
8.d4 i._._N_I
Yet another interesting way to avoid the .b.n.iI_
Marshall (see also Game 31).
r._QrBk.
analysis diagram

... obtained good counterplay.

9.Ãxf7+!?
An unexpected decision.
In a later game in the same tournament,
Ivanchuk chose 9.Àxd4 exd4 10.e5 and,
after introducing a novelty on move 21
(!), he obtained the better chances:
10...Àe8 11.©xd4 Ãb7 12.c4 (equality
results from 12.©g4 c5 13.c3 d5 14.Ãc2
Ãc8 15.©e2 g6 16.Ãh6 Àg7 17.Àd2
Õe8 18.Ãxg7 ®xg7 19.f4 ©b6 20.Õad1
f5 21.Àf3 Ãe6, Polgar-Onischuk, Biel
2007) 12...bxc4 13.©xc4 d5 14.exd6
Àxd6 15.©g4 Àb5 16.Àc3 Àxc3
(weaker is 16...Ãf6 17.Àe4 Ãxe4

166

18.©xe4 Ãd4 19.©f4 c5 20.Ãe3 Ãxe3
21.fxe3 ©e7 22.Õac1Ç, Balogh-Jenni,
Dresden 2007) 17.bxc3 Ãd6 18.Ãf4
©f6 19.Ãxd6 cxd6 20.Õad1 Õad8
21.©b4! (instead of 21.Õe3 Õfe8
22.Õde1 Õxe3 23.Õxe3 g6ì, Carlsen-
Leko, Dortmund 2007) 21...Ãa8 22.Õe3
g6 23.©b6!Ç, Ivanchuk-Aronian,
Morelia/Linares 2008.
9...Õxf7
A transposition results from 9...®xf7
10.Àxe5+ ®g8.
10.Àxe5 Õf8
Weaker is 10...Àe6 11.Àxf7 ®xf7 12.e5
Ãb7 13.exf6 Ãxf6 14.Àc3 ®g8 15.Àd5
with promising play for White, Davies-
Atalik, Ottawa 2007, whilst it is down-
right bad to play 10...Àc6? 11.Àxf7
®xf7 12.e5 Àg8 13.©h5+ ®f8
14.©f5+ ®e8 15.©xh7ê, Palkövi-
Lochte, Budapest 1994.
11.©xd4
T_Ld.tM_
_.jJl.jJ
J_._.s._
_J_.n._.
._.qI_._
_._._._.
IiI_.iIi
rNb.r.k.
White has won a pawn, but Black has the
two bishops and some advantage in de-
velopment. In addition, the white pieces
in the centre are unstably placed, and can
be driven back.
This all adds up to a complicated battle
with chances for both sides.
11...c5
After 11...Ãb7 12.Àc3 c5 13.©d1 ©c7
14.Àg4 Àxg4 15.©xg4 Õf6 16.Ãg5
Õg6 17.Ãf4! d6 18.©h5 White’s
Game 57 - 2008
chances are slightly better.
12.©d1 ©c7
Black has also tried 12...Ãb7 13.Àc3
©e8 14.Àg4?! (14.a3 d6 15.Àf3Ç is
worth considering) 14...©g6 15.Àxf6+
Ãxf6 16.Àd5 Õae8 with the initiative for
Black, Szczepanski-Malinin, corr. 1990.
13.Àg4 Àxg4 14.©xg4 d5 15.©h5
dxe4 16.©d5+
A quick draw resulted from 16.Àc3 Õf5
17.©e8+ Õf8 18.©h5 Õf5 19.©e8+
Õf8, Smejkal-I. Zaitsev, Polanica Zdroj
1970.
16...®h8 17.©xa8 Ãb7
White gets two rooks for the queen, re-
taining rough material equality.
Q_._.t.m
_Ld.l.jJ
J_._._._
_Jj._._.
._._J_._
_._._._.
IiI_.iIi
rNb.r.k.
18.©a7!?
An improvement on the game Vorobiov-
Novik, Sochi 2007, which continued
18.©xf8+ Ãxf8 19.Àd2 Ãd6 20.Àf1
Ãe5 21.c3 h6 22.Ãe3 Ãd5 23.h3 Ãc4
24.Àd2 Ãd3 25.a3 Ãh2+ 26.®h1 Ãd6
27.b4 cxb4 28.cxb4 ©c3 29.f3 exf3, and
a draw was agreed.
18...Õa8 19.Ãf4!
White tries to stop his opponent’s
counterplay, forcing the queen to quit the
active diagonal b8-h2.
19...©c6 20.©xa8+ Ãxa8 21.Ãe3
After the pawn on e4 is solidly blockaded,
Black needs to seek other ways to weaken
the position of the white king.
21...©f6 22.c3 Ãd6 23.Àd2 ©e5?!
167
 Vassily Ivanchuk
Too hurried.
This move is part of Black’s plans, but
now it is harder to get the light-squared
bishop into play, and White manages to
open the a-file for his rook.
Better is 23...Ãc6 24.Àb3 (Black is fa-
voured by 24.a4?! bxa4 25.Àc4 Ãf8)
24...©e5 25.g3 Ãe7 26.Õad1 h6 with
roughly equal chances.
24.g3 h6
24...Ãc6?! is dubious because of 25.Ãf4
©d5 (25...©e6? 26.Ãxd6 e3 27.Õxe3
©xd6 28.Àe4±) 26.Àxe4 Ãxf4
27.Õad1! ©g8 28.gxf4 with the better
game for White.
25.a4!
White’s immediate task is to activate his
rooks.
25...Ãc6 26.axb5 axb5 27.Àb3 Ãf8
28.Õed1
With the threat of 29.Õd8.
28...Ãd5
._._.l.m
_._._.j.
._._._.j
_JjLd._.
._._J_._
_Ni.b.i.
.i._.i.i
r._R_.k.
29.h4!?
White continues to maintain the tension.
The continuation 29.Àxc5!? Ãxc5
30.Ãxc5 e3! 31.Ãxe3 ©e4 32.Õxd5
(32.®f1 ©h1+ 33.®e2 Ãf3+ with
equality) 32...©xd5 33.Ãd4 ®g8 34.b4
would have given him a small, but stable
advantage, but Black would have had
good drawing chances.
29...®g8
It was worth considering 29...Ãxb3!?
168
30.Õd8 ®g8 31.Õaa8 ©f5 32.Õac8
Ãe6, and now not 33.Õxc5? because of
33...©f3 34.®h2 h5! 35.Õc7 Ãh3!
36.®xh3 ©h1#, whilst after 33.Õxf8+
©xf8 34.Õxf8+ ®xf8 35.Ãxc5+ ®f7, it
would hardly be possible to realise the
extra pawn, in the presence of oppo-
site-coloured bishops.
30.Àc1 g5?!
Weakens the position and, in the final
analysis, leads to the loss of a pawn. More
solid is 30...®h7 31.Õa7 ©h5.
31.hxg5 hxg5 32.Õa5! ©c7 33.Õa6
But not 33.Õxb5? Ãc4, and the rook is
lost.
33...©f7
Defending against the threat of 34.Õg6+.
34.Õb6!
On 34.Ãxg5? possible is 34...©f3!
35.Õxd5 e3 36.Õd8 ©xf2+ with a draw
by perpetual check.
34...Ãe7
After 34...b4 35.cxb4 cxb4 36.Õb5 Ãe6
37.Àe2 Ãg7 38.Õxg5 or 34...Ãc4
35.Õd8 ®h7 36.Ãxg5 White also wins a
pawn, with the advantage.
35.Õxb5 Ãe6 36.Õb8+ ®g7 37.Õb7
®h6 38.Õe1
A quicker path to the target was 38.Àe2!?
Ãc8 39.Õd6+ ®g7 40.Õc7 Ãxd6
41.Õxf7+ ®xf7 42.Ãxg5 with an obvi-
ous advantage to White.
._._._._
_R_.lD_.
._._L_.m
_.j._.j.
._._J_._
_.i.b.i.
.i._.i._
_.n.r.k.
38...©f6?

The decisive mistake!
It was possible to hold with 38...Ãh3!?
39.f4 ©h5.
39.Õb6! ©f5 40.Àb3
With the threat of 41.Ãxc5.
40...®h5 41.Àd2
Also good is 41.Àxc5 Ãxc5 42.Õb5 with
a decisive advantage.
41...Ãd7 42.Õa1! Ãd8 43.Õb8 1-0
On 43...Ãf6 there follows 44.Õa6 Ãe7
45.Õa7 Ãf6 46.Àxe4 ©xe4 47.Õxd7,
and White wins.
Game 58
Caro-Kann Defence (B19)
í Leko,Peter
n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Morelia/Linares 2008
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Àc3
The main line.
3...dxe4 4.Àxe4 Ãf5
Also possible is 4...Àd7, e.g. 5.Àf3 Àgf6
6.Àxf6+ Àxf6 7.Ãc4 Ãf5 8.©e2 e6
9.Ãg5 ©a5+ 10.c3 Ãg4 11.©e5 Àd5
12.Àd2 f6 13.©g3 h5 14.h3 Ãf5
15.Ãe3 g5 with mutual chances,
Tiviakov-Ivanchuk, Hoogeveen 2009.
5.Àg3 Ãg6 6.h4
White gains space on the kingside.
6...h6
6...h5? is bad because of 7.Àh3 followed
by Àh3-f4.
7.Àf3 Àd7
Also possible is 7...Àf6 – it turns out that
the knight jump to e5 is not dangerous.
Black organises pressure against this
knight, obtaining counterplay: 8.Àe5
Ãh7 9.Ãd3 Ãxd3 10.©xd3 e6 11.Ãd2
Àbd7 12.f4 Ãd6 13.0-0-0 0-0 14.®b1
©c7 15.Àe2 (preparing g2-g4)
15...Õad8 16.©f3 h5 17.Õhg1?! (better
is 17.g4!) 17...c5!, and Black takes the
initiative, Anand-Ivanchuk, Linares 1999.
8.h5 Ãh7 9.Ãd3 Ãxd3 10.©xd3 e6
Game 58 - 2008
11.Ãf4 ©a5+ 12.Ãd2
T_._MlSt
jJ_S_Jj.
._J_J_.j
d._._._I
._.i._._
_._Q_Nn.
IiIb.iI_
r._.k._R
12...Ãb4
In the blindfold game Smeets-Ivanchuk,
Nice 2010, Black tried 12...©c7, and af-
ter 13.0-0-0 Àgf6 14.Àe4 0-0-0 15.g3
Àc5 16.Àxc5 Ãxc5 17.©e2 Ãb6
18.Ãf4 ©e7 19.c4 Õhe8 20.®b1 Ãc7
21.Àe5 Àd7 22.a3 Àxe5 23.dxe5
Õxd1+ 24.Õxd1 Õd8 chances were
equal.
13.c3
Interesting is 13.Àe4!? Àgf6 14.Àd6+
®e7 15.Àxb7 Ãxd2+ 16.Àxd2 ©b4
17.©b3 ©xd4 18.0-0-0 c5 (18...Õab8 is
worth considering) 19.©g3 ©b4
20.©d6+ ®e8 21.©c6 ®e7 22.Àe4
©b6 23.Àa5 with the initiative for
White, Radjabov-Ivanchuk, Wijk aan Zee
2008.
13...Ãe7 14.c4 ©c7 15.0-0-0 Àgf6
16.®b1
In the 1sth match game Leko-Karpov,
Miskolc 2006 (rapid), play continued
16.Õhe1 b5 17.c5 0-0 18.Àf5!? exf5
19.Õxe7 Àxc5 20.©e2 Àcd7 21.Àh4
©d6 22.Àxf5 ©d5 23.g4 ©xa2 24.g5
hxg5 25.©e3 ©a1+ 26.®c2 ©a4+
27.®c1 ©a1+ 28.®c2, and the players
agreed a draw.
16...0-0
Anand against the Ukrainian GM chose
here 16...Õd8 17.Àe4 0-0 18.g3 b5
19.Ãf4 ©b7 20.Àxf6+ Àxf6 21.Àe5 c5
169
 Vassily Ivanchuk

22.cxb5 Õxd4 23.©f3 Àd5, and Black Àg4ç) 21...Ãxd2 22.Õxd2 cxd4
obtained good play, Ivanchuk-Anand, 23.Àxd4 Õac8 24.Õc1 Àe5 25.c5 Õd5
Nice 2009 (blind). 26.Àf3 Õcd8 Black has a noticeable ad-
17.Õhe1 vantage.
White has also played 17.Õde1 Õfd8 19...a4 20.Àe5
18.©c2 Àf8 19.Àe4 Àxe4 20.©xe4 c5 This allows Black gradually to take the
21.d5 Ãf6 22.g4 exd5 23.cxd5 ©d6 initiative.
24.g5 hxg5 25.Ãxg5 ©xd5 26.Ãxf6 Black also has comfortable play after
©xe4+ 27.Õxe4 gxf6 with slightly the 20.a3!? Ãd6 21.Àe4 Àxe4 22.Õxe4 c5
better chances for Black, Vescovi-Karpov, 23.Ãe3 b6 24.g3 Ãe7 25.©e2 Àf6
3rd match game, Guarulhos 2006 26.Õh4 ©b7.
(rapid). 20...Àxe5 21.dxe5 Õxd1 22.©xd1
Àd7 23.f4
23.a3?! is dubious because of 23...b5
T_._.tM_ 24.cxb5 cxb5 25.f4 Àb6 26.Àe4 Àd5
jJdSlJj. 27.©c2 ©d7 28.©b3 b4 29.axb4 Ãxb4
._J_Js.j with attacking chances.
_._._._I 23...Àc5 24.Àe4
._Ii._._ White tries to exchange the dangerous
_._Q_Nn. black knight.
Ii.b.iI_ After 24.©f3 Õd8 25.Õd1 b5!?
26.Õxd8+ ©xd8 27.cxb5 cxb5 28.Àe4
_K_Rr._.
Àxe4 29.©xe4 ©d1 Black also has the
17...a5!? initiative.
Starting to soften up the white king posi- 24...Õd8 25.©c2 Àxe4 26.Õxe4
tion. Black is also better after 26.©xe4 Ãc5
Black has a wide choice of possible con- 27.©e2 Ãd4.
tinuations. As well as 17...Õad8 and
17...Õfd8, there is also 17...b5!? and after
18.Õc1?! (more accurate is 18.cxb5 cxb5 ._.t._M_
19.Àf5!?) – 18...a6 19.Àe5 Àxe5 _Jd.lJj.
20.dxe5 Õfd8 21.©c2 Àd7 22.Ãe3 ._J_J_.j
bxc4 23.f4 Ãb4 24.Õe2 c3 with pres- _._.i._I
sure, Calistri-Landa, Paris 2006. J_I_Ri._
18.Ãc1 _._._._.
On 18.Àf5 the move 18...Ãb4! is strong, IiQ_._I_
and the same move is possible after
_Kb._._.
18.Ãc3.
18...Õfd8 19.©c2 26...©b6!
Directed against ...b7-b5. A strong manoeuvre, creating two threats
19.©e2 looks more active, but after – 27...a3 and 27...©g1.
19...Ãb4 20.Ãd2 c5! 21.a3 (21.dxc5?! Admittedly, it is possible to meet one of
Àxc5 22.Àe5 Ãxd2 23.Õxd2 Õxd2 these by taking the pawn:
24.©xd2 Õd8 25.©c2 Àd3 26.Õf1 27.©xa4?

170

Now Black’s heavy pieces seize the first
rank.
It seems the best decision was 27.Õe3!,
e.g. 27...©d4 (27...a3?! 28.Õb3) 28.g3
b5 29.cxb5 cxb5 30.Õc3 ©d5 31.a3, and
White holds.
27...©g1 28.©c2 Õd1 29.Õe2 Õf1
30.a3 Ãc5!
Having tied up the enemy pieces, Black
activates his bishop. It was also possible to
play 30...Õxf4, regaining the pawn, but
the move in the game is strategically
stronger.
31.©d2
Defending against the threat of 31...Ãe3.
Worse is 31.Õd2 Ãd4! 32.g3 c5.
31...Õd1 32.©c2 Ãd4 33.c5
Or 33.Õd2 Õf1 34.g3 c5 with complete
domination by the black pieces.
33...Õf1 34.Õd2 Õxf4 35.®a2
He is not saved by 35.©c4 ©e3 36.Õd3
©e2 37.©c2 ©xc2+ 38.®xc2 Õe4
39.g3 ®f8 40.Ãd2 Ãxe5, with advan-
tage to Black.
._._._M_
_J_._Jj.
._J_J_.j
_.i.i._I
._.l.t._
i._._._.
KiQr._I_
_.b._.d.
35...Õf2!
The simplest.
With fewer pieces on the board, White is
deprived of counterplay, and faces a
cheerless endgame.
36.Õxf2 Ãxf2 37.g4?!
Slightly more practical chances were of-
fered by 37.b3 Ãxc5 38.Ãb2 ©e3ç.
37...Ãxc5 38.Ãf4 ©d4
Game 59 - 2008
Also possible is 38...©xg4 39.©xc5
©xf4 40.©b6 ©xe5 41.©xb7 ©d5+
42.®b1 ©xh5î.
39.©d2 ©e4 40.®a1
He could prolong resistance by 40.g5
hxg5 41.©d8+ ®h7 42.©xg5 ©h1
43.Ãd2 ©d5+ 44.®b1 Ãd4 45.©e7
©b5, and Black should win.
Now, however, White is defenceless
against the attack on the queenside.
40...Ãd4 41.©h2 c5 42.®a2 b5
43.©d2
43.©g3 is bad because of 43...©e2
44.Ãc1 c4.
43...©d5+ 44.®b1 b4! 45.a4
Or 45.axb4 cxb4 46.©d3 (46.©xb4
©e4+) 46...b3 47.Ãd2 Ãxe5î.
45...b3 46.©d3 c4 47.©e2 ©h1+
48.Ãc1 ©a8!
As the final stage, a small trap! On
49.©xc4 there follows 49...©e4+
50.®a1 Ãxb2+.
White resigned.
Game 59
Sicilian Defence (B87)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Karjakin,Sergey
Nice 2008
1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Àxd4
Àf6 5.Àc3 a6 6.Ãc4
The Sozin Attack was the favourite of
Bobby Fischer, and he studied it so deeply
that it is sometimes called the Fischer-
Sozin Attack.
6...e6 7.Ãb3 b5
The idea of this advance is to attack the
e4-pawn by fianchettoing the queen’s
bishop, as well as driving away the knight
from c3.
8.Ãg5
The most topical continuation. White
prepares queenside castling. Earlier, the
more popular lines were 8.f4 and 8.0-0,
171
e.g.: 8.f4 b4 (the most principled reply,
but risky) 9.Àa4 Àxe4 10.0-0 Ãb7
11.f5 e5
 Game 59 - 2008

fice of the queen, for just two pawns! 23...Õg6 (23...Õg4 24.Àe6+ ®e7
14...fxe6 15.Àxe6 ©e5 25.Àc5 ®f6 26.Õxe5!ê) 24.Àxb7
More accurate is 15...©e7, although this ©xb7 25.Õxe5 ©b6 (or 25...©c7
does not refute the combination either: 26.Õf5+ ®g7 27.Õf7+) 26.Õd7 Õf6
16.Àd5! Àd4 (or 16...Àxd5 17.Ãxe7 27.Õg5 ®e8 28.Õe7+! ®xe7 29.Àd5+
Àcxe7 18.Àxc5 0-0-0 19.Õhe1 a5 20.a4 ®d7 30.Àxb6+ with an overwhelming
bxa4 21.Ãxa4 Àg6 22.Àe6 Õdg8 23.g3, advantage;
and the activity of the white pieces fully B) 16...®d7 17.Àxc7 ®xc7 18.Ãxf6
compensates for the small material defi- gxf6 19.Àd5+ ®b8 20.Àb6 Ãf4+
cit) 17.Àxe7 Àxe6 18.Ãxf6 Ãxe7 21.®b1 Õa7 22.Àd7+ ®a8 23.g3 Ãc7
19.Õhe1 Ãc8 20.Ãc3 b4 21.Ãe5 Õa7 24.Àxf6 with three pawns for the piece,
22.f4 Àc5 23.Ãc4 Õf8, with mutual plus the initiative.
chances in a complicated ending. 16.Àxg7+ ®f8
After 15...Ãd6 there is 16.Õhe1! and Bad is 16...®e7? 17.Õhe1 ©xe1
now: 18.Õxe1+ ®d7 19.Ãxf6ê.
17.Àe6+ ®f7!
The most accurate. After 17...®e7 (White
T_._M_.t is better in case of 17...®e8?! 18.Õhe1
_Ld._.jJ ©xg5+ 19.Àxg5+) a possibility is
J_SlNs._ 18.Õhe1 Ãxf2 19.Õxe5 Àxe5 20.Àg7!
_J_._.b. Àg4 21.Àf5+ ®e8 22.Àd6+ ®f8
._._._._ 23.Àxb7, and White’s chances are superior.
_Bn._._. 18.Õhe1 ©xe1?
IiI_.iIi Probably, nerves told on the young grand-
master’s play. After 18...©xg5+
_.kRr._.
19.Àxg5+ ®g6 20.Àce4 Ãe7 Black re-
analysis diagram
tains a defensible position, whereas now
A) Dubious is 16...©b8?! 17.Àxg7+ White obtains three pawns and a clear ad-
®f8 18.Ãxf6 Õg8 19.Àe6+ ®f7 vantage for the exchange.
20.Àe4 Ãe5 21.Àf4+ ®f8 22.Ãxe5 19.Àxc5+ ®g6 20.Õxe1 ®xg5
Àxe5 23.Àd6, and White successfully 21.Àxb7 Àd4 22.Àd6 Õhf8
carries out an attack without the queen:
T_._.t._
Td._.mT_ _._._._J
_L_._._J J_.n.s._
J_.n._._ _J_._.m.
_J_.s._. ._.s._._
._._.n._ _Bn._._.
_B_._._. IiI_.iIi
IiI_.iIi _.k.r._.
_.kRr._. 23.f3
analysis diagram Play moves into the technical realisation
phase.

173
 Vassily Ivanchuk
23...b4 24.Àce4+ Àxe4 25.Õxe4
Àxb3+ 26.axb3 a5 27.Õg4+ ®f6
28.Àe4+ ®e5 29.Õh4 a4
Exploiting the chance to count on an
oversight from the opponent – 30.Àf2?
axb3 31.cxb3 Õfd8, and Black holds.
Objectively, it was better to play 29...Õa7
30.Õh5+ ®f4 31.Õd5 Õg7±.
30.bxa4 Õxa4 31.Àc5
Here White could decide things a little
more quickly with 31.Õh5+! (but not
31.Õxh7? because of 31...Õd8! with
counterplay) 31...Õf5 32.Õxh7. Black is
also not saved after 31...®f4 32.Àc5
Õaa8 33.®d2 Õad8+ 34.Àd3+ Õxd3+
35.®xd3 or 31...®d4 32.Àc5 Õaa8
33.®d2 Õfd8 (defending against the
threat of 34.Àb3+ ®c4+ 35.Õc5 mate,
whilst after 33...Õfc8 – 34.Àe6+ ®c4+
35.b3 mate) 34.Àe6+ winning.
31...Õa1+ 32.®d2 Õg8 33.g3 Õf1
34.®e2 Õb1 35.Õxb4
The outcome of the game is decided and
Black could quietly have resigned.
35...®d5 36.Àe4 ®c6 37.h4 Õh1
38.Õc4+ ®b6 39.b4 Õd8 40.Õc5
Õa8 41.c3
White has only to decide on which flank it
is more convenient to advance his pawns.
41...Õa2+ 42.®e3 Õe1+ 43.®f4 Õf1
44.Õh5 Õa8
Not much better is 44...Õa7 45.Õh6+
®b5 46.Àd6+ ®a4 47.b5 Õd7 48.c4ê.
45.Õh6+ ®b5 46.Àd6+ ®a4
47.Õxh7 ®b3 48.Õc7 Õd8 49.Àf5
Black resigned.
Game 60
Sicilian Defence (B70)
í Morozevich,Alexander
n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Sochi 2008
1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.d4 cxd4
4.Àxd4 g6
174
T_LdMlSt
jJ_JjJ_J
._S_._J_
_._._._.
._.nI_._
_._._._.
IiI_.iIi
rNbQkB_R
Black chooses the so-called Accelerated
Dragon. Unlike the main Dragon, here af-
ter the moves 5.Àc3 Ãg7 6.Ãe3 Àf6
White cannot play 7.f3 because of 7...0-0
8.©d2 d5, whilst after 8.Ãc4 (prevent-
ing ...d7-d5) there is the strong reply
8...©b6!.
Therefore, White usually continues
7.Ãc4, which after 7...0-0 8.Ãb3 a5!?
leads to an independent position. At the
same time, Black also has the option of
8...d6, transposing after 9.f3 to one of the
lines of the classical Dragon.
5.Ãe2
A less committal, but fundamental and
well-known continuation. Often White
first plays 5.Àc3, which in the present
case would lead to a transposition of
moves.
Another possibility is 5.c4, transposing
into the Maroczy System, where Black
finds it hard to develop activity: 5...Àf6
6.Àc3 d6 7.Ãe2 Àxd4 8.©xd4 Ãg7
9.Ãg5 0-0 10.©d2 Ãe6 11.Õc1 ©a5
12.f3 Õfc8 13.b3 a6 with chances for
both sides, Zviagintsev-Malakhov, Mos-
cow 2010.
5...Ãg7 6.Àb3
Not yet determining the position of the
queen’s bishop.
6...d6 7.0-0 Àf6 8.Àc3 0-0 9.Ãg5
As well as the once popular 9.®h1, there
is also 9.Õe1, e.g. 9...Ãe6 10.Ãf1 Õc8
11.Àd5 Àd7 12.c3 Õe8 13.Ãg5 h6

14.Ãh4 Àce5 15.Õc1 a6 16.Õc2 b5 (it
was worth considering 16...g5!?)
17.Àd4 Àf8 18.f4, and White’s chances
are slightly superior, Cabrilo-Boskovic,
Belgrade 2009.
9...Ãe6
More accurate than 9...a5, after which a
possibility is 10.a4 Ãe6 11.©d2!? Õc8
12.Õad1Ç.
10.f4 b5! 11.a3
After 11.Ãxb5 ©b6+ 12.®h1 Àxe4
13.Ãxc6 ©xc6, Black has comfortable
play.
The main line at present is 11.Ãf3: 11...b4
(11...Õc8 12.®h1 Àd7 13.Õb1Ç,
Gipslis-Barczay, Tallinn 1981) 12.Àd5
Ãxd5 13.exd5 Àa5 14.©e2 Õc8 15.®h1
with a minimal advantage to White, A.
Sokolov-Khalifman, Minsk 1986.
11...a5!?
Black decides to drive the knight from b3.
After 11...Õb8 12.®h1 Ãc4 13.Ãd3 a5
14.a4 b4 15.Àb5 Ãxb3 16.cxb3 Àd7
17.©e2 Àd4 18.Àxd4 Ãxd4 19.Ãc4
Ãf6 20.Ãxf6 exf6 21.Õad1 ©e7 22.Õd5
Àc5 White obtained the better chances in
the game Berg-Karason, Gothenburg
1997.
12.Ãf3 a4
T_.d.tM_
_._.jJlJ
._SjLsJ_
_J_._.b.
J_._Ii._
iNn._B_.
.iI_._Ii
r._Q_Rk.
13.Àc1
Transferring the knight to d3.
It was worth considering 13.Àd2 Àd4
14.f5 Àxf3+ 15.©xf3 Ãd7 16.Ãe3 ©c7
Game 60 - 2008
17.Ãd4 ©b7 18.©d3 b4 19.axb4 ©xb4
20.Àe2 Ãc6 with roughly equal chances.
13...Àd7!
The black knight, in its turn, heads for c5.
Also possible is 13...Ãc4 14.Àd3 Õc8
15.Ãh4 Àd4 16.Õe1 Àd7 with quite
good prospects for Black.
14.Àd3
On 14.f5?!, a strong reply is 14...Ãc4
15.Àd3 b4!? 16.Àd5 (or 16.axb4 a3!
17.b5 ©b6+ 18.®h1
T_._.tM_
_._SjJlJ
.dSj._J_
_I_._Ib.
._L_I_._
j.nN_B_.
.iI_._Ii
r._Q_R_K
analysis diagram
18...axb2!! 19.Õxa8 Õxa8 20.bxc6 Ãxc3
21.cxd7 Õa1 22.Àxb2 Õxd1 23.Õxd1
Ãb5! 24.Ãxe7 Ãxd7 25.Àc4 ©c7
26.Àe3 Ãe5, and Black’s chances are
significantly better) 16...Ãxd3 17.cxd3
Ãxb2 18.axb4 Àb6 19.Àe3! (weaker is
19.Õa2 or 19.Õb1 because of 19...a3)
19...a3! (taking the exchange at once is
dangerous) 20.Ãh6 Õe8 21.Ãg4 e6 with
advantage to Black.
14...Àc5 15.®h1
15.Àb4 is weaker because of 15...Àxb4
16.axb4 Àa6! 17.e5 Õb8, but an interest-
ing option was 15.f5!? Àxd3! (after
15...Ãc4?! 16.e5! Àxd3 17.cxd3 ©b6+
18.®h1 Ãb3 19.©d2 dxe5 (19...Ãxe5?
20.Ãxc6 ©xc6 21.Ãxe7±) 20.Ãxc6
©xc6 21.Ãxe7 Õfe8 22.f6 White has the
initiative) 16.cxd3 Ãb3 17.©d2 Àd4
18.Ãg4 Ãe5 with a complicated game.
15...Àxd3 16.cxd3 Õb8
175
 Vassily Ivanchuk

Black is ready to attack on the queenside.
17.f5 Ãb3 18.©d2 b4 19.axb4 Õxb4
._.d.tM_
_._.jJlJ
._Sj._J_
_._._Ib.
Jt._I_._
_LnI_B_.
.i.q._Ii
r._._R_K
20.Ãh6?!
So as to weaken the pressure, White de-
cides to exchange bishops, but as a result,
the dark squares in the centre fall under
the opponent’s control, and White’s
chances of the initiative are reduced.
More accurate is 20.Õac1 ©b6 21.h4
Ãd4 22.fxg6 hxg6 23.h5 Àe5 24.Ãd1
©b7 with chances for both sides.
20...©b6 21.Ãxg7 ®xg7 22.Ãd1!
Exposing the approaches to the a4-pawn.
22...Ãxd1 23.©xd1
In the event of the sharp 23.Àd5!? Õxb2
24.©f4 (24.©xd1 ©b3) 24...©d4
25.Àxe7! f6 26.Àxc6 ©xd3 27.Õfxd1
©c2 28.©g3 ©xc6 29.©a3! (weaker is
29.Õxd6?! ©xe4ç) 29...©c2 30.Õg1
Õf7 31.©xa4 Õe7, Black’s chances in the
resulting endgame are somewhat superior.
._._.t._
_._.jJmJ
.dSj._J_
_._._I_.
Jt._I_._
_.nI_._.
.i._._Ii
r._Q_R_K
23...©d4!
Stirring up a new fight! White has man-
aged to stabilise the position, and after
23...©b7 24.Õxa4 (or 24.Àxa4 Àe5
25.Àc3 Õxb2) 24...Õxb2, the game
would be equal.
24.Àd5
After 24.Õxa4, in the event of 24...Õfb8
25.Õxb4 Àxb4 26.©d2 ©xd3
(26...Àxd3? is bad because of 27.Õf3,
but it was worth considering 26...Àc6!?
27.Õd1 Àe5 28.h3 Õb4 with sufficient
compensation for the pawn) 27.f6+! exf6
28.©f2 f5 29.Õd1 ©c4 30.exf5 d5
31.h3, White obtains some initiative.
But by playing 24...Õxa4 25.©xa4 ©xa4
26.Àxa4 Õb8 27.fxg6 hxg6 28.Õc1 Àd4
29.Õc7 ®f6 30.h4 Àe6 31.Õc4 ®e5
32.g3 Õb3, Black obtains the better
chances.
24...Õb3
._._.t._
_._.jJmJ
._Sj._J_
_._N_I_.
J_.dI_._
_T_I_._.
.i._._Ii
r._Q_R_K
25.©c1?!
The turning point. White misses a chance
to hold the balance by tactical means:
25.Àxe7! Àxe7 26.f6+ ®g8 27.©c1!
(with the threat of ©h6) 27...©xb2!
28.fxe7 (28.©h6 Àf5 29.exf5 ©xf6ç)
28...Õe8 29.©c7 ©e5 30.Õxa4 ©xe7ì.
25...Àe5! 26.©c7?
And this is the decisive oversight!
Stronger is 26.Àxe7 Àxd3 27.f6+ ©xf6
28.Õxf6 Àxc1 29.Õxd6 Õe8 30.Àc6
Àd3 31.Õxa4 Õxb2 32.h3 Àf2+
33.®h2 Àxe4, although here too, Black
retains winning chances.

176
 Game 61 - 2008

Another interesting variation is 26.©f4 30...®h6!

Àxd3.
._._.t._
_._.jJmJ
._.j._J_
_._N_I_.
J_.dIq._
_T_S_._.
.i._._Ii
r._._R_K
analysis diagram
Now 27.Õxa4 ©xa4? leads to perpetual
check after 28.f6+ exf6 (28...®h8?
29.fxe7 Õg8 30.©xf7 Àf2+ 31.©xf2)
29.©xf6+ ®h6 30.©h4+.
But after 27.Õxa4 Àxf4! 28.Õxd4 Àxd5
29.exd5 Õxb2 30.Õe4 e5 31.dxe6 fxe6
32.Õxe6 Õxf5 Black’s extra pawn should
tell.
26...Àxd3 27.©xe7 Àf2+ 28.Õxf2
Defending against the smothered mate.
28...©xf2 29.©xd6
White cannot develop an attack, because
the black king hides on h6.
Things are not changed by 29.©f6+
®h6 30.©xd6 Õc8 31.Àf6 ®g7 32.Àg4
©xb2 33.f6+ ®h8 34.Õd1 Õbb8
35.Àe5 ©b7 36.h4 ©c7 with a decisive
advantage for Black.
29...Õc8 30.f6+
Or 30.©e5+ ®h6 31.fxg6 Õc2 32.Àf4
fxg6 33.©d6 ©c5 34.©d1 ©c6î.
With this, the battle is effectively ended.
31.©d7 Õxb2 32.©g4 Õcc2
A quicker decision would follow from
32...Õcb8!, threatening a deadly check on
b1.
33.Àf4
By means of 33.Àe3 ©xf6 (if 33...Õe2,
then 34.©h3+ ®g5 35.©g4+) 34.Àxc2
Õxc2, White could delay the inevitable
end.
33...a3 34.h4 Õb5 35.Õxa3 ©d4
36.Àd5 Õb1+ 37.®h2 ©g1+
White resigned.
Game 61
Queen’s Indian Defence (E15)
í Radjabov,Teimour
n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Sofia 2008
1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 e6 3.Àf3 b6 4.g3
Ãa6
One of Nimzowitsch’s numerous original
ideas. In anticipation of the bishop devel-
oping to g2, Black attacks the c4-pawn,
putting the ball in White’s court. Anatoly

._T_._._
_._._JmJ
._.q.iJ_
_._N_._.
J_._I_._
_T_._._.
.i._.dIi
r._._._K Teimour Radjabov

177
 Vassily Ivanchuk
Karpov played this variation several times,
in his first world championship match
against Garry Kasparov.
5.b3
This is how Kasparov frequently replied.
Other possibilities are:
A) 5.©a4 Ãe7 6.Àc3 0-0 7.Ãg2 Ãb7
8.Ãf4 Àe4 9.©c2 f5 with mutual
chances, Banikas-Miroshnichenko,
Eforie-Nord 2009;
B) 5.©c2 Ãb4+ 6.Ãd2 Ãe7 (also pos-
sible is 6...Ãxd2+ 7.Àbxd2 c5 8.dxc5
bxc5 9.Ãg2 Àc6 10.0-0 0-0 11.Õfd1
Õb8 12.b3 ©e7 with a solid position,
Goganov-Soltanici, Donetsk 2010)
7.Ãg2 0-0 8.0-0 c6 9.b3 d5 10.Õd1
Àbd7 11.Ãf4 Õc8 12.Àc3 Àh5 13.Ãc1
Àhf6, and Black equalised, Anand-Leko,
blitz, Moscow 2009;
C) 5.©b3 Àc6 6.Àbd2 Àa5 7.©a4
Ãb7 8.Ãg2 c5 9.dxc5 bxc5 10.0-0 Ãd6
11.Àg5 Ãxg2 12.®xg2 Õb8 13.Õd1
0-0ì, Wojtaszek-Leko, Khanty-Mansiysk
2010;
D) 5.Àbd2 d5 6.Ãg2 c6 7.0-0 Àbd7
8.b3 b5? (stronger is 8...Ãe7) 9.c5 b4
10.Õe1 Ãe7 11.©c2 Ãb5 12.a4!Ç,
Ivanchuk-Zubov, Warsaw 2009.
5...Ãb7
A complicated struggle results from
5...d5, e.g., 6.Ãg2 dxc4 7.Àe5 Ãb4+
8.®f1 c6 9.bxc4 Ãb7 10.Ãb2 0-0
11.Àd3 a5 12.Àd2 Àbd7, Naumkin-
Epishin, Porto San Giorgio 2010.
A frequently-seen line is 5...Ãb4+ 6.Ãd2
Ãe7 7.Ãg2 c6 8.Ãc3 d5 9.Àbd2 Àbd7
10.0-0 0-0 11.Õe1 c5 12.e4 dxc4
13.Àxc4 Ãb7 14.©d3 ©c7 15.Õad1
Õfd8, and the chances are approximately
equal, Kiss-Ivanchuk, Warsaw 2010.
6.Ãg2 Ãb4+ 7.Ãd2 a5
A relatively fresh idea in a well-known
position. Capturing on b4 opens the a-file
for the rook and deprives the white
178
knight of the c3-square, whilst the move
8.a3 leads to a weakening of the queen’s
wing.
8.0-0 0-0 9.©c2 d6 10.Àc3
On 10.Ãg5, with the threat to trap the
bishop by a2-a3, Black replies 10...a4
with mutual chances.
10...Àbd7 11.Õfe1
By preparing to seize the centre with
12.e4, White forces the exchange on c3.
11...Ãxc3 12.Ãxc3 Ãe4 13.©b2
T_.d.tM_
_.jS_JjJ
.j.jJs._
j._._._.
._IiL_._
_Ib._Ni.
Iq._IiBi
r._.r.k.
The critical position of the variation. De-
spite the advantage of the two bishops,
Black has good prospects of equalising.
13...Õe8!?
A rare move, which is based on an origi-
nal idea.
More usual are 13...a4, 13...©b8 or
13...c6, e.g.:
A) 13...a4 14.Ãh3! c5 15.Õad1 ©c7
16.d5 e5 17.Àd2 Ãg6 18.e4 Àe8
19.©c2 ©d8 20.f4 f6 21.Ãe6+ ®h8
22.bxa4 exf4 23.gxf4 Àc7 24.Àf1 ©e8
25.Àg3 Àb8 26.f5±, Markus-A.
Kovacevic, Bar 2003;
B) 13...©b8 14.Ãf1 b5 15.cxb5 ©xb5
16.Àd2 d5 17.Àxe4 Àxe4 18.Õec1 a4
19.e3 ©b8 20.bxa4 Õxa4 21.©b5 Àxc3
22.Õxc3 Àb6 23.Ãd3 g6 24.a3 ©a7
25.©c5 Õa8 26.©c6 ©a5 27.Ãb5 Õc4
28.Õxc4 dxc4 29.Ãxc4 ©c3 30.Õb1
Õxa3 31.Ãb5 ©xc6 32.Ãxc6ì,
Hawkins-Wells, Canterbury 2010;

C) 13...c6 14.Ãf1 d5 15.Àd2 Ãg6
16.a4 Àb8 17.Ãg2 Àa6 18.e4 Õe8
19.Õac1 h6 20.©a3 Õa7 21.e5 Àd7
22.cxd5 cxd5 23.Ãf1 Àdb8 24.Ãb5 Õf8
25.Àf1 Àc7 26.Ãe2 Õb7 27.Ãd2 ©d7
28.Àe3 Õd8 29.Àc2 Àc6 30.©a1 b5å,
Nguyen Anh Dung-Barus, Bled 2002.
14.Ãh3
White’s plan is to move the knight to d2
and prepare e2-e4. Another possibility is
14.Ãf1, with the same idea: 14...Ãb7
15.Àd2 c5 16.e4 cxd4 17.Ãxd4 e5
18.Ãc3 Àc5 19.©c2 h5 20.a3 h4 21.b4
axb4 22.axb4 Õxa1 23.Ãxa1 Àe6
24.Ãb2 Àg5 25.©d3 hxg3 26.hxg3
©c7 27.f4 Àe6 28.©e3 Àg4 29.©f3
Àf6 30.Ãd3 Õa8 with chances for both
sides, Akesson-Su.B. Hansen, Sweden
1999/00.
14...Ãb7
Black, in his turn, takes counter-mea-
sures, preparing ...e6-e5 – this is the
point of his rook move at move 13 (usu-
ally, the c-pawn is moved to c5).
14...Ãxf3 15.exf3 d5Ç is not so good.
15.Àd2 e5 16.Õad1
Now 16.e4 is not so favourable, because af-
ter 16...exd4, the e-pawn needs defending.
16...h6
T_.dT_M_
_LjS_Jj.
.j.j.s.j
j._.j._.
._Ii._._
_Ib._.iB
Iq.nIi.i
_._Rr.k.
17.f3
If 17.e4?! exd4 18.Ãxd4 Àc5! 19.Ãxf6
©xf6 20.©xf6 gxf6 21.f3 a4! Black
seizes the a-file (22.b4? Àd3), obtaining
equal chances.
Game 61 - 2008
17...exd4 18.Ãxd4 Àe5 19.Àf1
After 19.f4, a good line is 19...Àc6
20.Ãc3 Àb4! (preventing e2-e4) 21.a3
Àa6 and after 22.e4 – 22...Àc5 23.Ãxf6
©xf6 24.©xf6 gxf6 25.Ãf5 Àe6, Black
is not worse.
19...Àh5
Directed against 20.Àe3, after which a
possibility is 20...©g5 21.Ãg2 Àc6
22.f4 ©g6, with a complicated game and
mutual chances.
20.Ãxe5
White finally gets in 21.e4, but parts with
one of his bishops.
It was worth considering 20.Ãg2!? Àc6
(it is hardly good to play 20...f5?!
21.Ãxe5 Õxe5 22.f4 Õe4 23.Ãxe4
Ãxe4, and the compensation for the ex-
change is clearly inadequate) 21.Ãc3 a4
22.e4, and White realises his plan, retain-
ing the advantage of the two bishops.
20...Õxe5 21.e4 ©f6 22.Àe3
Taking into account the fact that the
f3-pawn is indirectly defended, White in-
vites his opponent to sharpen the game.
More solid is 22.©f2 (22.f4? Àxf4!
23.gxf4 Õg5+) 22...Õae8 23.Àe3.
T_._._M_
_Lj._Jj.
.j.j.d.j
j._.t._S
._I_I_._
_I_.nIiB
Iq._._.i
_._Rr.k.
22...©xf3!?
The exchange sacrifice leads to play with
mutual chances.
Another possibility is 22...Àf4!? 23.Ãf1
h5 24.©c2 ©g6 25.Àf5 Õee8 with a
roughly equal game.
179
 Vassily Ivanchuk

23.Ãg2 ©f6 24.Àg4 ©e7 25.Àxe5 33...®d6 34.Õb5 Õa7 35.h4?

dxe5 The decisive mistake!
Black obtains a pawn for the exchange, It was possible to hold after 35.Õb8 ®c5
and the possibility of play on the dark 36.®f2 ®d4 37.®e2.
squares; in addition, White has a weak
pawn on e4. ._._._._
White’s hopes are connected with activat- t.j._Jj.
ing his rooks, by opening lines. ._.m.s.j
26.©f2 Ãc6 jR_.j._.
On 27.c5, Black intended 27...b5, not al-
lowing further opening of the game.
I_I_I_.i
27.a4 ©c5! _I_._.i.
Decisively preventing the opening of the ._._._B_
position by means of 28.c5!? b5 29.axb5 _._._.k.
Ãxb5 30.Õa1, which would have been 35...Àd7!
possible after, for example, 27...Àf6. In By threatening to trap the rook with
addition, after the exchange of queens, 36...c6, Black forces a winning pawn
White has a new weakness on b3. endgame.
28.©xc5 bxc5 29.Õe3 ®f8 30.Õed3 36.Õd5+ ®e7 37.Ãh3 c6 38.Õxd7+
®e7 38.Õd2 is bad because of 38...Àc5ç.
38...Õxd7 39.Ãxd7 ®xd7 40.c5
T_._._._ The only move, else the king marches to
_.j.mJj. the b3-pawn via ...®d7-d6-c5-b4.
._L_._.j 40...h5 41.®f2 g6 42.®e2 f5!
j.j.j._S
I_I_I_._ ._._._._
_I_R_.i. _._M_._.
._._._Bi ._J_._J_
_._R_.k. j.i.jJ_J
31.Õd5?! I_._I_.i
An unnecessary move. _I_._.i.
If White decides to return the exchange, ._._K_._
fearing the knight transfer to d4, then he
_._._._.
could do this by means of 31.Ãf3 Àf6
32.®f2 Àh7 33.h4 Àf8 34.Ãg4!? Ãxe4 43.exf5
35.Õe3 f5 36.Õxe4 fxe4 37.Õd5 Õb8 Other continuations also lose, e.g.:
38.Õxc5, obtaining reasonable play. 43.®d2 fxe4 44.®e3 ®e7! (maintaining
Now, however, White has an active rook, the distant opposition) 45.®xe4 ®e6
but a bad bishop against a knight, and the 46.b4 axb4 47.a5 b3 48.®d3 e4+
chances shift in Black’s favour. 49.®c3 e3, and one of the two passed
31...Ãxd5 32.Õxd5 Àf6 33.Õxc5 pawns promotes.
Somewhat better was 33.Õxe5+ ®d6 43...gxf5 44.®d3 ®e6 45.®c4 f4
34.Õf5 Õe8 35.®f1 Õe5 36.Õf4 ®e6â. 46.gxf4 exf4 47.®d4 ®f5! 48.®d3

180

There is no salvation after 48.b4 f3
49.®e3 axb4 50.a5 b3 51.a6 b2 52.a7
b1© 53.a8© ©e4+ 54.®d2 ©e2+
55.®c3 f2 winning.
The Ukrainian grandmaster had to assess
this position as far back as move 35(!).
48...f3
White resigned. It is hopeless after
49.®e3 ®g4 50.®f2 ®f4î.
Game 62
French Defence (C11)
í Topalov,Veselin
n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Sofia 2008
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Àc3 Àf6 4.e5
Àfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Àf3 Àc6 7.Ãe3 a6
The foregoing moves and 7...Ãe7 are ex-
amined in Game 22.
8.a3!?
A rarely-seen continuation, which is di-
rected against the advance ...b7-b5-b4. In
addition, after the exchange on c5, White
can himself play b2-b4.
More common is 8.©d2 and only after
8...b5 – 9.a3.
It is interesting that in the game
Cheparinov-Topalov, Sofia 2008, played
on the day after the present encounter,
the Bulgarian grandmaster also continued
7...a6 and reached this position as Black:
8.Àe2 Ãe7 9.c3 0-0 10.g3 cxd4
11.Ãxd4 Àc5 12.Ãg2 Ãd7 13.0-0 Õc8
with roughly equal chances.
T_LdMl.t
_J_S_JjJ
J_S_J_._
_.jJi._.
._.i.i._
i.n.bN_.
.iI_._Ii
r._QkB_R
Game 62 - 2008
8...cxd4!?
Black refrains from ...b7-b5, taking play
into a well-known variation, with the
moves 7...a6 8.a3 included.
9.Àxd4 Ãc5 10.Ãe2
Because of the advanced a-pawn, it is no
longer favourable for White to castle
queenside, since his king could easily be
attacked.
Other replies have also been seen:
A) After 10.©d2 Ãxd4 11.Ãxd4
Àxd4 12.©xd4 ©b6 13.©xb6 Àxb6
14.Ãd3 Ãd7 15.Àe2 f6 16.®d2 fxe5
17.fxe5 ®e7 18.Õhf1 Õaf8 an equal
endgame was reached in Psakhis-
Drasko, Moscow1988;
B) 10.Àce2 ©e7 11.b4 Ãa7 12.g3 0-0
13.Ãh3 Àxd4 14.Ãxd4 Ãxd4 15.Àxd4
Àb8 16.0-0 Àc6 17.Àxc6 bxc6 18.©d4
a5 19.Õfb1 Ãa6 20.©c5 ©a7 21.®f2
Õfd8ì, Ljubojevic-Andersson, Bilbao
1987;
C) 10.g3 ©b6 11.Àa4 ©a5+ 12.Àc3
©b6 13.Àa4 ©a5+ 14.Àc3 ©c7
15.Àce2 0-0 16.Ãg2 Àxd4 17.Àxd4
Àb6 18.b3 f6! 19.exf6 e5! 20.fxe5
©xe5 21.©d2 Õxf6 with the better
game for Black, Lalic-Kortchnoi, Calcutta
2000.
10...0-0 11.©d2 ©c7
Black should not force exchanges, since
11...Àxd4 12.Ãxd4 Ãxd4 13.©xd4
©b6 14.©xb6 (or 14.0-0-0!? ©xd4
15.Õxd4) 14...Àxb6 15.0-0-0 gives
White comfortable play.
12.Ãf3
The bishop frees the e2-square for the
knight, but also leaves the important di-
agonal a6-f1.
It was worth considering 12.0-0 b5
13.Àxc6 ©xc6 14.Õf3 Ãb7 15.Õg3
Õac8 16.Õd1 g6 with equality.
12...Àxd4 13.Ãxd4
181
 Vassily Ivanchuk

The unfortunate position of the rook on

T_L_.tM_ a2 underlines Black’s positional advan-
_JdS_JjJ tage.
J_._J_._ Worse is 20.Ãd3?! Àc5 21.0-0 Àxd3
_.lJi._. 22.cxd3 ©c3 23.©e3 b4ç.
._.b.i._ 20...Àb8!
i.n._B_. Transferring the knight to an active posi-
.iIq._Ii tion.
21.0-0 Àc6 22.©d2 ©b6+ 23.®h1
r._.k._R
©a5
13...Àb6! With the threat of 24...Àb4!.
By preparing the manoeuvre ...Ãc8-d7- 24.©xa5
b5, Black begins to bother his opponent White has to go into a bad ending, since
on the queenside. after 24.c3 there is the strong move
14.Àe2 Ãxd4 15.©xd4 24...b4!
Weaker is 15.Àxd4?! because of 15...f6! 24...Õxa5 25.Õaa1 Õca8
16.exf6 Õxf6 17.Àe2 Ãd7 18.©d4 Ãb5 More convincing is 25...Àd4 26.Ãd3
with excellent play for Black. Õca8, preventing the possible f4-f5.
15...Ãd7 16.b3 Ãb5! 17.Àc3?! 26.Õad1 Õxa3 27.Ãxb5 Àb4 28.c4!
Now Black seizes the initiative. The best practical chance in a difficult po-
Equality could be maintained by 17.©c3 sition.
©xc3+ 18.Àxc3 Õfc8 19.®d2 or 17.0-0 28...Õ8a5?!
Ãxe2 18.Ãxe2 Õac8 19.Õfc1. On 28...Õxb3 there is 29.cxd5 Àxd5
17...Õfc8 18.Àxb5 axb5 30.Ãc4 Õb4 31.Ãxd5 exd5 32.Õxd5
The weakness of the doubled pawns is Õxf4! 33.Õfd1 g6 34.Õb5 Õa2 35.Õxb7
compensated for by Black’s pressure on Õe2 36.e6 Õxe6 with a probable draw,
the c- and a-files. but it was worth considering 28...Àc2!?
19.Ãe2 Àd7 29.Õd3 (or 29.cxd5 Àe3 30.dxe6 fxe6)
Indirectly defending the b5-pawn. 29...d4 30.h3 g6 31.Õb1 ®g7 32.Õd2
(20.Ãxb5? ©a5+) and creating a threat Õa2 33.Ãa4 Õd8 with pressure for
against the pawn on c2 (now the queen is Black.
not tied to defending the knight). 29.f5 exf5
20.Õa2
._._._M_
T_T_._M_ _J_._JjJ
_JdS_JjJ ._._._._
._._J_._ tB_JiJ_.
_J_Ji._. .sI_._._
._.q.i._ tI_._._.
iI_._._. ._._._Ii
R_I_B_Ii _._R_R_K
_._.k._R
30.g4!

182
 Game 62 - 2008

White manages to create complications, 37.d7 Àxd7 38.Ãxd7 Õb3 39.Õa2 ®f6
and now exceptionally accurate play is re- 40.®g2 h5! 41.Ãa4 Õb4 42.Ãd1 h4
quired of Black. 43.Ãc2 g4 to insure himself against the
30...Õxb3! unexpected, with a piece for two pawns,
On 30...fxg4 a possibility is 31.Ãd7! although admittedly, it would be hard to
dxc4 32.e6 (after 32.Ãe6!? Àc6 realise the advantage.
33.Ãxf7+ ®f8 34.Ãxc4+ ®e8 35.e6 b5 33...d4!
36.Ãd5 Õa6 37.Õf7 Àb4 Black’s chances Now the battle flares up with renewed
are somewhat better) 32...Õe5 strength.
34.Ãe8?
Winning a pawn, but ruining his posi-
._._._M_ tion. A draw resulted from 34.Ãc6! Àc5
_J_B_JjJ 35.Ãxb7 fxe6 36.fxe6 Àxb7 37.Õxb7 h6
._._I_._ 38.e7 Õae5 39.Õd7 Õxe7 40.Õxd4 with
_._.t._. equality.
.sJ_._J_ 34...Àc5 35.Ãxf7+ ®f8 36.f6
tI_._._. Slightly more chances were offered by
._._._.i 36.Ãh5 d3 37.Ãf3 d2 38.Ãd1 Õa2
39.Õb5 Õe5 40.®g2 ®e7 with advan-
_._R_R_K
tage for Black.
analysis diagram
36...gxf6 37.Õxf6 ®e7
33.Õf5!! (found in analysis by Ivanchuk)
33...Õe3 (Black loses after 33...Õxf5?
34.e7 Õa8 35.Ãc8!) 34.Ãb5 Õa8 ._._._._
35.Õxf7 h5 36.Ãxc4 ®h7 37.Õxb7 Àc6 _J_.mB_J
38.Ãd5 Àe5 with a complicated ending ._._Ir._
and mutual, roughly equal chances. t.s._._.
31.gxf5 Õe3 32.Õb1 Àd3 ._Ij._._
In zeitnot, Black passes by a guaranteed _._.t._.
draw: 32...Õe2 33.Õxb4 Õaa2 34.Õd1 ._._._.i
Õxh2+ with perpetual check.
_R_._._K
._._._M_ As a result, the white bishop is shut out of
_J_._JjJ play, whilst the black pieces are ideally
._._._._ placed.
tB_JiI_. 38.Õh6 d3 39.Õxh7 d2 40.Õg1
More tenacious is 40.®g2 Õa2 41.®f1
._I_._._ ®d6 42.Ãh5 Õxe6, and the strong
_._St._. passed pawn should bring Black victory.
._._._.i 40...Õe1 41.Ãh5+ ®xe6 42.Õg7
_R_._R_K Àe4 43.Õg6+ ®e5 0-1
33.e6?! After 44.h4 ®f4 the bishop has no re-
Missing the chance with 33.Õa1! Õxa1 treat, and cannot even surrender itself for
34.Õxa1 g5! 35.cxd5 Àxe5 36.d6 ®g7 the pawn.

183
 Vassily Ivanchuk
Game 63
Réti Opening (A11)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Bu Xiangzhi
Sofia 2008
1.Àf3 Àf6 2.c4 c6 3.Àc3 d5 4.e3
White refrains for the moment from
4.d4, transposing into the Slav Defence, as
a result of which the opening assumes an
independent character.
4...a6
Now after 5.d4 we reach the Chebanenko
Variation of the above-mentioned ope-
ning.
Other continuations have also been seen,
e.g. 4...Ãg4 5.©b3 ©b6 6.Àe5 Ãe6
7.d4 or 4...e6 5.b3 Àbd7 6.©c2 (after
6.cxd5?! the reply 6...exd5! is good)
6...b6 7.Ãb2 Ãb7 8.d4, Ivanchuk-
Sasikiran, Kallithea 2008, with mutual
chances.
5.©c2
TsLdMl.t
_J_.jJjJ
J_J_.s._
_._J_._.
._I_._._
_.n.iN_.
IiQi.iIi
r.b.kB_R
5...b5
In the game Ivanchuk-Postny, Kallithea
2009, play continued 5...Ãg4 6.Àe5
Ãe6 7.d4 Àbd7 8.Àd3 Àb6?! (stronger
is 8...Ãf5) 9.c5 Àbd7 10.Àf4 Ãg4
11.h3 Ãh5 12.Àxh5 Àxh5 13.Ãd2 g6
14.Ãe2 Àg7 15.e4 dxe4 16.Àxe4 Àf5
17.Ãc3 Ãg7 18.0-0-0 ©c7 19.®b1 0-0
20.h4 e6 21.h5 with advantage to White.
Black got a bad game after 5...g6 6.d4
Ãg7 7.Ãd3 0-0 8.0-0 Ãg4 9.Àe5 Ãe6
10.Ãd2 Àbd7 11.Àxd7 ©xd7 12.cxd5
184
cxd5 13.Àa4±, Ivanchuk-Van Wely, Wijk
aan Zee 2008.
6.b3 Ãg4
More common is 6...e6 7.d4.
In addition, 6...g6 has also been seen,
e.g.:
7.Ãb2 (more accurate is 7.d4 Ãf5 8.Ãd3
Ãxd3 9.©xd3 Àbd7 10.0-0 Ãg7
11.cxd5 cxd5 12.a4 b4 13.Àe2 a5
14.Ãb2 0-0 15.Õfc1 ©b6 16.Õc2 Õfc8
17.Õac1 Õxc2 18.©xc2 e6 19.Àe5 ©a6
20.Àf4 Ãh6 21.Àfd3 Àxe5 22.dxe5
Àd7 23.Ãd4 with the better game for
White, Petronic-Matulovic, Vrnjacka
Banja 1998) 7...Ãf5 8.Ãd3 Ãxd3
9.©xd3 Ãg7 10.cxd5 Àxd5, and here,
instead of 11.Àd1 Ãxb2 12.Àxb2 0-0
13.0-0 Àd7 with equality (Makarov-
Asanov, St Petersburg 2002), it was worth
considering 11.0-0-0!? 0-0 12.Àxd5
Ãxb2+ 13.®xb2 cxd5 14.Õc1 ©d6
15.©c3 Àd7 16.©c7, and White’s
chances are superior.
7.Àe5
Immediately forcing the bishop to de-
clare its intentions.
7...Ãh5?
A rash decision, both strategically and
tactically!
Having taken the initiative on the queen-
side, Black moves the bishop away, thus
weakening his base.
Stronger is 7...Ãe6 8.Ãb2 ©c7 9.cxd5
cxd5 10.Õc1 Àbd7 11.Ãxb5?! (here, this
sacrifice does not work; better is
11.Àxd7 ©xd7 12.a4 and after 12...b4?
– 13.Àb5!) 11...axb5 12.Àxb5 ©xc2
13.Õxc2 Àxe5 14.Àc7+ ®d8 15.Àxa8,
Komarov-Prié, France 2007, and now
15...Ãf5! 16.Ãxe5 Ãxc2 confirms
Black’s advantage.
8.cxb5 cxb5?!
Allowing an effective tactical operation,
but in the event of 8...©c7 9.Àxc6 Àxc6
 Game 63 - 2008

10.bxc6 ©xc6 Black is simply a pawn

down, Agamaliev-Khaghani, Tehran 2005.
Even so, by comparison with what hap-
pens in the game, this would have been
the lesser evil.

Ts.dMl.t
_._.jJjJ
J_._.s._
_J_Jn._L
._._._._
_In.i._.
I_Qi.iIi
r.b.kB_R
9.Ãxb5+!! axb5 Bu Xiangzhi
On 9...Àbd7, White does not content
himself with winning a pawn, but con- Black has lost an exchange and two
tinues 10.Àxd5! Õc8 11.Àxf6+ exf6 pawns, and his king is exposed. He is
simply lost.
12...Àfd7 13.Ãa3+ ®f6
._TdMl.t
_._S_JjJ
J_._.j._ Ns.d.l.t
_B_.n._L _._S_JjJ
._._._._ ._._Jm._
_I_.i._. _._Jn._L
I_Qi.iIi ._._._._
r.b.k._R bI_.i._.
analysis diagram I_Qi.iIi
12.©xc8!! ©xc8 13.Ãxd7+ ©xd7
r._.k._R
14.Àxd7 winning. 14.Ãb2!
10.Àxb5 e6 By a temporary knight sacrifice, White
After 10...Àa6?, there follows 11.©c6+ opens the f-file for his rooks, increasing
Àd7 12.Àxd7ê, whilst after 10...©a5? his advantage still further.
– 11.©c8+ ©d8 12.Àc7 mate. 14...Àxe5 15.f4 Àd7 16.Àc7 Ãg6
11.Àc7+ ®e7 12.Àxa8 17.Ãxe5+ Àxe5 18.fxe5+ ®xe5
According to eye-witnesses, here the top 19.©c3+ ®f5 20.0-0+
Chinese player (rated 2708 at the time) Even better is 20.e4+! ®g4 (or 20...dxe4
sat staring at the board for a long time, 21.©g3 Ãh5 22.Õf1+) 21.©f3+ ®h4
trying to come to terms with what had 22.©f4+ ®h5 23.h4 with mating
happened. threats.

185
 Vassily Ivanchuk
20...®g5 21.a4 ®h6 22.Õf3 Ãf5
23.Õaf1 Ãd6 24.Àb5 Ãb8 25.Àd4
Ãe4
In serious time-trouble, Black continues a
hopeless resistance.
26.Õh3+ ®g6 27.d3 Ãf5 28.Õhf3
Ãe5 29.©e1 Ãxd4 30.Õg3+ ®h6
31.exd4 g6 32.Õgf3
Black resigned.
A rare massacre at such a high level!
Game 64
King’s Indian Defence (E99)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Cheparinov,Ivan
Sofia 2008
1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 g6 3.Àc3 Ãg7 4.e4
d6 5.Àf3
The move which characterises the Classi-
cal System.
5...0-0 6.Ãe2
Or 6.Ãg5 h6 7.Ãf4 Àc6 8.d5 e5! 9.Ãe3
Àd4 10.Àxd4 exd4 11.Ãxd4 Àxe4
12.Àxe4 ©h4!? with mutual chances.
6...e5
After 6...Àbd7 White gets a promising
game for a pawn after 7.e5 dxe5 8.dxe5
Àg4 9.e6!.
7.0-0
If White is after simplification, he can
force the exchange of queens:
7.dxe5 dxe5 8.©xd8 Õxd8 9.Ãg5 Õe8
10.0-0-0 Àa6!?. Now 11.Àxe5?! is dubi-
ous because of 11...Àc5! 12.Àf3 Àfxe4
13.Àxe4 Àxe4 14.Ãe3 Àxf2! 15.Ãxf2
Ãh6+! 16.®b1 Õxe2 with advantage to
Black, Malich-Peterson, Soviet Union
1961, but after the quiet 11.Àd2 c6
12.Àb3 Àc7 the chances are equal,
Akopian-Yermolinsky, Agoura Hills 2004.
7...Àc6 8.d5
White prepares a pawn storm on the
queenside, whilst Black prepares the same
on the other wing.
186
8...Àe7 9.Àe1
Other continuations are also possible,
e.g.:
A) 9.b4 Àh5 10.Õe1 f5 11.Àg5 Àf6
12.Ãf3 c6 13.Ãe3 a5!? 14.bxa5 ©xa5
15.©b3 cxd5 16.cxd5 Ãd7!? with
reasonable counterplay for Black
Kalinichenko-Piccardo, corr. 2002 (see
also Game 80);
B) 9.Àd2 (9.Ãd2 has also been seen)
9...c5 10.Õb1 Àe8 11.b4 b6 12.bxc5
bxc5 13.Àb3 f5 14.Ãg5 ®h8 15.exf5
gxf5 16.f4, and White has a space
advantage, M. Gurevich-A. Kuzmin,
Naberezhnie Chelni 1988.
9...Àd7
On 9...c5, a good reply is 10.f4! exf4
11.Ãxf4 Àe8 12.Àd3 f6 13.©d2,
Kortchnoi-Ciocaltea, Nice 1974.
T_Ld.tM_
jJjSsJlJ
._.j._J_
_._Ij._.
._I_I_._
_.n._._.
Ii._BiIi
r.bQnRk.
The critical position for the system.
10.Àd3
Two other popular lines are 10.Ãe3 and
10.f3.
10...f5 11.Ãd2 Àf6
Or 11...®h8 12.Õc1 Àf6 13.f3 c5
14.Õb1 f4 15.b4 b6 16.bxc5 bxc5 17.g4
g5 18.®f2 Àg6 19.h3 h5 20.©a4Ç
Ivanchuk-Radjabov, Dubai 2002.
12.f3 f4 13.c5 g5 14.Õc1 Àg6
15.cxd6 cxd6 16.Àb5 Õf7
The players are battling for the c7-square.
17.©c2 Àe8 18.Àf2 h5 19.a4 Ãf8
20.h3 Õg7
 Game 64 - 2008

33...Àh5! 34.gxh5+!? (34.Àxe3!?)

T_LdSlM_ 34...Õg7 35.Àxd7 Õxg2+ 36.®xg2
jJ_._.t. ©xd7 37.Àxe3 Ãh6 38.Àg4 Ãg5
._.j._S_ 39.Õc7 ©a4 40.Õ1c4 ©xa5, and this ex-
_N_Ij.jJ tremely sharp game eventually ended in a
I_._Ij._ draw.
_._._I_I 23.fxg4 Àf6 24.Ãe1! hxg4
.iQbBnI_ This position has also been seen before.
In the game Ftacnik-Pribyl, Bratislava
_.r._Rk.
1983, Black replied 24...®h8, and af-
21.©b3 ter 25.©c4 (more accurate was
The Ukrainian grandmaster remains true 25.g3!? hxg4 26.Àxg4 Àxg4 27.hxg4
to himself. Ãxg4 28.Ãxg4 Õxg4 29.Àc7 with ad-
By transposition, we have reached a vantage to White) 25...hxg4 26.Àxg4
position from game 4 of the match Àxg4 27.Ãxg4 Ãxg4 28.hxg4 Õxg4
Ivanchuk-Timman, played as far back as 29.©d3 ©g5 30.Ãxh4 Õxh4 31.Àc7
Hilversum 1991(!). Õb8 32.Àe6 ©h6, the game was
After 21.Àxa7 Black has the possibility of equal.
21...Õc7 22.Ãa5 Õxc2 23.Ãxd8 Õxe2
24.Àxc8 Õxa4 25.Àd3 g4 26.Õf2 Õe3
27.Àe1 g3 28.Õfc2 Õb3 with roughly T_Ld.lM_
equal chances, Averkin-Kasparov, Mos- jJ_._.t.
cow 1979. ._.j.s._
21...Àh4 22.Õc2 g4!? _N_Ij._.
Without wasting time on prophylaxis, I_._IjJs
Black turns to active operations. _Q_._._I
More often seen is 22...a6. The above- .iR_BnI_
mentioned game Ivanchuk-Timman con-
_._.bRk.
tinued 23.Àa3 Ãd7 24.Õfc1 Õb8 25.Àc4
b6 26.a5 g4 27.fxg4 Àf6 28.Àxb6 hxg4 25.hxg4!?
29.hxg4 Àxg2! 30.©h3 Àe3 31.Ãxe3 (it A new continuation. Previously, White
was worth considering 31.Õc7!?) had tested 25.Àxg4 Àxg4 26.Ãxg4
31...Õh7 32.©g2 fxe3 33.Àd1 Ãxg4 27.hxg4 Õxg4 28.©h3 ©g5
29.Ãxh4?! (stronger is 29.Àc7 Õb8
.t.d.lM_ 30.Àe6) 29...Õxh4 30.©e6+ ®h8
_._L_._T 31.Õf3 Ãe7 32.Õfc3 Õg8 33.Àxd6?
Jn.j.s._ (33.Õh3 maintains the balance)
i._Ij._. 33...Ãxd6 34.©xd6 Õh6 35.©d7 ©h5
with a decisive attack, Sanchis-Roger,
._._I_I_ France 2002/03.
_._.j._. 25...Àh5!
.iR_B_Q_ Black sharpens the game, avoiding ex-
_.rN_.k. changes on g4. The knight cannot be
analysis diagram taken: 26.gxh5? Àxg2 27.Õc7 Õg5!

187
 Vassily Ivanchuk

(stronger than 27...Õg3?! 28.©xg3+

fxg3 29.®xg2 gxf2 30.Ãxf2 a6
T_Ld.lM_
31.Õf7! Ãh6 (31...axb5? 32.Ãh4!) jJ_._.t.
32.Àc7 ©g5+ 33.Ãg3 ©e3! 34.Õ7f2 ._.j._._
Õb8 with unclear play) 28.®h1 Àxe1 _N_Ij._S
29.Õc3 (29.Õxe1 Õg3î) 29...Õg7 I_._IjIs
30.h6 ©g5! 31.Àg4 Ãxg4 32.hxg7 _Q_._._.
©h4+ 33.®g1 Ãxe2 34.Àc7 (or .iR_B_I_
34.gxf8©+ Õxf8 35.Õh3 ©g4+
_._.bRkN
36.®f2 ©g2+ 37.®xe1 ©xf1+
38.®d2 ©f2î) 34...f3! 35.Õcxf3 26...f3!?
Àxf3+ 36.Õxf3 Ãxf3 37.©xf3 Õb8, Interesting, but risky!
and Black wins. This new sacrifice pursues the goal of
26.Àh1 freeing the f4-square for the knight, but
Adding an additional defender to g3. Also White has sufficient defensive resources
good is 26.Àd1: after 26...Ãxg4 at his disposal.
27.Ãxg4 Õxg4 28.©h3 ©g5 29.Àc7 The continuation 26...Ãxg4 27.Ãxg4
Õc8 30.®h1 (with the threat of 31.Àe6) Õxg4 28.©h3 ©g5 29.Àc7 Õc8
30...Õxc7 31.Õxc7 Àg3+ 32.Ãxg3 30.Ãxh4 ©xh4 31.©xh4 Õxh4 32.Õfc1
Õxg3 Àg7 33.Àf2 a6 leaves White a minimal
advantage in the ending, but practically
deprives Black of any winning chances.
._._.lM_ 27.Ãxf3
jJr._._. After 27.gxf3 Àf4 28.Àg3 a6 29.Àa3
Õh7 White must sacrifice the exchange
._.j._._ to defend himself – 30.Õf2 Àh3+
_._Ij.d. 31.®f1 Àxf2 32.Ãxf2 Ãd7Ç.
I_._Ij.s 27...Àf4 28.Àg3
_._._.tQ 28.Ãxh4 looks sounder, but in the varia-
.i._._I_ tion 28...©xh4 29.g3 Àh3+ 30.®g2
_._N_R_K
analysis diagram
T_L_.lM_
And now 33.Õg1!! ©h5 34.©h2 Õg6 jJ_._.t.
35.Õxb7 Õh6 36.Õb3 ©g4 37.Õh3 ._.j._._
White, having beaten off the attack, _N_Ij._.
stands better. I_._I_Id
Admittedly, it is not impossible that in _Q_._BiS
this last variation, Black can play .iR_._K_
26...Àg3!? 27.Ãxg3 fxg3 28.©xg3
_._._R_N
Àg6 29.Àe3 a6 30.Àc3 Ãe7, and
analysis diagram
count on obtaining some dark-square
counterplay, in compensation for his 30...Àf4+! 31.®f2 (bad is 31.gxf4?
material deficit. Ãxg4 32.Ãxg4 Õxg4+ 33.Àg3 exf4)

188
 Game 64 - 2008

31...Àh3+ 32.®e1 ©d8 33.Àf2 Àg5 But not 33.Ãf2? Àf3+! 34.gxf3 Õxg3+
34.Ãe2 Ãd7 35.Àc3 a6, the position re- 35.®h1 Õh3+, and Black forces a draw.
mains unclear. 33...Àhxg2
28...Ãxg4 Not 33...Àf3?! because of 34.Àxf4 Àxe1
Weaker is 28...Àxf3+?! 29.gxf3 ©b6+
30.Ãf2 Àh3+ 31.®g2 Àf4+ (or
31...Àxf2 32.a5! (32.Õfxf2? a6)
._._.lM_
32...©xa5 33.Õfxf2 with advantage to jJ_._._.
White) 32.®h1 Õh7+ 33.Àh5 ©d8 .d.j._._
34.Ãg3 Àxh5 35.gxh5 Õxh5+ _._Ij._.
36.Ãh2±. I_._InT_
29.Ãxg4 Õxg4 30.Àc7 _._._.n.
More accurate is 30.Õff2 ©g5 31.Õfd2 .iQ_._I_
©g6 32.Àc7, retaining a promising posi-
_._.sR_K
tion.
analysis diagram
Against the threat of 31.Àe6, Black has a
beautiful tactical manoeuvre: 35.©c8!! Õxf4 36.Õxf4 exf4 37.Àf5!
30...Õc8! 31.Àe6 ©f2 38.Àe7+ ®g7 39.©g4+ ®f6
40.©e6+ ®g7 41.©g6+ ®h8 42.©g8
mate, whilst after 33...Àhg6, there is the
._Td.lM_ decisive 34.Ãf2 ©b4 35.®g1 Àe7
jJ_._._. 36.Àxf4 Õxf4 37.Àh5 Õf7 38.Ãxa7ê.
._.jN_._
_._Ij._.
I_._IsTs ._._.lM_
_Q_._.n. jJ_._._.
.iR_._I_ .d.jN_._
_._.bRk. _._Ij._.
I_._IsT_
31...Õxc2! _._._.n.
Effectively exchanging rooks, Black re- .iQ_._S_
moves a defender of g2.
_._.bR_K
32.©xc2
Of course, not 32.Àxd8?? Õxg2+ 34.Àf5! ©a6
33.®h1 Àf3! with unavoidable mate. He does not save himself with 34...Àxe1
32...©b6+? 35.©c8! Àxe6 36.©xe6+ ®h8 37.©f7
Leads to a loss, by allowing White to acti- Ãh6 38.©h5! ©d8 39.©xg4 or
vate his forces. 34...Àxe6 35.dxe6 Àxe1 36.©e2! Õg5
32...©e8! maintains the balance, e.g., 37.e7 with a decisive advantage to White.
33.©b3 Àhxg2 34.©f3 ©g6! 35.Àxf8 35.Õg1!
©g7! (35...®xf8? 36.©xg2) 36.Àe6 Black’s pieces are tangled up, and further
Àxe1! 37.Àxg7 Àxf3+ 38.Õxf3 Õxg7 material losses are inevitable.
with equality. 35...©d3 36.©xd3 Àxd3 37.Ãh4!
33.®h1! Õxe4 38.Õxg2+ ®f7 39.Àxd6+!

189
 Vassily Ivanchuk
Accuracy to the end! Compared with the
variation 39.Àg5+ ®f6 40.Àxe4+
®xf5, White wins another pawn.
39...Ãxd6 40.Àg5+
Black resigned.
Game 65
Slav Defence (D12)
í Aronian,Levon
n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Sofia 2008
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Àf3
The main line. Little is promised by
3.cxd5 cxd5 4.Àc3 Àf6 5.Àf3 Àc6 (on
5...Ãf5 a good reply is 6.©b3) 6.Ãf4 e6
7.e3 Ãe7 (7...Ãd6!?) 8.Ãd3 0-0 9.0-0
Àh5 10.Ãe5 f5 with a solid position for
Black.
3...Àf6 4.e3
White defends the c4-pawn at the cost of
his queen’s bishop’s activity. The move
4.Àc3 is also frequently seen (see Game
20).
4...Ãf5
Declining the Meran Variation, which
arises after 4...e6, Black chooses a popu-
lar current scheme of development.
5.Àc3 e6 6.Àh4 Ãg6 7.Àxg6 hxg6
8.a3
Preventing the bishop coming out to b4.
8...Àbd7 9.g3
Equality results from 9.h3 Ãe7 10.Ãd3
0-0 11.0-0 e5 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.dxe5
Àxe5 14.Ãb1 Õc8 15.Ãa2 Àc4 16.©d3
©d7 17.Õd1 Õfd8 18.e4 dxe4 19.©xd7
Õxd7 20.Õxd7 Àxd7 21.Àxe4 b5ì,
Finegold-Zaremba, Philadelphia 2003.
9...Ãe7 10.b3
Before fianchettoing the bishop, White
strengthens his c-pawn.
Another plan involves 10.f4, e.g.,
10...dxc4 11.Ãxc4 0-0 12.e4 b5 (after
12...c5, the reply 13.e5! is unpleasant)
13.Ãe2 b4 14.axb4 Ãxb4 15.Ãf3 ©b6?!
190
(more accurate is 15...c5) 16.0-0 e5
17.Ãe3, and White’s chances are supe-
rior, Topalov-Kramnik, 9th match game,
Elista 2006.
T_.dM_.t
jJ_SlJj.
._J_JsJ_
_._J_._.
._Ii._._
iIn.i.i.
._._.i.i
r.bQkB_R
10...e5!?
This central counterblow underlines
White’s lag in development.
After 10...0-0?! 11.Ãg2 b5 12.c5 a5
13.Ãb2 ©c7 14.0-0 Õfe8 15.f4 Àh7
16.g4 f5 17.g5 ®f7 18.h4, White ob-
tained the advantage in the game
Elianov-l’Ami, Germany Bundesliga
2007/08.
11.cxd5
It was worth considering 11.Ãg2!? e4
12.0-0 Àb6 13.Ãd2 (better, maybe, is
13.cxd5!? cxd5 14.f3) 13...©d7 14.c5
Àc8 15.f3 exf3 16.©xf3 Ãd8 17.h3
Àe7 18.g4 g5 19.Õae1 0-0 20.e4 dxe4
21.©f2 Àed5 22.Àxe4 Àxe4 23.Õxe4
Ãf6 with mutual chances, Sasikiran-
Svetushkin, Moscow 2007.
11...Àxd5! 12.Àxd5
Now Black has the initiative. More accu-
rate is 12.Ãb2 Àxc3 13.Ãxc3 exd4
14.Ãxd4 Ãf6 15.Ãg2 ©a5+ 16.b4 ©b5
17.Ãxf6 gxf6 18.©e2, retaining approx-
imately equal chances.
12...©a5+! 13.Àc3
Bad is 13.Ãd2? ©xd5ç.
13...©xc3+ 14.Ãd2 ©b2 15.d5?!
A dubious novelty – White does not ob-
tain sufficient compensation for the pawn.
 Game 65 - 2008

Better is 15.Ãg2. The game Wang Yue- 30.a4 g5 31.a5. the passed pawns on the
Bobras, Cappelle-la-Grande 2007, contin- queenside promise White real counter-
ued 15...exd4 16.exd4 ©xd4 17.0-0, play.
and after 17...0-0?! (stronger is 22.©xb7 Õd8 23.Õfd1 ©xd1+!
17...0-0-0! with a promising position for Weaker is 23...©b5?! 24.Õxd8+ Ãxd8
Black) 18.Ãb4 ©xd1 19.Õfxd1 Ãxb4 25.©xe4+ ®f8 26.Õd1 Ãe7 27.©a8+
20.Õxd7 Ãc3 21.Õc1 Ãb2 22.Õc2 Ãxa3 ©e8 28.©xa6 with equality.
23.Õxb7 Õab8 24.Õxa7 Õxb3 25.Ãxc6 24.Õxd1 Õxd1+ 25.®g2 a5
Õb1+ 26.®g2 Õc1 27.Õxc1 Ãxc1 Now Black’s task is to establish coordina-
28.Ãd5 White obtained a comfortable tion between his pieces, which is not so
game. simple, because his king is unable to
15...cxd5 16.Ãb5 a6 castle.
The Ukrainian grandmaster refrains from 26.g4!?
16...Õd8, evidently considering that his Preventing the rook emerging on h5.
king will be adequately defended in the 26...®f8 27.©xe4
centre.
17.Ãxd7+ ®xd7 18.0-0 e4!
._._.m.t
_._.lJj.
T_._._.t ._._._J_
_J_MlJj. j._._._.
J_._._J_ ._._Q_I_
_._J_._. iI_.i._.
._._J_._ ._._.iKi
iI_.i.i. _._T_._.
.d.b.i.i
27...g5!
r._Q_Rk.
Black intends to free the rook by means of
19.Ãc3?! 27...Õh6, but White can prevent this.
White doesn’t want to end up a pawn 28.©f5!
down in a bad position after 19.Ãb4 With the threat of 29.©xa5.
©e5 20.Ãxe7 ®xe7, and tries to compli- 28...Ãd8 29.©c5+ ®g8 30.©e5 g6
cate the battle by a piece sacrifice. In defending against 31.©e8+ ®h7
However, as a result, Black is able by accu- 32.©xf7+, Black has to change plans.
rate play to obtain a small, but stable ad- 31.b4 axb4 32.axb4 ®h7 33.b5
vantage. Õf8
19...©xc3 20.©xd5+ ®e8 21.Õac1 The rook leaves the h-file via the back
©d3! rank.
By preparing to exchange the queen for 34.©c5 ®g8
two rooks, Black neutralises the activity of As a result of the artificial castling Black’s
the white pieces. In the event of problem is simplified.
21...©f6?! 22.Õfd1 ©e6 23.©xb7 Õd8 35.b6?
24.Õxd8+ Ãxd8 25.Õc4 f5 26.Õc8! Õf8 An obvious mistake, leading to the loss of
27.Õc6 ©d5 28.©xa6 Õf6 29.Õxf6 gxf6 a pawn and the game.

191
 Vassily Ivanchuk
It was possible to hold by means of
35.©c6 Õb1 36.e4 Õb4 37.h3 with
some defensive chances.
35...Õb1 36.f4 Õb2+ 37.®g3 gxf4+
38.exf4 Ãxb6 39.©c3 Õb1 40.f5
Õg1+ 41.®h3 Õe8
With the decisive threat of 42...Õe3+.
42.©f6 Ãf2 43.©g7+
The last attempt to save the game.
43...®xg7 44.f6+ ®f8!
Of course, White could not seriously
count on 44...®xf6?? 45.g5+, leading to
stalemate.
White resigned.
Game 66
Sicilian Defence (B48)
í Cheparinov,Ivan
n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Sofia 2008
1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.d4 cxd4
4.Àxd4 e6 5.Àc3 ©c7 6.Ãe3 a6
7.©d2
In the Paulsen system, White chooses the
main line, with queenside castling. Re-
garding 7.Ãd3 and the previous moves,
see Game 17.
7...Àf6 8.0-0-0 Ãb4 9.f3 Àe5
10.Àb3
Defending against 10...Ãxc3, after which
there could follow 11.©xc3 (or
11.bxc3!? Àc4 12.Ãxc4 ©xc4 13.Ãc5
b6 14.Ãxb6 0-0 15.©d4±, Rada
Equiza-San Emeterio Cabanes, Mondariz
2002) 11...©xc3 12.bxc3 b5 13.Ãf4
Àc4 14.Ãxc4 bxc4 15.Àa5 d5,
Acher-Chernuschevich, Aix-les-Bains
2003, and after 16.Õhe1 0-0 17.Ãd6
Õe8 18.exd5 exd5 19.Õxe8+ Àxe8
20.Õxd5 Ãe6 21.Õd4 White obtains the
advantage.
10...b5
On 10...d6, there is the unpleasant
11.Ãd4 Àc6 12.Ãxf6 gxf6 13.a3 Ãxc3
192
14.©xc3 ®e7 15.g4 Ãd7 16.h4 with the
initiative for White.
T_L_M_.t
_.dJ_JjJ
J_._Js._
_J_.s._.
.l._I_._
_Nn.bI_.
IiIq._Ii
_.kR_B_R
11.Ãd4
After 11.®b1, Black immediate starts the
battle for the b-file, e.g., 11...Àc4
12.Ãxc4 bxc4 13.Àc1 Õb8 14.Ãf4
(14.®a1?! 0-0 15.Ãf4 e5 16.Ãg5 Àe8
17.À1e2 d6 18.a3 a5 19.©c1 Ãe6
20.Àa2 f5 21.Àec3 ©b7 22.Õhf1 Ãc5
23.Õfe1 f4ç, Morozevich-Vitiugov, Mos-
cow 2007) 14...e5 15.Ãg5 ©b6
16.À1e2 0-0 17.Ãxf6 Ãa3 18.b3 ©xf6
19.Àd5 ©d8 with mutual chances
Cheparinov-Pelletier, Heraklion 2007.
It would be worth considering 11.©d4!?,
and in the event of the exchange on c3,
White has control of the dark squares:
11...Ãxc3?! 12.©xc3 ©xc3 13.bxc3
Àc6 14.c4 bxc4 15.Ãxc4 d5 16.exd5
Àe5 17.Àa5 Àxc4 18.Àxc4 exd5
19.Àd6+ ®e7 20.Ãc5 Ãe6 21.f4! with
a clear advantage to White, Vuckovic-
Lapcevic, Bar 2005.
11...Ãe7
Black has also tried 11...Ãb7 12.®b1
Ãe7 13.©f2 (13.Àa5 d6 14.Àe2ì,
Ivanchuk-Ljubojevic, Belgrade 1995)
13...Õc8 14.a3 0-0 15.g4 d6 16.g5 Àfd7
17.Õg1 Àc6 18.Ãe3 b4 19.axb4 Àxb4
20.f4 Õfe8 21.f5 exf5 22.exf5 Ãf8
23.Õd4±, Cheparinov-Pogorelov, Dos
Hermanas 2004.
12.©f2

Probably fearing his opponent’s prepara-
tion, the Bulgarian players avoids 12.®b1
d6 13.©f2 0-0 14.g4 Àfd7 15.Õg1 b4
16.Àa4 ©c6 17.Àb6 Àxb6 18.Àa5
©d7 19.Ãxb6 Õb8 20.f4 Àg6 21.Àc4
©c6 22.Ãa7 Õb5 23.f5 Àe5 24.Àxe5
Õxe5 25.Ãd4 with the better game for
White, Cheparinov-Middelburg, The
Netherlands 2005/06.
12...d6 13.g4 0-0 14.g5 Àfd7
15.Õg1
On 15.f4, an interesting try is 15...b4!?
16.Àe2 Ãb7! with chances for both sides.
15...Ãb7 16.®b1 Õfc8
T_T_._M_
_LdSlJjJ
J_.jJ_._
_J_.s.i.
._.bI_._
_Nn._I_.
IiI_.q.i
_K_R_Br.
17.Õg3?!
A novelty, which testifies to White’s ag-
gressive intentions.
The rook on the third rank is equally use-
ful in both attack and defence, but White
allows the advance ...b5-b4.
Better is 17.a3 Àc4 18.Ãxc4 ©xc4 (or
18...bxc4 19.Àc1 Õab8 20.À1e2 Ãc6
21.®a1 ©a5 22.Àa2 e5 23.Ãc3 ©c7
24.Àg3 g6 25.Àf1 Àc5 26.Àe3 a5
27.©d2 Õb5 with sharp play, Kasparov-
Ye Jiangchuan, Bled 2002) 19.Õg4 ©c7
20.f4 e5 21.Ãe3 exf4 22.Ãxf4 Àe5
23.Õg3 Ãf8 24.h4, and White’s chances
are slightly superior, Lahno-Goloschapov,
Kharkov 2004.
17...b4
The white knight is forced to occupy a
bad square.
Game 66 - 2008
18.Àa4 Ãd8!
Black takes control over the a5-d8 diago-
nal, threatening to win the knight by
19...Ãc6.
19.Àc1
There is nothing else.
19...Ãc6 20.b3 Ãxa4 21.bxa4
White has two bishops and the possibility
of an attack on the king, but the spoiled
white pawn structure on the queenside
gives Black excellent counterplay.
21...Àc6!
Black decides to keep the knights, for at-
tacking purposes. The alternative was
21...Àc4!? 22.Ãxc4 ©xc4 23.Àb3 e5!
24.Ãe3 Õc6 25.©d2 Õac8 with pressure
for Black.
22.Ãe3
On 22.Ãb2? there follows 22...Àc5,
winning a pawn.
T_Tl._M_
_.dS_JjJ
J_SjJ_._
_._._.i.
Ij._I_._
_._.bIr.
I_I_.q.i
_KnR_B_.
22...©b8!
Preparing the b6-square for the knight
manoeuvre. The immediate 22...Àb6? is
bad because of 23.Ãxb6 ©xb6 24.©xb6
Ãxb6 25.Õxd6, whilst after 22...Àc5
23.Ãxc5 dxc5 24.f4 Àd4 25.Àb3 ©c6
26.f5! ©xa4?! 27.g6 fxg6 28.Ãc4 both
sides have their chances.
23.Õh3
White tries to attack along the h-file, be-
cause no other appropriate plan is appar-
ent. After 23.Ãc4?!, a good reply is
23...Àa5! 24.Ãb3 Àe5 25.Àd3 Àec4
26.Ãc1 Ãb6, with advantage to Black.
193
 Vassily Ivanchuk

23...Àb6 24.©h4? White resigned.

The decisive mistake!
By continuing with the attack, White
runs up against very strong resistance. It
was possible to hold by 24.Ãxb6 ©xb6
(24...Ãxb6? 25.©h4) 25.©xb6 Ãxb6
26.f4! (stronger than 26.Õxd6 Ãe3
27.Àd3 Ãxg5) 26...e5 27.fxe5 dxe5
28.Àb3 Àd4, although Black’s chances
remain superior.
24...h6 25.©g3
He loses after 25.©h5 Àxa4 26.gxh6
Àc3+ 27.®a1 Àxd1 28.hxg7 Ãf6+, but
a more tenacious line was 25.Ãxb6
©xb6 26.f4 Àe7 27.©g3 hxg5 28.fxg5
Àg6 29.©xd6 ©f2 30.©d2 ©xd2
31.Õxd2 Ãxg5, with an advantage for
Black in the endgame.
TdTl._M_
_._._Jj.
JsSjJ_.j
_._._.i.
Ij._I_._
_._.bIqR
I_I_._.i
_KnR_B_.
25...Àxa4! 26.Õxd6
26.gxh6 Àc3+ 27.®a1 Ãf6ê is hope-
less.
26...hxg5 27.Ãd3 Ãf6!
White has no real threats, whilst his king
is doomed.
28.e5
This desperation attempt to confuse the
opponent comes to nothing.
28...Ãxe5 29.Õh8+
Or 29.f4 Àc3+ 30.®a1 Àe4+ 31.fxe5
Àxg3 winning.
29...®xh8 30.©h3+ ®g8 31.©h7+
®f8 32.Õd7 Àc3+ 33.®a1 Àb5+
After 34.®b1 there follows 34...Àa3 mate.
This impressive win crowned Ivanchuk’s
brilliant performance at Sofia.
Game 67
Grünfeld Indian Defence (D85)
í Shirov,Alexey
n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Foros 2008
1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 g6 3.Àc3 d5 4.cxd5
Àxd5 5.Ãd2
In avoiding the main continuation 5.e4
(see Game 5), White intends to meet
...Àd5xc3 by capturing on c3 with the
bishop, bringing it to an active position.
5...Ãg7
After 5...Àb6 White can also try 6.Ãg5
Ãg7 7.e3 0-0 8.Àf3 Àc6 9.Ãe2 a5
10.b3 a4 11.bxa4 Àd5 12.Õc1 h6
13.Ãh4 Àxc3 14.Õxc3 Ãe6 15.a3 with
the better chances for White, Arlandi-
Illescas Cordoba, Escaldes 1998.
6.e4 Àb6 7.Ãe3 0-0 8.Ãb5
The idea of this original move is to
weaken the position of the Àb6, in the
event of 8...a6.
8...©d6
Other replies are more popular, e.g.:
A) 8...a6 9.Ãe2 f5 10.Àh3 fxe4
11.©b3+ e6 12.Àf4 ©e7 13.d5 Õxf4!?
14.Ãxf4 ©f7 15.Ãe3 exd5 16.Ãxb6
cxb6 17.Àxd5 Ãe6 18.Ãc4 b5 19.Àe7+
©xe7 20.Ãxe6+ ®h8 21.Ãd5 Àd7
22.0-0 Àc5 23.©e3 Ãxb2 24.Õad1 Ãf6
with mutual chances, Barsov-Zabotin,
Moscow 2006;
B) 8...Ãe6 9.Àf3 Ãg4 10.Õc1 Ãxf3
11.gxf3 e6 12.h4 a6 13.Ãe2 Àc6 14.e5
f5 15.f4 ©d7 16.Ãf3 Õfd8 17.h5 Àxd4
18.Ãxb7Ç, Alexandrov-Fominikh, Cal-
cutta 2004;
C) 8...Àc6 9.Àge2 e5 10.Ãxc6 bxc6
11.dxe5 Àc4 12.Ãc5 Àxb2 13.©xd8
Õxd8 14.0-0 Ãxe5 15.f4 Ãg7 16.e5

194
 Game 67 - 2008

Àd3 17.Ãe7 Õe8 18.Ãh4 Ãa6â, 12.Ãd4

Alexandrov-Shipov, Internet 2004. It was worth considering 12.0-0 Õd8
9.Àge2 13.©c2 À8d7 14.f4 ©e7, with a com-
plicated battle.
After the exchange of bishops, the dark
TsL_.tM_ squares come under Black’s control and
jJj.jJlJ the chances are equalised.
.s.d._J_ 12...©e7 13.Ãxg7 ®xg7 14.Ãc2
_B_._._. Here the bishop does not occupy a very
._.iI_._ good position. More reliable is 14.0-0
_.n.b._. À8d7 15.©c2 Àe5 16.Õad1 Ãe6ì.
Ii._NiIi 14...Õd8 15.©c1 Àa6!?
An interesting decision! From here, the
r._Qk._R
knight can come to b4, whilst after 15.a3,
This continuation was seen in the game it comes to c5, not blocking the path of
Alexandrov-Grischuk, Internet 2004. its bishop.
Black played 9...a6 and after 10.Ãd3 Õd8 16.0-0 Ãe6 17.Àf4
11.0-0 Àc6 12.d5?! (stronger is 12.e5!, Allowing Black to become active.
when 12...Àxe5? is not possible because More accurate is 17.b3 Àb4 18.©b2
of 13.Àe4) 12...Àe5 13.Ãc2 e6 ®g8 19.Õad1 Àd7 with equality.
(13...Àbc4!?) 14.dxe6 Ãxe6 15.©xd6
Õxd6 obtained comfortable play.
9...c6!?
T_.t._._
A novelty! Black takes c6 away from his jJ_.dJmJ
knight, but gets to carry out a central SsJ_L_J_
counterblow without delay. _._._._.
10.Ãd3 e5! 11.dxe5 ._._In._
After 11.f4!?, a possibility is 11...exd4 _.n._._.
12.e5 ©e7 13.Àxd4 f6!?, with mutual IiB_.iIi
chances.
r.q._Rk.
11...©xe5
Weaker is 11...Ãxe5?! 12.©c2 Õd8 17...Ãc4!
13.Õd1 ©e7 14.0-0 À8d7 15.f4, and The bishop moves out of the exchange
White’s chances are slightly superior. with tempo, preparing the entry of the
knight into b4.
TsL_.tM_ 18.Õe1?!
jJ_._JlJ Better is 18.Õd1 Àb4 19.a3 Õxd1+
.sJ_._J_ 20.Ãxd1 Àd3 21.Àxd3 Ãxd3 22.©e3
_._.d._. Õd8 23.Ãb3 c5, with a minimal advan-
tage to Black.
._._I_._ 18...Àb4
_.nBb._. By freeing the a6-square, Black wants to
Ii._NiIi place his bishop on a strong diagonal, ex-
r._Qk._R changing off its opponent.

195
 Vassily Ivanchuk

21...Õd7 22.b3 Ãa6 23.Õad1 Õad8

24.g3
By strengthening the knight, White
weakens the position of his king (better is
24.f3).
24...©e5 25.f3 ®g8
After the active 25...g5!?, there is the pos-
sibility of 26.Àh5+! (weaker is 26.Àg2?
Õxd1 27.Õxd1 Õxd1+ 28.©xd1 f5!
with an attack, or 26.Õxd7?! Àxd7
27.Àh3 ©c5+! 28.©xc5 Àxc5 29.Àxg5
h6 30.Àh3 Àxb3ç) 26...®h6 27.g4
Ãd3 28.©a2 f5 29.Àeg3 fxg4 30.fxg4
©d4+ 31.®g2 ®g6 with chances for
both sides.
26.a4 h5
Alexey Shirov
._.t._M_
Also good is 18...©e5!? 19.©e3 Àb4 jJ_T_J_.
20.Ãb1 c5 followed by ...Àb4-c6-d4. LsJ_._J_
19.a3
After 19.Ãb1, a possibility is 19...©e5,
_._.d._J
returning to the previous variation. I_._In._
19...Àxc2 20.©xc2 ©f6!? _I_._Ii.
Black is ready to double rooks on the ._Q_N_.i
open file and, by attacking the knight, _._Rr.k.
force White to close the e-file for his 27.®f2
rooks, making the advance e4-e5 more More accurate is 27.Õxd7 Õxd7 28.Õd1.
difficult. 27...Õd6!
It was also worth considering 20...©e5!?, Strengthening the pressure. Black intends
solving the problem in the most funda- to transfer the knight to d7.
mental way, but after 21.g3 the reply 28.©c3?!
21...Àd7 looks good, with the transfer of Helping the knight to go where it wants
the knight to e5, so he leaves this square to go. He could maintain the tension with
free. 28.h4.
21.Àce2 28...Àd7! 29.Õxd6
In the event of 21.©c1, we see the advan- Allowing Black to place his pieces suc-
tages of the move 20...©e5, since then cessfully, but the exchange of queens is
Black can strengthen his advantage with also unfavourable.
the move 21...Ãb3!. 29...©xd6 30.Õc1 Àe5 31.h4 ©f6
With the queen on f6, this move loses in 32.b4?
strength, because of 22.e5, but by contin- The decisive oversight! He could retain
uing 21...©e5 22.©e3 Õd6 23.Õad1 defensive chances after 32.®g1, with
Õad8, Black retains the better chances. advantage to Black.

196
 Game 68 - 2008

Now an elegant combination follows:

TsLdM_St
jJjJ_JlJ
._.t._M_ ._._._J_
jJ_._J_. _._._._.
L_J_.dJ_ ._InI_._
_._.s._J _._._._.
Ii._In.i Ii._.iIi
_.q._Ii. rNbQkB_R
._._Nk._
5...Àc6
_.r._._.
More common is 5...Àf6 6.Àc3 0-0 and
32...Õd3! 33.Àxd3 ©xf3+ 34.®g1 now:
Ãxd3 35.©xe5 A) 7.Ãe2 Õe8 8.f3 c6, and by advancing
Bad is 35.Àf4 ©xg3+ 36.®h1 Ãxe4+ ...d7-d5 Black obtains a good position,
and mate in two. e.g.: 9.Ãg5 h6 10.Ãh4 d5 11.cxd5 cxd5
35...©e3+ 36.®h2 ©xe2+ 12.exd5 g5 13.Ãf2 Àxd5 14.Àdb5?!
Both 37.®h3 Ãxe4 38.Õg1 Ãf5+, and (better is 14.0-0ì) 14...Ãe6 15.0-0 Àc6
37.®g1 Ãxe4 38.©e8+ ®g7 39.©e5+ 16.Àxd5 Ãxd5 17.Àc3 Ãe6 18.Ãb5
®h7 are hopeless – in either case, White Õc8, and Black’s chances are superior, P.
must give up his queen to stop mate. David-Adorjan, Zalaegerszeg 1991.
White resigned. B) On 7.Ãe3 Õe8 8.f3 c6 9.c5?! (better
is 9.©d2=) 9...b6 10.Àb3 bxc5
Game 68 11.Ãxc5 d5 12.Ãe2 Àbd7 13.Ãd4 dxe4
Modern Defence (A10) 14.fxe4 Àxe4 15.Àxe4 Õxe4 16.Ãxg7
í Van Wely,Loek
n Ivanchuk,Vassily T_Ld._M_
Foros 2008 j._S_JbJ
1.Àf3 g6 2.c4 Ãg7 ._J_._J_
The point of this unusual handling of the _._._._.
defence is an early attack on d4, and a de-
lay in developing the king’s knight.
._._T_._
3.e4 _N_._._.
If 3.d4, Black retains the possibility of Ii._B_Ii
3...Àf6 4.Àc3 d5, going into a Grünfeld r._Qk._R
Defence. analysis diagram
3...e5 16...Ãa6! 17.Àc1 ®xg7 18.0-0 ©b6+
Unlike the Modern Defence line with 19.®h1 Àe5 20.Ãxa6 ©xa6 21.Àb3
1.c4 g6 2.d4 Ãg7 3.e4 d6 4.Àc3 e5, here ©e2 22.Àc5 ©xd1 23.Õaxd1 Õe2ç,
Black does without the preliminary move Krasenkow-Sutovsky, Reykjavik 2003.
3...d6, hoping in the right circumstances 6.Ãe3
to gain a tempo, by advancing the pawn Equality results from 6.Àc2 Àge7 7.Àc3
two squares at once. d6 8.Ãg5 h6 9.Ãe3 f5! 10.Ãd3 0-0ì,
4.d4 exd4 5.Àxd4 Hübner-Stean, Teesside 1975.

197
 Vassily Ivanchuk
White has also tried 6.Àxc6 bxc6 7.Ãe2
d6 8.0-0 Àe7 9.Àc3 0-0 10.Ãe3 c5
11.©d2 Õb8 12.b3 Àc6 13.Õad1 Àd4
14.Ãxd4 Ãxd4 15.Àb5 Ãg7 16.Àxa7
Ãb7 17.Àb5 Ãxe4 with mutual chances,
Lalith-Areschenko, Gurgaon 2009.
6...©f6!?
Forcing White to exchange knights. After
6...Àge7 7.Àc3 d6, play returns to a
popular line of the Modern Defence:
8.Àxc6 Àxc6 9.Ãe2 0-0 10.©d2 f5
11.exf5 Ãxf5 12.0-0 ©f6 13.Õad1 ®h8
14.Õfe1 Àb4 15.Õc1 Àa6 16.Ãf1 Õae8
17.f3 Àb4 18.Ãf2 Àc6 19.Õxe8 Õxe8
20.b3 ©f7Ç, Ivanchuk-Vachier-Lagrave,
Biel 2009.
7.Àxc6
T_L_M_St
jJjJ_JlJ
._N_.dJ_
_._._._.
._I_I_._
_._.b._.
Ii._.iIi
rN_QkB_R
7...dxc6!?
An interesting plan! In compensation for
the defect in his pawn structure, Black
takes control of the squares d6 and d5,
and conveniently develops his light-
squared bishop.
8.Àc3 ©e7 9.Ãd3
Novelty.
After 9.©d2 f5 10.exf5 (it was worth
considering 10.Ãd3!? fxe4 11.Àxe4 Àf6
12.Àxf6+ ©xf6 13.0-0-0) 10...Ãxf5
11.0-0-0 Àf6 12.Ãd3 Õd8 13.©e2
(13.Õhe1!?) 13...Õxd3 14.Õxd3 Ãxd3
15.©xd3 Àg4 16.Ãd4 0-0 Black ob-
tained the advantage in the game Tratar-
Cicak, Malaga 2006.
9...Àf6 10.h3
198
Preventing the knight jump to g4. After
10.0-0, possible is 10...Àg4 11.Ãf4 0-0
12.h3 Àe5 13.Ãe2 Ãe6 with the initia-
tive to Black.
10...Àd7!
The knight reaches e5 via a different
route.
11.0-0 0-0 12.©c2 Àe5
Also good is 12...Àc5, preparing the
d4-square for the knight, after ...Àc5-e6
and ...c6-c5.
13.Ãe2
T_L_.tM_
jJj.dJlJ
._J_._J_
_._.s._.
._I_I_._
_.n.b._I
IiQ_BiI_
r._._Rk.
13...g5!
Securing the knight and gaining space.
14.Õad1
After 14.f4 gxf4 15.Ãxf4 Ãe6! (worse is
15...Àxc4?! 16.Ãxc4 ©c5+ 17.®h1
©xc4 18.Ãxc7Ç) Black has good play.
14...Ãe6 15.b3 Õfe8 16.Ãh5?
Played with the idea of bringing the
knight via e2 to g3, but this idea meets an
energetic refutation. Also after 16.Õd2
©f6 17.Õc1 ©g6, Black, by threatening
the advance of his kingside pawns, ob-
tains active counterplay.
16...g4!
Black goes on the offensive!
17.Ãxg4
After 17.f4?!, there is the strong reply
17...©h4! 18.f5 (or 18.fxe5 ©xh5)
18...Ãxc4! 19.bxc4 ©xh5 with the ad-
vantage.
17...Ãxg4 18.hxg4 Àxg4 19.Ãf4
Ãe5! 20.©e2?

Overlooking a sudden blow.
It was possible to hold with 20.©c1! ©f6
21.Ãg5 ©g6 22.f3 Ãxc3 23.©xc3
©xg5 24.fxg4 Õxe4 25.Õd7 Õe7, with
some compensation for the sacrificed
pawn.
T_._T_M_
jJj.dJ_J
._J_._._
_._.l._.
._I_IbS_
_In._._.
I_._QiI_
_._R_Rk.
20...©h4! 21.©f3 Àh2!
The bishop on e5 x-rays the h2-square,
defending the knight – 22.Ãxh2?? is not
possible because of 22...©xh2 mate.
White loses the exchange, after which
defeat is not far away. So he resigned.
Game 69
Petroff Defence (C42)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Kramnik,Vladimir
Dortmund 2008
1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àf6 3.Àxe5 d6 4.Àf3
Àxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Ãd3 Àc6
The move 6...Ãd6 is seen in Games No
13 and No 56.
7.0-0 Ãe7
This continuation, worked out in the 19th
century by the Russian player Karl Jaenisch,
is nowadays regarded as strongest.
8.Õe1
The move 8.c4 is also seen frequently, e.g.
8...Àb4 9.Ãe2! 0-0 10.Àc3 Ãe6
11.Àe5 Ãd6!? (instead of the usual
11...c5 or 11...f6) 12.a3 Ãxe5 13.axb4
Ãf6 14.Àxe4 dxe4 15.Ãe3 (after 15.d5
possible is 15...Ãf5 16.c5 Ãe5!?) 15...c6
Game 69 - 2008
16.©d2 ©d6 (16...a6!?) 17.Õfd1 Õfd8
18.b5! cxb5 19.d5 Ãd7 20.c5 ©e7
21.Õa3 Ãc6 22.d6 ©e5 23.b4 with full
compensation for the pawn, Anand-
Ponomariov, Sofia 2005.
The main line is 10.a3 Àc6 11.cxd5
©xd5 12.Àc3 Àxc3 13.bxc3 Ãf5
14.Õe1 Õfe8 15.Ãf4 Õac8, introduced at
toplevel in 2002. Ivanchuk played half a
dozen games with it and the most spec-
tacular may be 16.g3 (rare) 16...Ãf6
17.Õc1 h6 18.c4 ©a5 19.d5 Àe5
20.Ãe5 Ãe5 21.Ãd3 Ãg4 22.Õe4 Ãf3
(22...f5) 23.©f3 Ãb2 24.Õb1 ©a3
25.c5 ®f8? 26.d6! cd6 27.cd6 Õe4
28.©e4 Ãf6 29.©h7 (the centralizing
29.©d5! is decisive) 29...g6 30.Ãg6 fg6
31.Õb7 ©a1? (31...©c1+! 32.®g2
©c6+ 33.®h3 ©e8ì) 32.®g2 Ãg7
33.©g6 ©f6 34.Õg7! and Black resigned
in Ivanchuk-Gelfand, Monaco 2011
(rapid).
8...Ãg4 9.c4
This energetic move, forcing the enemy
knight to retreat, looks stronger than the
passive 9.c3, after which Black does best
to reply 9...f5 and if 10.c4?! then
10...Ãh4!.
9...Àf6
Weaker is 9...f5?! (after 9...Àxd4?
10.Ãxe4 dxe4 11.©xd4 White wins)
10.cxd5 ©xd5 11.Àc3 Àxc3 12.bxc3
Ãxf3 13.©xf3 ©xf3 14.gxf3, and White
is better, Tarrasch-Marshall, Ostend 1905.
T_.dM_.t
jJj.lJjJ
._S_.s._
_._J_._.
._Ii._L_
_._B_N_.
Ii._.iIi
rNbQr.k.
199
 Vassily Ivanchuk

10.Àc3!? 22.©xd5+ ©f7 23.©d2 Õd8 24.©b4

White fights for the initiative by sacrific- ©xa2! 25.Õe1 b6ì, Morozevich-
ing a pawn. Ivanchuk, Moscow blitz 2007.
In the event of 10.cxd5 Ãxf3 11.©xf3 13...Àxd5 14.Ãb5+ c6 15.Àxd5
©xd5 12.©xd5 Àxd5 13.Àc3 0-0-0 cxb5
14.Ãe4 Ãb4 15.Ãd2 Àf6! Black has a Not long before this game, in the third
solid position, Kamsky-Karpov, Linares round of the tournament, Naiditsch
1994. against Kramnik continued 16.Ãf4!?, and
10...Ãxf3 after 16...Àxf4 17.Õxe7+ ®f8 18.Õe5
The most popular line. ©d6 he played a strong novelty:
Also possible is 10...dxc4 11.Ãxc4 0-0
12.Ãe3 Ãxf3 13.©xf3 Àxd4 14.Ãxd4
©xd4 15.Õxe7 ©xc4 16.©xb7 c6 with
T_._.m.t
roughly equal chances, Kasparov-Karpov, jJ_._JjJ
30th match game, Moscow 1984/85. ._.d._._
Also worthy of attention is 10...Àxd4!? _J_Nr._.
11.cxd5 Ãxf3 12.gxf3 c5!? 13.dxc6 ._._.s._
Àxc6 14.Ãb5 0-0 15.©xd8 Ãxd8 _._._._.
16.Ãxc6 bxc6 17.Ãe3 Ãb6ì, Polgar- Ii._.iIi
Karpov, Hoogeveen 1999.
r._Q_.k.
11.©xf3 Àxd4 12.©d1
analysis diagram
After 12.©g3 dxc4 13.Ãxc4 0-0 14.Ãg5
Ãd6 15.©h4 h6! Black’s chances are 19.©d2!. There followed 19...Àg6?
slightly better, Lobron-Karpov, Hanover (Black had to settle for 19...©xe5!
1983. 20.©b4+ ®e8 21.©xb5+ ®d8 22.Õd1
12...Àe6 Àe2+ 23.®h1 Àd4 24.©xb7 Õc8
Worse is 12...dxc4 13.Ãxc4 Àc6 (possi- 25.h3! g5! 26.©xa7 (also possible is
bly this is the culprit, not 12...dxc4; Giri 26.Àc3!? with great complications, and
and Fridman have recently played although White is a whole rook down,
13...c5) 14.Ãf4! 0-0 15.©xd8 Ãxd8 his chances are not worse) 26...®e8
16.Õad1 a6 17.Àd5 Õc8 18.g3 h6 19.b4 27.©xd4 ©xd4 28.Õxd4 transposing
with pressure for White, Wiese- into a roughly equal endgame) 20.Õee1
Sosnowska, Poland 1988. f6 21.Õad1 ®f7 22.©e3 Õhe8
13.cxd5
The continuation 13.Ãf5!? appears to T_._T_._
give Black sufficient counterplay: jJ_._MjJ
13...dxc4 (13...d4 14.Àe2 d3 15.Àf4 ._.d.jS_
Àd4 16.Ãxd3Ç, Morozevich-Gelfand, _J_N_._.
Mexico City 2007) 14.©a4+ c6
15.Ãxe6 fxe6 16.©xc4 0-0 17.Õxe6
._._._._
(17.©xe6+ Õf7 18.Ãe3 ©d6 _._.q._.
19.©xd6ì, Anand-Kramnik, Mainz Ii._.iIi
2001) 17...Àd5 18.Ãe3 Ãf6 19.Ãc5 _._Rr.k.
Õe8 20.Õxe8+ ©xe8 21.Àxd5 cxd5 analysis diagram

200

23.Àe7!! ©xe7 24.©b3+ ®f8 25.Õxe7
Õxe7 26.©xb5, and White scored a strik-
ing victory, Naiditsch-Kramnik, Dort-
mund 2008.
Evidently suspecting that after this game
his opponent had studied the variation
very thoroughly, Ivanchuk prefers a tried
and tested path.
16.©h5
A transposition to the same position oc-
curs after 16.©b3 0-0 17.Àxe7+ ©xe7
18.©xb5.
16...0-0 17.Àxe7+
Strangely enough, this move had not
been seen before in this position.
In the game Gelfand-Yusupov, Horgen
1994, play continued 17.Ãe3 Ãg5
18.Õad1 Ãxe3 19.Õxe3 Õc8! 20.f4 Õc5
21.Õe5? (correct is 21.©e5 ®h8
22.Õed3 ©b8 23.©e3 with equal
chances) 21...Õxd5! 22.Õdxd5 ©b6+
23.®h1 Àxf4 24.©f3 Àxd5 25.©xd5
a6, with a decisive advantage.
17...©xe7 18.©xb5 Õfd8 19.Ãe3 a6
20.©b3 Õac8
._Tt._M_
_J_.dJjJ
J_._S_._
_._._._.
._._._._
_Q_.b._.
Ii._.iIi
r._.r.k.
It is interesting that this very position was
reached by transposition in the game
Kasparov-Karpov, 15th match game, Mos-
cow 1985, and after 21.Õac1 h6 22.h3
Àd4 the players agreed a draw.
Even so, because the bishop is stronger
than the knight, White retains a micro-
Game 69 - 2008
scopic advantage, although it is hard to
believe that he can realise it.
21.h3 h6 22.Õad1 Õxd1
The immediate 22...b5!? was worth con-
sideration, and on 23.a4 – 23...bxa4
24.©xa4 ©b7, trying to exchange the
queenside pawns.
23.Õxd1 b5 24.Õd3 Õc6 25.©d5!
©e8
Covering the back rank.
After 25...Õc2, possible is 26.©a8+ ®h7
(weaker is 26...©f8 27.©xa6 Õxb2
28.Õd7Ç) 27.©e4+ g6 (after 27...®g8?!
28.Õa3 Õxb2? 29.Õxa6 ©d7 30.Õa8+
©d8 31.©d4 Black suddenly loses)
28.Õa3 Õxb2 29.Õxa6 with a minimal
advantage to White.
26.Õd2 ©c8 27.b3
._D_._M_
_._._Jj.
J_T_S_.j
_J_Q_._.
._._._._
_I_.b._I
I_.r.iI_
_._._.k.
White has found a successful set-up, with
maximum cooperation between his
pieces.
27...Õc3
27...Õc1+ is dubious because of 28.®h2
©c6 29.©d6! ©b7 (29...©c8 30.©g3
Õc3 31.Õd6 Õc6 32.h4Ç) 30.©g3 Õc3
31.©e5 b4 32.©a5 with the initiative.
28.h4
Starting the offensive on the kingside.
28...a5
Weakens the pawns, but after 28...©b8, a
good reply is 29.©d6 ©b7 (the queen
exchange favours White) 30.©e5 ©c8
(or 30...Õc6 31.Õd3 ©e7
201
 Vassily Ivanchuk

The only reply!

._._._M_ 36.Õa1
_._.dJj. After 36.Õxc2?! ©d1+ 37.®h2 ©xh5+,
J_T_S_.j the battle ends in perpetual check.
_J_.q._. 36...©f5
._._._.i More accurate is 36...©d5, not allowing
_I_Rb._. the white queen to d8, e.g. 37.©b6 Õb2
I_._.iI_ 38.Õxa5 ©d1+ 39.®h2 Õxb3, with
good drawing chances.
_._._.k.
37.©d8! ©xh5 38.Õxa5
analysis diagram
The outside passed pawn on the
32.Ãxh6! ©xh4 (32...gxh6? 33.Õg3+ queenside gives White the better pros-
®h7 34.©e4+ ®h8 35.©xc6 winning) pects.
33.©b8+ Àf8 34.Ãe3Ç) 31.Õd6 Õc6 38...©g4 39.Õa4
32.Õd3 Õc7 33.f4! with the better Also good is 39.Õc5!? Õa2 40.Õc1 ©e4
chances for White. 41.b4! Õa6 42.©d4Ç.
29.Õd1 39...©d7
Of course, not 29.©xb5? Õxe3! 30.fxe3
©c1+ 31.®h2 ©xd2, and Black wins. ._.q.sM_
29...Õc2 30.©xb5 Õxa2 31.h5 Àf8 _._D_Jj.
After 31...Õb2 32.®h2 ©f8 33.Õd7! ._._._.j
©b4 34.©f5 ©b8+ 35.g3 ©e8 36.Õa7 _._._._.
White’s chances are also better.
32.Õd4 ©c7 33.Õd1
R_._._._
Defending against a back rank mate. _I_.b._.
33...Õb2 ._T_.iI_
He should have tried 33...©c8, inviting _._._.k.
his opponent to find a way of strengthen- 40.Õd4!
ing the position. With this strong manoeuvre, White con-
34.Õc1 ©d7 firms his advantage, by taking control of
the centre.
After 40.©xd7 (40.Õa8 ®h7!)
._._.sM_ 40...Àxd7 41.b4 f6 42.Õa7 Àe5 it
_._D_Jj. would be rather easier for Black to hold
._._._.j his defences.
jQ_._._I 40...©b7 41.b4!
._._._._ He does not succeed with 41.Ãxh6?!
_I_.b._. Õc8 (41...©xb3? 42.Õg4) 42.©g5 Àg6!
.t._.iI_ (42...Àe6? 43.©g3 ®h7 44.Õh4!±)
43.Õd8+ ®h7 44.Õxc8 ©xc8 45.©c1!
_.r._.k.
©e6 46.Ãe3 ©xb3 with equality.
35.©b8! 41...Õb2 42.Ãd2
Threatening 36.Ãc5. After 42.Ãf4 there is 42...Õxb4 43.Õxb4
35...Õc2! ©xb4 44.Ãd6 ©e1+ 45.®h2 ©xf2

202
 Game 70 - 2008

46.©xf8+ ®h7 and, despite the extra the threat of 7...Ãb4+) 5...f6 6.Ãg3
piece, it is hardly possible to realise the Àxg3 7.hxg3 c6 8.e3 Ãg7 9.Ãd3 with
advantage. the better game for White, Euwe-
42...Õb1+ 43.®h2 ©b5! Alekhine, 14th match game, Netherlands
Transferring the queen to e2 gives Black 1935.
counter-chances. 5.Àf3
44.©d5 ©e2 45.Ãe3 Àg6 46.©f5 After 5.e3 0-0 and now the original
©f1 47.®g3 6.Ãe5, Black equalises with 6...e6! 7.Àf3
Preventing check on h1. Àbd7 8.Ãg3 c6 9.Ãd3 b6 10.0-0 Ãb7
47...Õb3 48.Õe4 11.©e2 ©e7, Botvinnik-Smyslov, 22nd
match game, Moscow 1954.
5...0-0 6.Õc1 dxc4 7.e4 Ãg4 8.Ãxc4
._._._M_
_._._Jj.
._._._Sj Ts.d.tM_
_._._Q_. jJj.jJlJ
.i._R_._ ._._.sJ_
_T_.b.k. _._._._.
._._.iI_ ._BiIbL_
_._._D_. _.n._N_.
Ii._.iIi
48...Àf8?
_.rQk._R
A mistake, brought on by the tough
struggle. It was still possible to hold with 8...Àfd7
48...©h1! 49.b5 ®h7 50.Õd4 Õb2, with A rare reply. In the game Lputian-
the better game for White. Ivanchuk, Elista 1998, Black continued
49.Õf4 8...Àh5, and after 9.Ãe3 Ãxf3 10.gxf3
Now 49...f6? is bad because of 50.©d5+, e5 11.dxe5 Ãxe5 12.©xd8 Õxd8 13.b4
winning a rook. Black resigned. Àf4 14.Àd5 Àg2+ 15.®f1 Àxe3+
An exceptionally subtly-played game by 16.fxe3 c6 17.f4 cxd5 18.Ãxd5 Àc6
the Ukrainian grandmaster! 19.fxe5 Àxb4 he obtained a comfortable
game.
Game 70 9.Ãe2 Àc6
Grünfeld Indian Defence (D92) On 9...Ãxf3, possible is 10.Ãxf3, and af-
í Ivanchuk,Vassily ter 10...Ãxd4 – 11.©xd4 e5 12.Ãxe5
n Kamsky,Gata Àc6 13.Ãxc7!, winning a pawn,
Moscow 2008 Estremera Panos-Fernandez Garcia, Las
1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 g6 3.Àc3 d5 4.Ãf4 Palmas 1996.
In this line, rather than fighting for the 10.Ãe3
centre, White above all ensures himself The immediate 10.d5 has also been seen:
good piece play. 10...Ãxf3 11.Ãxf3 Àd4 12.0-0 c5
4...Ãg7 13.Ãe2 a6 14.Õe1 b5 15.Ãf1 Àb6Ç,
4...Àh5?! is dubious because of 5.Ãe5! Drozdovsky-Borisek, Internet 2006.
(but not 5.Àxd5? Àxf4 6.Àxf4 e5! with 10...Àb6 11.d5 Ãxf3 12.gxf3 Àe5

203
 Vassily Ivanchuk

17.Àb5!
T_.d.tM_ Evidently, Black had counted on
jJj.jJlJ 17.Àxd5 Àxd5 18.©xd5 Àb6
.s._._J_ 19.©xb7 ©xa4 20.b3 ©xb3 21.©xe7
_._Is._. Õfe8, with a good game, but the text
._._I_._ move refutes this idea.
_.n.bI_. 17...Õc8
Ii._Bi.i 17...dxe4? 18.a5! is bad for Black, as he
loses a knight (18...Àc8? 19.Àc7 ©d8
_.rQk._R
20.Àxa8), whilst he also gets little from
13.©b3!? the exchange sacrifice – 17...d4?! 18.Àc7
An interesting novelty, directed against ©d8 19.Àxa8 dxe3 20.Àxb6 exf2+
...f7-f5, after the knight retreats. With 21.®xf2 Ãd4+ 22.®g2 Àxb6 23.Õcd1
this, White prepares to develop an offen- e5 24.fxe5 ©g5+ 25.©g3 with a clear
sive on the queenside, after the e5-knight advantage to White.
has been kicked away. 18.Õxc8 ©xc8
No advantage is offered by 13.Ãd4 c6 After 18...Àxc8, a good reply is 19.©xd5
14.f4 Àed7 15.Ãxg7 ®xg7 16.dxc6 bxc6 b6 20.e5 e6 21.©c4 with a clear
17.0-0 e5 18.fxe5 ©g5+ 19.®h1 ©f4 advantage.
20.Õc2 Àxe5ì, Jost-Kouatly, France 1992. 19.e5!?
13...c6 White strengthens his position, avoiding
13...f5? is bad because of 14.Àb5!. unnecessary risk.
14.f4 Àed7 15.0-0! Also possible is 19.Àxa7!?, since after
By keeping the d5-pawn in its place, White 19...©c7!? (deflecting the rook from the
prevents ...e7-e5. Weaker is 15.dxc6 bxc6 f-file; the immediate 19...©b8 is
16.0-0 (or 16.e5 e6 followed by ...Àd5) weaker) 20.Õc1 ©b8 21.Ãxb6 Àxb6
16...e5!? with counterchances. 22.©xb6 ©xf4 23.©e3! ©h4 24.Õc5
15...©e8?! (in case of 24.f4?!
Not the best, but even after 15...cxd5
16.Àxd5 Àxd5 17.©xd5 Àf6 18.©xb7
Õb8 19.©c6 Õxb2 20.Ãf3 ©e8 21.e5, ._._.tM_
White has a stable positional advantage. nJ_.jJlJ
16.a4 cxd5 ._._._J_
_._J_._.
T_._DtM_ I_._Ii.d
jJ_SjJlJ _._.q._.
.s._._J_ .i._B_.i
_._J_._. _.r._.k.
analysis diagram
I_._Ii._
_Qn.b._. Black has 24...Ãh6! 25.Õf1 e5 with
.i._Bi.i counterplay) 24...Ãe5 25.h3 Ãf4
26.©f3 dxe4 27.©g4 White chances are
_.r._Rk.
better.

204
 Game 71 - 2008

25.Àc6!
._D_.tM_ Underlining the lack of coordination be-
jJ_SjJlJ tween the black pieces.
.s._._J_ 25...©e8 26.Õxc4 gxf4 27.Ãxf4
_N_Ji._. ®h8
I_._.i._ After 27...e6, the simple 28.©xa6 de-
_Q_.b._. cides.
.i._Bi.i Black tries to obtain counterplay on the
g-file.
_._._Rk.
28.Ãg3 Õg8
19...a6? With the threat of 29...Àxe5.
In trying to retain the pawn, Black sharply 29.®f1 e6 30.Õd4 Àc5 31.©b6
worsens his position. Àd7 32.©c7 Àb8
More energetic is 19...Àc4!? 20.Àxa7 White dominates on all fronts.
©c7 21.Àb5 ©c6 22.Õc1 g5, leaving After 32...Àc5? 33.Õd8, the black queen
White a small advantage. has no retreat squares.
20.Àa7 ©c7
Clearly, Black has not abandoned the idea
of drawing the enemy rook away from .s._D_Tm
the kingside, although in this case, it is _.q._JlJ
needed more on the queenside anyway. J_N_J_._
Somewhat better was 20...©d8 21.a5 i._.i._.
Àc4 22.Ãxc4 dxc4 23.©xb7±. ._.r._._
21.Õc1 ©d8 _._._.b.
Now, however, 21...Àc4?! 22.Ãxc4 dxc4 .i._.i.i
23.Õxc4 ©b8 24.Õb4! b6 25.Àc6 ©e8
_._._K_.
26.©c4 leads to an advantage for White.
22.a5 Àc4 23.Ãxc4 dxc4 24.©xb7g5 33.Àd8!
This break is clearly too late. More tena- Leading to a piquant finish:
cious was 24...Àb8, e.g.: 25.h3 (but not 33...©b5+ 34.®g1 h6 35.Àxf7+
25.Õxc4? ©d1+ 26.®g2 ©g4+ with a ®h7 36.©c2+
draw) 25...f6 26.Õxc4 fxe5 27.Õc8 And mate next move. Black resigned.
©d1+ 28.®h2 exf4 29.Õxf8+ Ãxf8
30.Ãxf4 e5 31.Ãe3 Ãd6±. Game 71
Ruy Lopez (C92)
._.d.tM_ í Leko,Peter
nQ_SjJlJ n Ivanchuk,Vassily
J_._._._ Moscow 2008
i._.i.j. 1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.Ãb5 a6 4.Ãa4
Àf6 5.0-0 Ãe7 6.Õe1 b5 7.Ãb3 d6
._J_.i._ 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Ãb7
_._.b._. This continuation, introduced into prac-
.i._.i.i tice by Flohr and Levenfish in the 1940s,
_.r._.k. has become extremely popular in our day

205
 Vassily Ivanchuk
(regarding 9...Àa5 and the previous
moves, see Game 33).
10.d4
T_.d.tM_
_Lj.lJjJ
J_Sj.s._
_J_.j._.
._.iI_._
_Bi._N_I
Ii._.iI_
rNbQr.k.
10...Õe8
Igor Zaitsev’s idea, first played by him in
1975. The tactical justification lies in the
variation 11.Àg5 Õf8 12.f4?! exf4
13.Ãxf4 Àa5 14.Ãc2 Àd5!, with excel-
lent play for Black.
11.Àbd2
After 11.Ãg5, a good reply is 11...h6!
12.Ãh4 Àd7 13.Ãxe7 Àxe7 14.Àh4 c5!
15.d5 c4 16.Ãc2 Õf8 17.Àd2 Àxd5ì,
Tal-Razuvaev, Tbilisi 1978.
11...Ãf8 12.d5
The alternative is 12.a4 h6 13.Ãc2 exd4
14.cxd4 Àb4 15.Ãb1 c5 16.d5 Àd7
17.Õa3, with very sharp play and mutual
chances, e.g.: 17...f5 18.g4 fxg4 19.hxg4
Àe5 20.g5 Ãc8 21.Àxe5 ©xg5+
22.Õg3 ©xe5 23.Àf3 ©h5 24.®g2
Ãg4 25.Õh1 Ãxf3+ 26.Õxf3 ©g4+
27.®f1 Õxe4!? 28.Ãxh6Ç, Kasim-
dzhanov-Ivanchuk, Turin 2006.
In the game Ponomariov-Ivanchuk, Mos-
cow 2008, with two extra moves in-
cluded, after 11.Àg5 Õf8 12.Àf3 Õe8
13.Àbd2 Ãf8, play continued 14.a3!? h6
15.Ãc2 Àb8 16.b4 Àbd7 17.Ãb2 c6
18.Õc1 Õc8 19.Ãb1 g6 20.©b3 c5
21.dxc5 dxc5 22.c4, and White obtained
the better chances.
12...Àb8 13.Àf1 Àbd7 14.À3h2
206
T_.dTlM_
_LjS_JjJ
J_.j.s._
_J_Ij._.
._._I_._
_Bi._._I
Ii._.iIn
r.bQrNk.
14...Õc8!?
Once again, the Ukrainian grandmaster
shows his inventiveness.
Black adopts the long-range idea of
bringing the rook to the c-file, in order
after the opening of lines to support the
knight on c5 and make the advance b2-b4
more difficult.
Previously, practice had seen 14...Àc5
15.Ãc2 c6 16.b4 Àcd7 17.dxc6 Ãxc6
18.Ãg5 ©c8!? (18...©c7, Carlsen-Navara,
Baku 2008; 18...h6, Kamsky-Adams, Baku
2008) and then 19.Àg3 with chances for
both sides, Svidler-Morozevich, Moscow
2006 or 19.Ãxf6 Àxf6 20.Àg4 Àxg4
21.hxg4 Ãd7 22.Àe3 Õa7!? with a
roughly equal game, Hracek-Beliavsky, Ger-
many Bundesliga 1999/00.
15.Àg4
After 15.Ãg5!? Ãe7 16.Àg3 Black has
good chances of equalising: 16...g6 (not
16...Àxd5? because of 17.Ãxd5!, whilst
after 16...Àc5 there is 17.Àf5! Àxd5
18.Ãh6!) 17.a4 Àc5 18.Ãc2 Àxd5 (also
good is 18...c6 19.axb5 axb5 20.b4
Àcd7 21.dxc6 Õxc6 22.©d3 ©c7ì)
19.Ãxe7 Àxe7 20.Àg4 ®g7 21.©d2
Àg8 22.Àe3 Àf6, and White has only
partial compensation for the pawn.
15...Àxg4 16.©xg4 Àc5 17.Ãc2 c6
This central breaks allows Black to acti-
vate his forces. If 17...©d7 18.©xd7
Àxd7 19.a4!, White’s chances in the re-
sulting endgame are slightly superior.
 Game 71 - 2008

18.dxc6 25.©f3!! Ãxd1 26.©xf7+ ®h8

After 18.b4 a possibility is 18...Àa4!? 27.©xg6 Õf8 28.Õxd1 ©d7 29.©xh5+
19.Ãxa4 bxa4 20.c4 cxd5 21.cxd5 Õc4 ©h7 30.©xe5+ ©g7 31.©d5 Õc7
22.Àe3 Õxb4, and Black’s chances are 32.Àe8!, with advantage to White) 24.f3
not worse. ®f8 25.Àe3 Õe7 with a complicated bat-
18...Ãxc6 19.Àe3 g6 20.Õd1 tle, in which White’s chances are some-
Dubious is 20.Àf5?! because of 20...h5! what better, but Black’s defensive re-
21.©g3 ©d7 22.f3 ®h7 23.Àe3 Ãh6 sources are also considerable.
with excellent play for Black, whilst after 21...Àe6 22.Ãb3
20.Àd5 there is the possibility of 20...f5! Now after 22.Àf5?! there follows
21.©d1 Àxe4 22.Ãxe4 fxe4 23.Õxe4 22...Ãxc1 23.Õaxc1 h5 24.©g3 Àf4
Ãa8 24.©b3 Õc4!? with mutual chances. 25.Õd2 d5 26.Ãb3 (or 26.exd5 Ãxd5
27.Ãb3 ©f6â) 26...©f6 27.exd5 ©xf5
._TdTlM_ 28.dxc6 Õxc6 29.®h2 Õec8, and Black
_._._J_J seizes the initiative.
J_Lj._J_ 22...®h8 23.Àd5 Ãxc1 24.Õaxc1
_Js.j._.
._._I_Q_ ._TdT_.m
_.i.n._I _._._J_J
IiB_.iI_ J_LjS_J_
r.bR_.k. _J_Nj._.
20...Ãh6!
.i._I_Q_
In opposition to White’s strategically _Bi._._I
powerful central pawn structure, Black I_._.iI_
begins counterplay on the kingside. _.rR_.k.
21.b4 24...Õf8!
White continues to play to exploit the The outward appearance of the position
weakness of the square d5, but weakens reminds one a lot of the Cheliabinsk Vari-
the c3-pawn. It was worth considering ation of the Sicilian, and Black, playing in
21.Àf5!? Ãxc1 22.Õaxc1 h5 (not that style, prepares a break in the centre.
22...Õe6? 23.Àxd6!) 23.©g3 Õe6 (on 25.Õc2 f5! 26.exf5 gxf5 27.©h5
23...Ãxe4?! there is 24.Àxd6 Ãxc2 Or 27.©f3 Àf4 28.©e3 Ãxd5 29.Ãxd5
©g5 30.®h2 Õf6, with growing pres-
._TdT_M_ sure for Black.
_._._J_. 27...©d7?!
J_.n._J_ Too hasty. More accurate is 27...Ãxd5
_Js.j._J 28.Ãxd5 Àf4 29.©f3 ©g5, fully retain-
ing his attacking potential.
._._._._ 28.©h6!
_.i._.qI With the threat of 29.Àb6.
IiL_.iI_ The immediate 28.Àb6?! is bad because
_.rR_.k. of 28...©g7 29.Ãd5 Àf4 30.©f3 Àxd5
analysis diagram 31.Àxd5 f4, and Black has an attack.

207
 Vassily Ivanchuk

34...e4!
._T_.t.m The advance of the central pawns deci-
_._D_._J sively supports Black’s offensive.
J_LjS_.q 35.©d5
_J_NjJ_. Unsatisfactory is 35.Õd5? e3 36.fxe3 (or
.i._._._ 36.Ãc2 Õh6 37.©e2 exd2) 36...fxg3+
_Bi._._I 37.®xg3 Õxc3 38.Õ5d3 Õxd3 39.Õxd3
I_R_.iI_ ©g7+ 40.©g4 Õg6î.
Nor is he saved after 35.Ãd5, e.g.,
_._R_.k.
35...exd3 36.Ãxc6 fxg3+ 37.fxg3 Õf2+
28...Ãxd5 38.Õxf2 ©xf2+ 39.Ãg2 d2 40.©g4
There is no other obvious way to untan- Àg5! 41.©c8+ ®g7 42.©d7+ Àf7
gle. 43.©g4+ ®f8 and on 44.©c8+? there is
29.Õxd5? 44...®e7! winning.
Retuning the initiative to the opponent. 35...exd3 36.©xc6 fxg3+ 37.fxg3
Stronger is 29.Ãxd5, e.g.: 29...Àf4 Àg5 38.Ãd5 ©h6 39.h4
30.g3! Àg6 31.c4 f4 32.g4 bxc4 More tenacious was 39.©e8+ Õf8
33.Õdc1 Õfe8 34.Ãe4 ©f7 35.Õxc4 40.©e1 ©xh3+ 41.®g1ç.
Õxc4 36.Õxc4 d5 37.Ãxg6 ©xg6 39...Àf3+! 40.Ãxf3 ©xd2+ 41.®h3
38.©xg6 hxg6, and in the resulting rook ©xa2 42.©b6
ending, White has nothing to fear. On 42.Ãd5, 42...©f2! decides.
29...©e7 30.Õcd2 Õc6 31.g3?! 42...©e6+ 43.®g2 ©f5
Seriously weakening the position. More White resigned.
solid is 31.Õ5d3.
31...f4! Game 72
Now nothing hinders Black’s attack. Queen’s Gambit Declined (D37)
32.®h2 Õf6 33.©h5 í Carlsen,Magnus
After 33.©h4, there is the strong n Ivanchuk,Vassily
33...©f8!, with threats on the f-file. Bilbao 2008
33...©f8! 34.Õ5d3 1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 e6 3.Àf3 d5 4.Àc3
Or 34.Ãc2 fxg3+ (also good is 34...h6!?) Ãe7 5.Ãf4
35.fxg3 h6 36.Ãe4 Àg5 37.Ãg2 Õxc3, The other continuation in the Orthodox
with a clear advantage to Black. Queen’s Gambit is 5.Ãg5, e.g.: 5...h6
6.Ãxf6 Ãxf6 7.©c2 dxc4 8.Àe4 b5 9.a4
Ãb7 10.axb5 a6 11.Àxf6+ ©xf6
._._.d.m 12.©xc4 0-0 13.©xc7 axb5 14.Õxa8
_._._._J Ãxa8 15.e3 Ãxf3 16.gxf3 ©xf3 17.Õg1
J_TjSt._ ©f5 with equality, Aronian-Ivanchuk,
_J_.j._Q Morelia/Linares 2008.
.i._.j._ 5...0-0 6.e3 c5
_BiR_.iI In the game Gelfand-Ivanchuk, Khanty-
I_.r.i.k Mansiysk 2010, Black played 6...Àbd7
_._._._. 7.c5 (it was worth considering 7.©b3 c6
8.Õc1 Àh5 9.Ãe5 Àxe5 10.dxe5 g6

208

11.Ãe2 ©b6 12.©c2 Õd8 13.0-0
Ãd7Ç, Ivanchuk-Karpov, blitz, Moscow
2007) 7...c6 8.Ãd3 b6 9.b4 a5 10.b5
Ãb7 11.bxc6 Ãxc6 12.cxb6 ©xb6
13.Õb1 Ãb4 14.0-0 ©a7 15.Àb5 Ãxb5
16.Ãxb5 Àe4 17.©d3 Õfc8 18.Õbc1
Ãd6 19.Ãxd6, and the game ended in a
draw.
7.dxc5 Ãxc5 8.©c2
After 8.Õc1, possible is 8...Àc6 9.cxd5
exd5 10.Ãe2 ©e7 11.0-0 Õd8 12.Ãg5
Ãe6 13.Àb5 Ãb6 14.Àbd4 Õac8
15.Àxc6 Õxc6 16.Õxc6 bxc6 17.Àe5
©c7 18.Ãxf6 gxf6 19.Àf3 Ãf5 20.b4
d4!? 21.Àxd4 ©e5 22.Ãf3 Ãxd4
23.exd4 Õxd4 with mutual chances,
Grischuk-Ivanchuk, Nice 2010 (blind).
In a game in 2009, where the current
players swapped colours, play continued
8.cxd5 Àxd5 9.Àxd5 exd5 10.a3 Àc6
11.Ãd3 Ãb6 12.0-0 Ãg4 13.h3 Ãh5
14.b4 Õe8 15.Õc1 a6 16.Ãxa6!?
(16.Ãe2!?) 16...Õxa6 17.b5 Õxa3
18.bxc6 bxc6 19.Õxc6 Õa7Ç, Ivanchuk-
Carlsen, Nice 2009 (blind).
8...Àc6 9.a3 ©a5
T_L_.tM_
jJ_._JjJ
._S_Js._
d.lJ_._.
._I_.b._
i.n.iN_.
.iQ_.iIi
r._.kB_R
The key position of the variation.
10.0-0-0
The main line, played by Kasparov,
Kramnik and Anand.
Also interesting is 10.Àd2!? Ãe7 11.Ãg3
©b6 12.Ãe2 d4 13.Àa4 ©d8 14.e4! e5
15.b4 d3!? 16.©xd3 Àxb4? (an unclear
Game 72 - 2008
game results from 16...©xd3 17.Ãxd3
Õd8 18.Àb2 Àh5) 17.axb4 Ãxb4
18.Õa2 (even stronger is 18.Ãxe5!)
18...b5 19.©b1 a5 20.cxb5 Ãe6 21.Õb2
©d4 22.f3! with advantage to White,
Golod-A. Mikhalevski, Israel 2006.
10...Ãe7 11.h4!?
The alternative is 11.g4. The game
Akopian-Pigusov, Tilburg 1994, then
continued 11...dxc4 12.Ãxc4 e5 13.g5
exf4 14.gxf6 Ãxf6 15.Àd5 Àe7
16.Àxf6+ gxf6 17.Õhg1+ ®h8, and
here 18.©e4! gives White the advantage.
11...Õd8
On 11...dxc4, possible is 12.Ãxc4 b6
13.Àg5 Ãa6 14.Àce4! g6 15.Àxf6+
Ãxf6 16.Àe4 Ãe7 17.Ãxa6 ©xa6
18.®b1 ©b7 19.h5 with the initiative
for White, Kasparov-Vaganian, Novgorod
1995.
12.Àd2
The knight transfers to b3. After 12.g4
Ãd7 13.®b1 dxc4 14.Ãxc4 Õac8 15.g5
Àh5 16.Ãd6 g6 the chances are approxi-
mately equal, Kasparov-Ehlvest, Novgo-
rod 1995.
12...a6!?
Preparing ...b7-b5 with an attack on the
queenside.
Other continuations have also been seen:
A) 12...dxc4 13.Àxc4 Õxd1+ 14.©xd1
©d8 15.©xd8+ Àxd8 16.Ãe2 Ãd7
17.e4 Ãc6 18.f3, and White’s chances in
the ending are somewhat better Topalov-
Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 2007;
B) 12...Õd7 13.Ãd3 ©d8 14.cxd5
exd5 15.Àf3 ©f8 16.g4 Àe4 17.Àe5
Àxe5 18.Ãxe5 f6?! (more accurate is
18...g6) 19.Ãd4 Õc7 20.f3! Àxc3
21.Ãxh7+ ®h8 22.Ãxc3 Ãxa3
23.Õxd5± Agdestein-Short, Isle of Lewis
1995 (rapid);
C) 12...e5 13.Ãg5 d4 14.Àb3 ©b6
15.c5 ©c7 16.Àb5 ©b8 17.exd4 a6
209
 Vassily Ivanchuk

18.Àd6 Ãxd6 19.cxd6 ©xd6 20.dxe5 20.©xf5 b4 gives Black the possibility to
©xd1+ 21.©xd1 Õxd1+ 22.®xd1 bring his forces over for the attack.
Àxe5 23.Ãxf6 gxf6 with equality, 15...Ãe6 16.Àb3 ©b6
Cifuentes Parada-Van der Sterren, Amster-
dam 1995.
13.Ãe2?!
T_.t._M_
Too passive. _._.lJjJ
It is worth considering 13.Àb3!? ©b6 JdS_Ls._
14.c5 ©a7 15.Ãc7 Õf8 (15...Õe8!?) _J_J_._.
16.Àa4 Àe8 17.Ãh2 Ãd8 18.Ãd3 h6 ._._.bIi
19.g4 e5 20.g5 with attack, Arnold- iNn.i._.
Ganaus, Austria 1999/00, or even .iQ_Bi._
13.g4!? dxc4 (more accurate is
_.kR_._R
13...Àxg4!?) 14.Àxc4 Õxd1+ 15.©xd1
©d8 16.©xd8+ Ãxd8 17.Ãg2 e5 (on 17.g5!
17...Àxg4? strong is 18.Õd1! Ãxh4 Trying to reduce the activity of the black
19.Ãxc6 bxc6 20.Àb6±) 18.Àxe5 Àxe5 pieces by exchanges.
19.Ãxe5 Àxg4 20.Ãg3 with the better After 17.®b1 Õac8 18.f3 b4, Black man-
game for White, Nielsen-Glud, Silkeborg ages to start an attack.
2008. 17...Àe4 18.Àxe4 dxe4 19.Õxd8+
Àxd8!
Weaker was 19...Õxd8?! 20.®b1 Õc8
T_Lt._M_ 21.Õc1!, and White holds.
_J_.lJjJ 20.®b1
J_S_Js._ On 20.Ãc7?! possible is 20...©a7
d._J_._. 21.Ãa5 Àc6 22.Ãc3 Õc8 with the threat
._I_.b.i of ...b5-b4.
i.n.i._. 20...Õc8 21.©d1
.iQnBiI_ White loses after 21.©xe4? Ãxb3
22.©xe7 ©c6! 23.e4 Àe6 24.Õc1
_.kR_._R
©xe4+ 25.®a1 Õxc1+ 26.Ãxc1 ©c6,
13...b5! and White, in saving himself from mate
By offering a pawn sacrifice, Black seizes by 27.Ãc4, loses a piece.
the initiative. 21...Àc6 22.h5 a5!
14.cxd5
Dubious is 14.cxb5?! axb5 15.Ãxb5 (or ._T_._M_
15.Àxb5 e5 16.Ãh2 ©b6 17.Àf3 Ãa6 _._.lJjJ
18.Àc3 Ãxe2 19.©xe2 Õdc8 20.®b1 .dS_L_._
Ãxa3ç) 15...Ãd7 16.Àb3 ©b6 17.a4 jJ_._.iI
Õdc8 18.®b1 e5 19.Ãxc6 ©xc6
20.Ãxe5 ©b7 with a dangerous attack.
._._Jb._
14...exd5 15.g4!? iN_.i._.
The quiet 15.Àb3 ©b6 16.®b1 Ãe6 .i._Bi._
17.Ãd3 h6 18.f3 Õac8 19.Ãf5 Ãxf5 _K_Q_._R

210
 Game 73 - 2008

23.g6 Game 73
White counterattacks energetically, but Grünfeld Indian Defence (D94)
Black’s threats are stronger. í Ivanchuk,Vassily
Somewhat more chances are offered by n Carlsen,Magnus
23.h6 a4 (23...g6!?) 24.Àd2 b4 25.Àc4 Kallithea 2008
©c5 26.Ãd6 ©xg5 27.Ãxe7 ©xe7 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Àc3 Àf6 4.e3 g6
28.©xa4 ©c5 29.Õc1 Õb8 with pressure 5.Àf3 Ãg7
for Black. By transposition, we have reached the
23...a4 24.Àd2 closed system of the Grünfeld, in which
24.Àd4? fails to 24...Àxd4 25.©xd4 (or the move ...c7-c6 characterises the
25.exd4 b4!) 25...©c6 26.©d2 Õd8 Schlechter Variation.
27.©c2 ©d5 winning. 6.Ãd3
24...b4 Before undertaking operations in the cen-
Black’s attack develops seemingly of its tre and on the queenside, White com-
own accord. pletes his development.
25.gxf7+?! Another possibility is 6.©b3 0-0 7.Ãd2
Losing quickly, but after 25.Àc4 both e.g.: 7...e6 8.Ãd3 Àbd7 9.0-0 ©e7
25...©b7!?, and 25...Ãxc4!? are possible, 10.Àa4 Õe8 11.Ãb4 ©d8 12.Ãd6 dxc4
e.g., 26.Ãxc4 bxa3 27.©c2 h6! 13.©xc4 Àb8 14.©c5 b5 15.Àc3 Ãb7
28.Ãxf7+ ®h8 29.Ãe5 Ãf8! 30.Ãc3 16.Õac1 a5 17.Ãg3 Àbd7 18.©d6 Ãf8
Àe5 31.Ãd5 Õc5 32.Ãxe4 axb2, with a 19.©c7 ©xc7 20.Ãxc7 Õec8 21.Ãe5 b4
clear advantage. 22.Àa4 Àd5 23.Àc5 Àxc5 24.dxc5 f6
25...Ãxf7 26.Àc4 ©b7! 27.©xa4 25.Ãg3 e5 with mutual chances,
bxa3 28.Àxa3 Ivanchuk-Anand, Moscow 2009.
6...0-0 7.0-0 Ãg4
._T_._M_
_D_.lLjJ Ts.d.tM_
._S_._._ jJ_.jJlJ
_._._._I ._J_.sJ_
Q_._Jb._ _._J_._.
n._.i._. ._Ii._L_
.i._Bi._ _.nBiN_.
_K_._._R Ii._.iIi
28...Ãxa3!
Destroying White’s last illusions!
r.bQ_Rk.
29.©xa3 Àb4! The most popular continuation, devel-
There is no satisfactory defence against oped by Vassily Smyslov. Before playing
30...Ãa2+ 31.®a1 Àc2+. ...e7-e6, Black wants to exchange off his
30.b3 Àd3 31.Ãxd3 exd3 32.Õc1 ‘bad’ light-squared bishop for the enemy
d2! 0-1 knight.
It is hopeless after 33.Õxc8+ ©xc8 After 7...Ãf5, a good reply is 8.Ãxf5
34.©d6 ©c1+ 35.®a2 Ãxb3+! gxf5 9.b3! Àe4 10.Ãb2 e6 11.Àe2 Àd7
36.®xb3 d1©+. 12.Õc1 Õe8 13.Àf4 Ãf8 14.Àe1 f6

211
 Vassily Ivanchuk

15.cxd5 cxd5 16.Àed3 with the better

chances for White, Najdorf-Sanguinetti,
._TdT_M_
Mar del Plata 1957. jJ_S_JlJ
8.h3 Ãxf3 9.©xf3 e6 ._J_JsJ_
The push 9...e5? does not work because _._J_._.
of 10.dxe5 Àfd7 11.cxd5 Àxe5 ._Ii._._
12.©d1! cxd5 13.Ãe2, and the pawn on _.nBiQ_I
d5 is lost. Ii._.iI_
10.Õd1 Àbd7 11.Ãd2
_.rRb.k.
It was worth considering 11.b3. In the
game Ivanchuk-Kamsky, Wijk aan Zee 13...©e7
2009, there followed 11...Õe8 12.Ãb2 Preparing ...c6-c5.
a5 (more accurate is 12...©e7 13.©e2 In the game Ivanchuk-Bu Xiangzhi, Cap
dxc4 14.Ãxc4 Àd5, Petrosian-Smyslov, d’Agde 2008, Black put the queen on e7
Moscow 1955) 13.Õab1 ©b8 14.©e2 two moves earlier – 11...©e7 12.Õac1
h5 15.©c2 Àb6 16.Àe2 Àc8 17.Ãc3 Õfe8 13.Ãe1, and after 13...Àb6 14.b3
Àd6 18.Ãe1 Ãh6 19.Àc3 b5 20.cxb5 Õad8 15.Ãf1 e5 16.dxe5 ©xe5 17.cxd5
cxb5 21.©e2 b4 22.Àa4 e5 23.dxe5 Àfxd5 18.Àxd5 Õxd5 19.©e2 Õed8
Õxe5 24.©b2 Àd7 25.Õbc1 Ãg7 20.©c2 Õxd1 21.Õxd1 Õxd1 22.©xd1
26.©c2, and White obtained a promising Ãf6 23.a4 ®g7 obtained an equal game.
position. 14.©e2 a6!
11...Õe8 12.Õac1 Õc8 14...e5 is premature because of 15.dxe5
Other replies have also been seen: Àxe5 (15...©xe5 16.cxd5 cxd5
A) 12...©e7 13.©e2 (13.©g3 dxc4 17.Ãb5Ç) 16.cxd5 Àxd5 (or 16...Àxd3
14.Ãxc4 e5 15.Ãb3 Õad8 16.©h4 Àb6 17.Õxd3 cxd5 18.Àxd5 Àxd5 19.Õxc8
17.dxe5 ©xe5 18.©b4 Ãf8 19.©f4 Õxc8 20.Õxd5Ç, whilst after 16...cxd5
©xf4 20.exf4 Àfd5ì, Kuzubov-Zugic,
Calvia 2007) 13...dxc4 14.Ãxc4 e5
15.d5 cxd5 16.Ãxd5 e4?! 17.Ãxb7
Õab8, Hebden-Meenakshi, Torquay
2002, and after 18.Àd5! White’s chances
are superior;
B) 12...dxc4 13.Ãxc4 e5 14.Ãb3 exd4
15.exd4 Àb6 16.Ãg5 ©d6 17.Ãf4 ©d7
18.Ãe5Ç, S. Ivanov-Khasangatin, St Pe-
tersburg 1999;
C) 12...a6 13.©e2?! (better is 13.Ãe1)
13...e5 14.dxe5 Àxe5 15.cxd5 Àxd5
16.Àxd5 ©xd5 17.Ãb1 ©b5 18.©xb5
axb5 19.b3 Õed8 20.Ãb4 Ãf8 21.Ãc3
Ãg7 22.Ãb4 Ãf8 23.Ãc3 Ãg7 24.Ãb4
with roughly equal chances, Lushenkov-
Chuprikov, Sochi 2006.
13.Ãe1 Magnus Carlsen

212
 Game 73 - 2008

there is the strong reply 17.Ãc2!) Now because of the threat of 23.f4 this is
17.Àxd5 cxd5 18.Ãb5 Õxc1 19.Õxc1, necessary, but it is not the best time to
and White’s chances are slightly better. have to play it.
15.b3 Õcd8 23.Ãa5!
Here, this move looks a little slow. After Driving the rook off the d-file.
15...e5!? 16.dxe5 ©xe5 17.cxd5 cxd5 23...Õc8
18.Ãb1 Õc6 19.Õc2 Õec8 Black has ade- After 23...b6?! possible is 24.dxe5!? (also
quate play. good is 24.Ãe1 e4 25.cxd5 cxd5 26.Õc6)
16.©c2 Õc8 17.Ãf1Ãf8 18.©b1Õcd8 24...Àxg4 (24...©xe5?! 25.Ãc3 ©d6
Black has decided not to rush things and 26.cxd5±) 25.cxd5 bxa5 26.dxc6
to await what his opponent decides to do.
._.tT_M_
._.tTlM_ _._SdJl.
_J_SdJ_J J_I_._J_
J_J_JsJ_ j._.i._.
_._J_._. ._._._Sj
._Ii._._ _I_.i._I
_In.i._I I_._NiB_
I_._.iI_ _QrR_.k.
_QrRbBk. analysis diagram

19.g3!? 26...Àgxe5 27.cxd7 Õxd7 28.Àd4, and

In preparation for the coming central White is better.
counter, White fianchettoes his bishop, 24.dxe5 Àxe5 25.Ãc3
eyeing the d5-pawn. Also good is 25.cxd5!? Àxd5 (25...cxd5
19...Ãg7 20.Ãg2 h5 21.Àe2 h4?! 26.Àf4) 26.e4 Àc7 27.f4 Àd7 28.g5
Weakening Black’s position. More in the Ãf8 29.Ãe1 Àc5 30.e5 À5e6 31.Ãxh4,
spirit of the chosen waiting tactics was winning a pawn.
21...Õa8 or 21...Ãh6. 25...dxc4
22.g4! After 25...Õed8 26.Ãa5 Õe8 27.cxd5
Of course, not 22.gxh4? Àh5 23.©d3 Àxd5 28.Ãxd5 cxd5 29.Õxc8 Õxc8
©xh4 with counterplay. 30.Õxd5 Black loses a pawn, whilst after
22...e5 25...Õcd8, a strong move is 26.Ãd4, and
not 26...c5? because of 27.Ãxe5 ©xe5
._.tT_M_ 28.cxd5±.
_J_SdJl. 26.bxc4 ©c7?!
J_J_.sJ_ Taking away the defence of c5 allows
_._Jj._. White to increase the pressure.
More accurate is 26...Õb8 (in the event of
._Ii._Ij 26...b5?! 27.cxb5 cxb5 28.Ãb4 the
_I_.i._I white pieces are very active) and after
I_._NiB_ 27.Ãb4 – 27...c5!? 28.Ãc3 b5 with an
_QrRb.k. inferior, but defensible position.

213
 Vassily Ivanchuk

Game 74
._T_T_M_ Sicilian Defence (B80)
_Jd._Jl. í Karjakin,Sergey
J_J_.sJ_ n Ivanchuk,Vassily
_._.s._. Kallithea 2008
._I_._Ij 1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Àxd4
_.b.i._I Àf6 5.Àc3 a6 6.Ãe3 e6
I_._NiB_ Going into the Scheveningen Variation
(regarding 6...e5, see Game 51).
_QrR_.k.
7.f3
27.c5! The so-called English Attack, which be-
After fixing the weakness of the pawn on came popular thanks to the efforts of
b7, White obtains a noticeable advantage. Short, Chandler and Nunn, leads to a very
27...Õcd8? sharp game with chances for both sides.
Losing a key queenside pawn for no com- White strengthens his centre, prepares
pensation. More stubborn was 27...Àfd7 g2-g4, and will castle queenside, prepar-
(or 27...Àd5!? 28.Ãd4) 28.©a1 Ãf8 ing to attack on the kingside.
29.Ãd4 g5 30.©c3 Õcd8 31.f4 gxf4 7...b5
32.Àxf4 Àf6 with advantage to White. Black’s plans are connected with the ad-
28.Õxd8 Õxd8 29.Ãxe5 ©xe5 vance ...b5-b4 and the central coun-
30.©xb7 Õd2 31.Àd4 terblow ...d6-d5. Practice shows that the
Annexing the c6-pawn and eliminating standard set-up with Ãe7 and kingside
Black’s last hope. castling gives White a dangerous initiative.
31...Àe4 32.Àxc6 ©b2 33.Àe7+ ®f8 The game Ivanchuk-Van Wely, blindfold,
Or 33...®h7 34.©xb2 Ãxb2 35.Ãxe4! Monaco 2006, continued: 7...Ãe7 8.©d2
Ãxc1 36.c6 Õd8 37.c7 winning. Àc6 9.0-0-0 0-0 10.g4 Àxd4 11.Ãxd4
34.©a8+ ®xe7 35.©xe4+ ©e5 b5 12.g5 Àd7 13.h4 Ãb7 14.a3! (pre-
36.c6 Õd8 37.c7 Õc8 38.©b7 ©e6 venting ...b5-b4) 14...Õc8 15.Õg1 Àe5
(it was worth considering 15...d5!?
16.exd5 e5) 16.©e3! Àc4 17.Ãxc4 Õxc4
._T_._._ 18.h5! Õe8 (after 18...b4?! a strong reply
_Qi.mJl. is 19.axb4 Õxb4 20.Ãf6!) 19.®b1 ©c7?
J_._D_J_ (better is 19...Ãf8) 20.b3! Õc6
_._._._.
._._._Ij ._._T_M_
_._.i._I _Ld.lJjJ
I_._.iB_ J_TjJ_._
_.r._.k. _J_._.iI
39.©xc8!
._.bI_._
Nicely finishing the game. After iIn.qI_.
39...©xc8 there follows 40.Ãb7, and ._I_._._
White obtains a new queen. _K_R_.r.
Black resigned. analysis diagram

214

21.Àd5!! (preventing ...e6-e5 and ope-
ning the e-file) 21...exd5 22.exd5 Õxc2
23.g6 hxg6 24.hxg6 Õf8 25.gxf7+ Õxf7
26.Ãxg7! Õxg7 27.©e6+ ®h8 28.Õxg7
®xg7 29.Õg1+, and Black resigned.
8.©d2 Àbd7 9.g4 h6
After 9...Àb6!? a possibility is the unex-
pected 10.a4!? Àc4 11.Ãxc4 bxc4 12.a5
Ãb7 13.Àa4 with play on two fronts,
Leko-Kasparov, Linares 2005.
10.0-0-0
T_LdMl.t
_._S_Jj.
J_.jJs.j
_J_._._.
._.nI_I_
_.n.bI_.
IiIq._.i
_.kR_B_R
10...b4!?
The most decisive continuation.
A good reply to 10...Ãb7 is 11.h4 b4
12.Àa4 ©a5!? (12...d5 13.Ãh3) 13.b3
Àc5 14.a3 Àxa4 15.bxa4, and White’s
chances are somewhat better, Kasparov-
Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 2001.
After 10...Àe5 11.©e1!? (also interest-
ing is 11.f4!? Àexg4 12.e5 b4 13.exf6
bxc3 14.©xc3 Àxf6 (more accurate is
14...gxf6) 15.Ãg2 Ãd7 (or 15...d5 16.f5
with attack) 16.Ãxa8 ©xa8 17.Õhg1
Àe4 18.©a5 g6 19.Àe2!±, Morozevich-
Ponomariov, blitz, Moscow 2009)
11...©c7 12.h4 b4 13.Àce2 Àc4
14.Àf4! Àxe3 15.©xe3 ©b6?
(15...Ãe7!?) 16.Ãc4! White held the ini-
tiative in the game Carlsen-Ponomariov,
Moscow 2009.
11.Àce2
White has also tried 11.Àa4 Àe5 12.b3
Ãd7 13.Àb2 d5 14.Ãf4 ©c7 15.Àd3
Game 74 - 2008
Àxd3+ 16.Ãxd3 ©b6 17.Àe2 dxe4
18.Ãxe4 Õd8 with comfortable play for
Black, Leko-Ivanchuk, 2nd match game,
Mukachevo 2007.
11...©c7 12.h4
Dubious is 12.©xb4?! d5 13.©a4 (or
13.©c3 ©xc3 14.Àxc3 e5 15.Àc6 d4)
13...dxe4 14.fxe4 Ãb7 15.Ãg2 Àxg4
16.Ãg1 Ãe7 with the better chances for
Black.
12...d5 13.Ãh3
Threatening 14.g5, followed by g5-g6.
In the game Morozevich-Vachier-Lagrave,
Biel 2009, White played 13.Àf4!? e5
T_L_Ml.t
_.dS_Jj.
J_._.s.j
_._Jj._.
.j.nInIi
_._.bI_.
IiIq._._
_.kR_B_R
analysis diagram
14.Àfe6! fxe6 15.Àxe6 ©a5 16.exd5
©xa2 17.©d3 ®f7 18.g5! Àxd5
19.Ãh3! Àxe3 20.Àd8+ ®e7
21.Àc6+ ®f7, and White could have
ended the game in his favour with the
striking 22.Ãe6+!! ®xe6 (22...©xe6
23.Àd8+) 23.©g6+ Àf6 24.gxf6 gxf6
25.©g4+ ®f7 26.Õd7+! Ãxd7
27.©xd7+.
Also interesting is the move 13.Ãf4!?,
seen in a game between two computers:
13...e5 (more cautious is 13...©a5)
14.Ãh2 ©a5 15.®b1 exd4 16.exd5 Ãb7
17.Àxd4 ©xd5 18.©e2+ ®d8 19.Ãh3
©c5 20.g5 hxg5 21.Ãxd7 Àxd7
22.Õhe1 with a decisive attack, Hiarcs-
Jonny, Pamplona 2009.
13...dxe4!?
215
 Vassily Ivanchuk

Black bravely goes in for sharpening the

game.
T_L_Ml.t
14.g5 hxg5 _.dS_Jj.
Weaker is 14...exf3?! 15.gxf6 fxe2 J_._J_._
16.©xe2 gxf6 17.©h5 Àc5 18.Õhe1 _._S_.i.
with attacking chances. .j.n._._
15.hxg5 exf3 _._.bJnB
15...Àb6?! does not work because of IiIq._._
16.gxf6 Àc4
_.kR_._R
17.g6?!
T_L_Ml.t Beautiful, but not sufficient. Incalculable
_.d._Jj. complications follow after 17.Ãxe6!?,
J_._Ji._ e.g., 17...Õxh1 18.Ãxd5! (18.Õxh1?
_._._._. fxe6 19.Àxe6 ©e5 20.©xd5 ©xd5
.jSnJ_._ 21.Àc7+ ®f7 22.Àxd5 Ãb7ç)
_._.bI_B 18...Õxd1+ 19.®xd1 Àb6 (weaker is
IiIqN_._ 19...Õb8?! 20.g6! fxg6 21.Ãf4 Àe5
22.Ãc6+ Ãd7
_.kR_._R
analysis diagram

17.Àxe6! Ãxe6 18.©d4 Õd8 19.fxg7!!

.t._Ml._
Õxd4 20.gxh8©, and White obtains the _.dL_.j.
advantage. J_B_._J_
16.Àg3?! _._.s._.
A line worthy of serious attention was .j.n.b._
16.gxf6 fxe2 17.©xe2, and in the event _._._Jn.
of 17...Àxf6 (after 17...gxf6 a possible IiIq._._
line is 18.Ãxe6!? Õxh1 19.Õxh1 Àe5
_._K_._.
20.Ãb3 Ãd7 with unclear play) 18.Ãg5
analysis diagram
©c5 19.Ãxf6 gxf6 20.©f3 White’s
initiative becomes dangerous. 23.©e3! Ãd6 24.Àe4 with the initia-
16...Àd5 tive) 20.Ãf4 ©e7 21.Ãc6+ Ãd7
Of course, not 16...©xg3? 17.Ãf4! (on 22.Àgf5 ©c5 23.Ãxa8 Àxa8 24.©e3+
17.Àxe6?! maybe Black can play ®d8 25.©xf3 Àb6 with equality.
17...fxe6 18.Ãf4 ©xh3! 19.Õxh3 After declining this possibility, White falls
Õxh3 20.gxf6 gxf6 with excellent com- into difficulties.
pensation for the queen, but not 17...À7f6!
17...Õxh3? 18.Õxh3 ©xh3 19.Àc7+ Now 17...©xg3? is bad after 18.gxf7+
®d8 20.Àxa8 and White is clearly ®e7 19.Àf5+! exf5 20.©xd5±.
better) 17...©h4 18.gxf6 ©xf6 18.gxf7+ ®xf7 19.Àf1
19.Ãg5 ©e5 20.Àxf3 ©b5 21.Àd4 Moving the knight from under attack.
©e5 22.Àxe6 fxe6 23.Õhe1 with a Nothing comes from 19.Ãxe6+ Ãxe6
crush. 20.Õxh8 ©xg3 with an advantage to Black.

216
 Game 75 - 2008

30.Àe3 Àxe3+ 31.Ãxe3

T_L_.l.t Nothing is changed by 31.Õxe3 a5
_.d._Mj. 32.Õg3 Õd8 33.Õg2 Ãf6 (threatening
J_._Js._ 34...Àd3) 34.Ãe3 Àxb3! with a decisive
_._S_._. advantage.
.j.n._._ 31...Àd3 32.Õa1 Õf8!
_._.bJ_B Transferring the rook to the kingside with
IiIq._._ tempo.
33.®d2 Õf3 34.Àg1 Õf6 35.Àe2
_.kR_N_R
Õg6 36.Õa5 Ãf6 37.Ãd4 Ãg5+
19...Õxh3! 38.Ãe3 Ãf6
With the aid of this tactical operation, By repeating moves, Black gains time to
Black simplifies the position, finally de- make the time control.
priving his opponent of any activity. 39.Ãd4 Ãd8 40.Õd5 Ãg5+ 41.Ãe3
20.Õxh3 e5 21.Àxf3 Ãxh3 Ãf6 42.Ãd4 Õg2!
22.Àg5+ ®g8 23.Àxh3 Preparing a beautiful piece exchange.
43.Ãxf6
T_._.lM_ Equally hopeless is 43.Ãe3 Ãxb2 44.®d1
_.d._.j. Ãc3 45.Àf4 Àb2+ 46.®c1 Õg3î.
J_._.s._ 43...Õxe2+! 44.®xe2 Àf4+ 45.®f2
_._Sj._. Àxd5 46.Ãd4 ®f7 47.®g3 g5 0-1
.j._._._ Game 75
_._.b._N Sicilian Defence (B47)
IiIq._._ í Ivanchuk,Vassily
_.kR_N_. n Ivanisevic,Ivan
23...©a5! Dresden 2008
Going over to a counterattack. 1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Àxd4
Now not 24.®b1? because of 24...Àc3+! Àc6 5.Àc3 ©c7 6.Ãe2
25.bxc3 bxc3 with inevitable mate, and The attempt to refute Black’s set-up with
this same reply decides the game after 6.Àdb5 gives him a comfortable game
24.a3? – 24...Àc3! 25.Õe1 bxa3! after 6...©b8 7.Ãe3 a6 8.Ãb6 axb5
26.©xc3 (26.bxc3 a2) 26...axb2+ 9.Àxb5 Ãb4+ 10.c3 Ãa5 11.Àc7+
27.®xb2 Õb8+ 28.©b3+ Õxb3+ win- ©xc7 12.Ãxc7 Ãxc7 13.©g4 ®f8 (re-
ning. garding 6.Ãe3, see Game 66).
24.©d3 ©xa2 Another possibility is 6.g3 a6 7.Ãg2 d6
As a result, Black wins another pawn, ob- 8.0-0 Ãd7 9.Àxc6 Ãxc6 10.Õe1 Ãe7
taining an advantage sufficient for victory. 11.©g4 h5 12.©e2 h4 13.a4 hxg3
25.©b3 14.hxg3 Õc8 15.a5 ®f8 16.Ãe3 Àf6
Or 25.Àf2 ©a1+ 26.®d2 ©xb2î. 17.Ãb6 ©b8 18.Ãf3 Àd7 19.Ãd4 Ãf6
25...©xb3 26.cxb3 Ãe7 27.Ãd2 20.Ãxf6 gxf6 21.Ãg2 Àe5 22.f4 ©a7+
Àe4 28.Õe1 Àc5 29.®c2 e4 23.®f1 Àg6ì, Ponomariov-Ivanchuk,
Effectively, the outcome of the game is 3rd match game, Moscow 2002.
decided. 6...Àf6

217
 Vassily Ivanchuk

Another popular move is 6...a6, e.g., 13...Àe4!?

7.0-0 Àf6 8.®h1 Àxd4 9.©xd4 Ãc5 Striving for active counterplay.
10.©d3 b5 11.f4 Ãb7 12.Ãf3 h5 13.e5 After 13...Õd8 14.©d4 ©a5 15.®b1
Àg4 14.Ãxb7 ©xb7 15.Àe4 Ãe7 16.h3 Ãe6 16.a3 Õac8 17.Õhe1 Ãf5 18.Ãd3
Àh6 17.Ãe3 Àf5 18.Ãf2 h4 19.c3 0-0, or even 18.g4!?, White’s chances remain
and both sides have their chances, superior.
Anand-Ivanchuk, Buenos Aires 1994. 14.Àxe4
7.f4 Àxd4 Going into a rook ending by means of
This typical Sicilian exchange is rarely 14.Õhe1 (14.©xd5? ©e3+ 15.®b1?
seen in this exact position. Àxc3+ 16.bxc3 ©xe2î) 14...Àxc3
8.©xd4 Ãc5 9.©d3 15.©xc3 ©xc3 16.bxc3 Ãe6 17.Ãf3
Õac8 18.Ãxd5 Ãxd5 19.Õxd5 Õc7
T_L_M_.t leaves Black good drawing chances.
jJdJ_JjJ 14...dxe4 15.©d4
._._Js._ In this case, taking the pawn leads to dead
_.l._._. equality:
15.©xe4?! Ãf5 16.Õd5 Ãxe4 17.Õxc5
._._Ii._ Õac8 18.Õxc8 Õxc8 19.c3 Ãxg2ì.
_.nQ_._.
IiI_B_Ii
r.b.k._R T_L_.tM_
9...d5!? jJ_._JjJ
This interesting novelty is the point. In ._._._._
Schöne-D. Uhlmann, Dresden 2008, play _.d._._.
continued 9...d6 10.Ãd2 a6 11.0-0-0 ._.qJi._
Ãd7 12.©g3 0-0 13.Ãd3 Ãb5 14.f5 _._._._.
Ãxd3 15.cxd3 Ãd4 16.®b1 exf5 17.exf5 IiI_B_Ii
©b6, and the game ended in a draw.
10.exd5 exd5 11.Ãe3!
_.kR_._R
The best way to fight for an advantage. This is the key position for the assessment
Taking the pawn is extremely dangerous of the variation.
– after 11.Àxd5? Àxd5 12.©xd5 0-0 15...©f5!?
13.Ãd2 Õe8 Black has a strong attack. The queen exchange is unfavourable for
11...0-0 12.Ãxc5 ©xc5 13.0-0-0 Black – after 15...©xd4 16.Õxd4 both
16...Ãf5? 17.g4, and 16...Õe8? 17.Ãb5
T_L_.tM_ lead to losses.
jJ_._JjJ After 16...f5?! 17.Ãc4+ ®h8 18.Õhd1
._._.s._ White develops pressure.
_.dJ_._. Relatively best is 16...Ãe6! 17.Õb4 Ãd5
18.Õd1 Ãc6 19.®d2 e3+ 20.®xe3
._._.i._ Ãxg2 21.®f2 Ãc6, but here too, White
_.nQ_._. is more active.
IiI_B_Ii Also after 15...©e7 16.©d5! Õb8
_.kR_._R 17.Õd4 ©f6 18.©e5 ©xe5 19.fxe5 or

218
 Game 75 - 2008

15...©c6 16.©d6 ©xd6 17.Õxd6 Ãe6

18.b3 Õfc8 19.Õhd1 ®f8 20.Õ6d4 f5
21.®d2, White has somewhat better
chances in the endgame.
16.Õhf1 Ãe6 17.a3 Õac8?!
A significant inaccuracy.
It was essential to prevent the move 18.g4
by means of 17...h5!?, retaining good
chances of equalising after 18.©e5
(18.h3 h4) 18...g6 19.Õd4 ©xe5
20.fxe5 ®g7! 21.Õfd1 (or 21.Õxe4 Ãd5
22.Õb4 Ãxg2) 21...Ãf5 22.h3 h4.
18.g4! ©c5 19.©xe4
Now White can take the pawn in com-
fort.
19...Õfe8 20.Ãd3 g6
Mistaken is 20...Ãxg4? 21.©xh7+ ®f8 Ivan Ivanisevic
22.©h8+ ®e7 23.©h4+, and Black
loses a bishop. 23.Õfe1 Õh3?
Conceding the opponent the e-file.
._T_T_M_ More defensive chances were offered by
jJ_._J_J 23...Õce8 24.Õxe3 Õxe3 25.Õe1
._._L_J_ (weaker is 25.Ãxg6?! because of
_.d._._. 25...Ãf3! with counterchances)
25...Õxe1+ 26.©xe1 ©d4 27.©g3 (less
._._QiI_
clear is 27.©e8+ ®g7 28.©e5+ ©xe5
i._B_._. 29.fxe5 f6 30.exf6+ ®xf6Ç) 27...Ãe4,
.iI_._.i and White has an extra pawn on the
_.kR_R_. queenside.
21.©g2! 24.Õe5! f6
By strengthening the pawns on c2 and The attempt to drive the rook from e5
g4, White takes his queen from the dan- does not succeed.
gerous zone and stabilises the position. More accurate 24...Õd8±.
21...Ãd5 22.©d2 Õe3?!
With the intention of transferring the
rook to the kingside, but this plan leads to ._T_._M_
disaster. jJ_._._J
It was worth considering 22...Ãc4 23.f5 ._._.jJ_
(after 23.Ãxc4?! possible is 23...©xc4 _.dLr._.
24.Õfe1 Õed8 25.©f2 Õxd1+ 26.Õxd1 ._._.iI_
Õe8! with counterplay) 23...Õed8 i._B_._T
24.®b1 Ãxd3 25.cxd3 ©d4 26.©f4 .iIq._.i
Õd7, although here too, it is not easy for
Black to defend.
_.kR_._.

219
 Vassily Ivanchuk
25.Ãf5!
The rook has no good retreat square, and
only this original blow gives White the
advantage!
25...fxe5?
Losing at once.
More tenacious was the unexpected
25...Õxa3! (he is not saved by 25...gxf5?
26.Õxd5 ©e3 27.©xe3 Õxe3 28.Õxf5
Õe2 29.c3 Õxh2 30.Õxf6ê)
26.©xd5+ (but not 26.bxa3?? ©xa3+
27.®b1 ©a2+ 28.®c1 ©a1#)
26...©xd5 27.Õexd5 Õa1+ 28.®d2
Õxd1+ 29.®xd1 gxf5 30.Õxf5 ®g7, and
the resulting rook ending should be win-
ning for White.
26.Ãxc8 Ãf7 27.©d8+
It is hopeless after 27...©f8 28.©f6!
Ãd5 29.Ãe6+ Ãxe6 30.Õd8 or
27...®g7 28.g5! ©e3+ 29.®b1 ©b6
30.©xb6 axb6 31.Ãxh3.
Black resigned.
Game 76
Vienna Game (C26)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Bu Xiangzhi
Nanjing 2008
1.e4 e5 2.Àc3 Àf6 3.Ãc4
Showing White’s readiness to play the
sharp Vienna Attack2 after 3...Àxe4:
4.©h5 (4.Ãxf7+ ®xf7 5.Àxe4 d5!
6.©f3+ ®g8 7.Àg5 ©d7! with a good
game, is not dangerous for Black)
4...Àd6 5.Ãb3 (after 5.©xe5+ ©e7
6.©xe7+ Ãxe7 7.Ãb3 c6 8.Àf3 Àf5
9.d4 d5 10.Ãf4 g5!? 11.Ãxb8 Õxb8
12.Àe2 h5 Black has fully adequate play,
Bachofner-Gen. Timoschenko, Vienna
2 Translator’s Note: Generally referred to nowadays as the
‘Frankenstein-Dracula Variation’.
220
2003) 5...Àc6 6.Àb5 g6 7.©f3 f5
8.©d5 ©e7 9.Àxc7+ ®d8 10.Àxa8 b6.
N_Lm.l.t
j._Jd._J
.jSs._J_
_._QjJ_.
._._._._
_B_._._.
IiIi.iIi
r.b.k.nR
analysis diagram
In this problematic position, Black, who
has sacrificed a rook, has outstripped his
opponent in development and is ready to
attack with ...Ãc8-b7 and ...Àc6-d4.
According to Lepeshkin’s analysis, White
should continue 11.Àxb6 axb6 12.©f3
Ãb7 13.d3 Àd4 14.©h3.
Now after 14...e4 15.Ãe3 exd3 16.0-0-0
Àxc2 17.Ãxb6+ ®e8 18.©xd3 Ãh6+
19.®b1 Ãe4 20.Ãxc2 Ãxd3 21.Ãxd3
White obtains the better chances, with
approximate material equality.
Instead of 14...e4, Black has also tried
14...h5 15.f3 f4 16.Ãd2 Ãg7 17.0-0-0
À6f5 18.Õe1 ®c7 19.Àe2 Àxb3+
20.axb3, and White, having beaten off
the attack, has an extra exchange,
Kaidanov-Bareev, Lvov 1987.
Other lines are also possible:
11.d3 Ãb7 12.h4! f4 13.Àxb6 axb6
14.©f3 Àd4 15.©g4 Ãg7 16.c3 Àxb3
17.axb3 h5 18.©h3 Õf8 19.Ãd2 e4
20.0-0-0 ©f7 21.c4 ®c7 22.Àe2 f3
23.gxf3 exd3 24.Ãf4 ©f6 25.Õxd3
©xb2+ 26.®d1 Ãe5 27.Ãxe5 ©xe5
 Game 76 - 2008

28.©g3 ©a1+ 29.Àc1 with advantage 4...0-0

to White, Bodrogi-Miroshnichenko, Bu- Playing this position as Black, the Ukrai-
dapest 1999. nian GM preferred to take on c3 at once:
Even so, the Vienna Attack requires ex- 4...Ãxc3 5.dxc3 d6 6.0-0 Àbd7 7.Õe1
tremely accurate play from both sides, (or 7.Ãg5 h6 8.Ãxf6 ©xf6 9.Àd2 Àc5
and so in practice, 3.g3 is often seen, e.g.: 10.Õe1 Ãd7 11.©f3 ©xf3 12.Àxf3 a5
3...Ãc5 4.Ãg2 c6 5.©e2 d5 6.d3 0-0 13.Àd2 ®e7 14.f3 Õa7 15.Àf1 b5
7.Àf3 Àbd7 8.0-0 Õe8 9.Àh4 dxe4 16.Ãe2 Õb8 17.b3 b4 with a comfort-
10.dxe4 g6 11.Ãg5 Ãe7 12.Õad1 ©b6 able game for Black, Ader-Raetsky,
13.Àa4 ©b5 14.©xb5 cxb5 15.Àc3 a6 Werfen 1995) 7...0-0 8.a4 Àc5 9.Àd2
16.Àf3 ®g7 17.a3 h6 18.Ãc1 b6 19.b4 a5 10.©f3 Ãg4 11.©g3 Ãe6 12.Ãf1
Ãb7 20.Ãb2 Ãc6 with roughly equal Àh5 13.©f3 Àf4 14.Àc4? (he should
chances, Morozevich-Ivanchuk, Wijk aan play 14.©e3) 14...f5! 15.exf5 Õxf5
Zee 2001. 16.Àe3
3...Ãb4 4.Àf3
This position can also be reached via the
Petroff Defence, after 1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àf6
T_.d._M_
3.Àc3 Ãb4 4.Ãc4. _Jj._.jJ
Not without some interest, although ._.jL_._
weaker, is 4.©f3. The game Morovic j.s.jT_.
Fernandez-Wong Meng Kong, Yerevan I_._.s._
1996 by transposition), continued: _.i.nQ_.
4...0-0 5.Àge2 Àc6 6.0-0 Àa5 7.d3 .iI_.iIi
Àxc4 8.dxc4 Ãe7 9.Àg3 d6 10.Àf5
r.b.rBk.
Ãe6 11.b3 Àe8?! (better is 11...Ãxf5)
analysis diagram
12.Ãb2 Ãf6 13.Õad1 b6 14.Àd5 Ãxd5
15.Õxd5 ©c8 16.Õd3 ©e6? (it was es- 16...Àxg2! 17.Àxf5 Àxe1 18.©e2 Ãxf5
sential to play 16...g6Ç) 19.©xe1 ©f6 20.Ãg2 ©g6 21.®h1 Õf8
22.b4 Ãe4 23.f3 Õxf3! 24.©e2 ©g4
25.bxc5 Õf7, and White resigned,
T_._StM_ Polgar-Ivanchuk, Monaco 1994 (blind).
j.j._JjJ 5.0-0 d6
.j.jDl._
_._.jN_.
._I_I_._ TsLd.tM_
_I_R_Q_. jJj._JjJ
IbI_.iIi ._.j.s._
_._._Rk. _._.j._.
analysis diagram
.lB_I_._
_.n._N_.
17.©h5! g6 18.©h6 Ãh8 19.Õh3 Àf6 IiIi.iIi
20.f4! gxf5 21.Õff3 Õfe8 22.Õfg3+ Àg4
r.bQ_Rk.
23.©xh7+ ®f8 24.exf5 ©f6 25.©xh8+
®e7 26.©h5, and Black resigned. 6.Àd5!?

221
 Vassily Ivanchuk

White avoids the beaten track, not losing

time on 6.d3, playing d2-d4 at once.
T_.d.tM_
After 6.d3 Ãxc3!? (less clear is 6...Ãe6 jJ_._JjJ
7.Ãxe6 fxe6 8.Àe2 Àbd7 9.c3 Ãa5 .sJj.s._
10.a4 c6 11.Àg3 ©e7 12.©e2 h6 13.d4 l._I_Nb.
Ãc7 14.b3 ©f7 15.Ãa3 Õfe8 16.dxe5 ._BiJ_._
Àxe5 17.Àxe5 dxe5 18.Õfd1 Õed8Ç, _.i._._.
Larsen-Smyslov, Las Palmas 1972) 7.bxc3 Ii._.iIi
Àbd7 8.Õe1 Àc5 9.Ãa3 Õe8 10.©b1
r._Q_Rk.
Àe6 11.d4 Àd7 12.©d1 ©f6 13.g3 h6
14.h4 Àb6 15.Ãf1 Ãd7 16.dxe5 dxe5, 13.f3!!
Black is not worse, Koch-Cs. Horvath, The strongest continuation of the attack!
Paris 1995. Moving the bishop to b3 allows Black
6...Ãe6?! good defensive chances after 13...©d7!
An inaccuracy. 14.Àh6+! gxh6 15.Ãxf6 Àxd5
Better is 6...Àxd5 7.Ãxd5 c6 8.Ãb3 Ãg4 16.Ãxd5 cxd5 17.©h5 Ãd8.
9.c3 Ãa5 10.h3 Ãh5 11.d4 Àd7 13...h6
12.©d3, G. Garcia-Sospedra Sebastian, Black cannot allow the opening of the
Mislata 1993, and here 12...h6 gave Black f-file.
roughly equal play. In the event of 13...Àxc4? White gets a
7.d4! Ãxd5 strong attack after 14.fxe4 Àxb2 15.©c2
Mistaken is 7...Àxe4? 8.©e2! immedi- Àc4
ately attacking two pieces: 8...Ãxd5
9.Ãxd5 Àf6 10.Ãxb7, winning, whilst
after 7...Àxd5?! 8.exd5 Ãg4 9.c3 Ãa5
T_.d.tM_
10.dxe5 dxe5 11.h3 Ãxf3 12.©xf3 jJ_._JjJ
White has a clear advantage. ._Jj.s._
More reliable, evidently, is 7...exd4!? 8.a3 l._I_Nb.
Ãc5 9.b4 Ãb6 10.Àxd4 Ãxd5 11.exd5 ._SiI_._
Àbd7 11.Ãb2 Õe8, and White’s chances _.i._._.
are somewhat better. I_Q_._Ii
8.exd5 e4?!
r._._Rk.
Giving the opponent the initiative. analysis diagram
Now too, 8...exd4 9.©xd4 Àbd7 leaves
White only a small advantage. 16.Àxg7! ®xg7 17.Ãxf6+ ©xf6
9.Àh4 c6 10.c3! Ãa5 18.Õxf6 ®xf6 19.dxc6 b5 (19...bxc6
After 10...cxd5?!, possible is 11.Ãb3 Ãa5 20.©a4) 20.a4 a6 21.©c1! ®e7
12.f3! Ãc7 13.Àf5 Àbd7 14.©e1 ®h8 22.©g5+ ®e8 23.©f5 Õd8 24.c7! Ãxc7
15.fxe4 dxe4 16.Ãg5, with a strong at- 25.axb5 a5 26.Õa4! Àb2 (26...Àb6
tack. 27.Õxa5) 27.b6! Ãxb6 28.©b5+ ®e7
11.Ãg5 Àbd7 29.©xb2ê, as after other continua-
Bad is 11...h6? 12.Ãxf6 ©xf6 13.©g4, tions:
and the e-pawn cannot be defended. 13...cxd5? 14.fxe4! Àxc4 15.Àxg7!
12.Àf5 Àb6 ®xg7 16.Ãxf6+ ©xf6 17.Õxf6 ®xf6

222
 Game 76 - 2008

Now after 15...©d7?, there is 16.Àxh6+

T_._.t._ gxh6 17.dxc6!, with the threat of
jJ_._J_J 18.©g6+.
._.j.m._ 16.©xc4 ©d7
l._J_._. Bad is 16...cxd5? 17.©d3 Õe8 18.Õae1
._SiI_._ Õe6 19.Õxe3 ©d7 20.Ãxf6 Õxf6
_.i._._. 21.Àe7+ ®h8 22.Àxd5, with an over-
Ii._._Ii whelming advantage for White.
17.Àxe3
r._Q_.k.
White wins a pawn, whilst retaining all
analysis diagram
the advantages of his position. Not for the
18.b3! Àa3 (18...Àb6 19.b4; 18...Àb2 first time, Ivanchuk proves a difficult
19.©d2) 19.©c1 Àb5 20.b4 Ãb6 opponent for the Chinese GM, a
21.©f1+ ®g6 22.©xb5ê, Black’s scat- wunderkind who became a grandmaster
tered forces lose to White’s queen and at 13 years of age.
rook. 17...Àh5 18.Õae1 Ãd8 19.Ãxd8
14.Ãh4 e3! Õfxd8 20.©d3 Õab8 21.b3 Àf6
The best response. 22.dxc6 bxc6
This time, 14...Àxc4? is refuted by Black has nothing special to hope for –
15.fxe4 Àxb2 16.©e2! Àa4 (nothing sooner or later, his opponent’s material
changes after 16...Ãxc3 17.Àxh6+!) advantage should have its say, but this
17.Àxh6+! ®h7 (17...gxh6 18.Ãxf6) does not prevent him putting up a stub-
18.Ãxf6 gxf6 19.©h5 f5 20.Àxf5+ born resistance.
®g8 21.©g4+ and mate in two moves. 23.Õe2! a5 24.Õfe1
White doubles rooks, intending 25.Àf5.
24...g6
T_.d.tM_
jJ_._Jj. .t.t._M_
.sJj.s.j _._D_J_.
l._I_N_. ._Jj.sJj
._Bi._.b j._._._.
_.i.jI_. ._.i._._
Ii._._Ii _IiQnI_.
r._Q_Rk. I_._R_Ii
15.©d3! _._.r.k.
Stronger than 15.Ãb3 ©d7! 16.Àxh6+ 25.d5
gxh6 17.Ãxf6 Àxd5 18.Ãxd5 cxd5 It is worth considering 25.Àc4 Àd5
19.©e1 ©f5 20.©g3+ ©g6 21.Ãe7 26.©d2 ©a7 27.Àb2 ®g7 28.Àd1 Õd7
©xg3 22.hxg3 Õfe8 23.Ãxd6 Õac8 29.c4±.
24.Õfe1 Ãc7 25.Ãxc7 Õxc7, and in the With the transposition into a heavy piece
rook ending, Black retains practical ending, Black’s drawing chances increase
chances of drawing. somewhat, but White’s advantage re-
15...Àxc4 mains indisputable.

223
 Vassily Ivanchuk

25...Àxd5 26.Àxd5 cxd5 27.©xd5 2009

©a7+ 28.®h1 ©c5 29.©d2! Game 77
Avoiding a queen exchange favourable to Queen’s Gambit (D30)
Black. í Wang Yue
29...d5! 30.Õe5 n Ivanchuk,Vassily
After 30.©xh6, possible is 30...©xc3 Wijk aan Zee 2009
31.f4 ©f6 32.Õe5 d4 33.f5 d3, with 1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 e6 3.Àf3 d5 4.Ãg5
some counterplay. dxc4
30...a4!? 31.bxa4 Intending after 5.Àc3 Ãb4 to play the
Or 31.b4 ©c4 32.a3 ®g7 33.®g1 Õbc8 Vienna Variation.
34.Õ5e3 d4 35.cxd4 Õxd4 36.©b2 ®h7 After 4...Ãe7 the game Ivanchuk-
37.Õe7 Õcd8, with advantage to White, Beliavsky, Panormo 2001, continued 5.e3
but the Black pieces are actively placed. h6 6.Ãh4 0-0 7.Àbd2 Àbd7 8.Ãe2 c5
9.0-0 cxd4 10.Àxd4 Àe5 11.Õc1 Àc6
12.À2f3 Ãd7 13.Àxc6 Ãxc6 14.Àe5
.t.t._M_ ©b6 15.©c2 Õfc8 16.cxd5 Àxd5
_._._J_. 17.Ãh5 Õf8 18.Ãxe7 Àxe7 19.©c5
._._._Jj ©xc5 20.Õxc5, with a minimal advan-
_.dJr._. tage for White.
I_._._._ The immediate 4...h6 is also possible,
_.i._I_. and after 5.Ãxf6 – 5...©xf6 6.Àbd2
I_.q._Ii Ãe7 7.a3 c5 8.e4 cxd4 9.cxd5 exd5
_._.r._K 10.exd5 0-0 11.Àe4 ©f4 12.©xd4
Õe8 13.Ãe2 Ãxa3 14.Õxa3 Õxe4
31...h5? 15.©d2 Àd7 16.©xf4 Õxf4 17.0-0
The decisive mistake! Õb4 18.b3 Àf6 19.Õd1 Ãf5 with
After 31...®g7, White still has some equality, Ivanchuk-Karjakin, Jermuk
work to do to win. 2009.
32.f4! 5.©a4+ Àbd7 6.Àc3 a6
Threatening the further advance of the By way of countering the possible seizure
pawn. Suddenly, the black king finds itself of the centre, Black prepares to create a
in danger, and the position turns from pawn phalanx on the queenside.
difficult to lost.
32...Õbc8
He also loses after 32...®g7 33.f5 Õb6 T_LdMl.t
34.fxg6 fxg6 35.c4! Õf6 (35...©xc4? after _JjS_JjJ
36.Õe7+ ®f6 37.©f2+ leads to mate) J_._Js._
36.cxd5ê or 32...Õd6 33.f5 ©c6 34.a5 _._._.b.
Õa8 35.fxg6 Õxg6 36.Õxh5 Õxa5 37.c4, Q_Ji._._
with a decisive advantage to White. _.n._N_.
33.f5! ©xc3 34.©h6 Ii._IiIi
Threatening 35.f6, whilst after 34...gxf5
there follows 35.Õ5e3, winning.
r._.kB_R
Black resigned. 7.g3

224

An unexpected move, not previously seen
in this position.
Usually, in the Catalan position reached
by the move-order 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4
3.Àf3 Àf6 4.©a4+ Àbd7, White plays
5.g3 or 5.©xc4 e6 6.g3.
After the popular 7.e4, the reply 7...b5!?
deserves serious consideration, and if
8.Àxb5
T_LdMl.t
_.jS_JjJ
J_._Js._
_N_._.b.
Q_JiI_._
_._._N_.
Ii._.iIi
r._.kB_R
analysis diagram
8...axb5!? (also good is 8...Õb8 9.Àc3
Õxb2 10.Àe5 h6 11.Ãc1 (11.Àc6 Àb6!
12.Àxd8+ Àxa4 13.Àxa4 Õb4)
11...Õb4 12.©c2 Àxe5 13.dxe5 Àg4
with excellent play for Black) 9.©xa8
Ãb4+ 10.®d1 Àb6 11.©a7?! (after
11.©c6+ Ãd7 12.©b7 Ãc8 a draw by
repetition is possible) 11...e5! 12.®c2
exd4 13.Õd1 d3+ 14.Ãxd3 cxd3+
15.Õxd3 ©e7 16.a3 0-0 17.axb4 ©xe4
Black develops a strong attack, Arbakov-A.
Ivanov, Simferopol 1989.
7...b5!
Here too, this blow gives Black active
counterplay.
8.Àxb5 Õb8 9.Àa7?
Straight into the enemy’s lair! From here,
the knight will find it hard to return alive.
Stronger is 9.Àa3, and after 9...Õxb2
(interesting is 9...Ãb4+ 10.Ãd2
Ãxd2+ 11.Àxd2 Ãb7 12.f3 0-0
13.Àaxc4 Àb6 14.Àxb6 cxb6 15.e4
Game 77 - 2009
Õc8 with the initiative for a pawn)
10.Àxc4 Õb4 11.©c2 Ãb7 12.Ãg2
Ãe7 13.0-0 Ãe4 14.©c1 0-0 15.Ãd2
Õb7 16.Õd1 ©a8 17.Ãf4 Õfb8, White
retains a minimal advantage.
.tLdMl.t
n.jS_JjJ
J_._Js._
_._._.b.
Q_Ji._._
_._._Ni.
Ii._Ii.i
r._.kB_R
9...Õb4!
Also good is 9...Õxb2, and now 10.Àc6?
is not possible because of 10...Àb6!
11.©a5 (or 11.Àxd8+ Àxa4 12.Àc6
Ãb7 13.Àfe5 Àd7 14.f3 f6ç) 11...©d6
12.©c3 Õb5 13.Àa7 Àe4 with advan-
tage to Black, but the move in the game is
stronger.
After the retreat of the queen, Black will
play ...Ãb7 and deprive the white knight
of its only retreat on c6.
10.Ãxf6 gxf6 11.©a5 Ãb7 12.Ãh3!
In view of the forthcoming 12...©b8,
with loss of a piece, White seeks attacking
chances.
12...©b8 13.©h5
With the threat of 14.Ãxe6.
13...®e7?!
The Ukrainian grandmaster avoided the
move 13...Õb6! apparently because of
14.Àc6!? Õxc6 15.d5, but this was per-
fectly possible – in the variation
15...Ãb4+ 16.®f1 exd5 17.Ãxd7+
®xd7 18.©xf7+ ®c8 19.©xd5 ©a7
20.Õc1 Õe8 21.Õxc4 Õxc4 22.©xc4
©c5 White gets two pawns for the piece,
but the strong bishops should bring Black
victory.
225
 Vassily Ivanchuk

side, the king is in danger. After 20.Õd1+

.d._.l.t ®e8 21.Àd4! (with the threat of
nLjSmJ_J 22.Àe6) 21...Ãc8 22.0-0 ©b6 23.©d5
J_._Jj._ Õxb2 24.©h5+ Àg6 25.©xh7 Àe5,
_._._._Q Black is better, but the position remains
.tJi._._ complicated.
_._._NiB 20...®e8 21.©g4
Ii._Ii.i Now 21.Àd4? is bad because of 21...c3!
22.Àe6 (or 22.bxc3 ©c5î)
r._.k._R
22...cxb2+ 23.®b1 Ãe4+ 24.Õd3
14.d5! Ãxd3+, and Black wins.
White manages to sharpen the situation. 21...©c5! 22.a3
After 14...Ãxd5 there follows 15.©xd5! He also loses after 22.©d4 c3 23.©xc5
exd5 16.Àc6+ ®d6 17.Àxb8 Õxb8 cxb2+ 24.®b1 Ãxc5 with a decisive ad-
18.Ãxd7 ®xd7 19.0-0-0 c6 20.e4 Õb5 vantage to Black.
21.Àd4, and White has quite good com- Now there follows a crushing counterat-
pensation for the pawn. tack.
Even so, this variation should have been
considered, because after the move in the
game, the situation heats up considerably. ._._Ms._
14...©xa7 15.dxe6 fxe6 _Lj.l._J
J_._.j._
._._.l.t _.d._._.
dLjSm._J .tJ_._Q_
J_._Jj._ i._._Ni.
_._._._Q .i._Ii.i
.tJ_._._ _.kR_._R
_._._NiB 22...Õxb2! 23.®xb2 ©xa3+ 24.®b1
Ii._Ii.i Or 24.®c2 ©a2+ 25.®c3 ©b3+
r._.k._R 26.®d2 Ãb4+ 27.®c1 ©a3+ 28.®b1
16.Ãxe6! Ãc3, and White cannot avoid mate.
By a tactical strike, White obtains rook 24...©b3+ 25.®a1 c3 0-1
and pawn for two pieces, leaving Black It is hopeless after 26.Õd2 cxd2 27.Àxd2
only a minimal material advantage. ©c3+ 28.®b1 Ãxh1î.
16...®xe6 17.©e8+ Ãe7
Not 17...®d6? 18.0-0-0+ ®c6 Game 78
(18...Ãd5? 19.Õxd5+!) 19.©xd7+ ®b6 Sicilian Defence (B 92)
20.©d4+ c5 21.©xf6+ ®b5 22.©xh8 í Ivanchuk,Vassily
with advantage to White. n Karjakin,Sergey
18.©xh8 Àf8 19.©g8+ ®d7 Wijk aan Zee 2009
20.0-0-0+? 1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 d6 3.Àc3 Àf6 4.d4
This nice-looking castling move turns out cxd4 5.Àxd4 a6 6.Ãe2 e5 7.Àb3
to be the decisive mistake – on the queen- Ãe7 8.0-0 0-0

226

Regarding the previous moves and
8...Ãe6 9.f4, see Game 27.
9.Ãe3
White wants to manage without the king
move.
After 9.®h1, the game Ivanchuk-
Dominguez Perez, Foros 2007, continued
9...Àc6 10.f3 b5 11.©d2 ©b6 12.Õd1
Õe8 13.©e3 ©c7 14.Ãd2 Ãe6 15.Ãe1
Ãf8 16.Õac1 Àe7 17.Ãh4 b4 18.Àa4
Àd7 19.Àd2 d5, and Black achieved
complete equality.
9...Ãe6 10.©d2
The most common continuation these
days.
10...Àbd7
Weaker is 10...b5 11.a4 b4 12.Àd5 Àxe4
13.Àxe7+ ©xe7 14.©xb4 f5 15.Àa5
Õc8 16.Ãf3 Ãd5 17.Ãxe4 Ãxe4 18.Àc4
with the initiative for White, Jansa-
Veingold, Tallinn 1983, whilst after
10...d5? 11.exd5 Àxd5 12.Àxd5 Ãxd5
13.Õfd1 Ãe6 14.©a5, White obtains the
advantage.
11.a4 ©c7 12.Õfd1 Õac8 13.a5 Àc5
By the exchange of knights, Black is ready
to worsen his pawn structure, obtaining a
free game in compensation.
14.Àxc5 dxc5 15.©e1 Õfd8
16.Õxd8+ Õxd8
._.t._M_
_Jd.lJjJ
J_._Ls._
i.j.j._.
._._I_._
_.n.b._.
.iI_BiIi
r._.q.k.
17.f3
No advantage is given by 17.®h1 ©c6
18.f3 c4 19.Ãf1 ®f8 20.Àa4 Àd7
Game 78 - 2009
21.©c3 Õc8 22.©d2 Õd8 23.©c3 Õc8
24.©d2 Õd8 with a draw by repetition,
Ivanchuk-Van Wely, Kallithea 2008.
17...c4!
Not so good is 17...©c6 18.Àa4 Àd7
19.c4 Àf8 20.Àb6 f6 21.Àd5 Ãd6
22.Õa3 Ãf7 23.Õb3 with better chances
for White, Ponomariov-Alexeev, blitz,
Moscow 2008.
18.Àa4
But not 18.Ãb6? Ãc5+, and Black takes
the initiative.
18...Àd7 19.©c3
With the intention of playing b2-b4.
In the game Naiditsch-Pashikian, Moscow
2008, play continued 19.h3 ©c6 20.®h2
®f8 21.Ãd2 Àc5 22.Àb6 Àd7 23.Ãe3
Àxb6 24.Ãxb6 Õc8 25.Õd1 h6 26.©c3
(more accurate is 26.c3 and on 26...Ãc5 –
27.Ãd8) 26...f6 27.g3 ©a4 28.©d2 Ãb4
with the better chances for Black.
19...f6
It was worth considering 19...©c6, pre-
venting White’s plan.
20.b3 Õc8 21.b4 ©c6 22.©a3 f5?!
Expecting decent counterplay, Black does
not move the bishop from f8, allowing
the further advance of the b-pawn.
Better is 22...Ãf8 23.Õd1 ©b5 24.Õb1
©c6 25.Àc3Ç.
._T_._M_
_J_Sl.jJ
J_D_L_._
i._.jJ_.
NiJ_I_._
q._.bI_.
._I_B_Ii
r._._.k.
23.b5!
Leading to complications favourable to
White.
227
 Vassily Ivanchuk
After 23.Àc3 Àf6 24.exf5 Ãxf5 25.©b2
(or 25.b5 ©c7ì) 25...Àd5 26.Àxd5
©xd5 27.Õd1 ©b5 (after 27...c3, possi-
ble is 28.©b1 ©e6 29.b5) 28.c3 h6 the
game is approximately equal.
23...axb5
Of course, not 23...Ãxa3? 24.bxc6 win-
ning a piece.
24.©xe7 bxa4 25.Õd1! Àf8
Not 25...f4? because of 26.Õd6ê.
26.Õd6 Õe8!
The best response!
Unsatisfactory is 26...©e8?! 27.©xe8
Õxe8 28.exf5 Ãxf5 29.Ãxc4+ Ãe6
30.Ãb5 Õa8 31.a6 bxa6 32.Ãxa4, and
White has the advantage, thanks to his
two bishops and the weakness of the
pawn on a6.
27.Õxc6 Õxe7
._._.sM_
_J_.t.jJ
._R_L_._
i._.jJ_.
J_J_I_._
_._.bI_.
._I_B_Ii
_._._.k.
28.Ãc5!
By stopping the advance of the a4-pawn,
White gives his opponent the choice of
where to move the rook clearly, it is bad
to play 28...bxc6? 29.Ãxe7 ®f7 30.a6!
Ãc8 31.a7 Ãb7 32.Ãd6, and White
wins.
28...Õd7?
This outwardly logical retreat turns out to
be a mistake.
Black does not want to concede the white
rook the 7th rank, but after the far from
obvious response, he falls into a difficult
position.
228
Correct is 28...Õe8! 29.Õc7 fxe4
30.Õxb7 (rather worse is 30.fxe4 Õa8
31.Ãb4 a3 32.Ãxa3 Õxa5 33.Ãb4 Õa1+
34.®f2 Àg6 35.Ãxc4 Ãxc4 36.Õxc4
h6Ç) 30...Õa8 31.Õb5 Àd7 32.Ãb4 e3
33.®f1 g6, retaining a defensible posi-
tion.
29.Õb6!
With the threat of 30.Ãxf8 ®xf8
31.Õxe6.
The tempting 29.Õxe6 Àxe6 30.Ãxc4
Õd1+ 31.®f2 Õd2+ 32.®f1 Õxc2
33.Ãxe6+ ®h8 gives Black compensa-
tion, in the form of the active rook and
strong passed pawn.
29...fxe4
On 29...Ãf7?, there is 30.a6! bxa6
31.Õb8.
30.fxe4 c3
30...Õd2? fails, because of 31.Õxb7!
Õxe2 32.a6, and the white pawn is un-
stoppable.
._._.sM_
_J_T_.jJ
.r._L_._
i.b.j._.
J_._I_._
_.j._._.
._I_B_Ii
_._._.k.
31.®f2!
Ivanchuk refuses the win of a whole
piece! After 31.Ãxf8 ®xf8 32.Õxe6 a3
33.Ãc4 Õd1+ 34.®f2 Õd2+ 35.®e3
Õxc2, Black suddenly obtains counter-
chances. Meanwhile, if at once 31.a6
bxa6 32.Õb8 Õf7, then the white king is
cut off from the centre along the f-file.
With his move, the Ukrainian grandmas-
ter prepares this breakthrough.
31...Ãa2
 Game 79 - 2009

36.Õd8 a3
Trying to save the e5- and c3-pawns.
Not much better is 36...Ãe6 37.Ãxa6 a3
38.Ãxa3 ®g7 39.Õe8 Ãa2 40.Ãxf8+
Õxf8 41.Õxe5, with an overwhelming
advantage.
37.Ãxa3 ®g7 38.Ãd6 Õf7
39.Ãxe5+ ®h6 40.Ãxa6 Àe6
41.Õc8
Winning a second pawn.
Black resigned.
‘Against me, Ivanchuk won a very subtle
game, based on nuances. I am not upset.’
(Sergey Karjakin)
A wonderful victory!
Sergey Karjakin
Game 79
Moving the bishop from under attack. King’s Indian Defence (E92)
He loses after 31...Õd2 32.a6 bxa6 í Aronian,Levon
33.Õb8 h5 34.Õxf8+ ®h7 35.®e3 Õxc2 n Ivanchuk,Vassily
36.Ãd6 with a clear advantage to White. Linares 2009
32.a6! bxa6 33.Õb8 Õf7+ 34.®e3 1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 g6 3.Àc3 Ãg7 4.e4
g6 d6 5.Àf3 0-0 6.Ãe2 e5 7.Ãe3
More tenacious is 34...Õf6 35.Ãxa6! More common is 7.0-0 (see Games No
g5±. 64 and No 80).

.r._.sM_ TsLd.tM_
_._._T_J jJj._JlJ
J_._._J_ ._.j.sJ_
_.b.j._. _._.j._.
J_._I_._ ._IiI_._
_.j.k._. _.n.bN_.
L_I_B_Ii Ii._BiIi
_._._._. r._Qk._R
35.Ãd6 7...c6
Despite the fact that, formally, Black has White wants to take on d4 after his oppo-
two extra pawns, he has no useful moves nent has castled, since 7...exd4 8.Àxd4
at all, and the material advantage quickly Õe8 9.f3 c6 10.Ãf2! leaves White some-
reverts to White. what better chances.
35...Õf6 7...Àg4 is also played, e.g.: 8.Ãg5 f6
Nothing is changed by 35...®g7 9.Ãh4 Àc6 10.d5 Àe7 11.Àd2 Àh6
36.Ãxe5+ ®h6 37.Ãxc3±. 12.f3 c5 13.dxc6 bxc6 14.b4 ®h8

229
 Vassily Ivanchuk
15.Ãf2 Àf7 16.0-0 Ãh6 17.b5 c5
18.Àd5 Àg5 19.Àb1 Àe6 20.Àbc3
Àd4 with approximately equal play,
Grischuk-Ivanchuk, Calvia 2004.
8.d5
The most principled reply.
In the event of 8.0-0 exd4 9.Àxd4 Õe8
10.f3, Black equalises by means of
10...d5 11.cxd5 Àxd5!.
8...Àg4 9.Ãg5 f6 10.Ãh4
TsLd.tM_
jJ_._.lJ
._Jj.jJ_
_._Ij._.
._I_I_Sb
_.n._N_.
Ii._BiIi
r._Qk._R
10...c5
In the game Karpov-Kasparov, 19th
match game, Lyon 1990, play continued
10...Àa6 11.Àd2 Àh6 12.a3 Àf7 13.f3
Ãh6 14.Ãf2 f5 15.©c2 Ãd7 16.b4 c5
17.Õb1 b6 18.Àf1 Ãf4 19.g3 Ãh6
20.h4 Àc7 21.g4 fxg4 22.fxg4 Ãf4
23.Àe3 Àe8 with a complicated strug-
gle, but it is also necessary to consider
11.c5!? Àxc5 12.b4.
With the text move, Black prefers imme-
diately to clarify the central pawn struc-
ture.
11.0-0 h5!?
After 11...Àh6 12.Àe1 Àd7 13.Õb1 b6
14.a3 g5 15.Ãg3 f5 16.exf5 Àxf5
17.Àe4 h6 18.Àc2 Àf6 19.Ãd3 ©e8
20.Àe3 Àxe4 21.Ãxe4 h5 22.©d3 ©f7
23.f3 Àxe3 24.©xe3 Ãh6 25.Ãe1 ©g7
26.Ãd2 Õf6 27.©d3 g4 28.Ãxh6 ©xh6
29.fxg4 Ãxg4 30.Õxf6 ©xf6 31.Õf1
White had the advantage in the game
Topalov-Kramnik, Las Palmas 1996.
230
12.Àe1 Àh6
Also possible is 12...Àa6, going into the
variation 7...Àa6 8.0-0 c6.
In the game Damljanovic-Motylev,
Herceg Novi 2000, there followed 13.a3
©e7 14.h3 Àh6 15.Àd3 g5 16.Ãg3
g4?! (better is 16...h4 17.Ãh2 f5)
17.Ãh4 gxh3 18.Ãxh5 ©d7 19.g3 h2+
20.®h1 f5 21.f3 Àc7 with advantage to
White.
13.f3
TsLd.tM_
jJ_._.l.
._.j.jJs
_.jIj._J
._I_I_.b
_.n._I_.
Ii._B_Ii
r._QnRk.
13...Àf7!?
In this position, this move had not been
seen previously. Black refrains from a
pawn storm and frees a square for the
bishop.
A complicated game with chances for
both sides results from 13...g5 14.Ãf2 f5
15.exf5 Àxf5 16.Àc2 Àd4, Ibrahimov-
Mamedov, Baku 2008.
14.Õb1
Preparing b2-b4.
14...Ãh6
The bishops seeks to travel via e3 to d4.
15.Ãf2 Àa6 16.a3 b6 17.b4 f5!?
Radically sharpening the game, but in the
event of the unhurried 17...Ãd7, White’s
chances are superior.
18.exf5
The continuation 18.Àd3 f4 leads to
well-known positions, e.g.: 19.a4 g5
20.a5 ®h8 21.Àa4 Õg8 22.h3 g4
23.hxg4 Àg5 24.axb6 axb6 25.Àxb6!?
 Game 79 - 2009

©xb6 26.bxc5 ©d8 27.cxd6 Ãg7 22.b5?

28.Ãb6 ©xd6 with unclear play, in By closing the queenside, White gives his
which White’s chances are preferable, opponent comfortable play. Stronger was
Matveeva-Ye Jiangchuan, Helsinki 1992. 22.Àd3!, after which, according to
18...gxf5 Ivanchuk’s analysis, both 22...Ãd2?!
23.Àb1! Ãe3 24.b5 Àc7 25.Àxc5!
Ãxc5 26.Õg3, and 22...Ãe3?! 23.Ãxe3
T_Ld.tM_ ©xe3+ 24.Àf2 ©d4 (24...©h6?
j._._S_.
Sj.j._.l
_.jIjJ_J T_._.tM_
.iI_._._ j._L_S_.
i.n._I_. Sj.j._.d
._._BbIi _.jIjJ_B
_R_QnRk. .iI_._._
iRn._._.
19.f4!? ._._.nIi
The alternative is 19.©d3!? Ãd7 20.Àc2
_._Q_Rk.
©f6 21.Àe3 h4 22.®h1 h3!?, which also
analysis diagram
leads to great complications.
19...Ãxf4 20.Ãxh5 Ãd7 25.Àce4! fxe4 26.Õg3+ Àg5 27.Àxe4
Serious attention should have been given Õxf1+ 28.©xf1 Õf8 29.©c1) 25.©e2!
to 20...e4!?, limiting the mobility of the (not so clear is 25.Àb5 ©xd1 26.Àxd1
knight at e1 and obtaining the strong f4! 27.Ãxf7+ ®xf7 28.Àxd6+ ®e7Ç)
square e5. 25...Àh6 26.Àb5, with an attack, are un-
21.Õb3! satisfactory for Black.
Activating the rook. Meanwhile, after 22...Õae8 23.Àxf4 exf4
21...©g5 24.Àb5 Õe4! (bad is 24...Ãxb5? 25.cxb5
This seems risky, but now 21...e4 Àc7 26.Ãg3!) 25.Ãxf7+ Õxf7 26.Àxd6
22.bxc5 e3!? 23.c6 exf2+ 24.Õxf2 Ãe5 Õg7 27.©f3
(after 24...Ãe3?!, strong is 25.Àe4!! with
attack) 25.cxd7 ©xd7 26.Àd3 leads to
White’s advantage.
._._._M_
j._L_.t.
Sj.n._._
T_._.tM_ _.jI_Jd.
j._L_S_. .iI_Tj._
Sj.j._._ iR_._Q_.
_.jIjJdB ._._.bIi
.iI_.l._ _._._Rk.
iRn._._. analysis diagram
._._.bIi
27...©g6! 28.bxc5 bxc5 29.Àb5 Õxc4
_._QnRk.
30.Àc3 Àc7 31.Õe1 ®h7, the position

231
 Vassily Ivanchuk

remains tense, but White’s prospects are Having concentrated his forces on the
significantly better. kingside to the maximum extent, Black is
22...Àc7 23.Ãxf7+?! ready after the transfer of the knight to f6
Eases Black’s position. Here too, it was for an attack across the whole front.
better to play 23.Àd3 Ãe3 24.Ãxe3 In this situation, White’s desire to escape
©xe3+ 25.Àf2 ©d4 26.©e2 ©h4 from the press, by sacrificing a piece, is
(26...e4? again fails to 27.Àxe4!) 27.g3 perfectly understandable, although it is
©e7 with chances for both sides. somewhat premature.
23...Õxf7 24.Àe2 Õg7! 25.Àxf4 31.Àxf4
More tenacious was 31.©e1, for exam-
ple: 31...Ãd7 32.Õf3 Õff7 33.Õg3! Àf6
T_._._M_ 34.Àf2 ©h5 35.Õxg7+ Õxg7 36.©d1
j.sL_.t. with some defensive chances.
.j.j._._ 31...Õxf4 32.Õxf4 ©xf4 33.©xf4
_IjIjJd. exf4 34.Ãxf4 Õf7!
._I_.n._ For the moment, White has three pawns
iR_._._. for the piece, but by accurate play, Black
._._.bIi wins one of them.
35.g3
_._QnRk.
No better is 35.Õe3 Õxf4 36.Õxe8+ ®f7
25...©xf4! 26.Ãxc5 ©h6! 37.Õa8 Ãe2! 38.Õxa7+ ®f6 39.g3
Black obtains a lasting initiative for the Õf1+ 40.®g2 Ãxc4 41.Õa6 Õa1 42.a4
pawn. Weaker is 26...©xc4 27.Ãxd6 Õe8 ®e5 43.®f2 Ãxd5, and the d-pawn
28.Õb4 ©xd5! 29.Àf3 (29.Ãxc7? brings Black victory.
©c5+) 29...e4 30.Ãxc7 ©xd1 31.Õxd1 35...Õe7! 36.h3
exf3 32.Ãg3 fxg2 33.®xg2 f4 34.Õxf4 Or 36.h4 Ãe2 with the loss of the
Ãxb5 with a probable draw. c4-pawn.
27.Ãe3 36...Ãxh3
More active is 27.Ãb4. Black’s advantage becomes decisive.
27...f4 28.Ãc1 Ãg4! 29.©d2 37.®f2 Àf6 38.g4
After 29.©c2, strong is 29...Õc8! (threat- The last chance!
ening 30...Àxd5) 30.©e4 Àe8 and then 38...Ãxg4 39.Õe3 Àe4+ 40.®e1
Àf6. ®f7 41.a4 Àc5 42.®d2 Õxe3
29...Õf8 30.Àd3 Àe8 43.®xe3 ®e7 44.®d4
White resigned.
._._StM_
j._._.t. Game 80
.j.j._.d King’s Indian Defence (E97)
_I_Ij._. í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Grischuk,Alexander
._I_.jL_ Nalchik 2009
iR_N_._. 1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 g6 3.Àc3 Ãg7 4.e4
._.q._Ii d6 5.Àf3 0-0 6.Ãe2 e5 7.0-0 Àc6
_.b._Rk. 8.d5 Àe7 9.b4

232
 Game 80 - 2009

The previous moves and 9.Àe1 are exam- 10...Àf4!

ined in Game 64. It was because of this very move that the
9...Àh5 advance of the c-pawn lost its attractive-
After 9...Àe8 10.a4 f5 11.a5 Àf6 ness.
12.Ãg5 Àh5 13.exf5 gxf5 14.©d2 11.Ãxf4 exf4 12.Õc1 h6
White’s chances are slightly better, Also possible is 12...a5 13.a3 Ãg4
Ivanchuk-Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2009. 14.Àb5 axb4 15.axb4 Õa2 16.Õc2 Õa4
17.Õc4 Õa2 18.Õc2 Õa4 19.Õc4 Õa6
20.©d2 Ãxf3 21.Ãxf3 g5 with a com-
T_Ld.tM_ plicated battle, Kaabi-Ubilava, Manila
jJj.sJlJ 1992.
._.j._J_ 13.Àd4
_._Ij._S After 13.Àd2?!, the reply 13...g5 is good:
.iI_I_._ 14.Àc4 a6 15.Ãh5 b5 16.Àa5 Ãe5
_.n._N_. 17.Àe2 dxc5 18.bxc5 c6 19.Àxc6 Àxc6
I_._BiIi 20.dxc6 ©f6 21.h3 Ãe6 22.©c2 Õac8
with the initiative for Black, Legky-
r.bQ_Rk.
Bologan, Sevastopol 1997.
10.c5!? This same reply is the main line after the
Returning to a continuation that was game continuation.
popular earlier. In our day, the preference 13...a6
is for 10.Õe1, e.g.: 10...f5 11.Àg5 Àf6 Avoiding the main variation.
12.f3 ®h8 13.b5?! (better is 13.Àe6 Also seen is 13...a5 14.bxa5 Õxa5 15.Àb3
Ãxe6 14.dxe6 Àh5 15.c5 Àf4 16.Ãc4 Õa8 16.©d2 g5 17.cxd6 cxd6 18.Àb5
fxe4 17.Õxe4 Àf5 18.g3!?, Van Àg6 19.Õc7 g4 20.Õxc8?! (better is
Wely-Radjabov, Biel 2007) 13...Àe8 20.Ãd3) 20...Õxc8 21.Ãxg4 Õa8 22.Ãf5
14.Ãe3 Ãf6 15.Àe6 Ãxe6 16.dxe6 Àg7 ©b6 23.À5d4 Õa4 24.Ãxg6 Ãxd4
17.Ãh6 25.Ãf5 Ãe5 26.g3 Õfa8 27.gxf4 Õxa2
28.©d1 Ãg7 with advantage to Black,
Jakubiec-Czerwonski, Lubniewice 2005;
T_.d.t.m and 13...®h8 14.Õe1 Àg8 15.a4 a6
jJj.s.sJ 16.©d2 ©f6 17.Àf3 g5 18.g3 fxg3
._.jIlJb 19.hxg3 ©g6 20.®g2 f5 21.exf5 ©xf5Ç,
_I_.jJ_. Lauridsen-Delchev, Benasque 1996.
._I_I_._ 14.h3
_.n._I_. The game Karpman-Bitansky, Tel Aviv
I_._B_Ii 1996, continued 14.Õe1 ®h7 15.©d2
r._Qr.k. g5 16.Ãh5! Àg6 17.Ãxg6+ ®xg6
analysis diagram
18.Àa4 (stronger is 18.©d3! Ãe5
19.Àf3 f6 20.Àe2) 18...Ãe5 19.Àb2
17...Àxe6! 18.Ãxf8 ©xf8 19.c5 Àxc5 ©f6 20.Õed1 f3, and Black obtained
20.Ãc4 Ãg5 21.©e2 ©h6 22.Õad1 Õf8 counterchances.
with mutual chances, Carlsen-Ivanchuk, 14...®h8 15.©d2 Àg8 16.Õfd1 h5!?
Foros 2008. Also good are 16...©f6 or 16...g5.

233
 Vassily Ivanchuk

The unusual plan for defending the 24.Ãg4!

f4-pawn, thought up by Black, meets an Following the indicated lines! The ex-
equally unusual reply. change of light-squared bishops makes
the d5-square into a strategically impor-
tant point in the valuable position.
T_Ld.tSm 24...Ãxg4
_Jj._Jl. Bad is 24...Õfe8? 25.Ãxe6 fxe6 26.e5!
J_.j._J_ dxe5 (or 26...d5 27.Àa4±) 27.Àf3 ©f4
_.iI_._J 28.Àe4, and the white pieces dominate.
.i.nIj._ 25.hxg4 Àe7
_.n._._I After 25...©xg4?!, a possibility is
I_.qBiI_ 26.Àd5 h3 27.g3 Õfc8 28.©c3! ®h7
29.®h2 ©h5 30.f4 with the initiative.
_.rR_.k.
26.©d1 Õab8 27.a3 ®g7 28.Õe3
17.©xf4!? ©f6 29.Àf3!
With an original exchange sacrifice,
White deprives his opponent of control .t._.t._
of the dark squares, obtaining in return _.j.sJm.
active play in the centre and on the J_Ij.dJ_
queenside. _._._._.
Also good is 17.Ãf1 ©e7 18.Õe1 Õb8
19.c6 with the initiative.
.i._I_Ij
17...Ãh6 18.©g3 h4 19.©d3 Ãxc1 i.n.rN_.
20.Õxc1 ._._.iI_
The extra central pawn gives White more _._Q_.k.
than sufficient compensation for the 29...Àxc6?!
small material investment. Black seizes the chance to get rid of this
20...©g5 21.Õe1 Ãd7 22.c6!? important pawn, but misses a tactical nu-
White wishes to take under his control the ance. Also dubious is 29...Õfe8?! 30.g5
outpost d5. The alternative was 22.Àf3 ©f4 (or 30...©e6 31.Àxh4 Àxc6
©f4 23.©d4+ ®h7 24.Ãd1 a5 25.b5 32.Àd5) 31.e5 d5!? (31...dxe5? 32.Õe4
dxc5 26.©xc5 Õac8 27.©d4 f6 28.Àe2 ©f5 33.Õxe5 ©c8 34.©a1±) 32.e6!,
©d6 29.a4 with growing pressure. with a promising position for White.
22...bxc6 23.dxc6 Ãe6 Better, however, was 29...Õbe8!?. In this
case, after 30.g5 ©f4 31.e5 d5!, Black
T_._.tSm obtains sufficient counterplay, but the un-
_.j._J_. expected 30.a4!?, with the threat of
J_IjL_J_ b4-b5, underlining the weakness of the
_._._.d. queenside, keeps the initiative for White.
30.Àd5 ©e6
.i.nI_.j Mistaken is 30...©d8? 31.©a1+ Àe5
_.nQ_._I 32.g5! Õe8 33.Àd4! Õc8 34.f4 c6
I_._BiI_ 35.Àf6 Õe7 36.fxe5, with an obvious ad-
_._.r.k. vantage for White.

234
 Game 81 - 2009

31.Àxc7 Nor is 32...h3 33.Àe1! h2+ 34.®h1

The advantage could be retained more ©h4 35.©xc6 ©xf2 36.©c3+ f6
surely by 31.Àg5! ©d7 (not 31...©e5? 37.Àf3 ®g8 38.©c4+ Õf7 39.Àd5 ®g7
because of 32.f4 ©d4 33.©c1! with two 40.©xa6 Õd8 41.Õe2 ©a7 42.©xa7
threats: to win the knight with the move Õxa7 43.Àd4, winning, any more help.
34.©xc6 and to trap the queen by 33.©xc6 Õd1+ 34.Àe1 h3
34.Àf3). 35.©c3+ f6 36.Õxh3 Õc8 37.e5
Black resigned.
.t._.t._ Game 81
_.jD_Jm. Sicilian Defence (B85)
J_Sj._J_ í Kamsky,Gata
_._N_.n. n Ivanchuk,Vassily
.i._I_Ij Bazna 2009
i._.r._. 1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Àxd4
._._.iI_ Àf6 5.Àc3 a6 6.Ãe3 e6 7.a4 Àc6
8.Ãe2 Ãe7 9.0-0 0-0 10.f4 ©c7
_._Q_.k.
11.®h1 Õe8
32.Àh7! Õh8 33.Àhf6 ©d8 34.f4 with
an attack.
31...©xg4?
T_L_T_M_
Losing quickly! _Jd.lJjJ
He could hold after 31...©d7 32.Àxa6 J_SjJs._
Õbc8 33.Àc5 ©e7 34.Àa4 ©a7 35.Õd3 _._._._.
Õa8 36.Àb2 Õfc8 with the better game I_.nIi._
for White. _.n.b._.
32.©xd6 .iI_B_Ii
.t._.t._ r._Q_R_K
_.n._Jm. By transposition, we have reached a posi-
J_Sq._J_ tion from the game Ivanchuk-Topalov,
_._._._. Novgorod 1996, seen earlier (see Game
21).
.i._I_Dj The Ukrainian grandmaster played here
i._.rN_. the classical Scheveningen continuation
._._.iI_ 12.Ãf3, but Kamsky chooses a rarer con-
_._._.k. tinuation.
32...Õbd8 12.©d2
Black cannot save the knight. If 12.©e1 Àxd4 13.Ãxd4 e5 14.fxe5
After 32...Õb6, there follows 33.Àd5, dxe5 15.©g3 Black plays 15...Ãd8!
whilst in the event of 32...Àd8 there is 16.Ãe3 ®h8 17.Ãg5 Ãe6 18.Õad1
the decisive 33.Àe5 ©g5 34.Àd7 Àb7 Àg8! (but not 18...Õc8? because of
35.©d4+ ®h6 36.Àxf8 Õxf8 37.e5 19.Õxd8! followed by ©h4 with a strong
Àd8 38.Õh3ê. attack) 19.Ãe3 Àf6, obtaining an equal

235
 Vassily Ivanchuk
game, Tal-Andersson, 3rd match game
Stockholm 1976.
12...Ãd7 13.Õad1 Àxd4 14.©xd4
After 14.Ãxd4 Ãc6 15.©e3 (more accu-
rate is 15.Ãd3) 15...Àd7 16.©f2 ©a5
17.Ãd3 Ãf8 18.e5 ©c7 19.exd6 Ãxd6
20.b3 Ãe7 21.f5 e5 22.Ãe3 Àf6 Black
achieved equality in the game Kurnosov-
Chuchelov, Cuxhaven 1993.
T_._T_M_
_JdLlJjJ
J_.jJs._
_._._._.
I_.qIi._
_.n.b._.
.iI_B_Ii
_._R_R_K
14...Ãc6!?
In reply to the queen recapture, this move
had not been seen before.
The game Sznapik-Ftacnik, Haifa 1989,
continued 14...e5 15.©d3 Õad8 16.Ãf3
(after 16.©c4 ©xc4 17.Ãxc4 exf4
18.Ãxf4 Ãe6 19.Ãb3 h6 20.Ãe3 Ãxb3
21.cxb3 Ãf8 Black is not worse,
Sznapik-Wojtkiewicz, 1st match game
Warsaw 1991) 16...b5 17.axb5 axb5
18.Àd5 Àxd5 19.exd5 exf4 with mutual
chances.
15.Ãc4?!
It seems the American player had not ad-
justed to the new situation. Stronger is
the usual 15.Ãf3.
Now Black rids himself of the weakness at
d6, by means of a small tactical operation,
and solves all his opening problems.
15...Ãxe4!
Not so clear is 15...Àxe4 16.Àxe4 d5
17.Ãd3!? dxe4 18.Ãxe4 Ãf6 19.©c5
Ãxb2 20.Õb1 Ãf6 21.Õb6 Õec8
236
22.Ãxc6 bxc6 23.Õfb1 with compensa-
tion for the pawn.
16.Àxe4 d5 17.Ãxd5
After 17.Àd2?! dxc4 18.©xc4 ©xc4
19.Àxc4 Õac8 20.b3 Àd5 we reach an
endgame which is clearly in Black’s fa-
vour.
17...Àxd5 18.c3 Õad8 19.Àg3 ©c6
It was worth considering the prophylactic
19...g6!? 20.©d2 Àxe3 21.©xe3 ©c4,
not allowing the white pieces to develop
any activity.
20.Àh5 Ãf8 21.Ãg1 g6
._.tTlM_
_J_._J_J
J_D_J_J_
_._S_._N
I_.q.i._
_.i._._.
.i._._Ii
_._R_RbK
22.Õd3!
Seizing the chance he has been given,
White tries to organise an attack on the
king.
Nothing was offered by 22.Àf6+ Àxf6
23.©xf6 Õxd1 24.Õxd1 Ãg7 25.©g5
©xa4 with advantage to Black.
22...f6!
The best defence!
Weaker is 22...e5 23.fxe5 gxh5 24.Õg3+
Ãg7 25.e6 f6 26.c4 and after 26...Àe7
(or 26...©xe6 27.cxd5 Õxd5ì) –
27.Õxg7+! ®xg7 28.©xf6+ ®g8
29.©f7+, and White draws by perpetual
check.
An unclear game results from 22...f5
23.Õg3 (not 23.©e5?! gxh5 24.Ãd4
®f7 25.©h8 Õe7 26.©xh7+ ®e8
27.©xh5+ Õf7, and Black repulses the
attack) 23...Ãh6 24.©e5 ®f7
 Game 81 - 2009

._.tT_._
_J_._M_J
J_D_J_Jl
_._SqJ_N
I_._.i._
_.i._.r.
.i._._Ii
_._._RbK
analysis diagram

25.©e2! ©c7 26.Õh3! ®f8 (26...Õe7?

27.Ãd4!±) 27.Àf6 Àxf6 28.Õxh6 Õd7
29.Ãd4 Àe4 30.a5 Õed8 with mutual
chances.
23.c4 Gata Kamsky
23.Àg3? loses because of 23...Àxf4!
24.©xf4 Õxd3 25.Àe4 Ãe7 26.Àxf6+ 28.Õff3
Ãxf6 27.©xf6 ©c7î. Bad is 28.Ãxd4? ©c4 29.Õd3 f5 30.b3
23...gxh5 24.Õg3+ ©d5, whilst after 28.Õxh4, a possible re-
If first 24.cxd5?!, then perhaps 24...Õxd5 ply is 28...d3 29.Õf2 Õe4! 30.Õd2 ©xa4
25.Õg3+ ®f7! 26.©e4 Õf5 with a clear 31.b3 ©b5, winning a pawn.
advantage to Black. 28...©e4!
24...Ãg7 Centralising the queen.
Here after 24...®f7? there is 25.©d3! f5 29.f5
26.cxd5 Õxd5 27.©e2, and the h-pawn Now after 29.Õxh4?!, there follows
is lost. 29...d3 30.Õhh3 (or 30.Õe3
25.cxd5 exd5
Bad is 25...©xd5? or 25...Õxd5 because
of 26.©xf6.
._.tT_M_
26.©d1 h4 27.Õh3 _J_._.lJ
J_._.j._
._.tT_M_ _._._._.
_J_._.lJ I_._Di.r
J_D_.j._ _._Jr._.
_._J_._. .i._._Ii
I_._.i.j _._Q_.bK
_._._._R analysis diagram
.i._._Ii 30...d2!! 31.Õxe4 Õxe4 32.©b3+
_._Q_RbK (32.Ãf2 Õc4) 32...®h8 33.Õxh7+
27...d4! ®xh7 34.©h3+ ®g6 35.g4 ®f7
Black has consolidated the position and 36.©b3+ ®f8 37.Ãc5+ ®e8 38.©g8+
has excellent counterplay in the centre. ®d7 39.©d5+ ®c8 winning) 30...d2

237
 Vassily Ivanchuk

31.Õe3 ©xf4 32.Õxe8+ Õxe8 33.©b3+ 4...Ãe7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3 (after this ad-
®h8 34.Õd3 Ãh6 35.©xb7 a5, with ad- vance, Black’s next move gains in
vantage to Black. strength) 6...d4!? 7.e3 c5 8.exd4 cxd4
29...Õe5 30.Ãf2 9.d3 Àc6 10.©e2 a5!? 11.Àa3 a4
After 30.Õd3 Ãf8 31.©h5 ©xf5 12.Ãb2 Àd7 13.Àb5 e5 14.Àd2 Àc5
32.©xh4 Õe4 33.©g3+ Õg4 Black re- 15.Ãa3 Ãf5 16.Ãxc5 Ãxc5 17.®h1?!
tains the better game. (better is 17.Ãe4) 17...Ãg6 18.Àe4 Ãe7
30...©e2 31.©b3+ ®h8 32.Õxh4? 19.f4 f5 20.Àd2 exf4 21.gxf4 Õe8
At the most inappropriate moment, 22.©e6+ ®h8 23.Àf3 Ãb4ç.
White finally decides to take the pawn, al- 5.0-0
lowing his opponent to end the game The most natural.
with a nice blow. It was possible to hold White has also played 5.b4!? c5 (dubious
after 32.Ãg1 ©e4 33.©c4 Õxf5 34.©c7 is 5...Ãxb4?! 6.©a4+ Àc6 7.Àe5 Õb8
Õfd5 35.©xb7 f5ç. 8.0-0 0-0 9.Àxc6 bxc6 10.a3 Ãc5 11.d3
Àd7 12.Àd2 Àb6 13.©a5 Ãe7 14.Àe4
c5 15.Àxc5 Ãxc5 16.©xc5 f6 17.Ãd2
._.t._.m ©d6 18.Ãb4 ©xc5 19.Ãxc5 Õd8
_J_._.lJ 20.Õfb1±, De Fotis-Karklins, Illinois
J_._.j._ 1987) 6.Ãb2 ©b6 7.©b3 Àc6 8.b5
_._.tI_. Àa5 9.©c2 Ãd6 10.e3 e5 11.exd4 exd4
I_.j._.r 12.0-0 0-0 13.d3 Ãd7 14.Àbd2 h6
_Q_._R_. 15.Õae1 Õae8 16.Ãc1 Õxe1 17.Õxe1
.i._DbIi Õe8 18.Õxe8+ Ãxe8 19.Àh4 a6 20.a4
©a7 21.Àf5 Ãf8 22.Àe4 Àxe4
_._._._K
23.Ãxe4 b6 24.©d1 with the better
32...©e1+! game for White, Kotov-Taimanov, Zurich
The queen cannot be taken because of 1953.
mate, whilst after 33.Ãg1, the reply 5...c5 6.e3 Àc6 7.exd4 cxd4 8.d3
33...©xh4 decides.
White resigned.
T_LdMl.t
Game 82 jJ_._JjJ
English Opening (A13) ._S_Js._
í Ivanchuk,Vassily _._._._.
n Alexeev,Evgeny ._Ij._._
Jermuk 2009 _._I_Ni.
1.c4 Àf6 2.Àf3 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Ãg2 Ii._.iBi
d4!?
rNbQ_Rk.
With this interesting continuation, Black
tries to avoid the Catalan System, which is With reversed colours, we have reached a
possible after 4...Ãe7 5.d4. position, characteristic of the Modern
In the game Kamsky-Shirov, Bazna 2009, Benoni, with an extra tempo for White
Black played ...d5-d4 two moves later and and the not entirely logical position of
achieved equality: the black pawn on e6.

238

8...Ãe7
After 8...Ãd6, in the game Aronian-
Filippov, Istanbul 2003, White obtained
the advantage: 9.Õe1 0-0 10.a3 a5
11.Ãg5!? h6 12.Ãxf6 ©xf6 13.Àbd2
©d8 14.Õc1 Õe8?! (14...Ãe7!? 15.c5
a4Ç) 15.c5 Ãc7 16.Àc4 Ãd7 17.Àfd2
Õb8 18.Àd6 Ãxd6 19.cxd6 Àa7 20.©h5
Ãc6 21.Ãxc6 bxc6 22.©c5 ©b6
23.©xb6 Õxb6 24.Àc4 Õa6 25.a4±.
9.Õe1 0-0 10.Àa3 Àe8
Weaker is 10...Àd7, removing an addi-
tional defender from d4.
T_LdStM_
jJ_.lJjJ
._S_J_._
_._._._.
._Ij._._
n._I_Ni.
Ii._.iBi
r.bQr.k.
11.Àc2 f6
White prepares b2-b4.
Black, in his turn, tries to prevent this, in-
tending the transfer of his knight to c7 to
defend the queenside, and wants to
strengthen the centre with ...e6-e5.
The immediate 11...a5 is also possible:
12.b3 f6 13.a3 e5 14.Õb1 Àc7 15.b4
axb4 16.axb4 ®h8 17.Àd2 Õa2?! (more
accurate is 17...Ãf5) 18.Ãa3 Ãf5
19.Õb3 Õxa3 20.Àxa3 Ãxb4 21.Ãxc6
Ãxd2 22.Ãe4 Ãxe1 23.Ãxf5 g6
24.©xe1 gxf5 25.Õxb7Ç, Javakhishvili-
Savanovic, Banja Luka 2008.
12.Ãd2 a5 13.a3
It is worth considering 13.b3!? Àc7
14.a3 Õb8 15.©e2!? (after 15.b4, a good
reply is 15...b5! 16.c5 Ãb7 17.Àh4
©d7) 15...e5 16.b4 b5 17.Àh4 with a
promising game.
Game 82 - 2009
13...a4!
Meeting the threat to advance the
b-pawn.
In the event of 13...Õb8?! 14.b4 b5 (or
14...axb4 15.axb4 b5 16.Àh4 Àe5 17.c5
Àxd3 18.Õe4 e5 19.Àxd4! Àxf2
(19...exd4 20.©b3+) 20.©b3+ Õf7
21.Àc6 ©d7 22.Àxe7+ ©xe7
23.®xf2ê) 15.cxb5 Õxb5 16.a4,
White has the advantage.
14.Àb4 Àc7
Not 14...Àxb4? 15.axb4 because of the
loss of the a-file.
T_Ld.tM_
_Js.l.jJ
._S_Jj._
_._._._.
JnIj._._
i._I_Ni.
.i.b.iBi
r._Qr.k.
15.Õb1!?
A new continuation.
Anticipating the manoeuvre ...Àc6-a5-
b3, White voluntarily removes his rook
from under attack.
If immediately 15.Àh4, then 15...Àa5!
and after 16.©xa4 – 16...Àxc4 17.©c2
Àxd2 18.©xd2 g5! 19.Àf3 g4! 20.Àh4
f5 with counterplay.
Previously, White had tried 15.Ãh3 Õf7
16.Àh4 g5 17.Àf3 e5 18.Ãg2 Àa5 19.h4
h6 20.hxg5 hxg5 21.©xa4 Àxc4 22.©c2
Àa5 23.Õac1 Ãd6 with approximate
equality, Kallio-Drenchev, Kavala 2005.
15...Ãd7
Black defends the knight on c6 and de-
fends the a4-pawn, preparing to play
16...e5.
On 15...Àa5, there would follow
16.©xa4 Àxc4 17.©c2!, whilst after
15...e5 16.Àh4 Àxb4 17.Ãxb4 Ãxb4
239
 Vassily Ivanchuk

18.axb4 a3 19.bxa3 Õxa3 20.Ãe4 g6 19...f4?!

21.Õa1 Õc3 22.©d2, White’s chances He should have preferred 19...fxg4, since
are somewhat better. after 20.©xg4+ ®h8 the move
16.Àh4 Àa5 21.Àg6+? fails because of 21...hxg6
Now after 16...e5, possible is 17.f4 Ãd6 22.©xg6
18.©h5 with the initiative for White,
whilst the continuation 16...g5 17.Àf3 T_.d.t.m
e5 (17...g4? 18.Àxd4) 18.h4 h6 19.Àh2 _JsLl._.
weakens the kingside. ._._JjQ_
17.f4! s._._._.
T_.d.tM_ JnIj._._
_JsLl.jJ i._I_._.
._._Jj._ .i.b._Bi
s._._._. _R_.r.k.
analysis diagram
JnIj.i.n 22...Õf7!! (Black loses after 22...©e8?
i._I_.i. 23.©h6+ ®g8 24.Ãe4 f5 25.®h1), and
.i.b._Bi Black beats off the attack – 23.©xf7?
_R_Qr.k. Ãe8.
17...g6?! That leaves 21.©xd4, but then by means
In preventing 18.©h5, Black gives his of 21...Àb3 22.©f2 Àxd2 23.©xd2
opponent the chance to start sharp com- Õg8 24.®h1 Õg4 25.Àf3 e5 Black takes
binational play. Better is 17...Àc6, with a over the initiative.
minimal advantage to White. This analysis was shown by Ivanchuk to
18.f5!? his opponent the day after the game, but
The sacrifice of the pawn leads to inter- finding the 22nd move would be ex-
esting complications. tremely difficult in a game.
18...gxf5 20.Ãxf4 Àa6?
Also possible is 18...exf5 19.Àd5 Àxd5 Black’s natural wish to exchange knights
20.Ãxd5 ®g7 21.©f3 Àb3 22.Õbd1 runs into a powerful combinational blow.
Àxd2 23.Õxd2 Ãc5 24.Õde2 Õe8, with More cautious was 20...Õf7 21.©f3 Àa6,
mutual chances, but the text move is although White’s position is still prefera-
more accurate. ble.
19.g4!?
It was worth considering 19.Ãh6!? Õf7 T_.d.tM_
20.g4 Ãf8 (or 20...fxg4 21.©xg4+ ®h8 _J_Ll._J
22.©xd4 Àb3 23.©f2 Ãc5 24.Ãe3 S_._Jj._
Ãxb4 25.axb4 Ãc6) 21.Ãxf8 ©xf8 s._._._.
22.gxf5 e5 23.Àd5 Àxd5!? 24.Ãxd5
©h6 25.Õe4 Ãc6 with a complicated
JnIj.bIn
struggle, but instead, the Ukrainian i._I_._.
grandmaster’s attention is attracted by an .i._._Bi
interesting alternative. _R_Qr.k.

240

21.Àd5!!
A brilliant, purely intuitive sacrifice, the
consequences of which are impossible to
calculate to the end, gives White a strong
attack.
21...exd5
White threatened to play 22.Àxe7+
©xe7 23.g5!, whilst after 21...Ãc5?!,
there follows 22.g5! fxg5 23.©g4 exd5
(or 23...e5 24.©xg5+ ©xg5
25.Ãxg5±) 24.Ãxd5+ ®g7 25.Ãe5+
®h6 26.Ãe6 Ãxe6 27.©xe6+ ®h5
28.Àf5 Õxf5 29.©xf5 ©g8 30.Ãd6!
Ãxd6 31.Õe6 ©xe6 32.©xe6, with a de-
cisive advantage.
22.Ãxd5+ ®g7
Weaker is 22...®h8?, because of
23.©f3!, with the threat of 24.Àg6+!,
e.g.:
A) 23...Ãe8 24.Àf5 Ãc5 25.Ãh6 Õf7
(the only move) 26.Ãxf7 Ãxf7 27.Ãg7+
®g8 28.g5! whilst after 28...fxg5? –
T_.d._M_
_J_._LbJ
S_._._._
s.l._Nj.
J_Ij._._
i._I_Q_.
.i._._.i
_R_.r.k.
analysis diagram
29.Àh6+! ®xg7 30.©xf7+ ®h8
31.Õe8+! ©xe8 32.©f6 mate;
B) 23...®g7 24.©h3 h5 25.Àf5+
Ãxf5 26.gxf5 with irresistible threats;
C) 23...Õg8 24.Ãxg8 ®xg8 25.©d5+
®g7 26.Õe2! (including the second
rook in the attack) 26...Àc6 27.Õbe1
®h8 28.g5! Ãg4 29.Õxe7 Àxe7
30.©xd8+ Õxd8 31.Õxe7 fxg5
32.Ãxg5ê;
Game 82 - 2009
D) 23...©e8 (relatively best) 24.Õe2!
Àc6 25.Õbe1 Àc5 26.Õxe7 Àxe7
27.Ãd6, and White wins.
23.®h1!?
Freeing the square g1 for the rook.
And here, a strong move was 23.©f3!
©e8 (other continuations are even
worse) 24.©h3 ®h8 (after 24...h5,
White decides with 25.©g3! hxg4
26.Ãd6 Ãxd6 27.©xd6) 25.Õxe7 Ãxg4
26.Õxe8 Ãxh3 27.Õxf8+ Õxf8 28.®h1!
Àc5 29.Ãh6 Õe8 30.Õg1 Àe6 31.Õg3!
Àg5 32.Õxh3! Àxh3 33.Àf5 Õg8
34.Ãxg8 ®xg8 35.®g2 Àg5
36.Àxd4ê.
23...Õe8?
Losing quickly!
Defensive chances could be retained by
23...®h8! 24.g5! (weaker is 24.©f3 Õg8
25.Ãxg8 ©xg8! 26.Õxe7 Ãc6 27.Õe4
Àc5 28.Àf5 Àxe4 29.dxe4 ©e6 30.Õe1
Õe8 31.Àd6 Õd8 with mutual chances)
24...Ãc6! 25.Ãxc6 fxg5 26.©h5! Àxc6
27.Àg6+ ®g8 28.Àxf8 ©xf8 29.Ãxg5,
with the better game for White.
T_.dT_._
_J_Ll.mJ
S_._.j._
s._B_._.
J_Ij.bIn
i._I_._.
.i._._.i
_R_Qr._K
24.g5!
Opening the queen’s path to h5, with de-
cisive effect.
The black knights’ distance from events
strikes one in the eye.
24...®h8
Bad is 24...fxg5 25.©h5 gxf4 26.Õg1+
®h8 27.Àg6+, and equally bad is
241
 Vassily Ivanchuk

24...Ãc6 25.Õxe7+! Õxe7 26.gxf6+ Àd7 12.Ãe3 Ãf6 13.c3 bxc3 14.bxc3
®xf6 27.©h5 Ãxd5+ 28.cxd5, with a Õb8 15.Õb1 d5 16.Àcd2 Àb6 17.Õe1
crush. Õe8 18.©c2 ©d7Ç, Ivanchuk-Aronian,
25.©h5 Õg8 26.Ãxg8 Dresden 2008) 7...d6 8.g5 Àd7 9.Ãd5
Also possible is 26.Õxe7 ©xe7 27.gxf6 Ãb7 10.Ãe3 ©c8 11.a4 Àd8 12.Àc3 c6
©c5 28.Ãe5 winning. 13.Ãa2 Àe6 14.h4 ©c7 15.d4 b4 16.d5
26...®xg8 27.g6! Àf4 17.dxc6 Ãxc6 18.Àd5 Àxd5
Leading to an unavoidable mate. 19.Ãxd5 Õc8 with a promising game for
27...Ãc6+ 28.Õe4! Black, Morozevich-Ivanchuk, Sochi 2005.
There is also a ‘cook’, as problemists call The game Ivanchuk-Leko, Nalchik 2009,
it: 28.®g1 hxg6 29.©xg6+ ®h8 continued 5...Ãc5 6.Ãxc6 dxc6 7.Ãg5
30.Õe5! with mate in 5. ©d6 8.Àbd2 Àd7 9.Àc4 ©e6 10.0-0
28...Ãxe4+ 29.dxe4 hxg6 0-0 11.h3 Õe8 12.b3 Àf8 13.Ãe3 Ãd6
30.©xg6+ ®h8 31.©h5+ 14.a4 a5 15.©d2 Ãb4 16.c3 Ãd6 17.b4
and mate in 2. Black resigned. axb4 18.cxb4 ©e7 19.b5 cxb5 20.axb5
Ãd7 21.©b2 f6 22.b6 with a minimal
Game 83 advantage to White.
Ruy Lopez (C77) 6.c3 g6
í Akopian,Vladimir The best path to equality.
n Ivanchuk,Vassily By fianchettoing the bishop, Black indi-
Jermuk 2009 rectly prevents d3-d4, because after this
1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.Ãb5 a6 4.Ãa4 advance, he will become active.
Àf6 5.d3 7.0-0
After 7.Ãg5!?, a good reply is 7...Ãg7
8.Àbd2 0-0 9.Àf1 h6 10.Ãh4 b5
T_LdMl.t 11.Ãb3 Àa5 12.Ãc2 c5 13.Àe3 Ãe6
_JjJ_JjJ 14.0-0 ©d7 with equality, Tiviakov-
J_S_.s._ Elianov, Montreal 2007.
_._.j._. 7...Ãg7 8.Õe1 0-0 9.Àbd2 Õe8
B_._I_._ If immediately 9...b5, then after 10.Ãc2
_._I_N_. Õe8 (or 10...d5 11.a4 Õb8 12.b4Ç,
IiI_.iIi Akopian-Giorgadze, Spain 2008) 11.a4!
b4 12.a5 the bishop has the possibility of
rNbQk._R
returning to a4.
White chooses a continuation leading to 10.Àf1 h6 11.Àg3
a quiet game, and not pretending to an In the event of 11.Ãd2 b5 12.Ãc2 Ãb7
opening advantage, which was seen on 13.d4 d5 14.exd5 ©xd5 15.Ãb3 ©d6
the games of old masters such as 16.dxe5 Àxe5 17.Àxe5 Õxe5 18.Õxe5
Anderssen and Steinitz. ©xe5 19.Ãe3 Õe8 20.©d2 Àe4, Black’s
5...d6 chances are somewhat better, Bruzon
Also possible is 5...b5, e.g.: Batista-Ivanchuk, Merida 2006.
6.Ãb3 Ãe7 7.g4?! (hardly a good way of 11...b5 12.Ãc2
sharpening the game; better is 7.a4 b4 More active is 12.Ãb3 and only after
8.Àbd2 0-0 9.Àc4 d6 10.h3 Ãe6 11.0-0 12...Àa5 – 13.Ãc2.

242

T_LdT_M_
_.j._Jl.
J_Sj.sJj
_J_.j._.
._._I_._
_.iI_Nn.
IiB_.iIi
r.bQr.k.
12...d5!
The counterblow in the centre gives Black
good play.
13.©e2
Weaker is 13.exd5 Àxd5 14.Àe4 f5
15.Ãb3 ®h7 16.Àc5 ©d6, whilst after
13.d4 exd4 14.e5, possible is 14...d3!
15.exf6 dxc2 16.Õxe8+ ©xe8 17.©xc2
Ãxf6 18.Ãxh6 Ãg4 with the initiative
for Black.
13...Ãe6 14.h3 Àd7!?
A novelty - the knight transfers to c5.
After 14...©d7 15.a4!? Õab8 (more ac-
curate is 15...d4!?) 16.axb5 axb5, White
held the a-file in the game Movsesian-
Gyimesi, Pardubice 1998, but the battle
ended in a draw.
15.Ãe3
Helping Black to play ...d5-d4, which, in
principle, was part of his plans anyway.
The immediate 15.Ãd2 is better.
15...d4! 16.Ãd2 Àc5 17.Õec1!
Before taking on d4, White occupies the
c-file. The active 17.b4 dxc3 18.Ãxc3
Àa4! 19.Ãxa4 bxa4 20.a3 ©d6 21.Õec1
a5!?â is in Black’s favour.
17...©d6
Threatening 18...dxc3 19.bxc3 Õed8
20.Àe1 Ãc4!.
18.cxd4 Àxd4
Weaker is 18...exd4?! 19.b4! Àd7 (or
19...Àa4 20.Ãxa4 bxa4 21.Õc5! with
counterplay) 20.©e1, and White has a
solid position.
Game 83 - 2009
19.Àxd4 ©xd4 20.Ãc3
Preferable is 20.Ãe3 ©d6 21.Ãxc5
©xc5 22.Ãb3 ©b6 23.Ãxe6 Õxe6
24.Õc3 Õd8 25.Àf1 Ãf6, simplifying
the play by means of exchanges.
20...©d6 21.Ãb4 ©b6
T_._T_M_
_.j._Jl.
Jd._L_Jj
_Js.j._.
.b._I_._
_._I_.nI
IiB_QiI_
r.r._.k.
22.©e3?!
Black’s plan is to play actively on the
queenside and try to force weaknesses in
the enemy position, and the position of
the white minor pieces assists this. The
text move gives the opponent the initia-
tive. It was still not too late to return to
the variation given above, by means of
22.Ãxc5 ©xc5 23.Ãb3.
22...Ãf8
By defending the knight, Black creates the
threat of 23...Àxd3!.
23.Ãc3 Õad8! 24.©f3
In the event of 24.Ãxe5 Àxd3 25.©xb6
cxb6 26.Ãxd3 Õxd3 the control of the
d-file and the two bishops gives Black the
advantage.
24...Ãg7 25.b4
Fearing an increase in the pressure against
the d3-pawn, White decides to remove
the knight from c5, but it continues to in-
fluence events. It was also worth consid-
ering 25.Ãd2, sticking to waiting tactics.
25...Àa4 26.Ãd2
After 26.Ãxa4?! bxa4 27.Õc2 Õd7 28.Õd1
Õed8 29.Õcd2 a3!, White has weak pawns
on a2 and b4, as well as on d3.
243
 Vassily Ivanchuk

26...Õd7 27.a3 Õed8 28.Ãe3 ©b7 The attempt to exchange by tactical

29.Õab1 means after 35...Àe2+!? 36.Àxe2 Ãxb3
leads to a quick end to the battle, but even
after the move chosen, Black has a signifi-
._.t._M_ cant advantage.
_DjT_Jl. 35...Ãxb3 36.Õxc3 Ãe6
J_._L_Jj
_J_.j._.
Si._I_._ ._.t._M_
i._IbQnI _.jT_.l.
._B_.iI_ J_._L_.j
_Rr._.k. _J_.jJ_.
.i._._._
29...Ãa2! i.rIbInI
Avoiding a far from obvious trap! After ._._.i._
the tempting 29...f5?!, possible is 30.exf5
r._._.k.
©xf3 31.fxe6!! ©a8 (31...©d5
32.Ãb3!) 32.exd7 Õxd7 33.Àe4, and Threatens both 37...f4 and 37...e4 – four
White obtains excellent compensation for white pieces are attacked at once!
the queen – Black’s pieces are scattered, 37.Ãa7!
and the bishop on c2 can become very The only reply, which only loses a pawn.
strong. The move 37.Ãc5 closes the c-file, whilst
30.Õa1 Ãe6 31.Õab1 Àc3 32.Õa1? after 37.Àh5? f4! 38.Ãa7 Ãh8, White
Now Black happily plays ...f7-f5. risks losing a knight.
Stronger was 32.Õb2, and then 32...f5?! 37...Õxd3 38.Õxc7 Õxf3 39.Õe7
does not work, because of 33.Ãb3! Ãxb3 After 39.Àh5, there is the striking possi-
34.Õxb3 Õxd3 35.Õbxc3 Õxc3 36.Õxc3 bility 39...Õxh3! 40.Àxg7 (or 40.Õxg7+
f4 37.Àf1 fxe3 38.Àxe3Ç, whilst after ®h8 41.Ãb6 Õxh5 42.Ãxd8 ®xg7)
32...a5 33.bxa5 ©a6 34.Ãb3 Ãxb3 40...Ãd5 41.f3 Õg3+ 42.®f2 Õxg7ç.
35.Õxb3 Àa4 a complicated battle ensues. 39...Ãf7 40.Õc1 Ãf6 41.Õec7 Ãg5
32...f5! 33.exf5 42.Õe1
This confirms Black’s advantage, but after
33.Ãb3 (33.Ãd2? fxe4 34.dxe4 Õxd2
35.©xc3 ©b6 36.Àh1 ®h7ç)
._.t._M_
33...Ãxb3 34.Õxc3 Õxd3 35.Õxd3 Õxd3 b.r._L_.
36.©e2 fxe4 or 33.Ãc5 Àa4 34.Ãxa4 J_._._.j
Õxd3 35.©e2 Õd2 36.©e1 bxa4 37.exf5 _J_.jJl.
Ãxf5, Black also retains all the advantages .i._._._
of his position. i._._TnI
33...©xf3 34.gxf3 ._._.i._
34.fxe6?! ©d5 35.exd7 ®h7ç is no help.
_._.r.k.
34...gxf5 35.Ãb3?!
More tenacious is 35.Ãd2 Àa4 42...e4
36.Àh5!?, with drawing chances. With the threat of 42...e3!.

244

Black gradually pushes forward, strength-
ening the position of his pieces.
43.Õc5
With the idea after 43...e3 to take the
rook on f5.
43...Õd7 44.Ãb6 Ãe6 45.Õc8+ ®f7
46.Ãc5 Õxa3
The win of a second pawn deprives
White of any hope.
47.Õf8+ ®g6 48.Õe8 ®f7 49.Õf8+
®g6
The repetition gains time on the clock.
50.Õe8 Ãc4 51.Õb8
Now the decisive breakthrough follows:
.r._._._
_._T_._.
J_._._Mj
_Jb._Jl.
.iL_J_._
t._._.nI
._._.i._
_._.r.k.
51...e3! 52.h4
52.Ãxe3 is bad because of 52...f4, whilst
after 52.fxe3 Black wins by 52...Ãh4
53.®g2 Õd2+ 54.®f3 Ãd5+.
52...exf2+ 53.Ãxf2 Ãxh4 54.Õb6+
®g5 55.Ãe3+
The complications stirred up by White do
not change anything – his position re-
mains lost.
55...f4 56.Àe4+ ®f5 57.Ãf2 Õg7+
58.®h2 Ãxf2 59.Àxf2 Õa2 60.®h1
Ãd5+
Black can also win by 60...Õxf2 61.Õe5+
®xe5 62.Õe6+ ®f5 63.Õe5+ ®g4,
avoiding stalemate, but the Ukrainian
grandmaster does not want to give his
opponent the slightest chance.
61.Àe4 Õc7 62.Õf6+ ®e5
White resigned.
Game 84 - 2009
A logical and clear game, conducted with
classical simplicity!
Game 84
Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence (B07)
í Caruana,Fabiano
n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Biel 2009
1.d4 d6 2.e4 Àf6 3.Àc3 g6
The Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence allows Black
to create a dynamic position, in which
the advantage of White’s first move is not
so noticeable.
4.Ãe3
More often seen is 4.Ãg5: 4...Ãg7 5.f4
0-0 6.©d2 Àbd7 7.e5 Àe8 8.Àf3 Àb6
9.Ãh4 Ãh6 10.Ãd3 Àg7 11.0-0
Ãf5Ç, Ivanchuk-Azmaiparashvili, Bled
2002.
4...Ãg7
The alternative is 4...c6, meeting
White’s plan to play as in the Sämisch
King’s Indian, but without the move
f2-f3, e.g.: 4...c6 5.©d2 (after 5.f3, a
possibility is 5...©b6) 5...b5 6.Ãd3
Àbd7 7.0-0-0 ©a5 8.®b1 b4 9.Àce2
Àg4 10.f4 Ãg7 11.Àf3 Àxe3 12.©xe3
0-0 with mutual chances, Amonatov-
Torre, Bled 2002.
5.©d2 c6
In the event of 5...Àg4 6.Ãg5 h6 7.Ãh4
c6 8.h3 Àf6 9.f4 b5 10.Ãd3 b4 11.Àce2
a5 12.a3 Àa6 13.Àf3 0-0 14.0-0 White’s
chances are superior, Belov-Yanev,
Cappelle-la-Grande 2003.
6.Ãh6 Ãxh6 7.©xh6 ©a5 8.Ãd3 c5
9.Àe2
It was worth considering 9.d5!?. The
game Nguyen Anh Dung-Marin, Calcutta
1997, continued 9...Àbd7 10.Àf3 b5!?
11.Ãxb5 Õb8 12.Ãxd7+ Ãxd7
13.0-0-0 (too risky; better is 13.0-0!
Õxb2 14.Àd1 Õxc2 15.Àe3 with the ini-
tiative for a pawn) 13...Õxb2?! (a compli-
245
 Vassily Ivanchuk
cated game results from 13...©b4!?)
14.®xb2 ©b4+ 15.®c1 ©xc3 16.©e3!
with the better game for White.
TsL_M_.t
jJ_.jJ_J
._.j.sJq
d.j._._.
._.iI_._
_.nB_._.
IiI_NiIi
r._.k._R
9...Àc6!?
Maintaining the tension.
Also possible 9...cxd4 10.Àxd4 Àc6
(weaker is 10...©b6?! 11.0-0-0 Àc6
12.Ãb5 a6 13.Ãxc6+ bxc6 14.Õhe1
Õb8 15.b3 ©c5 16.®b2 Ãd7 17.e5±, J.
Willemze-Nikolic, Amsterdam 2004)
11.Àb3 ©b6 12.Àd5 Àxd5 13.©g7
Õf8 14.exd5 Àe5 15.0-0 h5 16.®h1
Ãd7, with approximately equal chances,
Bunzmann-Nikolic, Germany Bundesliga
1999/00.
10.d5 Àe5 11.Ãb5+
On 11.f4? good is 11...Àeg4 12.©h4 (or
12.©g7? Õg8 13.Ãb5+ ®d8! 14.©xf7
Àh6, and the queen is lost) 12...c4!
13.Ãxc4 Àe3 14.Ãb5+ ®d8 15.®d2
Àxg2 16.©h6 Àxe4+ 17.®c1 Àxc3
18.Àxc3 ©b4, with advantage to Black.
11...®d8!
A significant improvement! The bishop
on b5 is badly placed, and in order to
avoid exchanging it off, Black is prepared
to renounce castling.
After 11...Ãd7 12.Ãxd7+ Àexd7 13.0-0
0-0-0 14.a3 ®b8, Meyer-Engelbert,
Hamburg 2004, White can seize the ini-
tiative on the queenside by means of
15.b4!.
12.Àg3?
246
Not 12.f4? Àeg4 13.©h4 (13.©h3?
Àf2) 13...Àe3!ç, but the immediate
12.h3 was significantly better, and in the
variation analogous to that which occurs
in the game, after 12...a6 (not 12...Àxe4?
because of 13.©g7) 13.f4 Àf3+!?
14.gxf3 axb5 a draw by repetition is pos-
sible – 15.©g7 Õg8 16.©xf7 Ãd7
17.e5! Ãe8 18.©e6 Ãd7 19.©f7.
12...c4!
Cutting off the light-squared bishop.
13.h3 a6?!
Stronger is the paradoxical 13...g5!!
14.©xg5 (or 14.0-0 a6 15.Ãa4 b5
16.©xg5 bxa4) 14...a6 15.f4 Àg6!
(threatening to trap the queen with
16...h6) 16.f5 Àe5, and the bishop is
lost, but this is a variation that only a
computer could find.
14.f4
T_Lm._.t
_J_.jJ_J
J_.j.sJq
dB_Is._.
._J_Ii._
_.n._.nI
IiI_._I_
r._.k._R
14...Àf3+!
This curious exchange leads to an ex-
tremely interesting position, in which the
strategic advantages of Black’s position
are offset by the unsafe position of his
king.
Less good is 14...axb5 15.fxe5 b4
16.©g7 Õe8 (16...Õg8? 17.exf6!!)
17.Àce2 dxe5 18.0-0, with comfortable
play for White.
15.gxf3 axb5 16.0-0 b4 17.Àce2
©c5+ 18.®g2 Ãd7 19.c3
A mistake is 19.©g7? Õg8 20.©xf7?
Ãe8 21.©e6 Õf8!, and there is no satis-
 Game 84 - 2009

factory defence against the threat of 24...g5!!

22...Ãd7. A brilliant knight sacrifice – the key to
19...bxc3 20.Àxc3 b5 21.a3 Black’s idea!
White’s chances are tied up with an attack 25.exd6+
in the centre against the uncastled king. Unsatisfactory is 25.Àxh5? Õg6
The immediate 21.e5 is hardly good: 26.©xh7 gxf4+ 27.®h1 ©f2 28.©xg6
21…dxe5 22.Àge4 Àxe4 23.Àxe4 fxg6 29.Àxf4 ©xb2 or 25.fxg5? Àf4+
©xd5 24.Õfd1 ©c6 25.©g7 Õe8 26.®h1 ©f2 27.exd6+ ®b7! 28.Õg1
26.©xf7 ®c7 27.fxe5 ©e6 28.©xe6 ©xf3+ 29.®h2 ©f2+ 30.®h1 Ãxh3
Ãxe6, with the advantage to Black in the with a crush.
endgame. Head-spinning complications follow af-
21...®c7 22.Õad1 ter 25.©xh5!? gxf4 26.Àe4 Õxg3+!,
but here White has chances of defend-
ing.
T_._._.t
_.mLjJ_J
._.j.sJq T_._._._
_JdI_._. _.mLjJ_J
._J_Ii._ ._.j._._
i.n._InI _JdIi._Q
.i._._K_ ._J_Nj._
_._R_R_. i._._ItI
.i._._K_
22...Õhg8!?
_._Rr._.
Preparing original counterplay against
analysis diagram
the central pawn advance.
23.e5 Àh5! 24.Õfe1! Bad is 27.Àxg3? Õg8 28.exd6+ exd6
After 24.Àxh5? (24.Àce4? ©e3!ç) 29.Õe2 Õxg3+ 30.®h2 Õxh3+ and
there follows 24...gxh5+ 25.®h2 (or Black is clearly better.
25.®h1 Õg3 26.Àe4 Õxh3+ 27.®g2 Also dubious is 27.®h2?! ©b6 28.©xf7
Õg8+ 28.Àg5 ©e3î) 25...Õg6 Õxh3+ 29.®g2 Õh6 30.e6 Õg6+
26.©xh5 Õag8 27.Õde1 ©d4 28.®h1 31.®h3 Õag8! 32.©xf4 Ãe8 with the
©xf4 with a decisive attack. initiative for Black.
But after 27.®h1! Õxh3+ 28.©xh3
Ãxh3 29.Àxc5 dxc5 30.Õe4 Ãf5
T_._._T_ 31.Õxf4 Ãg6, White obtains a slightly
_.mLjJ_J better endgame, where Black has rea-
._.j._Jq sonable compensation for the ex-
_JdIi._S change.
._J_.i._ 25...exd6 26.Àxh5?
i.n._InI Leads to an advantage for Black!
.i._._K_ White’s previous move could have been
justified by 26.fxg5!? Àf4+ 27.®h1 and
_._Rr._.
after 27...©f2?

247
 Vassily Ivanchuk

T_._._T_ T_._._._
_.mL_J_J _._L_J_J
._.j._.q ._.m._.t
_J_I_.i. _JjI_._.
._J_.s._ ._J_.n._
i.n._InI i._._I_I
.i._.d._ .i._._K_
_._Rr._K _._Rr._.
analysis diagram
31...Õg8+
28.©xd6+! ®xd6 29.Àge4+ ®c7 With a simple manoeuvre, Black wins a
30.Àxf2 Õxg5 31.Õe7±. pawn, which is sufficient for victory.
In the event of 27...f5!?, possible is 32.®f2 Õh4 33.Àg2 Õxh3 34.Õh1
28.Õe7 (28.gxf6? ©f2 29.©xf4 Õxg3 Õgg3 35.Õxh3 Õxh3 36.Õe1
30.©xd6+ ®c8!î) 28...©f2 36.a4 bxa4 37.Àe3 Õh4 38.Õc1 f6
29.Àxb5+ ®c8! 30.Àxd6+ ®b8 39.®g3 Õd4 40.Àxc4+ ®xd5 41.Àb6+
31.Õg1 ©xf3+ 32.®h2 ©f2+ draw- ®c6 42.Àxd7 Õxd7 43.Õc2 ®b5
ing. 44.Õe2 c4 does not save White either.
However, after the moves 27...Àxh3 36...h5 37.Õe4 Õh1 38.a4 Õb1
28.Àge4 ©b6 29.©h4 Õg6 a compli- 39.axb5 Õxb2+ 40.®g3 c3 41.Àe3
cated battle lies ahead, with chances for Ãxb5 0-1
both sides. The passed pawn on c3 costs White a
26...Õg6! knight.

Game 85
T_._._._ Slav Defence (D11)
_.mL_J_J í Ivanchuk,Vassily
._.j._Tq n Gelfand,Boris
_JdI_.jN Moscow 2009
._J_.i._ 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Àf3 Àf6 4.e3
i.n._I_I After 4.©b3 dxc4 5.©xc4 Ãf5 6.g3 e6
.i._._K_ 7.Ãg2 Ãe7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Àc3 Àbd7
10.e3 Àe4 11.©e2 Àxc3 12.bxc3 Ãe4
_._Rr._.
the players in the game Gelfand-
27.Àe4?! Ivanchuk, Sochi 2010, agreed a draw.
Forcing transition into a cheerless end- 4...Ãg4
game. Black wants to reduce White’s control of
More tenacious is 27.©xh7 gxf4+ e5, by exchanging on f3 (regarding
28.©xg6 (28.®h1? ©f2) 28...fxg6 4...Ãf5 see Game 65).
29.Àxf4, obtaining some counterplay for 5.h3
the queen. The most logical. By maintaining the ten-
27...Õxh6 28.Àxc5 dxc5 29.Àg3 sion in the centre, White obtains the
gxf4 30.Àe2 ®d6 31.Àxf4 bishop pair.

248
 Game 85 - 2009

5...Ãxf3 6.©xf3 e6 7.Àc3 Àbd7 13.Ãd3!?

8.Ãd3
T_.dMl.t
jJ_S_JjJ
._J_Js._
_._J_._.
._Ii._._
_.nBiQ_I
Ii._.iI_
r.b.k._R
8...dxc4
After 8...Ãd6, possible is 9.cxd5 exd5
10.g4! 0-0 11.g5 Àe8 12.h4 Ãb4
13.©f5 g6 14.©h3 Àb6 15.h5 ©d7
16.©h4 Àc4 17.Ãxc4 dxc4 18.Ãd2
Àd6 19.Àe4 Ãxd2+ 20.Àxd2 Õae8
21.0-0-0 with the initiative for White,
Wang Yue-Ivanchuk, Dresden 2008.
Black has also tried 8...Ãb4 9.0-0 0-0
10.Õd1 Õe8 11.©e2 a6 12.Ãd2 Ãa5
13.Ãe1 Ãc7 14.Õac1 ©e7 15.©c2 Õad8
16.©b3 dxc4 17.Ãxc4 Àb6 (17...b5!?)
18.Ãf1 e5 19.dxe5 ©xe5 20.g3 Õxd1?!
(more accurate is 23...h5!?) 21.Õxd1 Õd8
22.Õxd8+ Ãxd8 23.Ãg2 ©c7Ç,
Ivanchuk-Karjakin, Nice 2010 (rapid).
9.Ãxc4 Ãd6 10.0-0 0-0 11.e4 e5
12.d5
No advantage is given by 12.Ãe3 exd4
13.Ãxd4 Àe5 14.©e2 Àxc4 15.©xc4
Õe8, with equality.
12...Àb6
An interesting novelty!
Considering that the d5-pawn is suffi-
ciently defended, White transfers his
bishop to the b1-h7 diagonal.
Previous practice has seen 13.Ãb3, e.g.,
13...cxd5 14.exd5 h6 15.Ãe3 a6 (or
15...Õc8 16.Õac1 a6 with a draw,
Koneru-Movsesian, Wijk aan Zee 2008)
16.Õac1 Àbd7 17.a3 Ãc7? (17...©e7!?),
Koneru-Lalic, Torquay 2002, and here
White obtained the advantage by means
of 18.d6! Ãxd6 19.Õfd1 ©e7 20.Àd5.
13...cxd5 14.exd5 h6
The attempt to attack the d5-pawn at
once by means of 14...Ãb4 leaves White
the better chances after 15.Õd1 Ãxc3
16.bxc3 Àbxd5 17.Ãxh7+! ®xh7 (or
17...Àxh7 18.Õxd5Ç) 18.c4 Õc8
19.cxd5.
15.Ãe3 Õc8 16.Õac1
As appropriate, White intends to drive the
black rook away with Ãd3-f5 or occupy
this square with his queen, setting up a
battery of queen and bishop.
16...Àc4?!

T_.d.tM_
jJ_._JjJ
.sJl.s._
_._Ij._.
._B_I_._
_.n._Q_I
Ii._.iI_
r.b._Rk. Boris Gelfand

249
 Vassily Ivanchuk

Allows White to provoke favourable com- 20.Àb5

plications. 16...©e7 was worth serious
consideration.
._Td.tM_
b._._Jj.
._Td.tM_ .j.l.s.j
jJ_._Jj. _N_Ij._.
._.l.s.j ._._._._
_._Ij._. _._._._I
._S_._._ Ii._QiI_
_.nBbQ_I _.r._Rk.
Ii._.iI_
20...Õc5!
_.r._Rk.
The strongest!
17.Ãxc4! Both 20...Ãc5?! 21.d6! ©d7 22.b4
An unexpected and brave decision. Ãxb4 23.Õc7±, and 20...Õxc1? 21.Õxc1
White wants to win the a7-pawn, even if Àxd5 22.Õd1 Àf4 23.©e4 f5 24.©c6,
this allows his own bishop to be shut in. with a decisive advantage for White, are
Weaker is 17.Àb5 Àxe3 18.Õxc8 ©xc8 unsatisfactory.
19.Àxd6 ©d7 20.©xe3 ©xd6 21.©xa7 21.Õfd1 ©d7 22.Àxd6
©xd5 22.Õd1, with a minimal advantage Also good is 22.Õxc5!? Ãxc5 (22...bxc5?
to White. 23.Àxd6) 23.a4 Õa8 24.a5 Õxa7
17...Õxc4 18.©e2 Õc8 19.Ãxa7 b6 25.Àxa7 ©xa7 26.a6, retaining the ad-
After 19...©a5!?, possible is 20.Ãe3 Ãb4 vantage.
(worse is 20...Àxd5?! 22...©xd6
After 22...Õxc1!? 23.Õxc1 ©xd6
24.©b5 (not 24.Õd1? Õa8 25.©a6
._T_.tM_ ©d7, and the bishop is lost) 24...©xd5
_J_._Jj. 25.©xb6 ©xa2 26.©b7 Õd8 27.b4,
._.l._.j Black establishes material equality, but
d._Sj._. leaves White a strong passed pawn in the
._._._._ ending.
_.n.b._I 23.Õxc5 ©xc5 24.©e3 ©c2
Ii._QiI_
_.r._Rk. ._._.tM_
analysis diagram b._._Jj.
21.Ãxh6! gxh6 22.Àxd5 Õxc1 .j._.s.j
(22...©xd5? 23.Õxc8 Õxc8 24.©g4+ _._Ij._.
®h7 25.©xc8) 23.Àf6+ ®g7 24.Àh5+ ._._._._
®h8 25.Õxc1±) 21.Ãd2 Ãxc3 22.Ãxc3 _._.q._I
©xd5 23.Õfd1 ©xa2 24.©xe5 Õfe8 IiD_.iI_
25.©g3 Õc6 26.Õd4 ©a6 27.Õcd1 with
_._R_.k.
pressure for White.

250

25.©b3!
By forcing the exchange of queens,
White ensures himself a small, but stable
advantage in the ending.
25...©xb3 26.axb3 Õd8
After 26...Àd7, strong is 27.Õc1! f5 (or
27...Õa8 28.Õc7) 28.Õc6 Õf6 29.d6,
with the better play for White.
27.d6 b5 28.f3 Õa8
Nothing is offered by 28...®f8 29.Ãb6!
Õd7 30.Õe1 Àd5 31.Ãc5 f6 32.g3±.
29.Ãe3 Àd7 30.Õd5 Õb8 31.f4 exf4
32.Ãxf4 f6 33.Õd2 ®f7 34.®f2 ®e6
35.®e3
.t._._._
_._S_.j.
._.iMj.j
_J_._._.
._._.b._
_I_.k._I
.i.r._I_
_._._._.
35...Õc8?
After this mistake, Black cannot save the
game. Stronger is 35...g5 36.Ãh2 Õc8
37.®d4 Õc1 38.Õe2+ Àe5 39.Ãxe5
Õd1+! 40.®c5 fxe5, and the e-pawn
gives Black chances of counterplay.
36.®d4 g5 37.Õe2+! Àe5
Nothing is changed by 37...®f5 38.Ãe3!
Õe8 (or 38...h5 39.®d5 Õe8 40.Õf2+
®g6 41.Ãd4) 39.g4+ ®g6 40.®d5 ®f7
41.®c6 Àe5+ 42.®c7 ®e6 43.Ãd4,
and White wins.
38.Ãxe5 fxe5+ 39.Õxe5+ ®xd6
40.Õxb5 Õc2 41.g4 Õxb2
After 41...®c6, White decides by 42.Õf5
Õxb2 43.Õf6+ ®c7 44.®c3 Õb1
45.Õxh6ê.
42.Õb6+ ®c7 43.®c3
Black resigned.
Game 86 - 2010
2010
Game 86
Sicilian Defence (B96)
í Smeets,Jan
n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Wijk aan Zee 2010
1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Àxd4
Àf6 5.Àc3 a6 6.Ãg5 e6 7.f4 ©c7
(Regarding the variation 7...©b6, see
Game 87).
The other line is 7...Àbd7.
In the game Ivanchuk-Van Wely, Wijk aan
Zee 2010, played the following day, there
followed: 8.©e2 ©c7 9.0-0-0 b5 10.a3
Ãe7 11.g4 Õb8?! (this is not a great plan;
better is 11...Ãb7) 12.Ãg2 b4 13.axb4
Õxb4
._L_M_.t
_.dSlJjJ
J_.jJs._
_._._.b.
.t.nIiI_
_.n._._.
.iI_Q_Bi
_.kR_._R
analysis diagram
14.e5! dxe5 15.Àc6 Ãb7 (no better is
15...Õb6 16.Àxe7 Ãb7 (or 16...®xe7
17.fxe5 Àxe5 18.Õhe1 winning a piece,
since after the knight retreats, there fol-
lows 19.Àd5+) 17.Ãxb7 Õxb7 18.fxe5
Àxe5 19.Õde1 Àed7 20.©xa6±,
Spraggett-Czakon, San Sebastian 2007)
16.Àxb4 Ãxb4 17.fxe5 Ãxc3 18.exf6
gxf6 19.bxc3 fxg5 20.Ãxb7 ©xb7 21.h4
©c7? (more tenacious is 21...®e7!?
22.hxg5 Õb8 23.Õxh7 Àc5 24.g6
©b2+ 25.®d2 Õd8+ 26.®e3!? ©xc3+
27.®f4 ©f6+ 28.®g3 ©xg6 29.Õxd8
®xd8 30.Õh8+ ®e7 with some chances
of defence) 22.hxg5 ©xc3 23.©xa6
251
 Vassily Ivanchuk

Àc5?! 24.©a8+ ®e7 25.©a7+ ®f8 on the c-file, and advancing his queenside
26.Õhf1, and Black resigned. pawns.
8.©f3 White opposes this by strengthening his
The most popular and well-studied con- position in the centre and on the kingside.
tinuation in the Najdorf. 15.®b1 Àb6 16.Õd3 Ãh6!?
8...b5 Activating the bishop at the cost of a
Weaker is 8...Àc6 9.0-0-0 Ãd7 10.Ãh4 pawn.
0-0-0 11.g4 h6 12.Ãg2 Ãe7 13.Àb3 17.©xh5
with the initiative for White, Fuderer- It was worth considering 17.h4!?, fixing
Panno, Gothenburg 1955. the weak pawn, but not rushing to take it.
9.Ãxf6 gxf6 10.a3 17...®e7 18.©f3 Àc4 19.Õhd1
Interesting, but not sufficient, is 10.0-0-0 Here, too, 20.h4 followed by g2-g3 was
b4 11.Àd5!?, e.g.: 11...exd5 12.exd5 ©c5 more accurate, limiting the activity of
13.Ãd3 Õa7 (13...©xd4? 14.Ãb5+) Black’s rook and bishop.
14.Ãf5 ®d8 15.Ãxc8 ®xc8 16.©h3+
®b7 17.Õhe1 ®a8 18.Õe8 Õe7! with a ._T_._.t
sharp and unclear game, in which Black’s _Ld.mJ_.
chances are slightly superior, J_.j.j.l
Dorfman-Yuferov, Soviet Union 1978. _J_.jI_.
10...Ãb7 11.Ãe2 h5 12.0-0-0 Àd7
._S_I_._
iNnR_Q_.
T_._Ml.t .iI_B_Ii
_LdS_J_. _K_R_._.
J_.jJj._ 19...Ãg5! 20.h3 Õh4 21.©f2!
_J_._._J If 21.Ãf1 (threatening 22.g3), then
._.nIi._ 21...Õf4! 22.©e2 ©b6 23.Õf3 a5!
i.n._Q_. 24.Õd5! Õxf3 25.©xf3
.iI_B_Ii
_.kR_._R ._T_._._
13.f5!? _L_.mJ_.
Forcing the advance ...e6-e5. This device, .d.j.j._
characteristic for such positions, had not jJ_RjIl.
been seen before in this exact line. ._S_I_._
Nothing comes from 13.©h3 0-0-0 iNn._Q_I
14.Ãxh5?! ®b8 15.©g4 f5! 16.©e2 .iI_._I_
Àf6 17.Ãf3 fxe4 18.Àxe4 Àxe4 _K_._B_.
19.Ãxe4 d5 20.Ãf3 ©xf4+ 21.®b1 analysis diagram
Õxh2 with advantage for Black,
Unzicker-Balashov, Munich 1979. 25...©g1! and after 26.Õxb5?! –
13...e5 14.Àb3 Õc8!? 26...Ãa6 27.Àe2 ©a7 28.Õd5 (or
Black leaves his king in the centre, count- 28.Àc3 Ãxb5) 28...a4 29.Àa5 Àd2+
ing on gradually organising counterplay 30.Õxd2 Ãxd2 with advantage to Black.

252
 Game 86 - 2010

21...©b8 24.Àxb5? is clearly bad because of

Taking the pawn is risky: 21...Õxe4?! (not 24...Ãa6 25.a4 Ãxb5 26.axb5 a4 with
21...Ãxe4?, because of 22.g3 Ãxd3 pressure for Black.
23.Àd5+) 22.Ãf3 Õf4 23.©e2 ®f8 24...Õhd8
(worse is 23...Ãxf3? 24.Õxf3 Àb6
25.Õfd3 Õd8 26.g3 Õc4 27.h4 Ãh6 .dTt._._
28.Àa5 Õc5 29.Àe4 Õd5 30.Õc3! _L_.mJ_.
Õxd1+ 31.©xd1 Àc4 32.Àxc4 bxc4 ._.j.j._
33.©d5 Õc8? jJ_.jIl.
._T_._._ ._S_I_B_
_.d.mJ_. iNnR_._I
J_.j.j.l .iI_._I_
_._QjI_. _K_Rq._.
25.Àd5+ Ãxd5 26.Õxd5!?
._J_N_.i Inviting the opponent to win the ex-
i.r._.i. change for two pawns, which after
.iI_._._ 26...Àe3?! 27.Àxa5 Àxd1 28.Ãxd1
_K_._._. ©b6 29.Àb3 Õc7 30.h4 Ãh6 31.Ãf3
analysis diagram deprives Black of the initiative and gives
34.Õxc4! winning) 24.Ãxb7 ©xb7 White the better chances.
25.g3 Õxf5 26.g4 Õf4 27.Àd5, and 26...©c7!
Black loses the exchange. The best continuation of the attack.
22.Ãg4 a5! 27.©e2?
Going over to active operations on the This defends the c2-pawn, but allows
queenside. Black to continue his attack unhindered.
23.©e2 Stronger is 27.Õxb5!?. Now approximate
After 23.g3 Õhh8 24.h4, a good line is equality results from 27...Àe3 28.©e2
24...b4! 25.axb4 axb4 26.Àa2 (or Àxd1 (but not 28...Àxc2? 29.©d3 a4
26.Àd5+ Ãxd5 27.Õxd5 Ãh6 28.©e1!? 30.Àc5!±) 29.©xd1 Õb8.
(28.Õ1d3?! ©a8 29.Ãe2 ©a4ç) Meanwhile, after 27...Àxa3+!?, there is
28...Àe3 29.Õxd6 Àxd1 30.Õxd1 with 28.bxa3 ©xc2+ 29.®a1 a4 30.Õb7+
compensation for the exchange and ®f8
chances for both sides) 26...Ãh6 27.Ãf3
©a8 28.Àxb4 ©a4 29.Àa2 Õa8 30.Àc3 ._Tt.m._
©a6 31.Ãe2 Àxb2! 32.®xb2 ©a3+ _R_._J_.
33.®b1 Ãxe4 with a strong attack for the ._.j.j._
sacrificed piece. _._.jIl.
23...Õhh8!?
J_._I_B_
The immediate 23...b4 was also possible,
but Black first wants to include the rook
iN_._._I
in the defence of the d6-pawn, to free the ._D_._I_
knight for the attack. k._Rq._.
24.©e1 analysis diagram

253
 Vassily Ivanchuk

31.©b4! Õc4 (31...axb3? 32.©xb3±) Game 87

32.©a5 axb3 33.©xd8+ ®g7 34.Õxf7+!
®xf7 35.©d7+ ®g8 36.©e8+ with a
draw by perpetual check.
27...a4 28.Àa1
After 28.Àc1, there follows the same
continuation as in the game.
._Tt._._
_.d.mJ_.
._.j.j._
_J_RjIl.
J_S_I_B_
i._._._I
.iI_Q_I_
nK_R_._.
28...b4!
Still not being enticed by the win of the
exchange, Black opens lines and wins by
a direct attack on the king.
29.axb4 a3 30.Àb3
Weaker is 30.b3? a2+ 31.®xa2 Õa8+
32.®b1 ©a7 or 30.bxa3? Àxa3+
31.®a2 Õa8 32.®b3 Õdc8 33.©d3
Àc4, with a crush.
30...Àxb2 31.Õa5 Õa8
Also good is 31...Àxd1 32.©xd1 ©c3
33.Õxa3 ©xb4 with an overwhelming
advantage.
32.®a2?
Losing at once. More defensive chances
were offered by 32.Õd3 Õxa5 33.bxa5
Àxd3 34.©xd3 Õc8ç.
32...Àxd1 33.©xd1 ©c3 34.©a1
Nor is there any help from 34.®xa3
Õdb8 35.®a2 Ãc1! 36.©xc1 Õxa5+
37.bxa5 Õxb3 38.cxb3 ©xc1 winning.
34...©xc2+ 35.®xa3 Õxa5+
36.bxa5 Õb8
After 37.©a2, the game is ended by
37...Ãc1+ 38.Àxc1 ©c5+ 39.®a4 ©b4
mate.
Sicilian Defence (B97)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Grischuk,Alexander
Sochi 2010
1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4
4.Àxd4 Àf6 5.Àc3 a6 6.Ãg5 e6
7.f4 ©b6
Black chooses the sharp and still prob-
lematic continuation beloved of Robert
Fischer.
8.©d2
Sacrificing a pawn for the initiative
Also possible is 8.Àb3 and even 8.a3!?,
e.g.: 8.a3!? Àc6 (8...©xb2?? 9.Àa4)
9.Àb3 Ãe7 10.©f3 ©c7 11.Ãe2 Õb8
12.©g3 h6 13.Ãh4 0-0 14.0-0 b5
15.®h1 Àd7 16.Ãxe7 Àxe7 17.Õad1 e5
18.fxe5 dxe5 19.Àd4!? (19.Õd2!? is
worth considering) 19...Àb6 20.Ãh5 f6
21.b3 ®h8 22.h3 Õb7 23.Àde2 Ãe6
with roughly equal chances, Ivanchuk-
Topalov, Dos Hermanas 1996.
8...©xb2
After 8...Àc6 9.0-0-0!? ©xd4 10.©xd4
Àxd4 11.Õxd4 Àd7?! (better is 11...h6
12.Ãh4 Àh5 and after 13.e5 – 13...Àxf4
14.Õxf4 g5) 12.Ãe2 h6 13.Ãh4 g5
14.fxg5 Àe5 15.Àa4! White obtained
the advantage in the game Keres-Panno,
Gothenburg 1955.
9.Õb1
This move has once again gradually re-
placed the move 9.Àb3, which became
popular after the Spassky-Fischer match:
9...©a3 10.Ãxf6! (stronger than
10.Ãd3 Ãe7 11.0-0 h6!,
Spassky-Fischer, 7th match game, Reyk-
javik 1972) 10...gxf6 11.Ãe2 h5 (more
accurate is 11...Àd7) 12.0-0 Àc6
0-1 13.®h1 Ãd7 14.Àb1!? (also interesting
is 14.Õf3!? Õc8 15.Õh3 h4 16.©e1)
14...©b4? (he should have played
14...©b2) 15.©e3! d5 16.exd5 Àe7

254

17.c4! Àf5 18.©d3 h4 19.Ãg4 Àd6
20.À1d2 f5 21.a3! ©b6 22.c5 ©b5
T_._Ml.t
_J_L_J_.
J_.sJ_._
_DiI_J_.
._._.iBj
iN_Q_._.
._.n._Ii
r._._R_K
analysis diagram
23.©c3! fxg4 24.a4! (winning the
queen) 24...h3 (or 24...©e2 25.Õae1)
25.axb5 hxg2+ 26.®xg2 Õh3 27.©f6
Àf5 28.c6 Ãc8 29.dxe6 fxe6 30.Õfe1
Ãe7 31.Õxe6, and Black resigned,
Spassky-Fischer, 11th match game, Reyk-
javik 1972.
9...©a3 10.f5
Following the main line.
Also good is 10.e5 dxe5 (10...h6!?)
11.fxe5 Àfd7 12.Àe4 h6! 13.Õb3
(13.Ãh4 ©xa2 14.Õd1; 13.Ãb5!?!)
13...©a4! 14.Ãe3 Àc6 (14...Àxe5?
15.Àb5) 15.Àd6+ Ãxd6 16.exd6 with
compensation for the pawn.
10...Àc6 11.fxe6 fxe6
Weaker is 11...Ãxe6?! 12.Õxb7 Àxd4
13.©xd4 Ãe7 14.Ãc4 Õc8 15.Ãb3 with
advantage to White, Beliavsky-Buljovcic,
Novi Sad 1979.
12.Àxc6 bxc6 13.Ãe2
An old recommendation of Alvis Vitolins.
Black is better after 13.Ãxf6 gxf6 14.e5?!
Ãh6! 15.©d3 dxe5 16.Ãe2 0-0 17.0-0
Õa7 18.©c4 Õg7 (Brito-Ftacnik, Hastings
1981/82), but the almost forgotten old
main line 13.e5 dxe5 (13...Àd5!?)
14.Ãxf6 gxf6 15.Àe4 is perfectly possi-
ble, with chances for both sides.
13...Ãe7 14.0-0 0-0 15.Õb3 ©c5+
Game 87 - 2010
T_L_.tM_
_._.l.jJ
J_JjJs._
_.d._.b.
._._I_._
_Rn._._.
I_IqB_Ii
_._._Rk.
16.®h1!?
A reply which is seen so rarely, that it can
be regarded as a surprise for the oppo-
nent. White almost always chooses
16.Ãe3 here.
In a game played between these opponents
not long before the present encounter,
play continued: 16...©e5 17.Ãf4 ©c5+
18.®h1 Àg4 19.h3 e5 20.Àa4 ©a7
21.hxg4 (or 21.Ãc4+ ®h8 22.hxg4 exf4
23.Àb6 d5!? 24.exd5 cxd5 25.Ãxd5 Õb8
26.Àxc8 Õbxc8 27.Õh3 ©b6 28.Õe1
Ãg5 29.Õe6 ©d8 with a complicated bat-
tle, Ivanchuk-Kasparov, Linares 1990)
21...exf4 22.Àb6 Ãe6 23.Àxa8 Ãxb3
24.axb3 ©xa8 25.Õa1 Ãf6 26.Õxa6 ©d8
27.Õxc6 Ãe5, and Black has good com-
pensation for the pawn, Ivanchuk-
Grischuk, Nice 2010 (rapid).
16...d5
Worth considering was 16...©a5
17.©e3 c5!?, with unclear play.
17.e5 Àd7 18.Õxf8+ ®xf8
A necessary decision.
Bad is 18...Àxf8? because of 19.Ãe3!,
and in order not to lose the queen
(19...©a5?? 20.Ãb6), Black must give up
an important pawn – 19...d4 20.Ãxd4±,
whilst after 18...Ãxf8? there is the strong
19.Àa4 ©a7 20.©f4! Õb8 21.Õf3, and
White attacks on the f-file, e.g.:
21...Õb1+ 22.Ãf1 h6 23.©f7+ ®h8
24.Àc3! Õxf1+ (24...Õe1? 25.Ãxh6!
gxh6 26.Õg3 Õxf1+ 27.©xf1) 25.Õxf1
255
 Vassily Ivanchuk

hxg5 26.©xe6 ©c5 27.©e8! ©xc3 26.Ãf7+! ®xf7 27.©xf5+ ®g8

28.e6! ®h7 29.©h5+ ®g8 30.©f7+ 28.©xg5 with the better game for
®h7 31.©f5+ ®h8 32.exd7 Ãxd7 White) 24.Àc7+ ®f7 25.Õf3+ (or
33.©xf8+ with advantage. 25.©f4+ ®g8 26.Àxa8 Ãxb3 27.cxb3
19.Ãe3 ©a5 g5ì) 25...®g8 26.Àxe6 (26.Àxa8?
©a7ç) 26...Õb8! 27.Õb3 Õxb3 28.axb3
©xe5 29.Àd4 h6 with equality.
T_L_.m._ 23...Õxc8 24.©d3
_._Sl.jJ Attacking two pawns at once.
J_J_J_._ 24...©c4 25.©f3
d._Ji._. Of course, not 25.©xh7?? because of
._._._._ mate on the back rank.
_Rn.b._. White avoids the exchange of queens,
I_IqB_Ii counting on exploiting the unsafe posi-
tion of the black king.
_._._._K
25...®d8?
20.Ãg4! Conceding the opponent the important
Suddenly attacking the e6-pawn. f7-square, without a fight. Significantly
20...®e8!? stronger was 25...©h4 26.Õb1 Õd8
Black decides to return the extra pawn, 27.h3 ©g5, and Black holds.
simplifying the position by exchanges. 26.©f7! ©h4 27.Õb1!
In the event of 20...©c7 (20...Àxe5?? While defending the mate, White simul-
21.Ãb6) 21.©f2+ ®e8 22.Ãxe6 Àxe5 taneously regroups, in preparation for
23.Ãxc8 ©xc8 24.Ãd4 Àg4 25.©g3 landing the decisive blow.
®f7 26.Àa4 or 20...Àc5 21.Õb1 ®e8 27...©h6
22.Õf1 ©b4 23.Ãd4 Õb8 24.©f4 ®d8
25.a3! ©xa3 26.©f7 Ãd7 27.©xg7 a5
28.©xh7, White’s chances are superior. ._Tm._._
21.Ãxe6 Àc5 22.Ãxc5 ©xc5 _._.lQjJ
23.Ãxc8 J_J_._.d
Nothing is given by 23.Àxd5 Ãxe6! (a _._Ji._.
mistake is 23...cxd5? 24.Ãxd5 Ãg5 ._._._._
(24...Õa7? 25.Õc3) 25.©d3 Ãf5 _.n._._.
I_I_._Ii
T_._M_._ _R_._._K
_._._.jJ
J_._._._ 28.Àxd5!
_.dBiLl. Crowning the final attack in style!
28...cxd5 29.©xd5+ ®e8 30.Õd1!
._._._._ Õc7
_R_Q_._. After 30...Õb8, there is the simple
I_I_._Ii 31.©d7+ ®f8 32.Õf1+ ®g8 (32...Ãf6
_._._._K 33.©d6+) 33.©xe7 with a decisive at-
analysis diagram tack.

256

31.©a8+ ®f7 32.Õf1+ ®e6
33.©xa6+ ®d7
Mate follows after 33...®xe5 – 34.©e2+
®d6 35.Õd1+ ®c5 36.©e5+ ®b6
37.Õb1+ ®c6 38.©b5+ ®d6 39.Õd1+
®e6 40.©d5+ ®f6 41.Õf1+ ®g6
42.©f5#.
34.Õd1+ ®e8 35.e6!
With the threat of 36.©a8+.
35...Ãd8 36.©b5+ ®e7 37.©b4+
After 37...®e8, White is nicely mated in
two – 38.Õxd8+! ®xd8 39.©f8#.
Nor does Black save himself by
37...®xe6 38.©d6+ ®f7 39.Õf1+ Ãf6
40.©xc7+.
Black resigned.
Game 88
Caro-Kann Defence (B12)
í Nepomniachtchi,Ian
n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Havana 2010
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3
An old gambit continuation, aiming to
support the centre, in many cases leading
to a double-edged game.
3...©b6
After 3...e6 (an unclear game results from
3...dxe4 4.fxe4 e5 5.Àf3 Ãe6) possible is
4.Àc3 Ãb4 5.Ãf4 Àe7 6.©d3 b6 7.Àe2
Ãa6 8.©e3 0-0 9.0-0-0 with chances for
both sides, Morozevich-Bologan, Sochi
2004.
4.a4
A variation which became popular after
the game Nepomniachtchi-Jobava, Rijeka
2010, which continued 4...e5 5.dxe5
dxe4 6.a5 ©c7 (6...Ãb4+? 7.c3 Ãxa5
8.©a4ê) 7.f4 Àh6 8.Àc3 Ãb4 9.Ãd2
e3 10.Ãxe3 0-0 11.Àf3 Õd8 12.Ãd3
Àa6 13.©e2 Ãxa5 14.0-0 Àb4 15.Ãe4
Ãf5 16.®h1 with the better game for
White.
Game 88 - 2010
TsL_MlSt
jJ_.jJjJ
.dJ_._._
_._J_._.
I_.iI_._
_._._I_.
.iI_._Ii
rNbQkBnR
4...e6!?
Preparing the break ...c6-c5. Now Black’s
pawn structure resembles a French De-
fence. White has an extra tempo, but the
pawn on f3 is hardly favourable for him.
5.c3 c5 6.exd5
Together with the following exchange of
light-squared bishops, this leads to com-
plete equality. A more complicated battle
follows after 6.a5 ©c7 7.Ãd3 Àc6
8.Àe2 Àf6 (8...Àxa5? 9.dxc5) 9.Àa3 a6
10.Ãf4 Ãd6 11.Ãxd6 ©xd6 12.dxc5
©xc5 13.b4 ©d6 with approximately
equal chances.
6...exd5 7.Ãb5+ Ãd7 8.©e2+ Ãe7
9.dxc5 ©xc5 10.b3?!
Since the threat of Ãa3 is not dangerous,
and at the same time White experiences
some problems with his development,
better was 10.Àh3 Àf6 11.Ãe3 ©c8
12.0-0 0-0 13.Àf4 Õe8 14.©f2 Ãd6, al-
though in this case too, Black’s position is
preferable.
10...a6 11.Ãxd7+ Àxd7 12.Àh3
More consequential is 12.Ãa3 ©b6
13.Àh3 0-0-0! (13...©xb3?! 14.0-0!)
14.Àf2 Ãg5!? (14...©xb3!? is also possi-
ble) 15.0-0 Àgf6 16.©c2 Õhe8â.
12...0-0-0!
The king finds a refuge on the queenside.
13.Ãe3 ©c7 14.0-0 Àgf6 15.®h1
Õhe8 16.©d1
After 16.©d2, good is 16...Ãd6 17.Ãg1
Àc5, with the initiative.
257
 Vassily Ivanchuk

16...Ãd6 17.Ãg1 25...g5!?

._MtT_._
_JdS_JjJ
J_.l.s._
_._J_._.
I_._._._
_Ii._I_N
._._._Ii
rN_Q_RbK
17...Ãc5!
The exchange of bishops weakens the
dark squares in the opponent’s camp and
gives Black the e3-square for penetration
along the e-file. Weaker is 17...®b8 be-
cause of 18.b4! h6 19.a5 Ãe5 (19...g5
20.©d4!) 20.f4!?, and after 20...Ãxc3?!
– 21.Àxc3 ©xc3 22.b5 axb5 23.a6 with
counterplay.
18.Õa2 ®b8 19.Õd2 h6 20.Ãd4
With 20.Ãxc5 Àxc5 21.Àf2 g5 22.b4
Àe6 23.Õe1 h5 24.Àd3 g4 25.b5 gxf3
26.gxf3 axb5 27.axb5 d4 Black increases
the pressure, although the position re-
mains tense.
20...Õc8 21.Àf2 Ãxd4 22.Õxd4
Worse is 22.cxd4?! ©b6 23.Õd3 ©b4,
and Black controls both open lines.
22...Àe5 23.Õd2
After 23.Àd3?! Àc6! 24.Õh4 Õe3, the
white rooks turns out to be out of play.
23...Õe6 24.Õe1 Õce8 25.Õde2
Starting to worry the opponent on the
kingside. Also interesting is 25...©b6!?
26.Àd2 (26.b4 Àc4!)
.m._T_._
_J_._Jj.
Jd._Ts.j
_._Js._.
I_._._._
_Ii._I_.
._.nRnIi
_._Qr._K
analysis diagram
26...Àc4! 27.Õxe6 (or 27.bxc4 ©xf2!
28.Õxf2 Õxe1+ 29.Õf1 Õxd1 30.Õxd1
dxc4 31.Àxc4 Àd5! 32.®g1 Àxc3
33.Õd7 Àxa4 34.Õxf7 g5 35.Àd6 Õe1+
36.®f2 Õb1, going into a better end-
game) 27...Õxe6 28.bxc4 ©xf2 29.Õxe6
fxe6 30.g3 dxc4 31.Àxc4 Àd5, with a
promising game for Black.
26.Àd3 g4
Allowing White to ease his situation by
exchanges.
More accurate was 26...Àfd7 27.Àxe5
Àxe5 with a small, but stable advantage.
27.Àxe5 Õxe5 28.Õxe5 Õxe5
29.Õxe5 ©xe5 30.a5?
Necessary was 30.g3 ©e3 31.®g2 h5
32.h3, and White could possibly hold.
Now Black manages to start an attack.

.m._T_._ .m._._._
_Jd._Jj. _J_._J_.
J_._Ts.j J_._.s.j
_._Js._. i._Jd._.
I_._._._ ._._._J_
_Ii._I_. _Ii._I_.
._._RnIi ._._._Ii
_N_Qr._K _N_Q_._K

258
 Game 88 - 2010

30...h5! 31.g3 41...d4! 42.h5

After 31.®g1 h4 32.©d3 gxf3 33.©xf3
Àg4! Black also has a significant advan-
tage.
31...gxf3 32.©xf3 ©e1+ 33.®g2
Àg4 34.©f4+ ®a8 35.Àd2
After 35.h3 there follows 35...Àe5
36.©f1 ©e4+ 37.®g1 d4 38.cxd4
©xd4+ 39.©f2 ©d1+ 40.©f1 ©xb3
winning.
35...©e2+ 36.®g1 ©xh2+
Even better is 36...h4! 37.©xf7 (or
37.gxh4 Àe3 38.©f2 ©g4+ 39.©g3
©d1+) 37...©xh2+ 38.®f1 ©h1+
39.®e2 ©g2+ 40.®d1 ©g1+ 41.®c2
h3 42.Àf3 ©f2+ 43.®c1 h2, and Black
has to give up a knight for the pawn.
37.®f1 f5 38.®e1 h4
The alternative is 38...©g1+!? 39.®e2
©c5 40.®d3 (weaker is 40.©xf5?!
©xc3 41.©xd5 ©e3+ 42.®d1 ©g1+
43.®e2 ©f2+ 44.®d3 ©xg3+ 45.®e2
©e3+ 46.®d1 Àe5, and the passed
h-pawn wins the game) 40...©xa5
41.©xf5 ©b5+ 42.®d4 ©b6+ 43.®d3
©e3+ 44.®c2 ©xg3 45.©xh5 ®a7,
with advantage to Black.
39.Àf1 ©b2 40.gxh4 ©xc3+
41.Àd2?
The pinned knight markedly worsens
White’s game. Stronger is 41.®e2! ©xb3
42.©xf5 ©c4+ 43.®e1 ©c3+ 44.®e2
Àe5 45.h5 d4 46.®f2, with chances of
defending.
M_._._._
_J_._._.
J_._._._
i._J_J_.
._._.qSi
_Id._._.
._.n._._
_._.k._.
In a race between which pawn is fastest,
the h-pawn or the d-pawn, White is
clearly losing.
The last chance lay in 42.®f1!? ©h3+
43.®g1 ©xh4 44.©xd4 ©e1+
45.®g2 ©e2+ 46.®g1 ©e5 47.©d8+
©b8 48.©d4 Àe5, and here Black still
faces a fight to secure a decisive advan-
tage.
42...d3 43.®f1 ©a1+ 44.®g2 ©xa5
45.h6 ©d5+ 46.®g3
Nothing changes after 46.®g1 ©c5+
47.®g2 ©c6+ 48.®g3 Àxh6 and Black
wins.
M_._._._
_J_._._.
J_._._.i
_._D_J_.
._._.qS_
_I_J_.k.
._.n._._
_._._._.
46...©g8!
The black queen works wonders! It man-
ages both to take the white pawn, harass
the enemy king and fight against the
passed pawn.
47.®f3
Or 47.®h3 ©g6 with the same result.
47...©e6! 48.Àf1
After 48.h7? there follows 48...©e2+
49.®g3 ©h2+ 50.®f3 ©f2#.
48...Àxh6 49.©d4 ©e2+ 50.®g3
©e1+ 51.©f2 f4+! 52.®f3 ©e5
53.Àd2 Àf5 54.®g4 ©e2+
It is hopeless after 55.©xe2 dxe2 56.Àf3
Àd4 57.Àe1 f3î.
White resigned.
259
 Vassily Ivanchuk
Game 89
Caro-Kann Defence (B13)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Beliavsky,Alexander
Khanty-Mansiysk 2010
1.c4 c6 2.e4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.d4
Transposing into the so-called Panov At-
tack. In this line of the Caro-Kann, Black
must play very carefully and precisely.
4...Àf6 5.Àc3 Àc6
5...e6 is regarded as very solid, e.g.:
6.Àf3 Ãe7 7.cxd5 Àxd5 8.Ãd3 Àc6
9.0-0 0-0 10.Õe1 Ãf6 11.Ãe4 Àce7
(strengthening the key square d5)
12.©c2 g6 13.Ãh6 Ãg7 14.Ãxg7 ®xg7
15.Õac1 with slightly the better chances
for White, Kempinski-Cyborowski, War-
saw 2004.
T_LdMl.t
jJ_.jJjJ
._S_.s._
_._J_._.
._Ii._._
_.n._._.
Ii._.iIi
r.bQkBnR
6.Ãg5
The most energetic. Other continuations
have also been seen:
A) 6.Àf3 Ãg4 7.cxd5 Àxd5 8.©b3
Ãxf3 9.gxf3 Àb6 10.Ãe3 e6 11.0-0-0
Ãe7 12.d5 exd5 13.Àxd5 Àxd5
14.Õxd5 ©c7 15.®b1 0-0 16.Õb5!? (it
is worth considering 16.f4!? Õad8
17.Ãg2) 16...Ãf6 17.Ãd3 Àd4
18.Õxb7 ©c6 19.Ãxd4 Ãxd4 20.Ãe4
©f6 21.Õc1 Õad8 22.a3Ç, Ivanchuk-De
Jong, Ohrid 2009;
B) 6.Ãf4 dxc4 7.Ãxc4!? e6 8.Àf3 Ãd6
9.Àe5 Ãxe5 10.dxe5 ©xd1+ 11.Õxd1
Àd7 12.Ãb5 0-0 13.Ãxc6 bxc6 14.Àe4
c5 15.f3 c4 16.®f2 Àb6 17.Õd2 Ãa6
260
18.Õc1 Àd5 19.Ãe3 Õfc8 20.a3 h6
21.g3, and White’s chances in the ending
are superior, Ivanchuk-Inarkiev, Astrak-
han 2010.
6...dxc4 7.Ãxc4!?
T_LdMl.t
jJ_.jJjJ
._S_.s._
_._._.b.
._Bi._._
_.n._._.
Ii._.iIi
r._Qk.nR
7...Àxd4?
Taking the pawn with the knight is ex-
tremely dangerous.
A possible continuation is 7...©xd4!?
8.©xd4 Àxd4 9.0-0-0 e5 10.f4 Ãg4
11.Àf3 Àxf3 12.gxf3 Ãxf3 13.fxe5,
with a sharp game and chances for both
sides, Grischuk-Bareev, Moscow 2004,
but more cautious is the quiet 7...e6.
8.Àf3!
Not bothering to try to catch the oppo-
nent in a trap after 8.Àge2 Àxe2?
9.Ãxf7+!, White chooses the strongest
reply.
8...Àxf3+ 9.©xf3 ©c7
9...©a5? is a mistake because of
10.Ãxf6! gxf6 11.Ãb5+ ®d8 12.Õd1+
®c7 13.©f4+ e5 14.©xf6 Ãe6
15.©xh8 winning, N. Kosintseva-Motoc,
Verdun 1995.
10.Ãb5+ Ãd7 11.0-0 Ãc6
After 11...e6? the game Harikrishna-
Murariu, Nakhichevan 2003, continued
12.Õac1 Ãc6 13.Ãxf6 gxf6 14.Àe4 Ãe7
15.Õxc6! bxc6 16.Ãxc6+ ®f8 (or
16...©xc6 17.Àxf6+) 17.Ãxa8, and
Black soon resigned.
12.Ãxf6 gxf6 13.Õad1 e6
 Game 90 - 2010

22.Ãxb7!
T_._Ml.t The decisive blow!
jJd._J_J 22...Õxc1
._L_Jj._ Or 22...©xb7 23.©xb7+ ®xb7
_B_._._. 24.Õd7+ ®b6 25.Õxc8 Õxc8 26.Õxe7
._._._._ Õc2 27.Õxf7 Õxb2 28.Õxf6+, going into
_.n._Q_. a technically winning endgame.
Ii._.iIi 23.Õxc1 ©xb7 24.©f4+ ®a8
25.Õc7 1-0
_._R_Rk.
There is no hope after 25...©xb2
14.Àd5! (25...©b4 26.©e3!) 26.Õxe7 Õc8
A striking continuation, leading to a win. 27.©e4+ ®b8 28.Õxf7, with an over-
14...0-0-0 whelming advantage to White.
Also after 14...exd5 15.Õfe1+ Ãe7
(hopeless is 15...®d8? 16.Õxd5+! ®c8 Game 90
17.©xf6 Ãxb5 18.©xh8) 16.©xf6 0-0-0 Volga Gambit (A57)
17.Õxe7 ©d6 18.©xd6 Õxd6 19.Ãxc6 í Sokolov,Ivan
Õxc6 20.Õxf7, Black has a difficult posi- n Ivanchuk,Vassily
tion, but this was probably still preferable. Khanty-Mansiysk 2010
15.Ãxc6 exd5 1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5
Bad is 15...©xc6? 16.Õc1 Ãc5 17.Àe7+, The immediate pawn sacrifice in the
and the queen is lost. Volga Gambit is an attempt to solve at
16.Ãxd5 once the problem of developing the black
White regains the pawn, retaining his at- queenside. It was developed by the Czech
tacking potential. master Karel Hromadka and introduced
16...®b8 17.Õc1 ©d7 18.Õcd1 into practice in the 1940s by the
More purposeful was the tempting Kuibyshev master B Argunov. Its principal
18.Õfd1, but evidently, White decided to contributor was Pal Benko in the 1960s,
repeat moves, so as to gain time on the and in the West it is generally known as
clock. the Benko Gambit.
18...Ãe7 19.g3 ©c7 20.Õc1 ©d7
21.Õfd1 TsLdMl.t
The rook occupies an excellent post. j._JjJjJ
21...Õc8 ._._.s._
_JjI_._.
.mT_._.t ._I_._._
jJ_DlJ_J _._._._.
._._.j._ Ii._IiIi
_._B_._. rNbQkBnR
._._._._ 4.©c2
_._._Qi. White is not obliged to accept the sacri-
Ii._.i.i fice and may perfectly well turn the game
_.rR_.k. into more positional channels.

261
 Vassily Ivanchuk
White also has many possibilities after
4.cxb5 a6, e.g.:
A) 5.e3 g6 6.Àc3 (also possible is
6.Àf3 Ãg7 7.Àc3 0-0 8.a4 Ãb7 9.Õb1
e6 10.dxe6 fxe6 11.Ãe2 axb5 12.axb5
d5 13.0-0 Àbd7 14.b4!Ç, Gligoric-
Rajkovic, Subotica 1984) 6...Ãg7 7.e4 d6
8.Àf3 0-0 9.a4 Ãd7? (stronger is
9...Ãb7) 10.Ãd2 ©c7 11.Ãe2 Õc8
12.0-0 Ãe8 13.Õe1 ©b7 14.e5±,
Ivanchuk-Shovunov, Moscow 2001;
B) 5.b6!? (not holding onto the extra
pawn, and keeping the a-file closed)
5...d6 6.Àc3 Àbd7 7.a4 a5 8.e4 g6
9.Àf3 Ãg7 10.Ãe2 0-0 11.0-0 ©xb6
12.Àd2 Ãa6 13.Àb5 Õfb8 14.©c2 ©d8
15.Àc4 Àb6 16.Àca3 Àe8 17.Õb1 Àc7
18.b3 Ãxb5 19.Àxb5 Àa6 20.Ãg5 Àb4
21.©d2 ©d7 22.f4 with the initiative for
White, Cheparinov-Ivanchuk, Khanty-
Mansiysk 2005;
C) 5.Àc3 (a recommendation of I.
Zaitsev) 5...axb5 6.e4 b4 7.Àb5 d6 (not
7...Àxe4? because of 8.©e2) 8.Ãf4 g5!?
9.Ãxg5 Àxe4 with chances for both
sides;
D) 5.bxa6 Ãxa6 6.Àc3 d6 7.e4 Ãxf1
8.®xf1 g6 9.g3 Ãg7 10.®g2 0-0
11.Àf3 Àbd7 12.Õe1 ©a5!? 13.e5 Àg4
14.exd6 exd6 15.Ãf4 Õfb8 16.Õe2
Àge5, and Black achieved good counter-
play in Feletar-Sermek, Croatia 2002.
4...bxc4 5.e4 d6
5...e6 has also been seen. In the game
Kempinski-Miton, Zakopane 2000, play
continued: 6.Ãxc4 exd5 7.exd5 d6 8.Àc3
Ãe7 9.h3 0-0 10.Àf3 Àbd7 11.0-0 Àb6
12.b3 Àxc4 13.bxc4 Õb8 14.Ãf4 Ãa6
15.Àd2 Àh5 16.Ãh2 Ãg5 17.Àce4 Àf4
18.Õab1 Õxb1 19.Õxb1 Ãh6 20.Àf1 ©e7
21.Àe3 f5 22.Àc3? (22.Àg3 was neces-
sary) 22...Àxh3+! 23.gxh3 Ãxe3 24.fxe3
©xe3+ 25.®g2 f4 26.Àd1 f3+ 27.®f1
©g5 with a strong attack for Black.
262
6.Ãxc4 g6 7.b3?
A remarkable mistake!
White had a choice of at least two contin-
uations:
7.Àf3 Ãg7 8.0-0 0-0 9.h3 Ãa6
10.Àbd2 Àfd7 11.Õb1 Àb6 12.b3 ©c8
13.Ãb2 Ãxb2 14.Õxb2 À8d7 15.Õe1 f6
16.Àh4 Õb8 17.f4, and White’s chances
are somewhat superior, Ilincic-Vajda, Bu-
dapest 2005, and 7.Àc3 Ãg7 8.Àf3 0-0
9.0-0 Ãa6 10.Ãxa6 Àxa6 11.©e2 ©b6
12.Õd1 Õfd8 13.Ãg5 Àc7 14.b3 a6
15.Ãh4 Àd7 16.Õac1 Õe8 17.Àd2 ©b4
18.Àcb1 Àb5 19.Àc4 Àd4 20.©e3
Àb6 21.f4 a5 22.Ãe1 Àxc4 23.Õxc4
©b7 with chances for both sides,
Basagic-Predojevic, Neum 2005.
The following year, the Dutch grandmas-
ter corrected his poor opening prepara-
tion here and played (with some
changes) one of these continuations:
7.Àf3 Ãg7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Õe1 Àbd7
10.Àc3 Àe8 11.Ãf4 Õb8 12.Õad1 ©a5
13.e5 dxe5 14.Àxe5 Àxe5 15.Ãxe5
Àd6 16.Ãxg7 ®xg7 17.b3 Ãf5 18.Ãd3
Õfe8 19.h3 Õb4? (stronger is 19...Ãxd3)
20.Ãxf5 Àxf5 21.Àe4 Õd8 22.©c3+
®g8.
._.t._M_
j._.jJ_J
._._._J_
d.jI_S_.
.t._N_._
_Iq._._I
I_._.iI_
_._Rr.k.
analysis diagram
23.d6! Àxd6 24.Õxd6! exd6 25.Àf6+
®f8 26.Àd5 ®g8 27.Àe7+ ®f8
28.©h8 mate, I. Sokolov-Leenhouts,
Internet 2011.

TsLdMl.t
j._.jJ_J
._.j.sJ_
_.jI_._.
._B_I_._
_I_._._.
I_Q_.iIi
rNb.k.nR
A remarkable situation and an example of
rare tactical blindness!
This position had occurred several times
before, between strong grandmasters and
masters. As an example, we can cite the
games Drozdovsky-Nestorovic, Internet
2007 and Drozdovsky-Van Wely, Ourense
2009. In addition, Ivan Sokolov himself
had reached this position before against
Tom Piceu (Amsterdam 2010).
In all cases, Black replied 7...Ãg7. But, as
online commentator Sergey Shipov ob-
served, Ivanchuk is hard to hypnotise.
7...Àxe4!!
It turns out that 8.©xe4? Ãg7 9.Àf3
Ãxa1 (also good is 9...0-0!? 10.Ãh6
Ãxa1 11.Ãxf8 ©xf8ç) 10.Ãh6 Àd7
11.0-0 Àf6 12.©h4 Àg4 13.Ãb5+ Ãd7
14.©xg4 Ãxb5 gives Black a clear advan-
tage, whilst after the move in the game,
White simply loses a pawn.
8.Ãb2 ©a5+ 9.®f1
In trying to avoid exchanges, White loses
castling rights.
After 9.Àc3?!, strong is 9...Ãg7 10.Àe2
Ãf5 11.Ãd3 Àxc3 12.Ãxc3 Ãxd3
13.©xd3 ©a6 14.©xa6 Ãxc3+
15.Àxc3 Àxa6 with the advantage in the
endgame, but it was worth considering
9.Àd2, and White is better after
9...©xd2+? (9...Àxd2? 10.Ãc3!)
10.©xd2 Àxd2 11.Ãb5+ Ãd7
12.Ãxd7+ Àxd7 13.Ãxh8.
9...Àf6 10.Àc3 Ãg7 11.Õe1 ©d8
Game 91 - 2010
Exercising caution. Also possible is
11...0-0 12.Õxe7 Àbd7 13.Àf3 Àb6
14.®g1 Ãf5 15.©c1 Àxc4 16.bxc4
Õfb8 with advantage to Black.
12.©e2 Àbd7 13.h4
White needs to do something, but the
move played also weakens his position.
Better is 13.Àf3.
13...Àe5! 14.Ãb5+ Ãd7 15.f4?
Losing quickly. It was possible to hold af-
ter 15.Àf3 Àxf3 16.©xf3 Ãxb5+
17.Àxb5 0-0 18.Ãxf6 Ãxf6 19.h5, but it
is clear that the Ukrainian grandmaster’s
opponent was not able to pull himself to-
gether after the early shock.
T_.dM_.t
j._LjJlJ
._.j.sJ_
_BjIs._.
._._.i.i
_In._._.
Ib._Q_I_
_._.rKnR
15...Àh5! 16.Ãxd7+ ©xd7 17.©e3
©f5! 18.Àh3 ©d3+ 19.®g1
After 19.©xd3? Àxd3 20.Õe2 Àxb2,
White loses a piece.
19...©xe3+ 20.Õxe3 Àg4 21.Õf3
Ãd4+ 22.®f1 Àe3+ 23.®e2 Àxg2
24.Àg5 h6 25.Àge4 Àgxf4+
White resigned.
Game 91
Slav Defence (D45)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Leko,Peter
Khanty-Mansiysk 2010
1.Àf3 Àf6 2.c4 e6 3.Àc3 d5 4.d4 c6
5.e3 Àbd7 6.©c2
In this way, White avoids the double-
edged complications of the Meran Varia-
263
 Vassily Ivanchuk

tion, arising after 6.Ãd3 dxc4 7.Ãxc4 b5

8.Ãd3 a6 9.e4 c5.
6...Ãd6

T_LdM_.t
jJ_S_JjJ
._JlJs._
_._J_._.
._Ii._._
_.n.iN_.
IiQ_.iIi
r.b.kB_R
Peter Leko
7.Ãd3
After 7.e4 interesting is 7...dxe4 8.Àxe4 25.Ãd4 b5 26.a3 Àf4 27.©f3 À6h5
Àxe4 9.©xe4 e5!? 10.dxe5 (or 10.Àxe5 28.Ãe3 (great complications follow after
Àxe5 11.dxe5 Ãb4+) 10...0-0 with 28.g3!?) 28...Õxd1+ 29.©xd1 ©g5, and
counterplay. Black held the initiative.
Other development plans are also possi- 10.Õd1 b5
ble:
7.b3 0-0 8.Ãe2 b6 9.0-0 Ãb7 10.Ãb2
Õc8 11.Õac1 c5 12.dxc5 bxc5 13.Õfd1 T_Ld.tM_
©e7 14.g3 Õfd8 15.cxd5 exd5 16.Àh4 _._S_JjJ
Ãb8 17.Ãf1 Àe5 18.Ãh3 Õc7 19.Ãg2 J_JlJs._
d4?! (better is 19...©e8) 20.Àf5 ©e8 _J_._._.
21.exd4 cxd4 22.Àxd4 Ãxg2 23.®xg2 ._Bi._._
with advantage to White, Ivanchuk- _.n.iN_.
Aronian, Linares 2009; IiQ_.iIi
7.g4 h6 8.h3 e5 9.Ãd2 0-0 10.cxd5 cxd5
11.Àb5 Ãb8 12.Ãb4 Õe8 13.Õc1 Àe4
r.bR_.k.
14.Ãe2 exd4 15.Àbxd4 Àe5 16.Àd2 A position for which both sides were
Ãd7 17.©b3 Àc6 18.Àxc6 Ãxc6 aiming, which was seen in the game
19.Àxe4 dxe4 20.Ãc3 Ãe5 21.0-0 h5 Ivanchuk-Leko, Wijk aan Zee 2010.
with chances for both sides, Ivanchuk- White played 10.Ãf1, and the game was
Leko, Jermuk 2009. drawn after 27 moves.
7...0-0 8.0-0 dxc4 9.Ãxc4 a6 11.Ãd3
In the game Ponomariov-Ivanchuk, As- The modern line.
trakhan 2010, play continued 9...©e7!? 11...©c7 12.Ãd2
10.h3 c5 11.Õd1 b6 12.dxc5 Ãxc5 13.e4 White has also tried 12.a4 b4 13.Àe4
Ãb7 14.Ãg5 Õfd8 15.©e2 h6 16.Ãh4 Àxe4 14.Ãxe4 Àf6 15.Ãd3 c5 16.b3
g5 17.Ãg3 Àf8 18.Àe5 Õxd1+ cxd4 17.©xc7 Ãxc7 18.Àxd4ì,
19.Õxd1 Õd8 20.Ãd3 Ãd4 21.Ãb1 a6 Elianov-Aronian, Jermuk 2009, and
22.h4 gxh4 23.Ãf4 Ãxe5 24.Ãxe5 Àg6 12.Àe4 Àxe4 13.Ãxe4 Àf6 14.Ãd3 c5

264
 Game 91 - 2010

15.dxc5 ©xc5 16.a4 bxa4 17.©xc5 In the event of 20...Ãb8 (not 20...©xd4?
Ãxc5 18.Õxa4Ç, Elianov-Akopian, Astra- 21.Õxd4 Õc6 22.Ãc3, losing a piece for
khan 2010, both of which games White Black) 21.Ãb4 ©xd4 22.Õcxd4 Àc5
managed to win. 23.g3 Õfe8 24.®g2 e5 25.Õc4 Àb7
12...c5 13.dxc5 ©xc5 14.a4!? 26.Õxc8 Õxc8 27.Õd7 Àd8 28.Àg5 f6
Taking play in a new direction. After 29.Àe4, Black faces a difficult endgame.
14.Àe4 ©xc2 15.Ãxc2 the game 21.©c3! Õcd8
Yusupov-Stellwagen, Amsterdam 2008,
saw a draw agreed. ._.t.tM_
14...bxa4 15.Õxa4 Ãb7 d._S_JjJ
After 15...Àb6?! there is the unexpected J_._J_._
16.Õh4! h6 17.Õc1! Ãb7 (or 17...Ãe7 _.l._._.
18.e4!) 18.©d1 Ãxf3 19.©xf3 ©e5
20.©e2 with an excellent game for
._R_._._
White. _.q.iN_.
.i.b.iIi
T_._.tM_ _._R_.k.
_L_S_JjJ 22.©c2!
J_.lJs._ White starts to probe the enemy position,
_.d._._. forcing weaknesses. The threat is 23.Àg5,
whilst after 22...h6? there follows
R_._._._ 23.Ãc3 Ãe7 24.Ãxg7! ®xg7 25.Õc7
_.nBiN_. ©b8 26.Õcxd7 with advantage.
.iQb.iIi 22...Õfe8 23.Àg5 g6 24.Ãa5 Ãb6
_._R_.k. 25.Ãc3 e5
16.Õc4! Unsatisfactory is 25...f6?! 26.Àe4 f5
Forcing Black either to retreat his queen 27.Àd6 Õf8 28.©b3 Àc5 29.Õxc5!
from her active position, or to exchange Ãxc5 30.©xe6+ Õf7 31.©e5! Õg7
her for two rooks by means of 16...Ãxf3 32.Õd5 Ãxd6 33.Õxd6 Õb8 34.Õe6 Õf8
17.Õxc5 Ãxd1 18.Àxd1 Àxc5. 35.Õxa6 with an overwhelming advan-
16...©a7?! tage for White.
Now White seizes the initiative. The vari- 26.Àe4
ation given above, after 19.Ãc4!? Õfc8 The knight occupies an excellent position.
20.Ãe1 Õab8 21.©e2 Õc6, leads to a 26...Õe6 27.Ãb4 ®g7
complicated battle, with White having a
minimal edge. ._.t._._
17.Àe4 Àxe4 18.Ãxe4 Ãxe4 d._S_JmJ
19.©xe4 Õac8?! Jl._T_J_
An inaccuracy, allowing the Ukrainian _._.j._.
grandmaster to regroup his forces with
tempo, thanks to an original manoeuvre.
.bR_N_._
Better was 19...Õfc8, not leaving the _._.i._.
queen undefended. .iQ_.iIi
20.©d4! Ãc5 _._R_.k.

265
 Vassily Ivanchuk
With useful moves impossible to find,
Black has to wait to see what his oppo-
nent will do.
28.Õc6!
With the intention of doubling the en-
emy pawns, by exchanging on e6.
28...Àf6
Black loses after 28...Õxc6? 29.©xc6
©c7 30.©xc7 Ãxc7 31.Ãe7 Õe8
32.Õxd7ê.
29.Õxe6 fxe6 30.Àxf6 ®xf6 31.Õa1
©b7
It was worth considering 31...a5!?
32.Ãc3 ©d7 33.h3 ©d5 34.©a4 ®g7,
although after 35.b4! (weaker is 35.Ãxa5
Ãxa5 36.©xa5 ©xa5 37.Õxa5 Õb8
38.Õa2 e4, and in the rook ending, Black
retains some drawing chances) 35...axb4
36.©xb4 ©c5 37.Õb1 Õd7 38.©xb6
©xc3 39.©xe6 White’s advantage is
unarguable.
32.Ãc3 a5 33.©a4 g5
After 33...©d5 there is 34.©f4+ ®e7
35.©h4+ ®f8 36.©f6+ ®g8 37.h4
Ãc7 38.h5±, but even so, this variation
offered Black better chances than the
game continuation.
34.h4 h6 35.©g4!
Now the attack switches to the kingside.
35...©h7 36.©h5 ©g6?
The decisive oversight!
He could continue resisting after
36...Õg8 37.hxg5+ Õxg5 38.©h3 h5
39.f4 Õg4 40.Ãxe5+ ®e7±.
._.t._._
_._._._.
.l._JmDj
j._.j.jQ
._._._.i
_.b.i._.
.i._.iI_
r._._.k.
266
37.Ãxe5+! ®f7 38.©f3+ ®g8
39.©c6 1-0
Loss of a piece cannot be avoided. After
39...Ãa7 40.©c7 Õa8 41.©b7, Black
loses a bishop.
Game 92
Caro-Kann Defence (B12)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Jobava,Baadur
Khanty-Mansiysk 2010
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3 ©b6 4.a3!?
The move 4.a4 was placed in doubt by
Ivanchuk himself in Game 88, and the
Ukrainian grandmaster seeks new paths.
The move of the rook’s pawn is directed
primarily at 4...e6, after which 5.Àc3 is
good.
TsL_MlSt
jJ_.jJjJ
.dJ_._._
_._J_._.
._.iI_._
i._._I_.
.iI_._Ii
rNbQkBnR
4...e5!
The most principled. This is why the
queen occupied the a7-g1 diagonal, in
order to prepare this counterblow.
In the event of the tempting 4...dxe4
5.fxe4 e5, we see another point of the
move 4.a3. Now there follows 6.c3! (the
knight does not come to this square this
time!) 6...Àf6 7.Àf3 exd4 (or 7...Àxe4
8.Àxe5) 8.cxd4 and after 8...Àxe4? –
9.©e2 f5 10.Àc3 ©a5 (there is no move
Ãb4) 11.Ãd2 with advantage to White.
5.exd5
5.dxe5? is a mistake because of 5...Ãc5!,
whilst 5.c3 Ãe6 is too passive.

5...Àf6
A line deserving serious attention was
5...cxd5!? 6.©e2!? Àc6 (after 6...©xd4?!
7.Àc3 Àc6 8.Ãe3 White has excellent
compensation for the pawn) 7.c3!? (after
7.Àc3 Ãf5 8.©b5 ©xb5 9.Ãxb5 exd4
10.Àce2 Black obtains the better
chances) 7...a6 8.Ãe3 Ãf5 9.dxe5 ©b3
10.f4 Àh6 with unclear consequences.
6.dxe5 Ãc5?!
Leading to a very sharp struggle, in
which White obtains the advantage, how-
ever.
More cautious is 6...Àxd5 7.Àd2! ©e3+
(or 7...Àe3 8.Àc4 Àxc4 9.Ãxc4 Ãc5
10.Àh3 Ãxh3 11.gxh3 0-0 12.©e2 Õe8
13.f4 Àd7) 8.Àe2 ©xe5 9.Àc4 ©e7
10.©d3 Àd7 with chances for both
sides.
TsL_M_.t
jJ_._JjJ
.dJ_.s._
_.lIi._.
._._._._
i._._I_.
.iI_._Ii
rNbQkBnR
7.exf6!
It is interesting that so far, White has
made only pawn moves, while the first
piece he moves is the king, and the sec-
ond, the queen! Only beginners or grand-
masters of the highest class can play like
this.
7...Ãf2+
Weaker is 7...0-0?! 8.Ãd3 Ãxg1 9.©d2!
Õe8+ 10.®d1 Ãd4 (10...Ãe3? 11.Õe1!)
11.fxg7 Ãxg7 12.©b4 ©xb4 13.axb4
cxd5 14.Àc3, and White, having re-
pulsed the attack, retains an extra pawn.
8.®e2 0-0!
Game 92 - 2010
After 8...Ãxg1?, there is the striking
9.Õxg1! ©xg1 10.fxg7 Õg8 11.Ãh6
©xh2 12.©d2 ©e5+ 13.®f2 ©xd5
14.©xd5 cxd5 15.Àc3 Ãe6 16.Õe1
®d7 17.Ãd3 Àc6 18.Ãxh7 with a deci-
sive advantage.
9.©d2!
Freeing the flight square d1 for the king.
9...Õe8+!?
With the intention of winning the queen
for three pieces. The alternative was
9...Ãxg1!? 10.®d1! Ãd4 11.fxg7 Ãxg7
12.Àc3 Õd8 13.Ãd3 Àd7, and the ad-
vantage is with White, but Black has
counterplay on the d-file.
10.®d1 Õe1+
In the event of 10...Ãxg1?!, the line
11.©g5 g6 12.©h6? does not work be-
cause of 12...Õe1+! 13.®xe1 ©f2+
14.®d1 ©xf1+ 15.®d2 ©xg2+ 16.®c3
©xf3+ 17.Ãe3 ©xf6+ 18.®b3 Ãf2
19.Ãxf2 ©xf2 with a roughly equal
game, but 11.Ãd3! Ãd4 12.fxg7 returns
us to the position examined in the note to
Black’s 7th move.
11.©xe1 Ãxe1 12.®xe1
TsL_._M_
jJ_._JjJ
.dJ_.i._
_._I_._.
._._._._
i._._I_.
.iI_._Ii
rNb.kBnR
An extremely original position.
White has more than sufficient equivalent
for the queen, but all of his pieces are on
the back rank, and his king has lost the
right to castle.
However, the whole of the black queen-
side is also unmoved, whilst its develop-
267
 Vassily Ivanchuk
ment involves considerable danger for the
black king, still in the centre.
In order to realise his material advantage,
White must first of all get his pieces
working together.
12...Ãf5 13.Ãe2!
Stronger than 13.fxg7?! Ãxc2 14.Àc3
Àd7 15.Àge2 Õe8 16.b4 cxd5 17.Àxd5
©d4 18.Õa2 Ãd3 19.Àf4 ©c4 20.Àxd3
©xa2, and Black is not worse.
13...Àd7?!
More accurate is 13...Ãxc2!, obtaining
control over the squares b3 and d3, e.g.:
14.Àc3 Àd7 15.dxc6 bxc6 16.®f1
(worse is 16.Àh3 Õe8 17.fxg7 Àc5)
16...Àxf6 17.g3 Àd5 18.Àh3 Àxc3
19.bxc3 Õe8 20.Àf2 h6 21.h4 a5 with a
small advantage for White, which, how-
ever, can become large, if he succeeds in
establishing coordination between his
rooks.
14.dxc6 bxc6
T_._._M_
j._S_JjJ
.dJ_.i._
_._._L_.
._._._._
i._._I_.
.iI_B_Ii
rNb.k.nR
15.Ãd1!
This paradoxical way of regrouping on
the back rank ensures White against nu-
merous threats.
15...Õe8+ 16.Àe2 Àxf6 17.Àc3
Ãc8?!
Taking a step backwards. After the ener-
getic 17...Àd5! 18.Àxd5 cxd5 19.g4
Ãg6 20.a4! d4 21.®f1 ©c5 (weaker is
21...d3 22.cxd3 Ãxd3 23.Õa3 ©a6
24.Õxd3 ©xd3 25.®f2, and the three
268
pieces and pawn are stronger than the
queen) 22.®g2 Ãxc2 23.Àg3 ©c4
24.Ãd2 ©d3 (24...d3?! 25.Àe4±)
25.Ãf4 White’s advantage is far from de-
cisive.
18.a4!
Including the rook in the game via a3.
18...a5
After 18...Ãe6?!, a good reply is 19.a5
©c5 20.Õa4!±.
19.Õf1! Ãa6 20.Õf2 h5! 21.Õa3
Mistaken is 21.h4? ©b8! 22.Õa3 ©h2,
and the situation becomes threatening.
._._T_M_
_._._Jj.
LdJ_.s._
j._._._J
I_._._._
r.n._I_.
.iI_NrIi
_.bBk._.
21...h4
The white king is well-protected by its
screen of pieces, but the outside black
pawn is another matter, preventing the re-
grouping g2-g3 and ®e1-f1-g2, and re-
quiring careful attention from White.
22.g3
The immediate 22.g4 was also possible.
22...h3 23.g4! Õd8
Slightly more chances were offered by
23...Ãc4 24.g5 Àd5 25.Àxd5 cxd5
26.f4 ©b4+ 27.®f1 Ãa6 28.Õxh3
©xa4 29.Õa3 with advantage to White.
24.Àf4 Àd7 25.Õb3 ©d4
Weaker is 25...Õe8+? 26.Ãe2! ©a7
27.Àe4 with an overwhelming advan-
tage.
26.Àfe2 Õe8
Nothing is changed by 26...Ãxe2
27.Ãxe2 Õe8 28.®f1 Àc5 29.Õa3 g6
 Game 93 - 2010

30.Àd1 ©d5 31.Õe3, and White should Black resigned.

win. A surprisingly original and fighting
game, in which each player was worthy
._._T_M_ of the other.
_._S_Jj.
L_J_._._ Game 93
j._._._. Grünfeld Indian Defence (D90)
I_.d._I_ í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Vachier-Lagrave,Maxime
_Rn._I_J Khanty-Mansiysk 2010
.iI_Nr.i 1.Àf3 Àf6 2.c4 g6 3.Àc3 d5 4.cxd5
_.bBk._. Àxd5 5.©b3
27.Àe4! In this move-order, White refrains from
By this pawn sacrifice, White closes the the immediate e2-e4, preferring piece
e-file and deprives the opponent of at- play.
tacking chances. 5...Àb6 6.d4 Ãg7 7.Ãf4
27...©xa4 28.Ãd2 ©a1 Also possible is 7.Ãg5, e.g.: 7...0-0
A risky undertaking, but Black tries to (more accurate is 7...h6 8.Ãh4 Ãe6
complicate the game in any way possible, 9.©c2 Àc6 10.Õd1 Àb4 11.©b1 0-0
as it moves into the technical phase of with chances for both sides, Tisdall-Jansa,
realisation of the advantage. Aarhus 1983) 8.Õd1 Ãg4 9.e3 À8d7
29.Ãc3 Àe5 30.Õa3 ©b1 31.Àd2 10.Ãe2 c6 11.0-0 Àf6 12.e4! Ãe6
13.©c2 Ãc4?! (13...h6!?) 14.Ãxc4
Àxc4 15.Àa4 Àb6 16.Àc5 ©c7
._._T_M_ 17.Õfe1 Õfe8 18.©b3 Àfd7 19.Àd3
_._._Jj. Õad8 20.Ãf4 ©c8 21.Õc1 ©a8 22.a4!
L_J_._._ with advantage to White, Jo. Horvath-
j._.s._. Leko, Budapest 1993.
._._._I_
r.b._I_J TsLdM_.t
.iInNr.i jJj.jJlJ
_D_Bk._. .s._._J_
The queen is trapped behind the enemy _._._._.
lines! ._.i.b._
31...©c1! _Qn._N_.
With the last hope – 32.Àxc1?? Àxf3#. Ii._IiIi
32.Õxa5 Àg6
Or 32...Àc4 33.Àb3 ©h6 34.Õxa6 win-
r._.kB_R
ning. 7...Ãe6
33.Õxa6 Àf4 34.Õa8! In the game Speelman-Ivanchuk, New
The final subtlety. After 34...Õxa8 there York rapid 1995, Black chose another
follows 35.Àxc1, whilst after 34...Àg2+, plan, popular in its time: 7...0-0 (after
the reply 35.Õxg2 wins. 7...Ãg4, strong is 8.Àg5! 0-0 9.h3,

269
 Vassily Ivanchuk
Speelman-I. Gurevich, Hastings 1992/
93) 8.Õd1 c6 9.e4 Ãg4 10.a4 a5 11.d5
cxd5 12.Àxd5 Àxd5 13.exd5?! (better is
13.©xb7) 13...Àa6! 14.Ãxa6 Õxa6
15.Ãe3 ©d7 16.0-0 Ãxf3 17.gxf3 Õf6
18.®g2 Õf5 19.h3 Õd8 20.Õd2 Ãf6
21.©c4 Õxd5ç.
8.©a3!
Less good is 8.©c2 Àc6 9.e3 Àb4
10.©d1 0-0 11.a3 À4d5 12.Àxd5 Ãxd5
13.Õc1 c6 14.Ãe2 with a minimal ad-
vantage for White, Kholmov-Hort, Mos-
cow 1975.
8...0-0 9.e3 À8d7 10.Õd1
In the game Granda Zuniga-Svidler, San
Sebastian 2009, play continued 10.Õc1
c6 11.Àe4 Ãf5 12.Ãd3 Àd5 13.Ãg3
©b6 14.Õc4 Õfe8 15.0-0 e5 16.dxe5
Àxe5Ç.
10...a5 11.Àg5!
An improvement on the game Elianov-
Vachier-Lagrave, Germany Bundesliga
2008/09, which continued 11.d5
Ãxc3+ 12.bxc3 Ãxd5 13.c4 Ãxf3
14.gxf3 e6 15.h4 ©f6 16.Ãe2 e5
17.Ãg5 ©c6 18.h5 f6 19.Ãh6 Õf7 with
a good game for Black.
11...Ãd5 12.e4 Ãc4
T_.d.tM_
_JjSjJlJ
.s._._J_
j._._.n.
._LiIb._
q.n._._.
Ii._.iIi
_._RkB_R
13.h4!?
White leaves his king uncastled, counting
on activating his rook on the h-file or
bringing it out via h3, but this plan in-
volves some risk.
270
The alternative is 13.Ãxc4 Àxc4 14.©b3
Àdb6 15.0-0 a4 16.©c2 ©d7 17.Àf3,
and White’s chances are somewhat better.
13...Ãxf1 14.®xf1 Àf6 15.©c5 c6
16.Àf3
It is worth considering 16.®g1!? h6 (or
16...Õe8 17.Àf3 Ãf8 18.©g5 h6
19.©g3 Àh5 20.©g4 Àxf4 21.©xf4
Ãg7 22.Õh3 ©d6 23.e5Ç) 17.Àf3 Õe8
18.Õh3 Ãf8 19.Ãe5 with the initiative.
16...e6 17.©d6
Going into a slightly better ending.
A complicated game results after 17.Õh3
Àbd7 18.©c4 Àh5 19.Ãh2 ©e7
20.®g1Ç.
17...Àc4 18.©xd8 Õfxd8 19.b3 Àa3
20.Ãe5 Àg4 21.Ãxg7 ®xg7
22.®e2
More accurate is 22.h5 Àf6 23.h6+ ®g8
24.Õh4, improving the position of his
pieces.
Now Black could repeat moves by means
of 22...Àf6! 23.Àe5 Àc2 24.Àf3 Àa3,
whilst after 25.Õc1 he can continue
25...Àb5!? 26.Àxb5 cxb5 27.®e2 Àg4
28.Õhf1 b4 with counterplay.
22...h5 23.Õd2! Àf6 24.Õc1 Àe8
25.Àa4
Having regrouped his rooks, White plans
to activate his knights.
25...Àd6 26.®e3 Àab5 27.Àe5 Àc7
28.f3 Àce8 29.Àb6 Õa6
._.tS_._
_J_._Jm.
TnJsJ_J_
j._.n._J
._.iI_.i
_I_.kI_.
I_.r._I_
_.r._._.
30.Àbd7!

By an indirect route, the knight reaches
c5, where it has been aiming, after which
the b7-pawn comes under fire.
30...Õaa8 31.Àc5 Àc7
White’s space advantage guarantees him
the better game, and his task is now the
advance of his queenside pawns. In the
course of a series of moves, White ma-
noeuvres, waiting for the right time for
this advance.
32.Õcd1 Õa7 33.Õc1 Õaa8
34.Àed3 Õab8 35.Àf4 Õh8
36.Õcc2 Àde8 37.®f2 Àf6
38.Àfd3 Àfe8 39.Àe5 Àd6
40.Àed7 Õbd8 41.Àb6 Õhe8
42.®e3 Àcb5 43.a4!
Finally putting the plan into operation.
43...Àc7 44.Õb2 Õe7
._.t._._
_Js.tJm.
.nJsJ_J_
j.n._._J
I_.iI_.i
_I_.kI_.
.r.r._I_
_._._._.
45.b4!
After 45.Àc4!?, with the idea after
45...Àxc4+? 46.bxc4 to open the b-file,
a possible reply is 45...Àd5+! 46.®d3
(weaker is 46.exd5? exd5+ 47.®d3
dxc4+ 48.bxc4 Àf5, and Black takes
over the initiative) 46...Àb4+ 47.®c3
Àxc4 48.bxc4 Õa8 with a defensible po-
sition.
45...axb4
In the event of 45...Àa8, White obtains a
powerful pawn duo by means of an ex-
change sacrifice – 46.bxa5 Àxb6
47.axb6! Àc4+ 48.®d3 Àxb2+
49.Õxb2 Õa8 50.®c4 ®f8 51.Õa2 ®e8
Game 93 - 2010
52.a5 ®d8 53.a6! bxa6 54.b7 Õb8
55.Õxa6 with the advantage.
46.Õxb4 Àa6 47.Õbb2 Àc7
48.Õdc2 ®h6
After 48...e5 49.dxe5 Õxe5 50.®f2 Õe7
51.Õd2 Àe6 52.Àxe6+ Õxe6 53.Õd4,
White also has the advantage.
49.®f2! Àa8
S_.t._._
_J_.tJ_.
.nJsJ_Jm
_.n._._J
I_.iI_.i
_._._I_.
.rR_.kI_
_._._._.
50.Àc4?!
Allowing the opponent to prolong his re-
sistance.
After 50.e5! Àf5 51.a5!! Àxd4 (both
51...®g7 52.Õc4 Àxh4 53.g4 hxg4
54.fxg4 g5 55.Àba4 Õb8 56.Õcb4, and
51...Àxb6 52.Õxb6 Õa8 53.Àxb7 Àxd4
54.Õa2 lose) 52.Õd2 Àxb6 53.Õxb6 g5
54.Õxb7 it is time for Black to resign
(analysis by Ivanchuk).
50...Àxc4 51.Õxc4 b6 52.Àd3 c5
53.a5!
Breaking into the enemy camp!
53...Õxd4
After 53...cxd4, a strong reply is 54.a6!
Õa7 55.Àb4 Õdd7 56.Õc6 g5 57.hxg5+
®xg5 58.Õa2 h4 59.®e2 ®f4 60.Àd3+
®g5 61.f4+ ®h5 62.Àe5 with advan-
tage to White, whilst after 53...bxa5
54.Àxc5 Õd6 55.Õb7 Õxb7 56.Àxb7
Õa6 57.Õa4 Õa7 58.Àxa5 gives White
an extra pawn and excellent winning
chances.
54.Õxd4 cxd4 55.axb6 Õb7 56.Àe5
Õxb6 57.Õa2
271
 Vassily Ivanchuk

The exchange of rooks is favourable to

Black, because without rooks, White can-
._._._._
not exploit the bad position of the black _.s.m._.
king. .r._J_J_
57...Àc7 _.t.n._J
._.jIk.i
_._._Ii.
._._._._ ._._._._
_.s._J_. _._._._.
.t._J_Jm 66.g4!
_._.n._J Obtaining a decisive advantage. Mistaken
._.jI_.i is 66.Àxg6+? ®f6 67.Àf8 ®e7 68.Õb8
_._._I_. Àb5 69.e5 d3 with counterchances for
R_._.kI_ Black.
_._._._. 66...hxg4 67.fxg4 g5+
Not 67...®f6?? because of 68.Àd7+.
58.Õa7! Õb2+ 68.hxg5 Õb5
Weaker is 58...Àa6 59.Àxf7+ ®g7 He also loses after 68...Õc1 69.Àc6+
60.Àe5+ ®g8 61.®g3 Àc5 62.Õa8+ ®f7 70.Àxd4 Õf1+ 71.Àf3.
®g7 63.Õa5 Àb7 64.Õa4 Õb5 65.®f4 69.Õc6 Õb7 70.Õc4 Àb5 71.Õc8
Àa5 66.g4 (66.Õxd4?? Õxe5!) 66...Àb3 Black has no way to prevent the pawn ad-
67.Õa7+ ®g8 vancing to queen.
71...Àc3 72.Õh8 Àe2+ 73.®f3 Õb5
Or 73...Àg1+ 74.®f2 Õb5 75.Õh7+
._._._M_ ®e8 76.Àd3 Õxg5 77.Õh4, and the
r._._._. knight is lost.
._._J_J_
_T_.n._J
._.jIkIi ._._._.r
_S_._I_. _._.m._.
._._._._ ._._J_._
_._._._. _T_.n.i.
analysis diagram
._.jI_I_
_._._K_.
68.®g5!! Õxe5+ 69.®xg6 Õa5 70.Õb7 ._._S_._
Õa8 71.Õxb3 e5 72.g5 winning. _._._._.
59.®g3 Õc2 60.Àxf7+ ®g7 61.Àe5
®f6 62.®f4! 74.g6! Àg1+ 75.®g2 Õxe5 76.g7
Black has no useful moves, the pawn d4 is Õg5 77.g8© Õxg8 78.Õxg8 d3
weak and in need of defence and White 79.Õa8
can create a passed pawn on the kingside. Securing the outside passed pawn.
62...®e7 63.g3 Õc5 64.Õb7 ®d6 79...d2 80.Õa1 Àe2 81.Õd1 Àc3
65.Õb6+ ®e7 82.Õxd2

272

Further resistance is useless.
82...Àxe4 83.Õe2 Àg5 84.®g3 ®f6
85.®h4 ®g6 86.Õe3 ®h6 87.Õa3
®g6 88.Õa8 Àf3+ 89.®g3 Àe5
90.Õa6 ®g5 91.Õa5
Black resigned.
2011
Game 94
French Defence (C06)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Erdös,Viktor
Gibraltar 2011
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Àd2
In the Tarrasch Variation, White tries to
limit White’s counterplay, depriving him
in many cases of the move ...b5-b4, and
creating an elastic set-up in the centre.
3...a6
Black, in his turn, stops White bringing
his bishop to b5, preparing ...c7-c5.
3...c5 is often seen immediately, e.g.,
4.exd5 exd5 5.Àgf3 c4!? 6.b3 cxb3
7.axb3 Ãb4 8.Àe5 Àe7 9.Ãd3 Àbc6
10.0-0!? Ãc3 11.Õa4! Ãxd4 12.Àxc6
Àxc6 13.Ãa3 Ãe6 14.Àf3 Ãb6?! (better
is 14...Ãf6 15.Õe1 Ãe7) 15.©a1! ©c7
16.b4!? (also good is 16.©xg7) 16...f6
17.Õe1 with the initiative for the pawn,
Carlsen-Nikolic, Wijk aan Zee 2005.
Another alternative is 3...Àf6 4.e5 Àfd7
5.Ãd3 c5 6.c3 Àc6 7.Àe2 ©b6 8.Àf3
cxd4 9.cxd4 f6 (not so good is 9...Ãb4+
10.Ãd2 Ãxd2+ 11.©xd2Ç) 10.exf6
Àxf6 11.0-0 Ãd6 with chances for both
sides, Karlsson-Timman, Malmö 2007.
In the event of 3...Àc6 4.Àgf3 Àf6 5.e5
Àd7 6.Àb3 f6 7.Ãb5 a6 8.Ãxc6 bxc6
9.0-0 c5 White obtains the initiative with
10.c4!.
4.Àgf3 Àf6 5.Ãd3 c5 6.e5
Setting up a strong pawn centre.
6...Àfd7 7.c3 Àc6 8.0-0
Game 94 - 2011
T_LdMl.t
_J_S_JjJ
J_S_J_._
_.jJi._.
._.i._._
_.iB_N_.
Ii.n.iIi
r.bQ_Rk.
8...g5!?
An interesting continuation. Black fights
against the centre with a flank blow.
Another line involves 8...Ãe7: 9.Ãc2
©b6 10.Àb3 cxd4 11.cxd4 a5 12.Ãe3
Àb4 13.Ãb1 a4 14.Àc1 ©d8 15.Àd3
Àxd3 16.Ãxd3 Àb6 17.Àd2 Ãd7 18.f4
Õc8 19.©e2Ç, Haslinger-Cobb, Trefforst
2008.
9.Ãb1
9.dxc5 has also been seen.
In the game Berelowitsch-Madan,
Coulsdon 2008, there followed:
9...Àdxe5?! (more accurate is 9...g4)
10.Àxe5 Àxe5 11.Àb3 Àxd3 12.©xd3
Ãg7 13.f4 0-0 14.fxg5 e5 15.©g3 ®h8
16.Ãd2 a5 17.Õae1 Õa6 18.Õxe5! Ãxe5
19.©xe5+ ®g8 20.Àd4 with a strong
attack for White.
9...g4 10.Àe1 h5
Also worth considering is 10...cxd4
11.cxd4 Àxd4 12.©xg4 Àc6 13.f4 h5
14.©d1 ©b6+ 15.®h1 Àc5 16.Àdf3
h4 17.Àg5 Ãe7 18.Àef3 Ãd7 19.h3 a5
with chances for both sides,
Fedorchuk-M. Gurevich, Cappelle-la-
Grande 2010.
11.Àc2!?
An unusual decision! Whilst strengthen-
ing the d4-pawn, White wants to transfer
the knight to e3, where it will enable the
advance of the f-pawn.
Also possible is 11.Àb3 a5 12.f4 (or
12.Àxc5 Àxc5 13.dxc5 Ãxc5 14.Àd3
273
 Vassily Ivanchuk

Ãa7 15.©a4 Ãd7 16.©f4 Ãb8 17.Õd1 18.Ãc3 Àd7 19.©d2 Àb6 20.b3
f5 18.c4 d4 19.Õe1 ©e7 20.Ãc2 h4 ®f7 21.Àfe3 ®f8
21.Ãd2 Ãc7 22.Ãd1 Õg8 23.a3 a4 In the event of 21...a4!? 22.b4 h4 23.Ãa2
24.f3 gxf3 25.Ãxf3 with a complicated ©c7 24.Õac1 h3 25.g3 Õd8, the chances
struggle, in which the program won, are equal.
Deep Fritz-Topalov, Bilbao 2004) 12...a4 22.Ãb2 ®g7 23.Õc1 Ãd7
13.Àxc5 Àxc5 14.dxc5 Ãxc5+ 15.®h1
Ãd7 16.©e2 d4 17.Ãe4 a3 18.Àc2
axb2 19.Ãxb2 dxc3 20.Ãxc3 Õa4 21.a3 T_.d._T_
©c7 22.Àb4 Àd4 23.©d1 with advan- _._Ll.m.
tage to White, Sebag-Danielian, Novi Sad
2009.
.sS_J_._
11...Õg8 12.Õe1 cxd4 13.cxd4 f5 jJ_JiJ_J
._.i.iJ_
iI_.n._.
T_LdMlT_ .bNq._Ii
_J_S_._. rBr._.k.
J_S_J_._
_._JiJ_J As a result of the manoeuvres, the white
._.i._J_ knight now has a chance to distinguish it-
_._._._. self. After 24.Àxf5+!? exf5 25.Àe3 ©c8
IiNn.iIi (weaker is 25...Õf8?! 26.e6 Ãxe6
27.Õxc6) 26.©c2 a4 27.e6! axb3
rBbQr.k. 28.Àxf5+ ®f6 29.©d3 Ãxe6 30.©xb5
14.Àf1 Àc4
Another plan is 14.exf6!?, and after
14...Àxf6 15.Àb3 b6 16.a4 h4 17.Àe3
g3 (or 17...®f7 18.f3!) 18.fxg3 hxg3
T_D_._T_
19.h3 White has good chances of attack _._.l._.
against the uncastled black king. ._S_Lm._
Now, however, the position assumes a _Q_J_N_J
closed character, offering Black sufficient ._Si.iJ_
counterplay. iJ_._._.
14...Ãe7 15.Ãd2 Àf8 16.f4 .b._._Ii
16.f3? is bad because of 16...©b6! rBr._.k.
17.Ãc3 f4. analysis diagram
White takes prophylactic measures
against ...f5-f4, but maybe he should first 31.Õxc4!! dxc4 32.d5+ ®f7 33.Àh6+
have strengthened the queenside with ®f8 34.Àxg8 Ãxg8 35.dxc6 ©e6! (ev-
16.a4. erything else loses) 36.Ãe5 c3 37.Ãf5!
16...b5! 17.a3 a5 ©d5 38.©xd5 Ãxd5 39.Ãxc3 Ãxc6,
Black has established pawn bastions on we reach a complicated endgame, in
both flanks, which are hard to break which Black has sufficient compensa-
down. tion for a pawn, but where both sides

274

have to dodge a lot of ‘underwater
reefs’.
24.Àe1
Because the above line is not fully clear,
Ivanchuk continues his manoeuvring
play.
24...a4 25.b4 Àc4 26.©e2 ©b8?!
More accurate is 26...©b6 27.Àxc4
dxc4, preventing White’s manoeuvre,
played in the game.
27.Àd3! ©a7 28.Àc5
After the opponent’s lapse, White’s
chances are certainly superior.
28...Õgf8 29.®h1 Õac8 30.Àxc4
bxc4 31.Ãc2 Ãxc5 32.dxc5 Àe7
At first glance, Black’s defences look very
solid, but White has a possibility to break
through. Over the next few moves, White
groups his pieces in the centre, occupies
the d-file, the key square d4 and others
around it, in other words, a kind of
super-blockade.
33.Õd1 Ãb5 34.Ãc3 Àg6 35.Õd4
Ãc6 36.Õb1 Õb8 37.®g1 Ãb5
38.Õbd1 ©e7 39.©e3 ©a7?
A mistake! He could maintain the fight
with 39...Ãc6.
The move played allows a combination of
rare beauty:
.t._.t._
d._._.m.
._._J_S_
_LiJiJ_J
JiJr.iJ_
i.b.q._.
._B_._Ii
_._R_.k.
40.Õxd5!!
The rook sacrifices itself for just two
pawns, but Ivanchuk follows his intuition
– the pawn phalanx and the enormous
Game 94 - 2011
energy that his liberated pieces now
assume!
40...exd5 41.e6+ ®h6
After 41...d4, good is 42.Õxd4 ®h6
43.Õd5!, returning to the game continua-
tion.
42.Õxd5 Õbd8?
After the sharp change in the situation,
Black immediately goes wrong. More te-
nacious is 42...©b7 43.©d4 ©e7!. After
44.Ãxf5 Õxf5 (he loses after 44...Õbd8
45.Õd6 Ãc6 46.g3 Õg8 47.Ãxg6 ®xg6
._.t._T_
_._.d._.
._LrI_M_
_.i._._J
JiJq.iJ_
i.b._.i.
._._._.i
_._._.k.
analysis diagram
48.©e5! Õxd6 49.cxd6 ©e8 50.f5+
®h7 51.©c5 Õg5 52.©a7+ ®h6 53.d7
Ãxd7 54.exd7 ©d8 55.Ãd2 c3
56.©a6+ ®g7 57.Ãxg5ê) 45.Õxf5
Õd8 46.Õd5 Õxd5 47.©xd5 Àxf4
48.Ãd2 ©g5 49.©d6 (but not 49.©e4?
Àh3+!) 49...®g6 50.Ãxf4 ©f5 51.e7+
®f7 52.c6 ©e4 53.e8©+! ©xe8
54.©d5+ ©e6 55.©xh5+ ®g8 56.h4!
Ãxc6 57.Ãe5 ®f8 58.©g5 ®e8 59.h5,
White should convert his advantage into
victory.
43.Õxd8 Õxd8 44.Ãxf5 ©c7
He also loses after 44...Õd1+ 45.®f2
©e7 46.g3 h4 47.Ãc2 Õh1 48.Ãxg6
®xg6 49.©e4+ ®h6 50.©xh1, whilst
after the retreat 47...Õd8, there follows
48.Ãe4 Õf8 49.f5+ ®h7 50.®g2 Ãe8
51.b5 with an overwhelming advan-
tage.
275
 Vassily Ivanchuk

60...Àxe8 61.®xe8 c3 62.c7 c2 63.c8©

._.t._._ c1© 64.®f7 ©c4+ 65.©e6+.
_.d._._. Black resigned.
._._I_Sm The intuitive rook sacrifice at move 40 is
_Li._B_J one of the most remarkable in contempo-
JiJ_.iJ_ rary practice, and reminds one of the
i.b.q._. immortal masterpieces of Morphy and
._._._Ii Chigorin.
_._._.k.
Game 95
45.g3! Sicilian Defence (B78)
Quietly strengthening the position, í Kotronias,Vasilios
White prepares the retreat of the bishop n Ivanchuk,Vassily
to c2 or e4, with the decisive advance of Gibraltar 2011
the f-pawn. In addition, the threat 1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Àxd4
46.Ãxg6 ®xg6 47.©e4+ ®h6 48.e7, Àf6 5.Àc3 d6 6.Ãe3 Ãg7
when the pawns are stronger than the Of course, not 6...Àg4?? 7.Ãb5+, and
rook, grows in strength. White wins.
45...Õd1+ 46.®f2 ©d8 47.Ãc2 Õd3 7.f3 Àc6
The only way to somehow ease the pres- By transposition, we have reached the
sure. main line of the Dragon.
48.Ãxd3 ©xd3 49.f5+ ©xe3+ 8.©d2 0-0 9.Ãc4
50.®xe3 Àe7 After 9.0-0-0, Konstantinopolsky’s
9...d5!? deserves attention, and then
10.Àxc6 bxc6 11.exd5 cxd5 12.Àxd5
._._._._ (12.Ãd4!? is the man line) 12...Àxd5
_._.s._. 13.©xd5 ©c7 14.©c5 (after 14.©xa8
._._I_.m Ãf5 15.©xf8+ ®xf8 16.Õd2 h5!?
_Li._I_J Black’s position is preferable) 14...©b7
JiJ_._J_ 15.©a3 a5 16.Ãc4Ç.
i.b.k.i. 9...Ãd7
._._._.i The alternative is 9...Àxd4 10.Ãxd4 Ãe6
_._._._. 11.Ãb3 ©a5 12.0-0-0 Õfc8 (12...b5!?)
13.®b1 Õc6 14.g4 Ãxb3 15.cxb3 Õac8
51.®e4 16.h4 h5, giving White a small advantage.
The white pieces dominate from all sides. In the game Kotronias-Murtagh, Port Erin
The king hurries to the aid of his pawns, 2004, play continued 17.g5 Àe8
and the battle is over. 18.Ãxg7 Àxg7 19.f4 ©c5? (correct is
51...Ãc6+ 52.®e5 Àd5 53.b5! 19...b5) 20.Õh3 a6 21.Õd3 b5 22.f5
Àxc3 54.bxc6 Àb5 55.e7 Àc7 ©e5 23.Õd5 ©g3 24.fxg6 fxg6 25.e5
56.®d6 Àe8+ 57.®d7 Àf6+ Àf5 26.exd6 Àxd6 27.©e2 Àf5
58.®e6 Àe8 59.®f7 Àc7 60.e8© 28.Õxf5 gxf5 29.©xe7 and White ob-
Black cannot even prevent a new queen tained a strong attack.
appearing – his position is hopeless after 10.0-0-0

276

T_.d.tM_
jJ_LjJlJ
._Sj.sJ_
_._._._.
._BnI_._
_.n.bI_.
IiIq._Ii
_.kR_._R
10...Õb8!?
The little-studied and so-called Chinese
Dragon gives Black good results in prac-
tice. Previously, the Ukrainian grand-
master had played 10...Àe5 here, and af-
ter 11.Ãb3 Õc8 12.h4 (more accurate is
12.®b1) 12...h5 13.Ãg5 Õc5 14.g4?!
(better is 14.©e2 a6 15.®b1 b5
16.Àd5Ç) 14...hxg4 15.f4 Àc4 16.©e2
Àa5 17.e5 Àxb3+ 18.Àxb3 Õxc3!
19.bxc3 Ãc6 20.Õhf1 Àe4 21.©c4 d5
22.©xe4 dxe4 23.Õxd8 Õxd8 24.Ãxe7
Õd7 Black obtained the advantage,
Smirin-Ivanchuk, Paris 1994.
11.Ãb3 Àa5
Taking aim at the dangerous bishop.
After 11...b5!?, possible is 12.Àdxb5
Àa5 13.Àd4 Àxb3+ 14.cxb3 ©c7
15.®b1 ©b7, Kudrin-T. Steiner,
Stillwater 2005, and now 16.Ãg5! Õfe8
17.Ãxf6 Ãxf6 18.Àd5 Ãg7 19.Õc1
leaves Black with no compensation for
the pawn.
12.Ãh6 Ãxh6 13.©xh6 b5 14.g4
.t.d.tM_
j._LjJ_J
._.j.sJq
sJ_._._.
._.nI_I_
_Bn._I_.
IiI_._.i
_.kR_._R
Game 95 - 2011
14...b4
14...e5?! does not work because of
15.Àf5! Àxb3+ (bad is 15...gxf5?
16.g5! Àxb3+ 17.axb3 Àe8 18.Àd5 f6
19.Õhg1 Õf7 20.gxf6+ ®h8 21.Àe7
winning, Gopal-Li Chao, Martuni 2007)
16.axb3 Ãxf5 17.exf5 b4 18.Àe4 Àxe4
19.fxe4 Õb6 20.g5, and White has an at-
tack, Saldano Dayer-Cuenca Jimenez, Se-
ville 2004.
15.Àd5 Àxb3+ 16.Àxb3 e5?!
Allowing White to bring his knight to a
strong position. It was worth considering
16...Àxd5 17.exd5 Õb6!? 18.h4 e5
19.dxe6 fxe6 with chances for both sides,
Maslak-M. Porat, Pardubice 2008.
17.Àe3! Ãe6 18.h4 ®h8!
Weaker is 18...©b6? 19.h5 Õfc8 20.®b1
a5 21.Àf5!, and White’s initiative be-
comes dangerous, Petr-I. Porat, Brno
2006.
19.©g5
Advancing either of the two pawns –
19.g5?? or 19.h5??, loses the queen after
19...Àg8.
19...Õb6 20.Àa5!?
Preventing Black from playing 20...Õa6?,
after which possible is 21.Àb7 ©e7
22.Õxd6! Õxd6 23.Àxd6 Ãxa2 24.Õd1
with advantage.
20...®g7
Mistaken is 20...Ãxa2? 21.b3 ©e7
22.Àec4 Õa6 23.®b2 Õc8 24.Õa1, and
the bishop is lost.
._.d.t._
j._._JmJ
.t.jLsJ_
n._.j.q.
.j._I_Ii
_._.nI_.
IiI_._._
_.kR_._R
277
 Vassily Ivanchuk

21.Àf5+! 34.fxe5 Õxe5 35.Õf1 d5 36.exd5 Õxd5

With the intention of weakening the the game goes into a drawn ending.
black king’s pawn cover by exchanges. 30.Õe1 Õc5 31.Õf2?!
After 21.Àec4, a good line is 21...Õa6 The rook cannot be taken because of mate
22.h5!? ©e7! (but not 22...h6? 23.©d2 in two, but White has a more energetic
Õxa5 24.hxg6 Àg8 25.Àxa5 ©xa5 retort. After 31.f4! exf4 (not 31...Õca5?
26.gxf7 Õxf7 27.©xd6 Õf6 28.Õh5±) 32.Àxa5 Õxa5 33.Õxd6, and White
23.b3 Õc8 24.®b2 Õc5 25.hxg6 fxg6 counterattacks) 32.©xf4 (the move
26.©d2 d5! with pressure for Black. 32.e5? loses beautifully:
21...Ãxf5 22.gxf5 ©c7
After 22...Àh5? 23.©xd8 Õxd8 24.Àc4, ._._._._
Black loses a pawn. j._._.m.
23.fxg6 T_.j.sI_
If immediately 23.h5?, then 23...h6! _.t.iQ_J
24.©d2 g5, and Black has an excellent
game.
.jD_.j._
23...fxg6 24.h5 Õc8 25.Õd2 Õa6 _N_._._.
26.hxg6 h5 .iIr._._
A necessary decision. _K_.r._.
26...hxg6? is bad because of 27.Õg2. analysis diagram
27.Àb3 Õxa2 32...Õxe5! 33.Õxe5 ©f1+ 34.Àc1
©xc1+! 35.®xc1 Õa1 mate) Black,
._T_._._ probably, would have to move the rook to
j.d._.m. c7 or play 32...Õe5, conceding White the
._.j.sI_ f-file, for active operations.
_._.j.qJ 31...Õca5!
Now Black’s idea is justified.
.j._I_._ In the event of 32.Àxa5 Õxa5 33.f4
_N_._I_. ©a2+ 34.®c1 ©a1+ 35.®d2 ©xb2, he
TiIr._._ has full compensation for the exchange,
_.k._._R whilst after the further 36.fxe5 ©xe5
28.®b1?! 37.©xe5 dxe5 38.®d3 Õc5, he obtains a
Looks logical, but stronger was 28.f4!? good ending.
Õa6 (not 28...Àxe4? because of 32.Õe3?
29.©xh5 with decisive threats) 29.Õf2
Õh8 30.fxe5 dxe5 31.Õhf1 Õf8 32.®b1 ._._._._
Õc8 33.Õg1 ©c4 34.©xe5 ©xe4 j._._.m.
35.©h2, and White keeps the initiative. T_.j.sI_
28...Õa6 29.©f5
t._.jQ_J
Not 29.f4? Àxe4 30.©xh5 Àxd2+.
29...©c4
.jD_I_._
Rather riskily continuing to play for the _N_.rI_.
attack. With 29...©d7 30.Õxh5 ©xf5 .iI_.r._
31.Õxf5 ®xg6 32.Õg2+ ®f7 33.f4 Õe8 _K_._._.
278

A mistake, leading to a sudden collapse,
after Black’s striking reply.
32...©d4!!
With the threat of 33...Õa1+ 34.Àxa1
©d1 mate.
33.Àxa5
Or 33.Õd3 (33.Àxd4? Õa1 mate)
33...©xf2 winning.
33...©d1+ 34.®a2 Õxa5+ 35.®b3
©a1 36.c3 ©a4+ 37.®c4 bxc3+
White resigned.
After 38.b4, there follows 38...Õc5+
39.®d3 ©d1+ 40.Õd2 ©xd2 mate, and
after 38.®xc3 – 38...Õc5+ 39.®d2
Õc2+ 40.®d1 Õxb2+ 41.Õc2 ©xc2+
42.®e1 ©b1 mate.
Game 96
Keres Defence (E11)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Short,Nigel
Gibraltar 2011
1.d4 e6 2.c4 Ãb4+ 3.Àd2
A rare continuation, leading to a compli-
cated game.
In defending the check with the knight,
White wants to gain a tempo by attacking
the bishop and develop an initiative on
the queenside, or else, after the exchange
on d2, obtain the advantage of the bishop
pair.
After 3.Ãd2, a possible line is 3...©e7
4.Àf3 Àf6 5.g3 Àc6 6.Àc3 Ãxc3
7.Ãxc3 Àe4 8.Õc1 d6 9.d5 Àxc3
10.Õxc3 Àd8 11.Ãg2 0-0 12.dxe6
Àxe6 13.0-0 Ãd7 14.e4 Ãc6 15.Õe3
Õfe8 16.Õfe1 a5 with a minimal advan-
tage to White, Epishin-Ivanchuk, Tilburg
1993.
3...d5
In the opinion of Max Euwe, the most re-
liable path to equality.
4.Àf3 Àf6 5.©a4+
Game 96 - 2011
Tigran Petrosian’s move.
It is also possible to play 5.e3 at once, for
example: 5...Ãe7 6.©c2 b6 7.e4 dxe4
8.Àxe4 Ãb7 9.Ãd3 Àbd7 10.b4 a5
11.b5 c5 12.bxc6 Ãxc6 13.Àed2 Õc8
14.©b1 0-0 15.0-0 ©c7 16.Õe1 Ãd6
17.Ãb2 Õfd8 18.©d1 Ãf4 19.©e2 ©d6
20.Àf1 (more accurate is 20.a4)
20...Àc5! 21.Ãc2 Àa4 22.Ãxa4 Ãxa4
23.g3 Ãh6 24.Àe5 g6 with the initiative
to Black, Kortchnoi-Spassky, 7th match
game, Elista 2009.
5...Àc6 6.a3 Ãxd2+ 7.Ãxd2 Àe4
8.Ãf4 g5!?
The preliminary 8...0-0 is also possible,
with the sample variation 9.e3 g5 (after
the passive 9...Àe7, White obtained the
better position in the game Tukmakov-
Schweber, Buenos Aires 1970, by means
of 10.©c2 followed by Ãd3) 10.Ãg3 h5
11.cxd5 exd5 12.h3 Àxg3 13.fxg3 g4
14.hxg4 hxg4 15.©c2 f5 with chances
for both sides.
9.Ãe3 f5
T_LdM_.t
jJj._._J
._S_J_._
_._J_Jj.
Q_IiS_._
i._.bN_.
.i._IiIi
r._.kB_R
10.g3!
Strengthening the kingside; White in-
tends to develop the bishop to g2.
Weaker is 10.Àe5?! Ãd7 11.Àxd7 ©xd7
12.f3 f4 13.Ãg1 Àd6 14.e4 fxe3
15.Ãxe3 dxc4 16.Ãxc4 Àxc4 17.©xc4
Õg8 18.0-0-0 0-0-0 with a comfortable
position for Black, Malaniuk-Salov, Minsk
1987.
279
 Vassily Ivanchuk

10...0-0 11.Õd1 ®h8?!

Preparing the further advance of the
T_Ld.tM_
f-pawn, but losing time. It was worth jJ_._._J
considering 11...Ãd7 (after 11...©f6, a ._J_._._
good line is 12.h4! g4 13.Àg5) 12.©c2 _._Jb._.
©e7 13.Ãg2 Ãe8 14.cxd5 exd5 15.©b3 Q_.i._J_
Õd8, completing his development. i._._.i.
12.Ãg2 .i._IsB_
After 12.h4 f4 13.gxf4 gxf4 14.Ãc1
_.r.k._R
©f6, the g-file is opened, and it is not
analysis diagram
clear how White should play.
12...f4 20.Õxc6!! bxc6 21.©xc6 Àxh1
After 12...©e7, a possibility is 13.Ãc1 f4 22.Ãxd5+ Õf7 23.©xa8 Àxg3 24.Ãxg3
14.g4! and after 14...h5?! – 15.h4! with a ©d7 25.b4 a6 26.a4 ®g7 27.Ãe5+ ®g6
clear advantage. 28.Ãxf7+ ®xf7 29.©e4 ©f5 30.©d5+
13.Ãc1 g4 14.cxd5 exd5 ©e6 31.©a5 ©e7 32.b5 with an obvi-
ous advantage to White.
16.exf3 gxf3 17.Ãxf3!
T_Ld.t.m Stronger than 17.Àxf3 Ãg4.
jJj._._J 17...Àxe5 18.dxe5 Àc5
._S_._._ After 18...Õxf3?, White wins with the
_._J_._. striking 19.©xe4! dxe4 20.Õxd8+ ®g7
Q_.iSjJ_ 21.Ãg5 ®f7 22.0-0.
i._._Ni. 19.©d4 Õxf3
.i._IiBi 19...c6? is a mistake because of 20.e6+
®g8 21.©g4+ ®h8 22.Ãd2 Àxe6
_.bRk._R
23.Ãc3+ d4 24.Õxd4! Àxd4 25.Ãxd4+
15.Àe5! Õf6 26.©h4 with a decisive advantage.
This strong central counterblow punishes 20.©xc5 c6 21.0-0 Ãe6 22.©d6 ©e8
Black’s premature activity. After the exchange of queens, White es-
15...f3 tablishes a strong passed pawn.
In the event of 15...Àxe5 16.dxe5 f3, 23.Ãg5 ©f7 24.Ãf6+ ®g8 25.®g2
play transposes into the game, whilst after Õb3 26.Õd2 Õe8 27.f3 ©g6 28.Õff2
15...fxg3 16.hxg3 Àxf2, there is the sur- ©h6
prising 17.Ãf4!! (also good is
17.Àg6+!? ®g7 18.Àxf8 Àxh1 ._._T_M_
19.Ãxh1 ®xf8 20.Ãh6+ ®g8 21.©b3 jJ_._._J
Àe7 22.©e3 ®f7 23.©e5 ©d6 ._JqLb.d
24.©g7+ with attack) 17...Àxe5 (both _._Ji._.
17...Àxd1 18.Àg6+ ®g8 19.Àxf8
©xf8 20.Ãxd5+, and 17...Àxh1
._._._._
18.Àxc6 bxc6 19.Ãe5+ ®g8 20.©xc6 iT_._Ii.
Õf7 21.Ãxd5 lose) 18.Ãxe5+ ®g8 .i.r.rKi
19.Õc1 c6 _._._._.

280
 Game 96 - 2011

29.g4
After regrouping his pieces, White ob-
tains a strategically winning position,
but its realisation is associated with cer-
tain difficulties, because he has to set in
motion the f- and g-pawns, which with
opposite-coloured bishops is not so
easy.
29...Õe3 30.h4 ©f4 31.©b4?!
The exchange of queens complicates
White’s task. He could win more quickly
with 31.©c7 Ãf7 32.Õde2 Õxe2
33.Õxe2 ©c4 34.Õf2 ©b3 35.©d7 with
an attack on the king – after 35...c5
36.e6! Õxe6 37.Ãe7 ®g7 38.©d8 Õxe7
39.©xe7 Black loses the exchange, in or-
der to save his king. Nigel Short
31...©xb4 32.axb4 Õb3 33.Õd4
a5?!
In giving up a pawn, Black counts on The alternative was 40.®g3!? Õbxa5
counterplay in the centre, but he only 41.Ãf6 d3 42.Õd7 Ãf7 43.Õe7 Õe8
weakens his position. 44.Õxb7 Õa1 45.Õd2 Õea8 46.Õe7 Õe1
Better is 33...h5!? 34.gxh5 ®h7, fighting 47.g5±.
against the kingside pawns. 40...c3 41.bxc3 dxc3 42.e6! Ãxe6
34.bxa5 c5 35.Õa4 Õa8 36.Ãe7 43.Ãf6 Õa6?
Õb5 37.Õf4 The decisive mistake!
Also good is 37.b4!? c4 38.Ãc5, blocking He could continue to resist with 43...Õc8
the pawn duo. 44.Õc2 ®f7 45.Õxc3 Õaxa5±, regaining
37...d4 38.Õf6 Ãd5 one of the pawns.
44.Õd8+ ®f7 45.Ãxc3 h5 46.Õd4
Now the position is beyond salvation, and
T_._._M_ the win is only a question of time.
_J_.b._J 46...Õc6 47.Õf4+ ®g8 48.Ãd2 ®g7
._._.r._ 49.Õe2 ®g6 50.®g3 Õd5 51.Õfe4
iTjLi._. ®f7 52.Õb4 Ãc8 53.Ãe1 Õc1
._.j._Ii 54.Õbe4 Õcc5 55.Õ2e3 ®g6
_._._I_. 56.Ãc3 Õc6 57.Õe7
.i._.rK_ With the threat of 58.Õg7+ ®h6 59.g5+
Õxg5 60.hxg5 mate.
_._._._.
57...hxg4 58.fxg4 Õc4 59.Õg7+
39.Õd6! ®h6 60.g5+ ®h5 61.Õh7+ ®g6
After activating the rook, Black’s own ac- 62.Õh6+ ®f5 63.Õf6
tivity comes to nothing. Mate.
39...c4 40.Ãd8 An elegant realisation of the advantage.

281
 Vassily Ivanchuk

Game 97
Queen’s Gambit Declined (D30)
T_L_M_.t
í Ivanchuk,Vassily jJ_.dJj.
n Fridman,Daniel ._S_J_.j
Gibraltar 2011 _.jJ_._.
1.c4 e6 2.Àf3 d5 3.d4 Àf6 4.Ãg5 ._IiS_._
With this continuation, White retains the _._BiN_.
possibility of developing his queen’s Ii._.iIi
knight to d2.
rN_Q_Rk.
4...Ãe7
Black has also played 4...Ãb4+ 5.Àbd2 10.Àe5!?
dxc4 6.a3 Ãxd2+ 7.©xd2 c6 8.a4 Àbd7 With the intention of kicking the knight
9.©b4 h6 10.Ãxf6 ©xf6 11.e3 a5 out of e4. The alternative is 10.Àc3 Àxc3
12.©xc4 0-0 13.Ãe2 e5 14.0-0 exd4 11.bxc3 0-0 12.Õe1 dxc4 13.Ãxc4 b6
15.©xd4 ©e7 16.Õfd1 Àc5 17.©d6?! 14.Ãd3 Ãb7 15.Õb1, and White’s
(stronger is 17.©c3 Ãf5 18.Àd4ì) chances are slightly superior.
17...©xd6 18.Õxd6 Ãg4â, Torre- 10...Àf6
Ivanchuk, Istanbul 2000. In the event of 10...Àxe5? 11.dxe5 0-0
(Regarding other continuations, see 12.Ãxe4 dxe4 13.Àc3 ©g5 14.©d6,
Game 77.) Black loses one of his pawns.
5.e3 h6 11.cxd5 Àxe5?!
In the game Abramovic-Savanovic, After the exchange of knights, the pawn
Herceg Novi 2002, after 5...0-0 6.Àbd2 on e5 allows White to strengthen his
c5 7.dxc5 Ãxc5 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Ãe2 h6 centre. After 11...exd5 White retains
10.Ãh4 Àc6 11.0-0 Õe8 12.Àb3 Ãb6 somewhat better chances with 12.Àxc6
13.Àbd4 Õe4 14.Àxc6 (14.Ãd3!?) bxc6
14...bxc6 15.Õc1 Ãg4?! (better is
15...Ãb7) 16.Ãxf6 ©xf6 17.Àd2 Ãxe2
18.Àxe4 ©xb2 19.Õc2 Ãxd1 20.Õxb2,
T_L_M_.t
White obtained the advantage, which he j._.dJj.
conducted to victory. ._J_.s.j
6.Ãh4 Àe4 _.jJ_._.
Simplifying, using Lasker’s method. ._.i._._
7.Ãxe7 ©xe7 8.Ãd3 _._Bi._.
Because White has not brought his knight Ii._.iIi
to c3, 8.cxd5 can be met by the interest- rN_Q_Rk.
ing 8...©b4+!? 9.Àbd2 exd5, with un- analysis diagram
clear play.
8...c5 9.0-0 Àc6 13.©c2! Õb8 (13...c4? 14.b3! cxd3
After 9...cxd4 both 10.cxd5 exd5 15.©xc6+ ©d7 16.©xa8±) 14.b3 cxd4
11.Àxd4, and 10.Ãxe4!? dxe4 11.Àxd4 15.exd4 Ãd7 15.Àd2 0-0 16.h3 ©d6
are good, with a small advantage to 17.Àf3, although this line should still
White. have been preferred.

282
 Game 97 - 2011

12.dxe5 Àxd5 13.Àd2

The knight seeks to occupy an active posi-
._T_T_.m
tion. jJd._.j.
13...0-0 14.Àe4 ©c7 ._._._.j
After 14...f6, possible is 15.exf6 Àxf6 _._Qj._.
16.Àxf6+ Õxf6 17.Ãe4 ©c7 18.f4 Ãd7 ._J_._._
19.©c2, with the initiative for White. _._.i._I
Ii.r.iI_
T_L_.tM_ _._R_.k.
jJd._Jj. 26.©e4!
._._J_.j With the threat of 27.Õd7.
_.jSi._. Black cannot offer the exchange of rooks,
._._N_._ because after 26...Õcd8? 27.Õxd8 Õxd8
_._Bi._. 28.Õxd8+ ©xd8, Black has three pawns
Ii._.iIi under attack at once.
26...©c6 27.©c2!
r._Q_Rk.
Retaining the queen for the attack. Not so
15.Àd6! f6 16.©g4 clear is 27.©g4 ©e6 28.Õd7 ©xg4
As a result of the complications now re- 29.hxg4 b5!? 30.Õxa7 Õed8, going into
sulting, Black obtains counterchances. It a rook endgame.
was worth considering 16.©f3!? Ãd7 27...c3 28.Õd6 ©c4 29.bxc3 ©xc3
(16...fxe5? 17.Ãh7+!) 17.©e4 f5
18.©h4 with the advantage. ._T_T_.m
16...fxe5! jJ_._.j.
The only correct decision. ._.r._.j
17.Àxc8 ©xc8 18.©e4 Õf5 19.Ãc4 _._.j._.
®h8
19...©c6 20.Õfd1 Õd8 21.Õac1 b6
._._._._
22.Õd2 is hardly any better; White _.d.i._I
threatens to double rooks, and after I_Q_.iI_
22...Õf7 23.©xe5 he regains the pawn, _._R_.k.
keeping the initiative. 30.©e4!
20.Ãxd5 exd5 21.©xd5 ©c7 This shuttle manoeuvre with the queen
22.Õfd1 Õc8? brings its benefits. Unsatisfactory now is
A mistake, after which White seizes the 30...b5?! (30...Õc7? 31.Õd8) 31.©b7
d-file, obtaining a clear advantage. ©c5 32.Õd7±, whilst after 30...b6
Significantly stronger was 22...Õff8, 31.©a4 ©a5 possible is 32.©h4!, with a
and after 23.©d7 – 23...©b6! (worse is very strong attack, e.g.: 32...e4 (or
23...Õac8 24.Õd2 c4 25.Õad1 c3 32...©xa2 33.Õxh6+! gxh6 34.©xh6+
26.bxc3 ©xc3â) with drawing ®g8 35.Õd7 ©f7 36.Õxf7 ®xf7
chances. 37.©h7+ ®g6 38.©xa7ê) 33.Õ1d5!
23.Õd2 c4 24.Õad1 Õff8 25.h3 ©c3 (33...Õc5 34.Õd8!) 34.Õxh6+!
Õfe8 gxh6 35.©xh6+ ®g8

283
 Vassily Ivanchuk

(The preceding moves and other possibil-

._T_T_M_ ities are discussed in Game 58.)
j._._._.
.j._._.q
_._R_._. Ts.dMlSt
._._J_._ jJ_._Jj.
_.d.i._I ._J_J_Lj
I_._.iI_ _._._._.
_._._.k. ._.i._.i
analysis diagram _._._Nn.
IiI_.iI_
36.g3!! (this quiet move assures the king
r.bQkB_R
of a retreat) 36...©a1+ 37.®g2 Õcd8
38.Õg5+ ®f7 39.©h7+ ®e6 40.Õg6+ 8.h5
®d5 41.©c7! Õc8 42.Õd6+ ®e5 Following the usual scheme of develop-
43.©d7! (stronger than 43.©g7+ ®xd6 ment. More principled is 8.Àe5, e.g.:
44.©xa1) 43...©xa2 44.Õh6 ©e6 8...Ãh7 9.Ãd3 Ãxd3 10.©xd3 Àd7
45.©d4+ ®f5 46.g4+ ®g5 47.©g7+ 11.f4 c5!? 12.Ãe3 ©a5+ and now:
©g6 48.©xg6 mate. A) 13.Ãd2 ©a4!? 14.d5 Àe7 15.dxe6
30...©c4 31.©xb7 ©xa2 32.Õg6 Àxe5 16.fxe5 fxe6 17.c4!? Õd8 18.©e4
Õg8 Õd4 19.©xb7 ©xc4 20.Ãc3 Õd7
He is not saved by 32...©g8 33.Õd7 Õb8 21.©a8+ Õd8 22.©e4 with chances for
34.©xa7 Õa8 35.©b7 Õab8 36.©c7 both sides, Prasad-Gavrilov, Olomouc
Õbc8 37.Õgxg7! Õxc7 38.Õxg8+ ®xg8 2005;
39.Õxc7, and White wins. B) Worse is 13.c3?! Àgf6 14.Àxd7
33.Õxg7! ©c2 34.Õxg8+ Õxg8 Àxd7 15.dxc5 0-0-0 16.©c4 Àxc5!
35.Õd6 17.b4 b5 18.©e2 Àd3+ 19.®f1 ©c7
Black is completely helpless. 20.®g1 Õd5 (more accurate is
35...©h7 36.©c6 ©b1+ 37.®h2 20...Àxf4ç) 21.a4 g5!? 22.axb5 gxf4
©f5 38.Õf6 ©g5 39.Õxh6+ ®g7 23.Õxa7 ©c4 24.Õa6 ©b3 25.Ãxf4?
40.Õd6 (the battle could be prolonged by
Black resigned. 25.©f3! Àe5 26.©xf4) 25...Àxf4
26.©f2
Game 98
Caro-Kann Defence (B18) ._M_.l.t
í Bruzon Batista,Lazaro _._._J_.
n Ivanchuk,Vassily R_._J_.j
Havana 2011 _I_T_._.
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Àc3 dxe4 4.Àxe4
Ãf5 5.Àg3 Ãg6 6.h4 h6 7.Àf3 e6!?
.i._.s.i
A variation which became popular after _Di._.n.
the game Kasparov-Bareev, Moscow ._._.qI_
2004. Black allows the knight into e5, in _._._.kR
order to exchange it off with ...Àbd7. analysis diagram

284
 Game 98 - 2011

26...Ãd6! 27.Õa8+ ®d7! 28.Õxh8

Àe2+! and White resigned in the game
._.t.tM_
Perelshteyn-Fridman, Minneapolis _JdS_Jj.
2005. ._J_Js.j
8...Ãh7 9.Ãd3 Ãxd3 10.©xd3 Àf6 j._.n._.
11.Àe4 .lIi.i.i
More common is 11.Ãd2 and in reply to _._._Qn.
11...c5!? – 12.Àe4. Ii.b._I_
In the game Carmaciu-Svetushkin, Bu-
_K_Rr._.
charest 2003, there followed: 12...Àbd7
analysis diagram
13.0-0-0 ©b6 (13...©c7 14.dxc5!)
14.Ãc3 Àxe4 15.©xe4 Àf6 16.©e2 19.Ãxb4 axb4 20.f5 Àxe5 21.dxe5
Àd5 17.©d3 Àxc3 18.©xc3 cxd4 Õxd1+ 22.©xd1 Õd8 23.©e2 Àd7
19.Àxd4 Ãe7 20.f4 0-0, and Black’s 24.fxe6 fxe6 with comfortable play for
chances were not worse. Black.
11...Àbd7 12.Ãd2 a5!? But here the situation is different!
Together with the next move, Black tries It is extremely tempting to exchange the
an extremely interesting idea. bishops, and give check.
13.0-0-0 14.Ãxb4?!
Heading for complications. More cau-
tious is 14.Àxf6+ Àxf6 15.®b1 Ãxd2
T_.dMl.t 16.Àxd2 0-0 17.Àc4 ©c7 18.Àe5 Õfd8
_J_S_Jj. with roughly equal play.
14...axb4!
._J_Js.j Probably, the Cuban number one ex-
j._._._I pected 14...Àxe4 15.Ãe1! Àef6 16.®b1
._.iN_._ ©c7 17.Àe5 0-0 18.f4Ç.
_._Q_N_. Despite the apparent danger, the text
IiIb.iI_ move gives Black good counterplay.
_.kR_._R 15.Àd6+ ®e7
After 15...®f8? 16.Àe5 Àxe5 17.dxe5,
13...Ãb4! White has the advantage.
In itself, the idea of opening the a-file by 16.Àe5 Õf8
exchanging bishops had already been
seen, but only after castling.
In the game Svetushkin-Lauber, Ger- T_.d.t._
many Bundesliga 2009/10, after 8.Àe5 _J_SmJj.
(the first 7 moves were as in the main ._JnJs.j
game) 8...Ãh7 9.Ãd3 Ãxd3 10.©xd3 _._.n._I
Àd7 11.f4 Ãb4+!? 12.c3 Ãe7 13.Ãd2 .j.i._._
Àgf6 14.0-0-0 0-0 15.c4 ©c7 16.Õhe1 _._Q_._.
(better is 16.©f3 c5 17.d5!) 16...Õad8 IiI_.iI_
17.©f3 there followed 17...a5!? 18.®b1
Ãb4!
_.kR_._R

285
 Vassily Ivanchuk
17.Àec4?
Judging by what happens, this is the deci-
sive mistake!
White saves the knight tactically, but this
takes time, which Black uses to go over to
the attack.
Also dubious is 17.Àxb7?! ©c7
18.Àxd7 Àxd7 19.Àc5 Õxa2 20.Àxd7
®xd7 21.g3 ©a5 with the initiative for
Black, whilst after 17.©g3!? a good line
is 17...©b8! 18.Àdc4 Õxa2 19.Õhe1
Àxe5 20.dxe5 Àd5 21.©h4+
(21.©xg7?! ©a7 22.Àe3 b3!â)
21...®e8, but even so, this continuation
should have been preferred.
17...©c7!
Preparing ...b7-b5.
The immediate 17...b5? is a mistake in
view of the following:
T_.d.t._
_._SmJj.
._JnJs.j
_J_._._I
.jNi._._
_._Q_._.
IiI_.iI_
_.kR_._R
analysis diagram
18.Àf5+! exf5 19.Õde1+ Àe4
20.Õxe4+! ®f6 (or 20...fxe4 21.©xe4+
Àe5 22.©xe5+ ®d7 23.©d6+ ®c8
24.©xc6+ ®b8 25.©xb5+ ®a7
26.©a4+ ®b7 27.©xb4+ ®c7
28.Õe1ê) 21.©g3! g6 22.hxg6 ®g7
23.Õeh4 ©g5+ 24.©xg5 hxg5
25.Õh7+ ®f6 26.Àd6 with an over-
whelming advantage for White.
18.Õhe1 b5 19.Àe3
After 19.Àf5+? there follows 19...®d8,
and both white knights are under at-
tack.
286
T_._.t._
_.dSmJj.
._JnJs.j
_J_._._I
.j.i._._
_._Qn._.
IiI_.iI_
_.kRr._.
19...Õxa2!
Opening lines for the counterattack!
Both 19...©xd6? 20.Àf5+, and
19...®xd6? 20.Àf5+! exf5 21.©g3+
lose.
20.©b3 Õa4!
Now, if White decides to move the knight
away, then after 21.Àdf5+ ®d8 22.Àg3
(even worse is 22.Àxg7? Àe4! 23.®b1
©a5 24.c3 bxc3 25.Àc2 Àd2+ 26.Õxd2
cxd2î) 22...©f4! 23.Õf1 Õa1+
24.®d2 Õxd1+ 25.®xd1 ©xd4+ he
gets a hopeless position.
21.Õe2 ©a7! 22.Àef5+ ®d8
23.Àxf7+
Desperation! After 23.Àxg7, Black de-
cides with 23...Õa1+ 24.®d2 ©xd4+
25.©d3 Õxd1+ 26.®xd1 ©xd3+
27.cxd3 ®c7 28.Àxf7 Õxf7 winning.
23...Õxf7 24.©xe6 Àb6 25.b3 1-0
The variation 25...Õa1+ 26.®d2 Õxd1+
27.®xd1 Àbd5 28.®d2 Àc3 leaves
White with no chances at all.
White resigned.
Game 99
King’s Indian Defence (E73)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Radjabov,Teimour
Medias 2011
1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 g6 3.Àc3 Ãg7 4.e4
d6 5.Ãe2 0-0 6.Ãg5
A deep move, which characterises the
Averbakh Variation. It gives White the op-

tion of transposing into several systems of
development.
6...Àa6
For a long time, the main line was con-
sidered to be 6...c5, e.g.: 7.dxc5 ©a5
8.Ãd2 ©xc5 9.Àf3 Ãg4 10.0-0 Ãxf3
11.Ãxf3 Àc6 12.b3 Àd4 13.Ãe3 Àxf3+
14.©xf3 ©a5 15.Õac1 a6 16.Õc2 b5
17.Àd5 Àxd5 18.cxd5 Õfc8 19.©e2
Õxc2 20.©xc2 with a small advantage to
White, Ivanchuk-Akopian, Baguio 1987.
In the event of 6...h6, White can go into a
variation of the Sämisch by means of
7.Ãe3 e5 8.d5 Àbd7 9.©d2 ®h7 10.f3
Àh5 11.Àh3 Àc5 12.Àf2 a5 13.g3 b6
14.0-0-0 a4 15.Õde1 a3 16.b3 Ãd7
17.Õhf1 ©e7 18.Ãd1 Àf6 19.Ãc2 Õfe8
20.®b1 c6 21.dxc6 Ãxc6 22.Õd1 Õed8
23.Àd3Ç, Ivanchuk-Megaranto, Calvia
2004.
T_Ld.tM_
jJj.jJlJ
S_.j.sJ_
_._._.b.
._IiI_._
_.n._._.
Ii._BiIi
r._Qk.nR
7.f4
The most aggressive continuation.
As well as the popular 7.©d2 e5 8.d5 and
after 8...c6 – 9.f3 cxd5 10.cxd5 Ãd7
11.Ãd1! ©b6 12.a3 (worse is 12.Àge2
Àc5 13.Ãe3 ©xb2!) 12...Àh5 13.Àge2
f5 14.Ãe3Ç, other possible moves are
7.Àf3 and 7.h4:
7.Àf3 h6 8.Ãf4 (8.Ãh4 is also not bad)
8...e5 9.dxe5 Àh5 10.Ãe3 dxe5 11.©c1
®h7 12.0-0 c6 13.c5! ©e7 14.Àd2 Àf4
15.Ãxa6 bxa6 16.Àc4 ©e6 17.Ãxf4
exf4 18.Àd6, W. Uhlmann-Nunn, Dort-
Game 99 - 2011
mund 1991, and here 18...f3!? gave Black
counterchances;
7.h4 h6 8.Ãe3 e5 9.d5 Àc5 10.©c2 a5
11.h5 g5 12.f3 Ãd7 13.g4 c6 14.Àh3
cxd5 15.cxd5 ©b8 16.a4 Õc8 17.Àf2
Àxa4! 18.Õxa4 b5 19.Õa1 b4 20.0-0
Àe8?! (more accurate is 20...bxc3
21.bxc3 ©c7) 21.Õfc1 Ãf6 22.©d2
bxc3 23.bxc3 ©c7 24.c4±, Ivanchuk-
Heck, Simultan Frankfurt am Main 2000.
7...c6
Whilst taking control of the d5-square,
Black prepares the transfer of the knight
to c7.
8.©d2
In this position, this is rarely played.
The usual continuation is 8.Àf3. Then
possible is 8...Àc7 9.Ãh4 b5 10.e5
Àg4!? 11.©c1 (weaker is 11.©d2 dxe5
12.Àxe5 Àxe5 13.dxe5 ©xd2+
14.®xd2, Bagirov-Khismatullin, Moscow
2008, 14...b4â) 11...bxc4 12.h3 Àh6
13.Ãxc4 Ãe6 14.Ãxe6 Àxe6 15.0-0
Àf5 16.Ãf2 h5 with a complicated strug-
gle and chances for both sides.
8...Àc7
T_Ld.tM_
jJs.jJlJ
._Jj.sJ_
_._._.b.
._IiIi._
_.n._._.
Ii.qB_Ii
r._.k.nR
9.Ãf3!?
White transfers the bishop to the long di-
agonal, intending the develop the knight
to e2.
After 9.Àf3, a good reply is 9...b5!? 10.e5
b4 11.exf6 bxc3 12.bxc3 exf6 13.Ãh4
Ãf5 (or 13...d5 14.0-0 Ãf5 15.Àe5 Õe8
16.Àg4 Ãxg4 17.Ãxg4 Àb5 18.Ãf3 Õc8
287
 Vassily Ivanchuk

19.Õfc1 ©a5â, Meins-Glek, Dresden

2004) 14.0-0 ©d7 15.h3 Õfe8 16.Õfe1
T_._.tM_
Ãe4 17.Àh2 f5 18.Àf1 Õab8 19.Àg3 d5 _Jd.jJlJ
20.c5 Àe6 21.Àxe4 dxe4 with the initia- ._.jLsJ_
tive for Black, Maximenko-Kasimdzhanov, _.s._._.
Internet blitz 2004; J_I_Ii.b
After 9.e5 Àg4 10.h3 Àh6 11.g4 f6 _In._B_.
12.exf6 exf6 13.Ãh4 Àf7 14.0-0-0 d5 I_.qN_Ii
15.Àf3 Àd6, the position is far from clear,
_._R_Rk.
whilst in the event of 9.Ãh4 d5 10.e5
Àe4! 11.Àxe4 dxe4 12.0-0-0 f6 13.©e3 16.f5! gxf5
Ãh6! Black has active counterplay, Bad is 16...Ãc8? 17.Ãxf6 exf6 (or
Bosboom-Reinderman, Rotterdam 2000. 17...Ãxf6 18.Àd5 ©d8 19.Àxf6+ exf6
9...Àe6 10.Ãh4 c5! 11.dxc5 20.b4 Àd7 21.©xd6) 18.b4 Àd7
11.d5 Àd4 or 11.Àge2 Àxd4 12.Àxd4 19.Àb5 ©b6+ 20.®h1 with a clear ad-
cxd4 13.©xd4 Ãe6, with excellent play vantage to White.
for Black, are both unattractive. 17.exf5 Ãxf5 18.Ãxf6!
11...Àxc5 12.Õd1 Ãe6 13.b3 a5 Ruining the opponent’s pawn structure.
14.Àge2 ©c7?! 18...exf6
Allows White to complete his develop- Weaker is 18...Ãxf6?! 19.Àd5 ©c8
ment unhindered. It was worth consider- 20.Àxf6+ exf6 21.b4 Àe4 22.©d4 ©e8
ing the immediate 14...a4!?, forcing the 23.Àf4 ©e5 24.Àd5! ®h8 25.©xe5
reply 15.b4 with great complications, dxe5 26.Àe7 Àc3 27.Àxf5 Àxd1
e.g.: 15...Àcd7 (worse is 15...Àa6?! 28.Õxd1 with a hopeless endgame.
16.a3! Ãxc4 17.e5±) 16.c5!? dxc5 17.e5 19.b4 Àe6 20.Àb5 ©b6+ 21.®h1
cxb4 18.Àb5 b3! Àg5?
More defensive chances were offered by
21...d5!? 22.Ãxd5 Ãg4 23.Ãf3 Ãxf3
T_.d.tM_ 24.Õxf3 Àg5 25.Õf4 f5! 26.Àec3 (not so
_J_SjJlJ good is 26.Õxf5?! Õad8 27.Àed4 Àe6
._._LsJ_ with counterplay) 26...Õad8 27.Àd5 Àe4,
_N_.i._. although here too, it is not easy to defend.
J_._.i.b
_J_._B_. T_._.tM_
I_.qN_Ii _J_._JlJ
_._Rk._R .d.j.j._
analysis diagram
_N_._Ls.
19.Àbd4 Ãd5 20.exf6 Àxf6 21.axb3 JiI_._._
Ãxf3 22.Àxf3 a3, and Black has suffi- _._._B_.
cient compensation for the pawn. I_.qN_Ii
15.0-0 a4
_._R_R_K
Now White is fully armed and ready to
meet blow with counterblow: 22.Ãxb7!

288

White regains the pawn, retaining a posi-
tional advantage.
22...©xb7 23.Õxf5
Also possible is 23.Àxd6!? Àe4 24.Àxb7
Àxd2 25.Õxd2, going into an endgame
with an extra pawn, but Black has the two
bishops, against his opponent’s knights.
23...Àe4 24.©d3 Õfe8!
Indirectly defending the d6-pawn – not
25.Àxd6? because of 25...Àxd6
26.©xd6 Õxe2.
25.Àed4 Õac8 26.Õf4 Ãf8
After 26...d5, a strong reply is 27.c5!
©b8 28.Õdf1 Ãh6 29.Õf5 ©b7 30.a3
with advantage.
27.Õdf1 Õe5 28.a3 ®h8 29.Àf5 Õd8
._.t.l.m
_D_._J_J
._.j.j._
_N_.tN_.
JiI_Sr._
i._Q_._.
._._._Ii
_._._R_K
30.Àc3!
Exchanging off the strong black knight,
White clears himself a path to the
kingside.
30...Àxc3 31.©xc3 Õde8?
Now White’s attack is irresistible!
It was possible to defend somehow after
31...©d7 32.©g3 d5 33.Õg4 Ãd6
34.Àh6 Õg5 35.©f2 Õxg4 36.Àxg4
©e6 37.Àxf6 Ãe5 38.Àxd5 Õc8, al-
though this could not change the ulti-
mate result.
32.Õg4! ©c8 33.©g3! h5
He also loses after 33...Ãe7 34.Àh6 Õg5
35.Õxg5 fxg5 36.©c3+ f6 37.Õxf6! Õg8
38.Õg6+ Ãf6 39.Àf7 mate.
34.Õg8+ ®h7 35.Õxf8! 1-0
Game 100 - 2011
Game 100
Slav Defence (D14)
í Ivanchuk,Vassily
n Nakamura,Hikaru
Medias 2011
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.cxd5
In the Exchange Variation of the Slav,
White removes the central tension, de-
priving Black of counterplay on the
queenside, but also gives up much of the
advantage of the first move. It usually
leads to a quiet manoeuvring game, with
slightly the better prospects for White.
3...cxd5 4.Àc3 Àf6 5.Àf3 Àc6
Black maintains the symmetry for a
while. In the event of 5...Àbd7 6.Ãf4 a6
7.e3 e6 8.Ãd3 Ãe7 9.h3 b5 10.0-0 Ãb7
11.a4 b4 12.Àe2 Õc8 13.a5 White has
the possibility to exploit the weaknesses
in the enemy queenside, Geller-Pfleger,
Oberhausen 1961.
6.Ãf4 Ãf5
T_.dMl.t
jJ_.jJjJ
._S_.s._
_._J_L_.
._.i.b._
_.n._N_.
Ii._IiIi
r._QkB_R
7.©b3
Avoiding heavily-studied continuations,
which arise after 7.e3 e6, and then:
A) 8.©b3 Ãb4 9.Ãb5 0-0 10.0-0
Ãxc3 11.Ãxc6 Ãxb2 12.Ãxb7 Ãxa1
13.Õxa1 Õc8 14.Ãxc8 ©xc8 15.©a3Ç,
Malakhov-Ivanchuk, Hyderabad 2002;
B) 8.Ãd3 Ãxd3 9.©xd3 Ãd6
10.Ãxd6 ©xd6 11.0-0 0-0 12.Õfc1
Õfc8 13.h3 h6 draw, Alexeev-Ivanchuk,
Havana 2010;
289
 Vassily Ivanchuk
C) 8.Ãb5 Àd7 9.©a4 Õc8 10.0-0 a6
11.Ãxc6 Õxc6 12.Õfc1 Ãe7 13.Àe2
©b6 14.Õxc6 ©xc6 15.©xc6 bxc6
16.Õc1 Ãd3 17.Àc3 c5 18.dxc5 Àxc5
19.Àe5 f6 20.Àc6 Ãc4? (stronger is
20...Àd7) 21.b3 Àd3 22.Õd1 Àxf4
23.bxc4 Àg6 24.cxd5 exd5 25.Àxd5±,
Ivanchuk-Dominguez Perez, blitz, Mos-
cow 2009.
7...©b6
The US Champion seeks further simplifi-
cation, although now the black pawns are
doubled. The alternative was 7...Àa5,
which after 8.©a4+ Ãd7 9.©c2 Õc8
10.e3 b5 11.a3 e6 12.Ãd3 Ãe7 13.0-0
0-0 14.Àe5 Àc4 15.Õfc1 leads to a com-
plicated game, in which White’s chances
are preferable, Marcelin-Naer, Germany
Bundesliga 2008/09.
This position, only with the queen on e2
instead of 15.Õfc1, was seen in the old
game Kan-Lasker, Moscow 1935, and the
ageless champion won. From this, it can
be seen that the variation does not fully
deserve its reputation as unfavourable for
Black.
8.©xb6 axb6 9.e3 e6
After 9...Ãd7, the game Beliavsky-
Kudischewisch, Riga 1968, went on
10.Àe5 e6 11.Àxd7 ®xd7 12.Ãb5 Ãd6
13.Ãxd6 ®xd6 14.®e2 Õhc8 15.Õhc1
Àe8 with a minimal advantage for White.
T_._Ml.t
_J_._JjJ
.jS_Js._
_._J_L_.
._.i.b._
_.n.iN_.
Ii._.iIi
r._.kB_R
10.a3!?
290
A move seen very rarely at the highest
level. The usual move is 10.Ãb5, e.g.:
10...Àd7 (or 10...Ãb4 11.0-0 0-0
12.Õfc1 Àd7 13.Àh4 Ãg4 14.h3 Ãh5
15.g4 Ãg6 16.Àxg6 hxg6 17.Ãf1Ç,
Murshed-Laylo, Subic Bay 2009) 11.Àh4
Ãg4 12.h3 Ãh5 13.g4 Ãg6 14.0-0 Ãe7
15.Àxg6 hxg6 16.®g2 0-0?! (better is
16...g5!) 17.Õac1 Õfc8 18.a3 Õa5
19.Ãd3 e5 20.dxe5 Àcxe5 21.Ãe2 Ãf8
22.Õfd1 f6 23.Ãg3 with advantage to
White, Gustafsson-Kritz, Altenkirchen
2005.
10...Ãe7 11.Ãe2 0-0 12.0-0 Õfc8
13.Õfc1
Formally, a novelty. In a little-known
game from a junior event, Sanchez Gar-
cia-Gabaldon, Spain 2008, White chose
13.Àh4 and after 13...Ãc2?! (correct is
13...Ãe4! with equality) 14.Õac1 Ãb3
15.Àf3 Àa5 16.Àd2 Ãc4 17.Ãxc4
Àxc4 obtained a small advantage.
T_T_._M_
_J_.lJjJ
.jS_Js._
_._J_L_.
._.i.b._
i.n.iN_.
.i._BiIi
r.r._.k.
13...Àh5?!
The unstable position of the knight on h5
allows White to exchange dark-squared
bishops, at the same time weakening the
dark squares in the enemy camp.
It was worth considering 13...Àe4 and
after 14.h3 – 14...Àxc3 15.Õxc3 Ãb4
16.Õcc1 Ãe7 with chances to equalise.
14.Ãg5! Ãxg5
After 14...f6, good is 15.Àh4! Ãe4
(weaker is 15...fxg5 16.Àxf5 exf5?!

T_T_._M_
_J_.l.jJ
.jS_._._
_._J_JjS
._.i._._
i.n.i._.
.i._BiIi
r.r._.k.
analysis diagram
17.Àxd5! Àf6 18.Àxb6 Õcb8 19.Àxa8
Õxa8 20.Ãb5±) 16.Ãxh5 fxg5 17.Ãg4!
®f7 (17...gxh4?! 18.Ãxe6+ ®f8
19.Ãxc8 Õxc8 20.f3 Ãf5 21.Àxd5±)
18.Àxe4 gxh4 (18...dxe4? 19.d5!)
19.Àc3 with the better chances for
White.
15.Àxg5 Àf6 16.Àf3 Ãg4 17.Àb5
White wants to keep his pawn structure
flexible, so both here and on the next
move, he refrains from taking back with
the pawn: 17.Ãb5 Àa7 18.Ãd3 Ãxf3
19.gxf3 g6 20.Õc2 ®g7 21.Õac1, al-
though this continuation brings some ac-
tivity.
Hikaru Nakamura
Game 100 - 2011
17...Ãxf3 18.Ãxf3!? Õd8?!
Defending the d6-square against invasion.
Black decides to transfer the king to e7
and then return the rook to the open file.
A more radical way to pursue the same
objective was 18...Àa5!? 19.Ãd1 Õc6
20.Àc3 Àc4 21.Ãa4 Õcc8 22.b3 Àd6
23.Àb5 Àfe8, setting up a strong de-
fence.
19.®f1 ®f8 20.Õc3 ®e7 21.Õac1
Õdc8 22.®e1 ®d7
White’s chances have grown appreciably.
With his next moves, White first
strengthens his position in the centre and
on the kingside, transferring the weight
of the struggle to the queenside.
23.h3 h5 24.h4 g6 25.g3 Õa5
26.Ãe2 Àe8 27.Õb3 Õd8
More accurate, it seems, is 27...Àa7!?
28.Õd1 Àc6 29.Àc3 ®c7 29.Õc1 Àd6,
preventing White’s plan.
28.f3 Àf6
._.t._._
_J_M_J_.
.jS_JsJ_
tN_J_._J
._.i._.i
iR_.iIi.
.i._B_._
_.r.k._.
29.Àc3!
The knight intends a long march via
c3-a2-b4 to d3, tying the black king
down for the long term, to the defence of
the b6-pawn.
In addition, the black knight on the c-file
is pinned.
29...®c7 30.Àa2! Àg8 31.Àb4 Àe7
32.Àd3
It turns out that a possible post for the
knight is e5, and if 32...f6, the knight
291
 Vassily Ivanchuk
transfers to f4, exerting pressure on the
pawns at e6 and g6, e.g.: 33.®f2 Õaa8
34.Àf4 Õd6 35.Ãd3 Õg8 36.Ãf1! e5
37.Àe2 Õdd8 38.Ãh3 with advantage to
White.
32...Õaa8 33.Àe5!
Provoking the opponent into 33...f6!?,
which would probably be the least evil
for Black.
33...Õf8 34.Ãd3!
Now preventing 34...f6.
34...f5?!
Finally settling White’s knight in the cen-
tre, allowing him to organise a mass at-
tack on the c-file, including his bishop.
The g6-pawn also becomes vulnerable.
Better was 34...Õac8 35.®f2 Õb8, con-
tinuing to wait to see what White will do
next, and if necessary, to reduce the pres-
sure at the cost of the b6-pawn, by means
of ...®d8.
35.Ãb5 Õac8 36.®f2 Õg8 37.Ãa4
Õgf8 38.Õc2 Õfd8 39.Õbc3 Õd6
._T_._._
_Jm.s._.
.jStJ_J_
_._JnJ_J
B_.i._.i
i.r.iIi.
.iR_.k._
_._._._.
40.b4!
With the threat of 41.b5.
40...®b8 41.Ãxc6 bxc6 42.b5!
Black loses a pawn, without any compen-
sation at all.
After 42...cxb5?! there follows 43.Õxc8+
Àxc8 44.Àxg6 Õd7 45.Àf4 Õa7 46.Õc3
Àd6 47.Àxh5 with an overwhelming
advantage to White.
42...®b7 43.bxc6+ ®c7 44.a4 Õdd8
292
After 44...Õa8 White had prepared
45.Õa3, and the c-pawn is temporarily
invulnerable – 45...Àxc6? 46.Õac3.
45.Õb2!
Switching to the b-file.
45...Õa8 46.Õcb3 Àc8
Black loses at once after 46...Õxa4?
47.Õxb6 Õda8 48.Õb7+ ®d8 49.c7+
®e8 50.Õb8+ Àc8 51.Õxa8 Õxa8
52.Õb8î.
47.Õa2 Õg8
T_S_._T_
_.m._._.
.jI_J_J_
_._JnJ_J
I_.i._.i
_R_.iIi.
R_._.k._
_._._._.
48.a5!
The decisive breakthrough!
48...b5
He loses after 48...Õxa5 (or 48...bxa5
49.Õb7+ ®d8 (49...®d6? 50.Õd7#)
50.Õd7+ ®e8 51.c7 Àb6 52.Õh7! Àc8
53.Õb2 ®f8 54.Õb8ê) 49.Õxa5 bxa5
50.Õb7+ ®d8 51.Õd7+ ®e8 52.c7 ®f8
53.®e2 a4 54.®d3, and the white king
first helps himself to the a-pawn, and
then moves towards the promotion
square of his passed pawn.
49.Õxb5
Winning a second pawn, and with it, the
game.
49...Àd6 50.Õb4 Õa6 51.®g2 g5
52.hxg5 Õxg5 53.®h3 Õg8 54.®h4
Õh8 55.Õab2! Õa7
Equally hopeless is 55...Õxa5 56.Õb7+!
Àxb7 57.Õxb7+ ®c8 58.Àd7 Õa6
(58...Õh6 59.Àb6+ ®d8 60.c7+)
59.Õb8+ ®c7 60.Õxh8ê.

56.Õb6 Õha8 57.®xh5 Õg8 58.a6
Õga8 59.Õb7+! Àxb7 60.axb7
After 60...Õh8+ 61.®g5 Õa6 62.Àd7
Õxc6 63.b8©+ Õxb8 64.Àxb8 White
wins easily.
Black resigned. A convincing win!
Game 101
Ragozin Defence (D35)
í Aronian,Levon
n Ivanchuk,Vassily
Sao Paulo 2011
1.Àf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.d4 Àf6 4.Àc3
Àbd7 5.Ãg5 Ãb4 6.cxd5 exd5
T_LdM_.t
jJjS_JjJ
._._.s._
_._J_.b.
.l.i._._
_.n._N_.
Ii._IiIi
r._QkB_R
7.Àd2!?
After this rare move and Black’s reply, the
game moves from the Ragozin Defence
into channels of the QGD Exchange Vari-
ation.
7...c6
Another plan involves the preparation of
the advance ...c7-c5:
7...Ãe7 8.e3 0-0 9.Ãe2 (9.Ãd3!? c5
10.0-0 a6 11.©f3 Õe8 12.Õfe1 h6
13.Ãh4 Õa7 14.Ãg3 Àf8 15.Ãe5 c4
16.Ãc2 Ãe6 17.e4Ç, Krasenkow-
Alexandrov, Warsaw 2009) 9...b6
(9...Õe8 10.b4 h6 11.Ãxf6 (11.Ãh4 was
worth attention) 11...Àxf6 12.©b3 c6
13.Õc1 b5 14.a4 a5! 15.bxa5 b4 16.Àd1
©xa5 17.Àb2 Ãd7 18.0-0 Ãd6 with
comfortable play for Black (Kunin-
Buhmann, Griesheim 2003) 10.b4 c5
Game 101 - 2011
11.bxc5 bxc5 12.dxc5 Àxc5 13.0-0 Àe6
14.Àf3 Àxg5 15.Àxg5 ©a5 16.Àb5
Ãd7 17.Àd4 Àe4 18.Àxe4 dxe4
19.©c2 with a draw (Ivanchuk-Kramnik,
Monaco 1997).
8.e3 Àf8
Black immediately transfers his knight to
e6. It was also possible to castle. In the
game Sakaev-Vitiugov (Khanty-Mansiysk
2007) after 8...0-0 play continued 9.Ãd3
Õe8 10.©c2 Àf8, and White castled
queenside – 11.0-0-0!?.
Then there followed:
11...Ãe6 12.®b1 Õc8 13.Àb3 b6
14.Ãa6 Õb8 15.Ãe2 Àg6 16.h4 h6
17.h5 Àf8 18.Ãh4 Ãe7 19.Ãg3 Ãd6
20.Ãh4 Ãe7 21.®a1 a5 22.Àd2 À8d7
23.Õhg1 Ãg4 24.f3!? (with this pawn
sacrifice, White prepares the opening of
the g-file) 24...Ãxh5 25.Ãd3 Àf8 26.g4
Ãg6 27.g5 hxg5 28.Ãxg5 Àh5 29.Ãxg6
fxg6 30.Ãxe7 ©xe7 31.e4 (31.Õde1!Ç)
31...Àf4 with sharp play and chances for
both sides.
9.Ãd3 Ãe7
On 9...Àg6 an interesting move is
10.0-0!? (the alternative is 10.©a4 Ãe7
11.©c2 Ãe6 12.h3, Chernin-Greenfeld,
Beer-Sheva 1992) 10...0-0
T_Ld.tM_
jJ_._JjJ
._J_.sS_
_._J_.b.
.l.i._._
_.nBi._.
Ii.n.iIi
r._Q_Rk.
analysis diagram
11.h4!? h6 12.h5 hxg5 13.hxg6 fxg6
14.©b3 (dubious is 14.Ãxg6?! ©d6
15.f3 Àg4!) 14...Ãa5 15.e4 and White
293
 Vassily Ivanchuk
has the initiative for a pawn (Ftacnik-
Winants, Tilburg 1992).
10.©c2
Not yet revealing his intentions.
The other line is 10.0-0 Àe6 11.Ãh4 g6
12.Õb1 Àg7 13.b4 Ãf5 (13...a6!?)
14.Ãxf5 Àxf5 15.Ãxf6 Ãxf6 16.b5 with
a minority attack (Sorokin-Zviagintsev,
Sochi 2005).
10...Àe6 11.Ãh4 g6
T_LdM_.t
jJ_.lJ_J
._J_SsJ_
_._J_._.
._.i._.b
_.nBi._.
IiQn.iIi
r._.k._R
12.h3!
White prevents the manoeuvre ...Àe6-g7
followed by ...Ãc8-f5 – now after
12...Àg7 there follows 13.g4!.
12...0-0 13.Àf3
The knight returns to f3 with loss of
tempo, but Black has to find a plan for
counterplay, because activity on the
kingside is associated with some risk, in
view of his opponent still having the pos-
sibility of castling queenside.
13...a5!?
Threatening a pawn storm, if White cas-
tles queenside.
14.g4 b5 15.Àe5 Ãb7 16.f4 c5!
In reply to his opponent’s kingside play,
Black starts counterplay on the queenside,
retaining good chances of equalising.
Accepting the pawn sacrifice would give
Black the initiative, e.g. 17.Àxb5?!
(17.Ãxb5? cxd4 18.exd4 Àxd4ç)
17...cxd4 18.Àxd4 Àxd4 19.exd4 ©b6
20.Ãf2 Ãb4+ 21.®f1 Õfc8 22.©e2
294
Àe4 23.®g2 f6 24.Àf3 Õe8 25.Ãe3 a4
26.a3 Ãa5 27.Õac1 Àd6 28.g5 fxg5
29.fxg5 Àc4!, and Black’s chances are
clearly superior.
17.f5! cxd4!
Play assumes a sharp character.
17...Àc7? is mistaken because of 18.fxg6
hxg6
T_.d.tM_
_Ls.lJ_.
._._.sJ_
jJjJn._.
._.i._Ib
_.nBi._I
IiQ_._._
r._.k._R
analysis diagram
19.Ãxg6! and on 19...fxg6? – 20.©xg6+
®h8 21.0-0 Àce8 22.g5, which is crush-
ing.
And in the event of 19...cxd4 20.exd4
Àd7 21.Ãh7+ ®h8 22.Ãg3 Àxe5
23.Ãxe5+ Ãf6 24.0-0-0 White retains
an extra pawn with a better position.
Interesting, but seemingly insufficient, is
17...Àxd4?! 18.exd4 cxd4 19.Àe2
(19.Àxb5?! Àd7!) 19...Õc8 20.©d1
Àe4 21.Ãxe7 ©xe7 22.Àf3 ©b4+
23.®f1 ©xb2 24.®g2 Õc3 25.Àxd4 b4
26.©b1 ©xb1 27.Ãxb1 Õe3 28.Õd1
Ãa6 with complicated play, in which
White’s chances are superior.
18.fxe6 dxc3 19.0-0!
The same position results from 19.exf7+
®g7 20.0-0, but in this move order,
Black would have the strong move
20...Àe4!.
19...d4
Of course, not 19...fxe6? 20.Ãxg6! Àe4
21.Õxf8+ ©xf8 22.Ãxe4 dxe4 23.Õf1
©g7 24.Ãxe7 ©xe7 25.©xc3 with ad-
vantage to White.
 Game 101 - 2011

25...©xb2! (he loses after 25...®xf6?

T_.d.tM_ 26.©f5+ ®e7 27.©g5+ ®e8
_L_.lJ_J 28.©xb5+ ®e7 29.©d7+! ®f6
._._IsJ_ 30.©xd4+! ®e7 (or 30...®xe6 31.Ãf5+
jJ_.n._. ®xf7 32.©d7+ ®f6 33.©e6+ ®g7
._.j._Ib 34.©g6+ ®h8 35.©h7 mate) 31.©d6+
_.jBi._I ®f6 32.g5+ ®g7 33.©e5+ ®xh7
IiQ_._._ 34.©f5+ ®g7 35.©f6+ ®g8 36.©h8
mate) White makes a draw in beautiful
r._._Rk.
fashion – 26.Õg6+ ®xh7 27.Õh6+ ®g7
20.Àxf7? 28.Õg6+;
A miscalculation! B) 23...©xh3 24.®e1 (24.Ãxg6?
The tension could have been maintained ©h4+ 25.®e2 ©xf6) 24...Ãd5! 25.g5
by 20.exf7+ ®g7 21.bxc3 dxe3 22.©h2 ©xe3+, and here it is Black who draws –
(worse is 22.Õae1?! ©d5 23.©h2 Õac8 26.©e2 ©g1+ 27.©f1 ©e3+.
24.Õxe3 Õxc3 25.Ãg5 ©d4 with the 22.®f2
initiative for Black) 22...Õa6 23.Ãxb5
Õe6 24.Ãc4, after which a possibility is
24...Àe4!? with an extremely sharp and T_._.tM_
complicated battle. _L_.lN_J
20...©d5 21.Ãxf6 ._._IbJ_
21.e4 is unsatisfactory because of jJ_._._.
21...©xe6 22.Àg5 ©e5 23.Àf3 (or ._.j._I_
23.©b3+ Àd5!) 23...©f4 24.Õae1 Àxg4! _.jBi._I
25.hxg4 (on 25.Ãxe7 the reply 25...©g3+ IiQ_.k._
26.©g2 Õxf3! 27.hxg4 Õxd3 decides)
r._._R_D
25...©xg4+ 26.©g2 ©xg2+ 27.®xg2
Õxf3 28.Õxf3 Ãxh4, and Black wins. 22...©xh3!
21...©h1+ By threatening mate on e3, Black moves
He gets no advantage from 21...Ãxf6?! the queen from under attack with
22.Õxf6 ©h1+ 23.®f2 and now: tempo.
A) After 23...©xa1 24.Ãxg6! ®g7 After 22...©f3+ 23.®e1 ©xe3+ 24.©e2
25.Ãxh7! cxb2 25.Õb1 Black has nothing else but
to end the game with perpetual check –
T_._.t._ 25...©c1+! 26.®f2 ©f4+ 27.®e1
_L_._NmB ©c1+.
._._Ir._ 23.®e1 cxb2!
jJ_._._. Including the dark-squared bishop in the
attack.
._.j._I_ 24.©xb2 Ãb4+ 25.®d1 Ãf3+
_.j.i._I 26.Õxf3
IiQ_.k._ Prolonging the resistance.
d._._._. An effective mate follows from 26.®c2?
analysis diagram Õfc8+ 27.®b1:

295
 Vassily Ivanchuk

32.a4?
T_T_._M_ Losing at once!
_._._N_J It was possible to hold out after 32.e4
._._IbJ_ Ãe7! 33.Õc7 Õd8 34.Õd7 Õxd7
jJ_._._. 35.©xd7 Ãxg5 36.©xb5 ©f4ç.
.l.j._I_ 32...©b3+ 33.Õc2 ©b1+ 34.Õc1
_._BiL_D ©b3+ 35.Õc2 Õc8
Iq._._._ There is no satisfactory defence against
the two threats 36...©xc2 mate and
rK_._R_.
36...©b1+ 37.Õc1 ©xc1 mate.
analysis diagram
36.Ãc4+ bxc4 37.©d5+ ®f8
27...©xf1+!! 28.Ãxf1 Ãe4+ 29.©c2 38.©d7 Õe8 0-1
Õxc2 30.Ãxd4 Ãa3 31.Àh6+ ®f8 An extremely rich and uncompromising
32.e7+ ®e8 33.Ãxb5+ Õc6+ 34.Ãd3 game, if not error-free!
Ãxd3 mate.
26...©xf3+ 27.Ãe2 ©xf6 2012
The simplest. Game 102
Also winning is 27...©h1+ 28.®c2 Slav Defence (D18)
©c6+ 29.®d1 Õfc8! (cutting off the í Le Quang Liem
king’s retreat) 30.Àh6+ ®f8 31.Ãg7+ n Ivanchuk,Vassily
®xg7 32.©xd4+ ®f8 33.©f6+ ®e8 Amsterdam 2012
34.©f7+ ®d8 35.©f6+ ®c7 and on 1.d4 d5 2.Àf3 Àf6 3.c4 c6 4.Àc3
36.Õc1 – 36...Õd8+ 37.©d4 Õxd4+ dxc4
38.exd4 Ãc3î. Leading to the main line of the Slav De-
28.g5 ©g7 fence. This continuation was seen in the
Not 28...©xe6? because of 29.Àh6+ 1929 match between Alekhine and
®g7 30.©xd4+ Õf6 31.Àg4. Bogoljubow, and even in a game in Lon-
29.©xd4 Õxf7 don 1922 between the same players, as
By returning the exchange, Black retains well as in many other top-level games in
the advantage, although the outcome of the 1920’s, and remains popular to this
the battle remains unclear. day.
More convincing was 29...Ãc3! 4...Ãf5 is premature because of 5.cxd5
30.©xg7+ ®xg7 31.Õc1 b4. cxd5 6.©b3, and after 6...b6 the light
30.exf7+ ©xf7 31.Õc1 Õb8 squares on the black queenside are weak-
ened.
.t._._M_ As well as the popular 4...e6 (see games
_._._D_J 20 and 91), the Chebanenko Variation
._._._J_ 4...a6!? is also worth considering, passing
jJ_._.i. the move to the opponent and not yet
clarifying the position in the centre, e.g.:
.l.q._._
5.Ãg5 Àe4 6.Ãf4 Àxc3 7.bxc3 dxc4
_._.i._. 8.g3 b5 9.Ãg2 Ãb7 10.Àe5 f6!? (lead-
I_._B_._ ing to interesting complications)
_.rK_._. 11.Àxc4! g5!

296
 Game 102 - 2012

6.Àe5 e6 (on 6...Àbd7 a possible line is

Ts.dMl.t 7.Àxc4 ©c7 8.g3 e5 9.dxe5 Àxe5
_L_.j._J 10.Ãf4 Àfd7 11.Ãg2 g5 12.Àe3 gxf4
J_J_.j._ 13.Àxf5 0-0-0 14.0-0 fxg3 15.hxg3, and
_J_._.j. White’s chances are preferable,
._Ni.b._ Ivanchuk-Romanov, Olginka 2011) 7.f3
_.i._.i. c5 8.e4 Ãg6 9.Ãe3 cxd4 10.©xd4
I_._IiBi ©xd4 11.Ãxd4 Àfd7 12.Àxd7 Àxd7
13.Ãxc4 (in the resulting endgame,
r._Qk._R
Black has to solve the problem of his pas-
analysis diagram
sive light-squared bishop) 13...Õc8 (in
12.Ãe3! (after 12.Ãxb8?! bxc4! the the third and fifth games of the match,
bishop is lost) 12...bxc4 13.Õb1 ©c7 Black played 13...a6 14.Õc1 Õg8 15.h4!?
14.h4 Àd7 15.hxg5 fxg5 16.Ãxg5 with with a small, but stable advantage to
good compensation for the sacrificed White) 14.Ãb5 a6 15.Ãxd7+ ®xd7
piece (Anand-Shirov, Monaco 1997). 16.®e2 f6 17.Õhd1 ®e8 18.a5!? (in-
5.a4 stead of 18.Õac1!? Õc6 19.Àa2 Õxc1
In the event of 5.e3 Black achieves equal- 20.Àxc1 Ãe7 21.Ãb6 e5 22.Àd3Ç,
ity by temporarily defending the pawn: Maletin-Amonatov, Novokuznetsk 2008)
5...b5 6.a4 b4 7.Àa2 (or 7.Àb1 Ãa6 18...Ãe7?! (more active is 18...Ãb4 and
8.©c2 e6 9.Ãxc4 Ãxc4 10.©xc4 after 19.Õa4 – 19...Ãe7!, whilst after
©d5ì) 7...e6 8.Ãxc4 Ãe7 9.0-0 0-0 19.Õac1 ®e7 20.Àa4 Ãe8! Black
10.©e2 Ãb7 11.Õd1 a5 12.Ãd2 Àbd7 equalises with the tactical nuance
13.Àc1 ©b6 14.Àb3 c5 with chances 21.Õxc8 Ãb5+ and 22...Õxc8) 19.Ãb6
for both sides (Reshevsky-Smyslov, telex Õf8 20.Õac1 f5 21.e5 Ãg5 22.Ãe3 f4?
URS-USA 1945). (better is 22...Ãxe3 23.®xe3 f4+
5...Ãf5 24.®d4 ®e7Ç) 23.Àe4! Õxc1 24.Àd6+
®d7 25.Ãxc1, and White obtains the ad-
vantage (Topalov-Anand, 8th match
Ts.dMl.t game, Sofia 2010).
jJ_.jJjJ In addition to 6.Àe5, White also has
._J_.s._ 6.Àh4. In the game Elianov-Ivanchuk,
_._._L_. Nalchik 2009, there followed: 6...Ãc8
I_Ji._._ 7.e3 e5 8.Ãxc4 exd4 9.exd4 Ãe7 10.0-0
_.n._N_. 0-0 11.Õe1 Àa6 12.Àf3 Àb4 13.Ãg5
.i._IiIi Ãg4 14.©b3 (14.©e2!?) 14...Ãxf3
r.bQkB_R 15.gxf3 a5 with unclear play and mutual
chances.
6.e3 6...e6 7.Ãxc4 Ãb4 8.0-0 Àbd7
The alternative 6.Àe5 received its last After 8...0-0 The continuation 9.©e2 is
major test in the World Championship considered good, fighting for square e4:
match between Anand and Topalov, 9.©e2 Àbd7 10.e4 Ãg6 11.Ãd3 Ãh5
where the Bulgarian GM chose this move 12.e5 Àd5 13.Àxd5 cxd5 14.©e3 Õe8
three times, winning once: 15.Àe1 Ãg6 16.Ãxg6 hxg6 17.Àd3

297
 Vassily Ivanchuk

(17.Ãd2!?) 17...©b6 18.Àxb4 ©xb4 the h-file instead. On several lines,

19.b3 with a minimal advantage to White Ivanchuk is prepared to sacrifice the
(Ivanchuk-Anand, Linares 2009). g5-pawn.
Previously, Black had played 11...Àd5, as
the top Vietnamese player had himself
T_.dM_.t played as Black: 12.Àg2 Ãg6 13.f4 À7f6
jJ_S_JjJ 14.f5 exf5 15.gxf5 Ãh5 16.©d3 ©a5
._J_Js._ 17.Àa2 0-0-0 18.e4 Àb6 19.Àxb4
_._._L_. ©xb4 20.b3 Àxc4 21.bxc4 Õhe8
IlBi._._ 22.Ãa3 ©b6 with a complicated,
_.n.iN_. roughly level game (Mamedyarov-Le
.i._.iIi Quang Liem, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010).
12.Àg2
r.bQ_Rk.
Black is better after 12.gxh5 gxh4
9.Àh4 13.©f3 Õg8+ 14.®h2 ©a5 15.e4
By chasing the enemy bishop with his 0-0-0.
knight, White prepares the advance of his Similarly, the sharp 12.Àf5!? Ãg6 13.e4
kingside pawns. h5 14.©b3 a5 15.e5 exf5 16.gxf5 Ãxf5
9...Ãg6 17.Ãxf7+ ®f8 18.Ãxg5 ©e7 19.Ãc4?!
9...Ãg4 has also been tried: 10.f3 Ãh5 ©g7 gives Black active counterplay.
11.g4 Àd5 12.Àg2 Ãg6 13.Àa2 Ãe7 12...Ãg6 13.f3?!
14.e4 À5b6 15.Ãb3 a5 16.Àc3 More energetic is 13.f4!? so as after
(Ivanchuk-Morozevich, blitz, Moscow 13...h5 to reply 14.f5!. However, even
2007), and here 16...c5! 17.d5 c4 here, Black can obtain counterchances by
18.Ãa2 Ãc5+ 19.Ãe3 0-0 allows Black means of 13...gxf4 14.Àxf4 ©a5
to obtain sufficient counterplay. 15.Ãd2 0-0-0.
10.h3 Ãh5 11.g4 13...h5! 14.e4 hxg4 15.hxg4

T_.dM_.t T_.dM_.t
jJ_S_JjJ jJ_S_J_.
._J_Js._ ._J_JsL_
_._._._L _._._.j.
IlBi._In IlBiI_I_
_.n.i._I _.n._I_.
.i._.i._ .i._._N_
r.bQ_Rk. r.bQ_Rk.
11...g5!? 15...©a5
An unexpected decision and an original By preparing castling queenside, Black
novelty! keeps the initiative.
Now Black either opens the g-file (after Also interesting is 15...©c7!? and after
the exchange) or, if the knight retreats, 16.e5 (no better is 16.Ãxg5 Ãxc3
plays ...Ãh5-g6 and ...h7-h5, opening 17.bxc3 ©h2+ 18.®f2 Ãxe4!) –

298
 Game 102 - 2012

16...Àxe5! 17.dxe5 ©xe5 18.Õe1 Ãc5+ 21...Àc4 22.©f2 Àxb2!

19.Ãe3 Õh3 20.©e2 0-0-0 with a Here the exchange sacrifice secures
dangerous attack. Black’s advantage!
16.©e2 23.Ãxh8 Õxh8 24.Àe2 Àd3 25.©g3
On 16.©b3 0-0-0 17.Ãxg5 a good reply
is 17...©xg5 18.©xb4 ©h6 19.a5
©h2+ 20.®f2 Õh3 21.a6 b5.
._M_._.t
16...0-0-0 17.e5 Àd5!? jJ_._J_.
Not hesitating to sacrifice a pawn. ._J_._L_
Also perfectly possible was 17...Àh7 d._J_._.
18.Àe4 Àb6 19.Ãe3 Àd5 20.Ãxd5 Il.i._I_
©xd5, although in this case, the black _._S_Iq.
pieces on the kingside are not placed very ._._N_N_
harmoniously.
r._._Rk.
18.Ãxd5 exd5 19.Ãxg5 Õde8
20.©d2? 25...©d8!?
In winning a pawn, White miscalculates. With the intention of regrouping his
He can maintain the tension with 20.Àf4 heavy pieces on the h-file, strengthening
Ãh7 21.Àh5. his pressure on the enemy king position.
Another, simpler way was 25...Ãc3!
26.Àxc3 (or 26.Õa2 ©b4 27.Àxc3
._M_T_.t ©xd4+) 26...©xc3 27.f4 Ãe4! 28.Õae1
jJ_S_J_. Ãxg2 29.®xg2 Àxe1+ 30.Õxe1 ©xd4,
._J_._L_ and Black regains the exchange with an
d._Ji.b. advantage sufficient for victory.
Il.i._I_ 26.f4 Ãd6 27.Õf3 Àb4 28.Àc3 Õh7!
_.n._I_. 29.Õd1 ©h8
.i.q._N_
r._._Rk. ._M_._.d
jJ_._J_T
20...Àxe5!! ._Jl._L_
With a brilliant tactical blow, the Ukrai- _._J_._.
nian GM goes over to the attack.
21.Ãf6
Is.i.iI_
Le Quang attacks his opponent’s rook and _.n._Rq.
knight, but now Black’s advantage be- ._._._N_
comes indisputable. _._R_.k.
There were more defensive chances from 30.®f2?
21.dxe5!? d4 22.Õad1 (22.©xd4?? Ãc5) Accelerating defeat.
22...dxc3 23.bxc3 Ãxc3 24.©d7+ ®b8, Black threatens by means of 30...Àc2 to
and after 25.Ãf6 Õhf8 26.Àh4 White attack the white central pawn, and now
holds. Instead of 25...Õhf8 it is worth White needs to remove his knight from
considering 25...Ãxe5!? 26.Ãxh8 Õxh8, c3 to defend it, which opens the path for
with promising play for the exchange. the bishop to come to e4.

299
 Vassily Ivanchuk

More tenacious was 30.Àe1 Õh4 41.Õxe4

31.©g2, going over to ‘defence in depth’. A necessary measure.
30...Àc2 31.Àe2 Ãe4 32.g5 On 41.®h2 decisive is 41...©d2+
32.Õc3 is bad because of 32...Õh2 42.®g1 Õxh4!, whilst after 41.Õfe1
33.Õg1 Àxd4 34.Àxd4 ©xd4+ 35.©e3 there is 41...Ãxf4+! 42.®xf4 Ãg2+.
©xe3+ 36.®xe3 Ãxg2. Nor does 41.Õb3 save White, in view of
32...®c7 41...Ãxf4+!! 42.Õxf4 ©g1+ with a
Because the rook cannot be moved out slaughter.
from under attack, Black does not hurry 41...dxe4 42.®g4 ©d2 43.®g3 e3
to take it, preparing a tactical operation 44.©f5 e2!
instead. After 45.©xh7 White is mated –
33.©g4 45...exf1À+! 46.®h3 ©h2+ 47.®g4
©xf4+ 48.®h5 Àg3+ 49.®h6 Ãf8+
._._._.d 50.©g7 ©xh4 mate.
jJm._J_T White resigned.
._Jl._._
_._J_.i. Game 103
Nimzo-Indian Defence (E52)
I_.iLiQ_ í Ivanchuk,Vassily
_._._R_. n Wang Hao
._S_NkN_ Istanbul 2012
_._R_._. 1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 e6 3.Àc3 Ãb4 4.e3
33...Àxd4! 34.Àxd4 Ãc5 35.®g3 The characteristic move of the Rubinstein
Or 35.®e3 Ãxd4+ 36.Õxd4 Ãxf3 Variation.
37.©xf3 Õh3, winning. White quietly develops, not fearing dou-
35...Ãxd4 36.Àh4 bled pawns, because the exchange on c3
In 36.Õff1 there is 36...f5! 37.gxf6 ©xf6, will strengthen his centre. Later he usu-
and there is no satisfactory defence ally tries to advance e3-e4, so as to open
against the threat of 38...Õg7. the game and exploit the advantage of the
36...Ãc5 37.Õdf1 ©b2! 38.a5 a6 two bishops.
39.©h3 Ãd6 Black, meanwhile, seeks his counter-
Regrouping his forces for the decisive chances on the queenside, whilst in the
attack. event of exchanging his bishop on c3, he
40.Õe3 ©d4! tries to give the game a closed character.

._._._._ TsLdM_.t
_Jm._J_T jJjJ_JjJ
J_Jl._._ ._._Js._
i._J_.i. _._._._.
._.dLi.n .lIi._._
_._.r.kQ _.n.i._.
._._._._ Ii._.iIi
_._._R_. r.bQkBnR
300

Wang Hao
4...0-0
Other continuations are also possible,
leading to sharp and rich positions:
A) 4...Àc6 5.Ãd3 d5 6.Àf3 0-0 7.0-0
a6 8.c5 b6 9.Àa4 b5 10.a3 bxa4 11.axb4
Àxb4 12.Ãe2 Ãd7 13.Ãd2 a5 14.Àe5
Ãe8 with slightly better chances for
White (Ipatov-Ilyin, Alushta 2008);
B) 4...c5 5.Àe2 b6 6.a3 Ãa5 7.Õb1
Àa6 8.f3 0-0 9.d5 Àh5 10.g3 f5 11.Ãg2
Àf6 with a complicated battle, in which
White’s chances are somewhat better
(Gelfand-Aronian, Leon 2010);
C) 4...b6 5.Àf3 (or 5.Àe2 Ãb7 6.a3
Ãd6 7.©d3 c5 8.e4 cxd4 9.Àxd4 0-0ì,
Bareev-Morozevich, Moscow 2004)
5...Ãb7 6.Ãd3 0-0 7.0-0 Ãxc3 8.bxc3
d6 9.Àd2 e5 10.e4 Õe8 11.f3 Àc6 with
mutual chances (Kalashian-Chernishov,
Moscow 2008).
5.Ãd3 d5 6.Àf3 b6
Wang Hao decides to fianchetto the
bishop. More often Black prefers 6...c5,
e.g.: 7.0-0 Àc6 (not so good is 7...dxc4
8.Ãxc4 cxd4 9.exd4 b6 10.Ãg5Ç,
Ivanchuk-Ponomariov, blitz, Warsaw
2010) and now:
Game 103 - 2012
A) After 8.a3, in the game Kasim-
dzhanov-Ivanchuk, Skanderborg 2003,
there followed 8...Ãxc3 9.bxc3 ©c7
10.cxd5 exd5 11.a4 Õe8 12.Ãa3 c4
13.Ãc2 Ãg4 14.©e1 Ãxf3 15.gxf3 ©d7
16.®h1 ©h3 17.©d1 Àh5 18.Õg1 g6
19.Õb1 b6 20.Õb5 Õad8, and Black
equalised;
B) 8.cxd5 exd5 9.dxc5 Ãxc5 10.b3
Ãg4 11.Ãb2 ©e7 12.h3 Ãxf3 13.©xf3
d4 with equality (Ivanchuk-Adams, Lon-
don 2012).
7.a3 Ãxc3+ 8.bxc3
TsLd.tM_
j.j._JjJ
.j._Js._
_._J_._.
._Ii._._
i.iBiN_.
._._.iIi
r.bQk._R
8...c6?!
An unfortunate novelty!
After this, the Chinese team leader gets in
trouble. Better was 8...Ãa6 9.cxd5 Ãxd3
10.©xd3 ©xd5 11.c4 ©e4 with good
chances of equalising (Alexandrov-
Tomashevsky, Moscow 2012).
9.cxd5 cxd5
Also after 9...exd5 10.a4 Àe4 11.a5
White’s chances are better.
10.©e2 Àc6 11.0-0 Àa5 12.a4
By preparing to bring the bishop to the
a3-f8 diagonal, White wields the initia-
tive.
12...Õe8 13.Àe5 Àe4
In order to strengthen the pressure
against the square c4, Black transfers his
knight to d6, but his kingside remains
without a defender. Preferable, it seems,
was 13...Ãb7 14.Ãa3 ©c7Ç.
301
 Vassily Ivanchuk

14.f3 Àd6 15.Ãa3 Ãb7 This allows White to carry out an effec-
tive attack, with a striking knight sacri-
T_.dT_M_ fice.
jL_._JjJ The lesser evil was 21...exf5 22.Õxf5 Õe7
.j.sJ_._ with an advantage to White.
s._Jn._. 22.fxg6!! fxe5 23.Õf7 ©c6
Or 23...Õe7 24.gxh7+! ®xf7 25.Õf1+
I_.i._._ ®e8 26.h8©+ winning.
b.iBiI_. Now, however, the rook sacrifice turns
._._Q_Ii out to be even more striking:
r._._Rk. 24.gxh7+! ®xf7 25.Õf1+ ®e7
16.Ãxd6!? 26.h8©! Õxh8 27.©g7+ ®d6
Also good is 16.©c2 g6 17.e4 Àdc4 28.dxe5+ ®d5
18.Àxc4 dxc4 19.©e2 ©c7 20.e5, but
Vassily intends another plan, involving
the advance of the f-pawn and an attack T_._._.t
on the king. jL_._.q.
16...©xd6 17.f4 g6 18.©g4 Àc4?! .jD_J_._
An inaccuracy, as a result of which _._Mi._.
White’s attacking chances grow. Stronger I_J_._._
was 18...©e7! 19.©g3 f6, kicking the _.i.i._.
knight out of the centre. ._._._Ii
19.©g3 ©c7 20.Ãxc4 dxc4 21.f5! f6?
_._._Rk.
Without waiting for his opponent’s reply,
T_._T_M_ Black resigned.
jLd._._J After 29.Õd1+ ®e4 (29...®c5 30.©e7+
.j._JjJ_ ©d6 31.©xd6 mate) 30.©g5!, mate on
_._.nI_. the next move is inevitable.
I_Ji._._
_.i.i.q. Despite the apparent ease of this crush,
._._._Ii this was the only game lost by the Chi-
r._._Rk. nese GM at the Istanbul Olympiad.

302
 -

Vassily Ivanchuk's
Principal Tournament Successes
Year City Tournament + - = Result Place
1985 Jurmala Soviet U18 Championship x x x 8½ out of 11 2
1985 Klaipeda Soviet Junior Championship x x x 11 out of 13 1
1986/87 Groningen European Junior Championship 8 1 4 10 out of 13 1
1987 Lvov First League 6 0 11 11½ out of 17 1
1988 New York New York Open 6 0 3 7½ out of 9 1
Debrecen Barcza Memorial 6 1 4 8 out of 11 1
Adelaide World Junior Championship 7 2 4 9 out of 13 1-2
Thessaloniki Olympiad 4 0 5 6½ out of 9 1
1989 Linares International tournament 5 0 5 7½ out of 10 1
Yerevan Petrosian Memorial 7 1 3 8½ out of 11 1
Biel International tournament 5 1 8 9 out of 14 1-2
1989/90 Reggio Emilia International tournament 3 0 7 6½ out of 10 2
1990 Manila Interzonal 5 0 8 9 out of 13 1-2
Tilburg International tournament 5 2 7 8½ out of 14 1-2
Novi Sad Olympiad 5 1 4 7 out of 10 1
1991 Linares International tournament 6 0 7 9½ out of 13 1
Reykjavik World Cup 6 0 9 10½ out of 15 1-2
1992 Linares International tournament 4 1 8 8 out of 13 2-3
Dortmund International tournament 4 1 4 6 out of 9 1-2
1994 Amsterdam Euwe Memorial 2 1 3 3½ out of 6 2
Munich International tournament 4 0 7 7½ out of 11 1
Novgorod International tournament 4 0 6 7 out of 10 1-2
1995 Linares International tournament 7 0 6 10 out of 13 1
Riga Tal Memorial 3 0 7 6½ out of 10 3
Novgorod International tournament 3 1 5 5½ out of 9 2-5
Dortmund International tournament 2 1 6 5 out of 9 3-4
Horgen International tournament 5 1 4 7 out of 10 1-2
1996 Wijk aan Zee International tournament 5 0 8 9 out of 13 1
Novgorod International tournament 3 2 5 5½ out of 10 2
Amsterdam Donner Memorial 3 0 8 7 out of 11 1-2
1997 Dortmund International tournament 3 2 4 5 out of 9 3-4
Belgrade International tournament 3 0 6 6 out of 9 1-2
2000 Tallinn Paul Keres Memorial 5 0 2 6 out of 7 1
Lvov Leonid Stein Memorial 4 0 6 7 out of 10 1
Montecatini Terme International festival 3 0 4 5 out of 7 1
2001 Wijk aan Zee International tournament 4 1 8 8 out of 13 3-4
2002 Linares International tournament 2 2 8 6 out of 12 3-5
2003 Malmö International tournament 5 0 4 7 out of 9 1
2004 Antalya 5th European Individual Championship 8 1 6 11 out of 15 1

303
 Vassily Ivanchuk

2004 Calvia Olympiad 6 0 7 9½ out of 13 1

Yerevan Petrosian Memorial 6 1 2 7 out of 9 1
Merida 17th Carlos Torre Memorial 7 1 8 8 out of 10 1
2005 Moscow International tournament 5 1 3 6½ out of 9 1-5
Havana 40th Capablanca Memorial 7 0 5 9½ out of 12 1
Warsaw 6th European Individual Championship 5 0 8 9 out of 13 2-9
Edmonton Canadian Open 6 0 4 8 out of 10 1-5
Barcelona Casino 3 0 1 4 out of 5 1
2006 Tallinn Paul Keres Memorial 5 0 4 7 out of 9 1-3
Wijk aan Zee International tournament 4 2 7 7½ out of 13 3-4
Kusadasi 7th European Individual Championship 5 0 6 8 out of 11 2
Foros International tournament 3 0 8 7 out of 11 2
Odessa International tournament 6 1 2 7 out of 9 1
Barcelona International tournament 6 2 1 6½ out of 9 2
Havana 41th Capablanca Memorial 4 1 5 6½ out of 10 1
Merida 19th Carlos Torre Memorial 5 1 7 K.O. 1
2007 Havana 42th Capablanca Memorial 6 0 3 7½ out of 9 1
Foros International tournament 4 0 7 7½ out of 11 1
Odessa International tournament 6 1 2 7 out of 9 1
Montreal International tournament 5 0 4 7 out of 9 1
Moscow World Blitz Championship 19 6 13 25½ out of 38 1
Merida 20th Carlos Torre Memorial 7 2 3 8½ out of 12 1
2008 Sofia International tournament 6 0 4 8 out of 10 1
Foros International tournament 4 1 6 7 out of 11 2
Dortmund International tournament 2 1 4 4 out of 7 2-5
Moscow Tal Memorial 3 0 6 6 out of 9 1
Moscow Tal Memorial (blitz) 23 7 3½ 23½ out of 34 1-3
2009 Linares International tournament 2 0 12 8 out of 14 1-2
Bazna International tournament 4 0 6 7 out of 10 1
Biel International tournament 2 1 7 5½ out of 10 3
Jermuk 5th FIDE Grand Prix 4 0 9 8½ out of 13 1
Moscow Tal Memorial 2 0 7 5½ out of 9 2-3
2010 Nice Amber Rapid 5 0 6 8 out of 11 1-2
Nice Amber Overall 7 0 15 14½ out of 22 1-2
Havana 45th Capablanca Memorial 4 0 6 7 out of 10 1
Khanty-Mansiysk Olympiad 7 1 2 8 out of 10 1
Cap d’ Agde Rapid 9 0 4 11 out of 13 1
2010/11 Reggio Emilia International tournament 3 2 4 5 out of 9 2-4
2011 Gibraltar International Festival 8 0 2 9 out of 10 1
Havana 46th Capablanca Memorial 4 1 5 6½ out of 10 1
Sao Paulo/Bilbao Grand Slam Final (3-point system) 4 3 3 15 points 1-2
2012 Havana 47st Capablanca Memorial 3 0 7 6½ out of 10 1
Amsterdam ACP Golden Chess Classic 5 0 2 5 out of 6 1
Bucharest Kings’ Tournament 1 0 5 3½ out of 6 1-2

304
 -

Rating Chart

Period 1985-2012

305
 -

Game List
Ivanchuk,Vassily - Savchenko,Stanislav Jurmala 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Ivanchuk,Vassily - Brenninkmeijer,Joris Groningen 1986/87. . . . . . . . 8
Petroff Defence (C42) Howell,James - Ivanchuk,Vassily Groningen 1986/87. . . . . . . . 8
Grünfeld Indian Defence (D77) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Gelfand,Boris Linares 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Modern Benoni (A63) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Yudasin,Leonid Riga, 1st m game 1991 . . . . 11
Ponomariov,Ruslan - Ivanchuk,Vassily Moscow, 5th m game 2002 . 13
Trompowsky Opening (A45) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Jobava,Baadur Havana 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Nimzo-Indian Defence (E55) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Anand,Viswanathan Leon 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Sicilian Defence (B88) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Mishra, Neeraj Kumar Sharjah 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Nimzo-Indian Defence (E20) Malaniuk,Vladimir - Ivanchuk,Vassily Moscow 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Ruy Lopez (C64) Beliavsky,Alexander - Ivanchuk,Vassily Linares 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Nimzo-Indian Defence (E20) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Csom,Istvan Yerevan 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Grünfeld Indian Defence (D88) Georgiev,Kiril - Ivanchuk,Vassily Reggio Emilia 1989 . . . . . . . 29
Nimzo-Indian Defence (E38) Ivanchuk,Vassily - De Firmian,Nick Manila 1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
English Opening (A29) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Timman,Jan Tilburg 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Sicilian Defence (B51) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Kasparov,Garry Linares 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Ruy Lopez (C89) Kamsky,Gata - Ivanchuk,Vassily Linares 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Queen’s Indian Defence (E12) Khalifman,Alexander - Ivanchuk,Vassily Reykjavik 1991. . . . . . . . . . . 44
Scotch Opening (C45) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Gulko,Boris Reykjavik 1991. . . . . . . . . . . 46
Sicilian Defence (B65) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Anand,Vishwanathan Linares, 7th m game 1992 . . 48
Petroff Defence (C42) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Bareev,Evgeny Linares 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Sicilian Defence (B93) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Kasparov,Garry Amsterdam 1994 . . . . . . . . . 53
Sicilian Defence (B33) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Kramnik,Vladimir Novgorod 1994 . . . . . . . . . . 55
Nimzo-Indian Defence (E37) Bareev,Evgeny - Ivanchuk,Vassily Novgorod 1994 . . . . . . . . . . 57
Sicilian Defence (B48) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Ljubojevic,Ljubomir Buenos Aires 1994 . . . . . . . . 59
Ruy Lopez (C89) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Short,Nigel Riga 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
French Defence (C16) Kasparov,Garry - Ivanchuk,Vassily Horgen 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Slav Defence (D44) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Shirov,Alexey Wijk aan Zee 1996 . . . . . . . . 67
Sicilian Defence (B92) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Topalov,Veselin Novgorod 1996 . . . . . . . . . . 70
French Defence (C11) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Morozevich,Alexander Amsterdam 1996 . . . . . . . . . 73
King’s Indian Defence (E81) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Kramnik,Vladimir Las Palmas 1996 . . . . . . . . . . 75
English Opening (A30) Topalov,Veselin - Ivanchuk,Vassily Linares 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Nimzo-Indian Defence (E39) Shipov,Sergey - Ivanchuk,Vassily Las Vegas 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Reti’s Opening (A11) Lputian,Smbat - Ivanchuk,Vassily Montecatini Terme 2000 . . . 82
Sicilian Defence (B92) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Morovic Fernandez, Ivan Neum 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
English Opening (A32) Kasimdzhanov,Rustam - Ivanchuk,Vassily Yerevan 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Italian Game (C54) Fedorov,Alexey - Ivanchuk,Vassily Leon 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
French Defence (C11) Macieja,Bartlomiej - Ivanchuk,Vassily Moscow 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Ruy Lopez (C88) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Adams,Michael Linares 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

307
 Vassily Ivanchuk

Sicilian Defence (B42) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Vallejo Pons,Francisco Linares 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Ruy Lopez (C96) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Yuldashev,Saidali Hyderabad 2002 . . . . . . . . 100
Queen’s Gambit Accepted (D28) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Ponomariov,Ruslan Wijk aan Zee 2003 . . . . . . . 102
Ruy Lopez (C78) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Hector,Jonny Malmö 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Ruy Lopez (C66) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Alexeev,Evgeny Istanbul 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Sicilian Defence (B33) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Van Wely,Loek Rethymnon 2003 . . . . . . . . 109
Nimzo-Indian Defence (E39) Bareev,Evgeny - Ivanchuk,Vassily Rethymnon 2003 . . . . . . . . 112
English Opening (A18) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Nielsen,Peter Heine Skanderborg 2003 . . . . . . . 115
Caro-Kann Defence (B12) Morozevich,Alexander - Ivanchuk,Vassily Calvia 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Sicilian Defence (B32) Radjabov,Teimour - Ivanchuk,Vassily Calvia 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Queen’s Indian Defence (E12) Jobava,Baadur - Ivanchuk,Vassily Havana 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Sicilian Defence (B32) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Movsesian,Sergey Warsaw 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Sicilian Defence (B33) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Johannessen,Leif Erlend Saint Vincent 2005 . . . . . . . 131
French Defence (C13) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Volkov,Sergey Saint Vincent 2005 . . . . . . . 133
English Opening (A30) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Aronian,Levon Morelia/Linares 2006. . . . . 136
Grünfeld Indian Defence (D80) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Svidler,Peter Morelia/Linares 2006. . . . . 139
Slav Defence (D44) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Vallejo Pons,Francisco Morelia/Linares 2006. . . . . 142
English Opening (A30) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Elianov,Pavel Fügen 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Caro-Kann Defence (B12) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Ruck,Robert Fügen 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Sicilian Defence (B90) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Topalov,Veselin Morelia/Linares 2007 . . . . 150
Ragozin Defence (D38) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Aronian,Levon Morelia/Linares 2007. . . . . 152
Queen’s Gambit (D39) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Nisipeanu,Liviu-Dieter Foros 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Ruy Lopez (C91) Shirov,Alexey - Ivanchuk,Vassily Foros 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Queen’s Indian Defence (E12) Miton,Kamil - Ivanchuk,Vassily Montreal 2007 . . . . . . . . . . 159
Petroff Defence (C42) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Harikrishna,Pentala Montreal 2007 . . . . . . . . . . 161
Ruy Lopez (C88) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Leko,Peter Morelia/Linares 2008. . . . . 166
Caro-Kann Defence (B19) Leko,Peter - Ivanchuk,Vassily Morelia/Linares 2008. . . . . 169
Sicilian Defence (B87) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Karjakin,Sergey Nice 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Sicilian Defence (B70) Morozevich,Alexander - Ivanchuk,Vassily Sochi 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Queen’s Indian Defence (E15) Radjabov,Teimour - Ivanchuk,Vassily Sofia 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
French Defence (C11) Topalov,Veselin - Ivanchuk,Vassily Sofia 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Réti Opening (A11) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Bu Xiangzhi Sofia 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
King’s Indian Defence (E99) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Cheparinov,Ivan Sofia 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Slav Defence (D12) Aronian,Levon - Ivanchuk,Vassily Sofia 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Sicilian Defence (B48) Cheparinov,Ivan - Ivanchuk,Vassily Sofia 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Grünfeld Indian Defence (D85) Shirov,Alexey - Ivanchuk,Vassily Foros 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Modern Defence (A10) Van Wely,Loek - Ivanchuk,Vassily Foros 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Petroff Defence (C42) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Kramnik,Vladimir Dortmund 2008 . . . . . . . . . 199
Grünfeld Indian Defence (D92) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Kamsky,Gata Moscow 2008 . . . . . . . . . . 203
Ruy Lopez (C92) Leko,Peter - Ivanchuk,Vassily Moscow 2008 . . . . . . . . . . 205
Queen’s Gambit Declined (D37) Carlsen,Magnus - Ivanchuk,Vassily Bilbao 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Grünfeld Indian Defence (D94) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Carlsen,Magnus Kallithea 2008 . . . . . . . . . . 211

308
 -

Sicilian Defence (B80) Karjakin,Sergey - Ivanchuk,Vassily Kallithea 2008 . . . . . . . . . . 214

Sicilian Defence (B47) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Ivanisevic,Ivan Dresden 2008 . . . . . . . . . . 217
Vienna Game (C26) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Bu Xiangzhi Nanjing 2008. . . . . . . . . . . 220
Queen’s Gambit (D30) Wang Yue - Ivanchuk,Vassily Wijk aan Zee 2009 . . . . . . . 224
Sicilian Defence (B 92) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Karjakin,Sergey Wijk aan Zee 2009 . . . . . . . 226
King’s Indian Defence (E92) Aronian,Levon - Ivanchuk,Vassily Linares 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . 229
King’s Indian Defence (E97) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Grischuk,Alexander Nalchik 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Sicilian Defence (B85) Kamsky,Gata - Ivanchuk,Vassily Bazna 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
English Opening (A13) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Alexeev,Evgeny Jermuk 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Ruy Lopez (C77) Akopian,Vladimir - Ivanchuk,Vassily Jermuk 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence (B07) Caruana,Fabiano - Ivanchuk,Vassily Biel 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Slav Defence (D11) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Gelfand,Boris Moscow 2009 . . . . . . . . . . 248
Sicilian Defence (B96) Smeets,Jan - Ivanchuk,Vassily Wijk aan Zee 2010 . . . . . . . 251
Sicilian Defence (B97) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Grischuk,Alexander Sochi 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Caro-Kann Defence (B12) Nepomniachtchi,Ian - Ivanchuk,Vassily Havana 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Caro-Kann Defence (B13) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Beliavsky,Alexander Khanty-Mansiysk 2010. . . . 260
Volga Gambit (A57) Sokolov,Ivan - Ivanchuk,Vassily Khanty-Mansiysk 2010 . . . 261
Slav Defence (D45) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Leko,Peter Khanty-Mansiysk 2010. . . . 263
Caro-Kann Defence (B12) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Jobava,Baadur Khanty-Mansiysk 2010. . . . 266
Grünfeld Indian Defence (D90) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Vachier-Lagrave,Maxime Khanty-Mansiysk 2010. . . . 269
French Defence (C06) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Erdös,Viktor Gibraltar 2011 . . . . . . . . . . 273
Sicilian Defence (B78) Kotronias,Vasilios - Ivanchuk,Vassily Gibraltar 2011 . . . . . . . . . . 276
Keres Defence (E11) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Short,Nigel Gibraltar 2011 . . . . . . . . . . 279
Queen’s Gambit Declined (D30) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Fridman,Daniel Gibraltar 2011 . . . . . . . . . . 282
Caro-Kann Defence (B18) Bruzon Batista,Lazaro - Ivanchuk,Vassily Havana 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . 284
King’s Indian Defence (E73) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Radjabov,Teimour Medias 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . 286
Slav Defence (D14) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Nakamura,Hikaru Medias 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . 289
Ragozin Defence (D35) Aronian,Levon - Ivanchuk,Vassily Sao Paulo 2011. . . . . . . . . . 293
Slav Defence (D18) Le Quang Liem - Ivanchuk,Vassily Amsterdam 2012 . . . . . . . . 296
Nimzo-Indian Defence (E52) Ivanchuk,Vassily - Wang Hao Istanbul 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . 300

309
 Vassily Ivanchuk

Index of Opening and ECO Codes

(bold numbers indicate the number of the game)

Vienna Game C26 - 76;

Petroff Defence C42 - 13, 56, 69;
Scotch Opening C45 - 11;
Italian Game C54 - 29;
Ruy Lopez C64 - 3; C66 - 36; C77 - 83; C78 - 35; C88 - 31, 57;
C89 - 9, 18; C91 - 54; C92 - 71; C96 - 33;
French Defence C06 - 94; C11 - 22, 30, 62; C13 - 45; C16 - 19;
Caro-Kann Defence B12 - 40, 50, 88, 92; B13 - 89; B18 - 98; B19 - 58;
Sicilian Defence B32 - 41, 43; B33 - 15, 37, 44; B42 - 32; B47 - 75; B48
- 17, 66; B51 - 8; B65 - 12; B70 - 60; B78 - 95; B80 -
74; B85 - 81; B87 - 59; B88 - 1; B90 - 51; B92 - 21,
27, 78; B93 - 14; B96 - 86; B97 - 87;
Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence B07 - 84;
Queen’s Gambit D28 - 34; D30 - 77, 97; D37 - 72; D39 - 53;
Slav Defence D11 - 85; D12 - 65; D14 - 100; D18 - 102; D44 - 20,
48; D45 - 91;
Ragozin Defence D35 - 101; D38 - 52;
King’s Indian Defence E73 - 99; E81 - 23; E92 - 79; E97 - 80; E99 - 64;
Modern Defence A10 - 68;
Volga Gambit A57 - 90;
Grünfeld Indian Defence D80 - 47; D85 - 67; D88 - 5; D90 - 93; D92 - 70;
D94 - 73;
Keres Defence E11 - 96;
Queen’s Indian Defence E12 - 10, 42, 55; E15 - 61;
Nimzo-Indian Defence E20 - 2, 4; E37 - 16; E38 - 6; E39 - 25, 38; E52 - 103;
Reti’s Opening A11 - 26, 63;
English Opening A13 - 82; A18 - 39; A29 - 7; A30 - 24, 46, 49; A3 - 28

310
Index of Names
Numbers refer to pages.

A Areschenko 198 Beilin 7

Abramovic 282 Argunov 261 Beliavsky 23, 33, 47, 105,
Acher 192 Arkhipov 28 206, 224, 255, 260, 290
Adams 42, 90, 95, 206, Arlandi 194 Bellon Lopez 99
301 Arnason 78 Belov 245
Adamski 99 Arnold 210 Berelowitsch 273
Ader 221 Aronian 42, 63, 87, 95, Berg 85, 175
Aderito 119 116, 136-137, 152-153, Berkes 22
Adorjan 78, 197 167, 190, 208, 229, 239, Berkvens 93
Agamaliev 185 242, 264, 293, 301 Bern 29
Agdestein 209 Asanov 184 Bitalzadeh 47
Agzamov 68 Aseev 35 Bitansky 233
Akesson 179 Atalik 167 Blagojevic 157
Akopian 155, 186, 209, Atarov 10, 14-15 Blatny 42
242, 265, 287 Averbakh 7 Bobotsov 116
Akvist 24 Averkin 187 Bobras 191
Al Sayed 55 Aveskulov 172 Bocharov 80
Alekhine 7, 29, 47, 103, Avrukh 47 Bodrogi 221
134, 139, 166, 203, 296 Azarov 42 Bogoljubow 133, 296
Alexandrov 194-195, Azmaiparashvili 140, 245 Böhm,J 83
293, 301 Boleslavsky 58
Alexeev 89, 106, 116, B Bologan 78, 233, 257
227, 238, 289 Babula 109 Borisek 203
Almasi 53, 109, 150 Bachofner 220 Bosboom 288
Almeida Quintana 44 Bacrot 95 Bosch 89, 147
Amonatov 245, 297 Bagirov 87, 287 Boskovic 175
Anand 13, 15, 17, 37, 42, Balashov 252 Botvinnik 7, 18, 67, 103,
48-49, 60, 62-63, 67, Balogh 167 136, 203
70-71, 90, 95, 98, 106, Banikas 178 Brenninkmeijer 8
110, 119, 142, 150, 154, Barczay 175 Brito 255
162, 169-170, 178, Bareev 21, 50, 57, Bronstein 7, 58, 109
199-200, 209, 211, 218, 112-113, 140, 148, 220, Brulic 35
297-298 260, 284, 301 Bruzon Batista 242, 284
Anderssen 242 Barsov 194 Bu Xiangzhi 184, 212,
Andersson 181, 236 Barus 179 220
Antonsen 75 Basagic 262 Buhmann 293
Arbakov 71, 225 Bayram 159 Buljovcic 255
Arencibia 157 Bednarski 133 Bunzmann 246

311
Vassily Ivanchuk

Bykhovsky 9 D’Costa 33 F
Byrne 9 Damljanovic 230 Farago 35
Danielian 274 Fedorchuk 273
C Darga 99 Fedorov 89
Cabrilo 175 Dautov 22, 148 Fedorowicz 76
Calistri 170 David,P 197 Feletar 262
Campos Moreno 126 Davies 167 Fernandez Garcia 40, 203
Candela Perez 35 De Firmian 32, 34, 42, Filippov 239
Capablanca 42, 58 123, 172 Fine 155
Capraro 127 De Fotis 238 Finegold 190
Carlsen 78, 151, 167, De Jong 260 Fischer 24, 140, 171,
172, 206, 208-209, 211, De La Bourdonnais 123 254-255
215, 233, 273 De la Paz Perdomo 89 Fishbein 71
Carmaciu 285 Deep Fritz 274 Fleming 126
Caruana 245 Delchev 233 Flohr 103, 205
Cebalo 37 Derichs 34 Foisor 28
Chandler 68, 214 Disconzi da Silva 76 Fominikh 194
Chebotarev 134 Djukic 129 Fontaine 130
Chekhov 81 Dlugy 148 Forintos 34, 58
Cheparinov 142, 181, Dolmatov 90 Fressinet 130
186, 192-193, 262 Dominguez Perez 139, Fridman 282
Chernin 293 227, 290 Ftacnik 31, 187, 236,
Chernishov 301 Dorfman 71, 252 255, 294
Chernuschevich 192 Drasko 181 Fuchs 116
Chigorin 276 Drenchev 239 Fuderer 252
Christiansen 76 Drozdovsky 203, 263 Furlan 123
Chuchelov 112, 137, 236 Duhayon 143 Furman 102
Chuprikov 212 Dzevlan 30
Cicak 198 G
Cifuentes Parada 210 E Gabaldon 290
Ciganovic 124 Edouard 144, 150 Galkin 68
Ciocaltea 186 Efimov 83 Galliamova 10, 58
Cobb 273 Ehlvest 47, 209 Ganaus 210
Colovic 133 El Tahir 101 Ganguly 55
Cooper 42 Elianov 80, 144, 190, Garcia Carbo 35
Csiszar 35 242, 264-265, 270, 297 Garcia,G 222
Csom 27-29, 40 Elissalt Cardenas 123 Gashimov 17, 63, 95
Cuenca Jimenez 277 Engelbert 246 Gavrilov 284
Cyborowski 260 Eperjesi 81 Gelfand 10, 19, 52, 78,
Czakon 251 Epishin 178, 279 162, 200-201, 208, 248,
Czerwonski 233 Erdös 273 301
Erenburg 49 Geller 99, 289
D Estremera Panos 203 Genocchio 28
D’Amore 47 Euwe 25, 155, 203, 279 Georgiev,Kir 29, 140, 166

312
 Index of Names

Giliazetdinov 25 Hawkins 178 166-167, 169-171,

Giorgadze 242 Hebden 212 173-174, 177-178, 181,
Gipslis 175 Heck 287 183-184, 186-187, 190,
Gladyshev 140 Hector 104-105 192, 194, 197-201, 203,
Glek 288 Hellers 31 205-206, 208-209,
Gligoric 9, 90, 262 Hiarcs 215 211-212, 214-215,
Glud 210 Hippe 129 217-218, 220-221,
Gluzman 71 Hjelm 30 223-224, 226-233, 235,
Goganov 178 Hoffmann 53 238, 240, 242, 245,
Goldin 140, 153 Hollis 67 248-249, 251, 254-255,
Golod 24-25, 209 Holmsten 85 257, 260-264, 266, 269,
Goloschapov 193 Hort 33, 81, 270 271, 273, 275-277, 279,
Golubev 51, 60 Horvath,Cs 222 282, 284, 286-287,
Gomez Esteban 31 Horvath,Jo 79, 269 289-290, 293, 296-298,
Gopal 140, 277 Howell 8, 99 300-301
Graf 17, 101 Hracek 206 Ivanisevic 217
Granda Zuniga 119, 270 Hreinsson 123 Ivanov,A 225
Greenfeld 33, 293 Hübner 99, 197 Ivanov,S 113, 155, 212
Grigorian 87 Hummel 93 Ivkov 96
Grischuk 137, 148, 195, Hvenekilde 24
209, 230, 232, 254-255, J
260 I Jaenisch 51, 199
Grünberg 113 Ibragimov 230 Jakubiec 233
Grünfeld 139 Ilincic 172, 262 Jansa 227, 269
Gulko 24-25, 46, 49, 78, Illescas Cordoba 131, 194 Jaracz 159
117, 137 Ilyin 301 Javakhishvili 239
Gurevich,I 270 Inarkiev 260 Jenni 167
Gurevich,M 33, 35, 186, Ionov 35 Jobava 16, 126, 257, 266
273 Ipatov 301 Johannessen 131
Gustafsson 290 Istratescu 160 Johanssen 119
Gutman 83 Ivanchuk 7-19, 21, Jones 47
Gyimesi 30, 243 23-24, 27, 29, 32, 34, Jonny 215
36-37, 39-41, 44, 46, 48, Jost 204
H 50-53, 55, 57, 59-60, Jovcic 67
Haik 33 62-65, 67-68, 70, 73, 75,
Halkias 140 77-78, 80, 82-87, 89, 92, K
Hallier 63 95, 97-98, 100-102, 104, Kaabi 233
Hansen,Cu 117 106-107, 109-110, Kaidanov 220
Hansen,SuB 75, 179 112-113, 115-120, Kalashian 301
Harikrishna 62, 113, 161, 123-124, 126, 129, Kalinichenko 155, 186
260 131-133, 135-136, Kalinitschew 110
Har-Zvi 116 138-140, 142, 144-145, Kallio 239
Haslinger 124, 273 147-148, 150-152, 154, Kamsky 10, 41, 47, 63,
Hatzileonidas 93 157, 159, 161-163, 68, 98, 101, 129, 131,

313
Vassily Ivanchuk

200, 203, 206, 212, 235, Knaak 81 Larsen 9, 131, 222

238 Koch 127, 222 Lasker 7, 18, 282, 290
Kan 290 Komarov 184 Lauber 285
Kaplan 42 Koneru 249 Lauridsen 233
Kapnisis 83 Konstantinopolsky 276 Lautier 13, 102
Kaposztas 81 Kopasov 34 Laylo 290
Karason 175 Korneev 123, 157 Le Quang Liem 296,
Karjakin 171-172, 214, Kornev 16 298-299
224, 226, 229, 249 Korotylev 113 Leenhouts 262
Karklins 238 Kortchnoi 30, 33, 65, 73, Legky 233
Karlsson 273 181, 186, 279 Leitao 76
Karpman 233 Kosintseva,N 260 Leko 62-63, 98, 131,
Karpov 8, 10, 12, 17, 30, Kotov 238 133, 166-167, 169, 178,
87, 102, 136, 153, Kotronias 276 205, 215, 242, 263-264,
169-170, 178, 200-201, Kouatly 136, 204 269
209, 230 Kovacevic,A 178 Lenic 33
Kasimdzhanov 86-87, Kovacevic,B 134 Lepeshkin 220
140, 206, 288, 301 Kovacevic,S 99 Lerner 58, 79
Kasparov 8, 10, 12, 19, Kovalev 162 Lesiège 172
30, 39, 47, 53, 60, 65, Kramnik 12-13, 15, 37, Levchenkov 162
67, 70-71, 87, 101, 112, 55, 62, 68, 75, 123, 132, Levenfish 205
136, 178, 187, 193, 142, 154, 190, 199-201, Levin 90
200-201, 209, 215, 230, 209, 230, 293 Li Chao 30, 277
255, 284 Krasenkow 110, 197, 293 Lilienthal,S 63
Kempinski 260, 262 Kreiman 172 Liss 116
Keres 7, 96, 162, 254 Kritz 25, 290 Ljubojevic 59-60, 99,
Khaghani 185 Krush 113 133, 181, 192
Khairullin 147 Kruszynski 99 Lobron 49, 200
Khalifman 44, 68, 163, Kudischewisch 290 Lochte 167
175 Kudrin 31, 140, 277 Löffler 16
Kharitonov 68 Kunin 293 Lopez Hernandez 123
Kharlov 49 Kurnosov 119, 236 Lputian 82, 203
Khasangatin 212 Kuzmin,A 186 Lupu 93, 134
Khenkin 27 Kuzmin,G 63 Lushenkov 212
Khismatullin 287 Kuzubov 212 Luther 59
Kholmov 270 Lutz 110
Khusnutdinov 47 L
Khuzman 79, 83 l’Ami 140, 190 M
Kindermann 53 Lahno 193 Machulsky 67
King 78 Lalic 181, 249 Macieja 92, 113
Kiss 178 Lalith 198 Madan 273
Klawonn 129 Landa 170 Makarov 184
Klimov 93 Lanka 93, 110 Malakhov 144, 174, 289
Klovan 162 Lapcevic 192 Malaniuk 21, 279

314
 Index of Names

Maletin 297 174, 192, 200, 206, 215, Oll 116, 163
Malich 186 221, 242, 257, 298, 301 Olssen 155
Malinin 63, 167 Morphy 276 Onischuk 157, 166
Mamedov 230 Mortensen 75 Opocensky 85
Mamedyarov 298 Motoc 260 Oral 87
Mann 148 Motylev 28, 124, 230 Ornstein 78
Marcelin 290 Movsesian 39, 129, 243,
Marin 37, 245 249 P
Markun 123 Murariu 260 Palecha 129
Markus 178 Murei 105 Palkövi 167
Maroczy 129 Murshed 290 Panno 252, 254
Marshall 42, 166, 199 Murtagh 276 Papa 172
Marta 107 Papp 22
Martz 28 N Parker 90
Maslak 277 Naer 134, 290 Partos 28
Matulovic 184 Naiditsch 24, 47, 117, Pashikian 227
Matveeva 231 162, 200-201, 227 Pelletier 192
Maximenko 288 Najdorf 212 Perelshteyn 285
McDonnell 123 Nakamura 42, 289 Perenyi 42
McShane 105 Naumkin 178 Perez Perez 166
Mecking 140 Navara 37, 83, 206 Perunovic 16
Meenakshi 212 Nepomniachtchi 47, 257 Peterson 186
Megaranto 287 Nestorovic 263 Petr 277
Meiers 162 Nevednichy 90 Petronic 184
Meins 78, 288 Nguyen Anh Dung 179, Petrosian 147, 159, 212
Melkumian 140 245 Petrov 51
Meyer 246 Ni Hua 140 Pfleger 289
Middelburg 193 Nielsen 115, 117, 210 Piccardo 186
Mikhalevski,A 209 Nijboer 47 Pico 263
Miles 116 Nikitin 29 Pigusov 209
Milman 157 Nikolaidis 83 Piket 162
Milov 153 Nikolic68, 137, 246, 273 Pletsch 148
Miralles 162 Nikolov,S 34 Pliester 117
Miroshnichenko 178, 221 Nimzowitsch 177 Pogorelov 192
Mishra 19 Nisipeanu 90, 154-155 Polerio 67
Mititelu 28 Nogueiras Santiago 87, Polgar 119, 166, 200,
Miton 159, 262 102-103 221
Mlynek 79 Novak 79 Polugaevsky 10, 78
Mokrik 13, 18 Novik 167 Polzin 157
Mokry 33 Novopashin 63 Ponomariov 13, 63, 69,
Morovic Fernandez 84, Nunn 148, 214, 287 101-103, 199, 206, 215,
221 217, 227, 264, 301
Morozevich 13, 62, 65, O Porat,I 277
73, 118, 152, 162-163, Olafsson 131 Porat,M 277

315
Vassily Ivanchuk

Portisch 17, 65, 106 Salov 19, 48, 279 222, 297
Postny 157, 184 Salvio 67 Sokolov,A 65, 175
Prasad 284 San Emeterio Cabanes192 Sokolov,I 67, 83, 261-263
Prasanna 24 Sanchez Garcia 290 Soltanici 178
Predojevic 262 Sanchis 187 Sorokin 294
Pribyl 187 Sandipan 28 Sosnowska 200
Prié 184 Sanguinetti 212 Sospedra Sebastian 222
Prokopchuk 16 Sargissian 153 Spano Cuomo 107
Psakhis 49, 87, 181 Sarosi 148 Spassky 30, 63, 254-255,
Sasikiran 184, 190 279
R Savanovic 239, 282 Speelman 16, 269-270
Rada Equiza 192 Savchenko,B 109 Spraggett 251
Radjabov 123, 169, 177, Savchenko,S 8 Staunton 36
186, 233, 286 Sax 28 Stean 197
Raetsky 221 Schandorff 35 Stefansson 119
Rajkovic 262 Schlechter 109 Steiner,T 277
Rasmussen 117 Schlosser 79 Steinitz 47, 242
Rauzer 48 Schöne 218 Stellwagen 265
Razuvaev 206 Schumacher 78 Stolz 110
Ree 24 Schweber 279 Stross 110
Reeh 81 Sebag 274 Suarez-Real 110
Reinderman 116, 288 Seirawan 78, 148 Suba 113
Renet 153, 162 Sengupta 24 Suetin 9
Reshevsky 58, 297 Sermek 262 Sutovsky13, 62, 107, 197
Ribli 136 Serper 113 Sveshnikov 83, 123
Rodin 143 Servat 157 Svetushkin 190, 285
Rodriguez Cespedes 90, Seyb 28 Svidler 47, 63, 107, 139,
99 Shabalov 172 163, 206, 270
Roger 187 Shariyazdanov 124 Swiercz 19
Romanov 134, 297 Shipov 80, 195, 263 Szabo 28
Rossiter 90 Shirov 22, 51, 63, 67-69, Szczepanski 167
Roumegous 35 89, 92, 104, 157, 162, Sznapik 236
Rozentalis 117, 162-163 194, 238, 297
Rubinstein 133 Short 25, 42, 52, 62, 209, T
Rublevsky 39, 47, 98 214, 279 Taimanov 28, 78, 238
Ruck 147, 160 Shovunov 262 Tal 9, 18, 23, 136, 206,
Rukavina 124 Shtirenkov 143 236
Runic 172 Simagin 21, 29 Tarrasch 199
Simutowe 33 Thorhallsson 103
S Skaperdas 93 Timman 8, 35-36, 117,
Sadovnik 15 Smeets 169, 251 148, 187, 273
Sakaev 143, 153, 293 Smejkal 167 Timoschenko 34, 37, 220
Sakharov,Y 78 Smirin 277 Timoshenko 134
Saldano Dayer 277 Smyslov 203, 211-212, Tisdall 269

316
 Index of Names

Tiviakov 40, 70, 169, 242 Van Wely 70, 109-111, Winants 294
Tolush 25 143, 153, 184, 197, 214, Wojtaszek 178
Tomashevsky 44, 301 227, 233, 251, 263 Wojtkiewicz 172, 236
Tomczak 19, 123 Varga 30 Wong Meng Kong 221
Topalov 39, 51, 70, 77, Vasiliev 10, 18
87, 131, 150, 181, 190, Vasiukov 87, 92 X
209, 215, 230, 235, 254, Vassilenko 7 Xie Jun 90
274, 297 Veingold 227
Torre 47, 245, 282 Verat 35 Y
Tratar 198 Vescovi 170 Yakovich 143, 153
Tregubov 60 Vifian 92 Yanev 245
Truta 35 Vitiugov 116, 192, 293 Ye Jiangchuan 193, 231
Tseshkovsky 75, 85, 134 Vitolins 255 Yermolinsky 67, 83, 186
Tukmakov 279 Vogt 85 Yudasin 11
Voitsekhovsky 153 Yuferov 252
U Volkov 93, 133 Yuldashev 100
Ubilava 233 Volzhin 35 Yusupov 8, 12, 65, 143,
Uhlmann,D 218 von Alvensleben 148 201, 265
Uhlmann,W 287 Vorobiov 167
Unzicker 24, 252 Vuckovic 192 Z
Urban 83 Vysochin 133 Zabotin 194
Zaitsev,I 167, 206
V W Zak 30
Vachier-Lagrave 198, 215, Waitzkin 90 Zaragatski 166
269-270 Wang Hao 134, 300-301 Zaremba 190
Vaganian 65, 209 Wang Yaoyao 16 Zaslavsky 109
Vajda 262 Wang Yue 191, 224, 249 Zherebukh 172
Vallejo Pons98, 137, 140, Wedberg 58, 78 Zhou Jianchao 30
142 Wells 178 Zilberstein 87
Van den Doel 89 Werle 116 Zubov 178
Van der Sterren 210 Westerinen 68 Zugic 212
Van der Werf 147 Wiese 200 Zuidema 24
Van der Wiel 47 Willemze,J 246 Zviagintsev 112, 174, 294

317