/
Теги: chess chess parties chess combinations everyman chess gross master
ISBN: 978-1-85744-672-2
Год: 2011
Текст
EVERYMAN CHESS
GARRY KASPAROV 6ARRY KASPAROV PART h 1973-1985 Gloucester Publishers pic www.everymanchess.com EVERYMAN CHESS
First published in 2011 by Gloucester Publishers pic (formerly Everyman Publishers pic), Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT Copyright © 2011 Garry Kasparov English translation © 2011 Ken Neat First published 2011 by Gloucester Publishers pic The right of Garry Kasparov to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: 978 185744 672 2 Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480. All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT tel: 020 7253 7887 fax: 020 7490 3708 email: info@everymanchess.com website: www.everymanchess.com Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under license from Random House Inc. Everyman Chess Series Chief advisor: Byron Jacobs Commissioning editor: John Emms Assistant editor: Richard Palliser Translation by Ken Neat. Typesetting and editing by First Rank Publishing, Brighton. Cover design by Horatio Monteverde. Printed and bound in Printed and Bound in the US by Sheridan Books.
Contents Foreword 5 1 Baku Universities 7 Childhood Years 7 First Steps 15 Entry into the all-union Arena 20 'He attacks like Alekhine!' 28 ‘Who will be the Champion after Karpov?’ 38 Meetings with the Greats 49 Young Champion 59 Two-times Champion! 71 Turning Point 78 2 Adult Games 93 Master Class 93 Smile of Fortune 120 High Society Debut 142 ‘This is the new Fischer!’ 161 First‘Bronze’ 172 European ‘Gold’ 190
Grandmaster 197 Chess Prince 217 Olympiad Debut 233 First Battle with the Champion 247 Moscow ‘Tournament of Stars’ 263 Audacious Challenge 276 Confirmation of Class 285 Tilburg Lessons 297 USSR Champion 324 Dress Rehearsal 348 Challenger 365 Decisive Finish 365 First 'Oscar' 382 Match with Beliavsky 404 Riga Novelty 421 Fairy-tale in Niksic 429 Match with Korchnoi 450 Match with Smyslov 467 ‘Return Match of the Century’ 481 First Match with Karpov: 1984/85 487 Index of Openings 514 Index of Opponents 516 Index of Games 518
Foreword The autobiographical three-volume Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov is a continuation of the series My Great Predecessors (Parts l-V) and Modern Chess (Parts 1-4). Initially I was intending simply to annotate about three hundred of my best games, dividing them into three volumes in accordance with the stages of my competitive career: the pre-champion period (1973-1985), the time when I was champion within the FIDE framework (1985-1993) and the years outside of FIDE (1993-2005). But then I realised that to complete the picture I needed to include not only the best, but also the most memorable games and endings, which became landmarks on my chess career (although some of them have already been annotated in previous books). Throughout my life it has been said that I won mainly thanks to deep and comprehensive opening preparation. Thereby - deliberately or otherwise - my ability to play creatively at the board itself was disparaged. ‘I don’t know another player who would prepare so thoroughly for a match or a tournament. In this respect he surpasses even the legendary Botvinnik', Anatoly Karpov once said about me. In fact, without the ability to play creatively at the board, nothing can be achieved, whereas the art of preparation has been a distinguishing feature of many world champions and has always furthered the progress of chess thinking. In the 1920s Alekhine worked at chess more persistently than anyone before him in history, and as a result the entire culture of the 'amateur game’ sharply improved. In the 1940s Botvinnik’s methodical mind and scientific approach assisted the transformation of chess into a genuine profession. In the 1970s Fischer's fantastic enthusiasm for analytical work forced any player who did not want to ‘miss the boat’ to devote more time to theoretical preparation. In the 1980s, when I became the leader of the new opening revolution, the need for such preparation was already axiomatic. I grew up in an atmosphere of strict discipline, created by my mother. My chess outlook was formed at the school of Mikhail Botvinnik, and my opening repertoire developed under
the influence of my trainers - the outstanding analysts Alexander Nikitin and Alexander Shakarov. Apart from an innate combinative gift, from childhood I possessed an unlimited appetite for analytical work. I studied all the latest games of the leading grandmasters, recorded novelties and analysed critical positions, trying to find improvements. The choice of a particular opening system was always the fruit of deep creative processing, and certainly not blind imitation. Later, in the period when I was fighting for the world crown, my circle of analytical helpers expanded, but as before I tirelessly generated my own ideas. And when personal computers appeared, I was the first player to include machine analysis in my system of preparation and to make systematic use of playing programs and databases. Soon I discovered how weak some of my earlier preparations had been. A useful, sobering discovery! Under the microscope of powerful computer programs it transpired that at times I had gone along to a game not with a some kind of Excalibur, but with a blunt pen-knife. Nevertheless, my intensive preparation was invariably rewarded with good results, even when by no means all the ideas were used. Between labour invested and success achieved there always exists if not a direct connection, then some almost mythical one. Probably also a psychological one: after all, every time when beginning a battle, I thought that I possessed some ‘deadly weapon’, and this gave me confidence, even if the weapon was unused or proved to be altogether ineffective. This volume contains one hundred newly annotated games and endings. It is partly based on my first book The Test of Time (1986). In the preface to it Botvinnik wrote: ‘Kasparov is on the right path: analyses of games should be published by a player not only to afford pleasure to the readers, but also, by putting forward the results of his work to their strict judgement, to be able to use the readers’ criticisms to check the objectivity of his searchings. This is an essential step for anyone who wishes to become a researcher in chess. In this way creative and competitive successes can be raised, and the very maximum possible “squeezed" out of his talent...’ The large amount of annotation work done then was, of course, not free of analytical mistakes, and in addition the rapid progress of opening theory has changed the assessments of numerous variations. Therefore a number of annotations had to be significantly refined and amplified, and some shortened. As Botvinnik anticipated, ‘not all the games have survived’. But on the whole my earlier conclusions have withstood the test of time. / should like to express my gratitude to my former trainers Alexander Nikitin and Alexander Shakarov for their help in preparing the manuscript for publication.
Chapter One Baku Universities1 Childhood Years It is the spring of 1963. In Moscow, in the Estrada Theatre, the Botvinnik-Petrosian match for the world championship is taking place, and in Baku Vladimir Makogonov, trainer in the chess section of the Regional Officer’s Club, is carefully analysing each game with his pupils. Valery Asriyan: 'In early April, when the scores were level, I asked Makogonov who, in his opinion, would win the match. "Petrosian", he replied without thinking. "And who will be champion in 10 years time?" I ventured to ask. "Probably Fischer", said Makogonov after a slight pause. "And in 20 years time?", I jokingly enquired. Vladimir Andreevich smiled: “You are wanting to look too far ahead. It is possible that the player who will be world champion in 20 years time has not yet been born”. Of course, it was hard to imagine that just a few days later, 13th April, would see the birth in Baku of a boy, whom his parents would name Carry and who within 22 years would become world champion!’ Strictly speaking, I could have been born a day later, since I came into this world at a quarter to midnight. In a sense my mother would have preferred this to happen. But I was nevertheless born on the 13th day of the 4th month of the year 63 (again 4+6+3=13) and, contrary to all superstitions, for me this has proved a lucky number. So much so, that I even became the 13th world champion, and, moreover, after an unscheduled match for the title, which took place in the year of 85 (8+5=13). The origin of my name is curious. This was one of the strong-willed decisions of my father, which influenced my fate and my character. 'My name is Kim - short, and rather voiceless’, said my father, ‘whereas a boy's name should be resounding. Let it be pronounced firmly, let there be a letter Y. We will call our son Carry!’ Baku was the capital of Soviet Azerbai 1 The chapter title is an adaptation of the autobiographical My Universities, in which Maxim Gorky describes his experiences of early manhood in the university of life. (Translator’s note)
jan, a typical outpost of the imperial state. A kind of large ‘Odessa on the Caspian' - a melting-pot of different nationalities, united by the common Russian language and the dominating Russian-Soviet culture. My own roots are no exception: my mother was Armenian, and my father Jewish. This is sometimes called an explosive mixture. At any event, I think that I inherited both the sensible pragmatism of my mother, and the capricious, creative nature of my father - and it was a combination of these traits that determined the atmosphere in our home. My father, Kim Moiseevich Weinstein, grew up in a family of musicians. He had an excellent ear and he studied the violin at music school, but then he entered the Azerbaijan Industrial Institute and became an electrical engineer, and later the author of scientific articles and an almost completed dissertation. Five years later my mother, Klara Shagenovna Kasparova, completed a course at the same Institute, but in a different faculty, and after obtaining her engineer’s diploma on the speciality ‘automatic equipment and remote control’, in the autumn of 1959 she joined the laboratory where my father was then working. It was there that they met. My parents had a wide range of interests in common - books, music, theatre, cinema - and chess! Both my mother and my father had learned to play when they were young, and they loved solving the studies and problems published in the Baku Vyshka newspaper. In the early 1960s my father changed jobs and began working in a specialised construction bureau associated with the oil industry, where chess was also especially popular. It can be said that, from the first days of my life, chess fluids were floating around me. The biographies of famous chess players usually begin with some remarkable episode from their early childhood. Thus the young Capablanca and Reshevsky, without knowing the rules of chess and by simply watching the game being played in their family, suddenly began defeating their fathers. Karpov was introduced to chess in the same way, although his father was a much stricter examiner (this was, after all, the Soviet Chess School!). I will not break with tradition and I will also begin with my early childhood. My relatives recall that I began walking at 10 months - and I immediately became resolute and free. But even before that I displayed exceptional tenacity in achieving a goal. Once my grandmother sat me down with toys in my cot and went off to the kitchen to prepare dinner. But I got bored and, overcoming all the obstacles, I gradually crawled my way to the kitchen, where there was my favourite folding chair. My grandma was surprised and carried me back. Within ten minutes I crawled in again... My grandma wondered: ‘How many times will he do this?' But in the end she lost count and merely repeated: 'There’s character for you!’ It is said that I was a very self-sufficient child: I could play for hours in a sand pit with a bucket and spade. And when I started talking, I loved a game called ‘Why?’ The idea of the game was to put an adult on the spot, by making them unable to find a reply to this eternal question. And often, cheerfully smiling, I would exasperate those around by endlessly asking ‘Why?’. Very early I learned the importance of numbers and once I surprised my relatives by being able to distinguish on the street where the even and odd-numbered houses were. Like all the children, I went to the
kindergarten, but I was very unwilling and I was often unwell - this was obviously a defensive reaction of the organism. But if I had to go there, I used to display a feeling of responsibility and innate punctuality. I was usually taken to the kindergarten by my grandma, and if she were to linger carelessly at home, when the hour hand on the wall clock inexorably began approaching the figure ‘8’ I would become terribly nervous and begin crying: ‘Grandma, I’m going to be late!’ I began reading at the age of four, and I learned to put letters together to make syllables - from newspaper headlines. I knew that, before we went out for a walk, my father would look at the newspapers, and I would patiently wait for him to finish. When a newspaper was put to one side, I would promptly unfold it and with a most serious expression I would also unhurriedly ‘look at it’. My desire to imitate everything my father did was a source of great amusement to my parents, and in this way I was introduced to ‘reading’ newspapers. And soon, during one of our walks, sitting on my father’s shoulders, I saw on the roof of a building some large neon letters. I pointed with my index finger and slowly pronounced the syllables: ‘Dru-zhba’ ('Friendship' - this was our local cinema). When I was unwell, I spent long days in bed, and reading completely replaced my toys. On one occasion, roughly a year later, I staggered a visiting friend of my mother, when she saw me reading a newspaper aloud: ‘Po-lo-zhe-ni-e v Ka-i-re’ ('Situation in Cairo’). And then the whole article to the end. When she asked if I remembered what I had read, I told her everything I knew from the newspapers about the situation in the Middle East. I had an exceptional memory. When I was not yet able to read, I would remember by heart all the stories that had been read aloud to me, and later 1 would enthusiastically retell them. And when I learned to read without hesitating, I would do this very quickly and grasp everything. A passion for books, like some kind of spiritual greed, has always possessed me. My innate chess gift revealed itself at the age of five, when my parents, sitting at the table, were racking their brains over the regular problem in the Vyshka newspaper. As usual, I was sitting beside them, attentively following the movements of the pieces. I didn’t yet know how to play, but I knew the point of the Latin letters and numbers along the edge of the board. And at some point I suddenly suggested the solution of a difficult problem, which greatly amazed my parents. 'If you know how the game ends, we'll have to show you how it begins!’ my father exclaimed, and he began explaining the rules. Soon I was inseparable from chess, and a year later I was already beating my father. Had I not shown an ability for chess at that time, I might well have gone to music school. This is what my paternal grandmother Olga Yulevna, a music teacher, was very much hoping. Her husband and my grandfather, Moisey Rubinovich Weinstein, who died prematurely in the summer of 1963, was a composer, conductor and violinist, and worked as artistic director of the Baku Philharmonia. They thought that a musical education for a child was essential, even if he did not have perfect pitch. 'The main thing is a sense of rhythm’, Olga Yulevna used to say. ‘That's how it was with Lyona, whose musical talent only emerged when he was eleven.’ And how it emerged! In contrast to my father, his younger brother, my uncle
Leonid Weinstein, did not give up music, but completed a course at the Conservatoire and became a well-known composer, an Honoured Artist in Azerbaijan. He composed several operas and symphonies, numerous chamber and vocal works, musical operettas, variety pieces, three dozen songs, and music for the theatre, cinema and television, and when he was a student he was a member of the legendary Baku group who in 1967-68 were the champions of a popular national TV competition. (Incidentally, his son Teimour, my younger cousin, although he studied medicine, was the artistic director of the 'Lads from Baku’ group, who were famous in the 1990s. Nowadays he is a prominent Russian TV and film producer.) My father was categorically against me attending the music school. 'The boy has an excellent analytical brain’, he said. 'He will study chess, not music!’ It was an unexpected decision: after all, my father had never been a serious chess player, whereas my mother had a definite talent for the game. At the age of six she used to beat boys older than herself, and she also competed successfully with adults. But she preferred more active games. When she was in the eighth class, a trainer visited her parents and tried to persuade them to allow their daughter to play for the republic basketball team. But my grandmother would not allow it: she did not like the idea of the inevitable travelling that it would entail. So my mother did not take up either chess, or basketball. But she firmly supported my father’s decision to take me to the chess club. There is no doubt that, during the seven short years that fate granted us to live together, my father managed to exert an enormous influence on my entire future life. My mother recalls how I literally used to keep watch at the door, waiting for him to return from work, and with what joy I went for walks with him. It was during those hours that my father gradually instilled in me his own perception of life, and laid the foundations of my future outlook on things. Our relationship was always adult-like. My father loved geography and on my 6th birthday he gave me the best possible present. When I woke that morning I discovered by my bed an enormous globe. And I even rubbed my eyes, not believing that it was real. I was so happy! Already then I loved looking at maps, and above all hearing stories about the journeys of Marco Polo, Columbus and Magellan. It all began when my father read me Conqueror of the Seas - the Story of Magellan by Stefan Zweig. From then on our favourite game was to trace on my globe the routes followed by famous seafarers. Soon I knew the names of the capitals of most countries, their populations, land areas and masses of other interesting facts. On one occasion at Baku airport, waiting with my parents to board a plane, I overheard one of the passengers incorrectly naming the capital of Uruguay - and I politely listed all, without exception, the Latin American countries and their capitals. It was only my mum and dad who were not surprised - they, like all our relations, were already accustomed to my daily questions such as: ‘Do you know what the population of Guatemala is?’ Real stories about pioneers entranced me more than any fairy-tales. Although my father did not draw attention to the terrible misfortunes and hardships associated in those times with seafaring, I realised that to accomplish such a journey, incredible
courage was needed. These stories awakened the pioneering spirit in me. I have always wanted to lay new paths, even if, as in childhood, it only meant taking a new way home. Throughout my chess career I aimed for unexplored tests by challenging existing stereotypes. This is how important the timely present of a globe can be... (Later this globe became a relic and was displayed in the geography room of my former school.) Equally early - this time thanks to my mother - I developed an interest in history. Unable to do anything by halves, I immersed myself in the history of Ancient Rome, France, Spain and England. It was those countries that fired my imagination. At the age of eight I read a book about Napoleon by the Soviet historian Tarle, which made an enormous impression on me. I have always been attracted by the biographies of strong individuals who forged their own destinies. In the summer of 1970 my father fell seriously ill. He spent many months in Moscow, at the Oncology Centre in Kashirka, then he died of lymphatic sarcoma at the age of 39- The last time I saw him was on 1st January 1971. He gave me a present of a chess clock - I had just achieved third category rating. After that they would not let me see him. It was my father’s wish: he wanted me to remember him healthy and cheerful, as I had always known him. They also did not take me to the funeral, fearing that it might upset me too much. I remember saying to my mother: ‘Let’s pretend that dad has gone away on business.’ And at school for a long time I continued talking about him as though he was still alive... But years later there came a bitter realisation. When you’re five or six, you think that’s how it will always be: your dad, and your mum, and life the way it is. But then suddenly you wake up and you realise that your dad is no longer there. My father was a man of firm principles, uncompromising, and I am glad that I have inherited these traits. I always have with me a photograph of him. By the age of thirty I became outwardly very similar to him. My relatives think that, when speaking on the phone, I gesticulate exactly how my father used to; and like him I easily get worked up, but just as quickly I come back to normal. The two of us were left on our own, so my mother and I moved in with her parents in Armenikenda - an ancient district of Baku, where since time immemorial and until the tragedy of January 1990 there was a large Armenian community. Our address was Yerevan Prospect, block 3. My other grandmother, Susanna Bag-dasarovna, completed a course at the Moscow Finance Institute, but she worked for only a short time in her speciality (for the State Bank in the 1930s), and she devoted the greater part of her life to bringing up her three daughters - Klara, Nelly and Zhanna, and then me. She taught me to be truthful, to trust people, and to appreciate any human creation. A strict woman of strong character and good sense, my grandmother enjoyed universal love and respect. Although she had lived through hard times, she never lost her natural optimism and kindness. When I remember today the words that she liked to repeat: 'It's wonderful that all my grandchildren are of different nationalities’, I admire her wisdom. Among my cousins there are Armenians, Azeris and Jews. But my grandmother did not single any of us out, preserving the right of each of us to her warmth and love.
My maternal grandfather, Shagen Mosesovich Kasparov, was an oil worker by profession. Back in 1949 on the Caspian Sea, 100 km from Baku, they began extracting oil from the sea bed, for the first time in the world erecting offshore derricks. And by the end of the 1950s directly on the water, on piles and stationary platforms, joined by gantries, the unique town of Neftyanie Kamni had developed. At the age of nine I gave a simul’ there against oil-workers, which gave Shagen Mosesovich particular pleasure: for a good twenty years he had worked as the chief engineer of a large offshore oil field. After my father died, my grandfather retired and he was with me throughout my school years. We became very close. He was an old communist, he revered Marx’s economic theory, and he believed that I would live in better times. Towards the end of the 1970s he spent hours talking to me about politics, and he introduced me to books on philosophy. We often argued about the various events occurring in the country and in the world, and it was not always the older person who won the argument. I was a very inquisitive youth; I read dozens of books, to say nothing of newspapers, I listened to the seditious recordings of songs by Vysotsky, Galich and Okudzhava, I asked a mass of questions and on much I had my own point of view. But my grandfather did not greatly approve of this spirit of defiance. Although we listened together on the radio to ‘Freedom’ and 'Voice of America’, he found it hard to accept criticism of the state ideology. We had an especially heated debate at the end of 1979, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But even my 'sincerely believing’ grandfather could no longer understand much of what the country’s leaders were doing. The endless queues and empty shelves in the shops, resembling the postwar times, became a great disappointment to him... Nikitin: 'I often had occasion to visit the Kasparov home, where the ambience of Klara’s parents reigned - Shagen Mosesovich and Susanna Bagdasarovna. The time spent with these calm and wise people is remembered now as a joyous dream. They instilled much good in the heart of their favourite grandson.’ Incidentally, my late paternal grandfather was also a convinced communist. It was no accident that he gave his first son the revolutionary name Kim - in honour of the Communist Youth International (Kom-munisticheskiy Internatsional Molodyozhi). Despite the fact that in 1937 his older brother, the chief of medical staff in one of the Baku hospitals, was subjected to repression and my grandfather himself was a whisker away from being killed, he retained his ideological convictions and his devotion to the Communist Party. But after the exposures expressed at the 20th Communist Party Congress, he suffered a severe heart attack... In the family circle, however, Moisey Rubinovich was essentially alone. His sons Kim and Leonid (later he too had a great influence on me), his nephew Marat Altman (a prominent lawyer), and their friends were typical representatives of the intelligentsia: they always queried the official viewpoint and were very critical about Soviet propaganda. For them it was quite natural to have doubts about generally-accepted values. My mother’s scepticism was more a consequence of her analytical mind, rather than mistrust of officialdom. Far more than ideology, she was concerned about purely practical problems. She did not teach me
what I should think, but that I should have a critical attitude to everything that I read and heard. Her technical education and work in a scientific research institute instilled in her the habit of always relying only on concrete, trustworthy facts. After spending 22 long years advancing from junior technician to section manager and scientific secretary, in 1981 she left the scientific research institute in order to devote herself entirely to her son’s career. ‘My mother plays a big part in my life’, I wrote in a school essay. 'She has taught me to think independently, and she has taught me to work and to analyse my own behaviour. She knows me better than anyone else, because I discuss all my problems with her - school, chess and literary problems. My mother has taught me to appreciate fine things, and to be principled, honest and frank.’ It was probably my father's and uncle's love of freedom, my mother's sensible thinking and the many years of heated discussions with my grandfather that determined my interest and serious attitude to politics throughout the entire politically conscious part of my life. My family did not spoil me, and there was no hint of imitating childish speech. They cultivated conviction. At that time my mother was trying to restrain my obstinate striving for chess, and not to pander towards it. When the first successes came and they began praising me in the press, she gave me ‘inoculations’ against conceit, suggesting: ‘Everyone has a taient for something, but that talent doesn’t always reveal itself. You are lucky that your abilities have shown themselves so early. Simply lucky!’ And she would give me jobs around the house, like sending me to the shop for bread and milk, or leaving me to look after my younger cousins. My mother also remembers being summoned to the school and talking to the teacher of the first-year classes, who reproached me for my cheeky behaviour in a lesson. I had tried to correct her! And to the comment that I shouldn’t behave like that, since the rest would think that I regarded myself as the cleverest, I retorted: 'But isn’t that so?’ Yes, my teachers had a hard time with me. Later, when chess became my profession, I had hardly any free time. But before this, after lessons I would run around the streets, and quarrel and fight, like all little boys. At school my closest friend was Vadim Minasian, with whom I remained friends for many years. The number of times we got into scrapes together! But our most desperate escapades involved fires. On one occasion we lit a bonfire in the school itself and began jumping through it, to impress the girls... True, until I was sixteen I did not pay any particular attention to girls, treating them disdainfully (although I was also a little afraid of them). I once asked my mother: 'Why do girls spend so long preparing for lessons? Why are they so narrowminded? I hate them!’ Now, when she tells this story, she adds with a gale of laughter: 'Six months later he fell in love.’ I remember that in the third year at school a girl sent me a note: 7 love you. And I want you to marry me.’ I’m afraid that my reply was not terribly gallant. Fortunately (or otherwise), my message was intercepted by the teacher before it broke my admirer’s heart. But when I finally fell in love, the whole situation was reversed. She was younger than me and was in a different class, so I somehow had to attract her attention. But how? I gathered my friends and we played
out a little show. They met her on the street and pretended to pester her. It was a critical moment. And then I appeared - a knight in shining armour, courageous and strong. Later I arranged a firework display in her honour, with real rockets! My health, or more correctly my illnesses, caused my mother a great deal of concern. At the age of nine I had my appendix removed. The day after the operation my uncle arrived at the hospital and found my bed empty. He was alarmed, but the nurse calmed him down and took him to the staff room. Looking in, he saw me lying on a trolley, giving a blindfold simuT against the doctors. When I was ten the doctors became concerned about my heart, and diagnosed rheumatic carditis. They said that I should avoid catching colds, as this might strain my heart. After that my mother learned how to give injections, and wherever we travelled she carried a syringe with her, since up to the age of fifteen I had to take antibiotics. Later, thanks to my sports activities, I was able to lead a normal life. I swam, played football and badminton, and went cycle racing... I began travelling abroad to chess tournaments from the age of thirteen. Before every trip I would prepare myself thoroughly for the unfamiliar country, eagerly absorbing all the information I could find and discussing it with my school teachers. I would return so full of impressions, that at first I couldn’t sleep. And only after I had released my emotions, and told my classmates about everything I had seen, did I calm down. I remember being hugely impressed by the fact that in Paris you could sit on the grass in the parks. With my childish curiosity and the same thoughtfulness that I applied to chess, I would compare what I had seen with our everyday life. Occasionally this got me into trouble. Some adults reprimanded me for criticising my own country. But already then I knew that you should not be afraid to say exactly what you think. At school I found mathematics, especially algebra, quite easy. I enjoyed solving difficult problems. The teacher even tried to insist that I should take extra lessons with the aim of developing my mathematical ability, but my mother was against this. She thought that the combination of mathematics and chess was unlikely to lead to me becoming a fully-rounded person, and she wanted me to study literature, and to read not only prose, but also poetry. Life has shown that she was right. Deep down I am a romantic, a person of feeling, or at least that is how I see myself. This may seem surprising, but only to those who think that chess is mainly a science and that it is played by impassive, computer-like people. I firmly believe that the game of chess is an art, because, among other qualities, a chess player must have a well-developed and rich imagination. In view of their abstract character, chess, music and mathematics do not require a knowledge of the world and a great experience of life. And so at the age of five Re-shevsky used to give simuls' against adults, at the age of four Mozart was making compositions, the 12-year-old Pascal was drawing proofs of complex geometry theorems on the walls of his home, and a boy called Kim Ung Yong from South Korea was solving integral equations. There is a well-known theory that chess, music and mathematical abilities are linked to a powerful but narrowly specialised zone of our brain, and that in some way this zone goes into action in early
childhood and develops independently of the brain as a whole. Well, this is quite possible. At any event, this theory explains the emergence of child prodigies. But to emerge, even their extraordinary gifts need favourable conditions! If Mozart’s father had been, for example, a painter, and not a music teacher, we might never have heard about the brilliant composer. First Steps When I arrived for my first day at school on 1st September 1970 I was already able to read and to write in block capitals. The lady teacher handed everyone a sheet of paper and invited us to write or draw anything we wanted. And the first words that I wrote at school were: 'Party, world, mama’. I still have this sheet at home. At that time I was intending to become a medical officer: an officer - in order to fight, and a doctor - in order to save the wounded. But soon, when I was accepted into the chess club, such thoughts no longer entered my head. For two years I played chess at school at the slightest opportunity. And after I began beating my father, my constant trainer became uncle Kotik - Konstantin Grigorian, the husband of my mother’s sister Nelly. Later I even gave him a book with the inscription: 'To my first trainer’. My uncle recalls: 'Initially I won more often, but when Garik began going to the club it became increasingly hard to beat him. He made amazingly rapid progress, and within two or three months I was no longer able to win a single game - against a seven-year-old boy! And that was it - we stopped playing. In the only game we played later, Garik gave me odds (I think it was a whole rook), and in the end he had just his queen left, while I had my queen, some piece and a couple of pawns. Here he loudly exclaimed “check!" and made an unexpected queen move. With the words “well, no one ever died from a check”, I moved my king, but Garik instantly - bang! - took my queen with his and won the game. It turned out that, in giving check, he had deliberately placed his queen en prise in the desperate hope that I would not notice. He really hated losing!’ It was uncle Kotik who on 3rd September went with me on a reconnaissance to the Pioneers Palace - to find out how and what. And later uncle Lyonya took me down and enlisted me in the chess club. At that time I had already moved in with my mother’s parents, since my mother had flown to Moscow, where my father was in hospital. My grandfather proudly informed her by telephone that 'the trainer discovered Garik has phenomenal capabilities’, but my mother, naturally, was not in the mood for compliments. When I first saw the Baku Pioneers Palace named after Yuri Gagarin - a white, two-storey building overlooking the Caspian Sea - it looked to me like some kind of fairy-tale chess castle. I was taken to my first lesson by Rostislav Korsunsky - he was six years older than me and lived in the neighbourhood. When I was a child my favourite piece was the bishop, and once Rostik and I played a unique type of match: in the initial position, apart from the kings and pawns, the only pieces I had were two bishops, and he had only two knights! Already in 1975 Korsunsky became a master (alas, in the mid-1990s he passed away). Incidentally, it should be said that apart from him there was a whole group of gifted chess players in Baku: the future grandmaster Elmar Magerramov, future international masters Mikhail Shur, Alexander Avshalumov and Elena Glaz (and also Boris
Sheynin - the future father of the prominent grandmaster Teimour Radjabov). And earlier the chess section of the Pioneers Palace had trained more than 300 first category players, 25 candidate masters, a good dozen masters, the first Baku grandmaster Vladimir Bagirov, and the challenger for the title of lady world champion Tatiana Zatulovskaya. My first real chess teacher was Oleg Isaakovich Privorotsky, a strong candidate master and later an honoured trainer of the Azerbaijan Republic. He immediately noticed my chess memory and my ability to shut myself off from the outside world during a game. And after the first few lessons he remarked in surprise: ‘I don't know whether there have been similar beginners in other towns, but there has been no one like him in Baku!’ Indeed, I easily solved the exercises given to the older children, within three months I had a-chieved third category rating, at the age of eight - second category, and at the age of nine - first category. In addition, in the initial classes I also went swimming. But on one occasion in the pool the trainer reproached me for turning up for training only fifty per cent of the time, and he demanded: 'You have to choose - either chess, or swimming.’ On returning home I shouted from the threshold: ‘Mama, I’ve been told to choose one of two. I’m choosing chess!' Years later Privorotsky recalled: 'Garik mastered all the rudiments of chess by himself, before he went to school; somehow imperceptibly he understood the point of the movements of the pieces and the pawns - in this way many great players are introduced to the ancient game. The boy was interested not so much in chess puzzles, as in the logic itself of the construction of combinations. Possibly this forced him to relate very seriously to chess... I saw a small, sociable boy, who had an exceptional knowledge of chess history. About the Capablanca-Alekhine match he knew everything. It seemed that he was simply fanatical about chess... Successes came quickly. He has an excellent memory. He achieved first category rating in the second year of studies. When the documents for awarding the title reached the city sports committee, they phoned me from there and asked: "Why this forgery? How can there be any talk about first category at his age?" Six months later they began talking about Garik’s talent: everyone was staggered by his brilliant and confident play in blitz tournaments.’ I was awarded first category rating after I reached the final of the Baku adult blitz championship in June 1972 and my success was first mentioned in the press: ‘Thirdyear pupil Garik Weinstein, playing standing up (when sitting he can’t reach all the pieces), achieved the overall best result in the first stage - 9 points out of 9-’ Or: ‘Among the fourteen winners of the second stage were 13 candidate masters - and a second category player.’ And the main West German newspaper Neues Deutschland unexpectedly published an article entitled ‘Chess wunderkind from Baku’. That memorable blitz championship took place in the Republic Chess Club, where usually serious individual and team tournaments were held. After triumphantly concluding the quarter-final and semifinal, I ‘lost my rhythm' in the final: nevertheless it was still hard for me to play without a break against strong adult opponents. Vitaly Melik-Karamov: ‘Directly above the chess pieces a tuft of wiry black hair stuck out on his crown. Garik won, without even
having the opportunity to look at the board from above. He looked at it from the side, the board was transformed into a battlefield, and the pieces into a live little army, going into battle with the enemy.' Valery Asriyan: ‘A thin, lively, dark-eyed boy stands with his mother, awaiting the moment when the arbiters will invite the players to take their seats at the board. We -a group of candidate masters, playing for not the first time in such a tournament -looked with interest at this “child”, who had already caused a stir by qualifying for the semi-final. We didn’t know much about him: he was called Garik, surname Weinstein, and he was studying in the Pioneers Palace with the trainer Oleg Privorotsky. And from time to time the anxious thought occurred to each of us: "Suppose I lose to this boy? They will all laugh at me!” It went ok. The only one they laughed at (and, as it soon transpired, quite wrongly) was Slava Gadzhika-sumov. Garik lost the remaining eight games in the first nine rounds, but then he burst into tears, and his mother took him away, not allowing him to finish the tournament. It was June 1972, and in distant Reykjavik a match was about to start, a match which would present the chess world with its 11th champion - Robert Fischer. And you would have had to possess an excessively rich imagination or a very rare gift of foresight, to guess both Fischer’s departure, which shocked everyone, and the extraordinary fate of that nine-year-old boy, who on that hot summer day departed in tears from a modest club on the banks of the Caspian.’ At precisely that time my mother was very concerned about the fact that at night I would recite in my sleep: ‘King b2, king b2...’ etc. She approached a paediatrician, who advised her to take the child to Kislovodsk. And in August, five of us - my mother and I, my aunt Nelly (a doctor by profession), uncle Kotik and their five-year-old son Zhenya - had a holiday there, renting rooms in private flats. In the grounds of the nearby sanatorium, where we usually went for walks, we immediately discovered a giant chess set - an invariable piece of equipment at health treatment establishments in Soviet times. Of course, I promptly went into battle - and easily defeated the adults, until I ran up against some candidate master. After losing the game, again I burst into tears... And so, in my third year at school I began playing in the city tournaments, and life immediately became divided into humdrum days and festive ones. The festive days were tournaments, while all the others were humdrum. But soon I also began enjoying daily chess lessons, and there were no longer any humdrum days! In January 1973 I reached a new level by achieving success in the Baku junior championship - a Swiss event with more than thirty players (in one of my notebooks the games from this tournament are preserved): 1-2. Korsunsky and Melkumov -7У2 out of 9; 3-4. Mamedov and Weinstein - 7. I began with four wins, including one over Korsunsky, but then suffered two defeats and could no longer catch the leaders, although I won my last three games. The chief arbiter of the tournament, which took place in the regional officers’ club, was my future long-standing trainer Alexander Shakarov. As the senior trainer of the Azerbaijan junior team, he was looking for players for his team. And whereas my contact with him at the time was restricted to handing in scoresheets at the end of games, my mother came to the games and got to know Alexander Ivanovich. After
finishing high up in the championship, I caught his eye and at the age of nine (!) I was included in the junior team of the republic. In March 1973, as preparation for the all-union junior games in the summer, the Azerbaijan team made a tour of Latvia and Estonia, where two matches were played against the teams of each of these republics. There I ‘bagged’ 4 out of 4, and the trainers were finally convinced that I should be included in the team. And in May, in the chess club attached to the 'Veten' (Motherland) cinema in Baku, we played another friendly match against our Caspian neighbours - the Turkmenistan junior team. There I played one of my first memorable games. Came 1 C.Weinstein-S.Muratkuliev Azerbaijan-Turkmenistan Match, Baku 1973 Ruy Lopez C84 1 e4 e5 2 4hf 3 £)сб 3 ДЬ5 a6 4 Да4 £>f6 5 d4 At that time my opening repertoire was largely formed under the influence of Privorotsky, who avoided the main theoretical paths and showed his pupils sidelines such as 5 d4 (instead of the usual 5 0-0 - Game Nos. 14, 31). 5...exd4 6 e5 ^e4 7 0-0 Де7 8 Sei I also employed 8 ®xd4 £sxd4 9 Wxd4 ^c5 10 ДЬз (the usual move is 10 £>c3) 10...®xb3 (10...0-0 was considered more accurate, and if 11 Af4 £se6 with equality) 11 axb3 0-0 12 JLf4 ФЬ8?! (after 12...d6 13 exd6 Jlxd6 14 JLxd6 Wxd6 15 Wxd6 cxd6 16 4bd2 White has only a minimal plus) 13 £sc3 b6 14 Sadi Дс5 15 We4 Sb8 16 b4 ДЬ7 17 Wc4 Де7 18 Wd4 Дсб 19 Sd3 f6 20 Sh3 f5 21 Sdl Дд5 22 We3 Axf4 23 Wxf4 We7 24 Wd4 Sbe8 25 f4 We6 26 ®d5 Sc8 27 c4, and White won (Weinstein-Rudyka, Vilnius 1973). 8...<Йс5 9 Дхсб dxc6 10 <?Jxd4 0-0 11 £te3 11...4Je6?! This move surprised me: Black allows the active ®f5 (I always liked placing a knight on f5), then Wg4 etc. The position is roughly equal after the old continuation of Janowski and Keres - ll...Se8 12 ДеЗ if8 13 f4 f6, or the more energetic ll...f51 with the idea of 12 f4 5Je6 (Kostic-Trifunovic, Zagreb 1946). 12 5 ig5 The ancient 12...f6!? is slightly better, although here too after 13 Wg4 fxe5 14 £^xe7+ Wxe7 15 Hxe5 Wd6(f6) 16 Wg3 White retains some advantage. 13 Wg4 ^d4 This tactical trick somewhat confused me, and I stopped to think. Earlier and later Black invariably went into an inferior endgame by 13...Дхс1 14 Saxcl Wg5 15 Wxg5 £ixg5 16 ^e7+ ФЬ8. But what now? 14 ^xg5 M.xf5 15 Wg3?l An error. 15 Wh4! with the initiative was more accurate: 15...f6 16 exf6 gxf6 17 ДЬб Sf7 (Stohl) 18 Sadi Sd7 19 Sd2!, or 15...Wd7 16 Sadi c5 17 Де7 Дхс2 18 JLxf8!
Axdl (after 18...Sxf8 19 Bel White has the exchange for a pawn) 19 Дхс5 (19 Дхд7 WgA 20 Wxg4 Jlxg4 21 JLf6 is also good -Stohl) 19...^e2+ 20 ^xe2 Axe2 21 We4 Wb5 22 Пхе2 Wxc5 23 e6 etc. ‘However, the thinking of a child is unsophisticated and pure: Garik knew that the main thing in chess is to give mate to the king, and for the creation of mating threats the queen stands better on g3’ (Nikitin). 15...Wc8?! After 15„.Wd7l 16 fiadl c5 with such a fine knight on d4 Black would have had nothing to fear (17 b4 b6 - Stohl). 16 Badl (of course, I sacrificed the pawn) 16...-:xc2 17 Se2 We6?! An oversight, allowing White to regain the material with an elegant combination and to obtain an obvious positional advantage. The prophylactic 17...'4>h8 (17...Ag6? 18 Hdd2!) was sounder, although after 18 e6! fxe6 19 fidd2 the knight on c2 would have given Black problems: 19...h6 20 Wh4 (20 JLh41? - Stohl) 2O...We8 21 Axh6 gxh6 22 Wxh6+ ®g8 23 ^>e4 Wg6 24 Wxg6+ Axg6 25 Bxc2 with the better endgame. 18 if6! ±g6 19 l.xg7! <txg7 19...Sfd8 20 £.f6 Exdl+ 21 £>xdl £)d4 22 2d2 23 Wf4 is to White’s advantage, when 23...Wxa2? is bad in view of 24 g4 4£>g7 25 Axg7 Фхд7 26 h4. The kingside pawn offensive is the recurrent theme of the entire game. 20fixc2 fiadS 21 Scd2 We7 In the event of the more resilient 21...flxd2 22 Hxd2 f6 (Stohl), 23 exf6+ Sxf6 24 f3 would have led to a favourable structure for White. I think that objectively White already has a technically won position, even against the opponent’s best defence: he can quite quickly create a pair of connected passed pawns on the kingside, whereas it is far harder for Black to do the same on the queenside. 22 h41 ФИ8 Muratkuliev’s last two moves are frankly amateurish, dictated by the illusion of counterplay on the g-file. Again 22...fixd2 23 Bxd2 ФЬ8 24 Wg51 f6 (Stohl) was more appropriate, but nevertheless the endgame after 25 exf6 Wxf6 26 Wxf6+ Hxf6 27 f3 is better for White, for example: 27...Hf7 28 <4>f2 h5 29 £ie2 Фд7 30 дЗ Же7 31 4bf4 Af7 32 аЗ Ь6 33 g4 with winning prospects. 23 Wg5l I remember being terribly proud of this far from obvious move. ‘It turns out that the h2-h4 advance also contained a positional threat. White unexpectedly seizes control of the d-file and takes play into a
highly favourable ending. "So young - and so cunning!”, you will say. "Fantastic!”, I say as a trainer. For this one idea - combining the romanticism of attack with the prose of the endgame - one can immediately enlist a boy in the most prestigious chess school. The level of understanding of technical subtleties is a good indicator in assessing how promising a young player is.’ (Nikitin) 23-..Wxg5 24 hxg5 Hxd2 (things would not have been changed by 24...Hde8 25 f4 or 25 g4 - Stohl) 25 Hxd2 ±f5 26 f4 Now Black can no longer escape from the vice: he does not have ...f7-f6, White is threatening ,S,f2-f3, g2-g4, f4-f5 and so on, and therefore ...h7-h6(h5) has to be played, but then White simply captures on h6 and all the same he advances his pawns. 26...®g7 27 v f2 h5 (or 27...1h8 28 S>f3 h5 29 gxh6+ Sxh6 30 £se4) 28 gxh6+ ФхЬб 29 4>f3 Hg8 30 ®e4 ig4+ 31 ФеЗ 31...^g6? (a blunder; however, 31...^.e6 32 £if6 3h8 33 Ьз Фдб 34 д4 was also hopeless) 32 £>f6 1-0 After the rook moves there follows ^хд4- Not a complicated game, but an interesting one. Nikitin is still astonished by it: ‘It is hard to believe that the white pieces were brought into battle by a ten-year-old com mander. There is not a single futile, pointless move, and the harmony and logic in the actions of the white army are amazing. This little masterpiece shows with what an enormous chess talent Garik was endowed from birth.’ Entry into the all-union Arena My first baptism of fire outside of Baku came at the All-Union Youth Games (Vilnius, 14-24 July 1973). Teams of the fifteen union republics, plus Moscow and Leningrad, were divided into three semi-final tournaments (6+6+5), from the results of which the first, second and third final groups were determined (also 6+6+5). Each team consisted of eight players: four juniors not older than 18, two not older than 15 (I in fact played on board 5), and two girls. In these Games, as was usual in such events, many future grandmasters participated - Yusupov, Dolmatov, Alexander Ivanov (on board 2 he scored 8 out of 8!), Malaniuk, Kochiev, Yermolinsky, Kengis, Lputian, Machulsky, Kantsler and so on, to say nothing of a future world champion, the future lady world champion Maya Chiburdanidze, and a challenger to this title, Elena Akhmylovskaya. The top, final group produced the expected results: 1. Russia, 2. Moscow, 3-Leningrad, 4. Ukraine, 5. Belorussia, 6. Georgia. At that time the Azerbaijan team was a 'solid second division team’ (this was considered great progress, but from 1974 we began regularly finishing in the top six), and in Vilnius it confirmed its reputation, finishing 3rd in the semi-final. In this stage I scored just 2 out of 5, losing in the first round to the formidable Kiev player Leonid Zaid (within six months he became USSR junior champion, and soon also a master).
What told were the anxiety and inexperience of a novice: my opponents were four or five years older than me. But in the final stage I went through undefeated, making four fighting draws, and my team, finishing ahead of Uzbekistan, Armenia, Lithuania, Moldova and Latvia, won this tournament and finished in 7th place overall. The game that I remember best was the one with the Latvian candidate master Edvins Kengis, which was later published in Volume 16 of the Yugoslav Informator (this was our debut in the cult publication of the late 20th century). Nikitin: ‘That day I watched Garik’s game almost from the very start. My attention was immediately drawn to the board at which two contestants of quite different sizes were playing. A small, puny, dark-haired boy was looking seriously at the board and endlessly fidgeting on his chair. And sitting immobile opposite him was a tall, good-looking Latvian, who when thinking would literally tower over the battlefield. Compared with Garik, Kengis looked not only a giant, but also a highly-experienced fighter, but the events which occurred on the board forced the age difference to be forgotten.’ 11 g4 This is what Fischer played against Larsen (Palma de Mallorca Interzonal 1970). Later 11 Hhgl came to the fore, with the idea of ll...^xd4?l 12 JLxd41. For details, see Revolution in the 70s (pp.154-155). ll.J^d7 A new move, employed by Larsen, but before that recommended by Nikitin - my future trainer! But ll...£>xd4! 12 Sxd4 (12 Axd4 involves a dubious pawn sacrifice) 12...b5 is objectively better. I followed this course in a game with Dvoyris (Vilnius 1975) and gained an advantage after 13 g5 ®d7 14 Wh5 ld8 (14...g61?) 15 £>d5? (15 S.gl is correct) 15...exd5 16 Jlxd5 ^e51. Game 2 E.Kengis-G.Weinstein All-Union Youth Games, Vilnius 20.07.1973 Sicilian Defence B89 1 e4 c5 2 3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 cxd4 5 <>c3 ^сб б Ac4 еб 7 Ab3 Ae7 8 ДеЗ аб 9 We2 The Velimirovic Attack was fashionable at that time, and it had also been analysed by the Azerbaijan team. 9...WC7 10 0-0-0 0-0 12 g5
Fischer responded badly - 12 Т14?! ^c5 13 g5 b5 14 f3? (14 h51), and after 14...^.d71 15 Wg2 b4 16 £)ce2 ^xb3+ 17 axb3 a5 Larsen repelled the premature attack and gained a memorable victory (Game No.42 in Volume IV of My Great Predecessors). This symbolic game influenced an entire chess generation. Only later did it transpire that here there is a very dangerous piece sacrifice -12 £)f5l. 12...£k5 13 Hhgl Ad7 14 lg3 Hfc8 15 Wh5 (this typical attacking plan looks menacing, but I was prepared for it) 15—g6 16 Wh6 JLf8 17 Wh4 £ixb3+ 18 axb3 ±e7 With the idea of 19 Sh3 h5 - an important defensive device! Shakarov taught us that Black’s fortress was impregnable, and later this confidence came in useful to me in similar Scheveningen positions. Today it is apparent that 18...^xd4!? 19 Axd4 e5 20 Ae3 b5 is also good (Valenti-Paoli, Reggio Emilia 1975/76). But I played ‘as I had been taught'. And whereas up till now we had made our moves quickly, here Kengis stopped to think. 19 f4 Avoiding the repetition of moves - 19 Wh6 JLf8. If 19 £>de2 either 19...h5 or 19-..^>b4! is acceptable (but not 19...b5? 20 Ш!). 19-b5 20 Vh6 Now White himself repeats moves - perhaps to gain time on the clock. Black would have been happy with 20 Bd2 h5 21 ®xc6 Wxc6 22 f5 b4 (22...a5l?) 23 fxg6 fxg6 24 ^a4 fif8 25 ^b6 Sfl+ 26 Sdl Baf8. 2O...iif8 21 Vh4 b4! Why play 21..Ле7, if it is possible to launch a counterattack?! 22 4^xc6? A serious mistake. We both overlooked the spectacular blow 22 £}f5!! - in the event of 22...bxc3 (22...gxf5? 23 lh3 ±g7 24 exf5 and wins) 23 Hh3 h5 24 gxh6 White has the initiative, although after 22..Ле8 23 Sh3 h5 24 gxh6 Wd8! the chances are roughly equal. 22..Лхс6 22...bxc3! would have won immediately - because of the weakness of the c2-point White loses a piece: 23 ^d4 e5 or 23 Ad4 e51 24 fxe5 dxe5 25 Дхе5 cxb2+ and ...Wxc6. 23fih3h5!24 gxh6bxc3? 24...Ae7! would have won, for example: 25 Wg3 ФЬ7 or 25 h7+ ФЬ8 26 Wg3 (26 Wg4 Jlf6) 26...jLxe4 27 ^d4+ f6 etc. Now, however, the situation becomes much sharper. 25 Wf6 Ф117 26 Ad41 cxb2+ (a small plus
would still have been retained by 26...e51 27 fxe5 We7) 27 Axb2 e5 28 fxe5 ixe4 Aa7 H8b5+ 44 Фхаб f4 etc. 29 e6? Kengis overrates his chances: this seemingly spectacular blow meets with a refutation. The balance would have been most easily maintained by 29 Sfl! Wxc2+ 30 Фа1 Wd21 31 Wxf7+ ФЬ8 32 Wf6+ with perpetual check (pointed out in 1996 by the 12-year-old Serb Milos Perunovic - at that time a pupil of Nikitin). 29...Bxc2+ 30 Фаз d5+ 31 e7 Дхе7+ 32 Wxe7 Wc7l This strong reply (incidentally, the only move!) was overlooked by White: it turns out that Black is also threatening mate - 34 Wf6? Wa5+ etc. White is forced to seek salvation in a difficult ending. 33 Wxc7 Дхс7 34 Sg3 (Kengis begins acting very enterprisingly, creating counterplay) 34...ДС2 35 fifl f5 36 h4 ФхЬб?! Having decided that Black was easily winning, I relaxed. Зб...Де8(д8) was correct. 37 АеЗ+ Ф117 38 Hfgl?! (the immediate 38 h5! was more accurate, with good drawing chances) 38...Sc3 39 h5 39 ФЬ4 Bd3 40 h5 was probably more resilient, although in this case Black’s moves would have been easier to find: 4О...ДЬ8+ 41 Фа5 Hdxb3 42 hxg6+ Фд8 43 39...g5? Alas, in time-trouble I became frightened by ghosts of some kind and I missed a win, which could have been achieved by 39...ДЬ8! 40 hxg6+ Фд8 41 Jlf4 Hbxb3+ 42 Фа2 Ha3+ 43 ФЬ2 Ad3! 44 ±е5 Scb3+ 45 Фс1 d4! (from afar it is not easy to find such a move) 46 Axd4 Ha21. 40 l.xg5 Sxg3 41 Hxg3 Sg8 42 ФЬ2 d4 43 Af4 I had thought that this too was a winning endgame, but when Kengis offered the exchange of rooks, I belatedly realised that the position was a draw. 43—fixg3 44 Axg3 ФИ6 45 .£.e5 d3 46 ФсЗ Axhs 47 <&’d2 Ag4 48 ФеЗ
48...ФИЗ Black can win the bishop - 48,..f4+ 49 jlxf4 d2 50 Фх<12 <S>xf4, but not the game: the queening square of the rook’s pawn is of the wrong colour! It was hard to accept the inevitable... 49 ±d4 ®g2 50 ДсЗ Afl 51 ±d2 Xg2 52 ДсЗ Ag3 53 Де5+ vg4 54 ^d6 *g5 ’Л-1/» At the conclusion of the games I received my first ever prize - ‘for the youngest player in the tournament’. But the most important result of this trip was my meeting with Alexander Sergeevich Nikitin, state trainer of the USSR Sports Committee - my future friend, mentor and reliable support in the most difficult periods of my life. He became a master at a very early age and in his youth he played for the national student team, alongside Boris Spassky. But then, after qualifying as a radio engineer, he for a long time disappeared from the chess scene. And yet his love for the game outweighed other things: early in 1973 Nikitin decided to devote himself entirely to training work (and later he developed the system of opening preparation by which we studied). Nikitin: ‘Playing side by side in Vilnius were 18-year-old youths and boys who were barely visible above the chess board. That was how, through a gap in the row of heads, on the first day I "discovered" Garik. At the board he found it hard to maintain his composure - and he promptly lost it, no sooner had the game ended. The childish spontaneity of his ideas merely added charm to his array of obviously outstanding chess qualities. The ability of his pieces to occupy "correct" positions in the most natural and rapid way was amazing. Also amazing was his opening erudition and his memory -capacious and sticky, like blotting-paper. He did not find it at all hard to calculate variations many moves ahead - for him this was not difficult work, but an amusing game. Several times during the tournament I managed to talk to this amazing boy. It turned out that he loved reading and his range of interests was unusually wide. He had an excellent knowledge of geographical names, historical facts and dates. He read very rapidly, and his exceptional memory ensured that things were firmly retained. Attempts to test his erudition often put the questioners in an awkward position, because it would suddenly transpire that the boy knew more than the examiner. But most of all I was staggered by Garik's eyes -intelligent, with a kind of amazing sparkle. At the time I decided purely intuitively that such eyes were a sign of great talent.’ It was Nikitin who in August 1973 arranged an invitation for me to Dubna, to the next session of Mikhail Botvinnik’s junior school. It had opened back in 1963, the year I was born, but at the time it did not function for long - just eighteen months. Among its first pupils were Karpov, Balashov, Razuvaev, Timoshchenko and Rashkovsky. The lessons were resumed in 1969, and from around the mid-1970s Botvinnik’s pupils began achieving notable successes. Two or three times a year, some fifteen boys and girls from various towns assembled for 10-day sessions. They included Yusupov, Dolmatov, Psakhis, Akhmylovskaya, Akhsharumova, Kharitonov, Ehlvest, Andrey Sokolov, Rozentalis, Ne-nashev... The Kiev player Borya Taborov and I were summoned to an interview with Botvinnik and questioned by the famous champion for a couple of hours: we showed him our games and talked about ourselves. Mikhail Moiseevich asked his favourite questions, such as 'do you analyse your own games?’,
or 'do you play any sports?’. I remember how staggered I was when he suddenly stood up and supported himself on a chair with just his hands! This particular example showed what a person is capable of even at the age of 62 (however, he was still able to do this at the age of 77). For some reason only one of us was accepted into the school. I was a 10-year-old first category player, whereas Borya was a 12-year-old candidate master, who had just won the board six tournament at the youth games in Vilnius (7У2 out of 91). His games were, of course, more substantial than mine, but it was I who was accepted into the school. A symbolic event! Two years later Taborov became a master (the youngest in the country!), played for a few more years, but then gave up chess: his parents wanted him to go to a respectable institute, to study science... One has to give Botvinnik's intuition its due: he lived chess and he deeply understood and sensed all its nuances. Something about me caught his fancy - they say, ‘liveliness of mind’. Nikitin: ‘The great Maestro was delighted by the contact with Garik. He became visibly younger when chatting with the boy, who immediately became his favourite pupil. The teacher liked everything - the smartness of his replies combined with their accuracy, the speed with which he calculated variations, his staggering memory... Being enlisted as a pupil of the great Botvinnik stirred his young heart, and Garik became even more fascinated by the ancient game. As for me, after Vilnius I returned to my work in the chess section of the Sports Committee. But the link with Garik was not broken: bulky parcels with chess magazines and books were sent from Moscow to Baku, and it was a rare week when we did not have conversations by phone.’ To come under Botvinnik’s wing was undoubtedly a stroke of good fortune. This fact was also remarked on by the republic newspaper Sport, which in the autumn of 1973 published an article by Valery Asriyan, 'Ex-world champion’s ten-year-old pupil’. At that same time Botvinnik wrote a letter to the chairman of the Azerbaijan Sports Committee, where, in particular, he gave the following directive: 'I consider it advisable to arrange individual studies for Garry, and for him to play in tournaments with a stronger line-up. The number of tournament games per year in the period 1973-75 should not exceed 40...' The letter had the desired effect. Privorotsky: ‘For two years I gave individual lessons four hours a week in Garik’s apartment. We selected positions, developed the technique of calculating variations, studied the endgame and the opening, and so on. During the lessons Garik always raised questions, and sometimes the answers were very difficult to find. In such cases I promised to reply at the next lesson, and I gave him a lot of homework which he always carried out...’ Lessons with Alexander Shakarov also continued - for the moment not individual, but group lessons, as part of the junior team. Thus at the age of ten and a half I had a full program of commitments, and soon I went to the Pioneers Palace only to play blitz with the older lads and with my first teacher, or to play training games. One of these games became, as Nikitin expressed it, ‘another high-quality chess canvas, painted by a youthful hand'. My opponent Elmar Magerramov was five years older than me, but this did not prevent us being friends. In the 1970s we played numerous training games, in which there was always a sharp, uncompromising
fight. Gradually Elmar developed into a strong master, and then also a grandmaster - I should remind you that he shared lst-2nd places in the last, 58th USSR Championship (1991). СатеЗ E.Magerramov-G.Weinstein Training Match, Baku 18.11.1973 Sicilian Defence B85 1 e4 c5 2 Wc3 e6 3 Stf3 Wc6 4 d4 cxd4 5 Wxd4 d6 6 ±e3 7 l.e2 a6 My first experience of the classical Scheveningen, which Privorotsky taught me - it was his favourite defence, along with 2...£}c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ^xd4 ^f6 5 £>c3 d6 (Game No.6). My trainer quite reasonably assumed that two central pawns against one was a good basis for Black, promising him a favourable endgame. Nikitin was also a Scheveningen devotee, so that this set-up remained with me for ever. 8 f4 Йе7 9 0-0 ±d7 A little trick, which I had learned at the lessons: Black immediately creates the threat of simplifying by ,..'?:xd4 and ..Лсб. After the usual 9-0-0 10 a4 A.d7 11 £ib3 he does not have the reply ...b7-b5. ю£)ЬЗ?! 10 a4 is nevertheless better, and if 10...£)xd4 11 Wxd4 Ac6, then 12 b41 (in the 1970s this was not considered) 12...0-0 13 b5 Ae8 14 e5 (an example: Grischuk-Rublevsky, 1st match game, Elista 2007). 10...b5 (now Black is completely alright) 11 lf3 Wc7 12 a3 12 a41? is perhaps safer, in order after 12...b4 to maintain the balance by 13 ®e2 e5 14 f5 £>a5 15 ^xa5 Wxa5 16 c4 or 13 £)bl 0-0 14 Wd3 e5 15 f5 Hfc8 16 £>ld2. 12...ab8 The position after 12...0-01 is the dream of any Sicilian player. But I decided to launch an immediate attack and I could have been made to pay for this. 13 Wei a5 14 Wg3 a4?l (again 14-0-0! was more sensible) 15 £>d4 Wixd4 16 Jlxd4 b4? And here 16...0-0 was simply essential, although after 17 e5 White has the initiative (and it was not for the sake of this that I embarked on the attack!). 17 axb4? Elmar also missed the typical stroke 17 e5!, refuting Black’s premature aggression. We both overlooked that after 17-bxc3? White has the decisive 18 Wxg7 with the pretty idea 18...flg8 19 exf6!! Sxg7 20 fxg7.
17...dxe5 is also hopeless: 18 fxe5 Ac5 (18...bxc3 19 Wxg7) 19 4^e2 bxa3 20 ЬхаЗ or 18...g6 19 exf6 l.d6 20 Wh4 bxc3 21 ДхсЗ. 17...Sxb4 18 £>e2?l Again passive (it appears that Elmar was slightly afraid of me). The 18 e5! break would have still enabled White to fight for the initiative: 18...dxe5 19 fxe5 Sxd4 20 Wxg7 Sf8 21 exf6 We5 22 ^e41? Sxe4 23 1хе4 1x5+ 24 &hl Wxe4 25 Wg31 etc. 18...0-0 (at last!) 19 1x3 (now there is no longer any point in 19 e5 dxe5 20 fxe5 ^d5) 19...Sc4 20 e5?! At the most inappropriate moment! 20 2fdl g6 21 Bd4 was more solid, aiming to exchange the active black rook. 2O...dxe5 21 fxe5?l (the lesser evil was 21 Axes Wb6+ 22 ФЬ1 Sxc2 23 ^hc3 with some compensation for the pawn) 21...^d5?! 21...4be4! 22 Лхе4 Sxe4 23 £rf4 Wc4! (and if 24 ^h5 Eg4) would have given me an obvious advantage. 22 l.xd5 Wc5+ (not wishing to spoil my pawn structure by 22...exd5!?) 23 ФН1 Wxd5 24^f4?l This plays into Black’s hands, although all the same his chances would have been better after 24 Hadi Wb7 25 £>d4 lb4 or 24Sfdl Wb7 25^f4^h8 26^ih5 Sg8. 24...We4l 25 Sael (25 Wd3 lb5!) 25...Wxc2 26 Ef2 Bf5? Underestimating the opponent’s threats. After 26...Wb3!? White would not have had sufficient compensation for the pawn: 27 ^>h5 g6 28 £rf6+ JLxf6 29 exf6 h6L 27 lefl? The losing move. 27 <2^d5! would have equalised - after 27...Wg5(?) we both missed the strong reply 28 Ad2!, when after 28...Wi4 29 £ixe7+ Wxe7 30 lh6 g6 (3O...f6? 31 exf6 Sxf6 32 Ag5) 31 ±xf8 Wxf8 32 Wg5 Black is in difficulties. I don’t know whether I would have found the saving queen sacrifice: 27...exd5! 28 еб! Hxc3! 29 ЬхсЗ Wxe6 30 Дхеб Лхеб with a probable draw. 27...1x5! 28 Sd2 Асб 28...1.b5 with the threat of ...ДхсЗ was also good. The bishops have begun operating at full power, and Black has not only an extra pawn, but also a menacing attack. It was possibly under the influence of this game that Elmar, as far as I remember, never played 1 e4 again... 29Sddl If 29 h4 the most unpleasant is 29...Де4!. 29...h5l? (I could have won ‘as I pleased', but I had my own plan, based on a deep calculation) 30 h3
If 30 ^d3, then 3O...h4! 31 Sxf5 hxg3 32 Hg5 (32 Sffl? Hh4!) 32..Jlf2! 33 hxg3 ±e3! and ...a4-a3. 30...h4l 31Wh2 Of course, not 31 Wxh4? g5!. ‘Very few at such a young age could conceive the idea of such a pawn storm: ...h7-h5, and then also ...g7-g5’ (Nikitin). 31...Wg5 (31-Лс2! was more forceful) 32 £id3 (32 ±d2 Wf5) 32..Jld4 (32...±e3!?) 33 Sf4 ld8 34 Hdfl (34 Hg4 We3 35 £el lxc3 36 bxc3 JLb6 etc. was also hopeless) 34...Hd7 (34...a3!?) 35 -lei Axes Or 35-.-B.c21?. But, as it was, White resigned (0-1). In December, just four months after the first session of the Botvinnik School, I achieved the candidate master norm, scoring 8 out of 14 in an interesting doubleround tournament held on the Schevenin-gen system: seven candidate master trainers (including Shakarov) against the seven best junior first category players. We again played in the club attached to the Veten cinema - this was one of the training points of the special-purpose chess school, where lessons were held, as well as competitions with the participation of the republic junior teams. That was how 1973 concluded - a year which was undoubtedly a turning point in my chess career: first success in junior chess, a place in the Azerbaijan junior team, emergence into the all-union arena, and acquaintance with the Moscow trainer Alexander Nikitin and the great Botvinnik! ‘He attacks like Alekhine!’ The following year, 1974, began for me with a fresh victory. In January the team from the Baku Pioneers Palace won the qualifying stage in Kiev for the prize of the news paper Komsomolskaya pravda, and on board 2 I scored 4У2 out of 5. The home team from Kiev were considered the favourites, and they did indeed defeat all their rivals, including us - 4-3 (that day I made my only draw). But in the end, thanks to big wins in our remaining matches, we finished ahead of the Kiev team by 4 points! To many this seemed incredible luck: the strength of our 'magnificent seven’ (which apart from me included Korsunsky, Magerramov, and Elena Glaz) was clearly underestimated. The final of the All-Union Tournament of Pioneers Palaces took place from 25-31 March in Moscow. Six teams contested an unusual competition: they did not play against one another, but in daily simultaneous displays with grandmasters - the captains of the rival teams. The points scored by the team and the captain were added together, which determined the result of each ‘match’. I remember that Privorotsky prepared us for this test and advised us to make a careful study of a small brochure published in Moscow, dedicated to the previous final (1972). There it was described how Zaid won against Petrosian, Dvoyris against Spassky, and so on. The trainer said that we had to try and understand how to play against grandmasters. Nikitin: 'In these clock simuls' on seven boards (six boys and one girl) the grandmasters sometimes had a very hard time of it. Although they did not play one another and it was only the totals of their simuT results that were compared, the habit of being first forced the grandmasters to fight just as in the most prestigious tournament. But for the youngsters playing in these simuls’ it was not so much the result that was important, but rather the invaluable experience
and the impression left by their formidable opponents.’ On the very first day I experienced a severe shock, on seeing in front of me a living legend - Mikhail Tall I could even shake his hand! I had heard about his intimidating, hypnotic glare with which he would fix his opponents. True, to overcome me, Tai did not need this... Later, largely under the impression of these feelings, I considered it my direct duty to take part in these ‘tournaments of chess hopes’ (as the Pioneer Palace tournaments were rightly known), as captain of the Baku team, since I realised how important it was for young players to meet renowned grandmasters at the board. I also failed to cope with my excitement in the 2nd round, losing to Lev Po-lugayevsky (whereas Rostik Korsunsky, by contrast, won both games!). Then I adjourned my game with Yuri Averbakh in a not altogether clear queen ending with an extra pawn; at these tournaments adjourned games were not resumed, but were adjudicated by a grandmaster panel, and at the insistence of our captain Vladimir Bagirov I was awarded a win. In the 4th round came a draw with Gennady Kuzmin, after which my opponent declared to a reporter: ‘It never occurred to me that a 10-year-old boy could play the endgame so competently.' Alas, at the finish I lost ‘stupidly’ to Mark Taimanov and finished up with 1У2 out of 5. Nevertheless the prominent Moscow journalist Alexander Roshal drew attention to me: 'It should be said that playing in the Baku team is one of our most interesting young players. Garry Weinstein is only 10 years old, but he (like his older colleague Korsunsky) has already achieved the candidate master norm. Botvinnik, in whose school the boy studies, speaks highly of his capabilities; national master Dvoretsky, the ex-world champion’s assistant, is also delighted by the youngster. We will not hurry to draw conclusions, which may harm the young player, but comment that whereas Tai and Polugayevsky managed to outwit the 10-year-old in complications, Averbakh lost to him! Curiously, when I asked him whether it was a good game that he had won against the grandmaster, Garik Weinstein replied: "No, no! Yuri Lvovich simply blundered a pawn in the opening...’’’ The tournament was confidently won by the Leningrad team, who together with Taimanov scored 42У2 out of 70, ahead of Moscow with Averbakh and Chernovtsy with Kuzmin (both 34), Riga with Tai (ЗЗУ2), Baku with Bagirov and Chelyabinsk with Polugayevsky (both 33). These battles earned the Baku players respect. At the All-Union Schoolchildren’s Spartakiad (Alma-Ata, July 1974) the Azerbaijan team, for which I played on board 3, reached the main final for the first time and finished in an honourable 4th place! But we could even have won the bronze medals, had Korsunsky and I not both lost in the final match with Georgia... And in general I did not perform very successfully: I started with 3 out of 3, but then in my game with the Muscovite Baryshev, after obtaining a completely won endgame, I overlooked an elementary draw - and either through vexation or fatigue my play sharply declined at the finish (which, however, was excusable for the youngest player in the tournament). During the previous months I had also attended two sessions of the Botvinnik school. Nikitin: ‘Lessons at the school run by Botvinnik, who at that time was helped by the splendid instructor Mark Dvoretsky, brought much benefit, since the boy had
sufficient time for the homework he was set. I also continued setting him questions, and Carik not only succeeded in solving all the problems, but even asked for more. His mother wrote to me, saying that sometimes she had to forcibly tear her son away from chess. I was afraid of putting too much early psychological pressure on Garik, and the exercises sent by me were never obligatory.' From the autumn of 1974 I began playing in Baku team tournaments, as chess life in the city was bubbling over. And I sensed that adults were already a little afraid of me. Appearing on board 2 for the Pioneers Palace team in the City Spartakiad, I scored 5 out of 7, and, moreover, I missed a win in a very interesting endgame with Velibekov of the Burevestnik team (in adjournment analysis Bagirov found a miraculous saving line for my opponent). Also memorable for me was the game with Rafael Grigorievich Sarkisov, the Spartak junior trainer (incidentally, this team was headed by Shakarov, who battled on the neighbouring board with Korsunsky). It displayed my natural inclination for Benko-King’s Indian positions. Game 4 R.Sarkisov-G.Weinstein City Spartakiad, 3rd round, Baku 17.09.1974 King’s Indian Defence E90 1 d4 2 4tf3 g6 з C4 Ag7 4 Sk3 0-0 5 e4 d6 6 Ag5 (a way of getting away from theory) 6...C5 6...h6 is also good, but I was seized with the idea of undermining the queenside, even at the cost of a pawn. 7 d5 аб 8 id3 b5 9 cxb5 axb5 10 ^xb5 10 ДхЬ5? is weak in view of 10...^xe41. 10...C4! I was also to make successful use of this idea in a game against Hernandez (Banja Luka 1979). 11 Ac2 (11 Ахс4?! ^xe4l) ll...Wa5+ 12 Ag41 (in order to exchange this inactive bishop for the knight on f3 and create pressure on the b-file) 13 o-o £>bd7 14 h3 ixf3 15 fcf3 Sfb8 16 Sabi For the moment White has a sound position, but also Black's chances are no worse than in the Benko Gambit. 16...Sa7 17 We2 (or 17 a4 ^c5 18 We2 Sab7) 17».Hab7 18 Wxc4 (18 ^a4l?) 18...Sb4119 Wd3 ^c5 20 We3 Sxb2 21Sxb2? A mistake. Approximate equality would
have been maintained by 21 Ab3 or 21 e5. 21„.Sxb2 22 JLbl?! (this aggravates White’s difficulties; 22 e5 or 22 JLdl was more resilient) 22...H6 The alternative 22...4je8!? 23 e5 Д.хе5 24 <2ie4 ^c7 would also have given a big advantage. 23 fcl? (resistance would have been prolonged by 23 e5 hxg5 24 exf6 Axf6 25 ®e4 ^xe4 26 Wxe4 Wc5) 23...Sxbl 24 Wxbl hxg51 More vigorous than 24...Wxc3. 25 Scl g4 (25...Wd7 was also good) 26 Wb5 (26 e5 ^fd7 and wins) 26...Wa3 27 Йс2 gxh3 28 gxh3?l ^fd71 29 Wc4 £«5 (29...^b6!) 30 We2 4^ed3 31 4bdl 4hf4 32 We3 Wa4 33 ld2 .Ie5 34 <лсЗ &xc3! 35 'Й’хсЗ Wxe4 0-1 Times: 1.20-0.50. Then I played for my own, 151st school in the Baku Schools Team Championship. On this occasion in this normally weak event there were also candidate masters competing. My opponent in the next game, Viktor Gazarian, playing for the 42nd school, was a pupil of Shakarov (who worked there as a trainer and teacher), and later was to become a member of the national Azerbaijan junior team. Games V.Gazarian-G. Weinstein Baku 25.11.1974 Grunfeld Defence D86 Id4^f6 2c4 g6 3 4bc3 d5 My sole junior experience of employing the Grunfeld. 4 cxd5 £>xd5 5 e4 ®xc3 6 bxc3 ^g7 7 Jlc4 (7 £}f3 - Game Nos.38, 48) 7...0-0 8 ®e2 (8 Лез - Game N0.72) 8...b6 I was always attracted by fianchettoed bishops, and this set-up (instead of the usual 8...C5) was one that I copied from either Smyslov or Simagin. But in general at that time I had only vague notions about the Grunfeld Defence, and I handled it rather uncertainly. 9 0-0 Jlb7 10 f3 ^c6 (Smyslov nevertheless played 10...C5) 11 Лез еб (and Simagin ll...^a5) 12 Wd2 Же8 (with the 'uncompromising' idea 13 ЛЬ6 JLh8) 13 Sfdl Wd6 14 Sacl Sad8 15 I.f4 We7 16 J.g5 f6 17 Лез £)a5 18 ЛЬ5 c6 19 ±d3 c5 20 Jibs Hf8 21 Wb2 f51 Thanks to his opponent’s rather slow play, Black has achieved a good game. 22 e5 С4?! (22...a6! 23 Jld3 b5 was correct, with equality) 23 Wb4! Wc7?!
Not wanting to go into a depressing endgame (23...Wxb4 24 cxb4), or to give up a pawn (23...W7 24 Axc4). 24 ig5 a6 A Petrosian-style positional exchange sacrifice! 25 ±xd8? The culmination of the battle. We both overlooked the strong reply 25 ^4!, when both 25...axb5 26 £>xe6 Wc8 27 ^xd8 Hxd8 28 Jlxd8 Wxd8 29 Wxb5 and 25...&f7 26 d5! are dismal for Black. 25...&xd8 26 Aa4 Here 26 <2if4 Tfef7 27 d5 no longer gave anything in view of 27...exd5 28 e6+ ФТб!. Or 27 ±a4 b5 28 ±c2 Ah6 etc. 26...b5 27 ±c2 27...Ah6! Now my idea completely justifies itself: Black is able to exploit the power of his bishops and his knight on the d5 blockading square. 28 НЫ $Jc6 29 Vb2 ®e7 30 a4 £ c6 31 axb5 axb5 32 Sal Wb7 33 *f2? 33 Efl £id5 34 Да5 was correct, still hoping to maintain the balance. 33...^d5 34 Да2? (a blunder in a difficult position) 34...We7? 34...Ae3+! 35 &fl We7 36 g3 Wg5 and ...Wh5 would have been quickly decisive. 35 g3? The king should have been urgently brought back 'to base’ - 35 Фд1, although after 35...Wh4 36 Efl <£>e3 the initiative would have remained with Black. 35...Wg5 36f4Wh5 37 h4 37 Hg2 Wxh2+ 38 Sg2 Whs was also hopeless. 37...ixf4! 38 Axf4 £)xf4 39 gxf4 Wxh4+ (the attack on the light squares is irresistible) 40 i’fl Whl+ 41 Af2 Wg2+ 42 ФеЗ Wg3+ 43 <td2 Wxf4+ 44 Фе1 We3+ 45 Afl Wh3+ 46 Фе1 Wh4+ 47 4>d2 Wf4+ 48 Фе1 Af3! 49 Да4 bxa4 50 fid2 Wh4+ 51 Sf2 We4+ 52 i>fl Wd3+ 53 ‘igl Де4 54 Wd2 Wg3+ 55 ifl Ad3+ 56 Йе2 lb8 0-1
The year concluded with the Azerbaijan Spartakiad, which differed little from the City Spartakiad: the teams consisted largely of the same Baku players (it was simply that these competitions were staged by different sports committees - city and republic). I again played on board 2 for the Pioneers Palace and started with 4У2 out of 5, beginning with an amusing game which abounded in mutual tactical strokes and mistakes. Game 6 R.Sarkisov-G.Weinstein Azerbaijan Spartakiad, 1st round, Baku 4.12.1974 Sicilian Defence B56 1 e4 C5 2 -nf3 кеб 3 d4 cxd4 4 ^xd4 f6 5 <k3 d6 6 f4 After 6 AgS Privorotsky showed us the variation 6...e6 7 Wd2 a6 8 0-0-0 Ad7 9 f4 h6 10 Jlh4 £)xe4, which I employed against Polonsky (Kiev 1974). 6...Jld7 7 4bb3?l (Sarkisov was not strong on theory and he again played the opening unpretentiously) 7—g6 At that time I fianchettoed my bishop at the slightest opportunity. 8 id3 (8 Ae2 JLg7 9 ЛеЗ and 0-0 was more purposeful) 8...Ag7 9 0-0 0-0 10 ФН1 аб 11 a4^a5l Enterprising play: I already had a good knowledge of Black’s various ‘Sicilian manoeuvres’. 12 £>xa5 Wxa5 13 Wei (13 l.d2 Wc5) 13...b5! This sharp attack confused my opponent, and he thought that I had overlooked a typical combination. 14 <§bd5 Wxel 15 <йхе7+? Strangely enough, the decisive mistake. In the event of 15 fixel bxa416 £>xe7+ ФЬ8 17 £sd5 £>xd5 18 exd5 Bfe8 Black would merely have had somewhat the better chances. 15...ФН8 16 fixel Bfe8? An error in reply: after 16...Sae8! 17 axb5 axb5 18 Sb<g6+ fxg6 19 Жаб Веб White would not have had sufficient compensation for the piece. 17 axb5 Йхе7 18 Вхаб (and this is already a double-edged position) 18...Bxa6? 18...fiae8(b8) was correct, with favourable prospects. 19 Ьхаб У.сб 20 e5 k d5 21 l.d2 dxe5 22 c4? And now White loses his advantage, which he would have retained after 22 fxe5 (after all, he has three connected passed pawns!), and he again finds himself on the verge of defeat. 22...£k7 (the аб-pawn is under attack, and also the bishops on the d-file are hanging) 23 b4? (23 ^.fl was more resilient) 23...кйхаб? 23...fid7! would have won, but I saw a combinative blow that was possible in three moves time and I could not refrain from capturing the аб-pawn. I quickly calculated a variation - and promptly rattled it off! 24 b5 £k5?l (here too 24...Sd7! was better)
25 ±b4? Overlooking the excellent latent resource 25 bxc6! ^xd3 26 Hbl! with equality. 25...^xd3 26 Axe7 26...ixg2+! 27 *xg2 £ixel+ 28 (28 ФдЗ 1 is not so clear) 28...£tf3 29 b6 £)d4 30 f5? The immediate 30 b7 ®c6 31 -id6 is stronger, but after 31...e41 32 b8W+ £sxb8 33 ЛхЬ8 Фд8 34 c5 A’fS Black has a won endgame: his king succeeds in stopping the passed c-pawn. 3O...gxf5 31 b7 ^c6 32 JLd6 e4 33 b8W+ ?^xb8 34 JLxbS JLd4 35 JLd6 <^g7 36 c5 ^f6 37 сб Феб 38 Af4 f6 39 ±b8 Ae5 0-1 But in the 6th round I lost to the strong candidate master Karo Askarian, and he overtook me by half a point. Now, in order to fight for the best result on my board, I had to win ‘to order’ in the 7th, last round. And here our match opponents, the Bu-revestnik team, made a substitution, and put out against me their reserve player -Oleg Privorotsky! I don’t know, perhaps my first trainer had decided to relive the good old days and give me a ‘farewell’ lesson? At any event, initially he did indeed outplay me. But he faltered as soon as I was able to complicate the play. Game 7 G.Weinstein-O.Privorotsky Azerbaijan Spartakiad, 7th round, Baku 11.12.1974 Sicilian Defence B40 1 e4 c5 2 £)f3 e6 3 b3 (avoiding my opponent’s favourite weapon - the Schevenin-gen) 3...^c6 If 3...£rf6 I would have replied 4 e5, following the familiar game Westerinen-Tal (Tallinn 1973). 4 Jlb2 d6 (I was already confused by this move) 5g3?l 5 d41 is more energetic, as occurred in the ancient game Kieseritzky-Anderssen (London 1851). But - I liked fianchettoing my bishops! 5...&f6 6 We2 A loss of time. The immediate 6 d3 was better, in the spirit of the King’s Indian Attack (although the moves b2-b3 and Jib 2 do not fit in well with it). 6...Jle7 7 Ag2 0-0 8 0-0 Jld7 (the immediate 8...e5!? was more accurate) 9 d3 e51 10 c4?l 10 c3 was preferable, trying for d3-d4 (at least this would somehow justify 6 We2). Now Black has slightly the better game.
10...JLg4 11 h3 JLxf3 (hardly any stronger was ll...^d4 12 Axd4 £xf3 13 JLxf3 cxd4 14 £hd2 or 14 a4) 12 Axf3 a6 13 ±g2 <^d7 14 ^d2 b5 (the correct plan) 15 f4 It was quite possible to manage without this thrust: 15 h4 ^d4 16 Wdl, intending the manoeuvre of the knight to e3 and d5. But I was dreaming of an attack! 15...i.f6 16 3 b4 Not the best move: it was more advantageous for Black to retain the pawn tension, threatening a possible ...b5xc4. 17 f5 a5 18 a4! (suppressing the threat of ...a5-a4) 18...bxa3 With the queenside blocked White has nothing to fear, for example: 18...<^d4 19 ixd4 cxd4 20 h4! (depriving the black bishop of the g5-square) 2O...^c5 21 £>d2. 19 Hxa3 ^d4 20 ,4xd4 (20 Wd2! Wb6 21 ДсЗ was sounder, with equality) 2O...cxd4 21 h4?l The immediate 21 Sfal was more accurate, with the idea of b3-b4 and the inevitable exchange of the a- and b-pawns. Here White would probably have maintained the balance. 21...<5k5 22 Sfal?! With a delay, alas. It would appear that already I needed to go in for extreme measures: 22 ^xd4l? exd4 23 e5 Лхе5 24 l.xa8 Wxa8 25 b4! with sharp play. 22,..Wb6 Now White has a difficult position: he does not manage either to capture on a5, or to create an attack on the kingside. 23 g4?l (a desperate pawn sacrifice with the aim of complicating the play) 23...Sfb8?! Stronger was 23...£>xb3 24 Wb2 (24 Sbl a4) 24...fifb8 or 23...Ae7 24 g5 (24 Sbl Wb4!) 24-^xb3 with an obvious advantage. 24 g5 i.d8 An interesting psychological moment: Privorotsky removes all his pieces to the queenside, demonstrating his faith in his own attack and his lack of faith in White’s counterattack. 25 JS.fl?! Objectively 25 £sd2 Wb4(c6) 26 Afl was far more resilient, but that was not in my style! ‘White’s timidity in the first half of the game can be explained by the natural restraint of a boy, playing against an adult, indeed against his teacher. One should not forget about the colossal psychological pressure on the boy. Garik cast off the shackles only at the instant when the threat of defeat was finally hanging over him.’ (Nikitin) 25...Wb4 26 Sa2 Wxb3 27 Sd2
White would not have been saved by 27 £>xd4 exd4 28 e5 ®xd3 29 Jlxa8 £if4! etc. Here Privorotsky stopped to think: how best to neutralise the threat of g5-g6 and convert his material advantage? 27...f6 The most vigorous was 27...a4! and only after 28 g6 - 28...f6 29 gxh7+ ФТ181 with the ideas of ...a4-a3 and ...Aa5. The move in the game gives White a ghost of a chance. 28 £>h21 My steadily growing King’s Indian experience came into action: I immediately saw the attacking scheme - ®h2, Wh5, <йд4, JLf3 and Жд2. Of course, nothing should have come of this, but - it did! 28...Э4 29 Wh5 And at this moment, on seeing that the situation was beginning to become sharper, my teacher unexpectedly panicked... 29-.Де7? By instinctively wanting somehow to reinforce the defence, Black throws away the win. After the fearless 29..Ла5! 30 Uddl £ixd3 31 gxf6 Hb7! White’s attack would have petered out. 30 £jg4 (with the threat of 31 дб!) 3O...^d7? A catastrophic mistake: the knight and bishop have blocked the 7th rank and the black rooks are unable to come to the aid of their king. Indeed, they were called on to defend the 7th rank (Capablanca’s principle!), while on c5 the knight was carrying out an important function - it was attacking the d3-pawn. ЗО...Да7! was essential. Now the hasty 31 дб? h6 32 £ixh6+ gxh6 33 g7 is bad because of 33..Jtf8! 34 gxf8W+ Hxf8. However, after 31 Af3! the attack is good enough for at least a draw: a) 31„.£>xd3 (if 3i...Sf8?, then 32 дб h6 33 Ф112! is very unpleasant) 32 дб h6 33 <£ixh6+ gxh6 34 g7! <йс5 (34...Af8 with a draw) 35 Sei or 35 Se2, and the threat of Wxh6 forces 35...Af8 with a draw; b) 31-.-i.f8 32 gxf6! ФТ18 33 fxg7+ Sxg7 34 f6 flg8 35 f7 Sg6 36 Hg2 Wxd3 37 £tf6! We3+ 38 &hl Wi6 39 Sfgl! Фд7! 40 £ie8+! <i>xf7 41 £bxd6+ Jlxd6 42 Жхдб Wxh5 43 Bg7+ *f6 44 Axh5 Sb7 45 Sg8 with a draw. 31 Af31 (now both g5-g6 and Дд2 are threatened) зх.Жз Black would no longer have been saved by either 31-ФЬ8 32 дб! £rf8 33 ^h6!!, or 31...a3 32 дб! <£>f8 33 £>h6+! gxh6 34 Sg2! hxg6 35 Sxg6+ 4^xg6 36 Wxg6+ ФЬ8 37
Wxh6+ Фд8 38 Wg6+ 4>h8 39 &hl Wbl 40 Adi with unavoidable mate, or even the most resilient 31...Af8! 32 Sg2l S>h8 33 gxf6 a31 34 W Eb 7 35 Adi! Wb6! 36 ®h6! £>xf6 37 Wxf6!! d5! 38 2tf7+ Фд8 39 We6! Wxe6 40 fxe6 dxc4 41 Aa41 2c7 42 dxc4, and White should convert his extra piece without particular problems (if 42...Ac5 or 42...d3, then 43 Ab3l). 32 g6! (Privorotsky underestimated this thrust: he was hoping to repel the assault after 32 Eg2? Sb2l) 32...<af8 32...hxg6 33 4bh6+! would have led to mate. And after 32...h6 33 £>xh6+! gxh6 34 ®xh6 4?bf8 White wins by 35 g7 ^h7 36 Ah5, although the immediate 35 Ah5 or 35 2fdl! is simpler. 33 £>h6+! (or first 33 2g2! Is also good) ЗЗ...ФИ8 In the event of 33...gxh6 34 Bg2l hxg6 (34...Hb2 35 gxh7+) 35 2хдб+! <йхдб 36 Wxg6+ White would have given mate: 36...A’f8 37 Ah5! (the decisive blow is struck by this 'blunt' bishop, which has been inactive for the entire game), or Зб...ФЬ8 37 Wxh6+ Фд8 38 1^6+ 4>h8 39 &hl! Wd2 40 3gl. 34 Eff7+ ‘A’gS 35 gxh7+ £bch7 36 Hg2! The finishing touch. ‘Nevertheless David outwitted Goliath’ (Nikitin). 36...Wxd3 (or 36...Sb2 37 1хд7+! Фхд7 38 Wg6+ <4>f8 39 £)h6) 37 <^h6+! Ф118 38 lxg7! Black lost on time (1-0). After 38...Sg8 39 <5Txg8 Фхд7 40 ®xe7 White’s threats are irresistible. ‘A splendid finish, disclosing the strong features of the future world champion’ (Nikitin). Times: 1.45-2.00. The final attack made a big impression on those present, and I was terribly proud of this win. But when I showed the entire game at the Botvinnik School, I was rightly criticised by both Botvinnik and Dvoretsky for my ‘disgraceful play’ in the opening and early middlegame. A year later in a match with Burevestnik I had one more duel with Privorotsky (I was now playing on board 1, and on this occasion Bagirov avoided meeting me). This was a crucial battle: my first trainer was eager for revenge, especially as he had the white pieces. But I again won, and at that our ‘confrontation’ came to an end. From the memoirs of an eye-witness -Valery Asriyan: 'Garik’s mastery developed amazingly quickly. One was struck by his astounding combinative talent. Already then he attacked with enormous power, and he calculated variations uncommonly quickly and very deeply, astonishing all the Baku players, including his trainer. In the mid-1970s Garik twice defeated Privorotsky in team competitions, with both games following one and the same course. In a positional struggle the trainer outplayed the pupil and began active measures on the queenside, but Garik succeeded in developing a strong attack against the opponent’s king, which Oleg was unable to parry: Kasparov was already too strong in such assaults. After the games Privorotsky could only spread his hands: "What can I do, if he attacks like Alekhine!’’.'
‘Who will be the Champion after Karpov?’ In January 1975 Magerramov and I were dispatched to Vilnius to the USSR Junior (under-18) Championship - our first individual competition of this standard. Among the thirty-six participants in this Swiss event were at least a dozen future grandmasters, and the tournament was won ‘with obvious superiority’ by the almost 18-year-old Alma-Ata master Evgeny Vladimirov (later one of my seconds). I made a stunning start - 3 out of 31 Moreover, in the 2nd round I beat the Kiev player V.Sokolov, who in the end shared 2nd-3rd places. But in the 4th round I suddenly lost without a fight to Yurtaev (cf. Game No.13, note to Black’s 18th move). In the 5th round I made a confident draw with Black against Vladimirov, and in the 6th, after passing through a lost position, I overcame Gorelov. In the 7th round I had a peaceful encounter with Kengis (after 1 e4 c5 2 2rf3 d6 I played 3 Ab5+), and in the penultimate, 8th round, by contrast, a sharp, gripping duel with Dvoyris - but again a draw. Soon afterwards Nikitin wrote in the magazine Shakhmaty v SSSR: ‘I would like to talk about 11-year-old Garik Weinstein. Mature beyond his years, a confirmed bibliophile, he at the same time has retained the spontaneity of his age. Garik is passing through that golden period, when for him there are not yet any problems, but there is already a mass of problems for the people taking care of him. Garik's chess development is being carefully followed by ex-world champion Botvinnik, who is already deciding his ration of chess studies and playing commitments. I will not praise the boy - for the moment he is simply playing chess, I repeat - playing.' Thus I was on 572 out of 8, and in the event of a win in the concluding round I could have shared 2nd-4th places and on the tie-break won the silver medal. I was paired with White against the Leningrad player Alexey Yermolinsky, who was half a point behind. He was five years older than me and proved to be a difficult opponent (this was also confirmed two years later in Leningrad - cf. p.84). Nikitin: ‘That day I did not urge Garik to win, seeing his anxiety and fatigue, but simply asked him to play a "good" game...' Came 8 G.Weinstein-A.Yermolinsky USSR Junior Championship, 9th round, Vilnius 15.01.1975 Alekhine Defence B05 1 e4 ^f6 2 e5 ^d5 3 d4 d6 The expected opening - Yermolinsky’s favourite defence. 4 £if3 Ag4 (4-.g6 - Game No.27) 5 Ae2 e6 6 0-0 ±e7 7 h3 Ah 5 8 c4 Ab6 9 exd6 It is evidently better to play 9 £)c3 0-0 10 Ae3 d5, and now not 11 c5 Axf3 12 Axf3 <bc4 or 12 gxf3 Ac8 (the earlier main line,
which was upheld for Black by Alburt and Bagirov), but the new set-up with 11 cxdSl? ^xds 12 Wb3, as I played against Gitsyn (Riga 1977), or ll...exd5 12 g4 Ддб 13 h4 (I enthusiastically analysed these variations with Korsunsky). But Nikitin and I had prepared something different. 9...cxd6 10 'bd2 0-0 11 b3 'Garry chose a piece set-up which he had spotted a week before the tournament, studying Informator Volume 17 sent by me to Baku.’ (Nikitin) 16...Axf3 White retains a plus by 17 £ixf3!. H...£k6 12 ДЬ2 if 6 At that time they usually played 12...d5 13 c5 ^d7 14 a3, but later Alburt’s plan with 12....fi.g6 13 a3 aS and ...Af6 was deemed more flexible. 13 a3 d5 (here too 13-.fi.g6 is acceptable, not hurrying to increase White’s spatial advantage) 14 c5 <2k8?l A new move, not as good as 14-^d7, which would have led to a position from the Informator game Torre-Schmid (Nice Olympiad 1974), where after 15 b4 аб 16 Ecl! Ьб?! 17 схЬб ®xb6 18 Wa4 Efc8 19 ЕсЗ! White seized the initiative. 15 b4 аб 16 Ecl The cunning ‘Torre manoeuvre’. If 16 €ib3 there is the good reply 16-.fi.xf3 17 Axf3 ^8e7, but now in the event of 16...^8e7?? An unexpected blunder of a piece. Hardly had he made the move when Yermolinsky saw the winning 17 g41 ,fi.g6 18 g5 and his face promptly changed. But I did not notice anything, since I replied without thinking. 17-^ЬЗ?? ‘After this for almost the whole of 1975 I called Garik not by his name, but only "g4”! Even a mistake can become a part of useful experience, if you remember about it.’ (Nikitin) 17...ixf3 18 fixf3 £if5 A secondary drawback to 17 £ib3 is that the move Ecl has been depreciated; with the rook on al it would have been possible to play Ac3, a3-a4 and Wd3, preparing b4-bs, but now White is forced to change plan. 19 fi.g4! g6 20 Wd3 fig7 21 .Vc3 Wf6 (by intensifying the pressure on the d4-pawn, Black provokes the exchange of the enemy bishop for the knight on f5) 22 Jtxf5 22 Bfdll? with the idea of 22...<^h6 23 Де2 was more forceful, but I wanted to deny the opponent any counterplay. 22...Wxf5 23 Wxf5 exf5 (23...gxf5 was no better) 24 a4 A standard flank offensive, which, however, does not promise any great benefits.
24..*^d8 (directing the knight in good time to e6) 25 b5 ®e6 26 Bal The rook has to be returned to the 'correct place’. 26...Sfc8 27 Bfdl 27 Sfcl!? was more interesting, intending the c5-c6 breakthrough (and if ...b7xc6, then b5-b6). 27...b6? A serious mistake, which could have led to defeat. The simplest was 27...^c7, forcing 28 b6 £ie6 with equality (29 £>a5?l is weak in view of 29...®xc5!). However, the unexpected undermining move unsettled me: is it really possible to play this?! ‘The quiet course of the game has suddenly changed abruptly, and the situation has become sharp and uncertain. For a player who has just been rejoicing in his position, such a change is especially unpleasant.’ (Nikitin) 28 Bdcl? Again an error in reply! I saw immediately that after 28 c6? axb5 29 axb5 ^c7 the b5-pawn would be lost. But I completely overlooked 28 cxb6! Bxc3 29 flacl! (not 29 b7?! Hb8 30 bxa6 Exb3), when things are bad for Black: 29-Жхс1 30 Sxcl £>d8 31 Sei! axb5 (31-^b7 32 Se7) 32 Se8+ Af8 33 a5, or 29...1C4 30 b7 Sb8 31 bxa6 ®c7 32 ^а5 £ixa6 33 £>xc4 dxc4 34 Sxc4 Sxb7 35 Sc8+ Af8 36 d5 etc. 28...bxc5 29 b6 cxd4 29...C4!? was also good: 30 b7 cxb3 31 Ab 2 Scb8 32 bxa8« Sxa8 with full compensation for the exchange. 30 Ab2 (30 Ad2!? was more accurate, with equality) 3O...Sab8 More complicated play would have resulted from 3O...Se8!? 31 Sabi or the clever 3O...Bc3!? 31 £ia5 Sb8 32 Axc3 dxc3 33 Sabi. 31 a5?! After 31 fixc8+ Sxc8 32 Bel Bxcl+ 33 Axel Ae5 34 b7 with such a strong passed pawn White is not in danger of losing, despite his material deficit. 31...fic4! 32 ^id2 Sxd+?! (I would have been set far more problems by the flamboyant 32...1C3!) 33 Hxcl 'i’fe 34 £)b3 Ae5 34...<4>e7 was a little better, although here too the position is one of dynamic balance. 35 АаЗ+'Й’ев? Atypical time-trouble ‘lapse’. 35...Фд7 36 &fl with equality was correct, whereas now Black is again on the verge of defeat! 36 Bel! f6 37 f4! (a spectacular blow!) 37...^xf4 38 Ad6! Bd8 39 Ac7!
Nikitin: ‘The tactical resources in the position stirred the boy’s thinking, and he made several strong moves in succession. In terrible time-trouble and in a difficult position Black decides on a trick.’ 39...d3? Strangely enough, this losing move -wins! ‘Normal’ continuations were insufficient: 39-^еб 40 Axd8 '4>xd8 41 Ecl <5^f4 42 Ec5, or 39-.^d3 40 Se2 'S’d? (40...®b4 41 b7!) 41 Axd8 ixdS 42 Sd2 £>b4 43 £ixd4. 40 *f2?? Suicidal! As, however, was the naive 40 b7?? ®e2+ 41 ‘i’fl Axc7. I again cracked under the psychological pressure... 40 Sxe5+! fxe5 41 b71 would have been immediately decisive. But the most annoying thing was that 40 'i’fl would also have retained real winning chances - 4O...£he2 41 Axd8 'ixdS 42 Edl ®g3+ 43 &f2 <^e4+ 44 ,&f3 and Exd3. 4O...d21 41 Hxe5+ (alas, 41 £ixd2 was bad because of 41...^d3+ and ...^xel) 41...fxe5 42 ^xd2 <2Jd3+ (42...£ie6!?) 43 ФеЗ £ks! 44 Axes i’d? 45 ®f3 He8 46 Ad4 ^b3+ 47 xd5 £>xa5 48 Af4 Фс8 0-1 Nikitin: 'Garik manfully endured the blow of fate and, after signing the scoresheet, walked away in silence from the board. But his composure did not last long - only as far as the exit from the tournament hall. Here he went up to his mother, nestled up to her and quietly sobbed... After becoming a grandmaster, Garry was to gain fame as the best finisher - a player capable of winning any decisive game. But the first attempt proved a failure.’ Results of the 1975 USSR Junior Championship: 1. Vladimirov - 7У2 out of 9; 2. Kengis and 3. V.Sokolov - 6У2; 4-6. Yurtaev, Yermolinsky and Gabdrakhmanov - 6; 7-11. Weinstein, Dvoyris, Pekker, Magerramov and Dolmatov - 5У2 etc. Taking into account my age, and the fact that I finished 7th on the tie-break, this was not a bad result for a debutant. On 24th February Leonard Barden, chess columnist for the Guardian newspaper, made the following forecast: 'Whatever happens to the world title in 1975, most experts predict that Karpov will be Fischer’s successor - this year, in 1978, or in 1981. But who will be world champion after Karpov? In my opinion there is a very clear favourite for world champion in 1990. He is 11-year-old Garry Weinstein from Baku, youngest player in the USSR junior championship and youngest candidate master since Karpov.’ Barden was wrong by five years, but the very fact that he made such a forecast is worthy of note... After the battles in Vilnius I returned to my school studies, where I was at the end of my 5th year, and to regular chess lessons. Twice, in February and May, I went to Dubna for sessions of the Botvinnik School. Nikitin: ‘One spring day in 1975 into the Kasparovs' flat walked Vladimir Andreevich Makogonov - one of the strongest Soviet masters of the pre-war period, a player with a subtle, "Rubinstein" style and a grandmaster understanding of the game. He was already turned 70, and his meetings with
Garik were infrequent, but they continued for more than two years, to the end of 1977-They took the form of conversations, and I asked the boy to follow carefully the logic of the Master’s thinking and his approach to the evaluation of individual moves and positions. These conversations were of invaluable benefit to Garik, they helped him to systemise his positional knowledge, and in time the Tartakower-Makogonov-Bondarev-sky Variation in the Queen’s Gambit and the solid set-up with 4~&f5 in the Caro-Kann became reliable weapons for him.’ In Baku everyone learned the Caro-Kann from Makogonov’s games! He was indeed a great master, and I am grateful to fate that I was fortunate enough to have contact with him. Early in July 1975 in Tbilisi the Baku Pioneers Palace team easily won the qualifying event for the final of the next 'tournament of young hopes’, and on top board I scored З'/г out of 4. And in the second half of July I made my debut in the junior championship of the all-union Spartak sports society. This was an important moment: while retaining the right to play for the Pioneers Palace, I finally became a Spartak member, like my trainer in the republic’s junior team, Alexander Shakarov (true, our individual lessons began only a year later). My mother and I lived quite modestly, and it proved most opportune when Botvinnik and his friend, the prominent chess official Yakov Rokhlin, were able to ‘procure’ Spartak food coupons for me, as well as a monthly stipend of 120 roubles. Nikitin: 'Such support by the Teacher became increasingly necessary with each new chess success by Garry, and each time it was timely and effective.’ That junior tournament took place in Peterhof, the famous suburb of Leningrad. The fourteen contestants were divided into two all-play-all semi-finals, and the four winners of each went through into the final. Here the results of the semi-final games between them were carried forward, and after the four final rounds the overall scores were determined. Nikitin, who regarded this event as a preparation stage for future serious tournaments, asked me to try and avoid any set-backs and to finish in the first six. Endeavouring to fulfil my trainer’s objective, I became over-anxious and began with a loss, but I was able to take myself in hand and score three successive wins. But in the 5th round I lost with White to the 16-year-old Kharkov player Mikhail Gurevich, in the future a grandmaster and one of my seconds. And although I then defeated his contemporary, Leonid Yudasin from Leningrad - also a future grandmaster, my starting position in the final eight was very modest - only 1 out of 3. Now everything would be decided by the games with the four players from the other semi-final. My first opponent in the final, Boris Kantsler from Kirgizia, was just a year older than me and was reputed to be a promising young player. A few years later he was the winner (1979) and a prize-winner (1980) in the USSR Junior Championship, but later his chess development slowed sharply, his family emigrated to Israel - and at the very end of the century Boris nevertheless became a grandmaster! Came 9 G.Weinstein-B. Kantsler Spartak Junior Championship, 7th round, Peterhof 27.07.1975 King’s Indian Attack A08 1 e4 e6 2 d3
After looking at Fischer’s victorious games, for this tournament I prepared the King’s Indian Attack and I successfully employed it in the 3rd round, but in the 5th Mikhail Gurevich obtained a comfortable game after 1 ^>f3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 ^.g2 e6 4 0-0 Ad6 5 d3 ®e7 6 e4 £>c6 7 fiel Wc7?! (7—0-0) 8 ^bd2?l (8 exd51) 8...0-0 9 b3 f6 10 Ab2 d4 11 a4 e5. I also did not achieve anything in a simultaneous game with Polugayevsky: 1 e4 c5 2 ?tf3 e6 3 d3 d5 4 -nbd2 <Shc6 5 g3 ±d6 6 Jlg2 ®ge7 7 0-0 0-0 8 lei ±c7 9 We 2 b6, etc. ‘I called this way of playing the opening with White "a set-up for a lazy-bones". Soon it found its way on to the list I compiled of set-ups which were temporarily forbidden, and against the French Garik had to switch to the more active 2 d4.’ (Nikitin) 2...d5 3 ^d2 c5 4 g3 5 Ag2 5...g6 With this set-up Kantsler surprised me -did not know its subtleties and was expecting only the popular 5...£rf6 6 ®gf3 _ie7 (an example: Fischer-Miagmarsuren, Sousse Interzonal 1967). 6 ^f3 JLg7 7 0-0 -”ge7 8 lei 0-0 9 We2?! The immediate 9 e5 is more popular, and only if 9...Wc7 - 10 We2 with double-edged play after 10...b5(b6), 10...as or 10...g51?. 9...b5 10 e5 a5 (as a result, Black has gained a tempo for his thematic offensive on the queenside) 11 £>fl Д.аб 12 h4 b4 13 £>lh2 (2) 13...И6! The key idea of the defence - otherwise Ag5 and ^g4. Here I felt rather dismayed, since I did not see how to breach the opponent’s fortress. 14 *f4 Wh7 15 Ah3?! (3) A dubious undertaking: control over the f5-square is of no use. 15 £)g4 £>f5 16 Wd2 with the idea of h4-h5 was correct, in order after ...g6-g5 (although in fact this is not obligatory) to sacrifice the knight on g5. 15...C4 16 Ag2 (3) 16...®f5 17 ±xf5?! (2) Risky, but at the least consistent - everywhere Black has a comfortable game. 17...gxf5 (17....exf51?) 18 g4! White has to continue in the same vein. 'Garik remembered his game with Yer-molinsky and the jocular nickname "g4”. But the deliberate making of such moves is an indicator of the boy's precociously mature thinking.’ (Nikitin) 18...fxg4? Releasing the ‘animal’ from the cage -strangely enough, this is already the decisive mistake. Black had several good replies,
in particular 18...cxd3 19 cxd3 d4 or first 18../йе? with the intention of ...cxd3, ...d5-d4 and play on the long light-square diagonal. 19 £>xg4 (building up the pressure) 19...-^e7 19...cxd31 was far more resilient: 20 cxd3 (20 Wd2?l h5!) 2O...^e7, and in the event of 21 i.g51! hxg5 22 hxg5 - not 22...Hh8 23 ®f6+! (as in the game), but 22...®g6! with the pretty idea 23 £rf6+ Jtxf6 24 Uhl+ Фд8 25 gxf6 W4+ 26 4>fl JLxd31, forcing 27 Дд1+ with perpetual check. But here too after the computer variation 23 Wd2! JLh8! 24 fihl+! (if 24 £>f6+ Фд7, then ...Дд8 and ...<4’f8) 24-^7 25 Sh6! i.xd3! 26 Sahl Дд8 T1 ®h4l fic8 28 £sxg6 Ae4+! 29 f3 ixg6 30 Wf4 i.f5 31 ^еЗ Ag6 32 b3! or 30...ЙС4 31 Wf6+ Wxf6 32 exf6+ ^f8 33 Sxh8 Black’s problems are too great. It only remained to play 2O...4Tf5, and White’s attack would die out after hardly managing to begin... 20 i.g51! (18) A sudden, purely intuitive bishop sacrifice. Of course, I did not see all its consequences, but I sensed that White should be alright: his pieces are so well placed! At that time I did not yet realise that most of my opponents had a different attitude to material. And Kantsler probably believed that with his extra piece Black would somehow be able to defend himself. 2O...hxg5 A difficult choice. White also has a terribly strong attack after 2О...Дд8 21 ФЬз! followed by JLf6 and Sgl, or 2O...cxd3 (alas, too late) 21 Wd2! hxg5 (21...Hh8 22 i.f6! or 21...dxc2 22 Wxc2+ <4>g8 23 ±f6! is also insufficient) 22 hxg5 Sh8 (22...£)f5 23 cxd3) 23 £)f6+! Фдб 24 2hl, and Black has no defence. 21 hxg5 Sh8 This loses by force, as does 21...^g6 22 ^f6+! Axf6 23 Hhl+! <4>g8 24 gxf6 ®>f4+ 25 <i>fl <^xe2 26 Фхе2 or 25...cxd3 26 Wd2(e3) with unavoidable mate. However, it would also not have helped to play 21...cxd3 22 Wd2! (cf. the previous note), or 21...Ah8 22 flhi+ Фд7 23 £>g6 (23-.fig8 24 Wf3) 24 We3! or 22 Wfl!? £>f5 23 Whl+ Фдб 24 Ш1З Дд8 (24.-i.g7 25 £if6) 25 fihl Фд7 26 £>f6 and wins. 22 «if6+! Ag6 It turns out that 22...i.xf6 is not possible because of 23 Shl+! Фд8 24 gxf6 <5hg6 25 Sxh8+ 4>xh8 26 lhl+ Фд8 27 We3 Wf8 28 ®д5 or 27-^8 28 4^h4! with crushing threats. 23 fihl! <£>f5 (nothing would have been
changed by 23...cxd3 24 cxd3 £tf5 25 Sxh8 ±(W)xh8 26 Shi) 24 fixh8 l.xh8 25 £ d4!? 25 Shi! was simpler. However, I picked up the knight on f3, in order to play 25 $Jh4+(?), but at the last moment I saw that Black would capture the knight with check! I was forced to sacrifice it on d4... 25...?Jxd4 (if 25...Axf6 26 gxf6 4jh6 White decides matters with 27 Sgl or 27 Shi Wg8 28 Sgl) 26 Wh5+^f5 The black king goes for its last walk. 27 g6+ (2) This is not only the shortest, but also the most spectacular way to the goal. 27.-Af4 28 lei! ixf6 29 f31 Threatening Wg4 mate. A pretty combination with the sacrifice of three pieces and lethal quiet moves! This conducting of the enemy king into my own camp was undoubtedly a prototype for my game with Topalov (Wijk aan Zee 1999). 29...£ixf3 30 Wxf3+ (4) 30...<ig5 31 Wg3+ (alas, I did not see the mating 31 Shi!) 31...*h5? Nevertheless blundering into a mate. However, 31...ФЬ6 32 exf6 Wxf6 33 Shl+ i>g7 34 Sh7+ ^gS 35 Sxf7 Wxf7 36 gxf7+ S>xf7 37 Wc7+ &f6 38 Wc6! Sa7 39 Wb6 2a8 40 &f2 cxd3 41 cxd3 etc. would also have been hopeless. 32 exf6 And in view of 32...Wxf6 33 lhl+ Black resigned (1-0). Times: 0.50-0.42. After this I scored a further 2 out of 3, beating the Leningrad player Yuneev and at the finish drawing with Black against the leader - Desyatkov from Kurgan, a strong candidate master, who, however, did not break through to the USSR Junior Championships (in Russia the qualifying tournaments were incredibly tough). The results of the Spartak championship: 1. Desyatkov - 5У2 out of 7; 2-4. Weinstein, Yuneev and M.Gurevich - 4 etc. On the tie-break I was placed second, and everyone considered this a great success. This tournament was the last in which I played under the surname Weinstein. In August 1975, at a family council of the Weinsteins and Kasparovs, it was decided that I should take the surname of my mother, which she had not changed when she married. It seemed natural to become a Kasparov: for nearly five years I had been brought up in my mother’s family, and had grown up under the care of my grandfather Shagen, who had no sons. But the real implication of what happened was revealed to me much later. Nikitin: 'Changing surname is a delicate process. While normal with women, it very rarely occurs with men and only, as a rule, when it is obligatory. The main burden in the fight to carry out the juridical formalities and, more important, to convince all the relatives and friends of the correctness of the decision, fell on Garik’s mother. How many unpleasant hours Klara had to endure, how many tears were shed... A year before that, with Botvinnik’s agreement, I began insistently trying to convince her of the need to change her son’s surname. I had no doubts
about the boy’s brilliant chess future. From my work in the USSR Sports Committee I knew what inexplicable problems, not at all to do with chess, could suddenly be encountered by a youth with an "incorrect" surname, and how his sports career could be imperceptibly hindered or even altogether ruined. My fears were justified: much has now been written about the latent anti-Semitism, especially in the upper echelons of Soviet power. (I should remind you: in those times diplomatic relations with Israel were broken off and there was a mass emigration of Jews from the USSR - G.K.) / am convinced that Garry Weinstein would not have got through to a world championship match with Anatoly Karpov either in 1984, or in 1987. They would not have allowed it. He would have been eliminated at the distant approaches. At that time the system worked meticulously.’ When in 1989, as three-times world champion and winner of the World Cup, I overtook Fischer’s old rating record and reached the 2800 mark for the first time in history, Tai made one of his unforgettable jokes: 'Garry is playing so well, that now he can calmly perform under his previous surname!' I carefully carried the memory of my father through all the turbulent years, and I am absolutely sure that the Garry Kasparov, who became leader of the chess world, professed the same values as Garik Weinstein, who once, following the example of his father, became fascinated by chess... In October 1975, appearing for the first time under the surname Kasparov, I also achieved my first success among adults: in Baku I won the ‘City Cup’, a knock-out tournament with a shortened time control - an hour each for the entire game. At that time, on the initiative of David Bronstein, rapid chess had become fashionable (but it soon died away; its time had not yet come). There were 128 contestants: the strongest first category players, candidate masters, and one master - the highly-experienced Oleg Pavlenko, the No.2 in the republic team. His entry for the tournament was a surprise, and many thought the question of 1st place was already decided. The players met in mini-matches of two games: in the event of 1-1, two additional five-minute games were played. But I did not need these: all my matches, and there were seven (the tournament lasted exactly a week), I won by ly/r.-y/i or 2-0. The culmination of the race was the final match with Pavlenko. My 33-year-old opponent was a heavily-built man, and compared with me he was a genuinely ‘big chess player’ (only Bagirov was taller than him). In addition, during the game he smoked incessantly - one cigarette after another. And in the 1st game I had to employ a ‘prepared variation': as soon as my opponent sat down at the board and, after making a couple of moves, lit up, I immediately took from my pocket some chewing-gum, removed its wrapper, shoved it in my mouth and began vigorously chewing! I think that this made an impression on the master: he had not expected such impudence from a youngster. At any event, this entire game, which proved to be decisive, Pavlenko conducted at blitz speed. Came 10 O.Pavlenko-G.Weinstein 'City Cup’ Final, Baku, 1st game, October 1975 King’s Indian Defence E71 1 d4 £if6 2 c4 g6 3 4k3 ig7 4 e4 d6
This was the first year of my employing the King’s Indian (beginning with Game N0.4). 5 h3 A rare variation, but a popular one in Baku: this is what Makogonov himself played! Before this at a session of the Botvinnik School (Dubna 1975) Yusupov chose against me 5 5^f3 0-0 6 Ле2 e5 7 d5 and after 7...<^>bd7 8 0-0 <5k5 9 ®c2 a5 10 Лд5 h6 11 ЛеЗ <^hs 12 g3 Л113 13 Sfel ^d7?! 14 ®d2 f5? 15 exf5 -lxf5 16 ®>de4? (16 Wdl!) 16...£>df6 17 f3 Wd7 18 c5 g5? (18...<511X64 19 <$Jxe4 Ш is equal) 19 Jld3 (19 Wb31) 19...£>xe4 20 ^xe4 g4?! (2O...£)f6!) 21 fxg4 Лхд4 22 fiacl he gained an obvious advantage. But here I recklessly sacrificed my knight - 22...<Sif4? 23 gxf4 exf4 24 c6! bxc6 25 dxc6 Wc8, and my opponent faltered: 26 <5?>xd6? (26 JLd2! Af3 27 JLc4+! ФЬ8 28 <?Tf2 was correct, when White wins) 26...cxd6 27 Wc4+ (27 ЛЬ6!? I.f3!) 27-Леб 28 We4 ^.f5 (28...Sf71 with equality) 29 Wd5+ (29 Лс4+!? ФЬ8 30 Wxf4 was slightly better) 29...Леб 30 We4 - draw! Botvinnik was unhappy with my play: it reminded him of his ill-starred game with Tai (6th match game, Moscow i960), where out of nothing with ...<S}h5-f4 Black also placed his knight en prise to the g3-pawn (Game No.128 in Volume II of My Great Predecessors). My teacher strictly told me that I needed to study the heritage of the ‘King’s Indian classics’ - Boleslavsky, Bronstein, Geller, Gligoric, Petrosian, Fischer, Stein... And when I arrived home, from all possible sources I began copying model games into a special notebook, and later I looked at them. I also kept up with official theory. I tested variations in practice, and I gradually accumulated King's Indian experience. 5...0-0 6 ЛеЗ e5 7 d5 £>h5?l I did not yet know the finer points of this variation; I simply wanted to avoid the typical bind with g2-g4 and to carry out ...f7-f5 at any price. 8 Ле2 (after 8 g3 Gerusel-Bukic, West Germany v. Yugoslavia 1973, went 8...a5 9 Ле2 <йа6! ? 10 ЛхЬ5 gxhs 11 Wxh5 f5 with compensation for the pawn) 8...f5?l Now this sacrifice is incorrect. After 8...<5^f4 9 Af3 f5 10 g3 fxe4 11 £>xe4 White has only a minimal advantage. 9 ЛхИ5?! (Pavlenko played this without thinking, although more was promised by 9 exfs! £Tf4 10 Лxf4 exf4 11 fxg6, then £>f3 and 0-0) 9...gxh5 10 Wxh5 f4 (10...5ia6 11 Лд5) 11 Ad2 <^d7 12 0-0-0 (12...a6! and ...b7-b5) 13 We2 We8
Again a non-essential move; 13-.-C6!? or 13-..a6!? was more interesting. 14 3 С5?! (reducing the opportunities for counterplay; the immediate 14...a6 was better) 15 ФЬ1?! Typical rapid chess: this merely deprives the knight of the bl-square and presents Black with an important tempo. 15 Hhgl аб 16 g3! would have given an appreciable advantage. 15...a6! (at last!) 16 g4?! JLd7?! (an exchange of mistakes: 16...fxg31 and ...b7-b5 was correct, when Black succeeds in creating counter-chances) 17 £>h4 b5 18 £if5? An unexpected blunder of a piece - instead of the promising 18 Sdgl! and £tf5. 18...b4 (at the sight of this move Pavlenko flinched) 19 £>xd6 We7 20 £>f5 Axf5 21 exf5?l (White is rattled; 21 gxfs! bxc3 22 ЛхсЗ was stronger) 21...bxc3 22 JLxc3 £)d7?! 22...£ie8! was more accurate. Now White has good compensation for the piece. 23 d6 (White could have managed without this move) 23...Wf7 24 f3 (24 Shell?) 24...1ab8 25 Sd5? Another slip - and this time the decisive mistake. 25 b3 would have maintained the balance. 25...^b6 26 Shdl (desperation: 26 Hd3 <$2)xc4 or 26 Sddl <^a41) 26...4bcd5 The immediate 26...e41? would also have won: 27 Jlxg7 Wxg7 28 f6 Hxf6! 29 Wxe4 $^xd5 30 Wxd5+ФЬ8. 27 Sxd5 27...e4! 28 f6 (or 28 l.xg7 exf3 29 Wxf3 Wxg7 30 b3 Hbe8) 28...Axf6 29 Hf5 ДхсЗ 30 3xf7 Sxb2+ 31 Wxb2 JLxb2 32 Se7 (after 32 lxf8+ ixfS 33 ФхЬ2 exf3 the black pawn queens) 32...exf3 33 Hel f2 34 Hfl Ad4 o-l In the 2nd game there was quite a lively battle; I tried to play as solidly as possible, but in a completely drawn endgame I suddenly blundered a piece! However, in his haste Pavlenko missed a win - it was obviously not his day. I remember not only my opponent’s grief, but also the reaction of the crowd of fans: they were as though benumbed - no one could believe in the sensational defeat of the local maestro. A few days later the Moscow weekly 64 published an article about the Baku Cup by the well-known chess arbiter Vladimir Dvorkovich: '...The tournament created great interest among Baku chess fans. Seven candidate masters and the master Oleg Pavlenko reached the quarter-finals, and in the final the higher-titled player met 12-
year-old Garry Kasparov (earlier we knew him as Weinstein, but he now uses his mother's surname). A sharp battle ended in victory for the 6th class pupil by 1У2-У2. Within two weeks the young holder of the Baku Cup will be leading the Pioneers Palace team of the Azerbaijan capital in the allunion tournament for the prize of the Komsomolskaya pravda newspaper.’ Meetings with the Greats My first chess idol was Boris Spassky. It was in 1969, when I was beginning to play chess, that he became world champion, and my dad was one of his fans. The match collection Petrosian-Spassky 1969 with excellent commentaries by the players’ seconds, Boleslavsky and Bondarevsky, was my first chess book. Apparently, this was a sign of fate: its special editor was - Alexander Nikitin! But when in 1972 Spassky lost the match in Reykjavik, my interest in him cooled - and I developed a childish admiration for Bobby Fischer (however, at that time who didn’t admire him!). And when I began studying chess seriously, my idols became Alekhine and Tai, whose play excited the imagination. My favourite chess reading was a book about Tai and Petrosian by Viktor Vasiliev, and a simultaneous game with Tai in the spring of 1974 was one of the most memorable events of my childhood. I keenly followed the sharp rivalry of the young Karpov with the ‘old hand’ Korchnoi - first in the Interzonal Tournament (1973), and then in the final Candidates match (1974). And the 21st game of this match was one that I even saw live: I was passing through Moscow, returning home from a session of the Botvinnik School, and Nikitin took me with him to the game. For the first time in my life I became absorbed in the amazing match atmosphere - that reverential quiet in the hall, occasionally broken first by murmurs of delight, and then of disappointment; to the seething of the press centre, where my trainer took me to ‘look at the thinking giants’. Then he took me back to the hall and left me there. Staring at the enormous demonstration board, I was stupefied: Korchnoi had a winning sacrifice! While the grandmaster was considering his 13th move, Nikitin returned. I whispered to him: 'Knight h7!' And he replied only ‘Y-yes...’ Obviously others had also noticed this: the spectators became animated. Korchnoi played this -and won quickly. This first, brief encounter with top-level chess left an indelible impression on me. Of course, I did not yet imagine that within a year I would be meeting both stars at the board... This happened in November 1975 in Leningrad, at the final tournament of the Pioneers Palaces. The line-up of the Baku team had changed significantly: Korsunsky and Magerramov were now too old, and of the ‘old-timers’ in the seven, only myself and Elena Glaz remained. The line-up of the captains giving the simuls’ was also half renewed: among them now were Smyslov, Karpov and Korchnoi! Although I was already playing much more strongly than in the previous such tournament, I again began with a loss to an ex-world champion - the imperturbable Vasily Smyslov. And I was terribly upset, since first I squandered an advantage, and then in one move (26 ^bd4? instead of 26 £)g3!) I lost an equal position. The next day I gained an enormous advantage with Black against the Alma-Ata master Boris Kataly-mov, but I 'did everything’ to avoid winning. By the time that the game was adjourned my opponent appeared to have
some saving chances, but I was nevertheless awarded a win on adjudication. In the 3rd-round match against the Kuy-byshev team I had an interesting game with Lev Polugayevsky. From the opening I did not achieve anything (cf. Game N0.9, note to White’s 2nd move), but I was able to initiate tactical complications. Thinking over his 14th move, the grandmaster sat down at my board - and ‘went to sleep’ for 40 minutes! As a result - a rare occurrence in a simul’ - his clock was going on all seven boards! Usually the simultaneous player does not allow this, but Polugayevsky was trying to solve a difficult problem: it turned out that the reply he had been intending would have lost a piece. In the end he found the only way of maintaining the balance and on the 26th move he offered a draw. I agreed, not seeing any real chances of success in a slightly better endgame. Polugayevsky breathed a sigh of relief - and won all the remaining games! In the 4th round I finally made the acquaintance of Anatoly Karpov, who was performing the role of captain of the Chelyabinsk team. He was 24 years old, and not long before he had inherited from Fischer the title of world champion. Even so, the first meeting with Karpov did not provoke in me the same trepidation, as in the previous year’s game with Tai. But the other lads in the team were nervous and they went along to the game as though they were already lost. In the foyer of the hotel, where the tournament was being held, I said: ‘What are you afraid of? Karpov is the world champion, but even he can make a mistake.’ Apparently these words were overheard, and the following day one of Karpov’s backers, the secretary of the local regional party committee, Tupikin, said to my mother: 'Bear it in mind: Karpov is unforgiving.' In its report on this round Soviet Sport wrote: ‘During Anatoly Karpov's simul’ with the juniors from Baku there came a moment when the world champion was left with only one opponent - 12-year-old candidate master Garik Kasparov. Karpov sat down opposite the young player and, naturally, the photographers did not miss this moment. The point is that Garik is one of our most talented young players, and who knows, perhaps sometime in the future there will be another Karpov-Kasparov encounter...’ Who could then have imagined that years later, over a period of six years, we would have to play some hundred and fifty games against each other and spend more than 600 hours at the board?! Game 11 A.Karpov-G. Kasparov Tournament of Pioneers Palaces, 4th round, Leningrad 8.11.1975 Sicilian Defence B92 1 e4 c5 2 ?-?jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l$Jxd4 £>f6 5 £кЗ аб I think this was the first time I played the Najdorf Variation. Before the game Nikitin showed me the latest subtleties of the Polugayevsky Variation: after 6 Ag5 e6 7 f4 bs!? 8 e5 dxeS 9 fxe5 Wc7 10 We2 4^fd7 11 0-0-0 Ab7 12 Wg4 one should play not 12...Wxe5, but 12...Wb6. I remember that I tried to find out from my trainer: ‘But what about this, and what about that?’ And he said to me: ‘Work it out at the board!’ However, Karpov chose his favourite 6th move... б Де2 e5 7 £)b3 Де7 8 Ag5 Although this move was occasionally employed by Fischer and Tai, it offers fewer
chances than the usual 8 0-0. But here 8...Ae6 9 f4 would have led to a well-known position from the recent Karpov-Polugayevsky Candidates match (1974). And the champion did that which simultaneous players always do: he tried to deviate and take me away from my home preparation. 8...±e6 (4) Earlier 8...^bd7 9 a4! was in fashion (Fischer-Olafsson, Reykjavik I960; Karpov-Balashov, 38th USSR Championship, Riga 1970). 9f4 In the aforementioned match Karpov played this with his bishop on cl, and in the event of 9-..exf4 he would have gained an important tempo for development. And after 9-.-Wc7 he used the tempo saved to squeeze Black on the queenside - 10 a4 (Game Nos.54, 56, 57 in Volume V of /Иу Great Predecessors). Now, however, Black is forced to capture on f4, and Karpov could have hoped that I would complicate matters unnecessarily, when he would be able to outplay me, even a tempo down. Firm control over the d5-point - 9 0-0 0-0 10 Jlxf6 JLxf6 11 Wd3 (after 11 <^d5 Petrosian and Fischer replied ll...<Sd71?) Il...£)c6 12 £}d5 - leads to a roughly equal position in the spirit of the Chelyabinsk Variation: 12...jig 5 and ...£)e7 (a manoeuvre, known from the game Taimanov-Boleslavsky, 17th USSR Championship, Moscow 1949), or first 12...Sc8 - as Tai played against K.Grigorian (39th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1971) and Hiibner (Tilburg 1980). 9 JLxf6 is of more current interest: 9-Axf6 10 Wd3 £>c6 (10...1.e7 110-0-0 ^d7 is also played) 11 0-0-0! (but not 11 £>d5 Ag5 12 0-0?! ^e71 Arnason-Kasparov, Dortmund 1980) ll...^d4 12 *^xd4 exd4 13 £)d5 £xd5 14 exd5 0-0, or ll...±e7!? 12 ФЬ1 0-0 13 £id5 Ag5 14 h41? £xh4 15 g3 Jlf6 with sharp play (Kramnik-Anand, Wijk aan Zee 2004). This line has now acquired a large amount of practice. 9...exf4 10 Axf4 (thus, Karpov has carried out the first part of his plan) 10...<2k6110-0 0-0 12 ФЫ In the variation with 8 0-0 this move would already have been made, and White would retain chances of seizing the initiative by 12 Wei. Ironically, a position has been reached from the very line of the Neo-Scheveningen - 1 e4 c5 2 £if3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ®xd4 £>c6 5 £ic3 d6 6 Ae2 2)f6 7 0-0 ±e7 8 ДеЗ 0-0 9 f4 e5l? 10 £sb3 exf4 11 l.xf4 ie6 12 <4>hl -which later I was intending to play against
Karpov in our first two matches (1984/85 and 1985), only here Black has played the additional move ...a7-a6, giving him an interesting possibility apart from 12...d5. 12...b5!? (2) An active ‘Sicilian’ thrust (incidentally, it did not occur any more in practice), although perhaps it would, nevertheless, have been better to maintain the balance with the typical 12...d5 13 e5 £>e4 14 A.d3 f5 or 13-..^d7 14 £>xd5 ^dxe5. In the Neo-Scheveningen, with the pawn on a7, these positions are problematic even today (cf. Revolution in the 70s p.151). 13 Af3?! After conceiving the rook manoeuvre via f2-d2, Karpov clears the necessary space for it. However, for the moment there is nothing for the bishop to do on f3, and the inactive knight should have been immediately brought into play - 13 4^d41- The exchange 13...^xd4 14 Wxd4 gives White some advantage in the centre, while after 13...^e5 both 14 a4 b4 15 ^d5 l.xd5 16 exd5 Wd7 17 Af3 and 14 £>f5 are possible. 13-..£>e5 (now there is a much more point to this move) 14 £>d4 Лс4 (9) 15 Sf2?l The start of a standard manoeuvre, but in the given instance it proves unsuccessful: the rook will not find any work on d2, and the coordination of the rooks is disrupted. 15 Bel would have retained equal chances - it looks more passive, but in variations similar to those in the game the rook is obviously better placed. Thus, it was not I who complicated matters unnecessarily, but Karpov... 15...b41 (10) 16 ®d5 ^>xd5 17 exd5 ±f6 18 Bd2 Despite the weakness of the c6-square, Black feels very comfortable, and White already has to think about how to equalise. 18 £ic6!? came into consideration, and if 18...Wb6 the sharp exchange sacrifice 19 Лхе5 Wxf2 20 JLxd6 Bfe8 21 Ag3 Wc5 22 d6 Ab5 23 Wd5. It is safer to play 19...Jlxe5 20 £bxe5 dxe5 21 Sd2 (21 Wei f5) 21...Wd6, blocking the passed d-pawn and planning ...f7-f5, ...e5-e4 and so on. Objectively here too Black’s chances are better. 18...Wb6 (I did not even consider 18...£>xf3: it is too early to exchange such a strong knight!) 19 ДеЗ 19...Wc7! (2) 'The position is a tense one, and at any moment a combinative explosion may occur. Great complications would have resulted from 19...Wb7 20 £>f5 ^xf3 21 Wxf3 ±xb2 22 Bbl ±c3 23 ±d4 ixd2 24 Jlxg7 f6 25 Wg4 Ag5’, wrote Viktor Khen-
kin. It is easy to see that after 26 Axf8! Hxf8 (26...±xa2 27 fixb4; 26...jLxd5 27 ixd6) 27 Wxc4 White has an overwhelming advantage: 27...Wd7 28 Wg4 *h8 29 Sxb4 etc. Therefore 25...Sf71 is correct, not fearing the discovered check. And if 25 Wg3 both 25...fif7 and 25-Wd7 are possible - everywhere White has no more than a draw. But why provoke the dangerous knight leap to f5? With the queen on c7 it clearly does not work (the d6-pawn is defended) and Black continues to build up his initiative. 20 Jce4 White’s problems would not have been solved by 20 b3 JLb5 21 Ae2 (after 21 ®>xb5 axb5 Black also has pressure on the a-file) 21...^.d7 22 аз Wc3 23 Wgl bxa3 (23...a51?) 24 fixa3 Bfe8 - the powerful knight on e5 and the weaknesses in the enemy position give Black the advantage (although it is unclear how great it is). 2O...flfe8 (it becomes uncomfortable for the white bishops on the e-file) 21 JLgl If 21 b3?!, then 21...jlb5 is again good, but it is also possible to play 21...®g6 22 xg6 (22 Wf3 ^h4) 22...hxg6 23 Wf3, when Black has a pleasant choice between 23...1.b5 24 ^.f2 l.d7 25 Badl lac8, 23...±xd5 24 Wxd5 Wc3 and 23...1.xb3 24 cxb3 Wc3, in every case with the better chances. Now he is again at a cross-roads. 21...g6 (4) A logical move, killing White’s counterplay on the kingside. Black prepares ...Д.д7 and ...f7-f5, and at the same time 22...±g5 23 Bf2 Ae3 is threatened. It also looks quite good to play 21...a5 22 a3 (Khenkin’s recommendation 22 Hf2 is worse in view of 22...®g6!) 22...Aa6 23 Hf2 ^d7, or immediately 21...<?kl7 with the intention of ...^2Yb6, attacking the d5-pawn. In either case Black continues to exert appreciable pressure on the opponent’s centre and queenside. 22 аЗ?! White needs to do something, and Karpov sacrifices the exchange. 22 b3 Ab5 is more solid. Now in the event of the gambit move 23 a3?l Ag5 24 Hf2 (24 axb4 Wc31) 24.-A.e3 25 axb4 (25 Sf6 4id71) 25-..Jlxf2 26 Jtxf2 Wc3l 27 I'el (27 g3 ^>g4) 27-.Wc8 the compensation for the exchange is insufficient and Black has every chance of winning: 28 4^xb5 (28 c4 ®d3l) 28...axb5 29 Дха8 Wxa8, or 28 Wd2 <Sbg4 29 ^.f3 <$Jxf2+ 30 Wxf2 Wc3 etc. There only remains 23 a4 ±d7 or 23 £ixb5 axb5 24 l.d4 <^d7 (24...Дд7! ?), when White’s position is inferior with the material equal.
22...Э5?! (6) When you are playing the world champion for the first time it is no great sin to fear the complications after the strongest continuation 22...Ag5l 23 Bf2 JLe31 (but not 23...bxa3 24 b3 ЛЬ5 25 c41), which enables the exchange to be won without any particular compensation for White: 24 axb4 (24 Sf6 We71) 24...^.xf2 25 l.xf2 f5 26 JLf3 £ixf3 27 Wxf3 Wb7 28 £)c6 He4 or 24 b3 £xf2 25 £xf2 ЛЬ5 26 axb4 Wc31 (cf. the variation from the previous note). Now, however, Black’s advantage is greatly reduced, although the initiative is still on his side. 23 axb4 axb4 24 Sxa8 Hxa8 25 b3 Лаб 26 £)c6 ®xc6?! (18) I was carried away by the idea of invading with my rook on the e-file, but this exchange is fundamentally incorrect, since it activates the enemy rook on d2, which hitherto has been trying in vain to find work for itself. 26...JLb51 would have retained the better chances for Black, for example: 27 JLd4 Лд5 28 Hf2 ^хсб 29 dxc6 Лхсб 30 Wf3 Se8! 31 Лхсб Bel+ 32 Ifl Exfl+ 33 Wxfl Wxc6 with an extra pawn, or 27 £kl4 l.d7 28 ^c6 Лд7 (28...^g41 ?). 27 dxc6 (attacking the d6-pawn) 27...fie8? ‘And this is already a mistake - Black tries for too much. The rook on the a-file was coordinating excellently with the bishop on f6, and all he needed was to give it scope by 27...ЛЬ5, after which it would not have been easy for White to guard the 1st rank and simultaneously maintain his сб-pawn. Even so, after 28 ЛЬ4 (28 Wf3 Лез) he would have gained a draw: 28...Jlxd4 29 Sxd4 Лхсб 30 Bxb4 (30 Hc4? d51 31 £xd5 We5) ЗО...Лхе4 31 Hxe4 Wc3 32 Bel Йа2 33 h3.’ (Khenkin) However, here Black has the thematic stroke 31-'Bfxc2l. Therefore instead of 30 Bxb4? White must play 30 Лхсб Wxc6 31 Bxb4, avoiding major problems and with accurate play attaining the haven of a draw: 31...WC3 (now 31-'Brxc2? is refuted by the spectacular 32 ДЬ8+! Фд7 33 Wd4+) 32 Да4 He8 33 Bal and h2-h3. 28 i.d5? A blunder in reply, typical of a simultaneous player: the fruit of not very deep penetration into the position when playing against several opponents. White was suddenly granted an opportunity to win a pawn and gain an overwhelming advantage - 28 Bxd6, but he did not do this, apparently because of 28...ЛсЗ 29 Bd7 Wf4, overlooking an elegant refutation: 30 He71.
Now the situation is again entirely favourable for Black. 28...1.C3 29 Hf2 Bel?! But this is a mistake typical of a young player: also the fruit of a shallow penetration into the position. Through inexperience I did not realise that it was not yet time for such a stroke! First the threats on the f-file should have been neutralised: 29...Ue7 30 Wf3 ®g7 31 g4 f6 32 g5 f5 33 Wh3 if 8 etc. The position had become extremely sharp, and it was not surprising that Karpov was spending the lion’s share of his time on my board. Alas, my team colleagues were unable to support me: the score was 5-0 in favour of the simultaneous player plus a strategically hopeless position for Lyosha Eppelbaum. Soon Lyosha also resigned, and Karpov and I were left face to face... 30 Wf3 My ‘subtle’ calculation - 30 Bxf7? Hxdl 31 Sxc7+ ФЬ8 32 ±f3 Scl with the irresistible threat of ...id4 said something about my inventiveness, of course, but it proved to be a simple little problem for the world champion. To the logical question ‘why has Black’s vitally important f7-pawn been left undefended?’ the answer was found immediately. 3O...±d4? A further error, which this time does not go unpunished. When I showed this game to Taimanov (after the tournament my mother and I, together with Nikitin, visited him at his home) he said: 'Of course, 3O...Be71 should have been played. Here Black has nothing to fear - all his pieces are in play.’ And although after 31 Wf4 ib5 32 Wh4 Де1 he would have lost a pawn - 33 =xf7 Sxf7 34 Wxel A,xc6 35 Axf7+ Wxf7 36 Wxb4, he would have been in no danger of losing: 36...Ш5 37 Wg4 We4 or 36...Wfl 37 Wb8+ W8 38 Wb6 (38 Wxf8+ <i>xf8 with a draw) 38...W3! with the unavoidable exchange of queens and a drawn ending with opposite-colour bishops. 31 A.xf7+ &g7 (4) 32 JLc41 Here is the punishment. In my preliminary calculations I missed this decisive retreat: mate at f8 is threatened, and the bishop at a6 is attacked. 32...axgl+ (9) ‘Black is rattled. The exchanging operation should have been carried out in a different order - 32..JLxf2 33 Wxf2 Bxgl+ 34 S-xgl Wxc6, although here too after 35 Wd4+ *h6 36 Дхаб Wxa6 37 Wxb4 We 2 38 W’c3 White would remain a pawn up.’ (Khenkin). This is too modest a summary! 35 Wa7+! Ab7 36 Wd4+ is far stronger and prettier. Now 36...ФЬ6 37 We3+ Фд7 38 We7+ ФЬб 39 Wf8+ Фд5 40 h4+ leads to mate, and Зб...4Т8 to the loss of two pawns: 37 Wh8+ Фе7 38 Wxh7+ A’dS 39 Wxg6. 33...ixc4 34 Wxel JLd5 was more tenacious, trying to draw with the queens and opposite-colour bishops. This is more like a middlegame, where White is the first to begin a victorious attack on the king: 35 Wh4! Wxc6 (35...Axc6 36 jld4+ and Wf6) 36
We7+ Фд8 37 £d4 Af7 38 h31 etc. 33 ‘A’xgl J.xf2+ 34 *xf2 Л.ХС4 35 bxc4 The queen endgame with the white pawn on сб is completely hopeless. 35...Wa7+ (2) 36 *e2 Wd4 (3) 37 Wd5 Wf6 38 We4 b3 (3) 39 cxb3 Wb2+ 40 Xfl Now the assistance of the king is not needed, and Karpov wins by hiding it in the corner. 4O...Wcl+ 41 Wei Wf4+ 42 *gl Wd4+ 43 ФИ1 Wb6 44 We7+ ФИ6 45 Wf8+ 1-0 A fighting game! A comment in the press: 'Garik Kasparov was very upset at losing to the world champion. “I had such a good position!" he lamented. The young Baku player was right. He held the initiative throughout almost the entire game, but he used it uncertainly, and in the end he made a fatal mistake.’ I had the following dialogue with a journalist from the Baku sports newspaper: ‘How do you explain your defeat at the hands of the world champion?’ ‘Perhaps by the fact that I remained one to one with him. Just imagine, sitting opposite you is the best player on the planet. And so I overlooked his combination.’ ‘And what lesson did you learn from this meeting?’ 'You have to fight to the last, even if you are in a winning position.’ In the next round I played a draw with Gennady Kuzmin. And at the finish we met the home team, from Leningrad, who were in keen competition with Moscow for 1st place. In addition, their captain Viktor Korchnoi was fighting for the best result by the captains. From the very start of the simul’ he was obviously very keyed up, nervously smoking one cigarette after another. I was angered when on the 2nd and 4th boards after 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 our lads played 3 exds!? against him. But I, as usual, chose the King’s Indian. Game 12 V.Korchnoi-G.Kasparov Tournament of Pioneers Palaces, 7th round, Leningrad 12.11.1975 King’s Indian Defence E80 1 d4 <£if6 2 c4 g6 3 £k3 Ag7 4 e4 d6 5 f3 £>c6 5...0-0 (Came Nos.51, 81) is more natural, but at that time against the Samisch I liked to save a tempo by delaying castling. 6 Лез аб 7 ^ge2 (7 Wd2 - Game No.15) 7...Sb8 8 £>cl (8 Wd2 - Game No.87) 8...e5 9 d5 <^d4 On seeing this move, Korchnoi looked at me and made a puzzled expression. 10 3 xd4?! Accepting the gambit at the cost of the exchange of this important bishop. I very much liked the idea of 10 4Jle2 c5 11 dxc6 Ьхсб?! (ll...^xc6 is more tedious) 12 <?Jxd4 exd4 13 Jlxd4?! Sxb2 14 £Jb5? <2Jxe41 (Platonov-Shamkovich, 39th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1971). In the semi-final of the Baku Cup (1975) Gazarian played 14
Sbl against me, but after 14-ЖхЬ1 and ...0-0 all the same he had an inferior position. 13 Wxd4! is correct, with the idea of 13...1xb2 14 0-0-0! <£ih5 15 e51, when Black is in trouble. But it is even better to play 10 ^b3!? (killing Black's desire for 10...C5 11 dxc6 ^xc6) 10...£>xb3 11 Wxb3 or 11 axb3 c5 12 b4 with the initiative. But Korchnoi always used to capture pawns, if he did not see a direct refutation (thus, in the event of 7...0-0 instead of 7...Sb8, if 10 Axd4? exd4 11 Wxd4 there would have followed ll...$ixe4! and wins). Nevertheless, the grandmaster's choice surprised me: I was sure that the power of the activated bishop on g7 would more than compensate Black for his small material deficit. 10...exd4 11 Wxd4 0-0 (now threatening ...^xe41) 12 Wd2 (after 12 Ле2 there would have followed 12...£>h5, and if 13 Wf2, then 13...c5! and ...b7-b5) 12...C5 Depriving the white knight of the d4-square and intending ...b7-b5 or ...£)h5 and ...f7-f5- I was very happy with my position: such activity, and for just a pawn! 13 a4 (an attempt to set up a bind - after 13 id3 £)d7 14 0-0 b5! 15 cxb5 axb5 16 ®xb5 c4 or 13 £ib3 i.d7 14 &e2 b5 15 0-0 bxc4 16 Лхс4 Sb4 Black has no reason for complaint) 13...^h5 (3) 13 -..^d7!? was more circumspect. 14 g4l (a bold, typically Korchnoi move, without prejudices!) 14...Wh4+ (4) I did not want to retreat my knight immediately... 15 ®dl?! But this ‘playing for a win’ is dubious. 15 Wf2 was more solid, although after 15-.Wxf2+ 16 &xf2 ±d4+ 17 Фе1 #tf6(f4) Black has good compensation for the pawn. 15...^f6 (8) 15... Wf6! 16 Ле2 ^f4 and ...Jld7, keeping the queens on the board, would have been far more unpleasant for White. 16 Wei Wxel+ (now nothing would have been given by 16...Wg5, for example: 17 h4 Wf4 18 ±e2 ®d7 19 ®d3 We3 20 Wgl, nevertheless exchanging the queens) 17 Фхе14kl7 18 le2 £>e5 (10) 19 Igl f5 (3) A crucial choice: after 19...g5 Black would have had equal chances thanks to his powerful knight on e5 and the dark-square blockade, but I preferred more complicated and dynamic play. 20 exf5 (or 20 gxf5 gxf5 and ...ФЬ8) 2O...gxf5 21 g5 (continuing to believe in the worth of the extra pawn) 2i..Jld7 (7)
28...£if3 29 Ad7 A natural developing move, but 21...Де81? (not allowing f3-f4) 22 !4>dl(d2) ®g6 and only then ...Jld7 was more subtle - this would have maintained the favourable tension. 22 Ф42?! (it was sounder to play the alternative 22 f4l £>g4 23 ±xg4 - 23 h3? Ad4 -23...fxg4 24 £>le2 or 22...<^g6 23 Efl Efe8 24 <4>d2 with approximate equality) 22...b5! (12) A completely unexpected thrust: after all, White is attacking bs with many pieces! From this point Korchnoi switched almost entirely to the game with me, and the two other draws which he made in the simul’ were to some extent a result of the chronic problems he faced here. 23 axb5 In the event of 23 cxb5 axb5 24 a5 (24 f4 bxa4l?) 24...C4 Black has an unpleasant initiative: 25 Фсг b4 26 <5ja4 b3+! or 25 a6 Eb6!? and ...Ea8. Therefore White reconciles himself to simplification, hoping to defend in an inferior endgame. 23...axb5 24 cxb5 JLxbSl (this was deeply calculated) 25 £>xb5 Sxb5 26 l.xb5 ^xf3+ 27 Фс2 £)xgl 28 <2id3 The attempt to imprison the knight on gl by 28 ДаЗ would not have succeeded after 28...ДЬ8 29 Sb3 f4. 29...^d4+ (6) Nowadays, without thinking, I would have played 29...£>xg5l, obtaining a sound extra pawn: 30 Efl c41 31 £)cl f4 or 30 Да4 ®f3 etc. 30 'S’dl f4 31 Ae6+ (seeking practical chances - 31 Наб f3 32 Фе1 <2}c2+ 33 <4’d2 f2 34 Де6+ ФЬ8 35 ±h3 ^d4 was clearly advantageous to Black) 31...^xe6 (7) The correct reply. Nikitin’s recommendation 31...Ф118 would have left White with more hopes of saving the game. 32 dxe6 f3 33 Ha7 Se8 (11) Safely avoiding a pitfall: 33...f2 34 £>xf2 Exf2 35 e7 ®f7 36 e8tf+! Фхе8 37 Sxg7 fixh2 38 b3 with real prospects of a draw. But 33...C4!? 34 e7 He8 35 £>f4 -ixb2 36 ^d5 Sf? would have retained a serious advantage. 34 Hf7 c4 (2) 35 £>f4?l (35 £>f2 Дхеб 36 fixf3 Jlxb2 37 ^g4 was more resilient) 35...Axb2?! (4) The sudden exchange of rooks would have been decisive - 35...Hf81. 36 "d5 Hxe6 37 Hxf3 <S’g7?! (4) This move suggests itself, but 37...He4! was more energetic. In such situations all the participants in the simuls’ - and I was no exception - dreamt, without spoiling
anything, of reaching the time control at move 45, adjourning the game and having it adjudicated. And there a win would be found by the grandmasters... But to make a dozen normal moves in a position with dynamic factors was not at all easy! 38$^e3 38...C3? (8) Alas, this cuts off the bishop on b2 and throws away the winning chances which would still have remained after 38...He41. 39 h4 Де5 (ЗЭ-.Фдб 40 4И5 with a draw) 40 ~T5+ 'i’gfi (2) 41 £>g3! (a very strong manoeuvre, creating adequate counterplay) 41...Se6 (4) 42 ld3 h6 (3) У2-У2 Draw agreed on Black’s proposal. Of course, I was terribly annoyed: to be one step away from victory over none other than Korchnoi - and I stumbled... My opponent was also upset: this game proved very difficult for him, and three draws against the Baku team deprived him of 1st place among the simul’ givers. Their ‘tournament’ ended as follows: Smyslov - 38 out of 42; Korchnoi - 37У2; Karpov and Polugayevsky - 37 (I should mention that it was rather easier for the first two, since the remaining captains had to play both of the strongest teams - Mos cow and Leningrad). The overall tournament was also won by the Muscovites, who together with Smyslov scored 54 out of 84 and finished ahead of Leningrad with Korchnoi (49У2), Kuybyshev with Polugayevsky and Chelyabinsk with Karpov (both 42), Baku with Bagirov (39), Voroshilovgrad with Kuzmin (37Уг) and Alma-Ata with Katalymov (30). My performance, 2У2 out of 6, was deemed comparatively satisfactory. Despite the fact that in the games with Polugayevsky, Karpov and Korchnoi I scored only one point, the character of the play showed that any result could have been possible! Nikitin: 'The hand of the little fighter was not yet firm, but in games with him grandmasters had to endure considerable difficulties. Not without reason, after the tournament Karpov, Korchnoi and Polugayevsky remarked on Garik's play. The world champion liked his “serious approach to the game", and Korchnoi - “his quite sober understanding of complicated positions". It has to be agreed that praise of this sort addressed to a twelve-year-old boy is an indication of his outstanding talent. To me it was evident that his first, timid steps along the road to top-level chess would soon be replaced by a leap...’ Young Champion My second USSR Junior (up to 18) Championship took place in January 1976 on the stage of the Tbilisi Chess Palace, which from then on became a noteworthy place for me. I was not expecting to win, since I was again the youngest player, some three to five years younger than my opponents. But in the depths of my heart there was nevertheless a glimmer of hope - and, as it transpired, not without reason.
I had gained experience and I no longer felt even slightly intimidated by my elders. I started confidently - 4У2 out of 5, including wins over Lputian and Yudasin. It appeared that the fight for the title would be between me and another pupil of Botvinnik’s school - 16-year-old Rafael Gabdrakhmanov from Kazan, with whom I drew after a sharp King’s Indian in the 3rd round. In the 6th and 7th rounds I slowed down - I made draws with Sturua and Vasilenko. But in the 8th, penultimate round, with Black I won a very complicated and tense Sicilian against Yurtaev, gaining revenge for my defeat the previous year in Vilnius. Thus before the finish Gabdrakhmanov and I had 6У2 out of 8, the 16-year-old Georgian adult champion Zurab Sturua was on 6, with Lanka, Vasilenko and a number of other contestants on 5У2. In the concluding round, the fight for first place unexpectedly became much sharper! Sturua had White against Gabdrakhmanov, and I - against the new hope of Latvian chess, the 15-year-old Zigurds Lanka. We all knew that, in the event of a share of first place, Gabdrakhmanov would have the best Buchholz score, Sturua would have a good one, and I would most probably have the worst. Therefore I needed to win, but I was already very tired and, as ill luck would have it, I played dreadfully. It was a strange thing: for the second time in a year I floundered in one of the fashionable lines of the Maroczy. Game 13 G.Kasparov-Z.Lanka USSR Junior Championship, 9th round, Tbilisi 17.01.1976 Sicilian Defence B39 1 e4 c5 2 W3 ^c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 - xd4 g6 5 c4 Ag7 6 ДеЗ ^f6 7 ®c3 ^g4 8 Wxg4 £^xd4 9 Wdl 4je6 10 Wd2 Was 11 lei b6 12 Де2 ДЬ7 13 f3 f5 14 exf5 gxf5 15 0-0 2g8 16 Sfdld6 17 аЗ?! (7) 17 ^dsI Wxd2 18 Hxd2 is far better (and above all - safer!), and if 18...Sc8, then 19 Sei! (Jansa-Reeh, Gausdal 1990). 17...f4118 Jlxf4 A repetition of my game with Yurtaev (Vilnius 1975). I8...W5’? A novelty, specially prepared by Lanka (previously he had not employed this variation). 18...Whs! 19 ^d5 (19 ДеЗ? Де5) 19...£>xf4 20 ^xf4 Wc5+ and ...ДЬ6 is even better, with excellent play for the pawn. Yurtaev preferred 18..Jld4+?! 19 'A’hl Wf5 and after 20 ®d5?! JLxdS 21 cxd5 ®xf4 22 ДЬ5+?! (22 g4 is equal) 22...S>f7 23 Wxd4?! (23 g4 Sxg4 24 Wc2 is more resilient) 23...1xg2 24 id7? (24 Hd2) 24...Hxh2+! 25 ФхЬ2 Wh5+ 26 ФдЗ ^e2+ he won. However, as later analysis showed, the accurate 20 Дез! could have set Black difficult problems. 19 ДеЗ (6) 19...Де5!? 20 £>d5? (3) A blunder. The fearless 20 g3! was correct: 2О...ДхдЗ 21 hxg3 Sxg3+ 22 &f2 Sxf3+! 23 Фе1! Sh3 24 Afl etc. 2O...Wh3! 21 ДН Wxh2+
White’s hopes have been dashed. However, Lanka did not play energetically enough, and after his inaccurate 27th move the situation became completely unclear. The time control was 45 moves in 2 hours 15 minutes, and we made the last moves in a wild time scramble. We each had literally a minute left, and on the 38th move I committed another blunder... Meanwhile, on the neighbouring board Sturua beat Gabdrakhmanov in good positional style and went half a point ahead. Now everything depended on the outcome of my game with Lanka. Alas, at that moment I was a hair's breadth away from defeat: Lanka could have won immediately on the 40th, 42nd and 43rd moves, and on the 46th he could still have retained serious winning chances. With fearful speed we passed the time control unnoticed, and the game was adjourned only after White’s 49th move. The game was resumed two hours later. I analysed the adjourned position with my Baku trainers Oleg Privorotsky and Alexander Aslanov and their Yerevan colleague Alburt Arutyunov. The mood was not a cheerful one: it wasn’t really believed that I would manage to save the game, and besides, everyone thought that even in the event of a draw I would catch Sturua but would still finish second because of an inferior Buchholz score. And although the situation with the Buchholz was not completely clear - not all of the last round games had finished - the home supporters were exulting in anticipation of a ‘golden double’: on the same stage Maya Chiburdanidze had just become girls champion of the country, and it appeared that Zurab Sturua would be about to join her. 49...Sb2?! Not the best sealed move. If 49-A.f3 we were planning 50 Дс8+! ФЬ7 51 Hc7, but 49-Ь51? 50 Жсб ±e5 was better, when no one could see a sure way to draw. 50 lc2l An excellent defence, found by Arutyunov. After 50 Дс4 JLf3 White has no good continuation: 51 Hc8+ Фд7 52 Дс7+ *f6 53 Дха7 ЛсЗ+ 54 &fl Axd5. 5О..ЛхаЗ?! Lanka was tired and he captured the pawn without any particular thought. Some chances of success were still offered by 5O...A.e5 51 ^d2 etc. 51 Д112+ (1) 51...*g7 52 Sg2 (it turns out that Black loses one of his bishops) 52...1,xb4+ 53 A’f 1! Apparently it was this move that was missed by Zigurds, who was expecting to win after 53 ^2? ±c5+ 54 ‘A’fl &f6 55 Дхд4 Фе5. But now he does not manage to bring his king to e5. 53...*f6 54 Sxg4 ±c3 55 Se4 (1) 55 *й?е2 was also possible. The draw is now obvious, but here, for no earthly reason, Lanka thought for a long time. That day, for the first time, we played on the stage, and while my opponent’s clock was ticking, I looked out into the auditorium where all our delegation was sitting.
And suddenly I saw how Aslanov obviously became excited and began quickly writing something down. Of course, I immediately grasped what was going on: Aslanov had made a mental calculation with incredible accuracy (he had a phenomenal memory), and had unexpectedly discovered that I had a better Buchholz score than Sturua. Not believing such good luck, he decided to calculate it all once more - on paper. And, realising that he was right, he began energetically gesticulating... 55-..®f5 56 le7 Ле5 57 Уха 7 Фе4 58 Hb7 (1) 58...$,d4 59 Фе2 Axd5 60 4>d3 'A-'A Times: 2.20-2.50. What happened in those seconds is forever engraved in my memory. Hardly had Lanka and I shaken hands, when the tall and corpulent Aslanov dashed from the seventh row to the stage and with the cry: 'Garik, Garik, you’re the champion!’ lifted me up in his arms. Unable to believe what had happened, for a full hour I kept repeating to myself: Tm the champion, I'm the champion...’ It transpired that during the adjournment session a miracle had indeed occurred. In this round my previous opponents played well, whereas Sturua’s opponents did less so. But the last to 'let him down' was his compatriot Zurab Azmaiparashvili, who won his adjourned game against Zaid. A draw in that game would have given us identical Buchholz scores, and then Sturua would have been declared champion on the greater number of wins. However, the Georgian trainers were so confident about the older Zurab's score, that they overlooked the game of the younger, and my final Buchholz turned out to be half a point higher! Thus for the first time I became junior champion of the Soviet Union - previously no one had done this at the age of 12 (and later only Gata Kamsky achieved this in 1987). At the closing ceremony Anatoly Bykhovsky, the senior trainer of the USSR junior team, read out the results, congratulated Maya Chiburdanidze and all the prizewinners on their success, and concluded his speech with these words: ‘What can be said about Garik Kasparov? When you become under-18 champion of the country at the age of 12, there is nothing more to say!’ Today I still have this famous photograph hanging up in my house: Maya Chiburdanidze and I stand happily on the stage of the Chess Palace... 17th January was in fact Maya’s birthday - she was 15. And her trainer Eduard Gufeld invited everyone ‘to drink to the future world champions’ (and indeed, just two and a half years later Chiburdanidze won a match for the crown against the great Nona Gaprindashvili!). After this Gufeld insisted that Maya and I should play a blitz match. I don't remember the exact score, but it was such that Maya burst into tears and said that she needed to go not to rest, but to work... Results of the 1976 USSR Junior Championship: 1. Kasparov and 2. Sturua - 7 out of 9; 3- Gabdrakhmanov and 4. Vasilenko - 6У2; 5-8. Lanka, Lputian, Kharitonov and Yurtaev - 6; 9. Yusupov - 5У2; 10-16. Azmaiparashvili, Dvoyris, Kengis... - 5, 24-28. M.Gurevich, Magerramov, Yudasin... - 4 etc. (altogether - 38 participants). Nikitin: 'A pleasant surprise! I felt that Garik might play well, but I did not expect such a result. On this occasion after the end of the tournament it was not a boy shedding tears of grief, as a year earlier, but his mother shedding tears of happiness. After congratulating the champion on his win, I immediately, so that he would not become conceited, reminded him of the large number of defi
ciencies in his “champion’s"play.’ From the magazine Shakhmaty v SSSR: ‘Only one player went through undefeated. Twelve-year-old candidate master Carik Kasparov demonstrated outstanding independence in his assessments and conclusions. His play is interesting and aggressive, and the young player is improving from tournament to tournament. Of course, Garik’s play is not without certain deficiencies, but he is very self-critical, and this is a guarantee of future successes.’ My victory in the all-union arena was greeted euphorically by the Baku sports officials: they were expecting me to make an immediate further surge, and thought that I was already capable of becoming a master. And, barely having celebrated my 13th birthday, I was included in an adult master tournament - a memorial to the first Azerbaijan chess master, Sultan Khalilbeyli (Baku, 11-28 May 1976). The line-up comprised four candidate masters and ten masters: the Baku players Pavlenko, Morgu-lev, Listengarten, Shakarov, Sideif-Zade and Korsunsky, plus a touring quartet - Kayumov, Nikolaevsky, Murey and A.Donchenko. Nikitin advised me not to play in this tournament: he felt that my nervous system was not yet ready for such a severe test. But I very much wanted to battle against masters! Alas, my trainer was largely right... A crisis came as early as the 2nd round, in my game with Magerramov. After equalising in the Open Variation of the Ruy Lopez, on the 20th move Elmar suddenly left a pawn en prise. By the 28th move I was already just a step away from winning, but here I ‘carried out a spectacular combination with a piece sacrifice’ - I made two terrible moves in a row, overlooked a deadly counter-blow by the opponent - and capitulated! I was in fact unable to recover completely from this heavy blow (whereas the 18-year-old Elmar, by contrast, quite confidently achieved the master norm, scoring the cherished 'plus four' - 8У2 out of 13). Pulling myself together, after a draw with Shakarov I even won against Aydyn Guseynov, but then I cracked under the fierce adult pressure, ran short of time, and lost to Velibekov (altogether ignominiously) and Korsunsky. After the game with Velibekov I returned home feeling crushed, lay on the divan with my face to the wall, and burst into inconsolable sobbing. Then my mother made ‘her’ move: she quietly went out to a neighbour's house and from there phoned Botvinnik in Moscow. Within a few minutes the phone in our flat rang, and my mother called me: 'Garinka, it’s Mikhail Moiseevich, he wants to speak to you.’ After a conversation with the Teacher I calmed down and said to my mother: ‘Mikhail Moiseevich admitted that he lost games that were even worse!’ Realising that the chance of becoming a master had been lost, I stopped feeling nervous and finished the tournament more than convincingly. First I won good, fighting games against Kayumov (a future winner of the Memorial) and Murey, and after a loss to Nikolaevsky I overcome the experienced Moscow master Anatoly Donchenko in ‘iron’ positional style. Came 14 G.Kasparov-A.Donchenko Khalilbeyli Memorial Tournament, 11th round, Baku 25.05.1976 Ruy Lopez C97 1 e4 e5 2 'f3 <2k6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Ла4 (2) 4...‘£>f6 5 0-0 (6) My hesitation was due to the fact that at that time I also used to employ both 4 Jlxc6
(the influence of Fischer - and Shakarovl), and 5 d4 (Game No.l). However, Nikitin nevertheless insisted that I should learn to play the ‘normal Spanish’. 5..Ле7 6 Hel b5 7 £b3 d6 8 c3 0-0 9 h3 £«5 10 ,:$.x2 c5 11 d4 Wc7 12 d5 (6) I always liked closing the centre, and besides, I had only a vague impression of the variations with 12 <?bbd2. 12...С4?! The master made this seemingly natural move almost without thinking, although 12...Ad7, 12...4be8 or even 12...^c4 is preferable, as Kuzmin played against me (Game No.31). 13 b4! (13) My opponent was surprised by this setup, which I prepared on my own for this game, having noted Black’s problems with his ‘bad’ queen’s knight. 13...cxb3 (13„.£ib7 14 a4 is also depressing for Black) 14 axb3 At first sight, Donchenko has achieved quite a good position: White has a backward pawn on the c-file. However, he has a clear plan for mobilising his forces - ±d2, JLd3, 4ha3 and so on, and if ...<ЙЬ7, then b3-b4, preventing ...<йс5 and threatening a possible c3-c4- Gradually Black begins to suffocate due to the congestion of his pieces and lack of space. 14...Ad7 14...^b7 is no better: 15 b41 ®d7 16 Jle3 <2bb6 17 4^a3 Jld7 (Kayumov-Dydyshko, Moscow 1979) 18 We2l £ia4?! 19 c4 or 18...Bfc8 19 led with an enduring advantage. 15 Ad2 Hfc8 (or 15...^b7 16 b41 a5 17 Ad3 Hfb8 18 ®a3 ^d8 19 We2, Kasparov-Crisofari, Bastia simul’ 2008) 16 id3 (3) It is probable that 16 'йаЗ!? was slightly more accurate. 16...Де8 17 ±fl (7) A solid, although non-essential move (I am not sure that the bishop stands better at fl than at d3). 17 £sa3l? was more consistent, or 17 Ae31? with the ideas of He2-a2(c2) and ^fd2. 17-..^b7?l Here the knight’s prospects are very obscure. It would have been better to leave it at a5 and play, for example, 17..JLd8l? 18 4}a3 We7(b7) with the typical idea ...ДЬ6, defending according to the principle ‘stand and wait’. Donchenko clearly underestimated the dangers of the impending squeeze. 18 b41 (2) 18...^d7 19 £>a3 4?bb6 20 ЛеЗ (8) 2O...Jtd8 (if 2O...±d7, then 21 Wb31 and Heel is strong - here 21...®c4?l is also
unfavourable because of 22 Дхс4! bxc4 23 Wc2) 21 Bd! Tbe storm clouds are gathering over Black’s position: there is the threat of £id2 and c3-c4. 21...£k4?l (Black no longer knows what to do) 22 Лхс4! I was very proud of this unexpected exchange of bishop for knight. Black’s replies are forced. 22...bxc4 23 £)d2 JLbS 24 Hal (3) With the unavoidable exchange on b5 and the seizure of the а-file. And the knight on b7 is still dead - White effectively has an extra piece. The conversion of the advantage, beginning from the 18th move, makes this game a textbook example. 24-..h6 (with the idea of ...Дд5, but the exchange of the dark-square bishops does not bring Black any relief) 25 £bxb5 (2) 25...axb5 26 ig5 27 He2! (2) 27...ДхеЗ 28 УхеЗ Wd8 29 Деа2 Bab8 Conceding the а-file in the desperate hope of creating at least a semblance of counterplay on the kingside. It did not help to play 29...g6 30 Ba7 Hcb8 31 Н1а6 Дха7 32 Bxa7 Wb6(f8) 33 Wai with a decisive invasion, or 29...Hxa2 30 Bxa2 Ba8 31 Wai Bxa2 32 Wxa2 ®f8 33 Wa6 Wd7 34 ^bc2 and ^a3, winning the b5-pawn, and with it the game. 30 Sa7 (4) 3O...HC7 31 Hla6 (2) 31...Hd7 32 Wai (7) 32...Ah7 33 g3 (2) 33».g6 341c6 h5 35 h4 (2) 35...g5?! (desperation: now White also has an attack on this wing) 36 Wdl (2) 36...*g6 37 ^f5 (2) 37-Wf6 38 Wd2 1-0 Times: 1.24-2.12. Two draws at the finish summed up my first battle with masters: 50% - 6У2 out of 13. And although this was a comparative failure, I gained valuable experience. Nikitin: ‘Every cloud has a silver lining. There were several pleasing games by Garik, in which a new and strong aspect of his playing style was revealed - an ability to build up positional pressure move by move. This was a sure indication that the rise of a newstar was not far off...' In July 1976 I went abroad for the first time - I took part in the World Cadet Cup (for juniors no older than 17), which was held in the small French town of Wattignies, outside Lille. Botvinnik was against this trip, but... according to Nikitin ‘it transpired that, alas, there were no 16-year-old players of comparable standard to our 13-year-old champion'. No other player had represented the USSR in the international arena at such a young age! But this was my sole achievement, and otherwise the trip brought me nothing but disappointment. Beginning with the results of this Swiss event: 1. Grin berg - 7У2 out of 9; 2. Chandler - 7; 3-6. Rogers, Petursson, Kasparov and Groszpeter - 6 etc., followed by a few other future grandmasters - van der Wiel, Nikolic, Hodgson, Moro vic and Pia Cramling (altogether -32 participants). I supposedly didn’t perform badly: I shared 3rd-6th (although on the tie-break the ‘bronze’ went to Rogers). This was how
the weekly chess newspaper 64 assessed my play: ‘not bad’. But my own verdict was more severe. I felt that I had conducted the tournament weakly and that I could have played much better against the leaders - this upset me. The main problems when facing older opponents were the demanding schedule and the unfamiliar surroundings. Of course, I was excited and I experienced a certain confusion on finding myself in a capitalist country (to put it simply, on another planet!). With me was neither my mother, nor Nikitin - instead of one of them, the person the Sports Committee sent with me was the Lvov trainer Viktor Kart. I was also disappointed that the tournament left hardly any time to see something of France. Before the trip I tried to find out everything about its history and customs, and carefully studied my grandfather’s map of the country. And what happened? We simply swept past all the historical monuments I had been so looking forward to seeing. But I couldn’t help noticing that things were substantially different to the Soviet way of life, although I was too young to draw any conclusions from this. I simply accepted it as a fact of life, as a result of our troubled history. At the very end of the summer, in the Or-lenok pioneers camp on the banks of the Black Sea, the next session of the Botvinnik School was held. Nikitin: 'The teacher strictly made Garik responsible for his oversights in Wattignies and as a sparring-partner he gave him one of the strongest pupils - 17-year-old Sergey Dolmatov, so that the latter would demonstrate that in the school they played better than in various foreign championships. But the "Massacre of the Innocents" did not take place: Garry scored 1У2 out of 2, demonstrating that the concept of nervous depression after a failure was not yet known to him.’ I have already described how Mikhail Botvinnik conducted the lessons - for example, in Volume II of My Great Predecessors (in the chapter ‘My Teacher’). Here is another sketch, from the pen of the prominent journalist Viktor Khenkin: Garik Kasparov, the 13-year-old candidate master from Baku, is showing his game, rattling off variations. One is struck by his erudition and general knowledge, which are amazing for his age. But when he states that he saw all this during the game, he is obviously making it up. "Don’t rush, Garik, give us time to think,” Botvinnik stops him. "You can calculate variations so quickly, but I cannot." Garik falls silent and gives Botvinnik a searching look. The analysis begins. Botvinnik finds a mistake in the lad’s play. "Why did you play that?” "This move has previously occurred, and Black achieved a good position!” Garik instantly gives the names of the players, the year and the place where they met. He has a wonderful memory. “Never take anything on trust”, says Botvinnik. "Always question, and seek the truth. There you see, a well-known move, and it turned out to be bad. Analyse this situation independently, without quoting the experts. Send the analysis in writing.” In the meantime Garik’s mother writes down the homework in a notebook. Apart from parental duties, she also performs the role of "second trainer”. From our first lessons Botvinnik sensed my striving for a dynamic, attacking style, and in my homework he included an analysis of Alekhine’s games. And at the age of 13 I wrote an essay on the topic ‘Games of the early Alekhine’! But Botvinnik warned me against being carried away by complexity for its own sake, and on one occasion he said:
‘You’ll never become an Alekhine if the variations control you, and not the other way round.’ This upset rue, but of course the Teacher was right. Later he wrote about this episode: ‘Kasparov stood out among the other pupils by his ability very skilfully to calculate variations many moves ahead. But Carry was an excitable lad, and I had to insist that he thought about a move before making it on the board. And I often said to him that there was a danger of him becoming a new Larsen or Taimanov.’ In October 1976 the Trans-Caucasian Youth Games were held in Tbilisi. There was a match-tournament of four teams: Azerbaijani, Armenian and two from Georgia. In this event I was fortunate enough to gain one of my most brilliant King’s Indian wins. My opponent was 18-year-old Smbat Lpu-tian, with whom I was later on friendly terms. We had been competing at the board since the spring of 1973, when in a friendly Azerbaijan-Armenia match Smbat lost with White, but twice defeated me with Black in the French Defence. But those were his first and last victories! That same summer we drew in the All-Union Youth Games in Vilnius, and then I began beating him game after game (Lputian made his next draw with me - in 2000, when he had already long been a grandmaster). Of course, on that memorable autumn day my friend and rival was dreaming of revenge. Game 15 S.Lputian-G.Kasparov Trans-Caucasian Youth Games, 2nd round, Tbilisi 16.10.1976 King’s Indian Defence E80 1 d4 2 c4 g6 3 £>c3 £g7 4 e4 d6 5 f3 <k6 6 АеЗ аб 7 Wd2 (Korchnoi replied 7 £ige2 Hb8 8 £tel - Game No.12) 7...ЙЬ8 8 аы The usual line is 8 £>ge2 (Came N0.87). But Smbat sees that for the sake of creating counterplay on the queenside Black is delaying castling, and he tries to get his attack in first. 8...0-0 (3) 9 b4 After 9 ^ge2 b5 (9--fie8!?) 10 cxbs axb5 11 b4 eS 12 dxe5 (12 d5 ®e7 13 £>g3(cl) is more solid, with hopes of an advantage) 12...£)xe5 13 *Sbd4 Ab7 14 JLxbS d5115 exds £>xds 16 <£)xd5 Jlxds Black has excellent compensation for the pawn (Lputian-Lanka, Baku 1979). 9...e5 (25) Impatience! Later I discussed this position with Gufeld and we came to the conclusion that the waiting move 9-^d7!? was more subtle: 10 ^ge2 He8 (10,..b5?l is premature in view of 11 cxbs axbs 12 d5 £)e5 13 ^d4) 11 аЗ еб, and if the white knight moves from e2, then immediately ...e6-e5 and if d4-d5 - ...£>d4. 10 d5 <5bd4 (2) 11 <?Yge2 (this is Lputian’s idea: White places his knight on e2 straight away, without losing time on ^ige2-cl-e2) 11...C5! What else? ll...^xe2 12 Дхе2 would merely have assisted White’s development.
12 dxc6 bxc6 It would appear that 12...<^xc6!? is also acceptable: 13 b5 (Stohl’s recommendation 13 Ag5 is ineffective because of 13...h6! 14 jlxh6 ®xe41 15 ^xe4 Wh4+ 16 g3 Wxh6) 13-..®a5 14 ^g3 (Crouch) 14-..axb5 15 £sxb5 Деб. However, I felt that the pawn sacrifice was more in the spirit of this variation, even if it was for problematic compensation. 13 ^xd4 exd4 14 Jlxd4 14...&e8!? (5) 14-.c5 15 bxc5 ^xe41 suggested itself, but I did not like the endgame arising by force after 16 fxe4 Sxbl+! (all the commentators began with 16...Ш14+?, allowing 17 Фе21, which is advantageous to White) 17 £>xbl Wh4+ 18 i’dl (18 Фе2? Jlg4+) 18...Wxe4 19 Jlxg7 Wxbl+ 20 Wcl Jlg4+ 21 <±-d2 Wxcl+ 22 Фхс1 Фхд7 23 cxd6 fid8 24 c5 Hc8 25 JLxa6 Жхс5+ 26 ФЬ2 - suggested by Gufeld in Informator and continued by Crouch as far as 26...1c6 27 JLb5 lxd6 28 ФсЗ, when ‘the outside passed pawn presents something of a problem for Black’. However, one which is by no means fatal: 28...<S’f6(f8) 29 a4 (29 Sei Леб) 29...Фе7 30 a5 ide 31 аб Фсу, gaining a draw. At any event, I decided for the moment to defer any blows in the centre, the ideas of which had already taken vague shape in my mind. 15 Ле2?! 15 b5?l axbs 16 cxb5 d5l is dubious for White (Stohl). But Lputian had two stronger and safer continuations: a) 15 Ad3 (Gufeld) 15...d51 16 cxd5 cxd5 17 e5 ®d7 18 f4 f6 (Stohl) 19 0-0 fxe5 20 Ла7! Sb7 21 ±f2 or 2O...la8 21 Лхдб! Sxa7 22 Лхе8 Wxe8 23 Wxd5+ ФЬ8 24 flbel with very complicated play, quite favourable for White; b) 15 a3 a5 16 b5 cxb5 17 cxb5 d5 18 ^.xf6 Wxf6 19 ^xd5 Wd6 20 Л.С4 (after 20 a4 f51 21 Лс4 ihS Black has good counterchances) 2O...Wxa3 21 We3 Wxe3+ 22 £>xe3 (Crouch) with an extra pawn and a safe position for White (although Black’s powerful bishop on g7 and his passed a-pawn compensate for the slight material deficit). 15...C5! 16 bxc5 In the event of 16 Лез cxb4 17 £>dl (17 £>d5? ^xd5 18 Wxd5 Леб - Stohl) 17„>a5 or 16 JLxf6 ±xf6 17 0-0 cxb4 (17-Ле51?) 18 <?3d5 Лд51? (Stohl’s move 18...a5 is also good) 19 f4 ЛЬ6 Black has no reason for complaint. But now he solves his problems with an unusual dynamic possibility, breaking through at virtually the most fortified point in the opponent’s position.
16... ^xe41! (1) A stunning blow, exploiting tbe overloading of the knight on c3. ‘It is interesting that from the 10th to the 24th move Garik spent only 15 (!) minutes, although the entire lengthy combination with the transition into a won endgame was not prepared at home. But the ideas implemented were not new to him: they had become a technical weapon after his persistent independent work on the study of classic King’s Indian games.’ (Nikitin) 17 fxe4 Wh4+ 18 g3? Smbat made this move quite confidently. It stands to reason that, if he had seen what awaited him, he would have played differently. He had three other possibilities: a) 18 4dl? ДхЬ1+ 19 £)xbl Wxe4 20 Axg7 Wxbl+ 21 Wcl Wxcl+ 22 Фхс1 Фхд7 23 <4d2 dxc5, and Black is a sound pawn to the good; b) 18 'S’fl?! Sxbl+ 19 <^xbl Wxe4 20 Axg7 Wxbl+ and now: bl) 21 Adi Фхд7 22 cxd6 Se6 23 Wd4+ Фд8! (Stohl’s move 23-Sf6+ is unclear because of 24 Фе1!) 24 4'f2 (24 c5? Se4! and wins) 24-.lfxa2+ 25 ФдЗ Wa3+ 26 Af3 Sxd6 27 We5 Se6 28 Wd4 We7 also with an extra pawn, the conversion of which, how ever, is not easy; b2) 21 Wdl Wf5+ 22 Af3 Фхд7 23 cxd6 (Crouch’s move 23 Wd4+(?l) is weaker in view of 23...Фд8 24 cxd6 Ab7!), and now not 23...Аеб?! 24 Wd4+ Фд8 25 &f2! Wc2+ 26 ФдЗ Wxc4 with a draw (Quigley-Henry, Chicago 1987), but 23...We5 (here Stohl considers 24 ^2(?) We3+ 25 ФдЗ to be ‘drawn’, overlooking the deadly 25..Ле4!) or 23...Wf4(c5) with an unpleasant initiative for the pawn; c) 18 Af2! (the only move to maintain the balance) 18...Axc3 19 Axh4 Bxbl+ 20 ^f2 Axd2 21 Hxbl dxc5 22 Hb8! (this is rather more forceful than Stohl and Crouch’s move 22 Ad3) 22...Ac3 23 Ag5 or 22...Af4 23 fia8 Ae5 24 Ag5 Ad4+ 25 Ae3, and the endgame is a draw. 18...Sxbl+ 19 'A’fZ Of course, not 19 £ixbl? Wxe4. I remember that after this move Smbat was about to stand up from the board (indicating that everything was clear - it was time for Black to resign), but I did not allow him to stand up, instantly moving my rook one square. 19...fib2i! One of my trademark combinations, conceived thanks to very rapid calculation and a sharp feeling for dynamics: I used to see such tricks immediately! Stohl associ
ates this finish with the brilliant win by the 13-year-old Fischer over Donald Byrne (Game No.50 in Volume IV of My Great Predecessors). During a game Lputian was normally imperturbable, but at that moment, on seeing my move, his face changed - it was clear to him that disaster had struck. Nevertheless Smbat found comparatively the best chance, involving an exchange sacrifice. 20 gxh4 (of course, not 20 Wxb2? jlxd4+ 21 Фе1 Jlxc3+ 22 Wxc3 Wxe4 and wins) 2O...lxd2 21 Axg7 <: xg7 22 ФеЗ Bc2 (2) Here I realised that I would have to return the exchange: after 22...Sb2? 23 cxd6 f5 24 c5 White's passed pawns are too strong. 23 *d3 Bxc3+! (2) Again in the event of 23-.Bb2? 24 cxd6 f5 25 Af3 or 25 Bel fxe4+ 26 ФеЗ Black cannot break through. 24 ФхсЗ dxc5 25 A.d3 ДЬ7 (2) Although material is equal, White’s pawn weaknesses make his position lost. 26 Bel (26 Bbl?! ±xe4 27 Bb6 ±xd3 28 ФxdЗ Ee6 - Stohl) 26...Be51 This accurate move is ‘the last nail in the coffin’ (Nikitin). And indeed, Gufeld’s suggestion 26...f5(?) 27 e5 Ae4 28 Дхе4 Bxe5 after 29 ФdЗ would have led only to a draw: 29..^f6 30 h3 h6 31 Be2 fxe4+ 32 Bxe4 ФЬ5 33 Bxe5+ Фхе5 34 ФеЗ ФТ5 35 ±f3 a5 36 hSl g5 37 а4Фе5 38 ФеЗ. 27 a4 (27 Be2 Ш15 28 e5 Ac8! and wins -Stohl) 27...f5 (12) 28 Sbl Jixe4 So, Black has won a pawn and White’s counterplay on the queenside is too late, since the passed f-pawn advances swiftly towards the queening square. 29 Bb6 29 a5 Axd3 30 ФxdЗ f4, etc., was also hopeless for White. 29...f41 (3) Nearly all Black’s moves from the 15th to the end of the game are the first line given by the computer! 30 Hxa6 f3! (3O...±xd3? 31 ФxdЗ f3 was inaccurate because of 32 Ba7+ Ф^б 33 Ba8 - Stohl) 31 Afl Or 31 Ba7+ Фfб! 32 Axe4 (32 Afl JLf5) 32,.,Sxe4 33 Ba8 Фе7 34 Ba7+ Феб 35 Ba8 Hxh4 36 Bf8 Bh3 37 a5 Фе7! 38 Hf4 g5 39 Bf5 g4 and ...Bxh2, winning. 31...Af5! (with the threat of ...Sei) 32 Ha7+ ФИ6 33 Фd2 f2 34 fi.e2 ,2.g4 35 ±d3 Bel 36 Bf7 JLf 5! 37 a5 A.xd3 (2) 38 Sxf2 Sfl! 0-1 Times: 1.46-1.10. Nikitin: ‘The complexity of the young player’s ideas, the accuracy of implementation and the broad range of techniques employed create a great impression.’ In November my Pioneers Palace team failed by a miracle to win the next qualifier for the final ‘tournament of young hopes’, although on top board I scored 6У2 out of 7. Perhaps this was for the best: I was already facing other tasks. During the qualifying tournament the Lvov grandmaster Oleg Romanishin gave a demonstration simul’ against the leading young players. Against me he played 1 f4, but after l...d5 2 ®f3
3 e3 Ag4 4 b3 'Tbd7 5 l.b2 c6 6 ,i.e2 ‘ЙС7 7 0-0 Axf3 8 Axf3 e5 9 d3 A.d6 10 g3 0-0-0 11 c4 dxc4 12 bxc4 h5! 13 Wc2 h4 14 ®c3 hxg3 15 hxg3 exf4 16 exf4 g51 Black won with a direct attack on the king. At the end of 1976 a noteworthy event occurred in the life of Alexander Nikitin - a clash with the all-powerful Anatoly Karpov (this is described in Volume IV of My Great Predecessors). At the demand of the world champion my Moscow trainer was dismissed from the chess section of the USSR Sports Committee. Nikitin: ‘When I left, I publicly promised to dethrone Karpov! Everyone knew what would be done for that. From then on my training work with the young candidate master acquired a new, powerful stimulus.’ That year is also memorable for me in that I began individual lessons with Alexander Shakarov, who, in contrast to Privorotsky, placed the emphasis on opening preparation. We did a great amount of work on expanding and renovating my opening repertoire. For White we thoroughly prepared 1 d4, for Black - the Caro-Kann Defence, and so on. By the end of December I had the feeling that I was moving on to some new level. The results were soon seen... Two-Times Champion! In January 1977 I set off to Riga for my third USSR Junior Championship. It is well known that it is always more difficult to defend a title than to win it: against the champion everyone plays with redoubled energy. Especially since among the participants in the traditional Swiss there were, as usual, a number of experienced fighters, including masters - my rival of the previous year, Sturua, as well as Taborov and Yusupov, who had only just achieved the title. I made my usual good start - 3У2 out of 4. I remember my win with Black against the Yerevan player Eolian in what was a new opening for me - the Caro-Kann Defence. Tai: ‘Soon after it had finished, I happened to analyse with Kasparov his game with Eolian. And again I was staggered by the wealth of variations and ideas that the junior from Baku put into effect during this rather tense encounter.’ After four rounds I was leading the race together with 15-year old Evgeny Pigusov from Kemerovo, one of the strongest young players in Russia, a future grandmaster and, incidentally, one of my seconds in the match with Anand (1995). In the 5th round the crucial duel between the leaders took place. Came 16 G.Kasparov-E.Pigusov USSR Junior Championship, 5th round, Riga 11.01.1977 Queen's Gambit D36 ld4 This was the third time I tried this move in a serious game (I first played it in team competitions at the end of 1976 against Eolian and Sturua). I don’t remember who first advised me to adopt 1 d4 - Botvinnik or Makogonov. But the result was that the closed games began to dominate in my repertoire, although periodically, especially in the 1990s, I almost exclusively played 1 e4. I...d5 2 c4 e6 3 4Jf3 4 <Sk3 £Jbd7 A surprise. After the usual 4..Ле7 at that time I used to employ the variation with 5 if4. But now the Karlsbad Variation arises. 5 cxd5 exd5 6 ±g5 Ae7 7 еЗ c6 8 JLd3 0-0 9 Vc2 Ee8 10 0-0
10 h3 £rf8 11 ДТ4 followed by 0-0-0 is also possible (Game No.42 in Volume III of My Great Predecessors). 10...®f8 11 fiael 11 flabl and b2-b4-b5 is a routine and age-old plan. But I used to treat my favourite Karlsbad Variation like Marshall and Botvinnik - I prepared <йе5, f2-f4 and an attack on the kingside. should not rush with 15 e4?l (Udovcic-Robatsch, Maribor 1967), in view of the relieving manoeuvre 15...dxe4 16 ^xe4 W6. However, 15 Wf2 is quite good, with the idea of 15...f6 16 £>f3, when Black has an unpleasant position. Here the theory came to an end, and we began creating at the board. ll..Ag6?! The classical tabiya after ll...£te4 12 Дхе7 Wxe7 13 Дхе4 dxe4 14 £>d2 f5 (14...b6 15 Wa4l, Botvinnik-Robatsch, Amsterdam 1966) 15 f3l exf3 16 £ixf3 Деб 17 e4 fxe4 18 Sxe4 (Marshall-Rubinstein, Moscow 1925) seemed to me to be quite promising for White, but modern practice has shown that Black is close to equality. 12 £>e5 (4) 12...£)d7 One of my 1976 games went 12...®xe5 13 dxe5 ^g4 14 Дхе7 Wxe7 15 f4 Wh4?l 16 h3 £sxe3 17 ДхеЗ d4 18 Se4l dxc3 19 f5 with an attack. If 12...®g4 there would also have followed 13 Дхе7 Wxe7 14 f41 (but not 14 £>xg4 Дхд4 15 f3 A.d7 16 e4 Wb4 17 Wf2 W4 with equality, Bagirov-Zilberstein, Baku 1972). 13 Дхе7 Wxe7 In the event of 13-.Дхе7 14 f4 £>gf8 (14...£>dxe5?l 15 fxe5 is weaker) White 14 f4 (15) 14...^gf8?l With the queen on e7 this is not the best choice, although White’s chances are also better after 14...^dxe5 15 fxe5 or 14...®f6 15 h3!?. 15 e4! (9) Now the breakthrough in the centre suggests itself, since both 15...£rf6? 16 exd5l and 15-..dxe4?l 16 ®xe4 ^f6? 17 £ixc61 followed by ^xf6+ are bad for Black. 15..Ллхе5 (if 15...Wb4, then simply 16 Wf2) 16 fxe5 The initiative would also have been retained by 16 exd5l? £>f3+ 17 gxf3 Wd8 (17..>xel?l 18 Дхе1 Жхе1+ 19 &f2 He8 20 f5 is worse for Black) 18 f5 £d7 19 &hl etc. 16...Де6 17 exd5 «xd5 18 ^xd5?! (8) A premature exchange, opening the c-file for Black. The bishop was nicely but ineffectively placed, and it could not move in view of the threat of <2te4-d6. Thus White should have considered 18 Hf4l?.
18...cxd5 19 Af5 This move, taking control of the c8-square, was one that I was proud of at the time - nothing would have been given by either 19 Wb3 or 19 Sf3 Wh41. However, 19 Be3l? was sharper and more interesting, with the idea of 19...Wh4 20 Wa4 or 19...Wb4 20 Wf2. 19—Wb4 (by attacking the d4-pawn, Black diverts the queen from c2 and prepares ...^e6) 20Hdl (6) 2O...H6 2O...g6 21 Дд4 £>e6 was also possible. It is now apparent that White has delayed somewhere. 21 Wf2 (2) 21...Se7 A solid move, after which I stopped to think: what to do next? 21...4be6 was also suitable, not fearing 22 Axe6 fxe6 23 Wf7+ ФЬ8. Here 22 Jlg4(bl) is better, still with hopes of an advantage. 22 Sd3 (31) 22...1C7 (after 22...^e61? it would have been harder for me to find an effective plan for strengthening my position) 23 Sb3! (7) The start of 'grand manoeuvres' by the white rook and the black queen. 23...We7?! 23...Wa4 is more active, eyeing the аг-pawn and continuing to attack the d4- pawn, although after 24 ДсЗ!? 2xc3 25 bxc3 fie8 26 Дс2 Wd7 27 i.b3 or first 27 Wf3 White has some pressure. 24 Eg3 (3) 24...®e6 (24...Sc6?l 25 Wd2l) 25 We3 (5) 25...ФИ8 26 h3 (4) With the intention of ФЬ2. White’s threats on the kingside are mounting. 26...Wb4? (reckless - the rook on a8 should have been brought up to the defence) 27 "g4? (2) 27 JLxe6 fxe6 28 Hf6! with an attack was very strong, but again I did not want to exchange my bishop... 27...Wxb2 28 ФИ2 (7) In the future such a ‘quiet’ preparatory king move was to become one of my favourite devices. 28...Wb4? An unfortunate retreat by the queen -here every instant is precious! 28...ДсЗ! would have led to sharp play: 29 Wei (the commentators recommended 29 Jld3, but after 29...Wa3 or 29...Bf8 Black holds on) 29...^g5! (with the threats of ...Hxh3+ and ...2>f3+!) 30 Hf2 Wb4! or 30 Hgf4 Hg8. 29 i.d3? (5) Again rejecting 29 JLxe6 fxe6 30 Ilf 6! We 7 (3O...4Ti7 31 Sh4) 31 Hxh6+ gxh6 32 Wxh6+ Wh7 33 Wf6+ Hg7 34 Eh 4 with a straightforward win.
29...We7? The decisive mistake - Pigusov overlooked my reply. If 29-Hac8 there was the unpleasant 30 fif6! ®g5 31 Sd6 with the threats of Bxd5 andh3-h4- But 29...Wf8 was more resilient. 30 Sf6! (3O...Wf8 was now too late in view of 31 Wf3! with the threats of Sxh6+ and Wf5) 31 Sxg5! (2) 31».hxg5 32 Wxg5 Ag8 33 Wh4 Or 33 Wf5(h5), also with an irresistible attack. 33...Wa3 The poor queen cannot find anywhere to go. However, things would also have been hopeless after 33-.g6 34 Axg6! fxg6 35 Hxg6+, or 33->d8 34 Wh7+ &f8 35 Wh8+ (35 Bf3I?) 35-.*e7 36 Bxg7 Wg8 37 Wh6l. 34 Hf3 (more than good enough to win, although 34 Wh7+ 4>f8 35 Wh8+ Фе7 36 Wxg7 Sf8 37 Sd6! was more forceful) 34...g6 35 ±xg6 Wxf3 36 Wh7+ *f8 37 gxf3 1-0 Times: 2.05-2.13. Despite the mistakes, this was an important win for me, after which I sensed the first signs of approaching chess maturity, and the forming of my trademark style: increasing pressure and a sudden mating finish! Nikitin: ‘This game was one of those that evoked happy memories in Botvinnik: this was roughly how he used to win during the years of his chess supremacy.’ After taking the sole lead, the next day I again employed the Caro-Kann Defence with Black, this time against my previous year’s ‘tormentor’ Zigurds Lanka. This is what Tai wrote about my play in this game: 'A big impression was made by his queen manoeuvres on moves 18-19, prepared together with his second, the thoughtful master Alexander Shakarov, and then the elegant ‘cavalry dance'. After exchanging all White's active pieces, the Baku junior broke through with his rook into the enemy rear, and the loss of material for White became inevitable.’ Game 17 Z.Lanka-G.Kasparov USSR Junior Championship, 6th round, Riga 12.01.1977 Caro-Kann Defence B19 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 3 dxe4 4 -Txe4 .S.f5 In my choice Tai keenly discerned the influence of Makogonov and Botvinnik. But the main point was that the Caro-Kann
Defence was a favourite of Shakarov, who had discovered several ‘holes’ in Bole-slavsky's opening analyses. It was while studying the complicated positions, arising here deep in the middlegame, that I developed a liking for long forcing variations. 5 £>g3 Ag6 6 h4 In the 4th round Eolian played 6 Дс4 against me, but after 6...e6 7 £11е2 £>f6 8 0-0 (or 8 £rf4 Ad6, Tai-Botvinnik, 17th match game, Moscow i960; 2nd match game, 1961) 8...Ad6 9 f4 Wd7l? (recommended by Boleslavsky; 9...®c7 10 f51) 10 <Й₽Ь1?! h51 11 f5 exf5 12 €tf4 ^.xf4 13 fixf4 h4114 Wel+ 448 15 ®e2 h3 he did not gain the desired compensation for the pawn. 6...h6 7 2>f3 £>d7 8 h5 Ah7 9 JLd3 Axd3 10 Wxd3 e6 (2) 11 Jid2 4gf6 12 We2 At that time a popular line, which had temporarily supplanted the usual 12 0-0-0 Wc7 13 We2 or 13 '5je4 (Game No.29). 12...Wc7 13 c4 JLd6! (13...0-0-0 14 £>e5 or 14 c5, Karpov-Hort, Ljubljana 1975) 14^5 14...0-0!? (2) An analytical development with respect to the 8th game of the Spassky-Karpov Candidates match (1974), which went 14...^f4 15 Axf4 Wxf4 16 £)e3 (Game N0.62 in Volume V of My Creat Predecessors). 14...О-О-О?! is less good: 15 €^xd6+ Wxd6 16 Да51 Hde8 17 ®e51 (Karpov-Pomar, Nice Olympiad 1974). 'Kasparov employed a paradoxical continuation which, to all appearances, was a marked improvement for Black’ (Tai). For those times this was a rather revolutionary conception: Black castles into mate! However, according to our analyses, after an early ...b7-b5 he had adequate counterchances. 15 ^xd6 Wxd6 16 Sh4 Black is not caused any problems by 16 ДсЗ b51 17 cxb5 cxb5 18 Wxb5 4hd5 19 <^e5 <£)xe5 20 dxe5 4hxc3 21 bxc3 Wc7 (Beliavsky-Bagirov, Baku 1977; Kapengut-Kasparov, Daugavpils 1978). 16 0-0-0 is more critical: 16...b5! 17 g4! (17 cxb5 cxb5 18 ФЬ1 b4 19 £>e5 £)d5 with counterplay on the queenside, Lukin-Gorshkov, Chelyabinsk 1975) 17...bxc4 (V-.^xgq!? 18 Shgl f5 is also unclear) 18 g5 hxg5 19 h6 g6 20 h7+ ®xh7 21 £>xg5 ^xg5 22 Axg5, but here too after 22...C31 (22...f6? 23 ’ЙЫ with an attack, Mnatsa-kanian-Bagirov, Kirovakan 1978) White has no more than a draw: 23 We5l? cxb2+ 24 ФЬ1 Wxe51 25 dxe5 f6l 26 lxd7 fxg5 27 Hhh7. On encountering a new variation for the
first time, Lanka made a rather mediocre move with his rook. White's idea is understandable: avoiding 16 0-0-0 b51, he wants to hide his king on fl and play g2-g4-g5 or £ie5. But nothing useful comes of this. 16...b5! (10) 17 Afl bxc4 (3) 18 Wxc4 18...Wd51 (10) By offering to go into an endgame, Black emphasises White’s main problem in such positions - the weakness of the h5-pawn. After some thought, Lanka decided to give it up immediately, but to keep the queens on. 19 We2?l (19 Дс1 was nevertheless better) 19..>b5?! (5) Insisting on an endgame - that is what Makogonov taught! The ‘Greek gift’ could perfectly well have been accepted -19...£>xh5!, not fearing 20 g4 £>hf6 21 g5 hxg5 22 Axg5 Wb5(f5) or 22,..Sfb81? with a good game. But I didn’t use to capture such pawns: why open lines for the enemy pieces? 20 b3 a5 (4) 21 <^e5 a4 (6) 22 ДИЗ?! A poor move. White could still have maintained equality by 22 ^xd7 ^xd7 23 b4 or 22 b4! with counterplay on the c-file. 22...fifd8! (2) A very strong reply, excluding 23 b4? in view of 23...®xe5 24 dxe5 Hxd2. White is forced to exchange queens - immediately or after 23 Ael £id5. 23 Wxb5 cxb5 (getting rid of the weakness on c6) 24 ^>c6 Lanka forces a modest withdrawal by the black rook. But this temporary activity does not compensate for the defects of White’s position: the d4- and h5-pawns are weak, and the d5-point is under Black’s complete control. 24...fie8 25 bxa4 bxa4?l (2) 25...Sxa41 26 a3 or 26 ДЬЗ <2A>8! was more accurate, driving the knight from c6 and beginning a pursuit of the white pawns. 26 Scl £Ъ6 (4) 27 £)е5?! (the knight should not have been moved away - 27 Фе21 was more sensible) 27...&ec8 (13) Now White’s position deteriorates. 28 ДЫ Possibly it made sense to sacrifice the h5-pawn - 28 Hhc3l? Hxc3 29 ДхсЗ with the idea of 29...®xh5 30 Дс71, although after 29...^bd5! all the same Black would have retained the advantage. 28. .Лк4 28...<^bd5!? 29 Ael Дс2 was even more unpleasant, but as it is White has a difficult position, and Lanka loses it very quickly. 29 Ael £id5 (8) 30 ДЬ7?! (solid moves such
as 30 Hd3 or 30 £>d7 were more resilient) 30—<£)d6 (Zigurds obviously overlooked this retreat) 31ДЬ2?! 31 Bd7 Даб 32 4?bd31 really was better, although after 32...^f6 33 4£>c5 ?^xd7 34 £>xa6 ^b5 White would have faced a difficult defence. 31—ДаЬ8?! (missing 31...Sell with a quick win) 32 Sxb8 ДхЬ8 33£>d7? The decisive mistake. 33 ДаЗ Да8 was the only way to resist. 33-flbl! (8) 34 ДаЗ ®c4! (the triumph of the black knights!) 35 fld3 (35 Дха4 ^d2+! 36 Фе 2 <£>c3+!) 35—Да1 (2) 36 g3 Дха2 37 -Ус 5 a3 0-1 Times: 1.55-1.25. An important game, showing that my play was becoming more profound and that with Black I could successfully employ not only the Sicilian, but also a comparatively quiet positional opening. Behind this stood both intensive sessions with Shakarov, and conversations with Makogonov... The broadening of my opening repertoire also did not escape the attention of the experts and the press. That which happened at the finish was not expected by anyone: in a tense struggle I managed to win all my remaining games - against Kengis, Yusupov and Sturua - and to finish ahead of the second prize-winner by two points! The results of the 1977 USSR Junior Championship: 1. Kasparov - 8У2 out of 9; 2. Chernin - 65/z; 3. Yusupov, 4-6. Eolian, Lanka and Taborov - 6; 7-10. Sturua, Kuporosov, Pigusov and Gabdrakhmanov -5У2, followed by Kengis, Yurtaev, Ehlvest, Epishin and Rozentalis, etc. (altogether 36 participants). A second successive victory in the junior championship of the country, and with a record score - at the age of 13 no one had achieved this! Tai called it a 'a highly promising announcement'. Petrosian and Korchnoi, who did the ‘golden double’ in 1946 and 1948, were almost 17 years old... Pavel Dembo, the Sovietsky sport correspondent: ‘Kasparov confidently retained his champion’s title. It was not just that the first time he won it thanks to the better tie-break, and the second time "cleanly", conceding only half a point in nine rounds. It was his qualitatively different play: the 12-year-old Garik, like most of his contemporaries, saw before him only one target - the enemy king - and he played for mate, whereas the 13-year-old Garik, now in contrast to most of his contemporaries, has a confident mastery of many types of chess weapon, which at the championship he convincingly demonstrated.’ Anatoly Bykhovsky: “Kasparov’s play was wide-ranging: he conducted an excellent attack in his game with Pigusov, won in purely positional style against Lanka and Sturua, resourcefully and tenaciously defended in his game with Yusupov, and caught Gitsyn in the opening. This wide-ranging and diverse arsenal of playing methods was demonstrated by a boy of just thirteen years old!’
Azerbaijan sports journalists unanimously named me the ‘January laureate’ in a competition for the best sportsmen of the republic. Regarding this ex-world champion Mikhail Tai wrote an article for the Baku Sport newspaper: 'Back in 1974, at the opening of the All-Union Tournament of Pioneers Palaces, I noticed a likeable, bright, dark-eyed boy. I was told that he was the youngest participant and that his name was Carik. At the time I did not know him. But two days later, "battling" in the capacity of Riga captain against the young Baku players, I was able to assess this young talent. In the end I managed to beat him, but I have to admit that it was very pleasant to observe how at the board he quickly and easily found the most unexpected tactical blows. Some time passed. Frankly speaking, we, the players of the older generation, relate to our young colleagues with a certain degree of scepticism. This made it all the more unexpected when many experienced Moscow masters began saying things like: "In Baku there is a boy - Garik Kasparov, who makes an excellent impression". I heard this from the mouths of international master Dvoretsky and national master Nikitin. Both of them, so to speak in their line of duty, have worked with the Baku player and have the right to make their judgement. I remember that when in Holland I was analysing an opening variation with Dvoretsky, he literally took me aback by showing a very unexpected move, at the same time clarifying: “This is Garik’s idea". ‘Now it is hard to say towards what kind of positions Garik has a leaning. Naturally, he likes to play actively, continually calculating the most intricate combinative variations. Together with this purely “age-related" leaning Kasparov has also acquired a taste for positional play. However, this is not surprising, since for a long time the Baku player has been studying at the Botvinnik school... Of course, there are fears that the young player's head may be turned. But, as far as I know, this 7th-year pupil of the 151st Baku school has so many passions (music, theatre, books), that for this "illness" he simply does not have time.’ Yes, this was my most significant victory to date, one that was especially pleasant after my not very successful debut abroad. Early in April 1977 the name ‘Kasparov’ appeared for the first time in the Soviet rating list: against it stood the number ‘2309’, and in front of it was the line 'Karpov 2709’. On 1st July these became ‘2320’ and ‘2739’ respectively. Nikitin: ‘From then on the alphabet firmly linked these two names, as if formally registering their rivalry, which with interest and impatience was anticipated in the chess world.’ Turning Point From 1977 FIDE began staging two official world junior championships: apart from the usual one, up to the age of 20, there was also a cadet championship - for players not older than 17. In connection with this the Soviet Chess Federation organised a double-round qualifying tournament of the eight strongest young players in the country (Leningrad, 7-25 April 1977). Anatoly Bykhovsky: ‘Seven of them had the master title or had already achieved the master norm, and the only candidate master Kasparov was included as USSR junior champion of the last two years. The 18-year-old Dolmatov and Kharitonov, and the 19-year-old Zaid, Yermolinsky and Magerramov were fighting only for the one place in the "up to 20” championship, whereas the 14-year-old Kasparov and the 17-year-old Lanka and Yusupov were, in addition, contesting the
one place in the cadet championship.’ It is amusing that initially they wanted to arrange the qualification of each championship separately, so that the young players would not ‘get under the feet’ of the older ones. And indeed we endeavoured not to do this: the three youngest players, changing places in turn, led throughout the tournament! On this occasion I started badly: as White I drew with Yusupov without any particular fight, and as Black I left a piece en prise and lost from an excellent position to Kharitonov. In the 3rd round I was opposed by my long-standing bete noire Leonid Zaid, the 1974 USSR junior champion and already a master for three years. In the tournament situation only a win would satisfy me, and I was in a highly determined mood. Game 18 G.Kasparov-LZaid Qualifying Tournament, 3rd round, Leningrad 10.04.1977 Sicilian Defence B97 1 e4 c5 2 3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 -’xd4 £>f6 5 ?кЗ аб 6 Ag5 (6 $.e2 - Game No.ll) 6...e6 7 f4 Wb6 Zaid accepts the challenge! Since childhood I liked this variation for its mind-boggling complexity, and I subsequently played it many times as Black. 8Wd2 Not even contemplating the pragmatic 8 <Sfb3, as was played against me by Topalov (Novgorod 1997) and Leko (Linares 2001). Now the value of every move is very high, and if White’s attack should peter out, without his ‘base’ b2-pawn he will be in trouble. 8...Wxb2 9 ^b3 The fashion of those years, following the Spassky-Fischer match (1972). The main line 9 Ebl will be described in the next volume. 9...Wa3 10 JLxf6 gxf6 ii JLe2 One of the critical positions. It occurred later in some of my ‘White’ training games with Magerramov, and I gained a couple of good wins. The experience gained unexpectedly came in useful in the 1990s when playing Black against Short. Il...^d7 At that time this was a rare move (with the idea of ...£k5 or ...b7-b5 and ...Jlb7). Il...€te6 12 0-0 Jld7 suggests itself, with the idea of 13 JLh5?! Jlg7 (Tal-Platonov, Dubna 1973) or 13 f5?l ®e5 (Tal-Portisch, Varese 1976; Game No.41 in Volume III of My Great Predecessors), while if 13 "Shi possible is 13...Ec8 or 13...T15, transposing into the variation ll...h5 12 0-0 ^c6 13 ФЬ1 Jld7 14 ^bl (Spassky-Fischer, 11th match game, Reykjavik 1972) or 14 ‘Sfdl (Short-Kasparov, 4th match game, London 1993) and at the same time avoiding the dangerous 13 £>bl!. Because of the immediate knight retreat, and under the influence of my game with Zaid, after ll...h5 12 0-0 I preferred 12...^d71? (cf. the following note).
12 0-0 h 5 13 Wd4? (36) After encountering a surprise, I thought for a long time and realised that now after 13 &bl Wa4 the black queen would simply return home via c6, but nevertheless I was unable to part with Spassky’s tempting idea^c3-bl. The typical 13 iTu is better, although here too after 13...h4! Black feels quite secure: 14 Jlg4 h31? 15 Axh3 Hxh3 16 gxh3 b5 with excellent compensation for the exchange, 14 Hadi h31 15 g3 b5 16 $Jbl Wa4 (Gashimov-Palac, Kusadasi 2006), or 14 h3 Jte7 (14-b6!?) 15 Hadi (Short-Kasparov, Riga 1995) 15...Wb4!?. 13...b5 14 2>bl (26) It is hard to devise anything better. Alas, 14 AxbS? is incorrect: 14...axb5 15 £>xb5 Wa4 16 4k7+ 'A’dS 17 £>xa8 Wxa8. 14...Wa4 15 c4 (2) 15...b4 16 f5 (15) Trying to expose the king as soon as possible and to tie down Black's forces by the need to defend the weaknesses in his position. 16..Ле7 (the immediate 16...Wc6 17 fxe6 fxe6 with the idea of 18 4ftd2 Wb6I? was also not bad) 17 fxe6 (4) 18 ^ld2 Wc6 Zaid correctly does not hurry with 18...®e5, to avoid making it easy for White to break through with c4-c5. But 18...h41? also came into consideration. 19 a3l (7) The start of play over the entire board. Although from the opening I had not gained real compensation for the pawn, I was inspired by the insecure position of the black king! 19-.bxa3 20 ФИ1 Hb8 21 НхаЗ (10) 21...Wb6 22 Wai!? It turns out that in the corner the queen can be no less useful than in the centre. 22...&e5 It would appear that the powerful outpost at e5, the two bishops and the extra pawn should sooner or later secure a win for Black. But the weaknesses in his position give White chances of confusing matters. 23 C5!? (12) Sacrificing a second pawn! From this point a new phase of the game commences: White unexpectedly launches an attack, and Black begins losing his strong points. 23...dxc5 24 <£>c4 Wc7? 24...^xc4 25 Дхс4 Wd6! was far stronger, with the threat of ...h5-h4-h3 (26 Axa6? c4! is bad for White, while if 26 fidl Wf4).
25 - bd2! Just one second-rate move by Zaid - and the position has suddenly become much sharper! White has coordinated his forces: now his knight will go to c4, from e2 his bishop is attacking the h5-pawn, and the rook at a3 will come into play along the 3rd rank. For the moment Black’s extra material is not felt, whereas the problems with his king are obvious. 25...<§jxc4 (25...h41?) 26 ®xc4 Sb4? And this is already a serious error. 26...h4! was essential, although after 27 h3 (27 e5?! is dangerous in view of 27...h3!) 27...O-O! 28 Eaf3! with the idea of Wei White has sufficient counterplay against the weak black pawns. But 28 Wdl, which loses White the greater part of his advantage, very much appealed to me... Nikitin: 'Garry, who since childhood loved beauty in chess, was tempted by the pretty geometry of the manoeuvre Wdl-d4-al-dl. It is amazing how mistakes are sometimes repeated. In the decisive, 24th game of the match in Seville (1987), instead of a crude win by 33 Wbs! Garry was again tempted by a similarly spectacular and completely unexpected manoeuvre 33 Wdl??. Fortunately, in time-trouble Karpov did not find the refutation, which would have secured him the chess crown’. 28..Jld7 29 Sxa6 27 e51 (5) This breakthrough in the centre - the sacrifice of a third pawn! - changes the position in White’s favour. 27 Bxf6? ±xf6 28 Wxf6 did not work because of the weakness of the back rank: 28...fibl+ 29 ifl Sf8. 27...fxe5 (Black also has major problems after 27...f5 28 <Ed6+ <4>f8 29 Дхаб) 28 Wdl? A virtually irresistible attack would have been given by 28 <йхе5 fld4! (28...h4 29 Xd3!) 29 5rf3! Sf8 (29...e5?! 30 <Sjxd4 exd4 31 Лхаб or 3O...cxd4 31 Scl) 30 Jlxa6, and if 3O...Ad7, then 31ie2!!. 29...h4? There was no longer time for this! Only 29...1f8! would have enabled Black to defend, although after 30 Да8+ ДЬ8 31 flxf8+ (31 Sxb8+ Wxb8 32 Axh5+ idS 33 Af7 Фс7 is not so clear) 31...Jlxf8 32 Sal! White would have retained a dangerous initiative. 30 h3 (5) It is natural that White should want to make an escape square for his king, but he would also have won by 30 Wd3(c2) with the threat of ^d6+ and Wg6+, or even 30 jLhS+idS 31 ^a5!.
3O...Hg8 Allowing a powerful stroke. However, also ЗО...Ш8 would no longer have helped in view of 31 ih5+ 'A’dS 32 Exf8+ Axf8 33 la8+ 2b8 34 Wfl(f3) ±e7 35 Wf71. Or 3O...e4 31 Ea8+ Sb 8 32 Wall Sh7 33 £>e5 31 Нхеб! (4) 31...Фй8 (of course, not 31...Axe6? 32 Ah5+) 32 lxe5 (2) While continuing his attack, in passing White restores material equality. 32...Hxc4 (it is hard to offer Black any good advice: 32...Sg6 33 lf7! or 32...Sg7 33 Hh5!) 33 Wd51 A spectacular intermediate stroke - it is not often that one sees such an attack by the queen on two rooks! In time-trouble Zaid was counting on the saving line 33 Лхс4? Wxe5 34 Лхд8 JLd6. But now Black is lost - as, however, is also the case after 33 Sxe71? Sd4 34 Wb31 Ie8 (34...Hg3? 35 Hxd7+!) 35 Exe8+ Лхе8 36 Wg8 Bg3 37 Wh8! We3 38 ЛЬ5. 33...Sxg2l? (a desperate sacrifice; in other words, a ‘psychic attack’) 34 Лхс4 (2) White would also have won with 34 Фхд2 Ed4 35 Wa8+! ®c8 36 Wa5+ or 35...Лс8 36 Лаб!. The move in the game is even better, although it also looks more risky. 34...Eg3 35 Wa8+ Here I was also beginning to run seriously short of time, and in my haste I missed some simpler ways to the goal - 35 Hdl!? or 35 Sf7!?. 35...Wc8 36 Wa5+! Avoiding a naive trap - 36 Wxc8+? Фхс8! 37 Sxe7? Ac6+ 38 ФЬ2 lg2+ 39 &hl Eg7+! 40 ФЬ2 Hxe7, when it is White who has to fight for a draw. Зб...Фе8 (now 36...Wc7 37 Wxc7+ Фхс7 38 Exe7 is hopeless for Black) 37 Jtf7+ (2) 37...AT8 38 Ae6+?1 It is a pity that I did not give the ‘correct check’ - 38 id5+! Фе8 39 Sf7 Exh3+ 40 Фд2 Sg3+ 41 <4Jf2, and Black can resign.
Now, however, there is precisely only one way for White to win. 38...4>g7 39 Wai? The only decisive line was 39 Sf7+ Фдб 40 Wa21! (but not 40 Дхе7? JLc6+) - it is very hard to see this at the board, even when the flag is not about to fall! Since after 38...Фд7 I did not like any of White’s replies, I decided to return my queen to the corner - to place it waiting in ambush. And although objectively this move was bad, in practice it won the game for me, since it threw my opponent into a panic: the threat of a discovered check by the rook on e5 seems especially terrible in time-trouble. 39...ФН6? Only a series of obligatory moves would have saved Black - 39...^.c6+! 40 Hd5+ Фдб! (4О...ФЬ6? 41 Hf6+!) 41 Wbl+ ФЬб!, and if 42 Wcl+ there is now a choice between 42...Дд5 and 42...Лд5 with a draw. 40 Wcl+ i.g5 (or 4O...Sg5 41 fixg5 Лхд5 42 3f6+) 41 Bxg5 Wc6+ 42 JLd5 2xh3+ 43 <ig2 1-0 Times: 2.34-2.30. An extremely tense encounter! Nikitin: ‘After looking through this fantastically pretty game, one can see what a great chess talent was possessed not only by Carry, but also by his opponent. Leonid Zaid lived initially in Kiev, and then in Lvov - cities with no less chess tradition than Baku. In those years the remarkable trainer Viktor Kart was working actively with young players in Lvov, and he fostered a whole group of grandmasters headed by Beliavsky. But for some reason he did not “set eyes” on Zaid. I saw how the youngster was unsuccessfully trying to make progress on his own. It was a desperate struggle, and Leonid lost it. Not wishing to accept the failure of his hopes, he moved to Israel and tried there to break into the chess elite. But, alas, his time had passed...’ In the 4th round I drew with Dolmatov, who was on ‘plus one’ thanks to a win over Yusupov. Then, unfortunately, Sergey fell ill and withdrew from the tournament, and the results of all his games were annulled. From the press: ‘Had this not happened, it is quite possible that the final arrangement of the places would have been different.’ But as it was, after the first half the leading group looked as follows: Yusupov - 4У2 out of 6; Kasparov, Lanka and Kharitonov - ЗУ2. The second half of the tournament saw some serious bloodshed. First Kharitonov fell behind, after losing to Zaid and me. But Lanka, by contrast, burst ahead by beating Magerramov and Yermolinsky. At the same time Yusupov suddenly came to a halt, losing two games - to the same opponents Magerramov and Yermolinsky. And, although I lost with Black to Zaid, in the 12th round I defeated Lanka - and at last I was leading the race! But in the 13th, penultimate round Yusupov beat Zaid and caught me. We each had 6У2 out of 11, with Lanka on 6 and Kharitonov on 5У2. In the last round Yusupov played Black against Kharitonov and gained a draw. Lanka had White against Zaid - and he lost
his third game in a row! I had White against Yermolinsky, who was in last place on his own, and I arrived with the intention of ‘giving mate’ - but I also lost. Alas, the Vilnius catastrophe of two years earlier (Game No.8) repeated itself. Bykhovsky later said that I ‘was badly prepared for the concluding game, both in the psychological sense, and in the choice of specific opening variation’ (cf. Game N0.25, note to White’s 15th move). I was able to get even with Alexey only in the second half of the 1990s, when he was already a well-known American grandmaster... The results of the qualifying tournament for the junior world championships: 1. Yusupov - 7 out of 12; 2. Kasparov - 6У2; 3-6. Kharitonov, Lanka, Magerramov and Zaid - 6; 7. Yermolinsky - 4У2 (Dolmatov withdrew, having scored 2У2 out of 4). Thus Yusupov won the right to play in the 'up to 20’ championship, and I in the ‘not older than 17’ championship. Nikitin: ‘Although all of his opponents were at least three years older than him, and all were masters of sport, Garry had no doubts that he would succeed, and no words from me could shake his confidence. But there was to be no new triumph. In such a tournament one could not expect a guaranteed success, since battling against him were experienced lads, who were aware of his strength and were able to exploit his childish impetuosity. Garik finished just half a point behind the winner, his friend Artur Yusupov, and by the same half point he also missed the master norm... For the first time I was with him during an entire tournament and I saw how difficult it was to work with Garik when he overestimated his possibilities. It was here that our serious problems, connected with chess psychology, began.’ Bykhovsky: 'The intensity of the play was the cause of excessive anxiety and, as a consequence, bad mistakes, the percentage of which exceeded the usual norm. This also explains the uncertain play of the leaders towards the finish... Every appearance by Garik Kasparov naturally creates particular interest, and his result in Leningrad created big debates. Many, among them Kasparov himself, were not satisfied with the competitive outcome. Others, and they include me, think that 2nd place was a quite honourable result. But if one talks about the quality of play, three months ago in Riga at the USSR Junior Championship, where Kasparov scored 8/2 out of 9, it looked better. Two days after the tournament, Botvinnik, in whose chess school Kasparov studies, carefully looked though all Garik's games with him. He praised him for his achievement, but at same time he severely criticised him and gave his diagnosis: “There is a noticeable desire to solve all problems by means of tactics alone, and an excessive fascination with lengthy, ill-considered opening variations." Well, every player, especially a 14-year-old, has the right to make mistakes. It is important to learn from them and correct them as soon as possible.’ Four months later, early in September 1977, I again travelled to France - this time to the first official World Cadet Championship. On this occasion we played in the picturesque resort of Cagnes-sur-Mer on the famous French Riviera, which with its boulevards resembled summer-time Baku. The schedule for this Swiss event was very demanding: a round in the evening, completion of adjourned games the following morning, the next round in the evening, and so on throughout the tournament, without a single free day. I was accompanied by Anatoly Bykhovsky, state trainer of the USSR Sports
Committee. Again the sports authorities did not allow Nikitin to travel abroad with me, and he had to limit himself to a number of written instructions for the tournament, for example: ‘Try and obtain points using your positionai understanding and endgame technique, which have become much better after a year of independent work and study at sessions of the Botvinnik School. Play solidly, with a minimum of risk. In play based “on understanding" most of your opponents will create problems for themselves... ’ I made a good start - three wins, but the American Whitehead and the Pole Weider began in similar fashion. In the 4th round I lost an undistinguished game to an opponent who was by no means the strongest -Карре from West Germany, while Weider suffered such a heavy defeat against Whitehead that he fell out of contention for the lead. I was able to recover quickly from my loss and after a draw with Whitehead I won a further couple of games. However, the lead was seized by the Icelandic player Jon Arnason, the adult champion of his country and a future grandmaster - 6У2 out of 7! In the 8th round I faced a very difficult task: trailing Arnason by a point and playing Black against him, I had to win without fail in order to retain chances of victory in the tournament. Game 19 J.Arnason-G.Kasparov World Cadet Championship, 8th round, Cagnes-sur-Mer 15.09.1977 Sicilian Defence B85 1 e4 C5 2 ®f3 еб 3 d4 cxd4 4 ^xd4 ®f6 5 ^c3 d6 6 Де2 аб (6..,4кб 7 ДеЗ - Game No.3) 7 а4 ‘йсб (2) 8 ДеЗ Де7 9 0-0 0-0 10 f4 Wc7 (10...£d7 11 £>b3l) 11 Ahl Another tabiya of the classical Scheveningen is the line 11 Wei ®xd4 12 Jlxd4 e5 (Game Nos.59, 60 in Revolution in the 70s). ll...Ad8 (5) At that time I liked this move with the idea of 12 JLfB £>e51, and the e8-square may come in useful for the knight. But later I exclusively played ll...He8 and I developed this set-up in detail in my first two matches with Karpov (cf. Kasparov vs. Karpov 1975-1985). 12 Wei S:xd4 13 ixd4 e5 14 fxe5 14 ДеЗ exf4 15 &xf4 Деб 16 Wg3 ®d7 17 ДdЗ £>e5 is also harmless (Karpov-Ribli, Leningrad 1977). But that same year Geller demonstrated a more unpleasant plan for White - 14 Дд1! exf4 15 a5l (Game No.61 in Revolution in the 70s). 14...dxe5 15 ДеЗ Деб (2) 16 Wg3 16...Wa5 (21) Avoiding the bind with a4-a5, although there was nothing terrible about that, and 16...Hd7 or 1б...ФЬ8 would have been quite alright. Black’s position is not bad, although it should not be overestimated. 17 Sadi?! Unusual passivity for this opponent -
apparently, the burden of leading affected him. 17 JLg5 ФЬ8 18 Wh4l was far more energetic, with the threat of J5xf6, which is by no means decisive, but promises White the initiative - say, 18...fig8 19 JLd3 Wb4 20 <^d5 ^xd5 21 exd5 Wxh4 22 ±xh4 ДхЬ4 23 dxe6 with a favourable ending. In the final, 11th round Santo Roman played the weaker 18 Ad3 against me, but I too replied not very successfully - 18...Hd7 (18,..Wb41? or 18...Hd4!? was stronger), and after 19 £id5! Jlxd5 20 exds Sxd5 21 Jlxf6 JLxf6 22 Wh3 (22 Wf3!?) 22...e4 23 Дхе4 ffhs 24 Wf3 White gained a draw without any trouble. A pity: if I had won this game I would have finished 2nd... Arnason plays more simply, thinking only about a draw. 'But the Sicilian Defence is an insidious opening, and not without reason is it said: White either gives mate, or loses in the endgame. And here, on encountering the opponent’s obvious intention to “stifle” the play, Garry does not become nervous and does not endeavour to sharpen the game "at any price”, but looks for ways to accumulate small gains, not fearing the transition into an endgame.’ (Nikitin) 17...1xdl (12) 18 Sxdl Hd8 19 2xd8+ Jlxd8 The exchanges have clearly been to Black’s advantage: there are many weaknesses in White’s position - the e4-pawn and his entire queenside. 20 ДИ6 g6 (8) A useful move. Without the rooks White has no chances of an attack, whereas Black will soon activate his dark-square bishop, and when his queen goes to b4 White’s position will come under pressure. 21 h3 ДЬ6! (4) 22 ±e3 id4 (7) Both defending the e5-pawn, and pressing on the knight. As often happens in the Sicilian, White has ended up in a difficult position without making any bad mistake. 23 Wf2 ДхеЗ (3) 24 Wxe3 Wb4 25 b3 25...Wd41 (2) An unpleasant surprise for Arnason: Black himself initiates the exchange of queens! ‘Wisdom, unusual for a 14-year-old. White unexpectedly finds himself in zugzwang. I flatter myself with the hope that during the game Garik remembered my instructions.’ (Nikitin) 26Wd3^g7! 27 ifl Also after 27 ФЬ2 h5 28 JLfl Wf2! White would have had problems finding useful moves. 27...®h5! (2) An active sortie with atactical point. Also interesting was 27~^d7!? 28 Wxd4 exd4 29
2)bl £>c5 30 4M2 f5 31 e5 ^f7 with the better endgame: 32 £if3 d3 33 Axd3 ДхЬз!. 28 Wf3? Arnason gives in to the ‘queen war’ and he allows a decisive invasion. 28 Wxd4? was bad because of the interposition 28...<£ig3+!, leading after 29 Фд1 exd4 30 <2ie2 4bxe2+ 31 Дхе2 4T6 32 4Т2 Фе5 and ,.Jld7-c6 to a won bishop ending. 28 g4?l was also insufficient: 28...®f4 29 Wxd4 exd4 30 <$jdl (30 Йе2 £>xe2l 31 Axe2 S>f6 and wins) 3O...d31? or 3O...h5!? 31 ^f2 (31 gxh5 f51) 31...&f6 etc. 28 ФЬ2 was comparatively more resilient, after which Black in turn could avoid the queen exchange - 28...Wf2l 29 £>dl Wf4+ 30 Фд1 <йдЗ 31 £rf2 h5 with powerful pressure. 28...Wd2! (2) 29 Wd3 (not seeing any other way of defending the c2-pawn) 29...Wf21 (2) 30 <4>h2 (30 Ae2 JLxh31) 3O...^f4 31 Wf3 Wxc2 (2) 31...|^xh3 32 ®xf2 <£ixf2 would also have won, but it is simpler to retain the active queen. 32£)d5JLxd5 (2) A minor blemish. The immediate 32...Wd2! was more forceful, and if 33 ^xf4 Wxf4+1. 33 exd5 Wd2 34 Ac4 It would appear that Arnason’s will to resist was already broken. White’s last chance was 34 d6! ®xd6 35 Wxb7, although after 35...^d3! 36 g3 (36 A.xd3 e4+!) 36...a5 Black has a technically won position. 34...f5l 35 Wg3 h6! (2) By depriving the queen of the g5-square, Black puts his opponent in zugzwang. 36 d6 Wxd6 (the rest is agony) 37 Wc3 £>h5 38le2 39 Wc8 e4+ 40 ФЫ We7 (2) After rattling off the moves to the time control, White resigned (0-1). Times: 2.29-1.33. After this important win there was now a trio of leaders: Kasparov, Arnason and Whitehead on 6У2 out of 8. Bykhovsky: ‘It appeared that Carry was now in a good position for a finishing burst, but in fact he had run out of steam. In the last three games his play was much weaker; he made frequent oversights and managed only three draws. Success went to the 16-year-old - an older and physically stronger player.’ Results of the 1977 World Cadet Championship: 1. Arnason - 9 out of 11; 2. Whitehead - 8У2; 3- Kasparov - 8, followed by the likes of Morovic, McNab and the 12-year-old Short, who also weakened at the finish (altogether - 30 participants). It is a curious fact worth noting that Arnason
actually became the first Icelandic world champion not only in chess, but also in the entire history of sport in that country! Why, as the tournament favourite, did I obviously not play up to my potential? Apparently, as in Wattignies the year before, what told was the tiring schedule and the unaccustomed surroundings -alongside there was no one close to me, and I was quite unable to concentrate fully on my play. Three years later, after winning the world under-20 championship in Dortmund, I commented in an interview: ‘In those cadet competitions perhaps objectively I was somewhat stronger than my opponents, but I had an incorrect impression of tournament strategy as a whole. However, now I have behind me the experience of some strong adult tournaments. I have more strength for the finish, and I have become more stable psychologically.' This comparative failure was especially distressing when compared with the triumph of my friend and rival Artur Yusupov, who in those same autumn days became world under-20 champion. The many years of rivalry between me and Mark Dvoretsky's pupils - Yusupov and Dolmatov - continued to the end of the 1982 Interzonal Tournaments, although in the 1981 USSR Championship it was already evident that I had moved ahead. Incidentally, in the mid-1970s Dvoretsky assisted Botvinnik with the lessons in his school, and he also made a valuable contribution to my chess development. Nikitin: 'While being a player of grandmaster standard, Dvoretsky found his true calling in research and training - he developed innovative methods for the teaching of chess strategy and the endgame, and he created a card index of test positions, now known to all professionals. The juniors who came to the sessions of the school had to solve these problems. Garry always tried to get to the essence of the position, and this essence was engraved in his memory, gradually improving his technique. For his endgame knowledge Garik is greatly indebted to Dvoretsky. Alas, the growth of his assistant's independence did not greatly please Botvinnik, and early in 1978 they parted. Together with Dvoretsky, Yusupov and Dolmatov also left the school...’ After the return from Cagnes-sur-Mer I had a lingering feeling of dissatisfaction. It was a critical moment, perhaps one of the turning points in my life. Trips to tournaments and chess training sessions took up much of my time, and left increasingly less for contact with my contemporaries. This was my fate - an early contact with people older than me: adult men who as though replaced my lost father, introducing into my upbringing a male basis and thereby balancing the strong influence of maternal love. But even so, I led a rather unnatural life for my age and already then I sensed that I was being partly deprived of my childhood. Occupied with mysterious events and adult problems, for my contemporaries I was as though from another planet. And at times had a terrible desire to become a norma boy, like all the others... Soon I would be 15 years old, and I thought that if in the nea’ future I did not gain the master title, i: would be time to think about anothe-profession. How long could I go on being considered promising; wasn’t it time t: achieve ‘adult’ results? Russian honoured trainer Boris Postovsk . recalls: ‘In October 1977 the USSR Champ -onship First League was held in Baku, ana was seconding grandmasters Yuri Razuvae. and Boris Gulko, who, incidentally, qualifie:
for the Premier League and two months later became USSR champion. Several times young Garik Kasparov looked in at my room - to discuss chess topics, and at the same time pass on presents from his mother (an exotic jam made from feijoa berries was especially tasty). Watching Garik pouring out variations, Razuvaev was unable to conceal his admiration, but on one occasion Gulko sadly lamented: "There it is, our ruin in the not too distant future...” These were prophetic words! But it is amusing that, against Razuvaev and Gulko, Kasparov has been left with a negative score.' In November my trainers began an intensive search for a tournament where I could again try to achieve the master norm. It would have been most convenient to do this on my home ground, but for the moment nothing appropriate in Baku was anticipated. Nikitin: ‘The next such tournament was due to begin the following January in Minsk, but there the young Baku player was certainly not expected - they had enough of their own competitors. And here Botvinnik came to our aid, by writing to the Belorussian Chess Federation. They could not refuse him, and early in December the desired invitation was received. We began preparing for the trip to Minsk.’ Right to the end of the year I worked intensively, studying new opening set-ups and playing training games. I especially remember one of these, with my old friend and rival Elmar Magerramov, played in the republic chess club. It should be said that at that time I often followed the opening ideas and discoveries made jointly with Elmar. We both played the Scheveningen, instilled in us by Privorotsky, but Elmar also employed the Najdorf Variation with 7-Wb6 - later I also included it in my repertoire. Under the influ ence of my old friend I also began playing both the flexible ‘Hedgehog’ set-up, and the sharp Modern Benoni... But that day, for virtually the second time in my life, in a serious game I decided to go in for a Queen’s Gambit. Came 20 E.Magerramov-G.Kasparov Training Game, Baku 10.12.1977 Queen’s Gambit D58 1 £)f3 £>f6 2 d4 e6 3 C4 d5 4 2>c3 Ae7 5 Ag5 0-0 6 e3 h6 7 *.h4 b6 The only reason I chose the Tartakower-Makogonov-Bondarevsky Variation was that I had prepared an interesting novelty in a line employed by Elmar. But later, before my matches with Korchnoi (1983) and Karpov (1984/85), I made a genuinely deep study of it, paying particular attention to a number of model games by Spassky and Geller (cf. Volume III of My Great Predecessors, pp.321-327). 8Wb3 Polugayevsky’s favourite plan. In the 1980s I also tried 8 Wc2 (Game No.41) or, most often, 8 Ae2.
8..Jlb7 9 Axf6 Jlxf6 10 cxd5 exd5 11 fldl C5!? Here is my invention - a pawn sacrifice! It is hard to imagine a more audacious and paradoxical move: after all, White has done everything in his powers to prevent ...c7-c5- Later a related variation became more popular: 11..Ле8 12 Ad3 c5!? 13 dxc5 ^d7! 14 c6 (14 cxb6?! <йс51 and ...®xd3+) 14...ixc6 15 0-0 <2ic5 (Gulko-Radashkovich, Rostov-on-Don 1971; Kasparov-Beliavsky, 46th USSR Championship, Tbilisi 1978). Things even reached the stage that White began anticipating ...c7-c5 with 12 a3 (Korchnoi-Kasparov, 10th match game, London 1983; Kramnik-Kasparov, 3rd match game, Moscow 2001). 12 dxc5 ^d7l 13 c61? A pragmatic reply. Of course, in the first instance I considered the variations with 13 cxb6 £)c5 14 Wc2 (14 Wb4?! Wd6!) and I was intending to play the crazy gambit 14...d4?l 15 £>xd4! Wxb6 ‘with pressure for the two pawns’. However, Makogonov (in contrast to Stohl) disapproved of this idea, and he was probably right: by returning one of the pawns - 16 Ле2 Axg2 17 figl Ab 7 18 £>f5 <4Ti8 19 Sd6! Wc7 (19->a5? 20 Sxf6! gxf6 21 ^d6) 20 ^d5 Axd5 21 lxd5, White retains prospects of an attack - for example, if 21...Wxh2?l 22 Sfl £ie6, then 23 <2bxh 61. In Stohl’s opinion, 14-Wxb6(?!) 15 ^xd5 Axd5 16 Hxd5 Hac8 17 Ac4 is insufficient for Black, as is 14...axb6(!) 15 Ae2 - but in fact this is good for him: 15...Axc3+! 16 bxc3 (16 Wxc3 Жха2 with equality) 16...Wc7 17 0-0 £>e4, regaining the pawn. After 15 ^d4 Axd4l 16 exd4 £>e4 White is also unable to retain his material advantage. 13...Axc6 14 -d4? 1 Again erring on the cautious side. 14 Ae2 4}c5 was also inappropriate, but 14 4}xd51? was stronger and more critical: 14...&C5 15 ^xf6+ Wxf6 16 Wc3! Wxc3+ 17 bxc3, reaching a perfectly safe endgame with an extra pawn, although after 17....Axf3 18 gxf3 ®a4 (Stohl) Black has sufficient counterplay. 14...Axd4l In the 4th game of my second match with Karpov (1985) in a similar position I wrongly avoided this non-routine exchange, but here its advantages are far more specific and obvious. 15 Sxd4?l A difficult choice: in the event of 15 exd4 Wg5! 16 g3 Sfe8+ (16...W5!?) 17 Ae2 Wg4(h5) Black also has a dangerous initia
tive, although here it is more difficult for his сб-bishop to display its strength. Elmar was hoping somehow to defend, but he unexpectedly encountered a unique series of moves, consisting of eleven successive attacks! 15...^c5! 16 Wdl ®e6! 17 fld2 17...d4! (the weak isolated d-pawn has suddenly been transformed into a formidable battering-ram) 18 exd4?l The ‘ugly’ 18 ^e2! was more resilient, when 18...Wd5 (Stohl) is good, or else 18...We7!? 19 *^xd4 ^xd4 20 Bxd4 Bad8 with an attack. 18...Se8 An ambush! However, 18...£tf4 came into consideration: 19 d5! We7+!? 20 Ae2 <^xg2+ 21 4>fl ±d7 22 Hgl (22 Фхд2? Wg5+ 23 <±>fl JLh3+ 24 Фе1 Wg2 25 Sfl lae8 and wins) 22...^f4, and White does not have the Tesource 23 ig4 f5 24 Hd4? because of 24...fxg4 (the rook comes in useful on the *8-square!). 19 f3? A decisive mistake, as was 19 Wg4? h5! 20 Wg3 h4 21 Wg4 f5- It was essential to olay 19 d5! ®f4+ 20 Де2 £ixg2+ 21 i’fl Xd7! 22 Дд1! (but not Stohl’s ‘cooperative’ .ariation 22 Фхд2? Wg5+ 23 ФИ Jlh3+ 24 iel Wg2) and although this position is unpleasant for White, at least he is not losing by force: 22...^4 (22...<2ih4 is also not bad) 23 Лд4! f5 24 Sd4! fxg4 25 Sxf4 Wh4 26 Фд2 Se5 27 ФЬ1, still somehow holding on. 19...Axf3l! To be honest, I did not even especially calculate the variations, since I had no doubts about the correctness of the piece sacrifice. 20 gxf3 (20 Wxf3 2>g5+) 2O...Wh4+ 21 Sf2 <?}xd4+ The alternative was 21...®f4+l? 22 Jte2 £)g2+ or 22 £>e4 f5 23 Дс4+ ФЬ8 24 0-0 fxe4 etc. 22 Ae2 (22 4^e4 Sxe4+!) 22...^xf3+ 23 ФИ Wh3+24 Xg2 £)h4 First 24-Sad8! was more accurate, for example: 25 ^d5 <$Jh4 or 25 JLxf3 Sxdl+ 26 jlxdl f5 27 fihgl g5 and wins. 25Shgl Sad8 26Wel 26 Wa4! (with the idea of Wg4) would have prolonged the resistance. After this there could have followed 26...^xg2 27 Hxg2 We3 (Stohl) or the more energetic 26...^f51? (Nikitin) 27 Фе1! (27 Wf4 Hd4! and ...?}e3+) 27-.We3 28 Wc2 - in Stohl’s opinion ‘the defences still hold’, but in my view after 28...He5! Black has an irresistible attack.
26...Sd3! (now it all ends very quickly) 27 Wf2 (27 ®dl £>f3) 27...-Tf3! I remembered this picturesque position for a long time: rarely do you see such a large number of stalemated pieces! 28 Shi It would have been suicidal to play 28 £>d5(b5) Hdl+!! 29 A.xdl ®xh2 mate! or 28 Wg3 £>d2+! 29 Фе1 lxg3 30 lxg3 4hf3+ 31 <S>f2 £sxgl 32 Bxh3 ®>xh3+ etc. 28...1de3l 29 Shgl Ah8 Of course, the computer demands the simple 29...Bxc3!, since if 30 bxc3 there follows 30...^>xh2+ 31 Фе! Wxc3+ and mate in 12 moves. But I had already seen 3O...b5. 30 Shi 3O...b51 And in view of 31 a3 a5 with the unavoidable ...b5-b4 White resigned (0-1). Times: 1.50-0.40. This crushing win over a master played an important psychological role, regaining me my former confidence, and I now travelled to Minsk full of hope. This game summed up the year 1977, concluding the first, learning stage of my chess career - my ‘Baku universities’. No one, myself included, guessed that I was on the threshold of a qualitative leap in my chess development.
Chapter Two Adult Games Master Class Sokolsky Memorial Tournament (Minsk, O8.O1-O2.O2.1978): 1. Kasparov - 13 out of 17; 2. Kupreichik - 121/г; 3. Shereshevsky -11; 4-6. Kapengut, Klovans and Mochalov -IO1/?; 7-8. Dydyshko and Lutikov - 9У2; 9. Yuferov - 9; 10-11. Roizman and Zakharov -8У2; 12-13. Begun and Smirnov - 8; 14-15. Mariasin and Litvinov - 7; 16. Kagan - 4; 17. Veremeichik - 3У2; 18. Lyuboshits - 2У2. This tournament in memory of the well-known master, teacher and theoretician Alexey Sokolsky (1908-1969) was the main chess event of the year in Belorussia. From outside only distinguished masters were invited, but for me an exception was made - not so much because I was two-times USSR junior champion, but out of respect for Botvinnik. Early in January 1978 I flew in with my mother to frosty, snowy Minsk (Shakarov and then Nikitin arrived later). Here everything was unusual: the severe winter, the cold hotel on the outskirts of the city, and rhe freezing tram in which the players Travelled to the playing venue - the repub lic chess club. After settling in, we set off to look for a canteen: it was time for dinner. However, no sooner had I made one uncertain step on the pavement, when I fell into a deep hole, covered by a thick layer of snow. I was able to get out only with my mother’s help. I was completely soaked, and I had to rush back to the hotel to change. My mother was seriously alarmed, but later she laughed: 'It’s better to take a tumble before the start, than in the tournament itself!’ During the drawing of lots I looked round with a certain trepidation at my formidable opponents: Anatoly Lutikov (a grandmaster!), several times a finalist in the championship of the country, Albert Kapengut (an outstanding theoretician and trainer), Viktor Kupreichik, Yanis Klovans and Alexander Zakharov, and, apart from them, a dozen solid masters, practically the entire cream of Belorussian chess. I remember saying to my mother: ‘How difficult it will be to score this "plus two”...’ (that was the master norm - 9У2 out of 17). Our small ‘team’ was also looked at with
interest: what surprises will be caused by this audacious youth from distant Baku? Nikitin: 'All were expecting something exotic, but that which happened was not anticipated by anyone’. I prepared well, especially with regard to the openings: I already had my own preparations in the most seemingly well-studied positions, assessed by theory as equal. As a result I was able to create sharp, unusual situations, which were to my taste. Strictly speaking, it was only here that my battle at the board began. In the first round I was paired with Black against the 1977 Armed Forces champion Sergey Yuferov, who was famed as an opening theoretician and who successfully played the King’s Indian Defence with both colours. This was the favourite opening of my youth, which served me faithfully for almost my entire career. And I decided to throw down a challenge to the experienced master! This game opened a new page in my competitive biography - it signified my entry into the world of adult chess. against Shirov (Olympiad, Manila 1992) and Korchnoi (Debrecen 1992). 10 •-?Td3 The main line. Later, largely through the efforts of Korchnoi, the old plan with 10 Ae3 f5 11 f3 was rehabilitated (Game No.39 in Volume V of My Great Predecessors}. 10...f5 11 Jld2 (11 exf5 has long been out of fashion - Game No.64 in Volume IV of My Great Predecessors) 11...4tf6 (ll...f4? 12 Ag41) 12 f3 Came 21 S.Yuferov-G.Kasparov Sokolsky Memorial Tournament, 1st round, Minsk 8.01.1978 King’s Indian Defence E99 1 d4 <Sjf6 2 c4 g6 з ‘ЙсЗ ig7 4 e4 d6 5 ie2 0-0 6 £>f3 e5 7 0-0 4k6 8 d5 ^e7 One of the King’s Indian tabiyas. 9^el This continuation was popular in those times, but in the late-1980s 9 ®d2 came to the fore, and in the mid-1990s - 9 b4. 9...^d7 Impeding the typical c4-c5 breakthrough. 9...®e8 is also acceptable, as I played 12...f4 At that time everyone made this direct move with the idea of a pawn storm on the kingside. Later many began to prefer Geller’s more flexible plan with 12...ФЬ8 (or
11...ФН8), for example: 13 Ecl c5 14 g4 аб!? 15 £tf2 h6 with the idea of ...£ieg8, ...Sih? and ...Jlf6 (Gelfand-Kasparov, Linares 1990). 13 c5 White must act energetically! The classic game Najdorf-Gligoric (Mar del Plata 1953) went 13 b4?! g5 14 c5 h5 15 £>f2 £}g6! 16 Ecl Ef7 17 cxd6 cxd6 18 a4 Af8! (defending the ‘base’ pawn on d6) 19 a5 Sg7 20 h3 ^hh8!? (the knight goes by a roundabout way to h6, to support the ...g5-g4 breakthrough) 21 £)b5 (21 Jlel!?) 21...g4! 22 fxg4 hxg4 23 hxg4 аб 24 ‘йаЗ ^.d7! 25 £>c4 Ec8 26 £ib6 Excl 27 Дхс1 i.e8 28 ±a3 ^f7 29 Wc2 W16, and in the end Black won with a direct attack on the king. 13...g5 This position is topical even today: using the 'Gligoric method’ can Black succeed in creating sufficient counterplay to neutralise the opponent’s offensive on the queenside? 14 cxd6 Now 14 Ecl <2hg6 15 ^b5 is again fashionable, delaying the exchange on d6 and in some cases sacrificing a piece: 15...a6 16 cxd6! (16 <йаЗ?! g4! Pachman-Padevsky, Dresden 1956) 16...axb5 17 dxc7 (Shariyaz-danov-Klimov, St. Petersburg 1997) or 15...Ef7 16 Да5! (the point of White’s idea is to provoke weaknesses) 16...b6 17 cxb6 (17 cxd6 is also possible, since 17...bxa5? 18 dxc7 is bad for Black) 17...cxb6 (17...axb6 18 ^.el! Najdorf-Uhlmann, Moscow 1956) 18 Де1 аб 19 'йсЗ h5 20 <2}b4 - in this way Yuferov defeated Dydyshko (Minsk 1978), but the modern 19...a5! is not so clear. 14...cxd6 To the surprise of the spectators, all these and the next eight moves were made quite quickly by us. 15 £>f2 Yuferov demonstrates a new plan, which had been successfully employed by Sosonko against Kavalek (Wijk aan Zee 1977). We had both seen this game: it was published in Informator Volume 23. White wants to play Wc2 and Efd, in order to intensify his onslaught on the queenside, and to defend his kingside with minimal forces - by holding the g4-point. The master was apparently hoping that his young opponent would not cope with the difficult problems, but I had prepared, as it seemed to me, a lethal novelty! The usual continuation is 15 Ecl ®g6 16 <£±>5 Ef7 17 Wc2, and since 17...g4?! 18 ^c7 gxf3 19 gxf3 Jlh3 (Larsen-Tai, 5th match game, Eersel 1969) is dubious because of 20 <2?>e6!, the black knight is forced to retreat -
17...£>e8. After 18 a4 h5 19 &f2 Af8 20 h3 Дд7 the following continuations are all unclear: 21 £ixa7 (Averkin-Kasparov, Moscow 1979), 21 a5 (Polugayevsky-Tal, 7th match game, Alma-Ata 1980), and 21 Wb3 W14 22 1C2 (Ivanchuk-Timman, 4th match game, Hilversum 1991; Ivanchuk-Cheparinov, Sofia 2008). At any event, I always happily went in for these complicated positions with Black. 15—^g6 16 a4 16 Wc2 Hf7 (16...h5 17 £>b5) 17 Hfcl is an attempt to refine the move order, hoping to gain an advantage after 17...®e8 18 a4 h5 19 £>cdl &f8 20 ДаЗ! аб 21 Wc3 Ad7 22 Wa51 b6 23 Wb4 Sg7 24 Sac3 ®h4 25 h3 Ле7 26 Ael (Aronian-Nakamura, Bursa 2010), but 17...a6 18 a4 h5 19 h3 g4! (19...^h4?! 20 a51) 20 fxg4 hxg4 21 hxg4 JLh6! 22 a5 JLg5 23 ^>a4 Ah4 gives chances for both sides (my old analysis!). 16... Sf7 17 £>b5 h5 18 h3 £f8 Almost completing the ‘Gligoric-style’ regrouping. Each side carries out his own plan, and White, while preparing a queenside invasion, must be extremely attentive to the opponent’s threats on the kingside. 19 Wc2 аб (2) The first step to the side! In the aforementioned Sosonko-Kavalek game Black immediately rushed into the attack -19-g4 20 fxg4 hxg4 21 hxg4 аб 22 ^a3 Дд7 23 fifcl (after Ligterink's recommendation 23 £>c4 there follows 23...^h4 - cf. the note to White’s 21st move) 23...£>h4 24 Wdl Axg4?! (the unclear 24...Ad7 or 24...^>h51? was better), but after 25 ^xg4! (not 25 Дхд4? £>xg4 26 4ixg4 £ixg2! 27 Фхд2 Wh4 28 <£>fl Дхд4 29 Фе2 ДдЗ! or 28 Whl Дхд4+ 29 <4>f3 Sg3+ 30 Фе2 Wg4+ 31 <S,f2 Ае7! and wins) 25...£>хд4? 26 Дхд4 Wg5? (26...^xg2 27 ifl! was more resilient) 27 Jle6+ ФТ18 28 g41 he lost. 25...^xg2 is stronger (with the idea of 26 Фхд2? £sxg4 and ...Wh4), as had occurred in the game Carbrera-Browne (Las Palmas 1977), which Yuferov and I did not know. There after 26 ДсЗ?! <йхд4 (26...®h4!?) 27 Дхд4 ^еЗ 28 АхеЗ Wh4 sharp, roughly equal play developed. But here too the cool-headed 26 ifl! (Stohl) would have set Black difficult problems: 26...^h4 27 Ael <йхе4 28 Wd3 £k5 291xc5! etc. 2O^a3Hg7 21 flfd? A by no means obvious but serious mistake. 21 <2к4 was correct, for example: a) 21...?}h4 22 Wdl (Crouch’s recommendation 22 Ла5 We 8 23 Wdl leads to variation 'bl1 after 23...g41 24 fxg4 hxg4 25
hxg4 Wg6) 22,..g41 (Crouch’s idea 22...ДЬ8 23 a5 g4 24 fxg4 hxg4 25 hxg4 ^xg4 26 £}xg4 ®д5 runs into 27 £tee31 Wg6 28 Ael! fxe3 29 £>f6+ ФЪ8 30 g4! or 27...Ae7 28 Sf2! Wg6 29 ficl fxe3 30 £)xe3 with an obvious advantage for White) 23 fxg4 (23 Aa5?! ^xf3+! - Crouch) 23...hxg4 24 hxg4 <^xg41 (Crouch gives only 24-ДЬ8 25 ДаЗ!), transposing into variation 'b2'; b) 21...g4, and White faces a choice -whether or not to include Aa5, but in both cases Black has sufficient counterplay: bl) 22 Aa5 We8 23 fxg4 hxg4 24 hxg4 <Sh4 25 Wdl Wg6 (25-..^xg4l?) 26 £>b6 Axg4 27 £>xg4 (27 Axg4 Se8) 27-£>xg2! (27...^xg4?l is weaker: 28 Axg4 Be8 29 Af3! ®xg2 30 if2, Chovanec-Lilhrig, correspondence 2000) 28 Фхд2 Wxe4+ 29 Фд1 •Йхд4 30 Axg4 f3 31 4^2 Wxg4 or 31...Ae7 with equality; b2) 22 fxg4 hxg4 23 hxg4 ^>h4 24 Wdl 5ixg4! 25 ^xg4 Wg5 26 4bce3! Ae7! 27 fif2 (27 Wc2 <^xg2) 27...Wg6 28 Дс1 fxe3 29 <jxe3 Ad7! 30 Sc7 (30 Sc4 lf8) 3O...Ag5 31 <^>g4 Axg4 32 Жхд7+ Фхд7 33 Axg5 Axe2 34 Wb3 (34 Wcl Af31 - this is not possible with the rook on b8) 34...Wxg51 35 Wxb7+ Sh6 36 Wxa8 We3!, spectacularly forcing a draw. 21,..^h4 (3) 22 Wdl (now Yuferov is intending to play <2jc4, Aa5 and £ft>6, but - too late!) 22...Ad7?I (4) This is my novelty (replacing 22...g4 23 hxg4 hxg4 24 fxg4 Axg4?l 25 ^хд4! - cf. the note to Black's 19th move). It could have been regarded as an improvement, had it not been for a fantastic stroke found in the computer era - 22...^xf3+!!. Analysis diagram For the piece Black has a very dangerous attack: 23 Axf3 g4 24 Ae2 gxh3 25 Af3 Ag4! or 23 gxf3 g4 24 fxg4 (24 hxg4 will not do: 24-hxg4 25 £ixg4 <йхд4 26 fxg4 Axg4 27 Axg4 Wh4!) 24-hxg4 25 £ic4 g3! 26 £sg4 <^xg4 27 Axg4 Axg4 28 hxg4 Wh4 29 Wf3 Дс8! etc. Well, there is logic in this: for an instant White has weakened his defences, and his forces are stuck on the other side of the board. 23 After the prophylactic move 23 Ael (Stohl) White has to reckon not only with 23...g4, but also 23...b5. 23...g4 Now is the time! Black cannot bring himself to play 23...b6?!, while 23...^xf3+l? 24 gxf3 g4 no longer promises more than equality after 25 fxg4 hxg4 26 Aa5! We8!
(26...gxh3+? 27 &hl!) T1 hxg4 (27 £>b6 f3) 27...Wh51 28 4>fl i.xg4 29 Фе1 ±xe2 30 Wxe2 f3 31 Wd3 b5 32 ^d2 etc. 24 hxg4 (if 24 Ла5 We7 25 £Л6? Crouch gives 25...®xg2, although the decisive 25„.gxh3! is simpler) 24...hxg4 25 fxg4 Now the inclusion of the moves 25 Да5?! #e7! (25...&xf3+?l 26 A.xf3 We7(e8) 27 i.e2 is not so clear) could have proved fatal for White: 26 fxg4 £>xg4 27 ^xg4 £ixg2 28 Фхд2 Jlxg4 29 Д.хд4 Wh4 30 Whl Пхд4+ 31 4>f3 Hg3+ 32 Фе2 Wg4+ 33 &f2 Ле71 or 33 <4>d2 b51 with irresistible threats. 25...^xg2?! This piece sacrifice was the fruit of home analysis, but there was something that I failed to take into account. First 25...*$Jxg4 was more accurate (but not 25...^.xg4? 26 £sxg4 £>xg2 27 ‘S’f 1! - Stohl), for example: a) 26 ^xg4? <£jxg2! 27 Фхд2 Дхд4 28 Лхд4 Wh4- An already familiar situation with the sacrifice of two pieces. With his knight on c4 White has somewhat better chances than before, but even so his defence is extremely difficult: 29 Wil (or 29 ‘i’fl Дхд4 30 Фе2 ДдЗ 1) 29-.-Нхд4+ 30 <4>f3 ДдЗ+ 31 Фе2 Wg4+ 32 <S>f2 b51 (not now 32...Ле7 in view of 33 ЖаЗ!) 33 £ixe5 (if 33 axb5? or 33 £>b6? there is the decisive 33-.fia7!) 33-dxe5 34 lc7 ±g7, and ‘Black has regained the piece, and still has a strong attack’ (Crouch); b) 26 jLxg4 ^xg2 27 *fl! Axg4 28 ^xg4 Wg5 29 ^f2 (29 Фхд2? Wh4; 29 ^b6 Se8) 29-.®e3+ (29...£lh4 is also not bad) 30 ЛхеЗ fxe3 31 Wf3 exf2 32 <4’xf2 (Crouch) 32...Wh4+ 33 Фе 2 Wh2+ 34 Wf2 Wxf2+ 35 <4>xf2 ±e7 with a roughly equal ending. 26 Xxg2 Played after considerable thought; White was wondering whether Black would have been set more problems by the interposition of 26 Aa5, and only after 26...We7 - 27 Фхд2 ^xg4 28 Лхд4 Лхд4 29 Wxg41 (Crouch gives only 29 ®xg4? Wh4) 29...Sxg4+ 30 <йхд4 Wh4 31 Sigil. Now Black does not have the defence 31-Wg3+? 32 i’fl Wd3+ 33 <4’f2 Ag7 (as in a variation from the game; if 33...Wxc4? 34 ^xe5+) because of the simple 34 ^xd6, but after 31...^f7l he is able to neutralise the opponent’s slight plus: 32 £tf2 Wg3+ 33 &fl Wb3 or 32 <if3 b5 33 axb5 (33 ^b6 Wh3+ 34 Фе2 Wb31 with equality) 33-.axb5 34 ®d2 Wh3+ 35 Фе2 Ae7 36 2rf3 Sg8 37 £tf2 Sxgl 38 Sxgl Wc8 39 &d2 Wc4 etc. 26...^xg4 27 Jtxg4 (of course, not 27 £ixg4? Jlxg4 28 Axg4 Wh4) 27..Jlxg4 28 Wxg4! An unpleasant surprise - a counter
queen sacrifice! My over-optimistic analysis concluded with a pursuit of the king: 28 ^xg4(?) Wh4 29 4fl Bxg4 30 Фе2 Bg3! or 29 Whl lxg4+ 30 <4>f3 Bg3+ 31 Фе2 Wg4+ 32 (3?f2 b51 etc. (as in the note to 25...^xg2). This is what I was aiming for, and the opponent’s unexpected reply shocked me: now White has chances not only of repelling the attack, but also of converting his material advantage! On the preceding moves I had spent only 23 minutes, but now for the first time I stopped to think: my swift attack had not succeeded, and I had to retune myself for a more complicated fight. 28...Exg4+ (7) Things are obviously worse after 28...Wh4? 29 Wxg7+ Axg7 30 Egl! (Stohl). 29 ^xg4 What next? 29...Sc8? (7) This seemingly natural, developing move, to which I previously attached an exclamation mark, proves simply to be a loss of time at a critical moment of the battle. The immediate 29...Wh4 would have enabled Black, albeit not without some difficulty, to solve his problems and maintain equality: 30 Egl! Wg3+! 31 i’fl! (Stohl’s variation 31 ^hl Wh3+ 32 ®h2+ is worse because of 32...“ЙТ7!) 31...Wd3+ 32 &f2 ±g7! 33 <£)h6+ (33 b3 Wd4+!, but not 33...Wxb3?! 34 Eacl <4>f8 35 4ixd6! Wb6+ 36 £>e3! with a powerful attack) 33...^f8 34 <£>f5 Wxc4 (it is bad to play 34...ЁС8? 35 Hxg71 Bxc4 36 Ehl or 34...1.f6?! 35 Eg6 Jlh4+ 36 £ixh4 Wd4+ 37 ^f3 Wxc4 38 flagl!) 35 Bxg7, and after 35...’Вс2! 36 Ehl Wxd2+ 37 'A’fS Wd3+ 38 Фд4 We2+ 39 Фд5 Wg2+ 40 <4Т6 Wxhl (Crouch) White has only perpetual check. 3O^h2? An error in reply: Yuferov cracks under the pressure and, to his misfortune, decides to switch his knight to the blockading square f3 (although in principle the place for it is at f2 - defending the e4-pawn!). It was also bad to play 30 JLel? Wg5! 31 ФТЗ Wh5 or 30 <£ia5? Wh41 31 £>f2 Wg3+ 32 ‘A’fl f3, while 30 ^f2 Wg5+ 31 &fl Wg3 32 Ea3 f3 33 ^еЗ ЁХС1+ 34 JLxcl Ле7 (Stohl) would have given Black sufficient counterplay. However, with 30 'A’f3! White could have parried the attack and strengthened his position: ЗО..Лд7 (the queen on its own cannot do anything - 30...W14? 31 Bgl! Wh3+ 32 Фе2 with the threat of £rf2+ or <йдхе5+), when in the event of 31 Ec3 (Crouch) Black drives the knight to the edge of the board - 31.-b5! (not immediately 31...Wi4? 32 Egl) 32 axb5 axb5 33 ®a3(a5) Exc3+ 34 ДхсЗ Wh4 35 Egl Wh3+ 36 Фе2 ltf8 with equality, and therefore it is better to play 31 JLel! (defending the h4-square and vacating d2) 31-.b5 32 axb5 axb5 33 £>d2 Excl 34 Excl Wg5 (34...&f7 35 Фе2! and ^h2-f3) 35 if2 and Egl, with the hope of successfully regrouping and exploiting his superiority in number of pieces. ЗО...ЙТ14 (9) The picture has suddenly changed in Black’s favour. The bishop on d2 is taking
away this square from the knight, hindering the defence of the weak e4-pawn. 31Hc3? Mistakes come in pairs... 31 Ael? (31 Ha3? Why) is also hopeless in view of 31...f3+! 32 4hxf3 Wxe4 33 ^cd2 We2+ 34 ihl Hxcl 35 Excl e4 (Crouch) or 34 ФдЗ He8! etc., but the tension would have been retained by 31 Aa51 f3+ 32 2>xf3 Wxe4 33 ^jcd2, although after 33...Wg4+! 34 <4’f2 fixcl 35 Hxcl Wxa4 Black’s chances are clearly better. 31...1C71 (8) The decisive manoeuvre: a mating attack on the g-file is threatened. 321gl A sad necessity: if 32 “ЙТи Hg7 33 Hf3, then 33-Wg5 34 Ef2 Wg3 35 fiafl Wd3 and wins (Stohl). 32...Bg7+ 33 ФН1 Hxgl+ 34 S’xgl Wh71 It would appear that this ‘long’ queen move, emphasising the undefended state of the e4-pawn, was not expected by Yuf-erov: here he thought for nearly all of his remaining time before the control. 35 Axf4 A practical chance - a sacrifice of the bishop for the sake of saving the e4- and d5-pawns, which would have fallen in quick succession after 35 £rf3 Wxe4 36 (±>f2 (36 £ib6 We2l and ...e5-e4) 36...Wxd5 (Stohl). 35-.exf4 36 £>d2 Wd7 (3) The queen is carrying out an enormous amount of work: it both attacks the a4-pawn and keeps an eye on the c-file and the g4-square. However, 36...Wg7+ 37 4fl Wd4 (Stohl) was also not bad. 37 lc4 Ag7 (6) An experienced master would probably have simply captured the pawn -37...Wg7+l? 38 &fl Wxb2, but I was carried away by the idea of activating my bishop to continue the attack! 38 b3 38...Ad4+! (11) This unexpected and spectacular check prevents White from coordinating his pieces. 39 ФН1 (39 lxd4? Wg7+) 39...Ac5 40 ^df3 (there is nothing better) 4O...b51 (22) I took my time over the last move before the control. Black breaks up the enemy fortifications on the 4th rank. Here the game was not yet adjourned, since with a time control of 2У2 hours for 40 moves I had used just 1 hour 28 minutes, and although I still had more than an hour in reserve, I continued playing very quickly. 41 Hc2 (if 41 axb5 Wxb5 42 4id2 Ae3 43 ®hf3 Black decides matters with 43...Axd2
41...We8 (8) Trying to restrict White’s potential activity, although again it would have been simpler to grab material: 41...bxa4 42 Bg2+ ФТ8 43 <йд5 (43 bxa4 Wxa4) 43...®e8 44 Йеб Wh7 and wins (Stohl). 42 Bg2+ ®f8 43 ^g5 43...Wh5 43-.®e51 (centralisation!) was more forceful: 44 Bg4 Wal+ 45 Фд2 Wb2+ or 44 Oif3 Wal+ 45 ®h2 Wh8+ 46 013 bxa4 47 bxa4 ®e7 48 Og5 We51 and wins. However, my plan does not greatly lengthen the winning procedure. 44 Йе6+ Фе7 45 Bg7+ (45 Bg4 f3l?) 45...®f6! 46 Bg4 bxa4 47 bxa4 There was similarly little comfort in 47 Oc5 a3! or 47 Bxf4+ Фе7 48 bxa4 Wdl+. 47...ДеЗ 48 Of4 Jlxf4 49 Bxf4+ ®e7 50 ®g2 (50 Bg4 a51) 5O...Wdl (7) 51 ®g4 Wxa4 52 йеЗ a5 The outside passed pawn decides the game. 53 05+ J-d7 54 Bh4 Wc2+ (54...'Srb4l was more accurate) 55 ®f3 a4 (10) 56 Sh7+ ®d8 Before the end of the five hour session the players also managed to reach the second time control! 57 Ba7 It would not have helped to play 57 Bh6 Wc3+ 58 ®g4 a3 59 Bxd6+ Фс7 60 Sa6 Wd3 61 d6+ ®b7 or 57 £>xd6 a3 58 0)7+ Фев! 59 06+ (59 d6 Wb3+ and ...Wxb7) 59-ФЬ8 60 Sh8+ ®a7 61 O>5+ Фаб 62 2a8+ ФхЬ5 63 Hxa3 Wdl+! 64 ®f2 Wg4 65 Be3 Wf4+ 66 Фе2 Фс4, destroying the fortress. 57...Wd3+ 58 йеЗ a3 59 Ф14 Wb3 (4) 60 05 Wb2 0-1 Times: 3.18-2.30. Not a bad win with Black, especially for the starting game. Of course, with a computer to hand the mutual mistakes are very apparent, but the character itself of the play - with some Tal-like strokes! - made a great impression on the public. Later events
in the tournament should have shown whether this was a chance happening (the opponent was successfully caught by some opening preparation), or indeed the result of creative improvement. In the second round I was tested by the highly experienced Abram Roizman, the author of some well-known collections of chess miniatures. In a Ruy Lopez he quickly diverged from the main theoretical paths by choosing the rare Bird Defence. However, this did not disturb me, and I passed this next test. The result was in fact almost a miniature, which so appealed to Botvinnik that he even briefly annotated it for the Yugoslav Informator and a number of Soviet publications. Game 22 G.Kasparov-A.Roizman Sokolsky Memorial Tournament, 2nd round, Minsk 9.01.1978 Ruy Lopez C61 1 e4 e5 2 W3 ®сб 3 ДЬ5 I did not have any deep knowledge of the Bird Defence, but here the first few moves for White simply suggest themselves. 4 <^xd4 exd4 5 0-0 5...±c5 Avoiding the variation 5-.c6 6 Дс4 ^f6 7 Hel d6 (Tsarenkov-Roizman, Moscow 1974), possibly because of 8 c31. And the direct 6...d5 (instead of 6...®f6) 7 exd5 cxd5 8 Ab5+ Ad7 9 Де1+ £>e7 is very risky in view of 10 c4l a6 (it is already hard to offer Black any good advice) 11 ixd7+ Wxd7 12 d3 0-0-0?! 13 £^d2 ФЬ8 14 b41 with a winning attack (Kasparov-Khalifman, Moscow (rapid) 2002). 6d3 Against Kupreichik (Daugavpils 1978) I tried the immediate 6 Jlc4 (with the threat of Axf7+) and after 6...d6 - 7 b41? (instead of the usual 7 d3) 7.„ЛЬ6 (somewhat sounder than 7...1.xb4 8 Wh5 Wd7 9 ^xf7+!) 8 a4 a6 (8,..a5l?) 9 d3 ^e7 10 Wh5 0-0 11 JLgS Леб 12 4£}d2 with slightly the better game for White, but that was at the finish of the tournament and I was satisfied with a draw. 6...c6 7 Дс4 (7) 7 Ла41 is considered more unpleasant for Black, and if 7-^e7, then 8 f41 (with the threat of f4-f5; the more modest 8 <2id2 ds was played in Karpov-Kupreichik, 44th USSR Championship, Moscow 1976) 8...f5 9 Ab3l d5 10 exd5 ^xd5 11 fiel+, beginning a direct attack on the king (Kamsky-Ivanchuk, Tilburg 1990). Therefore 7...d6 8 f4 f5l became topical, when it is not clear how White can gain an advantage (Novik-Meister, 48th USSR Championship, Moscow 1991). But I withdrew my bishop to c4 without particular hesitation, since I had already played this, and - more importantly - I remembered a game recently published in the Riga magazine Shakhmaty, where White quickly advanced e4-e5- This idea was imprinted in my mind, and I decided to employ it.
7...d6 Black solves his opening problems with 7...d51? (this has been played several times by Kupreichik and Tseshkovsky, and back in 1876 - by Henry Bird himself!). However, as I anticipated, in a game with a junior Roizman was aiming for more complicated play. 8 f4 (3) 'Typical of Kasparov’s style: he begins active play at the first opportunity’ (Botvinnik). It would appear that the master was expecting 8 c3 ^f6, as in my game with Gorelov (Vilnius 1975), where White did not achieve anything from the opening. Lothar Schmid’s move 8 W15!? is objectively stronger, but I was aiming for 'the position from the magazine’. 8...4tf6 9 e5 (2) This breakthrough, rather than 9 f5, when 9...d51 10 exds cxd5 is good. Even so, more chances of an advantage are promised by the developing 9 *5Gd2 (a move of 1998). 9...dxe5?! Of course, '9...®d5 was more cautious, not allowing the opening of the f-file’ (Botvinnik). After 10 JlxdS cxd5 Black has a solid position (Barle-Stoica, Bucharest 1976). The sharper 9„.^g4 is also interesting: 10 h3 (it is bad to play 10 ±xf7+? ФхТ7 11 еб+ Лхеб 12 f5 Ш! 13 fxe6+ Фе7 14 h3 4^e3 and wins, Bashkov-Meister, Taby 1991), and now 10...£te3?l 11 ЛхеЗ dxe3 12 d4 Jlb6 13 c3 or 10...d5 11 hxg4 dxc4 12 ^d2 (12...h5 13 f5!) is better for White, but 10...4jh6 (Stohl) 11 exd6 (otherwise ...d6-d5) 11...0-0 12 £>d2 (12 g4!?) 12...^.xd6 13 £te4 £rf5 is not so clear. 10 Axf7+I? I could not resist the temptation to land a spectacular blow at this weak point. However, 10 fxe51 £>d5 (10...±g4? 11 Axf7+) 11 £>d2 (Stohl) was stronger, with rapid development and excellent attacking prospects, for example: 11...0-0 (11.,.£be3? 12 ixf7+) 12 &e4 Ae7 13 Wh5 Деб 14 ±g5 ФЬ8 15 Sael, and if 15„.Wc7?, then 16 Af6!. This is why Black should not have opened the f-file. 10...^xf7 11 fxe5 ‘Now Black is deprived of the right to castle, and White will have the superior pawn formation, but most importantly - great complications begin. However, Roizman succeeds in repelling the first onslaught.’ (Botvinnik) ll...Wd5! After this Black practically equalises (in contrast to Stohl’s variation 11...Ле7?! 12 exf6 JLxf6 13 A.g5), and it is comparatively easy for him to defend. 12 exf6 gxf6 13 ®d2 Hg8 ‘Black demonstrates that he has his own play - on the д-file’ (Botvinnik). Roizman was apparently relying on this and on his two bishops, assuming that these factors would fully compensate for the defects of his pawn structure. 14 ®е4 Де7 15 -Ш (6) 15-."g6 16 We2 (13) 16 Wd2!? was slightly more accurate -
White could have gained a tempo for his development, since 1б...Лд4 would not have attacked anything. 16....s,g4 17 Wf2 17...Sag8 ‘Black himself plays for an attack, but he leaves his king in a dangerous position. 17...Фд7 followed by ...ФЬ8 suggests itself’ (Botvinnik). Or 17...Фд8 18 Hael Леб and ...Де8. 18 Hael Also completing his development. ‘White displays enviable coolness: he does not fear an attack on the g2-pawn, since he can block the g-file with a minor piece. Therefore Black includes his h7-pawn in the play.’ (Botvinnik) 18...h5?! Overestimating his attacking possibilities, Roizman forgets about the weakness of his own king! ‘After 18...4>g7 Black must reckon with the unpleasant 19 c4 or 19 сЗI?. However, 18...Леб! is more in keeping with the previous move; then 19 ЛдЗ h5 20 Wf4 f5 gives chances for both sides’ (Stohl). Say, 21 h4 (21 Wc7 Фе8!) 21...Д8д7 (with the idea of ...Фд8) 22 Wb8 2g8 23 Wc7 Wd7 with equality (but not now 23...Фе8? 24 <£)g5!). The game is also roughly equal after 20 He2 h4 21 ЛхЪ4 Sxg2+ 22 Wxg2 lxg2+ 23 lxg2 f5 24 Лхе7 Фхе7 25 Bg7+ 'S’dS 26 Hxb7 Wxa2. It seemed to Roizman that Black had no serious problems and that he would be able to play ...Леб a move later, but my reply threw him into confusion. 19 Ag51 (9) Blocking the g-file and piling up on the weak f6-point. ‘Just when the opponent was beginning to feel confident, White lands an unexpected blow - 19...Дхд5? fails to 20 4bxf6! (or 19...&J13? 20 Qixf6! - G.K.), when Black’s position collapses. The insecure position of his king begins to tell.' (Botvinnik) The tempting 19 Ad6?l would have been much weaker in view of 19.-Леб! 20 Лхе7 Sxg2+ 21 Wxg2 Hxg2+ 22 Фхд2 Фхе7 23 Hxf6 (23 i’gl i’dS!) 23...Wxa2 24 Sh6 ^d8, when Black is alright. Here my opponent sank for a long time into agonising thought... 19...Wd8 (67) A psychologically difficult decision -withdrawing the queen from the centre to the rear. The commentators recommended 19...Леб as the lesser evil, but then 20 ФЬ1! is strong, for example: 2О...ЛЬз 21 Wf3 Леб 22 Ah4 or 2O...Wd8 21 h4 Лд4 22 ®дЗ Фд7 23 Лd2 with the threat of £>f5+ (and if
23...Wd7, then 24 Se4!), and Black has a difficult position. 20 №4 (5) Audaciously leaving the bishop on g5 (from where it can no longer retreat!). What told was childish euphoria after my previous day's win over Yuferov - absolute recklessness... 20 JLh4! (Stohl) 2О..Леб 21 <5^g3 Sg4 22 Де4! was better, with a clear advantage: by exchanging a pair of rooks White relieves the pressure on g2, whereas the f6- and h5-pawns are chronically weak. 2O...±e6 After 2О...Фд7?! I would have probably ‘thought better of it’ and played 21 Ah4. 211141? (37) ‘Burning his boats behind him - the bishop will have nowhere to go. But what happens next?’ (Botvinnik). The no less garish 21 We5!? also came into consideration - but after 21...Jld5 (21...Wd5? 22 Axf6!) 22 h41 Фд7! 23 Wxd4 ФЬ7 Black somehow holds on. Therefore the strongest was 21 g31, killing the counterplay on the g-file and retaining a loophole for the bishop at h4 (although here White’s advantage is not so obvious as after 20 Ah4!). 2i...±d5 Moving the bishop out of range (21...Фд7? 22 ^xf6). ‘Black evidently suspected that there was only one danger: 22 JLxf6 fixf6 23 Wh6! with irresistible threats. But there now follows a new blow! The only possibility of continuing the fight was 21...Лд4’ (Botvinnik). And indeed, after 22 <^f2 (22 Jlh6 He8!) 22...±d6 (22...^.e6? 23 Де5!) 23 ®d2 Jlf5 24 £>e4 White’s advantage, although enduring, is not so great. However, 21..Jld5 is also not a bad move. 22 g41? (5) This pawn thrust, immediately following h2-h4, shook both Roizman and those present in the auditorium: is it really possible to play like this?! ‘A move, shocking in its audacity, and at the same time logical and highly effective’ (Nikitin). 'Played contrary to routine positional dogmas -White himself opens up the position of his king. But what is important is that the rook on g6 turns out to be in danger, and this decides the game’ (Botvinnik). Alas, here my Teacher was exaggerating: after the correct reply by the opponent, White would have had nothing decisive. And, perhaps, 22 We5 should have been tried - although after 22...Фд7! 23 Wxd4 ФЬ7 Black could still have defended (as after 21 We5) and happily avoided the crushing defeat which he soon suffers.
I think that after 22 g4 my opponent literally fell into a stupor and was no longer in a condition to fight, especially with time trouble approaching. 22...*g7? A fatal mistake. ‘A belated retreat. If 22...hxg4? there would have followed 23 h51- Black could hardly have prolonged the resistance by 22...^.xe4 on account of 23 gxh5 B6g7 24 He4’ (Botvinnik). It was also bad to play 23...Ш16 24 Sxe4 Sxh5 25 Wg4 etc. (Stohl), but 23-.Sxg5+! was far more resilient: 24 hxg5 Wd5l (threatening ...Hxg5+!) 25 g6+ Jlxg6 26 Жхе7+ Фхе7 27 Wxf6+ S>d7 28 hxg6 We6 29 Wf7+! (29 Wxd4+ Фс7 with equality) 29...Wxf7 30 fixf7+ Феб 31 Sxb7 Sxg6+ with drawing chances in the rook endgame a pawn down. True, if 22..Лхе4, then 23 Sxe41? hxg4 24 We5(f5) looks strong. But it is something else that is important: Black could simply have defended his attacked h5-pawn by 22...fih8l. Against this I had prepared 23 Jtxf6 jLxf6 (23...fixg4+? 24 Wxg4 hxg4 25 ±xe7+ Фхе7 26 £k5+!) 24 g5 l.xe4 25 Нхе4 Фд7(?) 26 ФЬ21 (but not 26 Ee6? Ee8!) 26..JIf8 27 Se6, and White is on the verge of winning. However - oh horrors! - the computer move 25...fif8l, pointed out by Stohl in the 21st Century, would have refuted my idea and led to equality: a) 26 fixd4 (26 ФЬ2? Фд8 and wins) 26...We8! 27 ФТ12 (also nothing is given by 27 5d6 Фд7 or 27 He4 Wd8!) 27...Фд7 (or 27...Фд8) 28 gxf6+ Efxf6 29 Wc7+ ФЬ6 30 He4 Wxe4 31 dxe4 fixfl; b) 26 Wf5 Фд7 27 Se6 Wd5! 28 Wxd5 cxd5 29 ФТ11 Ef7 30 gxf6+ Sgxf6. It is also not possible to find an advantage for White after 23 gxh5 (23 We5 hxg41) 23...fixh5 24 Wg4 Hhh6 25 £>g3 Hh7 26 h5 figg7 27 Wf4 Фд8! 28 fixe7 fixg5 29 fixh7 ФхЬ7 or 24 ^g3, when here 24...Дх16 25 Wxf6+! fixf6 26 <S?ixh5 JLh2+! 27 i>xh2 Wbe-r 28 £)f4 Hf5 is unclear, and 24...fih7 25 h5 (a variation by Stohl) is highly dubious, since Black does not have the resource 25...fixg5? 26 Wxg5 Hg7 on account of 27 Sxe7+! Wxe7 28 Wxg7+ Фхд7 29 ^f5+ and £>xe7, but on the other hand 24...fih8! is quite suitable - if now 25 h5, then 25...fixg5l 26 Wxg5 fig8 27 Wh4 ^.d6 28 fif4 jlxf4 29 Wxf4 Wd7 with equality. 23 gxh5 (2) 23...fxg5 24 We5+ ФИ6 (24 .Sf6 25 4^xf6 Axf6 26 h6+!) 25 hxg6 gxh4 26 fif5! The most accurate solution. 26...*Xg6 This leads to instant death, but Black
would not have saved the game with 26...Sxg6+ 27 S>h2(f2) or 26...Axe4 27 lxe4 Sxg6+ 28 *h2 Af6 29 Bxh4+! Фд7 30 Sxf6 Wxf6 31 Wc7+, picking up with checks the pawns on b7 and a7, and then also on d4. 27 *h2 My favourite 'Spanish’ move, in this case vacating a square for the rook. In view of unavoidable mate, Black resigned (1-0). Times: 1.45-2.16. 'A dynamic game!’ (Botvinnik). This second crushing win conclusively stifled the gossip on the topic 'why has a boy been allowed into this strong tournament?’ Everyone was intrigued - did I have sufficient powder in my keg?! In the 3rd round I played Mikhail Shereshevsky, a subtle positional master, later a well-known trainer, and the author of some interesting books on the endgame. He treated our game more seriously than my two previous opponents, and he decided to altogether avoid theoretical debates, trying to outplay his comparatively inexperienced opponent in a rare opening scheme. This plan almost succeeded, but at the decisive opponent, when a direct clash ensued, the master flinched... Came 23 M.Shereshevsky-G.Kasparov Sokolsky Memorial Tournament, 3rd round, Minsk 11.01.1978 Queen’s Pawn Opening A48 1 d4 £lf6 2 g6 3 Af4 One of Shereshevsky’s two favourite schemes (the other was 2 Ag5), where subsequently he did not employ the standard c2-c3 and ^bd2, but the unusual <5hc3 - with his pawn on c2! 3...Ag7 Against Kagan in the 12th round I played more originally and again 'in Gligoric style’ - 3-d6 4 e3 £lh5 5 Ag5 h6 6 Ah 4 g5 7 Afd2 <йд7! 8 АдЗ ^f5, nevertheless exchanging knight for bishop. 4 e3 d6 5 Ae2 0-0 6 0-0 6 h3 would have led to a position from the game Sturua-Kasparov (Riga 1977), where after 6...b6 7 0-0 c5 8 Abd2 Aa6!? Black achieved good play. However, the master has a different idea. 6...C5 (4) 7 <^£3 This move somewhat embarrassed me -everyone almost exclusively played 7 h3 or immediately 7 c3. The position of the pawn at c2 looks strange, but at least the knight is developed at an active position. 7...b6 (2) 8 h3 (here I stopped to think: how does Black best complete his development?) 8...<^a6 (13) A more committing move than the simple 8...Ab7 (hindering d4-d5) and then ,..^bd7 or ...2>c6 (this is what I would probably play now). 9 -el?! Over-modest, but this ‘non-contact battle' was the point of Shereshevsky’s play. ‘White chose a waiting opening strategy, denying his energetic opponent specific
targets to attack’ (Nikitin). White should have considered the cramping 9 d5!? £>c7 10 a41 (but not 10 e4 b51 11 eS dxe5 12 Jlxe5 b4), although all the same Black has a normal ‘Indian’ set-up (White has lost a tempo on e2-e3), and in order to avoid e3-e4 even 10.,.£)h5 11 ih2 f5 is possible. 9...£k7 (9) 10 JLfl Having said ‘A’, White must also say ‘B’, especially as it is now too late for 10 d5 because of 10...b51. 10..Jlb7 As a result Black has very comfortable development and the more flexible position, giving him chances of seizing the initiative. It is now up to White to devise something. 11 JLh2?! Taking into account the further developments in the game, 11 JLg3 was more accurate, and if ll...£>d7, then 12 a4l Axf3 13 Wxf3 cxd4 14 exd4 A.xd4 15 Hadi йеб 16 £)d5 Jtxb2 17 c3 with sharp play. However, Black would have had the good reply ll...cxd41? 12 exd4 £>e6. Il...^d7 (13) Here too ll...cxd4l? 12 exd4 ^e6 came into consideration. But ll...£)d7 seemed far more energetic to me, since it immediately creates a threat to the d4-pawn. 12 a4l A clever and provocative reply, the strength of which I underestimated. After sacrificing the d4-pawn, White obtains appreciable pressure in return. Shereshevsky’s psychological reckoning was correct: it was far more unpleasant for me to suppress the opponent’s initiative than for me myself to attack. Besides, 12 Ле2 Hc8 or the ‘Sicilian-like’ 12 e4 cxd4 13 S^xd4 Hc8 would have been altogether tedious for White. 12...±xf3 Perhaps the waiting move 12...a6l? should have been preferred - to see what White will do next (which is not very clear). But I played, and quite quickly, as ordained by the classics: if no immediate danger is apparent, you should capture a pawn! And the more so if it is a central one... 13 Wxf3 cxd4 14 exd4 Axd4 15 Hadi ^e6 (7) 16 ±g3! Both defending the f2-pawn, and possibly including the bishop in the attack via h4. The position turned out to be very complicated, and it was unclear to me what Black should play here. 16...Hc8 (13)
Also in the event of 16...4klc5 17 Ah4 or 17 <5hd51 White has excellent compensation for the pawn. pawns for the exchange and his pieces are active. 19 Axes dxe5 17 5! (the sacrifice of a second infantry- man!) 17...Axb2l? (45) Of course, not 17...Sxc2? 18 We4. But also after the cautious 17...Ag7 18 c3 or 17...^f6 18 c3 ^xd5 19 cxd4 £hb4 20 d5 ЙС5 21 We2! fie8 22 Wd2 a5 23 Ab5 lf8 24 Af4 Black has a rather unpleasant position and his extra pawn is not felt. Therefore after a long think - a record one for me in those years - I decided to take a risk. 18 c3 Now the bishop is cut off and White’s threats are genuinely dangerous. 18...<e5? For a long time I considered this to be an excellent move (a queen sacrifice!) and my trainer Nikitin, annotating the game for ChessBase and his book, awarded it an exclamation mark. But in fact after it Black is on the verge of defeat! The unsophisticated 18...Aa3 was correct, and although after the energetic 19 Ah 4 ^heS 20 Wg3 g5 21 f41 White retains the initiative, the situation remains doubleedged: 21...ФЬ8 22 fxe5 Sg8 23 Aa6 JSb8 24 iTil fig7 25 Ae3 Wg8 26 4hf5 gxh4 27 Wxh4 dxe5 28 £}xg7 Wxg7 - Black has two 20Sxe5? It stands to reason that 20 W6+? is weak in view of 2O...exf6 21 Sxd8 Hfxd8 22 Wxf6 Axc3 23 ficl Ad4, when White’s f2-point begins to ‘creak’. 20 Йе2 (20 Sd2? Axc3!) is also unfavourable: 2O...Aa3 21 £tf6+ exf6 22 Hxd8 Sfxd8 23 Wxf6 Af8(d6) with equality. However, the unexpected, typically computer-like 'backwards leap’ 20 £>e3! would have led to the trapping of the misplaced bishop: 2O...Wc7 (20...We8? 21 Ab5) 21 2k4 JLxc3 (21...e4 22 We3) 22 Wxc3, and the three black pawns are inadequate compensation for the piece. It would appear that White has a technically won position. 2O...*g7 (5) After making this prophylactic move, I promptly offered my opponent a draw, which surprised many people. With time-trouble imminent (I had about 30 minutes left for 20 moves) I decided that White’s activity fully compensated for the sacrificed pawn and that a draw with Black after two wins would be an excellent result. But, to all appearances, Shereshevsky interpreted my draw offer as an indication
of uncertainty or even weakness: he immediately launched into an attack - and miscalculated somewhere. 21 21 4he3? Wc7 22 <^c4 no longer works because of 22..ЛаЗ - the rook at e5 is attacked. The best continuation was probably 21 ±a6 Дс5 (it is also possible to avoid cutting off the bishop’s retreat from b2 - 21,..Дс6 22 4ixe7 ДхсЗ) 22 Де2 £ic7! 23 ®e3 (23 ib7?l ®xd5 24 ДхЬ2 e6!) 23...We8 24 ±b5 ^xb5 25 axb5 ЛхсЗ 26 £>d5, regaining the material with a draw: 26..>c8 27 Дхе7 Wf5! or 26„>a8 27 Дхе7 ФЬ8! 28 lxf7 Jlg7. 21...ДхсЗ! (5) An interposition, which changes the situation in Black’s favour: he wins a pawn and seizes the initiative. Whereas 21...We8? would have lost a piece: 22 Ab 5! ДхсЗ 23 We 2 £>xf4 24 Wxb2 (a pin on the long diagonal!) 24...Wa8 25 f3 Sfc8 (25...^xh3+ 26 4Ti2!) 26 ДеЗ ^d5 27 Hdd3 etc. 22 Aixe6+ If 22 Wg4, then 22...Wc8! (but not 22...Wc7? 23 Дхеб!). The exchanging operation 22 Hxd8 Hxf3 23 £ixe6+ fxe6 24 Axf8 flxf8 25 Дхеб would have led after 25...Aa3 26 Ab 5 Ac5 27 Де2 Ad8 to a difficult (but perhaps not lost) endgame where White is a pawn down. 22...fxe6 23 We2? If not 23 flxd8!? ficxf3 (cf. above), then 23 Wg4 was correct, although after 23...Wc7(c8) all the same White is a pawn down and can only pin his hopes on the opposite-colour bishops. 23...ЙС7! 24 Дхеб JLa3! (beforehand Shereshevsky overlooked this simple defence: it is not just that White is a pawn down - his f2-point is also catastrophically weak) 25 Wd2 Other moves are no better. 25...1f4?l (5) A seemingly logical move. ‘The black heavy pieces have suddenly become amazingly coordinated and effective’ (Nikitin). But later I came to the conclusion that 25...Дсб would have been simpler, with an extra pawn and an obvious advantage (26 Wd4+ Sf6). And only when I was preparing this book, now with the help of a computer, did I discover a staggering trick - 25...fixf2!? 26 Wxf2 (26 <ixf2? Дс2) 2б..Лс5 27 Ad4 Да31! (after the a-pawn!) 28 ihl (28 a5 Да4!) 28...1xa4 29 Ac4 Да1+ 30 Afl a51 followed by 31-flxfl+ 32 Wxfl Axd4 with three pawns for the exchange and real winning chances. 26 Adel? Strangely enough, the ‘logical’ rook lunge
to f4 brought me a quick win: my opponent simply cracked. 26 g3! was necessary, and if 2б...Дха4(?), then 27 Sdel!. It is not so easy to see such a quiet move in time-trouble in the fifth hour of play. White has every chance of saving the game: 27...аб 28 Wg5 4>h8 29 Дхдб or 27...Sc6 28 Wdl! Sc2 29 Wal+ 4>g8 30 Дбе31. Therefore Black would have had to retreat - 26...Ш7!, nevertheless retaining the advantage. But Shereshevsky played the immediate 26 Sdel, which seemingly looks natural: why waste time on g2-g3? 2б...Дс2! (2) This was overlooked by White. Incidentally, here too after 2б...Дха4(?) he would have been saved by 27 g31 (27 Wg5? Wf4l), as in the previous note, although it remains an open question how Shereshevsky would have played. 27 Wdl (27 Wd3 ±d6!) 27...Wc5? (5 Again a spectacular, but second-rate move and, alas, not a ‘fearful blow, shattering White’s defences’ (Nikitin). Later we discovered some far more convincing ways to win - Tl...JLd6! or 27-.Scxf21 (but not 27...Sfxf2? 28 Wal+) 28 ®al+ ДЬ2! 29 Sxe7+ Wxe7 30 Дхе7+ <4>h6(f6), and there is no way of saving the game. 28 Дхе7+ ФЬб 2917e2 29 Wd7l? (launching a desperate attack) 29...Wxf2+ 30 ФЬ2 Jlxe7 31 Sxe7 came into consideration, although after 31...Wd4! 32 Sxh7+ Фд5 33 Wxd4 (33 We7+? Sf6) 33-fixd4 34 Sxa7 Sdd2 White has a difficult ending. 29...flxf2 30 4hl? The final mistake. The only chance was 30 Дхс2 Дхс2+ 31 ФЬ1, when Black would have had to overcome considerable technical difficulties: the attack peters out, and left on the board are opposite-colour bishops with their drawing tendencies. 3O...flfxe2! (2) 31 ixe2 31 Sxe2 Дс1 32 Wd2+ Wg5 33 Wxg5+ Фхд5 34 Sf2 ±c5 35 Sf7 Sal 36 <4>h2 h51 was also hopeless. 'White does not want to go down on his knees and he dies standing up’ (Nikitin). By allowing a genuine knockout blow... 31...W2! 32 4>h2 Wf4+ 0-1 Times: 2.20-2.23. My third successive win made an even greater impression. Unexpectedly I became the tournament leader! I remember how on the tram on the way back from the game I was discussing variations with my opponent, and Shereshevsky asked me in sur
prise: ‘Listen, but bow did you contrive not to win the world under-17 championship?!’ But in the 4th round I lost with Black to Dydyshko, and I was immediately caught by five players, including Lutikov. However, the grandmaster was not in the lead for long: soon he fell away, after losing in the 7th round to the second favourite - Kupreichik (who had started sluggishly with four draws). Whereas I scored another three successive wins - over Kapengut, Vere-meichik and Begun, reached 6 out of 7 and again assumed the sole lead, this time to the end of the tournament. From the press: 'After Kasparov won yet another game, one of the spectators said despairingly: "Somehow in Belorussia we’ve forgotten how to play. Our masters are losing to a boy." Standing alongside, the normally taciturn Latvian master Yanis Klovans could not refrain from responding: “There’s no need for you to be upset. You’ll very soon be hearing about this boy’’.’ In the 8th round I made a short draw with Black against Zakharov. But in the 9th, against the local candidate master Valery Smirnov, in the most vexing fashion I let my opponent off the hook, and for a long time I could not forgive myself. A few moves before the time control I had a completely won endgame, but while I was strolling about on the stage, Albert Kapengut amicably whispered in my ear that awaiting me in the hotel was the second volume of The Count of Monte Cristo (the book had been brought by a relative of Kapengut -Tamara Golovey). I was so overjoyed that I immediately began to ‘flounder’, and instead of an elementary win the result was a draw. True, the following day I won against Lyuboshits and, with 8 points out of 10, I was able to maintain the high tempo adopted at the start. Of great importance for the outcome of the tournament was the result of the 11th round game with my main pursuer - Kupreichik, who had now warmed up. It was adjourned in an ending with some advantage for my eminent opponent, but I managed to gain a draw. Then in the 12th round I defeated Kagan and five rounds before the finish I had achieved the cherished master norm - 9У2 points! This greatly exceeded our initial plan. Alexander Nikitin recalls: 'Before the tournament I suggested to Garry the following “optimal” spread of results, which would take him slightly over the master norm: 1) A cautious start (3/2 out of 6) - he needed to become accustomed to the completely new atmosphere of a fierce, purely adult event; 2) A vigorous middlegame, which would determine overall success; 3) A restrained finish (2/2 out of 5) - it was not known how Garry would stand up to the rigours of 17 games. ‘However, his very first games staggered everyone - the fans, trainers and, above all, the players themselves. The tournament immediately became a notable event in the sporting life of the city. Spectators came along to see Kasparov. The play of the young man from Baku was distinguished by its unusual freshness and a kind of mysterious strength. The clever manoeuvres of his pieces literally caused the heads of his opponents to spin. He conducted the event in inspired fashion...’ In the 13th round 1 made a quick draw with Klovans, and then I won against Mariasin and Litvinov - 12 out of 15! The second-placed Kupreichik was 1У2 points behind. But in the 16th, penultimate round
he defeated Smirnov, whereas I lost ignominiously to Mochalov (what evidently told was the accumulated psychological fatigue). And the competitive situation suddenly sharpened: now the leaders were separated by just half a point. Everything was decided by the last round. There was no doubt that Kupreichik would beat the outsider Lyuboshits - and he won. Thus in order to occupy sole first place I needed to win 'to order’ against Lutikov - my first one-to-one game with a grandmaster! His best chess years may have been behind him, but his enormous experience made him a very dangerous opponent... I didn’t know exactly what I would do, and I simply went along to play 'good' chess: I had already become a master, and now I wanted to win the tournament. It is hardly surprising that this far from faultless game is one that I have remembered all my life. Came 24 G.Kasparov-A.Lutikov Sokolsky Memorial Tournament, 17th round, Minsk 2.02.1978 Queen’s Pawn Opening A41 1 d4 <£>f6 2 2>f3 d6 The King’s Indian move 2...g6 is more flexible, since the d7-pawn retains freedom of choice (3 £ic3 d5!), whereas now White acquires an additional opportunity to fight for the centre with e2-e4. But the ‘sideways’ move chosen by Lutikov is not really so bad: Black wants in the first instance to solve the problem of developing his queen’s bishop. 3 <^c3 Ag4 Subtlety against subtlety: Black avoids the Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence (3...g6 4 e4 Ag7) or the Philidor Defence (3...^>bd7 4 e4 e5), against which I did not object. 3...jlf5 4 014 Ad7 is also interesting (Azmaiparash-vili-Lutikov, Kutaisi 1978). 4e4 Already a turning-point in the game! 4... ^bd7? Either carelessness, or provocation: after all, to try and refute the opponent’s risky idea I was obliged to decide on the sharp advance of my e-pawn, in a situation where I could not afford to lose. Meanwhile, as has been known since the start of the last century, Black has two comparatively sound continuations: a) 4...C6 (a compatriot of Lutikov, the Moldovan master Chebanenko, was a great expert on this variation) 5 h3 Jlh5 (Petrosian upheld 5...jlxf3 6 Wxf3 £)bd7 7 ДеЗ еб and ...d6-d5) 6 Ad3 еб 7 We2 d5, and Black has an acceptable game (Deep Blue-Kasparov, 4th match game, New York 1997); b) 4...e6 5 Де2 ke7 6 0-0 0-0 7 ±e3 (7 h3 JLh5 8 ДеЗ сб and ...d6-d5 leads to variation 'a', Ponomariov-Grischuk, 2nd match game, Khanty-Mansiysk 2005) 7...®bd7 8 ?jd2 Axe2 9 Wxe2 c5 with a solid position (Kasparov-Short, 5th rapid match game, London 1987) or 5 h3 JLh5 6 We2!? аб!? 7 g4 JLg6 8 h4 h5 9 g5 £rfd7 with sharp play
(Su.Polgar-Anand, Amsterdam 1990). This rare, somewhat passive set-up still attracts Black, since it enables him to avoid the well-studied main opening lines. However, the move 4-^bd7?, which was quickly made by Lutikov, allows a very dangerous breakthrough in the centre. Initially I even did not believe my eyes! But, after calculating some simple variations, I accepted the challenge. 5 e5! (2) 5...£>g8 Black is forced to retreat, since 5...dxe5 6 dxe5 ±xf3 7 Wxf3 ^xe5 8 Wxb7 is unacceptable for him. 6 h3 Jlxf3 If 6...jlh5 both 7 g4 JLg6 8 h4 with the idea of 8...h5 9 e6! and the immediate 8 e6! fxe6 9 ®g5 are good, when Black's position is unenviable. 7 Wxf3 c6 It is apparent that White has already achieved much, but what next? 8 ±f4 (6) With the intention of provoking ...d6-d5 and only then carrying out the impeding pawn sacrifice e5-e6, although now it is no longer so effective - Black has gained a respite. Therefore serious consideration should have been given to opening up the game by 8 exd6!? exd6 (8...e6 9 Af4 - cf. the following note) 9 d5 or 9 Af4 and 0-0-0 with a powerful initiative. 8...d5 Falling in with my idea. After both 8...dxe5 9 dxe5 e6 10 0-0-0 and 8...e6 9 exd6 ®gf6 (9...^df6?! 10 d5l) 10 ±e2 £>b6 11 Wg3 Wd7 12 0-0 0-0-0 13 ±e5 (13-i.xd6 14 Wxg7) or ll...£tfd5 12 ^xd5 ^xd5 13 l.e5 f6 14 c4l White also has an obvious advantage. 9 e6! (otherwise ...e7-e6) 9...fxe6 10 Ad3 (3) io...<2}gf6 11 We2 (2) For the moment Black’s extra pawn is only hindering his development, and it is obviously doomed. ll...g6 A sensible move. The attempt ll...Wb6 12 0-0-0 0-0-0(?) 13 Wxe6 Wxd4(?) would be refuted by the pretty but routine stroke 14 Wxc6+! Ьхсб 15 Лаб mate. 12 Wxe6 i.g7 13 0-0?! (2) A questionable and rather flippant decision - White thinks that all roads lead to Rome. I judged that the opponent’s defences would not be cracked by crude pressure on the e-file, I was outlining a pawn offensive on the queenside, and therefore I hid my king on the opposite wing. However, 13 0-0-0! was both more
logical, and stronger - after 13-015 14 Ag5(h2) White would have retained an obvious advantage. 13...£>h5 14 Ag5?(5) When I played 13 0-0 I was intending this active bishop move, assuming, mainly on general grounds, that it would be difficult for Black to decide on 14-A.xd4. Of course, the pawn should have been defended - 14 Ae3, still with the better chances. 14...O8? Lutikov took me ‘at my word’ and played this without calculating the variations. But this is a serious mistake, leading to a difficult position. After the cool-headed 14-Axd41 Black could have repelled the attack. At the board I was naively hoping that in the variation 15 ?ixd5(?) cxd5 16 Ab5 O6(?) 17 Hadi the white rooks would find suitable employment on the central files, but in home analysis I found 16...a6!? 17 Sael axb5 18 Axe7 Wb6 19 Wxd5 Ae51, when it is now White who has to display exceptional resourcefulness: 20 fixes 4^xe5 21 Acs! Wc6 22 Wxe5+ ^7 23 We7+ Фд8 24 fidl #e8! 25 Wxb7 with a mass of pawns for the rook and an unclear game. But later it transpired that after 16...Af6! White does not have compensation for the piece. Obviously, instead of 15 O<d5? the simple 15 Hfel is correct, for example: 15...Af6 16 Axf6 Oixf6 (16...<2jdxf6? 17 g4) 17 £>a4 with quite good play for the pawn, but -within the bounds of equality (17-flf8 18 c4 Bf7 etc.). 15 Wg4 Об (or 15.-A.f6 16 fiael) 16 We2 Wd6 17 Sael (4) Black’s forces are still scattered, his development is incomplete, and the threat of trouble along the e-file has by no means disappeared. The problem of deploying the rooks was solved very simply by White: after the pawn advance f2-f4-f5 the opening of the f-file is very much a reality, and therefore the rooks stand best at el and fl. 17...e6 Black prevents the advance of the white f-pawn, but at the same time he condemns himself to passive defence, by denying himself the resource ...Об. However, 17-417 18 Ah41 Об (if 18...fie8 with the idea of 19 Ag3 Wb4, then 19 We31) 19 Ag3 Wd7 (19-Od4? 20 We3 Wb4 21 a3) 20 Ae5 looks dangerous for him - f2-f4-f5 is threatened. 18 04(5) In this way White opens a second front on the queenside, trying also there to create targets to attack. 18 We31? was also
good, retaining various possibilities. 18...<tf7 19 b4 b6 (not 19...Wxb4? 20 £>c5) 20 Wd2 (3) 2O...Se8 In the event of 20...®8d7 21 Jlf4 We7 22 ДеЗ fihe8 23 flfel White would have combined pressure on the e-file with the threat of opening the game on the queenside. 21 if4 To where should the queen move? 21...We7 In the event of 21...Wd7, apart from my earlier recommendation 22 c4, White also has two other strong possibilities: the prophylactic 22 JLh2l? with the idea of 22...C5 23 4^c31, and the combinative 22 b51? cxb5 23 4hc3 аб 24 a4l b4 25 £>e2 a5 26 Jlb5, winning the exchange, and then, most probably, also the game. 22 b5 (22 Дез!? also suggests itself) 22...Wa3 A difficult choice: at e7 the queen was preventing the other black pieces from regrouping. After 22...C5 I was planning 23 dxc5 bxc5 24 c4, and if 24...d4, then 25 Де2 and flfel, increasing the pressure. 23 ^c3 c5 24 ®bl! (2) The return home of the knight is perhaps the strongest move in its career (a similar manoeuvre was familiar to me from the Sicilian). It transpires that the black queen’s sortie to a3 has not prevented the opening of the centre. 24...Wa4 If 24-.Wb4, then 25 c3l is good (but not 25 Wxb4?l cxb4 26 JLd6, as given in The Test of Time, because of 26...^6d71 27 Jlxb4 jlxd4) 25...Wa5 26 Wb2, and the black queen suffers a sad fate (while after 24...Wxa2? 25 £)c3 it is altogether trapped). 25 dxc5 bxc5 26 c41 (of course!) 26...£>8d7 26...dxc4? is not possible because of 27 £)c3, while after 26...d4 27 We 2 or 27 1.C7 Black’s queen is again incarcerated and his position is very difficult. 27 £ic3 (4) 27...Wa5 28 Wc2 The flamboyant 28 £}e4!? Wxd2 29 £}g5+ Фд8 30 Axd2 would have given an overwhelming advantage, but I did not want to exchange the queens. White's problem is that he has many tempting moves, but he still has to win the game, i.e. overcome certain difficulties. 28...Wd8 There is not now anything for the queen to do on its own wing. 28...e5? or 28...^b6? was bad because of 29 Ad21, but 28...fid8 and ...ДЬе8 deserved some consideration. 29 l.g5 (13) 29...£>b6 30 a41 (4) The threat of the a-pawn’s further ad
vance does not allow Black time to regroup, e.g. 30..>c7 31 cxd5 exds 32 a5 ®bd7 33 ^xd5 ®xd5 34 Д.С4 or Sl-.'SifxdS (31...£)bxd5? 32 ±c4!) 32 £ie4 c4 33 a5 cxd3 34 Wxc7 ^xc7 35 £3d6+ etc. 3O...dxc4 31.-S.e4 -Se7 If 31„.Ubf8 tbe most decisive was probably 32 ±c6!? Wd3 33 Well ld8 34 a5 ^bd5 35 £>xd5 with the ideas of fle3-f3 and b5-b6. 32 a5 (4) Here too 32 JLc61 ? (32...Wd3 33 Well) was good, as well as 32 fidl fld7 33 JLc6 or 32 Se3. 32...<abd7 33 ±c6 (8) The solid 33 ^4 was also possible, but I was already looking for decisive continuations. 33...^b8 The pawn capture ЗЗ-ЛхаЗ would have been suicidal in view of 34 ®е4 (34 Де31?) 34...£)xe4 35 Axe7 (35 Wxe4 is also not bad) 35-..£>d2 36 ±g51 £)xfl 37 tdl! with crushing threats. 341dl(7) Although 34 Se3 Wxa5?l 35 Sf3 or 34 Sde4 Wxa5?! 35 ^d6+ would also have been decisive, I continued playing in my usual style. The pawn sacrifice was not essential, but it appealed to me! 34-..Wxa5 35 ^e4 Sf8 At last the h8-rook has come into play, making way for the king to go to g8. Black has acquired a real prospect of consolidating his position, while White is restoring the material balance. But here I noticed a drawback to the placing of the black rooks. 36 l.f4l (11) Like a pendulum, the white bishop has been oscillating throughout the game between f4 and g5, each time further disrupting the opponent's defences. This last oscillation makes Black’s position critical. Since 36.,.e5? is not possible because of 37 Wxc4+, he is forced to allow the invasion of the white pieces. Even now I am proud of the elegant bishop move, although the computer suggests the ‘inflexible’ 36 £>d6+ Фд8 37 £>xc4 Wc7 38 fid6 <^xc6 39 bxc6 or 38...^ЬЬ7 39 Hfdl 40 ЛеЗ and wins. The winning method chosen by me is more human: there is no reason to drive the black king into a safe shelter. 36...^xc6 37 Ьхсб £>e8?! In defending the d6-square, Black allows a tactical stroke. 37-..£>xe4 38 Wxe4 Sc8 (not 38...Jld4 39 Jld6) was somewhat more resilient, but here White would have concluded the fight by 39 JLg51 JLf6 (39...Дее8
40 Ed7+ Фд8 41 JLd21 with the threat of lxg7+) 40 Jlxf6 <4>xf6 41 Wh4+ <^f7 42 Wxh7+ &f6 43 Wh4+ &f7 44 ld6 or 44 Efel, and the heavy piece attack is irresistible. 38 ld71 (5) 38...1xd7 39 cxd7 2if6 40 £id6+ (40 £}g5+ and Wxc4 was more energetic) 4О...Фе7 (4О...Фд8 41 £>b71) 41 <^xc4 Wa6 42 Jld6+ ^xd7 43 A.xf8 43 We2! (threatening 4te5+) 43..>a4(b7) 44 Axf8 Jlxf8 45 Eel would have won more quickly. 43-..Axf8 Despite the nominal material equality (two pawns for the exchange), Black’s position is lost: it is impossible for him to defend his king and preserve all his weak pawns. 44 Wd3+ (44 Sdl+I?) 44...Фе7 (44...^d5? 45 ^e5+; 44...Фе8(c7) 45 Sbl etc. is also insufficient) 45 Sdl (45 Ebl!?) 45...^d5 46 We4 Sf7 (4б...^сЗ? 47 Wh4+) 47 ^>e5+ Ag8 48 ^d7! An accurate move to decide proceedings. 48...C4 49 Ebl (with an unavoidable invasion) 49...Wd6 Black parries the threat of Eb8, and in passing he sets the ‘trap’ 50 £>xf8 ^2jc31? (5O...'i,xf8 51 Wxc4 is hopeless), into which White could well have fallen - 51 Wa8! £)xbl 52 <^xe6+ <4>f7 53 £>g5+ Фе7 54 Wb7+ and Wxbl, winning. But since, in the heat of the battle, we had rushed past the time control, and neither of us was taking the initiative in adjourning the game, I followed another path, planned beforehand, where it was the activity of the rook that nevertheless decided matters. 50 Eb7 (2) 5O...C3 51 -xf8 Axf8 52 Exh7 Wf4 By the threat of perpetual check Black exchanges the queens and saves himself from a mating attack, but not from defeat. 53 Wxf4+ (53 Wbl Й)4 54 дЗ c2 55 Жхсг! was also good) 53...£btf4 54 *fl a5 55 Ea7 4?hd5 56 Exa5<4’f7 With a final trap - 57 Фе2 ®f4+ 58 i>f3?? c2 59 Bc5 £Мз! 60 Дхс2 £)el+, and it is Black who wins, but... 57 g3 1-0 Times: 2.07-2.29. This first tournament win over a grandmaster also brought me my first triumph in adult chess. By confidently taking first place in a strong field and surpassing the master norm by 31/2 points, I also reached a new level in public perception. As Botvinnik commented, this was the greatest success ever achieved by such a young player in the Soviet Union! The newspapers began writing about me, many chess fans took an interest in my play, and I acquired an army of supporters. Not for nothing did the chairman of the Belorussian Chess Federation state at the closing ceremony: We hope that Kasparov will return here, in order to get even with Mochalov and Dydyshko!' From the newspaper Sovietsky sport: ‘The eighth Sokolsky Memorial was a particular success. The fighting intensity was unusually high: out of 153 games, only 60 ended in a draw. The hero of the tournament was the
USSR junior champion Garik Kasparov from Baku. As it turned out, it was not the masters who tested the schoolboy, but the schoolboy who gave lessons to the masters! In his play one senses the influence of exchampion Botvinnik, who already for several years has been advising the young player from Baku.’ At that same time, on the eve of the Karpov-Korchnoi world championship match (Baguio 1978), the newspaper Sotsialis-ticheskaya industriya [Socialist Industry] wrote: ‘Karpov has every reason to hope for a favourable outcome to this encounter. But some time will pass, and he will have to battle against new challengers. Who are they? It is probable that the dangerous rivals to the present world champion are among those who today are 15-16 years old... Some three years ago a talented young player from Baku, Garry Kasparov, first drew attention. Two years running he won the title of USSR junior champion. “In the hands of such youths is the future of chess", Botvinnik spoke about his pupil. Very recently an important landmark in Kasparov’s career was reached - he became a master. In the tournament table he had 13 points! The quality of his games is also staggering.’ Botvinnik: 'The fact that Garik may develop into a world-class player is something I have been convinced about for a long time. But the skill is to steer him towards this cautiously, by degrees. When we were sure that he was capable of withstanding great stress, we decided to test his capabilities in more serious tournaments. In Minsk he performed simply excellently, demonstrating by his victory that he is quite ready to be elevated to the master rank. He also had the moral right to this earlier, when for the second successive time he won the junior championship of the country. Now he has also gained the juridical right to this.’ Valery Asriyan: ‘In January 1978 I began working for the Azerbaijan Information Agency and in the performance of my duties I had far more frequent contact with Kasparov than before. Precisely at that time the Sokolsky Memorial took place in Minsk. Garik played brilliantly... I regularly phoned Minsk and, as soon as news of Kasparov’s success became known, I passed on the information to TASS under the heading “The youngest master’’, since Garik had become the youngest chess master in the world’. That is how this unforgettable tournament concluded, for me a genuinely momentous one. Directly from Minsk I hastened to the Botvinnik School, where my strict mentor offered words not only of congratulation. At that same session Mikhail Moiseevich for the first time invited me to be his assistant. I was filled with a feeling of pride - it meant that I was already able in some way to help the great Botvinnik. Nikitin: 'Garry reported back on his accomplishment, and at the same time, in place of Dvoretsky, who had left the school, he performed the duties of assistant - at a session where half of the pupils were older than him. I am not sure that this was a pedagogically correct move by the exchampion. To push the self-assertion of the newly-fledged master was risky. However, the teacher had conclusively broken off with his previous assistant and he decided to show that he could also conduct lessons without him. Which he did. One session, which, as it turned out, was the last one.’ Unfortunately, the school closed due to the removal of financial support, and its work was renewed only eight years later, when I became world champion, now as the 'Botvinnik-Kasparov School’.
Smile of Fortune All-union Qualifying Tournament (Daugavpils, 27th June - 16th July 1978): 1. Kasparov and 2. Livanov - 9 out of 13; 3-7. Kupreichik, Mikhalchishin, Kapengut and Tseshkovsky -8У2; 8-13. Alburt, Makarychev, Dolmatov, Rashkovsky, Lerner and Palatnik - 8 etc. (altogether - 64 participants, including 7 grandmasters, 9 international masters and 42 masters). After my victory in Minsk, some said that the tournament was not a significant one, whereas coming up in the summer was the all-union qualifier for the next men's USSR Championship - that would indeed be a serious test! I gained the right to play in it thanks to my successes in junior events. The tournament was held on the currently fashionable Swiss system, then very rare in high-level competitions, which allows qualifiers to be quickly selected from a large number of contestants. Here there were 64, and only the winner would go through directly into the Premier League, while the next six would have to play again in the First League. So that for everyone there were seven qualifying places, plus one or two reserve places, and no cash prizes! Botvinnik very much disliked Swiss tournaments and thought that it was harmful for me to play in such 'lotteries’: it is difficult to prepare beforehand (it is not known who you will be paired against), and express preparation before games is chaotic. The maestro said to Nikitin: ‘Neither I, nor your beloved Fischer played in such tournaments, but this did not prevent us becoming world champions’. Botvinnik even suggested to the Sports Committee that they should make a ‘castling’ move - send me instead of Artur Yusupov to the Amsterdam IBM 'B’ Tournament with a grandmaster norm, and, by contrast, include Yusupov in the all-union qualifying tournament (although Artur, as world junior champion, already had the right to play in the First League!). Fortunately, this did not happen... In the end Botvinnik reconciled himself to my participation in the unusually strong Swiss tournament, which was to start at the end of June in the Latvian town of Daugavpils. It was my mother who persuaded him to ‘forgo his principles’; in the words of Nikitin, 'her diplomatic skill had an irresistible effect on Mikhail Moiseevich’. After this the Teacher severely asked me whether I was hoping to finish among the leading places in Daugavpils. I gave a vague reply. Then he said that with such a mood there was no point in going to the tournament, which was to be held on the Swiss system and would be ineffective as a training event. Well, the audacious thought of qualifying for the First League did occur to me, of course. I prepared very thoroughly with Nikitin and Shakarov: we worked a great deal on both the opening and the endgame, we studied the origin of my mistakes, and we also tried to solve psychological problems. Before the tournament I was in a fighting mood and I sensed that I was capable of a new qualitative leap. Now I was no longer a ‘dark horse’, as in Minsk, and the other players were rather wary of me, but the line-up of the qualifying tournament in Daugavpils was far more impressive: the most promising young players and some fifteen chess die-hards, battle-hardened in high-level battles. Therefore initially my trainers set me a comparatively modest objective - to score ‘plus two’, and in the first half of the tournament I played quietly. At the start I was paired against the tal
ented 24-year old Chelyabinsk player Alexander Panchenko, the USSR young masters champion, who was soon to become a grandmaster and later a well-known trainer and the author of some substantial chess books. Game 25 G.Kasparov-A.Panchenko All-Union Qualifying Tournament, 1st round, Daugavpils 28.06.1978 Sicilian Defence B67 1 e4 (at that time this was my main move -I was only just becoming accustomed to 1 d4) 1...C5 2 &f3 <?k6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ?xd4 ®f6 5 -ljc3 d6 One of Panchenko’s favourite set-ups, along with the Chelyabinsk Variation (5...e5). 6 ^g5 еб 7 Wd2 аб 8 0-0-0 l.d7 9 f4 (9 f3 was also fashionable, but I didn’t play that) 9...b5 10 «хсб (7) Nowadays the main line is 10 JLxf6 gxf6. 1О...Дхсб 11 l.d3 (6) Natural development, although 11 We3(el) has also been employed. 11..Ле7 12 es 12 Wei Sid?! is ineffective for White (Browne-Tukmakov, Hastings 1972/73; Mecking-Polugayevsky, 6th match game, Lucerne 1977), while after 12 Hhel 0-0 13 e5 dxe5 14 Wf2 there is an interesting queen sacrifice - 14...h6!? (Karpov-Tai, 44th USSR Championship, Moscow 1976). 12...dxe5 13 fxe5 <^d7 (White has more chances after 13...^d5 14 Лхе7 Wxe7 15 £ie4, J.Polgar-Dreev, Linares 1997) 14 Axe7 Wxe7 15 l.e4!? An old sacrifice of the central pawn. 15 Wf4 ^>c5 16 £de4 Axe4 17 Лхе4 2c8 is too harmless (Mecking-Polugayevsky, 8th match game, Lucerne 1977). Both players had aimed for this position, having in mind the game Kasparov-Yermolinsky (Leningrad 1977), where after the cautious 15...Wc5l? 16 flhel 2a7?l (16...2c8! has also been analysed) 17 JLxc6?! Wxc6 Black easily solved his opening problems. But in a ‘debriefing’ at home I had found an improvement - 17 b41. This looks risky (the king is exposed), but it creates unpleasant pressure: 17...Wb6 (17-.Wc4? 18 We3) 18 Wd6 or 18 Wf4 (but not 18 Wg5?l 0-0 19 Sd6 Wf21 with equality, Salov-Yermolinsky, Yurmala 1983) 18...0-0 19 2d6 etc. This novelty was still awaiting its hour, but Panchenko had also prepared something: he decided to 'treat himself’ to the e5-pawn, relying on his resourcefulness in defence. 15...^.xe4 15-2c8?! 16 Лхсб Sxc6 17 ®e4 £ixe5 is weaker because of 18 £>d6+ &f8 19 2hel! with an enduring initiative for White: 19...f6 (if 19...^g6? 20 ®f51, while if 19...£)c4, then 20 £>xc4 bxc4 21 Wd8+ We8 22 Sd6l?) 20 £ixb51 axb5 21 lxe51 fxe5 22 Wd8+ Wxd8 23 2xd8+ <if7 24 2xh8 Фдб (or 24...Hd6 25 Sxh7 e4 26 Sh41) 25 2b8 2c5 26 4,d2 (Sax-Kozul, Radenci 1998). But the pawn could have been taken
immediately - 15...^xe5. After this there would not have followed 16 Axc6+? <йхсб 17 ®d5 Wb7! (Khasin-Taimanov, 23rd USSR Championship, Leningrad 1956), and not 16 Wf4 Axe4! 17 Wxe5 Ag6 18 Wxg7 Wg5+ (18...Wf8 has also been played) 19 Sd2 Фе7 20 h4 We3 21 Hh3 Wf4 (21...Wgl+? 22 Idl, Solak-lvanesevic, Petrovac 2004) 22 Bf3 Shg8! with equality, but most probably 16 Wd4! - since 16...Wg5+? 17 ФЬ1 3d8 18 Wc5 (Gligoric), 16...Wc7? 17 JLxc6+ £ixc6 18 Wxg7 and 16...f6? 17 Wxe5! fxe5 18 Jlxc6+ <S>f7 19 Hd7 are all bad for Black, all that remains for him is 16...Jlxe4 17 ^xe4, transposing into a position from the game. 16 £ixe4 ^xe5 Here I thought for a long time - this line was unknown to me. It is clear that White has excellent compensation for the pawn: the black king will be prevented from castling and for a long time the rook at h8 will be shut in the corner. However, it is necessary to act energetically. 17«d4(22) 17 Wc3 is also interesting: 17...f6 18 4}d6+ 'A’fS 19 Hd4 g6 (weakening the f6-point; according to Stohl, 19...h6 20 £k8 We8 21 £kl6 We7 or 19...h51? is safer) 20 ®c8 (Sutovsky-Blehm, Ohrid 2001), but after Gofshtein’s suggestion 2O...Wb71 21 Bf4 ®g7 22 Hxf6 £id3+! 23 Wxd3 Wxg2 Black holds on. 17...f6 18 <^d6+ 4f8 19 Shfl (6) After 19 Hhel Black has time to make a ‘vent hole' for his rook - 19...h51 20 a4 h4 21 h3 2h5 with good play (Aseev-Yermolinsky, Vilnius 1984). 19...*g8 One does not want to move the knight from its strong position at e5, but nevertheless 19...&f7 20 Wb6 (20 We4?l Hd8; 20 ®e4 Bc8!) 2O...^xd6 (2O...ad8? 21 <^e4!) 21 lxd6 'A’fy was playable, releasing the rook at h8 from imprisonment: 22 Bfdl Bhb8 23 Wd4 Hb7 or 22 Bel e5 (bolder than 22...Bhb8?! 23 Bdxe6 Wd7, Ad.Horvath-Gonda, Budapest 2002), and here in Informator Gufeld recommended 23 Wc6(?l) with a *±’ sign, but after 23...fihc8! 24 Wd5+ 4^8 it is White who has problems. 23 Bedl Bhb8 24 Wc6 Фд8 25 Bd7 Wb4 26 b3 is correct, with approximate equality. After the game continuation White’s compensation for the sacrificed pawn is also sufficient only to maintain a dynamic equilibrium. 20 g4! (15) Beginning a direct attack on the king -g4-g5 is threatened (undermining the support of the knight at e51), and at the
same time the freeing move ...h7-h5 is prevented. However, for the moment Black’s difficulties are largely of a psychological nature (the unresolved problem of the rook on h8 is unnerving). 20... h6 Panchenko halts the g4-pawn and prepares the evacuation of his king, believing in the soundness of his defences. If 20...<^f7 there is the resource 21 We41 Sb 8 (after 21...fid8? 22 <£)f5! Black’s lack of an escape square is felt) 22 €if51, and although after 22...We8 nothing terrible is yet apparent, White retains the initiative. 21 h4 (4) Insisting on the further advance of the g-pawn. Meanwhile, this menacing pawn storm also has an important drawback: in the event of g4-g5 and ...h6xg5 the h-file is opened and the imprisoned rook at h8 breaks free! 21... £>f7?l Perturbed by the bold aggression of his young opponent, Panchenko decided to play ‘solidly’ - to get rid of the annoying knight on d6. 21...fid8?l was insufficient in view of 22 £>f51 Ixd4 23 <йхе7+ S>f7 24 Hxd4 Фхе7 25 h5 etc. But Black had better ways of defending: a) 21...Wc7, and if 22 g5, then 22...hxg5 23 hxg5 Sh2l 24 c3 Wc6l? (24...b4 will also do) 25 Wgl! (but not 25 gxf6? Wg21 26 Wd2 4id3+! or 25 Sgl Wf3l 26 4ie4 - 26 gxf6? We2l - 26...f5) 25...1g2 26 We3 Sxg5, and after 27 Wh3 White still has to demonstrate that his attack compensates for the material given up. He can also play for a bind by 22 Sfel Sd8 23 h5 and if 23...Wc6 sacrifice the exchange - 24 Дхе5 fxe5 25 Wxe5, but, although the rook at h8 is offside, he does not have the forces for a successful offensive; b) 21...1f8, when 22 h5 Wc7 23 Sfel (23 lf2 Wc6! and ...ФЬ7) 23...£>f3 24 We3 ®xel 25 Wxe6+ ФЬ7 26 Wf5+ gives only perpetual check, while in the event of the cautious 22 g5 hxg5 23 hxg5 Bh5! (Gufeld’s move 23...^g6 is weaker because of 24 gxf6 3,xf6 25 ibl) 24 ^>e4 (24 gxf6 fixf6!) 24...&g4 25 gxf6 ‘5oxf6 Black escapes from all his problems. 22 We41 (8) This strong interposition, creating the threat of ^f5, was probably overlooked by Panchenko - at any event, he became rattled and was unable to find the correct reply. 22...Sf8? A serious mistake, if not the decisive one. Paradoxically, just a move ago Black would
have equalised with this move, whereas now it puts him in a very difficult position. The defence could still have been held by exchanging a pair of rooks and returning the extra pawn: 22...fld8! 23 Sxdl+ 24 fixdl Wc7! (24...We8 is less good in view of 25 £>d4) 25 Wxe6 Ah 7 26 Sd4 fld8 27 We4 Hxd4 28 ^xd4+ Фд8 29 <2jc6 A’fS, and White’s advantage has almost evaporated. 23 2>f5l (23) 23...We8 Now it is bad to play 23...Wc7? 24 Wxe6 We5 (24...S>h7 25 £ixg7!) 25 Wxa6 ФЬ7 26 Edel and wins. 24 ^d4! (3) The white pieces have suddenly developed such activity that it is difficult for the opponent to avoid the creation of new weaknesses in his pawn formation. It is already hard to offer Black any good advice - both his rooks are miserably placed. 24...e5?I An irreparable weakening of the f5-point. But what instead? Black’s defence is very difficult after 24...^e5 25 g5 hxg5 26 hxg5 - 26...fih7? 27 gxf6! gxf6 28 Дд1+ or 26...Eh5?l 27 gxf6 lxf6 28 Sxf6 gxf6 29 Wb7! is bad for him, while after 26...Wg6 27 Wxg6 £ixg6 28 £>xe6 Se8 29 gxf6!? (Gufeld) 29...Hxe6 30 f7+ &h7 31 fihl+ <^h4 32 lxh4+ Hh6 33 Hf4 Sf8 34 Ef2 or 29 Sd6! fxg5 30 <^xg5 £ie5 31 Дхаб White has an endgame with an extra pawn and winning prospects. 26...Wa8! is more resilient, although here too White can transpose into a better ending - 27 Wxa8 Дха8 28 gxf6 Sh6!? 29 fxg7 Фхд7 30 Edel! (with the idea of 3O...Ed8 31 £>xb5 4hd3+ 32 cxd3 axb5 33 Be5, etc.) or continue the attack - 27 We2 Wc8 28 gxf6 gxf6 29 We4, which, however, after 29...1h7 (29...Wa8? 30 We3) 30 Дд1+ Дд7 31 Дхд7+ Фхд7 32 Дд1+ <Af7 33 Wh7+ <4>e8 34 Дд7 £>f7 35 We4 Wc4 36 b3 Wd5 37 Wxe6+ Wxe6 38 £hxe6 Sh8 39 ^c7+ “ATS 40 Дд2 and <йха6 also leads to an endgame with an extra pawn. ‘24-^d8 was perhaps preferable’ (Abr. Khasin). However, it is unclear how Black can extricate himself from the vice after 25 h5: if 25...flf7?! there is the decisive 26 £>f51 Sd7 27 ‘SjhA and£ig6. 25 <af5 Now, although Black has retained his extra pawn, he will die from suffocation. 25...Н5?! A desperate attempt, which could have proved successful only in the event of an obvious mistake by White. 25...дб?? 26 £ie7+! Wxe7 27 Wxg6 would have led to a pretty epaulette mate, but the patient
25... We6 also offered little chance of saving the game: 26 b3 Sh7 (26...fie8 27 fif31) 27 Wb7 i>h8 28 h5 Wc8 29 Wa7 or 27-.g6 28 ^e7+ Фд7 29 hs gxh5 30 gxh5 Де8 31 £>d5 and wins. 26agi?i (5) Intending to attack along the g-file. However, I had two forcing ways to win immediately: a) 26 g51 fxg5 27 hxg5 ^xg5 (after 27-.g6?? 28 ^e7+ it is again mate) 28 figl! (28 Be31?) 28...£>e6 29 Wxe5 lxf5 (there is nothing else) 30 Wxf5 Wf7 31 We5 Wf4+ 32 Wxf4 ^xf4 33 ld8+ Ф117 34 lxh8+ ФхЬ8 35 4>d2, and the rook quickly deals with the knight; b) 26 Wb71 (with the threats of £>e7+ and 3d7) 26...Wa8 (26...Ф117 27 gxh51) 27 Wd7 2d8 28 ^e7+ &f8 29 Wc7 flh6 30 ^>c6(f5), and Black has no defence. 26...Sh7 (26...<ah6? 27 £>xg71) 27 Wb7? (12) Alas, if 27 g5 fxg5 28 hxg5 there is now 28...g6 29 ^h4 &h8! (Gufeld) 30 fid6 Hhf7, and Black defends. But a strong attack would have been retained by both 27 Wb41? g5 28 gxh5 lxh5 29 ФЬ1, and 27 gxh51? £ih6 28 W6 Wxh5 29 fidfl W 30 ^f5 etc. 27...ФН8? (but this loses - 27...^>d8 was essential, with the ideas of 28 Wxa6 hxg4 or 28 Wd5+ i>h8) 28 gxh5 (5) 28...We6 Of course, not 28...£id8? 29 flxd8! Wxd8 30 fixg7 Sxh5 31 Дд51 and wins (Abr. Khasin). 29 ^xg7! (6) This is what Panchenko overlooked! He was probably expecting 29 ®e7 Де8 30 <йдб+ Фд8, although here too after 31ФЬ1! White has a big advantage. 29... Wxa2?l Desperation. True, a more resilient defence would also not have saved Black: a) 29...Wc4 30 We7! (this is more forceful than Gufeld’s suggestion 30 ФЬ1) 3O...fic8 31 ФЬ1! Wxc2+ (31...Дхд7?! 32 Wxf6 Wxc2+ 33 Фа1 Wh7 34 Ддб!) 32 Фа1 Wc7 33 ®f5! Wxe7 34 £>xe7 Де8 35 ®дб+ Фд8 (comparatively best) 36 <йхе5+ Дд7 37 £>d7 Деб 38 figfl with a won endgame; b) 29...Дхд7 30 fixg7 Фхд7 31 Wg2+! (but not 31 Дд1+? ФЬ7!, when after 32 Wg2 ®g5 33 hxg5 fxg5 34 Жхд5 Black has 34...Wh6!) З1...^д5 (31...ФЬ7? 32 Wg6+ and figl) 32 hxg5fxg5 33 Wxg5+ *h7 34 Wg2 or 34ФЬ1 - thanks to his extra pawn and the open position of the enemy king, White must win. 30 We7! flg8 31 Wxf6 Wal+ (31...Ддхд7 32 Дхд7 Дхд7 33 h6) 32 <4>d2 Wa5+ 33 Фе2 Ogxg7 34 lxg7 flxg7 35 Igl 1-0 Times: 2.20-2.29
This crushing win over a high-class opponent inspired me, but the very next day there followed a cold shower: in my favourite Caro-Kann I was unable to make a draw with Ratmir Kholmov - the experienced grandmaster gave me an excellent lesson in positional play. However, I was not too upset and in the 3rd round I again moved onto a plus score by defeating Rostislav Korsunsky in a crucial 'Baku duel'. Now I had to hold out with Black, especially since in the 4th round I encountered an opponent to whom two years earlier I had lost ignominiously in Baku - the Kiev player Yuri Nikolaevsky, a three-time Ukrainian champion and a finalist in three USSR Championships. Game 26 Yu.Nikolaevsky-G.Kasparov All-Union Qualifying Tournament, 4th round, Daugavpils 01.07.1978 King's Indian Defence E60 i 6 2 Ьз Our previous game (Baku 1976) went 2 g3 g6 3 £.g2 JLg7 4 0-0 O-O 5 d4 d6 6 b3 c5 7 Jib 2 £k6 8 d5. On this occasion Nikolaevsky began with 2 b3, but I was now aiming not for ...c7-c5, but for a thematic King’s Indian set-up with ,..^bd7 and ...e7-e5. 2...g6 3 Ab2 £g7 4 C4 The usual 4 g3 0-0 (4...C5 - Game No.44) 5 JLg2 d6 6 d4 is nevertheless more accurate, and in the event of 6...^)bd7 7 0-0 e5 8 dxe5 Black has to play 8...<йд4, after which it is no longer favourable for him to capture on e5 with the pawn, while after the capture with a piece White retains some pressure in the centre. 4...0-0 5 g3 d6 6 d4 <Shbd7 7 £g2 e5 Solving Black’s opening problems. 8e3 If 8 dxe5, then simply 8...dxe51 9 0-0 (the pawn is taboo: 9 ^xe5? £sg4 10 £}d3? ДхЬ2 11 ^xb2 Wf6! and wins) 9-.e4 10 £>el We7 and ...Sd8 with an excellent game (Elis-kases-Pachman, Mar del Plata 1962). And if 8 0-0, then both 8...exd4 and 8...e4 9 £>el dsl? 10 <bc3 £>b6 (Petrovs-Boleslavsky, Moscow 1940) are good. Therefore for the moment White chooses to reinforce his d4-pawn. 8...Se8 (6) 9 0-0 e4 Aggression in the spirit of the then fashionable King’s Indian Attack (cf. Game N0.9), which demands precise follow-up action. To maintain the balance it was quite sufficient to play 9...^e4 or 9-exd41? 10 exd4 (after 10 4^xd4 ®c5 the move e2-e3 is depreciated) 10...^e41 11 z-nbd2 ^df6, analogous to the way that I earlier played in a clock simultaneous against Katalymov (Leningrad 1975). 10Wd2 W8 A typical manoeuvre with the attacking idea ...JLfS, ...h7-h5, ...^)8h7-g5 and so on. However, 10...c6! was more natural - after reinforcing his e4-pawn by ...d6-d5, Black would have retained a solid and comfortable position. 11 £k3 Af5
12 f3! I underestimated this undermining move. The experienced master immediately eliminates the threatened bind on the kingside. After 12 Wc2 We7 or 12...C6 this can no longer be played! 12...exf3?l (2) Black could still have retained more or less equal chances, if he had found the by no means obvious tactic 12...±h6!, exploiting the momentary weakness of the e3-pawn: 13 <^dxe4 (13 f4 Лд71) 13-Лхе3+ 14 &hl ^8d7 15 Bel (15 g4 Лхе4 16 fxe4 c6!) 15-Ah6 16 f4 £ixe4 17 ^xe4 Лд7 18 Wd2 d51, and no advantage is given by either 19 <hc3 Sxel+ 20 Sixel dxc4 21 ^d5 JLe6!, or 19 cxd5 Лхе4 20 Лхе4 (20 Дхе4 Дхе4 and ...Ш) 20...Ш 21 &f3 lxel+ 22 Sxel 2>xd5. 13 Wxf3 c6 14 e4 After his modestly played opening White has unexpectedly made a strong claim to an advantage - he has seized space, created a powerful pawn centre, and opened the f-file, along which he can press on the f7-pawn. Black still has sufficient defensive resources, but the sharp change of situation on the board almost led me to disaster. 14...Jlg4! (with gain of tempo: 14...Леб 15 3ael or 14...^d7 15 ®a4 We7 16 Sael would have been worse) 15 Wf2 15...Wa5? (23) This queen sortie, which has the psychological intention of frightening the opponent with the variation 16 h3 Wh5, proves to be a losing move. The knight should have been urgently activated - 15...^e61, for example: 16 h3 £>g5! 17 hxg4 ®xg4 18 We2 Jlxd4+ 19 &hl £ie3 or 16 £>a4 £>g5 17 d5 £)fxe4!? (17...®d7 is also not bad) 18 £)xe4 Sxe4 19 Лхд7 Фхд7 with double-edged play. 16 c5? My reckoning proves justified! In fact after 16 h3! Black did not have the reply 16...Wh5? because of the sudden blow 17 e51 dxe5 18 4ke4, winning a piece. 16..Jld7(c8) 17 c5! or 16...Леб 17 d5! would also have been fatal, while after 16...Wc7 again 17 d5! is strong, and if 17-.Лс8(Ь5), then 18 <2ib5! and Лxf6. Nikolaevsky (following me) did not notice the refutation of 16...Wh5 and was relying on a rapid breakthrough in the centre. But he did not take account of all the tactical nuances! Whereas from the 10th to the 15th move I played uncertainly, here I literally gained a new lease of life, and I suddenly saw one of the longest combinations in my career. 16...Ле6! (5)
Strictly the only move, which was clearly underestimated by my opponent. Black defends the f7-pawn in good time and creates the threat of ...^g4, not allowing White to capture the d6-pawn. 17 h3 White is forced to waste a tempo. The attempt 17 £k4 Axc4 18 bxc4 dxc5 19 e5 is no better on account of 19...^g4l 20 Wxf7+ ФЬ8 21 4ie4 cxd4 22 Axd4 Axes 23 Axe5+ Wxe5 with equality. 17...dxc5 (8) 18 e5 18 d5?! is risky in view of 18...4=hg4! 19 Wf4 (19 hxg4 Ad4) 19-Ad4+ 20 4>hl £ie51 21 dxe6 ^xe6 22 Wf6 Bad8 with excellent compensation for the piece. After playing 18 e5, Nikolaevsky looked very happy with his position. But within five moves the expression on his face changed... This move was also made with obvious pleasure by Nikolaevsky ('the young mar has probably missed something’), but replied equally confidently and quickly. 21...A.XC4 22 ®xc4 Wb6+ (3) 22...Bd2 is also highly rated by the computer, but humans don’t play that way. 23 ФН1 18...cxd4! (16) It is interesting that this entire chain of moves by Black, from the 16th to the end of the game, came to my mind somehow immediately, without any particular effort. 18...®d5 (or 18...^>6d7) was also acceptable, but I wanted to demonstrate the elegant way to draw that I had found. 19 exf6 Ah6! (of course, not 19...dxc3? 20 fxg7 *^d7 21 £>c4) 20 Wxd4 Sad8 21 <^c4! 23...fid4! The crux of the entire idea. To save his queen, White has to allow the invasion of the 2nd rank by both enemy rooks. By his own admission, my opponent was staggered, when it transpired that in the complicated middlegame position after 16 c5 there was a forced draw! 24 £>a4 (24 ^d5 Дхс4 would have come to
the same thing) 24...Sxc4 25 ^xb6 Дс2 26 Sk4 Hee2 (4) 27 JLf3 Hh2+ 28 Agl b5 29 M.e4 (or 29 Acl fixh3 30 Axh6 ДхдЗ+ 31 STil Sh3+) 29...Hce2 30 Af3 lc2 31 Ae4 У2-У1 Draw agreed in view of ‘perpetual check’ to the rook. Times: 2.05-2.07- A fairy-tale combination! The tournament spectators and contestants, who observed the kaleidoscopic finish to the game, merely nodded their heads: 'This youth is indeed very dangerous’. The most important result of this sharp tactical skirmish was that I gained complete confidence in myself. Nikitin: ‘Before Daugavpils it was not difficult to convince Garik that during the tournament he should play, rather than sit reading reference books and wisdom-filled notebooks. And our preparation for games took place in unhurried conversations during strolls through parks or streets, while the specific opening system to be adopted was decided during dinner, a couple of hours before the start of play. Naturally, such a method was effective only after thorough preparatory work...’ In the 5th round I defeated Smbat Lpu- tian, an old opponent in junior battles, and in the 6th round, with Black in a Caro-Kann, I beat the experienced Mark Tseitlin, a genuine chess filibuster: over-rating his chances, he avoided a three-fold repetition of the position and in time-trouble went down in flames. Regarding this it was written that 'the 15-year-old schoolboy managed to win a very interesting psychological duel’. Rather unexpectedly I found myself among the leaders: Palatnik - 5 out of 6, Kasparov, Alburt and Faibisovich - 4У2. And I became nervous when for the first time I saw my result highlighted in red in the tournament table. The original 'plus two’ target would have brought me somewhere in the region of 15-20th place, but now Nikitin corrected his initial plan: I had to try and cling on to a place in the top seven and qualify for the First League! In the 7th round I was paired with White against the player half a point ahead of me, Semion Palatnik from Odessa, who that year became a grandmaster. Before the game with me he had scored four successive wins, but here, as they say, he met his match. This competitively important game was judged to be one of the best in the 26th volume of Informator. Came 27 G.Kasparov-S.Palatnik All-Union Qualifying Tournament, 7th round, Daugavpils 5.07.1978 Alekhine Defence B04 1 e4 2 e5 ®d5 3 d4 d6 4 £)f3 g6 (4... Jtg4 - Game N0.8) 5 У<4 6 Ab3 a5 This set-up was often employed by Odessa players, and it was not hard for me and Nikitin to prepare a good continuation.
After 6...Дд7 they usually played (and still play) 7 ^g5 еб 8 Wf3, but 7 a4 aS has also occurred, i.e. the inclusion of these moves was initiated by White! 7 a4 Although theory judged 7 еб Лхеб 8 JLxe6 fxe6 9 ^>g5 £>c6 10 'йхеб Wd7 11 We2 to be in White’s favour, after ll...^d8 12 £)xf8 Exf8 Black achieves a viable position (Kapengut-Palatnik and Lukin-Alburt, Beltsy 1977). 7... ±g7 I would have been only too pleased with 7...d5 8 0-0 (the source game: Kavalek-Larsen, Manila 1973). 8 5g5 Too little is promised by 8 exd6 cxd6 (Ree-Palatnik, Kiev 1978). 8... e6 This move, which had not occurred previously, was made by Palatnik without any particular thought, which somewhat threw me into confusion. 8... d5 would have led to a well-known position with the inclusion of the moves a2-a4 and ...a7-a5. In the main variation with 9 f4 the weakening of the b4-square (after the exchange of c-pawns) may give Black counterplay. However, I was planning 9 0-0 0-0 10 Eel £k6 11 c3 f6 12 exf6 exf6 13 £>еб ‘with a slight advantage’, which, alas, evaporates after 13...Axe6 14 Пхеб Wd7 and ...Eae8. More chances are given by 10 <5k3!? with the idea of 10...f6?! 11 £ige4, activating the knight, or 10..,5кб 11 4hb5, but Black can reply 1О...сб and then ...£>a6-с7-еб. 9 f4 (20) A sensible plan of action - there was not a lot of choice. I quickly realised that it was not possible to refute Black’s idea immediately by 9 Wf3 We7 10 £>e4 dxe5 (10...ds!?) 11 ±g5 because of ll...Wb4+! - the inclusion of the moves a2-a4 and ...a7-a5 has denied White the possibility of 12 c3. Later it seemed to me that 12 <Sk>d2 would nevertheless give White a dangerous initiative: 12...Wxd4? 13 5tf6+ 4Т8 14 0-0-0 or 12...exd4?! 13 c3!. But after 12...£i8d7! Black succeeds in consolidating - 13 £>f6+ ®xf6 14 Jtxf6 Jlxf6 15 Wxf6 0-0 16 Wxes (16 c3 ЗД!) 16...^d7 17 We3 c5 18 dxc5 Wxc5 with rapid equality. 9—dxe5 10 fxe5 (14) 10...C5 110-0! The strongest and most natural move, although in earlier commentaries, fearing the reply ll...Wxd4 I consided castling to be an inaccuracy and, since 11 dxc5 Wxdl+ 12 A’xdl ®6d7 is harmless, I recommended
the ‘simple’ 11 c3 cxd4 12 0-0! - after 12...0-0 13 cxd4 £ic6 the position is slightly better for White, and could have occurred in the game (cf. the notes to Black's 12th). 11...0-0 Palatnik was right! In The Test of Time I wrote that after ll...'irxd4+(?) 12 Wxd4 cxd4 13 £>xf7 0-0 14 £>d6 (14 ®h6+!?) 14...Bxfl+ 15 ixfl Ad7 16 ®xb7 £)аб! or 13 Sxf7(!) Лхе5 14 Sf 1(?!) ®c6 ‘Black would have escaped from all his difficulties’, but in the second variation 14 £f4! is far better, with an obvious advantage: 14-.^c6 15 ±xe5 £>xe5 16 lc7 <£>d5 17 ±xd5 exd5 18 2>a3 0-0 19 Bel etc. 12 C3 Here 12 dxc5 Wxdl 13 Hxdl was slightly more attractive than on the previous move, but I did not even consider exchanging the queens so early, especially as after 13...£j6d7 14 JLe3 £>xe5 15 ^c3 ®a6 or 14 <йе4 (Stohl) 14...<йхе5 15 h3 £>a6 16 Лез Ad7 White would have been in danger of selling his advantage too cheaply. 12,.,?;C6? A positional blunder, after which White’s initiative becomes threatening. 12...cxd4! 13 cxd4 was essential and only now 13...^с6. I was intending to continue 14 <^f3 f6 15 4^c31 fxe5 (15...®d5 16 exf6!) 16 Jig 5 with good compensation for the pawn; moreover, I did not especially calculate the variations and I was sure that White was risking far less than Black. Thus 16...We8(?) 17 dxe5 ®xe5 18 ^xe5 Bxfl+ 19 Wxfl Лхе5 is bad because of 20 Bdl! A.d7 21 JLf6 or 2O...^d7 21 <йе4 and wins. 16...Wd7 17 dxe5 ®xe5 18 ^xe5 is more acceptable for Black - here many have played 18...Sxfl+(?) 19 Wxfl Wd4+ 20 ФЬ1 Wxe5, although after 21 JLd8! White has a powerful attack: 21...Wc5 (21...Ha6 22 Bdl!) 22 £>e4 Wc6 (22...Wb4? 23 2>g5! ФЬ8 24 Wf7 and wins, Grischuk-Ponomariov, Torshavn 2000) 23 &g5 £>d5, and now not 24 Wf7+(?) i>h8 25 Bfl (Berelowitsch-Gerzhoy, Couls-don 2008) 25...®e3! 26 <^e4 (26 Bgl £>d5) 26..Jld7! 27 JLf6 Bg8 with equality, but the forceful 24 Hell We8 25 lkxd5 exd5 26 Bel! or 24...Wd7 25 £ixe6! Wxe6 26 Sei Де5 27 Лс7, demolishing Black’s defences. Therefore Black has to go into the endgame - 18...Wxdl 19 Baxdl Sxfl+!? (19...Дхе5 20 Bfel! Korneev-Janev, Cutro 2002) 20 i’xfl Jlxe5 with an extra pawn for Black, although after 21 ДеЗ! (21 JLd8 JLxc31 22 ЬхсЗ £>d5 is not so clear) he faces a struggle for a draw. 13 £>e4! (3) An unpleasant surprise, which wrecks Black’s plans. To avert a conflagration on the f6-square, he is forced to make an awkward move, forgetting about counter-play in the centre. 13...^>d7 Alas! The capture on d4 would have lost quickly: 13...cxd4? 14 I.g5 Wd7 (14...Wc7 15 cxd4) 15 £)f6+ ±xf6 16 Jlxf6 h5 (16...dxc3 17 Wcl! and Wh6) 17 Wcl ФТ17 18 Sf3! with the murderous threat of Bh3xh5+. 14 A.e3 (17) Reinforcing the centre and preparing ®a3-b5(c4). The attempt to take the black
position by storm could have ended in failure - 14 JLg5?l Wb6 15 ^)f6+? (15 dxc5 £ixc5 16 Ae3 Wxb3 17 Axes really is better) 15...Axf6! 16 exf6 cxd4 17 'i’hl <2k5 18 Ac4 e5 or 18 ®d2 e5 etc. 14...^e7 If 14...Wb6?!, then 15 4}a3 cxd4 16 £k4 is strong, or if 14-.cxd4 15 cxd4 Wb6?! - 16 Sf3l. Black is hoping to overcome his difficulties by covering his weakened kingside with the knight and fianchettoing the lightsquare bishop. 15 Ag5! (21) This unexpected reply disrupts Black’s plans. To get rid of the pin on his knight at e7 he is forced to go in for a further weakening of his kingside. 15...cxd4 It never rains but it pours! It turns out that the bishop cannot be driven away without first freeing the best square c3 for the white knight: if 15...h6 16 Ah 4 g5? White has the decisive 17 Axg5! cxd4 (17...hxg5 18 Wh5) 18 Axe7 Wxe7 19 cxd4 f6 20 £ibc3 fxe5 21 d51, whereas the exchange in the centre eliminates this danger. 16 cxd4 h6 17 Ah4 g5 18 Af2 (3) Not now 18 Axg5? hxg5 19 Wh5 ®xe5! 20 dxe5 Wd4+ 21 £)f2 Wxb2 22 ДаЗ ^дб or 22...®xe5. 18...?jg6 19 5_>bc3 We7 (Black tries to free himself by ...f7-f5; understandably, White prevents this) 20 JLc2! (9) Aiming at the g6-knight. 20...b6 (if 2O...f5 there is not only 21 ^d6, but also 21 exf6 <21xf6 22 Axg5!) 21 Ae3 (6) Thanks to the efforts of this bishop Black’s position has an unattractive appearance, and one senses that the decisive blow is not far off. 21..Ла6 (alas, belated development) 22 af2 (з) 22 £±>51? was a worthy alternative. 22...1H8? Both a delay, and an ugly ‘corner’ move. Palatnik is consistent in his desire to free himself - Black again prepares ...f7-f5, and therefore he removes his knight from the oppressive glare of the bishop on c2. But White already has everything prepared. Good or bad, the immediate 22„.f5! was esential, since 23 exf6 4bxf6 24 £>xg5 is not so clear in view of 24-.®d5 (Stohl) or even 24...^h4. However, after 23 5И6 White would retain an overwhelming positional advantage. 23 Axg51? (17) In the period of my chess youth I rarely refrained from such spectacular blows. And
for a long time, under the impression of the rout which followed, I considered this move to be the shortest way to the goal. Indeed, the subsequent events develop by force, and in all variations the sacrifices are correct. But I couldn’t help thinking that it was possible to manage without ‘brilliance’. When, on my return to Baku, I showed this game to Vladimir Andreevich Makogonov, he suddenly asked: 'But wouldn’t it have been simpler to play h2-h4?’ Thus another solution to the position was found, one not involving any sacrifices: 23 h4l f5 24 exf6 <<Oxf6 25 hxg5 or 23...gxh4 24 Wh51 f5 25 exf6 £>xf6 26 ftxf6+ Sxf6 27 ^d5l exd5 28 Wxd5+ and Wxa8. slaught after 24...f6 25 ^xg5 or 24...Hfc8 25 ^xg5 Ha7 (25—4bf8 26 ®ce4) 26 Sei. 25 £ixg5 Sf7 The most resilient defence. Black would have lost more quickly after both 25...Дхе5 26 dxe5 ^xe5 27 Sei £>hg6 28 £.b3 Дс8 29 £>d5! (Stohl), and 25...Sfc8(d8) 26 ±xf51 exf5 27 ^d5 or 25..Af6 26 ^d51!. After making this move, Palatnik unexpectedly offered a draw! I was very surprised: it is patently obvious just how strong White’s attack is. Perhaps the tournament leader, realising that his position was hopeless, was trying a last chance? At any event, my silent reply was a new sacrifice. This continuation is undoubtedly more practical, but then there would not have been the fireworks with the sacrifice of both bishops, and an attack in which all (!) the white pieces participated. Later, the experience acquired from tournament battles would have suggested to me 23 h4. But, in any case, the vigorous, ‘emotional’ implementation of this game afforded me a great deal of pleasure. And not only me... 23...hxg5 24>h5 24...f5 It is not possible to withstand the on- 26 £xf5! (4) The crux of the combination. The sacrifice of the second bishop conclusively destroys the black king’s defences. 26 d5l? jlxe5 27 £ixf7 would also have won, but the move in the game is both prettier, and better. 26...Hxf5 (if 26...exf5, then 27 £)d5 We8 28 ^c7 is decisive) 27 flxfs exf5 28 £)d5 Things have unexpectedly become tight for the black queen. There remains only one square where, not for long, it finds salvation. 28...We8 29 Wh7+ 4*8 30 Wxf5+ ‘i’gS (or
3O..W7 31 ^e6+ Фд8 32 Wg6) 31 Wh7+ ЛТ8 32 ЖаЗ (2) Aiming to conclude the game by a direct attack. 32 <2yf41? Лс4 33 flfl! (Stohl) was also good. 32...Sc8 Or 32...Wg6 33 Hf3+ Фе8 34 Wg8+ £f8 (34...W 35 flxf8+! &xf8 36 4hf6+) 35 ^>c7+ Фе7 (35...^d8 36 ®ge6+) 36 flf7+! Wxf7 37 <$W7 etc. 33flf3+(4) 33...£>f6 A time-trouble gesture of despair: after 33...W 34 flxf7+ Wxf7 35 £>xf7 ®xf7 36 Wf5+ or 35-..flcl+ 36 <4>f2 flfl+ 37 ФдЗ flxf7 38 Wh4! Black would have lost material. 34 h3 (the immediate 34 flxf6+ JLxf6 35 ®xf6 was also possible) 34...Wg6 35 Sxf6+ &xf6 36 ^еб+ Ae8 37 ^xf6+ Here Palatnik froze for an instant, made a despairing gesture as if to show that there was nowhere further to go, and stopped the clocks (1-0). Times: 2.15-2.28. Around the table where we were playing, as usual there was a crowd of many experienced spectators, including the other contestants. There were even more of them during analysis after the game... From the press: ‘A crushing defeat. The methods of conducting an attack in Kasparov’s games are apparently evoked by the wonderful creative heritage of the great Alekhine’. After this inspirational win I reached 5У2 out of 7 and I was leading the tournament together with Alburt, who on the neighbouring board defeated Faibisovich. Then Nikitin, seeing my condition, decided again to make a correction to the ‘obligations undertaken’: perhaps the idea of qualifying for the Premier League should not be dismissed?! But in the next round I faced a very dangerous opponent, Lev Alburt, the winner of the same tournament the previous year. Like Palatnik, he was from Odessa, but now both of them have long been Americans. It is noteworthy that this fighting game was published both in the weekly 64 (with notes by Alburt) and in the magazine Shakhmaty v 5S5R (with my commentary), but it was removed from the book The Test of Time: in the summer of 1979, following Korchnoi’s example, my opponent defected... Came 28 LAIburt-G.Kasparov All-Union Qualifying Tournament, 8th round, Daugavpils 6.07.1978 King’s Indian Defence E74 1 c4 £lf6 2 4k3 g6 3 d4 Ag7 4 e4 d6 5 AeZ 0-0 6 £ g5 Although Alburt constantly employed the Averbakh Variation with White, I had a rather vague impression of its subtleties, since I had only just risen to that level of competition where genuinely professional preparation, including that in the opening, was needed. I knew about a comparatively fresh idea 12...Wa5, which had briefly appeared in the chess press - this was the extent of my knowledge before the game.
6...C5 According to Geller, the most critical continuation (an immediate attack on the centre), but at the same time a strategically risky one. Later I played 6...<£>bd7 (Game No.76), but when I had matured as a King’s Indian player I arrived at 6...<2)a6 (Bareev-Kasparov, Linares 1992). 7 d5 h6 (I have also played 7...b5?! 8 cxb5 аб - Game Nos.58, 67) 8 JLf4 An attempt to hinder the undermining move ...е7-еб. 8 ДеЗ еб 9 Wd2 exd5 10 exd5 is more harmless - here Black can play in various ways, for example: 1О...ФЬ7 11 h3 2e8 12 £>f3 Jlf5 with equality (Dydyshko-Kasparov, Minsk 1978). 8...e6 Nevertheless! Another try is 8...Wb6 9 Wd2 еб 10 dxe6 Дхеб, excluding 11 Дxd6?! in view of ll...fld8 12 e5 ^e8, but allowing 11 ДхЬб or 11 0-0-0. 9 dxe6 Дхеб 10 Дxdб Now if 10 Wd2 not only 10...Wb6 is possible, but also 10...Wa5!?. 10...3e8 11 3 £k6 (from the early 1980s ll..,Wb6!? became popular: 12 e5 £rfd7 or 12 ДхЬ8 Saxb8 13 Wc2 ?jh5 with doubleedged play) 12 0-0 Wa5?l We played all this at lightning speed, and I 'rattled out’ the prepared queen move, which at the time appealed to me more than the frequently-played 12../M4. I thought that the d-file was needed for a black rook, to emphasise the drawbacks to the placing of the white pieces on this file. Besides, one of the recent games on the ’12...£bd4' theme - 13 e5 ^d7 14 ^xd4 cxd4 15 Wxd4 ^xe5 16 Дхе5 Wxd4 17 Axd4 Дxd4 18 Sacl Sad8 19 b3 ДхсЗ 20 ДхсЗ Sd2 21 Af3 Жха2 22 ДхЬ7 2b 8 had proceeded and concluded favourably for White (Alburt-Timoshchenko, Beltsy 1977). However, subsequent games showed that Black has quite adequate compensation for the pawn - here I myself gained a draw against Polugayevsky (Bugojno 1982), while later I spent a long time analysing this complicated endgame and I found, as it seemed to me, an accurate way to maintain the balance. As for the queen sortie, I never repeated it again, since it transpired that it was dubious and perhaps even deserving of a question mark. 13 <Sbd2! A novelty from a 1977 game that was unknown to us. The grandmaster made the knight move with unconcealed pleasure -he 'had analysed it a great deal and come to the conclusion that White should gain an
advantage’ (Alburt). At the board I now had to solve a difficult problem. At home I had made a quite detailed analysis of the variations 13 e5 £ki7 14 ^d5 Axd5 (L.Popov-Cebalo, Zagreb 1973) and 13 a3 Hed8! (13...1ad8 14 b4!) 14 b4 cxb4 15 axb4 Wxal 16 Wxal £>xe4 with good compensation for the queen (Azmai-parashvili-Lanka, Sochi 1978). This helped me to quickly find the correct arrangement of the pieces (although initially, on seeing the dangers present, I felt sad - but I did not let on!). 13...Hed8 (10) Only this rook! The e8-square must be free for the retreat of the knight. After 13...fiad8?! 14 e5 ®d7 15 f4 White achieves everything: both an extra pawn, and a positional advantage. 13...^d4?l is also insufficient: 14 Ad3 (14 e5!?) 14...fiad8 15 ^b3 ^>xb3 16 axb3 Wb6 17 Af4 g5 18 Acl ®g4 (Farago-Perenyi, Budapest 1977) 19 £)d5! Wd6 20 f4! etc. After this and right up to the 25th move my opponent continued playing at high speed, as though demonstrating his knowledge to me. 14 ^ЬЗ?! In the event of 14 e5 £ie8! 15 £Jb3 Wb6 Black escapes from his difficulties: 16 <£>d5?! Axd5 17 Axes Ae6! (17...Wc7?l 18 cxd5 Axes 19 g3 and Af3) 18 Axb6 Bxdl 19 Sfxdl axb6 20 f4 f6! or 16 4ba4 Wb4 17 5^bxc5 Axc4! (of course, not 17...Axes? 18 a3) 18 аЗ Axe2 19 Wxe2 (19 axb4 Axdl 20 Sfxdl b5 is equal) 19...Wf4 20 Sadi b6 21 g3 Wf5 with a good game. But a year later Uhlmann improved White’s play by 14 Af4! with the idea of 14-.^d4 15 ^d51, as in his games with Ghitescu, Peev (Bucharest 1979) and Sznapik (Berlin 1979), or 14...^e8 15 ®d5! (Ivkov-Torre, Rio de Janeiro Interzonal 1979). It is possible that 14-.Wb6 is better, but this is a largely theoretical question, since the variation with 12...Wa5 has almost gone out of use. 14...Wb6 (forcing events - the threat is ...<^e8) 15 ^>a4 The undefended pawn cannot be taken immediately - 15 £ixc5? Sxd6! 16 Wxd6 ^e8, but it needs to be taken, as otherwise Black will soon make short work of the bishop on d6. 15...Wb4 16 ‘йЬхсБ Despite the approximate material equality, the position in the variation 16 £iaxc5 ®e8 17 аЗ ®’Ь6 18 ®a4 Sxd6! 19 ®xb6 Sxdl 20 ®xa8 Sd8 21 £>c5 ®d4 is advan
tageous to Black in view of the activity of his pieces. ‘He traps the errant knight, and White has no advantage’ (Alburt). 1б..Лхс4 (9) 17 Дхс4 Nothing was given by including the moves 17 a3 Wb5, for example: 18 £)c3 kxe2 19 £)xb5 ixdl 20 Hfxdl b6 21 £±>7 Hd7 22 Had Hxb7 23 Жхсб ^xe4, or 18 Jlxc4 Wxc4 19 Scl (19 <^xb7 <йхе4) 19...Wb5 20 £>C3 Wb6 21 b4 £te51, forcing 22 Лхе5 Bxdl 23 Sfxdl fid8, in each case with equality. 17...Wxc4 18 ^xb7 ®xe4 (2) The first result of the white knight’s leap to a4 - a valuable pawn has fallen. There now begins the concluding stage of the complications, which Black had to foresee when he made his 13th move. Moreover, as in the game with Nikolaevsky, the picture of the final position (after the 24th move) formed in my mind almost immediately, and this gave me confidence that there should not be any unpleasantness for Black. 19 3cl®b5 (2) 20 £ixd8?! The most obvious move, but nevertheless 20 <2>ac5 was safer, after which there would have followed 20...<^d41. Now 21 ^xe4 Wxb7 (suggested by Gufeld in Informator) 22 Sei causes White some problems, but the preparatory 21 a41 (safeguarding the pawn in advance) leads after 21...Wb6 22 <2}xe4 (or first 22 a5 Wb5, if White does not like the questionable 22 £>xd8 £>xd6 23 £)xf7 4bxf7 24 ^bd3 Sd8 25 Hel with a rook and a couple of pawns for two minor pieces) 22...Wxb7 23 Hel to approximate equality - Black easily regains the pawn, but he can hardly hope for more (23...®f5 24ЙС2 etc.). 2O...Sxd8 21 Wc21 ^d4! (two forced moves) 22 Wxe4 ®e2+ 23 ФИ1 ^xcl 24 Hxcl 2xd6 After a short battle the ranks of the two sides’ forces have been greatly thinned. The opening balance - extra pawn for White, activity for Black - has remained. Alburt: ‘On these 24 moves I spent about 15 minutes, and my opponent - about an hour. Everything seemed to be alright. The resulting position was well known to me - I had analysed it a few years earlier and had come to the conclusion that White has the advantage - he is a pawn up and there does not appear to be any danger... To all appearances it seemed that the young player was not familiar with the subtleties of the variation, and he was having to solve the problems at the board. In short, I had been given a start: a time advantage in a very familiar position.' But Lev had assessed incorrectly the prospects of the two sides - there is some danger for White: his knight is obviously inferior in mobility to the bishop (and it is also stuck on the edge of the board!), and his king has no escape square. I was happy with my position, reckoning that Black had full compensation for the pawn, but at that moment I would not have objected to a draw. 25®C2 This, the last move of White’s home preparation (as my opponent informed me
after the game), is not altogether accurate - he would have done better to free his queen of minor concerns and play 25 b31? (but, of course, not 25 Wa8+?! ФЬ7 26 Wxa7? Наб) 25...Hd2 26 Wa8+ *h7 27 Wxa7, when Black’s activity is insufficient for a win: a) 27...Wf5 28 Wc5 Ae5 29 &gl! Wd3 30 Wxe51 Hdl+ 31 Wei Жхе1+ 32 Hxel Wc2 33 g3 Wxa2 34 He3, creating a fortress; b) 27...Wd5 28 Hfl ±d4 29 Wc7(a6) Wf5 30 Wc4 Hxf2 (3O...h5 31 b41 h4 32 h3) 31 Hxf2 Wxf2 32 Wcl Wxa2 (32...h5 33 b4) 33 Wdl Wf2 34 b4! and <2k5, when White gains a draw by activating his knight (it is important that he has succeeded in picking up the a7-pawn). 25...Wg5! (5) Playing on the weakness of the 1st rank. From the reaction of my opponent I realised that he had not considered this at home. Alburt: ‘I underestimated the queen move -...Hd2 is threatened.' 26 Hdl? A tactical oversight, and essentially the decisive mistake. Earlier I advised 'seeking a draw’ with 26 Wc5(?l), but after 26...Wxc5 (26...Wd2 27 Hfl We2 28 Wcl Hd2 and ...Jld4 is also interesting) 27 ^xc5 ,&,xb2 28 Hel Hd51 29 ^b3 a5 it is not easy to find. However, 26 g3 would have enabled White, with accurate defence, to hold this slightly inferior position: 26...Hd2 27 Wc5 Hxf2 28 Wxg5 hxg5 29 Hc8+ ФЬ7 30 Hc7 and Bd71, or 26...Hd4 27 b3 Wd5+ (27„.Id2 is no better: 28 Wc5 Wxc5 29 £>xc5 Hxa2 30 f4 or 29...Hxf2 30 a4) 28 Фд1 Hd2 29 Wc5 Wf3 (29...Wd4 30 a3) 30 We31 Wxe3 31 fxe3 Hxa2 32 Hc7 etc. 26...Wf5! Eliminating the important f2-pawn. Later I remembered for a long time this hard-working queen, which in the end demolished the opponent’s defences. 27 Wcl Hxdl+ 28 Wxdl Wxf2 Material equality has been restored, and the difference in the activity of the pieces has become dangerously threatening for White. 29 Wgl? In his distress my opponent makes another, final mistake. It is amusing that in 64 and then also in Informator a different move order was given, one that would have led to a position from the game, but a move earlier: 29 b3 (Alburt: ‘I decided to give up a pawn immediately, in order to drag back the knight from its offside position at a4’) 29...Wxa2 30 £)c5 Wf2 31 4jd3 We3 32 Wfl ±d4 33 Wdl h5 34 ®b4 h4 etc.
It was more resilient to try and preserve the queenside pawns by 29 Wcl (after 29 Wbl Jle5 Black is threatening ...Wf4), and although after 29,..Де5 30 h3 h5 31 ®сЗ (if 31 Wdl there is also 31...g51? 32 Wcl ФЬ7 with the idea of ...g5-g4) 31...h4 White’s position is unenviable, I would still have had to work pretty hard. 29—Wc2 (2) 30 b3 (of course, not 30 Wxa7? Wdl+ 31 Wgl Wxa4 and wins) 3O...Wxa2 (2) It is now Black who is a pawn up, and this is by no means all. 31 <2k5 (again White cannot play 31 Wxa7? Wxb3 32 g3 Wd5+ and ...±d4 or 32 h3 &e5) 3i...Wd2?! (2) ‘31... Wc2 was simpler, not releasing the knight at all’, I wrote in 1978. More than that - 3i...Wa3l would have led to the quick win of a piece or the b-pawn. 32 Wbl ±d4 (5) 33 ^d3 We3 (5) 34 ®b4 h5 (3) It was possible to pursue the knight -34...a51 ? 35 £>d3 (35 £>c6 ±b6; 35 £>c2 Wd3) 35„>e2 36 <2if4 Wd2 37 <^h3 g5 etc. But I had already planned the advance of the h-pawn, and I was ready not only for an attack, but also for mass exchanges. 35 Wdl h4 (35-a5!?) 36 £>c2?! Falling in with my wishes. Alburt apparently sensed that I had missed the strongest continuation, and he visibly revived on seeing a 'saving chance’. 36 h3 would have delayed the end, but after Зб..Лс5 (36...JLe5 37 ®c6 is not so clear) 37 ^d3 Ab6 38 Wbl (38 b4 JLc71 with the threat of ...Wg3) 38...a5 White would have lost because of zugzwang: 39 Wdl Wd4 40 Wbl ФЬ7! (40...Д.С7 41 £)el!) 41 Wfl Фд7 42 Wbl (42 £)el Wdl!) 42...Фд8 43 Wfl Jtc71 44 £kl Wd6 45 Фд1 Wh2+ 46 <4f2 We 5 47 Фд1 Wd6, soon winning the b3-pawn. 36...Wxb3 37 Wxd4 Wbl+! 'Garik drives the enemy queen from the centre - this is useful!’ (Alburt). It was not yet too late to throw away the win: 37...Wxc2? 38 Wd8+ *g7 39 Wd4+ f6 40 Wxa7+<i,h6 41h3. 38 Wgl Wxc2 39 Wxa7 Wdl+ 40 Wgl Wxgl+ 41 ^xgl ‘The pawn endgame is won for Black, but he has to play accurately’ (Alburt). In preparations for one of the sessions of the Botvinnik school I had done some thorough work on pawn endings, and therefore I knew the winning method here. The time control was reached, but the game was not adjourned, because the end of the playing session was still a long way off: both of us, and I especially, had played quickly and accumulated an enormous time ‘surplus’.
41...4>g7 42 S>f2 &f6 (3) 43 ФеЗ Фе5 (3) 44 *f3 f5 45 ФеЗ g5 46 h3 46 ФТз was bad because of 46,..g4+ followed by ...f5-f4, ...g4-g3 and if hxg3 tbe symmetric ...hxg31. ‘Alas, 46 h3 also does not save White: Black employs an outflanking manoeuvre’ (Alburt). 46...^d5l 'The masters tightly surrounding the board had time to calculate the variation 46...g4? 47 hxg4 fxg4 48 ^>f2 Фе4 (48...4>f4 49 g3+1) 49 Фе2 g3 50 4>fl ФеЗ 51 Фд1 Фе2 52 ФЬ1 h3 53 ФдИ with a draw, but Garik interrupted their searches by continuing his series of moves.’ (Nikitin) 47 Ф(13 Фс5 47-f4 48 ФЬ2 ФЬ4 49 Фе2 Фе4 50 Фf2 f3 51 gxf3+ Фf4 would also have won. However, I went my own way. 48 ФсЗ g4 49 Фс13 gxh3 (or 49-.g3 50 ФеЗ Фс4 51 Фf4 ФdЗ and wins) 50 gxh3 Фс15 51 ФеЗ Фе5 52 ФfЗ f4 53 Фf2 Фе4 54 Фе2 f3+ 55 ФИ And here to all those present I had the pleasure of demonstrating the famous ‘triangulation’ - a way of giving the opponent the move. 55..^f51 (only not 55--ФеЗ 56 Фе1 f2+? 57 Ф^1 ФfЗ - stalemate!) 56 Фgl Фе5 It is not especially difficult to find the last two moves, if you know the principle of the distant opposition or the ending of the old game Fahrni-Alapin, which is given in books on the endgame. White resigned (0-1): After 57 £“fl Фе41 58 Фf2 Ф^4 59 Ф^ ФдЗ the h3-pawn is lost. Times: 1.52-1.10. Alburt: ‘Garik’s play in this game created a strong impression on me. At the board he easily figured out the tactical subtleties of the variation, accurately assessed the position, and then demonstrated excellent technique in converting his advantage.' Suddenly, after winning four successive games, I became the sole leader of the tournament - 6У2 out of 8! The last two wins over the Odessa duo effectively brought me into grandmaster company. I did not have to wait long for the formal confirmation of my playing strength... However, hard on my heels was another rival - the talented master Igor Ivanov, formerly from Leningrad, then living in Uzbekistan. Around that time he won several Soviet tournaments and in the 1979 Spartakiad he defeated none other than the world champion Karpov, but a year later he followed Korchnoi and Alburt, in becoming the third chess defector (and in the end - a grandmaster). Ivanov began the qualifying tournament in Daugavpils with two losses, but then he scored six successive wins! We met in the 9th round and, after not achieving anything with White from the opening, I complicated the play with a pawn sacrifice. In a roughly equal position, not wishing to tempt fate further against a formidable opponent, I offfered a draw, but encountered a refusal. And - I promptly developed a dangerous attack! However, at a critical moment I released the black queen, and the draw became obvious.
Nikitin was unhappy with my ‘pacifism’ (he later had to speak more than once about this psychological defect): ‘On seeing a way of making his opponent force a draw, Garry did not bother to look for a stronger move. Such a situation of fighting with yourself was once described by Karpov, who drew this apt conclusion: “It's not possible to play for a win, when in your heart you are agreeable to a draw". To overcome yourself in such a position you have to love chess madly -for example, like Fischer’. But my reserve of nervous energy was already exhausted. In the 10th round literally in one move I threw away my advantage in a game with Kapengut, whereas Ivanov won against Palatnik and caught up with me - we both had 7У2 out of 10 (‘plus five’!). In the concluding three rounds the contenders for finishing in the cherished first seven endeavoured not to lose their precious ‘pluses’, and the leading group was seized by a drawing epidemic. And so I reached the finish together with Ivanov, sharing lst-2nd places. Fortune favoured me: I had the better Buchholz score. Nikitin: ‘Garik jumped for joy. Where had the tiredness gone? Despite such an insipid finish he unexpectedly won the only qualifying place to the Premier League - a stunning success!’ I remember that, when there were no places on the participants’ bus for me and my mother and we had to get off, the inveterate wit Eduard Gufeld shouted after us: ‘Yes, mother, we are going a different way!’ Everyone laughed loudly, but these were prophetic words: subsequently I never played again either in the qualifying tournament, or in the First League... Apart from Ivanov, those who qualified for the First League were Kapengut, Kupreichik, Mikhalchishin, Panchenko and Tseshkovsky, and later, after Panchenko withdrew, Alburt and Makarychev were also allowed in. And, incidentally, three prize-winners in the qualifying tournament - grandmasters Tseshkovsky, Mikhalchishin and Makarychev managed to break through into the Premier League, and later Tseshkovsky even became champion of the country (cf. the next chapter). From the magazine Shakhmaty v SSSR: ‘The main examinations of any young player’s maturity are the championships of the country. It was such an examination that Kasparov took in Daugavpils. The confident play he demonstrated indicates that, under the guidance of Botvinnik, Garik has already passed his first tests. A qualitative leap has occurred in his play, one which it will be possible to evaluate conclusively only during the USSR Championship Premier League in Tbilisi. Kasparov’s victory in Daugavpils was no accident. For the first time a 15-year-old player will perform in the main tournament of the country - Garik has established a record of its kind’. From the Riga magazine Shakhmaty: ‘Modern chess is increasingly becoming a young man’s game. But even so, when a 15-year-old boy demonstrates an encyclopaedic knowledge of the openings, rich imagination, rapid calculation in highly complicated middlegame situations, and a possession of good technique for converting an advantage in the endgame - all this cannot but cause astonishment’. Bagirov: 7 did not exclude the possibility of Kasparov qualifying for the First League. But that which he accomplished exceeded all expectations. From my heart I congratulate my young compatriot, and I hope that in the elite too he will not prove "out of place’’.’ Botvinnik: 'During the six months since the Sokolsky Memorial, Kasparov has made a
better than I did at his age. At the age of 12, when Kasparov was already a candidate master, I had only just begun playing chess... For Garik I have one wish - don’t become conceited! This is now the main thing’. So, in two leaps I jumped straight into adulthood. I was full of energy and any doubts about my future disappeared. From now on my life would be devoted to chess! huge leap forward. I realised this when playing through his games from the qualifying tournament. I am in no doubt that in the Premier League Kasparov will certainly not look a timid novice. I like the fact that in every game, irrespective of the standard of his opponent, he puts his heart into it and always aims only for a win. At his 15 years he thinks at the board and calculates variations High Society Debut 46th USSR Championship Premier League (Tbilisi, 1-27 December 1978) 1 Tseshkovsky 2 Tai 3 Polugaevsky 4 Georgadze 5 Sveshnikov 6 Geller 7 Romanishin 8 Beliavsky 9 Kasparov 10 Gulko 11 Timoshchenko 12 Bagirov 13 Makarychev 14 Razuvaev 15 Tukmakov 16 Mikhalchishin 17 Dorfman 18 Kuzmin 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 * Аг Аг 'A 'A 'A 'A Аг * A A A Аг 'A / Аг * 'A 'A 1 1 A A /2 * А Аг Аг Аг Аг Аг Аг * 11 Аг Аг О Аг О * 1 Аг Аг О Аг О О * О О Аг Аг Аг Аг 1 О А 1 Аг Аг Аг Аг 1 Аг Аг О 1 Аг О Аг Аг Аг Аг Аг Аг О Аг Аг Аг Аг О Аг О О О Аг Аг 1 Аг Аг О Аг Аг О Аг Аг Аг Аг Аг Аг Аг Аг Аг О О О Аг Аг Аг О О О О О Аг Аг Аг О Аг О О Аг Аг О 1 8 9 0 1 2 3 1 1 О Аг Аг 1 1 Аг Аг Аг Аг 1 Аг О Аг Аг Аг Аг Аг Аг 1 Аг Аг Аг Аг Аг О Аг 1 О Аг Аг Аг Аг Аг Аг О Аг 1 1 1 /2 * OII/2/2 1 * /2 О Аг Аг О Аг * Аг Аг Аг 0 1/2* Аг Аг Аг Аг Аг Аг * Аг Аг Аг Аг Аг Аг * Аг 1 Аг Аг Аг Аг О Аг Аг О Аг Аг 1 1 /2 1 Аг Аг Аг О Аг Аг Аг Аг О О Аг Аг О Аг 4 5 6 7 8 1 /2 1 1 Аг 11 Аг /2 1 1 1 11 Аг Аг Аг 1 1 10 1 Аг Аг Аг Аг 9’Д Аг Аг Аг Аг Аг 9 Аг Аг 1 /2 1 9 /2 1 1 1 О 9 /2 1 0 /2 1 9 О /2 О 1 1 8У2 Аг Аг Аг Аг Аг 8 Аг 1 О Аг Аг 8 Аг Аг Аг Аг 1 8 Аг Аг Аг Аг Аг 8 * Аг Аг Аг О 714 Аг * 1 Аг Аг 71/» Аг О * Аг Аг Т/1 Аг Аг Аг * 1 б’Л 1//20* 6 From the Baku Sport newspaper (July 1978): ‘Garry Kasparov, a star pupil in the 8th class of Baku school No.151, has put aside chess matters for a time and is relaxing on the banks of the Caspian Sea. But at the end of the year, for the first time in his life, he is due to meet some famous grandmasters in the championship of the country in Tbilisi. Kasparov does not hide his joy, as he awaits his December rendezvous with the best players in the country, but at the same time he is very cautious in assessing his chances: "I should like to finish no lower than 14th, to avoid returning back into the qualifying tournament. To finish in the top nine, thus booking my place in the next premier league, will be very difficult’’.’ When preparing for my first USSR cham
pionship final, I did not set myself any ambitious targets, thinking that first and foremost I should demonstrate good play and gain experience. Nikitin always used to say that the main thing was to play well, and the successes would follow. True, I later learned that back in 1975 he had shown my mother a schedule of my future results. Against the year 1978 was marked: USSR Championship Premier League. Not long before, at the tournament in Minsk, I had been anxiously awaiting my first meeting with a grandmaster, whereas now I was opposed by as many as 16 holders of the top title. Botvinnik’s strategic directive was extremely dear: 'Play 17 good games, without thinking about the overall result’. Of course, I couldn’t help thinking about the result, but I didn’t set my sights too high: not to drop below the First League. But the start of the championship went well for me. On arriving at the wonderful Tbilisi Chess Palace, where the tournament was to be held, I suddenly remembered that I would not be playing for the first time on that stage: in January 1976 it was here that the concluding round of my victorious USSR Junior Championship took place (cf. Came No.13). But now I would have to come on to the stage every day, and under the intense gaze of numerous spectators battle with the 'big boys’. And whirling around in my mind was the agonising question, whether I would be able to survive in a competition with the titans, from the games of whom I had learned and whom until quite recently I was able to meet only in a simultaneous display. In the 1st round I was paired with Black against the great Yefim Geller. The difference in experience was vast: as yet I had none, whereas he had already participated three times in the Candidates events (and later he would do so a further three times!). ‘Has Garik prepared for fumigation?’, they asked my mother, who, of course, was very anxious that evening. After all, Geller not only smoked a lot, but he also played excellently with White... Viktor Khenkin: 'The pairings brought together the youngest and the oldest participants in the tournament. Kasparov - 15, and Celler - 53- Almost 40 years separate the opponents - such a thing can only happen in chess. This game was at the centre of attention. Apart from the character of the game itself and the accompanying talk about the "passing of the baton from one generation to another’’, everyone was intrigued by the question: how would the young player adapt to the classical environment of the Premier League? I will say straight away: both on the stage and at the chess board Garik conducted himself as though all he had been doing throughout his life was to appear in finals of the USSR Championship. And yet this was his first genuinely strong tournament. The first stage, the first floodlights, and the first auditorium, filled with hundreds of fans. Even highly experienced players are sometimes unable to suppress the anxiety caused by the unusual circumstances. Remember how in 1963 Petrosian lost the first game of his match with Botvinnik effectively without a fight (and in 1949 the young Petrosian began with five zeroes in his first USSR Championship, whereas another debutant -Geller - shared 3rd place! - G.K.). Kasparov was certainly no less anxious. But even so, he succeeded in focusing on customary chess images.’ Yes, before the first tournament game in my life against a world-class grandmaster I felt extremely nervous. But when the arbiter started ^the clocks, the anxiety quickly subsided.
Game 29 Ye.Geller-G.Kasparov 46th USSR Championship, 1st round, Tbilisi 2.12.1978 Caro-Kann Defence B17 1 e4 c6 At a reception at the end of the tournament, Gufeld laughingly said to me within earshot of everyone: ‘Why do you play the Caro-Kann all the time?! Look at yourself in the mirror - you’re just like one of the Mafia! You should play only the Sicilian Defence!’ And I myself began inclining towards this under the influence of my games with Geller and Tseshkovsky, played in Tbilisi. 2 d4 d5 3 £>d2 dxe4 4 £>xe4 Af5 5 <^g3 -ig6 6 h4 In Daugavpils Kholmov successfully employed against me the rare plan with 6 4hd7 7 Ac4, and later he explained: ‘After looking at the games of my opponent, I concluded that he had an excellent knowledge of the main variations with 6 h4.’ After this lesson I endeavoured to expand my knowledge in ‘my’ variations. 6...h6 7 £>f3 ^d7 8 h5 A.h7 9 i.d3 ixd3 10 Wxd3 Wc7 (10...e6 - Game No.17) 11 Ad2 ^gf6 12 0-0-0 еб 13 ®e4 Geller’s patent: White immediately exchanges the knight which has no particular future on g3. We had also spent much time looking at another classical line - 13 We2 0-0-0 14 S^eS (Spassky-Petrosian, 13th match game, Moscow 1966) 14-^b6 or the sharper 13...c5 14 Hh4 Hc8 (Mikhalchishin-Kasparov, Daugavpils 1978). 13...0-0-0 In those times this was a virtually obligatory move, but later the flexible 13...Ae7, retaining the option of kingside castling, also came into its own. 14 g3 With the intention of Af4. 14...^>xe4 (4) The natural reply. 14...£>g4?l 15 We2 £idf6?! 16 ±f4 Was?! (16...Wd7 17 ^e5) is unsuccessful on account of 17 4jxf6! gxf6 (17...^xf6 18 £>es) 18 4hd2! f5 (Geller-Petrosian, Moscow 1967) 19 f3! £if6 20 4ЛЗ with the threat of We5. And if 14„.£)c5 15 4}xc5 A.xc5 (LZaitsev-Petrosian, Moscow 1968), then 16 C4 and ДсЗ is good, although Black still plays this way. Against Tseshkovsky in the 16th round I tried 14-.c5? 15 if4 c4 (an idea, generated in the hurly-burly of the tournament), and after 16 We 2 W’c6 17 £)xf6 gxf6 18 d5! exd5
19 £)d4 Wa6 20 4>bl I agonised terribly over tbe search for the best defence. Moreover, after 16 Jlxc7 cxd3 17 I.xd8! <^xe4 18 Sh41 <Sixf2 19 Sfl(d2) Black has insufficient compensation for the exchange. 15 Wxe4 One of the tabiyas of the entire variation. 15...±e7 (2) To me and my trainer this seemed the most accurate move, but later we gave preference to the natural and still fashionable 15...£rf6 16 'Вег, and now not 16...c5?! 17 dxc5 Axes 18 Sh4! (Geller-Foguelman, Santiago 1965; Tal-Hubner, Montreal 1979 - Game No.143 in Volume II of My Great Predecessors), but 16...JLd6 17 c4 c5 18 JLc3 cxd4 19 £>xd4 (19 A.xd4 Wa5) 19-.a6 or even 16...Sd5 (Stein-Korchnoi, Sousse Interzonal 1967). The immediate 15...Ad6 is also not bad, with the idea of 16 c4 c5 or 16 ФЬ1 Hhe8, and if 17 Wh7, then 17...Sg8 (Kramnik-Leko, 12th match game, Brissago 2004). 16 ®bl (Black would also have been satisfied with 16 jlf4 Ad6, as well as 16 c4 c5 17 JLc3 Af6 or 16 $^e5 £>xe5 17 dxe5 Hd5) 16...1he8 (4) 17 We21? A novelty! Removing his queen from possible attacks, White prepares Shel or ^>e5. The earlier continuation 17 c4 c5 18 jlf4 JLd6 19 ^e5 (Geller-Hort, Skopje 1968) faded because of 19...Se71 (Gheorghiu-Hort, Olympiad, Lugano 1968). 17...id6 (36) A difficult choice: the longer I thought, the more obscure the way to equalise appeared. 17...^.f8 18 c4 was no better (Balashov-Hiibner, Wijk aan Zee 1982), and again 17...C5? 1 was inappropriate in view of 18 Jlf4 JLd6 19 JLxd6 Wxd6 20 dxc5 Wxc5 21 ld3. 18 Shel White completes his development, although 18 c4 also suggests itself, with the idea of 18...e5 19 Shel or 18...C5 19 ДеЗ. 18...<Sbf6 (24) After 18...e5 in Informator Geller recommended 19 dxe5, and I - 19 JLc3 e4 20 £)h4 (underestimating 2O...^f6), although later in our opening monograph Shakarov and I suggested 19 c4! (I should add that if 19...e4?!, then 20 c5 is strong). In the event of 18...fie7 19 c4 cS 20 ±c3 £>f6 21 £>e5 (21 dxc5!?) 21...cxd4 (Kasparov-Vukic, Skara 1980) White retains an enduring plus with 22 ixd4!. 19 ^e5 c5 20dxc5?! Geller had also spent a lot of time in thought and he was beginning to grow
tired. Otherwise he would have found the strong manoeuvre 20 JLcl!, of which I was afraid at the board, since I couldn’t see any clear response: I didn’t want to exchange 2O...lxe5 21 dxe5, condemning my king-side to a bind, while after 2O...^d5 21 c4 ®b4 22 аЗ £ic6 23 'йхсб Wxc6 24 le3 White has a small but enduring advantage (if 24...We4+ 25 Wc2). 2O...lxe5! (5) Apparently Geller was counting on exerting pressure after 2O...1.XC5 21 f4, and he underestimated this reply: with a temporary pawn sacrifice Black greatly simplifies the position. 21 Wxe5 Wxe5 22 Hxe5 22... Sd4 (20) After another long think I did not make the best choice. After 22...<^>g4!? 23 Se2 Sd5 the draw would have been achieved without any particular problems, for example: a) 24 Фс1 Hed8 (apparently 24-Sxh5!? 25 f3 £if6 26 b4 Sd8 is simpler) 25 f3 ^e5 26 Sfl, and now not 26...^c4(?) 27 lc3 ‘with an excellent game for White’ (V.Khenkin; 27 lb4!?), but 26...Sxc5 27 1x3 ^сб 28 Jlxg7 Sxh5 or 28 g4 ^d4, and Black is alright; b) 24 b4 Hed8 25 Фс1 a5 (it is useful to exchange a pair of pawns) 26 a3 axb4 27 axb4 lxh5 28 Ac3 Sxdl+ 29 ^xdl Sf5 3C Фе1 g5 with equality. 23 Фс1 Sed8 (2) 24 f3 £>d7 (5) White is also slightly better after 24...18d5 25 Hxd5 Sxd5 26 g4 Sxc5 27 lb4. 25 Seel My Informator recommendation 25 Se2 £>xc5 26 Sdel is harmless in view of 26...H4d5 27 g4 S8d6 28 1x3 f6 etc. 25...-XC5 261x3 Geller suggested the preparatory 26 g4, but after 26...£)a4 27 la5 b6 28 Sxd4 Sxd4 29 ld2 Hd6 no achievements for White are apparent. Perhaps it was slightly better to play 26 le3l? (to hinder a potential ...g7-
g6) 26...Sxdl+ 27 flxdl Sxdl+ 28 S’xdl ®d7 29 g4 a6 30 Фе2, retaining a small plus, although here too Black should be able to hold the position. 26...Sxdl+ (3) 27 Ixdl Sxdl+ 28 4>xdl f6 29ib4 In the event of 29 Фе2 (Geller) 29-Фс7 and if 30 Jlb4 Black has 30...Феб. 29...^d7 ЗОФе2 The trumps of White’s position are almost worthless. Thus if 30 JLe7!? (trying not to allow the black king across to 'its' wing), then 3O...f51 31 Фе2 £rf6 32 JLxf6 gxf6 is good, with a probable draw. 3O...id8! (a sound plan) 31 g4 (31 Ad6 Фе8 or 31...f5 32 д4Фе8) 31...Фе8 32 f4?! The last chance of fighting for an advantage was 32 ФеЗ Фf7 33 Фf4 (33 JLd6 f51), but after 33...£>b6 34 l.el &d5+ 35 Фе4 Black would be saved by 35-f5+! 36 gxf5 ^f6+ 37 Фе5 exf5 and ...®xh5. Because of the undermining move ...f6-f5 and the weakness of the h5-pawn, White would not have time to create a passed pawn on the queenside and exploit the advantage of bishop over knight. 32...*f7 33 l.d2 Of course, not 33 f5? £>e5. Geller was hoping to immobilise Black’s kingside and then set about creating a passed pawn on the queenside. 33...g6! (4) An unpleasant surprise: Black is threatening to seize the initiative. There was an acceptable, but passive alternative: 33-..f5 34 g5 g6 35 hxg6+ Фхдб 36 gxh6 ФхЬб 37 ±еЗ аб 38 ^.d4 ФЬ5 39 &f3 b5 etc. 34 f5l In his traditional time-trouble Yefim Petrovich is equal to the occasion! White could no longer delay this advance: if 34 hxg6+? Фхдб 35 f5+ exf5 36 gxf5+ Фxf5 37 ±xh6 Фе4 he has a very difficult position, and also after 34 Ac3 f5! 35 gxf5 exf5 36 hxg6+ Фхдб only Black has winning chances. 34...g5 It made sense to create a passed pawn -34-..exf51? 35 gxf5 gxh5 36 JLxh6 ^e5, when a certain accuracy would still have been required of White. Now, however, complete calm ensues. 35 Д.СЗ <ЗзЬ6 (5) 35-exf5 36 gxf5 £ie5 37 b3 Фе7 38 ±Ь4+ Фd7! (39 JLf8 Фе8) was also convincing. 36 ±d4 ^c8 37 ФfЗ Ьб 38 fxe6+ Фхеб 39 c4 ^e7 40 Ac3 (40 c5 ^сбI) 4O...f5 (5) 41 ±g7 £}g8 Here the game was adjourned, and before sealing his secret move, Geller offered
me a draw. However, this was politely declined. The eminent grandmaster was very unhappy about this, but I wondered whether Black might be able to ‘latch on’ to the weak hs-pawn. Home analysis showed that after any sensible reply by the opponent, including the sealed move 42 b4, my chances of success were short-lived. And we agreed a draw without resuming the game, this time on the proposal of Black (’/z-’/z). In the 2nd round I had White against my compatriot, grandmaster Vladimir Bagirov. The first tournament encounter with the long-standing leader of the Azerbaijan team! My opponent also chose the Caro-Kann, but with 4...£id7. In a slightly better position, on the 18th move I did not risk sacrificing my knight on e6 and I castled kingside, which led to simplification and a quick draw. Later we spent a long time analysing the game in the players’ room, and this was described in the sports press: 'Ex-world champion Mikhail Tai leaned over Garik and with unfeigned admiration in his voice commented on the variations he was demonstrating - “one more biting than the other". And everything reduced to the fact that these variations "ended in Bagirov being mated, or completely crushed". One of the grandmasters standing alongside quietly remarked that “White should have sacrificed the piece" and asked the youngster why he didn't do this. Garik replied seriously: “There were too many variations. I couldn’t calculate them all.” To this Tai instantly responded with his disarming smile: "You should first sacrifice, and then calculate".’ The knight sacrifice did indeed look very promising (it was only many years later that the sole defence for Black was found, one that none of us had seen). And I reproached myself for my excessive timidity in relation to the experts, especially since the move earlier I could have played 17 Jtc4, in order to sacrifice not the knight, but the bishop on e6. Bagirov, by contrast, was happy with the result of the game and he even prophetically stated: ‘The time will come when everyone will regard a draw with this boy as a blessing...’ In the 3rd round I made a quiet draw with Black against Makarychev - this also quite satisfied my opponent. And in the 4th round I was paired against one of the tournament favourites, Lev Polugayevsky, many times a participant in the Candidates matches, who had also started with three draws. A few years earlier we had met in a clock simultaneous, but never one-to-one. Game 30 G.Kasparov-LPolugayevsky 46th USSR Championship, 4th round, Tbilisi 6/9.12.1978 Sicilian Defence B43 1 e4 c5 2 4hf3 e6 Polugayevsky prepared seriously for the game, and instead of his patent but dangerous variation in the Najdorf (2...d6 3 d4
cxd4 4 ^xd4 £rf6 5 ^сЗ аб 6 Jig 5 еб 7 f4 b51?) he decided to choose a reserve weapon - the Paulsen Variation. As he himself explained: ‘Why should I do that which is expected of me?’ 3 d4 cxd4 4 <ixd4 аб 5 ^>c3 (5) In the 21st Century I tried 5 c4 £)f6 6 4bc3 Wc7 (the new fashion instead of 6...Jlb4) 7 a3 - against Kramnik (2nd match game, Moscow 2001), Vallejo and Ivanchuk (Linares 2002). 5...Wc7 Also avoiding the variation 5-b5 6 Ad3, which in the mid-1960s occurred in my opponent’s games, and in the late-1990s in mine. 6 Z.e2 (4) 6...b5 Here it is, the opening surprise of the experienced fighter: my basic preparation for White was mainly directed against 6...£rf6 or 6...^c6. has good prospects (Kasparov-Topalov, 4th rapid match game, Sofia 1998); b) 7...&b7 (7...^c6 8 £ixc6 dxc6 9 ±g5l?, Anand-Leko, Dortmund 1996) 8 Bel! ®c6 (after 8,..b4?l I long ago devised a knight sacrifice - 9 £>d51) 9 £>хсб dxc6 10 e51 <йе7 (10...Wxe5? is weak because of 11 Jths! Wd6 12 l.xf7+!) 11 l.d3 £>g6 (or ll...Sd8 12 Ag5 h6 13 Wh5, Kamsky-Lutz, Dortmund 1993) 12 Wh5 with the initiative (Kasparov-Ye Jiangchuan, Batumi (rapid) 2001). In this topical line 10...Bd8 11 Ad3 c5 or the more recent 10..„lb4 is not so clear. 7...Ab7 (the alternative is 7„.<?k6 8 ®xc6 dxc6, and if 9 0-0 Ad6) 8 0-0 8 We2 is no better: 8...£>c6 (8...b4 9 £bd5l?) 9 ^xc6 dxc6 10 eS ^e7 with equality (Tai-Gheorghiu, Moscow Interzonal 1982). 8...£sc6 9 r?'xc6 (5) 9...dxc6! 7 -lf3 (14) A solid move, but rather an awkward one, and less energetic compared with 7 0-0, as I played later: a) 7-b4 8 ®a4 Ab7 9 сЗI? (a sharp pawn sacrifice; 9 ^f3 Ad6 10 e51? is also interesting, Efimenko-Volokitin, Bundesliga 2007) 9...^f6 (9...Дхе4 10 ^f3 2tf6 11 ±g5 or 10 Ae3l?) 10 cxb4 Jixb4 11 АеЗ, and White After 9...Дхсб?! Black has to reckon with the typical sacrifice 10 ®d5l, which promises White an obvious advantage: 10...exd5 11 exd5 Ab 7 12 Bel+ Ad8 13 d61 Axd6 14 ±xb7 Axh2+ 15 ihl Wxb7 16 ФхЬ2 (Crouch) or 10...Axd5 11 exd5 lc8 12 c3 £)f6 (Barua-Bischoff, Calcutta 1997) 13 g3! Ae7 (13-Ad6 14 Ag5) 14 Bel etc. 10e5!?(35) This unclear pawn sacrifice was a nov
elty, devised after agonising hesitation at the board - I very much wanted to activate my bishop on f3. In the old game Estrin-Polugayevsky (Moscow 1964) after 10 a4 Ad6 11 axb5 (11 g3 ^f6 is equal) ll...cxb5 12 e5 Axes 13 £>xb5 axbs 14 Sxa8+ Axa8 15 Axa8 Axh2+I? (the equalising 15...W6 16 h3 0-0 is more modest, Nisipeanu-Ivanchuk, Khanty-Mansiysk (rapid) 2007) 16 &hl Ad6 17 Wd3 b4 18 Sdl Фе7 19 АеЗ ^f6 20 Sal Acs 21 Wc4 Sc8 White did not gain full compensation for the pawn. 10...Wxe5 10...b4 is hardly any better: 11 £be4 (11 ^a41?) ll...Wxe5 12 c31? (Stohl). 11 Sei Wc7 In the event of ll...Wd6 (Barle-Miles, Bled/Portoroz 1979) the black queen comes under attack with gain of tempo: 12 We2 2tf6 13 a4l b4 14 £>e4 <£>xe4 15 Wxe4 Wc7 (15...O-O-O 16 АеЗ!) 16 Af4 Ad6 17 Axd6 Wxd6 (Hambardzumian-Alvarado, Najdorf Memorial 2007) 18 Sadi! with excellent compensation for the pawn. 12 Ahs! (11) Creating the threat of Sxe6+. The less vigorous 12 a4 £)f6 13 axbs axbs 14 Sxa8+ Axa8 15 £ixb5 cxb5 16 Axa8 Ad6 17 g3 0-0 18 Ag2 b4 19 AgS AeS leads to equality (Velimirovic-Rublevsky, Herzeg Novi 1999). 12... Ae7! My opponent also sharply reduced his speed of decision-taking - he had plenty to think about. It is clear that Black has to return the pawn, but he would like to find the best way of doing this. Let us consider the other possible replies: a) 12...g6? 13 Wd4 f6 14 Sxe6+ <4f7 15 Af4 c5 16 We3 Wd7 17 Ag4 f5 18 Sei fxg4 19 £ie4 with a very strong attack; b) 12...Ac8? (a strange 'Steinitz-style' recommendation by Crouch) 13 <йе4! Ae7 (13...g6 14 Af3) 14 Wf3 £>f6 15 Af4 or 14...g6 15 Wc3 e5 16 Af3, and Black is in trouble; c) 12...Sd8 13 Hxe6+ ke7 14 Wf3 g6 15 Af4l (Stohl) 15...Ш7 16 Se3!? c5l (not 16...gxh5? 17 Wxh5 c5 18 Sael) 17 Ag4 Axf3 18 Axd7+ ФхЬ7 19 Sxf3 Феб 20 lei, retaining pressure in the endgame; d) 12...£ie7 13 #f3 (after 13 Sxe6 g6! 14 <$je4 fxe6 or 14 Se4 Sd8 15 We2 c5 16 Af4 Wb6 no way to gain an advantage is apparent) 13...^g6 14 Wh3 JLc8! (Crouch) 15 a41 b4 16 Axg6 fxg6 17 ®e4 Ae7 (17...e5?l 18 Wb3) 18 Ag51 with the initiative; e) 12...£if6!? 13 Sxe6+ Ae7, transposing into a position which could have arisen in the game - cf. the note to Black’s next move. 13 Sxe6 (6)
13... g6 This at first sight strong reply (Black is threatening to win material) gives White new possibilities. The developing 13...£tf6 was safer, after which I was intending to fight for the initiative with the unexpected move 14 £>e41. Thus, in the event of 14-.0-0?! there is the unpleasant 15 £)xf6+ Axf6 16 fixf6! gxf6 17 Ah6 or 17 Wg4+ Wh8 18 Ad2. Instead, 14...^xh5 15 Wxh5 0-0 16 Af4 Wd7 is correct, when White is at a crossroads: a) 17 Se5 f6! (but not 17...flad8?! 18 Sei Ab4? 19 4bf6+! gxf6 20 Дд5+! with a spectacular mate, Gild.Garcia-Zapata, Medellin 1992) 18 fldl We8 19 ^d6 (19 <£>xf6+?! gxf6 20 Wg4+ Wh8 21 ld71 fxe51 22 Axe5+ flf6 23 Sxb7 Wf7 - Stohl) 19...Wxh5 20 Sxh5 Had8 with equality; b) 17 £>g5! AxgSl (17—h6?! 18 Sdl We8? 19 Hxh6! and wins - Crouch) 18 Sd6! Wf5 19 Wxg5 Wxg5 20 Axg5 c5 (2O...Sfe8 21 Sd7) 21 Ae3 c4 22 f3 - White has somewhat the better endgame, but in view of the opposite-colour bishops a draw is the most probable result. 14 Sei? (34) An important moment in the game, not mentioned by the commentators. Alas, despite the time spent, I missed 14 fie4! with the idea of Af4 - this would have set Black difficult problems: a) 14...gxh5? 15 Af41 Wd7 16 Wxh5 £if6 17 We51 We6 18 Sael flf8 19 Wc7! ^xe4 20 ^xe4 Hd8 - Black is a rook ahead, but after 21 h31 (an escape square!) he loses his queen: 21...Aa8 22 Se3 and £id6+, or 21...f5 22 £>d6+ Hxd6 23 Дхеб Дхеб 24 Wxb7 with a decisive material advantage; b) 14...C5 15 Af4! Wd8! (after 15...Wd7?l 16 Wxd7+ ФхЬ7 17 Ag4+ f5 18 fidl+ Фе8 19 Seel White has powerful pressure) 16 We2!? (16 ДеЗ b41 17 Af3 Wxdl+ 18 £hxdl Axf3 19 fixf3 f5 and ...£tf6 or 17 We2 gxh5 18 Sdl W’b6 is unclear) 16...gxh5 17 fidl Wb6 18 Sd6 Wa5 19 ДеЗ fid8! (19...b4?! is weak in view of 20 ^d5 AxdS 21 Sxd5 Wxa2 22 Sdl!) 20 Wxh5 b4 21 ^e4 Axe4 22 Дхе4 with splendid compensation for the piece; c) 14...Hd8! (the immediate inclusion of the rook eases the defence) 15 We2 c5 16 Af4 Wb6 17 Af3! Axe4 18 <£>xe4 with sufficient initiative for the exchange (18...&f8 19 Sei or 19 a4). Thus my sacrifice of pawn and bishop was completely correct, and only the faulty rook retreat to el casts doubts on it. 14...fid8? Timidly played, and after a long think. Immediately after the game I asked my opponent why he hadn’t taken the bishop -14-.gxh5!, and the grandmaster candidly admitted that 15 Wd4 f6 16 Wdl seemed dangerous to him - ‘the king is rather weak...’. Gufeld, who was standing alongside, picturesquely exclaimed: 'Are we hearing this from the author of the Po-lugayevsky Variation?!’ Indeed, after 16...fld8! (this is safer than Timman’s move 16..±>4) 17 Wxh5+ ‘i’fS with the intention of ...c6-c5 (and if 18 Ae3 there is also 18...Ac8) Black would have parried the attack, retain
ing his extra piece and every chance of winning. Instead of 16 Wdl it is possible to play 16 ±f4 c5! 17 We3 Wc6 18 Wh3, and here 18...<4>f8 19 Ee6 We8 20 Hb6! ±c8 (Crouch) 21 Wf3 etc. leads to a sharp game. But the accurate 18...b41 19 ^e4 Hd8 secures Black’s advantage. What then should be done after the capture of the bishop? White loses after 15 Wxh5? 0-0-0, and 15 Дд5 c5 (Stohl) does not look any good. In the game Wojtkiewicz-lonov (Yurmala 1980) White made the attempt 15 ®e4 and after lS-’i’fS? 16 Wd4? f6 17 £>c5 ±c8 18 ±f4 Wd8 19 We3 Wd5 20 b4 ±xc5 21 bxc5 i.d7l he was left empty-handed. But by 16 Wxh5 h6! (Sveshnikov) 17 b3l and Jib 2 he would have achieved a good game. True, Black too could have played more strongly - 15...C5! (Stohl; 15...Hd8?l 16 Wf3! c5 17 Jlf4 is unclear) 16 ^d6+ &f8 17 <^xb7 Wxb7 18 Wxh5 Hd8! with hopes of converting the extra piece. 15W3 Now the position is again one of dynamic balance. 15..X5 Here too 15...gxh5 was possible, although in their time both Speelman and Crouch condemned this capture because of 16 Jlf4 ‘followed by Ле5’. And indeed, 16...®c8? 17 Де5 c5 18 ®e4l is nightmarish for Black, while in the event of 16...Wd7?l 17 Wxh51 c5 18 JLeSl (18 Hadi Wc6 19 Bxd8+ 'A’xdS 20 f3 Фе8! 21 We5 We6! 22 Wb8+ Wc8 is equal) 18...Wc6! 19 f3 £)f6 20 Wh6 <id7! (2O...Hg8? 21 Axf6 Hxg2+ 22 i>hl! -Stohl) 21 JLg31 (with the threat of Exe7+!) Black has to fight to survive: 21,..^d5l 22 Wxc6+ JLxc6 (22...Фхс61? 23 ^xd5 ±g51) 23 Hadi JLf6! (not Crouch’s variation 23...Фев? 24 Jlh4 and wins) 24 £>xd5 Jlxd5 25 Hxd5+ Фсб 26 Hf5 Jlxb2 27 Sxf7 b4 etc. However, 16...Wb6 is safer, not fearing either 17 ±e5 c5 18 Wxh5 £>f6 19 Wh6 idyl 20 Wh3+ Фе8, when White has only a draw by repetition - 21 Wh6, or 17 Wg3 c5, transposing into a position from the game. 16 JLf41 (I think that Polugayevsky had underestimated this move) 16...Wb6 Black would like to simplify the position - 16...i.xf3(?) 17 1.XC7 ixh5 18 ±xd8 'ixdS, but after 19 f3l the bishop at h5 is trapped and he is literally one move short of being able to free it: 19.„g 5 20 Hadl+ Фс8 (2О...Фе8 21 Hd6 - Timman) 21 £ki5 ±d6 22 £>Ь6+! Фс7 23 He8 or 19-f5 2C Hadl+ Фе8 (2О...Фс8 21 41d51 - Crouch) 21
2d6 4>f8 22 Sxa6 ±h4 23 2a8+ 4f7 24 Be2 and wins. Crouch drew attention to the possibility of 16...Wd7, intending 17 Ag4 JLxf3 18 Jlxd7+ 4>xd7 19 gxf3 Феб with equality. But Black may have been frightened by the irrational continuation 17 Wg31? gxh5 18 Wg7Wg419^.e51. 17 Wg3 gxh5 18 1x7! (5) Of course, not 18 le5? ^f6! 19 lc7 (19 Wf4 4>d7!) 19..>c6 20 lxd8 Sg8! and wins (Timman) or 18 Wg7? Wg6! (18...Wf6?? 19 Sxe7+! Фхе7 20 lg5) 19 2xe7+ ^xe71 20 Wxh8+ <4>d7 21 fidl+ ld5 22 Wxd8+ i>xd8 23 £bcd5 £)f5! 24 сЗ Фс8, and White cannot hold the position. 18...$'g6 The only move. Already both players had used most of their time on the clock, and the rest took place in a time scramble. 19 ±xd8 Wxg3 20 hxg3 v xd8 21 ladl+ Фс7 22 £>d5+ Axds 23 Bxd5 In this ending, which has arisen by force, in contrast to the variation with 16...1xf3 the white rooks do not have their knight assistant, and hence there are no mating threats. It only remains for Black to complete his development. 23...И6! 24Hxh5 lh7 Now the bishop can be moved from e7 and the sleeping knight brought into play. Material is roughly equal - rook and pawn against bishop and knight, but in addition the black pawns are targets for the rooks. At the board I optimistically reckoned that my chances, at the least, were not worse. 251he5 (5) 25 a4l? was also interesting: 25...b4 26 <ifl 2g7 27 Sf5 Феб 28 b3 JLf6 29 Se8 ±d4 30 2a8 ФЬб 31 Bf8 with equality. 25. ..^d7 Aiming for safety in time-trouble. The immediate 25..Jld6!? was more logical. 26 S5e3 (3) 26...Sg7 27 2d3+ Фс7 28 2a3 2g6 29 Hf3 After this I offered a draw, having in mind the repetition of moves - 29...fig 7 30 2a3. However, instead of replying the grandmaster moved his bishop. Incidentally, in my next game with Polugayevsky, in the USSR Team Championship (Moscow 1979), in a similar position I also offered a draw, and on this occasion my opponent replied that he wanted to ‘play on for a bit’, but - he again lost. 29...^-f6?! This is not yet a mistake, and yet it plays into White’s hands, allowing him to activate his rooks.
30 c3! (30 Де8 i.xb2 31 Bxf7+ *d6 32 3a7 Ф(15 with equality - Stohl) 3O...id7 31 ld3+ Фс7 32 Se8 Here Polugayevsky grew nervous, evidently regretting that he had allowed the enemy rook into his camp. Meanwhile, the playing time was rapidly expiring: for the last moves to the time control we had literally seconds remaining... 32...-e7? By bringing back his bishop - 32...Де71, Black could then have activated his knight in time and maintained the balance by dynamic play: 33 Ba8 (33 Bf3 Bg7) 33-C4 34 Ba7+ ФЬб 35 Sdd7 Неб 36 b4 Ad6 37 ldb7+ Феб 38 lxf7 ®f6 39 Bxa6+ *d5 40 'A’fl £)e4 with equality (Crouch), or 33 b3 ±d6 34 Ba8 <$jf6 35 Вхаб £>g4 36 Ha7+ (36 Hdl Bf6) 36...ФЬ6 37 Bxf7 ^>e5 38 Дд7 Sxg7 39 Bxd6+ and Bxh6, with three pawns for a piece and a probable draw. 33 fied8 5 c6?! With his flag about to fall, Black becomes rattled. His position is already very unpleasant - say, 33...Ag5?l 34 f4 Af6 35 18d7+ Фс8 36 *h2! or 33--С4?! 34 B3d7+ Фсб 35 Bd6+ Фс5 36 Жхаб. However, 33...®c8!? was more resilient: 34 B8d7+ Фсб 35 Sxf7 b4 36 f4l £>d6 (36...C4? 37 f5l) 37 Ha7 id8! (but not 37...ФЬб?! 38 Дхаб+! Фхаб 39 Bxd6+ ФЬ7 40 f5 Фс7 41 Веб!) 38 Вхаб+ Jlb6 39 cxb4 ФЬ5 40 Bxb6+ ФхЬб 41 Ьхс5+ Фхс5 42 ФЬ2 - four pawns for the knight guarantee White the advantage, but it is still a long way from a win. 34 B8d7+ ФЬ6 35 Bxf7 i.e7 36 ДеЗ (3) 36...Ad6 37 f4 c4 38 ФИ2 I saw the more vigorous move 38 f51 with the possible sequel 38...Bg8 39 Веб Sd8 40 Hff6 Фс5 41 Bxh6, winning, but in the time scramble I didn’t want to spoil anything before the adjournment and I played as solidly as possible. 38...Дс5 39 Be2 b4 The waiting move 39-JLd6 is hardly any better - objectively Black has little hope of saving the game. 40 Be4! Depriving the opponent of counterplay. 4O...bxc3 (to Stohl’s move 4O...b3 there is the strong reply 41 a41) 41 bxc3 Jtf2 (alas the g3- and c4-pawns are not of equa' value) 42 Дхс4 Again 42 f51? was more energetic, for example: 42...Jlxg3+ 43 ФЬЗ Hg5 44 ВхсД Ad6 45 Bf6 Фс7 46 g4 h5 47 ®h4 Bxg4+ 48 Дхд4 hxg4 49 Фхд4 ^e5+ 50 Ф115 with a quick win. Here the game was adjourned. From the press: ‘According to Botvinnik’s preliminary
assessment, White has good winning chances.' The adjournment session took place only after the 6th round. 42...±xg3+ (the sealed move) 43 ФЬз ^.el 44 a4l The crux of the straightforward home analysis: the black king is deprived of the b5-square, so that it cannot drive the rook from c4, and now g2-g4 and f4-f5 is threatened. 44...^a5 Things are also dismal for Black after 44...h5 (Stohl) 45 Sf51 h4 46 Дд5, or 44...ДдЗ+ 45 &h2 Sg6 (no better is 45...ДхсЗ 46 ДхсЗ ЛхсЗ 47 g4 or, as pointed out by Stohl, 45...Hd3 46 g41 Axc3 47 flh7) 46 g4 fld6 47 Фдг JLh4 48 <tf3 etc. 45 ДЬ4+ (4) 45...ФС5? Blundering a piece. It is probable that Polugayevsky no longer believed it was possible to save the game (especially after 44 a4). At any event, when I replied 46 fif5+, he stopped the clocks without any visible sign of vexation. It is amusing that, after 45-'S’c6, 64, Shakhmaty v SSSR and Informator all gave one and the same ‘way to win’ - 46 flf5(?) JLxc3(?) 47 Дха5 with the idea of 47...i.xb4 48 Дха6+. However, Stohl and a computer easily refuted this variation by 4б...ДдЗ+ 47 4>h2 ДхсЗ! 48 Дха5 Ag3+ 49 ФЬЗ ±el+ 50 Фд4 ДдЗ+ 51 'i’fS Jlxb4 with a draw (52 Дха6+ ФЬ7 etc.). In fact White has at least two completely safe ways to the goal: a) 46 ДЬ1 Деб (4б...ЛхсЗ? 47 Дс1) 47 f5 ДеЗ+ 48 Фд4 ЛхсЗ 49 На7 (Stohl) or 4б...ДдЗ+ 47 *h2 ДеЗ 48 fif6+! (Stohl’s move 48 g4 is parried by Crouch’s reply 48...^c4!) 48...ФС7 49 f5l Ag3+ (49-Axc3 50 flxh6) 50 Фд1 JLd6 51 flxh6 ^c4 52 f6 ®d2, and now not Crouch’s move 53 f7(?) because of 53...JLc5! with a draw, but 53 Hdl! ±c5 54 ФТ12 JLd6+ 55 *hl Деб 56 g4 Фе4 57 Фд2 flxf6 58 flxf6 47^xf6 59 g5 and wins; b) 46 ДЬ8 ДдЗ+ 47 ФЬ2 ДхсЗ 48 Дс8+ *d5 49 ДхсЗ АхсЗ 50 Да7 or 47...ДеЗ 48 flf6+ (48 g41?) 48...<i>c7(d5) 49 Дд8 followed by flxh6 etc. 46 flf5+ 1-0 Times: 2.35-2.44. From the press: ‘Kasparov’s first win over one of the strongest players in the world’. An uneven, but interesting and very tense game, with an original treatment of the opening. It was and still remains an object of my pride. Nikitin: 'The fight is intensifying with every round. At times the hall in the Chess Palace resembles an agitated beehive, and then a brightly flashing sign “Quiet!" helps to restore order. In this difficult situation the young Kasparov feels very much at home. He has already adapted, and become acquainted with his rivals - in short, he has become a man on the stage.’ Viktor Khenkin: “It somehow turned out that the 15-year-old master was not only immediately taken seriously, but they also began to be afraid of him. The Odessa player Tukmakov, playing White against him in the
5th round, so diligently exchanged the pieces, that a draw became inevitable as early as the 21st move. “Out of harm’s way", the grandmaster explained his tactics. But Garik is aiming for a fight; he needs to gain in strength, and test himself’ In the 6th round I played another strong Ukrainian grandmaster - Gennady Kuzmin, twice a prize-winner in USSR Championships and a participant in Interzonal Tournaments. The successful start had given me confidence, and before a game with another chess authority I no longer experienced any timidity (especially since our two previous games in simultaneous displays had ended in draws). Game 31 C.Kasparov-G.Kuzmin 46th USSR Championship, 6th round, Tbilisi 8.12.1978 Ruy Lopez C97 1 e4 es 2 <2)f3 <bc6 3 AbS аб 4 Ла4 £>f6 5 0-0 (5 d4 - Game No.l) 5...Ле7 6 Hel b5 7 ДЬЗ d6 8 c3 0-0 9 h3 ®a5 10 .lc2 c5 11 d4 Wc7 12 d5 (6) My knowledge in the main lines of the Chigorin Variation - 12 ®bd2 cxd4 13 cxd4 £k6 or 13...Ab7 - was as yet insufficient, and I immediately closed the centre, since here I had some slight but pleasant experience (12...С4?! 13 b41 - Game No.14). 12...^c4 An alternative is 12...Jld7 13 b3 (if 13 ^bd2, then 13...g6 14 £tfl ^h5 or 13-C4 with the idea of ...<^b7-c5) 13...£ib7 14 c4 b4 15 <^bd2 <йе8 (Rubinstein’s old plan) 16 £rfl g6 17 A.h6 £>g7 18 g4 f6 19 ^g3 У2-У2 (Kasparov-Matanovic, Banja Luka 1979). The draw secured me victory in the tournament, otherwise I would have played on: 19...^d8 20 Wd2 £>f7 21 Лез etc. The immediate 12...^е8 is also possible, for example: 13 b3 ^b7 14 £)bd2 g6 15 a4 ДЬ8 16 axb5 axb5 17 4ffl ^g7 followed by ...f7-f6 and ,..^d8-f7 (Sion Castro-Beliavsky, Leon 1994). 13 a4! (12) 13...1.d7 14 b3 ^a5 In my view, this is better than 14...5Л6 15 a5 £ic8, which gives White somewhat the better chances after both 16 b4 c4 17 <2ibd2 (Kasparov-Ivanchuk, Prague (rapid) 2002), and 16 c4l? g6 17 <йсЗ ^h5 18 <2be2 (Topalov-Shirov, Linares 2004) or 16...b4 17 <$ibd2 (Adams-Kasimdzhanov, 5th match game, Tripoli 2004). 15 axb5 (7) 15...axb5 16 <^bd2 4hb7 The ‘bad’ knight should not have been
moved away immediately (nor in the variation 16...C4 17 b4 ^b7 18 ДЬ2). It was more logical to play 16...flfb8 or 16...g6 17 £>fl ^b5 18 ih6 2fe8 (Psakhis-G.Kuzmin, Krasnoyarsk 1980). 17 Ab2 g6 (now if 17...c4 apart from 18 b4 there is also 18 bxc4 bxc4 19 Aa3 with play against the c4-pawn) 18 c4 (5) 18...£>h5? 18...b4 was correct (and if 19 ®h2 Wi5), maintaining a closed and quite tolerable position. 19 cxb5! (4) 19...Jlxb5 20 £bc4 Unexpectedly the knight has acquired an excellent post, since the exchange 2O...Axc4? 21 bxc4 is unacceptable for Black in view of the invasion of the white bishop via a4. White has an easy game - his next few moves are obvious, whereas Black’s knight at b7 is a big headache: in this halfopen position it is not easy to bring it back to life - he lacks time and space. 2O...f6 Kuzmin is relying on the typical idea of ...Sfb8 and ...^d8-f7, but here this does not help. After 20...<^g7?! in Irformator I gave 21 £rfxe5 dxe5 22 Axes, but after 22...Ad6 it is only a question of compensation for the piece - 23 <^xd6 £)xd6 24 ДЬ2, etc. 21 Wd2l is far stronger, and in the event of 21...f5? there is the decisive 22 Дха8 Дха8 23 exf5 &xf5 24 Axf5 gxf5 25 <Skxe51 or 23...gxf5 24 £>fxe51 (24 ’Wh6!?) 24...dxe5 25 Jlxe5 Jld6 26 <§jxd6 <S^xd6 27 Wf4 followed by ДеЗ. 2O...JLf6l? was perhaps the lesser evil, temporarily ‘forgetting’ about the fate of the knight on b7, although all the same Black would have faced a depressing and passive defence. 21 Wd2 flfb8 22 ДеЗ JLf8 22...‘SklS is more consistent, when 23 g3 £tf7 24 h4 is good, retaining unpleasant pressure. 23 £>h2 (7) 23...(this proves to be a blank shot) 24 £>g4 (6) 24...Ag7 It is not clear what Black has achieved by
switching his bishop from e7 to g7. Most probably he has simply lost time, whereas White has gradually strengthened his position. 25 h4 (2) 25...Wc8 26 £>ge3 (11) 26...±xc4 Kuzmin is no longer able to tolerate the knight on c4. If 2б...Дха1 27 Exal Ea8 there could have followed 28 Hxa8 Wxa8 29 g3 <?hh5 30 JLdl!? with the threat of Axh5 or ^.g4. 27 bxc4 JLh6 (also after 27...5И8 28 g3 ^h5 in various lines there is the attractive idea l.dl) 28 Дха8 (21) 28...Exa8 29 -3-dl! Black’s problems are continuing to snowball. His two knights - both the ‘bad’ one and the ‘good’ one - are in a kind of impasse. 29...&ЭЗ?! The final oversight in a very difficult position. 29-..f5?l 30 exf5 gxf5 31 Wc2 e4 would have lost ignominiously to 32 g4! or even 32 JLg41, but nevertheless 29...£id8 was somewhat more resilient. 30 g3 (5) 3O...^h5 31 Wb2 (4) 31...Wa8 (alas, the control of the а-file is of no importance) 32 ixh5 ixe3 33 Exe3 gxh5 34 ^Vg2 The exchange of a couple of pairs of minor pieces has not brought Black any relief. To his ‘bad’ knight has been added a catastrophic weakening of the pawns covering his king. 34...-d8 Black avoids the invasion of his position after 34...Ea2 35 Wj5 Wc8 36 Ef3 4>g7 37 Ef5 or 36 ±el Ea8 37 Eb3 ®d8 38 We8+ etc., but he goes from the frying pan into the fire. 35 We2! £>f7 36 Wxh5 Wa6 37 Bf3 (2) Emphasising the hopelessness of the attempts by the opponent to somehow divert White from the final attack. 37...Wb7 The black queen cannot move far away from its king: 37-.lrxc4 38 Wg4+ 'A’fS 39 Exf6 or 39 Wc8+ Фд7 40 Wf5 with crushing threats. 38 Wg4+ (2) 38...<if8 39 Wf5 We7 40 Wxh7 Да4 41.Sd2! 1-0 A timely inclusion of the bishop: if 41...Exc4, then 42 Jlh6+ or the spectacular 42 Ag51. Times: 2.02-2.27. Not the most brilliant game, but an important one in the competitive respect: after it I burst into the leading trio (Be-liavsky - 4У2 out of 6, Kasparov and Tai - 4), whereas the distraught Kuzmin was unable to find his form and in the end he finished in last place.
This lively start made me euphoric, and I made a decision - I would stay in the Premier League! But here I was hit by a cold shower - 'Black' losses to Timoshchenko and Razuvaev, and a ‘White’ draw with Georgadze dampened my optimism. In the championship bulletin I read the following dialogue: 'Should you be congratulated on winning against a 15-year-old schoolboy?’ Yuri Razuvaev was asked. 'I think I should’, the Muscovite smiled in reply. ‘This was probably my last chance of winning against him.’ Prophetic words! However, at the time this hint at my guaranteed future was a faint consolation. ‘Things became difficult for Kasparov’, wrote Nikitin in the Baku Sport newspaper. 'His place among the leaders after the first six rounds, and the heightened attention of the spectators and journalists, proved a difficult psychological test for the young master. He became nervous and his play, although interesting, suffered from setbacks. Garik should not be reproached for the fact that he fell behind the leaders. He will no doubt play many times in the Premier League, and for him this tournament was an invaluable school of chess knowledge.’ But fortune again smiled on me. In the 10th round I scored a difficult win over Beliavsky (in the adjourned position he resigned without resuming), in the 11th I adjourned with winning chances against Gulko, and in the 12th I gained a powerful position against Mikhalchishin. At this point I pictured myself finishing in the dizzy heights of the top three! Then retribution followed swiftly. In my excitement I messed up the game with Mikhalchishin and lost! That evening, a tragic one for me, was captured in his report by the Soviet sport correspondent Viktor Vasiliev: ‘Five rounds before the finish Garik could have been in the leading group... In a sharp battle with Mikhalchishin, where the players castled on opposite sides, Kasparov seized the initiative and after winning rook for bishop he gained a decisive advantage. The outcome would hardly have been in doubt -if Mikhalchishin had had more time. But for his last ten moves he had a little more than a minute left, and Kasparov, looking out of the corner of his eye at the opponent’s quivering flag, and expecting it to fall at any moment, was simply unable to force himself to think. And he had heaps of time - a whole hour! But the young player, repeating the mistake of many, many others, began playing on the opponent’s time-trouble and, of course, he himself made several errors, after which the advantage passed to Mikhalchishin. Did Kasparov know that in the other player’s time-trouble you shouldn't rush? Of course he knew! But the mistakes of others do not cost anything; you only pay a real price for your own... ‘After the round I glanced at Kasparov. To say that the youth was upset would be putting it mildly. “But what about the promise to Botvinnik - to play 17 good games, not thinking about the result?" I asked. Garik gave a weak smile. And one can understand him. Because competitive ambition and the fervour of the struggle - they take their toll (besides, is it really bad to play 17 good games and finish high up?). I am sure that the wise Botvinnik, whom the youth phones in Moscow after every round, will guess his state of mind and will not reproach too severely his temperamental protege for his hot-headedness. The mistakes of youth - who has not made them?...’ Then, on the adjournment day, I was unable to win against Gulko. However, in the 13th (!) round I defeated another of the
previous year’s USSR co-champions -Dorfman. And in the 14th round I engaged in a tactical battle with Sveshnikov. From the press: 'The round turned out to be unusual and highly entertaining. It began with Georgadze setting fire to a cigarette packet in an ash-tray (the reality of those times! - G.K.). "A fiery round", remarked Razuvaev, who had gone down into the auditorium (his opponent, Tai, was having a long think), and at this point the lights went out in the hall. And when they came back on, the astonished spectators found that the aforementioned Tai and Razuvaev were no longer on the stage: in the darkness, no longer able to see the position, they had agreed a draw.’ I also offered a draw in the darkness, but Sveshnikov agreed only when the lights came on... On ‘plus one’, I still cherished hopes of clinging on to the ‘bronze’, but in the 15th round I missed a certain win against Ro-manishin, and in the 16th, penultimate round, I lost hopelessly in a Caro-Kann to Tseshkovsky and came down to earth - to 50%. Nevertheless, after a quick concluding draw with the leader Tai, which suited us both (in the event of various shared places, I had the better Berger coefficient), I managed to finish in sole 9th place and retain my ‘pass' to the Premier League. That same evening, in one of the quiet rooms behind the stage, I played a blitz match with Mikhail Tai, who had just won his sixth gold medal as USSR champion. Our tense encounter ended, to my delight, in a 7-7 draw. On returning to the hotel, for form’s sake, I wrote down all 14 games from memory. I also recall with what rapt attention the play was followed by two Alexanders - Bakh and Roshal, people from Karpov’s circle. They were probably already in agreement with Tai, who in an interview gave a very com plimentary assessment of my play: ‘Kasparov is undoubtedly a unique phenomenon in chess. I can name only two players who at the age of fifteen performed so successfully in major tournaments - Fischer and Spassky. It is clear that whatever place the young player takes in the next championship, it will no longer be a sensation. ’ Asriyan: ‘Mikhail Botvinnik, whom I interviewed immediately afterwards, judged Garik’s 9th place to be an undoubted success. True, Makogonov, with whom, on Botvinnik's advice, Kasparov was studying at that time, thought that the young player could even have finished 5th, but he was suffering from a cold (he could not restrain himself, and against the advice of his trainers, he ate some ice-cream). Incidentally, in this championship of the country, for the first and last time, the paths of two Baku players - Bagirov and Kasparov - crossed, and Garik, who finished half a point ahead of his compatriot, as though took from him the baton of the best player in Azerbaijan, which in his time Bagirov had taken from Makogonov.’ From the magazine Shakhmaty v SSSR: ‘For the first time such a young player - 15-year-old Garry Kasparov - took part in the USSR Championship Final. His performance was, of course, the chief sensation. A successful start, wins over highly-experienced grandmasters... Despite isolated set-backs, explained by inexperience, he played interesting chess, and boldly accepted a fight, not fearing the exalted titles of his opponents. With White he fought splendidly - 6 points out of 8. He was less successful with Black -2У2 out of 9- Kasparov’s virtues, as well as his deficiencies, are clearly apparent. There can be no doubt that with further serious work he can expect great successes.’ And the successes were not long in coming.
'This is the new Fischer!’ International tournament in Banja Luka (10-30 April 1979) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Kasparov * z z z z 1 z 1 1 1 1 z 1 z 1 1 ll’/z 2 Smejkal z * z z z z z z 0 1 z 1 1 z 1 1 9’Л 3 Andersson z z * z z z z z 1 z 1 z z 1 z z 9 4 Petrosian z z z * z z z z 1 z z z z 1 1 z 9 5 Adorjan z z z z * z z z z z z 1 z z z 1 8Vi 6 Knezevic 0 z z z z * z z z z z 1 z z z 1 8 7 Matanovic z z z z z z * z z z z z z z z z Th 8 Browne 0 z z z z z z * z z z 0 1 1 z z Th 9 Bukic 0 1 0 0 z z z z * 1 z z z z z z 7 10 Marjanovic 0 0 z z z z z z 0 * z 1 0 1 z 1 7 11 Marovic 0 z 0 z z z z z z z * z z z z z 6’/z 12 Garcia z 0 z z 0 0 z 1 z 0 z * 1 0 z 1 6У2 13 Vukic 0 0 z z z z z 0 z 1 z 0 * z z 1 6У2 14 Kurajica z z 0 0 z z z 0 z 0 z 1 z * z z 6 15 Hernandez 0 0 z 0 z z z z z z z z z z * z 6 16 Sibarevic 0 0 /г z 0 0 z /г 0 z 0 0 z z * 4 Today it is hard to imagine: despite my success in the previous championship of the country, in 1979 I had no expectation of a single ‘adult’ tournament, apart from the USSR Team Championship in July and the next Premier League in December. And yet it was already high time that I became both an international master, and a grandmaster! It should be remembered, however, that the appearances of Soviet chess players abroad were strictly rationed, and many languished for long months or even years in the Sport Committee’s queue for international tournaments. ‘The 16-year-old Garry would have been stuck with this, had not Botvinnik again come to the rescue,’ Alexander Nikitin recalls. ‘On learning of the strong grandmaster tournament planned for the spring in Yugoslav Banja Luka, he had intensive discussions with the organisers. And they, unable to resist the enormous prestige of the ex-world champion, agreed to the participation of the young Soviet master, who had neither an international title, nor a rating. Campaigning for his pupil, Botvinnik gave assurances that the youngster played very well and if anyone would have regrets about his inclusion in the tournament, it would be his opponents. ‘The Sports Committee did not take any part in Botvinnik’s diplomatic discussions, but when it saw that, apart from ex-world champion Petrosian, the organisers had also invited Kasparov to play, it categorically refused to allow his mother or his trainer to travel with him. This was a blessing in disguise: the tournament brought together the youngster and the highly-experienced ex-champion.’ And indeed, in my first ‘adult’ international tournament I was fortunate to play
under Petrosian’s paternal care. I remember how before this my mother and I went to meet him at his home, and his wife Rona Yakovlevna said to my mother: ‘Don’t you worry; in 1953 Tigran also played in the first foreign tournament of the 16-year-old Spassky. This is a good omen!’ The help of ‘Iron Tigran’ proved invaluable. His humour, genuine benevolence and wise advice created a good atmosphere, and I quickly adapted to the unfamiliar situation. In our free time we talked a lot, and not only about chess topics, we went for walks together, gave simuls’, analysed and discussed games we had played. The line-up of the tournament in Banja Luka was very strong: of the 16 contestants, 14 were grandmasters, a third of whom were then among the world elite. We were warmly greeted by our hosts. Yugoslav appeared to be a genuine chess Mecca: where else were so many international tournaments held and so many international masters and grandmasters produced! Petrosian always had many fans there, and I too soon sensed the sympathy of the chess enthusiasts - and I caught fire! Although, of course, I was anxious, I was hoping for a high place (after all, few of the opponents were capable of scoring 50% in the USSR Championship Premier League), and to achieve the grandmaster norm (10У2 out of 15), to say nothing of the international master norm (7У2). I was a little fortunate with the pairings: in the first round I made a draw with White against Petrosian, and the prospect of playing the ex-world champion no longer weighed on my mind. In the evening I asked Tigran Vartanovich what I should play in the 2nd round after 1 e4 against Sibarevic -the only Yugoslav master in the tournament. Perhaps the Caro-Kann? Petrosian replied: ‘In the Caro-Kann White has a safe position, and there is a protracted struggle. Against such an opponent you should play the Sicilian Defence!’ The following day that is what I did - and I scored a convincing win. Over dinner Petrosian was triumphant: ‘Well, what did I say! The Caro-Kann?! You’d be sitting here now, analysing an adjourned position...’ After the 2nd round there was a free day, which coincided with my birthday. The organisers decided to give me a 16th birthday present - a respectable suit (which was not surprising, since in Banja Luka I was strutting around in my Baku clothes), and we set off to the supermarket. By Soviet standards it was a fairytale spectacle, the choice of goods - including suits - being incredible. And they said to me: ‘Choose whichever one you want!’ I hesitated, and here the genuinely experienced Petrosian took the initiative. Pushing me away, he carefully examined all the suits, chose one of the most expensive, in a fine check, and solemly pointed to it: ‘This one!’ From the following day my motto at the board was 'Full speed ahead!’. In the 3rd round I was opposed by the 30-year-old Walter Browne, several times USA champion and a participant in Interzonal tournaments - one of the noteworthy western players of that time. This was a serious test, although, with the Premier League already behind me, I did not experience any particular trepidation. Game 32 G.Kasparov-W. Browne Banja Luka, 3rd round 14.04.1979 Queen's Indian Defence E12 1 d4 6 2 C4 еб 3 3 b6 4 a3 (4)
My first experience of employing the Petrosian Variation, which later became a favourite of mine and brought me numerous memorable wins. At that time I did not yet have any deep knowledge here and I was only just starting to develop my grandmaster opening repertoire. 4...C5 This continuation leads to a more complicated game than the traditional 4-JLb7 5 £>c3 d5 (5„.£>e4 - Game No.61) 6 cxd5 ^)xd5 7 e3 {Game Nos. 43, 52, 85) or 7 Wc2 {Game Nos. 73, 75, 98). Perhaps Browne was hoping to exploit my youthful impulsiveness and inexperience? I stopped to think. 5 d5 (14) 5...ia6 6 Wc2 exd5 Timman’s move 6...We7, which was fashionable at that time, proved to be dubious because of the reply which I found together with Magerramov: 7 Дд5 exd5 8 4k31 Axc4 9 e41 (Kasparov-van der Wiel, Graz 1981). 7 cxd5 d6 (7...g6 - Game No.68) 8 <2k3 8...^bd7?l It is hard to say why my opponent did not play 8...g6 and ...Jlg7, with normal play in the spirit of the Modern Benoni. ‘It is from such imperceptible errors that an advantage for one of the sides is often generated’ (Nikitin). 9 Jef 4’ (8) Now, because of the weakness of the d6-pawn, Black is forced to develop his bishop more modestly - at e7, and he has a rather passive position. 9...1e7 10 g3 (7) Whereas White develops his king’s bishop at g2. 10...0-0 11 Ag2 Пе8 12 0-0 4hh5 (if 12...b5 1 was planning 13 b41) 13 J.d2 (6) 13...^ihf6 Browne was evidently checking whether there would again follow 14 Af4. But, of course, I had no intention of repeating moves. 14 Bfel (5) Beginning preparations for the typical pawn breakthrough e2-e4-e5. The prophylactic 14 a4 would have allowed the opponent to make successful use of the transit point e5 after 14...Ab 7 15 e4 ®g4. 14...±f8?! Again slightly passively played. Now if 14-Ab7 15 e4 ^g4 White had the reply 16 h3 ®ge5 17 £>xe5 ^xe5 18 f4 ^c4 19 e5 with the initiative. But perhaps Black should have initiated counterplay on the queenside - 14...b51?, although here too after 15 b41 White’s chances are better: 15...Bc8 16 bxc5 (16 Ah31?) 16...Hxc5 17 Wb3 etc. 15 a4 (4)
Playing for a bind and to restrict the opponent’s possibilities. White is threatening also to play h2-h3, and so Browne tries to improve the placing of his minor pieces, before he becomes too cramped. 15...£>g4 16 £)b5 (9) 16..ЛЬ7 White's offensive develops smoothly after 16...®ge5 17 Sixes Sixes 18 f4 and e2-e4. 17 e4 (4) 17...a6 18 Фаз! With the intention of creating a striking force with Slc4 and JLc3, exploiting the fact that the black bishop is not on the long diagonal. White’s advantage is becoming increasingly obvious - in the words of Nikitin, ‘he has succeeded in consistently accumulating small positional pluses’. 18...Sb8 If 18...g6, then again 19 h3, for example: 19-..Slge5 20 Sixes Sixes 21 f4 or 19...Slgf6 20 Hadi Wc7 21S1C4. 19 h3 (10) 19...Slgf6 After 19...Slge5 in Informator I gave 20 Slh2 with the idea of f2-f4. 20 Slh4 is also good. But perhaps 20 Sixes!? is simpler - if 2O...Slxe5 21 f4 Sld7 22 Jlc3 the threat of e4-e5 is very strong, while after 2O...dxe5 (seemingly the lesser evil) 21 Slc4 Wc7 all the same White dominates in the centre and Black’s position is unpleasant. 20 A.c3 (9) Continuing to prepare e4-e5. 20 Slc4 b5 21 Sias Wb6 was not so clear, whereas now Black is deprived of counterplay. 20...ЙС7 21 Sld2 (21 l.fl!?) 21...A.C8 22 .fi.fl! An accurate prophylactic move, again not allowing ...b6-b5. Black is almost paralysed. 22...g5? Browne’s reaction staggered me: is such a weakening really possible?! 'However, Modern Benoni devotees often do this, and they are rarely punished for a positional sin of this kind.’ (Nikitin) I was expecting the natural move 22...g6 (the problem of the f8-bishop has to be solved - 22...£>e5?! 23 f4 ®ed7 24 Wd3 merely plays into White’s hands) and I would probably have replied 23 f4 (intending e4-e5) 23...^h5 24 ФЬ2 JLg7 25 <йас4 or 24-..^>df6 25 Wd3 with an obvious advantage. 23^>f3! (5) White, exploiting his opponent’s ‘holecreating’ play, promptly changes tack and begins a swift attack. 23...h6 Also after 23...g4 24 ^h4 h5?l 25 Wd2
£ie5 26 f4l gxf3 27 ^c4 or 24-..£>e5 25 hxg4 £>fxg4 26 f3 £>f6 27 ®c4 Black’s position is unenviable. 24&c4 Tbe most aggressive, although nothing would have been spoiled by some useful waiting move - say, 24 b3 or 24 Ad3- 24...b5 25 axb5 axb5 26e5l Of course, White also has an excellent position in the event of 26 ±a5 Wb7 27 ^a3 c4 28 £jd4 £>e5 29 b3 or 26 <^a5i? b4 27 A.xf6 4jxf6 28 4£ic6, but the strike in the centre is far more flamboyant and vigorous. Intuition and specific calculation suggested to me that Black’s counterplay was too late. 26...ftxd5 A difficult choice. Black would have lost the exchange without sufficient compensation after 26...dxe5 27 ?kxe5 £>xe5 (27...®xd5? 28 ^xf71; 27...1b6 28 Jla5) 28 JlxeS fixes 29 ^>xe5 (29 fixes!?) 29...^xd5 30 Sadi etc. 26...bxc4 27 exf6 fixel 28 fixel was also unsatisfactory for Black - in Informator I assessed this position as winning for White, and this is correct: if 28...^b6 he decides matters with the thunderous 29 £>xg5!! hxg5 30 Wd2 i.f5 31 Wxg5+ ±g6 32 l.g2 and Ле4, while after 28...Wd8 (attacking the f6-pawn) there is the no less deafening stroke 29 Веб!! (threatening Wfs and^xgs) 29...fib3 (with the idea of ...Sxc3) 30 ^xg5! hxg5 31 Wf5 JLh6 32 We41 £ies (32...jlf8 33 We3! or 32...^f8 33 Se8 Wd7 34 -lxc4 does not help) 33 JLxeS dxe5 34 Лхс4 Sb4 35 fie7 Aa6 36 Wxe5 ±xc4 37 fie8+ Wxe8 38 Wxe8+ JLf8 39 d6 with a pretty win. 27 ®xd6 (4) 27...Axd6 (after other replies too Black has a very difficult position) 28 exd6 Wd8 29 ®e5 (6) A logical move: White needs to exchange pieces, to clear the way for the d-pawn. However, there was also a combinative solution - 29 Sxe8+ (or first 29 £}xg5!) 29...Wxe8 30 Bel Wf8 31 £>xg5! hxg5 32 Wf5 <2jxc3 33 Wxg5+ &h8 34 ЬхсЗ Wxd6 35 ±d3! or 31-W6 32 fie 51 b4 (32...^xc3 33 Wxc3 and wins) 33 JLd2 Wxd6 34 £if3, and Black has no defence. 29...^b4 (there is nothing else: 29...®xc3? 30 ^c6!) 3OWd2 30 Wcl! was rather more forceful, keeping the c5-pawn under fire. 30...£>xe5 31 fixes fixes 32 ±xe5 ^c6 33 We3 Probably the simplest: the power of the passed d6-pawn is irresistible. 33...£>xeS (of course, not 33...f6? 34 Jlxf6!
Wxf6 35 We8+ and Wxc6) 34 Wxe5 c4 35 Jlg2 Jte6 (if 35-Ab7 White would have won by 36 d71 JLxg2 37 Фхд2) 36 Sa7 (5) the Yugoslav magazine Sahovski glasnik. 36...b4?! The final error, now in severe time-trouble. 36...Wf8 was more resilient, although after 37 ±d5 (37 d7 Sd8 38 JLc6 b4 is not so clear) all the same Black has a lost position: 37...&xd5 (37-fie8 38 Sc71) 38 Wxd5 Hd8 39 d7 Фд7 40 We5+ f6 41 Wxb5 etc. 37 Ae4! (an elegant stroke: Ah7+ is threatened) 37...C3 (alas, 37...Wb6 38 Se7 and 37...Ad7 38 Ads are both bad for Black) 38 ±h7+! ФхИ7 39 Wxe6 1-0 Times: 2.08-2.29. Although Browne’s play in this important game was far from perfect, the rout I inflicted on him impressed both the spectators, and the contestants. By scoring 2У2 out of 3 I took the lead, and I sensed that they had begun to respect me. The following day I easily defeated the Cuban Roman Hernandez with Black - in a King’s Indian Defence, although events developed more in the spirit of the Benko Gambit. And in the 5th game came a meeting with one of the home players - the experienced Drazen Marovic, the editor of Game 33 G.Kasparov-D.Marovic Banja Luka, 5th round 16.04.1979 Queen’s Gambit D61 1C4 In Banja Luka my steady drift from 1 e4 to the closed games continued. I don’t remember why I played this rather than 1 d4 (evidently to avoid something), but the result was a classical Queen's Gambit. I...e6 2 £if3 d5 3 d4 ^f6 4 4hc3 ±e7 5 Jlg5 0-0 6 e3 £bbd7 (6...h6 - Game Nos. 20, 41, 54, 92} 7 Wc2 Intending queenside castling and a direct attack on the king - this plan always attracted me, and I analysed such positions a great deal. 7...C5 In the game Kasparov-Portisch (Brussels 1986) Black played 7-h6, expecting the usual 8 Ah4 or 8 h4 c5 9 0-0-0 (Portisch-Barcza, Budapest 1961), but even in the Queen’s Gambit I used to seek romanticism, and therefore I replied 8 cxd51?. The sudden piece sacrifice threw the venerable grandmaster into an almost irrational
panic, and he preferred to go into an inferior, but typical position - 8...exd5 9 Af4! c5 10 ke2 b6 11 0-0 ДЬ7 12 Sfdl 2c8 (but already on the 14th move he made a serious mistake and lost). 8...hxg5!? is more critical - after 9 dxe6 fxe6 10 <^xg5 ^Ь6 11 h4! and h4-h5 White has two pawns for the bishop and chances of an attack, but it is unclear how serious they are. 8 0-0-0 The simplifying 8 cxd5 ^xd5 9 Дхе7 Wxe7 10 <$}xd5 exd5 11 ^.d3 h6 or ll...g6 (Alekhine-Capablanca, 10th match game, Buenos Aires 1927) was not at all to my taste. But, by contrast, the variations with 8 0-0-0 fascinated me (and if something is interesting, let’s play it!), although now I take a rather ironic view of my attacking bursts... 8...Wa5 (the main reply) 9 4bl This move of Keres and the associated scheme of development was what I was counting on. In the old game Rotlewi-Teichmann (Karlsbad 1911) after 9 cxd5 exd5 10 dxc5 <£>xc5?! 11 £)d4?! Деб 12 ФЬ1 2ac8 Black gained excellent play, but in the event of 11 4b<d5! ^xd5 12 lxd5 f6! 13 Дс4! ФЬ8 14 Jlf4(h4) Дй7 he would have had to show that he had sufficient compensation for the pawn. 10...h6! 11 h4 (or 11 ДЬ4) ll...Wxc5 is more solid. 9...И6 I think that there is also nothing terrible for Black after 9-dxc4 (or 9-.cxd4 10 exd4 dxc4) 10 Дхс4 cxd4 11 exd4 <<hb6 12 ДЬз Jld7 (Keres-Fichtl, Prague 1943). Of course, I had not prepared killer variations for all eventualities, but I had a strong desire to create a war-like atmosphere on the board. 10 h4 (6) A standard method of attack. Possibly, so as not to provoke its development, Black should have managed without the moves ...h7-h6 and h2-h4. 10...dxc4 Up to here Marovic had followed the Yugoslav Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings of that time, which recommended 10...cxd4 11 exd4 hxg5(?) 12 hxg5 <5je4 13 |йхе4 dxe4 (14 Wxe4 Wf5). But at home I had found the deadly move 14 c5!, for example: 14...f5 15 gxf6! 2xf6 (15...^>xf6 16 <?je5) 16 Wxe4 ®f8 17 id3 or 14...£>xc5 15 dxc5 Sd8 (15...Wxc5 16 Wxe4 Wf5 17 Wxf5 exf5 18 ld4!) 16 2xd8+ Wxd8 17 Дс4 Дхд5 18 Wxe4 Af6 19 <2ie5 with a fearfully strong attack. Alas, this preparation never in fact saw the light of day. However, instead of ll...hxg5? Black has the forceful reply 11...ДЬ4! and then 12 ^.d2 dxc4 13 Дхс4 4hb6 14 ДЬз Ad7 15 ®e5 Деб 16 f3 Ad5 17 g4 ДхЬЗ 18 Wxb3 (Piket-Condie, Kiljava 1984) 18...Sfd8 with a normal game. 11 Дхс4 (10) ll...£ib6 For a long time I considered this 'sideways' move to be dubious and I gave preference to another defence: ll...cxd4 12 exd4 £ib6 13 ДЬз Дд7 14 £ie5 (14 d51? Sfc8!) 14-Дас8 15 Hh3 (a variation from Informator) 15...Деб! or ll...Hd8!? 12 dxc5 (12 g4?! b5! 13 ДхЬ5 ДЬ7) 12...^xc5 13 2xd8+ Axd8 14 Дf4 -S-d7 with equality.
However, as we will see, the text is not yet a mistake. 12 Axf6 (12 ±d3 ±d7l) 12...gxf6?! Afraid of losing a pawn, Marovic breaks up his king’s fortress. It would have been much safer to play 12...Axf6! 13 ®e4l and now not 13...Ae7? 14 dxc5 (Cvitan-Toth, Lugano 1984), since 14...Axes is bad because of 15 Wg5! g6 16 Ab3, winning, but the cool-headed 13-.^хс41 14 ®xf6+ gxf6 15 Wxc4 cxd4 16 ®xd4 (if 16 exd4 or 16 Sxd4 there also follows 16...e51) 16...e5 17 ^b3 Wb6 18 ^c5 Sd8, and it is hard for White to exploit the weakness of the enemy king. And even after the less suitable move order, given by me in Informator - 13...cxd4 14 ^xf6+ gxf6, allowing 15 Hxd4 <£)xc4 16 Дд4+! ФЬ8 17 Дхс4 e5 18 4}g5?l fxg5 19 hxg5, instead of the losing 19...e4? 20 Дс5 Wb4 21 a31, Black has the defence 19...Фд7! 20 Hc5 Wa6 21 gxh6+ 4>Ь8. 13 Ae2 (6) 13...cxd4 14 exd4?I (5) An important moment. At the board the capture with the pawn seemed to me to be the most logical: it is seemingly easier for the queen to attack the black king (Wd2 with the threat of Wxh6). But in fact 14 ®xd41 Ad7 15 We4 was stronger, with play on both wings: 15...ДаЬ8 16 Ad3 f5 17 Wf4, and Black is in trouble (17...'4’h7 18 <2УЬЗ Wb4 19 Axf5+! exf5 20 2d4 and wins), while in the event of 15...Sfc8 both the ‘greedy’ 16 Wxb7 (16...ДаЬ8 17 Wa6) and the ‘creative’ 16 flh31? are in White’s favour. 14...Ad7 15 Hh3 (the point of White’s plan) 15...^a4 15-..fifc8 is risky: 16 Wd2l (if 16 ДдЗ+, then not 1б...^8? 17 ^e51 fxe5 18 Wh71 Фе8 19 Дд8+ Af8 20 Ah5 and wins, but 16...ФЬ8! 17 td2 Af8 with unclear play) 16...Af8 17 £te4 Wxd2 (17...W5? 18 Ad3) 18 4M6+ Фд7 19 £>h5+ ФЬ8 20 fl(^)xd2, and Black is a pawn down, although he has some compensation for it. 16 flg3+ (34) 16...ФН8 17 Wd2 Realising that 17 ^ха4 Axa4 18 Wcl ФЬ7 19 b3 Ab5 was unpromising, I decided to allow a weakening of the pawns defending my king. 17...^>xc3+ 18 ЬхсЗ ФИ7 The correct move. In the event of 18...Wf5+? 19 Ad3 Wh5 there is the sudden and very powerful stroke 20 Sg6!l fxg6 21 g4 Wxg4 22 Wxh6+. I saw this at the board, although later in Informator I assessed the position after 22...Фд8 23 Sgl Wxgl+ 24
£>xgl Sf7 as unclear. In fact 25 Jlxg6 Eg7 26 <2ie2! gives White good winning chances: 26...Af8 27 ^g3 or 26...&e8 27 ^.xe8 Exe8 28 ^f4 etc. 19 JLd3+(16) Here I could not altogether imagine what to do next. After 19 d5 the simple 19-f5 or 19...Sg8 is possible, and the frontal attack does not succeed. 19..Л5 20 £)e5 JLbSl (the only move) 21 Sf3?! (4) This move, to which I previously attached an exclamation mark, has only one advantage - a psychological one: it creates a new threat (g2-g4), which scares the opponent! It is clear that if 21 Ac2 Marovic would have replied 21...Aa4!, insisting on the exchange of bishops. Therefore the best chance was 21 Дез! (defending the e5-knight and intensifying the threat of g2-g4) 21...±xd3+ 22 Wxd3 ФЬ8?! 23 We2 or 22...Фд7 23 g4!, nevertheless retaining the initiative. 24...Bad8? which I gave in Informator, because of 25 fxe6+ ФЬ8 26 e7 and wins), or 21...Jlxd3+ 22 Wxd3 JLd6! (with the same threat of ..Лхе5; bad is 22...h5? 23 g4! hxg4 24 Sxf5! or 22...f6? 23 fixfs! - it was these tactical strokes that I was hoping for) 23 ®c4 Wb5+ 24 Фа! Jle7, maintaining the dynamic balance (for example, 25 Ebl Wa6 26 g4 Eac8 27 £>e5 Wxd3 28 Exd3 Дс7 29 gxf5 Axh4 etc.). Well, the nature of this mistake is perfectly explicable: the grandmaster, accustomed to the quiet treatment of the Queen's Gambit with kingside castling, was suddenly forced to play a sharp position rather like a Sicilian - and he cracked under the pressure. 22 <£k4 Wc7 The situation has changed sharply: now after the exchange 22..Лхс4? 23 Лхс4 the white bishop is rampant. 22...Wa4 23 We2 was only a small improvement for Black. 21..Л6? A serious positional mistake - an irreparable weakening of the еб-pawn, and with it a whole complex of light squares. It was essential to play 21...Af6(d6) 22 g4 (22 £lc4 JLxc4!) 22...±xe5 23 gxf5 l.xd3+ 24 Wxd3 JLd6l, parrying the attack (but not 23 We2 (3) 23...Д.ХС4 (and this is desperation: if 23...Wd7 there is the decisive 24 d51) 24 .S xc4e5 25&xf5 Black has been left empty-handed - he is a pawn down and without any counterplay. 25..ЛаЗ 26 We 4 (6) 26 dxe5! fxe5 27 Wg4 would have won more quickly.
26...ФИ8 27 Sh5 Wh7 28 Wxh7+ 28 Jld3 Wxe4 29 Jlxe4, etc. was also good. 28...ФхН7 29 dxe5 Ag6 (29-lac8 30 ld4) 30 g4fxe5 31fid7? A vexing lapse! In my opponent’s severe time-trouble I relaxed, having about 15 minutes in reserve and thinking I could win 'as I pleased'. The simple 31 Дхе5 would indeed have concluded things quickly, since 31...Sxf2? is not possible because of 32 Sd7!. 31...Sae8! Unexpectedly the situation has again become sharper. Here I became nervous and I hurriedly captured a pawn. 32 Hxb7?! (10) I should have taken myself in hand and found 32 Ads! with the threat of Ae4+, which would still have maintained real winning chances: 32...e4?l 33 Sxb7 Sxf2 34 Ac6! He7 (34-le6 35 Sf5l) 35 lxe7 Axe7 36 Axe4+ Фд7 37 g5 or 32...1e7 33 Ae4+ Фд7 34 Hd2 followed by g4-g5-32...1xf2 33 Hxa7 I hurriedly grabbed another pawn. Now after 33 Ads Se7 White would have had the saving intermediate move 33-Hd8! -after the forced 34 Af7+! Sxf7 35 Sxa3 the win for White would have been highly problematic: 35-fifl+ 36 Фс2 Sf2+ 37 ФЬЗ lb8+ 38 Фс4 Sf4+ 39 *05 Sxg4 40 Sxe5 Hxh4 41 2a6+ *f7 etc. 34йа6+ ®h7 35 Bf5 And in this again hopeless position Black lost on time (1-0). Times: 2.17-2.30. A fourth successive win! An uneven game, and by the highest standards by no means a masterpiece. Nevertheless it also made a big impression - by its daring: it was a long time since o-o-o had been played against this line of the Queen's Gambit. The enormous intensity of the play excited the spectators - the audience was buzzing, and as soon as I had won, some man in the middle row wearing a military uniform leaped up from his seat and exclaimed: 'This is the new Fischer!’. Later it transpired that this was the famous Yugoslav journalist Dmitri Bjelica (at that time he was involved in military training). From my telephone interview with a 64 correspondent: ‘The tournament in Banja little chance of success. Luka has begun rather unexpectedly for me. Of course, I was hoping to perform successfully, but I thought that the fight for the lead would be sharper’. After a difficult draw in the 6th round with Jan Smejkal, one of the heroes of the 1973 Leningrad Interzonal Tournament, I happily disposed of a quartet of Yugoslav grandmasters -Marjanovic, Knezevic (although I had a rather dubious position), Bukic and Vukic! 9 out of 10!! The most crucial encounter was the one with Milan Vukic. Before the start of the 33...Af8? With his flag hanging, Marovic missed tournament, like the opponents of the young Capablanca in San Sebastian 1911, he had been openly complaining that the
organisers had invited a player whom no one knew. ‘Kasparov doesn’t even have an international rating!’ he complained. 'The Russians are sending us children. They are insulting us.’ However, the spectators apparently thought differently and they were on my side. They gave me especially strong support during my game with Vukic. The grandmaster took offence at the audience and even began arguing with them, but someone shouted to him: ‘You should be playing chess, not disputing rights’. My win created a storm of delight in the auditorium. Never before had I enjoyed such enthusiastic support! Incidentally, not only Vukic, but also some of his colleagues were afraid of losing rating points playing against an opponent who did not yet have a rating, and they expressed their dissatisfaction with my participation in the tournament. However, as in Minsk 1978, as soon as I began gathering points all these conversations died down. Strictly speaking, I had earned an international rating of 2545 back in the 1978 USSR Championship Premier League. However, although by FIDE rules a rating should be assigned to a player on the result of his first rated tournament, no one was in a hurry to give me an Elo rating. The Moscow chess officials cynically stated: 'There’s plenty of time for that’. But if I had been assigned a rating starting from scratch on my result in Banja Luka, it would have been 2695, while after ten rounds it even reached 2800, higher than Fischer’s record! I remember how at the time Andras Ador-jan said with a laugh: ‘Don’t worry: now they will quickly assign you your Soviet rating’. And that is what happened: towards the end of the tournament suddenly I at last received my lawful 2545, and then an additional 30 points for Banja Luka. A few years later, with 9 points out of 10, I would have fought for a super-result. But then, after making quick draws with Andersson, Matanovic and Guillermo Garcia, two rounds before the finish I had already guaranteed myself sole first place in the tournament and had achieved not only the international master norm, but also my first grandmaster norm! My fighting spirit evaporated. The concluding games, with Kurajica and Adorjan, also took place ‘in a spirit of peace and mutual understanding’, and all the same the margin over my nearest rivals remained two points. I was happy with my performance, although later I slightly regretted that I had not tried to squeeze the maximum... From a telephone interview with Petrosian: ‘Garik is undoubtedly a great talent. His dynamic, interesting play was a particular feature of the tournament. Many chess fans came specially to the Large Hall of the House of Culture to see Kasparov. In Yugoslav newspapers he is constantly compared with Robert Fischer.' Bozidar Djurasevic: ‘The results of the tournament in Banja Luka were sensational: by a wide margin, victory was gained by a 16-year-old schoolboy from Baku, Garik Kasparov. Our experts assess exceptionally highly the creative and competitive potential of this talented master. Kasparov certainly has a great future. There can be no doubt that very soon Garik will be joining the fight for the world chess crown’. Robert Wade: ‘Kasparov's remarkable performance here should forever enshrine the tournament among the epics of chess. Is there such a precedent in chess history? Robert J. Fischer at Zurich 1959 (3rd to Tai)? Boris Spassky at Bucharest 1953? Both were 16.’
resorted to Aliev’s assistance only in extreme cases, when nothing else could restore deliberately flouted justice. I have no doubt that without the support of this outstanding leader, Garry would never have got through to the match with Karpov in 1984-’ I had only a short rest after successfully completing the ninth class at school. While still in a state of victorious euphoria, I did not play my best for Azerbaijan in the USSR Team Championship (Moscow, July 1979) -in the semi-final, although I again defeated Polugayevsky, I scored just 2 out of 4, and our team only qualified for the C Final. There I scored ЗУ2 out of 4, but this was faint consolation - not the same standard of opponent... The lesson received forced me again to get down to serious work on chess. I had to prepare for the Premier League. When I returned to Baku, another event occurred that was important for my career: on 14th May 1979 my mother and I were invited to meet the leader of Azerbaijan, Geidar Aliev. One of the participants at this meeting, the journalist Valery Asriyan, recalls: ‘This was some news - Aliev invites Kasparov! A genuine sensation. True, after his victory in Banja Luka Garik was a hero... Nevertheless, the very fact that the First Secretary of the Azerbaijan Communist Party Central Committee and Candidate Member of the Politburo meets a ninth-year schoolboy could not help be a surprise. This had never happened before!’ Nikitin: 'From this moment the Azerbaijan sports authorities began providing all the assistance needed for the further improvement of the swiftly-rising chess star. Kasparov First ‘Bronze’ 47th USSR Championship Premier League (Minsk, 29th November - 27th December 1979) 1 1 Geller * 2 Yusupov /. 3 Kasparov X 4 Balashov /2 5 Makarychev /г 6 Georgadze /2 7 Kupreichik /2 8 Vaganian Z 9 Lerner О 10 Rashkovsky /2 11 Beliavsky 0 12 Razuvaev 0 13 Romanishin 0 14 Tai X 15 Dolmatov X 16 Sveshnikov X 17 Anikaev 0 18 Tseshkovsky 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 * 0 /2 /2 1 1 1 * /2 /2 1 1 72 72 * 72 72 72 72 72 72 * 72 1 О 0 72 72 * 1 О 0 72 О 0 * О 0 72 1 О 0 72 1 72 О 7г 0 72 72 72 72 72 0 72 1 72 1 1 72 72 72 72 72 О 0 0 72 0 72 1 0 0 72 72 72 0 72 72 0 72 О 0 72 О 0 72 72 72 1 72 1 0 72 72 0 1 72 О О О 0 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 72 1 72 1 1 1 72 1 72 72 72 72 1 1 1 0 72 0 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 1 72 О 1 72 0 72 72 72 1 72 72 О 1 О 1 1 1 1 72 1 1 72 * 1 72 72 0 1 1 0 * 72 1 72 72 72 72 72 * 1 72 72 72 72 О 0 * 72 О 0 1 72 72 72 * 72 72 0 72 72 1 72 * 1 0 72 72 1 72 0 * 72 О 1 1 О 0 72 О 0 72 0 72 72 1 0 72 72 0 72 1 0 72 72 72 72 72 0 0 5 6 7 8 '/2 72 1 1 ll’/z 72 1 72 0 lO’A 1 1 0 72 10 72 72 1 1 10 1 72 72 1 9У2 1 72 72 1 9У2 72 0 1 1 9У2 72 1 1 72 9 1 1 72 72 8У2 0 72 72 72 8 0 1 1 72 8 1 /2 Уг X 8 1 72 0 1 8 72 0 1 1 7У2 * 1 1 72 7У2 0 * 1 72 7 0 0 * 72 5У2 72 72 72 * 5У2
In the autumn of 1979, before the championship of the country, I played three games in Baku in a local team tournament and, by tradition, a training match with Magerramov. The preparation was serious. Two months before the championship Botvinnik wrote to me: 'What concerns me most of all is your play with Black. After your success in Banja Luka they will be pulling out all the stops against you, especially with White. Therefore with Black you should play solid variations, without any risk. However, passive play is not for you - the variations must without fail have opportunities for counterplay’. Nikitin: ‘The three-month work plan which I compiled included chess, physical and psychological preparation, including auto-training. A major repair of variations already tested plus excellent competitive form enabled Garry to conduct the first half of games more intensively than earlier, without fearing tiredness in the fifth hour of play. And, as a result, we had no particular opening problems.’ After the Sokolsky Memorial I considered Minsk to be a lucky city for me and I again travelled there with great hopes, intending not only to consolidate my place in the Premier League, but also to endeavour to improve on my previous year’s result. Incidentally, this Premier League promised to be especially interesting: the participation of the world champion was expected. But literally just before the drawing of lots, Karpov pulled out, referring to the recent birth of his son... And so a reserve participant was allowed into the tournament -19-year-old Artur Yusupov, who fully justified the saying about a player included at the last moment doing well: he won the silver medal and the title of grandmaster! Initially I played very cautiously - so much so, that the chief arbiter Salo Flohr, an old friend and rival of Botvinnik from back in the 1930s, was surprised by my unusual restraint. ‘No sacrifices - more in the style of Karpov or Petrosian,’ he said about my first round win over Tamaz Georgadze, one of the heroes of the previous championship, who on his home ground in Tbilisi had not suffered a single loss. But other experts thought that ‘this game is of undoubted interest, revealing features of the chess character of the young player from Baku.’ Game 34 G.Kasparov-T.Georgadze 47th USSR Championship, 1st round, Minsk 30.11.1979 Philidor Defence C41 le4 A year earlier I opened 1 d4, but did not achieve anything in a Queen’s Gambit - the game ended in a quick draw, and so this time I decided to try 'serving from the right’. I...e5 2 W3 d6 The Tbilisi grandmaster’s first two moves came as a surprise to me. Before this Georgadze was faithful to 1...C5, and, in particular, he used to employ (like, incidentally, my 3rd round opponent - Yusupov) the Chelyabinsk Variation, for which my trainer and I had prepared. And suddenly the Philidor Defence! 3 Дс4 (8) After some thought I made a psychologically strong move - I avoided the main line, with which my opponent was more familiar. If 3 d4 there could have followed 3...exd4 4 <?}xd4 £)f6 5 ®сЗ Ле7 6 g3 d5 (Geller-Georgadze, 3rd round), 6 JLe2 0-0 7
0-0 аб (Tseshkovsky-Georgadze, 7th round) or 6 ±f4 o-o 7 Wd2 d51? with very sharp play, demanding extensive preparation. 3...±e7 4d3 Finally avoiding 4 d4 exd4 5 $^xd4 £>f6 6 <$ic3 0-0 (Oll-Georgadze, Malaga 1991). White answers a surprise with cunning, by choosing a rare development set-up, after which for a long time Black has to manoeuvre without any concrete aim, in a situation unfamiliar for a Sicilian player, which should cause him definite discomfort. As in fact happened! 4...W6 5 c3 0-0 6 0-0 c6 (a more flexible setup than 6...£k6, transposing into a ‘pianissimo’ Two Knights) 7 Ab3 (6) 7-Ae6 than 11. ,.h6. 9 Sei (3) 9...^bd7 10 <Sbd2 (10) 10...Wc7 11 d4 Of course, the ...d6-d5 advance should not be allowed. By being the first to advance his d-pawn, White retains a slight initiative. ll...Sfe8 Black could have played ll...Jlg4 (after which there would have followed 12 h3 Ah5 13 Wl), but he chooses a restrained continuation, which for the moment does not oblige him to disclose his plans. 12 h3 (11) 12...4bf8 A typical knight manoeuvre to g6. After 12...Sad8, completing Black’s development, I would also have replied 13 c4. 8 .£<2 (8) This bishop retreat apparently distressed Georgadze (here I recall that in the ancient Kurs debyutov against 3 Дс4 Vasily Panov recommended the immediate З-Деб), although it is a logical consequence of White’s opening strategy: he is playing the Ruy Lopez. But what is Black playing? 8...h6 Naturally, Black strives to preserve his bishop from exchange by the knight. In the event of 8...<2ibd7 9 Же1 (9 ^g5 Jlg4) 9...®c7 10 d4 fie8 11 h3 all the same there does not appear to be a more suitable move 13 C41? (6) After first denying Black the g4-square, White unexpectedly changes the general pattern of the position and seizes space in the centre. The quiet 13 4£}fl £bg6 14 ^g3 Sad8 15 Ad2 also promised him slightly the better chances. 13--g6 Black allows the further advance of the d-pawn, possibly fearing 13...exd4 14 ftxd4 Wb6! 15 ®2f3!? (White has to sacrifice a pawn: after 15 ®ixe6 £ixe6 16 4Tf3 4id7 he cannot expect anything) 15...ixc4 16 £jf5
Sad8 17 b3 Деб 18 ^xe7+ lxe7 19 ДЬ2 with fair compensation for the minimal material deficit. 14d5Ad7 15 ^bl! (7) The routine 15 £>fl would have weakened White’s fighting potential on the queenside - 15...cxd5 16 cxd5 Дас8 etc. But now he is planning an offensive with 4hc3, ДЬ2, b2-b4 and so on. Incidentally, among my memorable games this is the third where the return of the queen’s knight to bl occurred (cf. Game Nos. 18 and 24). 15...1.f8?! Black does not sense the danger. In the quest for counter-chances he should have opened the c-file - 15...cxd5 16 cxd5 and after 16...b5 begun ‘Spanish’ counterplay on the queenside, with, for example, the following piece arrangement in mind: ...Hec8, ...Wb7, ...Де7-Ь8-Ь6(а5) and in some cases ...^h5. 16 £)c3 c5? And this is already a serious positional mistake (Tarrasch would have written ‘decisive’), the direct consequence of Black's discomfort and psychological problems. Georgadze was aiming to avoid the ‘dangerous’ opening of the position, and to play as solidly as possible, but here ‘solidly’ signifies passively. Even with a loss of time, he should have reverted to the plan with ...cxd5. 17 Да4! (4) With this central pawn structure it has become advantageous for White to exchange the light-square bishops, especially since the prospects for the remaining darksquare bishops are so different. 17...a6 18 l.xd7 ^xd7?! A loss of time. 18,..'irxd7 was more logical, after which I liked 19 a3 (after the constricting 19 a4 White has to reckon with 19...a5, when he has only one wing remaining, although even here after 20 ФЬ2 and g2-g3 his chances are clearly better) 19...b5 20 ДеЗ, not preventing the opponent from opening the queenside. After 2O..„Seb8 21 ^>d2 Де7 22 We2 sooner or later White would have advanced b2-b4, and with enormous effect, since on this part of the battlefield he has more pieces. Even so, for Black this was the lesser evil. 19 g3 (7) Now White also begins cramping the enemy forces on the kingside. 19„.Де7 20 h4 £>f6 21 £>112 Wd7 22 a4 Wh3 This demonstration of activity was accompanied by - a peace offer! I should mention that here the blocking of the
queenside by 22...a5 was now unattractive in view of 23 Wf3 and ^dl-еЗ (preventing ...f7-f5), when Black begins to suffocate. 23 Wf3 (3) 23...Wd7 And this ‘backward spurt' is explained by a sober assessment of tbe situation after White’s declining of the draw. 23...Ad8 24 a5 b5 25 axb6 Axb6 or 24...Bb8 and ...b7-b6 (in order to answer axb6 with ...ДхЬб) was possibly more resilient, but in time-trouble it is not easy to take such a committing decision. Georgadze gives up ideas of counterplay and switches to exclusively passive defence, relying on the solidity of his pawn chain. 24 a5 (2) It becomes obvious that Black has wasted too much time. White dominates on both wings. 24...$if8 (if 24...±d8, then 25 Фд2, and 25...b6? 26 axb6 Axb6? is no longer possible because of 27 h5 and Jlxh6) 25 Jld2 (5) 25...fiec8 26 ^fl (11) Black’s problem is that, with extremely restricted space for manoeuvring, he has to parry threats by the far more mobile white army. Now 27 £>e3 is threatened. 26...^g4 A forced reply: to allow 4^e3 would be too dangerous (and ...g7-g6 would be a new weakening). But now the black queen is tied to the d7-square, and the switching of the f8-knight to the vicinity of the queenside has become impossible, which White exploits by immediately opening up the play on that wing. 27 £sa4 (7) 27.-A.d8 28 Дес1 ДаЬ8 29 b4! The start of the decisive offensive. As they say in such cases, the rest is a matter of technique. 29...cxb4 30 Axb4 h5 The quest for success in an open battle -30..±>5? 31 ахЬб ДхЬб 32 c5 dxc5 33 Дхс5 Axc5 34 ^xc5 Йхс5 would have ended in failure for Black after 35 Дхс5 Sb2 36 4^e3 £ixf2 37 Дс21. And if the knight deserts its post with 30...4}f6 31 £^еЗ дб both 32 Hcbl and the immediate 32 c51 are good. 31£>b6 A perfectly safe continuation in the opponent’s time-trouble: I did not want to allow Black even a hint of counterplay. The line I give in The Test of Time - 31 Wd3(?) b5 32 axb6 Axb6 33 £>xb6 (33 c5 Да71) 33-..Sxb6 34 ДаЗ is less good in view of 34...Wa7l with unnecessary complications (35 c5 dxc5 36 Дхс5?! 4jxf21 or 35 ^еЗ £id7). But 31 Wa31? was the most ‘computer-like’ way to win: 31...Д.С7 32 c5 dxc5
33 £ixc5 Wb5 34 f3 ^f6 35 ®d3 4hg6 36 Фд2 or 31-b5 32 axb6 Axb6 33 £>xb6 (33 ±xd61?) 33-.fixb6 34 f3 W6 (34...Scb8 35 .ixd6!) 35 c5 dxc5 36 Axc5 etc. 31...^.xb6 32 axb6 Now, if tbe c-file is opened, tbe b6-pawn ensures White an outpost at c7. 32...#e7 (if 32...Wd8 again 33 Wa31 was very strong - but not 33 c5 ^hd71 -33...Wxb6 34 Да2 Sd8 35 Aa5 and wins) 33 *a3 33...fid8 When your flag is hanging it is hard to decide on a positional exchange sacrifice -ЗЗ...Дс5!? 34 Axes dxc5, but this would have prolonged the resistance. However, after 35 *?be3 (35 f3 £>f6 36 <йеЗ will also do) 35-^xe3 36 Wxe3 £)d7 37 Scbl or 37 Wg5 (the computer), or perhaps even 37 d61? (my recommendation from The Test of Time) White would have gradually destroyed the opponent’s defences. 34 f3 (9) 34...^ih6 (34-^f6 35 ^e3 or 35 c5) 35 c5 dxc5 36 Axes Wf6 37 : g2 fie8 38 АеЗ £>d7 39 labl We7 This leads to a loss of material, but it was also impossible to hold the position after 39-Sbc8 40 Sc7 Sxc7 41 bxc7 b5 42 Scl. 40 Wxe7 And here, without managing to play 4О...Дхе7, Black lost on time (1-0). But even without this the obvious 41 Sc7 would have led to the immediate collapse of his position. Times: 2.18-2.30. My next win, in the 2nd round against Sveshnikov, was also achieved by solid positional play, in an ‘insipid’ endgame with symmetrical pawns (it is true that I made an error, but my opponent failed to exploit it and I transposed into a winning pawn ending). But in the 3rd round I came out of hiding and won against Yusupov (who had also started with 2 out of 2) in a style which one commentator even compared with that of Alekhine. My own commentary was closer to reality: ‘Artur and I are friends; we both studied in Botvinnik's school. Before this we had played each other only in junior competitions. And now - our first “adult” encounter, and immediately in the championship of the country! In Minsk Artur was making his debut in the Premier League, and it turned out that I, as an "old-timer”, was examining him. But I won surprisingly easily.’ Came 35 G. Ka s pa rov-A. Yu s u po v 47th USSR Championship, 3rd round, Minsk 2.12.1979 Ruy Lopez C83 1 e4 e5 2 2>f3 £>c6 Before the autumn of that year Yusupov’s repertoire comprised the sharp Chelyabinsk Variation and the quiet Petroff Defence. But in the First League Artur had already employed the Open Variation of the Ruy Lopez, which became fashionable after the Karpov-Korchnoi match (Baguio 1978).
3 ±b5 a6 4 Aa4 W6 5 0-0 лхе4 6 d4 b5 7 ±b3 d5 8 dxe5 >e6 9 ±e3 At the time this was a rare, little-studied continuation, which my opponent might not even have looked at in his preparations. The ‘main’ variations with 9 c3, 9 We2 or 9 £>bd2 £k5 10 c3 were certainly well known to Yusupov. 9... ±e7 The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (1974) promised Black easy equality after 9...®a5, but the game Kupreichik-Slutsky (Moscow 1979) shook this assessment: 10 &d4 Wd7 11 Wei £>xb3 (11...&C6!?) 12 axb3 Де7 13 b4 c5 14 ^хеб fxe6 15 f3 with advantage to White. In the early 1980s the move 9 Лез became popular, and the 2nd edition of ECO no longer recommended 9...£>a5. On the other hand, 9--^c5 often occurs, for example: 10 Wd3 (10 We21? 0-0 11 Sdl leads to a tabiya of the variation with 9 We2) 10...0-0 11 £>c3 ^b4 12 We2 £ixc3 13 ЬхсЗ Axe3 14 Wxe3 £)c6 15 a4 £>a5 (15-..We7!?, Svidler-Carlsen, Baku 2008) 16 axb5 (16 £id4 is more interesting) 16...axb5 17 Wc5 c6 (Kholmov-Antoshin, 35th USSR Championship, Kharkov 1967) or 17 £>d4 We8 18 f4 c5 (Kasparov-Kramnik, 4th match game, Moscow 2001), in both cases with equality. 10^bd2 The theory of this line was in its infancy, and it was only later that 10 c3l was deemed more accurate. After this, apart from 10...0-0 11 £)bd2 (transposing into a position from the game), Black has two other possibilities - one more solid (‘classical’) and one more sharp (‘modern’): a) 10...Wd7 11 £>bd2 ld8 (ll...£)xd2 12 Wxd2 ®a5 13 Ag51?, A.Sokolov-Yusupov, Montpellier Candidates 1985) 12 Sei 0-0 13 Ac2 f5 (13...i.f5!? is more solid, Dolma tov-Yusupov, 1st match game, Wijk aan Zee 1991) 14 exf6 ®xf6 15 a4l ?^g4?! 16 axb5 axb5 17 Ad4 4^xd4 (Kasparov-Shirov, Izmir 2004) 18 cxd4l with advantage to White; b) 10...&C5 11 ±c2 <^d7 (ll...±g4 12 ^bd2 with the idea of Wbl) 12 Sei (not 12 Jlf4 g5l) 12...^dxe5 (more risky, but more principled than 12...0-0 13 Jlf4, Dolmatov-Yusupov, 7th match game, Wijk aan Zee 1991) 13 ^xe5 £>xe5 14 Jld4 f6 or 14-^g6 (a fresh example: Balogh-Mikhalevsky, Olympiad, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010), and for the moment Black parries all the attacks. 10...0-0 (10...£>c51 is more accurate, and if 11 c3 ^d3l, Panchenko-Tukmakov, Tashkent 1980) 11 c3 (19) And so after all the game transposes into a line of the old variation with 9 c3. 11 <^xe4 is altogether harmless: ll...dxe4 12 Лхеб fxe6 13 Wxd8 Haxd8 14 €kl2 ®xe5 15 <йхе4 ^ic4 or 13 £hd2 Wd5 14 Wg4 ^xe5 15 Wxe4 Sad8. ll...Ag4 ll...£)xd2 12 Wxd2 Wd7 or ll...Wd7 is considered more or less reliable. However, in my opinion, the bishop move is also better than its tarnished reputation. 12 ^xe4 (5) 12 h3 is interesting: 12...£bxd2 13 hxg41? (instead of the ancient 13 Wxd2 JLxf3 14
gxf3 £)xe5, Leffmann-Gunsberg, Nuremberg 1883) 13...£lxfl (after 13...^xf3+ 14 gxf3 <2ixe5 15 Wxd5 the two bishops give White some advantage) 14 i’xfl ®a5 15 Jlxd5 c6 16 Ле4 with compensation for the exchange (Smagin-Kotliar, Philadelphia 1989). 12...dxe4 13 Wd5 White has no particular choice: 13 Ad5 ®xe5! is equal (Geller-Korchnoi, Curacao Candidates 1962). As it later transpired, the further lines with 13...exf3 and 13...Wxd5 were briefly considered in the ECO of that time. But at the board, both players, beginning with 10 ®bd2, were playing ‘at sight' and with each move were ‘reinventing the wheel’... 13...exf3 After the game Artur maintained that the endgame after 13...Wxd5 14 ^.xd5 exf3 15 Дхсб fxg2 was safe for Black. This is not altogether so: in the event of 16 Фхд2 (16 Sfcl Sab8!, Sadvakasov-Korchnoi, 2nd match game, Astana 2003) 16...Bad8 the typical undermining move 17 a4 gives White a small but enduring advantage (Alekhine-Teichmann, 4th match game, Berlin 1921). 16...Uab8!? is more interesting, with the idea of 17 a4 bxa41 18 Жха4 Де2 with equality, while if 17 h3 (Adams-Fressinet, Bastia 2005), then 17...Jle6! 18 f4 f6. Or 17 b4 f6! 18 Jld5+!? (18 f4 Sbd8 with equality, Kosteniuk-Ernst, Wijk aan Zee 2005) 18...ФЬ8 19 f3 l.f5 20 еб ±d6 21 fifel Sfe8, and White is probably unable to break through. 14 Wxc6 fxg2 15 Wxg2 Wd7 16 JLh6! (12) After some thought, I found this garish move - without it White has no hopes of an advantage: 16 Wg3 Sad8 17 f3 ^f5 with equality (Wolf-Tarrasch, Mahrisch Ostrau 1923). The unexpected turn of events - now a kind of tactical commotion begins -unsettled Artur: he sank into thought and on the next move but one he committed a fatal mistake! 16...gxh6 17 f3 17 еб is unproductive: 17-.fxe6 18 Wxg4+ ФЬ8 19 Wxe6 Wxe6 20 JLxe6 ±c5 21 Sael Дае8 with equality (Michel-Najdorf, Mar del Plata 1941). 17...h5? This leads to disaster (how high the value of a move is in an open position!). Intuitively I realised this immediately, on seeing the main weakness of Black’s position - the vulnerability of his bishop on e7 and his f7-point. 17...JLc5+?1 18 STil Дае8 (suggested in ECO) is also inadequate: 19 Sael Wc6 20
He4! and fxg4 with powerful pressure, as is 17...*h8?! 18 fxg4 h5 (18...Hg8 19 h3 h5? 20 Hadi!) 19 Hxf7l Ac5+ 20 *hl Wxg4 21 Wxg4 hxg4 22 Hxc7 with an extra pawn. However, the accurate 17...Hae8! (completing development and threatening 18...±c5+ 19 *hl Hxe5) 18 Hael! h5 (18..Jlh4?! 19 He2) 19 *hl Wc6 would have enabled Black to fight for equality: 20 fxg4 Wxg2+ 21 *xg2 Hd8! or 20 He4 Sd8 (but not 2O...jld6? 21 exd6 Hxe4 22 fxe4 and wins, Nunn-Heidrich, Bundesliga 1985) 21 fxg4 Hd2!. Therefore 20 He2 is better, although here too after 2O...*g7 21 fxg4 Wxg2+ 22 Hxg2 h4 23 Sgf2 f6 24 e6 Hd8 White’s achievements are slight. It follows that not only 13...Wxd5 but also 13...exf3 is acceptable for Black, but here psychology played its part: after this game the variation disappeared from grandmaster play. 18 Hadi! (3) Only this, it turns out, is a novelty. Too little is given by 18 fxg4? Wxg4 19 Wxg4+ hxg4 20Hf4 (Acosta-Szmetan, Bogota 1978) 2O...Hae8 with equality. 18...Ш5 After 18...Wc6 19 fxg4 Wxg2+ 20 *xg2 Had8 (2O...hxg4? 21 Hd7) 21 Hxd8 ±xd8 22 gxh5 c5 23 A.d5 Black has an extremely difficult endgame (23....4x7? 24 e6!, Cs.Horvath-Zlatohlavek, Gausdal 1986). 19 fxg4 Wxe5 It is hard to attach a question mark to this move - the defence after 19...Wxg4 20 Hd7 Hae8 21 Hxc7 must have seemed very thankless to Yusupov. 20 Idel! (16) The decisive move (in contrast to 20 Hxf7? *h8! or 20 Hf5? We3+ 21 *hl hxg4 22 Wxg4+ *h8 with equality). Black’s downfall is caused by the open position of his king and the uncoordinated state of his pieces. Surprisingly, although he would appear to have a tempo for the defence, it is no longer possible to do anything. 2O...Wc5+ (2O...Wd6 21 Hxf7! or 2O...Wg5 21 Hf5 Wh4 22 Пе4! *h8 23 g5 is bad for Black) 21ФЫ 21...Had8 This loses a piece, but what can Black play? 21...Hae8 will not do: 22 Hf5 Wb6 23 gxh5+ *h8 24 Bxf7 Hxf7 (24...£f6 25 Hxh7+ or 24...Hg8 25 Дехе7! Жхе7 26 Wg7+!! is more picturesque) 25 Axf7 Hf8 26 Hgl Wxgl+ (otherwise mate) 27 Wxgl! Hxf7 28 h6. White also has a decisive attack after 21..Л114 22 Hf5 Wd6 23 Hefl(gl) or 21...Ad6 22 Hf5 Wa7 23 gxh5+ *h8 24 Hgl Hg8 25fig5.
And after 21...c6, which is slightly more resilient, 22 Hf5 Wd6 23 gxh5+ ФЬ8 24 .&xf7 is good for White, as is 22 We4 Sa7 23 Hf5 Wd6 24 Sdl Wh6 25 gxh5 or 22...^.h4 (22...±d8 23 fixf7! Sxf7 24 ±xf7+) 23 Sf5 Wd6 24 Sefl We7 (24...Sa7 25 gxh5) 25 ®c2!, also with crushing threats. 22 &f5 Wd6 23 Sd5 Wg6 24 Hxe7 Already here the curtain could have been lowered, but Artur, dismayed by such a blitzkrieg, played on through inertia. 24...fixd5 25 ±xd5 hxg4 26 We4 (4) 26...Wxe4+ 27 Лхе4 "d8 28 fixc7 h5 29 ic2 (3) 29...Sd5 30 ±b3 fif5 31 ^g2 a5 32 lxf7! (10) Not essential, but flamboyant and effective: transposing into a pawn endgame is the quickest way to force capitulation. 32...1xf7 33 <ig3 a4 34 ±xf7+ Axf7 35 ФИ4 * g6 36 b3 a3 37 c4 bxc4 38 bxc4 *f5 39 4xh5 Ле4 40 4>xg4 Ad4 41 h4 1-0 White’s pawn queens two moves earlier. Times: 2.14-2.24. A hat-trick, as in Minsk 1978! From the press: ‘The championship of the country began with a sensation - after three rounds the leader was Kasparov with a 100% result! His initial three convincing wins largely set the tone of the entire competition.’ Then Kupreichik burst ahead, scoring five successive wins. Meanwhile I slowed down, making six draws - with Rashkovsky, Geller, Romanishin, Makarychev, Razuvaev and Tseshkovsky, although the play in these games was far from peaceful. Nikitin: ‘The congratulations with which we were showered after this stunning start put the youngster in a state of euphoria, and working with him became difficult. His following opponents displayed great tenacity in defence, and after six successive draws the euphoria was replaced by irritation. Directives and calls for a little patience did not help.’ After nine rounds there were four leaders - Kasparov, Kupreichik, Balashov and Yusupov. On the rest day I tried to divert myself from my tournament misfortunes -first I gave a ‘planned’ simul’ in the Polytechnic Institute, and then in the evening Nikitin and I went to the cinema and watched an old American classic The Vikings (later my mother complained that it had ‘over-excited’ me). For the lOth-round game with Lerner I arrived in a fighting mood and in a complicated battle I gained a decisive advantage. But in my opponent’s desperate time-trouble I suddenly became nervous and, although I still had nearly 50 minutes (!) on my clock, with my impulsive 36th move I ruined the fruits of the preceding intensive work, and then I altogether lost control over the situation and contrived to lose. This cruel defeat signified the onset of a crisis, similar to that which occurred with me a year earlier in Tbilisi, between rounds 7 and 9. It is evident that at the age of 15-16 the burden of leading such a super-tournament as the USSR Championship Premier League was as yet more than my nervous system could bear. My play went to
pieces, and the result of each subsequent game become unpredictable. In the 11th round I should have lost to Vaganian, but by some miracle I managed to hold out and then win in the endgame. In the 12th round I had an overwhelming advantage against Anikaev, but I again went wrong and earned a second nought. In the 13th round I obtained a good position with Black against Beliavsky - and I lost literally in one move! A disaster! The crowning point of this nightmarish period was my 14th-round game with Viktor Kupreichik, in which with White I rushed headlong into battle. Came 36 G.Kasparov-V.Kupreichik 47th USSR Championship, 14th round, Minsk 22.12.1979 Slav Defence D15 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 2>f6 4 ^c3 dxc4 5 e4 b5 6 e5 ^d5 7 a4 еб 8 axb5 £>xc3 9 bxc3 cxb5 10 Ab7 11 Wh5 Wd7 (ll...g6 12 Wg4 - Game No.l in Volume III of My Great Predecessors} 12 4ixh7? (2) Oh horrors: in a new variation for me I forgot to include the obligatory 12 Де2! and only after 12...Ad5 - 13 <£>xh7, while if 12...h6, then 13 Af3! (Kasparov-Petursson, Olympiad, Malta 1980). 12„.£ic6 13 ?xf8 13 ДеЗ (13 Wh4 ^xd4!) 13...Wd51 with the idea of 14 Де2 Wxg2 15 2fl ®b4! was little better for White. Alexander Nikitin describes the acute sufferings he experienced that evening: 'The demonstrator, after removing the bishop from f8, had only just placed the white knight there, when I felt a shiver down my spine: the move 13-Vxd4H immediately came to mind. The inevitability of White’s defeat after 14 cxd4 JLxhS seemed so obvious, that my heart missed a beat and I reached in my pocket for a vasodilator. “What a terrible run of misfortune the ill-fated game with Lerner has produced”, I thought to myself. I looked at the stage, glanced at the culprit of my sufferings, and I immediately realised that he too had seen the opponent’s knock-out blow. ‘However, when he saw this Garry unexpectedly quickly composed himself and took the psychologically correct decision. He did not jump up and walk around the stage, as he would have often done before, but with an imperturbable and perhaps even selfconfident appearance he remained seated, demonstrating his readiness to continue the ‘blitz’. Five minutes passed, then ten... Kupreichik sat and thought. Although after his brilliant start he had also become becalmed and was now almost on his last legs, it was hard to believe that this sharp-sighted and clever tactician would not notice the queen sacrifice... ‘A further ten tiring minutes passed, and I was now almost reconciled to the inevitable. Sitting alongside me in the hall was Borya Gelfand, the future famous grandmaster, but then a young first category player, whom I had been recommended to watch at the Petrosian school, and he suddenly asked in a perplexed whisper: “But what if Black takes the pawn with his queen?" Oh God! I went out into the foyer. Another half hour of torment rushed by imperceptibly, but when I returned to the hall Kupreichik had still not made a move. He was sitting calmly at the board, like a sphinx, hardly changing his pose. Only now he looked less cheerful, and in his bearing there was a hint of uncertainty. Perhaps he might not see it?! And indeed, without satisfaction Viktor finally
made a move - he took the queen with his rook...’ 13...Hxh5? 14 ixd7 Jxd7 15 Ibl! аб 16 J.xc4 ®a5 17 Afl (8) And on the 45th move Black resigned (1-0). Times: 2.00-2.31. When in analysis after the game I showed Kupreichik 13...Wxd4, he almost jumped out of his seat! A real chess drama... Nikitin: 'Some four hours later we met Garik, who had not yet recovered from his sufferings, but was happy and content after an accurately conducted ending and a much needed win. “Well done, Garinka, you didn’t let on", said his mother about the oversight on the 13th (!) move. "You’re growing up, lad", I added intentionally rather crudely. Yes, that evening the chess goddess Caissa graciously gave her young knight a helping hand...’ After this win the tournament no longer seemed so brutally exhausting. Three rounds before the finish, the slump suddenly came to an end. The following day without any particular anxiety I drew with Black against Balashov. But in the 16th round, to be in contention for a medal I had to beat another acquaintance from the Botvinnik School and junior competitions - the 20-year-old debutant in the championship Sergey Dolmatov, the winner of the First League and the world junior champion the previous year. Although in this tournament he was not performing very successfully, any kind of surprise could be expected of him. Game 37 G.Kasparov-S. Dolmatov 47th USSR Championship, 16th round, Minsk 24/25.12.1979 Slav Defence D14 1 d4 d5 2 C4 сб 3 4tf3 4 cxd5 Why not 4 ^Jc3 (Game Nos. 36, 65, 66, 82, 93)1 At that time many ideas were floating about in the Exchange Variation and it was not a drawing line, but a way of avoiding the Meran Variation, which for the moment the Dvoretsky-Yusupov-Dolmatov team knew better than I did. 4...cxd5 5 5'<3 йсб 6 ±f4 6...1.f5 6...e6 is more passive, while transposing into the Chebanenko Variation by 6,..a61? acquired 'citizen’s rights’ only in the 1980s. 7 еЗ еб 8 Jibs Jd6 8...ДЬ4?! 9 ®e5 is less good for Black (Game No.75 in Volume II of My Great
Predecessors), while the main defence is 8...&d7 9 Wa4 (9 0-0 ke7 - Game No.74 in Volume III of My Great Predecessors) 9-Sc8 (9...Wb6 10 £)h4) 10 0-0 (little is promised by 10 Axc6 2xc6 11 Wxa7 Wc8!) 10,..a6 11 Axc6 Sxc6 12 fifcl Ae7 13 £)dl (if 13 £ie2, then 13...Wb6! 14 Дхсб Ьхсб with equality) 13-b5 14 Wb3 Wc8 or 14...Sc4 with doubleedged play. However, the move in the game is also, perhaps, not so bad. 9 ^e5 (10) 16 Bbl e5 with active play, although for the moment White retains his extra material. 10 Axc6+ (14) Giving Black a backward pawn. After 10 0-0 there can follow 10...Axes 11 Axes 0-0 (H.Olafsson-Yusupov, Reykjavik 1985). 10...bxc6 11 0-0 0-0 12 Scl We7 (the attempt to get rid of the weakness by 12...C5? does not work because of 13 £lb5) 13 ^a4 (14) 13...Axe5 14 Axes ®d7 15 ^c5 (11) 15 Ag3 would nevertheless have allowed 15...C5. 9..ЛС8 In principle this is a loss of time, and Black should try to solve the problem of the сб-point in other ways: a) 9.-Axes 10 Axc6+ (after 10 Axes Hc8 White’s only hopes lie with his two bishops) 10...bxc6 11 Axe5 0-0 12 Axf61? (12 0-0 £>d7 13 Ad6 He8 is equal - Kottnauer-Trifunovic, Beverwijk 1962; Andersson-Yusupov, Linares 1983) 12...Wxf6 13 0-0 e5 (Vera-Bellon, Malaga 1981) от 13...ДаЬ8 and ...e6-e5 - despite the chronic weakness of his сб-pawn and the c5-square, Black is close to equality; b) 9-.0-01? (an interesting pawn sacrifice) 10 Ахсб Ьхсб 11 £}xc6 Wd7 12 Axd6 (12 £)e5 Wb7!) 12...Wxd6 13 &e5 (13 Wa4 ^d71) 13...Sab8 14 g41? (if 14 Wd2, then 14...Wb4 15 b3 2fc8 is good) 14-Ag6 15 £ixg6 fxg6l? 15...f6 The strong bishop should probably have been exchanged - 15...^xe5 16 dxeS, and now after both 16...Hb8 17 Wd4 h5 18 b4 or 17...Bb5 (Malinichev-Zargarian, Volodarsky 2007) 18 f3l, and 16...f6 17 Wd4 fxe5 18 'Bxe5 Wc7 19 f4 or 19 lrxc7 Hxc7 20 f3 Black merely has slightly the worse chances, whereas the move in the game adds to his problems. Dolmatov was hoping to set up a counterattack on the kingside, but White’s attack on the queenside develops more quickly. 16 Ag3 e5 17 Wd2 (with the obvious intention ofBc3 andHfcl) 17...£ib6?! All in the same risky, ‘counterattacking’ spirit - Black also avoids the exchange of knights. 17-.Sfe8 was better.
18 b3 e4?! Black somehow cannot bring himself to return his knight with 18...£)d7. In Informator I recommended 18...h5, since in the event of 19 h4 Black would have subsequently gained an opportunity to exploit the weakening of the kingside. But after the immediate closing of the centre he has an objectively difficult position. 19 ®a6 (19 Sc21?) 19...И5 20 Wb4 (8) 2O...B'b7 21 £)C5 We7 22 a4 (6) 22...g5?l It was more resilient first to minimise the threat of a4-a5, by prophylactically defending the queen and vacating the f8-square for the knight: 22...Hfe8 23 a5 ^>d7 24 £ia6 <5if8, and if 25 Jld6, then 25...W7 26 W)8 &d7 27 Sc2 h4 28 h3 ®еб 29 Sfcl £>d8, or even better 22...Ш7!? 23 a5 ®d7 24 ^a6 £)f8, practically forcing the transition into an endgame - 25 Wxe7 (25 JLd6?l Wb7l) 25...Sxe7, although even here after 26 ^b4 JLd7 27 lc2 and Sfcl Black would face a cheerless defence. Therefore in search of counter-chances Dolmatov aimed at any cost to keep the queens on. 23а5*§3а8 Now after 23..ЛМ7 24 £ia6! the exchange of queens is fatal for Black (the knight on d7 has taken the square for the bishop, from where it could defend the сб-pawn), while in the event of 24--Wf7 25 Лс7 or 25 JLd6 Hfd8 26 Wb7 it is also hard to offer him any good advice. 24 ^a6! We8?! 25 Sc2 h4 26 £d6 Sf7 27 Ifcl (threatening <^b8 - White already has a decisive advantage) 27...flg7 28 ^>b8! ±d7 29 Wb7 (10) 29...ФН7! A brilliant reply! I was sure that the game was decided: 29...We6 30 <^xd7 Wxd7 31 Wxd7 Sxd7 32 Жхсб etc. But all is not yet so simple. 30 Wxa8 (4) It was also possible not to lose time on the capture of the ‘dead’ knight, for example:
a) 30 b4 (threatening b4-b5) 3O...We6 31 ^xd7 ld8 (31...Wxd7 32 Wxd7) 32 <£ixf6+ Wxf6 33 Де5 Wxe5 34 Wxa8 (suggested by me in Informator, but 32 Пхсб! is simpler) or 3O...Wd8 31 Wxa7 (only not 31 b5?? Дд41) 31-Де8 32 Wc5 flxb8 (32...Hb7 33 ®a6) 33 ДхЬ8 Wxb8 34 b5 £bc7 35 Ьхсб and wins; b) 30 Wxa7l? We6 31 ДаЗ (the most accurate: White has won a pawn and retained his powerful bishop) 31...Де8 32 Wxa8 h3 33 g3 Wf5 34 f3 exf3 35 *f2 or 31-.h3 32 £sxd7 Hxd7 33 Wa6 Hdc7 34 gxh3, repelling the desperate attack (34...Wxh3 35 JLd6!) and winning. 3O...We6 31 Wxa7l White is obliged to return the piece, giving up his fine bishop. It would be suicidal to play 31 Пхсб?? Дхеб 32 Пхсб Hd81, when he cannot disentangle himself without losing material (33 Дс7 Wg4 34 Hcl Sc8l). And if 31 Дс5?, then 31...Де8! with dangerous counterplay: 32 Дха7 (32 Af8 Hf7) 32...h3 33 Дс5 Wg4 34 f3 exf3 35 g3 We41 36 <if2 f5 and f5-f4, or 32 Hfl h3 33 f4 exf3 34 Hxf3 hxg2 35 Дхд2 Ддб! and ...Де4. 31...Wxd6 32 S'xd7 lxd7 33 Wb6 (33 Wa6l? Hdc7 34 h3 Wd7 35 b4 was also good, or 34...f5 35 We2 Фдб 36 Hc5) 33„.Bdc7 34 аб (6) 34 b4 We6(d7) 35 b51 etc. would have won more simply. 34...Wd7 Sergey was already in serious time-trouble. If 34-h3 the correct reply is 35 b41. 35 Bal? (2) A serious delay. There was still a win by 35 b4 h3 36 gxh3 (36 g3 Wg4 37 A’fl W3 38 a71 is also possible) 36...Wxh3 37 b5 Wg4+ 38 4>fl Wh3+ (38...Фдб 39 a7) 39 4>el Wxh2 40 Wa5 Whl+ 41 Wh2 42 *dl and b5-Ьб. 35...h3 ‘Black has defended cleverly and created real counterplay.’ (Yudovich) 36 gxh3 (9) 36...*g6!? Vacating the h-file for the rook and leaving the queen to defend against the advance of the a-pawn. In the event of 36...Wxh3 nothing would have been given by either 37 Пса2 f51 and ...f5-f4, or 37 b4 Wg4+ 38 ifl Wf31 39 Пса2 (39 lad f51) 39...Фдб! 40 a7 Bh7 41 Wb8! Hch8! (with the threat of ...ПхЬ2) 42 Фд1 Дха71. However, 37 a7l Wd7 (there is nothing else) 38 h3 Ha8 (38...Hb7 39 Wa6) 39 Фд2 Фдб 40 Паб and Пхсб (while if 4O...Hh8, then first 41 ‘A’fl!) would have led after exchanges to a rook endgame with an extra
pawn for White (and drawing chances for Black). 37 f3 (12) An impulsive advance with the opponent’s flag about to fall. After 37 b4 Sh8! I could no longer see a win: 38 b5 Bxh3 39 f3 exf3 40 a7 Дс8 41 a8W (41 Ьхсб Wg4+ 42 <S>fl Hg3!) 41...fixa8 42 Дха8 f2+ 43 Sxf2 Wg4+, or 38 Bad Sxh3 39 Дхеб (39 ‘Sfl Bxh2) 39.-Дхеб 40 Wxc6 Wg4+ 41 S’fl Дхез! 42 We8+ 4>h6 with a draw. 38 a7 was also very unclear: 38...Дсс81? 39 h4 fixh4 40 Wb8 Shh8 41 Wg3 flh3! 42 Wg2 lh4 43 f3 Да8 44 Hca2 Wf5 with counterplay. Apparently the immediate 37 a71? was better, and if 37...Да8 38 Фд2 Да(с)ха7 39 Дха7 Дха7 40 Wxc6, although after 40...W5 41 We8+ Sf7 42 Bel Wf3+ 43 &gl Wxh3 the open position of White’s king makes it extremely hard for him to convert his extra pawn. 37...exf3 38 Sf2 (4) 38...Да7? An error in reply. 38...c5(?), given by me in Informator, is also insufficient in view of 39 Bxf3 Дсб 40 Wb5 cxd4 41 Wd3+!. However, 38...Wxh31 would have led to a draw: 39 a7 Wg4+ (or 39-Де7 immediately) 40 ‘A’fl (40 ФЬ1?! is worse: 4O...Bh71 - with the threats of ...Bxh2+ and ...WgS - 41 Wb8! Ihh8 42 Wd6 We41) 40...Wh3+ 41 Фе1 Де7! 42 a8W Дха8 43 Дха8 Wg4 44 ‘i’fl ДхеЗ 45 Wb4 Wh3+ 46 Фд1 Wg4+ with perpetual check. 39 Hxf3 (now Black is simply ‘one and a half’ pawns down and without any counterplay) 39...Дса8 40 b4 (with the terrible threat of b4-b5) 40...Wc71 With his last move before the time control Dolmatov demonstrates tenacious defence. Here the game was adjourned and the arbiter asked me to seal my move. The resumption took place the following day. 41 Wc5? (17) I had not yet calmed down after the time scramble, and with this sealed move I again put in jeopardy the win, which could have been achieved in the rook endgame after 41 Wxc7 Дхс7 42 e41 Hca71 (42...dxe4 43 ДеЗ) 43 Safi Sf8 44 e5 Дхаб (44-f5 45 h41) 45 Sxf6+ fixf6 46 Bxf6+ Фд7 47 b5 Ba4 48 Дхеб Sxd4 49 Ь6 Sb4 50 &f2 (say, 5О...ДЬЗ 51 Фе2 &f7 52 &d2 Sxh3 53 Дс8 and wins). The only plus point of my decision was that it came as a surprise to my opponent, whereas I was armed ‘to the teeth’ and during the adjournment session I spent only 9 minutes! 41...Дха6 42 Safi Sa2
If 42...Wd8 my trainers and I had prepared 43 h41 with the idea of 43-.gxh4 44 Wc2+ 4g7 45 Wg2+ 4f7 46 Wg5 and wins. 43 2xf6+ 4h5 44 Elf2 Ixf2 (after 44...Wh7 45 Wxc6 White wins) 45 Sxf2 Wh7 46 Wc2 Sal+? This attempt to create counter-chances in the rook ending proves unsuccessful. 46...We7! was far more resilient - this was the only problematic spot in our adjournment analysis. Here I did not see a clear win, neither do I see one now, although after 47 Wdl+ 4g6 (47...ФЬб?! 48 Wf31) 48 Wcl White has a clear advantage. 47 4g2 We4+ 47...We7 is too late in view of 48 Wf51 with the idea of Пс2 or Sf4.47...Wxc2 is also hopeless: 48 Hxc2 Sei (48...Ea6 49 4g3) 49 4f2 Hhl 50 Пхсб Hxh2+ 51 4g3-48 Wxe4 dxe4 ‘A rook endgame has been reached. To win, first and foremost White needs to activate his forces.’ (Yudovich) 49 d5! The key idea of our home analysis, of which I was very proud. However, there was also a win by 49 Ec2 4h4 50 d51 cxd5 51 Hb2 Паб 52 b5 Eb6 53 Sb4 g4 54 hxg4 Фхд4 55Ьз+. 49...cxd5 50 Hb2 Паб 51 b5 Eb6 52 4g3 4g6 53 *g4 Af6 54 Hb4! *g6 55 h4 White creates another passed pawn, on the opposite wing, and he will be prepared to sacrifice it at a convenient moment, in order to divert the opponent's forces. 55... gxh4 56 *xh4 *f5 57 4g3 Ig6+ Two other lines from our analysis: a) 57...®e5 58 h4 4x16 (58...Пдб+ 59 4>h3) 59 4f4 ®c5 60 ПЬ1 d4 61 Фхе4 (61 exd4+ is also good) 61...fle6+ 62 4f5 ДхеЗ 63 Ь6 Пе8 64 b7 Hb8 65 Фе4; b) 57...Фд5 58 h4+ 4^5 59 h5 Фд5 60 h6! Hxh6 61 b6 lh8 62 b7 Sb 8 63 Bb5 *f6 64 4f4 Феб 65 Sb6+ 4x17 66 4e5 4c7 67 fib4, and in each case White wins. 58 Sf2 Hh6 59 b6! Hxh2+ 60 4el Sh8 61 b7 "b8 62 4d2 Ле5 63 4c3 63-d4+ I was especially proud of the following precise variation which we found: 63...4d6 64 4d4 4c6 65 Ebl 4d6 66 ПЬ6+ 4c7 67 4c5 (67 Hb51?) 67...d4 68 Пс6+! 4d7 69 4b6! dxe3 70 Дс4! and wins. 64 exd4+ Ad 5 64-4f4 would not have saved Black: 65 4c4 (65 Eb6!?) 65...4f3 66 d5 e3 67 4>d3 e2 68 Пе4 Sxb7 69 He3+ 4f4 70 Sxe2. 65 4d2 1-0 Times: 2.55-3-07. Just like a year earlier in Tbilisi, I con-
eluded the tournament with a game against Mikhail Tai. On top of the previous year’s 'gold', in 1979 he had also gained triumphal victories at the ‘tournament of stars’ in Montreal (together with Karpov), and at the Interzonal Tournament in Riga. However, in this championship the exworld champion (and a Candidate in the current cycle!) was unrecognisable and he looked exhausted from his efforts in the tournament. Up to the 14th round Tai was still holding out and he was on ‘plus one’, but he was struck down by a very bad cold (he was coughing so terribly on the stage, that with a smile he even asked the chief arbiter: ‘Salo Mikhailovich, put up a curtain, so that I don't infect the public’), and after three successive losses he dropped into the lower half of the tournament table. The placing of the leaders before the 17th round was as follows: Geller - 11, Yusupov - 10, Balashov, Kasparov and Makarychev - 9У2. On the concluding day all drew their games, apart from Makarychev, who lost with Black to Be-liavsky and finished half a step behind. From the press: 'The hero of the second half of the tournament was Geller. Going through undefeated, he repeated his success of nearly quarter of a century earlier and he established an unusual record: never before in the championships of the country had the winner been older than fifty! (In 1937 Leven-fish was 49-) Kasparov, who shared 3rd-4th places, scored as many wins as the tournament winner - six, but he also lost three games. His result is also a record - never before in the championships of the country has a schoolboy won a medal.’ Soon afterwards grandmaster Salo Flohr wrote this in the magazine 64: ’Regarding our brilliant talent (wunderkind?) Garik Kasparov I have heard many good words, and I know his games. Here for the first time I had the opportunity and the great pleasure of seeing him play. Garik is like afire at the chess board. He is impulsive (to his misfortune, sometimes excessively). He passionately loves chess, and he clearly prefers to play for a win. But how he suffers after a loss! He loses his appetite and he can’t sleep, which, however, is not good. ‘Kasparov and Yusupov are good lads (and not only because they occupied high places). I very much liked it when Kasparov would not agree that he could have finished first. He objected: no, no, Geller played more strongly. Yusupov had this to say: for everything that I know about chess I am indebted to my trainer Mark Dvoretsky. Kasparov very flatteringly and with gratitude referred to his prestigious chess teacher Mikhail Botvinnik. 'Incidentally, the youngster’s current helpers did not hide the fact that the exworld champion gave Kasparov valuable long-distance consultation and directives. According to Botvinnik’s plan, Kasparov should have finished in the top six. The young man violated this directive by sharing 3rd-4th places with Balashov. Will Kasparov get into trouble from his strict teacher for this "violation"? In the 46th championship he was ninth, and in the 47th - 3rd-4th. What leap will Garry perform in the current, Olympic year? The following expression exists: five minutes away from being a grandmaster. In my opinion, this expression is not appropriate for Kasparov, and about him it would be more correct to say: five seconds away from being a grandmaster.’ And on the pages of the magazine Shakhmaty v SSSR the championship was reviewed by another veteran of the chess scene - international master Mikhail Yudo-vich: 'A number of games were excellently con
ducted by Botvinnik’s pupil Carry Kasparov. Of course, this is a player who has a brilliant future. Of Kasparov’s deficiencies we must mention effusiveness typical of his age, a striving to force events, and at times a certain recklessness. But in time all this will calm down and be put into place. I think I will not be wrong if I say that each new appearance by Carik will attract the attention of the entire chess world. It is probable that at the age of 16 no one has ever achieved such results, demonstrating versatile and resourceful play, such as that, for example, against Dolmatov. ‘When in the games of a young player we see swift attacks, sacrifices and combinations, this pleases, but does not surprise us. Such bursts are natural and are even to be expected. But when a 16-year-old player conducts a heavyweight battle, demonstrating strategic accuracy, tactical resourcefulness and fine technique - this is clear evidence of his exclusivity. The same was seen when Capablanca, Botvinnik, Fischer and Karpov were young...’ And so, in my second championship of the country I not only consolidated my place in the Premier League, but won a bronze medal, after which for the first time, but once and for all I was included in the USSR team. Over a period of six months my international rating rose by 50 points and by the start of 1980 it had reached 2595. Not bad, but still a whole 130 points behind Karpov... European ‘Gold* 7th European Team Championship (Skara 19-27 January 1980): 1. USSR - 36У2 out of 56; 2. Hungary - 29; 3- England - 28У2; 4. Yugoslavia - 28; 5. Bulgaria - 27У2; 6. Czechoslovakia - 26; 7. Israel - 25; 8. Sweden - 23У2. Victory for the Soviet team was gained by Karpov, Tai (each 2/5), Petrosian (2У2/5), Polugayevsky (4У2/7), Geller, Balashov, Romanishin (each 4/6), Vaganian (4У2/6), reserves Yusupov (ЗУ2/4) and Kasparov (5У2/6). I never again had such a triumphal year as 1980: I became a grandmaster and I won four gold medals - three championship medals plus one for the successful completion of my schooling! As the press commented, I ‘began my course to the "medal" year as a chubby, likeable lad, but approached the end as a lean youth with narrow shoulders and a slim neck’. Three weeks after the championship of the country, Yusupov and I made our debuts for the USSR team in the European Team Championship, which took place in the small Swedish town of Skara, close to Gothenburg. Playing in the same team as Karpov, Tai and Petrosian was a great honour for a 16-year-old schoolboy. Although I was only the second reserve, I felt on top of the world and I did my utmost to justify the trust shown in me. Artur and I shared a room and together we scored more points than any other pair of contestants... Nikitin: ‘Here for the first time Karpov saw Kasparov in action. They occupied diametrically opposite positions in the team line-up and played diametrically opposite roles in its performance. For various reasons, our three leaders at that time - Karpov, Petrosian and Tai - performed extremely poorly: out of 15 games they scored 13 draws and 2 losses. And the convincing final victory of the Soviet team (by a margin of 7/2 points) was in fact not easily achieved. After four rounds we were only half a point ahead of the Yugoslavs. I know how difficult it is to take risks in such situations, the more so for a young debutant in such a star-studded team. But in the 5th round match
with Czechoslovakia, Garry boldly sharpened the play - barely out of the opening, he sacrificed a pawn for the initiative and won in brilliant style.’ Came 38 G.Kasparov-J.Pribyl European Team Championship, 5th round, Skara 24.01.1980 Grunfeld Defence D85 1 d4 2if6 2 c4 g6 3 2>c3 ds 4 cxd5 £>xd5 5 e4 -йхсЗ 6 bxc3 ig7 7 3 At that time the standard move was 7 Дс4 (Game No.72), but under the influence of a Korchnoi-Miles game (Vienna 1979) I began employing the innovatory set-up with the development of the knight on f3, which had not yet accumulated any theory. I have to admit that in my youth I considered the Grunfeld Defence to be a not altogether correct opening: White creates a passed pawn in the centre and advances it towards the queening square, at the same time building up an attack on the king (for this reason the Queen’s Indian with a2-a3 also appealed to me). It was in this mood that I went along to the game. 7...b6?! 'The original cause of Black’s defeat’ (Nikitin). The usual and most critical reply is 7...C5 (Game No.48). The plan with ...b7-b6 usually occurred after 7-0-0 8 Ле2. ‘Now, however, White hampers the opponent’s attack on his pawn centre.’ (Pribyl) 8 Jlb5+! c6 (after 8...jld7 9 ^.e2 the move ...b7-b6 is made worthless) 9 Лс4 (16) This was the first game on this particular theme, and I spent some time considering where it was best to retreat the bishop. 9...0-0 10 0-0 (3) The exchange of the light-square bishops could have been prevented by 10 We 2, but 10...b51? 11 Jlb3 b4 seemed unclear to me, and, besides, White has quite good prospects even without these pieces. 10...±a6 ‘Since ...c6-c5 is not possible, this is Black’s best plan’ (Pribyl). And indeed, if 10...±b7, then 11 We2 c5 12 ±f4(g5) is good. 11 Лхаб ®хаб 12 Wa4 (3) Earlier I though that this move was an inaccuracy, and I recommended ‘the simple 12 JLg 5 Wd7 13 Wd2 with a solid centre and a stable advantage’. However, the queen sortie is probably no worse. 12...Wc8 13 Jlg5 Wb7
Pribyl is correct not to hurry with 13...C5 - after this there would not have followed 14 d5 ЛхсЗ 15 Лхе7 We8! 16 Wxa6 Wxe7, and not 14 Axe7 He8 15 Ad6 fixe4 16 Sfel (Stohl) 16...Hxel+ 17 fixel cxd4 18 cxd4 ®c7 (19 Hcl We8l), but simply 14 SaclL 14 fifel (12) Developing and creating the threat of Лхе7. 14...еб At the board it was not easy to decide which was better - 14...еб or 14...fife8. Apparently the two moves are roughly equivalent. Black prepares ...c6-c5, and the only visible defect of his position is the ‘bad’ knight at аб. 15 Sabi (11) The prelude to a tempting pawn sacrifice. Otherwise I could have also chosen the more straightforward variation 15 fiadl c5 16 h4, retaining the initiative with material equal. 15...C5 The natural move, but also practically forced: 16 c4 was threatened, with the idea of 16...c5 17 d5. The preparatory 15...h6?! would have run into the unpleasant reply 16 Ae3, again hindering ...сб-с5 and threatening c3-c4. This is the first critical position. Pribyl: 'At last Black has managed to attack the centre. It appears that the advance d4-d5 is not possible on account of the loss of the c3-pawn. However...’ 16d51? (10) After weighing up the variations, I firmly resolved to give up the pawn. ‘One of the candidatures for Kasparov’s chess coat of arms is a white d5-pawn, straining to advance towards the queening square’ (Nikitin). If the preparatory move 16 fiedl is made, then 16...h6?l 17 Дез! is again unfavourable for Black, but there is a risk of White conceding the initiative after 16...cxd4 17 cxd4 Sac8 (Stohl), as well as after 16...f5l? 17 Wc4 cxd4 18 cxd4 Wc8 19 We2 fxe4 20 Wxe4 Wd7 21 £>e5 Wd5 or 17 exf5 fixf5 18 Wc4fie8. Even so, it was possible to manage without any sacrifices - by trying to provoke a further weakening of Black’s kingside, exploiting the absence of his knight from f6: 16 h41? h5?l 17 Wb5 Bac8 18 a4, and Black is passively placed (without the inclusion of 16 h4 h5 this did not work because of 17...cxd4 18 cxd4 Axd41 19 ^xd4 fic5), or 16...Bac8 17 h5, continuing to fight for an advantage. 16..JLxc3 (and why not?!) 17 fiedl
17...exd5 A more uncompromising reply than 17...Дд7, expressing a readiness to ‘return the loot’: 18 dxe6 (after 18 d6 <Sbb41 it may be possible to give up the exchange for the d-pawn) 18...fxe6 19 3d7 Wc8 20 Hbdl C41 (Stohl), or 19 Hd6 <2bb41 20 Жхеб Wc8 21 Hd6 We8! 22 Wb3+ Wf7, and by accurate play Black achieves equality. 18 exd5 Now the play is more dynamic than after 17-..Ag7- White’s obvious positional pluses - his strong passed d5-pawn and the unfortunate knight at a6 - fully compensate for his material deficit. But Black's defence is fairly simple, and all that is required of him is precise, accurate play. True, this is the present-day view, whereas at the time I rated my chances ultra-optimistically - the passed pawn in the centre inspired me! 18...ig7?! It made sense first to attend to the knight. After 18..АЛ4? in Informator I gave 19 a3(?l) ^>xd5 20 Wc4, overlooking 2O..Jld4! 21 4?ixd4 cxd4 22 Sxd4 ^e7 with equality, whereas in fact it is correct to play 19 d6 Ag7 20 d7 (Crouch) or 19 Wb3 Дд7 20 аЗ ‘Заб 21 d6. In the event of 18...£ib8?! White promptly regains the pawn - 19 Idel JLg7 20 lxc5 or 19 Wc4 ±g7 20 Wxc5. But 18...<^c7! was correct, since my recommendation 19 Ле7 Sfe8 20 Wd7 is parried by 2O...Hab8 21 Ah4 (21 Ad6? £sa6 or 21 Ag5 h6! 22 Axh6? Hed8 is bad for White) 21...£>a6 22 Wb5 £>c7l or even 2О...ЖеЬ8!? 21 Ag5(h4) Ag7! (21...£)e8 is also possible). The regaining of the pawn is sounder - 19 Wc4 Дд7 20 Wxc5, although after 2O...Sac8! (threatening the fork ...£ie6) 21 JLh4! /J3a6 22 We7 Sc7 23 We2 Hd7 the d-pawn is blocked and Black is on the verge of equalising. 19 d6 (7) 19...f6 Black naturally wants to take control of the d8-square. 20 d7!! (13) 'A bold piece sacrifice, giving White a dangerous attack’ (Pribyl). ‘The d7-pawn cuts off half of the black army from the king’s fortress’ (Nikitin). After 20 Jlf4 White undoubtedly has sufficient compensation for the pawn. If 20...Дае8(?), recommended by me in Informator, there follows 21 Sell Йхе1+ 22 Hxel with an invasion at e7. It is also bad to play 2O...^b8? (!? - Stohl) 21 d7! Bd8 (or 21...<?bc6) 22 fld6! and wins. After Pribyl’s suggestion 2O...Had8 21 Wc4+ ФЬ8 ‘with very unclear play’ again 22 Де1! is promising (22...Bd7 23 йеб), and therefore it is
better to play 21...Uf7l (this also follows after Stohl’s move 21 Sei) 22 Sel?l 4Л4 with the idea of ...Wd5. But the most accurate was the immediate 20...<5ib4 21 Wb3+ (21 d7 fiad8 - Crouch) 21...1f71, surrounding ‘with warmth and care’ the audacious d-pawn. Therefore I preferred a more energetic and interesting continuation, intuitively sensing that the bishop sacrifice was quite correct and that it would be not at all easy for the opponent to work things out at the board. 2O... fxg5? The critical but incorrect decision, and not ‘the best chance’, as Pribyl thought. Apart from this, there were also other possibilities open to the two players: a) 2O...h6? (a fatal weakening) 21 Wc4+! ФЬ7 22 JLf4 Sad8 23 We6, and Black is in trouble: 23...®c7 24 Axc7 Wxc7 25 Hd6 Sf7 26 Sbdl Фд8 27 ^hh41 JLf8 28 S6d5 Фд7 29 4hxg6! 4>xg6 30 Hld3 and wins; b) 2O...^b4?l (this was suggested after the game by Karpov) 21 Wb3+ ФЬ8, and here there is the flamboyant 22 1 ? fxe5 23 d8W Saxd8 24 Sxd8 fixd8 25 JLxd8, but a more obvious advantage is given by the prosaic 22 ±f4l (Stohl) 22...1ad8 23 We6; с) 2О...ФЬ8 leads after 21 Wc41? Sad8 to variation 'd', but allows White the additional resource 21 Jlf4, which, however, is unclear because of 21...flad8! (the Informa-tor 21...£)b4? is premature) 22 Ed2 ^b4 with double-edged play; d) 2O...lad8! 21 Wc4+ (21 Af4? Sf7) 21...<th8 22^>e51. Analysis diagram Offering a choice of either of two pieces: dl) 22...fxe5? 23 Jlxd8 2xd8 24 We61, and now Black is not saved by either 24...^c7 25 We7 Wa8 26 ДЬз! e4 27 Sd6! (27...^e8 28 Деб and wins) or 25-.Wb8 26 2b31 e4 27 ДеЗ! (but not 27 Sd6? ^e8! 28 Деб We5 with equality), or Crouch’s suggestion 24...Wc7 25 Bd6! JLf8 26 Wxe5+ Фд8 27 We6+ Фд7 28 2bdl! JLxd6 29 lxd6 c4 30 We7+ Фд8 31 Sf6! Wxd7 32 Hf8+, or even 24-..Wb8 25 Sb31 e41? (Crouch's improvement, instead of my variation with 25...c4? 26 flh3) 26 ДаЗ! ftb4 (26...£ic7 27 Wxe4) 27 ДеЗ! and Дхе4, winning; d2) 22...fxg5 23 -SM7+ lxf7 24 Wxf7 Wc6! - Pribyl rejected this because of 25 Де1 <йс7(?) 26 Де7 ‘and wins' (probably, after 26...Wf6 27 Де8+1), not noticing the simple 25...Wxd7! 26 Wxd7 Sxd7 27 Де8+ ^.f8 28 flxf8+ Фд7 29 Дс8 <£ib4 or 29 Де8 £>c7 with two pawns for the exchange and at least
equal chances. 25 Sb31 is far stronger, for example: d21) 25...^c7?l 26 le3 h5 27 g41! (but not Crouch’s variation 27 le7 Wf6 28 Se8+ £ixe8 29 dxe8W+ Sxe8 30 Wxe8+ 4>h7 with a draw) 27...h4 (27...hxg4? 28 Bdd31 with the murderous threat of Bh3+) 28 h31 Wf6 (28...a5 29 Bdel! and Se7) 29 Ie8+ ®xe8 30 dxe8W+ Bxe8 31 Wxe8+ 4h7 32 Bd7, and Black’s downfall is caused by the weakness of his kingside pawns, or 27...Wa4 28 Bd6! Wxg4+ (28...W4 29 We71) 29 ‘S’fl Wf4 30 Wxg6 Sf8 (if 30...h4, then 31 Se8+ is decisive) 31 f3l Wxe3 (31...Wc4+ 32 S>f2 Wh4+ 33 фд2) 32 Wxh5+ Фд8 33 d8Wl (again the triumph of the d-pawn!) 33...g4 34 Sd3 Wcl+ 35 &f2 Wb2+ 36 Sd2 Wc3 37 Wxg4 and wins; d22) 25...Wf6 26 We8+ Wf8 27 Se3 <Shc7 28 Sdel (Stohl), regaining the material and retaining the initiative: 28...<$jxe8 29 dxe8W l.f6 30 Wa41 Wf7 31 Se8+ Hxe8 32 Bxe8+ Фд7 33 Ha8 a5 34 Wb3(e8), or 28...±f6! 29 Wxf8+ Sxf8 30 Se8 *g7 31 Sc8 £>d51 (31...£)b5 is weaker: 32 Bxf8 <4>xf8 33 Se8+ &f7 34 d8W JLxd8 35 lxd8 - Crouch) 32 Sxf8 <4xf8 33 Bdl! (if now 33 Se8+ &f7 34 d8W ^xd8 35 Sxd8, then 35...Фе6!) ЗЗ-.^сЗ 34 d8®+ JLxd8 35 Sxd8+ Фе7 36 Sh8 a5 37 Hxh7+ <4,e6(f6), and Black is nevertheless saved by his queenside pawns. But my opponent was unable to resist the immediate win of a piece, which made things easier for me: now White no longer has to think about what to do with his bishop, and in addition his knight is greatly activated. 21 Wc4+ ФИ8 22 £ixg5 Af6 The only move. Black would have lost at once after 22...£>c7? 23 d8W or 22...£d4? 23 Sxd4 cxd4 24 Wxd4+ Фд8 25 £>e6. 23 £>еб ®с7 Again forced. It was clearly bad to play 23...Wc6? 24 ^xf8 Sxf8 25 Wxa6 &d4 26 Wxa7! or 23-.lad8? 241d6! Sxd7 (24-Wb8 25 Sbdl) 25 Sxd7 Wxd7 26 ^xf8 etc., while if 23...^b4? there is the decisive 24 Sd6! (with the threat of £>xf8 and Sxf6; 24 Wf4?l Wb8! 25 Wf3 JLd4! with equality) 24...^c6 (24-l.e7 25 lei!) 25 *5ixf8 Sxf8 26 Sei (threatening Sxf6!) 2б...Фд7 27 le8! and wins (Crouch). 24 4ixf8 Sxf8 251d6! (8) A curious moment. At first sight I had a tempting opportunity to go into an endgame - 25 Wxc5(?) Wxg2+! 26 Фхд2 bxc5 27 lb7 ^e6 28 Sd6, but here Black would have held on: 28...<af4+ 29 i’fl (29 &f3 JLe7!) 29...JLd8 30 Sxa7 (previously I assessed this position in favour of White) ЗО...Фд7! 31 a4 (31 lc6 Sf5) 31...^f7 32 Bc6 £id3 33 a5 Фе7 with equality, but 28...<^d8!? is even better: 29 Sxa7 Jld4 and ...ФдУ with active counterplay. But after the non-standard ‘pitching’ of the rook it suddenly transpires that White is completely dominant. I didn’t see all the consequences of this, but I sensed that I was on the right path: the black pieces were just too uncoordinated. I remember that later Pribyl and I spent a long time analysing the game, and we were joined by Kar
pov, Vaganian and other players. They were perplexed as to how I had won so dashingly. They all tried to find a defence for Black, but every time they were rebuffed, which is not surprising: White’s attacking potential is very great. 25...±e7 This allows a spectacular development of the attack. However, all the same Black is in a calamitous position: a) 25...Wb8 26 Bbdl ®d8 27 Веб! Фд7 (27..Лд7 28 We4 or 27...Ag5 28 Wc3+ Фд8 29 Wg3 is no better) 28 Wf41 £)b5 29 Bc8 We7 30 Bxf8 Wxf8 31 d8W ^.xd8 32 Wxf8+ ixfS 33 Bxd8+ Фе7 34 Ba8 and 35 a4, winning; b) 25...id8 26 Bb31 (we only looked at 26 h41?) 26...Wa6 27 Wc3+ 4>g8 28 Bc2! (not allowing the black queen to escape, and threatening Exg6+) 28...Hf6 (it is no better to play 28...Hf5 29 ДеЗ Wd5 30 a41 Wb4 31 Де8+ Фд7 32 дЗ c4 33 Hd4 or 28...Bf4 29 Bxg6+! 4>f8 30 ld6 Wc4 31 ДеЗ We4 32 Wdl!) 29 Bxf6 Axf6 30 Bf3 Wb5 (there is nothing else) 31 Hxf6 Wxd7 32 g3 with a technically won ending. Instead of this Pribyl made the most obvious move - he attacked the annoying rook. But now White can advantageously regain the material. 26 d8Wl! (2) This move shocked Pribyl: the pride of White’s position - his passed d-pawn -sacrifices itself! ‘A completely unexpected idea of amazing beauty!’ (Nikitin). 26...Jlxd8 26...Bxd8 27 Exd8+ ixd8 loses to 28 Wf7 Wd5 (otherwise mate) 29 Wxd5 ^xd5 30 Bdl or 28 Bdl! Wc8 29 Wf7 (Nikitin). 27 Wc3+! Ag8 28 Hd7! Af6 29 Wc4+ ‘A very important check: if 29 Wg3?? there would have followed 29-..We41, when Black wins.’ (Pribyl) 29...ФН8 30 Wf4! The tempo play has concluded - White wins the knight and remains with the exchange for a pawn and a solid positional advantage. But here another opponent of mine cracked under the pressure... 3O...Wa6? ‘A mundane oversight, which loses immediately. A pity, since after 3O...Jlg7! Black would have retained practical saving chances’ (Pribyl). Indeed, in the endgame after 31 Wxc7 Wxc7 32 Bxc7 Ad4 I would have had to play 33 Hfl! (but not 33 Дха7? Bxf2! 34 *hl c4 35 Sei Sf8 and ...c4-c3) 33-аб (33-a5 34 a4!) 34 Дсб! (both attack, and defence against ...c5-c4), in order nevertheless to convert my advantage into a win. Black would lose quickly after 34...fif6 35 Bxf6 Jlxf6 36 Bel and Веб, while in the event of 34-Bb8 35 Bel or 34-.b5 35 Bxa6 the rest would have been a matter of technique. 31 Wh6 1-0 Mate is unavoidable. Times: 1.42-1.41. The game with Pribyl, along with one of Karpov’s wins, was judged the best in the 29th volume of Informator. ‘Every chess player has his favourite game. For the moment this is mine’, I said a year later.
'Once I even called it “my evergreen" game. I like it for the fact that it is so pretty, with a piece sacrifice! Such a sacrifice is sometimes called controversial, but even now I am convinced that it is correct.' When Yusupov and I were analysing the game in our hotel room, with a sad smile Artur said something along the lines of ‘I could not do things like that...’ He probably had in mind the degree of risk and the intensity of the play. But if one recalls certain games by Yusupov, for example, from his matches with Timman (1986), Karpov (1989) and Ivanchuk (1991), it is readily apparent that Artur very much ‘could’! In the end I achieved the best result in the team, and we returned from Sweden with the gold medals. From the western press: ‘It is very probable that in the next few years Kasparov will become one of the top grandmasters in the world. If not in the next cycle, then in the one after it, this highly talented youth will take a direct part in the fight for the world championship.’ Immediately after my arrival in Baku I began a training match with Tai, who was preparing for his Candidates match with Polugayevsky. However, after two encounters (I was leading 1У2-У2) and a series of blitz games, Mikhail Nekhemevich was obliged to fly urgently to Riga - his uncle, to whom he was very close, had died. Tai lost his previous form, but not his sense of humour - after losing his match to Polugayevsky in the spring, he joked: 'Now I am Polutal!’ (literally, ‘Semi-Tai’ - Translator’s note). But I faced other examinations, the first being an international tournament in my native Baku. Grandmaster 20th International Tournament of the USSR Central Chess Club (Baku, 29th March - 18th April 1980) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 б 1 Kasparov * Уг /2 /2 1 1 1 1 1/2 Уг Уг 1 Уг 1 1 1 ll’/z 2 Beliavsky /2 * /2 /2 1 /2 Уг Уг 1 1 1 Уг 1 Уг 1 1 11 3 Gufeld /2 /2 * 1/2 /2 Уг 1 Уг Уг Уг Уг Уг 1 Уг Уг Уг 8У2 4 Mikhalchishin /2 /2 /2 * % Уг Уг Уг 1 Уг Уг Уг 0 Уг 1 1 8У2 5 K.Grigorian 0 0 /2 /2 * Уг 1 Уг Уг 1 Уг Уг Уг Уг 1 1 8У2 6 Csom 0 /2 /2 /2 >2 * 0 1 у2 1 Уг Уг Уг 1 Уг Уг 8 7 Torre 0 /2 0 /2 0 1 * 1 0 Уг Уг 1 1 1 0 1 8 8 Chiburdanidze 0 /2 /2 Уг /2 0 0 * 1 Уг Уг 1 Уг Уг 1 1 8 9 Lechtynsky /2 0 /2 0 Уг /2 1 0 * Уг Уг Уг Уг Уг 1 1 7У2 10 Magerramov /2 0 /2 /2 0 0 Уг Уг Уг * Уг Уг Уг 1 1 1 7Уг 11 Padevsky /2 0 /2 /2 /2 /2 Уг Уг Уг Уг * 0 1 Уг Уг Уг 7 12 Antoshin 0 z /2 /2 /2 /2 0 0 Уг Уг 1 * Уг Уг 1 0 б’Л 13 Vogt Уг 0 0 1 /2 /2 0 Уг Уг Уг 0 Уг * Уг Уг 1Z 6 14 Zaitsev 0 /2 /2 /2 /2 0 0 Уг Уг 0 Уг Уг Уг * 1 Уг 6 15 Martinovic 0 0 'A 0 0 Уг 1 0 0 0 Уг 0 Уг 0 * 1 4 16 S.Garcia 0 0 ~A 0 0 Уг 0 0 0 0 Уг 1 /г у2 0 * З’Л
With foreign trips at a premium, the international tournaments of the USSR Central Chess Club, held nearly every year, were a good opportunity for a player to gain a higher title in his own country. In the spring of 1980 the tournament was held for the only time in Baku and it became a notable event in the sporting life of Azerbaijan - there had been no international tournaments here since 1964. Of course, I awaited this test with particular anxiety: I needed a second grandmaster norm, and I had no intention of missing my chance. Eduard Gufeld, the trainer of the young lady world champion Maya Chiburdanidze and also a participant in the Baku tournament, wrote in the 64 magazine: 'The organisers were able to assemble a strong and evenly-matched field. Among the 16 players who started the event, there were 11 (!) grandmasters from eight countries of the world, and the others - Chiburdanidze, Kasparov, K.Grigorian, Lechtynsky and the rapidly progressing Magerramov - fought on equal terms with their higher titled colleagues. The numerous forecasts by the experts were unanimous: the main battle for victory in the tournament should be between Kasparov and Beliavsky. These forecasts were fully confirmed.' Alexander Beliavsky was indeed one of the best tournament players of that time. He won the gold medal of 1974 USSR champion (together with Tai), achieved impressive successes in Alicante 1978 (13 out of 131) and Bogota 1979 (121/2 out of 14), and a few days before his arrival in Baku he scored a brilliant victory in Bucharest (12У2 out of 15). And, incidentally, he did not slow down after Baku - he won a tournament in Baden (with Spassky), the USSR Championship First League, then also the Premier League (with Psakhis), and at the age of 27 he became champion of the country for the second time! Therefore before the start I was not aiming in particular for first place, but for the cherished 10 points out of 15. My rating was already close to 2600, and everyone realised that it was time for me to become a grandmaster. But the tournament exceeded all my expectations. We were playing in the Sailors’ Club, on the stage of a comfortable hall with seating for about two hundred. The organisers created the atmosphere of a genuine chess festival. I played freely and easily - it can indeed be an advantage playing at home. How the people of Baku supported me! Nikitin: ‘All those days Garry was persistently shadowed by the anxious world champion - among those included in the tournament was Karpov’s trainer, grandmaster Igor Zaitsev. The chess head of the USSR Sports Committee flew in to assess "on site” the degree of support for Kasparov by the local authorities. He took back bad news to Moscow: with the support for Garry everything was in order.’ The tone of my entire performance was set by an interesting first round game with the Hungarian grandmaster Istvan Csom, a participant in one of the 1976 Interzonal Tournaments. Game 39 G.Kasparov-I.Csom USSR Central Chess Club Tournament, 1st round Baku 30.03.1980 Nimzo-lndian Defence E42 1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 еб 3 €k3 In those years I regularly played either 3 £if3 b6 4 a3, or, as in the given instance, 3
£k3 Jlb4 4 e3 and 4}ge2 - this variation attracted my attention after the match in Baguio (1978). З...АБ4 4 еЗ c5 Or 4...0-0 5 £>e2 (later I also played 5 £.d3) 5...d5 6 a3 &e7 7 cxd5 exds (7...^>xd5!? 8 g3 ^ixc3 9 ^xc3 c5, Kasparov-Tai, 1st match game, Baku 1980) 8 g3 aS (8...c6 9 Ag2 ®a6 or 9-..Ad6 was also tried against me) 9 Дд2 Se8 10 0-0 сб 11 h31? (a new plan of mine, instead of the traditional f2-f3) ll...id6 12 g4 h6 13 f4 £>a6 14 4bg3 b5 15 Wf3 b4 16 axb4 axb4 17 £>ce2 £se4 18 ^xe4 dxe4 19 Wf2 with the initiative on the kingside (Kasparov-Lerner, 47th USSR Championship, Minsk 1979). 6...Ad6! is stronger, as Kurajica played against me (Banja Luka 1979) and I myself played against Epishin (Moscow 2004). 5^ie2 Rubinstein’s old variation, revived by Korchnoi. Later I also tried both 5 a3 and 5 £d3. 5...cxd4 I would also have been satisfied with S...d5 6 a3 Jlxc3+ 7 5}xc3 cxd4 8 exd4 dxc4 9 Axc4 ^>c6 10 Ae3 0-0 11 0-0 b6 (Korchnoi-Karpov, 5th match game, Baguio 1978) 12 Wf3! ±b7 13 JLd3 Hc8 14 Hadi Hc7 15 Wh3 “2je7 16 Jig 5 (Kasparov-Psakhis, 6th match game, Murcia 1990). But the unexpected continuation 5-b6 6 a3 Ла5 proved quite acceptable for Black (Kas-parov-Romanishin, 47th USSR Championship, Minsk 1979). 6 exd4 0-0 A surprise at the very start! Csom made a move which had an indifferent reputation. The usual line is 6...d5 7 c5 ®e4 8 Jld2 /^xd2 9 Wxd2 a51 (the old 9-.-b6?! is weaker: 10 аЗ ДхсЗ 11 ‘йхсЗ bxc5 12 dxc5 Resh evsky-Najdorf, Dallas 1957; Kasparov-Tai, Brussels (blitz) 1987) 10 аЗ ЛхсЗ 11 ^хсЗ Ad7 (11...а41?) 12 Ad3 a4 with a solid position (Korchnoi-Karpov, 3rd match game, Baguio 1978). 7 аЗ Де7 Another revelation: it was thought that this was bad for Black. Magerramov and I looked at 7...ДхсЗ+ 8 /йхсЗ d5 9 c5 ^e4 10 £bxe4 (not 10 ®c2 ®c6 11 Jle3 e5!) 10...dxe4 11 Af4 ®c6 12 Jld6 etc., judging this to be the lesser evil. 8 d5 (5) The critical continuation: otherwise Black may get away with his 'sins’ (6...0-0 and 7...Де7) after, say, 8 g3 d5 (during the game I also did not like 8...Wc7!?). But nowadays White is often satisfied with a small advantage - 8 ^f4 d5 9 cxd5 ^xd5 10 4bcxd51 (10 /ofxds exd5 with equality, Capablanca-Keres, AVRO Tournament 1938) 10...exd5 11 Ad3 ^c6 12 o-o, and Black has some problems equalising (Timman-Anand, Wijk aan Zee 2000; Kramnik-Leko, 9th match game, Budapest (rapid) 2001). 8... exd5 9 cxd5 He8 Previously this half-forgotten move had occurred only three times, and those were in the 1960s. There was more experience with another problematic reply - 9-Ac5, after which the most critical is 10 £>a4 (Evans-Kbnig, Hastings 1949/50), although
White has also played 10 ^d4 (Botvinnik-Averbakh, 2nd match game, Moscow 1956) or 10 b4 ЛЬб 11 4da4 (Miles-Adorjan, Wijk aan Zee 1984; Torre-Karpov, London 1984). 10 g3 (5) A year later I made a new try - 10 Ae3, and after 10...d6 11 h3 (11 ^bg31? £>g4 12 Ad4 deserves consideration) ll...^bd7 12 ^g3 Af8 13 Ле2 НхеЗ?! 14 fxe3 g6 15 0-0 We7 16 Wd4 I achieved an obvious advantage, although I was unable to convert the extra exchange (Kasparov-Andersson, Moscow 1981). But soon it transpired that 10...<йд4! 11 Ad4 ®h6! is stronger, with good play - the threat of practically forces White to go in for extreme measures: 12 g4 d6 13 h3 f5! (Groszpeter-Adorjan, Hungary 1983) or 12 <£>дЗ Axa3+ 13 Ле2 ЛхЬ2 (Ree-Ligterink, Wijk aan Zee 1984). On the other hand, the gambit 10 d61? JLf8 11 g3, hindering the development of the opponent’s queenside, gives White a promising position: 11...Жеб 12 Лд2 (12 Af41? £>h5 13 ЛеЗ, Korchnoi-Kindermann, Beer Sheva 1984) 12...Sxd6 13 Wc2 (Gli-goric-Karpov, Bugojno 1980), or ll...Wb6 12 Лд2 JLxd6 13 Лез (Korchnoi-Miles, Wijk aan Zee 1984). That is how White should fight for an advantage, but, on encountering this variation for the first time, I re stricted myself to the developing move 10 g3. 1О...Лс5 There is no sense in Black playing 10„.d6, leaving himself with a passive dark-square bishop. 11 Ag2 Here Csom, who up till then had played quickly, stopped to think. Strangely enough, the bishop move was a novelty! The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings of that time cited the game Polugayevsky-Kholmov, (29th USSR Championship, Baku 1961), where after 11 ^а4 Af8 12 Лд2 d6 13 0-0 White gained slightly the better position. But ll...d6!? is far more effective (with the idea of 12 £>xc5 dxc5 13 Лд2 Wa5+), or else ll...b6!?, when 12 ^xc5?! bxc5 13 Лд2 Лаб 14 ЛеЗ (14 Af3? d6 and ...4jbd7-e5) 14-.®g4 is unfavourable for White, and so there remains only 12 Лд2 Лаб 13 Af3, but here the bishop is badly placed, and Black achieves a comfortable game by 13...Af8 14 0-0 d6 and ...4bbd7-e5. It was probably something along these lines that my opponent had in mind. ll...d6 Realising that a direct attack on f2 does not bring any benefit, Csom continues to develop. Indeed, if ll...<5jg4?! 12 0-0 Black
has a depressing position after 12...Wf6? 13 ^>f4 £>xf2 14 Sxf2 ±xf2+ 15 4>xf2 g5 16 ®e4 Wb6+ 17 ДеЗ Wxb2+ 18 Фд1, while after 12...Wb6 White can choose between a tempting pawn sacrifice - 13 #te4 Sxe4 14 ±xe4 £>xf2 15 lxf2 Axf2+ 16 Фд2 with a wealth of possibilities (16...d6 17 JLxh7+!) and simple defence - 13 Wei and h2-h3. 12 h3 (8) An important move. The exchange of the bishop on c8 for the knight on e2 (12 0-0 Дд4) should not be allowed. The knight has a more promising future than may be apparent at first sight. 12...±f5 Potentially this gives me tempi for developing a pawn offensive on the kingside (White’s only active plan). 12...аб! is better: 13 0-0 4bbd7 14 ^d4 ®е5 15 ®ce2 (15 b4? Jlxd4 16 Wxd4 ixh3l) 15...Ad7 with excellent play (Chandler-Andersson, Olympiad, Malta 1980). Also, nothing is promised by 15 g4 h6 (16 g5?l hxg5 17 Axg5 JLxd4 18 Wxd4 Axh3!) or 15 £tf3 £>xf3+ 16 Wxf3 h6. 13 0-0^bd7 Black’s position looks completely safe, and Csom continues playing routinely, making the most natural developing moves. Apparently he should have preferred 13...^e41?, allowing the exchange of his bishop at c5 after 14 £ia4 ®d7, but obtaining lively piece play (Zilberman-Zhidkov, Moscow 1981). 13...<ЙЬЬ7 can be called the initial cause of Black’s subsequent difficulties, although objectively things are not yet so bad. 14 g4! (9) The advance of the kingside pawns is fully justified - it seriously cramps the black knights (which in any case have restricted manoeuvring possibilities), and in addition the bishop on c5 will be unable to take part in the forthcoming battle. For me g3-g4 was an obvious move, but on Csom it had an oppressive effect. From this point on the grandmaster began increasingly often thinking for a long time over his moves. White’s plan of attack came as such a surprise to him that he was unable to do anything to oppose it. 14-.Ag6 was correct. In Informator and The Test of Time I judged the variation 15 'йдЗ £>e5 16 g5 £tfd7 17 ®ce4 to be in my favour, but analysis shows that after 17-.Wb6 the position is one of dynamic balance (the direct 18 h4 is parried by 18,..Jlxe419 £sxe4 f51). In addition, Black has the move 15...h6 and then, for example, 16 ФЬ2 (but not 16 ФЬ1? £>e5 17 f4 ^ехд4! 18
hxg4 £>h5!) 16...±b6 17 f4 Bc8 18 f5 Ah7 19 Jlf4 <^e5 20 <hce4 with unclear play, although White’s position appeals more. 15 5g3 &xg2 16 ixgz The situation has changed sharply to White’s advantage: the exchange of bishops has benefitted him, facilitating his offensive on the kingside. 16...^f8?! Avoiding the cramping g4-g5 and not obtaining anything in return - all the same the knight does not reach g6. 16...h6 was better, although after 17 f41 White has unpleasant pressure: 17...a5 (17-..<$hh7?! 18 b4 JLb6 19 £>f5) 18 g5 (18 h4 b5!?) 18...hxg5 19 hxg5 &h7 20 £bge4 £ie5 21 h4 and h4-h5 or 17...Sc8 18 h4 and g4-g5 (18...h5 19 g5 £ig4 20 ?ixh5 <2ie3+ 21 Jlxe3 does not give Black full compensation for the pawn). 17 g5 <^6d7 18 h4 Black now faces difficult problems. 18 b4 Jib 6 19 f4 was also quite good, and if 19...£>g6, then 20 £>ce4 Wc7 21 f5. 18...®e5 Previously I thought that the last opportunity to gain counterplay was 18...Дс8 ‘followed by ...jlb6 and ...£k5, not conceding the e4-square without a fight’. However, here too after 19 h5 White has a clear advantage (if 19...ib6?!, then 20 h6, 20 f4 and 20 43f5 are all strong). 19h51 The black pieces are greatly restricted, and now White’s threats clearly take shape - <^ce4 and then h5-h6 or b2-b3 and f2-f4. After half an hour’s thought Csom realised that further passivity would lead to a rapid defeat, and he decided to undermine my pawn pair. 19...f6 20 -ce4! (13) White has an overwhelming advantage in force on the decisive part of the battlefield. Many of those watching the game were surprised at how quickly, without making any obvious mistakes, Csom found himself in a lost position: up to the 14th move he had nothing to be concerned about, but after the 20th he could already have resigned with a clear conscience! This is how my forcing style took shape... 2O...fxg5 The lesser evil. 20...'§3fd7 is very strongly met by both 21 b4, and 21 f4 ?k4 22 Wd3 b5 23 b3 or 21...W 22 g6. 21 ±xg5 Wb6 22 h6 £rf7 (or 22...gxh6 23 Axh6 $jfd7 24 b41 Jld4 25 £bf5!, and if 25-Axal, then 26 f4 etc.) 23 hxg7 £>d7 Defending against the immediate threats, but Black is helpless against the transfer of White’s army to the kingside.
24 £tf6+ (14) 24...^xf6 25 Jcxf6 (among other things, 26 b4 is threatened, winning the ill-starred bishop) 25...Wb5 26 Shi (5) 26...^.b6 27 Wf3l White simply prepares to double rooks on the h-file. 27. ..£ie5 Black would also have lost ignominiously after 27...h6 28 Sxh6! ^xh6 29 Shi or 27.-l.d8 28 ±xd8 Saxd8 29 Hxh71. 28 £>f51 (the e2-knight also has its say, creating the threat of €ih6 mate) 28...<?^f7 291xh711-0 Times: 1.38-2.27. In the 2nd round I employed the Modern Benoni against Karen Grigorian and obtained a promising position. However, in the opponent’s severe time-trouble I went wrong, and after my impulsive 28th move Grigorian could have won immediately. In this amazing position only one move would win, whereas all the others would lose! With his flag hanging, White missed his chance and two moves later he resigned. Later the classic phrase 'lucky like the first prize-winner’ involuntarily came to mind. So, 2 out of 2. But in my 3rd round game with my main rival, Beliavsky, I didn’t know what to do with White, and I felt very uncertain. I didn’t want to play either a ‘Spanish’, or a Queen’s Gambit, and in the end I employed some fuzzy hybrid of the English and Catalan Openings, allowing Black to gain a draw with ease (1 c4 еб 2 4jf3 d5 3 g3 dxc4 4 *g2 ^d71 5 Wa4 a6 6 Wxc4 b5 7 Wc6 Hb8 8 Wc2 l.b7 etc.). What told was my lack of experience: the ability to beat players of the class of Beliavsky was to come later. In the 4th round with Black I shared the point with Gufeld (he played openly for a draw). And in the 5th round my opponent was the well-known Filipino grandmaster Eugenio Torre, a friend of Fischer, the winner of a four-player tournament in Manila 1976 (where he sensationally defeated Karpov), and a participant in several Interzonal tournaments - in 1982 he even qualified for the Candidates matches. For some valid reason Torre flew into Baku with a delay of two rounds and his postponed games were played later on the days for adjournments. The grandmaster began splendidly - before the game with me he had 2У2 out of 3 and one game in reserve (which in the end he also won). Therefore our game was of particular competitive significance. Torre played a slow version of the Benoni and ended up in a cramped position (1 d4 c5 2 d5 d6 3 c4 e5 4 e4 Ae7 5 £tf3 ig4 6 ^hbd2! £ba6 7 Де2 8 a3 etc.). White gradually increased his spatial advantage, and after the first time control the following curious position was reached. Came 40 G.Kasparov-E.Torre USSR Central Chess Club Tournament, 5th round Baku 4/13.04.1980
Almost without thinking, Torre played 41-. JLh6. Instead of this he could have tried to set up a fortress with 41...h6 - the pawn palisade looks impassable, but White carries out the following plan (I will omit Black’s moves: they do not change the position): ^g4, Hfb2, Ad2 (here the black king goes to h7), 4^3-64, £sd3-el-f3-h4-g6, the king moves across to b3 and all the rooks are exchanged, then the king returns to the centre and after £sg6-e7-c6 (the black knight is at d7), ^g4-h2, g3-g4, Wi2-f3-h4-g6 White places his knights at c8 and еб and his king at d3, after which the sacrifice on b6 is decisive (^xb6 £bxb6, Ла5 £>d7, b5-b6-b7, 4ie6-d8-c6 and <4’d3-a7). Black has no way of opposing this multi-move plan. 42 ®g4 Here the game was adjourned, and Torre sealed his next move. The analysis of the position, carried out together with Nikitin and Shakarov, proved not only very interesting, but also uncommonly protracted: the game was resumed only after the 11th round - it was moved from 7th April (Torre was playing a postponed game) to the 13th, i.e. to my birthday! It is obvious that Black is not able to prevent the white pawn from reaching h6, after which the knight on e8 will be crip pled. At first the winning plan seemed simple after both 42...Ag5 (cf. the game continuation) and 42...Фд7 43 4b<h6 ФхЬб 44 Jld2+ Фд7 (of course, not 44...<i>xh5? 45 ФЬЗ with mate) 45 h6+ <d?f7 46 JLc3(cl), when the knight is transferred to e4, and after <4ТЗ and Дд2 the advance of the g-pawn decides the outcome. However, soon it transpired that 46 icl allows Black counterplay: 46...5И7 47 Hfc2! (defending the c4-pawn: 47 Hfe2?! e4 48 ^f2 is inaccurate on account of 48...£№5 or 48.,.e3 and ...£te5) 47-.e4 48 £)f2 e3 49 £>g4 (in order to answer 49...4be5 with 50 <5^xe3) 49...e2!?, a desperate lunge. Analysis diagram 50 Дхе2(?) £se5 51 ®e3 ®d3, wreaking havoc in the white ranks. It was only much later that I discovered 50 ^f2! £>e5 51 <$3xe5+ dxe5 52 Фхе2 ^d6 53 g4 Sxa2 (53...Se7 54 АеЗ) 54 Sxa2 £ixc4 55 Да8 Фе7 56 g5 fxg5 57 ‘i’dS and wins. But at the time we settled on 46 JLc3 -although the exchange of the bishop for the knight on e5 is undesirable (the knight on e8 returns to life), even so it is useful to keep the dangerous knight under fire. It became obvious that Black cannot delay the advance of the e5-pawn: 46.,.^d7 47 Hfe2
(threatening £>f2-e4, 'ifS, Дд2 and g3-g4-g5) 47-e4 48 £)f2 <Sje5 49 Axe5 fxe5 50 ®хе4 Фе 7 51 Даб! Дхаб 52 Ьхаб 5a7 53 Да2 with a straightforward win (53...^с7 54 g4 Дхаб 55 Дхаб <£>xa6 56 g5). The path for White is far more tortuous after 46...e4! 47 ^f4 £>d7(?l) 48 ^еб Фе7. Now he fails to achieve his goal with 49 lfe2 4he5 50 Дха7 Дха7 51 Дхе4 ДаЗ 52 Лхе5 dxe5 53 Дд4 Да2+ 54 ФЬз Sal. White can consolidate his advantage only with the far from obvious manoeuvre 49 Дае21, conceding the а-file, but retaining both rooks. For example: a) 49-Sa3 50 Дхе41 ДхсЗ 51 <йхс5+ Фе 5 52 ФхЬ7 ДаЗ 53 c5! dxc5 (53-bxc5 54 b6) 54 d6+ ФхЬб 55 Дхе5+ fxe5 56 f6+ or 5О...Фе5 51 ±xe5 dxe5 52 ag4*d6 (52...Hba7 53 Дд8 ДеЗ 54 ДЬ8 ДааЗ 55 d6+ £bxd6 56 flxh7+ 4bf7 57 Дд7 is no better) 53 Дд8 Де7 54 Фд71 lS>d7 55 Фхе8 Дхе8 56 Дд7+ Де7 57 d6! Дхд7 58 hxg7 Да8 59 *f3 Дд8 60 Да2 4xd6 61 Да7 h5 62 lf7l (but not 62 Фе4 h4 63 gxh4? Дхд71 with a draw); b) 49-Да4 50 Дхе4 Фе5, and here the march of the g-pawn proves decisive - 51 д41 Дхс4 52 Дхс4 Фхс4 53 g5 ФеЗ+ 54 ФдЗ ^xd5 55 g6. A little ruse - 51...ДаЗ - also does not help Black. Analysis diagram Now after 52 Лхе5 dxe5 the white rook’s path to g8 is blocked. But 52 g5l breaks through the defence: 52...ДхсЗ 53 дб ДЬ8 (53...Фс7 54 £)d8!) 54 Да2, and, despite his extra piece, Black is helpless. 52...fxg5 is also bad because of 53 Пхе5! ДхсЗ (53-dxe5 54 ^.xe5 Даа7 55 f6+ &f7 56 Фхд5+ Фдб 57 f7) 54 f6+! £>xf6 55 Дхд5 Фе8 56 flg7+. All that then seemed to be needed was to polish up some sidelines, and to go long to the resumption for a certain point. But for this I had to wait a whole week. ‘Resuming’ the game mentally, I suddenly thought: ‘But what if Black should disrupt the coordination of the white pieces after 46...e4 47 £tf4 by advancing his doomed pawn -47-.e3 ?' Analysis diagram After 48 Hfe2 (48 Sfb2i?) 48...Ш7 49 Феб (at the time we underestimated 49 ^f31? Фе7 50 Фд2 or 49-Фе5+ 50 Лхе5 dxe5 51 Фд2 and ФхеЗ with good winning chances) 49-Фе7 White has no favourable regrouping, whereas Black carries out his plan. We promptly got down to work, but everywhere a defence for Black was found. After analysing the variation 50 Даб Дхаб 51 Ьхаб Да7 52 ДхеЗ (if 52 Да2 Фе5 53 Да4
Black is saved by 53-..e2! 54 &f2 ^g4+ 55 &f3 ^xh6 56 g4 £>f7 57 Фхе2 £>e5 58 ±xe5 dxe5) 52...^e5 53 &xe5 dxe5 54 ДаЗ £>d6 55 Да4 ^xf5, I began inclining towards tbe view that the adjourned position was probably drawn. There remained the hope that Torre had either sealed 42..Jlg5, or he would not find 47...e3l. But it is all very well hoping, and I still had an idea that White’s play could be improved somewhere (seeing as there was ample time for analysis). And, indeed, soon it transpired that in the last variation after 55...£>xf5 White has the excellent move 56 £k71. Analysis diagram We again sat down at the board, not yet imagining where this new path would lead us. Black has three sensible replies -56...^d6, 5б...ФЬ7, 56...<?id4 - and each of them requires a thorough examination. Many hours of analysis, during which we had to make our way through a maze of intricate variations, gave the following results: a) 56...<2id6 57 ^b5 Sa8 (57...^xb5 58 cxb5 f5 59 g4!) 58 £>xd6 &xd6 59 S’fS (smoother than 59 g4 e41? 60 ФдЗ 1 Фе5 61 a71 and wins) 59-Фс7 60 Фе4 b5 61 cxb5 ФЬ6 62 4>f5 ФхЬ5 63 Sal c4 64 d6 or 59-f5 60 g4 e4+ 61 <^>f4 fxg4 62 Фхд4 Фс7 (б2...Фе5 63 a7! &d4 64 d6 e3 65 ^f31 ^d3 66 Ha3+ Фd2 67 Sxe3 Sf8+ 68 Фе41 Де8+ 69 ‘S’dS, and the pawns are stronger than the rook) 63 a71 b5 64 cxb5 ФЬ6 65 d6 ФхЬ5 (65...e3 66 d7 e2 67 Se4) 66 Йхе4 Sxa7 (or 66...Фс6 67 Se7) 67 Se7 Sa6 (67...Sal 68 lxh7 Феб 69 d7) 68 d7 Sd6 69 Sxh7 c4 70 Де7 c3 71 h7 c2 72 Ь8® clW 73 Wb8+. This is the longest variation, although it is not obligatory: apart from 62 Фхд4, both 62 Sa2(al) and 62 Фхе4 дЗ (б2...Фс7 63 ДаЗ!) 63 ФТ3 Фс7 64 Sal etc. are also decisive. b) 5б..Фч17 57 <£>b5 Sa8 58 a7 ®d4 (58...£ixh6 59 Sa6 or 58...4kl6 59 £>xd6 Фxd6 60 ФfЗ is also hopeless for Black) 59 <йс31 (the line given by me in The Test of Time also wins: 59 Даб £)xb5 60 cxb5 f5 61 ФfЗ etc.) 59-.^f5 60 ^e4 £ixh6 (6О...Фе7 61 £>f3 ^xh6 62 d6+!) 61 ®xf6+ Фс7 62 £>xh7 ФЬ7 63 d6 Sxa7 64 Дха7+ Фха7 65 d7 W 66 <2if8 and wins; c) 56...4kl4 57 ?ib5 Да8. The most resilient. Analysis diagram 58 d6+?l (later the winning 58 £3c31 £tf5 59 a7 or 58..Ла7 59 g4 was found) 58..j4>d7 59 4?jc7 Да7 60 <23d5 Фxd6! 61 ^xb6 Феб 62
<2k8 Ba8 63 ^e7+, and here 63...ФЬ6! 64 ^d5+ Фа? 65 £>xf6 Bb8! gives Black real saving chances. But in my analysis I overlooked this, restricting myself to the cooperative variation 63...<4’d6(?) 64 ®d5 Sa7 65 £ixf6 ^f5 66 &xh7 ^xh6 67 Ш Ш 68 <2te4+ Феб 69 Ba5 and the resume: ‘The white knight’s acrobatic pirouettes make a strong impression'. So I went along to the resumption confident now of victory, and eager that 42...Фд7 should have been sealed, in order to demonstrate the beauty of our deep analysis. But alas... 42...1.g5?! 43 h61e7 43-e4 44 £*4 Axf4 (44...£d7 45 £e6) 45 gxf4 £d7 46 Bfe2 was no better for Black -then White picks up the e4-pawn, plays his king to d3 and his knight to h5, moves his rook from a2 to e2 and wins either by £h5-g7, or by doubling rooks on the e-file. 44 Sfe2 4*7 45 £df2 ±cl 46 <be4 Sed7 47 4f3 The exchange of all the rooks would also have been decisive: 47 Sxa7 Sxa7 48 Bel Ba2+ 49 4*3 ±g5 (49-.ЙС2 50 Be2) 50 Bal Bxal 51 Дха1 ±cl 52 4e2 £d7 53 4>dl ЛаЗ (53...£g5 54 -ib2 followed by 4e2-f3 and at a convenient moment £xg5) 54 JLc3 Jlb4 55 ДЬ2 - the black bishop is shut out of the game, and White without hindrance prepares the g3-g4-g5 breakthrough (from g4 the knight goes to h5, the king to f3, the bishop to cl, and so on). But I decided to remove my king from a possible check on a2 and to set a pretty trap, which I had noticed during the resumption. 47...4>e7 47...JLa3 was more resilient, after which the invasion on the а-file would have won -48 Bal ±b4 49 Sea2 Ba5?l 50 Bxa5 bxa5 51 Axb4 axb4 52 Ь6! Фе7 53 Sa7, when Black is almost stalemated, for example: 53.-b3 54 £>gf2 b2 55 £>c3 4d8 56 £fe4 Фс8 57 g4! and g4-g5 or 5б...Фе7 57 4e3 followed by ФЬз-с2 etc. 48 Bxa7 Bxa7 49 Bel ±g5 50 £xg5 fxg5 51 £xe5! dxe5 Or 51...1a3 52 <Sbc6+ ФЬ8 53 Se3 £xc6 (53-.g4+ 54 ФЬ4) 54 Ад7+ £ixg7 55 hxg7+ Фхд7 56 Ьхсб. 52 ±xe5 £d6 There was no good defence against the threatened discovered check (52...Ba3+ 53 Фд4 £>d7 54 JLb2+), but now the white pawns have the final say. 53 f6+ Ad7 54 Bxd6 4xd6 55 Be6+ Фс7 56 f7 Sal 57 Фе2 1-0 After adjourning this game, the next day I drew with Magerramov (who, incidentally, in the end achieved the international master norm). After six rounds, taking account of adjourned and postponed games, I was on +3, along with Beliavsky and Torre, while Mikhalchishin had +2. However, the latter two soon dropped out of the battle for the lead: Mikhalchishin drew all his remaining games, while, even before the day that our game was resumed, Torre suffered three defeats. But before the 7th round the competitive intrigue was still very sharp, and a timely
win over Igor Zaitsev, who had begun the tournament with six draws, helped me to burst half a step ahead. exd4 ^c6 Black is even more successful in creating counterplay (the source game: Uhlmann-Spassky, Moscow 1967). Game 41 G.Kasparov-l. Zaitsev USSR Central Chess Club Tournament, 7th round Baku 6.04.1980 Queen’s Gambit D58 1 d4 d5 2 c4 еб 3 ЗкЗ 2>f6 4 ^.g5 Ae7 5 e3 0-0 6 £)f3 h6 7 Ah4 (7 Jtxf6 - Came Nos. 54, 92) 7...b6 8 Wc2 (2) At that time searches for an advantage against the Tartakower-Makogonov-Bondarevsky Variation were mainly associated with 8 Wb3 (Came No.20). But, as also in other Queen’s Gambit set-ups, here I far preferred the double-edged plan with castling on opposite sides. 8...±b7 9 &xf6 .«.xf6 10 cxd5 exd5 11 0-0-0 C5! Il... ^d7 is more modest: 12 h41 c5 (12...g6?! 13 h5 g5 14 Wf5) 13 g4, beginning an attack, but after 13...cxd4 14 exd4 Wc7! White has not yet discovered an advantage. 12 dxc5 Now after 12 g4 (or 12 h4) 12...cxd4 13 12...<ad7! This splendid pawn sacrifice was a fresh idea, which before this had occurred literally only twice. Usually Black played differently: a) 12...&XC3 13 Wxc3 £>d7 14 c6 A.xc6 15 ФЬ1 Дс8 16 Wd4 (Polugayevsky-lvkov, Beverwijk 1966) or IS-Wey 14 We5 Wxc5+ 15 ФЬ1 ®d7 (Ovechkin-Bologan, Moscow 2003) 16 Wf4! with slightly the better chances for White; b) 12...bxc5 13 ^xd5 l.xd5 14 -lc4 <?hd7 15 fixd5 ДЬ8 16 b3 - this position had been considered promising for Black, but by the time of the tournament in Baku White had refuted the earlier assessment: 16...We7 17 h4! £hb6 18 Де51 ®c7 (18...1.xe5? 19 £>g51) 19 He41, retaining the extra pawn and maintaining the blockade at c4 (Lapenis-A.Petrosian, Moscow 1979), or 16...Wc7 17 idl fifc8, and now not 18 Фе2? 4Л6 19 fld2 £>xc4 20 Wxc4 Sb4 21 Wa6 c4 22 bxc4 Асз 23 Sc2 ДЬ6 24 Wa4 Sb4 У2-У2 (Gavrikov-Lputian, Riga 1980), but 18 4^d2! (the blockade on c41) 18...4Л6 19 Sd3 and Фе2 also with an advantage (I found and analysed all this before the games cited).
Naturally, Black began pinning all bis hopes on tbe move 12...^)d7. When analysing this position earlier, I had come to the conclusion that the capture of the d5-pawn would allow White to fight for the initiative. 13 ^xd5 (7) A novelty. In the event of 13 cxb6?! Wxb6 Black’s activity more than compensates for the pawn deficit (Lapenis-Klovans, Moscow 1979). Play against an 'isolani' - 13 сб Ахсб 14 ^d4 Jib 7 also did not appeal to me, since White could have quickly ended up in an inferior position: a) 15 ±e2 аб! 16 ФЬ1 b5 17 JLf3?! Hc8 (Lputian-A.Petrosian, Yerevan 1980); b) 15 ФЬ1 аб!? (15...£k5 is also good, Borisenko-Adashev, Tashkent 1969) 16 g4 b5 17 A.g2 (17 h4 b4l) 17-.Sc8 (Nikolic-Lputian, Sarajevo 1983); c) 15 g4 У>е5! (15-У1С5 is also suitable, or even 15...аб 16 h4 b5 17 g5 b4 18 gxf6 £ixf6!) 16 Ае2 У>с6! (Ubilava-Kharitonov, Tallinn 1983); d) 15 h4 У>с5 (apart from 15„.^e5 or 15...аб) 16 g4 (Nguyen Chi Minh-Chau, France 2004) 16...^xd4! 17 exd4 (17 fixd4 У>е6 18 Sdl d4) 17-У1е4, and Black is perfectly alright. At home I had also analysed 13...Sc8. Now 14 ФЬ!?! Жхс5 15 Wf5 (Dreev-Leko, Moscow (blitz) 2007) is dangerous because of 15...Sxd5 16 Sxd5 g61, seizing the initiative: 17 lxd7 (17 Wxd7 Jlxd5) 17-.gxf5 18 Hxd8 Hxd8 or 17 Wd3 Wa8! 18 e4 У>с5 19 Wc4 У>хе4. It is stronger to play as follows: 14 £>xf6+ Wxf6 15 Hxd7 JLxf3 (15...ЙХС5? 16 Wxc5) 16 gxf3 Sxc5 17 Лс4 &fc8 (after 17...Wxf3? 18 Shdl Black loses a piece, and in the event of 17-.Wc6?! 18 Sd4 b5 19 Sgl - a pawn), when an equal queen endgame is reached after 18 Uhdl Йхс4 19 Sd8+ fixd8 20 Sxd8+ Wxd8 21 Wxc4 Wg5l У2-У2 (Chitescu-A.Petrosian, Bagneux 1982), but I was intending to follow a different, more risky course: 18 b31? b5 19 Hhdl bxc4 20 b4 Hb5 21 S7(l)d6 which leads to very sharp play. However, Black has no reason to go in for such excitement: after 13...У>хс5 he has a very promising position. 14 Ac4 (22) 14 e4? Йс8 15 ФЬ1 Йе8 is bad for White, while the tempting 14 Wf5 is parried by 14-Wc8! 15 £ixf6+ gxf6 16 Wxc8 Йахс8 17 4>d2 (17 ФЬ1?! Уе4) 17...У>е4+ 18 Фе1 Йс2, when after 19 Sbl White can draw at best. 13...^xc5 14...b51 (14...Дс8 15 ФЬ1 b51 is also possible) 15 yw6+ (9)
The incautious 15 JLxb5? JLxd5 16 Лс4 runs into a spectacular queen sacrifice -16..Ле41 17 Sxd8 lfxd8 with a decisive attack: 18 We2 £>d3+ 19 JLxd3 JLxd3 and ...Sac8+. Black also has an excellent game in the variation 15 JLb3 Дс8 16 ФЬ1 Де8! 17 flhel <5^xb3 18 Wxb3 Дс5 (evicting the knight from d5) 19 e4 Sxe4 20 Дхе4 Jlxd5. 15...Wxf6 16 ^.d5 After 16 jlxb5? fifc8 (not the only way) 17 Д.С4 Ae4 18 Wc3 ®а4 19 Wxf6 Дхс4+ 20 Wc3 ^XC3 21 ЬхсЗ Hb8 22 <4>d2 ДЬ2+ 23 Фе1 ДхсЗ 24 £id4 Дха2 White cannot defend himself. 16...Дас8 17 ФЬ1 (3) 17...^a4 Later I discovered that 17...^e6!? is also favourable for Black: 18 Wb3 Jlxd5 19 Wxd5 Wg6+ 20 Wd3 Wxg2, or 18 We4 Sc4119 £>d4 (19 We5 Wg6+) 19...1.xd5 20 Wxd5 ^xd4 21 Hxd4 2xd4 22 exd4 fld8!. 18 We 2 2xd5 19 Sxd5 The menacing position of the knight at a4 together with the not altogether secure position of the white king promises Black counterplay, with which, however, he has to hurry, as otherwise in a move or two White will consolidate his position. 19...ДС41 A brilliant move, which immediately changes the picture. In my analyses I had considered only 19...Wg6+ 20 e4 and I had judged 2O...Wxg2(?) 21 Sgl Wh3 22 lg3 We6 23 ^d4 Wf6 24 £rf5 or 2O...fife8 21 lei Wxg2(?l) 22 lxb5 to be in my favour, overlooking, alas, 2О...Пс41 21 ld4 flfc8 22 Igl аб with excellent play for Black. But now, while intensifying the threat of ...Wg6+, Black has also created two more -...Sfc8 and, above all, ...Sb4. On seeing all this, I became despondent... 20fid4 (14) This reply is forced. The pawn capture 20 lxb5? allows Black a terribly strong attack after 2O...Hfc8 21 £se5 Wa6! 22 <£ixc4 Wxb5 23 Йс1 Ixc41 (24 Дхс4? ®c3+, winning the
queen). 20 £>d4?l is also weak because of 20.. ,Wg6+ and ...Wxg2. 2O..Jfc8 It is now completely clear that Black has full compensation for the sacrificed pawn. But despite the failure of my opening, I managed to take myself in hand - the battle was only just beginning, and Zaitsev had little more than 20 minutes left on his clock. 21Shdl (15) Not 21 Жхс4? bxc4 and ...ДЬ8, while 21 Wd3? (with the idea of 21...Hc2 22 Bd8+) is strongly met by the unexpected 21...^c51 22 Wdl (if 22 Be 2 Wg6+ 23 Фа1, then 23...Hcl+! 24 Hxcl <SYb3+! 25 axb3 lxcl+ 26 Фа2 Wbl+ 27 Фаз a5! with unavoidable mate) 22...Wg6+ 23 Фа1 Wxg2 or 22 Дхс4 £>xd3 23 Sxc8+ *h7 24 Sc3 (24 Sc2 £\b41) 24...^xb2! 25 Shcl £>c4 26 Hlc2 Wg6, and White’s position is unenviable. Therefore with 21 Shdl he agrees to give up his queen for two rooks. At first sight, the position after 21...Дс2! 22 ®xc2 (forced: after 22 Sd8+? ФТ17 Black wins) 22...Дхс2 23 Фхс2 is clearly in Black’s favour: he destroys the opponent’s kingside 23...Wg6+! (the weaker 23...We6 24 fild3! Wxa2 25 Sb3 leads to equality) 24 e4? Wxg2 25 <?he5 ^c5l 26 ФЬ1 Wxf2+. However, 24 4>d2! is correct: 24...£ixb2 25 Scl Wxg2 26 Фе2 Wg6! (if 26...£k4, then 27 a4! a6 28 axb5 axb5 29 Ibl Wg6 30 Sxb5 with equality, Ghitescu-Lputian, Berlin 1982) 27 lc71 Wa6I (27...a5 28 Sd8+ and ldd7) 28 £>fl! Wxa2 29 ld8+ Ф117 30 Sdd7, and White nevertheless gains a draw. The critical moment of the game. Not seeing any real benefits after 21...Hc2, Zaitsev, who up until now has played splendidly, overrates his chances and commits a serious mistake. 21...Wg6+? 22 Wd3 (3) 22...Wxg2 Black has restored material equality, but... Apparently the preceding part of the battle had cost the grandmaster too much effort, and he overlooked my reply. 23 Wf51 (3) Unexpectedly the position has again changed sharply: White has succeeded in lining up his forces, and things have become uncomfortable for the black king, even behind its sound pawn defences. 23...1f8? To avoid my counterattack, Black should have exchanged the queens - 23...Wg6 24 Wxg6 fxg6, agreeing to an unpleasant endgame after 25 ®e5, in which his chances of a draw and a loss would have been roughly equal. Zaitsev avoids defend
ing in an ending and decides to try his luck with the queens on, setting some clever traps on the way. 24 Bd8! (4) 24 Sgl(?) looked very tempting, hoping for 24...Wxf2? 25 Sd2 Wxe3 26 Hxg7+! with mate. But it was here that Black’s first ‘bomb’ would have exploded - 24...Дс51 25 We4 Wh3, and all dangers are behind him. 24...HC7? The decisive mistake. 24...^b6 was necessary, although after 25 Bxf8+ (25 ^e51?) 25...<ixf8 26 £>d4 Black would have faced a difficult defence. 25 Hxf8+ (13) The game would have been concluded more spectacularly by 25 We51 Wg6+ 26 e4 Sc8 27 Жхс8 Жхс8 28 Sgl Wh7 29 £>d4 and 25...<Sxf8 26 £sd4l (the simplest) 2б...Же7 (or 2б...Фд8 27 £>xb5 дб 28 Wf4) 27 £ixb5 (3) Avoiding the last trap, set by the opponent who was now in severe time-trouble: 27 Wxb5?? £>c3+l. 27...Hxe3?! A desperate chance: 27...g6 28 Wf6! We4+ 29 Фс1 Wc4+ 30 2k3 He8 31 ld4 Wfl+ 32 &dl Sc8+ 33 <d?d2 <^b6 34 Wh8+ Фе7 35 Де4+ 4>d7 36 ®d4+ etc. was hopeless for Black. 28 <2>d6 (28 Hd8+! fie8 29 Дхе8+ Фхе8 30 We5+ would have led to mate) 28...Bf3 After 28...Фд8 29 Wxf7+ ФЬ7 30 Wf5+ Фд8 31 Wc8+ 4>h7 32 Wc2+ Black would have lost his stray rook. 29 Wc8+ Фе7 30 We8+ &f6 And Black resigned (1-0) in view of 31 Wxf7+ Фд5 32 Sd5+ with a quick mate. The once menacing knight on a4 remains merely as a reminder of that beautiful song, which Black cut short when he was tempted by the g2-pawn. Times: 1.52-2.28. This game, along with a number of others (with Beliavsky etc.), showed that my ‘junior’ opening preparation did not fully match up to the level of the ‘adult’ tourna-
merits in which I was now participating. The transition period was to last two years and it ended in Tilburg 1981. By that time my opening repertoire was completely formed, I had a clear understanding of what and why I was playing, and from late 1981 a new surge would begin. After my win over Zaitsev I somewhat unexpectedly slowed down, making three draws (moreover, in the 8th round I only just saved a rook ending a pawn down in my game with Mikhalchishin: with one nervy time-trouble move my opponent lost all his advantage), and I was caught by Beliavsky. Five rounds before the finish we both had 7 points out of 10, with Chibur-danidze on 6У2. To achieve the grandmaster norm, I needed to win (and definitely not lose!). The 11th round game with Maya Chi-burdanidze was one of my best, and in general one of the most interesting games in the tournament. That day I had to withstand an unusual psychological pressure: it was difficult playing the lady world champion in my native Baku, before the eyes of numerous fans who expected only victory of me. Game 42 G.Kasparov-M.Chiburdanidze USSR Central Chess Club Tournament, 11th round Baku 12.04.1980 King’s Indian Defence E92 1 d4 6 2 c4 g6 3 4?bc3 ±g7 At that time, under the influence of her trainer Gufeld, Maya used to employ the sharp King’s Indian (my opening!), and playing against the lady world champion was psychologically difficult, since Gufeld had warned everyone beforehand: 'You will be afraid!’ (and playing White against Maya in the last round, he himself appeared to be trembling with fear). 4 e4 d6 5 3 Against me before this they had played this move, 5 h3 (Game No.w), 5 f3 (Game Nos. 12, 15), and 5 Де2 0-0 6 JLg5 (Game No.28), whereas my ‘White’ experience was considerably more modest. 5...0-0 6 £.e2 e5 In a game with me (Banja Luka 1979) Vukic had problems after 6...Дд4 7 ДеЗ <^fd7 8 £>gl! Дхе2 9 £>gxe2 e5 10 0-0 a5?! (the immediate 10...exd4 is better) 11 Wd2 4k6 12 f3 exd4 13 ®xd4 ^c5 14 Sadi 4he6?! 15 4hdb5! with a clear advantage. 7 Дез (3) Not yet knowing exactly what to do as White in the main lines with 7 0-0 (Game No.21), I chose a set-up that I had discussed with Magerramov. 7...We 7 Later, after trying virtually all the possible replies against Karpov, I came to recommend the double-edged 7-^g4 8 Дд5 f6 9 ДЬ4 (if 9 Дс1, then 9-®c6 or 9...exd4 10 Wxd4 f5) 9-.g5 10 ДдЗ ^h6 (Speelman-Kasparov, Madrid (rapid) 1988). 8d5
8 dxe5 dxe5 9 ®ds! is better, as Karpov played against me in the 3rd game of our 1990 match (Game No.10 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1988-2009). It was because of this that 7-We7 practically went out of use. 8„.?'g4 9 l.g5 f6 10 ±h4 h5?! A second-rate move, weakening the pawn structure. 10...We8 11 h3 ®h6 has also been played (Tai-Sax, Olympiad, Malta 1980), but the immediate 10...£)h6 is best, for example: 11 a5 12 a3 Jld7 13 b4 g5 14 ДдЗ f5 15 exf5 axb4 16 f6 JLf6 17 axb4 Hxal 18 Wxal e4 (Ivanchuk-Ehlvest, 55th USSR Championship, Moscow 1988). 11 h3 (3) Later I played 11 4kl2 immediately, with the idea of 11...^h6 12 f3 and then b2-b4 (Tukmakov-Stein, 39th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1971) or 11...C5 (11...a5 is better) 12 dxc6! bxc6 13 b4 Деб 14 0-0 £jd7 15 £Л>3 with unpleasant pressure for White (Kasparov-Morrison, Graz 1981). Il...<^h6 12 ^d2 c5 (trying to impede White’s offensive on the queenside) 13 £>fl (22) Already then I was considering the interesting 13 dxc6!? bxc6 14 b4, but as yet I was not ready for a sharp change in the pawn structure and I restricted myself to a good knight manoeuvre. 13...^f7?l 'An untimely move, assisting the exchange of bishops which is strategically favourable for White. 13...£>a6 was more advisable, with the standard idea of ...Sk7, ...Ad7, ...a7-a6 and ...b7-b5' (Nikitin). To this I would have replied 14 £ie3, continuing to prepare g2-g4 and all the same retaining the better prospects. 14 g4(ll) 14-.hxg4 Closing the flank by 14...g5 15 ДдЗ h4 16 ih2 ^hS would have left Black with a ‘dead’ bishop on g7, and after 17 £ie3 ^g6 18 f3 £rf4 (here the knight looks well placed, but it is ineffective) 19 Д-fl followed by Дд1, Bh2, a2-a3, b2-b4, Sb2 and a possible £)f5 the play would all have been one way. After £bf5 White could have played ДеЗ, <4f2-gl-h2 and calmly attacked on the queenside. 15 Дхб41 (this capture was underestimated by Maya and she clearly became rattled) 15...g5? The decisive mistake - a fatal weakening of the light squares. 15...Дхд4?! 16 Wxg4 g5 was also bad in view of 17 ^e3 ^h6 18 Wh5 Wf7 19 Wxf7+ fixf7 20 ДдЗ (Stohl) or immediately 17 ДдЗ ^h6 18 We2(h5). Also after 15...£ih6 16 Дхс8 Дхс8 17 Sgl
ФЪ7 (Stohl) 18 £te3 followed by We2, 0-0-0, Дд2 and Hdgl, or 15...4bd71? 16 Igl S>h7 17 Ah6 18 Wf3 Black’s defence is difficult, but she could still have resisted. 16 S.xc8 (6) Perhaps Maya was expecting 16 ДдЗ f5 (to activate the bishop on g7), when after the possible 17 exf5 e4 18 Wc2 or 17 JlxfS Axf5 18 exf5 £>d7 19 ^e3 e4 20 Wc2(h5) things are also not easy for Black, but she has at least a gleam of counterplay. However, I found a combinative solution to the position. 16...2xc8 17 ®e3! (6) 'What was staggering was not so much the boldness of this unexpected knight jump, but the speed with which the decision was taken to sacrifice the bishop’ (Nikitin). Especially as the prosaic 17 ДдЗ f5 18 exf5 (18 £te3l?) 18...e4 19 Wc2 was also unpromising for Black. 17...gxh4 (there is no longer anything else: 17...&h6 18 ДдЗ f5 19 exf5 e4 20 h41 -Stohl) 18 £if5 I sensed that White’s attack along the g-file would be irresistible: Black’s downfall is caused by the uncoordinated state of her pieces. Incidentally, in the aforementioned game with Morrison the outcome was also decided by a knight invasion at f5. 18...Wd8 Or 18...Ш7 19 Wi51 ^g5 20 0-0-0 and Wxh4, while if 2O...Af8, then 21 Wg6+ ±g7 22 f41 exf4 23 ®b5 and £>bxd6 with crushing threats. Or if 18...Wf81? (without a loss of tempo) I was planning 19 Wg4 4ia6(d7) or 19-.Дс7 (in Informator I gave only 19...£>g5 20 £sxh4 £sa6 21 &f5 22 h4 Wi7, which is worse because of 23 h5! ®g5 24 h6 and wins - Stohl) 20 Bgl “SbgS 21 ®xh4 followed by 4}f5, h3-h4, 0-0-0 (or 4>e2) and the doubling of rooks on the g-file, although here it would have been more difficult to breach Black’s defences than in the game. 19 Wg4 ®g5 20 <?bxh4! In the event of the thoughtless 20 ^xd6?l ^a6 21 ^xc8? (21 Ш1) 21...Wxc8 22 Whs We8 White would have lost all his advantage. 2O...1C7 21 £)f5 аб (if 21...&a6 22 h4 ®h7 23 Igl Wf8, then 24 £Л>5 - Stohl) 22 h4 <$jh7 23 Igl (5) 23..Ж8 On this occasion the widely-publicised 'Gufeld bishop’ makes a pitiful impression - right to the end it does not move from g7. 24 Фе2 (24 0-0-01?) 24...Sa7 25 a4 (killing any counterplay) 25...b6 26 Wh5 ФИ8 27 Hg6 Kd7 28 Bagl
After completing the mobilisation of my forces, I thought that I would win automatically. However, to breach the opponent’s defences a final effort is still required of White. 28...Sab7 29 Wg4 Hbc7 30 Sg2 A rapid capitulation would have been forced by 30 h5! ®g5 31 h6 jlxh6 32 Shi! Sh7 33 ^xh6 lcg7 34 Hxf6! or 33...£>d7 34 Sh5. But for some reason I decided first to safeguard my king. 3O...Sb7 31 4fl (once again 31 h51?) 31...Sa7 32 Agl Sf7 33 £>e2l (unexpectedly the second knight is also included in the attack - via g3) 33—Wc8 ЗЗ-.ЖдЗ would also not have helped: 34 h5 4c}f8 35 Hh2!? (one of many possibilities: h5-h6 is threatened) 35...Wh7 36 £>eg3 Had7 37 h6 ^хдб 38 hxg7+ etc. 34f4(5) ‘The harvest after 34 ^xd6?l Wxg4 35 ®xf7+ Sxf7 36 S6xg4 is too miserly for such an overwhelming position’ (Nikitin). With the move in the game I wanted to win with maximum comfort: to deprive the black knight of the g5-square before playing h4-h5. However, the simplest was 34 £>eg3! with the threat of £Я15, and if 34...Ш, then 35 Wh5+ W 36 ^xd6 Wf8 37 <Sjxf7+ andWs. 34...b5 (34-.exf4 35 ^xf4 is even worse for Black) 35 axb5 axb5 36 cxb5 (it was for the sake of this opening of the position that I played my king to gl, in order to hide it at h2) 36...Hab7 37 h51 (2) With the murderous threat of h5-h6. There follows a brief agony for Black. 37...'f8 38 Wh3 (once again ignoring the d6-pawn) 38...4bcg6 There is no salvation: 38...C4 39 h6 or 38...Wd8 39 Дбд31 and h5-h6 (Stohl). 39 hxg6+ Ag8 40 gxf7+ (40 Wh7+! &f8 41 gxf7 would have mated more quickly) 4O...S>f8 And Black resigned (1-0) without waiting for 41 Дхд7. Times: 1.33-2.28. ‘A terrible rout!’ (Nikitin). Inspired by this win, I won two more games in crushing style - against Silvino Garcia and Antoshin, took my score to 10 out of 13, and two rounds before the finish achieved the grandmaster norm for the second time. The spectators applauded, and Gufeld, who came up to congratulate me, exclaimed: ‘Remember this historic moment - you have become a grandmaster!' Now I had to avoid conceding 1st place: Beliavsky was just half a point behind. In the 14th round we both drew, and every
thing was decided by the last, 15th round. With White, as expected, Beliavsky confidently defeated Garcia, and I beat Martino-vic (in the variation 1 d4 £)f6 2 £>f3 g6 3 Jlg5 Ag7 4 'SibdZ), which enabled me to become the sole winner of the tournament. Gufeld: ‘Towards the end of the tournament the gap between the leaders and the remaining participants increased with every round, Beliavsky all the time having to perform the role of pursuer, and in the end having to be satisfied with 2nd place. The winners achieved very high scores, and succeeded in remaining undefeated throughout this difficult tournament. Kasparov’s name is well known in the chess world. In recent times the young player has achieved a number of remarkable successes, and in Baku he exceeded the international grandmaster norm. The play of the talented Baku player is characterised by a wonderful knowledge of opening theory (?! - G.K.), a broad arsenal of tactical and technical techniques, and notable progress in deeply penetrating into the secrets of strategy.’ Asriyan: ‘By winning the international tournament in Baku, the 17-year-old Kasparov became the youngest grandmaster in the world. On the evening when this remarkable event occurred, I was able to report this by express telegram to TASS, and it was broadcast on the TV program Vremya two hours after the new grandmaster appeared. Kasparov was staggered by such efficiency - I was congratulated as though I myself had become a grandmaster.’ Two months after the tournament I passed my final exams and left school with a gold medal (which the newspapers also did not fail to report). Nikitin: ‘A significant part of this gold medal belonged to Garik’s mother, who all these years was his main and very skilful trainer in his studies at school.' Now, to enter the Institute, I only needed to pass one exam - on my main subject. And on 14th June 1980 (the day of the storming of the Bastille!) I passed this exam with an ‘excellent’ mark and entered the Azerbaijan Institute of Foreign Languages. My school teachers vied with one another in advising my mother to choose their subjects for my further education, the mathematics and literature teachers being particularly insistent. We also considered the History and Law Faculties. But in the end we quite reasonably decided that a knowledge of foreign languages would be the most useful for my chess future. Chess Prince World Junior Championship (Dortmund, 16th August - 1st September 1980): 1. Kasparov - lO'/i out of 13; 2. Short - 9; 3. Moro-vic, 4-5- Negulescu and Bischoff - 8У2; 6-14. Akesson, Tempone, Danailov, Karolyi, Hjorth, Ziiger, C.Hansen, Arnason and Barua - 8, etc. (altogether 58 participants). The invitation to take part in the World Junior Championship in the summer of 1980 pleased me: that which I had failed to do at the World Cadet tournaments in Wattignies (1976) and Cagnes-sur-Mer (1977) might now be achieved in Dortmund. However, this led to my first serious dispute with Botvinnik, who, as usual, was categorically against my participation in a Swiss tournament. The maestro stated forcibly: ‘You don’t need this! All the same you won’t win any laurels, and in the event of a failure there will be any amount of unpleasantness. Why subject yourself to an unnecessary trial?!’ And, indeed, there seemed to be no one there to compete with me: already with a rating of over 2600, I was rapidly approaching the top ten in the
world. But I had certain obligations to the Sports Committee and I did not want to let down Anatoly Bykhovsky, the trainer of the USSR youth team. It wasn’t good to refuse, and I disobeyed the Teacher - I went to the championship. For the first time in my life I tried keeping a diary of a tournament. Alas, my enthusiasm sufficed only to describe the events before the start: ‘Day one - 14th August. The flight from Moscow to Frankfurt passed off without any particular anxiety. There was only one memorable moment, when Bykhovsky took out of his bag the current issue of the magazine Yunost and invited me to read an article by Mikhail Botvinnik. “The strength of his combinative talent puts him (i.e. me) on a par with the great Alekhine", Bykhovsky once more savoured this line. “I wonder what the Patriarch will say if you finish third in the world championship?" Later Bykhovsky himself picturesquely depicted the situation that was most probable in the event of my failure. The three hours passed imperceptibly, and we were already in Frankfurt... ‘Day three - 16th August. From the very start the day promised to be interesting. In the morning at breakfast someone greeted Bykhovsky. The "people" gradually began arriving. Half of the participants were present at lunch. Most gazed at me in surprise: “What’s he doing here?” (such puzzled looks would accompany me throughout the tournament). I also saw an “old acquaintance” - the Pole Weider, whom I had played in Cagnes-sur-Mer. After loitering about the whole day with nothing to do, at about 6 we went down into the foyer. We were led out of the hotel, loaded into buses and taken to some unknown destination. On the way, in English and German, we were briefly acquainted with some of the sights of Dortmund. From the guide’s description I understood only three words: beer, steel and corporation. Apparently the description was based on using these three words in various combinations. Soon we arrived at some building. We were unloaded, and the bus set off for the “second party”. From the outside it was hard to determine the function of this building, but when we went inside it turned out to be a beer factory (the main sponsor of the championship - G.K./ ‘The opening ceremony took place in an enormous hall - probably the tasting-room. There was a lot of noise, rumpus - and beer. (They also provided lemonade, but most of the players preferred beer. However, I, as usual, tried to be different.). The tournament was opened by Lothar Schmid. After a mass of welcoming speeches (again beer, steel etc.), the pairings were made. From a drum some "Miss" drew numbers on which the names were written. I was assigned No.36, while No.35 went to some obscure Dutchman. "That means, White in the first game,” I remarked to myself. Incidentally, Schmid singled me out at the drawing of lots, emphasising my titles. When Benjamin was drawn, Bykhovsky was horrified: “Since he’s so puny, he’s bound to play brilliantly..." Then there were oceans of beer and cola and a buffet for 250 people. We went back in high spirits. I was eager for the fight, while Bykhovsky was looking forward to more bottles of Dortmund beer - there are about 500 types in the city...' Among the participants in the championship there were many future grandmasters and international masters, well-known in the chess world. There were the experienced 19-year-old ‘old men': the Icelander Jon Arnason (the world cadet champion of
1977), the Swede Ralf Akesson (European junior champion 1980/81 - 11У2 out of 13!), the Romanian Adrian Negulescu (who shared 3rd place at the 1979 world junior championship), the German Klaus Bischoff, the Yugoslav Branko Damljanovic, the Bulgarian Silvio Danailov (now Topalov’s manager, and also President of the European Chess Union), and the Hungarian Tibor Karolyi (the author of some books on my games). And the audacious youth: the 17-year-old Chilean Ivan Morovic (who played in five world junior championships!), the Argentinean Marcelo Tempone (world cadet champion 1979, who not long before had scored a sensational win over Petrosian at a tournament in Buenos Aires), the nearly 16-year-old Dane Curt Hansen, the Turk Suat Atalik, the 15-year-old American Joel Benjamin, the Indonesian Utut Adianto, the Englishman Nigel Short (the new hope of the West, who was to challenge for the world crown in 1993), and the 14-year-old Indian Dibyendu Ваша. I too was only seventeen, but I was regarded as the clear favourite, and everyone was expecting me to win. However, such expectations can turn to nothing, especially if, after becoming used to the way in which adults play, you don’t readjust in games with your contemporaries. Bykhovsky: 7n the history of junior championships there have been instances when a clear favourite underestimated his opponents and altogether finished outside the prize-winners. On this occasion this did not happen: Garik took the event very seriously. Before the tournament some advised the young grandmaster to play “on technique", exploiting his superiority in class. Fortunately, Kasparov did not follow their advice and in all the games he went in for complicated play with chances for both sides. His games were always interesting, and usually most of the spectators crowded around his board (the seats were occupied long before the start of play).’ I began with three wins, and after four rounds I had ЗУ2 points and was leading together with Arnason, Akesson and Negulescu, half a point ahead of Short, Tempone and another three players. Then, ‘by Swiss custom', the most important clashes between the rivals began. In the 5th round Akesson won against Negulescu, Tempone against Short, and after an adjournment I beat Arnason in an interesting ending (two bishops and a-pawn against bishop, knight and f-pawn). Thus Akesson and I reached 4У2 out of 5 and our individual meeting occurred in the next round. This crazy game was probably my best creative achievement in Dortmund. Came 43 G.Kasparov-R.Akesson World Junior Championship, 6th round, Dortmund 22.08.1980 Queen's Indian Defence E12 1 d4 ®f6 2 c4 e6 3 £tf3 (3 £>c3 - Game No.39) 3...b6 4 a3 (again my main weapon of that time; 4 g3 - Game Nos. 45, 46) 4-..ДЬ7 I was also not concerned about 4-Даб (Game Nos. 32, 68) or 4...C5 5 Wc2 Ab7 6 ‘йсЗ c5 7 e4 cxd4 8 <57xd4, for example: 8...±c5 9 'ЙЬЗ <bc6 10 Jlg5 аб 11 0-0-0 (Kasparov-van der Wiel, Amsterdam 1988). 5 <2k3 d5 (5-^64 - Game No.61) 6 cxd5 4Jxd5 A popular response to the set-up with a2-a3. The capture with the pawn - 6...exd5 is hardly any worse, but it is slightly more passive and it creates a different pawn
structure, which is not to everyone's taste; against Bukic (Banja Luka 1979) I successfully replied 7 JLg5 Ae7 8 JLxf6! ? ±xf6 9 g3, and against Antoshin (Baku 1980) and A.lvanov (Moscow 1981) - 7 g3 immediately. Now, however, White gains the opportunity to create a mobile pawn centre. Mar del Plata 1982; Kasparov-Karpov, Zurich (blitz) 2006). This deprives White of a traditional trump - his mobile pawn centre, although each of the captures on d5 has some drawbacks, and 9...C5 has not had many supporters. 10 Ьхсз 7 e3 (7 ^c2 - Game Nos. 73, 75, 98) 7..J.e7 The most natural move, but 7...g6l? is more perplexing for the opponent - as Korchnoi played against me in the 1st game of our Candidates match (Game No.38 in Volume V of My Great Predecessors). 8 ЛЬ5+ сб 9 id3 £ixc3 (6) After 9...0-0 White has the additional resource 10 Wc2, while 10 e4 ®xc3 11 bxc3 c5 12 0-0 cxd4 (12...h6? 13 Jlf4, Kasparov-Marjanovic, Banja Luka 1979; Game No.100 in Revolution in the 70s) 13 cxd4 £)c6 14 Jle3 Sc8 transposes into the main line (cf. the note to Black’s 10th move). But the most radical solution to Black’s opening problems is 9-.c5l? 10 ®xd5 exd5 with a solid enough position. Even 10...Wxd5, a move criticised by theory, is acceptable (Petrosian-Smyslov, 28th USSR Championship, Moscow 1961; Game No.14 in Volume III of My Great Predecessors), or 10..Jlxd5 11 dxcs bxc5 (Karpov-Najdorf, 10...<£>d7 10...c5 is more energetic: 11 0-0 <®bc6! (11...0-0 12 Wc2 - Game No.52) 12 e4 (12 JLb2l? - Game No.85) 12...0-0 13 i.e3 cxd4 14 cxd4 Sc8 15 Ha2?l (15 We2 - Kasparov-Najdorf, Bugojno 1982) 15...Af6 16 Jlbl g6 17 Wd3 Wd7 18 Hd2 lfd8 with excellent play for Black (Kasparov-Karolyi, 13th round). It was because of this game that I suffered a temporary crisis in the 4 a3 variation, and three months later at the Olympiad I played only 4 g3. 11 e4 c5 (3) 12 0-0 (4) 12...cxd4 (4) 12...0-0 is more accurate, maintaining the tension in the centre at least until White determines the position of his queen’s bishop. After 13 We2 (13 d5?l exd5 14 exd5 c4l 15 Лхс4 4£}f6, picking up the passed d-pawn) 13...Wc7 14 Jib 2 a fashionable tabiya arises (a joint one with the 7 Шс2 variation), where Black has tried 14-Дас8 (Kasparov-Kramnik, Linares 2004), 14...Sfe8 (Agrest-Akesson, Sweden 2006),
14...Sfd8 (Ponomariov-Leko, Moscow 2006), and Polugayevsky's old move 14...С4?! (Carlsen-Aronian, 5th match game, Elista 2007). 13 cxd4 0-0 14 We2 A typical move with the intention of Jlb2, fia(f)dl and d4-d5. To me this seemed to be the optimal set-up, but I underestimated Black's defensive resources. Little is promised by 14 e5 with the idea of ДеЗ and £id2-e4 (this cramps Black, but relieves him of the potential threat d4-d5), or 14 ЛеЗ Жс8 (Petrosian-Geller, Curacao Candidates 1962). However, as also in the 7 Wc2 variation, with the knight on d7 serious consideration should be given to 14 JLf41? Sc8 15 Wb3 <5ib8 16 Sadi (Portisch-Korchnoi, Montpellier Candidates 1985) or 15...£>f6 16 Sfel (Khalifman-Blatny, Groningen 1985), retaining the initiative. 14...Sc8 (8) 15 l.b2 (2) A tempting post for the bishop (in view of the planned d4-d5). All the white pieces are ideally placed, whereas Black still has to find a comfortable place for his queen. 15...Wc7 (16) 16 We3 (6) It is unclear whether White needs to take control of the f4-square. If 16 a4 there is 16...Ab4 - therefore he should not be in a hurry to advance his a-pawn. In Informator I suggested 16 £>d21? (up until now this has only occurred in the game Mamedyarov-Sargissian, Reykjavik 2006). 16 Sadi Wf4 17 ®d2l? is also interesting, with the idea of e4-e5 and <йе4 (transposing into a position from the game Bareev-Lutz, Olympiad, Turin 2006). 16...<?tf6 (10) The alternative was 16...Wb8 (with the same idea 17 a4 Jlb4) or 16...JLd6, in order by the threat of jlf4 to force e4-e5, although after 17 Ifcl Wb8 18 e5 ^.e7 19 ^g5 h6 20 ®e4 White's chances are somewhat better. 17 ^e5 (2) Again if 17 a4 there is the good reply 17-Ab4 and ...We7 - this is how Black defended in my aforementioned game with Kramnik. 17...b5l (10) Resourceful play: exploiting the weakness of the e4-pawn, Black opens a loophole for his queen and deprives the white pieces of the c4-point. In The Test of Time I suggested that Black shouldn’t have reconciled himself to the knight on e5 - 17...^d7, but after 18 Ifcl! (18 f4?! £ixe5 is equal) 18...Wd6 19 ®c4 Wb8 20 a4 and e4-e5
White would have retained the advantage (say, 2O...h6 21 e5 Wa8 22 f3 Ag5 23 f4 Ae7 24We2 etc.). 18 f4 (3) 18...Wb6 (4) The natural move, but 18...Ad6 would also have impeded White’s attack. 19 ФИ1! White is forced to engage in prophylaxis - if immediately 19 f5, then 19...Ad6!, and after 20 fiael exf51? 21 Hxf5 Axes 22 dxe5 Wxe3+ 23 lxe3 ^d7 24 Axbs ^c5 (Stohl) he cannot count on anything. by 21 f5 exf51 (but not 21...Ac3(?), as given in Informator, on account of 22 АхсЗ fixc3 23 fifbl and wins) 22 fixf5 Ac3 23 АхсЗ ДхсЗ (Stohl) 24 fiafl Ac8 25 fig5 «d7 or 25 fi5f3 ^g4 with equality. 21 5jc4 was interesting, forcing a sacrifice of material: either the exchange for a pawn - 21...fixc4 22 Axc4 ^(A)xe4 23 Ad3, or a pawn (this is better for Black) -21...Ш8 22 e5 £>d5 23 Wh3 g6 24 fixa7 Wc7 25 fiaal, and White retains some advantage. But the move in the game is stronger. 21...Э5 (5) 19...b4?! (14) Over-hasty. In striving to weaken the opponent’s attacking potential by exchanging a pair of bishops and obtaining counterplay, Black loses control of the c4-point and opens the b-file, which proves advantageous only to White. 19...fic7, for example, was better, with the idea of 20 f5 exfs 21 Sxfs £he8 and ...£)d6-c4. 'On the last six moves Akesson spent more than an hour, which was far more than Garry. Such a disproportion is usually an indication of the difficulties encountered by the more pensive side in seeking counterplay.’ (Nikitin) 20 axb4 (of course!) 2O...Axb4 21 fiabl! Preventing ...Ab4-c3 and creating the threat of Ab2-a3. Again nothing was given 22 Ve2! (9) Also preventing ...Ab7-a6. The d3-bishop must be preserved - in the attack it will play a no less important role than the b2-bishop. 22 f5 Aa6! 23 fxe6 fxe6 was harmless, for example: 24 fixf6 fixf6 25 ®d7 Axd3 26 <5jxf6+ gxf6 27 Wg3+ ^Ti8 28 Wxd3 Ac31 29 «с2 Фд7 with equality. 22... Wa7 (5) Defending against Aa3 and switching to a8 to put pressure on the e4-pawn, but the queen moves too far away from its king. 22...Wd8?! 23 f5 Hc7 would appear to be more solid, but after 24 £>xf7! 4xf7 25 fxe6+ Фд8! 26 d5 White has excellent compensation for the piece. After 22...Sa8 23 f5 Aa6 24 fxe6 fxe6, suggested by me in
The Test of Time, White has the unpleasant 25 Hxf6! (25 ®c4 Wb7) 25...fixf6 26 £)d7 JLxd3 27 ®xf6+ gxf6 28 Wxd3 (Stohl) or 25...gxf6 26 ^d7 fd6 27 <$Jxf8 ±xd3 28 Wxd3 2xf8 29 d5 with a slight but enduring advantage, but 24 £jc4! is even better. The computer also considers a variation with an exchange sacrifice - 22..Ufd8 23 f51 exf5 24 Sxf5 flxd4! 25 Jlxd4 Wxd4, but here too after 26 Hdl White’s chances are better. 23 f5 (3) 23...Wa8 (13) Not 23...ДеЗ? in view of 24 fxe6 fxe6 25 Дс4!, winning. Black’s hesitation was probably caused by anxiety over the defensibility of his king's fortress. The first critical position: how should White continue his attack? 24 d5?I (5) 'Judging by the time spent, in his choice of move Garry was guided by intuition, rather than precise calculation. He decided to give up the attractive e4-d4 pawn pair, in order to clear the diagonals for his bishops. But this interesting idea does not give White any real advantage’ (Nikitin). Let us consider the other possibilities: a) 24 £>g4, and after 24...?Jxe4 25 d51 ®c3! (the only defence, which I pointed out in Informator) 26 ДхсЗ! White’s chances are rather better: 26...Sxc3 27 f6 Jlxd5 28 ®h6+ i>h8 29 fxg7+ Фхд7 30 Wg4+ &h8 31 <^xf7+ lxf7 32 Sxf7 Дхд2+ 33 Wxg2 Wxg2+ 34 *xg2 Sxd3 35 Hcl Фд8 36 Sb7, or 26...ДхсЗ 27 dxe6 Sc7 28 e7 lxe7 29 Wxe7 Дхд2+ 30 Фд1 ±d4+ 31 £tf2 £xfl 32 i’xfl Wf3 33 We2! Wf4 34 Фд2. However, 24...®xg4! 25 Wxg4 exf5 26 Sxf5 Даб is sounder, maintaining the balance; b) 24 £k4 Hc7 (24...Hc6!?; the exchange sacrifice does not promise full equality -24-Дхе4 25 £>b6 ДxdЗ 26 Wxd3 We4 27 Wxe4 £>xe4 28 £Jxc8 Пхс8 29 fxe6 fxe6 30 Ifcl etc.) 25 e5 ^dS (25-.^e4 26 Hbcl!) 26 4Jd6 a4! with the hope by accurate play of neutralising White’s initiative; c) 24 fxe6 fxe6 25 d5 (against Stohl’s move 25 £>c4 there is the adequate reply 25...Sc71) 25...exd5 26 <^g4 ^xg4 (26...^xe4? 27 £>h6+) 27 Wxg4 Sc7! (27...fixfl+? 28 Sxfl ДеЗ 29 ДхсЗ 1хсЗ 30 We6+ <4>h8 31 We71 Sc8 32 Sf7 dxe4 33 Дс4! and wins) 28 e5, and White has good compensation for the pawn, but after 28...Wc8 29 еб Даб! nothing more is apparent. Therefore in The Test of Time I recommended the pressurising 25 Sf41? with the idea of 25..^d6 (Stohl) 26 Hh4! or 25...a4 26 ®c4. Thus it was possible to calmly build up the pressure on Black’s position. The impatient move in the game allows him to repel the first wave of the attack. 24... exd5 (3) 25 ^g4 £>xg4 (4) If 25...^xe4? 26 Дхе4 dxe4 White would have won, not by the Informator line 27 £)f6+ ФЬ8 28 Wh5? (it is not yet too late for 28 Wg4! fic7 29 ^e8 or 28...ДаЗ 29 Да1 Дс7 30 Wh3 h6 31 £)e8 and wins) 28...h6 29 <?Jg4 in view of 29-f6 30 ®xf6 e3!, but by the accurate 27 £>h6+! <4>h8 28 Дхд7+! Фхд7 29 f6+ i>xh6 (29...ФЬ8 30 Wg4) 30 Sf5 with mate (Stohl).
26 Wxg4 f6! (3) To be honest, I overlooked this obvious, only reply, when I played 24 d5. Now the thematic 27 e5 encounters the simple reply 27--.-4.c3!, for example: 28 еб 4.xb2 29 ДхЬ2 4.a6 with a sound position. And in seeking a way to win, after a long think I decided to go in for extreme measures. 27 4.xf61! (44) By sacrificing the bishop, White clears the way for his pawns, which become formidably strong. ‘White’s attack can now be parried only by accurate defence, which is difficult to find. The bishop sacrifice changes the character and the tempo of the play, and above all - the value of every move is sharply increased. This, in view of Akesson’s lack of time for thought (he had just 35 minutes left), was especially unpleasant for him.’ (Nikitin) 27-Sxf6 28 e5 Sh6? (16) Black promptly makes a mistake, moving his rook to the wrong square. The best defence was offered by 28...Ш7 29 f6 flcf81. Here - both at the board, and in later analysis - I have been able to ‘calculate’ only as far as a draw (such is the price of the impetuous 24 d5 breakthrough): a) 30 Hf3 (the direct 30 4,xh7+? ФхЬ7 31 Sf5 is weak in view of 31...4.d2!) 30...4x8! (ЗО...ФЬ8? 31 Sh3 gxf6 32 Wg6! and wins; it is also less good to play 3O...d4 31 2g3! g6 32 4.xg6 or 3O...Wc8 31 4.f5 Wc4 32 4.xh7+! ФхЬ7 33 Wh5+ Фд8 34 Sh3 Sxf6 35 Wh7+ &f7 36 exf6 Фе8 37 Wxg7 We4 38 lei d4 39 Hh41, etc.) 31 Wg5! Wa71 (31...4x6 32 ДдЗ дб is good enough for a draw, as is 31...Ф118 32 Hxb4! gxf6! 33 Wh6 axb4 34 4.xh7 4.g4!! 35 fixf6! 4h5!) 32 Sbfll, and White has good compensation for the piece: al) 32...дб (if 32...4.e6 or 32...Wd4 there is the drawing combination 33 fxg7 Sxg7 34 Sxf8+ 4,xf8 35 Sxf8+! r<fcxf8 36 Wd8+) 33 Wh6 ld8 (not 33-.Ae6 34 Sg3 4>h8?! 35 4.xg6 Id7(c7) 36 h3l) 34 4.xg6 4.f8 35 4.xf7+ Wxf7 (Petrosian) 36 Wd2! or ЗЗ...ФЬ8 34 4-хдб 1д8 35 4.xf7 Wxf7 36 We3 !, and the rook and pawn are at least as strong as the two bishops; a2) 32,..®c7 33 Жс1! (but not immediately 33 Sf4? дб! 34 Sh4 4x6! 35 h3 ST18) 33...Wb7 34 Bf4! *h8 (34—дб 35 Sh4) 35 fxg7+ Hxg7 36 lxf8+ 4xf8 37 Wd8 Hf7 38 Wxc8 Wxc8 39 Hxc8 with a roughly equal endgame; b) 30 Hf41, a discovery by Nikitin. Analysis diagram
Now ЗО...Дс8? loses to 31 Axh7+! ‘A’xln? 32 W15+ Wg8 33 Hh4- This threat relieves White of any risk, for example: bl) 3O...d4 31 fibfl! (31 Hgl is also possible, or else the immediate 31 ДхЬ7+ ФхЬ7 32 Wh5+ Фд8 33 Hh4 with a draw) 31-^8 32 Axh7 Axg2+ 33 Фд1 Axfl 34 Де4! Wxe4 35 fixe4 gxf6 36 ixfl fxe5+ 37 Фе2, and the black king is in danger; b2) 3O...Wc8 31 Af5! Wc7 32 ±xh7+ ФхЬ7 33 Wh5+ Фд8 34 fih4! fixf6 35 Wh7+ “4^7 36 exf6 i’xfG 37 fihxb4! axb4 38 Hfl+ Фе51 39 Wh5+! 4>d6 40 Wg6+! Фс5 41 fixf8 or 39...'S’d4 40 ®dl+ Фс5 41 Hxf8, remaining with the exchange for a pawn; b3) 3O..Jld2!? 31 Jlxh7+ ФхЬ7 32 Wh3+! Фд8 33 fxg7! (Nikitin gives only 33 fih4? jlh6 when Black wins) 33--fixg7 (33-Hxf4 34 Wh8+ and gxf8W+) 34 fih4! 4>f7! 35 Wd7+ Фд8 36 Wh3 with a draw, or the more cunning 31 Wh3!? h6 32 Wg3! JLa6! 33 £f5 (not Nikitin’s move 33 fig4(?) because of 33...1.g5! 34 Ддб fib7) ЗЗ...Дс8! 34 &d3 with a draw. Of course, many of the given variations are difficult to calculate (especially in time-trouble), and the move 28...fih6? is easy to explain. ‘Akesson decided to conduct the defence on the basis of common sense: in the first instance he defended his h7-point (and in some cases, after e5-e6 and ...Wb8, Black can gain a tempo by threatening mate on h2). I think that this would have been played by the majority of players, not possessing a heightened sense of danger’ (Nikitin). But my opponent underestimated the consequences of the breakthrough by the white pawns. 29 f6 fic7 (29...i.f8?! 30 e6! Wb8 31 h3 and wins) 30 e6! (4) With the seemingly tempting 30 Hbcl? White would have lost his entire advantage: 3O...fif71 (ЗО...Ш8 or 3O...Wb8 is also not bad) 31 Jlf5 d4l 32 Hf2 <4>h8 or 31 We6 Wb8 32 Jeb 5 Ae7!. 3O... Sd8! (13) After using almost all of his remaining time, Akesson found the only way of parrying the direct threats - by giving up his rook for the two dangerous pawns. Other moves would quickly have led to a spectacular rout: a) 3O...Wf8? 31 f7+ STiS 32 fixb4! axb4 33 Wxb4! with a quick mate; b) 30.,.Wb8 31 Wg31 (threatening e6-e7) 31.. JLd6 32 Wxd6 Hxf6 33 Jibs! (Stohl), and the e-pawn decides matters; с) ЗО...ФЬ8 31 Wg3! d4 (avoiding the mate after 31...Wc8 32 fibcl! Ad6 33 fxg7+ 4>g8 34 Wxd6 - Stohl) 32 Wxc7 Axg2+ 33 Фд1 gxf6 34 e7 Wg8 35 e8W Wxe8 36 Фхд2 with an extra rook; d) 3O...±c6 31 e7 Hxe7 32 fxe7 Axe7 33 Wf5! ФЬ8 (33-^.d6 34 fibcl! Sxh2+ 35 Фд1 Hh6 36 g3!) 34 fif3! We8 35 We5! &d6 36 Wxe8+ jlxe8 37 fib 8 Неб 38 Hd8 and Jlb5, picking up the bishop. 31 e7 (3) 31...fixe7 32 fxe7 Wxe7 33 fibcl! Not allowing the opponent any respite, especially with him being in time-trouble. The threat is Sc8+. The last critical position: is Black able to save himself?
33—Wd8? (3) Other ‘simple’ defences against the deadly check would also have failed: ЗЗ-Лсб? 34 Wc8+ ^,e8 35 i.b5 Se6 36 Sc7 or 33-Жсб? 34 Sxc6 Дхеб 35 Whs g6 36 Jlxg6 etc. 33...1d6 would also not have helped: 34 Wf4! g6 (34—g5 35 Wf51) 35 ±b5! (threatening Hc7 or ficel) 35...g5 36 Wg3 and wins (Stohl). With his flag about to all, Akesson failed to find the best reply 33-Леб!, leading to an endgame favourable for White: 34 Wxe6+! (after 34 if5? We 5 35 h3 Jtd6 the initiative is now with Black) 34...Sxe6 35 Hc7 Де7, and here instead of my previous variation 36 Sxe7 Лхе7 37 Jlxh7+ ФхЬ7 38 fif7 M>4 39 Hxb7 d4 40 fid7 JLc3 41 Фд1, which is not altogether clear in view of 41...^.b21 (intending ...a5-a4-a3) 42 Ha7 JLc3 intending ...d4-d3-d2, White has the much stronger 36 2fcl! lS>f7! 37 Пхе7+ Дхе7 38 Sc7 l.a8 39 -lxh7 (Stohl) ЗЭ-Феб (after 39...a4? 40 Sc8! ±b7 41 ±g8+ &f6 42 Hb8 Black loses his bishop) 40 Sa7 Ac6 41 Exa5 with a technically won position. Now, however, things do not get as far as an endgame. 34Wf5!Wb8 Avoiding the spectacular 34-^.d6 35 Wf7+ ФТ18 36 h3! (36 Wxb7 Sxh2+ 37 Фд1 Hhl+! is not so clear - Stohl) Зб..Лс8 37 Дс71. 35Wf7+Ah8 ЗбЯс7 1-0 Times: 1.43-2.29- A fighting game! Nikitin: 'A genuine victory for indomitable mind over matter. Already then by no means every grandmaster could withstand the pressure of the young Kasparov. The two players displayed exceptional ingenuity and produced a highly complicated chess creation. The brilliance and freshness of their ideas were so attractive, that Garry several times returned to an analysis of the mind-boggling events which occurred on the board. Among those who took part in the analytical searches were Petrosian and young candidate masters from the school I ran with him. I also spent many hours trying to understand the intricate turning-points of this wonderful chess spectacle.’ After this win I at last took the sole lead in the tournament - 5V2 out of 6, a point ahead of my three closest pursuers. Among them was the ambitious Tempone, with whom I was paired with Black in the next round. Game 44 M.Tempone-G.Kasparov World Junior Championship, 7th round, Dortmund 23.08.1980 English Opening A38 1 £rf3 2>f6 2 g3 (2 ЬЗ g6 3 i.b2 ,lg7 4 c4 -Game No.26) 2...g6 3 b3 In my youth I often encountered this ‘venomous’ set-up - my opponents also played 3 Дд2 Лд7 4 0-0 0-0 5 b3 d6 6 d4 e5 (instead of 6...C5 7 Ab2 4?^c6 8 d5, Nikolaevsky-Kasparov, Baku 1976) 7 dxe5
dxe5 8 Jib 2 e4 9 ®g5 if5 with equality (Kappe-Kasparov, Cagnes-sur-Mer 1977). 3...Ag7 4±b2 Here theory promised Black equality after 4...d6 and then at a convenient moment ...e7-e5, but my experience had shown that all was not so simple: in my game with Yusupov (Leningrad 1977) after 5 d4 0-0 6 J.g2 e5 7 dxe5 <^fd7 8 2k3 ^xe5 9 £>xe5 ±xe5 10 0-0 4Yc6 11 Sbl ±e6 12 Wd2 Se8 13 ®d5 I definitely suffered. Therefore I devised and began employing another development set-up, which proved to be quite a good rejoinder to the 'double fi-anchetto’. 4...C5 (7) With the intention of creating a strong centre by 5...d5 (if immediately 4...d5, then 5 c41). White prevents this. 5 C4d6 6Ag2 (2) The attempt also to prevent 6...e5, restricting the bishop on b2, is dubious -after 6 d4?l Black has the unpleasant 6...^e4!, for example: 7 Jlg2 (7 £jfd2?l ®g51) 7-Wa5+ 8 £rfd2 ^xd2 9 ЛсЗ, and here not the dubious queen sacrifice 9...<йхЬз?! 10 Axa5 £>xa5 (Psakhis-Magerramov, Baku 1978), but 9-. '®Ъ6! (a move of the 1990s) 10 dxc5 £b<bl! 11 ^.xg7 Wb4+ 12 4>fl lg8 13 ДЬ2 (13 l.h6 £>a3!) 13...^d2+ 14 Фд1 ^xc4 15 Wd4 £>a61. Or 7 Wcl Wa5+ 8 £sbd2 £>xd2 9 Wxd2 Wxd2+ 10 <4>xd2 <2ic6 11 еЗ Дд4 12 JLe2, and White holds on (Korchnoi-Kasparov, Paris (blitz) 1990), but 8...0-01? deserves consideration. 6...e5 7 0-0 <5Yc6 8 <2k3 0-0 (two of my earlier games also reached this position) 9 d3(2) In the event of 9 e3 if51 10 d4?l (10 d3! is better) 10...e41 11 ®g5 Se8 12 dxc5 dxc5 13 ®b5 Де7! Black has a promising position (Webb-Kasparov, Skara 1980). 9...®e8!? (2) An important link in the plan. The knight is better placed at c7 than at f6: it clears the way for the f-pawn, without losing control of the d5-point. 9-^h5?! 10 £>d2 is less good for Black (Petrosian-Portisch, 9th match game, Palma de Mallorca 1974). 10 £)d2 (3) Or 10 Wd2 £>c7 11 ®el Деб 12 ®d5 Wd7 13 e3 Sab8 with equality (Kharitonov-Kasparov, Moscow 1977). Tempone chooses a similar course, but is unable to control comfortably the d5-point. 10...^c7 (5) 11 еЗ?! (13) An inaccuracy. The immediate 11 ^d5 is better (Gipslis-Ftacnik, Tallinn 1981)
11...Дд4!?, or 11 a3, trying to provoke either the weakening ll...a5 (Cvitan-Gallagher, Geneva 1994), or 11...Деб?! 12 b4! (instead of 12 <§M5 Wd7 with equality) 12...cxb4 13 axb4 <£sxb4 14 ДхЬ7 with the initiative, and therefore 11...Дд4! 12 h3 Деб is correct. 11...Де6 (3) 12 Hcl (28) White is forced to prevent the freeing advance ...d6-d5 in this artificial way: if 12 ^d5?, then 12...Axd5 13 cxd5 £ib4, winning a pawn. 12...Wd7 (5) 13 Bel (2) Not an essential move - White values his g2-bishop too highly. He should have considered, for instance, 13 ^>de4 h6 14 f4 exf4 15 gxf4 f5 16 ^f2(g3), although here too Black has a comfortable game. 13...Sad8 (25) In choosing from several attractive continuations, I decided in the first instance to complete my mobilisation and intensify the threat of ...d6-d5. 14 £)de4 (10) White is already in some difficulties. It is obvious that the variation 14 a3 d5 15 cxd5 ®xd5 16 4}xd5?! (the lesser evil is 16 4bce4 Ь6) 16...ДхЬ5 17 Hxc5 (17 £>e4?l b6 and ...f7-f5) 17...Дхд2 18 Фхд2 Wxd3 cannot satisfy him. 14...И6 (2) 15 f4 f5 (6) 16 Stf2 exf4 (2) 17 gxf4 One of the critical positions in the game. 17...Wf7?l By beginning preparations for ...g6-g5, Black deviates from the correct course -play in the centre. Nothing was promised either by the immediate 17...d5 in view of 18 cxd5 £>xd5 19 ^xd5 ДхЬ2 20 Bxc5 ДаЗ 21 b41 ^xb4 22 Дс7! (my earlier recommendation 22 Sa5 is less good because of 22...£>xd5 23 ЖхаЗ Ъ6) 22,..®d6 23 Wai! Hd7 24 Bxd7 ДхЬ7 25 We5 with equality, or by the immediate 17-.g5 18 Wd2! (the exchange 18 fxg5 hxg5 would increase White’s problems). However, the prophylactic 17...b6! would have given Black very promising play, for example: 18 Wd2 d5 19 cxd5 (19 £>e2 Sfe8 or 19...d41) 19-^xd5 20 <^xd5 Axd5 21 Дхд7 Wxg7 22 Axd5+ Bxd5, intending ...g6-g5. 18 Wd2 g5 (2) It was safer to ‘stand still’. Underestimating the opponent’s possibilities, I made a series of routine and largely weak moves (perhaps the psychological tiredness told after the difficult game with Akesson), and step by step the situation changed in White’s favour.
19 <йе2 (2) 19 d4 looks more energetic, and if 19...d5, then 20 cxd5 ^xd5 21 fxg5 hxg5 22 ^h3! cxd4 23 exd4, emphasising what a risky venture ...g6-g5 was. But Tempone preferred to take control of the f4-point and exchange the dark-square bishops. After consolidating in the centre, White has achieved a flexible position. Now the opening of the kingside may rebound on Black: his king’s defences are less secure. 19...d5 (18) Black does not sense the danger, although he already needs to be cautious. Thus after the Informator suggestion 19...^e8?! White has the awkward 20 d41. If I had been aiming only for a draw, I would possibly have played 19...ЛхЬ2 20 Wxb2 Wg7- 20 jLxg7 (6) 2O...Wxg7 21 ФЫ (4) It is sensible to avoid the complications after 21 cxd5?l Jlxd5 22 fxgs £>e51 or 22 fixes Лхд2 23 Фхд2 gxf4+ 24 ihl We7- In Informator and then in The Test of Time I recommended 214^g3 with the cooperative variation 21...gxf4(?) 22 £ih5 fxe3(?) 23 fixe3 and wins, but after the calm 21...b6 there is nothing terrible for Black. Here I at last examined the situation critically, and I drew some painful conclusions. 21...dxc4?l (20) It seemed to me that, because of the poor placing of his pieces and the vulnerability of his centre, Black’s position was already difficult, and after prolonged thought I decided that the course of events could only be changed by the rapid return of the knight to f6. To carry out this idea I was forced to weaken my queenside and concede the centre, but I considered that the creation of counterplay on the kingside (instead of temporising, and manoeuvring) was the most important task. Meanwhile, both 21...b6 and 21...We7, or perhaps even 21...ih8!? (22 fxg5 hxg5 23 cxd5 A.xd5 24 Нхс5 Axg2+ 25 Фхд2 ^еб with counterplay worth a pawn) would still have enabled Black to maintain approximate equality. 22 Ьхс4 <e8?! From f6 the knight will take control of the central squares, forestall the unpleasant manoeuvre <5ig3-h5 - and take part in the spectacular finish to the game! But the patient 22...fid6 23 figl g4 was objectively better, or even 22...Лс8 23 Лхсб (23 Sgl Wf6) 23...bxc6 24 £>gl ®e6 25 £>f3 ih7 26 figl Wf6 and ...Hg8, although I did not like the ‘brittle nature' of Black’s pawn structure and this all looked rather suspicious. 23 Wc3?l (4) The unexpected 23 fxg5! hxg5 24 ®f41 was far stronger, for example: 24...gxf4?l 25 Лхсб! if?! 26 exf4! bxc6 27 4^h3 with a powerful attack, or 24-...&.d7 25 Jld5+ ih7 (25...ih8 26 figl &f6 27 fig3 or 27 Wb2!?) 26 figl with the initiative: 26...<5if6 27 h41 g4 28 ^2h3 or 26...®c7 27 fig3 g4 28 h3. 23...®f6 (6) I was continuing to play for a win, and I did not even contemplate the depressing 23...Wxc3 24 Hxc3 £d7 25 d4!. 24 d4 (4)
White does not stand still - his chances are now better, and energetic measures are required of Black to create counterplay. 24...ic8 Previously I suggested 24...£>e7(?l) with the idea of 25 Axb7 4bed51 26 Jlxd5 £>xd5 27 cxd5? A.xd5+ 28 e4 fxe4 and wins, but after 27 Wd31 Black still has to demonstrate that he has sufficient compensation for the pawn. Moreover, in the variation 25 d5 (25 Wa31?) 25...Ac8(?1) 26 Wa3 £>g6 I considered only 27 'Wxc5(?) ®h4 28 Sgl b6 29 Wd4 b5! or 29 Wb4 Sde8 ‘with fair counterchances’, although after 27 Wxa7l White is a sound pawn to the good. The computer insistently recommends 24../bb4 25 Sal (25 Wd21?) 25...±c8 26 a3 £>a6, but it is hard for a human player to play his knight to such a ‘bad’ square, especially as after 27 d5 or 27 £>d3 all the same Black does not have equality. 25 Scdl? (10) Losing the greater part of his advantage. I thought that the strongest was 25 dxc5(?l) with the idea of 25. Jttej 26 Scdl 4}g6 27 Ud6! or 25...^d7 26 Wa3 We7 27 ^d3, but after 25...We71 26 £id4 Wxc5 Black would have extricated himself: 27 4id3 Wa5 28 4bxc6 Wxc3 29 Sxc3 Ьхсб 30 Axc6 £ie4! 31 Лхе4 fxe4 32 *йе5 Bd2 36 ДаЗ Hfd8 with equality. Therefore 25 d5! was correct: 25...£>b4 (25...£)e7?l 26 Wa5 ^g6 27 Wxa7 can hardly be correct) 26 Wb3 with the better prospects. However, Tempone did not want to part with his fine ‘hanging’ centre and, after making his move, he unexpectedly offered a draw. I stopped to think and while realising that for the moment Black had no real grounds for optimism, I nevertheless decided to take a risk. 25...cxd4 (7) 26 exd4 (2) It was this natural move that I was counting on, assuming that 26 £)xd4 would have been better for White. However, even here after 26...£ixd4 27 exd4 Hfe8 he does not have anything at all serious. By taking with the pawn, Tempone was hoping for d4-d5 followed by £d4, when Black does not have even have a hint of any counterplay. But at this moment my opponent’s pleasant thoughts were interrupted by a manoeuvre which abruptly changed the evaluation of the position. 26...^e7! The most interesting stage begins. The manoeuvre of the knight to h4 may cause White serious problems: one of his most important pieces - the bishop on g2 - will be under attack.
27 d5 (8) Prophylactic measures (such as 27 Well, hindering ...£>g6) should have been considered, but Tempone does not display any signs of disquiet. 27...^ig6 28 <^d3?! (8) White is already finding some difficulty in choosing his moves. The black pawns would have become dangerously active in the event of 28 fxg5 hxg5 29 d6 (29 *53h3? Wh6!) 29...f4 30 c5 Sde8 31 ^d4 g4. But if Tempone had foreseen the coming events he would probably have played 28 a4. 28...^h4 The black knights are positioned menacingly close to the white king’s residence, and Black only needs to bring into play his last reserve - the bishop on c8. 29 Igl? Not an obvious mistake, but apparently the decisive one. 29 ^d4 or 29 Hbl was essential, although in both cases after 29...Sfe8 the initiative is with Black. 30 cxb5 was hardly any more resilient: 3O...^ixg2 (3O...Hfe81?) 31 lxg2 £sxd5 32 Wxg7+ (32 Wb3 Леб!) 32...Фхд7 33 Sg3 (33 <5hc5 ^e3) 33...1fe8 34 Ab7 35 £>c6 4k71 36 Hxd8 Sxd8 37 a4 Sd2 with a won ending. 3O...bxc4 (2) 31 Wxc4 ЛЬ7 (9) 32 d6+ (9) Equivalent to capitulation, but what else was there? 32 <Shd4 is bad: 32...<^xg2 33 £>xf5 Wh71 34 ®xh6+ ФЬ8! 35 Sxg2 lxd5 and wins. White would also have lost, although not so quickly, after 32 Wb3 ФЬ8 or 32 4k3 lc8 33 Wb3 ФЬ8. 32...*h7 (3) 32...ФЬ8!? was tempting, since if 33 JLxb7 Wxb7+ 34 Wc6 there was the spectacular zwischenzug 34...^>e41. Here 35 Sgel seemed unclear to me, but after 35...Wg7! White would have been unable to save the game: 36 Wc7 W2+ 37 Фд1 £>xdl 38 Wxg7+ Фхд7 39 Sxdl Sfe8(f6) etc. 33 ЛхЬ7 Wxb7+ 34 Wc6 Wxc6+ 35 ‘?'.xc6 29...b5! The triumph of Black’s plan! The white centre collapses, and Black’s minor pieces, which for a long time were huddled together in their own camp, become fearfully strong. 30 <She5 (4) 35...<£>e4l By creating a rare mating construction, Black picks up the d6-pawn. 36Sgfl The last chance was 36 Hgel!? - this would have justified itself after Зб...Жс8? 37 £}ed4! (but not the earlier suggestion 37 d7? Ixc6 38 d8W lxd8 39 Hxd8 lc21 40
^d4 Bg2l and wins) 37-^xf2+ (37...®xd6? 38 £>e6!) 38 <4>gl £>xdl 39 Sxdl ^>f3+ 40 ®xf3 Вхсб 41 £>e5, and the d-pawn will cost the rook, or 36...£sf2+?l (for the moment there is no need to exchange such a powerful knight for the passive rook) 37 Фд1 £}xdl 38 Bxdl, but after 36...Bxd6! 37 Bxd6 £>xd6 38 ®ed4 £>e4 or 38...Bf7 Black would have retained an obvious advantage. 36...Bxd6 (here too 36...Ec8? was weak: 37 ^ed4! ^xd6 38 2>e6) 37 Bxd6 £ixd6 38 fxg5 hxg5 39 Bdl Se8! A pretty rook manoeuvre. The retreat of the knight would have given White some chances, but Black does not even think of moving it, and he continues his attack. 40 Med4 Be3! 41 Sgl (3) 41..S e4 The black pieces (especially the knights!) have taken up dominating positions, and have created an unusual cage around the white king. Now the win is achieved either by transferring the rook to the 2nd rank, or by advancing the f- and g-pawns. 42 Bbl (9) 42...Bd3 (2) 43 a4 Bd2 0-1 Times: 2.35-2.19. After beating Tempone I reached 6У2 out of 7 and stretched my lead to one and a half points. Although there was still nearly half of the tournament to come, the destiny of first place was practically decided. The only player not to reconcile himself to this was Akesson: in the 8th and 9th rounds he scored two wins and reduced the gap to the minimum, since I made two draws. But in the 10th and 11th rounds our paths conclusively diverged: Ralf faded, losing to Short and Morovic, whereas I crushed Hjorth and won a textbook ending against Danailov. At the end I made two more draws and finished first, one and a half points ahead of the silver medal winner Short. Five years later Nigel said that he still remembered the impression that I made on him across the board (we played a draw in the 9th round): 7 have never faced such an intense player, never felt such energy and concentration, such will and desire to win burning across the board from me.’ Incidentally, in our preparations for the tournament my trainers and I considered Short to be one of my main rivals and we carefully analysed his games. At the age of 12 Nigel became the youngest-ever participant in the adult British Championship, at 14 he shared lst-3rd places in it, and then also lst-2nd places in the World Cadet Championship (conceding the title to Tempone only on the tie-break). Some English chess commentators even predicted that the then youngest international master would be a future adult world champion. In Dortmund, initially Short was pretty lucky on a couple of occasions, but then he warmed up and showed that he did indeed possess great chess potential. Bykhovsky: ‘Before the championship it was said that Kasparov should not take part in it, since the player from Baku was obviously stronger than his opponents. Now it can definitely be said (and Carik himself is of the same opinion) that the tournament was
useful for him. And it is not just that Kasparov's name has now joined the ranks of the "chess princes". It was important to rid himself of the complex arising from his not so successful performances in the world cadet championships. Those failures are now not so bitter. In the creative respect too the tournament was instructive - Kasparov’s strengths became clearer, and deficiencies came to light, on the elimination of which he needs to work. The young grandmaster has all the attributes to be one of the top chess players in the world: talent, capacity for work, and sense of purpose. But for great victories you also need strength of character. Whether Garik can develop this will be decided in the next few years.’ Nikitin: ‘Kasparov's superiority was enormous. At times it appeared that he was playing a different kind of chess, of which his contemporaries were not yet capable. The chess world realised that the new chess prince was on course for the chess summit. At the time grandmaster Hort wrote: “Of the well-known players, the only one who can realistically threaten Karpov is Kasparov, and that within a few years when he gains experience of participating in top-level international events." To questions about his long-term plans, Garry himself would avoid these with pre-determined protestations that he only planned one year ahead.’ And, indeed, in one of the interviews in September 1980, to the question ‘do you believe that at some point you will contest a match for the world crown with Anatoly Karpov - in a match which the world is awaiting?’, I replied as follows: ‘Alas, such a possibility lies beyond the range of my foresight. Serious obsessions rarely come true. Let us see how things go, how circumstances turn out. Too many obstacles still need to be overcome, and besides my play depends on a mass of factors - form, mood and the weather. In a couple of years, if all goes well in the Interzonal, it will be worth returning to this question.’ I was also asked if I would play in the following world junior championships. I replied: ‘It is tempting to play once more and, if I am successful, to become the first two-times champion. But I think that this tournament was my last one in junior chess. I don't want to give up, but it would appear that this stage has come to an end...’ Now I was the chess prince! I was overjoyed. My relatives and trainers were happy, as were my school teachers and my former class-mates. It is probable that Botvinnik was also happy, although he was terribly angry that I had disobeyed him, and for a time we weren’t even on speaking terms. But then my mother had a word with his wife Gayane Davidovna, and relations gradually returned to normal. Olympiad Debut 24th World Chess Olympiad (Malta, 20th November-7th December 1980): 1. USSR and 2. Hungary - 39 out of 56; 3. Yugoslavia - 35; 4. USA - 34; 5- Czechoslovakia - 33; 6-7. Poland and England - 32У2; etc. (altogether - 82 teams). This difficult Olympiad gold was procured by Karpov (9/12), Polugayevsky (3/7), Tai (3У2/6), Geller (6У2/9), reserves Balashov (7У2/10) and Kasparov (9У2/12). That remarkable ‘gold’ year concluded for me with the Olympiad in Malta, the first in my career. 'Which of our grandmasters does not dream of becoming one of the cherished six Olympiad players!’ I declared two months before this in an interview. Nikitin: ‘The place allotted to the novice
in the country’s main team was the most modest one, but the youngster was happy and proud. Before this so important appearance, for the first time we were able to hold a training session in a government sanatorium in Zagulba - a small resort 40 km from Baku. Starting from that time, for ten years Zagulba became Kasparov’s training base. The wonderful sandy beaches of the Caspian Sea, the shady avenues in the parks, the general stillness - all this helped us to prepare for the most serious chess battles.’ This is from the notebook of Rimma Bilunova, the trainer of the USSR women's team (she was entrusted with looking after the youngest players - Maya Chiburdanidze and me): 'Rome, en route to Malta, 16th November. The most interesting member of our team is, of course, Garik Kasparov. For all his chess virtues, he is also a very interesting person. You only need to excite him a little, and he pours forth poetry, stories, and interesting lectures on the most varied topics. For the women’s team he is the general favourite, entertainer and saviour during the tiresome bustle of travelling. Today I would define his essence as follows: passion itself, in the very best sense of the word. Also interesting are Maya Chiburdanidze and the beauty Nana Alexandria, and the matron-like Nona Gaprindashvili, but Garik is our treasure, our sparkle, our joy. The other members of the men’s and women's teams are just people. But during these two days, for me Garik has proved even more striking than Rome, the Vatican and the Coliseum.’ Malta is a beautiful island, of course, but playing there was very difficult: apart from the weight of responsibility, I was also oppressed by the unusual living conditions. For instance, to have dinner you had to stand in a queue for something like an hour and a half. We played in the old castle of the Maltese Order, in a gallery 200 meters long by 14 meters wide, along which were arranged the chess tables, with a narrow corridor in the middle for spectators (who by no means always kept quiet). The rounds, and there were 14 of them, took place from 15.00 to 20.00, with adjournments from 22.00 to 24.00 and, if necessary, the following morning. The main intrigue of the men’s Olympiad was whether the strong Hungarian team would repeat its sensational success of two years earlier, when it displaced the invariable champions - the USSR team - from the top of the pedestal. True, on that occasion Karpov and Tai, resting after the exhausting match in Baguio, were not playing... Now they were, as well as two ‘dark horses’ -debutants Balashov and Kasparov. Of course, we both did our utmost to justify the hopes placed in us, especially since not all the team was in good form and the tournament race proved exceptionally difficult. For the starting match with Venezuela the Soviet team fielded its main line-up -Karpov, Polugayevsky, Tai and Geller. It is incredible, but true: this stellar quartet achieved only а 2У2-1У2 score (Karpov won). But the Hungarians crushed the Scots 4-0, and a further 18 matches ended this way! From the 2nd round Balashov and I successfully joined the battle, and our team confidently defeated the Greeks and the Austrians (both ЗУ2-У2). However, the Hungarians also did not slow down, overcoming the Norwegians (3У2-У2) and the Swedes (3-1). In the 4th round the USSR team met the Yugoslavs, who were always among the contenders for the medals. Our opponents did their utmost not to lose the match -and they achieved three draws, but they were unable to implement their plan in full.
Came 45 G.Kasparov-S.Marjanovic World Chess Olympiad, 4th round, Malta 23.11.1980 Queen’s Indian Defence E17 1 d4 6 2 c4 еб 3 b6 4 g3 (6) As I have already said, at that time I had a temporary crisis in the 4 a3 variation, and I began adopting 4 g3 (which came in useful later in my matches with Karpov). 4...±b7 5 Ag2 Де7 6 0-0 (6 2k3 ®e4 7 l.d2 - Came No.46) 6...0-0 7 d51? (2) A pawn sacrifice, which came into fashion three months before the Olympiad -after Polugayevsky’s fine win in the 12th game of his Candidates match with Korchnoi (1980). The usual 7 <йсЗ ^e4 is far more modest. 7...exd5 8 £sh4l A fresh idea, leading to sharp positions, in which the character of the play was to my liking and seemed favourable for White. The earlier move 8 4^d4 went out of use after 8...Деб! 9 cxd5 JLxdS (Polugayevsky-Korchnoi, 8th match game, Buenos Aires 1980). 8„.c6 In the event of 8...^e4 9 cxd5 ^d6 10 (as in the source game Guimard-Pilnik, La Plata 1944) or 9-ДхЬ4 10 Дхе4 Д-fe 11 Шс2 (Gheorghiu-Unzicker, Wijk aan Zee 1981) White retains somewhat the better chances. 9 cxd5 £ixd5 If 9...cxd5, then 10 ^сЗ £>a6 11 £>f5 <£>c7 12 jlf4 with some advantage (Beliavsky-Spassky, Baden 1980). 10 &f5 ^C7 (2) A sound reply. The sensational Po-lugayevsky-Korchnoi game went 10..Д.С5?! 11 e4 ^e7 (Black still has problems after ll...Wf6 12 ®xg7 Фхд7 13 exd5 Даб 14 Дd2!, Dorfman-G.Kuzmin, Tashkent 1980) 12 ^xg7! Фхд7 13 b41 ДхЬ4 14 Wd4+ f6 15 Wxb4, and White scored a spectacular win (Game No.27 in Volume III of My Great Predecessors). And after 10...£if6 11 e4 d5 12 5k3 dxe4 (Polugayevsky-Stean, Olympiad, Malta 1980) 13 ^xe4l with the threat of Дд5 is good. 114k3 11 e4 d5 12 Sei is currently popular, but ll...d6 seemed better to me, and therefore I considered 11 ®c3 to be more accurate (as played by Sveshnikov - cf. the following note). ll...d5 (6) White is better after ll...d6 12 ДГ4 £)e8
13 Wd2 4ia6 14 Hfdl (Sveshnikov-Platonov, Tashkent 1980) or ll...fte8 12 JLf4 ^a6 13 Wd2 d5 (13...^>c5 14 Sadi) 14 e4 £iac7 15 Hadi Af6, and now not 16 exd5 ^>xd5 17 ^xd5 cxd5 18 4Jhe3 ^c7 19 ixc7 Wxc7 with a draw in view of 20 ^xd5 Axd5 (Timman-Karpov, Tilburg 1983), but 16 Wc21? or 16 Hfell? with a very promising game. 12 e4 By transposition a position from the 8 £>d4 variation has been reached (Razuvaev-Makarychev, 46th USSR Championship, Tbilisi 1978). 12...Af6 (39) After lengthy hesitation Mar) an о vic follows in the footsteps of Makarychev. If 12...dxe4?l 13 Axe4 White has strong pressure. In the game Kishnyov-Kholmov (Jurmala 1981) Black immediately returned the pawn - 12...^d7 13 exd5 ‘SJxdS 14 ^xd5 cxd5 15 Axd5 Jlxd5 16 Wxd5 and soon equalised, but 13 Hell was better. The theory of this variation was only just making its first steps, and so it is not surprising that both players spent a long time in thought. 13 exd5 (51) Here is the improvement. Razuvaev tried 13 Wg4, and after 13...^d7 (intending ...<be5) 14 f4?! g6 15 £>h6+ 4h8 16 e5 ±g7 he did not gain sufficient compensation for the pawn. But 13 -fi.f41? came into consideration (Hort-H.Olafsson, Buenos Aires 1980) - as I played in the 2nd game of my first match with Karpov (Moscow 1984/85) and, although I encountered the novelty 13...Дс8! 14 g4l? £bba6 (Game N0.6 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1975-1985), I killed my opponent’s desire for 4...ДЬ7: he then switched to 4...Aa6. 13...cxd5 (5) After 13...^>xd5 14 £}xd5 cxd5 I was intending to regain the pawn - 15 ^se3 and £ixd5, but 15 JLf4l? is interesting (Shirov-Adams, 4th match game, Elista 2007). Not surprisingly, Marjanovic prefers to keep the extra material, especially since for the moment no particular dangers for Black are apparent. 14 if4 (7) 14...^ba6 15 Hel (20) The most natural developing move, which since then has occurred three times more often than the alternative 15 Hcl. 15...Wd71? (15) A perfectly acceptable reply, but not the only one. Initially 15„.£ic5 seemed better, but before the 1984/85 match we discovered that after 16 JLd6 He8 17 Hxe8+ £Jxe8 18 Axc5 bxc5 19 /^xd5 Hb8 20 £>xf6+ Wxf6
21 ±xb7 Wxf5 (21...1xb7? is bad in view of 22 Wd5! Bxb2? 23 Bel Hb8 24 £ie7+ and £>c6) 22 Wd51 WxdS 23 Axd5 Bxb2 24 Bel Black has an unpleasant endgame: the white bishop is clearly stronger than the knight. 18 JLxdSl? is also very interesting. However, neither after 15...±c8!? 16 ®d6 (16 ^d4 ±b7) 16...±xc3 17 bxc3 Деб, nor after the move in the game were we able to devise anything promising, and in 1984 I rejected 13 exd5. 16 ±113! (10) There is little point in playing 16 Wg4 in view of 16...±c8! 17 Be5 (17 £>e7+? Wxe7) 17-.±xe5 (17...&h81?) 18 ±xe5 f6 19 ±xc7 £ixc7 20 ^xd5 ФЬ8 21 £ixc7 Wxc7 22 ±xa8 ±xf5 23 ®xf5 Bxa8 with equality. 16...Ф118? (12) A fatal mistake: the opponent ‘loses control’. 16...Wc6? was bad: 17 Bel (threatening ^e4) 17...£>c5 18 ±e51 Bfe8 (18...d4 19 £}e4) 19 £sd4, and the queen is lost. But if Marjanovic had had the sense to move his queen back - 16...Wd81, the battle would only just have been beginning: 17 Wg4 ±c8 18 Wf3 ±e6 or 17 Bel d4 18 Ste4 ±xe4 19 Bxe4 ?^е6 20 ±d6 Де8, maintaining the balance. 17 €te4! (now White’s attack develops unhindered) 17...±xb2 (14) Was there a better defence? Hardly: 17...Bae8 18 ^xf6 Bxel+ 19 Wxel gxf6 20 ±d6 lg8 21 We7 ®xe7 22 ±xe7 Bb8 (22...Дд6 23 £ld6) 23 ±xf6+ Фд8 24 Bel ®e6 25 ±g2 and wins. 18 ^g5! (3) The concentration of white pieces on the kingside clearly exceeds the black king’s defensive possibilities. When I was showing the game to my team colleagues that evening, I emotionally exclaimed: ‘Look, all his pieces are on the queenside, whereas mine are on the king-side, but that’s where his king also is!’ This was also the theme of my junior game with Privorotsky (Game N0.7) and it occurred many times in my later games, for example: Kasparov-Yurtaev (Moscow 1977), S.Garcia-Kasparov (Baku 1980), or the 6th game of my first match with Karpov (Game No.94). 18...Wc6 (15) If 18...^e6 White would have won with both the simple 19 ^d6, and the combinative 19 4hxg7! Ф(±)хд7 20 Wh5 etc. 19 £>e7 (2) 19...W6 (2) 20 ^Xh7! Wd4 (4) 21 Whs g6 22 Wh4 ±xal (8) Instead of resigning, Marjanovic unexpectedly removed my queen's rook - the only white piece which was spoiling the
overall picture, by not participating in the play. I breathed a sigh of relief: this negligent rook was getting on my nerves. 23 £lf6+ 1-0 Black resigned in view of 23...Фд7 24 Wh6+ <4>xf6 25 ±g5 mate. Times: 1.50-2.10. This game was later named one of the most brilliant in the Olympiad. We won the match 2У2-1У2, but by the same score the Hungarians defeated Israel. In the 5th round match with Bulgaria I was involved in an unfortunate incident. Playing Black against Krum Georgiev, I chose a sharp tactical variation of the Sicilian Defence (Karpov: ‘We advised him against doing this: in a quiet technical battle Kasparov would have had more chances’), but my opponent found a ‘hole’ in it. Roshal: 'The round lasted longer than usual, because a crowd gathered around the board of Garry Kasparov and Krum Georgiev, disturbing the other games (the English even made a protest), and the clocks on the neighbouring boards had to be stopped. After gaining a big advantage in a forcing variation, the Bulgarian master grew nervous in anticipation of victory and he unexpectedly committed, as chess players say, a "fingerfehler" - he picked up the wrong piece. Chaos ensued.’ Indeed, on the 21st move Georgiev wanted to regain the piece by Jlg5xe7 and only then capture the d6-pawn, but instead of this he immediately touched my d6-pawn, after which he should have taken it with his rook - and promptly resigned. But Krum did not do this: he quickly took his hand off the d6-pawn and played Axe7. Karpov, who was playing on a neighbouring board, later recalled: ‘Kasparov rightly demanded: touch - move! Georgiev denied it. A row broke out. Although there were no witnesses, the Bulgarian team unanimously took the side of their compatriot: one would think that they had all been looking only at this board. But I was in fact looking to one side and I saw nearly everything (besides, Georgiev is a poor actor - he sat hunched and uncomfortable, but on sensing support he gradually straightened up), but I was an interested witness, and a neutral one was demanded. I repeat: there weren’t any. And suddenly grandmaster Kirov brought up the Brazilian Lucena, the president of the Central American Zone. Here, he said, is a neutral witness who saw everything. And Lucena, without batting an eyelid, stated: yes, I saw everything; Kasparov is wrong. But I saw that at the moment when the rules were violated Lucena was a long way away and he could not have seen anything!’ To be honest, I did not remember who testified in my opponent’s favour, but to make a correct judgement on the situation it wasn’t necessary to have any witnesses: it was sufficient to look at Georgiev himself -it was all written all over his face! Roshal: 'After lengthy discussions, Lothar Schmid, the chief arbiter of the Olympiad, let this mistake go unpunished. In my view, the Soviet team acted with tact and magnanimity, but it protested against this decision by the arbiter.’ And this despite the poor start and problems in every match... After a lengthy, but, alas, hopeless resistance I lost. Fortunately, Tai crushed Radulov, and the match ended in a 2-2 draw. But the Hungarian grandmasters defeated USA 3-1 and increased their lead over the USSR team to two points. After this set-back, Baturinsky, the leader of the Soviet delegation, did not want to play me in the 6th-round match against the
Dutch, but I was eager to get even. Then Karpov said that I should play - and he was proved right. Game 46 G.Kasparov-G.Ligterink World Chess Olympiad, 6th round, Malta 26.11.1980 Queen’s Indian Defence E18 1 d4 2 c4 еб 3 5k3 b6 4 g3 (7) 4...Ab7 Ligterink usually used to employ 4...Aa6 - in the 8th round Speelman played this against me, and after 5 £bbd2 (later I switched to 5 b3) 5„.JLb4 6 Wb3 5кб?! 7 d5 JLxd2+ 8 Axd2 5k 7 9 Ac3 White seized the initiative. 5 Ag2 ke7 6 5k3 (12) It would appear that my opponent wanted to repeat some position from my game with Marjanovic (6 0-0 0-0 7 d51? -Game No.45), and so I chose a different path. 6...5k4 7 kd2 A quiet, positional set-up, new for me, which that day I played simply by intuition. 7....if 6 8 0-0 (2) An alternative is 8 Wc2 (Game No.99 in Volume V of My Great Predecessors). And soon an unclear gambit also appeared: 8 Scl Jlxd4! 9 5kd4! 5kc3 10 Jlxb7 5^xdl 11 Sxdl e5 12 5tf5 g6 13 5ig7+ Фе7 (Yusupov-Andrianov, Moscow 1981) or ll...c6 12 Jlf4 0-0 13 ±d6 le8 14 Лха8 Wc8! (Karpov-Salov, Rotterdam 1989). 8...0-0 9 lei 9...C5 To me this line seems strategically risky, as is 9-..d6 10 d5 5kc3 11 ЛхсЗ (Gheorghiu-Ligterink, Le Havre 1977) or 10...51)xd2 11 5ixd2! (Rashkovsky-Leibovich, Daugavpils 1978). More solid alternatives are 9...5^xd2 10 Wxd2 d6 11 d5 e5 (Torre-Karpov, Brussels 1987; Kasparov-Salov, Skelleftea 1989) or 9...d5 10 cxd5 exds 11 Jlf4, and here not 11...53xc3?l 12 bxc3 5k6 13 e4! dxe4 14 5kl2 (Kasparov-Ponomariov, Linares 2003), but the typical 11...53a6 and ...c7-c5. 10 d5 (2) The harmless 10 5ke4 Лхе4 11 ЛсЗ 5кб leads to equality (Petrosian-Portisch, 1st match game, Palma de Mallorca 1974). 10...exd5 11 cxd5 kxd2 12 kxd2 (7) 12...d6 (2) Black seems to have coped successfully with his opening problems. He has the two bishops and quite good prospects on the queenside. But with the next new and
unexpected move White reveals his trumps. 13 ^de4! White establishes his knight in the centre, in order to exploit its strength to prepare a pawn offensive and bind on the kingside (to some extent this resembles the game with Csom - Game No.39). In the event of the standard 13 ®c4 Даб 14 Wb3 Дхс4 15 Wxc4 аб 16 a4 £)d7 Black is indeed alright and there is a complicated battle in prospect (Karpov-Portisch, Tilburg 1988). 13...fle8?! (31) Not the best reaction: Black allows the exchange of his important bishop. 13-Де7 was more critical, although Ligterink possibly did not like the attack 14 f4 £>d7 15 g41 ®f6 16 5tf2! or 15...аб 16 a4 (Psakhis-A.Sokolov, Moscow 1981) - this theme was later developed by Karpov (Game No.97 in Volume V of Л/ly Great Predecessors). In the 1990s, following the example of van der Wiel, they also began playing 13-Де51?. But 13...®a6, which I recommended in The Test of Time, did not in fact become established in practice. 14 Wd2 (2) 14...аб?! (10) Again the move 14...Де7 should have been preferred. Ligterink does not sense the impending danger and he considers his position to be sufficiently solid. But, in defending the d6-pawn against attack by <£±>5, he has taken away a convenient square for his knight and weakened the b6-point. These drawbacks are emphasised by White’s following move. 15 b4! (15) Unexpectedly White begins play on the opponent’s traditional part of the board. This idea was suggested to me by the poor coordination of the black pieces and the possibility of an attack on the d6-pawn. 15».Де7 (14) A rather belated retreat, but nothing better is apparent, as the alternatives are weaker: 15...cxb4?l 16 £)xf6+ Wxf6 17 'йеА We7 18 Wxb4 ДхЬ5 19 Wxd6 We6 20 flfdl Axe4 21 Wxe6 fxe6 22 Дхе4 Йа7 23 Bd6, or 15-ДхсЗ?! 16 ДхсЗ cxb4 17 йеЗ with the threats of €ixd6 and W'xb4. 16 bxc5l (4) 16...bxc5 17 Wf4 (5) The main aim is not to allow the knight at b8 to come out. 17...Wc7? (10) Not yet realising what is going on, Black tries to bring out his knight to d7: if this should succeed, things will immediately be better for him. However, it was essential to play 17...Дс8! (17...Да7 and ...Да8 is more passive - there is nothing for the bishop to
do on the long diagonal) 18 h4 h6, restraining White’s offensive. Now, however, there follows a lightning attack. 18 4ba4l (3) With the threat of <4iaxc5. Black’s position is beginning to crack, and it all concludes amazingly quickly. 18...Wa5 (11) 18...Wd8 would not have brought any relief: 19 Sbl la7 (19-Axd5 20 Sfdl) 20 lb6 g5 21 Wd2 4id7 22 Sxd61. 19 Sbl! ^.xd5 (9) 20 £ib6 ^.xe4 21 A.xe4 lay It appears that things are not so bad for Black, but a powerful combinative stroke puts everything in its place. 22 <2bc8! Unexpected and very pretty: nearly all the opponent’s pieces are under attack. 22...4кб (6) 22...Дхс8 23 Wf5 Ad8 24 Wxc8 £)d7 25 Ac6 or 22...1c7 23 Sxb8 Af8 24 Hfbl was also hopeless. 23 ;xa7 4}xa7 24 id 5 Or 24 Wf 5! g6 25 Wd7- But as it was Black resigned (1-0), in view of 24...Ш8 25 Sb7. Times: 1.07-1.44. We confidently defeated the Dutch (3-1), but the Hungarians overcame the English (2У2-1У2) and retained a lead of one and a half points. In the 7th round the central match of the tournament, USSR-Hungary, took place. Our opponents fought to the death and quite quickly gained three draws (Csom accurately neutralised my attempts to complicate the play in a King’s Indian Defence), while Tai tried to disrupt the balance in his game with Sax and nearly lost. Alas, the match ended in a draw. At the previous Olympiad we had even beaten the Hungarians - and all the same we finished a point behind them... In the 8th round I won against Speelman and we defeated the English (2У2-1У2), while the Hungarians drew 2-2 with the Yugoslavs. But in the 9th round they crushed the Finns (3У2-У2), while we drew 2-2 with Czechoslovakia (I was rested that day). Five rounds before the finish the gap behind the leaders became critical: Hungary - 26 out of 36, USSR - 23У2. The question of first place seemed decided. But here the serious pursuit began! At last Karpov ran into form (at the start he had been slightly unwell), and our team genuinely united, whereas the Hungarians suffered something of a slump. 10th round: Hungary-Holland - 2-2;
USSR-lceland - ЗУ2-У2 (I beat Petursson with White). 11th round: Hungary-Czechoslovakia - 2-2; USSR-USA - 2У2-1У2 (I managed to overcome the highly experienced Shamkovich). 12th round: Hung ary-Romani a - 3-1; USSR-Argentina - ЗУ2-У2. That day I again had Black - against the 25-year-old master Sergio Giardelli. Game 47 S.Giardelli-G.Kasparov World Chess Olympiad, 12th round, Malta 3-12.1980 English Opening All The ‘sideways’ move 10 ®a4 would have run into 10...b6!, after which the knight has no future, and the pressure on the long diagonal can be neutralised by ,..^.e6-d5. 1 c4 c6 (5) My opponent regularly used to choose one and the same set-up with White: c2-c4, g2-g3, &g2, ®c3, e2-e3 and ®ge2. And I tried to exploit this, by displaying unusual flexibility. 2 £)f3 (3) A minor success for me: now the knight will not go to e2 (after 2 g3 d5 this would be altogether pointless). 2...g6 3 g3 ^g7 4 ±g2 2»f6 (4) 5 0-0 0-0 6 ^>c3 (13) 6...d5 (8) 7 cxd5 (5) 7-cxd5 (2) 8 d3?! (6) 8 d4 ^e4 would have led to a reasonable version for Black of the Grunfeld Defence. Not being an expert on theory, Giardelli preferred to proceed along unexplored paths. 8...«k6 9 Wb3 White tries to create pressure on d5 and b7, but this turns out to favour Black, who exploits the early development of the queen. 9 Ad2 was more sensible, although here too after 9...e5 10 JLgS ^.еб Black has no reason for complaint. 9-d4 (38) lO^bS (8) 1О...аб (5) 11<£>аЗ (7) If 11 Wa4, then 11../М5 is strong, forcing 12 <2}a3 h6 13 Ad2 Деб with excellent play for Black. 11...Б5 (8) The white knight has nevertheless ended up out of play, and the weakness of the long diagonal cannot be exploited (12 Wc2 Jib 7! 13 ®e5 ®b4 14 Wb3 <bfd5) - the opening has definitely gone in Black’s favour. 12 Jtf4 (8) 12...Ae6 (8) 13 Wc2 Sc8 14 Wd2 ^.d5 15 Ifcl ^d7 (9)
The preparations for the battle are complete. Now White has to hurry: if Black should succeed in playing ...e7-e5, ...We7 and ...5Л6, his position will become strategically won. But it would have been even better to leave the knight on f6: 15...Se8!? 16 £ic2 e5 17 Дд5 Wd6 with a very comfortable game. 16 <Shc2 (8) 16...e5 (15) The direct attempt to prevent the white knight from going to b4 by 16...a5 is not so successful, if only in view of 17 ^a3 Wb6 18 ^e51. 17 Д.Н6 (13) 17 JLg5?! f6 18 JLh6 is weaker in view of 18...JLxh6 19 Wxh6 ^b6 (when 20 e3? 4ha4! is bad for White) or 19--.‘2hc51? 17...We7 18 Axg7 (4) 18...^xg7 19 e31 (13) Since ®b4 is not possible, White brings his knight into play by another way, undermining the enemy centre. Marking time would not have worked well, for example: 19 a3?l ^c5 20 ®b4 l.xf3! 21 Axf3 £>a5 with an obvious advantage. 19...dxe3 If 19...W6 there could have followed 20 e4! Ae6 21 &b4 (21 ^sg5!?) 21...&xb4 22 Wxb4, when the weakness of Black’s queenside is rather perceptible - say, 22...±g4 23 4id2 Wb6 24 £>b3 or 23...Wg5 24 h41 and ^b3 with counterplay. If Black didn’t want to capture on e3, then 19...Wd6!? was better, retaining the initiative after both 20 e4 Ae6 21 ®g5 ^c5, and 20 exd4 exd4, despite the d4-pawn being somewhat weak. 20 4jxe3 (not 20 fxe3? Sfd8) 2O...J_xf3 21 ±xf3 <5hd4 22 ±g2 At first sight the backward d3-pawn and the powerful knight on d4 give Black a dear advantage, but White also has his pluses: a strong bishop, the weakness of Black’s queenside, and the possibility of exchanging knights (4ic2) or beginning a fight for the c-file (ЖсЗ). In short, the position is not altogether clear: with only one weakness for the opponent, the game cannot be won! And I began looking for tactical ways of solving the problems. 22...^C5 (5) 23 lei?! (5) Now 23 4k2 would have been parried by 23...Wd6, and 23 3c 3 by 23...£>a4. Consideration should have been given to 23 ^d5!? We6 24 b4 ^d7 25 <sfc>hl(fl). But Giardelli tries to exploit the weakening of the eSpawn. 23...Н5?! (4) The desire to exclude the threat of ®g4 was understandable. However, the imme
diate 23...Sfd8! was more accurate, since neither 24 £>g4 f6 nor 24 ‘4’hl £dc6 (24--Wg5!?) 25 ^d5 We6 26 <£>f4 Wd7 27 ®d5 Wg4 was at all promising for White. 24 Sad?! (5) This natural move, which also contains a trap (24-^cb3? 25 axb3 4^xb3 26 ^d5l We6 27 We3), is nevertheless not the best. 24 ®d5 was preferable: 24...®d6 25 Bad or 24...We6 25 f4 ^d7 26 Bad, and Black’s advantage is smaller than in the game. 24...Sfd8 (6) With the strong threat of 25...<£>xd3 or 25...£k(d)b3. 251C3 (7) White does not have a great choice. If 25 ФЬ1? Black has the decisive 25...^c(d)b31 26 axb3 £ixb3 27 £>d5 Sxd5< 28 Sxc8 (28 We3 Sxd3) 28...^xd2 29 Axd5 Wd6! 30 ±g2 Wxd3 31 Sc3 Wd4 32 Sdl Wa41, while 25 ?И5?! is now insufficient in view of 25„.We6, and the knight has to retreat. 25...W6?! (13) Not succumbing to provocation: 25...b4?! 26 Sc4 ®xd3?! (26...We6 27 Seel!) 27 Wxd3! ®f3+ 28 ^.xf3 Sxd3 29 Sxc8 We 6 30 Sc7 Wxa2 31 Ле2, when the three pieces are rather stronger than the queen, or 25...e4?l 26 £>c2 Wf6 27 4bxd4 Wxd4 28 Jlxe4 (but not 28 Seel? exd3) 28...£>xe4 29 Bxe4 Wxe4 30 dxe4 Sxd2 31 Sxc8 Bxb2 32 a3 Bb3 33 a4 bxa4 34 Sc6 with a drawn rook endgame. However, only 25-..^a4l 26 ®d5 We6 would have retained an appreciable advantage. 26 ^C2 (8) At last. Before this I spent a long time calculating 26 Secl(?). Analysis diagram 26...<£ixd3!!, and the black knights demonstrate miracles of mutual assistance: 27 Sxc8 &xcl 28 ^d5?l Bxd51 29 Axd5 Wd6! with gain of material, or 28 Sxd8 Wxd8! 29 <4>hl! (29 ifl £>xa2 30 b3 Wc7! or 30 ±d5 £>c6!) 29...Wc8! 30 a3 ^ce2 31 h4 a5 etc. In the event of 26 b4?I £ke6 Black would also have retained the advantage: 27 Sxc8 Bxc8 28 Wdl We71 or 27 £>d5 £if3+ 28 JLxf3 Wxf3 29 Sxe5 ^d4 with a powerful attack -30 Wb2 h41 or 30 We3 Sxc3 31 ^xc3 h41- 26 £)d5 £>f3+ 27 JLxf3 Wxf3 28 ®b4 looked tempting, but here too after 28...Wg4 29 a3 £>e6 30 We3 ^g5 White’s position is in danger. 26...Б4?! (4) Previously, not seeing a subtle defence for White on the 28th move, I attached an exclamation mark to this move. In fact it is
a mistake, conclusively throwing away the advantage. Too little was also promised by 26...e4?! (cf. the note to Black’s 25th move), or 26...<^f3+ 27 Axf3 Wxf3 28 Sxe5 £bxd3 29 Se31 £tf4 30 Sxf3 lxd2 31 gxf4 Sxc2 32 Дхс8 Жхс8 33 ЖаЗ Псб 34 Фд2 with а probable draw. Apparently I should have reconciled myself to a small plus after 26...£ke6 27 h4 £}xc2 28 Wxc2 £>d4 29 Wdl We6. 27 ^xb4! (4) Strictly the only reply. After 27 Hc4(?), which I recommended in The Test of Time, the thunderous 27...^e411 would have been immediately decisive (28 Ахе4 Дхс4, and 29 dxc4? is not possible because of 29...^f3+). 27...e4 Here I was already in severe time-trouble: 6 minutes for 14 moves. If 27...a5, then 28 Wcl! looks quite good. But now, as it seemed to me, Black has complete domination: his pieces control all the key points, and White would appear to be defenceless against the combined attack of the queen, rooks and knights... 28 We3? (3) Giardelli cracks under the pressure and commits a decisive mistake. 28 Wf4? was also bad: 28...Wxf4 29 gxf4 exd3, as was 28 Seel? exd3 (28...Wb61?) 29 Sei (29 Hxc5 <йе2+ 30 <4>fl <^xcl or 29 ^xd3 ^xd3 30 Wxd3 £>b3! is even worse) 29...<^e2+ 30 Дхе2 dxe2 31 Wxe2 £>a4! 32 Sxc8 Sxc8 33 ^d3 ЙЬ8 with a technically won ending. The only way to save the game was by the paradoxical 28 dxe41! (we didn’t see this either in our calculations at the board, or in analysis after the game) 28...4ff3+ 29 5xf3 Hxd2 30 Hxf6 *xf6 31 Scl! Sdd8! (White is better after 31-Sxb2? 32 ^>xa6 Sb5 33 JLh31 Нсб 34 ±d7) 32 ^d5+ with two pawns for the exchange and an immediate draw after 32...Фд7 33 ^e7 Bc7 34 <Sd5 ficc8 35 £>e7. 28...a51 (now Black’s onslaught becomes a hurricane) 29 ^>c2 White would not have been helped by either 29 Seel exd3 30 £kl5 (30 ^xd3 Se8!) 3O...^e2+ 31 S’fl We6 or 29 ®d5 lxd5 30 dxe4 Hdd8 31 Seel Wb6. 29».^xd3 (2) 30 Sxc8 Hxc8 The simplest. In all variations Black captures the more ‘senior’ piece. 31 Wxd4 (or 31 ®xd4 £>xel 32 Дхе4 Hc41) 31...Wxd4 32 £>xd4 &xel 0-1 Here too the e4-pawn is invulnerable: 33 i.xe4 Sc4. Times: 2.27-2.27. By crushing the Argentines, we performed a minor miracle - we caught up with the Hungarians! For the first time in the tournament there were two leaders. The status quo was maintained in the 13th round: the USSR-Romania and Hungary-Bulgaria matches produced the same result: 2У2-1У2. Before the 14th, last round the leading group looked like this: USSR and Hungary - 35Уг out of 52; Yugoslavia - 33; USA - 31У2; England and Czechoslovakia -31. On the concluding day public attention was focused on the matches in which the
fate of the gold medals would be decided: USSR-Denmark and Hung ary-1 cel and. At first the Hungarians went ahead - Pinter won against Hjartarson. Geller restored the balance by spectacularly crushing Hoi, but Portisch again gave his team the lead. Alas, I was unable to gain more than a draw, but Balashov won. However, Ribli beat Arnason. And just before the time control Sax cracked under the pressure and lost his advantage against Petursson. Thus the Hungarians won their match ЗУг-Уг and after ‘normal time’ they were a point ahead. But we still had the adjourned game Karpov-Jakobsen. The world champion’s opponent had real drawing chances, but he sealed an incorrect move. After the adjournment Karpov accurately converted his advantage into a win, and we again caught out rivals. Now it all depended on the Buchholz scores and, strangely enough, the destiny of first place was decided by the Greece-Scotland match. One team had earlier lost to us, and the other to the Hungarians, and the only thing that would suit us was a win for the Greeks by at least 3-1. I discovered this myself when, after finishing my game, I studied the table with the last round pairings. And I set off in search of this match, which was taking place in another corner of the endlessly long hall. A genuine drama was then played out. The Greeks were leading 1У2-У2, but in one of the remaining games they stood no better, and in the other things were altogether hopeless. In time-trouble, however, everything changed and in the adjourned games the Greeks could now hope to score 1У2 out of 2. During the interval I helped them with their analysis, which provoked dissatisfaction on the part of our rivals. But I think that the Greek masters would have been able to cope even without my help. On the resumption they won one of the adjourned games, after which everyone's attention was focused on the other. There was a moment when all of our team members, led by Karpov, were standing by the board of Georgios Makropoulos (incidentally, a future FIDE vice-president) and, with the most inscrutable faces of which they were capable, were mentally praying to themselves that he would advance his d-pawn. And he did so! The Greeks even won ЗУ2-У2, and by a minimal margin we finished with a better Buchholz score than the Hungarians (449У2-448). From the press: ‘Kasparov’s Olympiad debut proved extremely successful: the 17-year-old grandmaster demonstrated excellent fighting qualities and he made a substantial contribution to the team’s overall success.' After playing, along with Karpov, more games than anyone in the team - 12, I achieved the best score among our players - 'plus seven’. It could have been even more, but, after scoring 8У2 out of 10, I felt terribly tired and at the finish I made two draws with opponents who were obviously inferior in standard. Because of this I was just half a point short of taking first place on my board with the overall best result. Nikitin: “When Garry returned to Moscow he agreed with me that his performance at the Olympiad did not merit an assessment of more than four out of five. On the play he could well have scored another one or one and a half points, but the feeding and sleeping regime, to which adult professionals were accustomed, proved difficult for the young debutant. This factor, which had nothing to do with chess, led to increased excitability and, as a consequence, to a loss of easiness in his play and to time-trouble. In
addition, Garry did not always choose the correct opening... But on the whole he undoubtedly moved on to a new level. Kasparov’s brilliant performances provoked a chess boom in Azerbaijan. At the same time the epochal year of 1980 was the last quiet one for Garry, when he was able to think only about battles on the chess board.’ First Battle with the Champion Double-round match-tournament of USSR teams (Moscow, 22-28 February 1981): 1. First Team - 28У2 out of 48; 2. Youth Team -23У2; 3. Senior Team - 23; 4. Second Team -21. Tournament of top boards: Kasparov - 4 out of 6; Karpov - ЗУ2; Smyslov - 21/г; Romanishin - 2. By January 19811 was already rated sixth in the world and third in my country -2625, whereas the rating of the leader, Anatoly Karpov, was 2690. A month later the international association of chess journalists awarded Karpov the annual ‘Oscar’ - the prize for the best player over the past year; second was Korchnoi, the challenger to the crown, and for the first time I was placed third. We were rapidly converging - the world champion and the world junior champion. Flohr wrote about this: 'I think that in the near future Karpov and Kasparov will be meeting frequently, and sooner or later they will battle in a clash at the very highest level.’ The obvious reduction in the gap between us was apparently beginning to concern Karpov and his entourage. The first signs of this appeared in January. Nikitin: ‘From Moscow there came a sudden chill in the air: they demanded from us a detailed plan of Garry’s activities for the year, including those not concerned with chess. Never had the interest in his affairs been so com prehensive! Obviously it was not only the Sports Committee that had taken an interest in them...’ Something came to light at the end of February, at the match-tournament of USSR teams ‘in honour of the 26th Congress of the USSR Communist Party’, held in the enormous athletics hall of the Central Army Sports Club. Each of the four teams - first, second, veteran and youth - consisted of eight players. Among the participants were the world champion and four exchampions! The line-up of the first team was Karpov, Spassky, Polugayevsky, Petrosian, Tai, Beliavsky, Balashov and Geller, the veterans were led by Smyslov, Bronstein and Taimanov, and the second team by Romanishin, Tseshkovsky and Vaganian. Naturally, I was expecting to play on board 1 for the youth team, and this was also anticipated by most of the players. Unexpectedly the Federation officials began insisting that the player on board 1 should be either Psakhis, who had just shared victory with Beliavsky in the 48th USSR Championship (I did not take part in it: the Olympiad had taken too much out of me), or Yusupov - a prize-winner in two USSR Championships. But my rating was higher than all the members of the first team, apart from Karpov and Spassky, and significantly higher than any of my colleagues on the youth team. So what was the problem? And I realised that Karpov, playing on board 1 for the main team, simply did not want to play against me. There could be no other explanation! It ended in the members of our team demanding a democratic vote, to decide who should lead it. The officials did not like this, but they had no choice. In the voting it was important to formulate the question correctly: if we had been
invited to arrange all eight players by board and decide the first board on the sum of places, my rivals could have ‘killed’ me by putting me on a low board. But the trainers of the youth team, Anatoly Bykhovsky and Vladimir Tukmakov, asked a clear question: who should play on board 1? In the end I received five votes (Kasparov, Kochiev, Mikhalchishin, Lputian and Chiburdanidze) against three (Psakhis, Yusupov and Dolmatov). Nikitin: ‘Fortunately, this flash of youthful ambition did not have any unpleasant consequences: by the end of the matchtournament no one remembered that not long before Carry and his young colleagues had been at loggerheads.’ Thus Karpov and I nevertheless ended up facing each other on the chess board. But this occurred in the 3rd and 6th rounds, and at the start the ‘youths’ played the second team. My game with the Lvov grandmaster Oleg Romanishin, the author of numerous paradoxical opening ideas, took a very tense course and in the time scramble it resembled a battle on the edge of a precipice. Game 48 G.Kasparov-O.Romanishin Match-Tournament of USSR Teams, 1st round, Moscow 23.02.1981 Grunfeld Defence D85 1 d4 ^f6 2 c4 g6 3 ^c3 d5 4 cxd5 £xd5 5 e4 Qjxc3 6 ЬхсЗ Ag7 7 £>f3 In the early 1980s this attractive system almost supplanted other continuations, including even 7 -4x4 (Game No.72). 7...C5 (7...b6?! - Game N0.38) 8 АеЗ I also employed 8 Hbll? 0-0 (8...^c6 9 d51) 9 Ae2 W6 10 d51 (Game Nos. 76-80 in Revolution in the 70s), but I myself defended with 9...cxd4 10 cxd4 Wa5+ (Game No.40 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1986-87; Game No.82 in Revolution in the 70s). 8...Wa5 (5) In my game with Razuvaev (47th USSR Championship, Minsk 1979) I encountered the novelty 8...A,g4 and instead of improvising with 9 Wa4+ I should have fought for an advantage by 9 Жс1! 0-0 10 d51 Wa5 11 Wd2 (Game Nos. 65, 66 in Revolution in the 70s). 9 Wd2 £Yc6 The most accurate move order, as it transpired later, only after numerous searches. In the event of 9-0-0 10 ficl Black does not equalise fully with 10...Ag4 11 d5! (cf. above), or 10...cxd4 11 cxd4 Wxd2+ 12 £sxd2l (Game No.68 in Revolution in the 70s), or 10...еб?! 11 JLh6! <5k6 12 h4l (Game No.22 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1989-2009), or the modern io...Sd8 11 ds e6 12 Ags!?, when the threat of an attack (12...Ue8?l 13 d6 Ad7 14 Ah6! and h2-h4, Palo-Ivanchuk, Skanderborg 2003; Anand-Leko, Miskolc 2009) forces the weakening 12...f6 13 АеЗ (after 13 Af4 Wa4l for the moment Black holds on) 13...exd5 14 exds (Kramnik-D.Howell, London 2010). Also after 9...Ag4 10 Hbl! (threatening
lb5) 1О...аб 11 Sxb7 ±xf3 12 gxf3 ^c6 13 Дс41 0-0 14 0-0 cxd4 15 cxd4 l.xd4 16 ^.d5 Black has merely a poor choice from several inferior endings (Kramnik-Kasparov, 2nd match game, London 2000; Yermolinsky-Azmaiparashvili, Hyderabad 2002). However, 10...^d?!? is not so clear (Ciri-Nijboer, Eindhoven 2010). 10 S.C1 (2) If 10 Hbl, in order after 10...a6 11 Дс1 to exploit the weakening of the b6-square in the endgame, a clever queen sacrifice is possible: 10...0-01? 11 Sb5 cxd4 12 Hxa5 dxe3 13 Wxe3 ^xa5 (Game Nos. 72, 73 in Revolution in the 70s). 10...cxd4 (3) Later Black sometimes also tried the rather artificial 10...Ag4 11 d5 Sd8 12 Wb2 (12 Де 2 0-0 13 0-0 еб is equal) 12...ixf3 13 gxf3 ®d4 (Yusupov-Anand, 6th match game, Wijk aan Zee 1994; I.Sokolov-Topalov, Sarajevo 2001). 11 cxd4 Wxd2+ 12 'i’xdz Now White is forced to keep his king in the centre, and Black exploits this factor to create counterplay: after all, nearly all the pieces are still on the board! 12...0-0 (2) Obviously the next few moves should show what there are more of in White’s position - pluses or minuses. 13 d5 (5) Strictly speaking, this and essentially the next move is an interesting novelty, which Magerramov and I prepared in Baku just before this match-tournament (the idea itself had occurred to me the previous year). Against the developing 13 Jibs Black replies with a pawn sacrifice - 13...f5! (Sme-jkal) 14 exfs JLxfS 15 Лхсб (15 Hhdl Jte6 is equal, Chekhov-Romanishin, 48th USSR Championship, Vilnius 1980/81) 15...bxc6 16 2xc6 2ab8 17 ФсЗ Д.е4 (Platonov-Tukmakov, Tashkent 1980) or 16...2fb8 17 ФсЗ Sb6 (Seirawan-Mecking, 5th match game, Sao Paulo 1992) with sufficient counterplay thanks to the two bishops and the insecure position of the white king. 13...Hd8 (4) 14 Фе1! The crux of my plan! This unexpected move opened a new trend, one which is topical even today. White disconnects his rooks and loses a tempo, agreeing to a slight (temporary!) lack of harmony in the placing of his pieces, but he forces the black knight to leave c6 immediately, and each of its moves has drawbacks. 14...^a5! (25) This reply, which at the time staggered
me (in my home analysis I had discarded it ‘on general grounds’ - the knight moves to the edge of the board!), is today judged to be best, neutralising White’s plan. From a5 the knight deprives the white bishop of the c4-square and assists the undermining moves ...e7-e6 and ...f7-f5. After the ‘logical’ 14...£ie5?! things are much easier for White: 15 £>xe5 Дхе5 16 f4 Jld6 (or 16...Дд7 17 4>f2!) 17 <^f2 e5 18 JLcSl Axc5+ 19 Hxc5 exf4 20 ^3 with advantage (Kramnik-Leko, 1st match game (rapid), Budapest 2001). And in the event of 14...£>b4 15 Ad2! all the same the knight is forced to move to the edge of the board (15-^xa2? 16 Жс2 is bad for Black), although practice has shown that after 15„.£ia6 White’s achievements are only slight. 15 ig5 (35) After a solid think I found a way of confusing Black by attacking the e7-pawn. Nothing was promised by 15 ^.b5 f51 or 15 Жс7 еб 16 Ag5 Hd7, nor by the more justified 15 Ad2 b6 16 ±b4 еб! 17 Ae7 Sd7 18 d6 аб 19 Ad3 ±b7 20 fic7 Sxc7 21 dxc7 JLf8 (Cyborowski-Krasenkow, Warsaw 2002) or 15 Ad3 b6 (I5...e61?) 16 JLg5 (16 Фе2 еб!) 16...f6 17 Af4 f5 18 Ac7 Sd7 19 Ab 5 Ah6! (Ftacnik-Naiditsch, Bundesliga 2008). 15-..Af6 (17) An enterprising move, leading to sharp play. However, it soon transpired that 15...Ad7! is better, since 16 Лхе7?! is not a threat in view of 16...йе8 17 d6 Ac6 18 Ab5 Af8!, while after 16 Ad3 Bdc8 (it would appear that Dvoyris’s move 16...f5!? is even stronger, with the idea of 17 Sc5 Hdc8! or 17 e5 Ae8!) 17 Фе2 еб Black is quite alright (20 years later I myself played this against Kramnik - Game No.70 in Revolution in the 70s). Since then and to this day White has been actively seeking an advantage in other directions - say, 10 Hbl or 8 fibl. 16 Ad21? (27) 16 Axf6 exf6 17 Ad2 was quieter. Here Black’s doubled pawns could have twice attacked the centre - 17...f5 18 f3 fxe4 19 fxe4 f5, but White would have completed his development with 20 Ad3 fxe4 21 <йхе4 Af5 22 Фе2, retaining slightly the better chances. 16...b6 White has gained a brief respite. By luring the bishop to f6 he has forestalled the advance of the f-pawn and hindered ...e7-e6, but after the development of the bishop at b7 or g4 this undermining move will become a reality. So, for consolidation White has one tempo available. This is quite sufficient if he acts energetically! 17 2x71 At first sight White shows a frivolous lack of concern for his development problems, but in the struggle for the initiative he has already embarked on a slippery path, where it is not rules that have to be reckoned with, but exceptions to them. If 17 Ab5 both 17-Ab7 followed by ...e7-e6 and the immediate 17...еб! are good (18 e5? is not possible because of 18...fixd5!). The rook move is aimed against both these possibili
ties (17..Jib7?? 18 Axa5; 17...e6 18 e5). 17...Ag4! (20) With the obvious desire to punish the opponent. In The Test of Time I suggested that Black should have displayed caution and played 17...Hd7, although after 18 Ec2 or 18 flxd7 ixd7 19 Aa6 White would have retained a small plus. 18 Даб! (17) 18...e6! (19) The retribution seems imminent, but from this point the white pieces, although in a minority (without the rook on hl), display amazing resourcefulness. 19 ^g5! (3) Dynamic play: here the fight for an advantage is closely connected with safety concerns (after all, White is behind in development!). In the event of 19 Ag5 Axg5 20 £)xg5 exd5 21 <^xf7 Hd7 or 19 dxe6 JLxe6 20 e5 Дд7 21 Фе2 Лха2 22 Дха5 bxa5 23 Hal JLd5 24 Нха5 Hab8 the initiative would have passed to Black. 19...1.e5! (17) After 19...exd5? 20 £>xf7 Hd7 21 £bh6+ Фд7 22 Hc8! Black would lose material. 20 Sxf7! (4) White’s ‘inflatable castle’ has unexpectedly proved to be made of highly durable material. I think that this came as a surprise to Romanishin. 2O...exd5i? Black does not restrict himself to the modest 2O...h6 21 4jf3 Axf3 22 Hxf3 exd5 23 exd5 Hxd5 with hopes only of equalising after 24 Axh6 He8! 25 He3 b5 and ...®c4, or 24 Hd3 (Stohl) 24-Hxd3 25 i.xd3 Фд7, or 24 Фе2 Пе8 25 НеЗ Hxd2+! 26 <txd2 £f4. 21 f4! (12) This pawn is destined to play a leading role in the destruction of the black king’s fortress. 21 f3 A.c8! or 21 flxh7 dxe4 22 2h4 Ac8 (Stohl) would have been inaccurate. 21...±g71 (5) 21...Jld4? was weak because of 22 Hxh7, for example: 22...^c4 23 e5 He8 (with the threat of ...Axes) 24 h31, and the rook on hl is ready to join the battle without moving from its post (24...Axe5 25 fxe5 Hxe5+ 26 ^f2 Hf8+ 27 ФдЗ ^xd2 28 hxg4! etc.), or 22...dxe4 23 Axa5 bxa5 24 Ac4+ ФТО 25 Hf7+ ФеЗ 26 Ab5+ Ad7 27 Hxd7 Hxd7 28 <Sxe4 Hb8 29 Axd7+ 'A’xd? 30 Фе2! Sb2+ 31 4ТЗ Феб (З1...1ха2? 32 Sdl) 32 Hdl Фd5 33 Hd2, and again White wins. 22 f5! (10) An energetic move, intensifying the pressure. In The Test of Time I gave preference to the variation 22 h3 h6 23 hxg4 hxg5 24 Hc7 He8 (24...dxe4? 25 Axa5 bxa5 26 Ac4+ is bad for Black, as is 24...gxf4? 25 exd5 Hxd5 26 Axa5 or 25...Ae5 26 d6!) 25 Фf2! Hxe4 26 Ad3 with the initiative: 26..Леб (less good is 26...Hd4 27 Hxg7+ Фхд7 28 АеЗ ^c6 29 Ab5 or 2б..Ла4 27 Ахдб Hxa2 28 Af7+ Фf8 29 Фе1! £)c6 30 Hh7) 27 f5 Hc6 28 Hd7 £k4 29 Axg5 £te5 30 Hxd5 etc. But here I forgot about my own recommendation in Informator -22...Jlc8! 23 Axc8 Hdxc8!, and White has to seek a way to equalise (24 Hd7!?). Up until now Romanishin has played excellently, but here, already short of time, he makes a mistake.
22—dxe4? (10) It is easy to stumble in such a complicated, highly tactical position without any clear guidelines. After the best move 22...gxf5l I was intending to play 23 h3! lh5 24 Hxg7+ Фхд7 25 £>e6+ <4>f6 26 exf5 He8 27 g4 with good compensation for the material deficit after 27-.-Ji.f7 28 l.g5+! Фе5 29 ^c7 Sg8 30 lh4 laf8 31 &f2 and Sel+; however, as one of the readers of the magazine Shakhmaty v SSSR correctly pointed out, 27...Sxe6+! 28 fxe6 l.g6 and ...Фхеб would have got Black out of his difficulties. And in the endgame after 26 ®xd8 Sxd8 27 exf5 £>c41 28 g4 Se8+! 29 <±>dl JLf7 White’s chances of an advantage are also slight. The capture of the e4-pawn looks more promising, but nothing comes of it for Black. 23 lxa5! (5) 23 f6? did not work because of 23...1xf6! (23...Ih6!?) 24 fixf6 e31 25 1хеЗ Hdl+ 26 i>f2 Sxhl 27 <^f7 Фд7 28 ld4 ®c6! 29 fixc6+ <ixf7 30 fic7+ Феб! 31 lxh7 lei. 23-bxa5?! (2) Another error. The desperate 23-.e3? would have been refuted by 24 Дхд7+! Фхд7 25 1сЗ+ ФЬ6 26 W+ Фк15 27 ^xd8 Hxd8 28 i’fl! with the idea of 28...fldl+ 29 lei. However, things would already have been difficult for Black even after a more resilient defence: a) 23...1dl+ 24 4>f2 Sxhl 25 1.C4 Scl 26 Дха7+ Дхс4 27 Дха8+ lf8 28 £se6 <4>f7 29 Hxf8+ Фе7 30 lxb6 lxf5 31 lxf5! gxf5 32 ^d4, and the bishop and knight will overcome the rook; b) 23...gxf5 24 Де71, forcing the variation 24-Sdl+ 25 if2 bxa5 26 flxdl Ixdl 27 1с4+ ФЬ8 28 £)f7+ Фд8 29 <£Ш+ <4f8 30 Sf7+ Фе8 31 lb5+ ФхЬ8 32 ld7+ Фс8 33 Дхд7 ДЬ8 34 ld7+ *d8 35 Дд8+ Фс7 36 Sxb8 ФхЬ8 37 lxf5 with a won bishop endgame. 24 1x4 24... 1x3+ (4) In time-trouble Romanishin finds an amazing resource. He would have lost after 24...Sac8? 25 Bc7+ or 24-Ad4? 25 Дха7+ (25 lb3l?) 25...ДХС4 26 Дха8+ lf8 27 £>e6, while 24-Sdl+ 25 <i’f2 e3+ 26 ФдЗ le5+ 27 Фхд4 S,d4+ would have led to a position from the game. 25 *f2 e3+! 26 ФдЗ (but not 26 ФхеЗ? Id2+ 27 if2 lxg5 28 fxg6 hxg6 29 Uf4+ Фд7 30 Sxg4 Sd2+ 31 ФдЗ lf6 with equality) 26...1e5+ 27 <txg4 It was not possible to preserve the bishop on c4: 27 ih4? Sd41 28 Дха7+ Дхс4 29
Жха8+ Фд7 30 Жа7+ Фд8!, forcing 31 Ba8+ with a draw. 27...Bd4+ 28 ФИз! Bxc4 (Black appears to have beaten off the attack, but the f-pawn has not yet had its say) 29 f6 29...Axf6 White’s mating threats can be eliminated only at the cost of the bishop. There are also few chances of saving the game after 29...HC7 30 Жхс7 Дхс7 31 f7+ &f8 (31...ФЬ8 32 £be6 JLd6 33 Bel is even worse) 32 4be6+ &xf7 33 ^xc7 Bd8 34 Bel etc. 3OSxf6 Be8 31 Bel At this the line could have been drawn -but the miracles have not yet finished! Thinking my position to be won, I relaxed somewhat. 31...e2 32 Ag3?! A delay - it was simpler to pick up the e-pawn immediately: 32 Жеб Жхеб 33 ^Зхеб Жс2 (ЗЗ...Ве4? 34 £>д5) 34 а4 &f7 35 £tf4 Жс4 36 Фд4 Вха4 37 Вхе2 and wins. 32...Жа4 33 ^f2 Жха2 34 ^еб 34 Hf4 or 34 Веб Жхеб 35 £>хеб &f7 36 <?bd4 also deserved consideration. 34...Э4 35 ВЫ? (2) And this is already a serious mistake: the e2-pawn should not have been left alive. I was continuing to have illusions of mating finishes... 35 ^d4 would have won without any particular problems, for example: 35-.a3 (it is the same after 35.-a5) 36 Жхе2 Жахе2 37 £ixe2 a5 (37...a2 38 Жаб) 38 Bf3 or 35...'4’g7 36 Жаб! (my earlier recommendation 36 Bf3 is worse because of 36...a3 37 Жхе2 Жахе2 38 £ixe2 Bf8!) 36...flf8+ 37 4^f3 le8 38 Жха7+ etc. 35...a3! 36 lb7 (5) 36...elW+ Allowing White some practical chances. It was safer to force a draw from a position where Black is even slightly stronger: Зб...ЖЬ2 37 Bg7+ *h8 38 Be7 Bbb8 39 lxa7 Ba8 40 lxa8 Bxa8 41 ^d4 a2 42 £>b3 ЖЬ8 43 Ваб ЖхЬЗ 44 Bxa2 or 36...Bal 37 Фхе2 а2 38 Жд7+ ФЬ8 39 Вха7 Жд1 40 Hff7 (or 40 Bfl - Stohl) 4O...alW 41 Bxh7+
Фд8 42 Sag7+ Wxg7 43 Sxg7+ ФИЗ 44 Дхдб i>h7 45 Sf6 Дхд2+ 46 ФТЗ, and Black’s two rooks are unable to overcome the rook and knight. 37 Фхе1 Sxg2 38 Sg7+ ФИ8 39 2gf7 Threats to the king in time-trouble are especially dangerous, even if there is a possibility of parrying them. 39...h5 With his flag hanging, Black decides to clear the way for his king, not having time to notice that misfortune will strike from the g5- and h6-squares. 39.h6 was simpler, with a draw. 4O*fl 4O...Kxh2? A tragic oversight: suddenly the mating threats are transformed into reality. And yet only one move separated Black from safety, the last one before the time control - 4O...a21. After 41 Дха7 he could have unhurriedly decided that 41...Hb2? was bad because of 42 Sig5! Sbl+ (42...Де7? 43 Sf8+ Фд7 44 Sie6+ ФЬб 45 fih8+ and mate) 43 4>f2 fib2+ (43...alW? 44 Sh7+ Фд8 45 Дхдб+ and mate) 44 ФдЗ Bb3+ 45 Bf3, winning, but that 41...Bxh21 42 Дхдб alW+ 43 Дха1 Hhl+ 44 Hgl would lead to a draw. 41 Bxg6 (41 £>g51 lhl+ 42 Фд2 was more forceful, with a rapid mate) 41...Sxe6 41...a2 42 fih6+ or 41...Bhl+ 42 Фд2 Дд8 43 Дхд8+ Фхд8 44 Bg7+ and ФхЬ1 wins. 42 Дхеб Tg8 43 Ixa7 1-0 Times: 2.29-2.30. I may have messed up the finish of the game, but this win over a strong opponent, achieved in a fierce, uncompromising battle, inspired me. The mood in the team was also good - we won that difficult match 41/2-31A The next day, for the first time, I played one-to-one with ex-world champion Vasily Smyslov - previously we had met only six years earlier in a clock simultaneous display. During the years that had elapsed I had managed to surpass this legendary player on rating, but certainly not on experience. And, of course, I felt anxious when I sat down opposite him at the chess board. Came 49 V.Smyslov-G.Kasparov Match-Tournament of USSR Teams, 2nd round, Moscow 24.02.1981 English Opening A30 1 Stf3 c5 (3) 2 C4 2>f6 (6) 3 g3 (5) 3-..b6 (3) 4 ±g2 ±b7 5 0-0 еб 6 Sic3 Де7 7 b3 (3)
7 d4 cxd4 8 Wxd4 d6! would have led to a tabiya of the newly-fashionable ‘hedgehog’ system, which at that time, with the encouragement of Magerramov, I used to employ often and quite successfully (Game No.59). But in the later period of his career Smyslov endeavoured to play solidly, avoiding variations that were too unclear and tense. 7...0-0 (4) 8 l.b2 d6 Rejecting the ‘classical’ 8...d5, as occurred in the Smyslov-Karpov game played in the same match-tournament. 9 e3 (4) 9...^bd7 (4) 10d4(3) First 10 We2 a6 11 Sfdl is slightly more flexible, for example: ll...Be8 (ll...Wc7 12 Bad) 12 d4 4te4 13 4^xe4 Дхе4 14 ^>d2 Axg2 15 Фхд2 4ff6 16 Had Да7 Уг-Уг (Smejkal-Kasparov, Moscow 1981) or 13 Bad <£idf6 14 <£ixe4 Axe4 15 dxc5 bxc5 16 -Sjd2 Axg2 17 Фхд2 Да7 18 Wf3 Wb8 with approximate equality (Gelfand-Ivanchuk, Monte Carlo (rapid) 2004). 10...a6 (4) llWe2 (3) Black is happy with both 11 Bel b5! (Game No.55), and 11 d5 exd5 12 £>el b51 13 ®>xd5 £ixd5 14 cxd5 Af6 (Taimanov-Yudasin, Leningrad 1987) or 14 Axds Jlxd5 15 Wxd5 ®b6 (Malakhatko-Bunzmann, Zagan 1997). (20) Control over the light squares in the centre is the most effective means of counterplay. 12 Bfdl (6) Such positions promise a lengthy manoeuvring battle. This makes all the more surprising the changes which occur on the board within a short space of time. 12...Wb8?! (16) Here, apart from 12...Де8, transposing into a position from my game with Smejkal (cf. above), Black also has the simple 12...Wc7 13 Had <?3df6 with equality. But I suddenly wanted to ‘be a dare-devil’ - to enliven the game somehow! - and I allowed my opponent to carry out a combination with the win of the exchange. The consequences of this seemed to me to be not unfavourable for Black, but Smyslov quite reasonably judged the complications to be in White’s favour - and he accepted the challenge. 13 ^xe4 (8) 13...Дхе4 14 ^>e51 The critical decision. 14 £)el Axg2 15 £>xg2 £if6 16 Bad Wb7 would have transposed into the analogous drawn game Ehlvest-Portisch (Reggio Emilia 1989/90). 14...1.xg2 15 ®ixd7 Wb7 16 ®xf8 ±f3l 17 Wd3! Bxf8
Of course, not 17.-4.xfl? 18 Wxh7+ and mate. In sacrificing the exchange, I was counting on the strength of my lightsquare bishop, reckoning that it would play a leading role in the forthcoming battle. 18 Sd2 (12) 18 d5 was more cautious, but why return the exchange when no immediate dangers are apparent? 18...f5! The critical position, which is important for evaluating the exchange sacrifice. Objectively the situation favours White, but to demonstrate this, very energetic play is required of him. On reaching this position in my preliminary calculations, I thought that it would not be easy for Smyslov to readjust from unhurried manoeuvring to specific, calculating play. And that is what happened: the sharp change in the character of the play discomforted my illustrious opponent, and he catastrophically underestimated the potential strength of Black's threats. loss of time, and it would have been better to immediately open a ‘second front’ by 19 Дс31? Wa8 20 dxc5 bxc5 21 b4 or 19 a3l? with the intention of dxc5 and b3-b4. In this case it would have been more difficult for Black to transfer his pieces so quickly for the attack on the king. 19.,.Wc8 (24) I was terribly proud of this move (the threat is ...We8-h5) and I attached an exclamation mark to it, thinking that 19...Wa8 was weaker because of the breakthrough 20 dxc5 bxc5 21 b4(?l) cxb4 22 c5(?). However, the cool-headed 22...dxc5 23 Wd7 ®f71 would have left White empty-handed. Therefore 19...Wa8(c6) was at the least no worse, and may possibly have been better, since it would not have allowed the freeing advance 20 e4. True, after 20 аз! aS! (the immediate 2O...We8 is weaker in view of 21 dxc5 bxc5 22 b4 Wh5 23 bxc5 dxc5 24 Wfl) 21 Ac3 White would have continued to claim an advantage, but Black could have maintained the intensity of the play, relying on his powerful bishop. 19 lei?! (3) With the obvious intention of playing e3-e4 at a convenient moment, returning the exchange, but getting rid of the dangerous bishop and gaining some advantage thanks to my pawn weaknesses. However, this is a 20 Wc3? (24) White loses another important tempo and - most importantly - he allows the enemy rook to go to f6. If he did not want to open the queenside by 20 a31 etc., at the
least he could have secured clear equality by a breakthrough in the centre - 20 e4 fxe4 21 Дхе4, for example: 21...e5 (21..Лхе4?! 22 Wxe4 is unfavourable for Black) 22 ПеЗ e4 23 Жхе4 Wh3 24 Wxf3 lxf3 25 fixe? or 21...±g5 22 ЖеЗ! (22 lde2? e51, threatening ...Wh3) 22..ЛхеЗ 23 fxe3 and fif2 with a probable draw. But it was this that constituted the psychological paradox: it was not easy to give up voluntarily the material advantage and immediately force a draw! 2O...Hf6! (2) 21 a3? (7) Here there is no longer time for this. In his confusion Smyslov makes a third successive weak move, and Black’s attack becomes irresistible. 21 Wd3? We8 22 h4 (22 dxc5 Ш16) 22...Wh5! was also bad for White, but after 21 dxc5! bxc5 22 Wd3 e5 23 h4 he would have avoided an immediate rout, although 23...h6 and ...g7-g5 would have left me with a dangerous initiative. 21...We8! (2) It transpires that the awkward placing of the white rooks deprives their king of the last hope of escaping from the burning house, and the effectiveness of the Wc3 and Jib 2 is equivalent to zero. The concerted actions of the black pieces make for a swift rout. 22 dxc5 (7) 22...Wh51 (with the obvious threat of ...Wxh2+) 23 h4 (2) 23...Wg4 (or 23-.flg6! 24 e4 Axh4 and wins) 24 ФЬ2 (13) 24...bxc5! (2) Black does not rush: there is no defence. 25 Hhl (18) 25...1g6! (12) 26 Xgl ±xh4 27 Wa5 (4) Also after 27 Sxd6 Лхдз 28 Hd8+ <4>f7 29 4>fl Jlh4 it would all have ended. 27...h6 0-1 This is no worse than 27...Jlxhl or 27...We4. Times: 2.19-2.00. This game made a great impression both on the spectators, and on the participants. Taimanov asked in surprise: ‘How was it that, a clear exchange up, White lost so quickly?!’ Such dynamic play was unusual even for experienced fighters. This spectacular win made me the leader of the tournament on the top boards, and our team crushed the senior team by the record score бУг-Ц/г. On the third day my long-awaited meeting with Karpov occurred. The auditorium, which accommodated about three thousand spectators, was overcrowded: chess fans were impatient to see how our first encounter would end. Burning with a desire to genuinely test myself and my
powers, I arrived in a state of extreme concentration, ready for a difficult battle. Game 50 G.Kasparov-A.Karpov Match-Tournament of USSR Teams, 3rd round, Moscow 25.02.1981 Petroff Defence C42 1 e4 At that time I rarely made this move, and in my preparations I thought that a little surprise in my first one-to-one battle with the world champion would not do any harm: I wanted to catch him unawares. However, it was I who was in for a surprise... I...e5 2 &f3 Nikitin and I had prepared for the ‘Spanish’! As for the Petroff Defence, precisely at that time it had unexpectedly become very popular. Karpov was also beginning to master it - two rounds later he also played 2.../TT6 against Romanishin. Evidently he was testing this opening for his forthcoming match with Korchnoi (who occasionally employed the Petroff), and at the same he was beginning a gradual transition to different, simplifying systems, more solid than the 'Spanish’ and fully in accordance with his style. 3 ®xe5 d6 4 3 ^xe4 5 d4 -Te7 Also after 5-d5 6 Jld3 £>c6 7 0-0 Jlg4 the most energetic is 8 c41 (Game N0.67 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1975-1985; Game No.6 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1986-87). 6 JLd3 d5 7 0-0 (5) 7...^c6 8 Sei Here I did not yet have any new ideas, and the modern theory of this system was only just beginning to take shape. As it later transpired in our first match (1984/85), the immediate 8 c41 is better (Game No.100). 8...i.f5 While my opponent was thinking, I tried to remember our old analyses of the ‘obligatory’ variation 8...^.g4 9 c4 10 cxds (10 £ic3!? - Game No.34 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1975-1985) 10...^xd5 11 4^c3 with a slight advantage to White. We examined these positions a great deal in the 1970s, when preparing for games with Yusupov and Dolmatov. The idea 10...jlxf3! 11 Wxf3 Wxd5 (Game N0.32 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1975-1985) was not yet known: Smyslov introduced it in 1983. But Karpov made a newly fashionable move, which had been successfully employed by Hilbner in his Candidates match with Adorjan (Bad Lauterberg, 10th game, 1980). Black’s idea is to provoke as much simplification as possible. 9^bd2 (38) After a long think I decided to play solidly and follow Adorjan, although at the board I also studied 9 c4 ‘$Jb4 10 ^.fl, a possibility which I later mentioned to Nikitin. Already then I guessed that this was where chances of an opening advantage should be sought. This is slightly more favourable for White even than 8 c4 ^b4 9 Ae2: the position of the bishop on fl gives him half a tempo...
The plan with 9 c4l £±>4 10 Afl! was soon brought into practice by Karpov himself, who in 1982 won three opening duels against Portisch (cf. Game No.88 in Volume V of My Great Predecessors), and the move 8,..Af5 lost its attraction. 9...®xd2 10 Wxd2 l.xd3 11 Wxd3 0-0 12 c3 Wd7 (10) 13 ДТ4 White has a minimal advantage, but in such a symmetrical position he has nothing in particular, of course. Karpov probably thought that he would easily gain a draw: all that is required of Black is accuracy. 13...a6 An improvement. After 13...Sfe8 14 h3 a6 15 ДеЗ ДЬ6 16 <2^g5 g6 17 Axd6 Wxd6 18 Sael Wd7 19 £rf3 ДхеЗ 20 Wxe3 Hiibner did not gain clear equality, although the game ended in a draw. 14 ДеЗ (17) 14 ^e5 is no better: 14...Sb<e5 15 Дхе5 f6 16 ДдЗ flfe8 17 Де2 £f8 18 lael У2-У2 (Anand-Gelfand, Monte-Carlo (rapid) 2005). 14...Дае8 (7) 15 Дае! 5 d8! Another accurate move. After defending his c7-pawn, Black intends to begin exchanging the heavy pieces on the e-file. At this point Karpov offered me a draw, but after some thought I declined. And after the game I explained: ‘I never hear the audi ence, but here I suddenly noticed how many people had arrived for our game. And I realised that I did not have the right to betray their hopes - no, not of victory, but of an uncompromising struggle.’ 16 h3 (8) 16...ДхеЗ 17 ДхеЗ After 17 Wxe3 again 17...f6 was possible, but I did not like the activation of the black queen - 17...W5. In any case, it is hard for White to count on anything. 17. ..f6 (10) Seeing that after 17...Де8 there is the unpleasant reply 18 Wf51 Деб 19 h4, Karpov takes a more subtle decision - to exchange rooks by ...Hf7-e7. The advantages of it are obvious: the e5-square is now inaccessible to the white pieces, and the king has obtained a non-standard escape square. And the drawback - the weakening of the e6-square, where the black knight might have settled in order to suppress the pressure on the e-file - can hardly be exploited. 17„.£)e7 was also recommended, and it too would have led to inevitable equality, for example: 18 <йе5 Wf5 19 Sf3 We6 20 Wdl ^g6 21 ^xg6 fxg6 22 He3 Wd7 23 ДдЗ Дд5 24 Же5 ДТ6 25 Де2 lf7 26 а4 Де7. 18 Зе2 (29) Many years later, in a game with Leko
(Dortmund 1999), Karpov again went in for this position with Black and demonstrated its viability after 18 ^d2 ^e7 19 <2УЬз Wf5 with a quick draw. I8...IM7 (14) If 18...^e7 I was planning 19 b3 and c2-c4 (incidentally, in this way Karpov later broke up Korchnoi’s position in the 4th game of their match in Merano), for example: 19...C6 (19...Wf5 20 Wxf5 £>xf5 21 g41) 20 c4 Wf5 21 We31, but 2O...^g6 21 JLg3 1x7 22 Дхс7 Wxc7 23 g3 Wd7 and ... Ie8 is more consistent, gradually equalising. 19 £>d21 (4) 19...1e7 (12) Black evidently did not fancy the endgame with doubled pawns after 19...Де7 20 £>b3 lxe2 21 Wxe2 Ae7 22 Wg4! Wxg4 23 hxg4 ld6 24 Axd6 cxd6 25 £>cl <4>f7 26 £)d3, although here his chances of a draw are very considerable. But without necessity Karpov does not double his pawns - it is not in his style! 20 1 (4) Black has covered the c5-point, and so the knight changes course and goes to e3, where it will put the d5-pawn under fire. However, only with the opponent’s help is it possible to breath life into this symmetrical position... 2O...l.f8 (6) 21 Wf3 (6) 21...Se7? (4) A blunder - Black overlooks 23 l.xc7! (or in the variation 22 £}еЗ Йе4 - the move 23 <4’f 11). I remember that this staggered me: the world champion, and he made such an error?! Of course, he should have begun with 21...^d8 22 <£ie3 c6, maintaining approximate equality. Now, more than a quarter of a century later, I find my former optimism regarding White’s ‘active possibilities’ to be inexplicable: after 23 JLg3 Se7 followed by ...£)f7 Black has no problems. 22 <2ie3 (suddenly White’s advantage becomes apparent) 22...<^d8 Forced. There is no other defence against the threat of i’fl, winning a pawn: 22...Se4 23 ‘A’fl! (not 23 Axc7 Hxd4! or 23 Wg3 ^e71) 23...®e7 24 1.хс7 Sxe3 (24...1fxc7 is no better: 25 <2ixd5 ^xd5 26 Wxe4 S^f4 27 He3) 25 Wxe3 Wxc7 26 We6+ <4>h8 27 Wf7 Wd8 28 Жеб h6 29 c4, and a decisive breakthrough is unavoidable: 29-dxc4 30 d5 or 29...Wc8 30 c5 etc. 23 i.xc7l (5) 23...Wxc7 24 ®xd5 Wd6 (9) This gives better chances of a defence than 24-Sxe2 25 £>xc7 2el+ 26 Ф112 JLd6+ 27 g3 Лхс7, since here the coordination of Black's forces is disrupted and White begins advancing his pawns with 28 c4!, virtually forcing the win of a piece. 25 -Жхе7+ lxe7 26 We4 JLf8
A critical moment in the game. Now much depends on what plan White chooses. Alas, lack of time (and, of course, experience!) did not allow me to choose the best arrangement of my forces. 27 We8? Intending to restrict still further the mobility of the black pieces by the advance of the a- and b-pawns. However, this seizure of space is a fundamentally incorrect plan, since it makes c3-c4 more difficult, does not change the pattern of the position and in the end merely reduces White’s advantage. As often happens, the window of real opportunity for playing for a win was very narrow - exactly one move! White should have played 27 c41 and advanced his c- and d-pawns (not the a- and b-pawns). The creation of a strong passed pawn would have placed Black on the verge of defeat, for example: 27...b6 28 g3 2tf7 29 Фд2 дб 30 Sc2 (30 WdSl?) 3O...f5 31 W4! Wxf4 (31->c6+ 32 Wf3) 32 gxf4 <^d8 33 c5 bxc5 34 dxc5 £>e6 35 c6! id6 36 Hd2 Jlxf4 37 Sd7 and wins, or 27...£ic6 in the hope of 28 We6+ Wxe6 29 Жхеб if?!, but after 28 ld2! Black has a difficult position - 28...b6 (28...Wb4?! 29 Wd5+ ФЬ8 30 Же2) 29 аЗ a5 30 ld3! with the threat of c4<5, while if 3O...Wd7 or 3O...23d8, then 31 ЖЬз!. 27...g6 28 a4 After the belated 28 Де4 Фд7 29 c4 there was the resource 29-.b6!, when it is now difficult for White to break through: 30 d5?! a5 31 g3 Wc7 32 Фд2 A.C5 or 30 a3 a5 31 Wb5 W etc. 28...<*g7 (10) 29 b4 Wc7 (5) 30 ЖеЗ W (5) Black has competently regrouped, stealthily activating his knight. In this game Karpov once again showed himself to be an excellent defender, especially since, as it seems to me, he always preferred playing with minor pieces against rook and pawns. 31We6Wd8 (7) 31...JLd6 was also possible, but Karpov methodically carries out his plan, at the same time denying the white queen an excellent post at d5. 32 a5 h5 (4) 33 We4 Wd7 34 We6 Wd8 34...Wa4 is dangerous in view of the simple 35 g3l. White has carried out in full his planned program, and his pawns look well placed, restricting the black pieces, but now their advance involves the risk of losing material. 35 «fl A delay. However, it was hardly any better to play 35 Же1 JLd6 or 35 h4 2id6 36 g3 - here after 36...2Tf5 37 Же4 Wc7! (an important nuance) 38 Wd5 'йхдз! 39 fxg3
Wxg3+ 40 *fl Wf3+ 41 Фе1 Wxc3+ 42 4>f2 Jlxb4 43 Wxb7+ ФЪб 44 Wxa6 f5 45 #f6 Wd2+ 46 Де2 Wf4+ it all ends in perpetual. 35...^h6 36 g4?! I very much didn’t want to allow the knight to go to f5, but if such weakening moves have to be made, it is clear that the worst is over for Black. However, also nothing special was given by 36 g3 <5hf5 37 Bd3 ®h6 38 d5 Ad6! (38...W? 39 d61), for example: 39 c4 Jtxb4 40 d6 £tf7 41 d7 Лха5 42 Wd5 Wb6, and the d-pawn is halted. 36...hxg4 37 hxg4 £>f7 38 Фе2 In the centre, behind the barricade of pawns, things are more peaceful for the king than on the exposed kingside. But now the advance of the pawns becomes extremely difficult and one can talk about a situation of dynamic balance. 38...£ig5 39 Wb6 Wd7 40 <4d3 -ld6 41 Фс2 Here, instead of adjourning the game, I offered a draw: there had already been too much excitement! I regretted that I had not exploited the chance winning opportunity (although Karpov could have avoided allowing me it). My opponent also decided not to take a risk and he accepted my offer (Yz-yz). Times: 2.33-2.31. Nikitin: 'The first reconnaissance in force was a wonderful success. The world champion’s young opponent was not at all his inferior in a complicated, tense struggle.’ But that day our team was comprehensively beaten 6-2 by the first team. My second duel with Karpov also took a tense course and for all five hours it kept the spectators on the edge of their seats (Game No.3 in Kasparov v. Karpov 1975-1985). Flohr: ‘The game was played in the 6th and last round of the matchtournament. Karpov’s team - the USSR first team - was already assured of victory, and 262 Kasparov’s team - the youth team - was also assured of second place. But on this occasion too the tournament hall of the Army Central Sports Club was crowded with chess fans, and the outcome of the match, 4-4, was the result of an interesting struggle on nearly all the boards.’ The public’s enormous interest in the clash of the leaders was further raised by the fact that it would decide who would finish first in the individual competition on board one. I was leading in the mini-tournament, half a point ahead of the world champion: he was on 'plus one’ thanks to a win over Romanishin, while I was on ‘plus two’, having exchanged wins with Romanishin and twice defeated Smyslov. Thus Karpov could overtake me only by winning this game. But after interesting complications the result was again a draw. As soon as the game ended, spectators poured on to the stage, forgetting that on some of the other boards play was still in progress... Thus, somewhat to my surprise, I managed to score the most points on board one. Now Karpov could have been left in no doubt that in me he had a potentially dangerous opponent. At the closing of the match-tournament, the chairman of the USSR Chess Federation Vitaly Sevastyanov said (without, however, any particular enthusiasm): ‘We have witnessed the start of an interesting chess dialogue’. Viktor Vasiliev: ‘By any standards Anatoly Karpov is still young: the age of 30 is a golden one for a chess player. But already eyeing the champion’s crown are opponents who are still young, even for the age of acceleration. Who knows, perhaps in talent and ambition - also an important trait -18-year-old Garry Kasparov is not inferior to Fischer? But in education and breadth of intellectual development he has certainly
surpassed the 18-year-old Fischer. Both games between Karpov and Kasparov were awaited as the central events of the matchtournament, and both fully justified the waiting... Kasparov’s boldness, his selfconfidence, liveliness of thought and finally, his audacious eagerness for a fight with his formidable opponent - all this made a big impression, to say nothing about the honourable outcome. Two draws in two tense battles with the world champion, for whom a win in one of them would have given the best result on board 1 - the youngster can be proud of this.’ Moscow ‘Tournament of Stars’ International grandmaster tournament (Moscow, 4-24 April 1981) 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 1 Karpov * Z Z 1 Z Z 1 1 z z z 1 z 1 9 2 Polugaevsky z * z z z z Z z 1 z z z 1 z 71Л 3 Kasparov z z * z z z 1 z 0 z z z 1 1 7'A 4 Smyslov 0 z z * z z 1 z z z z 1 1 z Th 5 Gheorghiu z z z z * z z z z z z 1 z z 7 6 Portisch z z z z z * 0 z z 1 1 0 1 z 7 7 Beliavsky 0 z 0 0 z 1 * z 1 1 z z z z 6У2 8 Balashov 0 z z z z z z * z z 1 0 z 1 6У2 9 Petrosian z 0 1 z z z 0 z * z z z z z 6 10 Andersson z z z z z 0 0 z z * z z z 1 6 11 Smejkal z z z z z 0 z 0 z z * 1 0 z 5У2 12 Timman 0 z z 0 0 1 z 1 z z 0 * 0 1 5У2 13 Torre z 0 0 0 z 0 z z z z 1 1 * z 5’/z 14 Geller 0 z 0 z z z z 0 z 0 z 0 z * 4 My success in the February parade of game (and then the games with Portisch USSR teams became the decisive argument and Timman) highlighted the problems in favour of my inclusion in the ‘Tourna- that were still present in my opening ment of Stars’, held in the spring of 1981 in repertoire, which was not yet fully devel- the prestigious International Trade Centre oped. in Moscow. This super-tournament, with the participation of the world champion, two ex-champions and a further eleven Came 51 well-known grandmasters from seven A.Beliavsky-G.Kasparov countries, was my first serious test at world Grandmaster Tournament, level. 1st round, Moscow 4.04.1981 At the start 1 was paired with Black King’s Indian Defence E83 against one of the favourites - the two- time USSR champion Alexander Beliavsky. 1 d4 6 2 c4 g6 3 2)c3 £g7 4 e4 d6 5 f3 0-0 And although it all ended well for me, this (З-.'йсб - Game Nos. 12,15) 6 АеЗ 4k6
These moves were made rapidly: my opponent always chose the Samisch Attack, and at that time I played the variation with the development of the knight at c6. But two years later I surprised Beliavsky with the gambit 6,..a6 7 ids c5 (Game No.81), while in the 1990s I gave preference to 6...e5 7 d5 c6 or 7 ®ge2 c6 8 Wd2 <Sjbd7 (Game Nos. 36, 38 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1989-2009). Strangely enough, on the next two moves White spent more than 40 minutes. 7 Wd2 (21) An alternative is 7 £sge2 аб 8 £>cl e5 9 d5 £>d4 10 £>b3 £bxb3 11 Wxb3 c5 (ll...^d71? 12 0-0-0 f5, Salov-Dorfman, 51st USSR Championship, Lvov 1984) 12 dxc6 Ьхсб 13 0-0-0 We7 (13...JLe6?l is worse: 14 Wa31 £ie8 15 h41, Spassky-Korchnoi, 7th match game, Kiev 1968) 14 Wb6 Jlb7 15 g4 lab8 (15...Sfd81?) 16 h4 fifc8? (16...1fd8 is correct with the idea of 17 h5 d51 18 Jlc5 We8) 17 h5. Analysis diagram etc.) 19...A.xd5 20 £>xd5 We6 21 Wa7 (21 Wa5 Sb51) 21...1a8 22 Wb7 (White almost played 22 ^c7?, but at the last moment he noticed the stunning 22...Wxc4+!) 22...ДаЬ8 with a draw (Timman-Kasparov, 5th round). 7...a6 (2) 7...Sb8 8 £>ge2 Йе8 is hardly any better -in the event of 9 £lcl e5 10 d5 ^d4 11 ‘ЙЬЗ c5 12 dxc6 Ьхсб 13 ^xd4 exd4 14 Axd4 d5 (both black rooks are involved!) or 9 d5 ®e5 10 ®g3 e61? 11 ±xa7 Sa8 12 JLe3 exd5 13 cxd5 c6 14 dxc6 Ьхсб 15 Jle2 h51 (Akopov-Kasparov, Baku 1978) Black has good play for the pawn, but 9 0-0-01 or 9 h41 is stronger. 8 <^ge2 (21) 8...йе8?! (17) I wanted to take the game away from the familiar paths, but this, as it later transpired, is a dubious manoeuvre. It looks to be a waste of a tempo and does not give any pluses compared with the usual continuation 8...Sb8 9 4kl e5 10 d5 £>d4 or 9 h4! b5 (9...h5 is more risky) 10 h5, where I have had experience for both sides (Game No.87). 17...£>d5?! (a desperate chance; 17-d5 18 Лс5 favours White) 18 exd5 cxd5 19 Hxd5? (19 cxd51 would have refuted Black’s idea: 19-..Jlxd5 20 Wxb8! and ^xd5, or 19-.e4 20 hxg6 hxg6 21 Wa5 exf3 22 ±a7 Sa8 23 ±f2 9 £>cl (8) A solid positional move, opening the way for the bishop on fl. However, here too the sharp 9 h41 is good: 9-h5 (now 9-b5 is a dubious pawn sacrifice) 10 0-0-0 b5 11
£>d5! bxc4 12 <$ixf6+ JLxf6 13 g4! hxg4 14 h5 g5 15 Лхд5 e5 16 Axf6 Wxf6 17 fxg41 exd4 18 g5 Wf3 19 g6! with a dangerous attack (Lautier-Piket, Cannes 1990). 9...e5 (3) 10 d5 (10 4ЛЗ is weaker: 10...exd4 11 £>xd4 ^e5 12 Ле2 c5 13 £>c2 Леб) 10..Ad4 11 £>le2 (10) In his desire to exchange the knight on d4 in the most convenient way, White grants the opponent an additional possibility. After 11 'ЙЬЗ! Black would have had to choose between the dubious pawn sacrifice 11...c5 12 dxc6 Ьхсб (12...<йхс6?! 13 fldl! -Stohl) 13 ,$jxd4 exd4 14 Jlxd4 d5 (at the time it appeared that Black had quite good compensation for the pawn, but I did not greatly believe this) 15 cxd5 cxd5 16 Jlxf6 Jlxf6 17 ^xd5 ЛхЬ2 18 ДЬ1 Ле5 19 Лс4, and an inferior game after ll...£>xb3 12 axb3 c5 13 g4 or, according to Stohl, 13 b4l cxb4 14 ^a4. However, after 11 <?hle2 White’s chances are also slightly better - for the reason that 8...Де8?! was played instead of 8...ДЬ8. 11...C5 (24) 12 dxc6 £ixc6 (2) This reply, which is bad with the knight on b3, is logical here: because of his retarded development it is hard for White to quickly exploit the defects in Black’s position. 13^d5l (17) The most energetic: the threat of ЛЬ6 sets Black a difficult choice. The routine 13 Hdl would have allowed him to develop his forces comfortably with 13...Ле6. At this moment Beliavsky looked very happy with his position. For my part, I established a personal record for the thinking time over one move, which I broke only in the 2nd game of my fourth match with Karpov (1987). In the event of 8...ДЬ8 there would have been the simple reply 13...b5 with equality, but what to do now? 13...b51? (68) I needed more than an hour to convince myself that passive defence (with the rook on e8!) was unpromising after 13...^xd5?! 14 cxd5 ®b8 (14...£>e7 15 ®c3) 15 h4 h5 16 0-0-0 or 13...£>d7?l 14 h41, and to decide on an exchange sacrifice with the hope of exploiting White’s retarded development. Alas, although this audacious move, to which I previously attached only an exclamation mark, did disconcert my opponent, a move underestimated by me was objectively better: 13...Леб! (natural development!) 14 ЛЬ6 Wd7 15 *^c7 Лхс4 16 ®c3 Леб! 17 Ле2 <Sd4 18 £ixa8 Дха8 19 0-0 Wc6 with quite good piece play, although after 20 Jlxd4 exd4 21 <5^dl White retains a minimal plus: he is after all the exchange up! 14 ЛЬб (14) Beliavsky picks up material, assuming that Black’s activity will prove temporary. In The Test of Time I recommended that White should ‘decline the Greek gift, and, in view of Black’s approaching time-trouble, follow a positional course - 14 ®ec3, although after 14...^d4 15 ^.d3 (15 ®xf6+ Jlxf6 16 cxb5 axb5 17 ЛхЬ5 JLh4+! with good compensation for the pawn) 15...Леб Black would have retained a good game.’ How
ever, 15 cxb5! axb5 16 JLxbS! is stronger: 16...£>b3 17 ДЬб, or 16..Zbxd5 17 l.xd4! exd4 18 ^xd5 with advantage to White (Stohl). On the other hand, after 14...®xd51 15 ®xd5 Eb8 16 Ad3 <bd4 17 0-0 Леб 18 Had Wd7 and ...Дес8 Black does indeed have an almost equal game. 14...'S'd7 15 £>c7 (2) At first sight, 15 cxb5 axb5 (15-^xd5? 16 bxc6 Wxc6 17 Wxd51 and wins) 16 £>c7 ЛЬ7(?) 17 Stdl! is much stronger, when Black will definitely not have sufficient compensation for the exchange. However, 16...Eb8! 17 ^xe8 Wxe8 leads to an unclear position, which could also have arisen in the game (cf. the note to White's 17th move, variation 'c'). 15..J ’b8 (12) 16 -Txe8 Wxe8 Here Beliavsky thought for a long time: White has a wide choice of tempting continuations, but everywhere Black has considerable resources. 17 Лез?! (23) Trying to avoid all dangers, White decides in the first instance to evacuate his king from the centre, but during this time Black picks up a pawn and activates his pieces. Let us consider the other options: a) 17 c5 Eb71? (17...dxc5 18 Лхс5 Леб is simpler, but not 17...^d7?l 18 Лс7 dxc5 19 ЛхЬ8 zWdxb8 because of 20 h41) 18 Wxd6 Лf8 19 Wd2 (19 Wxf6? Ле7, and the queen is trapped) 19.-Леб 20 <^c3 ^d7! (but not my earlier move 2O...fld7(?) because of 21 We31) 21 ®d5 Axd5 22 exd5 £id4 23 Ла5 <£ixc5 24 b4 ^a4 25 Ad3 Sd7 26 0-0 flxd5 with a pawn for the exchange and excellent play; b) 17 Лс71? Bb7 18 ЛхЬб bxc4 19 ЛаЗ (19 fldl!? and Wcl) 19...Леб, and now not 20 £)c3?l Ed71, but 20 Edl or 20 0-0-0 with a material advantage - but still with development incomplete; c) 17 cxb51? when I thought that 17...Exb6(?l) 18 Ьхсб d5 (18...Дхеб 19 ^c3) ‘gives Black counterplay’, but after 19 exd5 e4 20 Дс1! (Stohl) he cannot cope with the white pawns. There only remains 17...axb5 18 ЛеЗ (18 Af2 b4 19 Ecl is possibly more accurate) 18...d51 19 exd5 £>d4 20 *f2!? (20 Лxd4 exd4 21 Wxd4 ЛЬ7 or 20 £)c3 b4 21 zWe4 £}xd5 22 Ad3 £ixe3 23 Wxe3 b3 is no better for White) 2O...£)f5 21 £k3 e4l? (a bayonet thrust; if first 21...Wd8, then 22 a3l) 22 Ле2 (at last; 22 Af4 £>h51?) 22...exf3 23 Axf3 b4 24 £>e2 ЛЬ7, and the ‘holes’ in the opponent’s position promise Black counterplay, for example: 25 Лд5 ^e4+ 26 Лхе4 Wxe4 27 Wf4 We8 28 g4 h6 etc. 17...bxc4 18 Tc3 (2) 18...Ae6 (2)
19 &e2(5) A psychologically difficult moment: White reconciles himself to the loss of his advantage. From afar my opponent had been intending the critical 19 £>d5, but here he noticed a spectacular further sacrifice: 19...®xd51 (19-^xd5 20 exd5 c3! 21 Ьхсз ®d4 22 Дс4 Wc8 or 21...£)e7 22 JLc4 Wa4 is also acceptable) 20 exd5 e4 21 dxe6 Wxe6. For the rook Black has just two pawns, but he has a big lead in development, a pawn avalanche in the centre and strong concrete threats: 22 fibl? is bad because of 22...c3, it is also dangerous to play 22 gel?! d5 (Stohl) 23 b3 exf3 24 &f2 c3l 25 ДхсЗ d4, while after the countersacrifice 22 ±xc4 Wxc4 23 gel Wb5 White is thinking only of maintaining the balance. This unexpected discovery disturbed Beliavsky, and he preferred the quiet 19 Де2. 19...-d4 Now Black has a pawn for the exchange and a comfortable game. 20 0-0 Not 20 Jlxd4? exd4 21 Wxd4 ^d5! 22 Wd2? fixb2 and wins (Stohl). 20 fid (an attempt to prevent ...d6-d5) is hardly any better than the move in the game: 2O...fib7 21 0-0 Wb8 22 fibl d5 (nevertheless!). 2O...d5 21 exd5 (4) 21...S xd5 22 4bcd5 JcxdS Black has the more active pieces, especially the knight on d4, which is not so easily dislodged from its powerful outpost (23 f4? ^xe2+ 24 Wxe2 exf4 25 Hxf4 Sxb2). However, White has some material advantage and there are no obvious weaknesses in his position, and so the situation is one of dynamic balance. 23Hf2 (7) 23...h5 (3) Not bad, although 23..Леб 24 Hcl Wa4 was also possible, after which there could have followed 25 Jtxc4 Axc4 26 b3 £b<b3 27 axb3 Wxb3 28 Jlh6, or even 25 Jtxd4 exd4 26 Axc4 Axc4 27 b3 jlxb3 28 axb3 Wxb3 29 f4 with simplification and a probable draw. On the first 23 moves the two players had used nearly all their time, and now both had about 10 minutes, or perhaps even less, left on their clocks. It is this that explains the subsequent uneven play and White's fatal mistake on the 28th move. 24 fid We6 25 Afl (3) 25...И4 The plan involving the advance of the h-pawn looks tempting (especially in time-trouble), but 25...#tf5 should perhaps have been played, although after 26 Hdl the evaluation of the position would not have changed.
26 Hel ®c6 Here too I recommended 26...^f5, although the approximate variation 27 Hdl e4 28 Aa7 e3 29 Wxd5 exf2+ 30 Axf2 Wxd5 31 Sxd5 Sxb2 32 Axc4 Sbl+ 33 Afl Ah6 34 Йе5 leads to a drawn endgame. 27 Ah6 This does not yet spoil anything, but 27 f41 was more energetic, driving back the knight: 27...£tf5 (if 27-.Af8 28 fxe5 £tf5, then 29 Sxf5!) 28 fxe5 (28 Sdl e41?) 28...^xe3 (28...Axe5 29 Sxf51 gxf5 30 Ad4! Axd4+ 31 Wxd4 Wb6 32 1е8+ ФЬ7 33 Sh8+ Фдб 34 Дд8+ with perpetual check) 29 fixe3 (29 Wxe3 is somewhat weaker in view of 29.-A.f8!) 29...Ah6 30 e6! Wc5 (3O...Axe6? 31 Жхеб!; 3O...f5 31 e7 is equal) 31 exf7+ Axf7 32 le8+ Hxe8 33 Wxh6 le4 34 Wd2 with a draw. The practical advantage of 27 f4 was that Black could no longer have 'marked time’, as in the game: he would have had to make a choice and take some decision, and to calculate all these variations with just 4 minutes for 14 moves was not easy... True, Beliavsky’s time-trouble was much more serious. 27...АИ8 Of course, the important bishop has to be retained. 28 f4?? But now this active move, made at the most inappropriate moment, leads to disaster: Black creates an ultra-powerful passed pawn. 28 h3!, defending against the threat of ...h4-h3, was essential. I over-optimistically thought that ‘even then Black’s advantage is obvious'. In fact White has a fairly solid position and one can still talk about a dynamic equilibrium. 28...e4 (the point!) 29 Sdl Ae6 Or 29...e3!? 30 Wxe3 31 Wd2 Ad4 and wins (Stohl). 30 f5 In the event of 30 AgS ®f5 the black pawn would have advanced unhindered to e3, making White’s resistance hopeless: 31 Wa5 *h7! 32 Sd8 Sxd8 33 ®xd8 e3 34 He2 We4 35 Af6 Axf6 36 Wxf6 Wxf4 and wins. To somehow coordinate his pieces, Beliavsky sacrifices a pawn, but he is no longer able to change the course of events. 3O...* :xf5 31 Wf4 Se8 (3) 32 Ifd2?! Now the stray bishop is lost. However, 32 AgS e3 (Stohl) or 32...h3 could also not have satisfied White. 32...Wc5+ 33 4hl Ae5 34 Wg5 ФН71 Here White could have resigned, but at this point the players had only one minute left between them!
351d8?!lxd8 36Sxd8 З6..Ж2! (an unpleasant interposition) 37 Hdl йхИб 37-..Ad4 (Stohl) or 37-.e3! was much stronger, but the capture of the bishop does not spoil anything. 38Й'хе5 e3 (38...£>g41? 39 Wxe4^e3) 39Wc3 39 h3 JLxh3 40 gxh3 Wf3+ 41 Фд1 £)f51 was also hopeless for White. 39...ИЗ 40 Wei $jg41 The strongest move (although 4O...e21? 41 Wxf2 exdlW would have been more spectacular). The time control was reached, and White resigned (0-1): ...e3-e2 is threatened, and if 41 Hcl, then 41...Jld5 42 Wxf2 exf2 and ...<^e3, mating. Times: 2.41-2.29. In the 2nd round with White against Gheorghiu I gained a clearly better endgame. With rooks on the board, the presence of opposite-colour bishops merely aggravated the problems for Black, who had positional defects. However, with my 39th move in time-trouble I lost the greater part of my advantage, and immediately after the time control I made another 'weak move’: instead of adjourning the game and seeking ways to win, I offered a draw, which Gheorghiu joyfully accepted. Later, observing how grandmasters seek the slightest chances in dead-drawn positions, I frequently regretted making such a hasty peace offer... In the 3rd round, not without some difficulty I gained a draw with Portisch, and in the 4th I defeated Torre with White. By that time the leading group had emerged: Karpov - ЗУ2 out of 4; Kasparov and Smyslov - 3. In the next three rounds my rivals restricted themselves to draws, and I gained a real chance of catching the world champion, by achieving two draws with Black, against Timman and Smyslov (precisely on my 18th birthday), and adjourning my game against Andersson with excellent winning chances, although here too I slightly let my opponent off the hook with my time-trouble 39th move. However, the resumption was due to take place only after the 8th round, in which for the second time in my life 1 met at the board with ex-world champion Tigran Petrosian. After our joint trip to Banja Luka we were on excellent terms, and Nikitin and I had several times visited him for creative discussions. But on that April day I was thirsting for victory both in the game, and in the tournament! Later, after being given a masterful lesson in defence and counterattack, for a long time I was reminded of a light-minded d’Artagnan, eagerly galloping to conquer Paris, but on the way suddenly encountering the hardened and cunning ‘stranger from Meung’... Game 52 G.Kasparov-T.Petrosian Grandmaster Tournament, 8th round, Moscow 14.04.1981 Queen’s Indian Defence E12 1 d4 ^f6 2 c4 еб 3 3 b6 4 a3 (following
the example of Petrosian himself!) 4...Ab7 (4-.C5 - Game Nos. 32, 68) 5 £>c3 d5 (5...^e4 - Game No.61) 6 cxd5 £)xd5 7 e3 The alternative is 7 Wc2 (Game Nos. 73, 75, 98). 7...Ae7 8 Ab5+ c6 9 Ad3 5xc3 (4) 10 bxc3 c5 (10...£id7 - Game No.43) 11 0-0 (9) 11...0-0 (4) As is well known, ll...£>c6! (Game No.85) is more accurate. Now White succeeds in weakening the black king’s defences. 12 Wc2! (8) 12,..g6 After 12...h6 13 e4 "5jc6 14 Ab2 Дс8 15 We2 ?Ja5 16 Hadi cxd4 17 cxd4 White also has some advantage (Ribli-Hort, Germany 1991). 13 e4 (9) 13...^c6 (11) 13...Wc7?! is weaker: 14 We2 Hd8 15 h4! <Sk6 16 JLe3 Af6?l 17 e5 Ag7 18 h5 with an attack (Polugayevsky-Petrosian, 10th round). 14 Ah6?! (14 Ae3 is correct) 14...Se8 15 Hfdi (2) 15...Wc7?! (11) It definitely made sense for Black to part with the exchange: the endgame after 15...cxd4! 16 cxd4 £>xd4 17 £>xd4 ®xd4 18 Ab5 Wxe4 19 Wxe4 Axe4 20 Axe8 Hxe8 21 Hd7 a5 22 a4 (22 Ae3 b5 23 Hcl? is parried by 23...Axa3 24 lcc7 Ab2! 25 Sxf7 b41 26 Hxh7 Ae5 27 Hce7 Sb8) 22...Ac5 would have promised him every chance of a draw. 16 We2 (6) 16...Hed8 (6) 17 We3! (6) In connection with e4-e5 and h2-h4-h5, White’s position begins to look menacing. 17...e5! (12) If 17...Hd7, then 18 Ab5l is unpleasant, keeping Af4 in reserve. At the cost of positional concessions, Petrosian suppresses the incipient attack. 18 d5 (58) On this one obvious move I spent nearly a whole hour! I very much wanted to exploit the opening of the a2-g8 diagonal by playing 18 Лс4?! exd4 19 cxd4 cxd4 20 Axf7+?! ®xf7 21 Wb3+, but after 21...Фе8 22 Wg8+ (22 e5 Af8l; 22 Had Wd6!) 22...4^7 23 Wxh7 ®c8 24 Wxg6 Wd6 nothing worthwhile would have come of it. Too much time was wasted in vain, and I soon had cause to regret this. 18...^a5 19 c4!? (3) This weakening of the d4-point gives Black counter-chances, but after 19 ^g5 c4 20 Ae2 it is also not easy for White to gain any real advantage: 2O...Ac8 21 Wg3 f6 22 £if3 4Л>3! (22...Af8?! is inferior: 23 Axf8 Hxf8 24 ^d2! and h2-h4-h5) 23 Ha2 £}c5 24 ®d2 b5 with a complicated struggle - 25 a4 ®xa4 26 $}xc4 a6 27 h4 Af8. 19...^b3 (2)
Yusupov and Dvoretsky suggested 19...f6 20 h4 Даб 21 £)d2 JLf8 and a possible ...£>b7-d6, but the move in the game looks more logical. 20 Sa2 (3) 20...f6 (6) 21 h4 Й с8?! To all appearances, the immediate 21...if8!? (Yusupov, Dvoretsky) was sounder. Now White succeeds in keeping his initiative alive. 22 Sbl! Sid4 23 ^xd4 cxd4 24 Wg3 (the thematic f2-f4 is now on the agenda) 24...Af8 (4) 25 id2! (4) Дйб (8) 26 Hfl (26 h5l?) 26...Wg7 (8) 27 a4?I (5) Opening a second front! But in Petrosian’s opinion this was an inaccuracy: 'White should not have made such a serious weakening of his queenside'. However, after 27 f4 Black had the reply 27..Jld7 28 fxe5 (28 Wh2 Sf8 29 ДЬ4 We71) 28...Дхе5 29 ДТ4 Sf8 30 Saf2 Дае8 with a solid defence. The correct solution was the paradoxical 27 JLb41 (Yusupov, Dvoretsky). By preventing ...JLd7, White carries out f2-f4 in a more comfortable situation: 27...We7 28 f41 or 27.-Даб 28 ДхЬб Hxd6 29 f4 etc. 27...Э5! Fixing the weakness at a4. Now White’s task is far more difficult, but I realised this only later, whereas during the game I was merely staggered by the boldness of my opponent, since I was sure that Black would be unable to hold out against the combined pressure on the b-file and on the kingside. At that time I used to think in concrete, tactical terms, whereas for Petrosian it was long-term, strategic terms. 28 Sb2! Дс5 (28...аЬ8? 29 Sfbl Дс5 30 Дха5 and wins) 29 f4 (4) 29...Д<17 (8) The prophylactic 29...h6 is interesting, for example: 30 h5 g5 31 fxg5 fxg5 32 STU Sf8 (Petrosian) 33 Hxf8+ 'A’xfS 34 Де2 Ad7 with equality, or 30 Wei!? Да7! (not 3O...Ad7? 31 fxe5 fxe5 32 Wcl! <4>h7 33 ДхЬб! or 32...ДаЗ 33 ДхЬб! ДхЬ2 34 Wg5 Wh7 35 Hf6 and wins) 31 Wbl Hb7 32 fxe5 (32 Дс1!?) 32...fxe5 33 ДЬ5 ФЬ7! (Yusupov, Dvoretsky). 30 h51 (4) ЗО...Дха4? (8) The more dangerous pawn should have been taken - 3O...gxh5 31 Wh4 Дд4 32 fxe5 fxe5 33 Дд5 Sf8! (33-Se8 34 Af6!) 34 ДТ6 (if 34 Sbf2 Hxf2 35 lxf2 Black has a good choice between 35...Пе8 36 Af6 Wg6!, recommended by Yusupov and Dvoretsky, and 35...Sf8 36 Дf6 Hxf6! 37 Wxf6 Wxf6 38 B,xf6 Дd7 with equality) 34...Wh6 35 flbf2 Дае8 with approximate equality. Since 36 d6? is unfavourable: Зб...ДхЬ6 37 c5 Дхс5 38 Дс4+ Деб 39 Дхе6+ (39 Hf5? Дхс4 40
fig5+ Wg6 41 Wxh5 ‘A’f?! and wins) 39...Hxe6 40 fif3 d3+ 41 ФЬ2 d2 42 Hg3+ Wg6, White must play 36 Wg3 We3 37 Axes fixes! 38 Wxe5 ±b4! 39 c5 ±el 40 Wg5+! WxgS 41 fixf8+ Фд7, when he has only perpetual check (Yusupov, Dvoretsky). Apart from 31...JLg4, an idea of Bologan's also comes into consideration: 31...Sf81? 32 Wxh5 Лха4 33 fxe5 fxe5 34 fixf8+ fixf8! 35 JLh6 Wg6 36 Wxg6+ hxg6 37 Axf8 ‘S’xfS 38 &fl J.d7 39 Фе2 a4 with sufficient compensation for the exchange. 31 h6 (4) 31...WC7 Petrosian was relying on the solidity of his position and was hoping subsequently to exploit his passed a-pawn, but White’s threats are too strong. Ac4 Baf8 38 ±xe51! ±xe5 39 fixf7 fixf7 40 d6! (cf. New in Chess 1986 No.4) or the crude 36 Jld8! fixd8 37 fixf7 Wxf7 38 fixf7 <4'xf7 39 Wf3+ Фе7 (otherwise Wf6) 40 Wg4 ld7 41 Wee+idS 42 c51; c) 34-.lae8 35 fibf2 Ad7 (35...1.d6 36 fif5! A.d7 37 fig5) 36 ±g7! (this is simpler than my suggestion 36 ФЬ2 - cf. New in Chess 1987 N0.5) 36...fixf2 (36...fif4 37 Лхе5! or 37 fixf4 exf4 38 fixf4 JLd6 39 e5!) 37 Wxf2 Jla4(c8) 38 d6! ixd6 39 c5 and in all variations White wins. It was impossible to calculate all these variations at the board, especially in time-trouble, and I chose what seemed to me to be a more forcing continuation. 32...g5 (8) 33 Axg51 (there is nothing else) 33...fxg5? In the event of the cool-headed 33...&f7l (I underestimated this defence) White would have had to be satisfied with a solid positional advantage after 34 id! (34 ^d2 Sg8 35 Wh4 Фе7 36 g4 Ae8! 37 g5 fxg5 38 Axg5+ 4'd7 39 'A’hl Af7 is unclear - Yusupov, Dvoretsky) 34..Лд8 35 Wh3! Фе7 36 g4 (threatening 37 g5 fxg5 38 f6+) 36...fiaf8 37 Sg2 with the unavoidable g4-g5 breakthrough (Bologan). 34 Wxg5+ 4>f8 Not 34...i,h8? 35 Wf6+ 4>g8 36 fif3. 32 f5?! A tempting move, and yet 32 fxe5! fxe5 33 ^.g5 Sf8 34 JLf6 was correct - as shown by later analyses, including by me (both old and new), Timman, and Yusupov with Dvoretsky, White's attack is irresistible: a) 34...Hxf6 35 Hxf6 fif8 36 fibxb6! JLxb6 37 d6! Wd8 38 fixg6+! <if7 39 Wxe5 hxg6 40 Wd5+ 4>f6 41 g4!; b) 34...Ad6 35 Sbf2 fif7 36 c5’? bxc5 (36...Wxc5 37 Дхе5 Sxf2 38 fixf2 Дхе5 39 Wxe5 Wcl+ 40 Afl Wxh6 41 d6! or 37-Axe5 38 Wxe5 fie8 39 Wg5 and fif6!) 37
35 Wf6+? (3) White’s entire preceding play demanded the breakthrough 35 f6! Wf7 (otherwise f6-f7) 36 'fixes, for example: a) 36...Wg6 37 fixb6! Wxh6 38 We7+!! Axe7 39 fxe7++ Фхе7 40 fixh6; b) 36...Ad7 37 fixb6! Axb6 38 Wd6+ Фд8 39 Wxb6 or 37-fie8 38 Деб! Ахеб 39 dxe6 fiac8 40 e7+ Фд8 41 Wg5+ ФЬ8 42 e5 Axe7 43 Wg7+! Wxg7 44 hxg7+ Фд8 45 cs! h5 46 Ac4+ *h7 47 Af7! d3 48 fif5; c) 36...Ad6 37 Wg5 Wg8 38 Wg7+! 'Bxg7 39 fxg7+ Фд8 40 c51 bxc5 41 e51 Axes 42 fib7 Ad7 43 d6! Axg7 44 Ac4+ ФЬ8 45 hxg7+ Фхд7 46 Sxf7+ and Hxd7; d) Зб...Де8! 37 Wg5 Wg6 38 fif51, and the pawn avalanche sweeps away everything in its path: 38...Ad7 (not 38...Да7 39 Wf4 Sf7 40 fif2 and figs or 38...Wxg5 39 fixgS &f7 40 fig7+!) 39 Wxg6 hxg6 40 figs &f7 (4O...a4? 41 fixg6) 41 e5. Analysis diagram 41...Af51? (an idea of grandmaster Vadim Zviagintsev; if 41-Hxe5 42 Дхе5 A'xfe there is the decisive 43 fibe2 a4 44 g4l Axg4 45 fie8 fia7 46 fig2! AfS 47 Жеб+!) 42 AxfS d3+!? (42...fixes 43 Axg6+ S’xfe 44 fixes Фхе5 45 fie2+! <4>f4 46 fie8! or 45-<i>f6 46 Se6+ Фд5 47 Ad3 and wins) 43 <S>h2! (Dvoretsky; 43 ifl fixes 44 Axg6+ 4>xf6 45 fixes A’xeS 46 Axd3 <i>d4 47 Фе2 fie8+! 48 <4>d2 fig8! 49 h7 fixg2+ 50 <4>dl figl+ and ...fihl is not so clear) 43-..fixes 44 Axg6+ i’xfe 45 fixes Фхе5 46 Axd3 a4 (4б...^4 47 Abl Фхс4 48 g4l) 47 h7 a3 48 Hd2 <4>d4 49 Abl+ ФеЗ (49...<A'xc4 50 d6!) 50 Дс2+ ФЬз 51 g4 and wins. 35...Фе8! (5) 36fial The point of White’s plan. Now, in the event of the bishop retreating, the queen check will be fully justified, but - the bishop is not obliged to retreat! 36...We7l! This brilliant defensive move was made by Petrosian almost without thinking. White’s attack peters out, since his rooks are stuck on the queenside. 37 We6? On seeing that the endgame after 37 Wxe7+ Фхе7 38 H.xa4 fid6 39 g3 was too depressing (although by no means lost: 39*..fig8 40 Фд2 Hxh6 41 Ae2 etc.), I tried to confuse matters. 37...fid6?l (4) ‘Petrosian is again equal to the occasion: after 37...'Brxe6 38 fxe6 Ad7 39 exd7+ fixd7 40 Hf2 White would have managed to save the game’, I wrote in The Test of Time. But now I am not so sure: 4O...fif71 41 fif5 Hxf5
42 exf5 &f7 followed by ...а5-а4-аЗ, ...4Тб and so on. Besides, Black is also better after 38..Лсб!? 39 Sf2 (39 dxc6? Hd6 40 c7 fic6!) 39...Фе71 40 Sf7+ *d6 41 e7 le8 42 Sf6+ ^d71 43 Жхсб a4. 38 Wg8+ (ignoring 38 Wxe7+ all the more) 38...Wf8 39 Wg3?! ‘After 39 Wxf8+ <txf8 40 Hxa4 2xh6 41 дз Фд7 42 Sh2 (42 &g21? and ke2 - G.K.) 42...fixh2 43 ФхЪ2 ife White’s defence is difficult’ (Petrosian). And yet objectively this would have given real drawing chances and was the lesser evil! 39...Wxh6?l In time-trouble Black avoids the alarming-looking 39---Jtd71 40 Wxe5+ 'A’dS! (but not 4O...‘Sf7? 41 ®g3! Wxh6 42 e5), which would have given him a chance of converting his extra piece (41 Wg7?! Uxh6 42 Wxf8+ JLxf8 43 e5 Лс5! etc.). Now, on the other hand, not a trace remains of White’s attack. 40 fixa4?? At completely the wrong time! 40 Be2? if?! was also hopeless, as was 40 Uf2? Jld7 41 Wxe5+ 'A’fT with the decisive inclusion of the rook on a8. But 40 Wg8+! Wf8 (40...<4>d7 41 Wxa8 We3+ 42 Hf2 with equality) 41 Wxf8+ A’xfS 42 Uxa4 would have taken play into a somewhat inferior endgame of the type that I could have entered on the 37th or 39th move. 4O...Wcl+ (I simply overlooked this ‘long’ move) 41 ifz (41 &h2 lh6+) 41„.Wxb2+ 42 з 4>f7 The time scramble ended with a cold shower for me! White resigned (0-1). Times: 2.29-2.28. This was undoubtedly the turning point of the tournament, since that evening Karpov crushed Timman and surged ahead with 6 out of 8. And the following day I conclusively ‘fell out of step’ - I failed to win my adjourned game with Andersson. Apparently, after the dramatic loss to Petrosian I did not have sufficient nervous energy. In the 9th round all the games were drawn, but in the 10th I gained an unexpectedly quick win with Black: Geller, who had lost his previous form, blundered in an equal position. But Karpov won against Smyslov, maintaining his lead of one and a half points. I no longer had the strength to give chase, the result of which was short draws with Balashov and Polugayevsky. By the will of the pairings I played Karpov in the last, 13th round. Many fans had been hoping that by that stage I would be only a point behind and that the game would have great competitive significance. Alas, in reality the tournament intrigue was exhausted: Karpov was still one and a half points ahead of his closest pursuers and had already secured overall victory. Nevertheless I had the desire to fight, but... ‘The grand struggle, to which Botvinnik and I tried to tune up the young grandmaster, did not occur’, remembers Nikitin. 'The fact that it was impossible to catch his opponent had a dampening effect on Garry, and his very
first intensive think ended in - an offer of a draw’ (Game No.4 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1975-1985). Before our marathon match, which began three and a half years later, Karpov and I did not meet at the board again... At the end of the tournament I was surprised to hear it being said that my result (a share of 2nd-4th places) was partly explained by good luck. Taking account of the opportunities that were unconverted in the games with Gheorghiu, Andersson and Petrosian, one could rather talk about bad luck. Or more correctly - about a lack of experience of participating in supertournaments. An interesting point of view was expressed in the 64 magazine by Lev Polugayevsky: ‘The proximity of Garry Kasparov and Vasily Smyslov in the results table shows that in Soviet chess a happy period is now approaching, when young talents are naturally developing and at the same time veterans are still active. Such a competitive interaction is beneficial to both sides. (Who could have thought that three years later Smyslov and I would be fighting it out in the final Candidates match! - G.K.). 'During the last two or three years, in our country a large group of able young players has emerged, among whom Yusupov, Dolmatov, Psakhis and Kasparov stand out. These lads are all very different; each has his own character and style, and each has his own approach. Nevertheless, Kasparov’s results are especially impressive. ‘Observing his play, you realise that he is not simply strong and, as they say, that he has spent hours memorising opening theory. No, Kasparov has made a profound study of chess history and has scrupulously studied the games of the past masters. And this has impregnated his style, his chess culture, and, of course, has brought him great benefit. From Kasparov’s games, from the versatile manner of his play, you sense what an enormous amount of work the young Baku player has carried out. Garry’s natural element is calculation and combination. But also he does not avoid a painstaking positional struggle. ‘Kasparov has undoubtedly achieved great, very significant successes, and has demonstrated original and interesting play. However, I think it is premature to assert, as some careless voices do, that Kasparov is now almost ready to fight for the world championship. I think it is wrong to do this. In my view, in the play of the young grandmaster there are still numerous gaps, which he needs to work hard to eliminate. Also important, in particular, is how the young player will pass the test of fame. This important factor has to be remembered both by Kasparov himself, and by those who are able to influence him. How he manages to define his position, whether he will be self-critical and objective in his searches - it is on this that his further successes largely depend.’ Vitaly Melik-Karamov: ‘In the world there are now 166 international grandmasters, and the youngest among the elite players is the 18-year-old Baku student Garry Kasparov. He has grown up considerably over the past year and has become a sturdy young man. Not much has been written about him yet, but people talk and argue about him constantly. He looks like a quite normal youth - you will not find any signs of genius in him. He has a slight stoop, he walks quickly, and he likes a joke - in general, nothing special. Just like many others. Only, he has a fantastic gift for chess. ‘‘He is the Mozart of chess’’, a journalist acquaintance said to me.’
sion of the game of my rival - Igor Ivanov, Vaisser and I played a blitz match. I won by a small margin, but the King’s Indian games, against which my opponent employed only the Four Pawns Attack, almost invariably ended in failure for me. Now, of course, I was fully prepared to meet the onslaught. But an unpleasant surprise awaited me... Vaisser: ‘A game with such a brilliant player as Kasparov was a notable event in a master’s life, and so I prepared especially thoroughly for it. To score a win against the holder of one of the highest ratings in the world was very tempting, but above all I wanted to play an entertaining, fighting game.’ He must have succeeded, since the magazine Shakhmaty v SSSR published it - a rare occurrence! - with comments by both players. Came 53 A.Vaisser-G.Kasparov USSRTeam Championship, 5th round, Moscow 1981 King’s Indian Defence E77 1 d4 2>f6 2 c4 §6 3 £>c3 In three other games from this tournament I had to fight against 3 g3 Дд7 4 Д.д2 0-0 5 ‘STf3 d6 6 0-0, when neither 6...^bd7 7 Wc2 c5 (against Slutsky, 3rd round), nor 6...C5 7 dxc5 dxc5 8 Wxd8 Sxd8 9 ^e5 £te8! (against Vaganian, 7th round) or 7 <йсЗ ^сб 8 dxc5 dxc5 9 ДеЗ Деб!? (the usual reply is 9...Wa5) 10 Wa4 11 Sadi &d7 12 Wa3 £)c2 13 Wxc5 b6 14 Wg5 h6 15 Wf4 g5 16 We 5 2c8 (against K.Grigorian, 8th round) gave more than a draw. 8 d5 (instead of 8 dxc5) leads to more complicated play: 8...<йа5 9 ‘<jd2 аб 10 Wc2 2b8 11 b3 b5 12 ДЬ2 bxc4 13 bxc4 ДЬб 14 Audacious Challenge USSR Team Championship, Second Division (Moscow, 16-30 May 1981): 1. Russian Federation-2 - 49 out of 72; 2. Moscow-2 -47У2; 3. Ukraine-2 - 42 (all hors concours); 4. Lithuania - 40У2; 5. Armenia - 39; 6. Kazakhstan - 38У2; 7. Azerbaijan - 34; 8. Kirgizia - 25; 9. Tadzhikistan - 23У2; 10. Turkmenistan - 21. Tournament of top boards: 1. Kasparov - 6У2 out of 9. The Second Division of the 1981 USSR Team Championship, in which the Azerbaijan team participated, took place in the new central trades union chess club, situated in the Krylatskoe Sports Complex. I remember the light, spacious rooms, excellent playing conditions - and the complete absence of spectators. Only six grandmasters were playing, and so even on the top board I mainly played against masters, and they, for quite understandable reasons, normally aimed only for simplification and a draw. However, there were some rare exceptions. In the 5th round I was paired against the 32-year-old Novosibirsk master Anatoly Vaisser, a player with an interesting fate. Although he had a degree in mathematics and physics, he nevertheless decided to devote himself to chess, and after working as Psakhis’s second at his ‘gold’ USSR Championships (1980/81 and 1981), within a few years he himself became a grandmaster. In the early 1990s he moved to France where he successfully continued his chess career, and in 2010 he won the world senior championship! For both of us this was a crucial encounter. Three years earlier, on the last day of the all-union qualifying tournament in Daugavpils (1978), when I had made a quick draw and was awaiting the conclu-
£kbl e51? 15 ДеЗ Ad7 16 £>a3 lb41 (16..Лд7?! 17 flabll, Zaid-Kasparov, Leningrad 1977) 17 ДхЬ4 cxb4 18 £>abl Wc7! with quite good play for tbe exchange (Timman-Kasparov, Tilburg 1981). 3...ig7 4 e4 d6 5 f4 0-0 6 £>f3 c5 7 d5 'This sharp and little-studied variation had already served me faithfully for 14 years. Here I was rather expecting 7...b5, which Kasparov had already played once.’ (Vaisser). 7—e6 (5) 8 Ae2 (8 dxe6 - Game N0.74) 8...exd5 9 e5?! (2) But here is a surprise! In the aforementioned blitz match Vaisser invariably followed the main line - 9 cxd5, and I replied 9...Же8 or 9-b5. But now I had prepared 9...Дд4, for example: 10 0-0 ^bd7 11 h3 Axf3 12 &xf3 He8 13 lei Пс8 14 ДеЗ b5! 15 ^xb5 4}xe4 16 Дхе4 Hxe4 17 ^>xd6 ДхеЗ 18 ДхеЗ JLd4 with equality (Noguei-ras-Kasparov, Barcelona 1989). In the objective evaluation of 9 e5 - ’?!* -the exclamation mark relates to the field of psychology: Vaisser correctly reckoned that this exotic continuation would be a surprise for me and that it would be unpleasant for me to have to change tune (as my opponent put it, ‘this slight change of "register” neutralises Black’s home prepa ration’). And the question mark, as we will now see, reflects the purely chess strength of the move. 9...^g4?l (20) ‘Black swims into the net, although if he desired he could have practically forced a draw: 9-dxe5 10 fxe5 £>g4 11 Дд5 f6 12 exf6 JLxf6 13 Wxd5+ Wxd5 14 £>xd5 Дхд5 15 <^xg5 ®c6! 16 ®c7 ДЬ8 17 ^деб Дхеб 18 4ixe6 Sfe8 19 Дхд4 ®d4 20 0-0-0 ®xe6 (Vaisser-Petrushin, Dnepropetrovsk 1968). However, in a game with Kasparov you don’t have to fear that in the opening the opponent will go into a drawn endgame. But if not 9-dxe5, then it is better to play 9-..£rfd7 10 cxd5 dxe5 11 0-0 exf4 12 J.xf4 £>f6 with complicated play (Nei-Polugayevsky, 34th USSR Championship, Tbilisi 1966).’ (Vaisser) However, the most forceful is 9...£>e4! 10 cxd5 4bxc3 11 ЬхсЗ ^d7 with advantage to Black (Nun-Smejkal, Sternberk 1962), but this old game went unnoticed, and the variation became widely known only after Black’s win in the game Li Zunian-Gheorghiu (Olympiad, Dubai 1986), which found its way into Informator Volume 42. As it transpired, 10 ^xd5 £>c6 (10...dxe5!?) 11 ДЬз f5 is not much better for White (San Segundo-J.Howell, Gausdal 1986).
Theory was truly ‘short-sighted’ in regarding 9...^>g4 as the best response to White’s audacious 9th move. One of the justifications was the variation 10 h3? d4 11 ^e4 £>xe51 12 fxe5 dxe5, when Black’s pawn mass in the centre gives him the advantage (Beyen-Barczay, Olympiad, Havana 1966). However, White has a far more promising continuation. 10 cxd5 dxe5 11 h3 e4 12 hxg4 (2) This capture was not even considered by the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings, which gave only 12 £bxe4 4^f6 with equality. ‘Apart from the simple 12...^f6, also 12...fie81? is possible’ (Vaisser). 12...exf3 13 gxf3l An interesting attempted improvement. The game Vaisser-A.Shashin (Odessa 1977) went 13 JLxf3 ®d7 (13...®a6!?) 14 4^2, and here instead of 14--.^f6?! (which could have given White the advantage: 15 g51 £>e8 16 ЛеЗ), Black could have equalised by 14...Де81. ‘Although I won that game, I was dissatisfied with the outcome of the opening - more resolute measures are demanded of White: he must be prepared to sacrifice to try and get at the black king’ (Vaisser). Here I thought for a long time. At first it seemed to me that White’s threats down the h-file could easily be parried, and that the insecure position of the white king would give Black good counter-chances. But on closer examination it all turned out to be not so simple: the difficulties began to pile up one on top of another, creating a veritable mountain of problems which was extremely difficult to scale during the allotted time limit. I was quite unable to find good squares for the development of my queenside pieces, and Black's position ceased to appeal to me... 13...1e8 (51) I shouldn’t have thought for so long over this natural move! 13-..f5?l (preventing f4-f5) would have led to a weakening of the a2-g8 diagonal, which could have told after 14 ЛеЗ Де8 15 Wd2, threatening d5-d6 and 0-0-0. 14 f5! (3) Now the queen's bishop will be developed at h6, harassing Black's only active piece and, more important, the only defender of his king - the bishop on g7. 14...Wb6?! (26) In order to somehow deflect the mounting attacking wave, Black puts the b2-pawn under fire. In The Test of Time I attached a question mark to the queen move, but it is not altogether bad.
‘The trappy 14.. Jld7 with the idea of 15 Jlh6? Axc3+! 16 ЬхсЗ ДЬ5 17 Hh2 Axe2 18 Sxe2 Wi4+ 19 ifl Hxe2 and ...Wxh6, winning, would have been easily parried by 15 Wc2, but with the same aim 14-b6!? made sense’ (Vaisser). And indeed, 15 Jlh6? runs into 15...Axc3+ 16 ЬхсЗ Aa6, but White can look for an advantage after 15 ^e41? gxf5 16 gxf5 Axf5 17 A.g5 Wd7 (or 17...Wc7 18 d6 Wc6 19 Ae7) 18 Sgl or 18 Wd2 (18 ^f6+?l JLxf6 19 JLxf6 Wd6 favours Black, despite the loss of his King’s Indian bishop), as well as with 15 fxg6l? fxg6 16 STl ±a6 17 £>e4 (Fries Nielsen-Mortensen, Esbjerg 1985). I was also not attracted by 14...^d7 15 ^.h6 Ad4(?l) 16 Wd2(c2) and 0-0-0, although in this variation things are by no means so clear after 15...Axh6!? 16 Exh6 £>e5 17 ^f2 (17 fxg6 fxg6!) 17...gxf5 18 Wc2 Wg5. Analysis diagram 19 Hh51? (19 Sahl ®f4! with equality, Ravisekhar-Thipsay, Indian Championship 1983) 19-..Wf4 20 Sgl! (recommended by Ravisekhar), and now not 20...C4 21 gxf5+ 4h8 22 Skill (Stohl) 22..Jld7 23 f6 h6 24 Sghl! ^g4+ 25 Фе1! 4hxf6 26 Sxh6+ Фд7 27 Wc3 with the initiative for White, but the cool-headed 2О...ФЬ8!?. Finally, even the unaesthetic 14...gxf5 was possible, for example: a) 15 ±f4 £>a6 16 Wd2 £>b4 17 0-0-0 fxg4 18 аЗ ЛхсЗ!? (forcing an amusing draw) 19 ЬхсЗ Wa51 20 i?b2 ®xd51 21 ±c41 4hb6 22 Jlxf7+ <4>xf7 23 Sxh7+ Фд8 24 lh8+! <4f7l 25 Bh7+ with perpetual check; b) 15 JLh6, and here 15...Axh6 16 Sxh6 Wg5 17 Wd2l Wxd2 18 <i>xd2 followed by Sahl justifiably seemed dangerous to me, but the unexpected 15...Jlxc3+!? 16 ЬхсЗ fxg4 is stronger, with an unclear game (Packroff-Grigorescu, European Correspondence Championship 1985). 15 JLh6?! (18) White pays no attention to the opponent’s 'pin-pricks’ and continues carrying out his long-range plan. Even so, he should have preserved his b2-pawn. ‘15 Wc2 was quieter, not burning his boats, for example: 15...C4 (otherwise JLh6) 16 Лд5 Sk6 17 0-0-0 £±>4 18 Wd2 - although Black has counterplay, White’s threats are the more dangerous’ (Vaisser). 15 fxg6!? hxg6 16 <4>fl(f2) also came into consideration. 15...Wxb2? (16) I was aware of the danger threatening Black, but I decided to be consistent and I took the pawn, thinking: perhaps I’ll be able to defend myself... '15...ixh6 16 Exh6 Wxb2 was not so risky’ (Vaisser), for example: 17 S^e4 (Stohl) 17...^d7 or 17 Hcl gxf5 18 Sc2 Wb4 with double-edged play. 16 ±xg7 'i’xg? ‘The culmination of the battle’ (Vaisser). The abundance of attacking possibilities available to White is immediately apparent, but I consoled myself with the thought that by no means any move would win, and to sense the critical moment and find that, perhaps only winning move, the opponent would need not to lose his head.
17 f6+?(24) And here he is in too much of a hurry... White cannot resist the temptation to advance a further assault column up to the walls of the black king’s fortress. 17 ®e4(?) would have been refuted by 17...gxf5 18 gxf5 £xf5, when the bishop joins the defence of the denuded king. In such a position one does not want to consider the modest 17 Sell, but this move would apparently have given White an irresistible attack (the threat is Sc2 and Wd2, or in some cases Wcl or Wai). 'To me it seemed insufficiently forcing, but a thorough analysis established that Black has very difficult problems’ (Vaisser). Here are some sample variations: а) 17...Фд8 18 Sc2 Wb6 19 Wd2 ®d7 (19...W6 20 ^e4 We5 21 Wh6 Wg7 22 Wxh7+!) 20 Wh6 £)f8 21 £>e4 f6 22 fxg6 hxg6 23 g51 and wins (Vaisser) or 18...Wb4 19 Wcl Wd4 20 &b5 We5 21 Wh6 ®a6 22 Wxh7+ ifS 23 Wh8+ Wxh8 24 lxh8+ Фе7 25 f6+ ‘idS 26 Дхе8 Фхе8 27 £>d6+ >4>f8 (27-.'4id7 28 ^xf7 - Vaisser) 28 Лхаб Ьхаб 29 flh2 Фд8 30 Де2 Jid7 31 Де7 and wins; b) 17...^d7 18 Hc2 Wb6 (18...Wb4 19 Well) 19 Wd2 gxf5 (19...Ш18 20 Wh6+ <4>g8 21 <2te4! and wins) 20 d6! Деб 21 gxf5 flxd6 22 Wg5+ ФЬ8 (Vaisser gives 22..^f8 23 Exh7, when mate is not far off) 23 ^d5l flxd5 24 Sgl and wins; c) 17...gxf5 18 Дс2 Wb6 (given by Vaisser; White’s threats are very strong after 18...Wb4 19 Well f4 20 <4fl) 19 d61, cutting off the black queen from the broken kingside: cl) 19.„Деб 20 Wai! (20 £id5 Wxd6 21 gxf5 He5! 22 f6+ ФЬ8 23 <йе7! Wxdl+ 24 A’xdl ®kl7, given by Vaisser, is not so clear) 2O...Wxd6 21 gxf5 Se8 22 £>e4+ or 2О...Фд8 21 gxf5 Hxd6 22 Дд1+ &f8 23 ®b51 Sf6 24 <S^c71 Wb4+ (24...^xf5 25 ^d51) 25 A’fl Wd4 26 Wxd4 cxd4 27 <^xa8 and wins; C2) 19...Wd8 20 Wd2 Деб 21 gxf5 Sxd6 22 Wf4!, and the attack is bound to produce a win (Vaisser), or 2O...Wf6 21 4bd5! Wxd6 22 Wg5+ Wg6 23 Sxh7+! <4xh7 24 £tf6+ <4h8 (24...Фд7 25 £>xe8+ ФЬ7 26 Wxg6+ and £)C7) 25 Wh4+! 4 g 7 26 ^xe8+ with crushing threats; c3) 19-fxg4 20 Wd2 Деб 21 Wg5+ 4h8 22 Wh5 h6 23 Wxf7 (threatening Wf8+) 23...Wd8 (23...Wxd6 241d2) 24®e4 Wg8 25 Wf4! or 2O...^.f5 21 Wh6+ Фд8 22 £id5! Wa5+ 23 Sfc’fl. Analysis diagram Black loses ignominiously after both 23...1e6 24 £ie7+! Дхе7 25 Sc41!, and 23...<2id7 24 Sc4! £rf8 25 1хд4+ Ддб 26
£sf6+ <*h8 27 Wxf8+ lxf8 28 Sxg6 ‘with a pretty mate, but, alas, I was tempted by another possibility’ (Vaisser). 17... ^g8! (2) ‘I thought that Black was obliged to capture the pawn - 17...'i’xf6, when White gains the advantage by 18 <Йе4+ ^g7 (18...Hxe4 19 fxe4 is also not fully satisfactory) 19 Sbl We5 20 Wd2, and 2O...S>g8? 21 Wh6 Wg7 22 Wxh7+! Wxh7 23 £)f6+ <4>f8 24 Hxh7 or 2O...h5? 21 gxh5 Hh8 22 h6+ is bad for Black’ (Vaisser). The only move is 2O...Sh8, although here too after 21 £>xc5 ^d7 22 f4 Wc7 23 ^e4 Se8 24 Wd4+ Фд8 25 0-0 White has unpleasant pressure. Leaving the pawn on f6 was rather terrifying, but I thought that it could not be taken because of the given variations. In fact 19-.Wd41? (instead of 19...We5) is more or less adequate: 20 Wcl (Vaisser) 2O...flh8 21 Wh6+ 4>g8 22 Idl We5 23 d6 ^d7, or 20 Wxd4+ cxd4 21 Hxh7+ ФхЬ7 22 <5Tf6+ ФЬб 23 Sixes Sjd7 with a somewhat inferior but defensible position. After 17...Фд8 the white army only needs to make a last, decisive thrust, but at this point intuition suggested to me that the worst was behind, and I began to set my sights on the white king caught in the centre. 18 Wcl! (11) ‘The retreat of the king looked bad because of this reply, seemingly forcing the transition into an ending favourable for White’ (Vaisser). It was not possible to decide the game by a frontal attack - 18 Sie4, for example: a) 18...jLxg41? 19 Hbl Wxa2 (in The Test of Time I considered only 19...We5? 20 Wd2 <^d7 21 Wh6 <Sixf6 22 £)xf6+ Wxf6 23 Wxh7+ i’fS 24 Wh8+ winning a piece) 20 Hxb7 ‘Sidy 21 fxg4 Sxe4 22 Sxd7 Wa31 with perpetual check after 23 0-0 Wg3+ 24 ^hl Wh3+ (Stohl); b) 18...4V17! 19 2b 1 We5 (after Stohl’s move 19...Wxa21? the momentum is maintained by 20 flh41) 20 Wd2 ^xf6 21 Wh6 b6 (or 21,..^xd51? 22 Wxh7+ ‘A’fS - Stohl) 22 g5 (22 ®xf6+?! is weaker in view of 22...Wxf6 23 Wxh7+ S^f8 24 Wh8+ Фе71) 22...®xe4 23 Wxh7+ 'S’fS, and White’s offensive peters out. Instead of this Vaisser offers to go into an endgame, where the opponent’s retarded development and the strong pawn on f6 will be factors ‘voting’ in favour of White. But now it is his turn to be surprised! 18...Wb4! (11) 18...Wxcl+ would have been faint
hearted, as would the exchange sacrifice 18...Пхе2+?! 19 ^>xe2 Wxf6 - after 20 ®c3! 4id7 21 Wxf6 £}xf6 22 ®f4 White’s chances are better. 'I did not even consider the retreat of the queen. The pawn at f6, the half-open h-file, the queen ready to leap in at h6, the opponent’s pieces undeveloped, White to move - and to think that with all this there shouldn’t be a mate?!’ (Vaisser). It has to be agreed that 18...Wb4 seems suicidal, but 19 Wh6?, creating two deadly threats, can be parried by Black: 19...Wxc3+ 20 ФТ2 Wd4+ 21 ФдЗ We5+ 22 f4 ®xf6 23 Wxh7+ &f8 24 Af3 Ad7!. Here I also made a psychologically winning ‘move’: I stood up from the board and began strolling about as though nothing had happened, although for the 22 moves to the time control I had only 11 minutes left! And my opponent became agitated... 19 ifl? (9) In continuing his quest for the holy grail, White imperceptibly oversteps the fatal mark. He should have readjusted and, rejecting any ambitious plans, reconciled himself to equality. The commentators considered two continuations: a) 19 Wd2 £>d7 (after Vaisser’s suggestion 19...Wd4 there is the good reply 20 Bel and 4^e4) 20 Bbl Wd4, and now one of two options: al) 21 Wxd4 cxd4 22 ®е4Же5!? (22...£>b6 is no better: 23 Bh4! ^>xd5 24 s&d2 and Sbhl with counterplay, or my earlier variation 22...d3 23 Axd3 ®xf6 24 ФТ2 ‘with a probable draw’, which I should like to improve: if 24...^xd5 the correct reply is 25 Ac4! Ixe4 26 fxe4 £>c3 27 Sb4! ^ixe4 28 ФеЗ etc.) 23 <4>f2 <5hb6 (23...1xd5 24 Ac4!) 24 Hh41 £}xd5 25 fibhl h5 26 gxh5 lxh5 27 Hxh5 gxh5 28 Hxh5 Ae6 29 Sg5+ ФЬ7 30 Hg7+ ФЬб 31 4hg5 £>xf6 32 ^xe6 fxe6 33 Bxb7 ^d5 34 Sd7 with a draw; a2) 21 £>e4! Hxe4 (21...Wxd2+ 22 4>xd2 4Л6 23 Sh4! with the threat of Bbhl) 22 fxe4 Wxe4 23 0-0 ®xf6 (Stohl) 24 2bel! ®e5 (not 24...Axg4? 25 Adi! or 24-Wxd5 25 Wf4!) 25 Ac4 Wg3+ 26 Wg2 with an initiative, compensating for the material deficit; b) 19 fibl Wd4 20 ^e4 £>d7 21 Wh6 (21 Wf4b6) 21...^xf6 22 4bxf6+! (Vaisser’s move 22 Bdl(?) is incorrect because of 22...Wb4+! 23 *fl lxe4! 24 fxe4 Wxe4 25 lh4 Axg4 26 Axg4 <^xg4 27 Wxh7+ £f8) 22...Wxf6 23 Wxh7+ ФТ8 24 d6! Wxd6 25 Wh6+ Фе7 26 Wg5+ Wf6 27 Wxc5+ Wd6 28 Wg5+ with perpetual check. ‘After moving my king, I was full of joyful hope, especially as Kasparov had very little time left on his clock. If only I could have foreseen my opponent's brilliant rejoinder on the 20th move!’ (Vaisser) 19...^d7 (2) 20 Ab5 (2) This looks convincing - it appears that nothing can prevent the white queen from occupying the cherished square, but... ‘In the light of Black’s reply, which dispels the illusion, 20 g5 was essential, with chances of resisting’, Vaisser concludes his commentary. However, after 20...4Л6 21 Wei Af5 22 Bh4 c4 there were few such chances.
2O...Wd4l (1) In fact Black has no intention of defending his king, and he launches a counterattack, creating the threat of ...ДеЗ. 21 ?Jg2 (18) The direct 21 Wh6? would have run into 21...£)xf6 22 Axe8 Wxc3 23 Фд2 Лхд4! (23...Wb2+ 24 ФдЗ We5+ is also not bad -Stohl) 24 Axf7+ i’xf? 25 fxg4 Se8, and White has no defence. And if 21 Sh3 (Stohl) the simplest is 21...Wxf6. 21...Se3l This is far stronger than 21...Wxf6?, which after 22 Bbl! would have given White serious counterplay, despite the two-pawn deficit: 22...1b8 23 Wh6 Wg7 24 Wh4! etc. 22 ®e2 (there is nothing else: 22 <^dl? Bxf3! or 22 Bel Bxel 23 Wxel <5ixf6 and wins - Stohl) 22...We5 23 Af2 lxe2+ 24 Axe2 ftxf6 We can assess the results of White’s ‘blitzkrieg’. His attack has come to a halt, and the winning of the exchange offers little consolation. Black already has two pawns for it, and in addition the exposed position of the white king creates the conditions for various tactical operations. 25 Wxc5 (23) There is nothing else. Thus, if 25 Bbl the bishop sacrifice would have given Black an irresistible attack: 25...Лхд4! 26 fxg4 ^e4+ 27 'A’fl £>g3+ 28 Фд2 (if 28 <4>f2, then 28...fie8! 29 Af3 £se2l! - very pretty!) 28...^xe2 29 Wei (29 Wh6 £)f4+, mating or winning the queen) 29-Se8 or 27 Фе1 Wg3+ 28 4’dl ^c3+! 29 <4>c2(d2) ®xe2 with crushing threats. 25...Axg4l (here I now had just 6 minutes left) 26 We3 (6) If 26 Sael there could have followed 26...ЙС8!, for example: 27 Wxa7?! Sc31 28 Adi Wf4! 29 Sh4 (29 Se3 Axf3!) 29-Sxf3+ or 27 We3 Wxe3+ 28 ФхеЗ ^ixd5+ 29 &f2 Леб with a won ending. To avoid the worst, White immediately goes into the endgame, at least with an extra tempo. 26...Wxe3+ 27 ФхеЗ £>xd5+ 28 <if2 Леб Three pawns for the exchange is a significant advantage, but White still retains chances of saving the game. 29 Sabi (5) 29 fih4!? came into consideration, with the idea of 29-Sc8 30 Дс4 or 29...^c3 30 Лс4, as well as 29 Ac4!? Sc8 30 Ab3 (aiming for the exchange of bishops; 30 Sacl? £>b41) - in this case I would have had to choose between 3O...Bc5 31 Sa(h)cl Sa5 and ЗО...Фд7 31 Sacl (31 Shdl Sc5l) 31...Sxcl 32 Sxcl ЛТб, centralising the king
with good winning prospects. 29...Б6 30 Ibcl 2>f4 By now Vaisser was also running into time-trouble: he had roughly 10 minutes left. 31 a3? (2) The final mistake: White allows the exchange of his bishop for the knight. 31 Дс7 Йхе2 32 Фхе2 b51 would have been no better, but 31 Дс4 was more resilient, with the idea of 31...Hc8(?!) 32 Даб! (but not 32 Дхеб? ^>d3+ 33 ФеЗ flxcl 34 flxcl £)xcl 35 Дd5 £>xa2 and wins) 32...Дхс1(?!) 33 flxcl Дха2 34 Дс7 (Stohl) or 31...Sd8! 32 ФеЗ, and nevertheless things are not completely clear. 3i...^xe2 32 Фхе2 b51 Now Black has a technically won position, and his victory is merely a question of time. 33 Hc7 aS 34 flbl Дс4+ 35 £f2 a4! Such an ‘anti-positional’ arrangement of the pawns is justified, since ‘a supported bishop is not inferior in strength to a rook’ (one of Botvinnik’s memorable rules). 36 lei ld8 37 ДеЗ "d2+ 38 <±>g3 Ag7 39 f4 lb2 40 Дс5 h5 Or 4O...lb3 41 Ice5h5. Here the game was adjourned and White sealed 41ФИ4. Black has two clear ways to his goal, and the choice between them is a matter of taste. The first is 41...Деб 42 ФдЗ b4 43 axb4 ДхЬ4 44 Sa5 h4+ 45 ФхЬ4 flxf4+ 46 ФдЗ Ib4(d4), and the three passed pawns decide the outcome. The second involves exploiting the weakness of the white pawns: 41-ДЬз 42 ДдЗ ДЬ1! 43 ДеЗ Дд11? 44 ДдЗ flfl 45 f5 fihl+! 46 Фд5 f6+ or 44 Дд5 flfl 45 ФдЗ f51, cutting off the rook from the queenside. On encountering Vaisser the next day, I informed him of these plans, and he decided not to suffer in vain. White resigned without resuming (0-1). Times: 2.21-2.29. A very interesting and dynamic game. 28 years later Anatoly Vaisser had this to say in an interview on his 60th birthday: ‘One of my most memorable games was played in the 1981 USSR Team Championship in the Russia-2 v. Azerbaijan match against Kasparov. There is an amusing story associated with it. As it later transpired, in the event of a draw I would have shared 1st place with Kasparov on our board. I was asked before the game whether I would play for a draw with White. I replied: “No! What for? I will simply play! I want to gain pleasure from playing against a great player!" That was how I set
my objective - not to play for a win, but to play cbess. And it turned out excellently: at tbe board I found a novelty, and by the 17th move I was winning; moreover, I was playing easily, whereas he, by contrast, was under some incredible strain... ‘It all became clear after the game. Garik told me that a pretty girl playing for one of the teams, who half the players, including himself, had been courting, decided to play a joke on him. She heard me speaking about my intention to play, "exaggerated” what I had said, and before the round informed him that I had allegedly announced publicly that I would beat him. One can understand Kasparov’s feelings: he was already one of the strongest players in the world, and here some little-known master had made such an audacious declaration! ‘And then in that favourable situation, when I had an hour and a half left on my clock, whereas he had only about 10 minutes, I committed an unpardonable mistake: I decided that matters were settled. It appeared that the game would win itself: Black no longer had his dark-square bishop, a white pawn would go tof6 and then the queen to h6... But on no account should the greats be underestimated! Kasparov found a brilliant defence, after two inaccuracies by me there was no longer a mate, and on the board was a better endgame for Black. Despite my defeat, this game is precious to me. It is also a memorable one for Kasparov. As he put it, in those years it was usually sufficient for him to use 70% of his capabilities at the board, but here he had to apply all 100%.' Confirmation of Class 3rd World Under-26 Team Championship (Graz, 17-29 August 1981): 1. USSR - 32У> out of 44; 2. England - 30У2; 3- Hungary - 28У2; 4. USA - 26У2; 5-6 France and Israel - 24У2; etc. (altogether 34 teams). The winning team comprised Kasparov (9/10), Psakhis (6У2/9), Yusupov (6/9), Dolmatov (4У2/7), reserves Kochiev (1У2/3) and Vladimirov (5/6). Before this Student World Team Championship few had doubts about the success of the Soviet team, which was made up of top-class players and was probably also capable of contending for the medals in the adult Olympiad. Judging by the average ratings, our main rivals looked to be the Americans with five international masters, and the English led by grandmaster Jonathan Speelman - the winners of the first championship (1978). Before the start we experienced hardly any of the usual anxiety: it appeared that everything should go smoothly and that the main ‘problem’ would be deciding on the daily team line-up. But in sport all sorts of surprises are possible, especially in a competition run on the Swiss System... In the 1st round, as is usual in such cases, the favourites were paired against middleranking teams. We were opposed by the home team, from Austria. I had White against the national master Arne Dur and I was the first to finish my game. It turned out to be a straightforward one, although it was a good illustration of my opening searches of those times and my striving to get away from classical principles, Came 54 G.Kasparov-A.Dur Student World Team Championship, 1st round Graz 17.08.1981 Queen’s Cam bit D55 1 d4 4jf6 2 c4 еб 3 УУсЗ (5) 3...d5 4 Уе7
5 ±g5 (3) 5...0-0 6 e3 h6 (6...^bd7 7 Wc2 c5 8 0-0-0 - Game No.33) 7 JLxf6 (2) After testing 7 Jlh4 b6 8 Wc2 Jlb7 9 Jlxf6 jlxf6 10 cxd5 exd5 11 0-0-0 (Game No.41), I became fascinated by a different variant on my favourite plan with the exchange on f6, queenside castling, and a subsequent attack on the kingside. 7...Axf6 8 Wd2 Following my April game with Karpov (Moscow 1981). Before it Nikitin and I had made a serious study of 8 Wb3 c6 9 h4, but we came to the conclusion that for the attack on the kingside 8 Wd2 was sounder (but later I also tried 8 Wc2 - Game No.92). 8...C6 (3) A standard, but passive reply. Karpov played 8...£)c6 against me (Game No.4 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1975-1985), but in the mid-1980s the best was deemed to be Portisch’s idea 8...dxc41 9 Axc4 £hd7 and ...c7-c5 (Game N0.58 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1975-1985) - this relieving manoeuvre fully neutralised the move 8 Wd2. 9 h4l (3) Exploiting the fact that it is difficult for Black to create counterplay in the centre and on the queenside, White begins storming the king’s fortress and threatens to open lines by g2-g4-g5. Subsequently 8...c6 almost went out of use, precisely because of 9 h4. 9...^d7?! (17) A routine response, which is not surprising: in a few rare games from the 1960s, after this move only 10 0-0-0 had been played, allowing Black time for 10...JLe7 or 10...g6! 11 g4 £g7. To avoid the immediate opening of the kingside, 9-..g6! 10 g4 ig7 should have been played, when after 11 g5 h5 Black’s defences are solid enough (Spassky-Cvetkovic, Lugano 1984), but after 11 £>e5 c5 12 cxd5 exd5 13 Де2! ®сб 14 f4 or ll...dxc4 12 Дхс4 c5 13 0-0-0 (or 13 f4) with the intention of h4-h5 the initiative is nevertheless with White. 10 g4! A novelty, which stunned my opponent. At a training session for the Soviet team before the student world championship I won a number of blitz games with this dashing attack, mainly against Vladimirov ('regretfully', he even began delaying castling - 5...h6 6 Axf6 Axf6 7 еЗ сб, after which I now played 8 Wc2!, not fearing ...c7-C5). 10...Se8?l (9) Another routine move. White is better after 10...g6 11 g51 hxg5 12 hxg5 Ag7
(12...±xg5? is bad: 13 S^xg5 Wxg5 14 0-0-0 followed by f2-f4, Wh2, Ad3 and Hdgl, winning - Psakhis) 13 0-0-0 We7 (not 13-..b5? 14 cxb5, Psakhis-Bonsch, Lvov 1984) 14 Bh4! (14 e4 b5 is now unclear, Tukma-kov-Sbmirin, Simferopol 1983) 14...b6 15 e4 etc. But it was still possible to guard against the opening of lines, by playing 10..Ле7 with the idea of 11 g5 h5. However, at e7 the bishop is less well posted than at g7, and after 11 0-0-0 Black stands passively (Polugayevsky-C.Hansen, Plovdiv 1983). 11 0-0-0 (3) The immediate 11 g51 was more accurate, but I sensed that after 10...Be8 all the same the opponent would not play 11...Ле7 - and I was not mistaken! White wins. 13 ДхЬ5 ПЬ8? (7) This fails completely. 13...Jle7 14 g5 h5 was more resilient, although here, apart from the quiet 15 Wc2 (and if 15...g6, then 16 £)e5 Фд7 17 e4), there is the strong breakthrough 15 g6!? fxg6 16 Hdgl with an overwhelming position. 14 g5! White’s further play is obvious: he checkmates the defenceless black king. 14...hxg5 (5) 15 hxg5 JbcgS 16 ^xg5 (5) 16...Wxg5 17 f4 Wf6 (9) 18 Wh2 (4) 18...g6 (12) If 18...ATS both 19 f51 20 Sdfl and 19 e4! dxe4 20 d5! would have been decisive. Il...b5? (16) ‘Black is rattled and he decides to give up a pawn in the hope of counterplay. But he is not able to exploit the opening of the b-file, and the white bishop at b5 occupies an attacking position’ (Bykhovsky). Of course, ll...±e7 12 g5 h5 was essential, although Black has lost time and his prospects are poor. 12 cxb5 cxb5 (7) Or 12...C5 13 g5 hxg5 14 hxg5 Axg5 15 4bxg5 Wxg5 16 f4 Wf6 17 Wh2 g6 18 f5! and 19 f51 (1) This concludes matters. ‘Into a three-fold attack! However, the pawn is invulnerable’ (Bykhovsky). 19...Wg7 (20) The alternatives were also hopeless: I9...gxf5 20 Sdgl+ ^f8 21 Wd6+ Be7 22 £>xd5 or 19...exf5 20 ^xd5 (the simplest) 2O...Wg7 21 ±xd7 ±xd7 22 £>e7+ Hxe7 (22...&f8 23 Wd6) 23 Wxb8+. 20 fxe6 (20 fxg6!?) 2O...fxe6 21 fidgl (21 l.d3!? g5 22 fidgl) 21...Hf8 (6) 22 id3 Hf6 (6)23e4(7)
Here my eyes were rather dazzled: captures on g6 and 23 Йд4 were also good. 23„.e5 (13) 24 ®xd5 lf7 25 lxg6 1-0 Times: 0.50-2.21. Dolmatov also won, but in his opponent’s time-trouble Psakhis unexpectedly blundered, and as a result we only defeated the Austrians 2У2-1У2. Thus the USSR team immediately fell one and a half points behind eight teams (including England), which had begun the championship with a 4-0 win. Our pleasant dreams of an ‘easy stroll’ were dispelled. In the 2nd round it was only with enormous difficulty that we managed to snatch а 2У2-1У2 win over the Yugoslav team (I won spectacularly against Klaric, but Dolmatov suddenly lost to Dizdar), whereas the English maintained their tempo and defeated the strong Brazilian team by a clean score. After two rounds we were in the middle of the tournament table and the gap was already three points. However, for the moment there was no reason to lose heart. In the next two rounds the Soviet team crushed both the Canadians and the French ЗУ2-У2 (I won against Morrison and made a draw with Kouatly), but the English also scored big wins - over the strong Swedish team (ЗУ2-У2) and the USA (3-1), so that the gap was reduced by just half a point. All we could do was pin our hopes on the individual meeting. This is what the trainer of our team, Anatoly Bykhovsky, had to say: ‘The 5th round USSR-England match was the culmination of the championship. In the event of a draw, or even a loss by the minimal margin, the English would have had very good chances of the gold medals. As for us, only a convincing victory would do. There are matches which one never forgets, and this was one of them. All four of our players battled with great fervour, and with an enormous will-to-win’. And we achieved our aim! Despite committing some inaccuracies, I was able to overcome the tenacious resistance of Jonathan Speelman. Game 55 J.Speelman-G.Kasparov Student World Team Championship, 5th round Graz 21.08.1981 English Opening A30 1 SrfB £>f6 2 C4 C5 3 ^сЗ еб 4 g3 b6 5 ±g2 JLb7 6 0-0 ke7 7 b3 0-0 8 Ab2 d6 9 e3 (16) 9...^>bd7 10 d4 (5) 10...a6 (3) 11 fid Smyslov's 11 We2 (Game No.49) is far more natural. Speelman’s move allows me to carry out an interesting and unexpected counterblow. 11...b5! (16) If now White does not undertake anything, after ...b5xc4 and ...c5xd4 the slight weakness of the central white pawns will give Black good play. 12 d5 (13) Speelman, who had no objection to a
draw, considered the variation 12 dxc5 £1xc5 13 cxb5 axb5 14 £>xb5 Дха2 15 Axf6 with the idea of 15...gxf6 16 b4, but he rejected it because of 15-..Jlxf6! 16 4ixd6 (16 Wxd6 £>xb3) 16...Даб! 17 Дхс5 Де21 18 Wbl Sb2 (if 18...Sal, then both 19 Wxal and 19 £>xf7 will do), when White loses the exchange. However, after 19 Wcl! (19 4bxf7 is also acceptable) it is unfavourable for Black to play 19...Axfl?! in view of 20 £>xf7! S?xf7 21 Axfl with excellent compensation, and so there only remains 19...®xd6 20 Sei ®d3 or 2O...Jlxf3 21 JLxf3 Sxb3 with equality. 12...exd5 13 £>xd5 ^xd5 14 cxd5 ±f6! The exchange of bishops favours Black: after it the e4-e5 breakthrough is hindered, and in addition his counterplay on the queenside is facilitated. 15 ±xf6 (4) 15...^xf6 The advantages of this capture are obvious - the knight exerts pressure on the centre, but its drawbacks are less so -White will prepare e4-e5, and in this case the knight is better placed at d7 (from where, incidentally, it can also be switched to the queenside). Therefore 15...Wxf6!? came into consideration - on the long diagonal the queen could have supported the pawn offensive ...аб-а5, ...b5-b4 and ...a5-a4. 16 (4) 16...Э5 (11) 17 e4 (5) 17...fie8 18 ttel (3) 18...g6! (16) It is important to take away the f5-square from the white knight. The direct 18...a4?! would have run into 19 е51 Дхе5 20 Sxe5 dxe5 21 Sxc5 with the initiative: 21...e4 22 ^)f5! or 21...axb3 22 Wxb3 e4 23 ^f5! (when 23...JLxd5? is bad in view of 24 Sxd5 ^xd5 25 Axe4l). 19 Wd2 b4 (and here 19...a4?! is inaccurate because of 20 b4) 20 a3?! (14) A questionable decision: in his desire to suppress Black’s activity, Speelman advances a pawn in a place where the opponent is stronger. The logical continuation was 20 f4 Wb6 (20...<?\i7 21 5if3, insisting on e4-e5) 21 4>hl a4 22 Wb2 (22 Scdl axb3 23 axb3 C41?) 22...Wd8 23 Hcdl axb3 24 axb3 ДаЗ with double-edged play. 2O...bxa3! (9) Although weak, the аЗ-pawn remains alive in certain variations, and may become dangerous. 21 Sal (3) 21...We7?! (9) Black is carried away by the tactical complications, but here the queen may come under attack by 4bf5. He would have gained somewhat the better chances with
both the quiet 21...a4 22 ДхаЗ Wa5 23 Wxa5 Дха5 24 Дха4 Пха4 25 bxa4 £>xd5, and the sharp 21...Wb6 22 Wg5 (22 JLc8!) 22,..£)d7 23 ДхаЗ Де51. 22 h3?! (5) The hasty 22 e5? would have been parried by 22,..dxe5 23 d6 Wd7, and the preparatory 22 f4? by 22...a41 23 b41 (23 e5? is totally bad because of 23...axb3! 24 exf6 Wxel+! 25 Дхе1 Дхе1+ 26 Wxel a2) 23...Дас8! 24 JLf3 (if 24 e5? there is a spectacular win by 24...cxb41! 25 exf6 Wxf6 26 Sebl b3 or 26 Wxb4 Wb2) 24...Wc7 25 b5 (25 ДхаЗ? Wb6!) 25...c4, and Black’s trumps are higher. Instead of this Speelman prepares 23 ДеЗ (and ДхаЗ), safeguarding himself against ...£)g4 and vacating the h2-square for his king. But this is too slow! The immediate 22 ДхаЗ! was far more energetic, not fearing 22...±xd5 23 flaal Ab 7 or 22...£ixd5 23 Даа1 £>f6. Now after 24 5?! gxf51 25 exf5 £>e4 26 Лхе4 Лхе4 27 f3 Wf6 28 fxe4 Дхе4 29 Дхе4 Wxal+ 30 Фд2 ®f6! Black remains a pawn up, but 24 e5! dxe5 25 ^hf5! gives White counterplay sufficient for a draw: 25...gxf5 26 JLxb7 ДаЬ8 27 Wg5+ ФЬ8 28 Лд2 and Дха5. 22...We5 (6) Aiming for a favourable endgame. 22...a4!? was perhaps more natural, for example: 23 ДхаЗ A(^)xd5 or 23 b4 Дас8 24 ДхаЗ cxb4 25 Wxb4 ixd5 26 Дха4 Дс4 27 Wb5 Дха4 28 Wxa4 Лхе4 with an extra pawn (29 Дхе4 d5!). 23 ДхаЗ (this is now forced: ...Wb2 was threatened) 23...Wd4! (23...®xd5? 24 ^f3) 24 Wxd4 (16) 24...cxd4 Another passed pawn - this time on the d-file! True, it too is weak, but it causes a certain confusion in the opponent’s ranks. Also important is the fact that it is difficult for White to bring his bishop and knight into play - they are tied down by Black’s central pressure. 25 Да4 With a simple reckoning: 25...JLxd5 26 Axd4 ДаЬ8 27 Да1(еЗ). 25 Adi £>xe4 26 flxd4 looked sounder, but after 26...^c3(f6) White would still have had problems. 25...d3! (2) 26 Adi? (4) After 26 Ad4 Jlxd5 27 flxd3 (27 ДеЗ? is weak: 27...1.xb3 28 Adxd3 a4 29 e5 d51 or 28 Axd6 ^d5! 29 Axd3 a4) 27-ДаЬ8! 28 Да1 Axb3 29 Дха5 ^хе4 the fact that the white rook is at d3, and not at d4 (as in the previous note) is important, and the regaining of the pawn by 30 Лхе4 Дхе4 31 flxd6 involves a risk: 31...^.e6! 32 g4 ДЬз or 32
Фд2 Sb2 - although the pawns are on one wing, it is not so easy for White to make a draw. It would appear that things are even more unpleasant for him after 26..JLa61? 27 £rf3 ^d7 28 b4 axb4 29 Sxb4 Hab8 30 Hxb8 Hxb8, when the d3-pawn is like a fishbone in his throat. However, the lesser evil was 26 £>f3 ^xd5 27 exd5 Hxel+ 28 &xel d2 29 Hal! Hc8 30 Hdl dxelW+ 31 Sxel Hc5 32 Hdl with a somewhat inferior but tenable endgame. 26...^d7l Now Black’s advantage sharply increases. 27 b4 (3) The d-pawn proves to be very hardy: 27 Hxd3?^c51. 27...axb4 (3) 28 Hxb4 ^>c5 (5) 29 ^f3 (4) A belated return of the ‘prodigal’ knight. If 29 f3 there is the very strong reply 29...f51 with the idea of 30 exf5(?) g5, when things are bad for White: 31 Ig4 &f7 32 Hxg5 Hall! 33 Hxal d2 and wins. 29... &a2 (2) Winning chances were also promised by 29-Пхе4 30 Hxe4 £ixe4 31 £>el! Ha4! (31...£)C3 32 Hxd3 lai 33 Hxc3 Hxel+ 34 ФЬ2 Hdl and ...±xd5 is weaker - as Tar-rasch taught, ‘all rook endings are drawn’) 32 ^hxd3 £>c3 33 Hel Axd5 with an extra, passed pawn. 30 e5 (5) In Informator and The Test of Time I attached an exclamation mark to this move, although the break in the centre rather resembles a desperate chance. In the event of 30 £)d2 Дс81 White would have faced an excessively difficult defence: a) 31 f3 ^d7l 32 ®C4 ±a4 33 ld2 Hc2l 34 ^.fl Ha81, and if 35 Hxd3 £sxd3 36 jlxd3, then 36...Hc3l, winning; b) 31 e5 Ad7 32 exd6 Aa4 33 Scl (33 d7 <5}xd7 34 4hb3 ^c5) 33-Hxd2 34 Sxc5 Hel+ 35 ФЬ2 JLd7 36 Hf4 g5 37 Йе4 lee21 38 Hcl Hxf2 or 35 JLfl Ad7! 36 Hd4 lb2 37 Hxd3 (things are no better after 37 Фд2 d2 38 Hc7 dlW 39 Hxdl Hxdl 40 Hxd7 Hxd5) 37...±xh3 38 ФЬ2 Axfl 39 Hf3 Де2 40 d7 ±xf3 41 d8W+ Фд7 42 g4 Hxf2+ 43 ФдЗ Hefl! with a pretty win. 3O...dxe5 (4) 31 B.C1 31...ЙС2? (29) Returning the favour; with both sides now short of time, Black restricts himself to transposing into an ending with four pawns against three on the same wing. After 31...d2?l 32 ^xd2! £>d3 33 Hxb7 ®xcl 34 £)e4 it is now the white passed d-pawn that would become dangerous. Also nothing was achieved by 31...e4?l 32 Hxc5 Hal+
33 Ф112 exf3 34 >xf3 le2! 35 2!. But the cool-headed 31..Ла51 would have placed White on the verge of disaster: 32 Sxc5?l Hxc5 33 lxb7 e4 34 £id2 f5 or 32 £>d2 Даб etc. 32 Sxc2 dxc2 33 Hc4 £>b3 (4) Little better was 33...e4 34 £)d4(el) 4^d3 35 ®xc2 ixd5 36 Жс7 or 33-.^d3 34 Sxc2 e4 (34...^xd5 35 fid2) 35 Se2 f5 36 ftd4 ±xd5 37 f31 Se5(e7) 38 fxe4 fxe4 39 ^b5 and £>c3(d6), attacking the e4-pawn with all the forces. 34&XC2 Jixd5 35 ”c7 With his flag hanging, White begins to lose control over the situation. 35 ^>d2! was simpler, with a probable draw. 35».e4 (2) 36 2>el 37 ld7 The line given by me in Informator was also acceptable: 37 ^c2 -5be6 (after the exchange of this knight there is no hope of success) 381c3. 37..Де5 without any particular problems. 38...exd3 (3) 39 ixd5 Thus Black again has a passed pawn -already his third! The question is what to do with it. 39...&f8! In terrible time-trouble I managed to spot this pretty winning move. The opponent was obviously hoping for 39-d2?! 40 A.xf7+ *f8 41 lxd4 Sel+ 42 Фд2 dlW 43 flxdl Hxdl 44 Дс4 with a draw. 40 Ac4 (40 Jlxf7 Йе41, and the d-pawn can be stopped only at the cost of a piece) 4O...d2 41Sxd4 Here the game was adjourned, and two hours later it was resumed. 41...Hel+ (the sealed move) 42 ig2 dlW 43 Sxdllxdl(5) The conversion of the exchange advantage does not present any serious problems. 38 ^d3? Clever, but insufficient: Speelman overlooks a tactical nuance. I thought that ‘here it was not to late to return- 38 Hc7’, but then 38...ДЬз! is unpleasant, when Black dominates. Only after 38 ФЬ21 with the idea of 38...Фд7?! 39 Дхе41 or 38...£ie6(b3) 39 f41 would White have gained a draw 44 h4 (2) One of our team - I think it was Vladimirov - suggested to me a precise winning plan for Black: he must penetrate with his king into the opponent’s position, force f2-f4, advance ...h7-h6, ...f7-f6 and ...g6-g5, then drive back the white king and create a passed pawn. 44...1C145 Д-dS (3)
Strangely enough, two years later in my game with Nikolic (Niksic 1983) after White's 40th move exactly the same ending was reached, except that the rook was on c2 and the black h-pawn already on h6. Two moves before this the white h-pawn had still been at h3, and I could have played ...g7-g5 (which would have won easily), but I deliberately allowed h3-h4 in order to win in the same way as against Speelman. 45...1C5 46 ДЬЗ (6) 4б...Фе7 47 Да2 (3) 47...И6 48 JLb3 1с7 49 Аа2 (6) 49...*d6 50 ФЬЗ *65 51 *g4 (6) 51..Ла7 (2) 52 ДЬЗ ab7 53 =idl Or 53 Аа2 *е41 53...' b2 54 *f3 *d4 55 Ае2 ЖЬЗ+ 5б Ag2 ФсЗ 57 Af3 Bb5 58 Sc6 Дс5 59 Ае8 Дс7 60 *fl *d2 61 Да 4 ficl+ 62 *g2 *el 63 A.b3 Sc7 64 f4 *e2 With Nikolic a similar position arose three moves earlier. True, my rook was on a7, and the white bishop already on d5, which induced my opponent to play 62 h5, but here too after 62...gxh5 63 JLf3+ *e3 64 Axh5 Sa2+ 65 *h3 f6 66 Де8 *f2 67 *h4 Да8 68 ±c6 Дд8 69 g4 *e3 70 *g3 f5 71 JLf3 h5 White resigned. 65 Ad5*e3 66 I.a8f6! Here it is all very simple, but with his pawn on h5 Black would have had to play 66...f5 and after ...Дс2+ break through with ...g6-g5. This ending is also won, but it is far more complicated and demands deep analysis. 67 *gl lg7! 68 *g2 g5 69 hxg5 hxg5 70 fxg5 Hxg5 0-1 In view of 71 ±b7(c6) f5 72 *h3 *f2 or 72 ±f3 f4. Times: 3-35-2.55. Back in ‘normal time', Psakhis gained a crushing win in excellent style over Mestel (who before that had won all his games, and in the end finished with the best score on board two - 8 out of 10), Yusupov displayed fine endgame technique, outplaying Plaskett in a ‘dead-drawn’ ending, and only Hodgson managed to hold out against Dolmatov. And so, we won this key match ЗУ2-У2 - and burst half a point ahead! In the next round, the 6th, the Soviet team had to endure another serious test: the match with the USA team did not go well for us and ended in a draw (I beat Fedorowicz, but Yusupov unexpectedly lost by blundering against Benjamin). However, that day the shocked English went down to the Hungarian team - 1У2-2У2. The lead over our pursuers grew to a whole point. None of the Soviet players lost any more games, and we finished very confidently. A considerable role in this was played by the friendly atmosphere which prevailed in our team. The constant feeling of unity and friendly support enabled us to overcome all difficulties. In the 7th round we defeated the Hungarians 2У2-1У2 (I drew with Groszpeter), in the 8th and 9th rounds we crushed the Swedes and the Dutch ЗУ2-У2 (I won in quite good style against Schussler and van der Wiel), and in the penultimate, 10th round, we beat the Brazilians. There was a memorable finish to my game with the future
grandmaster Jaime Sunye Neto, a participant in two Interzonal Tournaments (in Rio de Janeiro 1979 he shared 5th-6th places). Game 56 J.Sunye Neto-G.Kasparov Student World Team Championship, 10th round Graz 27.08.1981 In this position, which is slightly better for White, my opponent offered a draw. However, I was able to find a tempting way of attacking on the kingside. And, also taking account of the fact that my opponent was somewhat short of time, I decided to play on. 32...^e7l? Intending to play this knight via f5(дб) to h4, and the rook to дб, with pressure on the enemy king. ‘Kasparov’s patent manoeuvre’, wrote Bykhovsky, having in mind my game with Tempone (Came No.44)- ‘The d4-square only seems to be weakened. The white knight on this square will be prettily placed, but that is all.’ 33 ®d4 (33 ®d21?) 33...Hg6 34 -ld3 Wd7 (5) So, the first threat has appeared -...Wxh3. 35*hl The most accurate way of parrying the attack was 35 f3l ^дЗ 36 fieel! (36 Лхдб £ixe2+ 37 £bxe2 ?Jxg6 is equal), forcing Black to concern himself more with how to equalise: 36...^gf5 37 Scl Sa8 or 37 Wb5 <Sixd4 38 exd4 Wxb5 39 axb5 Ab4 40 Дхдб JLxel 41 A.xf7+ <ixf7 42 fixel fia8! etc. However, I would have preferred the less specific 36...fid6. But Sunye Neto avoids the slightest weakening of his position. 35...^>f5l (3) 36 Дхе4? (2) In time-trouble White commits a serious positional mistake, based on overlooking a tactical blow by the opponent. Understandably, it was not easy to decide on the audacious thrust 36 g4l?. But 36 jlb5 Wc8 37 ®f3 Wee would have led to a roughly equal game, while the simplest way of eliminating the black cavalry was by 36 ®xf5 Wxf5 37 Дхе4 Wxe4 38 f3 with equality. 36...dxe4 371ed2^h4! Only here did my opponent discover to his amazement that after the 38 ^f3(?) an unpleasant surprise awaited him: 38...exf3 39 Sxd7 fxg2+ 40 Фд1 W3 mate! Another knight discovery - 38 4^f5(?) leads to the win of the exchange, but after 38...Wxf5 39 Sxd8+ ФЬ7 the white king is defenceless.
What then can be done? 38 £ie6? This also leads to a swift catastrophe! The only saving move was 38 f4! - after 38...Wc8(e8) or 38...fld6 (but not 38...exf3? 39 £>xf3 and wins) White’s position would merely have been somewhat inferior. 38... Wxd2 39 Sxd2 Hxd2 40 £tf4 Sg5 (2) 41 *gl (7) Here the game was adjourned and I had to seal my move. The surprise nature of it served as an overture to one of the most beautiful combinations in my career. The resumption took place that same evening. 41...^>f3+! (23) Highly spectacular, although Black could also have won by 41...^.xe3! (or even 41. ..JLd6) 42 fxe3 4^xg2 (apart from 42...^f3+) 43 *fl fig3 44 WbS! ^xf4 45 We8+ *h7 46 Wxe4+ Ддб! 47 Wxf4 ДхЬ2. In the adjournment analysis I demonstrated various mating constructions to my colleagues, and our whole team refined the possible variations. 42 *fl In the event of 42 *hl another combination had been prepared: 42...Axe3!! 43 fxe3 Sdxg2!! 44 <йхд2 Дд3!. A fantastic position! Despite his enormous material advantage, White cannot defend against the mate (45 ^bf4 Sgl mate). I have yet to come across anything similar in a practical game. White would also not have been helped by 43 gxf3 Jlxf4 or by declining the sacrifices - 43 4be6, after which I was planning 43...flxf2 44 gxf3 (44 Wc4 fxe6 45 Wxe6+ *h7 46 Wxe4+ Ждб! is also hopeless for White) 44...Hfl+ 45 *h2 exf31 46 Wxe3 Hg2 mate or 46 4bcg5 Af4 mate! - again an amazing mating finish! Thanks to these concluding events, performed with of a kind of special, distinctive elegance, this game appealed to me more than any of the others that I played in Graz. 42...Дхе31! 43 fxe3 (7) The acceptance of the sacrifice is forced -after 43 ^e2 White would have lost his queen or been mated: 43-^h2+ 44 *el (44 *gl Дхе2 etc.) 44„.Жхд2 45 Wxe3 ^f3+ 46 *fl Sgl+I! 47 ®xgl Sdl+. 43...Sdxg21 44 Wc3 (2) The only defence: if 44 Wb6, then 44...Sh2 45 ^e2 Ддд2 is immediately decisive. But now in this case White has perpetual check on c8 and f5. 44...Hh2 45 fte2 (4) 45...*h7! Renewing the threat of ...Ддд2. Sunye Neto prevents it in the most primitive way and overlooks one of the original mating constructions.
46 Wc8 (9) 46 Wb4, retaining control of the d2-square, looks somewhat more resilient. But in this case too Black has a clear way to win -46...f5l. Analysis diagram For example: 47 Wf8 (47 Wd6 Sgg2) 47-lhl+ 48 &f2 W14 49 2>f4 Hh2+ 50 4>fl Bxb2, or 47 Wb5 flhl+ (this is even better than 47...f4 48 Wd4 £)d2+! and ...f4-f3) 48 &f2 4id2 (threatening ...Sfl mate) 49 ®g3 flh2+ 50 Фе1 f4 with crushing threats. 46...Shl+ (3) 47 A’fZ ^d2l With the threat of ...Sfl mate. In view of 48 ^g3 Ш12+ 49 Фе1 ^f3+ and ...Sxb2, White resigned (0-1). Times: 3.07-2.30. The 3-1 score in the match with the Brazilians put us practically out of reach: the English were 2У2 points behind us. In the final, 11th round for the first time I allowed myself to relax, and victory over the West Germans (2У2-1У2) consolidated the success of the USSR team. The English, by beating the Yugoslavs (3-1), finished second - and left a strong impression. They made the best scores on three boards (Mestel, Plaskett and Davies), whereas the Soviet team did this only on two (Kasparov and Vladimirov; incidentally, we shared a room, and this was the start of our close chess collaboration). At one time the American team was in contention (the 16-year-old Joel Benjamin played well, achieving the best result on the first reserve board), but because of a poor finish they even finished without the bronze medals, which went to the Hungarian masters. I was happy with my play in Graz: I created a number of interesting games, and I achieved the absolute best result among all the participants. The role of leader is undoubtedly an honourable one, but at critical moments a double responsibility lies on his shoulders. For this reason I had to play for ten successive rounds without being substituted. Bykhovsky: ‘In Graz the young grandmaster achieved a great creative success. Kasparov likes complicated play. He sees a lot, he calculates accurately and deeply, he is extremely inventive, and he has an excellent feeling for the dynamics of a position. But the strongest aspect of his play, in my view, is his ability to obtain complicated positions, and his ability to impose his play on the opponent.’ At that time the American master Eric Schiller gave a curious pen-portrait: ‘Kasparov’s preparation just before the onset of the game is intense. Arriving early at the board, he plunges into deep concentration, and starts to get his juices flowing. The face which was calm and peaceful only moments before becomes creased with tension... Away from the board it is quite another matter. He enjoys blitz, although quickly bored when faced by weak opposition. The consensus among some of America’s finest blitz players was that he is simply astounding. Garry told me that there is really only one interesting blitz opponent for him - Karpov.’
Tilburg Lessons International Tournament in Tilburg (1-16 October 1981) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 Beliavsky * X 0 1 X X X X 1 1 1 1 7У2 2 Petrosian X * X X X X X 1 1 X X 1 7 3 Portisch 1 X * X 1 0 X X 0 1 1 X 6V2 4 Timman 0 X X * X X 1 1 0 1 X 1 6У2 5 Ljubojevic X X 0 X * X X X X 1 1 X 6 6 Andersson X X 1 X X * X 0 X 0 X 1 514 7 Spassky X X X 0 X X * 1 X X X X 5У2 8 Kasparov X 0 X 0 X 1 0 * 1 X 1 X 5У2 9 Sosonko 0 0 1 1 X X X 0 * 0 X X 4У2 10 Larsen 0 X 0 0 0 1 X X 1 * 0 1 4У2 11 Hiibner 0 X 0 X 0 X X 0 X 1 * X 4 12 Miles 0 0 X 0 X 0 X X X 0 X * 3 The super-tourn am ents in the small Dutch town of Tilburg, which were held Game 57 from 1977 to 1998, were among the most G.Kasparov-G. Sosonko prestigious in the world. There were ideal Tilburg, 1st round, 2.IO.1981 playing conditions and quite high prizes. Queen's Gambit D38 Therefore, even for an elite Soviet grand- master, participation in such a tourna- 1 d4<2tf6 2 c4 еб 3 £>f3 d5 4 ^сЗ JLb4 ment was an exceptional event. And for me Tilburg 1981 was also an important stage in my chess development. It gathered all the strongest grandmasters, apart from Karpov and Korchnoi, who were in Merano playing a match for the crown, and Tai and Polugayevsky (they were helping Karpov). At the start I was paired against the 38-year-old Genna Sosonko, a highly colourful character on the tournament scene -previously a Leningrad master, a second of Tai and Korchnoi, who after leaving the USSR became one of the best grandmasters in Holland, twice champion of the country and winner of the tournaments in Wijk aan Zee (1977 and 1981), and also an excellent chess journalist and writer. At that time Sosonko was one of the few supporters of the Ragozin Variation -nowadays the leading players employ it much more often. 5 cxd5 (5) 5...exd5 6 JLgS (the natural reply) 6...h6 7 Ah4 Leading to an open battle - none of your ‘amorphous’ captures on f6 (7 Axf6 Wxf6 8 Wb3 Wd6 9 a3 Aa5 10 Wa4+ £k6 11 b4 Jlb6 12 e3 0-0 with equality, Kasparov-Kupreichik, Minsk 1978). 7...C5 8 e3 g5 9 ig3 *'e4 Immediately trying to exploit the pin on the knight at c3. Now these sharp positions are already a matter of course - Black plays both this, and even 9...C4. 101.b5+(5) A tempo-gaining developing move. It is
unfavourable to play 10 dxc5?l £bxc3 (and if 11 Wd4, then 11...<йха2+ and ...0-0) or 10 £>d2 £>xg3 11 hxg3 cxd4 12 exd4 ®c6 with equality (Rashkovsky-Taimanov, 41st USSR Championship, Moscow 1973). 10...4f81? This prepared novelty surprised me. And I stopped to think, since I had only been expecting 10...Ad7 11 Axd7+, assuming that the weakness of the f5-square would promise White some advantage. 11 dxc5?! (15) An unexpected exchange sacrifice! I thought that in return White would gain a fearfully strong attack, but I underestimated Black's defensive resources. 11 0-0! АхсЗ 12 ЬхсЗ c41 was more logical. In the game I.Sokolov-Sosonko (Rotterdam 1998) there followed 13 ^es!? ‘йхсЗ 14 Wh5 Wf6(?!) 15 f41 g4 16 f5 £>e2+ (16...<^xb5?! is weaker in view of 17 Ah 4 Wg7 18 ^g6+! Фе8 19 £>e7 etc.) 17 &hl £>xg3+ 18 hxg3 Hg8 19 ®g6+! Фд7 20 #te7 Sd8, and here 21 e41 (Sokolov) would have given a powerful attack: 21...dxe4 (after Ribli’s move 21...аб?! there is 22 SixdS lxd5?! 23 Axc4!) 22 Axc4 £>c6 23 £>xc6 Ьхсб 24 Sf4! STS 25 lxe4 or 24...ФЬ8 25 Йхе4 etc. However, after 14-Ae6! 15 f4 Sh7! no way for White to win is apparent. A double-edged struggle also results from 13 Wc2 Af5 (Ribli’s move 13...Wa5? is bad because of 14 Axc4!) 14 Wb2 Фд7. So it is not altogether clear why 10...4^8 went out of use. ll...£ixc3 (11) 12 ЬхсЗ Axc3+ (30) 13 Фе2 (2) 13...Axal (8) Sosonko was rather shocked, but he nevertheless took the exchange, which, in my view, is more critical than 13...Wa5 14 a4 аб 15 Ad3 £)c6, although here too there is nothing terrible for Black. 14 Wxalf6 15 h4 (3) This looked to be the most vigorous continuation. Nothing particular was promised by 15 Ad6+ Фд7 16 <Ad4 Ag4+ 17 f3 Ad7 18 Ad3 Ac6 19 £ixc6 Ахсб 20 h4 Wd7 21 Af2 Ab5 22 Ac2 b6 with equality. 15...g4?l (6) The first step towards the precipice. Of course, Black should have preferred 15...Фд7! 16 hxg5 hxg5 17 Sxh8 Wxh8! (the threat of <^xg5 is illusory) 18 4^xg5 5k6, when he is alright: White has compensation for the exchange, but not more (Genna informed me of this possibility the following day). 16 Ad4 (5) 16...Af7 (9) 17 Ad3 (10) With the intention of ^b5-d6 (17 Ad6!? Ad7 and ...4кб is unclear). The situation
has rapidly changed to White’s advantage. This was one of my main latent superiorities: I had a very good feeling for the dynamics of such positions with unbalanced material, whereas my opponents often hesitated for too long. 17...^d7 (20) White also has an easy game after 17...^c6 18 <£±>5 with the threat of an invasion on d6 (18...£)b4 19 Wc3, as in the game). It is not easy for Black to defend: his king is exposed, and the knight on d6 paralyses his entire defence. 18 Wc3 (7) 18...^e5 (25) 19 ^b5 (2) 19...We7 (9) It is hard to offer any better advice: if, for example, 19...£>xd3 20 Wxd3 Wa5?l, then 21 Hbl! (but not 21 Wxd5+? Фд7 22 Sk7 b6! with equality), and Black is lost (21...Wxa2+ 22 Фе1! b6 23 ^hd6+ Фд7 24 h5!) 20 ^d6+ (2) 2O...4T8 (14) Of course, not 2О...Фд7? 21 A.f51 Ad7 22 Лхе5 fxe5 23 Axd7 Wxd7 24 Wxe5+ etc. 21fidl (6) 21...Б6? (5) Not yet sensing the impending danger, Sosonko continues making positional moves. 21...®xd3 22 Wxd3 Ae6 was more resilient, although after 23 h5 or 23 Sbl all the same things are not easy for Black. 221.C2! (9) Now all White’s pieces join the attack and, to the unconcealed surprise of my opponent, the game quickly concludes. 22..Лаб+ (4) 22...bxc5 23 Sxd5 W 24 JLg6! or 23...JLe6 24 Bxe5l fxe5 25 Wxe5 was also hopeless. 23 Фе1 Ac4 24 'xc4 (4) 24...dxc4 25 Hd6! (the concluding stroke) 25...fie8 (5) 26 l.xe5 (2) 26...fxe5 (2) 26...Wxe5 was slightly more tenacious, but after 27 Bxf6+ Фд7 28 Дд6+ 4>f8 29 Wxc4 bxc5 30 Wxg4 Black also cannot hold out. 27 Wxc4 Wf7 (if 27...bxc5 the most forceful is 28 ±b3!) 28 We4l (3) 28...g3 (4) 29 fxg3 1-0 Times: 1.31-2.18. In the 2nd round I had Black against Por-tisch, and again, as six months earlier in Moscow, I chose the Modern Benoni Defence. And again I sacrificed a pawn! On this occasion I was able to seize the initiative and even land the spectacular blow 24...^3+1!, but Portisch found a way to save himself and after an interesting struggle things ended in a draw. The result was the same in a very complicated 3rd round game with Beliavsky.
In the 4th round against Timman I played a well-known variation of the King’s Indian Defence with an exchange sacrifice and, after employing a strong novelty, I gained sufficient counterplay (cf. Game No.53, note to White’s 3rd move). But I spoiled everything with the mediocre move 21...£ib7? - after it Black no longer had compensation for the exchange. Timman accurately converted his material advantage and, with 3 points out of 4, took the lead together with Andersson. This loss was the beginning of my ‘Tilburg sufferings’. My first meeting at the board with Boris Spassky ended tragically for me. I have to admit that I did not feel inhibited by the ex world champion. I had 2 points out of 4 and was in a fighting mood: I believed (and not without justification) that I would score many more points. And before the game I cheerfully informed my opponent how it would end: I prepared him for the worst, and in my usual, natural manner - with a laugh and even using not altogether literary language. To which Spassky, also in his usual - ‘Tolush-like’ - manner, grandly replied: ‘I implore you to carry it out!’ Game 58 G.Kasparov-B.Spassky Tilburg, 5th round, 7.10.1981 King’s Indian Defence E74 1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 g6 4 ^c3 (5) 4...d6 5 e4 i.g7 Spassky always made subtle choices in his openings. I was somewhat startled that he should take the risk of playing a King’s Indian set-up that was very familiar to me. After some thought I decided to choose the Averbakh Variation - perhaps not the most dangerous for Black, but one that demands very energetic play and a detailed knowledge of opening subtleties (which the opponent probably did not have!). 6 X.e2 (9) 6...0-0 7 i.g5 7...b5?l (14) After some hesitation Spassky decided to sacrifice a pawn in the spirit of the Benko Gambit, hoping to seize the initiative and force White to defend accurately, i.e. to give the play a character that was unpleasant for me. Fischer employed 7...e6 (Game No.30 in Volume IV of My Great Predecessors), and I myself - the preparatory 7...h6 (Game No.28). 8 cxb5 (7) 8...a6 9 a41 9...Wa5?l (11) The first subtlety: 9-.-h6! 10 JLd2! еб is
better, as I played two months later against Tukmakov (Game No.67). 10 Ad2l£sbd7?(21) Here play on general grounds is too passive: Black simply ends up in an inferior version of the Benko Gambit, as is also the case after 10...axb5?! 11 Axb5- The only chance of confusing matters is 10...Wb4!?. 11 la 31 (15) Now Black’s activity peters out. ll...Ab7 (7) 12 axb5 (5) 13 Axb5 (18) 13...Wc7 (11) 14 0-0 (2) White’s position is already technically won: he is a sound pawn to the good, without any counterplay for the opponent. Thus Spassky’s venture had failed. However, he carried on playing as though nothing had happened, with a completely unperturbed appearance (which, I remember, made me laugh somewhat). 14...^g4 (13) 14-..еб? 15 dxe6 fxe6 16 ®g5 Йае8 17 Af4 e5 18 Дс4+ S>h8 19 ®b5 Wb8 20 £}xd6 was completely bad for Black. 15 Ag5 (14) It is hard not to make this move, although the computer suggests 15 a5. 15...£>gf6 (2) A pragmatic decision by an experienced campaigner! Black must hold his ground, be patient, and wait - the opponent may over-press, or make a second-rate move... The variation 15... £>d(g)e5 16 £>xe5 4bxe5 17 f4 ®d7 18 Axe7 Sfe8 19 Ag5 h6 20 Ah4 ДхсЗ 21 ЬхсЗ Дхе4 22 c4 would have led to a decisive advantage for White. 16 4?hd2 (5) 16...e6 (4) 17 ^c4l (4) Things would have been far from clear after 17 dxe6 fxe6 18 £k4 (18 a51?) 18...d5 19 exd5 exd5 (19-.£>xd5 20 a5) 20 Axd7 Wxd7 (2O...dxc4?l 21 Ae6+) 21 ^b6 Wc6! 22 Axf6 Axf6 23 Wxd5+ (23 ®cxd5 2ad8!) 23...Wxd5 24 £>bxd5 Axd5 25 ^xd5 Axb2 26 Жа2 Ad4 with drawing chances. 17...exd5 18 exd5 Had8 (13) 18...£bb6 did not work because of 19 <^xb6 ®xb6 20 Wf31 £>h5 21 g4 and wins. 19 a5 (3) An obvious plan for converting the advantage. To this day I don’t understand how I contrived to lose from such a position! 19...H6 (3) 20 Ah4 (3) 20 Af4! was better, and if 2O...^e5 - 21 £hxe5 dxe5 22 d6! Wxd6 23 Wxd6 Hxd6 24 Axe5 Неб (24...Sd2 25 аб) 25 Axf6 Sxf6 26 a6 or simply 21 Axes! dxe5 22 d6 Wb8 23 аб Aa8 24 Wa4, with a winning position in both cases. For the moment the move in the game also does not spoil anything, al-
though Black acquires a hint of counterplay. Black is not tempted by 3O...Wxe6? 31 dxe6 flxdl 32 flxdl l.e5 33 e7 le8 34 fld8. 2O...^ie5 (3) 21 аб ^.a8 (3) 22 Hel (4) 22...g5 (2) 23 ^.g3 £tfd7l (opening the way for the f-pawn) 24 a7! (11) 24...f5 (4) 25 ±xe5 £ixe5 26 «Sixes dxes!? (6) A desperate chance: after 2б..Лхе5 27 Wh5 ®g7 28 Жаб! with the threat of Axes or the immediate 27 Даб!? and Лс6 White would have won without any trouble. Now too the a7-pawn should decide the outcome, but at least it is blockaded and Black still has hopes of exploiting the power of his dark-square bishop. 27 Даб e4 (3) 28 Лс4 (6) The computer recommends the ‘crude’ 28 d6! Wf7 29 We2(a4) or 29 d7. 28,..Wf7 (28...W4?! 29 дз!) 29 Sib5 (3) 29...ФН7 (5) 29...JLxd5? 30 a8W Дха8 31 Jlxd5 etc. is bad for Black. 30 Деб The situation has clarified, and I began playing more enterprisingly: the knight has defended the a7-pawn and the rook has invaded at еб. The finishing-off stage has been reached and Spassky was already in severe time-trouble (perhaps this was my undoing?). 3O...Wb7l (5) 31 Wh5?! (7) The first move that deserves more serious criticism. I should have simply attacked the e4-pawn - 31 f3!, and the game would have concluded quickly, for example: 31...Sxd5?l 32 .ixds Wxd5 33 Wxd5 i.xd5 34 Sd6 Aa8 35 fxe4 fxe4 36 flfl! or 35-Лхе4 36 ДЬб! and ДЬ8. I am amazed that I did not play this. Commentary is superfluous... 31...flf6 (2) 32 flxf6 (5) 32...^xf6 33 g4? Whereas the queen sortie was not so bad, here (in the opponent’s time-trouble!) I simply ‘twitched’. 33 h4, 33 d6 e3 34 f3, and 33 f3 (with the threat of fxe4) 33-.exf3 34 Деб!, etc., would all have given an elementary win. 33..J4! An instant reply! For the first time Black has acquired real counter-chances. 34 h4l? (2) With the opponent in time-trouble, this ‘side’ move is not a bad chance in the unexpectedly sharpened situation. 34 Ьз would also have done, or else 34 flxe4 Sxd5 35 f31, but the over-hasty 35 Axd5? would have led only to a draw: 35...Wxd5 36 f3 Wdl+ 37 &f2 i.xe4 38 Wf7+ £.g7 39 fxe4
Wd2+ with perpetual check. Could White really have reconciled himself to such an outcome?! 34... *g7?! An instinctive move with the flag about to fall! 34...e3 would have led to a position which seemed completely unclear to me. But today I see that here there was a win by either 35 fxe3 Hxd5 36 e4! (but not 36 Jlxd5? Wxd5 37 e4 Wd3 with a draw), or 35 hxg5 Дхд5 36 fxe3! Sxd5 37 e4! Sd8 (37...1d2 38 We8!) 38 Wf7+, as well as by the merciless 35 J.d3+! ФдЗ 36 Ьз!, when the d5-pawn is taboo because of Лс4. 35^3? (7) A nightmarish reply: White misses an immediate and straightforward win, which would have been achieved by 35 d6! e3 36 f3! (this is only apparently risky) 36...2f8 37 ®c7! Wxf3 38 <2ie6+, mating, or 36...Ec8 37 ^bc7 lxc7 38 dxc7 Wxc7 39 We8 Wd8 40 Wf7+ etc. A blunder - now in a mutual time scramble. Indeed, White gives up a knight for just a couple of checks! After the only correct move 38 <?be2, strangely enough, White would still have retained an enormous advantage: a) 38...jlxd5?! (38...2xd5? is worse in view of 39 Wg6+ i’fS 40 Hbl! etc.) 39 Wg6+ &f8 40 lb(h6+ Фе7 41 ‘A’fl! &d7 42 Wh7+! (but not 42 hxg5? Sth8! 43 Wxf6 Ehl+ with perpetual check) 42...ФЬ6 43 Bbl! (Akopian) or 42...Ag7 43 Ле4!, and Black has problems; b) 38..>e5 39 'A’fl! gxh4 40 Wg6+ <if8 41 Wxh6+ Дд7 42 Wxh4 Sd7 43 Sbl! Exa7 44 Wd8+ <4>f7 45 g5! with an irresistible attack; c) 38...jld4+ 39 &fl f3 40 Wg6+ <s£?f8 41 Wf5+ Фд7 42 Wxf3 fif8 (42...JLxd5? 43 Wxd5! and a8W) 43 Af5, and Black has an obviously bad position (true, nevertheless it is still playable). 38...Wxc3 39 Wg6+ Sf8 40 Wxh6+ fig7 41 Wxg5 35...e3l This leads to an abrupt sharpening of the play. For some reason I had reckoned only on 35...Wxa7? 36 £sxe4 We7 37 'A’fl ^xd5 (37-gxh4 38 £>g3!) 38 ±xd5 Sxd5 39 ®xf6 Wxf6 40 We8, winning. 36 Ad3 (2) 36...exf2+ 37 Axf2 Wxb2+ 38 He2? 41...W6 (25) The sealed move. At first sight, 41-Wd4+ (driving the king back from f2) 42 ‘A’fl Wf6 was more accurate, with a win for Black after the ‘cooperative’ 43 Wxf6+ JLxf6 44 g5 Ad4 45 Ac4? (after 45 Де4! a draw is highly probable) 45-f3! 46 Sa2?! (46 Ee4 fid7! 47
Sf4+ Фд7 48 2xf3 Иха7 49 h5 is more resilient) 4б...Де8! 47 ДаЗ f2 48 Фд2 Де1. But in this case White would have acquired the excellent resource 43 Wh51, for example: 43.-f3 44 flel f2 45 ДЬ1! Фе7 46 ДЬ8 Wal+ 47 &xf2 ixd5 48 Wg5+