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+ ДТб 49 We3+ &f7 50 Wf4 with a draw, or 43...Wal+ 44 Sei ®xa7 45 d6! Wf7 46 Wxf7+ ixfy 47 Дс4+! Фдб 48 Деб+ ФЬ7 49 A.d3+! Фд8 50 Лс41, prettily maintaining the balance.
In the adjourned position the restricted material also leaves White with hopes of a draw. The game was resumed that same day, two hours later. The sharp change of scene (instead of a win, I urgently had to find a way to draw!) had a dispiriting effect on me, and I squandered all my chances.
42 Wxf6+ (5) 42...±xf6 43 Дс4?!
I thought that I needed to retain the d5-pawn. Both in my brief analysis, and at the board, I did not see the most accurate continuation 43 g51 Ad4+ 44 ЛТЗ Jlxd5+ 45 JLe41 Лхе4+ 46 Фхе4 Ha8 47 Sa2 ДеЗ 48 Да4 c4 49 Sxc4 Sxa7 50 4>f3 (50 h51?) 5О...Фд7 51 Жсб (Spassky). In the end this would have led to the endgame with rook and bishop against rook, which, despite my depressed state, I would most probably have held.
43-..ДхЬ4+ 44 3 Hd7
45 Да2? (5)
Another mistake, now reparable only by a miracle. 45 Hh2! JLf6 46 g51 was essential, creating the greatest difficulties for Black, for example: 4б...Дд7 (4б...Де5 47 Де2) 47 Да2 JLe5 48 Фе4 Дс7 49 2b 2 ld8 50 4>f3, and there is no win (White simply plays Фд4 or ДЬЗ etc.).
45...^.g5 (now White is unable to play g4-g5 and his position is lost) 46 Фе4 Hf7l 47 Ha 5
47...4>g7! (6)
An important moment: 47.-f3? was incorrect because of 48 Дхс5 Sf4+ 49 Фе5 Дхс4 50 Дхс4 f2 51 Дс8+ Фд7 52 Дха8 flW 53 Нд8+ Фхд8 54 a8W+ with a draw.
48 Дхс5 (11) 48...*f6? (5)
48...Дха7 49 &f5 Де7! 50 Дс8 f3 or 49 Дс8 JLb7 50 ДЬ8 Даб 51 Дхаб Дхаб 52 Дс8 (52 4Т5 Де7!) 52...ДЬ6 etc. would also have been decisive. Apparently Spassky thought that in this way too he would convert his extra piece, but problems could have arisen.
49 Hc8! (9)
The variation 49 Ha5 He7+ 50 &d4 was worse because of 5О...Фд7! (5О...Д114 51 d61 is unclear) with the ideas of ,.JLf6+ and ...f4-f3.
49-..Hxa7?I (2)
Another error: only 49...fie7+! 50 4>d4 Дха7 would have retained winning chances, although after 51 Фс5! ДЬ7 52 Sf8+ Фд7 53 Sf5 4>h6 54 ФЬб Sa4 55 ФхЬ7 Sb4+ 56 *сб Жхс4+ 57 &d7 it is possible that White’s activity is sufficient for a draw. 50 Sf8+ *g7 (5О...Фе7 51 lf5 with a draw) 51Sc8?
It was essential to play 51 Де8! (threatening ifs) 51...<Sf7 52 ДЬ8! with a positional draw. But by now I was in a complete stupor...
(a comedy of errors: in his second time-trouble Black misses 51...Jt.b7!) 52 Sf8+ Ag7 53 Sc8? (53 He8!) 53-ДЬ7!
Now White is finally lost.
54 Жс7+ (54 Eb 8 Даб!) 54...*f6 55 ^d4 Д114! 56 d6 (6) 56...if 2+ (3)
Or 56...f3!?. Time-trouble was over and the third time control began.
57 ФеЗ Де41 (29)
Of course, not 57...Феб? 58 d7 Де1+ 59 ФЬЗ ДЬ4 60 g5! Дхд5 61 1с5+ Фч16 62 Sxg5 ФхЬ7 63 Eg 7+ with a draw.
58 Se7 (18)
58 ДЬ5 ДЬ7! or 58 g5+ Фхд5 59 d7 Ea8 601с8 ДЬб was also bad for White.
58...Sxe7 59 g5+ Ag6 60 dxe7 Деб 61 ФЬ4 ДЬб (21) 62 ДЬЗ (62 ДЬ5 ДхЬ5 63 ФхЬ5 <4>f7! and wins) 62..Jld7 (6)
The final trap: 62...f3? 63 ДЬ5 with a draw.
63 Ad5 (3) БЗ...Де8 64 tc4 f3 65 id3+ vxg5 66 ДЬ5 f2 0-1
Times: 3.45-4.05.
The calm and enterprising way in which Spassky fought on in a hopeless position made a great impression on me. Despite some time-trouble errors, he splendidly exploited the tactical chances that arose and subtly sensed the psychological nuances of the struggle. He outplayed me, in particular, psychologically. In such an ugly position another player would simply have lost heart, but Spassky fought on to the bitter end under the motto: ‘He is young and hot-tempered - this may tell at some point.’ And that is what happened.
Two successive defeats were a heavy blow: such a thing had not happened to me for a long time! The next day I had Black against Robert Htibner, a finalist in the previous Candidates cycle. And, pulling myself together, I made every effort to retain my composure and not lose my optimism.
Game 59
R.Hiibner-G.Kasparov
Tilburg, 6th round, 8.10.1981 English Opening A30
1 c4 (Hilbner’s usual move) l...£if6 2 €k3 c5
3 £>f3 (if 3 дЗ еб 4 Дд2, then 4...d5 is good)
3...e6 4 g3 b6 5 Eg2 ДЬ7 6 0-0 Де7 7 d4
7 Eel is more cunning, whereas 7 b3 is guileless (Game Nos. 49, 55).
7...cxd4 8 Wxd4 d6!
This was one of my first experiences of employing the ‘hedgehog’ set-up at world level. I liked the flexibility of Black’s posi
tion; he can manoeuvre for a long time, awaiting the moment for ...b6-b5 or ...d6-d5. At that time there were not yet any clear prescriptions, and Hiibner decided to play the opening in the waiting manner of Uhlmann - the main expert on this set-up for White.
12..Ж7 13 ДЬ2
After 13 ДаЗ Sfe8! 14 h3 Дf8 15 Sfel Ead8 16 Sadi £>c5 17 f3 (17 f4 e51) 17...g6! 18 g4 Дд7 19 ДЬ2 Да8 20 Se2 h6 21 Idel Wb8 22 fd2?! e51 23 £>c2 b5! 24 cxb5?! (24 <йеЗ is better) 24...d5! the ‘hedgehog’ bristles with all is spines (Uhlmann-Bonsch, Halle 1976).
9b3
The immediate 9 e4 is also played: 9...0-0 (or 9-.a6) 10 We3 £)bd7 11 ^d4 Se8!? 12 b3 d51 (an idea of Gelfand). An alternative is 9 Sdl аб! 10 b3 £>bd7 11 ДЬ2 (11 e41? Wb8 -Game N0.7 in Revolution in the 70s) 11...0-0 12 h3 Wc7 13 e4 Sad8 14 Sacl Sfe8 (Ren-man-Kasparov, Skara 1980) or 9 Дд5 аб 10 ±xf6 ±xf6 11 Wf4 0-0 (Karpov-Kasparov, Moscow 1981; Game N0.3 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1975-1985), in both cases with roughly equal chances.
9...0-0 10 e4 (4)
The direct 10 ДаЗ does not achieve its aim in view of 10...^a6! (Game N0.5 in Revolution in the 70s).
10...^bd7 (2) 11 We3 аб (2) 12 &d4 (2)
A more accurate interpretation of Uhl-mann’s plan than 12 ДЬ2 Wc7 13 Sfdl Hac8 14 Sacl Wb8 15 £>d4 Sfe8 16 h3 £f8 17 f4? e51 18 2>f5 d5! 19 fxe5 Дс5 20 ®d4 (Cserna-Portisch, Budapest 1975) 2O...Wxe5l etc.
13...Sfe8! 14 h3 (3)
Useful prophylaxis, although the immediate 14 Sfel is also possible, with the same idea of Se2 and Wd2-el. Another of Uhlmann’s ideas - 14 ^hl Af8 15 f4 leads after 15...g6! 16 Hael Дд7 to double-edged play.
14...1f8! (2)
With the intention of ...g7-g6 and ...Дд7. This is more harmonious than 14-Sad8 15 Sfel Wb8 16 Se2 h6 17 Sael £)h7 (Uhlmann-Kuligowski, East Germany v. Poland 1981).
15 Sfel (2)
15 f4?l again runs into 15...e5! 16 £)f5 d5!• ‘However, here it is not all so simple: 17 fxe5 Дс5 18 4jd4 Wxe5 19 £>xd5 Дxd5 20 cxd5 £>xd5 21 Wf2 ^5f6 22 Sadi, maintaining the balance.’ (Shipov)
Black also has a good game after 15 Sael ^c5 16 Ah 2 Sad8! 17 Be2 g6 18 <йс2 Дд7 19 Да1 d51 20 e5 4hfd7 21 cxd5 (21 f4 dxc4)
21...£)xe5 22 f4 exd5! 23 fxe5 d41 24 <£>xd4 Дхе5 25 Wf2 5^d3 (Uhlmann-Gheorghiu, Manila Interzonal 1976).
15...Sad8 (8)
Clearly hinting at the ...d6-d5 breakthrough. 15...Hac8 16 He2 Wb8 is also acceptable, for example: 17 Wd2 ?k5 (17...Wa8! with the idea of ...d6-d5 is more accurate) 18 Hdl Wa8 19 Wei! (Uhlmann-Vaisser, Berlin 1982), or 17 Hdl Wa8! 18 Wd2 Wb8?! (18...d5! would have equalised) 19 JLal Aa8 20 Wei! (Uhlmann-Ermenkov, Berlin 1982), in both cases with some advantage to White.
16 He2 (5)
After 16 Hadi g6 White has the good regrouping 17 Wcl Wb8 18 Wai! JLg7 19 £ic2! Aa8 20 He2 and ^e3 (Uhlmann-Vilela, Halle 1981), but 16...Wb8! is more subtle: 17 Wcl (17 He2!?) 17...®c5 and ...Wa8, pressing on the e4-pawn (Uhlmann-Akesson, Polanica Zdroj 1981).
16...g6 (10)
Later Dizdarevic and Bonsch tried 16...Wb8!? and ...Aa8 against Uhlmann. 17Hael(5)
It was still possible to play 17 Hdl (Uhlmann-Petran, Budapest 1982) or 17 Wd2, in order to hide the queen at el.
17...Wb8 (4) 18 Wd2 (16) 18.. Jlg7 (10)
18....®c5 19 Wdl Wa8 is also quite good, for example: 20 £)c2 JLg7 21 JLal h5l? 22 b4 ^cd7 23 Wxd6 h41 with lively counterplay (Uhlmann-Adorjan, Budapest 1982). At any event, the outcome of the opening is very favourable for Black.
19 Wdl (10) 19...^c5 (9)
‘Everything is ready for the breakthrough. But without the help of the opponent it is not easy to carry it out. Any attempt by White to play for a win will provide this help!’ (Shipov)
20 id?! (3)
With the dubious idea of provoking the weakening ...h7-h6. 20 Wbl or 20 Hd2 was sounder. If White ‘stands still’, it will be hard for Black to break through. But who has the courage to 'stand still’ for the entire game?! It seems to me that Hiibner was playing in a rather carefree manner, assuming that he could do anything he wanted within his own territory. He was probably counting on my depressed state and waiting for me to ‘twitch’ somewhere.
2O...Hc8! (8)
Exploiting the fact that the knight at c3 is undefended, Black intensifies the threat of ...b6-b5 or ...d6-d5.
21 Jlg5 (2) 21...И6 (6) 22 JLcl Sed8!
Again eying the white queen from afar
and, in anticipation of ...d6-d5, moving away from the X-ray of the white rooks on the e-file.
23 Ab2
An inglorious return home: as a result of this loss of time the black rooks have taken up their optimal positions at c8 and d8, whereas White’s are firing into thin air. In the event of 23 Hd2 Wa8 Black would have advantageously maintained the tension and the threat of ...d6-d5.
23...	b5l? (15)
I think that this spectacular move and the next one came as an unpleasant surprise to Htibner.
The immediate blow in the centre suggested itself - 23...d51, when 24 e5?! dxc4 25 Axb7 Wxb7 26 bxc4 (26 exf6? Axf6 27 ^e4 £}xe4 28 Дхе4 c31 and wins) 26...£ifd7 27 f4 ^b8! and ...£k6 is to Black’s advantage. But I was afraid (wrongly, apparently) of the drawing tendencies in the variation 24 exd5 exds 25 cxd5 ^xd5 26 £ixd5 Axd5, for example:
a)	27 AxdS Sxd5 28 b4 Wd6! (28...&e6 29 Дхеб! fxe6 30 Дхеб is equal) 29 bxc5 bxc5 30 Wcl Axd4 31 Axd4 Sxd4 32 Wxh6 fldl and ...c5-c4 with some advantage;
b)	27 Sd2 ±xg2 28 Фхд2 Wb7+ 29 Wf3 (29 ФЬ2 fld6!) 29...Wxf3+ 30 &xf3 fld6!
(3O...f51? and ...£}e4) 31 fledl flcd8, and in view of the pin on the d-file White would still have had to fight for a draw.
However, I decided to strike a different, rather daring blow, but one which sharply changed the character of the play. My opponent became unsettled and within a few moves he began to ‘flounder’!
24 cxb5 (2)
24...d5! (only now!) 25 exd5 (17)
The complications begin. It is unfavourable for White to play 25 Ьхаб? Ахаб 26 fld2 dxe4 or 25 e5?! 4dfe4, when he loses his e 5-pawn.
25...-nxd5 26 £>xd5 AxdS
Black’s counterplay is based on the opposition of rook and queen on the d-file: ...e6-e5 is a constant threat.
27 b4! (2)
For the moment Htibner is equal to the occasion. True, 27 Axd5 fixd5 28 b4 <Sbd7 29 Wai! was also suitable, eliminating the pin on the knight: 29...^e5! (29...axb5? 30 4bxe6! and wins) 30 <2k6! £)f3+ 31 'tfl Axb2 32 Wxb2 Wd6 33 Wf6 Дхеб! 34 Ьхсб ^xel 35 Дхеб! fxe6 36 Wxg6+ 4Т8 37 Wf6+ Фе8 38 c7! with an elegant draw.
27...Axg2 (3) 28 :xg2 e5!
But not 28...Wa8+ 29 ФЬ2 e5 in view of 30 Дхе5! Axes 31 Дхе5 £>еб 32 Дхеб! fxe6
33 Wg4 ФЬ7 34 £}xe6 with full compensation for the two exchanges.
29 bxc5 (5) 29...exd4
And in this double-edged position Hiib-ner stopped to think...
30fid2?l (21)
An important moment: White goes on to the defensive! In Irformator I suggested 30 Wd3 (30 Ьхаб?! d31) 3O...axb5 31 Hc2 with an ‘equality’ evaluation, but after 31.-Way! (this is stronger than 31...Wa8+ and ...Wxa2) 32 c6 (32 Wxb5? d3!) 32...Wxa2 Black nevertheless has the better chances.
The correct decision was the active 30 Же?!, since the reply which I recommended a quarter of a century ago - 3O...Sxc5 31 Wb3 fif8?! (I should add 31...Wa8+ 32 Д1е4! Sf8 33 Ьхаб) 32 Ьхаб Sb5 does not work on account of 33 Wf3! Sxb2 34 a? Wd8 35 Де8!, and the a-pawn queens (to see this at the board was not easy!). And if 30...axb5 or 3O...Wxb5 there is the good reply 31 Wf3-Therefore Black should include 3O...Wa8+!, although after 31 Фд1! (31 Sle4? Jtf6; 31 Wf3 Wxf3+ 32 r^xf3 axbs or 31 c6 axbs 32 Sb7 Дхеб 33 See? Wxa2 34 Sxf7 Wd5+ 35 Фд1 Wxf? 36 Exf? 'i’xf? is also dangerous for White) 31...1xc5 32 Wb3 Sf8 33 Ьхаб Wxa6 34 Sb7 or 31...axb5 32 Wb3 Sf8 33 •fi.a3 (33 Д1еб is parried by 33...Sce8 or
33-..Sxc5 34 Sxg6 Wd5) White does not have even a hint of any problems.
ЗО...Дхс5 (10) 31 Ьхаб (not 31 A.xd4? Wa8+ and ...flcd5) 31...Wa8+ 32 Wf3 (10)
32 ФЬ2?! Wxa6 33 Jlxd4? is not possible on account of 33-.Hcd5 34 ЛеЗ Sxd2 35 ±xd2 Wd3(d6) with a fatal pin on the d-file. 32...Wxa6
Now it is not easy for White to combat the passed d4-pawn - under its cover Black can attack the queen, aiming to seize control of the a8-hl diagonal. But for the moment his threats do not look so terrible.
33Sedl(6)
Shipov recommended 33 Se4, ‘in order if possible to eliminate the powerful pawn at the cost of the exchange: 33.„Wa8 34 Jlxd4!? Scd5 35 Jlxg7 fixd2 36 jlxh6 with an almost drawn position.’
33...Sf5 (8) 34 We4 Wa41 35 a3 (35 ±xd4?
Bfd5! and wins) 35...Де8?! (14)
A time-trouble error. 35.-h5 or 35...Hc5 was stronger.
36 Wb7 Sd8! (14)
Reverting to the correct plan. If Зб...Де2?! there was the reply 37 Sxe2 Wxdl 38 Wc8+ S>h7 39 Wc2! with equality.
37Sd3?l (2)
Not the best move. 37 We4 or 37 Фд1 was more solid.
37...И5! (an unpleasant rejoinder: it is hard to find the correct defence straight away) 38 fild2?! (again it was better to play 38 Фд1 We8! etc.) 38...We8! (2)
With the threat of ...ДЬ8. Somehow imperceptibly White has ended up in a difficult position.
39 ^fl? (12)
Not wishing to conduct a cheerless defence the exchange down after 39 Jlxd4 SfdS, Hiibner commits a fatal error. 39 ФЬ2 was more resilient (but not 39 Wc7? fic81), after which I was planning 39~h4!• 39...Sb8 (3) 40 Wc7
If 40 Wg2 Black would have won by 4O...Wc8! with the threat of ...ДхЬ2.
4O...Hxb2! (2)
A decisive combinative stroke on the last move before the time control (I still had about eight minutes left).
41 Hxb2 We4 42 Wc4 (here the game was adjourned and then resumed that same evening, a couple of hours later) 42...WH1+ (8) The sealed move.
43 *e2 Wgl (43-..le5+! 44 *d2 Se6(el) was simpler, but the move in the game is also good) 44 ДЬ8+ ®h7 45 f4 h4! 46 ДЬ5
Or 46 ДЬЬЗ Hf6l, and soon the curtain comes down.
46...Hxb5 (3) 47 Wxb5 hxg3 48 Wg5 Wf2+
49 ®dl Wfl+ 0-1
In view of 50 Фс2 We2+ 51 Hd2 d3+ or 50 <4>d2 g2 51 Hg3 ±h61. Times: 2.32-2.42.
After this good win I gained heart. I was on 3 out of 6 - just one point less than the leading quintet!
Against one of these, ex-world champion Tigran Petrosian, I had White in the next round - and, naturally, I wanted to gain revenge for the vexing loss in Moscow in April. But again I ran into an amazing defence by ‘Iron Tigran'.
Game 60
G. Ka s pa ro v-T. Pet rosia n
Tilburg, 7th round, 10.10.1981 Queen's Gambit Accepted D22
1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 2)f3 2>f6 4 e3 ±g4 (2) 5 Дхс4 еб 6 h3 (4) 6..Л115 7 ^hc3 (2)
If 7 Wb3, then 7-±xf3 8 gxf3 ^bd7 (Szabo-Larsen, Portoroz Interzonal 1958), obtaining reasonable compensation for the pawn after 9 Wxb7 c5 (the same is played after 6 Wb3). Black’s successes in this direction raised the stock of the moves 3 e4 and 3 e3 (instead of 3 £rf3).
7...a6 (3) 8 g4 (5) 8...ig6 9 <£>e5
The comparatively rare variation chosen by my opponent came as something of a surprise to me - however, a pleasant one: I though that White’s advantage in space would give me chances of an attack.
9...^bd7 (4) 10 xg6 hxg6 11 JLf 1! (9)
11 g5 is harmless: 11...4kl5 12 ^>xd5 exd5 13 Axd5 c6 14 Ab3 (14 Дс4 is more accurate) 14...Wxg5 15 Wf3 £>f6 (Petrosian-Ivkov, Hamburg 1965) or 15...Ab4+ and ...Wf5 (Petrosian-Djindjihashvili, Olympiad, Buenos Aires 1978). When I made the 'reverse' move with my bishop and stood up from the board, Spassky approvingly slapped me on the shoulder: a good manoeuvre!
11...C6 (5) 12 J<g2 Wc7 13 0-0 „Те 7 (4) 14 f4 (4) 14...^b6 (3) 15 g5 (9)
15 a4 also came into consideration.
15...£>fd7 (15-..^fd5?! 16 e4 <^xc3 17 ЬхсЗ is inferior) 16 Wg4 (10) 16...0-0-0 (3)
In search of counterplay Black must castle queenside: if 16...0-0?, then 17 h4! and h4-h5.
17 fibl (12) 17...ФЬ8 (20) 18 b4 (5) 18...^d5
19 ^a41? (instead of the quiet 19 ^>xd5) 19...f5! (7)
Again a surprise: when I sacrificed the pawn I was hoping for 19,..£)xb4? 20 Ad2 £>d5 21 e4, when White’s attack develops
without any particular interference - even after the best 21...f5 (Petrosian) 22 gxf6 ^5xf6 23 Wxe6 £k5 24 ®>xc5 ±xc5 25 dxc5 lxd2 26 e5 ^d5 27 Wxg6.
2OWg3l? (8)
Insisting on the pawn sacrifice, although now it is far more risky! The double-edged 20 gxf6 gxf6 21 Wxe6 Hde8! was also unclear (Petrosian). I had to accept the appearance of an 'eternal’ knight on d5.
20...<^xb4 (10) 21 „id 2 4}d5 22 Hfcl (2)
The pressure on the open b- and c-files allows White to look to the future with optimism, and for the moment, on a board full of pieces, Black’s extra pawn is hardly felt.
22...Фа7 (5) 23 Wei (4) 23..JLa3l? (14) 24 Sc2 (12) 24...Wd6 25 lb3 (2) 25...We7 (4) 26 We2 (9)
Serious consideration should have been given to the immediate 26 <?jb2!? Axb2 27 Scxb2 ДЬ8 28 e4 fxe4 29 Wxe4, maintaining the dynamic balance.
26...ДЬ8 (5)
In Petrosian’s opinion, 2б...Да8!? was more accurate, with the same idea of ...fihc8 and ...b7-b5.
27 Wd3 ^.d6 (2)
If 27...^b4 28 Jlxb4 Axb4 there is an unpleasant piece sacrifice - 29 Ахсб! bxc6 30
Дхеб lb5 31 аз 1 ®Ь8 32 Дс2! ^.d6 33 lxb5 axbs 34 ^c3 with a powerful attack.
28 ®b2! (2) 28...1hc8 29 £>c4 ±c7?! (5)
It would appear that my highly experienced opponent overestimated the soundness of his position. After 29...^7b6! (immediately clarifying the intentions of the knight on c4) nothing definitely advantageous for White is apparent.
30 a4!
Here I was already anticipating placing my pawn on a5, then playing ДсЬ2 and Wbl - and gaining a convincing victory! For example: 3O...lh8?! 31 aS! Фа8 32 lcb2! Wf8 33 Wbl! Wc8 34 ib41 ^xb4 35 lxb4 Фа7 36 4Л6 ±xb6 37 axb6+ Фа8 38 Да4 and wins. And indeed, it is not clear what Black can do.
3O...b5?!
This move staggered me. It looks like a gesture of despair - after the natural 3O...^7b6 31 £)a5 the first impression is that White’s threats snowball: 31..JLd8 (31...£d6? 32 Scb2) 32 i.fl! Wd7 (32...Sa8? 33 £>xb7! ФхЬ7 34 a5 is bad for Black, while after 32...C5 33 dxc5 Дхс5 both 34 Bcb2 and 34 ®сб+!? Дхеб 35 Дхеб Фа8 Зб Дс2 <йха4 37 Sbl are tempting) 33 ДсЬ2 с5 34 dxc5 Дхс5 35 <^xb7!? (35 Wd4!?) 35-ДхЬ7 Зб а5 with an attack, although after Зб...ДЬ5 37
ДхЬ5 (37 Wd4 ДхЬЗ 38 ДхЬз Wc6!) 37...axb5 38 Wd4 b4 39 axb6+ JLxb6 40 Да2+ ®Ь8 41 We5+ Дс7! 42 Лд2 Дс5 43 Даб Фс81 (with the idea of 44 Дхеб?! <йе7!) or 38 axb6+ ЛхЬб 39 Wa3+ ФЬ8 40 Axbs We7(c7) Black retains drawing chances.
31 axb5 (3) 31...cxb5 (3) 32 Да2! (3)
A strong rejoinder: first and foremost 33 ДЬаЗ is threatened, but that is not all. It appears that the collapse of Black’s defences is now imminent. I remember that I was very proud of my position and I thought that the game was already over.
32...ФЬ7?! (10)
But this move staggered me even more: can such play really go unpunished?! It appeared that the opponent was obliged to go in for the variation 32...JLd6 (32...bxc4? 33 Дхаб+I; 32...1.xf4? 33 £>a3!) 33 ДхЬ5 ДхЬ5 34 ^xd6 lrxd6 35 Wxb5 Дс2! 36 Wb3 Дха2 37 вха2 &7b6 38 £.fl £ic7 with chances of a defence, although the long-range bishops would have left White with an enduring advantage. Sensing that the win was somewhere near at hand, I began to grow nervous.
33 l.b4? (6)
Strangely enough, this natural move, building up the pressure, is a serious mistake. I underestimated the opponent’s
defensive potential! White should not be circumventing, but attacking Black’s fortifications - at аб, b5 and d5.
Firstly, this aim would have been served by the knight manoeuvre c4-a3-c2-b4. I discovered the grandiose move 33 <<ha3! immediately after the game. Thus if 33...We8 there is the very strong 34 <?hxb5! axb5 35 Wxb5+ ±b6 36 Даб! Фс7 37 l.a5! ‘S’dS 38 Jlxd5 exd5 39 Wxd5 etc.
In my book The Test of Time (1986) I gave 33...£b6 34 ^c2! Sa8 35 £>b4 Wd6 36 e4(?) fxe4 37 Wxe4 as the main variation, overlooking the spectacular refutation, later pointed out by Timman: 36...^ic5!! 37 dxc5 Wxc5+ 38 ФЬ2 Wgl+ 39 ФдЗ Wf2+ (39...Hh8 40 ДеЗ!) 40 ФЬ2 Wgl+ with perpetual check.
Even so, with the computer’s help I was able to find the accurate 36 Sbl! ЙЬв (36...SC4? 37 Wa3!) 37 Wb3 Hc4 (or 37...1d8 38 Scl) 38 Sell Ixcl 39 Дхс1 ^сб 40 ^xd5 exd5 41 A.xd5 and wins.
The same computer 'friend' brought some ‘joy’ in another direction. In that book I stated that after 33 ^аз! the reply 33-^b6 would lose to 34 4b<b5 axb5 35 Wxb5 Hd8 (35„.3a8?? 36 Wxd5+, and mate) 36 ±b4! We8 (36...W7 37 ±c5) 37 Wa6+ Фсб 38 ±c5 <id7 (38...1a8 39 ДхЬ6+) 39 JLfll. However, it transpired that 35-ПЬ8! is more resilient - here White still has to display exceptional ingenuity in attack: 36 ±b4l We8 37 Wa6+ Феб 38 Jlfl! <^xb4 39 Sxb4 Wd8 (39-^d6 40 Wa31 or 39...We7 40 Jlb5+ Фd5 41 Wa3! is also bad for Black) 40 Wb5+ Фd6 41 We5+ Фе7 42 Wxg7+ Фd6 43 Ше5+ Фе7 44 Да7 and wins.
Secondly, after the publication of Volume III of My Great Predecessors (2004), where this game was published with the majority of the variations given above, I saw that the ‘interesting’ move 33 Wbll,
which supposedly ‘would not have solved the problems facing White’, would in fact also have given an irresistible attack: after 33-.Se8 or 33-.Sh8 (33...1d8?! 34 lxb5+!) the patient move 34 Дс2! is very strong, with the threats of <2ia5+, Ab4 and ДхЬ5+ (and if 34...Фа7, then first 35 Wai!).
Thus, to find clear ways leading to a win for White, many years and many megahertz of computer power were required. But at the board, not suspecting any dangers, I continued simply building up the pressure. Such a general approach does not always prove correct, as I came to realise within literally a couple of moves.
33...We81 (3)
From here the queen indirectly defends the b5-pawn. 33...Wd8? was much weaker in view of 34 e4! fxe4 (34...£>xb4 35 ДхЬ4 and wins) 35 Wxe4, when Black is lost: 35-We8 36 Wxd5+! exd5 37 ±xd5+ Фа7 38 Дха6+! Фхаб 39 ДаЗ+ Ла5 40 Дха5 mate, or 35-bxc4 36 Wxe6 ^7b6 37 ДЬаЗ! also with a mating attack.
34±d6?! (3)
34 JLa5 We7! was also no use, and neither was Petrosian’s recommendation 34 ^d6+ JLxd6 35 Axd6 Да8 36 e4, in view of 36...fxe4 37 Дхе4 Деб with double-edged play. But the cool-headed 34 JLa3! Да8 35
Bbl with the idea of Wb3 would have left White with much the better chances.
34...1a8! (5) 35 Wbl?! (9)
White again plays on general grounds, hoping that an opportunity for him to land some combinative blow will present itself. After the ‘concrete’ 35 e4 fxe4 36 Wxe4 Wf7 Black, with his powerful knight on d5, could have felt quite calm. He would also have had a comfortable game after 35 Bbl Ab6! 36 ®e5 ^xe5 37 Axe5 Wd7. But with the retreat 34 JLa31 White would still have retained reasonable compensation for the pawn.
35-Дсб!!
A fantastic defence! This move, which Petrosian made instantly, threw me into complete confusion: how is it possible to move the king forward with a board full of pieces?! Who, after Steinitz, had done such a thing?! The psychological effect of the 3O...b5?! thrust and the king march ...Фа7-b7-c6 was so strong, that I was unable to gather my thoughts, failed to find a drawing combination, and lost quickly...
36Bba3?(7)
It was essential to play 36 Jlxc7! bxc4 (Зб...Фхс7 37 ДЬ2 idS 38 ^d3 with compensation for the pawn) 37 Bb7! (the over-optimistic 37 Aa5?l cxb3 38 Wxb3 Bab8 39
Hc2+ is refuted by 39...^>c51 40 Bxc5+ 'A’dy) 37...Bxc7 38 Bxa6+ Bxa6 39 Wb5+ &d6 40 Wxa6+ Фе7! 41 ±xd5 Sxb7 42 ixb7 (not 42 Wxe6+? &d8) 42...Wb8! with a draw.
36...bxc4 37 1ха6+ Дхаб 38 Bxa6+ ДЬб 39 ±c5 (39 Wb4 ФЬ7 40 Ba2 c3!) 39...Wd8! 40 Wai (4)
If 40 Wb4, then 4О...ФЬ7! - this move both suggests itself, and is the only one to win (4O...Ba8?? 41 Ae7! 1 and White wins). 4О...Дхс5 41 dxc5 Axes 42 Ba4
And White resigned (0-1). In analysis after the game it was noticeable how much more deeply my opponent had evaluated the positions that arose. Times: 2.29-2.29.
Following the one in Moscow (Game Л/0.52), this was another unforgettable lesson! The games with Petrosian broadened my understanding of chess. Had it not been for these defeats, I would possibly not have reached the top in chess. I saw how many latent defensive possibilities are often concealed in cramped positions!
After this dramatic duel I again sank to ‘minus one’ and lost my last chances of success in the tournament. The race was led by Petrosian, Timman and Beliavsky on 5 out of 7, followed by Andersson (4У2) and Portis ch (4).
Now I had to try and extricate myself from a minus score, since my store of energy and my eagerness for a fight had not yet disappeared. And my next opponent, the outstanding master of defence Ulf Andersson, was very unlucky: that day I managed in one game to concentrate my entire offensive power.
Game 61
G.Kasparov-U.Andersson
Tilburg, 8th round, 11.10.1981
Queen’s Indian Defence E12
1 d4 2>f6 2 C4 еб 3 Srf3 b6 4 аЗ ДЬ7 (4...C5 -Game Nos. 32, 68) 5 ^>c3 £>e4 (6)
At that time this was the Swedish grandmaster’s favourite reply to the 4 a3 variation. In my opinion, the usual 5-d5 is more promising (Game Nos. 43, 52, 73, 75, 85, 98).
6 £>xe4 Jlxe4 7 ^d21?
An ambitious continuation. I had also analysed 7 e3 with the idea of 7...C5 8 jld3 JLxd3 9 ®xd3 cxd4 10 exd4 d5 11 Дд5 Ae7 12 Лхе7 Wxe7 13 0-0, when White has the better prospects. But Ulf used to defend with 7...Де7 8 Ad3 JLxd3 9 Wxd3 d5, and I wanted something more.
7...JLg6?! (17)
A new move, but hardly a good one. If 7...ДЬ7 Black was probably afraid of the advance 8 e4, but after 8...Wf6 9 d5 (only not 9 e5?l Wg6 10 £sf3 f6) 9...&d6 10 ±d3 4ja6 11 0-0 £k5 12 £c2 0-0 13 Bbl aS 14 5tf3 White’s advantage is comparatively slight.
8 g3! (10)
An immediate change of plan: if the black bishop has moved off the long diagonal, why not occupy it with the white bishop?
8...^c6 (5)
‘The same fanciful course', I wrote in The Test of Time, where I recommended the ‘normal’ 8...C6 9 Jlg2 d5 (strangely enough, in the game Black only plays ...d7-d5 just before he resigns), which is the event of 10 0-0 Ae7 11 e4 ‘would merely have given White slightly the better chances’. But 10 e4l Ae7 11 h41 is more vigorous, with an unpleasant initiative (for example, 11...h6 12 h5 Jlh7 13 exd5 exds 14 cxd5 cxd5 15 Wb3, etc.).
In fact, Ulf adopted a practical approach: he thought that Black had time for a series of unhurried positional moves, creating long-term preconditions for counterplay. From this point of view, 8...4k6 suggests itself.
9 еЗ аб?! (5)
Black concedes space after 9-.e5 10 d5 (Psakhis-Gurgenidze, 52nd USSR Championship, Riga 1985) or 9-.a5 10 b3 e5 11 d5 (Rustemov-Chernyshov, Elista 2001). Perhaps he should have remembered about the development of his kingside - 9...JLe7 10 Jig2 0-0, although after 11 b4 or 11 0-0 a5 12 ®e4 and 5k3 Black’s position is unpromising. It was for this reason that Andersson began preparing an advance on the queenside.
10 b4! (6)
10 b3 was also not bad, but I decided to provoke my opponent into playing actively. 10...b5 (13)
Logical! 10..JLd6 11 Ag2 0-0 12 0-0 would clearly have played into White’s hands. But now it appears that Black has achieved some potential positional gains, which he may subsequently be able to exploit.
11 cxb5 (3)
After 11 JLb2!? bxc4 12 Jlxc4 Black would also have faced an unpleasant defence.
Il...axb5 12 JLb2
Consistent development with an attack -now Axbs is threatened (12 Axbs? ^xb4).
12...^a7?l (6)
12...ЖЬ8 was better, although here too after 13 Hcl White has an appreciable advantage. At this moment Ulf assessed his position optimistically: after the planned ...d7-d5 Black will have nothing to fear. But - to the end of the game he is not allowed any respite!
13 h4! (3)
The start of a ferocious assault. A weakening of Black’s kingside must be provoked.
13...H6? (5)
An imperceptible but possibly already
decisive mistake: Black allows h4-h5, which later allows White to exploit the weakness of the дб-square.
Better defensive chances were offered by the seemingly risky 13...h5 - after 14 d51 (the same obstructive sacrifice as in the game) 14...exd5 15 Ag2 сб 16 0-0 f6 17 Hel Ae7 18 e4 dxe4 19 ^xe4 0-0 20 g41? (Crouch; after Stohl’s move 20 £)c5 there is the acceptable reply 2O...Axc5 21 bxc5 £>c8) or 19 Axe41? White also has a dangerous attack, but Black can still resist.
14 d5l (6) 14...exd5 (11) 15 Ag2 c6 (14) 16 0-0
This is the position for which White was aiming. The development of the black pieces has been retarded, and the threat of opening up the game by e3-e4 is essentially unavoidable: although 16...f5 parries this threat, after 17 <2\f3! the weaknesses in Black’s position are irreparable.
16...f6 (6)
Andersson tries to castle artificially, but in so doing he catastrophically weakens the light squares.
17 Sei (13)
The immediate 17 e4!? was more forceful, with the idea of 17...dxe4 18 Wg4! ФГ7 (if 18...Af7(h7), then 19 £ixe4! is strong) 19 h5 Ah7 20 Axe4 Axe4 21 <£ixe4 Ae7 22
Sfel! (Crouch), reaching a position from the game.
17...±e7?! (4)
This already loses by force. 17../if7?! was also insufficient in view of 18 e4 dxe4 19 h51 (19 ^xe4!?) 19...^.f5 20 ±xe4 or 18 Wb31? A.e7 (18.,.f5 19 £>f3 - Crouch) 19 e4 Ee8 20 exd5 &f8 21 Sadi (21 Вез!?) etc. After 17... jlf7 18 e4 Ле7 19 exds 0-0 White would also have retained strong pressure (20 ^b3 or 20 Wg4), but now he breaks through on the decisive part of the battlefield.
18 Wg4 if7 19 h5 -th 7 20 e4! dxe4 (2) 21 ±xe4 (2) 21...±xe4 (21...d5? 22 Jlxh7 Exh7 23 ^f3!) 22^xe4
It only remains to play Sadi, and White will fully mobilise his forces, whereas the black pieces continue to huddle together on the back two ranks. The outcome is decided. 22...^c8 (27)
The black king is not destined to find a secure shelter. If 22...Sf8 there is the immediately decisive 23 Eadl d5 24 £hxf6!, while if 22...Se8 - 23 Wg6+ STS 24 g4, and there is no defence against 4bg3-f5. Also bad is 22...d5 23 £>cs! (Stohl; 23 Eadl!? - Crouch) 23.-4.xc5 24 We(g)6+ &f8 25 bxc5 with a mating attack.
23HadlSa7 (7)
23...^b6 would have created an opening for the murderous 24 £>d6+! or 24 Ed6!. Black has somehow defended his weaknesses, but with a simple combination White destroys the defensive fortifications.
24 ^xf6!! (6) 24—gxf6 (4)
24.-4.xf6 would have lost immediately to 25 Wg6+ 4Т8 26J.xf6 gxf6 27 Ee6l.
25 W'g6+Af8 26 A.C1!?
Playing for mate, since 26 Bxe7 Wxe7 27 Jlxf6 Wh7 28 ^,xh8 Wxg6 (28...Wxh8 29 Eel! ®)e7 30 Wd6 and wins) 29 hxg6 £>e7 30 Jld4 and Jlc5 (Stohl) would have ‘merely’ led to a won endgame.
26...d5 (7)
Alas, with a great delay. However, there is no choice: 26...We8 27 jlxh6+ Exh6 28 Wxh6+ Фд8 29 Ee4 f5 30 Edd4! (a pretty rook sacrifice!) 3O...fxe4 31 Exe4, mating the bare king, or 28...&f7 29 Wh7+ &f8 30 h6 Wf7 31 Wf5! ^d6 32 Ш (and if 32...^е8, then 33 We3!, as specified by Stohl, while Crouch adds 33-Eb7 34 Wxe7+ Wxe7 35 Exe7 Фхе7 36 h7).
27 Hd4! (3)
The clearest way to win, along with 27 Ee4!. Black would still have had some chances after 27 JLxh6+ Hxh6 28 Wxh6+ Фд8! - 29 Ed4?! Af8! 30 Hg4+ Bg7, but here too he would not have held out after
29 Wg6+! ФЬ8 (29...^8? 30 h6) 30 Hcl! Hc7 31 Неб.
27...®d6 (27...f5 28 Axh6+) 28 Hg4 (28 JLxh6+!) 28...<§jf7 29 l.xh6+! Фе8 (or 29...^xh6 30 Wg7+ Фе8 31 Wxh8+ <id7 32 Wxh6) 30 £g7
And with his flag about to fall, Black resigned (1-0): 3O...Hg8 31 h61. Times: 1.05-2.28.
This game, which was judged to be the best in Informator Volume 32, is dear to me for its harmony. Although outwardly strange, in essence it is absolutely harmonious. White made seemingly ugly, chaotic moves - in particular with his pawns, but when, finally, his plan also became clear to the opponent, it transpired that all the white pieces joined in the play as if by schedule. The game breathes dynamism and is typical of my style at that time -unrestrained pressure on a solid positional basis; I played very quickly and made, as it later transpires, almost the ideal moves. For Andersson this crushing defeat remained a terrible reminder, and later he was no longer able to play normally against me.
In connection with this game, Petrosian commented: 'Kasparov's emergence on the international scene has made much the same impact as Karpov’s emergence once did. Play based on general considerations does not usually work successfully against either of them... The ability to mobilise his reserve forces patiently before advancing them is one of the secrets of Kasparov’s success... One can only admire the way that all his pieces, apart from his king, take part in the attack, and at the same time the opponent has absolutely no opportunity to exchange even one of them.’
In the 9th round after a complicated battle I drew with Black against Ljubojevic. And
in the 10th round I faced at the board for the first time the legendary Bent Larsen. I had only 4У2 points out of 9, and I was burning with a desire to distinguish myself at least in some way, to move on to a plus score, and so I continued acting with determination.
Came 62
C.Kasparov-B.Larsen
Tilburg, 10th round, 13.10.1981 Old Indian Defence A54
1 d4 ^f6 2 c4 d6 3 €k3 e5 4 ^3 (8) 4...^bd7 5 l.g5 (2)
In Bugojno 1982 against Larsen I chose the main plan with 5 e4 and Jle2. But here, on encountering this rare set-up for only the second time in my life, I played as I had against Morovic (Cagnes-sur-Mer 1977). 5...±e7 6 e3 0-0 7 ®c2 (7 Де2 сб 8 0-0 4^e8! with equality) 7...c6 8 JLd3 h6 (4) 9 h4l? (5)
Against Morovic I played more simply - 9 Jlh4, after which, incidentally, 9-.^h51 10 Дхе7 Wxe7 11 0-0 £ihf6 is good, when White has merely an insignificant advantage. But in this game my fingers were so itchy, that I was ready to sacrifice anything. And Larsen accepted the challenge!
9...b5?! (7)
This showy, reckless move, immediately creating strong tension, was deemed dubious and did not occur again in any serious games. 9...fie8 is more solid, after which White has tried 10 Jlxf6 jlxf6 11 0-0-0 (Alburt-Morovic, Santiago 1981), as well as 10 dxe5, and even the risky 10 0-0-0 (regardless of 10...e41? 11 ®xe4 |йхе4 12 Jlxe4hxg5).
Black can also consider 9-.exd4 10 exd4 d5 (Cebalo-Fries Nielsen, Plovdiv 1983), or 1О...Де8 11 0-0-0 5tf8 - in my youth I thought that White was better here, but now I am not so sure: the black bishop comes out to the weakened g4-square, etc. 10 dxe5(19)
Of course, no one has refuted the crude 10 cxbs!? cxb5 11 Jlxb5, when after the possible ll...Ab7 12 Sdl it is doubtful whether Black has full compensation for the pawn. But in those times it was considered bad form to capture such pawns. We were both struggling desperately for the initiative, and in such a struggle pawns did not count.
10...^xe5 (3) 11 £>xe5 dxe5 12 0-0-0 (5) 12...Ba 5
game, here Spassky demanded a move Tn the style of Kazimirych’ (i.e. Tolush) - 13 g41?. However, in the event of 13...b4 14 JLxf6 JLxf6 15 g5 JLe7! 16 B>a4 (16 ®e41?, but not 16 gxh6? bxc3 17 Sdgl g6! 18 JLxg6 Ф118 and wins) 16...h51 17 l.h7+ ФЬ8 18 Ле4 Wc7 White’s slight initiative evaporates.
Besides, Black can boldly reply 13...Лхд4!? 14 Sdgl h5. This conclusion was reached in the joint analysis with Larsen and Spassky, but later I thought that after 15 *Be4 White had an obvious advantage. Now I see that this is an exaggeration, for example: 15...ФЬ8 16 ±xf6 gxf6 17 ФЬ1 Sad8 with an unclear game. The development of White’s initiative is hindered by the nail that has been driven into his position - the bishop on g4-
13...Де6 (7)
The most natural reply, and the one that I was counting on, although 13...ДЬ81? was also possible.
14 Bxf6! (2) 14...±xf6 15 ^e4 >e7
15...Hfd81? (not allowing the following tactical stroke) 16 <£)xf6+ gxf6 was more steady, with counterplay to neutralise the spoiling of the kingside pawns.
13 ФЬ1 (3)
Useful prophylaxis. In analysis after the
16 ^g5! (a surprise!) 16...bxc4l (6)
Of course, not 16...hxg5? in view of 17
JLVi7+! Ф118 18 hxg5 g6 19 Axg6+ <4>g8 20 l.xf7+! S’xfy 21 Wh7+ Фе8 22 Wg6+. Also 1б..Лхд5?! 17 hxg5 Axc4? 18 ±xc4bxc4 19 gxh6 дб 20 Wxc4 is bad for Black.
17 ±h7+! (10) 17...ФИ8 18 If 5 (5)
It is on this nuance that White’s entire idea is based.
18...Axf5?! (7)
18...e4 was not so clear: 19 JLxe6 fxe6 20 ?}xe4 ДаЬ8 21 Wxc4 We 5 22 Wd4 Wf5 23 Wd3 Af6 24 b3 a5 with counterplay for the pawn. An unexpected piece sacrifice was also of interest - 18...jLd51? 19 e4 Hab8! 20 exd5 cxd51 (2O...Aa3? 21 b3 cxb3 22 axb3 cxd5 23 Ae6! or 22...g6 23 dxc6 gxf5 24 c7 and wins), and Black is alright: 21 jld7 e41 22 Лсб JLf6 23 Sxd5 Wa6! or 21 Деб!? Лхд5 22 Hxd5 Wb6 23 hxg5 Wxe6 with equality.
19 Wxf5 Axg5
Concrete play begins. In the variation 19...g6 20 £>xf7+ *g7 21 Wxe5+ Wxe5 22 ®xe5 Sxf2 23 Hd7 le8 24 £>xc4l (24 Sxa7 c31) 24...Hxg2 25 Жха7 and a2-a4 White is a pawn up in the endgame, but he still has to work hard to achieve a win.
20 hxg5 lab8 21 Id! (3)
The only move that retains an advantage. 21 gxh6? was incorrect on account of 21...Sxb2+! 22 ФхЬ2 ДЬ8+ 23 Фс1 Wc3+! 24
Wc2 Wa3+ 25 <4>d2 Sb2.
21...Wd2 (11)
If 21...Wb5?l 22 Жс2 e4, then 23 Wf4l and gxh6 is very strong.
22 Жс2 (5) 22...Wd3
23 g41 (3)
This was underestimated by Larsen. I remember that I was very proud of this positional move, whereas the computer suggests it in the very first second! After giving up a pawn, White continues the fierce struggle for the initiative.
23...Wxf5 (8) 24 gxf5 Sb4 25 Hh4 (10)
25 gxh6l? or 25 f6!? also came into consideration.
25...Sd8 (5)
In the event of 25...ФЬ7 Black also has a
rather unpleasant position: 26 f6 flh8 27 a3 Sa4 28 Eh5!, provoking 28...e4 29 Eh4 etc.
26 a3! Ba4 (2) 27 gxh6 (5) 27...g6?!
27...Ы6! was more resilient. And 27...g5 would have forced the continuation in the game, without allowing White an additional chance.
28 fxg6 (6)
This capture was criticised, but wrongly so, since the ‘immediately winning’ 28 Ehxc41? Дхс4 29 Дхс4 is in fact no better: after 29...gxf5 30 Дхеб fldl+ 31 Фа2 Bfl(d2) 32 Даб Exf2 33 a4 f4 34 exf4 Exf4 35 Bxa7 things are indeed difficult for Black, but in the event of 29-Sd6 30 Дс5 g5 31 Дхе5 fixh6 32 f6 Exf6 33 Exg5 Exf2 34 Да5 Де2 35 Дха7 Фд7 the outcome is not so obvious.
28...fxg6 29 Shxc4 &xc4 30 Дхс4 Sd6! 31 Дс5 (7) 31..Ле6 (3) 32 Да5 (3) 32...Де7 33 Даб Дс7 34Фс2 *h7
34-Ef7!? came into consideration, with the idea after 35 ФйЗ Bxf2 36 b4 &h7 (if 36...Ш7, then 37 *64 Se7 38 Дхеб <th7 39 b5 ФхЬб 40 a4 and wins) 37 Exa7+ ФхЬб 38 Фе4(?) g5 of obtaining a position from the game, but avoiding the improvement for White (cf. the note to White’s 36th move). Here 38 Даб! would have remained the only chance of success.
35 Фаз
To me the endgame appeared to be an easy win, but here Larsen, as in his former years, began performing miracles of resourcefulness.
35...fif7!
A brilliant move! Black exploits his last chance - the latent dynamics of the position. He would have lost quickly after 35...ФхЬ6? ЗбФе4Ш7 37 f31-36 *e4? (7)
This would appear to throw away the win. Зб Фе2 was correct, for example: 36...C5 37 Есб ДЬ7 38 Дхс5 Hxb2+ 39 Ф*3 e4+ 40 ФдЗ ФхЬб 41 Bc7 Ёа2 42 Дха7 with the advance of the a-pawn, or Зб...Дс7 37 £f3 Bf7+ 38 ФдЗ Bc7 39 b4! ФхЬб 40 Да5 Де7 41 e4 Фд5 42 f3, and Black has a difficult position: zugzwang, weaknesses and the active white rook. It was only after the tournament that I found this winning setup with my trainers Nikitin and Vladimirov, when I annotated the game for Informator. 36...fixf2 37 Hxa7+ ФхИб 38 b4 g5 (2) 39 Даб ФН5 (2) 40 Дхеб Да2 41 Ecl! (4)
At the board I thought that all the indicators pointed to a win, but...
41...g4!
Creating unexpected counterplay with just a single pawn, supported by the king. If
41...Sxa3?, then 42 2bl Sa6 43 b5 Hb6 44 Фхе5 and wins.
42 Фхе5 (8)
If 42 Bbl Black has time to play 42...g3 43 b5 g2 44 b6 ffb2! with a draw.
42...Hxa3 43 4>f4 (12) 43».Hb3 (3) 44 lc5+ (it transpires that White does not have a win: 44 Sc4 Ebl!) 44...ФИ4 45 Ec8 (3)
The last chance - a pawn sacrifice.
45...Hxb4+ 46 e4 ФИз! (46...Ф115? 47 Sg8!, and mate - in 30 moves!) 47 Hh8+ (3) 47... A g2 48 Hg8 ФИЗ! Уг-'/г
If 49 Exg4Exe4+!. Times: 2.35-1-30.
In this complicated game Larsen’s inexhaustible optimism is again clearly seen. I was very upset that I was unable to win this superior rook endgame. But Spassky said to me, then an 18-year-old youth: 'Why are you upset? You should be paying Benya for the lesson!’ (Benya was Spassky’s affectionate name for his old friend and rival.)
In the 11th and final round I pressed with Black on Miles’s position, but I was unable to win. This round was decisive for the allocation of the prize places. The leading trio, who were on ‘plus three’, went different ways. Petrosian made a quick draw and remained the only contestant not to experience the bitterness of defeat. But the fate of first place was decided in the
Beliavsky-Timman encounter. After employing an improvement in a very sharp variation of the Sicilian Defence, Beliavsky won the game and became the tournament victor. Thus ended one of the most memorable events of the year.
I may have scored only 50%, but on the other hand I ‘played very interesting chess’, as was said by the players who after Tilburg arrived at the match in Merano. Many grandmasters were now able to assess both my playing style, and my potential. Public opinion was gradually beginning to incline towards the fact that in 1984 there would be a Karpov-Kasparov match.
Meanwhile in Tilburg I established a personal tournament record in adult chess, which, fortunately, I have not in fact beaten: I lost three games! The defeats against Spassky and Petrosian were especially painful. I lacked that experience in which juniors are usually found wanting when playing world-class opponents: a completely different, as yet unaccustomed level of resistance! In an interview given soon afterwards, I expressed dissatisfaction with my play and said: ‘It was partly fatigue that told: after all, I arrived in Tilburg having only just returned from the world junior team championship in Graz. But the main thing the tournament showed is that I need to work on my technique. I still lack professional forcefulness, the ability to ‘finish off’ opponents. It was for this reason that I was unable to take better or winning positions to their logical end.’
There were also unmentioned reasons for my uneven play in the tournament. Sosonko and Spassky, with whom I struck up good relations, held seditious ‘anti-Soviet’ conversations with me, and also for a few days Sosonko loaned me a copy of Solzhenitsyn’s famous Gulag Archipelago
(which was strictly banned in the USSR), and I read it at night without a break! And on free days I travelled to a safari park, played football, and raced up and down the avenues on a stylish Peugeot bicycle, which the organisers later presented to me. I remember that the customs officers at Sheremetevo looked at me as if I were mad: everyone was bringing in electronic gadgets from abroad, and here was some kid with a bicycle...
Nikitin, who had followed the tournament from Moscow, recorded in his notebook the following lessons from Tilburg:
‘Garry aimed for a fight in all 11 games. He did not fear anyone, and not once was he outplayed. Only he did the outplaying -either of his opponents, or himself. A dangerous one-sidedness in his play appeared - only against the king, or more accurately - a striving for greater complexity. In such complexity a player himself can become entangled. Play on positional lines disappeared. He lacked strength to recover before games -hence poor play in the fifth hour. Extraneous interests prevented him from focusing on the games. He lost after the free days (5th and 9th October). Conclusion: the tournament was lost on the free days! Particular attention should be paid to ways of relaxing that do not interfere with the play. The contact with Spassky and Sosonko and the reading of literature gave Garry much information, which excited his mind. This seriously diverted him from the business of the tournament and prevented him from focusing on the game in the necessary way. He arrived in Tilburg aiming to win, but the lack of focus on the play sharply reduced his chances.’
Whereas earlier I was greatly helped by the surprise factor - no one could believe that the youngster sitting opposite them could present a serious danger, and also my
games were still little-known to foreign players - now the situation had changed: my name went before me, and opponents began preparing for their games with me.
Later I realised how useful and, above all, how timely this ‘failure’ was, but at the time I experienced something of a shock. After all, I was not accustomed to losing! Such a result disillusioned me, and I perceived it as the collapse of my hopes. As usual, I had been aiming to win at all costs, but the devilish ingenuity of the leading grandmasters punished me for my excessively risky actions. This was a sobering experience, showing that there was still much for me to learn and master in chess. I realised that I needed greater practical experience at the level of foreign grandmaster tournaments. I needed to learn to play more forcefully, in order to carry through my plans to their conclusion in battles with the best tournament players. My trainers and I agreed that this was the main lesson learned in Tilburg...
This was the last tournament to which my grandfather wished me good luck. Before leaving I visited him in hospital. He had just had a serious operation, but he was already feeling better. Our parting, as usual, was warm but undemonstrative -my grandad didn’t like superfluous words. I left in the hope of seeing him at home in a month’s time... The crisis developed suddenly. When I was playing my first game, he was no longer alive. I wasn’t told of this: my mother said on the telephone that my grandad was still in hospital (‘some complications’). Why was I so uneasy? It was more than ten years since my father had died, and I somehow didn't think that I would again have to experience the bitterness and pain of losing someone close.
It had become a tradition that after re-
man in the house.
I played a further three times in Tilburg: in 1989 and 1991 I gained two unforgettable victories, and in 1997 I shared lst-3rd places. Although the first attempt was a failure, I was consoled by the creative richness of the games (in this sense Tilburg 1981 was one of my best tournaments). Moreover, I sensed that I was on the threshold of another surge.
turning from a tournament my mother and I would go to the Jewish cemetery where my father was buried. On that October day in 19811 was taken to the Armenian cemetery. I was convulsed by sobs, but my mother did not try to comfort me: she realised that her son was now saying goodbye both to his grandfather, and to his childhood... For a long time I was unable to get used to the fact that there was only one
USSR Champion
49th USSR Championship Premier League (Frunze, 26th November - 22nd December 1981)
1	Psakhis
2	Kasparov
3	Romanishin
4	Gavrikov
5	Tukmakov
6	Agzamov
7	Beliavsky
8	Yusupov
9	Dorfman
10	Kupreichik
11	Sveshnikov
12	Dolmatov
13	Tseshkovsky
14	Yudasin
15	Kuzmin
16	Gulko
17	Timoshchenko
18	Mikhalchishin
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
* 11/1 / 1 0	*	/2	1	1	/2	1
0	/	*	/2	/2	1	1
/	0	'/2	*	/	/	/2
0	0	/	/	*	0	/
/	/	0	/	1	*	/
000/2/2 /2 * 1	0	/2	/2	0	/2	0
/2	0	1	0	/2	/2	/2
0	/2	/2	1	0	1	1
/2	/2	0	/2	/2	0	/2
/2	0	/2	0	/2	/2	/2
/2	0	/2	/2	/2	0	0
0	0	/2	0	0	1	0
/2	/2	0	/2	/2	/2	0
0	1	1	0	0	0	0
000/2 /2 0	/2
0	0	0	/2	0	1	/2
890123 0	/2 1	/2 /2 /2
1	1	/2	/2	1	1
/2	0	/2	1	/2	/2
/2	1	0	/2	1	/2
1	/2	1	/2	/2	/2
/2	/2	0	1	/2	1
1	/2	0	/2	/2	1
*	/2	1	0	0	1
/2	*	0	1	/2	/2
0	1	*	0	/2	0
1	0	1	*	/2	0
1	/2	/2	/2	*	/2
0	/2	1	1	/2	*
0	/2	1	0	1	/2
0	/2	/2	/2	0	1
/2	/2	0	/2	/2	0
1	0	/2	/2	/2	/2
0	/2	/2	/2	/2	0
4	5	6	7	8
1	/2	1	1	1	12У2
1	/2	0	1	1	12У1
/2	1	0	1	1	10
1	/2	1	/2	/2	9У2
1	/2	1	/2	1	9У2
0	/2	1	1	0	9
111/2 /2 9
1	1	/2	0	1	8У2
/2	/2	/2	1	/2	8У2
0	/	1	/2/28
1	/	/2	/2	8
0	1	V2	/2	У2	8
/ 0 1/18 *	/11	/	7У2
/	*	0	0	1	6У2
0	1*	1	/	6У2
0	1	0	*	/6
/	0	/	/	*	5У2
The chess world was still under the impression of Karpov's convincing victory in Merano, but the qualifying events for the new world championship match had already begun. For Soviet players the qualification began at the end of 1981 with the Premier League of the 49th USSR Championship - there was also a fight for places in
the Zonal tournament which would follow two months later. However, not all were involved in this, only 13 of the 18 contestants: thanks to our high ratings, Beliavsky and I were admitted straight into the Interzonal events (July-September 1982), while Kuzmin, Romanishin and Tseshkovsky, who played in the Interzonals
of the previous cycle, had reservations to the Zonal tournament.
It was probably both the qualifying status, and the line-up - the youngest in the entire preceding history of Soviet chess! - that made this championship exceptionally tense and uncompromising. Although the ‘main people’ - Karpov, Tai, Petrosian, Polugayevsky and Geller - were not playing, the fans were not disappointed. The number of decisive games exceeded 50%, and the intensity of the fight was maintained right to the end of the last round. In the words of one of the hundreds of spectators, the prominent writer Chingiz Aitmatov, ‘all the contestants battled as though it was the most important tournament of their life.’
For almost a month there was a gripping pursuit race, in which my rival for the lead was my fellow student team member, the most ‘Eastern’ Soviet grandmaster - the 23-year-old Lev Psakhis from Krasnoyarsk. He arrived in Frunze as 1980 USSR champion, and few imagined that he would be able to do the 'golden double’, as Botvinnik, Bronstein, Keres, Tai, Stein and Polugayevsky had managed in their time. Such an achievement is a sure indication of very high class, which for some reason the majority of the players before the start of the tournament (and during it?) thought that Psakhis was lacking. But Lev had done an enormous amount of preparatory work (in particular, he had included 1 d4 in his opening repertoire) and, with a display of even, confident play, he managed to go the whole distance without any stumbles. His brilliant results testified to the emergence in the Soviet chess cohort of yet another outstanding grandmaster.
For me the tournament took a more dramatic course, although the fact that I did not need to pass through the severe
Soviet qualifying process for the world championship was a great psychological help (it will be remembered how Spassky and Stein, and they were not the only ones, suffered in USSR Zonal Championships). At the start I played with composure and scored a spectacular win over the championship debutant Viktor Gavrikov from Lithuania, a future grandmaster and USSR co-champion in 1985-
Game 63
G.Kasparov-V.Gavrikov
49th USSR Championship, 1st round, Frunze, 27.11.1981
Queen’s Gambit D34
1 d4 d5 2 С4 e6 3 ?jf3 c5 4 cxd5 (3) 4...exd5 5 g3 £ic6 6 Jig 2	7 0-0 ie7
Gavrikov had not played the Tarrasch Defence before, and I stopped to think what he might have in mind. I had already scored two wins, over Hort (Dortmund 1980) and Palatnik (Moscow 1981), in the main line -8 £ic3 0-0 9 -lg5 (Game No.79). But I decided to deviate, choosing a rather dangerous set-up which had been successfully employed by Timman.
8 dxc5 (4) 8...Axc5 9 ig5 0-0 10 глсЗ
10...d4
I should remind you that 10...Ae6 11 Jlxf6! (11 ^a4 - Game No.45 in Volume II of My Great Predecessors') ll...Wxf6 12 <2ixd5 Wxb2 13 ^c7 Sad8 14 Wcl Wxcl 15 fiaxcl and £sxe6 leads to a small but enduring advantage for White (Rubinstein-Schlechter, Vienna 1908; Petrosian-Spassky, 16th match game, Moscow 1969).
11 Jlxf6
Nothing is promised by 11 ‘$je4 Ae7 12 JLxf6 JLxf6 13 Scl Se8 14 £>el (Lasker-Tarrasch, Berlin 1918) 14-A.e7l? 15 ^>d3 JLf8 with equality (Nikolic-Kasparov, Niksic 1983).
ll...Wxf6 12 ®>d5 Wd8 13 ^d2 аб
A prophylactic move, preserving the dark-square bishop from exchange for a knight. Later my trainers and I came to the conclusion that 13-Se8 14 Bel .fib 6 was better, although against Miles (Niksic 1983) I barely escaped with a draw as Black, or 14.-fi.f8l? (the source game: Timman-Gligoric, Bugojno 1978).
14 Scl (6) 14...ia7 (3) 15 <£>c4 (5)
The knight is eyeing the d6-square. There was no longer any point in playing 15 £>b3, since the d4-pawn is securely defended, but 15 ®f4 was interesting, with the idea of 15-.id7	16 fiie4 (Hiibner-Budde,
Bundesliga 1983).
15...Sb8 (16)
My old Informator recommendation 15-.fi.h3 16 Axh3 Wxd5 has not in fact found any followers - Black is unwilling to leave the formidable white bishop without an opponent.
16 £tf4 (8)
By opening the way for the bishop on g2, White hopes to retain slight pressure.
16...b5?l (11)
Gavrikov moves his b7-pawn away from a possible attack and forces the exchange of a pair of minor pieces, but he weakens the c-file, on which White acquires additional invasion squares. 16...Se8 was sounder (Gagunashvili-El Gindy, Dubai 2003), or 16.-fi.f5, with a slightly inferior, but quite acceptable game.
17 £id6! (17) 17...Wxd6 (4)
Having played ...b7-b5, here Black should have preferred 17-£te5l 18 ®xc8 Sxc8 19 Sxc8 Wxc8 - although after 20 Wbl(d2) and Scl the weakness of the аб- and d4-pawns would have left White with some advantage, Black would have faced less difficult problems.
18 Sxc6 Wd8 (10)
If 18...We5 I was planning 19 <£)d3 Wf5 20 Sd6, but 19 Wc2 was also good.
19 Wc2 (5)
19...Э5?! (6)
Allowing the complete seizure of the c-file. Black would still have had difficulties after 19...ДЬ7 20 Дс7 Axg2 21 Фхд2 Ab6 22 Sc6 or 20...ЙС8 21 ficl Ab8 22 Дхс8 JLxc8 23 €id5 etc. But perhaps it would have been better to play 19...ЙЬ6 (exchanging the active white rook) 20 ДхЬб Axb6 21 Дс1 Jlg4 or 19...Ab6 (with the idea of ...ДЬ7) 2O$^d5 Ae6!.
20 ficl (7) 2О...Де8? (22)
Overlooking a veiled threat. 2O...Ad7?l 21 fld6 We8 22 <^d5 or 21...Дс8 22 Деб! was unattractive. However, the lesser evil was 2O...Ab6, covering the c7-point.
Alas, I also missed the pretty 21 Дс71 JLb6 22 lxf71! ^xf7 (22...Se5 23 4^d31) 23 JLd5+ Деб 24 Wf5+ Wf6 25 Wh5+ &f8 26 Деб! d31 27 e3! Wf7 (27...Wh6 28 Wf3<) 28 £ixe6+ Дхеб 29 Wxf7+ 4>xf7 30 i’fl, turning to the conversion of the material advantage.
21...A.b6 (7)
21...Ab7? was bad in view of 22 Jlxf7+! 4>xf7 23 Sc7+ Фд8 24 Wb3+ 4>h8 25 Wf7, or 21...&d7?! 22 Дс71 Hc8 (22...Ab6? 23 A.xf7+!) 23 Дхс8 Wxc8 (23...Axc8 24 Wc7) 24 Axf7+! ФхТ7 25 Wb3+ Деб 26 Дхс8 Axb3 27 Дхе8 Фхе8 28 axb3 with a won endgame.
22 Wb3 (21)
22 JLxf7+l? SPxfy 23 Wxh7 looked tempting, but after 23...d31 the position is unclear: 24 4bxd3 Wg51 or 24 e3 d2 25 fidl ДхеЗ! 26 fxe3 Axe3+ 27 ^fl Jlxf4 28 gxf4 Wd5!. 24 Wg6+ Фд8 25 Bd6! is stronger, but here too by 25...We7 26 ДхЬб ДхЬб 27 Wxb6 dxe2 28 Sei Wb4l 29 Дхе2 Дхе2 30 ®xe2 Wxb2 Black emerges unscathed.
22...Де7 (8) 23 Af3 (3) 23..Ae5? (12)
This obvious move proves to be the decisive mistake. 23...ib7?l 24 ^d51 Дхеб 25 ^xe7+ Wxe7 26 Дхеб was also to White’s advantage, but 23...Af5 or even 23...fie81? would still have retained possibilities of a defence.
21±d5?! (13)
24 ЛИ5! (24) 24-g6 (5) 25 ixg6! (7)
25 ®xg6l? will also do, since 25...Ae6 26 Дхеб! Дхеб 27 4bf4 flf6 28 Wxb5 or 25...hxg6 26 Дхдб+ 4Т8 27 ДхЬб Леб 28 Дхеб fxe6 29 Лд4 is insufficient for Black, while 25...a4(?), which I recommended in Informator, loses to 26 Wf31 h(f)xg6 27 Лхдб. White's control of the c-file enables him to attack where he pleases, and not only on the queenside. Gavrikov underestimated this nuance, and the sudden switching of my pieces to the kingside caught him unawares.
25...hxg6 26 flxg6+ Af8 27 ДИ6 (27 Дссб!?)
ply 29 Wf3, but the simplest is 29 Sc(h)f6, when Black has no way of holding the f7-point (the queen is tied to the defence of the bishop on b6).
29 Wf3! (5)
The most accurate - switching the queen to the centre, although 29 Wa3+ would also have been decisive, or even 29 £>g6+ fxg6 30 Д117+ &f8 31 flh8+ Фд7 32 flxd8 Axd8 (in Informator I rejected this variation as 'unclear') 33 Дхдб+! Фхдб 34 Wg8+ ФЬб 35 Wxd8 with the threat of Wd6+, and the loss of material for Black is unavoidable.
29...Л.С7 (29...Де5 30 ^дб+1) 30 We4+ Де5
Or ЗО...Ле5 31 ^d3!.
27...Фе7?! (5)
A natural human reaction to the threat of fih8+ (27-..Фд7? 28 flh7+l), yet 27...Дд5 was more resilient: 28 Дссб! d3! (but not 28...Л.С7 29 3cf6! or 28...flb7 29 lh8+ Дд8 30 ДсЬб!), although here too after 29 £ixd3 Фд8 30 еЗ or 29 flhf6 Дд7 30 ^xd3 Black cannot save the game.
28 Дссб!
Unexpectedly the сб-square has become a transit point for both white rooks, which have thereby invaded the black position. Hanging over Black are the threats of Д1г7 and£bg6+!.
28...1f5 (7)
Also after 28...Jlf5 there is the strong re-
31 £sg6+! (both spectacular, and effective)
31...fxg6 32 Д117+ ФТ8 33 Wxg6 1-0
Times: 2.19-2.26.
Many were surprised by the speed with which Black’s position was transformed into ruins. The instantaneous switching of attacking forces from one wing to another became my patent method - a distinguishing feature of my playing style.
In the 2nd round I had Black against Psakhis, who had also started with a win. And, employing the Nimzo-lndian Defence for virtually the first time in my life, from the opening I obtained an excellent posi
tion. But then, instead of comfortably making a draw, I was suddenly obsessed by some tactical mirages... More than a quarter of a century later, Lev Psakhis, who had long since moved to Israel, remembered with pleasure that crazy game:
'The most important events of the tournament occurred in the 2nd round. I had White against Kasparov. Just imagine: the Soviet champion against a player who was rated in the top three or four in the world. We arrived at the game, both smiling a little, and we shook hands. At the time we were on the most friendly terms. I began with 1 d4-Kasparov looked at me in considerable surprise. After all, not long before, at a training session before the junior world team championship, we had played numerous blitz games, and he roughly imagined what I would play against him in the King’s Indian, which he used to employ at that time. He thought for some 6-7 minutes and played l...e6. It was my turn to be slightly surprised. I thought to myself, what did he have in mind if I were to play 2 e4? I realised that he wouldn’t choose the French, but would play 2...C5, leading either to a Sicilian, or to something closed, where I altogether had no experience. After about five minutes' thought I played 2 c4, and he replied 2..Jff6. I didn’t know what to do. If 3 Qf3 he would go into a Modern Benoni, and I would be unable to play the variation which I had prepared against the Queen’s Indian. My knowledge was clearly lacking. I played 3 &Jc3, he went 3-&-b4, and we transposed into a Nimzo-lndian, having each spent about 20 minutes! After which we both sat feeling sweaty and a little frightened. But while he was not an expert on the Nimzo-lndian with Black, he had at least prepared it, whereas I knew absolutely nothing. After ending up slightly worse with White, I real
ised in good time that I had to play for simplification.
‘It has to be said that I already knew Garik quite well and I did not assess him as everyone else did. As a chess player he was a quite brilliant tactician, but at the same time he remained human and he made mistakes, which, however, occurred extremely rarely. In positional play Kasparov acted like a machine, and at the age of 10-11 he already had an excellent feeling for which piece to play where and at what moment. I think that he was no weaker as a positional player, which very many people simply did not realise. To compete with him in tactics was an incredibly difficult task. Therefore, when in our game he initiated some incredible complications, the play began to resemble roulette. We both spent a long time calculating variations, and after the 24th move we each had about two minutes left to the time control in an incredibly complicated position, with the tension only increasing. From the 18th to the 24th moves any inaccuracy by either side could have led to collapse. He sacrificed a piece, some savage pins resulted, but in the end his position was hopeless, and we were simply bashing the clock. When by somewhere around move 45 I guessed that the time control had been reached, I waited for my flag to fall and said that I was adjourning the game. After this Kasparov resigned.’
A deserved, but very painful defeat. Forgetting myself, I had begun playing in the same, excessively ‘creative’ manner as in Tilburg! The loss sobered me up: I conducted the following games in a different, more restrained style, mainly resorting to tactics only ‘at the demand' of the position. No less critical was my 3rd round game with Artur Yusupov, a rival of mine since junior tournaments. As Black he chose a
rare line of the Bogo-lndian - 1 d4 £lf6 2 c4 e6 3 £tf3 Ab4+ 4 Ad2 a5 (4...We7 - Game No.69) 5 g3 0-0 6 AgZ b6 7 0-0 Aa6 - and set up a solid defence. Not yet having come to after the previous day’s knock-down, on the 17th move I committed an unjustified weakening and then 'in desperation' I sacrificed a pawn.
Came 64
G.Kasparov-A.Yusupov
49th USSR Championship, 3rd round, Frunze 29.11.1981
Z3...f5?! (19)
After 23-..Aa6! White’s compensation for the pawn would have been rather problematic, except that after 24 4hl, of course, Black should not play 24...f5?! 25 Hgl fxe4?l 26 Axe4 (suggested by me in Informator) or 26 4ixe4 with an attack, but simply 24...ФЬ8(Ь7) 25 Hgl Hg8.
24 £>xc4 (2) 24...£>xc4 25 b3 (25 e5?l b51) 25...-id6 26 e5
Having cramped Black’s position, I gained a new lease of life, since I realised that his extra pawn no longer played a particular role and the position was one of dynamic balance.
26...£>c8 (6)
A logical positional move: Black prepares ,.ft3e7 or ...b6-b5 and ...£)b6. After 26...£if7 (26...^e4?l 27 Axe41) 27 Af3 followed by Ah5, 4>hl and Hgl, although the black knight is closer to its king, White has an excellent game: he simply doubles rooks on the g-file, and may also be able to attack the b6-pawn by <2за4.
27 Af3 *h7
28 Ah5 (4)
The immediate 28 S’hl and Hgl-g3 also came into consideration.
28...He7 (3) 29 Hg8? (4)
In Informator I rightly condemned this move, weakening Black’s control of f5, and gave the variation 29-Ah8! 30 Hgl Hg7 31
Sxg7+ Axg7 32 Sgl We7 33 Wg3 Sg8 34 <£>bl ‘with the idea of <2id2-f3-h4’. But after 34...Wf8! (Stohl) 35 ®d2 ^e7 (with the accompanying threat of ...Jlxe5) it is not easy to carry out this idea. It is probably better to play 34 £ia41? Wf8 (34...Wxa3? 35 <йс51 and JLf7) 35 S(W)g2 followed by £±>2-d3 with an unclear game.
30 Sgl ih8
Now this natural retreat (with the intention of ...Seg7) allows a very pretty combination. But what was there to do? If 3O...A.f8, then 31 2xg8 (against my Informator move 31 Wh4 it is dangerous to reply 31...Wc7 32 Лд6+!, but after 31...Se81? 32 Wh3 Se7 all the same White has nothing better than 33 Sxg8 4xg8 34 Wh4l) 31...Фхд8 32 Wh41 ‘with a strong attack’ (Stohl), for example: 32...Wc7 33 Hgl+ 4h7?! (33...Hg7? 34 Wf6) 34 h31 followed by d4-d5 or 4he2. 33...Ag7 34 ^e2 Wb7 35 £f3 Wa6 is more resilient, although here too White retains the initiative.
31^e4!! (11)
A paradoxical stroke, which reminded me of the finish to the game Fischer-Panno (Buenos Aires 1970), where White landed an equally unexpected blow with his bishop - 28 Ле4П (Game No.80 in Volume IV of My Great Predecessors). True, that combination
was an entirely winning one, whereas here, as we will see, Black can still resist.
31...fxe4 (5)
The knight has to be taken - otherwise 32 <2YF6+. 31...2xgl+? 32 Sxgl fxe4 is incorrect in view of 33 Ag6+ Фд8 34 Af7+! 4xf7 35 Wg2(g3) with unavoidable mate.
32 f5!
This is the whole point: the f-pawn is included in the attack. When I was considering 31 ®e4,1 did not work out all the possible variations to the end, but I sensed that here there had to be something!
32...Hg5? (10)
The sudden change of scene produced a startling effect: in time-trouble Artur cracked under the pressure and promptly committed a decisive mistake. 32...Seg7? 33 JLg6+ or 32...e3? 33 Wc2 would also have been bad.
The only defence was 32...W8! 33 f6! (the Informator line 33 Йхд8 4xg8 34 f6 is inaccurate in view of 34...Jlxf6! 35 exf6 Sg71 36 Wf4 Hg5) 33..JLxf6! (but not 33-Seg7? 34 Sxg7+ &xg7 35 f7l or 34-..lxg7 35 Wc2) 34 Wxf6! (34 exf6?! Heg7!) 34...Seg7 35 ±g6+ <4>h8 (35...Sxg6?l 36 Нхдб) 36 Safi Wxf6 (36...We7?l 37 Sf4l) 37 exf6 Bxg6 38 Sxg6 44171 (an important resource) 39 Sg2 Sxg2 40 Фхд2 Фд8 41
ФдЗ <4>f7 42 ФТ4 £>d6 43 Фе5 £>f5 44 Фхе4 ФхТб or 39 Дхд8 Фхд8 40 Дд1+ ФТ7 41 Дд7+ ФхТб 42 flxd7 ^е7, and with two pawns for the exchange Black can hope to hold out in this somewhat inferior ending.
33 Sxg5 (3) 33-.hxg5 34 f6 (now it's all over) 34-..ФЬ6 (Black is also lost after 34...Wf8 35 fxe7! or 34...1e8 35 We2! with the threat of Af7) 35 fxe7 (4)
Regaining the material, and remaining the exchange ahead and with an attack. In addition, Black’s minor pieces are out of play.
35...Wxe7 (35...£ixe7 36 Wf71 l.g7 37 flfl or 36...Wg8 37 Wxe7 Фх1г5 38 Wxd7 was also hopeless for Black) 36 Af7l (2)
There is nothing to prevent White carrying out the final attack with the inclusion of his queen. The threat is flfl and We2-h5+.
36...d6 37 flfl g4
38 ixe6
I could not refrain from this tactical stroke, although 38 Wg3! Wg5 39 h4! would also have forced rapid capitulation.
38...Wxe6 39 Wh4+
And as he was playing 39...Фд7 Black lost on time (1-0) - but all the same he would have resigned after 40 flf6. Times: 1.58-2.30.
Inspired by this pretty rout, I made a powerful spurt, confidently winning against Mikhalchishin, Beliavsky, Tseshkovsky and Dolmatov. Especially important was the win in a protracted positional battle against one of the tournament favourites Alexander Beliavsky - 1980 USSR co-champion and the victor at Tilburg 1981 (however, in Frunze he was not in his best form).
To my surprise I discovered that after the loss in the 2nd round I had managed to repeat the record of Kupreichik, established in the 1979 USSR Championship: five wins in a row! This, like my ultimate success, was greatly helped by my avoidance of time-trouble - a terrible enemy, which had pursued me for a whole year. An excellent start - 6 out of 7, but alongside was Psakhis, ready at any moment to ‘overtake on the bend’.
I played the next four rounds beneath criticism: 1У2 points against opponents who were not performing very well in the tournament (I also experienced similar slumps in the USSR championships of 1978 and 1979). At first - very difficult draws with Kuzmin and Kupreichik. Both games were adjourned in cheerless positions for me, and on the resumption, which took place after the 9th round, I saved them with enormous difficulty. Thanks to this I nevertheless retained the lead: Kasparov - 7 out of 9; Psakhis - 6У2; Romanishin - 5У2.
But in the 10th round I lost to Gulko, and in the 11th I drew with Agzamov after simply blundering away an extra pawn. And here I discovered that I was half a point ahead - of Romanishin, but Psakhis was now a point ahead and was confidently heading for his second gold medal!
Fortunately, I was able to make a new spurt, winning three games in a row: with
Black against Yudasin (one of my five Sicilian wins over Leonid), and then with White against Timoshchenko and Dorfman.
In these two twin games there was a sharp analytical dispute in the Botvinnik Variation, which had been revived precisely that year. The first to challenge me was Gennady Timoshchenko, the 32-year-old grandmaster from Novosibirsk, who soon became one of my seconds (but in 1993 he moved to Slovakia).
Game 65
G.Kasparov-G. Timoshchenko
49th USSR Championship, 13th round, Frunze 15.12.1981
Semi-Slav Defence D44
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 £f3	4 4k3 e6 5 Ag5
dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 Ah4 g5 9 ^xg5 hxg5 10 Axg5 £sbd7
thorough preparation. But the new, modern approach to the opening was the only correct one: if you want to gain an advantage in critical variations, you need to take a risk, and play concretely, move by move.
11 exf6
The alternative is 11 g3. More details of this and other later variations are given in Revolution in the 70s (pp.308-312).
ll...Ab7 12 g3 c5 13 d5 Wb6
Until the spring of 1981 the main line was 13...®b6 14 dxe6 Wxdl+ (14...Axhl 15 e7!) 15 Sxdl Jlxhl 16 e7 аб (16..Лс61?) 17 exf8W+ <4xf8! 18 Sd6 Sb 8 19 АеЗ Hh51 20 Ae2 Ses with good counterplay on the queenside. But the game Polugayevsky-Torre (Moscow 1981) saw the thunderous 17 h41! Ah6 18 f41, when White’s pawn armada proved stronger than the rook (Game No.28 in Volume III of My Great Predecessors). After this the knight move went almost out of use.
At a training session before the championship I analysed this variation a great deal with Vladimirov (at that time our joint work was beginning), and as a result I decided that the time had come to fight against it with White. Earlier, like many others, I had avoided this - the positions arising were just too irrational, demanding
14 Ag2 0-0-0 15 0-0 b4 16 ®a4
In the 6th round game Yusupov-Sveshnikov 16 Sbl Ah6 occurred, and later practice showed that 17 Axh6 Hxh6 18 b31 is dangerous for Black, so that the best defence is 16...Wa6! 17 dxe6 Axg2 18 e7l Axfl etc. As a result, today 16 Hbl has the reputation of being a drawing variation,
and 16 ®a4 is still the focus of discussions.
16...Wb5
At that time 16...Wa6 was thought to be bad because of 17 аЗI b3? 18 ®сЗ ^Ь6 19 Wg41 £ixd5 20 £>xd5 Axd5 21 Axd5 Sxd5 22 Sadi (Razuvaev-Vaisser, Moscow 1981), but in the 1990s this line was revived by 17-Axd5!18 Axd5 ^e5 (although 16...Wb5 was still considered superior).
17 a3!
By opening up the queenside, White emphasises the insecure position of the black king. 17 Hel?l £)b8 18 Wg4? Axd5 (Zaichik-Timoshchenko, Moscow 1981) or 17 dxe6?! Axg2 18 e7 Axfl (Ubilava-Timoshchenko, Volgodonsk 1981) is unfavourable for him. 17...£>b8
The game Kharitonov-Dorfman, played that October in the USSR Championship First League (Volgodonsk 1981), went 17-.exd5 18 axb4 cxb4 (18,..d4?I 19 'Sixes) 19 ЛеЗ Sk5 with unclear play. Later even the fantastic 20 Wg4+ Sd7 21 ®g7?! occurred (Ivanchuk-Shirov, Wijk aan Zee 1996). And recently 19 Af4 Ah6 has also been tried (Giri-Smeets, Wijk aan Zee 2011).
17-.®Ь8 was found during that same First League by the joint efforts of Sveshnikov and Timoshchenko, and was employed a few rounds later in the games
Anikaev-Sveshnikov and Rashkovsky-Timoshchenko. It was these games that Vladimirov and I had analysed.
18 axb4 cxb4 19 ЛеЗ
Following the source game. But one of two queen moves was objectively better:
a) 19 Wd41? (an idea of the 1990s) 19...Sk6 20 dxc6 (20 0)6+ axb6 21 dxc6 Axc6 is also unclear, Carlsen-Smeets, Wijk aan Zee 2010) 2O...Hxd4 21 cxb7+ ФЬ8 (21...ФС7? 22 ЛеЗ! e5 23 ^c31 bxc3 24 bxc3 Лс5 25 cxd4 Axd4 26 Sfbl Wc5 27 Sa6! with crushing threats, Kamsky-Kramnik, 1st match game, New York 1994) 22 ЛеЗ e5, and modern correspondence games, not without the help of computers, demonstrate equality for Black in the crazy complications after 23 b3! сз! 24 Hfdl ЛЬ6 etc.;
b) 19 Wg4! Axd5 (19-.lxd5? 20 Sfel!, Dvoyris-Sveshnikov, Sochi 1983) 20 Sfel Об 21 Axd5 Hxd5 22 Дхс4 flxg5 23 Wd4 ФЬ8 24 2хсб Sxg3+ 25 fxg3 Wxc6 26 Bdl, retaining some initiative (Yusupov-Tukma-kov, Leningrad 1987).
19...Axd5 20 Axd5 Sxd5 21 We2 Об 22 Sfel
This critical position, which occurred in both of the aforementioned games from the First League, was reached on our board within 20 minutes after the start of play.
Sveshnikov played badly - 22,..ФЬ7? and after 23 Bxc4 ^a5 24 b3! Ad6 (not 24...^xb3? 25 Wc2 or 24...Hdb5?l 25 £±>2) 25 Wa2 he ran into serious problems (25 ®b2 is also strong, and if 25...аб, then 26 fixas! Wxa5 27 ^a4 with a pawn for the exchange and an attack).
Timoshchenko tried 22...C31? 23 Wxb5 Exb5, but with a bold piece sacrifice - 24 £sxc31? Ьхсз 25 ДхсЗ Rashkovsky stunned his opponent, and after 25...ФЬ7 (25...ФЬ7?! 26 Eacl!) 26 Даб £id8 27 Exa7+ Фе8? 28 Дс8 Black ended up in a difficult position. But the cool-headed 27...®b71 would have enabled him to maintain the balance. Perhaps, therefore, 24 bxc31? b3 25 ficbl is more promising, with very unusual play and somewhat the better chances for
White.
In anticipation of 22...СЗ, I was intending to sacrifice my knight, but Timoshchenko ‘indulged in’ another novelty.
22„.^a51?
22...£ie5! is far safer, but the chess world would learn of this only eighteen months later (Game No.82).
After making his move, my opponent stood up and with a proud expression began strolling around the other boards. I had to switch urgently from my polished home analysis to specific, calculating play. My wavering and the calculation of variations took a great deal of time. Intuitively I realised that, to cast doubts on Black’s risky play, extreme measures were needed, i.e. again the sacrifice of a piece. So, forward, into the attack!
23 b3!(53)
After 23 Дха7 ФЬ7 24 ДеЗ (24 ^Ь6? сЗI) 24...®b3 25 ®Ь6 £>ХС1 26 Дхс1 сЗ 27 ®с4 cxb2 28 Wxb2 ДЬ6 White has no more than equalising compensation for the exchange.
23...C3 (3)
Black would have lost after 23...£>xb3? 24 Дхс4+ ФЬ7 25 Wc21 or 24...&d7 25 Дха7 <£>xal 26 £sb6+. But now White has to give up his knight, without having any forced solution to the position.
24 ^хсЗ! ЬхсЗ 25 ДхсЗ+ ‘A’d?
25...ФЬ7? was bad: 26 Wc2 ±d6 (26...Wd7 27 Дс1) 27 b41 with decisive threats (27...&C6 28 Дхеб!), as was 25...ФЬ8? 26 Wc2 Wd7 (26...Wb7 27 ficl) 27 Дха7+! A>b7 28 ДеЗ ДЬ4 29 Sc4! Wd6 30 We4 5^c6 31 Дхеб! or 28...±d6 29 b4 ДхЬ4 (29...Де5 30 bxa5!) 30 ДЬ1 ^сб 31 Hc4 Sb5 32 Дс5! fih5 33 Hxh5 flxh5 34 Дс5 and wins. Therefore the black king makes for the centre under the cover of its army.
26 Wc2 (3)
2б...даб? (5)
Although no one noticed, this was the decisive mistake! It was only 15 years later, in a correspondence game (Germany 1996), that 26...£k6! 27 Ecl ®d8 was played, and after 28 Дс7+ Фев 29 Дха7 fihhsl (with the threats of ...flhf5xf6 and ...Дс5) White gradually lost, after failing to find the deeply hidden resource 30 b4! Ehf5 (ЗО...ДхЬ4 31 Ebl!) 31 Ea8! Exf6 32 Дд5И fixg5 33 Sxd8+ A'xdS 34 Wc8+ Фе7 35 Sc7+ 'A’dB 36 Дс1! with unavoidable perpetual check. 28 Дс8 Дd6 29 b4 Де5 30 Дс5! fixes
31 Лхс5 is more energetic, with an attack compensating for the material deficit, but, alas, no more than that...
27 Hd (9) 27...Wb7 (3)
Both defending, and creating the terrible threat of ...flxh21. If 27...Wb4 White wins by 28 Hc8! Hdl+ 29 Hxdl lxc8 30 Wh7 Фе8 (3O...Hf8 31 JLh6) 31 Hd4l etc. Now it appears that White’s attack has come to a standstill, but he has a latent resource -again, as on the 23rd move, the b-pawn joins the battle.
28 b41
The only way to win. It transpires that 28...flxh2? does not work because of 29 Wa4+I, nor does 28...1b5? 29 bxa5 Bxh2 in view of 30 Деб!, winning. It would appear that in his analysis Timoshchenko had overlooked this nuance, since here he stopped to think.
28...Wxb4l (12)
Played without prejudices: Black realises that the check on c7 cannot in itself cause him any problems (the realisation of this on the 26th move was probably hindered by him being carried away by the idea of ...Wb7 with the threat of ...Sxh2).
29 Sbl! (25)
Timoshchenko, like all those watching the game, was expecting 29 Hc7+ Axc7 30
Wxc7+ Фе8 31 -&.C5. I also studied this possibility, but came to the conclusion that after 31...Wb71 32 Wxa5 fihhs! it is hard for White to count on any real advantage: 33 Wa3 Shf5 34 Де7 Hd4 35 h4 Hfd5 36 i>h2 Sf5 etc.
However, I couldn't help feeling that there was something more in the position, and after a long think I conceived an idea which demanded an introductory move by the rook. Black’s reply is forced.
29...Wg4 (6)
The forcing play has come to an end, and White’s next move will decide whether he is able to create new threats, or Black will escape with a slight fright. And I again thought for a long time, thereby ‘acknowledging’ that the attack was being conducted largely intuitively.
Before making the planned move, it was important for me to convince myself that other continuations were inadequate: 30 ^.f4? Axf4 31 Wa4+ ?td6 32 h31 (weaker is 32 Wb4+ Фе5! or 32 lei e5l 33 Wb4+ Феб) 32...Wg51 33 Wa3+ Фе5 34 Sb4 Wh6l, or 30 f3?l Wf5l (but not 3O...Wh3? on account of the spectacular 31 Hb7+1! £ixb7 32 Wa4+ <£d8 33 £.b6+!) 31 Wa4+ *d8 32 Ibcl Wxf6 33 Wai We 5 or 33...Hh6, and the black king escapes from the pursuit.
As is apparent from this last variation, Black need not fear the queen check at a4, as long as his king can calmly retreat to d8. This means that White should not begrudge spending a precious tempo on the elimination of the a7-pawn, which is depriving his bishop of the b6-square!
30 Дха71! (20)
This paradoxical decision proves to be optimal - the computer decision, it can be said: a simple capture, although it is not a matter of the pawn, but of the b6-square. Now the threat of 31 f3 is deadly: if the queen moves off the 4th rank, White gives mate by 32 Wa4+ ‘A’dS 33 Ab6+.
By this point I had little more than twenty minutes left on my clock, whereas my opponent had used less than forty. But now it was his turn to think...
3O...e5 (26)
The most natural reply: Timoshchenko decided to use the tempo granted for the creation of an escape square for his king. Another try is 3O...Ae5 (Game No.66\
tion was, and he thought for almost an hour - after his next move he had less than fifteen minutes to the time control.
31...1dl+ (57)
The best chance. Other moves would not have saved Black:
а)	31...Феб 32 f3 Wh5(h3) 33 Sb2;
b)	31...Wh5 32 h4! e4 33 Wa4+;
c)	31....Wh3 32 f3 Wh7 33 JLe31 (cf. the variation with 31.-Wf5);
d)	31...Wf5 (a cunning move) - now 32 lei? (32 Wxd5?? Wxbl+ 33 Фд2 Wb7) is a weak reply in view of 32...W13! (if 32...Фе6? Timoshchenko gave 33 Sdl e4 34 f3! ДхдЗ 35 hxg3 and wins, while if 34...W15 35 Sd2!) 33 f4 Wxh2+ 34 Wxh2 Sxh2 35 ФхЬ2 ±b41, as is 32 Sb7+? £jxb7 33 Wxd5 Wbl+! 34Фд2 4И8 35 Sb3 Wf5l, but the quiet move 32 f3!! proves decisive, for example: 32...1a8 (32...e4? 33 Wa4+ Феб 34 fxe4) 33 Sal! with the simple threat of Wxd5 and Sxa5, or 32...Wh7 (the most resilient) 33 JLeBl Wf5 (ЗЗ-Феб 34 Sb5!, but not 34 Sdl?? Wxh2+!) 34 JLf2, and Black has no defence.
32 Sxdl Wxdl+33 Ф§2
31 Wa2l (3)
Again the only move, an intuitive one! It unexpectedly transpires that Black is unable to solve a very simple question: what to do with the rook on d5? Here Gennady now sensed just how dangerous his posi-
33...WI15?! (2)
But this time-trouble attempt to confuse matters loses by force. A more resilient defence, which no one saw, was the computer reply 33...^b3! (interference!), after which
White could either go into an endgame - 34 Wxb3 Wxb3 35 ДхЬз, although after 35...Фе6 sooner or later Black would pick up the f6-pawn, retaining drawing chances in view of the limited material, or continue the attack -34 flxb3 Wd5+ 35 f3 Sa8 36 Wa4+I? Феб 37 Hb2! <4>xf6 38 Wh4+, condemning the opponent to a difficult defence a pawn down. But the fight would still have continued!
34Wa4+! (5)
Another accurate move. 34 h4? was far weaker in view of 34...^c6!.
34...Леб
35 h4!
It was this obvious move, killing Black's counterplay, that Timoshchenko overlooked. Incidentally, whereas up to the 30th move it was White who had been short of time, now the roles were reversed: Black was in time-trouble, whereas White still had a whole fifteen minutes on his clock!
35...We2
35...e4 36 Wxe4+ We5 37 Wg4+ Wf5 38 Se3+ Де5 39 Wa4! or 35...<£>b7 36 Hf3 (36 g4!?) 36...4bd8 37 Ab6 Wb6 38 Wc4+i’d7 39 Sd3 was also hopeless. 35...<4’xf6 36 Wxa5 Фд7 was slightly better, but after 37 Wd5! White would build up a decisive attack.
36Wxa5fia8
36...®e4+ 37 ФЬ2 (37 lf31?) 37...1a8 is
more resilient, although here too Black’s days are numbered: 38 Wa6! Wd4!? 39 Wa2+! Wd5 40 Wxd5+ i’xdS 41 ДеЗ etc.
37*a4l (2)
An invasion on the light squares! The pursuit of the black king is resumed with renewed vigour.
37...i>xf6 38 Wd7 (38 Sf3+!? Фе7 39 h5!) 38...^g7 (3) 39 Hf3 (2) 39...Wc4 40 Wxd6
Hxa7 41 Wxe5+ ФИ7 42 Hf5 (2)
In search of shelter the king has crossed the entire board under fire by the white pieces, and there is nowhere further to run. 42...Wc6+ (a 'spite' check) 43 ФН2 1-0
Times: 2.25-2.29.
This spectacular win enabled me to catch Psakhis, who that day played a draw (we were both on 91/: out of 13). Immediately after the round, debates flared up: was the piece sacrifice correct, and where could Black have played more strongly? These questions concerned many of the participants in the championship. A lively analysis after the game involved not only Timoshchenko and me, but also Dorfman, and Sveshnikov, who as usual was showing where and what should have been moved. His voice resounded louder than the others, and the variations he demonstrated looked
convincing enough (no one believed that the sacrifice 24 йхсЗ! was winning, but also no one had seen 26...$k6!), and in the end the grandmaster consultation decided that 3O...e5 was the decisive mistake, and that 3O...Ae5 would have parried the attack. All my attempts to refute this were unsuccessful, and Sveshnikov publicly declared that he was prepared to defend the position after 3O...Ae5 against me in the 16th round!
On returning to the hotel, for a long time I was unable to get to sleep. Thoughts about the game just played would not leave me in peace. Was 3O...Ae5 really such a good move that it killed White’s entire plan?! Without interruption I analysed this position in my head, and only by two in the morning did I find peace: analysis showed irrefutably that 3O...Ae5 also did not save Black (I remember even that, when this happened, I said to my mother: ‘Found it!’). It only remained to await the penultimate, 16th round, but life decreed otherwise...
The next day I played the 29-year-old Lvov grandmaster lossif Dorfman, USSR cochampion in 1977 and also one of my future seconds (in the early 1990s he moved to France). The spectators assembled in the spacious hall of the Sports Palace followed with mounting astonishment the movements of the pieces on one of the large demonstration boards. Within 45 minutes the familiar critical position after White’s 30th move was reached.
Game 66
G.Kasparov-I.Dorfman
49th USSR Championship, 14th round, Frunze 16.12.1981
Semi-Slav Defence D44
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 £>f3 ;f 6 4 ЗкЗ сб 5 Ag5
dxc4 6 e4 (5) 6...b5 7 e5 h6 8 Ah4 g5 9 ®xg5 hxg5 10 Axg5 ^bd7 11 exf6 (2) ll...Ab7 12 g3 C5 13 d5 Wb6 14 Ag2 0-0-0 15 0-0 b4 16 4ba4 Wb5 17 аЗ £sb8 18 axb4 cxb4 19 АеЗ ,S.xd5 20 Axd5 Sxd5 21 We2 йсб 22 fifcl ^a5l? (22...^e5! - Game No.82) 23 b3 c3 24 ?'>,XC3 ЬхсЗ 25 1XC3+ &d7 26 Wc2 JLd6? (26...£)c6!) 27 Scl Wb7 (10) 28 b4 Wxb4 29 fibl Wg4 30 Axa7
The chief arbiter of the tournament, Mikhail Yudovich: ‘An amazing occurrence! During many, many years of participating in major competitions, I do not recall anything similar: up to the 30th (!) move the players repeated a game played in the previous round.’ I too did not believe my eyes...
3O...Ae5 (5)
This move, suggested instead of 3O...e5 (Game N0.65), was also made quite quickly by Dorfman. Having taken Sveshnikov’s word for it, he had not found time to delve deeply into the position and, it would seem, he began to see the light only after my reply.
31Hc5!(1)
Of course, not the suicidal 31 f3?? JLd4+! 32 £>hl Wxg3 33 Wa4+ ide 34 Hb8+ Wxb8 35 Axb8 АхсЗ or 32 Axd4 Wxd4+ 33 Фд2 (33 &hl Sdh5!) 33...Wd2+ 34 Фд1 Wxc2 35
Sxc2 Hh6 and ...2xf6. The move in the game is directed in the first instance at the exchange of the rook on d5 - the black king’s main defender.
31...Sxc5 (21)
Forced: mate would have been unavoidable after, say, 31-Sa8? 32 Sxa5l Дха5 33 Ib7+ Фе8 34 Se7+ i’fS 35 Wh7.
32ЙХС5!
My night-time discovery! The fact that the quiet ‘backwards’ capture was stronger than 32 Wxc5, and that now Black has no defence, was not easy to grasp (I don’t know whether I would have found it at the board if the previous day Timoshchenko had played ЗО..Ле5). In a joint blitz analysis we only looked at the pseudo-active 32 Wxc5(?) ^c6! 33 fib7+ ic7 34 A.b6 Sc8, when the attack peters out.
On encountering this surprise, Dorfman spent a full hour seeking a way to save the game, but it was already too late...
Wxa5+ ФЬ4 36 lb4; 32...1.C7 33 Wd3+ Фс8 34 Sb4! Wf5 35 Wa6+ &d7 36 ld4+; 32...1b8 33 Sdl+ Фе8 34 id4! (34 f4 is also strong) 34...id6 35 JLa71 Sd8 36 i.b6l.
The computer also considers 32...W5!? 33 Wdl+! Фс8 34 Scl! We4 (ignoring the discovered check) 35 id6+ ФЬ7 36 Wfl! Wd5 37 Sbl+ Фа7 38 lb5 Axd6 39 Sxd5 exd5 40 Wb5 £>b7 41 Wxd5, when the queen and three pawns overrun Black’s scattered army. With a computer White wins easily in all variations, but at the time this was far from obvious.
33 Wd3+! Фс8 (6)
The lesser evil was probably to go into an endgame two pawns down by 33-®d4 (33-id4? 34 lb7+) 34 Sdl Фс7 (34-Sh4? 35 Wb5+ Фс8 36 Wa6+ Фс7 37 ib6+!) 35 Axd4 Wxd4 36 Wxd4 ixd4 37 Sxd4 Sh6, although after 38 Фд2 all the same Black’s position is hopeless (38...Hxf6? 39 Sf4!).
32...^c6 (65)
While the opponent was considering his move, I checked my home calculations (before this I had not reached this position on a board, but only in my head), and I ascertained that White also wins after other replies: 32...Bc8 33 Wd2+ and Wxa5; 32„>c4 33 Wd2+ Феб 34 НЬб+! Фхс5 35
34 Sdl (22)
There was a pretty win by 34 Wa6+ ©dy 35 Bb7+ ic7 36 Hxc7+! Фхс7 37 Wb6+ Фс8 38 Wxc6+ ФЬ8 39 Wb6+ Фс8 40 Wa6+ Фс7 41 Ab6+ Феб (41-Ad6 42 ia7+! Фе5 43 f4+ ФхТб 44 id4+ and £xh8) 42 ia7+! Фс7 43 Wb6+ ФЬ7 44 Wb5+ Фd6 45 ic5+ Фе5 46 id4++! Фе4 (46...®xd4 47 Wb4+ and Wxg4) 47 f31- I saw these variations, but I
preferred to make a move which firmly guaranteed a terribly strong attack.
34...*?ib8 (if 34...Sd8 White mates by 35 Wa6+) 35 lei!
Emphasising the helplessness of the black pieces, which are unable to assist their king.
35...Wa4 (6)
The expiatory bishop sacrifice made by Dorfman merely delays the end slightly.
36 l.d6+ £bc6 37 Axes fid8 (2)
38 Wbl! (4)
Renewing the mating threats.
38...Sd5 (5) 39 Wb8+ (2) 39-Ad7 40 Wc7+ Ле8 41 Wxc6+ Wxc6 42 fixc6 fixes 43 2x8+ 1-0
In view of 43-<i’d7 44 Sf8. Times: 0.55-2.26.
An unforgettable two-day battle! As a result I reached IO1/? out of 14 and again burst half a step ahead. But in the 15th and 16th rounds I slowed down, making far from peaceful draws with Romanishin and Sveshnikov (who ‘in the light of newly discovered circumstances’ deemed it wise to avoid the Botvinnik Variation by playing 5...h6). But Psakhis scored two crushing wins, moved up to ‘plus eight’ and before the last round was leading me by half a
point. This was his finest hour! I remember being terribly upset by the fact that my ‘plus seven’ would guarantee me only second place.
Psakhis’s position before the finish was clearly preferable for the added reason that he had White against the championship debutant Agzamov, whereas I was paired with Black against Tukmakov, who was also invincible in this tournament, and was two points behind in third place, while a draw would give him the bronze medal and a place in the next Premier League! Few doubted that Psakhis would be the sole winner, but last rounds do not always obey the laws of logic.
In this situation Lev took a highly committing and, perhaps, not the most correct decision - to play for a win against Agzamov. He sacrificed a pawn and initiated a very complicated, lengthy struggle, which inspired me: now any result was possible in their game, which meant that my chances of catching my rival were also improved. Especially since Agzamov parried the onslaught, kept his extra pawn, and declined the offer of a draw...
And so, in the decisive game I was opposed by the 35-year-old Vladimir Tukmakov, the remarkable Odessa grandmaster and trainer (without his name it is impossible to imagine modern Ukrainian chess). I have to admit that I myself found it hard to believe in the possibility with Black of defeating 'to order’ such an experienced tournament fighter, but - the miracle occurred!
In the preparations for the duel an active part was played by Vladimirov, who had arrived specially from Alma-Ata. Nikitin: ‘In just one day we had to find a set-up which in some way would particularly tempt Tukmakov, forcing him during the game to
oscillate between caution and a desire to punish the opponent for his excessive risk. The best bait for this would be a pawn sacrifice. A few hours before the start of the round we found an interesting and highly controversial game, published in the latest Informator, Volume 31. After spending a couple of hours, Garry considered himself an expert on the set-up, calmed down and went off for a meal... It was easier to compile the battle scenario: the maximum concentration, no interest in the other games, and the continuous building up of the pressure, bringing it to the boil by the last, fifth hour of play. An hour before the start we unhurriedly set off on foot. We walked in silence, occasionally making brief exchanges. Garry’s thoughts were already on the stage of the tournament hall.'
Game 67
V.Tukmakov-G.Kasparov
49th USSR Championship,
17th round, Frunze 21.12.1981 King’s Indian Defence E74
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 g6 3 -'?ЛсЗ Ag7
At this critical moment I turned to the King’s Indian Defence - my old, well-tested weapon.
4 e4 d6 5 Ae2 0-0 6 S.g5
The Averbakh Variation, which in those years was popular among the leading Odessa players, does not promise White much, but it restricts Black’s active possibilities.
6...C5 (6...®bd7 - Game N0.76) 7 d5 b5?! (2)
An audacious and hardly correct pawn sacrifice. But I didn’t want to play 7...h6 (Game No.28) with a relatively clear game, which - and this was important - the opponent was expecting. For me the situa
tion was unambiguous: all or nothing!
8 cxb5 аб 9 a41 (3) 9—h6
Of course, not 9-Wa5?! 10 Ad2l (Game No.58). However, my improvement only makes things slightly better for Black.
10 Ad2 (7)
A solid move, dictated by White’s desire to retain not so much his extra pawn, as the invulnerability of his position. 10 Af4 was also not bad, since 10...g5(?l), recommended by me in Informator, together with 11 Ad2 e6 12 dxe6 Axe6, suggested in The Test of Time, is dangerous because of 13 h 4! g4 14 Wcl <4h7 (14-.h5 15 Ah6) 15 Ad3 with the threat of 16 e5+.
10...еб 11 dxe6 (2) ll...Axe6 12 ®f3 (2)
White is a sound pawn to the good, and today I look sadly at my position, not altogether understanding where is Black’s ‘active piece play’ that was spoken about thirty years ago. But at the time, sitting opposite Tukmakov, I was radiating composure and confidence.
12...axb5 13 Axbs
In The Test of Time I criticised 13 axbs?!, since after 13...Ab3l 14 Wcl Hxal 15 Wxal We7(?!) 'the e4-pawn is doomed’, but in fact here White has quite good prospects: 16 0-0 ^xe4 17 ®xe4 Wxe4 18 Sei etc. Therefore 15...Se8! is more accurate.
13...£>a6 (3) 14 0-0 (5) 14...®c7 (3)
The leap 14„.£>b4 did not appeal to me because of 15 Ae3, preventing ...d6-d5.
15 Sei (6)
15 Ae2 would have retained the bishop, but allowed 15...d5 16 exd5 £)fxd5, although in this case too Black has only slight compensation for the pawn. With 15 Sei White tries for more. It would appear that the draw, which would have satisfied Tukmakov in the purely competitive sense, had already ceased to be the guideline for him.
15...^xb5 (9) 16 ^xb5
The simple 16 axb5 would have opened the way to numerous exchanges and the cherished drawing haven - after, say, 16...d5 17 exd5 C^xd5 18 H.xa8 Wxa8 19 ^e4 or 17...Bxal 18 Wxal ^xd5 19 Wa7 Black would have been fighting only for a draw. But, apparently, Tukmakov had been seized by the fervour of the struggle! 'A first, purely psychological achievement by Black: the snail has been forced to come out of its shell.’ (Nikitin)
16...d5 17 exd5 (3) 17...^xd5 18 £be5l (7)
A strong, ambitious move. After 18 Wc2 <?^b4! 19 Axb4 cxb4 Black would have maintained the balance thanks to the power of his two bishops. And after 18 Scl,
which I recommended in Informator, both 18...^b4 (Stohl) and 18...^b6 19 b3 c4 are good.
18...Se8 (18)
Continuing to reproduce the Informator source game. After some thought, I concluded that 18,..Wh4?! was weak because of 19 Wc2!.
19 Scl (8)
A new and better move! The aforementioned A.Petrosian-Arbakov game (Moscow 1981) went 19 Wcl Wh4?! 20 Wxc5 (20 a5!?), and in our preparations, not seeing anything promising here for Black, we found an improvement - 19...Af5!. I was also concerned about 19 5k4!? with the threat of an invasion at d6 - for example, 19...^b4(?) 20 ^cd6 S.e7 21 Ac3 (Stohl) with an obvious advantage for White, but after 19-..Wb8!? the position would have been unclear.
19...A.f5! (10)
Sharpening the position further. Tukmakov now cracks under the intense pressure! 20 £кб?! (37)
20 Aa5? Дха5 21 £1сб Дхе1+ 22 Wxel is incorrect because of 22...Wa8!, while after 20 £te4?! Sxel+ 21 Axel £>f4 22 Wxd8+ Sxd8 for the first time Black acquires unpleasant threats.
However, 20 f41? would still have laid claim to an advantage. In The Test of Time I optimistically asserted that after 2O...g5?l (2O...f6 or 20...<йс7 is more solid) 21 Wh5 Де7 'a position is reached where White’s extra pawn does not play any part'. Alas, it very much plays a part: 22 b3 (22 Wf3l?) 22...Даб 23 Дхс5 Wb6 24 led £>xf4 25 JLxf4 gxf4 26 ФЬ1, and Black is fighting only for equality. But here psychology had an effect: Tukmakov had no wish to cast caution to the winds, by exposing his king with f2-f4.
2O...Wd7! (32)
This is better than 2O...Wb6 (it is not befitting for the queen to perform the role of defender of the c5-pawn!) 21 Дхе8+ Дхе8 22 ^a5 ld8! or 21 ^a5 lxel+ (21...Bed8 is also possible) 22 Wxel - previously I assessed this position in favour of White, but after 22...±d3 23 £>c4 Wc6 24 ^e5 (24 b3 le8 25 Wdl Ee2 is dangerous for White) 24—Лхе5 25 Wxe5 Se8 26 Exc5 lxe5 27 Дхеб Де2 28 Ec8+ 4>h7 29 Ла5 ЛхЬ5 30 axb5 Sxb2 his advantage evaporates.
By sacrificing a second pawn, Black diverts the white rook, after which a significant defect in White's position is suddenly revealed - the weakness of his back rank.
21 Дхс5 (3) 21...Hxel+ 22 Wxel (8)
Already the only move - after 22 Лхе1? Де8! White does not have 23 flxd5? because of 23...'Wxd5!, and he is not saved by 23 g3? ®f41, 23 id2 £)f41, 23 Ла5 £>b4l, 23 Ecl ЛхЬ2, or even the most resilient 23 ®cd4 ^f41 24 Scl ixd4 25 iSixd4 Wxd41 26 Wxd4 4ie2+ 27 ifl ^xd4 28 fidl £db3, when the piece for two pawns should bring Black a win.
22...Де8!
Playing for a win: this creates far more problems for White than the direct 22...Дха4 23 b4 (23 b3 Де41?) 23-lal 24 Ecl Excl 25 Wxcl Ле4 with full compensation for the pawn, perfectly sufficient - for a draw.
23Wcl(3)
Again the only move: after 23 Wdl? or 23 ЛеЗ Black has the decisive 23-^f41, while if 23 Wfl? 4Л6! 24 ЛеЗ ®xa4 25 Scl <^xb2 with a powerful initiative.
23...^Ь6?! (5)
A vexing error, which gives the opponent a new chance. 23-Se2?l is also inadequate in view of 24 h31 (an escape square for his king - this is what White lacks for complete happiness!). However, the balance would have been maintained by 23...Se4! with the terrible threat of ...ЛЬЗ1 !• If Tukmakov had found the only defence - 24 b3l, I would
have had to choose between an immediate perpetual check - 24...Ah3 25 gxh3 Wxh3 26 Жс4 Wg4+ and very unclear play 'for any of three results’ after 24...ФЬ7!?.
24 b3! (4) 24...Де2 (2)
25 Aa5?l (2)
Here I sensed that Tukmakov was not fully aware of the danger threatening him. He had two other possibilities:
a) 25 АеЗ?! Ab2! 26 Wfl Ad3 27 Ad4! (there is nothing else: 27 Wdl? Axbs!) 27...1d2 28 Wei fie2 29 Wdl!? Axb5 30 Hxb5 Деб! (not Stohl’s variation 3O...Axd4 31 Wxe2 Wxc6 32 h3) 31 ДхЬб Axd4 32 3b8+ 4>h7 33 fld8 Axf2+! 34 ^2 Wxc6, and the exposed position of White’s king denies him winning chances, or 27-Де 8(еб) 28 Wxd3 Де1+ 29 Wfl We6 30 fie5 flxfl+ 31 ixfl Wxc6 32 Axb2 ФЬ7 with the idea of ...^d5 and a probable draw.
b) 25 Ac31, and in the event of 25...Дс2?! 26 Wei АхсЗ (26...Ae4? 27 ^e5! We7 28 Sc7 We6 29 £rf3 and wins) 27 £>xc3 the move given by me in The Test of Time 27...We6(?) is bad because of 28 Wdl! Ag4 (28...Wxb3 29 h3!) 29 Wbl! fib2 30 Wai! Sxb3 31 £>d4 (Stohl) or 3O...Wxb3 31 h3! (threatening fibs) 31-Wc2 (31...Ae2 32 Wcl!) 32 Wei! Ad7 33 a5, and Black cannot hold out. 27...Wd6 is more resilient, but
after 28 b41 ®xa4 29 £>xa4 Дхс5 30 ?ixc5 Wxc6 31 h3 White simply has an extra passed pawn.
Therefore the immediate 25...Axc3! is necessary: 26 йхсЗ (26 ДхсЗ?! ^d5!) 26...fie6! 27 a5 We8!? (27-Дхсб is also possible) 28 fie5 Wxc6 29 Дхеб Ахеб 30 ахЬб Wxb6 31 Wxh6 Axb3, gaining a draw thanks to all the pawns being on one wing.
It is hard to say how the play would have developed after 25 Ac3. Instead of this, Tukmakov took his bishop out of harm’s way and at the same time attacked the knight, but now the activity of the black pieces increases sharply.
25...Ae4l (14)
With the obvious idea of 26 Axb6? Wg4-1 rejected the safe 25-Ab2 because of 26 Wfl!, when to avoid the worst I would have had to force a draw - 26...He6 (26...Ad3?! 27 &b4!) 27 ®b4 Wd2! 28 M Wd71. The move in the game provokes wild complications, in which it is easy to go wrong. The enormous energy stored up in the black pieces is about to break out.
26£>e5 (6)
Again a natural move, but hardly the best in terms of neutralising the threats. White should have considered 26 Wfl Hb2!? (26...fia2 27 Дс1 ®xa4 is a simpler
way to draw) 27 Hcl! (27 Axb6?! is less good: 27...fibl! 28 Hcl? ±xg2!) 27...^d5 28 Sei or 27...Axc6 28 £xb6 Hxb3 29 Wc4, and Black merely bas good compensation for the material deficit.
26...	We71 (8)
Attacking new targets.
27	(6)
By continuing to bring into play the pieces stuck on the queenside, Tukmakov commits a decisive tactical mistake: on d4 the knight is subject to various attacks. White had more than one acceptable defence:
a)	27 ЛхЬб JLxeS 28 Hxe51? Wxe5 29 JLd4 We6 30 h3 with full compensation for the exchange;
b)	27 £>f3l? - it is hard for a human player to decide on this in view of 27...A.xf3 (27...®bd51? 28 ^bd4! Sa2 29 ±el is equal) 28 gxf3 Wh4, although after 29 Wfl! JteS (29...Ha2?l 30 Axb6 Hal 31 Wxal Axal 32 a51) 30 Hxe5 Hxe5 31 f41 Wxf4 32 ®d4 White is out of danger;
c)	27 Wfl! Ha2! (27...Wxc5 28 Wxe2 Wxe5 29 Axb6 Wal+ 30 Wfl is problematic) 28 JLxb6 Дхеб 29 £hc3, and the best for Black is perpetual check after the spectacular 29-A.xh2+! 30 *xh2 Wh4+ 31 Фд1 Axg21 32 Фхд2 Wg4+-
In any other game such a draw would
have provided enormous creative satisfaction, but not in this one! Fortunately, my opponent relieved me of the need to seek illusory chances...
27...Sa2! 28 JLxb6 (3)
The game ends catastrophically after 28 £>dc6? Wxc5!, 28 4£»ef3? Jlxd4 29 ®xd4 Wxc5!, or 28 ®df3? 4bd5! 29 £>c6 Wf6 (with the threat of...Axf3 and ...Hal) 30 £>d2 Hal 31 £ixe4 Wb2! 32 ±d2 <Shc31 (Stohl).
28...	Лхе5
Black has managed to get rid of his bad knight on b6, by exchanging it for the active knight on e5, and suddenly all his pieces have become very aggressively placed.
29»e3? (13)
Confusion. The mass of threats and shortage of time provoked this 'inexplicable' blunder, which loses the game in one move (as does 29 Wxh6? Wxc5! - here it is, the weakness of the back rank!). True, 29 Hxe5 Wxe5 30 f3 Ad3 etc., would also not have saved White, and the best defence 29 Wei! would merely have prolonged the resistance and offered practical chances:
a)	29-Wd6(?) 30 ^e2(?) Jlxh2+(?) 31ФЬ1 Wxb6 32 Hc8+ <S>h7 33 *xh2 Ab 7 (not the Informator move 33-Axg2? in view of 34 Wc3!) 34 Йе8 with equality, or 31...Ae5 32 4k3! etc., parrying the attack (The Test of
Time). However, there is a win by 3O...Jlb7! 31 a5 Axh2+ 32 Де5 33 £>cl Hxf2!. But 30 ‘$Jb5! Wf6(e6) 31 Hxe5 Wxe5 32 l.d4 gives drawing chances;
b)	29—Wf6(?) 30 £>e2! (30 £if3? Hal or 30 Hxe5? Wxe5 31 f3 Wg5 32 g3 Wf6! 33 Wxe4 Wxb6 is bad for White - cf. variation 'c') 30...Hal 31 Hcl Wg5 32 Wfl! (not 32 g3? Wf6! with the threats of ...Wf3 and ...Wxb6 or 32 f3? Axf3 33 g3 Ha2 - Stohl) 32,..Hxcl 33 £>xcl Wf4 ‘with a strong attack’ (The Test of Time), but after 34 f3 Wxh2+ 35 &f2 Wh4+ 36 Фе2 White holds on;
c)	29...Wg5!? 30 g3 Wf6! 31 Hxe5 (31 Hc4? Jtd51 32 Hc8+ *h7! 33 Ad8 Wa6! and wins) 31...Wxe5 32 f3 Wf6(d6) 33 Wxe4 Wxb6 34 We8+ Фд7 35 We3 <4>h71, and the power of the black rook is decisive, although I would still have had to find an accurate way to the goal;
d)	29...ФЬ7!. A quiet move, creating the threat of ...Jlxd4. Now 30 Hb5? (30 Hcl? Wg51; 30 Hc4? JLds!) is weak in view of 3O..dlxh2+ 31 ФхЬ2 Wh4+ 32 *gl Wg41, but also hopeless is 30 <2}f3 Ab21 31 Hc7 We6! 32 Wb4 Де5! (again the back rank!) or 30 Hxe5 Wxe5 31 h3 Hb2 32 ^f3 Wds! 33 Wc3 Hxb3 34 Wf6 We6! 35 Wxe6 fxe6 36 a5 Jt,xf3 37 gxf3 Ha3, and in the ending the rook overcomes the bishop.
29...Wxc5l 0-1
This position will always shine for me with the brilliance of my first USSR champion’s gold medal! Times: 2.19-1.59-
Nikitin: 'In this titanic battle there was significantly more psychology than chess.’ Some fifteen minutes after my unexpectedly quick win, the Psakhis-Agzamov game also concluded: in a complicated position, where Black’s extra pawn was compensated by White’s extra minutes, Lev decided not to take a risk and he agreed a draw.
The result was that the leaders, who had been exchanging places throughout the tournament, crossed the finishing line together. Yudovich: Tn the final result there is a higher competitive justice: Kasparov and Psakhis undoubtedly deserved to win - they played best of all in the tournament. I don’t recall such a championship of the country in which both winners, I must emphasise -both winners, finished 2У2 points ahead of their nearest pursuer!’
Viktor Vasiliev: 'Psakhis and Kasparov once again confirmed that in their persons Soviet chess now has two young players of the highest class. I think that Psakhis’s rise, which has been somewhat unexpected but is now seen to be justified, will have a favourable influence on Kasparov. As it seems to me, Garry should now lose his feeling of exclusivity, which often hinders players whose talent is revealed so early.’
Psakhis: 7 can't be unhappy with a tournament which brought a gold medal, although the first medal gave me greater joy. In the competitive sense I played more forcefully on this occasion, trying to exploit every chance. If Kasparov had not been in the tournament, I would not have scored so many points. By competing, we constantly drove each other on. Garik played very well,
and he won several brilliant games, including the one in the last round. His play at the World Junior Championship made a great impression on me, and his success in the championship does not surprise me.’
I also paid tribute to my opponent, and expressed my gratitude to my trainers, while about my performance I said: ‘I conducted the tournament better than I expected. In Frunze I think that I began to approach a more harmonious way of playing than earlier.’
Botvinnik: 'The greatest danger for a young player is dizziness due to success. After his unsuccessful autumn performance in Tilburg, Garry Kasparov has begun playing more energetically, evaluating the position more deeply. The set-back in Tilburg was very opportune for Kasparov. Ahead he has the Interzonal Tournament...’ Many experts, including Botvinnik, thought that in this cycle three of the participants in the championship of the country - Kasparov,
Psakhis and Beliavsky - had every chance of qualifying as one of the eight contenders for the crown.
Meetings with Soviet grandmasters were a good schooling for me. The rapid improvement in my results in the Premier League was encouraging: from 9th place I had moved to 3rd-4th, and now I had shared lst-2nd. USSR champion at the age of 18 was an impressive record! Previously the youngest champions of the country were the 20-year-old Botvinnik (1931) and Tai (1957), and after them the 21-year-old Beliavsky (1974).
In Baku my triumph caused a great stir: on 8th January 1982 my mother and I were invited to a reception for the second time (after May 1979) with the leader of Azerbaijan, Geidar Aliev. ‘My next objective is the fight for the title of world champion,’ I said at that reception. 'And all the tournaments in which I participate I will regard as preparation for this main objective.'
Dress Rehearsal
International Tournament in Bugojno (6-25 May 1982)
	1		2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	0	1	2	3	4	
1	Kasparov	*	Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	1	1	Уг	Уг	1	1	1	1	9Уг
2	Polugaevsky	и	*	Уг	Уг	1	Уг	0	Уг	Уг	1	Уг	1	1	Уг	8
3	Ljubojevic	Уг	Уг	*	Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	1	1	Уг	Уг	Уг	1	8
4	Spassky	Уг	Уг	Уг	*	Уг	Уг	1	Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	1	Уг	7У>
5	Hiibner	Уг	0	Уг	Уг	*	Уг	Уг	Уг	1	Уг	Уг	Уг	1	1	Th
6	Andersson	Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	*	0	Уг	Уг	1	Уг	Уг	1	Уг	7
7	Larsen	0	1	Уг	0	Уг	1	*	Уг	0	0	1	1	1	Уг	7
8	Petrosian	0	Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	*	Уг	1	Уг	Уг	Уг	1	7
9	Ivanovic	Уг	Уг	0	Уг	0	Уг	1	Уг	*	1	Уг	0	0	1	6
10	Timman	Уг	0	0	Уг	Уг	0	1	0	0	*	1	1	Уг	Уг	Б’А
11	Kavalek	0	Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	0	Уг	Уг	0	*	Уг	Уг	Уг	5
12	Najdorf	0	0	Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	0	Уг	1	0	Уг	*	Уг	Уг	5
13	Gligoric	0	0	Уг	0	0	0	0	Уг	1	Уг	Уг	Уг	*	1	4’Л
14	Ivkov	0	Уг	0	Уг	0	Уг	Уг	0	0	Уг	Уг	Уг	0	*	Th
Many people, not only chess players, were asking: who will become the challenger in 1984? At heart I was hoping for success, but since the time of Tilburg I knew that I would be unable to get through the Interzonal stage unless I gained experience of playing in top-class foreign tournaments.
Early in 1982 I received personal invitations from the organisers of no less than three forthcoming and interesting supertournaments - in London, Turin and Bugo-jno. After weighing up everything for and against, my trainers and I opted for Bugo-jno: in Yugoslavia I played best of all. It appeared that the necessary permission of the Soviet Chess Federation and the Sports Committee was no more than a formality: how could they refuse the young USSR champion? However, Nikolai Krogius, the head of the Sports Committee Chess Administration, offered me a run-of-the-mill category 10 tournament in Dortmund. This was humiliating for one of the strongest five grandmasters in the world! When I asked Krogius what was the meaning of all this, he replied with disarming frankness: We have a world champion, and we don’t need another one.'
Nikitin: ‘After Garry’s victory in the championship of the country, somewhere in the upper reaches of the Party a "directive opinion" was formed about the need to use all available measures to keep Anatoly Karpov on the chess throne. For this it was necessary above all to halt the rise in the competitive achievements of Kasparov, who was considered the most realistic contender for the crown. The strategy chosen for this was simple. From then on Karpov and Kasparov were not to meet in the same competition, so as to rule out a repetition of the embarrassment that occurred in the matchtournament of USSR teams (1981), when the
world champion finished behind Garry on their individual board. In addition, in order to prevent the steady and rapid convergence of their ratings, it was deemed advisable to lower the level of the international tournaments to which the Soviet Chess Federation sent the young champion of the country.’
This plan was quite feasible, but... fate was kind to me. In March 1982 I was invited to speak at a Congress of the Azerbaijan Komsomol. I don’t know who invited them, but Vitaly Sevastyanov, chairman of the USSR Chess Federation, and Viktor Ivonin, deputy chairman of the USSR Sports Committee with a special interest in chess, unexpectedly arrived in Baku. On seeing them at the Congress, I directly appealed to them and also to Geidar Aliev, who was present too (he knew about this burning question from our January meeting). The result exceeded all expectations: I was given permission to play in Bugojno!
The May super-tournament of fourteen grandmasters in Bugojno assembled an evenly-matched field and a whole constellation of big names (but no Karpov: the two-times winner of these tournaments preferred to play in London and Turin). I was already listed among the favourites, along with Petrosian, Spassky and Po-lugayevsky, while of the foreign participants the main contenders for first place were considered to be Timman and Larsen, who in the past had scored many memorable tournament victories. But there was no particular fight for the main prize: my high-tempo start proved beyond the powers of my rivals.
In my first round game with Svetozar Gligoric, the living legend of Yugoslav chess, I played the opening experimentally and, after quickly exchanging the queens, did not gain any real advantage. But then
my opponent went wrong, and in the end I was as though able to stalemate his pieces.
Game 68
G.Kasparov-S.GIigoric
Bugojno, 1st round, 7.05.1982 Queen’s Indian Defence E12
1 d4 2 c4 e6 3 ?'f3 b6 4 a3
My favourite variation provided me with two more wins in Bugojno - over Najdorf and Ivkov (in rounds 3 and 4), and also a short draw with Ljubojevic just before the finish.
4..X5
I did not seriously expect this sharp continuation from Gligoric. 4...^.b7 was far more often played against me (Game Nos. 43, 52, 61, 73, 75, 85, 98).
5 d5 «аб 6 ®c2 exd5 7 cxd5 g6
Black succeeds in the fianchetto of his bishop. Weaker is 7-d6 8 £ic3 £)bd7?l 9 J4f4! (Game No.32).
8S.f4
A comparatively new idea, which, however, later faded into the background, since it does not set Black any great problems. The usual set-up is 8 £)c3 Ag7 9 g3 0-0 10 Jlg2 d6 11 0-0 He8 12 Hel, and here
12...Wc71? is interesting (Kasparov-Fedoro-wicz, Graz 1981). 8 e4 £xfl 9 i’xfl d6 has also been tried, avoiding the unclear gambit 9...^.g7 10 e5!? ^xd5 11 ®e4 <йс7 12 JLg5 Wc8 13 h4 (Rajkovic-Gligoric, Yugoslavia 1981).
8...d6 9 4hc3 Ag7 10 Wa4+ Wd7
The natural reply. The aggressive 10...b5?! 11 ^xb5 0-0 does not give Black sufficient compensation for the pawn after 12 4k3 or 12 Hdl.
11 JLxd6 Wxa4 (not ll...£bxd5? in view of 12 Wxd7+ i’xdT 13 AeSl) 12 ftxa4 ^xd5 13 0-0-0
Before this 13 e4 had also occurred: 13-Axfl 14 Hxfl 15 0-0-0 2fc6 16 ^c3 0-0-0 17 £>g5 Hd7 with equality (Vaganian-Tukmakov, Yerevan 1980).
13...^e7
A solid move, but 13...£tf6 14 4?bc3 ^c6 is at least no worse, since after 15 g3, given by me in Informator, there is the strong reply 15...^ig4!, while 15 e4 JLxfl 16 Hxfl leads to a position from the previous note.
14 e4 (accepting the exchange of the lightsquare bishops, but at least depriving the black knight of the f5-square) 14...Axfl 15 Hhxfl 4зЬс6 16 ^hc3
Not 16 e5?! <^f5 (Darga-Ligterink, Graz 1979).
16...fid8?!
This is not yet a direct mistake, but an inaccuracy, giving White an enduring initiative, as does 16...0-0-0?! 17 Дхе7 ^xe7 18 <$jb5 or 17 ^g5 ДхсЗ (not the Informator suggestion 17-ДЬб? 18 f4l) 18 bxc3 fidf8 (Soln-Psakhis, Dresden Zonal 1998) 19 f4!?.
16...ДхсЗ! 17 Ьхсз is correct, and here Black initially played 17-Hd8 (Browne-Timman, Las Palmas Interzonal 1982), but because of the reply 18 Де5! (Dreev-Vallejo, Biel 2002), he switched to 17-0-0 (Atalik-Fedorowicz, San Francisco 2002) or my old recommendation 17-f6!? (M.Gurevich-Istratescu, France 2003), endeavouring to nullify White’s already modest active possibilities.
17 (now Black’s queenside is under constant pressure) 17...Hd7
There is no reason to give up a pawn by 17-£)d4? 18 4bfxd4 cxd4, since here apart from the simple 19 Дхе7 Фхе7 20 <£ixa7, there is the strong 19 e5! f6 20 ®xd4 or 19-^f5 20 Sfel. After 17-f6 the 18 e51? breakthrough is also unpleasant - after the comparatively best 18...4f7 19 Ifel the position of the king at f7 causes alarm.
e5?! is weak because of 21...f4!) 21...^xf5 22 <2}xa7 ®cd4 23 ^xd4 £>xd4 with quite good compensation for the pawn, or 21...a6!? 22 ®a7 2xf5 with chances of equalising.
18...fixdl+
An attempt to strengthen the defence. A game played a month earlier, Ostermeyer-Karlsson (Dortmund), went 18...^c8?! 19 ®c7+ 4d8 20 Sxd7+ i’xdT 21 ldl+ Фе7 22 4id5+ with advantage to White. He also stands better after 18...^d4 19 Де5!, for example: 19-Дхе5 20 £ixe5 Sd8 21 ^xd4 cxd4 22 f4 f6 23 ®f3 ®c6 24 Sf2 etc.
19 2xdl 0-0 20 Hd7 2a8 (now 2O...f5? is bad because of 21 e5, when Black begins to suffocate) 21 Дd6
21 Дд51? f6 22 ДЬ4 came into consideration. After the invasion of the white rook at d7 I needed to find the correct way to develop my initiative, but, alas, this part of the game, right up to the 27th move, I did not conduct very well.
21...&C8 22 T'c7
The knight manoeuvre to аб is interesting, but it needs White to follow up with energetic and concrete action.
22,..Sb8 23 ^a6 (23 £sd51?) 23...Sa8 24 .« f4 (24 Дс7!? with the idea of b2-b4) 24...^8e7
18 ±f4!
After 18 ДдЗ 2xdl+ 19 Hxdl 0-0 20 Hd7
Black could have replied 20...f5! 21 exf5 (21
25 i d6
For the moment repeating moves, al-
though White should have preferred the unexpected 25 ®b8! ifS 26 4^xc6 ®xc6 27 Sc7 or 25-.if8 26 JLd6!, when 26...^xb8? is bad in view of 27 Hd8 Фд7 28 Де8 or 28 Фс2, and therefore Black faces a difficult choice:
a)	26...f6 27 ^xc6 £ixc6 28 Axf8 lxf8 29 lc7 £ie5 30 Жха7 £>d3+ 31 Фс2 £)xf2 32 Sb 7 and ДхЬб, with hopes of exploiting the speed of the outside passed a-pawn;
b)	2б...ДхЬ8 27 Axb8 £ixb8 28 Дха7 ®bc6 29 Sb 7 £1c8 30 g3 or 30 Дс7, and the endgame with rook and pawn against two minor pieces is also in White’s favour.
25...£>c8 26 Sg3 (26 Дс71?) 26...^8e7 27 ±h4?l
It was not yet too late to play 27 ^b81. 27...Af8?
Gligoric cracks under the pressure - by 27---f6! he could have practically equalised, since if 28 e5 there is the excellent reply 28...fid8!, when my Informator recommendation 29 Bxd8+ fexdS 30 exf6 Ah6+ 31 Фс2 £tf5 32 Jig5 gives only a draw: 32...^d4+! 33 ftxd4 ±xg5 34 ^b5 £>c6 35 b4 cxb4 36 <^xb4 £ixb4 37 axb4 a5-28 JLf6
Not rushing with the tempting 28 JLxe7 £)xe7 29 ^e5. With a greater number of pieces it is more difficult for Black to defend.
28...Sd8 29 Sc71 fie8
A passive move, but 29-..Bc8 is also cheerless - after 30 Axe7 Дхс7 (30...®ixe7?! 31 Дха7) 31 ±xf8 Sd7 32 A.h6 White has two pieces for a rook, but his knight is stuck at аб, and Black has saving chances; on the other hand, the cool-headed 30 fib7l? h6 31 h4 or 30...Де8 31 Фс2 retains all the advantages of his position.
30 g41?
Perhaps Gligoric was hoping somehow to hold out a pawn down in the variation 30
£xe7 -Slxe7 31 Bxa7 5кб 32 Sb 7 Дхе4 33 ДхЬб. But White plays for a bind, exploiting the poor placing of the black pieces, in particular the knight on e7.
3O...Ag7 (30...£}a5 31 £>e51; little is changed by 3O...Hc8 31 Sb7) 31 g5 if8 32 Sc2 Дс8 33 Bb7!
After 33 Axe7? Дхс7 34 Axf8 fid7l 35 Jlh6 Де7 White’s two unfortunate pieces -the knight on аб and bishop on h6 - would have denied him any hope of success.
33-d4+?
A time-trouble check at the most inappropriate moment. However, after ЗЗ...Же8 34 ФеЗ, with his pieces almost stalemated, Black would also have no hope.
34 ^xd4 cxd4+ 35 4^3 (now the mopping-up begins) З5...^с6 36 f4 JLd6 37 e5 Af8 38 b4 ^d8 39 JLxd8 flxd8 40 Дха7 h6 41 h4 h5 42 ^c7
42 a41 was more forceful, but as it was Black resigned (1-0).
Then, after a short but sharp drawn skirmish with Ivanovic, I faced over the board the famous Argentine grandmaster Miguel Najdorf - he, like Gligoric, had played in the epochal Candidates Tournament in 1953!
I first saw Don Miguel at the 1980 Olym
piad. Sensing a kindred chess spirit in me, he very openly and emotionally supported me (which unnerved the Soviet sports authorities). Najdorf arrived in Bugojno as a guest and corespondent - in general he often visited Yugoslavia, where he had many friends and acquaintances. It suddenly transpired that one of the invited participants had not arrived. Then Spassky took the initiative and suggested: ‘Listen, Miguel, would you like to play in the tournament?’ You should have seen how the 72-year-old Najdorf’s eyes lit up. Spassky asked the other participants whether anyone objected, but none did. And Najdorf played in the tournament! After our game, which took place in the 3rd round, I made the following entry in my diary:
'Already at breakfast a discussion began about the meeting of the oldest and the youngest. It is a unique instance, when the participants are separated by 53 years!! Najdorf kept repeating: “He is like my grandchild.” He arrived for the game very grandly dressed: in a three-piece suit and tie. Already in the opening I had an opportunity to take my opponent by force. I sacrificed two pawns and opened fire. In analysis it transpired that Black had a draw, but Najdorf cracked under the pressure and quickly lost. Later he was distressed and sighed sorrowfully: "I missed a draw, how could l?l" After the game the deputy chief arbiter Litmanovic reprimanded me for having castled incorrectly, i.e. for first picking up the rook and then the king, whereas the rules prescribe the opposite course of action. I courteously agreed, but I thought to myself: “Litmanovic is after all an old friend of Najdorf.”
‘Before going to sleep, already after midnight, I decided to relax a Tittle and I opened a volume of Esenin’s poems. Suddenly the
telephone rang: “Hello, this is Najdorf. I am interested in a few variations from our game, lam writing a report for Buenos Aires. You wouldn’t like to call in on me?” I excused myself and asked if we could discuss it on the phone. For some four minutes we discussed one possible continuation. When Najdorf hung up, I glanced at my watch. One o’clock in the morning! No, chess is not just a sport!’
One day after dinner Najdorf sat down with me and initiated the following conversation: ‘Why do you live in the USSR? Until you move away, you will never become world champion! Go to America - you'll be a millionaire. Now Karpov does not want to play you, but when you become an American, a Karpov-Kasparov match will take place the very next day!’ I timidly tried to object: ‘But my mother?’ 'What about your mother?’ cried Najdorf, gesticulating animatedly. ‘You will send her lots of money, and she will be happy. Come to Argentina, we will arrange an enormous banquet in your honour. When Petrosian was with us, one and a half thousand Armenians assembled in celebration. It is easy for you to travel, you have no family. Ask Petrosian, and he will tell you that I am right. Don’t think about it, just go straight into some embassy and request political asylum, only, of course, not in Yugoslavia!’ and so on, and so forth. Najdorf realised what Soviet power in fact amounted to. I thanked him for his advice, but said that, unfortunately, I couldn’t use it...
In the 4th round I defeated Ivkov and reached ЗУ2 out of 4, but here I ran into a ‘dense atmospheric layer’: ahead were three games with my formidable compatriots - Polugayevsky, Petrosian and Spassky. It was they that decided the outcome of the fight for first place.
Against Polugayevsky I gained a draw in a long forcing variation of the King’s Indian Defence (cf. Game No.28, note to Black’s 12th move). And in the crucial game with Petrosian, who had twice beaten me with Black in 1981, on this occasion I decided to play in quiet manoeuvring style, similar to his own. I was greatly helped by a useful piece of advice offered by Spassky the evening before. According to him, the Achilles’ heel of ‘iron Tigran’ was the defence of slightly inferior positions without counterplay; moreover, the positional vice should not be squeezed with all one's might, but cautiously, unhurriedly, and without any abrupt movements.
Game 69
G.Kasparov-T.Petrosian
Bugojno, 6th round, 15.05.1982
Bogo-lndian Defence Ell
1 d4 2>f6 2 C4 еб 3 ^f3 JLb4+
Avoiding a repetition of the discussion in the 3-b6 4 a3 variation (Game N0.52).
4 ±d2 We7 5 g3 ±xd2+ 6 Wxd2 0-0 7 l.g2 d5 8 0-0
8...dxc4?!
Having decided to play as simply as pos
sible, Petrosian follows in the footsteps of Andersson, but this is an unfortunate exchange: White obtains a favourable version of the Catalan. 8...Sd8 is more solid, as they began playing in 1983, for example: 9 Wc2 £>c6 (9...£>a6 10 a31? Kasparov-Ljubojevic, Tilburg 1989) 10 cxd5 exd5 11 £jc3 .fi.g4 (Timman-Korchnoi, Tilburg 1986), or 9 ficl c6 10 We3 JLd7 11 <^>bd2 JLe8 (an example: Kasparov-Timman, Belgrade 1989).
9^a3l c5
'Dictated by the conviction that the resulting tedious position is not to Kasparov’s taste and that a draw agreement is close’ (Nikitin). Before this Black held the somewhat inferior position after 9-fld8 10 <йхс4 c5 11 fifdl (Speelman-Andersson, London 1982) or 10 Wc2 c5 11 dxc5 Wxc5 12 Sfdl £>c6 13 Wxc4 ®xc4 14 <йхс4 (Ivkov-Andersson, Bugojno 1982).
10 dxc5 Wxc5 11 Дас1 £)c6 12 ^xc4
An important moment.
12...We7?
Too slow. After 12...fld8 13 Wf4 (in Informator I suggested 13 Wc2 ,fi.d7 14 Wb3, but then 14...^a5l is good) 13-.fi.d7 14 We 5 or 14 e4 (but not 14 ^d6 Wb6!) White’s advantage would not have been so obvious and I would have had to make far
more creative effort.
13 fe51
Now Black’s position is difficult, if not already lost: he is quite unable to develop his queenside.
13...£>xe5
13.--.SLd7?! was worse: 14 £ixd7! Wxd7 15 tfxd7 £>xd7 16 Hfdl and 4id6, or 14...^xd7 15 Дхеб (15 Wd6l?) 15-..bxc6 16 ®a5 c5 17 <jc6 We 8 18 Wd6 etc.
14 ^xe5
White’s pieces are far more active, but the conversion of the advantage is hindered by the absence of weaknesses in the opponent’s position. If Black should succeed in driving the knight from e5, White’s initiative may gradually evaporate. And Petrosian begins preparing ...f7-f6.
14-..^id5 (14...1d8 15 Wa51) 15 Sfdl! ?Jb6 16 Was! (paralysing the queenside) 16...g6
Alas, 16...f6? does not work in view of 17 <k41 ^ixc4 18 Дхс4 with a decisive invasion of the heavy pieces (18...b6 19 Wc3 or 18...Bf7 19 Ae41?). Instead of this Black plans ...Sd8, exchanging a pair of rooks.
17 Hd3!^id5
Now 17...Bd8? also does not work because of 18 Wc51 He8 (18...Wxc5?! 19 Hxd8+ Wf8 20 Sxf8+ *xf8 21 Hc7 with crushing threats, similar to the finish in the game)
19 Wxe7 lxe7 20 ld8+ Фд7 21 a41 a5 22 Дс5, and Black is lost.
18 e4 (it doesn’t matter that the pawn blocks the diagonal of its bishop - now it is more important to dislodge the knight from d5) 18...£ib6
The c7-square has to be covered -18...^b4? 19 Дс7. Black would also have lost after 18...b6? 19 Wd2 £sb4 20 fld6(d4), to say nothing of 18...Wb4? 19 fixd51. Petrosian is again hoping to play ...f7-f6.
19 Afl
A prophylactic move, of which I was very proud. ‘Just a year ago Garry would have been unable to devise such a move...’ (Nikitin). I thought that the routine 19 h4 would allow the opponent to free himself by 19...f6 20 £>C4 £)XC4 21 1хс4 b6 22 Wc3 Aa6 (exploiting the undefended rook on d3) 23 Hc7 Wxc7 24 Wxc7 Axd3. In Informator I assessed this position as ‘unclear’, but after 25 Wd7 or 25 e5 Black loses a pawn, and with it most probably the game.
There were some more energetic alternatives: 19 £ig4!?, 19 ДЬз!? Wd6 20 £ig4, or 19 Idc31? Ad7 (19-f6?! 20 Hc7 Wd6 21 £sg4) 20 Йс7 Sfc8 21 Wd21 and wins.
19...Se8?!
Here Black should have given up a pawn - 19--f6! 20 £>c4 JLd7l 21 4Jxb6 axb6 22
Wxb6 Лсб, although after 23 a31 (23..Лхе4? 24 Sc7) I would surely have been able to convert my material advantage.
20 Eddl (the number of tempting rook moves - 20 Ed2, 20 Bdc3 and 20 ЖЬз!? - is simply dazzling!) 20...Ш8
2O...f6 was again bad in view of 21 ^c4 ^xc4 (21...±d7? 22 £sd6!) 22 Exc4 b6 23 Wc3 ld8 24 fixd8+ Wxd8 25 e5! &b7 (25-f5 26 Ed4! 27 Wd2 and wins) 26 exf6 Sc8 27 We5 when White dominates.
Now Black can only hope for a miracle -or the haste and inexperience of his opponent. On the experience of our previous meetings, the latter seemed more probable, but the lessons received from Tigran Vartanovich in Moscow and Tilburg had taught me a great deal.
21 a3!
The most important, according to Spassky, was to avoid sharp advances! Insignificant moves such as this demonstrate to the opponent just how helpless his position is.
21...*g7
The pawn sacrifice 21...f6 22 ?k4 ^.d7 (22...£)XC4 23 Hxc4 b6 24 Wc3 Sd8 25 Sxd8+ Wxd8 26 e5!, as in the note to Black’s 20th move) has become even less attractive in view of 23 £ixb6 axb6 24 Wxb6 Jlc6 25
±b5!.
22 b3 (with unhurried haste, I approach my goal: a3-a4 is threatened and, after the queen moves, a4-a5) 22... *g8
There is nothing that Black can do: now 22...f6 23 <£>c4 id7 does not work because of 24 ^xb6 axb6 25 Wb4!.
23 a4
This gradual suffocation was the most unpleasant for Petrosian.
23...1d8?l
Overlooking a tactical stroke, but even without this the game would not have lasted long, for example: 23...Фд7?! 24 Wc3 Фд8 25 a5, or 23...f6 - this should have been played, although after 24 £>c4 ^xc4 25 1XC4 b6 26 Wc3 Sd8 27 fic7! (27 Exd8+!?) 27...Wxc7 28 Wxc7 Sxdl 29 Wc6 or 29 Фд2 all the same White would have won.
24Wc5!
And in view of 24...'Bxc5 (24...We8 25 <йд4!) 25 lxd8+ Wf8 26 Exf8+ ixf8 27 Sc7 Black resigned (1-0).
This was a very important win for me over a difficult opponent, signifying my emergence onto a new level. Nikitin: ‘I don’t remember Tigran Petrosian losing to anyone in such style. After seeing this masterpiece of
positional skill, I realised that there was nothing more I could teach Garry about chess. All that remained for me was to offer help in preparing for competitions and the advice of an experienced master.’
My black game from the 7th round with Spassky, which ended in a draw, took an extremely tense and fighting course. After scoring 2 out of 3 in the games with my compatriots, I retained the lead (Kasparov -51/2 out of 7, Polugayevsky - 5), and I sensed that I had good chances of first place. And subsequent wins in rounds 8 and 9 practically resolved this problem.
Bent Larsen played the same line of the Old Indian Defence against me as in the previous autumn in Tilburg (Game No.62). From the opening I gained some advantage, but I threw it away with my nondescript 21st move.
An audacious move, offering chances of success. The virtue of it is that it does not spoil anything!
25...bxc6?
After thinking for 20 out of his remaining 25 minutes, Larsen resolutely removed the white rook from the board: he was not one of those who took the opponent ‘at his word’. But Black should have simply ignored the impudent rook!
True, in the event of 25-..Jlf7?! 26 Sxc8 (in The Test of Time I gave 26 ig4 ^xg4 27 Hxc8+ Wxc8 28 hxg4 Wcl+ 29 -4>h2 Wd2? 30 Wc4! and wins, but after 29...Дд6 Black is alright) 26...Wxc8 27 ®>gf5 White has some initiative. However, 25...^c7! 26 Sc3(c4) £ke8 was quite safe, improving the position of the knight and maintaining equality. Now my idea proves justified.
26 dxc6+ Wf7 27 ±C4 d5 28 <^xd5
Game 70
G.Kasparov-B.Larsen
Bugojno, 8th round, 17.05.1982
In this roughly equal position I was able to find an interesting combinative possibility.
25 "c6!
28...‘h8
2 8... if 8, with the idea of giving up the queen in a favourable version, runs into an elegant refutation - 29 4Л6! axb6 30 jlxf7 Axf7 31 Wd3 or 29...1xc6 30 Axf7 Axf7 31 Wa3! with the idea of 31-2xb6 32 b5+.
29 £sb6! Wc7 30 £)xc8 Wxc8 31 b5!
Larsen underestimated this move. After the game he told me that for some reason he had only reckoned on 31 Дхаб?! Wxa6,
stopping the passed pawns (although even here after 32 We6! Black faces difficult problems). But White has no reason to exchange his strong bishop.
31...£k5 32 Wa3 (32 We31? Wf8 33 c7 would also have been decisive: 33-^>fd7 34 Wg5 or 33...h6 34 a5) 32...^ce4
32...W8, attempting to keep the knight on c5, would have been parried by 33 c7! <Wd7 34 Деб!.
33 We 7 Wxg3
34 c71 (34 fxg3 was also sufficient, but I decided to play prettily) 34...Af5 35 fxg3?!
At this point my attention was diverted by the flag on my opopnent’s clock, which was still holding up by some kind of miracle, and suddenly I mechanically captured
the black knight. There was an instant win by 35 Wd8+! £^e8 36 JLf7 or the more elegant 36 b6! axb6 37 Даб!.
35...h5
Larsen promptly makes an escape square for his king, ruling out the variations given in the previous note. But the armada of white pawns is still irresistible.
36 a5 e4 37 b6 axb6 38 axb6 *h7 (38. .Wb7 is also hopeless: 39 Wd8+ <4Ti7 40 Wb8 Дс8 41 Деб!) 39Wc5
And as he was playing 39-Ad7 Black nevertheless lost on time (1-0). However, after 40 Wa5 or 40 ДЬ5 he would have had to resign.
Asriyan: 'The super-tournament, which he had striven so hard to take part in, was conducted brilliantly by Kasparov. I phoned him in Bugojno from the editorial office after the 8th round, in which he had beaten Larsen. Garik was in an excellent mood. He was confidently leading, and he was very happy not only with the result, but also the quality of his games, especially singling out his win over Petrosian. One sensed that Kasparov was in no doubt that he would win the tournament.’
In this positive mood I gained a spectacular win in the next round over the highly-experienced Ljubomir Kavalek, a participant in several Interzonal Tournaments, two-times champion of Czechoslovakia, and after 1968 - also of the USA!
Game 71
LKavalek-G.Kasparov
Bugojno, 9th round, 19.05.1982 King’s Indian Defence E90
1 C4 g6 2 ®C3 «g7 3 d4 2if6 4 e4 d6 5 2>f3 (5 h3 0-0 б ДеЗ - Game No.10) 5...0-0 6 h3
(6 Де2 - Game Nos.21, 42) 6...e5 7 d5
An insidious variation, which Makogonov employed in his time.
7...^a6
7...a5 is also popular, and in former times there were heated debates over 7...^bd7 8 ДеЗ ^c5 9 £>d2 a5 10 Де2 £ie8 11 g4 f5 (Makogonov-Boleslavsky, 15th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1947) or 10 g41? (an example: Kavalek-Kestler, Bundesliga 1982).
Another tabiya arises after 7„.£)h5 8 ^h2 (one of the important ideas of the variation) 8...We8 9 Де2 ^f4 10 Jlf3 f5. Now sharp play results from 11 h4 ^>аб 12 g3 £sc51? (Black is not satisfied with the obvious 12...£ih3) 13 gxf4 exf4 14 e51 dxe5 15 Де2 We7 (Kavalek-Quinteros, Bauang 1973). After 1976 they began sacrificing a pawn - 11 g3 (Bagirov) ll...^xh3 (more critical than ll...fxe4 12 ^xe4^h5 13 ^g4, Kasparov-Lanka, Leningrad 1977) 12 Дд2, but after 12...fxe41 13 ДеЗ £ia6 14 ^хе4 Af5 15 f3 (15 Wd2? <Sbf41 Andreykin-Radjabov, Moscow (blitz) 2010) 15...h5 (but not 15...‘$jf4?! 16 gxf4 exf4 17 Ad41, Flear-Strikovic, Mesa 1992) or 13 £>xe4 Af5 14 ^g4 (14 ДеЗ?! £rf4!) 14-h5 the complications are probably in favour of Black.
8 ДеЗ
Nowadays 8 Дд5!? is in fashion (Bron
stein-Kapengut, 40th USSR Championship, Baku 1972; Kavalek-R.Byrne, Chicago 1973). 8...^h51?
White was ready to meet 8...^c5 with the typical 9 ^d2 (cf. 7...^bd7 8 ДеЗ £)c5), but a surprise awaits him: noticing the not altogether happy position of the bishop at e3 in the lines with ...^h5 and ...f7-f5, Black reverts to this plan.
9^h2
Kavalek follows the new routine, whereas the old one was 9 ^d2 We8 10 £ib3 (10 Де2 £rf4) 10...f5 with doubleedged play (Uhlmann-Kapengut, Berlin 1967).
9...We8 10 Де2 <^f4
Possibly it would have been preferable to play 10...f5 11 exf5 4hf4! 12 JLxf4?! exf4 13 fxg6 Wxg6 with excellent compensation for the pawn (Chernin-J.Polgar, New Delhi 1990), or 12 0-0 ixf5 13 lei Wf71 with a comfortable game (C.Hansen-Kasparov, 2nd match game, Svendborg 1990).
11 ±f3 f5 12 h4
On seeing that the inclusion of the moves ...£ia6 and ДеЗ has made 12 дЗ?! £>xh3 13 Дд2? unacceptable because of 13...f4 (with gain of tempo!), Kavalek ‘dug up the past’ - again, as he did against Quinteros, he moved the h-pawn out of
range, in order nevertheless to play g2-g3. This is an ambitious plan, but 12 0-0 is sounder (G.Kuzmin-Gufeld, 40th USSR Championship, Baku 1972).
12„.We7
Later Black successfully tried both 12...®b4, and 12...id7 (my Informator recommendation) 13 g3 ®Ь41? - I considered only 13...^h3 14 Bfl, but here 14...We7 or 14-.f4 15 Дс1 We7 favours Black, and therefore 14 h51 is better, maintaining a shaky equality.
13 g3
The first critical moment.
13...^b4l?
Impressive! The idea of leaving the knight en prise seems even more audacious than in the aforementioned Kavalek-Quinteros game: here the c5-square is under the observation of the bishop on e3, but there is another way that leads to d3... However, today I am not sure that this is definitely the strongest move. Its strength largely lay in its surprise value: the opponent was probably only expecting 13...®h3. In The Test of Time I then gave 14 Sfl f4 15 Jlcl, ‘when there appears to be no way for Black to develop his initiative, and his knight remains in an offside position’, but after 15...id7 or 15...4hc5 (with the idea of
16 b4 <^d7) White would have faced an unpleasant defence. However, the active 14 hs! would have retained an unclear situation: 14...^b415 hxg6 hxg6 16 a3 f4 17 ^.cl £ia6 18 b4 or 14...gxh5 15 Jlxh5 <2ib4 16 f3 f4 17 <^g4!.
14 Wb3?
The unexpected knight sortie apparently dismayed Kavalek, and he immediately made a decisive mistake. He should have either moved his king, or accepted the Greek gift:
a)	14 0-0. After this in The Test of Time I recommended 14-.g5(?!) ‘with good prospects for Black’, and in Informator I gave a variation supposedly confirming this: 15 gxf4 gxf4(?l) 16 ±cl Wxh4 17 ФЬ1(?!) Hf6 18 Sgl Sh6 19 Hg2 fxe4 20 ^xe4 JLh3. However, after 21 Sg5l ^.f5 22 Sg2 or 22 Wgl White is quite alright, and moreover, 17 exf5 Jlxf5 18 <йе4 gives him the better chances, but the most accurate is 16 JLd2l Wxh4 17 exf5 Axf5 18 ®e4 with an obvious advantage (Hausrath-Kaminski, Chania 1994). 15-exf4 (Stohl) is better, but here too after 16 Jid4 Jlxd4 17 Wxd4 £>c2 18 Wd21 £>xal 19 hxg5 Wxg5+ 20 4Til 4>h8 21 Sxal things are not easy for Black. He also does not have full equality after 15 exf5 jlxf5 16 Ae4 (Stohl) or 16 Дд4.
Therefore castling should be answered by 14...&T13+! (14...^fd3? 15 a31) 15 Фд2 f4 16 Acl h5 17 a3 £>a6 18 b4 c5 or 18...Ad7 followed by ...Sf7 and ...Baf8 - here Black does indeed have quite good prospects;
b)	14 gxf41.
Analysis diagram
After 14...exf4?l 15 Axf4 fxe4 16 JLg51 Black still has to demonstrate that he has compensation for the piece: 16...We8 17 Ae2 <^d3+ 18 Axd3 exd3+ 19 Axc3+ 20 ЬхсЗ ®e4 21 std2 etc. In the precomputer era I did not rate the capture of the knight very highly because of 14„.fxe4, but here too White has good counterchances:
bl) 15 fxe5 exf3 16 e6! (Stohl’s move 16 a3 is risky because of 16...Axes! 17 axb4 Wxh4 18 ФЬ2 Wxc4) 16...Wxh4 17 аЗ £bc6!? (17...®a6 18 Wd3!) 18 dxc6 Axe6 19 cxb7 Bab8 20 Wb3, and Black merely has compensation for the piece (2O...Axc4 21 ^fl!) or 15...^d3+ 16 <Sd2 (16 Фе2? £sxb2) 16...Wxe5 (16...Ilxf3 17 ^xf3 Ag4, given by me in Informator, is not to be feared in view of 18 e6! Axf3 19 Wb3) 17 Wc2 £ixb2 18 Wxb2 exf3 19 Дае1 with double-edged play;
b2) 15 ^ixe4! (this looks somewhat safer)
15...exf4 16 Ad2 £>d3+ 17 A’fl! (I gave only the cooperative 17 Фе2? ®c5 and wins) 17...^xb2 (17...Af5 18 £>g5l) 18 Wc2 <^xc4 19 lei (19 Ac3 Af5 - Stohl; 19 Wxc41? Axal 20 Фд2) 19...®xd2 20 Wxd2 Wxh4 21 ^g4 Wd8 22 £}h6+, and although Black now has four pawns for the piece, his attack has petered out and White has no reason for concern.
14...^fd3+
Such a thing is not often seen on the 14th move: the black cavalry, after bypassing the opponent’s advanced centre from the flanks, has begun to pursue the white king.
15 Фе2 f4l 16 Ad2
16...fxg3?
After quickly achieving a winning position, I became confused by the mass of tempting continuations, although the only genuinely strong one was 16...a5! with the idea of 17 a3 ^c51 18 Wdl <2^bd3 or 17 ^a4 b5! 18 cxb5 Ad7 with a winning attack.
In Informator and then in The Test of Time I recommended the ‘resolute’ 16...®xf2(?) 17 &xf2 ®d3+ 18 Фд2 (18 Фе2? 53c5 etc.) 18...fxg3 19 ФхдЗ(?) Bf4!, and ‘the entire black army takes part in the decisive offensive’. Indeed, here White is lost:
a) 20 £3g4 Axg4!? (2O...h5!?) 21 Axg4
Wf6! 22 Wdl (22 Де2 lf8! or 22 ДеЗ Дхд4+! 23 Фхд4 £)f2+! and ...Bf8 is no better for White) 22...Hxg4+! 23 Wxg4 Wf2+ 24 ФЪЗ Wxd2! and wins;
b) 20 £)fl Hxf3+ 21 <4xf3 Wf8+ (but not the earlier 21...Wf6+? 22 Фе2 ^c5 because of the saving 23 Дд51 Дд4+ 24 Фе1 Wf3 25 Wdl! £)d3+ 26 *d2 Wg2+ 27 £>e2! or 26...Wf2+ 27 ‘i'xds Wd4+ 28 Фс2 JLxdl+ 29 Hxdl Wxc4 30 ДеЗ) 22 Фе2 <?k5 23 Wc2 Дд4+ 24 Фе1 Wf3 and wins;
c) 20 Дxf4 exf4+ 21 Фд2 Wxh4 22 Shfl ДЬЗ+ 23 4>hl Дх^ 24 fixfl <bf2+ 25 fixf2 Wxf2 26 Wxb7, and instead of the previously suggested 26...Bf8(?), which is unclear because of 27 Wxc71 (27 £>e2? Wb6!) 27-Wxb2 28 £ie2 Wb8 29 We7, Black wins by 26...Se8! 27 Wxc7 Дd4 28 £}e2 fixe41.
However, if White attacks the knight on d3 - 19 ®a41, then after 19„.£rf4+ 20 ФхдЗ ДЬ6 21 Wc2 ДЬ7 22 £>c3 or 19...£tf2 20 ФхдЗ ^xhl+ 21 Sxhl Дd7 22 Wdl Bf7 23 ^c3 fiaf8 24 Дд2 it is hard for Black to count on any advantage.
17 fxg3
ДеЗ!, for example: 18...Ad7 19 a3 a4 20 Wdl ^xb2 21 Wbl ®4d3 22 <4>d21 C51 23 Да2 £jxc4+ 24 'i’xds b5, and Black has an enduring attack, but as yet by no means a win.
18 £utf3 Ag4
19 fiafl
19 fihfl! fif8 20 ДеЗ was more accurate, since here if 2O...lf6(f7) there is the excellent idea 21 ФЬ2! ДxfЗ 22 a3, immediately solving all White’s problems.
19...1f8
The culminating moment of the game.
17...1xf3?!
Again playing for brilliancy. And again 17...a51 was correct, although because of the impetuous 16...fxg3? White has acquired the important defensive resource 18
At first sight, things seem brilliant for Black: after from the direct ...Wf7 he is threatening a double exchange on f3 followed by the invasion of his queen (say,
20 a3? Hxf3! etc.). Therefore White must urgently cover the f2-square. It gradually becomes apparent that the threat of ...Wf7 is not deadly, if the d2-square is vacated for the king...
20 ^dl?
Cracking under the pressure, Kavalek overlooks the only saving move 20 JLe31, for example:
a) 2O...Wf7 (2O...Wd7? 21 a3) 21 4>d21 (previously I recommended 21 a3(?), not noticing 21...&С1+! 22 Дхс1 Axf3+ 23 Фе1 £id3+ 24 &d2 £)C51 25 Wa2 We8 and wins) 21...jlxf3 22 a3 Wd7 23 Shgl, capturing the knight, when Black has quite good play with a pawn for the exchange, but not more;
b) 2О...ДЬ6 21 a3 (21 £idl? Sxf3 22 Bxf3 Wf8! - Stohl) 21...ДхеЗ (I recommended the ‘winning’ 21...fixf3(?) 22 Hxf3 Axf3+ 23 ixf3 Wf6+ 24 Фд2 ДхеЗ 25 lfl(?) ^el+1, missing the defence 25 4^dl!) 22 ФхеЗ Axf3 23 Hhgl Дд21 24 Hxf8+ Wxf8 25 axb4, maintaining equality not without difficulty, or 21 ДхЬб! Exf3 22 lxf3 JLxf3+ 23 ixf3 Wf6+ 22ьФд2 Wf2+ 25 ФЬЗ ®3! 26 4>h2! (not my earlier 26 Bh2? because of 26...^f4+! 27 ixf4 exf4 28 <Se2 £sd31 29 Hg2 fxg3 and wins) 26...<^f2!? 27 Hfl! <£>g4+ 28 ФЬЗ 'SFxfH- 29 Фхд4 ®d3! 30 Wxb7 (30 £)dl? We2+ 31 ФЬз g5!! and wins) 3O...4?Yf2+ 31 'A’fB! £idl+! with perpetual check (a very pretty draw!);
c) 2O...Hf71? (perhaps the most interesting) 21 a3! (bad is 21 £)bl? Wf8! 22 <^sbd2 £kl+! 23 Hxcl Exf3 with the murderous threat of ...ДЬ6!) 21...W8 22 axb4 Hxf3 23 Sxf3 ^f2!? (23...Wxf3+ 24 *xd3 Wxhl 25 Wa4! is equal) 24 <4’d2! (an accurate reply, forcing a draw) 24...Wxf3 25 Hh2 ?}xe4+ 26 Йхе4 Wxe4 27 Wc2! Шз 28 Hf2 Wxg3 29 Wa4! h5 30 We8+ *h7 31 Hf7 Wh2+ 32 if2 jlf5 33 Hxg7+, and again perpetual check.
It may seem strange that after 20 ДеЗ Black does not have more, but the efficiency of his pieces is not so great (in contrast to the position after I6...a5!).
2O...Wf7! (now the white knight is doomed, whereas Black’s is immune: 21 ДхЬ4?
£>cl+) 21 ДеЗ ДxfЗ+ 22 Фаг Wd7
23 Hhgl
Or 23 Hxf3 Hxf3 24 a3 <£>c5 (Stohl) 25 Wxb4 Wg4 and wins. 23 a3 was more resilient, but after 23...ДхЬ1 24 Hxhl a5! 25 axb4 £>xb4 the extra pawn plus the exposed position of the white king assure Black of a win.
23...Wh3 24 аЗ Дхе4 (24...Wh2+!? 25 ФсЗ a5!) 25 Hxf8+ iixf8 26 axb4 Wh2+ 27 ФсЗ 2>cl! 0-1
An elegant finish, enabling this game to finish second in the competition for the best game in Informator Volume 33.
My lead over the second-placed Po-lugayevsky reached one and a half points, and after the 10th round, in which I quickly drew with Ljubojevic, while Polugayevsky lost to Larsen, the fate of first place seemed to be conclusively decided: Kasparov - 8 out of 10, Polugayevsky - 6.
Three rounds before the finish I rather prematurely reckoned that everything was
decided, and I relaxed. My 11th round game with Jan Timman nearly became that fly in the ointment which spoils the impression of any success. A frivolously played King’s Indian gave me an unenviable position, on the 15th move I overlooked a veiled pawn thrust - and to avoid the worst I gave up a whole rook (!), in order to expose the white king. On encountering this unexpected resistance, Timman became nervous and began throwing away his advantage. After my spectacular 27th move he went pale -one glance sufficed for him to realise that there was no longer a win...
The miraculous escape in this difficult game with Timman secured me at least a share of first place, a draw in the 12th
round with Hilbner put me out of reach of my rivals, and the finishing touch was a short last-round draw with Andersson.
This was how this important ‘defence review’ concluded - a dress rehearsal before the Interzonal Tournament starting three months later. On the whole I managed to avoid the mistakes and the uncertainty that had pursued me in Tilburg. I did not lose a single game and I won the tournament, finishing one and a half points ahead of my closest pursuers.
Botvinnik: 'Whereas previously I thought that Kasparov might become Karpov's opponent no earlier than the next cycle, after Bugojno I am inclined to admit that this may possibly happen sooner.’
Chapter Three
Challenger
Decisive Finish
Interzonal Tournament (Moscow, 6-25 September 1982)
	1	2	3	4	5 6	7	8 9	0	1	2	3	4
1 Kasparov	*	/2	72	72	Уг 72	1	1 1	1	1	1	1	Уг	10
2 Beliavsky	и	*	1	72	1 1	0	0	1	1	0	1	Уг	1	8’/z
3 Tai	Уг	0	*	72	Уг 72	1	Уг 7г	1	1	Уг	1	Уг	8
4 Andersson	72	72	72	*	0 Уг	1	7г 7г	Уг	1	1	Уг	1	8
5 Geller	72	0	72	1	*	72	72	0	1	1	Уг	Уг	1	Уг 7’Л
6 G.Garcia	Уг	0	Уг	Уг	72	*	1	1 0	1	1	Уг	0	1 Th
7 Murey	0	1	0	0	72	0	*	1 Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	1	1	6У2
8 Sax	0	1	72	72	1	0	0	*	Уг	Уг	0	Уг	Уг	1	6
9 Christiansen	0	0	72	72	0 1	/г	7г *	0	Уг	Уг	1	1	6
10 Velimirovic	0	0	0	72	0 0	y2	Уг 1	*	Уг	1	1	Уг 5’4
11 van der Wiel	0	1	0	0	Уг 0	Уг	1 Уг	Уг	*	Уг	0	Уг 5
12 Gheorghiu	0	0	72	0	Уг 72	Уг	Уг Уг	0	Уг	*	1	Уг 5
13 Rodriguez	0	Уг	0	72	0	1	0	Уг 0	0	1	0	*	1	414
14 Quinteros	Уг	0	Уг	0	Уг 0	0	0 0	Уг	Уг	Уг	0	*	3
In the three Interzonal		Tournaments of				Petrosian		(Candidates			in	the previous
this cycle, which took place in Las Palmas,						cycle), Kasparov,				Beliavsky,		Balashov (on
Toluca and Moscow, each had two qualify-						rating), Yusupov, Psakhis, Tukmakov, Geller						
ing places to the	Candidates			matches.		(winners of the Zonal Tournament) and the						
Twelve leading Soviet grandmasters					were	61-year-old		Smyslov,			whom the Soviet	
admitted: Polugayevsky,			Tai,	Spassky,		Federation gave a place from the USSR Zone						
without him having to qualify.
To us, the young players, the last-named seemed like a kind of chess dinosaur, a piece of living history, and in no way a real contender for the world championship. But Vasily Vasilievich unexpectedly overturned all the forecasts and for the first time in a decade and a half he reached the Candidates (Las Palmas 1982: 1. Ribli, 2. Smyslov). But the other Soviet participants did not finish in the first two, either in this or the next Interzonal, held in the summer (Toluca 1982:1-2. Portisch and Torre). The only remaining hope was Moscow, where apart from me, Tai, Geller and Beliavsky were playing.
My direct preparations for the Moscow Interzonal Tournament began soon after Bugojno. True, in June I found time to visit Kislovodsk and play for Spartak in the USSR Team Cup (4 out of 7). But I spent July, as usual, on the banks of the Caspian Sea in Zagulba - nowhere have I been able to work so well! Apart from my mother, who for many years constantly dealt with all the organisational, and sometimes also psychological problems, my team then comprised Nikitin, Shakarov, Vladimirov and Timoshchenko.
The mornings, naturally, were spent on the beach. We would swim and play football - crazy beach football, unlike anything else on earth. I did not join in straight away, but only after my daily run: three kilometres barefoot along the seashore, on wet sand, which made running difficult (everyone realised that without physical exercise it was not possible to withstand the tension at the top level). After returning from the beach I would always sleep for an hour. I would begin working with my trainers in the afternoon, after our traditional post-lunch cup of tea. Our optimal time, found by experience, was five hours. But if we encountered some fascinating idea, time
would naturally be forgotten...
No less fruitful was the second, August training session, which took place 350 km to the west of Baku, at the stunningly beautiful Gek-Gel mountain lake.
Nikitin: 'July 1982 can be regarded as the starting-point of the powerful, creative team which worked with Kasparov for nearly four years. For six weeks the four trainers worked with Garry, far away from crowds and various temptations. In such a calm atmosphere we were able to do a great deal. At the end of the session Garry played a training match with Vladimirov. The unexpected result (3-3) was an excellent antidote against dizziness before the start of the competition, the outcome of which none of the experts ventured to predict. At the Interzonal Tournament Garry was helped my me, Shakarov and Valery Chekhov. As usual, Botvinnik restricted himself to general directives and lengthy telephone conversations; his general instructions and advice were of great benefit to Garry, even when he was fighting Karpov for the crown. Roughly five years of conversations with the Teacher were effective psychotherapy for Garry, and later they became a kind of ritual.’
As this was the first time I had taken part in an Interzonal Tournament, I was naturally nervous, and this told on my play. Nevertheless the start went well. In the first round my opponent was the experienced Hungarian grandmaster Gyula Sax.
Came 72
G.Kasparov-G.Sax
Interzonal Tournament, 1st round, Moscow, 7.09.1982
Grunfeld Defence D86
1 d4 ^f6 2 c4 g6 3 ^hc3 d5 4 cxd5 £>xd5 5 e4
Т-хсЗ 6 ЬхсЗ Ag7 7 й-<4 (2)
Earlier I had regularly employed the variation with 7 4ff3 (Came Nos. 38, 48), but Sax was a fervent supporter of the Grunfeld Defence, and he had a good knowledge of its subtleties and, of course, the latest developments. Therefore it was decided to choose not the most fashionable continuation.
7...0-0 (8) 8 Ae3
Also not hurrying with the usual 8 <2te2. In preparations for the game my trainers and I noticed that in both cases Sax replied 8...b6, and for the moment we preferred not to block the white queen’s path with the knight, in order to employ a more aggressive development set-up, championed by the German grandmaster Rainer Knaak.
8...b6 (2)
In principle a rather dubious move, which does not solve the chief strategic objective of the opening - the undermining of White’s pawn centre. The typical 8...C5 9 £>e2 is better.
9 h4 (2)
It was because of this attacking thrust that I first developed my bishop at e3. But this plan did not become popular, and now I regard less optimistically the idea of opening the h-file and I am inclined to
wards the solid 9 ®f3 (Korchnoi-Gulko, Manila Interzonal 1990).
9...±b7
With the aim of diverting the opponent from his home preparation, Sax avoids his move 9...£>c6, which he twice employed successfully against Knaak (Budapest 1977; Tallinn 1979). In the second of these games after 10 h51 ®a5 11 hxg6! hxg6 (it is bad to play 11...^хс4? 12 Wh5l fxg6? 13 Wxh7+ 4f7 14 ®rf3 or 12...h6 13 JLxh6 fxg6 14 Wxg6 Sf7 15 ±xg7 Bxg7 16 Wc6! etc.) 12 JLd3 e5 (12...C5 13 Well?) 13 ®e2 (13 £>f31?) 13...Se8 14 Wd2 White retained slightly the better chances.
10 Wf3 (8) 10...Wd7 11 ^e2 (not 11 h5? because of the double attack ll...Wc6!)
Il...h5 (12)
Forced, otherwise h4-h5, and it is not apparent how Black can defend. But now a different question arises: how is White going to attack?
12 ±g5 (12)
Beginning a regrouping with the aim of creating a powerful striking force on the kingside and landing a blow against the black king’s defences. This plan was triumphantly realised in the well-known game Knaak-Uhlmann (Eggesin 1978), which the two players follow as far as the 15th move.
But since after accurate defence White’s attack would have petered out, the simple 12 O-Ol? may have been better, with the possible continuations 12...C5 13 £>f4, 12...1fg4 13 Wxg4 hxg4 14 e5 or 12...&C6 13 fifdl ^a5 14 &d3 (14...Wa4 15 fidbll), with some claims to an advantage.
12...<5k6 (3)
Of course, not 12...b5?l (Knaak-Uhlmann, Groditz 1975) 13 fibl!. Black is intending to play ...e7-e5 or ...e7-e6, maintaining the tension and endeavouring to show that the manoeuvre ДеЗ-д5 was pointless.
13 Ш (4)
The time spent in thought, beginning with my 10th move (does not White have anything better?), proved unproductive. Again 13 0-0 came into consideration, and if 13...&a5 14 JLd3.
13...еб! (of course, not 13„.^a5? 14 ®xg6! £)xc4 15 £>xe7+) 14 fidl (10) 14...£>a5 (6) 15 ±d3
A critical moment.
White is planning to advance g2-g4 or else destroy the opponent’s defences with a piece sacrifice - £>xh5 and JLf6! followed by fih3. 15-..f6? does not work in view of 16 £ixg6 fxg5 17 Wxhs Wf7 18 f3! with crushing threats. Looking very nervous, Sax came up with a novelty...
15...e5l? (5)
Uhlmann attacked the centre from the other side - 15...c5, but this allowed 16 4bch51 gxhs 17 Af6 .4,xf6 (17-.e5 is worse in view of 18 Hh3 Axf6 19 flg3+1 Ag7 20 Wf6 Wg4 21 fixg4 hxg4 22 Wg51) 18 Wxf6 Wd8 (18...fifc8? 19 Sh3! *f8 20 fif3 and wins -Knaak) 19 Wh6, and after 19...f6(?) 20 Wg6+ ФЬ8 21 e51 f5 22 Wh6+ Фд8 23 ffh31 <4’f7 24 Hg3 Black resigned.
Annotating the game in Informator Volume 25, Knaak considered 19...f5(!) 20 Wg6+ ФЬ8 21 Wxh5+ Фд8 22 exf5, demonstrating a win for White after 22...exf5(?) 23 Wg6+ <4>h8 24 Wh6+ Фдв 25 l.xf5! and 22...We7(?) 23 f6! Hxf6 24 Hh3- Because of these variations, I (and, apparently, Sax) erroneously assumed that 15...c5 'would have lost almost by force’ and that after 19 Wh6 ‘against the threats of e4-e5 and Hh3 there is no satisfactory defence’ (as I gave in The Test of Time). However, the cool-headed 22...Wf6! 23 Hh3 fif71 extinguishes the attack: 24 ДдЗ+ Яд7 25 Яхд7+ Фхд7 etc., and 22 Wg6+ 4>h8 23 Wh6+ Фд8 24 flh3 f41 25 Wxe6+ Sf7 is also no better.
Thus 15-.C5 would nevertheless have led to a draw, although in a practical game it is extremely unpleasant to come under such a powerful attack. Incidentally, I considered Knaak’s recommendation 15...Wc6 to be insufficient on account of 16 jlbl - for example, if 16...Aa6?!, then 17 Wg31 is strong, with the threats of <2b<h5, e4-e5 and Af6. Apparently Black is already obliged to play either 15...C5, or 15...e5.
16 dxe5 (5) 16...±xe5?!
This move suggests itself, but 16...Hae8! is more subtle, with the idea of 17 0-0 fixes, immediately solving all Black’s problems. If 17 We2 fixes 18 £b<g6 fxg6 19 Лс4+ there is an excellent queen sacrifice - 19...^xc41 20 fixd7 Sxe4 21 Hxg7+ (21 Ae3 A.xc3+ 22
4>dl Дс8!) 21...Фхд7 22 ДеЗ Sfe8, while if 17 еб there is an interesting exchange sacrifice - 17...ДхсЗ+ 18 i>fl Нхеб 19 £ixe6 Wxe6 with good compensation for the small material deficit.
17 0-0
17...*§4 (13)
The correct idea: finding himself under the threat of an attack, Black switches his queen to the defence of his kingside. 17...Wa4?l is risky - although after my Informator suggestion 18 g4 there is the reply 18...4tc41 19 We2 (19 gxh5 £>b2 20 hxg6 fxg6) 19„.^d6 20 gxhs 4^xe4 21 ®xg6! fxg6 22 Дс4+ ФТ,7 23 hxg6+ Фхдб 24 f41 We81, after 18 £id51 White can develop a dangerous initiative: 18...Axd5 19 exd5 Wxa2?! 20 fifel or 18...f6 19 ДеЗ Дxd5 20 exd5 Wxh4 21 g3 Wg4 22 Wxg4 hxg4 23 ДЬб fifd8 24 Дхдб ДхсЗ 25 Фд2 etc.
18 We3 (3) 18...afe8 (19) 19 Де2 (3)
19 f3 suggests itself, but after 19...Wg31 20 <^e2 Wh2+ 21 &f2 Ad6 White is not able to exploit the advanced position of the black queen.
19..^xf4 (5)
The dark-square bishop has to be given up for the knight, since in the event of 19...Wc8?l 20 £>d5 Axd5 21 Ixds White has
the two bishops and excellent prospects.
20 Axf4
Another critical moment.
20...5Д4?
A fatal mistake - a tempting combination, which to Black’s misfortune meets with a far from obvious rejoinder. Intuitively I sensed that Sax would fall into this trap: as a player with a sharp attacking style, the position with an extra pawn after 20...Wxh4 21 e5 We7 22 Wg3 ФЬ7 23 Ifel was clearly not to his taste - White controls the dark squares and firmly holds the initiative.
21 Дхс4 (2) 21...Sxe4 22 f31 Wxf4 (12)
23 Дxf7+!
Such a stroke can be overlooked; Sax saw
it, but he overlooked the following cunning move by the white queen.
23...®g7
23..ФТ8 was completely bad: 24 Wf21 (24 Wxf4 Exf4 25 Jlxg6 is also possible) 24...Se5(e7) 25 ±xg6 etc.
24 Wd3! We3+(16)
The weakness of the g6-pawn forces Black to go into an endgame a pawn down, where White, thanks to the activity of his pieces (his rook, dominating the 7th rank, is especially strong), the weakness of the g6-pawn and the insecure position of the enemy king, has every chance of winning.
25 'Й’хеЗ ДхеЗ 26 Sd7 ФИ6 (6) 27 flxc7 £a6 28Hdl£d3 (2)
Also after 28...Hd3 29 Bel! there are no particular problems with the conversion of the advantage.
291d2 (3)
The immediately winning 29 if 2! He2+ 30 ФдЗ JLf5 31 Hd6 was more forceful. But also after the solid rook move the white king is ready to enter the battle, and its black opponent will soon imperceptibly end up in a mating net.
29...Af5 (3) 30 $fcf2 Ее 5 31 fids (5)
31 ld6! Bc5 32 Hxc5 bxc5 33 fia6 ±d3 34 c4 would have won more quickly.
31...Sxd5 (3) 32 ixd5 fid8 33 c4 (2) 33...b5
(6)
The bishop endgame after 33-Ш7 34 Sxd7 Jlxd7 35 ФеЗ g5 36 hxg5+ Фхд5 37 g3 etc. was also bad for Black.
34 ФеЗ! (6)
Avoiding the unclear variations possible after 34 Дха7 JLd3l.
34...a5 (again the exchange of rooks was hopeless - 34-bxc4 35 Дхс4 Sc8 36 Дхс8 ±xc8 37 Ф^4 Ad7 38 Фе51) 35 Фf4 (11)
35...^.bl?! (3)
This loses immediately, but Black would also have failed to save the game after the more resilient 35-bxc4 36 Axc4 a4 (if 36...Sd4+ 37 Фе5! fixh4?, then 38 f4! with the unavoidable JLg8 and fih7 mate) 37 jLf7, gradually preparing g2-g4.
36 g4! (the threat of mate puts an end to the torture) 36...hxg4 (4) 37 fxg4 fif8+ 38 Фgз 1-0
In view of 38...g5 39 cxb5. Times: 1.33-2.20.
In the 2nd round I made a draw with Black against Quinteros, and in the 3rd round I again won with White - this time against an old acquaintance of mine, the ex-Muscovite Jacob Murey, whom I had met back in my first master tournament (1976). Since then he had emigrated to Israel, been
one of Korchnoi’s seconds at the match in Baguio, and become an international master (and within a few years, also a grandmaster!).
Came 73
G.Kasparov-J.Murey
Interzonal Tournament, 3rd round, Moscow, 9.09.1982
Queen’s Indian Defence E12
1 d4 £>f6 2 C4 еб 3 Stf3 b6 4 аЗ ДЬ7 (4...C5 -Game Nos. 32, 68) 5 ^c3 d5 (5...^е4 - Game No.61) 6 cxd5 £>xd5 7 Wc2
It was after my two wins in the Interzonal Tournament that this move, instead of the usual 7 e3 (Game Nos. 43, 52, 85), became popular.
7...C5 (3)
7...£>d7?l 8 £>xd5 exd5 9 Дд5 (Game No.98) is dubious for Black. The best choice is 7-^хсЗ 8 bxc3 (8 Wxc3 b6!, Po-lugayevsky-Sax, Biel Interzonal 1985) 8...Де7 9 e4 0-0 10 l.d3 c5 11 0-0 Wc7(c8), and here, despite White’s ideal pawn centre, as yet he has not managed to devise a promising plan. But topical at that time was the game Portisch-Christiansen (London 1982), where after ll...cxd4(?!) 12 cxd4
®c6 13 ДЬ2 Hc8 14 We2 JLf6 15 fiadl a tabiya of the 7 e3 variation was reached (Game N0.85, note to Black’s 14th move).
8 e4
The main rejoinder to 7...C5 has become 8 dxc5! Дхс5 9 Дд5 Wc8 10 Hcl, when White holds the initiative (an example-. Kasparov-van der Wiel, Amsterdam 1988). 8...<2}xc3 9 Ьхсз £кб
In the 12th round Gheorghiu tried 9...Де7?! (Game No.75). But six weeks later (Olympiad, Lucerne 1982) Sosonko surprised me with 9-^>d7 10 JLd3 Wc7l (threatening ll...cxd4) 11 Wd2 g6 12 0-0 Лд7 with an excellent position for Black, and I was happy to agree a draw. The situation changed only after the game Portisch-Korchnoi (Montpellier Candidates 1985), where an excellent pawn sacrifice occurred: 10 JLf4! cxd4 (10...Де7 11 d5) 11 cxd4 Bc8 12 Wb3! with the idea of 12...Дхе413 Даб.
10 ДБ2 (4)
Later, when this plan lost its successful reputation, both 10 ДеЗ and 10 Дс4 came into fashion (but Black maintained the balance without particular effort), as well as the more interesting 10 JLd3.
10...Hc8 (11)
In the event of 10...cxd4 11 cxd4 Дс8 Black also has to reckon with 12 Wd2!? ±d6 13 ДДЗ 0-0 14 0-0 He8 15 Ifdl (Sakaev-Grischuk, Moscow 2002).
11 Hdl
It is rather early for 11 d5 exd5 12 exd5 (12 Hdl d4!, Gelfand-Lautier, 2nd match game, Groningen 1997) 12...Wxd5 13 Ad3 (Agdestein-Lau, Dortmund 1987) 13-.Де7, and after 14 0-0-0 there is the strong reply 14-£>d4!, while if 14 0-0 - at the least 14...Wh5 (defending the h-pawn) and then 15...0-0.
Il...cxd4 (29) 12 cxd4
12...аб? (10)
It turns out that this defence against Jib 5 loses an important tempo. Since the late-1980s Black began playing 12...jld6! (the source game: Petursson-Lautier, Marseille 1988), completing his development and intending by ...We7 to attack the аЗ-pawn (cf. Game No.101 in Revolution in the 70s).
13 Wdz! (9)
The d-pawn is preparing to march as far as d7! The immediate 13 d5 also looked tempting - for example, 13...^e5(?l) 14 Wb3 <5?xf3+ 15 gxf3 exds(?), recommended by me in The Test of Time, did not work because of the spectacular stroke 16 JLxa61. But after 13...^b4 there was a risk of selling the advantage too cheaply: 14 Wa4+ b5 (was this the line Murey was hoping for when he chose 12...a6?) 15 Jlxb5+ axb5 16 Wxb5+ Wd7 17 Wxd7+ <4>xd7 18 dxe6+ Фхеб, and after 19 ^g5+ Фе7 20 axb4 f6 or 19 ®d4+ ФТб! (not 19...Фе5? when the reply 20 O-O! is very dangerous) even a pawn down Black would have retained real drawing chances.
13...^a5 (6)
Murey pins his hopes on counterplay. Of course, 13...^e7 stops the immediate breakthrough in the centre, but after 14
JLd3 Black faces the same problems, and his kingside makes a pitiful impression.
14 d5! (4) 14...exd5 (8)
After 14„.^jc4 15 Дхс4 2xc4, apart from the simple 16 We2, there is also a pretty combinative solution - 16 0-0 Sxe4 17 £>g5 Дд4 18 4}xf7l, and in all variations Black loses material.
15 exd5 Ad6?
This involves an oversight and it loses quickly. Another counterattacking attempt 15...We7+ 16 Де2 £k4 would have run into 17 d6!!. After the forced 17...®xd6 (17...Wxd6 18 Дхс4 or 17...4^xd2 18 dxe7 £sxf3+ 19 JLxf3 would have lost a piece) 18 0-0 £te4 19 Wf4 it would have been extremely difficult to defend the king caught in the centre.
More resilient was 15...f6 16 d6 Wd7 17 Jle2 and here not 17.--S.c6? 18 We3+ ®f7 (18...ФЬ8 is even worse because of the same reply 19 ^e5! fxe5 20 Wg5+) 19 £)e5+H fxe5 20 W3+ Фд8 (2О...Фе8 21 Wh5+ ids 22 Wg5+ etc.) 21 Wd5+ Wf7 22 d7 2e6 23 Wxe6 Wxe6 24 d8W and wins, but 17...^4! 18 Axc4 2xc4, hoping to play the king to f7 or d8, using the d6-pawn as a screen and on no account aiming to win it quickly, although after 19 0-0 Black’s position is unenviable.
16 l.xg7 (4) 16...We7+ 17 .&e2 Hg8 18 Wh6! (it is all over: if 18...Дс2 there is 19 ^d4) 18...f5 (5) 19 Af6 (2) 19...W8 (5)
The exchange sacrifice 19...Дд6 would have been most simply parried by 20 Wxg6+ hxg6 21 Axe7 Фхе7 22 h41? JLxa3 23 h5.
20 Wxh7 (2) 2O...Wf7 (11)
If 2О...Дхд2, then 21 ^e51 is quickly decisive.
21 Wxf5 Hg6 (2) 22 We4+ (3) 22...<4>f8 23 ihg5 Sxg5 (2) 24 l.xg5 le8 25 l.h6+ T/g8 26 Wg4+ 1-0
Times: 0.43-1.43-
In the 4th round I gained a difficult draw in a Sicilian with Geller. Then I had two Whites in a row against two other very dangerous rivals - Tai and Beliavsky. This was the first key moment of the tournament race.
Against Tai, who was half a point ahead of me (ЗУ2 out of 4!), I employed the then rare ‘Anti-Moscow Gambit’ - an audacious set-up, with a novelty which took him by surprise. Up to the 17th move it all went well for me. All I had to do was land a combinative blow, giving White a fearfully strong attack, but I was tempted by another, showy continuation - and I ended up on the verge of disaster. Fortunately, Tai, with a piece for a pawn, accepted my offer of a draw (cf. Game No.82, note to Black’s 5th move). Even so I felt shocked, since I had gone wrong in tactical complications, which I regarded as my natural element! I tried to forget this game, and to distract myself somehow. But I couldn’t rid myself of the thought: 'How could I so miscalculate?!’ I had the anxious feeling that I could make another mistake. And the next day, unsettled by an unexpected move from Beliavsky, after an hour’s thought I blun
dered a pawn, and then sacrificed the wrong knight! However, after a sharp battle this nervy encounter also ended in a draw.
Shortly before the half-way distance the leading group looked like this: Guillermo Garcia - 5У2 out of 6 (one of the Moscow sensations, who frayed the nerves of the favourites); Tai and Andersson - 4У2; Kasparov - 4; Beliavsky - ЗУ2; Geller - 3. Over the next few days those last three launched a desperate pursuit.
In the 7th round I won a tense game with Black against the 26-year-old American Larry Christiansen, several times champion of his country and a two-time winner at Linares.
Came 74
LXhristiansen-G.Kasparov
Interzonal Tournament,
7th round, Moscow, 16.09.1982 King’s Indian Defence E76
1 d4 6 2 c4 g6 3 ^c3 * g7 4 e4 d6 5 f4 0-0 (4) 6 £f3
The choice of variation was evidence of my opponent’s aggressive intentions. Well, that evening I was also in a fighting mood. 6...C5 (3) 7 d5 e6 (3) 8dxe6
A rather rare set-up (in contrast to 8 Ле2 - Game No.53). In exchanging his strong d5-pawn, White hopes to exploit his superior control over the central squares and the activity of his e4- and f4-pawn pair.
8...fxe6 (7)
The natural 8...JLxe6 gives White an easier game after 9 Ad3 and f4-f5 (Murey-Kasparov, Baku 1976). Therefore I chose a dynamic and little-studied continuation. 9 &d3 4ic6 10 0-0 £>d4l (3)
Black immediately exploits the main advantage of his position - his control of d4.
11 £>g5?! (10)
An artificial manoeuvre, allowing Black to seize the initiative. White could also not have been satisfied with 11 £3xd4 cxd4 12 ^e2 e5 or 11 £ie2 4bxf3+ 12 Sxf3 e51? (12...Jld7 is also good). The prophylactic 11 ФЬ1 or the developing 11 Jld2 (Vaganian-Torre, Buenos Aires 1978) was comparatively better.
Il...e51 (19)
More active than ll...We7 with the same idea of ...e6-e5 (S.Garcia-Tatai, Bucharest 1971). There was no point in Black weakening his kingside - ll...h6?l 12 £tf3!.
12 f5 (5)
‘Consistent, but 12 fxe5 would have been more cautious’, I stated in The Test of Time, while in Informator I gave 12...dxe5 13 ®>d5 with equality. Indeed, after 13...Wd6 14 Wei Jld7 the game is roughly equal. However, it is more accurate to interpose 12...Ag4l, and after 13 Wei (13 4tf3? £>h51) 13...^d7l? (13...dxe5 is also not bad - now 14 ^d5? is weak because of 14..-h6!) 14 exd6 ^e5 Black’s unexpected activity more than compensates for the sacrificed pawn.
12...h6 (4) 13 ^h3 (21)
Yes, Christiansen had plenty to think about. After the inglorious return of the knight to its former post - 13 £if3 Black
would have played 13...gxf5 14 exfs £>xf5, winning a pawn: 15 ^xe5(?) dxe5 16 Axf5 is bad because of 16...Wd4+! 17 Wxd4 (17 *hl? ±xf5 18 lxf5 £>g41) 17-.cxd4 18 4hb5 jlxf5 19 2xf5 ^e8, when the pair of connected passed pawns in the centre wins for Black. However, perhaps it is worth seeking compensation for the pawn after 15 Wei!?.
In later games the knight sacrifice 13 fxg6 hxg5 14 Дхд5 occurred, but here my Informator recommendation 14-Д.еб! proved good, with the idea of 15 h4 Wd7!, 15 ^d5 Axd5 16 exd5 Wd7! (my suggestion 16...e4(?!) 17 Дхе4 We7 18 Ad3 Hae8 is, however, unclear in view of 19 Af41), or 15 Axf6 JLxf6 16 Wh5 We7 17 ftd5 Axd5 18 exd5 Wg71. To all appearances, White does not have full compensation for the piece. 13».gxf5 (3) 14 exf5 b5?I
A rare flank blow with the aim of gaining predominance in the centre. It later transpired that this was a novelty. But 14...We8! was objectively stronger, and if 15 g4?! (Niklasson-Boersma, Ramsgate 1979) there is the unpleasant 15...e4l, while after 15 £tf2 Axf5 16 Axf5 ^bxf5 Black is simply a pawn up (17 ^fe4 We61).
15 ДеЗ? (6)
It is not possible to reinforce the c4-pawn - 15 b3? (Hausner-Zsu.Polgar, Kecskemet
1983) 15„.b41, and the knight has no normal square to move to: 16 Де 2 e4 17 Дс2(Ь1) d5, or 16 Де4 Axf5 17 ^xf6+ Wxf6! 18 ixf5 SixfS winning a pawn (19 Wd5+ *h71, Glek-Barash, 17th USSR Correspondence Championship 1986).
But the pawn sacrifice should have been accepted - 15 ДхЬ5! (15 cxbs?! d5 is worse for White), maintaining approximate equality: 15...e4 16 Де2 (16 ДЬ1!?) 16...^xf5 17 ®)f4, and the ‘bad’ knight comes into play, or 15...ДхЬ5 16 cxb5 d5 17 Де2, and although the powerful pawn centre gives Black good compensation for the pawn, the position is completely unclear.
But Christiansen, like Sax, was a player with a dynamic style, and he did not like to concede the initiative. Therefore he did not take the pawn, but tried to solve his problems by tactical means.
15...bxc4 (6) 16 Дхс4+ ФЬв! (9)
Avoiding a transparent trap - 16...d5? 17 ^xd5! £ixd5 18 JLxd4 cxd4 19 Wb3, and threatening both ...d6-d5 and ..Axfs.
17 i.xd4?l (11)
17 id3 Sb8! 18 Ibl d5 or 17 Деб Дхеб 18 fxe6 Sb8! 19 b3 Дхеб was also unattractive, but now the power of Black’s central pawns greatly increases.
17...cxd4 (2) 18 ^d5
18...Даб!? (15)
Black sacrifices the advantage of the two bishops to enable his knight to occupy a dominating post at e3. But it would appear that 18...Sb8! was even stronger, for example: 19 b3 £ixd5 20 Axd5 ±xf5 21 Wh5 ДЬ7! 22 fixf8+ Wxf8 23 Sfl Wc8! 24 2>f2 Wc2!, or 19 ^xf6 lxf6 20 Wh5 (20 b3 d5 or 20 g4 Hf8 is also bad for White) 2O...Sxb2 21 Sael Wc7 22 Jld3 Wf7 and wins.
19 ^xf6?! (24)
In a search for tactical counter-chances Christiansen sacrifices the exchange, not wishing to conduct a difficult defence after 19 Дхаб <^xd5 20 Wh5 ДеЗ 21 Sf2 d5.
19...Дхс4 20 ДИ5 S xfl (16) 21 Wg4 Wd7 22 Sxfl
It may seem that White’s threats on the kingside are dangerous, but if Black plays accurately he has no reason for concern.
22...d3?!
The illusion of a quick win! The goal would have been achieved without particular problems after both 22...Hf7 23 b3 Haf8 24 Wg6 (24 ДдЗ d5) 24...Hg8! 25 ДдЗ £f8 26 Wh5 d5, and 22...Sac8 23 £>f2 Sc7 24 £>d3 Af6 with the intention of ...Дд5.
23 Wf3?! (11)
Both players underestimated the defence 23 ®f2! (23 We4? d2!) 23...d2 24 Де4 Hxf5
25 Sxf5 dlW+ 26 l\dl Wxf5 27 £ixd6 Wg6(e6) 28 £)xg7 Фхд7 29 h3 with hopes of saving the game. Christiansen will not have a second chance.
23...d21 (2) 24 g4 (22)
The mercurial d-pawn denies White the possibility of playing actively: 24 f6? JLxf6! 25 £>xf6 We6, regaining the pinned knight.
24...fiac8! (4) 25 Wd3 (3)
White would like to bring the knight into play as soon as possible - 25 £>f2, but here too after 25-.Hc2 there is no way of saving the game.
25...'S'a4 (7) 26 £if2 Wd41?
Not the only way to win (26...Wb41 was also strong), but a sensible one from the practical point of view: with the exchange of queens White's chances of exploiting the insecure position of the black king disappear.
27 Wxd4 exd4
Outwardly the tripled pawns make a pitiful sight, but here the strength of the pawns is determined by their degree of advancement. The main role continues to be played by the d2-pawn.
28 ®f4 (2) 28...fife8! (3) 29 £>e6 (blocking the entry of at least one of the rooks) 29...&C1
The immediate 29-Af6! 30 £)dl Ah4!
would have been more quickly decisive, with the idea of 31 Фд2 Hcl 32 4Тз?! Ael 33 Фе2 d3+!.
30 £)dl (3) 3O...Af6 (3O...d3 or first 3O...Hb8 was also tempting) 31 &f2 Ag5 (22)
It was now too late for 31...Ah4+?l 32 Фе2 Ael in view of 33 Sf31, when the d-pawn is halted and the black bishop is out of play. But 31-.Bb8 was good, with the pretty variation 32 Фе2 Hxb2l 33 ^xb2 d3+!.
32 Фе2 Дс5 (the alternative to this regrouping was 32...Фд8!? 33 4d3 Hal or 33 h4 Axh4 34 <4’xd2 Sec8) 33 Ad3 (5)
If 33 h4, then 33-He5+ 34 А^З Sei 35 Hf3 Axh4 36 S,xd2 Hgl and wins.
33...He5 34 ®xg5 (2) 34...hxg5l
More correct than the showy 34-Hel 35 Hf2 hxg5 36 Hxd2 H8e4 or 35 W+ Фд8 36 Hf2 S’xfy (after 36...Hxdl? 37 ?ixd6 White is out of danger) 37 Hxd2 18e4-
35 Hf2 (after 35 4,xd2 the crude 35„.He2+ 36 ^d3 Hxh2 would have been decisive, but the black rook could also have performed a ‘staircase’ - 35-.He41? 36 h3 Hf4, and White is essentially stalemated: 37 Hhl Фд7 or 37 HglHf3!)35..Ae4
36 h3?! (3)
Allowing a little combination. The resistance would not have been prolonged for
long by 36 Sg2 Фд7 37 <4’xd2 Sei 38 b3 d5 39 ДЬ2 Sgl and wins.
36...Se3+! (2) 37*xd4 (4)
Of course, not 37 ?^xe3? dxe3, while if 37 <4,xd2, then simply 37...Sxh3. But now comes the finest hour of the d2-pawn, which appeared to be doomed after the impulsive advance on the 22nd move.
37...18e4+! 38 *d5 Де2 39 Sf3 (3) 39-.lel 40 f6 (or 40 Sd3 Sxdl 41 Фхе4 Sel+) 4O...Hf4
Here Christiansen took the envelope to adjourn the game, but after 12 minutes’ thought he stopped the clocks and offered me his hand (0-1). Times: 2.40-2.25.
No less important were the wins by Beliavsky over Tai (the Lvov grandmaster was playing very strongly!) and Andersson over Murey. The position of the leaders (Garcia -6 out of 7; Andersson - 5У2; Kasparov - 5; Beliavsky and Tai - 4У2) pointed to the prospect of a gripping finish.
In the 8th round I had White against the unexpected leader at the start - the 28-year-old Cuban grandmaster Guillermo Garcia. A win in this game could have sharply improved my chances of overall success, but, alas, things did not work out. I decided not to try and swim against the tide and on the 24th move, after exhausting all the fighting resources, I offered a draw. I remember the apt comment made in passing by Geller: ‘It is very hard to win against any grandmaster who is on a surge.'
That same day Tai crushed Velimirovic in spectacular style, Beliavsky won against Christiansen, and Geller, who was beginning his finishing spurt, inflicted the first and only defeat on Andersson. The battle for the two places under the sun intensified in the extreme: Garcia - 6У2 out of 8; Kasparov, Beliavsky, Tai and Andersson - 5У2;
Geller - 4У2.
Another key moment in the tournament came in the 9th round. Beliavsky accomplished a genuine competitive feat - he defeated Garcia with Black, making it a hat-trick of wins! Geller also won and continued his pursuit of the leaders, since Tai had to be satisfied with a draw as Black against Christiansen, as did I against Andersson.
That day I made a mistake at the very start of the game, by choosing an incorrect objective: I was unnerved by the fact that I couldn’t get into the lead, and I tried to play for a win with Black (although, taking account of my comparatively easy finish, a quiet draw would have been far more sensible!). And in the Classical Variation of the King’s Indian, instead of the customary 6...e5 (7 0-0 Укб - Game No.21), fearing Andersson’s favourite exchange 7 dxe5 with the transition into an endgame, I chose 6...^bd7 7 0-0 e5, which was alien to me. In this unfamiliar situation I played extremely uncertainly, then I suddenly launched a reckless counterattack and lost a pawn. Soon Andersson won a second pawn, and I ended up in a desperate position. But here my self-preservation instinct operated: instead of nervously pacing around the stage, I sat at the board with an imperturbable expression. Not long before, in Bugojno, self-control had rescued me in my game with Timman, when I gave up a rook. Something similar occurred on this occasion. In a time scramble, which was more serious for my opponent, I abruptly played 28...d31. Ulf put his head in his hands and sank into thought. The tension became unbearable! Sensing that my opponent could not see a decisive continuation and was rattled, I offered a draw (a small violation of the rules: a draw should be offered immediately after making a move). Be-
liavsky later said: 7 am sure that, if the game had continued, its outcome would have been far from clear.’ The flag on White’s clock rose inexorably, and after a minute’s hesitation Andersson accepted the draw offer.
This miraculous save gave me a great charge of positive emotions and helped me to escape from the crisis, although not immediately. After nine rounds the situation remained confused: Beliavsky and Garcia - 6У2; Kasparov, Tai and Andersson -6; Geller - 5У2.
Asriyan: 'Garik’s tournament position was not very secure. He was obviously nervous, and he almost lost to Tai and Andersson. At just that time I interviewed Petrosian, and, despite his liking for Garik, he remarked that up till then Kasparov had been very lucky. Of course, he particularly had in mind the games with Tai and Andersson... But at the finish Kasparov developed a furious pace, and it was no longer possible to stop him.’
In the 10th round Tai and Geller drew their games, Garcia continued his decline by losing to Christiansen, while the Be-liavsky-Andersson game was adjourned in a better endgame for Black. I had White against the Filipino master Ruben Rodriguez, who was 260 rating points lower than me. After encountering the Cambridge Springs Defence (cf. Game No.90, note to White’s 7th move), I gained only a slightly better endgame and in the fifth hour of play I became angry: my opponent was obviously in no hurry to lose! Even so, with his 40th move, the last before the time control, he moved his king to the wrong square and lost a pawn. Here the game was adjourned, and now everything depended on the secret move, sealed by Rodriguez: in the best case for him Black would have
retained real drawing chances... But since the game was due to be resumed only after the 12th round, at first more urgent problems had to be solved.
From this point I stopped feeling nervous - and my form returned! In the 11th round I easily crushed van der Wiel in 22 moves, Beliavsky adjourned in a winning position against Rodriguez, while the remaining rivals advanced by only half a point.
For my game in the penultimate, 12th round with the highly experienced Romanian grandmaster Florian Gheorghiu (once also a world junior champion!), I arrived in an up-beat, fighting mood, realising perfectly well that a win would practically guarantee me one of the cherished top two places.
Game 75
G.Kasparov-F.Cheorghiu
Interzonal Tournament,
12th round, Moscow, 22.09.1982 Queen’s Indian Defence E12
1 d4 <Af 6 2 c4 еб 3 f3 Ьб 4 аЗ (2)
Gheorghiu himself like employing this variation with White, and now he tried defending it with Black.
4...Ab7 (4...C5 - Game Nos. 32, 68) 5 <^c3 d5 (5-..£>e4 - Game No.61) 6 cxd5 4}xd5 7 Wc2 (7 e3 - Game Nos. 43, 52, 85) 7...C5 (8)
As has already been said, the quality of this move is somewhere in between 7...^bd7?! (Game N0.98) and 7-^хсЗ!.
8 e4 (11) 8...-hxc3 9 bxc3
After my win in the 3rd round over Murey it seemed incredible that any of the tournament participants would repeat this variation. Nevertheless, closer to the finish a twin game was played, similar to the prototype not only in content, but also in
length. With mounting interest I followed my opponent’s opening moves - what had he prepared?
9...^.e7?l
It is better to play 7...Ле7 with the pawn on c7 (even allowing 8 £ixd5 or 8 Jld2). But here Black should play either ‘a la Murey’ -9...^c6 (Game No.73), or ‘a la Sosonko’ -9../M7.
10 l.b5+! (4)
A strong reply, disclosing the drawback to Black’s rather strange move. However, as we will see, the fears regarding his position were slightly exaggerated.
io...JLc6 (10)
The position of the bishop on c6 will provide the motif for various combinations, but 10...^c6? would have lost a pawn: 11 £ie5 Wc7 12 Wa4 Sc8 13 Wxa7 .
11 ±d31 ®d7 (8) 12 0-0 (2) 12...Н6?! (22)
A non-forced loss of a tempo. After 12...Ab7?l there is the unpleasant 13 d51 exd5 14 exd5 JlxdS 15 Sdl, and if 12...0-0 Gheorghiu was afraid of 13 ds, but practice has shown that after 13...exd5 14 exds ixd5 15 l.xh7+ ФЬ8 16 ±е4 Дхе4 17 Wxe4 ^.f6 or 17...£>f6 White's achievements are slight, and therefore he has looked for an advantage by 13 Hdl, 13 We2 or 13 Jlf4.
12...Wc7 (preventing Jlf4) is also interest
ing: 13 We2 0-0 14 d5 JLb71 (Papin-Motylev, Moscow 2008), or 13 Hell? (intensifying the threat of d4-d5; if 13 Sdl Sd8!) 13...Ab7 14 d5! (the more modest 14 We2 0-0 is equal, P.Cramling-Spassky, Copenhagen 1997), and 14...exd5? 15 exds AxdS 16 We2 Деб 17 We4 allows White a powerful attack, while after 14...C4 15 .Ifi he retains some initiative (Borne-De Sousa, Bagneux 1993).
It is amusing that in the event of 12...cxd4 13 cxd4 Sc8 14 We2 Jlb7 15 ДЬ2 0-0 a position from my game with Akesson (Game No.43) could have arisen, but 15 a4l is more energetic. In general, as is readily apparent, nothing catastrophic for Black has yet occurred.
13 Sdl (41)
13 We2 0-0 14 ^.f4 or the immediate 14 e$ was steadier, exploiting the unfortunate move ...h7-h6. But I very much wanted to break through in the centre!
The immediate 13 d5l? exds 14 exds JlxdS 15 Sdl looked very tempting, when 15...£c6 16 Af4 or 15..>c7 16 ДЬ5 JLc6 17 JLf41 is advantageous to White, as is 15...Jlxf3 16 gxf3 аб (recommended by Stohl) 17 Wa4l. However, 15...Де6 seemed unclear to me in view of the exchange sacrifice after 16 Де4 Sc8 17 Jlf4 0-0 18 (somewhat better than 18 Jlb7)
18..JLf6 19 ®c6 Sxc6 20 Лхсб Wc8 21 ±d5 or 16 ±f4 0-0 17 Л117+ ФЬ8 18 Ле4. I rejected the variation 16 Jlf5!? ^.xf5 17 Wxf5 because of 17...Wc8!, although 18 Wg4! would have given White a strong initiative for the pawn.
13...Wc7? (7)
The culmination of the game. Gheorghiu does not sense the imminent danger! Black’s position is also very dismal after 13-..0-0?! 14 d5 exd5 15 exd5 ЛЬ 7 16 c4.
However, he should have preferred 13...cxd41. In Informator and then in The Test of Time I parried this with the ‘unexpected’ 14 <2jxd4 Wc7 15 £}xc6 Wxc6 16 We2! with the threat of JLb5, and 'the pin on the a4-e8 diagonal may prove fatal’. Thus 16...Wc7 17 ЛЬ5 0-0-0(?I) 18 a4 (Stohl) or 18 JLe3 is to White’s advantage. But after the cool-headed 17...Bd8! the pin does not give anything: 18 Wg4 Wxc3! 19 ЛеЗ 0-0! 20 Jld4 ^f6 with equality, or 18 Wd3 аб! 19 Лхаб 0-0 or 19 Af4 Wxf4 20 ЛхЬ7+ 4>f8 21 Wxa6 Wc7 with good compensation for the pawn.
After the normal 14 cxd4 Sc8 15 We 2 Ла4 16 Hel 0-0 17 Лf4 White’s chances are slightly better, but there is still all to play for. Now, however, my plan fully justifies itself.
14 d5! (7)
Here, in view of White’s lead in development, this typical pawn breakthrough in the centre is especially effective.
14...exd5 (3) 15 exd5 Лxd5 16 ЛЬ5 аб? (7)
Already the decisive mistake. 16...Леб? was also bad: 17 We4! Id8 18 Af4 Wc8 19 ‘SieS, since if 19...0-0 White wins by 20 ?ixd7 ЛхЬ7 21 ЛЬз! (Stohl).
The only chance was 16,..Лсб, although after 17 Af4! White would have retained an obvious advantage: 17...Wxf418 Лхсб 0-0-0 19 a41 with a powerful attack, or 17...Wb7
18 Лхсб Wxc6 19 lei! &f8 (19...£>f8? 20 £}e5 Wb7 21 Wf5!) 20 Hadi He8, and my earlier continuation 21 Wf5(?) Wif6 22 £}e5 Wc8(?) 23 4kl7+! is unclear because of 22...Wa4! (Crouch), but after 21 We2! Black would have faced a difficult defence. Although nominally he is a pawn up, he is effectively playing a whole rook down: 21...^f6?! 22 Wc41 (with the threats of fteS and Wxf7+!) or 21...Wc8?l 22 Wd3! ®f6 23 Hxe71 Дхе7 24 ЛЬб (Crouch) is bad for Black, and 21...g5 (21...g6 22 Wa6!) is insufficient in view of 22 ЛЬб ЛхЬб 23 Wxe8+ Фд7 24>e2(e4).
Apparently in these variations Gheorghiu was concerned about his restless king, but now Black goes from the frying pan into the fire...
17 Af41
This forces the opponent to throw caution to the winds and bring his king into the centre of the board. 17 Лxd7+? Wxd7 18 c4? Ле4! would have been too naive.
17...Wxf4 (13)
17...Wb7 was also hopeless: 18 Axd7+ Wxd7 19 c4 Wg4 20 Hxd5 Wxf4 21 lei Ha7 (21...Wf6 22 £>e5! with the threat of ^d7) 22 <йе5 (threatening £)c6) 22...0-0 (if 22...Hc7? the simplest is 23 Wa4+! b5 24 Wa5 Дс8 25 £id7(c6), although the old line
23 ®g6!? fxg6 24 Wxg6+ Wf7 25 Hd8+! will also do) 23 g3 Wf6 24 £hd7 Hxd7 25 Hxd7 JLd6 26 We4 with unbearable pressure.
18 ±xd7+ *xd7 19 lxd5+ Фс7
Earlier I thought that 19...Фс8 with the idea of ...Да7-с7 would have made it hard for White to convert his advantage, but the resolute 20 Hf5 Wc4 21 Sell JLf6 22 flxf6! gxf6 23 Wf5+ ®b8 24 Wxf6 (Stohl) or 21...Да7 (or 21...±d6) 22 He4! Wb5 23 Hxf7 would have dispelled this illusion.
20 Де1! (2) 2O...l.d6 (12)
After 2O...Af6 21 Де4 the queen is trapped, while if 2O...Bhe8 not only 21 fldes is strong, but also 21 Bf5 Wd6 22 Hxf7.
21 fif5 Wc4 22 Де4! (even in such a position it is not too late to make a mistake: 22 &d2? Ihe8!) 22...Wb5 23 Hxf7+ (2) 23...ФЬ8 24 Неб (5) 24...Hd8 (3) 25 c4 (2)
Remarkably, Gheorghiu later found a follower! The game Yakovich-Akesson (Stockholm 1999) continued 25 We4 Лс7 26 g3, and in view of 26...fldl+ 27 <2>el Да7 28 He8+ Black resigned.
25..Ж6
If 25-.Wa5 there was the immediately decisive 26 We4 Ha7 27 Hxd6! or 2б..Лс7 27 He8 (27 ^d4!?) 27...Ha7, when White has a pleasant choice between 28 <йе51 (Stohl) and 28 We51!.
26 ^e5 Wc8 (2) 27 Wbl! 1-0
Not the only way, but the most elegant one (27-b5 28 cxbs with unavoidable mate). Times: 1.22-2.00.
In the meantime, misfortune struck the other leader, Beliavsky: with an extra rook and a completely won position against van der Wiel, in a time scramble he even missed a draw! Tai too was desperate for a win, but with White he was unable to overcome the inspired play of Quinteros. But Geller won against Velimirovic and finally caught up his rivals. The leading positions became: Kasparov 8 out of 11 (plus one adjourned game), Tai, Geller and Garcia - 7'/г out of 12, Andersson - 7 (+1), Beliavsky - 6У2 (+2).
Next came the highly important adjournment day before the final round. It immediately transpired that in his adjourned game with me Rodriguez had sealed a losing move! I quickly converted my advantage and, by reaching 9 points, secured a place in the Candidates.
Beliavsky had to endure far more difficult trials. First, an exhausting eight-hour adjournment session with Andersson - a draw on the 108th move! Then, on the day of the last round, a morning adjournment session with Rodriguez, during which the Lvov grandmaster, when just a couple of steps away from a win, suddenly left a piece en prise and only by a miracle gained a draw (which gave me sole first place ahead of schedule: now all five pursuers were one and half points behind). And after such sufferings, that evening, composed and imperturbable as always, Beliavsky came on to the stage to join battle against Gheorghiu with Black. And, by winning, he won the second qualifying place into the Candidates matches! This was a deserved reward for courage...
The other contenders no longer had the strength for a final spurt: Andersson and Tai agreed a draw on the 17th move, while in terrible time-trouble Geller and Garcia lost with Black to Sax and Rodriguez respectively.
At the finish I had to battle with grandmaster Dragoljub Velimirovic - a legendary expert on Sicilian attacks. The game did not affect the allocation of places in the tournament, but Velimirovic had White and he was eager for a fight! He very much wanted to become the first Yugoslav player to win against me (in fact it was to be Ivan Sokolov - in 19991). I did not risk employing the Sicilian Defence against him, and so I chose the solid Caro-Kann (cf. Revolution in the 70s, p.226). But here too a sharp fight developed, in which fortune was on my side: after passing through a very dangerous position, I won. And as a result I scored 10 points out of 13 - even more than in Bugojno!
Not everything went smoothly for me over the course of this fierce race, and things were very difficult for me in the games with my main rivals (in this respect it was one of my worst tournaments!), but the sensibly chosen tournament strategy helped me to overcome both my excessive anxiety, and my lack of experience. Closer to the finish I endeavoured above all to control my emotions, so as not to get carried away and not to end up in time-trouble. Lack of time was felt occasionally, but not once was I in serious time-trouble. I also had hardly any adjournments.
A study of the experience of the other two Interzonal Tournaments allowed me to conclude that the main thing was to pace myself correctly. Indeed, in Las Palmas and Toluca victory went not to the player who had a brisk start (and then was constantly wondering how not to fritter away his lead), but to the one who retained his
strength for a finishing burst. And when at the end I managed to win four games in a row, it became clear that I had paced myself correctly.
In my view, the Moscow Interzonal was the strongest in terms of the main contenders, and the most fighting of the three tournaments. There were hardly any ‘grandmaster’ draws, and the number of decisive games comprised 54.9%, against 50.6% in Las Palmas and 46.2% in Toluca. Just think: before the last round in Moscow no less than five players were in contention for second place!
And so, at the end of September all eight grandmasters, who were to meet in the Candidates matches the following year, 1983, had been determined. In the ‘upper’ half of the pairing list were Korchnoi, Hiibner (finalists in the previous cycle), Kasparov and Ribli (outright winners of the Interzonals), and in the ‘lower’ half - Portisch, Beliavsky, Smyslov and Torre. The match pairings were due to be made two weeks later in Lucerne, at the end of the Olympiad.
Ahead lay one-to-one battles with top-class players, and I optimistically awaited these new, unknown tests. However, I was concerned about the fact that, in nearly all the key games of the Interzonal Tournament, against the strongest opponents I had dubious positions. A warning signal! Obviously there was still an enormous field for improvement. Within exactly two years the match with Karpov was to show that I had not even imagined the extent of this field.
First ‘Oscar’
25th World Chess Olympiad (Lucerne, 30th October - 16th November 1982): 1. USSR -42У2 out of 56; 2. Czechoslovakia - 36; 3-4.
USA and Yugoslavia - 35У2; 5-6. Hungary and Bulgaria - ЗЗУ2; 7. Poland - 33; etc. (altogether 92 teams). The winning team comprised Karpov (6У2 out of 8), Kasparov (81/2 out of 11), Polugayevsky (6 out of 9), Beliavsky (7 out of 10), reserves Tai (б1/? out of 8) and Yusupov (8 out of 10).
After the achievements of the Hungarian team at the two previous Olympiads, the forthcoming Olympiad in the Swiss town of Lucerne was destined to answer a burning question: would the Soviet grandmasters be able to demonstrate their superiority, or had the times of the hegemony of one chess power irreversibly passed?
The USSR team was undoubtedly the strongest, while the next teams on the rating list - USA, Hungary, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - looked roughly equal. However, the general opinion was that the only teams that could really compete with us were the Hungarians (led by Portisch and Ribli) and the Americans with their uniform grandmaster line-up (Browne, Seirawan, Alburt, Kavalek, Christiansen and Tarjan). True, also with a good line-up were the Yugoslavs (in the end their leader Ljubojevic scored 11 out of 141) and the Czechs (Hort, Smejkal and the swiftly progressing Ftacnik).
In the first found we crushed New Zealand - 4-0 (I won with Black against Sara-pu), and in the second round Chile - ЗУг-Уг. But the race was led by the American team, who won both matches by a whitewash. The crucial USSR-USA battle took place in the third round.
In that memorable match I played for the first time against a defector - Lev Alburt, and around such games there was always an especially tense atmosphere. Before the round the managers of the Soviet team
insistently advised me to avoid the traditional handshake with my opponent. Feeling terribly nervous, I arrived for the game and stood a metre away from the chess table, to avoid accidentally running into the approaching ‘deserter’. But Alburt fully appreciated my position: he calmly sat down at the board and made his first move. A few years later Lev told me that before the game he had discussed this problem with Korchnoi and Igor Ivanov, and they decided not to put me on the spot (incidentally, before his game with Karpov at the 1980 Olympiad, Alburt demonstratively held out his hand, but the world champion equally demonstratively disregarded it). The game began - and all my anxiety immediately vanished.
Game 76
LAIburt-G. Kasparov
World Chess Olympiad, 3rd round, Lucerne 1.11.1982
King’s Indian Defence E73
1 c4 g6 2 d4 .ig7 3 £>c3 2>f6 4 e4 d6 5 Ae2 0-0 6 JLg5 ^bd7
In Daugavpils in 1978 I managed to win against Alburt in the problematic variation 6...C5 7 d5 h6 (not 7-.b5?l - Came Nos. 58, 67) 8 Af4 еб, but later it transpired that White’s play can be improved, and Black’s counter-improvement leads only to a draw (cf. Came No.28). And on this occasion I followed a different, less forcing course, but again I encountered a surprise!
7 tel
This seemingly artificial move has a logical justification: after the usual 7 Wd2 e5 8 d5 £>c5 White is forced to defend his e4-pawn with the unaesthetic 9 f3 or 9 Jlf3, whereas now there is the simple 9 b4l. And
if first 8...a5, then after 9 £)f3 ^c5 the white knight will occupy the vacant d2-square. Here there is nothing terrible for Black, and he can calmly complete his development, but that was what the opponent was expecting...
I pondered for a long time over the virtues and drawbacks of 7 Wcl and finally decided to act in the spirit of the Benko Gambit.
7...C5 (48) 8 d5
8...b51?
8...Wa5 is too sluggish: 9 JLd21 аб 10 £rf3 (Alburt-Zapata, New York 1980). At that time information travelled slowly around the world and I did not know of the existence of this game.
9 cxb5 аб 10 a4 (11)
A well-tested method of play against all varieties of the Benko Gambit: by reinforcing his b5-point, White restricts the opponent’s counterplay on the queenside.
10...Wa5 (2) 11 ±d2
The position resembles my Tilburg game with Spassky (Game N0.58), but there the useful move ДаЗ had been made, whereas here White has played the useless Wcl, which Black is able to exploit.
Il...axb5! (2)
A timely exchange, ruling out the reply
a4xb5. After ll...Wb4?! 12 f3 the queen would have risked being trapped.
12 ^ixb5 (6)
This is somewhat stronger than 12 ДхЬ5 Даб! 13 2tf3 Wb4 or 13 ^ge2 Wb4 14 f3 4}e5 15 0-0 <Sbc4 with adequate counterplay.
12...Wb6 (2) 13 Wc2 (2)
White wants to develop his pieces harmoniously, without making any positional concessions. Previously I criticised this move, which leaves the rook at al undefended, but there is nothing better. After the modest 13 Wbl there would have been the good reply 13..<4!? 14 Дхс4 “Йд4 (14...£ic5!?) 15 ^'h3 <5k5, while in the event of 13 f3 £)e5 Black also has excellent prospects: 14 f4?! £>ed7 15 Wc2 c4! or 15 Wc4 Даб etc.
13-Даб (27)
The sacrifice of a second pawn looked very tempting - 13...c4!? 14 Wxc4 £>c5, for example: 15 e5 £ixd5! 16 aS Деб! 17 b4 £)d7 or 15 f3 Ad7, aiming to exploit White’s retarded development. 14 £>f31? £k5 15 0-0 with the idea of ДеЗ and Дхс4 is safer. After some hesitation I chose the more traditional course.
14 £tf3 (10)
I also criticised this natural developing
move and suggested the prophylactic 14 ДаЗ, after which Black could either play 14...Hfe8 and ... e7-e6, or try to exploit his lead in development by 14...C41?. After 14 Sdl, which I gave in Informator, 14..-C41 is also strong.
14...±xb5l (7)
Successfully avoiding the temptation to sacrifice the queen in another way -14...^xe4? 15 Wxe4 Axbs 16 Axbs Wxb5 17 axbs Дха1+ 18 Фе2 Ixhl 19 Wxe7 would have led to disaster: 19...^b6(e5) 20 Wxd6, while if 19-Sif6 White decides matters with the elegant 20 b6! fibl (2О...Де8 21 Wxe8+!) 21 b4! £>xd5 22 We41 (instead of the drawing line 22 Wxf8+? Axf8 23 b7 £>f4+! 24 ФеЗ ‘'•nd5+ 25 Фе2, but not 25 Фе4? Sixb4! 26 b8W f5+ winning the newly-born queen).
15 Axbs Wxbs 16 axbs Sxal+ 17 Ad Sixe4
After the fall of this pawn the fate of the d5-pawn is also decided. After 17...Hb8?l 18 0-0 Sxb5 19 Ad2! White would have consolidated his position, retaining a material advantage.
18 0-0 ^ef 6
Previously I assessed this position in favour of Black, who for the queen has rook, knight and at least one pawn (after
...Sixds). Also obvious is the weakness of White’s queenside pawns and the great mobility of the black pieces, especially the knights, which have convenient posts. But now I think that the position is one of dynamic balance, although it is not easy for White to find the correct plan. He must aim to create counter-threats or advantageously exchange pieces, in order to exploit the power of the queen.
19 b41? (14)
At the cost of the d5-pawn (which all the same is doomed), White breaks up Black’s pawn group in the centre and increases the value of the passed b5-pawn. However, also suitable was either 19 Sid2 ДЬ8 20 Sk4 and Ad2(g5), or the immediate 19 AgSl? with a sound enough position.
19...^xd5 (4)
In the event of 19...Sb8 20 Ad2 fixfl+ 21 <£xfl fixbS 22 Wc4 Hb8 23 bxc5 Sbl+ 24 £>el Sixes 25 Wa2 Black’s achievements are also slight.
20 Ad2! (9) 2O...fifa8! (13)
Here too I had to resist the temptation of a pretty variation: 2O...Hxfl+ 21 ^xfl cxb4 22 Wc6?! b3?! (22...Si7b6 is equal) 23 Wxd5? b2 24 Wa2 Sc8 and wins. Alas, all the brilliance is ruined by 23 AaSl b2 24 Sid2, and earlier by the simple 22 Wb31.
21 bxc5
In The Test of Time for some reason I recommended preparing a shelter for the king by 21 g3(?!) and I myself indicated 21...Sla2l 22 We4 еб with the initiative for Black.
21...flxfl+ (trying to drive the white king into the centre, although the immediate 21...^xc5!? would have been more ‘normal’) 22 4>xfl Да1+ 23 Фе2 (4) 23...^xc5
24 Wc4? (5)
Only this mistake changes the character of the play to Black’s advantage. My Informator suggestion 24 £>el ДаЗ! would also have suited him. However, 24 £>g51 (with the idea of £>e4, which disappears after 24 Wc4?) 24...Да4 25 f31 (the white king’s placing is no worse at e2 than at fl) 25...®b6 26 ®e4 Дс4 27 Wbl Ska4 28 Ла5 or 27...£>e6 28 JLe3 would have maintained the dynamic balance.
24...e6 (now, to all appearances, the b-pawn is doomed) 25 b6!? (5)
Immediately sacrificing the pawn for the sake of activating the queen. It would also have been lost after the unhurried 25 g3 (of course, it was not for this that Alburt played his queen to c4) 25...ДеЗ!? 26 b6 (26 .Й.ХСЗ?! Sa4l) 26...JLxd2 27 ^xd2 Да2 28 b7 ДЬ2 29 Wcl ДЬ4! (29...Sxb7 30 ®e41) followed by ,..^xb7.
25...^xb6 (5)
It was tempting not to move the knight away, but after 25...Sbl 26 Wa21 ДхЬб?! (2б...Да1!) 27 Wa8+ &f8 28 i.h6 £>d7 29 Jlxf8 (or 29 Wd8 ДЬ8 30 Wxd7 JLxh6 31 g3! with equality) 29...^xf8 30 <?hg5 White would have achieved his aim - equality thanks to the maximum activation of his pieces: ЗО...ДЬ2+ (3O...£)f6 31 Wd8! or 3O...h6 31 ^h7! is no better, while my Informator suggestion ЗО...Фд7(?) is even fatal because of 31 Wa71) 31 'tel £Л4 32 4bxh7 ^d3+ 33 ‘tdl ®xf2+ 34 Фс1 ^d3+ 35 <4>dl ФхЬ7 36 Wxf8, and the queen guarantees a draw.
26 Wb5 ®ibd7 27 i.e3 (5) 27..JLf8 (9)
Black is temporarily forced to retreat, retaining the hope of gradually advancing his central pawns.
28£id4(22)
Now White cannot afford to wait, but with pieces alone Black’s position cannot be broken up. The energetic 28 g4 or 28 h4!? came into consideration.
28...Да2+ (3) 29 S’fl Hal+ (checks to gain on the clock with time-trouble imminent) ЗОФе2
30...e5
3O...d5 looks more natural, but I wanted to restrict the white bishop, assuming that
the opponent would be unable to exploit the weakness of the d5-square. However, it was not essential to determine the placing of the pawns immediately: the preparatory 3O...fia6(a7) was also good.
31 5c6 (3) 31...Sa2+ 32 *fl (4) 32...ЙЭ1+ 33 Фе2 Sa 2+ 34 ФИ Лаб!? (2)
Continuing to look for ways to strengthen his position, Black tries to evict the knight from c6. Alburt did not like this... 351.ХС5?! (9)
In the event of 35 ^d8?! d51 36 Лхс5 ®xc5 37 We8 Hf6! the d5-pawn is taboo: 38 Wxe5 Hxf2+! 39 &gl £>e4 (40 Wxd5? Sf5l and wins). But 35 £±>41? Hal+ 36 Фе2 Sbl 37 Wa5 came into consideration, when what Black should do next is not clear. Possibly he would have had to regret playing 3O...e5.
З5...^хс5?!
An error in reply. At this point, in contrast to the similar situation on the 22nd move, it was definitely better to interpose 35-.Sal+! 36 Фе2 Sa2+, and only after 37 <4>fl(e3) - 37...®xc5.
36 g31 (now the king acquires a shelter, and Black’s chances of success are reduced) 36...Hal+ 37 Ag2 Л>еб 38 Wb8 (6) 38...1dl (38...Фд7? 39 £>хе5! with equality) 39 Wb2 (6) 39-.&d5 (2) 40 Wb8 (2) 4O...lc5 (2)
4O...Sd2 or 4O...'ig7, recommended by me in The Test of Time, is no better.
Here the game was adjourned, and it was resumed two hours later. In a brief joint analysis with Yusupov and our team trainer Makarychev some promising ideas were found. However, the position is a ‘practical’ one, in which what proves decisive is not so much analysis, as inventiveness during play. To fight for an advantage it is desirable to exchange the white knight (then the queen is deprived of support), but this is not easily done.
41^e7+ (20)
The sealed move. The superficial 41 ?ib4?! would have allowed 41...£sc71 (threatening ...Sb5) 42 £id3 Hc3 43 ЛЛ>4 Bb3l with the unavoidable exchange of knights, after which White would be forced to passively await the advance of the black pawns.
41...4>g7 42 £k8
The only move which preserves the knight. 42 We8?l Лхе7 43 Wxe7 d5 favours Black, while in the event of 42 Wxd6? hs! White would altogether lose a piece: 43 Фд1 &h7l with the threat of ...Дс7, or 43 h3 e4 44 Фд1 ФЬ71 45 Wb8 Дхе7 46 We8 l.g5 47 Wxf7+^g7 etc.
42...Sd5 43 Wa8 (5)
The struggle revolves around ...d6-d5- It was also quite acceptable to play 43 Wb7 Sd2 44 Wb4! (previously I considered only 44 £)b6(?) d51 45 £ixd5 ±c5 or 45 £>d7 £k51)44...1d4 45 Wb8.
43...fid2 (7) 44 ^b6 (6) 44...^c5 (9)
The impatient 44...d5? would have allowed White to force a draw by 45 Wa51 Hc2 (45-fib2 46 ^c4!) 46 ^xd5 ±c5 47 £>e3l.
45 £>c4 (2) 45..Ad4 (4) 46 £>еЗ Де7 (2) 47 h4(l)
Defending against ...Дд5, but allowing
the fixing of the kingside pawns and weakening the g4-square, to where the black knight can leap. Nevertheless, White’s position is still quite solid.
47...h5 (2) 48 £>d5 (3) 48..Jld8!
Tactical nuances (49 Wxd8? Sxd5 is suicidal) again help the overall strategic idea! Black is ready to carry out the manoeuvre of his knight to f6 (and possibly to g4), as planned in our analysis, for example: 49 Wc6 £>e4! 50 <йеЗ £>f6.
With the positional threat of ...®c7. The previous plan with 49-.^>е4 would have run into one of two refutations: 50 Wxd8 ®d2+ 51 Фе2 lxd5 52 g4! hxg4 53 h5! £>e4 (53...^>f3 54 h6+! 4>xh6 55 Wf8+ and Wxf7) 54 hxg6 <2if6 55 gxf7, relying on the open position of the black king, or 50 Wb7 4k3 (5O...^f6 51 ^b4) 51 £>xc3 Sd3+ 52 Фе2 Sxc3 53 Wd7 Дс7 54 f4!, also with sufficient counterplay against the king.
49 4*3?! (7)
White’s thoughts are aimed at parrying the ...£ie4-f6 manoeuvre, but, despite the limited amount of material remaining, it is dangerous to bring the king into the centre! After 49 £>сЗ! ^еб (49...Де7 50 <£>d5) 50 Wa7 it would hardly have been possible for Black to strengthen his position (50...<?k7 51 Wb8).
The move made by Alburt surprised me: just before the time control White securely sheltered his king, and suddenly on the resumption he again brought it into the centre - obviously the wrong place! I was tuned up for a lengthy adjournment session with a completely unclear result, but the opponent’s unexpected ‘activity’ led quickly to disaster.
49...^e6! (3)
5O Wc6! (6)
After 50 Фд2, admitting his mistake, in Informator I gave 5O...£)c7, but the bold 51 &xc7 A.XC7 52 f4! exf4 53 Wai Jlb6 54 gxf4 ФЬ7 55 f5 gives White drawing chances. In The Test of Time the more unpleasant 5O...jLxh4! 51 gxh4? Bxd5 was suggested, but 51 Wc6! ±f6 52 Wxd6 h4 53 Wc6 is far more resilient.
Here I sank into thought, staring at my rook - with revulsion! If it were not on the board, the fork ...£)d4+ would be decisive, and self-sacrificing attempts are simply ignored by White: 5O...flxh4 51 Wxd6 or 5O...Sf4+ 51 ФеЗ.
5O...Sd21 (27)
When he saw this move, for some reason Alburt became extremely nervous. Possibly he had mainly been expecting the dashing 5O...e4+?!, but this would merely have
reduced my chances: after 51 Фд2 Jlxh4 52 Wxd6 Af6 53 Wc6 Ae5 54 £te3 the weakness of the e4-pawn would have restricted Black. As we will now see, a similar position (but with the pawn on e5) could have arisen in the game if White had played 51 Фд2.
51 ФеЗ?? (4)
Preparing Wxd6, White suddenly commits hara-kiri. The immediate 51 Wxd6 would have led after 51...Дс71 52 Wd7 Ab6! 53 ^xb6 Hxd7 54 £>xd7 f6 55 Фе4 <4’f7 to a problematic knight endgame where Black is a pawn up but the outcome is not yet altogether clear.
In Informator and then also in The Test of Time I gave the variation 51 Фд21 (somewhat stronger than 51 Wc4 4hc5 or 51 Wb7 e4+ 52 ФеЗ ld3+ 53 Фе2 jLxh4) 51...±xh41 52 Wxd6 (52 gxh4? Sxd51) 52...if6, in which ‘the threat of ...h5-h4 and the weakness of the f2-point give Black real winning chances’. However, after the approximate 53 Wc6 JLd8 54 Wd6 Ac7 55 ®c6 A.b8 56 Wb6 Hxd5 57 WxbS, even despite the exchange of the white knight, a draw is far more real.
51...Se2+!
The fork nevertheless operated! The instantaneous sobering up proved bitter for
Alburt - the road back is cut off. A brief agony ensues.
52 ФИЗ (of course, not 52 Фхе2 <?id4+ and ...£)xc6) 52...e4+ 53 Фс4 (53 ФеЗ Sc2+!) 53...1C2+ 54 ^c3 ±f6 55 Wxe4 Hxc3+ 56 Фс15 2c5+ 57 Фхс1б Де5+ 0-1
After 58 Фd7 Жс7+ 59 Фе8 JLd6(f6) mate is unavoidable. Times: 3-10-3.25.
I should remind you that the names of Korchnoi and Alburt were expunged from Soviet chess literature. But in the event of resounding wins over the ‘renegades’, exceptions were made. Thus this complicated, fighting game, and my subsequent duels with Korchnoi were published with annotations in the Soviet chess press and then in the games collection The Test of Time.
By scoring 21/? from the three adjourned games we defeated the American team 3-1. And in the 4th round we also overcame the Yugoslavs after a tough fight: 2У2-1У2 (I won against Gligoric). The fate of this match was also decided during the resumption - thanks to our superior analysis of the adjourned games. During the two-hour break we were able to discover resources which our opponents had not even contemplated. In this way several ‘extra’ half-points were gained.
After four rounds the teams of the USSR and Czechoslovakia were leading on 13 out of 16. By defeating our main rivals in the 5th round (I drew with Smejkal), the Soviet team became the sole leader. The 6th round saw our only drawn match at this Olympiad, with the Dutch: 2-2 (I had to be satisfied with a draw against Sosonko). In the 7th round we defeated the West German team ly/i-xy/i. Playing for the first time on board 1, I drew with Black against a cautious Hiibner.
Mid-way through the tournament, after winning two matches by a big margin, the Hungarian team finally moved up (USSR -20 out of 28; Hungary, USA, Czechoslovakia - 19). The 8th round USSR-Hungary clash was probably decisive in the fight for first place, and we won 2У2-1У2. Karpov confidently defeated Portisch with White (cf. Game No.88 in Volume V of My Creat Predecessors, note to White’s 12th move), and with Black I found I was able without particular difficulty to neutralise Ribli’s initiative.
After negotiating the main matches, we began playing easily and without restraint: 3У2-У2, 4-0, 4-0 and ЗУ2-У2 - these were the results of the Soviet team’s matches with some quite strong teams: England, Switzerland, Argentina and Romania.
In the 9th round match against England I again played on board 1, and my opponent was the 27-year-old John Nunn, the only grandmaster in the world who was a Doctor of Mathematics. The unexpected outcome was an attractive miniature, which appealed to both the public and the journalists, who attentively followed my play as leader of the team.
Game 77
G.Kasparov-J.Nunn
World Chess Olympiad, 9th round, Lucerne 8.11.1982
Modern Benoni A67
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 e6 3 £>C3! (6)
The exclamation mark is for the underlying psychology of this move. Nunn was a Modern Benoni devotee and had even written an extensive book about it. And, anticipating the reply ...c7-c5, I made the move which allows White the widest choice
of continuations.
3...C5 4 d5 exd5 5 cxd5 d6 6 e4 (7) 6...g6 7 f4
I wanted to choose this aggressive variation, which I had already tried against Kuijpers (Dortmund 1980).
7..JLg7 8 Ab5+ ®fd7 (up until now the gambit line 8...^bd71? 9 e5 dxe5 10 fxe5 £)h5 11 e6 Wh4+ etc. has also not been refuted) 9 a4
Magerramov and I considered this move to be more dangerous for Black than 9 JLd3, which was popular at that time: now the bishop can retreat not only to d3, but all the same the a2-a4 advance comes into White’s plans.
9...®Ja6
An original idea: Black saves a tempo by not castling, in order to direct his knight immediately to the weakened b4-point and play ...a7-a6. 9...0-0 is more natural, but that is what Kuijpers played against me, and after 10 £tf3 аб 11 Ле2 W6 12 0-0 Wc7? 13 e51 White gained a strong attack. Another fashionable idea is 9-.Wh4+!? 10 g3 We7(d8), weakening the opponent’s kingside at the cost of a tempo.
10 £>f3 £>b4 (3) 110-0 (10) 11...аб!? (3)
After 11...0-0 12 Sell аб 13 ±fl £>f6 14 h3 it would not have been easy for Black to create counterplay.
Nunn’s idea looks attractive: both 12 Дс4 0-0 with the intention of ...£>b6 and ...Дд4, and 12 Де2 0-0 13 ДеЗ give Black good counterplay. And so I devised something rather more energetic...
12 l.xd7+!? (16)
The justification for this ‘illogical’ exchange is the inability of the remaining knight at b4 to take part in the defence of the kingside. Some of the other black pieces are also seemingly out of it, whereas White’s come into play without hindrance (although it is not at all easy to derive any direct benefit from this).
12...Axd7 13 f5l
Another provocative move! However, it is not easy for Black to exploit the weakening of the e5-square, and White restricts the bishop on d7. The character of the play has changed sharply: Black is obliged to think about parrying the threats that have arisen, and Nunn lost his composure. True, his initial replies were the most natural...
13...0-0! (31)
The black king urgently moves away from the centre, as otherwise it could have been in serious trouble, for example:
a) 13-.C4 (an attempt to bring the knight at b4 into play) 14 Дд5 (Nunn thought that the simple 14 ДеЗ was also quite unpleas
ant) 14...Wb6+ 15 &hl ^d3 16 f6 Дf8 17 as! ®f2+ (17...Wxb2?! 18 Дd2!) 18 lxf2 Wxf2 19 ®a4 (my previous recommendation) or 19 e51? with an obvious numerical superiority on the decisive part of the board;
b) 13...gxf5 14 Дд5 f6 (or 14...ДЬ6 15 Дf4! - I tried to parry this with 15...0-0 16 Дxd6 Дха4, but after 17 Wei! with the idea of Wg3+ things are difficult for Black: 17-Wxd6 18 e5 We7 19 d6 We8 20 <^xa4 etc.) 15 Af4 Wc7, and in the event of 16 4}d2 0-0-0! (but not 16...^d3? 17 Дxdб! and ^c4) 17 ®c4 Дf8 or 17 exf5 Дf8 both sides have chances, but 16 exf5! 0-0-0 17 Bel Дxf5 18 <^d41 Ддб (18...cxd4? 19 £>b5 or 18..^d7? 19 ®e4 is bad for Black) 19 gives White an advantage.
14 Ag5 (7) 14...f6 (11)
After 14-.^-f6? 15 Wd2!, with the exchange of bishops, the king’s defences are weakened too much: 15-..C4 16 Axf6 Wxf6 17 £)dl! (17 £>el!?) and £>e3, or 15...Дхд5 16 ^xg5 c4 17 f6 h6 18 e51 dxe5 19 £)e6!l with a strong attack. And the tactical trick 14..^d4+?!, hoping for 15 Wxd4? cxd4 16 Axd8 dxc3 17 bxc3 £ixd5 with equality, did not work because of 15 STil f6 16 ДЬ6 Sf7(e8) 17 Sbl Де5 18 ®xe5 etc. with a great positional superiority for White.
15 ДТ4
15...gxf5 (1)
Earlier I attached a question mark to the pawn capture, thinking that ‘this attempt somehow to complicate the game leads to catastrophe’, and recommended 15...We7(?) as the lesser evil. Here Nunn suggested 16 Де1, but this is unclear in view of 16...C4! 17 Wd2 £>d3. On the other hand, after 16 fxg6! hxg6 17 ^h4 (exploiting the position of the queen at e7) 17.-Ah 7 18 Wf31 (my earlier move 18 ^.g3(?) is bad because of 18...C4119 Wf3 Ah6) it is hard to offer Black any good advice: 18...f5?! 19 Wh31 or 18...Ah6 19 <£hxg6! <4>xg6 20 Wg3+ ФЬ5 21 ±xh6! Hg8 (21..Axh6? 22 Hf4! and wins) 22 Wf4 with an extra pawn and an attack.
15...g5? is even worse: 16 Jlxd6 Jlxa4 17 Hxa4 ®xd6 18 e51 fxe5 19 £>xg5 and wins (Gheorghiu-Kertesz, Romania 1982).
However, 15...Wc71? 16 a5 Sfe8 17 ^d2 Ab5 would have offered possibilities of a tenacious defence.
16 JLxd6 (6) 16...Jcxa4? (4)
Only this counter-stroke, on which Nunn was relying, proves to be a decisive mistake. 16...Де8! was essential. Now little is promised by either 17 4^d2 fxe4 18 <Skxe4 f51 (18...b6?! 19 Ha3! is dangerous) 19 ^xc5 ^xd5, or 17 Axes fxe4 18 <5jd4 f5! (but not 18...^d3(?) 19 ®xe41, given by me in Informator and The Test of Time) 19 Jlxb4 (19 £>xf5? JLxf5 20 lxf5 Wc8!) 19...Wb6! 20 £>ce2 Wxb4 21 £)xf5 ±xf5 22 Sxf5 Had8 23 ФЬ1 (in 2008 this is how one of the games went from the championship of Lower Saxony!) 23...e3!, and White’s advantage evaporates, while after 18 Wb3!? exf3 19 Wxb4 fxg2 20 Hf2 it is altogether slight.
Thus my plan with 12 Axd7 proved to be good mainly for the reason that it set the opponent difficult practical problems.
17 Hxa4 (17 £>xa4! Wxd6 18 ^h4! was even stronger) 17...Wxd6
18 ^>h4l (1)
The knight triumphantly establishes itself at f5, where its value immediately increases several times over.
18...fxe4 (all the lines allowing 19 £ixf5 were hardly any more resilient) 19 £)f5 Wd7
Black’s resistance has been broken: if 19...We5, then 20 Wg4 Sf7 21 ^h6+.
20 ^xe4 ФН8 (no better was 2O...b6 21 ДаЗ! or 2О...Дае8 21 Wg4 with the threats of ®h6+ and ®xc5, and in some cases d5-d6) 21£>xc5 (2) 1-0
In view of 21...Wxd5 22 Wxd5 £ixd5 23 £se6. Times: 1.06-1.14.
The centrepiece of the 10th round, and of the entire Olympiad, was my game with the recent participant in the world championship match, Viktor Korchnoi, the famous defector, who was leading the Swiss team. Karpov diplomatically avoided meeting him - he would have had to play Black 'on the opponent’s home ground’ and he obviously did not want to take the risk. Besides, I could have come unstuck: this was my first encounter at the board with Korchnoi (not counting our meeting much earlier in a simul’ - Game No.12), it was my eighth successive game without being substituted, and there was very limited time for prepar
ing to play Black against the great ‘Viktor the Terrible’. However, in trying to expose me, Karpov miscalculated and, in effect, did me a service. This very difficult test for me turned into a grandiose battle!
Again the problem of the handshake arose. On this occasion I announced to the leaders that I was intending to shake Korchnoi’s hand. And when I was told that I 'did not understand the Party line’, I replied: ‘Then let Polugayevsky play instead of me’. But Polugayevsky had no desire at all to play against Korchnoi. They tried to win me round literally right up to the start of the round, but I was unyielding. On arriving in the playing hall, I immediately sat down at the board and awaited my opponent, who was slightly late. He approached the board rapidly, and I stood up slightly, ready to respond to his greeting. However, Korchnoi did not even look at me, but immediately pushed forward his queen’s pawn, and the game began (I should remind you that this course of behaviour before a game with me was worked out beforehand by Korchnoi together with Alburt and Igor Ivanov). Our doleful leaders no doubt breathed a sigh of relief...
Now all my energy was focused on the game, which was of exceptional psychological importance. Although the organisers demonstrated it on numerous television monitors, arranged around the enormous playing hall, from the very start of the game it was impossible to fight your way through to the board. Public interest was also roused by the fact that the pairings for the Candidates matches had not yet been made, and this game was considered to be between two possible opponents in the semi-final or final. Korchnoi himself had also added fuel to the fire, by declaring to journalists that he would ‘show this boy how to play chess'.
Game 78
V.Korchnoi-G.Kasparov
World Chess Olympiad,
10th round, Lucerne 9.11.1982 Modern Benoni A64
1 d4 (my opponent advanced his pawn so resolutely that it became clear: he had only one aim - to win!)	2 c4 g6 (of
course, my favourite King’s Indian!) 3 g3 Ag7 (3)
The immediate 3-.c5 is also possible (Game No.25 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1986-1987).
4Ag2c5
Without hesitation changing tune: the set-up with the fianchetto of the light-square bishop, which is not very pleasant for Black in the classical King’s Indian, is less effective against the Modern Benoni.
5 d5 (10)
The main reply. 5 £tf3 cxd4 6 ®xd4 is more cautious, as Ribli played against me in the 8th round (later I also tried the more original 5-Wa5+!? - Game No.27 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1986-1987). But in this game Korchnoi has no intention of avoiding any crucial disputes!
5...d6 (2)6<bc3
In the event of 6 W3, in order after 6...0-0 7 0-0 e6 to reply with the advantageous 8 dxe6 Ахеб 9 £ig5 Axc4 10 Axb7 £bbd7 11 <^a3! - earlier Korchnoi played this against Velimirovic (Sukhumi 1966) and Bouaziz (Sousse Interzonal 1967), various lines of the Benko Gambit are possible: 6...b5 7 cxb5 аб (7...Wa5+!? 8 £ifd2 Wxb5, Korchnoi-Fischer, Curacao Candidates 1962) 8 Ьхаб 0-0 9 <£>сЗ Ахаб 10 0-0 <2}bd7 (Korchnoi-Quinteros, Leningrad Interzonal 1973) or 6...0-0 7 0-0 b5 8 cxb5 аб 9 Ьхаб Af5l? (Nikolic-Kasparov, 2nd
match game (rapid), Paris 1994).
6...0-0 7 ®f3 (4) 7...e6 (2)
8 0-0
Now the variation 8 dxe6 Лхеб 9 ®g5 l.xc4 10 ЛхЬ7 ^bd7 11 Axa8 Wxa8 12 0-0 d5 gives Black excellent compensation for the exchange, as has been known since the time of the game Korchnoi-Scherbakov (Poltava 1956).
8...exd5 9 cxd5 (at last the game has entered the normal lines of the Modern Benoni) 9...a6 (6) 10 a4 Be8 (2)
At that time I did not give any particular thought to the order in which to make the moves which are essential for this set-up.
11 £>d2
Korchnoi confidently follows the main
line. If 11 ±f4 Black usually played ll...^e4 12 ^xe4 Жхе4 13 ^d2 ДЬ4, and if 14 ^e4, then 14..-h6 (Savon-Tai, Dnepropetrovsk 1970), but now the sharp gambit 14 b3l? has been revived (Hausner-Sikora, Czechoslovakia 1982; Aronian-Carlsen, 7th match game, Elista 2007).
Il...£)bd7 12 h3 (3) 12...ДЬ8 (2) 13 Sk4
The critical position of the variation.
13...£te5!? (16)
The plan with 13...^Ь6 14 ^a3 Ad7, which Magerramov and I had studied before the Olympiad, is safer, for example: 15 aS £ic8 16 ®c4 ДЬ5 17 Wb3 Дхс4 18 Wxc4 ^d7 or 15 e4 £>c8 16 Wd3 Wc7 17 JLe3 £>a7 18 fifcl b5 19 b4 c4 20 ®e2 bxa4 (Korchnoi-Franco, Lucerne Olympiad 1982, 2nd round), in both cases with a complicated battle. But after some thought I chose a more risky but also more ambitious continuation, demanding intensive calculating work by both players.
14 £}a3£ih5
Intending by ...f7-f5 to neutralise the opponent’s pawn majority in the centre. Therefore White cannot afford to delay.
15 e4 (8)
Very few players are willing to accept the piece sacrifice in the variations 15 f4 <^xg3! 16 fxe5 JlxeS (Donner-Ree, Amsterdam
1979) от 15 g4 Wh4! 16 ^e4 h6! 17 gxh5 ДхЬз (Kakageldyev-Tseshkovsky, Ashkhabad 1978).
(20)
A comparatively fresh idea of Timman's. From the early 1970s attention focused on the complications after 15...f5 16 exf5 Jlxf5 17 g4 Дхд4 18 hxg4 Wh4 19 gxh5 lf8! 20 h6 ДЬ8, for example: 21 ®e4 ®g4 22 Wxg4 Wxg4 23 £ic4 Hbe8 (Marovic-Kapengut, Yerevan 1971) or 23-.-b5!? (Kivlan-Petkevich, Riga 1974). Then a problem-like idea on the theme of diversion brought White success -21 ®c41? 51>g4 (there is nothing else) 22 Wxg4 Wxg4 23 ®xd6 Де5 24 £sde4 Hf3 (with the idea of ...Sh3-h2; 24..ДЬе81?) 25 ^g5 (25 ie3 Hbf8!) 25...Hbf8? 26 ^xf3 Sxf3 27 Sei (Kovacevic-Nemet, Karlovac 1979), but after 25...Sf5 (Stohl) or 25...Sd3 Black’s queen is no weaker than the three minor pieces.
In Moscow, after the Olympiad, Nikitin and I also analysed the new, audacious move 15...Jld7!?, transforming the knight on e5 into a kamikaze (the source game: Hulak-Nunn, Toluca Interzonal 1982; a recent example: Aronian-Grischuk, Monte Carlo (rapid) 2011).
The return move 15...Sf8 also looks audacious: Black calmly prepares ...f7-f5, riot paying any attention to his opponent’s plans. But the attempt to refute this immediately does not prevent the development of counterplay: 16 g4?l Wh4 17 gxh5 ДхЬз 18 h6 ДЬ8 19 We2 (19 ^e2? f51, Scheeren-Timman, Leeuwarden 1980) 19...f5 20 <^c2 Sbe8 with an attack compensating for the piece deficit (Timman), or 16 ДеЗ?! f5 17 exf5 Дxf5 18 g4? Дхд4! 19 hxg4 Wh4l and wins.
16 ФИ2 (10)
White is all ready to play f2-f4, but what can Black do? There would already appear
to be no way back and only one remains -forward...
16...f5? (15)
Consistent - but premature! I had seen this move in the most recent Informator, Volume 33, but I did not have time to check it carefully. At the board I intuitively considered 16...ДЬ7 to be acceptable, and if 17 f4, then 17...b5l with very sharp play. Later it transpired that all this had already been played in a little-known game from the West German Correspondence Championship (1980). True, after 18 fxe5 Black overlooked his main trump - 18...®xg3! 19 ФхдЗ Дхе5+ 20 4>f3 (20 <±>f2 Wh4+ 21 Фд1 ДхЬз or 21 Фе2 b4 is no better) 2O...b4, regaining one piece and obtaining quite sufficient compensation for the second one.
Even so, after some hesitation I decided to make an ‘unclear’ move, which was suggested by Timman in Informator Volume 30 and had occurred in two recent games. Alas, after this life for Black becomes significantly more complicated. 17 f4
This way, since now the retreat of the knight loses - 17...£rf7? 18 exf5!. But here common sense is forced to leave the stage, creating scope for flights of fantasy.
17...b5!
An instantaneous reply. In Informator Alburt recommended 17...Ad7, retaining the tension on the queenside, but after 18 exf5 Axf5 19 fxe5 £>xg31? (19-Axe5 20 Af4l) 20 Hf31 ^h5 (2O...Axe5 21 £ic4!) 21 exd6 Ae5+ 22 Фд1 Wh4 23 ДеЗ Black’s attack peters out.
18 axb5! (12)
The acceptance of the piece sacrifice would have suited Black very well: 18 fxe5?! ^xg3! 19 ФхдЗ Дхе5+ 20 ^2, and in the event of 2O...Wh4+?l 21 <4>gl Wg3 22 fif3! Wh2+ 23 tfl? JLd7! (Birnboim-Arnason, Randers 1982) White is forced to seek salvation with the only move 24 Ah6!. But after 23 <Si?f2! the advantage is on his side: the ‘reckless’ 23...Ad7(?), recommended by Arnason and me, is bad in view of 24 Whl!, as is 23...Ad4+? 24 Wxd41 cxd4 25 Af4! fxe4 26 Axh2 exf3 (Arnason) 27 Afl! (but not the earlier move 27 Axd6? because of 27...fxg2+! 28 Axf8 dxc3 with drawing chances), and 23...b4, the most resilient, is also insufficient in view of 24 Whl!. However, the immediate 2O...b41 is correct, regaining one of the knights and retaining excellent counterplay.
18...axb5 19 ^axb5 (6)
For the moment Korchnoi is equal to the occasion: again he would have sold his
advantage much too cheaply by prematurely capturing the doomed knight - 19 fxe5?l ?^xg3! (van Wely-Timman, Wijk aan Zee 2002).
19...	fxe4 (2)
Again White is at the cross-roads.
20 ±xe4! (31)
After a long think Korchnoi makes a new, simple and strong move. 20 fxe5?! would have been parried by the simple 2O...Axe5 (here 2O..j?}xg3? is bad because of 21 Hxf8+ Wxf8 22 еб!) 21 fixf8+ (21 Af4? Sxf4!) 21...Wxf8 22 Wfl ДхдЗ+ 23 Фд1 Af5 with sufficient counterplay. However, White had two other tempting continuations:
a)	20 £)xd6!? (during the game I was afraid of this temporary knight sacrifice) 20...<йхдЗ! (in The Test of Time I recommended 2O...'irxd6 21 $}xe4 Wb6 22 fxe5 fixfl 23 Wxfl Axes, but after 24 Wc4! Black has problems) 21 ФхдЗ Wxd6 22 ^>xe4 Wb6 'with unclear play’ - this, my Informator recommendation, is correct only after 23 d6 (but not 23 fxe5? Axe5+ 24 ФТ14 fixfl! 25 Vxfl h6!! 26 Axh6 Wd8+ 27 Ag5 Wc7! and wins) 23...4bf7 24 d7 Ab7, whereas after 23 Ae3! ^d7 24 Sf2 White seizes the initiative, while keeping his extra pawn (although the insecure position of his king leaves Black with some counter-chances);
b)	20 ^a7!?, aiming at the сб-square. The game Alburt-H.Olafsson (Reykjavik 1982), published in Informator Volume 33, brought White success after 20..,e3? 21 We2 £)xg3?! 22 ФхдЗ, but 214hc6! £>xc6 22 dxc6 was even stronger, winning. Commenting on that game R.Byrne and Mednis also condemned the more resilient 2O...^f3+ 21 Axf3 exf3 22 ®c6 Wd7 in view of 23 f5(?!) ДЬ7 24 g4, but in this case after 24-^f6 25 Wxf3 gxf5 26 gxf5 ®h8 White’s extra pawn is hardly felt. On the other hand, my later discovery 23 g4! Sb 7 24 fixf3 ®f6 25 ДеЗ gives him an obvious advantage.
2O...±d7! (37)
Not only leaving the knight at e5 en prise, but also sacrificing the mainstay of the position - the d6-pawn!
21We2?! (18)
Temporarily maintaining the knight on b5. Little was promised by either 21 ^xd6?! Wf6! (my earlier recommendation 21...ДЬ6 is less good on account of the far from obvious reply 22 Ag2!) 22 Ag2 (22 Даб £>c4!) 22...^xg3! 23 ФхдЗ Wxd6 24 4be4 Wb6 with double-edged play, or 21 £>a3?! Ac8! (the modest 21...^f7 22 -2jc4 ДЬ4?! 23 JLd3! favours White) 22 fxe5 Axes 23 Sxf8+ Wxf8 with sufficient compensation for the piece.
But 21 £ha7! was strong, although I condemned it because of 21...Да8, when ‘it is not easy for White to escape from the pin’. In fact he can escape from it by 22 Да2! (Stohl), when Black has problems: 22...£>c4? 23 ^c61 Wb6 24 £>a4 Wb7 (24...Wc7 25 Wb3) 25 Ad3 £>a5 26 ^xc5 and wins, or 22...We8 23 lei! (23 Ag2!?) 23...Wf7 24 Ag2! with the threat offxe5, and if 24...^>c4 25 Wb3!.
Korchnoi’s solid but slow move allows Black something of a respite.
21...Wb6!? (13) 22 ^a3l (now 22 <^a7? no longer hits the target: 22...Да8! 23 Wa6 Wxa6 24 Дхаб g5! etc.) 22...ДЬе8! (2)
Another critical position.
The intensity of the battle is approaching its height, and the quality of the next two or three moves will decide the fate of the
game. The difficulty for White lies mainly in choosing from the mass of available possibilities - it is not clear which of them is best. In addition, the lack of time for thought was beginning to be felt...
It is said that the English grandmaster Keene, on entering the playing hall and seeing this position on a monitor, decided that it was Black to move, and he declared that Kasparov faced a very difficult defence, since the white knight would inevitably go to c4. But on suddenly realising that it was
White to move, he began reassessing the position! Yes, White seems to have an obvious advantage, but everywhere Black has some counterplay, enabling him to confuse matters.
23 Ad2?! (14)
By giving up the b2-pawn, Korchnoi loses the remainder of his advantage! After the game he was to say: 'Playing such complicated positions against Kasparov is exceptionally difficult - all the time you have to find the only moves’.
23 g4? was more than dubious in view of 23...Wd8! 24 Фд2 (24 gxh5 Wh4!; also 24 g5 ®f7! does not help) 24...®lxg4! 25 hxg4 Wh4 26 £>ab5 Ad4 and wins. And after 23 АеЗ?! Wb4! with the threat of ...£tf7 the insecure placing of the bishops on the e-file is felt. Again nothing is given by the capture of the knight: 23 fxe5?! Axes 24 Sxf8+ (after 24 Af4? ^xf4 25 gxf4 Axf4+ 26 Фд2 Wd8! and ...Wg5+ White has no defence) 24-Sxf8 25 £>c4 Axg3+ 26 Фд1 Wd8! 27 Af3 Axh3 with approximate equality - say, 28 ®e4 4hf4 29 Axf4 Axf4 30 Wei We7 31 Ag2 Af5 etc.
However, the queen should have been moved out of range of the rook - 23 Wg2!.
Analysis diagram
This move, shown to me immediately after the game by Vaganian, was for many years considered a confirmation of White’s obvious advantage: 23...®f7 (an admission of failure) 24 g4 £>f6 25 <2jc4 and Ad3, or 23...Wb4 (23...Wd8?! 24 Ad2!) 24 £>c2 Wb8 25 £>e3 ®f7 26 g4 £)f6 27 Ad3 and <Sk4 with a sound extra pawn.
But the modern computer claims that after 23...Wb3! all is not so simple: after 24 fxe5 Ixfl 25 Wxfl Axes 26 W'c4 Wb4! or 24 g4 ®f6 25 Ac2 (25 fxe5 £>xe4 and ...Axe5+) 25...Wb4! 26 &hl <йехд41 27 hxg4 £>xg4 28 Ad3 (28 ®e4 ,g5!) 28...Af5 29 <^c2 Wb7 Black retains compensation for the piece, and in the event of 24 Ac2 Wb4 25 Ad2 (25 £)e4!?) 25...^>c4 26 <$lxc4 Wxc4 (Sloth-Sterud, correspondence 1984) or 24 Abl!? Sb8 (24...С4?! 25 Aa2!) 25 Ac2 Wb4 26 <йе4 ®f7 - some compensation for the pawn.
23...Wxb2! (7)
The long-awaited turning point!
The queen fearlessly rushes into the thick of the opponent’s pieces, knowing that in the event of 24 Sfbl? the doomed knight will land a decisive blow - 24...®f3+!. Apparently this little variation, which Korchnoi had overlooked, exhausted his patience...
24 fxe5?? (4)
At the most inappropriate moment! Now the energy stored in the black pieces breaks out, sowing death and destruction in the enemy camp. Meanwhile White had more than one safe continuation:
a)	24 Ea2 Wb41 25 Ebl Wd4, and it is safest to go into an equal endgame: 26 £sab5 ±xb5 27 £sxb5 Wc4 28 Wxc4 ^xc4 29 Af3-Dreaming of victory, in The Test of Time I recommended 24-.Wb8, since again 25 fxe5?! is unproductive after 25...Exfl 26 Wxfl (26 еб? Eef8!) 26...&xe5 27 Wd3 (Stohl’s move, with the idea of 27...^xg3?! 28 £>c41) 27...1.xg3+! 28 Фд1! Wd8 (28...±e5!?) 29 JLxg6 Wf6! with equality, while after 25 Wg2 £tf7 ‘Black has the advantage - the white pieces do not have any strong points’. But this is an over-optimistic assessment: after 26 Ebl Wc8(d8) 27 £>ab5 White has at least equal chances;
b)	24 £>c2!? Wb7! (great resourcefulness is required) 25 Eabl Wc8 26 fxe5! (at last!) 26...Exfl 27 Wxfl A.xe51 (27-.^xg3!? 28 ФхдЗ ±xe5+ 29 Jlf4 Ef8 30 <йе2 g5 is also interesting) 28 ®e2 Wa6 29 Wf3 JLfS! 30 ±xf5 (30 Efl i.f6!) 3O...Wxe2+ 31 Wxe2 i.xg3+ 32 <£>hl Exe2 33 Ae6+ Фд7 34 Eb7+ <if6 35 A.C3+ Фд5 36 £>еЗ ЕхеЗ 37 Ad2 ±f4 38 ЛхеЗ ЛхеЗ with a drawn endgame;
c)	24 Wg2!, practically forcing 24...^f3+ 25 Jlxf3 ДхсЗ 26 <^C4 Wb4 27 ±xc3 Wxc4,
elementary.
27...£>xe4+ (3) 28 Wg2
28...ЙС2 (2)
It suddenly seemed to me that the winning path had become more complicated, and I made a simple, obvious move, overlooking the spectacular stroke 28...Ef2+l, which would have quickly decided the outcome: 29 ФЬ1 Eh2+ 30 Фд1 4^xd2! with the threat of 31...£if3+ 32 A’fl Axh3 mate, or 29 Wxf2 i.xh3+! 30 -4>f3 ±g4+! (30...<?^xd2+ 31 Wxd2 Wxal, given in The Test of Time, is also sufficient) 31 &<f2. Wxal, and if 32 ®xe4, then 32...A.h3+! 33 &f3 Wdl+, mating (Stohl).
29 £ixe5 (again avoiding the obvious 29 Wxe4 Wxe4+ 30 £>xe4 ^.xal)
when after 28 Eacl White has two active bishops and a comfortable position.
24..<Лхе5 (the дЗ-point is under more pressure than ever!) 25 £>c4 (17) 25„.£ixg3
A good move, but there was also a more elegant win, not noticed by the commentators - 25-Hxfl!? 26 <йхЬ2 4ixg3!, for example: 27 Exfl £ixe2+ 28 Фд2 ^хсЗ 29 Af3 £>a2 etc.
26 Exf8+ Exf8 27 Wei!?
A desperate chance in a time scramble: 27 ^xb2 <$ixe2+ 28 Фд2 ЛхсЗ was too
29...Hf2+?l
The blinding proximity of victory... That which was good on the previous move now turns out to be inaccurate. Black would have won easily by both 29...Jlxh3+! 30 4>xh3 ^xd2 (White has to lose one of his knights), and 29...®xd2! (I saw this, but I thought that the rook check was even better) 30 flci £rf3+ 31 Bxc2 £)xel+ and ...dxe5, or 30 <^xd7 £>f3+ 31 We2 <£sh4+! 32 Фд1 (32 ФЬ2 Hf2+) зг.-.ЖхсЗ etc.
3OWxf2?l (5)
Previously an exclamation mark was attached to this move, but this was wrong. 30 Фд1! was more resilient. The variation which I hastily calculated at the board looked convincing - 3O...Hxd2! 31 Wxe4 (31 £>xe4? Hg2+ leads to mate) 31...1ifxc3(?!) 32 Да8+ Фд7. Stohl confirmed the win for Black after 33 £)f31 fldl+! (33->cl+ 34 £>el flxd5 35 We7+ with perpetual check) 34 Фд2(?!) Wf6 35 Жа7 Wf7 (threatening ...JLxh3+), although even here things are not completely clear after 36 ФдЗ!. But 34 ФЬ2! is better, in order after 34...W6 35 Да7 Wf7 to force a draw by 36 Wh41 h6 37 Wd8. And if 34...Wb2+! 35 ФдЗ Wf6 36 Да7 W7 there is the splendid resource 37 Wc2(e2) flxd5 38 h4l!, when it is very difficult for Black to destroy the domination of the white pieces and convert his material advantage.
However, the cool-headed 31...dxe51 (instead of 31...Wxc3) 32 ®xe5 Wf5 33 Wxf5 Axfs would nevertheless have given Black a technically won endgame.
The game enters its concluding, most gripping stage. Each player had roughly five minutes left on the clock.
3O...^xf21
Hurrah for intuition! Some kind of sixth sense forced me to reject the plausible 3O...JLxh3+? 31 Фд1! ^ixf2 because of 32 Да2!, and later analysis confirmed my
fears: 32...Wb3 (the only chance of playing for a win) 33 Да8+ Фд7 34 Да7+ 4^61? (avoiding the draw after 34...‘4>g8 and not blundering into 34-.'4’f8?? 35 Jth6+ Фе8 36 Да8+ Фе7 37 l.g5 mate).
Analysis diagram
35 £}f3!, and the seemingly helpless white pieces unexpectedly create mating threats (36 £g5+ ®f5 37 flf7+ Фд4 38 flf4+ ФЬ5 39 flh4 mate, or 38...ФдЗ 39 £>e2 mate). In addition the knight on f2 is en prise, and in the event of 35...£)d3? disaster strikes from the other side - 36 <$Je4+! 'A’fS 37 £>xd6+ Фд4 38 4jh2+ *h4 39 Sxh7+ ФдЗ 40 <йе4 mate! In The Test of Time I gave this resume: ‘In the time scramble the game could have ended this way, but then it is unlikely that this commentary would have been written...’
Of course, Black was not obliged to lose, but after the approximate 35...g5 36 ^xf2 Wc2 37 'Л’дЗ or 37 ®e2 he would also not have had any serious winning chances.
31 fla2!
I had overlooked this defence and so I became extremely agitated. But even so, sensing that 31-^.xh3+? 32 Фд1! was weak (as on the 30th move), I made the only winning move.
40 ^b5+ Sb 7 41 Ha7+ Sb6 42 ®c4+ is bad for Black, he is forced to return with his king - 39-Se7 and allow 40 Sa7+ with perpetual check.
Yes, in such games it is rarely possible to avoid mutual mistakes. Immediately after the game I admitted: ‘The tension was so great that by the fifth hour of play my eyes were dazzled, and at times it seemed that the pieces were shaking, although I love sharp chess of this sort. I can imagine how tired my opponent must have been...’ 33...Wxd7 34 Sa8+ Sf7
31...Wf5!
Petrosian: ‘I would also not have moved my bishop off the 7th rank, where it was performing the role of a block in the path of the white rook. In a time scramble the safety of the king is more precious than gain of material’.
32^xd7^d3?
None of the commentators noticed that this was a time-trouble blunder! The only way to win was 32...£b<h31 33 Да8+ Фд7 34 Ha7 g51 (the computer is not afraid of discovered checks) 35 ^xc5+ Фдб, when White would not succeed in coordinating his pieces: 36 4^5e4 Wg4+! 37 ^>g3 (37 Ф112 Wgl+ 38 ФхЬз g4+ 39 4=h4 Wg21 etc.) 37...£>f4+ 38 <4>f2 £bd3+ 39 Фд2 Wd41 or 36 ^e6 g4! 37 £el Wf3+ 38 ФЬ2 h6! 39 Sg7+ tb 5 40 Hg8 #tf2 and wins.
33 ДИ6?
Time, time... 33 Ha8+! Фд7 34 Да7! was essential, setting up an ambush and prettily forcing a draw: 34...Wf2+ 35 Sbl Wxd2 (35.-.c4 36 <bc5+!) 36 <йе5+! Sf8 (36...®h6? 37 £ig4+ Sg5 38 4be4+) 37 1а8+ Фе7 38 la7+ 'idS 39 Sa8+! (but not 39 £rf7+? ic8! 40 £)xd6+ Sb 8 41 lb7+ Фа8 42 £>cb5 £sf2+! 43 igl Sxh3+ 44 Shi Wxd5+ 45 Sh2 Wxb7, destroying the mating construction and winning), and since 39...icy?
351118?!
35 £>e4, restricting the black king's mobility, was more resilient. At the board I imagined all sorts of horrors, and so I was intending to open an escape square for my king with 35-.g5!. This position proved so interesting, that while still at the Olympiad Igor Zaitsev and I made a thorough analysis of it: 36 lf8+ (36 Дхд5 h6 or 36...^b4!) Зб...Фе7 37 Hh8 (37 1е8+ Sxe8!) 37-^f4+! (37...Wf5?? 38 Дхд5+ Sd7 39 1x117+!, winning the queen) 38 Sf2 £}xh3+ 39 Sg3 Wf5 (39...Wa4 40 lxh7+ Sd8! is also good) 40 A.f8+! Sd8! (not 4O...Sd7? 41 Sxh7+! Sd8 42 ±e7+ Sc7 43 Axd6+ Sc8 44 Hc7+! Sd8 45 £ixc5, forcing 45...Wf2+ with a draw) 41 Jlxd6+ Sd7 42 lxh7+! Wxh7! 43
he had already become accustomed to receiving.'
The well-known photographer Dmitry Donskoy, who was present at this match, informed me a few days later that he had spoken to many journalists from various countries and he already realised to whom the ‘Oscar’ for 1982 would be awarded. Of course, it was not only my win against Korchnoi that was taken into account, but also my results in Bugojno, the Interzonal in Moscow and the Olympiad in Lucerne, where towards the end I won against Suba and drew with Andersson (an overall score of +19 =18, without any losses). And if I had also managed to defeat the third defector -the leader of the Canadian team Igor Ivanov, then, as my colleagues joked, ‘Moscow would also have awarded Dzerzhinsky's personal revolver.’
As for the outcome of the Olympiad, the USSR team achieved its best result in recent years, finishing 61/? points ahead of the second prize-winners! Karpov performed confidently on board 1, while on board 2 I brought the team the greatest number of points. Nikitin: 'The names of Karpov and Kasparov were always adjacent both in the rating list, and in the Soviet team list. At the Olympiad both endeavoured not to fall behind the other, and this competition of the leaders was to the benefit of the team. As it was wittily remarked at the time, the chess ship “USSR" had acquired a powerful Kar-Kas.’2
There was a very tough battle for second place between the teams from USA, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. More confident play in the last few matches enabled the Czech players to repeat a success of half a
£>f6+ Фхс16 44 ®xh7 c4 or 44...^xd5 with a won knight endgame.
The analysis contained a number of other branches, but the simple move 35...We7, pointed out in Moscow by Nikitin, made all these subtleties unnecessary: 36 £ig5+ <4’f6 37 lf8+ Фе5 38 Sf7 We8 is hopeless for White, as is the knight ending after 36 lf8+ Wxf8 37 ^g5+ Фе8 38 l.xf8 4>xf8 39 ®xh7+ &g7 40 £>g5 <^6 or 37 Jlxf8 'A’xfS 38 £>xd6 ^f4+ 39 4>f3 £ixd5 40 Фе4 £sb6.
Initially the unexpected rook thrust to h8 put me into a slight panic: for an instant it appeared that Black had no good reply. But by the method of elimination I quickly found a move which not only did not lose, but also won!
35...ЛТ6!
The king breaks free, and now White has nothing to hope for. For the first time in the game I could breath freely - all the fears and dangers (apart from time-trouble!) were now behind me...
36 ФТз? (a blunder with the flag about to fall: it would appear that Korchnoi could no longer see the board) 36...Wxh3+
And White lost on time, without managing to resign (0-1). Times: 2.30-2.28.
At that moment the spectators and players tightly surrounding our board gave us a genuine ovation. It need hardly be said that this ultra-tense game appeared in chess publications around the world. Nikitin: ‘The Korchnoi-Kasparov duel went down in the history of the Olympiads as one of the most dramatic battles, alongside such unforgettable clashes as Fischer-Tai (i960) and Spassky-Fischer (1970). In the end it was this stunning win by the Baku player that deprived Karpov of another chess “Oscar" - the prestigious annual journalists’ prize, which
2 Karkas - from Russian this would be translated as 'hull' (translator’s note).
century (!) earlier, by winning the silver medals. This was as much a surprise as the failure of the Hungarian team, who on this occasion played a secondary role.
Towards the end of the Olympiad the FIDE Congress was held, and there an event occurred which was to have far-reaching consequences for the chess world. With the support of the USSR, the Soviet bloc and countries of the Third World, the person elected as FIDE President was the Filipino Florencio Campomanes - a man with dictatorial ways, who looked down on chess players. It became possible for small countries to dictate matters, without being restrained by the right of veto, or by the Security Council, as in the United Nations. During the times of representatives of the democratic world, such as the Dutchman Max Euwe or the Icelander Fridrik Olafsson, things were better in FIDE, since these presidents did not endeavour to rise above chess: they played the role of intermediary between opposing sides and always took into account the interests of chess players. In difficult, sometimes deadlocked situations, both presidents displayed, in the name of chess, both firmness and flexibility, and above all - objectivity. But the new FIDE leadership began to disregard grandmasters - after all, they didn't (and still don’t) even have the right to vote!
I remember one episode, which struck me as being highly symbolic. After the counting of the votes, but before the declaration of the results, the chairman was handed a note, and he read out in a sombre voice: ‘It is with great regret that I announce the death of President Brezhnev. I would ask you all to stand and observe a minute’s silence in his memory.’ After this, in deathly silence, Campomanes’s victory was announced. It appeared that the chess world
was mourning not Brezhnev’s death, but its own future... In this strange way Campo-manes's election and Brezhnev’s death became linked in my memory. The former promised me problems in the chess world, while the latter promised hopes of favourable changes in my country.
The pairings for the Candidates matches, held at the end of the Olympiad, did not turn out very well for me. I sat with Beliavsky and with baited breath awaited the results. However, the way that the draw was made was strange. Here is a list of the pairings and the ratings of the players:
Hiibner (2630) - Smyslov (2565)
Ribli (2580) - Torre (2535)
Kasparov (2675) - Beliavsky (2620) Korchnoi (2635) - Portisch (2625)
I considered my most dangerous rivals to be Beliavsky and Korchnoi, and here I was faced with playing both of them in succession! Why? Because after the pairings had been decided, it was simply announced that the winner of the first pair would meet the winner of the second, and the winner of the third would play the winner of the fourth (although it was quite obvious that the first two pairs were in general weaker than the other two). Had lots been drawn, and if so, why was this done without our participation? My immediate thought was that someone wanted to make it as difficult as possible for me to qualify for a match with Karpov: after all, at the start I could have lacked match experience. Beliavsky also looked distressed - we were on good terms, and we were both hoping to avoid meeting in the quarter-final, realising that this would be a severe test. And the indignant Portisch left the hall, accusing those who had organised the pairings of cheat
ing: it was not just that he had been paired with Korchnoi - if he won, he would have to play me or Beliavsky...
This was how the 1982 ‘Oscar’ year ended, a very important one for my development. Ahead lay the Candidates matches.
Match with Beliavsky
Quarter-final Candidates match Kasparov-Beliavsky (Moscow, 26th February-2Oth March 1983) - 6-3.
This Moscow encounter with Alexander Beliavsky was the first official match in my career. At that time the quarter-finals were played to the best of 10 games, the semifinals - 12 games, and the final - 16 games, and all with separate days for adjournments, so that they lasted somewhat longer than present-day matches for the world championship! I had to adapt urgently to the unfamiliar logic of match play, and the pre-match preparation had to be especially thorough: for the first time I had to consider my opening repertoire as applied to a single opponent. True, my opponent probably experienced similar difficulties.
I think that the most important role in my ultimate success was in fact played by preparation, or, more specifically, a more flexible approach to match strategy, mainly to the solving of opening problems. In addition, I and my group of trainers (it included Nikitin, Shakarov, Timoshchenko, Vladimirov, and in Moscow also Chekhov) studied Beliavsky’s games, and noted his strong and weak points. The strong included his enormous capacity for work at the board, his brilliant handling of familiar positions, and his exceptional tenacity. However, our deficiencies are a continuation of our virtues: Beliavsky’s adherence to his own views often transformed into
inflexibility, and his excellent knowledge of certain set-ups gave rise to the desire to get by with the minimum of means in the opening. On the basis of this, an attempt was made to plan, if only roughly, the course of the match struggle.
We played in the conference hall of the 22-storey Sport Hotel, situated on the part of Lenin Prospect far from the centre. It was there, eighteen months earlier, that the Interzonal Tournament was held, and that two years later the 48th game of my first match with Karpov would be played, and Campomanes’s notorious press conference would be held (in 2004, 'in view of its dangerous condition’, this historic chess building was demolished).
The pairings gave me the white pieces in the first game. My trainers and I decided that I would play only 1 d4 and after l...<^f6 2 c4 еб allow the Nimzo-lndian Defence with 3 £ic3. Against 3-^.b4 we had prepared the extremely risky Samisch Variation - 4 a3!?. After playing this against Beliavsky in the 1983 USSR Spartakiad, I soon gained a promising position: my opponent was clearly not prepared for such a turn of events. But in the match, on encountering the unexpected 3 ^c3 (I used to play 3 £>f3 far more often), to simplify his preparation Beliavsky concentrated on the Queen’s Gambit - 3...d5, and all the odd-numbered games (apart from the last, the 9th) led to a ‘Karlsbad’ structure: 4 cxd5 exd5 5 ^-g5 Ae7 6 e3. This line came as a surprise to both of us - the exchange on the 4th move had not previously occurred in my games, while Beliavsky replied with the rare set-up 6...И6 7 Ah4 b6.
The battle in the 1st game went in my favour, but I did not find the correct way of increasing the advantage gained from the opening (cf. Came No.80, note to Black’s
11th move), and by the adjournment Beliavsky had succeeded in fully neutralising White’s initiative. On the resumption a draw was agreed on the 65th move.
My opponent arrived for the 2nd game with big hopes. It has to be said that, because of our lack of match experience, we both overestimated the importance of the white pieces, seriously reckoning that with White it was necessary to play exclusively for a win. And this maximalism did Beliavsky a bad service.
Game 79
A.Beliavsky-G.Kasparov
Quarter-Final Candidates Match, 2nd game, Moscow 1.03.1983
Queen’s Gambit D34
ld4
Beliavsky had also decided to use only this move in the match. Against 1 e4 I had prepared the Scheveningen - 1...C5 2 <<bf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £ixd4 4£}f6 5 ^c3 d6 or the Sicilian ‘hedgehog’ - 4...^c6 5 £Я)5 d6 6 c4 £)f6 etc. But the main problem was the move 1 d4, which my opponent frequently made. It was time to find something rather more solid than my usual Modern Benoni and King’s Indian (which, however, I successfully employed at a decisive moment of the match - in the 8th game).
I...d5 2 c4 e6 3 ^c3 c5
Here is a surprise - the Tarrasch Defence! The idea of adopting it came under the influence of Nikitin and my childhood memories of the book on the 1969 Petrosian-Spassky match. Since then the defence had gone out of fashion and by 1983 it was in the backwoods of theory and practice: of the leading grandmasters, the only one to employ it regularly was Gligoric. But it
turned out that here no clear way for White to gain an opening advantage was apparent! The weakness of the isolated d5-pawn did not concern me, since it was compensated by dynamic piece play. And, beginning with this game and right up to the match with Karpov, the Tarrasch Defence brought me truly fairy-tale dividends (+5=6).
My choice clearly stunned my opponent - on the first 14 well-known moves he spent one and a half (!) hours. This was not surprising: Beliavsky had not yet encountered the ‘Tarrasch’ in practice, and he had to play ‘by sight’. But as a result he gave me an enormous time advantage, which largely decided the outcome of the game.
4 cxd5 exd5 5 £>f3 ^>c6 6 g3 7 Ag2 Ae7 8 0-0 (20) 8...0-0 9 Ag5 (13)
The main line. Less is promised by 9 dxc5 Axc5 10 Ag5 d4 (Game N0.63), 9 b3 ^e4 10 Ab 2 Af6 (Larsen-Kasparov, Niksic 1983), or 9 АеЗ c4 10 <йе5 h6!, as I played against Larsen (Brussels 1987) and Hort (3rd match game, Cologne 1988).
9-.cxd4
The alternative is 9-.c4 10 ^e5 Ae6 11 f4 £bg41 (but not ll...^ixe5? 12 fxe51 £>e4 13 Axe7 £>xc3 14 ЬхсЗ Wxe7 15 e4! Wd7 16 a4, Kasparov-Hjorth, Dortmund 1980).
10 £>xd4 h6 11 Ae3 (6) ll...Se8 (5)
Since 1969 this move has supplanted ll...±g4 12 Wa4 £>a5 (12...Ш7 13 ^.(^i)xd5 is not to everyone’s taste) 13 Hadi ^c4 14 JLcl Wc8 15 Wb51? (more accurate than 15 Wc2 ld8, Petrosian-Spassky, 12th match game, Moscow 1969) 15-^Ь6 16 Jlf4 with a small advantage to White (Kasparov-Palatnik, Moscow 1981).
12 Wa4 (23)
One of the most popular continuations at that time, along with 12 Scl JLf8 (here 13 ^a4l? is of current interest). In his match with me, Korchnoi was to employ the novelty 12 a3, Smyslov was to follow suit (Game No.91), while Karpov, after extensive preparation, was to play 12 Wb3 (Game Nos. 11, 13 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1975-1985).
But in the 6th game Beliavsky revealed a new plan with 12 Wc2 Jlg4 13 Sfdl, and I failed to find an effective antidote. Even so, after 13...1.f8 (13...Wd71 14 <Shb3 Sad8 is more useful) 14 Дас1 Дс8 (14...Wd7 15 £ib3!) 15 ®xc6?l (a premature exchange - 15 Wa4l is stronger) 15...bxc6 16 Jtd4 (16 Лха7?! c5!) 16...i.b4?l (16...a5!) 17 Sd2 (and here 17 Лха7!? deserved consideration) 17...We7 18 аз ±a5 19 b4?l (19 еЗI ДЬ6 20 &xd4 21 Sxd4 was more cunning, with some advan
tage) 19...JLb6 20 e3 We6 21 Wb2 (now if 21 ®a4 there is the acceptable reply 21...^e4!) 21...1.xd4 22 lxd4 (22 exd4 ^d7l) 22...C5! the chances became equal and on the 32nd move peace was concluded.
12...±d7 13 Sadi (24)
The most natural move. Soon the stock of 13 Sfdl also went up in the world - here in the event of 13...^b4 14 Wb3 a5 not only 15 a4 is attractive, but also 15 £>xd5. Therefore Black tries both 13...®a5 14 Wc2 Sc8 15 £)f51 or 14...^>c4 15 £ixd5!, and 13...Лс5.
13...^b4 (3)14«b3a5
Black holds on by tactical means, threatening by ...a5-a4 to drive the queen from its active position.
151d2l?(ll)
A novelty, devised at the board. White loses the exchange after 15 ^xd5? ^bxd5 16 Jlxd5 £)xd5 17 Wxd5 Ah3 (Vaganian-Ivkov, Odessa 1975). After this 15 a4 became the main move, when the most interesting reply is 15...Sc8 16 4k2 b5! 17 ^xb4 bxa4 18 $Jxa4 Axb4 19 <2k3 (19 £)b6? Sxe31, Korchnoi-Kasparov, Herzeg Novi (blitz) 1983) 19-Д.ХСЗ 20 bxc3 a4 with good counterplay.
But Beliavsky, convinced of the need to make maximum use of the white pieces, decided to avoid the known paths, in order
to get me away from my home preparation. Previously 15 Sd2 seemed to me to be dubious, but now I consider it to be the best continuation.
15...Э4 (15) 16 Wdl a3 (3)
Ensuring the safety of the knight on b4, which is defending the isolated d5-pawn.
17 Wbl?! (7)
Excessively modest, as was the later 17 ЬхаЗ?! ДхаЗ with equality. The return of the queen to its abandoned post would have been far more unpleasant for Black -17 Wb31, for example: 17...axb2 18 a31 (a move which is impossible in the variation with 13 Sfdl) 18...4кб 19 4ixd5 4k5 (or 19...ДхаЗ 20 4k2l 4}xd5 21 jlxd5 We 7 22 кхаЗ ДхаЗ 23 £xf7+ Wxf7 24 Wxa3 4k5, regaining the exchange, but remaining a pawn down) 20 Wa2, followed by picking up the b2-pawn, or 17...Wa5 18 ЬхаЗ Wxa3 19 4^xd5 4ibxd5 20 Axd5 4ixd5 21 Wxd5, also winning a pawn and forcing the opponent to fight only for a draw.
In the resulting unfamiliar situation it was now my time to have a proper think... 17..Jlf8 (42) 18 ЬхаЗ
18 4ЛЗ was no better: 18...Wc8 19 Дс1 Xf5 20 Wai axb2 21 Wxb2 ДхеЗ! (Kunin-Veinzettl, Oberwart 2006).
18...ДхаЗ 19 Wb2 (19 £>db5 ДхеЗ! 20 fxe3
We8(b6) etc.) 19...Wa8 (5)
Black has deployed his pieces well, neutralising the weakness of the d5-pawn, and he is ready for further simplification.
2O£lb3
This and the next move indicate that Beliavsky was unable to readjust in good time and that he was continuing to try and squeeze some plus from the white pieces. The most sensible would have been to exchange the knight on b4 by 20 4k21? 4ixc2 21 Дхс2, which would most probably have led to a quick draw.
20...Деб (5) 21 Дд4?! (8)
White does not yet sense the impending danger and he imperceptibly crosses the boundary between an imaginary better position and a realistically slightly worse one. It would have been safer to play 21 Да1, and if 21...4k4 to exchange the inactive bishop - 22 Дхе4! dxe4 23 4kl4, maintaining equality without problems.
21...4te4 22 43xe4 (here too 22 Дхе41? dxe4 23 ДеЗ was more solid, even with the loss of a tempo) 22...dxe4
Little by little Black has seized the initiative: his ‘isolani’ has been transformed into a strong pawn, while White is beginning to be concerned by the weakness of his аг-pawn.
23 Sal
If 23 £kl, then 23...Д(15 or 23-b5 is good. And in the event of 23 £>c5 some advantage is given by 23...e3 24 Лхсб exf2+ 25 ±xf2 £ixc6, but 23...^xa2l? 24 Hc2 Sa51 25 Hal <5k>4 26 Heel e31 is more energetic, for the moment retaining both the extra pawn, and pressure.
23...^,d5 (17) 24*bl(13)
Here too after 24 ®c5?l White has to reckon with 24„.e3! 25 Jlxd5 (25 Wxb4? Jlxg2 26 fxe3 b5!) 25...^xd5.
24...Б6 (23)
Perhaps the immediate 24-b5l? was even better, also opening the long diagonal for the queen and strengthening the threat of ...e4-e3.
25 e3 (8)
White is condemned to passive defence. Beliavsky radically prevents ...e4-e3, but now the black pieces acquire an excellent base on d3, for which the knight promptly aims.
25...£sd3 (slightly hasty; 25...JLc41?) 26 Adi?! (5)
26 ‘Ski! <5к1! looks dangerous for White - say, 27 Wxb6? Hb8 28 Wc7 Hc8 29 Wf4 Wa5! 30 Hdl <йхд2 31 Фхд2 Деб! 32 g4 Wb5! or 29 We5 Ha5! 30 Wf4 ^xg2 31 Фхд2 Леб! 32 Ле7 33 5k3 f5 34 g4 Wc6!.
But he could have tried to hold out after 27 ®e2 <^f3+ 28 ±xf3 exf3 29 £>f4 Ле4 30 Wxb6 Hb8 (3O...Ha6 31 Wb3) 31 Wc7 Hc8 32 Wb6 (32 Wd7 Ha5!) 32...1xa2 33 Hdxa2 Wxa2 34Wb2.
26...b5! (6) 27 JLfl (8)
In an unpleasant position Beliavsky no longer begrudges giving up his bishop, in order to get rid of the second annoying knight. The other way - 27 £kl was little better in view of 27-^xcl 28 Hxcl b4 29 Hc2 Was and ...Ha8.
27...b4
This pawn, securely defended by the bishop, will soon become passed, since the a2-pawn is bound to fall.
28 Jlxd3?! (this hastens the end, as does 28 JLb2?! <йхЬ2 29 Wxb2 Ae7 and ...A.f6) 28...exd3 29 Wxd3 Hxa2 30 Hxa2 (2) 3O...Wxa2
Black has a technically won position, although a certain accuracy is still demanded of him.
31 SkS Af3 (2)
31...b3! was more resolute: 32 Hd2 Wa5 33 ЛЬ2 Ac4! 34 Wd7 Hc8! and wins. In the opponent’s desperate time-trouble I delayed slightly, but did not throw away the win.
32 Hal (32 Hcl Лхс5! and ...b4-b3) 32...'I'd 5
ЗЗ ^ЬЗ ®h5 34 -id3 £.d6
34...Ле4(сб, b7) 35 £)el Да8 was simpler, combining an attack on the king along the long diagonal with the threat of advancing the passed pawn.
35 £iel ЛЬ7 (3) 36 Scl Wf5 (5)
Again not the highest quality move (Зб...Да8! was better), but we both realised that the game was about to end.
37 Hdl JLf8
And White lost on time (0-1), without managing to play 38 Wbl (after which there could have followed 38...Wd5 39 f3 Лаб etc.). Times: 2.30-2.18.
After this unexpected win with Black in the very first game played with a new opening, I became full of optimism and it could have been thought that subsequently things would go easily and that success would follow of its own accord. However, such matches always harbour unforeseen turns, especially for debutants...
In the 3rd game Beliavsky somewhat improved Black’s play compared with the 1st, and I made a poor response, which led to rapid simplification and a draw (cf. Game No.80, note to White’s 12th move). Before the 4th game I was seized by fears and doubts: should I again play the Tarrasch
Defence? Analytically I was ready, but I did not yet have a deep belief in it, and I was afraid that Beliavsky would devise ‘something terrible’. On the way to the game I nervously discussed this problem with Valery Chekhov and just before going on to the stage I decided to employ another opening - the Nimzo-lndian Defence, which we had not seriously prepared. Such a 'tuning up’ for the game quite predictably had dismal consequences.
Beliavsky, who the day before had been given a drawing respite, played with enormous will-to-win, and the position reached was more familiar to him than to me. He boldly sacrificed two pawns and developed a dangerous attack. True, on the 19th move he delayed, and Black could have successfully defended, but I missed this chance. The final part of the game took place in a fierce time scramble, and my blunder on the 35th move led to an immediate decision. Strangely enough, failures in the Nimzo-lndian Defence with 4 e3 pursued me throughout my career: I also suffered memorable defeats in games with Psakhis (49th USSR Championship, Frunze 1981), I.Sokolov (Wijk aan Zee 1999), and Kramnik (10th match game, London 2000).
The match score became equal - 2-2, and the situation more complicated. Asriyan: ‘After losing the 4th game, Garik became nervous, and those around him had to make considerable efforts to calm him down. Incidentally, he was phoned by Aliev, who at that time was already working in Moscow and who also said a few approving words, emphasising that he had no doubts that his compatriot would win. And Botvinnik, as usual, was firm and laconic: "You are a man; don't be a wimp, take yourself in hand!” Garik heeded this advice.'
In order to regain my composure and
prepare properly for the 5th game, I took a time-out - not an easy decision, since the players were each allotted only one timeout for the entire match. Knowing Be-liavsky’s convictions, I was in no doubt that he would repeat the specific variation of the ‘Karlsbad’ from the 1st and 3rd games (especially since in it he had gained a draw quite easily), and I prepared a strong novelty.
Game 80
G.Kasparov-A.Beliavsky
Quarter-Final Candidates Match, 5th game, Moscow 9.03.1983
Queen’s Gambit D58
1 d4 d5 2 C4 еб 3 АсЗ £>f6 4 cxd5 (before the match I had played 4 Дд5 or 4 ^f3 -Game Nos. 41, 54) 4...exd5 5 Д§5 Де7 6 e3 h6 7 ДИ4 0-0 8 l.d3 b6 9 £)f3 ДЬ7 10 0-0 £5?!
After 10.. Abd7 11 Wc2 c5 12 Sadi White has merely a minimal advantage (an example: Kasparov-Georgadze, 46th USSR Championship, Tbilisi 1978), but Beliavsky believed that he would be able to equalise, even after allowing the white knight to go to e5. In the 7th game he did this by 10..Ae4 11 Дхе7 Wxe7 12 ®e51 ? ®d7 13 f4 £ixe51 14 fxe5 c5 15 Wei Had8 16 Hdl Wg5 etc.
11 £>e51
The most surprising thing is that at that time this position was not yet considered in the popular Yugoslav Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings.
ll..Abd7
In the first game after ll..Ac6?l 12 Даб! Wc8 13 ДхЬ7 Wxb7 14 £xf6 JLxf6 15 ^g4 Jld8 16 Sixd5 $2ixd4 17 4^df6+! Jlxf6 18 <5fxf6+ gxf6 19 exd4 Black suffered because
of his hopelessly spoiled pawn structure and the open position of his king.
12 l.f5!
This was the novelty we had found - the fruit of three days of preparatory work. The third game went 12 Wf3?l cxd4l 13 exd4 <^xe5 14 dxe5 ^d7 15 Дхе7 Wxe7 16 ^xd5 Wxe5 17 £>e7+ ФЬ8! 18 Wxb7 ^c5 with a quick draw.
I remember how on the eve of the game Botvinnik arrived at the Azerbaijan permanent representative’s residence in Moscow, where our team was living during the match, and I showed him the main variations that were possible after 12 if5. Botvinnik studied the position carefully and approvingly murmured: ‘Hmm... A good ideal’
12..Axes (25)
At just the right time (after 12,..He8?l 13 f4 the white knight would have been transformed into an impregnable fortress). Beliavsky made this natural move after a long think, although the bishop move to f5 is fairly obvious and it could have been anticipated in careful preparatory analysis. It was no better to play 12...g6 13 ixd7 ^xd7 14 £>xd7 Wxd7 15 Дхе7 Wxe7 16 dxc5 (Stohl), or 12...cxd4 13 £ixd7! (13 exd4l?) 13-Axd7 14 Дхе7 Wxe7 15 Wxd4,
when Black is condemned to a cheerless defence, which is especially unpleasant in a nervy match situation.
13 dxe5 We8 (4)
After the typical 13...<йе4(?) the spectacular 14 ^>xd51 would have been decisive. 13...£id7? 114 A.xe7 Wxe7 15 f4 was also not good for Black. Previously I gave preference to 13„.®h7, but here too after 14 A.xe71 (Stohl gives only 14 Ag3 ®g5) 14...Wxe7 15 f4 Sfd8 16 Wg4 the initiative is with White (if 16...£if8, then 17 Sf3).
14 *g3
Now there is no longer any point in exchanging the bishops: Black is cramped and he has little space for manoeuvring.
14...	^C7? (21)
Allowing an aggressive sortie by the white queen, after which all the same the knight cannot go to еб and, forced to vegetate on c7, it will be a source of constant concern for Black. He should first have forced the white bishop to declare its intentions - 14...g6!, for example:
a)	15 Ag4, provoking Black into the win of a piece - 15-h5?! 16 Af3 h4 (16...<2k7 17 h3 Wd7 18 Wc2) 17 if4 g5? (17...^c7 18 h3), in order after 18 A.xd5! ixd5 19 <£>xd5 gxf4 20 Wg4+ ^g7 21 Sadi f5 22 Wxf4 to obtain an overwhelming advantage. And
after 15...‘$Jc7 16 JLf3 White would have retained a slight plus;
b)	15 Ac21? Wd7 (15-.^c7(g7) 16 Wf3! -Stohl) 16 We2 £hc7 17 Sfdl h5 18 h3, and the bishop on c2 may support the attack on the king (after f2-f4-f5) or the pressure on the d5-pawn (by Ab3). Even so, 14...g6 was the lesser evil.
15 Wg4! (3)
15...We8?! (17)
It is already hard to offer Black any good advice. 15...g6? did not work in view of 16 ±xg6! fxg6 17 Wxg6+ *h8 18 Wxh6+ *g8 19 Wg6+ ФЬ8 20 f4! and f4-f5 with crushing threats. But in The Test of Time I recommended 15...Дс8 16 Sadi JLxfS (16.. Леб? 17 <Shxd51 i.xd5 18 e4) 17 Wxf5 d4 ‘in the hope of saving some kind of ending a pawn down’, for example: 18 ^e2(?l) ^e6 19 We4 Wd7 20 exd4 cxd4 21 £}xd4 Sad8 (Stohl), or 18 Wg4 ®c8 (not 18...^e6?l 19 f41 with a powerful attack) 19 Wxc8 Saxc8 20 exd4 cxd4 21 Sxd4 Sfd8. Possibly 18 We41? is more energetic, with the idea of 18...^e6 19 f4.
16 ±d7! Wd8 (4)
Our home analysis concluded with the variation 1б..Лс8? 17 e6! and wins. But in fact it all turned out to be not so simple!
17 Sadi (12)
Naturally, White brings his rook to the decisive part of the battlefield.
17...h5 (12)
In a desperate situation Beliavsky tries to ease the defence by exchanging the darksquare bishops, even at the cost of a weakening of his king’s defences.
18 Wh3 (2) 18...h4 19 Af4 Ag5 (weak is 19...Ac8? 20 ^xd5l or 19...g5? 20 Wg41 Фд7 21 JLxg5! Axg5 22 f4 and wins) 20 Jtf5! (3)
Playing White here is easy and pleasant: clearly visible is the aim of the attack, in which all his pieces are ready to take part.
2O...g6 (22)
After this Black will hardly be able to save the game, but what instead? The immediate 2O...±xf4 21 exf4 d4 (21...We7 22 £>e41) would have prevented the switching of the white knight to the kingside, but after 22 ®е4 Лхе4 (22...g6 23 Wg41) 23 ±xe4 2b 8 24 f5 Wg5 25 f4 Wh5 26 ld3! or 24...Se8 25 f4 White’s powerful pawn group quickly decides the outcome (25...f6 26 Wxh4 fxe5?l 27 f6l).
20..>e7 21 £>e4l <йе6! (21...±xf4? 22 ®f6+l; 21...dxe4? 22 Hd7) 22 4jxg5 4ixg5 was somewhat more tenacious, although in this case too after 23 Wg41 (23 Дхд5 Wxg5 24 f4 too is not bad) 23...^e6 24 ДЬ6 White would also retain a fearfully strong attack
(24...ФЬ8? 25 Wh51). But now there follows a decisive combination.
21 ^e4! (3) 21..Jbtf4 (7)
After 21..Ле7 my suggestion in The Test of Time - 22 <2kl6(?!) Jlxd6 (after Stohl’s move 22..Ла6(?) there is the decisive 23 Wg41) 23 exd6 is unclear in view of 23...^e81, but 22 Wg4! Ac8 23 l.g5! ^.xg5 (23..Jlxf5 24 Wxh4) 24 £>xg5 wins outright, for example: 24...f6 25 ®e6! We8 26 £ixc7 l.xf5 27 Wxh4 or 24...Фд7 25 e4! d4 26 f4 Лаб 27 Sf2 lh8 28 Лхдб! fxg6 29 f5.
22 exf4
22...gxf5? (2)
Equivalent to capitulation: Black was overwhelmed by the threat of <2id6 or ®f6+ and Wxh4- The only way to prolong the
resistance was by declining the sacrifice. True, after 22...Фд7 23 ФЬб ±а6 24 Hfel We7 25 Wg4 Had8 26 ДЬ1 Sxd6 (there is nothing else) 27 exd6 Wxd6 28 Wxh4 White would most probably have been able to convert his exchange advantage, while in the event of 22...d4 Black would have had to reckon not only with the simple 23 ®f6+ Фд7 24 Wrxh4, but also the more aggressive 23 Wg4! Фд7 24 ^d6 Jld5 25 ±c2! and f4-f5.
23 Wxf51 (this leads to the inevitable demise of the black king) 23...dxe4 (11)
Black would have lost immediately after both 23...Фд7? 24 Wg4+ ФЬ8 25 Фд5 (Stohl), and 23...Фе 8? 24 £>f6+l, as well as 23...f6? 24 ®g4+ 4T17 (24...^>f7 25 ФЬб+) 25 Wxh4+ Фд7 26 Wg4+ ФЬ7 27 Hd3, with mate.
24 Wg4+! ФИ7 (2) 25 Hxd8 Hfxd8 26 Wxh4+ *g8
Despite the approximate material equality, Black is lost because of the poor placing of his pieces.
27 We7 (5)
Previously I attached an exclamation mark to this move, condemning the ‘over-hasty’ 27 f5(!) - when after 27...Hd7 Black would supposedly have been able to 'coordinate his pieces’, but this was a mirage: 28
Wg5+ iTi7 (28...&f8 29 h4) 29 Wg41 Had8 (29...Sg8? 30 Wh3+! Фд7 31 f6+) 30 еб, and the curtain comes down.
27...e31
A clever resource, forcing White to display a certain accuracy (28 Wxc7?? e21 29 Wxb7? Hdl! 30 Wxa8+ Фд7).
28 Sei (9)
The spurt by the black pawn shocked me slightly, and I did not immediately find the correct reply. 28 f3 (there is no sense in getting involved in 28 fxe3?l Hd2!) 28...Aa6 29 Hel was also good, followed by f4-f5 and е5-еб.
28...exf2+ (10)
In severe time-trouble Beliavsky missed chances to go fishing in troubled waters:
a) 28...e2 29 f3 Hdl 30 &f2 ±a6 (3O...Had8 31 f5) 31 Wxc7 (31 f51? - Stohl) 31...Had8 32 Wxa7! (32 f5? H8d21) 32...Sxel 33 Wxa6 Hedl (after 33-Hddl 34 Wxb6 the e2-pawn becomes a burden and Black is absolutely helpless) 34 Фхе2 S8d2+. According to Stohl, Black has some drawing chances, but after 35 ФеЗ Hxb(g)2 36 f5 the win for White is fairly simple;
b) 28...Hd2!? 29 f31 Had8 30 f5! (avoiding a trap: 30 ПхеЗ? H8d7! 31 Wg5+ 'i’fS -Stohl) 3O...H8d7 31 Wg5+ ФЬ7 32 h4 Hxb2 (32...1dl 33 Wxe3) 33 еб Hdd2 34 Wh5+
Фд8 35 Wxf7+ ФЬ8 36 Wh5+ Фд8 37 Wg5+ ФУ18 38 ПхеЗ fixg2+ 39 Wxg2 fixg2+ 40 Фхд2 - the triumph of the white infantry!
29 <4>xf2 fid2+ 30 He2 fixe2+ 31 Фхе2 Aa6+
32 4>f2 йеб (3) 33 f5
33...£>d4 (or 33...^g7 34 e6! fif8 35 Wxa7) 34 e6 fif8 35 Wg5+ ФИ7 36 e7 fie8 37 f6 ®e6 38 Wh5+ 4>g8 1-0
In view of 39 Wg4+ ФЬ7 40 Wa4! (40 Wxe6!?) 40...&C7 41 We4+(d7). Times: 0.50-2.29.
This win, gained on the day of Fischer’s 40th birthday, was very important in the competitive sense: in the shortest possible time I regained my lost lead in the match, and with it also my composure. The game very much appealed to Botvinnik, reminding him of his own youth: he always especially valued thorough opening preparation and energetic play in the middlegame.
Probably the key game in the match was the 6th, before which I was again gripped by a certain anxiety. On this occasion I took the risk of repeating the Tarrasch Defence -and Beliavsky was fully ready for it! Even so, I managed to gain a draw (cf. Game No.79, note to White’s 12th move) and retain the lead with four games to go. This draw inspired me more than the preceding win.
But in the 7th game Beliavsky improved the defence in the same line of the ‘Karlsbad’ (cf. Game No.80, note to Black’s 10th move), played with great concentration and, by displaying resourcefulness, succeeded in holding a position that was not without its dangers. The score became 4-3 in my favour, and the match entered the finishing straight.
Now, in view of his ‘retreating’ play with Black, Beliavsky could hope for success only in the 8th and 10th games. And for the 8th he arrived extremely eager for a fight, with grounds for optimism, remembering my failure in the Nimzo-lndian (4th game) and my opening problems in the Tarrasch (6th game). But I sprang another surprise on my opponent, by employing my favourite King’s Indian Defence.
Game 81
A.Beliavsky-G.Kasparov
Quarter-Final Candidates Match, 8th game, Moscow 15.03.1983
King's Indian Defence E81
1 d4 2)f6 2 c4 g6 3 '?’hc3 ±g7
Although before the match Beliavsky had of course prepared for the King’s Indian, that day he least of all expected it to occur. It was far more logical to assume that in the three remaining games I would endeavour to play as solidly as possible, not objecting to a draw. But instead of this Beliavsky was unexpectedly offered a fierce battle on ground that I had studied before the game, but he had not. It was I (and not he!) who decided to engage the opponent in a complicated struggle, at a moment when he had nothing to lose. And apart from this purely psychological move, I also had up my sleeve an interesting idea in the
variation usually employed by my opponent.
4 e4 d6 5 f3 0-0 (5...£>c6 - Game Nos. 12,15) 6 ДеЗ аб
Instead of the usual move at that time, 6...Деб (Game No.51), I chose a cunning continuation: for the moment Black does not disclose his plans, inviting the opponent to reveal his intentions first.
7 Ad3 (5)
If 7 Wd2 Black can reply not only 7.-Деб, but also 7...c6, expressing his readiness for the double-edged 8 0-0-0 b5. However, I suspected that Beliavsky would play 7 Ad3, since this move was considered to be the best reply to 6...a6 (but incorrectly: 7 Wd2! is nevertheless better).
7...C5!
A comparatively rare variation with a pawn sacrifice, developed by Timman. This move, which had not previously occurred in my games, caught Beliavsky unawares! Again, as in the 2nd game, he felt that he was being ‘led’, and when you are playing for a win this is a very unpleasant condition.
Black gives up a pawn, in order to weaken and undermine the enemy centre, and this must be done precisely now, with the bishop on d3: a move earlier, after 7
dxc5 White could have advantageously exchanged queens.
8 dxc5 (5)
Black would be quite happy to transpose into a good version of the Modern Benoni by 8 d5 еб (Shamkovich-Timman, Netanya 1975) or 8 Дде2 Деб 9 d5 Де5 10 a4 еб (Romanishin-A.Rodriguez, Cienfuegos 1977).
8...dxc5 9 Дхс5?! (2)
Again Beliavsky fell short when faced with a surprise: his nerve faltered and, as a consequence, his thinking discipline went awry. It was better to seize space - 9 e5 £ifd7 10 f4 Деб 11 Де4, but in the well-known game Hubner-Timman, (Bad Lau-terberg 1977) Black was successful after ll...f6 12 exf6 £)xf6, and to improve White’s play (say, by 12 еб!? ДЬб 13 Дхс5 Дхс4 14 We2), serious analytical work would have been required.
9...Дсб
10 Д§е2?! (15)
A second inaccuracy, allowing my pieces to occupy key positions in the centre. The immediate 10 ДеЗ was correct, after which Black has played 10...£>d7 (the source game: Bobotsov-Timman, Amsterdam 1971), although 10...Деб is also not bad, with the idea of 11 ®d5?! b5! 12 b3 Дxd5 13 cxd5
£)b4. In any event, he has a comfortable ‘King’s Indian’ game.
10...	&d7!
With gain of tempo! This move seemed obvious to me, but later I discovered to my surprise that it was a novelty. A little earlier 10...®e5 11 ^d5 occurred, and here instead of 11...еб? 12 Ле7! (Anikaev-Yermolinsky, Telavi 1982), it was correct to play 11...2)xd5 12 cxd5 £ixd3+ 13 Wxd3 ЛхЬ2 14 Ubl Wa5+ 15 Wd2 Wxc5 (Anikaev) 16 W(H)xb2 f51 with counterplay.
11 J.f2 (41)
After a long think Beliavsky moves the bishop close to his king. The other retreats also had their drawbacks:
a)	11 ЛаЗ £)de5 - here it is even more difficult for White to defend: 12 ^f4?l Wa5l, 12 <2kl Леб 13 £>d5 b5! or 12 ^>d5 еб (or 12,..Де81? 13 f4 Wa5+! with excellent play for the pawn) 13 Лxf8 Лxf8 14 o-o exd5 15 cxd5 Wb6+ (15...£>b41?) 16 &hl We3, and Black’s activity is threatening;
b)	11 ЛеЗ (seemingly the most natural, but at e3 the bishop is liable to come under attack) ll...£ide5 12 £tel Леб (12.,.£ia5!?; my earlier move 12...<^b4 is rather worse because of 13 Ле2!) 13 £>d5 b5l, forcing 14 cxb5 axb5 15 0-0 Лxd5 16 exd5 Wxd5 17 Ле4 Wxdl 18 Hxdl ®c4l with a favourable
ending for Black.
At f2 the bishop does not have to fear any attacks by the black cavalry, but on the other hand it does not control the h6-cl diagonal, which Black immediately exploits. ll...£>de5 (5) 12 ЛИ6! (24)
I very much liked making such nonroutine and therefore unexpected moves. Worthy alternatives were provided by the typical 12...Леб 13 ^d5 b5 or 12.,.£Л>4 13 <?hd5 £ibxd3+ 14 ^xd3 еб 15 ^5b4 ®xc4 16 Wc2 b5, also with advantage to Black. But my 'sideways’ bishop move came as another unpleasant psychological blow to the opponent.
13 £>d5? (26)
A sign that White is rattled: this over-frisky knight leap leads to dismal consequences. He should have preferred the modest 13 Ле2, reconciling himself to an inferior multi-piece endgame after 13...Wxdl+ 14 4^xdl Леб. The strength of Black’s initiative is demonstrated by the variation 15 b3? £±>4 16 0-0 £>c2 17 Bbl <£sa3l 18 Sal Лд7 19 Лс5 £>сб!, winning the exchange. However, after 15 £ie3 the defensive resources are far from exhausted: 15../M4 16 Лdl Sac8 17 b3 b5 18 £bd5 Лxd5 19 Лxd4 £>c6 20 Лf2 Леб 21 c5 Sfd8, or 15...<bb4 16 a3 (16 Sbl f51 ?) 16...ЛхеЗ 17
axb4 £ixc4 18 Дхс4 Axf2+ 19 4>xf2 Дхс4 20 b3 ДЬ5 21 ®e2 Sfc8, and in both cases, with accurate play, White will apparently escape with a draw.
13...e6 (2) 14 ДЬб (9) 14...Wg5l
It rarely happens that the surprise factor works so effectively - by the 15th move Beliavsky had already used 1 hour 45 minutes! However, as often happens, lengthy reflection did not improve the quality of the moves made, and the result is that the loss of material for White is already inevitable. 15 0-0 (2)
The only move that retains any practical chances. White would have lost immediately after 15 <£>e3? ^d71.
15...exd5l (14)
Depriving the opponent of counterplay, which was possible after 15...£ixd3 16 f41 &xf4 17 ®xf4 We5 18 Wf3 Wxb2 19 <5hb3 or 18 £>cd3 ®xe4 19 Wb3 ®d4 20 Wc3 4hf5 21 fiael Wc6 22 c5, in both cases with some compensation for the pawn.
16f4(3)
Earlier I thought that ‘White should perhaps have tried his luck playing a piece down’ - 16 cxd5 ®xd3 17 ^xd3, but after 17...^e5 the fine-looking pawn pair in the centre would not have compensated for the material deficit, for example: 18 f4 Wf6 19
Дс5 (19 Дd4? £if3+) 19...^xd3 20 Wxd3 Де8 21 Дd4 Wd6 etc.
16...WH4 (3)
Trying to provoke the weakening advance g2-g3. I was terribly proud of this move too, but now I think that the immediate 16...We7!?, with the strong threat of ...Wb4, would have been at least as good, for example: 17 fxe5 Wb4! 18 Wb3 (18 Дf2? dxc4) 18...Wxb3 19 axb3 £>xe5, winning a pawn and retaining the initiative, or 17 cxd5 Wb4! (17...^>d7!? 18 Дf2 ®b4 19 ДЬ1 Дxf4 20 аЗ £>f6! 21 axb4 £>g4 22 g3 2>xf2 23 <4’xf2 Wxb4 is also tempting) 18 Wb3 (18 ДГ2? Дxf4 19 dxc6 <2ig4! with an attack) 18...frxb3 19 axb3 ®xd3 20 ®xd3 5Л8, and again White does not have sufficient compensation for the piece.
17 fxe5 (2)
In the event of 17 g3 We7 18 cxd5 I was intending to return the piece - 18...£>xd3 19 £ixd3 Wxe4l 20 dxc6 Wxc6, hoping to exploit the yawning weakness of the long diagonal, but after 21 Wb3 Деб 22 £ie5! We4 23 Wf3 or 21...Д113 22 Sf2 Sfe8 23 £>e5! it would not be easy for Black to convert his advantage. 18...Дд4! is more energetic: 19 Де2 (19 Wb3 £>d7!) 19...Wb4 20 Wb3 Wxb3 21 axb3 Дхе2 22 ^xe2 £>d7! 23 Дс7 £ib4 or 20 Дf2 Дхе2 (both 2О...ДЬЗ
and 2O...Wxb2 are also interesting) 21 Wxe2 ®d4 22 Jlxd4 Wxd4+ and ...£)d7 with quite good chances of demonstrating that the piece is worth more than the two pawns.
17...	d4!
Splitting White’s position in two and creating an excellent post for the h6-bishop on e3. In the event of 17-.dxe4? or 17...dxe4? White would have been saved by the intermediate move 18 Af21. Now, however, Black has a stable advantage, although on the winning path there are still numerous technical difficulties.
18 ®e2 (7)
If 18 S>hl there is the unpleasant 18...±f4 19 h3 Wg3, forcing 20 Hxf4, but more is promised by 19...^xe51? 20 Axd4 JLxh31 (exposing the king) 21 Hxf4 Дхд2+ 22 Фхд2 Wxf4 and ...Ead8 with an attack. 18...ДеЗ+ (5) 19 ФИ1 ^xe5 (4) 20 Дс7 (4)
White hurries to get rid of the powerful black knight, which after 20 £>xd4?l ^g4 21
<5jf2+ 22 Hxf2 Wxf2 could have caused him irreparable damage.
2O...We7 21 Axes Wxe5 22 Wei ±d7! (8)
Black completes his development and begins preparing a siege of the central e4-pawn. Although this involves the exchange of queens, Black’s strong passed d-pawn and powerful bishop on e3 guarantee him
an excellent endgame.
23 Wg3 (5) 23...Дае8 (23-..Wxg3l? 24 £>xg3 Деб or 24-Дае8 was somewhat simpler) 24 Ш (4)
After 24 Wxe5 Hxe5 25 Hadi (25 £if4? f51 26 exf5 Axf5 and wins) 25...Деб 26 ^g3 h5 or 26 ДЬ1 Дхе4 27 ^xd4 ДхЬ1 28 ^f3 He4(c5) 29 Hxbl Hxc4 White’s saving chances are pretty slight.
24...Дс6?! (25)
I spent a long time wondering whether I should play 24...f51 25 exf5 Axf5, but I decided that here after 26 Hadi White has more opportunities for resistance: he has got rid of his weak e4-pawn and maintained material equality. However, the accurate 26...Hf71, with the idea of 27 b3 Де41 28 Дхе4? Axf4, when White does not have the check id5, or 27 c51 Фд7! 28 Дс4 Eff8 29 <Srd5 (29 b4 a5l) 29...Wxg3 30 hxg3 Деб would have left Black with an obvious advantage.
25 ^>d5 Wxg3 26 hxg3
Things would not have been improved by 26 4Tf6+ ФЬв (an exchange sacrifice is also interesting - 2б...Фд7 27 <йхе8+ Hxe8 28 hxg3 He5) 27 hxg3 He5 followed by ...Фд7, ...Дд5, ...b7-b5 and clear play against the weak white pawns.
26...He5 (3) 27 g4 (3)
White would like to eliminate the dangerous bishop on e3, but the immediate 27 ^xe3? dxe3 28 Eael is bad because of the simple 28...Jlxe4 (29 fixe3? JLxg2+!).
27...И5!? (7) 28 ?T6+ (2)
And again it was dangerous to play 28 £sxe3 dxe3, for example: 29 gxh5?l Bxh5+ 30 Фд1 f5!, retaining the lethal еЗ-pawn, or 29 Eael Лхе4 (this is probably simpler than my Informator recommendation 29...hxg4 30 Exe3 f5) 30 Jlxe4 Bxe4 31 gxh5 gxh5 32 Ef3 Efe8, and White cannot hold out.
28...Ф§7 29 gxh5 Hh8!
The last turning-point.
30 g3? (4)
A fatal weakening of the long diagonal. White would also have lost after 30 g4? gxh51 (my earlier recommendation 3O...He6 31 ®d5 gxhs is less good because of 32 g51) 31 g5 Дхд5 or 31 £bdi5+ Shxh5+! 32 gxh5 f5 and ...fxe4. But 30 <iTi2! was far more resilient, and although after the approximate 3O...±g5 31 ^d5 ±d8 32 Hadi Eexh5+ 33 ФдЗ (33 Фд1?! Hh2!) 33-.lg5+ Black has a dominating position, he is still a long way from a win.
3O...lexh5+?! (11)
Instead of this ‘creative’ exchange sacrifice, 3O...jLg5! 31 <£)d5 f51 would have led
immediately to the goal, creating a pair of connected passed pawns, since 32 exf5 (32 Sael She8!) fails to 32...Exd51 33 cxd5 (33 f6+ Фд8) 33-^.xd5+ 34 Фд1 ^.e3+ 35 Sf2 Exh 5 with crushing threats.
31 ^xh5+ Exh5+ 32 4>g2 (2) 32...f5 33 Eael (7)
Alas, the appearance of a pair of connected passed pawns cannot be avoided: 33 4>f3? fxe4+ 34 Лхе4 Ef5+ and...Jlxe4.
‘Here White had just one minute left, and the spectators were interested in only one thing: would Beliavsky manage to make seven moves before his flag fell.’ (Nikitin)
33...fxe4 34 Abl Ecs!
Black’s task has become somewhat more complicated, but the powerful pawn pair in the centre, supported by the two bishops, should nevertheless decide the outcome in his favour.
35 b3 b5
36 Exe3
In desperate time-trouble Beliavsky returns the exchange, realising that passive defence after 36 cxb5 (otherwise 36...bxc4 is decisive) 36...axb5 is hopeless: the blockading ...b5-b4 is threatened, 37 b4 Ec3(c4) does not help, and in the event of 37 a4 b4! the weakness of the b3-pawn causes
White’s downfall.
36...dxe3 37 fiel bxc4 38 bxc4
There could have been a spectacular finish after 38 b4 flf5l 39 йхеЗ flf31 40 Bxf3 (40 Bel e3) 4O...exf3+ 41 ^2 £.a4l 42 ®xf3 c3, when the bishop would have to be given up for this pawn.
38...Bxc4 39 ЙхеЗ -'b41?
ЗЭ-АТб or 39...a5 followed by ...ФТ6-е5 was also good. In any event, Black is a pawn up and still has a dominating position. White’s hopes, based on the limited amount of material remaining, are illusory. 40fib3
Agreeing to go into a lost bishop endgame, since 40 Bel ®f6 (41 ФЬЗ Фд5!) was also unattractive.
4O...e3+ (2) 41 Afl Ab5+! (3) 42 Фе1
Or 42 Фд2 e2 43 <4f2 Bd4! and wins.
42...Э5!? (6)
A piquant touch: to be on the safe side I prevent the white king from going to c3 (43 i’dl? Ла4), although, of course, 42...йхЬЗ 43 axb3 g5 44 Фч11 ФТ6 etc. would also have won easily.
But now too the black king proceeds via a red carpet into the opponent’s position.
43 ±e4 (8) 43...1xb3 44 axb3 <4f6 45 Ф41 g5 46 Фс2 (2) 4б...Фе5 0-1
All the defensive resources are exhausted
(47 JLd3 e2 or 47 Ag6 ФЬ4). Times: 2.41-2.10.
A heavy psychological defeat: White did not in fact manage to begin active play in a game in which he was prepared to play for a win. The score became 5-3, and the fate of the match was largely decided.
In the 9th game after 1 d4 Beliavsky threw caution to the winds -	2	31
(instead of the automatic 2 c4 - a little ruse, to disrupt the opponent’s plans) 2...C5 3 d5 d6 4 4hc3 g6 5 e4 ±g7 6 i.b5+ Ad7?! 7 a4 0-0 8 0-0 ^аб. This set-up resembles the 32nd game of the match in Baguio (1978). After 9 Sei <2bb4?! (an inaccuracy in an unfamiliar situation) 10 h31 e6 11 JLf4 White gained an enduring advantage and won on the 32nd move. At the end of the game, hardly betraying his emotions, Beliavsky stood up and congratulated me on my victory.
This was how my first Candidates match concluded, a match which, in the words of the chief arbiter Vladas Mikenas, took place in an exceptionally correct and friendly competitive atmosphere. Do not be deluded by the 6-3 final score: in almost every game there was a very tense and interesting battle.
Now, years later, it seems to me that on the whole I acted quite maturely in this
match. The only failure in my preparation, before the 4th game, when I hastily changed opening, was a quite admissible error for a 20-year-old debutant. And my opening moves in the 8th and 9th games show that I had already begun to grasp the psychology of match play. Far more than me, Beliavsky was hindered by his lack of match experience, which deprived him of the required flexibility. Although he was the strongest of the possible quarter-final
opponents, for me the most difficult could have been the highly-experienced Portisch. I thought about this for the first time during my semi-final match with Korchnoi...
Riga Novelty
USSR Spartakiad (Moscow, 14-28 July 1983), semi-final tournament: 1. Ukraine - 27 out of 40; 2. Latvia - гб’/г; 3- Azerbaijan - 19У2 (Kasparov - 1 out of 2); 4- Moldova - 19; 5. Kirghizia - 18У2; 6. Turkmenistan - 9У2.
The game given below took place largely by accident, since I had not been planning to play in the USSR Spartakiad in July. My Candidates semi-final match with Korchnoi - the most important match of the entire cycle - was due to begin on 1st August 1983. But where? The choice of venue for the match provoked a crisis - the first of many accompanying the rule of Campo-manes. This unprecedented intrigue is described in detail in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1975-1985, and here I will merely remind you of the main facts.
Korchnoi and I were offered three cities: Las Palmas, Rotterdam and Pasadena, a suburb of Los Angeles. According to the FIDE rules, each player had to put them down in order of preference. Korchnoi chose Rotterdam alone. In my list, sent in the middle of May to the Sports Committee, I also put Rotterdam in first place, and Las Palmas second. However, the head of the Sports Committee suggested that I change the cities round. Why? It was explained to me that all the same Las Palmas would not be chosen (it had the smallest prize fund), but it was politically important to support it. I did not attach any significance to this -Rotterdam was in both lists - and I agreed. But this proved to be a mistake: at that time I did not know (but it must have been
known by our sports leaders!), that if the opinions of the participants even slightly disagreed, the FIDE President had the personal right to choose any city. And Campomanes chose Pasadena!
A fortnight later Korchnoi expressed his agreement with this decision, whereas the Soviet leadership categorically rejected it. Many did not in fact understand why. The official version was that the safety of Kasparov and the members of his delegation could not be guaranteed, since Pasadena was closed to Soviet diplomats. Although at precisely that time the Soviet swimmer Vladimir Salnikov was setting new records in the swimming pools of Los Angeles...
My personal acquaintance with the off-board politics began on 12th July 1983. I was summoned from Baku to Moscow for discussions with Campomanes. But first I had a conversation in the Propaganda Department of the USSR Communist Party Central Committee with Boris Stukalin, the head of the department, in the presence of a KGB general. I was told that we were a great country and would not allow conditions to be dictated to us: 'The match will not take place in America!’ As a result, I was forced to refuse to play in Pasadena, not doubting that soon everything would be sorted out.
The meeting with Campomanes took place at 9 p.m. that same day in the Sports Committee. It was attended by the chairman of the USSR Sports Committee Marat Gramov, Ivonin, Krogius, Sevastyanov, Karpov, Smyslov and myself. After ninety minutes of discussions (Gramov pressed, but Campomanes defended himself, and did not give ground) nearly everyone began raising their voices. I remember saying to Campomanes: ‘Mr President, with your decision you have encroached on the right
of the Candidates to choose the match venue.’ He replied: 'That’s true, but why didn’t you put Rotterdam in first place?’ Here I felt I was beginning to understand a few things...
My match with Korchnoi was left in the air, pending the fulfilment of unrealisable conditions. I returned home at about one in the morning, tired and depressed. I said to my mother: ‘I don’t understand anything, but it would appear that I’ve been betrayed.’ Two days later, at a press conference in Tunis, Campomanes stated: 'If Kasparov does not turn up for the match on the appointed day, 1st August, he will be forfeited.’ I phoned the Propaganda Department, where just a few days earlier they had guaranteed me support. To the question, what would happen with me next, Stukalin replied: ‘As a citizen, you must realise that it is in the interests of the country.’ But when I asked why I was the only one to miss out, he said (this time addressing me formally): ‘You are still young; you can afford to wait for three years.’
It was during those days of crisis that I spoke with Karpov for the first time. The private meeting, which took place at his home on 15th July, was psychologically very difficult for me. Not knowing all the complexities of the behind-the-scenes struggle being conducted around the match, I instinctively sensed the danger. After all, I already knew that in the Central Committee and the KGB they considered the match in Pasadena to be a politically incorrect step. It is probable that already then it had been decided to boycott the 1984 Olympiad in Los Angeles. And Karpov knew about this. His promise to find in the future some other way of including me in the Candidates cycle, if the match with Korchnoi
nevertheless did not take place, merely strengthened my suspicions.
Gramov advised me to return to Baku, but I remained in Moscow, awaiting some decision. Soon Campomanes announced that the match was being postponed by five days.
It was at just that time that the USSR Spartakiad was taking place in the Druzhba Sports Complex in Moscow. Since I was in a state of suspension and was in danger of losing my form, by a special degree the Sports Committee allowed me to appear for the Azerbaijan team without previously registering. And I played two games with White on board 1 in the semi-final tournament - on 16th July with Mikhail Tai (Latvia) and on 21st July with Alexander Beliavsky (Ukraine). Both ended in a draw, but whereas against Beliavsky I had a completely winning position, Tai solved all his problems with the help of an excellent novelty in the topical Botvinnik Variation.
When I went along to this game, I least of all expected that within a few minutes the fierce opening dispute from my double clash with Timoshchenko and Dorfman in the 49th USSR Championship (1981) would again flare up.
Game 82
G.Kasparov-M.Tal
USSR Spartakiad,
2nd round, Moscow 16.07.1983 Semi-Slav Defence D44
1 d4 &f6 2 c4 еб 3 <£>f3 d5 (2) 4 сб (5) 5 ±g5 dxc4
Naturally, I had prepared for a repetition of our duel in the Interzonal Tournament (1982): 5-h6 6 JLh41? (not the insipid 6 JLxf6) 6...dxc4 7 e4 g5 8 Ag3 b5 9 -le2 l.b7
10 e5! ? (a novelty; later both 10 ®зе5 and 10 h4 g4 11 <йе5 were introduced) 10...£>d5 11 h4 Wa5 (ll...g41?) 12 Scl g4 13 £>d2 c51 14 ^ce4?l cxd4 15 0-0 Т15?! (15...^c6!) 16 a41 аб? (16...d31), and here instead of the senseless 17 b4? Wd8 18 JLxc4 bxc4 19 <5ixc4 £>c3 20 <2b<c3 dxc3 21 ®d6+ Axd6 22 exd6 Wf6 23 Wd3 0-0 24 ДхсЗ JLd51 (when Tai agreed to a draw!), White had the very strong 17 Лхс4! bxc4 18 £>xc4 ®'b4 19 f31! - pointed out in analysis after the game by Petrosian (cf. Revolution in the 70s pp.313-316).
But on this occasion Tai unexpectedly chose the most critical line, by immediately capturing the c4-pawn.
6 e4 (2) 6...b5 7 e5 h6 8 i.h4 g5 9 i7xg5 hxg5 10 l.xg5 £>bd7 11 exf6 (2) 11... jlb7 12 g3c5 (3) 13d5Wb6
Black is following the main line of the Botvinnik Variation, avoiding 13...Ah6 which was fashionable at that time. Where does the surprise await me?
14 ^g2 0-0-0 15 0-0 b4 16 ^a4 Wb5 (2) 17 аЗ *^b8
It was this continuation that led Timoshchenko and Dorfman to disaster! Over the next eighteen months Black’s unsuccessful attempts to rehabilitate the variation were associated with 17...exd5 (which has, nevertheless, become the main move!).
18 axb4 (4) 18...cxb4 19 ДеЗ (16)
I had to spend some time completely restoring in my memory the course of events in the previously played games. Everything seemed fine, and the next three moves were made quickly and confidently. It was only after this game that White began playing 19 Wd4!? or 19 Wg4! (cf. Game N0.65, note to White’s 19th move).
19...^.xd5 20 Jlxd5 Hxd5 21 We2 <5k6 22 Ifcl ^e5!
This is Tai’s novelty! Both Timoshchenko and Dorfman played 22...<5}a5, keeping the knight for the defence of the queenside and threatening a possible ...£ib3 (Game Nos. 65, 66). But on a5 the knight proved subsequently to be out of play and it became a convenient target for the white pieces, whereas at e5 it is actively placed, fulfilling both defensive and attacking functions.
It is surprising that for nearly two years such a natural move to the centre as 22.,.^e5 escaped the attention of the leading players and only occurred not long before the Spartakiad in the little-known game Salov-Shabalov (Leningrad 1983). ‘It can be assumed that Tai learned about this idea from his talented young compatriot from Riga.’ (Stohl)
23 b3!? (29)
This reply did not come easily to me. After weighing up everything ‘for’ and ‘against’, I followed the familiar path (with the knight sacrifice on a41), although I sensed the danger associated with the active knight on e5.
The direct 23 f4 was rejected in view of the variation 23„.®d3 24 lxc4+ VxcA 25 lei Wxcl+ 26 JLxcl £>xcl 27 Wc4+ ФЬ8! 28 Wxcl JLd6! and ...Жс8, in which, in view of the poor position of the white knight, Black has at least equal chances.
It was more difficult to reject the capture 23 Дха7, helping the activation of the knight on a4. However, after 23...ФЬ7! (but not 23...Jlh6? 24 £ib6+!, as in the Salov-Shabalov game), it is too early for 24 ^bb6?! c3l 25 Wxb5 Bxb5, when, since 26 bxc3? Acs or 26...b3 27 Hcbl Ac5 is bad for White, there only remains the inglorious retreat 26 ^a4.
It appeared that White should first bring his bishop home - 24 Ae3(?!) with the idea of 24...-lh6?! 25 f4l or 24...^d3?l 25 Sc2l and the threat of ?Л6. But to lose a tempo in such a sharp position seemed rather frightening... I rejected this variation purely intuitively, and subsequent home analysis confirmed that I was right:
Analysis diagram
a)	24...Wc6?l (with the deadly threat of moving the rook from d5 followed by ...£>f3+) 25 ^b6! Hc5l (the only move: 25...Sd4? 26 Axd4 £>f3+ 27 Wxf31 and <^xc4; 25...fid2? 26 <^xc41; 25...Sd3(b5)? 26 la7+! or 25...Hd6? 26 Sa7+! ФЬ8 27 Sa8+ ФЬ7 28 <£ixc4 <hf3+ 29 Wxf3! Wxf3 30 ®a5+! Фха8 31 Дс8!! - a unique pure mate!) 26 A.xc5 <^f3+! 27 Wxf3l Wxf3 28 Jle3 JLh6 29 £>xc4 Axe3 30 £}xe3 Wxf6 31 4bc4 Wh6, and White has only a draw;
b)	24.--.Std3! - the threat of ...Wc6 and ...£)f3+ sets White very difficult problems.
Analysis diagram
White cannot play 25 4bb6? Дхез! 26 ШхеЗ Дс5 or 25 f4? Ixh2!! 26 ^xh2 Sxe31 27 Wdl ld3! (27...1el!? - Stohl) 28 Whl+ ^f3+ 29 Фд2 Wc6 30 Bdl Se3! with an irresistible attack (31 ФЬЗ e51). Also, nothing is promised by 25 Bfl Wc6 26 f3 Jld6 27 Фд2 Sb3! or 26 f4 '®e4! (26...<^g4!?) 27 Hael <Sbd7 with an obvious advantage for Black. It was good that I made this sombre discovery in analysis: to encounter 24-Hd3! during the game would have been far more unpleasant.
The attempt to neutralise this idea by 24 We4?! (instead of 24 Ae3) is not very successful: 24-Wc6 25 JLd4 lxd41 26 Wxe5
Wd5! etc. And even after the comparatively better 24 h4 Ad6! (the sharp endgame after 24...1d3 25 We4+ #d5 26 Wxd5+ exd51 27 <$jc5+ Дхс5 28 Дхс5 Bb3 gives drawing counter-chances) 25 ДеЗ (25 Sdl Sa8!) 25...fld3 White would have had to find the only way of maintaining a shaky equality.
23...C3 (2) 24 ^хсз! ЬхсЗ 25 Hxc3+
25...ФЬ8! (5)
Black begins playing for an advantage (although at the time we did not yet realise this). 25...®Ь7? 26 Wc2! would have been fatal (Stohl), while 25...ФЬ8 would have led to approximate equality - 26 Wxb5 fixb5 27 Жха7 Jld6, or to a draw - 26 Жха7 Jld6! 27 Дс21 ДЬ8 (there is nothing better) 28 Se7 id6 or 26 Wc2 £>f3+! 27 Фд2 Wb71 28 Жха7! Bxh2+ (28...^el+ is also not bad) 29 *xf3 Sf5++ 30 Фе2 Wf3+ 31 <&d2 Hxf2+ 32 ±xf2 Ah6+! 33 Фе1 He5+ 34 ifl Whl+ 35 Дд1 Де1+! with perpetual check.
26 »C2 (42)
This looks risky, but for the moment the weakening of the f3-point is not yet fatal. Again much time was spent studying the variation 26 Дха7+ ФЬ7- Of course, White did not sacrifice the knight in order to continue 27 Wxb5 lxb5 28 ДеЗ ДЬ4 29 Да7+ ФЬ8 30 Hcl Sh7 with a depressing endgame. 27 We4 (Schneider-Andrianov,
Kiev 1983) is also unfavourable in view of 27...Wb4l 28 Wc2 (28 Hc4? Wxb3 29 Sbl <^f3+!) 28...1.d6 29 h4 (29 Sa4? 4bf3+!l 30 lxf3 Wel+ 31 Фд2 Sxh2+! 32 <4>xh2 lh5+ and mate) 29...Ha5 30 Hxa5 Wxa5 - White does not have his main tactical resource (b3-b4) and Black’s extra piece is worth more than the pawns. There would only have remained 27 Wc2 JLd6! 28 b41, as in the game.
2б...Дд6 (6)
26...^f3+? is weak: 27 Фд2 ®el+ (after 27...1xh2+? 28 <4>xf3 Sf5+ 29 Фд4 the position of the king on b8 deprives Black of the spectacular 29-Hf4+) 28 Sxel ДЬ4 29 Bel ДхеЗ 30 Wxc3 with excellent compensation for the exchange.
27 Дха7+ ФЬ7
28 b4!
There is nothing else. As in my games with Timoshchenko and Dorfman, this pawn is assigned an important role in the attack (the threat of Sa5 has suddenly arisen). From the press: ‘An excellent resource! Up to this point it seemed to many, both in the auditorium and in the press centre, that things were difficult for Kasparov: there appeared to be no concrete play compensating for his material deficit, and White had spent a great deal of time
looking for the best moves. But now it was Black’s turn to think.’
28...^c6?l (27)
This reply suggests itself, but it is not the strongest. Black had some more promising possibilities:
a) 28...Bd3l? (the threat of ,..^f3+ forces White to agree to simplification) 29 Bxd3 Wxd3 30 Wxd3 ^xd3 31 Sdl! Фха7 32 Hxd3 Bd81, and to gain a draw White still has to display some accuracy, to avoid losing the f6-pawn: 33 Фд2 (33 g4? Jlxh2+) 33-.-A.c7 34 Ef3 ФЬб 35 h4 with the intention of g3-g4-g 5;
b) 28...Ha8! 29 Ba51 (the only chance) 29...Wd7 30 ДЬб! Жаб! (ЗО...ДЬ8 31 We41? is not so clear - Stohl) 31 Вхаб Фхаб 32 Дс5 ФЬ7, and exceptional resourcefulness is required of White to demonstrate that he has serious compensation for the piece he has given up (true, optimism is inspired by the presence of the three pawns and the fact that the enemy king will always be exposed).
29 Дез (10)
Now I am able to coordinate my forces, and it is Black who has to play accurately. Tai again thought for a long time...
29-.Де5 (32)
In the end the ex-world champion chose
a continuation which was not the most ambitious, after which White was guaranteed a draw, although initially he was inclined towards 29...Bc8!? and he even wrote down this move on his scoresheet.
Analysis diagram
And indeed, ...Де5 is threatened - say, 30 Sbl Де51 (to my earlier move 3O...Sc7 there is the good reply 31 h4) 31 Bc5 Wd3. While if 30 Bel?!, then simply 3O...^xb4-
According to Tai, he did not like the paradoxical reply 30 f41?, depriving the black pieces of the e5-square and in the event of ЗО...ДхЬ4 31 Bbl ДхсЗ(?) 32 Sxb5+ Sxb5 33 Wxc3 giving White every chance of success. But first, Black can hold on after 31...^a7! 32 Sxc8 ®xc8 33 Bel Wd7 34 Bbl Wb5, and second, he can decide on 3O...e51? without any particular fear.
But in a joint analysis after the game I enthusiastically examined both 30 ДЬ1, and 30 Wh7l - the queen move would have been the surest and most pretty way of maintaining equality: ЗО...Де5 31 Wxf7+ (but not 31 Вхсб? Wxc6! 32 ®xf7+ Bc7 33 Да7+ ФЬ8, when the mate threat on the back rank causes White’s downfall) 31...Bc7 32 We8 Bd8 (32...Bc8 with equality is also
possible) 33 f7 ДхсЗ 34 Wxd8 ®xd8 35 Sa7+ Фс8 36 Sa8+ ФЬ71 37 Sa7+ от 34...Дха1 35 Wg8! Hd7! 36 f8W ldl+ 37 Фд2 Wfl+ 38 ФТЗ ®e5+ 39 <i’f4 Wc4+ 40 Фд5 ®g4+ 41 ФЬб IT13+ 42 Фд5 Wg4+, in both cases with perpetual check.
All this remained off-stage, but that which occurred in the game was no less interesting.
30 Дхеб Дха1 31 Дс7+ ФЬ8
32 Да7+(2)
The capture of the pawn 32 Sxf7? would have allowed Black to offer an advantageous exchange of rooks by 32...fld71 and to set about converting his material advantage (33 Ee71? Axf6 34 Дхеб Ad41 etc.).
32...Фа8 33 ДеЗ
White both demonstrates the strength of his position (all the same Black is forced to return with his king to b8) and saves time on the clock, of which there was not much remaining.
ЗЗ.-.Л’Ьв (2) 34 Да7+ (3) З4...*а8 35 Дс5! (2) 35...4>Ь8! (2) 36 lxf71 (5)
The battle for a win continues! Black’s extra rook is opposed by the enormous activity of the white pieces and the far-advanced f-pawn.
Зб...Де5! (14)
Black would have lost immediately after
36...Wd3? 37 Да7+ or 36...Ehd8? 37 Дd6+!, while in the event of 36...fld7?! 37 Дd6-l-! ФЬ7 38 We4+ ФЬб (38...Фаб? 39 Wxe6 Hxf7 40 Дс5+! - Stohl) 39 Дс5+ &С7 40 Wxe6 flxf7 41 Wxf7+ Wd7 42 Wc4! he would have had to fight for a draw: 42...ФЬ7! 43 f7 Дд7 44 We4+ Wc6 45 We7+ Фс8 46 We2 Ed8 47 Де7 Hd4 etc.
37 Да7+(15)
At the board I was no longer able to assess the variation 37 Йе71 (37 Фд2? Ed3!) 37-Shd8! (37„^xf6? 38 Дdб+!) 38 f7 Sdl+ 39 Фд2 Wc6+! (39..>fl+? 40 -4>f3 Whl+ 41 Фд4) 40 Фк13 Wf3! 41 Wh7! - the only satisfactory defence against mate, also creating the strong counter-threat of Де8 and f7-f8W. Home analysis enabled a very pretty draw to be discovered - 41...ДхдЗ! 42 fxg3, and here Black can either give perpetual check himself - 42...W1+ (Stohl), or force it by 42...Bld5 43 ДЬ7+! Фс8 44 Дс7+! (fantastic!) 44...ФЬ8 45 Bb7+.
This would have been the most worthy conclusion to the game, but instead of this I decided to maintain the tension.
37...Фа8 38 ДеЗ Hd7! (4)
Tai also continues the fight, fearing that after 38...ФЬ8 39 Ee7 Hhd8 the switching of the bishop from c5 to e3 would change the assessment of the position to White’s
advantage. But this is not so: 40 f7 Bdl+ 41 Фд2 Sidy! (not my early cooperative variation 41...Wd5+? 42 f3 Bd3 because of 43 Wc51 Wxc5 44 bxc5 Дд7 45 Jlf4+ with crushing threats) 42 lxd7 Wxd7 43 Wc5 Дд7 44 f3 Wxf7 45 Wb6+ Фс8 46 Wa6+, gaining only a draw. Of course, 40 Да7+ Фа8 41 ЛеЗ with a draw is more solid.
39 Wa2+?!
A time-trouble error. 39 We4+? would have been even worse: 39„.1Brb7! (Stohl) 40 Wxb7+ Bxb7 41 Hxb7 ФхЬ7 42 f7 Феб, and the rook is obviously stronger than the pawns. However, 39 Bxd7 Wxd7 40 f71 would have given real chances of maintaining the dynamic balance.
39...ФЬ8 40 Да7+
This last (the fifth!) check on a 7 proved merely to be the prelude to peace negotiations. It might seem that 40 Wxe6(?) Sdl+ 41 Фд2 is to White’s advantage, but after 41...1d6! (Stohl) 42 Wb3 Sd3 43 We 6 Sxe3! the mirage is dispelled.
4О...Фс8!
In the event of 40...ФЬ7 41 Wxe6 Hxf7 42 Wxf7+ Дс7 43 Дс5 Ba8! Black also has some advantage, but after 44 Wd5+ Wc6 45 Wd4 Wf3 46 f71 Wxf7 47 We4+ ФЬ8 48 Wc6 White is close to equality.
41 Wxe6 (4) 41-.-Wd5! 42 Wa6+! (2)
42...Wb7?!
A sure sign of fatigue - an unwillingness to get involved in the 'wild complications' after 42...<id8!, although this would have left Black with some winning chances: 43 ДЬ6+ Фе8 44 Sxd7 'A’xdy 45 Wa7+ Феб 46 We7+ Фf5 47 f7 Дд7 48 h4 Фдб 49 b5 Wxf7 etc.
43 W’c4+ (2) 43...Wc7 'A-V*
It was also safe to play 43...Wd8 44 lxd7+ Wxd7 (44..^xd7? 45 Дс5!) 45 ДЬ6+ Дс7 (45-Фе8? 46 We2l) 46 Дс5 Ad6, but 43...'йгс7 is more accurate, since it forces 44 Wa6+ with a repetition. Times: 2.35-1.50.
Thus the variation 19 ДеЗ JLxdS 20 ixd5 Bxd5 21 We2 4?hc6 22 Sfel, which White had temporarily buried, was revived - it turned out that after 22...^e51 it is not White who is playing for a win, but Black! And this practically closed the entire line with 19 ДеЗ.
Meanwhile, the Moscow days flew by one after another, and the situation with my Candidates semi-final match was not clarified at all. What could be done? On 21st July I phoned Geidar Aliev, at that time already a member of the Politburo, and explained the problem. He reassured me that the match would take place. Only after this did I return to Baku.
Fairy-tale in Niksic
International tournament in Niksic (23rd August - 13th September 1983)
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	0	1	2	3	4	5	
1	Kasparov	*	1	0	1	Уг	Уг	Уг	1	1	1	1	1	1	Уг	1	11
2	Larsen	0	*	Уг	Уг	0	1	Уг	1	1	уг	1	Уг	Уг	1	1	9
3	Spassky	1	Уг	*	Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	0	Уг	Уг	Уг	1	Уг	1	8
4	Portisch	0	Уг	Уг	*	Уг	Уг	Уг	у2	0	Уг	Уг	1	1	1	1	8
5	Miles	]/2	1	Уг	Уг	*	0	0	Уг	Уг	1	Уг	Уг	Уг	1	Уг	7’Л
6	Andersson	Уг	0	Уг	Уг	1	*	Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	0	1	1	Уг	Уг	7Уг
7	Tai		Уг	Уг	Уг	1	Уг	*	Уг	0	Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	7
8	Timman	0	0	Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	У	*	Уг	1	1	Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	7
9	Seirawan	0	0	1	1	Уг	Уг	1	Уг	*	0	Уг	Уг	0	0	1	6У1
10	Ljubojevic	0	Уг	Уг	Уг	0	Уг	Уг	0	1	*	Уг	0	Уг	1	1	б’Л
11	Gligoric	0	0	Уг	Уг	Уг	1	Уг	0	Уг	Уг	*	Уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	6
12	Petrosian	0	Уг	Уг	0	Уг	0	Уг	Уг	Уг	1	Уг	*	Уг	Уг	Уг	6
13	Nikolic	0	Уг	0	0	Уг	0	Уг	Уг	1	Уг	Уг	Уг	*	Уг	Уг	5У2
14	Sax	Уг	0	Уг	0	0	Уг	Уг	Уг	1	0	Уг	Уг	Уг	*	0	5
15	Ivanovic	0	0	0	0	уг	Уг	Уг	Уг	0	0	Уг	Уг	Уг	1	*	4Уг
You can imagine my state of mind during the early hours of 7th August 1983. At that time in Pasadena, where it was still 6th August, the match had ‘started’. Korchnoi arrived at the hall of the City College, shook hands with the arbiter, sat down at the chess board and made the move 1 d4. Then he pressed his clock. According to the Los Angeles Times, for the next hour he paced around the stage, with his hands clasped behind his back and a deadpan expression on his face. He was awarded a win and a quarter of the sum he would have received if the match had taken place. Furthermore, he was told that he was already through to the final.
That appeared to be the end of it. Three days later Smyslov was also defaulted in his match with Ribli - for his refusal to play in Abu Dhabi. The world championship series was on the brink of collapse at the semifinal stage... Sympathisers advised us to
appeal in writing to the FIDE Congress, which was due to be held in early October in Manila. Many were of the opinion that the aim of the intrigue begun in May 1983 was ‘to do everything possible’ to prevent Kasparov from qualifying to play Karpov. But the invisible script-writers took the organisation of the second match too lightly (evidently considering neither Smyslov nor Ribli to be rivals to Karpov). Yes, one disqualified Candidate might somehow be justified, but two - that was going too far!
But in that hot month of August fate again sent me a saving opportunity in the form of a telephone call from the prominent Yugoslav player Milunka Lazarevic, an active chess organiser. She told me that I was invited to Niksic for a supertournament in honour of Svetozar Gli-goric’s 60th birthday, in which all the top players of that time (apart from Karpov and Korchnoi) were due to take part. Later it
was explained to me that in this way the organisers wanted to demonstrate their attitude to the crisis.
Of course, I was happy to be invited to such a tournament, and without hesitation I agreed to play: this was a way out of my state of ‘chess weightlessness’! In terms of distinguished names, Niksic 1983 could compete with any event of recent years. It was clear to me that things would not be easy. The fact that I had the highest rating obliged me to play for first place, but almost half of the participants were thinking of the same result. In addition, I was concerned about my four-month break from play (not counting the games in July with Tai and Beliavsky). Also, the events surrounding the semi-final matches were hardly conducive to improving my frame of mind. True, on the other hand I very much wanted to gain revenge for the ‘defeat’ in Pasadena and to convince the world that my claims for continuing the battle for the chess crown were justified.
At a short training session, held in Moscow with Nikitin, a general course of play in the tournament was planned. I had to quickly readjust - a tournament has its specific nature, very different from match play. I decided to put everything into my play, without any short draws, and in each game to try to squeeze everything possible from the position (but without overstepping the mark!), seeking the slightest chances even in objectively drawn positions. This persistence, which previously was not characteristic of me, soon bore fruit. Thanks also to the enormous store of ideas, accumulated during the comprehensive preparations for the match with Korchnoi, I was in ‘super-human’ form and from the start I crushed one opponent after another.
These preparations made themselves felt in the very first round. Playing Black against the 1979 world junior champion, the 23-year-old American grandmaster Yasser Seirawan, I again chose my new opening -the Tarrasch Defence. In this first meeting with me Yasser played cautiously, failed to gain the slightest advantage, and even gave up a pawn, in order to regain it a dozen moves later in an endgame, which was slightly better for Black thanks to his active bishop and queenside pawn majority.
Game 83
Y.Seirawan-G.Kasparov
Niksic, 1st round, 24.08.1983
27^b3 (2)
Simplification always seems the most reliable way to draw, but the knight on d4 stood well, and therefore Petrosian’s recommendation 27 Фе1 and e2-e3 was sensible.
27...Sxd2 28 lxd2 Hc7 (3) 29 ld8+ (14)
Driving the black king away from the centre, although the immediate 29 <4>el was simpler, followed by idl, ^d4 and e2-e3.
29...ФЬ7 30 Фе1 A.C4 (4)
Now the rapid switching of the knight to d4 is not possible, and White begins to experience certain difficulties.
31 Фа 2 (з) 3i...g6 (6)
The ‘routine’ 31-Фдб 32 e4 ФТб 33 f4 Фе7 24 Bg8 g6, condemned by me because of 35 g4(?l) 'with counterplay on the king-side’, is in fact no worse. After 35-Bd7+! 36 ФеЗ Ле2 this is to the benefit of the black bishop: 37 f5 gxf5 38 gxf5 Bd3+ 39 ФЬ2 Af3 40 e5 Де4 etc.
32<£kl(16)
The first mini-achievement by Black - the knight has temporarily taken up a poor position. 32 е4Фд7 33 f4 was also possible, only if 33-h5 White must not play 34 h3?l because of the reply 34...Деб!, preventing the creation of a mobile pawn chain.
32...*g7 (3) 33 a3 (2) 33...*f6 (2)
34 еЗ?! (4)
An unforced weakening of the d3-square, making it harder for the knight to come out. 34 ®d3 Фе7 35 Bd4 was definitely better, when Black’s position is the more pleasant, but he is unable to undertake anything concrete.
34».*e7 (2) 35Bd4
Of course, White did not want to concede the d-file, but on the threshold of time-trouble it was hardly correct to allow the
exchange of rooks, making the superiority of the bishop over the knight more perceptible.
35...Bd7 (7)
A purely practical chance: I sensed that it might not turn up again. Apparently, 35-b5 was objectively somewhat stronger, keeping the rooks on, but then White would not have had any particular problems in achieving a draw! In changing the type of endgame, I took account of the fact that now, towards the end of the fifth hour of play, my opponent would have to reject play on general grounds, calculate specific variations and take some responsible decisions. And Seirawan became anxious... 36 ФеЗ Bxd4 37 *xd4 b5 38 £>d3 (15)
After spending nearly all his remaining time, White took the risk of allowing a pawn endgame, which at the board was impossible to calculate to the end. But playing with a knight cut off on cl was even more unpleasant: after 38 Фс5 apart from 38...Феб there is even 38...аб, since 39 ФЬб? ide 40 Фхаб is not possible on account of 4O...b4+, while after 38 a4 аб 39 axb5 axb5 Black would have gained an outside passed pawn and a pawn endgame. Then 40 £}d3 Axd3 41 <4)xd3 would have led to a depressing queen endgame:
41...&d6 42 <4>d4 f5 43 f3 Феб 44 e4 fxe4 45 Фхе4 Фс5 46 Фч13 b4 47 h4 (47 f4? T15! and wins) 47...£d5 48 h5 gxh5 49 Фс2 <S>d4 50 ФЬЗ ФеЗ 51 f4 h4 52 f5 hxg3 53 f6 g2 54 f7 glW 55 f8W Wbl+ 56 Фс4 ^4+ 57 ФЬЗ -according to the Tablebase, this is a draw, but after 57...W4 or 57...Wd5+ 58 ФхЬ4 h5 a human player still has some work to do.
38...^,xd3 39 Фхаз Фd6 (10)
Here Seirawan glanced at the clock (his flag was threatening to fall) and grabbed hold of his e-pawn.
40 e4??
The last move before the time control proves to be a decisive mistake! 40 Фd4! was essential, when the pawn endgame is drawn, despite the possibility of Black creating an outside passed pawn on the queenside: 4O...f5 (it was this move that my opponent was afraid of: if 4O...g5, then 41 f3 or 41 f4 and e3-e4 is sufficient) 41 f4 a5 42 e41 fxe4 43 Фхе4 Фс5 44 g4 or 41...h 5 42 e4 fxe4 43 Фхе4 Фс5 44 h3 a5 45 g4 with a draw (45...h4 46 f5 gxf5+ 47 gxf5 Фd6 48 Фd4!).
It seemed to Yasser that with his pawn on e4 White had nothing to fear, but he did not take into account that this was true only with the black pawn on g6, where it assists the creation of a white passed pawn.
4O...g5! (6)
The threat of ...g5-g4 practically forces the next move, which White sealed: here the game was adjourned. In a brief analysis (the resumption began two hours after the end of the round) I quickly established a winning plan, typical of pawn endings with an outside passed pawn.
41 f4 (22) 41...gxf4 (6) 42 gxf4 Фс5
The winning plan is quite simple - to divert the white king with the passed pawn, after which White’s pawns in the centre will become indefensible. But with a clever defence Seirawan succeeds in making things difficult for Black.
43 ФсЗ a5 44 Фаз (2)
44...h5! (4)
It is useful to advance the h-pawn as far as possible.
45 h4l (13)
Marking time with 45 ФсЗ is altogether hopeless in view of 45-b4+ 46 axb4+ axb4+ 47 ФdЗ (47 ФЬЗ Фd4) 47...h4l, when it is time to resign: 48 e5 Фа5, while if 48 f5 or 48 h3, then 48,..f6l.
45...b4 (8) 46 a4
White reconciles himself to the creation of a protected passed pawn, since 46 axb4+ axb4 is completely bad for him.
46...f6! (8)
Of course, not 46...b3? 47 ФеЗ b2 48 ФхЬ2 ФЬ4 49 ФЬз! Фхе4 50 Фс4 ®xf4 51 ФЬ5 and'ixas (Seirawan).
47 f5!
White has completed the construction of an unusual ‘fortress’.
Again, as on the previous move, little is promised by 47...b3? - 48 ФеЗ b2 49 ФхЬ2 <4>d4 50 ФЬз! Фхе4 51 Фс4 *xf5 52 ФЬ5 Фд4 53 Фха5 f5 54 ФЬ4(Ь6) f4 55 aS f3 56 a5 f3 57 a7 flW 58 a8W leads to a queen endgame with an h-pawn, which theory assesses as drawn.
But Black has available a plan involving the creation of a zugzwang position. For this he needs to give his opponent the move, which is achieved with the help of the distant opposition. I had already used this method in an earlier game with Alburt (Came No.28).
47...Фсб! 48 Фс4 Фс7! 49 Фс13 (49 &d4 is bad because of 49...^d6) 49...Ф<17!
The black king has described a triangle, and it is now ready for the victorious march to c5. White is in zugzwang (50 Фс4 Феб). 50 ФеЗ (11) 50...Феб 51 ФdЗ Фс5 (that’s it: the white king is forced to make way) 52 ФеЗ ЬЗ! (52...Фс4? 53 e51 with a draw) 53 ФdЗ ФЬ4 54 е5 Фаз! 0-1
The b-pawn queens. Times: 3-22-2.52.
My 2nd round game with Tigran Petrosian had an uneven rhythm. On this occasion against 1 d4 the ex-world champion chose an unusual opening for him, about which he himself once said: 'If you see that your opponent wants to play the Dutch Defence, for God’s sake, don’t stop him!’ Petrosian’s enormous practical strength and experience enabled him to solve his opening problems and almost seize the initiative. But in a tense struggle my formidable opponent felt uncomfortable, and as a result the initiative ended up on my side. Petrosian cleverly sacrificed a pawn, but I returned the favour, initiating a lively tactical skirmish.
The main events took place in a time scramble. On the 32nd move Black could have given up queen for rook and knight with good chances of setting up a fortress. Instead of this he forced the exchange of queens, relying on the limited remaining material in a slightly inferior endgame.
Game 84
G. Ka s pa ro v-T. Pet r os i a n Niksic, 2nd round, 25.08.1983
Strictly speaking, this is a draw, but
White can still fight for a win. Such a development of events would not have been surprising, had we exchanged places. But, young and proud as I was, and accustomed to looking for mating attacks, in Niksic I played on to the end in simple positions, and so here too I tried to exploit the minimal winning chances against the great master of defence.
37 ДаЗ! h6 38 fibl
Continuing to play for the restriction of the black pieces and preparing to invade with the rook.
38...Se6!
In order to release the knight on c8 - a similar sufferer to the knight at cl from the previous endgame with Seirawan.
39 Наб 40 Ac5^d6
Earlier I condemned this last move before the time control, parrying the threat of Hb8, and suggested trying to dislodge the bishop from c5 by 40...Mas!?. And indeed, 41 Hcl allows the activation 41...^a7 and ...£±>51, while after 41 Hb5 Hxb5 42 <5}xb5 Ле8 43 ^c7 JLc6 44 ФеЗ i’f7 White’s slight advantage is hardly enough for a win. But 40...®d6 is a natural and quite good choice. Its only drawback is that White retains a more complicated position, and with it certain practical chances of playing for a win.
41 Hb8+ (2)
Here the game was adjourned and Petrosian sealed his next move. The resumption
was due to take place immediately after dinner. Feeling sceptical about my winning chances, I did not bother to spend much time on analysis and I went down to the restaurant. Nearly all the tournament contestants were there and, as usual, they were discussing the games that had been played. Spassky asked me about the adjourned position: 'Well, how does it look?’ I
replied with disappointment: 'It would appear that I've lost my advantage.’ And I began giving vent to my grief about the forthcoming ‘annoying’ draw. But suddenly he said: 'Come on, things are not so simple! The bishops are of opposite colour, and that is in White’s favour: he can create an attack. And look! Petrosian hasn’t come down for dinner - that means he doesn’t like his position.’ And I began looking at the adjourned position with new eyes! Thus one sentence by an experienced fighter replaced a whole lecture on psychology. Yes, Spassky probably knew better than anyone the habits of his historic opponent...
I promptly went up to my room, began analysing the adjourned position, and quickly ascertained that it was not so unpromising for me and that Black faced an unpleasant defence - he would have to play extremely accurately.
41...ФН7 (10)
42 g4!
White takes control of the fs-square and at the same time prepares a shelter for his king. There is an obvious difference in the strength of the opposite-colour bishops: White’s is successfully restricting the mobility of the black knight and is ready (together with the rook and knight) to take
part in an attack on the g7-point, whereas it is hard for Black’s to find employment. Also important is White’s firm control of d4, which has become a transit point for his minor pieces. All this did not appeal to Petrosian...
42...1Э4 (4)
Black begins threatening White's forces in the centre, preventing him from carrying out a favourable regrouping. He could also have considered 42...h5 43 g5 ®c4 or the immediate 42...^c4 43 ДЬ7 <5}e5 (but not 43...Фд8?! 44 ^f5 with the threat of Jld4) 44 ФдЗ £>d31 with the possible idea of giving up the d5-pawn, but arranging the pieces better. However, it is unclear whether this is sufficient for a draw, and so Petrosian looks for other, simpler ways to reach the haven of a draw. The difficulty of the defence is that for the moment White has no direct threats, and it is not altogether clear what to defend against (although Black’s fears are most probably exaggerated).
43 *e3! (5) 43...£>c4+ (5) 44 *f4
A critical moment. Here I realised for sure that Petrosian was extremely unhappy with his position, and on seeing this I began playing far more confidently. Petrosian noticed this change in me - and almost immediately he made a mistake.
44...g5+? (4)
An irreparable strategic mistake. It is not possible to create real threats against the white king, and the weakening of the squares on the kingside proves fatal. Black should have tried to exploit the insecure placing of the white minor pieces, in order to fight for the d4-point:
a) 44...£>a3 45 ФдЗ (45 lb7 ^c21), and now not 45-.Sc4 46 Sb71 Фд8 (4б...Жхс5? 47 Sxf7 Фдб 48 Пхд7+!) 47 ±a7 £ic2 48 ^f5 with a dangerous initiative, but 45...^c21? 46 ®xc2 Sc4 47 Sxc5 48 Sb7 Фд8 49 £tf5 h5, exchanging another pair of pawns;
b) 44../M6 45 ДЬ6! £>c41? (after 45-2c4 46 Hxd6 Дхс5 47 2d7 Фд8 48 h4 Black’s defence is more difficult) 46 Hb7 Фд8 47 ПЬ8+ Ф117 48 ФдЗ h5 with drawing chances (49g5?l^>e5);
c) 44...Sa5 45 ДЬ7 Фд8 46 Jlb4 Да2 47 h4 Bb2 48 £lf5 Sb3, and the pin on the bishop hinders White’s plans;
d) 44-h5 with the idea after 45 h3 hxg4 46 hxg4 of choosing one of the three lines given above.
But, in any event, Black’s position is much more unpleasant than it appeared at first sight. And, not wishing to conduct a prolonged and passive defence, Petrosian decided to force matters.
45 'A’gS (of course, not 45 ФТ5?? Даб! 46 3b 7 Фд7! with the murderous threat of ...Sf6 mate) 45—Да2 (2)
It may seem that Black is alright - the threat of ...£ie3(d2) looks dangerous. But White, exploiting his numerical superiority in fighting units, launches an attack.
46 Hb7 (7) 46...3g6?!
There is no longer any way of saving the game, although White’s task would have been made more difficult by the clever 4б...^еЗ! 47 A.d6! (defending h2; 47
Bxf7+?? Фдб) 47...фд8 (or 47...Фдб? 48 h41) 48 M! gxh4+ (48...&C4 49 Ac5!) 49 ФхМ £ic4 (49...Жа8 50 ®сб!) 50 Af4, winning the h6-pawn and the game.
47 £>f5 (12) 47...1a6 (7)
It is hard to talk about the best practical chance in a hopeless position (except perhaps the opponent’s presumption?!). If 47...Hb2 48 Sa7 ®d2 (threatening ...£tfl+ and ...Hxh2 mate), then simply 49 Af2 d4 50 2a6+ <4>h7 51 Sxh6+ <4>g8 52 2h8+! ФхЬ8 53 Axd4+ and Axb2. And the immediate 47...£>d2 would have been refuted after 48 2Ь6+ ФТ17 49 Sxh6+ Фд8 by the aforementioned manoeuvre 50 Ad6!, for example: 50...®fl+ 51 ФЬз Be2 52 <Sd4 Ee8 53 Aa3 etc.
Now, however, White’s main objective is not to be confused by the mass of tempting continuations.
48 h4 (9)
Not the only way (48 Ad4 or even 48 $5e7+ is also good), but the clearest one to the goal.
48...gxh4+ 49 <^xh4+ (or 49 .<4’f6 50
Ad4+ Феб 51	5, and the black king is in a
mating net) 50 <2^5+ Ф§б (4) 51 Ad4 (2) 1-0
The threat is <?bh4+, and the bishop is inevitably lost after 51../M6 52 £ixd6 2xd6 53 f4. Times: 3.07-3.08.
This equalised the score in my individual games with 'Iron Tigran’ (2-2), but at that, alas, our duels came to an end.
In the 3rd round I had Black against Sax and I gained a draw in a sharp line of the Scheveningen Variation with castling on opposite sides. Then in the 4th round I was fortunate enough to test successfully a strong piece of home preparation against Lajos Portisch, and carry out one of the most brilliant combinations in my career.
Came 85
G.Kasparov-L.Portisch
Niksic, 4th round, 27.08.1983
Queen’s Indian Defence E12
1 d4 £jf6 2 C4 еб 3 £>f3 b6 4 ‘йсЗ Ab7 (4...C5 - Game Nos. 32, 68) 5 a3 d5 (5...£>e4 - Game
No.61) 6 cxd5 ^xd5 7 e3 (3)
On this occasion I gave the expected 7 Wc2 a respite (Game Nos. 73, 75, 98).
7...^xc3 (5)
Black chooses the usual course, just in case avoiding the line which had been tried at the recent European Team Championship: 7...Ae7 8 Ab5+ c6 9 2bcd5l? Wxd5 10 Ad3 0-0 11 Wc2 (Miles-Portisch, Plovdiv 1983).
8 ЬхсЗ Де7 9 ДЬ5+ сб 10 id3 с5 (10...2>d7 - Game No.43) 11 0-0 <2k6! (11...0-0 12 Wc2! - Game No.52) 12 ±b2 (4)
The most popular plan: first White comfortably deploys his pieces and only then does he begin action in the centre, retaining a choice between e3-e4 and c3-c4-
Earlier they played 12 e4 0-0 13 ДеЗ cxd4 14 cxd4 Sc8 15 We2 (15 Ba2?! Af6, Kasparov-Karolyi, Dortmund 1980) 15...$l>a5 16 Sfel (16 Sfdl Дс31), and here it is not easy for White to achieve any real gains even after 1б...ФЬ8 (Kasparov-Groszpeter, Graz 1981) or 16...Wd6 (Kasparov-Najdorf, Bugo-jno 1982), but the most convincing is 16...fic3! (cf. Revolution in the 70s p.285).
12...Sc8 (11)
Opening trickery: Black first develops his rook, again avoiding the variation 12...0-0 13 Wc2.
subjected to a thorough analysis. In my youth I was convinced that White had a clear advantage here, but subsequent practice did not confirm this.
14...Wc7
Incautiously repeating the recent game Polugayevsky-Portisch (Plovdiv 1983), where after 15 e4?! £>a5 16 h3 the players agreed a draw, leaving an interesting possibility off-stage.
14...cxd4! is correct: 15 cxd41 (15 exd4 is weaker in view of 15...Мб! 16 c4 £)a5 17 4?be5 Дхе5! 18 dxe5 Wc7, Kasparov-Tukmakov, Kislovodsk 1982) 15...M6 16 e41? (this problematic position can also arise in the variation with 7 Wc2) 16...£)a5 (16...g6?! 17 h4l, Portisch-Christiansen, London 1982), and here White has played both the solid 17 Sfel, and the pawn sacrifice 17 h4!?, with interesting play and some initiative.
13 We2 (6)
The immediate 13 e4 is effective only in the event of 13...0-0?! 14 d51 or 13....Мб?! 14 d5! exd5 15 exd5 Wxd5 16 Sel+ with a strong initiative (Kasparov-lvkov, Bugojno 1982), but after 13-.cxd4 14 cxd4 Мб! Black is alright (15 We2 ixd4!).
13...0-0 14 Sadi (3)
One of the tabiyas of the Queen’s Indian Defence with 4 a3, which at that time was
15 £4! (5)
Here is my novelty! The position has taken on new colours: d4-d5 is threatened, and the powerful white bishops begin raking the opponent’s practically undefended kingside. Here Portisch stopped to think. It is strange that he did not anticipate this: after all, I had already tried to do something similar in my game with Tuk-
makov, but, alas, unsuccessfully (cf. the previous note).
15...cxd4? (12)
This seemingly natural exchange - an attempt to fight against White’s ‘hanging’ pawn centre - is already virtually the decisive mistake! 15..Jlf6? was also unsuitable: 16 d5! ®e5 (16...ЛхЬ2? 17 dxc6) 17 £>xe5 Лхе5 18 ЛхЬ7+! etc.
In The Test of Time I recommended 15...£>a5!, but I assumed that after 16 ds! all the same White had promising play, having in mind the line given earlier in Informator: 16...exd5	17 cxds c4!
(17...JLxd5? is worse in view of 18 Лх1п7+ ФхЬ7 19 Sxd5) 18 JLf5 Scd8(?l) 19 e4 with advantage, but here Black has better saving chances than with the game continuation. However, a key defensive idea went unnoticed - 18...C3! 19 Лхс8 (19 Дс1?! Wc4!) 19...Wxc8 20 Ла1 (20 d6 Af6! is completely unclear) 20...Лаб (immediately regaining the exchange) 21 Wc2 ±xfl 22 Sxfl ЛхаЗ with double-edged, roughly equal play.
Now, however, it will be very difficult for Black to curb the rampant bishop on b2. 16 exd4 ^a5 (3)
17d5l(3)
The white pieces are ready to attack, and after the breakthrough in the centre Black’s
plan suffers a fiasco.
17...exd5?l (18)
This loses practically by force. 17...Wfq 18 £>e5! was also dangerous, but there was the more resilient 17...^xc4 18 #e4! g6 19 Лхс4 Wxc4 20 We5 f6 21 Wxe6+ Sf7 22 Scl Wa6 23 d6!, and here not my earlier suggestion 23...Sxcl? (23..^d8? 24	5!) 24 Sxcl
Лd8 25 ^g5! fxg5 26 1с7! Лхс7 27 We5 with unavoidable mate, but 23...bs! 24 Efdl Лf8, after which real winning chances are retained only by the unexpected supporting of the passed d6-pawn - 25 Ле5! (Stohl).
18 cxd5 ixd5
After 18...g6 19 Sfel the weakness of the al-h8 diagonal causes Black’s downfall.
19 ЛхИ7+!
Disregarding a ‘tedious’ way to win - 19 <£id4 g6 20 £)f5! Sfe8 21 Ле5! Лf8 (21...Ш8? 22 Ле4) 22 Лхс7 Sxe2 23 Лхе2 Леб 24 ^d4 Дхс7 25 <йхеб fxe6 26 Лд4 4>f7 27 Sfel ЛхаЗ 28 Лхе6+ &f6 29 Hd7 with a technically won endgame.
19...^xh7 20 lxd5 Sg8 (4)
The only way of prolonging the resistance. 20...Wc2? was completely bad: 21 We5 Лf6 (21...f6 22 Wxe7 Wxb2 23 ld7, mating) 22 Wh5+ Фд8 23 Лxf6 gxf6 24 Sf5 and wins.
At this point I thought for a long time. White’s pieces are ideally placed, but nothing concrete is immediately apparent. One senses that he should play actively, but how? Knight moves suggest themselves, but at g5 the knight is not doing anything -21 ^>g5? Wc4! (but not Stohl’s move 21...Дхд5(?) because of 22 Дхд7!) 22 Wh5 Wc2 23 h4 Деб 24 flci 'В’дб, while after 21 4be5? the fine-looking bishop on b2 remains out of play (21...Wc21). But what if it is given up? Yes, yes, sacrifice it, so that the knight on e5 should not worry that it is blocking the bishop’s path! A unique situation: I suddenly realised that the bishop on b2 was of equal value to the g7-pawn, and its sacrifice would carry out the set strategic objective without loss of time.
worse for Black) 22 Д1г5 Wd7 23 ®e4 ^c4 24 =lf6!! gxf6 25 flh3! Wf5 26 Sf3! Wg6 27 ДдЗ and wins, or 21...Hcd8 (the most resilient) 22 fih5! Wd6 (after 22...Wd7? 23 ^f3 ^c6 24 Wc2 f5 25 £№! i.xh4 26 Wc4+ Black succumbs to the attack) 23 Wg4 Wg6 24 Wh3 f5 25 ®f3! ®c6 26 Де1 Wg4 27 Sh7 JLf6 28 ±xf6 Wxh3 29 Sxg7+ ФЬ8 30 ДдЗ+ flxf6 31 flxh3+ Фд7 32 £>g5 with an extra pawn in the ending and excellent winning chances;
b) 21 fih5! Wc2 (if 21...flfe8?, then 22 Лхд7! Фхд7 23 ®e5 is now immediately conclusive) 22 Wxe7 Wxb2 23 ^e5! - a computer move, sharply improving the earlier ‘thorough’ analysis. Black has a difficult choice:
Analysis diagram
21Axg7!? (27)
Previously this move - sacrificing the second bishop! - was invariably accompanied by two exclamation marks. White’s entire combinative attack was considered exemplary, and I was very proud of it. But when modern computers joined the chess analysis, it turned out that White had two other worthy candidate moves:
a) 21 ^d2!? (the start of a melancholic dance by the knight) 21...Wb7 (21...Wc2? 22 Дхд7! or 21...Wc6 22 Дха5 and Wxe7 is
bl) 23...Wd4 24 g3l (after the showy 24 £)g6?! there is the stupendous counter 24...Wxf2+!! 25 <4>xf2 fxg6+! 26 ФдЗ gxh5 27 Sxf8+ Sxf8 28 Wxa7 Sf6 29 i>h4 flh6, when Black most probably has a fortress!) 24...Wd8 (24...Hce8 25 Wd7!) 25 Wb4 Дс7 26 Wg4! дб 27 £sxg6! fxg6 28 Wxg6+ Дд7 29 We6+ Sgf7 (29...Sff7 30 flci!) 30 Wg4+ Дд7 31 Wh3! with a winning attack;
b2) 23...flci 24 g4! (a far from obvious pawn advance) 24...Hxfl+ 25 'A’xfl Wbl+ 26
Фд2 We4+ 27 ФИз! (hiding from the checks) 27...Wbl 28 Hf5! (this removal of the rook from its aggressive position is also unlikely to occur to everyone) 28...Wb3+ (28...W1+ is hopeless in view of 29 ST14! Wg2 30 h31) 29 f3 We 6 30 Hxf7 Wxe7 31 Дхе7, and White has a won endgame.
But, it will be agreed, the human 21 Лхд71? is far more spectacular - and, as we will see, effective enough. The positional bishop sacrifice completely exposes the black king, and the remaining white pieces become furiously active.
21...<ixg7 22 ^>e5!
White has just one pawn for the piece and no direct threats, but he is excellently placed - largely thanks to the ‘bad’ knight on a5.
22...Sfd8 (16)
The only chance. Black would have lost quickly after both 22...f5? 23 3d7 Wc5 24 ®d3 and 22...Sh8? 23 Wg4+ *f8 24 Wf5 f6 25 lei! 4кб (25...Hh6 26 We6!) 26 4?bd7+
27 Hxe7+!, as well as 22...Wc2? 23 Wg4+ 'STV 24 ld3 or 22...1cd8? 23 £id7! Wc6 24 We5+ f6 (24...'S)h6 25 ld3!) 25 Wxe7+ lf7 26 1g5+! fxg5 27 Wxg5+ Wg6 28 Wxd8 Wf5 29 ^b8.
23 Wg4+ (14) 23-..Af8 24 Wf5l (6)
This visibly distressed Portisch: he had
reckoned only on 24 4^d7+(?) Hxd7 25 fixd7 Wc4! with unclear play.
24...f6 (36)
Again the only move. Black is forced to weaken his king’s defences still further, as otherwise disaster awaits him: 24.„JLd6? 25 Wf6! 4k4 (25...Фд8 26 £>d7!) 2б £>дб+ Фе8 27 lel+ *d7 28 Де7+ (28 lh51?) or 24...ДхаЗ? 25 4И7+ lxd7 26 lxd7 Wc4 27 Ifdl 4k6 (or 27...Be8) 28 Wf6! and wins.
25 4W+ (2)
Earlier I condemned 25 4}g6+(!?) Фд7 (of course, not 25...Фе8? 26 Wh5 or 26 lei) 26 2tf4! Sxd5 27 £ixd5 (27 Wg6+? <4T18 28 4k 6 is bad in view of 28...1g5!) 27...We5! (if 27...Wc5?, then 28 Wg4+! ®f7 29 <bxe7 Фхе7 30 Wg7+ 4^6 31 ldl+ is decisive) 28 4}xe7 Wxf5 29 £>xf5+ ФЬ8, thinking that White has 'nothing special’, but in fact it would also have given good winning chances: 30 g4! Ic4 31 h3 la4 32 lei! ДхаЗ (32...4k4 33 le6) 33 1е8+ ФЬ7 34 Де7+ Фд8 35 1д7+ ФЬ8 36 Дха7 lxh3 37 lf7 etc.
25...1xd7 (2) 26 lxd7
26...WC5?!
In the end Portisch was worn out by the difficult defence. 26...We5! was more resilient, although here too after 27 Wh3! White has a strong attack with equal material
(rook and pawn against bishop and knight): 27...f5 28 Wh6+ Фд8 29 Bd31 f4 (29...Sc3 leads to the loss of the f5-pawn) 30 Wg6+ &f8 31 Bg31! ±f6 32 Wg8+ Фе7 33 Wh7+ Феб 34 Bdl! Bd8 35 Bgd3 Sxd3 36 Wxd3, or 27...1C7 28 Hd3 f5 29 Wh6+ Wg7 30 Wh5! f4 (3O...Wf7 31 Wh8+ and We5) 31 lei ФЬ7 32 g3l, and Black is most probably unable to hold out.
27 Wh71 (19) 27...1C7 (4) 28 Wh8+! (2)
Avoiding the trap for which Portisch was hoping: 28 Hd3? Wxf2+!! 29 &xf2 (29 Sxf2? Bcl+) 29...1.C5+ 30 ФдЗ lxh7 31 Bxf6+ Фе7, when the endgame is now rather more pleasant for Black.
28...^f7 29 Bd3 Фс4 (9)
A belated return of the knight. 29...^c6 30 ВдЗ Феб 31 Wg8+ Фd7 32 Hdl+ £.d6 33 Hgd3 (Stohl) was even worse, while if 29...Af8 White would decide matters with 30 Wh7+ ±g7 31 h4 or 31 Sfdl.
30 Sfdl! (10)
An important move, connecting the rooks for combined actions.
3O...^e5
A final error, but Black would also not have saved the game by 3O...JLd6 31 Bf3! (rather more forceful than my earlier 31 Bd5 and Nunn’s move 31 Bh3) 31...Wg5 32 2h31 with crushing threats, or 3O...£kl6 31
ВдЗ Феб 32 Be3+ Фd7 33 Wg7 Фd8 34 Wg8+ Фd7 35 Веб Wcl (35-Wxa3 36 Bdxd6+!) 36 Heel Wc5 37 h4 and wins. 31'ЙЪ7+Феб
Avoiding the immediate mate (31..^f8 32 Hd8+), the black king sets off on its farewell journey.
32 Wg8+ &f5 (32..Ж7 33 Bel+)
33 g4+! Фf4 (or 33-£>xg4 34 Bf3+) 34 Bd4+ ФТЗ 35Wb3+l-O
In view of 35-.Wc3 36 Wd5+ Фе2 37 We4+. Times: 1.52-2.11.
This fairytale game became the highlight of the tournament; it appeared in chess publications around the world and later it was judged to be the best in Informator Volume 36.
Inspired by this win, in the 5th round I crushed Ljubojevic with Black and in the 6th round - Ivanovic (both resigned as early as the 26th move).
More difficult was my 7th round game with Bent Larsen, in which numerous interesting events occurred. After again playing the Tarrasch Defence and employing a novelty on the 12th move, I obtained good play and soon, after an unfortunate manoeuvre by a white knight, I gained an advantage (incidentally, in Niksic the
Tarrasch brought me ЗУ2 out of 4!). After a mistake by my opponent on the 22nd move I could have landed a decisive blow, but I took the wrong course and by clever defence Larsen equalised. Although subsequently he committed a couple of inaccuracies and I again obtained some winning chances, the adjourned position did not give any particular grounds for optimism. Nevertheless I decided to play on to the logical end.
Game 86
B.Larsen-G.Kasparov
Niksic, 7th round, 1.09.1983
The drawbacks of White’s position are obvious: the king cut off on the back rank and pawn weaknesses at e5 and g3. But Black is seriously short of fighting units to be able to exploit these factors effectively. 41 h5 (6)
With this sealed move, which suggests itself after five hours of intense play, Larsen provokes another exchange, but again makes things more difficult for himself. A draw, especially after home analysis, would have resulted from 41 еб! (41 ДЬб?! <йеЗ!) 41...fxe6 42 <5^d4 Дс1+ 43 'Л’дг e5 44 4^e6+
&f6 (44...ФЬб 45 Sa71) 45 ^g5+ &f5 - I condemned this continuation in both Informator and The Test of Time, thinking that ‘the activity of the black pieces is dangerous’. However, after 46 ДаЗ I with the threat of Ef3 mate White is alright: 46...ЙС2+ 47 S’gl ^>h2 (47...e4 48 Да5+) 48 £>xh7 <tg4 49 ^g5 with a draw.
41...ФН61? (16)
Without the help of his king Black cannot hope to achieve anything, but for Larsen this reply came as a surprise. Perhaps he was expecting 41...gxh5 42 ^d4! or 41...£ie3 42 hxg6 hxg6 43 еб! fxe6 44 ^>d4 Дд2+ 45 ФЬ1 e5 46 4bf3 e4 47 Дхдб+I with an easy draw.
42 hxg6 (2) 42...hxg6 43 Ba4 (12)
Again White would have been saved by 43 еб! fxe6 44 <£>d4 Hcl+ 45 Фд2 e5 46 £tf5+ фд5 47 5^h4l, when Black cannot win: 47-.Hc2+ 48 &f3 £if6 49 ФеЗ ДсЗ+ 50 Фе21 e4 (5O...Sxg3 51 <^f3+) 51 Sa5+ Фд4 (51...ФТ16 52 Даб) 52 £ixg6 ДхдЗ 53 Ве5 etc.
Instead of this, by luring the king to g5 (43-^e3 44 £>d8! with a draw), White prepares further simplification.
43...^g51 (15) 44	(2) 44...1c3
In the event of 44-Bcl+ 45 Фд2 <йхе5 46 <?l)f3+ ®xf3 47 i’xfs a drawn rook endgame is reached. Therefore Black tries to win the e5-pawn by more cunning means.
45 еб! (9)
After 45 Фд2?! 4bxe5 the presence of knights on the board would have allowed Black, without the slightest risk, to try and ‘starve’ the opponent into surrender (say, 46 Да5 ‘A’fe 47 Наб+ Фд7 48 Да5 f6 49 Sa2 g5 etc.). Defending such a position is highly unpleasant, and so Larsen decided to complicate the play by sacrificing his g3-pawn, hoping for a more certain draw with an advanced e-pawn against a pair of connected passed pawns.
45...Sxg3+ (3)
46 <4>hl?!
An inaccuracy, after which White is not yet losing, but he again makes it harder for himself to gain a draw. The natural 46 ‘A’fl! f5 47 e7 ДеЗ 48 Об would have solved all his problems: 48...Об 49 Да8 ФЬб (49..Леб 50 fif8! f4 51 &f2 with a draw) 50 4>f2 f4 51 Sa4 g5 52 la5 ®g4+ (52...g4 53 Sf5 with a draw) 53 S’fl Bel 54 Наб Об 55 0141, and Black is unable to strengthen his position. But the king in the corner of the board gives him an opportunity to launch a dangerous attack with his small army.
46...f5! (2) 47 e7 (8) 47...Se3 (2) 48 Об f41 (5)
Signalling the start of the attack - the
direct consequence of ФЬ1. The problems, which had arisen literally out of nothing, caused even such an experienced fighter as Larsen to become nervous. And time-trouble, imperceptibly stealing up, did nothing to assist the concentrated working of his mind...
49 la5+(10)
49 Ba8? was obviously bad: 49-Bel+ 50 Фд2 le2+! 51 ^f3 (or 51 'A’fl f3!, but not 51 &hl? f31 with a rapid mate) 5i...Se3+! 52 Фд2 f3+ 53 A’fl Де2 54 Sf8 (54 e8W? 012+ 55 'A’gl f2+) 54...ОЗ+ 55 Фд1 f2+ 56 fixf2 fiel+ 57 ФЬ2 <йд4+ 58 ФдЗ Of2 59 4>xf2 Деб and wins.
A study on the theme of interference was also extremely risky - 49 O5? Bxe5 50 Да51 Дха5 51 e8W, since after 51-Sf5 52 Wd8+ Об 53 Wd2 *h6! it is hard for the queen to restrain the onslaught of the black pawns.
But, apart from the move in the game, White had two other acceptable options:
a)	49 4^d41 - this paradoxical move, one which is hard to find, was suggested after the game by Timman. Although scattered over the entire board, the white pieces coordinate amazingly harmoniously: 49-.lxe7 (49...^h4 50 Фд21) 50 03+ A’fS 51 04+ ^f6 52 lxf4+ 4>g5 53 Одб, or 49...O6! 50 Даб! Дхе7 51 Об+! Дхеб (51...Фд4 52 Of4!) 52 Дхеб &f5 53 Даб, and the defence holds;
b)	49 Sa31 - a reliable defence, found by me while working on this book and also not without its elegance: 49...Деб 50 Да5+ ФЬ4 51 Да8 Об 52 Фд2 Дхеб 53 Sf8! (threatening lxf6) 53-.1С2+ 54 S>fl Scl+ 55 &f2l 04+ 56 <&>f3 Об 57 S’xf4 Hc5 58 <^>f3 He5 59 ld8 and lxd6 with a draw.
49...ФИ4 50 Да8! (4)
Already the only move: White does not succeed either with interference - 50 йе5?
ФдЗ! от 50 He5? Hh3+! 51 Фд1 f3, or diversion - 50 Sa3? Sxa3 51 e8W Se3! 52 Wd8+ ФЪз! 53 Wd2 f31 and wins. His idea has become clear: by depriving the f4-pawn of support, he has neutralised 5O...Sel+(?!) 51 Фд2 Же2+(?!) in view of 52 ФfЗ• On the other hand, now the black king becomes active.
5O...^f6!
With the threat of ...ФдЗ, when its white colleague is in a mating net.
51Ф§2?? (5)
A fatal error! 51 ФЬ2! was essential, for example: 51...Пе2+ 52 Фд1 ФдЗ 53 ФИ f3 54 ®d4! Ih2 (54...Hxe7 55 ДаЗ! with a draw) 55 ^xf3 ФxfЗ 56 Sa3+ ФТ4 57 Даб £ie8 58 Дхдб with a draw, or 51...f3! 52 e8W! £ixe8 53 Да4+ Ф115 54 ФдЗ g5 55 £>d4, regaining one of the pawns and achieving a draw (although Black could still have tormented his opponent a little).
51...f3+ 52 ФН (2) 52...Ag3 53 £>d4 (2)
A desperate and, alas, belated attempt to save the king at the cost of the e7-pawn (53-.Sxe7? 54 ДаЗ!). Mate would have been inevitable after 53 Hf8 <йд4 54 e8W £)h2+ 55 Фд1 Дхе8 etc.
53—^4 (5) 54 ®xf3 (otherwise the pawn cannot be stopped: 54 e8W ®h2+ 55 Фд1 f2+) 54-..Sxf3+ 55 Ф§1 £ih2! (avoiding the
last trap: 55-.^f2? 56 2h8! ДаЗ 57 ФН! with a draw) 56 If8 Be 3 0-1
In view of 57 Hfl ДеЗ(с8) with a rapid mate.
My three wins in the endgame - against Seirawan, Petrosian and Larsen - probably made no less an impression than my usual combinative attacks: the chess world saw a 'new' Kasparov, ready to accumulate small advantages little by little.
In the 8th round, with 6У2 points out of 7, I met Boris Spassky, to whom I had lost in Tilburg. And, of course, I was burning with the desire to exact revenge and continue my winning streak. The commentary to this game, published in Volume III of My Great Predecessors, has had to be substantially refined and revised.
Came 87
G.Kasparov-B. Spassky
Niksic, 8th round, 3.09.1983 King’s Indian Defence E84
1 d4 2 C4 g6 3 ^C3 ig7
Again a King's Indian - this is a challenge! Well, such a turn of events suited me and I decided to choose the Samisch Variation, which around that time I had examined at training sessions with Timoshchenko (true, from the black side).
4 e4 (7) 4...d6 5 f3 (4) 5...£>c6 (5-.0-0 - Game Nos. 51, 81) 6 ±e3 (9)
The harmless 6 d5?! ‘Йе 5 7 f4 £>ed7 8 £)f3 0-0 9 Ad3 c6 leads to equality (Yusupov-Spassky, Linares 1983).
6...a6 (3) 7 ®ge2 (7 Wd2 Hb8 8 Sbl - Game Л/0.15) 7...fib8 8 Wd2 (8 Йс1 - Game No.12; 8h4!?) 8...0-0 (10)
8...b5 is more lively, although 9 cxb5 axb5 10 d5 Йе5 11 ‘$Jd4 b4 12 йсЬ5 prom
ises White somewhat the better chances.
9h4(3)
Attack! The following line, which was fashionable at that time, is too insipid: 9 ^cl e5 10 d5 £>d4, and here after 11 <2^b3 there is the good reply ll...^xb3 12 axb3 c5, while if 11 <??)1е2 - 11...C5 12 dxc6 £>xc6. 9...b5 (11)
After 9...h5 Spassky himself successfully played both 10 0-0-0 against Keene (Dortmund 1973), and 10 ДЬб against Fischer (8th match game, Sveti-Stefan/Belgrade 1992).
10 h5 (2) 10...bxc4?! (13)
Objectively a second-rate move, but Spassky deliberately avoided the best move 10...e5 (not 10...^xh5? 11 g4 ^f6 12 ДЬб with an attack) 11 d5 ^>a5: in the well-known game Timman-Kasparov (Bugojno 1982) after 12 ^g3 bxc4 13 0-0-0 ^d7?I 14 hxg6 fxg6 15 ^bl! White gained an advantage. 13...Sb4 is obviously stronger, although against Loginov (Manila Olympiad 1992) I was able to demonstrate the plus points of White’s position: 14 ДЬб ДхЬб 15 Wxh6 We7 (15...4’h81?) 16 Де2 Ad7 17 £)fl Sfb8 18 Sd2 c5 19 Adi <$he8 20 hxg6 fxg6 21 g4 etc.
11 g4! (35)
The most energetic and useful move. The
knight at e2, in expectation of ...e7-e5, guards the d4-square for the moment. But now 12 hxg6 fxg6 13 ^f4 and Wh21 is threatened. The immediate 11 hxg6 fxg6 12 ®f4 is not so dangerous after 12...e6 13 Дхс4 d5 14 Ab3 ПхЬз! 15 axb3 dxe4 16 0-0-0 exf3 17 gxf3 £te7! 18 £id3 £>f5 19 <йе5 Ab7 20 Дд5 We8 with good counterplay (Weih-Spassky, Germany 1983).
Here the ex-world champion sank into thought...
ll...Axg4l? (40)
Having seen that in the event of 11..,e5 12 d5 followed by ^g3 and 0-0-0 Black is deprived of any counterplay (the g-pawn has advanced to g4!), Spassky realised that he had to do something, since otherwise he might be suffocated and quickly mated. And he took a decision which, from a purely chess standpoint is perhaps dubious (it is clear that the piece sacrifice is not fully correct), but from the practical, psychological standpoint it is the best, since it sharply changes the character of the play. White will no longer have a direct attack, and he has to readjust to the conversion of a material advantage, while Black acquires some counterplay.
12 fxg4 ®xg4 13 0-0-0! (29)
I think that Spassky underestimated this
reply and was reckoning on 13 hxg6? £ixe3! 14 Wxe3 fixb2! 15 gxf7+ fixf7 16 Wh3 h6 17 0-0-0 Wb8! with a dangerous counterattack. White does not allow the rook to go to b2, and Black’s difficulties increase.
13...^xe3 (13)
13...e5 is also insufficient, when the correct reply is not 14 d5 ‘?Jd4 15 ^gl £ixe3 16 Wxe3 c51 17 A.XC4 (17 dxc6? Wb6) 17-fib4 18 b3 Wa5 and Black is still alive, but only 14 hxg6! fxg6 15 JLh3 ®xe3 16 Ae6+! ФТ18 17 Wxe3 if6 18 Wh3 h5 19 d5 with an obvious advantage.
14 Wxe3
14...e6?l
A characteristic moment! After 14...e5! 15 d5 (15 hxg6 fxg6) 15...£id4 16 ?ixd4! exd4 17 Sxd4 Axd4 18 ®xd4 Black’s position is not easy, but he has some counterchances. Spassky, however, chose a move which, though perhaps objectively indifferent, did not fix the pawn structure and did not allow me a clear line of play: as if to say, go on, attack, and let’s see what happens...
15 hxg6 (8) 15...hxg6
The imprudent 15...fxg6? would have lost to 16 Wh3! Wg5+ (16...Wf6 17 Wxh7+ ^7 18 ±g2! fih8 19 fidfl) 17 ФЬ1 fixb2+?! (17...fif6 18 Лд2 is also insufficient) 18 ФхЬ2 ЖЬ8+ 19 Фа1 ®b4 20 Wxe6+ ФЬ8 21
a4! £>c2+ 22 Фа2 ®b4+ 23 ФЬ2(Ь1) etc. After taking with the h-pawn, Black is hoping that his g7-bishop will defend him against mate - as in the ‘Dragon’!
16 fid2 (the immediate 16 £bgl! and £)f3 was more accurate) 16...Se8? (3)
By allowing the switching of the knight from e2 to f3, Black comes under an irresistible attack. However, my recommendation 16...W6 also did not promise an easy life in view of 17 ^f4!, when 17...^xd4? 18 fif2! with the threats of ^)h5 and Wh3 is bad for Black.
17 £igl! (5) 17...d5 (after 17...e5?! 18 d5 the bishop on g7 is inactive) 18	3 (4)
It is evident that White has succeeded in unravelling his pieces and that Black has lost any initiative. The threat of Sdh2 is imminent: White has sufficient force to mate the enemy king.
18...Э5 (2)
Played because everything else is hopeless. But from this point incredible things begin to happen.
19 e5 (16)
I also calculated 19 fidh2! dxe4 20 ^>xe4 <^xd4 21 Sh8+! A.xh8 22 fixh8+ <ixh8 23 Wh6+ Фд8 24 4ffg5, mating, as well as 19...e5 20 ?}xd5 exd4, but here I saw that nothing was given by 21 Sh8+ and I failed
to find the decisive move 21 Wf41. Becoming agitated, and thinking that I could win as I pleased, I did not even bother to calculate this line to the end and I chose 19 e5. And it was only later, in a conversation during a communal evening walk, that it suddenly dawned on me: hang on, after 19„.e5 there is the decisive 20 Hh7l exd4 21 Sxg7+! Фхд7 22 Wh6+ &f6 23 ^xd5+ Феб 24 £>g5+ <i’d7 25 ^xf7 etc.
I became terribly upset - I remember Milunka Lazarevic saying to me: ‘You’re just like Fischer: after a game he also used to get in a right state!’ But how couldn’t I be upset? Fancy missing such a simple win! It was staggering that I did not calculate this variation at the board... The Tilburg story repeated itself and the diagnosis became obvious: giving vent to my emotions, I lost my accuracy.
19...£te71 (7)
It transpires that Black has some counterplay: ...c7-c5 and ...£if5.
20 Ah3 (2)
Again 20 Hdh2! (threatening 21 Sh8+!) 20...£>f5 21 Wf2 was very strong, with an overwhelming advantage - say, 21...c5 22 dxc5 Wc7 23 Ah3 ^h6 24 Axe6!.
2O...C51 21 dxc5 Wc7 (the situation has become sharper: White’s centre has been
demolished and it is more difficult for him to attack) 22 Wf4? (3)
I should have gone one square further -22 Wg5! with the murderous threat of Ахеб!, for example: 22...Wxc5 23 Ахеб! fxe6 24 Wh4 and ®g5, or 22...®c6 23 Ахеб! fxe6 24 Wxg6 £ixe5 25 Wh7+ ФТ8 26 Ifl, and Black’s position is in ruins.
22...£k6! (2)
Now this is a strong move: the 'bridgehead' pawn at e5 is under attack! Black would have lost ignominiously after 22...Wxc5? 23 Wxf7+! ^>xf7 24 £ig5+ ^f8 (24...Фд8 25 Ахеб+ ФТ8 26 £ih7 mate) 25 <2ixe6+ Фд8 26 4}xc5.
23fiel?l (2)
Losing the remnants of White’s advantage. 23 Ахеб! ^xe5 24 £>xd5 ^d3+ 25 Hxd3 Wxf4+ 26 ®xf4 cxd3 27 Ad5! would still have left him with the better chances in a sharp multi-piece ending.
23...d41 (5) 24Hxd4 (4)
If 24 £ixd4 I did not like 24...^xe5, although after 25 idl! Wxc5 26 <?Je4 an unclear battle could have ensued.
24...^xd4 25 ^xd4l (2)
This is still correct: 25 Wxd4? Wb7 (25...Hed8!?) 26 Wf2 Ah6+ 27 ФЬ1 Hed8! 28 c6! (28 £>a4? is bad in view of 28...Wb4 29 <ЙЬ6 c3 30 b3 Ad2) 28...Wxc6 is advanta-
geous to Black.
25...Wxc5 26 £if3?! (26 Дд2! was better) 26...Sed8?!
Missing a cbance to seize the initiative by 26...Wb6! 27 He2 Sed8 28 £>g5 (28 Дд4?! Sd3!) 28...Wgl+ 29 ДТ1 lb7 etc.
27^g5'We7 (3)
The start of a wild time scramble. After 27...Sd7 White would have been unable to win even after the best move 28 Дхеб! fxe6 29 Wh2 JLh8 30 Hi6 - it is a draw both in the event of 3O...Wf2 31 Wxg6+ £>f8 32 ^хеб+ Фе7 33 Де2 W1+ 34 Фс2 Wf7(al), and after 3O...Wc6 31 Wxg6+ Sg7 32 ®h6 Sgb7 (33 Sgl? Wb6!) or 3O...Wb6 31 £>a4 Wc6 32 ®c5 Wb6!.
28Wh4Sd3
29 Wh7+
Rather more practical winning chances were offered by 29 £ke4!? with the idea of 29...C3? 30 Sfl! cxb2+ (3O...Wb4 31 Wh7+, mating) 31 ФЬ1 Sb6 32 Wh7+ &f8 33 £lxf71 or 29...Дхе5! 30 Wh7+ &f8 31 Sfl ДхЬ2+? 32 Фс2 f5 33 Wxg6, and Black has no defence. Instead of 31...ДхЬ2+ it would not be easy for him to find 31...ДсЗ+И 32 ЬхсЗ Wa3+ 33 i’dl Sd8+ 34 £>d2 Sxd2+ 35 4>xd2 Wxc3+ with perpetual check.
29...&f8 30 £}xe6+?l (3)
Again I missed my way! Here too 30
4ke4! would still have retained a good game: 3O...Sxh3?! (3O...Sxb2? 31 ^хе6+! etc.) 31 Wxh3 Дхе5 32 Sfl! ДхЬ2+ 33 Фс2 f5 34 Sbl! (34 £>c5 £f6!) 34-fxe4 35 Wi6+ Фе8 36 Wxg6+ ®d7 37 Sdl+ Фс8 38 ®хеб Sb6 39 Wg8+ ФЬ7 40 Sd7+! Wxd7 41 £>c5+ Фс7 42 <£>xd7 <4>xd7 43 Wd5+ Фс7 44 Wxa5 with winning chances, or 30...Дхе5! 31 Sfl Sc3+!! with the same draw as in the previous note.
In any event, it would have been easier playing White: Black would have had to find the only moves to save himself. But I wanted to do everything with checks...
3O...fxe6 31 Sfl+ Фе8 32 Wg8+ JLf8
33 Wxg6+?
The most annoying thing is that even here White could still have saved himself with the fantastic study-like move 33 <5id5!!. For example: 33...id7!? (33...exd5 34 Sxf8+! Wxf8 35 We6+ We7 36 Wg8+ with perpetual check) 34 ^xe7 ДЬб+ 35 Фс2 Sxg8 36 £bxg8 Sxh3 37 fidl+! Фс7 (37...Фе8 38 4if6+) 38 ^xh6 Sxh6 39 Sd4 with a draw (I discovered this only later).
33-..^d8! 0-1
White lost on time. After 34 Дхеб Wb4! 35 £>dl Wd2+ 36 ФЬ1 Sf3! he would have lost, although not immediately. Times: 2.30-2.29-
My only defeat in the tournament - and a highly annoying one! Spassky again displayed remarkable resourcefulness, and although he was inaccurate in some details, on the whole he proved more cunning (it was some time before I was able to equalise the score in our individual games, which I did only by defeating Spassky in Barcelona 1989 and Linares 1990).
In my anger the next day I defeated Nikolic with Black (cf. Came No.55, note to White’s 45th move). Then I made draws with Tai, Miles and Andersson, and before the end I also defeated Timman and Gli-goric - and I finished two points ahead of the 2nd placed Larsen! Nikitin: 'Here too Karpov’s protectors did their favourite a disservice: after this tournament the ratings of the two Ks finally became equal.’
But in Niksic for the first time I also had to display my organisational skills. To save the matches took some doing: I organised a letter from the grandmasters to FIDE and opened negotiations with Korchnoi. The players in the tournament responded favourably to my request to sign a letter demanding that the semi-final matches be held: the desire to see them was universal (the text of the letter is given in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1975-1985). This was quite possibly the first petition in chess history to be signed by nearly all the world’s leading grandmasters. Some of them (Timman, Seirawan and Miles) expressed surprise: 'Why didn't you go to Pasadena? How could you risk your entire chess career just because they chose the wrong town...’
It remained to come to an understanding with Korchnoi, who could have used his formal right to go through to the final. But ‘Viktor the Terrible’ took the noble decision to replay the semi-final match, thereby showing that his criticism of the ‘champi
onship on paper’ was not just empty words. Closer to the end of the tournament he travelled specially to Niksic. Negotiations about the match, sanctioned by Moscow, were initially carried out through intermediaries and proved very difficult. But the stumbling-block was removed when it was promised that Korchnoi’s chief and lawful demand would be met - the termination of the boycott by Soviet players, begun in 1976.
Our personal relations were helped by the grandmaster blitz tournament in Herzeg Novi, organised on 14th September, immediately after the main tournament in Niksic. I won this event by a solid margin (13У2 out of 16!), twice defeating Korchnoi, who finished 2nd (10У2). Possibly he was impressed by the fact that I was willing to play with him in the same tournament, even though the negotiations were still in progress. For him this blitz tournament was the first breakthrough of the seven-year blockade! We were able to have several frank talks about the coming match, which we were both impatiently awaiting.
Thus the ‘miracle’ had occurred. It was due to be completed by the FIDE Congress in the autumn. A key role at that time was played by the English grandmaster Raymond Keene, who in FIDE held the post of Secretary of the Players’ Union. After flying to Moscow for discussions, he was surprised when he was met at the airport by Krogius himself, the head of the Chess Section (a rare honour!), and when they all began vying with one another to tell him how they were helping Kasparov (this was something new!). He stated that he could quickly arrange both matches in London, but on condition that the Soviet side publicly acknowledged that, in choosing Pasadena, Campo had not exceeded his author
ity as FIDE President, and that they pay the required compensation. The total penalty demanded was $160,000 - far more than the prizes in the wrecked matches!
The tournament in Niksic showed that my play had become deeper and more diverse. I sensed my growing strength and realised that this was the direct result of my serious preparation for the Candidates matches. And with even greater enthusiasm our team continued its analytical work.
Match with Korchnoi
Semi-final Candidates match Kasparov-Korchnoi (London, 20th November - 17th December 1983): 7-4-
A couple of weeks after Niksic, at the very end of September, I was invited to Barcelona to be presented with the chess ‘Oscar’ for the previous year, 1982 (in the preceding nine years this prestigious prize had been won eight times by Karpov and once, in 1978, by Korchnoi). I received 1021 votes, and Karpov 943. A remarkable feature of the trip was that for the first time my mother was able to travel with me. It was rare for a Soviet chess player to be allowed to take a close relative abroad with him, and in my case this was especially important, since there were persistent rumours that I was going to defect to the West. It is possible that, deep down, my opponents wanted this - so that I too could be branded a traitor, like Korchnoi, and then every effort would be made to help Karpov... When we returned, my mother gave a detailed account of this memorable trip in an article entitled ‘The cloudless Spanish sky’, published in the Baku chess newspaper.
A further week later, at the FIDE Congress in Manila, a confessional letter from the
Soviet Federation was read out, and Cam-pomanes stated with satisfaction that he was ready to organise the semi-final Candidates matches anew. The text of the resolution adopted on Keene’s proposal read: 'The General Assembly unanimously extols the sportsmanship of Grandmaster Korchnoi and Grandmaster Ribli in agreeing to play their semi-final matches, and urges that all boycotts, especially that of Mr Korchnoi, should be lifted forthwith.’ This was the biggest concession of the USSR Chess Federation in the entire history of its relations with FIDE.
Now the two Candidates matches, Korchnoi-Kasparov and Smyslov-Ribli, which initially had been scattered to different corners of the world, were due to come together on 20th November 1983 in the Great Eastern Hotel in London.
I concluded my last pre-match training session at the start of November. Although nearly all the press and the experts were predicting victory for me, I realised that, despite the enormous age difference (32 years), Viktor Korchnoi was a very dangerous opponent, with a mastery of numerous chess techniques. It was assumed that he would avoid complications (perhaps, also remembering our game at the Olympiad in Lucerne) and place the main emphasis on the concluding stage of the game, where he would endeavour to do everything to exploit his enormous experience and my impulsiveness. I knew that I must not allow him to dictate the play in simple and technical positions, and so earlier, at the summer training session before the ‘match’ in Pasadena, together with my trainers I did a great amount of work not only on the opening, but also the endgame, paying particular attention to a study of practical endings. In the match this was repaid with interest!
I was accompanied on the flight to England by my mother, the leader of our delegation Azer Zeynally, his deputy ‘on security matters’ Viktor Litvinov (from then on he would accompany me on trips abroad right up to 1987), my doctor Khalid Gasanov and my trainers - Nikitin, Timoshchenko and Vladimirov. Unfortunately, we were able to arrive in London only on 18th November, and the two days, which were also filled with organisational problems, were insufficient for normal acclimatisation.
The atmosphere at my match with the ‘defector’ proved much calmer than had been expected. My relations with Korchnoi were normal. Even so, I was not quite at ease, as I had not yet recovered from the stormy pre-match tensions which for six months had kept me in suspense, and when I sat down at the chess board it was difficult to appreciate the reality of what was happening. The result of the 1st game was partly predetermined by the fact that I was psychologically unprepared for an uncompromising battle.
Playing White, without hesitation I employed my favourite variation in the Queen’s Indian Defence - 1 d4 2 c4 еб 3 £f3 b6 4 ^сЗ ±b7 5 аз d5 6 cxd5 <£>xd5 7 e3, but here I encountered a surprise -7...g6! (instead of the usual 7...Де7 or 7...£>xc3 - Came Nos. 43, 52, 85). This move was already known (it had been played by Short and Adorjan), but I had not studied it seriously. And I gave insufficient attention to the five-minute game Tai-Korchnoi (Herzeg Novi 1983), which went 7-.-®xc3 8 bxc3 g6. Something similar had also been tried against me by Sosonko in the variation with 7 Wc2 (cf. Game No.73, note to Black’s 9th move). But my trainers and I had missed the idea of ...g7-g6.
Black’s reply abruptly changed the pat
tern of the position: it led to a kind of Grunfeld Defence, which was part of Korchnoi’s armoury long before I was born. Now it is hard for White to build up a combined attack in the centre and on the kingside (which is precisely with what I had been very successful!), and he has to seek other paths. My highly experienced opponent keenly sensed that I would become nervous - especially in the first game of the match - and that I would lose my aim. More than that: the effect of the surprise proved stunning! I lost this game ignominiously, and it has remained for ever my only defeat against Korchnoi (Game N0.38 in Volume V of My Great Predecessors).
Before the match Viktor Lvovich gave the following description of me: 'Kasparov is a player with a single knock-out blow. But if you can successfully parry his fierce assault and be the first to land a blow, Kasparov may lose confidence and begin to falter.' After the first game it could have seemed that he was right. My play in it was depressing. I also remembered a grim statistic - in all of the 12 Candidates matches that Korchnoi had won (and altogether, incidentally, at that point he had played 15, as well as two matches for the world championship), once he gained the lead he never relinquished it. However, as Vladimirov philosophically remarked, “there is always a first time for everything...’
In the 2nd game Korchnoi met my Tar-rasch Defence with quite a dangerous novelty, but I managed to neutralise it (cf. Game N0.91, note to Black's 12th move), and on the 31st move I accepted my opponent’s offer of a draw. The 3rd game was again a Queen’s Indian with a2-a3, where I chose the rare move 7 Wa4+, but the originally-played opening did not bring White any dividends and a draw was agreed as
early as the 18th move.
In the 4th game after 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 £tf3 I gave the Tarrasch a rest by playing 3...£)f6, and for the first time in my career I defended the main variation of the Catalan Opening - 4 g3 Ae7 5 £g2 0-0 6 0-0 dxc4 7 Wc2 аб etc. Of course, in this new position I had much to fear, but after Korchnoi wrongly offered the exchange of queens on the 21st move I conducted the ending confidently. The game was adjourned, but before the resumption I accepted the opponent’s draw offer.
We were already one third of the way through the match. Korchnoi was leading 2У2-1У2 and still held the initiative. To change the character of the battle, radical measures were required. I needed to properly compose myself, become fully accustomed to the working rhythm and endeavour to think carefully about my subsequent steps. In view of the seriousness of the position, we decided to use the only allotted time-out.
Alas, searches during the match for improvements for White in the Queen’s Indian with a2-a3 proved unsuccessful, and from the 5th game after 1 d4 ^f6 2 c4 еб I had to switch to an ‘emergency airport’ - 3 g3 d5 4 Ag2 (cf. Game No.89, note to Black’s 5th move). However, there was no great fight, and on the 22nd move the players agreed a draw. Incidentally, since the Catalan Opening was also employed by Korchnoi, it unexpectedly became the main opening of the match, and decided its outcome (with Black I gained two draws, and with White I scored 2У2 out of 3).
The score became 3-2 in Korchnoi’s favour. At first sight, things were going badly for me. 'The time-out did not help Kasparov', spitefully commented one of the English newspapers. Naturally, another feeble
failure to exploit the white pieces influenced the opinions of chess commentators regarding the outcome of the match. For the first time the Western press began predicting a win for Korchnoi. Thus in the New York Times the English grandmaster Michael Stean gave a detailed verbal description of the first five games, from which it followed that, having managed to impose his play, Korchnoi’s advantage would be irreversible.
However, it is a thankless task making forecasts in such matches. After all, Korchnoi had not managed to build on his success, and a lead of one point does not give any guarantees when there are still seven games to go. Also, the opening of the 5th game had forced my opponent to realise that in the 7th, 9th and 11th games things would not be easy for him - of course, on condition that the standard of my play improved, but at some point this was bound to happen! It was not surprising that Korchnoi was in a hurry to land a second blow, aimed at breaking my resistance.
The morning of 4th December, the day of the 6th game, began for me with an unexpected telephone call: 'Moscow on the line...’ The subsequent conversation with Botvinnik was the starting-point of the changes which occurred in the match. Mikhail Moiseevich literally flabbergasted me with the question: 'Doyou remember what event occurred 50 years ago?’ Half-awake, it was not easy to get my bearings, but I extricated myself: ‘In 1933 you played a match with Flohr.’ ‘And how did the battle go?’ a new question promptly followed. I had to strain myself. 'I think that you lost the 1st and 6th games, but then gained revenge in the 9th and 10th’, I replied. 'Well, see now what a favourable position you are in: you haven't yet lost the 6th game!’, Botvinnik unexpect
edly concluded. After a slight pause he added: 'But in general, everything is alright. A little more composure, and you should win the match.' I was filled with positive emotions: at this difficult moment it was pleasant to learn that my chess mentor had no doubts about a successful conclusion to the match.
But neither my most ardent fans, nor Korchnoi’s most pessimistic supporters, could have predicted the course of the subsequent events: the degree of misfortune that struck my opponent in the second half of the match was just too great. However, initially the 6th game developed favourably for Korchnoi.
Game 88
V.Korchnoi-G.Kasparov
Semi-Final Candidates Match, 6th game, London, 4/5.12.1983
Queen’s Gambit D30
1 d4 d5 2 c4 еб 3 £tf3 c5
During the time-out we neutralised the opponent’s novelty that he employed in the 2nd game, and I was ready to continue the duel in the ‘Tarrasch’.
4 cxd5 exd5 5 g3 ‘$Jc6
Later, in order to avoid the variation which occurred in the game, I played only 5...®f6 6 Дд2 Де7 7 0-0 0-0, intending 8 £k3 ^c6, or 8 ДеЗ Ъ61? and ...ДЬ7, transposing into a solid Queen’s Indian set-up, where ДеЗ is not considered dangerous for Black.
б Д§2 £bf6 7 0-0 Де7 8 Дез!?
Avoiding the usual 8 ®c3 0-0 9 dxc5 Дхс5 10 Дд5 (Game N0.63) or 9 Дд5 (Game Nos. 79, 91), Korchnoi surprises me with а rare move of Taimanov’s.
8...C4
I made this reply without any particular thought, since I had studied the similar variation 8 йсЗ 0-0 9 ДеЗ c4 10 ^se5 h6! (which later I successfully played against Larsen and Hort) and I did not see that it made any great difference where White's queen’s knight was - at c3 or bl).
9 ®e5 0-0 10 b31 (the idea of delaying the development of the knight on bl becomes clear: the open c-file gives White additional resources) 10...cxb3 11 Wxb3
And here is a novelty! Black has far fewer problems after 11 axb3 £>b4 (Hartston-Bennett, London 1978). The resulting unexplored position naturally put me on my guard.
ll...	Wb6?!
The exchange of queens gives White a slightly better ending. Two other continuations, which occurred later, are more interesting:
a)	ll...^a5 12 Wa4 аб (12,..Деб!?), and here I was afraid of 13 Дd2!, but after 13„.£ic4! 14 ЙХС4 b5 Black has an acceptable position (15 Wa5 bxc4 16 Wxd8 Hxd8 17 Да5 Hd7 18 £>c3 Дd8! or 17...He81? 18 4bc3 Деб with equality), or 12 Wd31? g6 13 £)C3 Af5 14 Wd2 (14 Wb5 аб!) 14-.Hc8 15 Дд5 ^c4 16 <Йхс4 Жхс4 with counterplay (Bischoff-Dittmar, Boblingen 1994);
b)	ll...JLd61? (as yet the queen’s knight has not come out to c3, attacking the d5-pawn, and Black tries to drive the other knight from the centre) 12 f4 (after 12 4^хс6?! bxc6 the effect of keeping the knight on bl is lost) 12...<^a5 (12...±f5!?) 13 Wd3 (Klimov-Lasin, St. Petersburg 2003) 13...g61, and if 14 f5, then simply 14...£ic6 with approximate equality.
12 Sell
Exploiting the absence of the knight from c3 (however, 12 <bc31? is also not bad). After 12 Wxb6 axb6 Black's activity would compensate for the spoiling of his pawn structure: 13 ^сЗ I.e6 and ...Efc8, or 13 Ecl ®b4 14 £sc3 Jlf5 with equality. But now he is forced to exchange queens on b3, which activates the rook on al.
12...Wxb3 13 axb3 ^b4
14 ^аЗ?!
An original move, temporarily preventing the development of the c8-bishop (because of Ec7), but the awkward position of the knight at a3 prevents White from exploiting the tempo gained. The natural 14 £>c3 would have set Black quite difficult problems, for example:
a) 14...Hd8 (14...Ae6? 15 £)b5l) 15 £>b5 (15 ^a4 A.f51) 15...аб 16 <?k7! (my earlier move 16 Ec7 is worse because of 16...JLf8!)
16...Eb8 17 ±d2 ±f5 (17-.-l.d6 18 Ea41) 18 Ba4 £1c2 19 e3 Ad6 20 g4! £ixg4 21 <^xd5 with a continuing initiative;
b) 14„.^.f5 15 g4! Ie6 (the defence is more difficult after 15...1xg4?! 16 ^xg4 £>xg4 17 ^xd5 £ixd5 18 lxd5 £>xe3 19 fxe3 Sfd8 20 Hc7 Hxd5 21 Exe7) 16 g 5 <^e8 17 ^b5 аб 18 ±d2 Eb8 19 £>a71? f6 (19...Па8 20 Ea4!) 20 gxf6 gxf6 21 Ba4, and Black has not yet achieved full equality;
c) 14...аб 15 <^a4! ±f5 16 ^ib6! (16 Ec7 A.d6 17 Bxb7 ^c2 18 Hdl is also not bad, but not my earlier suggestion 18 Eel?! because of 18...^xe31 19 fxe3 Hae8 with equality) 16...Ead8 17 Йа4 ^d7 (17...^>c2 18 JLg5) 18 £iexd7 lxd7 19 <^xd7 Hxd7 20 Id2 $^сб 21 e3 with the two bishops and some advantage.
14...a6!
Emphasising that at a3 the knight stands worse than at c3. Now Black has a quite reasonable position.
15 JLd2 (15 £ib5 lf5! with equality, while if 15 ^c2 the simplest is 15...£jxc2 16 Bxc2 ld61? 17 ^d3 le6 18 Ш 2fc8) 15...Hb8
With the intention of seizing the initiative by ...Jlf5. Therefore White has to do something.
16 lxb41?
The start of a clever strategic plan, which
I did not see through immediately. White exchanges his ineffective bishop for the important knight, which is fulfilling both defensive and attacking functions.
1б..ЛхЬ4 17 Ad3 (at c5 the knight will immobilise Black's queenside) 17..Jld6
After obtaining the advantage of the two bishops, I did not want to part with them (the alternative was 17...Ad21? 18 Дс2 Ah 6) and I was happy with my position, but I failed to take into account the static weakness of the d5-pawn. But if I had discarded my prejudices and played 17..ЛхаЗ,1 could have equalised easily: 18 ДхаЗ JLfS! (my Informator move 18..Лд4 is worse because of 19 f31? Af5 20 £>C5 lfe8 21 &f2) 19 b4 (19 £)C5 aS! and ...b7-b6) 19...Sbc8 20 ДасЗ ДхсЗ 21 ДхсЗ lc8! 22 Дхс8+ (22 ®c5 b6) 22.. Лхс8 23 £if4 Ae6 with a quick draw.
18 Ac2
Unexpectedly for me, Korchnoi transfers his knight to e3, to intensify the pressure on the d5-pawn, and then advances b3-b4 and supports his other knight at c5, or plays b4-b5. In this case, alas, Black has no real counterplay.
18.„Ag4
A futile waste of time: the place for this bishop is at e6. After 18..Леб! 19 АеЗ Sfc8 compared with the continuation in the
game Black would have had two extra tempi and he would have held the position without any problems, for example: 20 b4 Дхс1+ 21 Ixcl g6 22 ДЬ1 Sd8 23 £>c5 Ac8.
19 Afl kf5?!
Another strange, ‘futile’ move. The obvious 19...Hfc8 20 ^еЗ Аеб would have saved a tempo. After playing 19...Af5 I offered a draw, but this was quite reasonably refused - the initiative is now with White.
20 Ac 5 Hfc8
The panicky double exchange 2О..Лхс5?! 21 dxc5 Axc2 22 Дхс2 would have condemned Black to a cheerless defence.
21 АеЗ Леб 22 b4 Af8 23 Дс2 Фе7
The weak 23...b6? would have allowed 24 Axe6+ fxe6 25 Дхаб, winning a pawn: 25...±xb4 26 Ah3! Фе7 27 Дхс8 Дхс8 28 flxb6Ad6 29 ±f51?and±d3.
24 Ael h5
A useful move with the hope of either initiating play on the kingside by ...h5-h4, or of possibly playing ...Ag4.
In The Test of Time I criticised 24...b6(l?) in view of 25 Ахаб Дхс2 26 Axc2 Да8(?1) 27 b5 Ae4 28 ДЬ1, but 26...Hc8! is more accurate: 27 АеЗ (27 ^d2 Ag4) 27...Ha8 28 Да2 (28 b5 JLb4+!) 28...Дс8 with compensation for the pawn (thanks to the poor position of the knight on аб). So that Black had an interesting opportunity to change the character of the play.
25 Hb2 Дс7
Not hurrying with 25...h4 (for the moment this would have made little change). From c7 the rook defends the b7-pawn and keeps the knight at c5 under attack (in the event of b4-b5), while the other rook can be switched along the back rank to where the battle is the most intense.
26 Ad3
After completing all his preparations, White has created the threat of b4-b5. At
this point I felt depressed, sensing that I had succumbed to the opponent’s pressure.
26—Ea8!
Now b4-b5 loses its strength because of ...a6-a5- In my view, this was a turning point not only in the game, but also in the match: up until then all the events had been dictated by Korchnoi.
With the threat of ...b7-b6. The situation has changed sharply: it is clear that White has taken on increased obligations.
28 Ь6 Ec6 29 &b5
29 йа4 is harmless: 29...Жаб (29-fic3l?) 30 Eb5 ЖсхЬб 31 Sxb6 йхЬб 32 ExaS Й>е4 or 32...1.C7.
29—a4 (there is nothing else)
27 b5?!
Although he appreciated the riskiness of this step, Korchnoi could not deny himself the pleasure of winning a pawn. 27 ЖЬа2 with the idea of Ba5 was stronger, for example:
a) 27-.fid8 28 EaS 2c31? (threatening ...Hxd3 and ...Jlxb4) 29 Ebl (of course, not 29 £>xd5+? AxdS 30 JLxdS Sxd3 and wins) 29...&C7 30 Bc5 £>e4 31 Дхе4 lxc5 32 £>xc5 dxe4 33 Edl l.d6! 34 d5 ^.c8 35 ^>c4 f5, and White’s achievements are modest, or 28 b51? axb5 29 Ha5 I.d7 (29-b4 30 Axds) 30 £ixd5+ £)xd5 31 Axd4 Bc4l? 32 e31 with some pressure;
b) 27-.ЙС61? (with the idea of ...ЁЬб) 28 b5 Bb6 29 Йа5 g6, and Black’s defences hold.
But my opponent, burning with a desire to achieve immediate gains, was over-hasty...
27-a5
3O^ixd5+?!
30 4k5?l Axes 31 dxc5 ficc8! is also in Black’s favour. But it was not yet too late to reconsider - the simplification after 30 £)b4! ДхЬ4+ 31 Sxb4 a3 32 Bb3 a2 33 lb2 sfcd6 34 Hbxa2 Bxa2 35 Sxa2 Bxb6 would have led to a draw.
3O...^xd5 31 Axd5 -xd5 32 Bxd5 2xb6 33 Exh 5
And so, White has won the longed-for pawn, but in return he has granted the opponent two connected passed pawns on the queenside and excellent counterplay. In the end, Korchnoi’s downfall was caused by his eternal penchant for material! However, he can have had no great desire to suffer for free after 33 e4 Sb3 34 <4d2 (not my earlier variation 34 е5?! АаЗ!) 34...ДЬ4+1? (34-b5 35 Sell; 34...g6 35 f4>) 35 ^xb4 Exb4 36 ФеЗ, 33.-аз 34 la2, or 33-.g6 34 i’d2, with chances of blocking the powerful black pawns.
The subsequent moves, up to the 40th, were made in a time scramble (which was more acute for Korchnoi).
ЗЗ-ДЬЗ?!
With the tempting idea of advancing the b-pawn. However, both ЗЗ...ДЬ4+!? 34 ФЬ1 ЛсЗ, and 33...g6!? 34 Sg5 i_b4+ or 34 Bd5(h4) a3 came into consideration.
34^d2
The less obvious 34 ФЬ11? would have enabled White to parry 34...b5 (nothing is changed by the inclusion of 34...g6 35 Hg5) with the simple 35 £>cl, with the perpetual pursuit of the rook.
34...b5 (now after 34...g6 35 Hg5 the king would have been brought up to the defence - 36 Фс2 with equality) 35 h4?l
35 e4? did not work in view of 35...fic8 36 e5 Jtb4+ 37 £)xb4 fixb4, when the black pawns are irresistible. But accurate equality could still have been secured by the psychologically difficult move 35 Sell, for example: 35...b4 (35...g6 36 Дд5) 36 fibs! a3 37 Фс2!1сЗ+ 38ФЬ1.
35..Дс8
Although this suggests itself, 35...ib4+l? came into consideration.
36 g4?
Another ‘natural’ time-trouble move. In fact it was essential to play 36 figs! дб 37
g4 (37 h5(?l), given in The Test of Time, is worse because of 37...gxh5 38 flxhs Дс4) 37. ..a3 38 h51, 37...*f6 38 &c5, or 37...ficc3(c4) 38 ФеЗ ‘йТб 39 f4 with doubleedged play.
36...a3!37f4
Black now has a winning position; thus, 37 Hg5 did not save White in view of 37...b4! 38 fibs Дс4! 39 e3 ФЬ7, and if 40 h5, then 4О...ДссЗ! 41 ®xb4 Sc41-37...1ССЗ?!
With the erroneous idea of sacrificing the exchange on d3, which in time-trouble seemed very promising to me. However, it is unwise to undertake such committing and unforced operations just before the time control. For the moment Black needs both his rooks, and therefore 37...Hc41 was more accurate - after 38 ФеЗ fic2! 39 Hh8 b4 40 Да8 ДЬсЗ and ...b4-b3 or 38 e3 b4 39 ДЬ5 ФЬ7! 40 Дс51? АхсЗ 41 £>e5+ Феб 42 £ixc4 НсЗ! 43 dxc5 Дхс4 the a- and fa-pawns would have decided matters, while after 38 Hd5 (other rook moves are met by ...b5-b4) 38...Феб 39 e4 ficc3 40 ®c5+ ±xc5 41 fixes flh31 White comes under attack.
38 fld5 (38 ДЬ8 b4 39 Да8 Hc41 would hardly have been any more resilient) 38...Феб 39fih5
39...b4?
But this is a serious error, allowing the rook at h5 to come into play. It was not yet too late to bring the rook back - 39...Hc4!, retaining every chance of winning.
Previously I thought that after the immediate 39...Hxd3+(?!) 40 exd3 Axf4+ 41 Фе2 Hb2+! (41...Ad6 42 ФеЗ!) 42 if3 Ad6 ‘Black could have set his opponent insoluble problems’, but here too White is saved by the switching of his rook from h5 to the a-file: 43 d5+! id7 44 Hh8 b4 45 Ha8 Hc2 46 ie4 Hg2 (46...&C7 47 Наб!) 47 Ha7+ 'idS 48 Hcl! (with the ideas of Hc6 and Ha8+) or 45-Ae5 46 d41 Axd4 47 i>e4 Ac3 48 Hdl with equality.
40 Ha 5 Hxd3+
balance: as a counter to the passed pawns, White creates play against the enemy king. Of course, I was upset about the missed win. But Korchnoi, apparently also thinking that a draw was not far off, did not analyse the position thoroughly enough, and on the resumption interesting events occurred.
42 ®e2 НсЗ!
With the idea of ...Acl, shutting in the rook on al and preparing ...b4-b3. 42...Hb2+ 43 if3 Ad2 is too slow in view of 44 ie4 АсЗ 45 Да6+ Фе7 46 Hfl! followed by ‘ids and Ha7+, while the ‘subtle’ 42...Ac7?! allows a counterattack - 43 Да6+ Ad6 (or 43...id5?!) 44 Hcl! or 43...id7 44 Hfl!.
Now this is the only winning chance, not counting the other exchange sacrifice -4O...Hb2+ 41 £>xb2 Axf4+ (41...axb2?! 42 f5+!) 42 еЗ Axe3+ 43 ie2 axb2 44 Hbl with a probable draw: 44...Axd4 45 Hxb2 He3+ 46 id2 Hg3 47 Hbl or 44-Acl 45 Sb5 b3 46 d5+ (46 h5 f6!) 46...ie5(d6) 47 Hb7 ixdS 48 Hxf7 He3+ 49 idl etc.
41 exd3
Here the game was adjourned, and I sealed the obvious move.
41...Axf4+
After a detailed analysis it became clear that the position was one of dynamic
43 g5?!
In our analysis we did not seriously consider this move. A straightforward draw would have been ensured by 43 if3 Ael (it is no better to play 43...Ad6(d2) 44 ie4, 43—Ac7 44 Ha4, or 43...Hcl 44 Hlxa3!) 44 Фе4 ‘idG 45 Ha6+ Фс7 46 d5 or 45...‘id7 46 Ha7+ etc. But when resuming a game Korchnoi always like to try and startle his opponent with an unexpected move...
43—Ael! 44 h5 b3 (forcing White to return the exchange) 45 Н5хаЗ Axa3 46 ПхаЗ b2 47 Ha6+ <if5 48 Hb6 (it was not possible to save the pawns - 48 Ha5+? if4! 49 Hb5 Hc2+) 48...Hc2+ 49 ie3 ixg5
In this sharp ending, which demands precise calculation by both sides, White is running considerably greater risks.
50 d5!
The most energetic. White is saved by a miracle after 50 Sb5+ f5 (or 5О..ФТ6!? 51 Sb6+! Фе7 52 d5) 51 d5 ФхЬ5 52 d6 Hc5 53 Hxb2 Sd5 54 lb6 g5 55 d4 Фд4 56 Sc6 (56 S>d3? 4f3) 56...ФдЗ 57 Sc5! lxd6 58 Sxf5 with a draw.
5O...4xh5 51 <4>d4 (51 d6?l is too risky: 51...Sc6! 52 lxb2 Sxd6 53 Sf2 f6 54 d4 g5) 51...g5 (51...Фд4 52 lb7!) 52 НЬ8
In order to activate his passed pawn. 52 Фе5 g4 53 d6 Sc5+! 54 4*4! or 52...He2+ 53 Ф*5 Sf2+ 54 Фе5 f6+ 55 Феб Фдб 56 d6 Se2+ 57 4d5 4*7 58 ЖЬ8 etc. would also have led to a draw.
52...g4 53 d6
Here I stopped to think...
53...	ЙС6!?
The last chance of achieving a turning-point. I saw that after 53...Hc8 54 Hxb2 (54 Hxc8? blW 55 d7 Wb6+ 56 ФеЗ Wa5+ 57 Фс4 Wa4+ and ...Wxd7) 54...g3 55 ФеЗ! White would succeed in eliminating the danger - 55-Фд4 56 Sb4+ 4h3 57 lb5 or immediately 57 4f3 with an inevitable draw.
54Фе5!
Black’s idea consisted in 54 4d5 Дс8! 55 lxb2? g3 56 d7 (56 Фе4 Фд4) 56...Sd8 57 4d6 f5 58 Фе7 Hxd7+ 59 4xd7 f4, when the pawns cannot be stopped. But after 55 Дхс8!! blW 56 d7 White is nevertheless saved by the threat of d7-d8W - 56...1Ъ5+! (56...Wxd3+ 57 Феб Wc4+ 58 <4d6 with a draw) 57 4d6 Wb6+ 58 Фе7 We6+ 59 4d8 g3 (if 59...We5 there is the saving 60 d4l Wxd4 61 Фе 7 with a draw) 60 Фс7, for example:
a)	6O...We7 (60...g2 61 Ш18+ and d8W) 61 Де8! Wc5+ 62 ФЬ7 Wd5+ 63 Фс7 f5 64 d8W Wxd8+ 65 flxd8 f4 66 Дд8 with a draw;
b)	60..>e5+ 61 Феб g2 (61...Wc3+ 62 ФЬ7 Wb4+ 63 Фс7 with a draw) 62 d8W We6+ (62...glW? 63 1Ъ8+!) 63 ФЬ7 glW 64 Wh8+ Wh6 65 We5+ Wgg5 66 We2+! (not 66 1T12+? Фдб 67 Дд8+ Ф117 or 67 Sc6+ f6) 66...Ф114 (66...Wg4 67 Sc5+) 67 Wi2+ Фд4 68 Wg2+ (68 lc4+? 4f3) 68...4h5 69 We2+ with perpetual check in this position with a rare material balance.
54...HC5+
55 Фf6?!
Playing with fire! Korchnoi’s idea is hard to understand: surely he wasn’t looking for winning chances?! 55 Фd4 Дс8 56 ДхЬ2 was simpler with a clear draw, as in the variation from the note to Black’s 53rd move.
55...g31 56 Hxb2 fid5 57 $xf7 Hxd6 58 Bd2 *g4
After speedily passing the second time control, White again faces a difficult choice. 59 d4l
The only move: White would have lost after 59 Фе7? Hd4! 60 Феб ФТ41. But now he can give up his rook for the g-pawn, since for the d-pawn Black will have to pay the same price.
59..^f51?
This cunning route for the king sets White new problems, whereas 59...'4’f4 would have allowed him a simple draw: 6o Фе7 Sg6 (6O...ld5 61 Феб) 61 Sg2! Фе4 62 Ф^7 Bg4 63 Феб^б) Фxd4 64 Фf5. The amount of work carried out by the black king during the resumption is impressive! 60 Фе7 Hd5 61 Hd31 (the only way: 61 Hg2? ФГ4 62 Sd2 Фе4 63 Hg2 ФfЗ 64 Hd2 g2 and wins) 61..^f4 62 Феб Sg5
63 d5?
A fatal mistake when literally a step away from a draw - 63 Hdl! g2 (63-Hg6+ 64 Фf7 Hd6 65 Фе7) 64 Sgl Фе4 65 d5 Hg6+ 66 Фf7 or 63-Фе4 64 d5! Hg6+ (64...1e5+ 65 Фd6 g2 66 Sel+ Фd4 67 Hdl+) 65 Фе7! Фе5 66 d6 lg7+ 67 Фf8 Id7 68 Hd3 Фf4 69 Hd4+, when a peaceful outcome is inevitable (б9...ФеЗ 70 Жд4 ФfЗ
71Ндб g2 72 Hf6+ Фе2 73 Ндб or 69..Ф13 70 fid3+ Фд4 71 Фе8 д2 72 Sdl).
Korchnoi splendidly conducted a difficult defence, but at the very end he no longer had the strength to find the last accurate move.
63—Hg6+! (denying the opponent the illusory hope of interposing a check -63...g2? 64 Hd4+! ФеЗ 65 Hdl with a draw) б4Фе7
Or 64 Фf7 g2 65 Hdl Sd6 66 Фе7 Hxd5 67 Hxd5 glW and wins.
64—g2 65 Sdl Фе5! (as they say in such cases, the rest is a matter of technique) 66 d6 Ee6+ 67 Фd7 Hxd6+ 68 Hxd6 glW 69 He6+ Ф{5 70 Hd6 Wa7+ 71 Фd8 Фе5 72 Hg6 Wa5+ 73 Фd7 Wa4+ 74 Фе7 Wh4+! 75 Фf8 Wd8+ 76 ФТ7 ФТ5 77 Hh6 Wd7+ 78 Af8 &g5 0-1
And so, to the surprise of both players, the match score became equal: 3-3- The psychological initiative was now on my side. Korchnoi’s oversight in such a significant game (and after so much effort!) broke his will and undermined his confidence and composure. Such a defeat was too cruel a trial, even for a highly-experienced fighter. Besides, Korchnoi was bound to sense that I was gradually gaining in confidence and that the time was not far off when I would be operating at full strength.
However, it should not be forgotten that in the semi-final match of the previous cycle with Polugayevsky (1980), after a crushing defeat in the 12th, concluding game, Korchnoi nevertheless managed to snatch victory in the additional games. Indeed, when a player is behind, he aims in the first instance to level the scores, and on achieving his aim he often relaxes involuntarily, although the entire struggle still lies ahead. Therefore only the 7th game could
decide how real were the changes that had occurred during the course of this bitter struggle.
I think that Korchnoi made a mistake by not taking a time-out after his defeat in the 6th game. The 7th game was scheduled to be played the following day, less than 24 hours later. Memories of the disaster during the adjournment session were still too fresh, and my opponent looked depressed.
Game 89
G.Kasparov-V.Korchnoi
Semi-Final Candidates Match, 7th game, London, 6.12.1983
Catalan Opening E04
1 d4 'if6 2 c4 еб 3 g3 ds 4 Ag2
The favourite opening of Korchnoi himself, whereas before the match I had employed it only once - against Andersson (Niksic 1983), and that when I knew almost for sure which system of defence my opponent would choose.
4...dxc4 5 £rf3
5...±d71?
Korchnoi did not arrive for the game empty-handed. The effusive Miguel Najdorf tried to convince everyone in the press
centre that he had played this 50 years earlier. But in the early 1980s this move had not found its way into the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings and for me it was a novelty, which I had to figure out at the board.
It would have been naive to hope that my opponent would repeat the dubious experiment from the 5th game, where after 5...C5 6 0-0 £ibd7?! (avoiding the main lines with 6,..<2ic6 7 Wa4 cxd4 8 £>xd4 Wxd4 9 Sdl, as in the aforementioned game with Andersson, or 7 4be5 Ad7 8 4ia3 cxd4 9 £baxc4, Kasparov-Andersson, 1st and 3rd match games, Belgrade 1985) 7 ®аЗ £sb6 8 ^хс4 £>xc4 9 Wa4+ ^d7 10 Wxc4 White gained a small but enduring advantage.
In the 9th game Korchnoi chose another little-studied continuation - 5...^>bd7 6 0-0 Sb8?l. But this plan was familiar to me from a training game with Vladimirov (1982), and after 7 a4 b6 8 ^fd21 e51? 9 ®xc41 exd4 10 Wxd4 Дс5 11 Wd3 0-0 12 ^c3 A.b7 13 i.xb7 lxb7 14 Wf3 Wa8 15 Jlf4 White gained the initiative.
6	Wc2
On encountering a surprise, I decided for safety’s sake to regain the gambit pawn immediately. Apparently, in my subconscious the thought occurred to me: 'The scores are level - is it worth taking an unnecessary risk?!' Significantly more complicated play results from 6 ®bd2 Jlb4 (Sos-onko-Korchnoi, Wijk aan Zee 1984; Zurich 1984) or the most critical line 6 <^e5 Ac6 7 <йхс6 4ixc6 8 0-0 (8 Wa4 Wd7l, Hulak-Korchnoi, Sarajevo 1984) 8...Wd7 9 e31? (9 £k3 ^xd4 10 Д.Ь7 ДЬ8 11 Дд2 Де7 with equality, Yusupov-Karpov, Belfort 1988) 9...Sb8 10 We2 b5 11 b31 cxb3 12 axb3 with good compensation for the pawn (Beliavsky-Karpov, 55th USSR Championship, Moscow 1988). It was because of this that the move 5...Jld7 did not become widely established.
6...	C5!
7	0-0
Again a solid, but rather insipid move. 7 £}e5 is harmless in view of 7-^c6! (Va-ganian-Portisch, 3rd match game, Saint John 1988), but chances of gaining an advantage were offered by 7 Wxc41? - this position was reached by transposition in the 8th game, and after 7-Ac6 8 dxc5 £)bd7 9 Ae3 Ad5! 10 Wa4 Асб 11 Wc4 i.d5 12 Wb4 Wc8 (12...a51 with equality) 13 *2hc3 l.xc5 14 Дхс5 Wxc5 15 ^xd5 ^xd5 16 Wd2 Sc8 17 0-0 0-0 18 Had Wb6 19 Wd4 lfd8 20 Hfdl Wxd4 21 £sxd4 White had a slight edge.
7...	Дсб 8 Wxc4 £Jbd7
The opening has turned out favourably for Black - he has achieved the maximum he can hope for in the Catalan: his minor pieces are controlling the centre, and the advanced position of the white queen gives him tempi for development. It is already White who has to play accurately.
9ig5
9 £>c3 is satisfactorily answered by the energetic 9-b5 10 Wd3 b4 11 £>bl Ле4 (Kochiev-Lputian, Pavlodar 1982) or the developing 9...Hc8 (Bacrot-Korchnoi, Odessa (rapid) 2007).
9...&C8
9...cxd4 10 ^xd4 Jlxg2 11 Фхд2 Ле7 was simpler, with equality (Lerner-Dorfman, Tallinn 1983), since now White creates a certain lack of harmony in the opponent’s position.
10 JLxf6!?
A somewhat unexpected but quite justified exchange of bishop for knight: 10 ®c3 cxd4 (10...b51?) is harmless. All the same the bishop has no future, and in addition each of the three possible recaptures has its drawbacks. Korchnoi hesitated for about half an hour, but in the end safety considerations outweighed, and he went in for simplification.
1O...4W6?!
The most natural continuation - and the least good! After 10...gxf6!? Black’s two bishops compensate for the defects of his pawn structure (Inkiov-Pinter, Zagreb Interzonal 1987). But from the standpoint of seizing the initiative, the best was 10...Wxf6! 11 €Jc3 Ae7 - this recommendation of mine was analysed in Informator Volume 36.
11 dxc5 Axf3
It is a pity to part with this strong bishop, of course, but without detriment to the position the pawn cannot be regained: ll...Wd5 12 Wxd5 ^>xd5 (12...ixd5 13 b4)
13 ftd4 (there is also no rapid equality after 13 lei Ad7 14 ^сЗ ^xc3 15 ДхсЗ Дхс5 16 Дхс5 Дхс5 17 <^e5) 13...Дхс5 14 4^xc6 bxc6 (14...fixc6?l 15 £>c3) 15 £dd2, or 11...Дхс5 12 Wxc5 Axf3 13 Wb5+ Деб 14 Дхсб+ Ьхсб 15 Wa4, and thanks to the weakness of the сб-pawn White's chances are slightly better.
12 Axf3 S xc5
It only remains for Black to castle, in order to feel completely safe. At this moment I noticed that Korchnoi, expecting that peace negotiations would soon begin, relaxed somewhat. But it turns out that even such a seemingly lifeless position conceals a number of subtleties.
13 Wb5+ (little is promised by 13 e3 Wd7 14 ®b3 0-0 15 ®c3 Sc7) 13...Wd7 14 ®c3!
White completes his development with gain of tempo, whereas Black is still faced with the problem of defending his queenside.
14...Wxb5
Black himself is forced to activate the enemy knight: after 14...0-0?! 15 Wxb7! Wxb7 16 ДхЬ7 lb8 17 Даб! Ad4 (17...fixb2? 18 fta4 Дс2 19 ДdЗ!) 18 Hfdl ДхсЗ 19 ЬхсЗ fte4 20 Hd7 £>xc3 21 Sc7 4kl5 22 Hxa7 White has an obvious advantage.
15 ixb5 .e7
After the exchange of queens the black king has taken up a comfortable position in the centre of the board, and it would seem that no dangers should be anticipated.
Black is satisfied with 16 ДхЬ7?! ДЬ8 17 Даб (17 lad? Hxb7 18 Дхс5 ®d7 19 Дд5 h6 and wins) 17...ДЬб 18 Had ®d7 19 ®c7 Hxb2 or 16 Had ДЬб!? (16...^d5 will also do) 17 ДхЬ7 Дхс1 18 Дхс1 <йд4 19 еЗ £bxe3!. But the tempo available to White can be used more effectively.
16 b4l
An original decision, called by Petrosian ‘an oasis, unexpectedly found in a barren desert’. In itself this move is not so strong, but its psychological effect was enormous: Korchnoi became nervous - instead of the expected draw offer the opponent set him a new problem!
16...ДхЬ4
16...ДЬб? is dangerous, not because of 17 ДхЬ7 Hc4 18 a3 ^g4! 19 еЗ ДЬ8 20 Af3 <йе5 21 Де2 Дс2 22 Adi Hd2 with active play for the pawn, but in view of 17 a4! аб 18 a5 Дс7 19 ДхЬ71 axb5 20 Had, and for the passed a-pawn Black has to give up a piece.
17 £ixa7 Дс7?
A blunder, which can only be explained by extreme nervous tension. 17...Да8!
would have maintained the balance, for example: 18 £ib5 Ha5 19 a4 Hc8! (more active than my Informator suggestion 19...Sb8: after 20 Jlxb7 Йс4! the a4-pawn is lost), or 18 fifbl Дха7 19 Hxb4 Sb8 20 a4, and in The Test of Time I wrote that ‘Black faces a gruelling defence’, but in fact the a4-pawn is also weak and after 2O...b6 followed by ...£jd7 White has no real chances of success.
18 Sfcl!
It would appear that Korchnoi underestimated this move, thinking that Black had the reply 18...flhc8. It is not often that one sees scattered pieces coordinating so successfully: it suddenly turns out to be impossible to defend the b7-pawn!
18...1d7?
But this is already confusion. All the same the b7-pawn cannot be saved, but one pair of rooks should have been exchanged - 18...Sxcl+ 19 Sxcl, although after 19...^d5 20 ±xd5 exd5 21 Дс7+ 4=f6 22 Sxb7 or 19...1a8 20 Sc7+ &f8 21 Hxb7 ±c5 22 ®c6 JLd6 (after 22...Дха2? 23 £>e51 the f7-point comes under pressure: 23...3a7? is not possible because of 24 ДЬ8+!) 23 Ha7 Дха7 24 <^xa7 Black’s further plan, in the words of Nikitin, ‘would have resembled slow torture before the
carrying out of the death sentence’. And yet here there would still have been chances of a draw, whereas now they quickly evaporate.
19 Sabi (the extra pawn, activity of his rooks and the unexpected vulnerability of the black king on e7 make White's advantage decisive) 19.. JLd2 20 Sc2 Bhd8
21 ±xb7l
The right way: there is point in going in for simplification. In just five moves the position has changed beyond recognition -Black’s queenside has been devastated, and his pieces are unable to coordinate their actions. The outcome of the game is decided, but on his way to winning White still had to overcome the fierce resistance of an opponent who had absolutely no desire to lose a second game in a row.
21,..&f8 (this retreat from the centre is forced) 22 4кб Дс7
There is no longer any choice: if 22...Де8 White wins easily by 23 ^e5 Sdd8 24 Hc7, to say nothing of 24 £>c4 ^h6 25 a4 or the immediate 23 a41.
23&bb2!
Inspired by such a turn of events, I made the most accurate moves, as they now say 'following the first line of the computer’.
23...fid6
Again the most resilient move. If 23...Hd5, then 24 e41 <£>xe4 25 ^a7(d4) and wins. After 23...Sdd7 24 £ie5! Black also suffers further loss of material: 24-Ле7 25 Лсб! Ла5 26 ДЬ5 etc.
24 a4!
The time has come for the swift advance of the passed pawn. The main thing is not to be in a hurry to disentangle the amusing cluster of pieces: thus 24 Sxd2?l lxd2 25 flxd2 ДхЬ7 would have given Black some saving chances.
24...^.el (a desperate attempt to divert White’s attention from the queenside, if only for an instant) 25 ДЬ1
The threat of ...<<hg4 could have been ignored: after 25 a5 *?jg4 26 аб! Jlxf2+ 27 Фд2 White would also have won (27...Aa7 28 £)xa7 £>e3+ 29 &f2 <^xc2 30 <?3b5 etc.). But I firmly decided not to allow Black the slightest counter-chances.
25...^d5 (still hoping to go fishing in troubled waters) 26 JLa8
White does not rush, and just in case he gains time by repeating moves.
26...Sc8 27 Ab7 fic7 28 Дс4!
This accurate manoeuvre effectively puts an end to all Black's hopes. Now it is the turn of the a-pawn.
28...<йе7 (an attempt to exchange the
knights, when it might be possible to save the ending with opposite-colour bishops) 29 ^e5!
Again the best move, although the following elegant line was also sufficient: 29 a5 ^хсб 30 аб Да5 31 Вхсб fldxc6 32 JLxc6 (32 a7? Даб 33 Дхаб Дха7 with a draw) 32...Да7 33 Ab7 and wins.
29..Ла5 30 ДЬ5
A simple combination - 30 Дхс7 Лхс7 31 a5! ^.xa5 32 &c4 ±c7 33 <^xd6 ^,xd6 34 Idl - would have led to a technically won endgame. But White, not concerning himself with material gains, paves the way for his a-pawn with an ‘iron hand’.
30...£>g6 (again trying for the exchange!) 31 •5кб
The knight is back where it started, but now Black does not have even a hint of counterplay. 31 Дха5 ДхЬ7 32 4hc6 was also strong.
3i..Adl+ 32 4>g2 ±el
33 a5
The unexpected 33 Лаб! would have won more spectacularly after ЗЗ-'А’дЗ 34 ДЬ8+ £)f8 35 i.b5 g6 (35-lal? 36 £>e7+! Дхе7 37 flxf8+!, mating) 36 a5 etc.
33...‘Te7 34 аб 4hxc6
If 34...Да1, then 35 ®a5 and 36 a7l. The knight, which has caused Black so much
trouble, has nevertheless been exchanged, but the a-pawn is already too far advanced...
35 Дхеб Дхеб 36 Дхеб Да1 (opposite-colour bishops often favour the weaker side, but here the black bishop presents a pitiful spectacle) 37 ДЬ8+ Фе7 38 ДЬ7+ ide
In the event of 38...4f6 39 a7 and fld7 Black would have had to part with a whole rook.
39 Ab5 A.C3 40 flxf7
Here Korchnoi could have resigned, but he decided to drink the bitter cup right to the bottom.
4O...±f6 41 fld7+ Фс5 42 A.d3 h6 43 lb7 ДаЗ 44 a7 'i’d5 45 f3 ide (instant death) 46 ДЬб+ 1-0
In view of Даб (after all the bold a-pawn achieves its cherished goal!).
Thus within literally 24 hours the match had been turned on its head. The roles were reversed: the chasing player had become the leader (4-3), and the recent leader had fallen behind. Two successive defeats were enough to unsettle anyone, even the most experienced match fighter. It was no surprise that at this point Korchnoi made use of his one time-out. The changed situation obliged him to go on to the offensive, but, on the other hand, the time for taking reckless risks had not yet arrived.
In the 8th game Korchnoi remained true to his initially chosen strategy and pinned his hopes on the endgame (cf. Game No.89, note to White’s 7th move), but without success - a draw on the 40th move. This unpretentious duel also played a significant role: whereas Korchnoi could have regarded his failure in the 7th game as accidental, the draw in a better endgame in the 8th game clearly showed that it was unpromising to continue his strategy of
simplification.
And in the 9th game Korchnoi went in for complicated play in a Catalan middle-game (cf. Game No.89, note to Black’s 5th move). But the psychological initiative was now on my side, I had more strength left, and an open battle led to a crushing defeat for Black on the 30th move. As if to confirm Korchnoi’s description of me given before the match, the finish of this game resembled the direct knock-out blow of a boxer. True, in a chess match one ‘knock-out’ is not enough for overall victory...
In a desperate situation, trailing by ‘minus two’, Korchnoi nevertheless found the strength to continue the fight, and the 10th game became the fiercest in the match. On this occasion my opponent avoided the Catalan in favour of the Queen’s Gambit. I chose the Tartakower-Makogonov-Bonda-revsky Variation (cf. Game No.20, note to Black’s 11th move) and in wild complications I parried the last attack by the ‘wounded animal’.
The score became 6-4, and I only needed another half point. However, I wanted to conclude the match not with a full-stop, but an exclamation mark! The situation obliged Korchnoi to complicate the play, and after 1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 instead of 3...d5 he chose 3...C5 4 d5 exd5 5 cxd5 b5 (also avoiding 5-d6: my opponent preferred to play this set-up with White -Game No.78) 6 Jlg2 d6, but the unexpected 7 b4l (7 £)f3 is more solid: 7...g6 8 ^fd2 •$jbd7 9 ^сЗ аб, Portisch-Korchnoi, Olympiad, Lucerne 1982) 7...^a6 (the ‘Benko Gambit’ 7-.cxb4 8 аз! ЬхаЗ 9 <йхаЗ favours White, Zaichik-Vladimirov, Krasnoyarsk 1981) 8 bxc5 <£>xc5 9 £rf3 followed by <?hd4-c6 enabled White to seize the initiative and win on the 32nd move - 7-4!
Thus on 16th December 1983 this victory
in the semi-final Candidates match concluded an important stage in my chess career, which had given me valuable experience in match play. That same day, by gaining a draw, Smyslov confidently won his match against Ribli - 61/г-41/2. There was something symbolic about the fact that both Soviet grandmasters, who had been disqualified in the summer, in the end became the finalists in the Candidates cycle.
Robert Byrne: ‘The impetuous youth from the Caucasus showed staggering patience and composure, displaying wonderful psychological stability in a difficult situation. In the course of the match he was able to readjust and, curbing his imagination, acquire a taste for the simple positions imposed by his opponent with a small number of pieces, for which Kasparov always harboured a dislike.’
Raymond Keene: ‘Kasparov played like Karpov, mainly exploiting his opponent’s mistakes. He is by nature a skilful and resourceful player, but in this match he has shown little of his true skill.’
Viktor Korchnoi: ‘After the 6th game I lost faith in my technique and my seconds. The score was equal, but psychologically the match was lost. My pre-match impression of Kasparov as a player with one knock-out punch was wrong. Kasparov is very practical for his age. He takes risks only when he is sure that they are justified.’
Some western commentators suggested that I should thank Korchnoi for accelerating my chess development and for helping me to grasp the subtleties of positional play. Indeed, the benefit from this match with an exceptionally strong opponent is hard to overestimate. For me, a 20-year-old youth, it was a kind maturity test. Ahead lay the most difficult trials, and not only at
the chess board...
On the results of 1983, thanks to my wins in the matches with Beliavsky and Korchnoi, and also the super-tournament in Niksic, I received my second ‘Oscar’. Journalists gave me 984 votes, and the world champion Karpov - 918. By the end of the year my rating was now higher than Karpov’s - the first time this had happened in the entire post-Fischer decade!
Match with Smyslov
Final Candidates Match Kasparov - Smyslov (Vilnius, 9th March - 11th April 1984): 8У2-4У2.
Vilnius, the White Hall in the Art Museum. It was here in the spring of 1984 that the final Candidates match took place, between two opponents who bore absolutely no resemblance to each other. During the match one of them celebrated his 63rd birthday, while immediately after it the other celebrated his 21st. Before the start of the Candidates series people were asking: ‘What chance do they have at that age?!’ The evergreen Vasily Smyslov had to show that he still had sufficient strength for a fierce and uncompromising battle, while I had to find some other qualities to compensate for my lack of experience. The Interzonal Tournament, the quarter-final and the semi-final were for each of us a victory against time. The age limits for the contenders for the crown were stretching in both directions at once.
Smyslov’s competitive feats staggered the imagination: after passing through the crucible of fighting Botvinnik for many years, he became world champion six years before I was born, and a quarter of a century later he reached the final Candidates match! This was a genuine sensation! Towards the
end of his brilliant career it appeared that the great player was now playing only for pleasure. But, by tradition, in high-quality positional style. Smyslov’s strength always consisted in his ability to accumulate microscopic advantages by seemingly unpretentious exchanges and manoeuvres, and in the endgame he was considered an unsurpassed virtuoso. Apart from his phenomenal technique, his trumps were his colossal experience and unprecedented emotional drive (which was noticeable during the London semi-finals). And I approached this match very seriously, although at heart I was confident of success.
The forecasts of the world press and most experienced grandmasters were unequivocally in my favour. But Karpov’s comments on the forthcoming final were rather obscure. To the traditional comparison - 'a competition between youth and boldness on the one hand, and common sense and experience on the other’, he added: ‘This is like the eternal struggle between the raging sea and the solid land.' As we know, the raging sea is usually unable to overcome the solid land, as otherwise our world would not exist. In fact, Karpov was absolutely sure that I would win. When the Ogonyok magazine invited its readers to predict the result of the match, the editors asked the world champion to do the same. Karpov’s sealed envelope contained an accurate forecast -8У2-4У2 in Kasparov’s favour.
Nevertheless, in the Soviet press my chances were deliberately played down. Why? Perhaps someone was afraid of inspiring me excessively, or, God forbid, of boosting my popularity? Of course, Karpov himself did not harbour any illusions, realising perfectly well that after the collapse of the Pasadena operation a match
with me could not be avoided. The threat to his title was all too obvious. Karpov is a cool-headed person and he could objectively and accurately assess the danger. Just like the people around him, whose position depended on Karpov retaining his title, and who wanted him to feel for as long as possible that they were his support.
Smyslov made a valid point when he said to me just before the start of our match: 'Young man, if that business of our semifinal matches had occurred not in the summer of 1983, but slightly earlier or slightly later, we would never have met in the final.’ This subtle thought demands an explanation: slightly earlier was before November 1982, when Brezhnev died, and Aliev became a member of the Politburo; slightly later was early 1984, when the country was headed by Chernenko and Aliev’s influence had sharply waned.
Asriyan: ‘Early in March I phoned Kasparov, to interview him before the match at the request of the Baku Sport newspaper. It turned out to be interesting in the extreme and contained some unexpected news. Carry informed me that two days earlier, 28th February, he had become a member of the Communist Party. Apparently, before the match with Karpov (there were no doubts that he would beat Smyslov) he wanted to deprive the world champion and his supporters of the opportunity to exploit the ideological factor, and to equalise the chances also on this поп-chess front... To become world champion - everything was subordinated to this aim.’
In our preparations for the final ‘battle of the generations’ first and foremost my trainers and I studied the experience of the matches with Beliavsky and Korchnoi, to exclude previous mistakes. And, of course, we carefully analysed the games of my
future opponent, endeavouring to determine his weak points. Our opening preparation was also extensive: in a match at such a level, especially with such a harmonious player as Smyslov, much could be decided by successful handling of the opening. Which is in fact what happened. The encounter developed into two minimatches of four games: in one I battled with White against the Cambridge Springs Defence, while in the other I again upheld the Tarrasch Defence with Black. It was the winning of these mini-matches that led to my overall victory.
Things were also affected by a curious mysticism. Nikitin: 'Just before the start of the match with Smyslov, Leonid Ostrovsky, a prominent chess arbiter from Kiev, sent Garry’s mother a letter which with staggering accuracy predicted not only the overall score, but also the result of each game!’ This unknown person claimed to be a parapsychologist, and two months later, when Nikitin visited him in Kiev, he said about my forthcoming duel with Karpov: ‘You will win the match, but in a fierce struggle.’
Initially the forecasts for the Vilnius match by the man from Kiev merely provoked a smile, but already after two games I became slightly disconcerted. In the 1st, playing White against the Schlechter Defence, I threw away a solid positional advantage, and in the 2nd I ended up in an unpleasant position in the Tarrasch Defence (cf. Game No.91, note to Black’s 12th move), and this was probably the most dramatic moment of the match, largely determining its further course. By some miracle I managed to extricate myself and then hold out in a difficult endgame.
After this I quite confidently - again ‘strictly according to schedule!’ - won the 3rd game, in which Smyslov surprised me
with the Cambridge Springs Defence, but I was able to transpose into a better endgame and exploit the power of my two bishops (cf. Game No.90, note to Black’s 9th move). The 4th game was a Queen’s Gambit with 5 Af4, and I won with Black, also as predicted, after which I regularly glanced with curiosity at the sheet with the forecasts, and at times even joked that the prophet could at the same time have suggested the forthcoming openings...
The score became 3-1, and my opponent took the first of his two allotted time-outs. In the 5th game I was burning with the desire to put an end to these mystical events, which were forcing me to believe in the super-natural. The ex-champion employed a novelty with Black in the Botvinnik Variation - the modest 1О...Де7 instead of the usual 10...£ibd7. In a very sharp situation I seized the initiative and seemed to be close to success, but here Smyslov brilliantly extricated himself, exploiting my inability to find a decisive strengthening of the position. It all ended in a ‘planned’ draw, and I was not exactly delighted with such a pre-programmed result.
In the 6th game, after playing the Lasker Defence to the Queen’s Gambit, I quite confidently gained a draw in a somewhat inferior position. Then, on Smyslov’s birthday, I took my first time-out. In the 7th game my quiet variation against the Cambridge Springs led to a quick peace agreement. In the 8th, after finding an improvement for Black, I reverted to the Tarrasch Defence and I even managed to seize the initiative - but again I was unable to find the right way to build on my advantage. Indeed, how could I have found it, if on the sheet sent to me a half point was clearly marked!
It was in this semi-mystical state that the 9th game was played.
Came 90
G.Kasparov-V.Smyslov
Final Candidates Match, 9th game, Vilnius 30.03.1982
Queen’s Gambit D52
1 d4 ds 2	3	3 C4 c6 4 4k3 e6 5 Ag5
<5ibd7 6 e3 Was
Smyslov’s frequent employment of the Cambridge-Springs Defence was one of the surprises of the match: in the ex-world champion’s career spanning more than 40 years, this variation had occurred only a handful of times. In the 1920s and 1930s it was tested in Alekhine's matches with Capablanca, Bogoljubow and Euwe, and after the war its popularity greatly waned, but towards the end of the 20th Century it again rose.
7 cxd5!
Again, as in the 3rd game, influenced by the mysterious forecast, I chose the most critical continuation. 7 £>d2 is much quieter, for example:
a)	7-dxc4 8 JLxf6 ®xf6 9 4^xc4 Wc7 10 Ле2 (10 Hell is more accurate) 1О...Ле7 11 0-0 0-0 12 Bel Bd8 13 Wc2 ±d7 14 £te4 £>xe4 15 Wxe4 c5 16 dxc5 ^.сб 17 We5 Wxe5 18 £)xe5 Bd2 19 if3 ±xf3 20 gxf3
Bxb2 21 Bbl Sxbl 22 Bxbl Дхс5 23 Bxb7 f6 with a roughly equal endgame (Kas-parov-R.Rodriguez, Moscow Interzonal 1982);
b)	7„.JLb4 8 Wc2, and Black is again at a cross-roads:
bl) 8...dxc4 9 JLxf6 £ixf6 10 <^xc4 Wc7 11 аЗ Де7 12 Де2 0-0 13 b4 b6!? (13...^.d7 14 0-0 b6 15 JLf3 - Game No.125 in Volume I of Л/ly Great Predecessors) 14 0-0 Jtb7 15 if3 (Ribli-Smyslov, Las Palmas Interzonal 1982) or 12 g3 0-0 13 Дд2 Ad7 14 b4 b6 15 0-0 Bac8 (15...a5?l 16 ^e51 - Game No.106 in Volume I of My Great Predecessors) 16 Bfcl Bfd8 17 Babl (Kasparov-Averbakh, Kislovodsk 1982), everywhere with a small advantage for White;
b2) 8...0-0 9 a3 (9 ih4 - Game No.104 in Volume I of My Great Predecessors) 9...dxc41 10 Jlxf6 ftxf6 11 <Йхс4 ДхсЗ+ 12 Wxc3 (12 ЬхсЗ is more interesting, as, for example, in Timman-Kasparov, 6th match game, Prague 1998) 12...Wxc3+ 13 ЬхсЗ c5 14 ±e2 У2-У2 (7th game), or 9 Де2 e5 (9...C5 is also not bad) 10 JLxf6 (White would at least have something to hope for after 10 dxe5 or 10 O-O) 10...£>xf6 11 dxe5 £te4 with equality (Griinfeld-Keres, Warsaw Olympiad 1935) 12 cxd5 ^xc3 13 ЬхсЗ АхсЗ 14 Bel Axes 15 dxc6 Ьхсб У2-У2 (13th game). And although the result of this last game of the match was not associated with the opening, after 7 ^d2 it is hard for White to achieve any appreciable gains.
7...^xd5 8 Wd2 Ab4
After 8...^7b6 9 Ad31? (the insipid 9 <^xd5 Wxd2+ 10 ^xd2 exd5 11 Ad3 a5 led to equality in Karpov-Kasparov, 47th match game, Moscow 1984/85) 9-^xc3 10 ЬхсЗ ^d5 (or 10...£)a4 11 0-0 Wxc3 12 We2) 11 0-0! (11 Bel «йхсЗ 12 0-0 Ab4 - Game N0.17 in Volume II of My Great Predecessors) ll...Wxc3 12 We2 White has an enduring
initiative for the pawn: 12...ДЬ6 13 £id2! (Vaganian-Torre, Biel Interzonal 1985) or 12...Де7 13 Дхе7 <£ixe7 14 ^e51 (Po-lugayevsky-Seirawan, Biel Interzonal 1985).
Such a decision was not in the spirit of Smyslov, who himself aimed for the rapid development of his forces. Incidentally, 9...ДЬ4 (instead of 9-^xc3) 10 Hcl f6 11 ih4 £ixc3 12 ЬхсЗ ДаЗ 13 Hbl is also favourable for White (Vaganian-Smyslov, Montpellier Candidates Tournament 1985). 9 Hcl
We made all these moves, including the next one, in a matter of minutes.
Nowadays Black more often plays 9-h6 10 Д114 c5 11 аЗ ДхсЗ 12 ЬхсЗ Ь6 13 с4 (13 ДЬз Даб, maintaining equality) 13...Wxd2+ 14 £>xd2 ^5f6 (Bareev-Fressinet, Cannes 2002) or 14...®e7 (Dreev-Grischuk, Poik-ovsky 2005), with a slightly inferior but acceptable endgame.
10 a3!? (13)
From the 3rd game I already knew the nuances associated with a2-a3, and so without particular difficulty I was able to find this continuation, an unpleasant one for Black: here it gains in strength. 10 ДdЗ was also good, whereas after 10 dxe5 £jc5 Black’s idea would have been fully justified.
9...e5?l
An unsuccessful attempt to improve Black’s play compared with the 3rd game, in which after 9...0-0 10 Ad3 (10 a3l?) 10...e5 11 0-0 exd4 (11...T16! 12 ДЬ4 He8 is sounder, Alekhine-Bogoljubow, 13th match game, Berlin 1929) 12 exd4 f6 13 ДЬ4 Hd8 14 аЗ ДхсЗ 15 Ьхсз 4hf8 (15-.Wxa3?! 16 c4 is dangerous for Black) 16 ДдЗ! Деб (if 16...Дд4, then 17 Де4! He8 18 c4 is strong) 17 Hfel ДЬ7 18 c4 (18 Wb21?) 18...Wxd2 19 4bxd2 <2jb6 20 <£>b3 ^a4 (20,..<йеб!? 21 c5 ®d5 22 <^a5 $^df4!) 21 Afl (21 fie7l?) 21...Ud7?l (21...b6!) 22 <йа51 White gained an enduring advantage and converted it into a win.
1О...Дс16?! (24)
It transpires that if 1О...ДхсЗ 11 Ьхсз e4 there is the reply 12 c4! Wxa3 (12...Wxd2+ 13 ^>xd2 is even worse for Black) 13 cxd5 exf3 14 dxc6 Ьхсб 15 gxf3 (15 ДГ41?) with a clear positional advantage.
Of course, Black can win a pawn, but in the event of ll...exd4 12 cxd4 Wxa3 13 e4 or ll...Wxa3 12 e4 ®5f6(b6) 13 ДЬЗ White’s initiative more than compensates for the minimal material deficit. ll...h6! 12 ДЬ4 Wxa3 is better, although here too after 13 e4 (nothing is given by 13 ДdЗ exd4 14 cxd4 Wb4l, San Segundo-Nakamura, San Sebastian 2009) 13...®5f6 14 ДdЗ or
13...^f4 14 ДдЗ g5 15 M White has fine play for the pawn.
11 dxe5 (3)
In the event of 11 ^xd5 Wxd2+ 12 S>xd2 cxd5 13 dxe5 ®xe5 14 £bxe5 Дхе5 15 ДЬ5+ J„d7 Black has a sound position: 16 Sc5 f6! 17 Ah4 (17 Af4 b6) 17...ДхЬ5 18 lxb5 0-0-0 with equality. But White finds an original way of relieving the central tension to his advantage.
ll...^xe5 (2) 12 £ixe5 Дхе5
13	b4! ДхеЗ (5)
13...	Wxa3? would have been suicidal: 14 £ixd5 cxd5 15 ДЬ5+ ^f8 16 0-0 (16...Де6 17 f4 JLd6 18 f5 ДхЬ4 19 Wd4 and wins).
14	Wxc3!
Taking play into a significantly better endgame. 14 ДхеЗ <йхЬ4?! 15 e41 (not 15 Hc5? ®d3+!) would have led to interesting complications, for example:
a) 15...£)a6 (15...£>a2? 16 Дс2 Wxd2+ 17 <4’xd2 Деб 18 Дс4, and the knight cannot escape) 16 Дхаб Ьхаб 17 Дхеб Wxd2+ 18 <4>xd2 or 17 0-0 h6 (17...0-0 18 Af6l) 18 ДеЗ! (18 Wd6?! hxg5 19 Wxc6+? Фе7 is bad for White, while after 19 0c5 Wb6 20 He5+ Деб 21 Bxe6+ he has only perpetual check) 18...0-0 19 ДхЬб! Id8 20 Wg5 Wxg5 21 Дхд5, condemning Black to a depressing struggle for a draw;
b) 15...f6, and after 16 Дxfб gxf6 17 axb4 Wxb4 18 Дс4 Дd7 (18...Wbl+?! is unfavourable in view of 19 Дс1 Wxe4+ 20 ®fl!) 19 0-0 0-0-0 Black’s defences hold, but the cool-headed 16 ДеЗ! ^аб 17 Дс4 £>c7 18 Дf4! leaves White with a strong initiative.
However, it is unclear how real White's advantage is if Black simply retreats his queen - 14...Wb6 with the sequel 15 Bel h6 16 ДТ14 0-0 17 Дс4 Деб 18 0-0 (18 е4?! Ife8!) 18...Sfe8 or 15 Дс5 h6 16 ДЬ4 0-0 17 Ad3 a5 18 Дха5 Дха5 19 bxa5 Wb3 20 0-0 Wxa3.
14...	^xc3 15 bxa5^e4
16 Дf4 (3)
At first sight, for the moment nothing terrible for Black is anticipated, but the advantages of White’s position are longterm: two active bishops (whereas the black knight has no comfortable post), and a pawn majority in the centre; meanwhile the doubled pawns on the а-file have enabled the b-file to be opened, and now a frontal attack can be made on the b7-pawn, the defence of which is awkward, since the b8-square is controlled by the bishop on f4. 16...0-0 (21) 17 f3 (3) 17..ЛТ6 18 e4 Se8 (10)
The attempt to carry out the freeing advance ...b7-b6 ends in failure: 18..Jld7 19
<4>f2 b6 20 Даб! Дс8 (2О...С5?! 21 ДЬ7 lad8 22 Дс7 and wins) 21 Де2 c5 (21...£d7 22 Hhdl) 22 ДЬб! (my earlier move 22 Дс7 is not so clear after 22...Деб!) 22...Bd8 (22...He8?! 23 e5!) 23 Дс7 with a big advantage.
19 Af2 (2)
A curious moment.
19...a6 (10)
A kind of positional capitulation: Black once and for all removes tbe impending threat of а5-аб, but now he will be condemned to passive waiting. However, in the variation 19„.ДЬ7 20 Bbl b6 21 Даб! Дс8 22 Де2 his prospects were also very gloomy.
20 Де2 (20)
It was tempting to hinder the development of Black’s queenside - 20 Bbl Be7 21 ДЬб?!, but then with the exchange sacrifice 21... Bxe4! 22 fxe4 ^xe4+ and ...£>xd6 he would have gained chances of a draw.
2О...Деб (2) 21 Sbl (2) 21...Be7 (with the idea of ...Bae8 and ...Дс8, securely defending the b7-pawn) 22 Bhdl (2)
22 ДЬб Bd7 23 Дс5 would have slightly disrupted Black’s plans, but after 23...fie8 24 Sb2 Bc7 all the same the bishop would have reached c8: 25 ДЬб Bd7 2б ДЬ4 (26 е5?! ^d5 is unfavourable for White)
26...Bde7 etc.
22...Bae8 (4) 23 lb2 (9)
The start of a long-term strategic plan. After the exchange of one pair of rooks it is important to retain control of the d-file. Black will be forced also to aim for the exchange of the second pair of rooks, but during this time White will advance his kingside pawns as far as possible, in order to win the coming ending with two bishops against bishop and knight. In the end I managed to carry this out, and I would venture to assert that the starting position is won even against the best defence by Black (subsequently there were moments when he could have made things more difficult for his opponent).
23...Дс8 (4) 24 Hbd2 (13) 24...1d7 (8) 25 Bxd7 (4) 25... xd7 26 g4 ^c5 (12)
Black should have included 26...h6 27 h4 and only then played 27...4hc5, in order after g4-g5 to reduce the power of White’s pawn phalanx by the exchange ...hxg5.
27 ДеЗ (2) 27...^d7 (8)
The exchange of rooks by 27...^e6 28 f4 Bd8 29 f5 Hxdl 30 Дxdl would not have prevented White from quickly achieving absolute domination.
It is easier to suggest than to decide on the sharp 27...^b3l? 28 ДЬб c5 (28...Деб is
insufficient: 29 f4 f6 30 f5 l.f7 31 Hd7) 29 Дс4 A.e6, when after 30 jlxe6 fxe6 31 2d7 2c8! 32 Дс7 c4 33 i.e5 c3 34 2xg7+ &f8 35 2xh7 Hc5 36 lxb7 c2 37 Ab2(f4) clV 38 Д.ХС1 £>xcl 39 h4 Sc2+ 40 ФеЗ e5 41 f4 2h2 Black would retain drawing chances. And after 30 Axb31? JLxb3 31 ld7 c4 32 Sxb7 c3 33 A.e31 £.dl 34 Sb6 la8 35 2c6 c2 36 g5 4>f8 the opposite-colour bishops would still have retained some hopes.
Smyslov himself! - preparation of the pawn storm would have been more methodically concluded by 31 JLc31. However, here several ways lead to the goal.
31...2d8 (2) 32 f4 &e6 (6)
The exchange of rooks - 32...^e6 33 Ab6 Sxdl 34 Axdl would not have helped Black, since his last piece capable of any activity would have disappeared, and after 34...g6 35 Ag4 ^d7 36 f5 the invasion of the white king would have decided.
28 g5! (9)
Now one can talk of a decisive positional advantage for White: the pawn offensive on the kingside is bound to bring him victory.
28...4be5 (2)
28...Se5?l is incorrect in view of 29 f41, when neither 29...2xa5? 30 Jlg4 nor 29...Дхе4? 30 Ag4 2e7 31 Лс51 is possible. 29 ^.d4
Care is essential: the hasty 29 ФдЗ?! would have allowed Black to activate his pieces by 29...Де6 with the idea of 30 Sbl Дс4! 31 JLdl He7. But nowadays I would have played 29 h4! immediately, since in the event of 29-Д.еб 30 Sbl the bishop would have to return again to c8.
29-..^g6 (4) 30 ФgЗ (2) 3O...^f8 (5) 31 h4 (7)
The thorough - indeed, in the style of
33 A.C3! (14)
More accurate than 33 f5?l A.b3 34 2d2 c51 35 Ac3 Sxd2 36 Axd2 ^d7, when Black activates his game somewhat.
33..Axdl 34 Jlxdl <£id7 (2)
It was not possible to prevent f4-f5 (34...g6 35 ^.c2).
35 f5 ±c4 36h5 (3)
Another fighting unit has joined the attack. 36 Фf4 f6!? 37 e5! fxe5+ 38 Jlxe5 is also strong - after 38...<^xe5 39 Фхе5 the activity of White's king enables him to win the bishop endgame: 39-Ad3 40 Ab3+ Фf8 41 Леб Фе7 42 Лс8 Фd8 43 ЛхЬ7 Фс7 44 f6! etc.
36...h6 (2)
If 36..Т6? there is the decisive 37 h6! £te5 38 Лс2 with the creation of connected passed pawns. But after the move in the
game (and it was not possible to avoid it) Black has yet another weakness - the h6-pawn.
37 gxh6 gxh6 38 e5l £>c5 (2) 39 *f4 .ids (2) 40 lc2
4O...f6?! (4)
The last move before the time control, made with the flag about to fall. 4О..Лс4 was more resilient, but Smyslov, realising that in any event White will find a way of converting his enormous positional advantage, immediately fixed the pawn position, hoping to set up a fortress. Alas, this was an illusion...
41 еб (4) 41...*g7 42 ib4 (4)
42 l.d4 <S^b3 43 e7 if 7 44 Axf6! etc. was rather more forceful.
42...£)b3 (2) 43 ФеЗ (now Black is paralysed) 43...C5 (3)
The helplessness of a knight in the battle against a passed rook’s pawn is illustrated by the amusing variation 43-.ic4 44 JLc3 Ids 45 Де4! ^c5 46 Axds cxd5 47 ®d4 ®e4 48 ДЬ4 ^hg3 49 *xd5 ®xf5 50 Фс5 <2ig3 51 ФЬб £>xh5 52 ФхЬ7 ®f4 53 Фхаб <йхеб 54ФЬ6 etc.
441x3
Here the game was adjourned. 44...^cl 45 la4 or 44...C4 45 Де4 Деб 46 1хсб Ьхсб 47 Фе4 (zugzwang) was hopeless for Black.
44...4>f8 (50)
After agonising thought Smyslov sealed this move, but he resigned without bothering to resume the game (1-0): White wins by both 45 lxb3 lxb3 46 lxf6 and 45 le4 1хе4 46 Фхе4 Фе7 47 'ids.
This game, like the 3rd, once again demonstrated the superiority of two bishops in an open position. It essentially deprived Smyslov’s supporters of their last hopes -the score was now 6-3.
But Vasily Vasilievich fought to the end. I also continued playing at full strength and I very much wanted to discover whether the predictions of the ‘Kiev prophet’ would be fully realised.
In the 10th game (cf. Game No.91, note to Black’s 12th move), exploiting my opponent’s uncertain play in a sharp endgame, I seized the initiative and gained good winning chances. But on the 38th move, as though bewitched by the pre-match forecast, I suddenly offered a draw. Naturally, the surprised Smyslov agreed.
But in the 11th game with Black he unexpectedly engaged me in a ‘last and decisive’ battle in the Chigorin Defence. This opening was clearly not in accordance with his style, and White developed a
powerful attack, based on the power of two bishops (during the match my opponent afforded me this advantage too often). By the 20th move it seemed that a crushing defeat was inevitable and that I would at last disgrace the prophet, but mysticism again triumphed: after my mistake on the 22nd move Smyslov found an unanticipated resource and literally by a miracle he gained a draw - 7-41 I was very upset that I did not make the decisive move, which everyone saw apart from me, and on the advice of Dr. Gasanov I took my second time-out, in order to relax a little, pull myself together, and get away from chess concerns.
Now came the 12th game, the last genuinely fighting game of the match. The events in it took a fascinating course. Smyslov was full of resolve to score at least one win, not even suspecting that the prognosis was not good for him...
Game 91
V.Smyslov-C.Kasparov
Final Candidates Match,
12th game, Vilnius 7.04.1982 Queen’s Gambit D34
1 d4 d5 2 -f 3 c5 3 c4 еб 4 cxd5 exd5 5 g3 6 6 ig2 *e7 7 0-0 0-0 8 <5hc3 4?bc6 9 Ag5
cxd410 ^xd4 h6 11 A.e3 Se8 12 a3
Korchnoi's novelty from the 2nd game of our match. Against me Beliavsky played both 12 Wa4 and 12 Wc2 (cf. Game No.79), while a little later Karpov played 12 Wb3 (Game Nos. 11, 13 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1975-1985).
12...sle6
Again, as in the 2nd, 8th and 10th games, the players made the first twelve moves at blitz speed.
Against Korchnoi I was able to demonstrate the viability of Black’s position after 13 Wb3 Wd7 14 £>xe6 fxe6 15 fiadl Ad6! 16 JLcl ФЬ8 17 Wa4 We7 18 еЗ аб 19 Wh4 fiac8.
But in the Vilnius match an original surprise awaited me, testifying to the seriousness of Smyslov’s opening preparation - 13 ihl!?. In the 2nd game after 13„.Wd7?! 14 4}xe6 fxe6 15 f4l Sed8 16 ±gl Дас8 17 Wa4 ФЬ8 18 fiadl We 8 19 e4 White gained the initiative. But then I improved with 13...Ag41 14 f3 (14 h3 Ad71) 14-.l.h5 with the sequel 15 JLgl Wd71 16 Wa4 Дс5 17 fiadl Ab6 18 Hfel Ддб! (8th game) or 15 4hxc6 bxc6 16 ^a4 Wc8! 17 Ad4 We6 18 ficl £ld7 (10th game), in both cases achieving comfortable play.
13 4hxe61?
Another novelty - and an important moment, which was hardly remarked on by the commentators. After failing to gain an advantage in the 8th and 10th games, Smyslov became disillusioned with his patent move 13 4hl.
13...fxe6
Black’s central pawn pair is threatened with an attack by e2-e4 or f2-f4-f5- White’s next few moves serve as a preparation for these operations.
14 Wa4 Hc8 (37) 15 Sadi (2) 15...ФИ8 (14)
In general a useful prophylactic move, but for the moment there was no particular need for it, and the immediate 15...аб!? was worth playing, with the idea of 16 ihl ®a5.
White needs to hurry: 18 Agl?! ^bc4 19 Wb3 Ac5! (disclosing the weakness of the еЗ-square). Now, however, the situation becomes critical: one more move, and Black’s defences in the centre will collapse, so time is precious for him as well.
16 ФН1 (10)
It only remains for White to play f2-f4 and Agl, and he will achieve a favourable position similar to that in the 2nd game. But here Black’s pieces are better placed for creating counterplay.
16...a6 (4)
The immediate 16,..£)a5l was more accurate, since after 17 Axa7 ®c4 White would have been in danger of losing his bishop: 18 Wb3 b6 19 e4 Wc7 20 £>b5 Wb71 or 18 Wb5 b6 19 £>a4 <^d7 20 e4 Wc7 21 exd5 Wxa7 22 dxe6 41f6, and it is only a question of compensation for the piece. And in the event of 17 f4 ^c4 Black gains an important tempo and the entire rhythm of White’s attack is disrupted (18 Acl Wb6!).
17 f41 (9) 17...£>a5 (16)
If 17...Wa5, then 18 Wc2! is unpleasant, for example: 18...<^g4 19 Agl Af6 20 f5 d4 21 ®e4 ^>e7 22 Wd2! Wxd2 23 fixd2 $^xf5 24 ^xf6 gxf6 25 Axb7 with the better endgame.
18 f5! (46)
18...b5 (13)
I praised this move in both Informator and The Test of Time, but now I think that it is not without its dangers, since it drives the queen to the main part of the battlefield and helps White to carry out his plan. However, Black did not have an easy choice:
a) 18,..Hc4?l 19 Wc2 e5 20 Wd2! (20 Agl d4 21 еЗ АхаЗ! with equality) 2O...d4 21 Axh6, and after 21...gxh6? 22 Wxh6+ Фд8 23 g4! White's attack is indeed irresistible. 21...dxc3? is also bad in view of 22 Axg7+ Фхд7 23 Wg5+ and Hxd8, while the two relatively best defences leave White with an enduring initiative: 21...Sf8 22 <$Je4 £ixe4 (22...gxh6? 23 Wxh6+ <^h7 24 b4 4hc6 25 f6 Axf6 26 Wh5! and wins) 23 Axe4 Йс8 24 ficl, or 21...^g4 22 <^d5! <^xh6 23 f6 Axf6 (23...Af8?l 24 Wg5!) 24 £>xf6 Sf8 25 ^d5 Sxfl+ 26 Ixfl 2c6 27 Wd3 etc.;
b) 18...£)c4 19 Acl, and previously I thought that 'Black cannot avoid the breakup of his centre’: 19...^>g4? 20 fxe6 ^ge3 21 АхеЗ ^хеЗ 22 4bxd5 etc. 19...exf5 20 £ixd5
от 19...^Ьб 20 Wh4(b3) is also insufficient, but the sacrifice of the d-pawn by 19...Wd6! 20 fxe6 b5 would still maintain equality: 21 Wb3 (21 Wc2 Wxe6 22 Wg6 4he5) 21...d4 22 ®e4 ®xe4 23 ±xe4 Wxe6 24 ±f5 Wc6+ 25 Wf3 Sf8, 22 fif4 Wxe6 23 fldxd4 Дс5 24 Sd3 ®g4, 22 if4 Wxe6 23 Sxd4 ±c5 24 Hd3 ®g4 25 ®e4 Wf5I, or 22 e3 d3 23 4?bd5 ^xd5 24 Sxd3 Sf8l 25 Ifdl Wxe6 26 ±xd5 Wg4 etc.
19 Wh4! (6)
Now the retribution for the frivolous behaviour of the black army, which has abandoned its king to the mercy of fate, seems inevitable. In fact everything is more complicated...
19...^g8 (2)
I was proud of this manoeuvre: 'Using Capablanca's principle "the minimum force in defence”, Black succeeds very quickly in creating effective threats.' Alas, after the opponent’s strongest reply it would have been much harder to do this than in the
game...
I condemned the natural move 19...^c41? because of 20 Axh6! <§bh7 21 Wh5 (19-.^h71? 20 Wh5 ®c4 21 JLxh6! comes to the same thing) 21...gxh6 22 fxe6 4^e3(?) 23 Sf7 ‘with mate in a few moves’. But in this line Black has an effective defence:
22...Ad6! 23 Wxh6 Wg51 24 Wh3 <^e3 25 §3xd5 ^xfl 26 Jie4 Wg7 27 Sxfl Sf81, and the compensation for the rook does not promise White anything more than dynamic equality.
20 Wh3? (5)
Played, apparently, on general grounds: the sacrifice on h6 may work at some point, and at h3 the queen is more comfortably placed. But here Smyslov missed his last winning chance in the match - 20 Wg41 £k4 21 JLcl JLg51 22 fxe6.
My opponent’s second, Viktor Kupreichik, maintained that after 22...Jlxcl(?) 23 Sxd5! Wb6 24 Sd7(?) Ag51 25 Дхд7 the game should have ended in a draw, but this idea is refuted by 25...^>e51. On the other hand, there was an instant win by 24 3f71 ^.g5 25 Дхд5 hxg5 (25...^f6 26 fixf6!) 26 Wh5+ ^h6 27 Wg6! ^xf7 28 Д.е41 (Alatortsev) or 27...^f5 28 Wxf5 <Sbd6 29 Wg6! and ±e4. Also, things are obviously bad for Black after 23...£>d6 (instead of 23-.Wb6) 24 £>e4 Дсб 25 Hfdl or 23...2te3 24 Sxd8 flcxdS 25 Wf4 i.d2 26 i.e4(h3).
The only possibility of resisting was 22...^f6! (instead of 22...Jlxcl?) 23 Лхд5 4jxg4 24 ixd8 Bcxd8 25 fixd5 ДЬ8! followed by ...^ge3 and ...Дхеб. In this dynamic endgame Black would have had
quite good compensation for the pawn and real drawing chances.
2O...^C4 (2) 21 ±cl (3) 21..Jlg5! (2) 22 fxe6 (12) 22...±xcl 23 Hxd (12)
The intermediate stroke 23 fixds is no longer so strong, if only in view of 23-..Wb6, when since 24 Hxcl?! ®xb2 25 Hd2 <$Ja4 is advantageous to Black, White has to save himself with the help of tactics - 24 Sd7! I.xb2 25 lxg71 Wxe6 26 fiff7 Wxf7 27 lxf7 <ad6.
23...£ie3 (4)
24^xd5! (3)
Smyslov was obviously counting on this move - the only chance of regaining his lost initiative. For the exchange White will have two pawns and prospects of an attack on the light squares.
24...^xfl! (3)
24...ЙХС1 25 Hxcl 4bxd5 26 Bdl #f6! (of course, not my previous suggestion 26...^e3? 27 fixd8 Hxd8 28 *gl or 26...£}gf6? 27 e4!) 27 Axd5 Wxb2 was also acceptable, but this variation seemed more dangerous to me in view of the rather insecure position of my king and the strong passed pawn on e6.
25 Ixfl lf8 (3)
25...Wg5 was also not bad. White’s activity is sufficient only for equality: Black has
the exchange for ‘one and a half’ pawns, all his pieces are in play, and his knight is about to occupy the blockading post at e7.
26 Ш?! (8)
It would appear that Smyslov was still dreaming of victory - only this can explain his desire to avoid the exchange of rooks. But the rook on fl has no future! Previously I recommended 26 Де4(?!), but after 26...<^e7! Black has somewhat the better chances: 27 £ixe7 (27 £>f4 Wd4!) 27...Wxe7 28 ±f5 g6! 29 Axg6 Hxfl+ 30 Wxfl Wxe6.
Therefore White should have played 26 flxf8 Wxf8 27 l.f3, retaining compensation for the exchange, sufficient for equality.
26...? e7 27 Wg4? (9)
A serious mistake, with time-trouble imminent. White could hope for counterplay only by retaining his strong knight on f4. Therefore he had to play 27 Wh5 (with the idea of h2-h4, Wg4 and h4-h5) 27...Wd4 28 Wh4 (28 b41?) 28...Wc51 29 -ib7 (29 Wxe7? 2xf4!) 29...ЙС7 30 JLf3 when the position is slightly better for Black, but almost equal.
Smyslov wanted to advance h2-h4-h5 without the loss of a tempo, but Black’s unexpected reply conclusively tips the scales in his favour.
27...g5! (13)
In the event of 27...Wd2 28 h4 Wxb2 29 ФЪ2 White could still have held on. In my choice of move I also took account of the opponent’s time-trouble, endeavouring to set him the most difficult problems, even at the risk of a counterattack. True, the outwardly dangerous move ...g7-g5 has more virtues than risks.
28 Wh3 (8)
Smyslov was pinning his hopes on this reply. After 28 ^d3 Sxfl+ 29 Axfl Wd5+ 30 e4 Wb3 White has chronic problems: 31 h4 Hf8! 32 Ae2 gxh4 33 Wxh41rxe6 etc.
28...Ш6! (nevertheless forcing the retreat of the knight) 29 £)d3 Hxfl+ 30 JLxfl S’g?!
3O...Wf8l? and ...Wf6! was also not bad, but the king move is stronger. Black has achieved everything he could have dreamed of, and now he is ready to break through with his rook into the opponent’s position.
31»g4(2)31...Wd5+(3)
The goal would also have been achieved by 31...1C4 32 e4 Wd4 33 <$Tb4 Hcl 34 We2 fibl 35 £>d3 £ic6 36 h4 Wf6 etc.
32 e4 (the knight on d3 loses its support, but 32 Ag2? was not possible on account of 32...1cl+! with mate) 32...Wd4 33 h4 Hf8 (2)
The immediate 33...We3 would have led to White’s complete paralysis, but I decided
to set a little trap.
34 Ae2 We3 35 'A'gZ (the attempted pawn exchange 35 hxg5 was fatal because of the cunning 35-.-h5!) 35...^g6
36 h5?
It is hard to offer White any good advice, but even so 36 hxg5 (36 e7 He8!) 36...hxg5 37 e7l was more resilient. Now З7...^хе7?! 38 <2Tf41 leads to unexpected complications: 38...Wxe4+ 39 Af3 Wc2+ 40 ФЬЗ Hh8+ 41 W15+ &f8 42 Wd4 Hh7 43 Wf6+ Фе8 44 g4 - the battle is still continuing!
However, after 37...He8! 38 Wf3 Wd2 39 £>c5 Hxe7 40 Wc3+ Wxc3 41 bxc3 Ha7 White cannot hold out.
36...^e7
The alternative was Зб...<йе5! 37 £^xe5 Hf2+ 38 ФЬЗ Wcl! (38...Sf4? 39 e71 with a draw) 39 Adi Wd2, when the curtain comes down.
37 b4 *h7 (5)
Or 37...<2k6!?, but all the same White is practically in zugzwang.
38 4>h2 Sd8 39 e5 Hxd3 40 Axd3+ Wxd3 0-1
In the 13th game the ‘planned’ draw was agreed on the 16th move (cf. Game No.90, note to White's 7th move), and this mystical match concluded ahead of schedule
with the predicted score вУг-ДУг.
The basis of my win was successful play with Black. I now knew that in matches a player’s mood directly depends on this: if with Black all is going well, you can calmly try to exploit the advantage of the white pieces. On the whole I was better in complicated situations, but I gained the greatest satisfaction from two endgames, where I managed - against none other than Smyslov! - to convert a comparatively small positional advantage.
Yes, I did not always win the won positions, but in general this was a successful match for me. Not once did I have a really bad position, although there were problems in the 2nd and 12th games. And I was very happy that I did not lose a single game: after all, the next match, the main one with Karpov, was to be played not only to six wins, but also to six defeats...
‘Return Match of the Century’
Four-round match USSR v. Rest of the World (London, 24-29 June 1984) - 21-19 (5-5; 6-4; 5У2-4У2; 4У2-5У2). Board results: 1. Karpov-Andersson - 2У2-1У2; 2. Kasparov-Timman -2У2-1У2 etc.
To celebrate my victory in the final Candidates match against Smyslov, a reception was held in the Spartak Sports Society Chess Club in Moscow with the participation of Petrosian and Tai. When someone in the audience asked me: ‘What do you think of Fischer?’, I replied: ‘This question would be better answered by his opponents, the living legends who are present here!’ On hearing these words, the dozing Tai (who was slightly sedated) raised his head and muttered: ‘Barely living legends...’ Petrosian threw him an angry glance, but then picturesquely registered his acceptance, gave
in and burst out laughing... Although he was already seriously ill, he nevertheless agreed to help me prepare for the forthcoming world championship match with Karpov in the autumn, and we even met on a couple of occasions.
Petrosian was dreaming of playing that summer in the USSR v. Rest of the World match, and was preparing to travel with the team, refusing to believe that his illness was incurable. But, alas, his days were numbered, and on 13th August Tigran Vartanovich passed away. The games and lengthy conversations with the Great Master were enormously beneficial to me, and much of his valuable experience came in useful in the fight for the world crown. His deep philosophical approach to everything associated with chess helped in developing staunchness of spirit, and in holding out in the most difficult situations.
At the end of June 1984 both Karpov and I had to interrupt our preparations for a week and head off to London for the long-awaited second USSR v. Rest of the World match. The first, I should remind you, called the 'Match of the Century', took place in 1970 and was won by the USSR team -20У2-19У2. Not surprisingly, before the London meeting the world press began talking about the 'Return Match of the Century’. Over the intervening 14 years the team line-ups (each had ten main players and two reserves) had changed almost beyond recognition - of the previous combatants there remained only Korchnoi (who had switched teams), Larsen, Polugayevsky, Smyslov and Tai.
Our first three boards were well known: Karpov, Kasparov and Polugayevsky. But our opponents, with the aim of improving their results, cunningly changed their board order: Korchnoi was sent to torment
Polugayevsky, the impregnable Andersson was to ‘man the gate’ against Karpov, and the experienced Timman was pitched against the ‘excitable’ Kasparov. This idea only partially justified itself: Korchnoi did indeed defeat Polugayevsky (+1=3, including a draw with the reserve Tukmakov), but Karpov and I beat our opponents by the same score. However, the best result was achieved by Beliavsky: by twice beating Seirawan on board 6 and scoring 1У2 out of 2 against the reserve Larsen, he notched up ЗУ2 out of 4! As a result, revenge was not gained: the Soviet team also won this match - 21-19.
I enjoyed an obvious advantage in my mini-match with Timman - I was constantly pressing, but in the first three games I did not manage to win. Before the 4th and last round our team was ahead by 'plus three' and was already close to victory in the match, but I wanted to make a worthy contribution to the overall aggregate and also to keep up with Karpov!
Game 92
G.Kasparov-J.Timman
‘Return Match of the Century’, 4th round, London 28.06.1984
Queen’s Gambit D55
1 d4 ®f6 2 c4 e6 3 d5 4 УТсЗ Ae7 5 Ag5 0-0 6 e3 (6) 6...h6 (6...^ibd7 - Game No.33) 7 Axf6 (7 Jlh4 - Game Nos. 20, 41) 7...Axf6 8 Wc2
Instead of the approved 8 ®d2 (Game No.54), I chose a fresh and, for me, semi-experimental continuation with my favourite queenside castling, which had been tried in the recent game Lerner-Georgadze (Nikolaev 1983). After a brief analysis it seemed quite promising to me.
8...C5 (the main reply; 8...^a6!? 9 Sdl c5 -Game N0.56 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1975-1985) 9 dxc5 Wa5 (8)
It soon transpired that the simple 9...dxc4! is better, as in the 27th game of my first match with Karpov (Game No.31 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1975-1985).
10 cxd5 exd5 (3) 110-0-0!
The key idea of the new variation. According to Larsen, an isolated pawn should not be blockaded, but attacked and captured! 11 Wd2 Ae6 (Botvinnik-Bondarevsky, Leningrad 1941) or 11 Hdl Деб (Portisch-Ivkov, Budapest I960) is far more modest.
ll...	Ae6? (12)
But this is already a serious mistake, after which Black is simply unable to get out of trouble. 11...АхсЗ! is correct, and after 12 Wxc3 one of two lines:
a)	12...Wxc3+ 13 ЬхсЗ Ae6 14 ^d4 Hc8 (14...£>d7 15 c6) 15 e41 with another divergence:
al) 15...Sxc5?, and in the Lerner-Georgadze game, and also in the forgotten source game Szilagyi-Pogats (Budapest 1952), after 16 £ixe6?! fxe6 17 exd5 exd5 18 Hxd5 ДхсЗ+ 19 ФЬ2 Hc8 Black held this slightly inferior endgame. However, awaiting Timman was 16 exds!, when 16...Axd5? is bad in view of 17 ‘ЙЬз! Axb3 18 Hd8+
ФЬ7 19 axb3 with the inevitable win of the knight, or 16...Ad7 17 c4, retaining the extra pawn (Yusupov-lnkiov, Sofia 1984);
a2) 15-..dxe4 16 £ixe6 fxe6 17 Дс4 Ф^7 18 fihel ®a6! 19 Ахаб Ьхаб 20 lxe4 Hxc5 21 fld7+ ^6 22 i>d2! (in correspondence games 22 Фс2 Дас8 and 22 ДеЗ Sf5 have been tried, in each case with equality) 22...Дас8 23 Hxa7 18c6 (23...Sxc3 24 Hxa6) 24 Bf4+ Фе5 25 Sf3 with an extra pawn, but Black can hope for a draw;
b)	12...Wxa2 (this capture is nevertheless better than its poor reputation) 13 Ad3 Феб (Уа-Уг, Nikolic-Ljubojevic, Wijk aan Zee 1986), and here I was planning 14 <4d21 with some advantage - subsequently this move brought White success in both over-the-board and correspondence tournaments.
12 -:xd5
12...1C8 (37)
12,.Jlxd5 13 Hxd5 Wxa2 14 I.c4 *al+ (14-.Axb2+? 15 *dl! and wins) 15 Wbl Wa4 16 Wa2 is also advantageous to White (Sturua-Klovans, Lvov 1984).
13 ФЬ1!
The point of the entire plan: after 13 £L)xf6? gxf6 Black’s counterplay could have become threatening. Nothing was given by 13 b4?! Wa3+ 14 ФЬ1 Axd5 15 Sxd5 Феб
(15...1rxb4+ is also possible) 16 Wb3 Wxb3+ 17 axb3 ФхЬ4 18 Sd7 Sd81, quickly regaining the pawn.
Here Timman again sank into thought: Black faces a difficult choice.
13...-lxd5 (22)
It turns out that 13...Sxc5 14 b41 Sxc2 15 £>xf6+ gxf6 16 bxa5 is clearly in White’s favour, for example: 16...Sc8 17 <?hd4 Феб 18 Фхеб fxe6 19 Лс4 or 16...flxf2?! 17 Hd8+ Фд7 18 £>d4 - annotating the game in Informator, I gave this variation as winning, but nine years later it occurred in a grandmaster game! After 18...Jlxa2+ 19 Фа1 (19 Фс1!?) 19...f5 20 JLd3 White won without difficulty (van Wely-Geller, Tilburg 1993).
Attempts to develop the knight immediately are also unsatisfactory: 13...^d7? 14 b4! Wd8 15 JLb5, 13...Фсб?! 14 £>xf6+ gxf6 15 a3, or 13...Фаб?! 14 Лхаб Ьхаб 15 Wd2! Wxc5 16 £>xf6+ gxf6 17 ^d4 etc.
14 Hxd5 Феб 15 1.C4? (4)
My eyes were dazzled by the mass of tempting possibilities! The natural move 15 a3! seemed too cautious to me, but after 15„.Фе7 16 Bd7! Дхс5 17 Wb3 fiac8 18 ±d3 White is a more than healthy pawn to the good.
15...ФБ4 (5)
Now 15...Фе7? 16 Md7! Жхс5 is catastro
phic for Black in view of 17
16 Wd21 (there was no reason to play 16 c6 Wc7 17 Wb3 Ьхсб 18 Id2 Hab8 with hopes of counterplay) 16...Жхс5 17 Йхс5 Wxc5 18 SclWb6? (1)
Returning the favour. 18...We7, my Informator recommendation, demanding accurate play of White, is also insufficient: 19 a3! We4+ 20 Фа1 aS 21 Wdl! (21 ^d4?! £ic6! with some compensation for the pawn), and if 21...Hd8, then 22 ®a4 b5 23 ±xb5! (23 Wxb5?? Wc2!, and Black rejoices) 23...1.xb2+ 24 ФхЬ2 £)d3+ 25 ФЬ1 <S\b4+ 26 Фа1 and wins.
But Black would have retained real chances of saving the game after 18...Wf5+! 19 Фа1 Sd8! (an unexpected resource!) 20 Wxb4! Wc2! 21 JLxf7+! Ф117! 22 Sbl fidl 23 ^d2 Sxd2 or 22 JLg6+ Wxg6 23 a3 Wxg2, and although the material advantage is on White’s side, he would have serious cause to regret that he did not play 15 a3!.
19 Wd7! (24)
Apparently a move that simply suggests itself, but before it was made all the nuances arising in the event of leaps by the black knight had to be taken into account.
19...1f8 (9)
19...£)d5? 20 ±b3 or I9...£)d3? 20 Sc2 are weak alternatives. Apparently Timman had
been counting on 19...^xa2!? - say, 20 JLxf7+? i’fS 21 l.xd4 22 exd4 ld8 23 Жс8 Hxc8 24 Wxc8+ (after 24 Дха2?? ®g6+ it is Black who gives mate!) 24...'4,xf7 25 Фха2 Wxd4 26 Wxb7 Фд8 with drawing chances in the queen endgame. But here he noticed that after 20 Дс2! the knight has no good move: 20...^4 21 ^se5! Д.хе5 22 &xf7+ ФЬ7 23 Sc8 Sxc8 24 Wxc8 h5 25 f4! and wins, or 2О...‘$кЗ+ 21 Фс1 <<0e4 22 Wxf7+! (but not my earlier variation 22 jlxf7+ ФЬ8 23 £>e5? in view of 23...^d6!) 22...ФЬ8 23 Wd5 ^c5 24 Д.е2 with an obvious advantage.
20 Wb5! (5) 2O...Wd6 (6)
It is hard to recommend the endgame after 2O...Wxb5 21 Jlb5 Sd8 22 a3 as being the lesser evil.
21 e4 (7)
‘An accurate move, creating the threat of e4-e5’, I commented in the magazine 64. But the modern computer considers the crude 21 Wxb7! to be more accurate: 21...ЖЬ8 (21...&h8 22 We4!) 22 Wxf7+ ФЬ8 23 b3 and wins.
21...£jc6 (if 21...We7, then 22 e5 ±g5 23 <^xg5 hxg5 24 еб!) 22 Ad5?!
Again 22 Wxb7! was more forceful: 22...ab8 23 Wxf7+ ФТ18 24 b3 or 22...<йе5 23 Wd5!?etc.
22...аб? (7)
Giving up a second pawn is equivalent to capitulation. 22...Wd7?l 23 Дхеб Ьхсб 24 Wxc6 or 22...ab8 23 Wb3! Wc7 24 h4 with the threat of g2-g4-g5 was also bad for Black.
However, he should have tried to save the game with the help of opposite-colour bishops by 22../M4! (22...<^e5 23 4hel!) 23 £>xd4 ixd4 24 Hdl Wb6 25 Wxb6 ДхЬб or 23 Wxb7 4hxf3 24 gxf3 Wxh2 25 Wxa7 We5 26 Дс2 h5 with counterplay. After this I was intending to play 23 Wd31 Wb6 (23...^xf3? 24 JLxf7+!) 24 e5 ^xf3 25 exf6 £>e5 26 Wf5, considering White’s advantage after the forced 26...gxf6 to be quite convincing. But here there would still have been work to do! 23 Wxb7 (7) 23...£>5 (it is easy to see that there is no way of saving the game: 23...^ib4 24 Wc7 or 23...£>e7 24 ДЬз! etc.) 24 Hc8 (9) 24...Hxc8 25 Wxc8+ Ф117 26 Wc21 (2)
With the cunning idea 26...^xf3? 27 e5+!.
26...4>g8 (6) 27 ^d2 (6) 27...g5 (f2-f4 was threatened, but now the white knight heads for f5) 28 a3 (3) 28...1g7 (2)
29 £>fl (9) 29...Wb6 30 <^g3 (2) 3O... .g6 31
*a2 (2) 31...И5 32 Wc8 (2) 32...h4 (7) 33
Wg8+ (3) 33..Ag7 34 ®h5 (6) 1-0
Times: 1.45-2.27.
It was pleasant for me to draw level with Karpov. My win was even the more impressive looking one, since at that time and until the end of the 1980s Timman was the strongest of the ‘indigenous’ western players.
Immediately after the ‘Return Match of the Century’ I was invited to take part in a fascinating event - the first simultaneous display in history, where the moves were transmitted via the cosmos by satellite. The idea of such a simuT arose literally in passing, and everything was prepared within 48 hours. Play was on ten boards. I was in London, along with the five best English junior players, selected by the British Chess Federation. A further five opponents - participants in the recent USA Junior Championship, among them future grandmasters, 12-year-old Ilya Gurevich and 16-year-old Patrick Wolff - played in New York. I defeated them 5-0, but the English players put up far more tenacious resistance.
I remember there being a pretty mating finish in the game with a future grandmaster, 17-year-old Stuart Conquest.
Came 93
G.Kasparov-S.Conquest Simultaneous Display,
London 30.06.1984 Slav Defence D16
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 £>f3	4 £>c3 dxc4 5 a4
JLg4 6 £>e5 JLH5 7 f3 (the alternative is 7 g3) 7...«fd7 8 ^xc4 e5 9 ^e4
I was only very superficially acquainted with this variation, but I knew that the knight move was the main one (although 9 ДеЗ is also not bad, K.Grigorian-Vasyukov, 42nd USSR Championship, Leningrad 1974).
9...kb4+ 10 l.d2 We7 11 Axb4
The most popular line. 11 dxe5 0-0 12 Ecl or 12 f4 leads to double-edged play with slightly the better chances for White. ll...Wxb4+ 12 Wd2 Wxd2+ 13 <i’xd2 exd4 14 4>ed6+ Фе7
15 4xb7
This is not bad - what a pawn to capture! But 15 4>f5+!? is more timely: 15...ФТ6 (lS-S’de 16 4>xd4 is no better, Bagirov-Podgaets, Tbilisi 1973) 16 <$Jxd4 Hd8 17 e4 4k 5 18 ФеЗ Hxd4 19 4>xd4 2fo3+ 20 ФсЗ 4>xal 21 Ле2 4)d7 22 Exal, and Black is unable to equalise:
a) 22...4ic5 (Polugayevsky-Hiibner, Tilburg 1985) 23 g41 Ag6 24 h4 (Polugayevsky) with an unpleasant initiative;
b) 22...Фе7 23 b4 (23 4>a51 ? Eb8 24 Лаб!) 23...f6 24 Hdl 4jb6 (24-..Hb8 25 £>e3l?) 25 4ki5 4ixa4+?! (25...Hb8 26 Лаб!? - Kramnik) 26 ФЬЗ 4ib6 27 4ixb7 (Kramnik-Damljano-vic, Moscow Olympiad 1994). In this game, which I witnessed with my own eyes, White won easily, and the soon the entire variation almost disappeared from tournament play.
15...4ia6 16 4>ba5?l
A dubious venture: by rushing to bring back his knight, White only loses time. The modest 16 e3! was more appropriate:
16...dxe3+ (16...4)dc5?! 17 4ixc5 4ixc5 18 4ia5 is advantageous to White, Adorjan-Flear, Szirak 1986) 17 4>xe3 with a small advantage.
16...4)b4 (now Black has an excellent game) 17 Ha3 4k5
17..^f6 was also not bad, when a possible continuation is 18 h4 4k5 19 g4 Лдб 20 g5+ Фе7 21 h5 if5 with equality.
18 e3 dxe3+ (a temporary pawn sacrifice was also possible - 18...Bhd8!? 19 exd4 ФТО, hiding the king) 19 Hxe3+ Фfб 20 g4 Had8+ 21Фе2 4g6 22 h4
In this dynamic middlegame-type position Black has to concern himself with his advanced king. But here my opponent clearly overestimated his chances.
22...h5?
Of course, Black should have given a bishop check - 22...id3+, and after 23 Фf2 jlxfl 24 Hxfl Ehe8 25 Hxe8 Exe8 26 b3 the balance would have been maintained. 22...h6 was also acceptable. No sooner had Conquest placed his pawn on h5, than I saw a fitting refutation of Black’s aggression.
23 g5+ Фf5
24 4)b7l!
Apparently Black was attracted by the counter-attacking variation 24 He5+? Фf4 25 Hxc5 4>d3 26 Exc6 Bhe8+, in which an
active role is played by bis king. But after the sudden diversionary knight sacrifice he himself ends up in a mating net!
24...&d4
After 24...£ixb7 White wins with the problem-like 25 Se4! (with the mating threats <йеЗ and Ah3) 25...^h7 26 JLh3+ Фдб 27 <йе5 mate!
25 rJ₽f2! (again a spectacular move: the white king joins the attack) 25...Sxc4 (25-^4 26 £>xc5) 26 4>g3! Hxh4
2б...Же4 27 fxe4+ <2ixe4+ 28 ^f3 was also hopeless, for example: 28...^d2+ 29 Фе2! £)xfl 30 lxfl+ Фд4 31 4И6 i.d3+ 32 lxd3 <^xd3 33 ®xf7!, or 28...Фе5 29 <Shc5 4bc2 30 Sxe4+ Лхе4+ 31 <£>xe4 ^d4+ 32 ФеЗ £rf5+ 33 '4>d2! Фхе4 34 ^d3+, and Black nevertheless loses a piece (34...Фе5 35 Sel+ <4>f4 36 Hfl+ etc.).
27 fixh4 <£>xb7? (a blunder, but 27-^d5 28 JLh3+ Фхд5 29 He5+ &f6 30 lxd5 cxd5 31 <$}xc5 was also depressing) 28 JJxb4 1-0
Altogether I won seven games and three ended in a draw, including the game with the youngest participant, the 12-year-old schoolboy and future top English grandmaster Mickey Adams, being unable to breach him in the Caro-Kann (incidentally, four years later in a simul’ against young stars in Cannes I also dropped one and a half points: the more grown-up Adams beat me, while our Misha Ulybin gained a draw).
After the simul’ we jointly commented on the games - and this despite the fact that we (I have in mind my opponents across the ocean) were thousands of kilometres apart! For those times this was an extraordinary event, and as a farewell I fervently declared in English: ‘Scientific progress should above all serve the aims of peace and mutual understanding between the nations of our planet!’
From London I set off to Barcelona, where for the second successive year I was presented with an elegant little statue - the chess ‘Oscar’ for 1983, and then I rapidly returned home and continued preparing for my first match for the world crown.
First Match with Karpov: 1984/85
The Karpov-Kasparov match for the world championship (Moscow, 9th September -15th February 1985) was played to the first to win six games, draws not counting, but after 48 games, with the score standing at +5-3(=4O), it was terminated ‘without a final result’.
The dramatic course of my unlimited match with Anatoly Karpov and the whodunit-like story of its termination are covered in detail in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1975-1985, and so here I will mention only the most memorable moments of the battle and will give two of my best games.
A match for the crown is fundamentally different to any Candidates match, even the most difficult and intense. In particular because here the pretender is opposed by the world champion himself - a fighter, who is far more skilled in play at the highest level, with a completely different resistance threshold. In order to overcome him, you must regularly make moves of the highest quality, and this demands chess and psychological preparation of a far more serious nature. My experience, acquired in the qualifying cycle, although extremely useful, proved to be insufficient. The level of the problems which Karpov set me in our first match, and I had to set him, exceeded by an order of magnitude that which came before.
My group of constant chess helpers consisted of four people: Nikitin, Shakarov,
Vladimirov and Timoshchenko. A fifth - the Lvov grandmaster lossif Dorfman - appeared only at the start of the main match. In addition, the Hungarian grandmaster Andras Adorjan also participated in the last pre-match training session. Later he was also at the match for several weeks, during its most unpleasant period. After it Andras stopped coming to our training sessions (he did not fit into the team), but he helped me both in the second match with Karpov (1985), and my short matches with Andersson, Timman (1985) and Miles (1986). It was he who gave me the idea of taking up the Grunfeld Defence, in which he was a great expert. Andras liked very much analysing ‘his’ openings and in them he would find new, sometimes unexpected ideas.
Nikitin: ‘This was a small force to carry out the great amount of work planned, but no one else came to help us: they were afraid of incurring the wrath of the existing champion and his patrons. And the list of players enlisted to help Karpov prepare, apart from his official seconds Balashov and Zaitsev, was initially simply frightening: Geller, Polugayevsky, Makarychev, Georgadze, Mikhalchishin, Vaganian, Ubilava and Podgaets (in the second match there was also Salov and Zhelyandinov). Plus young army masters, serving in the so-called sports company and carrying out the donkey work of compiling selections of games.’
The first stage of this marathon match was distinguished by my nervousness and my numerous mistakes. This applied even to my favourite dynamic positions, where previously I felt very confident, but now I was making bad oversights. Surprises during a game made me feel uncomfortable and undermined my fighting spirit. In the 3rd game, after encountering an excellent preparation by the opponent to my
new move, I became rattled and my response was not nearly at the standard of a world championship match. Emotions overcame cold rationality, which is so necessary for such matches. After this failure, negative feelings developed in my sub-conscious, leading to a lowering in the standard of my play, and to a loss of completeness and logic.
But Karpov played in his customary cool-headed manner, endeavouring to calculate variations accurately and fully exploit each of my errors. The stage from the 6th to the 9th games proved disastrous for me: three defeats, and all with tragic, crude, at times inexplicable mistakes.
Game 94
G.Kasparov-A.Karpov
World Championship Match, 6th game, Moscow 26/27.09.1984
One of the critical moments of the entire match. Here it would have done no harm for me to remember that in my childhood I liked arbitrarily to divide the chess board into right and left halves, and see what the balance of forces was in each of them. In the given instance all Black’s pieces are
bunched together on the queenside, having left their lone king to its fate. The evaluation of the position is obvious: White has every chance of building up an irresistible attack.
25 Wd4?
To this day I simply can’t understand why I went in for the exchange of queens, instead of playing in my style - 25 Wh5! (not the only strong queen move, but the most resolute!), when 25...^xd5 26 le4 Wd6 27 Sd4 is bad for Black, as is 25...Wf8 26 Ah3 Hc7 27 ПеЗ ^xa2 28 Axg7! Wxg7 29 le8+ Af8 30 d6! or 25...^xa2 26 We51 Wf8 (26...f6 27 We6+ 4>h8 28 Же4 - 28 Axf6!? - 28...Wd6 29 Wf5 with crushing threats) 27 JLe41 (threatening W5) 27„.<S,h8 28 Wh5 Wg8 29 Af5! Hd8 (otherwise Se4-h4) 30 Wg5! Hf8 (3O...fixd5? 31 Wxg7+!) 31 Wd21. A fantastic position, which could well have rivalled the finish to the 16th game of the second match (1985). White gains a decisive material advantage: 3O...^b4 31 Ac3, or 3O...Ab4 31 Wxa2 Axel 32 Wxa6.
It is clear that 25 Wh51 would have brought me a swift and spectacular win, and with it the score 1-1. The entire match would have turned out differently! But how - that I do not know...
25...Wxd4 26 £sxd4 ^xa2 27 ^ic6?
Some kind of black-out... 27 £>f5! suggested itself, with very strong threats. Botvinnik, who was following the game, said: ‘Now Kasparov will certainly play his knight to f5 - this is completely in his style.’ But the terrible thing is that this more than natural move (attacking the g7-pawn and threatening d5-d6), which was heatedly discussed in the press centre, was one that I hardly even considered! Although, no way for Black to save the game is apparent - in all variations it is the powerful passed d-pawn that decides matters. But now, as one
commentator said, 'the remainder of the game was torture for White’.
27...AC5! 28 Ah3?! (28 ^e7+! Axe7 29 Sxe7 would have retained the initiative and chances of confusing my opponent, who was in time-trouble) 28...fia8 29 Ad4 Axd4 30 <?Jxd4 ‘S’fei (neutralising the swiftmoving passed pawn) 31 d6 £>c31
32 ^Сб?
And this is already the decisive mistake. 'White should have forced a draw - 32 Ag2 Hd8 (32...Se8?! 33 Hal) 33 Ac6 Ac8 34 £>xb5.’ (Yusupov)
32...АБ7 33 Ag2
After 33 Ad7 g6 34 He3 White would lose his passed pawn - 34...b4 35 ^xb4 Sje4, after which the a-pawn can be stopped only at the cost of a piece.
33—He8! 34 ^e5 (or 34 Hal Axc6 35 Axc6 Деб!, winning a pawn) 34...f6! 35 d7 Hd8 36 Axb7 fxe5
And after mistakes by both sides Black nevertheless won on the 71st move (0-1). One of the most nightmarish games in my career!
After the first six games the champion’s enormous match experience enabled him to work out a method of playing for a win: essentially Karpov simply waited for my
next 'gift' and provoked me into mistakes, by creating positions in which my impulsiveness and unpreparedness for play at the highest level would increase their probability.
In the 7th game the champion 'served from the other side’ - he played 1 d4. There was no great surprise in this, but when you are in disarray you act over-sensitively to any innovation by the opponent. I wasted time hesitating, despite the decision taken beforehand to play the Tarrasch Defence. The consequence of my uncertainty became severe time-trouble...
Came 95
A.Karpov-G.Kasparov
World Championship Match, 7th game, Moscow 28.09.1984
35...ЙС2?
A terrible time-trouble lapse in a practically equal position: I made the second move of a variation, having mentally already exchanged the queens! The obvious 35..>xd3 36 Sxd3 Sc2! 37 a4 g5 38 l.d2 <S‘f7 39 JLb4 ^e6 40 fld7+ Фдб would have given an easy draw.
‘As he was making the move 35...Дс2,
Garry winced when he suddenly saw the white queen on the board. Without taking his hand off the rook, he tried in vain to find another, more appropriate square. But, on failing to find one, he let go of the "upstart”, and violently bashed the clock button.' (Nikitin)
36 We3! fic8 37 We7 b5?
I was already thoroughly dispirited, and with my flag hanging I was unable to find 37...Bf7 38 Wxf7+ ®xf7 39 Sxhs g5 40 ±d6 (Averbakh) 4O...^e6! with good saving chances thanks to the active rook: 41 Sh7+ 4ig7 42 g4 Йсб 43 ДЬ4 Дс2 etc.
38 Sd8 Bxd8 39 Wxd8 Wf7 40 ±d6 g5 41 Wa8 &g7 42 Wxa6
This last move was sealed. Without resuming the game, Black resigned (1-0).
The three defeats at the start of the match killed my fighting spirit, and I needed time to think about what had happened and regain my composure, even if only a little...
In the 9th game after some hesitation I decided to employ the Tarrasch Defence again, since the opening outcome of the 7th game had been quite acceptable for Black. But Karpov was excellently prepared and he was able to emerge from the opening with a slight advantage. The game was adjourned in an almost equal endgame, but with my sealed move I made the defence more difficult, and soon after the resumption I made a serious mistake.
Game 96
A.Karpov-G.Kasparov
World Championship Match, 9th game, Moscow 05/06.10.1984
All the attention of the two sides is fo
cused on the kingside - the only part of the board where the white king may be able to break through. Is Black able to prevent this?
46...gxh4?
In expectation of the automatic reply 47 gxh4 (the basis of our analysis), after which White cannot break through: 47-Ag6 48 ФдЗ Феб 49 <йд2 <i>d6 50 <?jf4 Af7 51 £>d3 Леб 52 Фс5 Ac8 with a draw.
In view of Black’s subsequent problems, other ways of defending should have been sought - for example, 4б...Феб!. This was deemed to be the most accurate reply: now 47 hxg5 fxg5 48 f4 fails to 48...g4 with a draw. But there are also other tries:
a)	47 g4 hxg4 48 hxg5 (to Dvoretsky’s recommendation 48 $3xg4 gxh4 49 Фд2 there is the satisfactory reply 49.•• Af5 50 £>e3 Ag6 51 ФЬз Ah5 52 f4 Ae2 53 ФхЬ4 Af3) 48...gxf3! 49 gxf6 (49 ixfs fxg5 50 Фд4 &f6 51 ^>xd5+ фдб with a draw -Nunn) 49...Ae4l 50 <^g4 Фf7 51 ФдЗ Феб 52 ®ie5 Фxf6 and Black loses his a6-pawn, but gains a draw with the help of zugzwang, or 52 Фf4 lS’f7 53 Фе5 Адб! 54 Фxd5 Ah 5 55 ®f2 Фxf6 with a draw (Dvoretsky);
b)	47 Фд2 Ad3 48 g4 hxg4 (the waiting move 48...Ag6 will also do) 49 fxg4 Ae4+ 50 ФдЗ &f7l (but not 5O...gxh4+? 51 ФхЬ4) 51
h5 Феб! 52 £>dl Ah7 53 ^c3 Ac2 54 ФfЗ Фd6 55 ФеЗ Феб 56 Фd2 Ah7, when the white king cannot break through, and on its own the knight cannot win the game: 57 a4 bxa4 58 <Фха4 f5 etc.
Thus 46...Феб would have given Black a simpler draw.
47 <^g2!! (14)
This unexpected and brilliant move, which we overlooked in our home analysis, left me in a state of shock and my resistance almost collapsed. I intuitively sensed that now Black’s position was hopeless... 47...hxg3+ (14) 48 ФxgЗ (White quickly picks up the h5-pawn and breaks through with his king) 48...Феб
As was shown by Marin, it was no better to play 48...Ag6 49 £)f4 Af7 50 ФР14 Фе7 51 ^xh5 Феб (51...Axh5 52 Фхк15 and wins) 52 $3g7+ Фе7 53 Фд4, when after 53...£d6 54 £bh5 Black loses his f-pawn and with it the game, while 53...Ag6 54 ^h5 Ac2 55 ^f4 Фd6 56 Ф115 Adi 57 Фдб Фе7! leads to a position from the game (where 58 £)h51 etc. is decisive).
49 ®f4+ Фf5 50 ФхИ5 Феб (forced, in view of the threat of ?3g7-e8-c7) 51 W4+ Фdб 52 Фg4 Ac2 53 ФИ5 Adi 54 Фg6 Фе7!
Of course, not 54-Axf3? 55 Фxfб, winning the d5-pawn and the game.
55 ^xd5+?
A blunder: tbe d5-pawn was merely hindering Black! 55 ^h5!, which the commentators also overlooked at the time, is far stronger. Now 55-A.C2+ is insufficient: 56 Фд7 Феб 57 ®xf6 ibl (57...<S’f5 58 ®xd5 -Dvoretsky) 58 £ig4 i’fS 59 Ф^7 Ф^4 60 Феб ФxfЗ 61 ®f6 ФеЗ 62 Фxd5 and wins (Marin).
Black must play 55...Axf3 56 ®xf6 JLe4+! (5б...Феб is worse: 57 4he8 Фd7 58 ^g7 Фе7 59 Ф*5 Фйб 60 Фf6 and wins) 57 Фд5 JLd31 (57-.Ад2 58 Фf5, driving back the king and winning the d5-pawn), but a joint analysis by Marin and Dvoretsky (2005) demonstrates a pretty win for White after 58 £}g41 JLfl! 59 ^e5 JLh3 60 Фдб! Феб 61 £)сб Фd6 62 £ia5 Фе7 63 £>b3 Jld7 64 ^с5 i.c8 65 Фд7! ±f5 66 £ixa6 ±d3 67 ®Ь8 ±с2 68 ®сб+! Феб 69 Фf8! 1.д6 70 ^а7 &d3 71 Фе8 Ле 2 72 <йсб! Фdб 73 ^е7! Феб 74 Фd8 Фd6 (74-.-lS.fl 75 £>с6) 75 £>f5+ Феб 76 ®еЗ Фd6 77 Фс8 Феб 78 ФЬ8, when the king breaks through to the b5-pawn, after which a3-a4 proves decisive.
And if Black defends against the raid along the 8th rank - 68...i!d7 69 £>e5+ Фе7, White converts his extra pawn by 70 £>g4 and £ie3, and then ‘he cannot be prevented from bringing back his king and, after playing his knight to c3 at a convenient moment, advancing a3-a4’ (Dvoretsky).
But this was established only twenty years after the match, under the watchful eye of a computer...
55...Фе6
Immediately after the game I regretted that I had not played 55„Ф^6!?. Soviet commentators diplomatically remarked that after 56 <£ixf6 jlxf3 ‘the win is still not so simple’, which translated into modern language means ‘the position is a dead draw’: 57 &f5 Лд2 58 Ф^4 A.h3 59 ФеЗ ^.f5
60 £>e4+ Фd5 61 £>c5 ±c8 62 ФdЗ ±f5+ and ...JLc8. And 56 <2k3 JLxf3 57 Фxf6 Лд2(с6) would have reduced the game to a drawn position discovered by the analysts.
56 <?k7+
5б..,Фд7?
Submissively giving up a second pawn. Alas, mentally I was already reconciled to defeat and I did not suspect how difficult things were for White! 56..Ф^6 was far stronger, with the idea of 57 ^xa6 JLxf3 58 Фxf6 Фd5 (Averbakh) 59 ®с7 ФхЬ4 60 £)xb5+ Фс4 with a draw, or 57 £>e8+ Фе7 (but not 57-^d5? 58 f4l) 58 £)xf6 JLxf3 59 Ф^5 Фd6 60 Ф^4 Л.д2 61 ФеЗ ±h3 - with the same draw as in the previous note. But the most surprising thing is that, as a deep analysis shows, even though two pawns down Black is not lost!
57 ^хаб Jlxf3 58 Фxf6 Фиб 59 ФТ5 Фй5 60 Фf4 ЛИ1 61 ФеЗ Фс4 62 £к51 (16) 62...i.c6
б2...Лд2 (Geller) 63 <2id3 Jlhl(b7) was also suitable.
63 £id3 i.g2
‘There was the interesting idea бЗ...Ле8 64 £>e5+ Фd5 with the hope of holding out two pawns down.’ (Averbakh) 64 ^e5+ (13)б4...ФсЗ
64...id5!? (Averbakh) came into consideration, for example: 65 ^g4 ЛЬз 66 ^h6
Ae6 or 65 £)d7 Ahl 66 ФЬЗ Ae4+ 67 ФеЗ Af3 68 a4 bxa4 69 £)Ь6+ Феб 70 ^xa4 Ah5(g4), and the two extra pawns do not bring success (as shown by the Tablebase).
65 A7Tg6 Фс4 66 £>e7
66...АБ7? (17)
Only this is the decisive mistake: now Black loses because of zugzwang. During the game many observers suggested that 66...Ahl! would have been more tenacious, and here a win has still not yet been found:
a) 67 £>f5 (67 d5? Axd5 with a draw) 67../ids! 68 ®g3 (68 if4 Ae4! - Marin) 68...Ag2 69 id3!? - to this move by Dvoretsky there is Muller’s reply 69~Af3!? 70 £tfl Ae4+ 71 ФеЗ Af3 72 <^еЗ+ Фе4 73 ^c41 Фd5! 74 ^b2 Феб 75 a4 bxa4 76 <йха4 Ah5(g4), with the same draw as in the note to Black’s 64th move;
b) 67 ®c8 Фd5 68 id3 Ae4+ 69 ФеЗ Феб (Timman), and my attempt 70 ^>e7+ Фd7 71 ^g8 Феб 72 £ih6 Af3 73 ФdЗ Ahl 74 £ig4 (with the idea of 74-Ag2? 75 ^f2! Af3 76 £ie4 or 75-Afl+ 76 ФеЗ and ^d3-f4, winning) was parried by Dvoretsky with 74-Af3! 75 £>e3 id6 or 75 £)f2 Фd5.
67 Ag2?l
'And again 67.-ids would have set White more problems’ (Averbakh). After 68 ФdЗ Феб! to succeed White needs to trans
fer his knight to c3, and this aim is achieved only by the paradoxical move 69 4^g7+!!, found in 2005 by Muller (obviously at the board it would have been very hard, if at all possible, to find such a move), for example: 69..^d6 70 £>e8+! Фd7 (7О...Фе7 71 ®c7 Ac6 72 d5) 71 £>f6+ Феб 72 ®e4 Ac6 73 £k3, or 69-^d7 70 ^h5 Ag2 (7О..Фч16 71
and 4be4-c3) 71 <^f4! Afl+ 72 Фе4 Фd6 73 ФеЗ! Ac4 74 £>e2 Феб 75 ^c3 and wins. 68 ^d6+ ФЬЗ 69 £ixb5 Фа4 70 4^d6! 1-0
After 7О...ФхаЗ 71 b5 the bishop has to be given up for this pawn. Times: 3-25-3.55.
Thus the score had increased to 4-0 in Karpov’s favour. For me it came as a great shock to lose four games out of nine, without a single win (just imagine: during the two preceding years I had only lost three games, and here I had already lost four!). I was two steps away from a humiliating rout.
It only remained, so to speak, for the champion to wrap up and dispatch his opponent, i.e. me. But here Karpov violated an undisputable law of the struggle - the opponent must be finished off. Having decided that I myself would ripen and drop off, like a mature fruit, he relaxed the pressure. Intoxicated by success, Karpov set himself a high objective: to win by a 6-0 whitewash and disable a dangerous rival for a long time. This was no longer a contest only with me, but also with the shadow of the legendary Bobby Fischer, who in his time won by the same score (without any draws!) in his Candidates matches with Taimanov and Larsen.
The decision not to take risks played into my hands. To last out for as long as possible, I needed to regain my composure and urgently change tactics. From here on I began playing extremely cautiously, en
deavouring to exclude even the slightest risk. There followed a record series of seventeen draws! This came to an end in the 27th game, in which I lost a drawn endgame. The extreme tension of the two and half
months' struggle nevertheless made itself felt: I relaxed prematurely in a simple position, which on another day I would have held without difficulty.
The score became 5-0 (with 22 draws) and I found myself right on the brink. Those were difficult days! It seemed to be all over - but here the most interesting part began. Unexpectedly, the 27th game became a turning-point, and not a 'killer' as many imagined it would. Who could have thought that there were a further 21 games to come, and that Karpov would not gain another win?!
The crunch was to come in the 31st game. All the indications were that it was destined to be decisive. That was their plan. Karpov wore a new suit for the occasion and he came on to the stage looking smart and fresh - he was obviously aiming for a win. His entire entourage also turned out in their Sunday best. From the very start of the game the press centre was full, many TV cameras were in operation and in the auditorium there was a special tension in the air - the expectation of something significant was felt. In a secluded corner behind the stage a laurel wreath, prepared by the USSR Chess Federation, was awaiting its owner. Everything was ready for the ceremony planned for that evening. Only one thing remained - to win the game.
And the first half of it went well for Karpov. He gained an advantage and was even able to win a pawn. But then something extraordinary happened: when the situation became sharper, he simply panicked. Generally speaking, I was the one who
should have panicked, but in fact I was completely calm. To make sure I even took off my jacket.
Game 97
A.Karpov-G.Kasparov
World Championship Match, 31st game, Moscow 07.12.1984
22 Wd3?
The critical moment of the game. Karpov decides simply to capture the pawn, but the energetic 22 £)f3! would have set Black far more difficult problems: 22...^c5 (22...±xf3 23 Wxf3 is also depressing) 23 ^xc5 Лхс5 24 4he5 Да8 25 £>d3 fte4 26 Де5 or 25 f3 ^h5 26 if2 £if4 27 Bel with unpleasant pressure, although it is rather early to be talking about the inevitability of White winning.
22. ..Деб!
Thanks to the poor position of the knight on a4 and his activity in the centre, Black gains quite good compensation for the pawn. '22...£)c5 23 Wxd4 Bd8? did not work because of 24 Wxd8+! Jlxd8 25 Bxd8+ ФЬ7 26 ДЬ8! Wa8 27 £>b6, and the black queen cannot escape from the dungeon.’ (Lilien-thal)
23 ±b3 ^e4
Here I gained something of a new lease of life and calmed down. I remembered an old game with Alburt (Game No.28), where White was also a pawn up, but everything was spoiled by his knight being stuck on a4 and hopelessly inferior in strength to Black’s bishop.
24 Wxd4
24...Wb7
This move was not commented upon: Black is a pawn down, and it would seem that he should avoid the exchange of queens, doing everything possible to sharpen the play. But here was a convenient opportunity to exploit the ‘hanging’ state of the white pieces: 24...Wxd41? (a computer recommendation) 25 Bxd4 fie8l? (an ambush!) and ...Jlf6, with activity giving a quite easy draw.
However, at that moment I sensed some uncertainty on the part of Karpov. Possibly he saw that his advantage was extremely shaky, and less that it had seemed a few moves earlier. The feeling that victory was slipping away upset his composure...
25 l.d5
‘A timely simplifying manoeuvre’ (Averbakh). Was there a worthy alternative? There was no point in making an escape
square for the king - 25 h3 in view of 25...^>xg3 26 fxg3 JLxa4 27 Wxa4 £>c5 and ,..^xb3. And after 25 £k3 ^dc5 Black has good play for the pawn: 26 A.d5 if6! 27 Лхсб (27 Wc4 £>XC3) 27...Wxb2 28 Wxe4 £>xe4 29 £ixe4 fld8, and after also capturing the a-pawn the black queen will be rather stronger than the three minor pieces, or 26 Ac2 'йхдЗ (26...JLf6!? 27 Wc4 Де8) 27 hxg3 Wxb2 28 ®d5 Wb7 29 £>xe7+ Wxe7 with equality.
25...	^df6 26 JLxc6 Wxc6 27 b3 (the knight is defended, but it is still out of play) 27...He8
27-Hd81? was perhaps more accurate, driving the queen into the corner - 28 Wai, and only then 28...Де8 (in addition, 28...Дс8 or 28...^d2 is interesting).
28Wd3?!
For the second time in this game the queen ends up ‘in the wrong place at the wrong time’ (Karpov must have rather unhappy memories of Wd3). Now the position does indeed become sharp. All the commentators recommended 28 Wc4l, which would still have left White as the stronger side:
a)	28...Wb7 - possibly this is what I would have played, continuing to maintain the tension. But then Karpov could have cre
ated problems for Black with 29 ^f3, for example: 29...ЙС8 30 Wd3 Wb5 31 Wbl, intending to question Black's compensation for the pawn, although the position is still full of life;
b)	28...Wxc4 29 bxc4 Bc8. Apparently it was this endgame that my opponent wanted to avoid, as he was afraid of its drawing tendencies: 30 Bd4 <^g51 31 ^b6 Деб 32 <^id5 &f8 33 £>xe7 Фхе7 34 ®d3 <5^e6 35 Hh4 g5 36 Hxh6 Hxc4, or 30 4jb6 Дс51 (but not ЗО...Дсб 31 ^d5 S’fS 32 ®xe7 Фхе7 33 Sell) 31 ^d3 Bc6 32 <Sd5 ^xd5 33 cxd5 Sc2 34 Bel ®xg3 35 Bxe7 Bd2 36 hxg3 Bxd3, and in both cases Black should be able to hold the position.
28...h5!
Potential tension is created on the king-side, and after the probable exchange ...<5^xg3 and hxg3 the black knight can be established at g4. It was evident that Karpov had become nervous. And while he was feverishly seeking a simple way of solving the problems which had suddenly arisen (but there no longer was such a way), I took off my jacket and with a confident air I began strolling around the stage.
29 Wc4
Too late! In the event of 29 ^>f3 <йд4 Black also has good counterplay - the white
king is under the fire of his pieces, and the knight on a4 is a long way away, for example: 30 ^e5 ®xe5 31 Лхе5 Ah 4 with clear compensation for the pawn (32 f4 Af2+ 33 £fl Aa7 34 Ab 2 Af2 35 Wd7 Wa8 36 fid2 Ag4).
29-Wb7 30 Af3 Bc8 31 We2 Ag4 32 Ae5 Axg3 33 hxg3
33...*b5l (now Black has absolutely nothing to fear) 34 Ac4 (or 34 Wxb5 axb5 35 Axg4 hxg4 36 Ab 6 Дс2 with equality) 34...Af6 35-:ab6 Де8
Here I offered a draw, and Karpov, with just three minutes left for five moves, accepted it with a strange sigh of relief (Уг-'/г). In another situation I could have played on - say, if 36 Wfl there is the unpleasant 36...h4 (although White is not in any great danger). 36 Wd2 is safer: 36...Ae7l 37 Ad5 Ac5 38 Ade3 Axe3 39 АхеЗ Axe3 40 fxe3 Wg5 with equality. Times: 2.28-2.22.
This draw was a great moral victory for me. It was not just that the conclusion of the match, planned for that day, had been frustrated; the main thing was that it marked a psychological turning-point. I realised that if I were to continue solving difficult problems as I had in this game,
events in the match would take a different turn. After all, Karpov’s earlier wins had been gained largely thanks to the blunders which had littered my play from the start. But as soon as I began resisting tenaciously, seeking only the slightest of counterchances, Karpov was unable to do anything with me.
The initiative had passed to me, and it was not surprising that I won the next game. This was my first win in the 94 days of the match and my first ever win against Karpov, beginning with our duel in a simultaneous display ten years earlier (Game No.ll).
Game 98
G. Kasparov-A. Karpov
World Championship Match, 32nd game, Moscow 12.12.1984
Queen’s Indian Defence E12
1 d4 2if6 2 c4 еб 3 &f3 b6
If Karpov had been in a peaceable mood that day and had been feeling a lack of strength, he would probably have chosen a solid set-up in the classical Queen’s Gambit.
4 ®c3 l.b7 5 a3 d5 6 cxd5 <Sbcd5 7 Wc2
In the variation with 7 e3 (Game Nos. 43,
52, 85) 7...^d7 (10th game), we had not in fact found any promising ideas for White, and so I made the other approved move.
Here Karpov thought for a long time. In the usual line - 7...C5 8 e4 £ixc3 9 bxc3, where I had gained memorable wins over Murey and Gheorghiu (Game Nos. 73, 75), at that time White had reached an impasse because of 9...£>d7 10 ±d3 Wc71 (Kasparov-Sosonko, Lucerne Olympiad 1982). Por-tisch’s improvement 10 JLf41 appeared later (cf. Game No.73, note to Black’s 9th move).
But I was intending 8 dxc51 A.xc5 9 ^g5 - my attention had been attracted by the recent game Vyzhmanavin-Novikov (Tashkent 1984), where after 9...Wc7 (a recommendation by Plaskett; earlier White had been successful against 9-Де7 and 9...f6) 10 Hcl f6 11 £}xd5 Jlxd5 12 e4l White seized the initiative. From 1985 the line 9...Wc8 10 Hcl came to the fore (here I also made my contribution: 10...h6 11 J.h4 a5 12 ®a4 *Sbd7 13 e41, Kasparov-van der Wiel, Amsterdam 1988).
We were also prepared for 7-..^xc3, with the idea after 8 Ьхсз c5 9 e4 ®d7 of nevertheless obtaining the position which White has avoided. After the planned 8 Wxc3 Adorjan upheld 8...h6!?, not allowing 9 Ag5 and intending to meet 9 -lf4 with 9-^.d6. At the time we did not take this ‘loss of time’ seriously, but later it transpired that Adorjan was right! As often happens after significant games in world championship matches, the 7 Wc2 variation again came to the fore, and in the line 7...^xc3 8 Wxc3 the main move became 8...h6.
Perhaps at the board Karpov remembered the game with 7-.c5 8 dxc5! - at any event, he tried to reach the desired position with the help of another, rare move.
7...^d7?l (34)
An invitation to 8 e4 £ixc3 9 bxc3 c5 10
Ad3 Wc7! (cf. above). But here the situation is worse for Black than after 7 e3 £>d7: the bishop at cl is not shut in by the pawn on e3, and White has an advantageous opportunity to avoid the usual plan.
8 £>xd51 (17) 8...exd5
8...Axd5?! is worse. Later for some reason Karpov played this against Gelfand (Moscow 1992), and after 9 e4 Ab 7 10 Ab5! c6 11 Ахсб Дс8 12 d51 the outcome was dismal for Black. White’s position appealed to me even a tempo down: in the 3rd game of my match with Korchnoi (London 1983) I chose the rare variation 7 Wa4+ 4^d7 8 £ixd5, planning after 8...Axd5 (Korchnoi replied 8...exd5) the queen retreat 9 Wc21? with the idea of 9...C5 10 e4. True, here after 10...Ab7 11 АеЗ cxd4 ®xd4 аб or 11 Af4 cxd4 12 Hdl Wc8 (Azmaiparashvili-Pono-mariov, Cap d’Agde (rapid) 2003) Black is alright.
9 Ag5!
This sortie causes Black definite discomfort, forcing him to make a difficult choice.
9...f6?!
A weakening, which objectively deserves to be criticised (as does 9-Ae7?l 10 Axe7 Фхе7 or 9-^f6?! 10 Axf6 gxf6), but at the board it was not easy to realise that the best defence was the ugly move 9-Wc8.
After the obvious 10 g3 Ad6 11 Ah3 there is an unpleasant pin on the knight at d7, for example: 11...0-0 12 Af41? (the simple 12 Wf5 ^b8 13 Wxc8 is also possible, but this is probably insufficient) 12...Axf4 13 gxf4 (threatening £se5) 13-Wd8 14 flgi with the initiative.
Here Black has to defend, whereas Karpov wanted active counterplay. From this point of view, 9-f6 looks better, since it enables Black to gain time. But its drawbacks proved to be more significant...
10 Af4 C5
11 g3!
Karpov obviously did not like this move. Apparently he was hoping for the routine 11 e3, when after 11...C4 or 11...Дс8 12 Wa4 c4 he could have created counterplay. Now, however, the threat of JLh3 reminds Black of the weakness of the light squares in his position.
Il...g6
A symmetrical reply with the idea of 12 Ah3 f5 and ...Ag7. But the g6-pawn is a new target for the development of White’s initiative. However, it is hard to offer Black good advice. ll...g5 12 АеЗ or ll...Sc8 12 Ah3 cxd4 13 Wdl is unattractive. ll...We7 is more resourceful, with the idea of 12 Ah3 g5 13 АеЗ We41, forcing the exchange
of queens, but 12 h4! retains a clear advantage: 12...We4 13 Wd21 cxd4 14 Лд2. It would appear that 11.. Ле7 12 Jth 3 ‘A’f? 13 0-0 is more tenacious, but then White has the unpleasant 14 dxcSl bxc5 15 b4.
12 h4!
Such moves always gave me great pleasure. White immediately attacks the vulnerable points in the opponent’s position.
12...We7
Possibly Karpov considered this defence adequate, since now nothing is given by 13 h5 because of 13-.g5 14 ДеЗ We4. But...
13 Ag2 (opposing the advance of the black queen to e4) 13-.Ag7 14 h5
'Black’s position has the drawback that it is hard for him to find an appropriate place for his king. In addition the d5- and g6-pawns can become a convenient target for the white pieces.' (Vasyukov)
14...f5?!
Karpov did not play ...g7-g6 and ...Ag7 in order to make the ugly move 14-.g5, creating a ‘hole’ on f5. But that would have been the lesser evil! If 15 h6 it is dangerous to reply 15...gxf4?l 16 hxg7 Wxg7 17 ?ih4! with a powerful attack (pointed out at the time by the match commentators), for example: 17...fxg3 18 £>f5 gxf2+ 19 <txf2 Wf8 20 b4l c4 21 Wd2 and Wf4 - despite his
two extra pawns, Black is completely helpless. However, after 15...Af8 16 ЛеЗ We6 he is quite capable of defending.
Perhaps Karpov did not like 15 ЛеЗ Дс8 16 Wf5, but after 16...h6 or 16...We4 it is not so clear just how catastrophic is the weakness of the f5-square and the light squares in Black’s position in general, and there is still all to play for.
The move 14...f5 is logical in its own way, and it appears that Black has real chances of avoiding the worst. White cannot keep his king at el for ever! And when he castles, Black too will be able to castle without risk. However, things do not come to this...
15 Wd2
15...1.f6 (13)
Again Karpov had a difficult choice. He would have liked to play 15...£>f6 16 h6 JLf8 with the idea of 17 Лд5?! £>e41 (Vasyukov), but White has the stronger 17 £>g5 ®e4 18 Лхе41 fxe4 19 Ле5 Дд8 20 Wf4 (Averbakh) or 17 dxc5 bxc5 18 0-0 ®e4 19 Wa5, and in both cases Black has problems with his king.
The attempt to block the position by 15...c4 runs into 16 Bel! (with the threat of ДсЗ-еЗ) 16...£)f6 17 h6 Af8 18 4be5!, and if 18...^)e4 White advantageously replies 19 Лхе4! fxe4 20 f3-
After these continuations it would possibly have been more difficult for White to increase his advantage. 15...^f6, covering the weak dark squares, looks sensible and solid, but on f6 the bishop takes this square away from the knight, which can no longer go to e41 Karpov clearly underestimated White’s following response.
16 Hcl!
With the unusual threat of Hc3-e3. What can Black do with his king? With the white rook on hl, he really doesn’t want to castle kingside...
16...Hc8 17 ЖсЗ Жсб
The only defence is a mirror manoeuvre!
18 He3 (14)
The computer chooses 18 S’fl!?, but many commentators pointed out the ‘exceptional strength’ of the move 18 JLg5, disclosing the weakness now of the dark squares in the opponent's position: 18...0-0 (18...cxd4? 19 Жхеб Дхеб 20 hxg6) 19 hxg6 hxg6 20 Axf6 Hcxf6 (2O...^ixf6 21 ^e5) 21 <2?ig5 with an irresistible attack, or 18...Hg8 19 hxg6 hxg6 20 ЖеЗ Жеб 21 Jlxf6 <5jxf6 22 Жхеб Wxe6 23 Wf4, ‘and the white queen is ready for a decisive invasion’ (Dorfman).
But the rook move should hardly be criticised, since it leads almost by force to a won ending for White.
18...He6
I think that this is a unique instance, where in one game three successive symmetrical moves were made: Hcl - Жс8, Hc3 - Нсб, and НеЗ - Жеб.
19 Жхеб Wxe6 20 4}g5 We7
The exchange 2О...Дхд5 21 Jlxg5 would have led to a catastrophic weakening of the dark squares. But as it is, Black’s defences are about to crack - it only remains for White to find a decisive strengthening of his position.
21 dxc5!
I was afraid of squandering my advantage in the endgame after 21 hxg6? hxg6 22 ЖхЬ8+ i.xh8 23 dxc5 Wxc5 (if 23...&f6? a little combination is decisive: 24 JLxds! ±xd5 25 Wxd5 ±xg5 26 c6) 24 £>e6 Wa5 25 £k7+ (little is also achieved with 25 Wxa5 bxa5 26 Acl <£YF6) 25...&d8 26 Wxa5 bxa5 27 ^xd5, and at the board 27..JLxb2(?) seemed unclear to me, although after 28 Дд5+ Фс8 29 ^e7+ Фс7 30 l.xb7 (30 JLf4+ Жd8!) ЗО...ФхЬ7 31 £>хдб ЛхаЗ 32 <Sjh4 a4 33 i’dl White has a won position: the a-pawn does not promote. But my intuition did not betray me - the accurate 27...£ib6! would have given a draw: 28 Ac7+ S’dy 29 ДхЬб jLxd5 30 ±xd5 axb6, 28 Лд5+ Фе8 29 £)C7+ i’dy 30 ±xb7 Фхс7 31 ±аб ±xb2, or
28 4bxb6 Axg2 29 £>c4 JLdSI etc.
21 dxc5 is clearly stronger. It is another matter that it gave Black an opportunity for a tactical counter-stroke, which unsettled me.
21...^xc5
Here after 21...Wxc5?l 22 41e6 Wa5 23 b41 Wxa3 24 0-0 Wb2 (24...WC3 25 Wa2l) 25 ®c7+ Фе7 26 £>xd5 or 25...ФЬ8 26 We3 White would have won. 21...h6 22 £tf3 g5 23 JLd6 was also bad for Black.
22 hxg6 d4
The only practical chance - ‘a resourceful attempt to change the unfavourable development of events’ (Averbakh). 22...hxg6 is bad: 23 Sxh8+ JLxh8 24 A.xd5 Jlxd5 25 Wxd5, and 25...Jlxb2 is not possible because of 26 Wc6+.
23 g7? (10)
Confusion. White could have increased his advantage by the simple moves 23 ДхЬ7 Wxb7 24 f3 hxg6 25 fixh8+ ±xh8 26 b4 4}d7 27 Wa2 ^f8 28 £se6! (Dorfman) -after 28...Wd7 29 £>c7+ ®d8 30 Wg8 ±g7 31 <Sib5! Wxb5 32 Wxg7 ^d7 33 Wxd4 or 31...d3 32 Ac7+ *c8 33 Wc4 d2+ 34 &dl We6 35 Wc2 he would have obtained a technically won endgame.
Another tempting possibility began with the showy 23 Wzl? Дхд2 24 Sh2 and it
would have also led to the goal: 24...hxg6 25 £ixh8 g5 26 ®g6 We4 27 ±e5 &f7 28 £>h8+l, or 24...Ш8 25 Sxh7 We6 26 £sd6+ <4>d8 27 ^b51 Ле5 28 ±xe5 Wxe5 29 ^xd4 (29 Wxd4+ is also good enough) 29...ФС8 30 b4 Hd8 31 g7! I.d5 32 Wc3 ±g8 33 Hh4, regaining the piece and winning.
Alas, at that moment I became excited, I was unable to calculate the variations accurately, and I decided at least to retain a positional advantage, for which by 32 g7 I broke up Black’s pawn chain.
23...±xg7 (23...Wxg71?) 24 I.xb7 Wxb7 25 f3
25 0-01? would also have retained a small plus. My error on the 23rd move sharply changed the character of the position, and effectively I had to begin all over again. In the new phase of the game Black’s pieces are active, but his pawns are weak. And I judged that psychologically this would be unpleasant for Karpov.
25...Wd5! (10)
An excellent, dynamic move: not wishing to go totally on to the defensive, Black sacrifices a pawn - his pieces occupy splendid positions! In the event of 25...h6 26 £)h3 and 4hf2 White could have set about processing the opponent’s pawn weaknesses, and with quite good chances of success.
261x117 (11)
If 26 b4 or 26 ^f2, Black, of course, would have replied 26...h61.
26...Hxh7 27 £>xh7 Wb3?
‘A mistake in time-trouble. As many commentators pointed out, after 27-d31 White could hardly have hoped to win’ (Averbakh). And indeed, this would have led to simplification and a draw: 28 b4 Wb31 (the simplest; 28...<йе6 29 JLe31 would still have left White some chances) 29 We3+ ®e6 30 Wxd3 Wxd3 31 exd3 £>xf4 32 gxf4 b51, and Black picks up the аЗ-pawn, while the knight on h7 makes a pitiful impression.
28 JLd6!
Karpov made his previous move confidently, and it was clear to me that he had missed my reply. It unexpectedly transpires that White can launch an attack - 29 Wg5 is threatened.
28...i>e6
Now the game transposes into a queen ending. In the event of 28...ФЬ7 29 Jlxc5 bxc5 30 Wf4 We6 31 ^g5 White is a pawn up with winning chances. But 28...d3 would now have lost to 29 Дхс5 bxc5 30 W'e3+ &f7 (30...<4>d7 31 Wxcs) 31 £ig5+ Фдб 32 £>e6! (not 32 013?! Axb2) 32...d2+ (32...±h6 33 f4) 33 <ixd2 Wxe3+ 34 ФхеЗ
ДхЬ2 35 a4 or 33-Wxb2+ 34 Фе1 Wc3+ 35
<4>f2 Wxe3+ 36 ФхеЗ ±e5 37 £>xc5 ДхдЗ 38 ,4d4 etc.
29 Og5 A.h6 30 ±f4 Jlxg5 31 Axg5 ^xg5
32 Wxg5 Wxb2 33 Wxf5
33...Wcl+?l
For eight moves Karpov now had less than five minutes (against ten for me), and this aggravated his problems. In severe time-trouble he reckoned that with checks he would drive the white king away from the e2-pawn and then, after capturing on a3, simply restore material equality. But this plan proved to have a flaw...
The immediate 33-Wxa3 was stronger -after 34 We4+ 4^7 35 Wxd4 Black's defence is difficult, but he can possibly hold on: after 35...Wcl+ 36 <4’f2 ®c6 he only needs to push his lone a-pawn, whereas White has to advance two pawns (exposing his king in the process). For example: 37 f4 a5 38 g4 a4 (threatening ...Wc5 with the exchange of queens) 39 ФдЗ (or in the event of 38 e4 a4 - 39 <£f3) 39-a3 40 g5 a2 41 f5 Wc5 42 g6+ Фд8 with equality. Most probably after 33-Wxa3 the game would have ended in a draw.
34 *f2 We3+ 35 4fl felt 36 <:g2 Wxa3 37 Wh5+!
Not 37 We4+?l We7 with equality. Karpov
missed this cunning ‘side’ check when he played 33...Wcl+. Black nevertheless remains a pawn down, and in a worse situation.
37-ftd7
It is not easy to decide where to place the king, especially with your flag hanging in the 32nd game! Black would have had fewer saving chances if he had kept his king in the vicinity of the enemy pawns: 37...4^8?! 38 Wh8+ 4>f7 39 Wxd4 a5 (after 39-.Wa2 40 <4>f2 We6 41 g4 a5, in contrast to the 33...Wxa3 variation, Black’s queen is still on еб, and he has to lose a tempo on ...Wc6, which changes the evaluation in White’s favour) 40 Wxb6 Wb4 41 Wc7+ Феб 42 Wc6+ Фе7 43 g4 a4 44 g5 or 4O...a4 41 g4 We 7 42 if? a3 43 g51 and wins.
38 Wg4+ Феб (38...Фс7I?) 39 Wxd4
39 We4+ Фс7 (39...ФЬ5, the move previously suggested by me, is bad because of 40 g41 WcS 41 f4) 40 Wxd4 a5! 41 g4 Wd6! 42 Wg7+ Wd7 would have come to roughly the same thing.
39...b5?l
39-..a5! was more accurate: 40 g4 Wc5 41 Wf6+ (41 Wa4+ *d6 42 We8 Wg5) 41...Wd6 42 Wf5 Wd5, basing the defence on the fact that White is not satisfied with the transition into a queen endgame.
40 g4 b4?l
With his last move before the time control Black loses a real hope of saving the game, which would still have remained after 4O...We7!.
It would not have been easy for me to find the correct reply. In such cases the hand itself is drawn to the e2-pawn: since e2-e4 was not played on the 1st move, why not seal e2-e4 on the 41st move?! But after 41 e4 a5 42 Wd5+ ФЬб 43 f4 the three connected passed pawns might not have won against the two, seeing as White has
exposed his king. Better chances of a distant win are offered by 41 i’f2!, in order then to advance not the e-pawn, but the g-pawn.
41 g5
The sealed move. In our home analysis we initially planned 41-b3 42 We4+! ‘ide 43 We8?!, overlooking 43-Wa2!, which after 44 g6 b2 45 g7 blW 46 g8W Wxg8 47 Wxg8 leads to a position with two pawns against one, but the black king stands opposite the white pawns, creating serious problems for White in the conversion of his advantage. Therefore 43 Wg6+! ie7 44 Wf6+ id7 45 Wf5+ ie7 46 g6 Wb2 47 Wf7+ id6 48 Wf4+ is correct, when Black is unable to save the game.
42 g6 b2 43 g7 Wa2 44 We4+ Фс5 45 We7+ ФЬб 46 Wd8+ ib7 47 g8W Wxg8 48 Wxg8 blW 49 Wd5+ is not so clear. In this endgame with two against one, considerable resourcefulness would have been demanded of White. It is easier for Black to play: he gives checks and advances his a-pawn, hoping in the event of the exchange of the newly-created queens for an ending now with a lone white pawn. Here the play could have continued for a long time, and the game would probably have been adjourned for a second time.
By the laws of match play Karpov was obliged to resume the game, but apparently he did not want to waste the remnants of his strength, or to resign in public. And the following day he took what in my opinion was an incorrect decision, testifying to his psychological weakness at that moment: he resigned the game without resuming (1-0). Times: 2.34-2.29.
5-1! We were jubilant: by scoring a consolation goal, I had avoided a complete rout! The situation in the match changed radically: the loss in the 32nd game dispelled Karpov’s dreams of repeating Fischer’s feats, and now there was no longer any point in the champion avoiding risks. But he was unable to retune to playing more freely and
Game 99 A.Karpov-G. Kasparov World Championship Match, 41st game, Moscow 14/15.01.1985
riskily. Karpov needed a deep readjustment, but for this he no longer had the mental strength. He continued waiting for a 'gift', but by that time I had managed to perfect sound opening variations, and the blunders which plagued me at the start of the match had practically disappeared.
Eight draws followed. If after the 9th game someone had said to Karpov, that even after the New Year he would still be defending his title, sitting at the same table, that person would certainly have been labelled a madman!
A critical game for the entire match was the 41st, in which against 1 e4 I took the risk of employing one of my opponent’s weapons - the Petroff Defence. The opening experiment concluded in a perfectly good endgame for me, in which I could have drawn without any particular trouble. But here I again committed a ‘fatal mistake’ (the only one between the 28th and 48th games!), and Karpov could have concluded the match, had he not missed a winning move.
33 Sxdl?
An historic mistake! After spending half of his 16-minute reserve of time, Karpov missed an unexpected chance to win the game and the match. While he was considering his move, in the press centre Dorfman drew attention to the pretty intermediate move 33 аб!. An express analysis gave the following results:
a)	33-^.a4 (33-Sd4 34 Se8+ and 35 a7) 34 a7 Деб 35 Se6 ±d5 36 ld6;
b)	ЗЗ-АЬЗ 34 ®ixb3 Жа4 (34-йхЬз 35 a7) 35 ^c5 Ba5 36 Se4! &f7 (36...Sxc5 37 a7) 37 lxf4+ Af6 38 Sa4 Sxa4 39 ^xa4 ±d4 40 4k3!;
с)	33-ЖЬ8 34 Bxdl Jla3 35 £>b7l, and in all variations White wins.
Why, after thinking over his 33rd move for eight minutes, did Karpov not play this? In an interview after the match he explained: 'Being in time-trouble, I was unable to calculate fully the consequences of the piece sacrifice (33 аб!).’ Possibly he decided 33 2xdl was also winning, but...
33-Ad4
‘Now the struggle flares up with renewed strength.’ (Taimanov)
34^ie6 Aa7 351d7
As the commentators remarked, 35 ^hxg71? Sb 2 36 <2jf5 Axf2+ 37 ifl came into consideration. In my opinion, this was somewhat stronger: here it is more difficult for Black to gain a draw - he has more opportunities to go wrong. True, after 37...h5 and ...Да2 (and if 38 flal, then 38...Aa7) he should nevertheless be able to hold the position.
35...Sbl+ 36 *h2 ixf 2 37 ?ixf4 lai 38 ®еб Дха5
‘Black’s task is simpler after 38...g5l 39 Sg7+ (39 Hd5 Ael) 39...ФЬ8 40 Ддб <4>h7 41 W8+ <STi8 42 аб (or 42 lxh6+ Фд7 43 Ддб+ &xf8 44 lf6+ Фд7 45 Hxf2 Дхаб) 42...Agl+! 43 Фд3 ДаЗ+ 44 4^4 Да4+! with an inevitable draw.’ (Dorfman)
I saw this idea, but in severe time-trouble I did not calculate as far as all the checks, beginning with 42...Agl+l. Besides, after capturing the a5-pawn I assumed that the resulting ending with two pawns against one on the same wing was objectively drawn.
39 lxg7+ *h8 40 f7 Ae3 41 *g3 Ad2
The sealed move.
I didn’t like Black's position, but after lengthy home analysis my trainers and I found a clear way to draw. On the day when the game was resumed, the Hall of Columns was packed with Karpov’s supporters, who were hoping to see his sixth win. But once again they were to be disappointed... On the 71st move Karpov offered a draw (’/z-’/z). He looked very tired and depressed.
The outcome of this game had an enormous effect on the psychological state of the two players. Karpov’s belief in overall victory was obviously shaken, although his choice of opening variations in games 43-47 indicates a desire to increase the risk and seize his chance in double-edged play. He sensed that his opponent had not simply seized the initiative, but was now not inferior to him in technical positions - in that aspect of the game where until recently Karpov had been sure of his superiority. Now he could not achieve the desired result by using purely technical means alone.
There followed a further six draws, in which several times I had an advantage and excellent winning chances. But I was successful only in the 47th game - 5-21 After this it was announced that the match would move from the Hall of Columns to the Sport Hotel. And for recuperation Karpov gained a whole week (two ‘technical’ time-outs on 1st and 4th February) - a luxury which was totally unavailable to me at the start of the match, when I so needed a respite. Moreover, after this the champion also took another time-out on his own account (6th February), and so the next game took place only nine days later.
It was precisely during those days that FIDE and the Soviet Chess Federation began
actively seeking a pretext for terminating the match ahead of schedule, and as a result the 48th game was destined to draw a line under our five-month duel.
Game 100
G. Ka s pa ro v- A. Karpov World Championship Match, 48th game, Moscow 08/09.02.1985 Petroff Defence C42
1 e4 e5 2 2rf3 2>f6
On this occasion Karpov’s objective was merely to hold out (after all, it would be far more convenient to terminate the match with a score of 5-2, rather than 5-3), and so he avoided 2...<2k6 (44th and 46th games) and chose one of the most solid openings.
3 £>xe5 d6 4 £>f3 -xe4 5 d4 d5 6 Ad3 £>c6 7 0-0 Де7 (7...Дд4 8 C41 - Game N0.67 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1975-1985; Game N0.6 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1986-87) 8 c41
After the 41st game this eclipsed 8 Sei (Game No.50).
8...-f6
Realising that in the event of 8...4^b4 I would use his own prescription from the 41st game - 9 Де2! (Game No.45 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1975-1985), Karpov made
another, less critical move, which had been known since the mid-19th century.
9®c3
At that time this line was not yet deeply developed, and it was only on the threshold of the 21st century that the immediate 9 h3 was deemed to be more accurate.
9...0-0
9...Деб!? is interesting: 10 c5 (10 cxd5 £)xd5 is equal, Karpov-Larsen, Bugojno 1980; Milos-Karpov, Buenos Aires 2001) 1О...Дд4! 11 ДЬ5 0-0 12 Дхеб Ьхсб 13 h3 ДxfЗ 14 Wxf3 Se8 with good prospects of equalising (an example: Shirov-Gelfand, Astana 2001).
10 h3
‘An important prophylactic move, preventing the pin on the knight and setting Black a problem: how can he now successfully complete his development?’ (Tai-manov)
10...dxc4
A new attempt to develop the queen’s bishop, avoiding the bind after 1О...Деб 11 c5. But the usual continuation has remained more popular: 10...<ЙЬ4 11 Де2 dxc4 12 Дхс4 сб 13 Sei ^bd5 - the main tabiya of the 8...4bf6 variation, where White plays 14 Дд5 Деб 15 Wb3 or immediately 14 Wb3 £ib6 15 Ad3 Деб 16 Wc2. At any event, White remains the active side, and in neutralising his initiative it is not easy for Black to avoid creating real weaknesses in his position. It was perhaps for this reason that Karpov chose a different, more dynamic way of developing, aimed at counterplay.
11 Дхс4 ^a5 12 Даз Деб
Black is planning either to carry out the freeing ...c7-c5, or to occupy the d5-point (in this case his knight on a5 will return to сб). 13 Sei
‘A flexible move. After 13 ДеЗ 4k4 14
Wc2 £bxe3 15 fxe3 White has an active position, but the two black bishops may become dangerous.’ (Tai)
13...^c6
The most natural reply - Karpov has also played this in the 21st Century. If 13...c5, then 14 dxc5 Дхс5 15 Дд5 seemed quite promising to me, but a pawn sacrifice is also interesting - 14 ^g51? cxd4 15 £>xe6 fxe6 16 <2ie4 with quite good compensation.
14 a3
Preventing ...^b4. If 14 Дд5 h6 15 Ah4 ?id5 16 Ag3 ^.d6 with equality (Leitao-Karpov, Sao Paulo (rapid) 2004).
14...a6
If 14...Wd7 or 14-Де8 the pin 15 ДЬ5 is unpleasant, while after 14...Wd6 15 ДеЗ <?3d5 16 Wc2 (Gelfand-Adams, Wijk aan Zee 1994), it is not easy for Black to blockade the d4-pawn completely, and as long as it is potentially mobile, White retains the initiative.
15 ДТ41? (18)
After some thought I found an interesting plan, based on tactical nuances.
In my view, 15 Дс2, which was tried many years later in three games of the rapid match Shirov-Karpov (Bastia 2003), is no better. The second of them went
15...Wd7 16 Wd3 Hfd8 17 JLg5?, when Black could have captured the pawn - 17...®Jxd4. It was correct to play 17 ДеЗ g6 (threatening ,..^.f5 with the exchange of bishops) 18 Wd21? JLf5 19 ДЬз with a slight initiative.
15...Wd7
'15...^d5, aiming for simplification, came into consideration’ (Yusupov). However, ‘after 16 ДдЗ Black would not have got out of his difficulties’ (Taimanov): if 16...if6 White has the promising 17 ^е41 jlxd4 18 £)eg5 ДхЬ2 (18...?if6 19 йхеб) 19 Hbl, while the attempt to provoke further exchanges - 16...jld6 17 ДЬ4 Де7 does not succeed because of 18 Дхе7 ®cxe7 (18...'?Jdxe7 19 Hxe6! fxe6 20 ®g5 is dangerous for Black) 19 <^g5 with the unexpected win of a pawn: 19...ДТ5 20 <5^xd5 £hxd5 21 Jlxf5 Wxg5 22 Se5l Wd8 23 Axh7+ 4>xh7 24Wh5+.
Therefore Karpov made a natural move, continuing his development. I think that my reply greatly surprised him.
16 ®e51
Not an altogether usual decision - after all, by exchanging all the knights it would appear that White reduces the tension. On the other hand he gets rid of his isolated pawn and thanks to the activity of his pieces he acquires new prospects.
16...£>xe5
16...Wxd4? is bad: 17 <£>xc6 Wxf4 18 £>xe7+ ФЬ8. It appears that the knight at e7 is in danger, but after 19 Jlc2 c6 20 Wcl (the simplest) White remains with a material advantage.
17 dxe5 £)d5 18 <^xd5 ^.xd5 19 Wc2
The point of White’s idea: he completes his development with gain of tempo, provoking a weakening of the opponent's kingside. The character of the position has unexpectedly changed. I think that this is what distinguishes the game - the numerous positional metamorphoses. Both players constantly had to weigh up the pluses and minuses of various different configurations.
19...g6
‘If 19...h6?! Kasparov could have played 20 Had! c6 21 He3, when it is difficult for Black to defend his kingside.’ (Yusupov). Or 2O...C5 21 We2, and it is not easy for Black to parry the threat of Jlbl and Wc2. It is dangerous to play 21...Hfd8 22 jlbl if8 23 Hc3! etc.
Nevertheless, there is a defence: 21...We6 22 &bl c4 23 Hcdl (23 Wc2 Wg6! or 23 Hc3 f5! is no better) 23...Had8 24 JLe3 (by moving the bishop off an undefended square, White intensifies the threat of Wc2)
24.-l.c6 (Black has to sacrifice a pawn - the exchange sacrifice 24...Wc6 25 Wc2 g6 26 lxh6 Axg2 27 lxf8 Hxf8 gives White an advantage after 28 He3) 25 Wc2 g6 26 Axh6 Hxdl 27 flxdl Hd8. However, it is doubtful whether Black had anything better than the endgame from the note to the next move.
I think that Karpov did not look for a variational refutation of 19...h6 - he was sickened by the very thought that in this case White would be able to set up the attacking queen and bishop battery on the bl-h7 diagonal. Making such a dangerous move would be difficult not only in an important game from a match for the world crown, and besides, after 19...g6 Black’s defences look solid... But now concrete tactical play begins.
20 Hadi
20...C6
I was rather expecting 2O...Wc6 21 Wxc6 with somewhat the better ending for White - 21...bxc6 22 Hd2 Hfd8 23 ficl or 21...Jlxc6 22 JLc41 (Taimanov) 22...1.C5 (22...Had8 23 еб) 23 b41 ? lb 6 24 lg5, when Black would have faced an unpleasant defence.
Karpov made the strategically risky move 20...сб without thinking, having probably planned it beforehand. Of course, he saw
White’s following reaction, but be reckoned that his position would be safe enough and not without counter-chances. Karpov's play is logical in its way: as at the start of the match, he does not want to reconcile himself to an unpromising endgame and he chooses a continuation which, though risky, leaves Black possibilities of counterplay. However, White’s threats turned out to be more serious than my opponent assumed.
211.И6 Sfd8
22 еб!fxe6
‘22...Axe6 23 JLxg6 or 22„.We8 23 Wc3 f6 24 f41 was bad for Black.’ (Averbakh) 23 l.xg6
Another metamorphosis - and another critical position, in which Black has to resolve the question regarding the advisability of exchanging the dark-square bishops.
23...Af8?
‘In the press centre 23.---A.f6!? was studied, retaining the bishop in order to cover the al-h8 diagonal.’ (Averbakh). And indeed, this would have been much stronger! After 24 Ae4 ФЬ8! Black would not have allowed the rapid switching of the rook to g3, he would have been the first to occupy the g-file, and thanks to his powerful bishop on dS he could have hoped for
counterplay, partly compensating for his pawn weaknesses. For example: 25 Sd2 Hg8 26 Hde2 Wf7 27 Af4lad8 28 Ag3 Ad4 29 ФЬ1 e5 30 Ah2 Дд5 31 f3, and although White is a little better (in some he cases he is threatening to exchange on d5 with pressure on the e-file), it is clear that his advantage is insignificant.
However, to decide definitely at the board that 23-Af6 is stronger than 23...Af8 is possible only with a clear head, without it coming on the back of five months of tiring struggle (although it is not certain that 23...Af6 would have been made also at the start of the match).
24 Axf8 Sxf8
This position seemed perfectly defensible to Karpov. He assumed that, with his powerful bishop on d5, Black would place his rooks on g7 and f8 and would feel comparatively safe.
25 Ae4 Hf7
'25...Sf4 26 Se3 ФЬ8 was better’ (Tai-manov). With the possible sequel 27 Hdel Hg8 28 g3 Wg7, although the position would still have remained favourable for White: 29 ±xd51 exd5 30 le7 Sf7 31 Sxf7 Wxf7 32 Hc3+ Wg7 33 Se5!, planning 4>h2, f2-f4, g3-g4 and so on.
26He3Sg7
27Sdd3!
'An unusual attack with the heavy pieces, making use of the 3rd rank’ (Tai). I regard it as a great creative achievement on my part. I was able to set up an unusual rook pendulum and to break up Black’s position, by combining threats on the g-and e-files (even if this involved the exchange on d5, ridding Black of his weak e6-pawn).
27...Hf8
The natural reply. Little is changed by 27...Wc7 28 ±xd5 exd5 29 Sg3 or 27...Wf7 28 Uf3 We7 (28...Дхд2+? 29 4fl! and wins) 29 Hde3, when if White does not find a way to achieve a direct attack on the king, he can build up his positional advantage on the queenside (say, 29...йе8 30 Wc3 Wc7 31 b4 etc.), and Black faces the prospect of a difficult ending.
28 Hg3! 4*h8 (Jlxh7+ was threatened) 29 Wc3 Hff7
29...fif4 was no better. Now the showy 30 fig5?! (with the idea of ЗО...Дхе4? 31 Hdg3!) merely hinders the attack in view of 3O...Sff7 311e3 4g8.
The correct continuation is 30 ±xd51 exds 31 We5 (a very unpleasant pin) 31...1f8 32 Hdf3 lfg8 33 b41 We8 34 Wd4, and Black loses immediately after 34...We4?
35 Wxg7+ or 34...h6? 35 Sf6! 4h7 36 Wh4, so he is forced to wait - 34-.Wd7, but then 35 h4 We8 36 4*fl, and White should win.
30 2de3
Probing the main defect in Black’s position - the weakness of his e6-pawn. 30 h41? was more energetic, with the idea of ЗО...Фд8 31 h5 or 3O...Wc7 31 Sde3l.
30...<4>g8
After 3O...Wd6? 31 Jlxd5 cxd5 (31...exd5? 32 Se8+; 31-Wxd5? 32 Hd3) 32 Дхд7 lxg7 White has a pleasant choice between a rook ending (33 Wc8+ Дд8 34 Wxe6 ®xe6 35 Дхеб) and a queen ending (33 Bg3 ®c7 34 Дхд7 Wxg7 35 Wc8+ Wg8 36 Wxb7) with an extra pawn.
31We5
31..Ж7
The correct decision from a practical point of view. Recognising the futility of passive defence (for example, 31...Wc8 32 b4 Wf8 33 a41? Wd8 34 a5 etc.), Karpov gives up a pawn, but simplifies the position in the hope, after the slightest inaccuracy by his opponent, of obtaining saving counterplay in a rook endgame.
32 flxg7+ Sxg7 33 ^xd5 Wxe5 34 Axe6+ Wxe6 35&xe6
'The game has transposed into a won ending for White: subsequently he will
create a pair of passed pawns on the king-side, and Black has no way of opposing this.’ (Averbakh)
35...Bd7 (Black stakes his claim for counterplay) 36 b4
I felt that the win was close and that I could win ‘as I pleased’: three pawns against one on the kingside should ensure White’s success. But perhaps I should have preferred 36 Де2 (Averbakh) or 36 g41? ^f? 37 Ee3, ‘opening a route for the king to the centre’ (Taimanov).
36..Af7 37 Be3 Bdl+ (if 37...Bd5, then 38 g4 a5 39 bxa5 Sxa5 40 Bb3 is good) 38 ФИ2 Bel! 39 g4 b5
Karpov has nevertheless found a counter-chance: Black prepares ...c6-c5.
40 f4
In Taimanov’s opinion, '40 Be5 Hc3 41 Фд2 came into consideration, with the idea of 41...ДхаЗ 42 Bc5.’ But after 41...C51 the position becomes unclear and White is in danger of throwing away the win, both in the rook ending - 42 bxc5 Bxa3, and in the queen ending - 42 Bxc5 Bxc5 43 bxc5 a5 44 f4 b4 45 axb4 axb4 46 сб Фе8 47 f5 b3 48 c7 <4’d7 49 f6 b2 50 f7 bl® 51 f8® Фхс7 etc.
A sensible alternative to the move in the game was 40 ФдЗ c5 41 bxc5 Bxc5 42 ^4 Bc2 43 f31 Sh2 44 ФдЗ Bb2 45 h4 a5, and here White decides matters with either 46 Де5 a4 47 Bf5+! Фд7 48 Bc5, or 46 &f4 b4 47 axb4 Bxb4+ 48 Зе4 Bb3 49 Ba4 Bb5 50 Фе4.
40...С5 41 bxc5 (the sealed move) 41...Bxc5
Home analysis enabled me to find the best way, in my view, for White to convert his advantage. Only in one place (on the 53rd move) was there a dual solution, but it is not certain that the winning path rejected by me was simpler and clearer.
The adjournment session proceeded ‘without any excesses’ and the game con
cluded quite logically, although some Soviet chess experts hastened to report to the authorities that because of extreme fatigue both players had supposedly made serious mistakes.
42 Bd31
‘An important subtlety. By the threat of 43 Bd7+ White draws the enemy king away from the kingside.’ (Averbakh)
42...Фе7 43 Ф^З a5 44 ФfЗ!
Play on the kingside alone does not produce a win: 44 Ф1п4 b4 45 axb4 axb4 46 f5 Sb5! 47 lb3 &f6 48 ФЬ5 Bb8 49 ФЬ6 lb 7 50 h4 Фе5, or, in a different modification, 44 g5 b4 45 axb4 axb4 46 Фд4 Bb51, also forcing 47 Eb3 and gaining a draw after 47...Феб 48 h4 <£f7 49 f5 Фд7 50 h5 lb7. 44„.b4 (there is nothing else) 45 axb4 axb4 46 Фе4 (in pursuit of the b4-pawn) 46...Bb5 47 Bb3 Bb8 48 Ad5 Фf6
‘Black would also have lost in the event of 48...h5 49 Фс5 hxg4 50 hxg4 Eg8 51 g5 Феб 52 Bxb4’ (Averbakh). For example: 52...®f5 53 Фd6 Ie8 54 Фd7 Bel 55 Sd41, reducing matters to a theoretically won position discovered by Cheron (1926), which is analysed in detail in books on the endgame (for example, in Comprehensive Chess Endings by the same Averbakh).
Karpov quite reasonably assumed that in
their adjournment analysis the opponent’s team would have studied this possibility (which was in fact so; moreover, I cannot say that the win here for White is really very difficult), and therefore he decided to avoid Cheron’s position, in order to set me nonstandard problems - the best hope from the practical point of view.
49 Фс5 Же8 50 Sxb4 Se3 51 h4 lh3
The blockade by 51-h5 52 ЖЬб+ Фд7 53 g5 Hf3 54 Hf6 Sh3 did not work on account of 55 f5 lxh4 56 Hh6 Дд4 57 f6+! (only not 57 flxh5? figl - this is a draw).
52 h5fih4
This is the point of Karpov’s idea: this position is not in the books. I stopped to think...
53 f5
Many criticised this move, reckoning that the goal would have been quickly reached by 53 g5+ &f5 54 h6 Shi 55 ‘i’dG Sei 56 Sb8! <txf4 57 дб! hxg6 58 h7 Shi 59 h8W Sxh8 60 Sxh8 g5 61 ФЬ5 (Averbakh), or 55...Sal 56 Фе7 Жаб! 57 &f7 Ждб 58 Bd4 Фд41 59 Фе7! Жаб 60 Sd6! etc.
I have to admit that at the board I did not notice this idea (with 56 Sb8!), since I was completely focused on 53 f5 and I had seen a clear winning plan using a by-passing king manoeuvre. Here the win for White is
merely a matter of time. It may be more complicated than 53 g5+, but the game concluded quite quickly.
53...Ш11 54 ^dS Sdl+ 55 Sd4 Sei 56 Ad6
In reply to the activation of the black rook, White has activated his king.
5б...Же8
If 56...Sgl White advances his king and his h-pawn, and then carries out the same manoeuvre: 57 <4’d7 ФГ7 58 ‘i’dS Sg2 59 h6! ФТ8 60 Фс7! (Taimanov) 6O...Sc2+ 61 ФЬ6, and since the black king has stepped back, if 61...Sg2 there is 62 Феб, and if 61...Se2 -62 g5, or 6О...ФТ7 61 Bd7+ Фд8 62 Sg7+ ФЬ8 63 Se7! Фд8 64 <4’d6! Sxg4 65 Феб, winning.
Karpov again took a practical decision -he cut off the white king from the 8th rank and played his rook to g8 for an attack on the g4-pawn. But this too proved insufficient.
57 Фd7 Sg8 58 h6! ф{7 59 Sc4 Фf6 60 Be4 (Black is forced to allow the rook to go to g7) 6O...Xf7 61 Фd6 Фf6 62 le6+ Фf7 (б2...Фд5 63 f6) 63 Se7+ Фf6
64 Hg71 Hd8+ 65 Фс5 Sd5+ (the last chance, but the rook quickly runs out of checks) 66 Фс4 Hd4+ 67 ФеЗ 1-0
After б7...йа4 68 ФЬЗ the king goes to g3. Times: 3-53-3.23.
5-3! After this there followed another week-long break: at first (11th February) I claimed a time-out, and then (13th February) FIDE President Campomanes announced one, in order to make his ‘move’ the next day.
My third win was the culmination of the entire encounter. I think that the 48th game was not only my best over the five months’ play, but was also in general the best in the match. It was full of instructive moments, of clashes between attack and defence. In all its phases there was a tense, interesting struggle, without blunders such as those that were the cause of my defeats. It is hard to find a move by Karpov which definitely deserves a question mark, and it is well known that the quality of a win is best judged by the standard of play by the loser and the number of interesting ideas demonstrated by the winner (by these criteria the second best game was the 32nd).
It would appear that after the 48th game Karpov was completely devastated and not ready to continue the match. Both the result and the course of the game itself put the champion and his circle in a very pessimistic mood. It was not so much a question of his physical fatigue, but rather the
psychological disaster. The score had now become 5-3 (it was once 5-0!), but the main thing was that Karpov had completely lost the match initiative. He was experiencing increasingly perceptible opening problems, while the last game had shown that his young opponent had already learned much and was capable of outplaying the champion in positional style. Continuing to play was fraught with the most unpleasant consequences for Karpov.
Later I became convinced that the decision to stop the match was carried out not so much because of any risk to the champion’s health, but rather in view of his psychological exhaustion, confusion, and fear of continuing. No other way of retaining his title was now apparent: had Karpov also lost a fourth game, the only way to complete the match would have been in accordance with the regulations. And the powers which at that time controlled Soviet sport, including chess, decided not to take the risk...
On 15th February the unprecedented ‘49th game’ of Campomanes took place: the FIDE President terminated the match 'without a final result’ and announced that a new match would begin on 1st September 1985 with the score 0-0.
Index of Openings
Alekhine Defence	King’s Indian Defence
B04 129	E60 126
B05 38	E71 46
	E73 383
Bogo-lndian Defence	E74 134,300,342
Ell 354	E76 373
	E77 276
Caro-Kann Defence	E80 56,67
B17 144	E81 414
B19 74	E83 263
	E84 444
Catalan Opening	E90 30,358
E04 461	E92 213
English Opening	E99 94
All 242	Modern Benoni
АЗО 254, 288, 305	A64 393
A38 226	A67 390
Grunfeld Defence	Nimzo-lndian Defence
D85 191,248 D86 31,366	E42 198
	Old Indian Defence
King’s Indian Attack A08 42	A54 318
Petroff Defence	Ruy Lopez
C42	258, 506	C61 C83	102 177
Philidor Defence		C84	18
C41	173	C97	63,156
Queen’s Cambit Accepted		Semi-Slav Defence	
D22	310	D44	333,339,422
Queen’s Cambit Declined		Sicilian Defence	
D30	453	B39	60
D34	325,405,476	B40	34
D36	71	B43	148
D38	297	B56	33
D52	470	B67	121
D55	285,482	B85	26, 85
D58	89,208,410	B89	21
D61	166	B92	50
B97 79
Queen’s Indian Defence
E12	162, 219, 269, 315, 350, 371,	Slav Defence	
	378,436,497	D14	183
E17	235	D15	182
E18	239	D16	485
Queen’s Pawn Opening
A41 113
A48 107
Index of Opponents
Bold type indicates the player was Black.
Akesson	219	Karpov	50,258, 488, 490, 490,
Alburt	134, 383		494, 497, 504, 506
Andersson	315	Kavalek	358
Arnason	85	Kengis	21
Beliavsky	263, 405, 410, 414	Korchnoi	56, 393,453,461
Browne	162	Kupreichik	182
Chiburdanidze	213	Kuzmin	156
Christiansen	373	Lanka	60, 74
Conquest	485	Larsen	318,357, 442
Csom	198	Ligterink	239
Dolmatov	183	Lputian	67
Donchenko	63	Lutikov	113
Dorfman	339	Magerramov	26, 89
Dur	285	Marjanovic	235
Gavrikov	325	Marovic	166
Gazarian	31	Muratkuliev	18
Geller	144	Murey	371
Georgadze	173	Nikolaevsky	126
Gheorghiu	378	Nunn	390
Giardelli	242	Palatnik	129
Gligoric	350	Panchenko	121
Hiibner	305	Pavlenko	46
Kantsler	42	Petrosian	269, 310, 354,433
Pigusov	71	Speelman	288
Polugayevsky	148	Sunye Neto	294
Portisch	436	Tai	422
Pribyl	191	Tempone	226
Privorotsky	34	Timman	482
Roizman	102	Timoshchenko	333
Romanishin	248	Torre	203
Sarkisov	30, 33	Tukmakov	342
Sax	366	Vaisser	276
Seirawan	430	Yermolinsky	38
Shereshevsky	107	Yuferov	94
Smyslov	254, 470, 476	Yusupov	177, 330
Sosonko	297	Zaid	79
Spassky	300, 444	Zaitsev	208
Index of Games
Alburt.L-Kasparov.G, All-Union Qualifying Tournament, Daugavpils 1978............134
Alburt.L-Kasparov.G, World Chess Olympiad, Lucerne 1982..........................383
ArnasonJ-Kasparov.G, World Cadet Championship, Cagnes-sur-Mer 1977................85
Beliavsky.A-Kasparov.G, Grandmaster Tournament, Moscow 1981......................263
Beliavsky.A-Kasparov.G, Quarter-Final Candidates Match, 2nd game, Moscow 1983....405
Beliavsky.A-Kasparov.G, Quarter-Final Candidates Match, 8th game, Moscow 1983....414
Christiansen.L-Kasparov.G, Interzonal Tournament, Moscow, 1982...................373
Gazarian.V-Weinstein.G, Baku 1974.................................................31
Geller.Ye-Kasparov.G, 46th USSR Championship, Tbilisi 1978.......................144
Giardelli.S-Kasparov.G, World Chess Olympiad, Malta	1980.........................242
Hiibner.R-Kasparov.G, Tilburg 1981...............................................305
Karpov.A-Kasparov.G, Tournament of Pioneers Palaces, Leningrad 1975 ..............50
Karpov.A-Kasparov.G, World Championship	Match, 7th game, Moscow 1984..........490
Karpov.A-Kasparov.G, World Championship	Match, 9th game, Moscow 1984..........490
Karpov.A-Kasparov.G, World Championship	Match, 31st game, Moscow 1984.........494
Karpov.A-Kasparov.G, World Championship	Match, 41st game, Moscow 1985.........504
Kasparov.G-Akesson.R, World Junior Championship, Dortmund 1980...................219
Kasparov.G-Andersson.U, Tilburg 1981.............................................315
Kasparov.G-Beliavsky.A, Quarter-Final Candidates Match, 5th game, Moscow 1983 ...410
Kasparov.G-Browne.W, Banja Luka 1979.............................................162
Kasparov.G-Chiburdanidze.M, USSR Central Chess Club Tournament, Baku 1980........213
Kasparov.G-Conquest.S, Simultaneous Display, London 1984.........................485
Kasparov.G-Csom.l, USSR Central Chess Club Tournament, Baku 1980.................198
Kasparov.G-Dolmatov.S, 47th USSR Championship, Minsk 1979........................183
Kasparov.G-Donchenko.A, Khalilbeyli Memorial Tournament, Baku 1976................63
Kasparov.G-Dorfman.l, 49th USSR Championship, Frunze 1981........................339
Kasparov.G-Diir.A, Student World Team Championship, Graz 1981....................285
Kasparov.G-Gavrikov.V, 49th USSR Championship, Frunze 1981.......................325
Kasparov.G-Georgadze.T, 47th USSR Championship, Minsk 1979.......................173
Kasparov.G-Gheorghiu.F, Interzonal Tournament, Moscow, 1982......................378
Kasparov.G-Gligoric.S, Bugojno 1982..............................................350
Kasparov.G-Karpov.A, Match-Tournament of USSR Teams, Moscow 1981.................258
Kasparov.G-Karpov.A, World Championship	Match, 6th game, Moscow 1984..........488
Kasparov.G-Karpov.A, World Championship	Match, 32nd game, Moscow 1984.........497
Kasparov.G-Karpov.A, World Championship	Match, 48th game, Moscow 1985.........506
Kasparov.G-Korchnoi.V, Semi-Final Candidates Match, 7th game, London 1983........461
Kasparov.G-Kupreichik.V, 47th USSR Championship, Minsk 1979......................182
Kasparov.G-Kuzmin.G, 46th USSR Championship, Tbilisi 1978........................156
Kasparov.G-Lanka.Z, USSR Junior Championship, Tbilisi 1976........................60
Kasparov.G-Larsen.B, Bugojno 1982................................................357
Kasparov.G-Larsen.B, Tilburg 1981................................................318
Kasparov.G-Ligterink.G, World Chess Olympiad, Malta 1980.........................239
Kasparov.G-Lutikov.A, Sokolsky Memorial Tournament, Minsk 1978...................113
Kasparov.G-Marjanovic.S, World Chess Olympiad, Malta 1980........................235
Kasparov.G-Marovic.D, Banja Luka 1979............................................166
Kasparov.G-MureyJ, Interzonal Tournament, Moscow, 1982...........................371
Kasparov.G-NunnJ, World Chess Olympiad, Lucerne 1982.............................390
Kasparov.G-Palatnik.S, All-Union Qualifying Tournament, Daugavpils 1978..........129
Kasparov.G-Panchenko.A, All-Union Qualifying Tournament, Daugavpils 1978.........121
Kasparov.G-Petrosian.T, Grandmaster Tournament, Moscow 1981......................269
Kasparov.G-Petrosian.T, Tilburg 1981.............................................310
Kasparov.G-Petrosian.T, Bugojno 1982.............................................354
Kasparov.G-Petrosian.T, Niksic 1983..............................................433
Kasparov.G-Pigusov.E, USSR Junior Championship, Riga 1977.........................71
Kasparov.G-Polugayevsky.L, 46th USSR Championship, Tbilisi 1978..................148
Kasparov.G-Portisch.L, Niksic 1983...............................................436
Kasparov.G-PribylJ, European Team Championship, Skara 1980.......................191
Kasparov.G-Roizman.A, Sokolsky Memorial Tournament, Minsk 1978...................102
Kasparov.G-Romanishin.O, Match-Tournament of USSR Teams, Moscow 1981.............248
Kasparov.G-Sax.G, Interzonal Tournament, Moscow, 1982............................366
Kasparov.G-Smyslov.V, Final Candidates Match, 9th game, Vilnius 1982.............470
Kasparov.G-Sosonko.G, Tilburg 1981...............................................297
Kasparov.G-Spassky.B, Tilburg 1981...............................................300
Kasparov.G-Spassky.B, Niksic 1983................................................444
Kasparov.G-Tal.M, USSR Spartakiad, Moscow 1983...................................422
Kasparov.G-TimmanJ, ‘Return Match of the Century’, 4th round, London 1984........482
Kasparov.G-Timoshchenko.G, 49th USSR Championship, Frunze 1981...................333
Kasparov.G-Torre.E, USSR Central Chess Club Tournament, Baku 1980................203
Kasparov.G-Yusupov.A, 47th USSR Championship, Minsk 1979.........................177
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part One
Kasparov.G-Yusupov.A, 49th USSR Championship, Frunze 1981........................330
Kasparov.C-Zaid.L, Qualifying Tournament, Leningrad 1977.........................79
Kasparov.G-Zaitsev.I, USSR Central Chess Club Tournament, Baku 1980..............208
Kavalek.L-Kasparov.G, Bugojno 1982...............................................358
Kengis.E-Weinstein.G, All-Union Youth Games, Vilnius 1973 ........................21
Korchnoi.V-Kasparov.G, Tournament of Pioneers Palaces, Leningrad 1975.............56
Korchnoi.V-Kasparov.G, World Chess Olympiad, Lucerne 1982........................393
Korchnoi.V-Kasparov.G, Semi-Final Candidates Match, 6th game, London, 1983.......453
Lanka.Z-Kasparov.G, USSR Junior Championship, Riga 1977...........................74
Larsen.B-Kasparov.G, Niksic 1983.................................................442
Lputian.S-Kasparov.G, Trans-Caucasian Youth Games, Tbilisi 1976...................67
Magerramov.E-Weinstein.G, Training Match, Baku 1973...............................26
Magerramov.E-Kasparov.G, Training Game, Baku 1977.................................89
Nikolaevsky.Yu-Kasparov.G, All-Union Qualifying Tournament, Daugavpils 1978......126
Pavlenko.O-Weinstein.G, 'City Cup’ Final, Baku, October 1975 .....................46
Sarkisov.R-Weinstein.G, City Spartakiad, Baku 1974................................30
Sarkisov.R-Weinstein.G, Azerbaijan Spartakiad, Baku 1974..........................33
Seirawan.Y-Kasparov.G, Niksic 1983...............................................430
Shereshevsky.M-Kasparov.G, Sokolsky Memorial Tournament, Minsk 1978..............107
Smyslov.V-Kasparov.G, Match-Tournament of USSR Teams, Moscow 1981................254
Smyslov.V-Kasparov.G, Final Candidates Match, 12th game, Vilnius 1982............476
Speelman.J-Kasparov.G, Student World Team Championship, Graz 1981................288
Sunye Neto.J-Kasparov.G, Student World Team Championship, Graz 1981..............294
Tempone.M-Kasparov.G, World Junior Championship, Dortmund 1980...................226
Tukmakov.V-Kasparov.G, 49th USSR Championship, Frunze 1981.......................342
Vaisser.A-Kasparov.G, USSR Team Championship, Moscow 1981........................276
Weinstein.G-Kantsler.B, Spartak Junior Championship, Peterhof 1975................42
Weinstein.G-Muratkuliev.S, Azerbaijan-Turkmenistan Match, Baku 1973...............18
Weinstein.G-Privorotsky.O, Azerbaijan Spartakiad, Baku 1974.......................34
Weinstein.G-Yermolinsky.A, USSR Junior Championship, Vilnius 1975 ................38
Yuferov.S-Kasparov.G, Sokolsky Memorial Tournament, Minsk 1978....................94
•'Ы'
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part I is the first book in a major new three-volume series made unique by the fact that it will record the greatest chess battles played by the greatest chessplayer of all-time.
Kasparov's historical volumes have received great critical and public acclaim for their rigorous analysis and comprehensive detail regarding the developments in chess that occurred both on and off the board.
This period opens with the emergence of a major new chess star from Baku and ends with Kasparovs first clash with reigning world champion Anatoly Karpov - a mammoth encounter that stretched out over six months. It had been known in Russia for some time that Kasparov had an extraordinary talent but the first time that this talent was unleashed on the western world was in 1979. The Russian Chess Federation had received an invitation for a player to participate in a tournament at Banja Luka and. under the impression that this was a junior event, sent along the fifteen year old Kasparov (as yet without even an international rating!). Far from being a junior tournament. Banja Luka was actually a major international event featuring numerous world class grandmasters. Undeterred Kasparov stormed to first place, scoring 11 Vi /15 and finishing two points clear of the field. Over the next decade this broad daylight' between Kasparov and the rest of the field was to become a familiar sight in the world s leading tournaments.
www.everymanchess.con>
US $45 UK £3
EVERYMAN CHESS
ISBN 978-1-85744-672-2
54500
9 781857 446722