4: Keres Set-Up

This system is distinguished from the Old Steinitz by the

interpolation of the moves 3...a6 4 Ba4. The aim of this
variation, which was a favourite with the great Estonian
grandmaster Paul Keres, is to set up a more favourable
pawn-formation than in the classical Steinitz. The idea of
developing the knight occasionally to e7 instead of the more
usual f6 is also a trademark of this defence. It has also been
one of my favourites since the mid-1960s.

Game 34
Gösta Stoltz – Alexander Alekhine [C71]
Bled 1931
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 d6 (D)

White to play
5 d4 b5 6 Bb3 Nxd4 7 Nxd4 exd4 8 Bd5
A rather harmless continuation.
8...Rb8 9 Bc6+ Bd7 10 Bxd7+ Qxd7 11 Qxd4 Nf6 12
Nc3
12 Qa7 would be of no value because of 12...Qc8.
12...Be7 13 0-0 0-0 (D)

145
 White to play
14 Bd2
An unusual blunder at an early stage of the game would be
14 Bg5? due to 14...b4, forcing the knight to retreat. In the
event of 15 Nb1 or 15 Nd1 the answer 15...Qg4 would be
strong. Otherwise he has little choice, for 15 Ne2? Nxe4 costs
him a pawn, while 15 Nd5?? Nxd5 16 Qxd5 Rb5 would finish
the game at once as Black wins a piece.
For 14 a4, see the next game.
14...Rfe8 15 Qd3?!
Allowing Black’s next move, which becomes a little troublesome.
15 a3 was called for and although Black has a pleasant
position, a clear advantage is not easy to demonstrate.
15...b4 16 Ne2?
The knight is somewhat misplaced here. 16 Nd5 was a logical
way to force exchanges. Alekhine points out that with 16...Nxd5
17 exd5 (17 Qxd5 Bf6 is perhaps even more favourable for
Black) 17...Qb5! Black would obtain only a slightly more
comfortable endgame.
16...Qc6 17 f3 (D)

146
 Black to play
17...d5!
White cannot stop the opening of the centre, so he will have a
marked weakness on e3.
18 exd5 Nxd5 19 Rae1 Bf6
Black occupies the file that was just opened. Soon his rooks
will get stronger and stronger.
20 c4
Under huge pressure, White is unable to find the most
stubborn continuation. However, even after 20 c3 Red8!
(20...Rbd8 is less accurate due to 21 Nd4) 21 Nd4 Qb6 –/+
his position would remain very unpleasant.
20...Qc5+ 21 Rf2 Ne3! 22 b3 (D)

147
 Black to play
22...Rbd8
This is simple and effective, though a more attractive way of
scoring the point was 22...Nd1! 23 Rxd1 Rbd8 24 Qxd8 Rxd8
25 Kf1 Qf5 26 Nc1 Bc3 27 Re1 g6 –+.
23 Bxe3 Rxe3 24 Qc2 Bh4 25 g3 Rxf3 26 Rf1 Bg5 27
Kg2 Rxf2+ 28 Rxf2 Qc6+ 29 Kh3
There is no safe haven for the king, for if 29 Kf1, 29...Rd2 is
decisive.
29...Be3 30 Rf1 Rd5!
Not allowing any counterplay by a possible Qf5.
31 Nf4 Qd7+ 32 g4 Rd4 33 Qg2 c6 34 Nh5 Bg5 35
Qe2 g6 36 Ng3 h5 37 Ne4 Qxg4+!
The quickest route to victory.
38 Qxg4 hxg4+ 39 Kxg4 Rxe4+ 40 Kxg5 Kg7 0-1
White resigned since the only way to save his rook against the
threat of ...f6+ Rxf6 Re5+ is 41 Rf4 and it would be pointless
to drag out either the hopeless pawn or rook ending.

Game 35
Vlastimil Hort – Paul Keres [C71]
European Team Ch, Oberhausen 1961
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 d6 5 d4 b5 6 Bb3
Nxd4 7 Nxd4 exd4 (D)

White to play
8 Bd5
The tricky 8 c3 is not a true pawn sacrifice:

148
a) 8...dxc3 9 Qd5 Be6 10 Qc6+ Bd7 11 Qd5 is a forced
drawish line that could prove useful for all those who want to
circumvent the Sofia Rule.
b) In order to avoid the draw, Black may try 8...Nf6 9 cxd4
Be7 10 0-0 0-0 11 Nc3 and instead of the common 11...Bb7
my novelty 11...c6!? could be tried, when 12 Re1 a5 13 a3 Be6
offers fighting chances.
8...Rb8 9 Bc6+ Bd7 10 Bxd7+ Qxd7 11 Qxd4 Nf6 12
0-0 Be7 13 Nc3 0-0 14 a4 (D)
The popularity of this line declined soon after this important
game.

Black to play
14...Rfe8
The immediate 14...b4 is probably even more precise.
15 Qd3?!
Omitting the exchange of the pawns is inconsistent. The logical
15 axb5 would have led to an even game.
15...b4 16 Nd5 a5 17 b3
Because of White’s belated development, it is difficult to suggest
anything better: on 17 Nxe7+ Qxe7 18 f3 Black maintains the
initiative by 18...d5! 19 exd5 Qc5+, while after 17 Ne3 Qe6 18
f3 c6! followed by ...Rad8 and ...d5 it is again Black who is
calling the tune.
17...Nxd5 18 exd5 Bf6 19 Rb1 c5! 20 Bf4?
A better option was 20 dxc6 Qxc6 21 Be3 followed by Rfd1
with some counterplay.
20...Be5 (D)

149
 White to play
21 Be3?
The position that has arisen brings us to investigate the topic
of good and bad bishops. If there were no other pieces on the
board, White’s bishop would be the good one, but the mobility
of pieces is at least as important as the placement of the
pawns. Certainly, in the present case Black’s bishop has much
better mobility, so it is wrong for White to avoid the exchange.
However, it is true that after 21 Bxe5 Rxe5 Black has
command of the open file. Still, this would have been the
lesser evil.
21...Rbc8! 22 Qc4 Qf5 23 Qb5?
23 Rbd1 Bc3 24 Rd3 was given by Keres as offering some
chances for survival. But it is clear that after 24...Qe4! 25 Qa6
c4 26 bxc4 Qxc4! Black’s position remains superior.
23...Qxc2 24 Qxa5 f5! 25 f3 Bb2?!
By 25...Bd4! 26 Bxd4 cxd4 Black forces a powerful passed
pawn, and moreover the irresistible threat on White’s second
rank cannot be met satisfactorily.
26 Qa6 Qxb3 27 Bf2 c4 28 Qb7 Rb8 29 Qa7 (D)

150
 Black to play
29...Ra8?
We shall cut short our coverage of the game at this point.
After mutual mistakes, Black finally scored the full point with a
spectacular queen sacrifice.
Instead, 29...Qc2 would have guaranteed victory in a quicker
way. Then 30 Rxb2 Qxb2 31 Bd4 fails on account of 31...Rb7.

Game 36
Antonio Medina – Lajos Portisch [C71]
Hastings 1969/70
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 d6 5 c4 (D)

151
 Black to play
The move became well-known after Keres’s victory over
Alekhine at Margate 1937.
5...Bg4!
The only consistent continuation to establish a blockade on the
central d4-square. 5...Bd7 is the customary reply, but I prefer
the text-move.
6 h3 Bxf3 7 Qxf3 Nf6 8 d3 Be7 9 Nc3 Nd7 10 Bxc6
The attempt to prevent the occupation of d4 by 10 Be3 might
have been considered. For instance: 10...0-0 11 Nd5 Bg5 12
0-0 Bxe3 13 fxe3 and now 13...Ncb8!? followed by ...c6.
13...Ne7 is also possible, but it allows further exchanges.
10...bxc6 11 0-0
11 Be3 Nf8 12 d4 (12 0-0 Ne6 13 b4 transposes to the game)
12...exd4 13 Bxd4 Ne6 14 Be3 0-0 15 0-0 Bf6 is reminiscent
of typical Steinitz positions.
11...Nc5 12 b4 Ne6 13 Be3 (D)

Black to play
13...c5!
The beginning of an important phase of the game. Also a4 had
to be prevented.
14 a3?!
After this timid move Black definitely gets the initiative, which
he will keep until the very end.
Instead White has to generate counterplay somehow by
advancing on the queenside, with the following possibilities: 14
b5! axb5 15 cxb5 Ra3 16 Nd5 Qa8! (16...Rxd3? 17 a4 leaves

152
the rook in great danger) 17 Qe2 Bd8 18 Bc1 (D) and then:

Black to play
a) 18...Ra5 19 Nc3 0-0 20 a4 c6 21 bxc6 Qxc6 and after
successfully blockading the queenside, Black does not have to
be worried.
b) 18...Rb3!? 19 b6! (19 f4 is also an exciting option; after
19...Rxb5 20 f5 Nd4 21 Qg4 Rg8 22 Qh5 Rh8 23 Qg4 the
repetition is indicated) and then:
b1) 19...c6? is strongly met by 20 Bb2! Rb5 (the acceptance of
the offer by 20...Rxb2 21 Qxb2 cxd5 is out of the question,
because after 22 a4 the connected passed white pawns will
run) 21 a4 Ra5 22 Ne3 +/–. The double attack by Nc4 will
be really painful.
b2) 19...cxb6 20 Bb2 Rb5 21 d4 Ra5 22 dxe5 dxe5 23 Bxe5
0-0 24 Rfb1 Qa6 25 Qxa6 Rxa6 26 a4 f6 27 Bc3 Rf7 with
even chances.
14...c6 (D)

153
 White to play
I was very glad that my opponent allowed me this simple
move to cover the important light squares.
15 Rfb1 Nd4 16 Bxd4 cxd4 17 Na2
Although this is rather a weird move, it was not the reason for
White’s defeat, as subsequent analysis will show. 17 Ne2 looks
more natural; after 17...0-0 18 Ng3 g6 there is still a long fight
ahead.
17...0-0 18 a4 Qd7 19 Rb2 f5 20 b5 axb5 21 axb5 cxb5
22 cxb5 d5!?
I could not resist this nice stroke, even though I was not quite
sure about its outcome.
23 exd5 Ra3 (D)

154
 White to play
24 Rd1
24 b6 leads to positions so complicated that they require the
calculation of long variations. So really the help of the engine
was needed. After 24...e4 25 Qd1 (25 Qe2 exd3) 25...Rxd3
there are many traps for both sides, and the coming moves
are far from obvious:
a) 26 Qb1 Ra3 27 Nb4 Rxa1 28 Qxa1 d3. It is almost
unbelievable that a position like this could occur in a solid Ruy
Lopez. White’s prospects remain pretty dim.
b) 26 Qc2! Ba3! 27 Rbb1! (27 Rb3? Rxb3 28 Qxb3 Bd6 –/+)
27...Rc8 (27...Qe7 is less convincing due to 28 Qc7) 28 Qe2
h6! 29 Nb4 Bxb4 30 Rxb4 Kh7 and any result could still
occur.
24...e4 25 Qe2 Qxd5 26 b6?
White could have forced the draw with 26 dxe4 fxe4 27 Nb4
Bxb4 28 Rxb4 Ra2 29 Rbxd4 Rxe2 30 Rxd5 Rfxf2 =.
26...Bd6 27 dxe4??
This is suicide.
More to the point was 27 b7 but after 27...Bb8 White still has
to defend himself very precisely.
27 Nb4 is met by 27...Qb5! 28 Rdb1 Rb8! with better
prospects for Black, since 29 Nc2? fails in view of 29...Qe5.
27...fxe4 28 Nb4 Qe5 29 g3 (D)

Black to play
29...Rxf2!
Dark storm-clouds gather over White’s king.

155
30 Qxf2 Rxg3+ 31 Kf1 0-1
My opponent resigned without waiting for my move. 31...e3 32
Nd3 Qh5 would win easily.

Game 37
Frans Kuijpers – Lajos Portisch [C79]
Halle Zonal 1967
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 d6 5 Bxc6+ bxc6
6 d4 (D)

Black to play
6...exd4!
The simplest and most flexible way to equalize. Other
possibilities are:
a) A common variation at one time used to be 6...f6, but it is
not to my taste.
b) Theory has not yet made a final decision about Keres’s
favourite move 6...Bg4.
7 Nxd4 c5! 8 Nf3 Nf6 9 0-0 Be7 10 e5
Premature.
10...Nd7!
Exchanges would favour White, as they would leave his knight
favourably placed in the centre.
11 Bf4 Nb6 12 c4 0-0 13 Qc2 Bb7 14 Nbd2 (D)

156
 Black to play
14...f6! 15 exd6
Practically forced. If the pawn advances further with 15 e6, it
can hardly be defended in the long run.
15...cxd6 16 Rad1 Qc8 17 Rfe1 Re8 18 Bg3
White reveals that he intends to exchange a pair of rooks,
which is gladly accepted by me.
A more ambitious line starting with 18 Ne4 would have offered
a more substantial game. For instance: 18...Qf5 19 Bg3 Bf8 20
Nfd2 Nd7 21 f3 Ne5 22 Nb1 (after 22 Nf1 Qg6 23 Qc3 Rad8
White lacks useful moves; e.g., 24 Ne3 fails on account of
24...f5) 22...Qg6! 23 Nbc3 f5 24 Nd2 Qf7 25 b3 Nc6 with a
pleasant position.
18...Bf8 19 Rxe8 Qxe8 20 Qb3 Qc6
It is difficult to say at this point whether 20...Qa4 is preferable.
It leads to further exchanges by 21 Nf1! (21 Re1? is strongly
met by 21...Qxb3 22 axb3 a5! 23 Ne4 a4! 24 bxa4 Nxc4 25
b3 d5! with a big advantage) 21...Qxb3 22 axb3 Rd8 23 Ne3
Rd7 24 Ne1 d5 25 cxd5 Nxd5, when Black has a small plus.
21 Re1 Rd8 22 h3 (D)

157
 Black to play
22...Bc8!
Despite the bishop looking very attractive on the long diagonal,
I was able to find a more useful place for it by an original
manoeuvre.
23 Ne4 Bf5 24 Nc3 Bg6 25 Nd5
Here my opponent realized that ...Bf7 would be very annoying.
Thus 25 Nd2 Bf7 26 f3 a5 is also in Black’s favour.
25...Nxd5 26 cxd5 Qb5 27 Qc3 Bf7 28 Rd1 Qa4?!
This was not necessary. 28...a5 offered more winning chances.
29 b3 Qb5 30 Bf4 Qb7 31 Qd2 Ra8 32 Ne1! Rc8
32...a5 33 Nc2 a4 is not entirely satisfactory due to 34 b4.
33 Nc2 c4 34 bxc4 Rxc4 35 Bg3 Qb2 36 Ne3
Finally the knight has achieved an ideal position, compensating
for the pair of bishops.
36...Qxd2 37 Rxd2 Rc5 38 Rb2 Rb5 39 Rxb5 axb5 40
Kf1 Bg6 41 Ke2 Bb1 42 a3 f5 43 h4 g6 44 Bf4 Kf7 45
Kd2 Ke7 46 Kc1 Bd3 47 Kd2 Bb1 ½-½

Game 38
John Nunn – Lajos Portisch [C79]
Wijk aan Zee 1990
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 d6 5 Bxc6+ bxc6
6 d4 exd4 7 Qxd4 Nf6 (D)

158
 White to play
8 0-0
8 b3?! c5 9 Qd3 Bb7 10 Nc3 Nxe4! 11 Nxe4 Qe7 and now:
a) 12 0-0?! Bxe4 13 Qc3 Qf6 14 Qxf6 gxf6 15 Re1 f5 16 Ng5
Bg7 17 Nxe4 Bxa1 18 Nxd6++ Kd7 19 Nxf5 Rhe8 20 Rd1+
occurred in Timman-Portisch, Tilburg 1988. Now of course the
right move was 20...Kc6 with good winning chances. Instead I
played 20...Ke6 and even lost the game in the end. For some
explanation see the note at the end of Game 18.
b) 12 Ng5 should have been tried, though after 12...f5 13 0-0
fxe4 14 Qh3 Qf6! 15 Bd2 (15 Be3 Be7 16 f3 Qg6 17 Nxe4
0-0 with an initiative) 15...Be7 16 Rae1 Qg6 17 f4 Bxg5 18 fxg5
Ke7 White still has to prove his compensation.
8...Be7 9 Nc3 0-0 (D)

159
 White to play
10 b3
Or:
a) 10 Bg5 is a way to avoid 10...Bg4, because 11 e5! would
yield a big plus for White. So 10...h6 11 Bh4 c5 12 Qd3 Bb7
13 e5 was played in Anand-Timman, Wijk aan Zee 1996. Now
the simple 13...Nh5! gives even chances: 14 Bxe7 Qxe7 15 exd6
cxd6 16 Nd5 Bxd5 17 Qxd5 Nf6 =.
b) 10 Re1 Bg4 11 Qd3 Bxf3 12 Qxf3 Nd7 13 b3 Bf6 14 Bb2
Re8 15 Rad1 and now 15...Re6?! was played in Nunn-Portisch,
Reykjavik 1988. Rather unusually I made the same type of
mistake as against Tal (see Game 18 ) two days earlier. Black
could obtain a comparatively steadier position by means of
either 15...Be5 or 15...Ne5, similarly to the analysis of Game 18 .
10...Bg4!
Although with my favourite ...Bg4 I did not gain much success,
still I must most emphatically recommend the reader to play it
when it is allowed. As long as Black is able to control the
central squares, he should not have much to fear.
11 Qd3 Bxf3 12 Qxf3 Nd7 13 Bb2 Bf6 14 Qe3!? Re8
More to the point was 14...c5, intending to post the bishop on
d4.
15 f4 c5 (D)

160
 White to play
Provoking the answer, which must be met with great care.
16 e5!? dxe5 17 Ne4 exf4 18 Nxf6+ Nxf6 19 Qxf4 Re6
According to Anand, White has good compensation for the
pawn but probably only a slight edge.
20 Rae1 Rxe1 21 Rxe1 Rb8 22 Qg5 Rb6
I decided to activate my rook in a way that keeps the position
secure along Black’s third rank.
22...c4 23 Bxf6 Qxf6 24 Qxf6 gxf6 25 Re4 cxb3 26 axb3 c5 is
also pretty drawish.
23 Qxc5 h6 24 h3 Rd6 25 Rf1 Ne4 26 Qe5 Nf6 27
Qg3 Ne8 28 a4 Qd7 29 Qf3 Rg6 30 Rf2 ½-½

Game 39
Boris Spassky – Paul Keres [C79]
USSR Ch, Moscow 1973
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 d6 5 Bxc6+ bxc6
6 d4 exd4 7 Nxd4 c5 8 Nf3 Nf6 9 0-0 Be7 10 Nc3
0-0 11 Re1 Bb7 (D)

161
 White to play
12 h3
The aim of the text-move is to prepare a spot for the bishop.
The immediate 12 Bf4 can be answered by 12...Nh5! 13 Bd2
Bf6 14 Nd5 Bxd5 15 exd5 Qd7.
A noteworthy alternative is 12 Bg5 h6 13 Bh4 Re8 14 e5, and
then:
a) 14...dxe5 is possible, even though Black does not keep his
pawn-chain intact. After 15 Rxe5 Qxd1+ 16 Rxd1 Bd6 17
Rxe8+ Nxe8 18 Nd2 Be5 19 Nb3 Bxc3 20 bxc3 c4 21 Nc5
Bc6, as in Smyslov-Botvinnik, World Ch (11), Moscow 1954, an
adequate defence should have guaranteed Black a comfortable
draw.
b) 14...Nh7! (it is most precise to delay the exchange of the
central pawns) 15 Bxe7 Rxe7 16 Nd5 Re8 17 c4 was played in
J.Sanchez-Mirzoev, Mostoles 2008. Black could now have
improved his play by 17...dxe5! TN 18 Nxe5 Qd6.
12...Nd7
With this move in connection with the next, Black starts an
interesting regrouping of his minor pieces.
12...Re8 offers more fighting chances. For example: 13 Bf4 Qd7
14 Qd3 (or 14 e5 Nh5 15 Bh2 Qc6! and Black is fine)
14...Rad8 15 Rad1 Qc8 with a double-edged position.
13 Nd5 Bf6 14 Rb1 (D)

162
 Black to play
14...Rb8!?
Perhaps the most positionally consistent continuation was
14...Nb6! 15 Nxf6+ (15 Nxb6?! cxb6 16 Bf4 Re8 17 Qd3 Re6
18 Rbd1 Qe8 and already Black has a better game) 15...Qxf6
16 b3 Rfe8 17 Bb2 and it is White who has to seek a forced
draw after 17...Qf4 18 Bc1 or 17...Qg6 18 Nh4 Qg5 19 Nf3.
15 b3 Re8 16 Bf4 h6
A useful waiting move. In case of 16...Be5 17 Nxe5 Nxe5, 18
Bd2! followed by either Bc3 or Ba5 would be annoying.
17 Qd2 Be5 18 Nxe5 Nxe5 19 Bg3 Qd7 20 Rbd1 Bxd5
21 Qxd5
On 21 exd5 Ng6 22 Qa5 Black may generate counterplay after
22...f5 23 f4 h5!.
21...Qe6 22 Bxe5 Qxe5 23 Qc6 (D)

163
 Black to play
23...Qe7
In Informator 16 , Nei recommends 23...Qc3! 24 Re2 Qa5 with
roughly equal chances.
24 Re3
Nei also gives 24 e5! Rb6 25 Qa4 with somewhat better play
for White. However, I believe that Black can hold the game by
25...Qe6! 26 f4 Rb4 27 Qxa6 Rxf4 28 exd6 (28 Qc6 Rd4)
28...Qxe1+ 29 Rxe1 Rxe1+ 30 Kh2 cxd6 31 Qxd6 Rf2 32 Qxc5
Ree2 33 Qd5 Rd2! 34 Qa8+ Kh7 35 a4 Rxc2 36 a5 (36 b4
Rc4 37 b5 Rb4) 36...Ra2! 37 b4 Ra4 and the pawns will be
stopped just in time.
24...Rb6 25 Qa4 f6 ½-½

Game 40
Yuri Sakharov – Paul Keres [C79]
USSR Ch, Tallinn 1965
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 d6 6
Bxc6+
The immediate 6 d4 can also be played with this move-order,
but after the plausible 6...b5 (D) White must show his cards:

164
 White to play
a) Here the pawn sacrifice 7 Bb3 Nxd4 8 Nxd4 exd4 9 c3
looks dubious. 9...dxc3 (9...Be7 10 cxd4 0-0 transposes to note
‘ b ’ to White’s 8th move in Game 35) 10 Nxc3 Be7 and then:
a1) 11 Qf3 0-0! (11...Bb7 12 Qg3 0-0 13 Bh6 Ne8 14 f4 Kh8
15 Bg5 f6 16 Bh4 gave White some pressure in
Yates-Rubinstein, Karlsbad 1923) 12 e5 Bg4 13 exf6 Bxf3 14
fxe7 Qxe7 15 gxf3 c6 –+ Richter-Machate, Swinemünde 1933.
a2) 11 f4 Bb7 12 e5 dxe5 13 Qxd8+ Rxd8 14 fxe5 Nd5 15 a4
0-0 and White has no compensation for the pawn,
Geller-Smejkal, European Team Ch, Kapfenberg 1970.
b) If White wants to draw he may try 7 dxe5 dxe5 8 Qxd8+
Nxd8 9 Bb3 (D) .

165
 Black to play
Now 9...Bd6 10 Bg5 Ne6 leads to equality according to Keres,
while the great Rubinstein played 9...Nd7 with success. Having
studied his games I also gave a great deal of thought to trying
it from time to time in order to build up a more complex
battle plan, but never got the chance. The remarkable
regrouping of pieces demonstrated in these games is worth
studying. Here are some examples: 10 a4 Rb8 11 axb5 axb5
12 Nc3 (12 Be3 f6 13 Ba7 Rb7 14 Rd1 Nc5 15 Bxc5 Bxc5 16
Ra8 Bd7 with equal chances, Duras-Rubinstein, San Sebastian
1912) 12...c6 13 Be3 f6 14 Ra7 Nb7 15 Be6 Bd6 16 Nd2 Ke7
and White’s queenside activity is easily neutralized,
Wagner-Rubinstein, Breslau 1925.
6...bxc6 7 d4 (D)

Black to play
7...exd4
In this position Black must make a serious decision. His choice
lies between the text-move and 7...Be7 , when 8 Re1 exd4 9
Nxd4 Bd7 transposes to variations discussed in the next
chapter (see Games 50 - 52 ).
Nowadays 7...Nxe4 is rarely seen, and with good reason. In
almost all the well-known lines White has a clear edge.
8 Qxd4
8 Nxd4 c5 9 Nc6 became popular after the game
Karpov-Portisch, Milan 1975 (with the only difference that I had
delayed ...Nf6 and developed the f8-bishop first – see Game 41
) and remains the principal alternative. 9...Qd7 10 Na5 and

166
now:
a) 10...Qb5 is not so inviting, because of 11 Bd2! Bg4 12 f3
Be6 13 c4! Qb6 14 Bc3 with an excellent game for White,
Naiditsch-A.Onischuk, Poikovsky 2009.
b) 10...Qa4! (D) is a possibility that I found after that game
with Karpov, but never got a chance to use in practice.

White to play
Now I am happy to include all of the most important lines that
I started to work out more deeply with Imre Hera in 2012. 11
Bd2 and then:
b1) 11...Be6? could prove very risky on account of the powerful
12 Nc3! TN (12 Re1? Be7 occurred in A.Getz-Gorovets, South
Padre Island 2014) 12...Qxa5 13 Nd5 Qa4 14 Nxc7+ Kd7
(14...Ke7 15 Nxa8 Qc6 16 Bf4 is also unpleasant) 15 Nxa8 Qc6
16 e5 Ng4 17 Re1, when Black is terribly undeveloped.
b2) 11...Be7! is the most accurate treatment. 12 Re1 (now 12
Nc3?! does not work due to 12...Qxa5 13 Nd5 Qa4 14 Nxc7+
Kf8 15 Nxa8 Qc6 16 Bf4 Bb7, when Black gets two minor
pieces for the rook) 12...Be6 (now we transpose back to the
previously mentioned game) 13 b3 Qd7 (D) and then:

167
 White to play
b21) 14 f4 Bg4 15 Qc1 d5! (despite having the king in the
middle, it is worth blowing up the centre in order to gain light
squares for the misplaced g4-bishop) 16 exd5 (16 h3? Bxh3! 17
gxh3 Qxh3 gives Black great attacking opportunities) 16...Nxd5
17 Nc4 (17 Nc3 Nb6) 17...f6 18 Nc3 Nb6 and Black is fine.
b22) 14 Na3!? 0-0 15 N3c4 Rae8! 16 Qf3 (16 Bc3 d5 17 Ne5
{17 exd5 Nxd5 18 Bb2 Nb4 19 Qxd7 Bxd7 20 Ne3 Bg5 and
the bishop-pair compensates well for the awkward
pawn-structure} 17...Qb5 18 exd5 Nxd5 19 Bd2 Nb4 with a
fairly acceptable game for Black) 16...Qc8!. Now White has a
wealth of moves at his disposal and it is difficult to say which
is preferable:
b221) On 17 Bc3 Black continues his planned manoeuvre with
17...Qa8.
b222) 17 e5!? might be too risky. After 17...dxe5! 18 Rxe5 Ng4
White finds it hard to decide where to retreat his rook. 19
Ree1 (19 Re2 Nxh2! 20 Kxh2? falls into a nice trap: 20...Bg4
21 Qd3 Bxe2 22 Qxe2 Bf6 23 Qf1 Bxa1 24 Qxa1 Qf5 gives
Black a decisive material advantage) 19...Bh4 20 Rf1 Bf5 21 h3
Nf6 22 Ne3 Bg6 and suddenly the black pieces are more
successfully placed.
b223) 17 Nc6 Bxc4 18 bxc4 Nd7 with even chances.
b224) 17 Qg3 Nh5 18 Qf3 (or 18 Qd3 f5) 18...Nf6 with a
possible move repetition.
b23) 14 c4 c6! TN (this is my original move; 14...0-0?!
happened in the aforementioned Getz-Gorovets game, but it

168
could have been well met by 15 Bc3 c6 16 e5 with a pleasant
edge for White) 15 f4 (on 15 Bc3 the difference from the
previous line is that Black is better placed to meet White’s e5
advance: 15...Qc7 16 f4 0-0 17 f5 {17 Nd2 d5} 17...Bc8 18
Nd2 Nd7 19 Nf3 Bf6 and the game is double-edged) 15...Qc7
16 Qf3 Rc8 17 Bc3 0-0 (D) and at this stage we give you a
few appealing lines for the sake of a wider overview:

White to play
b231) 18 h3 Nd7 (the embarrassing answer 18...d5!? 19 exd5
cxd5 20 f5 d4 21 Bd2 Bd6 could also be very unpleasant for
White; after 22 fxe6 fxe6 23 Na3 {23 Qb7 Bh2+ 24 Kh1
Qd6} 23...Rf7! 24 Rxe6 Bh2+ 25 Kh1 Rcf8 Black’s pieces are
ready to launch a winning attack on the kingside while the
white knights are idling on the other wing) 19 Qg3! (19 f5 is
nothing special, since after 19...Ne5 20 Bxe5 dxe5 21 fxe6 Qxa5
22 exf7+ Rxf7 23 Qc3 Qb4, despite his worse pawn-structure,
Black’s pieces enjoy more activity) 19...f6 (19...Bf6? 20 f5! Be5
21 Qd3 Bd4+ 22 Bxd4 cxd4 23 Nxc6) 20 Nd2 Rfe8 21 a3
Bf7 and although White has a space advantage, Black’s position
is rather solid.
b232) In case of 18 f5 the previous manoeuvre is still
available: 18...Bd7 19 Nd2 Ne8 followed by ...Bf6.
b233) 18 Nd2 d5! 19 e5 Ng4! (D) and now:

169
 White to play
b2331) 20 cxd5 c4!! (this energetic reply keeps Black in the
game) 21 h3 (21 dxe6 Qb6+ 22 Kh1 Nf2+ 23 Kg1 Ng4+ =)
21...Bc5+ 22 Kh1 Nf2+ 23 Kh2 cxd5 24 bxc4 dxc4! 25 f5
Bb6! 26 Nb7 (26 fxe6 fxe6 27 Qe2 Bxa5 28 Bxa5 Qxa5 =)
26...Bxf5! 27 Nd6 Be6 28 Nxc8 Rxc8 29 Re2 and now Black
can force a draw if he wants to: 29...Rd8 30 Rxf2 Rd3 31
Qa8+ Rd8.
b2332) 20 f5 d4! 21 Qxg4 dxc3 22 Ne4 Bxf5 23 Qxf5 Qxa5
and then:
b23321) A fascinating line starts 24 Rac1 Qxa2 25 Rxc3 Qb2!
(suddenly Black switches his attention to White’s back rank and
the d4-square as well) 26 Rf1 Rce8 27 h3 (27 Rd3 is strongly
met by 27...Bh4!) 27...Bd8 (not allowing the enemy rook to
leave c3, while also preparing ...Re6) 28 Kh1 g6 29 Qf4 f5! 30
exf6 Rxe4 31 Qxe4 Qxc3 32 Qe6+ Kh8 33 Qd6 with a move
repetition.
b23322) 24 Nf6+ Bxf6 25 exf6 Qd8 (the only move) 26 fxg7
Qd4+ 27 Kh1 Rfe8 28 Rf1 Qxg7 29 Rac1 Rcd8 30 Qh3 Rd2
31 Rxc3 Kh8 32 Rg3 Rf2! 33 Rg1 Qf6 and Black’s active
pieces compensate for his ugly pawn-structure.
We now return to 8 Qxd4 (D) :

170
 Black to play
8...Be7 9 e5 c5 10 Qd3 dxe5 11 Qxd8+ Bxd8 12 Nxe5
Be6!
Keres’s classic handling of this line may serve as a model.
12...Be7 led to some initiative for White after 13 Re1 0-0 14
Bg5 Be6 15 Nd2 in Kasparov-Short, PCA World Ch (19),
London 1993.
13 Re1 Nd7 (D)

White to play
14 Nd3?!
An unnecessary retreat.
14 Bf4 looks better, when Black must strike back with 14...g5!

171
(other moves do not seem adequate) 15 Bg3 h5 16 Nc6! (16
h3 Nxe5 17 Bxe5 Rg8 18 Nc3 Kd7 followed by ...Kc6 gives
Black a fine position), when Black has two options: the simple
16...h4 17 Nxd8 Kxd8 18 Be5 Re8 19 Bc3 Kc8 20 Nd2 Kb7,
with a roughly even position, or the riskier 16...Bf6!? 17 Nc3
Bxc3 18 bxc3 h4 19 Bxc7 Rc8 20 Be5 Rg8 21 Na5 (21 Na7
Ra8 =) 21...Ke7 22 Nb7 Rc6 23 Rad1 Nxe5 24 Rxe5 Kf6 25
Rxc5 Rgc8. It seems that in spite of the material disadvantage,
Black’s chances are certainly not inferior. For example: 26 Ra5
Ke7! 27 Rxg5 Rxc3 28 h3 Rxc2.
14...0-0 15 Na3 Rb8 16 Nf4 Bf5 17 Nd5 Be6 18 Nf4
Bf5 19 Nd5 Rb7
Keres was obviously not satisfied with a draw.
20 b3 Nb6 21 Ne3 Bf6 22 Rb1 Bg6 23 Bd2
On 23 Bb2 Black probably planned 23...Bd4.
23...h5 24 Ba5 Rbb8 25 Re2 Rfe8 26 Rbe1 Re6 27 Kf1
Rd8 28 Rd2 Rde8 29 Rde2 Bd4 30 h3 Be4!
Black’s bishops are working fine, although the game ended in a
draw on move 70.

Game 41
Anatoly Karpov – Lajos Portisch [C72]
Final (2), Milan 1975
It was hard to put up with my defeat against Petrosian in
1974 in the first phase (among the eight best) of the world
championship candidates matches. The balance of our games
against each other showed four victories on my side besides
several draws and without any defeat, but nevertheless I should
have known that Tigran was a fearful opponent in a match.
But I was full of confidence – maybe too much, since a short
time before, the playoff after the Interzonal tournament closed
with my convincing victory against two Soviet grandmasters.
Perhaps the balance of previous results between two players is
of little significance. For example, before he won their match,
Fischer never could beat Spassky, the Soviet World Champion.
The different sites, tournaments and the difference in age are
all factors that cannot be forgotten. In the end, I lost the
match 3 to 2 (not counting the draws).
Later, in summer, I had to overcome the first serious illness of
my life due to some infection – I had pneumonia – but I
didn’t want to withdraw from the important Manila tournament.
The result speaks for itself. I won and lost – like an angry

172
bull – and had only a few draws, closing the tournament with
an average result. (If you are interested, you can see my
games on ChessBase.) In January 1975 however, I was again
the same as before. I won again, for the third time, the
Beverwijk/Wijk aan Zee traditional tournament in the
Netherlands, ahead of Hort. Later on, I was not that successful.
There was a moderate result at the Lone Pine open, then a
weak result in Bugojno, and an average one at the Vidmar
Memorial. So you may understand my mixed feelings when I
was preparing for the most important tournament of the
season, the super tournament in Milan with twelve participants,
where almost every top player in the world was invited. The
only non-elite contestant was the Italian, Mariotti. It is quite
true, Korchnoi and Spassky were absent. But after Fischer’s
retirement, Karpov, the new king of chess, was keen to prove
he was not just a ‘paper’ World Champion, as the Americans
called him with their typical sarcasm. By the way, there was no
World Champion in chess history to win so many tournaments
as Karpov did – in my rough calculation more than a
hundred! Although he had already won the Vidmar Memorial
in 1975, the Milan tournament represented the first real test for
him; however, it was I who set the pace right from the first
round. There was a strange clause in the rules of the
tournament; however, we all accepted it. After 11 rounds of the
basic tournament the four players who took the first four
places had to play matches in order to determine the final
result. So it didn’t matter that I won the tournament in
practice; officially it was not recognized. In the first of these
matches, I won 2½-1½ over the fourth-ranked Ljubojević,
ensuring myself the possibility to ‘try’ to win the tournament
again, in a match of six games against the winner of the
match Karpov-Petrosian. But there was no winner! The
ex-World Champion did not want to lose, and the new World
Champion was ‘not allowed to lose’! The outcome of four quick
draws was predictable, and as the Sonneborn-Berger of the
basic tournament favoured Karpov, he became my opponent.
And, while I was having a hard fight with Ljubojević, the new
World Champion enjoyed a rest! In the end, Karpov
accomplished his task well, though if I had found the direct win
in the fifth game, the sixth and final game would have been
exciting. The theme of the fifth game, however, doesn’t belong
to the topic of this book. Let’s see now, how the most

173
important game of our match went.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 d6 5 0-0 (D)

Black to play
5...Be7
Black may play 5...Nf6, transposing into the previous game, or
he can choose 5...Bg4 6 h3 Bh5 (in my opinion the sharp
continuation with 6...h5 is dubious) which will transpose to
variations discussed in the next chapter (see Games 44 - 48 ).
The text-move gives the game another character.
6 Bxc6+
6 d4 will be discussed in the note to White’s 6th move in
Game 44.
6...bxc6 7 d4 exd4 8 Nxd4 c5
8...Bb7!? TN leads to great complications about which no final
judgement can be expected from me. The idea came into my
mind and the analysis has been elaborated with the kind
cooperation of Imre Hera and the engine. 9 Re1 Bf6 (D) and
then:

174
 White to play
a) 10 Bf4 c5! 11 e5 dxe5 12 Bxe5 Bxe5 13 Rxe5+ Ne7 14
Rxc5 Qd6 15 b4 a5 16 Qd2 axb4 17 Qxb4 Rd8 18 c3 Nc6
(18...0-0!? also gives good compensation for the pawn) 19 Qb5
0-0 20 Nd2 Nxd4 21 cxd4 Qxd4 and the simplifications have
led to no more than a balanced position.
b) 10 f4 Nh6! (an original development, since the knight
cannot go to e7 due to the danger in the centre) 11 e5 Bh4!
12 g3 Be7 13 e6 0-0 14 f5! c5 15 Bxh6 gxh6 16 exf7+ Rxf7
17 Ne6 Qd7 18 Nc3 (on 18 Nxc5 Qc6 19 Nxb7 Qb6+! 20
Kg2 Qxb7+ 21 Kg1 Qxb2 Black is completely fine) 18...Rxf5 (or
18...Bf6 19 Ne4 Bd4+ 20 Nxd4 cxd4 21 g4 c5 with an unclear
position) 19 Qg4+ Rg5 20 Qc4 d5 21 Rad1 (21 Qe2 Rg6 22
Nf4 Rg7 with further complications) 21...Qd6 22 Qe2 (22 Qf4
Qxf4 23 Nxf4 Bd6 24 Nfxd5 Rf8 25 Rf1 Be5 and in spite of
his ugly pawn-structure, Black should have no problem with his
two bishops) 22...Rg6 23 Nxc7 Qxc7 24 Qxe7 and here Black
has to go for the forced draw by 24...Rxg3+ 25 hxg3 Qxg3+
26 Kh1 Qh3+.
We now return to 8...c5 (D) :

175
 White to play
9 Nc6 Qd7 10 Na5 Bf6
Black can of course play quietly with 10...Qa4 along the lines
seen in the previous game, but the text-move is certainly just
as good.
11 Qd3
After the interesting try 11 e5!?, I propose 11...Bxe5 TN
(11...dxe5 12 Be3 Ne7 13 Nc3 Qxd1 14 Raxd1 Bf5 15 Rd2 0-0
16 Bxc5 Rfe8 17 Nc4 Be6 18 Ne3 Bg5 happened in
Safarli-Gy.Pap, European Ch, Legnica 2013) 12 Qf3 Rb8 13
Nc6 Rb6 14 Nxe5 dxe5 and even if White is able to win back
the sacrificed pawn somehow, Black’s position should remain
satisfactory.
11...Ne7 12 Nc3 Rb8 13 Rb1 0-0 14 Bd2 (D)

176
 Black to play
14...Bxc3
There was no point in giving up the bishop. 14...Be5 should
have been considered. For example: 15 Nc4 Nc6 16 Nd5 f5 17
exf5 Qf7! (Black has successfully activated his pieces) 18 Nce3
(it would be very risky for White to enter the labyrinth of
questions that arise after 18 g4? Nd4!) 18...Bd4! 19 c3 (19 Bc3
Ne5 20 Qd2 c6) 19...Ne5 20 Qe4 Bxe3 21 Nxe3 Bxf5 22 Nxf5
Qxf5 23 Qxf5 Rxf5 and the ending is more or less even.
15 Bxc3 Nc6?!
Going for exchanges was not a happy thought. Although
White’s knight has been stationed on a5, it is doing practically
nothing there. I should have remembered the English aphorism:
‘A dead dog does not bite.’ Though perhaps that is too strong;
it is more like a sleeping beauty.
Preferable was 15...Qb5! 16 Qg3 f6 17 b3 (17 f4 is strongly met
by 17...d5! 18 exd5 Nxd5) 17...Be6 18 f4 Nc6 19 f5 Nd4! (the
right way to close the long diagonal, so the bishop can return
to f7 and not allow the knight back to c4) 20 Rbe1 Bf7 21 a4
Qb6 22 Rf4 Kh8 23 Rg4 Rg8 with a complex game. White
may force a draw with 24 Rh4 Rge8 25 Rg4.
16 a3 Nxa5 17 Bxa5 Re8 18 Rfe1 Re6 19 c4 Bb7 20 f3
Rbe8 21 Qd2 Bc6 22 b3 Qe7 23 Qf4 Rb8 24 Bc3 f6
25 Kf2 Qf7 26 h4 Ree8 27 g4 Rb7 28 Rb2 Reb8 29
Reb1 Rf8?
Why? The bishop has not so many prospects on c6, so
posting it to e6 by ...Bd7-e6 would have been wiser. In any

177
case, 29...Bd7 would have been a more useful waiting move.
30 Rg1 Be8 31 Qe3 Qe6 32 Qd3 Bc6 (D)

White to play
33 b4!
Karpov opens the queenside.
33...cxb4 34 axb4 Be8 35 Rd2 Rb6 36 Qd4 Qe5?
A miscalculation. I simply forgot that the rook on g1 was
protected. Fatigue!
37 Qxb6! Qh2+ 38 Ke1 Qxd2+ 39 Kxd2 cxb6 40 Ra1
Bf7 41 Rxa6 Rb8 42 Kd3
The remainder of the game was more or less routine, so
further commentary is unnecessary. In winning the game on
move 64, the new world champion showed off his knowledge
of endgame technique.

Game 42
Gyula Sax – Lajos Portisch [C75]
Skellefteå 1989
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 d6 5 c3 Bd7 6 d4
Nge7 (D)

178
 White to play
Here we have one of the main lines of the Keres-set-up. The
text-move develops a piece and supports e5. Its disadvantage is
that for the time being it blocks the development of the
f8-bishop.
7 Bb3
This has been the most popular line for many years, but more
recently both 7 Be3 and 7 0-0 followed by d5 have worked
out well for White in a number of games.
7...h6 8 Nbd2 Ng6 9 Nc4 Be7 10 Ne3 Bg5 11 Nxg5
Perhaps this is the most consistent continuation. Before we
examine it in detail, a few other lines have to be mentioned as
well. White must decide how he intends to deal with the
tension in the centre. He has a number of ways to do so,
though experience has shown that Black’s chances are quite
satisfactory:
a) 11 Nd5 Bxc1 12 Rxc1 0-0 13 dxe5 Ncxe5 14 Nxe5 dxe5 15
h4?! a5! 16 g3 Ra6! with a comfortable game for Black,
Mariotti-Portisch, Milan 1975.
b) 11 0-0 Bxe3 12 Bxe3 Qf6 13 Ne1 Nf4 and then:
b1) 14 Bxf4 Qxf4 15 Nd3 Qf6 16 f4 may seem scary at first
sight, but it is possible to handle White’s aggressive attempt as
follows: 16...exd4 17 e5 Qf5 18 exd6 cxd6 19 Re1+ Kf8 and
Black was fine in Abramov-Bondarevsky, Leningrad 1950.
b2) 14 Kh1 g5 15 g3 Ng6?! (15...Nh3!? offers Black more g-file
activity if White plays f4) 16 f4 exf4 17 gxf4 gxf4 and after 18
Qf3?! 0-0-0 19 Bxf4 (Zlotnik-Tseshkovsky, USSR Under-26 Ch

179
1963) 19...Na5! TN 20 Bc2 (20 Nd3 Nxb3 21 axb3 Rde8 with
an initiative) 20...Qxf4 21 Qxf4 Nxf4 22 Rxf4 Nc4 23 b3 Ne3
24 Bd3 f5!, Black gets rid of his isolated pawn and equalizes.
The immediate 18 Bxf4! is better, since after 18...0-0-0 19 Ng2
White avoids the exchange of queens, while 18...Bh3 19 Rf2
Nxf4 20 Qd2 gives White pressure.
11...hxg5 (D)

White to play
12 g3
12 d5 is the safest. It reduces Black’s pressure on White’s
centre, but at the cost of restricting the strength of the two
bishops. After 12...Nce7 13 g3 f6 14 Bc4 Bb5 15 Be2 Bxe2 16
Qxe2 a draw was agreed in Sax-Portisch, Rotterdam 1989.
12...exd4!
I found this to be the most flexible handling of the line. I do
not mind temporarily giving up my central position in the hope
of increasing the pressure there later.
13 cxd4 (D)

180
 Black to play
13...Kf8!!
The natural consequence of the previous move. It becomes
more and more difficult to find original plans in the early
stages of the game, but I think this is one of them. The
strange text-move keeps the pressure on the h-file, while the
king moves to a safer place.
14 0-0 Bh3!
For 14...Qf6!?, see the next game.
15 Qf3 Qd7 16 Rd1 Re8 17 Nf5 g4 18 Qe3?
This is the weaker of the two possible queen moves. With 18
Qd3 (D) my Olympic team-mate might have deterred me from
selecting the following complicated variations:

181
 Black to play
a) Of course anybody may be frightened by a move like
18...Nge5. The line has to be precisely calculated: 19 dxe5 Nxe5
20 Qd5 (in case of 20 Qc3 Black could immediately force a
draw by 20...Nf3+ 21 Kh1 Qxf5!! 22 exf5 Bg2+ 23 Kxg2
Rxh2+ 24 Kf1 Rh1+ 25 Kg2 Rh2+ =) 20...Nf3+ 21 Kh1 Re5
22 Qxb7 Qxf5!! 23 Qb8+ Ke7 24 Qxc7+ Qd7 25 Qxd7+ Kxd7
26 Bf4 Rxe4 27 Rxd6+ Ke7 28 Rad1 Bg2+ 29 Kxg2 Rxh2+
30 Kf1 Rh1+ would be a perpetual, just as previously.
b) Certainly 18...Rh5! (D) is a more ambitious continuation.
Then:

White to play
b1) 19 Ne3 Nge5! 20 dxe5 Nxe5 21 Qc2 Nf3+ 22 Kh1 Ree5!
(the beginning of a deep plan) 23 Bc4 (after 23 Bd2 Rh7!! 24
Rac1? Reh5 25 Qxc7 Bf1 26 Qb8+ Qe8, mate cannot be
prevented; 23 Nf5? Rexf5! 24 exf5 Bf1 25 h4 Qe7 followed by
...Rxh4+ with a mating attack) 23...Rh7! 24 Rd5 (24 Be2 does
not help either: 24...Reh5 25 Bxf3 gxf3 26 Kg1 Bg2 –+)
24...Bg2+ 25 Kxg2 Rxh2+! 26 Kf1 Rh1+ 27 Ke2 Rxd5 either
mating or winning the queen.
b2) On the seemingly natural 19 Be3 Nb4 20 Qb1, 20...Rxf5!!
21 exf5 Ne5! 22 a3 (22 dxe5 Qc6) 22...Nf3+ 23 Kh1 Nxd4! 24
Rxd4 Qc6 wins.
b3) 19 Bf4 d5! 20 Bxd5 Rxf5 21 Bxc6 bxc6 22 exf5 Qd5 23
f3 gxf3 24 Rd2 Nxf4 25 gxf4 Re4 26 Kf2 Qxf5 27 Re1 Rxe1
28 Kxe1 Qxf4 –/+.
b4) 19 Bd2 is met by a fantastic line with a series of

182
spectacular sacrifices: 19...d5!! 20 Bxd5 Rxf5 21 Bxc6 Qxc6! 22
d5 Qd7 23 exf5 Ne5 24 Qc2 Nf3+ 25 Kh1 f6! (Black is
vacating the e8-h5 diagonal in order to transfer the queen to
the kingside) 26 Bb4+ (26 a4 Kg8 will transpose) 26...Kg8 27
a4! (the only way to eliminate the dangerous knight) 27...Re5!
28 Ra3 (28 Rac1? is strongly met by 28...Qe8! 29 Qxc7 Qh5)
28...Qf7 (D) and then:

White to play
b41) 29 Qc4 c6! 30 Re3 Kh7!! (it turns out that this cheeky
move is the only one that keeps an advantage; 30...cxd5 is less
accurate due to 31 Rxe5! dxc4? 32 Rd8+ Kh7 33 Ree8 +–)
31 Rxf3 (31 Rxe5 loses in view of 31...Qh5!) 31...cxd5 32 Qd4
Re4 33 Re3 Rxd4 34 Rxd4 Qd7 –/+. The white kingside is
still vulnerable.
b42) 29 Re3 Qh5 30 Rxf3 gxf3 31 Qxc7 (31 Qc4 Kh7 and
White’s position is about to fall apart) 31...Bxf5 32 d6 Qh3 33
Qc4+ (33 Rg1 Bg4! followed by ...Qxh2 will be a nice mate)
33...Be6 34 Qf1 Rd5! 35 Re1 Qg4 36 Ba3 Kf7. The strong
initiative remains and it would be very difficult to suggest any
reasonable move for White.
I was really lucky that Gyula did not play 18 Qd3, because a
human being would hardly have been able to foresee all these
complicated lines. During the analysis even the computer was
‘uncertain’ in some cases.
We now return to 18 Qe3? (D) :

183
 Black to play
18...Rh5! 19 Nh4
In case of 19 Qd3, 19...d5! works well again: 20 Bxd5 Rxf5 21
Bxc6 Qxc6 22 d5 Qf6 23 exf5 Ne5 24 Qa3+ Kg8 25 Bf4
Nf3+ 26 Kh1 Qxf5 and White is helpless against the threats.
19...Rxh4! 20 gxh4 Nxh4 21 Bd5 Ne7 22 Bc4 Nef5 23
Qc3 Rxe4 24 Bf1 Nxd4 25 Be3 Ndf3+ 26 Kh1 Bxf1 27
Rxf1 Ng6 28 Rad1 Qe7 0-1

Game 43
Nigel Short – Lajos Portisch [C75]
Linares 1990
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 d6 5 c3 Bd7 6 d4
Nge7 7 Bb3 h6 8 Nbd2 Ng6 9 Nc4 Be7 10 Ne3 Bg5 11
Nxg5 hxg5 12 g3 exd4! 13 cxd4 Kf8!
For the second time I got the opportunity to put into practice
the line invented by me with confidence and pride. Still, it
should be admitted that the selection of this variation by Short
was unexpected for me. My opponent evidently had something
prepared, so I intentionally deviated from the well-known
previous game.
14 0-0 Qf6!? (D)

184
 White to play
15 Nd5
The only other move, 15 Nc2, is met by 15...Nf4! 16 f3 (16
gxf4? loses immediately to 16...Qh6; 16 Bxf4 Qh6 17 h4 gxf4
18 Qf3 g5 19 Kg2 Ke7 followed by ...Rag8 with a strong
attack) 16...Nh3+ 17 Kg2 (17 Kh1 Na5 and ...Bb5 will also be
very unpleasant) 17...Na5 –/+. After taking on b3, Black will
later undermine the centre by ...g4.
15...Qxd4 16 Bxg5?!
White is wrongly in a hurry to simplify matters. Objectively, 16
Be3! would have offered more chances for equality: 16...Qxd1
17 Bxd1 Nge5! 18 f3! (the greedy 18 Nxc7? would lose in
similar fashion to the game: 18...Rc8 19 Nd5 Bh3 20 Re1 Nd3
21 Re2 Nce5 22 Rd2 Ne1 –+; 18 Bxg5 Bh3 19 Re1 Nd4 and
Black is still better) 18...Ne7!? 19 Nxe7 (19 Nxc7 Rc8 20 Nd5
Nxd5 21 exd5 f6 =+) 19...Kxe7 20 Bxg5+ f6 21 Be3 g5. Due
to his strong knight and better pawn-structure, Black’s position
remains preferable.
16...Nge5 17 Be3 (D)

185
 Black to play
17...Qxd1
Unfortunately I was too lazy to calculate the consequences of
17...Qxe4!, which are as follows: 18 f3 Qh7 19 h4 (19 Rf2 is
strongly met by 19...Nd3! 20 Nxc7 Rc8! 21 Bc2 Ncb4 22 Bf4
Qg6! 23 Rd2 Nxc2 24 Rxd3 Nxa1 25 Rxd6 Qh5 and Black is
winning) 19...Rc8 and Black has a sound pawn advantage,
since 20 Nxc7? fails on account of 20...Qg6.
18 Bxd1
18 Rfxd1? Bg4.
18...Bh3 19 Re1 Nd3 20 Re2 Nce5 (D)
The play was forced until here, but now my opponent
blundered.

186
 White to play
21 Rd2?
21 f4 was the only way to survive, though after 21...Nf3+ 22
Kh1 c6 23 Nc3 f5 Black still has a strong initiative.
21...Ne1!
This attractive move decides the issue.
22 f4 N1f3+ 23 Kf2 Nxd2 24 Bxd2 Ng4+ 25 Kg1 c6 26
Nb6 Re8 27 Bf3 Nf6 28 Re1 Bg4 29 Bg2 Be6 30 b3
Nd7 31 Na4 f5 32 Bc3 fxe4 33 Rxe4 Nf6 34 Rd4 Bd5
35 Bf1 Ng4 0-1
After these two beautiful games of mine, this handling of the
opening line by White could not be recommended any longer.

187