Chessable: My Great Predecessors (part 5)

[Event Leningrad]

[Site ?]

[Date 1948.??.??]

[Round ?]

[White Korchnoi, V.]

[Black Spassky, B.]

[Result 1-0]

[Annotator Garry Kasparov]

[SetUp 1]

[FEN r3kb1r/pp1q1p1p/3p1np1/4p3/4PP2/2N2Q2/PPP3PP/R1B1K2R b KQkq - 0 11]

[PlyCount 2]

[EventDate 1954.??.??]

[SourceTitle My Great Predecessors V]

[Source Everyman Chess ]

[SourceDate 2017.01.01]

[SourceVersionDate 2017.01.01]

[SourceQuality 1]

11 Qg4 $2 ({Instead of the normal} 11 Bg7 {.}) 12. Nd5 $1 {and Black resigned;} ({after noticing to his horror that after} 12. Nd5 Qxf3 ({the hopeless resistance could have been prolonged after} 12 Kd8 13. Qxg4 Nxg4

14. h3 Nh6 15. fxe5 dxe5 16. Bg5+ Kd7 17. Bf6 Rg8 {, but the distressed Boris no longer had the moral strength}) 13. Nxf6+ Ke7 14. Nd5+ {and gxf3, he loses a piece.}) 1-0

[Event 1. 21st USSR Championship, Kiev]

[Site ?]

[Date 1954.??.??]

[Round 7]

[White Furman, S.]

[Black Korchnoi, V.]

[Result 1/2-1/2]

[ECO D92]

[Annotator Garry Kasparov]

[PlyCount 63]

[EventDate 1954.??.??]

[SourceTitle My Great Predecessors V]

[Source Everyman Chess ]

[SourceDate 2017.01.01]

[SourceVersionDate 2017.01.01]

[SourceQuality 1]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 ({Or first} 4. Bf4 Bg7 5. e3 {and Rc1 Volume 3, Game Nos. 12 and 29.}) 4 Bg7 5. Bf4 O-O 6. Rc1 {The idea of the variation with 6 Rc1 is to seize the c-file, control of which plays an important role in the subsequent play; in addition, the threat to the c7-pawn induces Black to take on c4, which is also of definite benefit to White.

(Furman). This variation became especially popular at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries. It need hardly be added that today it has been exhaustively studied.} ({After the usual} 6. e3 c5 7. dxc5 Qa5 {White does not gain any advantage (Rauzer-Alatortsev, 7th USSR Championship, Moscow 1931) (Levenfish-Botvinnik, 11th matchgame, Moscow/Leningrad 1937).}) 6 dxc4 ({

This is considered more reliable than} 6 c5 7. dxc5 dxc4 ({or} 7 Be6 {

, as in Ragozins games with Botvinnik (8th matchgame, Leningrad 1940) and Mikenas (12th USSR Championship, Moscow 1940)}) 8. Qxd8 Rxd8 9. e3 (9. e4 $5

Na6 10. e5 {Bronstein-Filip, Amsterdam Candidates 1956}) 9 Na6 10. c6 bxc6

11. Bxc4 Nd5 12. Be5 Nb6 13. Be2 f6 14. Bg3 {with a complicated ending, slightly better for White (Korchnoi-Stein, 30th USSR Championship, Erevan 1962) .}) 7. e3 {Strengthening the d4-point.} ({The game Borisenko-Korchnoi (Leningrad 1953) went} 7. e4 {After this} Bg4 $1 {came to the forefront (Pachman-Gligoric, Havana 1962). This continuation was actively tested at the end of the 20th century, and in the main line} (7 c5 8. dxc5 Qa5 9. Nd2 ({

but later, against Zagorovsky (Sochi 1958), Korchnoi employed the strong novelty} 9. e5 $1) 9 Be6 10. Bxc4 Bxc4 11. Nxc4 Qxc5 12. Qe2 Nc6 {with equality.}) 8. Bxc4 Bxf3 9. gxf3 Nh5 10. Be3 e5 11. dxe5 Bxe5 12. Qxd8 Rxd8 {

Black has a quite acceptable ending}) 7 Be6 $5 {A novelty;} ({although it is also possible to play} 7 c5 8. Bxc4 cxd4 9. Nxd4 Nbd7 10. Bg3 Nb6 ({

but not} 10 e5 $2 11. Ndb5 Ne8 12. Ne4 Qa5+ 13. Qd2 Qxd2+ 14. Nxd2 a6 15.

Nc3 Nd6 16. Nd5 $1 {Furman-Livshin, 3rd round}) 11. Bb3 Bg4 12. f3 Bd7 13. O-O

Nh5 {(Borisenko-Byvshev, Leningrad 1954);}) ({or even} 7 Nbd7 $5 8. Bxc4 c5

{(Karpov-Kasparov, 3rd matchgame, New York rapidplay 2002), in both cases with equality.}) 8. Ng5 Bd5 ({For many years this move was made automatically, until in the game Dreev-Sutovsky (Essen 2000)} 8 Bg4 $5 9. f3 Bc8 {occurred.

Later I successfully played this against Karpov (1st matchgame, New York rapidplay 2002).}) 9. Nxd5 {A seemingly natural exchange.} ({In reply to} 9. e4

{Black had prepared} h6 $1 10. exd5 hxg5 11. Bxg5 Nxd5 12. Bxc4 Nb6 13. Bb3 Nc6

{, for example:} 14. d5 ({or} 14. Ne2 $5 {(an attempt to exploit the power of the two bishops)} a5 {, and present day practice has shown that Black has sufficient counterplay}) 14 Nd4 15. O-O Re8 {with equality (Toran-Korchnoi, Palma de Mallorca 1968).}) 9 Nxd5 10. Bg3 $6 {Retaining the bishop in the hope of quickly completing his development and seizing the initiative. However, this does not succeed and the move in the game proves to be a loss of an important tempo.} ({Since the mid-1980s the immediate} 10. Bxc4 {has been played, with the gambit idea} Nxf4 11. Qf3 $1 {.}) 10 c5 $1 {A typically Grnfeld undermining move, emphasising Whites backward development.} ({

Of course, I didnt even think of keeping the pawn by} 10 b5 $2 {in view of } 11. b3 $1 {. (Korchnoi)}) 11. Bxc4 cxd4 12. Qb3 ({If} 12. O-O {, then} e6 {

, attacking the knight at g5 and remaining a pawn up. Apparently Furman was pinning all his hopes on the queen move, which creates threats against the knight at d5, the f7-point and the b7-pawn.}) 12 dxe3 $5 {The game enters a phase of wild complications.} ({After thinking for more than an hour, I rejected} 12 e6 {in view of} 13. Qxb7 Nd7 (13 Nb6 14. Nxf7) 14. Bxd5 {

. (Korchnoi). Although, in my view, after} Qxg5 {it is only White who may have problems in this position.}) ({There was another reasonable alternative in } 12 Qa5+ 13. Ke2 {or} e6 ({and now not} 13 Nb6 $6 {on account of} 14.

Bxf7+ ({with the idea of} 14. Nxf7 Nxc4 {A.Geller}) 14 Kh8 15. h4 Nc6 16. h5

$5 Qxg5 17. hxg6 h5 ({or} 17 h6) 18. Bf4 {with a dangerous attack.}) ({but}

13 d3+ 14. Bxd3 (14. Kxd3 Na6 15. Bxd5 Rad8 $1 16. Ke4 e6 {etc}) 14 Nc6

15. Ne4 Ndb4 {with equality}) 14. Bxd5 Qxd5 $1 ({this is simpler than} 14

exd5 15. Qxb7 Na6 16. Bd6 dxe3 17. fxe3 d4 $1 18. Nf3 Qxa2 19. Nxd4 $1 Rfe8 20.

Rhd1 Rad8 21. Qb5 $5) 15. Qxd5 exd5 16. Rc7 b6 {with a favourable ending for Black. However, the move in the game is sharper and more interesting. Either way, it becomes obvious that the well-known theoretician and White expert

Furman has already lost the opening duel. By the 12th (!) move White has ended up in an unpleasant position and he is obliged to seek a way of maintaining the balance. It seems to me that this demonstrates the level of theoretical development at that time.}) 13. Bxd5 e6 {A double attack, the bishop being unable to move on account of 14Qd2+.} 14. Nxe6 Qa5+ 15. Rc3 ({After} 15. Kf1

fxe6 16. Bxe6+ (16. Bf3 Nc6) 16 Kh8 17. Qxe3 Nc6 {(Korchnoi), Black has a serious initiative for the pawn : it is hard for White to bring his rook at h1

into play and to safeguard his king.}) 15 fxe6 16. Bxe6+ $6 {White continues to play for an attack and ends up in an inferior position.} ({

Instead of this he could have gone into a roughly equal ending:} 16. Bxb7 Bxc3+

{Or ventured the sharp} 17. bxc3 (17. Qxc3 Qb6 18. Qb3 exf2+ 19. Ke2 Nd7 20.

Qxb6 axb6 21. Bxa8 Rxa8 {. (Korchnoi).} (21 Z0)) 17 exf2+ 18. Ke2 (18.

Bxf2 $2 Qe5+ 19. Kf1 Qf5) 18 Qf5 19. Rf1 Na6 {etc.}) 16 Kh8 17. O-O $6 ({

Blacks position is also preferable after} 17. fxe3 Nc6 18. Bf2 Bxc3+ 19. bxc3

Rf6 20. O-O Raf8 {(it is not easy for the white bishops to display their power) , but the play would still have been unclear.}) 17 e2 $1 {Now Blacks advantage is obvious: this weak pawn turns out to be immune on account of the fork at d4.} ({It was less good to play} 17 exf2+ 18. Bxf2 Bxc3 $2 19.

bxc3 {with the threat of mate on the long diagonal;}) ({or} 17 Bxc3 18. bxc3

$1 Nc6 19. Qxb7 {with advantage to White. (Korchnoi)}) 18. Re1 Nc6 19. Rcc1 $2

({Nevertheless} 19. Bc4 {was the lesser evil, although after} Rae8 20. Rcc1 Qd2

21. f3 Nd4 22. Qd3 Qg5 {the e2-pawn would cause White a mass of problems.}) 19 Rad8 $2 ({Here I repeated Furmans mistake I continued playing for an attack, whereas it was time to follow a more prosaic way:} 19 Nd4 $1 20. Qd5

(20. Qc4 b5 $1 { G.K.}) {Too modest an evaluation! After} 20 Qd2 $1 (20