1 CHESS
g.DDOilklii au
SPAIN'S FINEST CAVA
ISPAIN'S f INET CAVA
Maginot
Raymond Keene
THE FRENCH DEFENCE enjoys a tradi- tional reputation for solidity. A key theme of the French is the establishment of blocked pawn chains in the centre, de- signed to frustrate White's attacking initia- tives. When Nigel Short suffered reverse upon reverse on the black side of the Ruy Lopez against Kasparov last year in Lon- don I suggested he should switch to the French. Perhaps it was better that he did not. In the VSB tournament in Amster- dam, currently in progress, Nigel first obliterated Timman's French and when he tried it himself against Kasparov he met the same fate.
Short – Timman: Amsterdam, May 1994; French Defence.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e5 This is coming into fashion after good Black results against the conventional 4 Bg5 which is increasingly being parried by 4. dxe4 5 Nxe4 Be7. 4. . . Nfd7 5 f4 c5 6 ND Nc6 7 Be3 Qb6 8 Na4 Qa5+ 9 c3 cxd4 10 b4 Nxb4 A popular piece sacrifice, though Black's results have not been generally en- couraging. 10 . . 0c7 is more passive, but probably better. 11 cxh4 Bxh4+ 12 8d2 Bxd2+ 13 Nxd2 g5 14 Rbl Timman's next move is an attempt to improve on known theory but Short convincingly refutes it. 14. . . gxf4 The alterna- tive is 14. . . a6 15 Nb2 Nc5 16 Bd3 (Kuczinski – Dolmatov, Polanica Zdroj 1993), when White won in 37 moves. 15 Bb5 Rb8 16 Nc5 Qc3 17 Nd3 a6 18 Rd Qa3 19 Qb3 Qa5 If 19. . . Qxb3 White of course captures on d7 with check before regaining the queen. 20 Bxd7+ Bxd7 21 Nxf4 Rg8 22 Qd3 Rg5 23 0-0 Rf5 24 Nb3 Qb6 25 R12 0b5 26 Qg3 Rd8 27 Nh5 If now 27. . . Rxh5 28 Qg8+ and Qxf7 is mate. 27 . . . Rxf2 28 Qxf2 Bc4 29 Nf6+ Kf8 30 Nxd4 Bxa2 31 Nd7+ (Diagram above) Black resigns A beautiful geometrical finish. After 31 . . . Rxd7 32 Rc8+ Rd8 33 Rxd8+ Qxd8 34 Nxe6+ Black loses.
Kasparov – Short: Amsterdam, May 1994; French Defence.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5 f4 c5 6 Nf3 Nc6 7 Be3 cxd4 Varying from Timman's 7 . . . 121b6 in the previous game. 8 Nxd4 Bc5 9 Qd2 0-0 100.0-0 a6 11 h4 Nxd4 12 Bxd4 b5 13 Rh3 b4 14 Na4 Bxd4 15 Qxd4 f6 Short's attempted im- provement on 15 . . Qa5 16 b3 Bb7 17 Rg3 as in Arakhamia – Gurevich, Helsinki 1992 when
White won in 34 moves. 16 Qxb4 fxe5 17 Qd6 Of6 Short's idea looks quite plausible and it takes play of genius on Kasparov's part to refute it. 18 f5 (Diagram above) A brilliant move. If now. . . 18 Oxf5 19 Rf3 followed by Rxf8+ and Nb6. 18 . Qh6+ 19 Kbl Rxf5 20 Rf3!! Removing Black's only active piece. 20. . . Rxf3 21 gxf3 Qf6 22 Bh3 K17 23 a Another fine move, punching holes in Black's central forti- fications. 23. . . dxc4 24 Nc3 Qe7 25 Qc6 Rb8 26 Ne4 Nb6 27 Ng5+ Kg8 28 Qe4 g6 29 Qxe5 Rb7 30 Rd6 c3 31 Bxe6+ Bxe6 32 Rxe6 Black resigns The last ditch try 32 . . Nc4 fails to 33 Rxe7 Na3+ 34 Kcl cxb2+ 35 Oxb2.
In his game with White against Ivanchuk Short evaded a devilish trap.
Short - Ivanchuk
It looks here as if White can win with 39 Nd5 exd5 40 exd5 Rxe3 41 Rxe3 Rc4 42 Re7+ Kh8 when White has a choice btween 43 Qe6 and 43 Re8+ . However, after 39 Nd5 exd5 40 exd5 Black has the resource 40. . . Ne5 41 dxc6 Nf3+ 42 Rxf3 Rxel when Black wins. Well spotted, Nigel!
Scores at Amsterdam after 5 rounds (out of 6): Kasparov and Ivanchuk 31/2; Short and Timman 11/2.
Previous page
