The Ultimate Dragon

Volume 1:
The Rauzer Attack

Eduard Gufeld,
Oleg Stetsko

B.T. Batsford Ltd, London

First published in 2001
©Eduard Gufeld, Oleg Stetsko 2001

ISBN 0 7 1 34 8689 9

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

A catalogue record for this book is
available from the British Library.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be

reproduced, by any means, without prior permission
of the publisher.

Printed in Great Britain by

Creative Print and Design (Wales), Ebbw Vale
for the publishers,
B.T. Batsford Ltd,
9 Blenheim Court,
Brewery Road,
London N7 9NT

A member of the ChKatis Group plc

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

 Contents

Preface 5

Looking at the Stars 7

The Rauzer Attack 13

I e4 c5 2 t:Df3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4t:Dxd4 t:Df6 5 t:Dc3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7 f3
(7 0-0 8 'iVd2t:Dc6)
...

Chapter 1 : Main-line Rauzer Attack: Introduction and 9 0-0-0 15

Line 1 : 9 ...d5 1 0 exd5 t:Dxd5 1 1 t:Dxc6 bxc6 12 t:Dxd5 16

Line 2: 9 ...d5 10 exd5t:Dxd5 1 1 t:Dxc6 bxc6 12 �d4 22
Line 3 : 9 ... d5 10 'ife1 40
Line 4: 9 ...d5 10 t:Dxc6 bxc6 1 1 �h6 50
Line 5 : 9 ...d5 10 �b1 . 54
Line 6: 9 ...t:Dxd4 1 0 �xd4 �e6 55
Line 7: 9 ... �e6 63
Line 8: 9 ...�d7 64

Chapter 2: Rauzer Attack with 9 �c4 70

Line 9: 9 ...�d7 1 0 0-0-0 .l:c8 1 1 �b3t:De5 1 2 �b 1 71

Line 10: 9 ...�d7 1 0 0-0-0 .l:c8 1 1 �b3t:De5 1 2 h4t:Dc4 74
Line 1 1 : 9 ...�d7 1 0 0-0-0 .l:c8 1 1 �b3t:De5 12 h4 h5 1 03
Line 12: 9 ...�d7 1 0 0-0-0 'ifa5 1 1 �b3 .l:fc8 1 2 h4t:De5 13 h5 138
Line 13: 9...�d7 1 0 0-0-0 'ifa5 1 1 �b3 .l:fc8 12 h4t:De5 1 3 g4 147
Line 14: 9 ... �d7 10 0-0-0 'ifa5 1 1 �b3 .l:fc8 12 h4t:De5
. 13 �b1 1 49
Line 1 5 : 9 ...�d7 1 0 0-0-0 'ifa5 1 1 �b3 .l:fc8 12 �b1 1 55
Line 16: 9 ...�d7 1 0 0-0-0 'ifb8 1 58
Line 1 7: 9 ... �d7 1 0 0-0-0 'ifc7 1 65
Line 1 8 : 9 . . .�d7 1 0 h4 1 68
Line 19: 9 ...�d7 10 �b3 1 72
Line 20: 9 ...t:Dxd4 1 76
Line 2 1 : 9 ...t:Dd7 181
Line 22: 9 ...t:Da5 1 84
Line 23: 9 ... a5 1 86
Line 24: 9 ... a6 1 89
4 Contents

Chapter 3: Rauzer Attack with 9 g4 191

Line 25: 9 ...e6 1 93

Line 26: 9 ....te6 1 96

Chapter 4: Side Variations of the Rauzer Attack

Line 27: 7 ... 0-0 8 Wd2 d5 205

Line 28: 7 ... 0-0 8 i.c4 207
Line 29: 7 ...llk6 8 Wd2 21 1
Line 30: 7 ... lfjc6 8 i.c4 217
Line 3 1 : 7 ...a6 222

Illustrative Games 224

 Preface

hat does the that it is not possible to cover

modern "Dragon" everything related to such an
represent? Nearly immense subject and have restricted
half a century of the scope of their monograph to the
investigation and purely classical treatment I e4 cS 2
application in llJfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 ltJf6 S
competitive play. The practical ltJc3 g6, leaving the so-called
cxpenences of several generations "Accelerated Dragon", 2 ...ltJc6 3 d4
of chess players have been cxd4 4 ltJxd4 g6, for another time.
particularly intense in the latter part The whole range of systems
of the 20th century and have characteristic of the classical
enabled the Dragon to grow into a variation of the Dragon can be
monumental structure. As with all divided into three main directions:
social structures there have been
I) The Rauzer Attack--6 i.e3
fluctuations in its development; on
i.g7 7 f3 followed by 8 'ii'd2 with
occasion it has receded . into the
the inclusion of queenside castling
shadowy background of unfashion­
and development of the bishop on
able inventions, but it has also
c4;
enjoyed starry moments when the
2) Classical variations--6 i.e2
most eminent grandmasters have
with the development of the second
lauded it to the skies. It seems that
bishop on e3;
in recent years the Dragon has been
3) Modern variations with the
passing through just such a period.
fianchetto of the light-squared
The best confirmation of this was
bishop--6 g3
seen in the Kasparov-Anand (New
In a separate group we have the
York 1 995) title match where the
less frequently seen continuations 6
world champion used it to good
h3, 6 i.gS, 6 f4
effect.
As befits the richness of its ideas Without doubt in modern practice
and the ramifications of its various centre stage is taken by the Rauzer
plans, the Dragon variation is Attack, which the authors look at in
regarded as one of the most this book, dealing with all other
complicated openings employed in systems in Volume 2.
modem practice. The authors realise
 Looking at the Stars

he Dragon Variation in a3-ffi diagonal. For example: 1 e4

the Sicilian Defence is c5 2 li)f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 c!Llxd4 lLlf6
over 1 00 years old. 5 lLlc3 J.b4 (Sicilian Attack) or 1 e4
The Russian master c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 J.c5
Fedor Dus-Chotimirsky, (Morphy-Paulsen, match 1 8 57). In­
who often employed cidentally, Paulsen invariably em­
lhis system at the beginning of the ployed this variation when playing
century, wrote: "This name was with Black. Possibly due to his fail­
used for the first time by me in Kiev ures in this variation against Mor­
in 1 90 l . I was keen on astronomy, phy, Paulsen tried to find some
and, looking at the sky, I noticed the other weapon in his favourite Sicil­
apparent resemblance between the ian. So, in his game against Steinitz
Dragon constellation and the con­ at the famous London tournament of
liguration of the black d6, e7, fl, g6 1862, Paulsen played 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3
and h7 pawns in the Sicilian. De­ g6!. It's the idea rather than the
fence. On account of this visual as­ move that deserves an exclamation
sociation, I decided to call it the mark. The idea happened to be very
"Dragon Variation". Incidentally, fruitful: without weakening the cen­
lhe intricate configuration of the tral squares, Black piles up pressure
slars in this constellation was named on the e5 and d4 squares, as well as
after the fire-breathing monster in on the whole queenside. Besides,
Greek mythology. Thus, chess the­ the position assumes a closed char­
ory has inherited this name from an­ acter, and "cavalry" attacks, which
cient mythology. were in vogue at that time, are no
The Dragon is characterised by good here. The young Steinitz was
lhe flank development of Black's naive: 3 lLlc3 J.g7 4 J.c4 and later
king bishop. This was considered a Black's queenside counterattack
revolutionary plan in the middle of turned out to be more effective than
lhe 19th century. Open games were White's aggression on the kingside.
predominant at that time. Closed Thus was born the idea which at­
and semi-open games were played tracted the attention of the chess
( i f they were ever played!) in accor­ world... Two years later the idea
dance with the principles of open was analyzed by Johann Lowenthal.
games: a rapid mobilisation of He pointed out the following possi­
pieces with a view to attacking the bility: 3 d4! cxd4 4 'iVxd4 lDf6 5 e5
enemy king. Therefore, as far as the lLlc6 6 'ii'h4 li)xe5 7 lLlxe5 'ii'a5+ 8
Sicilian is concerned, the most ltlc3 'ii'xe5 9 J.e2. Can White's
popular plans involved the develop­ initiative provide sufficient compen­
ment of the king's bishop on the sation for the sacrificed pawn? At
8 Looking at the Stars

that time, the position was assessed Tarrasch, playing against Macken­
as being in White's favour (quite in zie, even blundered away a piece
the spirit of the period!). after 9 h4? lLlg4! 1 0 lLlxc6 bxc6 1 1
One of the most widespread .i.d4 e5 ! . Mackenzie was more cau­
"weapons" in the opening is move tious playing against Paulsen: 9 h3
order. By resorting to various tricks, 0-0 10 lLlde2 a6 1 1 .i.d3. However,
changing the move order, both sides after l l .. .lLle5 1 2 f4 lLlxd3 1 3 cxd3
try to get advantageous positions. b5 Black obtained excellent
The first blow against the Dragon chances. Gunsberg-Gottschall: 7
was inflicted on the a l-h8 diagonal. .i.e2 .i.d7 8 o-o lLlf6 9 f4 o-o 1 0
So, Black found the new move or­ 'iVd2 l:c8 1 1 l:ad l lLlg4 1 2 .i.xg4
der: 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 .i.xg4 1 3 l:de l .i.d7 14 lLlde2 .i.e8
lLlxd4 g6! . For decades this method 1 5 :n 'iVd7 1 6 .l:.efl b5 1 7 b3 'iVb7
was popular, but in the 1 930s it un­ 18 l:h3 b4 19 lLld5 e6 20 f5 ! exd5
derwent a serious crisis. However, 2 1 f6 .i.h8 22 .i.d4 .i.d7 23 .l:.h4 h5
in the 40s it was resuscitated... One 24 l:xh5 ! .i.g4 25 l:xh8+! and
hundred years ago this transposition White mated the opponent. How­
of moves was employed with one ever, in this game Black made some
aim: to avoid the 'formidable' 'iVxd4 serious mistakes in the middle
capture. However, it was noticed game. For instance, instead of the
that after 5 lLlxc6 bxc6 6 'iVd4 f6! passive 14 ... .i.e8? he should have
White had difficulties fighting played 14 ...b5 with active counter-
against Black's powerful pawn cen­ play. Soon it turned out that a direct
tre. White's attempts to capitalize on attack against Black's defences was
his slight advantage in development to no avail: Black's counterplay is
were successfully repelled. These based on ... a7-a6 and ...b7-b5 in
attempts brought White nothing but conjunction with ...lLlc6-e5-c4 (or
disappointments. For example, at ...�c6-a5-c4). In search of more ef­
Hastings in 1 895, Schlechter tried ficient weapons against the Dragon,
vy-ithout success to prove White's White resorted to new, positional
superiority against Lasker; but after manoeuvres. Let's return to the
7 .i.c4 e6 8 0-0 lLlh6 9 lLlc3 lLlil 1 0 Gunsberg-Gottschall game .
.i.e3 .i.g7 1 1 l:ad l 0-0 12 'iVd2 f5
1 3 exf5 gxf5 1 4 .i.d4 d5 1 5 .i.xg7
<j;xg7 1 6 .i.e2 e5 and Black's pawns
crushed the enemy defence. Later it
was found that 6 ...lLlf6 ! was even
stronger. So, Black had nothing to
fear on the a l -h8 diagonal. The first
serious trial for the Dragon came
about in 1 887 during the 5th Con­
gress of the German Chess Union. A
number of games were played with
the same variation: 1 e4 c5 2 lL!f3
lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 lLlc3
.i.g7 6 .i.e3 d6. After 7 .i.b5 .i.d7 8
0-0 lLlf6 White could not achieve Position after 10... l:c8
anything special. Dr. Siegbert
 Looking at the Stars 9

Instead of the straightforward 1 1

l:tad 1 , another plan was proposed:
l l h3 a6 12 .tn b5 1 3 �b3. The
idea will become clear if we
consider the continuation which
occurred in the game Marco-Weiss
(1 895): 1 3 .....c7 14 lbd5 ! ! . This is
the idea of 1 3 ltlb3. What should
Black do now? He cannot stand the
ltld5 for long. If he tries to drive it
away with ... e7-e6, his d6-pawn will
be too weak. The game continued:
l 4 ...ltlxd5 1 5 exd5 ltld8 16 c3 and Position after 9... .te6!
17 l:tfe 1 and White got the
advantage. Many years later Akiba G.Marco warded off this threat by
Rubinstein and Mikhail Botvinnik 1 0 f4 but after 1 0...ltla5 ! Black got
demonstrated how such positions counterp1ay on the queenside, keep­
should be handled. But as we see, ing White's knight out of d5. This
the idea of ltlc3-d5 had been plan was popular then and it was
employed long before! So, at the analyzed even 50 years later... How­
close of the last century White ever, the decisive word in this varia­
posed the serious problem of de­ tion was pointed out by Mar6czy.
fence against ltlc3-d5 to Black. The He showed that after 1 e4 c5 2 ltlf.3
antidote was found quite soon. It ltlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltlxd4 g6 very
was noticed that after 1 e4 c5 2 ltlf.3 strong is 5 c4 ! introducing the
ltlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltlxd4 g6 5 ltlc3 Mar6czy Bind! The most radical
..i.g7 6 .ie3 Black could play (in­ way of seizing the d5-square! After
stead of 6 ... d6) 6 ...ltlf6 7 .te2 0-0 8 5 ....tg7 6 .ie3 ltlf6 7 ltlc3 d6 8
0-0 d5 ! ! . ..i.e2 0-0 9 0-0 .id7 White can play
Now Black gets absolute freedom, 10 f.3 followed by ltlc3-d5. Weaker
frustrating, at the same time, is 1 0 h3 ltlxd4 1 1 .ixd4 .ic6 1 2
White's attacking plans. In the game ..d3 ltld7 1 3 .ixg7 ltlxg7 14 b4 b6
Tarrasch-Lipke (Vienna 1 898) 1 5 l:[fd 1 aS ! (Swiderski-Mar6czy,
Black got excellent chances after 9 Monte Carlo 1904), and Black, by a
exd5 ltlxd5 1 0 ltlxd5 •xd5 1 1 .tn series of exchanges, facilitated his
•c4 12 ltlxc6 bxc6 13 c3 .ie6. defence. Incidentally, this is the first
Later Tarrasch suggested 8 f4 (in­ game we fo11nd where 5 c4 was
stead of 8 0-0) so as to counter employed.
8 ...d5 with 9 e5. But Black found an Mar6czy's system posed new
interesting possibility: 8 ...d6 9 0-0 problems for Black. At first, Black
�6! . In response to this line, White tried to hinder c2-c4. He played 1 e4
found a new idea: 8 ltlb3 d6 9 0-0. c5 2 ltlf.3 ltlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltlxd4
But that was not all. In the game lLlf6 provoking 5 ltlc3 followed by
Marco-Mar6czy (Monte Carlo 5 ... g6. But White immediately
1 903) the famous Hungarian GM found an antidote... This is how the
found a witty idea: 9... .te6! (threat­ game Leonhardt-Tartakower contin­
ening ...d6-d5). ued (Carlsbad 1907; 2nd brilliancy
prize): 6 �xc6 bxc6 7 e5 ltlg8 8
10 Looking at the Stars

'ii'O i.g7 9 i.c4 e6 1 0 i.f4 'ii'c7 1 1 ' 1 e2-e4 and White wins.' His in­
o-0! i.xe5 1 2 ltlb5 'ii'b8 1 3 i.xe5 ventions produced hard times for
'ii'xe5 14 l:.ad l d5 1 5 :re i 'ii'b8 16 Sicilian lovers because in the early
i.xd5! cxd5 17 'ii'xd5 i.b7 1 8 1930s Rauzer suggested 6 i.g5 ! (af­
ltld6+ �f8 1 9 'ii'e5 i.d5 20 'ii'xh8 ter 1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 ltlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
'ii'xd6 2 1 c4 and White won. tZ:lxd4 tZ:lf6 5 tZ:lc3 d6). Can Black
Mar6czy's Attack was a serious play the Dragon now? No good is
blow to the Dragon. But in 1920 an­ 6...g6? 7 i.xf6 exf6. So, Black has
other Hungarian master, G.Breyer, to play ... e6 choosing the
found interesting counterplay: 1 e4 Scheveningen variation, or he has to
c5 2 lt!O ltlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltlxd4 g6 delay the development of his king­
5 c4 i.g7 6 i.e3 ltlf6 7 ltlc3 ltlg4 ! . side pieces by 6 ...i.d7. However,
Puzzled by the novelty, B.Kostic soon the radical method of prevent­
ereferred the exchanges: 8 ltlxc6 ing both Mar6czy's system and 6
lllxe3 9 ltlxd8 ltlxd 1 1 0 ltlxd 1 i.g5 was found: 1 e4 c5 2 ll:lf.3 d6 3
ltlxd8, and the game was soon d4 cxd4 4 tZ:lxd4 tZ:lf6 5 tZ:lc3 g6.
drawn (Kostic-Breyer, Goteborg Nevertheless, Rauzer played 6 i.g5
1920). However, two years later, even here. In his game against
there came a new blow for the V.Ragozin (Leningrad 1 936) he got
Dragon in the game Alekhine­ the advantage after 6 ...i.g7 7 'ifd2
Siimisch (Vienna, 1922) in which tZ:lc6 8 0-0-0 lllxe4 9 tZ:lxe4 lllxd4?
White played 6 ltlb3 ! (instead of 6 10 ltlf6+! . However, in the same
i.e3) and Breyer's plan was nipped tournament the young Soviet master
in the bud. Some time later it turned I.Kan played 8 ...0-0! against Rauzer
out that 6 ltlc2! was even stronger. and obtained excellent chances.
In the late 1920s the move order White's attempt to win a pawn after
in the Dragon was somewhat differ­ 9 tZ:lxc6 bxc6 1 0 e5 ll:le8 1 1 exd6
ent: 1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 ltlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tZ:lxd6 12 i.xe7 'ii'xe7 13 'ii'xd6 was
ltlxd4 ltlf6 5 ltlc3 d6. Black avoids energetically refuted by 13 ...'ii'g5+ ! .
both the blockading c2-c4 and the Another interesting game from the
attacking e4-e5 (after the exchange same tournament was Rauzer­
on c6). After 6 i.e2 g6! he gets the Chekhover: 6 f.3 i.g7 7 i.e3 0-0 8
position he wants. The new interpre­ 'ii'd2 ll:lc6 9 0-0-0. This is the fa­
tation of the Dragon gave rise to a mous Rauzer Attack which enriched
new boom and popularity of the the whole system tremendously.
variation. The new classical system Many improvements have been
(7 0-0 i.g7 8 i.e3 0-0) came into made, but the essence of the system
vogue. True, now White did not has remained the same: White com­
have to reckon with ...d7-d5. But it bines his threats on the kingside
turned out that ... d6-d5 (in reply to 8 (h2-h4-h5) with the pressure in the
'ii'd2 or 9 h3) gives Black good centre (tZ:lc3-d5). Discussions
chances for equality. So, theoreti­ around Rauzer's attack and ways of
cians were again attracted by the po­ avoiding it are still going on. First
sition arising after 9 ltlb3. The of all, the old move order was tried:
Soviet theoretician Vsevolod Rauzer 1 e4 c5 2 ll:lf.3 tZ:lc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
enriched opening theory with many tZ:lxd4 g6, because here White has
profound and original ideas, trying certain difficulties in carrying out
to improve his paradoxical concept: Rauzer's idea. For example, 5 ltlc3
 Looking at the Stars 1 1

J..g7 6 J..e3 �f6 7 f3 (Stronger is 7 gave rise to profound studies of the

J..c4, but White has to reckon with 2...�c6 and 4 ...g6 systems. Special
the problematic 7 ...d6 8 f3 ii'h6!?. em()hasis was placed on Breyer's
Also playable is 7 ...1Va5, forcing 8 7 ... l£1g4 in connection with 8 Wfxg4
0-0.) 7 ...0-0 8 'iVd2 d5 ! . �xd4 9 'iVd l . Some interesting
True, this move order does not ideas were employed in the games
prevent Mar6czy's Attack, but it is of the Swedish grandmaster
not as formidable as Rauzer's At­ G.Stoltz, who had played this
tack. In Moscow 1947 the game system in the early 40s. In 1951 an
Averbakh-Veresov (semifinal of the interesting article written by
16th USSR Championship) attracted Simagin was published in the
the attention of theoreticians: 1 e4 magazine Chess in the USSR. Later
c5 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �xd4 g6 Simagin introduced a number of
5 c4 J..g7 6 �c2. We know that this original ideas in the Dragon.
plan was regarded in the 20s as the Nowadays, to increase the 'armour'
best one. But Black found some Black sometimes resorts to the old
drawbacks in White's formation: move order 2 ...g6 in combination
6 ... d6 7 J..e2 �h6 ! . with new ideas. For example, after 3
The retreat of White's knight d4 Black does not hurry to exchange
permits Black to carry out ... f7-f5 the pawns and maintains the tension
After 8 �c3 0-0 9 0-0 f5 1 0 exf5 by 3 ...J..g7.
�xf5 Black, as a compensation for We can only hope that over the
weakening his pawn structure, got next miUennium the Dragon varia­
active piece play and control over tion will continue to offer research­
the important d4-squa' re. This game ers sufficient food for thought.
 The Rauzer Attack

1 e4 c5 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 8...'W'xb2? is too dangerous for

tlJxd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 Black because of 9 �b3 ! threaten­
ing to trap the queen by a2-a3 and
llal -a2.
I) 9 ...'W'a3 1 0 e5 ! �fd7 (IO ...
dxe5? I I .i.c5 'W'b2 12 �a4--and
mate to the queen) I I �d5 ! with a
very strong attack.
2) 9 ... �c6 (so as to meet 1 0 a3
with I O...�a5) 10 e5 ! dxe5 ( 1 0...
�xe5 I I a3 !) I I llb l 'W'a3 12 i..c5
�b4 1 3 i..b5+ i..d7 14 i..xd7+
�xd7 1 5 �5 'W'xa2 I6 �c7+ �d8
I7 lldi with a decisive attack.
But the move 6 f3 is not neces­
6 i..e3 sary, since, in the event of 6 .i.e3,
In 1936 the Soviet master 6...�g4? is not possible because of
Vsevolod Rauzer first demonstrated 7 i..b5+.
the plan with the construction f2-f3, 6 .tg7 7 f3
..•

.i.e I-e3, 'W'd l -d2, 0-0-0, which

serves as a basis for organising an
attack on the kingside, and setting
Black complex problems which
even to this day occupy the minds
of theoreticians and practitioners of
the Dragon variation. True, Rauzer
himself began this construction with
the move 6 f3. But, given the meas­
ure of accumulated practical experi­
ence, this move is now avoided in
view of the possibility 6 ...'W'b6 7
.i.e3 a6 (7 ...'W'xb2 8 �b5 !), and it
seems White has to change his in­ This move defines the Rauzer
tended strategy: he now insures Attack. By reinforcing the e4 pawn
himself by a transposition of and the g4 square, White is ready
moves-first i..ci-e3, and then for long castling and a pawn storm
fl-O. With time both moves were on the king's flank. Here the game
recognised as being of equal worth can go in three directions: the main
since it was found that, after 8 'W'd2 ! line---7 ... 0-0---h
-C apters 1 -3, Line
14 The Rauzer Attack

27 in Chapter 4, Line 28 in Chapter Chapter 4), where Black does not

9, and likewise the less frequently hurry with kingside castling, using
employed 7 ..liJc6 (Line 30 in
. the time to organise play on the
Chapter 9) and 7 . a6 (Line 3 1 in
.. queen's flank.

Symbols used in this book

+ check
+­ winning advantage for White
± large advantage for White
+
- slight advantage for White
-+ winning advantage for Black
=F large advantage for Black
+ slight advantage for Black
level position
good move
!! outstanding move
!? interesting move
?! dubious move
? bad move
?? blunder
1 -0 the game ends in a win for White
0- 1 the game ends in a win for Black
th-th the game ends in a draw
(ch) championship
(m) match
(izt) interzonal tournament
(zt) zonal tournament
(ol) olympiad
 1: Main Line Rauzer Attack
Introduction and 9 0-0-0

(1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 tLlf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .tg7 7
f3)

7 0-0
•.•

Black is not afraid of White's

attack, relying on the potential of
his counterplay.

Now however Black is ready is

deliver a counterblow in the centre
which Black can allow by 9 0-0-0
(Chapter 1) or prevent by 9 .i.c4
(Chapter 2) or 9 g4 (Chapter 3).

9 0-0-0

8 'ifd2
The continuation 8 .i.c4 lLlc6 has
independent significance if White
elans the development 9 'ife2 (9
Wfd2 leads to a transposition of
moves) with the aim of hindering
Black's counterplay on the queen­
side. This is not in accord with the
spirit of the Rauzer Attack and is
looked at in Chapter 4.
8 lLlc6
. ..

Pretensions of refuting the Rauzer

Attack with the move 8 ... d5 allow a The advantage of this old con­
cramping of his position without tinuation over the more modem 9
sufficient counterplay and are .i.c4 lies in the fact that the counter­
looked at in Line 27. play associated with ....tc8-d7,
1 6 The Rauzer Attack 9 0-0-0

...lU8-c8 and ...�c6-e5-c4 is now Sometimes White commences an

ineffective: the bishop can take the immediate flank attack by I 0 h4
knight not from b3, but from fl , dxe4 1 1 h5 . Now Black must stop
saving White two clear tempi. collecting pawns since after
Black's main reply is considered I l ...exf3 I2 hxg6 hxg6 I3 gxf3 the
to be 9 d5 (Lines I -5).
... queen joins in the attack via the h2
Other continuations for Black are square. Also very dangerous is
looked at below. I l ...�xh5 I2 g4 �xd4 (I2 ...�g3
13 'ifh2 ! �xhi I4 �xc6) 1 3 gxh5
9 �xd4-Line 6
... e5 I4 hxg6 hxg6 I 5 'ifh2 :e8 I6
9 .te6-Line 7
... 'ifh7+ �f8 I7 .th6 .txh6+ I 8
9 .td7-Line 8
... 'ii'xh6+ �e7 I9 �xe4 with a very
strong attack for White, Rasidovic­
Line 1 Jovi�ic, Yugoslavia I98 1 . How­
ever, by exchanging knights, Black
(1 e4 cS 2 �t3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 manages to defend himself-
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 .teJ .tg7 7 1 l ...�xd4 I 2 .txd4 e5 ( 1 2 ...�xh5
t3 �c6 8 1i'd2 0-0 9 0-0-0) is risky because of 1 3 'ii'e3 !) I 3 h6
(after 1 3 .txe5?! 'ii'xd2+ I 4 :xd2
9 d5
... e3 I 5 :d3 �xh5 16 .txg7 �xg7 I 7
:xe3 �g3, the position is simplified
in Black's favour, Donchev­
Sernkov, Varna I982) 1 3 ... exd4 1 4
hxg7 :e8 I 5 �xe4 lLlxe4 I 6 fxe4
'ii'f6 I 7 .tc4 'ii'xg7 I 8 'ii'xd4 .tg4
with approximately even chances,
Akopian-Tiviakov, USSR I986.
10 o!Llxd5
...

On I O...o!Llb4 White obtains a

small but enduring positional advan­
tage by playing I I .tc4 .!Llfxd5 I 2
o!Llxd5 lDxd5 1 3 .th6. On I I o!Llb3
.tf5, the move I2 o!Lle4 is interesting
This move, first investigated be­ but less convincing after either
fore the Second World War by the I2 ...o!Llbxd5 I3 .th6 .txe4! ? I 4
Soviet master Konstantinopolsky, is .txg7 .txc2 or I 2. . .�xa2+ I3 �hi
the most aggressive reply since the .txe4.
pawn sacrifice is absolutely correct. 1 1 o!Llxc6 bxc6 12 o!LlxdS
10 exdS White accepts the challenge. An­
The consistent and main continua­ other popular positional plan, utilis­
tion on which White has the oppor­ ing the c5 square for the bishop,
tunity to win a pawn. begins with the move I 2 .td4 (Line
Recently the manoeuvre IO Wei 2).
(Line 3) has become fashionable. 12 cxd5
...

Also encountered is the exchange Here the main continuations

10 �xc6 (Line 28). The modest I O involve the win of the d5 pawn or a
�b I (Line 5 ) has also been attract­ flank attack.
ing more attention.
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 1 7

lA: 13 'ii'xd5 l:tfe8 1 8 .i.h4 .i.xa2 ! 1 9 b3 .i.xb3 !

IB: 13 .i.h6 and though here, in the game
Sarafanov-Kozhurov, corr. 199 1 , a
1A draw was agreed, after 20 cxb3
l:tad8 2 1 .i.xd8 l:txd8 White would
(1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 in fact still have difficulties in
lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 achieving this.
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 lLlc6 9 0-0-0 d5 10 In addition to this it is also worth
exd5 lLlxd5 1 1 lLlxc6 bxc6 12 looking at the capture of the rook:
lLlxd5 cxd5) 14 'ii'xa8?! .i.f5 1 5 'ii'xfl!+ �xfl! 1 6
l:td2 ( 1 6 .i.d3? is not possible be­
13 'ii'xd5 cause of 1 6...ii'e5). The bishops are
attacking the queenside and it is not
easy for White to defend himself.
As far back as the 60s it was estab­
lished, after some lively encounters,
that the rooks prove weaker than the
queen. But who knows what the
future holds?

The consistent continuation, the

assessment of which depends on the
correctness of the sacrifice ...
13 'ii'c7!
...

After this manoeuvre, based on

the unfavourable consequences of
capturing the rook, Black has suffi­
cient compensation for the pawn 1) 16... h5 1 7 .i.e2 (or 1 7 .i.c4
thanks to his possibility of attacking .i.xb2+ ! 18 �xb2 'ii'xc4 19 .i.d4 e5
along the open lines on the queen­ 20 .i.c3 .i.e6 + Virtanen-Cruzado,
side, with support from the bishops. corr. 199 1 ) 1 7 ...Wb8 (after 1 7 ... �g8
On 13 ... l:tb8, tactically justified af­ 1 8 h3 'ii'b8 1 9 c4? �c3 !, occurred
ter 14 'ii'x d8?! . .i.xb2+ 1 5 �b 1 in the game Karaklajic-Trifunovic,
i.d4+ 1 6 �c 1 .i.xe3+, White gets Smederevska Palanka 1956, and
the chance to attack the a7 pawn: 14 White got into a difficult position;
b3 'ii'c7 1 5 'ii'c5 ! Wb7 16 'ii'xa7 stronger was 19 b3=) 1 8 b3 .i.c3! 1 9
� 1 7 .i.d4! and Black does not l:td5 .i.e6 20 l:tc5 (20 l:td3? 'ii'b4 is
have sufficient compensation for the clearly in Black's favour, Stolyar­
pawn. Beilin, USSR 1 955) 1 8 .. 'ii'b4 2 1
.

14 'ii'c5 �b1 .i.f6 and Black's chances are

After 14 l:td2 .i.e6 1 5 'ii'c5 Black preferable.
can transpose to the endgame: 2) 1 6... Wb8 1 7 .i.b5?! h5 1 8
15 ...'ii'xc5 16 .i.xc5 .i.h6 1 7 .i.xe7 l:thd I .i.xb2+ 19 �xb2 'ii'xb5+ with
/8 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

an unpleasant initiative for Black, l:[c3 ! 1 9 �e4 1Wb6 20 'iixe7 .:xc2+!

Smyslov-Gufeld, USSR (ch) 1960, Black has an irresistible attack,
but White could play the more accu­ Tolnai-Perenyi, Budapest 1981)
rate 1 7 b3 with approximately equal 16 ...'iic7 17 'iie2 (or 1 7 'iic5 'iif4+
chances. 1 8 �e3 'iia4 1 9 '6'c4 '6'a5 20 'iid5
14 1Wb7
•.• l:[fc8 with decisive threats, Schone­
The main continuation, but also Beeker, corr. 1959) 1 7 ... llfc8 1 8 c4
interesting is 14 . . .1Wb8, whereby 'iff4+ 19 'ifd2 �h6 and due to the
Black avoids the thrust �fl-a6, and threat of ...'iff4xd4 Black has a very
gets the chance to play ... a7-a5. unpleasant initiative, Marton-Rigo,
1) 1 5 'iia3 aS !? (also worth con­ Budapest 1982.
sidering is Hovde's recommenda­ 3) 1 5 1Wbs 'iixb5 16 �xb5 l:[b8
tion 1 5 ...'iic7!?, but 1 5 ...�f5? is 17 �c4 �xb2+ 1 8 �d2 �f5 1 9
weak because of 1 6 g4! �e6 17 �xa7 l:tbc8 20 �b3 .l:.c7 21 �e3
�a6 'iic7 18 �d4 l:tab8 19 �xg7 l:[fc8 22 c4 �e6 23 c5 �xb3 24
�xg7 20 �b 1 l:tb6 2 1 b3 l:tfb8 22 axb3 .ta3 and Black has the more
i.d3 and Black does not succeed in pleasant endgame, Van Riemsdijk­
obtaining compensation for the K.ir.Georgiev, Manila (izt) 1 990.
pawn, Hovde-Herschel, corr. 1985)
16 �d3 �e6 17 �e4 l:ta6 18 �d5 lAa
l:tc8 19 �xe6 l:txe6 20 l:td3 'iic7 21
c3 l:txe3 22 l:txe3 �h6 and Black (1 e4 c5 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
maintains the initiative, Dabrowska­ �xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7
Bednarska, Gdansk 1994. f3 0-0 8 'iid2 �c6 9 0-0-0 d5 10
2) 1 5 b3 �f5 1 6 �d3 (or 1 6 exd5 �xd5 1 1 �xc6 bxc6 12
�a6 !? 1Wb6 17 �c4 Wf6 1 8 'iid4 �xd5 cxd5 13 'ifxd5 'iic7 14 'ifc5
'iic6 19 'iid2 l:tfc8=, J.Hodgson) 1i'b7)
16 ... .l:.c8 1 7 'iia5 l:tc3 1 8 .txf5
.l:.xe3 19 �e4 'iif4 ! with active 15 'ifa3
counterplay. for Black. lvanchuk­
Hodgson, Amsterdam 1996.
Early games with 14 ...1Wb7
showed that White's chances can
only be linked to the continuations:

lAa: 15 'iia3
lAb: 15 b3

Other means of defending the b2

pawn entail risk:
1) 1 5 c3?! �f5 16 1Wb5 'iic7 1 7
'iic4 'iie 5 1 8 �d2 l:tfd8! 1 9 f4 'iia5
20 �e2 l:tac8 2 1 'iia6 (White also In moving the queen back to de­
loses after 2 1 1Wb3 l:tb8 22 'iic4 fend the b2 pawn, White intends to
Wa3 ! !) 2 l ...�xc3 ! 0- 1 Bivshev­ develop his bishop fl with gain of
Beilin, USSR 1955. tempo and Black cannot prevent
2) 1 5 �d4 �f5 16 1Wb5 (after 16 this, since after 1 5 ...a5? 1 6 .td4 e5 !
�d3 l:fc8 17 'iia3 �xd4 1 8 �xf5 17 �c3 ! (or 1 7 �c5 �e6 1 8 �d3
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 1 9

:abS 19 i.e4 'Wbs 20 i.d3 'Wb7 It is best to exchange the active

th-th, Karaklajic-Geller, Dresden light-squared bishops at once. In the
1 959) 1 7 ... i.e6 1 S i.d3 'Wb6 1 9 game Ravinsky-Beilin, USSR 1955,
:he 1 and Black's initiative fizzles after 19 i.c4 :res 20 i.b3 :xa2!
out (Tiviakov). 21 l:[dS+! :xdS 22 i.xa2 White
ts ... .trs 16 i.a6 achieved nothing.
The main continuation of the his­ 19... i.xd3 20 .l:.xd3 l:xa2 2 1
tory of this variation. However at l:[hdl
the start of the new millenium The resulting endgame requires
V.lvanchuk has set Black serious accurate play by Black, since on the
problems with the development 16 direct 2 l .. .b5?! White can create a
i.d3 !? :abS 17 b3. The game distant passed pawn on the queen's
lvanchuk-A.Fedorov, Polanica flank: 22 c3 b4 23 �b 1 :a4 24 c4
Zdroj 2000, continued 17 ...:bcS 1 S (not bad is 24 AdS bxc3 25 :xffi+
i.xf5 gxf5 1 9 l:[d3 ! 1i'c6 20 c4! 1i'f6 i.xffi 26 :ds �g7 27 b3 ;!; Tolnai­
2 1 l:[hd 1 and White's control of the Palkovi, Siofok 1990) 24 ... f5 25 c5
d-file secures him the advantage. �fl 26 �c2 lieS 27 �b3 and the b4
Nor are matters changed by pawn is in danger, Krstevski-Trolle,
17 ... AfcS 1 S i.xf5 gxf5 19 l:[d3! Szeged 1994. But nevertheless
1i'c7 20 c4! aS 2 1 l:[hd 1 :as (or Tiviakov's indicated 2 1 ...1:lxb2 22
2 1 ... a4 22 1i'xa4 :as 23 1i'd7 ±) 22 l:[d8 f5 ! allows Black to keep the
l:[d7 with advantage to White, balance.
Movsesian-A.Fedorov, Polanica
Zdroj 2000. We mention that Black lAb
might avoid these problems by
1 4 ...'Wbs. · (I e4 cS 2 ltlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
It remains to add that after 16 ltlxd4 .!Llf6 S ltlc3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
i.d4 1i'c7 17 i.c3 1i'f4+! 1 S .i.d2 f3 0-0 8 1i'd2 ltlc6 9 0-0-0 dS 10
1i'd4 Black's initiative is very exdS ltlxdS II ltlxc6 bxc6 12
dangerous. o!LlxdS cxdS 13 'ii'xdS 1i'c7 14 'ii'cS
16...1i'c7 1i'b7)
Weaker is 16 ...1i'c6 17 i.d3 l:tabS
1 S c3 :res 19 i.xf5 gxf5 20 l:[d3 IS b3
and, after the exchange of the im­
portant bishop, Black does not have
sufficient compensation for the
pawn, Karaklajic-Korchnoi, Yugo­
slavia-USSR 1956.
17 1i'cS!
On 17 i.d3 follows 17 ...1i'e5 !
when 1 S i.f2 is bad in view of
1 S ... :abS 19 c3 i.xd3 20 :xd3
1i'e2! .
17...1i'b6! 18 1i'xb6
White cannot avoid the exchange
of queens, since on 1 S 1i'a3? follows
1 S ... i.xb2+. The most radical means of
18... axb6 19 i.d3 defending the b2 square.
20 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

15....if5 'ifxe7? because of 1 9 ...l:.xc2 !)

Black attacks the c2 pawn. 19 ...'ii'c6 20 c4 and Black cannot
1 5 ... .ie6 is more passive. However, derive any benefit from the vulner­
on the natural 1 6 .id3 unpleasant is able position of the rook on d3.
1 6...l:fc8 when, according to an 17 'ifa5 'ifc6
analysis by M. Sion Castro after 1 7 Golubev's recommendation. By
.ie4 'ii'a6 1 8 .ixa8 l:c5 1 9 l:d8+ energetically attacking the c2 pawn
.if8 20 .ic5 'ifxa2 and 2 1 .id4 (on Black underlines his initiative,
the tempting 2 1 .ixe7 Black plays whereas the submissive 1 7 ....ixd3
not 2 I . ..'ifa 1 +? 22 �d2 'ifxhl 23 1 8 .:xd3 'ii'c6 19 c4 'iff6 20 .id4 e5
.ixf8 winning, but 2 I ....if5!) (Blodstein-Petrunko, USSR 1 985)
2 1 .. .'ii'a5 22 l:b8 'ifc7 Black obtains 21 .ta l ! 'ii'g5+ 22 'ii'd2 hands it
the advantage. over to White.
The game Sion Castro- 18 .ixf5 gxf5 19 c4
Ponomariov, Guardamar 1997, con­ In the event of 1 9 'ifd2 f4 ! 20 .if2
tinued 16 Wa5 l:ac8? (better is (not _possible is 20 .ixf4? 'iff6)
1 6....'ii'c6) 1 7 .ia6 .ixb3 1 8 l:d2! 20 ...'tfc7 Black has sufficient com­
'ifb8 1 9 .ixc8 .ic4 20 l:d8! 'ifb2+ pensation for the pawn.
21 �dl 'ifa l+ 22 .te l and Black is 19...e5
left a rook down. On 1 9 ... f4 possible is 20 .id4.
16 .id3 :res 20 .l:[d5 f4 21 .if2 'ii'g6 22 g4
The right rook, since on 1 6 ...l:ac8 fxg3 23 .ixg3 with the better
White gets the chance to fight for prospects for White, Wagener­
the initiative-1 7 'ifa5 ! (it is dan­ Surendor, Elista (ol) 1 998.
gerous to take the pawn-17
'tfxa7?! 'ifb5 ! 1 8 .ixf5 'iVxf5 19 c4
l:a8 20 'ifc5 'iff6 2 1 'ifd4 l:xa2 and 1B
Black's rook dominates behind en­
(1 e4 c5 2 ltJt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
emy Iines-Schneider) 17 ... l:c3
ltJxd4 ltJf6 5 ltJc3 g6 6 .ie3 .ig7 7
( 1 7 ... .:c6? is not good in view of 1 8
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 ltJc6 9 0-0-0 d5 10
.ixf5 gxf5 1 9 l:d8 and after the ex­
exd5 ltJxd5 11 ltJxc6 bxc6 12
change of rooks Black has nothing
ltJxd5 cxd5)
to look forward to, Honfi-Tolnai,
Magyarorszag 1 984) 1 8 .ixf5 l:xe3 13 .ih6
1 9 .i.e4 'ifh8 20 g3 'ifc8 2 1 g4!
(weaker is 21 h4?! h5 and Black
maintains the initiative, Smirin­
Basin, Minsk 1 985) 2 l ...'ifb8
(2 1 ...l:e2 22 h4 ;!;) 22 'ii'g 5! and
White ousts the rook in favourable
circumstances, Thiele-Hollis, corr.
1 98 1 182.
An immediate exchange of bish­
'?.PS 16 ....i.xd3 1 7 l:xd3 l:fc8 1 8
'tfa5 amounts to a transposition of
moves, but on the ambitious
1 7 ...'ii'a6 18 �b1 l:ac8 White can
take the pawn, 1 9 'ifxa7, (but not 19
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 21

White exchanges the key Dragon 16 i.c4 i.e6 17 i.b3 'ifd6 18 f4 e4.
bishop, counting on a flank attack Here, in the game Atlas-Khatchian,
against the king. However, the re­ USSR 1989, White played 19 h5?!
duction of fighting units also re­ and after 19 ... g5 20 g3 l1ad8 21
duces the attacking potential. fxg5 'ii'e5 22 g6 'ifg5+ 23 'ii'xg5
13 ...i.xh6 fxg5 obtained the worse ending.
Simplest. On other continuations Gelfand indicated 1 9 l1d4 ! as
Black runs into problems: strongest, and after the doubling of
I) 1 3 ...i.h8? 14 'ii'xd5 'ii'b6 1 5 rooks the pressure on the d5 pawn
'ii'b3 and Black suffers material forces Black on to defence.
losses, Prie-Van Dongen, France 3) 14 ... l:lb8 15 h4 i.f5 16 i.d3
(ch) 1989. 'ii'b6 (after 16 ... i.xd3 1 7 l1xd3 e6
2) 1 3 ...i.e6?! 14 h4 i.h8 1 5 i.xf8 1 8 h5 and White has some initiative,
'ii'b6 1 6 c3 llxf8 1 7 h5 and White's Har Zvi-Aiterman, Zagreb (zt)
attack comes first, Markus-Geisler, 1993) 1 7 b3 'ii'f6 1 8 �b 1 e6 19 h5
Dieren 1989. l1fc8 (or 19...l1b7 20 hxg6 fxg6 2 1
3) 1 3 ...i.b7?! 14 h4 e5 1 5 i.xg7 lthe 1 l1c8 22 l1e2 l1c3 23 i.xf5
(15 h5 'ife7 !?) 1 5 ...�xg7 1 6 f4 ! f6 'iVxf5 with equal chances,
1 7 h5 e4 (or 17 ... g5 1 8 h6+ �h8 19 Kaminski-Ristic, Vmjacka Banja
fxg5 fxg5 20 l1h5 ! ± Garbett-West, 1990) 20 hxg6 'iVxg6 2 1 i.xf5 'ii'xf5
Sydney 1989) 1 8 hx_g6 hxg6 19 f5 22 l1d3 ._g6 and Black defends,
g5 20 i.c4 ! dxc4 2 1 1fd7+ 1fxd7 22 Loncar-Werther, Bozen 1992.
l1xd7+ ltf7 23 l1h7+ and the white 15 �b1 l:lb8 16 h4
rooks dominate (Rogers).
4) 1 3 ...e6?! 14 i.xg7 �xg7 1 5 h4
h5 (or 1 5 ... l1b8 16 h5 'ii'f6 1 7 c3 g5
1 8 'ii'e3 l1b6 19 h6+ �h8 20 l1d4
intending to attack the g5 pawn with
the rook, Zagrebelny-Basin, Bel­
gorod 1989) 16 g� l:lh8 17 i.e2 'ii'f6
1 8 g5 'ii'e7 19 1fd4+ �h7 20 'ii'e5
with a great space advantage for
White, Prie-Delmont, Chanac 1989.
14 'ifxh6 'ii'a5
Black goes over to a counter­
attack. Other continuations are also
seen: 16...e5!
1) 1 4 ... e6 1 5 h4 'ii'f6 16 h5 'ii'g7 Occupying the centre with pawns,
17 'ii'e3 l1b8 1 8 c3 l1b6 19 hxg6 in conjunction with play on the
hxg6 20 f4 i.d7 2 1 g4 l1c8 with a flank, is the most energetic strategy.
complicated game, Feher­ An immediate 16 ...i.f5 is parried by
Sza1anczy, Hungary (ch) 1989. 1 7 i.d3, not fearing 1 7 ...ltxb2+? 1 8
2) 1 4 ... e5 1 5 h4 (with the idea on �xb2 l1b8+ 1 9 �c l 'ii'a3+ 20 �d2
1 5 ...d4 to attack by 1 6 f4 ! e4 1 7 h5) i.xd3 because of 2 1 'ii'e3 and White
1 5 ... f6 (weaker is 1 5 ...l1b8 16 h5 is left with material advantage. Also
'ii'b6 1 7 b3 i.b7 1 8 i.d3 f5 19 hxg6 the thrust 17 ...'ii'a3 is easily refuted:
'ii'xg6 20 'ii'e3 'ii'g7 2 1 l1h5 ;!; 1 8 b3 i.xd3 19 l1xd3 l1fc8 20 'ii'd2
Zagrebelny-Nesterov, USSR 1 989) e6 2 1 h5, Kuijf-Emst, Thessaloniki
22 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

(ol) 1988, or 17 ...'ifc3 1 8 b3 e6 19 In rejecting the pawn sacrifice,

h5 'il'g7 20 'ife3, Kolotilin­ White strives to obtain lasting
Sedrakjan, Ros1avl 1989, and in positional pressure along the dark
both cases the initiative lies with squares, taking into account the
White. But worth considering is defects in Black's queenside pawn
16 ...d4 17 b3 .i.f5 18 .i.d3 l:lfc8 19 structure.
.i.xf5 'ifxf5 with chances for both Black's main response is 12 ... e5.
sides, Wolff-Watson, London 1989. Over the last few years the
17 .i.d3 exchanges 12 ... �xc3 and 12 ....i.xd4
Now on 1 7 h5 good is 17 ... .i.f5 have also been tried. Thus our path
18 .i.d3 e4 when Black takes over divides:
the initiative:
I) 1 9 hxg6 .i.xg6 20 .i.e2 ::tfc8 lA: 12 es..•

with an attack on the queenside, lB: 12 ...�xc3

Kuijf-Rechlis, Beersheva 1 987. lC: 12....i.xd4
2) 19 fxe4 'ifc3 20 Wei dxe4 2 1
.i.e2 :tfc8 22 g4 .i.e6 23 hxg6 hxg6 2A
24 b3 :tc5 with pressure along the
c-file, Spangenberg-Escobar, Bue­ {I e4 cS 2 �t3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
nos Aires 1 990. �xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 .i.eJ .i.g7 7
17 e4 18 fxe4 .i.g4
••• t3 0-0 8 'ifd2 �c6 9 0-0-0 dS 10
Also good is 1 8 ...Wfb4 19 b3 dxe4 exdS �xdS II �xc6 bxc6 12 .i.d4)
20 .i.e2 'ifc5 ! 21 h5 g5 =, as in
Podlesnik-Justin, Yugoslavia 1 989. l l ... es 13 .i.cS
19 l:ldel l:lxb2+ 20 �xb2 l:r.b8+
21 �cl 'il'a3+ 22 �dl d4 23 'iff4
1h-1h Lepelletier-Hausrath, Khania
1994.

Line l
(1 e4 cS 2 �t3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
�xd4 �f6 5 �cl g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
t3 0-0 8 'ifdl �c6 9 0-0-0 dS 10
exdS �xdS I I �xc6 bxc6)
12 .i.d4

The basic position of the sub­

variation with 12 .i.d4. White at­
tacks the rook. Black of course can
move it away but the dynamics of
the position are so obvious that he
risks practically nothing by offering
an exchange sacrifice. Therefore the
main replies are:

2Aa: 13 l:le8
•.•

lAb: l3 .i.e6
•.•
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 23

2Aa 14 ...cxd5

(1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLJxd4 lLlf6 5 lLJc3 g6 6 .te3 .tg7 7
f3 0-0 8 ,..d2 lLJc6 9 0-0-0 d5 10
exd5 lLJxd5 11 lLJxc6 bxc6 12 i.d4
e5 13 .tc5)

13 ...:e8

Here the most consistent con­

tinuations are reckoned to be:

2Aa l : 14 lLlxd5
2Aa2: 14 lLJe4 15 ,..xd5
Winning the exchange by 1 S i.bS
At the dawning of the variation 1 4 favours Black: 1 S ...d4 16 i.xeS
i.c4 was tried, which is justified in •xeS 1 7 �b1 .tf5 1 S :c 1 llcS 19
the case of 14 ......aS when there is .ta3 'iibS 20 h4 hS 21 .l:r.hg 1 •ds +
the transfer to a favourable ending Dolmatov-Dorfman, Erevan (zt)
by 1 S lLle4 !? ,..xd2+ 1 6 :xd2 .th6 19S2, or 1 S ... .te6 1 6 .txeS •xeS
17 .txdS .txd2+ 1 S �xd2 l:[dS 19 17 •as •c6 I S l:[d3 d4 19 :e t hS
lLlf6+ �g7 20 .te7 and, after recov­ 20 :a3 .tfS + Hazai-Petursson, Tal­
ering the exchange, White's game is linn 19S l .
preferable, Zapata-Ernst, Subotica 1 5....xd5 16 l:bd5 .te6 17 l:td6
(izt) 19S7. But in recent times it has Weaker is 17 .l:r.d3 i.fS I S .l:r.a3
practically never been played since :ecS 1 9 :as .th6+ 20 �d 1 (or 20
Black has a more active plan of �bl .td2 2 1 b4 .txb4 22 i.xb4
counterplay: 14 ...�4 1 S i.xdS l:txc2 23 �a1 l:lb8 24 a3 l:r.c l + 2S
cxdS 16 lLJxdS ,..c4 17 lLJe7+ �hS �b2 l:[bcS 26 l:txeS l:tb 1 + 27 'itta2
1 S 'ifdS 'iff4+ 19 �b1 .te6 20 ,..c6 :ee l = Jovicic) 20 ... :dS+ 21 .td3
�4 2 1 lLJdS AecS and the activity i.xd3 22 cxd3 l:txd3+ and the rook
of the black pieces fully compen­ penetrates behind enemy lines,
sates for the pawn, Ernst- Petursson, Ilic-Jovicic, Yugoslavia 19SS.
Copenhagen 1 9S l . 17....txa2
The manoeuvre 1 7 ....tf8 1 8 :c6
2Aa1 i.dS allows White to activate his
rook: 19 l:tc7 .th6+ 20 �b l e4 2 1
(1 e4 c5 2 lLJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 fxe4 l:txe4 22 i.d3 l:lg4 23 b3 aS 24
lLJxd4 lLlf6 5 lLJc3 g6 6 .te3 .tg7 7 .:d 1 i.xg2 2S i.c4 lbc4 26 bxc4,
f3 0-0 8 ,..d2 lLJc6 9 0-0-0 d5 10 gaining a material advantage,
exd5 lLJxd5 11 lLJxc6 bxc6 12 i.d4 Sigwjonsson-Karlsson, Randers (zt)
e5 13 .tc5 :e8) 1982.
18 b4
14 lLJxd5 He does not succeed in extracting
A consistent move, wmmng a any advantage by cutting off the
pawn, but it allows Black to develop bishop: 1 8 b3 l:tecS 19 l:tdS aS 20
his forces actively. �b2 a4 2 1 �xa2 axb3+ 22 �xb3
 24 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

l::ta5 23 .llc4 l::t axc5 24 llxc5 llxc5,

Gufeld-Kudrin, Hastings 1 986/87.
18...a5
After 1 8 ... .llffl , on 19 l:tc6 Black
equalises by 1 9 ... e4 !, but by playing
19 lla6! .llxc5 20 bxc5 �e6 2 1
.ib5 llec8 22 c6 :tabS, as in the
game Kruppa-Sulipa, Lvov 1 990,
White could retain the initiative by
23 c4.
19 �b5 llec8 20 �d7 l::tc7
Weaker is 20 ...lld8? because of
2 1 .ic6 with advantage to White. 14 ... f5
21 �c6 The continuation 14 ... .lle6 is
In the game Blees-Tiviakov, looked at below within the variation
Weekender 1999, was played 2 1 1 3 ... .lle6 1 4 lL!e4 l:.e8.
.llb6 l:tb7 22 bxa5 l:r.xa5 23 .llxa5 15 lL!d6
.llh6+ 24 �d1 llb 1+ 25 !ite2 .llc4+ The development of the bishop by
26 �f2 llxh1 27 llc6 llfl+ 28 �g3 1 5 .llc4 reduces White's options
.llf4+ 29 �h4 .lle2 and the game is after the forced 1 5 ... fxe4 1 6 fxe4
even. 'it'h4 17 'it'd3 !ith8 18 exd5 .llf5 . For
2l ...llac8 22 b5 .llf8 23 llhd1 example upon 19 'it'c3?! cxd5 20
.llxd6 24 llxd6 llb8 .llxd5? (20 l:.xd5 .lle6 + would have
Otherwise follows ..tc5-b6. been more prudent) 20 ... 1:tac8 2 1 b4
25 b6 c4 22 'it'g3 'it'f6 23 .lld4 e3 ! White
Worth considering is 25 .lle3 with lands up in a losing position,
the idea of 25 ....llc4 26 b6 l:tcc8 27 I.Gurevich-Tiviakov, Singapore
g4 followed by g4-g5. 1990. The game Sax-Mestel, Hast­
25...l:.cc8 26 �fl .lle6 27 g4! ings 1983, continued 1 9 'it'e2 cxd5
Threatening with the move 28 g5 20 llxd5 l:.ac8 2 1 g3 'it'e4 22 llhd 1
· to ''undermine" the e5 pawn. In the 'it'xe2 23 .llxe2 .ll e6 24 .lla6?!
game Kruppa-Tiviakov, Kherson .llxd5 25 .llxc8? .llxa2 ! and Black
1 991, was played 27 .lle4?! a4 ! 28 got the advantage, but also after the
b7 t;H�. better 24 .llxa7 White does not seem
27...g5 28 .lle4 and White retains to have any particular objective.
the better prospects. 15 . ..llf8
.

2Aa2

(1 e4 c5 2 ltJO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lL!xd4 lLif6 5 lL!c3 g6 6 .lle3 .llg7 7
t3 0-0 8 'it'd2 lL!c6 9 0-0-0 d5 10
exd5 lL!xd5 1 1 lL!xc6 bxc6 12 �d4
e5 13 �c5 l:.e8)

14 lL!e4
The main continuation-White
threatens c2-c4.
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 25

16 .ibS! :tadS Black has a powerful, mobile

The first move of a plan first car­ pawn centre, Fedorowicz-Sosonko,
ried out by Beliavsky through which Lone Pine 19S 1 , but by playing_ 2 1
White devalues the variation with lLld7+! �gS 22 l:thel e4 23 Wfd4
14 . . . f5, relegating it to the status of White retains the initiative,
reference material . Now practically Kaminsky-Kotrin, USSR 19S1) 19
the whole sub-variation 1 3 .ic5 :teS .ixffl :txffl 20 b3 'ii'e7 21 lLla5
14 lLle4 is customarily met by l:tfdS 22 'ii'c3 :tacS 23 .l:r.d2 e4 with
14 ....ie6, leading by a transposition chances for both sides, Timman­
of moves to the main line analysed Listeners, Radio Game 19S3.
below. But let's also look at other 16....id7
continuations: No good is 16 ... cxb5 17 'ii'xd5+
I) 16 lLlxeS .ixc5 (White accepts .ie6 1 S 'ii'xe5 and Black sustains
the exchange sacrifice but deprives material losses.
himself of his antidote to the 17 :the1!
Dragon bishop) 17 c4 In the game Kobaliya-Alterman,
Ia) 1 7 .. .'.xeS?! 1 S cxd5 cxd5 19 Wijk aan Zee 199S, was played 1 7
.ib5 ! ! 'ii'xb5 20 'ii'xd5+ 1;g7 2 1 c4 .ixd6 (also possible is 1 7. . .e4)
'ii'xaS .ie6 22 �bl 'ii'a6 23 b3 f4 24 1S .ixd6 lLlb6 19 .ia6 .icS 20
'ii'dS .if5+ 25 Cita 1 'ii'b7 26 'ii'd5 .ixcS lLlxc4 2 1 'ii'b4 lLlxd6 22 .ib7
and White repels the immediate c5? 23 'ii'b3+ c4 24 'ii'e3 and White
threats, retaining a material advan­ gains the advantage. As pointed out
tage, Kveinis-Savchenko, Belgorod by B.Alterman, instead of 22 ... c5?,
19S9. material equality could have been
1b) 17 ...f4 1 S �b l .if5+ 1 9 .id3 maintained by 22 ...l:bS 23 :td6
lLle3 20 .ixf5 lLlxd I 2 1 :txd 1 (or 2 1 'ii'e7 24 'ii'c4+ 1;hS 25 .ixc6 'Wxd6
i.e6+ �ffl 22 :txd 1 'ii'xd2 23 :txd2 26 .ixeS :xeS 27 .l:r.hd1 'ii'e7.
:xeS 24 .id7 :tdS 25 �c2 .ie3 26 17 ...l:te6
l:td3 1,6-lh Tiviakov-Kudrin, If 1 7 ... :tbS 1S .ic4 .ie6 19 lLlxeS
Kusadasi 1990) 2 l ...'ii'xd2 22 l:Xd2 .ixc5 20 :xeS 'ii'b6 21 c3 White
gxf5 23 lLlc7 :tcS 24 l:.d7 ! and repels the threats, retaining material
White maintains the initiative. advantage.
lc) 1 7 ...'ii'b6 IS �b l lLle3 (also 18 lLlb7 'ii'c7 19 .ia6 i.c8
possible is 1 S . ..tb4 when on 19
. After 19 ....ig7 20 c4 lLlf6 2 1 'ii'a5
'ii'h6 or 19 'ii'e2 good is 1 9 ...lLlc3+!, 'it'xa5 22 lLlxa5 and thanks to the
while after 19 'ii'c2 follows threat of .ib7 White has the better
19 ... lLle3+ 20 'ii'b3 �ffl 2 1 :td3 f4 endgame. ·

22 lLlf6 Cite7 23 lLle4 .ie6 and the 20 .ixf8 .ixb7 21 .ixb7 'ii'xb7
activity of the black pieces fully 22 .taJ aS
compensates for the sacrificed ex­ Also seen is 22 ...'ii'a6 23 �b1 (23
chan.ge, Van der Tak) 19 lLlf6+ �ffl g4 leads to a sharp game) 23 ...:aeS
20 Wfd7 ! lLlxd1 2 1 lLlxh7+ �gS 22 24 'it'd3 'ii'xd3 25 cxd3 h5 ! 26 .ic5
lLlf6+ �ffl 23 lLlh7+ 1,6-lh Tiviakov­ lh-I.h, Kir.Georgiev-Alterman,
Emst, Gausdal 1 992. Burgas 1995.
2) 16 .ic4 .ie6 1 7 lLlb7 'ii'h4 1 S 23 b3 a4 24 .ib2 axb3 25 axb3
i.xd5 .ixd5 (after 1 S ...cxd5 19 :tae8
i.xffl �xffl 20 lLlc5 .til 2 1 l:he 1 ? !
26 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

2Ab

(1 e4 cS 2 ll)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lZJxd4 lDf6 S lDc3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7
tJ 0-0 8 Wd2 lDc6 9 0-0-0 dS 10
exdS lDxdS 1 1 lDxc6 bxc6 12 �d4
eS 13 �cS)
13 ...�e6

A sharp position has arisen where

for the time being Black manages to
hold his ground. The first outing of
this line was the game
Beliavsky-Khalifman, Belgrade
1993, which continued 26 c4 lDf6
27 �c2 'iff7 and Black obtained
sufficient counterplay.
In the game Wedberg-Emst,
Stockholm 1995, was played 26 g3
'ifa7 27 lle2 e4! 28 fxe4 fxe4 29 c4 In recent years it is precisely this
e3 30 'ifd4 (or 30 'ife1 'ifc5 3 1 �b1 order of moves that has been pre­
lDf6=) 30 . . .'ifxd4 3 1 �xd4 lDb4 32 ferred since White can hardly go for
�c3 c5 ! with equal chances. the win of the exchange 14 �xfB?!
It seems that the undermining 26 Wxf8, which presents Black with a
g4 is also not so dangerous for pair of powerful bishops, aimed at
Black: 26 ... fxg4 27 fxg4 'iVb4 28 his king's position.
,..xb4 lDxb4 or 26 ... f4 27 l:.e4 lDe3 14 lDe4
28 ,..d7 �5 with chances for both The main continuation. Now, ow­
sides. ing to the possibility of c2-c4, White
Deserving attention is 26 f4 !?, threatens to take the exchange, the
striving to open the long diagonal direct win of which would have
for the bishop, for example on only created problems for White.
26 ...lDxf4 follows 27 llxe5. T.Emst For example, 14 lDxd5 cxd5 15
gives as a possible further course of �xfB? WxfB 16 Wa5 We7 ! and the
play-26 ...e4 27 ,..d4 lDf6 28 g4! central pawns threaten to sweep
�f7 (on 28 ... fxg4? possible is 29 everything from their path,
l::txe4 with the idea 29 ...l:txe4 30 Tokarev-Gufeld, USSR 1957.
'ifxf6 'ife7 3 1 'ifb8+ �f7 32 Nothing significant for White
'ifxh7+) 29 gxf5 gxf5 30 l:r.g1 'ifc7 comes out of 14 �c4 lDxc3 (also
3 1 Wf2 lDh5 32 �b1 and White's possible is the pawn sacrifice
chances are preferable since the 14 ...'ifh4 1 5 �xd5 cxd5 16 lDxd5
black king is not secure (32 ...Wxf4 l:tfe8 17 'iVb4 Wg5+ with sufficient
is dangerous because of 33 l:tg7+ compensation, Savon-Gufeld, USSR
�fB 34 ,..c5+). 1972) 1 5 Wxc3 Wg5+ 16 �e3
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 2 7

._xg2 17 i.xe6 fxe6 1 8 ._xc6 l:lac8 2 I g5) I 6 ... �4 when, after the
19 'ife4 l:lxf3 20 l:lhfl l:lt2 2 1 -.xg2 careless I 7 i.t2? ._f4+ I 8 'it>b I f5
l:lcxc2+ 22 'it>bl l:lxb2+ 23 'it>c l I9 �d2 l:lab8 20 g3 ._g5 2I c5
Ih-Ih, as in Trifunovic-Averbakh, �d5 22 �c4 e4, Black went over to
Yugoslavia-USSR 1956 the attack, Zurakhov-Shiyanovsky,
USSR I957. Necessary was 17 g3
Black's main replies are: �6+ with a complex game.
2) I 5 g4 �f4 (the raid I 5 ...�4
2Ab1: 14 l:le8
.•. I6 i.t2 'fle7 I7 h4 only promotes
2Ab2: 14...l:lb8 White's attack, Gi.Garcia-Menassa,
Colombia (ch) 1995, but worth con­
2Ab1 sidering is I5 .....c7 I6 i.d6 �7 !?
with a complicated game; the con­
(1 e4 c5 2 �fJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tinuation I 5 ... h6 I6 h4 leads to
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7 variation 2Ab i c. I 5 h4 h6) I6 ._ei
fJ 0-0 8 ._d2 �c6 9 0-0-0 d5 10 (I6 ._c3? is a mistake because of
exd5 �xd5 1 1 �xc6 bxc6 12 .id4 I6 ... .th6! +, Van Riemsdijk­
e5 13 i.c5 i.e6 14 �e4) Felgaer, Mar del Plata 1999, when,
according to an analysis by
14 . l:le8
. . O.Panno, insufficient is I 7 i.e3
�d5 I 8 i.xh6 �xc3 I9 l:lxd8
�xa2+ 20 'it>bi l:lexd8 2 I c3 a5 !
and Black has a material advanta.ge)
I6. ....c7 I 7 .id6 �6 I 8 .ic5 'flc7
with equal chances, Slobodjan­
Aiterman, Bad Homburg I996.
3) I 5 i.c4 'ilc7 ( 1 5 ... f5 seems
premature because of I6 �g5, for
example the game Sulipa-Golubev,
Donetsk 1 998, continued 1 6 ...i.h6
I7 h4 ._f6 I 8 'it>b l ! l:lad8 when
White maintains the initiative with
the move I9 i.xa7 !) I6 i.b3 (or I6
15 h4 g4 l:led8 17 ._el �f4 I 8 i.d6 �6
This plan of combining a flank I9 i.xe6 �xe6 with equality,
attack with the centralisation of Poleschuk-Nesis, corr. I 978)
pieces poses quite complicated I6 ...l:led8 I7 -.n h6 I 8 g4 �f4 I9
problems for Black, who also has 'it>b I i.xb3 20 axb3 �e6 2I i.d6
weaknesses on the queenside. But �6 with equal chances, Smirin­
we should still be aware of other Emst, Gausdal I990.
possibilities. After I 5 h4 the attack with the
1) 1 5 c4 �b6 (on 1 5 ...-.c7 possi­ advance of the h-pawn should be
ble is 16 h4 l:led8 1 7 h5 ;!;) I6 ._c2 radically stopped.
(or I6 -.n �8 I 7 .id6 'i'c8 I 8 b3
�d7 19 g4 h6 20 h4 a5 2 I h5?! g5! 2Abla: 15...�f4
22 i.d3 a4 and Black takes the 2Ablb: 15 ...h5
initiative, Patterson-Findlay, 2Ablc: 15...h6
Toronto 1983, but more logical was
28 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

Ignoring this threat leads to

serious consequences: 1 5 ......c7?!
1 6 h5! l:ad8 (or 1 6....!Llf6 1 7 hxg6
fxg6 1 8 .!Llg5 ± Qwint-Akesson,
corr. 1 976) 1 7 hxg6 hxg6 1 8 g3 ! ( 1 8
...g5 f5 ! allows Black to generate
counterplay) 1 8 ... f6 1 9 .id3 .!Lle7 20
g4.!Lld5 2 1 'ii'h2 q;n 22 ..,h7 with a
strong attack for White, Nikulishin­
Haba, Voronezh 198 1 .
It is also dubious for Black to try
for play on the king's flank:
1 5 ...l:b8 I6 g4 (for the present it is Advocates of this continuation,
too early for 16 h5? because of offering an exchange of queens, in­
16 ... f5 17 .!Lld6 e4 +) 16 ... f5?! (lead­ clude one of the most prominent
ing to a weakening of the king's Dragon specialists of the younger
pawn cover, more solid is 16 ....!Llf4 generation, S.Tiviakov.
I7 ..,e1 .idS 1 8 h5 .!Lle6 I9 .ie3 16 g3 ...xd2+ 17 l:xd2 li:)hS 18
.!Lld4 with a complicated game, g4 li:)f6
Rukovnikov-Rosev, USSR I 980) I 7 The alternative is I 8 ...li:)f4
gxf5 gxf5 1 8 .!Lld6 (also good is 1 8 1) 19 h5 .td5 20 hxg6 fxg6 2 1
lllg5 e4 19 .td4 + or I 8 ......f6 I 9 lldh2 h6 22 l:f2 li:)e6 23 .te3 l:tf8 !
.tc4 q;h8 20 .!Dxe6 + Kudrin­ 24 lt:)d2 li:)f4 with an acceptable
Karlsson, Metz 1983) 1 8 ... l:f8 (or position for Black, Van der Wiei­
1 8 ....tf8 19 .tc4 l:e7 20 l:hgi+ Tiviakov, Wijk aan Zee 1994.
�h8 21 .txd5 cxd5 22 ...e3 ;!; 2) 19 .ta6 .idS 20 c4 .txe4 2 1
Sigurjonsson-Miles, Wijk aan Zee fxe4 li:)e6 22 .te3 l:ab8 23 l:d6
1 977, but even stronger is 22 .!Llc4!) li:)d4 24 l:d7 .tf8 (or 24 ...l:b6 25
I9 .!Llc4 �h8 20 l:g 1 .tf6 21 �6 1ha7 l:eb8 26 l:.h2 ;!;) 25 .ib7 !
.l:f7 Timman-Miles, Bad Lauterberg .l:ed8 26 l:xd8 l:xd8 27 l::td 1 .te7
I 977, and here Timman pointed out 28 h5 ;!; Oll-Macieja, Polanica Zdroj
a way to develop the attack: 22 I998.
l:g6!. 19 .td3
White reinforces the e4 square,
since the exchange 1 9 li:)xf6+ .txf6
2Abla followed by ....te7, leads to
equality.
(I e4 cS 2 lt:)fJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 19 li:)d7
.•.

li:)xd4 li:)f6 S li:)c3 g6 6 .te3 .tg7 7 The round trip of the knight to d5
tJ 0-0 8 ..,d2 li:)c6 9 0-0-0 dS 10 seems the most effective method of
exdS li:)xdS I I li:)xc6 bxc6 12 .id4 defence. Exchanging on the e4
eS 13 .tcs .te6 14 li:)e4 l:e8 IS h4) square, 1 9 ....idS 20 l:e 1 (the game
Timoshchenko-Golubev, Kiev 1995,
IS...li:)f4 continued 20 c4 .ixe4 2 I fxe4 li:)e6
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 29

22 i.e3 l:tab8 23 l:td6 •12-':h) he has the better chances. In the

20 ...l:tad8 2 1 a4 �xe4 22 i.xe4 game Howell-Golubev, Biel 1 993,
i.xe4 23 fxe4, leaves White the he made the bishop manoeuvre after
better game, H.Olafsson-Petursson, a preliminary exchange of rooks 19
Reykjavik 1995. l:hd8+ l:txd8 20 i.e7 l:te8 2 1 i.f6
20 i.e3 �b6 21 b3 �f4 and achieved nothing.
This move is not obligatory. More 17 g4
energetic is 2 1 h5 with rather the A pawn sacrifice in name of the
better e_rospects. attack, but worth considering is 17
21. .. llldS 22 i.cS aS 23 a4 �f4 a4 and Black must apparently play
24 �d6 l:teb8 2S i.c4 i.dS with 17 ...'Wc7, since in the event of
equal chances, Leko-Tiviakov, Wijk 17 ...�f4?! the weakness of the b6
aan Zee 1996. square tells-IS 'Wxd8 l:taxd8 19
l:txd8 l:txd8 20 i.xe6 �xe6 2 1
2Ablb i.b6! and White obtains the advan­
tage, Kudrin-Golubev, Moscow
(1 e4 cS 2 �13 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 1995.
�xd4 �f6 S �c3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7 17 �f4
.•.

f3 0-0 8 'Wd2 �c6 9 0-0-0 dS 10 The weakness of the f4 square al­

exdS �xdS 11 �xc6 bxc6 12 i.d4 lows Black to set up a necessary
eS 13 i.cS i.e6 14 �e4 l:te8 IS h4) barrier. He would come up against
more complicated problems after
lS hS
.•. 17 ...hxg4 1 8 h5, where the radical
18 ...g5? leads to a diffiicult position
after 19 h6 i.f8 20 i.xf8 l:txf8 2 1
�xg5, A.Sokolov-Ljubojevic, Bel­
fort 1988. However, even here
1 8 ...�f4 is good, even if Black
holds the position by a hair's
breadth.
M.Golubev looked at 19 Wh2 g3
20 �xg3 'Wg5 2 1 �e4 'ifxh5 22
'iff2 'Wf5 23 �d6 (23 Wh4?! g5)
23 ...'ifg5 etc.
18 Wfel i.dS 19 gxhS �xhS 20
�d6 l:te6
This radical move entails a weak­ Also possible is 20 ... i.xc4 21
ening of the king's flank, but White �xc4 Wff6 with a defensible
can try to open it only at the cost of position.
a pawn sacrifice. 21 l:txdS
16 i.c4 aS After 2 1 i.xd5 cxd5 22 l:txd5
Black strives for a counterattack i.f8 23 'ifdl �f4 Black has suffi­
on the opposite flank. After cient compensation for the pawn.
16...�f4 White can transfer to an 21. cxdS 22 i.xdS l:lxd6 23
•.

endgame by 1 7 'Wxd8 l:texd8 1 8 i.xa8 i.h6+ 24 �bl :d2 2S i.e4

i.xe6 �xe6 1 9 i.e7 ! , where, by �g3! with chances for both sides,
establishing control over the d-file, Blumberg-Golubev, USSR 1990.
30 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

2Ablc 'ifa3 'ifc7 20 .ta6! :ed8 2 1 :he1

:d7 22 .tb4 .txe4 23 .ta5 and
(1 e4 c5 2 �t3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 gains the advantage, Psakhis­
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 .te3 .tg7 7 Vasiukov, USSR (ch) 1 980) 1 9 gxf5
t3 0-0 8 'ii'd 2 �c6 9 0-0-0 d5 10 gxf5 20 :g I fxe4 2 1 fxe4 �h8 22
exd5 �xd5 1 1 �xc6 bxc6 12 .td4 1fa3 'iff6 and Black obtains suffi­
e5 13 .tc5 .te6 14 �e4 :es 15 h4) cient counterplay, Szabo-Wade,
Solingen 1 968.
15 ... h6 2) 1 8 g5 ! ? (fixing the f6 square)
1 8 ...�e6 (after 1 8 ... h5 1 9 'ifa3 'ifc7
20 �f6+ .txf6 21 gxf6 'ifc8 22 c4
.te6 23 :h2 .tf5 24 :hd2 �e6 25
.td6 �d4 26 f4 White takes control
of the d-file and obtains the advan­
tage, J.L.Femandez-Martin Gon­
zales, Spain (ch) 1989) 19 gxh6
.txh6+ 20 .te3 .tg7?! 2 1 h5 f5 22
hxg6 'ife7 23 �g3 and, by
occupying the important f5 square,
White creates dangerous threats,
A.Sokolov-Tiviakov, St.Petersburg
(zt) 1 993. But also after the better
The main reply, having the aim 20 ...�f4 21 h5 gxh5 22 �b1
not only of anticipating the advance White's initiative on the king's
h4-h5 because of the possibility of flank is quite unpleasant.
...g6-g5, but also preventing the On 1 6 ... :b8, 1 7 g5! is also good.
thrust of the white knight to g5 after In the game Short-Hodgson, Brigh­
... f7-f5 . ton 1 982, Black blocked the king­
16 g4 side by 1 7 ...h5, which allowed
On 1 6 h5 g5 1 7 g4 correct is White, after the exchange of a com­
1 7 ...'ifc7, whereas 1 7 ... �f4?! 1 8 plete set of bishops, 1 8 .th3 .txh3
'ifc3 �d5 1 9 'ifa3 ! 'ifc7 20 .ta6 19 :xh3 .tffi 20 .txffi �xffi 21
firmly hands over the initiative to :h2 'ifb6 22 c4 �b4 23 a3 �a6 24
White, Blees-Baric, Ljubljana 1 994. �f6, to display an initiative on the
16 'ifc7
.•. queen's flank, with a small but en­
Another quite popular direction of during advantage.
play for Black is the active deploy­ 17 g5!
ment of forces-16 ... �f4 1 7 'ifc3 White fixes the weak f6 square
.td5, setting about the organisation since here, after 1 7 h5 g5, Black
of counterplay in the event of direct easily defends: 1 8 :h2 (also possi­
attack by White. However, after the ble is 1 8 .tc4 :ed8 1 9 'iff2 a5 20
departure of the knight Black has to a4, stopping the a-pawn, since 20
consider his reduced control over :d3? a4 2 1 :hd 1 :ab8 22 c3 'ii'a5
the f6 square. 23 .ta3 :es 24 'ii'f l 'ifb6 leads to a
I) 1 8 h5 f5 ! (after the closing of dangerous attack for Black,
the king's flank-18 ... g5?!-White Sigurjonsson-Mestel, Thessaloniki
succeeds in breaking through with (ol) 1984) 1 8 ...:ed8 (or 1 8 ... a5 1 9
his forces on the queenside--- 1 9 'ife 1 :ab8 2 0 .td6 'ifb6 2 1 c4
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 31

'ii'e3+ 22 �b1 :tbdS 23 cxd5 'ii'x e1 19 i.b3 :tedS 20 'ii'f2 'ii'a5 21 �b 1

24 l:Xe 1 cxd5= Wedberg- :td7 22 :td2 :tb7 23 :thd 1 ll:lf4 24
McCambridge, Neskaupsstadur :td6 and White established control
1984) 19 'ii'e 1 li)f4 20 :thd2 :txd2 over the d-file, obtaining a serious
2 1 'ii'xd2 i.d5 22 'ii'c3 (22 'ii'e3 advantage.
ll:le6 23 i.d6 'ii'b6=) 22 ...:tdS 23 After 1 8 ... a5 19 a4 ! .:tabS? ! 20 b3
'ii'a3 :td7 with equal chances, White created his own kind of for­
Amason-McCambridge, Grindavik tress and Black has nevertheless to
1984 return to the manoeuvre 20 . . .l:f.edS
There are no_prospects in 17 i.d6 21 'ii'f2 �. since 20 ... ll:lf4? 21 i.xe6
'ii'b6 1 S i.c5 'W/c7 19 i.d6 'ii'b6 20 li)xe6 22 i.d6 led to the loss of the
i.c5 'ii'c7 Ih-Ih Ligterink-Gufeld, exchange without any sort of com­
Yurmala 197S. pensation in Z.Almasi-Hoffmann,
After 17 c4 :tadS! , consolidating Mitropa Cup 1995.
the d6 square, Black practically 19 'Witl a5
forces an exchange which benefits Black removes his a7 pawn from
him: 1 S ll:ld6 :txd6 19 i.xd6 'ii'xd6 threat but also possible is an
20 cxd5 cxd5. Two bishops and a immediate 19 ...ll:lf4 20 i.xe6 ll:lxe6
solid pawn formation offer Black 21 i.d6 'ii'b6 (weaker is 2 1 .. .'ii'a5
sufficient compensation for the sac­ 22 �b 1 :td7 23 :td2 :tadS 24 :thd 1
rificed exchange. ll:ld4 25 i.c5 25 ...l:td5 26 i.e7
17 h5 18 i.c4
•.. l:l8d7?! 27 c4 and White won the
exchange, in Am.Rodriguez­
Komljenovic, Burriana 1990, but
also 26 ...:tbS 27 c3 lllf5 28 i.f6
leaves White a dangerous initiative)
22 :td2 :td7 23 l:lhd 1 l:tadS?! 24
'ii'xb6! axb6 25 i.e7! and, after
taking the d-file, White obtains the
advantage, Psakhis-Komljenovic,
Andorra 1 994; stronger was
23 ...'ii'x f2!? or 23 ...'ii'a 6! ?, though
even here White's chances look
preferable.
20 a4 'ifb7
18 ...:ted8
It is important not to lose control
over the d-file, but the eternal ques­
tion is which rook? After the game
Popovic-Kir.Georgiev, V..Sac 1 9S7,
1 S ... :tadS 19 'ii'f2 ! :td7 20 :td2
l:ledS 2 1 :thd 1 :tbS 22 i.b3, where
White obtained clearly the better
game, this question was decided in
favour of the king's rook.
In the game Am.Rodriguez­
Kudrin, Palma de Mallorca (GMA)
1989, Black lingered with 1 8 .. .'�'h7
32 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

This position represents a sort of 14...:.tb8

template for the variation.
21 b3
A useful prophylactic move.
Other continuations are also seen:
I) 2 I .l:.d3 lDf4 22 :.txd8+ :.txd8
23 Jlxe6 lbxe6 24 Jld6 lbd4 25
:.td I with rather the better chances
for White, Psakhis-Marin, Andorra
I994.
2) 2 I :.the l ! ? :.tabS 22 b3 lDf4 23
Jlxe6 lbxe6 24 lDf6+ Jlxf6 25 gxf6
:.td5 26 Jld6 ± Ehlvest-Marin, Cal­
cutta I997.
21...tt:lf4 Black develops the rook, counting
In the game Komeev-Marin, on cooperation with the g7-bishop.
Badalona 1995, was played Such is the confidence in Black's
2 I .. .'it>h7 22 :d2 tt:lf4 23 Jlxe6 chances after 1 5 Jlxf8 ilxf8 1 6
tt:lxe6 24 Jld6 tt:ld4 25 :.thd 1 l:xd6 ila5 that this continuation is hardly
and a draw was agreed in view of looked at in theoretical manuals.
the possibility of counterplay by Nevertheless it requires careful play
Black after 26 lbxd6 'ifb-4. by Black. For example, risky is
22 Jlxe6 tt:lxe6 23 Jld6 I 6... f5?! I 7 lbc5 e4 I S c3 Jlxc3,
Other possibilities: which, though considered favou­
I) 23 l:d6 :.txd6 24 tt:lxd6 ile7 25 rable for Black, according to an
tt:le4 and, thanks to his control over analysis by T.Stock leads to an
the weak f6, d6 and c5 squares, advantage for White: I 9 bxc3 ilh6+
White 's chances are somewhat pre­ 20 l:ld2 l:b i + 2 I �xb i ilxd2 22
ferable, Groszpeter-Marin, Odor­ Jla6 tt:lxc3+ 23 �a l Jlfl 24 tt:ld7 !
heiu Secuiese (zt) I995 �g7 25 ila3 etc. Stronger is
2) 23 l:xd8+ l:xd8 24 Jlb6 and 16 ... tt:le3 ! . The game Bennedik­
White has the better ending, Stock, corr. I998, continued I 7 :.te 1
Z.Almasi-Watson, Germany I 995. tt:lxfl I S l:lhxfl l:b5 19 ila4 (or 19
23...tt:ld4 24 l:ld3 ilc8?! 25 Jle7! ilc7 Jlc4 20 ilxc6! Jlh6+ 2 1 �bl
and White, exploiting the f6 square, ila3 ! 22 b3 Jlxb3 != T.Stock, Yoos)
obtains the advantage. Herrera-Diaz, 19 ...ilb8 20 b3 ilb6 with a double­
Cuba 1996. Stronger was 24 ... ild7 edged game.
25 .l:.hdl when 25 ...ile6 or 25 ...ilf5 Continuations having a positional
are possible influence on the centre are more fre­
quently met:
2Ab2
2Ab2a: 15 c4
(1 e4 c5 2 tt:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 2Ab2b: 15 Jlc4
tt:lxd4 tt:lf6 5 tt:lc3 g6 6 .te3 .tg7 7
f3 0-0 8 ild2 tt:lc6 9 0-0-0 d5 10 The attempt to organise an attack
exd5 tt:lxd5 11 tt:lxc6 bxc6 12 Jld4 on the king's flank by 1 5 g4?! is not
e5 13 Jlc5 Jle6 14 tt:le4) in the spirit of the position since it
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0"0-0 33

does not prevent Black's counter­ 2Ab2a

play-15 ... 5 16 gx5 gx5
(1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltlxd4 ltlf6 5 ltlc3 g6 6 ..ie3 ..ig7 7
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 ltlc6 9 0-0-0 d5 10
exd5 ltlxd5 ll ltlxc6 bxc6 12 ..id4
e5 13 ..ic5 ..ie6 14 ltle4 l:b8)

15 c4

I) 1 7 ltlg5?! e4! 18 c3 l:xb2 ! 19

�xb2 (it is also not easy after 1 9
'ii'xb2 'ii'xg5+ 20 'ii'd2 e3 ! 2 1 'ii'g2
'ii'xg2 22 ..ixg2 l:b8 with a clear
endgame advantage for Black,
Stanciu-Marasescu, Romania (ch)
1982) 1 9 ...'ii'a5 20 ..id4 (on 20 ... e3?
2 1 'ii'c2 and White should win, 15...:es
Velimirovic-Gufeld� Vinkovci White has weakened his king' s
1982) 20 .....ixd4 2 1 'ii'xd4 l:b8+ 22 cover and Black removes the rook
�a I ltlb4 23 l:d2 ltlxa2 with irre­ from attack, defending e6 against
sistible threats, Stam-Van Berkel, the knight (in the event of ltle4-g5),
Oss 1 982. since it is dangerous to capture 1 6
2) 1 7 l:g l fxe4 1 8 'ii'h6 'ii'f6 19 cxd5? cxd5 when on a knight move
l:xg7+ 'ii'xg7 20 'ii'xe6+ (quite follows ...'ii'd8-c7, and on 1 7 'ii'c3
weak is 20 ..ixf8? �f8 2 1 Wfxe6 comes the pawn advance 1 7 ... 5 1 8
'ii'g5+ 22 l:d2 l:d8! + Foigei­ ltld6 e4 19 l:d4 lle7 20 ltlb5 l:eb7
Yurtaev, USSR 198 1) 20 ...�h8 2 1 with a strong attack for Black,
..ixf8 'ii'g 5+ 22 �b 1 l:xf8 23 l:e l Serper-Nesterov, Yurmala 1982.
(after 23 'ii'xc6 ltle3 24 l:el ltlxfl There are similar ideas associated
25 l:xfl exf3 26 'ii'e4 f2! the passed with 1 5 ...'ii'c7, intending ...l:f8-d8.
pawn decides, Dolmatov-Schneider, Now the win of the exchange 16
Budapest 1982) 23 ... exf3 24 'ii'xe5+ ..ixf8? ..ixf8 leads to a strong initia­
'ii'xe5 25 l:xe5 l:g8 with a clearly tive for Black. For example: 17
better endgame for Black, Gallego­ cxd5 cxd5+ 18 'ti'c3 'ii'e7 19 'ii'xe5
Martin, Cuba 1 986. l:c8+ 20 ltlc3 ..ih6+! (the game on­
On 1 5 h4 Black cold-bloodedly Basin, USSR 1985, continued
continues his development by 20 ... ..ig7 2 1 'ii'f4 'ii'c5 22 �d2
1 5 ...'ii'c7 16 ..ixf8 (unclear is 16 h5 'ii'b 6! 23 �e l 'ii'xb2 24 ltle2 l:c4 25
l:fd8 1 7 hxg6 hxg6) 1 6 .....ixf8 1 7 'ii'e3 ..if8 26 'ii'b3 ..ib4+ 27 �f2
c4 ..ib4 1 8 Wfh6 ..if8, obtaining suf­ ..ic5+ 28 �el Ih-Ih) 21 f4 ..ig7 22
ficient compensation for the 'ii'e3 'ii'b4 23 l:d3 d4 and Black re­
exchange. gains the knight and maintains the
34 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

attack, Gruneveld-De Palma, corr. 2Ab2h

1990.
In this plan it is more logical to (I e4 c5 2 �rJ d6 .J d4 cxd4 4
capture the b8-rook: 16 ..td6 'iib6 �xd4 �f6 5 �cJ &6 6 i.e3 ..tg7 7
1 7 c5 'iib7 1 8 b3 :fd8 1 9 ..txb8 t3 0-0 8 1i'd2 �c6 9 0-0-0 dS IO
:xb8 when in the game exdS lL!xdS I I ll'lxc6 hxc6 12 ..td4
Narabanov-Aleksandrov, Russia eS I3 ..tcs ..te6 1 4 li,e4 l:lb8)
1 996, instead of 20 ..tc4 a5! 2 1 lL!c3
e4 ! with good counterplay for IS ..tc4
Black, White retains some advan­
tage with 20 lL!d6.
But White has at his disposal a
stronger manoeuvre 1 6 lL!g5 ! l:lfe8
1 7 ..ta3, leaving Black the choice
either to sacrifice a piece-- 1 7 ...a5?!
18 lL!xe6 :xe6 19 cxd5 cxd5+ 20
'ili>b 1 , for which there does not seem
to be any particular compensation,
Harman-Hervir, corr. 1984, or to
move the knight, 17 ... lL!b6 or
17 ... lL!f4, after which he can go for
the win of the exchange by 1 8 ..td6.
I6 g4 1i'c8 This seems to be the move with
On the retreat of the knight, the most ideas. White threatens to
16 ...lL!b6, White can transpose to a take the exchange and simplify the
favourable, complicated endgame position.
by 1 7 1i'xd8 :exd8 1 8 :xd8 :xd8 IS ...1i'c8
19 b3 ;!; or continue middlegame The queen makes a place for the
play along the weakened dark rook, inviting White to go for the
squares, 17 ..td6 :c8 1 8 1i'c3 ;!;. acceptance of the exchange sacri­
There was weaker play in the game fice. But it is also worth looking at
011-Gufeld, Tbilisi 1 983, which other possibilities:
continued 1 7 1i'c2?! lL!d7 1 8 h4 1) 1 5 ...1i'c7 16 .txfS ..txfS (in
1i'a5 19 ..ta3 lL!f6 20 g5? lL!xe4 2 1 this lies the drawback of having the
fxe4 ..tfS 22 ..txfS :xes 23 'ili>b I queen posted on c7-Biack is
:fd8! with advantage to Black. forced to move away one of his
I7 lL!d6 1i'a6 18 b3 lL!f6 19 lL!xe8 pieces from its active position, since
:xe8 20 gS lL!d7 2I ..tb4 :bs no better is 1 6...:xf8 17 lL!c5 ±) 1 7
After 2 l ...e4? 22 fxe4 :b8 23 c5 ..txd5 (White wins a pawn, since on
'iib7 24 ..tc3 White repulses the the 'academic' 1 7 'ili>b I Black
threats, retaining a material advan­ organises counterplay : 17 ...'iib7 1 8
tage, Short-Speelman, Baku 1983. ..tb3 a5) 1 7 ... cxd5 1 8 lL!f6+ �h8 19
22 cS _,, 23 ..ta3 aS 24 ..tc4 lL!xd5 'ii'b7 (also in White's favour
..txc4 2S 1i'xd7 'ifbs 26 1i'c7 .idS is 19 ... 1i'c4 20 1i'c3 !) 20 b3 ..tg7 (or
The activity of Black's pieces fully 20 ...:d8 2 1 c4 ±) 2 1 h4 1i'a6 22
compensates for the sacrificed �b I and Black does not have
exchange. sufficient compensation for the
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 35

sacrificed material, as in Jocks­ �xdS 22 l:xdS cxdS 23 'ii'xdS+

Szalanczy, Bad Worishofen 1988. �h8 24 l:e l + .
2) IS ...�h8 (Black prepares 18 �xd5 cxd5
... f7-f5 and frees the g8 square for
the bishop) 16 h4 (after 16 g4 f5 1 7
gxf5 gxf5 1 8 lDgS �g8 1 9 l:hg l aS
and Black has sufficient counter­
play) 16 ... fS 17 lDgS �g8 1 8 hS e4
( 1 8 ...�f6? is a mistake because of
19 lDxh7! �xh7 20 hxg6+ �xg6 2 1
�6+ � fl 22 l:hS! and White has a
wmmng attack, Siguijonsson­
Kudrin, Gausdal 1983) 19 �d4 e3
20 �xg7+ �g7 2 1 'ii'd4+ 'iVf6 22
h6+ �h8 with a defensible position
for Black. Thus on 23 g3 possible is
23 ...'ii'xd4 24 :xd4 l:b4 (Wedberg). 19 l:xd5!?
But nevertheless the continuation In returning the exchange, White
I S ... �h8 needs extra practical trials. is satisfied with an extra pawn since
3) I S ...l:e8 1 6 h4 aS 1 7 g4 h6 1 8 it gives the position a stable
gS hS 19 �b3 l:a8 (or 1 9 .. .'ii'c7 20 character.
'ii'f2 l:ed8 2 1 l:d2 l:d7 22 l:hdl ± 19 f5!?
•.•

Ulibin-Damj!lnovic, Pula 1 990) 20 After 19 ... �xdS 20 'ii'xdS l:d8 2 1

a4 'ii'c7 2 1 11t'f2 l:ed8 22 l:d2! l:ab8 'ii'c4 White's chances are preferable,
23 l:hd l l:b7 24 �a3 l:bb8 2S lLlcS Alex .Ivanov-Ashley, Philadelphia
with a positional advantage for 1997
White, Barsky-Kozhurov, Russia 20 lDd6
1 992. It is also possible to transpose to
4) I S ... fS I 6 lLlgS �h6 17 h4 l:f7 an ending:_ 20 l:hd 1 fxe4 2 1 l:d8+
1 8 f4! ? or 1 8 l:he l ! ? also allows l:xd8 22 11t'xd8+ �fl 23 fxe4.
White to develop an initiative. 20 'ii'g5+ 21 :d2 e4
•..

16 �xf8 Insufficient is 2 l ...�h6 22 l:hd 1

White can continue to exert pres­ 'ii'xg2 23 'ii'xeS and White has the
sure on the dark squares by 16 �a3 advantage.
l:d8 (weaker is 1 6...lLlb6 1 7 �b3 22 lLlxe4 �xb2+ 23 �d1 'ii'e7 24
�dS 1 8 �xf8 'iVxf8 19 'iVaS with 'ii'c5 'ii'b7 25 lDd6 'ii'a6 26 'ii'c7 l:f8
advantage to White, Van Riemsdijk­ and the activity of the bishop-pair
Los, Groningen 1990) 17 'ii'aS l:b6 compensates for the material deficit.
1 8 l:d3 ;;!;; Atlas-Yuneev, USSR
1990. Here it is worth Black playing 2B
1 8 ...�h6+ with the idea of transfer­
ring the bishop to e3. (1 e4 c5 2 lLJfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
16 .'ii'xf8 17 'ii'a5 'ii'e7
•. ltlxd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7
Premature is 1 7 ...f5?! 1 8 lDgS e4 f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 lDc6 9 0-0-0 d5 10
1 9 c3 �h6 20 h4 'ii'e7 (or 20...'ii'f6 exd5 lDxd5 l l lLlxc6 bxc6 12 �d4)
21 �xdS �xdS 22 'ii'xa7 !,
Alex.lvanov) 20 fxe4 fxe4 2 1 �xdS 12 lDxc3 13 'ii'xc3
••.
36 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

This exchanging manoeuvre came fJ 0-0 8 'it'd2 lbc6 9 0-0-0 d5 10

into fashion in the 90s. exd5 lbxd5 1 1 lbxc6 bxc6 12 .i.d4
lbxc3 13 'ifxc3 i.h6+ 14 i.e3
i.xe3+ 15 'ifxe3 'ifb6 16 'ifxe7
i.e6)

17 i.d3

13 ...i.h6+ 14 i.e3 i.xe3+ 15

'ifxe3 'ifb6
After exchanging a further two
minor pieces, Black now sacrifices a
pawn in anticipation of an enduring
initiative. White completes his development,
16 'ifxe7 but the dynamics of the position are
Upon the retreat of the queen, 16 such that only with concrete play
'ifc3 i.e6 17 i.c4 i.xc4 18 'ifxc4 can he reckon on gaining the
l:.fd8 19 l:.he 1 e6, Black equalises initiative.
the game without difficulty, Ulibin­ 17...'ife3+
Jirovsky, Mamaia 1 99 1 . In the event Upon 1 7 ...l:.ab8?! 1 8 b3 White's
of a transfer to an ending by 16 attack comes first: 1 8 ... a5 19 h4 a4
'ifxb6 axb6 1 7 a3 (17 i.c4 b5 !) 20 h5 axb3 2 1 axb3 l:.fe8 22 'iff6
. 17 ...i.e6 18 i.d3 l:.fd8 19 l%d2 i.xb3 23 hxg6 fxg6 24 i.xg6 or
�g7! Black has no problems, 1 8 ...c5 19 l:.he 1 a5 20 l:.e4,
Tiviakov-Aiterman, USSR 1990. A.Sokolov-Dinu, Belfort 1 99 1 .
16....i.e6 A.Sokolov and I.Armas recom­
Black threatens to subject the mend going for 17 ....i.xa2 ! ?, since it
white queen to an 'X-Ray' ( 1 8 �b 1 is not so easy to trap the bishop on
i.xa2+). White's main directions of a2: 1 8 b3 a5 1 9 .i.c4 lla7 20 Wa3
play are associated with the (or 20 'iff6 a4 2 1 l:.d3 axb3 22 cxb3
continuations: 'l'c5) 20...a4 2 1 'ifxa2 'ife3+ 22
Wb 1 axb3 23 'ii'xb3 'ii'c5 with
2Ba: 17 i.d3 unclear play. In the game
2Bb: 17 'ifa3 Dominguez-Y.Gonzales, Cuba 1 999
2Bc: 17 'iff6 White refrained from trapping. the
bishop, 1 8 h4 l:.fc8 19 'tVf6 'tVe3+
2Ba 20 lld2 .i.d5 21 c4, but after
2 I ...i.e6 22 h5 'ii'h6 Black was able
{1 e4 c5 2 lbtJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 to defend.
lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 .i.e3 i.g7 7 18 lld2 c5!
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 3 7

On 1 S ...l:abS good is 1 9 1i'f6

followed by the advance of the
h-pawn.
19 1i'h4
The inclusion of the moves 1 9
l:hd 1 l:adS 20 1i'h4 c4 2 1 l:e 1
effectively gives Black an extra
tempo: 2 1 ...1i'b6. The game
Am.Rodriguez-Clavijo, Bogota
1991, continued 22 l:xe6 fxe6?! 23
1i'xc4 with better chances for White.
Stronger was 22 ...1i'xe6, not fearing
23 .i.xg6 hxg6 24 l:xdS, in view of 17...l:ad8
24 ...1i'e3+ 25 l:d2 c3 ! 26 bxc3 Before displaying activity, Black
1i'g 1+ 27 l:d1 1i'e3+ and Black must complete his development
forces a draw. since the manoeuvre 1 7 ... aS 1 S .i.d3
1 9 c4 20 l:el
.•• 'ifb4, typical for such positions is no
After 20 .i.xc4 l:adS 2 1 .i.d3 good because after 19 .i.e4 1i'xa3 20
l:xd3 ! 22 cxd3 l:cS+ 23 �d 1 .i.xa2 bxa3, followed by a rook invasion
24 1i'a4 .i.d5! 25 l:e1 .i.xf3+! 26 on d6, White seizes the d-file and
gxf3 1i'xf3+ Black forces a draw by the initiative, Hoffmann-Tolnai, Bu­
perpetual check. dapest 1 992.
20...1i'c5 21 l:xe6 c3 22 bxc3 Also possible is 17 ...l:fdS. The
fxe6 . game Kasparov-Topalov, Amster­
On 22 ...1i'xc3 follows 23 1i'f6. dam 1995, continued 1 S .i.a6! c5?!
23 .i.c4 1i'gl+ 24 �b2 1i'b6+ 25 19 .i.e2 c4 20 f4 l:d4 21 l:xd4
.i.b3 l:ad8 'i'xd4 22 g3 ;!;, As an alternative to
There was weaker play in the 1 S ...c5?! G.Kasparov recommends
game A.Sokolov-Dunnington, 1 S ...1i'f2! 19 .i.b7 l:abS 20 .i.xc6
France 199S: 25 ...l:f7?! 26 l:e2 l:eS 'i'xg2 21 1i'e3 (after 2 1 1i'xa7 it is
27 'ifd4 with advantage to White. necessary to reckon with the rook
26 l:e2 l:d6 27 l:e5 �g7 28 a4 sacrifice-2 1 ...1i'g5+ 22 �b1
with somewhat better chances for l:xb2+ ! ! 23 �xb2 1i'e5+ and the
White. (A.Sokolov). king cannot defend itself without
loss) 2 l ...l:xdl+ 22 l:xd 1 1i'xh2 23
2Bb 1i'xa7 1i'f4+ 24 �b 1 and White's
chances are somewhat preferable.
(1 e4 c5 2 �tJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 It remains to mention that on the
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 .i.eJ .i.g7 7 tempting 17 ...1i'f2 White should not
f3 0-0 8 1i'd2 �c6 9 0-0-0 d5 10 trouble the queen by 1 S l:d2 1i'e 1+
exd5 �xd5 1 1 �xc6 bxc6 12 .i.d4 19 l:d 1 , since besides 19 ... 1i'f2 also
�xc3 13 1i'xc3 .i.h6+ 14 .i.e3 good is 1 9...1i'e5 with an active po­
.i.xe3+ 15 1i'xe3 1i'b6 1 6 1i'xe7 sition, Schabanel-Van Don_gen,
.i.e6) Paris 199 1 . Stronger is I S 'ifa5 !
l:abS 19 h4 l:b6 20 h5 l:fbS 2 1 b3
17 1i'a3 1i'e3+ 22 1i'd2 1i'c5 23 'i'd4 and
White defends the pawns on the White's attack comes first,
queen 's flank. Riveron-Cabrera, Jiguani 199 1 .
38 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

18 .i.d3 The most aggressive move, com­

Also seen is I S l:le I l:lfe8 I 9 .i.d3 bining the idea of defence of the b2
c5 20 'iVa4 l:lb8 2 I b3 l:led8 22 'iVa6 square and the attack h2-h4-h5.
'iVc7 23 l:lxe6 fxe6 24 'iVxe6+ �g7 17 .i.xa2
•••

25 h4 ;;!; Becerra Rivero-Gallego, It is also possible first to introduce

Linares I997. the rook into play-17 ...l:lfd8 1 8
18...l:ld5 19 l:lhe1 .i.d3 .i.xa2 I9 l:lhe I l:lab8 20 h4,
In the game Pelletier-Berndt, when energetic counterplay is re­
Germany I 999, was played I9 'iVc3 quired from Black:
l:lc5 20 'iVf6 .i.xa2 2 1 l:lhei .i.dS 22 I ) 20 ...'iVa5?! 2 1 l:le5 ! .i.d5 22 h5
h4 l:la5 23 b3 c5 24 'iVc3 'iVb4 25 'iVa i+ 23 �d2 'iVxb2 24 hxg6 fxg6
'iVxb4 cxb4 26 �b2 l:lc5 and Black 25 .i.xg6! I.Gurevich-Petursson,
maintained equality. StMartin I992.
19 :as 20 'iVc3 l:lxa2 21 b3 :as
..• 2) 20 ...lld4 ! 2 I b3 .i.xb3 ! 22 cxb3
In the event of 2 l ...'iVa5?! 22 'iVb4 and Black's attack fully com­
'iVxa5 l:lxa5 23 �b2 the presence of pensates for the sacrificed pawn
the pawn "islands" on a7 and c6 (S.Tiviakov).
gives White some advantage in the 18 b3 .i.xb3
endgame, as in Kasimdzhanov­ Or 1 8 ... a5 I 9 .i.c4 l:la7 20 h4 a4
Aiterman, Bad Wiessee I 997. 2 1 h5 axb3 22 cxb3 'iVe3+ 23 'it>b2
22 .i.c4 'iV£2+ = Fernandez Garcia-Tolnai,
Also interestin_g is 22 l:le5 !?. Komotini 1992.
22 .i.xc4 23 1fxc4 l:lal + 24 �b2
•.. 19 cxb3 'iVxb3 20 l:ld3 'iVb6 21
l:lxd1 25 l:lxd1 'iVfl with counter­ 'iVb2 l:lfe8 22 'iVxb6 axb6
play for Black (B.Aiterman). And, despite his material advan­
tage, White cannot complete his de­
2Bc velopment without loss, Topalov­
Kir.Georgiev, Elenite 1994.
(1 e4 c5 2 lbo d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lbil:d4 lbf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 2C
t3 0-0 8 'iVd2 lbc6 9 0-0-0 d5 10
(1 e4 c5 2 lbtJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
exd5 lbxd5 11 lbxc6 bxc6 12 .i.d4
lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
lbxc3 13 'iVxc3 .i.h6+ 14 .i.e3
f3 0-0 8 'iVd2 lbc6 9 0-0-0 d5 10
.i.xe3+ 15 'iVxe3 'iVb6 1 6 'iVe7 .i.e6)
exd5 lbxd5 l l lbxc6 bxc6 12 .i.d4)
17 'iVf6 12 .i.xd4 13 'iVxd4
•••
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 39

The main continuations for Black ...:ffi-b8) 18 .i.a6 l:[b6 with

here are: sufficient counterplay for Black, Xie
Jun-Lalic, Hastings 1996.
2Ca: 13 ...-..,6 Quite feeble is I S Wxb6 axb6 1 6
2Cb: 13 .. .'it'c7 lL!xdS cxdS 1 7 a3 .i.e6=.
14 ...Wa5 15 b3 .i.f5 1 6 g4
2Ca It is useful to drive away the
bishop to the more vulnerable e6
(1 e4 c5 2 lL!f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 square. Upon a preliminary move of
lL!xd4 lLif6 5 lL!c3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 the queen 1 6 Wd2 Wc7! 1 7 g4 .i.e6
f3 0-0 8 'ifd2 lL!c6 9 0-0-0 d5 10 Black controls the important f4
exd5 lL!xd5 1 1 lL!xc6 bxc6 12 .i.d4 square: 1 8 .i.d3 :ad8 I9 l:[he I cS=
.i.xd4 13 Wxd4) Popovic-Markovic, Yugoslavia (ch)
I998.
13 ...-..,6 Also worth considering is the
pawn sacrifice I6 WcS !?, made in
Van der Wiel-Golubev, Germany
1999: 16 ...'ifxcS I 7 lL!xcS lL!c3 I 8
.l:te l lL!xa2+ I 9 �b2 lL!b4 20 .i.c4!
(20 :xe7 l:[fe8!=) 20...:fe8 2 1 g4 !
.i.c8 22 :es e6 23 lL!e4 �g7 24
.l:taS lL!dS 2S l:[ha I with a promising
endgame for White.
16....i.e6
Mistaken is 16... .i.xc2? I7 l:[d2 ! .
1 7 We5!

As in the main variation, Black

offers a pawn sacrifice. However, in
view of the departure from the scene
of the main character of the Dragon
variation - the g7-bishop - White
gets the chance to exploit the dark
squares.
14 lL!a4
If the pawn sacrifice is accepted
by 14 �xdS cxdS I S WxdS, then
despite the exchange of dark­
squared bishops, the pressure from 17 ...-..,4 18 c4 lL!f6
Black's heavy pieces fully compen­ Upon the queen exchange
sates for the sacrificed pawn: I 8 ...Wa3+ (or I 8 ...lL!b6 I 9 WcS ±)
I S ... .i.e6 16 Wbs (weaker is 16 19 Wb2 (also possible is 19 �b l ,
'ii'd4 Was =F I.Gurevich-Rogers, since the knight sacrifice I 9 ...:ab8
London 1992) 16 ... Wc7 (also worth 20 cxdS .i.xdS 2 1 lL!b2! leads to an
considering is 16 ... We3+ 1 7 �b I advantage for White, Herrera­
l:ab8) 17 Wa4 :ab8 (intending Aib.Hemandez, Havana 1993)
pressure by ... a7-aS, ... :b8-b4, I9 ...'ifxb2+ 20 �xb2 lL!e3 2 1 l:[d3
40 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

lt:lxfl 22 llxfl llad8 23 llfd I llxd3 2) 16 ...llad8 17 llde l c5 1 8 CiPbl

24 llxd3 White has the better end­ Ad4 19 h4 1t'd6?! 20 h5 ± as in
game, Pierrot-Altamirano, Buenos Morozevich-Kir.Georgiev, Sarajevo
Aires 1999. 2000; stronger was 19 ...Afd8 !? 20
19 ..te2 lt:ld7 20 1t'c3 1t'a3+ 2 1 h5 g5 ! 2 1 h6 c4 22 e4 ;!;, given by
1t'b2 1Vb4 22 f4 lt:lcs 23 lt:lxcS Morozevich.
1VxcS with chances for both sides, 14 ...lt:lb6
Zontakh-Markovic, Arandjelovac In White's favour is 14 ...e5 1 5
1997. 1t'c5! lllxc3 16 bxc3.
IS ..te2
2Cb Also not bad is 1 5 llhe 1 ..tf5 16
..td3 ..txd3 17 llxd3 llad8 18 1t'e5
(1 e4 cS 2 lt:lt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 1t'xe5 1 9 AxeS with a favourable
lt:lxd4 lt:lf6 S lt:lc3 g6 6 ..te3 ..tg7 7 endgame for white, Van Riemsdijk­
f3 0-0 8 1t'd2 lt:lc6 9 0-0-0 dS 10 Guimaraes, Brasil 1998.
exdS lllxdS 1 1 lt:lxc6 bxc6 12 ..td4 1S.....te6
..i.xd4 13 1t'xd4) On 1 5 ... c5 simplest is 16 1t'e3, in­
tending h2-h4.
13 1t'c7
•.. 16 1t'cS
In the game Lutz-A.Fedorov, Ka­
trineholm 1999, was played 16 h4
l:[fd8 1 7 1t'e3 llxdl+ 1 8 llxd l 1t'h2
19 1i'g5 and White had the prefer­
able position, but, as pointed out by
Lutz, 1 8 ... lld8 1 9 Axd8+ 1t'xd8 20
1t'e5 lt:ld7 21 1t'd4 1t'c7 22 b3 f6
would retain approximately equal
chances for Black.
16 ...l:ttb8!
This is stronger than 16 ...llab8 17
g3, after which arises a position
from the game Am.Rodriguez­
The queen occupies its best posi­ Becerra Rivero, Cienfuegos 1997,
tion in anticipation of the accep­ which continued 17 ...1t'b7 1 8 b3
tance of the pawn sacrifice: 14 lt:lds 19 lld4 :res 20 lt:la4 and
lt:lxd5 cxd5 15 1t'xd5 ..te6 or 14 White gains the advantage.
1t'c5 1i'f4+ 1 5 CiPb l ..tf5 16 lt:lxd5 17 g3 1t'b7 18 b3 aS 19 a4 lt:ldS
cxd5 1 7 1t'xd5 llab8, Z.Almasi­ 20 lt:le4 lt:lb4 with approximately
Kir.Georgiev, Cacak 1 996. In both equal chances, Shirov-A.Fedorov,
cases Black has sufficient compen­ Batumi 1999.
sation for the pawn.
14 ..tc4 Line 3
Also worth considering is 14 1t'c5
lt:lxc3 1 5 1t'xc3 ..te6 1 6 .i.d3. (1 e4 c5 2 lllt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
1) 16 ... c5 17 h4 c4?! ( 1 7 ...1t'f4+ lt:lxd4 lllf6 S lt:lcJ g6 6 ..te3 ..tg7 7
1 8 CiPbl 1t'b4 leads to equality) 1 8 f3 0-0 8 1t'd2 lllc6 9 0-0-0 dS)
..i.e4 llad8 1 9 h5 ;!; Svidler­
A . Fedorov, Shenyang 2000. 10 1t'e1
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 41

White holds back from an ex­ l l lllxc6

change on dS, hoping to exploit the The capture I I exdS?! lllxd4
shadowing of the queen by the rook. (12 ...lllxd5? 13 lllb3) 12 i.xd4
Black's main replies are: exd4 1 3 :xd4 :es leads to the win
of a pawn but also to a dangerous
3A: 10...e5 weakening of the dark squares . For
3B: 10...e6 example, in the game Gladkowsky­
Ristic, Geneva 1992, after 14 9f2
A preliminary exchange of 9b6 I S 9d2 i.d7 16 i.c4 :ac8 17
knights only increases the activity of i.b3? i.h6 White lost the exchange
the rook: and the game.
1 0...lllxd4? I I ..ixd4 e6 12 �bl l l bxc6 1l ·exd5 lllxd5
.••

a6 1 3 g4 :es 14 gS lllh5 I S .i.xg7 After the capture 1 2 ... cxd5 he will

lllxg7 1 6 9d2 and the dS pawn is not manage to maintain a compact
lost, Wang Zili-Sabitov, Asian pawn centre: 1 3 i.g5 i.e6 14 i.c4
Teams (ch) 1 993. W/c7 (14 ...'iib6?! leads to the loss of
On IO ...:es there is the unpleas­ a pawn; 1 5 i.xf6 i.xf6 16 lllxd5
ant pin I I i.bS i.d7 12 .i.xc6! i.xd5 1 7 :xdS e4 1 8 :bs with
..ixc6 (12 ...bxc6? 1 3 eS cS 14 lllb3 ! compensation, De Ia Villa-Gallego,
c4 1 5 lllc5 leads to the loss of a Spain (ch) 199 1 ) I S i.xf6 (after 1 5
piece, Jansa-Watson, Prague 1992) i.xdS?! lL!xd5 1 6 lllxdS 9c4 17
13 eS llld7 14 e6 and White has an lllc3 :res Black has a serious
obvious advantage. initiative for the pawn) I S ...dxc4 16
i.xg7 �xg7
3A

(1 e4 c5 2 lllt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lllxd4 lll f6 5 lllc3 g6 6 i.e3 ..ig7 7
t3 0-0 8 9dl lllc6 9 0-0-0 d5 10
9e1)

10 e5
•.•

A committal continuation, since

the defence of the dS square is now
reduced.
42 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

In the present position, White has 1 996, or I3 ...'ife7 !? 14 llJxdS cxd5

the better pawn formation (the 1 5 llxd5 llbS! , V.Bologan.
weakness of the a7 and c4 pawns 13 .....te6 14 llJe4
could tell), but it is not easy to Also possible is 14 ..tcS lieS IS
prove White's plus. llJe4. In the game Svicevic­
1) 1 7 lDds ..txd5 l S llxd5 :res Galanov, Budapest I994, after
(the game Berthelot-Mohr, Paris 1 5 ...a5? I 6 g4 h6 I 7 h4 a4 I S g5 h5
1 993, continued 1 S ... f6 1 9 'ifc3 19 'iff2 White gained the advantage.
lladS 20 llhd 1 llxd5 2 1 llxd5 e4 But stronger was I 5 ... f5 .
1h-1h) 19 'ifc3 lladS! (if he refuses 14 ...'ifc7
to contest the d-file-19 ...�gS 20 Too slow is I 4 . . . h6 I S ..tcS f5 1 6
'ifa5 ! 'ife7 2 1 lle l Black can expect ..txf8 'ifxf8 when to White's advan­
a seige of the e5 pawn, Parligras­ tage are both I 7 llJc3 'ifc5 I S ..tb3
Milu, Romania 1999) 20 llhd l e4 I 9 llJxdS cxd5 20 g4 ±
llxd5 2 1 llxd5 �gS ! with equal Collinson-Small, E�gland (ch)
chances, Frolov-Golubev, USSR I992, and I 7 lDf2 Wle7 I S llJd3
1 983. lDb6 I9 'ii'b4 ! ± Perez Cruz-Lopez
Gomez, corr. I990/9 I .
2) 1 7 llJe4 lladS I S 'ifc3+ f6 1 9
On I4 ... 'ifbS likewise possible is
g4 ..tdS 20 llJg3 ..tb7 2 l llJe4 ..txe4
1 5 ..tcS, but also worth considering
•h-•h Magem Badals-Martin Gon­
is I S ..td2 aS I 6 ..txa5 ! ?, since I 6
zalez, Salamanca I99S. 'ifh4 f6 I 7 llJcs ..tcs I S ..th6 'ifb4
3) 1 7 'ife3 ! llabS 1 S llJe4 llb6 1 9 does not promise White anything,
libel (or I9 'ifc5 llc6 20 'ifa3 llbS Rowson-Ward, England (ch) 1 992.
2 1 lld6? llxd6 22 lDxd6 c3 ! is good 15 ..tc5
for Black, Timman-Hodgson, Insufficient is I S llJgS llJxe3 (the
Groningen I996; 2 I lld2 ) 1 9... f6
=
inclusion of I 5 ... ..tf5 I6 g4 favours
20 lle2 (the game Kuporosov­ White: 16 ... llJxe3 I 7 'ifxe3 ..tcS I S
Kovacevic, Vmja�ka Banja I992, �e4 ;!; Pujols-Gutierrez, Cuba I995)
continued 20 llJcS llf7?! 2 I g4 lle7 I6 'ifh4 (on I6 �xe6 Pujols sug­
22 g5 ..tgS 23 f4 fxg5 24 fxg5 with g�sted 1 6... 'ifb6! 17 llJxf8 �xc4 1 8
advantage for White; worthy of Wlc3 e4 +. but even stronger is
consideration is 20...llcS !?) 20 lle2 I S ...'ifa6!) I6 ...llfeS (insufficient is
..tf5?! (better was 20 ...lldS 2 1 llxdS I6... h5 I 7 �xe6 fxe6 l S ..txe6+
'ifxdS 32 lld2 'ifc7 or 22 'ifc5 'iff8) llf7 19 ..txf7+ �xf7 20 lld3 with an
2 1 llJc3 'ifbs 22 g4 ..tcs 23 lled2 attack for White) I 7 ..txe6 1h-1h, as
and White invades along the d-file, in Erofeev - Nokso-Noivisto, corr.
Liss-Ovseyevich, Israel I995. I995. Here, on I 7 ... fxe6, White can
13 ..tc4 force a draw: l S 'ifb7+ �f8 I9
After 1 3 ..tcs ..th6+ 14 �b I 'ifxg6 �xd I 20 �h7+ �gS 2 I
llJxc3+ 1 5 bxc3 'ifa5 ! 16 ..txf8 ..te6 �f6+, while on I 7 ...l:r.xe6 S.Erofeev
Black has active play for the planned I S 'ifb7+ �f8 I9 �xe6+
sacrificed exchange, Ginzburg­ fxe6 20 'ifxg6 �xd I 2 I l:hd I e4 22
Seminara, Buenos Aires I995. 'ifxe4 and White has compensation
Upon the flank attack 13 h4 Black for the sacrificed piece.
can offer a pawn sacrifice: 15 ...llfd8
1 3 ...llbS! ? 14 h5 'ife7 as in the If he refuses to contest the d-file
game Bologan-Motylev, Russia by I 5 ...llfe8 Black risks falling
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 43

under an attack: 1 6 h4 ti)f4 1 7 .txe6 This move consolidates the posi­

ti)xe6 1 8 .td6 1Vb6 1 9 h5 f5 20 tion of the knight on e4.
hxg6 fxe4?! (stronger is 20 ... hxg6 16...ti)f4
2 1 ti)c3 tt)d4) 2 1 l:txh7 with danger­ Sometimes Black prevents the ad­
ous threats for White, Dvoiris­ vance g4-g5 by 1 6... h6, but this
Medvegy, Oberwart 1 996. move denies his bishop the h6
square, which is useful in a number
of variations: 1 7 h4 ti)f4 ! (risky is
17 ... f5 1 8 gxf5 gxf5 19 ti)g3 l:tab8
20 ti)h5 and White creates threats
on the king's flank, Wang Pin­
Matveeva, Subotica 199 1 ; on
17 ...l:tab8 possible is 1 8 g5 h5 19
.,f2 a5 20 a4! 1Vb7 21 b3 ti)f4 22
.txe6 ti)xe6 23 l:txd8+ l:txd8 24
.tb6 and White, controlling the im­
portant dark squares, retains the ini­
tiative, Bojkovic-Matveeva, Cetinje
1993) 1 8 .txe6 ti)xe6 19 .td6 1Vb6
In this very sharp position the ac­ 20 g5 tt)d4 and Black has good
tivity of the centralised pieces al­ counterplay, Liss-Aiterman, Rishon
lows White to fight for the initiative. le Zion 1994.
The main directions of play are:: 17 .txe6
On 1 7 .,c3 Black takes over the
3Aa: 1 6 g4
initiative in the centre with
3Ab: 16 Wh4 17 ...l:td5! 1 8 �b 1 l:tad8 19 .txd5
3Ac: 16 ti)gS cxd5 20 .te3 .,e7 and reaches a po­
3Aa sition with chances for both sides,
Xie Jun-Gufeld, Kuala Lumpur
(1 e4 cS 2 .!Z)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
1994
ti)xd4 ti)f6 S .!Z)cJ g6 6 .te3 .tg7 7
And the calmer 1 7 ....td5 1 8 �b I
f3 0-0 8 .,d2 ti)c6 9 0-0-0 dS 10 l:td7 19 .tf2 h6 20 .th4 lieS 21 a3
.,e1 eS 1 1 ti)xc6 bxc6 12 exdS
.txe4 22 fxe4 l:td4 is also okay for
ti)xdS 13 .tc4 .te6 14 ti)e4 .,c7 15
Black, Svid1er-Aiterman, Bad Hom­
.tcs l:tfd8) burg 1997
16 g4 17...ti)xe6
Apparently also good 1s
17 ...l:txdl + 1 8 .,xd 1 ti)xe6
1 ) 19 .te3?! •as 20 �b 1 l:tbS
and Black seizes the initiative, Ko­
dric-Baric, J;.jubljana 1992,
2) 1 9 Wd6 (Holzke-Golubev,
Senden 1996) 1 9.....xd6! 20 .txd6
ti)d4 2 1 l:tfl f5 22 gxf5 gxf5 and
now 23 ti)g3?! l:td8 24 .tc5 .th6+
25 �b 1 ti)xf.3 leads to the loss of a
pawn (M.Golubev); 23 ti)c3 would
be more circumspect.
44 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

3) 19 1fe2 �xc5 20 �xc5 1Wa5

21 1fc4 :ds 22 �e4 (in the game
Van Haastert-Golubev, Leiden
1997, after 22 c3?! i..h6+ ! 23 �b 1
1fb5 24 1fxb5 cxb5 the endgame
was clearly in Black's favour)
22 ... l:r.d4 (or 22 ...'ifd5 23 1fxd5
cxd5=) 23 1fb3 :b4 24 1fc3 1fxa2
25 1fxb4 1fa 1+ 26 �d2 1fxh1 27
1fb8+ i..ffl 28 1fxe5 1fxf3 29 �f6+
1;g7 with approximately equal
chances. (M.Golubev).
18 i..d6 'ifh6 1 9 1fc3 17...�f4
Another idea is 1 9 g5 �d4 20 :n A logical strategy-Black re­
�f5 2 1 i..c5 1fa6 22 a3 :d5 23 sponds to White's flank attack with
1ft2 �d4 24 i..b4 and White retains play in the centre. If he lingers then
the initiative, Dolmatov-Ricardi, White fixes the weak f6 square:
Buenos Aires 199 1 . 1) 1 7 ...:ab8 1 8 g5 h5 19 1ft2
19...�d4 20 �b1 �bS 1fb7 20 b3 1fc7 2 1 a4 and after re­
Weaker is 20 ...:d7?! 2 1 :d3 pulsing the threats on the queenside,
'ifd8 22 1fc5 :c8 23 :hd 1 and White retains pressure, Kramnik­
Black has problems with the e5 Rodselli, Maringa 199 1 .
pawn, Van den Doel-Van der Wiel, 2) 17 ... :d7 1 8 g5 h5 19 �f6+
Wijk aan Zee 1 998. lbxf6 20 i..xe6 :xd 1 + 2 1 :xd I
21 'ifb3 �xd6 22 �xd6 :d7 �5 22 i..xd5 cxd5 23 :xd5 and
In the game Bologan-Rogozenko, White has an extra pawn, Mainka­
Kishinev 1998, 22 ...1fc7 2 3 1fb7 ± Lindemann, Oberwart 199 1 .
was played. 3 ) 1 7 ...a5 1 8 i..xe6 (or 1 8 g5 h5
23 �e4 :ad8 24 :xd7 :xd7 25 19 a4 lLlf4 20 i..xe6 lbxe6 2 1 1ft2
gS and by consolidating the knight :d5 and Black equalises, Salai­
on e4 White has obtained the prefer­ Agnos, Pula 1997) 1 8 ...lbxe6 19
able position. (V.Bologan). i..e3 lLlf4 20 lLlf6+ �h8 21 g5
:xd 1 + 22 :xd 1 :d8 23 :xd8+
JAb 1fxd8 24 i..xf4 exf4 25 c3 i..xf6 26
gxf6 �h7 27 1if4 and White has an
(1 e4 cS 2 �t3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 extra, albeit doubled, pawn, Holzke­
�xd4 �f6 S �c3 g6 6 i..e3 i..g7 7 Koscielski, Munster 1999.
t3 0-0 8 1id2 �c6 9 0-0-0 dS 10 18 i..xe6
'ifel eS II �xc6 bxc6 12 exdS On 1 8 i..d6?! strong is l 8 ...:xd6!
�xdS 13 i..c4 i..e6 14 �e4 1fc7 IS 19 lbxd6 i..d5 20 .i.xd5 cxd5 2 1
i..cs :rd8) lbb5 1fc5 with an attack on the
king, Baron-Komljenovic, Zara­
16 1fh4 gossa 1993.
18...lbxe6 19 i..d6 'iVaS 20 �bl
16 . h6 17 g4
. . with rather the better prospects for
White.
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 45

3Ac White commences play on the

kingside, first preventing the ex­
(1 e4 c5 2 ltlfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 changing manoeuvre ...ltld5-f4 and
ltlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlcJ g6 6 .i.eJ .i.g7 7 ...ltlxe6.
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 ltlc6 9 0-0-0 d5 10 17...h6
'ii'e1 e5 11 ltlxc6 bxc6 12 exd5 Black endeavours to re-establish
ltlxd5 13 .i.c4 .i.e6 14 ltle4 'ii'c7 15 the lost position of the bishop on e6 .
.i.c5 %lfd8) After 1 7 ...%lb8 (with the threat
...e5-e4) White, besides transfening
16 ltlg5 to the theme of variation 3Ab ( 1 8
'it'h4 h6 1 9 ltle4 .i.e6 20 g5 ;!;;),
could free the c5 square for the
knight-IS .i.a3 when the manoeu­
vre 1 8 ....i.h6 19 'ii'h4 �g7 is not so
effective: 20 f4 ! .i.xg5 (dangerous is
20... f6?! because of 21 l:ld3 ! exf4
22 %lh3 and 20...%le8 because of 2 1
..id6!) 2 1 fxg5 .i.e6 22 l:lde 1 ltlf4
23 .i.xe6 ltlxe6 24 l:le3 with a seri­
ous initiative for White, Svidler­
Alterman, Haifa 1995.
18 ltle4 .i.e6 19 'iff2 f5 20 gxf5
gxfS 21 ltld2 'it'f7 22 %lhg1 'it>h7 23
16 ....i.c8 ..ib3 ltlf4 and Black obtains quite a
He could also react to the advance good game, Lukin-Tiviakov, Russia
of the knight by pinning it- (ch) 1995. But White could play the
16... .i.h6 . 1 7 'ii'h4 �g7 and it is not more consistent 19 h4 ;!;;.
easy for White to retain the
initiative: 3B
I ) 1 8 �b l ?! ltlc3+! ( 1 8 ....i.xg5
(1 e4 c5 2 ltlfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
19 'ii'xg5 f6 20 'ii'h4 'ii'f7 leads to an
ltlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlcJ g6 6 ..ieJ .i.g7 7
equal game, Wang Zili-Alterman,
f3 0-0 8 'it'd2 ltlc6 9 0-0-0 d5 10
Beijing 1995) 1 9 bxc3 .i.xc4 20
'it'e1)
'ii'xc4 (or 20 .i.e3 .i.xa2+! 2 1 �cl
'ii'a5 ! +) 20.....ixg5 and Black has in 10 e6
••.

effect an extra pawn on the king­

side. (B.Alterman)
2) 1 8 .i.xd5 .i.xg5+! 19 'ii'xg5 f6!
20 'ii'e3 (or 20 'ii'h4 cxd5 =i=)
20 ...cxd5 2 1 %ld2 %lacS and Black's
chances are preferable, Lambert­
Golubev, Germany 1 996.
3) 1 8 %ld2 lLlf4 ! ( 1 8 ...'ii'a5 1 9
.i.f2!) 1 9 .i.xe6 .i.xg5 2 0 'ii'xg5
l:lxd2 2 1 �xd2 ltlxe6 22 'ii'e3 'it'a5+
23 b4 with roughly even chances
(M.Golubev).
17 g4
46 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

Black reinforces the d5 square. 1 1 . ..'ii'c7, hoping to exploit the

White's plans are now linked to the overworked queen, is dubious: 12
continuations: g5 ltlh5 1 3 exd5 exd5 14 ltlxd5
We5 1 5 ltlc3 ltlxd4 16 l:[xd4 �f5
3Ba: 1 1 g4 17 'ii'd2 llfe8 1 8 �f2 l:lac8 19 �c4
3Bb: 1 1 h4 'ii'a 5 20 l:lh4 and White frees him­
self, retaining an extra pawn,
1 1 �b 1 is rather indifferent. On Dvoirys-Los, Leeuwarden 1993.
this Black could reply both Worth considering is 1 1 .. .lle8 12
1 1 ...lle8, not fearing 1 2 �b5 �d7 �b5 �d7 13 �xc6 �xc6 1 4 h4 (or
1 3 �xc6 �xc6 14 e5 ltld7 1 5 f4 f6 14 e5 ltld7 1 5 f4 f6) 14 ...'ii'c7 1 5 h5
with chances for both sides dxe4 1 6 'ii'h4 exD 1 7 hxg6 fxg6 1 8
(Tiviakov), and 1 1 ...'ii'e7 1 2 ltlb3 ltlxc6 bxc6 19 l:ldfl h5 20 gxh5
l:ld8 1 3 �c5 'ii'c7 14 �b5 dxe4 1 5 ltlxh5 with a complicated game,
l:lxd8+ ltlxd8 1 6 ltlxe4 ltlxe4 17 Ginzburg-Parker, Duisburg 1 992.
'ii'xe4 �d7 18 �xd7 'ii'xd7 1 9 �d4
•h-ih lvanchuk-Kir.Georgiev, Til­ 3Ba1
burg 1 993
(1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltlxd4 ltlf6 5 ltlcJ g6 6 �e3 �g7 7
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 ltlc6 9 0-0-0 d5 10
3Ba
'ii'e 1 e6 1 1 g4)
(1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l l ...'ii'e7
ltid4 ltlf6 5 ltlcJ g6 6 �e3 �g7 7
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 ltlc6 9 0-0-0 d5 10
'ii'e1 e6)

1 1 g4

From here the queen prevents the

intended move 1 2 g5 because of
12 ... ltlh5 1 3 h4 ( 1 3 exd5? ltlxd4)
1 3 ...ltlxd4 14 �xd4 �xd4 1 5 lhd4
'ii'c5 and the weakness of the dark
A natural attempt to threaten squares is felt, leaving Black with
g4-g5 which has an effect on the d5 the preferable position.
square. Black has two main ways of 12 ltlb3 b6
preventing this: He should not allow the bishop to
the c5 square: 12 ...l:ld8 1 3 �c5 Wc7
3Ba1: l l ...'ii'e7 14 'ii'g3 'ii'xg3 1 5 hxg3 dxe4 (or
3Ba2: 11. e5.• 1 5 ...b6 1 6 �f2 �b7 1 7 g5 ltlh5 1 8
 The Rauzer A ttack with 9 0-0-0 47

exd5 tt:lb4 19 i.e2 tt:lxd5 20 tt:le4 h6 By comparison with the variation

2 1 c4 ;!; Dvoirys-Emst, Gausdal IO ... e5, the loss of tempo has no sig­
1 991) 16 i.b5 ! i.d7 1 7 g5 tt:ld5 1 8 nificance since White has weakened
tt:lxe4 b6 19 i.f2 ( 1 9 c4?! tt:le5 ! 20 the king's flank.
i.xd7 l:[xd7 21 cxd5 exd5 22 tt:lc3 12 tt:lxc6 bxc6 13 exd5
bxc5 23 tt:lxc5 l:[dd8 24 tt:lxd5 tt:lxf.3 No good is 1 3 g5?! d4 14 gxf6
25 tt:le4 �ffi= Frolov-Aiterman, 'it'xf6 and Black stands better.
USSR 1990) 19 ...tt:le5 20 i.e2 llac8 13 ...cxd5 14 i.g5 i.b7
2 1 llh4 and White's chances are Also possible is 14 ...i.e6.
preferable, Kuporosov-Sedrakian, 15 i.c4
USSR 199 1 . It is dangerous to win the pawn by
13 i.b5 1 5 'it'xe5?! h6 16 i.h4 (relatively
After 1 3 g5 tt:lh5 14 exd5 exd5 1 5 better is 16 i.xf6 i.xf6 1 7 'it'e l , but
tt:lxd5 'it'e5 Black has active play for even here after 1 7 ...lle8 Black's
the pawn. threats are very dangerous) 16 ... g5
13 i.b7 14 exd5
.•. 17 i.e I tt:lxg4 1 8 'it'g3 tt:le3 19 lld2
To saddle Black with an isolated 'it'a5 20 'ii'f2 i.xc3 2 1 �b I 'iVb4 0- 1
pawn. The other plan, 14 i.xc6 Morozevich-Savchenko, Moscow
i.xc6 1 5 tt:ld4 i.b7 1 6 e5 tt:ld7 17 199 1 .
f4, is weaker and leaves Black with 15...d4
the preferable game after 17 ... f6 1 8 The most consistent, since the
exf6 tt:lxf6 19 h3 tt:le4, De Ia Villa­ h l -aS diagonal is weakened. After
Romero Holmes, Lfon 1 992. 1 5 ...Wc7 16 i.xf6 dxc4 17 i.xg7
14 ...tt:lxd5 15 ll!xd5 ud5 16 �xg7 1 8 tt:le4 the position is
i.xc6 i.xc6 17 i.d4 i.h6+ 18 �b1 unclear.
'ii'xel 19 llhxe1 llfe8 and the 16 tt:le4
chances are equal, Videki-Tolnai, On 16 'it'e5 Black gains the
Balatonbereny 1992. advantage by 16... tt:lxg4 ! .
1 6...11c8 1 7 i.b3 'ifb6 18 i.xf6
3Ba2
i.xf6 19 h4 llfd8 20 �b1 aS 21 g5
(1 e4 c5 2 tt:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 i.g7 22 h5 llb8 and it is Black's
tl:\xd4 tt:lf6 5 tt:lc3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7 attack that is more real, Dvoiris­
f3 0-0 8 'it'd2 tt:lc6 9 0-0-0 d5 10 Tolnai, Balatonbereny 1 993.
'it'el e6 1 1 g4)
l l ...e5
3Bb

(1 e4 c5 2 tt:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tt:lxd4 tt:lf6 5 tt:lc3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
f3 0-0 8 'it'd2 tt:lc6 9 0-0-0 d5 10
'it'el e6)

l l h4
The march of the flank pawn
h2-h4-h5 provides an indirect
method of weakening the d5 pawn
by deflecting the f6-knight.
48 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

3Bb1

(1 e4 c5 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 j.e3 j.g7 7
f3 0-0 8 'ti'd2 �c6 9 0-0-0 d5 10
'ti'e1 e6 11 h4 'ti'c7)

· 12 h5

l l .'ti'c7
..

Black immediately takes control

of the weakened diagonal and, in
particular, the g3 square. On other
moves White's attack with the
h-pawn is more effective.
1) 1 l ...'ti'a5 12 exd5 exd5 13 1i'd2
lle8 14 �b3 'ti'c7 1 5 j.h6 j.h8 1 6
h5 j.e6 17 j.d3 �e5 1 8 hxg6 fxg6
19 j.b5 �c4 20 'ti'f4 with advan­ White sacrifices a pawn for an
tage to White, Liss-K.ahn, Budapest attack on the king.
1995 12 �xh5
..•

2) 1 l ...'ti'e7 12 h5 dxe4 1 3 �xc6 Also possible is the si�ple

bxc6 14 'ti'h4 llb8 1 5 lld4 'ti'b7 16 1 2 ...�xd4 1 3 j.xd4 e5 14 �b5 'fle7
b3 exf3 1 7 �e4! �xe4 1 8 hxg6 h6 1 5 j.c3 �xh5 16 exd5 j.d7 with
19 gxf7+ 'ti'xf7 20 llxe4 fxg2 2 1 equal chances, Sirigos-Aiterman,
j.xg2 'ti'f6 22 'ti'xf6 llxf6 23 lla4 Komotini 1992.
and Black's pawn islands guarantee 13 exd5
White an advantage in the endgame, The drawback of the aggressive
Mortensen-Tisdall, Reykjavik (zt) 13 g4 is revealed after the exchange
1995. of the minor pieces, 1 3 ... �xd4 14
j.xd4 j.xd4 (for the present, _pre­
After 1 1 .. .'ti'c7 the main continua­ mature is 14 ...'ti'f4+?! 1 5 j.e3 'flxf3
tions are: 16 l:g 1 ±) 1 5 llxd4 and Black ex­
ploits the weakening of the dark­
3Bb1 : 12 h5 squared periphery of White 's camp:
3Bb2: 12 exd5 1 5 ...'ti'f4+! (weaker is 1 5 ...'ti'e5 16
'ti'd2 �g3 17 l:g1 dxe4 1 8 f4 �xfl
12 �db5 'ti'a5 1 3 exd5 exd5 leads 19 llxfl 'ti'g7 20 g5 e5 2 1 lld6 and
to a double-edged game. Hellers­ the activity of the white pieces com­
Emst, Stockholm 1993, continued pensates for the sacrificed pawn,
14 h5 l:e8! 1 5 hxg6 fxg6 1 6 'ifd2 Mainka-Alterman, London 1 994) 16
j.e6 17 �d4 j_f7 1 8 j_f2 �e5 19 �b1 (16 l:d2 �g3 + Spasov­
�b 1 when Black can maintain the Kir.Georgiev, Bulgaria 1995)
balance with the move 1 9 ...�c4. 16 ...'ti'xf3 (the most determined;
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 49

16 ...tZ':lg3 17 llh3 lLlxfl 1 8 'ii'xfl 16 .i.e3 'ii'g3 and White is con­

dxe4 19 llxe4 'ii'f6 20 'ii'xh 1 leaves fronted with the dilemma of how to
White with the initiative, Holzke­ proceed further.
Struk, Berlin 1 997) and it seems that In the game Adams-Topalov,
White does not manage to gain Wijk aan Zee 1996, Black went
compensation for the sacrificed back with the queen I6 ...'ii'f6?! and
pawn: 17 'ii'h4 (there is apparently after I7 l:lxd5 ltJf4 1 8 lld6 .i.e6 19
nothing significant in 1 7 .i.e2 'ii'f6) 'ii'd2 ran into difficulties.
1 7 ...'ii'f6 (after 1 7 ... e5?! 1 8 gxh5
exd4 19 hxg6 h5 20 .i.e2! White has 3Bb2
a very strong attack) 1 8 gxh5 'ii'd4
19 hxg6 h6 20 'ii'xh6 'ii'g7 2 1 'ii'h7+ (1 e4 c5 2 tZ':lt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
'ii'xh7 22 gxh7+ �h8 and White tL:lxd4 lLlf6 5 tZ':lc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
does not have full compensation for t3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 �c6 9 0-0-0 d5 10
the sacrificed exchange. 'ii'e l e6 1 1 h4 'ii'c7)
13 exd5 14 tZ':ldb5
..•

The direct path is sometimes not 12 exd5

the shortest. After 1 4 tZ':lxd5 'iii'e5 1 5
.i.c4 .i.e6 White obtains the some­
what better endgame: 1 6 .i.f2 'ii'g5+
I 7 'ii'e3 'ii'xe3+ I 8 .i.xe3 ;!; Rawson­
Dearing, Scotland (ch) 1995. How­
ever stronger is 1 5 ...1le8 with suffi­
cient counterplay for Bla,ck.
14...'ii'g3
On 14 ...'ii'e7? White can take the
pawn, I 5 tZ':lxd5, since 1 5 ...'ii'e5 is
parried by the attack 1 6 tZ':lbc3 lle8
I 7 'ii'h 4! (in the game Z.Almasi­
Kir.Georgiev, Groningen I994, was
played 17 .i.b5 .i.e6 1 8 f4 'ii'b 8 I9 White creates an isolated d5
'Wh4 'it'c8 20 .i.xc6 bxc6 2 I tZ':le7+ pawn.
llxe7 22 'it'xe7 tZ':lg3 ! and Black 12 tL:lxd5
.•.

obtained sufficient compensation Black gets the g7-bishop into the

for the exchange) I 7 ...'ii'g3 1 8 .i.f2 action. I 2 ... exd5 13 'ii'd2 lle8 I 4
'ii'xh4 I9 .i.xh4 and White's .i.f4 is also seen. Here, in the game
position is better in view of the Dvoiris�Los, Groningen I 993, after
threats of tZ':ld5-c7 and g2-g4 I4 ...'ii'a 5?! I 5 tZ':lb3 'ifb4 16 a3 ile7
(Z.Almasi). I7 .i.g5 .i.e6 I 8 tZ':lb5 Black sacri­
15 .i.fl ficed a pawn by I 8 ...d4 I9 tZ':l3xd4
On I 5 tZ':ld5 Black exchanges llad8 20 tL:lxc6 bxc6 2 I tZ':ld4, but
queens I 5 ...'ii'xe I I6 llxe I tL:lg3 did not obtain sufficient compensa­
with equal chances. tion. Stronger is 14 ...'ii'b6, taking
15 'iff4+
..• under control the d4 square with an
Also worth considering is acceptable game.
I 5 ... 'ii'g5+ and if I6 �b i , then 13 tZ':lxd5 exd5 14 _.d2 lle8
I 6...d4, but of course also here I 6 The most natural move, ignoring
.i.e3 is possible. the threat of h4-h5. In the game
 50 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

Kramnik-Aiterman, USSR 1990, 'it'b3 aS 2 2 hxg6 hxg6 23 a4 and

was played 14 ...h5 1 5 lL!bS 'it'e7 1 6 White obtained a real advantage.
�gS 'it'eS 17 c3 �e6 1 8 �f4 and 17 .:.xd4 lL!xd4 18 'it'xd4 �f5 19
White obtained the better game. �d3 �xd3 20 'it'xd3 'it'e5 the game
B.Aiterman considered it was neces­ is equal, Leko-Hodgson, Groningen
sary to sacrifice a pawn by 17 ...d4 ! 1996.
1 8 lL!xd4 lL!xd4 19 'it'xd4 'it'aS and
on 20 'it'dS there is 20...�xc3 ! . Line 4
However he also needs to take into
(1 e4 c5 2 lL!t3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
account 20 �f6.
lL!xd4 lDf6 5 lL!c3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7
15 h5
t3 0-0 8 'it'd2 lL!c6 9 0-0-0 d5)
10 lL!xc6

15 ....:.xe3 !?
In this exchange sacrifice lies the
idea of the move 14 ....:.e8. If, in the first years that the sys­
After a mass exchange on d4, tem of play with the move 9 ... d5
1 5 ...'it'e5 I 6 �f2 lL!xd4 I 7 �xd4 was employed, this exchange was
. 'it'xd4 1 8 'it'xd4 �xd4 1 9 .:.xd4, made in the context of a transposi­
White has a small but lasting advan­ tion of moves ( I O...bxc6 I I exdS),
tage in the endgame with an isolated then later on this came to be associ­
pawn on dS for Black. ated with an exchange of the dark­
16 'it'xe3 �xd4! squared bishops and an attack on the
It is only this capture that allows king's flank.
Black to maintain equality. The first 10 ... bxc6 1 1 �h6
trial with the exchange sacrifice on Here Black has a great choice of
e3 was the game Shirov-Topalov, continuations. He can continue ac­
Dos Hermanas I 996, I 6 ...lL!xd4 I 7 tively in the spirit of the main varia­
l:txd4 �fS was played and Black tion with the sacrifice of the dS
solved his opening problems. But pawn, defending it or counterattack­
later, in the game Dvoiris-Brodsky, ing after the exchange of bishops:
Berlin I 996, White improved his
e 1ay with the intermediate check I 7 4A: l l ...'it'a5
Wfe8+! �f8 I 8 .:.xd4 �fS I 9 'it'a4 4B: l l . .'it'c7
.

'it'eS 20 l:tdi �g7 (it is not that 4C: l l .. e6

.

much easier after 20 ....:.c8 2 I �d3 4D: l l ...�e6

± Dvoiris-Brodsky, Berlin 1 996) 2 I 4E: l l ...�xh6
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 51

4A In the present position Black has a

stable pawn centre, but he needs to
(1 e4 c5 2 lL!f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 reckon with White's initiative on the
lL!xd4 lLif6 5 lL!c3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 king's flank. Practice shows that
f3 0-0 8 'ifd2 lL!c6 9 0-0-0 d5 10 Black's task is not quite so simple.
lL!xc6 bxc6 11 .i.h6) I ) 16 'iff4 'ifb6 17 .i.d3 (17 'ii'eS
'ifbS) l 7 ...eS! (a clever pawn sacri­
ll . .'ifa5
. fice enabling Black to complete his
development) 1 8 'ifxeS lieS 1 9 'iff4
hxg4 20 fxg4 .i.xg4 2 1 l:ldfl l:lad8
with roughly equal chances,
Timman-Sax, NikSic 1983.
2) 16 'ifgS 'ifc7 ( l 6 ...eS? of
course does not work because of 1 7
gxhS, while on l 6...'ifb4? good is
17 .i.d3 l:lbS 1 8 'ifeS ! and Black
cannot unravel himself) 17 .i.d3
l:lhS 1 8 lL!bS 'ifbs 1 9 lL!d4 .i.d7 and
the game is equal, Sharif-Payen,
Lyon 1990. Stronger was 1 8 l:ldg l !
.i.d7 1 9 lL!e2 eS 20 lL!g3 with a
This most active move, for a long strong attack for White.
time considered the main line, has
recently been going through a crisis. 4B
12 .i.xg7 �xg7 13 exd5
After 13 eS lL!gS 14 'ifd4 l:lbS (1 e4 c5 2 lL!f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
everything is in order for Black. lL!xd4 lLif6 5 lL!c3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
13...cxd5 14 g4 e6 f3 0-0 8 'ifd2 lL!c6 9 0-0-0 d5 10
Weaker is l 4 ... .i.b7?! I S gS lLihS lL!xc6 bxc6 1 1 .i.h6)
16 'ifd4+ �gS 17 'ifes l:lacS 1 8
l:lxdS ! with an extra pawn, Timman­ l l ...'ifc7
Mestel, London 1982.
15 h4
Now on I S gS lL!hS 16 'ifd4+
Black equalises by l 6 ... f6.
15...h5

Considered one of the most reli­

able continuations.
12 .i.xg7 �xg7 13 exd5 cxd5 14
h4
 52 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

On 14 g4 possible is 14 ...�b7
and, by completing his develop­
ment, Black can count on taking the
initiative. For example: 1 5 �d3 d4
1 6 lLle4 lLld5 1 7 h4 :ac8 1 8 h5
_.f4! Veroci-Chiburdanidze,
Smederevska Palanka 1 983 or 1 5 g5
lLlh5 1 6 lLlxd5 �xd5 1 7 .-xd5 :fd8
and in both cases Black obtains the
preferable position.
14...h5
A standard defensive method in
the Dragon, preventing the advance Black creates an elastic pawn
of he h-pawn. A text-book example centre, but he is late with his
of a possible attack comes after development which allows White to
14...�e6?! 1 5 h5 lLlxh5? 16 g4 lL!f6 commence an energetic attack.
1 7 'ii'h6+ �g8 1 8 g5 lLlh5 1 9 l:.xh5 12 h4 �h8!
gxh5 20 �d3 f5 2 1 g6 with an irre­ In such positions the bishop is no
sistible attack. Another possibility is weaker than a rook, particularly if it
14...�b7 1 5 lLlb5 _.c5? 1 6 h5 e5 1 7 manages to establish cooperation
_.g5 ! _.e7 1 8 hxg6 gxf6 19 �d3 with a rook on b8.
l:.fe8 20 �xg6! with a winning 13 h5 llJxh5 14 �d3
attack, Renet-Romero, Barcelona It is dangerous to take the ex­
1985. In this last case 1 5 ...�6 or change: 14 �x:ffi ? ! _.x:ffi 1 5 g4?!
1 5 ....-d7 were sufficiently reliable. llJg3 1 6 :h3 :b8 ! with a strong at­
15 lL!xd5 lLlxd5 16 _.xd5 �e6 17 tack for Black, Lobron-Kudrin, New
_.d4+ �g8 18 �d3 :rds 19 _.e3 York 1983.
�xa2 20 g4 :ab8 21 gxh5 14 :bs
.•.

On 2 1 c3, 2 1 ...:b6 is good, with 1 4 ...llJf6 is more reliable.

. the idea of 22 gxh5? :db8 23 :d2 15 :xh5! dxe4! 16 �xfll _.xfB
:xb2 ! . 17 �xe4 �xc3 18 _.xc3 gxh5 19
21. :xb2! 22 hxg6
•• 1Vf6 �a6!
Not possible is 22 �xb2? :b8+ 19 ... �b7? is no good because of
23 �b5 (23 �c 1 ? _.c3) 23 ... :xb5+ 20 :d7 ±, as in Sigurjonsson­
24 �c 1 :xh5! and Black has the McCambridge, Neskaupsstadur
initiative. 1984.
22 :b6! 23 gxti+ �fll 24 •g5
.•. 20 �xc6 'ii'g7 and the chances are
�xti with a double-edged position, equal.
A.Sokolov-Kudrin, Lugano 1 985.
4D
4C
(1 e4 c5 2 llJfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
(1 e4 c5 2 lL!fJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 llJc3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7
llJxd4 lDf6 5 llJc3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7
fJ 0-0 8 1Vd2 llJc6 9 0-0-0 d5 10
fJ 0-0 8 _.d2 llJc6 9 0-0-0 d5 10
llJxc6 bxc6 1 1 �h6)
llJxc6 bxc6 1 1 �h6)
l l ...e6 l l ..�e6
.
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 53

4E

(1 e4 cS 2 lL!f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltJxd4 lL!f6 S lL!c3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 lL!c6 9 0-0-0 dS 1 0
ltJxc6 bxc6 l l i.h6)

l l i.xh6 12 'ii'xh6
...

This outwardly clumsy bishop

move, besides defending the d5
pawn, can, if the opportunity arises,
also be exploited for the organisa­
tion of a counterattack on the
queen's flank.
12 i.xg7
Also here, 1 2 e5 i.xh6 1 3 'ii'xh6
lbd7 14 h4 is not dangerous, since
after 14 ...lL!xe5 1 5 h5 i.f5 no good l 2...'ii'b6
is 16 g4?! because of 1 6... f6 1 7 Black combines an attack on the
gxf5? g5. b-file with control over the
12...�xg7 13 exdS · important diagonal, which became
Releasing the pawn tension by 1 3 possible thanks to the exchange of
e5 lL!d7 obliges White to force the the dark-squared bishops.
game, but it is not easy for him to Weaker is 12 ... 'ii'a 5?! 1 3 e5 lL!d7
g�t at the king. For example: 1 4 f4 14 h4! lL!xe5 1 5 h5 i.f5 1 6 g4 f6 17
Wa5 1 5 i.e2 l:fb8 1 6 g4 wt'b4 17 b3 'ii'e3 ! + Ricardi-Hoffinan, Argentina
_.a3+ 18 �b1 lL!c5 and Black's 1999.
threats are more real or 14 h4 h5 1 5 The advance 1 2 ...e5, after 1 3
g4 hxg4 1 6 h5 l:h8 repulsing the 'ii'g 5, creates problems due to the
immediate threats. unstable pawn centre. For example,
13 ...cxdS 14 g4 'ii'c7 IS 'ii'd4 the game Mark Tseitlin-Velimiro­
The direct attack 1 5 h4 h6 1 6 g5 vic, Kragujevac 1974, continued
does not achieve its objective be­ 13 ... 'ii'e7?! 14 f4 l:e8 1 5 exd5 exf4
cause of the simple 16 ... hxg5 1 7 16 'ii'xf4 lL!xd5 17 lL!xd5 and Black
hxg5 lL!h5 1 8 l:h4 l:fd8 and Black is saddled with an isolated d5 pawn.
is not worse, Koch-Sheard, Liege Stronger was 1 3 ...l:e8.
1984. 13 eS
1S ...�g8 16 h4 l:ab8 17 hS l:b6 After 13 exd5 cxd5 14 lL!xd5
18 hxg6 fx_g6 19 gS lL!hS 20 lL!xdS ltJxd5 1 5 l:xd5 i.e6 Black has
i.xdS 21 WxdS+ e6 and a position sufficient compensation for the
is reached with chances for both pawn.
sides, Solozhenkin-Nesis, USSR 13 ...lL!d7 14 h4
1984. 14 'ii'f4! ? is interesting.
54 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

14 ... ll'lxe5 15 hS .trs 1 6 g4 f6! 17 In the game Shabalov-Kudrin,

..f4 USA (ch) I 997, was played
After 17 gxf5? g5 the queen is IO ...l:.bS I I ll'lb3 and after l l ...dxe4
trapped. 12 11fxdS l:.xdS 13 l:.xdS+ ll'lxdS 14
17...l:.ab8 18 b3 gS .txa7 :as 15 .ib6 .tf5 16 .te2
Simp_ler is I S ....id7. ll'lc6 1 7 l:.d I the game transposed to
19 11fxf5 •e3+ 20 �b2 .:n 21 a favourable endgame for White
l:.d3 ll'lc4+ 22 �b1 ll'la3+ with thanks to his queenside pawn
perpetual, Ljucko-Shabalov, USSR majority.
1 983.+, but 22 .....el+ 23 l:.di (23 1 1 eS
ll'ld i e6) 23 . . ...xc3 is possible.

Line S

(1 e4 cS 2 ll'lt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ll'lxd4 ll'lf6 5 ll'lc3 g6 6 .ie3 .ig7 7
13 0-0 8 ..dl lLlc6 9 0-0-0 dS)

10 �bl

An important intermediate move.

tt ...ll'lrs
The most logical retreat.
Insufficient for holding the bal-
ance is the direct I l ...ll'lxf3 1 2 gxf3
ll'lh5 (or l 2 ...ll'ld7 13 ll'lxd5 .ixe5
14 .ih3 .id6 1 5 .ih6 ll'lb6 1 6 ll'lxb6
axb6 17 .ixcS l:.xcS I S 'it'd4 ;!;
Volchok-Johnson, corr. 1995/99) 13
Recently this modest move has ll'lxd5 .ie6 14 .ic4 (also 14 f4
been seen frequently in practice. Its .ixd5 1 5 ..xd5 ..xd5 1 6 l:xd5
tactical foundation is based on the .ih6 1 7 .ic4 .ixf4 I S .ixf4 ll'lxf4
impossibility of I O... dxe4?? because I9 l:.d7 e6 20 l:.xb7 ;!; Svicevic­
of I I lLlxc6. How strange it is that Ristic, Yugoslavia I 995) l 4 ....ixd5
Black does not find it so easy to 1 5 .ixd5 .i.xe5 1 6 f4 lLlf6 when in
solve his opening problems. the game Szieber-Schneider,
lO lLlxd4
••• Budapest 1995, White retained the
On the conservative IO . . .e6 S.Ata­ advantage by playing 1 7 .ixb7.
lik recommends 1 1 .ib5 ! ?. The Nor are his problems relieved by
game Istratescu-Marin, Bucharest I l ...lLld7 12 .ixd4 lLlxe5 (or I 2 ... e6
1996, continued l l ...ll'lxd4 I 2 13 f4 f6 14 exf6 .ixf6 1 5 'it'e3 ll'lb6
.ixd4 dxe4 13 fxe4 a6 I 4 .ie2 ..c7 16 h4 .ixd4 17 l:.xd4 ..f6 I S h5 ;!;
I 5 ..g5 ! ll'ld7 I6 .ixg7 �xg7 I 7 L.Milov-Cirkvencic, Nagykanizsa
.,e7 and it is not easy for Black to 1993) 13 ..e3 ! ll'lc6 14 .ixg7 �xg7
complete his development. 1 5 ll'lxd5 ! e6 (weaker is 1 5 ...'ifa5 1 6
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 55

b4! 'ii'a4 1 7 b5 ! + L.Milov-Golubev, 18 l:.d6 19 'ii'a5

•.•

Biel 1994) 1 6 tl'lc3 'ii'a5 17 .i.b5 After 19 l:.d I l:.adS 20 f4 l:[b6 2 1

tl'le7 I S 'ii'e5+ f6 1 9 'ii'c5 l:.f7 20 b3 l:.bd6 2 2 g4 a5 Black has
l:[d3 tOgS 2 1 tl'le4! and White's con­ sufficient counterplay, Magomedov­
trol over the d-file gives him the Valenzuela, Elista (ol) 199S.
better chances, Marjanovic-Ilincic, 19...b6 20 'ii'e1
Yugoslavia 1997. On 20 'ii'a6 possible is 20 ... .i.cS
12 exf6 .i.xf6 13 tl'lxd5 'ii'x d5! 21 'ii'c4 .i.e6 22 'ife4 :adS with
Thanks to this effective queen equal chances.
sacrifice, Black obtains a fully equal 20...l:.c8 21 a3 l:.c5 22 g4 l:tcd5
game. when, in the game Adams­
14 'ii'xd5 lLlxe3 15 'ii'd2 lLlxd1 1 6 lvanchuk, Dortmund 1 99S,
'ii'x d1 .i.e6 V.Ivanchuk considered that the
manoeuvre 23 'ii'e3! l:te5 24 'ii'f2
retains rather the better prospects for
White.

Line 6

(1 e4 c5 2 lLltJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 ..ie3 .i.g7 7
t3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 lLlc6 9 0-0-0)

9... lLlxd4 10 .i.xd4

Despite the formal deficit, Black

has a promising position: his pieces
are ready to develop great activity,
whereas White still has to complete
his development.
17 .i.d3
Upon the exchange of the light­
squared bishops-17 .i.b5 a6 I S
.i.a4 b5 1 9 �b3 .i.xb3 20 cxb3
l:.adS ! 2 1 'ii'e2 .i.g5! Black risks
nothing, Lutz-Delchev, Pula 1997.
17...l:.fd8 18 'ii'e1
I S h4 l:.d6 leads to a double­ Black hopes to ease his defence
edged position (A.Delchev recom­ by an exchange of knights, but after
mends I S ...l:.d4 19 h5 l:.adS 20 this his resources for generating a
hxg6 hxg6 2 1 'ii'e2 l:.b4 22 b3 l:[b6 counterattack are curtailed, and the
23 g4 a5 24 f4 a4) 19 h5 l:.b6 20 b3 presence of the bishop in the central
a5 2 1 hxg6 hxg6 (weaker is position increases White's chances
2 l ...fxg6?! 22 l:.e l .i.f7 23 'ii'e2 ;t) in the struggle for the initiative.
22 'ii'g l l:.d6 23 'ii'e3 l:.adS 24 l:.dl 10 ....i.e6
a4 with good counterplay for Black, Black prevents the development
Volchok-Lecrog, corr. 199S/99. of the second bishop on an active
56 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

diagonal. After l O ...'ii'aS, apart from 1 1 �b1

1 1 .tc4, White can choose I I �b I ,
threatening the advance lDc3-d5,
which retains the advantage for him:
I l .. .e5 ( I I ....te6? I2 lDdS 'ii'xd2 I3
lDe7+ ±) I2 .te3 .te6 1 3 a3 ! (but
not 1 3 'ii'xd6? in view of
1 3 ....txa2+) I3 ....:.fd8 (on
I3 ....:.ad8 possible is I4 g4 with a
further advance of the h-pawn) I4
lDbS ! 'ii'xd2 (on I4 ... 'ii'a4 White
sacrifices a pawn to develop a dan­
gerous initiative-I S c4 (or 1 5 lDc7
intending .tbS) I 5 ... .txc4 I6 lDc3
'ii'b3 I 7 .txc4 'ii'xc4 I S .tgS 'ii'e6 This prophylactic move, prevent­
I9 .txf6 .txf6 20 �5 ± ing I I ...'ii'a5 due to the threat of 12
Boleslavsky-Lisitsin, USSR I956) lbdS, was first employed by the
1 5 .:.xd2 d5 16 lDc7 .:.ac8 I7 lDxe6 author of the system, V.Rauzer.
fxe6 I S .txa7 dxe4 I 9 .:.xd8+ .:.xd8 1 1 ...Wc7
20 .tc4 �f7 2 I fxe4 lDxe4 22 .td3 ! Nowadays nobody would doubt
with the better endgame for White. the need to make way for the second
rook to go to the queenside, since
After 1 0... .te6 White's main the drawback of I I ....:.cs 12 h4 had
replies are: already been demonstrated in the
prototyope game (on the theme of
6A: 1 1 �b1 this system) Rauzer-Chekhover, Le­
6B: 1 1 lDdS ningrad I936, which continued
12 ...lDh5 13 .tx�7 �g7 14 tUdS !
Worth consideri�g is I I h4 with .txd5 IS exd5 lLlg3 I 6 .:.h2 e5 I 7
the idea, on I l . . .'tVaS, to play I 2 dxe6 fxe6 I S h5! lDxhS 1 9 Wxd6
'ii'g5. Now if he refrains from an 'ii'xd6 20 .:.xd6 with the better end­
exchange of queens, Black risks fal­ game for White. From contempor­
ling under a dangerous attack. For ary practice it is possible to give the
example, the game Yemelin­ game Arakhamia-Matveeva, Jakarta
Kalashnikov, St.Petersburg 2000, (izt) I993, where Black held up the
continued I 2 . . .'ii'c7 1 3 h5 .:.res I 4 h-pawn by modem means: I 2 . . . h5
hxg6 hxg6 I S .td3 b5 I 6 �5 13 .te2 a6 I4 g4 'ii'a5 I S lDdS and
.txd5 I 7 exd5 b4 I S J:lh6! .:.ab8 19 White likewise obtained the advan­
.:.hd i b3 20 'ii'h4 lDhS 2 I .:.xh5 tage. Also insufficient is 1 l ...a6 I 2
gxh5 22 .th7+ and White won h4 b5 (on I2 ...h5 follows 1 3 lDd5 ±)
shortly. 13 h5 (this is stronger than 1 3 lDdS
.txd5 I4 exd5, on which possible is
6A I4 ...e5 I S dxe6 fxe6 I 6 g3 We7 I7
.th3 ;!; Rowson-Small, Great Britain
(1 e4 cS 2 lDfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 (ch) I 992) 1 3 ... b4 I4 lDd5 .txd5 IS
lbxd4 lDf6 S lDc3 g6 6 .teJ .tg7 7 exd5 'ii'a5 I6 hxg6 hxg6 I 7 .tc4
fJ 0-0 8 'iVd2 lDc6 9 0-0-0 lDxd4 10 l:fc8 I S b3 and White has the
i.xd4 .te6)
 The Rauzer A ttack with 9 0-0-0 57

advantage, Geller-Horowitz, USSR­ USSR 1 982) 1 7 tt:ld5 'ifd8 18 l:.dfl

USA match I954. with a menacing attack for White
12 h4 (Serper).
White starts a massive pawn After 1 2 ...l:.fc8 White can start an
attack. The advance of just the g­ immediate attack or prepare it:
pawn has less chance of success: I 2
g4 J:lfc8 I3 g5 tt:lh5 (weaker is 6Aa: 13 hS
1 3 ...tt:ld7?! I 4 .ixg7 �xg7 I 5 tt:ld5! 6Ab: 13 g4
and White obtains the advantage,
Popovic-Kozul, Yugoslavia (ch) 6Aa
I 989) I4 .ixg7 tt:lxg7 (also possible
is 14 ...�xg7 I 5 tLld5 'iVd7 I6 'iVd4+ (1 e4 cS 2 tt:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
�g8 I 7 .i.d3 llc5 I 8 f4 llac8 I 9 tt:lxd4 tt:lf6 5 tt:lc3 g6 6 .ie3 .ig7 7
l:thfl b5 20 llde I .ixd5 2 I exd5 f3 0-0 8 'iVd2 tt:lc6 9 0-0-0 tt:lxd4 10
tt:lg7 22 .ie4 a5 and Black .ixd4 .ie6 11 �b1 'ifc7 12 h4
maintains the balance, Popovic­ l:.fc8)
Kir.Georgiev, Ti1burg 1 992) 1 5
tt:ld5 'ifd7 (after 1 5 ... .i.xd5 1 6 exd5 13 hS
e5 17 dxe6 tt:lxe6 1 8 h4 tt:lf4 19
.ih3 tt:lxh3 20 l:txh3 lieS 2 1 h5
White retains the attack on the
king's flank, Morozevich-Kalik­
stein, Yurma1a 1 992) and the pres­
sure on the c-file guarantees Black a
·

good game:
I) I6 c4 llc5 I 7 'iVd4 llac8 I S
.id3 .ixd5 I9 cxd5 e5 •h-1h
Chandler-Watson, London I990.
2) I 6 f4 b5 I 7 .ie2 llc5 I S .if3
llac8 I9 llc I .ixd5 20 exd5 'iVfS
and Black retains equal chances,
Morris-S.B.Hansen, Gausdal I 992. This direct flank attack was
3) 1 6 h4 l:.c5 I 7 f4 llac8 1 8 llh2 especially popular in the 80s, when
.ixd5 I9 exd5 llxc2 20 'ifxc2 llxc2 nothing was · found against it. The
2I llxc2 tLlhS 22 l:.d4 'iVg4 and logical basis of the energetic move
White loses yet another pawn, of the h-pawn was the clear danger
McDonald-Webb, England 1 998. in taking it, 1 3 ...tt:lxh5?, after which
The continuation I 2 tLldS .ixd5 White carried out a typical attack
I3 exd5 'ifc7 14 llc 1 leads to vari­ for this type of formation: I4 .ixg7
ation 5B: 1 I tt:ld5. �g7 1 5 g4 tt:lf6 16 'it'h6+ �g8 1 7
12 ...llfc8 e5 dxe5 1 8 g5 tt:lh5 19 .id3 e4 20
He does not succeed in setting up l:.xh5 gxh5 2 1 tt:lxe4, creating irre­
a blockade: I 2 ... h5 I3 g4 hxg4 14 sistible threats, Evans-Zuckerman,
h5 gxh5 (not possible is 14 ...tt:lxh5? New York 1 967.
1 5 .ixg7 �xg7 1 6 llxh5 etc.) 1 5 13 ...'ifa5
'ii'g5 ! llfc8 1 6 .id3! .ic4 ( 1 6...b5? Black threatened a sacrifice of the
is losing: 1 7 fxg4 .ixg4 I S tt:ld5 exchange on c3 .
'ifd8 1 9 l:.dg 1 ! Biodstein-Serper, 14 hxg6
58 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

Also possible is 14 h6 .ih8 (for 1998, instead of 1 9 ....ih5?! 20

the present not dang_erous is .l:ldg 1 Wfc6 2 1 .ixf6 .ixf6 22 1i'b3
14 .. .lhc3?! 1 5 'ii'xc3 'ifxa2+ 16 �f8 23 .ixf7 with advantage to
�c 1 .ih8 17 .id3 when there is ap­ White, 19 . . ..id7 gives an acceptable
parently no real way to continue game.
Black's attack, Psakhis-Yurtaev, 15 .1:lab8
.•.

USSR 1980) 1 5 a3 ! (first taking On 1 5 ....ic4, with the idea after

care of the king, since against the 16 .ixc4?! .l:lxc4 to threaten the
typical threat based on the unde­ blow ...lbxe4, White comes first
fended position of the gueen on a5 with his attack-1 6 .l:lh3 ! b5 1 7
-1 5 .ixf6 .ixf6 1 6 llld5-Biack .ixc4:
has the reply 1 5 ... l:r.xc3 ! 1 6 Wfxc3 1) 1 7 ...bxc4 1 8 l:dh 1 l:ab8 19
'ii'xa2+ 17 �c 1 .ixf6 1 8 Wfa3 .ig5+ �c 1 ! ( 19 �a 1 ?! .l:lb7 20 g4 l:.cb8=
etc.) 1 5 ...lbd7 16 f4 (or 16 .ixh8 Short-Velimirovic, Banja Luka
�xh8 1 7 lbd5 Wfxd2 1 8 l:r.xd2 and 1985) 19 ....1:lb7 20 g4 .l:lcb8 21 Wfh2
White has somewhat the better end­ with real chances of success.
game, Psakhis-Taborov, USSR 2) 1 7....l:lxc4 1 8 .l:ldh 1 . White pre­
1982) 16 ... .ixd4 17 Wfxd4 lbf6 1 8 vents 1 8 ... lbxe4? in view of 1 9
f5 (on 1 8 g4? Black takes over the .l:lh8+! and 1 8 ...b4-19 lbd5, retain­
initiative with the exchange sacri­ ing some initiative. Just as prema­
fice 1 8 ...l:r.xc3 !) 18 ... gxf5 19 lbd5 ture for Black is to rush into action
.ixd5 20 exd5 Wfc5 2 1 Wfd3 �h8 22 by 1 8 ...e5 19 .ie3 .l:lxc3 20 1i'xc3
Wfxf5 .l:lg8 23 .l:lh3 Wfc8 24 Wff2 .l:lg5 'ifxc3 2 1 bxc3 d5 22 .ig5 ! dxe4 23
(weaker is 24 ...Wff8? 25 .id3 .l:lg5 .ixf6 .ixf6 24 fxe4 and after the
26 .if5 Wfg8 27 g4! with an attack occupation of the d-file it is difficult
for White, Dolmatov-Vasiukov, for Black to show compensation for
USSR (ch) 1980/8 1) 25 .l:lf3 and the exchange, Van der Wiei-Van der
White retains the initiative. Mortel, Wijk aan Zee 1996. He
Upon an earlier 14 a3 Black can should apparently continue
accept . the pawn sacrifice- 1 8 ... l:.b8, on which possible is 19
14 ... lllxh5 ! 1 5 ..i.xg7 �xg7 16 g4 'ifd3 with the threat of liJc3-d5 .
.l:lxc3 ! 1 7 gxh5 llc5 1 8 Wfd4+ f6 19 16 .id3 .ic4
hxg6 hxg6 20 .id3 .l:lh5 and On 16 ...b5 good is 1 7 Wfg5 ! . For
White's threats are repulsed, example, the game Van der Wiei­
L.Milov-Stisis, Biel 1994. Sax, Plovdiv 1983, continued
14... hxg6 17 ...Wfc7 1 8 e5 dxe5 19 .ixe5 'ii'c5
14 ... fxg6 1 5 a3 looks less reliable. 20 f4 l:r.b7 21 .ixg6! fxg6 22 'ii'xg6
for example: 1 5 ...l:r.ab8 1 6 .id3 .if7 i.f7 23 .l:lh8+ 1 -0.
17 .ixf6 .ixf6 1 8 Wfh6 followed by 17 l:hl
19 1i'xh7+ and 20 lbd5 ;!; Petrovic­ White is ready to invade on the
Jevtic, Novi Sad 1983. h-file.
15 a3 Insufficient is 17 g4 b5 1 8 .ixc4
On 1 5 g4 possible is 1 5 ....1:lxc3 1 6 bxc4 (weaker is 1 8 ...llxc4 19 .ixf6!
Wfxc3 Wfxa2+ 17 �c 1 .ixg4 1 8 .ic4 i.xf6 20 lLX15 Wfxd2 2 1 .l:lxd2 �g7
Wfa4 (after 1 8 ...Wfa 1+ 19 �d2 Wfa4 22 lldh2 and White already obtains
20 ..te 1 the king steals away to the the better endgame thanks to his
other flank) 1 9 �b1 when in the control of the h-file) 1 9 �a2 llc6
game Peredun-Djerkovic, Canada (after 19...llb7 20 llh3 :cbS 2 1
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 59

l:b 1 and Black's play comes to a 13 ...'ii'a5

dead end, Mishkovski-Niemand, Black attacks the c2 square and
corr. 1 987) 20 l:b1 l:a6 2 1 �a1 e5 White has two main ways to neu­
22 .i.e3 d5 ! with good counterplay tralise the black queen.
for Black (M.Golubev).
There is nothing significant for 6Ab1: 14 a3
White in transposing to an endgame 6Ab2: 14 'ii'gS
by 1 7 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 1 8 .!Dd5 'ii'xd2 19
tt:lxf6+ �g7 20 tt:lh5+ gxh5 2 1
:.xd2 1Lxd3 22 cxd3 �g6, and the 6Ab1
chances are approximately equal,
Van der Wiei-Reinderman, Holland (1 e4 cS 2 tt:lfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
(ch) 1995. tt:lxd4 tt:lr6 5 tt:lc3 g6 6 1Le3 ..tg7 7
17 b5 1S l:dh1 b4
.•. fJ 0-0 S 'ii'dl tt:lc6 9 0-0-0 tt:lxd4 10
With the inclusion of 1 8 ...e5 19 1Lxd4 1Le6 11 �b1 'ii'c7 12 h4
1Le3, possible, on l 9 ...b4, is the :res 13 g4 Was)
jump back of the knight 20 .!Dd t ! ,
leading to an exchange of queens: 14 a3
20 ... 1Lxd3 2 1 cxd3 l:b5 22 axb4!
'ii'xb4 23 'ii'xb4 l:xb4 24 g4! ±
(A. Cabrera).
19 1Lxc4! bxc3 20 1Lxc3 'ii'xa3
21 ..tbJ! with advantage to White,
who threatens a rook invasiqn on
h6, whereas Black's counterplay has
come to a full stop, Perez-Cabrera,
Cuba 1 998.

6Ab
(l e4 cS 2 tt:lfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tt:lxd4 tt:lr6 5 tt:lc3 g6 6 1Le3 1Lg7 7
14...l:abS
fJ 0-0 S 'ii'd2 tt:lc6 9 0-0-0 tt:lxd4 10
Also worth considering is l 4 ... h5
1Lxd4 1Le6 11 �b1 'ii'c7 12 h4
1 5 g5 tt:le8 16 f4 1Lg4 17 tt:ld5
:res)
'ifxd2 1 8 l:xd2 �ffi 19 1Lg2 and,
13 g4 though White has a space advan­
tage, the absence of weaknesses al­
lows Black to hold the position,
Tseshkovsky-Kir.Georgiev, Yugo­
slavia 1997.
15 hS
Also frequently seen is the
transfer to a complicated endgame
- 1 5 tt:le2 (upon the active 1 5 tt:ld5
Black gets the chance to simplify
the game in a more favourable situ­
ation: 1 5 ...'ifxd2 16 l:xd2 tt:lxd5 1 7
exd5 1Lxd5 1 8 1Lxg7 1Lxf3 1 9 l:h3
60 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

.i.xg4 20 l:tg3 �xg7= Tseshkovsky­ (passive is 22 l:th2 bxa3 23 b3 'it'b4

Mortensen, Riga 1 982, or 1 6 ....i.xd5 and now after 24 .i.xa7 'ii'xd2 25
1 7 exd5 a6 1 8 .i.h3 l:tc7 1 9 l:le 1 b5 l:txd2 :as 26 .i.d4 h6! 27 �a2
20 c3 l:tbb7 2 1 .i.fl a5= �xg7 Black has the preferable end­
Lamoureux- S.B.Hansen, Oakham game, Hellers-Kir.Georgiev, Haifa
1994) 1 5 ... 'it'xd2 (also interesting is 1989, while after 24 Wfe3 a5 25
to avoid the ending by 1 5 ...Wfa4 l:teh 1 a4 26 l:txh7 axb3 Black's
with the idea 16 h5? .i.h6 1 7 tlJc3 attack comes first, Ponce-Ravelo,
l:txc3 18 'it'xc3 l:tc8, while on 16 g5 Puerto Padre 1990) 22 ...bxa3 23
follows 1 6 ...tlJh5) 1 6 l:txd2 a6 1 7 'ii'h6 ! �f7 24 'jj'xh7 Ag8 25 g5
lLJf4 tlJd7 1 8 .i.xg7 �xg7 19 .i.h3 l:txg7 26 'ii'h6 and White's attack
l:tc5 (or 1 9...h6 20 tlJxe6+ fxe6 2 1 goes on (Maliutin, Kimelfeld).
g5 tlJf8 �) 20 g5 .i.xh3 2 1 l:txh3 h6 2) 17 lL!b5 .i.h8 (or 1 7 ...l:txb5 1 8
(on 2 I .. .l:th8?! White develops an .i.xb5 'ii'xb5 1 9 hxg7 bxa3 20 'ii'd3 !
initiative by 22 b4! l:te5 23 tlJd5 or 'ii'c6 2 1 b3 ± Grischuk-Bebalo, Bled
23 tlJd3 l:te6 24 h5 h6 25 tlJf4 � 1999) 1 8 'ii'xb4 1Wxb4 1 9 axb4 a6
Smagin-Lechtinsky, Germany 1992) 20 tlJa7 l:tc7 2 1 b5 axb5 22 tlJxb5
22 tlJd5 hxg5 23 hxg5 e6 24 b4 l:tc6 l:tcc8 23 b3 .i.d7 24 c4 and Black
25 tlJe3 and in view of the possibil­ has no compensation for the sacri­
ity of invasion along the h-file, ficed pawn, Grischuk-Cebalo, Biel
White's chances are preferable, 1999.
Jansa-Jirovsky, Czech Teams (ch) 17 tlJdS!
1993. In Black's favour is 1 7 g5?! b4 1 8
1S...b5 16 h6 tlJb5 'ii'a4 and 1 7 .i.xf6?! .i.xf6 18
Also in this position there are ap­ tlJd5 b4 ! .
parently prospects of transposing to 1 7...'ii'xd2 18 l:txd2 tlJxdS 19
a complicated endgame with a pre­ exdS .i.xd4
liminary clamp of the king's flank. To White's advantage is
Upon the exchange 1 6 hxg6 hxg6 19 ... .i.xd5 20 .i.xh8 .i.xf3 2 1 l:r.h3
1 7 tlJd5 (risky is 1 7 'it'g5 'it'c7 1 8 e5 .i.xg4 22 l:tg3 �xh8 23 l:txg4
tlJe4 19 fxe4 dxe5 20 .i.f2 b4 21 (M.Tal).
axb4 l:txb4 22 'it'e3 'it'a5 23 tlJd5 20 l:txd4 .i.d7 21 .i.d3 and White
l:ta4 and Black goes over to a has a space advantage in the ending.
counterattack, Sisnie_ga-J.Femandez,
Havana 1984) 17 ...Wfxd2 1 8 l:txd2 6Ab2
tlJxd5 19 exd5 .i.xd5 20 .i.xg7
.i.xf3 2 1 l:th3 .i.xg4 22 l:tg3 �xg7 (1 e4 cS 2 lL!f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
23 l:txg4 l:tc5 arises an equal end­ tlJxd4 tlJf6 5 tlJc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
ing, Evans-Zuckerman, New York f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 tlJc6 9 0-0-0 tlJxd4 10
1969. .i.xd4 .i.e6 l l �b1 'ii'c7 12 h4
16 ....i.h8 l:tfc8 13 g4 WaS)
The attempt to go over to a
counterattack by 1 6...b4 entails risk: 14 'ii'g5
1) 17 tlJd5 lL:!xd5 1 8 hxg7 tlJc3+ White proposes a queen ex­
19 �a 1 f6 (19 ...bxa3 20 bxc3) 20 change, relying on his space advan­
l:le1 tlJb5 2 1 .i.xb5 'it'xb5 22 b3 tage in the endgame.
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 61

16 �xg7
..•

14...'W'xg5
An attempt to avoid the endgame
leads to other kinds of concessions. 17 .:th4
1 ) 14 ...b5 1 5 'W'xb5 'ikc7 1 6 'ika4! White is ready not only to double
(A prophylactic retreat, since 16 g5 rooks, but also to advance the f­
.:tabS hands Black the initiative: 1 7 pawn, In the "speed" game
'ikd3 lt!d7 1 8 ..ixg7 �xg7 19 'ikd4+ Ivanchuk-Georgiev, (rapid) Tilburg
�g8 20 �a l 'ika5 2 1 'ika4 'ikxa4 22 1993, was played 17 .i.e2 f6?! 1 8
lt!xa4 .:txc2 winning a pawn, gxf6+ lDxf6 19 lDb5 .:tc5 20 lDd4
Mannion-Bumett, Scotland (ch) ..id7 2 1 c4 when White also kept
1995) 16 ....:tab8 1 7 �a l ! a5 1 8 the initiative. But instead of 17 ...f6
..ib5 'ikb7 19 .:tb I ! and White rad­ worth considering is 1 7 ....:th8 with
ically prevents Black's attack while the idea of ... h7-h6.
retaining the extra pawn, Z.Almasi­ 17....:th8
Kir.Georgiev, Odorheiu Secuiese Black intends the undermining
(zt) 1995 ...h7-h6.
2) 14 ...d5 1 5 exd5 lDxd5 16 ..ixg7 After 17 ... f6 1 8 gxf6+ lDxf6 19
lDxc3+ 17 ..ixc3 'ikxa2+ 1 8 �c I g5 lDd7 (it is no easier after
and White obtains the advantage of 19...lDh5 20 f4 .:tf8 2 1 f5 lDg3 22
the two bishops in a better position fxe6! ±) 20 f4 .:tc5 2 I ltlb5! lt!f8 (or
(I. Gurevich). 2 I .. .lDb6 22 lDd4 ..id7 23 ..id3 ±)
3) 1 4...'ikc7! ? 1 5 a3 with rather 22 ltld4 ..id7 23 ..id3 and the cen­
the better chances for White. tralised white pieces secure him the
15 hxg5 lt!d7 16 ..ixg7 advantage, I.Gurevich-Ward, Lon­
Worth considering is 16 llh4 don 1994 .
..ixd4 17 .:txd4. For example, the The theme of undermining by
game Holzke-Babar, Munster 1 999, ... f7-f6 is also seen after a prelimi­
continued 1 7 ....:tc5 1 8 f4 f6 19 gxf6 nary 1 7 ....:tc5.
lt!xf6 20 g5 lt!d7 2 1 ltldl �g7 22 18 f4
.:td2 a5 23 a4 lt!b6 24 b3 .:tf8 25 I) 1 8 ... f6 19 gxf6+ lt!xf6 20 g5
lt!e3 with a lasting initiative for lDg4 (a crucial move, the alternative
White. Apparently it is better for 20...lDd7 is examined above) 21
Black to prepare the undermining ..ie2 .:tf8. The game Jedryczka­
...h7-h6 after a preliminary Molander, Patras 1999, continued
.. .'�g8-g7 and ....:tc8-h8. 22 .:tfl ?! lDe3 23 .:tfh 1 ..ig8 24 .:tg 1
62 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

eS and Black equalised. More con­

sistent seems 22 -'.g4 .I:U4 23 -'.e6
:r.h4 24 -'.dS. Now in the event of
23 ...bS 24 a3 aS 2S :r.n b4 26 axb4
axb4 27 :r.f7+ Black might lose,
therefore it is better to eliminate the
gS pawn-23 ...:r.g4 with an unclear
endgame.
2) 1 8 ...lDb6 19 -'.d3 f6 20 gxf6+
exf6 2 1 f5 -'.f7 22 lDbS with some
initiative for White, Leko-Shirov,
Bordeaux, 1 999.
18 lDb6 19 a4
••• 13 �b1
After 1 9 b3 Black frees himself A prophylactic king move in anti­
by 19 . . .h6! 20 gxh6+ :r.xh6 2 1 :r.xh6 cipation of the thrust ...'Wc7-aS,
�xh6 22 gS+ �g7 23 a4 aS 24 -'.d3 which is possible after 1 3 g4 l:.ac8
:r.hs and the activity of the rooks al­ 14 c3
lows Black to equalise, Hoffmann­ 1 ) l 4 ...'ii'a5 1 5 g5 lDhS 16 -'.xg7
Jirovsky, Buk 199S. lDxg7 1 7 �b 1 (on 1 7 -'.h3 in the
19...a5 20 -'.b5 :r.ad8 21 f5 -'.c8 game A.Sokolov-Velimirovic, Novi
Or 2 1 . ..-'.c4 22 -'.xc4 lDxc4 23 Sad 1984, Black sacrificed the
.!DdS and, as before, White has the exchange by 17 ...'Wxa2! 1 8 -'.xeS
initiative. :r.xc8 and obtained sufficient
22 :r.n f6 compensation) 17 ... e5 1 8 dxe6 fxe6
On 22 ... h6 possible is 23 f6+ exf6 19 .i.h3 :r.xf3 20 -'.g4 :r.n 2 1 h4 d5
24 gxf6+ �g8 ;t. and Black commenced active
23 gxf6+ �xf6 and Black rids counterplay, Timman-Sosonko,
himself of the pressure from the gS Wijk aan Zee 1978.
pawn. The game Ricardi-Hoffman, 2) 14 ... eS (this move, leading to
Villa .Gesell 1996, continued 24 the creation of a pawn centre for
:r.h2 h6 2S :r.e2 gxfS 26 exfS :r.dg8 Black, weakens his king's flank) I S
27 b4 axb4 28 lDe4+ �f7 29 aS dxe6 fxe6 1 6 -'.d3 eS 17 -'.e3 dS 1 8
-'.d7 with chances for both sides. �bl �h8?! { l 8 . . .:r.fd8 ;t would
have been more prudent) 19 h4 e4
20 h5! with a dangerous attack for
6B Black, Timman-Miles, Holland­
England (m) 1 977.
(1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 13 ...:r.fc8 14 :r.ct
lDxd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 g6 6 -'.e3 -'.g7 7 On 14 c4 good is 14 ... bS I S cxbS
f3 0-0 8 'Wd2 lDc6 9 0-0-0 lDxd4 10 lDxdS 16 -'.xg7 �xg7 1 7 -'.d3 :r.ab8
-'.xd4 -'.e6) 1 8 h4 'WcS 19 hS 'ife3 with equal
chances, Dhar-Chakraborty, Calcut­
l l lDdS ta 1 994
This continuation is advocated by 14...a5
J.Timman. Black's position is cramped and
11 ...-'.xdS 12 exd5 'Wc7 White can use the g6 pawn as a
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 63

lever to help organise an attack on on e6, on reinforcing the d5 square

the king's flank. Thus after with the e6-pawn. However, in this
14 .. .'..d7?! in the game Gufeld­ case Black reveals his plan slightly
Ravisekhar, New Delhi 1984, White too early, while the resulting defects
obtained a dangeorus attack by 1 5 of his pawn formation allow White
g4 b5 1 6 g5 lbh5 1 7 �xg7 lbxg7 1 8 to keep the initiative.
h4. White also came first in the
game Moiseev-Anka, Kecskemet
1 99 1 , which continued 1 4 ...a6 1 5 g4
b5 1 6 g5 lbh5 I 7 �xg7 lbxg7 I 8 h4
+
=·

An interesting idea of attacking

the d5 pawn was realised in the
game De Ia Villa Garcia-Muse,
Berlin I 998: I4 ...�f8 !? I 5 �e3
ifd7 16 g4 b5 1 7 g5 lbh5 1 8 h4
ifb7 1 9 l:tg1 b4 20 l:tg4 (more con­
sistent is 20 f4 followed by �fl-e2)
20 ... a5 2I l:tc4 lbg3 with equal
chances. 10 �b1
Worth considering is counterplay Also frequently played is the im­
in the centre by I 4 ... e5 ! ?. mediate I 0 lbxe6 fxe6, but in this
15 g4 case he does not succeed in exploit­
On I 5 a4?! good is I 5 ...'iWd7! I6 ing the advantage of the move I I
�b5 'iWf5 I7 l:thei �f8! I8 'iff2 h5 ! �c4 because of the re_ply I l . ..'iWc8
19 �d3 'iWxd5 with a complex
· I2 �b3 (or I 2 lbe2 �e5 I 3 �b3
game, Golubev-Stisis, Biel I 994. lbc4 I4 'iWd3 b5! =i=) I2 ...lba5 1 3
15 a4 16 g5 lbd7
..• 'ii'd3 lbxb3+ I4 cxb3 b5 I 5 �b i a6
Or 1 6 ...lbh5 1 7 �xg7 lbxg7 I 8 with chances for both sides. How­
�h3 l:te8 1 9 a3 ;!;. ever White also has at his disposal
17 �xg7 �xg7 18 a3 VaS other promising possibilities.
Deserving attention is I 8 ...'iWc5, 1 ) I I �h6 .i.xh6 (on 1 1 .. .l:tc8
preparing the advance of the White develops an initiative by 12
b-pawn. �c4 'iWd7 I3 �b3 ! , intending on
19 'iWd4+ �g8 20 h4 and White's 13 ...lba5?! 14 �xg7 �xg7 I 5 e5 ±,
chances are preferable, Magem but not 1 3 �xg7 �xg7 after which
Badals-Hausner, Andorra I 999. on I4 �b3 follows 14 ...e5 ! , while
on I4 f4 lba5 1 5 �b3 lbxb3+ I6
Line 7 axb3 'iWc6 I 7 lthe i b5 with a fully
equal game for Black, Rogovsky­
(1 e4 cS 2 lbt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Fedorov, Yalta 1995) 1 2 'iWxh6
lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbcJ g6 6 �e3 �g7 7 lbe5?! 1 3 �b5 :Z.c8 14 'ifh3 �fl I 5
t3 0-0 8 'iWd2 lbc6 9 0-0-0) f4 lbc4 1 6 e5 lbh5 1 7 lbe4 h6 I 8 g4
'iWb6 19 �xc4 lbxf4, occurring in
9...�e6 the game Akopian-Alterman, USSR
By not allowing the bishop to c4, I986, 20 'iWxh6 led to an advantage
Black plans play on the queen's for White, but Black can play more
flank and reckons, after an exchange flexibly-I2 ... l:tc8 13 �c4 'iWd7 ;!;,
64 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

2) I I g3 1Wd7 I 2 Jth3 �e5 I3 15 h4 �xb3 1 6 cxb3 .:tfi 17

1i'e2 b5 I4 f4 ! �c4 I5 e5 �e8 I6 Jtxg7 l:xg7 18 e5 and White main­
Jtd4 �c7 I7 �e4 ! d5 I8 �c5 Wc6 tains the initiative, Liss-S.Farago,
I9 Jtg4! b4 20 h4 and White's at­ Budapest I995.
tack is the more dangerous, Romero
Holmes-Martin Gonzales, Spain Line 8
(ch) I990.
3) I I h4 �e5 I2 Jte2 l:tc8 I3 g4 (1 e4 c5 2 �t3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
1Wa5 14 h5 �c4 I 5 Jtxc4 l:r.xc4 I 6 liJxd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 Jte3 Jtg7 7
hxg6 l:tfc8?! ( 1 6. . .hxg6 ;!;; was more t3 0-0 8 1i'd2 liJc6 9 0-0-0)
reliable) I7 g5 l:txc3 I 8 gxf6 Jtxf6
I9 gxh7+ �h8 20 l:tdg l ! with a 9. Jtd7
..

very strong attack for White,

Arakhamia-Ward, Berne I992.
Worth considering is I4 ... b5 ( I 5
Jtxb5? llxc3) with active
counterplay.
1o ...:cs
Weaker is I0 ...1i'c8?! I I h4 .:td8
1 2 �xe6 fxe6 I3 Jth6 Jth8 14 h5 !
�e5 I 5 hxg6 �xg6 I6 g4 d5 1 7 e5!
(this is even stronger than I7 g5
�e8 I 8 Jth3 ± Velimirovic-Sax,
Vrbas I980) 1 7 ... �xe5 I 8 Wg5
�g6 I9 f4 with an attack on the
king. But possible is IO ... �e5 I I Black completes the development
�xe6 fxe6 I 2 f4 �eg� I3 Jtc4 1Wc8 of his queen's flank, striving for
I4 Jtb3 �xe3 I 5 Wxe3 �h8 1 6 counterplay along the half-open c­
l:thfl with a slight advantage for file. However, this requires a certain
White (Geller). amount of time and practice has
1 1 �xe6 fxe6 12 Jtc4 shown that White's attack on the
Black's task is simpler after I2 king's flank is more weighty.
Jth6 Jtxh6 1 3 Wxh6 �e5. 10 g4
12 ...1Wd7 13 Jtb3 b6 The main continuation. White
After 1 3 ...�e5 White has the begins a two-pawn attack on the
choice between 1 4 We2 a6 I 5 �a4 kingside. The prophylactic I 0 �b 1
± and the sharp I4 Jtxa7 �c4 I 5 leads to a tranposition of moves
Wd3, not fearing 1 5 ... �xb2 I 6 after IO ... l:c8 1 1 h4 liJe5 I 2 g4.
�xb2 l:xc3 I7 1Wxc3 �xe4 I 8 Black can meet the frontal attack
1i'xg7+ �xg7 I 9 fxe4 with more 10 h4 with IO ... h5 I I �b i (the
than sufficient compensation for the obvious 1 1 Jth6?! is justified only
queen, Moiseev-Varga, Budapest after an exchange of bishops:
I99 1 . I l ...Jtxh6 12 1i'xh6 liJxd4 1 3 l:r.xd4
14 �h6 �a5 1i'b6 14 1Wd2 ;!;; Bologan-A.Fedorov,
It is necessary to exchange the Sheki (zt) 1998, but far more un­
strong bishop. After I4 ... �e5 I 5 J21easant for White is I l . . .�xe4 ! 1 2
Jtxg7 �g7 I 6 h4 White's attack is 'Dxe4 Jtxd4 1 3 Jtxf8 1i'b6! with a
unpleasant. dangerous attack for Black-
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 65

V.Bologan) I I ...Was I2 .i.e2 :res hxg6 fxg6 I S eS ! ±) I7 .i.d4 ±

followed by ...lLlc6-eS. Grischuk-Soloviov, Russia 1999;
At the present time there is in­ A.Grischuk recommends 1 3 ...bS ! ?
sufficient analysis on the counter­ 14 lLlcxbS WdS I S hS ;!;.
attacking line IO ...lLleS I I hS :cs l l h4
(after I I ...lL!xhS I2 Wf2 :cs I3 g4 On 1 1 �b 1 follows the same ma­
lLlf6 I4 lLldS it is not clear whether noeuvre, I l . ..lLleS, when after I2
White has enough compensation for .i.e2 in the game Komeev­
the pawn, Shaked-Leonard, A.Fedorov, Krasnodar 199S, Black
Philadelphia I993) 1 2 hxg6 fxg6. sacrificed a pawn by I2 ...bS !? 1 3
As an example we can present the lLldxbS .i.xbS I 4 lLlxbS :bs IS c4
game ].Fernandez Garcia-Hoffman, a6 I 6 lLld4 Wc7 I 7 :c i . Now, in­
Elgoibar I996, which continued 1 3 stead of 1 7 ...:b 7? 1 S lLlb3, after
.i.h6 .i.xh6 I 4 :xh6 a6 I S g3 bS I6 which the break c4-cS was inevi­
.i.h3 .i.xh3 I 7 :xh3 Wd7 IS :dhi table, he should start with
e6 19 g4 :c7 20 �b i lLlc4 2 I WgS 1 S ... lLlfd7 !, intending 1 S ...lLlcS with
b4 22 lLld I eS 23 lLlfS with a sufficient counterplay.
double-edged game. l l ...lLleS
to ..:cs
. In centralising the knight, Black
Sometimes an immediate opens up the cS-rook and thereby
IO ...lLleS is played, then I I h4 counters the exchange of bishops,
I) I l ...bS I 2 hS ! [or I 2 .i.h6 12 .i.h6?, on which follows the
.i.xh6 I3 Wxh6 b4 I4 lLldS lLlxdS thematic exchange sacrifice:
I S exdS f6 I 6 �bi (I6 ...WaS 17 I2 ....i.xh6 13 Wxh6 :xc3! 14 bxc3
lLlb3 ;!; Yakovich-A.Fedoro'v, Sama­ WaS 1 S �b2 :cs I6 Wd2 lLlxf3 ! 17
ra I 99S) I2 . .b4 I3 lLldS lLlxdS I4
. lLlxf3 lLlxe4 and White's posiiton
exdS Was IS �bi WxdS I6 hxg6 collapses like a house of cards, Ni­
fxg6 I7 Wh.2 h6 I S .i.e2! ± ko1aidis-Kanavarakis, Iraklio 1993 .
Bologan-A.Fedorov, Elista (ol) Upon the blockading 1 1 .. .hS
I 99S; also worth considering is the Black might encounter problems
knight sacrifice I2 ...lLlxf3 ! ? 1 3 with the defence of his weakened
lLlxf3 .i.xg4 with the same motive kingside, though it is not easy to
as variation 7B. prove this:
2) I l ...hS I 2 gxhS lLlxhS 1 3 .i.h6
:cs I4 .i.xg7 �xg7 I S f4 lLlc4 I 6
.i.xc4 :xc4 I 7 fS Was I S :hgi
Wes I 9 �b i :res 20 :gs Wf4 with
a double-edged game, Gross­
Schmid, Germany I 99S.
3) I I ...Was I2 �b i :res I3
.i.e2! (on I 3 hS there is the typical
sacrifice for such formations,
I3 ...:xc3 ! I4 Wxc3 Wxc3 I S bxc3
lLlxf3 ! I 6 lL!xf3 .i.xg4 I7 .i.g2
lLlxe4, where the pawn armada fully
compensates for the extra white
rook) I 3 ...lLlc4?! I 4 .i.xc4 :xc4 I S 1) 12 gxhS?! lLlxhS 1 3 :g1 (on 1 3
hS :acS I6 lLlb3 WeS ( I 6...Wa6 I 7 f4 possible is 13 ... WaS with the
66 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0

threat of ...lbc6-b4 and ....l:lc8xc3) This prophylactic move is con­

13 ...lbxd4 14 ..ixd4 Wa5 1 5 ..ixg7 sidered the main continuation.
�g7 16 .l:lg5 .l:lc5 17 Wd4+ e5 1 8 12 Wa5
•.•

Wxd6 ..ie6 and Black's pieces are The usual reaction in such posi­
activated, Rigo-Schrammel, Buda­ tions: the queen is included in the
pest 1983 attack on the king and makes way
2) 1 2 g5 lbe8 13 f4 ..ig4 1 4 ..ie2 for the f8-rook. But also possible is
..ixe2 1 5 lbdxe2 Wa5 16 �b l lbc7 12 ...h5. Now after 1 3 ..th6 Black
1 7 .l:lhfl lbb5 with sufficient can accept the pawn sacrifice:
counterplay, Matros-Veselovsky, 13 ...hxg4 14 ..ixg7 �xg7 1 5 f4 lbc6
Moscow 1994 16 ..ig2 Wb6 17 lbb3 .l:lh8 1 8 .l:lhe 1
3) 1 2 ..ie2 lbe5 13 .l:ldgl b5 ..ie6 19 lbd5 Wd8, setting up a solid
(dangerous is 1 3 ...hxg4?! 14 h5 position, Gdanski-Ciaxz, Dortmund
gxf3 1 5 lbxf3 ±) 14 gxh5 b4 1 5 199 1 , while after 13 gxh5 lbxh5 1 4
it)dl Wa5 16 �bl lbxh5 1 7 f4 lbc4 .l:lgl .:xc3 ! 1 5 bxc3 Wb6+ 16 lbb3
1 8 ..ixc4 .l:lxc4 19 .l:lg5 e5 20 lbf5 ! ilc7 17 ..ie2 �h7 1 8 f4 lbc4 19
and White's attack becomes menac­ ..ixc4 ilxc4 20 e5 l:.c8 2 1 exd6
ing (Sapi, Schneider). ..ixc3 22 ild5 exd6 23 ilxc4 .l:lxc4
4) 1 2 lbd5 hxg4 1 3 h5 lbxh5 1 4 24 .l:lxd6 ..if5 Black's pair of active
lbf5 ! ..ixf5 1 5 exf5 lbg3 1 6 ..ic4 e6 bishops fully compensates for the
17 Wh2 lbh5 1 8 fxg6 fxg6 19 fxg4 sacrificed exchange, Filipenko­
± (Sapi, Schneider) Veselovsky, Smolensk 1992. Also
After l l ...lbe5 we have the worth considering is the pawn sacri­
continuations: fice 12 ... b5 !? since taking it would
be folly according to Bronstein in
SA: 12 �b1 his annotations to the game Boles­
SB: 12 h5 lavsky-Geller, Zurich (ct) 1 953, in
which the drawback of the exchange
SA of bishops 1 3 ..ih6 ..ixh6 14 ilxh6
became clear-14 ... .1:lxc3 ! (one of
(1 e4 c5 2 lbtJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 the first in countless chains of Sicil­
lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 ..ie3 ..ig7 7 ian sacrifices) 1 5 bxc3 Wa5 1 6 We3
tJ 0-0 S Wd2 lbc6 9 0-0-0 ..id7 10 Wa3 17 h5 b4 1 8 Wei Wc3 with a
g4 .l:lcS 1 1 h4 lbe5) good game for Black. In contempor­
ary practice the thrust 1 3 h5 is pre­
12 �b1 ferred, 1 3 ... lbxf3 (a popular knight
sacrifice in recent years, but also in­
teresting is 1 3 ...b4 14 lbd5 and here,
according to an analysis by Sapi and
Schneider, good is 14 ...e6! 1 5
lbxf6+ Wxf6 1 6 g5 Wd8 ! 1 7 Wh2
.l:le8 1 8 hxg6 hxg6 with a defensible
position) 14 lbxf3 ..ixg4 1 5 ..ie2
(on 1 5 Wg2 possible is not only
1 5 .....ixh5, but also 1 5 ... .1:lxc3)
1 5 ...b4?? (a dubious push of the
knight) 16 lbd5 ! lbxe4 17 Wxb4 e6
(also 17 ... ..tf5 1 8 hxg6 e6 1 9 lbh4
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 67

fxg6 20 liJxfS gxfS 2 1 liJf4 l:bS 22 1i'c7 16 .td4, though even here
.i.b5 1i'eS 23 a4 a6 24 liJh5 ± Gal­ White's chances are preferable.
lagher-Summerscale, Cannes 1997) 13 ...liJxf3!
I S 1i'xe4 .tfS 19 1i'xf5 ! ! exf5 20 A popular sacrifice of the knight,
.txa7 :as 2 1 .td4 l:eS 22 .tc4 and exposing the weakness of the pawn
White not only has three minor chain f3-g4-h5 . It seems stronger
pieces for the queen, but also the in­ than the exchan_ge sacrifice
itiative, Am.Rodriguez-Hoffinan, 13 ...l:xc3 14 1i'xc3 'ifxc3 1 5 bxc3,
Linares 1997. It seems, along the since here, on 1 5 ...liJxf3, there is the
lines of variations looked at below, intermediate move 1 6 h6! (after 16
that it is worth Black taking a third liJxf3 .txg4 1 7 .tg2 liJxe4 there ar­
pawn-- 1 5 ....txh5. ises a position from the main vari­
13 hS ation) and White succeeds in
Upon the exchange of queens obtaining the advantage; 1 6 ... .thS
Black maintains sufficient counter­ 17 liJxf3 .txg4 1 S .tg2 liJxe4 19
play: 1 3 liJd5 1i'xd2 14 liJxe7+ �hS l:d3 liJxc3+ 20 �b2! and Black
1 5 .txd2 ! (after 1 5 l:xd2 l:ceS 1 6 does not have compensation for the
liJd5 liJxd5 1 7 exd5 liJxg4 Black is sacrificed rook, Minaeifard-Shafee,
even better) 1 5 ...l:ceS 1 6 .tb4 Teheran 1993.
liJxf3 1 7 liJxf3 liJxe4 1 S liJd5 .txg4 14 liJxf3 .txg4 IS .tg2
with chances for both sides, Here, on 1 5 h6, already possible is
G. Timoshchenko-Gallagher, Jack­ 1 5 ....txf3 1 6 hxg7 l:feS with the
sonville 1990. better chances.
Likewise possible is 1 3 liJb3 .1i'c7 1S...l:xc3!
14 .te2 b5?! 1 5 g5 b4 16 liJb5 Now this exchange sacrifice gains
.txb5 1 7 gxf6 .txf6 1 S .txb5 liJxf3 in strength.
19 1i'e2 with an extra piece for 16 1i'xc3 1i'xc3 17 bxc3 liJxe4
White, Rau-Tiviakov, Italy 1994;
but worth considering is l4 ...liJc4 ! ?
or 1 4 ... a5 !? 1 5 g5 liJh5 16 f4 liJc4
with chances for both sides.
Nevertheless, taking into account
Black's tactical possibilities, it
seems that more prudent would be
an immediate 1 3 .te2, threatening
h4-h5. Now on the blockading
l 3 ...h5 possible is 1 4 gxh5 liJxh5 1 5
liJd5 •ds 1 6 .tg5 l:eS 1 7 l:hg1 ±
with the idea of liJd4-e2-g3
(B.Macieja). In the game Macieja­
Grabarczyk, Poland (ch) 1 997, Black sacrifices a whole rook and
Black sacrificed the exchange, intends to compensate for it with
l 3 ...l:xc3 14 1i'xc3 1i'xc3 1 5 bxc3 new material gains.
l:c8, but after 1 6 liJb3 ! he did not 18 l:d3
obtain sufficient compensation. It is On I S .td4 possible is I S ...e5 1 9
possibly worth limiting himself to h6 .thS 2 0 liJh2 (after 20 l:de I ?
13 ...liJc4 14 .txc4 l:xc4 1 5 liJb3 .txf3 2 1 .txf3 liJd2+ loses a piece)
68 The Rauzer A ttack with 9 0-0-0

20....i.xd1 2 1 .i.xe4 exd4! 22 :d1 complicated game) 14 ... b5, leaves

:es ! and Black wins a fourth pawn Black with counter resources. For
(A.Shafiei). example: 1 5 hxg6 fxg6 16 .i.d4
Leading to similar consequences (weaker is 16 . �b 1 ? b4 +
is 1 8 hxg6 ltlxc3+ 19 �c 1 fxg6 20 Morozevich-A.Fedorov, Russia
:dfl ltle2+ 2 1 �d2 ltlg3. 1997) 16 ...b4 1 7 lLld5 ltlxd5 1 8
18 ...ltlxc3+ 19 :xc3 exd5 a5 with a double-edged posi­
The alternative is to advance the tion (A.Fedorov).
king by 19 �b2 ! ? (on 1 9 �c 1 un­ 13 lLlxf3 .i.xg4
pleasant is 1 9....i.f5 !) 1 9...ltld 1+ 20
�a3 (after 20 �b3 .i.e6+ 2 1 �b4
ltlb2 ! . Black continues to increase
the threats but possible is the draw
offer 20 �b l ltlc3+ 2 1 �b2 ltld1+)
20 ... ltlb2 ! with an initiative for
Black, Gadjilu-Shafiei, Teheran
1997.
19 ....i.xc3 20 hxg6 hxg6 and
Black has four pawns for the piece,
Wang Zili-Ward, China-England
1997.

8B In this position, in contrast to that

looked at above, Black has still not
(1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 mobilised his queen and White ob­
ltlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlcJ g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 tains extra resources in his fight for
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 ltlc6 9 0-0-0 .i.d7 10 the initiative. Let's look at a few
g4 :cs 1 1 h4 lLle5) examples:
I) 1 4 hxg6 (returning the sacri­
1� h5 ficed piece is hardly justified)
This attack is the logical conse­ 14 ... .i.xf3 1 5 gxh7+ �h8 1 6 :g1
quence of the move 1 1 h4, but it al­ lLlg4 1 7 .i.e2 :xc3 1 8 bxc3 'iVa5 19
lows a fashionable sacrifice of a .i.d4 e5 20 .i.e3 'ii'xa2 with an un­
knight. clear game, Wittmann-Hoffman,
12 ...lLlxf3 Novi Sad (ol) 1990.
Black sacrifices a knight, reckon­ 2) 1 4 .i.e2 .txh5 1 5 .i.xa7
ing on obtaining counterplay along (possibly stronger is 1 5 ltld4 !?
the lines of the above-mentioned .lxe2 1 6 'ii'xe2 and it is not easy for
variations. However, for the present Black to prove that his pawns are
his attacking potential on the queen­ compensation for the piece. For ex­
side is insufficient. ample, the attempt to counterattack,
Therefore in this situation it is 16...:xc3 1 7 bxc3 lLlxe4, made in
more logical to look at 1 2 ... 'ii'a5. the game Sermek-A.Kovacevic,
Now 13 �b 1 leads to variation SA, Belgrade 1989, led to a preferable
while the attempt to drive away the QOSition for White after 1 8 .th6!
queen, 1 3 ltlb3 'ii'c7 14 .i.e2 (also lllg3 19 'iVh2 ltlxh 1 20 :xh 1 .te5
interesting is 14 g5 lLlh5 1 5 .!Dd5 2 1 .tf4 .txf4+ 22 'ii'xf4 h5 23
'ii'd8 1 6 f4 ltlg4 1 7 .i.xa7 with a :xh5! e6 24 :h 1) 1 5 ...lLlg4 16
 Th e Rauzer Attack with 9 0-0-0 69

lLld5 ! e6 1 7 lLlf4 l:.a8 1 8 lLlxh5 gxh5 e5 is in White's favour-J.Ehlvest)

19 �d4 with the better game for 1 5 �e2 1i'd7?! 1 6 �d4 with advan­
White, Onischuk-Hodgson, Gron­ tage to White, Ehlvest-Henley, New
ingen 1996. York 1997. J.Ehlvest recommended
3) 14 h6 (an in-between move, re­ 1 5 ...b5 ! when if 16 lLlg5 b4 17 lLld5
moving the h-pawn from attack) lLlxd5 1 8 exd5 �f5 Black obtains
14 ... �h8 ( 1 4 ... J_xf3 1 5 hxg7 �xg7 an equal game. But after the
1 6 �h6+ �g8 1 7 �h3 ! l:.a8 1 8 precautionary 16 a3 ! White's
l:.hfl �xd 1 1 9 1i'xd1 or 17 ...l:.c4 1 8 chances are still preferable.
 2 : Rauzer Attack with 9 �c4

(1 e4 c5 2 lL!tJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 which a considerable part of this

lL!xd4 lLlf6 5 lL!c3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7 monograph is devoted.
t3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 lL!c6) 9. �d7..

A flexible continuation, leaving

9 �c4 Black a great number of possibi­
lities. In particular, he can exploit
one of the most important resources
of his counterplay-the knight man­
oeuvre ...lL!c6-e5-c4-without first
developing the queen, thereby
saving a tempo.
Closely allied to this direction of
play (in its variations) are the con­
tinuations 9...'ii'a5 and 9...'ii'c7,
where after White's best reply 1 0
�b3 the move 10 ...�d7 enters into
Black's plan.
10 0-0-0
The most topical continuation, The main continuation through
characteristic of the latest stage of which White completes the forma­
research of the Rauzer Attack (after tion of a basic construction for pre­
9 0-0-0). White not only prevents paring a kingside attack by
the advance ...d6-d5, but also devel­ h2-h4-h5. However he frequently
ops the light-squared bishop to its starts this immediately with the
most active diagonal. Furthermore move 10 h4, which after 1 O .J:lc8 1 1
•..

he plans 0-0-0 and h2-h4-h5, and if �b3 lL!e5 1 2 h4 leads simply to a

need be also �e3-h6 with an attack transposition of moves. But if White
on the king's flank. Naturally, Black then delays castling the game has its
should seek counterchances on the own peculiarities, which are looked
queens ide. at in Chapter 1 5 .
In this aspect 1 0 �b3 (Line 19)
Here the following continuations
also has its own nuances.
are met: 9 �d7 (Lines 9-1 9),
10....J:lc8
...

9 lL!xd4 (Line 20), 9 lL!d7 (Line

One of the main continuations
... ...

2 1), 9 .lL!a5 (Line 22), 9 a5 (Line

IO . 'ii'a5, often employed through
.. ...

23) and 9 .a6 (Line 24).

..

the move order 9 ...'ii'a5 1 0 �b3

..

For convenience of a methodical .id7, is examined in Lines 12, 1 3 ,

layout of material, we start with the 1 4 and 1 5 .
most common continuation, to Other continuations are also seen:
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 71

10 'iibS-Line 16
.•. lllb 5 .i.f5 17 lllxc7 'ii'xc7 1 8 g4
10..Ji'c7-Line 17 .i.e6 1 9 l:.he 1 l:.c8 20 �b 1 llld5
with sufficient compensation for the
l l .i.b3 exchange, Byrne-Tarjan, Oberlin
It is hardly possible to recom­ (zt) 1975, and 1 5 llldb5 a6 1 6 �xf6
mend I I lllxc6 .i.xc6 12 .i.b3. If he i.xf6 17 'ii'xd7 'ifb6 1 8 llld5 'ii'xb5
wishes, Black can sacrifice a pawn 19 lllxe7+ .i.xe7 20 'ii'xe7 'ii'c6 2 1
for an initiative: 12 ...b5 !? 13 .i.xa7 c3 e4 with full equality,
'ii'a5 14 .i.d4 b4 15 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 16 Mikhalchishin-Basin, Minsk 1985)
llld5 .i.xd5 1 7 exd5 l:.c5 and, with 15 ...l:.c7 16 lllb5 (also there is the
opposite-coloured bishops and other preliminary exchange 16 .i.xf6 exf6
pieces on the board, the chances are 17 lllb 5 .i.f5 ! 1 8 llJxc7 'ii'xc7; the
usually on the side having the more game Kindermann-Kir.Georg_iev,
active bishop, as in Santo Roman­ Dortmund 1991 , continued 1 9 lllc3
Komeyev, Ubeda 1 996. l:.c8 20 �b1 .i.e6 2 1 llle4? 'ii'c4! 22
l l .lLleS
.. b3 'ii'c6 23 c4 f5 24 lllg5 .i.c4! 25
.:c 1 when Black can pursue the
attack by 25 ...'ii'f6! 26 l:.c4 l:.d8;
stronger was 21 g4 f5 22 gxf5 .i.xf5
23 llle4 with chances for both si­
des-Kir.Georgiev) 1 6....i.f5! 1 7
0.xc7 'ii'xc7 1 8 lllc3 l:.c8 19 l:.he 1
(or 19 �b I 'ifb6 20 l:.he 1 e4 with
good counterplay for Black, Wahls-
Koch, Dortmund 1989) 19 ... b5 (also
deserving attention is 1 9...llle 8!?,
aiming for the c4 square after
20 ...llld6) 20 g4 (in the game
Wahls-Aiterman, Manila (ol) 1992,
The initial pos1t1on of the vari­ followed 20 �b 1 ?! b4 21 llle4
ation. The main continuation is 0.xe4! 22 fxe4 .i.e6 and Black
reckoned to be the flank attack 12 retains the initiative) 20... .i.e6! 2 1
h4, which is looked at in Lines 8 0.xb5 'ifb6 22 lllc3 e4 ! with
and 9. Deserving separate examin­ chances for both sides, both in the
ation is the prophylactic king move case of 23 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 24 l:.xe4
12 �b l , which has frequently been .i.xa2, and upon 23 .i.e3 'ii'a5 24
employed lately (Line 9). llJxe4 'ii'xa2 (B.Aiterman,
Sometimes seen is 1 2 .i.g5, upon A.Vaisman).
which White carries out his plan
with central strategy linked to the
pawn break e4-e5, based on the mo­ Line 9
tive of a pin on the d-file: 12 ...lllc4!
(on 1 2 ...Wa5 possible is 1 3 l:.he1 (1 e4 cS 2 0.f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
l:.c5 14 f4 lllc6 1 5 tllf3 �e6 1 6 0.xd4 lllf6 S lllc3 g6 6 .i.eJ .i.g7 7
�b 1 l:.c8 1 7 llld 5;t Micha1chishin­ f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 0.c6 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10
Watson, Hastings 1985/86) 1 3 0-0-0 l:.c8 1 1 .i.b3 lLleS)
.i.xc4 l:.xc4 1 4 e5 dxe5 1 5 lllde2
(also encountered is 1 5 lllb3 l:.c7 16 12 'it>b1
72 The Rauzer A ttack with 9 i..c4

9A

(1 e4 cS 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
�xd4 �f6 S �c3 g6 6 i.. e3 i..g7 7
f3 0-0 8 'ifd2 �c6 9 i..c4 i..d7 10
0-0-0 l:lc8 1 1 i..b3 �es 1 2 �bl
�c4 13 i..xc4 l:lxc4 14 g4)

14....'ifc7

White immediately moves the

king to a safer position. This plan
has recently come into fashion.
12 ...�c4 13 i..xc4 .Zbc4 14 g4
If White does not go for a trans­
position of moves by 14 h4 (after
14 ... h5 arises a position looked at in
Line 9), then only this way has inde­
pendent significance. Incidentally
we should mention that on 14 h4
Black can also play more decisively Black is ready to transfer the sec­
-14 ... b5 !? 1 5 h5 b4 1 6 �ce2 e5 17 ond rook to the c-file, but the queen
�b3 d5, obtaining a position full of is vulnerable on c7.
initiative. IS gS �hS 16 �dS 'ifd8 17 �e2
White attacks the a7 pawn, which
Black's main continuations are: Black is practically forced to sacri­
fice (on 1 7 ... b6, 1 8 'ifd3 is
9A: 14 ....'ifc7 unpleasant).
9B: 14...bS 17 i..e6
.•.

1 7 ... e6?! is dubious: 1 8 �df4

On 1 4 ...'ifa5 good is 1 5 �b3 ! (also good is 1 8 �c3) 1 8 ... �xf4
'ifa6 (more prudent is 1 5 ...'ifd8) 1 6 19 �xf4 l:lc6 20 h4 'ifc7 2 1 h5 and
e5 ! ? ;t, but also possible is a classi­ White's attack comes first, Kolev­
cal attack, for example the game Aiterman, Burgas 1995.
Slobodjan-Malakhov, Cafe Cup 18 i..xa7
1999, continued: 16 i..h6 l:lfc8 1 7 To win a pawn, White is prepared
i..xg7 �g7 1 8 h4 h6 1 9 g5 �h5 20 to put up with some initiative from
l:r.h2 b5 2 1 'ife3 e5 22 l:lhd2 l:l8c6 Black. A positional approach is also
23 �d5 and White obtained the seen:
advantage. 1) 1 8 �g3 i..xd5 19 exd5 (or 19
On 14 ...'ifb8 good is 1 5 g5 �h5 ,..xd5 'ifc7=) 1 9...'ifd7 ! 20 b3 l:lc7
1 6 b3 l:lcc8 1 7 �5 ± Cawart­ 2 1 �xh5 gxh5 22 i..d4 i..xd4 23
S.Farago, Budapest 1999. ,..xd4 l:lfc8 with equal chances,
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i.c4 73

Svidler-Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee It is useful to upset the

1999. coordination of the black rooks. An
2) 1 8 Wd3 i.xd5 1 9 exd5 .:ta4 20 immediate capture of the pawn en­
'tfbS (also possible is 20 'tfb3 WaS tails risk: 1 5 ltldxb5 'ifb8 (also
2 1 i.d2 'ii'a6 22 ltlg3 ;!;) 20...Wa5 worth considering is l 5 ...Wa5 16
2 1 Wxa5 .:txa5 22 lDg3 with some­ ltld4 .:tb8 1 7 ltlb3 Wb4 18 i.h6
what the better endgame for White, .i.h8 19 e5 dxe5 20 g5 .:td4 2 1 We3
Tiviakov-Aiterman, Beijing 1 997. ltle8 with a double-edged game,
18 i.xd5
•.• Emst-Scholseth, Gausdal 1 993) 1 6
In the game Ehlvest-Tiviakov, ltld4 .:tfc8 17 �a l i.xg4 ! (with a
Port Erin 1998, Black sacrificed a piece sacrifice Black smashes
second pawn: l 8 ... b6 19 i.xb6 WaS, White's bastion on the c-file; in the
but after 20 b3 i.xd5 2 1 exd5 .:th4 game Malakhov-Dragojlovic, San
22 c3 .:tb8 23 i.e3 .:ta4 24 Wc2 .:ta3 Giorgio 1999, Black played
25 ltlc I White managed to level l 7 ...i.e6 but after 1 8 h4 'tfb7 1 9
down Black's threats. .:tb I ltld7 20 h5 ltlcS 2 1 hxg6 hxg6
19 Wxd5 Wc7 20 c3 .:tc8 2 1 .i.d4 22 'ii'h2 ! .:txd4 23 Wh7+ �f8 24
and Black's compensation for the i.h6 �e8 25 Wxg7 .:tc4 26 b3 did
pawn looks insufficient, Bologan­ not obtain sufficient compensation
Chatalbashev, Bourbon-Laney for the sacrificed pawn) 1 8 fxg4
1998. ltlxe4 19 We2 ( 19 ltlxe4 .:txc2)
l9 ....:txc3 ! 20 bxc3 ltlxc3 2 1 'ii'd2
9B WaS with a strong attack for Black,
Shchekachev-Golubev, Dimitrov­
(1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 grad 1988.
ltlxd4 ltlf6 5 ltlcJ g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7 If the sacrifice is declined Black
f3 0-0 8 Wd2 ltlc6 9 i.c4 i.d7 10 gets a fully equal game.
0-0-0 .:tc8 1 1 i.b3 ltles 12 �b1 I ) 1 5 h4 b4 16 ltlce2 (or 16 ltld5
ltlc4 13 i.xc4 .:txc4 14 g4) e6 17 ltlxf6+ Wxf6 1 8 Wh2 .:tfc8 19
.:td2 i.a4 20 g5 We5 2 1 Wxe5 dxe5
14 b5
••. � Bajmuradov-Nad.yrhanov, Bish­
kek (zt) 1993) l 6 ...'ifc7 (not good is
l6 ... h5 1 7 gxh5 ltlxh5 1 8 .:tdg l ±)
17 h5 .:tc8 1 8 i.h6 i.h8 19 .:tc I
Wc5 20 i.e3 We5 with chances for
both sides, Agnos-Siuka, Pardubice
1997.
2) I S Wd3 'tfbs 1 6 g5?! ltlhs 1 7
ltld5 e6 I 8 ltlf6+ ( I 8 ltle7+ �h8 1 9
ltlb3 .:te8 +) l 8 ...ltlxf6 1 9 gxf6
i.xf6 20 h4 .:tfc8 2 1 h5 d5 ! and
Black seizes the initiative,
Lanka-A.Fedorov, Chisinau 1998.
1s .:.cs
.•.

Black sacrifices a pawn in order On l 5 ....:tc5 it is necessary to

to open the b-file. reckon with the thrust 16 ltle6! fxe6
15 b3! 17 i.xc5 dxc5 (also insufficient is
74 The Rauzer Attack with 9 �c4

1 7 ...1i'c7 1 8 �d4 e5 1 9 �e3 l::r.c 8 20 f3 0-0 8 1i'd2 lLic6 9 �c4 �d7 10

l[)d5 ± or 1 7 . . .1i'a5 1 8 �d4 b4 19 0-0-0 ltc8 11 �b3 l[)eS)
l[)e2 l::r.c 8 20 g5 ±) 18 e5 1Va5 (or
1 8...1Vb8 19 exf6 �xf6 20 1Vxd7 12 h4
�xc3 2 1 1Vxe6+ with material
gains, Hracek-Glienke, Komercni
Banka 1999) 19 exf6 �xf6 20 l[)e4
1i'xd2 2 1 l:txd2 �c6 22 l[)xf6+
l::r.xf6 23 l::r.fl �xf3 24 l::r.d7 with the
clearly better endgame, Tiviakov­
Van Wessel Weekender 1999.
16 l[)dxbS WVaS 17 a4 a6 18 l[)dS
1Vxd2
In the game Motylev-Soloviov,
Moskow 1999, Black made an
unsuccessful queen sacrifice:
1 8 ...lLixd5 19 1Vxa5 lLixe3 20 lLic7
l::r.b8 2 1 l[)d5 l[)c4 22 1Vc7 l[)a3+ 23 The main continuation, with
�a2 1-0. which White sets about storming the
19 l[)xe7+ �h8 20 l::r.xd2 l::r.ce8 2 1 position of the enemy king.
l[)xg6+ 12...l[)c4
In the game G.Timoshenko­ Another very important branch of
Rogozenko, Cappelle Ia Grande play is the blockading move 1 2 ... h5
1998, was played 2 1 lbf5 gxf5 which is considered in Line 9.
(weaker is 2 l . ..axb5 because of 22 The inclusion of the move 1 2 ... a5
ll'lxg7 �xg7 23 l::r.xd6 l::r.e6 24 l:thd 1 reduces Black's possibilities.
±) 22 l[)xd6 fxg4 (23 ...l::r.b8 24 gxf5 1) 13 a4 l[)c4 14 �xc4 (it is not
±) 23 lLixe8 l::r.xe8 24 �d4 �c6 25 logical to exchange the dark­
�xf6 �xf6 26 l:txd6 l::r.e6 27 l::r.xe6 s_quared bishop by 14 1i'e2 lLixe3 1 5
fxe6 28 fxg4 �c3 29 l::r.d 1 and 'Wxe3 l:tc5 16 g4 ,.,c7 1 7 h5 ltc8 1 8
though the rook is up against two hxg6 hxg6 and because of the threat
bishops, White's chances are prefer­ of 1 8 ...ltc2xc3 Black has a fully
able. Also good is 2 1 lLid6 l::r.e7 22 equal game, Ostojic-Velimirovic,
�c5 ;!;, Vmjacka Banja 1973) 14 ... .r:r.xc4 1 5
21 ...fxg6 22 ll'lxd6 l::r.e6 23 �cS b3 l::r.c8 1 6 h5 l[)xh5 1 7 g4 l[}f6 1 8
After 23 l[)b7 �c8 24 l[)c5 l::r.c6 �h6! �xh6 1 9 1Vxh6 ltxc3 20 g5
25 h3 g5 Black has sufficient l::r.e8 2 1 gxf6 exf6 22 l::r.dg 1 ! with a
counterplay, Topalov-Tiviakov, Po­ strong attack for White, Slym-Stem,
lanica Zdroj 1 995 corr. 1980.
23 ...�c6 24 l[)c4 l::r.b8 25 l::r.d6 2) 1 3 h5 a4 (or 13 ...l[)xh5 1 4 g4
l::r.xd6 26 �xd6 and White has four l::r.xc3 1 5 bxc3 l[}f6 1 6 �h6 a4 1 7
pawns for the piece, Bologan­ �xg7 �xg7 1 8 �xa4 �xa4 1 9
A.Fedorov, Calcutta 1999. l[}fS+ 1 -0 Draskovic-Razic, corr.
1974) 14 lLixa4 �xa4 1 5 �xa4 lLic4
Line 10 16 1i'd3 •as 1 7 �b3 d5 1 8 hxg6
hxg6 19 exd5 l[)xd5 20 �d2 ! and
{l e4 cS 2 l[}fJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Black does not have sufficient com­
l[)xd4 l[}f6 S l[)c3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7 pensation for the pawn.
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i.c4 75

13 i.xc4 :hS !) 26 ... :xg6 27 ltldS+ �eS ! 2S

Upon the exchange of the dark­ lilxb7 :xh6 leads to material losses.
squared bishop, 1 3 'ife2 lilxe3 14 14...lilxh5
'ifxe3 'ifb6 15 'ifd2 'ifc5, White If he refuses the pawn sacrifice
leaves the Dragon bishop without an then White continues the attack "for
adversary and reduces his own at­ free". For example, 14 ... 'iVc7 (or
tacking resources. For example, 1 6 14 ... 'iVa5 1 5 lilb3 'ifc7 1 6 i.h6 ±)
g4 b5 1 7 g5 lilh5 I S lild5 :res 19 1 5 hxg6 fxg6 1 6 �bl :cs 17 g4
llle2 i.e6 with equal chances, (17 lilde2 cuts down the time for the
Shmit-Parma, Belgrade 196 1 , or 1 6 attack, then I 7 ...i.e6 I S lilf4 'ifd7
h5 lilxh5 1 7 lild5 :res I S lilf5 and now, as played in the game
i.xf5 19 exf5 lilg3 with good Matulovic-Velimirovic, Novi Sad
counterplay for Black, G.Kuzmin­ 1976, 1 9 e5?!, Black seized the in­
Levy, Cienfuegos 1973. itiative by an exchange sacrifice-
13 Jhc4 14 h5
.• 19 ...:xc3 ! 20 bxc3 'ifb5+ 2 1 �a I
A pawn sacrifice for the initiative. i.c4! +, it seems that already he
On the preparatory move 14 g4 should exchange the bish�p by 1 9
simplest is 14 ...'ifa5, which leads to lilxe6 'ifxe6) 1 7 ...b5 I S Wfh2 ! and
a position looked at in the variation White's attack is the more
with I O...'ifa5 (Lines 1 1 , 1 2). dangerous.
Upon the continuation 14 ...'ifc7 it 15 g4 lilf6
is necessary to reckon on the attack
1 5 h5 :cs 1 6 hxg6 fxg6 1 7 �bl b5
I S lild5 lilxd5 19 ex,d5 i.e5 (in the
game Beliavsky-Gufeld, USSR
1976, Black moved the queen:
19 ...'ifb7? 20 'ifh2 �fl 2 1 'iff4+
�gS 22 :xh7 ! and came under a
powerful attack) 20 'itd3 'ifb7 2 1
:xh7 !? (in the game Djurhuus-Tis­
dall, Reykjavik 1 996, the moves 2 1
'iVe4 e6 were included, but after 22
:xh7? the attack does not achieve
its aim; however also on the more
natural 22 dxe6 i.xc6 23 'itd3 i.xf3 White has sacrificed a pawn. But
24 lilxf3 'ifxf3 there is apparently how can he now pursue the attack?
nothing significant, J.Tisdall) Modem practice does not give any
2 l .. .�xh7 22 :h i+ �g7 23 :h6 clear reply.
:gs 24 :xg6+ �hS? 25 :h6+ �g7 The most frequently played con­
26 lile6+ i.xe6 27 dxe6 and White tinuations are:
has irresistible threats, Piket-Soson­
ko, Eindhoven 1 993. But all the lOA: 16 e5
same, as pointed out by J.Tisdall, lOB: 16 lilde2
Black can defend by means of 10C: 16 b3
24...�f8 and all that is left for · lOD: 16 �bl
White is perpetual check after 25 lOE: 16 lild5
:gS+ �xg8 26 'ifg6+, since 25 lOF: 16 i.h6
lile6+ i.xe6 26 lilxe6 (26 dxe6 lOG: 16 lilb3
76 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i.c4

But before looking at the main An attempt to break up Black's

continuations it is useful to become position by force. If the pawn sacri­
acquainted with those less widely fice is accepted, White endeavours
used: to get at the king, exploiting the pin
I) 1 6 l:.dgl e6 1 7 �bl 'tfa5?! I S on the d-file. Since the retreat
�b3 'tfc7 1 9 i.f4 e5 20 g5 �h5 2 1 16 ...�eS is not possible here be­
�d5 'tfdS 22 i.e3 i.e6 23 �f6+ cause of 1 7 'ifh2, Black has two real
�xf6 24 gxf6 'ifxf6 25 i.g5 'tfxf3 replies:
26 'iVh2 with an attack for White,
Vasiukov-Parma, Yugoslavia-USSR IOAa: 16 ...dxeS
1963. IOAb: 16...lLlxg4
2) 16 �f5 i.xf5 17 exf5 Was I S
�b 1 :res 19 g5 �d7 20 �ds 'tfdS IOAa
2 1 'ifh2 �f8 22 c3 b6 23 i.d4 l:.xd4
24 l:.xd4 gxf5 with a complicated (I e4 cS 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
game, Seger-Qwint, corr. l 9S7. lLlxd4 lLlf6 S lLlc3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
3) 16 l:.h2 l:.eS 17 �f5 i.xf5 1 S f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 lLlc6 9 i.c4 i.d7 10
gxf5 'tfa5 1 9 �b1 l:.ecS 20 i.h6 0-0-0 l:.c8 I I i.b3 lLle5 12 h4 lLlc4
l:.xc3 2 1 i.xg7 �xg7 22 fxg6 fxg6 13 i.xc4 l:.xc4 14 hS lLlxhS IS g4
23 bxc3 l:.xc3 with sufficient lLlf6 16 eS)
compensation for the exchange,
Zezulkin-Lakos, Budapest 1 99 1 . 16...dxeS 17 lLlb3!
4) 1 6 l:.h4 e5 1 7 tDb3 l:.xc3 I S
bxc3 �xe4 1 9 'iVh2 �g5 with ad­
vantage to Black, Farago-Szalanczy,
Budapest 1 993.
8A
(I e4 c5 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLl�d4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
f3 0-0 8 'tfd2 lLlc6 9 i.c4 i.d7 10
0-0-0 l:.c8 I I i.b3 lLle5 12 h4 lLlc4
13 i.xc4 l:.xc4 14 h5 lLlxh5 1 5 g4
lLlf6)

16 eS 17 ...l:.c6
The threat was g4-g5 and so
Black should counter the pin by
transferring the rook to d6. The
dangers facing Black if he ignores
this threat were shown by the game
Behnk-Anka, Strasbourg 1 99 1 ,
which continued 1 7 . . .'tfc7 I S g5
i.f5 19 gxf6 exf6 20 'ii'd6 'ii'xd6 2 1
l:.xd6 :res 22 lLld2 l:.xc3 23 bxc3
i.f8 24 l:.xf6 l:.xc3 25 l:.xf5 and
White obtained a material
advantage.
 The Rauzer A ttack with 9 i.c4 77

18 .tcs But also worth considering is the

The other way of attacking the d6 direct method 1 8 ... h6 !? and after 19
square is 1 8 lL!b5 (while taking l:lxh6 b6 Black's position is quite
under control the d6 square, White dynamic. For example, in the game
also attacks the a7 pawn with tempo Wibe-Nesis, corr. 1989/9 1 , White
and renews the threat of g4-g5) moved away the rook 20 l:h4?!, but
1 8 ...l:c8 19 lL!xa7 i.c6 20 lL!xc8 after 20 ...bxc5 2 1 'ii'h2 l:e8 22 l:h 1
'ifxc8 2 1 l:hfl (also worth consider­ �f8 23 l:h8+ lL!g8 24 l:h7 g5! his
ing is 2 1 'iff2) 2 l ...e4! 22 g5 iLlh5 attack proved insufficient. Upon the
23 fxe4 lL!g3 24 l:g I lL!xe4 25 'ii'h2 retreat of the bishop to its previous
'ife6 26 l:h l lL!xg5 ! 27 i.xg5 i.xhl post-20 i.e3 i.xh6 21 i.xh6 l:d6
28 l:xh 1 h5 and Black has sufficient Black also obtains the advantage.
compensation for the piece, His chances are also no worse after
Vancsura-Szalanczy, Budapest the better 20 i.a3 i.e6=.
1988. 19 lL!e4 lL!xe4 20 fxe4 l:c7 21
The direct attack 1 8 g5 is repulsed l:lh3 b6 22 i.a3 'iff6 23 i.d6 l:b7
by 1 8 ...l:d6, while the attempt to 24 i.xf8 i.xf8 2S 'ifg2 i.c6 and
sharply change the character of the Black has sufficient compensation
game by 19 gxf6 l:xd2 20 l:xd2 for the exchange, O'Carroll­
exf6 2 1 l:hd l (on 2 1 lL!c5? Black Szalanczy, Cattolica 1993.
gives up the queen by 2 I . ..i.c6! 22
l:xd8 l:xd8 23 l:fl f5 and obtains lOAb
the advantage since his pawns, sup­
ported by the bishops, prove to be (1 e4 cS 2 lL!fJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
highly mobile, Amos-Selick, Ca­ lL!xd4 lL!f6 S lL!cJ g6 6 i.eJ i.g7 7
nada 1972) 2 l ...f5 22 l:xd7 'ifh4 23 f3 0-0 8 'ifd2 lL!c6 9 i.c4 i.d7 10
l:xb7 'ifh3 does not achieve its ob­ 0-0-0 l:c8 1 1 i.b3 iDeS 12 h4 lL!c4
jective and the outcome of the 13 i.xc4 l:xc4 14 hS lL!xhS IS g4
struggle is not at all clear. iLlf6 16 eS)
On 1 8 'ii'h2 possible is 1 8 ...l:xc3 !
(weaker is 1 8 ... h5?! 1 9 lLlc5 l:d6 20 16 lL!xg4!
••.

l:dgl i.c6 21 lLI5e4 and White

achieves the advantage, Vogt­
Perenyi, Leipzig 1988, but by play­
ing 1 8 ...l:xc3 ! 1 9 bxc3 'ifc8! 20
i.g5 (also after 20 i.h6 i.xh6+ 2 1
'ifxh6 i.c6 Black has sufficient
compensation for the exchange)
20...h5 2 1 gxh5 lL!xh5 22 'ifd2 i.f5
23 i.xe7 l:e8 24 i.g5 e4 and Black
goes over to a counterattack, Ilincic­
Szalanczy, Balatonbereny 1 988.
18...e6!?
Since White can ignore the attack
1 8 ...b6 by playing 19 g5 ! , Black The most effective decision. With
prevents this move, intending an ex­ a counter-sacrifice of a piece Black
change sacrifice backed up by a goes over to a counterattack.
solid pawn equivalent. 17 fxg4 i.xg4
78 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i..c4

On 1 7 ...i..xe5? White holds on to better chances) 23 ...h5 24 �d2 .:cs

the initiative by 1 8 ..,g2 .:e8 19 25 .:d1 (25 'i'xb7 i..h6+) 25 ......e6
.:xh7! �xh7 20 �3+ �g8 21 .:h 1 26 �c 1 f5 27 �d2 ..,d5 28 �b1 e5
e6 22 �7+ �f8 23 i..h6+, devel­ with advantage to Black, Hellers­
oping a strong attack, Adorjan­ Emst, Sweden 1987.
Ostojic, Olot 1974. 2) 21 �d1 ...d5 22 �2 h5 23
18 .:dgl �b1 .:c8 24 .:g3 ! e5 25 .:e1 .:c6
On 1 8 i..h6?! Black himself sacri­ 26 ..,e2 .:e6 27 c3 .:ta6 with
fices the exchange: 1 8 ...i..xe5 ! 1 9 chances for both sides, Gasanov­
�de2 ( 19 i..xf8 .:xd4 is clearly in Khachian, USSR 1 988.
Black's favour) 19 ... .:e8 20 .:tdfl And though, in view of
(20 �d5 .:c5 2 1 �e3 � 22 c3 insufficient practical trials, it is risky
.:ec8 + Vaisman-Pavlov, Jassi to give a final verdict on the move
1 975) 20 ......a5 2 1 ..,d3 .:ec8 and 19 ....:xd4!?, the logic of it is in no
obtains more than sufficient com­ doubt.
pensation, Popovic-Fedorowicz, 20 .:xhS
New York 1974. Also interesting is 20 ...e2.
18 dxeS 19 .:xg4
.•. 1) 2o ....:xd4 2 1 l:.gg 1 .:d6 22
ii'g2 ! (after 22 �e4 .:c6?! 23 �g3
the threats of 24 �xh5 and 24 �f5
are highly unpleasant, but by play­
ing 22 ....:a6! 23 a3 ..,d5 Black
obtains excellent counterchances,
Tsimbalov-Novokhatny, corr. 1990)
22 ......a5 23 ..,xb7 e4 with sufficient
counterplay for Black, Wahls-Tatai,
Aosta 1988.
2) 20 ... exd4 2 1 .:xg6! fxg6 22
ii'xc4+ �h7 (or 22 ... �h8 23 .:d1 e5
24 �e4 �4 25 �g5 ..,g4 26 i..d2
e4? 27 �e6 ± Vitomskis-Koifman,
19 hS
... corr. 1985, though after 26....:f2 !
At one time this intermediate Black retains counterplay) 23 .:d1
move was considered to be the best, ii'b8! and Black wins back the
but possibly even stronger is piece, retaining the better chances,
19 ....:xd4! ? 20 i..xd4 (as pointed Huttig-Schneider, Bad Mergentheim
out by Ernst, after 20 �2 h5 2 1 1988.
.:gg1 Black is not forced to move 20 .:xd4!
...

the rook and can continue with play It was not possible to take the
in the centr�2 l .. ...,d7 ! 22 �b1 rook-20...gxh5? because of 2 1
.:ds 23 i..xd4 exd4 24 �e4 e5, ob­ i..h6! .:Xd4 2 2 .:Xg7+ �h8 23 � .
taining a highly mobile pawn chain; Likewise 20...exd4? is weak, since
on 25 ..,g2, with the idea .:hl xh5, after 2 1 .:hI ! White has a very
possible is 25 ......g4) 20 ... exd4 strong attack with, above all, 22
1) 2 1 �e4?! ..,d5 ! 22 .:gh4 ..,xa2 ii'h2 threatened.
23 � (also after 23 c3 h5 24 cxd4 1 ) 2 1 ....:c6 22 �2 f5 23 .:xd4!
ii'a1 + 25 �c2 ...a4+ Black gets five and White's attack is decisive,
pawns for the rook, retaining the Dvoiris-Asanov, USSR 1977.
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 79

2) 2 I . ..'ii'd6 22 .i.h6 f5 23 .i.xg7 flank. However the loss of tempo

�xg7 24 lbb5 'ii'c6 25 'ii'h6+ �fl can be exploited by Black for
26 lbd4 with dangerous threats, defence.
Schulte-Rigo, Dortmund 1987.
21 .i.xd4 exd4
And though White has an extra
rook, he has two pieces simulta­
neously under attack which keeps
the chances equal.
22 lDd5
A similar idea is 22 lbe4 gxh5 23
:xg7+ �xg7 24 'ii'g5+ �h7 and
White apparently has nothing better
than to force a draw by perpetual
check, Chumak-Okhotnik, USSR
1970.
22 gxh5 23 llxg7+
••• Black's main continuations here
On 23 'ii'g 5? follows 23 ... hxg4 24 are:
lbxe7 'ii'xe7 ! .
23...�xg7 24 'ii'g5+ �h7 25 lOBa: 16 'ii'a5
.••

'ii'xh5+ �g7 26 'ii'g5+ �h7 27 lOBb: 1 6 1le8

..•

lbxe7 d3!
In the game Boeykens-Olthof, lOBa
Belgium 1989, "'as played
27 ...'ii'b6? 28 lDf5 and Black (1 e4 c5 2 lDO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
resigned. lbxd4 lDf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
28 'ii'h5+ with a draw by perpet­ 0 0-0 8 'ii'd2 lbc6 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10
ual check. 1/z- 1/z . 0-0-0 llc8 1 1 .i.b3 lbe5 12 h4 lDc4
13 .i.xc4 :xc4 14 h5 lbxh5 15 g4
lDf6 16 lDde2)
lOB
16 ...'ii'a5 17 .i.h6
(1 e4 c5 2 lDO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lbxd4 lDf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
0 0-0 8 'ii'd2 lbc6 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10
0-0-0 llc8 11 .i.b3 lbe5 12 h4 lbc4
13 .i.xc4 llxc4 14 h5 lbxb5 15 g4
lDf6)

16 lDde2
By moving the knight away from
attack, White solves several
problems.
He renders harmless the threat to
sacrifice the exchange on c3,
threatens to play e4-e5, and besides 17 .i.xh6
..•

this, if the opportunity arises, he can Black is practically forced to rec­

transfer the knight to the king's oncile himself to an exchange of his
80 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i..c4

key bishop, since he cannot react sufficient compensation for the

"optimistically" with 17 ....:fc8 in exchange.
view of 1 8 i..xg7 'ii;lxg7 19 'ifh6+ 2) 19 g5 lLlh5 20 l:[xh5 gxh5 2 1
'ii;lg8 20 l:[d3 b5 2 1 lLlf4 b4 22 g5 ± lD<i5 ! .:xc2+ 22 'ii;lb 1 'ifd8 (as
Schebler-Friedrichs, Budapest 1999. pointed out by Dobsa, stronger is
The thematic exchange sacrifice 22 ...'ii;lh 8! with the idea after 23 g6
17 ...i..h 8 1 8 i..x £8 'ii;lx £8 entails fxg6 24 lLlef4 l:[c i +! to force a draw
definite risk, though upon slow play by perpetual check) 23 lLlef4! 'iV£8
such as 19 'ii;lb 1 , Black manages to 24 lLlxe7+! 'ifxe7 25 lLld5 l:[xb2+
organise counterplay by 19 ... i..e6 26 'ii;lxb2 'ii'e5+ 27 'ii;lb l i.. f5 ?! (also
20 lLlf4 g5 ! 2 1 lLlxe6+ fxe6 22 lLle2 here 27 . . .'ii;lh8 was possible, since
'ii'e5= Chudinovskih-Yakkimainen, on 28 lLlf6 there is 28 ...'ifb5+) 28
USSR 1977, or 19 .. .:b4 20 g5 lLlh5
. 'iff6! with irresistible threats,
2 1 lLlc I i..e6 22 lLlb3 'ii'e 5 23 l:[xh5 ! Dobsa-Reinhardt, corr. 1982.
i..xb3 ! 24 l:[xh7 i..xa2+!= Almrot­ 19 ...i..e 6!?
Gemud, corr. 1974. Mutual prophylaxis-White
Stronger is 19 'ife3 ! , threatening threatens the thrust lLlc3-d5
to get at the bishop by e4-e5 . White (19 ...'ifd8? 20 lLld5 ! .:xc2+ 2 1 'ii;lb 1
thereby regroups his forces, keeping e6 22 lLldc3 ±), upon which Black
under control the central squares, not only activates his bishop, but
and obtains the better game. On also opens the way for an evacu­
1 9 ...i..e6 possible is 20 g5 lLlh5 2 1 ation of his king.
f4 followed by f4-f5. In the game In the game Karpov-Korchnoi,
Kruppa-Golubev, USSR 1984, Moscow (m/2) 1 974, Black played
Black averted both of these threats 19 ... .:4c5? and after 20 g5 ! l:xg5
by 1 9 ... .:c5, but after 20 lLld4 i..e6 2 1 l:[d5 l:.xd5 22 lLlxd5 l:e8 23
2 1 'ii;lb l b5 (also in White's favour lLlef4 i..c6 24 e5! he fell under an
is 2 I ...i..g7 22 lLlb3 .i.xb3 23 cxb3 irresistible attack, A.Karpov con­
±) 22 lLlxe6+ fxe6 23 lLle2! it is siders that in this plan stronger was
clear that Black's initiative comes to 19 ....:8c5.
a dead end (23 ...lLlxe4 24 lLld4), and 20 gS lLlhS 21 lLlgJ 'iVeS Taking
his compensation for the exchange under control, with tempo, the h8
is insufficient. square.
18 'ifxh6 :res 19 .l:dJ!
Overprotecting the knight to
counter the threat of a double ex­
change sacrifice on c3 which would
destroy the cover of the white king.
Stronger methods to resolve the
position meet with a refutation.
1) 19 l:[d5 'ifd8! 20 e5 (or 20 g5
lLlh5 2 1 lLlg3 'iV£8! 22 'ifx£8+ l:[x£8!
23 lLlxh5 gxh5 24 l:[xh5 f5!=i=)
20...dxe5 2 1 g5 lLlh5 22 lLlg3 'iV£8
23 l:hh5 gxh5 24 l:[xd7 'ifxh6 25
gxh6 h4 and in the endgame the dis­
tant passed h-pawn gives Black 22 lLlxhS
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 �c4 81

Also interesting is 22 .J:bh5 gxhS Not fearing the threat of e4-e5,

23 li:)xhS. In the game Bangiev­ Black avoids the exchange of dark­
Nesis, corr. 1974/76, after squared bishops. After the rook
23 ....J:lxc3 ! 24 bxc3 .J:lxc3 a draw move he must consider White's di­
was agreed but for the gallery there rect threats to neutralise the Dragon
remains the possible continuation 2S bishop.
f4 .J:lxc2+! 26 �xc2 -.c5+ and the
king cannot shelter from the checks IOBbl: 17 eS
or 25 li:)f6 exf6 26 gxf6 •g3 ! 27 10Bb2: 17 �h6
.J:lxc3 •g l + 28 �b2 �6+ 29 .J:lb3 10Bb3: 17 �d4
•d4+ 30 �c l •gl + 3 1 �d2 �xb3
32 axb3 •g6 with a probable draw. On 17 li:)g3 (or 17 li:)f4)
22...gxhS 23 •xhS �f8! 17 ....J:lxc3 ! is unpleasant, leaving
It is necessary to evacuate the White the advantage after both 1 8
king, since after 23 ...-.g7 24 f4 ac­ 'iVxc3 li:)xe4 1 9 'iVe I li:)xg3 20
cording to an analysis by E.Geller 'ii'xg_3 •as, and also 1 8 bxc3 •as
the initiative, as before, is White's: 19 Wh2 .J:lc8 20 g5 li:)hS 21 li:)xh5
24 ...d5 25 .J:lhd l ! b5 26 .J:l l d2! ..g6 gxhS 22 �d4 eS, Spisak-Bakalarz,
27 •h6 ± or 24 ... bS 2S f5 b4 26 Wisla 1992.
l:.dh3 ! ±.
24 •h2 -.xgS+ 2S f4 -.r6 26 rs IOBbl
l:.xc3 27 bxc3 �xa2 28 -.xh7 �e8
with equal chances, Nagomov­ (I e4 cS 2 lt:)fJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
Nesis, corr. 1976/78. li:)xd4 li:)f6 S li:)c3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 li:)c6 9 �c4 �d7 10
IOBb 0-0-0 .J:lc8 l l �b3 li:)es 12 h4 li:)c4
13 �xc4 l:hc4 14 hS li:)xhS IS g4
(I e4 cS 2 lt:)fJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 li:)f6 16 li:)de2 l:le8)
li:)xd4 li:)f6 S li:)c3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7
f3 0-0 8 •d2 li:)c6 9 �c4 �d7 10 17 eS
0-0-0 l:.c8 I I �b3 li:)es 12 h4 li:)c4
13 �xc4 .J:lxc4 14 hS li:)xhS IS g4
li:)f6 16 li:)de2)

16...l:.e8

A standard method. The knight

has nowhere to go, but now Black
gets three pawns for it and possibi­
lities of defending the king's flank.
17 ... li:)xg4 18 fxg4 �xg4 19 e6 !?
82 The Rauzer Attack with 9 �c4

This way of getting out of the �d2 llxb2+ 29 �a l ! and Black

bishop pin seems to be the best re­ loses.
source. After an exchange on d6 24 llxd4 �xg6 25 llg1 �h6+ 26
Black's bishops work quite �b1 �ti with chances for both
harmoniously. sides.
If 19 exd6 (or 1 9 1Vd3? 1Vc8 20
exd6 exd6 21 llde1 �f5 22 1Vd2 b5 10Bb2
23 lL!g3 b4 24 1fh2 h5 25 .!Dxf5
1fxf5 26 .!Dd1 llec8 27 lle2 1Va5 + (1 e4 c5 2 .!DO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
Bemei-Schneider, Magyarorszag .!Dxd4 lLlf6 5 .!Dc3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7
1976) 19 ...1Vxd6 20 1fe 1 �xc3! f3 0-0 8 1fd2 .!Dc6 9 �c4 �d7 10
(this is stronger than 20 ...1Va6 2 1 0-0-0 llc8 1 1 �b3 lL!e5 12 h4 lL!c4
lld3 b5 22 �b 1 �f5 23 lld4 h5 24 13 �xc4 llxc4 14 h5 .!Dxh5 15 g4
llxc4 bxc4 25 .!Dd4 �g4 with ap­ .!Df6 16 .!Dde2 lle8)
proximately equal chances, Martin
Gonzalez-Tarjan, Torremolinos 17 �h6 �h8
1 974) 2 1 .!Dxc3 �xd1 22 .!Dxd 1
llec8 with a material and positional
advantage for Black. On 1 9 lldg1
there is the attack 1 9 ...1fa5 ! 20 exd6
�xe2 21 1fxe2 llxc3 ! 22 �d2
llxc2+! 23 �xc2 1Vxa2 when
Black's chances are preferable
(Schneider, Sapi).
19 ...�xe6
Also possible is 19 ... f5 20 lldg 1
1Va5 2 1 �d4 �xd4 22 1fh6 �e3+
23 1fxe3 1fe5 24 1Vh6 1Vg7 with a
defensible position, Najdoski-Anka,
Budapest 199 1 . 18 e5
20 �d4 f6 2 1 .!Df4 �ti 22 1fh2 White begins a frontal attack and,
h5 by exploiting the pin on the d-file,
22 ... llxd4? is a serious mistake: wins a piece for three pawns.
23 1Vxh7+ �f8 24 llxd4 e5 25 The attempt at a breakthrough on
.!Dh5 ! and White wins, Strand­ the kingside, 1 8 g5 .!Dh5 19 llxh5
Nichitelea, corr. 1984. gxh5 20 .!Dd5 �e6 2 1 llg 1 , threat­
23 lL!xg6! ening .!Dd5-f6, meets with the rebuff
After 23 �b1 1Va5 24 .!Dfe2 e5 25 2 1 . ..llc5! (with the idea 22 .!Df6+
�e3 d5 Black's powerful pawn exf6 23 gxf6+ �g4 24 fxg4 �xf6
centre gives him the better chances, and Black moves away his king,
Edocs-Pirisi, Tapolca 1980. whereas on 2 l . ..�xd5?! White
23...llxd4 attacks by 22 g6 ! ! �xe4 ! 23 fxe4
Abbasi-Olesen, Burlington 1994, hxg6 24 1fd5 ;t Tolnai) 22 .!Ddf4
continued 23 ...�xg6?! 24 lldg1 'ii'b6 and Black's attack comes first,
�h6+ 25 �b 1 �g5 26 �e3 llxc3? Sherzer-Tolnai, Thessaloniki (ol)
(tempting, but mistaken, better is 1988.
26 ...l:.g4 27 llxg4 hxg4 28 �xg5 On 1 8 �g5 1Va5 19 �b1 llb4
'ii'a5 29 �d2 ;t) 27 �xg5 llxc2 28 Black develops a counter-initiative.
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i.c4 83

For example, in the game advantage, but exchanging a pair of

Gobet-Swoboda, Berne 198 1 , fol­ rooks would be stronger: 2S ...Acc8
lowed 20 l:h3?! Ac8 2 1 Adh 1 hS 26 c3 l:cd8 ;I;) 2S ... Acc8. This end­
and Black blocked the rook, main­ ing runs quite smoothly before
taining an attack on the queen's White finds the main path. Here are
flank. Worth considering is 20 li:)c i , the principal tries:
since 20...l:xb2+? is no good be­ 1) 26 l£ld1 Acd8 27 Axd8 l:xd8
cause of 2 1 �xb2 li:)xe4 22 fxe4 28 �e3 l:e8+ 29 �£2 i.d7 30 li:)e3
l:c8 23 l:h3. l:e4 3 1 c3 f5 and Black holds the
Other possible plans, connected balance, Browne-Taljan, Oberlin
with a transfer of the queen to the (zt) 197S.
kingside, not only require time but 2) 26 �d3 l:cd8 27 Axd8 l:xd8
also weakens the defence of the c2 28 li:)e4 i.f5 29 c3 �h6 30 Afl with
pawn-which Black manages to somewhat the better chances for
exploit. White, Beliavsky-Filguth, Caracas
1) 1 8 ..e1?! bS 19 b3 l:c8 20 1976.
�b1 •as 2 1 .i.c1 b4! 22 li:)dS 3) 26 Ae 1 ! (Black is faced with a
l:xc2 ! and Black increases his ma­ choice-to move off the e-file or
terial advantage, Hartston-Sosonko, make way for the king to the passed
Hastings 197S/76. pawns) 26 ...l:ed8 27 AdS ! (27 l:xd8
2) 1 8 ._gS?! bS ! ( 1 8 . ....c7 1 9 l:xd8 28 �e3 l:e8+ = Kavalek­
�4 bS 20 .i.gS +) 19 ..h4 b4 20 Taljan, USA 1974) 27 ...Ae8 28
li:)dS ._c8 2 1 l:d2 li:)xdS 22 exdS li:)e4! and White activates his pieces
.i.fS 23 .i.f4 Axc2+ 24 �d1 gS ! 2S to the maximum, retaining the initi­
i.xgS i.g6 and Black defends his ative, Matulovic-Taljan, Majdanpek
king, retaining the initiative, 1976.
J.Horvath-Tolnai, Magyarorszag 20 i.f4
1983. After 20 llldS i.xg4 2 1 li:)e3 l:a4
18...li:)xg4 19 fxg4 22 li:)xg4 l:xg4 Black obtains four
White can win back the yawn by pawns for the piece and the better
19 exd6?, but after 1 9 ... l£lxh6 20 chances, Kutyanin-Nesis, corr. 1979
._xh6 i.g7 2 1 ._xh7+ �fl! 22 �2 20 ...5
...

i.c6 the initiative passes to Black, The retreat 20...i.g7 has not been
Ostojic-Taljan, Torremolinos 1 974. tried in serious practice, but is also
19...i.xe5! worthy of consideration. For
After 19 ...i.xg4 White transposes example, in the game Parkin-Bhia,
to a favourable ending: 20 exd6! England 1 997, after 2 1 gS •as 22
..xd6 2 1 •xd6 exd6 22 l:xd6 i.g7 ._d3 Aec8 23 i.d2? .i.fS 24 ._g3
(22...i.eS ;I; is possibly better) 23 ..xa2! it was the Dragon's tum to
i.xg7 �xg7 24 ll)d4! (24 li:)g3? show its character. 2 1 ._d3 looks
makes possible the advance of the more logical, but also here after
h-pawn-24...l:f4 2S l:d3 :es 26 2 l .....c8 22 gS bS Black's counter­
Ah2 hS + Planinc-Tarjan, Banja attack is quite real.
Ruka 1974) 24 ... hS 2S �d2 (after 2 1 i.xe5
2S li:)d 1 i.c8?! 26 �d2 :cs 27 li:)e3 After 2 1 gS Aec8 22 i.xeS •xeS
l:gS 28 Ah2 Ag3 29 li:)dS in the Black's chances are preferable,
game Shamkovich-Fedorowicz, Enders-Perenyi, Harkany 1987.
USA 1976, White gained the 21 ...xe5
..
84 The Rauzer Attack with 9 ii..c4

the second rook is included in the

attack on the e7 pawn.
25 lLle3 l:[b4 26 lLlcd5 ii.. c6!
But not 26 ...ltc8?! because of 27
lLlxe7 ! 1i'xe7 28 lLld5 1i'd8 29 lLle7 ! .
27 1i'c3 1i'e5 and Black consoli­
dates his position, retaining a ma­
terial advantage Klovans-Beliavsky,
Leningrad 1977.

10Bb3

22 lLld5 (1 e4 c5 2 lL!fJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4

White sacrifices yet another pawn lLlxd4 lL!f6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 ii..e3 ii..g7 7
to boost his initiative. f3 0-0 8 1i'd2 lL!c6 9 ii..c4 ii.. d7 10
Upon the advance 22 g5 this 0-0-0 lieS 1 1 ii..b3 lLle5 12 h4 lLlc4
pawn requires defence and Black 13 ii..xc4 l:xc4 14 h5 lL!xh5 15 g4
can take the game to the queenside c!L:lf6 16 c!L:lde2 l:e8)
in more favourable conditions.
I) 22 ... l:g4 23 l:hg 1 l:c8 24 17 ii.. d4
lL!d5?! (here this knight thrust is too
late) 24 ...l:cc4! 25 �b 1 l:xg 1 26
lLlxg1 ii..c6 and Black is better,
Nikolov-Kir.Georgiev, Bulgaria
(ch) 1982. Stronger was 24 l:.xg4
ii..xg4 25 l:.e 1 l:.c5 26 lLld4 with an
unclear game.
2) 22 ...b5 23 lLld4 b4 24 lLlce2
l:ec8 25 �b 1 (on 25 l:h4 Black
wins the queen-25 ... ii..a4! 26 b3
l:.xc2+! 27 1i'xc2 1i'xg5+ etc.,
Eisen-Nesis, corr. l 982) 25 ... ii..g4 26
l:tc l ii..xe2 27 lLlxe2 ll8c5 28 l:hgl
l:d5 and Black's heavy pieces obvi­ A radical way of neutralising the
ously dominate, Pouso-Nesis, corr. Dragon bishop.
198 1 . 17 1i'a5
..•

Incidentally we should mention Accuracy in defence is of great

that also after 22 1i'h6 1i'g7 23 g5 importance. After 17 ...ii..e6 possible
ii..c6 Black's position is preferable, is 1 8 l:h4 1i'a5 19 l:dh 1 already
Zborovsky-Nesis, corr. 1979. threatening 20 l:xh7 lLlxh7 2 1
22 ...l:xg4 23 lLlec3 1i'g? 24 l:he1 ii..xg7. Now however on 1 8 l:h4?!
After 24 l:de1 h5! 25 'ifxg5 l:xg5 follows 1 8 ...g5.
26 lLlxe7+ �g7 27 lL!ed5 l:xe 1+ 28 18 �b1
l:txe I h4 Black has a winning end­ Also seen is the more resolute 1 8
game, Lecroq-Nesis, corr. 198 1 . g5 lLlh5 ( 1 8 ...l:xd4 1 9 c!L:lxd4 lLlh5
24 �18!
.•. 20 lLlde2 is hardly in the spirit of the
After the queen exchange position) 1 9 ii..xg7 �xg7 20 lLlf4
24 ...1i'xd2+ 25 l:xd2 �f8 26 1lde2! (worth considering is 20 �b 1 ii..e6
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i..c4 85

2 1 :txh5 gxh5 22 :th1 with unclear 16 b3

consequences, Lewkowitz-Copie,
corr. 1988). Now after 20 ... lDxf4?!
2 1 'ifxf4 has has to reckon on the
threat of a rook sacrifice-2 I ...i.e6
22 lhh7+! �xh7 23 'ifh4+ �g8 24
:th1 'ife5 25 'ifh7+ �fB 26 Wh8+
'ifxh8 27 :txh8+ �g7 28 :xeS :tc7
29 lDb5 with a continuing initiative
for White, Ragland-Endzelins, corr.
1980. But by active play,
20...:tec8! 2 1 lDxh5+ gxh5 22 1t'e3
:txc3 23 bxc3 :txc3 24 'ifd4+ �g8
25 :td3 :ta3, Black gets a good pos­
ition, Komeev-Vila, Seville 1994. Since in a number of variations
18 :ec8!
.•. the rook is very productive on the
After 1 8 ...i.e6 19 b3 :tc6 White fourth rank, White drives it away
can set about doubling rooks by 20 from its active position. However
:th2, whereas 20 lDf4? would be a this leaves the king's pawn cover
mistake because of 20 ... i.xb3 2 1 weakened. Black has two logical
cxb3 e5 22 lDfd5 lDxd5 23 exd5 retreats:
:tc7 24 'ifg5 exd4 25 lDe4 d3 ! with
decisive threats for Black, Tan­ 10Ca: 16 ...:tc8
Mecking, Manila (izt) 1976, but 10Cb: 16....:.c5
even stronger is an immediate 19
:th2, since 19 ...b5 is not dangerous 10Ca
because of 20 'ifg5 ! .
(1 e4 cS 2 lDO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
19 gS
lDxd4 lL!f6 5 lDc3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
Exchanging by 1 9 i.xf6 i.xf6 20
f3 0-0 8 'ifd2 lDc6 9 i.c4 i.d7 1 0
lDd5 'ifxd2 2 1 lllxf6+ exf6 22 :td2
0-0-0 :tc8 1 1 i.b3 lDe5 12 h4 lDc4
f5 ! favours Black, M.Kovacs-Rigo,
13 i.xc4 :txc4 14 hS lDxhS 15 g4
Budapest 1 978.
lDf6 16 b3)
19...lDh5 20 i.xg7 �xg7 21 lDf4
i.e6 with sufficient counterplay for
16...:tc8
Black. For example the game
Kreiman-Olthof, Philadelphia 1 990,
continued 22 lDxh5+ gxh5 23 :txh5
:txc3 24 'ifd4+ �g8 25 bxc3 :tc4
26 'iff2 'ifa3 ! 27 :td3 :tb4+ 28 cxb4
i.xa2+ and a draw was agreed.

10C
(1 e4 c5 2 lDO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lDxd4 lL!f6 5 lDc3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
f3 0-0 8 'ifd2 lDc6 9 .tc4 i.d7 10
0-0-0 :tc8 1 1 i.b3 lDeS 12 h4 lDc4
13 .txc4 :xc4 14 h5 lDxh5 15 g4
lDf6) 17 lDd5
86 The Rauzer Attack with 9 il.c4

On 17 Jl.h6, with the intention of 16...l:lc5

deciding the game �y direct attack
after 1 7 ...Jl.xh6? 1 8 'ifxh6! l:lxc3 19
g5 tt)h5 20 l:lxh5 gxh5 21 l:lhl f5 22
g6, thanks to the weakened long
diagonal Black can more effectively
exploit the pulsating bishop and
sacrifice the exchang_e--- 1 7. . .Jl.h8!
1 8 Jl.xf8 'ifxf8 19 g5 ll!h5 20 tt)ce2
'ifg7 2 1 c3 'ife5 22 �bl tt)g3 23
tt)xg3 'ifxg3 24 'ife3 'ife5 25 f4
'ifc5 26 l:lc l e5 27 fxe5 Jl.xe5 ! with
excellent play on the dark squares,
Tolnai-Kappler, Budapest 1983.
17...tt)xd5 On this square the rook takes part
17 ... e5?! looks provocative: 1 8 in defensive operations (in the event
tt)xf6+ ..ixf6 ( 1 8 ...'ifxf6? 1 9 Jl.g5 of ... h7-h5), but it also becomes
leads to the loss of the queen) 19 vulnerable to the dark-squared
'ii'h2 l:le8 20 'ifxh7+ �f8 21 Jl.h6+ bishop.
<i;e7 22 g5 Jl.h8 23 tt)f5+! with a 17 ll!e6
very strong attack, Bolzoni-Borge, The other way is 17 tt)f5.
Manila (ol) 1992. I ) 1 7 ...l:lxf5 1 8 gxf5 (or 1 8 exf5
18 exd5 'ifc7 19 �b1 ! 'ii'a5 19 Jl.d4 l:lc8=) 18 ...'ifa5 19
After 1 9 'ii'h2 h5 2 0 �b I (20 ..id4 l:lc8 20 �b I l:lc6 2 1 tt)d5
gxh5? 'ifc3) 20...'ifa5 2 1 .tel Jl.e5 'ii'xd2 22 l:lxd2 tt)xd5 23 exd5 l:lc7
22 'iff2 l:lc5 23 gxh5 l:lxd5 24 hxg6 24 fxg6 fxg6!, though even here
fxg6 25 'ii'h4 rj;£7 26 'ii'h7+ �e8 Black has sufficient compensation
Black defends, Perenyi-Schneider, for the exchange, Szalanczy­
Hungary (ch) 1 982. Schneider, Budapest 1982.
19....'ifc3 2) 1 7 ...l:lxc3 ! 1 8 Jl.h6 Jl.h8! (in
Also insufficient is 1 9...f5 20 'ii'h2 the game Perenyi-Degen, Biel 1984,
f4 21 Jl.xf4 l:lxf4 22 'ifxf4 Jl.xd4 23 Black played 1 8 ...tt)xe4?! 19 fxe4
'Wxd4 'ifxc2+ 24 �a I and there is Jl.e5 and after 20 Jl.f4! landed in a
no compensation for the sacrificed critical position) 19 Jl.xf8 'WaS ! 20
exchange. tt)xe7+ �xf8 2 1 'ifxd6 l:lxc2+ 22
20 'ifh2 h5 2 1 l:ld3 'ifa5 22 gxh5 �xc2 'ifxa2+ and Black forced a
'ifxd5 23 hxg6 fxg6 24 'ifh7+ �f6 draw by perpetual check, Perenyi­
25 Jl.h6 with a dangerous initiative Bordas, Balatonbereny 1 983).
for White, Murey-Wallinger, Bre­ Also harmless is 17 Jl.h6 Jl.h8 1 8
genz 1 985. tt)f5 l:lxc3, leading the game into
variations examined above.
10Cb
17 ...fxe6 18 Jl.xc5 dxc5 19 e5
(1 e4 c5 2 tt)o d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 On 19 g5 possible is 19 ...'ifa5 ! 20
tt)xd4 tt)f6 S tt)cJ g6 6 Jl.eJ Jl.g7 7 gxf6 ..txf6 2 1 'ii'h6 Jl.g7 22 'ifxh7+
t3 0-0 8 'ifd2 tt)c6 9 ..tc4 Jl.d7 10 �£7 23 l:lh6 'ifxc3 24 l:ldh l 'Wa l +
0-0-0 l:lc8 11 Jl.b3 tt)e5 12 h4 tt)c4 2 5 �d2 'ifc3+ and the king cannot
13 Jl.xc4 l:lxc4 14 h5 tt)xh5 15 g4 escape from the checks without
tt)f6 16 b3) suffering loss (Despotovic).
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 ..ic4 8 7

19 li:Jd5
.•• It makes sense to get acquainted
Weaker is l9 ...1i'a5?! 20 exf6 with other continuations and above
..txf6 2 1 1i'h6 ..tg7 22 1i'xh7+ q;f7 all with the direct sacrifice of a
23 li:Je4 1i'a3+ 24 q;d2 .J:r.h8 when in piece on g4.
the game Murey-Sax, Moscow (izt) l ) l 6 ...li:Jxg4? 1 7 fxg4 ..txg4 1 8
1 982, White could retain some ad­ l:.dgl 1i'd7 (on l 8 ... h5 possible is 19
vantage by playing 25 li:Jg5+ q;f6 ..th6 with the threat to take on g4)
26 li:Je4+. 19 b3 ! l:txc3 ( l 9 . . J�c5 20 ..th6 ±)
20 li:Jxd5 exd5 21 1i'xd5+ e6 22 20 1i'xc3 e5 2 1 li:Jb5 ! and Black has
'ii'xd7 1i'g5+ 23 l:td2 1Wxe5 and the no compensation for his material
activity of the black pieces compen­ losses, Stets-Golubev, USSR 1 989.
sates for White's extra rook, 2) 1 6......txg4 1 7 fxg4 tt::lxg4 1 8
Altrock-Rigo, Dortmund 1987. 1i'e2 ! (it is not worth holding on to
the bishoJr-- 1 8 ..tgl h5=, whereas
with the knight exchange the threat
10D li:Jc3-d5 increases in strength)
l 8 ... li:Jxe3 1 9 1i'xe3 e6 (on
(1 e4 c5 2 li:Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l9 ...1Wa5? follows 20 li:Jd5 .J:r.e8 2 1
li:Jd4 li:Jf6 5 li:Jc3 g6 6 ..te3 ..tg7 7 li:Jf5 ! gxf5 22 l:thg l ! with a winning
f3 0-0 8 1i'd2 li:Jc6 9 ..tc4 ..td7 10 attack) 20 li:Jdb5! 1Wa5 2 1 li:Jxd6
0-0-0 l:tc8 1 1 ..tb3 li:Je5 12 h4 li:Jc4 (Anand-Tolnai, Hilversum 1 993)
13 ..txc4 l:txc4 14 h5 li:Jxh5 15 g4 and here Anand reckoned best was
li:Jf6) 2 l . . .l:c6 ! 22 li:Jdb5, though the
pawn equivalent for the knight
16 q;b1
looks insufficient.
For the present, sharp play on the
queenside is also eremature.
3) l 6 ...b5?! l 7 lhd5 (also possible
is the preliminary 1 7 b3 l:.c8 1 8
li:Jd5, since the retreat l 7 ...l:.c5 is
refuted by the combination-I S
li:Je6! fxe6 1 9 ..txc5 dxc5 20 e5 ±
Kuznetsov-Tolnai, Budapest 1 984)
l 7 ... e5 1 8 1i'h2 h5 19 ..tg5 and
White gets to the enemy king,
L.Kovacs-Szekely, Magyarorszag
1984.
4) l6 ... 1Wa5 17 li:Jb3 1i'c7 (other
This useful prophylactic move is
retreats involve risk: 1 7 ...1i'e5? 1 8
highly popular. White goes to a safe
..if4 1i'e6 1 9 ..ih6 ± Wolff­
place, intending ..ie3-h6 and, if the
Ballmann, Adelaide 1 988;
opportunity arises, the thrust
17 ...1i'a6?! 1 8 e5 li:Jxg4 19 fxg4
li:Jc3-d5. The main continuations
i.xg4 20 ..ih6 ..ie5 2 1 ..ixf8 ±
here are:
Rudolf-Griinberg, Berlin 1 998) 1 8
..ih6 l:txc3 19 bxc3 l:c8 20 ..txg7
10Da: 16...l:te8
�g7 2 1 q;b2 and White's chances
10Db: 16...1i'c7
are preferable.
88 The Rauzer Attack with 9 �c4

10Da Upon the preparatory move 1 7

ll:lb3 Black succeeds in counter­
(1 e4 c5 2 lLlfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 attacking by 17 ... a5! 1 8 e5?! ll:lxg4
ll:lxd4 ll:lf6 5 ll:lc3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7 19 fxg4 �xg4 20 lldg 1 a4 2 1 ll:ld4
f3 0-0 8 'ifd2 ll:lc6 9 �c4 �d7 10 dxe5, obtaining a material
0-0-0 llc8 1 1 �b3 ltle5 12 h4 ll:lc4 advantage.
13 �xc4 llxc4 14 h5 ll:lxh5 15 g4 Too slow is 1 7 ll:lde2 Wia5 1 8
lLlf6 16 �b1) i.h6 �h8 1 9 l:.h2 �e6 20 l:tdh1
l:.ec8 2 1 ll:ld5 Wid8 22 ll:lec3 �xd5
16 lle8
.•. 23 ll:lxd5 ll:lxd5 24 Wixd5 1i'b6 25
�c 1 lld4 and Black has not only
managed to simplify the position
but also to take the initiative,
Albert-Schneider, Wiirzburg 1987.
White can hardly count on much
after 17 b3 l:.c8 1 8 �h6 (or 1 8 ltld5
ll:lxd5 1 9 exd5 e5 !? 20 dxe6 �xe6
with not bad counterplay for Black)
18 ...�h8 19 ll:lce2 1i'b6 20 �e3
Wia6 2 1 ll:lg3 �xg4 22 fxg4 ll:lxg4
and a double-edged position arises,
Feher-Schneider, Hungary 1995.
17 e6
.•.

Also worth considering is the

On principle, Black eliminates the recommendation of G.Sosonko
threat of �e3-h6, though in the 17 ...ll:lxd5 1 8 exd5 e5 ( 1 8 ...Wic7 19
present situation 17 �h6? is no Wih2 ±) 19 dxe6 (19 ll:lb3 f5 ! =i=)
good because of the possibility 19 ...�xe6 20 Wih2 h5 2 1 gxh5 �d5 !
17 ...ll:lxe4. 22 b3 ! llxe3 23 bxc3 �xd4 with
.17 ltld5 equal chances.
A frequently played move. By ex­ 18 ltlxf6+ Wxf6 19 Wih2
changing knights, White strives to The continuation 19 c3 has been
get at the h7 pawn. actively discussed by Westerinen
After the committal 17 e5 ll:lxg4 and Ernst.
1 8 fxg4 �xg4 1 9 lldg 1 dxe5 20 1 ) 19 ...d5 20 �g5 llxd4 2 1 cxd4
llxg4 exd4 a double-edged position 'i'xf3 22 e5 Wxg4 23 �a 1 �b5 and
arises (2 1 �h6?? is not possible be­ Black has sufficient compensation
cause of 2 1 .. .dxc3 ), but it was easy for the exchange, Westerinen-Emst,
to stumble-thus not good was the Sweden-Finland 1989.
intermediate 20 ...h5? 2 1 llxh5 and 2) 19 ...llxd4 ! 20 �xd4 e5 2 1 g5
now on 2 l ...llxd4 22 �xd4 exd4 23 Wixf3 22 We3 �g4 23 lldfl exd4 24
l:.d5 leads to an advantage for Wixf3 �xf3 25 llxf3 llxe4 26 llhfl
White, Prosvirenkov-Melnichenko, lle7 and White has to fight for the
corr. 1 988. But apparently even draw, Westerinen-Emst, Gausdal
stronger was 17 ...dxe5 1 8 ll:lb3 Wkc7 1990.
19 g5 �f5 19 gxf6 exf6 and Black 19 e5!?
..•

manages to build a sort of fortress 19 ...h6 is tempting and if White is

on the king' s flank. lured by this pawn-20 b3 .z:r.c3 2 1
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 89

.i.xh6 .i.xh6 22 'ifxh6, then after Black does not fear the knight
22 ....J:r.ec8 23 .J:r.h2 'ifg7 ! 24 .J:r.dh 1 thrust and strives for a build up of
'ifxh6 25 .J:r.xh6 �f8 he gains noth­ heavy pieces on the c-file, exploit­
ing of importance, I.Gurevich­ ing the fact that 1 7 .i.h6? is parried
Rache1s, USA 1 986. But it is by the move 1 7 ...�xe4.
stronger to take the other pawn-20 17 �d5
'ifxd6 ! , not fearing ghosts on the On 1 7 �de2 possible is 1 7 ... .J:r.c8
long diagonal-20 ....i.c8 2 1 b3 ! 1 8 .i.h6 .i.h8, not fearing 19 e5
(this move is also good on 20....J:r.d8) dxe5 20 g5 .i.e6 2 1 gxf6 exf6 and
2 l ....J:r.c3 (2 l ....J:r.d8 loses because of Black has a sufficient pawn equival­
22 e5 ! , while on 2 l . ...J:r.c6 the queen ent for the bishop, Pyda-Ballmann,
returns 22 'ifh2, shaping up for AntweJ_p 1 992.
22 ...g5 23 e5 ! winning the ex­ 1 7...ll)xd5 18 exd5 l:c8
change) 22 .i.xh6 e5 23 'tfxf6 .i.xf6 In the game Anka-Ballmann,
24 �f5 ! .J:r.xf.3 25 g5 .i.h8 (after any Renk 1 99 1 , Black prevented the
capture on f5 White takes on f6) 26 transfer of the queen to h2 by
�e7+ �h7 27 �5 with an obvious 1 8 ....i.e5 ! ? and after 1 9 b3 llc5 20
advantage for White, Golubev-Ku­ .J:r.h6 f5 ! 2 1 l:dh l l:xd5 22 l:lxh7
lagin, Katowice 1 992 .l:[f7 23 .J:r.xf7 �xf7 a position was
20 'ifxh7+ �f8 21 �rs gxfS 22 reached with chances for both sides.
gxf5 .i.xfS 23 exfS e4 24 c3 exO 25 19 'ifh2 h5 20 gxh5 g5
.i.h6 .i.xh6 26 .J:r.xh6 'ifg7! 27 An apparently forced reply. On
'ifh8+ 'ifxh8 28 .J:r.xh8+ �e7 29 20 ... .i.f5?! White sacrifices the
.J:r.e1 + �d7 30 .J:r.hxe8 f2 and Black queen: 2 1 �xf5! .J:r.xc2 (otherwise
holds the balance, Riemersma-Pirisi, 2 l ...gxf5 22 c3 ! ±) 22 hxg6 l:lxh2
Dieren 1 989. (22 ....J:r.xb2+! see l OEb) 23 l:.xh2
fx.g6 24 �xg7 �xg7 25 l:lc 1 and
10Db White wins a rook, Tolnai­
Riemersma, Caorle 1989.
(1 e4 c5 2 �0 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
21 llhg1 .i.xd4 22 l:.xg5+ .i.g7!
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
23 .J:r.dg1 .J:r.xc2 24 .J:r.xg7+ fith8 and
0 0-0 8 'ifd2 lLlc6 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10
Black has nothing to fear, Kostin­
0-0-0 .J:r.c8 11 .i.b3 �e5 12 h4 �c4
Golubev, USSR 1 989.
13 .i.xc4 .l:.xc4 14 h5 �xh5 15 g4
�f6 16 �b1)
10E
16...'ifc7
(1 e4 c5 2 �0 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
tJ �c6 8 'ifd2 0-0 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10
0-0-0 .J:r.c8 11 .i.b3 �e5 12 h4 �c4
13 .i.xc4 l:lxc4 14 h5 �xh5 15 g4
�f6)

16 �d5
This idea was first suggested by
E.Geller. By hitting the f6-knight,
White increases his attack on the h7
square. Here two continuations of
90 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i..c4

equal worth come under advantage of the loss of an import­

consideration: ant tempo to organise counterplay.
I ) 1 7 ...'ii'c7 1 8 �db5 i..xb5 1 9
�xb5 'ii'c6 20 �xd6 lla4 2 1 'it>b l
Ad8 22 'ii'h2 h5 23 e5 �d5 24 �e4
llc8 25 i..c 5 llc4 with a serious
initiative for Black, Zelcic­
Faibisovich, Pula 1989.
2) 17 ...'ii'e7 1 8 �b3 d5 ! 19 e5
�e8 (also worth considering is
1 9 ...�xg4 20 fxg4 i..xe5) 20 'ii'h1
h6 2 1 i..xh6 f6 22 f4 fxe5
(22 ...i..xh6?! 23 'ii'xh6 'ii'g7 24 'ii'h2
fxe5 25 fxe5 llxg4 26 �c5 ;!;
Sziebert-Szalanczy, Hungary 1 993)
23 fxe5 .l:r.xg4 24 i..xg7 'ii'g 5+! 25
tOEa: l 6...e6
Wb I �xg7 and Black defends
lOEb: l6...�xd5
himself.
17 ...'ii'xf6 18 'ii'h2 l:r.fc8 19
tOEa
'ii'xh7+ 'it>fB
(l e4 c5 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 i..e3 i..g7 7
f3 �c6 8 'ii'd2 0-0 9 i..c4 i..d7 10
0-0-0 l:.c8 ll i..b3 �e5 12 h4 �c4
l3 i..xc4 llxc4 14 h5 �xh5 15 g4
�f6 16 �d5)

16...e6

20 'it>b1
White defends himself against the
threat of 20 ...llxc2, on which would
now follow 2 1 i..h6! . The continu­
ation 20 c3?! can be rejected in
view of the possibility of an attack
by the b·pawn: 20 ... b5 2 1 i..h6
i..xh6+ 22 'ii'xh6+ 'it>e7 23 'ii'd2 b4
Black prefers that White decide and Black's attack is clearly the
about the knights, incidentally pre­ more dangerous, Geller-Ivkov, Am­
paring counterplay with ...d4-d5. sterdam 1974.
17 ltJxf6+ Recently the move 20 l:.d2 has en­
Upon the retreat 1 7 �c3 White tered into practice, with which
hopes to exploit the backward d6 White defends the c2 pawn and pre­
pawn, but Black manages to take pares a doubling of rooks. Black's
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i.c4 91

counterplay here is linked to the strengthen the attack: 2 I ...'ife7 22

break ... d6-d5. Here are some lLJfS (on 22 lLie2 possible is
examples. 22 ...l:lxc2 23 lLic3 l:l2xc3 24 bxc3
1 ) 20 ...d5 21 exd5 e5 22 i.h6 d5 with sufficient compensation for
i.xh6 23 'ifxh6+ 'ifg7 24 'ifb8+ the sacrificed exchange) 22 ... gxf5
'ifxh8 25 l:lxh8+ �e7 26 l:lxc8 23 exf5 l:lxc2 24 'ifxg7+ (24 l:thg I?
l:lxc8! with sufficient counterplay i.xf5 ! 25 'ifxf5 'ife8 + Dimitrov­
for the pawn, Wiesmann-Stillger, Ballmann, Gausdal I 986) 24 .. .'�xg7
Germany I99 I . 25 f6+ 'ifxf6 26 gxf6+ �xf6.
2) 20... �e7 2 I 'ifh2 l:lh8 22 'ifg2 White's initiative is compensation
'ife5 ! 23 �b I and here in the game for the sacrificed material, but no
Boenen-Schneider, Budapest I992, more than that, Kupreichik-Khalif­
Black can play 23 ... d5!?. man, USSR (ch) 1987. Also worth
3) 20... e5 2I lLif5!? gxf5 22 gxf5 considering is 2 l ...'ifd8 !?. For
i.a4 23 l:lg I l:lxc2+ 24 �b I d5 25 example: 22 lLlfS gxf5 23 exf5 l:lxc2
b3 l:t2c6= Talla-Tobyas, Czech Re­ 24 l:lxd6 'ifas 25 f6 l:lxb2! 'h-1h
public 1997. Martello-Copie, corr. 1986.
20 eS
... 2l ...gxfS
In accordance with the classical 2 I ...i.xf5? does not work because
recipe: a flank attack is best met by of 22 gxf5 l:lxc2 23 l:thg I .
a reaction in the centre. In this same 22 gxfS l:lxc2
spirit 20 ... d5 2 I exd5 e5 22 i.h6! No good is 22 ... i.xf5? 23 exf5 e4
(or 22 lLib3 e4 23 i.d4 l:lxd4 24 because of 24 c3 l:lxc3 25 i.d4.
lLixd4 exf3 with chances for both 23 l:lbgl l:le2 24 i.gS l:lcc2 •h-•h
sides) 22 ...i.xh6 23 'ifxh6+ 'ifg7 24 Ljubinin-Golubev, corr. I 987.
'ifh8+ 'ifxh8 25 l:lxh8+ �e7 26
l:lxc8 l:lxc8! (26 ... i.xc8 27 lLibS !) lOEb
27 lLib3 �d6 leads to equality,
Gudjev-Nesis, corr. I993. Trying (I e4 cS 2 lLJO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
for play on the flank will hardly be lLJxd4 lLif6 S lLic3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
successful: f3 lLic6 8 'ifd2 0-0 9 i.c4 i.d7 10
I) 20... b5?! 2 I i.h6 i.xh6 22 0-0-0 l:lc8 II i.b3 lLJeS 12 h4 lLJc4
'ifxh6+ �e7 23 'ifd2 aS?! 24 f4! 13 i.xc4 l:lxc4 14 bS lLixbS IS g4
with a clear advantage to White, lLif6 t6 lLJdS)
Poretti-Biasko, corr. I979.
2) 20 ... g5?! 2 I c3! b5 22 'ifh2 ! 16 ...lLJxdS 17 exdS
'ifxe5 23 'ifxe5 i.xe5 24 lLic2 and
White has the better endgame,
I.Aimasi-Hamdouchi, Budapest
I993.
2l lLifS
A practically forced sacrifice (2 I
lLib3? l:lxc2). Also 2 I i.h6? does
not achieve its objective: 2 l . . .i.xh6!
22 'ifxh6+ �e7 23 g5 'iff4 and the
queen invades behind White's lines.
It should be mentioned that the in­
clusion of the move 2 I g5 does not
92 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i..c4

By exchanging knights Black l 8 .....c7 19 b3 J:[c5 20 lth6 f5 2 1

counts on gaining time for the de­ J:[dh 1 ltxd5 22 J:[xh7 l:[f7 23 l:[xf7
velopment of his forces. �xf7 24 c4 and to avert the attack
17 ...'.c7 Black has to give up the exchange,
The queen makes way for the sec­ Anka-Ballmann, Lenk 199 1 .
ond rook to go to c8. The more ac­ 1 8 ..h2
tive 1 7 ...1Vb6 is justified only on 1 8 Also worth considering is 1 8 b3 ! ?
�b3?! ._c7 1 9 i.. h6 J:[cS 20 c3 ltc3 19 �e2 :.xe3 ! (19 ...1i'a5 20
:xc3+!? (20 ...i.. e5 is good) 2 1 bxc3 �b 1 ltfc8 2 1 �xc3 i..xc3 22 ._h2
i..xc3 22 ._d3 i..b5 ! 23 ._e4 i..e2 ! ±} 20 ._xe3 l:r.c8 and here in the
24 'il'xe2? i..d2+! (I.Almasi). How­ game Wegener-Tagnon, Munieh
ever the shadowing of the queen by 1992, White could have played 21
the bishop on e3 is dangerous: 1 8 b3 ._d2 !? with the idea 2 l ...,.c5 22
.l:.c5 (in the game Gofshtein-Stisis, �b 1 i..b5 23 l:h2, retaining the in­
Israel (ch) 1992, Black retreated itiative (I.Almasi).
l 8 ... :c7 and it turned out that the 18 .. h5
.

sacrifice 1 9 l:txh7 ! ? �xh7 20 l:lh l+ Forced. After I S ... :cs 1 9 'il'xh7+

�g8 2 1 ..h2 f6 22 �7+ �f7 23 �f8 20 i..h6 ltxc2+ 2 1 'it>b I Black
.l:.h6 leads to an unclear game, but loses.
simpler was 19 �c6!, not only at­ 19 gxh5 J:[c8 20 �bl
tacking the queen, but also threaten­ The natural 20 hxg6 is dangerous
ing mate by 20 �xe7+ and 2 1 because of 20 ...i..f5 ! (in the game
.l:.xh7+} 19 'ifh2 ( 1 9 i..h6? ._a5 20 Pinkas-Tolnai, Katowice 1986,
._e3 ..c3 ! + Vogt-Am.Rodriguez, Black simple-mindedly played
Halle 1 974) l 9 ...h5 20 gxh5 l:[fc8 20... fxg6? and after 2 1 �b l ! lost)
2 1 �b l ! and White's attack is very 2 1 gx.f7+ (weak are both 2 1 J:[d2?!
dangerous. On 2 I ...J:[c3?! stronger i..xg6 +, and also 2 1 1i'h7+ �f8 22
is 22 hxg6! , also 2 l ...g5?! is not ._xg7+ �xg7 23 �xf5+ �f6! +)
good because of 22 h6 i..f6 23 2 l . ..�xf7 22 J:[dg1 ltxc2+ 23 �xc2
'ii'g2 ! . In the game Nadanian-Kono­ i..xb2+ 24 �d1 i..xc2+ 25 �e1
valov, corr. 199 1 , Black took the ._a5+ 26 �f2 ._xd5 with a clear ad­
pawn and after 2 I ...J:[xd5 22 hxg6 vantage for Black.
fxg6 23 �7+! �f7 24 ltdg l ! g5 25 Perenyi considered 20 .l:.d2 to be
�e6! he lost. best, with the idea 20... i..xd4 2 1
Worth considering is 1 7 ...i..e5 !?, i.xd4 i..f5 22 c3 + . However after
which Black prevents by the 20.....a5 Black's resources are not
manoeuvre ._d2-h2 and when the exhausted. For example: 2 1 hxg6?!
opportunity arises he is ready to in­ ._xa2 22 gxf7+ �f8 ! 23 ._h7 J:[d4 +
clude the rook in the defence of the or 2 1 �b 1 ._xd5 22 fxg6 fxg6 23
h7 pawn ( 1 8 �e2 f5 !). On 1 8 ._f2 'ji'b7+ �f7 24 :.g 1 i..f5 and Black
possible is 1 8 .....a5 19 �4 h5 20 has everything in order.
gxh5 i..f6 2 1 �2 g5 22 �b 1 ._xd5 20 i..f5 !
•..

and Black retains a material advan­ This position occurred in the

tage, Wirtz-Mielke, corr. 1988. game Tolnai-Riemersma, Caorle
Possibly better here is 18 �b 1 (if an 1989, but it is usually reached by
immediate 1 8 b3, then after the move order 1 6 �b1 ._c7 1 7
1 8 ...l:c8 19 l:r.dg 1 ._c7 the c3 �d5 �xd5 1 8 exd5 .l:.c8 1 9 'ii'h2 h5
square is accessible to the queen) 20 gxh5 i..f5 ! .
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 �c4 93

21 liJxfS l:r.xc2 22 hxg6 l:r.xb2+! 17 1We3

In the game Tolnai-Riemersma, After the retreat 1 7 '6'h2 Black
Caorle 1 989, Black played has the useful tempo 1 7 ... �e5 ! and
22 ... l:r.xh2? and lost after 23 l:txh2. now the exchange of bishops, 1 8
23 1Wxb2 �xb2 with chances for �f4 �xf4+ 1 9 'ifxf4, is carried out
both sides. in a more favourable situation for
Black, 1 9 ... e5 ! 20 'iVh2 (20 'ifxe4
10F l:r.xd4 2 1 l:r.xd4 exd4 22 1Wxd4 �c6
+) 20...llJg5 2 1 1Wh6 f6 22 f4 l:r.xd4
(1 e4 c5 2 llJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 23 l:r.xd4 exd4 24 fxg5 l:tf7 25 llJe4
llJxd4 liJf6 5 llJcJ g6 6 �e3 �g7 7 fxg5 26 llJxgS l:tg7 27 llJxh7 �c6
f3 0-0 8 1i'd2 llJc6 9 �c4 �d7 1 0 and Black repulses the immediate
0-0-0 l:tc8 1 1 �b3 llJe5 12 h4 llJc4 threats, Istratescu-Stisis, Biel 1994.
13 �xc4 l:r.xc4 14 h5 llJxh5 15 g4 In the event of 1 8 f4 good is
liJf6) 1 8 ... �xd4! ( 1 8 ...l:txd4 1 9 fxe5 ±).
For example: 19 l:r.xd4 (on 19 �xf8
16 �h6 or 19 llJxe4 unpleasant is 19 ...�e3+
+) 1 9...l:txd4 20 �xf8 (or 20 �g7
l:r.d 1+! 2 1 llJxd 1 �xg7 22 'ifxh7+
�f6 and the king takes flight)
20 ...h5 (also not bad is 20 ...liJf6) 2 1
gxh5 1Wxf8 22 hxg6 1Wg7 23 gxf7+
�xf7 and Black is a piece up, Re­
ichelt-Schneider, Dortmund 1988.
After the capture of the knight, 1 7
llJxe4 l:r.xd4 1 8 1Wh2 �e5, Black
takes the initiative:
1) 1 9 1Wh4 l:txd 1 + 20 'it?xd 1 f5 !
(20 ... l:r.e8? 2 1 c3 'ifa5 22 �g5 ±
Balazs-Anka, Hungary 1 992) 2 1
A spontaneous decision on the �g7 (or 21 �xf8 �xf8 22 1Wxh7
theme of attacking down the h-file. 1Wb6! + Baikov-Utiacky, USSR
After the exchange of bishops White 1967) 2 l ...h5 ! 22 �xeS (22 �xf8
threatens to invade with his queen 1Wxf8 ! 23 gxf5 'ifxf5 +) 22 ...dxe5
on h6 and attack the only defender 23 1Wg5 �e8+ 24 liJd2 'ifd5 with a
-the knight f6. However the queen material advantage for Black,
turns out to be overloaded due to the Bumett-Rachels, USA 1986.
defence of the knight d4. 2) 19 f4 l:r.xd 1+ 20 l:r.xd 1 (worth
16 llJxe4!
•.• considering is 20 �d 1 �g4+ 2 1
Counterattack is Black's best re­ �c1 ) 20 ... �h8 2 1 l:r.h 1 (not good is
source. After 1 6... �h8 White can 21 �xf8?! 1Wb6 22 c3 1We3+ 23
attack by 1 7 e5 (intending 1 7 ...dxe5 liJd2 �f8 +) 2 1 ...1Wb6 22 �g7 h5
1 8 llJfS). For example, the game 23 �xh8 1We3+ 24 llJd2 �xg4 25
Florescu-Solcanean, Bucharest �c3 l:r.c8 and White's attack is
1999, continued 1 7 ...llJxg4 1 8 fxg4 repulsed, while Black's material
�e5 1 9 llJfS l:r.e8 20 lbds l:r.xg4 2 1 compensation provides sufficient
�g7! with a menacing attack for equivalent for the lost piece, Ras­
White. mussen-Szalanczy, Budapest 1993.
94 The Rauzer A tiack with 9 J..c4

17 .l:bc3!
•. 0-0-0 llc8 11 ..ib3 �eS 12 h4 �c4
It is necessary to eliminate this 13 ..txc4 l:.xc4 14 hS �xhS 15 g4
knight (but not by l 7 ...�xc3? in �f6 16 J..h6 �xe4! 17 'ife3 Axc3!
view of 1 8 J..xg7 �g7 1 9 1fh6+), 18 bxc3 �f6 19 ..txg7 �xg7)
since if he retreats 1 7 . . .�f6? his
white 'colleague' pursues him with 20 'ii'h6+
decisive effect: 1 8 J..xg7 �xg7 1 9
Wh6+ �h8 ( 1 9...�g8 20 �e4 ±) 20
�e4 l:txd4 2 1 �xf6 l:txd 1 + 22
�xd 1 and Black resigned, Hiibner­
Sosonko, Brussels 1987.
18 bxc3
He cannot refuse the sacrifice: 1 8
'ifxe4?! J..xh6+! 1 9 l:txh6 e5 20
l:tdh l (20 f4 l:tc4 +) 20 ... l:tc4 2 1
l:txh7 l:txd4 22 'ii'e3 l:tf4! 23 g5
'ii'xg5 24 l:th8+ �g7 25 l:tl h7+ �f6
26 l:.xf8 J..e6 and Black has more
than sufficient compensation for the
exchange, Trofimov-Nesis, corr. 20 �h8
.•.

197 1 172. Including the rook in the king's

18 ...�f6 defence in the event of the attack 2 1
After 1 8 .....ixh6?! 19 'ifxh6 �f6 g5 �h5 22 l:txh5 gxh5 23 'ifxh5
20 g5 �h5 2 1 l:txh5 gxh5 22 l:th1 l:.g8, whereas after 20 ... �g8? 2 1 g5
'ifc8 23 l:txh5 ..tf5 24 �xf5 'ifxf5 �h5 22 l:.xh5! gxh5 23 l:th 1 Black
25 g6 'ifxg6 26 l:tg5 the queen has cannot repel the attack without ma­
to be given up, Danilidis-Long, terial loss. For example: 23 ...'ifc8
Arnhem 1 988. 24 l:txh5 ..if5 25 �xf5 'ifxf5 26 g6
19 ..txg7 �xg7 In this position 'ifxg6 27 l:tg5 b6 28 f4 and Black
Black has sufficient compensation does not have compensation for the
for the sacrificed exchange in the queen, Betko-Pektor, Czecho­
shape of his extra pawn and White's slovakia (ch) 1 992.
compromised queenside pawn struc­ 21 �e2
ture. Now the following continu­ After 2 1 l:.h2 l:.g8 22 l:tdh 1 l:.g7 it
ations are of approximately equal is difficult to test Black's redoubt.
worth: 1 ) 23 'ii'g5 'ifc7 24 �b2 ..te6 25
lQxe6 fxe6 26 'ii'e3 �d5 27 'ii'd4
lOFa: 20 'ifh6+ �g8 and everything is in order for
lOFb: 20 l:th2 Black, Browne-Tatai, Venice 1 97 1 .
lOFc: 20 �e2 2) 23 �e2 'ii'a5 24 'ife3 ..ie6 25
lOFd: 20 �b3 g5 �h5 26 �4 'ifa3+ 27 �d2
'ifxa2 27 f4 'ii'd5 with chances for
10Fa both sides, Vlajovic-Vijacic, Pula
1984.
(1 e4 cS 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 21. l:tg8 22 'ife3
•.

�xd4 �f6 S �c3 g6 6 ..te3 ..tg7 7 Not dangerous is 22 g5 �h5 23

f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 �c6 9 ..tc4 ..td7 10 lQg3 l:.g7 24 lQxh5 gxh5 25 l:txh5
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 95

'it'a5 with chances for both sides,

Lomineishvili-Lakos, Puerto Rico
1 99 1 .
On 22 lbg3 possible is 22 ...:.g7
23 'it'e3 .tc6 24 l:[d3 lbd7 25 g5
lbb6 with a reliable position for
Black, Wallner-Schneider, Linz
1 988.
22...b6
It is not wise to weaken the dark
squares: 22 . . . a6 23 lbg3 l:[g7 24 g5
lbh5 25 lbxh5 gxh5 26 :.xh5 .tf5
27 l:[h6 'ifd7 28 l:[d4 and White's l ) 20 l:[h6 l:[h8 2 1 lbb3 .tc6 22
position is preferable, Ivanovic­ g5 lbd5 23 l:[xd5? .i.xd5 24 'ifd4+
Tatai, Budva 1 98 1 . e5 0- 1 Cimra-Szalanczy, Vienna
But worth considering is 22 ....te6 1990. But White was not forced to
23 g5 lbd7 24 'it'e4 (with the threat take the knight and could have
25 l:[xh7+) 24 ...l%,g7 25 'it'xb7 'it'a5 attacked it by 23 1i'e4, holding in
(25 ... .txa2?! 26 'it'xa7 .tc4 27 l:[h2 reserve the check on d4.
±) 26 f4 h5 !? 27 gxh6 l:[g8 28 �d2 2) 20 l:[h4 l:[g8 2 1 lbb3 b6 22
l:[b8 with chances for both sides, �b2 �f8 23 g5 lbh5 24 f4 f5 with
Koskivierta-Rampert, corr. 1 992. sufficient counterplay, Tseshkovsky
23 g5 -Miles, Wijk aan Zee 1 989.
Also seen is 23 �b2 l:[g7 24. lbf4 The following continuations
.tc6 25 g5 lbg8 26 l:[h2 'it'd7 27 should be looked at here:
lbe2?! 'iff5 28 llld4 'ifc5 and Black
stands even a shade better, Agnes­ 10Fb1: 20 ...'ifc7
Ernst, London 1987; 27 lbd5 !?=. 10Fb2: 20...l:[h8
23 ...lbh5 24 l:[h4 l:[g7 25 f4 f5 26 10Fb3: 20...l:g8
lbg3 lbxg3 27 'it'xg3 .tc6 and
Black's chances are no worse, On 20 ...'it'a5 possible is 2 1 lbb3
Amason-Emst, Gausdal (zt) 1 987 'i'xa2 (weaker is 2 l . ..'i'a3+ 22 'it>b l
i.e6 23 l:[dh 1 :.cs 24 l:[xh7+! with
10Fb advantage for White, Enders­
Wallinger, Germany 1 99 1 ) 22 1i'xe7
(1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 'i'a3+ 23 �b 1 :.e8 24 'ifxd6 'i'xd6
lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbcJ g6 6 .te3 .tg7 7 25 l:[d6 h6 26 lbd4 and White has
f3 0-0 8 'it'd2 lbc6 9 .tc4 .td7 10 the preferable ending, Geller­
0-0-0 :.c8 11 .tb3 lbe5 1 2 h4 lbc4 Korchnoi, Moscow (m/4) 197 1 .
13 .txc4 :.xc4 14 h5 lbxh5 15 g4
lbf6 16 .i.h6 lbxe4! 17 'it'e3 l:[xcJ! 10Fb1
18 bxc3 lbf6 19 .txg7 �xg7)
(1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
20 l:[h2 lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 .te3 .tg7 7
White is ready to double rooks f3 0-0 8 'it'd2 lbc6 9 .tc4 .td7 10
along the h-file. In this respect, 0-0-0 :.c8 1 1 .tb3 lbe5 12 h4 lbc4
other manoeuvres with this rook are 13 .txc4 :.xc4 14 h5 lbxh5 15 g4
not consistent. lbf6 16 .th6 lbxe4! 17 'it'e3 lhc3!
96 The Rauzer Attack with 9 fJ.c4

18 bxc3 lC!f6 19 fJ.xg7 �xg7 20 10Fb2

l:th2)
(1 e4 c5 2 lC!fJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
20...'jj'c7 lC!xd4 lC!f6 5 lC!c3 g6 6 iJ.e3 fJ.g7 7
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 lC!c6 9 fJ.c4 iJ.d7 10
0-0-0 .l:.c8 11 iJ.b3 lC!e5 12 h4 lC!c4
13 fJ.xc4 .l:.xc4 14 h5 lC!xh5 15 g4
lC!f6 16 iJ.h6 lC!xe4! 17 'jj'e3 l:txc3!
18 bxc3 lC!f6 19 fJ.xg7 �xg7 20
l:th2)

20 ...l:th8

Black counts on coming first with

his attack on the queen's flank, not
paying attention to White's threats
on the other side. However such a
strategy is risky.
21 ltJe2
After 2 1 'jj'xe7 'jj'xc3 22 'ii'xd6
.l:.c8 ! , thanks to the threat of l:tc4,
Black organises play on the queen­ Essentially Black puts a stop to
side, whereas chasing after a pawn White's intentions of attacking on
h.Y 23 ...'ii'a l +?! 23 �d2 'ii'xa2 24 h7. Also possible is 2 l .. .h5 22 gxh5
'ife5 ! leaves White the better lC!xhS with equal chances, Antic­
chances, Gallagher-Tolnai, Kec­ Schneider, Balatonbereny 1 988.
skemet 1990. 21 lC!b3
21 .. ,'jj'c4 22 l:td3 After 2 1 lC!e2, a natural continu­
It is useful to give the king's posi­ ation in this sort of plan, also poss­
tion extra defence, whereas 22 · ible is 2 1 ...h5 (weaker is 2 I . ..iJ.c6
.l:.d4?! 'jj'xa2 23 'ii'xe7 l:te8 24 'ii'xd6 22 lC!g3 e6 23 c4 d5 24 g5 lC!d7 25
fJ.a4! hands over the initiative to cxd5 iJ.xdS 26 'ii'c3+ �g8 27 f4 ;!;
Black, Kir.Georgiev-Tolnai, Stara Morawietz-Sievers, Germany 1 988)
Zagora (zt) 1990. 22 g5 (22 l:tdh l ?! iJ.xg4! +)
The attack 22 l:tdh I is repulsed by 22 ...ltJe8 with an unexplored
22 ....l:.h8! 23 'ii'xa7 iJ.c6 24 g5 lC!dS position.
with sufficient counterplay for 2 1 ... h5
Black, Pinkas-Tolnai, Voronezh The presence of the knight on b3
1 987. has its pluses, since it indirectly pro­
22 ...'ii'xa2 23 'ii'h6+ �g8 24 lC!f4 motes the move c3-c4, for example
with the dangerous threat of g4-g5 2 l ...'ii'b6?! 22 'ii'h6+ �g8 23 lle2
and lC!f4-d5, I.Aimasi-Schneider, e6 24 c4 and White develops un­
Budapest 1 992. pleasant pressure in the centre. After
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 �c4 97

2 l ...�c6 already possible is the A standard manoeuvre. The rook

attack 22 g5 ! ltlh5 23 f4 l:.e8! is ready to defend the king from the
(dangerous is 23 .. .'ii'd 7?! 24 ltld4 g7 square.
'ii'g4 25 'ii'xe7 'ii'xf4+ 26 �b2 �d5 21 ltle2
27 l:.e2 ltlg3 28 l:.e3 with the threat After 2 I 'ii'h6+ �h8 22 l:.dh I l:.g7
of l:.O ! , Kasparov) 24 f5 'ii'b6 25 23 'ii'e3 e5! Black stands better,
ltld4 'ii'c5 26 l:.e i and White's Pusenjak-Nesis, corr. 1982/83.
chances are preferable, Kasparov­ 21. �h8
•.

Piket, Tilburg I989. Useful proe�ylaxis. Activity of

In the game Ekstrom-Tolnai, Hil­ the type 2 l . ..'tfa5? is inappropriate
versum I993, Black played 2 l ...b6 here: 22 g5 ltlh5 23 'ii'xe7 �c8 24
and after 22 l:.e I ? ! e5 ! 23 'ii'h6+ l:.xh5 with a decisive attack for
�g8 24 l:.d2 'ii'c7 25 �b2 �e6 26 White, Short-Ernst, Subotica (izt)
l:.ed i d5 27 l:.e i a5 ! developed a I987.
dangerous initiative. Stronger was Black can also play actively-
22 g5 ltlh5 23 f4, intending to pre­ 2 l . ..�c6, but after 22 lDg3 �ffi (on
pare f4-f4 after a transfer of the 22 ... �h8 good is 23 lle2 lle8 24 g5
knight to d4. lbd7 25 l:.xd6 ±) 23 g5 ! (23 c4
22 g5 ltlh7 23 f4 �g4! with equal .l:g7= Nunn-Ljubojevic, Amsterdam
chances, Morgado-Nesis, corr. I988) 23 ... ltld5 24 'ii'xa7 lbxc3 25
I990. .l:d3, followed by 26 l:.xh7, White
retains the initiative, (V.Kovacevic).
22 lbg3 �e6
10Fb3 Also possible is 22 ...l:.g7. For
example: 23 'ii'xa7?! �c6 24 g5
(1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltle8 25 f4 f6 26 'ii'e3 'ii'a5 27 lbe4
ltlxd4 ltlf6 5 ltlcJ g6 6 �e3 �g7 7 fS ! and Black obtains the better
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 ltlc6 9 �c4 �d7 10 game, Jansa-Osnos, Zinnowitz
0-0-0 l:.c8 1 1 �b3 ltle5 12 h4 ltlc4 I97 1 . It is not worth going for the
13 �xc4 l:.xc4 14 h5 ltlxh5 15 g4 pawn, more logical is 23 g5 ltle8 24
ltlr6 16 �h6 ltlxe4! 17 'ii'e3 l:.xc3! f4, intending f4-f5.
1 8 bxc3 ltlr6 19 �xg7 �xg7 20 23 g5 lbd7 24 l:.dh1
l:.h2) After 24 'ii'd4+ l:._g7 25 l:.dh i lbffi
26 'ii'xa7 'ii'c7 27 'tfd4 'ii'a5 Black,
20 l:.g8
•.• by attacking White's pawn wea­
knesses, gains the advantage,
Sznapik-Schneider, Stara Zagora
(zt) I990.
24 l:.g7 25 'ii'xa7 'ii'c8 26 'ii'd4
•••

ltlf8 with chances for both sides,

Cullip-Parker, England (ch) I990.

10Fc

(1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltlxd4 ltlr6 5 ltlcJ g6 6 �eJ �g7 7
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 ltlc6 9 �c4 �d7 10
0-0-0 l:.c8 1 1 �b3 ltle5 12 h4 ltlc4
98 The Rauzer Attack with 9 R.c4

13 .i.xc4 l:xc4 14 hS ltlxhS IS g4 both sides, Winterstein-Anka, Ger­

ltlf6 16 .i.h6 ltlxe4! 17 'it'e3 fl.xc3! many 1 993.
18 bxc3 ltlf6 19 .i.xg7 �xg7)
IOFd
20 ltle2
(I e4 cS 2 ltlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lbxd4 ltlf6 S lbc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
f3 0-0 8 'it'd2 lbc6 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10
0-0-0 l:c8 11 .i.b3 ltleS 12 h4 lbc4
l3 .i.xc4 l:xc4 14 hS lbxhS 15 g4
lbf6 16 .i.h6 lbxe4! 17 'it'e3 l:xc3!
18 bxc3 lbf6 19 .i.xg7 �xg7)

20 ltlb3

White delays the attack on the h­

file and transfers the knight to g3 in
order to deny the enemy knight the
h5 square.
20 'it'aS!
•.•

After 20 ... l:g8 2 1 ltlg3 �h8,

White realises the main idea of the
knight manoeuvre: 22 g5 ltlh5 23
ltlxh5 gxh5 24 l:xh5 .i.f5 25 'it'xa7,
gaining a material advantage, Mata­ White prevents the development
novic-Ivkov, Yugoslavia 1 974. of the queen to aS and at the same
On 20 ...'it'b6 possible is 2 1 'it'h6+ time attacks the a7 pawn.
�g8 22 ltlg3. For example, the 20 .i.c6
..•

game Winterstein-Asanov, Budapest Upon the passive 20...b6 2 1

1 990, continued 22...l:c8 23 lDe4 'it'h6+! , distinct from variation 8Fa,
.i.e6 24 l:de 1 l:e8 25 g5 ltlh5 26 White's threats are far more real: on
l:xh5 gxh5 27 ltlf6+ and Black 20...�h8 or 2 l . ..�g8 White plays
resigned. 22 lbd2 with the threats ltld2-e4 and
21 ltlg3 g4-g5. But apparently possible is
After 2 1 g5 ltlh5, premature is 22 20 ... a5 2 1 l:h2 a4 22 lDd2 .i.c6 23
l:l.xh5? gxh5 23 ltlf4 .i.e6!, while on l:db 1 'it'a5 24 'it'd4 'it'e5=
22 'it'xe7 !? fl.e8 23 'it'xd7 fl.xe2 (Predojevic).
Black's rooks suddenly become 21 l:h3 l:g8
active. The rook moves up to help the
21 l:c8 22 l:d3
••• king. Also worth considerin.g is
In Black's favour is 22 'it'h6+ 2 l ...'it'b6 22 lbd4 .i.d7 ! 23 'it'h6+
�g8 23 l:d3 l:xc3 ! , Glazkov-Nesis, (weaker is 23 l:dh 1 l:h8) 23 ...�g8
corr. 1 971172 24 g5 lbh5 25 l:xh5 gxh5 26 fl.h 1
22 .i.e6 23 'it'h6+ �g8 24 ltle4
.•. d5 27 'it'xh5 'it'g6 28 'it'h2 l:c8 29
'it'eS 25 l:e3 ltldS with chances for �b2 ;!; (M.Melts).
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 99

22 'W'xa7 hS 23 'W'e3 l:[h8!? The main reply. but to estimate its

The game Melts-Goldberg, corr. true worth it is also useful to look at
1 996, continued 23 . . .<�>ffi 24 gxh5 other tries.
lDxh5 25 c4 'W'c8 26 l:[h2! lDg3 27 1) 1 6....z:r.xc3?! 17 bxc3 'W'c7 (on
'W'h6+ �e8 28 c5 and White gained 17 .....te6 no good is 1 8 e5? lL!d5 1 9
the advantage. ..th6 in view of 1 9 ... ..txe5 ! +
24 l:[dhl Albrecht-Webb, London 1978, but
After 24 g5 lDh7 25 f4 e5 Black good is 1 8 .i.d4) 1 8 e5 lDe8 (after
has sufficient counterplay. 18 ... dxe5? 1 9 g5 loses a piece) 1 9
24...lDxg4 25 fxg4 ..txhl 26 'W'h2 h5 20 gxh5 ..txe5 2 1 f4 ! (not
.z:r.xhl hxg4 27 .z:r.xh8 �xh8 28 so effective is 2 1 ..tf4 ..txf4+ 22
'W'd4+ �h7 29 'W'xg4 and the three 'W'xf4 'W'xc3 23 l:[dg 1 'W'f6 24 'W'h6
connected black passed pawns on lDg7;!;) 2 I . ...i.g7 (2 I .. ..i.xc3 22
the kingside seem to compensate for fxg6) 22 ..td4 e5 23 fxe5 dxe5 24
the white knight (M.Melts). hxg6 or 24 ..tc5 with an obvious
advantage for White.
2) 16 ... .i.e6?! 17 .i.h6 .z:r.xc3 is in­
lOG effective in view of the possibility
1 8 'W'xc3 ..txh6+ 1 9 .z:r.xh6 'W'b6 20
(I e4 cS 2 lDfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �b1 .z:r.c8 2 1 'W'd2 and White
lDxd4 lL!f6 S lL!c3 g6 6 ..teJ ..tg7 7 resumes his attack, Pouwels-Looy,
fJ 0-0 8 'W'd2 lL!c6 9 ..tc4 ..td7 10 Holland 1 982.
0-0-0 .z:r.c8 II ..tb3 lDeS 12 h4 lL!c4 3) 16 ... a5 17 ..th6 (on 17 'W'h2 al­
13 ..txc4 .z:r.xc4 14 hS lL!xhS I� g4 ready good is 17 ....z:r.xc3 ! 1 8 bxc3
lL!f6) 'W'c7 1 9 ..th6 ..txh6+ 20 'W'xh6 a4
and Black comes first with his at­
l6 lL!b3 tack, Rayner-Baart, Plymouth 1 976,
but possible is 1 7 e5 tllxg4 1 8 fxg4
i.xg4 1 9 l:[dg 1 h5 20 e6 and here,
in the game Sherzer-Rao, New York
1986, Black should have played
20 ... ..txe6 with a double-edged
position) 17 ... ..txh6 1 8 .z:r.xh6! (on
18 'W'xh6 again __possible is
18 ....z:r.xc3! 1 9 bxc3 'W'c7 20 l:[d3
.z:r.c8 2 1 lL!d4 'W'c5 22 lLif5 ..txf5 23
exf5 b5 24 fxg6 fxg6 25 l:r.e 1 .z:r.c7
with sufficient compensation for the
exchange, Lane-Schneider, Stary
Smokovec 1 983) 1 8 ...a4 (on
18 ...'W'c7 or 1 8 ... �g7 decisive is 1 9
White removes his knight from e5) 1 9 l:[dh l ! lL!h5 ( 1 9...axb3 20
attack, preparing the possibility of .z:r.xh7!) 20 l:[6xh5 gxh5 21 'W'g5+
realising the basic method of solv­ �h8 22 'W'xh5 1 -0, Thielen-Miiller,
ing the position by ..te3-h6 and corr. 1 985.
e4-e5, not fearing the positional 4) 16 ...'W'c7 (a logical move) 17
sacrifice of the exchange on c3. e5 (also possible is 17 g5 lL!h5 1 8
l6...:.e8 lbd5 'W'd8 1 9 ..td4 ..txd4 20 lL!xd4 ;!;
100 The Rauzer Attack with 9 il.c4

Thesing-BaUmann, Zug 1 989, but from a position of strength. Here

unfavourable is 1 7 il.h6?! because White has no choice.
of 1 7 ...il.xh6 1 8 ...xh6 l:r.xc3! 1 9
bxc3 ...xc3 with good prospects for
Black) 1 7 ...dxe5 1 8 g5 il.f5 1 9 gxf6
exf6! (weaker is 1 9...il.xf6?!, which
leads to an exchange of this bishop:
20 il.g5 il.xg5 2 1 'lt'xg5 f6 22 ...d2
g5 23 l:r.h2 l:r.c8 24 �b I ! and the
control of the open d-file, together
with the insufficiently defended
black king, ensures White a firm
advantage, Dobrovolsky-Schneider,
Narvina 1 985) 20 �b l ! (the ex­
change of bishops 20 il.h6 g5 ! 2 1
il.xg7 �xg7 favours Black, who t7 o!t)xg4 t8 fxg4 il.xg4
.•.

after ...l:r.fc8 and ...b7-b5 gets at the On 1 8 ...il.xe5 the important

c2 pawn) 20... l:r.c8 2 1 �a 1 and, bishop is exchanged by 1 9 il.d4 ! .
though Black manages to build a 1 9 l:r.dgt
fortress on the kingside, White's The position has suddenly shar­
chances are preferable. pened. Black has sufficient equival­
After 1 6...l:r.e8 the most accept­ ent for the piece in the shape of
able continuations are: three pawns. He can take even a
fourth or try to construct a fortress
tOGa: t7 e5 on the kingside:
lOGb: t7 il.g5
tOGat: t9...il.xe5
On 1 7 'iVh2 it is necessary to t0Ga2: t9...h5
reckon on the exchang_e sacrifice
17 ...l:r.xc3 !? 1 8 bxc3 'lt'c7. For Hardly explored is 1 9... dxe5 20
example 1 9 il.d4 e5 20 il.e3 l:r.c8 2 1 ...g2! (upon the exchange of queens
...d2 il.xg4 2 2 fxg4 o!t)xe4 23 'iVh2 20 ...xd8 l:r.xd8 2 1 o!t)a5 l:r.xc3 ! ? 22
•xc3 with a strong attack for Black, bxc3 h5! 23 o!t)xb7 l:r.c8 24 o!t)c5 f5
Lindberg-Degerman, Stockholm Black's pawn armada looks more
1995. promising than White's extra rook,
Nujala-Nesis, corr. 1995) Now the
tOGa bishop on g4 is in danger (o!t)b3-d2
is threatened). Upon the careless
(1 e4 c5 2 o!t)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 20......c8?! 2 1 il.h6 il.h8 22 o!t)d2
o!t)xd4 o!t)f6 5 o!Z)cJ g6 6 il.e3 il.g7 7 Black has to go for new sacrifices,
f3 0-0 8 ..,d2 o!t)c6 9 il.c4 il.d7 tO K.auranen-Nesis, corr. 1 988.
0-0-0 l:r.c8 1 1 il.b3 o!t)e5 t2 h4 o!t)c4 Stronger is 20...h5 ! , which requires
t3 il.xc4 l:r.xc4 t4 h5 o!t)xh5 t5 g4 practical trials.
o!t)f6 16 o!t)b3 l:r.e8)
tOGat
t7 e5
As in similar variations with 1 6 e5 (t e4 c5 2 o!t)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
White tries to blow up Black's game o!t)xd4 o!t)f6 5 o!Z)cJ g6 6 il.e3 il.g7 7
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 101

f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 lllc6 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10 13 .i.xc4 :xc4 14 h5 lll xh5 15 g4

0-0-0 :c8 11 .i.b3 llle5 12 h4 lllc4 lllf6 16 lllb3 :e8 1 7 e5 lllxg4 18
l3 .i.xc4 :xc4 14 h5 lll xh5 1 5 g4 fxg4 .i.xg4 19 1:[dgl)
lllf6 16 lllb3 :e8 17 e5 lllxg4 18
fxg4 .i.xg4 19 1:[dgl) 19 ...h5

19....i.xe5 20 .i.d4

Black tries to construct a fortress

on the kingside.
20...:xd4!? 20 e6!
Black does not want to reconcile An important resource after which
himself to the exchange of his im­ White forcibly exchanges the dark­
portant bishop and decides to �acri­ squared bishop-the pivot of
fice the exchange. JJut already he is Black's pieces.
having to play a rook down, even 20 ....i.xe6
though he has weighty compensa­ He has to take with the bishop
tion in the shape of four pawns. since after 20 ... f5?! 2 1 llld5 ! (on 2 1
21 lllxd4 h5 22 llle4 i.d4? ! Black sacrifices the ex­
The manoeuvre 22 llld5 e6 23 change by 2 l ...llxd4! 22 lllxd4 and
llle3 can be considered poor, since from a position of strength tran­
after 23 ...11Vb6 24 c3 .i.xd4 25 •xd4 poses to the en�game, 22 ...11Vb6 23
•xd4 26 cxd4 f5 and in the ap­ �de2 �h7 24 wt'd3 .i.h6+ 25 �b I
proaching endgame the pawns may 'iVe3 ! 26 •xe3 .i.xe3, where his
tum out to be stronger than a rook, passed pawns represent a menacing
Westerinen-Ernst, Gausdal 1 99 1 . force, Jovcic-Velimirovic, Yugo-
22...�6 23 c3 :c8 24 �bl d5 slavia 1 984) 2 l . . ...c8 22 llld4! (on
25 lllg3 �f8 26 �at and White's 22 lllf4 follows 22 ...:r.xf4! 23 .i.xf4
chances are somewhat preferable, 11Vxe6 24 i.h6 •f6 25 .i.xg7 �xg7
Todorovic-Dancevski, Yugoslavia 26 llld4 e5 and basically Black risks
1989. nothing, since his four mobile
pawns are full value for a rook,
10Ga2 Ivanovic-Velimirovic, Stara Pazova
1983) 22 ...i.e5 (on 22 ... �h7?
(I e4 c5 2 lllfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 decisive is 23 :xg4! fxg4 24 'ifd3,
lllxd4 lbf6 5 lllcJ g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 Ye Jianchuan-Velimirovic, Subotica
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd 2 lllc6 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10 1 984) 23 •d3 'iVc5 24 :r.xg4 ! hxg4
0-0-0 :c8 1 1 .i.b3 llle5 12 h4 lllc4 25 lllf5 ! and White devalues the
102 The Rauzer Attack with 9 �c4

passed pawns, retaining a material (exchange sacrifice on c3) and

advantage, Shchebenjuk-Neibults, c8-h3 (piece sacrifice on g4),
corr. 1 986. whereas White's threats are asso­
21 �d4 �g4 ciated with the realisation of the
22 l:th5 was threatened. pinning motive on the d-file (after
22 l:txg4! hxg4 23 �xg7 �xg7 e4-e5) and attack of the h7 square
24 'ii'b6+ �f6 lS o!LldS+! �e6 26 (after 'ii'd2-h2). By moving the
l:tel+ �d7 27 'ii'g7! l:ttlJ queen to c8, Black gets ready to re­
After 27 ...�c8 28 'ii'x f7 Black is pulse White's main threats and con­
in trouble, Tsaturian-Poletaev, corr. firm his ambitions regarding the c3
1 983 and g4 squares. For the time being
28 ttld2 l:tcS 29 l:txe7+ there can be no direct attempt to
After 29 o!Llxe7? l:te8! 30 o!Lle4 take the initiative.
l:te5 Black suffers material loss, 1) 1 8 ...l:txc3?! 1 9 bxc3 'ii'c8 20
Trape-Tolnai, Harkany 1 985 e5 ! o!Llxg4 2 1 fxg4 �xg4 22 exd6
29...'ii'xe7 30 o!Llxe7 �xe7 31 o!Lle4 ..i.xc3 23 'ii'h2 and White achieves
l:f5 32 lbxd6 and in this position, his objective first, Ristic-Kaspret,
with its uneven material balance of Groningen 1 977.
forces, the chances are still on 2) 1 8 ...o!Llxg4?! 19 fxg4 ..i.xg4 20
White's side, Analysis by l:tdg 1 'ii'c8 21 l:tg3 ! and Black does
Schneider, Sapi. not have sufficient compensation for
the sacrificed piece, Lau-Rigo,
10Gb Dortmund 1 99 1 .
But also possible are other con­
(1 e4 cS 2 o!Llf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tinuations, where Black provokes
o!Llxd4 ttlf6 S o!Llc3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7 e4-e5 in order to sacrifice on g4 and
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 o!Llc6 9 �c4 �d7 10 win the e5 pawn. However, White
0-0-0 l:tc8 11 �b3 o!LleS 12 h4 o!Llc4 too has extra resources. Here are
13 �xc4 l:txc4 14 hS o!LlxhS IS g4 some examples:
�f6 16 o!Llb3 l:te8) 3) 1 8 .....te6 1 9 l:th4 !? (not only
defending the g4 pawn, but also pre­
17 �h6 paring a doubling of rooks, whereas
after 1 9 e5 o!Llxg4 20 fxg4 ..txe5
Black still captures the g4 pawn,
Cleghom-Tarjan, USA 1973)
19 ... 'ii'c7 20 l:tdh 1 l:tc8 2 1 'ii'h2 h5
22 ..i.d2 b5 23 gxh5 g5 24 l:tg 1 b4
25 l:txg5+ and in this sharp position,
White's chances are preferable,
Wegner-Wallinger, Germany 1991
4) 18 ...b5 19 o!Lld5 (also here after
19 e5 o!Llxg4 20 fxg4 ..i.xe5 21 o!Lld5
..i.xg4 and Black has sufficient com­
pensation for the piece, Serra­
Martin, Spain (ch) 199 1 ) 19 ...o!Llxg4
17 ...�h8 1 8 �gS 'ii'c8 (or 1 9... lDxd5 20 exd5 with the
The strong lines of Black's threat of 2 1 'ii'h2) 20 fxg4 ..i.xg4
counterplay are the a1-h8 diagonal (20 ...l:.xe4 21 'ii'h2 ) 2 1 l:tde 1 and it
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 103

is not easy for Black to unravel, .i.xe7! with a strong initiative for
while on 2 l ...h5? follows 22 e5 ! White, or even 22 .i.xe7 .i.xd 1 23
.i.xe5 23 ltlxe7+ �h7 (23 .. .l:Xe7 24 l:lxd l !?) 22 lDe3 ! l:ta4 (22 ...l%c6 is
l:lxe5) 24 ltlxg6 etc. more prudent) 23 �b 1 ._c6 24 -.n
._a6 25 ltld5! and White's chances
are preferable, Zezulkin-Kulagin,
Czestochowa 199 1 . Possibly even
stronger is 24 l:th6!? including the
queen in the attack. For example:
24 .....a6 25 a3 .i.g7 26 l%xh7!
�xh7 27 �2+ �g8 28 l%h 1 ._c6
29 ._h7+ �f8 30 :n with a strong
attack for White (Zezulkin). How­
ever, on the basis of a single game it
is of course premature to give a
more categorical assessment of the
continuation 1 9 e5.
19 l:lh4 19 ltlxg4
...

Planning the doubling of rooks on After 1 9 ...l:lxc3?! 20 bxc3

the h-file, White counts on outstrip­ (weaker is 20 ._xc3?! ._xc3 2 1
ping any black counterplay asso­ bxc3 l%c8 and Black is at least no
ciated with an exchange sacrifice on worse) 20 ... .i.e6 2 1 l%dh1 .i.g7
c3. (2 l ...h5? 22 gxh5 ltlxh5 23 l%xh5)
The direct attack I " 'ii'h2 is White attacks 22 e5 ! (less energetic
repelled by active counterplay: is 22 .i.h6 .i.xh6 23 l%xh6 .i.xb3 24
1 9 ... .i.e6 20 l:ld3 ! (threatening e4-e5 axb3 -.c5 25 �b2;!; Dimitrov­
and ltld2-e4) 20 ...h5! 2 1 gxh5 (after Tolnai, Stara Zagora (zt) 1 990)
2 1 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 22 gxh5 g5! Black 22 ...dxe5 23 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 (23 ... exf6
has the advantage) 2 l ...lDxh5 22 24 l:lxh7 f5 25 'ii'h2 �f8 26 g5 ! ±)
._g2 .i.xc3 23 bxc3 l:lxc3 24 l:lxc3 24 l:lxh7 ._c4 25 �b l ! (after 25 g5
(weaker is 24 �b2 l:lxd3 25 cxd3 i.g7 26 l:[ 1 h4? e4! Black takes over
.i.xb3 ! 26 axb3 -.c5 27 l:lxh5 l:lc8! the initiative, Hardicsay-Tolnai, Ba­
+) 24 ... -.xc3 25 l:lxh5 .i.xb3 26 latonbereny 1983, which could have
axb3 -.a 1 + 27 �d2 l:lc8 and been maintained by 26 ltld4 !)
Black's threats are enough to main­ 25 .....f4 26 ._g2 .i.g7 27 ._h3 with
tain the balance, Nunn-Khalifman, a strong attack for White, Short­
Wijk aan Zee 1991 A.Khalifman Khalifmim, Germany 199 1 .
also drew attention to the possibility 20 fxg4 .i.xg4 2 1 l:lel hS with a
1 9 ...l%xc3 ! ? 20 bxc3 .i.e6 2 1 l%d3 practically unexplored position,
._c4 with definite compensation for where Black has a sufficient pawn
the exchange. equivalent for the piece
Nevertheless more consistent (A.Khalifman).
looks 1 9 e5 ltlxg4 20 fxg4 .i.xe5 2 1
ltld5 .i.e6 (on 2 l ....i.xg4 possible is
22 l:ldfl ._e6 23 ._d3 l%c6 24 c3 Line 1 1
with the better prospects for White,
since 24 ....i.f5 is risky because of25 ( l e4 cS 2 ltlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
l:lxf5 ! -.xf5 26 'i'xf5 gxf5 27 ltlxd4 llJf6 5 ltlc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
104 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i..c4

tJ 0-0 8 'ii'd2 �c6 9 i..c4 i..d7 10 1) Black succeeds in realising

0-0-0 l:r.c8 1 1 i..b3 �es 12 h4) traditional play against the c4
square: l 3 ... tll c4 1 4 i..xc4 l:r.xc4 15
12 hS
.•. g4 hxg4 1 6 hS l:r.e8 (risky is
16 ... gxh5? 17 i..h6 ±) 17 hxg6 fxg6
1 8 ..i.h6 'ii'b6 with a double-edged
game, Bruggemann-Pachow, Ger­
many 1 979
2) The rook move makes possible
the "raid" 1 3 ...l:r.c4 and White has to
limit himself to 14 lD<ie2, since dan­
gerous is 14 i..xc4 �xc4 1 5 'ii'd3
liJxe3 16 'ii'xe3 because of the pin
16... 'ii'b6, while on 14 'ii'e2? ! ,
played in the game De Firmian­
Petursson, Reykjavik 1 984, fol­
lowed 14 ...l:r.xc3! 1 5 bxc3 'ii'a5 16
The idea of this bold advance, i..d2 d5 17 g4 hxg4 18 h5 gxD 19
weakening the castled position, of �xn i..g4 20 l:r.xg4 �exg4 21 h6
course lies not in the fact that it gen­ �xh6 22 i.. xh6 'ii'xc3 with material
erally prevents the thrust g2-g4, advantage to Black.
which sooner or later is inevitable. 3) Possible is l 3 ...'ii'a5, prevent­
As in systems where h4-h5 is played ing 14 g4?! hx:g4 1 5 h5 in connec­
without a preliminary g2-g4, White tion with a strong counterattack by
will not balk at the sacrifice of one Black: l 5 ...l:r.xc3 ! 16 bxc3 �xD ! 1 7
or two pawns if he can open lines on �xn �xe4 1 8 'ii'd3 'ii'a 3+! +
the kingside. The aim of the move Piaaren-Odeev, corr. 1 987.
...h7-h5 is something else: to delay
the break g2-g4 more or less long l lA
term, exploiting the fact that White
has to spend time on its preparation. (1 e4 cS 2 �tJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
The whole problem is whether �xd4 �f6 S �c3 g6 6 i..e3 i..g7 7
Black can achieve anything in this tJ 0-0 8 'ii'd2 �c6 9 i..c4 i..d7 10
period. 0-0-0 l:r.c8 1 1 i..b3 �es 12 h4 hS)
White's main direction of play is
linked to the following 13 g4
continuations.

liA: l3 g4
liB: 13 �bl
llC: 13 i..h6
liD: 13 i..gS
liE: 13 l:r.he1

The inclusion of the preparatory

1 3 l:r.dg 1 rather slows down the
tempo of attack:
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 ..ic4 1 05

The most con,sistent reply, though, Black with the initiative, Szell-Sax,
as practical experience shows, this Budapest 1 973.
attack is met by sufficient 1S ...e6 16 l:r.dg1
counter-action. After the preliminary exchange 16
13 ...hxg4 ..txg7+ �xg7 White's possibilities
Black is sufficiently well mobi­ are limited and the move 17 l:r.dg I is
lised to fight ghosts. After 1 3 ....lllc4 already in Black's favour: l 7 ...l:r.h8!
14 ..txc4 l:r.xc4 White is ahead in the 18 fxg4 lllf6 +, Calvo-Sosonko,
attack: Switzerland 1 974
I) 1 5 gxh5 lllxh5 16 lllde2 (on 16 Illogical is 17 f4, which forces the
. l:r.dg I possible is the break in the natural transfer of the knight:
centre: 16 ... e6 17 lllde2 d5 1 8 exd5 1 7 ...lllc4 1 8 ..txc4 l:r.xc4 1 9 lllde2
'ii'f6 and Black is no worse, Bellin­ .ic6 20 'ii'd3 b5 21 �b l 'ii'f6 and
Sosonko, Amsterdam 1 973) Black has the initiative, Fedoro­
16 ...'ii'a5 1 7 ..th6 ..te6 1 8 ..txg7 wicz-Petursson, Reykjavik 1 990.
�xg7 19 l:r.dg l with somewhat the Also insufficient is 1 7 fxg4 lllxg4
better prospects for White, Kostro­ 1 8 l:r.dg 1 lllhf6 1 9 lllfl l:r.h8 (after
J.Rodriguez, Nice (ol) 1 974. 19 ...'ii'b6 20 l:r.h4 'ii'e3 2 1 1i'xe3
2) 1 5 e5 dxe5 16 lllb3 l:r.c6 1 7 lllxe3 22 �d2! Black has to choose
..tc5 ! ? ( 1 7 g5 l:r.d6= Adorjan-Soson­ between two unclear endgames with
ko, Wijk aan Zee 1 974) and, due to material balance 22 ...llleg4 23
the unpleasant threat of g4-g5, l:r.hxg4 lllxg4 24 l:r.xg4 or 22 ... lllc4
White retains the initiative. 23 ..txc4 l:r.xc4 24 e5 l:r.h4 25 exf6+
14 hS �xf6 26 lllxh4) 20 'ii'd6 l:r.xhl 2 1
Insufficient is 14 f4?! lllc4 1 5 l:r.xhl 'ii'c7 22 'ii'd2 'ii'g3 and
'ii'd3 llla5 1 6 f5 lllxb3+ 1 7 axb3 Black's chances are preferable.
'ii'a5 ! and Black takes the initiative, 16 'ii'f6 17 ..txg7
•••

Olthof-Vanhirzeele, Belgium Or 1 7 fxg4 ..txh6 1 8 'ifx.h6 'ii'f4+,

1 985/86. and Black makes a favourable ex­
14 lllxh5
•.. change of queens, Goodman-Miles,
England 1 974.
17 ...'ii'xg7 18 fxg4 lllf6 19 gS
On 19 l:r.h4, as pointed out by
E.Geller, possible is l 9 ...l:r.fd8 20
l:r.gh l lllexg4 2 1 'ii'g2 l:r.c5 with
chances for both sides. Also good is
the intermediate l 9 ... g5 20 l:r.h3
l:r.fd8 with a subsequent transfer of
the king to e7.
19...lll h5 20 l:r.hJ
The attack 20 lllf5?! exfS 2 I llld5
lllfl ! 22 l:r.xh5 gxh5 23 lllf6+ �h8
does not achieve its objective, Sam­
15 ..th6 pow-Sosonko, Indonesia 1 982.
Also here 1 5 f4?! lllc4 1 6 'ii'd3 Nothing is offered by the ex­
llla5 17 f5 lllxb3+ 1 8 axb3 ..tes 1 9 change sacrifice 20 l:r.xh5?! gxh5 2 1
l:r.dgl 'iVaS 20 �b l 'ii'a6 leaves l:r.hl :cs 22 �bl :res 23 lllde2
1 06 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i.c4

ll:lc4 and Black gains the advantage, 14 i.xc4

Lengyel-Vescovi, Budapest I993. The exchange of the bishop on e3
Also in Black's favour is 20 ll:lce2 is in Black's favour: I4 'ii'd 3?!
ll:lc4 2 I 'itb4 aS 22 'ii'xb7 li:leS ! Lju­ ll:lxe3 I S 'ii'xe3 lieS I6 llhe I bS I 7
bojevic-Miles, Brussels I 986. li:ldxbS 'ii'b6 I 8 li:ld4 llb8 +
20...li:lc4 21 i.xc4 llxc4 22 li:lde2 Pritchett-Miles, England (ch) I 982.
'ii'eS 23 llxhS gxhS 24 lLlf4 and 14...llxc4
White has compensation for the ex­ Future plans with the organisation
change, but no more, Bellin-Szna­ of e4-eS are linked to the knight
pik, Wijk aan Zee I 974. After moves:
24 ...llfc8 the king is evacuated from
the danger zone. l lBa: 15 li:lde2
l lBb: 15 li:lb3
l lB
The knight thrust I S li:ldS is pre­
(1 e4 cS 2 li:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 mature.
li:lxd4 li:lf6 5 li:lc3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7 On 1 S ll:lce2 good is 1 5 ... bS !,
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 li:lc6 9 i.c4 i.d7 10 intending, on 16 i.h6, to counter­
0-0-0 llc8 1 1 i.b3 li:le5 12 h4 hS) attack by I 6 ... eS I 7 i.xg7 �xg7 I 8
li:lb3 dS I 9 exdS i.fS 20 li:lc3 b4! .
13 �bl The game Tseshkovsky-Gufeld,
USSR I 978, continued 1 6 c3 'ii'b8
17 li:lb3 llfc8 and Black, threatening
the attack ... a7-aS and ...bS-b4, has a
fully equal game.
But we come across the inclusion
of I S b3 llc8 I 6 li:lde2 ( I 6 li:ld5
leads to a weakening of king's pawn
cover-I6...li:lxdS I 7 exd5 'ii'c7 I 8
c4 bS I 9 cxbS 'ii'b7 20 i.h6 'ii'xdS
and Black has the advantage,
Murey-Kudrin, Beer-Sheva I 984)
I6 ...b5 I 7 li:ld5 (weaker is I 7 i.d4?!
e6! I 8 i.xf6 'ii'xf6 + Gonzales
A prophylactic move of the king Rabago) I 7 ... li:lxdS I 8 exdS 'ii'c7 I 9
(on 1 3 ...'ii'a S? of course follows I4 i.d4 i.fS 20 llc I ;!; Gonzales
li:ldS). White does not fear an ex­ Rabago - A.Ramos, Cuba 2000)
change on c4, counting on the I7 ...llc8 I 8 c3 (on I 8 gxhS, good is
disappearance of the knight eS to I 8 ...i.fS I 9 llc i i.xd4 20 i.xd4
organise a break in the centre by l:.xc2 2 I l:.xc2 'ii'xc2+ 22 'ii'xc2
e4-eS. l:.xc2 with the transfer to a better
l3 li:lc4
•.• endgame. M.Marin) 1 8 ...'ii'aS I 9
The flank attack 1 3 ... aS I4 a4 gxh5 l:.a4 ! 20 b3 (20 a3? llxa3 2 I
ll:lc4 1 S i.xc4 llxc4 after 16 b3 llc8 bxa3 llxc3 22 l:.c 1 i.f5+ 23 lbxf5
I 7 li:ldbS llc6 I 8 i.d4 allows White 'ii'bS+ 0- I Montell-Marin, Berga
to exploit the weakening of the bS I99S) 20...'ii'xc3 2 I 'ii'xc3 llxc3 22
square to establish control over the bxa4 llxe3 23 hxg6 fxg6 24 li:le6
centre, Murey-Tiviakov, Paris I 99 1 . i.f6 and White's many pawn
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 107

islands can easily become objects of 15 b5

...

attack for Black (M.Marin). Following the retreat of the

From recent tries it is worth men­ knight, also possible is 1 S ... .i.e6,
tioning l S ..d3 ltc8 16 �de2, not fearing 16 eS �e8. For
where White has to refrain from the example: 17 .i.h6 .i.xeS 1 8 .i.xf8
break e4-eS but still obtains quite �xf8 1 9 ,.e3 •as= Sax-Sosonko,
good chances for play in the centre. Wijk aan Zee 1 98 1 , or 17 exd6
For example, on 1 6 ... a6 possible is �xd6 1 8 .i.h6 •as 19 .i.xg7 �xg7
17 �f4! with the idea, after �fdS, 20 �f4 ltfc8 2 1 �xe6+ fxe6 22
to attack by g2-g4. . The game �e2 •rs 23 �d4 •r6 24 c3 eS
Yudasin-Lev, Israel 1 99S, continued with a fully equal game, Petschar­
16 .....aS 17 .i.d4 .i.e6 1 8 ,.d2 .i.c4 Schneider, Vienna 1982.
1 9 �cl ! ltfd8 (on 19 .....c7 follows On 1 S .....c7, with the idea of
20 g4! with an attack) 20 .i.xf6! preventing e4-eS, not dangerous is
exf6 (20....i.xf6 21 �S;l;) 2 1 �S 16 .i.d4 .i.e6 17 b3 ltc6 1 8 �f4
..xd2 22 ltxd2 and after the doub­ ltc8 19 �xe6 fxe6 20 �bS �8 2 1
ling of rooks White's chances are c4 b6= Matulovic-Mestel, Birming­
preferable. Yudasin recommends ham 197S, but he needs to reckon
16 ... .i.e6! 17 b3 a6 with a compli­ on 1 6 b3 ltc6 17 �bS (after 1 7 �dS
cated game. �xdS 1 8 exdS ltxc2! 19 ..xc2 .i.fS
20 ltd3 ltc8 2 1 ,.d2 •as and Black
l lBa has enough initiative for the
material, Glek-Kudrjashov, Azov
(1 e4 c5 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 199 1 ) 1 7 ...�8 1 8 .i.xa7 •as 1 9
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 .i.d4 when it seems there is
f3 0-0 8 ,.d2 �c6 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10 insufficient compensation for the
0-0-0 ltc8 1 1 .i.b3 �e5 12 h4 h5 pawn.
13 �b1 �c4 14 .i.xc4 ltxc4) 16 .i.h6
On 1 6 .i.d4 Black could try to
15 �de2 seize the initiative by 1 6... eS !? (not
bad is 1 6 ....i.e6 and in the event of
17 �dS .i.xdS 1 8 exdS ,.d7 1 9
•gs ltfc8 Black stands better,
Blucha-Polak, Czechoslovakia (ch)
1 99 1 , but more logical is 1 7 �f4)
17 .i.e3 b4 1 8 �dS �xdS 1 9 ..xdS
ltc6 20 c4 ,.c7 2 1 b3 aS 22 ltd2 a4
with equal chances, Anand-Tivia­
kov, Tilburg 1 992.
If 1 6 eS dxeS 1 7 .i.gS ltc7 1 8
.i.xf6 exf6 1 9 �xbS, then 1 9 ...ltb7!
(in this lies one of the ideas of the
move ...b7-bS). On 19 g4 Black
This move is linked not only to laucnhes a counterattack by
the direct threat of e4-eS, but can 19 .....e8 20 gxhS .i.e6! 2 1 ltdg l b4
also be a preparatory chain in the 22 �e4 f5 23 h6 fxe4 24 hxg7
organisation of a kingside attack �xg7 2S hS .i.xa2+! 26 �xa2
after �e2-f4-dS and g2-g4. ..a4+ 27 �b1 ltd8 28 ..xd8 ..xc2+
 108 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i.. c4

ending in a perpetual, Liberzon­ with the threat 19 lL!b3 followed by

Miles, Haifa (ol) 1 976. lL!c3-d5 and g2-g4, when he can
count on an initiative.
In passing, we mention that an ex­
change sacrifice such as 16 ...i..h S?
is premature here and met a refuta­
tion in the game Kaplan-Miles,
Hastings 1 975/76, which continued
1 7 e5 ! dxe5 l S lL!e4 l:.c7 1 9 i..x:ffl
'ifx:ffl 20 'it'a5 with advantage to
White.
17 i..xg7 �xg7
Not possible is 17 ... bxc3 because
of l S 'Wh6 ! .
18 lL!d5 lL!xd5 1 9 exd5 'it'b6!
16 b4
••• It is important to take under con­
The consistent move, but possible trol the a7-g l diagonal. Weaker is
is 16 ...'ifa5. 19 ...'ifa5 20 b3 ! (in case of 20 l:.hel
Already here Black need not be i..f5 21 lL!d4 'ifxd5 22 llxe7 .:.res
afraid of the standard reaction 1 7 23 l:.xa7 'it'c5 24 lL!xf5+ 'ifxf5 25
�5. on which G.Kasparov pointed l:.c l 'it'c5 Black has sufficient
out the following variation: counterplay, Gruchacz-Miles, USA
17 ...'ifxd2 1 S lLlxe7+ �h7 1 9 i..xd2 1980) 20...l:.c5 2 1 g4 l::tfcS 22
lL!xe4 ! 20 b3 lL!xd2+ 2 1 l:.xd2 l:.c5 'it'd4+ �gS 23 l:.d2 hxg4 24 fxg4 e5
22 llxd6 l:.e5 23 .:.Xd7 l:.xe2 with 25 dxe6 i..xe6 26 lLlf4 with danger­
active counterplay. Now Black in­ ous threats for White, Wolff­
tends to double rooks, after which, Kir.Georgiev, Biel (izt) 1 993.
due to the threat to divert the queen 20 b3
by the exchange ...i.. g7xh6, the On 20 g4?! Black forces threats
move ...b5-b4 gains in strength. on the c-file: 20 ...l:.fcS 2 1 lL!d4
· Therefore it is necessary to make a 'it'c5.
decision with the bishop. 20 l:.c7 21 g4
•••

1 ) 1 7 i..g5 involves a loss of time Worth considering is 2 1 'it'g5 !?.

by comparison with the variation 1 3 21 .:.rcs
•.•

i.. g5. Theory archives have custody Counterplay is the main leitmotiv
of the game Suetin-Szabo, Lenin­ of the Dragon. After 2 1 . ..l:.hS 22
grad 1 967, which continued 1 7 ...b4 gx.h5 l:.xh5 23 lL!g3 White has a
l S lL!d5 lL!xd5 1 9 'it'xd5 l:.c5 20 continuing attack.
'it'd3 i.. e6 2 1 lLlc l 'it'a4 ! 22 i..xe7 22 lL!d4 with a double-edged
l:.fcS 23 l:.d2 i..c3 ! with a decisive game where White's attack looks
attack for Black. the more dangerous, Glek-Kveinis,
2) 1 7 i..xg7 �xg7 l S lLlf4 .:.res Bad Godesberg 1 995.
19 lL!cd5 'it'xd2 20 l:.xd2 lL!xd5 2 1
lL!xd5 �:ffl and White's achieve­ l lBb
ments are obviously not that great,
Anand-Kasparov, New York (m/1 1) (1 e4 c5 2 lL!f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
1995. Due to this, worth considering lL!xd4 lL!r6 5 lLlcJ g6 6 i..eJ i.. g7 7
instead is the more modest l S lL!c 1 f3 0-0 8 'ifd2 lL!c6 9 i..c4 i..d7 10
 The Rauzer A ttack with 9 .i.c4 1 09

0-0-0 :cs 1 1 .i.b3 lbes 12 h4 hS Here 17 g4 is not so strong

13 �b1 lbc4 14 .i.xc4 :xc4) because of 1 7 ...e5! 1 S .i.e3 hxg4 19
h5 lbxh5 20 :dg 1 lbf4 and Black
15 lbb3 repulses the threats, Popovic-Soltis,
New York 197 1 . This attack is also
not dangerous after 17 'tfe3 lbd7 1 S
.i.xg7 �xg7. For example: 19 g4
hxg4 20 h5 lbf6 21 lbd4 .i.d7 22
hxg6 fxg6 23 'tfh6+ �f7 and the
king takes cover from the threats,
King-Hentschel, corr. 19S5.
On 17 'ife2 Black plays 17 ... b5 !
(defending the rook and preventing
g2-g4, in view of the weakening of
the e4 pawn) 1S e5 lbd5 !
(dangerous is 1 S ... dxe5 19 .i.xe5
'ifb6 20 lbd2 :c5 (after 20 ...:b4?
In connection with the threat of 2 1 a3 ! the rook is trapped, Moraza­
e4-e5, White, as it were with tempo, Le Blanq, Thessaloniki (ol) 1 9S4)
(for the present Black has no time 2 1 .i.d4 and Black suffers losses) 1 9
for ... b7-b5) frees the d4 square for exd6 'ifxd6 20 lbxd5 .i.xd5 2 1
the bishop, intending to prepare the .i.xg7 �xg7 22 'ife3 (or 22 'tfd2 e6
break g2-g4 with maximum effect. 23 �d4 :res 24 g4 l:hS 25 lbxb5
15 .'ifc7
.• . 'ifb4 26 lba3 and here in the game
It is too late for 1 5 ... a5?! 1 6 e5 ! Kaplan-Miles, Hastings 1 976, by
lbeS (or 1 6 ... dxe5 1 7 lbc5) 1 7 lbd5 playing 26 ...'tfxd2! 27 :xd2 :r4
.i.xe5 1 S lbxa5! :a4 1 9 lbb6 Black obtains some advantage in the
winning the exchange, Privera­ endgame) 22 ... e6! 23 'ifxa7 :a4!
Koteeles, Czechoslovakia 1 975 (also possible is 23 ...'tfg3) 24 'ife3
16 .i.d4 'l'g3 ! (in the game Tseshkovsky­
In case of 1 6 .i.g5 .i.e6 1 7 lbb5 Miles, Riga (izt) 1979, was played
'ifb6 1 S lb5d4 :res Black is fully 24 ...:faS 25 a3 'tfg3 25 'ifg5 'ifc7!
mobilised for play on the queen's with a counterattack by ... b5-b4) 25
flank, Metz-S.Farago, Budapest 'tfg5 'iff2 and Black's threats are
1 995. more real. For example, on 26 :d2
16....i.c6 follows 26 ...'ifa7 27 a3 b4 !.
After 16 ... .i.e6 alrea� possible is 17 ...e5
1 7 g4 ! hxg4 (or 1 7 ...:cs 1 S gxh5 In case of 17 ... b5 1 S e5 dxe5 1 9
lbxh5 1 9 :dg 1 with strong pressure .i.xe5 'ifb6 20 .i.d4 'tfc7 2 1 'ife2 e6
for White, Tukmakov-Sosonko, 22 .i.e5 'ifb6 23 :d6! White retains
Amsterdam 1974) 1 S h5 with sharp control over the key areas of the
play. For example, the game position, Zezulkin-Bobras, MK Cafe
Berelovich-Brodsky, Russia 1 996, Cup 1 999.
continued: 1 S ...gxh5 1 9 .i.xf6 exf6 18 .i.e3 l:d8 19 '6'd3 bS
20 :xh5 :cs 2 1 :dh 1 :xc3 22 It is useful to defend the rook.
bxc3 'ifxc3 23 f4 'ifxd2 24 lbxd2 The more active 19 ...d5 comes up
i.xa2+ •h-•h. against 20 .i.g5! and now 20 ...b5 2 1
17 :bet exd5 :xd5 22 lbxd5 lbxd5 23 :e4
110 The Rauzer Attack with 9 iLc4

leads to an advantage for White,

Spina-Pesis, corr. 1 987/90.
20 llJd2 dS 21 llJxe4 bxe4 22
'W'e2 d4 23 JJ..gs llb8 24 'W'xe4 'W'b7
with chances for both sides,
Bucciardini-Poli, corr. 1 99 1 .

11C

(I e4 eS 2 llJf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4
llJxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlcJ g6 6 iJ..eJ JJ..g7 7
f3 0-0 8 'W'd2 lLle6 9 JJ..e4 iJ..d7 10 1 3 . . . a5 is a loss of time: 14 JJ..xg7
0-0-0 lle8 11 iJ..b3 lLle5 12 h4 hS) �xg7 1 5 g4 and White comes first
with his attack. For example, the
13 iLh6 game Madi-Gal, Hungary 1 993,
continued 15 ... a4 16 lLlxa4 hxg4 1 7
h5 llh8 1 8 hxg6 fxg6 1 9 llxh8
'W'xh8 20 lLlb6 llJxf3 21 lLlxf3 gxf3
22 e5 and White gained a material
advantage.
14 JJ..xe4 llxe4
Also worth considering is
14...JJ..xh6 15 'W'xh6 llxc4. Now an
exchange sacrifice on c3 is
threatened, while on 1 6 'W'd2 Black
gains, as it were, an extra tempo.
For example: 1 6 ...'W'b6 1 7 llhel
llfc8 1 8 lle3 'W'a6 1 9 �b l b5 20
White exchanges the principal lLld5 lLlxd5 2 1 exd5 l:la4 with
character, extinguishing the fire of sufficient counterplay for Black,
of the Dragon bishop. Black's main Golubev-Aiterman, USSR 1 988.
replies are: IS JJ.. xg7 �xg7

1 1 Ca: 13 lLle4
..•

1 1 Cb: 13 ...JJ..xh6
l iCe: 13 ... aS

1 1Ca

(I e4 eS 2 llJf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4
lLlxd4 lLlf6 S lLle3 g6 6 JJ..e3 JJ..g7 7
f3 0-0 8 'W'd2 lLle6 9 JJ..e4 JJ.. d7 10
0-0-0 Ilea 11 iJ..b3 lLleS 12 h4 hS
13 iJ.. h6)

13 ...lLle4 16 g4
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 �c4 I l l

The most determined continu­ compensates for the weakness of the

ation. White sacrifices a pawn to backward d6 pawn, Vehi Bach­
open up the king's position. But Komljenovic, San Sebastian 1 993.
Black is excellently mobilised to or­ 16 hxg4
•.•

ganise counterplay, both in this case Dubious is 16 ... bS? ! , when White
and also upon less pretentious plans. can apparently accept the pawn
I) 1 6 �b1 'ii'aS 1 7 lLlb3 'ii'eS (on sacrifice: 1 7 gS lL!e8 1 8 lL!dxbS.
1 7 ...'ii'c7 possible is 1 8 g4!?, for On 1 6... eS White can sacrifice a
example the game Tokmachev­ piece by 17 lLlfS+! gxfS (or
Schreiber, Hotel Zug_Io 1 999, con­ 17 ...�xfS 1 8 gxf5 lld4 19 'ii'f2 ±)
tinued 1 8 . . . �e6 1 9 lhdS �xdS 20 1 8 gxfS �c6 19 Adg1+! �h7 20
exdS Ac8 2 1 lth2 hxg4 22 hS g3 23 Ags Ag8 2 1 Ahg1 bS 22 b3 ! Acs 23
Ae2 lL!hS 24 lL!d4 with a double­ �b 1 , retaining a dangerous initiat­
edged game, where White's initiat­ ive on the kingside, Khalifman­
ive compensates for the sacrificed Smirin, Vilnius 1 988.
pawn-the knight attacks the im­ 17 h5 Ah8 18 hxg6 fxg6 19 f4
portant squares fS and e6) 1 8 f4! (in The main continuation. On 1 9
the game Kotronias-Aiterman, fXg4 not good is 19 . . .lL!xg4?! 20 b3 !
Rishon-Ie-Zion 1996, White played .:.cs 2 1 lL!dS, which leads to an ad­
more passively 1 8 Ahe 1 and after vantage for White, Vlad-Kiss, Ro­
1 8 ...'ii'g3 ! 1 9 Wfe3 Afc8 20 eS dxeS mania 1 986, but after 1 9 ...�xg4 20
2 1 'ii'xeS 'ii'xeS 22 AxeS Axh4 23 eS dxeS 2 1 lLle6+ �xe6 22 Wfxd8
Axe7 Ah2 the game transposes to an .:xd8 23 .:xd8 �fS Black has
even endgame) 1 8 ...'ii'e6 1 9 lL!d4 enough compensation for the
'ii'g4 20 eS dxeS 2 1 fXeS lL!e4 22 exchange.
lL!xe4 'ii'xe4 23 b3 with chances for 19 ... e5! 20 fxe5
both sides (B.Aiterman). Also worth considering is 20
2) 1 6 Ahe1 'ii'aS (or 1 6...'ii'c 7?! 17 lL!de2. Now in case of 20 ...Ac6
lL!dS ! lLlxdS 18 exdS ±) 1 7 �b 1 White obtains an important tempo
Afc8 1 8 lL!b3 'ii'a 6! 1 9 eS dxeS 20 for attack: 2 1 fXeS dxeS 22 'ii'gS
AxeS bS 2 1 Axe7 b4 22 lL!e4 Axc2 .:e6 23 lL!g3 and lL!g3-f5 is threa­
23 'ii'gS �fS with a very sharp game tened. White also retains the attack
and chances for both sides, after 20 ... lLlxe4 2 1 lLlxe4 .:xe4 22
Apicella-Aiterman, Cap d'Agde, .:xh8 (22 'ii'xd6 �c6) 22 ...'ii'xh8 23
1 994. 'ii'xd6 or 20....:xh 1 21 .:xh 1 lLlxe4
3) 16 lL!dS (in the event of 22 lL!xe4 .:xe4 23 fXeS .:xeS 24
16 ... lL!xdS 17 exdS Black is 'ii'h6+ �f7 2S 'ii'xh7+ �e6 26 lLlf4+
cramped and White's initiative more �fS 27 .:n . However after
real, for example: 1 7 ...aS 1 8 g4 20 ...'ii'e7 Black holds the position.
hxg4 1 9 hS gS 20 b3 AcS 2 1 'ii'xgS+ 20 ...dxe5 21 lL!de2
�h7 22 lLlf5 �xf5 23 'ii'xfS+ �h8 It hardly makes sense to win the
24 fXg4 ;j; Ninov-Dumitrache, (zt) exchange: 2 1 lLle6+ �xe6 22 'ii'xd8
1 99S) 1 6 ... eS 1 7 lL!b3 (on 1 7 lLle2 .:xd8 23 .:xd8 lLlxe4.
Black can sacrifice a pawn by 21 l:[h3
. ..

1 7 ...lL!xdS 1 8 'ii'xdS �e6 1 9 'ii'xd6 The game Yudasin-Smirin,

'ii'a S, with a queenside attack) Norilsk 1 987, continued 2 J . ..l:[c8 22
1 7 ... lL!xdS 1 8 'ii'xdS 'ii'c7 1 9 'ii'd2 'ii'gS 'ii'e7 23 lLlg3 Axh 1 24 .:xh1
llc8 and the pressure on the c-file l:[h8 2S Ad1 �c8 Ih-Ih.
1 12 The Rauzer Attack with 9 J..c4

22 l:[hfl 1 1Cb1: 15...'ii'a5

After 22 'ii'g S?! 'ii'e8 ! the initiat­ 1 1 Cb2: 15...'ii'c7
ive passes to Black, Sax-Kir.Geor­
giev, Burgas 1 992.
22 :0 23 l:[h1 l:[h3 with equal
.•. 1 1Cb1
chances.
(1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
1 1Cb lbxd4 lDf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 J..e3 J..g7 7
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 lbc6 9 J..c4 J..d7 10
(1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 0-0-0 :c8 11 J..b3 lbe5 12 h4 h5
lbxd4 lDf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 J..e3 J..g7 7 13 J..h6 J..xh6 14 'ii'xh6 l:[xcJ 15
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 lbc6 9 J..c4 J..d7 10 bxc3)
o-o-o :c8 11 J..b3 lbe5 12 h4 h5
13 J..h6) 15 ...'ii'a 5

13 ...J..x h6 14 'ii'xh6

16 �b1
On 16 �b2 possible is l 6 ... :c8!
14 ...l:[xc3 ! followed bY._ an advance of the
This sacrifice of the exchange is a-pawn. 1 7 Wfe3 (or 1 7 'ii'd2 'ii'b6 1 8
closely connected with swapping on �al aS+ S.passky-Mestel, London
h6 otherwise White prevents this 1982) l 7 ...Wfb6 1 8 �al 'ii'cS 19 g4
threat, obtaining the better chances. aS 20 gxhS (weaker is 20 gS lbe8 2 1
Threatened with the attack g2-g4, f4 lbg4 22 'ii'f3 a4 23 J..dS e6 24
Black is simply obliged to compro­ J..xb7 l:[b8 2S l:[b l eS + S0gaard­
mise the position. The direct pawn Sj0din, Taby 1 99 1 ) 20 ... lbxhS with
attack l 4... aS l S 'ii'd2 bS is repulsed chances for both sides, Pritchett­
by 1 6 lbcxbS a4 1 7 J..xa4 'ifb6 1 8 Soltis, Haifa 1 970.
b3 'ii'cS 1 9 l:[hel :as 20 'ii'c3 :ab8 The threat ... a7-aS-a4 is also
2 1 f4 lbeg4 22 eS and after the effective after 16 g4. For example
break in the centre White has an l 6 ...'ii'xc3 1 7 �b l aS 1 8 gxhS a4 1 9
obvious advantage, Khalifman­ hxg6 axb3 20 cxb3 £Xg6! 2 1 hS
Riemersma, Dordrecht 1 988. (The try 2 1 l:[hg l �fl 22 hS gxhS
23 l:[g7+ �e8 24 f4 allows Black to
15 bxc3
deliver a very strong counter-blow
Here Black's main continuations 24 ...lbd3 ! , Goichberg-Soltis, New
are: York 1 970) 2 l . ..lbxhS (also
 The Rauzer A ttack with 9 .i.c4 1 1 3

interesting is 2 l ...g5 ! ? 22 'ifxg5+ edged game, Lanc-Diaz, Tmava

�h7 23 'ifd2 'ifxd2 24 l:xd2 �xO! 1988.
and Black equalises, Golubev­ 17 g4 'ii'xcJ
Dautov, USSR 1985) 22 l:xh5 ! (22 The direct 17 ...�c4 is justified
f4? looks too provocative: 22 ...�3 only after 1 8 .i.xc4 l:txc4 1 9 gxh5
23 'ifxg6+ �g7 24 'ifb7+ �fl and 'ii'xc3 20 l:d3 WM+ 21 �b3 �xh5 !
the checks come to an end, after and Black holds the balance,
which the attack passes to Black, Gallagher-Mestel, England (ch)
Dan Durham-Kudrin, Las Vegas 1987. But by a preliminary defence
1989) 22 ... gxh5 23 l:g 1 + .i.g4 24 of the c3 pawn by 18 l:d3 ! 'ifa3 19
�e6 'ifd3+ 25 �a l l:fl 26 fxg4 .i.xc4 l:xc4 20 e5 ! White goes over
(Miles/Moscow) and now Black to a decisive attack: 20 ...dxe5 (or
should take a perpetual check. 20 ... lbd5 2 1 gxh5 lbxc3+ 22 l:xc3
16 :cs
... 'ifxc3 23 hxg6 ± Tolnai-Parkanyi,
In such positions it is important to Budapest 1 988) 2 1 �f5 (Tolnai rec­
include extra reserves, taking under ommends 2 1 �b3 with the threats
control the key c4 square. Too naive of 22 g5 and 22 gxh5) 2 1 . . .gxf5 22
is 16 ...'ifxc3?! which allows White gxh5 ± Borgstadt-Pantaleoni, Luga­
to transfer the knight with tempo to no 1989
the kingside by 17 �e2 and start an 18 gxhS
attack there. Dubious is 1 8 lllf5?! .i.xf5 1 9
1) 17 ... 'ifc5 1 8 �f4 �c4 (or exf5 hxg4 20 fxg6 �c4 2 1 gxfl+
1 8 ...e6 19 g4 a5 20 �xh5! with a �xfl 22 'ii'c l g3 and to the minuses
strong attack for V{hite) 1 9 �xg6! of his position White adds another
fxg6 20 'ifxg6+ �h8 2 1 'ifb6+ �h7 problem of a passed pawn, Bokan­
22 l:d5 'ife3 23 l:g5 and Black can­ A.Fedorov, Moscow 1 992.
not avoid material losses. Gaponen­ 18 �c4
...

ko-Lardugin, Alushta 1 999. On 1 8 ... �xh5 possible is 1 9 l:hg l

2) 1 7 .. 'ifb4 1 8 l:d4! 'ifb6 1 9
. and if 1 9 ... �f6?! (more prudent is
l:hdl l:c8 20 �f4 �c4 2 1 �xg6! 1 9...lllg7), then 20 h5 with an
fxg6 22 e5 ! with very strong threats attack.
for White, Renet-Koch, Lyon (zt) 19 .i.xc4
1 990 After 1 9 'ii'c 1 �xh5 20 l:d3 'ifb4
But worth considering is 1 6...b5 21 l:.g 1 a5 22 �a 1 a4 23 .i.xc4
1 7 �e2 (activity by 1 7 f4?! �c4 1 8 'ii'xc4 he still has to exchange
f5 'ii'a5 1 9 l:d3 'ii'a3 20 'ii'c l 'ii'x cl + bishops, but in a less favourable
2 1 �xcl �xe4 leads to the loss of a situation, Hellers-Watson, Heming
pawn, Lepelletier-Degraeve, France 1 99 1 .
(ch) 1 997) 1 7 ...'ifa3 (weaker is 19 l:xc4
•.•

1 7 ...l:c8 1 8 g4 hxg4 1 9 h5 ± 1 9 ...'ii'xc4 is practically unex­

Armanda-Jovanovic, Pula 1 999) 1 8 plored. The game Pantaleoni­
�f4 (or 1 8 'ii'c l 'ifc5 and here the Giuliani, corr. 199 1 , continued 20
active 19 g4?! hxg4 20 f4 �c4 2 1 hxg6 e5 2 1 g7 �h7 22 'ifxd6 exd4
l:d4 .i.c6 also leads to the loss of 23 'ii'xd4 'ifxc2+ 24 Wa l and a
the e4 pawn, Petitcunot-Agnos, position arises with equal chances.
Cappelle Ia Grande 1 997) 1 8 ... �c4 20 l:d3 'ii'b4+ 21 tt:Sb3 lLlxhS
19 lDd3 d5 20 e5 �h7 2 1 'ii'c l 'ifa5 The counterattack 2 l ...a5 22 hxg6
22 �b4 e6 23 f4 f5 with a double- a4 is repulsed by 23 e5 ! dxe5 24
JJ4 Rauzer Attack with 9 iLc4

lhd7! l:ld4 25 g7 ll:lh7 26 l:lgi I -0 0-0-0 l:lc8 11 iLbJ lDe5 12 h4 h5

Howeli-Gemrnell, England (ch) 13 iLb6 iLxh6 14 'ifxh6 l:.xcJ 15
I 987. bxcJ)
22 .l:r.g1 'ifh6
Worth considering is 22 ...l:lc5 15...'ifc7
with the idea of 23 l:lg5 (with the
threat of 24 1i"h5) 24 ... �f4 25 l:lc5
ll:ld3 .
23 l:lg2
The pseudo-active 23 l:lg5 is re­
pulsed by 23 ...'iff2. For example
the game Conte-Lotti, corr. I 989,
continued 24 .l:r.d2 'ifxf.3 25 l:ldg2
lllf4 26 h5 ll:lg2 27 hxg6 'ifd i + 28
�b2 'ifxc2+ 29 �a i 'ifd i + 30 �b2
'ifc2+ 1h-1h.
23...iLh3 24 l:lgd2 iLe6 25 'ifeJ
'ifxeJ 26 l:lxe3
16 �b1
A forced move of the king. After
I6 g4, besides I6 ...l:c8 I 7 �b I aS
which leads to a transposition of
moves, also possible is I 6 ...'ifxc3
with the threat I 7 ...'ifa I + forcing 17
�b I and Black saves a tempo on
I 7 ...a5. The game Gross-Kaiser,
Germany 1999, continued: I 8 g5
ll:lxe4! 19 fxe4 e6 (with the threat of
winning the queen after 20...ll:lg4)
20 ll:lf5 exf5 2 I l:lxd6 a4 22 l:.xg6+
lDxg6 23 'ifxg6+ 'ifg7 •h-•h.
An endgame is reached bearing a 1 6...l:lc8
typical character after the the ex­ The capture I 6...'ifxc3?! is exam­
change sacrifice. Despite his quite ined in the variation with 1 5 ...'ifa5.
durable position, Black has in pros­ The direct I 6... a5 has its own prob­
pect a difficult defence. lems: I 7 f4 lllfg4 I 8 'ifg5 a4 I 9
26...ll:lf4 fxe5 axb3 2 0 cxb3. Let's look at a
Or 26...�g7 27 l:la4;!; Mainka­ few possibilities.
Koch, Dortmund I 989. I ) 20 ... dxe5? 2 I lllf5 e6 22 lllh6+
27 l:ld4 l:lc7 28 e5 and White has ll:lxh6 23 'ifxh6 with a decisive at­
the initiative, Savory-Johnson, corr. tack for White, Hiibner-Miles, Ger­
I992/93. many I 986.
2) 20 ...ll:lf2 2 I e6! (insufficiently
1 1 Cb2 energetic is 2 1 'ifxe7 lllxh l 22 e6
lDf2 23 lllf5 ll:lxdi 24 exf7+ .l:r.x£7
(1 e4 c5 2 lllf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 25 ll:lh6+ �g7 1h-1h Sax­
liJxd4 lllf6 5 ll:lcJ g6 6 iLeJ iLg7 7 Kir.Georgiev, Sarajevo 1985) 21 ...
f3 0-0 8 'ifd2 lDc6 9 iLc4 iLd7 10 lDxe4 (or 2 1 .. .lllxh i 22 l:lxh1 'ifxc3
 The Rauzer A ttack with 9 .i.c4 1 1 5

23 l:d l ! ± Martic-Stankovic, corr. t3 0-0 8 _.d2 ltlc6 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10

1986) 22 1i'h6! (22 _.xe7 ltlxc3+ 23 0-0-0 l:c8 1 1 .i.b3 lbe5 12 h4 h5
�b2 lbxd I+ 24 l:xd 1 fxe6 25 l:c 1 13 .i.h6 .i.xh6 14 _.xh6 l:xc3 15
�6 26 lbxe6 .i.xe6 27 _.xe6+ bxc3 _.c7 16 �b1 l:c8 17 g4 a5)
�g7= H.Oiafsson) 22 ...ltlxc3+ 23
�b2 lbxd l + 24 l:xd1 fxe6 (weaker 18 gxh5
is 24 ... d5 25 exd7 _.xd7 26 _.g5 ±
Van der Wiei-Kir.Georgiev, Lugano
1987, or 24 ... .i.e8 25 exf7+! J.. xf7
26 ltle6! ±) 25 _.xg6+ �h8 26
_.xh5+ �g8 when, in the game
Short-H.Oiafsson, Wijk aan Zee
1987, after a few unforced checks
White gained the advantage by 27
_.g5+ �h8 28 l:c l �6 29 'iVh6+
�g8 30 lbxe6.
3) 20...ltlxe5 2 1 _.xe7 _.xc3 22
_.g5 l:a8 with somewhat the better
chances for White, Stefansson­
Tiviakov, Gausdal 1 993. The most popular continuation.
17 g4 White strives to open lines on the
After 1 7 f4 lbc4 1 8 l:d3 ( 1 8 kingside. Black is forced to counter­
�a l ? ! leads to an advantage for attack, since he has no time for
Black: 1 8 .....a5 1 9 l:d3 lbxe4 + 1 8 ...lbxh5 because of 1 9 :r.hg l with
Marjanovic-Gojkovii:, Belgrade the threat of capturing the knight.
1 987, while on 1 8 .i.xc4 _.xc4 1 9 18 ...a4 19 .i.d5!
f5 good is 1 9. . ..i.c6!? or 1 9 ...gxf5 !? Apparently the best. After 1 9
with the idea lbe4) 18 ...ltlxe4 19 f5 hxg6 axb3 20 cxb3 _.xc3 2 1 gxf7+
gxf5 20 l:hh3 d5 the chances of the �xf7 22 l:hg 1 .i.h3 Black's attack
two sides are roughly equal. is more real. For example: 23 l:g3
17 a5
.•. .i.fl (in case of 23 ...�3?! 24 l:g7+
The continuation 1 7 .....xc3 is �e8 25 1i'h8+ �d7 26 l:xe7+ �xe7
look at in the variation with 27 _.g7+ White forces a draw) 24
1 5 .....a5. l:g7+ �e8 25 1i'h8+ �d7 26 l:xe7+
�xe7 27 ltlf5+ �d7 28 _.g7+ �c6
In this position are played: 29 :Xd6+ �c5 30 _.g l + �b4 when
it is best for White to force a draw
1 1 Cb2a: 18 gxh5 by 3 1 �6+ �a3 32 _.a7+ .i.a6 33
1 1 Cb2b: 18 g5 l:xa6+. The game De Firmian­
11 Cb2c: 18 lll f5 Kudrin, USA (ch) 1 988, continued:
3 1 _.xfl _.c2+ 32 �a 1 ltlxf3 33
1 1Cb2a l:b6+ �a3 34 l:a6+ bxa6 35 _.xa6+
�b4 36 �7+ �a3 37 _.a6+ 1h-1h,
(1 e4 c5 2 llltJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 but later an improvement was
lbxd4 lLlf6 5 lL!cJ g6 6 .i.eJ .i.g7 7 found: 32 .....c3+ 33 �b1 b5! 34
1 1 6 Rauzer Attack with 9 Ji..c4

1i'd 1 �xf3! 35 �g3 �d5 ! ! 36 a3 18 g5

(on 36 l:r.xd5 also winning is
36 ... '1ta3) 36 ... �xa3 37 l:r.a6+ �b4
and Black wins, Lahtinen-Palkovi,
Hungary 1 990.
19 ...�xd5
The capture 1 9 ...�xh5 is risky.
True, after 20 l:r.hg I e6 2 I �f5 ! l:r.e8
22 f4 Black manages to generate
counterplay: 22 ... exd5 23 fx.e5
'Wb6+! 24 �a 1 (worth considering
is 24 �c l ! ?) 24 ...dxe5! 25 1i'xh5
Ji..xf5 26 exf5 a3 27 l:r.b I 1i'e3 and
White is obliged to force a draw by
28 l:txg6+ Gusija-Gojkovic, Yugo­
slavia 1 987. But more resolute is 20 White fixes the g6 pawn, intend-
f4 e6 2 I �f5 ! l:r.e8 (2 l ...exf5? is ing to attack it with the f-pawn.
losing: 22 fx.e5 1Vxc3 23 1i'xg6+ 18...�e8 19 f4 a4!
�g7 24 Ji..xf7+ �f8 25 1i'xd6+) 22 On 1 9 ...�c4 follows 20 f5.
fx.e5 dxe5 23 l:r.hg l ! (after 23 �e3 20 Ji..dS e6
1i'xc3 ! 24 Ji..c4 a3 25 �c 1 Ji..a4 and Sanchez Almeyra recommends
Black has sufficient counterplay) 20 ...'Wb6+! ? 2 1 �c 1 a3 22 Ji..b3
23 . . . 'Wb6+ 24 Ji..b3 ! when White re­ l:r.xc3 23 fx.e5 l:r.xb3, which requires
tains dangerous threats. special analysis since White's ma­
20 exdS 1fxc3 21 hxg6 fxg6! 22 terial advantage is so great.
l:r.hgl 'ifb4+ 21 fxeS exdS
This is more accurate than On 2 l .. .a3 follows 22 �f5 ! . The
22 . . .Ji..f5, played in the game Khalif­ game Sanchez Almeyra-Palkovi,
man-Savchenko, Simferopol I 988, Budapest I 989, continued
on which White, instead of 23 2 l ...Wfxc3 22 l:r.d3 1i'b4+ 23 �a 1
�xf5?! 1fxc2+ with a draw, could exd5 24 l:lb1 1i'c4 25 �f5 Ji..xf5 26
exchange queens by 23 1i'd2. exf5 1i'e4 and Black defends. But he
23 �cl 1i'a3+ 24 �d2 Ji..fS with will hardly achieve this if White
chances for both sides. plays 24 e6! and after 24 ... .i.xe6 or
24 ... fx.e6 follows the decisive entry
1 1 Cb2b into the attack of the rook by 25
:b t .
(I e4 cS 2 �fJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 22 e6 Ji..xe6 23 �xe6 fxe6 24
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 Ji..e3 Ji..g7 7 1i'xg6+ �g7 25 exdS a3 26 1i'd3
fJ 0-0 8 1i'd2 �c6 9 Ji..c4 Ji..d7 10 'ifb6+ 27 �cl eS 28 l:r.hfl and
0-0-0 l:r.c8 II Ji..b3 �es 12 h4 hS White's threats are more real, as in
13 Ji..h6 Ji..xh6 14 1i'xh6 l:txc3 15 the game Pyhiilii-Yndesdal, Gausdal
bxc3 -.c7 16 �bl l:r.c8 17 g4 aS) 1990.
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 �c4 1 1 7

l 1 Cb2c preferable, Renet-Kudrin, StMartin

199 1 .
(1 e4 c5 2 ll)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ll)xd4 ll)f6 5 ll)c3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7 l i Ce
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 ll)c6 9 �c4 �d7 10
0-0-0 Ac8 l l �b3 ll)es 12 h4 hS (1 e4 c5 2 ll)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
13 �h6 �xh6 14 'ii'xh6 Axc3 15 ll)xd4 ll)f6 5 ll)c3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7
bxc3 'ii'c7 16 �b1 Ac8 17 g4 aS) f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 ll)c6 9 �c4 �d7 1 0
0-0-0 Ac8 l l �b3 ll)es 1 2 h4 h5
18 ll)f5
13 �h6)

13 ...a5

An aggressive continuation, lead­

ing to forcing play.
18...�xf5 19 exf5 Black strives to provoke a further
Also possible is 1 9 gxf5 'ii'xc3 (it weakening of the castled position.
is useless to include 1 9 ... a4 20 14 �xg7 �xg7 15 a4
�xa4 'ii'xc3 since after 2 1 �b3 White has to reckon on the threat
ll)c4 22 'ii'c 1 Aa8 23 Ad3 ! White of ...a5-a4. For example: 1 5 g4 a4!
repulses the threats) 20 fxg6 ll)c4 21 I 6 ll)xa4 (he can apparently risk I 6
gxf7+ �xf7 22 'ii'c i a4 23 �xc4+ i.xa4, not fearing the exchange
lb:c4 24 a3 'ii'x f3 25 e5! dxe5 26 sacrifice I 6...Axc3 I 7 �xd7 Axf3
Ahfl ! 'ii'c6 27 'ii'g5 'ii'e4 28 Ad2 I S ll)xf3 ll)xf3 I 9 'ii'c3 ll)e5 20
when in the game Prandstetter­ i.b5 hxg4, though Black has an ex­
Neumeier, Dortmund 1 990, Black cellent game: I 6...hxg4 I 7 h5
should have gone for 28 ...�e6 29 ll)xh5 ! · I S Axh5 gxh5 I 9 'ifg5+
Adf2 �d5 i. ll)g6 20 lbfS+ i.xf5 2 I exf5 e6! 22
19 ...'ii'xc3 20 fxg6 ll)c4 21 'ii'c l 'ii'xd8 Acxd8 23 fxg6 �xg6 with
Or 2 I gxf7+ <jaf7 22 'it'c l a4 23 the better endgame for Black
�xc4+ Wxc4 24 'ii'd2 Ac5 25 'ii'd3 (Alterman).
'ii'b4+ 26 �a I Ac3? (better was But interesting is 15 f4 ll)eg4 1 6
26 ...hxg4 i) 27 'ii'd4 Ac4 28 c3 ! and l:.he I Ac5 I 7 lll f3 'ii'b 8 I S 'it'd4
White gained the advantage, and, because of the threat to ad­
Watson-Kudrin, Palma de Mallorca vance e4-e5, White's chances are
(GMA) 1 989. preferable, Renet-Reschke, Lugano
21 a4 22 �xc4 Axc4 23 a3 AcS
.•. I988.
24 l:d3 and White's chances are 15...l:.c5
1 18 Rauzer Attack with 9 i.c4

On I S ...'ifb6 good is I 6 g4! . 13 i.g5

16 lDdb5
Occupying the weak square and
excluding the idea of an exchange
sacrifice on c3.
The idea of a flank attack I6 g4
hxg4 entails risk. Here are a few
possibilities:
I) I 7 f4 lDc6! (it is not worth
being tempted by I 7 ...lDf3 I 8 lDxf3
gxf3, since after 19 'ifd4 with the
threat e4-eS, lDc3-dS, h4-hS the in­
itiative passes to White) I 8 lDxc6
(or 1 8 eS dxeS 1 9 lDxc6 i.xc6! +)
1 8 ...i.xc6 1 9 l:r.he I eS ! and Black
gains the advantage, Egger­ Currently the most popular con­
Alterman, Santiago 1 990 tinuation. White attacks the knight,
2) 1 7 hS lDxhS 1 8 l:.xhS gxhS 1 9 preventing the break g2-g4 and nar­
'ifgS+ lDg6 20 lDfS+ i.xfS 2 1 exfS rowing the natural path for Black's
e6 22 'ifxd8 l:r.xd8 23 fxg6 �xg6 counterplay.
with the better ending for Black 13 ...l:r.c5
(Alterman). This unusual move for the Dragon
Also after the inclusion of 1 6 �b 1 pursues the aim of preparing the ad­
'ifb6 the break 1 7 g4 hxg4 I 8 hS vance ...b7-bS and at the same time
lDxhS 19 l:r.xhS gxhS 20 'iWgS+ lDg6 takes under control a number of im­
2 I lDfS+ i.xfS 22 exfS l:r.eS 23 f4 portant squares along the Sth rank.
l:lxfS 24 'ifxfS 'iff2 leads to a posi­ On the obvious 1 3 ... lDc4 possible
tion where Black has sufficient is 14 i.xc4 l:r.xc4 1 S lDb3 (too direct
counterplay, Kudrin-Savchenko, is I S eS?! dxeS 1 6 lDdbS 'ifb6 1 7
Philadelphia I 99 1 . i.xf6 i.xbS + Santo-Roman­
16 'ifb6 1 7 f4 lDeg4 18 l:r.he1
.•. Watson, Genoa 1 986), after which
:res! e4-eS is threatened, but even more
The exchanging operation flexible is 14 'ife2 lDaS I S �bl ,
I 8 ...i.xbS 19 lDxbS lt)f2 20 'ifxf2 after which White can set about an
l:r.xbS 2 1 'ifxb6 l:r.xb6 22 eS leads to attack on the kingside.
an advantage for White. 1 ) I S . . . lDxb3 16 axb3 l:r.e8 17
19 �b1 i.e6! 20 'ifd4! i.xb3 21 'ii'd2 a6 18 i.h6 i.h8 1 9 g4 eS 20
cxb3 e5 22 'ifxd6 l:r.5c6 23 'ifd2 lDde2 hxg4 2 1 hS lDxhS 22 fxg4
lDt2 24 fxe5 lD6g4! 25 l:r.cl ! and i.xg4 23 l:r.dg l with a dangerous at­
White's chances are preferable, tack for White, Beliavsky-Ubilava,
Grunfeld-Alterman, Israel 1 993. Minsk 1 983.
2) 1 S ...a6 16 g4 eS 17 gxhS! (after
l lD 17 lDfS? gxfS 1 8 gxfS lDxb3 19
axb3 i.c6 20 l:r.hg 1 �h7 Black suc­
(1 e4 c5 2 lDt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 cessfully defends himself, Geller­
lDxd4 lDf6 5 lDcJ g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7 Miles, Linares 1 983) 1 7 ...exd4 I 8
t3 0-0 8 'ifd2 lDc6 9 i.c4 i.d7 10 lDds lDxb3 1 9 h6! i.bS 20 'ifh2 d3
0-0-0 l:r.c8 1 1 i.b3 lDe5 12 h4 h5) 2I cxb3 lDds 22 hxg7 l:r.c2 23 i.xd8
 The Rauzer A ttack with 9 i.c4 1 1 9

l:.xd8 24 l:d2 1 -0 Nunn-Mestel, game) 16 i.xc4 l:Xc4 (in case of

London 1986. 16 ...bxc4, with the idea of attacking
Getting out of the p�n by 1 3 ...ibh7 along the b-file, already not good is
14 i.h6 i.xh6 15 Wfxh6 l:.xc3 16 17 e5 1Vb6! 1 8 exf6 exf6 1 9 l:.e7
bxc3 1i'c7 offers Black some com­ l:.b8 + Varavin-Agnos, Pardubice
pensation for the exchange, but it is 1997, but stronger is 17 i.xf6 i.xf6
insufficient because of the passive 18 e5 i.g7 19 e6 ± Karpov­
position of the knight on h7-17 Sosonko, Tilburg 1 979) 1 7 e5 b4!
'it>b 1 lbc4 (after 17 ...1Vxc3 18 lbe2 1 8 exf6 bxc3 1 9 1i'e2 l:txd4 20 fxe7
1fc5 19 g4 lbxf3 20 l:.d5 ! and 1fa5 2 1 exf8='it+ �xf8 with
White has a strong attack, Geller­ chances for both sides.
G.Kuzmin, USSR (ch) 1 978) 1 8 g4
hxg4 1 9 f4 l:.c8 20 l:.d3 1Va5 2 1 h5 l lDa
and White comes first with his
attack, Lobron-Miles, Biel 1 986. (1 e4 c5 2 ibf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
After 13 ...l:.c5 White's main con­ ibxd4 ibf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
tinuations are: f3 0-0 8 1i'd2 lbc6 9 i.c4 i.d7 10
0-0-0 l:.c8 11 i.b3 iDeS 12 h4 h5
l lDa: 14 f4 13 i.g5 l:.c5)
l lDb: 14 g4
llDc: 14 �b1 14 f4

Upon less energetic plans, Black

obtains easy counterplay, thanks to
the manoeuvre ...lbe5-c4. For ·

example, an attempt to organise the

break e4-e5 by 14 ibde2 b5 1 5
i.xf6 i.xf6 1 6 f4 involves the ex­
change of both bishops: 1 6...lbc4 1 7
i.xc4 l:.xc4 1 8 e5 i.g7 1 9 exd6
i.g4, and, in the open type of posi­
tion reached, the advantage of the
two bishops is quite weighty,
Whitehead-Miles, Lone Pine 1 980.
Recently a plan, preparing the ad­ 14 ...lbc4
vance e4-e5 by means of the pre­ The most natural r�ly.
liminary 14 l:.he 1 , has come into The retreat 1 4... lDc6 allows a
fashion. For example, if Black vol­ breakthrough in the centre, exploit­
untarily leaves the e5 square after ing the motive of an insufficiently
14 ...lbc4 1 5 i.xc4 l:.xc4, then defended bishop on d7: 1 5 e5 !
White plays 1 6 e5 in quite comfort­ ibxd4 1 6 'ii'xd4 l:.c6 1 7 'ii'xa7 i.g4
able circumstances: 1 6... dxe5 1 7 1 8 exf6 exf6 1 9 'ii'xb7 and White
lbb3 l:c7 1 8 l:.xe5 'ite8 1 9 l:.de 1 ;t, obtains a material advantage,
as in Varavin-Terentiev, Ekaterin­ Zuckennan-Kudrin, USA 1 979.
burg 1997. More energetic looks The thrust 14 ...lbeg4 allows
14 ...b5 1 5 f4 lbc4 (also interesting White to exploit the pressure of the
is 1 5 ...lbeg4 ! ? 1 6 e5 dxe5 1 7 bishop on b3: 1 5 l:.he 1 1Va5 (weaker
ibdxb5 1i'b6 with an unexplored is 1 5 ...b5 1 6 e5 b4 1 7 lbe4! lbxe4
120 Rauzer Attack with 9 i.c4

1 S l:txe4 dS 1 9 lle2 ! ± Petelin­ Moskow (GMA) 19S9, he should

Aitennan, USSR 1 9SS) 1 6 f5 (or 16 play 30 llxe7 i.xb3 3 1 axb3 lieS ! ,
�b1 llfcS 17 f5! �) 16 ...gxf5 17 which leads to a position with equal
tZ:lxf5 i.xfS 1S exfS lieS (also worth chances.
considering is 1 S ...'iVc7!?) 1 9 tDdS 2) 19 f5 i.xd4 20 llxd4 llxfS 2 1
'iVxd2+ 20 llxd2 with a preferable exf5 'iVxd4 22 fxg6 'iVg I + 23 tDd 1
position for White, Kamsky­ with rather the better chances for
Ivanchuk, Buenos Aires 1 994. White, Klovans-Tiviakov, Gron­
ingen 1 99 1 .

15 'iVd3 b5
In a number of games Tiviakov
has advocated 1 S ...tZ:lg4 1 6 i.xc4 1 6 eS
tZ:lf2 1 7 'iVe2 tZ:lxh 1 1 S i.b3 'iVb6 This break in the centre is the
(also interesting is 1 S ...aS ! ? 1 9 f5 a4 natural consequence of the prepara­
20 i.dS 'iVeS with the threat of tory move 14 f4. But there are also
... e7-e6, which would follow on 2 1 other possibilities:
g4? + Adams-Tiviakov, Oakham 1) Including the exchange 1 6
1 990; Tiviakov gave the possible i.xf6?! i.xf6 17 eS increases the
continuation 2 1 a3 ! i.xd4 22 llxd4 role of the bishop g7: 1 7 ... i.g7 1 S
e6 23 fxe6 fxe6 24 i.a2 llxg5 !? 2S tZ:le4 lieS 1 9 e6 i.xe6 20 lllxe6
hxgS 'il'e7 with a complicated game) i.xb2+ + Pokojowczyk-Mestel,
and Black threatens to win two Malta (ol) 19SO.
pieces for a rook with the move 2) There are also drawbacks to the
1 9 ...llxgS. advance 16 f5 tZ:!eS (or 16 ...�h7 17
1) 1 9 tZ:lf3 llxgS ! 20 hxgS (after 'il'e2 'iVb6 1S llhfl aS 19 g4 tZ:lxg4
20 tZ:lxg5 Black maintains the bal­ 20 lDdS l::txdS 2 1 exdS i.xd4 +
ance with the manoeuvre 20...i.g4 Ivanovic-Velimirovic, Vinkovci
21 tZ:lf3 i.xc3 22 bxc3 'iVf2!) 19S2) 1 7 'iVe3 aS 1 S fxg6 tZ:lxg6 1 9
20 ...i.xc3 21 llxh1 i.bS ! 22 'il'd1 a3 b4 20 i.xf6 i.xf6 2 1 tZ:la4 i.xa4
'il'e3+! 23 �b 1 i.g7 24 tZ:lh4 i.e2 22 i.xa4 'iVb6 + Ivanovic-Miles,
25 'il'e1 (or 2S 'ifc1 'iVxc 1+ 26 Vrbas 1 9SO.
�xc 1 �h7= Anand-Kir.Georgiev, 3) Also worth considering is the
Reggio Emilia 19SS/S9) 2S ...'iVd4 preparatory 16 llhe 1 tZ:lg4
26 c3 i.d3+ 27 �a 1 'iVxe4 2S 'il'd2 (J.Piaskett recommends 16 ... 'iVb6! ?
i.c4 29 .!:[e 1 'iVc6 when, in place of 1 7 'iVg3 tZ:lg4) 1 7 lle2 !? i.xd4?! (of
30 f5?! i.e5+ Anand-Tiviakov, course 17 ... f6 should be tested) 1 S
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 121

'ii'xd4 f6 1 9 e5! and White creates Too risky is 1 7 ... lLlf2?! 18 'ii'fl
dangerous threats, Plaskett­ lLlxd 1 1 9 dxe7 'ii'a5 20 exf8='ii'+
Hodgson, London (rapid) 1997. �xf8 2 1 'ii'x d1 lLlxb2 22 lLle6+
16...lLlg4 .i.xe6 23 'ii'd6+ �g8 24 'ii'xc5
Taking the pawn 16 ...dxe5? after .i.xb3 25 lLle4 with a dangerous in­
17 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 1 8 lLldxb5 ! lLlxb2 1 9 itiative for White, Miles-Veerman,
�xb2 ("Greed" with the check 1 9 Utrecht 1 986.
'ii'xg6+ .i.g7 20 �b2 'ii'c8 loses the 18 fxg5
advantage, Klovans-Gufeld, Dau­ The opening of the f-file gives
gavpils 1 978) 1 9 ...e4 20 'ii'xd7 'ii'a5 White additional resources. In case
2 1 :d4 leads to material losses. of 1 8 hxg5 lLlf2 1 9 'ii'e2 lLlxd 1 20
On 1 6...'ii'b6?! also good is 1 7 :xd 1 lLlxd6 2 1 'ii'd3 Black retains
.i.xf6 exf6 1 8 e6! (weak is 1 8 exf6? sufficient counterplay .
.i.xf6 1 9 lLle4 .i.g7 20 c3 :d5! with 1 ) 2 l ....i.g4 22 l:ld2 'ii'b 8 23
an attack, Arn.Rodriguez-Gufeld, 'ii'xg6 e6!? (weaker is 23 ...lLlc4?! 24
Barcelona 1979) 1 8 ... fxe6 19 'ii'xg6 .i.xc4 bxc4 25 'ii'e4 e6 26 lLlc6!
.i.e8 20 'ii'g3 .i.f7 2 1 f5 exf5 22 'ilfb6 27 lLle5 'ii'g l+ 28 liJdl c3 29
:hfl and Black's kingside is obvi­ bxc3 .i.xdl 30 l:Xd1 ± Klovans­
ously compromised. lvanchuk, Tashkent 1987) 24 'ii'd3
17 exd6 lLlc4 25 .i.xc4 bxc4 26 'i'e3 (or 26
The attack on the rook 1 7 lLle4 is 'ii'fl l:lc8 27 lLle4 e5 28 fxe5
justified only in the case of 1 7 ...:d5 'i'xe5=) 26... e5 27 fxe5 .i.xe5 with
1 8 lLlxd6 lLlgxe5 1 9 fxe5 lLlxe5 20 chances for both sides (Klovans).
.i.xd5 lLlxd3+ 2 1 :xd3 'ii'b6 22 2) 2 l ...b4! 22 lLld5 a5 23 'ii'a6
.i.xf7+! (22 .i.xe7 .i.xd4= �h8! 24 lLlc6 (or 24 lLlb6 .i.g4 25
Ljubojevic-Miles, Riga (izt) 1 979) :d3 'ii'c 7! 26 lLld5 'ii'c5 !+ Ulibin)
22 ...:xf7 23 lLlxf7 �xf7 24 :e1 24....i.xc6 25 'ii'xc6 lLlf5 26 g4
and the two rooks are weaker than (weak is 26 c3? bxc3 27 bxc3 'ii'b 8
the queen. But the retreat 17 ...:c8! + Ulibin-Shirov, USSR 1 988)
is stronger. After 18 exd6 f6 19 lLlc3 26...lLld4 27 'ii'c4 e6! and Black
lLlf2 20 'ii'xg6 'ii'e8 ! Black wins the holds the balance Sadovoi-Leczog,
exchange, Golovenchenko-Bashto­ corr. 1 987/92.
voi, USSR 1 99 1 . 18 ..lLlf2 1 9 'ii'e2 lLlxd1 20 :xd1
.

17 Z:.xg5
..• lLlxd6 21 lLlcxb5 lLlxb5 22 lLlxb5
On 1 7...lLlxd6 possible is 1 8 .i.xb5 23 .i.xti+! with advantage to
'ii'xg6 lLlc4 (for the present 1 8 ...lLlf2 White, Rocha-Langier, Mar del
is not possible because of 1 9 .i.h6 Plata 1989.
lLle8 20 lLle6!) 1 9 'ii'e4 lLlf2 20
'ii'xe7 :xg5 2 1 'ii'xd8 :xd8 22 hxg5 l lDb
lLlxh 1 (22 ....i.xd4?! 23 :xd4 lLlxh 1
24 lLlxb5 i) 23 lLlc6 .i.xc6 24 (1 e4 c5 2 lLltJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
:xd8+ �h7 with an unclear posi­ lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
tion (Klovans). Also worth con­ f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 lLlc6 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10
sidering is 1 8 :hfl with the threat 0-0-0 :cs 1 1 .i.b3 l2Je5 12 h4 h5
to capture on g6. 13 .i.g5 :cs)
122 Rauzer Attack with 9 i..c4

14 g4 situation by 22 �e6!; but as pointed

out by S.Soloviov, 2 l .. .'ifb6! leads
to an advantage for Black: 22 fxg6
fxg6 23 c3 b4! 24 i.. c4 bxc3 25
bxc3 'ii'c5 =F) 20 ...bxa4? (also here
the exchange sacrifice 20 ...l:xd5 !
21 exd5 'ifb6 leads to an unclear
game) 2 1 i..xc4 l:xc4 22 l:xh5!
gxh5 23 f6! and Black landed in a
critical position, Becerra-Martinez,
Puerto Padre 1 990.

The most energetic continuation.

White, not balking at a pawn sacri­
fice, strives to get at the black king.
14 ... hxg4 15 f4
The most energetic continuation
of the attack.
The inclusion into the attack of
the h-pawn leads to a very sharp
game:
I) 1 5 i..xf6 i..xf6 16 h5 �xf3 (or
1 6 ... g5 1 7 �d5 e6 1 8 �xf6+ 'ifxf6 1S ..�c4
.

1 9 fxg4 l:d8 20 l:hfl 'ii'e7 2 1 �b1 The retreat of the knight,

and due to the threat of 22 �f3 the 1 5 ...�c6, allows a breakthrough in
chances are on White's side, the centre by 1 () e5. Black can avoid
T.Georgadze-Miles, Dortmund the pin on the d-file by the radical
1 979) 1 7 .!l\xf3 gxf3 1 8 �5 l:xd5! 16 ...Wa5 17 exf6 ( 1 7 �xf6 exf6 1 8
19 i..xd5 e6 with a double-edged e6!? is clever but not enough to
game, Belov-Deduh, USSR 1 984. achieve an advantage after
2) 1 5 h5 �xh5 1 6 f4 (weaker is 1 8 ...�xd4 1 9 exf7+ �h7 20 'ifxd4
1 6 �d5 lieS 1 7 f4 �c4 1 8 'ii'd3 i..c6 2 1 �e4! l:f5 22 l:hfl i.. xe4 23
i..b5 19 �xb5 �xb2 and Black se­ 'ifxe4 i.. h6 24 �b 1 d5 ! 25 l:xd5
izes the initiative, Ozolinsh­ l:xd5 26 i..xd5 f5 and Black is not
Blodstein, USSR 1 982) 1 6...�c4 worse, Priepke-Schoppmeyer, corr.
(the retreat 1 6...�c6 1 7 e5 dxe5 1 8 1987) 17 ... exf6 1 8 �xc6 i..xc6, but
�xc6 bxc6 1 9 'ii'xd7 'ifxd7 20 after 19 h5 the initiative, as before,
:xd7 involves the sacrifice of a lies with White. For example:
piece) 1 7 'iff2! b5 1 8 �5 l:e8 1 9 1 9 ... fxg5 20 hxg6 l:xc3 !? 2 1 bxc3
f5 a5 2 0 a4 (in the game d5 22 'ifh2 fxg6 23 'ii'h7+ �f7 24 f5
Kravtsov-Soloviov, St.Petersburg with an attack for White, Zontakh­
1 999, White, with the move 20 Spasojevic, Yugoslavia 1 993.
'iVh4, provoked the favourable ex­ 16 ...�xd4 17 'ifxd4 i.. c 6! looks
change sacrifice for Black 20 ...l:xd5 more reliable: 1 8 l:he 1 i.. f3 1 9 l:d2
and, after 2 1 exd5 �xb2?, was able �h7 (on 1 9 ... �h5 or 1 9 ... gJ White
to place the opponent in a critical attacks with 20 'ifd3 ±) 20 'ifxc5
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i.c4 123

dxc5 2 1 l:xd8 l:xd8 22 i.xe7 with 19 i.xf7+ l:xf7 20 e6) 18 ltlxb3

the preferable endgame for White, l:xc3 1 9 bxc3 i.c6! 20 l:hfl ltle4
Yudasin-Ljubojevic Moscow (ol) 2 1 ._c4 d5 with roughly equal
1 994. chances, Smirin-Ivanchuk, Paris
But possibly even more effective 1 994.
is 16 i.xf6 i.xf6 1 7 e5 i.g7 1 8 h5!
ltlxd4 19 ._xd4 i.f5 20 h6 1 -0, 1 1Db1
Goth-Tetpelko, corr. 1 987.
16 ,.e2 (1 e4 cS 2 itlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
Upon the continuation 16 ._d3 b5 ltlxd4 itlf6 S ltlc3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
the thrust 1 7 e5 dxe5 allows the f3 0-0 8 ._d2 ltlc6 9 i.c4 i.d7 10
knight sacrifice on b2 with tempo: 0-0-0 l:c8 1 1 i.b3 iDeS 12 h4 hS
17 ...dxe5 1 8 i.xf6 (weaker is 1 8 13 i.gS l:cS 14 g4 hxg4 1S f4 ltlc4
ltldxb5 ltlxb2 ! 1 9 �xb2 e4 20 ._d2 16 ._e2)
�6 2 1 itld4 l:fc8 with a dangerous
attack for Black, Atri-Vescovi, 16.....c8
Moscow (ol) 1994) 1 8 ... i.xf6 19
itlde2 ( 19 itldxb5 is risky: Here the main continuations are:
l 9 ...ltlxb2! 20 ._g6+ i.g7 2 1 �xb2
exf4+ with dangerous threats for 1 1Db1a: 17 f5
Black after 22 �c l ._c8 or 22 �b l 1 1Db2b: 17 i.xf6
._aS !) 1 9 ... ltlxb2 ! 20 �xb2 exf4 2 1 1 1Db3c: 17 hS
h5 and if 2 l .....a5 White forces a
draw by perpetual check 22 ._xg6+
. 1 1Db1a
�h8 23 'it"h6+.
(1 e4 cS 2 itlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltlxd4 itlf6 S itlcJ g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
f3 0-0 8 ._d2 ltlc6 9 i.c4 i.d7 10
0-0-0 l:c8 1 1 i.b3 iDeS 12 h4 hS
13 i.gS l:cS 14 g4 hxg4 IS f4 ltlc4
16 ,.e2 ._c8)

17 rs

Here the most usual ways of de­

fending the knight are:

l lDbl : 16.....c8
1 1Db2: 16 bS
.•.

Also seen is 1 6...ltla5 1 7 e5 !

ltlxb3+ (in this exchange lies the
point of the knight retreat; weak is
17 ... dxe5? because of 1 8 fxe5 ltlh5 17...ltlxb2!
124 Rauzer Attack with 9 �c4

The other quite energetic continu-

ation is 1 7 ...e5 1 8 li:)db5 ( 1 8 fxe6
fxe6 +) 1 8 ...�xb5 1 9 li:)xb5 l:lxb5
20 �xf6 �xf6 2 1 �xc4 l:lb4! 22
�d5 gxf5 23 l:ldfl f4 24 l:lhg 1 l:le8
(24 ... g3? 25 l:xg3+!) 25 l:lxg4+
�f8 26 h5 (or 26 l:lg3 l:ld4 27 l:ld3
lhd3 28 ...xd3 �xh4 with equal
chances, Yudasin-Tiviakov, Gron­
ingen 1 993) 26 .. .'�e7 27 h6 l:lh8 28
llh1 l:ld4 (or 28 ... l:lh7 29 c3 and
29 ...l:ld4?! is not good because of
30 �xb7 !) 29 h7 l:lxd5 ! 30 exd5 18 li:ldS
"ii'f5 3 1 l:lgg 1 f3 and the pair of con­ Upon the preliminary swap 1 8
nected passed pawns fully compen­ .ixc4 l:lxc4 1 9 t'Lld5, White can
sates for the sacrificed exchange, avoid the sacrifice of the exchange
Istratescu-Marin, Bucharest 1 994. on d5, but after Black's best reply
18 �xb2 1 9...l:le8! 20 e5 (20 h5? �xd4! is in
The inclusion of the intermediate Black's favour) an unexplored,
exchange 1 8 �xf6 favours Black: double-edged position is reached.
1 8 ... .ixf6 (or 1 8 ...li:)xd 1 1 9 ..,xg4 1 8...l:r.xdS!
exf6 20 l:lg 1 l:lc4 2 1 li:)xd 1 d5! 22 This sacrifice of the exchange al­
h5 l:lxd4 with material advantage to lows Black to dismiss worries about
Black, 011-Topalov, Moscow (ol) the defence of his kingside, whereas
1 994) 19 ..,xg4 �g7 20 l:lhg 1 l:lh8 the Dragon bishop shows its activity
and Black repulses the threats, while on White's queen 's flank. This idea
retaining the extra piece, Mohr­ is also seen in other interpretations:
Ubilava, Linares 1996. 18 ...b5 1 9 h5 g5 20 �xc4 bxc4 2 1
On 1 8 fxg6 follows 1 8 ...li:)xd 1 1 9 ..,e3 l:Xd5! 22 exd5 gxf4 and,
.ixf7.+ l:lxf7 20 gxf7+ �xf7 21 thanks to the threat of ... c4-c3,
li:)xd 1 l:lc4 with a good game for Black obtains a good game,
Black. Z.Aimasi-Payen, Budapest 1 99 1 .
18 ...l:lxc3 19 fxg6 l:lxb3+! 20 19 exdS bS 20 �xc4
axb3 fxg6 with the preferable game The game lvanchuk-Topalov,
for Black in view of the advantage Belgrade 1 995, continued 20 h5?!
of the two bishops (V.Topalov). g5 21 fxg5 �xg5+ 22 �b 1 f5 23
l:ld3 f4 24 �xc4 ..,xc4 0- 1 .
20...bxc4 2 1 c3 with an unclear
l lDblb position, but it is obvious that
Black's attack fully compensates for
(1 e4 cS 2 li:)fJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 the sacrificed exchange.
t'Llxd4 t'Llf6 S t'LlcJ g6 6 .ie3 �g7 7
f3 0-0 8 ..,d2 t'Llc6 9 �c4 �d7 10 1 1Db1c
0-0-0 l:lc8 1 1 .ib3 t'Lles 12 h4 hS
13 .tgS l:lcS 14 g4 hxg4 IS f4 ltlc4 (1 e4 cS 2 ltlfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
16 ..,e2 ..,c8) ltlxd4 l'Llf6 S ltlc3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7
f3 0-0 8 ..,d2 t'Llc6 9 �c4 �d7 10
17 .ixf6 �xf6 0-0-0 l:lc8 11 .ib3 ltles 12 h4 hS
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 125

13 .tgs l:c5 14 g4 hxg4 15 f4 ll:lc4 likewise has four pawns for the
16 9e2 9c8) piece, but with a less favourable
structure than Hodgson obtained
17 h5 (M.Pavlovic).

1 1Db2

(1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lDxd4 lLlf6 5 ll:lc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 ll:lc6 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10
0-0-0 llc8 1 1 .i.b3 ll:\es 12 h4 h5
13 .tgs lieS 14 g4 hxg4 15 f4 ll:lc4
16 'ii'e2)

16 ...b5 17 f5

A programmed pawn sacrifice. The advance I 7 e5 only gives

17 ll:lxh5 18 .i.xc4!
.•. White extra problems: I 7 ... dxe5 I 8
Before continuing the attack, .i.xf6 (or I 8 ll:ldxb5? ll:lxb2 ! 1 9
White exchanges Black's "attacking �xb2 9a5 2 0 l:xd7 ll:lxd7 2 I .i.xe7
centre". The thrust I 8 ll:\f5 .i.xf5 I 9 l:xc3 ! + Westerinen-Mestel, Esb­
exf5 was tried by M.Pavlovic in the jerg 1 979) 1 8 ....txf6 1 9 ll:ldxb5
tournament at Ubeda I 996 l!gainst lDxb2 ! 20 'ii'xg6+ .i.g7 2 1 �b2 exf4
Marin and Hodgson: and White is in a bad way: 22 �b 1
I ) Marin was tempted by 'ii'a 5! 23 l:xd7 l:xc3 + Dellanoy­
I 9 ...ll:lxb2? when, instead of the Moiangt, Belgium 1 993, or 22 �c 1
P.layed 20 ll:ld5?! l:xd5 2 I l:xd5 'ii'c8 23 ll:lxa7 (23 9d3 .i.f5)
'ifc3=, as pointed out by M.Pav­ 23 ...9c7 24 ll:lab5 .i.xb5 25 ll:lxb5
lovic, 20 fxg6! l:xc3 2 I gxf7+ l:xf7 l:xb5 + Lavrentiev-Efremov, corr.
22 .i.xf7+ �xf7 23 9xe7+ �g8 24 1996.
l:xd6! leads to a decisive advantage
for White.
2) Hodgson suggested the natural
I9 ...9xf5 and after 20 l:xh5 ll:la5!
2 I l:hh I ll:lxb3+ 22 axb3 f6 23 .th4
9xf4+ 24 �b i l:e5 Black obtains
four pawns for the piece.
18 ...l:xc4 19 ll:ld5 l:e8 20 ll:lf5!
In this situation the knight thrust
is more effective, since Black does
not succeed in countering White's
attack along the h-file.
20....txf5 21 exfS !iJg3 22 9h2
ll:lxh1 23 l:xh1 l:xc2+! This position can be looked at as a
A forced sacrifice. basis for the present variation.
24 9xc2 9xc2+ 25 �xc2 f6 26 Research vindicates this with
.i.h4 gxfS 27 .tf2 And Black Black going in the directions:
126 Rauzer Attack with 9 �c4

11Db2a: 17 ... gxfS 19...l:lxfS

11Db2b: 17...wt'aS In essence a practically forced
1 1Db2c: 17...wt'c8 sacrifice of the exchange, since the
bringing up of reserves by 1 9...lbe5
allows White to continue the attack
11Db2a on the king. For example: 20 lbe4
'ii'c8 2 1 lbxf6+ exf6 22 l:ldfl a5 23
(1 e4 cS 2 lbf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l:lhg l l:le8 24 l:lxg4+ lbxg4 25
lbxd4 lbf6 S lbcJ g6 6 �e3 �g7 7 'ii'xg4+ �:ffl when, in the game
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 lbc6 9 �c4 �d7 10 Djujic-Antonic, Yugoslavia 1994,
0-0-0 l:lc8 1 1 �b3 lbeS 12 h4 hS White could have continued the at­
13 �gS l:lcS 14 g4 hxg4 IS f4 lbc4 tack by 26 Wfh5 ! . But even more en­
16 Wfe2 bS 17 fS) ergetic is 20 l:lhg I .tg7 2 1 l:lxg4
lbxg4 22 Wxg4 e6 23 fxe6 fxe6 and
17 ...gxfS then 24 lbxe6 .txe6 25 .txe6+ �h8
26 lbd5 or 24 .txe6 .txe6 25 lbxe6
and White has a continuing attack,
Pavlovic, Velickovic.
20 Wxg4+
20 l:ldgl gives Black a respite:
20...l:le5 2 1 l:lxg4+ .tg7 22 l:le4
l:lxe4 23 lbxe4 d5 with a pleasant
game, Dimitrov-Kir.Georgiev, Stara
Zagoda 1 990.
20...l:lgS 21 hxgS! .txg4 22 gxf6
exf6!
Apparently the only_ move, since
22 ...llle5 23 l:ldg l Wfd7 24 lbd5
Black embarks on a forced path of l:le8 25 l:lh5! or 22 ... -txd l 23 lbc6
play, where the cost of each move .to 24 lbxe7+ are obviously in
can decide the fate of a king. White's favour.
18 �xf6 23 l:ldgl fS 24 l:lhS l:le8 2S .txc4
On 1 8 exf5?! it is necessary to bxc4 26 l:lxfS Wh4 27 lbf3 Wh6+
reckon on 1 8 ...l:le5. 28 �dl Wg6 29 l:lxg4 Wxg4 30
18 ...�xf6 l:lgS+ WxgS 31 lbxgS and here, in­
stead of what was played in the
After 1 8 ... exf6 1 9 �c4! the weak­
ness of the d5 square secures White game Markovic-Payen, Singapore
a firm advantage. 1990, 3 1 . ..d5?! 32 lLJO f5 33 llld4
19 exfS with a preferable endgame for
White counts on exploiting the White, Black could hold the posi­
exposed position of the enemy king. tion with the move 3 l ...�g7!.
However energetic play is required
of him.
The obvious 1 9 lbxf5 eases the 11Db2b
defence: 1 9 ...l:lxf5! 20 exf5 �xf5
21 .txc4 bxc4 22 lbd5 c3 ! 23 l:lhgl (1 e4 cS 2 lbf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
cxb2+ 24 �b I wt'd7 and Black or­ lbd4 lbf6 S lbcJ g6 6 �e3 �g7 7
ganises pressure on the c2 pawn. f3 0-0 8 Wd2 lbc6 9 .tc4 .td7 10
 The Rauzer A ttack with 9 .i.c4 12 7

0-0-0 l:tc8 1 1 .i.b3 lt:le5 12 h4 h5 18 .i.xf6 19 'ifxg4 �g7

•..

13 .i.g5 l:tc5 14 g4 hxg4 15 f4 lt:lc4 Black moves his king off the dan­
16 'ife2 b5 1 7 f5) gerous diagonal, overprotecting the
g6 pawn and threatening 20 ...ltSxb2.
1 7...'ifa5 The counterpla¥ 1 9 ...d5?! 20 lt:lxd5
l:txd5 2 1 exd5 lL!e3 is parried by 22
'ifg3, thanks to the important re­
source d5-d6 opening up the bishop
b3: 22 ... lt:lxdl 23 d6! with a very
strong attack for White, Nisipeanu­
Stavre, Mangalia 1992, or 22 ....i.d4
23 d6! �g7 24 l:txd4 etc.
Also worth considering is the kind
of exchange sacrifice made in the
game Hasangatin-Mashinskaya,
Budapest 1997: 19 ...lt:le5 20 'ii'g3
l:txc3 2 1 'ifxc3 'ifxc3 22 bxc3 �g7
23 l:tdg I l:tc8 24 l:tg3 �h6 25 fxg6
The most natural move for Black fxg6 26 h5 g5 and Black managed
who strives for a counterattack. to construct a blockade-type of
18 .i.xf6 position.
On 1 8 fxg6 White has to reckon 20 'ifg3
on the threat 1 8 ...lt:lxb2 ! 1 9 gxf7+ White renews the attack on the g6
llxf7 ! 20 �xb2 'ifxc3+ 2 1 �b l square, intending, on 20 . . .l:tfc8?!, 21
after which begins a game for
· fxg6 fxg6 22 l:thg I ltle5 23 ltld5 ±.
tempo, where the cost of a mistake There were more defensive possi­
is quite high. In the game Gofstein­ bilities for Black after 20 llh3:
Mestel, Hastings 1 99 1 , Black pre­ 1 ) 20...'ifb6 2 1 ltld5 l:txd5 22
maturely opened up the position: exd5 l:th8 23 c3 .i.xd4 24 'ifxd4+
2 l ...d5? 22 .i.xf6 l:txf6 23 l:td3 ''ifa5 'ifxd4 25 l:txd4 .i.xf5 26 l:tg3 lt:le5
24 exd5 l:tc4 when White can retain with sufficient counterplay for
the advantage by 25 'ifxe7 l:tf7 26 Black, as in Morovic Femandez­
'ifg5. Kir.Georgiev, Las Palmas 1 993.
Stronger is 2 I . ..I:te5! (placing the 2) 20...1:tfc8 21 lt:ld5 l:txd5!
rook against the queen; Black pre­ (weaker is 2 I .. ..i.xd4 22 l:txd4
pares the closing of the dangerous 'i'e i + 23 l:td 1 'iff2 24 .:.n 'ifh2 25
a2-g8 diagonal by ...d6-d5) 22 .i.xf6 'i'g3 ±) 22 exd5 'ifb6 23 'ife4?
(on 22 l:thfl ? follows 22 ...d5! and lt:lxb2! and Black gains the advan­
now 23 .i.xf6 l:txf6! gives Black the tage, Rajkovic-Alterman, Corfu
advantage, Zapata-J.B.Femandez, 1993. Stronger was 23 .i.xc4 or 23
Havana 1 994) 22 ... .i.xf6 23 l:thfl l:tc3, though even here Black's
d5 ! 24 l:td3 'ifc5 25 l:tf4 .i.g7 26 counterplay fully compensates for
l:txf7 1ixf7 27 .i.d5+ l:txd5 28 'iff2+ the sacrificed exchange.
l:tf5 ! 29 exf5 g3 ! 30 'ifd2 with an 20 .i.e5 21 'ifo e6!
.•.

extra exchange for White, though On 2 l . ..'ifb4, with the idea 22

his insecure king leaves Black with lt:lce2 d5!, White, according to an
practical chances, Djujic- Stankovic, interesting analysis by V.Stoica,
corr. 1 995. obtains the advantage by 22 ltld5
128 Rauzer Attack with 9 i.c4

l:.xd5 23 exd5 �xb2! ? 24 c3 ! 'ifa3 1 1Db2c

25 �c2 �d3+ 26 <it>d2 'ifb2 27
'ifxd3 i.xf5 28 l:tb l ! (or 28 'iff3 (1 e4 c5 2 �tJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
i.xc2! 29 i.xc2 l:tc8) 28 ...i.f4+ 29 �xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
<it>e2 i.xd3+ 30 <it>xd3 'ifxb I 3 I tJ 0-0 8 'ifd2 �c6 9 i.c4 i.d7 10
lbb I l:th8 32 �d4 and Black has no 0-0-0 .!:.c8 11 i.b3 �e5 12 h4 h5
compensation for the piece. 13 i.g5 lieS 14 g4 hxg4 15 f4 �c4
22 h5 g5 16 ..,e2 b5 17 f5)
On 22 ...exf5 White attacks by 23
hxg6 fxg6 24 'ifh3 ! . 17 .'ii'c8
•.

23 fxe6 i.f4+ 24 �b1

This queen manoeuvre is more

This sharp position was reached logical without the move 16 ...b5, as
in the game Yudasin-Alterman, in variation 9Db l , but also here it is
Haifa I993, which continued possible.
24 ... fxe6?! 25 'ifh3 ! and White de­ 18 i.xf6
veloped a dangerous attack. The direct attack I 8 h5? �xh5 I 9
. As shown by V.Alterman, far 'ifxg4 is met by the familiar
stronger was 24 i.xe6!? when in
•.. 19 ...�xb2 ! . For example, 20 �xb2
the event of 25 �xe6+ fxe6 Black llxc3 2 I llxh5 gxh5 22 'ifxh5 llg3
has possibilities of defence. 23 l:th l 'ii'c3+ 24 <it>bi l:lg i+ 25
I) 26 'ifb3 l:tf6 27 h6+ <it>h8 and ll.xg l 'ifxd4 0- 1 Ciomei-Kahn,
no good is 28 e5 l:txe5 29 i.xc4 Budapest I 993.
bxc4 30 l:txd6 because of 30 ...l:te3 18 i.xf6 19 'ifxg4 <it>h7
.•.

3 I 'iffl llxc3 ! 32 bxc3 i.e5. After 19 ...�g7 20 'ifg3 llh8 2 I

2) 26 'ifd3 �xb2! 27 <it>xb2 i.e5 fxg6 fxg6 22 �5 White retains the
and White, in order to break free initiative, Cseke-S.Farago,
. Budapest
from the pin, has to make a counter I993 .
sacrifice. 20 llhg1 l:tg8 21 �tJ �e3 22
3) 26 i.xc4 bxc4 27 h6+ <it>h8 28 �g5+ <it>g7 In this very sharp
'ifg4 l:te5! and everything is de­ position, reached in Egger-Kahn,
fended for Black. Buenos Aires I 992, White careless­
Nevertheless, by continuing 25 ly played 23 'iff4?! and after
'ifd3, White retains the initiative. 23 ...llxc3 ! 24 bxc3 �xd l 25 �xf7
For example, on 25 ...i.g4 possible �f8 26 <it>xd l 'ifxc3 27 l:lxg6 llxg6
is 26 �dxb5 ! . 28 fxg6 'ii'd4+ 29 <it>e2 ..,g l his king
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i.c4 129

fell under the crossfire of the black

bishops, supported by the queen.
More accurate was 23 'it'g3 with
chances for both sides.

I I De

(1 e4 c5 2 tiJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tiJxd4 tiJf6 5 tLlc3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
f3 0-0 8 'it'd2 tLlc6 9 i.c4 i.d7 10
0-0-0 :cs II i.b3 tlJe5 12 h4 h5
13 i.g5 :c5) This obvious move was for a long
time considered Black's main con­
14 �b1 tinuation and defensive problems
did not lead to the search for other
paths, as looked at in 9Dc2.
15 g4
Typical play-to be first with the
attack--characteristic for positions
with opposite-sides castling. Also
seen is 1 5 :he 1 with the idea of
promoting the advance e4-e5. Black
must play quite carefully in order to
counter White's threats. For
example, after the voluntary
vacation of the e5 square, 1 5 ...
tlJc4?!, White carries out an effec­
A useful prophylactic move, read­ tive break in the centre by 1 6 i.xc4
ily played so as not to risk every­ bxc4 1 7 e5 ! dxe5 1 8 i.xf6 i.xf6 19
thing in a forcing tempo game after tlJe6!. After 15 ...b4 16 ttJds tlJxd5
14 g4. 17 exd5 1fb6 1 8 tlJxc6 i.xc6 19
dxc6 'it'c7 20 'it'b4 aS 2 1 'it'e4 e6 22
The main continuations here are: g4 White obtains a space advantage,
Smirin-David, Berlin 1997. The
llDcl: 14 ...b5 main continuation is 1 5 ...a5 1 6 f4
1 1Dc2: 14...:es

I I Del

(1 e4 c5 2 tiJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tiJxd4 tiJf6 5 tiJcJ g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
f3 0-0 8 'it'd2 tlJc6 9 i.c4 i.d7 10
0-0-0 :cs I I i.b3 tlJe5 12 h4 h5
13 i.g5 :c5 14 �b1)

14...b5
130 The Rauzer Attack with 9 �c4

I ) 1 6...IC!c4 1 7 �xc4 l:xc4 continue the counterattack on the

(weaker is 1 7 ...bxc4 1 8 �xf6 �xf6 queen's flank.
1 9 e5 ±) 1 8 e5 b4 (in the event of
1 8 ...�g4? White carries out a break l lDcla: 15... hxg4
with the e-pawn: 1 9 .i.xf6 exf6 20 1 1Dc1b: 15 ...a5
e6! 'ifb8 2 1 e7 l:e8 22 1Cldxb5 l:xc3
and here, in the game Beliavsky­ l lDcla
Htibner, Tilburg 1 986, White could
obtain a winning position by 23 (1 e4 c5 2 IC!f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
IC!xd6!) 1 9 IC!cb5 (the complications �xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
after 1 9 exf6 bxc3 20 ..e2 l:xd4 2 1 f3 0-0 8 ..d2 �c6 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10 ·
fxe7 'ifb6 22 ex:ffi=•+ .i.x:ffi 23 b3 0-0-0 l:c8 1 1 .i.b3 �e5 12 h4 h5
.i.g4 24 •e8 l:xd l + 25 l:xd l .i.xdl 13 �g5 l:c5 14 �b1 b5 15 g4)
26 .i.h6 .i.xc2+! 27 �xc2 ..f2+
lead to equality, Varga-A.Schmidt, 15...hxg4
Hungary 1991) 1 9 ...dxe5 (no good
is 19 ... lDh7 or 19 ...'ifb6, in view of
20 lC!d6 !, while after 19 ... l:c5 20
IC!xd6 exd6 2 1 exf6 .i.xf6 22 IC!b3
and White exploits Black's pawn
weaknesses, as in the game Santo
Roman-Goormachtigh, Moscow (ol)
1994) 20 fxe5 (20 ICI:D _.c8 2 I IC!a7
,.a6 22 fxe5 �fS 23 exf6 l:c2 =i=)
20 ...1Cld5 ! (20 ... 1Clh7 is more pass­
ive) 2 1 _.d3 l:c5 with a double­
edged game, Van Kempen-Poli,
corr. 1 995.
2) 16 ... 1Cleg4 17 e5 b4! (weaker is The sharpest continuation, where
17 ...a4 1 8 .i.xf6 exf6 1 9 e6! axb3 the play assumes the character of
20 e7 bxc2+ 21 IC!xc2 'ifb6 22 playing for tempo, where the price
..xd6 ..xd6 23 l:xd6 .i.c6 24 of every move is extraordinarily
exf8=• �x:ffi 25 l:d8 ± Emst­ high, as is also the probability of
Aagaard, Copenhagen 1 99 1 ) 1 8 surprise, making possible a radical
IC!a4 (the 'misfire' 1 8 exf6? bxc3! change in the course of the game.
19 fxe7 cxd2 20 exd8=• dxe 1=• 16 h5
2 1 l:xe 1 l:xd8 22 .i.xd8 .i.xd4 ends The sacrifice of a second pawn is
in Black's favour) Krivonogov­ the natural consequence of the move
Aniukhin, Ukraine 1 994) 1 8 ....i.a4 1 5 g4.
1 9 .i.xa4 (unclear is 1 9 exf6 exf6 20 Worth considering is 16 f4 �c4
�xa4 fxg5 2 1 hxg5 l:d5 22 l:e4 17 .i.xc4 :Xc4 1 8 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 1 9
'ifb6) 19 ... dxe5 20 IC!c6 _.c7 2 1 �de2 b4 (on 1 9 .....a5? possible is
fxe5 IC!xe5 22 IC!xe5 l:xe5 23 .i.f4 20 e5 b4 2 1 �d5 l:xc2 22 _.xc2
�g4 and Black has sufficient com­ �f5 23 l:d3 ± Grigore-Za1kind,
pensation for the exchange Baile Herculane 1 994) 20 �d5 .i.h8
(Aniukhin). (or 20... l:xe4?! 21 �xf6+ exf6 22
After 1 5 g4 Black has a choice­ �g3 with a dangerous initiative for
to accept the pawn sacrifice or White) 21 h5 with an unexplored
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 131

game. Now Black is at a crossroads: Worth considering is 18 'ii'e 3, on

should he go over to a counterat­ which 1 8 ...tt:Jxe4? is not good be­
tack, sacrificing the exchange, or cause of 1 9 .i.h6! +, Sznapik-From,
continue to accept the sacrifices Copenhagen 1990.
offered. 18 tt:Jxe4 19 'ii'h2 tt:Jxc3+ 20
•.•

�cl Wa5! 21 hxg6

l lDclaa: 16 l:txc3
••• On 2 1 llxd4, good is 2 1 ...-i.fS.
l lDclab: 16 tt:Jxh5
••. 21 tt:Jxa2+ 22 .i.xa2 Wa3+ 23
.•.

�d2 'ifc3+ 24 �cl Wa3+ 1,.4.1..4

l l Dclaa Lanka-Smirin, USSR 1 989.

(1 e4 c5 2 tt:Jo d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lt:Jxd4 tt:Jf6 5 tt:Jc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 ll Dclab
f3 0-0 8 Wd2 tt:Jc6 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10
0-0-0 l:tc8 1 1 .i.b3 tt:Je5 12 h4 h5 (1 e4 c5 2 tt::\0 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
13 .i.g5 l:tc5 14 �b1 b5 15 g4 hxg4 lt:Jxd4 tt:Jr6 5 tt:Jc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
16 h5) f3 0-0 8 Wd2 lt:Jc6 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10
0-0-0 l:tc8 11 .i.b3 tt:Je5 12 h4 h5
16 l:txc3
..• 13 .i.g5 l:tc5 14 �b1 b5 15 g4 hxg4
A resolute attempt to change the 16 h5)
character of the game.
17 bxc3
In the event of 1 7 Wxc3 tt:Jxh5 1 8
fxg4 .i.xg4 1 9 . l:tdg 1 Wd7 Black
stands no worse.

16 tt:Jxh5
..•

In accepting the second pawn

sacrifice he decides his own kind of
fate. However it should be men­
tioned that though lovers of sharp
17 tt:Jxf3!
••. sensations will prefer to take the
This knight sacrifice is organi­ h-pawn with the knight, the
cally connected with the exchange dangerous-looking recapture 16 ...
sacrifice on c3. Weak is 1 7...tt:Jxh5? gxh5 is practically unexplored.
1 8 l:txh5 gxh5 1 9 'iVh2 tt:Jc4 (on In the game Ginzburg-
1 9...gxf3 or 19 ... Wa5, decisive is 20 An.Rodriguez, Fastfood-Lokal
iVxhS) 20 iVxh5 f6 2 1 tt:Jxb5! with 1996, after 1 7 tt:Jd5 e6 1 8 .i.xf6
advantage to White, Ulibin-Tivia­ ..txf6 White sacrificed a piece: 1 9
kov, USSR 1987. Wh6 exd5 20 l:txh5 l:te8 2 1 l:tdh1 ? !
18 tt:Jxf3 (this looks unconvincing since
132 The Rauzer Attack with 9 J..c4

Black will easily repulse the threat l lDclb

of 22 .Z:.g5, but in the event of 22 f4
possible is even 22 ...lDc4) 2 1 ...J.g7 (1 e4 c5 2 lDfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
22 'ii'h7+ �ft! 23 f4 lDg6 24 J.xd5 lDxd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 g6 6 J.e3 J.g7 7
'iff6 and Black repels the attack, t3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 lDc6 9 J.c4 J.d7 10
maintaining a material advantage. 0-0-0 .Z:.c8 1 1 J.b3 lDeS 12 h4 h5
17 lDdS! .Z:.e8 13 J.g5 .:cs 14 �b1 b5 15 g4)
Weaker is 17 ....Z:.xd5 1 8 J.xd5
gxf3 1 9 lDf5 ± Haba-Pribyl, Tumov 15 ...a5
1 996.
18 .Z:.xh5 gxh5 19 'ifh2 .Z:.xd5!
The best reply as after 1 9 ...lDg6
20 'ifxh5 'ii'a5 2 1 .Z:.h 1 .Z:.d5 22
'ii'h7+ or the obvious 19 ....Z:.c4 20
J.xc4 bxc4 2 1 'ifxh5 f6 22 f4!
White's attack comes first, Karpov­
Sznapik, Dubai ( ol) 1 986.
20 J.xd5 'ii'b6 21 lDf5
Also encountered is 21 'ifxh5 e6
22 J.b3 gxf3 (it is important to
eliminate this pawn; in the game
Chandler-Mestel, London 1 986,
22 ...'ifc5 23 J.h6 J.f6 24 f4 lDg6 25 16 gxh5
lDf5 was played and White's attack A preliminary exchange of the
proved very dangerous) 23 J.h6 knight is also seen: 1 6 J.xf6 J.xf6
J.xh6 24 Wxh6 f2, with the threat 17 gxh5 (in the event of 1 7 a3 hxg4
of f2-fl='if, gives Black an import­ Black has sufficient counterplay­
ant tempo for defence. B.lvanovic­ on 1 8 h5 he can play, according to
Romero Holmes, Terrassa 1 989. an analysis �y A.Karpov, 1 8 ...g5 1 9
2l...J.xf5 22 exf5 gxfJ! 23 'ifxh5 f4 gxf4 20 Wxf4 �h7 2 1 lDd5 .Z:.g8
.Z:.c8 24 .Z:.h1 ! with a defensible position, while
Weaker is 24 J.f4?! 'ii'f2 ! 25 c3 after 1 8 f4 lDc4 1 9 'ii'd3 'ii'c 8 20
.Z:.c5! (with the idea of 26 J.e5 .Z:.d5) lDd5 .Z:.xd5 ! 2 1 exd5 J.f5 22 lDxf5
Kovalchuk-Baschtovoi, corr. 1 990, 'ifxf5 23 c3 lDe3 ! the activity of the
or 24 J.h6?! 'ii'f2 ! 25 c3 'ii'g3 black pieces together with the
Matsuura-Vescovi, Santos 1 997, passed g-pawn, fully compensates
and in both cases Black's chances for the sacrificed exchange, Karpov­
are preferable. Kir.Georgiev, Dubai (ol) 1 986)
24...'ii'c5 25 c4! 1 7...a4 1 8 J.d5 (after 1 8 hxg6 axb3
After 25 J.b3 �ft! 26 'ii'h7 J.f6 19 lDxb3 Black sacrifices the ex­
Black successfully defends himself. chan.ge: 1 9 ....Z:.xc3! 20 gxf7+ �f7
25 ...�f8 26 J.f4 �e8 2 1 Wxc3 lDc4, obtaining an excel­
On 26... bxc4? decisive is 27 J.e5 lent game, Chandler-Petursson,
with the mating threat of'ii'h5-h8. Hastings 1 986/87) 1 8 ...e6 19 hxg6
27 J.e5 J.xe5 28 'ifxt7+ �d8 29 exd5 20 h5 J.g5 2 1 f4 lDc4 (after
'iff8+ �c7 30 'ii'e7+ �b6 31 'ii'b7+ 2 1 ...J.h6 22 lDxd5 Black is practi­
�aS and the king is inaccessible cally forced to give up a rook for
(G.Vescovi). this knight-22 ...lDc4 23 'ii'g2 .Z:.xd5
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 133

24 gxf7+ �h8 25 'iVg6 ± Stefans­ l7 ...l:le8 18 a3

son-S.Farago, Budapest 1 99 1 ) 22 The exchange of the main
'iVg2 (weaker is 22 'ifh2 .i.f6 23 defender- I S �f4 �xf4 1 9 'ifxf4
�xd5 l:lxd5 24 exd5 .i.xd4 25 l:lxd4 �c4 (after 20 'iVg3 'ifb6 Black al­
'iff6 + Holmsten-Tiviakov, Stock­ ready has the initiative, R.Rodriguez
holm 1 990) 22 ... �e3 23 'ifxg5 -Marin, Barcelona 1 994) 20 h5 f6
'ifxg5 24 fxg5 �xd l 25 gxf7+ l:lxf7 2 1 .i.xf6 exf6 22 'ifxd6 'ife7 23
26 l:lxd l .i.g4 27 l:le l (27 l:lg l l:lf4 'ii'xe7 l:lxe7 leads to an equal game
+) 27 ...dxe4 28 �dxb5 ;!; Henao­ (Marin).
Berube, New York 1 993. 18 ...lLlc4 19 'iVd3
After 16 gxh5 Black can play: Also seen is 1 9 'ifg2 �ffl! (the
king defends the e7 pawn; the more
llDclba: 16 �xhS.•. active 1 9 ...b4 is levelled by 20 a4
llDclbb: 16 ...a4 .i.c6 2 1 .i.xc4 l:lxc4 22 �xc6! l:lxc6
23 �f4 and White continues the at­
llDclba tack, Sznapik-Sehner, Slupsk 1 987)
20 �fS ! ? (upon a quiet develop­
(1 e4 cS 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ment of events, 20 .i.xc4 bxc4 2 1 c3
�xd4 �f6 S �c3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 'i'b8 22 f4 e6 23 �e3 'ifb7! Black
f3 0-0 8 'ifd2 �c6 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10 retains counterplay, Vasiesiu-Marin,
0-0-0 l:lc8 ll .i.b3 �es 12 h4 hS Romania 1 994) 20 ...-'.xfS (also
13 .i.gS l:lcS 14 �bl bS IS g4 aS worth considering is 20 ... gxf5 2 1
16 gxhS) l:lhg 1 �e5 22 �f4 �xf4 23 .i.xf4
�g4 24 exf5 .i.xf5 25 fxg4 .i.h7
16...�xhS and the black bishops exert their
influence on the king's position,
M.Marin). 2 1 exf5 'ifa8 and here in
the game Vasiesiu-Kosanovic,
Bucharest 1 997, as pointed out by
V.Stoica, necessary was 22 �xe7
�xb2 23 f6! �xdl 24 fxg7+ �xg7
25 �g6+! ? fxg6 26 l:ld l l:lfS 27
'ii'd2 and the pair of active white
bishops fully compensates for the
sacrificed exchange.
19 ....i.e6 20 �e3!
20 c3?! , played in the game
Short-Kir.Georgiev, Novi Sad (ol)
Black chooses a passive method 1990, served the tactical operation
of defence. 20 ... .i.xd5 2 1 exd5 'ifc8! 22 �c6
17 �dS �xa3+! .
It is important to tie the black 20....i.xd4 21 'ifxd4 f6 22 f4 'ifc8
()ieces to the e7 pawn. After 1 7 f4 On the capture of the bishop,
'Llc4 1 8 'iVd3 a4 1 9 .i.xc4 bxc4 20 22 ... fxg5, follows the attack 23 f5.
'ii'd2 'ifb6 2 1 �d5 l:lxd5 ! 22 exd5 23 fS gxfS 24 l:lhgl and White
l:lb8 Black already has the attack, has a strong attack, Angelis­
Shabalov-Basin, Belgrade 1 989. Kir.Georgiev, Komotini 1 993.
 134 The Rauzer Attack with 9 il..c4

l lDclbb 22 ...il..g7 23 lLldxe6 fxe6 24 lLlxe6

i.xe6 25 il..xe6+ lLlfl 26 f4 with
(1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 sufficient compensation for the
liJxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlcJ g6 6 il..e3 il..g7 7 piece, Gild.Garcia-Kudrin, Sala­
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd 2 lLlc6 9 il..c4 il..d7 10 manca 1989
0-0-0 l:lc8 I I il..b3 lLle5 12 h4 h5 2) 1 8 il..d 5 �h7 (on 1 8 ... e6 fol­
13 il..g5 l:lc5 14 �b1 b5 1 5 g4 a5 lows 19 h7+! �h7 20 h5 with a
16 gxh5) dangerous attack, Pared Estrada­
Espinosa, Cuba (ch) 1988) 19 il..xf6
16... a4 (19 a3 'ifb6 20 il..a2 b4 +) 19 ...il..xf6
20 f4 b4 (also possible is 20 ...ltJc4
21 il..xc4 l:lxc4 22 'ii'e3 il..xd4 23
l:lxd4 'ifb6 24 J:.hd1 e5 and after the
exchange of queens Black has noth­
ing to fear, Emst-Vescovi, Gron­
ingen 1992) 2 1 lLlce2 l:lxd5 ! 22
exd5 lLlc4 with good counterplay
for Black, Ernst-Alterman, Manila
(ol) 1990.
Sometimes 17 il..d5 is played with
the idea after 1 7 ...b4 1 8 tllce2 lLlxh5
( 1 8 ... e6? 19 h6! ±) to attack by 19
lLlf4 ! . But stronger is an immediate
Obliging White to go in for 17 ...lLlxh5 1 8 a3 (after 1 8 lLlce2 it is
forcing play-the cost of which is a necessary to reckon on 1 8 ...l:lxd5 !
p1ece. 19 exd5 'ii'a8 intending ...lLlc4 and
17 il..xt7+ . . .'ii'd 5, or 1 8 f4 b4 ! 19 lLlce2 l:lxd5
Also played is the intermediate 20 exd5 lLlc4 1 8 ...'ifb6 19 il..xe7?
move 1 7 h6 il..h 8. Let's look at the J:.e8 20 il..g5 b4 with an attack,
possible continuations. Lassen-Nizynski, corr. 1992. But
I) 1 8 h7+ lLlxh7 19 il..d5 b4 also after the better 19 lLlce2! l:ld5!
(premature is 1 9...lLlxg5?! 20 hxg5 20 exd5 'ifb7 Black has a good
and White invades along the h-file game due to his threats of ...tllc4
-20...il..g7 2 1 l:lh4 e6 22 l:ldh 1 l:le8 and ...'ii'd 5.
23 l:lh7 �ffl 24 f4 lLlg4 25 f5 exd5 17 �xf7
.•.

26 'ii'f4 with a very strong attack, Weaker is 1 7 ... l:lxfl?! 1 8 hxg6

I.Aimasi-Videki, Kecskemet 1993; lLlxg6 1 9 h5 liJffl 20 J:.dg1 �h7 2 1
on 19 ... l:le8 White attacks by 20 f4! e5 ! with a winning attack, lvanovic­
lLlc4 2 1 'Wh2 ! ± I.Almasi-Tomai, Feick, Berlin 1988.
Budapest 1996) 20 lLlce2 lLlxg5 18 hxg6+ lLlxg6 19 h5 lLle5 20
(also worth considering is the ex­ 'ii'g2
change sacrifice 20 ...l:lxd5 2 1 exd5 The inclusion of the moves 20 h6
lLlc4 22 'ii'd3 lLle5 with sufficient ll.\c4 2 1 'ii'g2 il..h8 22 h7 'ii'a5 plays
compensation, Lauk-Hartikainen, into Black's hands : 23 il.. c 1 a3 ! +
Jyviiskylii 1994) 2 1 hxg_5 e6 22 lLlf4 Ivanovic-Kosanovic, Stara Pazova
(or 22 lLlg3 il..g7 23 Wh2 l:le8 24 1988, or 23 il..xf6 'ii'M ! 24 lLlb3
'ii'h7+ �ffl 25 f4 lLlc4 and Black axb3 25 cxb3 il..xf6 26 liJd5 l:lxd5 !
already grabs the initiative) + Bertolucci-Poli, corr. 1989.
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i.c4 135

20...l:.g_8 21 h6 i.h8 22 f4 ltlc4 i.h6 i.h8 16 g4. Here is one

23 'ii'h2 lL!xb2 24 l:.dgl l:.xc3 2S h7 example: 1 6 ... a5 1 7 gxh5 ltlxh5 1 8
l:tg6 26 fS l:.xgS 27 l:.xgS with a f4 ltlg4 1 9 f5 l:.xc3 ! 20 bxc3 a4 2 1
strong attack for White, A.Schmidt­ fxg6 axb3 22 gxf7+ �xf7 23 cxb3
Varga, Germany 1 99 1 . 'ii'a5 24 l:.dfl + �g6 and Black has
the advantage, Finn-Mestel, Hast­
1 1Dc2 ings 1 992.
IS... bxg4
(I e4 cS 2 ltlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltlxd4 ltlf6 S ltlc3 g6 6 .i.e3 i.g7 7
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 ltlc6 9 i.c4 i.d7 10
0-0-0 l:tc8 11 i.b3 ltles 12 h4 hS
13 i.gS l:.cs 14 �bl)

l4...lle8

16 bS
A standard attack. After 1 6 f4
ltlc4 1 7 'ii'e2 'ii'c8 arises a position
looked at above with the sole differ­
ence that the moves ..t>b I and l:fe8
have been included.
16 ... ltlxhS 17 l:xhS
A prophylactic move, retammg
If, on the development 14...b5, the
the key bishop, which can play its
capture of the second pawn tempted
own role in the counterattack.
fate, since there, after 1 7 ltld5 !,
White's plans here can involve the
Black was forced to play 17 ...l:.e8,
organisation of an attack on the
then here the rook is already in
kingside or play in the centre.
place and Black has effectively
saved an important tempo. There­
l1Dc2a: IS g4
fore White continues his sacrificing
llDc2b: IS l:.hel
strategy.
17...gxhS 18 'ii'h2 ltlg6!
1 1 Dc2a
This is stronger than 1 8 ...b5 1 9
(1 e4 cS 2 ltlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltld5, which is looked at above in
ltlxd4 ltlf6 S ltlc3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7 the variation with 14 ... b5.
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 ltlc6 9 i.c4 i.d7 10 19 ltldS
0-0-0 l:.c8 11 i.b3 ltleS 12 h4 hS Now, on 1 9 'ii'xh5, good is
13 i.gS l:.cS 14 �bl l:.e8) 19 ...l:.xg5 ! 20 'ii'xg5 e6 2 1 'ii'xg4
Wf6 and Black's chances are prefer­
IS g4 able, Glimbrant-Pavlovic, Barbera
Sometimes White starts with the del Valles 1 994.
preliminary bishop manoeuvre 1 5 19...l:.xdS! 20 i.xdS 'ii'b6 21 c3
136 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i..c4

On 2 1 'ifxh5 follows the same clearly to retreat the bishop to a2.

reply. White, as it were, invites Black to
21 e6 22 i..b3 aS 23 fxg4
•.• declare his intentions.
23 'ifxh5 a4 24 i..c2 a3 is in For the present both 16 lLld5
Black's favour in view of the seri­ 'ifxd2 1 7 :xd2 lLlxd5 1 8 exd5
ous weakening of the pawn cover of li)c4 !, and 16 lLlde2 i..e6 17 i.. f4
the white king. li)c4! are premature.
23 ... h4 24 i..e3 Not dangerous for Black is 1 6 f4
More logical is 24 i..xh4, though li)c4! (or 16 ...lLleg4 17 e5 dxe5 1 8
after 24 ... a4 25 i..c2 a3 26 b3 lLlxh4 i..xf7+ �xf7 1 9 lLlb3 'ifc7 20 lLlxc5
27 'ifxh4 :c8 Black's position is 1i'xc5 2 1 i..xf6 li)xf6 22 fxe5 i..g4
better. 23 exf6 i..xd 1 24 fxg7 i..g4 25 lLle4
24...a4 2S i..c2 a3 26 i..b3 i..c6 and White's chances are preferable
27 'ife2 'ifc7 28 bxa3 dS! with a in view of the vulnerable position of
strong initiative for Black, Enders­ the black king, Boudre-Koch,
Cao, Budapest 1995. France (ch) 1987) 1 7 i..xc4 :xc4 18
i..xf6 (nothing comes out of 1 8 e5
1 1Dc2b .!i)d5 ! or 1 8 lLlb3 'ifa6 19 e5 lLlg4 20
exd6 i..xc3 2 1 bxc3 e6! +
(1 e4 cS 2 ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Beliavsky) 1 8 ... i..xf6 1 9 lLld5 'ifxd2
lLlxd4 lLlf6 S lLlc3 g6 6 i..e3 i..g7 7 20 lLlxf6+ exf6 2 1 :xd2 f5 ! with
f3 0-0 8 'ifd2 lLlc6 9 i..c4 i..d7 10 equal chances in the endgame,
0-0-0 :c8 11 i..b3 lLleS 12 h4 bS Beliavsky-Kir.Georgiev, Wijk aan
13 i..gs :cs 14 �b1 :e8) Zee 1985.
1 6...'ifa6
1S :he1 Black avoids the possible thrust
.!i)c3-d5, which, after a preliminary
exchange on f6, might lead to a de­
terioration of his pawn formation on
the king's flank.
The flank attack 1 6...b5?! , was
carried out in the game Anand­
Kasparov, New York (m/1 7) 1995,
and proved to be a blank shot. The
question is only whether White's
standard queen-exchanging ma­
noeuvre is sufficient to give him an
initiative-1 7 i..xf6 exf6 1 8 lLlde2!
:c6 19 .!i)d5 'ifxd2 20 :xd2 lLlc4
From the e 1 square the rook can 2 1 i..xc4 bxc4 22 :edt f5 23 exf5
take part in the preparation of a (23 lLlg3 ! ? looks stronger when
pawn break in the centre after f3-f4 Black has to work for a draw)
and e4-e5, and likewise attack the 23 ...i..xf5 24 lLld4! and White's
e7 pawn in case of the manoeuvre chances are preferable.
lLld5 lLlxd5, ... e6xd5. Also premature is 1 6...lLlc4 1 7
1S...'ifaS 16 a3!? i..xc4 :xc4 1 8 e5 lLld5 ( 1 8 ...dxe5?
This useful move was recom­ is not possible because of the loss of
mended by A.Beliavsky. The idea is a piece- 19 lLlb3 'ifc7 20 i..xf6) 19
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 �c4 1 3 7

lDxd5 •xd5 20 lDb3 ..xd2 2 1 Also seen is 16. . .�c6 17 l:he 1 b5

l:.xd2 f6 22 exf6 exf6 23 l:.xe8+ 1 8 e5 dxe5 19 �xe5 �6 20 �d4
�xeS 24 �e3 l:.h4 25 �xa7 and ..c7 2 1 ..e2 e6 22 �e5 �6 23
White has the more pleasant end­ l:d6 ;!; Zezulkin-Bobras, MK Cafe
game (M.Wahls). Cup 1 999.
17 f4 lDc4 18 �xc4 l:.xc4 19 eS 17 �bl
lDh7 20 e6 �xe6 21 lDxe6 �xc3 22 A practically forced move in the
bxc3 ..xa3 23 lbd4 lDxgS 24 hxgS majority of 'quiet' positional plans
l:a4 1/i-Vi Smirin-Hodgson, Ischia in the Rauzer formation. After an
1996. immediate 1 7 e5 dxe5 1 8 �xe5
�6 Black experiences no prob­
liE lems. For example, the game
loachim-Muse, Germany 1999, con­
( 1 e4 cS 2 lbfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tinued 19 �d4 ..d6 20 ..e3 'iVg3 !
lDxd4 lDf6 S lDc3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7 (this is where the weakening of the
f3 0-0 8 ..d2 lDc6 9 �c4 �d7 10 g3 square after 1 2 h4 begins to tell)
0-0-0 l:c8 11 �b3 lDeS 12 h4 hS) 21 �e5 ..xg2 22 l:.d2 �3 23 l:h2
•rs 24 l"iXI4 l:xd4 25 �xd4 b5 and
13 l:hel the activity of the black pieces fully
compensates for the sacrificed
exchange.
17 l:.c8
•••

The game Lanka-Rogozenko,

Germany 1 996, continued 17 ...a6 1 8
..f2 b5 when White carelessly
played 1 9 e5? (correct is 19 l:e2)
19 ...dxe5 20 �xe5 lDg4! and landed
in a difficult position.
1 8 l:.e2 aS
This advance weakens the b5
square.
Worth considering is 1 8 ... a6, pre­
This move (at times with different paring ... b7-b5. In the game
interpretations) has recently been Lanka-Komljenovic, Portugal 1997,
frequently seen in practical play. Black equalised the game after 19
The point of it lies in the prepara­ e5 dxe5 20 �xe5 'itb6. The pawn
tion of the advance e4-e5. However sacrifice 1 8 ...b5 19 lDxb5 'ifb7 is
the transfer of the rook on h i to the hardly correct: 20 lDc3 l:b8 2 1
centre is out of harmony with the •cl ! •a6 22 •e3 ;!; Lanka-Werner,
idea of the move h2-h4. Regensburg_ l 996.
13 lDc4 14 �xc4 l:.xc4 IS lDb3
.•• 19 lDbS •d8 20 c3
•c7 After 20 ..a5? ..xa5 2 1 lDxa5
It is necessary to free the queen l:.a4 22 lDb3 �c4 White loses the
from its adversaries on the d-file. exchange, Lanka-Watson, Germany
After the careless 1 5 ...b5?! 1 6 e5 ! 1996.
dxe5 1 7 lDc5 Black suffers material 20 a4 21 lDcl ••5 22 lDa3
•.•

loss. l:4c7 23 lbd3 lDd7 24 �xg7 �xg7

16 �d4 �e6 25 lDf4 and now instead of the
138 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i.c4

active 25 ...'W'e5? 26 �5 !, which Black is limited, and lovers of psy­

led to a serious advantage for White chological opening duels therefore
in the game Lanka-Reschke, Wies­ tend to avoid it. However for eternal
baden I 996, he should play apologists of this variation, to which
25 ...ttle5 with an acceptable we refer, for example, to the English
position. grandmaster Ward, such fine points
are irrelevant.
Line 12 1 1 i.b3 :res
The resulting position from sys­
(1 e4 c5 2 ttlt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tems with the development of the
ttlxd4 ttlf6 5 ttlcJ g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7 queen on a5. Black concentrates his
f3 ttlc6 8 'W'd2 0-0 9 i.c4 i.d7 10 forces on the queenside, planning
0-0-0) the manoeuvre ...ttlc6-e5-c4 and
threatening an opportune sacrifice
10...1i'a5 of the exchange on c3.
12 h4
As in other systems of the Dragon
variation, the most energetic move.
The other main continuation is I2
�b I , where White does not strive
for the flank attack of the h-pawn,
looked at in Line 12.
The move I2 g4 essentially has no
indeeendent significance, since after
I2 ... ti)e5 13 h4 or 13 �bi play
transposes into variations looked at
below. The attempt to anticipate the
incursion to c4 by 1 3 'W'e2 allows a
The introduction to a complicated favourable exchange sacrifice for
plan of defence and counterattack, Black: 1 3 ...:Xc3! I4 bxc3 (no good
in the formulation of which the So­ is I4 i.d2? ttld3+ I 5 �b l ttlxb2 !
viet players V.Simagin, P.Dubinin 16 �b2 l:r.acS I 7 'W'e1 ttld5 ! +)
and G.Veresov played a great part. I4 ...'W'xc3 + Kupreichik-Gufeld,
At first this development of the USSR 1973 .
queen was made a move earlier- 12 ... ttle5 13 h5
9...'W'a5 with the immediate threat of
10 ...'W'b4 I I i.b3 ttlxd4 I 2 i.xd4
ttlxe4 !, which in fact prevents
White's attempt to "save time" by
rejecting queenside castling in fa­
vour of I 0 h4. But this refinement
looks much too hurried, while after
IO i.b3 Black's plan is still linked
to 10... i.d7 1 I 0-0-0, which leads to
a transposition of moves. However,
in this case, by comparison with the
development 9...i.d7 IO 0-0-0, the
choice of possible continuations for
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 139

With this pawn sacrifice White 16 bxc3 :cs, does not change the
opens the h-file. Other continuations principal assessment-Black has a
to be discussed are: 13 g4-Line 1 3 solid endgame: 17 �b2 a5 1 S a3
and 14 �bl-Line 1 1 .!Df6 19 .i.f4 .!DeS 20 i.g5 a4 2 1
13 ....!DxhS i.a2 .!Dc6 22 :d2 .!Df6 23 .!Dxc6
Since the opening of the h-file i.xc6 and the game is even,
cannot be avoided, Black accepts Spassky-Stein, USSR 1967.
the pawn sacrifice, counting on a
future retaliation by an exchange 12A
sacrifice on c3 . After 1 3 ....!Dc4 14
i.xc4 :xc4 15 hxg6 he has in pros­ (1 e4 cS 2 .!Df3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
pect a difficult defence: .!Dxd4 .!Df6 S .!DcJ g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
1 ) 1 5 ... hxg6 16 i.h6 i.hS 17 .!Db3 f3 .!Dc6 8 'ii'd2 0-0 9 i.c4 i.d7 10
'ii'a6 (or 17 ...'ii'dS 1 S i.g5 i.g7 19 o-o-o 'ii'as 11 i.bJ :res 12 h4 .!Des
e5 ! with a rout) 1S e5 ! :xc3 19 13 hS .!DxhS)
bxc3 .!DeS 20 ..tffi i.xe5 21 i.xe7
with advantage to White, 14 g4
Kharitonov-Vershinin, Russia 1995.
2) 1 5 ... fxg6 16 .!Db3 'ii'e5
(16 ...'ii'c7 17 e5 ! dxe5 1 S .!Dc5 !) 17
i.d4 'ii'e6 1S :he 1 and White, by
organising e4-e5, exploits the weak­
nesses in Black's camp to good
effect, Balashov-Ageichenko, . Mos-
cow 1967.

Black's main replies are:

12A: 14 g4
12B: 14 .i.h6
12B: 14 .!DdS The most direct continuation,
upon which, however, Black can
The prophylactic move 14 �b1 obtain extra tactical counterchances
has no independent significance thanks to the transient weakening of
since it involves a certain loss of the f3 Eawn.
time; Black can, without particular 14 ...tLlf6 IS i.h6
risk, sacrifice the exchange by After 1 5 �b 1 Black can likewise
14 ...:xc3 !-a universal method sacrifice the exchange: 1 5 ...:xc3 1 6
against White's flank attack. Now 'ii'xc3 'ii'xc3 1 7 bxc3 :cs 1 S �b2
after 1 5 bxc3 :cs 1 6 i.h6 .!Dc4 1 7 a5 19 a3 a4 20 i.a2 i.eS 2 1 :h3
i.xc4 l:xc4 a position is reached .!Dfd7, obtaining a pleasant end­
with chances for both sides, as oc­ game, Ermakov-Keene, corr. 1 970.
curred in the game K.lovan­ But weaker is 1 5 ....!Dc4?! 1 6 i.xc4
A.Zaitsev, USSR 1 969. This kind of :Xc4 1 7 .!Db3 'ii'c7 1 S e5 (or 1 8
broken queenside pawn structure .!Dd5 .!Dxd5 1 9 exd5 :cs 20 c3 b5
with its minor nuances is looked at 2 1 1i'h2 h5 22 gxh5 i.f5+ and
later on in several variations. The Black's attack comes first, Ljucko­
exchange of queens, 1 5 Wxc3 Wxc3 Pala, Preszov 1 976) 1 S ....!DeS 1 9
140 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i.c4

lDdS 'ii'd8 20 i.gS f6 2 1 lDxf6+ the weakness of the f3 pawn by

exf6 22 'ii'dS+ 1 -0 E.Hemandez­ playing 16 ...lDxf3.
Kuffer, Adelaide 1988.
15 l:txc3!
•.•

In eliminating the knight, which

threatens to become active via the
d5 square, Black wrecks White's
queenside pawn structure.
The preliminary 1 5 ... i.xh6 is also
seen. Now after 16 l:.xh6 l:r.xc3 !
(weaker is I6 ... lDc4?! when after I7
i.xc4 l:.xc4 I8 lDb3 followed by
l:.d l -h i White develops a strong at­
tack) I 7 bxc3 l:tc8 the game enters
the main variation. In the event of
16 'ii'xh6 1lxc3 ! I7 bxc3?! 'ii'xc3 the Black intends to attack the king
white queen is not so effective in after 17 .!Llxf3 tDxe4. However,
comparison to its black counterpart analysis shows that White still holds
-which will be apparent from the on to the initiative: I 8 i.xf7+! �xf7
following commentary. More cun­ I9 'ii'f4+ i.fS (on I9 ... lDf6? follows
ning is I 7 g5 lDhS 1 8 bxc3, but also a mating attack-20 lDgS+ �g8 2 I
here after I 8 ... l:.c8 Black's chances i.xg7 etc.). The game Kovacs­
are not worse: I9 l:.xh5 gxh5 20 Polak, corr. I976, continued 20
lDfS (no good is 20 g6? hxg6 2I lDgS+ lDxgS 2I i.xg7 ! lDe6! 22
l:.gi i.g4! + Berlinsky-Salmensuu, 'ii'f3 lDxg7 23 _gxf5 lDxfS 24 l:.xh7+
Elista (ol) I998) 20 ... .ixf5 2I exf5 'it>f6 25 lidS Wb6 and Black holds
'ii'xc3 22 g6 'iVa i+ 23 �d2 'ii'c3+ 24 the balance. But more accurate was
�c l 'iVa i+ •h- 1h Spasov-Keene, 20 i.xg7 !, after which arise vari­
Orebro I966. ations analogous to the main
16 bxcJ continuation.
On ·I6 'ii'xc3 Black transposes to The following order of moves is
an ending-- I6 ...'ii'xc3 I7 bxc3 l:r.c8 considered to be more accurate: I 7
(or I7 ...i.xh6+ I 8 l:.xh6 lDhS! I9 i.xf7+! �f7 I 8 lDxf3 'ii'a3+!?
gxh5 �g7, winning back the ex­ (driving the king to a more vulner­
change) 1 8 �d2 �f8 I9 l:.h4 g5 20 able position reduces White's possi­
l:th2 l:tc5 with the preferable bilities) I9 'it>bi lDxe4 20 'ii'f4+ i.fS
chances, Romero-Ward, London (20...i.f6 is losing because of 2 I
I99 1 . 'ii'xe4 i.e6 22 l:.d5 ! ) 2 1 i.xg7 (after
16...i.xh6 2 I lDgS+ �g8 ! 22 lDxe4 i.e6! or
Likewise possible is I 6...l:.c8, not 22 i.xg7 e5 ! Black takes over the
fearing the attack 1 7 i.xg7 �xg7 I 8 initiative) 2 1 ...e5 22 lDxeS+! �g7
'ii'h6+ �g8 I 9 g5 lDhS 20 lDf5 due (22 ...dxe5 23 i.xe5) 23 'ii'h6+ �f6
to 20 ... i.xf5! 2 I exf5 'ii'xc3 22 24 lDd7+! �e6 (he has a more diffi­
l:.xh5 'iVa i+ and a draw by perpet­ cult defence on 24...i.xd7 25 l:.hfl +
ual check, Cooke-Rust, Philadelphia 'it>e6 26 l:.fe i i.c6 27 l:.d4! with the
I99 1 . threat of 28 'ii'h7) 25 gxfS+ 'it>xd7
But the main interest lies in the 26 'ii'g7+ �c6 27 l:r.d3 l:.e8 and
question whether Black can exploit though, as before, White has the
 The Rauzer A flack with 9 Jl.c4 141

initiative, the direct threats are counterattack by 20 ... a5 2 I .:.dh i a4

repulsed. (B.Larsen considers 2 1 .. .e6 to be
17 .:.xh6 best), not fearing 22 .:.xh7 �xh7 23
White, without losing time, 'ii'h6 due to 23 ...e6 24 g5 ! �g4! 25
threatens to concentrate all his 'it'xh7+ �f8 26 �xe6+ Jl.xe6 27
heavy pieces on the h-file, but the i.xe6 'it'xc3+ and Black forces a
usual technique for handling such draw.
an attack is to place the rook behind 19 'ii'c5!
...

the queen. However, after I7 'it'xh6 Inviting 20 �b2. The counterat­

'it'xc3 1 8 �b I �c4 I9 Jl.xc4 'it'xc4 tacking attempt I9 ... �c4+ 20 'iti>b i
20 �b3 i.e6 (20....:.c8 is also good) �a3+ (20... e5 2 I �f5 ! ?) 2 I �c l e5
2 1 'ii'e3 a5 and Black has two pawns is too late: 22 l:txh7! �xh7 23 .:.hi
for the exchange and an attack, �c4 24 'it'xh7+ �f8 25 'ii'h6+ <li>e8
Tilak-Rajasuba, Calcutta I 994. 26 'it'g5 Jl.e6 27 �xe6 and White
17....:.c8! wins a piece, D.Frolov-Gaponenko,
It is important to attack the c3 Moscow I995.
pawn, exploiting the fact that White 20 .:.xh7 'it'xcJ+ 21 �b1 �xh7
cannot defend it with the knight be­ 22 .:.h1 e6 23 'ii'xh7+ �f8 24 'it'h6+
cause of the weakness of the f3 �e7 25 'it'g5+ f6 26 .:.h7+ �fT 27
pawn. Testifying to the dangers in 'it'xg6 'it'el+ and Black gives per­
Black's position is the quiet petual check.
17 ...'it'a3+ I 8 �bi a5 I9 .:.dh i e6
20 .:.xh7 ! �xh7 2 I 'ii'h6 and White 12B
wins, Scholl-Westerinen, Beverwijk
1967. (1 e4 c5 2 �tJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
18 �b2 'it'b6! li)xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 Jl.e3 Jl.g7 7
Now both ...�e5-c4 and f3 �c6 8 'it'd2 0-0 9 i.c4 Jl.d7 1 0
... a7-a5-a4 are threatened. An im­ 0-0-0 'it'a5 1 1 Jl.b3 .:.res 1 2 h4 �e5
mediate I 8 ... �c4+ does not achieve 13 h5 �xh5)
its aim-19 i.xc4 .:.xc4 20 �b3 !
'it'e5 2 1 'it'e3 and if 2 l .. .JI.xg4, then 14 Jl.h6
22 .:.d4! with advantage to White.
In the game Tal-Wade, Palma de
Mallorca 1 966, was played I8 ...b5?
19 .:.dh I �c4+ 20 JLxc4 bxc4 and
White broke through the defence:
21 .:.xh7! �xh7 22 'ii'h6 e6
(22 ...'it'e5 repels the mating threats
but after the exchange of heavy
pieces and the incursion of the
knight on c6 Black loses a pawn) 23
f4 ! e5 24 g5 i.e8 25 �e6 I -0.
19 'it'h2!
White continues the attack. After
19 �c i Black plays I9 ...'it'c5, White intends, after the exchange
practically forcing 20 �b2, after of bishops, to infiltrate with his
which he can offer a repetition of queen on h6. Black must take firm
moves by 20 ....'it'b6 or continue the measures against the threat of I 5
142 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i.c4

i.xg7 �xg7 16 g4 tt:)f6 1 7 'it'h6+ f4 :xc3 20 'ii'd4 i.f6 21 tt:)h6+ �ffi

�g8 1 8 llld 5. However, now the 22 e5 i.g7 and Black once again
queen on d2 is overloaded with the gets ready for a counterattack.
defence of its own pieces on d4 and 1 ) 23 llJxil? l:r.xb3+! + Jansa­
h6, Black has, apart from a standard Vasiukov, Havana 1967.
exchange sacrifice, additional 2) 23 g4 llJg3 24 llJxil
resources. (Cherepkov-Vasiukov, USSR 1 967)
White's main continuations in this 24 ...:xb3+! 25 cxb3 tt:)xh l + (not
position are: 25 ...�xil at once due to 26 :xh7).
1S llJxb2!
••.

12Ba: 14 tt:)d3+
•.• Having said "A" he must also say
12Bb: 14 :xc3
•.• "B". The ca�ture 1 5 ...i.xd4?! is
parried by 1 6 llld5 ! 'ii'xd2 (upon the
12Ba retreat of the queen Black is sub­
jected to a strong attack: 1 6...'ii'd8
(1 e4 cS 2 tt:)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 1 7 :xh5 ! i.h8 1 8 cxd3 e6 1 9 i.g5
tt:)xd4 tt:)f6 S tZ)cJ g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7 f6 20 :xh7 ! with irresistible threats,
f3 tt:)c6 8 'ii'd2 0-0 9 i.c4 i.d7 1 0 Auchenberg-Podzielny, Germany
0-0-0 'ii'as 1 1 i.b3 :res 12 h4 tt:)es 1 972) 1 7 llJxe7+ �h8 1 8 :xd2 and
13 hS tt:)xhS 14 i.h6) White wins back the piece, while
retaining a positional advantage,
14 llJd3+
•.• Dueball-Mista, Ybbs 1 968. An ex­
change of bishops is also in White's
favour: 15 ... i.xh6 16 'ii'xh6 :xc3
( 1 6...llJxb2? 1 7 llJd5 !) 1 7 bxc3 llJf2
1 8 :xh5! gxh5 1 9 :n and Black is
in a bad way, Dueball-Naranja, Bad
Pyrmont 1 970.
16 �xb2
Here already the manoeuvre 16
llJd5 'ii'xd2 17 llJxe7+ is met by
17 ... �£8 1 8 i.xg7+ �xe7 19 :Xd2
llJxg7 20 :xh7 (20 �xb2 h5 +)
20 ... tt:)c4 2 1 i.xc4 l:r.xc4 22 :xg7
l:[h8! and the white rook is doomed.
Exploiting the overloaded queen, 1 6 i.xh6 17 'ii'xh6
••.

tied to the defence of the important

dark-squared bishop, Black plays a
clever tactical manoeuvre which
leads to the win of a second pawn.
1S �b1
After 1 5 'ii'xd3 i.xh6+ 1 6 �b 1
:xc3 1 7 bxc3 :c8 Black has, for
the exchange, a pawn and good
counterplay on the queen's flank.
White's attempt to organise an at­
tack on the king's flank is met by a
forcible argument: 1 8 llJf5 i.g5 19
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 R.c4 143

17 .l:lxc3!
.. 18 li:)f6 19 eS
...

It seems that 1 7 ...Wfxc3+ is more After 19 g5 li:)h5, White's queen

natural, but in fact this imaginary is bricked in and it is not easy to
gain of tempo leads to defeat, since break through Black's position.
after 1 8 �b 1 there is no adequate 1) 20 l:.xh5 llxb3+! (this possibil­
defence against the threat 19 g4 li:)f6 ity shows the advantage of taking on
20 e5 li:)h5 2 1 l:.xh5 gxh5 22 g6! c3 with the rook) 2 1 cxb3 gxh5 and
with mate. Here are the variations: Black repulses the threats with ad­
I) 1 8 ... e6 19 g4 li:)f6 20 e5 ! dxe5 vantage, Ujtumen-Velimirovic,
2 1 g5 (the alternative 2 1 li:)f5 exf5 Dubna 1976.
22 l:.xd7 llc7 23 l:d6 e4 seems to 2) 20 f4 ltac8 (in the game
hold on for Black, e.g. 24 gxf5 li:)e8 Terentiev-Stirberg, USSR 1 99 1 ,
25 l:.e6! !? li:)f6 26 l:.xf6 Wfxf6 27 Black plar._ed 20. . .R.g4 2 1 f5 l:.xb3+
Wfxh7+ �f8 28 Wfh8+ Wfxh8 29 22 axb3 •e5 23 l:.d3 R.e2 24 lld2
l:xh8+ �g7 30 l:.xa8 exf3 3 1 R.d5 R.n 25 llh4 llc8 and, with the
f2 32 R.g2) 2 I ...li:)h5 22 l:xh5 gxh5 bishops running free, his position is
23 li:)f5 ! e4 (losing is 23 ... exf5 24 the more attractive.) 2 1 f5 llxb3+!
R.xf7+!) 24 _g6! fxg6 25 li:)e7+ �f7 22 axb3 Wfc3+ 23 �b1 Wfe3 ! 24
26 Wfxh7+ •g7 27 l:.xd7 Wfxh7 28 llhe 1 (after 24 l:.xh5 g_xh5 25 f6
li:)xc8+ �g8 29 R.xe6+ �h8 30 exf6 26 Wfxf6 Wfxe4 27 •xd6 R.g4!
llxh7+ �h7 31 fxe4 with a tough Black repulses the attack with ma­
ending in prospect. terial gains, Segi-Velimirovic,
2) 1 8 ... a5 19 l:.xh5 ! gxh5 20 Yugoslavia 1970) 24 ...Wff4 ! and,
Wfxh5 d5 (or 20...e6 2 1 e5 dxe5 22 despite the potential threat of f5-f6,
li:)f5 ! ) 2 1 'i'xd5 R.e8 22 Wfg5+ �:f8 it much more pleasant to have the
23 Wfe5 �g8 24 Wfxe7 a4 25 Wfg5+ queen logged on to the f6 square,
�h8 26 Wfh6 �g8 27 ll:)f5 l:.c7 28 than bricked up.
lth1 ! and there is no defence. 3) 20 li:)e2 l:.xb3+ 2 1 axb3 l:c8 22
18 g4 l:.d5 l:.c5 23 .:Xc5 Wfxc5 and, thanks
The logical continuation of the to the threat of 24 ... Wfe3, Black has
attack. the advantage, Gachon-Leriche,
He cannot decide the position by France 1989.
force: 1 8 R.xf7+?! �xf7 19 Wfxh7+ 19 l:.xb3+
•••

�f6! 20 e5+ dxe5 2 1 llxh5 l:.a3 ! Forcing the sacrifice of the ex­
and roles are reversed-White is in change-here this bishop is stronger
a blind alley and Black is on the than a rook. on 19 ... dxe5 White
attack. does not step back with 20 li:)e2 be­
White does not have time to bring cause of 20 ... llxb3+! 21 axb3 R.e6!
up his reserves to the kingside-1 8 and there are no particular achieve­
llle2 l:.c5 19 g4 li:)f6 2 0 li:)f4 ments, but continues to attack the
Wfc3+! ? (or 20...R.a4 2 1 li:)xg6 knight by 20 g5 exd4 (after
Wfc3+ 22 �b1 R.xb3 23 li:)xe7+ 20 ... li:)h5 2 1 l:.xh5! gxh5 22 g6
�h8 24 cxb3 1h-1h Admjan-Honfi, White also wins) 21 gxf6 l:xc2+
Magyarorszag 1969) 2 1 �b 1 l:.b5 (too late!) 22 R.xc2 Wfc3+ 23 c.ti>c 1
22 lld5 l:xb3+ 23 axb3 l:.c8 24 Wfa 1+ 24 �d2 and wins, Khadilkar­
Wfh2 Wfxn with a winning position Lee, 1984.
for Black, lvanchuk-Kamsky, 20 axb3 dxeS 2t li:)e2
Monaco 1 994.
144 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i..c4

On 2 1 !ilf5 follows 2 I ...i.xf5 22 This calm retreat graphically con­

gxf5 l:lc8 with equal chances. firms the solidity of his position.
21 ...i.e6 22 !ilcJ l:lc8 23 l:ld3 Black now intends to capture the c3
On 23 !ile4 good is 23 ...l:lc6 ! , pawn.
creating_ counter-threats. He must not hurry with the cap­
23 'it'c7! 24 l:lh2 l:ld8 and a posi­
•.• ture 16 ...1i'xc3 so as not to present
tion is reached with chances for White with an extra tempo to organ­
both sides. ise an attack. For example, the game
Karpov-Gik, Moscow 1969, con­
tinued: 17 !ile2! 1i'c5 (bad are both
12Bb 17 ...1i'a1+ 1 8 'it>d2 1i'b2 1 9 l:lxh5
gxh5 20 l:lh l ! , and 17 ...!ild3+ 1 8
(1 e4 c5 2 !ilt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l:lxd3 'iVa i+ 1 9 'it>d2 1i'xh 1 20 g4)
!ilxd4 !ilf6 5 !ilcJ g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7 18 g4 !ilf6 (it seems he should al­
t3 !ilc6 8 1i'd2 0-0 9 i.c4 i.d7 10 ready pay back a piece: 1 8 ...i.xg4
0-0-0 1i'a5 1 1 i.b3 :res 12 h4 !ile5 19 fxg4 lllxg4) 19 g5 !ilh5 20 l:.xh5
13 h5 !ilxh5 14 i.h6) gxh5 2 I l:h I 'ii'e3+ 22 'it>b I 'ii'xf.3
23 l:lxh5 e6? 24 g6! with a decisive
14 ...l:lxc3 attack for White. Further analysis by
Also here this exchange sacrifice A.Karpov showed the main line of
is very promising. defence 23 ...!ilg� ! 24 1i'xh7+ 'it>f8
15 bxcJ i.xh6 16 1i'xh6 25 l:lh 1 ! (or 25 'ifh6+ 'it>e8 26 1i'h8+
!ilf8 27 l:lh7 i.e6! 28 g6 fxg6 29
i.xe6 1i'e2 with defensive re­
sources) 25 ... e6 26 !ild4 1i'f4 ! . Here,
after Karpov's suggestion of 27
�f5, S.Goldstein considers
27 ...1i'e5 ! to be sufficient: 28 l:.d1
(28 l:lfl 1i'h8) 28 ... d5 29 i.xd5 l:lc8
30 i.b3 i.e8 3 1 1i'h6+ 'it>g8 32 l:lh i
l:lc7=. However, M.Golubev
reckons that stronger is 27 i.e6!
'it>e7 28 l:h6 i.xe6 (28 ...l:h8 29
�f5+ 'it>d8 30 1i'f7) 29 l:lg6 'iVfl +
30 'it>b2 i.d7 3 1 1i'g7 winning.
A highly significant position for 1 6...l:lc8 also has its own prob­
such Dragon formations. It seems lems. True, in this case White's at­
that White has achieved a great tack does not work after 17 g4 !ilf6
deal: the h-file has been opened, the 1 8 g5 !ilh5 19 l:lxh5 gxh5 20 !ilf5
bishop on g7 exchanged, the queen i.xf5 2 1 exf5 1i'xc3, in view of the
occupies a menacing position, and threat of perpetual check, or 1 7
moreover he is the exchange ahead. l:lxh5 gxh5 1 8 !ile2 l:lc5 19 !ilf4
But in the present situation these 1i'xc3 20 !ild5 l:lxd5 ! and Black
do not give White a real advantage, takes over the initiative, Sanakoev­
since for the time being he has no Stem, corr. I97 1 . However,
concrete threats, while his king feels stronger is 1 7 !ile2! and if Black
unsafe. persists with 1 7 ...'iVa3+ (or I 7 ...!ilc4
16 !ilf6!
•.. 1 8 l:ld5! 1i'a3+ 1 9 'it>d1 e5 20 l:lxh5
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .ic4 /45

gxhS 2 1 lLlg3 1 -0 Brinck Claussen­ After 17 ...bS White breaks

Berg, Lyngby 1990) 1 8 �b 1 lLlc4, through in the centrt:}-- 1 8 f4 lLlc4
then after 19 Wc 1 White repulses 19 eS dxeS 20 fxeS lLlxeS (or
the threats and goes over to the at­ 20 ...lLlhS 2 1 .z:r.xhS gxhS 22 e6 !) 2 1
tack-19 ... WcS 20 g4 lLlf6 21 l:[h2, l:r.dfl .z:r.c8 22 .z:r.xf6 exf6 23 lLlf3
intending after a doubling of rooks lLlc4 24 Wxh7+ �f8 2S .z:r.e 1 1 -0,
to sacrifice on h7. Therefore he has Smrcka-Estrin, corr. 1 973.
to retreat the knight voluntarily by 18 lLle2 .ibS
17 ...lLlf6, but apart from 1 8 �b 1 Also possible is 1 8 ....te6 19
(which leads to a transposition of .ixe6 fxe6 20 Wh3 (I.Polgar­
moves) an additional resource ap­ Adorjan, Budapest 1 97 1) 20 ... .z:r.c6!?
pears for White in 1 8 l:[dS when 2 1 Wxe6+ �f8 with a double-edged
after 1 8 ...Wa3 19 �b1 aS 20 lLlf4 a4 game.
the rook enters the fray by 2 1 :as ! 19 lLlf4 .ic4 20 lLlh3 Wxc3 21
e6 22 g4 and White has the initiat­ _.d2 Wxd2 22 l:[xd2 hS! with a
ive. However stronger is 1 8 ...Wfb6 ! ? pleasant endgame for Black.
19 �bl aS 20 lLlf4 e6 (there is no
time for 20 ...a4 because of 2 1 :xeS ! 12C
axb3 22 lLldS, but 2 l ...dxeS 22
lLlxg6 Wd6! seems to be possible) (I e4 cS 2 lLlt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
2 1 g4 We3 ! (2 1 ...lLlxdS? 22 exdS ± lLlxd4 lLlf6 S lLlc3 g6 6 .ie3 .tg7 7
!.Polgar- Bjerre, Dresden 1969) f3 lLlc6 8 Wd2 0-0 9 .tc4 .id7 10
with complex play. Thus dangerous o-o-o Was 1 1 .tbJ :res 12 h4 lLles
is 22 .z:r.xaS �xf3! threatening the 13 hS lLlxhS)
manoeuvre ...lLld2+ and lLlxe4.
17 �bl 14 lLldS
Also after 17 lLle2 .tbs 1 8 lLlf4
lLlc4 Black has a strong attack, as in
the game Brinck Claussen­
P.H.Nielsen, Copenhagen 1 99 1 .
No good is 1 7 g4 Wxc3 1 8 lLle2
because of 1 8 ...'ifa 1+ 19 �d2
lLlxf3+! .
17...:cs
Here already 1 7 ...Wxc3 is
dangerous in view of 1 8 lLle2! WcS
19 lllf4! with the threat of 20 lLldS.
Now on 19 ....tc6 White transfers
the knight to gS: 20 lLlh3 Wc3 2 1
lLlgS lLlc4 22 .ixc4 Wxc4 23 l:[d3 By transposing to an endgame a
etc., while on 19 ... e6 possible is 20 pawn down, White obtains the initi­
•gs �g7 2 1 lLlhS+ �xhS 22 :xhS ative; Black, on the other hand, is
l:[h8 23 f4 ! h6 then 24 Wg3 .tbS 2S denied counterchances on the
fxe5 .ie2 26 l:[hh 1 .ixd1 27 .z:r.xd1 queenside and is forced to confine
with a pawn equivalent. himself to defence. The arising posi­
Nevertheless Black does not have tion is in no way peaceful for Black.
compensation for the extra white He cannot avoid the ending, since
bishop. after 14 ...Wd8 he falls under an
146 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i&.c4

attack: 1 5 g4 �f6 1 6 �xf6+ i&.xf6 Upon an exchange of dark­

17 'ii'h2 e6 1 8 'W'xh7+ �f8 19 i&.h6+ squared bishops by I 7 i&.h6 �g8 1 8
�e7 20 g5 i&.h8 2 1 f4 �c4 22 f5 i.xg7+ �xg7 White can also win
i&.xd4 23 f6+ 1 -0, Bragg-Rust, back the pawn by 19 g5 h5 ! 20
Philadelphia 199 1 . gxh6+ �h7. However, though, as
14. ..'.xd2+ 15 llxd2 �f8 before, he has a more active posi­
Inferior is 1 5 ... i&.f8 because of 16 tion, his weakened pawn formation
g4 �g7 17 i&.g5 ! and White creates gives Black chances.
dangerous threats. 17...e6
16 g4 After 17 ...�xd5 1 8 i&.xd5 llc7 19
The move 16 i&.g5 allows the i&.h6! White exchanges the Dragon
active knight to be driven back: bishop with advantage. For
1 6... e6 17 ltlc3 a6 1 8 �de2 llc6 1 9 example, 19 ...i&.xh6+ 20 llxh6 e6
llhd I h6 20 i&.e3 1;e7 and Black has 21 i&.b3 and White wins back the
no problems, Amos-Balaskas, pawn, retaining pressure,
Hague (ol), 1 928. F.Olafsson-Hort, Reykjavik 1972.
l6...�f6 18 �xf6 i&.xf6 19 llxh7
In the present situation the piece
sacrifice 16 ... i&.xg4?! 17 fxg4 l0xg4
1 8 il..g5 is insufficient, since with
the activity of all White's pieces at a
maximum it is difficult to hold the
material balance: 1 8 ...�hf6 19
�xf6 (or 19 i&.xf6 �xf6 20 �xf6
and 2 1 llxh7 +) 19 ...i&.xf6 20 �f3
�g7 2 1 i&.xf6+ �xf6 22 e5 dxe5 23
�xeS �e4 24 lldh2 and White's
advantage is obvious, Bronstein­
Parma, Moscow 197 1 .
17 lldh2
After an immediate recovery of
the pawn by 17 �xf6 i&.xf6 1 8 19 a5!
...

llxh7 Black can attempt to fight for White wins back the pawn while
the initiative, counting on the retaining the activity of his pieces
strength of the bishop-pair: and Black must be accurate in his
1 8 ... lDc4 19 .txc4 llxc4 20 g5 i&.g7 organisation of counterplay. With
2 1 �e2 (or 2 1 lldh2 llac8 ! 22 f4 this advance of the flank pawn he
i&.g4 23 c3 �g8! 24 ll7h4 i&.h5 25 strives to provoke a further weaken­
�d2 e5 ! 26 fxe5 dxe5 and a pawn is ing of White's pawn formation.
lost) 2 l ...�g8 22 llh 1 �f8 1h-1h He does not succeed in exploiting
Stein-Gufeld, Moscow 1972. Also the c4 square, since White comes
possible is 1 8 ...�g8 19 llh1 ( 1 9 first with his break in the centre:
lldh2 e6 1eads to the main variation) 19 ...b5 20 g5 il..g7 2 1 ll1h4 a5 22 f4
19 ...a5! 20 a3 (20 a4 �c4=) 20 ...a4 �c4 23 i&.xc4 bxc4 24 �f3 (with
2 1 i&.d5 (weaker is 2 1 .ta2?! b5=F the threat 25 l:.xg7! 1;xg7 26 .td4+
Glek-Hodgson, Germany 1 994) �f8 27 i&.f6) 24 ... e5 25 fxe5 dxe5
2 I .. .i&.c6 22 i&.a2 b5 with chances 26 llxg7 ! �xg7 27 �xe5 and all the
for both sides (Giek). same White reaches the long
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 147

diagonal, Goldenberg-Markus, perpetual check-27 l:lxti+ �g8 28

France 1 972. l:lhg7+.
The attempt to gain the advantage
of the two bishops is premature:
19 . . .lt:Jd3+ 20 �b1 lt:Jc5, as Line 13
occurred in the game Murey­
Ravisekhar, London 1986, and (1 e4 cS 2 lt:Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
which resulted in the weakening of lt:Jxd4 lt:Jf6 S lt:!c3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
Black's castled position. In this case f3 lt:!c6 8 'ifd2 0-0 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10
White has a choice how to recapture 0-0-0 'ifaS 1 1 .i.b3 l:lfc8 12 h4
on b3. lt:!eS)
20 gS .i.g7 21 a4 lt:!d3+!
In the present situation this ma­ 13 g4
noeuvre works, since in contrast to
the game given in the previous note,
a significant change has occurred in
the position: the white pawn has
moved to a4 and so, with the ex­
change of the bishop on b3, the role
of its black counterpart is consider­
ably increased.
22 �b1 lt:Jcs 23 lt:!fS!
After 23 .i.f4 e5 ! 24 .i.g3 lt:!xb3
25 cxb3 �g8! it is difficult for
White to improve his position.
23 exfS
•..

White wins after 23 ...gxf5 24 exf5 White prepares the advance of the
exf5 25 l:lxg7! lt:!xb3 (on 25 ...�xg7 h-pawn but the delay presents Black
follows 26 .i.d4+ �g6 27 f4 ! with a with an extra tempo to invade on c4.
decisive attack) 26 l:lhh7 .i.e6 27 13 ...lt:Jc4
g6!. In the 90s the exchange was also
24 l:lg7! sacrificed on c4, even with positive
Nothing is offered by 24 exf5 results for Black: 1 3 ...l:lc4 14 .i.xc4
.i.xf5 25 l:lxg7 �g7 26 .i.d4+ �ffi (practically unexplored is 14 g5
27 l:lh8+ �e7 28 .i.f6+ �d7 and the �h5 1 5 f4 l:lxd4 1 6 'ifxd4 lt:Jg4
attack is beaten back. when 1 7 e5 is parried by 17 ...lt:Jg3 !,
24 lt:Jxb3
•.. while on 17 'ifd3 possible is
On 24...�g7 follows a mate: 25 17 ... .i.xc3 with sufficient com­
..id4+ �ffi 26 l:lh8+ �e7 27 .i.f6 pensation for the exchang_e­
mate. Now however, after 25 cxb3 M.Golubev) 14 ...lt:Jxc4 1 5 1t'd3
rj;xg7 the king gains access to the 'iVb4 (in Klovans-Golubev, Biel
e6 square. 1994, was played 1 5 ...b5 16 �b 1 !
25 l:lhh7 .i.e6 26 exfS l:lc8 17 lt:!b3 'ifa6 1 8 .i.c l b4 19
Here 26 cxb3 .i.xb3 is already lt:Jd5 lt:Jxd5 20 exd5 h5 with a
pointless. double-edged game; also worth con­
26....i.xfS! and, because of the sidering is 20....i.b5 !? 2 1 'ife4 lt:!e5)
threatened mate (27 ....i.xc2), White 16 lt:!b3 lt:!xe4 ! (after 1 6...l:lc8 17
is obliged to force a draw by .i.d4 White has the advantage)
148 The Rauzer Attack with 9 J.c4

1 ) 17 fxe4?! J.xc3 1 8 'iVxc3 bxc3 'iVa3+ 20 �bl .i.xd l 21 d7 !

'iVxc3 1 9 bxc3 tlJxe3 + Horvath­ J.xc2+ 22 'iVxc2 l:r.d8 23 l:r.d1 l:r.c7
Toma, Lithoro 1999. and White, to avoid worse, is ob­
2) 17 tlJxe4 tlJxb2 1 8 'iVd5 tlJc4 liged to force Black to take a petpet­
19 l:r.d3?! (19 l:r.de l !? is more accu­ ual check by 24 'iVh2 l:r.xc3 25 Wfe5
rate) 19 ...J.c6 20 'iVg5 'iVa3+ 2 1 l:r.xb3+ (A.Beliavsky).
�d 1 tiJb2+ 22 �e2 tlJxd3 23 After 1 6 �b 1 l:r.ac8 arises a posi­
�xd3? (23 cxd3) 23 ...d5 and Black tion, looked at in Line 14 (Variation
gains the advantage, S.Soloviov­ 14A).
Motylev, St.Petersburg 1 999.
3) 17 J.d4 J.xd4 1 8 'iVxd4 tlJxc3
19 'iVxc3 'iVxc3 20 bxc3 tlJe5 with
equal chances, Tagnon-Rausis,
Vlissingen 1999, but stronger is
20...J.c6!? 2 1 tlJd4 J.xd5 =F.
Reinforcing the c4 square with a
pawn by 13 ...b5 gives White an im­
eortant tempo for the attack: 1 4 h5
�c4 1 5 J.xc4 bxc4 16 J.h6 J.h8 1 7
tiJf5! l:r.e8 1 8 'iVg5 'iVb6 19 hxg6
fxg6 20 J._g7! J.xg7 21 tlJxg7 l:r.eb8
22 tiJh5 �xh5 23 gxh5 + Nunn­
Ward, England 1 998. 16 ...l:r.xc3
14 J.xc4 l:r.xc4 In the event of 16... l:r.ac8 1 7 hxg6
After the exchange of the bishop White is ahead in the race to attack:
on b3 the most important counter­ 1) 17 ...fxg6 1 8 e5 tlJe8 19 'iVh2
attacking resource for Black appears h5 20 J.d4! l:r.xd4 2 1 l:r.xd4! .i.xe5
to be the sacrifice of the exchange 22 'iVd2 J.xd4 23 tlJxd4 with un­
on c3-a universal resource in the pleasant threats on the king's flank,
Dragon variation. Timoshchenko-Veselovsky, USSR
15 tiJbJ 1980.
This manoeuvre frequently comes 2) 17 ... hxg6 1 8 e5 (on 1 8 'iVh2
before the advance of the h-pawn. p�ssible is 1 8 ...l:r.xc3 ! 19 bxc3
On 1 5 h5 possible is 1 5 ...l:r.xc3 ! ? Wfxa2 20 e5 tiJh5 with advantage to
( 1 5 ... l:r.ac8 leads to a position looked Black) 1 8 ... tlJxg4 19 fxg4 J.xg4 20
at below) 16 'iVxc3 Wfxa2 17 hxg6 'iVh2! .i.xe5 (after 20...J.xd 1 ? 2 1
hxg6 1 8 'iVa3 ( 1 8 'iVb3 'iVa6 19 .i.h6 'iVh7+ �ffi 22 .i.h6 J.xh6 23 l:r.xh6
'iVai+ 20 �d2 'iVa5+ with chances �g8 24 e6 White has a very strong
for both sides) 1 8 ...'iVc4 19 �b1 attack, Tatai-Beliavsky, Le Havre
with somewhat the better prospects 1977) 2 1 'iVh7+ �ffi 22 J.d4 l:r.xd4
for White, Bryson-O'Connell, De­ 23 l:r.xd4 J.f5 24 a4! and Black does
brecen 1992. not have full compensation for the
15 'iVa6 16 h5
... sacrificed material, Maiorov-Rah­
On 16 e5 strong is 1 6... tlJxg4 ! 1 7 matullin, corr. 1996.
fxg4 .i.xg4 1 8 exd6 (after 1 8 3) 1 7.... l:r.xc3 ! ? 1 8 bxc3 'iVxa2 1 9
l:r.de 1 ?! dxe5 1 9 J.h6 J.f6 Black has e5 ! dxe5 20 .i.g5 (on 2 0 g5? there is
the advantage, Beliavsky-Velimiro­ 20 ...J.f5! with the threat of
vic, Szirak (izt) 1987) 1 8 ...J.xc3 19 ... 'iVa6-a3-b3) 20... fxg6 (on
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .ic4 149

20... .te6 follows 21 'ii'd8+, but 13 �b1

worth considering is 20 ... .tc6 and
20 ....te8-T.Tolnai) 2 1 .txf6 .txf6
22 'ii'xd7 .:.xc3 (22 ....tg5+ 23 f4!)
when in the game Tolnai-Tatai,
Budapest 1988, instead of 23
'ii'e6+? �g7, White can force a win
by 23 'ii'e8+ �g7 24 .l:[h7+! �xh7
25 .l:[h l+ �g7 26 'ii'h8+ �f] 27
.l:[h7+ �e6 28 'ii'g8+ �d6 29 'ii'd8+
�e6 30 li)c5+! .:xeS 3 1 'ii'g8+
(T.Tolnai).
17 bxc3
On 1 7 'ii'xc3 he has to reckon
with the possibility of 1 7 ...li)xe4! +. Since after the immediate attack
17 'ii'xa2
•.. by h2-h4-h5 Black's counterchances
The game An.Bikhovsky-Gik, in a number of cases are associated
USSR 1968, continued 17 ....te6 1 8 with the king being placed on c 1
�b 1 .:.c8 19 .td4 .l:[c4 20 hxg6 (... li)e5-d3 is possible with check as
hxg6 when, instead of 2 1 g5?! well as other manoeuvres), White
2 I .. .li)h5+, as played, A.Lilienthal decides beforehand to move the
suggested 2 1 'Wh2! g5 (2 I ....l:[a4 22 king to a more comfortable position.
c4! .:.xa2 23 e5 ! ±; 2 1 ...'ii'a3 22 Black's main continuations are:
.txf6 .txf6 23 g5 ±) 2� f4 ! with a
dangerous attack. 14A: 13...li)e4
18 hxg6 14B: 13 ...bS
Weak is 1 8 e5? dxe5 19 g5 .tf5 !
with the threat 20 ...'ii'a3 2 1 �bl 14A
'ii'b 3.
18....te6! (1 e4 eS 2 ll)fJ d6 3 d4 exd4 4
After 1 8 ... hxg6 1 9 .th6 or li)xd4 li)f6 S li)e3 g6 6 .te3 .tg7 7
1 8 ...fxg6 19 g5 White has the tJ li)e6 8 'ii'd2 0-0 9 .te4 .td7 10
advantage. 0-0-0 'ii'aS 11 .tb3 .:res 12 h4 li)eS
19 gxh7+ �h8 20 gS li)d7 13 �b1)
White's attack has ended up in a
blind alley, whereas Black, apart 13...li)e4
from the capture on b3, can pump
up the threats by means of
. . . a7-a5-a4 or ...li)d7-b6-c4.

Line 14

(1 e4 eS 2 ll)fJ d6 3 d4 exd4 4
li'hd4 li)f6 S li)eJ g6 6 .teJ .tg7 7
fJ li)e6 8 'ii'd2 0-0 9 .te4 .td7 10
0-0-0 'ii'aS 1 1 .tbJ .l:[fe8 12 h4
li)eS)
150 The Rauzer Attack with 9 �c4

This natural continuation enters 2) I7 ...i.e6 I 8 hxg6 fxg6 I9 i.h6

into Black's counterattacking plan, i.h8 20 i.g5 b5 2 I e5
but here its effect is reduced by the (Pokojowczyk-Rigo, Tapolca I 98 I )
fact that, as compensation for the 2 l ...dxe5 ! 22 Wh2 h5 23 i.xf6
bishop, White obtains the possibility i.xf6 24 gxh5 g5 with chances for
by means of tai4-b3 to push back both sides (A.Schneider).
with tempo the active queen and
create extra tactical threats along the
c-file.
14 �xc4 l:lxc4 15 lt:!b3
It is useful to drive away the
queen. Upon the pawn sacrifice 1 5
h5 Black can sacrifice the exchange:
I 5 ...l:lxc3 ! 16 bxc3 (cunning does
not help him-I 6 h6 l:lc5 ! I 7 b4
l:lb5 ! 1 8 lt:!xb5 'ifxb5 1 9 hxg7 a5
with chances for both sides)
I 6...lt:!xh5 I 7 g4 lt:!f6 1 8 lt:!b3 'ifb5 !
(weaker is 1 8 ...'ifc7 I 9 e5 lt:!e8 20
'ifh2 h5 2 I gxh5 i.e5 22 f4! ±) I 9 15 'ifc7
••.

c4 'ifxc4 2 0 e5 lt:!e8 2 I 'ifh2 h5 22 From here the queen takes part in

gxh5 i.f5! with a double-edged an attack on the c3 pawn. Other re­
game. treats of the queen are also seen:
The preparatory move 1 5 g4 also I ) I 5 ...'ifa6 1 6 h5 (also worth
allows Black to bring up the re­ considering is I 6 e5! ?) 1 6 ... l:r.ac8 I 7
serves: I 5 ... l:lac8 and in case of I 6 hxg6 fxg6 I 8 i.h6 ( I 8 i.d4 is a loss
lt:!b3 'ifa6 I 7 h5 he has sufficient of time: I 8 ... i.e6 I9 g4 i.f7 20
defensive resources. 'ifh2 e5! 2 I i.e3 l:lxc3 ! 22 bxc3
I) I 7 ...i.xg4 (a typical combina­ l:lxc3 23 'ifd2 l:lc6 with a double­
tion-on I 8 fxg4 follows I 8 ...l:lxc3 ! edged game, M.Golubev) I 8 ...i.h8
1 9 bxc3 lt:!xe4) I 8 e5! i.xf.3 I9 exf6 (this bishop is needed both for de­
i.xf6 20 hxg6 hxg6 2 I tats! fence and also for pressure on the
(retaining the important knight and long diagonal since after I 8 ...i.e6?
preventing the break-up of his I9 i.xg7 �xg7 20 'ifb6+ �f7 2 I
king's pawn cover by 2 I �g5 i.xhi l:ld3 White's attack is very danger­
22 l:lxh I i.xc3! 23 bxc3 l:lxc3 24 ous, O'Kelly-Wade, Malaga I 972)
'ifh2 'ifxa2+! 25 �a2 l:lxc2 and I9 i.g5 i.e6 20 g4 b5 2 I 1Wh2 �f8
the six(!) pawns might prove 22 e5 dxe5 23 i.xf6 i.xf6 24 'ifxh7
stronger than the minor pieces) i.il 25 l:ld7 'ifc6 (in the game
2 I ...l:lxc2 22 lt:!xf6+ exf6 23 'ifd4 Istratescu-Golubev, Lucerne I 994,
l:l2c41 (threatening on 24 'ifxf6?? to Black played an immediate 25 ...l:ld4
mate after 24 ...'ifxa2+! , whereas on and after 26 lt:!xd4? exd4 27 l:Z.di
23 ... d5? 24 'ifh4 �f8 25 i.c5+! the b4! took over the initiative; stronger
black king falls under attack, Sax­ was 26 l:lxd4 exd4 27 lt:Je4) 26
Ernst, Naestved I988) 24 l:lh8+! l:lhd i l:ld4 27 lt:!xd4 exd4 28 l:l7xd4
�h8 25 'ifxf6+ �g8 26 'ifxn 'ifc6 i.xd4 29 l:lxd4 'ifxf.3 and Black
27 'ifxc6 l:l4xc6 with a roughly managed to hold the position,
equal ending (G.Sax). Kunte-Conquest, Scarborough I999.
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 151

2) 1 S ...1i'dS (Black brings the Honfi, Monte Carlo 196S). Also

queen into account after 16 .th6 worth considering is 16 g4 .te6 17
.txh6 1 7 1Wxh6 1Wf8 !) I 6 hS (the hS aS.
modem method of conducting the 1 ) 1 S hxg6 fxg6 19 .td4 a4 20
attack on the king, but also not bad .txf6 exf6 2 1 ll:JxdS± Gonzales­
is 1 6 eS attempting to exploit the d­ Schroder, corr. 19S7.
file: 16 ... lDeS 17 hS .txeS 1 S hxg6 2) 1 S lDd4 llxc3 19 lDxe6 ! fxe6
hxg6 19 .td4 llxd4! 20 lDxd4 .tg7 20 1Wxc3 1Wxc3 2 1 .txc3 lDd7 22
21 g4 lieS 22 llh3 and Black has in .td4 ll£8 23 lldfl ± Macieja­
prospect a difficult defence; for Salmensuu, Saint-Vincent 2000.
example, after 22 ...lDf6?, played in 16 .te6
...

the game Simic-Joksic, Vmjacka Not in the spirit of the position

Banja 1970, White's attack _proved (the bishop must "observe" the
to be irresistible: 23 lldh1 Wb6 24 queen's flank) is 16 ....tc6. For
lDfS! gxfS 2S 'ii'gS �f8 26 lDdS ! ; example: 1 7 hS aS 1 S hxg6 hxg6 1 9
stronger is 22 ...e6 23 lldh 1 1i'f6 24 a4 e6? ! 20 llh4 with advantage to
lDce2 ;!; Kupreichik-Ribli, Sombor White, who organises an invasion
1970) 16 ...lDxhS 1 7 g4 lDf6 I S .th6 on the h-file, Wang Zili-Velimiro­
(weaker is 1 S eS?! ll:Jxg4! 19 fxg4 vic, Thessaloniki (ol) 19SS. It is
.txg4 20 lldg 1 dxeS 2 1 'ii'xdS+ worth risking 19 ....txa4.
l:txdS and Black stands better, 17 b5 a5
Bouaziz-Geller, Sousse (izt) 1967) It is necessary to include a pawn
1 S ... .txh6 19 llxh6 llacS 20 lldh 1 in the counterattack. The indifferent
(20 eS dxeS 21 gS lDhS 22 1Wxd7 17 ...lieS allows the heavy artillery
._,xd7 23 llxd7 ll4c7 leads to a to be brought into the battle after 1 S
roughly even endgame) 20 ... llxc3 hxg6 hxg6 19 llh4 !-19. . .�f8 20
21 bxc3 1Wc7 22 eS dxeS 23 llxh7 l:tdh1 �eS 2 1 g4 bS 22 lDxbS 1Wb7
lDxh7 24 1i'h6 e6 2S 1Wxh7+ �f8 26 23 lDc3 1Wa6 24 gS with material
._,hS+ �e7 27 1i'h4+ �d6 2S lld 1+ advantage and initiative for White,
�c6 29 1i'e7 b6 30 1i'xf7 .teS= 3 1 Wolff-Goldstein, Lloyds Bank
._,xe6+ �b7 32 lld3 ;!; Berelovich­ 1994.
Kadyrhanov, Russia 1 997. 18 a4 llb4!
3) IS ...'ii'eS (the centralised queen Tempo play. It is understandable
looks provocative) 1 6 .i.d4 1i'e6 1 7 that 1 S ...�xhS? 1 9 .txg7 �xg7 20
g4 aS 1 S gS lDhS 19 .txg7 �xg7 20 g4 lDf6 2 1 1Wh6+ is tantamount to
lll dS lla6 21 lDxaS ;!; Diaz­ suicide. . Now, however, Black at­
P.Rodriguez, Cuba (ch) 19SS, or 1 7 tacks not only the knight b3, but
l:tde 1 bS 1 S eS dxeS 1 9 llxeS 1Wa6 also indirectly the e4 pawn (the
20 l:txe7 b4 2 1 lDdS ;!; Lendvai­ threat is 19 ... .txb3 20 cxb3 lDxe4).
l Joffman, Benidorrn 1 9S9. 19 hxg6 hxg6
16 .td4 On 19 ... fxg6 unpleasant is 20
Preventing the exchange sacrifice .txf6 .txf6 2 1 lDdS and there is an
for a pawn after 16 hS llxc3 17 obvious draught on the a2-gS
bxc3 lDxhS I S .td4 lDf6 !=F, while in diagonal.
the event of 1 7 1Wxc3 1Wxc3 1 S bxc3 20 llh4!
ltJxhS 1 9 .i.d4 .i.e6 20 llhe 1 lDf6 After the opening of the h-file
21 eS dxeS 22 .txeS lDdS Black ob­ comes the leitmotiv of the position
lains a promising ending, Ostojic- -an invasion by heavy pieces on
152 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i.c4

the flank. At the same time White 24 eS!

defends the e4 pawn. From the On 24 g4 Black wins the pawn
Dragon archives we can find a plan back by 24...i.xb3 25 cxb3 e5 !
with central strategy: 20 ltJb5 Wc4 (first driving away the bishop from
2 1 e5 dxe5 22 i.xe5 llxb3 ! (Black the long diagonal; in the game
shows his trump) 23 cxb3 'ii'xb3 24 Gonzalez Rabago-Echevarria, Cuba
lDc3 b5 ! (each tempo in the Dragon 1978, Black hurried with 25 ...llxb3?
is worth its weight in gold- and after 26 lDd5 ! 'ii'b7 27 ltJxf6+
24 ...llc8?! 25 g4 ± Gheorghiu­ exf6 28 llh7 was forced to surren­
Geller, Moscow 1967) 25 axb5 a4 der) 26 i.e3 llxb3. Here is one
with a fully equal game for Black. possible continuation: 27 ltJb5 'ii'c4
20... bS! 28 i.h6 tDxe4! 29 fxe4 'ii'xa4 30
With a pawn sacrifice Black i.xg7 'ii'xe4+ 3 1 'ii'c2 'ii'xc2+ 32
maintains the tension. 20 ...i.xb3 �xc2 ll8xb5 33 i.f6 llxb2+ and the
wins a pawn: 2 1 cxb3 e5 22 i.e3 game is equal (Boudy).
llxb3 leaves the initiative with 24...ltJhS!
White-23 llc l 'ii'd7 24 i.h6 i.h8 After 24...dxe5? 25 i.xe5 ll8b7
25 i.g5 i.g7 26 llch1 (threatening 26 ltJe4 i.xb3 27 cxb3 llxb3 28
27 i.h6 i.h8 28 i.f8!) 26 ... llxc3 27 i.xf6 ! Black loses at least the
'ii'xc3 (27 llh8+ i.xh8 28 llxh8+ exchange.
�g7!) 27 ...'ii'xa4 28 'ii'd2 'ii'b4 29 25 exd6 i.xb3
'ii'xb4 axb4 30 lld 1 and White After 25 ...i.xd4?! 26 llxd4 no
switches over to the d-file. good is 26 ...i.f5 because of 27 d7 !
21 ltJxbS and he cannot at the same time de­
In the game Schlusnik-Kahn, fend against the passed pawn and
Budapest 1996, White tried to de­ the attack on his king.
cide the battle with a direct attack: 26 cxb3 llxb3 27 lllbS
2 1 lldh l !? bxa4 22 llh7 ! ltJxh7 23 Or 27 i.xg7? llxb2+ 28 'ii'xb2
i.xg7 �_g7 24 'ii'h6+ �f6 25 'ii'f4+ 'h-'h Wood-Ward, Lloyds Bank
�g7 26 Wh6+ �f6, and yet he still 1994.
has to limit himself to perpetual 27...es
check since after 27 'ii'h4+ ltJg5 28 27 ... i.xd4? loses after 28 llxd4
f4 i.xb3 29 cxb3 �e6 the king 'ii'f5+ 29 'ii'c2 ltJg3 30 dxe7 ! .
steals away. 28 i.c3 'ii'rs+ 29 'ii'c2 ltJg3 30
2l ...'ii'c4 22 ltJc3 llab8 23 lldhl lldl ! and White has an extra (and
'ii'c8 also passed) pawn and chances of a
win (Wood).

14B

(I e4 cS 2 ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lL!xd4 lDf6 S ltJcJ g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
f3 ltJc6 8 'ii'd2 0-0 9 i.c4 i.d7 10
0-0-0 'ii'aS I I i.b3 llfc8 1 2 h4 ltJeS
13 �bl)

13 ...bS
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 153

The principal continuation. White

accepts the pawn sacrifice.
14.....xd2
Hopes of organising a counterat­
tack after the retreat 14 .....a6 are in
vain. White defends accurately and
realises his possibilities on the
king's flank-15 lLlc3 lLlc4 16 _.d3
:ab8 17 .i.c 1 :b4 1 8 h5 ! 'iib7 19
hxg6 hxg6 20 .i.h6 with dangerous
threats, Karpov-S.Garcia, Portoroz/
Ljubljana 1975.
A pawn sacrifice hoping, after the Passive is 14 .....d8 15 _.e2! (also
exchange of queens, to obtain possible is 1 5 .i.h6 .i.xh6 16 _.xh6
counterplay along the open b- and l:tab8 1 7 a4 a6 1 8 lLla3 l:[b4 19 h5
c-files in the endgame. lLlxh5 20 lLlf5 with an attack for
White's main continuations are: White, Wang-Ward, Beijing 1 993)
1 5 ...:c5 1 6 lL!c3 (weaker is 16 g4?!
14Ba: 14 lLlcxb5 :b8 17 lLlc3 :xc3 ! 1 8 bxc3 a5 with
14Bb: 14 .i.h6 excellent play for Black) 16 ...:b8
(on 1 6...:ac8 or 1 6 ......c8 White
Black's game is also easy after 14 plays 1 7 lLldb5 ±) 1 7 lLle6! fxe6 1 8
lLld5 _.xd2 1 5 :xd2 lL!xd5 1 6 .i.xc5 dxc5 19 f4 c4 20 fxe5 cxb3
.i.xd5 :ab8 1 7 lLle2 lLlc4 1 8 .i.xc4 2 1 exf6 bxa2+ 22 lLlxa2 exf6 23
bxc4 19 c3 l:[b7 20 h5 f5= Olsson­ :h3 and Black does not have com­
Sunehag, Sweden 1995. pensation for the lost exchange,
Glek-Ward, Copenhagen 1995.
14Ba ts :xd2
1 5 .i.xd2 is also played.
(1 e4 c5 2 lLltJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 1) 1 5 ...lLlc4 1 6 .i.xc4 (in the game
lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlcJ g6 6 .i.eJ .i.g7 7 G.Kuzmin-S.Garcia, Hastings
1'3 lLlc6 8 _.d2 0-0 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10 1973174, White retreated 16 lLlc3
o-o-o ••s 1 1 .i.bJ :res 12 h4 lLles and Black hurried to win back the
1 3 'it>b1 b5) pawn by 1 6 ...lLlxe4? 1 7 lLlxe4 .i.xd4
1 8 .i.g5 .i.e5 1 9 .i.xe7 lLlxb2 and
14 lLlcxb5 after 20 :xd6! landed in a difficult
position; he should pump up the
pressure by 1 6...lLlxd2+ 1 7 :xd2
:ab8) 1 6....:xc4 1 7 b3 :cs 1 8 c4
a6 19 lLlc3 :b8 20 �c2 lLlxg4 2 1
fxg4 .i.xd4 22 g5 :as 23 a4 :es
and the activity of the black pieces
compensates for the sacrificed
pawn, Reeh-Ward, Berne 1993.
2) 1 5 ... :ab8 1 6 lLlc3 (or 16 a4 a6
1 7 lLla3 .i.e8 1 8 lLle2 lLlfd7 1 9 .i.e3
lLlb6 20 .i.xb6 :xb6 21 lilc3 h5
with an equal game, Britton-Oicscn,
 154 The Rauzer A ttack with 9 if.c4

Burlington 1994) 1 6 ...Jf.e8 (the

bishop makes way for the knight to
the queen's flank; on 1 6...llk4
S.Velickovic recommends 1 7 Jf.gS
'ita>f8 1 8 l:lhe 1 aS 1 9 Jf.xc4 l:lxc4 20
�e2, not fearing 20...lbxe4! ? 2 1
fxe4 l:lxc3 22 ltlxc3 Jf.xc3 23 l:le3
Ab2+ 24 �c 1 Jf.eS 2S l:lb3 l:lxb3 26
cxb3 ;!;; also worth considering is 20
ltlb3 a4 2 1 eS) 1 6 ... Jf.e8 1 7 ltlce2
(deserving attention is 1 7 Jf.gS !?
with the idea of 1 8 hS) 1 7 ...ltlfd7 1 8
hS ltlb6 and the piece pressure on White begins an attack on the
the king's position fully compen­ king's flank, reckoning on taking
sates for the sacrificed pawn, the lead in the struggle for tempo.
Molnar-Summerscale, Cannes 1 997. The game assumes a very sharp
1S l:lab8 16 a4
.•. character.
Likewise seen is 1 6 ltlc3 ltlc4 1 7 1 4 o!Llc4
••.

Jf.xc4 l:lxc4, when in the game The type of counterattack,

Planinc-Velimirovic, Majdanpek 14 ... Jf.xh6 1 S ._xh6 l:lxc3 1 6 bxc3
1 976, White carelessly played 1 8 'ii'xc3, is ineffective here, since
ltlde2?! , after which Black broke up Black has insufficient reserves,
his position: 1 8 ...ltlxe4 ! 1 9 fxe4 while White can resume the assault
l:lxc3 ! 20 Jf.d4 Jf.xd4 2 1 l:lxd4 l:le3 on the king's flank-17 o!Lle2 'ii'cS
and obtained the advantage. White 1 8 hS ! (without delay-18 .!Llf4
should play 1 8 �cl . would already be enough for Black
1 6 a6 1 7 ltlaJ Jf.e8! 18 g4 ltlfd7 to continue the counterattack-
.•.

19 hS 1 8 ... aS 1 9 hS a4 20 ltlxg6 ltlxg6 2 1

19 ltlc3 ltlcS 20 �a2 ltlc6 2 1 lidS 'ii'a3 22 hxg6 fxg6, holding the
Jf.xcS dxc5 22 ltlc4 l:lb7 leads to an balance, Matulovic-Jovicic, Yugo­
· equal game, Kontic-Radosavljevic, slavia 1 970)
Kladovo 1 992. 1 ) 1 8 ...ltlxhS 1 9 g4 ltlf6 20 gS
19 ltlb6 20 hxg6 hxg6 21 aS o!LlhS 2 1 AxhS gxhS 22 l:lh 1 with a
.•.

ltlbc4 22 ltlxc4 lllxc4 23 Jf.xc4 strong attack on the h-file.

l:lxc4 24 ltlb3 Jf.a4 25 Jf.b6 l:lbc8 2) 1 8 ... aS 1 9 hxg_6 o!Llxg6 ( l 9 ... a4
with roughly equal chances, 20 lidS !) 20 lidS! lllxdS 2 1 1Vxh7+
Thomert-Sunehag, Sweden 199S. �f8 22 ltlf4 ! with an amusing fork
of one knight against two.
3) 1 8 ... lllc4 (relatively best) 19
14Bb hxg6 fxg6 20 lLlf4 'ii'eS 2 1 ltld3
'ii'd4 22 'ii'c 1 , repulsing the threats
( 1 e4 cS 2 ltlt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 with a material advantage.
ltlxd4 ltlf6 S ltlc3 g6 6 Jf.e3 Jf.g7 7 After 14 ...Jf.h8 1 S itldS 'ii'd8 1 6
t3 ltlc6 8 'ii'd2 0-0 9 Jf.c4 Jf.d7 1 0 hS ltlxhS 1 7 l:lxhS gxhS 1 8 'ii'gS+
0-0-0 'ii'as 1 1 Jf.b3 :res 12 b4 ltles o!Llg6 1 9 .!LlfS ! White's attack is also
13 �b1 bS) strong.
15 Jf.xc4 Jf.xh6 16 'ii'xh6 bxc4 17
14 Jf.h6 hS l:lab8 18 itldS
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 J.c4 /55

White must already repel the

threat of ...wt'a5-a3 and ...l:r.b8xb2.
18 ...lL!xd5 19 exd5 wt'a3 20 lL!b3!
On 20 b3 would have followed a
rook sacrifice.
20 cxb3! 21 bxa3 bxc2+ 22 �a1
.••

cxd1=wt'+ 23 l:r.xd1 .i.f5 24 g4! .i.c2

12 lL!e5
••.

Apart from 13 h4, looked at in

Chapter 1 1 , other plans are linked to
the continuations:

1 5A: 13 g4
15B: 13 1fe2
15B: 13 J.g5
In this very sharp position it is not
easy to find the right solution. 1 3 J.h6 does not justify itself
In the game Jano§evic- because of the typical counter-blow
Velimirovic, Yugoslavia (ch) 1 972, 13 ...J.xh6! 14 wt'xh6 l:r.xc3 ! 1 5 bxc3
was played 25 hxg6 .i.xg6 26 f4 wt'xc3 (also worth considering is
J.e4 and Black defended himself. 1 5 ...b5 1 6 lL!e2 wt'a3 17 wt'c1 wt'c5=)
In Tolnai-Jovicic, Leibnitz 1990, 16 wt'd2 ! (or 16 iLie2 wt'c5 1 7 iLif4 a5
White chose 25 l:r.c 1 and after 1 8 lL!d5 lL!xd5 19 l:r.xd5 wt'b6 with
25 ... l:r.c5 26 wt'd2 the game turned initiative to Black, Matulovic­
out in White's favour, since it did Despotovic, Yugoslavia 1 969)
not prove easy to fight against the 16 ...wt'c5 1 7 h4 b5 1 8 h5 lL!c4 1 9
active queen. wt'c3 !Dxh5 2 0 g4 iLif6 2 1 lL!e2 J.e6
22 iLif4 l:r.c8 with active play for the
Line 15 exchange, Bernal-P .Rodriguez,
Cuba (ch) 1988.
(1 e4 c5 2 lL!tJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 There is nothing for White in an
lL!xd4 iLif6 5 lL!c3 g6 6 .i.e3 J.g7 7 exchange of queens, 1 3 lL!d5 wt'xd2
13 tiJc6 8 wt'd2 0-0 9 J.c4 .i.d7 10 14 l:r.xd2 lL!xd5. On 1 5 J.xd5 Black
0-0-0 wt'a5 1 1 J.b3 l:r.fc8) replies 1 5 ...!Dc4 or even 1 5 ... llb8,
while after 1 5 exd5 a5 1 6 a4 poss­
12 �b1 ible is 1 6...J.xa4 1 7 J.xa4 lL!c4 1 8
White postpones the rush of the lle2 lL!xe3 1 9 l:r.xe3 J.xd4 20 l:r.xe7
h-pawn and makes a prophylactic b5 2 1 J.xb5 J.f6 22 l:r.b7 a4 with an
move which might prove useful initiative for the pawn, Hon-Ward,
when realising other active plans. Guernsey 1 989.
Black's reply is obvious.
I 56 The Rauzer Attack with 9 �c4

1SA threats on the long diagonal, Hort­

Tatai, Athens 1968.
(1 e4 eS 2 �tJ d6 3 d4 exd4 4 1 6 e5
�xd4 �f6 S �e3 g6 6 �eJ �g7 7 A typical ploy in the centre,
tJ �e6 S 'ii'd2 0-0 9 �e4 �d7 10 through which White tries to exploit
0-0-0 'ii'as ll �b3 :res 12 �b1 the insufficiently defended bishop
�eS) on d7. After 1 6 �d4 :ac8 17 g5
�e8 1 8 h4?! ( 1 8 �xg7 �xg7 19
13 g4 h4) 18 ... e5 !? 19 �e3 �e6 Black
grabs the initiative, Tseshkovsky­
Dueball, Dresden 1969.
16...�xg4
Black sacrifices a piece in the
hope of obtaining an acceptable
position with material imbalance.
Upon the retreat of the knight,
16 ...�e8, strong is 17 �S ! . For
example: 1 7 ... �xe5 1 8 �xe7+ �ffi
19 �5 :ac8 20 �h6+ �g7 2 1 c3
and, after wrecking Black's pawn
structure, White obtained the
advantage, Tseshkovsky-Hartston,
l3 ...�e4 Dresden 1 970.
Also worth considering is 1 3 ... b5 17 fxg4 �xg4 1S exd6 �xcJ 19
14 g5 (on 1 4 �h6 Black has the bxcJ �xd1 20 dxe7 �xe2+ 21
standard sacrifice of the exchange- 'ii'xe2 :es
14 ...�xh6 1 5 'ii'xh6 :xc3 1 6 bxc3 This position was reached in the
'ii'xc3 17 'ii'd2 'ii'c5, for which, after game Tatai-Honfi, Monte Carlo
the transfer of the knight to c4, he 1967, where, by playing 22 'ii'd2,
obtains sufficient compensation) White retained the preferable
1 4 ...�e8 (it is weaker to include chances, above all because of the
14 ...b4?! 1 5 �ce2 �e8, since after possibility of organising an attack
1 6 h4 �c4 1 7 �xc4 :xc4 1 8 h5 on the long a 1 -h8 diagonal.
:ac8 1 9 �f4 ! White can include the
knight in the attack; upon the retreat 1SB
14 ...�h5 also possible is 1 5 �ce2 ! ,
intending the exchange of this (1 e4 eS 2 �tJ d6 3 d4 exd4 4
knight) 1 5 h4 �c4 16 'ii'd3 and a �xd4 �f6 5 �cJ g6 6 �e3 �g7 7
double-edged position is reached, tJ �e6 S 'ii'd 2 0-0 9 �e4 �d7 10
unexplored in practice. 0-0-0 'ii'as l l �b3 :res 12 �b1
14 �xe4 :xe4 1S �b3 'ii'a6 �eS)
More passive looks 1 5 ...'ii'd8 16
�d4 ! �e6 (worth considering is 13 'ii'e2
16 ...bS 1 7 'ii'e3 aS 1 8 �b6 'ii'e8 1 9 By taking under control the c4
�xa5 :cc8 ;!;) 17 'ii'e3 'ii'b8 1 8 h4 square, White prevents one of the
aS 19 hS a4 20 �c l 'ii'e8 2 1 � 1 e2 main ideas for Black and intends to
:lacS 22 h6! �h8 23 g5 �7 24 drive the knight away from eS by
�xh8 �xh8 2S l:[d4! with strong f3-f4.
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i..c4 /57

We add that also the offensive 14

h4 b5 1 5 h5 is parried by the ex­
change sacrifice 1 5 ...l:.xc3 ! 1 6 bxc3
lDxh5 with sufficient compensation,
whereas 1 5 ...lDc4 16 lDd5 ! leads to
an advantage for White, Najdorf­
Pelikan, Mar del Plata 1968.
14 lDcxb5
On 14 lDdxb5 l:.ab8 1 5 lDd4
Black develops dangerous pressure
along the b- and c-files: 1 5 ...lDc4 16
1fd3 1fb4 or 15 ...1fb4 16 a3
13 ...b5 1fb7-for example: 17 �c 1 l:.xc3 !
With an energetic pawn sacrifice 1 8 bxc3 aS 19 a4 i.xa4 and Black
Black tries to change the character generates a dangerous attack, Shmit­
of the struggle. However, this still Mnatsakanian, Tallinn 1968. Also
entails definite risk and possibly this worthy of study is 1 5 . . .llxc3!?.
move should be prepared by 1 3 ... a6. White cannot ignore the eawn
The question is whether 14 f4 is sacrifice. For example: 14 h4 lhc4!
dangerous. To a certain extent the 1 5 1fd3 lDxe3 1 6 1fxe3 1fb6 and
reply to this was given by the game Black begins to 'feel' the dark
Ribli-Adorjan, Hungary 1968, squares.
which continued 14 ... �g4 1 5 lDf3 14 l:.ab8 15 c4
•.•

l:.xc3 ! 16 fxe5 l:.xb3 ! 1 7 ·axb3 1fxe5 On 1 5 lDa3 follows a blow in the

1 8 �d4 1fxe4 19 1fxe4 lDxe4 20 centre: 1 5 ...d5 ! 1 6 exd5 lDxd5 17
l:.he1 f5 and Black has more than i.xd5 1fxd5 with an excellent game
sufficient compensation for the ex­ for Black, Simagin-Dubinin, corr.
change. But White also has avail­ 1966.
able 16 �d2, on which possible is 15 a6 1 6 lDa3
•.•

16 ...lDxf3 ( 1 6 l:.xf3 ! ? is very inter­ Forced, since on 1 6 lDc3 follows

esting) 17 �xc3 1fh5 and White is 16 ... lDxc4! 1 7 i.xc4 "ii'xc3.
forced to play 1 8 �xf6, since on 1 8 16 ...i.e8!
h3 unpleasant is 1 8 .. lDci2+ (Van der
. Planning to transfer the knight,
Werf recommends 1 8 ...lDg1 19 1fe3 via d7, to the queen's flank.
i.xd1 20 l:.xg1 �e2 2 1 e5 dxe5 22 17 1fd2 1fc7 18 l:.c1 lDfd7 19
fxe5 lDe8 23 g4 �xg4 24 hxg4 1fh2 i.a4 lDc5 20 i.xe8 l:.xe8 21 l:.c3
with chances for both sides) 1 9 l:.b7 and Black has a good game on
"ii'xd2 lDxe4. the queen's flank, whereas White
But meanwhile let us mention that has still not got started on the king­
attempting a flank attack in another side, Gipslis-Stein, Moscow 1967.
way-14 g4 b5 1 5 g5 lDh5 1 6 lDd5
-is not so dangerous. After 15C
16 ...1fd8! 17 l:.hfl (or 17 lDf5 gxf5
18 f4 lDc4 !) 17 ...l:.ab8 1 8 f4 �g4 (1 e4 c5 2 lDfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
19 "ii'f2 lDc4 ! 20 l:.d3 e6 and the lDxd4 lDf6 5 lDcJ g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
knight is driven away from the f3 lDc6 8 1fd2 0-0 9 i.c4 i.d7 1 0
centre, Kagan-Ujtumen, Singapore 0-0-0 Was 1 1 i.b3 l:.fc8 1 2 �b1
1970. lDe5)
158 The Rauzer Attack with 9 Ji..c4

13 Ji..g5 become real. On 1 5 ...'ii'd8 follows

1 6 eS ! . Also not good is 1 5 ...'ii'a6?
1 6 Ji..xf6 Ji..xf6 1 7 ll:ld5 Ji..eS 1 8
ll:lxe7+ �� 19 ll:ld5 with advantage
to White, Vogt-Pribyl, Czecho­
slovakia 1972.
16 libel
Preparing the advance of the e­
pawn ( 1 6 ... Ji..c6 1 7 Ji..f4 'ii'e6 1 8 e5
dxe5 19 llxeS). On 1 6 f4? follows
the beautiful blow 1 6 ...'ii'xc3 ! !,
while after 16 Ji..f4 'ii'e6 1 7 ll:ld4
Black breaks up White's position
with an exchange sacrifice---
Along the same lines as seen in 17 ... 1lxd4! 1 8 'ii'xd4 ll:lhS 1 9 'ii'e3
the variation 10 ...1lc8. By attacking Ji..xc3 20 bxc3 llc8 and obtains an
the knight on f6, White endeavours excellent game.
to remove the support from the 16 1lxc3! 17 bxc3 .i.e6 18 .i.e3
.•.

bishop on d7, intending, after free­ 'ii'bs

ing the e5 square, .i.g5xf6 and There was weaker play in the
e4-e5. game Ree-Tal, Wij_k aan Zee 1973,
13 ...ll:lc4 18 ...1lc8 19 Ji..d4 'ifb5 20 �a 1 and
Completely logical. Black's White repulsed the threats, retaining
forces are too well mobilised for the advantage.
him to fear ghosts, moreover on 19 �a1 aS 20 llb1 'ii'c4 21 Ji..d4
1 3 ...b5 follows 14 ll:ld5. b5 22 e5 dxe5 23 Ji..xe5 b4 with
After the prophylactic 1 3 ...:cs, sufficient counterplay for Black,
taking the eS square under extra Blackstock-Hollis, Marlow 1 97 1 .
control, the frontal attack does not
work: 14 f4 ll:lc6 1 5 e5 dxe5 1 6 Line 16
Ji..xf7+ ¢>xf7 1 7 ll:lb3 ll:le4 ! with a
(1 e4 c5 2 ll:ltJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
double-edged game, Zelensky-Pras­
ll:lxd4 ll:lf6 5 ll:lcJ g6 6 Ji..e3 Ji..g7 7
lov, corr. 1 98 1 . But by first includ­
tJ 0-0 8 'ii'd2 ll:lc6 9 Ji..c4 Ji..d7 10
ing the rook in the game, 14 llhe 1
0-0-0)
llac8 1 5 f4 ll:leg4 16 ll:lf3 ! , White
effectively exploits the time gained 10 'ii'b8
•••

to prepare an advance of the e­

pawn, Richardson-Dubinin, corr.
1 975.
14 Ji..xc4 llxc4 15 ll:lb3
The thrust ll:lc3-d5 turns out to be
a blank shot-15 Ji..xf6 Ji..xf6 16
ll:ld5 'ii'xd2 17 ll:lxf6+ �g7 18
ll:lh5+ �h6 and the game is even.
15 'ii'e5
•.•

It is important to keep the e5

square under control. Upon other
retreats of the queen White's threats
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 159

At first this continuation was quite players preferring solid plans of

popular but then new dynamic ways piece development.
were found to generate counterplay 1 1 ...as 12 �dbS
with the queen on a more active After 12 a4 Black can avail him­
position. The transfer of the queen self of the recommendation of
to bS looks very promising-it S.Gligoric- 12 ...�xd4 13 .i.xd4
makes way for the rook to go to cS b5 ! , obtaining good counterplay
and promotes a pawn attack on the after the opening of the b-file, or
queen's flank. stick to positional paths by increas­
ing the pressure--- 1 2 ...llcS 1 3 �db5
The main ways of developing lbb4. There were very interesting
White's game are: happenings in the game Browne­
Sosonko, Wijk aan Zee 1975, which
16A: 1 1 .i.b3 continued 14 �b 1 d5 1 5 exd5 .i.xb5
16B: 1 1 h4 16 .i.f4 (dangerous is 16 �xb5
16C: 1 1 g4 liJfxd5 17 .i.xd5 llxc2 1 S 'ii'xc2
16D: 1 1 tbdS liJxc2 19 �xc2 'ii'e5 !) 1 6...llxc3 ! 1 7
.i.xbS (on 1 7 bxc3 would have fol­
lowed 17 ...'ii'c S! 1 S cxb4 �h5 ! 19
1 6A .i.h6 .i.c3 20 'ii'e3 axb4 with a dan­
gerous attack for Black) 17 ...llxb3 !
(I e4 cS 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 1 S .i.e5 .i.d3 19 cxd3 �fxd5 20
�xd4 �f6 S �c3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 i.xg7 �xg7 Ih-Ih.
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 �c6 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10 12 ...a4
0-0-0 'inl8) This problematic pawn sacrifice is
practically forced, otherwise it is
ll .i.b3 difficult for Black to fmd acceptable
counterplay-1 2 ...llcS 1 3 �b1 �e5
14 'ii'e2 and all the same he cannot
do without sacrifices. Thus the
game Estrin-I.Zaitsev, Moscow
1964, continued 14 ... a4 1 5 �xa4
llxa4 1 6 .i.xa4 �c4 1 7 .i.d4 'ii'aS
1S �a7 .i.xa4 19 �xeS 'ii'x cS 20 b3
�a3+ 2 1 �b2 and Black's attacking
resources proved exhausted.
13 .i.xa4
On 1 3 liJxa4 good is 13 ...�a5 ! .
For example: 1 4 'ii'e2 �xb3+ 1 5
axb3 d5 1 6 exd5 'ii'e5 1 7 f4 'ii'f5 1 S
A prophylactic retreat of the �b1 :res 1 9 �a7 llc7 20 .i.b6
bishop, considered as practically .i.xa4 2 1 .i.xc7 .i.xb3 ! and Black's
obligatory in all 9 .i.c4 variations of pieces are so active that White has
the Rauzer where the Black queen to part with his extra material,
unambiguously aims for a pawn at­ Savon-Stein, USSR (ch) 1 962.
tack from bS. Though here the 13 ...:cs 14 �bl
bishop move does not look so well­ It is necessary to safeguard the
founded, it is employed faithfully by position of his king. In the game
1 60 The Rauzer A ttack with 9 i..c4

Planinc-Velimirovic, Novi Sad

1 97S, White was more careless and
the king did not find any peace-14
1fe2 �aS 1S i..b3 lLlxb3+ 16 axb3
dS ! 1 7 exdS 1feS 1 8 f4 .:al + 1 9
�d2 lLle4+ 2 0 �e 1 (20 lLlxe4
.:xc2+!) 20 ....:xdl + 2 1 �xd1 1ff5
22 �c 1 (22 g4 1ff6!) 22 ... .:a8 23
�b 1 lLlxc3+ 24 lLlxc3 1ff6
(threatening ...1fxc3) 2S i..c 1 bS
and Black's attack is extremely
strong.
14...lLla5 15 i..b3 lLlc4 1 6 1fe2 ! This energetic move, as in other
In the present situation it is more variations, sets Black the most com­
favourable to retain precisely the plicated problems. Black's main
light-squared bishop. replies are:
16 ll:lxe3 17 1fxe3 .:c5 18 lLld4
•.•

1fa7 19 a3 16Ba: l l ....:cs

The best place for the white 16Bb: l l ...b5
knight-is the b4 square.
19 ....:a5 20 1fd2 e5 The inclusion of the preliminary
In the game Karpov-Velimirovic, exchange 1 1 . ..lLlxd4 1 2 i..xd4 re­
Portoroz/Ljubljana 1 97S, Black duces Black's attacking possibilities
played passively, 20 ... lLle8?, and -12 ... bS 13 i..b3 aS 1 4 h5 a4 1 S
after 2 1 ll:ldS e6 22 lLlb4 lLlc7 23 c3 i..dS eS 1 6 i..xa8 exd4 1 7 lLldS
lLla6 24 lLldc2 White retained the 1fxa8 1 8 lLle7+ �h8 19 h6 i..xh6 20
extra pawn and successfully re­ 1fxh6 i..e6 21 .:xd4 and Black has
grouped his forces. no compensation for the exchange,
2 1 lLlde2 d5! with not bad Berg-Weide, London 1 989.
counterpla¥ for Black. For example, On 1 l ...aS possible is 1 2 i..h6, in­
22 lLlxdS ll:lxdS 23 i..xdS i..c6 fol­ tending, after the exchange of the
lowed by 24 ...i..ffl, threatening a important bishop, h4-hS. In the
bishop sacrifice on a3 . On 22 exdS game Spassky-Levy, Nice (ol) 1 974,
possible is 22 ...e4 23 lLlxe4 lLlg4 (or Black decided to exploit the tempor­
23 ...bS) and Black, despite the loss arily undefended knight on d4 by
of three pawns, retains tactical 12 ... lLlxe4? 1 3 lLlxe4 i..xd4, but
possibilities (I.Zaitsev). after 14 hS ! he fell under a strong
attack. It was necessary to simplify
by an exchange of a pair of pieces:
16B 12 ...lLlxd4 1 3 i..xg7 �xg7 bS 1 S
i..e2 i..c6 and, though standing
(1 e4 c5 2 lLltJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 slightly worse, Black has a fully de­
lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 i..e3 i..g7 7 fensible position.
tJ 0-0 8 1fd2 lLlc6 9 i..c4 i..d 7 10 Ineffective is the blockading
0-0-0 1fb8) 1 l ...hS. After 1 2 i..h6 .:c8 1 3 i..xg7
�g7 14 lLldS and the exchange of
l l h4 the knight on f6, White carries out
the advance g2-g4.
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 �c4 161

16Ba tack for White (22 ...'ii'c8 23 �g7),

Mathe-Fridman, France 1 99 1 .
(1 e4 c5 2 ltlfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 13 h5!
ll:lxd4 ll:lf6 5 ltlc3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7 The cautious 13 a3 creates a lever
fJ 0-0 8 'ii'd2 ltlc6 9 �c4 �d7 10 for counterattack-1 3 ...b5 1 4 ll:ld5
0-0-0 'ii'b8 11 b4) ll:lxd5 1 5 �xd5 b4 1 6 a4 ll:lxd4 1 7
�xd4 e5 1 8 �e3 �xa4 with an
1 1 l:tc8
•.. extra pawn and a continuing attack,
Liberzon-Parma, Athens 1976.
After 13 a4 Black opens the b­
file: 1 3 ...ll:lxd4 14 �xd4 b5 1 5 ll:ld5
(weaker is 1 5 �xf6 �xf6 16 ltld5
bxa4 1 7 ll:lxf6+ exf6 1 8 �d5 a3 19
bxa3 �a4 20 �xa8 'ii'b 3! and Black
gets to the white king, or 1 5 'ii'd3
bxa4 1 6 ll:lxa4 �b5 1 7 'ii'e3 �xa4
1 8 �xa4 'ii'b4 1 9 'ii'b3 ll:lxe4 ! win­
ning a pawn) 1 5 ...ll:lxd5 ( 1 5 ... e5? 1 6
i.xe5 bxa4 1 7 �xf6! with advan­
tage to White, D' Adamo-Teipelke,
corr. 1986) 1 6 �xd5 e5 1 7 �e3
This natural developing move, in­ bxa4 ! and if 1 8 �xa8?, then Black
directly attacking the bishop, allows attacks by 1 8 ...a3 ! 19 bxa3 'ii'b8 or
White to hold on to the initiative. 19...'ii'b3 .
12 �b3 13...a4
Likewise worth considering is 1 2 Worth considering is the prelimi­
ll:ld5 ll:lxd5 13 �xd5 e6 nary 1 3 ... ll:lxd4.
(13 ...'ii'c7 ! ?) 14 �b3 when after 14 �d5 ll:\xh5
14 ...a5 he can avail himself of the After 1 4...e6 White develops a
recommendation of O.Romanishin: dangerous attack by sacrificing a
15 a4 ltle5 1 6 �h6! �h8 (White ig- piece: 1 5 hxg6! exd5 16 �h6! fxg6
nores 1 6...ll:ld3+ by 1 7 �b l ! , while 17 �xg7 �xg7 1 8 'ii'h6+ �f7 19
after 16 ... ll:lc4 17 �xc4 l:txc4 1 8 ll:lxd5 ± (S.Agdestein).
i.xg7 �xg7 1 9 h5 ! he goes over to 15 g4 ltlf6 16 ltlf5!?
the attack) 1 7 h5 b5 1 8 hxg6 hxg6
19 �f8 ! �f6 20 'ii'h6 l:te8 2 1 ll:lf5!
with the decisive threat of 22 �d6.
However 14 ...b5 ! looks more resol­
ute, with unclear consequences.
12 ...a5
On 1 2 ... h5 the double-edged 1 3
g4 is possible at once, or after prep­
aration- 1 3 �b1 ll:le5 14 �h6 �h8
15 g4. For example: 1 5 ...ll:\c4 16
i.xc4 l:txc4 17 ll:lf5 ! gxf5 1 8 gxf5
�h7 19 l:thg 1 �c6 20 l:tg5 'ii'c 7 2 1
l:tdgl l:tg8 22 'ii'g2 with a strong at-
162 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i..c4

A piece sacrifice to maintain the lbxd5 14 exd5 lLle5 1 5 lba3 l:c8 16

initiative-it is dangerous to open lLlb3 i..f5 ! with an attack) 1 3 i..b3
the g-file by 16 ...gxf5 1 7 gxf5. The (13 i..e2 d5 !) 13 ...lbxd4 14 lbxd4
game Agdestein-K.arlsson, Gausdal a5 1 5 a4 e5 16 lLlb5 i..xb5 17 axb5
(zt) 1987, continued 1 6...i..xf5 1 7 1i'xb5 and Black wins back the
gxf5 lbb4 1 8 fxg6! lLlfxd5 1 9 i..d4! pawn, having an active position.
(after 19 exd5 l:xc3 ! 20 bxc3 3) 12 lLldxb5 l:c8 1 3 i..e2 ( 1 3
lbxa2+ 2 1 �b2 i..xc3+ it is possible i..b3 entails more risk: 1 3 ...lba5 ! 14
even to lose) 1 9 ...i..xd4 20 Wfxd4 e5 lLld4 lbxb3+ 1 5 lbxb3 a5)
2 1 gxf7+! �f8 22 1i'g 1 lbf6 23 13 ...lbb4! 14 a3 (after 14 'itb l
l:h6! with a strong attack for White. i.xb5 1 5 i..xb5 l:xc3 ! 1 6 bxc3 lbc6
White suffers material loss)
16Bb 14 ...i..xb5 1 5 axb4 (on 1 5 i..xb5?
follows 1 5 ...l:xc3 and after 1 6 axb4
(1 e4 cS 2 lbf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l:xe3 ! or 16 bxc3 lbxa2 + 17 'itb 1
lbxd4 lLlf6 S lbc3 g6 6 i..e3 i..g7 7 lbxe4!) 1 5 ...i..xe2 1 6 lbxe2 a5 1 7
f3 0-0 8 1i'd2 lLic6 9 i..c4 i..d7 10 b5 ( 1 7 bxa5? lbxe4 !) 17 . . .'ii'xb5 1 8
0-0-0 1i'b8 1 1 h4) i..d4 and, though, as before, White
retains some initiative based on the
l l bS
... advance h4-h5, the black pieces are
sufficiently active to create counter­
play (E. Geller).
Despite the fact that this analysis
has not undergone serious practical
trials, the possibilities looked at
show the potential of Black's
position.
Another way is associated with an
attack on the e7 pawn-12 lbd5.
Now after 1 2 ...lLixd4? 1 3 lLixe7+
'ith8 14 i..xd4 bxc4 1 5 1i'c3 Black
risks being subjected to a strong at­
tack. For example 1 5 ...lLlh5 16
This pawn sacrifice is more in ac­ i..xg7+ lbxg7 17 h5 gxh5 18 1i'f6!
cord with the spirit of the position. l:e8 19 l:xh5 l:xe7 20 Adh1 and the
12 i..dS black king is defenceless, Minakov­
The pawn sacrifice is wisely de­ Borodiansky, USSR 1968. How­
clined. It seems that not many want ever, stronger is 1 2 ...bxc4 1 3 lbxc6
to be put to the test for the sake of a lbxd5 ! 14 lbxb8 i..xb2+!
pawn. Let's look at the possible (A.Gomez) and it becomes clear
continuations. that he has to return the queen, since
1) 1 2 i..xb5? lbxd4 1 3 i..xd7 bad is 1 5 'itb 1 ? because of
lbxf3 14 gxf3 lLld7 and the black 1 5 ...l:axb8 1 6 1i'xd5 i..d4+. The
pieces are dangerously pointed at game Movsesian-A.Fedorov, Las
the white king, Weidemann­ Vegas (m/4) 1 999, continued 1 5
Golubev, Munster 1 994. 'itxb2 c3+ 1 6 'ita 1 ! cxd2 (now ar­
2) 12 lLlcxb5 l:c8 (also interesting ises an endgame which is pleasant
is 12 ...d5 13 exd5 lbe5 or 1 3 i..xd5 for Black, who has the better pawn
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 I 63

structure) I 7 ltlxd7 (in Black's fa·

vour is I 7 exd5 l:axb8 I 8 l:xd2
l:b7 I9 h5 l:c8) I7 ...ltle3 I 8 ltlxf8
ltlxd I I9 l:xd I �xf8 20 l:xd2 (or
20 �b2 l:b8+ 2 I �c3 e6 22 l:xd2
q;e7 +) 20 ... �e8 2 I l:d3 l:c8 th-'h.
12...l:c8 13 �bl
Also worth considering is the
attack with the h·pawn: 1 3 .i.xc6
i.xc6 I 4 h5. For example, the
game Wahls·Ristic, Dortmund
1989, continued I4 ...b4 I 5 ltlce2
lt:lh5 I6 .:Xh5 gxh5 I 7 ltlfS l:tc7 I 8 This move, without sufficient
.i.h6 .i.xh6 I 9 ltlxh6+ �h8 20 foundation, weakens the f3 pawn,
lt:lxf7+ �g7 2 I ltlg5 'ii'g8 22 ltlf4 which in return adds extra force to
i.d7 23 ltld5 with a dangerous initi· the b·pawn, practically forcing the
alive for White. light-squared bishop to retreat.
13 ...b4 l l .bS
..

The position requires resolute ac· Besides this obvious reply, also
tion. On 1 3 ...'ii'b7 White develops a interesting is I I ... a5, retaining the
dangerous initiative by I4 h5 ltlxh5 threat of ... b7·b5. But after I 2 g5
1 5 g4 ltlf6 I6 ltlfS ! . ltlh5 1 3 ltld5 'ii'd8, (intending
14 ltlce2 hS ...e7-e6) White can exploit the
It is useful to block the h·pawn. weakening of the b6 square by I4
After I4 ... ltlxd5 I 5 ltlxc6 l:xc6 I6 ltlxc6 bxc6 I 5 .i.b6 and, upon
exd5 White has a space advantage, I 5 ...l:b8 I6 .i.xd8 (I6 'ii'xa5
Mikhalchishin·Shirov, USSR I 988. .i.xb2+! I 7 �xd2 l:xb6 I 8 ltlxb6
But worth considering is I4 ... a5. .i.d4 +) I6 ... .i.xb2+ I7 �b I .i.c3+
15 lt:lxc6 .i.xc6 16 ltlf4 'ifb7 I 8 .i.b3 .i.xd2 I9 .i.xe7 cxd5 20
Weaker is I 6 ...�f8?! I7 .i.xc6 i.xf8 .i.f4, given by Keene and
lhc6 I 8 ltld5 with a firm initiative Levy, play 2 I .i.xd6 .i.xd6 22
for Black, Tsvetkov·Heusslein, corr. l:xd5.
1988. The radical I 2 a4 l:c8 leads to a
17 .i.xc6 'ii'xc6 with sufficient weakening of the castled position.
counterplay, since, as before, it is The game Kurajica·Ree, VrT1j a�ka
dangerous for White to take the Banja I·963, continued 1 3 1fe2?!
h·pawn. ltle5 14 .i.b3 l:xc3! I5 bxc3 'ii'c7
I6 .i.d2 l:c8 I7 l:hfl 'ii'c5 I 8 ltlb5
ltlc4 with the better game for Black,
16C in view of White's numerous pawn
weaknesses. More circumspect is I 3
(1 e4 cS 2 ltlfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 .i.b3, preventing I3 ...ltle5 because
�xd4 ltlf6 5 ltlc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 of I 4 g5 ltle8 I 5 ltld5.
1'3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 ltlc6 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10 12 .i.b3
0-0-0 'ifb8) Now it becomes clear that the b5
pawn is poisoned. Unfavourable for
1 1 g4 White is I 2 ltlcxb5 ltle5 I3 .i.e2
I 64 The Rauzer Attack with 9 il.c4

lllxf3 !, or 1 2 llldxb5 llle5 1 3 il.e2

.ixb5 14 lllxb5 lllxf3 ! , or 1 2 .ixb5
lllxd4 13 il.xd7 lllxf3 ! .
On 1 2 il.e2 possible is 1 2 ...llle5
13 h4 :c8 (or 1 3 ... lllc4 1 4 il.xc4
bxc4 1 5 h5 "ii'b7 1 6 hxg6 fxg6 1 7
llld5 ! lllxd5 1 8 exd5 'ii'xd5 1 9 'iVh2
_.e5 20 _.xh7+ �fl 2 1 il.h6 :h8
22 _.xg7+ _.xg7 23 il.xg7 �xg7 24
:bet ! Pena-Hausrath, Guarapuala
1991) 1 4 h5 lllc4 1 5 .ixc4 :xc4
with chances for both sides.
But worth considering is 1 2 il.d5 White attacks the e7 pawn, ex­
:c8 13 .ixc6 il.xc6 14 lllxc6 (on ploiting the fact that on 1 1 ... bxc4
14 h4? follows a little combination there is the intermediate move 12
14 ...b4 1 5 lllce2 lllxe4! 16 fxe4 lllc6.
il.xe4 1 7 lllg3 il.xc2 with very l l ...lllxd5
negative consequences for Black, A radical solution. Also seen is
Mats-Gufeld, USSR 1962) 1 1 .. .:es 1 2 h4 llle5 13 lllxf6+
14...1lxc6 1 5 llld5 and, because of .ixf6 14 il.e2 b5 1 5 h5 lllc4 with
the further simplification of the equal chances, Kaminski-Bauer,
position, the attack with the b5 Puerto Rico 199 1 .
pawn is doomed to failure, while 1 2 il.xd5
White has some initiative. However, The alternative 1 2 exd5 llle5 1 3
Black also has sufficient counter .ie2 (after 1 3 .ib3 a5 1 4 a3 the
resources. bishop is up against the d5 pawn)
12 a5 13 llld5 a4
•.. 13 ...:cs 1 4 h4 (or 14 .ih6 il.hS 1 5
Worth considering is 13 ...�7 ! ?. g4 lllc4 1 6 il.xc4 :xc4 1 7 il.e3
In the game Suetin-Keene, Hast- 'ifd8 1 8 �bl :ac8= Moles-Levy,
ings 1967/68, Black sacrificed the Skopje 1972) 1 4 ...-.c7 (after
exchange for the initiative, 14...�c4 1 5 .ixc4 :xc4 1 6 b3 :cs
13 ...lllxd5 1 4 .ixd5 llle 5 1 5 il.xa8 17 g4 and h4-h5 White's attack is
lllc4 1 6 _.f2 _.xa8 17 �b l b4 1 8 more real) 1 5 b3 b5 1 6 �b l :ab8
h4 a4 1 9 h5 b3 2 0 cxb3 axb3 2 1 17 g4 when, in the game
axb3 lllxe3 22 _.xe3, but the Movsesian-A.Fedorov Las Vegas
position was simplified and his (m/1) 1999, instead of the hasty
compensation proved insufficient. 17 .....c3? 1 8 :hgl ! after which
14 lllxf6+ .ixf6 15 il.d5 :cs with White retained the initiative (f3-f4 is
a complicated, unexplored game. threatened), as pointed out by A.Fe­
dorov, Black can sacrifice a piece,
160 17 ...lllc4! , and after 1 8 bxc4 bxc4+
19 �a l c3 20 _.d3 :b2 2 1 _.a6
(1 e4 c5 2 lllt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 :cbS his attack is highly unpleas­
lllxd4 liJf6 5 l2Jc3 g6 6 il.e3 il.g7 7 ant, therefore it would be more reli­
t3 0-0 8 _.d2 lllc6 9 il.c4 il.d7 10 able for White to limit himself to 1 8
0-0-0 'Wb8) .ixc4 bxc4 1 9 h5 cxb3 20 cxb3
...c3=.
ll llld5 12 . :ca
. .
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .ic4 1 65

In the game Komeev-Montenegro with the queen and take aim at the
Garcia, Malaga 1998, was played a2 pawn.
12 ...�e5 1 3 h4 .ic6?! 14 .ib3 aS
15 a3 b5 16 h5 and White's attack
will prove so serious that Black de­
cided to give up the game.
Worth considerin_g is 1 2 ... a5 with
the idea of 13 h4 lllb4 ! 14 h5?! e6
15 .ib3 a4 16 Wxb4 axb3 1 7 Wxb3
e5 and 1 8 ... .ie6! +.
13 h4 e6 14 .ixc6 bxc6 15 �b3

This manoeuvre is significantly

different from the variation with
10 ...'ii'a 5: now the queen does not
have to lose time by retreating after
�d4-b3, on c7 it does not prevent
the advance of its own queenside
pawns, while upon an exchange of
the h-pawn it can be brought to f7 to
defend the king. And apart from this
15 d5?!
•.. the knight on c6 can be brought to
I.Zaitsev recommended 1 5 ...a5 ! ? the c4 square a move quicker.
1 6 Wxd6 a4 1 7 Wxb8 l:cxb8 with The drawback of developing the
some compensation for the sacri­ queen on c7 lies in the fact that
ficed pawn. Black voluntarily deprives himself
16 c3 Wb5 17 h5 l:ab8 1 8 hxg6 of one of his main counterattacking
fxg6 19 �b1 a5 20 �c5 Wc4 21 e5! resources-the exchange sacrifice
with advantage to White (dangerous on c3-which allows White to
is 2 l . ...ixe5?! 22 .id4! .ixd4 23 threaten a knight thrust to d5, while
cxd4 followed by Wd2-h6) Leko­ the king takes an active part in
A. Fedorov, Batumi 1999. defence.
l l .ib3
Here and in the future the knight
Line 17 thrust to b5 proves to be an imagin­
ary gain of tempo, since Black
(1 e4 c5 2 �J3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 replies ...Wc7-b8 followed by
lbxd4 lbf6 5 �c3 g6 6 .ie3 .ig7 7 ... a7-a6 and ...b7-b5.
1'3 0-0 8 Wd2 �c6 9 .ic4 .id7 10 l l l:fc8
.. .

0-0-0) After an immediate transfer of the

knight to the c4 square by 1 1 ...�e5
10 Wc7
..• (or 1 l ...�a5) White can exchange
The idea of this move is, after the the Dragon bishop, 12 .ih6!? �c4
manoeuvre ...�c6-e5-c4 and the ex­ 1 3 .ixc4 Wxc4, and begin an attack
change of knights, to invade on c4 by 14 h4. However, Black has still
1 66 The Rauzer A ttack with 9 l&.c4

not upset the balance and seems to fxg6 20 'iVh2 ...eS! 2 I ...xh7+ �f7
have quite good defensive re­ 22 J.h6 l:lh8 !) I7 ... eS I 8 lDb3 ( 1 8
sources: I 4 ...bS I S J.xg7 �xg7 I 6 tt:lf5?! does not achieve its objec­
�b i ( I 6 hS?! b4 I 7 lDdS lDxdS I 8 tive: I 8 ...gxfS I9 gxf5 h6! 20 .ixh6
exdS ...xa2 I9 lDb3 J.fS ! leads to l:lh8 2 I l:lhg i+ �h7 and White's
the loss of a pawn, Azzopardi­ threats are repelled) 18 ....ie6 19
Miles, Philippines I973, since 20 g4 hxg6 fxg6 20 .igS aS! and Black
is no good because of 20 ...J.xc2!) counterattacks with the pawn
I6 ...e6! and Black's position re­ tandem.
sembles a drawn bow, all ready for 12 tt:le5 13 h5!
...

counterplay. For example I 7 hS b4 With play on opposite flanks each

1 8 hxg6 fxg6 I 9 lDce2 eS 20 lDb3 tempo is important. After I 3 �b I
l:lad8 and after ... J.d7-e6 Black pre­ tt:lc4 Black can fight for the initiat­
pares the freeing ...d6-dS, though it ive: I 4 .ixc4 (or I4 ...d3 tt:lxe3 I S
should be acknowledged that his ...xe3 ...cS 16 l:ld3 bS =F Tatila­
rear is suspiciously weakened. Im­ Nesis, corr. I 978) 14 ......xc4 1 S
provements on White's play cannot .ih6 bS 1 6 .ixg7 �xg7 1 7 hS .ie6
be ruled out and the position re­ 1 8 hxg6 fxg6 1 9 lDxe6+ ...xe6 20
quires practical trials. tt:lxbS l:lab8 2 I tt:ld4 ...f7 22 g4 aS
12 b4! 23 tt:le2 a4 24 gS tt:ld7 2S l:lh3 tt:leS
As in other variations of the Rauz­ and Black's chances are preferable,
er Attack, a decisive advance of this Maus-B.Hansen, Gausdai i990.
pawn is the most dangerous plan of The inclusion of the move 1 3
play for White. .ih6 .ih8 I 4 hS lDc4 I S hxg6 has
The inclusion of the move I 2 g4 an effect only after 1 S ... hxg6?
presents Black with an im_portant ( I S ... lDxd2?? I 6 gxf7 mate) I 6
tempo for counterplay: I2 ... �eS I 3 .ixc4 ...xc4 1 7 .i£8! l:lx£8 I 8
h4 �c4 I 4 J.xc4 ...xc4 I S hS bS! l:lxh8+! �xh8 I9 �6+ �g8 20
(the most resolute, after IS ... J.e6 I 6 lDdS with the irresistible threat of
hxg6 fxg6 I 7 lDxe6 ...xe6 I 8 gS l:ld i -h l . However 1 S ...fxg6!
tt:lhS I9 lDdS l:l£8 20 ...g2 ...f7 2I changes the situation: 16 .ixc4+
l:ldfl e6 22 lDb4 l:lac8 23 �b I dS ...xc4 17 .igS (with the idea of
arises a double-edged position, I7 ...bS I 8 .ixf6 .ixf6 I9 lDdS)
Vogt-Marasescu, Budapest I987) I6 I 7 ......f7 and the black queen comes
�b i (after I6 hxg6? b4! I7 gxf7+ to the help of its king.
�xf7 I 8 lDbi ...xa2 19 gS lDdS ! 20 13 tt:lc4 14 .ixc4
.•.

exdS J.f5! Black has a very strong Upon the exchange of the dark­
attack, Babovich - Szyszko-Bohusz, squared bishop it is easy for Black
Poland I 97S) to defend: I4 ...d3 tt:lxe3 1 S ...xe3
I) I 6...e6 (not allowing the knight 'i'cS 1 6 hxg6 hxg6 17 g4 . aS!
to dS) I 7 lDce2 eS I 8 �b3 aS I9 ( 1 7...bS?! 18 gS lDhS I9 �dS ±
hxg6 fxg6 20 lDc3 b4 2 I lDds Dvoirys-lvanenko, USSR 1974) I 8
lDxdS 22 ...xdS+ ...xdS 23 l:lxdS a4 a4 bS with chances for both sides.
and Black obtains an equal ending, 14 ...xc4 15 .ib6
...

Gallinnis-Dueball, Germany I 988. It is useful to drive the bishop to

2) I6 ...b4 I7 lDce2 (on I 7 lDdS £8, which narrows Black's possibi­
there is a defence for Black: lities, since on I S hxg6 there is the
I7 ...lDxdS I 8 exdS ...xdS I9 gxh6 reply I S ... fxg6 and Black takes
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 ..i.c4 167

advantage of the f7 square to deal �f8 21 �xeS) 20...�hS 21 1i'xd4+

with the Hussar's charge 16 g4. 1i'xd4 22 .:txd4 with a great material
1 ) 16.....te8 ! ? (a manoeuvre advantage for White.
worthy of consideration, and by 18 ..txf6 ..txf6 19 �dS!
means of which Black takes aim at
the a2 pawn) 1 7 �b 1 ..tfl 1 8 �de2
.:tc6! and Black is fully mobilised
for a counterattack on the king,
Santo Roman-Ristic, Graz 1 978.
2) 16 ... b5 17 'iVh2 1i'f7! (the
over-optimistic 17 ... b4?! might
boomerang 1 8 �5 ! �xd5 19
1i'xh7+ �fl 20 ..i.h6 .:tg8 21 exd5
1Wxa2 22 .:the l and because of the
threat .:te 1 -e4 it is White who has
the attack) 1 8 �b 1 .:tabS 19 �d5
..th8! 20 �b3 .:tb7 ! and Black has
everything defended. Relatively
better is 16 ..th6 ..i.h8 1 7 ..i.g5, 19 ..txd4
•.•

practically forcing, as pointed out Accepting the sacrifice, Black

above, the retreat of the queen, falls into a difficult position. For
1 7 ...1Wf7. example, 19...1Wxa2 20 1Wh6 1i'a l +
1S.....th8 16 ..tgS! 2 1 �d2 1i'xb2 22 �xe7+! �fl 23
The interesting rook thrust 16 1i'xh7+ ..tg7 24 1i'xg6+ �f8 25
.:th4 b5 17 e5 does not achieve its �ef5 with irresistible threats.
aim: 1 7 ...dxe5 ! 1 8 �f5 1i'e6 1 9 g4 20 �xe7+ �f7
..i.c6 and White's attack comes to a Also 20...�f8 has its minuses .
dead end, Teemae-Nesis, corr. 1978. True, the direct 2 1 �xeS .:txcS 22
16...b5 17 hxg6! c3 after 22 .....te5 23 f4 1i'xe4 ! 24
This manoeuvre, in conjunction fxe5 ..tf5 25 1i'xd6+ 'iPeS! allows
with the threatened exchange of the Black to derive benefit from the
defender on f6 and the knight thrust weakening of the light squares in
�c3-d5, was suggested by A.Lilien­ the enemy king's camp, but 2 1 c3 !
thal. Its aim is to prevent 1 7 ...hxg6 retains an advantage for White.
because of the mating attack 1 8 1) 2 I .....te5 22 .:txh7 1Wxa2 23
.:txh8+! �h8 19 ..txf6+ exf6 20 �xg6+ �gS 24 �xeS ! 'iti>h7 25
1i'h6+ �g8 2 1 .:th 1 . .:th 1 + with a mating attack;
The immediate exchange 17 ..txf6 2) 2 l ...�e7 22 .:txh7+ �dS
..txf6 1 8 �d5 is harmless­ (22 ... �eS 23 1i'g5 1i'e6 24 .:txd4) 23
I S ...txd4 ! 19 �xe7+ �f8 20 �xeS
.. 1i'g5+ �c7 24 .:txd4 with the threat
.:txcS and it is White who must e4-e5;
think about defence. 3) 2 I ....:teS ! ? 22 �d5! 1i'xd5 23
17 fxg6
•.• .:txh7 �g8 24 exd5 ..te3 25 1i'xe3
The intermediate move 1 7 ... b4 .:txe3 26 .:txd7 winning.
does not work here- 1 S ..i.xf6 ..txf6 21 .:txh7+ ..tg7
(IS ...bxc3 19 gxh7+ �f8 20 ..tg7+ Losing are both 2 1 ... �e6 22
�eS 2 1 1Wxc3) 1 9 �5 ..txd4 20 �5 ! , and 2 l ...�eS 22 c3 ! .
gxh7+ (also possible is 20 �xe7+ 22 c3 ! .:th8
1 68 The Rauzer Attack with 9 �c4

There is no saving himself by This move is made just as fre­

22......e6 (22 ......xa2 23 ..,f4+ �f5 quently as 1 0 0-0-0, and usually the
24 .J:[xg7+!) 23 ...f4+ ...f6 24 play simply amounts to a transposi­
...xf6+ �xf6 25 lL!xcS �xeS 26 tion of moves. White holds back on
.J:[xd6+ �fl 27 .J:[dS g5 2S e5 �g6 castling, hoping to exploit the extra
29 e6! with a winning endgame for tempo to develop his initiative. But
White. there is also a difference. In these
23 ...(4+ �(5 24 lLlxf5! cases Black has a basic plan of de­
This is stronger than the line fence linked to ... lL!c6-e5-c4, and he
pointed out by A.Lilienthal, 24 will either allow the continuation
.J:[xg7+ �xfl 25 ...g5, on which h4-h5 or, if White does not play
P.Ossible is 25 ...�xe4 ! 26 fxe4 g2-g4, prevent it by h7-h5.
'ifxe4, repulsing the threats. Also However if White plays 1 0 0-0-0,
unclear is 25 lL!xf5+ gxf5 26 ...g5+ Black, besides this, can reply
�ffl ! . 1 0...�s. intending ... b7-b5. After
24....J:[xh7 1 0 h4 this counterplan makes no
After 24 ...gxf5 25 'ifxf5+ �gS 26 sense, since the threat 1 1 h5 requires
.J:[xg7+ �xg7 27 .J:[xd6 the extra more active measures.
rook does not save Black, Milstein­ The main continuations here are:
Lagutkin, corr. 1 97S.
25 lL!xd6+ �g8 26 lL!xc4 �h6 27 18A: 10 :c8
•..

..,xh6 .J:[xh6 28 lL!e3 and the three 18B: 10......a5

pawns for the exchange guarantee
White an advantage. But also worth considering is
lO ...lL!e5 1 1 �b3 attempting to find
new paths if White delays castling.
Line 18 Here are a few possibilities:
1) 1 1 ...a5 1 2 a4 :cs 1 3 h5 lL!c4
(1 e4 c5 2 lL!fJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 14 �xc4 :xc4 1 5 lL!de2 �e6 16
�xd4 lLlf6 5 lL!c3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7 �h6 �6 17 �xg7 �xg7 1 S 0-0-0
f3 lL!c6 8 ..,d2 0-0 9 �c4 �d7) .:res 1 9 lL!f4 .:xc3 with an attack
on the king, Anka-Bauer, Stras­
10 h4 bourg 1 99 1 .
2) 1 1 ...b5 ! ? (a pawn sacrifice for
the initiative) 1 2 h5 (after 1 2 lL!dxb5
�S 1 3 lL!d4 .:cs 14 h5 lL!c4 1 5
�xc4 .J:[xc4 the attack along the b­
and c-files compensates for the
sacrificed pawn) 1 2 ... lL!c4 1 3 �xc4
bxc4 14 �h6 �6! (weaker is
14 ......a5?! 1 5 �xg7 �xg7 1 6 hxg6
fxg6 1 7 0-0-0 and White's chances
are preferable, Ivanovic-Markovic,
Podgorica 1 992) 1 5 hxg6 fxg6 1 6
�xg7 �xg7 1 7 �6+ �fl 1 8 0-0-0
.:abS 1 9 b3 ..,a5! with chances for
both sides (Markovic).
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 1 69

18A preferable, Vasiukov-Parma, USSR­

Yugoslavia 1 962.
(1 e4 cS 2 ll:ltJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 12...ll:lxhS
ll:lxd4 lLlf6 S ll:lc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 Black accepts the pawn sacrifice,
f3 ll:lc6 8 'iid2 0-0 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10 but also possible is 12 ...ll:lc4 13
h4) ..ixc4 :xc4 14 hxg6 fxg6 1 5 0-0-0
:n (or 1 5 ...'iic7, leading the game
to ..:c8
into the main variation 1 0 ...'iic7) 16
.

Black chooses a plan with the oc­

e5 dxe5 17 ll:le6 'iic 8 1 8 ll:lxg7
cupation of the c4 square.
�xg7 19 ..ig5 h5 with chances for
l l ..ib3
both sides, Mrva-Jirovsky, Presov
Also here, as in the mam van­
1999.
ation, Black can choose:
13 g4
Also here, on 1 3 ..ih6, it is
18Aa: l l ... ll:les
necessary to recall the standard
18Ab: l l ... hS
exchange sacrifice, which can be
even more effective when there is a
18Aa
king late with castling: 1 3 .....ixh6
(1 e4 cS 2 ll:ltJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 14 'iixh6 :xc3 1 5 bxc3 'iia5 and
ll:lxd4 lLlf6 S ll:lc3 g6 6 ..ie3 ..ig7 7 White has to evacuate the king by
tJ ll:lc6 8 'iid2 0-0 9 ..ic4 ..id7 10 16 0-0-0, which leads to a position
h4 :c8 1 1 ..ib3) looked at in variations with
IO...'iia5.
l l ...ll:leS 13...:xc3
Apart from the standard exchange
sacrifice, there is available for Black
another kind-13 ...:c4 with the
idea of exploiting the weakened f.3
square by ...:c4xd4, which is poss­
ible, for example, on 1 4 0-0-0. In
connection with this there was a sig­
nificant game Grefe-Tarjan, USA
(ch) 1973, where after 14 gxh5
:xd4! came an interesting hand-to­
hand fight, 1 5 'iig2 'iib6 16 hxg6
:xe4 1 7 gxf7+ �h8 1 8 0-0-0
'iixe3+ 19 �b l :c4 20 :dg 1 :xf7
Black, by half-opening the c-file, 2 1 ..ixc4 ll:lxc4 22 'iig6 ll:la3+ 23
allows White's flank attack, relying bxa3 'iib6+ 24 �c 1 'iie3+ 25 �b l ,
on counterplay connected with an ending in a draw by perpetual
exchange sacrifice. check. However the more consistent
12 hS continuation, 1 4 ..ixc4 ll:lxc4 1 5
On 12 ..ih6 it is necessary to 'iie2 ll:lxe3 1 6 'iixe3 lLlf6, has not
reckon on the exchange sacrifice-- been seen in serious practice.
12 ... ..ixh6 1 3 'iixh6 :xc3! 1 4 bxc3 Upon the retreat 1 3 ... ll:lf6 the at­
'iia5 1 5 'iid2 :c8 1 6 0-0 :xc3 17 tempt to exchange one of the 'cen­
l:.ae l 'iic5 1 8 :e3 :xe3 19 'iixe3 tral defenders ' by 14 lLld5 ll:lxd5 1 5
b5 and Black's chances are exd5 comes up against 1 5 ...ll:lxf.3+!
1 70 The Rauzer Attack with 9 j,c4

1 6 ltlxf3 j.xg4 1 7 ltld4 hS with position, is a kind of challenge to

good prospects for Black, Ermen­ White. You see, his principal chance
kov-Amaudov, Bulgaria 1 973. But to get at the king is possible onl� by
after 1 3 ...lllf6 14 j.h6 j.xh6 I S pawn sacrifices. After 1 2 0-0-0 l£leS
l:lxh6 this piece sacrifice is not so arises a positon looked at in Line 9.
effective-IS ... lllx£3+ 1 6 ltlxf3 12 lllxc6
j.xg4 1 7 ltlgS (or 1 7 'ife3 'ifaS 1 8 How strange it is that the consist­
eS dxeS 1 9 0-0-0 l:lxc3 20 bxc3 e4 ent continuation, 12 g4 hxg4 1 3 hS
2 1 'ifgS with material advantage to �xhS, is still waiting to be tested in
White, Karsten-Shneider, Budapest this particular situation. We mention
1989) 1 7 ... e6 1 8 'iff4 j.hS 1 9 �d2 just one nuance of this position. In
and, after bringing up the queen's case of 14 0-0-0 WaS White already
rook, White continues the attack, has the dangerous attack 1 S ltlf5 !
Kalod-Tobyas, Praha-Brno 199S. (Brooks-Weisblat, Chicago 1989),
But, of course, if he wants, White but an even earlier development of
can return to the channels of the the queen, 1 2 ...'ifaS, allows the de­
main variation by 14 0-0-0 �c4 1 S fence 1 3 gxhS 'ifxhS.
j.xc4 l:lxc4 etc. After 1 2 �S lllxdS 1 3 exdS
14 bxcJ ltlf6 15 j.b6 Was 16 lllxd4 14 j.xd4 j.xd4 1 S 'ifxd4 the
j.xg7 �xg7 17 0-0-0 l:[c8 18 �b2 position is simplified and Black's
'ifb6 19 <iPcl 'ifcS with a double­ chances are no worse. For example,
edged game, Stanciu-Partos, Roma­ the game Malisauskas-Kir.Georg­
nia (ch) 1973. iev, Biel (izt) 1993, continued
I S ... aS 1 6 c3?! bS 17 g4 a4 1 8 j.c2
18Ab a3. 1 9 b4 hxg4 and the game turned
out in Black's favour. Apparently
(1 e4 cS 2 lllt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 White should have held up the a­
lllxd4 lllf6 5 �cJ g6 6 j.e3 j_g7 7 pawn by 1 6 a4.
t3 �c6 8 'ifd2 0-0 9 j.c4 j.d7 10 1 2...bxc6 13 j.b6 cS 14 j.c4
h4 Ac8 11 j.b3) 'ifb6
Or 1 4...l:lb8 1 S 0-0-0 l:[b4 16 j.b3
ll ... hS flc7 17 j.xg7 �xg7 1 8 a3 l:ld4
with equal chances, Tolnai-Watson,
Kecskemet 1988.
15 j.xg7 �xg7 16 b3
On 1 6 0-0-0 G.Kasparov pointed
out the possible continuation,
16 ...'ifb4 17 b3 j.e6 1 8 �dS �xdS
19 exdS fixd2+ 20 llxd2 j.d7 21
.l:.e I l:lfe8 22 l:lde2 �f6 23 c3 aS,
and the game is even.
16...j.e6 17 llld5
If he gives up the dS square by 1 7
j.xe6 fxe6 1 8 �a4 (weaker is 1 8
llle2 c4 19 lllf4 �f7 =F) 1 8 ...'ifc7 1 9
Also here this bold move, setting c4 dS, a double-edged position is
up a blockade in front of the h-pawn reached (G.Kasparov).
though also weakening his castled 17 .. ,j.xd5 18 exdS
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 �c4 1 71

Another variation on one of the

main plans, with the transfer of the
king's rook to c8.
II �b3
Distinct from the variation 1 0
0-0-0 'ifa5 here 1 1 lL!b3 is not so ef­
fective. After 1 l .. .'ifc7 1 2 h5 lLle5
13 �e2 :res 14 hxg6 fxg6 1 5 l:h4
aS 1 6 a4 lLlc4 1 7 �xc4+ 'ifxc4 1 8
.th6 �h8 1 9 �g5 'iff7 Black has
good counterplay, Ye Jiangchuan­
Ristic, Belgrade GMA 1988.
This position arose in the 13th l l ...:rcs 12 h5
game of the World Championship After 1 2 g4 lLle5 13 h5 Black,
match, Anand-Kasparov, New York with the manoeuvre 13 ... l:c4 !, un­
1995. After the exchange of three derlines the weakness of the f.3
pairs of minor pieces the prospects pawn, since on 14 0-0-0 follows
of the white bishop, restricted by its 14 ... l:xd4! 1 5 'ifxd4 lLlxf.3 1 6 'ifd3
own pawns, are lower than those of llle5 1 7 'iffl �xg4 and Black's
the black knight. The game con­ chances are preferable, Zheliandi­
tinued 1 8 ...e5 ! and White' s attempt nov-Polikarpov, USSR 1972. On
to enliven the bishop by 1 9 dxe6? this theme, also interesting is a
after 1 9 ...d5 ! 20 �e2 c4! led to an game from the 'early' career of Gata
opening of the game, which fa­ Kamsky: 1 4 'ife2 lLlxe4! 1 5 fxe4
voured Black. To be fair, also after �xg4 1 6 'ifg2 l:xc3 ! 1 7 bxc3
the better 19 0-0-0 Black's chances 'ifxc3+ 1 8 �f2 �xh5 19 lL!e2 'ifb2
are no worse. 20 l:ab 1 lL!d3+ 2 1 �g3 'ife5+ 22
�h3 lLlc5 and Black consolidates
18B his position, while maintaining a
material advantage, Kamsky­
(1 e4 c5 2 lLlfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Asanov, Bamaul 1 988. It seems
lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lL!c3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7 that it was necessary to take the ex­
fJ lllc6 8 'ifd2 0-0 9 �c4 �d7 10 change, 14 �xc4 lL!xc4 1 5 'ifc 1 , but
h4) then 1 5 ...d5! 1 6 lL!b3 'ifc7 1 7 exd5
lllxd5 wrecks White's centre and
10 ...'ifa5 gives Black an excellent game,
Martynov-Lusgin, corr. 1 979.
1 2...lLlxh5 13 g4 lL!xd4
Risky is 1 3 ... tt:\f4 14 0-0-0 lL!e6
(14...lDxd4 1 5 �xd4 ±) 1 5 'i'h2
l£lcxd4 1 6 'ifxh7+ �f8 1 7 �h6!
l£Jxb3+ 1 8 �b 1 �e8 19 �xg7 �c6
20 axb3 and White gains the advan­
tage (A.Lilienthal).
14 �xd4 �xd4 15 'ifxd4 lLlf6
Weak is 1 5 ...l£lf4? because of the
attack 16 �xf7+ �f7 1 7 l:xh7+
�e6 1 8 'ifg7 and Black is
1 72 The Rauzer Attack with 9 iLc4

defenceless, Shagalovich-Gufeld, 19A

USSR 1 967.
16 0-0-0 iLe6 1 7 �b1 /Lxb3 (1 e4 c5 2 lDt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
Mistaken is 1 7 ... l:.cS? 1 8 iLxe6 lDxd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 g6 6 /Le3 /Lg7 7
fxe6 19 b4 l:.bS 20 lDxbS 'ii'xbS 2 1 t3 lDc6 8 'ii'd2 0-0 9 iLc4 iLd7 10
l:d3 ! and Black has no compensa­ /Lb3)
tion at all for the exchange,
Hardicsay-Somogyi, Hungary 1976, 10 lDxd4 1 1 iLxd4 b5
...

while on 1 7 . . .l:.c6 1 8 lDrlS ! leads to After the exchange of knights

an advantage for White. Black is ready to meet long castling
18 axb3 'ii'e5 with a defensible with a pawn attack.
position for Black. 12 h4
After 1 2 0-0-0 aS ! Black's
Line 19 counterplay develops successfully.
For example: 1 3 a3 (or 1 3 lDdS e6
(1 e4 c5 2 lDO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
14 lDxf6+ iLxf6 1 S iLxf6 'ii'xf6 1 6
lDxd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 g6 6 iLe3 /Lg7 7
a3 b4! 1 7 a4 l:fd8 and in associ­
t3 lDc6 8 'ii'd2 0-0 9 iLc4 /Ld7)
ation with a subsequent ... iLd7-c6,
10 iLb3 Black has the preferable position;
also good is 1 3 ...a4 14 lDxf6+ iLxf6
1 S /LdS iLxd4 16 'ii'xd4 (16 iLxa8?
/Lg7) 1 6 ...l:.c8 with the idea of
... e7-e6!) 1 3 ...b4 14 lDdS lDxdS 1 S
iLxdS eS ! 1 6 /Le3 bxa3 1 7 b3 a4 !
and Black is better, Damjanovic­
Musil, Ljubljana 1 969.
On 1 2 lDdS possible is 12 ...lDxdS
13 /Lxg7 �xg7 14 iLxdS l:.c8 1 S
'ii'd4+ ( 1 S h4 h6) 1 S ...�g8 1 6 c3 aS
17 a3 /Le6 with equal chances,
Zhuravlev-Lazarev, USSR 1963 .
But worth considering is the
A less forcing continuation than counter 1 2 a4 b4 (or 1 2 ... bxa4 1 3
1 0 h4. White first makes a prophy­ lDxa4 /Le6 1 4 iLxe6 fxe6 1 S 0-0!
lactic retreat of the bishop before and, thanks to his more solid pawn
starting an attack with the h-pawn. structure, White's position is
But in this case the sharpness of his preferable.
attack is somewhat reduced and for 12...a5
Black, apart from the defensive plan A logical continuation, but worth
associated with ...lDc6-eS-c4, there considering is the idea of B.Larsen,
appears the possibility of play with 12 ...e6, with the aim of avoiding the
an early ...b7-bS. possibility of a bishop thrust to dS
If White holds off queenside cas­ after ... aS-a4. For example: 1 3 hxg6
tling, the following continuations hxg6 1 4 'ii'd2 a5 1 S a4 bxa4 1 6
have independent significance: lDxa4 /Lc6 with good play for
Black, Motwani-Larsen, London
19A: 10 ...lDxd4 1989.
19B: 10 'ii'c7
.•.
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 ..i.c4 1 73

After l2 ... a5 two plans are seen: 13...eS

After l 3 ...a4 possible is 14 ..i.xf6
19Aa: 13 hS exf6 1 5 ..i.d5 l:.c8 16 hxg6 hxg6 17
19Ab: 13 a4 l:.h6! b4 18 l:.xg6 �h7 1 9 l:.xg7+
�xg7 20 .!Lle2 and the black king
The thrust 1 3 .!Lld5 is practically stands in need of defence, Apicella­
unexplored, though the well-known Moldovan, Bucharest 1993, or a
game Sherzer-Petursson, Phila­ transfer to the main variation 14
delphia I986,- l3 ... e6 14 ..i.b6 'ifb8 .idS e5 1 5 ..i.e3.
15 ..i.c7 'ifa7 1 6 .!Lle7+ �h8 17 14 ..te3
.ixd6 a4 1 8 h5 gxh5?! (better is R.Nisipeanu and U.Stoica ana­
1 8 ... .!Llxh5 19 g4 .!Llf6, on which lysed an interesting piece sacrifice
Sherzer suggested 20 e5 .!Llg8 21 14 hxg6! ? exd4 (after l4 ... hxg6?!
�e2 ! axb3 22 l:.h3 and after l:.a 1 -h I 1 5 ..i.e3 a4 1 6 ..i.h6! .!Llh5 17 .i.d5
White's attack continues) 19 e5 White has the advantage) l4 ...exd4
.!Lle8 20 0-0-0 brought White suc­ 1 5 ..i.xf7+ �h8! (or l 5 ...l:.xf7 1 6
cess. But there still remain quite a gxf7+ �xf7 1 7 'ifd4 b4 1 8 .!Lld5
few possibilities. Let us tum our ltJxd5 19 'ifxd5+ ..i.e6 20 'ifh5+
attention to just one of these: 13 ... a4 �f8 2 1 l:td l 'ifh6 22 l:.d2! t) 1 6
14 .!Llxf6+ ..i.xf6 1 5 ..i.xf6 axb3 1 6 'ifd4 h6 ('ifxf6 was threatened) 1 7
.ic3 l:.xa2 1 7 l:.c l b4 1 8 ..i.d4 e5 19 'ifd2 .!Llg8 1 8 'ifd6 ..i.e8 19 'ifxd8
.ie3 l:.xb2 etc. l:.xd8 20 ..i.e8 b4! with chances for
both sides.
19Aa. 14 a4 IS ..i.dS b4 16 .!Lle2 .!LlxdS
•.•

17 'ifxdS ..i.e6 18 'ifd2 dS

(I e4 cS 2 .!Llt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Also not bad is the preliminary
.!Llxd4 .!Llf6 S .!Llc3 g6 6 ..i.e3 ..i.g7 7 l 8 ... b3 19 cxb3 axb3 20 a3 d5 with
f3 .!Llc6 8 'ifd2 0-0 9 ..i.c4 ..i.d7 10 a complicated game, Romanishin­
.ib3 .!Llxd4 II ..i.xd4 bS 12 h4 aS) Miles, Bath 1973. But passive is
l 8 ...'ifb8?! 19 ..i.h6 ..i.xh6 20 'ifxh6
13 hS l:.a7 2 1 f4! and White opens up the
position with advantage, Tolnai­
J.Stojnov, Budapest 1992.
19 hxg6
On 1 9 ..i.c5 there is the promising
exchange sacrifice 1 9 ... dxe4! .
1 9 fxg6 20 ..tcs l:.f7 2 1 ..i.xb4
••.

'l'd7! and, in view of the unsafe

white king, Black has sufficient
compensation for the pawn, Tolnai­
Leko, Hungary 1992.

19Ab

White starts an attack on the (I e4 cS 2 .!Llt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4

king's flank, but Black has his own lL!xd4 .!Llf6 S .!Llc3 g6 6 ..i.e3 ..i.g7 7
argument in view of the tandem of t3 .!Llc6 8 'ifd2 0-0 9 ..i.c4 ..i.d7 10
pawns. .ib3 .!Llxd4 1 1 ..i.xd4 bS 12 h4 aS)
1 74 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i.c4

13 a4 15 i.e3
This modest retreat underlines the
solidity of White's central opening
conception. If he pursues the pawn
by 1 5 i.b6 'ii'bs 16 i.xa5?! :a6
(also interesting is 16 ...d5 17 exd5
e4 !) 1 7 i.c4 i.xh6! 1 S 'ii'xh6 (on 1 8
'ii'c3 lieS he cannot withstand the
pressure of the heavy pieces along
all three files at once) 1 S ...:xa5 1 9
b3 d5 2 1 exd5 i.xa4 the initiative
passes to Black. In the game
Topalov-Tiviakov, Wijk aan Zee
1996, White retreated 16 i.e3 ! i.e6
13 ...bxa4 1 7 :a3 and after the impulsive
But not 1 3 ...b4 because of 14 18 ...'ii'b4 ? ! successfully regrouped
�d5 ! e6 1 5 �xf6+ i.xf6 1 6 i.xf6 by 1 8 �b6 and obtained the better
'ihf6 17 0-0-0 and due to the threat game. More accurate is 17 ...'ii'c7 1 8
of h4-h5 the chances are on White's �c3 ;!;.
side. The retreat 1 5 i.c3 is justified
14 �xa4 upon the routine reply 1 5 ...i.e6-
Nothing comes out of 14 i.xa4 16 0-0-0! i.xb3 1 7 cxb3 'ii'bS 1 8
llb8 1 5 i.b3 e5 16 i.e3 i.e6 1 7 'ii'c2 :ds (or 1 8 ... :c8 19 �b 1 ! and
i.xe6 fxe6 1 8 0-0-0 d5 with equal White already takes over the initiat­
chances, Nei-Geller, Leningrad ive on the queenside) 19 g4 d5 20
1963. g5 d4 2 1 gxf6 i.xf6 22 h5 ! White's
14...e5! attack is extremely dangerous,
A · resolute move--the weakening Pioch-Seres, corr. 1 975. But if
of the d6 pawn is unimportant. Black exploits the light-squared
But it is quite natural to look at bishop more actively-1 5 ... i.b5 !
1 4...i.e6 1 5 �b6 lla6 (weaker is -then White might as well think
1 5 ...llb8?! 16 �5 i.xd5 1 7 exd5 about the safety of his king (of the
with rather better prospects for type 16 �f2), since on 16 0-0-0 :a6
White, Hort-Forintos, Athens 1 969) 17 �c5 :c6 1 S �b7 'ii'b6 1 9 �xd6
1 6 �5 i.xd5 17 exd5. The game (19 �xa5 :as +) 1 9...a4 20 i.a2
Shirov-Ivanchuk, Wijk aan Zee lidS there will be no peace, while
1999, continued 17 ...'ii'c7 1 8 :a4 the advance 1 6 g4, undertaken in
:b8 19 h5!? �xh5 20 i.xg7 �g7 the game KJovans-Tseshkovsky,
2 1 g4 �f6 22 'ii'h6+ �gs 23 :f4 Kishiniev 1975, was too optimistic
'ii'c 5?! (V.Ivanchuk considers this after 1 6...d5 ! 1 7 i.xd5 lllxd5 1 S
move poor and recommends 'ii'xd5 'ii'b S !. Black's initiative more
23 ...a4! ? 24 :xf6 exf6 25 'ii'xh7+ than compensates for the sacrificed
�ffl 26 0-0 f5= or 23 ...:xb3 24 pawn.
llxf6 exf6 25 cxb3 'ii'c 5 26 llh2 15 ....i.e6
'ii'b4=) 24 :xf6 exf6 25 'ii'xh7+ Now Black threatens to play
�ffl 26 'ii'hS+ �e7 27 'ii'xbS 'ii'e3+ ...d6-d5.
and Black holds the balance.
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 1 75

19B

(1 e4 c5 2 �0 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltJxd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
t3 �c6 8 ,..d2 0-0 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10
.i.b3)

10......c7

16 0-0-0!
The most consistent. He should
not be distracted by the win of the
aS pawn- 16 �b6 l:b8 1 7 ...xa5
(or 1 7 �c4 d5 1 8 �xa5 d4 19 .i.g5
..ixb3 20 �xb3 'ii'b6 with excellent
counterplay, Beliavsky-Miles, Tees­
side 1973) 17 ....i.xb3 1 8 cxb3 d5 19
ltJxd5 �xd5 20 ...xd5 (20 exd5
...d7 2 1 0-0 l:xb3 22 .i.c5 l:c8 23 With this move Black opens the
..ia3 e4 + leads to an advantage for way for the king's rook, ruling out
Black, Henao-Miles, Manila . 1 974) the exchange of the Dragon bishop
20. ...xd5 2 1 exd5 l:xb3 with an
. . (after .i.e3-h6), while the queen
equal game, Liberzon-Adorjan, fulfils the same function as the rook
Moscow-Budapest 1 97 1 . on c8 in the struggle for the c4
After 1 6 .i.b6 ...e8 1 7 0-0 Black square, though on occasion its
holds the balance by 1 7 ....i.xb3 1 8 greater mobility might be exploited.
cxb3 ...e6 1 9 l:fd 1 'ifxb3. 1 1 h4
16... .i.xb3 1 7 cxb3 ,..c8+ 1 8 �b1 The most consistent plan, but also
...e6 19 ...d3 l:ab8 20 �b6 l:fd8 interesting is the more veiled
21 ,..c4 l:b7 manoeuvre--1 1 �de2 l:fc8 1 2 .i.h6
The break 2 1 .. .d5 is no good .i.h8 1 3 h4 �e5 14 h5 �c4 1 5 hxg6
here-22 �xd5 ! �xd5 23 l:xd5 hxg6 ( 1 5 ...fxg6? 1 6 �d5! ±) 1 6
l:txd5 24 exd5 •f5+ 25 �a2 l:b4 ..i.xc4 'ii'xc4 17 0-0-0 and, in view
26 ,..c 6! and White's passed pawns of his attack, the chances are on
decide the outcome of the struggle. White's side, Chaplikov-Berezhnoi,
22 l:d3 .i.f8 23 g4 corr. 1978/79. It is possibly better to
Now g4-g5 and �b6-d5 ! are play at once 1 1 ...�e5.
threatened. Black is practically l l .. �e5
.

forced to sacrifice a pawn. Sometimes Black exchanges the

23 ...d5 24 exd5 'ifd6 25 g5 �d7 bishop by 1 1 ...�a5, preparing
and Black obtains counterp1ay, counterplay in the centre by
Kostro-Forintos, Bath 1973. Worth ...d6-d5, but this manoeuvre
considering is 25 ...c6, forcing the requires time and White manages to
transfer to an ending in which White create threats to the king: 1 2 .i.h6
retains the initiative. �xb3 :
1 76 Th e Rauzer Attack with 9 i..c4

1) 1 3 axb3 i..xh6 14 ...xh6 d5 1 5 Line 20

exd5 ...g3+? 1 6 �d2 ! llad8 1 7 ...g5
...d6 I 8 .J:r.ad l and White gains the (1 e4 cS 2 ll:)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
advantage, Tseshkovsky-Rajkovic, tLlxd4 tLlf6 S lZ)cJ g6 6 i..e3 i..g7 7
Vmjacka Banja I 982. Necessary t3 0-0 8 ,..d2 ll:)c6 9 i..c4)
was 1 5 ......e5+ 1 6 ll:)de2 ll:)xd5 ;!;.
2) 1 3 ll:)xb3 i..xh6 I 4 ...xh6 d5 1 5 9 ... tLlxd4 10 i..xd4
0-0-0 dxe4 I 6 h5 .J:r.ac8?! I 7 .J:r.d2!
i..c6 1 8 ll:)d4 ...g3 1 9 hxg6 •xg6
20 ...f4 with the better game for
White, Matulovic-Ristic, Smederev­
ska Palanka I982. More accurate
was 1 6 ....J:r.fc8.
12 i..h6
Also _played is I 2 h5 ll:)c4 1 3
i..xc4 WVxc4. Now after 14 hxg6
fxg6! I 5 i..h6 i..xh6 I6 .J:r.xh6 .J:r.fc8
1 7 0-0-0 i..eS 1 8 .J:r.dh I i..fl 19 g4
.J:r.c5 20 ll:)de2 .J:r.ac8 Black has good
counterplay, Damjanovic-Rajkovic,
Yugoslavia I 974. More logical Most frequently the object of ex­
looks 14 0-0-0 .J:r.fc8, after which changes is to ease the defence but if
arises a position examined in Line carried out too early in the Dragon
I 4 ( 1 0 0-0-0 ...c7 I I i..b3 .J:r.fc8 1 2 these can also reduce Black's
h4 lDe5 1 3 h5 ll:)c4 I4 .txc4 ...xc4). counterattacking resources. The
In the game Talla-Veselovsky, obvious drawback of the variation is
Czech Republic 1 999, Black sacri­ that the bishop on d4 occupies a
ficed a pawn: I4 ... b5, but after 1 5 dominating position and can partici­
hxg6 fxg6 I 6 b3 ! � (otherwise pate in both offence and defence.
Black loses the b-pawn without 10...i..e6
compensation) I 7 ll:)cxb5 ...xd2+ 1 8 Experiments of the type, I O . . e5
.

.J:r.xd2 e5 19 lLie6! the game passes 1 1 i..e3 ...e7 1 2 0-0-0 .J:r.d8 13 h4

to an ending which is favourable for i..e6 14 i..b3 i..xb3 1 5 axb3 a6 1 6
White. i..g 5, hopelessly weaken the d5
12 ll:)c4 13 i..xc4 ...xc4 14 i..xg7
.•. square which guarantees White a
�xg7 15 hS �h8 lasting advantage, Tolnai-Henssler,
Or I 5 ...�g8 I6 0-0-0 .J:r.ac8 I 7 Budapest 1993.
�b 1 .J:r.c5 1 8 g4 b5 1 9 ll:)ce2 and 1 1 i..b3
White's chances are preferable, The exchange of bishops, 1 1
Bouaziz-Corfi, Tunis I 979. i..xe6 fxe6 reduces White's attack­
16 0-0-0 .J:r.g8 17 hxg6 fxg6 18 ing potential and gives Black an
,..e3 •cs 19 .J:r.hel with some initi­ easy game.
ative for White, Stanciu-Partos, 1) 1 2 0-0-0 •as 1 3 �b 1 .J:r.ac8
Romania (ch) I 975. (also possible is I 3 ...b5 I4 h4 b4
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 1 77

with counterplay) 14 h4 llc4 1 5 14 g_4 e5 1 5 .i.e3 d5 16 exd5 tlJxd5 !

.i.xf6 (or 1 5 1Wg5 'W'xg5 1 6 hxg5 17 lLlxd5 'W'xa2 with an attack for
lLld7 17 .i.xg7 �xg7 I S llh4 llf7 1 9 the sacrificed piece.
tiJb5 llc5 20 tlJd4 lLlfB= Calzetta­ More logical is 14 �b I
U.Andersson, Villarrobledo 199S) (necessary prophylaxis) 1 4 ...lld7
15 ... .i.xf6 16 tiJd5 'W'xd2 1 7 tlJxf6+ (14 ...d5? 1 5 .i.xf6) 1 5 g4 (or 1 5 a3
�fl 1 S llxd2 �f6 with an equal e5 16 .i.e3 'W'a6 17 .i.g5 tlJe8 1 8 h4
ending, Moor-Werner, Lenk 1 994. f6 19 .i.e3 tlJc7 20 g4 d5 2 1 exd5
2) 1 2 e5 dxe5 ! 1 3 .i.xe5 'W'xd2+ l:tadS 22 'W'c2 and White has an
14 �d2 llfdS+ 1 5 �e2 llacS! and obvious advantage, Enjuto-Balles­
the pressure of the rooks balances teros, Iberia 1 994) 1 5 ...lladS 16
out the defects of the doubled 'W'e2 (preventing 16 ...e5 17 .i.e3 d5
e-pawns. due to 18 g5 !, but likewise possible
l l ...'W'as 12 0-0-0 is 16 h4, allowing 1 6 ... e5 1 7 .i.e3
The most consistent plan, but also d5 and the endgame arising after the
seen is 1 2 0-0, where White strives general exchanges, 1 8 exd5 lLlxd5
for a positional game based on pos­ 19 lLlxd5 'W'xd2 20 llxd2 l:lxd5 2 1
session of more space and occupa­ l:lxd5 l:lxd5 22 l:lc l ! , is in White's
tion of the d5 square. For example, favour, Goglidze-Toprover, Tbilisi
12 ...llfcS 1 3 llac 1 .i.c4 1 4 llf2 1955) 1 6....i.hS 1 7 h4 e5 1 8 .i.e3 d5
.i.xb3 1 5 axb3 lidS 1 6 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 19 .i.g5 ! dxe4 20 l:lxd7 l:lxd7 2 1
17 ttJd5 'W'c5 1 S b4 'W'c6 1 9 lld1 fx.e4 and White obtains an obvious
�g7 20 lLlxf6 exf6 2 1 'W'd4 and positional advantage based on the
White increases his advantage, weakness of the d5 square and
Geller-Bertok, USSR-Jugoslavia Black's king's flank. It seems that it
1959. Stronger is 12 ...llfdS 13 is better for Black to revert to the
l:tfdl llacS 14 'W'e3 tiJd7, striving path of the variation 1 3 ...l:.fcS.
for simplification, as occurred in the
game Janosevic-Gufeld, USSR­ lOA
Yugoslavia 1 959. After 1 5 .i.d5
.i.xd4 1 6 'W'xd4 'W'c5 1 7 llac l b5 I S (1 e4 cS 2 tiJO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
a4 b4 19 lLlb5 a5 20 lLla7 'W'xd4+ 2 1 tlJxd4 lLlf6 5 tiJc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
llxd4 llc5 22 tlJc6 lieS the game 13 0-0 8 'W'd2 tlJc6 9 .i.c4 tlJxd4 10
entered an endgame which was .i.xd4 .i.e6 ll .i.b3 'W'aS 12 0-0-0)
pleasant for Black.
Now arises a position which is 12 ...llfc8
frequently met in practice from tl_le
move order 9 0-0-0 tlJxd4 I 0 .i.xd4
'W'a5 I I .i.c4 .i.e6 1 2 .i.b3. Here the
most promising continuations are:

20A: 12...llfc8
20B: l2...b5

It is useful to tum our attention to

the manoeuvre 1 2 ....i.xb3 1 3 cxb3
l:[fdS with the aim of breaking
through in the centre. For example:
1 78 The Rauzer Attack with 9 J..c4

After doubling rooks on the c-file, Black intends a doubling of rooks

Black counts on deriving benefit and energetic play is required of
from the maximal activity of the White if he is not to lose the
deployed pieces. initiative.
13 �b1 14 h4! J..xb3
White moves the king out of the Otherwise after 14 ...b5?! 1 5
'X-Ray' of the rook and, if the J..xf6! J..xf6 1 6 ltld5 White plants
opportunity arises, will theaten the the knight on d5 with negative
manoeuvre ltlc3-d5 forcing a consequences for Black-16 ...'ii'xd2
transposition to a favourable 17 l:ld2 (of course not 1 7 l'Llxf6+?
endgame. There are two main ways �g7 ! 1 8 l'Llh5+ �h6=) 1 7 . . .�xg7
for Black to organise counterplay on 18 g4 h6 19 g5! hxg5 20 hxg5
the queen 's flank: J..xg5 2 1 l:dh2 and the threat of
mate can only be averted at the cost
20Aa: 13 l:lc6
•.• of material loss.
20Ab: 13 b5•.. 15 cxb3!
The recapture with precisely this
Too slow is l3 ...J..c4 14 h4! (after pawn guarantees the safety of the
14 l:lhe 1 l:lc6 1 5 l'Lld5 'ii'xd2 16 king. True, White's queenside pawn
l:lxd2 J..xd5 17 exd5 l:lc7 1 8 l:de2 majority is devalued, but in the
J..f8 19 J..xf6 exf6 20 c3 f5! Black present situation there are other
holds the ending, Gufeld-Averbakh, more weighty factors, above all the
USSR (ch) 196 1 ) 1 4...b5 1 5 h5 e5 far greater activity of the white
16 J..e3 b4 1 7 l'Lle2 ! J..xb3 1 8 cxb3 p1eces.
l:lc6 1 9 hxg6 fxg6 20 J..g5 ! and 15 l:lac8
•..

Black is deprived of counterplay, Also here the advance 1 5 ...b5 pro­

A.Nikitin-Ignatiev, Moscow 1 963. ves to be a blank shot after 16
J..xf6! J..xf6 1 7 ltld5 'ii'xd2 1 8
20Aa :Xd2 �g7 1 9 h5 ! when both 1 9...g5
20 h6+! �g6 2 1 g3 e6 22 f4, and
(l e4 c5 2 ltlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
19 ...J..g5 20 f4 J..h6 2 1 hxg6 hxg6
ltlxd4 l'Llf6 5 l'Llc3 g6 6 J..e3 J..g7 7
22 g3 secure White the advantage.
tJ 0-0 8 'ii'd2 l'Llc6 9 J..c4 ltlxd4 1 0
But 1 5 ... h5 is logical and, though
J..xd4 J..e6 l l J..b3 'ii'a5 12 0-0-0
the endgame arising after 16 J..xf6
l:lfc8 13 �b1 )
J..xf6 1 7 ltld5 'ii'xd2 1 8 ltlxf6+ exf6
13 l:lc6
•.• 19 l:lxd2 �fB looks attractive for
White, the fact that two black pawns
hold three white ones on the
queenside makes the weak d6 pawn
look like a bonus.
16 g4 h5 17 g5 ltle8
Weaker is 1 7 ...l'Lld7 1 8 J..xg7
�xg7 19 'ii'd4+ �g8 20 ltld5 with a
space advantage for White.
18 J..xg7 ltlxg7 19 f4 and White's
chances are preferable, Winants­
Sosonko, Holland 1992.
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 ..tc4 1 79

20Ab or (b) 1 8 ... ..tf8 19 ..txf6 exf6 20

l:te4 l:tb7 21 g4 ± Bagirov-Gufeld,
(1 e4 c5 2 ltlt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Moscow 1 964.
ltlxd4 ltlf6 5 ltlc3 g6 6 .t.eJ .t.g7 7 15 cxb3 b4 16 .t.xf6
f3 0-0 8 'iVd2 ltlc6 9 .t.c4 ltlxd4 10 Now on 16 ltld5 ltlxd5 17 ..txg7
..txd4 ..te6 11 ..ib3 'iVa5 12 0-0-0 there is the intermediate move
l:tfc8 13 �b1) 17 ...ltle3 ! .
16...bxc3
13 b5
.•. Weaker is 16 .....txf6 because of
17 ltld5 ! .
17 ..txcJ

First and foremost, Black links

this move to the advance ...b5-b4,
since here there is not the threat to 17.....txc3
transfer to an endgame after a move There was a curious conclusion to
of the knight. Now, after the naive the game, Matanovic-lvkov, Bled
14 h4, follows 14 .....txb3 1 5 cxb3 196 1 , where Black played
b4 1 6 ltle2 (nothing is offered either 17 ...l:txc3? and White agreed to a
by 16 ltld5 ltlxd5 1 7 ..txg7 ltlc3+! draw in anticipation of 18 bxc3
18 ..txc3 bxc3 or 16 ..txf6 bxc3 17 ..txc3 19 'iVe2. But after the effec­
..txc3 ..txc3) 1 6...l:tc6 1 7 a3 e5! 1 8 tive 1 8 l:te2! l:tc5 1 9 b4 Black loses
..te3 (or 1 8 axb4 'iVb5 19 ..tc3 a5 !) the exchange.
18 ...l:td8! followed by ...d6-d5. 18 bxc3 l:txc3 19 l:te3! l:tac8 20
14 l:the1 ! ..txb3 l:txc3 'iVxcJ 21 'iVxc3 l:txc3 22 l:tcl !
It is important to deprive White of and Black has to reconcile himself
the blockading resource, possible to an inferior rook ending, since the
after 1 4...b4 1 5 ltld5 ..txd5 1 6 exd5 pawn ending is hopeless, Tai­
l:tc7 1 7 a4! , when Black's counter­ Portisch, Oberhausen 196 1 .
play comes to a dead end. In con­
junction with his pressure on the 20B
e-file, White then begins a pawn
storm on the kingside. For example, (1 e4 c5 2 ltlt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
1 7 ...l:tac8 1 8 h4 (a) 1 8 ... ltle8 1 9 ltlxd4 ltlf6 5 ltlcJ g6 6 .t.e3 .t.g7 7
..txg7 ltlxg7 2 0 g4 'iVcS 2 1 h5 ltle8 f3 0-0 8 'iVd2 ltlc6 9 ..tc4 ltJxd4 10
22 hxg6 fxg6 23 f4 and White's .t.xd4 .t.e6 1 1 .t.b3 'iVa5 12 0-0-0)
threats are very dangerous,
Kuindzhi-Ignatiev, Moscow 1 964; 12...b5
180 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i..c4

threatened concentration of heavy

pieces along the e-file.
16 1Vd3
He does not manage to extract
anything of substance from the pres­
sure on the e-file--- 16 l::the I a5 17
1Ve2 1Vxe2 IS l:xe2 a4 1 9 i..c4
l:fcS 20 b3 (in the game Pavlovic­
Almeida Saenz, Andorra 1999, was
played 20 i..b5 l:a5 2 1 i..xf6 i..xf6
22 i..c6 a3 23 b3 l:c7=) 20 ... l:c7 (a
loss of time is 20 ...�f8 2 1 g4! t:he8
Black can link this move to 22 i..b5 axb3 23 cxb3 i..xd4 24
....z:r.f8-cS or ... i..e6xb3 (which is l:xd4 and Black is forced to resort
looked at above), as also to the to passive defence, Tal-Khasin,
immediate push ...b5-b4. USSR (ch) 1 961) 2 1 i..b5 axb3 22
13 �bl b4 cxb3 l:a5 23 i..c4 l:b7 with a de­
Including the exchange of bishops fensible position, Timrnan-Miles,
by 13 ...i..xb3 14 cxb3 b4? leads to a London 19SO.
clear advantage for White after 1 5 16...1Vb7
i..xf6! i..xf6 16 t:hd5. Now, how­ Upon the queen exchange
ever, on 14 i..xf6 i..xf6 1 5 t:hd5 l 6...1Vxd3 1 7 l:xd3 White blocks
Black has the reply 1 5 ...i..xd5. the a-pawn with the bishop, depriv­
14 t:hd5 i..xd5 ing Black of any counterplay:
It is obvious that weaker is 17 ...l:fc8 ( 1 7 ... a5 I S i..a4! t) I S
14 ...t:hxd5 1 5 exd5 i..d7 1 6 i..xg7 l:e l l:c7 19 g4 (19 i..£2 �f8=
�xg7 1 7 l:[de1 .:res 1 S l:[e4! .:abS A.Kovacevic-Marcetic, Cetinje
19 a3 when Black loses a pawn 1993) 19 ... l:b8 20 i..a4 t:hxd5 2 1
without any compensation. i..xg7 t:hb6 22 i..f6 exf6 23 i..b3
15 exd5 with advantage to White, Feher­
On 1 5 i..xd5 t:hxd5 16 i..xg7 fol­ Lengyel, Hungary 1 992.
lows 1 6...t:hc3+! 17 bxc3 (or 1 7 Now, however, the d5 pawn is
i..xc3 bxc3 1 S 1Vxc3 1Vxc3 19 bxc3 under attack, and White must pay
l:[fcS!=) 17 bxc3 .z:r.abS I S c4 (after attention to this.
1 S cxb4 1Vxb4+ 19 1Vxb4 l::txb4+ 20 17 l:hel aS 18 i..a4 l:ab8 19 g4!
i..b2 l:tbS and Black has a good In the game, Browne-Castner,
endgame) 1 S ... �xg7 1 9 h4 :res USA 1 970, White played 1 9 i..c6
(or l 9 ... l:b6? 20 h5 l:a6 2 1 1Vd4+ and after 19 ...1Vc7 20 1Va6 l:fcS!
e5 22 1Vh2 1Vc5 23 l:d5 1Vxc4 24 Black obtained excellent
l:xd6 with material advantage for counterplay.
White, E.Femandez-Lerch, Catalu­ 19 ...l:fc8 20 i..f2 and, having pre­
nya 1992) 20 1Vd4+ �gS 2 1 h5 1Vc5 vented the transfer of the knight to
and Black wins back the pawn with the queenside (due to the vulnerable
an equal game. e7 pawn), White prepared an attack
15 'ifb5
••• on the king.
The raid ... a7-a5-a4 is the best
counterchance against White's
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 181

Line 21

(I e4 c5 2 �t3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 .teJ .tg7 7
f3 0-0 8 'iVd2 �c6 9 .i.c4)

9 ... �d7

White develops according to the

classical scheme, but this makes it
easy for Black to plan his game.

IO �a5 1 1 .i.b3 �b6 12 'iVd3

...

1 2 'ife2 is also seen.

In the game Shiyanovsky-Stein,
USSR (ch) 1962, Black carried out
The author of this idea is Y.Aver­ the main plan with the occupation of
bakh. The knight lands on b6 with the c4 square- 12 ... .td7 13 h4 l:.c8
tempo. From here it will support 14 h5 �bc4 1 5 hxg6 fxg6 16 .tg5
Black's attack on the queen's flank l:.f7 1 7 f4 'ifb6 1 8 �5 'ifa6 and
by means of ... �c6-a5 or �c6-e5 obtained a good game.
followed by an incursion on c4. Not in the spirit of the position is
The drawback of the plan is the 12 ...�b3+?! 1 3 axb3, since Black
delay in developing the black is deprived of the main trump of the
queenside; moreover the departure manoeuvre ...�f6-d7-b6---the c4
of the knight weakens Black's king­ square, while the flank attack
side, which is of no small import­ 13 ...a5 leads to a weakening of the
once in view of White's principal b5 square. The game Sznapik­
threat ofh2-h4-h5. Kir.Georgiev, Haifa 1989,
continued 1 4 �b5 .i.d7?! (he
White's main continuations are: should advance 14 ... a4) 1 5 �a4!
�a4 1 6 bxa4 .i.xbS 1 7 'iVxbS 'iVc7
21A: 10 0-0-0 1 8 l:.dS! and in view of the weak­
21B: 10 h4 ness of the bS and dS squares White
obtains a lasting advantage.
12 .td7
••.

21A Black completes his development

and takes under control the c4
(1 e4 c5 2 �t3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 square. Black's other plan might be
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 linked to the move ...d6-d5, but the
f3 0-0 8 'iVd2 �c6 9 .tc4 �d7) presence of the rook on d 1 allows
White to control the situation-
10 0-0-0 12 ...�xb3+ 1 3 cxb3 (also seen is 1 3
182 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4

axb3 when, on 1 3 ...a5, in the game l:txh7 l0xb3 21 cxb3 1i'd2 and
Barna-Spangenberg, Erevan ( ol) Black remains with an extra piece
1 996, followed 14 lDdb5! .i.d7? 1 5 for two pawns, Susnik-Kerma,
l0xd6! exd6 1 6 1i'xd6 and White Ljubljana 1992. But worth consider­
won two pawns; 1 3 ....i.d7 was more ing is 1 6 .i.g5 along the motives
solid) 1 3 ...d5 14 exd5 l0xd5 1 5 looked at below.
l0c2 e6 1 6 l0xd5 exd5 1 7 1i'xd5 16 .i.g5
1i'f6 1 8 .i.d4 and, by blockading the Also possible is 1 6 .i.h6 e5
isolated d5 pawn, White still had the (weaker is 16 ....i.xh6+? 17 l:txh6 e5
preferable position, Matanovic­ because of 1 8 l:tdh1 1i'g5+ 1 9 �b1
Padevsky, Moscow 1963. exd4 20 l0d5 with a strong attack)
13 h4 :cs 14 h5 17 .i.xg7 �xg7 1 S ltXle2 (here al­
On the slow 14 �b 1 Black ob­ ready, with the second knight on b6,
tains a fully equal game by weaker is 1 8 lDdb5?! .i.xb5 19
changing the route of his cavalry- l0xb5 1i'g5+ 20 �b1 a6, since upon
14 ...l0ac4 ! {freeing the way for the the retreat 2 1 l0c3 there is 2 1 .. .b5,
a-pawn) 1 5 .te l a5 1 6 .txc4 l:txc4 while on 2 1 .ixc4 l0xc4 22
1 7 l0de2 1i'c7 1 8 h5 l:tc8 with l0xd6?! , as was played in the game
chances for both sides, Pavlov-Sax, Howell-Mohr, Belgorod 1 990,
Baile Herculane 1982. Black could win a piece by
14...l0bc4 22 ...l:tfdS 23 1i'e2 l:txd6 24 l:txd6
After 14 ...l0ac4 1 5 hxg6 hxg6 16 l0xd6 25 l:td1 lObS, for which there
.i.h6 e5 (upon the preliminary ex­ is no apparent compensation)
change of bishops, 16 ... .i.xh6+ 17 1 8 ...1i'g5+ 1 9 �b 1 b5 20 g3 and
l:txh6 e5, after 1 8 f4! dangerous is White's chances are preferable,
1 8 ... exd4 19 1i'xd4 f6 20 l:tdh1, Fleck-Kozul, Cesme 1 983.
while on IS ...'ii'f6 follows 1 9 l0f5 ! 16 . l0xb3+ 17 cxb3
. .

.i.xf5 20 exf5 1i'xf5 2 1 l:tdh 1 with On 1 7 axb3?! follows 1 7 ...1i'a5 1 S

an attack along the h-file, bxc4 1i'xg5+ 1 9 �b1 1i'c5 20 l0d5
Matanovic-Szabo, Belgrade 1964) l:tfe8 with advantage to Black.
1 7 .i.xg7 �xg7 1 S l0db5 (also 1 8 17. .1i'a5!
.

ltJde2 is not bad) 1 8 ....i.xb5 19 After 17 ... l0e5 1 8 1i'e3 and 19

l0xb5 a6 20 l0c3 White's position is �b1 White's chances are preferable.
preferable. 18 .i.xe7 tOeS 19 1i'c2!
15 hxg6 hxg6 By covering the king, White in­
Possibly stronger is 1 5 ... fxg6, directly defends the a2 pawn. In the
though the resulting position
· game Matjanovic-Sax, Sarajevo
requires thorough investigation. The 19S2, was played 1 9 1i'd2 l:tfeS 20
limited experience so far has fa­ .i.xd6 1i'xa2 21 l0c2? 1i'xb3 and
voured Black. After 16 �b 1 Black White landed in a difficult position.
obtains free of charge the advantage But also after the better 2 1 �c2
of the two bishops: 1 6...l0xb3 1 7 1i'a6 Black has the initiative.
axb3 l0xe3 1 S 1t'xe3 l:t£7 1 9 g4 19...l:txc3!
1i'a5 20 l:th3 1i'c5 ! and control over The only way to continue the
the dark squares, Shiyanovsky-Kots, struggle. After 1 9 ...l:tfeS 20 .txd6
Kiev 1 965. 1 6 .i.h6? is not good b5 2 1 b4 White consolidates his
because of 1 6....i.xh6 1 7 l:txh6 e5! advantage, Kruppa-Savchenko,
1 8 l:tdh 1 1i'g5+ 19 �b1 exd4 20 USSR 1984.
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 I 83

20 bxc3 l:tc8 21 �bl _,6 22 'ii'xh 1 20 'ii'xh 1 lbxb3 2 1 lbxb3 l:tc8

.i.gS with the preferable chances for with acceptable play for Black)
White, Wedberg-Sosonko, Haninge 1 5 ...lbec4 16 .i.h6! e5 (insufficient
1 988. However the sharp nature of is 16 ....i.xh6? 17 l:txh6 e5 looked at
the positon does not promise him a above) 1 7 .i.xg7 �xg7 1 8 lbdb5
quiet life after 22 ...a5 !?. .i.xb5 1 9 lbxb5 a6 20 lbc3 and
White has an obvious advantage.
liB In the game Mikhalchishin­
Barczay, Cienfuegos 198 1 , Black
(1 e4 cS 2 lbt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tried to slow down the h-pawn by
lLlxd4 lDf6 S lDcJ g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 12 ... h5, but after 13 0-0-0 .i.d7 14
1'3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 lbc6 9 .i.c4 lbd7) g4 an exchange sacrifice didn't help
him: 14 ...l:tc8 1 5 g_xh5 l:txc3 16
10 h4 bxc3 'ifc7 1 7 �b1 �ac4 1 8 .i.c 1 !
and the threats were repulsed.
1 1 .i.b3 lDaS

The most energetic plan, limiting

Black's possibilities. The immediate
raid h2-h4-h5 pursues the aim of ex­ 12 'ii'd3!
changing on g6 unless Black obtains Because of White's lateness with
the possibility of replying ... f7xg6. castling, besides the plan to seize
10 lbb6
..• the c4 square, Black could go for
After 1 0...lbde5 1 1 .i.b3 lba5 12 the advance ... d6-d5. Therefore
'ii'e2 .i.d7 13 h5 Black does not White gets ready for this in good
succeed in covering the a2-g8 diag­ time, since after 1 2 'ii'e2 lbxb3 1 3
onal with the knight, in order to se­ axb3 d5 looks more effective. But in
cure the capture on g6 with the return the value of 1 2 'ii'e2 is shown
f-pawn, while if he achieves this by in the continuation 12 ....i.d7 1 3 h5
13 ...lbxb3 14 axb3 l:tac8 1 5 hxg6 l:tc8 14 hxg6 hxg6 when White can
fxg6, then he loses the important c4 already play 1 5 _g4, since on
square and all his opening strategy 1 5 ...l:txc3 16 bxc3 'flc7 he has 1 7
is bankrupt, whereas White will at­ 'ii'h2 ! . Egger-F.Hernandez, Moscow
tack on the king's flank. There re­ (ol) 1994, continued 1 7 ...'ii'xc3+ 1 8
mains 13 ...l:tc8 1 4 hxg6 hxg6 1 5 �e2 l:tc8 1 9 'ii'h7+ �f8 20 .i.h6
0-0-0 (not 1 5 g4?! because of .i.b5+ 2 1 lbxb5 1 -0.
15 ...l:txc3 ! 16 bxc3 'ii'c7 1 7 'ii'h2 Upon the advance 12 h5 it is
'ihc3+ 1 8 .i.d2 'ii'xa 1 + 19 �e2 necessary to reckon on the exchange
184 The Rauzer Attack with 9 il..c4

of both bishops by 12 ... �bc4 1 3 Gufeld, Marianske Lazne 1962,

'ii'f2 �xb3 1 4 axb3 �xe3 1 5 'ii'xe3, Black played 1 5 ...1i'c8 16 exd5 lld8
though the position after 1 5 ...il..d7 and after 1 7 il..xb6?! axb6 1 8 'ii'c4
1 6 0-0-0 does not lack venom. 'ii'h8 19 �b 1 il..d7 20 �d4 'ii'a7 2 1
I) 1 6... a5 1 7 hxg6 hxg6 1 8 llh2 ! �a4 'ii'a5 22 'ii'c3 'ii'a6 obtained the
lle8?! (he should play 1 8 ... e6 19 advantage due to the threat of
llhd 1 'ii'f6) 19 g4 e6 20 lldh l 'iVb6 ...b7-b5, but White can gain the ad­
2 1 �ce2 a4 22 llh7! axb3 23 vantage by 1 7 d6!) 16 "it'xe4 White
llxg7+! �xg7 24 �xe6+ il..xe6 25 has the more active position and
'ii'xb6 and the queen proves stronger threatens an attack on the king, e.g.
than the rooks, Beliavsky-Kuprei­ 16 ...�7 17 h5 'ii'a5 1 8 hxg6 hxg6·
chik, USSR (ch) 1978. 19 �b l �f6 20 'iVh4 llad8 2 1 il..d4
2) 16 ...e6 17 f4 'iVb6 1 8 f5! gxf5 llfe8 22 b4! with material gain for
(18 ... e5? 19 �d5 ! exd4 20 �e7+) White, Bagirov-Veresov, USSR
1 9 exf5 �h8 20 llhfl il..xd4? 1963.
(necessary was 20 .... 1lg8) 2 1 llxd4 15 il..xb6 'ii'xb6 16 �xd5 'ii'd8 17
e5 22 'iVh6! 'ii'xd4 23 "it'f6+ �g8 24 l!Jbc3 b5
�d5! and Black won, Tai-Forbis,
Chicago 1988.
12...�xb3
Another frequently employed
continuation is 12 ...il..d7 13 h5 llc8
14 hxg6 hxg6 1 5 0-0-0 �bc4 lead­
ing to a position looked at in the
variation with 1 0 0-0-0.
13 axb3 d5 14 �db5
Or 14 �de2 il..e6 1 5 0-0-0 dxe4
1 6 'ii'xe4 'ii'c7 (on 16 ... 1i'c8 simplest
is 1 7 �d4, since after 1 7 h5 il..f5 1 8
'iVh4 gxh5 19 'ii'xh5 il..g6 2 0 'ii'g5
e5 2 1 �g3 f6 22 'iVh4 lld8 Black is Black has sacrificed a pawn, but
for choice, Tukmakov-Zhuravlev, obtained the advantage of the two
Odessa 1974) 17 h5 ( 1 7 �4 il..d7 bishops and an active position. The
1 8 h5 'ii'e5 19 hxg6 hxg6 20 'ii'xe5 game Santo-Roman-Sosonko,
il..xe5 21 �de2 llfd8 22 il..f4 il..xf4+ Cannes 1 992, continued 1 8 0-0-0 e6
23 �xf4 il..c6 with equal chances in 19 �b4 'ii'a 5 20 �ca2 il..b7 2 1 'ii'd7
the endgame, Ljubojevic-Kir. llab8 22 �bl llfd8 23 'ii'e7 'iVb6!
Georgiev, Manila (izt) 1 990) with a double-edged game.
17 ..."it'e5 1 8 'ii'xe5 il..xe5 19 �f4
il..xf4 20 il..xf4 llac8 2 1 llde 1 ! with
the better endgame for White, Line 22
Nijboer-Kir.Georgiev, Groningen
1993. (1 e4 c5 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
14...a6 l!Jxd4 l!Jf6 5 �c3 g6 6 il..e3 il..g7 7
It is useful to determine the posi­ f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 �c6 9 il..c4)
tion of the knight. After 14 ... il..e6 1 5
0-0-0 dxe4 (in the game Schmidt- 9 �a5
•••
 The Rauzer A ttack with 9 i.c4 185

e5 1 5 .!t:lde2 i.e6 1 6 g4 ..c7 I7

.!t:lg3 b5 I8 b4! with an obvious
positional advantage for White,
Spassky-Geller, (m/8) USSR l96S.
Indifferent is IO ...b6 I I i.h6 i.a6
I2 0-0-0 .!t:lxb3+ 1 3 .!t:lxb3 i.c4 14
h4 i.xb3 IS axb3 .fl.e8 16 i.xg7
.!t:lxg7 I7 h5 with a kingside attack,
Kupper-Pomar, Enschede I963.
11 h4!
After I I 0-0-0 b5 Black achieves
his objective. For example, 12 g4
This move has independent sig­ .!t:lxb3+ 1 3 axb3 i.b7 14 h4 •as I S
nificance only if Black on the fol­ h5 •a i + I 6 .!t:lb i .fl.fc8 I7 hxg6
lowing move does not play fxg6 1 8 i.h6 i.h8 19 �2 .!t:lxe4 !
....!t:lf6-d7, starting play on the c4 and Black goes ahead with his
square. But the final result of counterattack, Gragger-Honfi, Reg­
Black's manoeuvre is the exchange gio Emilia 1963.
of the bishop on b3. l l bS
...

10 i.b3 If a preliminary I I ...ll:)xb3 I2

Also possible is I 0 i.e2 a6 1 1 axb3 then 12 ...bS? is already im­
0-0-0 b5 1 2 i.h6 i.b7 1 3 i.xg7 possible because of 1 3 ll:)dxbS and
�xg7 14 h4 with a double-edged he has to limit himself to passive
game. For example, in the game waiting or preparation for ...b7-b5.
Movsesian-A.Fedorov, Las Vegas I) 1 2 ...d5 1 3 eS ll:)d7 (or 1 3 ...ll:)hS
(rapid) 1 999, Black went in for a I4 g4 ll:)g3 I S .fl.g I i.xe5 I6 0-0-0
pawn sacrifice: 14 ...e5 ! ? 1 5 .!t:lb3 ± Sherwin-Goichberg, USA I960)
lllc4 I6 i.xc4 bxc4 1 7 .!t:la I d5 I 8 I4 f4 e6 I S hS •e7 1 6 hxg6 fxg6
exd5 'ifb6 I9 ..e2 ..c7 20 .fl.hel 17 .!t:JO .fl.b8 I 8 0-0-0 h6 I9 ..d3
.fl.fe8 2 I d6 •c6 22 h5 .fl.ad8 and •f7 20 g4 ! and Black has no
obtained a good game. counterplay, Kutyanin-Goldberg,
10 a6
••• Moscow I962.
Intending counterplay by ...b7-b5. 2) I2 ...i.d7 1 3 0-0-0 b5 14 i.h6
Not hurrying with an exchange on b4 I S ll:)dS .!t:lxd5 1 6 exd5 'ifa5 I 7
b3, Black proceeds with an ex­ �b i and White has the advantage,
panded fianchetto, to support Royo Onde-Sarto Ramos, Zaragoza,
counterplay in the centre. An im­ I992.
mediate I O....!t:lxb3 is justified only However if Black blocks the h­
in the case I I cxb3? dS ! 1 2 e5 .!t:le8 pawn by l l ...h5, then, by exploiting
13 f4 f6 and Black carries out a fa­ the out of play knight on aS, White
vourable break and I I ll:)xb3 i.e6 starts a pawn storm: 1 2 0-0-0 i.d7
12 0-0-0 aS 13 ll:)d4 i.c4 1 4 i.h6 13 g4! hxg4 14 h5! .!t:lxh5 (losing at
i.xh6 I S •xh6 eS with equal once is 14 ...gxf3 I S h6 i.h8 16
chances, Gipslis-Gurgenidze, USSR h7+!) I S i.h6 lL!xb3+ I 6 lL!xb3 f6
(ch) 1 96 1). But after I I axb3 ! 17 fxg4 i.xg4 1 8 .fl.dgl •d7 19
Black's possibilities are reduced: .fl.h4! with decisive threats, Espig­
l l ...a6 I 2 h4 i.d7 ( I 2 ...d5 1 3 eS ! Merino, Kapfenberg I 970.
.!t:lfd7 I4 f4 ±) I 3 hS ! .fl.c8 I4 i.h6 12 hS .!t:lxb3
186 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i..c4

Now this capture is already The American master Donald

forced, since Black must secure Byrne put a great deal of effort into
himself the possibility of meeting making this idea work. The ener­
h5xg6 with f7xg6, otherwise the at­ getic pawn advance pursues the aim
tack on the h-file will become of driving back the white bishop
irresistible. from the a2-g8 diagonal and then
13 axb3 i..d 7 playing ...d6-d5
By rejecting castling in favour of White's main continuations are:
1 1 h4 ! , White has prevented
1 3 ...i..b7 14 hxg6 fxg6 because of 23A: 10 0-0-0
1 5 �e6!. 23B: 10 a4
14 i..h6 i..xh6 15 'ii'xh6 e6 23B: 10 i..b3
Otherwise 1 6 ttxl5 ! .
16 0-0-0 b4 After 1 0 0-0 a4 1 1 a3 i..d7 (or
White's attack develops beauti- 1 l ...�xd4 1 2 i..xd4 i..e6 1 3 i..xe6
fully after 1 6... 'ii'e7 1 7 g4 b4 1 8 g5! fxe6 14 b3 'ii'a5 1 5 l:lfd 1 axb3 1 6
bxc3 (or 18 ... �xh5 19 l:lxh5 ! gxh5 cxb3 l:lac8 1 7 b4!;!; Matanovic­
20 �fS ! exfS 2 1 �d5 and 22 �f6 D.Byme, Vinkovci 1 968) 1 2 l:lfd 1
mating) 1 9 gxf6 cxb2+ 20 �xb2 'ii'a5 1 3 �d5 �xd5 14 i..xd5 l:lfc8
'ii'xf6 2 1 hxg6 'ii'g7 22 'ii'xh7+ and Black has good counterplay on
'ii'xh7 23 gxh7+ �h8 24 �e2 and the queen's flank, Shapiro-D.Byrne,
White wins a second pawn. Varna (ol) 1962.
17 �a2 'ii'a5 18 �b1 and White
has an obvious advantage. no good 23A
now is 1 8 ...�xh5 in view of 1 9 g4
�f6 20 f4 with the threat of f4-f5 ! . (1 e4 cS 2 �13 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
�xd4 �f6 S �cJ g6 6 i..e3 i..g7 7
13 0-0 8 'ii'd2 �c6 9 i..c4 aS)
Line 23
10 0-0-0
(1 e4 c5 2 �13 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 i..e3 i..g7 7
13 0-0 8 'ii'd2 �c6 9 i..c4)

9 aS
...

White castles, counting on

coming first with his attack on the
kingside, based on the opening of
the h-file.
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 187

On the attempt to do without After 12 �b 1 .i.d7 13 .i.a2 l:fc8

castling-I 0 h4-he has to reckon 14 g4 lt!xd4 1 S .i.xd4 .i.e6 the
with the sacrifice of the a-pawn by chances of the two sides are equal,
IO... lt!eS I I .i.b3 a4! (after I I .i.e2 Gligoric-Parma, Yugoslavia (ch)
dS! I 2 exdS lt!xdS 1 3 lt!xdS ._xdS 196S.
or I2 .i.f4 lt!hS and Black's chances 12 .i.d7 13 h5 b5 14 .i.d5
•••

are preferable) I2 .i.xa4 (not poss­ If he accepts the pawn sacrifice by

ible is I 2 lt!xa4? because of I4 h6 .i.h8 1 S lDcxbS ._xd2+ I6
12 ...l:xa4 I 3 .i.xa4 lt!c4 I4 ._d3 l:xd2 lt!aS, Black obtains active
lt!xe3 I S ._xe3 ._aS+ and White piece play, Kotkov-Rozenberg,
suffers material losses) I2 ...ltlc4 I3 USSR 1972.
._c l ( 1 3 ._e2 dS) 1 3 . . .'it'b6! I4 lt!f5 14 lt!xd5 IS lt!xc6 .i.xc6 16
.•.

( 1 4 i.b3 lt!xe3 I S ._xe3 lt!xe4!) exdS

l 4 ......xb2 I S ltlxe7+ �h8 I 6 ._xb2
lt!xb2 I 7 .i.b3 lt!g8 with not a bad
endgame for Black.
IO a4
•••

Continuing the marching theme,

since on I O ...lt!eS possible is I I
.i.e2 when I l ...dS I 2 ltldbS loses a
pawn.
After IO ... ltld7, with the idea of
attacking the c4 square with tempo,
I I a3 lDceS I2 .i.a2 lt!b6 1 3 g4?!
(more circumspect would be 1 3
._e2! ?) I3 ... .i.d7 1 4 ltlds lt!bc4 I S
._e2 bS and Black's attack turns out In this interesting position Black
to be the more dangerous, Djurovic­ has an insufficiently defended
Mestrovic, Vmja�ka Banja I 966. king's flank and after a move of the
Black must consider the possibility light-squared bishop White, with the
of the loss of the exchange: I I move 17 .i.d4, can extinguish the
.i.xf7+ l:xf7 I 2 lt!e6 ._e8 13 lt!c7 fire of the Dragon bishop on g7,
._fB I4 lt!xa8 with the more pleas­ after which the chances are only on
ant prospects for White. his side. In the game Istratescu-Ji­
1 1 a3 rovsky, Mamaia I99 1 , Black tried
Likewise possible is I I h4 •as to change the course of the struggle
( I l .. .a3 I 2 b3 +) I2 g4 .i.d7 with by 16 ...b4 1 7 ltla2 bxa3+ I S 'i'xaS
the threat of b7-bS. In the game axb2+ 19 �b1 l:xaS 20 dxc6 l:c8
Dueball-Marovic, Dortmund I973, 21 hxg6 hxg6 22 .i.d4, but did not
White played I3 lt!xc6 bxc6 (also obtain sufficient compensation for
not bad is 1 3 ....i.xc6 and then the piece.
...b7-bS) 1 4 a3 l:fb8 and after 1 S hS
dS?! 1 6 eS he landed in a difficult 23B
situation. Stronger was 1S ... .i.xg4
1 6 hxg6 hxg6 with chances for both (1 e4 cS 2 lt!f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
sides. lt!xd4 ltlf6 S lt!c3 g6 6 .i.e3 i.g7 7
l l ...a5 12 h4
... f3 0-0 8 ._d2 ltlc6 9 .i.c4 aS)
188 The Rauzer A ttack with 9 J.c4

10 a4 2) I2 J.xe6 fxe6 I3 0-0 ll:ld7 I4

J.xg7 �xg7 I 5 �hi 'ifb6 I6 ll:lb5
:ac8 I7 b3 e5 with counterplay,
Prandstetter-Banas, Czechoslovakia
(ch) I986.
12...:cs 13 o-o-o ll:ld7?!
Not in the spirit of the Dragon is
the voluntary exchange of the key
bishop. It would be more logical to
complete his development by
I3 ...'ifc7.
14 J.xg7 �xg7 lS f4 ll:lf6 16
:bel 'ifc7 1 7 'ifd4 with an obvious
space advantage for White, Karpov­
A radical way to nip in the bud D.Byme, San Antonio I972.
the flank attack and, if the opportun­
ity should arise, to exploit the weak 23C
b5 square.
10 ll:lxd4
..• (1 e4 cS 2 ll:lt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
The plan of transferring pieces to ll:lxd4 ll:lf6 S ll:lc3 g6 6 J.e3 J.g7 7
the queenside by 1 0...ll:lb4 I I J.b3 f3 0-0 8 'ifd2 ll:lc6 9 J.c4 aS)
J.d7 I 2 0-0 J.c6 1 3 :ad I ll:ld7 I4
J.h6 ll:lc5 15 J.xg7 �xg7 I6 :fe I 10 J.b3
ll:lxb3 I 7 cxb3 ! leads Black into a
blind alley, since White controls the
position, Gufeld-Lein, Tbilisi I969.
1 1 J.xd4 J.e6 12 J.bS
Looks the most promising. The
attempt to exploit the d5 square
restricts the light-squared bishop­
I2 ll:ld5 J.xd5 1 3 exd5 'ifc8 I4 J.b3
ll:ld7 I 5 0-0 J.xd4+ I6 'ifxd4 'ifc5
and in the arising position the knight
is stronger than the bishop, Stodola­
Jirovsky, Copenhagen I 993.
Upon the exchange of the light­
squared bishops Black succeeds in The 'habitual' prophylactic retreat
taking under control the c-file and of the bishop with which,
has nothing to fear. incidentally, White prevents the ad­
I) I2 J.b3 'ifc8 (weaker is vance of the a-pawn without rushing
I 2 ...J.xb3 I3 cxb3 ll:ld7 I 4 J.xg7 into weakening the position of prob­
�xg7 I 5 b4! axb4 I 6 'ifd4+ �g8 I 7 able castling.
'ifxb4 'ifa5 I 8 'ifxa5 :xa5 I9 b4 10...J.d7
with a pleasant endgame for White) Played with the aim of preventing
1 3 0-0 ll:ld7 I4 J.xg7 �xg7 I 5 White's flank attack, since on I I h4
J.xe6 fxe6 and the game is even, follows I I ...ll:lxd4 I 2 J.xd4 a4 1 3
Prandstetter-Jirovsky, Ceske Bude­ ..tc4 'ifa5 followed by b7-b5 ! . In
jovice I992. case of an immediate I O...ll:lxd4 I I
 The Rauzer A ttack with 9 .i.c4 189

.i.xd4 .i.e6 1 2 h4 White, just in g5 2 1 �d4 !) 19 e5 �d7 20 .l:r.he 1

time, manages to attack with the the game turns out in White's
h-pawn. favour, Matanovic-D.Byme, Vrsac
The strategical type of blockade, 1969. However after the blockading
1 0...�d7 1 1 h4 h5 1 2 a4 �c5 1 3 17 ...h5 ! there arises a double-edged
0-0-0 �xd4 1 4 .i.xd4 �xb3+ 1 5 position in which much depends on
cxb3 .i.e6 1 6 .i.xg7 �g7 1 7 'ii'd4+ whether White succeeds in carrying
�h7 18 �5, leaves the initiative out g2-g4 in favourable circum­
with White, Parma-Am.Rodriguez, stances.
Havana (ol) 1966. 1S .I:r.a6
•..

1 1 a4! Also worth considering IS

This continuation looks more l 5 ....i.xb3 16 cxb3 'ii'e6.

appropriate here than a move ago, 16 'ii'e2
since the black bishop now gets to Hardicsay also recommended 16
e6 not in one, but in two steps. .i.xf6 .i.xf6 17 e5 .i.g7 18 .i.xe6
l l ...�xd4 'ii'xe6 1 9 exd6 .l:r.xd6 (losing is
On I I .. .'ii'c 8 White cold-blooded­ 19 ... i.xc3? 20 .l:r.xe6 i.xd2 2 1 d7! )
ly replies 12 0-0-0! . 20 'ii'd 6! and White wins a pawn.
12 .i.xd4 .i.e6 13 0-0-0 16 .1:r.ac6 17 �dS 'ii'e8 18 'ii'bs
.••

Also possible is the plan with �d7 19 .i.xg7 �xg7 20 'ii'xaS .l:r.a8
short castling: 13 .i.xe6 fxe6 14 0-0 21 'iVb4 with an extra pawn and
�d7 1 5 .i.xg7 �xg7 16 �b5 with better position for White,
somewhat the better chances in Hardicsay-Honfi, Magyarorszag
playing on the queenside and in the 1977.
centre, Larsen-D.Byme, San Juan
1969. Line 24
13 ...'ii'd7
On 13 ...'ii'c8 might follow 14 (1 e4 cS 2 �tJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
.i.xe6 fxe6 15 h4. The game �xd4 �f6 S �c3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
Liberzon-Parma, Athens 1 976, con­ t3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 �c6 9 .i.c4)
tinued 1 5 ...e5?! (more solid is
1 5 ...�h5 ;!;) 16 .i.e3 'ii'c4 1 7 b3 'ii'f7 9 a6
•••

1 8 �b 1 .l:r.fd8 19 .i.b6 .l:r.d7 20 �d5

and White took the key squares.
14 �b1
So as, on 1 4....i.xb3 1 5 cxb3 'ii'e6,
to have the reply 16 �a2 ! . Then
after 16 ... �d7 17 .i.xg7 �xg7 1 8
�d5 ! there will be the threat 19
�c7. Therefore Black covers the c7
square in advance.
14....1:r.fc8 15 llhe1
White concentrates his forces for
a break in the centre. Also seen is
the plan with a flank attack 1 5 h4
.i.xb3 16 cxb3 'ii'e6 1 7 �a2. Now In view of the rather slow devel­
after 1 7 ...h6 1 8 �b5! d5 (dangerous opment of forces, not a very popular
is 18 ... �7 1 9 .i.xg7 �xg7 20 h5 defensive plan, which fails to create
1 90 The Rauzer Attack with 9 i.c4

particular difficulties for White in 12 a5!?

•..

generating an initiative. But all the What else is there to suggest? For
same it requires of him definite the present ... a5-a4 is threatened. If
accuracy. White accepts the pawn sacrifice by
10 i.b3 lt!xd4 13 lt!xb5 a4 1 4 i.c4 i.a6, then
Otherwise he cannot carry out the Black creates definite counterplay
programmed advance of the pawn, on the queen's flank. For example,
...b7-b5. The continuations 1 5 1fb4 1fb8 16 1fxa4 l:lc8! or 1 5
10 ...lt!a5, 1 0...1fa5 and 1 0...1fc7, lt!a3 i.xc4 1 6 lt!xc4 d5 ! .
have no independent significance 1 3 a4!
since they lead to variations looked Breaking the pawn phalanx. On
at in the corresponding sections. the obvious 1 3 l&i5 Black can offer
After 1 0...lt!e5 White carries out an interesting exchange sacrifice:
an energetic attack on the kingside, 13 ... e6 14 i.b6 1fd7 1 5 lt!c7 a4! 1 6
on the whole characteristic for such lt!xa8 i.b7 17 lt!c7 1fc6 and at once
formations and where a delay in three white pieces are hanging.
development (of the type 9 ... a6) 13...bxa4
complicates Black's defence: 1 1 h4 After 1 3 ...b4 the pawn chain is
(this is more energetic than 1 1 0-0-0 deadened and White calmly attacks
i.d7 12 i.h6 b5 1 3 h4 1fa5 14 h5 the king: 14 lt!d5 e6 1 5 lt!xf6+
lt!c4 1 5 1fg5 l:lac8 1 5 ltld5 ;!; i.xf6 1 6 0-0-0 and then h4-h5.
Pjaaren- Yavorsky, corr. 1979) 1 2 14 ltlxa4
h5 lt!xh5 1 3 i.h6 e6 (preventing The continuation 14 i.xa4 l:lb8
lt!c3-d5) 14 i.xg7 �g7 1 5 g4 lt!f6 1 5 i.b3 e5! 1 6 i.e3 i.e6 1 7 i.xe6
1 6 0-0-0 lt!g8 1 7 f4 lt!xg4 1 8 l:ldgl fxe6 1 8 0-0-0 d5 19 exd5 exd5 20
with dangerous threats for White, lt!xd5 e4 ! allows Black to obtain
Yurtaev-Shur, USSR 1 976. counterplay.
11 i.xd4 b5 14 ...l:lb8
The plan with l l ... ..te6, looked at Now already 1 4...e5 1 5 i.b6!
in the variation with 9 ...lt!xd4, here loses a pawn with no sort of
involves a loss of time. compensation.
12 h4 15 h5 and White has an extra
Also good is 12 a4. pawn and a kingside attack.
 3 : Rauzer Attack with 9 g4

(1 e4 cS 2 iLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 After a number of attempts to ex­

liJxd4 iLlf6 5 liJc3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7 ploit White's rather weakened
f3 0-0 8 'i'd2 ltJc6) king's flank, Black came to the fol­
lowing main continuations:
9 g4
9 e6---Line 25, and
...

9 i.e6---L ine 26
.•.

But before looking at the main

variations, it is useful to become
familiar with rarer continuations.
1) 9 ...i.xg4!? 10 fxg4 ltJxg4 (the
sacrifice of the bishop for two
pawns practically forces White to
part with the supporting bishop on
e3, after which the activity of the
bishop on g7 sharply increases to­
gether with the precarious situation
This move pursues the aim of pre­ of his king; and yet the opening bal­
venting ... d6-d5, in view of the new ance has not yet been upset to such
resource g4-g5, and preparation of an extent that White deserves
an attack on the king's flank. Its punishment)
drawback lies in the lag in piece de­
velopment in the position, which
has an open character allowing
Black to begin active counterplay.
However the attempt to refute
White's idea is apparently doomed
to failure.
Already in its first outing it was
established that the direct counterat­
tack 9 ...d5? was impossible. After
1 0 g5 .!DeS 1 1 exd5 iLlb4 12 i.c4
lbd6 13 i.b3 a5 14 a3 or 1 0... ltJh5
1 1 exd5 liJxd4 1 2 i.xd4 i.xd4 13
'i'xd4 e6 14 h4 lbg3 15 :g1 and 1a) 1 1 i.g1 ? ! e6! 12 h4 h5 1 3
Black has no compensation for the lLlxc6 bxc6 1 4 i.e2 i.h6! 1 5 'i'd3
pawn, Shiyanovsky-Byvshev, ltJe5 16 'i'g3 l:r.bS 1 7 b3 'i'a5 1 8
Odessa 1 953. :d1 i.g7 19 :xd6? :bd8 and
192 The Rauzer Attack with 9 g4

White is defenceless, Psakhis­ Martinez, Thessaloniki (ol) 1984)

Tolnai, Dortmund 1989, but also 17 e5 Jle6 1 8 exd6 ( 1 8 l:tg5 l:txc3 !
after 19 �fl Black's initiative is 19 'ii'xc3 'ii'xa2+ 20 �c I l:tc8 =i=)
highly unpleasant. 1 8 ...l:tfd8 with equal chances (Sapi,
1b) 1 1 �xc6 bxc6 1 2 Jlc4 (not Schneider).
good is 12 Jtd4 e5 1 3 Jlt2 Jth6 14 2b) 1 0 h3 d5 ( I O... �xd4 I I Jtxd4
1fe2 f5 1 5 Jtg3 l:tb8 1 6 �d1 l:txb2! 'ii'a5 12 0-0-0 Jle6 1 3 �b l l:tfc8 14
+ Noskov-Losev, Moscow 199 1 ) a3 when, in the game Dolmatov­
1 2 ... d5 (also possible is 1 2 . . .�xe3 Dorfman, USSR 1983, it was worth
13 1fxe3 e6) 1 3 exd5 cxd5 1 4 �xd5 preventing the threat �c3-d5 by
(14 Jtxd5 �xe3) 14 ... e6 1 5 Jtg5 (or 14 ...�f8) I I �xc6 (on I I gxh5
1 5 �f4? 1fc7 1 6 Jte2 Jlxb2 with a good is 1 l . ..�xh5! 1 2 exd5 �b4=,
shattered position for White, while after I I g5 lLlh7 1 2 0-0-0
Yagupov-Losev, Moscow 1989) possible is the simplification
1 5 ...1fe8 16 �e7+ �h8 1 7 0-0-0 f6 12 ...Jlxd4 1 3 Jtxd4 dxe4 14 �xe4
1 8 �xg6+ 1fxg6 19 Jtf4 e5 and lLlxd4 1 5 'ii'xd4 'ii'c7= Balcerak-Go­
Black has an excellent game. lubev, Senden 1996; likewise in­
l c) 1 1 �b3 ! (it is necessary to sufficient is 12 exd5, on which good
prepare solid cover for his king) is 1 2 ...lLlxd4 1 3 Jlxd4 �g5 14 Jtg2
1 l ...a5 (also seen is 1 l ...l:tc8 1 2 Jlxd4 1 5 'ii'xd4 �e6 followed by
0-0-0 �aS with the idea after 1 3 ...�e6-g7-M.Golubev) 1 l .. .bxc6.
�5 �xb3+ 1 4 axb3 e6 to occupy Not dangerous now is 12 e5 �d7 1 3
the centre by ...d6-d5; in the game f4, after which the game Novchan­
Hait-Losev, Russia 1 998, was Golubev, Ukraine (ch) 1997, con­
played 1 3 �b 1 Jlxc3 14 bxc3 �c4 tinued 13 ...h4 14 0-0-0 'ii'a5 1 5 'ii'e l
1 5 Jlxc4 l:txc4 1 6 Jtd4 'ii'c8 17 l:te8 1 6 'ii'h4 l:tb8 1 7 a3 Jla6! with
'ii'g5 ! f6 18 'ii'd5+ �g7 1 9 Jla7 and sufficient counterplay for Black.
it turned out that Black did not have Stronger is 1 2 0-0-0! while on
sufficient compensation for the 12 ...Jle6?! already 1 3 e5 �7 14 f4
P.iece) 12 a4 l:tc8 (or 1 2 ... �xe3 13 ± is unpleasant. After 1 2 ...'ii'a 5
1fxe3 �b4 14 0-0-0 l:tc8 1 5 �b 1 White can take the pawn, 1 3 exd5,
'ii'c7 1 6 �d4 'ii'c 5 1 7 Jth3 ! e5 1 8 while on 1 2 ...e5 he can act in the
�f5! and White grabbed the initiat­ spirit of the main variation (9 0-0-0
ive, Uvarov-Kangur, Estonia 1994) dS)-13 Jlc5! d4 14 Jlxf8 'ii'xf8 1 5
13 0-0-0 �ce5 (the situation is not �a4 and it is not clear whether
changed by the inclusion of an ex­ Black has sufficient compensation
change on c3) 1 4 �b l �xe3 1 5 for the sacrificed exchange
'ii'xe3 e6 1 6 Jte2 'ii'c7 1 7 �4 'ii'c5 (M.Golubev).
1 8 'ii'd2 and White has repelled the 3) 9... e5 1 0 �b3 (the exchange of
immediate threats, retaining a ma­ knights only strengthens Black's
terial advantage, So.Polgar-Ashley, centre: 10 �xc6 bxc6 1 1 0-0-0 lLle8
New York 1992. 12 h4 'ii'e7 1 3 h5 Jte6 14 �b l l:td8
2) 9...h5 1 5 'iVh2 �f6 1 6 �e2 d5 :j: Papp­
2a) 10 gxh5 �xh5 I I 0-0-0 Jtd7 A.Kovacevic, Szekszard 1994,
1 2 Jte2 l:tc8 1 3 l:thg1 �h7 14 �b 1 while after I 0 �e2 Jle6 1 1 0-0-0
�xd4 1 5 Jlxd4 .i.xd4 16 'ii'xd4 'ii'a5 1 2 �b1 l:tfd8 1 3 g5 �h5 14
'ii'a5 ! (weak is 1 6...l:tc5? 1 7 'ii'e3 �d5 'ii'xd2 15 l:txd2 Jlxd5 16 exd5
'ii'b6 1 8 f4 ± De Firmian-Garcia lLle7 the chances are equal,
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 g4 193

Fedorov-Khalifrnan, Leningrad I S g5 White develops a dangerous

1983) 1 0... a5 1 1 i.b5 i.e6 I2 0-0-0 attack, Jansa-Rajkovic, Smederev­
..ixb3 1 3 axb3 lLlxd4 I4 i.xd4 exd4 ska Palanka 1 982; more logical is
15 W'xd4 lLlxg4 (no good is I l ...W'a5 1 2 h4 lLlxd4 1 3 i.xd4
15 ...lLlxe4 1 6 W'xe4 i.xc3 I7 bxc3 i.e6=) I O...ltlb6 (or I O...lLlde5 I I
W'g5+ I S �b2 W'xb5 I 9 llxd6 with i.e2 lLlxd4 I 2 i.xd4 i.e6 13 f4 ±)
advantage to White) I6 W'xd6 W'g5+ I I h5 lLlxd4 I2 i.xd4 i.xd4 I3
1 7 W'd2 W'h4 (in White's favour is W'xd4 g5 I4 0-0-0 f6 15 h6 �h8 I6
1 7 .. i.h6 1 8 W'xg5 i.xg5+ I9 �b I
. e5 fxe5 I7 W'e3 i.e6 I8 W'xg5 llg8
lLlf2 20 lld5 ! lLlxh I 2 I llxg5 llad8 I9 W'e3 W'f8 20 i.d3 W'f7 with a
22 lLld5 f5 23 exf5! ±) I 8 lldfl ! complicated game, Akopian­
llfd8 1 9 W'e2 i.h6+ 20 f4 lLlf6 2 I Korchnoi, Wijk aan Zee I993.
�b I i.xf4 22 e5 lLlh5 23 e6 and
White's threats are very dangerous, Line 25
Akopian-Smirin, USSR 1 988.
4) 9 ... lLlxd4 I 0 i.xd4 i.e6 (1 e4 c5 2 lLlt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
(weaker is 1 0...e5?! I I i.e3 i.e6 1 2 lLlxd4 ltlf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
0-0-0 W'a5 13 a3 .:res 1 4 g5 lLlh5 t3 0-0 8 W'd2 lLlc6 9 g4)
1 5 lLld5 W'd8?! I 6 �bi and the
weakness of the d6 pawn gives 9 e6
•••

White the advantage, Vasiukov­

Gufeld, USSR I97 I ; not much
easier for Black is the endgame
I 5 ...W'xd2+ I 6 llxd2) 1 1 lLld5 ( I 1
0-0-0 Wa5 is looked at in Line 23)
1 l ...i.xd5 I 2 exd5 llc8 1 3 h4 W'c7
14 .:h2 e5 1 5 dxe6 fXe6 I 6 0-0-0
(on I6 h5 worth considering is the
recommendation of L.Oll, I 6...d5 !?,
since after I6 ...W'c6 I 7 0-0-0 W'xf3
I 8 hxg6 hxg6?! I9 i.g2 lLle4 20
i.xf3 tllxd2 2 I i.xb7 White has the
advantage in the endgame, Karpov­
Mestel, London I 982, but also on With this modest move Black pre­
the line pointed out by A.Karpov, pares a break in the centre by
I 8 ...lLle4 I9 gxh7+ �h8 20 i.xg7+ ...d6-d5, however White obtains an
�g7 2 I Wh6+ �h8 22 i.e2 !, he important tempo for the organisa­
has the preferable middlegame) tion of an attack on the king's flank.
I 6....lLld5 I7 i.xg7 W'xg7 I 8 lle2! 10 0-0-0
W'f7 I9 lle4 llc6 20 i.b5 llb6 2 I In the first instance it is necessary
i.a4 lLlf4 22 i.b3 d5 with a compli­ to safeguard the king. Less flexible
cated game, 011-Kir.Georgiev, Biel is 1 0 llgi d5 I I g5 tlle8 (weaker is
(izt) I993. I l ...lLld7?! I 2 exd5 exd5 I3 0-0-0
5) 9 ...lLld7 IO h4 (also possible is lLlb6 I4 f4 lle8 1 5 llg3 i.d7 I6 i.f2
an immediate I 0 o-o-o lLlde5 I I llc8 I7 �bi lLle7 I S b3 ! ltlf5 I9
i.e2 when after I l ...lLla5?! I 2 b3 lLlxf5 i.xf5 20 i.h3! and the pres­
lLlec6 I3 h4 lLlxd4 I4 i.xd4 i.xd4 ence of an insufficiently defended
1 5 W'xd4 lLlc6 I6 W'd2 W'a5 I7 f4 f6 isolated d5 pawn determines an
194 The Rauzer Attack with 9 g4

advantage for White, Dolmatov­ Counting on opening the position,

Kir.Georgiev, Protvino 1989, but White completes his development.
worth considering is 1 5 ...l:r.xe3 1 6 1 1 ...lLlxd4
Wfxe3 lLlxd4 1 7 l:r.xd4 .te6 ! ? Dol­ After 1 1 . ..dxe4 Black must reckon
matov) 1 2 exd5 exd5 1 3 0-0-0 lLlc7 on transposing to an inferior end­
14 f4 (14 lLlb3 .tf5 +) 1 4 ... l:r.e8 1 5 game, though defending it is poss­
l:r.g3 lLle6 1 6 lLlxe6 (after 1 6 lLlce2 ibly easier than __preserving the
lLlcxd4! 17 lLlxd4 lLlc5 1 8 .tg2 lLle4 queens-1 2 lLlxc6 'tfxd2+ 13 l:r.xd2
19 .txe4 l:r.xe4 Black takes over the bxc6 14 fxe4. The game Plaskett­
initiative, Wolff-Fedorowicz, USA Miles, Harrogate 1 982, continued
(ch) 1992) 16 ...fxe6 1 7 lLlb5 Wfe7 14 ... h6 1 5 h4 �h7? ( 1 5 ... lLld71) 16
1 8 .tg2 with complex play (Wolff). g5 lLlh5 17 .tc5 l:r.e8 18 :n and
The thrust 10 lLldb5?! d5 1 1 .tc5 is Black landed in a difficult position.
parried by 1 1 ...a6! 12 .txf8 �xf8 More logical looks 14 ... llld7 1 5
1 3 exd5 exd5 14 lLla3 b5 1 5 lLld 1 b4 l:r.hd 1 lLle5 and, though, as before,
1 6 lLlb1 .txg4! and Black goes over White's position is prefrable, there
to a counterattack, Kochiev-Miles, is apparently nothing real (Plaskett).
Manila 1974. l l . lLlxd4 12 .txd4 dxe4 13 gS
. .

10 d5
.•. The pawn sacrifice 13 Wfe3 exf3
14 .txf3 has also generated interest.
In this sharp position White's For example, in the game Plaskett­
plans are linked to the following Conquest, London 1 983, was played
main continuations: 14...l:r.e8? and Black could not cope
with the problems of defence: 1 5
25A: l l .te2 l:r.he1 ! .td7 1 6 Wff4 .tc6 1 7 .txc6
25B: 1 1 gS bxc6 1 8 l:r.fl 1 -0. More active was
14 ...Wfa5 (also 14 ...lLld7 is not bad)
25A while on 1 5 g5 possible is
1 5 ...lLlg4! ? 1 6 .txg4 e5 1 7 .tc5
(1 e4 cS 2 lLlt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 .txg4 1 8 .txf8 �xf8 with com­
lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlcJ g6 6 .teJ .tg7 7 pensation for the exchange.
t3 0-0 8 Wfd2 lLlc6 9 g4 e6 10 0-0-0 13 ...lLlh5 14 Wfe3
dS) Likewise possible is the transfer
to a favourable endgame- 14 .txg7
l l .te2 Wfxd2+ 1 5 �xd2 �xg7 16 fxe4 lLlf4
17 e5. Here are a few examples:
1 ) 1 7....td7 1 8 .to .tc6 1 9 �e3
lLlg2+ 20 .txg2 .txg2 2 1 l:r.hg1 with
rather the better chances for White,
Velimirovic-Sax, Moscow (izt)
1982;
2) 17 ... lLlxe2 1 8 �xe2 b6 19 �e3
.tb7 20 Ahfl , Campora-Morovic,
Buenos Aires 1 990, and White's
position is preferable.
14 ...Wfc7 15 lLlxe4
Black has an easier defence after
1 5 fxe4 .txd4 1 6 l:r.xd4 Wff4 1 7
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 g4 195

...xf4 �xf4 1 8 e5 �xe2+ 1 9 �xe2 same returned to the idea of the ad­
b6 20 �c3 .i.b7 2 1 :hd1 with a vance 1 8 f4, though by now objec­
more pleasant endgame for White, tively stronger was 1 8 h5 .i.f8 19
Kudrin-Sax, Zurich 1 982. lllce2 with somewhat the better
15 ....i.xd4 chances for White.
After 1 5 ......f4 1 6 '5'xf4 �xf4 1 7 Here White often defends the g5
i.c4 the weakness of the f6 square pawn with the rook: 12 :g 1 �xd4
is felt. (on 12 ... :es there is the unpleasant
16 :xd4 e5 17 :d5 :e8 pin 13 .i.b5! .i.d7 14 �b3 :cs
On 1 7 ....i.e6 follows 1 8 :xe5 when in the game Galdunts-Yur­
.i.xa2 19 f4 :res 20 c3 and White's taev, Moscow (GMA) 1989, White
threats on the king's flank are obvi­ delayed with 1 5 �b 1 ? and after
ously more real. 1 5 ....i.xc3 ! 16 bxc3 '5'c7 1 7 .i.e2
18 .i.b5 :e6 19 :hdl and his �e5 achieved nothing significant,
complete control of the d-file se­ though he could have taken the
cures White a clear advantage, pawn with impunity: 1 5 exd5 exd5
Wolff-Rachels, USA 1984. 1 6 ibxd5 .i.f5 17 c3 !, with an obvi­
ous advantage) 1 3 .i.xd4 e5 14 .i.c5
25B d4 1 5 .i.xf8 .i.xfl! 1 6 �d5 (in the
game Kaidanov-Fedorowicz, USA
(I e4 c5 2 �tJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 1992, White retreated with the
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 knight-16 �e2 and after 16 ....i.e6
tJ 0-0 8 '5'd2 �c6 9 g4 e6 10 0-0-0 17 Wb 1 '5'b6 1 8 f4 .i.a3 19 b3 .i.b4
d5) 20 '5'd3 �xf4 2 1 �xf4 exf4 22
'5'b5 ,..d6 23 '5'xb7 :bs the activity
I I g5 of the black pieces fully compen­
sated for the sacrificed exchange)
16 ....i.e6 1 7 .i.c4 (on 17 c4 possible
is 17 ... b5 !? Kaidanov) and White's
chances are preferable.
12 e5
•••

In White's favour is 12 ...�xd4 1 3

i.xd4 dxe4 1 4 lbxe4 or 12 ...dxe4
13 �xc6 '5'xd2+ 14 :xd2 bxc6 1 5
�xe4.
13 fxe5 dxe4 14 �xc6 '5'xd2+ 15
.td2!
White defends the knight on c3,
obtaining the possibility of more
After this tougher continuation productively exploiting the light­
Black has less choice to organise squared bishop. After the natural 1 5
counte9>lay. l:xd2 bxc6 1 6 �xe4 .i.xe5 1 7 .i.c4
l l ... ll!h5 12 f4 l:e8 1 8 l:hd 1 , instead of the
Not so logical is 1 2 h4 �g3 13 continuation played in the game
:g1 �xfl 14 :gxfl �e5 15 b3 Zapata-Annas, Havana 1 986,
,..a5 16 �b1 :ds 1 7 exd5 exd5 1 8 ... .i.f5?! 19 :d7 !, which led to an
and, in the game Dolmatov-Tsesh­ advantage for White, stronger, as
kovsky, Frunze 1983, White all the pointed out by Galdunts, 1s
1 96 The Rauzer Attack with 9 g4

1 8 ... .i.c7! 19 �f6+ �xf6 20 gxf6 ending, Karpov-Mestel, London

.i.g4 2 1 .i.h6! llad8 and Black holds 1982, but also upon the line pointed
the position. out by A.Karpov, 1 8 ...ltJe4 19
1S ...bxc6 16 .i.g2 .i.xeS 17 .i.xe4 gxh7+ �h8 20 .i.xg7+ �xg7 2 1
and, in view of the weakness of the 1t'h6+ �h8 22 .i.e2 ! , he has the pre­
c6 pawn and the complex of ferable middlegame) 16 .... ltJd5 1 7
squares, c5 and d6, White has an .i.xg7 'it'xg7 1 8 lle2! 'it'£7 1 9 lle4
obvious advantage (Zapata). l:c6 20 .i.b5 l:b6 2 1 .i.a4 ltJf4 22
.i.b3 d5 with a complicated game,
011-Kir.Georgiev, Biel (izt) 1993.
Line 26 10 0-0-0
The possibility of developing the
(1 e4 cS 2 �t3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 bishop above all depends on its ex­
�xd4 �f6 S ltJc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 change-I 0 ltJxe6 fxe6 1 1 0-0-0
t3 0-0 8 'it'd2 ltJc6 9 g4) (on 1 1 .i.c4 possible is 1 l ...d5 12
exd5 ltJe5 13 .i.e2 �xd5 14 �xd5
9 .i.e6
.•. exd5 1 5 0-0-0 e6 1 6 f4 �c6 with a
double-edged game, Varga-Pirisi,
Hungary 1 992, or 1 l ...'it'c8 1 2 .i.b3
�aS 13 0-0-0 ltJxb3+ 1 4 cxb3 �7
1 5 l:hfl .i.xc3 ! 1 6 bxc3 ltJe5 when
in the game Varga-Golubev, Roma­
nia 1 997, Black, by means of
17 ... ltJd3+! 1 8 'it'xd3 l:f4 19 'it'e3
e5, can obtain a fully equal game­
M.Golubev) 1 l .. .ltJe5 (or 1 l ...llc8
12 .i.c4 ! 'it'd7 1 3 .i.b3 � Tiviakov)
12 .i.e2 l:c8. His control over the
central squares gives Black
completely level chances.
Black completes his development,
bringing the bishop to an active
position and thereby intending
... d6-d5.
Sometimes there is a preliminary
exchange of knights, 9 ...ltJxd4 1 0
.i.xd4, then I O....i.e6, but here, be­
sides 1 1 0-0-0, Black must reckon
on the possibility 1 1 �5, after
which the game assumes another
character: 1 l ....i.xd5 1 2 exd5 llc8
1 3 h4 'it'c7 1 4 l:h2 e5 1 5 dxe6 fxe6
1 6 0-0-0 (on 1 6 h5 worth consider­
ing is the recommendation of L.Oll, 1) 1 3 �b5 �c4 14 .i.xc4 llxc4 1 5
16 ... d5 ! ?, since after 1 6 ...'it'c6 17 �4 'it'd7 1 6 �b l l:fc8 1 7 c3 ! (in
0-0-0 'it'xf3 18 hxg_6 hxg6?! 19 .i.g2 the game Dolmatov-Aiterman,
ltJe4 20 .i.xf3 lllxd2 21 .i.xb7 Beersheba 199 1 , was played 1 7 l:c 1
White has the advantage in the ltJe8?! 1 8 h4 d5 19 ltJb3 ! �. but
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 g4 197

Black can play more energetically 20 .igl ! ?) I6 ...�c6 I7 .ig4 �xd4

1 7 ...eS I S llle2 ...) 1 7...bS I S h4 aS (weaker is I7 ...�b4? 1 S .ixhS gxhS
1 9 hS b4 20 cxb4 J:lxb4 (on 19 �fS ± Anand-Mestel, London
20 ... axb4 possible is 2 1 hxg6 hxg6 19SS) I S .ixd4 .ixd4 19 'W'xd4
22 b3 and Black's attack lands in a �xf4 20 eS 'W'cS 2 1 'W'xf4 'W'xc3 22
blind alley whereas White retains exd6 exd6 23 J:lxd6 lladS 24 hS
the resource 'ifd2-d3 together with J:lxd6 2S 'W'xd6 with better chances
the threat of e4-eS) 2 1 J:lc I ! and for White, Anand-Jassem, Sharjah
White has in view the formation of 19S5.
an outside passed pawn on the 2) 1 1 gS �hS 12 f4 �c4 13 .ixc4
queenside, Vukovic-Aronian, (the endgame resulting from mass
Bucharest 1999. exchanges is not dangerous for
2) 13 h4 'W'as 14 hS J:lxc3 ! (the Black: 1 3 �xe6?! �xd2 14 �xdS
piece sacrifice 1 4...�fxg4 I S fxg4 �xfl 1 S llhxfl .ixc3 16 �xb7
lllf3 1 6 .ixf3 J:lxc3 leads to success .ixb2+ I 7 �xb2 J:labS= Chandler­
only in the case of 1 7 'W'e2 'W'xa2! , Mestel, Belgrade 19S2) 1 3 ... .ixc4
but, by playing 1 7 �b I l:txf3 I S I4 b3 (or I 4 f5 J:leS 1 S �b i J:lcS I6
.id4, White himself goes over to the �S e6 17 �c3 'W'aS IS f6 .if'S 19
attack) I S 'W'xc3 Wxa2 16 'W'a3 �b3 'W'c7 20 'W'f2 ;l; Dolmatov­
'W'xa3 17 bxa3 and in the endgame Petursson, Marseilles 19SS)
White's chances are preferable 14 ....ie6 1 S �ce2 .id7 16 fS .ie5
(G.Kaidanov). 17 �g3 �g7 I S �f3 and after the
On I 0 h4 he has to reckon on the exchange of the bishop on eS White
possibility of I O...dS. For example: has an obvious advantage, Aseev­
I I 0-0-0 (after I I hS?! �xd4 I 2 Agarov, Leningrad I 9S3/S4.
.ixd4 dxe4 1 3 h6 .ihS I 4 gS e3 ! I S On I O ...'W'aS simplest is 1 1 �xe6!
.ixe3 �S White is no better off fxe6 I2 .ic4 with better chances,
than at the start, Van der Wiel­ whereas the stereotyped I I a3 llfcS
Miles, Utrecht I9S6) l l . ..�xd4 I2 12 h4 allows Black to retain the
.ixd4 dxe4 I 3 gS �hS I4 .ixg7 queen's knight and start a counter­
'W'xd2+ I S J:lxd2 �xg7 I 6 �xe4 attack: I2 ...�e5 1 3 hS J:lxc3 ! 14
J:ladS and the game is even, Psakhis­ 'W'xc3 'W'xc3 1S bxc3 J:lcS 16 �b2
Smirin, Klaipeda 19SS. .ic4 17 .id3 dS 1 S hxg6 hxg6 I9
10 �xd4
... gS �fd7 20 f4 dxe4 2 1 fxe5 exd3
If he declines the exchange by 22 cxd3 �xeS and the activity of
I O... �eS with the aim of exploiting the black pieces compensates for the
the c4 square, Black will be pres­ sacrificed exchange, M"lvig­
ented with the possibility of a Petersen, Copenhagen I995.
time-gaining attack with the f-pawn. 1 O ... J:lcS looks a quite promising
I) I I h4 .ic4 I 2 .ih3 .ia6 I 3 b3 move, on which the advance 1 1 g5
'W'aS I4 �b1 'W'a3 (on 14 ...e6 good �hS 12 �xe6 fxe6 1 3 .ih3 'W'd7 14
is I S gS �hS 1 6 .ig4, but not 1 6 f4 .ixc3 1S 'W'xc3 �f4 involves a
f4?! li)f3 !) I S gS �hS I 6 f4 (also loss of time without particular com­
possible is I 6 .ig4 e6 I 7 .ixhS pensation, Zapata-Miles, Brussels
gxhS 1 s f4 �g4 1 9 f5 :.res 20 f6 19S6. But nevertheless it does not
.if'S when in the game De Firmian­ have independent significance since
Kudrin, Bor 1 9S4, White main­ after 1 1 h4 'iraS I2 a3 �xd4 1 3
tained some advantage by playing .ixd4 l:lc6 1 4 �b 1 lUeS the game
1 98 The Rouzer Attack with 9 g4

enters the channels of one of the Black constructs a mechanism

main variations. against the Dragon attack, which
l l .ixd4 'ii'aS works, for example, on the careless
Now White has to spend time on 13 h4?!-13 ...:xc3 ! .
the defence of the a2 pawn. Here it is appropriate to re­
member, that one of the 'pioneers '
26A: 12 �b1 of the theme of the exchange sacri­
26B: 12 a3 fice on c3 was Soviet grandmaster
Vladimir Simagin. A well-known
The pawn sacrifice 1 2 h4 .ixa2 game Althauzen-Simagin, USSR
1 3 h5 .te6 14 �b 1 is dubious since 1943, continued 14 'ii'xc3 'ii'xa2+ 1 5
the gain of tempo has no real sig­ �c 1 .ixg4! 1 6 fxg4? (relatively
nificance. The game Altschuler­ stronger was 1 6 .ie2, but also here
Farrell, New York 1 998, continued after 1 6....th6 White's chances are
14 ...:fc8 1 5 h6 .ih8 1 6 .ixf6 preferable) 16...'ii'a 1 + 1 7 �d2
:xc3 ! 17 'ii'xc3 'ii'a2+ 1 8 �c 1 .ixf6 ll'lxe4+ 1 8 �e 1 lilxc3 19 :xa 1
1 9 'ii'e3 'ii'xb2+ 20 �d2 .id4 2 1 .ixd4 and Black has a great material
'ii'd3 :c8 with an attack for Black. advantage.
13 a3
26A There is apparently nothing better.
On 13 .i.xf6 also follows
(1 e4 cS 2 lilo d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 13 ...:xc3 !, while after 1 3 lild5
lilxd4 lilf6 S lilcJ g6 6 .i.eJ .i.g7 7 'ii'xd2 14 lilxf6+ ( 1 4 :xd2? lilxd5
t3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 lilc6 9 g4 .te6 10 1 5 .ixg7 lilb4! +) 1 4 ... .txf6 1 5
0-0-0 lilxd4 1 1 .i.xd4 'ii'aS) :xd2 .ixd4 1 6 :xd4 :c5 and
Black has a pleasant ending, Perera­
12 �b1 Mishra, Coimbator 1984.
1J :ab8
...

Exploiting the 'lever' in the form

of the a3 pawn, Black is ready for a
pawn attack by ...b7-b5-b4.
Pressure on the c-file does not
achieve its aim: 13 ...:c6 1 4 h4
l:ac8 1 5 h5 a6 16 h6 .ih8 1 7 llh2
(also possible is 1 7 .ixf6 exf6 1 8
t[}d5 'ifd8 19 c4 b5 20 cxb5 axb5 2 1
lilb4� Plaskett-Mestel, England
1986) 1 7 ...lild7! (on 1 7 ...b5 follows
18 .i.xf6! .ixf6 1 9 lilrl5 ±) 1 8 lild5
'ii'xd2 19 :dxd2 :es (or 1 9 ... .txd5
12 :rcs
... 20 exd5 :6c7 2 1 f4!�) 20 .ixh8 (on
The positive side of the move of 20 f4? .ixd4 2 1 :xd4 .ixg4 22
the king's rook is the freeing of the lile3 e5 ! Black takes over the initiat­
ffl square for the king should the ive, Galdunts-Belmk, Strasbourg
knight advance to d5-an important 1992) 20 ...�xh8 2 1 g5 lile5 22
resource for White in the struggle :hf2 and after f3-f4 White has a
against the queen on a5. space advantage (Akopian).
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 g4 1 99

In the event of 1 3 ... i.c4 White initiative by attacking with 1 8 h4 b5

does not manage to exploit effec­ 19 h5 ;!; Young-Moskow, USA
tively the theme of the kn �ht thrust 1992.
to d5: 14 i.xf6 i.xf6 1 5 lM5 (also 16...lbe3! and here, in the 1 6th
an exchange of light-squared game of the Anand-Kasparov World
bishops does not change matters: 1 5 Championship match of 1 995 a
i.xc4 l:xc4 1 6 lbd5 Wfxd2 17 draw was agreed. Indeed, after 17
lbxf6+ �g7 with equal chances) i.d4 lbxfl 18 l:xfl b6, the presence
1 5 ...Wfxd2 16 lbxf6+ �g7 17 lbh5+ of opposite-coloured bishops high­
gxh5 1 8 l:xd2 hxg4 ( 1 8 ...i.e6? 1 9 lights the drawing tendencies.
g5 ! ±) 1 9 i.xc4 l:xc4 2 0 l:g2 h5
and Black has equal chances in the
endgame (Tiviakov). 268
The solution to the position lies in
the move 14 g5 ! . After 1 4... lbh5 1 5 (1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
i.h3 l:c7 1 6 i.xg7 lbxg7 1 7 f4 ll:\xd4 ll:\f6 5 ll:\c3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
White obtains a space advantage f3 0-0 8 Wfd2 ll:\c6 9 g4 i.e6 10
and retains the initiative. 0-0-0 ll:\xd4 1 1 i.xd4 Wfa5)
14 lbd5
The endgame arising after 14 g5 12 a3
lbh5 1 5 lbd5 Wfxd2 1 6 l:xd2 i.xd5
1 7 exd5--superficially pleasant for
White from both points of view: the
advantage of the two bishops and a
queenside pawn majority-is appar­
ently defensible with accurate play.
For example, the game Karpov­
Dueball, Skopje (ol) 1972, con­
tinued 17 ... a6 1 8 l:gl b5 19 c3 a5
20 i.a7 l:b7 21 ..i.e3 i.e5 with
equal chances for Black. Likewise
possible is 17 ...i.xd4 1 8 l:xd4 l:c7.
On 14 h4 Black hurries to under­
take play on the q�een's flank by Removing the pawn from attack,
14... b5 1 5 lbd5 Wfxd2 16 l:xd2 White counts on saving time in any
i.xd5 (also possible is 16 ... lbxd5 1 7 endgame when his king will be
i.xg7 lL!e3 1 8 i.d4 lbxfl 1 9 l:xfl closer to the centre of events.
a5= or 1 7 ... �xg7 1 8 exd5 i.d7 19 12 l:ab8
...

l:.d4 a5=) 1 7 exd5 a5 18 h5 b4 1 9 a4 Black prepares the advance of the

lbd7 20 i.a6 l:c7 2 1 hxg6 fxg6 22 b-pawn. On 12 ...a6 he has to reckon
i.xg7 �xg7 23 g5 l:h8 24 i.b5 on 13 Wfe3 ! and Black is forced to
lbb6 25 f4 h5 and Black holds the exchange the key bishop, after
balance, Westerinen-Emst, Thessa­ which White's flank attack gains in
loniki (ol) 1 988. strength, 1 3 ... ll:\d7 14 i.xg7 �xg7
14...Wfxd2 15 l:xd2 lbxd5 16 1 5 h4! .
i.xg7 13 h4
Now, on the natural 16 ...�xg7 1 7 After 1 3 g5 lbh5 (incidentally
exd5 i.d7, White retains some slowing down the attack of the h-
200 The Rauzer Attack with 9 g4

pawn) 14 i.xg7 lLlxg7 1 5 h4 Black 26Ba

purposefully prepares for the thrust
li)c3-d5 with the move 1 5 ...:fcS. In (1 e4 e5 2 lLlfJ d6 3 d4 exd4 4
the game Aseev-Khalifman, Erfurt ltlxd4 lLlf6 5 ltle3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
1 991, was played 1 5 ...b5 16 ll:lds f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 lLle6 9 g4 i.e6 10
'ii'xd2+ 1 7 :xd2 i.xd5 1 S :xd5 0-0-0 ll:lxd4 1 1 i.xd4 Wfa5 12 a3
and White holds the initiative. llab8 13 h4 :reB)
13...l:[fe8
Black's main reply, striving for 14 h5 b5
frontal counterplay on the queenside Commencing typical play for a
in which the role of the battering position with opposite-sides cas­
ram is allotted to the b-pawn. On tling, where the chances of the two
13 ...b5 he has to reconcile himself sides are roughly equal. First White
to an endgame after 14 lLld5 'ii'xd2+ makes contact with the castled posi­
1 5 :xd2 and routine work for tion, but Black's pieces are better
equalisation. coordinated in the attacks on oppo­
1) 1 5 ...lLlxd5?! 1 6 exd5 i.xd4 1 7 site flanks. Here, tried and tested
l:[xd4 i.d7 1 S i.d3 �g7 19 �d2 plans have been employed, pressur­
l:[b6 20 :e 1 :es (20... e5? 2 1 dxe6 ising and opening up the kingside.
fxe6 22 f4 and White has a posi­
tional advantage, Lau-Emst, Wijk 26Ba1: 15 h6
aan Zee 1 992) 2 1 l:[e3 �f8 22 i.e2 26Ba2: 15 hxg6
and because of the possibility of
pressure by l:[c3 and l:[b3 White has 26Bal
the preferable endgame.
2) 1 5 ... i.xd5 1 6 exd5 aS (or (1 e4 e5 2 ll:lfJ d6 3 d4 exd4 4
16 ...:b7 1 7 b3 ll:ld7 1 S i.xg7 �xg7 lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLle3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
19 f4 a6 20 i.h3 :c7 2 1 �b2 lLlb6 f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 lLle6 9 g4 i.e6 1 0
22 h5 :cs= Zso.Polgar-Hoffinann, 0-0-0 ll:lxd4 1 1 i.xd4 'ii'a5 12 a3
Munster 1994; worth considering is :ab8 13 h4 :res 14 hS bS)
f6....:fcS! ?, since not good is 1 7
i.xa7? :as 1 S i.d4 b4 + Kundin­ 15 h6
Aronian, Erevan 1 997) 17 i.e2 ll:ld7
1 S i.xg7 (or 1 S :e1 :res 1 9 b3 b4
20 i.xg7 �xg7 2 1 �b2 :cs=
Dolmatov-Watson, Sochi 1 9SS)
1 S ...�g7 19 :e1 :res 20 i.fl
lLlcS with equal chances, Dolmatov­
Alterman, Burgas 1 995.
Now White has available two
basic plans of play-a middlegame
attack or transposition to an ending.

26Ba: 14 h5
26Bb: 14 ll:ld5
 The Rauzer A ttack with 9 g4 201

The main idea of the pressure is position. By continuing 24 a4 bxa4

geared to cramping Black's position 25 c4 White has chances to exploit
before transposing to the endgame his queenside pawn majority.
arising after the manoeuvre 'Llc3-d5. 16 'Llb5
15... b4! Now on 1 6 'Lld5 follows
Black's chances lie only in im­ 16 ....t.xd5 17 exd5 .t.f8.
mediate counterplay. Upon the re­ Taking the bishop 16 hxg7 bxa3
treat of the bishop, 1 5 ....i.h8, leads to unpleasant consequences:
follows 16 'Lld5 ! 'ii'xd2+ 17 l:.xd2 1 ) 1 7 lLld5? axb2+ 1 8 .i.xb2 l:.xb2
'Llxd5 ( 1 7 ....i.xd5 1 8 exd5 ±) 1 8 19 'Llxe7+ �xg7 20 'ii'h6+ �h8 2 1
exd5 and thanks to the cramping of lLlxc8 'ii'b4 0- 1 , A.Femandes-Martin
the king's flank White has every Gonzalez, Barcelona 1985.
basis to fight for the advantage. 2) 17 'ii'h 6?! axb2 1 8 �d2 .i.xg4 !
19 .i.xf6 (19 fxg4 e5) 19 ....t.h5 20
l:.xh5 (20 .i.h3 exf6! +) 20 ...'ii'xh5
21 'ii'xh5 gxh5 22 .i.xe7 l:.xc3 23
�c3 b1='if 24 l:.xb 1 l:.xb1 and the
passed pawns on opposite flanks fa­
vour the rooks.
3) 17 'Llb5 :txb5 1 8 .i.xb5 'ii'xb5
(after 1 8 ...axb2+ 1 9 .i.xb2 'i'xb5 he
has to reckon on 20 'ii'h6 with the
threat of 2 1 .i.xf6) 19 bxa3 'ii'a4 and
Black has an attack.
16...l:.xb5
Not dangerous for White is
16....i.b3 17 'ii'xb4 'ii'xb4 1 8 axb4
1) 1 8 ....t.xd5?! 19 .i.xh8 .i.xf3 20 .i.xc2 1 9 'Llxa7.
l:.h3 .i.xg4 2 1 l:.g3 �h8 22 l:.xg4 f5 17 .t.xbS 'ii'xbS 18 hxg7 bxa3 19
(Black has three pawns for the 'ii'd3
piece, but the pressure from the Also seen is 19 bxa3 'ii'a4 (or
white rooks does not allow him to 19 ....i.b3 20 .i.c3 'ii'a4) 20 .i.b2
carry out an advance without ma­ (after 20 l:.h2 'ii'xa3+ 21 .i.b2 'ii'xf3
terial loss: 22 ... l:.c5 23 l:.e4! l:.c7 24 22 l:.f2 'ii'xe4 Black has too many
l:.d5 a6 25 a4 f5 26 l:.b4 ± Hazai­ pawns for the exchange, Bezemer­
Diaz, Vmja�ka Banja 1 988) 23 l:.b4 Sehner, Amsterdam 1986) 20 ....i.b3
�g8 ! (the king hurries to the h6 2 1 l:.h2 .i.xc2 22 'ii'xc2 l:.xc2+ 23
pawn, after 23 ... a6 24 a4 l:.c5 25 l:.xc2 and White has sufficient com­
axb5 axb5 26 l:.d3 the b5 pawn is pensation for the queen (Hazai).
lost) 24 .i.xb5 �f7 25 .i.c4+ �f6 26 19... axb2+ 20 .i.xb2 ..tc4 2 1 'i'c3
l:.xb8 l:.xb8 27 l:.e2 and, after put­ The game Shirov-Golubev, USSR
ting right the coordination of his 1985, continued 2 1 'ii'e3 .i.e2 22
pieces, White stands to win, Short­ l:.de I .i.d3 23 l:.h2 'ii'b3 24 l:.ee2
Kir.Georgiev, Oakham 1 984. .i.xc2 25 'ii'xb3 .i.xb3+ and Black
2) 1 8 ....i.xd4 1 9 l:.xd4 .i.d7 20 has more than sufficient equivalent
.i.d3 f6 2 1 b4 l:.c7 22 �b2 l:.bc8 23 for the exchange.
l:.e 1 �f8. The game Tal-Sax, 21 ...l:.c6 with chances for both
Moscow (izt) 1 982, reached this sides.
202 The Rauzer Attack with 9 g4

26Ba2 .ixf6 'ii'xd2+ 2 0 llxd2 .ixf6, but

Black already has the initiative)
(1 e4 c5 2 li:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 19 ...'ii'a2 ! 20 'ii'e3 e5 2 1 gxf6 .ixf6
lL'lxd4 lL'lf6 5 lL'lc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 and Black's attack is very dangerous
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 lt:lc6 9 g4 .ie6 10 as 22 l:lg 1 ? can be met by 22 ...exd4 !
0-0-0 lt:lxd4 1 1 .ixd4 'ifa5 12 a3 23 'ii'h6 .J:txc2+! ! etc.
llab8 13 h4 llfc8 14 h5 b5) 2) 16 lt:ld5 ! (in such positions
each tempo is worth its weight in
15 hxg6 gold) 16 ....ixd5 17 g5 ! e5 1 8 gxf6
.ixf6 19 gxh7+ �h8 20 llgl! exd4
2 1 'ii'h6 l:lxc2+ 22 �xc2 'ifa4+ 23
�d2 .ie5 24 .ib5 1 -0 Zso.Polgar­
Kindemann, Vienna 199 1 .
1 6 g5 lt:lh5 17 .ixg7
After 1 7 llxh5?! gxh5 1 8 .ixg7
�xg7 19 'ii'd4+ rl;fl 20 lt:ld5 'ii'a4!
21 'ifd2 b4 Black goes over to a
counterattack, Waitzkin-Jirovsky,
Oakham 1992.
17 lt:lxg7
.•.

· 1 5 fxg6
.•.

Apparently the only correct reply.

On 1 5 ... hxg6?! good is 16 'ii'g5 .i.c4
(16....ixg4 1 7 lL'ldS! ±) when in the
game Zso.Polgar-Vescovi, Mathinos
1994, by playing 1 7 .ixc4 llxc4 1 8
lt:ld5 White obtained the better
position.
As regards the counterattack
1 5 ...b4?!, with a weakened
defensive position of the king this
already entails risk, though the
arising complications are very 18 .ih3
interesting: Not dangerous for Black is 1 8
1) 16 gxh7+ (this sort of pawn lt:ld5 'ii'xd2+ 19 llxd2 .J:tb7 or
cover for the king, in the style of 19 ... .i.xd5 20 llxd5 a6 and the
ancient variations of the King's chances of the two sides are ap­
Gambit with reversed colours, proximately equal (Tiviakov).
usually creates no problems) With the bishop exchange White
1 6...�h8 1 7 lt:ld5 .ixd5 1 8 exd5 endeavours to exploit the light
(the attack 1 8 g5 'ii'a4 ! 1 9 gxf6 squares ( 1 9 .ixe6+ lL'lxe6 20 'ii'd 5 is
.ixf6 20 .ixf6+ exf6 2 1 .i.d3 bxa3 threatened).
22 'ii'g2 'iVaS is not dangerous for 18 'ii'c7
.••

Black, Laplaza-Copie, corr. 1987) He has to think about defence

1 8 ...'ii'xd5 1 9 g5 (possibly it is al­ since no good is 1 8 ...b4 1 9 lt:ld5
ready time to beat a retreat with 1 9 .ixd5 because of 20 .ixc8.
 The Rauzer Attack with 9 g4 203

In the game Sax-Relange, Pula l:.xd4 b5 20 l:.h3 lbb6 2 1 l:.e3 �ffl

1997, Black exchanged bishops, 22 b3 :cs 23 .to l:.bc8 24 i.e4
1 8 ... i.xh3 1 9 l:.xh3, and after lbd7 with equal chances, Boudy­
19 ...e6 20 l:.dh 1 b4 his counterat- J.Femandez, Cuba 1 983.
tack proved insufficient: 2 1 lba2 16 exd5
'it'a4 22 l:.xh7 lbh5 23 l:.1xh5 gxh5 After 1 6 i.xg7 lbe3?! 1 7 i.d4
24 g6 l:.xc2+ 25 'ii'xc2 'ii'xc2+ 26 lbxfl 1 8 l:.xfl a position is reached
�xc2 b3+ 27 �b 1 bxa2+ 28 �xa2 with opposite-coloured bishops
a6 29 b4 1 -0. which is in White's favour: his
19 lbd5 bishop controls both flanks, while
On 19 i.xe6+ lbxe6 20 'ii'd5 there its black counterpart fires into a
is the defence 20 ...'ii'c4. void: 1 8 ... b6 (or 1 8 ...aS 1 9 g5 b5 20
19 ...'ii'd7 h5 ±) 19 g5 h5 20 f4 i.h3 2 1 l:.fl2
The position requires additional l:.c6 22 f5 and White obtains the ad­
analysis. vantage, Short-Sax, Hastings 1 983.
Stronger is 16 ...�xg7 17 exd5
26Bb i.d7 1 8 l:.d4 (after 1 8 h5 h6! 1 9
hxg6 fxg6 20 i.d3 l:.h8 Black holds
(1 e4 c5 2 lbfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 the balance, Nunn-Karlsson,
lbxd4 lilf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7 Helsinki 1 983) 1 8 ...h6 19 i.d3 l:.c5
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 lbc6 9 g4 i.e6 10 20 �d2 l:.e8 (or 2 l . ..e5 22 dxe6
0-0-0 lbxd4 1 1 i.xd4 WaS 12 a3 l:.xe6 ;!;;) 2 1 l:.e1 g5 ;!;;, Goldin­
l:.ab8 13 h4 :reB) Serper, Chicago 1 997.
16 i.xd5
•.•

14 lbd5 With such an elastic pawn chain

Black can even allow himself a
sacrifice of a piece for three pawns.
However also possible is the more
passive 16 ... i.xd4 17 l:.xd4 i.d7 1 8
i.d3 l:.c5 with the idea ...l:.bc8, ... a6
and ... i.b5.
17 i.xg7 i.xfJ 18 l:.h3 i.xg4 19
l:.g3 �xg7 20 l:.xg4

With the king on c 1 , a transfer to

an ending looks well-founded but
Black is also sufficiently well
mobilised.
14 'ii'xd2+ 15 l:.xd2 lbxd5
•..

Also possible is 1 5 ... i.xd5 16

exd5 a6 17 i.e2 (on 17 i.h3
S.Tiviakov's recommendation is
good: 17 ... l:.c4 ! ? with the idea of 1 8 Bearing in mind the possibility of
g5 lbh5) 1 7 ...lbd7 1 8 f4 i.xd4 1 9 advancing his pawn chain, Black
204 The Rauzer Attack with 9 g4

stands no worse. Here are some Black peace of mind, Marjanovic­

examples. Velimirovic, Yugoslavia (ch) 1 983.
1) 20... b6 2 1 .ta6 llc7 22 llb4 2) 20...llc7 2 1 lla4 b6 22 llad4
lidS 23 a4 f5 24 a5 bxa5 25 llb5 llc5 23 b4 llc7 24 �b2 f5 25 .tb5
�f6 26 llxa5 e6 27 .tfl d5 and his �f6 with equal chances, Sznapik­
own kind of 'Stonewall' guarantees Velimirovic, Banja Luka 1 983.
 4 : Side Variations in the
Rauzer Attack

In this chapter we look at continu­ Line 27

ations in which White and Black
(1 e4 c5 2 lLJO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
avoid the main lines of development
lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
in the Rauzer Attack.
t3 0-0)
1 e4 c5 2 lLJO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 8 'it'd2 d5
lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
t3
On the main move 7 0-0 we can
•.•

mention the following:

I) On 8 'it'd2 Black, instead of the

development 8 ... lLlc6, can try to
attack the centre with the early
advance 8...d5 (Line 27).

2) White holds back the deploy­

ment of his queen on d2 and firstly
develops his bishop 8 .i.c4 (Line
28). A move which pretends to refute
the Rauzer Attack. First attempts to
Bearing in mind that after 7 ...0-0 break up White's basic construction
the spearhead of the Rauzer Attack were tried even against the very
above all is aimed at the king's author of the system. However it
flank, Black need not hurry with was soon established that until de­
castling but can complete the devel­ velopment is complete the advance
opment of his queenside pieces- ... d6-d5 is premature, as it allows
7 lLlc6, sticking to the so-called
••• the cramping of Black's position
anti-Rauzer strategy after which without allowing him sufficient
White goes in the same direction 8 counterplay.
'it'd2 (Line 29) and 8 .i.c4 (Line 9 e5
30). The further direction of Black's
Also seen sometimes is 7 a6 .•. defence was linked to the
(Line 3 1 ) where Black carries out
, continuations:
an expanded fianchetto of the sec­
ond bishop, and his knight is devel­ 27A: 9 ...lLle8
oped on d7. 27B: 9...lLlfd7
206 Side Variations in the Rauzer Attack

27A Dubious is I O...e6 I I .i.e2 f6 in

the style of the French Defence,
(I e4 cS 2 li:)fJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 which after 12 exf6 li:)xf6 13 .i.f3
li:)xd4 li:)f6 S lbc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 li:)c6 14 0-0 also here creates a back­
f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 dS 9 eS) ward pawn on e6, but without
counterplay, Polugaevsky-Chek­
9 li:)e8
... hover, Leningrad 1954.
I I 0-0-0 fxeS 12 fxeS li:)c6
Capturing the pawn gives White a
strong attack: 1 2 ....i.xe5 13 li:)f3
.i.xc3 14 'ii'xc3 followed by
h2-h4-h5, since the attempt to
counter this by 14 ...li:)f6 is refuted
by tactical means: 1 5 .i.h6 l:le8
( 1 5 ...l:lf7 I6 li:)g5) 16 l:lxd5 ! .
lJ lZ)fJ e6
Or 13 ... .i.g4 14 li:)xd5 l:lxf3 1 5
gxf3 .ixf3 1 6 .ig2 .ixdl 1 7 l:lxdl
i.xe5 1 8 .ic5 e6 1 9 li:)e7+ with a
decisive invasion behind Black's
This move was standard in the lines, Rozinov-Meyer, corr. l 958.
first years of fighting against the 14 .ih6! 'ii'c7 IS li:)bS 'ii'f7 16
Rauzer Attack. Its drawback lies in .ixg7 �xg7 17 h4 and White devel­
the fact that the knight takes no part oped a strong initiative along the
in the attack against the cramping e5 dark squares, Aronin-Boleslavsky,
pawn. Moscow 1952.
10 f4
In the game Rauzer-Goglidze, 27B
Leningrad 1 936, the author of the
system played 1 0 .i.h6 li:)c6 1 1 (I e4 cS 2 lZ)tJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
.i.xg7 li:)xg7 1 2 f4, but a resource li:)xd4 li:)f6 S lZ)cJ g6 6 .ie3 .tg7 7
was found for Black: 12 ...li:)f5 ! 1 3 f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 dS 9 eS)
li:)xf5 .i.xf5 1 4 .i.d3 .i.xd3 1 5 cxd3
'ii'b6 with a solid position. 9 lbfd7
•••

IO f6 •••

In the game Rauzer-Kasparian,

USSR (ch) 1 937, Black played
I O . li:)c6, with the idea of attacking
. .

the d4 square after the manoeuvre

...li:)e8-c7-e6. But also here the
author of the system found a deep
plan exploiting the base on d4: 1 1
g3 li:)xd4 1 2 .i.xd4 b6 13 .i.g2 li:)c7
14 0-0 .i.a6 1 5 l:lfd l e6 16 a4 'ii'd7
1 7 a5 ! and White's attack on the
queen's flank, supported by the
bishop on d4, is highly effective.
 Side Variations in the Rauzer Attack 207

From here the knight not only 12 ...�e6

takes part in an attack on the e5 After 1 2 ...e6 1 3 h4 h5 14 �c5 !
pawn, but can also be transferred to li)e7 1 5 li:)b5 a6 16 li:)bd4 li)d7 1 7
an attacking position on b6. j,d6 White dominates the dark
10 f4 li:)b6 squares, Karaklajic-Nedelkovic,
Also possible is I O...li:)c6, since Yugoslavia 1 957.
on I I lLJxd5 there is I I ...li:)dxe5 !, In the game Yemelin-Jirovsky,
while II 0-0-0 li:)b6 leads to a trans­ Pardubice 1 997, Black sacrificed a
position of moves. But also worth pawn: 12 ...�g4 1 3 li:)xd5 li:)xd5 1 4
considering is I I li:)b3 !? e6 1 2 'ifxd5 1i'c7 1 5 j,b5 li:)b4 1 6 'iVc5
0-0-0, controlling the c5 square, l:tfcS 1 7 1i'xc7 llxc7 1 S c3 �e6 19
since on the attempted break 12 ... f6 a3 lDd5 20 �d2 f6 2 1 exf6 exf6 22
strong is 1 3 li:)xd5 ! fxe5 ( 1 3 . . .exd5 lDd4 li:)xe3 23 'it>xe3 �d5 24 <itf2
14 1i'xd5+ �hS 1 5 e6) 14 lDc3 1i'e7 but all the same it became clear that
1 5 �b I exf4 16 �xf4 and White the activity of the bishop-pair was
has the advantage due to the weak insufficient compensation.
e6 pawn, Milov-Afek, Konsumex 13 h4 li:)c4 14 �xc4 dxc4 15 ii'fl
Kupa 1 992. 1i'a5 16 h5 with an attack for White,
11 0-0-0 Palac-Afek, Werfen 1 99 1 .
Upon the plan with short castling
Black has no particular problems: Line 28
I I �e2 li:)c6 12 0-0 li:)c4 (weaker is
1 2 ... f6? ! 13 exf6 �xf6 1 4 b3 �d7 (1 e4 c5 2 li:)fJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
1 5 l::.ae I llcS 1 6 �f3 ;!; Popovic­ li:)xd4 li:)f6 5 li:)c3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7
Sax, Vrsac 1 9S l ) 1 3 �xc4 dxc4 14 fJ 0-0)
li:)xc6 bxc6 1 5 1i'e2 �e6 with an
equal game (Sax). But worth con­ 8 �c4
sidering is I I b3 f6 1 2 exf6 �xf6
1 3 �e2. For example, in the game
Pribyl-Jirovsky, Czech Republic
1 994, followed 1 3 ... e6?! 1 4 0-0
li:)c6 1 5 a4 and White obtained the·
advantage. Better was 1 3 ... e5 ! ? ;!;.
l l ltsc6 12 ll)tJ
...

The other possibility is 1 2 �e2 e6

(dubious is 12 ... li:)xd4?! 1 3 �xd4
li:)c4 14 1i'el �e6 1 5 g4 and
White's attack comes first: 1 5 ...1WcS
16 1i'g3 b5 1 7 llhg l 1i'c6 I S f5 ! b4
1 9 li:)b 1 �h6+ 20 li:)d2 :res 2 1
�d3 + Apicella-Guidez, France With a transposition of moves
1 991) 1 3 h4 f6 14 h5 ! ? (after 1 4 White tries to extract an advantage
exf6 1i'xf6 1 5 g3 �d7 1 6 h5 �eS by retaining the possibility of utilis­
Black defends, Hawelko-Afek, ing the queen on e2. Strictly speak­
Berlin 1 990) 14 ... fxe5 1 5 li:)xc6 ing this idea is different from the
bxc6 16 fxe5 �xe5 1 7 hxg6 hxg6 Rauzer construction, but it has much
1 S �d3 with a serious initiative for in common with its methods of con­
the pawn (Afek). ducting the attack.
208 Side Variations in the Rauzer Attack

8 ltlc6
.•. Worth considering is the practi­
Also worth considering is the plan cally unexplored 9 ...d5!?. For
of developing the knight on d7: example, the game Muhren-Mikha­
8 ...a6 9 .i.b3 lllbd7 10 '1Vd2 lllc5 I I levski, Dieren I999, continued 10
0-0 b5 I 2 ltld5 (possibly White exd5 ltlb4 1 1 .i.f2?! (I l . ..0-0-0 !?)
should limit himelf to I 2 ltlde2) 1 1 ...ltlbxd5 12 ltlxd5 ltlxd5 13
I2 ....i.b7 I3 ltlxf6+ .i.xf6 I4 .i.d5 'it'd2 ltlb6 14 .i.b3 'it'c7 15 c3 .i.d7
'it'c7 and Black's position is already 16 0-0 e5 with excellent play for
preferable, Dorfman-Gufeld, Volgo­ Black.
donsk I98 I .
Here the following continuations 28Aa
have independent significance:
(1 e4 c5 2 llJt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
28A: 9 'it'e2 ltlxd4 liJf6 5 llJc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
28B: 9 .i.b3 f3 0-0 8 .i.c4 llJc6 9 'it'e2)

28A 9...llJa5

(1 e4 c5 2 ltlt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltlxd4 ltlf6 5 ltlc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
t3 0-0 8 .i.c4 ltlc6)

9 'it'e2

10 .i.d3
Upon the routine IO .i.b3?! Black
can expand in the centre: I O... e5 !?
1 1 ltldb5 a6 I2 llJa3 llJxb3 1 3 axb3
d5.
10 ...e5
By developing the queen on this A crucial move linked to a pawn
square White pursues the concrete sacrifice. Also worth considering is
aim of hampering Black's counter­ the more traditional plan, character­
play on the queen's flank, without istic for this kind of structure:
taking away his own options of play IO... .i.d7 I I 0-0 l:lc8. For example,
on the kingside. the game Hector-Watson, Germany
Here Black's main continuations I 999, continued I 2 l:lfdi a6 1 3 liJb3
are: 'it'c7 I4 'ii't2 llJc4 I S .i.xc4 'it'xc4
I 6 .i.b6 .i.c6 I 7 a4 llJd7 I 8 .i.d4
28Aa: 9...ltla5 llJe5 I9 'it'h4 .i.f6 20 'it'g3 b5 with a
28Ab: 9....i.d7 double-edged game.
1 1 liJb3 .i.e6
 Side Variations in the Rauzer Attack 209

Premature is I l ...d5 I2 exd5 compensation for the lost pawn

l£Jxd5 1 3 l£Jxd5 'ifxd5 I4 .i.e4 (after (B.Aiterman).
I4 0-0 l£lc6 I 5 :rdi 'ife6 I 6 c3 b6
I 7 :d2 'ife7 I S .i.e4 .i.b7 the game 28Ab
is equal, Anand-Kamsky, Buenos
Aires I 994) I4...'ifd8 I 5 0-0 l£lc6 (1 e4 c5 2 l£10 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
16 :rd I and White, occupying key l£Jxd4 l£lf6 5 l£lc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
positions in the centre, obtains the f3 0-0 8 .i.c4 ltlc6 9 'ife2)
advantage, Hellers-Emst, Malmo
1 987/88. 9....i.d7
12 0-0 :c8
A typical 'Sicilian' pawn sacrifice
for the initiative. A flank pawn at­
tack has practically no chances of
success: I 2 ... a6 1 3 'iff2 lDd7 I4
:fd I b5 I 5 l£lxa5 'ifxa5 I6 .i.fl
:res I7 a4 b4 1 8 ltld5 .i.xd5 1 9
:xd5 'ifc7 2 0 a5 and, after having
fixed the weak d6 and a5 pawns,
White obtains the advantage,
Arnason-Petursson, Palma de
Mallorca GMA I 989.
13 l£lxa5
A timely exchange before win­ Black makes a useful move while
ning the pawn. Its immediate cap­ White is deciding about castling.
ture I 3 .i.xa7 lDc4 ! gives Black 10 0-0-0 l£la5
excellent counterplay. But also On I O ... l£le5 likewise possible is
without this it is clear that there is 1 1 .i.b3. For example I l ...'ifb8?! I 2
no point in White allowing the ac­ h4 b5 13 lDd5 e6 14 l£lxf6+ .i.xf6
tivation of this knight: I 3 :rd I l£lc4 1 5 h5 and White's attack comes
I4 .i.xc4 .i.xc4 I 5 'iff2 b6 I 6 :d2 first, Hartston-Ciocaltea, Vmjacka
(or I6 a4 'ifc7 I 7 l£Jd2 .i.a6=) 'ifc7 Banja I 972.
I7 a4 (or I7 :ad 1 ?! l£le8 I S 'ifh4 f5 Interesting is IO ...:cs I 1 .i.b3
19 exf5 gxf5 20 f4 'ifc6 and Black's l£le5. Now after I2 g4 ( I 2 �bi is
game is preferable, Tai-Gufeld, more prudent) the standard ex­
Sukhumi I 972) I 7 ...'ifc6 I S a5 :bs change sacrifice is possible:
with eq_1:1al chances. 12 ...:xc3 !? 13 bxc3 'ii'a 5 14 �b1
13 1t'xa5 14 l£Jb5 d5 15 l£lxa7
.•• :cs 1 5 h4? (already I S .i.d2 was
:cd8 16 l£lb5 :d7 17 .i.c5! necessary) I S ...'ifxc3 I6 hS aS with
In the game A.Frolov-Aiterman, a strong attack for Black,
USSR I990, after 17 'ifei 'ifa8 I S Rotsagov-Oiesen, Gausdal I 99 1 . On
.i.g5 :cs I 9 a4 dxe4 20 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 1 1 �b i, logical are 1 I ...l£le5 or
2 I fxe4 .i.g7, the pressure of the I I ...l£Ja5, since after the weaker
heavy pieces along the half-open a­ 1 l ...'ifc7?! 12 .i.b3 a6 13 g4 bS
and c-files fully compensated for (13 ... e6 14 h4 l£la5 1 5 hS ± Bellin­
White's extra pawn. Mestel, England (ch) 1984) I 4 gS
17 ...:c8 18 b4 'ifa8 19 a4 and l£lh5 I S lDdS, White's position is
Black does not have sufficient preferable.
210 Side Variations in the Rauzer Attack

l l .tb3
On I I .td3 possible is 1 1 ...:c8
1 2 h4 :xc3! 13 bxc3 'ikc7 14 'ikel
dS I S eS 'fixeS with more than
sufficient compensation for the ex­
change, Hector-Yijola, Ostersund
(zt) 1 992.
l l ...lt:!xb3+
There are also other possibilities.
I) 1 1 ...:c8 1 2 �b l a6 1 3 'ikt2
lt:!c4 14 h4 bS I S hS b4 16 lL!dS
lt:!xd5 1 7 exdS lt:!xe3 1 8 'ikxe3 aS 1 9
hxg6 hxg6 20 'ikd3 'ikb6 2 1 g4 and 9 .td7 10 h4
..•

White has the initiative, Psakhis­ The plan with kingside castling
Moskow, New York 1 992. promises nothing: 1 0 lllde2 :bs I I
2) l l ...a6 12 'ikt2 bS 13 �b l 0-0 b5 1 2 lt:!f4 aS 1 3 a4 b4! and
lt:!xb3 14 cxb3 b4 1 5 lL!d5 lt:!xd5 1 6 Black does not have any problems,
exdS a5 and Black holds the initiat­ Bologan-Kir.Georgiev, Debrecen
ive, Amason-Koch, France-Iceland 1 992.
1 993 . More accurate was 1 2 'ikd3 b5 10 lt:!xd4
•..

13 �b l . Let's also look at other possible

12 cxb3 a6 13 'ikd2 continuations.
There are no prospects of play on 1) IO ...:cs I I g4 lL!eS 1 2 'ike2
the c-file: 1 3 �b l b5 14 :c t :c8 'ikaS 1 3 o-o-0 :xc3 ! (on 1 3 ... bS? it
I S 'ikd2 b4 16 lt:!ce2 a5 17 g4 eS I S is possible to take the pawn without
:xeS 'fixeS 1 9 lt:!c2 'ika6 with particular risk-14 lL!dxbS ! .ie6 1 5
chances for both sides, Hector­ ll!dS .txdS 16 exdS, Ljubojevic­
Petursson, Ostersund (zt) 1 992. Miles, Tilburg 1 9S6) 14 .td2!
13 bS 14 �bl b4 IS lt:!ce2 'ikb8
•.. lt\d3+! I S 'ikxd3 ( I S �b l ? lt:!xb2 16
16 g4 dS 1 7 gS lt:!e8 18 exdS 'ikb7 �xb2 :reS) IS ...:xd3 1 6 .txaS
19 lll f4 lt:!c7 20 lt:!c6 .txc6 21 dxc6 :xd l + 1 7 :xd l l:.cS with equal
'ikxc6 with equal chances, Amason­ chances.
Petursson, Hafnarfirdi 1 992. 2) I O ... hS 1 1 'ike2 :cs (also poss­
ible is l l ...lt:!xe4 1 2 lt:!xc6 lt:!xc3 13
28B lt\xdS lt:!xe2 14 lt:!xfl lt:!g3 IS
lt\eS+ �h7 16 lt:!xd7 :rdS=
(1 e4 cS 2 lL!tJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 S.Tiviakov) 12 0-0-0 lL!aS ( 1 3 ...lL!eS
lt:!xd4 lt:!f6 S lt:!c3 g6 6 .te3 .tg7 7 14 lLJdS;!;) 13 �b l with a compli­
tJ 0-0 8 .tc4 lt:!c6) cated game.
1 1 .i.xd4 bS 12 hS e6!
9 .tb3 Otherwise after 1 2 ...a5 1 3 hxg6
A prophylactic move of the hxg6 1 4 lL!dS ! White consolidates
bishop. In conjunction with a flank himself on the dS square--- 1 4 ... a4
attack White tries to save a tempo 1 5 lt:!xf6+ exf6 1 6 .td5 :c8 1 7
on the development of his queen. 'ii'd2 .te6 1 8 0-0-0 .txdS 1 9 exdS
However such a mode of develop­ and, in view of the fact that effec­
ment allows Black active counter­ tively he has an extra pawn on the
play on the queenside. queenside, White has the advantage,
 Side Variations in the Rauzer Attack 2 1 1

Martin Gonzalez - Kupreichik, 8 ._d2

Barcelona 1 984. White carries out the standard
13 hxg6 hxg6 14 'iVd2 aS IS a4 plan.
bxa4 16 ltlxa4 .i.c6 1 7 0-0-0 :b8 8 .i.d7
.•.

and White has achieved nothing sig­ In anticipation of White's queen­

nificant, Motwani-Larsen, London side castling, Black develops along
1989. the same lines as after the move
7 ...0-0.

Anti-Rauzer System

Taking into account that after 1 e4

cS 2 ltlo d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltlxd4 ltlf6
S ltlc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 13 0-0 the
spearhead of this Rauzer Attack is
above all directed against the king­
side, Black can delay castling in fa­
vour of 7 ...ltlc6, first bringing into
play his pieces on the queenside,
where White intends to castle his
own king. Also seen sometimes is
the continuation 7 ... a6. In this way Let's look at the main directions
Black counts on obtaining addi­ of play:
tional benefits for the organisation
of counterplay. These random 29A: 9 0-0-0
methods of counterplay are classi­ 29B: 9 .i.c4
fied as the 'Anti-Rauzer'.
Detaining the black king in the
centre gives the position its own 29A
characteristics. After 7 ... ltlc6
White's main directions of play, as (1 e4 cS 2 ltlt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
before, are: ltlxd4 ltlf6 S ltlc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
13 ltlc6 8 ._d2 .i.d7)
8 ._d2-Line 29
8 .i.c4---Line 30 9 0-0-0
In this variation, after the ma­
The continuation 7 ... a6 is looked noeuvre ...ltlc6-e5-c4, White can
at in Line 3 1 . reckon on saving a tempo when he
exchanges off the knight.
9...:c8
Line 29 Black follows the plan looked at
in Line 7 (7.. 0-0 8 ._d2 ltlc6 9
.

(1 e4 cS 2 ltlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 0-0-0 .i.d7).

ltlxd4 ltlf6 S ltlc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 10 g4
13 ltlc6)
212 Side Variations in the Rauzer A ttack

1 3 h4 leads, after 13 .....ig4, to an

exchange of bishops which is
favourable for Black.
13 :es 14 �b1
•.•

As in other variations-a useful

prophylactic move. Also seen are
the more active continuations:
I ) I4 h4 ll:lf8 I 5 l%hfl (stronger is
I 5 f5, not letting out the knight, but
even here after I 5 ...'ii'a5 I 6 �b l
ll:le5 Black has sufficient counter­
play) I 5 ... 'ii'a5 ! 16 �bi (on 16 ll:lb3
As in Line 7, this is the most ..txc3 possible is I7 ll:lxa5 ..ixd2+
aggressive move. On I8 ..ixd2 ll:lxd4 with an equal game,
the
prophylactic 1 0 �b I possible is while on I6 f5 interesting is
I O ...ll:le5, while on I O h4 the radical I6 ...'ii'e5 ! ?) 1 6...ll:le6 and Black
way is I O...h5. manages to free himself (on I 7 ll:lb3
10 ...h5 or I 7 ll:lxe6 he has to reckon on the
Also seen is I O... ll:le5 I I h4 ( 1 1 intermediate move I 7 .....txc3 !)
�b 1 can also be met by l l ...h5) Komeev-Tiviakov, Jakarta I997.
I l .. .h5 I2 g5 ll:lh7 1 3 f4 (more 2) I4 f5 ll:le5 ( 1 4 ....'ii'a5 I 5 �bi
�assive is I3 �bi 0-0 I 4 ..ie2 leads to the main continuation) I 5
lllc4=) 1 3 ...ll:lg4 (the drawbacks of l:[hfl �h8 I 6 ll:ld5 l%c5 17 �b I ;t
I3 ... ll:lc4 I4 �xc4 l%xc4 I 5 f5 are Yagupov-Motylev, Russia (ch)
obvious) 14 ..ih3 (after 1 4 �g I 0-0 I998.
1 5 l%h3 e5 Black has sufficient 14 ll:lf8 15 fS! ll:lxd4
•••

counterplay, Sigurjonsson-Mestel, 1 5 ... 'ii'a5 I 6 f6 and I 5 ... llle5 I6

Esbjerg I978) I 4...'ii'a 5 I 5 l%hei l%hfl lead to an advantage for
0-0 1 6 ll:lb3 'ii'a6 I 7 ..id4 ..ixd4 1 8 White.
'ii'xd4 and White retains the initiat­ 16 ..txd4 ..txd4 17 'ii'xd4 'ii'a5 18
ive, Short-Mestel, England (ch) lbd5 and White has a space advan­
1987. tage, Gofshtein-Cebalo, Cannes
1 1 g5 ll:lh7 12 f4 I998.
Another move is I2 �bi 0-0 (in
the game Renet-Grabarczyk, Kato­ 29B
wice 1992, Black waited with cas­
tling: 12 ...ll:lf8 13 ll:ld5 ll:le6 I 4 ll:lb5 (1 e4 c5 2 ll:lt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ll:lc5? I 5 lllf6+! and White obtained lbxd4 ltlf6 5 ll:lc3 g6 6 ..ie3 ..ig7 7
a clear advantage) 1 3 h4 (worth t3 lllc6 8 'ii'd2 ..id7)
considering is 1 3 lbb3 ! ? ll:le5 I 4 f4
ll:lc4 I 5 �xc4 l%xc4 I 6 ..td4 ;t) 9 ..ic4
13 ...ll:le5 I4 f4 ll:lg4 1 5 ..igi ? White transfers the bishop to an
(stronger is I 5 f5 with chances for active diagonal while not determin­
both sides) 1 5 ...e5 ! and Black ing the position of his king. The
grabbed the initiative, Xie Jun­ continuation 9 g4 after 9... h5 1 0 g5
Tiviakov, Beijing I997. ll:lh7 I I 0-0-0 l%c8 leads to a posi­
12 0-0 13 .tel
.•. tion looked at in the continuation 9
0-0-0.
 Side Variations in the Rauzer Attack 213

9 :c8 10 .tbJ
.•. more critically. It is necessary to
pay attention to the following de­
tails: upon the transfer of the knight
to c4, the bishop on d7 is left with
insufficient defence and thanks to
the 'jump' ltld4-b3, with tempo,
White has the important resource
e4-e5 .
Here White has two main plans­
a flank attack or a break in the
centre.

29Ba1 : 12 h4
29Ba2 : 12 �b1
The main continuations are:
On 12 .th6 it is necessary to
29Ba: 10...'ii'a5 reckon on the exchange sacrifice
29Bb: 10 ...ltle5 12 ....txh6 13 'ii'xh6 .z:r.xc3 14 bxc3
'ii'xc3 1 5 �b1 a5 ! 1 6 'ii'd2 (or 1 6 a4
29Ba ltlc4! 1 7 'ii'c 1 0-0 =i=) 16 ...'ii'c 5! with
good counterplay for Black.
(1 e4 cS 2 lDfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltlxd4 ltlf6 5 lDcJ g6 6 .tel .tg7 7 29Ba1
fJ ltlc6 8 'ii'd2 .td7 9 .tc4 .z:r.c8 10
.tbJ) (1 e4 cS 2 ltlo d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltlxd4 ltlf6 5 ltlcJ g6 6 .tel .tg7 7
10...'ii'aS fJ ltlc6 8 'ii'dl .td7 9 .tc4 .z:r.c8 10
.tbJ 'ii'a5 1 1 0-0-0 ltle5)

1 2 h4

This development of the queen in

the present situation bears a more
forcing character since the position
of the king in the centre is An energetic plan with a flank at­
significant. tack. Clearly he will not threaten the
1 1 0-0-0 ltle5 king if Black does not want to re­
Black returns to the main path. turn to variations with 7 ...0-0,
Let's look at the present position where, instead of the king's rook he
214 Side Variations in the Rauzer Attack

has to have the queen's rook on c8, and, because of the threatened ad­
which reduces possible counterplay. vance of the g-pawn, White's initi­
But now Black has no other useful ative is very dangerous (analysis).
move other than to transfer the 3) 1 7 ... Wb6 1 8 �d4 1lc7 19 tLlbS
knight to c4, but this allows an ex­ Wd7 20 WaS ! and, owing to the
ploitation of the uncastled king's threat of 2 1 �xf6, White has an
position. obvious advantage.
12...ltlc4
The block 12 ... hS, after 1 3 �gS ! 29Ba2
ltlc4 14 �xc4 :xc4 1 S ltlb3, with
tempo, forces the queen to retreat: (1 e4 cS 2 ltlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
1 S ...Wd8 ( 1 S ...Wa6 1 6 eS! + or ltlxd4 lLlf6 S ltlc3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7
1 S ...Wc7 16 �xf6 �xf6 1 7 ltldS ±) f3 ltlc6 8 Wd2 �d7 9 �c4 l:.c8 10
1 6 :he 1 and White has the strong .ib3 Was 1 1 0-0-0 lLleS)
threat of e4-eS.
13 �xc4 :xc4 14 ltlb3 Wc7 12 �b1
After 1 4...Wa6 1 S �b1 hS (or
1 S ... O-O 16 eS! ±) 16 �gS again 17
eS ! is threatened.
1S �d4 �e6
Defending against the threat of 1 6
�xf6 �xf6 1 7 ltlds. Upon this
weaker is 1 S ...�c6?! 1 6 eS dxeS 17
�xeS Wc8 1 8 We2 leaving a men­
acing initiative for White, Fischer­
Camara, Siegen (ol) 1970.
16 eS! dxeS 17 �xeS

A useful prophylactic move,

creating the possibility of the thrust
lLlc3-dS, which is quite effective, for
example, on 1 2 ... 0-0.
l2 lLlc4
••.

This natural knight manoeuvre is

the most commonly employed
continuation, but also worth
considering is 12 ... :xc3 ! ? 13 Wxc3
Wxc3 14 bxc3 0-0 with the idea of
counterplay by ...:f8-c8, ... �d7-e8,
White has an enduring initiative. ... lLlf6-d7, lLleS-c4 etc. The game
Where can the queen retreat? Lalic-Hodgson. East Kilbride 1998,
1) 1 7 ...ltle4 1 8 �xc7 ltlxd2 19 continued 1 S �f4 ! :c8 1 6 �xeS
lLlbS ! with an advantage for White dxeS 17 ltle2 bS 1 8 :d3 hS 19
in the endgame, Ghizdavu­ :hd1 :c7 20 lllg3 aS 2 1 a3 �f8!
Atanasov, Riga 1 967. 22 f4 exf4 when, instead of the
2) 1 7 ...Wc8 1 8 lLlaS ! :b4 19 hS hasty 23 eS?, there was an equal
0-0 20 a3 :b6 2 1 h6! �h8 22 Wd4 endgame to be had after 23 lllx hS!
 Side Variations in the Rauzer Attack 215

gxh5 24 e5 i.g4 25 exf6 i.xd 1 26

.:xd 1 exf6 27 l:[d5 (B.Lalic).
13 i.xc4 .:xc4 14 ltlb3 'ifc7
After 14 ....'ifa6?! good is 1 5 e5 !
dxe5 16 ltlc5 'ifc6 1 7 ltl3e4 !, with a
favourable occupation of important
squares, Balinas-Sardihna, Lugano
(ol) 1968
15 g4
On 1 5 h4 there is the radical
method 1 5 . . . h5 ! . But worth con­
sidering is the central strategy 1 5
i.d4 i.e6 1 6 e5 dxe5 1 7 i.xe5 'ifc8 29Bbl: 1 1 0-0-0
1 8 ltla5 l:[b4 19 lLld5 (also possible 29Bb2: 1 1 i.h6
is 19 h5 along the same lines as the
previous sub-variation) 19 ... ltlxd5
20 i.xg7 l:[g8 2 1 a3 (2 1 c4 .:xc4!) 29Bbl
2 l ...l:[b6 22 i.d4 .:a6 23 ltlb3 with
the better game for White due to the (1 e4 c5 2 lLlfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
threats of 24 ltlc5 and 24 'ifh6. ltlxd4 ltlf6 5 ltlc3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
15 b5
.•. f3 ltlc6 8 'ifd2 i.d7 9 i.c4 .:c8 10
The counter 1 5 ... h5?! leads to a i.b3 ltle5)
cramped position-1 6 g5 ltlh7 1 7
ltld5 'ifb8 18 i.f4 e5 1 9 i.e3 b6 20 1 1 0-0-0
'ifd3 with a clear advantage to
White, Jansa-Gheorghiu, Vmjacka
Banja 1 967.
But worth considering is 1 5 ... i.e6
or even 1 5 ... h6.
16 g5 ltlh5 17 ltld5 'ifb8 1 8 ltla5
and White has a slight but quite
enduring advantage (S.Tiviakov).

29Bb

(1 e4 c5 2 ltlfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltlxd4 lLlf6 5 ltlc3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
f3 ltlc6 8 'ifd2 i.d7 9 i.c4 .:c8 10 1 1 ...ltlc4 12 i.xc4
i.b3) Exchanging the dark-squared
bishop is anti-positional-12 'ife2?
10...ltle5 ltlxe3 1 3 'ifxe3 'ifa5 14 g4 'ifc5 1 5
'l'd3 h5 and White experiences
This is more logical than problems with the defence of the
10 ...'ifa5. By saving a tempo Black dark squares, Parma-Bilek,
forces the game on the queen 's Vmjacka Banja 1966.
flank. White has two main 12....:xc4 13 ltlb3
continuations:
216 Side Variations in the Rauzer Attack

White transfers the bishop to d4, 29Bb2

from where it controls both flanks.
On 13 ltlde2 possible is I 3 ...bS I 4 (1 e4 c5 2 lLlfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
J..h6 0-0 I S J..xg7 Wxg7 I 6 lL!f4 lLlxd4 lL!f6 5 lL!cJ g6 6 J..e3 J..g7 7
'iVaS I 7 Wb i l:r.fc8 I 8 lLlcdS 'iVxd2+ f3 lL!c6 8 'ii'd2 ..id7 9 J..c4 l:r.c8 10
I9 l:r.xd2 lL!xdS 20 lL!xdS W£8 and ..ib3 lL!e5)
Black manages to defend himself,
Le Blancq-Mestel, Bath (zt) I987. 11 J..h6
But also possible is I3 g4, on
which already risky is 1 3 ...bS?! be­
cause of I4 eS! dxeS I S ltldxbS a6
I 6 lL!a3 l:r.c6 1 7 ..ih6 ..ixh6 1 8
'ii'xh6 'iVaS 19 l:r.d3 and, by defend­
ing the Achilles Heel of his posi­
tion-the knight on c3, White is
already set to attack with the
h-pawn, Belov- Bilek, Lipeck I968.
However, by playing I3 ... 0-0, Black
leads play into the main variation
with 7 ... 0-0.
13...'ii'c7
Also here 1 3 ...bS?! is premature The most consistent plan. By ex­
because--as we already know­ changing bishops, White in fact de­
then comes the standard I4 eS! dxeS prives Black of the possibility of
1 S lL!cS 'ii'c8 I 6 lL!xd7 lL!xd7 I7 kingside castling, since at the pres­
lL!bS ! and White obtains a material ent moment it is dangerous: I l ...0-0
advantage, Tringov-Szabo, Lugano I2 J..xg7 Wxg7 1 3 h4 lL!c4
(ol) I 968. (13 ...hS !? is tougher) I 4 J..xc4 l:r.xc4
14 ..id4 IS hS with a dangerous attack for
On I4 g4 possible is I 4 ...bS I S gS White, Liberzon-Telman, USSR
b4, while I4 h4 is repulsed by I966.
I4 ...hS I S Wbi bS followed by 1 l . ..ixh6 12 'ii'xh6 'ii'a5
••

...b5-b4. Here I2 ...l:r.xc3 1 3 bxc3 'iVaS is a

14 J..e6 15 e5!? dxe5 16 ..ixe5
.•. blank shot in view of 1 4 0-0, while
The presence of this tactical idea after 1 2 ...lLlc4 1 3 0-0-0 'iVaS he has
is a consequence of Black's lateness to reckon on the pawn sacrifice 14
with castling. ltldS ! . For exam_ple: 1 4...lLlxdS I S
16 'ii'c8 17 lLla5 l:r.b4
•.• exdS 'tfxdS I 6 libel 'ifhs I 7 'ii'g7
Weak is I 7 ...l:r.c7? I 8 ..ixc7 'ii'xc7 'iVgS+ I 8 Wbi :£8 I 9 J..xc4 l:r.xc4
I9 lL!bS and White is the exchange 20 g3! e6 2 I f4 'ii'e7 22 fS! and
up without any compensation for White's attack is very dangerous,
Black, Fischer-Zuckennan, New Boleslavsky-Janes, USSR I969.
York I967. 13 lL!de2
18 a3 l:r.b6 and the black pieces The stereotyped 13 ...:xc3 was
occupy good positions: thus on I9 threatened, but there is no sense in
..id4 good is 19 ...l:r.a6; also nothing returning with the queen.
is offered by I 9 lL!a4 l:r.bS. The I ) 13 'ii'e 3?! bS! I 4 0-0-0 lL!c4 I S
game is equal. 'ii'd3 'iVb6 I 6 g4 'iVcS I 7 h4 eS! I 8
 Side Variations in the Rauzer Attack 2 1 7

lZXie2 b4 1 9 �d5 ( 19 �a4 �xa4 20 Rauzer Attack, E.Geller suggested a

�xa4 �e7 =!=) 19 ...�xd5 20 'ifxd5 radical means of avoiding it-by
(20 exd5? �b5 =!= Yurtunen­ immediately attacking the knight on
Veinger, corr. 1 990/92) 20 ...�e6 2 1 d4 with the queen. Now, in connec­
'ifxc5 l:.xc5 with a pleasant end­ tion with the arising threat of a
game for Black. knight jump ... �f6-g4 or ...�f6xe4
2) 1 3 'iVd2 �c4 1 4 �xc4 l:.xc4 1 5 (for example after 9 'iVd2?), White
�b3 'ifc7 1 6 o-o-o b5 1 7 h4 h5 with is forced to switch to strictly con­
double-edged play, Mnatsakanian­ crete play. Of course, these threats
Bastrikov, USSR 197 1 . are repulsed by the simple 9 0-0
13...�c4 14 0-0-0 'iVhS 1 5 'iVxhS (weak is 9 ...�g4? 1 0 �xf7 ±; also
�xh5 15 'iVxbS �xh5 16 �dS �aS risky is 9 ...'iVxb2?! because of the
The impulsive 1 6 ... e6?! weakens loss of the exchange by 1 0 �cb5
the d6 and f6 squares. The game 'iVb4 1 1 �c7+), however after the
Liberzon-Veinger, Israel 1983, con­ no less simple 9... 0-0 Black has
tinued 1 7 �xc4 l:.xc4 1 8 �e3 l:.c6 nothing to fear.
19 g4 �g7 20 l:.d2 �e7 2 1 l:.hd I Therefore if White intends to fight
l:.hc8 22 g5 ! and, by fixing the weak for the advantage, it is necessary for
f6 square, White obtains the him to conduct the game more ener­
advantage. getically. The following continu­
17 g4 �g7 and White's position, ations meet this requirement:
enjoying a space advantage, appears
to be preferable. 30A: 9 �fS
JOB: 9 �bS
Line 30
30A
(1 e4 cS 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7 (1 e4 cS 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
f3 �c6) �xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7
f3 �c6 8 �c4 'iVb6)
8 �c4
9 �f5

8...'iVb6
Since continuations of the type A double-edged pawn sacrifice
8 ... 0-0 and 8 ...'ifa5, after 9 'iVd2, for the initiative.
lead to main variations of the 9...'iVxb2 10 �xg7+ �f8 1 1 �dS
218 Side Variations in the Rauzer Attack

Only with the help of this active It is difficult to assess the present
move is it possible to count on a position on the basis of merely
lasting initiative. The idea of trap­ superficial observations. For the
ping the queen by I I �d2 �xg7 I 2 pawn, White has a lead in develop­
a3 does not work in view of ment and the advantage of the two
I2 ...�a5 ! 1 3 'ii'e2 ..te6 I4 ..txe6 bishops, the most dangerous of
:hcS! I 5 ..txcS :xeS and Black which is the dark-squared one,
wins back the knight, retaining an which has no counterpart. Black's
attack, Barczay-Cosulich, Reggio king is not quite secure but his elas­
Emilia I 97 1 . But he can also aspire tic pawn chain leaves hopes for
to gain an advantage with the sufficient defensive resources.
modest I I .i.d2 �xg7 I2 0-0. The 13 0-0
game Planinc-Deze, Yugoslavia 1 3 :bi 'ii'c3+ I4 �t2 has also
I970, continued I2 ...'ii'b6+ 1 3 �h i been tried. Here, White, reconciling
�e5 I4 :bi 'ii'c5 I 5 .i.d5 �c4 with himself to loss of castling rights,
equal chances for Black. brings the second rook into play.
Here it is useful to become famil­ For example, on 14 ... f6, possible is
iar with the possible capture of 1 5 'ii'c 1 e6 I6 Ab3 (premature is 1 6
either piece. ..th6+?! �f7 I 7 .i.d2 'ii'c5+ I S .i.e3
'ii'a5 I9 .i.c4 AdS 20 Adi 'ii'c7 and
30Aa: l l �xdS
... Black manages to defend himself,
30Ab: l l �xg7
... CherC?pkov-Khasin, USSR I967)
I6 ...'ifa5 I 7 ..txe6! ? ..txe6 I S
30Aa Axb7+ ..tn 1 9 ..th6+ �gS 20 'iVb2
and White maintains a dangerous
(1 e4 cS 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
attack (E.Geller). Sharper is
�xd4 �f6 S �c3 g6 6 .i.e3 ..tg7 7
I4 ...'ii'a 5 I 5 Ab3 (making way for
f3 �c6 8 ..tc4 'ii'b6 9 �fS 'ii'xb2 10
the queen on a 1 , after I 5 'ifci h5 1 6
�xg7+ �f8 1 1 �dS)
Adi 'ii'c7 I7 Ab3 f6 1 S 'ii'b2 �s
ll �xdS
... 19 .i.d4 Affi! or 1 S ...AeS 19 f4 e6
In endeavouring to ease his de­ Black has a defensible position,
fence by exchanges, Black takes the Donchenko-Telman, USSR 1966)
knight, exploiting the fact that 1 5 ... h5 16 'ii'a 1+ f6 1 7 Ahb 1 'ii'c7
White does not have the reply I 2 1 S 'ii'c3 AeS 1 9 f4 e6 20 ..txc6
exd5 because of I2 ... 'ii'c3+. (weaker is 20 .i.c4 �a5:f Stein­
12 .i.xdS �xg7 Kupreichik, USSR (ch) 1 969)
20...'ii'xc6 21 'ii'xc6 bxc6 22 Ac3
with the better endgame for White,
since on 22 ... c5 follows 23 e5
(S.Tiviakov).
13 'ii'c3
...

The queen is placed near the

centre of events, in a state of readi­
ness to return to base via a5.
Less accurate is 13 ...'ii'a3 14 'ii'd2,
when it is more difficult for Black to
defend-I4 ... h5 I 5 Aab1 'ii'a5 :
 Side Variations in the Rauzer Attack 219

1) 1 6 'il'f2 'iVc7 1 7 f4 f6 18 f5 (on A forced weakening-though at

1 8 'ii'h4 .id7 1 9 Af3 weak is an opportune moment Black can
19 ...e6? because of 20 e5! ±, K1ein­ utilise this pawn for an advance to
Ostojic, Holland 1 968, but also after h4--the more so that I4 ... h6 does
19...Aafl! White is better) 1 8 ... .id7 not rid himself of his problems. For
1 9 fxg6 b6 20 Ab3 Aac8 2 1 Aa3 example, 1 5 Abi f6 I 6 Ab3 'iVa5 I 7
ltle5 22 .id4 with a position full of 'iVb2 'ilc7 I 8 f4 Ab8 (he cannot pre­
initiative for White, Stein-Ostojic, vent the advance of the e-pawn:
Hastings 1967/I968. 18 ...e5 I 9 c4 ltla5 20 Ab5 .id7 2 I
2) I6 .id4+ f6 1 7 .ic3 'ii'c5+ I 8 fxe5 dxe5 22 Axf6! �xf6 23 'il'f2+
�hi l:lb8 I9 f4 e5 (the threat was and the queen . gets behind enemy
e4-e5) 20 a4 a6 2 I ..ixc6 'il'xc6 22 lines with decisive effect, Strzelecki
fxe5 dxe5 23 'il'f2 with the threats of -Antunes, Groningen I 980/8 I ) I 9
24 .ie5 and 24 Ab6! . e5 dxe5 (or I9 ....if5 20 exf6+ exf6
The more careful 1 4 ...h6 was 2 I Ab1 .id7! 22 Axb7 Axb7 23
possible, keeping it tighter at the 'iVxb7 Ac8 ;!;) 20 .ixc6 'il'xc6 2 I
back. For example I 5 Aab i 'il'a5 16 fxe5 l:r.fl! 2 2 exf6+ exf6 23 l:r.c3 'ii'e8
'iVc i e6 I7 .i.b3 'iVc7 I 8 Adi , 24 l:r.c7+ with a dangerous initiative
though, as before, the initiative lies for Black, Gulko-Steinberg, USSR
with White, Matanovic-Forintos, Le (ch) 1967.
Havre I 966 15 Abl 'iVaS 16 f4
14 'iVcl Also interesting is I 6 c4, on
After I4 Aei Black is for the which I 6...'iVc7 seems to be best. In
present not obliged to move the the game Tukmakov-Kaplan,
h-pawn and has time to retreat his Madrid I973, Black reacted poorly
queen: with I 6...e6 and after 17 .ixc6 bxc6
I) 14 ...'il'a5 1 5 'iVc i h5 I 6 'iVb2+ I 8 c5! d5 I9 .id4+ f6 20 f4 Aft! 2 I
f6 17 Aad 1 'iVc7 I 8 f4 e5 ! (weaker exd5 cxd5 (2 l ...exd5 22 f5 ! ±) 22
is 1 8 ...h4?! 19 h3 with the better 'il'c2 'iVc7 23 Af3 White created
chances for White, Fischer-Coho, combinative threats on both flanks.
Havana I965) I9 Ad2 exf4 20 .ixf4 16 ... f6 17 Ab3 'iVc7 18·'iVb2
ltle5 and the centralised knight
cements the position, Musil­
Djajkovski, Yugoslavia 1 968.
2) 14 ... f6 1 5 Ab i 'il'a5 16 f4 'iVc7
I 7 f5 (or I 7 'il'd2 h5 1 8 Afl .id7 I 9
Abe I Aac8 2 0 Af3 .ie8 and Black,
transferring the bishop to fl, has
time to defend everything, Minic­
Deze, Yugoslavia I969) I7 ... .id7
1 8 Ab3 Aac8 19 'iVg4 b6 20 Ac3
(20 'ii'h4 h6 2 1 fxg6 ltle5!=)
20...'iVd8 2 I Aa3 'iVc7 and Black
regroups successfully, retaining the
extra pawn, Tal-Shamis, USSR (ch) The threat to advance the e-pawn
1967. becomes real. For example, on
14 hS
.•. I 8 ...Ab8 good is I 9 e5 dxe5 (or
220 Side Variations in the Rauzer Attack

19 ....if5 20 exf6+ exf6 2 1 lib 1 ! b6 l 2 llbl

22 llc3 .id7 23 .id4 ±} 20 .ixc6 Not logical is 12 0-0 �xd5 ! 13
1i'xc6 2 1 fxe5 llf8 22 exf6+ exf6 23 exd5 (upon 13 .ixd5 a position is
llc3 with a strong attack. By now it reached from the main variation)
is possible that the most radical 13 ...1i'c3 and Black succeeds in de­
means of defence is 1 8 ...e5, recon­ fending himself.
ciling himself to new weaknesses in 12 ...'ifa3 13 1i'd2 hS
his camp. Weak is 13 ...lld8? because of 1 4
18 . h4 19 eS
. . l:b3 1i'a5 1 5 .ih6+ �h8 16 �xf6
E.Geller recommended 1 9 f5 ! ?. 1i'xd2+ 17 .ixd2 exf6 1 8 .ixf7 and
After 19 h3? llh5! Black repulses White wins back the pawn in a
the threats, Haag-Ostojic, Debrecen clearly better position, Bronstein­
1967. Stein, USSR (ch) 1965.
19. .dxeS 20 .ixc6 bxc6 2 1 fxeS
. 14 0-0
'iVxeS 22 .id4 1i'd6 23 lle3 llf'R 24 Also worth considering is 14
llfel and a position is reached �xf6 �xf6 15 f4 �g7 16 0-0 1i'a5
where White's initiative compen­ 17 c3 with compensation for the
sates for the sacrificed material. For pawn.
example on 24 ... llf7? follows 25 14...1i'aS
llxe7! with a very strong attack. Ap­ 14 ...llb8? is no good. The game
parently Black has to go in for a Stein-Pelikan, Mar del Plata 1966,
further weakening of his position by continued 1 5 �xe7 ! .ie6 1 6 �d5
24...e6. �a5 1 7 .id4 ! �xc4 1 8 1i'g5 �e5
19 1i'xf6+ �h6 20 f4 llhe8 2 1
30Ab 1i'g5+ 1 -0.
IS c3 �xdS 16 exdS �eS 17
(1 e4 cS 2 �fJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 .id4 f6 18 llfel
�xd4 �f6 S �c3 g6 6 .ie3 .ig7 7
f3 �c6 8 .ic4 1i'b6 9 �fS 1i'xb2 10
�xg7+ �f'R 1 1 �dS)
l l . �xg7
. .

In this very complicated position,

careful defence is required of Black.
Thus, for example, 1 8 ...�xc4?! is
dangerous because of 19 llxe7+
�f8 20 1i'f4 .if5 2 1 llbxb7 �e5 22
This capture sets Black more .ie3 (J.Klovans reckons that even
complicated problems, since he does stron.ger is 22 h3 ! llc8 23 .ie3 �g8
not manage to simplify the position. 24 'ifh4!) �g8 23 llg7+ �f8 24
 Side Variations in the Riluzer Attack 221

:xg6 and White's attack fully com­ .i.g7 20 'il'd6 .tf8 Ih-Ih I.Zaitsev­
pensates for t!te sacrificed piece, Gufeld, Moscow 1964) 1 1 . ..0-0 12
Hellers-Emst, Ostersund (zt) 1 992. .te2 :res 1 3 0-0-0 b5 ! 14 g5 (or 14
There was better play in the game ltlcxb5 'ifb7 1 5 ltlxc6 .i.xc6 16
Klovans-Emst, Groningen 199 1 , lLld4 lLlxe4 ! 17 fxe4 .txe4 18 :he 1
18 ...'il'c7 1 9 .t fl .t f5 20 :b2 :he8 :xc2+ and Black wins the queen,
21 f4, though even here White had a Sakharov-Vasiukov, USSR (ch)
position full of initiative. 1964) 14 ...ltlh5 1 5 ltld5 'ifb7 16
ltlxc6 (in Black's favour is 1 6 f4 e6
JOB 17 .i.xh5 exd5, Szabo-Forintos,
Hamburg 1 965) 16 ....i.xc6 with a
(1 e4 cS 2 ltlt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 complicated game.
ltlxd4 ltlf6 S ltlc3 g6 6 .te3 .tg7 7 After 1 0 Wfd2 0-0 the bishop on
f3 ltlc6 8 .tc4 'ifb6) b5 turns out to be doing nothing.
After 1 1 0-0-0 .td7 12 �b 1 .l:.fc8
9 .tbS 13 h4 ltle5 14 h5 .i.xb5 1 5 ltlcxb5
'itb6 or 14 .i.e2 b5 Black has the
initiative, Szabo-Deze, Yugoslavia
1969. On 1 1 h4 possible is 1 l .. .d5 !
12 exd5 ltlb4 =F. Too slow is 1 1 .ta4
ltle5 1 2 .i.b3 ltlc4. The game
Ljubas-Todorovic, Belgrade 1 990,
after 13 ltldb5 'il'c6 14 Ci:Jxa7 ltlxd2
1 5 ltlxc6 lLlxf3+ 1 6 gxf3 bxc6 1 7
'iP£2 .i.e6 transposed to an equal
endgame.
lO lLlxdS 1 1 exdS a6 12 .txc6+
.•.

If he captures with the knight, 12

ltlxc6 axb5, he has to spend time on
This is not quite such a typical retreating it:
position for the bishop, but the pin 1 ) 1 3 .i.d4 .i.xd4 (also possible is
pursues a concrete aim of defending 13 ...bxc6 14 .i.xg7 l:tg8 1 5 .i.c3
the b2 pawn. cxd5 16 'il'xd5 'ii'b7= Rozenshtein­
9 'il'c7
••• Kaganovsky, USSR 1964) 14 'il'xd4
The queen is forced to retreat, but 0-0 1 5 ltlb4 'il'c4 1 6 0-0-0 'il'xd4 1 7
also the bishop, having already :xd4 .i.d7 with an equal endgame,
made two moves, falls under a pawn Stefansson-Emst, Copenhagen
attack. 199 1 .
10 lLJdS 2) 1 3 lLld4 'il'c4 1 4 'il'e2 0-0 1 5 c3
This move leads to e�changes, but .i.d7. The game is equal, Loschi­
nor are other continuations na-Podlesnik, Pula 1 999.
dangerous. The retreat 1 2 .ta4? is weak:
On 1 0 g4 the simplest way is to 12 ...'il'a5+ 13 c3 'il'xd5 14 0-0 .i.d7
continue development by 1 0....td7! 1 5 .i.b3 'ifa5 ( 1 4...'il'h5 is also
1 1 'il'd2 (or 1 1 g5 lLlh5 1 2 ltld5 good) 1 6 :e1 0-0 and White does
'il'a5+ 1 3 c3 e6 1 4 .i.xc6 bxc6 1 5 not have sufficient compensation for
ltlb3 'il'd8 1 6 ltlxf6+ ltlxf6 1 7 the pawn, Wang Zili-Silva, Novi
'il'xd6! lLlh5 1 8 0-0-0 .i.f8 1 9 'il'd4 Sad (ol) 1990.
222 Side Variations in the Rauzer Attack

12...bxc6 13 !Dxc6 i.b7 hxg6 fxg6 22 llxh7! �xh7 23

Less accurate is 1 3 ...0-0 14 i.d4 llbl+ �g8 24 llh8+ �fi 25 llh7+
(in the struggle for the central ¢>e8 26 'ife4 when, as pointed out
squares every tempo is important; by Kozhurov, play should continue
after 14 0-0 i.b7 1 5 c4 i.xc6 16 26 'ii't7 ! 27 llb8+ �d7 28 'ii'b7+
••.

dxc6 'ii'xc6 1 7 'ii'e2 llab8 Black is �e6 29 llxc8 'ii'f4+ 30 �d1 'ii'a4+
already better, Kontic-Boissonet, 31 �d2 llxc8 32 'ii'xc8+ �f7 trans­
Tunja 1 989) 1 4...e5 1 5 i.c3 i.b7 1 6 posing to an equal queen ending.
'ii'd2 ( 1 6 !Da5 e4!=) 16 ...i.xc6 1 7
dxc6 'ii'xc6 1 8 0-0-0 and White's Line 31
position is preferable in view of
Black's backward pawn on d6, (1 e4 cS 2 !Df3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
Estrin-Kupreichik, USSR 1965. ti:Jxd4 !Df6 S !Dc3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
Not good is 13 ... i.xb2? 14 llbl f3)
i.c3+ 1 5 �f2 0-0 1 6 i.b6! 'ii'd7 1 7
i.d4 i.xd4+ 1 8 'ii'xd4 and Black 7 a6
•.•

has weak dark squares, Yurkov­

Lebedev, USSR 1 963.
14 i.d4 i.xd4
Also quite good is 14 ... f6 1 5 c4
i.xc6 16 dxc6 'ii'xc6 17 b3 0-0 1 8
0-0 llfd8 19 'ii'e2 e5 20 i.f2 d5 with
counterplay in the centre, Juarez­
Silva, Buenos Aires 1 99 1 .
1 5 'ii'xd4 0-0 16 0-0-0 i.xc6 17
dxc6 'ii'xc6 1 8 h4
After 1 8 libe l llac8 Black holds
the balance, An.Bykhovsky-Stein,
USSR (ch) 1 965.
18 llfc8 19 c3 'ii'c4 20 hS!
••• The development of the queen's
flank by ...b7-b5, ...i.c8-b7,
...!Db8-d7 and ...'ii'd8-c7 is linked
with a delay, and sometimes full re­
jection of short castling by Black in
favour of long castling. Therefore
White has to coordinate his play,
operating, according to the circum­
stances, not only on the kingside but
also on the queen's flank (a2-a4)
and in the centre (!Dc3-d5).
8 'ii'd2
The continuation 8 i.c4 allows
Black to carry out his plan and after
Now, upon the queen exchange 8... b5 9 i.b3 i.b7 1 0 'ii'd2 !Dbd7
20...'ii'xd4 2 1 llxd4, the four-rook achieve a harmonious development
ending is more pleasant for White. of pieces on the queens ide.
The game Krichevtsov-Kozhurov, 1 ) 1 1 a4 bxa4 ( l l ...b4 is position­
corr. 1990, continued 20 'ii'xa2! 2 1
•.. ally not well founded: 1 2 !Dd5 a5 1 3
 Side Variations in the Rauzer Attack 223

.i.h6 0-0 14 0-0-0 with advantage to 197S. Also not bad is 9 0-0-0 .i.b7
White, Ree-Bilek, Bad Pyrmont 10 g4 hS I I gS �fd7 12 f4 �c6 1 3
1970) 12 �xa4 1Wc7 13 0-0 0-0 14 �xc6 .i.xc6 1 4 .i.d4 and White's
c4 l:tfd8 IS .i.a2 �cS 16 �c3 aS 1 7 centralised pieces secure him the ad­
�dbS 1Wc8 with equal chances, vantage, Mikhalchishin-Belosvetov,
Ostojic-Ivanovic, Yugoslavia 1972. USSR 1989.
2) I I .i.h6 .i.xh6 12 1Wxh6 �cS 9 0-0-0
1 3 0-0-0 �xb3+ 14 cxb3 (also good Also possible is 9 .i.c4 1Wc7 (or
is 14 �xb3 1Wb6 I S �b l 0-0-0 16 9...bS 10 .i.dS! �xdS I I �xdS .i.b7
l:the I �b8 1 7 �S �xdS 18 exdS 12 .i.gS! ±, Vesely-Pachrnan,
with unpleasant pressure on the e­ Czechoslovakia 1 963) 1 0 .i.b3 bS
file, Stein-Veresov, Moscow 1963) I I 0-0-0 .i.b7 12 .i.h6 .i.xh6 1 3
14 ...1Wb6 I S �b l 0-0-0 1 6 b4! �b8 1Wxh6 �eS 1 4 f4 �c4 I S eS dxeS
1 7 �b3 and White has a slight 16 �f3 e4 (16 ...exf4 17 .i.xc4 bxc4
advantage, Krutikhin-Botvinnik, 18 l:the 1 ! + Torre-Fuller, Adelaide
Moscow 1963. 197S) 1 7 �gS with initiative to
8 �bd7
.•. White.
The thrust 8 ...bS is justified only 9 b5 10 g4
...

in the event of 9 .i.h6 .i.xh6 I 0 After 10 h4 hS ! 1 1 .i.d3 .i.b7 12

1Wxh6 .i.b7 (it is not worth driving l:the I l:tc8 1 3 �b I �eS 1 4 .i.gS 0-0
the knight where it wants to go by the game is even, Geller-Furman,
1 l ...b4 1 1 �dS. After 1 l . ..�xdS 12 USSR (ch) 196 1 .
exdS .i.b7 13 .i.c4 1Wc7 14 1Wg7 l:tffl 1 0....ib7 1 1 h4
1 S .i.b3 �d7, in the game Also worth considering is 1 1 �b3
Matanovic-Stein, Sousse (izt) 1967, followed by an advance of the h­
White could have obtained a slight pawn, since Black can hardly go in
advantage by playing 1 6 0-0-0! aS for 1 l . ..hS 1 2 gS �h7 1 3 f4 when it
17 .i.a4) 1 1 0-0-0 �bd7 12 a3 1Wb6 is difficult for him to create real
13 1Wd2 �cS 1 4 �b 1 eS 1 S �b3 counte!Play.
�xb3 16 cxb3 0-0-0 with equal l l lllb6
...

chances, Zurahov-Novotelnov, Also interesting is l l ...hS ! ? 1 2 gS

USSR 1 9S3. �h7 ;l;.
But after the resolute 9 �dS! 12 h5 l:tg8!? 13 a3 �fd7 14 hxg6
�xdS 10 exdS .i.b7 1 1 a4 bxa4 (or hxg6 15 .i.h6 .i.xh6 16 l:txh6 and
1 I ....i.xdS 12 �fS ±) 12 l:txa4 0-0 White's control of the h-file
1 3 h4 1Wd7 14 l:taS eS I S dxe6 fxe6 guarantees some advantage, Xie
16 hS White retains a dangerous Jun-Chiburdanidze, Manila (m/9)
initiative, Adotjan-Fuller, London 199 1 .
 Illustrative Games

Game 1 The main one of these is an attack

Smyslov-Gufeld on the e-pawn.
USSR (ch) 1 961

1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
f3 lLlc6 8 'ii'd2 0-0 9 0-0-0 d5 10
exd5 lLlxd5 11 lLlxc6 bxc6 12
lLlxd5 cxd5 13 W'xd5 W'c7 14 W'xa8
.i.f5 15 W'xf8+ �xf8 16 :d2 W'b8
16 ...h5 is considered more accu­
rate and after 17 .i.e2 W'b8 1 8 b3
.i.c3 19 :ds .i.e5 20 :cs W'b4
Black has rather the better
prospects.
17 .i.b5 27 :e1 hx_g3 28 bxg3 g5 29 fxg5
1 7 b3 is more reliable. e5 30 .i.e3 W'xc3 31 .i.d2 W'xg3 32
17 h5 18 :bd1 .i.xb2+ 19 �xb2
.•• l:b6!
W'xb5+ 20 �a1 W'c4 2 1 .i.d4 .i.e6 At last White manages to display
On 2 l ...f6, with the idea of some activity, but this leads only to
...e7-e5, White replies 22 f4 and on simplification.
22 ...g5 possible is 23 fxg5 .i.e6 24 32 ...W'd3 33 .i.xa5 W'd4+!
c3 fxg5 25 :e 1 with somewhat the It is important to pin the rook,
better chances. eliminating the back rank mate
22 c3 a5 23 :c2 theme.
23 f4 is stronger. 34 :b2 fxg5 35 :c1 g4 36 .i.c3
23...f6 W'e3 37 .i.d2 W'd4 38 .i.c3 W'e3
Worth considering is 23 ...g5 ! ?, th- th
preventing f3-f4.
24 f4 .i.f5 Game 2
White's defence would be more lvanchuk-Hodgson
difficult on the advance of the pawn Amsterdam 1 996
to a3.
25 :b2 W'c7 26 g3 h4 1 e4 c5 2 lLlo d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
Black's initiative has an enduring lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
character, but nevertheless White t3 0-0 8 W'd2 lLlc6 9 0-0-0 d5 10
has sufficient defensive resources. exd5 lLlxd5 1 1 lLlxc6 bxc6 12
 Illustrative Games 225

lt:JxdS cxdS 13 'ifxdS 'ifc7 14 'ifcS The culmination of the move of

'iVb8 the queen to b8! Now, on the best
The main continuation is con­ reply 20 g3 'iff6, the queen transfers
sidered to be I4 ...'iVb7, but also the to a powerful diagonal. However
text development of the queen has there follows a surprising exchange
its merits: it controls the important of errors.
b8-h2 diagonal. 20 ..txa8? l:xb3+?
15 b3 It is difficult to resist this impul­
This weakens the important diag­ sive double check, thereby guaran­
onal. The alternative is I 5 Wa3 on teeing a pin on the h6-c I diagonal,
which I 5 ...a5 or I 5 ...Wc7 are but now White manages to defend
possible. himself and the extra rook is a per­
1S .....tfS 16 ..td3 suasive argument.
Upon the development of the As pointed out by Ju.Hodgson,
queen to b8 White has the possibil­ after the cool 20...l:d3+! the de­
ity of making the blockading move fence 2 I l:d2 ..tc3 forces a queen
I 6 ..ta6, preventing the develop­ sacrifice. This leaves 2 I �bi 'ifd4
ment of the rook to c8, though after 22 'ifd8+! Wxd8 23 l:xd3 Wxa8 24
I 6...Wb6 the bishop would have to l:hdi ..tffi 25 l:d8 Wb7 26 l:le8 and
retreat. after 27 l:dd8 the game transposes
16...l:c8 17 Was to an unclear "queen against two
It is possibly worth the risk of rooks" endgame.
capturing the pawn, 1 7 Wxe7, since 21 l:d2 l:b8 22 ..tdS ..th6 23
there does not seem to be any direct l:hd1 'ifd4
"punishment": I 7 ... l:e8 I 8 Wc5 More stubborn is 23 ...'iff6 24 c3
l:e5 I9 'ifd4. 'iff5, forcing 25 ..txf7+.
17...l:c3 24 c3 'ifd3 25 ..tb3 l:d8 26 c4 eS
Black sacrifices the exchange, re­ 27 cS e4 28 fxe4 1-0
alising that upon the prosaic 1 8 �b I
..txd3 I9 l:xd3 l:xd3 20 cxd3 'ifd6 Game 3
the control over the long diagonal is Ivanchuk-A.Fedorov
full compensation for the sacrificed Wijk aan Zee 2000
pawn.
18 ..txrs :xe3 19 ..te4 'iff4! 1 e4 cS 2 lt:Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lt:Jxd4 lt:!f6 5 lt:!c3 g6 6 ..te3 ..tg7 7
f3 0-0 8 'ifd2 lt:!c6 9 0-0-0 dS 10
exdS lt:JxdS 1 1 lt:!xc6 bxc6 12
lt:JxdS cxdS 13 WxdS 'ifc7 14 Wcs
'iVb7 1s Wa3 ..trs 16 ..td3
The main continuation is con­
sidered to be I6 ..ta6.
16...l:ab8 17 b3 l:bc8 1 8 ..txrs
gxfS 19 l:d3!
White endeavours to control the
d-file, the key artery of the position.
After 1 9 ..td4 Wc7 20 Wb2 e5 Black
has sufficient counterplay.
226 Illustrative Games

29 ... -.gl+ 30 �b2 f4 31 :e2 :gs

32 b4 aS 33 b5

19...'.c6
The preliminary 19 ... f4 deserves
attention. Now not possible is 20
i.xf4 _.c6 2 1 c4 (or 2 1 c3 _.g6) 33 ..h5
.

2 l .. ...f6 and Black has the advan­ Black misses a chance to activate
tage, while after 20 i.f2 _.c6 2 1 c4 his queen by 33 ...-.cS !?. Now on 34
_.g6 the black queen is more mo­ i.xaS there is 34 ...:cs 3S a4 (or 3S
bile: 22 :hd 1 'ii'xg2 23 i.xa7 :as �b3 i.fl!) 3S ...i.fl! and the exposed
24 :1d2 _.fl+ 2S �c2 i.f6 and position of the white king makes it­
Black has some hope of exploiting self felt.
the pinned bishop. For example: 26 34 _.d1 'ifcs
-.cs :res 27 'ifhs -.a1 2S a4 Also hopeless is the queen ex­
:xc4+! 29 bxc4 _.xa4+ 30 �c1 change 34 .....xd1 3S :xd l .
_.a1+ with a draw by perpetual 35 -.ds _.g1 36 :xm :xn 37
check. Stronger is 26 •as :res 27 _.d8+ :tB 38 -.xg5 -.n 39 :c2
:ds+ :xdS 2S :xdS+ :xdS 29 1-0
_.xdS+ �_g7 30 a4 _.xf3.
20 c4! 'iff6 Game 4
Insufficient is 20 .....g6 2 1 :d2 Beliavsky-Khalifman
-.r6 22 i.d4 eS 23 i.e3. Belgrade 1993
21 :hd1 :c6
On 2 l . .. aS White exchanges 1 e4 c5 2 lZJO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
bishops: 22 f4! a4 23 i.d4. ll:Jxd4 ll:Jf6 5 lZJcJ g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
22 i.d4 e5 23 i.cJ :a6 24 1Wb2 fJ 0-0 8 _.d2 ll:Jc6 9 0-0-0 d5 10
_.h6+ 25 �b1 -.xh2 26 :d8 i.f6 exd5 ll:Jxd5 1 1 ll:Jxc6 bxc6 12 i.d4
After 26 ...:e6 unpleasant is 27 e5 13 i.c5 :e8 14 llJe4 f5 15 ll:Jd6
-.a3 -.xg2 2S i.b4 :res 29 i.e7 i.f8 16 i.b5!
and White wins. Throughout the Dragon's many
27 :8d7 i.g7 years ' history specialists have
Worth considering is 27 ...:cS!?, played 1 6 c4 or 1 6 i.c4, and missed
though even here after 2S _.d2 'iVhS this blow.
29 'ifdS White has an obvious 1 6...i.d7
advantage. The only reply. 1 6 ...i.xd6? is no
28 _.c2 :g6 29 :1d2 good because of 1 7 i.xc6 i.xcS 1 S
A simpler way to achieve his goal i.xdS+, while after 1 6 ...cxb5?! 1 7
is by 29 'ifxf5 lhg2 30 :xa7. _.xdS+ i.e6 1 S _.xeS i.h6+ 1 9 f4
 Illustrative Games 22 7

J.g7 20 'ii'e3 White has a clear bishop is exchanged and it is not

advantage. easy to defend the king along its
17 l:hel ! former diagonal. But White is in a
hurry to reap the harvest...
26 c4?!
Attacking on the left at the mo­
ment when he should be proceeding
on the right. After 26 g4! fxg4 27
fxg4 'ii'b4 28 'ii'xb4 �xb4 and with
the exchange of queens the rooks
obtain excellent transit points for
attacking pawn weaknesses in the
endgame-29 l:e4 �5 30 l:de 1
�f6 3 1 l:c4.
26 ...�f6 27 rlic2 'ii'f7 28 'ii'cJ h6
29 l:e2 rlih7 30 l:ed2 'ii'e7 3 1 'ii'a5
17 ...l:e6 g5 32 l:d8
Black defends in the best way. Also here 32 g4 was good.
After 17 ...l:b8?! 1 8 J.c4 J.e6 Black 32 ...l:xd8 33 l:xd8 �g6 34 h3 f4
protects the a2-g8 diagonal, but is 35 'ii'd 2 e4
forced to move off the long diag­ This radical solution to the prob­
onal-19 �xeS J.xc5 20 l:xe5 'ifb6 lem of the backward pawn looks
2 1 c3 l:xe8 22 l:de l rlifl 23 'irh6 ! . risky but is based on accurate
Now after 23 ...J.f8 24 'ii'xh7+ J.g7 calculation.
comes the decisive blow 25 l:xe6! . 36 fxe4 l:xe4 37 'ii'd3 rlif7 38
18 �b7 'ii'c7 19 J.a6 J.c8 .txf6 rlixf6 39 l:d6+ l:e6 40 'ii'd4+
After 19 ...J.g7 20 c4 �f6 2 1 rlif5 41 'ii'd3+ rlif6 42 'ii'd4+ 1/z-1/z
'ii'a5 ! 'ii'xa5 22 �xa5 White attacks
the queenside weaknesses. Game S
20 J.xf8 J.xb7 21 J.xb7 'ii'xb7 Tokarev-Gufeld
22 J.a3 a5 23 b3 a4 24 J.b2 axb3 Odessa 195 7
25 axb3 l:ae8
1 e4 c5 2 �fJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 J.e3 J.g7 7
fJ 0-0 8 'ii'd2 �c6 9 0-0-0 d5 10
exd5 �xd5 1 1 �xc6 bxc6 12 J.d4
e5 13 J.c5 .te6 14 �xd5
The main continuation here is 14
�e4, but White decides to regale on
the exchange, underestimating the
strength of the black pawn centre.
14...cxd5 15 J.xf8? 'ii'x f8 16 'ii'a5
'ii'e 7!
This is stronger than what was
played in the game Westerinen­
A critical position for the evalu­ Nilson, Varna (ol) 1962, 16 ...l:b8
ation of White's idea associated 17 l:d3 d4 1 8 l:a3 J.h6+ 19 rlib1
with 16 J.b5 ! . The opponent's key with a double-edged game.
228 Illustrative Games

17 l:[d3 e4 18 l:[b3 d4 19 l:[b5

Now a strong line of energy from

the black pieces passes through the
19...d3! c3 square.
A decisive breakthrough in the 1 8...l:[xb2!?
centre--opening not only diagonals Cutting the Gordian Knot!
but also files. The c2 pawn is de­ 19 �xb2
flected to d3 where it blocks the After 19 ..xb2 Black forces a
way out for his king. transposition to a winning endgame
20 cxd3 l:[c8+ 21 �b1 ext3 22 -19 . ....xg5+ 20 ,.d2 e3 ! 2 1 ,.g2
gxt3 .trs 23 .:xrs ..xg2 22 .i.xg2 l:[b8.
It's hard to give White any good 19.....a5 20 .id4 e3?
advice. An impulsive move, throwing
23...gxf5 24 d4 .ixd4 25 .ia6 away the fruits of his combination.
l:[b8 26 b3 .ig7 27 •xrs ,.a3 28 He should continue to hack away at
..c2 ,.xa6 29 l:[g1 'iff6 0-1 the Gordian Knot-20...li:)xc3 ! 2 1
,.xc3?! .ixd4! 22 ,.xd4 l:[b8+ 23
Game 6 �c1 c5 ! 24 ,.e3 f4 ! with advantage
Velimirovic-Gufeld to Black.
Vinkovci 1982 But, of course, chess is not
checkers, capturing is not obligatory
1 e4 c5 2 ll:)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 and White can play better: 21 li:)xe6
li:)xd4 li:)f6 5 lZ)cJ g6 6 .ie3 .ig7 7 li:)xd l + 22 ..xd 1 l:[b8+ 23 �c l .
t3 0-0 8 ,.d2 �c6 9 0-0-0 d5 10 Now, however, White gains the
exd5 li:)xd5 11 li:)xc6 bxc6 12 .id4 advantage.
e5 13 .ic5 .ie6 14 li:)e4 l:[b8 15 g4 21 ,.c2 li:)xcJ 22 ,.xcJ .ixd4 23
f5 16 gxfS gxfS 17 li:)g5 l:[xd4 l:[b8+ 24 �c2 ,.xa2+ 25
Forcing events is to Black's ad­ �d3 c5
vantage: 1 7 l:[g 1 ? fxe4 1 8 �6 ..f6 "Missing" the possibility in time­
19 l:[xg7+ ,.xg7 20 ..xe6+ �h8 2 1 trouble to get mated-25 ...l:[b3?? 26
.ixf8 ..,g5+ 22 �b 1 l:[xf8 ! after l:[d8, but right away White gets his
which the initiative passes into his "revenge".
hands-23 •xc6 li:)e3 24 l:[e1 li:)xfl 26 l:[d6 f4 27 l:[g1??
25 l:[xfl exf3 26 ,.e4 f2! + All that remains is to play for
Dolmatov-Schneider, Budapest clarity: 27 .ih3 ! . Now White loses.
1982. 27 ...�1+ 28 �e2 l:[b2+ 29
17 ...e4 18 c3 'iVxb2 .ic4+ 0-1
 Illustrative Games 229

Game 7 20 ...ltlxe4 21 fxe4 .tf8 22 .txf8

011-Gufeld l:xf8 23 �b1 l:fd8! 24 .td3 l:d4
Tbilisi 1 983 Gaining the laurels of his strategy.
The dark squares cannot be
1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4. 4 defended.
ltlxd4 ltlf6 5 ltlc3 g6 6 f3 ltlc6 7 25 'ii'e2 'ii'b4 26 b3 aS 27 �b2 a4
.te3 .tg7 8 'ii'd2 0-0 9 0-0-0 d5 1 0 28 'ii'e l 'ii'd6
exd5 ltlxd5 1 1 ltlxc6 bxc6 12 .id4 Attentive to the end. He might
e5 13 .tcs .te6 14 ltle4 l:b8 15 c4 have thrown away his advantage
l:e8 with the hasty 28 ... axb3? 29 'ii'xb4
At the time this was a novelty and l:xb4 30 �c3 ! .
naturally it was not easy for White 29 .tc2 .txc4 30 'ii'c3 axb3 31
to assess the nuances of the position. axb3 .ixb3 0-1
16 g4 ltlb6!
Game S
Kasparov-Topalov
Amsterdam 1 995

1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltlxd4 ltlf6 5 ltlc3 g6 6 .te3 .tg7 7
f3 ltlc6 8 'ii'd2 0-0 9 0-0-0 d5 10
exd5 lLlxdS 1 1 ltlxc6 bxc6 12 .td4
ltlxc3 13 'ii'xc3 .th6+ 14 .te3
.txe3+ 15 'ii'xe3 'ii'b6 16 1Vxe7
.te6 17 'ii'a3 l:fd8 18 .ta6
On 1 8 .ie2?! it is possible to take
the pawn 1 8 ....txa2 ! .
17 'ii'c 2?! 18...c5?!
A poor choice, after which the in­ Closing off the important a7-g1
itiative passes to Black. If playing diagonal from the queen, whereas
for an endgame advantage after 1 7 he could have exploited it after
'ii'xd8 l:exd8 1 8 l:xd8+ l:xd8 1 9 b3 1 8 ..'ii't2 . Also not bad is 1 8 ...l:d5,
.

f5 20 gxf5 .ixf5 2 1 �c2 .tffl didn't intending to double rooks.

seem enough for White, then why 19 .ie2 c4 20 f4 l:d4 21 l:xd4
dido 't he attack by 1 7 .id6! ltlxc4 'ii'xd4 22 g3
1 8 .ixc4 .ixc4 1 9 .ixb8 'ii'xb8 20
�b 1 with the better chances.
17 ...ltld7 18 h4 'ii'as 19 .ta3
ltlf6!
By exchanging White's most ac­
tive piece, Black has his eyes on the
weak d4 square. White underesti­
mates the dangers.
20 g5?!
It is not worth losing a tempo,
though after 20 ltlxf6+ .ixf6 fol­
lowed by 2 I .. ..ie7 Black maintains
the better chances.
230 Illustrative Games

22 c3?
.•. exdS lL!xdS I I lL!xc6 bxc6 12 i.d4
It is difficult to explain why he i.xd4 13 •xd4 •c7
decides to enter a losing endgame The queen here takes up its
just at that moment when it was customary position in case White
possible to fish in troubled waters accepts the pawn sacrifice.
by 22 ... i.d5 23 l:[d 1 ...f2. Now after 14 i.c4 lL!b6
24 :xd5 •xe2 and the white king 14 ...e5 1 5 ...c5 ! favours White.
cannot relax. Also unclear is 24 IS i.e2 i.e6
i.g4 i.e4. For example, 25 •c3 h5 On 1 5 ... c5 White steps back with
26 i.h3 •xh2 27 •xc4 i.xc2 etc. 16 ...e3, intending h2-h4.
23 •xc3 •xc3 24 bxc3 i.xa2 2S 1 6 ...cS
�b2 i.e6 26 c4 On 1 6 g3 possible is 1 6...c5 1 7
The doubled pawn is not only an •e3 l:[fd8.
extra one but it fulfils the function 16...l:[fb8!
of cutting off the bishop from sup­ This is stronger than 1 6...:ab8,
porting the passed a-pawn. since the queen's rook is included in
26...'it>f8 27 llal aS 28 cS 'it>e7 29 the game without moving from its
c4 i.d7 original s9.uare.
Or 29...'it>d7 30 i.f.3 :a6 3 1 'it>c3 17 g3 Wb7 18 b3 aS 19 a4 lL!dS
with the advantage. 20 lL!e4 lL!b4
30 i.f3 l:[b8+
On 30 ... :a6 could follow 3 1 'it>c3
f6 32 i.b7 :a7 33 :e l + 'it>f8 34 c6.
31 'it>c3 a4 32 l:[aJ
White does not hurry with 32 c6,
though after 32 ...:b3+ 33 'it>d4 he
has an obvious advantage.
32 ...:c8 33 'it>d4 hS 34 i.b7 :d8
3S 'it>cJ h4 36 gxh4 l:[h8 37 i.dS
Also here, good was 37 c6 i.e6
38 :xa4.
37 ...:xh4 38 'it>b4
After 38 c6 Black could hold on
by 38 ...i.e6. 21 i.c4
38...:xh2 39 c6 i.e6 40 i.xe6 It is an acknowledged fact that
fxe6 after the transfer of the knight to b4
Or 40 ...'it>xe6 41 'it>c5 l:[h8 42 the black forces are quite aggress­
:xa4 with a win. ively pointed at the enemy king. On
41 'it>cS 'it>d8 42 :xa4 1-0 2 1 l:[d2 possible is 2 I ...lL!a2+! 22
'it>b2 i.xb3 ! 23 cxb3 ...xb3+ 24
Game 9 'it>a1 lL!b4 25 i.c4 and Black real­
Shirov-A.Fedorov ises the theme of P.erpetual check:
Batumi 1 999 25 ......xf.3 ! 26 :n 'tfe4 27 :e2 e6!
28 :Xe4 lL!c2+ 29 'it>a2 lL!b4+ 30
I e4 cS 2 lL!fJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 'it>a3 lL!c2+ (A.Shirov).
lL!xd4 lLif6 S lL!c3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7 21 ...i.dS
f3 0-0 8 •d2 lL!c6 9 0-0-0 dS 10 The fight for tempo.
 Illustrative Games 23/

22 l:ld4 'ifa7 23 'ifxa7 l:lxa7 24 f4 I9...'ifd6?!

i.xe4! 19 ...l:lfd8 ! ? is a more realistic way
Black strives for control over the for Black to exploit his control of
only open d-file. the d-file. For example 20 h5 g5 !
2S l:lxe4 l:ld8 26 :n e6 27 g4 (weaker is 20 ...c4 2 1 hxg6 hxg6 22
�g7! l:le4 'ifb6 23 i.e2 f6 24 'tfe3 !) 2 1 h6
White's small initiative will not c4 22 i.e4 'ifg3 etc.
increase thanks to help from the 20 hS gS
king, preventing the cramping f5-f6. Here 20 ... c4 2 1 hxg6! cxd3 22
28 fS exfS 29 gxfS l:ld6! 30 fxg6 gxh7+ �h8 23 l:le4 l:ld8 24 .I:Ihh4
hxg6 3I h4 leads to a crushing pin on the long
It is worth "paralysing" the rook diagonal.
on a7 with the move 3 1 l:le5 ! . 2I h6 l:ld8 22 b3 f6
3l. l:lad7 32 l:le2
.• Worth considering is 22 ... c4 23
He has to reckon with the threat i.xc4 'ifc5 24 l:le4 ;!;.
of invasion by the rook (32 l:le5 f6 23 g3 i.dS 24 l:[hfl eS 2S f4 e4
33 l:lxa5 l:ld2). 26 i.e2 l:lfB?!
32 ...ll)dS 33 �b2 ll)b6 34 i.d3 Necessary was 26...gxf4 27 gxf4
l:ldS 3S l:lh2 l:leS 36 l:lgi ll)dS 37 �h8 with unclear consequences,
hS ll)f4 38 hxg6 ll)xd3+ 39 cxd3 since now the position opens up to
•h-lh White's advantage.
27 fxgS fS
Game 1 0
Losing is 27 ... fxg5 28 'ife3 'ihh6
Morozevich- Kir.Georgiev
29 c3 .
Sarajevo 2000
28 l:lf4 i.e6 29 l:lefl 'ifes
I e4 cS 2 ll)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 On 29 . c4, 30 g4 cxb3 3 1 axb3
. .

ll)xd4 ll)f6 S lZ)cJ g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7 l:lc8 32 'ifh2 fxg4 33 l:lxe4 is

f3 ll)c6 8 'ifd2 0-0 9 0-0-0 dS IO decisive.
exdS ll)xdS 11 �xc6 bxc6 I2 i.d4 30 'ifaS l:lf7?
i.xd4 I3 'ifxd4 'ifc7 I4 'ifcS lZ)xcJ It was necessary to defend the a7
IS 'ifxc3 i.e6 I6 i.d3 l:lad8 I7 pawn with the other rook, 30 ...:d7,
l:ldei cS I8 �bi l:ld4 going for counterplay after 3 1 g4
On 1 8 ... c4?! he has to reckon on e3 ! .
the possibility of the exchange sacri­ 3I g4 fxg4 32 .I:Ixf7 i.xf7 33
fice 19 .r:r.xe6! fxe6 20 i.xc4. 'ifxa7 i.e8 34 l:lfS ! I-0
I9 h4
Game 1 1
Xie Jun-Gufeld
Kuala Lumpur / 994

I e4 cS 2 ll)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ll)xd4 ll)f6 S ll)c3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
f3 0-0 8 'ifd2 ll)c6 9 0-0-0 dS I 0
Wei eS 1 1 ll)xc6 bxc6 I2 exdS
ll)xdS I3 i.c4 i.e6 I4 ll)e4 'ifc7 IS
i.cS l:lfd8 I6 g4 ll)f4 I7 'ifc3 l:ldS!
White also has the more pleasant
prospects after 1 7 ...i.d5.
232 Illustrative Games

18 �b1 l:lad8 19 �xdS cxdS 20 30 b3 (30 'ifaS?? l:lc l +) 30 ... fxe6 3 1

�e3! l:lhe 1 l:le3 ! . Thus White is reduced
For the sacrificed exchange Black to 29 l:lc l .
obtains a pair of raking bishops, at­ 29 lDxe6 fxe6
tacking the king 's position, whereas By now 29 ...l:lc3 is not possible
ambitions of the type 20 lDgS d4 2 1 because of 30 'ifffi+.
'ifa3 �dS lead White into making 30 l:lct l:le8 31 l:lc6 'ires 32 l:lhcl
new concessions. l:le7 33 'ifb4 �f7 34 a3 aS
20.. .'ii'e7 21 'ires 'ifb7 22 'ifaJ It is not worth creating more wea­
'ifc6!? 23 'ifcJ 'ifa8! knesses; far more solid is 34 ...g5 ! .
Taking distant aim from the 3S 'ifbs a4 36 l:lc8 'ife3??
comer! But also worth considering A serious mistake. It was still not
is 23 ...'ife8 !?, not fearing the ex­ too late to play 36 ...g5.
change 24 �xf4 dxe4 25 l:lxd8 37 l:l1c7 and Black lost on time.
'ifxd8, since on 26 �xeS unpleasant 1-0
is 26 ...'ifd5 ! .
Game 1 2
24 �xf4 l:lc8! 2S 'ifaS exf4 26
Hellers-Ernst
lDgS 'ifb8!
Stockholm 1993
The queen cooperates excellently
with the key bishop, preparing, in 1 e4 cS 2 lDt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
the event of 27 b3, to take a shot li:)xd4 lDf6 S lDcJ g6 6 �e3 �g7 7
with 27 ...'ife5. t3 lDc6 8 'ifd2 0-0 9 0-0-0 dS 10
27 c3 �xc3 'ifet e6 1 1 h4 'ifc7 12 lDdbS 'ifas
27 ... l:lxc3 is more logical, attack­ 13 exdS exdS 14 hS l:le8
ing the f3 pawn and maintaining, Dangerous is 1 4...lDxh5? 1 5 g4
after 28 l:ld2 h6 29 lDxe6 fxe6, a li:)f6 1 6 'ifh4 hS 1 7 �gS with a
position full of initiative. strong attack for White.
28 'ifa3 1S hxg6 fxg6 16 'ifd2
Firmly blockading the isolated
pawn. After 16 lDd6 l:le6 17 lDxc8
l:lxc8 1 8 'ifd2 l:lce8 Black's position
is preferable.
16 ...�e6 17 lDd4 J.f7 18 J.f2
li:)es 19 �b1 l:lac8?!
Upon opposite-sides castling, the
isolated pawn is not a weakness
since it serves as a base for support
of the attacking pieces. Therefore it
was better not to wait with
19...lDc4, since after 20 J.xc4 dxc4
the game is even. Now, however,
28...�f6?! White seizes the initiative.
An impulsive striving for tempo 20 lDcbS! 'ifd8
which eases White's defence. Upon A practically forced pawn sacri­
the modest retreat 28 ... �g7 it would fice, since on 20 ...'ifxd2? 2 1 l:lxd2
still be unfavourable for White to the losses are greater.
play 29 lDxe6? because then the 2 1 lDxa7 l:la8 22 lDabS lDc4 23
rook is also thrown in by 29 ...l:r.c3 ! 'ifcJ?!
 Illustrative Games 233

Why does he voluntarily subject .:cs+ .ieS ! ! 38 .:xeS+ �fl (Ernst),

himself to a pin? 23 Wff4 seems but in the absence of anything better
more solid. he should have decided on this.
23 ...Wfb6 24 b3 3S...bxa2+ 0-1
On 36 �c2 decisive is 36 ... a I ='if
37 Wfxa1 Wfxa l 38 .id4 .ixd4 39
.:xd4 Wfa2+.

Game 1 3
Adams-Topalov
Wijk aan Zee 1 996

1 e4 cS 2 lbf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lbxd4 lbf6 S lbc3 g6 6 .ie3 .ig7 7
f3 lbc6 8 Wfd2 0-0 9 0-0-0 dS 10
Wfel e6 1 1 h4 Wfc7 12 hS lbxhS 13
exdS exdS 14 lbdbS Wfg3! IS .ifl
24....:ec8!? On 1 5 lbxd5 possible is 1 5 ... .ie6
An effective piece sacrifice, based 16 lbbc7 .ixd5 ! or 1 5 ...Wfxel 16
on two pins at once. 24 ... lba3+ 25 .:xe 1 lbg3 with equal chances.
lbxa3 .:xa3 26 Wfb2 is tiresome. IS...Wff4+
25 bxc4 dxc4 26 Wfb2 lbdS 27 c3 Also interesting is 1 5 ...Wfg5+ 1 6
Preventing ...c4-c3, but now be­ �b l d4.
gins a piece attack on the pawn. 16 .ie3
27...WfaS 28 lbe2! Having 'secret intelligence' of
Taking under control the g 1 -a7 Black's intentions, White surpris­
diagonal. ingly goes along with his proud op­
28....:a6 29 .:h4 .:cc6 30 lbed4? ponent who now rejects repetition
Of course the crossfire on the c3 by 16 ...Wfg3 . .
square seems unbearable but why 16...Wff6?! 17 .:xdS lbf4
voluntarily go back to covering the The most logical way of driving
important diagonal? He should cut away the rook and completing his
the Gordian Knot by 30 .:hd4! ? development. The impulsive
.ixd4 3 1 .ixd4 and if Black persists 17 ....ie6?? costs the queen ( 1 8
with the pin by 3 L...:cb6 32 .ixb6 i.g5).
.:xb6 33 lbed4 lbxc3+ 34 lbxc3 18 .:d6 .ie6 19 Wfd2 lbhS
.:xb2+ 35 �xb2 Wfb4+ 36 �c2
White has more than sufficient
equivalent for the queen. Now
Black surrounds the knight.
Jo....:cs! 31 .:c1
Also insufficient is 3 1 lbb3 cxb3
32 .ixc5 lbxc3+ 33 lbxc3 .ixc3 34
.:a4 bxa2+ 35 .:xa2 .ixa2+.
3t ....:b6! 32 lbb3 cxb3 33 .ixcS
.:xbS 34 .ixbS lbxc3+ 35 .:xc3
It looks too dangerous to retreat
35 �a l lbxb5 36 .id4 lbxd4 37
234 Jllustrative Games

20 �g5 Game 14
White changes the vector of the Timman-Sax
attack. But also after the logical 20 Niksic 1983
l?Jc7 it is not easy for Black. For
example in the event of 20 ...lDg3 I e4 cS 2 lDO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
(with the idea of 2 1 l:tg1 lDf5) lDxd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7
White gains the advantage after 2 1 t3 lDc6 8 'il'd2 0-0 9 0-0-0 dS 10
lDxe6! fxe6 22 �c4. lDxc6 bxc6 I I �h6 'il'aS 12 �xg7
20...'..e5 21 g4! lDg3 22 �f4 �xg7 13 exdS cxdS 14 g4 e6 IS h4
lDxn 23 :xn 'iVcS 24 �e3 h5 1 6 'il'f4
The attack on the h-file, 24 l:th 1 More energetic is 16 ._g5, keep­
lDe5 25 'iVh2 h6 26 �xh6 lDxt3 27 ing under control the e5 and h5
'iVh3 �xh6+ 28 'iVxh6 'iVg5+, ends squares and not allowing the freeing
in a pleasant endgame for Black. manoeuvre occurring in the game.
24...'iVc4 25 .l:.hl lDb4! 26 �d4 1 6 ...'il'b6 17 �d3 eS!
White neutralises the raking A move with many plans! The e­
bishop, maintaining the attack. After file is opened for the rook and the
the hasty 26 'iVh2?! h5 27 gxh5 c8-h3 diagonal for the bishop.
lDxa2+ 28 lDxa2 'iVxb5 29 lDc3 18 'il'xeS l:te8 19 'iVf4 hxg4 20
'iVa5 it is clear that it is Black who fxg4
has the attack. On 20 h5 Black exchanges queens
26...lDxa2+ 27 lLlxa2 by 20 ...'il'e3+ with an approximately
After this automatic exchange equal endgame.
Black succeeds in defending him­ 20 ... �xg4 21 l:tdfl l:tad8
self. Stronger is 27 �bl ! lDxc3+ 28 With such centralisation it is poss­
lDxc3 f6 29 b3 'iVc8 30 g5 ! and ible to be satisfied with the results
White continues the attack. of the opening.
(Topalov) 22 lLla4 'il'e3+ 23 'iVxe3 l:txe3 24
27...'iVxa2 28 'iVh2 hS 29 �xg7 .l:f4 �h3
�xg7 30 'iVeS+ �g8 31 lDc3! Better is 24 ....l:.f3.
On 3 1 l:txh5 Topalov had pre­ 25 lDcS l:tc8 26 b4
pared 3 1 ...f6.
3I ...'iVal+ 32 lDbl �a2
Losing is 32 ... .1:fd8? 33 gxh5 �a2
34 �d2 ! .l:.xd6+ 35 'iVxd6 �xb 1 36
hxg6.
33 �d2!
Exchanging the pin on the king
for a pin on the _gueen.
33 ...l:tfe8 34 'iVf6 �xbl 35 l:txhS!
To defend against ...'iVa1 -a5+,
White forces a draw.
35 ... gxh5 36 'iVgS+ �fB 37 'iVh6+
�e7 38 'il'f6+ �fB 39 'il'h8+ �e7
40 'il'f6+ �fB 41 'il'h8+ •A-1A 26...lDe4!
 Illustrative Games 235

Beginning an interesting tactical 18 l:d6 19 'ifas b6

.••

exchange of fire. For Vasily lvanchuk, concrete as

27 li)xe4 ever, it is important to drive away
After 27 .ixe4 dxe4 28 l:Xe4 the queen even if he weakens the a6
l:xe4 29 li)xe4 .ifS 30 l:e 1 l:c4 square. On 20 'ifa6 he could con­
Black stands better. tinue 20 ....ic8 2 1 'ifc4 .ie6 22 'ife4
27 ...dxe4 28 �d2 .ig2! l:ad8.
After 28 ...l:g3 29 .ixe4 it's al­ 20 'ife1 l:c8 21 a3 l:c5
ready better for White. Now Black is ready to parry the
29 �xeJ .ixh1 30 .ixe4 .ixe4 attack h2-h4 with the counter
31 l:xe4 l:xc2 ... h7-h5.
The game comes down to an 22 g4 l:cd5 23 'ifg3
equal rook endgame. 23 'ife3 is more flexible, not al­
32 a4 �h6 33 aS l:c7 34 bS gS lowing the following demarche by
35 �d4 f5 36 l:e6+ �hS 37 hxg5 Black.
�xgS 38 b6 axb6 39 axb6 l:cl 40 23 h5 24 h3?!
••.

l:e8 l:tb1 41 l:tb8 �g4 42 b7 •A-•A Stronger is 24 h4! , not fearing

24...hxg4 25 fxg4 g5 26 hxg5 l:xg5
Game 1 5 27 'iff3 and the queen displays
Adams-Ivanchuk activity.
Dortmund 1998 24 h4! 25 'iff2
•..

1 e4 cS 2 lt)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
li)xd4 li)f6 5 lt)cJ g6 6 .ie3 .ig7 7
f3 0-0 8 'iVd2 li)c6 9 0-0-0 dS 10
�b1
How strange it is that after this
prophylactic move of the king
(usually carried out later) it is not so
easy to demonstrate a clear way to
equalise the game.
10 li)xd4 1 1 e5
•.•

This intermediate move was made

possible by 1 0 �b 1 .
l l ...li)f5 2S l:xd3!
•.•

Giving back the pawn in this way The hand of a great master. In the
is considered Black's best retort. forthcoming single combat of queen
12 exf6 .ixf6 13 li)xdS 'ifxdS versus a pair of bishops, lvanchuk
Thanks solely to this effective finely coordinates these forces with
queen sacrifice Black obtains a fully his remaining rook, which infitrates
equal _game. to b3.
14 'it'xd5 li)xeJ 1 5 'ifd2 li)xd1 16 26 cxd3 l:xd3 27 'ife2 l:b3 28
'ifxd1 .ie6 17 .id3 l:tfd8 18 'ife1 l:d1
It is too much of a luxury to keep On 28 f4 Black could continue the
in reserve such a powerful piece as a attack by means of ...b6-b5. But
queen, the more so that the attack 1 8 now White is deprived of this
h4 l:d4 1 9 h5 'iVb4 assumes a possibility.
double-edged character. 28 g5!
•.•
236 Illustrative Games

Black refrains from winning back example: 22 ... .!Dxfl 23 b3 ! llf2 24

the queen, underlining the strength e5 ! .!Dd2 (or 24 . . .dxe5 25 .!De4) 25
of his pieces. �c l .!Df3 26 l:.f4 l:.f8 27 exd6! l:.xf4
29 lld2 �g7 30 'ife4 aS 31 �cl (27 ...exd6 28 e7 lle8 29 .!De4) 28
bS 32 �d1 a4 33 �el �c4 34 �fl dxe7 l:.f8 29 exf8='if �xf8 30 lld7
e6 3S 'ifc2 �dS 36 'ifd1 b4? .!Dxg5 3 1 e7+ �e8 32 l:.xb7 with an
After achieving complete domina­ easy win (!.Gurevich).
tion with his pieces, Black allows 20 f4 l:.cS
White to defend both his vulnerable
weaknesses, b2 and f3, at the very
moment when he should be reaping
the harvest with 36 ...�xb2 !
V.lvanchuk thought that now 37
lld3 �f6 38 lle3 �h6 39 lld3 �b2
40 llxb3 axb3 was losing for White,
while even on the better 37 llxd5
exd5 38 'ifxd5 �f6 39 f4! gx.f4 40
g5 �b2 it would not be easy for him
to counter the threat of the break­
through by ...b5-b4.
37 a:xb4 ll:xb4 38 'ife2 llb3 39
�g2 �g8 •A-I.h 21 lDbS!
A refined manoeuvre. White
Game 1 6 transfers the knight to the better
I.Gurevich-Ward square d4, from where it not only
London 1 994 keeps under control the e6 square
but also supports the advance of the
1 e4 cS 2 .!Df3 d6 3 d4 c:xd4 4 f-pawn.
.!Dxd4 .!Df6 S .!Dc3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7 21 .!Df8 22 .!Dd4 �d7 23 �d3
.••

f3 .!Dc6 8 'ifd2 0-0 9 0-0-0 .!D:xd4 10 eS?!

�xd4 �e6 1 1 �b1 'ifc7 12 g4 llfc8 Creating an additional weak pawn
13 h4 'ifaS 14 'ifgS 'iV:xgS 1S h:xgS on d6. He should confine himself to
.!Dd7 16 �:xg7 �:xg7 17 llh4 passive tactics-23 ....!De6 24 .!Dxe6+
Black is cramped and White i.xe6.
(apart from the doubling of rooks) 24 .!Db3 llc7 2S rs g:xfS 26 exfS
plans further pressure on his posi­ dS 27 c3
tion by f3-f4-5. The pawn-pairs created are not of
17 .f6
.. equal value: White is attacking,
It was necessary to reduce the ac­ while Black's is in need of defence.
tivity of rook with the move By opening the way for the bishop
17 ...llh8, intending the freeing to b3, White highlights the weak­
...h7-h6, since now one pawn re­ ness of the d5 pawn.
places another on g5. 27 ... as 28 .i.c2 a4 29 .!Del l:.aS
18 g:xf6+ .!D:x£6 19 gS .!Dd7 30 .!De2! �e8
The continuation 1 9 ... .!Dh5 20 f4 Activity by 30 ... a3 not only
l:lf8 2 1 5 .!Dg3 22 fxe6 leads to weakens this pawn but allows the
forcing play with the creation of a bishop to be included in the attack
second cramping pawn on e6. For against the d5 pawn.
 Illustrative Games 23 7

31 a3 �g8 32 llg1 lla6 33 �g3 It is too late to go back: 17 ... �d7

llg7 34 �fl ! bS 35 �e3 lld6 36 18 1lxh7 llxc3 (on 1 8 ....i.xc3 White
�g4 e4 37 llh2 exploits the pinned bishop against
Even more energetic was to step the queen to deliver a decisive mat­
up the pressure with the move 37 ing finish: 19 llh8+! ! �xh8 20
llh6 and, since the exchange 1i'h2+) 19 ltxg7+! �xg7 20 .i.d4+
37 ...1lxh6? 38 gxh6 followed by e5 2 1 .i.c3 'ifxa2 22 1i'd5 with ma­
�g4-f6 leads to the loss of a pawn, terial advantage to White.
Black is forced to retreat by 18 gxf6 .i.xf6 19 gxh7+ �h8 20
37 ...1ld8 38 �f6+ etc. .l:.dg1 ! 1Wxa2 21 .J:.g_8+ .J:.xg8 22
37 ...�d7 38 llh6! llb6 39 llxb6 hxg8--1i'+ �xg8 23 Wfg2+ �fT 24
�xb6 40 �f6+ �fT 41 �xh7 �d7 bxc3 1i'al+ 25 �d2 'ifxc3+ 26 �e2
42 .i.d1 �g8 43 g6 llxh7 44 gxh7+ 1Wxc2+ 27 .i.d2 1i'c4+ 28 ¢'e1
�xh7 45 �cl �f6 46 �d2 1-0 Further resistance is pointless.
28 bS 29 1i'e2 1i'b3 30 �f2 b4
.••

31 1Wbs as 32 1i'hS+ �f8 33 .i.h6+

Game l ? .i.g7 34 .i.xg7+ �xg7 35 WfgS+
Arakhamia-Ward �f8 36 l:h8+ �f1 37 l:b7+ 1-0
Berne 1 992

1 e4 cS 2 �fJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Game 1 8

�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 .i.eJ .i.g7 7 G.Timosbcbenko-Gallagher
f3 �c6 8 1i'd2 0-0 9 0-0-0 .i.e6 10 Jacksonville 1 990
�xe6 fxe6 11 h4 �eS 12 .i.e2 llc8
13 g4 'ifaS 14 hS �c4 15 .i.xc4 1 e4 cS 2 �fJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
llxc4 16 hxg6 llfc8 �xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
He should reconcile himself to f3 0-0 8 1i'd2 �c6 9 0-0-0 .i.d7 10
16...hxg6. However, Black overesti­ g4 l:c8 1 1 h4 �es 12 �b1 1Was 13
mates his posibilities on the oppo­ lL!dS
site flank. On 1 3 h5 he needs to reckon on
17 g5 the exchange sacrifice 1 3 ...l:xc3,
but the arising position is not to
everyone's taste.
13 1Wxd2
.•.

A practically forced exchange,

since on . the retreat of the queen,
13 ...1i'd8, follows the attack 14
�xf6+ .i.xf6 1 5 h5, with 1i'd2-h2 to
come.
14 �xe7+ �h8 15 .i.xd2!
On 1 5 l:xd2 after 1 5 ... l:ce8 the
bishop e3 is hanging and Black wins
back the pawn with a good position:
16 lL!d5 lL!xd5 1 7 exd5 lL!g4.
17 ...1lxc3 1S l:ce8 16 .i.b4 �xfJ!?
.•.
238 Illustrative Games

The win of two pieces for a rook f3 0-0 8 .i.c4 lLlc6 9 1i'd2 .i.d7 10
and two pawns after 1 6 ... l:xe7 1 7 0-0-0 l:c8 1 1 .i.b3 lba5 12 �b1
.i.xd6 l:fe8 1 8 .i.xe7 l:xe7 1 9 .i.e2, In recent years it has been found
with the open d-file, could prove to necessary to move the king to a
be in the white rooks' favour. safer place.
17 lbxf3 lbxe4 12 lLlc4 13 .i.xc4 l:xc4 14 g4
.•.

Now begins a gallop with the pair Upon this order of moves, after 14
of knights where the rivals are h4 Black is not obliged to block
worth:y of each other. with 14 ... h5 and can play more
18 �d5 .i.xg4 19 .i.g2 lbfl 20 decisively-14 ...b5 ! ? 1 5 h5 b4 1 6
.i.xd6 l:g8 21 lbg5 h6! 22 lbxf7+ lbce2 e5 1 7 lbb3 d5, obtaining an
�h7 23 l:dfl lbxh1 24 l:xh1 l:e2 initiative-seeking position.
25 lbf4 14 b5 15 'ii'd3
.••

Taking the pawn by 1 5 lbdxb5

entails risk, since it leads to an open
b-file and Black can attack by
means of 1 5 ...1Va5 1 6 lLld4 l:b8 or
1 5 ...1Vb8 16 lLld4 l:fc8.
But 1 5 b3 is considered best,
driving back the rook to c8, which
upsets the coordination of the rooks.
15 ...1Vb8 16 g5 lLlh5 17 lbd5 e6
18 lbf6+
Having said "A" he has to say
"B", since 1 8 lbe7+ �h8 19 lbb3
l:e8 also leads to material losses.
25 l:xg2!
•.• 18 ltlxf6 19 g:xf6 .i.xf6 20 h4
•..

A beautiful piece sacrifice, poss­ :res 21 h5 d5!

ible because of the poor coordina­ A well-known method: a flank at­
tion of the white forces. tack is best countered by a blow in
26 lbxg2 .i.f3 27 l:h2 the centre.
On 27 l:g1 follows 27 ....i.d4. 22 hxg6 hxg6 23 exd5 exd5
27 .:es 28 .i.g3 l:fB! 29 lbg5+
•.. As pointed out by A.Fedorov, this
hxg5 30 hxg5+ �g8 3 1 lbe1 l:d8! is more natural than venturing to
32 lbd3 .i.e4 33 l:d2 l:d5 34 .i.f4 win the queen: 23 ...l:xd4 24 .i.xd4
l:f5 35 .i.eJ .:n + 36 lbcl .i.e5 37 e5 25 .i.e3 .i.f5 26 'ii'e2 l:xc2 27
l:fl l:xfl 38 .i.xfl a6 39 .i.e3 �f7 'ii'xc2 .i.xc2+ 28 �xc2 'ii'c8+ 29
40 lbe2 1,4.1,4 �b1 'ii'f5+ 30 �a l with unclear
consequences.
Game 1 9 24 Wd2
Lanka-A.Fedorov 24 f4 would be more provident.
Chisinau 1 998 24 1Ve5 25 c3 b4 26 .i.f4
•••

After 26 cxb4 follows the incur­

1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 sion 26 ... l:c2 27 Wei .i.f5 28 �a l
lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlcJ g6 6 .i.eJ .i.g7 7 l:e8.
 Illustrative Games 239

18...lLJxd5 19 exd5 'ifb7 20 'ifh2

�f7
It seems that everything is in
order for Black: 21 'tfxh7? is not
possible because of 2 1 .. .:h8! and
the queen is trapped. But. ..
21 'iff4+! �g8

26...'iffS+!
A queen sacrifice on the theme of
deflecting the central defender-the
knight. White cannot decline the
sacrifice by 27 �a 1 in view of
27 ...bxc3 28 bxc3 llxc3 29 ltlxf5
llcl with a double check mate.
27 lLJxfS �xfS+ 28 �al bxc3 29
bxc3 llxf4! 22 llxh7!
After 29 ... �xc3+? 30 'ifxc3 llxc3 If now 22 ...�xh7, then 23 'iff7!
3 1 �e5 he might even lose. with the threat of mate by 24 llh 1 .
30 llcl llxf3 3 1 �b2 d4 32 c4 2 2...'ifxd5 2 3 llxg7+!
It's funny that the highest titled Now Black has to accept the rook
piece is incapable of coping with the sacrifice anyway.
power of the bishops. On 32 cxd4 23...�xg7 24 lLJfS+! �xf5 25
winning is 3 1 ...llb8+ 33 �a1 lld3 . 'ii'h6+ �f7 26 llxd5 �xc2+ 27 �al
32 ...llb8+ 33 �al d3+ 34 llc3 b4 28 b3 llc3 29 .J:[d2 aS 30 �g5
:n o-1 �g8 31 llxc2 ! llxc2 32 'ii'xg6+ �f8
33 �h6 mate.
Game 20
Beliavsky-Gufeld Game 2 1
USSR 1 976 Feher-Schneider
Hungary 1 995
I e4 c5 2 ltlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lilxd4 lLlf6 5 lLJc3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7 I e4 c5 2 lLlfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
f3 0-0 8 'ifd2 lLJc6 9 �c4 �d7 10 lLJxd4 lLlf6 5 lLJc3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7
h4 llc8 II �b3 lLJeS 12 0-0-0 lLJc4 f3 0-0 8 'ifd2 lLlc6 9 �c4 �d7 10
13 �xc4 llxc4 14 g4 'ifc7 15 h5 0-0-0 lLJeS I I �b3 llc8 12 h4 lLJc4
llc8 16 hxg6 fxg6 17 �bl b5 13 �xc4 llxc4 14 h5 lLJxhS 15 g4
This pseudo-active move is lLJf6 1 6 �bl lle8
prompted by an underestimation of Anticipating the threat of �e3-h6.
White's resources, as will be con­ 17 b3
vincingly demonstrated. After 1 7 e5 lLJxg4 1 8 fxg4 �xg4
18 lLld5! 19 lldg 1 dxe5, a position arises
Eliminating the main defender of which, though imbalanced in the
the king's residence-the knight f6. material sense, is still sufficiently
240 Illustrative Games

fire-proof. On I7 lL\d5 possible is Game 22

I 7 ... e6 I 8 l'L!xf6+ ...xf6 with ap­ Anand-Kasparov
proximately even chances. New York (mil l) 1995
17 l:lc8 18 .i.h6 .i.h8 19 l'Llce2
.•.

The knight transfers to g3, with 1 e4 c5 2 l'Llt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4

the idea of preventing the jump to l'Llxd4 l'Llf6 5 li:)c3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
h5 after g4-g5. t3 0-0 8 1i'd2 li:)c6 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10
19 ...'ifb6 20 .i.e3 0-0-0 li:)e5 1 1 .i.b3 l:lc8 12 h4 h5
On 20 l'Llg3 possible is 13 �b1 l'Llc4 14 .i.xc4 l:lxc4 15
20 ...l'L!J(g4 ! ? 2 I fxg4 .i.xg4. li:)de2 bS 16 .i.h6
20 ..... a6 21 l'Llg3 .i.xg4 22 fxg4 For the time being nothing serious
l'Llxg4 23 .i.g1 llcS 24 l'LlgfS has been found for White after I6
White begins an attack. Not poss­ e5 dxe5 I7 .i.g5 l:lc7 I8 .i.xf6 exf6
ible is 24 l'L!df5? because of 19 l'Llxb5 l:lb7.
24 ....i.c3. 16...1i'as
A logical move, neutralising the
manoeuvre li:)c3-d5.
17 .i.xg7 �xg7 18 li:)f4
I8 g4 gxh4 I9 h5 leads to a sharp
position, practically unexplored up
to now. But worth considering is the
more modest I 8 l'Llc I , threatening to
drive back the queen by I9 l'Llb3 and
following up with li:)c3-d5 and
g2-g4.
18...l:lfc8 1 9 l'LlcdS
There is nothing better. After I9
l:lc I b4 20 li:)cd5 li:)xd5 2 I li:)xd5
24...gxfS? .i.e6 Black has sufficient
He should decline the knight counte�lay.
sacrifice by 24 ... h5, since now 19 .....xd2 20 l:lxd2 l'Llxd5 2 1
White can develop a strong attack l'Llxd5 �tll 22 l:lel l:lb8 23 b3 l:lcS
by continuing 25 li:)xf5 llxf5 26 24 li:)f4 l:lbc8 25 �b2
exf5 with the threat of l:ld i -g l . Risky is 25 e5 .i.f5 26 exd6 l:.xc2
25 ...g5+?! .i.g7 26 exfS (26 ... .i.xc2+? 27 llxc2) 27 dxe7+
Not possible is 26 li:)xf5?? be­ �e8 28 l:lxc2 l:lxc2 and the rook
cause of26......xa2+ mating. lords it behind enemy lines.
26 ...li:)f6 27 c4 l:lec8 28 ..,g2 d5 2S ... aS 26 a3 �g7 27 l'LldS .i.e6!
29 l'LlbS l:lxc4! Up to now events have developed
A splendid rook sacrifice laying very sweetly but it is as if the world
bare the king, after which the champion senses that his lulled chal­
"Dragon" bishop lies in wait-ready lenger will risk playing for a win.
to ambush it. 28 b4
30 bxc4 l:lxc4 31 'ifb2 ._a4 32 28 li:)xe7 l:le8 29 li:)d5 .i.xd5 30
l:ld3 l:lb4 33 l:lb3 l:lb3 34 axb3 b4 axb4 3 I axb4 l:lc4 32 l:lxd5
..,e4+ 35 �a2 •xh1 36 .i.xa7 •n l:lxb4+ leads to a drawn outcome.
37 li:)a3 1i'xfS 0-1 28 ... axb4 29 axb4 l:lc4
 Illustrative Games 241

30 lL!b6?? 24...e5!
The trap works. In his calculations Provoking a clarification of the
Anand misses a zwischenzug by his centre. Now any workable white
opponent otherwise he would have attack involves further sacrifices,
taken the road to a draw by. 30 whereas after 24 ... fxg6 25 l:.hgl
lL!xe7 l:.xb4+ 3 1 �c 1 . l:.h8 26 l:.g5 ! it is not easy for Black
30...l:.xb4+ 3 1 �a3 l:.xc2! 0-l to defend himself.
On 32 l:.xc2 follows 32 ... l:.b3+ 33 25 gxt7
�a2 l:.e3+ 34 �b2 l:.xe 1, remaining Another way to attack is linked to
with two extra pawns. the win of the exchange, 25 lL!f5+
.i.xf5 26 Wxd5 .i.xc2+ 27 �b2
.i.xg6 28 l:.h2, but Black can also
Game 23 play 26 ...Wc7 ! after which he has to
Glek-Kveinis reconcile himself to 27 Wf7+,
Bad Godesberg 1 995 exchanging queens.
25 ...l:.xd4 26 l:.dgl+ �xt7 27
I e4 c5 2 lL!fJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Wb6 l:.fB? .

lL!xd4 lL!f6 5 lL!c3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 The black king is exposed and un­
f3 0-0 8 Wd2 lL!c6 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10 derstandably he wants to bring up if
b4 l:.c8 II .i.b3 b5 1 2 0-0-0 lL!e5 only one defender, but now White
13 �bl lL!c4 14 .i.xc4 l:.xc4 15 wins back the piece while retaining
lL!de2 b5 16 .i.h6 b4 17 .i.xg7 an unceasing attack. He should have
�xg7 l8 lL!d5 lL!xd5 19 exd5 Wb6! relied upon on the maxim of the
It is important to take under first world champion Wilhelm Stei­
control the a7-g l diagonal. After nitz that the king can take care of
1 9... Wa5 20 b3 l:.c5 2 1 g4 the itself and thrown caution to the
defence is more difficult. winds-27 ...�e7 28 Wg5+ �e6 29
20 b3 l:.c7 2 1 g4 l:.fc8 22 lL!d4 'l'g6+ �d5, though it is obvious
l:.c5 23 gxb5 that after 30 h5 the passed pawn will
Or 23 l:.hel Wd8. have to be watched closely. (Glek).
23 ...l:.xd5 24 hxg6 28 l:.g7+ �e8 29 l:.xd7!
242 Jllustrative Games

There was already a draw-29 lLld5: 1 8 ... 'iVxd2 1 9 .J:xd2 lLlc4 20

'iVg5 :n 30 .l:g8+ .l:ffl 3 1 .l:g7, but i.xc4 bxc4 and after ... f6-f5 there is
White rightly counts on more. apparently nothing real for White.
29 �xd7 30 'iVxf8 .l:f4
.•• 18...l:c6 19 lLld5!
With the presence of heavy pieces Now it's exactly the right time.
this position cannot be considered 19 ...'iVxd2 20 .l:xd2 lLlc4 21 .*.xc4
an endgame, since there are threats bxc4 22 .l:ed1 rs
of a mating attack. The black king
has practically no pawn cover, and
so White has the superior chances.
31 'iVg7+ �c6 32 h5?
Falling into a chance drawing
trick 32 ...'iVf2 33 h6 .l:h4! 33 .J:xh4
'iVe 1+ 34 �b2 'iVc3+, of which,
however, Black does avail himself.
He should have continued pursuing
the king by 32 'iVg8 !.
32...'it'e3?! 33 'iVg8 'iVxfJ 34
'iVa8+ �d7
He could try to avoid defeat by
transposing to a rook ending: A critical position for the assess­
34...�b6 35 'iVxO .l:x£3 36 h6 .l:ffl ment of the variation with the move
37 h7 .l:h8 38 c4 but the passed 14 ....J:e8. Black exploits perhaps his
pawn on the kingside is decisive. only resource-a freeing thrust
35 'iVxa7+ �e6 36 'iVg1 .l:g4 37 which enlivens his dark-squared bi­
'iVct .l:g2 38 h6 .l:g8 39 h7 .l:h8 40 shop-though he must still struggle
.l:b6+ �f7 41 .J:xd6 'iVr5 42 'iVg1 for equality. The opinion of the ex­
1-0 perts here is divided. For example,
M.Wahls recommends 23 lLlg3 ! ?,
Game 24 while V.Anand himself considers
Anand-Kasparov this move artificial and insufficient.
New York (m/1 7) 1995 23 exfS
The win of a pawn by 23 lLlb4
1 e4 c5 2 lLlfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 .l:c7 24 .l:xd6 allows Black to sim­
lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 .*.e3 .*.g7 7 plify the position and activate the
fJ 0-0 8 'iVd2 lLlc6 9 .*.c4 .*.d7 10 rook: 24 ... fxe4! 25 .l:xd7 .l:xd7 26
h4 h5 11 .*.b3 .J:c8 12 0-0-0 lLle5 .l:xd7 exO 27 gxO .l:xe2 28 .l:xa7
13 .*.g5 .J:c5 14 �b1 .l:e8 15 .l:he1 .l:h2! (V.Anand).
'iVa5 16 a3 b5?! 23 ...-*.xf5 24 lLld4! .*.xd4 25
A blank shot with regard to .l:xd4 .l:e2 26 .1:4d2 l:xd2 27 .l:xd2
White's standard manoeuvre. �f8 28 �cl ? !
1 6...lLlc4 1 7 .*.xc4 .l:xc4 looks more White misses the opportunity, 28
natural and stronger, though after 1 8 lLlb4! , with the idea of moving the
e5 White's chances are still rather rook over to the queenside via the
preferable. "transit" square d5 so as to attack
17 .*.xf6 exf6 18 lLlde2 ! the weaknesses there; for example,
A fine knight retreat. At the mo­ 28 . . .l:tb6 29 .l:d5! or 28 ... c3 29
ment the time is not yet right for 1 8 .l:d5 !, while on 28 ....J:c5 already
 Illustrative Games 243

good is 29 l:xd6 l:eS 30 �c I with The bare kings in this game crown
advantage to White (V.Anand). the triumph of the king of chess
28...i..e6 29 l:d4 .i.xdS! with full equality!
The world champion transposes
the game into a rook ending, the Game 25
drawing tendencies of which are Beliavsky-Velimirovic
higher than when minor pieces are Szirak (izt) 1987
present.
30 l:xdS �e7 3 1 l:bS �e6 32 1 e4 c5 2 llJfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
l:b7 l:cS?! llJxd4 llJf6 5 llJcJ g6 6 .teJ i..g7 7
32 ...a6 suggested itself, but f3 llJc6 8 ..,d2 0-0 9 .tc4 •as 10
G.Kasparov prefers to have an o-o-o i..d7 11 h4 :res 12 i..bJ llJes
active rook than a passive defence. 13 g4 llJc4 14 i..xc4 l:xc4 15 llJb3
33 l:xa7 gS 34 l:a8!? gxh4 35 A characteristic method against
l:e8+ �d7 the queen a5. Upon the continuation
After 35 ...�f5 36 l:e4 �gS 37 a4 1 5 hS it is necessary to reckon on
the passed pawn becomes the sacrifice of the exchange on c3 .
dangerous. 1S ......a6 1 6 eS llJxg4!
36 l:e4 c3!? 37 l:xh4? After 16 ...llJe8 1 7 h5 i..xe5 1 8
Now the posttJon gradually hxg6 fxg6 1 9 i..d4 White will get to
acquires drawing characteristics. the king.
Stronger was 37 b4 l:gS 38 l:xh4 17 fxg4 i..xg4 18 l:de1 ?!
l:xg2 39 �b 1 , closing in on the b3 A poor move, after which Black
pawn, though after 39... l:f2 40 f4 obtains a compact pawn mass.
�c6, intending to advance the d­ Stronger was 1 8 exd6 i..xc3 19
pawn, White still has to prove his bxc3 '1Va3+ 20 �bl i..xdl 2 1 d7!
advantage. (A.Beliavsky).
37...cxb2+ 38 �xb2 l:gS 39 a4 f5 18 ...dxe5 19 i..h6 i..f6 20 l:eJ
40 aS f4 41 a6 �c7 42 l:xf4 l:xg2 .trs 21 hS bS 22 l:d1 •cs 23 ..,g2
43 l:f7+ �b8 44 �c3 h4 45 �d3 aS
:n 46 c4
It is more accurate to drive the
king into the comer first with 46
a7+ �a8 47 c4.
46...l:a2
Now Black has nothing to fear on
the queen' s flank and White heads
for the kingside.
47 �e4 l:xa6 48 l:h7 :as 49 f4
�c8
The king approaches the "square"
of the passed pawn.
SO f5 �d8 51 �f4 l:cS 52 �gS
l:xc4 53 �g6 l:g4+ 54 �f7 dS 55 Black's attack plays itself: the
f6 �d7 56 �fH+ �e6 57 f7 l:f4 58 pawn hurries to a3.
�g8 d4 59 f8 ... l:xfB+ 60 �xfH 24 llJa1 l:g4 25 ..,e2 l:h4 26
�eS 61 l:xh4 d3 62 l:hJ �e4 63 llJdS l:xh5 27 l:cJ �8 28 ...d2
l:xd3 �xd3 1/z.l/z gS?
244 Illustrative Games

Though it suggests itself, this is a l 9 ...liJxf4 is not possible because

poor move. The attempt to win the of 20 'ii'g3.
stray bishop ends sadly for Black. 20 'ii'd4 .i.f6 21 liJb6+ �fB 22 e5
Necessary was 28 ....i.g4 29 .l:.fl .i.g7 23 g4 liJg3 24 liJxfi! liJe2
.i.e6 30 liJc7 .i.c4, maintaining the A mistaken transposition of
advantage. moves. He should continue
29 .:.o .i.g4? 24....l:.xb3+! 25 cxb3 liJxhl (not
Now this is already out of place. 25 ... �xfi with the threat ... liJg3-e2
He should reconcile himself to -c3 and ....i.d7xg4-f5 because of 26
29 ... .l:.xh6 30 .l:.xf5 .l:.g6, though .l:.xh7).
after 3 1 liJb3 there are no active 25 'ii'd 2! .l:.xb3+ 26 cxb3 'ii'xd2
pieces left for Black and the advan­ Now on 26 ...liJc3+ would have
tage passes to White. followed 27 �c2.
30 .l:.xf6 .i.xd1 3 1 liJxe7+ �h8 32 27 .l:.xd2 liJg3 28 .l:.g1?
'ihd1 'ii'a7 33 liJrs .l:.g8 34 .l:.d6 After 28 .l:.e I ! �xf7 29 .l:.g2 or 28
'ii'a8 35 'ii'xh5 1-0 e6! .i.xe6 29 liJg5 White has mate­
rial assets of two whole exchanges.
But now follows a whole cascade of
Game 26
double attacks.
Cherepkov-Vasiukov 28 liJe4! 29 .l:.d4 liJc3+ 30 �b2
..•

USSR 1 967
liJe2 31 liJxd6 liJxd4 32 liJxb7 liJe2
33 .l:.fl .i.xg4 34 liJc5 �e8 35 b4
1 e4 c5 2 liJO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxf4 36 .l:.el liJg2 37 .l:.e4 .i.f3 0-1
liJxd4 liJf6 5 liJc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
f3 liJc6 8 'ii'd2 0-0 9 .i.c4 'ii'a5 10 Game 27
0-0-0 .i.d7 1 1 h4 .l:.fc8 12 .i.b3 liJe5 Murey-Ravisekhar
13 h5 liJxh5 14 .i.h6 liJd3+ 15 London 1 986
'ii'xd3 .i.xh6+ 16 �b1 .l:.xc3
l 6 ...liJf4 is not good because of 1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
17 'ii'd2 ! . But worth considering is liJxd4 liJf6 5 liJcJ g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
1 6...e6"! ?. f3 liJc6 8 .i.c4 0-0 9 'ii'd2 'ii'a5 10
17 bxc3 .l:.c8 18 liJf5 .i.g5 19 f4! o-o-o .i.d7 11 h4 liJe5 12 .i.b3 :res
13 h5 liJxh5 14 liJd5 'ii'xd2+ 15
l:.xd2 �f8 16 g4 liJf6 17 liJxf6
.i.xf6 18 .l:.dh2 e6
Also worth considering is
l 8 ...liJc4 19 .i.xc4 .l:.xc4 20 c3 .l:.ac8
2 1 �d2 b5.
19 .l:.xh7 liJd3+?!
A premature attempt to obtain the
advantage of the two bishops.
Stronger is the preliminary l 9...a5,
threatening to provoke a weakening
of the castled position with the
move a2-a4.
19 .l:.xc3
••.
20 �b1 liJc5 21 g5 .i.g7
 Illustrative Games 245

18...ltlxg4 19 fxg4 .i.xg4 20

l:dgl?
The lesser evil was 20 Wh2 h5 21
exd6 .i.xd 1 22 l:xd 1 exd6 23 l:txd6
or 23 ltld5, leaving him with two
knights against a rook.
20...dxeS!
Also worth considering was
20 ... h5 ! .
21 Wxd8+ l:xd8 22 lLlaS
White played rather stronger in
the game Janosevic-Despotovic,
22 ltlf5! Yugoslavia (ch) 1969, 22 ltld2
A rare case when such a powerful l:xc3 23 bxc3 h5 24 l:th2 b6 25
blow is delivered without queens on ltlc4, activating his pieces, though
the board. even here after 25 ... f5 26 ltlg5 .i.f6
22 ...gxfS 27 .i.e 1 l:c8 28 .i.d2 l:txc4! the
On 22 ... exf5 stronger is 23 l:xg7 ! game turned out in White's favour.
ltlxb3 24 axb3 followed by .i.e3-d4.
23 exfS exfS 24 l:xg7! ltlxb3 25
l:hh7! .i.e6 26 g6! 'lie7 27 .i.gS+
'lid7 28 gxf7 l:tll 29 axb3 l:ac8 30
.i.f4 l:c6
On 30 ... 'lie7 follows 3 1 l:h6 with
the threat of 32 l:gg6.
31 b4 a6 32 'licl bS 33 c3 l:c4 34
.i.gS l:c6 3S 'lid2 l:c7 36 l:g6 .i.dS
37 .i.f4 l:c6 38 l:f6 'lie7 39 .i.gS
l:c7 40 l:hh6! 1-0

Game 28
Bouaziz-Geller 22 ...l:xc3! 23 bxc3 hS 24 lLlb3 e4
Sousse (izt) 1 967 2S lLlcS l:d6! 26 ltlxb7 l:c6 27 lLlcS
fS 28 ltlb3 l:xc3 29 .i.gS
I e4 cS 2 lLlD d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 On 29 .i.d4 would have followed
ltlxd4 lLlf6 S ltlc3 g6 6 .i.eJ .i.g7 7 29 ... l:xb3+.
t3 ltlc6 8 Wd2 0-0 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10 29 ...'lit7 30 'licl :tc4 3 1 'lid2
0-0-0 Was I I 'libl l:fc8 1 2 .i.b3 .i.c3+ 32 'lieJ eS 33 :n aS 34
lLleS 13 h4 ltlc4 14 .i.xc4 l:xc4 IS ltld2?
hS lLlxhS 16 g4 lLlf6 17 ltlb3 Wd8 The menacing armada of pawns
18 eS! ? will beat the awkward rook but
A practically forced, but correct White shortens his agony.
sacrifice. 34....i.d4 mate!
246 Illustrative Games

Game 29 after 22 ...b4 23 lLld5 i.xd5 24 exd5

lstratescu-Golubev White stands better.
Lucerne 1 994 22 dxe5 23 i.xf6 i.xf6 24
•..

'iVxh7 .tf7 25 .:.d7

1 e4 c5 2 lLlfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
f3 lLlc6 8 'iVd2 0-0 9 i.c4 i.d7 10
0-0-0 'iVas 1 1 h4 lLle5 12 i.b3 .:res
13 �b1 lLlc4 14 i.xc4 .:.xc4 15
lLlb3 'iVa6
A more natural position for the
queen is c7.
16 h5
Also possible is the break in the
centre-1 6 e5 lLle8? ( 1 6...dxe5) 1 7
ltld5 i.xe5 1 8 h5! in conjunction
with an attack on the flank.
16 ....:.ac8 17 hxg6 fxg6 18 i.h6 25 .:.d4!
•..

Also worth considering is the plan In such positions the dynamics of

of utilising the bishop in the centre, the pieces are more important than
1 8 i.d4, after which Black will an arithmetical count of material.
hardly manage to maintain his pres­ 26 lLlxd4?
sure without closing the long diag­ It was necessary to take with the
onal with the move ...e7-e5, but in rook-26 .:.xd4 exd4 27 lLle4.
this case the "Dragon" bishop is 26 exd4 27 .:.d1 b4!
.•.

also depreciated. For example, The knight is lame and it is best to

1 8 ... i.e6 19 g4 i.fl 20 'ii'h2 (or 20 take it with another pawn and not
.:.h2 e5 ! ?) 20 'ii'h2 e5 2 1 i.e3 .:.xc3 open the d-file.
22 bxc3 .:.xc3 with chances for both 28 .:.7xd4 bxc3 29 .:.xd8+ l:bd8
sides. 30 .:.xd8+ i.e8 31 'iVh6+ �f7 32
ts .ths 19 .tgs
•.• 'iVcl cxb2 33 'iVdl i.c6 34 f4 i.g2!
A typical bishop manoeuvre with After the exchange of queens
the help of which White wants to White's potential threats are obvi­
get to the h7 pawn. ously reduced.
19 i.e6! 20 g4
••• 35 rs 'iVn 36 fxg6+ �xg6 37
On 20 i.xf6 would have followed 'iVxn .txn 38 .:.cs e5 39 �xb2 e4+
20...exf6 2 1 'ii'h6 .:.c7. 40 �cl e3 41 .:.es �f7
20 b5 21 'iVh2! �18!
••• After 4 l ...e2 42 �d2 i.g5+ Black
Defence and attack are worthy of wins the exchange, but not the
each other. game, since the a-pawn cannot pro­
On 2 1 ...b4 White attacks by 22 mote on a black square when he
e5 ! dxe5 23 i.xf6 i.xf6 24 'iVxh7+ only has a light-squared bishop.
�ffl 25 lLle4. Also insufficient is 42 .:.e4 .tgs 43 �d1 i.g2 44 .:.es
2 1 ....:.xc3 22 bxc3 .:.xc3 23 e5. i.f3+ 45 �el i.h4+ 46 �n e2+ 47
22 e5 .:.xe2 i.xe2+ 48 �xe2 �e6 49 �e3
Possibly more accurate is 22 �d5 50 �d3 i.f6 51 �e3 �c4 52
.:.d2 ! ?, defending the c2 pawn and �e4 aS 0-1
 Illustrative Games 247

Game 30 31 l:lxb7 .i.r6 32 .i.d2 lL!e5 33

Macieja-Salmensuu l:lb5 d5 34 exd5 exd5 35 .i.xa5
Saint- Vincent 2000 �g6 36 l:lb4 l:le3 37 l:lr4 l:leJ 3S
i..b6 l:[cJ 39 i..a5 :e3 40 l:le1 1-0
1 e4 e5 2 lLIO lL!e6 3 lL!e3 g6 4 d4
exd4 5 lL!xd4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 lL!r6 7
.i.e4 0-0 S .i.b3 d6 9 0 .i.d7 10 Game 3 1
'ifd2 'ifa5 11 0-0-0 :res 12 �b1 Karpov-Gareia Martinez
lL!e5 13 h4 lL!e4 14 .i.xe4 l:lxe4 15 Portoroz!Ljubljana 1975
lL!b3 'ife7 16 g4
The main continuation is 1 6 .i.d4. 1 e4 e5 2 lL!O lL!e6 3 d4 exd4 4
16 .i.e6 17 h5 a5 1S lL!d4!?
•.• lL!xd4 g6 5 lL!cJ .i.g7 6 .i.e3 lL!f6 7
lhe3 i..e4 0-0 S i..b3 d6 9 0 i..d7 10
'ii'd2 'ii'a5 1 1 h4 :res 12 0-0-0 lL!e5
13 �b1 b5 14 lL!exb5 'ii'a6 15 lL!e3
lL!e4 16 'ifd3 l:labS 17 .i.cl l:lb4 1S
h5!
After fortifying the position of his
king, White himself goes over to the
attack. Now 1 8 ... lL!xh5? is bad for
Black in view of 19 lLid5 ! .
1S 'ifb7 19 hxg6 hxg6 20 .i.h6
•.•

i..xh6 21 l:lxh6 �g7 22 l:ldh1 'ifb6

23 lL!de2 e6 24 g4 �f8 25 l:lhS+
�e7 26 :xeS lL!e5 27 'ii'd1 .i.xeS
2S g5 lL!rd7 29 a3 l:lxb3 30 exb3
19 lL!xe6! rxe6 20 'ii'xc3 'ii'xc3 21 lL!xO 31 lL!r4
bxe3 lL!d7 22 .i.d4 l:lf8 23 l:ldfl g5 Now both 32 'ifxf3 and also 32
A necessary blockading move. lLid5 ! are threatened.
After 23 ... lL!e5?! 24 hxg6 hxg6 25 31. 1i'fl
••

f4 lL!xg4 (25 ... lL!c4 ±) 26 l:lfg 1 the

game opens up clearly in White's
favour: 26 ...l:lxf4 27 .i.xg7 �xg7 28
l:lh4 l:lxe4 29 l:lhxg4 l:lxg4 30 l:lxg4
or 26 ... e5 27 l:lxg4 exd4 28 cxd4
�fl 29 d5.
24 h6 .i.r6
On 24...i..e5 White retreats 25
.i.e3 ! .
25 .i.eJ l:leS?
Leading to the loss of the g5
pawn. After 25 ... �f7! ? 26 f4 gxf4
27 l:lxf4 l:lg8 28 l:lgl Black 's posi­
tion is quite solid.
26 l:lh5 �f7 27 .i.xg5 .i.xcJ 2S 32 lL!xg6+!
.i.cl l:le4 29 l:lb5 lL!e5 30 .i.eJ lL!a4 A knockout sacrifice!
It's also bad for Black after 32 ... rxg6 33 l:lh7+ �dS 34 'ii'xd6
30 ...l:lb4+ 3 1 l:lxb4 axb4 32 g5. 'ii'd4 35 'ife7+ 1-0
248 Illustrative Games

Game 32 forced to try and upset the

Tolnai-Jovi�ic coordination of his pieces.
Leibnitz 1 990 24....tc2
24 ...:c2 leads to an advantage for
1 e4 cS 2 lDtJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 White after 25 l:[b I ! :xa2+ 26
lDxd4 lDr6 5 lDc3 g6 6 .te3 .tg7 7 �xa2 .i.xb l+ 27 �a l .
t3 lDc6 S 'ii'd2 0-0 9 .i.c4 'ii'as 10 25 :ct :cs
0-0-0 .i.d7 1 1 h4 lDes 12 .tb3 :res More careful is 25 ...:c7 with the
13 �bl bS 14 hS idea, after ... f7-f6 and ...g6-h5, to
After 14 .i.h6 the counterplay, prepare the way for the flight of the
14... .txh6 1 5 'ii'xh6 :xc3 1 6 bxc3 king.
'ii'xc3, is ineffective here, since after 26 'ii'd2 .i.d3! 27 l:[ht! .i.c2
17 lDe2 'ii'c5 1 8 h5 ! White con­ On the tempting 27 ... :xd5 could
tinues his attack. Meanwhile on follow 28 hxg6 fxg6 29 a4 ! and,
l4 ... .i.h8 White maintains the initi­ after preventing the doubling of
ative with the move 1 5 tbd5. rooks, White can attack Black's
14 lDc4 15 .txc4 bxc4 16 .th6
..• weaknesses on h7, e7 and a7.
.txh6 17 'ii'xh6 l:[abS 2S a4 aS 29 'ii'eJ �fB
The intended object of attack is After 29 ...:b7 30 hxg6 .i.xg6 un­
the b2 pawn. White must hurry. pleasant is 3 1 f4.
1S lDd5 lDxd5 19 exdS 'ii'a3 30 'ii'h6+ �gS 31 r4 gxhS 32
gxhS �hS 33 'ifgs r6 34 'ifg4 :gs
35 'ii'd7 :c4
Or 35 ... :Xd5 36 'ii'xe7 :rs 37
'ii'xd6.
36 'ii'xe7 l:[xf4 37 'ii'xd6 l:[fl 3S
h6 .i.d3 39 'ii'c6 .tn 40 'ii'c t .i.g2
41 l:[gt .i.xdS 42 :xgS+ .i.xgS
After 42 ... �g8 43 'ii'c8+ �fl 44
'ii'd7+ the bishop is lost.
43 'ii'gl 1-0

Game 33
The impression is created that Ree-Tal
Black is ahead in the attacking race, Wijk aan Zee 1973
but this is not so ...
20 lDb3 1 lDtJ g6 2 e4 cS 3 d4
Practically forced, since on 20 b3 An amusing transposition to the
follows 20 ... cxb3 2 1 axb3 l:[xb3+. Sicilian Defence.
20...cxb3 21 bxa3 bxc2+ 22 �at 3...cxd4 4 lDxd4 lDr6 5 lDcJ d6 6
cxd1 ='ii'+ 23 :xdl .i.fS 24 g4! .i.eJ .i.g7 7 f3 lDc6 S 'ii'd2 0-0 9
Though Black has had to part with .i.c4 .i.d7 10 0-0-0 'ii'aS 1 1 .i.b3
his queen, the initiative, as before, :res 12 �b1 lDeS 13 .tgS lDc4 14
lies with him, therefore White is .txc4 :xc4 15 lDb3 'ii'e5
 Illustrative Games 249

This manoeuvre became possible Threatening to close in on the c2

after the departure of the bishop pawn by the move ...b5-b4.
from e3. The queen transfers to the 30 'ii'e7 �fB 31 'ii'f6
centre of the battle, leading the On 3 1 1Vxa7 he has to reckon on
army, since on the impulsive 16 f4? 3 l .. .'ii'c4 with the idea of the attack
follows the beautiful blow ...'ii'c4-c6 and ...l:c8-a8.
16 ...1Vxc3 ! ! . 31 �g7 32 'ii'e7 �fB lh-lh
••.

On 1 5 ...'ii'd 8 there is 1 6 e5! .

1 6 l:hel
Intending to hassle the queen by Game 34
an advance of the f-pawn. Savon-Stein
16...l:xc3! 17 bxc3 �e6 18 �e3 USSR (ch) 1 962
l:c8
More accurate is an immediate 1 e4 cS 2 lbf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
1 8...1Vb5 and on 19 �a1-19 ... a5. o!lJxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7
Now White centralises his bishop f3 lbc6 8 �c4 0-0 9 'ii'd2 �d7 10
with tempo and stands better. 0-0-0 'ii'b8 1 1 �b3 aS 12 o!iJdbS a4
19 �d4 'ii'b s 20 �a1 · The pawn sacrifice is a natural
On 20 e5 would follow 20 . ..lt::Jd 5. consequence of the previous move,
20 1Va4 2 1 l:b1
••• otherwise after 1 2...l:c8 13 �b 1
o!lJe5 14 'ii'e2 White blockades the
c4 square and the march of the a­
pawn makes no sense.
13 lbxa4
Also after 1 3 �xa4 l:c8 14 �b 1
o!lJa5 1 5 �b3 lbc4 Black has suffi­
cient compensation for the pawn.
13 ...lba5! 14 'ii'e2 lbxb3+ 15
axb3 dS! 16 exdS 'ii'es 17 f4 'ii'rs
With the sacrifice of two pawns
Black has smashed the centre and
coordination of the white pieces.
The white queen is obviously
21. �18! ?
•• overworked.
Very clever-quite in Tal 's style. 18 �b1 :res
Black intends to transfer the knight Or 16 ...lbxd5? 1 7 g4 'ii'e4 1 8 lbc5
to the queen's flank and maintain �xb5 2 1 'ii'xb5 lbc3+.
the "Dragon" bishop. 19 lba7
On 20... �c4 quite unpleasant is Such moves bear witness to the
22 e5 ! dxe5 23 l:xe5 and the rook is value of Black's idea, but 19 lbb6?
ready to attack the queen. is not possible because of
22 f4 19...l:xc2! 20 1Vxc2 l:al +.
All the same he should play 22 19...l:c7 20 �b6 �xa4 21 �xc7
�xf6 exf6 23 g4, organising an �xb3 22 'ii'd3!
assault on the king's flank. The transfer to an endgame is the
22 lbd7 23 fS �c4 24 h4 eS! 25
••• best solution, otherwise he has to
fxe6 �xe6 26 hS lbeS 27 hxg6 part with his extra material in worse
hxg6 28 l:h1 �g7 29 'iVgS bS! circumstances: 22 �b6 (22 lbb5?
250 Illustrative Games

.i.xc2+!) 22... ltlxd5 23 .l:r.xd5 .i.xd5 27 .l:r.xa6! bxa6 28 ltlc:6

with advantage to Black. The knight raid has a happy end­
22 .....xd3 23 .l:r.xd3 ing (28 ....l:r.c8?? 29 ltle7+).
28....i.f8 29 ltld4 .l:r.e8 30 .i.aS?
A time trouble error. After 30
.l:r.d I White has a small endgame
advantage thanks to his better pawn
structure.
30...l:r.e4 31 .l:r.d1 .l:r.xf4 32 .l:r.d2
ll:\c:S 33 ltlfJ .l:r.a4 34 .i.c7 ltle4 3S
.l:r.d3 .l:r.c:4 36 .i.b6 fS 37 .i.d4 �17
38 .l:r.a3 .l:r.c6 39 .l:r.aS .i.e7 40 b3
.i.d8 41 .l:r.a4 aS 42 �b2 llc8 43 c4
gS and Black gradually realised his
extra pawn. 0-1

23 ....i.c:4! Game 35
Now begins a surprising dance of Spassky-Levy
the pieces in which the opponents Nice (o/) 1 974
are a match for each other.
24 .l:r.d4 .i.a6! 1 e4 c:S 2 ll:\tJ d6 3 d4 c:xd4 4
It seems that the knight is in a trap ll:\xd4 lLlf6 S ll:\c:3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
since on 25 .i.b6 follows 25 ...ltld7, f3 ltlc:6 8 ..d2 0-0 9 .i.c:4 .i.d7 10
but White has prepared a tactical 0-0-0 �8 1 1 h4 aS
resource. This move, appropriate in case of
2S d6! I I .i.b3, is here not so fortunate,
It becomes clear that after since Black is late with his
25 ....1:r.xa7 26 d7 the piece has to be counterplay. .
given back. 12 .i.h6! ll:\xe4?
2S ltld7 26 .l:r.a4 exd6
.•• A mistaken decision. It was
The knight, as before, is surpris­ necessary to simplify the position­
ingly invulnerable-on 26.. Jixa7 I2 ...ltlxd4 I3 .i.xg7 �xg7 I4 ..xd4
follows 27 dxe7 ltlf6 28 .l:r.di with b5 I 5 .i.e2 .i.c6, and White only has
the threat 29 .l:r.d8+. But now it a positional advantage. We should
seems it must be caught? No! mention that the intermediate
13 ...ltlxf3 does not work because of
I4 gxf3 �xg7 I 5 h5 ltlxh5 I 6 llxh5
gxh5 I 7 ..g5+ �h8 I 8 ..xe7! .
13 ltlxe4 .i.xd4 14 hS!
Continuing the attack. Winning
the exchange for a pawn, of course,
makes no sense.
14...dS
After I4 ...1lc8 I 5 hxg6 fxg6 I6
..g5 Black is faced with the pros­
pect of dealing with the threats of
I 7 ..g6 and I 7 �4.
1S .i.xdS •es 16 .i.xf8 ..xdS
 /llustrative Games 251

Also no help is 16 ....i.xb2+ 1 7 some compensation for the

�b 1 .i.a3 1 8 c3 l:xf8 1 9 hxg6 hxg6 sacrifice�_pawn.
20 .i.xt7+ or 16 ...l:xf8 1 7 hxg6 1 6 cJ WbS 1 7 hS l:ab8 18 hxg6
'ifxd5 1 8 'iVh6. fxg6 19 �b1 aS 20 lLlcS 'ifc4

17 'ifh6! 21 eS!
The ' interference' theme of 1 8 Tactics in the service of strategy.
lilf6+! is threatened. Since Black cannot agree to
17 ...ll:lb4 2 l ....i.xe5?! 22 .i.d4 ! .i.xd4 23 cxd4
Black hopes to buy off his oppo­ and an incursion of the queen on h6,
nent with his queen but there is he has to submit to the pressure on
another solution for White. the dark squares.
18 l:xd4! 'ifxd4 19 .i.xe7 1-0 In the event of 2 1 .i.d4 Black
would free himself by 2 l ...e5 ! 22
Game 36 lbxd7 exd4 ! .
Leko-A.Fedorov 2 1 ....i.e8 22 'ifd4 gS!?
Batumi 1 999 Clearly such an active grand­
master as Alexei Fedorov cannot
1 e4 cS 2 li:ltJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 reconcile himself to a "dull" end­
li:lxd4 lilf6 5 li:lcJ g6 6 .i.eJ .i.g7 7 game after 22 ......xd4 23 cxd4 .i.t7
tJ 0-0 8 'ifd2 ll:lc6 9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10 and is ready to pay any price to en­
0-0-0 'ifb8 11 li:ldS lLJxdS 12 .i.xdS liven his bishop.
The alternative 12 exd5 lLle5 13 23 lbxe6 WbS 24 l:d2 cS 25
.i.e2 (after 13 .i.b3 a5 1 4 a3 the lLlxcS
bishop turns on the d5 pawn) Of course not 25 ...xd5? .i.t7.
1 3 ...l:c8 1 4 h4. Now Black temporarily even wins a
12...l:c8 ptece.
Worth considering is 12 ... a5 with 2S ....i.f8 26 ...xdS+ .i.f7 27 e6
the idea on 1 3 h4 to play 1 3 ...ll:lb4! ..ig6+ 28 �a1 .i.xcS 29 e7+ �g7
14 h5?! e6, avoiding the exchange 30 ...eS+ �f7 31 ...dS+ �g7 32
of the knight. ...eS+ �f7 33 e8-'...+
13 h4 e6 14 .i.xc6 bxc6 15 lLlb3 A time-trouble decision to recover
dS?! a piece. As pointed out by P .Leko,
I.Zaitsev recommends 1 5 ... a5 ! ? after 33 .i.xg5 ! ...c6 33 l:d8 the
1 6 'ifxd6 a4 17 'ifxb8 l:cxb8 with game would have ended far earlier.
252 Illustrative Games

33 ...'ifxe8 34 'ifd5+ 'ife6 35 17 �bl

j,xc5 'ifxd5 36 l:lxd5 a4 Worth considering is 1 7 j,h6.
Black's only remaining hope lies 17 ..,j,fi 18 lbde2 l:lc6!
in opposite-coloured bishops. The piece attack promises more
37 l:lxg5 l:le8 38 f4 l:le2 39 j,b4 than one with pawns-1 8 ...b5?! 19
Black has succeeded in activating lbf4 b4 20 lbcd5 and White has the
all his forces, but nevertheless the better_position.
more decisive 39 fS ! l:lbxb2 40 19 llJd5 lbxd5
fxg6+ �f6 4 1 j,a3 l:lxa2+ 42 �b1 On 19 lbf4 would also follow
hxg6 43 j,c 1 ! would simplify 19 ...l:lac8, intending 20 ...'ifb4!, but
White's task (P.Leko). worth considering is 19 g5 lbh5 20
39 ...l:lbe8 40 c4 j,dJ 41 g4 a3 42 j,d4 with a double-edged game.
b3 l:lg2 43 l:le5 l:lxg4 44 l:lxe8 20 exd5 l:lac8!
�xe8 45 j,xa3 l:lxf4 This intermediate move (the rook
It all comes down to a technical cannot be taken) is the best testi·
endgame where, despite an advan· mony to the fact that the intiative
tage in speed (the black pawns start has already passed to Black. White
first) matter triumphs over mind. is forced to weaken the pawn cover
46 �b2 l:lfl+ 47 �c3 j,g6 48 of his king.
l:lal h5 49 j,d6 h4 50 l:lhl l:lf3+ 51 21 c3 l:la6 22 b3 'ifb5 23 j,d4
�d4 h3 52 l:lgl ! l:ld3+ 53 �c5 �fi 'ifxd5 24 lbf4
54 :n + �e6 55 l:lel + �f5 The endgame, a pawn down, after
Nor can he save himself by 24 j,xg7 Wxd2 25 l:lxd2 �xg7 also
55 ...�d7 56 l:le7+ �d8 57 l:lg7. leaves no prospects.
56 b4 l:la3 57 b5 1-0 24...'ifa5 25 j,xg7

Game 37
Santo-Roman-Ristic
Graz 1 978

1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lbd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 j,eJ j,g7 7
f3 lbc6 8 'ifd2 0-0 9 j,c4 j,d7 10
h4 'ifc7 1 1 j,bJ lba5 12 0-0-0 l:lfc8
13 h5 lbc4 14 j,xc4 'ifxc4 15 hxg6
Another interesting plan here is
linked to the manoeuvre 1 5 j,h6
j,hS 1 6 j,g5! b5 and now 1 7 hxg6,
which, in connection with the threat 25...j,xb3!
to exchange a defender on f6, rein· The bishop f7 still has a decisive
forces the advance lbc3·d5. say. After 25 ...�xg7 26 'ifh2 there
15 ...fxg6 16 g4 j,e8 is nothing clear.
In transferring the bishop to f7, 26 lbd3
Black includes it in the attack on the After 26 axb3 'ifa l + 27 �c2
queen's flank. l:la2+ the queen is lost.
Also possible is 16 ...b5 1 7 'iVh2 26...j,xa2+ 27 �cl 'ifa3+ 28
'iffl with a double-edged game. lbb2 e5 29 �c2 l:lac6 0-1
 Illustrative Games 253

Game 38 White searches for tactical re­

Ivanovic-Markovic sources to support the attack and
Podgorica 1 992 opens the e-file since after the direct
incursion 23 'ifh6 �fl 24 'ifhs .ic6
1 e4 c5 2 �fJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 the king slips away from the danger
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 .ie3 .tg7 7 zone.
f3 0-0 8 'it'd2 �c6 9 .tc4 .id7 10 23 ...:n 24 e6 :g7
h4 �e5 1 1 .ib3 b5!? On 24 ....txe6 25 :xg6+ he could
The author of this interesting continue the attack. Now, however,
pawn sacrifice is R.Simic (the usual the attacking reserves are exhausted.
continuation is 12 ... :c8). If it is 25 exd7 lllf6 26 'ife2 �ti 27 :e1
accepted, 12 �dxb5 'ifbs 1 3 �d4 e5 28 'ifxc4+ �e7 29 :d1 �xd7 30
:cs, Black's heavy pieces exert 'ifh4 :n 31 'ifg5 'ifb4 32 'ifxg6
pressure on the queen's flank along �e6
the b and c-files. Of course not 32 ...'ifxb2+ 33 �d2
12 h5 �c4 13 .txc4 bxc4 14 and all Black's pieces are hanging .
.ih6 'ifa5?! 33 :h5 'iff4+ 34 �b1 'ifxfJ 35
After the opening of the b-file the :xd6+ �xd6 36 'ifxti 'iffl+ 0-1
best position for the queen is on b6.
15 .txg7 �xg7 16 hxg6 fxg6 17
0-0-0 :ab8 18 g4 �g8 Game 39
Anand-Kasparov
New York (m/13) 1 995

1 e4 c5 2 �fJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 .te3 .tg7 7
'ifd2 �c6 8 f3 0-0 9 .ic4 .id7 10
h4 h5
In the period of birth of the Rauz­
er Attack such a blunt move would
have provoked censure from sup­
porters of the classical principle: do
not weaken unnecessarily the
castled position. But in the Rauzer's
19 �f5 period of growth this move, and the
White endeavours to get ahead in experience of defending with Black,
the race for attack. The most reliable has been looked at as a natural reac­
way to deal with such a situation is tion to the advance of the h-pawn.
to refrain from opening up one's 1 1 .ib3 :c8 12 �xc6
king and cold-bloodedly exchange You can hardly shake the
pieces: 1 9 ....ixf5! 20 gxf5 'iV64 "Dragon" in this way.
with counterplay. However, Black 12...bxc6 13 .ih6 c5 14 .tc4
thirsts for more and surprisingly his 'iVb6 15 .txg7 �xg7 16 b3 .ie6!
optimistism is justified. It is useful to activate the bishop,
19 gxf5? 20 g5 �e8 21 g6?
••• without fearing the exchange 1 7
After 2 1 :xh7! Black would have .ixe6 fxe6 1 8 e5.
been punished for his greed. 17 �d5 .ixd5 18 exd5 e5 19
21 ... hxg6 22 :dg1 :r6 23 e5 dxe6?!
254 Illustrative Games

It is not worth taking en passant under control the dS square, in

which allows Black to activate him­ anticipation of a flank attack. The
self in the centre. weakening of the d6 pawn is of no
After 19 0-0-0 the chances are significance since play takes place
even. over the whole board.
Risky is 12 ...lL!h5 1 3 .i.xg7 �xg7
14 'ii'd2. For example: 14 ...l:h8 1 5
g4 lLlf6 1 6 eS ! .
13 hxg6 hxg6
On 13 ...fxg6 unpleasant is 14 eS.
14 'ii'd 2 aS 15 a4 bxa4
Now the king will find no rest on
the queen's flank either.
16 lLlxa4 .i.c6 17 0-0-0 l:bS 1S
.i.c3 d5 19 e5 lL!d7 20 g4?!
To a certain extent a loss of time.
More decisive looks to be some sort
of attack along the h-file--20 l:h3
19 ...d5! 20 .i.e2 .i.xa4 2 1 l:dh I .i.xb3 22 l:h8+
Of course not 20 .i.xdS? l:fd8. .i.xh8 23 'ii'h6 and, in face of
20...c4! inevitable mate, Black has to give
Now White' s king, still in its up his queen-23 ...'ii'g5+, though
vulnerable starting position, can also with sufficient compensation.
only await its fate. 20 ...'ii'c 7 2 1 .i.xa5?
21 cJ? A suicidal opening of a line under
White can still fight for a draw by attack.
2 1 l:d l . Now, however, Black's 2 1 f4 was necessary.
initiative develops all by itself. 21. ..'ii'a7 22 .i.b4 :res 23 .i.d6
21 ...l:ceS! 22 bxc4 l:xe6 23 �n
:res 24 .i.d3 dxc4 25 .i.xc4 lLle4!
0-1
On 26 'ii'e l decisive is 26 ...l:d6!
with the threat of 27 ..lbd2, while
.

after 26 fxe4 would have followed

26 ...l:f6+ 27 �e l l:xe4+ 28 �dl
l:xc4 (with the threat of 29 ...l:d6)
29 �c l l:£2.

Game 40
Motwani-Larsen
London 1 989
23 ....i.xa4!
1 e4 c5 2 lL!fJ lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Not fearin_g ghosts!
lLJid4 g6 S lLJcJ _i.g7 6 .i.eJ lLJr6 7 24 'ii'h2 lDfB 25 .i.IbS l:xbS 26
.i.c4 0-0 S .i.b3 d6 9 t3 .i.d7 10 h4 .i.xa4 'ii'xa4 27 �b1 'iVb4
lLlxd4 1 1 .i.xd4 bS 12 h5 e6 It is clear that the queen's flank is
More often 12 ... a5 is played at indefensible.
once. Black in good time takes 2S c3 'ii'xc3
 Illustrative Games 255

Harvest time.
29 f4 Wf3 30 g5 We4+ 3 1 Wc2
Wxf4 32 lld2 Wxe5 33 li'cl Wxg5
34 llf2 Wxcl+ 35 llxcl f5 36 llc7
g5 37 �a2 lla8+ 38 �b1 g4 39
lle2 g3 40 llb7 .i.f6 0-1

Game 4 1
Winants-Sosonko
Holland 1 992

1 e4 c5 2 lLltJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ll:lxd4 lLlf6 5 ll:lc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 29 e5!
f3 ltlc6 8 Wd2 0-0 9 .i.c4 ll:lxd4 10 White opens the d-file by tactical
.i.xd4 .i.e6 11 .i.b3 Was 12 0-0-0 means, since Black cannot play
.i.xb3 13 cxb3 llfc8 1 4 �b1 llc6 29 ... d5 because of 30 lLlxd5 ! . Now
1 5 g4 it will be very complicated to hold
On 1 5 h4 possible is 1 5 ...h5, off the immediate attacking break­
since, in the endgame after 16 .i.xf6 through of White's heavy pieces to
.i.xf6 1 7 ll:ld5 Wxd2 1 8 lLlxf6+ exf6 his second rank.
1 9 .z:r.xd2 �fB. after preparing 29 dxe5 30 Wd3 �h7 31 :n?
•..

... f6-f5 Black has nothing to fear. White does not find the right route
15 llac8 16 h4 h5 17 g5 ltle8
•.• for his heavy pieces and now Black
Black sets a cunning trap. After manages to plug the holes. As
1 7 ...�d7 White establishes the pointed out by Winants, correct was
knight on d5. But now on 1 8 ll:ld5? 3 1 Wn ! llf4 (or 3 1 ...lld4 32 Wf7+
follows the stunning 1 8 ...llc l +! ! ll:lg7 33 ll:le4! and the knight enters
and Black gains a material the attack, threatening a jump to f6)
advantage. 32 lld7+! ll:lg7 33 WaS with danger­
18 .i.xg7 ll:lxg7 1 9 f4 a6?! ous threats.
A loss of time, better is 1 9 ... Wc5. 31 ...Wc6! 32 Wd8 llf4
20 l:.hfl e6 2 1 llf3 Wcs 22 lld3 It was possible to go for the ex­
�e8 23 lld4! change sacrifice 32 ...llxc3 ! ? with
With the disappearance of the the intention of forcing perpetual
bishop, the rook establishes itself on check.
this square! White repulses the ad­ 33 We7+ ll:lg7 34 lld1 Wc4?
vance of the b-pawn. A serious mistake. He should not
23 b5 24 b4! Wa7 25 f5 llc4 26
••• allow the rook behind his lines:
llxc4 34...lld4 offered possibilities of
Worth considering is the blockad­ defence.
ing 26 f6! ?, counting on an end­ 35 lld7 :n + 36 lLld1 llxdl+ 37
game advantage after 26 ...llxd4 27 llxd1 e4?
Wxd4 Wxd4 2 8 llxd4. 37 ...We2 is more stubborn.
26 llxc4 27 a3 'Wb6 28 fxe6
••• 38 Wt7! e3 39 lld7 We4+ 40 �a2
fxe6 Wc4+ 41 �b1 We4+ 42 �a1 1-0
256 Illustrative Games

Game 42 Or 29 ...'iVc6 30 l:th8+ �t7 3 1

Wedberg-Sosonko l:th7+ �ffi 32 .i.b2 with decisive
Haninge 1 988 threats.
30 l:txd6 .i.fS 31 l:tf6! exf3 32
1 e4 cS 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l:th8+ �xh8 33 l:tf8+ 1-0
�xd4 �f6 S �c3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
f3 �c6 8 'iVd2 0-0 9 .i.c4 �d7 10 Game 43
0-0-0 �b6 11 .i.b3 �aS 12 'iVd3 Beliavsky-Kupreichik
.i.d7 13 h4 l:tc8 14 hS �bc4 IS USSR (ch) 1 978
hxg6 bxg6 16 .i.gS �xb3+ 17
cxb3! I e4 cS 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
An experimental way of reinforc­ �xd4 �f6 S �c3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
ing the castled position. On I 7 f3 �c6 8 'iVd2 0-0 9 .i.c4 �d7 10
axb3?! unpleasant is I 7 ...'iVa5. h4 �b6 1 1 .i.b3 �as 12 hS
17 'iVaS 18 .i.xe7 �eS
•.• 12 'iVd3 is considered to be the
strongest here, since now White
must reckon on the possibility of the
exchange of both bishops.
12 .. .li�bc4 13 'iVf2 �xb3 14 axb3
�xe3 IS 'iVxe3 .i.d7 16 0-0-0 aS
A dubious move. This pawn is not
capable of achieving much on the
queen's flank, but also I6 ...'iVa5 I7
�b I leaves White with the better
chances. Meanwhile White prepares
an attack on the h-file. It seems that
to solve the problem of the two
bishops it was necessary to prepare
19 'iVc2! ...d6-d5 after I6 ... e6 I 7 �b I 1Vb6
By defending the a2 pawn, White I S 'iVd3 l:tad8.
holds on to his advantage. After 19 17 hxg6 hxg6
'iVd2 l:tfe8 20 .i.xd6 1Vxa2 Black In such situations more useful
would have prospects of defence. would be I7 ...fxg6, opening the f­
19 l:txc3!
.•. file for counterplay and, if the need
The only chance to muddy the arises, a loophole for evacuating his
waters. After 19 ...l:tfe8 20 .i.xd6 the king.
bishop comes to the help of the 18 l:th2! l:te8
queen's flank with material It is worth creating an opening for
comforts. the queen in order to defend the
20 bxc3 l:tc8 21 �b2 'iVb6 22 king's flank-18 ...e6 1 9 l:tdh1 'iVf6.
.i.gS �c4+?! 1 9 g4 e6 20 l:tdhl 'iVb6 21 �eel
22 ... a5 !? would be more cunning. a4 22 l:th7 axb3?
23 �al �a3 24 'iVb2 �bS 2S 22 ...'iVc5 would have been more
�xbS 'iVxbS 26 .i.e3! .i.xc3 27 prudent. Now, however, White
'iVxc3 l:txc3 28 .i.d4 fS 29 .i.xc3 exploits the undefended queen.
fxe4
 Illustrative Games 257

White wins beautifully after

14 ... gxf3 I S h6 i.h8 16 h7+!.
IS i.h6

23 :xg_7+! �xg7 24 llJxe6+

i.xe6 2S Wfxb6 :at+ 26 �d2 :xhl
27 cxb3
The queen here is stronger than
the rooks. 1S lL!xb3+
.•.

27 :b2 28 •xd6 l:[g2 29 �e3

••• Losing at once is l S ...eS 1 6 lL!fS !
�g8 30 � l:[h2 3 1 •xb7 l:[hl 32 or I S ...gxf3 1 6 :xhS.
llJd4 :e1 + 33 �f4 l:[bl 34 �s 16 lL!xb3 f6
�f8 3S �gS! Or 16 ...f5 17 fxg4 fxg4 1 8 :xhS!
The king places itself at the head gxhS 19 ..txg7 with a win.
of his anny. 17 fxg4 i.xg4 18 l:[dgl •d7 19
3S... :xb2 36 -.es l:[bl 37 �f6 l:[h4! gS 20 l:[hxg4 ..txh6 21 •h2
:hi 38 -.cs+ �g8 39 �s �18 40 -.e8 22 l:[b4 ..tg7 23 :xhS �f7 24
-.w+ �g8 41 �s �18 1-o llJd4 l:[h8 2S l:[bl 1-0
After 42 gS the attack f4-f5 ts
decisive. Game 45
Djuroyic-Mestrovic
VrnjaCka Banja 1 966
Game 44
Espig-Merino I e4 cS 2 llJtJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
Kapfenberg 1 970 llJxd4 lLif6 S llJcJ llJc6 6 ..tc4 g6 7
t3 ..tg_7 8 i.e3 0-0 9 •d2 aS 10
I e4 cS 2 llJc3 llJc6 3 llJge2 g6 4 0-0-0 ll)d7
d4 cxd4 S llJxd4 i.g7 6 i.e3 lLif6 7 The principal continuation. I O... a4
i.c4 0-0 8 i.b3 d6 9 t3 llJaS 10 1 1 a3 also has its problems.
..d2 a6 II h4 bS l l a3
This continuation is appropriate in After 1 1 llJdS e6 12 i.gS llJxd4!
variations where the black knight 13 i.xd8 exdS Black obtains three
stands on eS, participating in the de­ pieces for the queen.
fence of the king and preventing a l l llJceS 12 ..ta2 lL!b6 13 g4
.•.

pawn stonn by the opponent. Worth considering is 1 3 -.e2 i.d7

12 0-0-0 i.d7 13 g4! 14 f4, but now the initiative passes
In the present circumstances to Black.
White can allow himself to 13 ...i.d7 14 llJdS lL!bc4 IS ..e2
disregard pawn losses. bS 16 ..tgs :e8 17 :hgl :c8 18 f4
13 hxg4 14 hS! lL!xhS
..• lL!c6 19 ll)xbS?
258 Illustrative Games

19 eS was more stubborn. 10 ...�xd4 11 .i.xd4 .i.e6 12 .i.b5

19 .i.xb2+ 20 �bl �xaJ+ 21
.•. :c8 13 0-0-0 �d7?!
�xb2 �xb5 22 'iffl �b4 23 �xb4 It would be more logical to com­
axb4 24 f5 'ifa5 25 l:[d3 plete his development by 1 3 ...'iVc7,
retaining the key bishop.
14 .i.xg7 �xg7 15 f4 �f6 16
l:[hel 'ifc7 17 'tfd4 l:[fd8 18 l:[d2
dS?
Overlooking White's reply.
It's worth moving his king to get
out of the pin.
1 9 exdS .i.xd5

25 ...b3! !
Thunder from a not quite clear
sky. With the appearance of the
queen on the long diagonal the
attack becomes irresistible.
26 :xb3
On 26 .i.xb3 decisive is
26 ...'ifa3+ 27 �b l �c3+ 28 :Xc3
:xc3 29 fxg6 :xb3+. 20 'ife5!
26...�c3 27 l:[aJ 'ife5! 28 'iVg3 Now the exchange of queens is
�a4+ 29 �cl 'ifh2+ 30 �dl �c3+ not possible because of material loss
31 :xcJ :xcJ and the black king is doomed to re­
Black has done the business-the main under the dangerous pin.
rest is a short agony. 20...e6 21 :edt b6
32 .i.xf7+ �xf7 33 fJ:g6+ �xg6 2 l ...h5 would be more stubborn.
34 'ifh4 'ifxc2+ 35 �el 'ifxe4+ 0-1 22 .i.a6 h5 23 .i.xc8 :xeS 24 h3
'ifxe5 25 fxe5 �e4 26 �xe4 .i.xe4
27 :e2 .i.d5 28 l:[d4
Game 46 Black has no compensation for
Karpov-D.Byrne the exchange. The rest is a matter of
San Antonio 1 972 technique, which is duly demon­
strated by the future world
1 e4 c5 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 champion.
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 28...:c5 29 b4 f5 30 exf6+ �xf6
f3 0-0 8 'ifd2 �c6 9 .i.c4 aS 10 a4 31 l:[f4+ �g7 32 :e5 :c7 33 g3
Against the author of the system, :c6 34 �d2 :c7 35 b3 l:[d7 36
the most consistent-to avert a flank �eJ :e7 37 g4 hxg4 38 :xg4 �f6
attack. 39 :egs l:[b7 40 :xg6+ �e5 1-0
 Illustrative Games 259

Game 47 22 eS?
Fischer-Muiioz Underestimating the opponent. He
Leipzig 1960 should reinforce the c2 pawn by 22
:h2 or 22 l:c 1 .
1 e4 cS 2 �D d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 22 ...b4!
�xd4 �f6 S �cJ g6 6 .i.eJ .i.g7 7 Not good of course was 22 ...1fxe5
t3 0-0 8 1fd2 �c6 9 .i.c4 a6 10 23 l:he l , but, you know, he doesn't
.i.b3 1faS have to take!
Transposing to a system where 23 exf6 bxc:J 24 1fh2 1i'xf6 25
the move ...a7-a6 to a certain extent .i.gS 1ff7 26 1fe2
looks like a loss of time. White's attack has come to a dead
1 1 0-0-0 .i.d7 1 2 �b1 l:ac8 13 end and he has to transpose into a
g4 �eS 14 .i.h6 difficult endgame. Alas ... even the
Not the most accurate way of ex­ great Fischer is in no position to
ploiting the presented tempo. It is save himself.
better to play first h2-h4. 26...cxb2 27 1fxe7 1fxe7 28
14 ...�c4 15 .i.xc4 l:xc4 1 6 �b3 .i.xe7 l:txc2 29 l:txd6 .i.a4 30 .i.gS
1feS! l:fl! 3 1 .i.e3 l:xD 32 .i.d4 .i.xb3
A surprising centralisation of the 33 axb3 .i.xd4 34 l:xd4 l:xb3 35
queen, which, with the bishop on l:d2 l:cb8 36 l:d7 l:aJ!. White re­
e3, would not be a success because signed. 0-1
of i.e3-d4 followed by e4-e5. This defeat of Robert Fischer
17 h4 against the champion of Ecuador
If 17 f4 1fe6 1 8 �4, then came to be the sensation of the 1 4th
1 8 ...�xe4 ! . Olympiad.
17 ...l:fc8 18 .i.f4?!
The "routine" 1 8 .i.xg7 �g7 19
h5 was more natural and better. Game 48
18 ...1fe6 19 hS bS 20 hxg6 fxg6 Kaidanov-Fedorowicz
21 .i.h6 .i.h8 USA 1 992
White also loses time on the wan­
dering bishop which gives Black the 1 e4 cS 2 �D d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
possibility of preparing well for a �xd4 �f6 S �cJ g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7
breakthrough in the centre. t3 0-0 8 1fd2 �c6 9 g4 e6 10 0-0-0
dS 1 1 gS �hS 12 l:gl �xd4
Another continuation here is
12... l:e8.
13 .i.xd4 eS 14 .i.cS d4 IS .i.xfll
.i.xfll 16 �e2
The mobile bishop-pair fully
compensates Black for the sacri­
ficed exchange. Therefore, even on
the more active 16 �5 .i.e6 1 7 c4,
Black could open up the cover of
the white king with the move
17 ...b5.
260 Illustrative Games

16 ...�e6 17 �b1 'iib6 18 f4! Game 49

An original reaction. The attack in Zs. Polgar-Vescovi
the centre is the best way of coun­ Mathinos 1 994
tering a flank attack.
18 ...�a3 19 b3 �b4 20 Wi'd3 1 e4 cS 2 ltJfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
liJxf4 2 1 liJxf4 exf4 22 'iib s •d6 ltJxd4 liJf6 S ltJcJ g6 6 �e3 �g7 7
23 •xb7 :bs 24 •xa7 �c3 2S fJ ltJc6 8 •d2 0-0 9 g4 �e6 10
:d3! ._fB 26 :xcJ dxc3 27 ...c7? 0-0-0 ltJxd4 1 1 �xd4 WaS 12 a3
White has got too carried away .:res 13 h4 :ab8 14 hS bS IS hxg6
and again falls under attack. After hxg6?!
the more restrained 27 'iVa5, with With this capture White gets the
the following transfer of the rook to chance to exploit the h-file----correct
d1, he would have nothing to fear. was 1 5 ... fxg6. The counterattack
21...:cs 28 •xr4 1 5 .. b4 was appropriate in view of
.

the vulnerable king but here it runs

the risk of 1 6 ltJd5 ! �xd5 1 7 g5 !
and White maintains the initiative
with strongly placed forces.
16 ...gS!
A typical picture when there are
attacks on opposite flanks. Which is
quicker? With this kind of
manoeuvre the white queen holds
up the b-pawn, while planning to
exchange the enemy king's
defenders (with the thrust ltJc3-d5)
and return with the queen to h6.
16 ...�c4 17 f4?!
28... �xb3! 29 axb3 •a3? How strange it is that this offen­
Black in tum makes a mistake. sive move should allow Black to
Leading to a win was 29 ...:a8! launch a counterattack. After the
(with the threat 30...:a1 ) 30 ...c 1 positional 17 �xc4 :xc4 1 8 ltJd5
Wfb4 with 3 l ......a5 to follow. Now White forces the queen to retreat
however White buys him off with a and obtains a lasting advantage.
piece. 17 ...eS!
30 •cl •as 31 �bS! •xbS 32 By shutting out the "X-ray" activ­
•a3 •es 33 •a6 :dB 34 •c4 ity of the enemy queen, Black succ­
�g7? eeds in attacking with the b-pawn.
Another mistake, this time losing. 18 fxeS b4 19 liJdS ltJxdS 20 e6
After 34 ...:d4 the probable out­ Beginning a real punch up! White
come is a draw. hastens to get hold of the initiative
3S :n :d7 36 •c6 :d6 37 'iib7 that is slipping away.
'iVe6 38 •c7 �g8 39 •xc3 ••e4 2 1 ... bxa3 21 exf7+ �xf7
40 'iVc8+ �g7 41 •c7 1-0 Also possible is 2 1 ...�ffl, since
White has no other resource than
 Illustrative Games 261

peJ"P.�tual check: 22 .i.xg7+ �xg7 .i.e3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 dS 9 eS liJe8 10 f4

23 Wfh6+ �xf7 24 Wfh7+. e6 I I .i.e2 f6
Black constructs this position in
"French" style, but in the present
situation the weakness of the dark
squares is only too evident.
12 exf6 liJxf6 13 .i.f3 liJc6 14 0-0
liJxd4 IS .i.xd4 liJe8 16 J:adl
.i.xd4 17 'ii'xd4 'ii'b6

22 b4!!
An amazingly beautiful and effec­
tive move!
22 a2?
•.•

Black is confused by the choice of

possibilities and selects, though the
most tempting, also the worst con­
tinuation. Zs.Polgar confirmed this
with interesting ana!ysis. Thus in­ A position has arisen with a pawn
sufficient was 22 .. .'it'xb4 23 J:h7! formation characteristic of the
.i.b3 (there is no perpetual check- Classical Variation of the French
23 ... 'iVb l + 24 �d2 'iVb4+ 25 c3 Defence, where the backward e6
'iVb2+ 26 �e I) 24 J:xg7+ �f8 25 pawn is a constant source of worry.
J:g8+ �xg8 26 'ii'xg6+ �f8 27 .i.d3 In the present situation Black's
'ii'xd4 28 J:fl and White wins the problems are aggravated by the
queen. But after 22 ...J:xb4! 23 absence of any kind of counterplay.
.i.xc4 J:bxc4 24 J:dfl + �e8 25 18 .i.g4! 'ii'xd4+
'ii'xg6+ �d7 26 'ii'xg7+ liJe7 Black After the capture of the pawn,
maintains the balance. 18 ...'ii'xb2, he could continue 19
23 bxaS .i.xd4 24 J:h7+ .i.g7 25 J:b l 'ii'a3 20 J:xb7! .i.xb7 2 1
�d2 J:bl 26 .i.xc:4 J:xdl+ 27 .i.xe6+ J:f7 22 f5 with a strong
�xdl al='iV+ 28 �e2 'ii'd4 29 attack.
.i.xdS+ �e8 30 'ii'xg6+ �d8 31 19 J:xd4 gS
'ii'xd6+ �e8 1-0 Duller, but more stubborn was
19...liJf6. Now, however, the pawns
Game 50 fall like autumn leaves.
Polugaevsky-Chekhover 20 J:el ! gxf4 21 .i.xe6+ .i.xe6 22
Leningrad 1 954 J:xe6 liJc7 23 J:e7 J:ac8 24 �f2
Af6 25 �tJ J:h6 26 liJxdS liJe6 27
I e4 cS 2 liJfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 J:d2 and Black lost the hopeless
liJxd4 liJf6 S liJcJ g6 6 f3 .i.g7 7 ending. 1-0
262 J/lustrative Games

Game 5 1 .i.xdS "'xg7 13 0-0 Wc3 14 Wei hS

Fischer-Camara lS :b1 Was 16 c4
Siegen (ol) 1970 This means of attack has the
objective of drawing the c-pawn
1 e4 cS 1 ltlf3 d6 3 d4 ltlf6 4 ltlc3 into the offensive. Apart from this it
cxd4 5 ltlxd4 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 tJ contains a small trap into which
ltlc6 8 'ii'd1 .i.d7 9 .i.c4 :cs 10 Black also falls. Another way is
.i.b3 Was 1 1 0-0-0 ltleS 11 b4 ltlc4 based on 16 f4 f6 1 7 :b3 Wc7 1 8
13 .i.xc4 :xc4 14 ltlb3 Wc7 1S Wb2 and the threat to advance the
.i.d4 .i.c6 16 eS dxeS 17 .i.xeS WeB e-pawn becomes real.
18 We1 .i.d7 16...e6?
16 ...Wc7 is more stubborn. Now
however there is no way out for the
bishop other than to be exchanged,
but White had also reckoned on this.
17 .i.xc6 bxc6 18 cS!
An assault on the dark squares!
18...dS 19 .i.d4+ f6 10 f4!
Against the threat 2 1 .i.xf6+ �xf6
22 'ifb2+ when he does not have the
reply 22 ... e5.
10...:ts 11 exdS cxdS
Or 2 1 .. .exd5 22 f3 .i.x£3 23 :xfS!
gxfS 24 Wg5+! etc.
19 :xd7! 11 Wc1 'ilc7 13 :o .i.a6 14 :g3
A powerful blow, based on the Wf7 1S :aJ .i.c8
overloaded queen: now the king
falls under attack and Black has to
part with his queen.
19 ..."'xd7 10 ltlbS! Wc6
Repulsing the threat of a knight
raid to the left-2 1 ltlxa7, against
which 20...:a4 does not save him
because of 2 1 :d 1 + "'e8 22 .i.xf6
.i.xf6 23 ltld6+ !, but Black cannot
pany the threat to the right.
11 :dt+ "'e8 11 ltlc7+ Wxc7 13
.i.xc7 :xc7 14 'iibS+ 1-0

Game 52 26 c6!
Tukmakov-Kaplan Playing over the whole board!
Madrid 1973 Now :a3-b3-b7 is threatened, it be­
ing understood that White intends to
1 e4 cS 1 ltltJ ltlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 sacrifice the exchange, as predicted
ltlxd4 g6 S ltlc3 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 ltlf6 7 earlier, then his centralised bishop
.i.c4 d6 8 f3 'iib6 9 ltlrs Wxb1 10 will be stronger than any black
ltlxg7+ "'fB 1 1 ltldS ltlxdS 11 rook.
 Illustrative Games 263

26 e5 27 fxe5 .i.f5 28 ed6+

•.•

�g8 29 'iVcl .i.xb1 30 'iVxb1 :res

On 30...:fc8 there follows the de­
cisive 3 1 llg3 �h7 32 llg5 ! llxc6
33 llxh5+ �g8 34 llh6.
31 llb3
Not 3 1 llg3? lle4 ! .
3 1 1le4 32 llb7 'iVf8 33 llg7+
..•

'iVxg7 34 rx.g7 llxd4 35 c7 lle8 36

h3 llc4 37 'ifb8 �t7 38 'iVxe8+ 1-0

Game 53
Klovans-Ernst 25 e5?!
..•

Groningen 1 991 White threatens to get to the king

by g2-g4 and Black cannot endure
1 e4 c5 2 lLltJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 the pressure, though it was still
ltlxd4 lLlf6 5 ltlc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 possible to "keep standing" by
tJ ltlc6 8 .i.c4 'iVb6 9 ltlf5 'iVxb2 10 25 ...1lh8 26 llbe2 :ae8.
ltlxg7+ �f8 1 1 ltld5 �xgJ 12 llb1 26 dxe6+ l:lxe6 27 l:lxe6 .i.xe6 28
'iVa3 13 'ii'd2 h5 14 0-0 WaS 15 c3 .i.d3 .i.xc4
ltlxd5 16 exd5 ltle5 17 .i.d4 f6 18 On 28 ... f5 of course follows 29
llfe1 'iVc7 g4.
The Moor has done his duty, the 29 l:lc2 d5 30 f5 lLle5 31 .i.xe5
Moor can go. The queen returns to Simplification plays into the
the defence with the trophy of the hands of the defending side, even
b2 pawn. Further "collecting" by though Black will be obliged to part
1 8 ...ltlxc4?! is dangerous because of with his q_ueen. After 3 1 fxg6+!
19 llxe7+ �f8 20 'iVf4 .i.f5 2 1 Wg7 32 l:lf2 'iVd6 33 .i.c2 the
llbxb7 ltle5 22 .i.e3 �g8 23 llg7+ struggle would not go on for much
or 22 h3 llc8 23 .i.e3 �g8 24 Wh4! longer.
�f8 24 llxg6 with a strong attack 3 1 1Vxe5 32 l:le2 .i.xd3
•••

for White (J.Klovans). Upon the retreat 32 ...'ii'c7 33 lle6

19 .i.n .i.f5 20 llb2 llhe8 'iVd8 34 'ii'g3 Black cannot defend
Preventing the expulsion of the himself, but it would be better to
knight fails: 20 ...g5 2 1 h4 g4 22 f4 make the queen sacrifice "official"
ltlg6 (22 ...ltlf7 23 'iVe3 ±) 23 g3 and by 32 ...'ii'xe2 33 fxg6+ �g7 34
after the exchange of the light­ .i.xe2 .i.xe2, though after 35 g4, as
squared bishops White's pressure on before, White's advantage is
the e-file is very unpleasant. obvious.
21 f4 ltld7 22 'iVfl lLlb6 23 c4 33 l:lxe5 fxe5 34 'iVb4! .i.a6
Reinforcing the centre, since It's also not easy after 34 ...l:ld8 35
23 ...ltlxc4? is not possible because 'iVxb7+ �f6 36 'iVc7.
of 24 llc l . 35 'iVd6 gxf5 36 'iVxe5 l:ld8 37
23 �17 24 'iVh4 lLld7 25 h3
..• 'ibf5+ �e7 38 'ife5+ �f8 39 'iff6+
264 Illustrative Games

�e8 40 1Ve6+ �f8 41 'ifh6+! �f7 �xg7 17 i.h6+ �h8 1 8 i.xf8 1Vxf8
42 1VxhS+ 19 hxg6 fxg6 20 'iVd4+ e5 2 1 1Vxa4
Now the passed g- and h-pawns with advantage.
must decide the _game. 14 :as eS IS dxe6 fxe6 16 hS eS
42...�e6 43 Wfg6+ �d7 44 1Vf6 17 ltlb3 1Ve6 18 hxg6 ltlc6
�c7 45 1Ve7+ l:d7 46 'iVcS+ �b8 On 1 8 ... hxg6 would follow 19
47 'iVd4 i.c4 48 h4 bS 49 a3 aS SO l:a4! with the threats of ltlb3-a5 and
hS b4 51 1Vb6+ �c8 52 axb4 d4 53 ltlb3-c5.
'iVxcS+ l:c7 54 1Vxd4 axb4 55 h6
b3 56 h7 1-0

Game 54
Adorjan-Fuller
London 1 9 75

1 e4 cS 2 lt!O d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltlxd4 ltlf6 S ltlc3 g6 6 i.e3 i.g7 7
f3 a6 8 'iVd2 bS 9 tlld S!
A flank attack is best met by a
reaction in the centre.
9 ltlxdS 10 exdS i.b7 1 1 a4
..•

Continuing the same positional

strategy. White weakens his oppo­ 19 1Vxd6! !
nent's queen's flank. A thunderous queen sacrifice.
l l . bxa4
.. 19 1Vxd6 20 i.c4+ :n 2 1
•••

On 1 l ...i.xd5 unpleasant is 12 i.xf7+ �f8 22 i.cS hxg6 23 i.c4

lbfS! gxfS 1 3 1Vxd5 i.xb2 14 l:a2 1VxcS 24 l:xcS
i.c3+ 1 5 �f2 lbd7 1 6 axb5 and the As a result, White is left the
game turns out in White's favour. exchange ahead.
12 l:xa4 0-0 13 h4 'iVd7 24 aS 25 .idS a4 26 ltld2 a3 27
•••

As before, in White's favour is bxa3 l:xa3 28 l:h4 l:a1 + 29 �tl

1 3 ... i.xd5 14 ltlfS. For example: e4 30 l:f4+ �e8 31 i.xc6+ i.xc6
14 ... i.c6 1 5 ltlxg7 i.xa4 1 6 h5 32 l:xc6 1-0
 Index of Variations

Rauzer Attack 13
I e4 cS 2 �tJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �xd4 �f6 S �c3 g6
6 .teJ .ig7 7 t3 (7 0-0 8 'iVd2 �c6)
...

Chapter 1 : Main-line Rauzer Attack: 9 0-0-0 15

Une 1 : 9 dS 10 exdS �xdS 11 �xc6 bxc6 12 �xdS cxdS
. .. 16
l A 13 'iVxd5 'iVc7 1 4 'iVc5 'ii'b7 17
I Aa 1 5 'iVa3 18
l Ab 1 5 b3 19
I 8 1 3 .ih6 20
Line 2: 9 dS 10 exdS �xdS 1 1 �xc6 bxc6 12 .id4
••• 22
2A 1 2 ...e5 1 3 .ic5 22
2Aa I3 ...l:r.e8 23
2Aa l 14 �xd5 23
2Aa2 14 �e4 24
2Ab 1 3 ... .ie6 14 lL!e4 26
2Ab l I4 . .l:r.e8 1 5 h4
. 27
2Ab l a 1 5 ...lL!f4 28
2Ab l b 1 5 ... h5 29
2Ab 1 c 1 5 ... h6 30
2Ab2 14...l:r.b8 32
2Ab2a 1 5 c4 33
2Ab2b 1 5 .ic4 34
28 1 2 ...�xc3 1 3 'iVxc3 .ih6+ 1 4 .ie3 .ixe3+ 1 5 'iVxe3 'ii'b6
16 'iVxe7 .ie6 35
28a 1 7 .id3 36
28b 1 7 'iVa3 37
2Bc 17 'iVf6 38
2C 1 2 ... .i.xd4 1 3 'iVxd4 38
2Ca 1 3 ...'ii'b6 39
2Cb 13 ...'iVc7 40
Line 3 : 9 dS 1 0 'iVe1
•.• 40
3A I O ..e5 1 1 lL!xc6 bxc6 1 2 exd5 lL!xd5 1 3 .i.c4 .i.e6
.

14 �e4 'iVc7 1 5 .i.c5 l:r.fd8 41

3Aa 1 6 g_4 43
3Ab 16 Wh4 44
3Ac 16 �g5 45
38 IO.. e6. 45
3Ba 1 1 g4 46
3Ba l I l .. .'iVe7 46
38a2 1 1 ... e5 47
266 Index of Variations

3Bb 1 1 h4 'ilc7 47
3Bb1 12 h5 48
3Bb2 1 2 exd5 49
Line 4: 9 d5 10 llJxc6 bxc6 I I .th6
... 50
4A 1 1 ...'ila5 51
4B 1 1 ...'ilc7 51
4C 1 1 ...e6 52
4D 1 1 ....te6 52
4E 1 1 ....txh6 53
Line 5: 9 d5 10 �bl
... 54
Line 6: 9 liJxd4 10 .txd4 .te6
... 55
6A 1 1 �b1 'ilc7 12 h4 l:fc8 56
6Aa 1 3 h5 57
6Ab 13 g4 'ila5 59
6Ab1 14 a3 59
6Ab2 14 'ilg5 60
6B 1 1 liJd5 62
Line 7: 9 .te6
... 63
Line 8: 9 .td7 8 'ii'd 2 liJc6 9 0-0-0 .td7 10 g4 l:c8 I I h4 llJe5
... 64
SA: 1 2 �b1 66
SB: 1 2 h5 68
Chapter 2: Rauzer Attack with 9 .i.c4 70
Line 9: 9 .td7 10 0-0-0 l:c8 I I .tb3 liJe5 12 �bl liJc4
... 71
13 .txc4 l:xc4 1 4 g4
9A: 14 ....'ilc7 72
9B: 14 ...b5 73
Line 10: 9 .td7 10 0-0-0 l:c8 I I .tb3 liJe5 12 h4 liJc4
... 74
13 .txc4 l:xc4 14 b5 liJxb5 15 g4 liJf6
lOA 1 6 e5 76
10Aa 1 6...dxe5 76
l OAb 1 6...llJxg4 77
lOB I 6 liJde2 79
lOBa 16 ...'ila5 79
lOBb I 6...:es SI
I OBb I I 7 e5 SI
1 0Bb2 I 7 .th6 82
1 0Bb3 I7 .td4 84
lOC 16 b3 85
l OCa I 6 ...:cs 85
lOCb 1 6...l:c5 86
lOD 16 �b1 87
10Da 1 6...:es 88
lODb 1 6...11'c7 89
1 0E 16 liJxd5 89
l OEa 16 ... e6 90
l OEb 16 ...liJxd5 91
1 OF 16 .th6 llJxe4 I 7 'ile3 l:xc3 1 8 bxc3 liJf6 19 .txg7 �xg7 93
lOFa 20 'ilh6 94
 Index of Variations 267

10Fb 20 J:lh2 95
10Fb1 20...1Wc7 95
10Fb2 20 ... J:lh8 96
1 0Fb3 20...J:lg8 97
l OFc 20 lbe2 97
1 OFd 20 lbb3 98
1 OG 1 6 lbb3 J:le8 99
1 OGa 1 7 e5 lbxg4 1 8 fxg4 ..i.xg4 19 J:ldg 1 1 00
10Ga1 1 9... ..i.e5 1 00
10Ga2 19 ... h5 101
1OGb 17 ..i.g5 1 02
Line 1 1 : 9 ..i.d7 10 0-0-0 J:lc8 1 1 ..i.b3 lDeS 12 h4 hS
... 103
1 1A 1 3 g4 1 04
1 1 B 1 3 'i&i>b 1 lbc4 14 ..i.xc4 J:lxc4 1 06
1 1 Ba 1 5 lbde2 1 07
1 1 Bb 1 5 lDb3 1 08
1 1C 1 3 ..i.h6 1 10
1 1 Ca 1 3 ... lbc4 1 10
1 1 Cb 1 3 .....i.xh6 14 1Wxh6 J:lxc3 1 5 bxc3 112
1 1 Cb1 1 5 ...1Wa5 1 12
1 1 Cb2 1 5 ...1Wc7 16 'i&i>b1 J:lc8 1 7 g4 a5 1 14
1 1Cb2a 1 8 gxh5 115
1 1 Cb2b 1 8 g5 1 16
1 1 Cb2c 18 lll f5 1 17
1 1Cc 1 3 ...a5 117
1 1D 1 3 ..i.g5 J:lc5 1 18
1 1 Da 14 f4 1 19
1 1Db 14 g4 hxg4 1 5 f4 lbc4 16 1We2 121
1 1Db1 16 ...1Wc8 1 23
1 1 Db 1a 17 f5 123
1 1 Db1 b 17 ..i.xf6 124
1 1 Db 1 c 1 7 h5 124
1 1Db2 16 ... b5 1 7 f5 125
1 1Db2a 1 7... gxf5 126
1 1Db2b 17 ... 1Wa5 126
1 1Db2c 17 ... 1Wc8 128
1 1 Dc 14 �b1 129
1 1Dc 1 14 ... b5 1 5 g4 129
1 1 Dc2a 1 5 ... hxg4 16 h5 1 30
1 1 Dc 1aa 1 6...J:lxc3 131
1 1Dc l ab 1 6 ... lbxh5 131
1 1 Dc 1b 1 5 ... a5 16 gxh5 1 32
1 1 Dc1ba 16 ... lbxh5 133
1 1 Dc 1bb 16... a4 1 34
1 1Dc2 14 ... J:le8 135
1 1 Dc2a 1 5 g4 135
1 1Dc2b 1 5 J:lhe 1 136
l lE 1 3 J:lhe 1 137
268 Index of Variations

Line 12: 9 .i.d7 10 o-o-o Was 1 1 .i.b3 :res 12 h4 o!iles

.•. 1 38
13 hS iilxhS
12A 14 g4 139
12B 14 .i.h6 141
12Ba 1 4 ... iild3+ 142
12Bb 14 ... :xc3 144
12C 14 lild5 145
Line 13: 9... .i.d7 10 0-0-0 Was I I .i.b3 :res 12 h4 iiles 13 g4 147
Line 14: 9....i.d7 10 0-0-0 Was I I .i.b3 :res 12 h4 o!iles 13 �bl 149
14A 13 ...o!ilc4 149
14B 1 3 ...b5 1 52
14Ba 14 lDcxb5 1 53
14Bb 14 .i.h6 1 54
Line IS: 9....i.d7 10 0-0-0 Was II .i.b3 :res 12 �bl lDes 155
ISA 1 3 g4 1 56
ISB 13 'ife2 1 56
1 5C 1 3 .i.g5 1 57
Line 16: 9. ..i.d7 10 0-0-0 Wbs
. 158
16A 1 1 .i.b3 1 59
16B 1 1 h4 1 60
16Ba 1 1 ...:c8 161
16Bb 1 l ...b5 1 62
16C 1 1 g4 1 63
160 1 1 tDd5 164
Line 17: 9 ... .i.d7 10 0-0-0 We7 1 65
Line 1S: 9....i.d7 10 h4 168
18A 1 0... :c8 1 1 .i.b3 169
18Aa 1 l ...lDe5 1 69
1 8Ab 1 1 ...h5 1 70
1 8B 1 0...Wa5 171
"Line 19: 9 ....i.d7 10 .i.b3 172
19A 10 ...lDxd4 1 1 .i.xd4 b5 12 h4 aS 1 72
19Aa 1 3 h5 1 73
19Ab 1 3 a4 1 73
19B 1 0...Wc7 1 75
Line 20: 9...lDxd4 10 .i.xd4 .i.e6 II ..tb3 WaS 12 0-0-0 1 76
20A 12 ...:fc8 1 3 �b1 177
20Aa 13 ...:c6 1 78
20Ab 13 ... b5 179
20B 12 ... b5 179
Line 2 1 : 9...o!ild7 181
21A 10 0-0-0 181
21B 1 0 h4 1 83
Line 22: 9 ...lDaS 1 84
Line 23: 9...aS 1 86
23A 10 0-0-0 1 86
23B 1 0 a4 1 87
23C 10 .i.b3 188
Line 24: 9...a6 1 89
 Index of Variations 269

Chapter 3: Rauzer Attack with 9 g4 191

Line 25: 9 e6 10 0-0-0 dS
.•. I93
25A I I .ie2 194
25B I I g5 195
Line 26: 9... .te6 10 0-0-0 ll:\xd4 1 1 .txd4 'ii'aS 196
26A I2 �bi 198
26B I2 a3 l:tab8 13 h4 l:tfc8 I99
26Ba I4 h5 b5 200
26Ba i I 5 h6 200
26Ba2 I 5 hxg6 202
26Bb I4 ll:\d5 203
Chapter 4: Side Variations of the Rauzer Attack 205
Line 27: 7.. 0-0 8 'ii'd2 dS 9 eS
. 205
27A 9 ... ll:\e8 206
27B 9...ll:\fd7 206
Line 28: 7. .0-0 8 J.c4 ll:\c6
. 207
28A: 9 1i'e2 208
28Aa: 9 ...ll:\a5 208
28Ab: 9... .td7 209
28B: 9 .ib3 210
Anti-Rauzer System 21 1
Line 29: 7 ... ll:\c6 8 1i'd2 .id7 211
29A 9 0-0-0 211
29B 9 .ic4 l:tc8 I 0 .ib3 212
29Ba I 0...1i'a5 I I 0-0-0 ll:\e5 213
29Bai I 2 h4 213
29Ba2 I 2 �b1 214
29Bb I O...ll:\e5 214
29Bb i I I 0-0-0 2I5
29Bb2 I I .ih6 216
Line 30: 7 ... ll:\c6 8 .ic4 'it'b6 2I7
30A 9 ll:\f5 1i'b2 IO ll:\xg7+ �f8 1 I ll:\d5 217
30Aa 1 I .. .ll:\xd5 218
30Ab 1 l ...�xg7 220
30B 9 .ib5 22 1
Line 3 1 : 7 ... a6 222
 Index of Illustrative Games

page

1 Smyslov-Gufeld, USSR (ch) 1961 224

2 lvanchuk-Hodgson, Amsterdam 1996 224
3 Ivanchuk-Fedorov, Wijk aan Zee 2000 225
4 Beliavsky-Khalifman, Belgrade 1993 226
5 Tokarev-Gufeld, Odessa 1 957 227
6 Velimirovic-Gufeld, Vinkovci 1982 228
7 Oll-Gufeld, Thilisi 1 983 229
8 Kasparov-Topalov, Amsterdam 1995 229
9 Shirov-A.Fedorov, Batumi 1 999 230
10 Morozevich-Kir.Georgiev, Sarajevo, 2000 23 1
11 Xie Jun-Gufeld, Kuala Lumpur 1994 23 1
12 Hellers-Ernst, Stockholm 1993 232
13 Adams-Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 1996 233
14 Timman-Sax, Niksic 1 983 234
15 Adams-lvanchuk, Dortmund 1998 235
16 I.Gurevich-Ward, London 1 994 236
17 Arakhamia-Ward, Berne 1992 237
18 Timoshchenko-Gallagher, Jacksonville 1990 237
19 Lanka-A.Fedorov, Chisinau 1998 238
20 Beliavsky-Gufeld, USSR 1976 239
21 Feher-Schneider, Hungary 1995 239
22 Anand-Kasparov, New York (m/1 1) 1 995 240
23 Glek-Kveinis, Bad Godesberg 1995 24 1
24 Anand-Kasparov, New York (m/1 7) 1995 242
25 Beliavsky-Velimirovic, Szirak (izt) 1 98 243
26 Cherepkov-Vasiukov, USSR 1 967 244
27 Murey-Ravisekhar, London 1986 245
28 Bouaziz-Geller, Sousse (izt) 1967 245
29 Istratescu-Golubev, Lucerne 1994 246
30 Macieja-Salmensuu, Saint Vincent 2000 247
31 Karpov-Garcia Martinez, Portoroz/Ljubljana 1975 247
32 Tolnai-Jovil:ic, Leibnitz 1990 248
33 Ree-Tal, Wijk aan Zee 1 973 248
34 Savon-Stein, USSR (ch) 1 962 249
35 Spassky-Levy, Nice (ol) 1 974 250
36 Leko-A.Fedorov, Batumi 1999 25 1
37 Santo Roman-Ristic, Graz 1978 252
271 Index ofIllustrative Games

page

38 Ivanovic-Markovic, Podgorica 1 992 253

39 Anand-Kasparov, New York (m/13) 1 995 253
40 Motwani-Larsen, London 1989 254
41 Winants-Sosonko, Holland 1992 255
42 Wedberg-Sosonko, Haninge 1988 256
43 Beliavsky-Kupreichik, USSR (ch) 1978 256
44 Espig-Merino, Kapfenberg 1970 257
45 Djurovic-Mestrovic, Vmjacka Banja 1966 257
46 Karpov-D.Byrne, San Antonio 1972 258
47 Fischer-Muiioz, Leipzig 1 960 259
48 Kaidanov-Fedorowicz, USA 1 992 259
49 Zs.Polgar-Vescovi, Mathinos 1 994 260
50 Polugaevsky-Chekhover, Leningrad 1954 26 1
51 Fischer-Camara, Siegen (ol) 1970 262
52 Tukmakov-Kaplan, Madrid 1 973 262
53 Klovans-Emst, Groningen 199 1 263
54 Adorjan-Fuller, London 1975 264