[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.�f4 �xd474.�f4+ �e2 75.�e4+ �d3 76.�e1 76.�xd4 �e2 77.�e4+ �f3 a win-�g3! (Black cannot make progress ning pawn ending arises.score: Spassky 5 Fischer 8129Game 14 August 15White: Robert FischerBlack: Boris SpasskyOrthodox Queen s Gambit NIC key: QO 3.41.c4 e6 2.�f3 d5 3.d4 �f6 �c6 9.a3 �a5 10.�d1 �e7 11.�d24.�c3 �e7 5.�f4 e5 12.�g5 d4 13.�b3, as inA move which has been gaining in Portisch-Spassky, Havana Olympiadpopularity in recent years.The draw- 1966.The complications favouredback in comparison with the classical White.5.�g5 is that White relaxes his pres- 8.cxd5sure on the centre, enabling Black to There is no real reason for White toplay for c7-c5 without disadvantage.play for the isolated pawn, as Black s5.0-0 pieces are actively positioned.On theThe immediate 5.c5 has also been other hand, however, the temporisingtried, e.g.in the 8th match game 8.a3 would only have led to a tinyPetrosian-Spassky, Moscow 1969.edge after 8.dxc4 9.�xc4 �xd1+Black got a satisfactory game after 10.�xd1 �xc5.6.dxc5 �a6 7.e3 �xc5 8.cxd5 exd5 8.exd5 9.�e2 �xc5 10.0-09.�e2 0-0 10.0-0 �e6 11.�e5 �c8 �e6 11.�c1 �c812.�c1 a6.Portisch later showed(against Bobotsov, Amsterdam 1971)._Td.tM_._Td.tM_that with 7.�d6! White can keepjJ_._JjJjJ_._JjJsome positional advantage: 7.�xc5._S_Ls._._S_Ls._8.�xe7 �xe7 9.cxd5 exd5 10.e3 0-0_.lJ_._._.lJ_._.11.�e2 �ce4 12.�d4._._.b._._._.b._6.e3 c5_.n.iN_._.n.iN_.Spassky also tried the passive set-upIi._BiIi6.�bd7 once.The game Larsen- Ii._BiIi_.rQ_Rk.Spassky, Palma de Mallorca 1968, con- _.rQ_Rk.tinued 7.a3 c6 8.h3 a6 9.c5 b6 10.b4a5 11.�d3 �a6, with equality.12.a37.dxc5 �c6 12.�xd5 was no good: 12.�xd5More flexible than 7.�xc5 8.�c2 13.�xd5 �xd5 14.�xc5 �xf413015.exf4 �d4 16.�e5 �xe2+ 17.�xe2 15.�a4 �e4 16.�xc8 �xc8�c4, winning the exchange.Possible, 17.�f3however, was 12.�e5, as in Tal-Keres, Aiming to get the bishop to e5 afterSoviet championship 1959, in which all.If 17.�h4, Black was ready withchances were roughly equal after 17.�c7 18.�d4 �d6.12.�d6 13.�xc6 bxc6 14.�a4 17.�d7�xf4 15.�xf4 c5 16.�fd1 �b8 17.b3 Here 17.�c7 would be less effective:�b4.18.�xc7 �xc7 19.�c1.12.h6 18.�e5(?)12.a6, to withdraw the bishop to a7, Consistent, but it causes the balance todeserved attention.tip slightly towards some initiative for13.�g3 �b6 Black.18.�xb6 �xb6 19.�d4 wasNow 14.�xd5 was indeed a threat.called for, when it makes little sense14.�e5 for Black to take control of the c-file,The pin 14.�h4 was ineffectual: since 19.�c8 20.�xb6 axb614.d4 15.�e4(?) g5 (16.�fxg5 21.�d4 �f5 22.�e5 mainly favours�xe4).Nor was there much point in White.either 14.�b5 or 14.�a4, as both Black s most prudent course is to playwould be answered by 14.�e4.19.�b3, and then to chase the whiteWith the text White is aiming for queen away with 20.�c6 orpiece swaps (the more pieces are 20.�f5 (if 20.�d1 then 20.�b5).swapped, the more the weakness of 18.�xa4! 19.�xa4 �c6the isolated pawn will tell), at the Now all of a sudden Black has muchsame time trying to get his bishop on more influence in the centre.the a1-h8 diagonal.14.�e7!._.d.tM_._.d.tM_Preventing White s plans.Inferior wasjJ_._Jj.jJ_._Jj.14.d4 15.�xc6 �xc6 16.exd4 �xd4.lS_._.j.lS_._.j17.�f3._._Jb._._._Jb._.Q_._S_._Q_._S_._._Td.tM_._Td.tM_i._.iN_.i._.iN_.jJ_.sJj.jJ_.sJj.i._BiIi.i._BiIi.l._Ls.j.l._Ls.j_._._Rk._._._Rk._._Jn._._._Jn._._._._._._._._._20.�f4i.n.i.b.i.n.i.b.A second mistake, which renders.i._BiIi.i._BiIiWhite s situation precarious.There_.rQ_Rk._.rQ_Rk.were two better alternatives:1311) 20.�d4 �xd4 21.exd4! (not 23.�b4 �xb4 24.axb4 bxc621.�xd4, which many people have 25.�e5 �b5 26.�c1 �c8indicated, as after 21.�f6 nearly all 27.�d4white pieces are tied up) 21.�e8._T_._M_(with the positional threat of._T_._M_22.�c3) 22.�b5, and Black s advan- j._._Jj.j._._Jj.tage is small;.lJ_._.j.lJ_._.j2) 20.�g3 �f6 21.�c2 �e8, and_S_Jb._._S_Jb._.Black is ready for 22.d4.After the.i.n._._.i.n._._disruptive 22.�b5 he has 22.�e6_._.i._._._.i._.available._._.iIi._._.iIi20.�f6 21.�b5_.r._.k._.r._.k.Is this a blunder or accepting thatthere is nothing better? The following 27.f6??variations may serve to explain some A blunder.In my opinion, the end-of this: game after 27.�xd4 28.�xd4 �f8 is1) 21.�b3 d4 22.�d5 �e8 23.�d3 a technical win.This is difficult to�c5 24.�c2 d3!, and White is facing prove, of course, but I can try to ex-insurmountable difficulties; plain it with some variations: 29.�f12) 21.�c2 g5 (on 21.�e8 White (29.�a1 �xd4 30.exd4 �b8 is evenhas 22.�d3) 22.�g3 h5, and White is worse for White) 29.�xd4 30.exd4in big trouble.Enklaar indicates that �e7 31.�a1 �a8(!) (this is a more23.�d1 may hold the position, but useful spot for the rook than c7, as thethen 23.�f5! is a very powerful re- king now finds it easier to get to b6)ply: 24.�d3 h4 25.�d6 �d8 26.�b4 32.�e2 �d7 33.�d3 a6! and now,h3!, and the white position is overrun.for instance, 34.�a2 (or any other21.�xb2 22.�xc6 �c3 move) can be met by 34.�c7It is fairly unlikely that Fischer would 35.�e2 �b6.The invasion along thehave missed this Zwischenzug.seventh rank with 36.�e7 is neutral-ised with 36.�a7.If White plays34 [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]