2 Fischer - Larsen [ Denmark ]

PORTOROZ 1958

SICILIAN DEFENSE

Slaying the dragon

Larsen was one of the diehards who refused to abandon the Dragon until recently. White’s attack almost plays itself … weak players even beat Grandmasters with it. I once thumbed through several issues of Shakhmatny Bulletin, when the Yugoslav Attack was making its debut, and found the ratio was something like nine wins out of ten in White’s favor. Will Black succeed in reinforcing the variation? Time will tell.

6…g4? still loses to 7 b5+.

This refinement supersedes the old 0-0-0. The idea is to prevent …d5.

Just how Black can attempt to thread his way to equality is not clear. Interesting is Donald Byrne’s 9…a5. The strongest reply is 10 g4 and if 10…e5 11 e2 d5? 12 g5! wins a Pawn.

After 12…xb3 13 cxb3! Black cannot make any attacking headway against this particular Pawn configuration. White is lost in the King and Pawn ending, it’s true, but Black usually gets mated long before then. As Tarrasch put it: “Before the endgame the gods have placed the middle game.”

Weaker is 14 e2 xb3 15 cxb3 fd8.

Bad judgment is 14…xd5? 15 xg7 xg7 16 exd5 d7 17 de1 with a crushing bind. (Suetin-Korchnoi, USSR Championship prelims 1953.)

Stronger is 15 exd5! b5 16 he1 a5 17 e2! (Tal-Larsen, Zurich 1959) where White abandons the attack and plays for pressure along the e-file instead.

The losing move. After the game Larsen explained he was playing for a win, and therefore rejected the forced draw with 15…xd5 16 xg7 c3+ 17 bxc3 (17 xc3 bxc3 18 xc3 xc3 19 bxc3 fc8 renders White’s extra Pawn useless.) 17…ab8! 18 cxb4 xb4+! 19 xb4 xb4+ 20 b2 fb8, etc. After 15…xd5, however, I intended simply 16 exd5 xd5 17 xb4, keeping the game alive.

He won’t get a second chance to snap off the Bishop! Now I felt the game was in the bag if I didn’t botch it. I’d won dozens of skittles games in analogous positions and had it down to a science: pry open the h-file, sac, sac … mate!

This loss of time is unfortunately necessary if Black is ever to advance his a-Pawn. 16…b5? is refuted by 17 xa7.

There’s no satisfactory way to impede White’s attack. If 17…h5 18 g4! hxg4 (18…fc8 19 dg1 hxg4 20 h5! gxh5 21 fxg4 xe4 22 f4 e5 23 xe4 exd4 24 gxh5 h8 25 h6 f6 26 g7! wins) 19 h5! gxh5 (on 19…xh5 20 xg7 xg7 21 fxg4 f6 22 h6+ mates) 20 fxg4 xe4 (on 20…hxg4 21 dg1 e5 22 e3 d8 23 h6; or 20…xg4 21 dg1 xd4 22 xg4+! hxg4 23 h6 leads to mate) 21 e3 f6 (21…xd4 22 xe4 g7 23 xh5) 22 gxh5 e5 23 h6 wins.

Now Black is threatening to get some counterplay with …a5-a4.

There’s no need to lose a tempo with the old-fashioned g4.

On 18…gxh5 19 g4! hxg4 20 fxg4! xe4 21 h2 g5 22 xg7 xg7 23 d5 c5 24 h6+ g8 25 xg5+ xg5 26 xh7 mate.

Not the impatient 20 xf6? xf6 21 h6 e6! (threatening …e5) and Black holds everything.

Now Black needs just one more move to get his counterattack moving. But for the want of a nail the battle was lost…

Vasiukov suggests 21…e8 as a possible defense (not 21…a4? 22 gxf6 axb3 23 fxg7! bxc2+ 24 xc2! e5 25 h2 wins); but White crashes through with 22 xg7 xg7 (22…xg7? 23 h2) 23 h6! e6 (if 23…a4 24 h2 h5 25 xg6+) 24 h2 h5 25 xe6! fxe6 (25…xg5 26 xg6+! xg6 27 xc8, threatening g1) 26 xg6+ g7 27 h1, etc.

Fine wrote: “In such positions, combinations are as natural as a baby’s smile.”

No better is 22…xd4 23 xd4 gxh5 24 g6 e5 (if 24…e6 25 xd6) 25 gxf7+ h7 (if 25…f8 26 xe5 dxe5 27 g1 e6 28 xe6 e7 29 xc8 xc8 30 g5 wins) 26 d3! (intending f4) should be decisive.

On 23…e6 24 gxf7+ xf7 (if 24…xf7 25 xe6) 25 xg7 xg7 26 g1+ h7 27 g2 e5 28 g6+ h8 29 g5 g7 30 xh5+ g8 31 xe6+ f8 32 f5+ e7 33 f7+ wins.

A desperate bid for freedom. On 25…a4 (if 25…d8 26 h6) 26 xd6+ e7 27 d8+! xd8 28 xd8+ e8 29 c5+ mates.

Not 26 xd5 xc2!

On 26…a4 27 d6! axb3 28 dxc7 wins.

On 27…d7 White can either regain the exchange with 28 e6 or try for more with 28 h6. And on 27…xf3 28 d7,...