Sergey Grodzensky and Tim Harding

�
 Red Letters

The Correspondence Chess Championships of the

Soviet Union

by Sergey G rodzen sky and Tim Harding

Translations from Ru ssian by Ken Neat

With a CD-ROM edited by T im Harding

Chess Mail Ltd., Du blin

First published in 2003
©Tim Harding, Sergey Grodzensky, 2003

The right of Timothy David Harding and Sergey Yakovlevich Grodzensky to be identified
as the joint authors of this work has been asserted under the laws of the Republic of Ireland
and the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, Internet, magnetic tape,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher.

ISBN 0953 853659

Published by Chess Mail Ltd., 26 Coolamber Park, Dublin, Ireland

Information about this book is available on the Internet at:

http://www.chessmail.com/sales/redletters .html

CHESS MAIL LIMITED

Editor-in-Chief: Tim Harding

Printed and bound in Ireland by Leinster Leader Ltd., Naas, Co. Kildare
CD Production by Saturn Fulfilment Services Ltd., Dublin.

Roll of Honour

1st USSR CC Ch 1 948- 1 9 5 1 A. Konstantinopolsky

2nd USSR CC Ch 1 95 2- 1 955 P. Atyashev
3rd USSR CC Ch 1 955- 1 95 7 G. Borisenko
P. Dubinin
4th USSR CC Ch 1 957- 1 960 A. Sadomsky
5th USSR CC Ch 1 960- 1 963 G. Borisenko
Ya. Estrin
6th USSR CC Ch 1 963- 1 964 V. Simagin
7th USSR CC Ch 1 965- 1 966 M. Yudovich senior
8th USSR CC Ch 1 967- 1 968 S. Sokolov
9th USSR CC Ch 1 969- 1 970 L. Omelchenko
10th USSR CC Ch 1 97 1 - 1 972 L. Omelchenko
1 1 th USSR CC Ch 1 973- 1 97 5 A. Voitsekh
1 2th USSR CC Ch 1 975-1 977 V. Semenyuk
13th USSR CC Ch 1977- 1 97 8 M. Umansky
14th USSR CC Ch 1 979- 1 980 B. Po stovsky
· 1 5 th USSR CC Ch 1 981-1 983 A. Lipiridi
16th USSR CC Ch 19 83- 1 986 D. Barash
1 7th USSR CC Ch 1986- 1 98 8 I. Kopylov
18th USSR CC Ch 1 988- 1 99 1 V. Yarkov
19th USSR CC Ch 199 1 - 1 993 Yu. Zelinsky
20th USSR CC Ch 1 994- 1 99 8 S. Khlusevich
21st USSR CC Ch 1 998-2002 V. Malinin
 Contents
Roll of Honour: the USSR CC Champions 2
List of Photographs/ Acknowledgments 4
Preface by Tim Harding 5
Symbols and Abbreviations 8
Introduction: The Uncrowned Champions 9
1st USSR CC Championship, 1948-51 16
2nd USSR CC Championship, 1952-55 25
3rd USSR CC Championship, 1955-57 32
4th USSR CC Championship, 1957-60 39
5th USSR CC Championship, 1960-63 44
Find the finish (I) 54
6th USSR CC Championship, 1963-64 55
7th USSR CC Championship, 1965-66 63
8th USSR CC Championship, 1967-68 68
9th USSR CC Championship, 1969-70 74
10th USSR CC Championship, 1971-72 79
Miniature Games (I) 84
11th USSR CC Championship, 1973-75 85
12th USSR CC Championship, 1975-77 88
13th USSR CC Championship, 1977-78 94
14th USSR CC Championship, 1979-80 100
15th USSR CC Championship, 1981-83 107
Find the finish (II) 114
16th USSR CC Championship, 1983-86 115
17th USSR CC Championship, 1986-88 120
18th USSR CC Championship, 1988-91 127
19th USSR CC Championship, 1991-93 133
Miniature Games (II) 140
20th USSR CC Championship, 1994-98 141
21st USSR CC Championship, 1998-2002 145
Players & Arbiters in the USSR Championships 151
Solutions to Tactical Finishes · 157
Some Statistics 158
Indexes to openings of games 159
Index to players of games 160
 List of photographs

The photographs are to be found in an 8-page art paper section in the centre of the book.

Page i Atyashev, Konstantinopolsky, Igor Kopylov.

Page ii Semenyuk, Zilberberg, Ufimtsev, Yarkov.
Page iii Simagin, Ragozin, Lipiridi, Sanakoev.
Page iv Estrin, Arkhangelsky; Neishtadt, V. Zagorovsky & Dubinin.
Page v Omelchenko, Zelinsky, Lutovinov.
Page vi Khlusevich, Lybin, Yakimenko, Serebriiskiy.
Page vii Umansky (2 photographs), Kosenkov.
Page viii Malinin, Godes, Kitaigorodsky, Grodzensky.

For information about the players see the appendix on pages 1 5 1 - 1 56.
Additional photographs of these and other personalities are on the CD-ROM.

Acknowledgments

During the five years we have worked on this book, countless people have assisted Sergey
and me in collecting games and information about these championships.
A special mention must be made of CC-GM Hermann Heemsoth who gave us the bul­
letins of the 4th Championship and many scrapbooks, in which over long years he had col­
lected press cuttings and manuscript games from numerous USSR correspondence events.
In the early stages, also, we received useful advice from GM Alexander Baburin and from
Michail Melts, who had collected the games of Championships 1 6- 1 9 before he emigrated
to the USA.
Many of the players in the championships were of considerable assistance. In particular,
we wish to mention Mikhail Umansky (who provided the crosstable and all his games from
the 13th Championship), Gennady Nesis and Alik Zilberberg who also provided games.
Sergey particularly wishes to thank the following for their help: Vladimir Filippov, Albert
Latash, Vasily Malinin, Lev Omelchenko, Nikolai Poleshchuk, Grigory Sanakoev, Vladimir
Semenyuk, Anatoly Sychyov, Evgeny Tyulin, and Vladimir Zaitsev.
Additionally, we wish to thank GM Paul Motwani for permission to include his annot­
ations to the Estrin-Sadomsky game from the 5th Championship, originally written by him
fo r 'Chess Mail' magazine. Some of the comments on the early opening moves had to be
cut for reasons of space.
A special mention is due to Ken Neat for his meticulously professional translation and
checking of Sergey's original manuscript, and for suggesting many analytical corrections.
Thanks also go to Philip Penny for his cover design, to Joe Cooke for adapting Philip 's de­
sign for the CD face and to Seamus O'Byme for proof-reading.
Finally, we both wish to thank our families for their support and understanding.
Sergey Grodzensky, Moscow Tim Harding, Dublin
July 2003
 Preface by Tim Harding
THIS book is the culmination of many years
research by its two authors, revealing a
wealth of forgotten chess masterpieces and a
part of chess history which has hitherto been
unrecorded. This is the story of the Corre­
spondence Chess Championships of the So­
viet Union, many of which were among the
greatest chess tournaments played by post
- stronger, even, than some of the World
Championships.
Several grandmasters, famous masters
and noted chess writers competed in the 2 1
USSR C C Finals. Four o f them - Konstan­
tinopolsky, Estrin, Simagin and Yudovich
- succeeded in becoming USSR Champion.
Yet in most of these events the well-known
names were eclipsed by talented players for
whom chess was not their principal career.
One of these - Umansky - went on to even
greater successes; the names of some of the
others are probably still unknown to most
chess players in the West.
Correspondence chess is a form of the
game ideally suited to those who are pre­
vented by career or family responsibilities,
by geographical separation, by age or by
health difficulties from competing "over the
board" against their peers in normal club
and tournament competitions. However, it
also has a strong appeal to many players
for whom research and analysis - the intel­
lectual challenge of chess - is as important,
or more important, than "sporting" elements
like the race to beat the clock in a time
scramble. Such are often the people who
become the champions of correspondence
chess.
Growing up as a young western chess­
player in the 1 960s, I soon learned that the
USSR was the greatest chess-playing coun­
try on the planet. Such was the strength in
depth of the Soviet Union' s chess culture
that they had hundreds, if not thousands, of
active players who were the equal of all but
the very elite of western masters.
Playing through the games in the month­
ly magazine 'Shakhmatny Byulleten' was a
revelation. After a few pages of games by
famous players in the major international
tournaments, the reader would find a hun­
dred or more games from internal Soviet
events - quite a few of these played by
post - in which highly original opening
ideas, deeply-calculated combinations and
fantastic complications often occurred.
However, this is a history book and
a practical chess book, not a book about
politics. It is about the 2 1 stories of the 21
championships, and the people who played
in them, told principally by a man - my
colleague, grandmaster Sergey Grodzensky
- who was personally involved in some of
the later championships and knew many of
the people involved.
What is C C?
Correspondence chess (CC) is basically
the game of chess played between oppo­
nents at a distance over a period of weeks,
months, even years sometimes. The trans­
mission of the moves until comparatively
recent times was almost always done by
post, although as early as the 1 9th cen­
tury the telegraph was sometimes used. The
terms "correspondence chess" and "postal
chess" have never quite been synonymous
- and they certainly are not today, when
the majority of CC is played by email or on
World Wide Web servers.
CC tournaments began to be played in
several countries in the last third of the
1 9th century. By the 1 930s, a wide range of
postal chess events and even national cham­
pionships and international team matches
were being played. In the 1 930s the IFSB
(precursor of today's ICCF) attracted large
numbers of European players including such
famous names as Eliskases, Keres, Vidmar
and the artist/chess master Marchel Duch­
amp. However, at that period the USSR
was undergoing major political and socio­
economic changes and CC players there had
fewer opportunities.
The Second World War forced a break
in the development of international CC ac­
tivities. However, but by the late 1 940s the
game had become a truly global phenom­
enon, aided by the arrival of affordable air­
mail. Intercontinental competitions became
feasible at last. Also in the USSR, this form
of the game grew very rapidly after the war,
as Sergey describes in this book.
A window on the world
Once the USSR joined ICCF, hundreds
of chess experts and masters for whom
foreign travel was probably an impossibil­
ity, found the opportunity to exchange a
few words (and often postage stamps and
chess books too) with westerners, by means
of the international correspondence chess
postcard. In the darkest years of the Cold
War, ICCF President Hans-Werner von
Massow described these cards as his "doves
of peace" flying around the world.
Of the 1 1 World Championship Finals
(the 2nd to the 1 2th) that were played with
the participation of USSR players, five were
won by representatives of that country: four
Russians and one Estonian.
The great series of USSR CC Champion­
ships became the apex of a large network of
qualifying tournaments, to which thousands
of amateur players in the Soviet Union
aspired. In ICCF events of the 1 970s and
1 980s, I played games against some of the
participants in these championships.
Then in the early 1 990s something hap-
pened which was probably unexpected by
almost everyone who lived through those
times. The communist system suddenly
collapsed and each of the (hitherto only
partially self-governing) 'Soviet socialist re­
publics' soon became an independent state.
The political issues involved are no con­
cern of this book, but from a sporting view­
point there was a problem to be resolved,
which Sergey discusses in the chapter on
the 1 9th championship. The Russian chess
federation decided to continue to their end
the championships which had begun, even if
only the preliminaries were under way.
I doubt if they foresaw that 1 1 further
years would be required to bring the series
to its final conclusion. So the player who
won the 2 1 st and last of the USSR CC
Championships probably has the distinction
of being the last person to win a Soviet title
in any kind of sporting or cultural activity !
About this book
In the case of a co-authored work, read­
ers are entitled to know who did what - at
least in a general way, as not everything can
be separated. The original idea for the book
was mine and I am also thq person chiefly
responsible for collecting games and notes.
Sergey researched and wrote the 22 main
chapters and any game notes in those chap­
ters that are not credited to somebody else.
In a few places, I have exercised my pre­
rogative as co-author to make some small
changes and additions.
The work of researching the results and
personal details of the players, and photo­
graphs, was shared roughly equally between
us. The CD was entirely edited by me.
I began thinking about this project after I
interviewed the 1 2th CC World Champion,
Grigory Sanakoev, at the ICCF Congress in
Germany, in August 1 996. To the surprise
of both Sergey and myself, the modest Sana­
koev said that his "greatest correspondence
chess achievement so far" was not winning
the World Championship but his second
place in the final of the 6th Soviet Union
CC Championship.
First place was grandmaster Simagin,
second place was Sanakoev, followed by
ten masters of sport of the Soviet Union. "A
Master of the Soviet Union", he considered,
perhaps controversially, to be "stronger at
chess than an International Master".
Sanakoev went on to enumerate some
of those he had outscored in that tourna­
ment. "There were, for example, A. Zaitsev
(later FIDE grandmaster), Estrin (who also
became CC World Champion), Konstanti­
nopolsky (grandmaster), Bannik (famous
master), Sokolsky (famous theoretician) ... ".
Sanakoev concluded that this was the
strongest CC tournament held in the USSR,
and probably in the world" [up to 1 996].
In 1 998 there appeared Bernard Cafferty
and GM Taimanov's book on the Soviet
(over-the-board) championships (published
by Cadogan); I enjoyed it, but with one
regret. They could only give a small selec­
tion of games and positions, and the rest
were not easily available, unless a reader
purchased them in a computer database
elsewhere. With the CC championships,
it was even more important to provide the
games since most of them are not available
anywhere else.
From an early stage, I intended to put the
games on a CD accompanying the book,
because in print the number of games that
can be accommodated is of course relatively
small - although we had only 2 1 tourna­
ments to cover, compared with 5 8 for Caf­
ferty and Taimanov.
I began by trying to establish the results
of the championships and going through
Soviet chess magazines and the ICCF maga­
zine 'Fernschach' to find as many games as
possible. Several crosstables were quickly
found in print but others remained elusive
for some years. Eventually they were all
tracked down so the complete results of
these championships are now published, for
the first time, in this book.
I have been working on collecting and
editing the games for years. Almost 3,000
were played in the finals; we have found
over 1 ,400 of them of them. Unfortunately
no bulletins were published of the early
championships (except the 4th), and it is
only from the 1 6th Final onwards that the
games were preserved more or less in full.
The selection ofjust over 80 games in the
main text of the book was made by Sergey
, who has annotated many of them him­
self, often with reference to contemporary
sources. About half were annotated by one
of the players involved and a small number
of Sergey' s selection were annotated by me.
I also interpolated two reminiscences of
GM Zilberberg (at the end of the chapter
on the 8th championship) and selected the
four pages of tactical finishes and miniature
games which punctuate the main text.
So in the printed book you have what we
believe are the very best games from the
championships, but there are several hun­
dreds more on the bonus CD-ROM which
readers with computers can enjoy. This CD,
which I have edited, has (in various formats)
over 4,500 games from the championships
and other USSR postal events, of which over
1, 100 have notes of some kind, some very
detailed. The CD also includes Sergey's
original Russian text and numerous photo­
graphs that were not of good enough quality
to include in the printed book.
When studying these exciting games,
please remember that almost all of them
were played by post without the benefit of
any computer assistance. Perhaps a few of
the players in the last two or three champi­
onships had some access to computer chess
programs, but they were the exception.
Likewise the contemporary annotations
of the players, on which we have drawn
for many of the notes to games, are from
the pre-computer era. We have sometimes
interpolated a few computer-checked cor­
rections into the analyses, but kept these to a
minimum, preferring to let the players speak
for themselves most of the time.
 Symbols & Abbreviations

+ check
# checkmate
good move
!! brilliant move
? bad move
?? blunder
!? interesting move
?! dubious move
+- White is winning
± large White advantage
;I; small White advantage
-+ Black is winning
+ large Black advantage
:j: small Black advantage
00 unclear position
/:::,. intending/ threatening/ with the idea
Ch championship
Cht team championship
EU European event
WT World event
Wch world championship
CC correspondence chess
GM grandmaster
CC-IM ICCF International Master
CC-SIM ICCF Senior International Master
CC-GM ICCF Grandmaster
corr correspondence game
FIDE World Chess Federation
OTB over-the-board
OL olympiad
CCOL Correspondence Olympiad
sf semifinal
zt zonal tournament
izt interzonal
ct candidates tournament
tt team tournament
ICCF International Correspondence Chess Federation
(D) see next diagram
w White to play in diagram
B Black to play in diagram
1-0 game ends in a win for White
0-1 game ends in a win for Black
Yz-Yz game ends in a draw
 Introduction: the Uncrowned
Champions
THE history of the USSR correspondence
chess championships is unusual. It has no clear
beginning and it extended for a good decade
after the break-up of the Soviet Union.
The official USSR championships began
to be held in the mid-20th century soon after
the Second World War. But they were pre­
ceded by tournaments that also established
the strongest correspondence player in the
country, and so history has retained the
names of those who can be regarded as the
uncrowned champions. It is with a short ac­
count of them that we begin our book.
Correspondence play in Russia has
ancient traditions. The first Russian mas­
ter Alexander Petroff ( 1 794-1 867) was
fascinated by correspondence play and in
one of his compositions he wrote: "Cor­
respondence play, it can be said, is real
chess playing: blunders cannot happen, and
you win largely by a better knowledge of
theory or an unexpected discovery in it".
Petroffs superiority over his compatriots
was undisputed, and he was recognised as
the strongest both in over-the-board play,
and by correspondence.
It is with the name of the 'Northern
Philidor', as Petroff was called by his
contemporaries, that the earliest known cor­
respondence game in Russia is associated.
This was a game between Petroff and three
consultants, conducted by the St Petersburg
city post from April to October 1837. The
game Petroff-Consultants, which began with
the moves 1 e4 e5 2 4Jf3 4Jf6, appeared
in chess publications right round the world,
and soon after it ended its name became es­
tablished in opening theory as the 'Petroff
Defence or Russian Game ' .
At the end o f the 1 9th century the strong­
est Russian player was Mikhail Chigorin
( 1 850- 1 908). Perhaps no other strong player
paid so much attention to correspondence
play, with which he was fascinated all his
life.
An event that was a kind of link between
the first stage of the development of corre­
spondence chess in Russia and the second,
Chigorin stage, was the first correspondence
tournament organised in 1 882 by the Mos­
cow publication ' Shakhmatny Zhurnal' . The
tournament, which attracted 1 2 participants,
lasted three years. After all the results were
in, prizes were received by: 1 . M. Shabelsky
(Kharkov), E.Tomashevich (Tula), N.Apoll­
onov (Pskov) and P.Vinogradov (Moscow).
The following game was played between
two of the prize-winners of this first cor­
respondence tournament. The player with
Black was an outstanding historian, a
professor at Moscow University, Pavel Ga­
vrilovich Vinogradov (1 854-1925).
 White : M . Shabelsky
Black : P. Vinogradov
1 st Russian correspondence
tournament, 1 882-1 883
King 's Gambit (Muzio
Gambit) C3 7
Notes by Mikh ail Ch igorin
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Qjf3 g5 4 �c4 g4 5 0-0
gxf3 6 ..xf3 ..f6 7 d3
This continuation of the attack was
brought into use by St Petersburg players
in 1 877, and a positive defence, such as
that demonstrated in the numerous varia­
tions of the attack with 7 e5, has yet to be
found against it. Zukertort is reverting to the
former defence 6 .....e7.
7...d5
This defence was suggested by Chigorin
in 'Shakhmatny Vestnik' , February 1 878.
7 ... �h6 is less good, as then there follows
8 lLJ c3 ! lLJ e7 9 �xf4 �xf4 10 ..xf4 etc.,
and White gains at least three pawns for the
piece.
8 exd5
This is better than taking with the bishop;
then Black replies 8 ... c6 and 9 ... �e6. 8
exd5 gives a very strong attack in conjunc­
tion with the next move 9 QJc3.
8... �h6 9 QJc3! QJe7 10 lLJe4 ..h4 11 d6
Shabelsky considers this to be the strong­
est move in the given position; we do not
share his opinion and suggest 1 1 �d2. A
game between Shiffers and Chigorin went
1 1 �xf4 �xf4 12 ..xf4 ..xf4 1 3 ,S'.xf4
f5 14 Qjf6+ @f7. After 1 1 d6 Black's best
reply is l l . .. Qjf5 1 2 dxc7 QJc6 1 3 lLJ c5
lLJ cd4 ·14 ..e4+ �f8 and White cannot
now take the f4-pawn.
11 ... fS 12 .. h5+ Qjg6
Black obviously loses a piece if he takes
the queen.
13 Qjf6+
It would have been better to capture
the queen, since now Black should have
taken the knight, 1 3 .....xf6, and after 1 4
,S'.e l + played 1 4 ... �d8, while i f 1 4 dxc7
..g5 1 5 .l:!'.el+ (or 1 5 .. e2+) 1 5 ... @f8 (or
1 5 . . . �d7).
13 ... �d8 14 dxc7+ �xc7 15 QjdS+ �d8
16 ..xh4+ Qjxh4 17 �xf4 �xf4 18 Qjxf4
QJc6 19 .l:!'. ael Qjg6 (D)
It would have been better to develop the
bishop with 19 ... �d7.
w
20 d4 ,S'.f8 21 d5 QJ as 22 �d3 b6 23
b4 QJb7 24 c4 �d7 25 Cbe6+ �xe6 26
.l:!'.xe6 .l:!'.c8 27 h4 Cbxh4 28 ,S'.h6 Qjg6
29 .l:!'.xh7 lLJe7 30 c5 bxc5 31 �a6 Qjd6
32 �xc8 lLJdxc8 33 bxc5 lLJxdS 34 ,S'.dl
lLJce7 35 .l:!'.xe7 �xe7 36 ,S'.xd5 �e6 37
,S'.d6+ �es 38 ,S'.a6 ,S'.c8 39 c6 �d5 40
,S'.a5+ �e6 41 ,S'.c5 �d6 42 !:!. xf5 �xc6
43 g3 � d6 44 � g2 ,S'.c2+ 45 ,S'.f2 ,S'.c5
46 � h3 1-0
The winner of this first correspondence
tournament, Mikhail Alexandrovich Shabel­
sky ( 1 848-1 909) became, as it were, the
first unofficial champion of Russia. About
him it is known that from 1 875 he worked
as a doctor in a military medical establish­
ment, first in Kharkov, and then from 1 882
in Kiev. After moving to St Petersburg in
1 899 he served in the Finance Ministry and
from 1 90 1 until his retirement in 1 907 as
an assay-master. Shabelsky died in Yalta in
1 909, outliving by one year Mikhail Chig­
orin, with whom he was a close friend and
constant collaborator for more than thirty
years.
 Shabelsky was the author of many articles
on the history, theory and teaching of chess.
After his victory in the first correspondence
tournament he played successfully in other
competitions, but here Mikhail Chigorin
was beyond comparison.
Thus in a competition organised by the
magazine 'Vsemirnoi Illustratsi' (World
Illustrated), which attracted the strongest
correspondence players (it was effectively
a Russian correspondence championship)
Chigorin won 20 games with two draws.
A.Bazarov and I.Dopper, who shared sec­
ond place, finished 4Yz points behind.
Mikhail Ivanovich' s opponent in the fol­
lowing game, play�d in that tournament, was
one of the most experienced correspondence
players, Count Nikolai Valerevich Urusov
(Novgorod).
White : M . Chigorin
Bla c k : N . U rusov
'Vsemirnoi lllustratsi' CC
Tou rnament, 1 884-1 886
Evans Gambit C5 1
1 e4 es 2 Clif3 Clic6 3 �c4 �cs 4 b4
�xb4 S c3 �cs 6 0-0 d6 7 d4 exd4 8 cxd4
�b6 9 Clic3 CliaS 10 �gs Clie7
Steinitz against Chigorin (London 1 883)
played 10 ... f6. After 1 1 �f4 Clixc4 1 2
1iVa4+ 1iVd7 1 3 1iVxc4 1iV f7 14 Clid5 g5
15 �g3 �e6 1 6 1iVa4+ �d7 17 1iVa3
� c8 1 8 � fel White gradually gained the
advantage.
11 ClldS f6 12 �xf6 gxf6 13 Clixf6+ @fB
14 l2JgS l2Jg8
After 14 . . . Clixc4 White appears to have
nothing better than perpetual check by 1 5
�h5 @g7 1 6 '§f7+ @h6 1 7 'ii°h5+.
lS l2Jgxh7+ @g7 16 �xg8 � xh7 17
.:-i:Jxh7 1i¥h4 18 '§13 @xg8 (D)
If 1 8 . . . �g4, then 1 9 1i¥f7+ @h8 20
;i:Jf8 and White wins.
w
19 C2Jf6+ @g7 20 Cll hS+ @g6
If 20 ... @h6 there follows 21 1i¥f8+
@xh5 22 1iVh8+ @g5 23 '§g7+ @h5 24
1i¥h7+ @g5 25 f4+ and White wins.
21 Clif4+ @h7 22 ClidS �e6 23 Clixb6
axb6 24 dS �g8 2S � act 1i¥e7
25 . . .c5 fails to save the game, as then 26
e5 ! dxe5 27 '§f5+ @h8 28 '§xe5+ @h7
29 � c3 is decisive.
26 'ii°h3+ 1-0
Possible was 26. . . @g7 27 'ii'c 3+ or
26 ... @g6 27 � c3.
A major event in the chess life of the
1 890s was the telegraph match between
Chigorin and the first world champion Wil­
helm Steinitz, in which the Russian maestro
won both games, prompting the second
world champion Emanuel Lasker to say
about Chigorin: "In correspondence play he
has no equals".
At the start of the 20th century, all­
Russian correspondence tournaments
were organised by 'Shakhmatny Zhumal'
in St Petersburg and by 'Shakhmatnoe
Obozrenie' in Moscow, as well as by Sergey
Mirotvorsky, a resident of Samara� But to
none of these events was it possible to at­
tract all the strongest players, and therefore
none of the winners of these tournaments
can be regarded as an uncrowned champion
of the country. I should mention only that
one of the participants in the ' Shakhmatnoe
Obozrenie' tournaments was the future
world champion Alexander Alekhine, and
one of the organisers of the tournaments
from 1 9 1 3 - 1 9 1 6 (through 'Shakhmatny
Vestnik' , which he edited) was his elder
brother Aleksey Alekhine.
During the years of the First World
War chess life came to a standstill, and
correspondence tournaments also ceased.
In 1 922, through 'Shakhmatny Listok' the
All-Russian Chess Union arranged the first
post-Revolutionary era of correspondenc�
tournaments. From 1 925 correspondence
events began to be arranged by the All­
Union Chess Section.
Although correspondence play spread
throughout the country, for a long time it
did not prove possible to organise a USSR
championship. Strong over-the-board play­
ers hardly ever participated in postal events.
On the initiative of the master Alexander
Konstantinopolsky, in the 1 930s two tourna­
ments of masters and first category players
were held; they can be regarded as the fore­
runners of the official championships, and
their winners as unofficial champions.
In the first tournament of masters and
first category players ( 1 935-1 936) first
place was shared by Vladislav Silich ( 1 906-
1 943 ), who was soon to become a USSR
master of sport for his results in over-the­
board events, and Alexander Chistyakov
( 1 9 1 4-?), who scored 9 points out of 12.
The other players finished as follows: 3.
N.Zubarev - 8Yz; 4. A.Konstantinopolsky
- 8; 5-6. K.Vygodchikov & S.Slonim
- 7; 7-8. M.Kamyshov & S.Lebedev - 6; 9.
Kh.Baranov - 5 ; A.Kunits & P.Noskov - 4;
1 2. L.Shamaev - 2Yz; 1 3 . Ya.Rokhlin - 2.
After the first came a second mas­
ter tournament, which attracted an even
stronger field. First prize was won by the
outstanding theoretician Veniamin Sozin
( 1 896- 1 956), after whom a popular varia­
tion of the Sicilian Defence is named. In
this correspondence tournament Sozin took
first place with a score of 9Yz out of 1 2. In
second place, a point behind, was the future
world correspondence champion (and twice
a grandmaster - of both FIDE and ICCF)
Vyacheslav Ragozin ( 1 908-1 962). In the
following places were: 3. V.Silich - 8 ; 4.
A.Manevich - 7Yz; 5. A.Konstantinopolsky
- 7; 6. K.Vygodchikov - 6Yz; 7. S.Lebedev
- 6; 8-9. M.Zhudro and I.Rudakovsky - 5;
10. D.Russo - 4Yz; 1 1 . Kh.Baranov - 4; 12.
V.Gergenreder - 3Yz; 13. V.Breitman - 3.
The following was the decisive game of
the tournament.
White : V.Ragozin
Black: V. Sozin
Tournament of masters and
1 st category players, 1 937
English Opening A 28
1 c4 e5 2 l2Jf3 ll'ic6 3 ll'ic3 ll'if6 4 d4 exd4
5 l2Jxd4 Jtb4 6 Jtg5 h6 7 Jth4 Jtxc3+ 8
bxc3 ll'ie5 (D)
w
This is deemed by the theoreticians to
be inferior to 8 . . . d6 because of the replies
9 e3 or 9 f4. But this was established later
(regarding 9 e3 - cf. Botvinnik-Levenfish,
1 2th USSR CC Ch, 1 940; regarding 9 f4
- cf. analysis by the Lvov player I.Appel,
published in 'Shakhmaty v SSSR' in 1 94 1
and confirmed in the game Tolush-Furman,
1 6th USSR Ch, 1 948).
9 ll'ib5
This flank sortie, the patent to which be­
longs to the Belorussian master Manevich,
brought him success in earlier correspond­
ence games with Ushakov and the same
Ragozin. The latter decided to tum this
weapon, with which he himself had been
surprised, against his opponent. White's aim
is obvious: either to double the pawns after
i,xf6, or to force the weakening advance
... g7-g5.
9... a6 10 'iVd4
Not immediately 10 i,xf6 gxf6 1 1 CL:la3
'iV e7, when White loses a pawn. But now
it is impossible to prevent the doubling of
the pawns.
10 ... d6 11 i,xf6 gxf6 12 CL:Ja3 c5 !
Ushakov replied 12 . . 1Ve7.
. After 1 3
CL:lc2 Ug8 1 4 e3? Ug4 ! 1 5 f4 CL:lc6 White
had to give up a pawn, but 14 CL:le3 would
have given him a reasonable game.
13 'iVd2 'iVaS 14 'iVb2 i,d7 !
Up till now this is as in the Manevich­
Ragozin game, which continued 1 4 ... i,e6
15 e3 b5 16 i,e2 ! b4 17 CL:lc2 0-0 18 cxb4
cxb4 1 9 1Vxb4 with material and positional
gains for White.
Sozin significantly improves Black's
play. A master of deep strategic thinking, he
justified 14 . . . i,d7 as follows: "This move,
in my view, is most in accordance with the
demands of the position: by posting his
bishop at c6, Black exploits the unfavour­
able placing of the white pieces with the
aim of preparing a direct attack on the white
king, on whichever side it castles, and at the
same time secures a completely impregnable
position for his own king (after ... 0-0-0)".
15 e4
After 15 e3 i,c6 16 f3 Ug8 ! the com­
binative threat of 1 7 ... U xg2! is hanging
over White. In the event of 1 5 0-0-0 b5 !
16 Uxd6 �e7 1 7 Ud2 Uhb8 the enemy
pieces again move swiftly into attacking
positions.
15 ... i,c6 16 f3 Ug8
Beware: . . . Uxg2! - the leitmotif of
Black's entire play.
17 @f2
Although clumsy, White tries in this
way after 1 8 i,e2 to bring up his h l -rook
to the defence. But it is destined to remain
a spectator.
17 ...fS ! 18 exf5 (D)
This allows an immediate rout. It could
still have been avoided by 1 8 Ue 1 although
this would hardly have changed the result of
the game after 1 8 . . . fxe4 1 9 fxe4 0-0-0.
B
18 ... Uxg2+ ! 19 �xg2 i,xf3+ 20 @gl
0-0-0 21 tLJc2
Or 2 1 i,h3 .l:l.g8+ 22 �fl i,xh l and
Black wins.
21.. Ug8+ 22 @f2 'iYd8 !
.
Depriving the opponent of his last hope
of a respite, which he would have retained
after the immediate 22 ... i,xhl 23 CL:le3
'iVd8 24 @el 'iVh4+25 'iVf2.
But now mate is threatened from all
sides: 23 CL:le3 'iVh4#; 23 CL:lel 'iVh4+ 24
@e3 'iVg5+ 25 @f2 CLJg4+! 26 �xf3
1Ve3+ 27 @g2 CL:lf2#; 23 Uel 'iVh4+ 24
@e3 'iVg5+ 25 @f2 'iVd2+ 26 Ue2 CL:ld3+
27 @xf3 'iVf4# or 26 i,e2 CL:ld3+ 27 @fl
i,xe2+ 28 Uxe2 'iVf4+ 29 Uf21Vxf2#.
23 h4 i,xhl 0-1
The success of these tournaments pre­
pared the ground for the staging of official
USSR championships. And a tournament,
intended as the 1 st USSR Correspondence
Chess Championship, began in January
1 940. On 6th February 1 940 the chess and
draughts newspaper '64' announced the
start of the championship.
At the same time entries were invited
to correspondence tournaments for players
who had achieved first category in over-the­
board play or second category in a tourna­
ment 'without seeing their opponents' . If it
is remembered that at that time there were
far fewer first category players than there
are masters at present, one can imagine how
significant were the categories conferred for
successes in competitions by post.
Twenty-two players began the cham­
pionship ! None of the subsequent
USSR championships attracted such a
number. Among the part1c1pants were
the masters A.Konstantinopolsky (Kiev),
P.Dubinin (Gorky), G.Veresov (Minsk)
and G.Kasparian (Yerevan), as well as
S.Lebedev (Leningrad) who had made a
name for himself in previous competi­
tions, another contemporary of Chigorin -
K.Rozenkrants, Kh.Baranov, V.Zbandutto,
A.Komarov, A.Mukhin and A.Polkvoi
(all Moscow), A.Ivashin (Kuibyshev),
M.Zhudro (Vitebsk), V.Gergenreder (Bez­
hitsa), D.Russo (Odessa), V.Moskalev
(Michurinsk), D.Gostishchev (Zaporozhe),
S.Krichevtsov (Vinnitsa), P.Komarov (Ufa),
N.Shesterikov (Saratov), V.Nazarevsky
(Kiev) and N.Sidorov (Kirov).
Information in the chess press about the
course of the play was scanty. Only on 2 1 st
May 1 94 1 (in an issue that turned out to be
one of the last) the newspaper '64' reported
that after 1 6 months' play, out of the 23 1
games, one third - 78 - were finished. The
leaders were Moskalev - 7Yz/12, Gostish­
chev - 7/1 0, Lebedev - 7/1 2; Rozenkrants
- 6Yz/8; Dubinin - 619, A.Komarov - 5 Yz/7,
Veresov - 516, Konstantinopolsky - 1 Yz/2
and Kasparian - Yz/2.
White : P. Dubinin
Black : A .lvashin
USSR CC Ch 1 940-41
English Opening A 2 1
1 c4 eS 2 tl:lc3 d6 3 g3 tl:lc6 4 �g2 g6 S e3
�g7 6 tlJge2 tlJge7 7 0-0 0-0 8 d4 exd4 9
tl:lxd4 .&rb8 !
This was also the course taken by the
game Kan-Yudovich from the 1 937 USSR
Championship. There after 9 ... QJxd4 1 0
exd4 Qjf5 1 1 d5 Black got into prolonged
difficulties. Ivashin also goes in for the early
conceding of the centre, but he associates it
with an original plan, which Dubinin admits
not to have evaluated properly.
10 h3
As the result of such an insipid reaction,
White comes under heavy pressure on the
queenside.
10 ...a6 11 tl:lde2 bS 12 cxbS axbS 13 e4 b4
14 tl:ldS �a6 lS .&rel tl:leS 16 tl:lef4 cS
17 tl:lxe7+ 'fixe7 18 a3 b3 19 .&r bl 'fid7
20 ,&re3 (D)
B
20 ...c4 ?!
The turning point. 20 . . . tl:lc4!? came into
consideration, and if 2 1 .&r xb3 'fia4 22
.&rd3 'f;xdl + 23 .&r xdl tl:lxb2. Black is
enticed by a tempting move, which is based,
however, on an incorrect evaluation of the
position. The battle enters its second phase.
Black's initiative on the queenside is halted,
and his c-pawn, the pride of his position, is
transformed into a source of concern. Play
shifts to the kingside, where White holds all
the trumps. His immediate aim is to provoke
the exchange of the dark-square bishops.
21 �fl tlJc6 22 �d2 �d4 23 QjdS fS ?
Both the previous move, and especially
this opening of the position, play into
White 's hands. Restraint was necessary
- 23 ... f6 or 23 . . . 'f;a7 .
24 �c3 !
 It would seem that Black did not foresee
this sacrifice, as a result of which White
does not simply exchange bishops, but
eliminates the enemy bishop, even though at
the cost of the exchange, leaving him with
absolute control of the long diagonal.
24 �xe3
•.•
A difficult but forced decision. The c4-
pawn would not survive long in the event of
25 l2Jxc3.
25 l2Jxe3 Ve6
The power of the unopposed bishop is il­
lustrated by the variation 25 ... fxe4 26 Vi'd5+
l:.f7 (26 ... Vf7?? 27 i2Jg4 !+-) 27 i2Jg4!.
26 exf5 gxf5 27 �g2 i2Je7 28 Vi'd4 Vi'g6
29 l:.el
White brings up his last reserve and
Black's resistance crumbles.
29... l:. be830 i2Jd5 i2Jc6 31 i:t:Je7+! 1-0
The audacious knight cannot be touched
by either the rook (31... l:.xe? 32
with mate in three moves), or the knight
(31...lbxe? 32 l:.xe?!).
In 1941, the Soviet Union's sudden
involvement in the Second World War
prevented the championship from being
finished. Only a few games from the tour­
nament have been preserved. This win by
Pyotr Dubinin, an outstanding player and
later an ICCF grandmaster, was one of the
few to be published.
Retained in Konstantinopolsky's records
is the score of one of his games from the
uncompleted USSR CC championship.
White: A. Konstantinopolsky
Black: D.Russo
USSR CC Ch 1940-41
Ruy Lopez C90
1 e4 e52 i2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 �b5a6 4 �a4 tl)f6
50-0 b56 �b3 d6 7 l:.el �e7 8c3 lba5
9 c510 d4 Vi'c7 11 a4
The theory of this sharp variation was de-
veloped by Konstantinopolsky in the years
before the Second World War.
11...b4 12 cxb4 cxb4 13 h3 0-0 14 b3 �b7
15 �b2 l:.ac816 �d3 d517 tl)bd2 dxe4
18 l:,cl! Vi'b8
In a game Konstantinopolsky-P�nov
from a training tournament (1939) Black
played 18 ... Vi'd?, but without success.
19 l:.xc8 l:.xc8 20 l2Jxe4 exd4 21 i:t:Jeg5
�c5(D)
w
22 l2Jxh7! Vi'f4
The acceptance of the sacrifice would
have led to a decisive advantage for White:
22 ... lt:Jxh? 23 �xh?+ @xh7 24 tl)g5+
@h6 (24... @g6 25 Vi'g4) 25 l2Jxf7+ etc.
23 tl)fg5 l2Jxh7 24 �xh7+ @f8 25 �cl
Vi'h4 26 g3 Vi'h6 27 �f51-0
Black resigned in view of 27... Vc6 28
�e4 'iid7 29 Vi'h5.
The first CC tournament in the USSR
after the war, in which second category
players competed, began on the 15th of
October 1945.
Then early in the following year the mag­
azine 'Shakhmaty v SSSR' arranged a spe­
cial event for candidate masters. This dou­
ble-rcund event of nine players, the majority
of whom subsequently became masters, was
won by A.Ivashin (Kuibyshev), who scored
10 points out of 16 and finished half a point
ahead of the second-placed Yakov Estrin.
This completes the pre-history of the
USSR correspondence chess champion­
ships, and we now move on to the champi­
onships proper.
 �
CJ)
1 st USSR CC Championship ( 1 948- 1 95 1)

N2 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1 A.Konstantinopolsky Moscow
..;:,:? 0 I 0 y, 1 l 1 l y, 1 1 1 1 1 y, llYz
•

2 N.Kopaev Chemovtsy 1 1 Y2 y, y, 0 1 1 y, Y2 y, 1 l 1 1 11

3 V.Simagin Moscow 0 0 0 Yi I I 1 I l 1 1 1 y, 1 1 11

4 A.Sokolsky Lvov 1 y, 1 l 0 I y, l 1 0 1 Y2 Y2 1 1 11
...
Moscow ,..
5 L.Abramov y, y, Y2 0 0 1 l l 1 l 1 Y2 0 l 1 10
Alma-A ta if
6 D.Russo 0 y, 0 l l
\
Y2 Y2 0 Y2 l I l % Yz Y2 8Yz �.
!"'­
7 D.Grechkin Stalingrad 0 l 0 0 0 'h A Y2 1 1 1 0 y, 1 1 'h 8 �
�
Gorky �
8 A.Gilman 0 0 0 y, 0 Y2 Y2 :�:..\� 1 y, y, 1 l 'h 1 y, 7Yz
·Cri
,,..
9 A.Perfiliev Gorky 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Y2 y, �1 1 y, 1 6

10 A.Shifman Kharkov Y2 Y2 0 0 0 y, 0 Yi 0 ' l 0 1 1 0 1 6

Moscow
11 Ya.Estrin 0 y, 0 1 0 0 0 y, y, 0 nw +! 0 I y, 1 I 6
.E•
]2 A.Ivashin Kuibyshev 0 y, 0 0 0 0 l 0 y, 1 1 IE Yi y, 0 y, SYz

13 V.Zbandutto Moscow 0 0 0 'h y, 0 Yi 0 y, 0 0 Y2 1 1 l SYz

....
.,
14 V.Zhukov Kharkov 0 0 y, 'h l Yi 0 y, 0 0 y, Yi 0 ( y, y, 5

15 S.Poletaev Cheliabinsk 0 0 0 0 0 Y2 0 0 y, l 0 l 0 y,
;m11 y, 4
±+ .+.L.
16 L.Isaev Moscow Yi 0 0 0 0 Yi Yi 'h 0 0 0 Y2 0 Y2 y, [,!' !+.. 3Yz
 First Championship (1948-1951)
THE TRADITION of staging individual
USSR Championships, which were to be­
come the most prestigious competitions in
the country, was e�tablished in 1 948. All the
USSR Championships have been notable for·
the tenacious and tense nature of the play,
like genuinely competitive events. So that
the reader should sense this, we will endeav­
our to communicate not only the results, but
also the course of the play.
All grandmasters and masters were per­
sonally invited to the l st USSR Champion­
ship. Six accepted: L.Abramov, V.Simagin,
A.M. Konstantinopolsky (all Moscow), D.
Grechkin (Stalingrad), N.Kopaev (Chernovt­
sy) and A.Sokolsky (Lvov). The remaining
participants were included for their successes
in pre-war competitions.
Of the 1 6 participants, only four had
played in the uncompleted championship
before the war, and they represented just
three republics - Russia, Ukraine and Kaza­
khstan. Moreover, the honour of Kazakhstan
was defended by the Odessa player D.Russo,
who was living there at that time (apparently
in political exile).
It is hard to explain the absence from the
championship of players from Leningrad
and the Baltic Republics, where correspond­
ence play was popular. Before the war the
famous Estonian grandmaster Paul Keres
had become European champion, and in
1 950 he was the organiser and winner of the
first Estonian Championship.
Even so, participating in the champion­
ship were several already very well-known
players, and for the future world champion
Yakov Estrin it marked his debut in mas­
ter correspondence chess, albeit not a very
successful one. It should be mentioned that
the participants also included Vladimir
Zbandutto ( 1 904- 1 959), who from 1 93 8
was director of the all-union committee for
correspondence tournaments.
Most of the players in the 1 st USSR
Championship combined over-the-board
and correspondence play. D.Grechkin had
won the championships of the Stalingrad
Region, N.Kopaev had no equals in the
championship of the Chernovits Region,
and in the late 1 940s A.Sokolsky was first
in the all-Ukrainian championships and in
1 950 was the winner of a USSR Champion­
ship semi-final.
Of the participants in the 1 st USSR CC
Ch, still alive is Lev Abramov, who in June
2003 celebrated his 92nd birthday. Abramov
became a national master in 1 940. He com­
peted successfully in Leningrad Champion­
ships and, after he moved to Moscow, also
in the championships of the capital. After
the 1 st USSR Championship he gave up
correspondence play for a long time.
Lev Abramov was the first representative
of the Soviet chess organisation in the ICCF
administration, and in 1 959- 1 967 he was
elected Vice-President of the International
Federation of Correspondence Players. Nev­
ertheless in the late 1 960s he was included
in the Championship of Europe, where he
shared 2nd place, and in 1 979 he was award­
ed the ICCF international master title.
 The duties of chief arbiter of the 1 st
USSR Championship were undertaken by
the master N.Zubarev. He did not have
any direct connection with correspondence
chess, but he was a well-known organiser
from pre-war times, and after the war he
headed the chess section of the all-union
committee on matters of physical culture
and sport, he developed the USSR chess
stattite and he was considered an expert on
qualification matters.
The first to finish in the championship
was the Abramov-Zbandutto game. The
result - a draw. Then decisive results began
to come in.
By mid- 1 949 the leading group had been
established: L.Abramov had 71h out of 9,
D.Grechkin 7 out of 9, V.Simagin 5 out
of 6 and A.Konstantinopolsky 31h out of 4.
After the passage of a further year Abram­
ov' s chances looked very convincing - 1 0
out of 1 2, while Grechkin, who finished the
tournament with 8 points out of 1 5 , was no
longer among the contenders.
By the rules of the tournament, play
continued until 1 January 1 95 1 , after which
all the unfinished games were adjudicated,
irrespective of their influence on the final
outcome. On New Year's Day 1 95 1 the
tournament arbiter, honoured master of sport
Nikolay Mikhailovich Zubarev, died. At this
point there were 23 unfinished games, and
the leaders were Abramov - 1 0 out of 1 4,
Simagin - 91h out of 12, Konstantinopolsky
- 81h out of 1 0, Kopaev - 81h out of 1 2 and
Sokolsky 61h out of 9.
In his five unfinished games Konstanti­
nopolsky was awarded 3 points, which gave
him a total of 1 1 1.h.. After the adjudications
Simagin, Sokolsky and Kopaev finished on
1 1 points, while Abramov, who finished
badly, remained on 10.
It is notable that the top places were oc­
cupied by players who had the master title
for their results in over-the-board competi­
tions. At that time there was no provision
for medals for correspondence play and the
winners were merely awarded diplomas of
the all-union sports committee.
The future grandmaster Vladimir Sim­
agin, who shared second place, gained a
striking victory over the well-known organ­
iser of correspondence competitions.
White: V.Simagin
Black: V.Zbandutto
1 st USSR CC Ch , 1 948-51
Ruy Lopez C61
Notes by Vladimir Simagin
1 e4 es 2 lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 3 �bS lt:Jd4
It seems to me that in this variation it is
hard for Black to equalise.
4 lt:Jxd4 exd4 S 0-0 c6
In my view, 5 ... tt:Je7 is preferable.
6 �a4 lt:Je7 7 d3
There is no point in White playing 7 c3,
since the d4-pawn is weak.
7... dS
After this White advantageously opens
the e-file. However, Black's position is al­
ready inferior.
8 ctJd2 g6 9 1:. el �e6 10 lt:Jf3 !
Beginning an attack on the d4-pawn.
10 ... �g7 11 exdS lt:JxdS 12 J:, e4 lt:Jc7
If 12 ... 'i:Yb6 there could have followed
1 3 lt:Jg5.
13 �gs 'i:Yd7 14 'i:Yd2 h6 ?
This leads to insuperable difficulties.
14 ... 0-0 should have been played, for exam­
ple: 1 5 J:i,h4 f5 1 6 �h6 b5 1 7 �b3 �xb3
1 8 axb3 lt:Je6.
lS �f4 0-0-0 16 lt:JeS 'IVe7 17 'IV aS ! gS
Black already has no defence. If
1 7 ... @b8, then 1 8 lt:Jxg6 fxg6 19 �xc7+
'i:Yxc7 20 'i:Yxc7+ �xc7 21 l:, xe6 is pos­
sible. If 17 ... a6 there follows 1 8 'i:Yb6.
18 �g3 fS 19 ctJg6 'i:Yd7
If 1 9 ... 'i:Yf7, then 20 �xc7 fxe4 21 �g3
1:. hg8 22 'i:Yxa7 'i:Yxg6 23 �xc6 etc.
20 �xc7 ! fxe4 (D)

w enough to equalise.
21 �g3 ! a6
Or 21 ...b6 22 'iVa6+ 'iVb7 23 CiJe7+, or
2 1 .. .'iVf7 22 1Vxa7 'iVxg6 23 �xc6.
22 �xc6 !
The concluding stroke.
Neither 22 ...bxc6 23 1Vxa6+ nor 22 ...1Vxc6
23 {jje7+ is possible.
22 ... jVn 23 �xe4 1-0
The experienced masters who finished
second also had some fine wins to their
credit.
White: N.Kopaev
Black: A.Perfiliev
1 st USSR CC Ch , 1 9 48-51
Queen 's Gambit D59
Notes by Nikolay Kopaev
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 {jjc3 {jjf6 4 �gs �e7 5
e3 0-0 6 {jjf3 h6 7 �h4 b6
This defence to the Queen ' s Gambit
was analysed in detail and frequently em­
ployed in tournament play by Makogonov
and Bondarevsky. Here the problem of
the development of Black' s light-square
bishop is solved more quickly than in
many other variations of the Queen's
Gambit.
8 cxdS {jjxdS 9 �xe7 'iVxe7 10 {jjxdS
exdS 11 �d3 �g4
1 l . ..�e6 followed by . . . c7-c5 is more
usual. The move made by Black is also good
12 0-0 {jjd7 13 h3 �xf3
This is better than 13 ... �h5 14 �b5
'iVd6 15 I:\.c l followed by �c6.
14 'iVxf3 {jjf6 15 I:\.fel
This move is directed against the imme­
diate 1 5 ... c5. The correct continuation for
Black was 1 5 ... 'iVb4 16 b3 I:\.fe8 1 7 I:\.acl
c5 . After missing this possibility he ends up
with the inferior game.
15 ... cS ? 16 dxcS bxcS 17 e4 ! dxe4
After 17 . . . c4 1 8 exd5 'iVb4 1 9 �fl
I:\.fd8 20 I:\.ac 1 I:\.ac8 21 'iV c3 CiJxd5 22
'iVxb4 CiJxb4 23 j,xc4 White remains a
pawn up.
18 �xe4 CiJxe4 19 I:\.xe4 'iVb7 20 'iV e2
The battle in the centre has concluded in
White's favour. His subsequent play should
be aimed at winning the isolated c5-pawn
by tripling pieces on the c-file followed by
b2-b4.
Black, assuming that it will not be possi­
ble to defend the pawn, tries to make it hard
for White to exploit his advantage.
20 ... I:\,ad8 21 I:\.cl I:\.d2 22 'iVxd2 'iVxe4
23 jVaS 'iVb4 241Vxa7 'iVxb2 25 I:\.xcS
Thus, White has gained a pawn, but the
win is still difficult.
25... I:\.e8 26 I:\.c4 I:\,el+ 27 �h2 I:\.e2 28
I:\.c8+ �h7 29 'iVxf7 'iVeS+
Not 29 . . . 'iVxa2 30 'iVf5+ g6 3 1 jVd7+
with mate in two moves, or 29 . . . I:\.xf2 30
'iVg8+ @g6 31 I:\.c6+ I:\.f6 32 'iVe8+ �g5
(32 . . . �h7 33 'iVe4+ �g8 34 I:\.c8+) 33
I:\,c5+ �f4 34 I:\.c4+ �g5 35 I:\.g4+ �f5
36 'iVe4 mate.
In playing 29 . . . 'iVe5+ Black was hoping
for 30 g3 ; then 30 ... 'iVf6 ! 3 1 'iVxf6 gxf6
and he can hardly lose. However, White had
prepared an interesting reply.
30 f4 jVe4 31 jVg8+ �g6 32 fS+ 'iVxfS 33
I:\.c6+ �hS (D)
It appears that B lack has avoided the
dangers and is himself threatening to
launch an attack by . . . 'iVf4+, but with a
far from obvious combination White de­
cides the game.

w unusual: a far-advanced pawn at b5 and the
34 : cs ! : xg2+
This loses by force, but 34... 'ifxcS 3 5
'ift7+ g6 3 6 'iff3+ @gs 3 7 'ifxe2 would
also have given White a certain win.
3S @xg2 ifxcS 36 'iff7+ g6 37 'iff3+
@gs 38 h4+ @xh4 39 'iff2+ 'ifxf2+ 40
@xf2 @h3 41 @gl l-0
Among the wins gained by the master
Aleksey Sokolsky I should mention the foll­
owing one, where he was successful with
the opening that bears his name.
White: A.Sokolsky
Black: A.Shifman
1 st USSR CC Ch, 1 9 48-51
Sokolsk y Opening A 00
Notes by Aleksey Sokolsky
1 b4 e6 2 J®bb2 ll:Jf6 3 bS a6 4 a4 axbS S
axbS .:g, xal 6 J®bxal dS (D)
w w
This is one of the most original varia­
tions of this opening. White' s position looks
central pawns still on their original squares.
With his pressure on the long diagonal
and possible operations on the queenside,
White 's prospects are by no means worse.
7 e3 cS 8 Qjf3 J®bd6 9 c4 Qjbd7 10 d3
Other development plans are also pos­
sible, for example, 1 0 ll:Jc3, 1 0 d4, or 1 0
J®be2, retaining the option o f developing
the knight at c3 or d2 and of advancing the
pawn to d3 or d4.
10...0-0 1 1 J®be2 ifc7 12 Qjbd2 b6 13 0-0
J®bb7 14 J®bb2
14 h3 was more prudent, but already White
was intending to sacrifice his h2-pawn.
14...dxc4 lS ll:Jxc4 ! ?
White ' s pawn sacrifice was based on
the following considerations: his knight
is ideally placed at c4, he gains the bish­
op pair and the opening of kingside lines
may give him chances of an attack.
1S... J®bxf3
Here White should have recaptured with
the bishop, but he is playing for a further
sharpening of the position.
16 gxf3 ! ? J®bxh2+ 17 @g2 J®bd6
Otherwise there follows 1 8 f4. This is the
point of the capture gxf3 .
18 d4 cxd4
This exchange should not have been made.
The white queen immediately comes into play.
19 'ifxd4 J®bcS 20 'ifh4 J®be7 21 J®bd3 h6
2 l . ..g6 was better. Now White creates
strong threats on the g-file.
22 .:g_ gl ll:JdS ?(D)
 This leads to an immediate finish! How­
ever, it was no longer easy to parry the attack.
Now the white queen is attacked. Neither
23 �g4 jbf6 nor 23 �e4 tlJ7f6 proves
successful. Only the sacrifice of the queen
leads to the goal.
23 @hl ! 1-0
The capture of the queen allows mate in
three moves.
The list of champions was opened by
Aleksandr Markovich Konstantinopolsky
( 1 9 10-1 990). He was born in 1 9 1 0 in Zhito­
mir (Ukraine). In 1 933 he gained the title of
USSR Master of Sport.
Then at Tbilisi in 1 93 7 he shared second
place with Ragozin (behind Levenfish) in
the 1 0th USSR Championship.
At the moment when the title of FIDE
international master was established, he was
awarded this title and in 1 983 he became a
grandmaster. In his best years Konstantinop­
olsky played against outstanding grandmas­
ters and world champions of different times,
and on occasion he defeated them.
Among the encounters from the 1 st
USSR Championship I should like to give
Konstantinopolsky' s game with Gilman,
which he included in his book of memorable
games and annotated in detail.
White: A.Konstantinopolsky
Black : A. Gilman
1 st USSR CC C h , 1 9 48-51
Sicilian Defence 880
Notes by Aleksand r
Konstantinopolsky
1 e4 cS 2 '2:Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 '2:Jxd4 tlJf6 5
'2:Jc3 d6 6 g3 (D)
I have frequently achieved good results
by employing this variation. The game
Konstantinopolsky-Rudakovsky (Ukrainian
Championship, Kiev 1 940) went 6 . . . jbe7 7
B
jbg2 0-0 8 0-0 '2:Jc6 9 b3 (after 9 '2:Jxc6
bxc6 1 0 e5 dxe5 ! 1 1 jbxc6 l':t b8 Black
has adequate counter-chances) 9 ... d5 1 0
jbb2 �a5 1 1 exd5 exd5 1 2 �d3 tlJxd4
1 3 �xd4 jbe6 14 �d3 ! l':t fd8 1 5 '2:Je2
jba3 (unjustified boldness; for the sake of
gaining the two bishops, Black allows the
pawns guarding his king to be broken up) 1 6
jbxf6 gxf6 1 7 �d4 �c7 1 8 �xf6 �xc2
1 9 tlJf4 jbb2 20 �g5+ @h8 2 1 l':t ae l
�c6 22 �h5 l':[ d6 23 l':t e2 with advan­
tage to White.
More in accordance with the spirit of
the opening is slow development by 6 . . . a6
7 jbg2 �c7 8 0-0 jbe7. This was the
course taken by another game of mine with
Rudakovsky, which occurred that same year
in the Kiev semi-final of the 1 2th USSR
Championship. After 9 �d2! tlJbd7 10 b3
l':t b8! 1 1 jbb2 b5 12 a3 jbb7 a sharp posi­
tion arose.
6...b6
Black wants to place his bishop at b7 as
soon as possible. However, over the next
few moves the fact that it is undefended cre­
ates the combinative motif e4-e5.
This forces Black to adopt defensive
measures (. . . a7-a6 and ... �c7), so that
instead of gaining time he achieves the op­
posite result.
7 jbg2 jb b7 8 0-0 a6
If 8 ... jbe7, then 9 e5 ! is already unpleas­
ant. In the meantime, exploiting the retarded
development of the enemy pieces, White
immediately embarks on a multi-move com­
bination, the aim of which is to prevent the
black king from castling and to mount an
attack on it. The b7-bishop should have been
defended by 8 . . . lbbd7 9 : e l 'i¥b8.
9 : el ! 'i¥c7 (D)
9 . . . }be7 (and now also 9 . . . lbbd7) is
again impossible on account of the same
reply 1 0 e5 ! .
w defended successfully.
10 lLJ dS !
This combination, which involves a
real piece sacrifice, gave rise in subse­
quent years to numerous variations on the
same theme.
The acceptance of the sacrifice
is forced, since after 1 0 . . . }bxd5 or
1 0 . . . lb xd5 1 1 exd5 B lack stands badly.
But he is hoping that his material advan­
tage will enable him gradually to repulse
the threats and to win.
10 ...exdS 11 exdS+ �d8
Even more dangerous was l 1 . . .}be7 1 2
lbf5 l2Jg8 1 3 l2Jxg7+ or 1 3 }bf4.
[It would appear that in this case there
is an immediate win by 1 3 }bg5 ! and if
13 . . .'t¥d7 (or 13 . . . �d8) 14 fbxe7 S.G.]
- was the threat of 23 b5, against which there
12 }bgS lLJ bd7
With the intention of playing the king
to a7 and providing it there with a safe
shelter.
13 'i¥e2 �c8 14 c4 !
.
1 4 'i¥e8+ 'i¥d8 1 5 'iVxf7 was possible,
acquiring a second pawn, but continuing the
direct attack on the king seemed more effec­
tive. The further course of the game justified
this decision.
[A forcing variation, based on exact
calculation and involving the sacrifice of
another piece, came into consideration: 1 4
lbc6! }bxc6 1 5 'i¥e8+ lbxe8 1 6 : xe8+
'i¥d8 17 : xd8+ �c7 1 8 dxc6 : xd8 1 9
}bxd8+ �xd8 2 0 cxd7 �xd7 2 1 }bd5 and
White has the advantage in the endgame.
- S.G.]
14... �b8 1S b4 �a7 16 a4 : es
The king has migrated to the left flank,
and the first impression is that B lack has
True, 1 7 'iVxe8 lbxe8 1 8 : xe8 is not
altogether clear, although in this variation
too Black has a difficult position. I gave
preference to another offensive plan,
based on 1 7 }be3, a move which had
attracted my analytical attention much
earlier.
17 }be3
Impending over Black are some very
dangerous threats: a4-a5, or lbc6+, or,
finally, lbb5+, opening up the approaches
to the king.
17 ... lLJeS
With the counter-threats of . . . 't¥xc4 or
. . . l2Jeg4, but White had foreseen a convinc­
ing rejoinder.
18 lbc6+ ! lbxc6
1 8 . . . }bxc6 or 1 8 ... �a8 was inferior in
view of 1 9 a5 ! .
1 9 dxc6 !bxc6 2 0 as : xe3 !
Undoubtedly Black finds the most ac­
tive defence. The play becomes more
complicated.
21 'iVxe3 }bxg2 22 �xg2 dS !
Black defends very resourcefully. There
is now the reply 23 . . . }bc5. Even so, White 's
attack increases in strength.
23 bS }bes 24 axb6+ }bxb6
Not 24 ... 't¥xb6 25 : xa6+ 'i¥xa6 26
'i¥xc5+ 'i¥b6 27 : e7+.
2S : xa6+ �b7 26 'i¥a3 : ds !
Parrying the unpleasant 27 : e7 lbd7 28
: xd7 ! 'iVxd7 29 c5. Not 26 ... dxc4 in view
of 27 'iVf3+.
27 ;g_ e7 l2Jd7 (D)
After 27 ... : d7 the rook mvas1on 28
: a8 is decisive.

w In the Panov Attack, Yakov Estrin be­
28 cxd5 !
28 l:!, xd7 ! ? was tempting, but after the
strong reply 28 . . . l:!, xd7 !, although Black's
position remains dangerous, he has drawing
chances. Therefore I preferred a more pro­
saic, but certain way to win.
28...'f/cS
Preventing 29 d6 and 30 'f/f3+.
29 'f/f3 'f/xb5 30 l:!, a3 rJi;c7
30 . . . j,c5 3 1 l:!, b3 leads to the loss of the
queen. Black has no defence.
31 l:!, xfi rJi;d6 32 l:!, xg7 tll e5
Or 32 . . . 'f/xd5 33 l:!, d3 j,d4 34 'f/xd5+
@xd5 35 l:!, g4.
33 'f/f6+ @xd5 34 'f/xe5+ ! 1-0
In 1 966 Konstantinopolsky also received
the title of ICCF international master. As
board three of the USSR team, he won
a gold medal in the 3rd ICCF Olympiad
( 1 958-1961). He was also well known as
an outstanding trainer. As a correspondence
player Konstantinopolsky gave free rein to
his great imagination, and most of the postal
games that he won reached the level of crea­
tive masterpieces.
White: Y. Estrin
Black : A.Konstantinopolsky
1 st USSR CC C h , 1 948-51
Caro-Kann Defence B 1 4
1 e4 c 6 2 d 4 d 5 3 exd5 cxd5 4 c4 tll f6 5
tll c3 e6 6 c5 j,e7 7 b4 tll e4 8 'f/c2 0-0 9
Clio rs
lieved in the strength of White's pawn offen­
sive on the queenside, based on his wedge at
c5. By contrast, Aleksandr Konstantinopol­
sky thought that the centralised knight at e4
supported by the f5-pawn secured Black
more effective counter-chances. And he was
proved right in this critical debate.
10 j,d3 b6 11 l:!. bl j,f6 12 h4
Black' s ... g7-g5 has to be prevented.
12 ... tll c 6 13 tll e2 a5 14 a3 axb4 15 axb4
bxc5 16 dxc5 e5 17 0-0 'f/e7 18 j,bS tll d8
19 j,gS Jtxg5 20 hxg5 f4
20 ... tt:Jxg5 2 1 tt:Jxg5 'f/xg5 22 f4 !
21 'f/b3 j,e6 22 tlixe5 (D)
B
To maintain his centre White goes in for
an exchange sacrifice, but this proves to be
a weak argument.
22... tll d2 23 'f/d3 tll xbl 24 l:!, xbl 'f/xg5
25 tll f3 'f/h5 26 tll ed4 j,g4 ! 27 j,c6
Black's strong 26th move forced White
to seek a clear-cut way to win, because 27
l:!, e l could have been met by 27 . . . l:!, a7 !,
while if 27 l:!. c l l:!, f6 28 l:!. el tll fl with
the threat of 29 ... l:!, h6.
27... tt:Jxc6 28 tlixc6 l:!, ae8 29 b5 l:!, f6 30
tll b4 l:!, h6 31 'f/xd5+ 'f/xd5 32 tll xd5
j,xf3 33 gxf3 l:!, e5 34 c6 l:!, xd5 35 c7
l:!, g5+ 36 @fl l:!, c5 0-1
Preserved in my home library is a book
with an inscription by the author - Aleksandr
Markovich Konstantinopolsky: "To dear
Sergey Yakovlevich - in memory of our
joint composing and correspondence work".
The book was published in 1 985, when
Aleksandr Markovich had already retired,
but in the late 1 960s in the Sports Commit­
tee he chaired the correspondence chess and
chess composition sections, and at that time
the author of these lines was the executive
secretary of the commission for composi­
tion. In connection with this, my contact
with the chairman, whom everyone, on ac­
count of his ultra-long surname, called be­
hind his back 'Konsky', was fairly regular.
I was impressed by Aleksandr Marko­
vich' s self-discipline and good organisation,
and also by his absolute intolerance of the
abuse of alcohol and tobacco. One day I
shared with him the idea of organising a
correspondence tournament for composing
enthusiasts who had a high chess rating.
Aleksandr Markovich approved of the idea,
adding jokingly that a problem and study
composing competition should also be or­
ganised among correspondence players.
That tournament proved to be a turning
point in my own fate: I began it as a quite
experienced composer of chess problems,
and ended it as a novice correspondence
player. After this I associated with Konstan­
tinopolsky in my capacity as an official of
the correspondence commission, which in
the early 1 980s was renamed a Council.
A prominent feature of "Konsky's" char­
acter was that he loved chess in himself, and
not himself in chess. A painstaking analysis
of a position afforded him pleasure. Being a
man of diverse interests and quite well edu­
cated (irrespective of any documentation),
Aleksandr Markovich judged his colleague;:
by their chess qualifications. When I asked
his opinion about Viktor Baturinsky, who
had been appointed head of the chess sec­
tion, his description was laconic: "a solid
candidate master with 30 years of service".
Because Nikolai Krogius was a grand­
master, "Konsky" approved of his appoint­
ment to the post of head of the adminis­
tration. However, he soon realised that a
genuine grandmaster can show himself as
an official to be rather more scathing than a
'solid candidate master'.
Together with Konstantinopolsky I up­
held the interests of correspondence play­
ers in the qualification commission of the
USSR Chess Federation, and on occasions
the two of us would successfully oppose the
remaining members of the commission.
I remember how after one of our little
victories Aleksandr Markovich remarked:
"there it is only worth listening to Polu­
gayevsky - he is a grandmaster and he
understands everything, but as for the garr­
ulous executive secretary - he is a fourth
category player".
While approving my intention of organ­
ising a Mirotvorsky Memorial Tournament,
he added: "don't arrange any tournaments in
my memory - it takes so much effort just to
write my name".
Meticulous, principled, but also capable
of scheming - this is how this outstanding
trainer, player, and the winner of the first
USSR Correspondence Championship,
Aleksandr Markovich Konstantinopolsky,
remains in my memory.
 Second Championship
(195 2 - 195 5)
WHILE the first event was being organised
it had already become clear that the USSR
Championship should be conducted in two
stages. Invited to the final of the 2nd Cham­
pionship were grandmasters, masters and
the winners of five semi-final groups that
were held at the same time as the first final.
Organised simultaneously with the final of
the 2nd Championship were the semi-finals
of the 3rd Championship, to which were
admitted all candidate masters, participants
in previous semi-finals who had scored at
least 50%, and prize-winners of tournaments
organised by the magazine ' Shakhmaty v
SSSR' for first category players.
When the composition of the final was
complete, it transpired that the great major­
ity of the participants were Russians. Only
two - Yefremov (Voroshilovgrad) and
Yevdokimov (Zaporozhe ), who had shared
first place in one of the semi-finals - were
representing the Ukraine, while the mas­
ter Aleksey Sokolsky, who had moved to
Minsk, and A.Shumakher from Gomel were
representing Belorussia. One who had bro­
ken through the semi-final qualifying sieve
was serviceman Pyotr Atyashev, who in the
early 50s was based in Baku, the capital of
Azerbaijan. In his semi-final group Atya­
shev took first place with 12lh out of 1 5 ,
going through the tournament undefeated.
Particular interest was provoked by the
participation of Vyacheslav Ragozin, who
already held the title of FIDE international
grandmaster and was therefore considered
one of the main contenders for victory. An­
other future FIDE international grandmas­
ter, Leonid Shamkovich, was at that time
not well known, but without dropping out of
the USSR Correspondence Championship in
1 954 he became champion of the Russian
Federation.
Play in the 2nd Correspondence Champi­
onship commenced on 1 st September 1 952.
Twenty players began the event, but soon
after the start three (the masters Kopaev and
Lyublinsky and the winner of the one of the
semi-finals, Guskov) dropped out. The chief
arbiter was V.Zbandutto (Moscow).
Within a few months a leading group
had emerged, and to general surprise it was
headed by the first category players Atya-
 ""
0)
2nd USSR CC Championship ( 1 952- 1 955)

N2 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

1 P.Atyashev B aku Y2 l y, Y2 1 1 y, 1 1 y, 1 y, 1 I 1 I 13

2 P.Dubinin Gorky Y2 1 1 y, 1 0 y, 1 I 1 1 y, 1 1 1 y, 1 2 '/z

3 M.Abroshin S aratov 0 0 !:;' 0 Y2 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 l 1 y, 1 l 10

4 A.Konstantinopolsky Moscow Y2 0 l . y, Y2 Y2 y, l 0 l 1 Y2 y, 1 l y, 10
-
5 Moscow r'• ' Y2 I 0 1 l 1 1
A.Sadomsky Y2 Y2 Y2 y,
... Y2 y, y, y, Y2 10

6 A.Sokolsky Minsk 0 0 0 Y2 y, / 0 y, 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 'h 1 10 �

�
T:i Y,
Vorosh ilovgrad l
7 V.Yefremov 0 1 Y2 y, l
'"'·
0 Y2 l Y2 y, 1 Y2 0 1 91/z
.s;-
1;,
8 N.Aratovsky Saratov y, y, 0 y, y, y, 0 y, y, 0 I I I I Y2 8'1z i�
9 V.Ragozin Moscow 0 0 1 0 0 0 I l ..• l/2 Y2 1 0 1 y, Y2 I 8

Moscow 1 1 l 1
10 L.Shamkovich 0 0 0 0 Y2 y, y, J 0 I 0 1 0 7Y,
Gorky v <
1 1 L.Sitsky Y2 0 0 0 y, 0 0 Y2 y, 1 .... 0 Y2 y, Y2 1 1 6'/i
�
·
·
12 K. Yevdokimov Zaporozhie 0 0 0 0 0 0 y, 1 0 0 1 0 1 y, 1 1 6
13 A.Makovkin Gorky y, y, 0 y, 0 0 Yi 0 1 0 Yi 1 y, 0 1 0 6
Kuibyshev y,
14 Yu.Shaposhnikov 0 0 0 y, 0 0 0 0 0 1 y, 0 i 1 y, I 5
,.
Moscow 0 "'
15 V.Zaitsev 0 0 Y2 0 0 0 y, 0 Y2 0 y, y, 1 .. y, Y2 41/z
Zheleznovodsk ,.,
16 S.Tanin 0 0 0 0 y, Y2 1 0 Y2 0 0 0 0 y, y, hf·· ··· 1 4Y,
. .. .
Gome I 1 1 .
17 A.Shumakher 0 y, 0 Y2 Y2 0 0 y, 0 0 0 0 Y2 0 41/z
shev - 3 Yz out of 4 and Sadomsky - 3 out
of 4.
By the end of 1 953 it transpired that
things were going excellently for FIDE in­
ternational master Dubinin - 8 out of 9 and
grandmaster Ragozin - 4 out of 5. Sadom­
sky continued to do quite well - 6 out of 8,
while Atyashev was still on 3 Yz out of 4.
By the summer of 1 954 the situation
seemed totally confused. Dubinin, who had
reduced speed somewhat, was on 9 out of
12, Sadomsky had 8Yz out of 12, Yefremov
- 8 out of 1 2 and Atyashev - 7 out of 9. As
in the 1 st Championship, Alexander Kon­
stantinopolsky completed his games more
slowly than his rivals, and had scored 4 out
of 5 . It was decided to extend the champion­
ship to 1 st November 1 954.
When the allotted time expired, 22 out
of the 136 games remained unfinished and
the group of contenders for the champion' s
title looked like this: Dubinin - l OYz out of
14, Abroshin - 10 out of 16 (tournament
completed), Sadomsky - 9Yz out of 14, Ye­
fremov - 8Yz out of 1 3 , Konstantinopolsky
- 8Yz out of 14, Atyashev - 8 out of 1 0 and
Sokolsky - 7Yz out of 1 1 .
The adjudications arranged everyone in
their place. The battle for the championship
was led by Dubinin and Atyashev. The two
Pyotrs were slightly ahead of their pursuers
and when the final results of the champion­
ship were drawn up it transpired that the
champion's title had gone to the one with
the less senior chess title.
On this occasion the future ICCF World
Champion Vyacheslav Ragozin was unable
to adapt to games with invisible opponents,
he played somewhat recklessly and he fin­
ished in the very middle of the table with a
score of 8 out of 16.
Aleksandr Konstantinopolsky was also
unable to repeat his success and had to be
satisfied with a share of 3rd place with the
master Sokolsky and the successful debu­
tants Abroshin and Sadomsky.
In the semi-final of the 2nd Champion­
ship the ICCF international master V.Zaitsev
shared first place with A.Shumakher, both
scoring 1 1 Yz out of 1 5 . Simultaneously
with his participation in the final of the 2nd
Championship, Zaitsev decided to play in
the semi-final of the 3rd, after taking on the
duties of chief administrator.
The great success of Pyotr Atyashev,
who also went through the final undefeated,
was the main sensation of the tournament.
White : P.Atyashev
Black: Yu .Shaposhnikov
2nd USSR CC Ch , 1 95 2-55
Ruy Lopez C82
Notes by Pyotr Atyashev
1 e4 e5 2 Qjf3 CL:Jc6 3 �b5 a6 4 �a4 CLJf6
5 0-0 CL:Jxe4 6 d4 b5 7 �b3 d5 8 dxe5 �e6
9 c3 �cs 10 CLJbd2 0-0 11 �c2 CL:Jxf2 12
.:!. xf2 f6 13 exf6 !
Undoubtedly the strongest continuation.
If 1 3 ... e2, then after 1 3 ... fxe5 14 QJb3
�xf2+ 1 5 ...xf2 �g4! Black has good
counter-chances.
13... �xf2+
In the game Smyslov-Botvinnik (Moscow
Championship 1 943) 1 3 . . ....xf6 was played,
but after 14 ...fl! �g4 1 5 @hl �xf2 1 6
...xf2 .:!. ae8 1 7 ...g3 CL:Je5 1 8 �dl QJd3
19 h3 ! Smyslov gained the advantage.
True, Black could have played 1 8 . . .h5,
and if 1 9 h4 - 1 9 . . . QJd3 , but, as shown by
Keres in his book 'Teoriya Shakhmatnykh
Debyutov' (Theory of Chess Openings),
White could have most easily consolidated
his advantage with 1 5 h3 ! , in order after
1 5 . . . �h5 to continue 1 6 ...d3 , while if
i 5 . . . �xf3 1 6 CL:Jxf3 CL:Je5, then 1 7 CLJd4.
It should also be mentioned that 15 ...d3
cannot be recommended for White in view
of 1 5 . . . �xf2+ 1 6 @xf2 ...h4+ 17 @gl
...h5, when Black's position is preferable.
14 @xf2 ...xf6 15 @gl g5 (D)

w Pyotr lvanovich Atyashev ( 1 9 1 8- 1 984)
16 'iVel !
The only way! The manoeuvre of the
queen to g3 discloses the drawbacks to
Black' s plan. 1 6 lll b3 would have been a
mistake, since after 1 6 . . .g4 Black's attack
could have become dangerous, for exam­
ple: 1 7 'iVd3 .l: f7 1 8 �g5 'iVg7 1 9 tll fd4
tll xd4 20 tll xd4 'iVxg5 2 1 tll xe6 'iVf6 ! .
16... .l: ae8
[The immediate 16 ... g4 !? came into con­
sideration, with the possible variation 1 7
'iVg3 (dangerous i s 1 7 lll g 5 �f5 1 8 �xf5
'iVxf5 1 9 'iVe6+ �h8 20 'iVxf5 .l: xf5 with
the better chances for Black; the recom­
mended 1 8 �b3 is also dubious in view of
1 8 . . . .l: ad8 1 9 lll ge4 'iVe6 20 'iVe2 .l: fe8,
when White faces a gruelling struggle for
equality) 1 7 . . . 'iVg7 1 8 lll e l b4. - S.G.]
17 'i¥g3 g4 18 h3
[Nothing would have been achieved by 1 8
'iVxc7?! �f5 ! 1 9 �xf5 'iVxf5, when White
does best to return his queen to its former
square by 20 'iVg3, since after 20 'iVxc6?
.l: e l + 2 1 @f2 'iVe5 22 'iVxd5+ (other­
wise things are completely bad for him)
22 . . . 'iVxd5 23 �xe l gxf3 he clearly does
not have enough for the queen. - S.G.]
18 ...'i¥g7 19 hxg4 �xg4 20 tll h2 �dl
Black embarks on a faulty combination,
which loses quickly. However, also after
other bishop moves White, after exchanging
queens, could have gradually converted his
advantage.
21 'iVxg7+ @xg7 22 �xdl .l: el+ 23
tll dfl ! .l: xdl 24 �h6+ !
This simple move was missed by Black,
when he devised his combination.
24... �xh6 25 .l: xdl 1-0
learned to play chess in 1 934, when he was
already 1 6 years old. At an early age he
enlisted in the army and due to the nature
of his work he was unable to play much
in tournaments. His fascination with chess
took the form of collecting chess mas­
terpieces, which he lovingly transcribed.
This work by the officer from Baku was
described in the first post-war year of the
magazine 'Shakhmaty v SSSR', 1 946, No.3
(P.Romanovsky: 'The manuscript of Cap­
tain Atyashev').
In two thick, bulky, 3 50-page exercise
books in small, copy-book handwriting
(without a single correction) more than 200
games with detailed notes were recorded.
The manuscript was also accompanied by
chess diagrams and portraits of the stars
from the past.
"Only a highly cultured player could
have so well and so lovingly produced this
difficult material, as Captain Atyashev was
able to", wrote international master and in­
ternational arbiter Pyotr Romanovsky.
For his victory in the USSR Correspond­
ence Championship, it was decided by a
special decision of the All-Union Sports
Committee that Atyashev, who finished
ahead of grandmaster Ragozin and a whole
cohort of strong masters, should be awarded
the rank of candidate master. After retiring
with the title of Engineer-Colonel, Atyashev
settled in Moscow but hardly ever took part
in competitions. However, when in 1 958
the USSR made its debut in the World Cor­
respondence Olympiad, the former USSR
Champion was included in the team which
won the gold medals. Atyashev's result was
5 points out of 9 on board five.
In the history of correspondence chess,
Pyotr lvanovich Atyashev went down as the
winner of the 2nd USSR Correspondence
Championship.
Among the games of Pyotr Dubinin, who
on this occasion finished second, I should
like to single out his encounter with the fu­
ture well-known FIDE grandmaster Leonid
Shamkovich.
White: P.Dubinin
Black : L .Shamkovich
2nd USSR CC Ch, 1 9 52-55
Sicilian Defence 89 1
1 e4 c5 2 l2Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l2Jxd4 ctJf6 5
lbc3 a6 6 g3 j,g4 7 Vi'd3
The usual continuation here is 7 f3 j,d7
8 j,e3 lbc6 9 j,g2 g6 10 0-0 j,g7 1 1
l2Jd5 0-0 1 2 a4 with a minimal advantage
for White. Dubinin follows the fashion of
that time. 7 Vi'd3 occurred in the game Re­
shevsky-Najdorf, Amsterdam 1 950.
7...lbc6 8 h3
The afore-mentioned game went 8 ct:lxc6
bxc6 9 j,g2 e5 10 f4 j,d7 1 1 h3 j,e7 1 2
g4 0-0 1 3 f5 d 5 with unclear play.
8... j,d7 9 j,g2 g6 10 lbde2 j,g7 11 f4
l:! c8
The plans of the two sides have taken
shape. As happens almost always in the
Sicilian Defence, White is attacking on the
kingside, and Black on the queenside. It is a
question of who gets there first.
12 a3 b5 13 g4 j,e6 (D)
w Not 39 ... exf6 40 gxf6 j,f8 41 l::l, c8
14 ctJd5
Otherwise Black will play 14 . . . j,c4.
14 ...h5 ! ?
A clever reply! Now Black begills to dic­
tate his conditions to the opponent.
15 g5 l2Jxd5 16 exd5 j,f5 17 j,e4
White goes onto the defensive.
17... j,xe4 18 Vxe4 lbb8 19 c3 l::l, c4 20
Vi'd3 ctJd7 21 j,e3 Vc8 22 0-0-0 0-0 23
�bl Vi'b7 24 l:! hfl a5 25 @a2 l:! b8 26
l:! cl l2Jc5 27 j,xc5 l:! xc5 28 l:! fdl b4 29
cxb4 l:! xcl 30 l:! xcl axb4 31 a4 ! b3+ 32
�bl l:! a8 33 l:! c4 �h7 ?! (D)
Black plans 34 . . . e6 35 dxe6 d5 ! , but
Dubinin resolutely suppresses this attempt.
Meanwhile Shamkovich had available the
interesting continuation 33 . . . l::l, a5 34 l2Jc3
Vi'a6, when White' s position is restricted.
w
34 f5 !
The picture changes, as White launches a
counter-attack.
34 ... Vi'b6 35 lbd4 l:! a5 36 lbxb3 Vi'gl+
37 �a2 Vi'g2
Threatening 38 ...Vxb2 mate.
38 f6 ! l::l, xd5 39 Vc3 j,h8
@g8 42 l::l, xf8+ with inevitable mate in a
few moves.
40 l::l, c8 exf6 41 l::l, f8 ! 1-0
After 4 1 . . .Vi'xg5 42 l::l, xf7+ j,g7
43 Vc7 Vi'h6 44 a5 Black's position is
completely hopeless. He cannot . stop the
a-pawn.
Four players shared third place, and they
included the first USSR Champion, who
defeated the future World Champion in fine
style.
 White: A. Konstantinopolsky
Black: V. Ragozin
2nd USSR C C Ch, 1 9 5 2 - 5 5
Queen 's Gambit Accepted
D26
1 d4 dS 2 c4 dxc4 3 t2Jf3 tL'if6 4 e3 e6 S
Jtxc4 cS 6 t2Jc3 Jte7 7 0-0 cxd4
The theme of this game will be a debate
about the strength and weakness of the iso­
lated d4-pawn. This debate has not ceased
since the time of the first official match for
the world championship (1 886) .
8 exd4 a 6 9 'if e2 b S 10 Jtb3 0-0 1 1 JtgS !
b4 (D)
The alternative l l . . . tL'ibd7 1 2 l:. fe l Jtb7
( l 2 . . .b4 13 t2Jd5 ! ) 13 d5 ! t2Jxd5 1 4 Jtxd5
Jtxd5 1 5 Jtxe7 Jtxf3 16 Jtxd8 Jtxe2 1 7
Jte7 l:, fe8 1 8 l:, xe2 l:, xe7 1 9 t2Jd5 l:, ee8
20 tt:Jc7 is clearly in White' s favour.
w
12 Jtxf6 ! Jtxf6 13 t2Je4 Jth7 14 l:, fdl
Jtds
1 4 ... tL'id7 1 5 d5 ! .
lS t2Jxf6+ gxf6
The doubling of the pawns is forced,
�ince after 1 5 ... 'ifxf6 16 l:, ac l it is difficult
for Black to develop his knight on b8.
16 l:, acl t2Jc6 17 JtxdS 'ifxdS 18 'ifd2
l:. fd8 19 'ifh6 l:. ac8 20 h4 !
Not 20 'ifxf6? t2Jxd4! 2 1 tt:Jg5 'iff5 ! or
2 1 tL'ie5 l:, xc l ! 22 l:, xc l t2Je2+ 23 �fl
tt:Jxcl 24 'ifxf7+ with a draw.
20 ...'iffS 21 l:, cS tt:Jes
2 1 ... 'ifxc5 22 dxc5 l:. xd 1+ came into
consideration, although in this case too after
23 �h2 l:, d5 24 'ifxf6 l:, xc5 25 tt:Jg5
Black's defence becomes increasingly dif­
ficult with every move.
22 tt:JxeS fxeS (D)
w
23 'ifcl 1-0
Black resigned in view of the forced vari­
ation 23 ... l:, xc5 24 dxc5 l:, xdl+ 25 'ifxd l
'ife4 26 'if cl 'ifc6 27 'if g5+ �f8 28
'ifxe5 and then h4-h5 .
White: A.Sokolsky
Black: L .Shamkovich
2 n d USSR C C C h , 1 9 5 2 - 5 5
Grunfeld Defence D87
Notes by Aleksey Sokolsky
1 d4 tL'if6 2 c4 g6 3 tL'ic3 dS 4 cxdS tL'ixdS S
e4 tt:Jxc3 6 bxc3 cS 7 Jtc4 Jtg7 8 tL'ie2 0-0
9 0-0 tL'ic6 10 Jte3 'ifc7
1 0 . . .cxd4 1 1 cxd4 Jtg4 1 2 f3 l2Ja5 is
usually played. Shamkovich chooses a new
continuation. Black's idea is not to open the
c-file, which can be used by White, but to
continue the pressure on the pawn centre.
Now 1 1 dxc5 is bad in view of l l . . . tL'ie5 1 2
Jtb3 l2Jg4.
11 l:. cl Jtd7 12 f4 e6
 White was threatening to launch an of­
fensive with 1 3 f5 ! . Even so, as the course
of the game shows, the pawn sacrifice is
faulty. 1 2 . . . tba5 followed by ... f7-f5 was
correct.
13 dxcS tlJaS 14 �b3 : fe8
Preparing 1 5 ... �f8. 14 ... : fd8 was
weaker on account of 15 �d6 : ac8 1 6
: cd l � f8 1 7 �xc7 : xc7 1 8 f5 ! exf5 1 9
exf5 gxf5 2 0 : xf5 .
lS �d6 ! : ac8 16 : rdl �c6 17 eS bS
18 �xc7
If 1 8 cxb6 Black could have replied
1 8 ... �b7 ! , gaining counterplay on the light
squares.
18 ... : xc7 19 : d6 �f8 20 tlJd4 ! (D)
A positional exchange sacrifice. After its
acceptance the strong, protected d6-pawn
will be more than sufficient compensation.
20 ... �d7 21 �f2 �xd6 22 cxd6 : b7 23
�dl tbc4 24 �f3 : b6 2S tlJb3 tt:Jxe3 26
�xe3 : c8 27 tlJd2 rs
A clever defence. Black could not allow
the manoeuvre of the white knight to f6.
Of course, it is unfavourable for White to
capture en passant, since then he loses his
d6-pawn.
28 g4 � c6 29 gxfS gxfS
At first sight Black has defended against
the threats and does not stand badly. Both in
the event of 30 ttJ b3 �xf3 3 1 �xf3 : bc6
and after 30 �xc6 : bxc6 his pressure on
the c-file gives him counter-chances. White
therefore decides to sacrifice a pawn, to
block the c-file.
30 c4 ! bxc4 31 �xc6 : bxc6 32 tlJf3 h6
The best chance. 32 ... c3 33 tlJd4 �f7
34 tt:Jxc6 : xc6 35 �d3 etc. was bad for
Black, while if 32 ... : e8 there follows 33
tlJd4 : a6 (33 ... : cs 34 d7) 34 : xc4 and
then : c7, winning easily. [In. my view,
after 34 . . . : a3+ 35 tlJb3 : ds the win for
White would still have been a long way off
- S.G.]
33 tlJd4 : a6 (D)
w
If now White takes the e6-pawn, then
after 34 tt:Jxe6 : a3+ 35 �f2 : xa2+ 36
�g3 : a3+ 37 �h4 �f7 3 8 d7 : gs ! 39
dStlJ+ �e7 the chances are with Black.
However, by sacrificing his rook, White
wms.
34 : xc4 ! : a3+
The main variation 34... : xc4 35 d7 !
: xd4! 36 �xd4 : a4+ 37 �c5 : as+ 38
�d6 �f7! 39 d8� : ds+ 40 �c7 : xd8
4 1 �xd8 would have led to a pawn ending
in which, despite the material equality, the
strong position of the white king would have
decided the outcome.
3S tlJb3 1-0
[It would seem that Black conceded de­
feat prematurely. After 35 ... : d8 !, it would
still have demanded considerable efforts by
White to reach his goal. S.G.]
-
 �
3rd USSR CC Championship ( 1 955- 1 957)

N2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1 G.Borisenko Leningrad . l Y2 Yz 1 1 0 1 l 1h 1 Yz 1 9
"'' .,.
2 P.Dubinin Gorky 0 bf•..• ..• , •• +; Yz 0 1 1 1 1 1 Yz 1 1 1 9
3 V.Zagorovsky Voronezh Yz Yz t��:li Yz Yz Y2 1 0 1 1 Yz Yz 1 71h.
4 M.Abramson Simferopol Yz 1 Yz ' 1h Yz 0 Y2 Yz 1 Y2 Yz 1 7
Moscow �
5 A.Konstantinopolsky 0 0 Yz Y2 ·· · 1 Yz 1 Yz Y2 Yz l l 7 Q...

6 M.Abroshin Saratov 0 0 Yz Y2 0 �ll[ !iil� 1 Yz Yz 1 1 1 Yz 6 1h. �

....

7 I.Veltmander Izhevsk 1 0 0 1 Y2 0 1fi t'·m 1 0 11:z 1 1 Yz 6 1h. �

�
.....
8 Yu.Shaposhnikov Kuibyshev 0 0 1 Yz 0 Y2 0 0 1 1 1 Y2 51h.
\5·••·•..J. •

9 V.Bibikov Moscow 0 0 0 Yz Y2 Yz 1 1 0 Y2 0 1 5
..,.
1 0 A.Sadomsky Moscow Yz Yz 0 0 Yz 0 1h 0 1 Y2 Y2 1 5
1 1 N.Aratovsky Saratov 0 0 Yz Y2 Yz 0 0 0 Y2 Yz I 1 41h.
Ivanovo le?
1 2 G.Lapin Yz 0 Yz Y2 0 0 0 0 1 Y2 0 Yz 31h.
Stalingrad ••••••
1 3 D.Grechkin 0 0 0 0 0 Y2 Yz Y2 0 0 0 Y2 . 2

N.Kozlov (Vyska) and Y. Zhdarsky (Bugulma) withdrew; their games were cancelled.
 Third Championship (1955-1957)
THE FINAL of the Third Championship
was preceded by a tough struggle in the
semi-final groups, which included some
subsequently well-known masters, and
among the participants we meet the names
of two well-known organisers - the future
director of Soviet correspondence players
Yakov Eventov (ICCF Vice-President) and
Boris Rozinov, an outstanding organiser of
correspondence tournaments.
Fifteen players - masters and the winners
of the semi-finals - were admitted into the
final of the 3rd USSR Championship. But
only thirteen reached the finish - Kozlov
from Vyksa and Zhdyarsky from Bugulma
dropped out in mid-tournament, unable to
withstand the tension. The tournament arbi­
ter, who on this occasion too was Vladimir
Zbandutto, decided to exclude them and to
discount the results of the games they had
finished.
For the sake of historical accuracy, I
should mention that Kozlov had already
lost to Shaposhnikov, while Zhdyarsky had
to his credit two draws with Abroshin and
Lapin.
Great interest was provoked by the par­
ticipation of the masters Georgy Borisenko
and Vladimir Zagorovsky. Borisenko, a
native of Chuguev who was then living in
Leningrad, was successful in the champion­
ships of the city on the Neva, twice finished
in the top five in the championship of the
Russian Federation, and eight times earned
the right to play in the final of the USSR
Championship.
In 1 950, making his debut in the main
tournament of the country, the then Lenin­
grad master gained a convincing win over
the celebrated grandmaster Vasily Smyslov.
In the same year, 1 950, Georgy Borisenko
first began playing in correspondence
events.
Vladimir Zagorovsky became a USSR
master of sport in 1 948, three years later
won the USSR Armed Forces Champion­
ship, and in 1 952 became Moscow Cham­
pion. As Professor Zagorovsky recalls, in
1 952 he was elected on to the Presidium
of the All-Union Chess Section, where he
was entrusted with the ' curatorship' of corr­
espondence players. In 1 954 Zagorovsky
moved from Moscow to Voronezh and
decided to try his hand at playing against
his 'wards' .
On this occasion the championship was
even more Russian than the previous ones.
Among the 1 3 players in the final table,
the only non-Russian representative was
Abramson from Simferopol, who had be­
come a Ukrainian resident. (The town of
Simferopol was the capital of the Crimean
Republic, which in 1 954, in honour of
the 300th anniversary of the union of the
Ukraine with Russia, was transferred from
Russia to the Ukraine. So that if the tourna­
ment had begun a year earlier, it would have
been a purely Russian event.)
In one of the first games of the tourna­
ment to finish, Borisenko defeated Pyotr
Dubinin. The result of this game, as it later
transpired, was virtually decisive in deter­
mining the winner. Soon Borisenko suffered
his first defeat at the hands of the master
Veltmander and Dubinin drew level with
him. In the first half of 1 956 it had already
become clear that the battle for the cham­
pionship would be between Borisenko and
Dubinin, who each had 4Yz points out of 6.
By the start of 1 957 Dubinin was the
first to complete the event with an excel­
lent result 9 points out of 12. At this point
-
Borisenko had Th points out of 10 and his
games with Bibikov and Zagorovsky were
still in progress. In the end he managed to
overcome the resistance of the Muscovite,
while with the player from Voronezh he
shared the point. As a result he, like, Dubi­
nin, finished on 9 points.
The Sonneborn-Berger coefficient and the
result of their individual meeting were both
in Borisenko's favour, but the regulations
concerning the USSR Championship did not
provide for a share of first place. Therefore
both these outstanding players were named
champion of the country. I should mention
that on this occasion only three unfinished
games had to be adjudicated.
An excellent example of 'calculating'
play was given by Borisenko in the follow­
ing game.
White: G .Borise nko
Black: D .Grechkin
3 rd USSR C C C h , 1 95 5-5 7
Queen 's Gambit Accepted
D2 1
1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 llJf3 a6 4 e4
Borisenko 's patent. In his inexhaustible
arsenal of opening novelties, after the rec­
ommended 4 ... b5 5 a4 j&b7 he had prepared
6 b3 . In the same tournament, this pawn sac­
rifice for the initiative, which transforms a
pseudo-gambit into a real one, was accepted
by Aratovsky. But... he stumbled. We
should not forget that the original meaning
of the Italian 'il gambetto' is ' trip' . Grechkin
avoids this continuation, but the reply cho­
sen by him has a significant defect Black
falls greatly behind in development.
4 ... c5 5 Jtxc4 cxd4 6 llJxd4
The exchange of queens would have al­
lowed Black to complete his development
successfully by 6 'if xd4 7 llJxd4 e6
and 8 ... Jtd7.
6...e5 ?(D)
This committing move demanded an
extremely accurate calculation of the re­
sulting complications, which tum out to
favour White. The pawn should have been
advanced only one square - 6 . . . e6.
w
7 'ifa4+ !
7 'iVb3 is less promising on account of
7 . . . 'ifc7 ! . It is extremely dangerous to ac­
cept the piece sacrifice with 7 . . . 'ifxd4 on
account of 8 @d8 9 0-0! and White
has a strategically won position.
7 ...1Vd7
The following variations favour White:
(a) 7 . . . b5 8 j&xb5+ (8 lLixb5 llJc6 9
llJ5c3 I 0 llJd5 etc. is also pretty
convincing.) 8 ... axb5 9 'ifxa8 'ifxd4 1 0
'iVxb8;
(b) 7 ... llJc6 8 llJxc6 bxc6 (8 ... 'ifd7 9
Jtxt7+) 9 'ifxc6+ and wins;
(c) 8 V/ib3 V/ic7 9 i&xf7+
1 0 j&g5+ llJf6 I 1 llJe6+ and wins.
(d) 7 ... llJd7 ! ? came into consideration:
8 llJfS g6 9 Jtxt7+ @xf7 1 0 @f6
1 1 h4 and now 1 L.'iVa5+, rather than the
line in various commentaries 1 1 . . .h6
12 hxg5 1 3 hxg5+ @xg5 14 :i xh8
gxf5 1 5 1ffxg8+ @f6 1 6 :i h6+ winning
the queen.
8 j&b5 axb5 9 V/ixa8 tfxd4 10 tfxb8
j&b4+ 1 1 lLic3 !
An unexpected refutation. After 1 1 j&d2
or 1 1 tfxe4+ White would have had
problems.
1 1 ... V/ixe4+
 After l l .. . .i,xc3+ 1 2 bxc3 'ifxc3+ 1 3
.i,d2! 'ifxal+ 1 4 �e2 'ifd4 ( 1 4 ... 'ifxh l ??
1 5 'if xc8+ �e7 1 6 .i,b4+ �f6 17 'iff5
mate) 1 5 'ifxc8+ 'ifd8 1 6 'ifxb7 the out­
come is not in doubt.
12 .i,e3 {ije7 13 'if c7 !
This prevents castling, since after
1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4 0-0 .i_xc3 1 5 'ifxe7 White
has a great advantage.
13 ... .i,xc3+ 14 bxc3 'ifc6
1 4 . . . 'ifxg2 1 5 0-0-0 ! with the threat of
1 6 'ifd8 mate, against which there is no
satisfactory defence.
15 'ifxe5 1-0
If l 5 ... f6 there could have followed 16 'ifc5
'ifxg2 17 0-0-0 and White's threats become
increasingly dangerous with every move.
One of Pyotr Dubinin's best creative.
achievements in the tournament was his
game with Iogannes Veltmander.
White: P. D ubinin
Black: l .Veltmander
3 rd USSR CC C h , 1 955-57
Ruy Lopez C 75
Notes by Pyotr Du binin
1 e4 e5 2 {ijf3 tiJc6 3 .i,b5 a6 4 .i,a4 d6 5
c3 .i,d7 6 d4 {ijf6
Another good continuation here is
6 ... tLJge7 7 .i,b3 h6 and then, according to
circumstances, 8 ... tiJg6 or even 8 ... g5.
7 'ife2
White made this move with the aim of
avoiding the well-known variations that
arise after 7 tiJbd2 or 7 0-0. The opening
phase takes an original course.
7 ... .i,e7 8 0-0 0-0 9 d5 tiJhS
9 ... tiJd4 is bad on account of 10 cxd4
.i,xa4 1 1 tiJc3 ( 1 1 dxe5 .i,b5 1 2 'ifc2
dxe5) l 1 .. .exd4 1 2 tiJxa4 b5 1 3 tiJxd4
bxa4 1 4 tiJc6 with very strong pressure for
White.
10 .i,c2 c6 !
Black immediately begins undermining
White 's centre.
1 1 dxc6
The attempt to maintain the outpost in
the centre would have led to simplification
and a probable draw: 1 1 c4 cxd5 ( 1 1 . . . .i,g4
12 h3 .i,h5 is possible) 1 2 cxd5 .i,b5 1 3
.i,d3 .i,xd3 1 4 'ifxd3 tiJbd7. Meanwhile,
White' s chief aim is to maintain the tension,
even at the cost of allowing the opponent
counter-chances.
1 1 ... bxc6
Of course, 1 1 ... tiJxc6 or 1 1 .. . .i,xc6 was
possible, but the move in the game gives
Black the possibility of later creating a flex­
ible centre.
12 a4
If 12 c4 Black could have invaded with
his knight on d4 after 1 2 ... c5.
12... tiJeS 13 {ija3 f5 (D)
1 3 . .. g6 followed by ... tiJg7 and ... f7-f5
was more accurate.
w
14 exf5 .i,xf5 15 .i,xf5 : xf5 16 {ijc4 : n
1 7 : dl 'ifc7 18 a5 tiJd7
I thought that the congestion of Black's
pieces ('ifc7; : n, tiJd7, tiJe8 and .i,e7)
and also the weakness of his pawns (c6,
d6 and e5) would give White some posi­
tional advantage. However, over the next
few moves Black is able to show that his
chances are better.
19 b4 .i,f6 20 : a2 d5 21 {ij b2 e4 22 tiJd4
.i,e5 23 h3
[23 'ifh5 !? came into consideration, and
if 23 . . . C2Jdf6 24 'lth4, leaving Black with
only an insignificant advantage. - S.G.]
23... Jlxd4
If 23 ... cS White was intending to con­
tinue 24 CLie6! 'ltc6 2S ctJgS l::!. f8 [Af­
ter 2S ... l::!, e7 or 2S . . . l::!. fS the two sides'
chances can be considered roughly equal.
- S.G.] 26 c4! Jld4 27 Jle3 with the bet­
ter position, for example: 27 ... h6 28 Jlxd4
cxd4 29 cxdS 'ltxdS 30 'lfxe4 and Black
stands badly (30 ... 'ltxa2?? 3 1 'lth7 mate, or
30 . . . 'lf xgS 3 1 'lfxa8).
24 cxd4
After 24 l::!, xd4 ctJ d6 2S c4 ctJfS 26
l::!, dl 'lies Black would have gained a very
strong position in the centre and an attack
on the king.
24 ... ctJ d6 25 Jle3 tLlb5 26 l::!, cl 'ltd6 27
'ltd2 l::!, af8 28 CLia4 l::!. f6 29 CLic5 ctJb8
(D)
w change. The following exchange sacrifice
Black has a clear plan: his knight at b8 is
defending the weak a6- and c6-pawns, and
in the meantime his heavy pieces should be
able to attack the white king' s position, with
the knight at bS coming to their aid.
To defend against Black' s attack,
White carries out the curious queen ma­
noeuvre 'ltd2-e2-hS-eS-h2, which simul­
taneously serves defensive and offensive
aims.
30 'lte2 ! l::!, g6 31 'lth5 'ltd8 32 l::!, ac2
ctJ d6
After 32 ... CLia3 3 3 l::!, c3 CLic4 White
would, of course, have sacrificed the ex­
change on c4.
33 'lies : rs 34 'lth2 !
The idea of White' s manoeuvre. Here the
queen not only defends the king, but it also
creates pressure along the h2-b8 diagonal.
34 ... l::!, gf6 ?
Veltmander fails to withstand the tension
and he relaxes his vigilance. Black prevents
the manoeuvre of the bishop to f4, but he
overlooks White' s combination.
He should have played 34 ... 'ltf8 ! . If
34 . . . 'lfh4 White was proposing to play 3S
C2Jb7 CLixb7 36 'ltxb8+ l::!, f8 37 'lth2 ! .
[After the obvious 3 7 'ltxb7 Black
would have forced a draw by 37 . . . 'ltxh3
3 8 g3 l::!, xg3+ 39 fxg3 'lfxg3+ with per­
petual check, but also after 37 'lth2? !
C2Jd8 ! ? Black' s position is still not worse.
- S.G.]
35 g4 !
Although this move weakens White' s po­
sition, it brings him a material advantage.
35... l::!, g6
If 3S ... l::!, f3 36 JlgS winning the ex­
shows that Black's 'fortress' on the queen­
side is by no means as impregnable as it
appears.
36 CLixa6 ! (D)
After defending his kingside, White de­
cides the game with a combination on the
queenside. The attempt by Black to obtain
an attack with 36 ... 'lfh4 is unsuccessful. For
example: 3 7 CLixb8 l::!, f3 3 8 l::!, xc6 [Simpler
is 38 CLixc6 and Black must resign. - S.G.]
38 . . . l::!, xh3 39 l::!, c8+ �t7 40 l::!, l c7+ �e6
41 'lies mate.
B
36 ... tLixa6 37 : xc6 '2ixb4 38 : xd6
'iVxd6
With 38 ... : xd6 Black could have avoid­
ed the exchange of queens, but after 39 gxf5
his position would have remained difficult.
39 'iVxd6 : xd6 40 gxf5 : a6 41 : b l !
'2ic2
After 4 1 ... '2ic6 42 : b6 : xb6 43 axb6
ctJd8 44 i,g5 '2ib7 (44 ... t2Jc6? 45 b7 and
46 i,f4) 45 @g2 @fl 46 �g3 g6 47 �f4
the endgame is hopeless for Black.
42 : b5 '2ia3 43 : xd5 '2ic4 44 : c5
'2ixa5 45 @h2 : as 46 �g3 '2ib7 47
: d5 : f8 48 @g4 : f7 49 i,f4 @f8 50
i,e5 l-O
Pyotr Vasilievich Dubinin ( 1 909- 1 983)
was born in Warsaw into the family of Vas­
ily Dubinin, a labourer in a metallurgy fac­
tory. Dubinin's mother, Maria Leontevna,
was Polish by nationality. After the start
of the First World War the Dubinin family
moved to Nizhny Novgorod. The father,
worn out by the constant search for work
and the struggle to make a living, died of
exhaustion in 1 92 1 . At the age of 14 Pyotr
Dubinin was forced to become a dock hand,
beginning life as a labourer.
On the advice of a school friend Dubinin
joined the Nizhny Novgorod chess club, a
branch of the former All-Russian chess un­
ion. Regularly attending lessons at the club,
Petya kept a diary, which he later called 'My
chess career' .
Soon he became one o f the strongest
in the club and at the end of 1 924 he also
tried his hand at composing chess problems
and studies. In 1 930 Pyotr Dubinin became
champion of Nizhny Novgorod for the first
time.
In 1 934 the representative of Gorky (as
Nizhny Novgorod was now called) took sec­
ond place in the championship of the Rus­
sian Federation, not losing a single game,
and in the same year he made his debut in
the final of the USSR Championship. In
1 93 8 Pyotr Dubinin was awarded the title of
USSR Master of Sport.
In the post-war years Pyotr Dubinin
became attracted by correspondence play,
in which he achieved outstanding results,
thanks to his knowledge of theory, his abil­
ity to analyse deeply and comprehensively,
and the possibility of considering each move
for a long time, without thinking about the
clock. In correspondence play he achieved
impressive results and had practically no
disappointing performances.
ICCF grandmaster, World Championship
silver medal winner and several times a
prize-winner in USSR Championships - this
is a far from complete list of his victories. I
should also mention that Pyotr Dubinin had
a particularly responsible approach to team
tournaments. Three times as a member of
the USSR team he won the ICCF Olympiad,
and twice, playing for the Russian Federa­
tion team, he was a winner of the all-union
championship.
All his life Pyotr Dubinin played at the
very highest level both over the board, and
by correspondence. Among his opponents in
over-the-board play were world champions
Botvinnik, Smyslov and Petrosian, and can­
didates for the world championship Keres,
Kotov and others.
And among his ' invisible opponents' it
is sufficient to mention five ICCF world
champions: Ragozin, O'Kelly, Estrin, Pal­
ciauskas and Zagorovsky.
For Vladimir Zagorovsky, his participa­
tion in the final of the USSR CC Ch, to
which, as an over-the-board master, he was
admitted without having to qualify, marked
his debut in correspondence play. After fin­
ishing third, Zagorovsky did not participate
in any more USSR Championships, but
switched completely to ICCF competitions,
in which he achieved splendid results (vic­
tory in the individual world championship,
twice winner in the world team champion­
ship and others), a description of which lies
outside the scope of the present book.
One of the games from the USSR
Championship was included by Vladimir
Zagorovsky in the book of his best corre­
spondence games.
 White : V.Zagorovsky
Black: I . Ve ltmander
3rd USSR C C C h , 1 9 5 5- 5 7
Ruy Lop ez C 73
Notes by Vlad imir
Zagorovsky
1 e4 e5 2 CLJf3 l2Jc6 3 �b5 a6 4 �a4 d6
5 �xc6+
In over-the-board play in the 40s and 50s I
usually played 5 �xc6+ against the Steinitz
Defence Deferred. I remained faithful to this
move in this, one of my first correspondence
games. Later I switched to 5 c3 .
5... bxc6 6 d4 f6 7 �e3 l2Je7 8 l2Jc3 CLJg6
9 Vi'd2 �e7 10 0-0-0 � b8 11 h4 h5 12
dxe5 l2Jxe5 13 l2Jxe5 dxe5 ?
A mistake; correct was 1 3 . . . fxe5, when I
was intending to play 14 �g5.
14 Vi'e2 �d6 (D)
(See the diagram in the next column.)
15 �c5 !
Black has unexpectedly ended up in a
difficult position. If 1 5 . . .0-0 there follows
1 6 Vi'd3, when White wins material. After
1 5 . . . Vi'd7 he has the strong reply 1 6 Vi'c4.
15...Vi'e7 16 �xd6 cxd6 17 Vi'd2 �d7 18
� h3 !
Events develop by force.
w
18 ... � d8 19 l2J a4 @e6 20 � d3 Vi'c7 21
Vi'e2 g6
The variation 2 1 . ..Vi'a5 22 Vi'xh5 Vi'xa4
23 � xd6+ � xd6 ends in mate - 24 Vi'e8.
22 Vi'd2 !
The manoeuvres of the white queen on
the two adjacent squares have led to an
even greater weakening of Black' s position.
To avoid the worst he decides to give up a
pawn.
22 ... cS 23 � d5 @e7
23 . . . c4 24 � c5 was no better.
24 l2Jxc5 � b5 25 l2Ja4 � xd5 26 Vi'xd5
�e6 27 Vi'd3 Vi'c4 28 Vi'xc4 �xc4 29
CLJb6 �e6 30 CLJd5+ �xd5 31 � xd5
I was in no doubt that the rook endgame
was won for White, and the further course of
the game confirmed my conclusion.
31...gS 32 hxg5 fxg5 33 @d2 h4 34 @e3
g4 35 f4 ! h3 36 gxh3 gxh3 37 fxe5 � h8 38
exd6+ @d7 39 � dl h2 40 � hl @xd6 41
�f4 @e6 42 b3 as 43 @g3 1-0
 Fourth Championship
(1957-1960)
ON THE 1 5th of December 1 957, sixteen
competitors, among whom were seven
masters, five candidate masters and four
first category players, began play in the
4th USSR Correspondence Championship.
The non-Russians were Leon Maseev, a
candidate master from Odessa, who had
won one of the semi-finals, and two Latvian
representatives: Alexander Koblencs, who
had been personally invited, and a semi-fi­
nal qualifier Igor Zhdanov. The tournament
arbiter was the Muscovite G. Klompus.
When the tournament was in full swing,
an observation by Vladimir Nevsky ( 1 903-
1 960), secretary of the USSR Chess Federa­
tion Commission for correspondent events,
was published in the magazine 'Shakhmaty
v SSSR', reflecting on the attitude of the
sports authorities to correspondence play.
In this article, written not long before his
death, Vladimir Viktorovich Nevsky, a corr­
espondence play propagandist, remarked
sadly that the correspondence championship
was the only one in which the winner was
not recognised in any way.
Nevsky suggested awarding medals to
the winners of the correspondence cham­
pionship, establishing the master norm in
the championship final, allowing candidate
masters to confirm their rank in correspond­
ence events, and in general taking seriously
the ranking of correspondence players. The
proposal was not ignored, and the very next
year the sports authorities confirmed the
awarding of medals to the top three in the
correspondence championship. A memo­
randum, that was to play an historic role in
the fate of our correspondence players, was
also published - to obtain the title of chess
master of sport it was sufficient to occupy
one of the top three places in the final of the
correspondence chess championship.
The press made practically no reports on
the course of the play, which continued for
about two and a half years. Only the Riga
magazine ' S ahs' ( 1 960, No 8) gave a brief
.
report, saying that things were not going
too well for the Latvian representatives.
Koblencs had 2Yz out of 5 and Zhdanov 4
out of 9.
The leader, meanwhile, was the first
category player Anatoly Sadomsky with
9 points out of 12. Pyotr Dubinin had the
same number of points, but after 1 4 games.
Also in contention for a high place was the
Odessa player Leon Maseev, who at that
moment had 8 points out of 1 3.
When the magazine ' Shakhmaty v SSSR'
 �
0
4th USSR CC Championship ( 1 957- 1 960)

NQ l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

l A.Sadomsky Moscow
rn., Vi y, y, 1 Y2 y, 1 Y2 0 1 1 1 1 1 Vi l O ':h

2 P.Dubinin Gorky Yi 1 y, 1 Y2 I Yi 0 Y2 Y2 l Y2 I y, 1 10

3 L.Maseev Odessa y, 0 l y, Y2 1 1 1 Y2 1 Y2 Y2 0 I Yi 9':h

r 1;,
4 L.Aronin Moscow Y2 y, 0 Y2 I 1 Y2 Y2 y, Y2 Y2 Y2 1 I 9

5 A.Konstantinopolsky Moscow 0 0 Y2 Yi ·•.

1 0 Yi Y2 1 Yz y, Y2 1 1 1 S'h
Moscow
- >
l S'h
�
Q.
6 Ya.Estrin Yi Yi Y2 0 0 •• 1 0 0 Yi 1 y, l 1 1
,..
Kuibyshev 1;, ·7·7
('I)
7 Yu.Shaposhnikov Y2 0 0 I 0 il• Y2 0 0 l I 1 1 y, 1 8 ....
'{ ...::: Cb
Moscow ..
. 71/z
8 R.Altshuler 0 Y2 0 0 Y2 I Y2 . Yz Y2 1 Yi Yi Yi Y2 1
c;i
9 V.Baturinsky Moscow y, 1 0 Yi y, 0 1 Yi 1 Yi I Yi 0 0 Y2 7'h
lO I.Zhdanov Riga 1 Y2 Yi Yz 0 1 1 Yi 0 0 0 l 0 y, 1 7'h
1.:J
Kuibyshev ::
11 L.Fink 0 Y2 0 Y2 Yi Yi 0 0 y, 1 y, y, Yi 1 1 7
Nizhny Tagil ••%"·
12 G.Ovchinkin 0 0 y, Yz Yz 0 0 Y2 0 1 Yz y, I Y2 y, 6
.
Izhevsk
13 I. Veltmander 0 Yi Yi Y2 Yi Yi 0 Y2 Y2 0 y, Yi /t l 0 0 SY:z
Saratov . . ..
14 M.Abroshin 0 0 1 Y2 0 0 0 y, l l Yi 0 0 •••
'h 0 5

15 A.Koblencs Riga 0 'Ii 0 0 0 0 y, 1;, 1 y, 0 Yi l Yi 0 5

�··

16 V.Kryukov Cheliabinsk y, 0 y, 0 0 0 0 0 Yi 0 0 Yi 1 1 1 5
(1961 No. I) published the final table, it
turned out that, although Dubinin won his
last game, he finished half a point behind
Sadomsky. Thus, together with the famous
player from Nizhy Novgorod, the leading
trio included two players who did not have
the master title - Sadomsky and Maseev.
One striking result was the failure of the
master Aleksandrs Koblencs, several times
champion of Latvia and Riga, and a par­
ticipant in the USSR Championship final of
1 945. However, Koblencs was best known
as the trainer and second for many years
(from 1955 to 1 979) of Mikhail Tal.
The championship showed that over-the­
board players were not always able to con­
firm their class in correspondence play. The
unofficial match between the four first cat­
egory players and the seven masters ended
in a 1 5 - 1 3 victory for the former. Anatoly
Sadomsky and Leon Maseev became the
first masters in the history of USSR chess to
gain this title as the result of a correspond­
ence event.
In his youth Leon Iosifovich Maseev
(1 909-1 972) played in minor tournaments in
Odessa, reaching the second category. His
best achievement in the pre-war years was
second place in the 1 939 Odessa Champi­
onship. Back in the 1 930s Maseev became
interested in correspondence play, and he
scored some victories in local tournaments.
In 1 934 in a strong tournament in which
the masters Konstantinopolsky, Manevich
and Rauzer participated, Leon Maseev took
third place, winning an interesting game
against Rauzer.
Maseev's participation in the war, in
which he was seriously wounded, forced
him for a long time to give up chess, even by
post. Only in the 1 950s did he again begin
taking part in correspondence events. After
victories in qualifying events there followed
first places in the semi-finals of the 4th and
5th USSR Championships. And in the final
of the 4th Championship he led for a long
time, after defeating several masters. Here is
one of these wins.
White: L . Maseev
Black: L . Aronin
4th USSR CC Ch, 1 9 5 7 - 6 0
Hungarian Defence C50
1 e4 e5 2 tbt3 t2Jc6 3 j,c4 d6 4 tbc3 j,e7
5 h3 j,f6 ?
5 ... j,e6 or 5 ... t2Jf6 is more natural.
6 d3 tba5 7 j,b3 t2Jxb3 8 axb3 tbe7 9
j,e3 d5 10 d4 exd4 11 j,xd4 j,xd4 ?
An oversight. It was better to go into
the variation l l . . .dxe4 1 2 j,xf6 exf3 1 3
'iVxd8+ @xd8 1 4 0-0-0+ j,d7 1 5 j,xg7
fxg2 1 6 j,xh8 gxh 1 'iV 1 7 � xh 1 , when
Black has a defensible position.
12 'iVxd4 0-0 13 0-0-0 c6 14 exd5 cxd5 15
t2Jxd5 t2Jxd5 16 'iVxd5 (D)
B
16... 'iVf6
The exchange of queens 16 ... 'iVxd5 1 7
� xd5 b6 1 8 � hd l j,b7 was the lesser evil.
17 � hel h6 18 'iVeS 'iVa6 19 @bl b5 20
� d6 'iVaS 21 t2Jd4 j,b7 22 tLirs f6 23
t2Je7+ 1-0
After gaining the master title for his result
in the 4th OSSR CC Ch, Leon Maseev con­
firmed his ranking by winning the bronze
medal in the following 5th Championship.
Then, as a member of the USSR team, he
won a gold medal in the 4th Correspondence
Olympiad. In 1 964 the player from Odessa
was awarded the title of international master
in correspondence play.
 The chief hero of the fourth USSR
Championship was the epidemiologist Ana­
toly Mikhailovich Sadomsky ( 1 9 1 0- 1 989).
He was born in Orenburg and became inter­
ested in chess at the time of the first Mos­
cow International Tournament in 1 925. Like
many others, he fell ill with 'chess fever'.
The 'illness' proved protracted. He played
in many tournaments in his youth, reaching
first category status.
It was as a first category player that Ana­
toly Sadomsky began playing in correspond­
ence tournaments. He won the USSR Cham­
pionship semi-final, shared 3rd-6th places in
the final of the 2nd Championship, 1 st-2nd
places in the semi-final of the 4th, and in
the main tournament he was completely tri­
umphant. l OYz points out of 1 5 brought him
victory, and against the seven masters the
first category player scored 5 points!
White: M .Abroshin
Black: A.Sadomsky
4th USSR CC Ch , 1 9 5 7-60
Ruy Lopez CBB
Notes by Anatoly Sadomsky
1 e4 eS 2 t2Jf3 tLlc6 3 �bS a6 4 �a4 tLlf6
S 0-0 �e7 6 : el bS 7 �b3 0-0 8 d3 d6
9 c3 tLlaS 10 �c2 cS 11 t2Jhd2 tLlc6 12
·
tt:Jn �e6
After 1 2. . . . : e8 1 3 tt:Je3 d5 14 exd5
tt:Jxd5 1 5 tt:Jxd5 'ifxd5 possible is 1 6 d4 !,
with the initiative for White, Alekhine­
Eliskases, 1 936.
13 tt:Je3 'ifc7 14 tt:Jgs
14 d4 was preferable.
14...dS lS exdS tLlxdS 16 tt:Jxe6 fxe6 17
'ifg4
In his 'Teoriya Shakhmatnykh Debyu­
tov' (Theory of Chess Openings) Paul Keres
suggests that after 1 7 'if g4 Black has some
difficulties. However, after the very next
move Black's lead in development becomes
evident.
17 ... tt:Jf4 ! 18 g3 ?
This leads to a rapid debacle. 1 8 �b3
also gives nothing because of 1 8 . . . : f6.
White should have admitted the faultiness
of his strategy and withdrawn his knight
to fl , in order then to bring his queenside
pieces into play.
18...hS 19 'ifdl t2Jh3+ 20 i;t>g2 t2Jxf2 21
'ifxh5 (D)
B
21...tLlb4 !
The decisive blow. Against the threats of
22 ...'ifc6+ and 22 ... tt:Jxc2 there is no defence.
22 �dl
After 22 cxb4 'ifc6+ 23 i;t>fl t2Jh3+ 24
i;t>e2 : f2+ 25 i;t>dl : xh2 White loses his
queen or is mated.
22 ... tLibxd3 23 : n tLlxdl 24 : xdl t2Jf2
0-1
Anatoly Sadomsky gained a striking win
against the first USSR Champion in corre­
spondence play.
White: A.Konstantinopolsky
Black: A.Sadomsky
4th USSR C C Ch, 1 9 5 7 -60
Reti Opening A 06
1 t2Jf3 dS 2 e3 t2Jf6 3 c4 e6 4 b3 �e7 S
�b2 0-0 6 �e2 b6 7 0-0 cS 8 d4 cxd4 9
tll xd4 Jth7 10 cxd5 tll xd5 1 1 Cll d2 Cll d7
12 .&!. cl tll c5 13 tll c4 .&!. c8
Black has sensibly developed his forces
and achieved a good game. Now 14 a3
suggests itself for White, in order to drive
the knight from its comfortable post by the
advance of the b-pawn. In the game it is the
opponent who first succeeds in doing this.
14 Jtn a6 15 'iYd2 b5 16 lll a 5
16 tll e5 was preferable.
16 ... Jta8 17 b4 lll a4 (D)
18 tll d c6 ?
This is what White had in mind, when he
undertook his 'cavalry' operation. The im­
pression is that it is advantageous for him.
In the event of 1 8 . . . Jtxc6 1 9 tll xc6 'iVd7
20 Jtxd5 tll xb2 2 1 'iVxb2 exd5 22 tll xe7+
'iVxe7 23 .&!. cd l White's positional advan­
tage would have been obvious. But he has
not taken everything into account.
18... Jtxc6 19 tll xc6 .&!. xc6 !
Thanks to this combinative reply, based
on a double attack, Black wins a pawn. Kon­
stantinopolsky tries to exploit the drawing
potential of opposite-colour bishops, but in
the technical phase too Sadomsky is equal to
the task. In addition to the passed pawn on
the queenside he also needs to acquire one
on the kingside.
20 .&!. xc6 tll xb4 21 .&!. c2 tll xc2 22 'iVxc2
tll xb2 23 'iVxb2 'iVb6 24 .&!. cl .&!. d8 25 g3
'iYa5 26 \t>g2 Jtf6 27 'iYb3 g6 28 h4 @g7
29 h5 .&i, d2 30 .&i, c2 .&i, xc2 31 'iVxc2 'iVc3
32 'iVxc3 Jtxc3 33 hxg6 fxg6 ! 34 Jtb7 a5
35 f4 \t>f6 36 g4 h5 ! (D)
w
37 g5+ \t>f7
Avoiding a transparent trap: after
37 ... @f5?? Black would have been mated
in two moves!
38 e4 Jtd2 39 \t>t'3 e5 ! 40 Jtd5+ \t>g7 41
fxe5 @f8 42 e6 Jtxg5 43 e5 Jtd2 44 @e4
@e7 45 \t>d4 g5 46 \t>d3 Jtcl 47 Jte4 g4
48 Jtf5 Jth2 0-1
In later years Anatoly Sadomsky took
part in matches against teams from various
countries, at times achieving good results.
The author remembers with pleasure that in
the last years of his life Sadomsky respond­
ed to the invitation of the author to play in a
thematic tournament.
Anatoly Sadomsky enjoyed some local
successes, but his main achievement re­
mained his victory in the 4th USSR Cham­
pionship.
 t
5th USSR CC Championship ( 1 960"." 1 963)

N2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1 G.Borisenko Sverdlovsk Y1 l 1 l 1 Yi l Yi 1 l l Yi Y1 1 0 l l Yz
.
.

Moscow
2 Ya.Estrin Yi •• q;j.•. lfu Y2 Yi l 1 Y2 1 Yi Yi 1 Y1 1 1 1 1 l l Yz
.
•..
3 L.Maseev Odessa 0 Yi 1 Y2 1 Yi Y1 Yi I Y2 Y2 I I I 1 10112

4 V.Kryukov Cheliabinsk 0 Y2 0 1 1 1 0 Yi Yi Yi Yi 1 I Y2 1 9

5 A.Sokolsky Minsk 0 0 Y2 0 1 Y2 1 1 0 l y, y, Y2 1 1 8 Yz
; ·····
6 N.Andreyev Moscow

Volgograd
0 0 0 0 0 Fc c• cc
I>
0 1 Y2 l 1 l 'lz l l l 8
�
,....
7 D.Grechkin Yi Yi Yi 0 Yi 1 •• Yi I 0 0 1 Yi 0 1 I 8 Cb
....
'*1

8 A.Sadomsky Moscow 0 0 Yi I 0 0 Yi 1·m%m•'-'

r; l I l Y2 0 y, 1 l 8 �
L ••

l lf;2
t;l
9 I.Kramar' Ufa Y2 Y2 Y2 Yi 0 l/2 0 0 I Yi l Yi I Y2 7'12
;
IO K. Yevdokimov Zaporozhie 0 Y2 0 Yi l 0 l 0 Yi 0 Yi 1 I 0 l 7

11 O.Bogatyryov Moscow 0 0 Y2 y, 0 0 J 0 0 I y, l I 0 I 6Yz

[+ L
12 A.Kuznetsov Moscow 0 Yi Y2 Yi Y2 0 0 y, y, y, Y2 v y, Y2 Y2 I 6Yz

13 R.Gorenshtein Yalta Yi 0 0 0 y, Y2 Yi. I 0 0 0 Y2 Y2 I y, 5 Yz

14 N.Golovko Moscow Y2 0 0 0 Yi 0 l y, Y2 0 0 Y2 Y2 0 Yi 4Yz

Sverdlovsk region '
15 A.Rubezov 0 0 0 Yi 0 0 0 0 0 l l y, 0 I ·•···...... y, 4 Yz

16 A.Lukin Osh l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y2 0 0 0 y, Yi y,. 3

;;
, i•Li
 Fifth Championship ( 1960-1963)
SIXTEEN players, including nine masters,
contested the final of the 5th USSR Cham­
pionship. After moving from Leningrad to
Sverdlovsk, Georgy Borisenko - who was
one of the winners of the 3rd Championship
but had missed the 4th - decided to fight
again for the top title in USSR correspond­
ence chess. Anatoly Kuznetsov ( 1 932-2000),
who held the master title in over-the-board
play and in chess composition, decided to
test his strength in correspondence play. The
participation of A.Lukin from the town of
Osh (Kyrgyzstan) extended the geography
of the championship.
The tournament arbiter was Lev Garku­
nov ( 1 90 1 - 1 963). For this well-known
USSR organiser and FIDE international
arbiter, the supervision of this event was to
become his ' swan-song' .
On this occasion the masters confirmed
their class, as indicated by their win in the
'match' against the first category players by
29Yz- 1 5Yz.
The play was quite lively, the masters
Georgy Borisenko and Yakov Estrin emerg­
ing as the clear leaders. The tournament
intrigue was heightened by the fact that by
15th October 1 962 the game between the
favourites was the only one unfinished. The
two rivals had both scored 1 1 points out of
1 4 and it was decided to suggest that they
finish the game by telegram.
Whereas the question of the champion
was not yet finally decided, everything was
clear as regards the bronze medal winner
- for the second time this was Leon Maseev.
Again, on this occasion now ranked a mas­
ter, he finished ahead of several famous
over-the-board players. One of his 'victims'
was Nikolai Golovko ( 1 9 1 7- 1 988), who had
to his credit victories in the championships
of the 'Medik' Voluntary Sports Organisa-
tion (1 949) and of the USSR Armed Forces
( 1 950).
White: L . M aseev
Black: N . Golovko
5 th USSR C C C h , 1 9 60- 6 3
Ruy Lopez C73
Notes by Leon Maseev
1 e4 e5 2 ll:lf3 ll:lc6 3 �b5 a6 4 �a4 d6 5
�xc6+ bxc6 6 d4 f6 7 �e3 !:!. b8
Golovko played this many times and
usually he was able to win the b2-pawn un­
punished. The game Walther-Keres (Zurich
1 959) went 7 ... CL:ie7 8 c4 ll:lg6 9 ll:lc3 �e7
10 h4 h5 1 1 'i¥a4 �d7 12 c5 'i¥b8 I J
0-0-0 a5 1 4 dxe5 fxe5 1 5 a3 with the better
game for White.
8 ll:lc3 !:!. xb2 9 'i¥d3
A new move. In the game Gusev­
Golovko (Moscow Championship Semi­
Final 1 960) there followed 9 dxe5 fxe5 I 0
ll:lxe5 'iVf6 1 1 �d4 dxe5 12 'iVh5+ 'i¥g6
1 3 'iVxe5+ ll:l e7 14 'iVxc7 !:!. xc2 and Black
repelled the attack.
...
9 �d7
Forestalling the combination 10 dxe5
fxe5 1 1 ll:lxe5 dxe5 12 'iVxd8+ �xd8 1 3
0-0-0+ ! .
10 0-0 'i¥c8
A mistake. However, if 10 . . . ll:le7 there
could have followed not only 1 1 dxe5 fxe5
1 2 ll:ld2 and 1 3 f4, similar to the variation
in the game, but also 1 1 dxe5 fxe5 1 2 !:!. ab I
!:!. xb l 1 3 !:!. xb l ll:lg6 14 'iVxa6 �e7 1 5
'iV c4 (or 1 4 'iV c4 immediately). In both
cases White' s position is better.
1 1 dxeS fxeS 12 ll:ld2 fl, b8 13 f4 exf4 14
�xf4 ll:Je7 lS eS dS (D)
w
16 e6 ! �xe6 17 fl, ael �fS 18 'i¥ e3 h6 19
ll:Jb3 g6 20 ll:Jd4 .&l, b6 21 'iVeS .&l, h7 22
�cl °i¥d7 23 �a3 as
23 . . .h5 24 ll:lxf5 gxf5 25 .&l, xf5 was bad
for Black, while if 23 . . . �g7 there would
have followed 24 'i¥xe7+ 'i¥xe7 25 fl, xe7+
@d8 26 ll:lxf5 gxf5 27 @hl c5 28 �xc5
.&!, c6 29 ll:la4 fl, xc5 30 fl, xg7 fl, xg7 3 1
ll:lxc5 and White wins.
24 g4 1-0
The decisive sacrifice of a third pawn.
Black resigned, since after 24 . . . �xg4
there follows 25 °i¥f6 �f5 26 ll:Jxf5 and if
26 ... .&!, f7 (or 26 ... c5), then 27 ll:ld6+. Equal­
ly hopeless is 24 ... �e4 25 ll:lxe4 dxe4 26
'i¥xe4 c5 27 °i¥a8+ 'i¥d8 28 .&l, xf8+.
In the decisive game Estrin-Borisenko,
the following position was reached after
White's 68th move. Black's pieces are
somewhat more actively placed, but how
can he win?
White: Ya .Estrin
Black: G .Borisenko
5th USSR CC C h , 1 9 60- 6 3
The battle in this endgame, which decid­
ed the fate of the gold medal, was annotated
by Yakov Estrin. He remarked that the cause
of White' s difficulties was a combination
involving a pawn sacrifice, which turned
out to be incorrect. As a result White had
to conduct a gruelling defence, and he man­
aged to restore material equality, but Black
still had a positional advantage.
68 ... .&!, c4+ 69 @bl
Not a very comfortable square for the
king, but there is no alternative.
69...e4 70 fl, d8+ @e6 71 ll:lgS+ @f6 !
Of course, not 7 1 .. . @f5? in view of 72
.&!, d5+ and 73 ll:lxe4 with a draw.
72 h4 ! e3 73 fl, c8 !
The only defence, preventing the im­
mediate advance of the pawn - 73 ... e2, on
which there would have followed 74 fl, c6+
and .&!, e6. 73 .&!, e8 would have lost to
73 . . . �e7 ! ; when White has no defence.
73 ... @fS 74 ll:Jf3 e2 ! (D)
But not 74 . . . @e4 75 ll:l e l and Black
himself has to reckon with the advance of
the h-pawn.
w
I have to admit that when I went in for
this position I had been intending to play 75
ll:lel here, assuming that the worst for White
was over. I did not imagine how Borisenko
would be able to strengthen his position, but
I had missed the fact that after 75 l2iel the
unexpected reply 75 ... @e6! followed by
76 . . . @d7 (or 76 .l::l, e8+ il,e7) would free
Black's hands, and the passed e2-pawn
would again become formidably strong. I
was forced to choose a different way.
75 h5 .l::l, c3 ?
Borisenko' s conduct of this ending was
exceptionally resourceful and subtle, and he
was guilty of only this one mistake. On the
other hand, it was hard for Black to foresee
that his opponent would find such an un­
expected, study-like possibility. Instead of
the text move, Black should have played
75 ... @g4! 76 l2iel .l::l, b4+ 77 �c2 il,f2,
forcing White to give up the piece in a less
favourable situation.
76 l2iel il,b4 77 .l::l, xc3 !
White would have lost after 77 .l::l, e8
.l::l, xg3 78 .l::l, xe2 .l::l, g l .
77 ... il,xc3 78 l2id3 (D)
8
This was the position for which my oppo­
nent had aimed, assuming that after 78 ... el 'IV+
79 12ixel il,xel he would win easily, since it
would seem that Black's king and bishop will
easily eliminate both white pawns, while suc­
ceeding in defending their own. However, in
this case White would have gained a study-like
draw with 80 g4+!, for example:
(a) 80 ... �xg4 8 1 h6 @h5 82 h7 il,c3
83 @c2! (here it is, the decisive tempo!)
83 . . . il,f6 84 �b3 @g6 85 @a4 with a
draw. Just in time!
(b) 80 . . . �e4 8 1 �c2 �d5 82 g5 il,b4
(the black bishop is unable to reach the c l -
h6 diagonal, and 82 ... il,h4 does not achieve
anything due to 83 g6 il,f6 84 h6) 83 �b3
�c6 84 h6 il,f8 85 @c4! @b6 86 �d5
a4 87 @e6 a3 88 h7 il,g7 89 �f7 a2 (or
89 ... il,h8 90 g6 a2 91 g7 al 'IV 92 g8'iV) 90
�xg7 al 'IV+ 9 1 @g8 with a draw.
I thought that I had already saved my­
self and that the game was over, since after
78 ... @e4 79 @c2 White has nothing to fear,
but Borisenko unexpectedly found some new
and interesting possibilities, and the position
turned out to be by no means so simple.
78 ... il,d2 !
This is the point! The bishop is switched
to the c l -h6 diagonal, where it prevents the
advance of the white pawns and does not
allow the opponent's king to approach the
e2-pawn.
79 �c2 il,h6 80 12iel @e4 81 �c3 !
White must keep control of the d2-square,
not allowing Black's bishop there. After 8 1
@b3? il,d2 8 2 l2ic2 @d3 the advance of
the a-pawn is decisive.
81...il,g5 82 l2ic2 il,e3 83 g4
The dangers lying in wait for White are
illustrated by the following variation: 83
l2i e l il,f2 84 l2ic2 a4 85 h6 a3 86 h7 a2
87 h8'iV? e l 'iV+ 88 @c4 'iVfl+ 89 @b3
'iVb l + 90 'iVb2 il,d4 ! ! and Black wins.
83 ... il,cl 84 l2iel a4 85 l2ic2 a3 86 @b3
@d3
Black has strengthened his position to the
maximum and now White can move only
his knight from c2 to e l and back again.
87 i2iel+ @d4 88 12ic2+ @e4
What should White play now? If 89 l2i e l
(without check!) there follows 89 . . . il,d2!
23 l2ic2 �d3 24 h6 a2! and Black wins.
89 g5 !
The only move; as will be seen from
what follows, 89 h6 would have lost.
89 ... il,xg5 90 @xa3 il,d2 ! 91 @h3 !
Another important subtlety! 9 1 �b2?
would have lost, as after 9 l . . . �d3 92 @b3
(92 �b l @c3 !) 92 ... il,c3 93 h6 �d2 ! 94
h7 il,f6 White is in zugzwang.
91...�d3 92 h6 ! (D)
 Again the only move! After 92 @b2
@c4 93 tba3+ @d4 94 tbc2+ @d3 95
@b3 �c3 Black wins, as shown in the
previous note.
B
92 ... �xh6
After 92 . . . �c3 White would have gained
a draw by 93 h7 @d2 94 tb e l ! . Now it
becomes clear that if on the 89th move
White had played 89 h6 (instead of 89 g5),
his pawn would have been not at h7, but at
g6, and Black, by playing 94 . . . @xel 95
@xc3 @dl 96 g7 el 'iV+, would have won
immediately.
93 tbel+ @e3 94 tbc2+ !
The final subtlety. It is not hard to see
that White must check the enemy king until
it moves away from its pawn and goes to
e4. Then, by playing @c3, he gains a draw,
since he prevents Black from switching his
bishop to the 'winning diagonal' e l -a5 .
94 ... @d3
If 94 . . . @d2 95 t2Jd4 ! , forcing a draw.
95 tbel + @d2 96 t2Jg2 Yz-Yz
Thus, despite all Borisenko' s efforts, the
decisive game produced a draw, and with it
a share of the champion's title (for the sec­
ond time !) between him and Estrin.
By profession Yakov Borisovich Estrin
°
( 1 923-1 987) was a chess player, but his life
was devoted not only to chess. He was a
great master both in chess, and in the ability
to live in style. Therefore his company was
sought even by the greats of the chess world
- people who were usually very discriminat­
ing in their acquaintances.
Yakov Estrin was born in Moscow in
1 923 into the family of a doctor. In the chess
club of the Moscow Palace of Pioneers and
Schoolchildren he achieved his first ' suc­
cesses. Immediately after the war he threw
himself wholeheartedly into a variety of
chess work. His activity in the field of chess
was many-sided: outstanding correspond­
ence player, strong over-the-board master,
highly prominent theoretician and writer,
and acknowledged trainer and teacher.
Estrin became known in chess circles
in 1 946, when he shared 2nd place in the
championship of the Russian Federation. In
the post-war years he regularly competed
in the championships of the capital, twice
(in 1 949 and 1 967) standing on the ' bronze
step' of the victory podium.
Yakov Estrin's correspondence career
was marked by many successes, which in­
cluded his shared victory in the 5th USSR
Championship. In this competition he
fought, as they say, to the last pawn. He
saved that difficult endgame with Borisenko
on the 96th move, and his win against
Golovko lasted 97 moves.
Estrin was the only player to go through
undefeated, and one of his wins, over the
master Aleksey Sokolsky, was annotated in
detail by him immediately afterwards.
White: Ya .Estrin
Black: A.So kolsky
5th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 6 0-63
French Defence C 1 7
N otes by Ya kov Estr i n
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 tbc3 �b4 4 e5 tbe7 5
'iVg4 c5 6 dxc5
A good continuation, which has been
successfully employed by grandmaster
Boris Spassky. White agrees to the spoiling
of his pawns, in return for gaining freedom
of action for his bishops and the prospect of
an attack on the opponent' s king.
6... j,xc3+
6 ... d4? is insufficient in view of 7 a3
i&a5 (or 7 ... i&xc5 8 tLle4) 8 b4 j,c7 9
ttJ b5 i&xe5 1 0 ttJ f3 with advantage to
White. In the game between Shamkovich
and Shaposhnikov (20th Russian Federation
Championship, Perm 1 960) there followed
10 ... fs 1 1 'lih5+ g6 12 'lih4 'lids 1 3 c4!
and Black resigned, since after 1 3 ...dxc3 1 4
j,c4 he would have lost a piece.
7 bxc3 ctJd7
In the game Spassky v. Melik-Pashaev
(Leningrad 1 954) Black chose 7 ... tt:Jbc6 8
ctJf3 0-0, but after 9 j,d3 tt:Jg6 10 'lih5
tt:Jce7 1 1 h4! he came under a strong attack.
8 ctJf3
8 'i'Vxg7 is dubious, since after 8 ... .l::!, g8
9 'i'Vxh7 tt:Jxe5 1 0 i&e2 'lia5 Black gains
a strong initiative. The game Reshevsky­
Botvinnik (USSR-USA, Moscow 1 946),
with the inclusion of the moves 5 a3 j,a5,
went 1 2 j,d2 'i'Vxc5 13 tlJf3 tt:Jxf3+ 14
j,xf3 e5 1 5 j,h5 j,f5 ! + .
8... ctJ g6
This move was recommended by Euwe.
Black can also consider 8 . . . 'lic7, after
which White has two possibilities:
(a) 9 'i'Vxg7 .l::!, g8 1 0 'i'Vxh7 tt:Jxe5
1 1 'i'Vh5 tt:Jxf3+ 1 2 'i'Vxf3 j,d7 13 j,f4
(Shamkovich-Gipslis, 29th USSR CC Ch,
Baku 1 96 1 ), and now by playing 1 3 . . . 'lixc5
(instead of 1 3 . . . e5) Black would have
achieved a good game.
(b) 9 j,b5 'i'Vxc5 10 'lib4! tLlc6 1 1
'i'Vxc5 tt:Jxc5 1 2 j,a3 tLle4 1 3 c4 a6 1 4
i&xc6+ bxc6 1 5 ctJ d2 ! ± (Estrin-Lobanov,
Khanti-Mansisk 1 961).
9 j,bS
In the game Spassky-Mititelu (Leningrad
1 960) White chose 9 j,e3 and after 9 ...0-0
1 0 j,d3 'i'Va5 1 1 0-0 tt:Jxc5 1 2 i&xc5 !
'iVxc5 1 3 ttJ g5 ! 'iVxc3 14 .l::!, ae 1 he gained
a strong attack for the sacrificed pawn.
9 0-0 10 i&xd7 i&xd7 11 0-0 'lia5 12
...
'lib4 'lia4
For the moment White has an extra, al-
though tripled pawn. However, on the basis
of the game Diickstein-Uhlmann (Vienna
1 957), Euwe thinks that Black has some ad­
vantage. As will be seen from what follows,
this evaluation is incorrect.
13 .l::!, el 'lixc2
[Is this capture not the initial cause
of Black' s defeat? After 1 3 ... .l::!, ab8 or
1 3 . . . .l::!, fc8 the position can be evaluated as
equal. - S.G.]
14 'lixb7 j, a4 15 j,e3 'i'Vxc3 ?
A serious mistake. 1 5 ... .l::!, fb8 was essen­
tial. Although Black now restores material
equality, he hands the initiative to his op­
ponent. White occupies both open files with
his heavy pieces, which in combination with
the strong passed c5-pawn secures him a
serious advantage.
16 .l::!, ecl 'iVaS 17 c6 j,bS
After 17 . . . .l::!, ab8 there would have fol­
lowed 1 8 .l::!, abl , and if 1 8 ... .l::!, xb7, then
1 9 cxb7 .l::!, b8 20 .l::!, c8+ with a winning
position for White. Black tries to block the
b-file, intending if 1 8 .l::!, ab l to reply l 8 ... a6.
However, with his next move White gains a
clear advantage.
18 .l::!, c5 ! .l::!, ab8 19 a4 'lia6
If 1 9 ... a6 White was intending 20 j,d2!
'lid8 (or 20 ... .l::!, xb7 21 j,xa5) 21 c7 .l::!, xb7
22 cxd8'i¥ .l::!, xd8 23 axb5, winning a piece.
20 .l::!, xb5 .l::!, xb7 21 cxb7 .l::!, b8 22 .l::!, abl
(D)
B
After sacrificing his queen White has
gained good winning chances thanks to his
dangerous passed pawn.
22...f6
The only way of defending against the
threatened invasion of the white bishop
(�c5-d6).
23 �d4 Q:if4 24 �hl tll e2 2S �al "iVxa4
26 exf6 d4
B lack defends very inventively and re­
sourcefully. After the natural 27 tll e5?, there
can follow 28 . . .gxf6 28 Q:id7 d3 ! 29 tll xb8
d2 · when it is Black who wins, since 30 g3
fails to 30 . . . 'li1e4+ and mate next move.
27 : sb4 'li1d7 28 tll eS 'li1c7 29 f7+ @f8
30 f4 !
A curious position has been reached.
White now has two far-advanced passed
pawns, but the battle is not yet over, since
the black knight and passed d-pawn create
certain difficulties in the conversion of his
advantage.
With his last move White consolidates
his hold on e5, the battle for control of
which has now lasted for eight moves.
30 ... Q:ic3
Of course, 30 . . . Q:ixf4 is bad because of
3 1 �xd4.
31 : lb3 QjbS 32 �b2 'li1c2
32 . . . : xb7 would also have lost in view
of 33 fl: xb5 : xb5 34 �a3+ etc. There
followed:
33 h3 Qjd6 34 �xd4 as 3S : b6 "iV cl+ 36
�gl Q:ie4 37 : xe6 1-0
Against the threat of 3 8 : e8+ there is no
satisfactory defence.
White : Ya . Estrin
Black : A.Sadomsky
5th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 60-63
· Two Knights Defence C55
N otes by GM Pa ul M otwa ni
1 e4 eS 2 Q:if3 tll c6 3 �c4 Q:if6 4 d4 exd4 S
eS dS 6 �bS Q:ie4 7 Q:ixd4 �d7
Nowadays, the major alternative is
7 ... �c5 !, after which White normally plays
8 �e3 (instead of getting into a mess with
8 tllxc6? �xf2+ 9 �fl 'li1h4, when one
unpleasant line is 1 0 Q:id4+ c6 1 1 Q:if3
li:Jg3+! 12 �xf2 tll e4+ 1 3 @e2 'li1f2+ 1 4
@ d 3 �f5 .).
8 �xc6 bxc6 9 0-0 cS
White's centralised ttJ remains unper­
turbed after 9 . . . �c5.
10 tll b3 ! c6
10 . . .c4 simply loses a pawn to 1 1 "iVxd5 !.
1 1 c4 !
Effectively fixing Black' s c-pawns where
they stand, so that they can later be attacked
and (very possibly) won.
1 1 ...dxc4
l l . ..d4 12 f3 Q:ig5 1 3 f4 tll e6 14 f5 is
horrible for Black.
12 QJ3d2 tll xd2 13 tll xd2 �e6 14 'li1a4
'li1b6 lS "iVc2 !
1 5 tll xc4? would throw away White 's
positional advantage, because Black then
has 1 5 ... 'li1b5.
1S...'li1a6 16 tll e4 0-0-0 17 �e3 "iVbS 18
Q:igS �dS (D)
w
19 tll x f7 !
A perfectly-timed tactical shot from
Estrin.
19 ... �xf7 20 "iVfS+ : d7 21 e6 : dS 22
'li1xf7 'li1b7 23 "iVe8+ : d8 24 "iVhS �e7
If 24 . . . : d5 25 "iVg4 then White simulta­
neously threatens 26 "iVxc4 or 26 e7+.
2S 'li1g4 g6 26 'li1xc4
The first of Black's three weaklings
drops off on the c-file.
26 ... �b5 27 �c3
Maintaining the pressure, while prevent­
ing 27 ... : d3 because of 28 �xh8+.
27... :hgS 28 : adl : d5 29 : xd5 cxd5
30 : ct
Simple, strong chess.
30... �b7 31 i,xc5 i,xc5 32 �xc5 �xc5
33 : xc5 : es 34 : xd5 : xe6 35 g3 @c6
36 : a5 1-0.
Black lost on time according to 'Shak­
matny Byulleten' 5/1 962, but of course his
two-pawn deficit would have been fatal in
any case.
Yakov Estrin' s best achievement in the
5th USSR Championship was perhaps the
following win.
White: R .Gorenshtein
Black : Ya .Estrin
5th U S S R C C C h , 1 9 6 0-63
Queen 's Gambit D39
1 d4 tLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 tLlc3 i,b4 4 tLlf3 d5 5
i,g5 dxc4 6 �a4+
The point of this check is to deprive the
opponent of the move ... c7-c5 and its associ­
ated counterplay. But this costs two tempi.
Is this not too high a price?
6... tt:Jc6 7 e4 i,d7 8 �dl
In Estrin' s opinion, it would have been
better to retreat the queen to c2, when after
8 . . .h6 9 i,d2 i,xc3 1 0 i,xc3 b5 1 1 a4
White gains an active position for the sac­
rificed pawn.
8 ... b5 ! 9 e5 h6 10 i,h4 g5 1 1 tt:Jxg5 tLld5 !
12 �h5 (D)
This variation is analysed in Lipnitsky' s
book 'Voprosy Sovremennoy Shakhmatnoy
Teorii' (Problems of Modem Chess Theo­
ry), where on the basis of the continuation
12 ... �e7 13 tt:Jge4 it is considered diffi­
cult for Black. However, Estrin had found
another possibility, which gave the game
theoretical significance.
B
12 ... hxg5 ! 13 �xh8+ i,f8 14 i,g3 tt:Jxd4
15 0-0-0 c5 16 tLle4 �a5 ! 17 tLld6+ @e7
18 �g8
A position in the style of the 1 9th century
chess romantics. Both kings are under fire.
Which will be the first to fall?
18 ... �xa2 ! 19 �xg5+
The series of checks 1 9 �xf7+ �d8
20 �xf8+ �c7 21 tlJxb5+ i,xb5 22
�xc5+ �b7 23 �xd4 leads to a position
in which White wins a rook and - is forced
to capitulate in view of 23 . . . : c8 !, with the
irresistible threat of 24 . . . c3. After the game
continuation Black again succeeds, by giv­
ing up material, in removing his king to a
safe place, whereas the leader of the hostile
forces remains in the danger zone and meets
its end there.
19 ... f6 20 exf6+ @d8 21 f7+ �c7 22
tt:Jxc4+ @b7 23 tLla3 �al+ 24 tLlbl
tLlb4 ! 25 @d2 �xb2+ 26 �el tLlbc2+ 27
@d2 c4 28 : ct tLle3+ ! 0-1
In the international Ragozin Memo­
rial tournament Yakov Estrin shared second
place. In 1 966 he was awarded the title of
ICCF grandmaster, and from then on he was
constantly in the arena of world correspond­
ence chess, achieving his greatest success
in the 7th World Championship, in which
1 2 points out of 1 6 brought him the title of
'king of correspondence chess' .
The author made the acquaintance of
Yakov Estrin in the early 1 970s, as a result
of my interest in the ' opening novelties' col­
umn that Estrin used to write in the monthly
bulletin of the USSR Central Chess Club.
 Estrin began citing my games and made
some complimentary remark about me,
on noticing the similarity of our opening
inclinations. I was impressed by Estrin' s
romanticism, and by his adherence to the
Two Knights Defence (especially the Trax­
ler Counterattack), the Italian Game, and the
Open Variation of the Ruy Lopez. And on
one occasion he used a recommendation of
mine, employing the then completely for­
gotten M0ller Defence to the Ruy Lopez.
Yakov Estrin was everywhere appreci­
ated for his diplomacy, tact and excellent
organisational capabilities. He was a wel­
come guest in many countries, where his
opening guides enjoyed great success (they
ran to dozens of editions in all the 'chess'
languages).
The title ofUSSR champion was awarded
to both players - additional tie-breaks were
not taken into account. But if the widely­
accepted Sonneborn-Berger coefficient had
been used, first would have been Georgy
Borisenko, because he gained the greater
number of wins and lost his only game to
the player at the bottom of the tournament
table!
The quality ofBorisenko's wins was very
high, and the following game was officially
judged the best in the tournament.
White : A. Rubezov
Black: G . Borisenko
5th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 60- 6 3
Sicilian Defence 888
1. e4 c5 2 tt::l f3 tt::l c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt::l xd4
ctJf6 5 tt::l c3 d6 6 j,c4
This variation, which bears the name of
the master Veniamin Sozin, was first em­
ployed by him in two games from the 7th
USSR CC Ch, 1 93 1 , against Kan and Ilyin­
Genevsky.
6 e6 7 0--0 j,e7 8 j,e3 0--0 9 j,b3 tt::la5 (D)
...
w
For both players a prototype was pro­
vided by the game Padevsky-Botvinnik
from the Alekhine Memorial tournament
(Moscow 1 956). Therefore it is instructive
to read the evaluation by the originator of
this method of development.
"This manoeuvre", explained Botvinnik,
"allows Black to develop his bishop at b7
in the quickest way possible. In addition,
at the appropriate moment he can exchange
his knight for the bishop at b3 . Even so, the
diverting of the knight to the edge of the
board causes serious doubts, and probably
gives White the better prospects."
10 f4 b6 l l g4
This is the critical point of the opening
battle. The chances of the two sides must
be weighed up on the basis of the variation
1 1 e5 ! tt::l e8 1 2 f5 dxe5 1 3 . fxe6 ! , in which
White initiates active play.
Vatnikov lasted just four more moves in
a game against Geller ( 1 8th USSR Cham­
pionship Semi-Final, Kiev 1 950): 1 3 . . .f6?
1 4 ctJf5 tt::l xb3 1 5 tt::l d5 ! ctJd4 1 6 ctJdxe7+
c;t>h8 17 4Jg6+!. Such an opening catastro­
phe can be avoided by playing 1 3 . . . tt::l xb3
1 4 tt::l c 6! 'i'Vd6 1 5 '{ixd6 ! j,xd6 1 6 axb3
j,xe6 1 7 tt::l xa7 . Experience (for example,
Kostro-Doda, Polish Championship 1 957)
has shown that in the resulting ending Black
faces a difficult struggle for a draw.
1 1 ... j,b7 12 '{if3 � c8 13 g5 � xc3 !
The same sacrifice, with its deep stra­
tegic and tactical basis, was employed in
the source game Padevsky-Botvinnik. The
Bulgarian player continued 14 bxc3, which
led to the loss of his important central pawn,
the uncovering of the hl -a8 diagonal and a
quick defeat.
In his comments Botvinnik acknowl­
edged that definitely better was 14 gxf6
!:l, xe3 l S iVxe3 (of course, not l S fxe7
!:l, xf3 16 exd8'ii' !:l, xfl+ 17 !:l, xfl !:l, xd8)
1S . . . �xf6, but he added that "here too the
insecure position of the white king makes
Black's game preferable, since his two bish­
ops are very strong".
The present game confirms this evalua­
tion by the Patriarch of Soviet chess.
14 gxf6 !:!, xe3 15 iVxe3 �xf6 (D)
w How can the threat of 24 ... 'ii'g l + be
16 !:!. ad l cuxb3 17 axb3 a6 18 e5?
An incorrect evaluation of the position.
With the opening of the game, the power
of the two bishops increases still further.
Rubezov hopes to exploit the opposition of
queen and rook, but as usual tactics go in
harmony with sound strategy.
18 ... dxe5! 19 cuxe6
Apart from this obvious move, 1 9 fxeS
�gS 20 'ii'g3 'ii'e7 2 1 h3 also came into
consideration with chances for both sides,
although Black's position is nevertheless
preferable.
19... 'ii'c8 20 CUxf8 'ii'c6 21 @f2
If 21 'ii'g3 White runs into the murder­
ous 2 1 . . . �h4 ! . He should have played 2 1
!:l, d2 ! , and if 2 1 . ..�h4 - 22 !:!, f3! , when
it is hard for Black to count on more than
a draw.
21...'ii'g2+ 22 @el �h4+ 23 !:!. f2 �f3!
(D)
w
A position abounding in combinative pos­
sibilities. Black is not worried about his ma­
terial deficit (which has grown to a rook and
the exchange!). Relying on the power of his
bishops, he trains his fire on the enemy king.
parried? Rubezov decides to flee with his
king, losing his material advantage on the
way, merely to avoid ending up in a mating
net. This could have happened, for example,
after 28 iVxe4 �f6+ 29 �c4 bS+ 30 @cs
�e7+ 3 1 @c6 'ii'c8+ 32 @b6 �cs+ 33
�as 'ii'c7+ 34 @xa6 'ii'b 6 mate. The
concluding pursuit demands the utmost
composure.
24 !:l, d8 ! 'ii' gl+ 25 @d2 'ii' d l+ 26 �c3
'ii'xd8 27 !:!. xf3 e4! 28 !:!. h3 �f6+ 29 @c4
'ii'c7+! 30 �d5 'ii'b7+ 31 �d6 @xf8 32
!:!. xh7 �e7+ 33 �e5 f6+ 34 �e6 'ii' c6+
35 �f5 'ii'c8+ 36 @xe4 'ii'xc2+ 37 @d5
iVxh7 0-1
Georgy Konstantinovich Borisenko
began playing by correspondence when
he was already a well-known master. He
received the master title in 1 9SO. He per­
formed successfully in the championships
of Leningrad, the Russian Federation and
Uzbekistan, and participated in seven USSR
Championships. Apart from twice winning
the USSR Correspondence Championship,
he had to his credit a silver medal from the
4th ICCF World Championship. As a mem­
ber of the USSR team he won gold medals
in the 3rd and 4th Correspondence Olympi­
ads, and in l 96S he was awarded the title of
correspondence grandmaster.
 Find the finish ( I}

From Championships 1 -V. See the solutions on page 1 5 7 .

1 . Konstantinopolsky-Perfiliev, 1st 4. Borisenko-Dubinin, 3rd

Championship Championship

2. Ragozin-Abroshin, 2nd Championship 5. Kryukov-Estrin, 4th Championship

3. Shamkovich-Yevdokimov, 2nd 6. Bogatyryov-Yevdokimov, 5th

Championship Championship
 Sixth Championship ( 1963-1964)
IN THE list of participants in the semi-finals
of the 5th Championship the names of rep­
resentatives from the three Baltic Republics
were already to be found. Postal play had
also expanded in some of the other repub­
lics, in which associations of correspond­
ence chess enthusiasts had been set up.
In view of this, the Commission for cor­
respondence events decided to allow into the
semi-final stage the winners of the republic
championships. There was no longer a place
in the final for all the masters. Therefore
masters could join in at the semi-final stage,
together with candidate masters who had
won qualifying events.
The result was that when it came to
organise the semi-finals of the 7th Champi­
onship, twelve groups were needed. In this
case only the winner of each would qualify
for the final. Therefore it was decided to
play the championship in three stages, be­
ginning with quarter-finals. Moreover, into
the quarter-finals it was decided to admit
candidate masters and first category players
who had won one of the tournaments cur­
rently being organised by the USSR Central
Chess Club.
The right to participate directly in the
final was granted only to grandmasters and
prize-winners in the previous championship
(initially the first five players were admitted,
then the right was granted only to the three
medal winners).
Players from Russia, Ukraine and Be­
lorussia competed in the final of the 6'h
Championship. It turned out to be a sim­
ply outstanding tournament. Grandmaster
Vladimir Simagin made use of his right.
Also playing, apart from him, were eight
masters, among who we find the future
FIDE grandmasters Alexander Konstanti­
nopolsky and Alexander Zaitsev, plus nine
very strong candidate masters who had got
through to the main tournament from the
semi-finals. The latter included the future
ICCF world champion Grigory Sanakoev,
who in the early 1 960s was one of the
strongest candidate masters in Voronezh.
Boris Rozinov was appointed chief arbi­
ter of the tournament. Later he became an
ICCF international arbiter and he played a
prominent role in the history of Soviet (and,
at the end of his life, also Russian) corre­
spondence chess, especially in connection
with the participation of home players in
ICCF competitions.
The tournament began on 1 st January
1 963, and by 1 5th October the leading
group had . emerged: Yakov Neishtadt - 31h
out of 5, Simagin and Estrin - 3 out of 4,
Anatoly Bannik and Roman Altshuler - 21h
out of 3. At the start of 1 964 the leader was
grandmaster Vladimir Simagin with 61h out
of 9, while half a point behind (also after
9 completed games) were the master Estrin
and the then little-known candidate master
Grigory Sanakoev. By the middle of the
year it had become clear that Yakov Estrin
would not avoid the prefix 'ex' to the title
of champion of the country, and seriously in
contention for first place were Simagin - 9
out of 13 and Sanakoev - 8 out of 1 1 .
By 1 st October 1 964, of the 1 5 3 games,
1 3 5 were completed, and of the 1 8 unfin­
ished games, 12 involved the candidate
master L.Konovalov from trans-polar No­
rilsk. The outcome of the tournament was
obvious, and so all the unfinished games
were adjudicated. The result: champion
- grandmaster Vladimir Simagin, second
 6th USSR CC Championship ( 1 963- 1 964) �

N2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1 V.Simagin Moscow
m�a.it y, 1 I y, y, 'h y, 1 y, 1 1 l I 0 1 1 1 13

2 G.Sanakoev Voronezh Yi ' ..:::: 1 0 Yi 0 y, 1 I 1 1 1 1 y, 'h y, 1 1 12

3 V.Milyutin Yaroslavl 0 0 !f'! l y, 1 Y2 Y2 0 1 1 l y, 1 1 Y2 I I l l 'h

., .
.
4 Moscow 0 1 0 0 0 y, 1 I l l y, 1 1 y, l
H y,
R.Altshuler l 11
•
5 A.Gilman Gorky y, y, y, 1 0 l y, I y, y, 0 1 y, y, y, I l JOY,

6 A.Zaitsev Vladivostok y, l 0 l 1 0 y, y, 0 1 Yz y, Yz 1 \?.., Vz 1 10

�
7 A.Konstantinopolsky Moscow y, y, Yz Vz 0 1 t ..;:j 1 Y2 Vz 0 Vz 0 1 1 Y2 1 Vz 9\1, Q..
'""'
(!)
8 A.Sokolsky Minsk Yi 0 Yi 0 y, Vz 0 ��ic!Cli@' Vz y, 1 l 'lz 1 Yi l 1 y, 9'h ....

�
9 A.Bannik Kiev 0 0 1 './, 0 y, Y2 Y2 l�!li! �t l 1 Y2 Y2 0 Y2 Vz Y2 I 8'h ;;;
10 Ya.Estrin Moscow Yi 0 0 0 y, 1 Y2 Y2 0 l y, y, l 0 l 1 Y2 8%
Ii"''
,
11 V.Dragunov Torez 0 0 0 0 y, 0 1 0 0 0 y, 1 Y2 I I l l 7'h
"�

12 Ya.Neishtadt Moscow 0 0 0 0 l Vz y, 0 y, Yi I•
Vz IM c Yi 0 Vz 1 1 1 7%
+cc+:021
13 I.Shapovalov Yaroslavl 0 0 y, Yz 0 y, I y, y, y, 0 y, . �� !.�.�,:, l 'h I 0 Vz 7%

14 A.Gurvich Chernovitsy 0 y, 0 0 y, y, 0 0 I 0 './, l 0 • y, Vz I Yz 6llz

15 A.Sadomsky Moscow 1 y, 0 0 y, 0 0 Vz Vz 1 0 y, y, y, • y, 0 y, 6%

16 V.Bobkov Mogilyov 0 y, Y2 0 Y2 y, 'h 0 y, 0 0 0 0 Y2 y, ii�i�fJil 1 0 5

17 Yu.Shaposhnikov Kuibyshev 0 0 0 y, 0 y, 0 0 y, 0 0 0 I 0 1 O�l 4Y,

18 L.Konovalov Norilsk 0 0 0 0 0 0 y, y, 0 y, 0 0 y, Yz Vz 1 0 • 4
- Grigory Sanakoev, third (and, like Sana­
koev, awarded for this result the title of
national master) - V.Milyutin.
One of the best creative achievements of
the bronze medal winner was his win over
the future international master R.Altshuler.
White : R .Altshule r
Black: V. Milyutin
6th U S S R C C C h , 1 9 6 3-64
Ruy Lopez C9 7
N otes by V.M i l yutin
1 e4 eS 2 tbf3 tbc6 3 �bS a6 4 �a4 ctJf6
S 0-0 �e7 6 � el bS 7 �b3 d6 8 c3 0-0 9
h3 <iJaS 10 �c2 cS 11 d4 'i/c7 12 ctJbd2
j,e6 13 dxeS dxeS 14 <iJgS � ad8
Until now this is the same as Neishtadt­
Milyutin from the same tournament.
lS 'i/e2
White prefers not to force events and he
prepares combined play on the flanks.
1S ... �c8 16 ctJfl g6 17 tbe3 �b7 18 a4!
Signalling the start of the attack!
18 ... c4 19 axbS axbS 20 ctJg4 (D)
White's pressure intensifies. He is threat­
ening 2 1 <iJh6+ @ g7 22 <iJhxf7 � xf7 23
tbe6+.
20... tbxg4 21 'i/xg4 �c8
Now the bishop defends the e6-square
against the invasion of the knight. For ex­
ample, 2 1 . . . ctJb3 22 j,xb3 cxb3 23 'i/h4
h5 24 g4 f6 25 tbe6 and White wins.
22 'i/h4 hS 23 f4 lb b3 24 �xb3 cxb3 2S
'i/g3
Not allowing the rook to go to d3 .
2S...exf4 26 j,xf4 'i/c4 27 <iJf3 � d3 28
�eS b4
The aim of this move is not so much to
get rid of the weak pawn, as to prevent the
white pieces from creating a base at d4. Also
with the bishop at c3 Black has the possibil­
ity of giving up the exchange, obtaining a
far-advanced passed pawn.
29 cxb4 'i/xb4 30 'i/f4
Black appears to have no defence. 30 ... f6
is bad because of 3 1 �c3 'i/b5 32 'i/h6
'ffe8 33 ctJg5 ! . However, he went in for this
position with his following move in mind.
30... gS! 31 ltJxgS
3 1 'ffc 1 would seem to be better. The
black king' s position is weakened and
this should gradually tell. [Although, after
3 1 . ..f6 the position of the white king looks
weaker, for example 32 �c3 'i/c5+ 33
@hl j,xh3 . - S.G.]
31. ..f6 32 <iJf3 fxeS 33 'i/h6 (D)
An obvious move, but, as the further
course of the game shows, it is incorrect.
33 'i/xe5 'i/c5+ [Here too 33 . . . �xh3 looks
very strong. - S.G.] 34 @hl 'i/xe5 35
tbxe5 should have been played.
33 ... � d6! 34 'i/xhS 'i/b6+ 3S @hl � h6
36 'i/xeS � xf3! 37 gxf3 � xh3+ 38 @g2
'i/g6+ 39 @f2 j,h4+ 40 @e3 'i/b6+ .41
�d2 �xel + 42 : xel : xf3
The result is that Black has a piece for a
pawn, but his exposed king and the limited
amount of material remaining on the board
make the win difficult. He subsequently
takes his king into safety and wins.
43 �cl �e6 44 'ifgS+ �f8 4S 'ith6+
�e7 46 'ifgS+ �d7 47 �bl : n �.s 'iteS
�cs 49 : d1 �b7 so 'itc3 'itbS 0-1
For the style of Grigory Sanakoev the
following game became a kind of visiting
card.
White : G .Sanakoev
Black: Yu .Shaposhnikov
6th U S S R C C C h , 1 9 6 3- 6 4
Sicilian Defen ce 84 7
N otes by G r i g o ry S a n a koev
1 e4 cS 2 ft:Jf3 ft:Jc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ft:Jxd4 e6 S
ft:Jc3 'itc7 6 g3 a6 7 �g2 ctJf6 8 0-0 �e7
9 �e3 0-0 10 �hl : ds 11 f4 d6 12 �f3
White is planning after g3-g4-g5 to drive
the knight from f6, in order to then play
f4-f5 and, after opening a-file, to begin an
attack against the opponent' s king. The im­
mediate 1 2 g4 would have been premature
because of 1 2 . . . ft:Jxd4 13 �xd4 e5, when
White loses material.
12 ... : b8 13 'ite2?!
Possibly an inaccuracy. White vacates
the d i -square for his queen's rook in the
event of the manoeuvre 1 3 ... ft:Ja5 1 4 : ad l
ft:Jc4 1 5 � c l and observes the e4-pawn in
the variation 13 ... ft:Jxd4 14 �xd4 b5 1 5 a3
�b7. However, it would have been more
logical to play g3-g4 immediately, begin­
ning an attack. True, subsequently it tran­
spires that at e2 the queen is better placed
than at d l .
13 ... ft:JaS?
An incorrect evaluation of the position:
the manoeuvre of the knight to c4 does not
give Black anything and it allows White to
embark on a kingside pawn storm.
14 g4 bS ls gs tt:Jes 16 rs b4 (D)
w
17 fxe6!
The first piece sacrifice, enabling the
f-file to be opened for the attack. Black can­
not accept the knight sacrifice, since after
1 7. . . bxc3 1 8 exf7+ �xf7 1 9 �h5+ �g8
20 �f7+ �h8 2 1 'ith5 there is no defence
against the threat of g5-g6.
17...fxe6 18 �hS! g6 19 'itf2!
A second piece is left en prise, but again
it cannot be taken on account of the fairly
obvious 1 9 . . . gxh5 20 'itf7+ �h8 2 1 ft:Jxe6.
But why does 19 'itf2 deserve an exclama­
tion mark?
After 1 9 'itf3 �f6! 20 gxf6 'itf7 Black
would have blocked the f-file and regained
the piece with chances of a successful de­
fence. Now this defence does not work on
account of the variation 1 9 ... �f6 20 gxf6
'itf7 21 �g4 ft:Jc7 (if 2 1 .. .bxc3, then 22
ft:Jxe6 �xe6 23 �xe6 'itxe6 24 f7+ and
White wins) 22 ft:Jce2 e5 23 ftjf3! �xg4
24 ft:Jg5 and then f6-f7+ with a winning
attack.
19 ... ft:Jg7 20 'itf7+ �h8 21 �xg6!
The white bishop persistently offers
itself and again Black is obliged to refrain
from either capture ! If he takes the bishop
by 2 1 . . .hxg6, there follows 22 : f4 ! : f8
23 : h4+ ft:Jh5 24 'if xg6, while in the
event of the knight capture 2 1 . . .bxc3 White
continues 22 ft:Jf5 ! exf5 23 �d4 : gs 24
�xh7 with the threats of 'ith5 and 'ifxg8+.
[After 24 i,xh7 Keilhack pointed out that
24 ... 'iVc4! is a good defence, but that earlier
22 l:!, f4 ! (instead of 22 Clif5) is winning.
- S.G.] In both cases White forces mate in a
few moves. Black finds a defence that sets
the attacker a very difficult problem.
21...C2Jc4! (D)
w
White now has three pieces en prise and,
most importantly, Black is threatening by
22 ... Clie5 to evict the queen from its menac­
ing position, after which White's attack may
come to a halt. Does this mean that White's
swift attack was unfounded?
That cannot be! The attack has followed ·
the logic of the position, and already my
pieces have almost surrounded the oppo­
nent's king. For the moment Black's heavy
pieces are not taking part in the battle.
Something must be found! The black knight
wants to go to e5? Then we won't allow it
there and at the same time we will strength­
en the attack. For this a fourth piece has to
be placed en prise? Well, why not? !
22 Clic6!!
The variations confirming the reality of
White's rather fantastic idea seem to me to
be rather instructive.
(a) 22 ... Clixe3 23 Clixe7 Clixfl 24 l:\. xfl
i,b7 25 'iVxg7+! c:J;;xg7 26 l:!, f7+ c:J;; h8 27
l:\. xh7 mate.
(b) 22 . . . 'iVxc6 23 'iVxe7 i,b7 (TH: If
instead 23 . . . l:!, g8, White wins brilliantly by
24 l:!, f4 hxg6 25 Clid5 ! ! e.g. 25 ... exd5 26
i,d4 Clie5 27 l:\. h4+ Clih5 28 'iVf6+ l:\. g7
29 i,xe5, as analysed by GM John Emms in
his book ' The Most Amazing Chess Moves
of all Time'.) 24 l:!, f7 and now:
(b l ) 24 ... 'iVe8 25 'iVf6 'iVg8 26 i,xh7
'iVxh7 27 g6 with a mating attack;
(b2) 24 ... l:!, g8 25 i,xh7 Clie5 (25 ...
@xh7 26 'iVf6 and 'iVh6 mate) 26 i,d4
Clixf7 27 'iVxf7 @xh7 28 g6+ c:J;; h6
(28 ... c:J;; h8 29 'iVf4 and wins) 29 i,e3+
@h5 30 'iVf3+ c:J;; xg6 31 l:\. gl + @h7 32
'iVh3+ Clih5 33 'iVxh5 mate.
(c) 22 ...hxg6 23 l:!, f4 with the threat of
24 l:!, g4+ Clih5 25 'iVxg6 and inevitable
mate.
(d) 22 ... l:!, f8? 23 'iVxf8+ i,xf8 24 l:\. xf8
mate.
(e) 22 ... bxc3 23 Clixe7 with the threats of
24 'iVxg7+! and 24 'iVf8+.
Since it transpires that not one of the four
white pieces can be taken, Black tries his
last chance.
22... ClieS 23 Clixe5 i,b7
White would have won prettily in the
event of 23 ... dxe5 24 i,xh7, for example:
24 ... i,d6 25 'iVg6 l:\. b7 26 'iVh6 Clie8
27 l:!, f8+ i,xf8 28 'iVxf8+ @xh7 29 g6+
@xg6 30 l:\. gl +, or 24 ... 'iVd7 25 'iVg6
'iVe8 26 l:!, f7 i,f8 27 'iVh6 Clif5 28 'tih5
and both variations conclude in mate to the
black king.
24 'iVxg7+!
The final sacrifice, which concludes the
game. As usual, the beauty and depth of the
sacrifice is not determined by the 'weight'
of the sacrificed piece. In the given instance
after the queen sacrifice the contours of the
mating constructions are fairly distinct.
24 ... @xg7 25 l:\. f7+ @h8
If 25 ... @g8, then 26 i,xh7+ @h8 27
Cll g6 mate.
26 l:\. xh7+ @g8 27 Clig4! 1-0
A quiet move, concluding White's daring
attack. Against the threat of 28 Clih6+ there
is no satisfactory defence. The final mat­
ing construction arises after 27 . . . i,xg5 28
l:!, xc7 i,xe3 29 Clif6+ @f8 30 l:!, f7 mate.
Ahead of Grigory Sanakoev were new
and striking victories, the chief of which
was the winning of the World Correspond-
ence Championship, but the first time that
he made a name for himself was in the
B
course of the 6th USSR Championship.
The convincing winner of the tourna­
ment was grandmaster Vladimir Simagin.
Together with the champion's gold medal
he was awarded the best game prize, for his
win over the third prize-winner V.Milyutin.

White: V.Milyutin

Black: V.Simagin 18...h4!

6th U S S R C C C h , 1 9 6 3 - 6 4
Sicilian Defence 892
1 e4 cS 2 tll f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tll x d4 tll f6
5 tll c3 a6 6 dte2 tll b d7 7 0-0 e6 8 f4 bS 9
dt f3 dtb7 10 a3
Simagin considered the strongest to be 1 0
e5 dtxf3 1 1 tll xf3 b4 1 2 exf6 bxc3 1 3 fxg7
'iib6+ 14 @h l Jtxg7 15 b3, as Gligoric
played against him in the 1 964 Moscow
International tournament.
10 ... 'ii c7 1 1 @hl hS!?
The '! ?' mark accompanying this move
belongs to Simagin. In the 'classical' in­
terpretation of the Scheveningen Variation
White can support his attack with g2-g4.
This suggested to Simagin the idea of im­
proving the variation for Black with a new
strategic set-up .
Black first develops his queenside pieces,
his knight occupying a less active post at
d7, and the enemy pawn storm on the king­
side is radically prevented by ...h7-h5. The
counter-plan adopted by Milyutin proves
unsuccessful.
12 fS?
· Simagin criticised this move. 1 2 dtd2,
12 dte3 or 1 2 1: el looks more natural.
12 ... eS 13 tll b3 dte7 14 Jtgs .l: c8 15
'ii d2 tll b6 16 tll aS dtaS 17 .l: adl tll bd7
18 tll b3 (D)
This is a tacit offer of a draw by repetition
of moves: 1 8 . . . tll b6 1 9 tll a5 tllb d7 etc.
It is not White, but Black who attacks the
enemy king position with the h-pawn - an
unusual picture for the Sicilian Defence.
19 h3 'iid8!
'This move was not easy to find', com­
mented Simagin. In combination with
the next move, this manoeuvre completes
Black's idea.
20 Viel tll h S! 21 dtxe7
No relief is promised by 2 1 dtxh5 1: xh5
22 dtxe7 Vixe7 23 'iie2 .l: h6 ! .
21...'iixe7 2 2 .l: f2 tll g3+ 23 @gl tll f6 24
'iie3 0-0 25 'ii gS (D)
This attempt at a counter-attack is the
best defensive resource. However, Black
parries it by demolishing the opponent's
position in the centre.
B
25...'iia 7! 26 'iix h4 J: xc3! 27 bxc3 tll fxe4
28 dtxe4 tlixe4 29 @fl 'iixf2+ 30 'iixf2
tll xf2 31 @xf2 dS
As a result of his lengthy combination
Black has achieved a strategically won end-
ing. But to win he still needs to demonstrate
both technique and imagination.
32 : d3 : c8 33 ctJd2 �f8 34 g4 �e7 3S
@g3 @f6 36 h4 as 37 ltJb3 a4 38 ctJd2
j,b7!
Black vacates the a-file for his rook and
prepares an elegant finish.
39 : e3 b4! 40 axb4 a3 41 c4 a2 42 : el
: as 43 : at : a3+ 44 @f2 e4! 4S ctJfl
d4! 46 @e2 @eS! 47 ctJd2 : h3 0-1
White's resignation was by no means
premature. After 48 : xa2 : h2+ 49 @ e l
e3 50 ltJfl : h l 5 1 @e2 @ f4 Black would
have woven a mating net with his small
army.
The winner of the championship had an
interesting game with an experienced over­
the-board master.
White: V.Simagin
Black : A. Bannik
6th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 6 3- 6 4
Nimzo-lndian Defence £58
N otes by Vlad i m i r S i m a g i n
1 d4 ctJf6 2 �4 e 6 3 tbc3 j,b4 4 e3 0-0 S
j,d3 dS 6 ctJf3 cS 7 0-0 tbc6 8 a3 j,xc3
9 bxc3 'ii c7
Bannik avoids the popular variation
9 . . .dxc4 10 j,xc4 'fic7 and decides to try a
less well-studied line.
10 cxdS exdS 11 CDh4
Opening monographs also consider other
continuations here: 1 1 a4 and 1 1 j,b2.
1 1 ... j,d7
A new system of development, which,
however, proves unsuccessful in the present
game. This method of play is too aggres­
sive. [The move usually recommended is
l l .. . : e8 or 1 1 ... ltJe7. - S.G.]
12 f3 : fe8 13 : a2 CLie7 14 g3
The immediate 14 g4 is also possible.
Black was threatening 14 ... g5.
14... ctJg6 lS ctJfS CLie7
Black does not obj ect to a draw.
16 ctJh4 ltJg6 17 ltJg2 : e7 18 g4 h6?
The weakening of the kingside later
proves fatal for Black. The threat of g4-
g5 was not especially dangerous and he
should not have delayed his counterplay
on the queenside. Black should have played
1 8 ... : c8 with the possible variation 1 9
j,d2 a6 20 a4 b5, when he has scime chanc­
es of a counter-attack on the queenside.
19 'ff el : c8 20 j,d2
This move is necessary, to avoid the vari­
ation 20 ... cxd4 2 1 cxd4 'ftc3.
20... ctJf8 21 'fih4 ctJg6 22 'fif2 ctJf8
Passive play with the aim of awaiting
mistakes by the opponent rarely proves
successful even in an over-the-board game.
Such a method is even less acceptable in
correspondence play.
23 ctJh4 g6
The unpleasant 24 ctJf5 was threatened.
Black no longer has any satisfactory de­
fence. It turns out that, even in USSR Cor­
respondence Championships, quite short
games are possible.
24 ltJg2 @g7 (D)
w
Outwardly Black' s position looks quite
defensible. However, after a brief and swift
attack Black capitulates within just 6(!)
moves !
2S e4! dxe4
If25 . . . cxd4 there also follows 26 j,xh6+.
Yet Black cannot allow 26 e5.
26 j,xh6+! �g8
 Black loses immediately after 26 ... @xh6
27 g5+ @xg5 28 �h4+ etc.
27 �h4 tlJ8h7 28 fxe4 � xe4
An attempt to confuse matters.
29 � xf6 � xg4 30 � xf7! 1-0
After this queen sacrifice Black' s resist­
ance terminates. Possible variations are:
(a) 30 ... � xh4 3 1 � g7+ @h8 32 !:Lixh4
tl:Jf8 33 � f2, when Black has no satisfac­
tory defence against the threat of 34 � xf8+
and 3 5 tl:Jxg6 mate.
(b) 30 ... @xf7 3 1 i!,c4+ @e8 32 � e2+.
(c) Also 30 . . . � xg2+ 3 1 � xg2 @xf7 32
i!,c4+ does not help.
Simagin's first encounter with corre­
spondence chess occurred in 1 948, when
he took part in the 1 st USSR Championship
and became a prize-winner, sharing 2nd-4th
places. But then for 1 5 years he gave up
correspondence play. In the opinion of the
chess historian Isaak Romanov, the reason
for this may have been an incident that oc­
curred in his game with Aleksandr Konstan­
tinopolsky (Black).
w ( 1 9 1 9- 1 968) finished second in the fol­
Black has the initiative, but with the
simple 22 � d2 it would have been quite
possible to hold the position. Wishing at
one stroke to get rid of the pins in view of
the threat of 22 . . . tl:Jf4, Simagin played 22
@fl ?? and after receiving 22 . . . tl:Jg3+ in
reply he was, naturally, forced to resign im­
mediately. It turned out that in his analysis
he had absent-mindedly returned the h3-
pawn to its initial square.
The price of this mistake was that in the
final table Konstantinopolsky, who became
the winner of the tournament, was separated
from Simagin by a half point. A half point
that ruled out his hopes of opening the list of
USSR correspondence champions.
A new contact with correspondence play­
ers, this time for the whole of his remain­
ing life, began early in 1 963. By this time
Vladimir Simagin had become a famous
grandmaster, and an outstanding researcher,
trainer and writer (that same year his book
of best games was published).
Simagin saw the value of correspondence
play as being the possibility of concentrat­
ing entirely on the creative element. "Clas­
sical chess skill," he wrote, "is also retained
in correspondence play, which even has
some advantages over normal chess, where
the creative element is often affected by the
tension of the competitive situation."
After winning the 6th USSR CC Ch, the
outstanding grandmaster Vladimir Simagin
lowing championship. In the final of the
5th World Correspondence Olympiad he
defended the colours of the Soviet team
on the second board. In 1 968 he became a
participant in the final of the 6th World Cor­
respondence Championship.
However, soon after the start of this
event Vladimir Simagin passed away. A
chess player died during a tournament. His
untimely death cut short the chapter on the
glorious career of grandmaster Simagin in
correspondence chess. "Not only in Soviet,
but also in world correspondence chess,
Simagin will never be forgotten," wrote the
ICCF President Hans-Werner von Massow.
Seventh Championship ( 196 5-1966)
IN THE 7th Championship there were 20
players from Russia, Ukraine and Belorus­
sia. The participation of the well-known
FIDE grandmaster Alexander Zaitsev should
be mentioned. N.P.Andreyev (Moscow) was
appointed arbiter.
By 1 st October 1 965, 39 of the 1 90
games had finished, roughly one fifth. A
feature of the tournament was that there was
no obvious leader. A large group of players
had '+ I ' , and the winner of the previous
championship, grandmaster Vladimir Sim­
agin, had not yet completed a single game.
But by mid-February 1 966 it became
clear that the fastest pace had been set by
the master Mikhail Yudovich - 7 out of 9.
The only player who could rival him was
Simagin - 3 out of 4. Roughly two thirds of
the games completed by that time had ended
in draws, and so most of the players, includ­
ing Dubinin and Zaitsev, were on 50%.
Of importance for the final outcome was
the game between the tournament favourites.
White: V.Simagin
Black : M . Yudovich
7th U S S R C C C h , 1 9 6 5 - 6 6
Ruy Lopez C86
N otes by V l ad i m i r S i m a g i n
1 e4 eS 2 ll:l f3 ll:lc6 3 j,bS a 6 4 j,a4 ll:lf6
S 0-0 j,e7 6 li'e2
This is an attempt to deviate from the
well-trodden paths. However, in the Ruy
Lopez it is hard to find new ways.
6 ... bS 7 j,b3 d6 8 c3 0-0 9 d4 j,g4 10
� dl exd4 11 cxd4 dS! 12 eS ll:le4 13 ll:lc3
ll:lxc3 14 bxc3 ll:laS lS j,c2 li'd7
This move would appear to lead to
some difficulties for Black. In my opinion,
1 5 ... j,h5 was better.
16 li'd3 g6 17 j,h6 j,fS 18 li'e2 � fb8 19
j,xfS li'xfS 20 � d3 � b6 21 h3 ll:lc4 22
g4 'ifd7 23 ltJgS
After Black' s inaccuracy White has
achieved a threatening position. He is
intending f2-f4-f5 with a decisive attack.
Black is required to defend with exceptional
accuracy.
23 ... j,f8! 24 j,xf8 � xf8 2S � el li'e7
26 h4 b4!
Counter-attack is the only possibility of
saving the game. 26 ... h6 was tempting, but
after 27 ll:lh3 ! ifxh4 28 ll:lf4! Black would
have been in a difficult position.
27 cxb4 � xb4 28 � b3 aS 29 f4 (D)
B
29...f6!
The only rejoinder against White's at­
tack, but quite adequate.
30 exf6 ifxf6 31 li'e6+ lfxe6 32 ll:lxe6
� e8! Yi-Yi
The last precise move, after which White
gave up playing for a win and offered a
draw. This result is obvious after 33 f5 gxf5
 The f!!SSR CC Champion:$.bips: P/?otographs i

The first two USSR Correspondence

Chess Champions.
Above; Aleksandr Konstantinopolsky
and left: Pyotr Atyashev

Many top USSR postal players were also masters at over-the-board play. Above, the young
Igor Kopylov is seen in action. Later he was the 1 7th USSR CC Champion.
ii Red Letters

Vladimir Semenyuk (left) won the 1 2th

USSR Championship.
Alik Zilberberg (above) did well in the 8th
Championship. After emigrating, he soon
became a GM and one of the top corres­
pondence players in the United States.

ABOVE: the theoretician Anatoly

Ufimtsev, who played in five
USSR CC Finals late in his long
chess career.
RIGHT: Vladimir Yarkov, who
won the 1 8th Championship and
was second in the 1 9th.
 The USSR CC Championships: Photographs iii

Vladimir Simagin (left) won the

6th USSR Championship and came
close in two others. For Vyacheslav
Ragozin (above) the 2nd USSR
Championship was valuable expe­
rience towards winning the world
title a few years later.

The 1 5th USSR CC Champion, Ale­ Grigory Sanakoev in the 1 990s; he took second
ksandr Lipiridi, who died young; the place in the 6th USSR Championship and later
1 9th Championship was his memorial. won the 1 2th CC World Championship.
iv Red Letters

LEFT: famous chess writer

Yakov Estrin, who was
co-holder of the 5th USSR
CC Championship and later
won the 7th CC World
Championship.

BELOW: Mikhail
Arkhangelsky, the runner­
up in the 1 4th USSR CC
Championship.

RIGHT: another well­

known chess writer, Ya­
kov Neishtadt, with 4th CC
World Champion Professor
Vladimir Zagorovsky and
Pyotr Dubinin (far right)
at Novogorsk (Moscow re­
gion) in 1 973.
 The USSR CC Championships: Photographs v

RIGHT:
Grandmaster Lev
Omelchenko, who
was the only man to
win two consecutive
USSR CC Champi­
onships.

BELOW:
Yury Zelinsky,
1 9th Champion and
the player with the
best overall result
in the whole series.

BOTTOM RIGHT:
Aleksandr
Lutovinov, who
was runner-up in the
1 5th Championship.
vi Red Letters

LEFT: Sergey Khlusevich won

the USSR CC title at his third
attempt, in the 20th Champion­
ship. He is now competing in a
World Championship final.

ABOVE: IM Dmitry Lybin

who played in the 20th Champ­
ionship. His piano recitals have
been a popular feature at sev­
eral ICCF Congresses.

Aleksandr Yakimenko came 6th in the 15th Ukrainian master Alexandr Serebriisky
USSR CC Championship. who played in the 9th Championship.
 The USSR CC Championships: Photographs vii

LEFT and BELOW:

Mikhail Umansky won the
13th USSR CC Championship
with the highest percentage
score achieved by any player in
the whole series.

Left, a rare photograph of

Umansky as a 14-year-old in
Stavropol, 1 966, and (below) a
more recent picture of him from
the 1 990s after he won the 1 3th
World CC Championship.
In 200 1-2003 Umansky deci­
sively won an ICCF jubilee
email tournament in which all
the living correspondence world
champions participated.

ABOVE: Grandmaster
Vsevolod Kosenkov
who came second in the
9th Championship.
viii Red Letters

RIGHT: the last CC Champion of

the former USSR, Vasily Malinin

De;vis Godes, second in the 1 7th

Championship.

CC-grandmaster Sergey Yakovlevich

Ilia Kitaigorodsky, third in the 1 5th USSR CC
Championship, was one of Tim Harding 's op­
ponents in a World Ch. Semifinal in the 1 980s.
Grodzensky, co-author of this book,
who was both a player and organiser
in the USSR CC Championships
series. With I.Romanov, he wrote
'Khod v Konverte', the standard Rus­
sian history book about CC.
34 gxf5 : xb3 35 axb3 or 33 : xb4 axb4
34 f5 gxf5 35 gxf5.
This draw benefited Mikhail Yudovich,
who, by not losing a single game and by not
dropping any half points in games with the
outsiders, confidently took first place.
White: M . Yudovich
Black: A.Sychyov
7th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 6 5 - 6 6
Ruy Lopez C96
N otes by M i k h a i l Yu d ov ic h
1 e4 eS 2 lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 3 �bS a6 4 �a4 ctJf6
S 0-0 �e7 6 : et bS 7 �b3 0-0 8 c3 d6
Black wanted to 'frighten' his opponent
with the Marshall Attack.
9 h3 lt:JaS 10 �c2 cS 11 d4 ctJd7 12
ctJbd2
Other possibilities are 12 dxc5 dxc5 1 3
ctJbd2 '¥i/c7 14 lt:Jfl ctJb6 1 5 lt:Je3, as in
the well-known games Fischer-Keres (Can­
didates Tournament, Curacao 1 962) and
Gligoric-Unzicker (Olympiad, Varna 1 962),
or 12 d5.
12 ... cxd4 13 cxd4 lt:Jc6 14 ctJb3 �f6
Black does everything possible to sup­
port his centre, but in so doing he ends up
in a cramped, although solid position. Here
1 4 . . . a5 is usually played.
lS dS
The game Altshuler-Sychyov from the
same tournament went 1 5 �e3 exd4 1 6
ctJfxd4 lt:Jde5 1 7 a4 �d7 1 8 axb5 tl:Jxd4
1 9 �xd4 �xb5 20 �c3 lt:Jc6 2 1 ctJd4
lt:Jxd4 22 �xd4 �e5 with equal chances.
1S ... ctJe7
But not 1 5 ... CLJb4 1 6 �b l a5 17 �d2
when Black is in serious difficulties.
16 �d3 ctJb6 17 �d2 �d7
l 7 . . . ctJa4 came into consideration.
18 lt:JaS g6 19 b3 �g7 20 �b4 ctJbc8 21
: ct
White has gradually built up danger­
ous pressure on the queenside. Here Black
should have played 2 1 ... '¥i/b6, retaining pos­
sibilities of a tenacious defence.
21 ...fS? (D)
The decisive mistake. After this natural
move White gains a significant positional
advantage.
w
22 ctJ b7! '¥i/b6 23 �aS! '¥i/xb7 24 : c7
'¥i/b8 2S : xd7 : a7
The white rook that has penetrated so far,
needs to be exchanged, of course.
26 : xa7 '¥i/xa7 27 '¥i/d2
The threat to the f2-square has to be par­
ried: if 27 lt:Jg5 Black would have replied
27 ... fxe4.
27...fxe4 28 �xe4 ctJb6
If 28 ... ctJf5, then 29 g4 is good. [In my
opinion, to 28 ... ctJf5 the simplest reply is
29 �xf5 : xf5 30 : c l '¥i/a8 3 1 : c7,
retaining a slight advantage. Whereas after
29 g4 !?, there can follow 29 . . . ctJg3 30 @g2
lt:Jxe4 3 1 : xe4 '¥i/f7 and then, for exam­
ple, 32 '¥i/d3 lt:Je7 33 �c7 ctJf5 ! ? with the
better chances now for Black. - S.G.]
29 '¥i/e3 : b8 30 : cl : c8
If 30 . . . : b7, then 3 1 '¥i/g5, intending 32
'¥i/g4, was very strong.
31 : c6! : xc6
Or 3 1 . . . lt:Jxc6 32 �xb6 etc.
32 dxc6 ctJbc8 33 '¥i/d2!
Suppressing any active attempt by Black:
33 . . . '¥i/c5 is very strongly met by 34 �b4.
33 ... �f6 34 h4
A classical rule of chess strategy - after
cramping the opponent on one flank, attack
on the other.
34 . c:t;fl
..
If 34 . . . cJ;;; g7, then 35 g4 is highly un­
pleasant.
35 '{i'h6 �g8 36 h5 '{i'c5
Black has no other way of extricating his
queen, but even on c5 it proves to be out of
play.
37 hxg6 hxg6 38 �d2!
The most accurate, since the black queen
continues to remain off-side.
38 ... �g7 39 '{i'h3 d5 40 �xg6 '{i'd6
If 40 . . .'{i'xc6, then 41 ltJxe5 ! is quickly
decisive.
41 �h7+ �f8 42 CLJg5 '{i'f6
42 . . . '{i'xc6 43 QJe6+ also leads to cata­
strophic loss of material.
43 �e4 1-0
If now 43 . . . '{i'xc6, then 44 '{i'h5 .
Already in the early 1 930s Mikhail
Mikhailovich Yudovich ( 1 9 1 1 - 1 987) was
acknowledged to be one of the strongest
players in Moscow, time after time finishing
in the first five in the championship of the
capital. Six times he played in the champi­
onship of the country, where his best result
- a share of 3rd-6th places - came in 1 93 1 ,
when he was 20 years old. H e was a FIDE
international master from the moment that
the title was established.
Mikhail Yudovich is also remembered
as a trainer, theoretician and writer. From
1 945 and to the end of his life he worked as
deputy chief editor of the magazine 'Sha­
khmaty v SSSR'. In the 1 950s he switched
to correspondence play. A constant member
of the Soviet team in the 3rd-7th Corre­
spondence Olympiads, he won four gold
medals and one silver. Certainly no one else
!}as achieved this.
Vladimir Simagin again played splendid­
ly and, had it not been for a couple of draws
against opponents of inferior standard, he
would have had chances of repeating his
success in the 7th Championship. In several
of his games the famous grandmaster was
able to demonstrate his class. The opening
in the following game was a Caro-Kann
Defence, which Simagin called the ' silver
defence', intending that the 'gold' should
be the Sicilian, and the 'bronze' the French
Defence...
White: V.Simagin
Black: P.Dubinin
7th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 6 5 - 6 6
Caro-Kann Defence B 1 8
N otes b y Vlad i m i r S i m a g i n
1 e4 c 6 2 d4 d 5 3 Qjc3 dxe4 4 ltJxe4 �f5 5
Qjg3 �g6 6 �c4
This is a very popular continuation,
which in recent years has been played in
numerous games. It has been impossible to
establish exactly the name of the author of
this opening variation. Generally speaking,
in the naming of openings and variations
complete confusion reigns. One often comes
across variations that were popular even be­
fore the birth of their 'authors' .
6...e 6 7 CLJh3
7 ltJ l e2 is more usual. The move made
by White is no worse, since it leaves his
queen with greater freedom.
7... CLJf6 8 0-0 �d6 9 �b3 CLJbd7
If 9 . . . '{i'c7 there could have followed 1 0
'{i'f3.
10 CLJf4 '{i'c7 11 '{i'f3 e5
The most topical variation, after which
the game acquires theoretical interest. The
exchange of knight for bishop is now obvi­
ous, since after 1 2 dxe5 ltJxe5 Black has no
problems in developing his pieces.
12 CLJxg6 hxg6 13 c3 c5?!
However, after this move White gains a
clear positional advantage and the correct­
ness of Black's 1 1 th move is not confirmed.
There was still a choice between 1 3 . . . 0-0
and the problematic pawn sacrifice after
1 3 . . . 0-0-0.
14 �gs 0-0 lS dxcS! �xcS 16 !::!, adl
'iYc6
This leads to an inferior ending, but
Black had nothing better. 1 6 . . . !::!, ad8 1 7
lt:Je4! was bad for him.
17 ltxc6 bxc6 18 : fel as 19 lt:Je4 �a7
20 �xf6! lt:Jxf6 21 lt:Jxf6+ gxf6 22 !::!, d7
(D)
The resulting ending is advantageous to
White. His active rook restricts the black
pieces. However, it is not at all easy for
White to convert his slight advantage. His
correct plan is an attack on the enemy king!
8
22 ... �cS 23 !::!. edl !::!. ab8!
White's plan is obvious (the doubling of
rooks on the seventh rank), but Black has
counterplay on the b-file.
24 !::!, ld2 e4! 2S �n e3 26 fxe3 �xe3 27
!::!, e2 �cs 28 !::!, c7 !::!, b6 29 !::!, d2 �g7
Now it is clear that Black is losing a
pawn, but will this be sufficient for White to
win? For example, the variation 30 !::!, dd7
a4 3 1 �xf7 !::!, xb2 is unclear. White' s next
move is an important link in the preparation
of an attack on the black king.
30 g3! �e3 31 !::!, dd7 fS 32 @e2 �cl 33
�xf7 !::i. xb2+ 34 �dl �e3 3S h4 @ h6!
There was a threat of mate. For example,
35 ... �f2? 36 �d5+ �f6 37 !::!, xc6+ �e5
38 !::!. e6 mate. Now the point of White's
30th move becomes clear. However, Black
avoids the threats, losing only one pawn in
the process.
36 !::!. xc6 !::!. b6 37 !::!. xb6 �xb6 38 �e2
A new phase of this interesting ending
has arisen. White is a pawn up, but Black
has managed to relieve somewhat the situa­
tion on his kingside.
38 ... !::!, d8 39 !::!, b7 !::!, d6 40 �g8!
Again White is threatening mate.. If
40 . . . @h5 there can follow 4 1 @f3.
40...gS 41 !::!, h7+ �g6 42 hS+ �f6 43
!::!, h6+ �es 44 !::!, xd6 @xd6
White's advantage has finally assumed
real proportions. After the exchange of
rooks he has two passed pawns on opposite
wings. These are obvious grounds for a de­
cisive advantage, but the play is still very
complicated.
4S @f3 @es (D)
46 g4!
In order to win, the white king must
break through into Black's queenside. The
last move is the only way of carrying out
this plan.
46 ... f4 47 �b3 �cs 48 �e2 �f8 49 @d3
�g7 so �dl �h6 Sl �f3 �g7 S2 �b7
�h6 S3 @c4!
The decisive breakthrough!
S3 ... �g7 S4 @bS! 1-0
In this position Black resigned. For the
saving of the game he is short of just one
tempo. For example: 54 ... f3 55 �xf3 �f4
56 c4 @xf3 57 c5 �xg4 58 h6 �e5 59 c6
�f5 60 h7 @e6 6 1 �b6! and one of the
white pawns queens. A highly interesting
ending!
 8th USSR CC Championship ( 1 967- 1 968) 8J

NQ I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Pts

1 S. Sokolov Moscow Y2 I Y2 0 I 1 Yz Yz I Yz Y2 I Yz J 0 1 l 1 Y2 13

2 l. Morozov Gorky Y2 Yi 1 '/2 0 0 Y2 Y2 Yz l Y2 Y2 l y, 1 1 I 1 1 1 2 1/z

3 A. Zilberberg Odessa 0 Y2 0 I 'lz. 'lz Y2 Y2 1 Y2 l I Yz y, Y2 1 1 1 1 1 2 Yz

4 N. Andreyev Moscow Y2 0 I I 0 I I 0 0 0 Yz J I Y2 I l 'h l I 12

5 Yu. Zarubin Moscow I Y2 0 0 0 Y2 0 Y2 l I 'lz l Yz 1 Yz 1 I 1 y, 1 1 1/z

6 I. Tilrn Tallinn 0 1 Y2 1 I Yz Yz 0 Y2 Y2 Y2 Y2 0 y, 1 Yz y, J 1 11

7 M. Zagorovsky Moscow 0 1 Yz 0 Y2 Y2 � y, Y2 1 Y2 Yz Y2 Yz Y2 1 1 0 l Yz I O Yz

8 I. Shapovalov Yaroslavl 1;2 '!2 Yz 0 l Y2 Yz 'h Y2 y, Yz l Y2 Y2 l Yz Y2 0 I I OYz �

Q.
l J 9Yz
Sirnferopol I '!2 y,
......
9 M. Abramson Yz y, Yz Y2 Y2 Yz Y2 Y2 0 Y2 Yz 0 0 Yz

1 0 N. Pokrovsky Chelyabinsk 0 Y2 0 l 0 Y2 0 Yz Y2 Y2 'h 0 I Yz 'h I l l Y2 9Yz �

11 A. Sadomsky Moscow Yz 0 Y2 l 0 Y2 Yz Y2 'h Y2 1 0 Y2 I 'h Y2 Y2 y, Yz 9Yz
Cit
�
1 2 V. Skotorenko Kemerovo Yz Yz 0 Y2 Yz Y2 Y2 Yz 'h Yz 0 y, Yz 'h Yz Yz 'lz 1 Yz 9

1 3 L. Kitayev Yaroslavl 0 y, 0 0 0 Yz Y2 0 I I 1 Yz l y, 0 0 l 0 l 8Yz

J 1;, 8
14 V. Dragunov Torez y, 0 Yz 0 Y2 Y2 Yz 0 Yz Yz 0 y, 0 'lz Yz l Yz

15 A. Tolush Leningrad 0 'h '/, 1/2 0 y, y, Yz Yz 1/2 0 Yz Y2 y, Yz Yz 1/2 0 l 8

16 A.P. Sokolsky Minsk 1 0 Yz 0 Yz 0 0 0 1/2 Yz y, y, I J y, Yz 1/2 0 0 7'/z

1 7 V. Yershov Dnepropetrovsk 0 0 0 0 0 1/2 0 1/z I 0 1/2 Y2 J 1/2 Y2 1/2 I 0 Yz 7

18 Yu. Smolensky Odessa 0 0 0 Yi 0 y, 1 Yz I 0 y, Yz 0 1/2 Yz Yz 0 1/2 1/2 7

'!!!
1 9 G. Chumichyov Kolomna 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 Yz 0 l 0 1 1 1 1/2 � 1 7

20 A. Koblencs Riga 1/2 0 0 0 1/2 0 Yz 0 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 0 1/2 0 l '/, '/, 0 6

G.N. Veresov (Minsk) dropped out after a year and his games were cancelled.
 Eighth C·hampionship ( 196 7 -1968)
TWENTY-ONE players began the final of
the 8th Championship: grandmaster Alexan­
der Tolush, eight masters and 12 ' selected'
candidate masters, representing five of the
Republics (Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia,
Latvia and Estonia). The chief arbiter was
Ya.Eventov.
Play began simultaneously in four semi­
finals of the 9th championship, where 72
players, including four masters and 40
candidate masters, were striving to qualify
for the main tournament. Finally, 23 quar­
ter-finals of the 10th championship attracted
392 players, of whom 1 1 8 were candidate
masters. A two-year cycle in the champion­
ships was established.
The first result in the 8th Championship
was recorded soon after the start: Andreyev
won against Kitayev. By the end of the year
80 of the 2 1 0 games had finished. Mikhail
Zagorovsky had the best score - 71.h out of
1 2, while the well-known FIDE grandmaster
Aleksandr Tolush was on 6 out of 1 1 . The
future winner, the master Sergey Sokolov,
had finished only two games, scoring one
and a half points. By that time the Belorus­
sian master Gavril V eresov had dropped out
of the tournament, and it was decided not to
count his games.
Six months later Sokolov's leading po­
sition - 5 points out of 7 - was no longer
in doubt. Andreyev was also looking quite
good on 8 out of 12, while Morozov and
Zagorovsky had 91.h out of 16.
When there were just two months remain­
ing to the specified completion date, it tran­
spired that 33 games were still in progress.
Sokolov's lead was undisputed ( 1 0 points
out of 1 3). Also in the leading group were
Morozov - l O Yz out of 1 7, Zilberberg and
Andreyev - 10 out of 1 5 , Tum - 1 0 out of
18, Zagorovsky - 91.h out of 1 8, and Zaburin
- 9 out of 1 6. The Correspondence Com­
mission decided to extend play to l 0th De­
cember 1 968, after which unfinished games
were to be adjudicated, after selecting from
them the eight most important, which were
to be continued by telegraph.
When all the results were in, the gold
medal went to the over-the-board master
Sergey Sokolov - a Muscovite, and at that
time a serviceman. At the end of the USSR
Championship Sergey Mironovich Sokolov
( 1 937- 1 992) was 32 years old. He had be­
fore him successes both at the board (best
result - third place in the Moscow Champi­
onship of 1 974) and in ICCF tournaments,
the obtaining of the title of correspondence
international master in 1 982, qualification
for the Three-Quarter-Final of the world
championship, and a tragic death in 1 992.
White : L .Kitayev
Black: S .Sokolov
8th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 6 7 - 6 8
Scotch Game C45
N otes by Sergey S o ko l ov
1 e4 e5 2 i{Jf3 i{Jc6 3 d4 exd4 4 i{Jxd4
Jtc5 5 i{J b3 Jtb6 6 a4 a5 7 i{Jc3 'i'Yf6 8
j¥e2
By forcing this move, shutting in the
bishop on fl , Black has gained at least equal
chances.
...
8 i{Jge7 9 i{Jd5
An unfortunate sortie. The opening
of the e-file is advantageous to Black,
and also the b2-pawn is deprived of its
natural protection. More in keeping with
the demands of the position is the plan
of completing White' s development by
�e3, 0-0-0, g2-g3 and �g2 etc., as in
the game Benko-Smyslov from the 1 964
Interzonal tournament.
9... lt:Jxd5 10 exd5+ lt:Je7 11 h4 h6
Theory recommends l l . ..d6 1 2 �g5
'i!e5 13 'i!xe5 dxe5 14 �xe7 cJ;; xe7 1 5
c4 �d6 with a good game for Black. How­
ever, in this variation White is by no means
obliged to exchange on e7; 1 4 c4 is prefer­
able, and if 14 . . . �d7 1 5 c5.
12 c4?
At the cost of an important tempo, White
defends his b2- and d5-pawns. 1 2 g3 fol­
lowed by �g2 was essential.
12 ... d6 13 g4? (D)
This unfounded attacking attempt finally
compromises White's position. Black seizes
the initiative.
B
13 ... 'ifg6 14 �h3 h5 15 g5
White's strategy has failed.
1 5 � g 1 would have been refuted by
15 ... �f8 16 �fl hxg4 17 �xg4 �xg4
1 8 � xg4 'i!f5 when Black has a strong
attack.
15 ... 0-0 16 �e3 'i!e4 17 �d2
After 1 7 0-0-0 the reply l 7 . . . lt:Jf5 is
unpleasant.
17 ... �xe3+ 18 fxe3 �xh3 19 � xh3 c6!
The opening of the position is obviously
to Black's advantage.
20 dxc6 bxc6 21 lt:Jd4 c5 22 lt:Jb5 d5 23
lt:Jc3 'i!e6 24 � ahl � ab8 25 �cl � b4
0-1
White: M .Zagorovsky
Black : S .Sokolov
8th U S SR CC C h , 1 9 6 7 - 6 8
Queen 's Indian Defence £ 1 9
1 d4 lt:Jf6 2 lt:Jf3 b6 3 c4 e6 4 g3
White chooses the variation with the fi­
anchetto of his king' s bishop. In top-level
events it has been supplanted somewhat
by the method of development with e2-
e3 , which is outwardly unpretentious, but,
as shown by Karpov, Petrosian and other
grandmasters, full of venom.
4... �b7 5 �g2 �e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 lt:Jc3
lt:Je4 8 'i!c2 lt:Jxc3 9 'i!xc3 f5 10 d5
If White desired, he could have followed
the well-trodden path ( 1 0 lt:Jel etc.) of pro­
voking global exchanges and approaching
the haven of a draw. His attempt to sharpen
the play proves unsuccessful. The opening
of the position allows his opponent to gain
the initiative on the queenside.
10...�f6 11 'i!c2 exd5 12 lt:Jel lt:Jc6 13
�xd5+ cJef h8 14 �d2 lt:Jd4 15 'i!d3 c6
16 �g2 d5 17 e3 dxc4 18 'i!xc4 lt:Jb5 19
�b4 � e8 20 'i!b3 a5
The pawns begin advancing, finally con­
solidating Black's advantage on the queen's
wing. White is unable to mount any counter­
action against this.
21 � dl 'i!c7 22 �d2 lt:Jd6 23 lt:Jd3 lt:Je4
24 � fel c5 25 f4 c4 26 'i!c2 b5 27 �cl b4
28 lt:Jf2 a4 29 �xe4 b3 ! (D)
w
 Black succeeds in first opening the a-file
and then occupying it with his rook. There
is a striking contrast between his bishop,
raking the long diagonal, and its opponent,
helplessly shut in at c 1 .
30 axb3 axb3 3 1 'iVe2 Jtxe4 32 ll:Jxe4 fxe4
33 g4 g6 34 g5 j,g7 35 : d5 c3! 36 : b5
: ebS 37 : xbS+ : xbS 3S : dt : as 39
'iVg2 'iVcS 0-1
The Gorky player Igor Morozov played
strongly and evenly throughout the tourna­
ment. He scored the same number of points
as Zilberberg, but a superior tie-break gave
the future grandmaster the silver medal. The
decisive game, which brought him second
place, was the following.
White: N .Andreyev
Black: l . Morozov
8th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 6 7 - 6 8
Ruy Lopez C95
N otes by Tim H a rd i n g
1 e4 e5 2 ctJ f3 ll:Jc6 3 j,b5 a6 4 j,a4 ctJf6
5 0-0 j,e7 6 : el b5 7 j,b3 d6 S c3 0-0
9 h3 ltJbS
This variation, attributed to the Hun­
garian hypermodem master Gyula Breyer
( 1 894-192 1 ), became very popular in the
1 960s and supplanted the old move 9. . . ll:Ja5
in popularity for several years.
10 d4 ctJbd7 11 c4 c6
This is one of several lines that were
being tested intensively by masters in: the
mid-60s.
12 ctJbd2
This move was apparently first proposed
by Ravinsky in 1 955 but may have received
its first important test in this game.
12 ... '1Vc7
Later 12 . . . c5 was played in Poleshchuk­
Umansky, from the 1 3th Championship, and
1 2 ... j,b7 has been seen too.
13 a4 j,b7 14 a5 : res 15 dxe5 ll:Jxe5 16
'iVc2 ctJh5 17 ll:Jxe5 dxe5
White faces a crisis because a weak point
at f4 has appeared near his king position,
while on the queenside he must take care
not to lose his a-pawn.
1S ll:Jf3
1 8 c5 is White's other reasonable option.
1S ... j,b4 19 j,d2
This leads to long-term problems on the
dark-squares, so White should have consid­
ered 1 9 : d l ! ?. Black would be ill-advised
to accept the offer of the a-pawn because his
bishop could be shut out of play for a long
time after 1 9 ... Jtxa5 20 c5.
19... j,xd2 20 'iVxd2 : adS
Black has achieved his aim of uncontest­
ed control of f4, but before occupying it he
improves the position of another piece.
21 'iVc3 ctJf4 22 j,c2
22 cxb5 (hoping for 22 . . .axb5? 23 a6),
had to be rejected because Black would jus­
tify his play tactically by 22 ... : d3 23 'IVc2
(23 'iVc4? allows 23 ... axb5 with tempo.)
23 ... : xf3 24 gxf3 'IV d8 and the white king
is in serious danger. There could follow 25
: edl 'iVg5+ 26 �fl cxb5 when 27 o/iic7
fails to 27 ... : c8 ! 28 Jtxf7+ �h8 and now
29 'iVxb7 allows mate in 3 while 29 'iVb6
(to protect f2) is of no avail because of the
crushing blow 29 ... Jtxe4 ! .
2 2... '1Ve7 23 c5 j,cS 24 'iVe3 'iVf6 2 5 � h2
'iVg6 26 : gt
White does his best to construct a robust
defence for his king but Black's pressure is
too strong to be withstood for long.
26 ... 'iVh5 27 ct:Jel (D)
8
27 ... l:l, d2 28 l! fl
28 'i,Vxd2 fails to 28 . . . �xh3 ! .
28 ... l:l, ed8 2 9 l! c l gS 3 0 �b3 l! 8d3 3 1
cuxd3 l! xd3 3 2 �dl 'i,Vh6 33 'i,Vxd3
The queen cannot be saved because of 33
'i,Vel l:l, xh3+ with forced mate.
33 ... cuxd3 34 l! c2 �e6 3S f3 'i,Vh4 36
�e2 ctJf4 37 �dl hS 0-1
With . . . g4 imminent, White ' s resignation
comes not a moment too soon.
By profession Igor Morozov was a me­
chanical engineer. He was a winner of the
fourth USSR Team Championship ( 1 973-
1 975) as a member of the Russian Federa­
tion team, and of the first European Team
Championship (1 973-1 983) as a member of
the USSR team.
But the Gorky player's chief success
came in an international tournament, dedi­
cated to the l OOth anniversary of Lenin's
birthday ( 1 970-1 973), in which he took third
place, achieving the grandmaster norm.
Alik Zilberberg, an engineer from Odes­
sa, went through the entire cycle - from the
quarter-final, where he first tried his hand at
correspondence play, to the bronze medal.
Over the entire six years he lost only two
games.
White : A.Zilberberg
Black : V.Skotorenko
8th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 6 7 - 6 8
King 's Indian Defence £99
N otes by A l i k Z i l berb erg
1 d4 Clif6 2 c4 g6 3 Clic3 �g7 4 e4 d6 S
�e2 0-0 6 CUf3 es 7 0-0 Clic6 8 dS cue7 9
Cliel cud7 10 f3 rs 11 g4 cur6 12 �e3
When these moves were made (at the
start of the tournament, i.e. in 1 967) I knew
of two games in which White had tried 1 2
CUg2: Portisch-Shtein (Yerevan 1 968) and
Nikitin-Shtein (Kislovodsk 1 966). In both
these games Black achieved good play.
Therefore it was natural that White should
aim for a different plan.
12 ...c6
Grandmaster Shtein' s idea in a similar
position: Black aims to maintain the tension
in the centre and on the kingside. Clearly in­
ferior is 12 . . . f4, after which Black's tempo­
rary initiative on the kingside quickly evap­
orates, whereas on the queenside White 's
chances are preferable. For example: 1 2 ... f4
1 3 �f2 g5 14 cud3 h5 1 5 h3 l! f7 1 6 c5
�f8 11 @g2 cug6 18 b4 l! h7 19 l! h 1
'i,Ve7 20 l! c l cuh4+ 2 1 �gl �d7 22 c6 !,
with a great advantage to White, as shown
by the game Zilberberg-Zarubin from the
same tournament.
13 l:l, bl cxdS 14 cxdS �d7 lS @hl a6 16
a4 l! c8 17 l:l, gl fxg4
In my opinion, this exchange is necessary
sooner or later, since it forces White to con­
sider constantly the defence of the g4- and
e4-pawns.
18 fxg4 bS 19 axbS axbS (D)
w
20 'i,Vd3!
This was one of the most difficult moves
in the game. 20 'i,Vb3 was tempting, but by
the exchange sacrifice on c3 Black would
have gained more than sufficient compensa­
tion. With his last move White vacates the
di-square for the essential knight manoeu­
vre Clic3-dl -f2.
20 ...b4
This activity is forced, since otherwise
after the knight manoeuvre and b2-b4 Black
would have had a constant weakness on b5.
21 tlJdl 'i/c7 22 tt:Jf2 � h8 23 .i,f3 'i/b7
24 h3 .i, b5 25 'ii d2
A clear advantage for White has emerged.
His pieces are harmoniously placed, and it
will be hard for Black to hold his b4-pawn.
25 .&!, c4 26 b3 .&!, c3 27 ctJdl tt:Jfxd5!
..•
Despite his difficult position, Black finds
a way of sharpening the play. Now the battle
again flares up with renewed strength.
28 exd5 .&!, xf3 29 tt:Jxf3 .&!, d3 30 'i/f2
'i/xd5 31 � h2 h6
After 3 1 . .. .&!, xb3 32 .&!, xb3 'i/xb3 33
tt:Jg5 Black loses quickly.
32 ctJd2 e4 33 tt:Jc4 (D)
B
33 ...'i/e6?
Black wrongly aims for the rapid advance
of his d6-pawn: 33 ... tt:Jc6! was clearly
stronger, for example: 34 tt:Jdb2 .&!, xb3 35
.&!, bdl 'i/e6 36 .i,xh6 (3 6 .&!, xd6 .i,e5+!)
36 ... .i,xh6 37 .&i, xd6 'i/e7 and Black's
chances are no worse. After 33 ... tt:Jc6 there
would have followed 34 �g2! 'i/e6 35
'i/f4 with good chances of converting the
material advantage, but there would still
have been much play in prospect.
34 ctJdb2 .&i, xb3 35 .i,d4 .&i, f3 36 .i,xg7+
�xg7 37 'i/d4+ @h7 38 ctJd2! .&i, f4 39
tt:Jbc4 .i,xc4 40 tt:Jxc4 tt:Jc6 41 'i/xd6
.&!, f2+ 42 .&!, g2 .&!, xg2+ 43 �xg2 'i/xc4
Black has finally managed to restore ma-
terial equality, but it is too late.
44 .&!, fl! 1-0
There is no satisfactory defence against
the invasion of the seventh rank by the
rook.
The FIDE grandmaster Aleksandr Tolush
died shortly after the event ended; his very
last game, with Zilberberg, was adjudicated
drawn. The following unclear position had
arisen (Tolush, White, to move) with the
white king taking a walk in the park. If the
game could have been played to a finish,
maybe Zilberberg might have won it and
shared the title.
w
About this event, Zilberberg also remarks
that "Smolensky and I used to live for many
years in the city of Odessa, just a few blocks
from each other. So I got a move from him
almost every other day, like electronic
mail!"
A prize-winner in the 8th USSR CC Ch,
the Odessa player Alik Zilberberg then emi­
grated to the USA. On becoming an Ameri­
can citizen he performed successfully in
correspondence events, obtaining the ICCF
grandmaster title.
It appeared that correspondence chess
was becoming younger - all three prize­
winners in the 8th USSR Championship
achieved their successes at an age of little
more than 30.
N2 9th USSR CC Ch. (1969-70) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Pts

1 L.Omelchenko Pyatigorsk 1 0 1 y, y, y, y, 1 1 1 y, y, 1 1 1 1 1 1 14

2 V.Kosenkov Kuibyshev o· y, 0 1 0 1 1 y, 1 1 1 1 y, 1 1 1 1 1 13Y,

3 G.Sorokin Gorky 1 y, 1 0 1 1 y, y, y, y, 0 1 1 1 1 y, 1 1 13

4 V.Shadchnev Penza 0 1 0 y, 0 1 0 y, 1 1 1 1 y, 1 1 1 1 1 12 Yz

5 M.Govbinder Dushanbe y, ·o 1 y, 0 0 y, 1 0 1 1 1 1 y, 1 1 1 1 12

6 V.Baturinsky Moscow y, 1 0 1 1 Y2 y, 0 y, 0 1 1 y, 1 1 1 1 y, 12

•
'

7 B.Petrov Odessa Y2 0 0 0 1 y, 0 1 y, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 y, 1 12

8 A.Mikhailov Leningrad y, 0 y, 1 y, y, 1 0 y, 0 y, 1 1 y, y, 1 1 1 11

9 I.Morozov Gorky 0 y, y, y, 0 1 0 1 1 y, 1 1 y, y, 0 y, 1 1 JOY,

1 0 N.Andreyev Moscow 0 0 y, 0 1 y, y, y, 0
11
y, 1 1 y, 1 y, 1 1 1 lOYz
1 1 V.Mikenas Vilnius 0 0 y, 0 0 1 0 1 y, y, 1 y, 1 y, y, 1 1 1 10

12 A.Korelov Leningrad y, 0 1 0 0 0 0 y, 0 0 0 1 0 1 y, 1 1 1 7 Yz

1 3 E.Kuuskmaa Tartu y, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y, 0 1 y, 1 1 1 1 6 Yz

1 4 V.Yudin Sebastopol 0 y, 0 y, 0 y, 0 0 y, Yz 0 1 0 y, y, y, 1 y, 6Yz

1 5 A.Serebriisky Harkov 0 0 0 0 y, 0 0 y, y, 0 y, 0 y, y, y, y, y, 1 SYz

1 6 A.Pchyolkin Nikolaevsk-Amur o. 0 0 0 0 0 0 y, 1 y, y, y, 0 y, y, i . 0 y, 1 SYz
1 7 G.Shagapov Bugulma 0 0 y, 0 0 0 0 0 y, 0 0 0 0 y, y, 1 0 y, 31/z

1 8 P.Sadurskis Riga 0 0 0 0 0 0 y, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y, y, 1 1 31/z

1 9 B.Polyansky Saratov 0 0 0 0 0 y, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y, 0 0 y, 0 11/z

 Ninth Championship (1969-197 0)
THE 9th USSR Championship began on 1 st
February 1 969. Geographically, the tourna­
ment was very widely spread - the players
represented 1 6 towns from Russia, Ukraine,
the three Baltic Republics and Tadzhikistan.
The chess honour of the Central Asian Re­
public was defended by Mikhail Govbinder,
who subsequently obtained the international
master title. Boris Rozinov, who already
held the title of ICCF International Arbiter,
was appointed arbiter.
A confident start to the tournament was
made by th.e Muscovite Viktor Baturin­
sky, who won game after game, and after
a year's play had 1012 out of 1 3 . At that
point Vladas Mikenas (Vilnius), a former
opponent of Alekhine and a future FIDE
grandmaster, was doing not at all badly
- 412 out of 5 . Also in the leading group
were Omelchenko (Pyatigorsk) - 6 out of 8,
Andreyev (Moscow) - 5 Yi out of 7 , Sorokin
(Gorky) - 5 out of 6, and Govbinder (Dush­
anbe) - 412 out of 7 .
When the allotted time was drawing to
a close, it became clear that the main con­
tender for victory was candidate master Lev
Omelchenko from Pyatigorsk, who had 1 3
points out of 1 7 and the advantage in his last
remaining game. All his rivals, Kosenkov,
Sorokin, Govbinder and Baturinsky, could
hope for 1 3 12 points at best. A miracle did
not occur - Lev Omelchenko won his last
game. This is how it happened.
White: A.Pchyolkin
Black: L . Omelchenko
9th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 6 9 - 7 0
Ruy Lopez C93
1 e4 e5 2 fljf3 flJc6 3 i,b5 a6 4 i,a4 fljf6
5 0-0 i,e7 6 .l::!, el b5 7 i,b3 d6 8 c3 0-0 9
h3 h6 10 d4 .i::!. e8 11 fljbd2 i,f8 12 fljfl
i,d7 13 fljg3 flJa5 14 i,c2 c5 15 b3 fljc6
16 d5 flJe7 17 c4
The usual 1 7 i,e3 is better.
17 ... fljg6 18 fljf5 ClJf4 19 i,xf4 exf4 (D)
w
20 flJxd6 i,xd6 21 e5 i,f8 22 'i¥d3 g6 23
exf6 'iVxf6 24 'iV d2 i,g7 25 .i::!, xe8+ .i::!, xe8
26 .i::!, el .i::!, xel+ 27 'iVxel b4 28 'iVe2 @f8
29 i,d3 a5 30 @h2 g5 31 g4 h5 32 fljgl
hxg4 33 hxg4 'i¥h6+ 34 @g2 'i¥h4 35 d6
i,d4 36 ClJh3 f3+! 0-1
Omelchenko considered his most memo­
rable game from this tournament to be the
one with Vladas Mikenas from Lithuania.
White: L . Omelchenko
Black : V. Mikenas
9th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 6 9 - 7 0
English Opening A 1 9
Notes b y Lev O me l c h e n ko
Studying the starting list of the 9th
USSR CC Ch, I came to the conclusion
that the most famous participant was L-SSR
honoured master of sport and international
master Vladas Ionovich Mikenas, a com;:::: ­
porary of Alekhine who played him seY;:::-;:. :
times. In choosing my first moYe. I opted :o:-
1 c4, since the Lithuanian master was reput­
ed to be an expert on the Alekhine Defence,
an opening that he employed with success.
1 c4 lt:Jf6 2 lt:Jc3 e6 3 e4 c5 4 e5 lt:Jg8 5 d4
cxd4 6 'i¥xd4 lt:Jc6 7 'i¥e4 f5 8 'i¥e2 tt:Jge7
9 lt:Jf3 lt:Jg6 10 i,d2 a6 11 0-0-0 'i¥c7 12
.l::\. el i,c5 13 �bl!
An important refinement in this, compli­
cated variation, which promises a gripping
struggle. The game Aronin-Smyslov ( 1 8th
USSR CC Ch, 1 950) went 13 h4?, but
this move did not justify itself, since after
13 ... lt:Jd4 14 lt:Jxd4 i,xd4 1 5 f4 b5 ! 1 6 h5
lt:Je7 17 'i¥d3 i,f2 1 8 .l::\. dl i,b7 1 9 'i¥d6
'i¥c8 20 .l::\. h3 i,c5 2 1 'i¥d3 bxc4 22 'i¥xc4
lt:Jd5 23 lt:Jxd5 i,xd5 24 'i¥c2 'i¥b7 it
proved to be a loss of time.
13 ... lt:Jd4 14 lt:Jxd4 i,xd4 15 f4 b5!?
Black sensibly avoids the win of a
pawn by 1 5 ... i,xc3 1 6 i,xc3 lt:Jxf4 1 7
'i¥d2 lt:Jg6 1 8 i,b4 lt:Jxe5 on account of
1 9 'i¥d4. The move in the game offers a
counter-sacrifice with the aim of mounting
a counter-attack on the white king.
16 cxb5 0-0 17 i,e3 i,xc3
Avoiding the trap 1 7 . . . 'i¥b6 1 8 i,xd4
'i¥xd4 1 9 'i¥f3 .l::\. b8 ( 1 9 . . . .l::\. a7 is stronger)
20 bxa6 'i¥d2 2 1 i,b5 i,xa6 22 .l::\. e2.
18 .l::\. cl 'i¥b7 19 .l::\. xc3 'i¥e4+ 20 'i¥c2
lt:Jxf4
The pawn has been regained and every­
thing seems to be all right, but. . .
21 'i¥xe4 fxe4 (D)
w
Black had aimed for the diagram posi­
tion. However, there followed:
22 .l::l, xc8 ! !
A stunning exchange sacrifice, tip­
ping the scales in favour of White, whose
bishops, supported by the pawns, become
formidably strong.
22 ... .l::l, axc8 23 bxa6 lt:Jd5 24 i,d4 lt:Jb4
25 i, b5 tt:J c2
This knight raid poses the question:
'Where now is the white bishop going to
move? '
26 i,a7! lt:Jb4 27 .l::\. dl .l::\. a8 28 i,c5
.l::l, fb8 29 i,xd7 lt:Jd3
This looks strong, since after 30 i,xe6+
@h8 3 1 i,a3 .l::\. xa6 32 i,b3 .l::\. xa3 33
bxa3 lt:Jxe5 34 .l::l. el lt:Jc4 Black has his
play, but. . .
3 0 .l::\. xd3!
This further sacrifice suppresses any pos­
sibility of resistance.
30 ... exd3 31 a7 .l::l, b7
3 1 .. . .l::\. eS 32 i,xe8 .l::\. xe8 33 b4 was
hopeless for Black.
32 i,xe6+ @ h8 33 i,d5 d2 34 @c2
dl 'i¥+ 35 @xdl .l::l, d7 36 i,d6 .l::l, axa7 37
b4 g5 38 @c2 .l::\. a6 39 b5 .l::\. a5 40 e6! 1-0
After 40. . . .l::\. xd6 41 e7 .l::\. a8 42 i,xa8
.l::l, e6 43 b6 .l::l, xe7 44 b7 .l::l, e8 45 a4 Black
is three whole tempi late in reaching the sav­
ing b6-square.
The silver medal in the 9th Champion­
ship went to the experienced over-the-board
master and future ICCF grandmaster V sevo­
lod Kosenkov (Kuibyshev), an excellent
finish enabling him to secure second place
with 1 3 Vi points. In the following game he
was able to create a miniature.
White: V.Kosenkov
Black: A.Serebriisky
9th U S S R C C C h , 1 9 6 9 - 7 0
Scandinavian Defen ce 80 1
1 e4 d5 2 exd5 'i¥xd5 3 lt:Jc3 'i¥a5 4 d4 c6
4 ... lt:Jf6 or 4 ... i,f5 is more often played.
 The once popular plan with 4 ... e5 is now
considered too risky.
5 �e2
The main continuations are 5 CZJD and
5 �c4.
5 CLJf6 6 tlJf3 �g4 7 CZJe5
•..
7 0-0 was also possible.
7... �xe2 8 'iVxe2 e6 9 �d2 'iVc7 10
0-0-0
The resulting position resembles a Caro­
Kann Defence, but Black is seriously behind
in development.
10 ... CLJbd7 11 f4 tLixe5
l l .. .�d6 is more natural.
12 fxe5 CLJd7 13 � hfl c5?
Had Black played 1 3 ... �b4 or 13 . . . CZJb6,
he could have hoped to put up a lengthy re­
sistance. Now, however, White gains a great
advantage.
14 d5
1 4 'iff2 was more convincing, with di­
rect threats to the black king, for example
14 ... f6 1 5 exf6 tlJxf6 16 �f4 etc.
14 ... 'ifxe5 .15 'iVb5 'ifc7
In the event of 1 5 ... 0-0-0 White had 1 6
�f4 and 1 7 CZJe4 with an easy win.
16 dxe6 fxe6 17 �g5 a6 (D)
w �g3 CLJh5 10 CLJd2 CZJxg3 11 hxg3 �g7
18 CLJd5! 'if e5
1 8 ... 'ifd8 was the lesser evil, although in
this case too after 1 9 �xd8 axb5 20 CZJc7+
things are bad for Black.
19 CLJf6+ 1-0
The third prize-winner was Garald So­
rokin, an engineer from Gorky. He was
admitted into the championship final as
the winner of the 1 st championship of the
Russian Federation, in which he finished
ahead of the future ICCF grandmaster Lev
Omelchenko.
Later Sorokin became an international
master in correspondence play and qualified
for the final of the ICCF World Champion­
shp, but then he gave up chess, devoting
himself to scientific work.
It should also be remembered that Ga­
rald Sorokin was one of the initiators of
the introduction of individual ratings for
correspondence players, long before they
were brought in by ICCF. In the battle for
the 'bronze' in the 9th USSR Championship
the following game proved decisive.
White: V.Baturinsky
Black: G .Sorokin
9th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 6 9 - 7 0
Modern Benoni Defence A 6 1
N otes b y G ara l d S o ro k i n
1 d 4 CLJf6 2 c4 c 5 3 d5 e 6 4 tLic3 exd5 5
cxd5 d6 6 CLJf3 g6 7 �g5 h6 8 �h4 g5 9
12 CLic4 0-0 13 e3 'ife7 14 �e2 � d8
The same opening moves, but in a
slightly different order, were made in the
second game of the Botvinnik-Tal match
( 1 960), which continued 1 5 0-0 tlJd7 1 6
a4 CZJe5 1 7 CZJxe5. Now, i n Tal's opin­
ion, 1 7 . . . �xe5 (instead of 1 7 . . . 'ifxe5, as
played in the game) would have led to
equal play.
15 'ifd3 CLJd7 16 �dl CZJe5 17 CZJxe5
'ifxe5 18 �c2 f5 19 f4 'iVe7 20 0-0-0 c4
21 'iVd2
If 21 'ifxc4, then 2 1 . . .'iVxe3+. In view
of this, White should have chosen a differ­
ent move order: 1 9 0-0-0 (instead of 1 9 f4)
1 9 ... 'ife7 20 � de l .
21...a6 2 2 � del b5 (D)

w (like the opponent's king) would be securely
23 a3!
The strength of Black's attack in the
event of 23 e4 is illustrated by the fantasy
variation 23 . . . b4 24 tlJa4 b3 ! ? 25 axb3 cxb3
26 �xb3 "ii'b7 27 �c2 1: b8 28 �d3
�d7 29 tbc3 1: dc8 30 fxg5 fxe4 3 1 �xe4
�xc3 32 bxc3 "ii'b3 3 3 1: e3? 'ii'a3+ 34
� d l �g4+ and Black wins.
[However, by playing 33 �h7+! ! @xh7
34 "ii'd3+ �g7 3 5 gxh6+ White forces
mate in a few moves, so probably 24 . . . c3
would be the correct choice for Black.
- S. G./T.H.]
23 ... "ii'b7 24 fxg5 a5! 25 gxh6
White does not sense the danger, other­
wise he would have preferred 25 1: xh6 with
the possible continuation 25 ...b4 26 tlJa4 c3
27 "ii'd3 b3 28 �dl cxb2+ 29 tlJxb2 �d7
30 1: g6 �e8 etc. After the capture on h6
with the pawn, the dark-square bishop be­
comes the most important piece, achieving
both defence and attack.
25 ... �f6 26 h7+ @h8 27 e4
Here too 27 1: h6 �g7 28 1: g6 was
possible.
27 ...b4 28 tlJdl c3 29 'ii'h 6
29 "ii'e3 was more prudent. After 29 bxc3
bxa3 30 �bl 1: b8 Black's threats are dan­
gerous, but now he has a very strong attack.
29 ... cxb2+ 30 �bl
Possibly White expected that his king
defended by the enemy pawn. But he did not
take account of the fact that Black has the
possibility of invading on the a-file. After
30 lbxb2 'ii' e7 3 1 "ii'h5 ! the position would
have remained tense (3 1 . . .bxa3 32 tlJd3 a2
3 3 �d2 �d7 34 tlJf4 etc.).
30 ... �g7 31 "ii'g5 1: f8 32 exf5 (D)
8
Both 33 1: e7 and 33 f6 are threatened.
32...b3! 33 �e4
If 33 �d3, then 33 . . . "ii'xd5 34 "ii'e3
�xf5. White's attack comes to a halt - the
e-file is blocked by his own bishop.
33 ... "ii'c7!
Threatening . . . 'ii' c 5 and . . . "ii'x a3, as well
as . . . �xf5 (the white queen is obliged to
defend the c l -square in view of the mate
threat).
34 l: hfl �xf5 35 l: xf5 "ii'c5 0-1
White resigned, after agreeing with the
proposed variations:
(a) 36 1: e2 "ii'xa3 37 1: xb2 �xb2
3 8 lbxb2 'ii' a2+ 39 @ c l "ii' a l+ 40 �d2
"ii'xb2+;
(b) 36 lbxb2 "ii'xa3 3 7 �cl 'ii'xb2+ 38
�dl a4.
 Tenth Championship ( 1971 -197 2)
ON THE 5th of February 1 9 7 1 a start was
made to the 1 0th USSR Championship.
Among the 2 1 participants were ICCF
grandmaster Yakov Estrin, eight masters,
including the future grandmasters Vsevolod
Kosenkov and Lev Omelchenko, and some
very strong candidate masters - winners
of the U.SSR Championship semi-finals,
among whom we meet some prestigious
names in the world of correspondence chess
- Anatoly Sychyov, Yury Zelinsky, Anatoly
Voitsekh and S.Prokofiev. An interesting
fact is that in the pairings the future winner
of the tournament, Lev Omelchenko, was
given No.2 1 .
Apart from Russians, there were corre­
spondence players from Ukraine, Belorus­
sia, Latvia, Lithuania and Tadzhikistan.
Viktor Yurgenson (Moscow), subsequently
an ICCF international arbiter, was appointed
arbiter of the tournament. From the infor­
mation by Yurgenson, given every three
months in the Riga magazine ' Sahs' , one
can gain an impression of the course of the
play.
The first result was recorded quite soon -
on the 1 4th move in a double-edged position
Zelinsky (Riga) and Govbinder (Dushanbe)
agreed a draw. By the end of 1 97 1 the lead­
ing group was headed by ICCF grandmaster
Yakov Estrin - 4Yi out of 6, with three
players half a point behind: Omelchenko,
Sadomsky and Voitsekh.
After another three months it became
clear that the only ICCF grandmaster in the
tournament was not in contention for first
place and preferred to agree draws. Lev
Omelchenko, on the other hand, was not
averse to retaining his title. By April the
master from Pyatigorsk had 8 points out of
1 1 . The number of pursuers had thinned: Za­
vernyaev had 7Yi out of 1 1 , Govbinder - 6Yi
out of 9, and Estrin - 6 Yi out of 1 0.
By the summer of 1 972 the tournament
table was two thirds full, but things were
still not clear. Those in contention for the
prizes were: Omelchenko - 1 0 out of 14,
Govbinder - 8 out of 1 1 , Voitsekh and
Prokofiev - 7Yi out of 1 0, and Sychyov - 7
out of 1 1 . And here Lev Omelchenko put
on a spurt, winning four games in a row
to reach 14 points out of 1 8 , effectively
leaving his rivals to fight it out for second
place. At this point those in contention were
Prokofiev - 1 1 Yi out of 1 5 , Govbinder - 1 1
out of 1 5 , and Voitsekh, who had finished
fewer games than the others - 1 0 out of 1 3 .
Just before the conclusion of the playing
period at the end of 1 972, fifteen games re­
mained unfinished. After another win (this
time over Estrin) Omelchenko had 1 5 points
out of 1 9 with one unfinished game in an
equal position. Prokofiev had 1 3 Yi out of
1 8, and Voitsekh - 1 2 out of 1 5 . The final
results confirmed the claims of this trio to
the championship awards, arranging them
on the podium in this order.
Thus Lev Omelchenko became USSR
Champion for the second time! He was born
in 1 922 in the Ukraine in the small town of
Zhashkov in the Cherkass Region. He spent
his youth in Tyumen. Here in his school
years his interest in chess was aroused and
he achieved his first successes. But service
in the army, participation in the war and be­
ing seriously wounded prevented him from
progressing in chess.
After returning to civilian life,
Omelchenko completed a course in the Law
Faculty of Leningrad University and was
 Co
N2 10th USSR CC Ch ( 1 9 7 1 -72) I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ') 10 I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 c:::i

l L. Omelchenko Pyatigorsk .' Yz y, y, I y, Yz y, 1 I 1 y, Y2 I I y, I l 1 I 1 l S Y,

2 S. Prokofiev Leningrad Y2 y, I y, Y2 Y2 Y2 I 'h y, I I I l y, Y2 I l 1 1 lS

3 A. Voitsekh Bobruisk y, 'h 0 0 I I I I I y, y, J Yz y, y, I J I 1 I 1 4 '/z

-
4 M. Govbinder Dushanbe y, 0 I 0 y, Y2 I I I I I Y2 'h I y, I 0 I 1 I 14
5 A. Sychyov Novosibirsk 0 y, I I 1;2 y, 0 y, 1 I y, Y2 1 'lz Yz l I Yz 1 I 13'h
6 Yu. Zelinsky Riga y, l/2 0 Yz Yz Y1 Yz y, 0 1 I I 1 Yz Yz I I 1 I l 13'/z
7 A. Ivanov Chemigov y, Yz 0 Y1 y, Y2 0 0 I I I 0 l/2 y, I 1 y, 1 I 1 12
8 B. Kogan Lvov 'lz Yz 0 0 I Y2 1 0 0 'h y, 1 0 l I 1 0 I Yz I 11
y, I 1
9 V. Zavernyaev Severodvinsk 0 0 0 0 y, y, 1 1 Yz y, 'h I y, Yz Yz Y2 1 11
�
Q..
lOYz
"""'
10 Ya. Estrin Moscow 0 y, 0 0 0 I 0 I Yz 0 Y2 1 0 1 '12 I 1 Yz 1 l
Cl>
I 1 V. Shadchnev Penza 0 Yz Yz 0 0 0 0 y, y, 1 Yz I 0 I 1 0 l I I Yz 10 "to

�
12 A. Sadomsky Moscow Yz 0 Yz 0 Yz 0 0 Yz Yz Yz y, 0 Yz J Yz Yz I 1 1 I 10 ;;;
13 G. Sorokin Gorky Yz 0 0 y, y, 0 1 0 0 0 0 I l 0 1 y, 1 l y, l 91;2

14 N. Kopylov Voronezh 0 0 Yz Yz 0 0 Y1 I y, I I Yz 0 Yz y, J Yz Y1 Yz Y1 9'h

15 A . Bakharev Riga 0 0 Yz 0 y, y, Yz 0 Y2 0 0 0 I y, I I I y, 0 I 8'/z

16 V. Zhuravlyov Liepaya Yz Yz 1/2 y, y, 1/2 0 0 y, Y2 0 Yz 0 Yz 0 ' 0 Y2 0 0 l 6'h

1 7 I. Voitik Yoroshilovgrad region 0 Yz 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yz 0 1 y, Yz 0 0 1 1 Yz Yz - 6
1 8 N. Andreyev Moscow 0 0 0 1 0 0 Yz I Yz 0 0 0 0 Yz 0 Yz 0 I Yz 0 SY,

19 V. Kosenkov Kuibyshev 0 0 0 0 y, 0 0 0 0 Yz 0 0 0 Yz Yz 1 Yz 0 J;l 1 I 5Y,

20 Yu. Shapran Stavropol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y2 0 0 0 0 y, Yz l I y, Yz 0 I SY,

21 A. Kuntsevich Moscow region 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yz 0 0 Yz 0 0 - I 0 0 2

sent to work as a notary in the Stavropol
Territory. In his spare time he took part in
a variety of chess events, became champion
of the Stavropol Territory and progressed to
all-Russian tournaments. But he had little
free time, the opportunities for getting away
from work for the sake of trips to tourna­
ments in other towns became even fewer,
and it was then that his interest in corre­
spondence play began.
Lev Omelchenko successively became
champion of the Russian Federation and
twice USSR champion, and he was twice
a winner of the World Correspondence
Olympiads in the USSR team. I should
also mention this d.etail - both times Lev
Omelchenko took first place on his board,
not losing a single game! Now an acknowl­
edged expert in the world of correspondence
chess, Omelchenko was included in an inter­
national tournament - the Kurt Klar Memo­
rial, in which he won first prize, on the way
exceeding the grandmaster norm.
White: L . Omelchenko
Black: A.Bakharev
1 0th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 7 1 - 7 2
Ruy Lopez C99
1 e4 eS 2 tLlf3 tL:lc6 3 j,bS a6 4 j,a4 tLlf6
S 0-0 lte7 6 l:t el bS 7 j,b3 d6 8 c3 0-0 9
h3 tL:i as 10 iic2 cs 11 d4 'f/c7 12 tLlbd2
cxd4 13 cxd4 tL:lc6 14 tLlb3 aS lS lte3 a4
16 tLlbd2 lte6 17 a3 tL:l aS
In our time theoretical opening develop­
ments have become so deep, that the cus­
tomary boundaries between the initial and
middle stages of the game have been eroded.
Often the two players rush headlong along
well-trodden paths, and only in the region of
the 20th move or perhaps even later do they
find themselves in unfamiliar territory.
The 'tabiya' of the classical Chigorin
Variation is the position after 12 tLlbd2.
The subsequent moves, right up to the 1 7th,
demanded not so much inventiveness on the
part of the players, as a knowledge of the
books. The game was played at a time when
the 'Internet' had not even been heard of.
Apparently, Bakharev was not averse to act­
ing further in the same fashion, being aware
of the game Gligoric-Keres (Hastings 1 964-
65), in which Black seized the initiative
after 1 8 l:t c l 'f/b8 1 9 j,d3 b4 20 d5 ltd7
2 1 tLlc4 tLJxc4 22 l:t xc4 bxa3 23 bxa3
'f/b3. However, Omelchenko had discerned
a weakness in Black's kingside set-up and
he trained his pieces on this.
18 lLJgS! l:t fc8 19 l:t cl j,d7 20 f4 exf4
20 ... 'f/b8 appears to be more accurate.
21 j,xf4 'f/b6
Black continues to concentrate his forces
for an offensive on the queenside, but things
do not come to that. The king 's fortress,
abandoned by its defenders, collapses
sooner.
22 j,e3 h6 (D)
w
This defence against the threat of 23 e5
allows a combinative outcome. However,
the following knight sacrifice was highly
camouflaged� and it was not hard to over­
look.
23 lLJxf7! @ xf7 24 eS dxeS 2S dxeS j,c5
26 ltxcS l:t xcS 27 @hl tL:ie8
27 ... tLldS 28 tL:le4 makes things no easier
for Black. Here are the variations, polished
in the Omelchenko workshop:
(a) 28 . . . tL:lc4 29 'f/h5+ @g8 30 tL:ixc5
'f/xc5 3 1 l:t fl , or 29 ... @e7 30 'f/h4+ g5
3 1 CL\xg5 � c6 (3 1 ... hxg5 32 'li'xg5+ @e8
33 j,g6+) 32 CL\h7+ �e8 33 � fl j,c8 34
� f8+ @d7 35 � f7+ �e8 36 � cfl ;
(b) 28 . . . � ac8 29 CL\xc5 � xc5 30 j,e4
j,e6 3 1 'li'h5+ @e7 32 'li'g6 CL\c4 33
'li'xg7+ @d8 34 � fl j,d7 35 � f8+.
28 CL\e4 � c7
Black avoids 28 . . . � xe5 because of 29
'li'xd7+ �g8 30 CL\g5 ! � xel+ 3 1 � xe l
CL\f6 32 'li'f7+ @h8 3 3 � e7 � g8 34
'li'h5 ! CL\xh5 35 CL\f7 mate.
29 'li'dS+ @e7 (D)
w match between Spassky and Petrosian.
30 CL\d6!
The culmination of White's brilliant at­
tack. Black can hardly have been so simple­
minded as to hope for 30 'li'xa8? j,c6, but
strange things happen, even in CC play.
30 ... 'li'f2
The ways to win against other defences
were also worked out by Omelchenko:
(a) 30 . . . CL\c6 3 1 e6 j,c8 32 CL\f5+ �f8
33 e7+ CL\xe7 34 CL\xe7 � xe7 35 'li'f3+
CL\f6 36 'li'xa8;
(b) 30 . . . 'li'c6 3 1 'li'f7+ @d8 32 � cd l ;
(c) 3 0. . . j,c6 3 1 'li'f7+ @d8 3 2 'li'f8
� e7 33 � cd l ;
(d) 30 . . . � aa7 3 1 'li'f7+ @d8 32 � ed l
CL\xd6 3 3 exd6 � c6 34 'li'f8+ j,e8 3 5
j,g6.
31 j,fS CL\c4
After 3 1 ... j,c6 Omelchenko was intend­
ing a new sacrifice for the sake of a mating
finish - 32 � xc6 ! 'li'xel + 33 �h2 CL\xc6
34 'li'f7+ @d8 35 'li'xe8 mate.
32 j,xd7 � xd7 33 'li'xa8 1-0
White: L . Omelchenko
Black: A.Kuntsevich
1 0th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 7 1 -72
Sicilian Defence 894
Notes by Lev O m e l c h e n ko
1 e4 c5 2 CL\f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 CL\xd4 CL\f6 5
CL\c3 a6 6 j,gS CL\bd7
The variation with the early develop­
ment of the knight at d7 occurred in the
1 9th game of the 1 969 world championship
7 j,c4 g6? (D)
A faulty plan. However, it is not easy for
Black to find a reliable continuation: 7 ... e6
is dangerous because of the bishop sacrifice,
7 ... h6 involves a loss of time, which was
convincingly demonstrated by Tal in 1 964 in
a game with Bilek - 8 j,xf6 CL\xf6 9 'iV e2
e6 1 0 0-0-0 'li'c7 1 1 f4 e5 12 CL\d5 CL\xd5
13 exd5 j,e7 14 fxe5 dxe5 15 CL\e6 ! .
7 . . . 'iVa5 also does not promise an easy
life. For example, Spassky-Polugayevsky
(25th USSR Ch, 1 958) went 8 'li'd2 e6 9
0-0-0 b5 1 0 j,b3 j,b7 1 1 � he l j,e7 1 2
f4 CL\c5 1 3 e 5 dxe5 1 4 j,xf6 j,xf6 1 5 fxe5
j,h4 16 g3 j,e7 17 j,xe6! .
Petrosian also failed to equalise in the
afore-mentioned game. He chose 8 ...h6 9
j,xf6 CL\xf6 1 0 0-0-0 e6 1 1 � he l j,e7 12
f4 0-0 1 3 j,b3 � e8 1 4 @b l j,f8 15 g4
CL\xg4 1 6 'li'g2 CL\f6 1 7 � g l j,d7 1 8 f5 ! .
w
8 'iYe2 'jya5 9 f4 .i,g7 10 0-0-0 0-0 11 h4
Beginning an immediate assault.
1 1 ... : es
The rook defends the e7-pawn. If l l ...h6
there could have followed 12 f5 .
12 h5 b5
1 2. . . tt:JxhS would have been refuted by
13 : xh5 ! .
13 .i,b3 .i,b7 1 4 hxg6 hxg6 (D)
w Ruy Lopez C 78
15 e5!
The decisive breakthrough.
15 ... tt:Jc5 16 f5 !.
White does not deviate from his course.
There is no defence against the numerous
threats. He wants to win a piece by exf6 and
.i,e3 .
1 6...dxe5
A pretty variation with a queen sacrifice
would have occurred after l 6 ...b4 1 7 .i,xf6
exf6 1 8 .i,xf7+! @xf7 1 9 fxg6+ @g8 20
;g, h7! : xe5 2 1 ctJf5 ! ! : xe2 22 : xg7+
@ f8 23 ;g, f7+ @e8 24 tbxd6+ @d8 25
tbxb7+ and wins.
[S.G./T.H.: Much stronger is l 9 . . . @ f8 !
2 0 'iYc4 d 5 when Black defends success­
fully. Probably the correct path to victory
for White would be 1 7 .i,xf7+! \t>xf7 1 8
exf6 exf6 1 9 'iYc4+ @ f8 20 fxg6 d5 2 1
'jyfl 'jyb6 22 tt:Jce2 when White has an
extra pawn and a powerful attack.]
17 .i,xf7+! @xf7 18 fxg6+ @g8 19 .i,xf6
1-0
Second place in the 1 0th Champion­
ship was taken by the Leningrad player
S.Prokofiev, whose success in this tourna­
ment became his main achievement.
White: S.Prokofiev
Blac k : V.Zavernyaev
1 0th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 7 1 -7 2
1 e4 e5 2 ctJf3 tbc6 3 .i, b5 a6 4 .i,a4
tbf6 5 0-0 b5 6 .i,b3 .i,b7 7 : et .i,c5
8 c3 d6 9 d4 .i,b6 10 .i,g5 h6 11 .i,h4
'iVe7 1 2 a4 g5 13 .i, g3 h5 14 axb5 axb5
15 : xa8+ .i,xa8 16 h4 g4 17 tt:Jg5 0.,...0
18 'jyd3 b4 19 ctJd2 tb a5 20 .i,a2 tbh7
(D)
w
21 tbxf7!
White sacrifices two pieces for a rook,
obtaining several pawns as a 'make­
weight'.
21... : xn 22 cxb4 tbc6 23 'iYa6 'jyd8 24
;g, al tt:Ja7 25 .i,xf7+ @xf7 26 dxe5 d5
27 'jyd3 @e8 28 exd5 'iVxd5 29 'jyg6+
@f8 30 t2Jf3 'iYf7 31 'iVxf7+ @xf7 32 e6+
@xe6 33 .i,xc7 .i,xc7 34 ;g, xa7 gxf3 35
;g, xc7 ctJf6 36 b5 tbe4 37 b6 ctJd6 38 g4
hxg4 39 h5 1-0
 Some miniatures from the US S R
CC Championships ( I )
A. Sokolsky - V. Zaitsev,
2nd USSR CC Championship, 1952-55
Dutch Defence A84
1 d4 f5 2 c4 e6 3 tL.lc3 d5 4 e3 c6 5 tL.lf3
ctJf6 6 �d3 tL.l e4 7 g4 �b4 8 �d2 �xc3
9 �xc3 tt:Jxc3 10 bxc3 0-0 11 0-0 fxg4
12 tt:J es 'if'h4 13 f4!? g3 14 tt:Jf3 'if'h3 15
l:, bl l:, f6? 16 l:, b2 (White brings up the
reserves.) 16 ... l:, h6 (D)
17 l:, g2! gxh2+ 18 @ bl ! (White now
threatens 1 9 l:, xh2 'if'g4 20 l:, xh6 gxh6
2 1 l:, g l .) 18 ...eS 19 tt:Jgs 'if'h4 20 fxe5
�h3 21 tt:Jxh3 'if'xh3 22 �f5 1-0 for if
22 . . . 'if'xe3 (22 . . . 'if'h4 23 'if'f3) 23 'if'g4.
A. Konstantinopolsky - M. Abroshin,
4th USSR CC Championship, 1957-60
Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence BOS
1 e4 d6 2 d4 ctJf6 3 tL.lc3 g6 4 tL.lf3 �g7
5 �gs c6 6 h3 as 7 'iVd2 a4 8 a3 'iVaS 9
0-0-0 ! b5 10 e5! (White had to calculate
this up to the 20th move.) 10 ... dxeS l l dxe5
ctJfd7 12 �h6 0-0 13 �xg7 @xg7 14
'iVf4 tL.la6 15 h4! f6
1 5 ... b4 was the main line analysed by
Konstantinopolsky: 1 6 h5 ! bxc3 17 hxg6
cxb2+ 1 8 @b l fxg6 1 9 l:, xh7+! ( 1 9 'if'h6+
@f7 is weaker) 1 9 ... @xh7 20 ctJg5+ @g7
(20 ... @g8 2 1 �c4+) 21 tL.le6+ @g8 22
'iVh6 @f7 23 tt:Jg5+ @e8 24 'if'xg6+ and
wms.
16 h5 g5 17 exf6+ exf6 18 tL.lxgS fxg5 19
'if'xg5+ @h8 20 l:, xd7 �xd7 21 'iVeS+
@g8 22 �c4+ 1-0
D. Grechkin I. Kramar,
-
5th USSR CC Championship, 1960-63
Richter-Veresov Opening DO l
1 d4 ctJf6 2 tL.lc3 d5 3 �gs �rs 4 f3 ttJ bd7
5 tL.lxdS (5 g4 !? �g6 6 h4 Benediktsson­
Hecht, Reykjavik 1 970) 5... tt:Jxd5 6 e4 h6
7 �h4 (D)
7 ... �xe4? !
If 7 ... tL.le3 8 'iVd3; best is 7 ... tt:J7b6 ! 8
exf5 tL.le3 9 'iVe2 tL.lxfl e.g. 1 0 0-0-0 'if'd5
1 1 @bl tL.lc4! 1 2 �f2 ctJfd2+ + Lotzwick­
Heemsoth, Bremen 1 962; not 1 2 'iVxfl ?
'iVb5 1 3 b3 ctJd2+.
8 fxe4 tL.le3 9 'iVd3 tL.lxfl 10 0-0-0!
This gambit is probably better than 1 0
'if'xfl .
10 ... gS?! 1 1 �f2 tL.lxh2 12 l:, xh2 �g7
13 tL.le2 ctJf6 14 l:. h3 'iVd7 15 d5 tL.lg4
16 �d4 �xd4 17 'iVxd4 eS 18 'iVcS l:, g8
19 l:, c3 @d8 20 l:, f3 'iVe7 21 d6 cxd6 22
l:, xd6+ @es 23 'iVbS+ @f8 24 l:, d7 l-O
 Eleventh Championship
(197 3-1975)
THE eleventh championship expanded
the geography of correspondence chess in
the USSR. Among the sixteen participants
were representatives of Russia, Ukraine,
Belorussia, Lithuania, Latvia, Kazakhstan
and Tadzhikistan. Moreover, for the first
time not a single Muscovite got through to
the final.
The tournament arbiter was the then
President of the all-Russian commission
for correspondence competitions (now an
honorary member of the Russian association
of correspondence chess) Vladimir Filippov.
Alas, there was practically no information
either about the course of the tournament, or
its conclusion.
Appeals by the author to the surviving
participants for a long time had no effect:
some had not preserved their records, while
for others the tournament was a firmly
forgotten episode of their biography. It app­
eared that the 1 1th Championship had been
lost to history. So I am extremely grateful
to Anatoly Sychyov (now a very strong
international master in correspondence
chess), who sent the final table and shared
his memories.
An assured victory in the championship
was gained by Anatoly Voitsekh (Bobru­
ysk). His score of 1 1 Yz points was made
up of eight wins and seven draws. Only he
completed the event without losing a single
game. After him, a point behind, were the
winner of one of the European Champion­
ships Mikhail Govbinder (Dushanbe), Evg­
eny Nadezhdin (Alma Ata) and Vladimir
Semenyuk (Tula).
The tournament winner Anatoly Pav­
lovich Voitsekh was born in 1 937. He came
into correspondence chess when he already
had considerable over-the-board experience.
He was champion of Bobruisk in the Mogi­
lev Region and competed three times in the
Belorussian Championship. And when it
became difficult to combine over-the-board
play with his intensive work as a production
engineer, Voitsekh switched to correspond­
ence chess.
Anatoly Voitsekh proceeded along the
entire long and thorny 'path to the top '
- from a USSR Championship quarter-fi­
nal, through a semi-final to the final. In the
previous, 1 0th Championship, he finished in
the top three and became a master.
Voitsekh's first point in the tournament
was recorded in his game with ICCF grand­
master Igor Morozov.
White: A. Voitsekh
Black: l . Morozov
1 1 t h U S S R CC C h , 1 9 7 3 - 7 5
Ruy Lopez C93
1 e4 e5 2 tll f3 tll c6 3 JthS a6 4 Jt a4 tll f6
5 0-0 Jte7 6 .&!. el bS 7 Jth3 d6 8 c3 0-0 9
h3 h6 10 d4 .&!. e8 11 tll b d2 Jtf8 12 tll fl
Jtb7 13 tll g3 tll a S 14 Jtc2 tll c4 15 b3
tll h6 16 a4
When this game was played, the latest
word of theory was considered to be the
game Kurajica-Messing (Pula 1 97 1 ), which
continued 1 6 . . .bxa4! 1 7 bxa4 a5 ! 1 8 Jtd3
d5 ! 1 9 tll xe5 dxe4 20 Jtb5 .&!. e6 21 tll f5
c5 22 Jtd2 cxd4 and Black was not worse.
However, theoreticians often hurry to draw
conclusions, based on a single game.
 1 1 th USSR CC Championship ( 1 973 - 1 975)

N2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

A. Voitsekh Bobruisk Yz Yz Yz 1 Yz 1 1 1 Yz Yz 1 Yz 1 1 llYz

2 M. Govbinder Dushanbe Y2 1 0 Yz 1 1 Yz 1 Yz 1 1 1 1 lOYz
3 E. Nadezhdin Almalyk Yz 0 Yz 1 1 Yz Yz 1 1 Yz 1 1 lOYz
4 V. Semenyuk Tula Yz Yz Yz 1 1 Yz 1 Yz 1 Yz 1 " 1 1 lOYz
5 Yu. Butkus Vilnius Yz 0 Yz 1 0 1 1 1 1 Y2 1 1 10

6 A. Kashlyak Semipalatinsk 0 1 1 1 Yz Yz Yz 1 Yz Yz 1 1 10

7 A. Sychyov Novosibirsk Y2 Yz Yz 0 Yz 1 1 1 1 Yz 1 '1 10

8 A. Nosovsky Anadoir 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8Yz

9 A. Kirshanov V oroshilovgrad 0 0 0 Yz 1 Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz 1 1 1 7Yz

10 I. Morozov Gorky 0 Yz Yz 0 0 Yz 0 0 Yz Yz 1 1 1 7

11 V. Pulkis Liepaya Yz 0 Yz Yz 0 Yz 0 0 1 Yz 1 1 6
12 I. Shapiro Kiev Yz Yz 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yz 1 1 0 5Yz

13 D. Ivanov Leningrad 0 0 0 Y2 0 Yz 0 0 Yz Yz 0 0 1 4Yz

14 A. Shershnyov Riga Yz 0 Yz 0 Yz Yz Yz 0 0 0 Yz 0 1 4Yz
15 R. Barstatis Klaipeda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 rn

16 A. Bershadsky Novosibirsk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
16 ...bxa4 17 bxa4 a5 1S i,d3 d5 19 exd5!
Now it transpires that it is not easy
for Black to defend. Thus in the event of
19 ... exd4 20 ll: xe8 iVxe8 2 1 i,b5 and 22
c4 he is simply in danger of remaining a
pawn down.
In a game from the 1 3th USSR Corres­
pondence Championship, Kutyanin replied
20 ... RJxe8 against Aronson, but after 2 1
c4 c6 22 dxc6 i,xc6 2 3 l2Je5 i,b7 24
fj'h5 fj'f6 25 L2Jxf7! L2Jd6 (25 . . . fj'xf7 26
i,h7+) 26 L2Jxh6+ gxh6 27 c5 L2Jbc4 28
cxd6 L2Jxd6 29 i,b2 ll: b8 30 fj'g4+ he
ended up in a lost position.
19... ctJfxd5 20 l2Jxe5 f6
20 . . . L2Jxc3 !? . came into consideration,
and if 2 1 fj'c2 fj' d5 ! , with chances for both
sides, although White' s are nevertheless
slightly better. [TH: Note that after 22 L2Je4,
suggested by GM John Nunn, Black must
not reply 22 ... fj'xd4?? because of the pretty
forced mate starting 23 L2J f6+! . ]
21 ctJg4 l2Jxc3 (D)
w whereas his opponent was ' in the dark'.
It now appears that Black has restored the
balance and is ready to continue the fight.
Alas, lying in wait for him are two combina­
tive blows.
22 L2Jxh6+! gxh6 23 fj'g4+ @ hS 24
i,xh6! ll: e7
The second piece sacrifice has to be de­
clined - 24 ... i,xh6 25 fj'g6.
25 i,xf8 fj'xf8 26 fj'h5+ @gS 27 ll: xe7
iVxe7 2S ctJf5 fj'd7 29 fj'g6+ @f8
29 ... @h8 30 ll: e l .
30 fj'xf6+ fj'f7 3 1 fj'h6+ �es 32 ll: el+
White's last piece is included in the at­
tack.
32 ... @d7 33 ll: e7+ iVxe7 34 l2Jxe7 �xe7
35 fj'g7+ 1-0
And Black conceded defeat in view of
the inevitable 35 ... @d6 36 iVe5+ @d7 37
i,f5+ @d8 3 8 fj'f6+ @e8 39 i,e6, when
White wins.
'Knowledge is light, ignorance is dark­
ness' runs the Russian proverb, and this also
applies to chess. All the moves up to the
24th in the above game were reproduced a
few years later in the game Dokshin-Kozo­
doyev (Liepaya 1977). Dokshin was obvi­
ously 'educated ', and knew of the precursor,
White required only a few more moves
(24 . . . fj'd5 25 f3 L2Je4 26 i,xe4 ll: xe4 27
fxe4 fj'xd4+ 28 i,e3 fj'e5 29 fj'g6) to
convince Black of the hopelessness of his
resistance.
One noticeable failure was that of the
only grandmaster participating in the tour­
nament, Igor Morozov. The 1 1 th Champion­
ship also demonstrated the fact that masters,
successful in over-the-board chess, are often
not capable of conducting a lengthy corre­
spondence tournament.
N2 1 2th USSR Ch (1 975-77) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
�
I V. Semenyuk Tula I '/, I \12 \12 I I 0 \12 Yi I \12 1 I y, I y, I 13
,
2 G. Nesis Leningrad 0 , I 0 y, I 1 1 y, \12 y, I 1 y, I \12 I 1 1 1 2 Yz
"'
3 N. Krivun Tagangor \12 \12 1 \12 \12 1 y, I I \12 I 0 y, y,,, I 1 I \12 1 2 Yz
It
4 M. Govbinder Dushanbe 0 1 0 \12 \12 y, I y, y, I I y, \12 \12 I I 1 1 12

5 B. Kogan Lvov y, y, y, \12 \12 I y, y, y, I Yi I y, '/2 l \12 I 1 12

.
6 Yu. Zelinsky Riga \12 0 \12 \12 \12 Yz Yi I 1 1 1 Y,, I \12 y, I y, y, l l Yz

7 V. Solodovnikov Zhdanov 0 0 0 '/, 0 y, \12 I Yi Yi I I I I \12 y, I l J O Y,

Yi Yi
8 V. Vorobiyov lvanovo 0 0 \12 0 \12 I I \12 I '/, 1 0 1 I 0 1 10
�
�
9 M. Y eryomin Stavropol 1 \12 0 Yi Yi 0 0 0 l 1 0 1 I y, y, l 1 \12 10 ,....
Cb
.....
1 0 B. Persits Moscow \12 Yi 0 \12 \12 0 \12 0 0 I Yi '/, 0 \12 l l I 1 9
(ti'
1 1 A. Bangiev Sevastopol '/, Yi Yi 0 0 0 \12 Yi 0 0 0 '/, \12 l y, I 1 1 8 ;;;
1 2 G. Pivovarov Chelyabinsk 0 0 0 0 Yi 0 0 0 I Yi 1 1 l \12 \12 Yi 0 1 7Yz

1 3 N. Kopylov Voronezh '/, 0 1 Yi 0 Y2 0 \12 0 Yi Yi 0 '12 1 l 0 Yi Yi 7'/z

14 E. Nadezhdin Almalyk 0 Yi Yi y, y, 0 0 0 0 1 Yi 0 y, \12 y, Yi l I 7Yz

1 5 A . Kornilov Kalin in 0 0 \12 Yi Yi \12 0 I y, y, 0 y, 0 y, y, \12 \12 1 7Yz

1 6 F. Filtser Moscow \12 \12 0 0 0 \12 \12 0 '/, 0 y, Yi 0 y, \12 \12 \12 l 6 Yz

1 7 N. Andreyev Moscow 0 0 0 0 'lz 0 1/, 0 0 0 0 \12 1 y, Y2 y, 1 l 6

1 8 N . Galdanov B arguzin 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1;, 0 Yi \12 0 f,\ 1 SY,

Yi \12

1 9 Yu. Ryabikin Dzerzhinsk 0 0 '/, 0 0 0 '/, 0 0 y, 0 0 0 y, 0 0 0 0 I 2

 Twelfth Championship
(197 5-197 7)

SIMULTANEOUSLY with the final of the White: Yu .Zelinsky

1 1 th Championship, in six semi-final groups
1 5 masters, 67 candidate masters and a cou­ Black: N . Andreyev
ple of dozen first category players (who
largely had not had time to register their Semi- Final 1 2th U S S R C C
candidate master title) strove to qualify for C h , 1 9 73 -74
the main tournament.
The previous few cycles had shown that Queen 's Gambit D48
the masters could not withstand the com­
petition of candidate masters and that they 1 d4 dS 2 c4 c6 3 CLJf3 CLJf6 4 CLJc3 e6 S e3
rarely reached the final through success in Qjbd7 6 �d3 dxc4 7 �xc4 bS 8 �d3 a6
the preliminary stage. In setting up the semi­ 9 e4 cS 10 dS c4 11 dxe6 fxe6?
final groups for the 1 2th Championship, it After this imprudent move Black has a
was decided to assemble all the masters who difficult game on account of his numerous
had applied into a special semi-final group, pawn weaknesses and the insecure position
from which the top five would be allowed of his king.
into the final. Since 14 masters indicated He should have played l 1 ...cxd3.
their desire to play, to them were added two 12 �c2 �cs 13 °ii' e2 �b7 14 0-0 °ii'b6
candidate masters who had made the best lS eS CLJdS 16 QjgS ct:Jxc3 17 bxc3 0-0-0
showing in previous USSR Championships. 18 a4! (D)
In this tournament, a unique one in its way, It is dangerous to accept the exchange
the winner was the Riga candidate master (!) sacrifice. After 1 8 Qjf7 there could have
Yury Zelinsky, who thus achieved the master followed 1 8 ... 'ii'c6 1 9 °ii' g4 f[ df8 20
norm. At the finish the first five looked as ct:Jxh8 ct:Jxe5 2 1 °ii'h3 f[ f3 ! .
follows: 1 . Yury Zelinsky (Riga) - 1 1 , 2-3.
N.Andreyev (Moscow) and Boris Kogan
(Lvov) - 1 01h, 4-5 ltzhak Veinger (Lenin­
B
grad) and Feliks Filtser (Moscow) - 10.
Behind them finished the former USSR
champion Anatoly Sadomsky, the future
ICCF grandmaster Vsevolod Kosenkov and
other famous players. In this semi-final,
which on a formal classification was supe­
rior to several of the preceding finals, it was
the following game that was decisive in the
battle for first place.
18 .1:. de8 19 i,e4 i,dS 20 axbS axbS 21
... were Gennady Nesis - 5 Yz out of 8 and
i,e3 (D) Nikolai Kopylov - 6 out of 1 0. The tour­
nament was notable for the players being
well-disciplined and equally matched. After
a year and a halfs play 1 2 out of the 1 9
B participants had a result between ' + l ' and
'-1 .
'

Two players broke away from their

. pursuers - Gennady Nesis and Vladimir Se­
menyuk, who each had 7Yz points after ten
completed games. After 20 months' play, 40
games remained unfinished, mainly those
of players who were not in contention for
a high place. It was decided to adjudicate
them.
21... .l:, hf8? Although there were seven masters
This loses quickly. 2 1 .. . tl:JxeS was more among the participants, the victory podium
tenacious. was occupied exclusively by candidate mas­
22 i,xdS exdS 23 e6 tl:Jb8 24 tl:Jxh7 .1:. h8 ters. The gold medal was won by Vladimir
25 tl:JgS .l:, e7 26 i,xcS 'iVxcS 27 'iie3 Semenyuk (Tula), the silver (on number of
d4 28 cxd4 'ii' dS 29 'ii'f4 .1:. he8 30 tl:Je4! wins) by the Leningrad player Gennady Ne­
.l:. xe6 31 .l:, a7 .l:, 8e7 32 tl:Jc3 'ii'c6 33 dS sis, and the bronze by Nikolay Krivun from
1-0 Taganrog. All three achieved the norm of
In one of the semi-finals the winner was USSR master of sport.
one of the strongest players in the USSR Vladimir Semenyuk, a signal engineer
at that time, and later twice the women's from the town of Tula, was born in 1 935.
World Correspondence Champion, Luba He developed and achieved his mastery by
Kristol. In another semi-final her husband, playing in correspondence events . He began
the Leningrad master Itzhak Veinger, had in all-Russian tournaments, climbed step by
every chance of qualifying for the final. step, not missing a single one, and in 1 972
But at precisely that time the matter of their became champion of the Russian Federa­
emigration to Israel was being considered, tion.
and the question of the married couple's In the 1 1 th USSR Championship Se­
participation in the final fell away of its own menyuk was close to victory, but he fin­
accord. ished one point short. At the conclusion of
Nineteen players, among whom were the 1 1 th Championship he explained this as
seven masters, largely Russians, contested being due to bad luck, but when some time
the final of the 1 2th USSR Championship. had passed, enabling the tournament to be
The chief arbiter of the tournament was objectively evaluated, he admitted that he
Dmitry Ivanovich Kruglov ( 1 899-1 978), had lacked class. It was this self-critical at­
who at that time headed the tournament titude that enabled him to achieve complete
committee of the commission for corre­ success at the second attempt.
_spondence events. Vladimir Semenyuk is distinguished by
The first result was recorded in the game his well thought-out theoretical preparation,
Bangiev-Nesis - a draw after an interesting accurate calculation of variations, and will­
struggle. Vladimir Semenyuk began the to-win. All these qualities are conspicuous
event actively and a year after the start he in the following short games, which are of
had 6Yz out of 9. Also in the leading group theoretical significance.
 12th USSR CC Championship 1975- 77
White: V.Semenyuk
Black: E . Nadezhdin
1 2th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 7 5 - 7 7
Modern Defence A 4 1
N otes by Vlad i m i r Semenyuk
1 d4 d6 2 tt:Jf3 g6 3 c4 i,g7 4 tLlc3 .i,g4 5
g3 'iVc8 6 h3 .i,d7 7 .i,g2 tLlh6 8 e4 f6 9
.i,e3 tt:Jf7 10 'iVd2 c5 1 1 dxcS dxc5 (D)
Up till now this is as in the game Pomar­
Petrosian (Olympiad, Siegen 1 970), where
White continued 1 2 0-0-0, but then in a
complicated struggle he conceded the initia­
tive and lost.
w 10 h3 .i,xf3 ll 'iVxf3 l2Jd7 12 'ife2 QJc7 13
12 e5!
An improvement for White, involving a
pawn sacrifice.
12 ...f5
After other replies too White gains dan­
gerous pressure: 1 2 .. 0-0 1 3 exf6 exf6 1 4
. White's plan is as follows: against pas­
l2Jd5 l:!'. e8 1 5 0-0 or 1 2 . . . tt:Jxe5 1 3 tt:Jxe5
fxe5 14 l§d5 or 12 ... tt:Jc6 1 3 exf6 exf6 1 4
.i,xc5 or 1 2 . . .fxe5 1 3 tt:Jgs.
13 0-0 tt:JxeS
After 1 3 . . 0-0 14 l2Jd5 .lJ, e8 15 .i,f4
. the game.
White has an obvious advantage.
14 tt:JxeS i,xeS 15 QJdS!
White has a marked lead in development
over his opponent and is ready to begin a
crushing offensive.
15...e6 16 �f4 tt:Jc6 17 i,xeS tt:JxeS 18
91
l§c3 tLlf7 19 'ifg7!
The decisive blow.
19...exd5 20 .l:t fel+ @d8 21 1§xf7 a5 22
i.xd5 � a6 23 .: adl 1-0
White : V.Semenyuk
Black: B.Kogan
l 2th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 7 5 - 7 7
King 's Indian Defence £64
N otes by Vla d i m i r Semenyu k
1 d4 tLlf6 2 l2Jf3 g6 3 c4 �g7 4 g3 c5 5 dS
d6 6 tLlc3 0-0 7 .i,g2 e5 8 0-0 tLle8 9 e4
�g4
Black has chosen an unexplored and
rarely employed set-up.
i,d2 'ii e7 14 l:, abl l'l ae8 15 J: Jel (D)
sive play by Black to prepare and carry out
b2-b4, or, after Black's thematic advance
. .. f7-f5, to seize control of the important
e4-square. It is the latter that occurred in
15 ... fS 16 exf5 gxfS 17 g4! @h8
Intending to use the g-file for an attack.
However, the rook will be badly placed at f5.
18 gxf5 � xf5 19 l2Je4 kl g8 20 c;ti h2 'i!1f8
(D)
20 . . . .ll ff8 was better.

w and the teaching of chess.
21 "i¥g4!
A very strong move, after which Black
can no longer coordinate his pieces.
21...ll:Je8
If 2 1 . . . J:r f7 there can follow 22 ll:Jg5 !
l:r e7 23 ll:Jxh7 with a decisive advantage.
22 �e3 ll:lb6 23 b3 ll:lc8
By sacrificing the exchange, Black tries
to activate his forces. Other continuations
would have been similarly ineffective: thus
if 23 . . . 'iVf7 or 23 . . . J:r f7 there would have
followed 24 ll:Jg5.
24 ll:Jg3 ll:Je7 2S ll:lxfS ll:JxfS 26 l:r fl e4
27 "i¥xe4 �es+ 28 �f4 l:r xg2+ 29 �xg2
42J h4+ 30 �hl 'iVxf4 31 'iVxf4 1-0
The second prize-winner was the Len­
ingrad candidate master Gennady Nesis,
who achieved the master norm for the first
time. Nesis trained as an electrochemical
engineer. Now he holds all the highest
chess titles: honoured Russian trainer, ICCF
grandmaster, FIDE international arbiter and
in 1 997 he was awarded the supreme sports
title - Russian honoured master of sport.
Gennady Nesis has achieved outstanding
successes in correspondence play: he has
twice been the second prize-winner in USSR
championships, he finished second in the
world championship, and he was the holder
of the ICCF World Cup. As a member of
the USSR team he has won gold medals in
world championships and in Europe. In the
historic match 'Russia against the Rest of
the World' he won both his games.
He has shown himself to be a lively chess
journalist, and he is the author of a number
of books and articles on questions of theory
White: G . Nesis
Black: V.Solodovnikov
1 2th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 7 5- 7 7
English Opening A 30
Notes by Gennady Nesis
1 ll:lf3 cS 2 c4 ll:lf6 3 g3 e6 4 �g2 "i¥c7 S
0-0 a6 6 ll:lc3 �e7 7 b3 0-0 8 �b2 d6 9
d4 ll:lbd7
9 ... cxd4 was essential. After the knight
move, White gains a serious space advantage.
10 e4 l:r b8 11 dS eS 12 a4 ll:l e8
A typical opening metamorphosis has
occurred: from an English Opening an ad­
vantageous version for White of the Benoni
has been reached.
13 ll:lel g6 14 ll:ld3 ll:Jg7 lS f4 exf4
The only way to hold the important e5-
point was by 1 5 ... f6, but after 16 f5 Black
would have been completely squeezed on
both wings.
16 gxf4 l:r e8 17 "i¥d2 ll:Jf8 18 fS "i¥d8!
The strongest reply. After 1 8 . . . gxf5 1 9
'iVh6 with the threat o f 20 ll:lb5 White's
attack becomes dangerous.
19 fxg6 ll:Jxg6
An interesting decision: the knight is
transferred to e5, to cover its king against the
threats of the enemy dark-square bishop.
20 ll:le2 �gs 21 "i¥c3 f6 22 �hl �g4
Black appears to have activated his mi­
nor pieces and somehow cover his kingside.
However, the defects of his set-up are of a
static nature and they fairly quickly tell.
23 ll:lef4 ll:leS 24 ll:lf2 �d7 2S "i¥g3 bS 26
cxbS axbS 27 aS!
White has included his queenside forces
in the offensive, in order to divert Black's
army from the defence of their king.
27 ... l:r a8 28 ll:l2h3 h6
 Black has no time to eliminate the auda­
cious passed a-pawn: 28 ... J:. xa5 29 J:. xa5
�xa5 30 Clixg5 fxg5 3 1 �xg5.
29 a6 J:. a7 30 b4 ! �e7
After 30 ... cxb4 3 1 �d4 the a-pawn be­
comes formidably strong.
31 bxc5 dxc5 32 C2Jxg5 hxg5 (D)
w ful defence.
33 C2Jg6!
This piece sacrifice is quickly decisive.
33 ... Clixg6 34 �xf6 �f7 35 �xg5 Clih8
36 �f3 �g6 37 J:!, gl ! 1-0
The queen exchange does not bring any
relief: 37 ... �xg5 3 8 J:!, xg5 �c8 39 J:, ag l
J:!, ee7 40 �xe7 J:. xe7 4 1 d6 l:. a7 42 e5 .
Third place in the USSR Championship
became Nikolay Krivun's highest achieve­
ment in CC, although later he performed
successfully in international events and
gained the international master title.
White : N .Krivun
Black: B.Persits
1 2t h U S S R C C C h , 1 9 7 5 - 7 7
Caro-Kann Defence B 1 2
N otes by N i ko lay Krivun
1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 f3 dxe4 4 fxe4 e5 5 Clif3
�g4?!
This is a perceptible inaccuracy. 5 ... �e6
is better.
6 �c4 ctJd7 7 c3 b5
8 �b3 was threatened.
8 �b3 ctJgf6 9 0-0 �b6
9 ... Clixe4? 10 �xf7+. .
10 @hl �e7 11 �e3 0-0 12 ctJbd2 J:, ae8
13 �el �xf3
By 1 3 ... �c7 Black would have held the
e5-point and retained chances of a success­
14 dxe5 �cs 15 �xc5 Clixc5 16 exf6
�xe4 17 Clixe4 Clixe4 18 �h4
Transposing moves by 1 8 �c2 Clixf6 1 9
�h4 does not work on account o f 1 9 ... J:. e2
20 J:. xf6 J:. xc2.
18 ... �e3 19 J:, f3 �e2 20 fxg7 � xg7 21
�gl !
Threatening 22 J:. e 1 , which was unsuit­
able earlier because of . . . Cli f2+.
21...fS 22 J:. el �xb2 23 J:. d3 (D)
B
The black queen is out of play, and with­
out it the. defence is difficult. If 23 ... ctJf6
there follows 24 �g5+ @h8 25 �xf6+.
23 ... h6
Black invites his opponent to sacrifice
the exchange, which would have been good
for White in all variations, apart from one:
24 J:!, xe4 �c l +! 25 J:!, d l J:!, xe4 26 �g3+
�g5.
24 J:, d7+ @g6 25 �dl ctJf6 26 �g3+
Clig4 27 J:. xe8 J:. xe8 28 �xg4 fxg4 29
�xg4+ 1-0
N2 13th USSR Ch (1 977-78) I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

I M. Umansky Pyatigorsk y, y, y, y, 1 0 Y2 I I I I I I I I I I I I 15'/z

2 G. Nesis Leningrad y, I y, y, I y, y, y, y, I 1 I y, I I y, I I I 14'/z

3 V. Shishlov Sorsk y, 0 y, Y2 y, I 1 I y, 1 I I t I y, I I y, y, 14

4 B. Kogan Lvov y, y, y, 0 Y2 I I I y, y, 1 I I y, I I I y, y, 13'/z

5 B. Kolker Moscow y, y, y, I I I y, y, y, y, y, I y, y, y, y, I y, I 12'/z

6 Yu. Kutyanin Moscow region 0 0 y, y, 0 y, 0 I I y, 0 y, I I y, I I I I 11

7 V. Semenyuk Tula I y, 0 0 0 y, 0 1 y, y, y, I I I y, y, y, I I 11

8 0. Shuvalov Nakhodka y, y, 0 0 Y2 1 I 0 0 I 1 y, 'Ii y, 0 0 I I 1 10

9 N. Poleshchuk Leningrad 0 y, 0 0 y, 0 0 I I Y2 y, 0 y, I 0 I 1 1 1 9'/z

10 I. Foigel Kiev 0 y, y, y, y, 0 Y2 I 0 Y2 1 y, y, Y2 Y2 y, y, Y2 1 9'/z

11 E. Balendo Minsk 0 0 0 y, y, y, y, 0 y, y, y, y, y, y, I I I 0 I 9

12 V. Aronson Moscow 0 0 0 0 y, I y, 0 y, 0 y, y, y, y, I y, y, I I 8'/z

13 V. Yershov Dneprodzerdzinsk 0 0 0 0 0 y, 0 y, I y, y, y, Y2 Y2 I 1 I 1 0 8'/z

14 R. Zborovsky Grodno 0 y, 0 0 y, 0 0 y, y, y, y, y, y, 0 I y, Y2 I I 8

15 D . Veytsel
Petropavlovsk-
0 0 0 y, Y2 0 0 y, 0 y, y, y, y, I 0 I y, y, I 7y,
Kamchatskv

16 G . Kotenko Kiev 0 0 . ¥, 0 y, y, y, I 1 y, 0 0 0 0 I 0 1 y, y, 7y,

17 A . Podolsky Kiev 0 y, 0 0 y, 0 y, I 0 y, 0 y, 0 y, 0 I 0 I y, 6'/z

18 A . Vasilyev Karaganda 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y2 0 0 y, 0 Y2 0 Y2 y, 0 I I I 5'/z

19 Ya. Konoval Orenburg 0 0 y, y, y, 0 0 0 0 Y2 I 0 0 0 y, y, 0 0 0 4

20 I. Kudinov Leningrad 0 0 y, y, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 y, y, 0 I 4
 Thirteenth Championship
(197 7 -1978)
AS IN the preceding championship, the
final was contested by 1 9 players, among
whom were seven masters. On this occasion
the tournament director was ICCF interna­
tional arbiter Isaak Romanov. The finalists
represented Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia and
Kazakhstan. Some strong representatives of
the Baltic Republics were eliminated at the
semi-final stage.
One of the quarter-finals consisted of
composers of problems and studies, and
winners of composition-solving competi­
tions. The author of these lines was a partici­
pant in and the organiser of this tournament,
and he qualified for the semi-finals, where
he played without success.
In the final a clear favourite emerged
from the very start. He was the Pyatigorsk
master Mikhail Umansky. Whereas other
contenders had '+ l ' and the winner of the
previous championship had to be content
with four draws, the future winner had
scored 6Yz points out of 8.
A few more months passed, and from
information provided by the arbiter we learn
that Umansky already had 10 points out of
12, and the group of pursuers comprised:
Boris Kogan - 7 out of 1 0, Yury Kutyanin
and B.Kolker - 6 out of 9, Gennady Nesis
- 5Yz out of 8 and V.Shishlov - 4 out of 5.
By the start of 1 978 Umansky's victory
was not in doubt - 1 3 points out of 1 5 . A
real contender for second place was Nesis
- 1 1 Yi out of 1 5 , while those still fighting
for the 'bronze' were Kutyanin - 9Yz out of
1 5 and Kogan - 8Yz out of 13, as well as
Kolker - l O Yz out of 1 6 and Shishlov - 7Yz
out of l O.
The final table shows a high number of
decisive games - 5 8%. On the whole, the
masters maintained their reputation: of the
eight, six of them took places in the top half
of the table, including first. Mikhail Uman­
sky won with a score which, in percentage
terms (8 1 .6), is a record.
The tournament winner did not endeav­
our to build new strategic plans, but on al­
ready familiar paths he found unusual turns,
advantageously changing the evaluation of
the position. The variations in the notes to
the following game are based on Umansky's
contemporary analysis.
White : V.Aronson
Black : M . Umansky
1 3th U S S R C C Ch , 1 9 7 7 - 7 8
Evans Gambit C5 1
1 e4 es 2 tbf3 tbc6 3 �c4 �cs 4 b4
�xb4 S c3 �e7 6 'ii' b3
The alternative is 6 d4.
6... tbh6 7 d4 t{jaS 8 'ii'a4 tbxc4 9 'ii'xc4
Until not long before, this continuation,
the 'copyright' on which dates back to La
Bourdonnais, had been considered to favour
White.
9...dS!
As the further course of the game shows,
this continuation allows Black to count on
an obvious advantage. 9 . . . 4Jg4 1 0 h3 CLJf6
1 1 dxe5 d5 , a variation suggested by Ravin­
sky, also gives Black a good game.
10 exdS
In the endgame after 10 �xd5 Vi'xd5
1 1 exd5 exd4 Black's two bishops and su­
perior pawn formation give him the better
chances.
10 ...e4 11 ct:Jes f6!? (D)
12 �xh6
After 12 Vj'b5+ @f8 1 3 4Jc4 a6 White
loses his d5-pawn without any compensation.
The transition into the endgame is full of
tactics. If 12 d6 there follows 12 . . . �xd6!
( 1 2 . . . fxe5 13 dxe7 Vi'xe7 14 �a3 is bad for
Black) 1 3 �xh6 fxe5 1 4 �xg7 ( 1 4 dxe5
gxh6 1 5 exd6 Vi'xd6 1 6 Vi'xe4+ �e6 fa­
vours Black) 1 4 ... Vj'g5 1 5 �xh8 Vie l + 1 6
@el �g4+ 1 7 f3 exf3+ 1 8 gxf3 �xf3+ 1 9
@xf3 Vi'xhl+ 20 @e3 0-0-0 and White,
despite his extra piece, is helpless.
12 ...gxh6 13 d6 fxeS
The attempt to play by analogy with the
previous variation - 1 3 ... Vi'xd6 1 4 4J f7?
Vi'f4! - encounters a refutation: 1 4 Vj'f7+
@d8 1 5 Vj'g7 �f8 1 6 Vi'xf8+.
14 dxe7 Vi'xe7 15 Vi'bS+ c6 16 Vi'xeS
Vi'xeS 17 dxeS � gS 18 CLJd2 �fS 19 � gl
� d8 20 4Jc4 @e7
Black is aiming for the maximum centralisa­
tion of his pieces and in particular his king.
21 CLJd6 @e6 22 4Jxb7 � dS
After 22 . . . � b8 White consolidates his
position by 23 4Jc5+ @xe5 24 CLJb3 .
23 � bl � xeS 24 c4 � d3 25 tlJ aS cS 26
� bS �g4!
Sacrificing a pawn, Black breaks through
with his king deep into the opponent's rear.
27 � xcS+ @d4 28 � dS+ @c3 (D)
w
Despite his extra pawn, White has no
defence. Here are a few variations:
(a) 29 CLJb3 a5 and now:
(al) 30 4Jxa5 � a8 3 1 f3 � xd5 32 cxd5
� xa5 33 fxg4 � xa2;
(a2) 30 CLJ d2 � xd5 3 1 cxd5 @d3 32 f3
e3 33 4J b3 � c8 34 fxg4 a4;
(a3) 30 f3 �xf3 3 1 �f2 a4 32 4Jc5
� d2+ 33 � xd2 @xd2 34 h3 (34 a3 � c8
35 4Jxa4 �dl) 34 . . . � c8 35 4Jxa4 �e2;
(b) 29 4Jc6 � g6 30 4Jxa7 (30 4Je5
� b6) 30. . . � a6 3 1 Cl:Jb5+ @xc4 32 � xd3
exd3.
29 f3 �xf3 30 @f2 �g4 31 � cl+ �b2
32 � el e3+ 33 �gl
Also after 33 � xe3 � f8+ 34 � f3
�xf3 3 5 � xd3 �e4+ White cannot save
the game.
33 ... @c2 34 4Jb3 � xdS 35 cxdS @d3
0-1
In reply to 36 d6, 36 . . . e2 is a mistake
because of 37 �f2, but by playing 36 . . .h5 !
Black wins without difficulty (37 d7 e2 3 8
� f2 � f8+ 39 @g3 @e3).
The following game by Mikhail Uman­
sky is an example of play on opposite wings.
Black's offensive on the kingside proved to
be more purposeful and menacing.
 White : V. Ye rshov
Black: M . Umansky
1 3th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 7 7 - 7 8
Nimzo-lndian Defence £42
1 d4 tl:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tl:lc3 ltb4 4 e3 c5 5
tt:Jge2 cxd4 6 exd4 d5 7 c5 tl:le4 8 itd2
tl:lxd2 9 'i¥xd2 tl:lc6 10 a3 lta5 11 b4
ltc7 12 f4?!
The normal 12 g3 would neverth�less
appear to be better.
12 ...0-0 13 g3 b6 14 itg2 bxc5 15 dxc5
: b8 16 0-0 lta6 17 : fel 'i¥f6 18 : ab l
itc4 19 : eel : fd8 20 �hl h5 21 b5
tt:Je7 22 tlJd4 h4 23 b6 (D)
B
White does not manage to achieve any­
thing real on the queenside, whereas in the
meantime Black methodically builds up his
threats on the kingside.
23 ... axb6 24 tl:ldb5 : dc8 25 tl:le4 dxe4 26
: xc4 hxg3 27 tl:lxc7 : xc7 28 : cc1 tl:lf5
29 cxb6 : xcl+ 30 'iVxcl gxh2 31 'i¥c7
: f8 32 ith3 tlJg3+ 33 �xh2 tl:le2 34
'i¥e5 'i¥h4 35 'i¥g5 'i¥f2+ 36 'i¥g2 'i¥xf4+
37 �hl tlJg3+ 38 �gl e3 39 b7 : b8 40
'i¥c2 e2 41 llg2 'i¥e3+ 42 �h2 'i¥e5 43
'iVcl tl:lfl+ 44 �gl 'i¥h2+ 45 �f2 'i¥g3+
46 �xe2 'i¥xg2+ 47 �el tl:lg3 0-1
Before his victory in the USSR Cham­
pionship, Mikhail Umansky had also won
a very strong championship of the Russian
Federation, Subsequently he took part in in-
temational events, achieved the grandmaster
norm and finally, in the 1 3th World Cham­
pionship, he won the world correspondence
chess crown.
Becoming champion is honourable, but
to win ' silver' two times in succession is
hardly any easier. This was achieved by
Gennady Nesis. Compared with the previ­
ous championship he played more confi­
dently, deeply and powerfully. This was
assisted by his work as a chess trainer, in
which in those years he was very active.
Gennady Nesis has his own preparations in
various opening lines and he has a heroic
devotion to the Dragon Variation of the Si­
cilian Defence.
White: Yu .Kutyanin
Black: G . Nesis
1 3th U S S R C C C h , 1 9 7 7- 7 8
Sicilian Defen ce 8 7 7
1 e4 c5 2 tl:l f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tl:lxd4 tl:lf6 5
tl:l c3 g6 6 lte3 llg7 7 f3 0-0 8 'i¥d2 tl:lc6
9 ltc4 lld7 10 h4 : c8 11 llb3 tl:le5 12
0-0-0 tl:lc4 13 itxc4 : xc4 14 h5 tl:lxh5
15 g4 tl:lf6 16 tl:lde2 : e8
During the Karpov-Korchnoi final candi­
dates match in 1 974, many prestigious ana­
lysts had already written off this variation. In
the second game of that match Black played
1 6 ... 'i¥a5 (which Nesis had employed in the
1 2th Championship) and was crushed.
17 llh6
This bishop manoeuvre is included, since
after the immediate 1 7 e5 tl:lxg4 1 8 fxg4
itxg4 1 9 exd6 exd6 the d6-pawn is invul­
nerable in view of the 'hanging' position of
the bishop at e3.
17 ... lth8 18 e5 tt:Jxg4 19 fxg4 itxe5 (D)
Previously 1 9 . . . ltxg4 20 exd6 'i¥xd6
2 1 'i¥xd6 exd6 22 : xd6 llg7 23 ltxg7
�xg7 was played (Beliavsky-Filguth, Ca­
racas 1 976).
 served reward was the 'bronze' .
In the following game he inflicted a
w
heavy defeat on the holder of the title, who
incorrectly accepted a pawn sacrifice, fell
behind in development and could no longer
repair the position.
Long before the end of the tournament
it became clear that Vladimir Semenyuk' s
term of office was about to expire. O n this
occasion he was unable to cope with the
problems of the black pieces.

The improvement 1 9 . . . j,xe5 was em­

ployed by Klovans against Beliavsky (Len­ White: V.Shishlov
ingrad 1 977) with the continuation 20 j,f4
'iVa5 21 j,xe5 'iVxe5 22 i{Jd5 . Both in this Black : V.Semenyuk
case, and after 22 'iVh6, which occurred in
the game Zborovsky-Nesis from the same 1 3th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 7 7 - 7 8
championship, Black obtained active play,
although both games ended in a draw. Kuty­ Sicilian Defence 849
anin takes the play in a new direction.
20 i{J dS j,xg4 21 i{Je3 : a4 22 i{Jxg4 N otes by Ti m H a rd i n g
: xg4 23 : dfl 'iVb6 24 c3 'iVc6 2S j,e3
hS 26 : hgl : xgl 27 : xgl a6 28 'i!1d3 1 e4 cS 2 i{Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 i{Jxd4 a6 S
j,g7 29 i{Jr4 i{Jc3 i{Jc6 6 j,e3 'iVc7 7 j,e2 i{Jr6 8 0-0
The white pieces are trained on the g6- j,b4 9 i{J a4 (D)
pawn, but they are not in fact able to 'fire' .
O n the 30th move White should possibly
have decided on the exchange of queens,
B
but then the four black pawns would have
outweighed the sacrificed piece.
29 ... 'iVbS 30 'iVc2 'iVeS 31 j,d2 'iVcS 32
: g2 'iVc4 33 b3 'iVfl + 34 \t> b2 'i!1f3 3S
: h2 j,es 36 'iV cl gS 37 'iVgl j,xr4 38
j,xr4 'iVxr4 39 : xhS r6 40 'iVhl \t>f7 41
: h7+ \t>e6 42 : h2 dS 43 : e2+ �d6 44
'iVgl \t>c6 4S : e6+ \t>d7 46 : b6 'iVc7
47 'iVg4+ e6 48 'iVa4+ \t>d8 49 'i!1d4 �c8
so : b4 rs Sl c4 \t> b8 S2 cs : c8 0-1
V.Shishlov was a revelation of the 1 3th 9... i{Je7
Championship. A geologist by profession, This has been the most popular move in
he lived and worked in the Siberian town of practice for many years but modem theoreti­
Sorsk in the distant Khakasia Region. Be­ . cians seem to prefer 9 . . . j,e7.
ginning the tournament with a modest first 9 . . . i{Jxe4? is unplayable because of 1 0
category ranking, Shishlov played fearlessly i{Jxc6 followed by 1 1 i{Jb6 and 12 'i!1d4.
against the most famous opponents. He not 10 c4 llJxe4 11 'i!1c2 rs 12 j,f3!? (D)
only maintained the tempo he set at the start, This move has received less attention
but even increased it at the finish. The de- from theory than 1 2 c5, which was played

w mess" says Burgess. He points out that
(Position after 12 �f3!?)
in the unclear Kolker-Semenyuk, from the
same event. White eventually won after
Black missed some middle-game opportuni­
ties to complicate: 12 ... CL:ld5 1 3 �f3 'ii'e5
14 �xe4 fxe4 1 5 CLJb3 b5 1 6 cxb6 �d6
( 1 6 ... �b7 1 7 CL:Jac5) 1 7 g3 and now:
(a) The game actually went 1 7 ... CL:lxe3 1 8
fxe3 �b7 1 9 CL:lac5 ! and 1-0 in 36 moves.
(b) 17 ... �b7 is better, when 1 8 �d4
'ii'f5 ( 1 8 ... 'ii'h5 ! ? oo - FM Graham Bur-
gess in 'The Taimanov Sicilian') 1 9 CL:lac5
�xc5 20 CL:Jxc5 �c6 "is rather an unclear
White must avoid 2 1 'ii'xe4?? (suggested in
a contemporary note that was cited on early
editions of my Megacorr CD) because of the
tactic 2 1 ...CL:lc3 ! 22 'ii'e3 (22 'ii'xf5 CL:le2#)
22 . . . 'ii'd5 23 f3 'ii'xd4 and Black wins.
12 ... CL:Jc5?!
No doubt Shishlov had some improve­
ment in mind if his opponent had followed
GM Furman's precedent 12 ... �d6, which
threatens to grab a second pawn. Probably
he was going to test either 13 g3 or 13
@hl !?. Instead Kapengut-Furman, 40th
USSR ch, Baku 1 972, had gone 1 3 �xe4?
fxe4 14 'ii'xe4 �xh2+ 1 5 @hl �e5 1 6
CL:l f3 �f6 ::;::: (but eventually drawn).
13 a3 CL:Jxa4 14 axb4 f4 15 �d2 CL:lb6 16
c5 CL:lbd5 17 CL:lb5 axb5 18 � xa8 0-0 19
�c3 CL:Jxc3 20 'ii'xc3 b6 21 cxb6 'ii'xb6 22
'ii'c5 'ii'xc5 23 bxc5 b4 24 � cl CL:Jc6 25
� c4 g5 26 �xc6 dxc6 27 � xb4 �d7 28
� bb8 l-O.
 1 4th USSR CC Championship ( 1 979- 1 980)

N2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

1 B. Postovsky Moscow Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz 1 Yz Yz 1 Yz 1 1 1 1 Yz 11

2 M. Arkhangelsky Moscow Yz 0 0 1 Yz Yz Yz 1 Yz Yz Yz 1 1 1 1 Yz 10

3 A. Tsamryuk Samarkand Yz 1 1 0 Yz Yz Yz Yz 1 1 1 Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz 10
'

4 A. Bodisko Moscow Yz 1 0 Yz Yz 1 Yz 1 Yz 0 1 0 1 Yz 1 Yz 9Yz

5 I. Kopylov Ufa Yz 0 1 Yz 0 Yz Yz 1 1 Yz Yz Yz 1 1 Yz Yz . 9Yz

6 Ya. Rusakov Omsk Yz Yz Yz Yz 1 0 Y2 Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz 1 1 1 9Yz

7 V. Nikitin Kalinin Yz Yz Yz 0 Yz 1 Yz Yz Yz Yz 1 Yz ' 0 1 Yz 1 9

8 R. Altshuler Moscow 0 Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz 0 Yz 1 Yz 1 Yz Yz Yz 1 8Yz

9 F. Filtser Moscow Yz 0 Yz 0 0 Yz Yz 1 Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz 1 Yz Yz 7Yz

10 L. Remenyuk Voroshilovgrad Yz Yz 0 Yz 0 Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz 1 7Yz

11 M. Pukshansky Leningrad 0 Yz 0 1 Yz Yz Yz 0 Yz Yz Yz 1 Yz 0 0 1 7

12 Yu. Zelinsky Riga Yz Yz 0 0 Yz Yz 0 Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz 1 7

, '
13 B. Persits Moscow O 0 Yz 1 Yz Yz Y2 0 Yz Yz 0 Yz Yz 0 Yz 1 6Yz

14 V. Antonov Leningrad 0 0 Yz 0 0 Yz 1 Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz y, Yz Yz 6Yz

Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz
,.

15 P. Bragin Voronezh 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 . 6

16 A. Ufimtsev Kustanay 0 0 Yz 0 Yz 0 Yz Yz Yz Yz 1 Yz Yz Yz Yz 0 6

17 A. Smetanin Ryazan Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz 0 0 0 Yz 0 0 0 0 Yz Yz 1 5
 Fourteenth Championship
(1979-1980)
AS HAD occurred previously, the final of
the 14th USSR Championship was preceded
by semi-finals, in which on this occasion
quite a large number of masters expressed a
desire to take part. In one of the semi-finals
the first two places, giving the right to par­
ticipate in the final, were shared by the mas­
ter Yury Zelinsky and the candidate master
Aleksandr Tsamryuk.
In the other semi-final the winners were
Igor Kopylov (a future grandmaster) and
A.Bodisko (a future international master),
and half a point behind them was Yakov
Rusakov, an over-the-board master who was
well known in Russia. Taking account of his
third place in the semi-final and his suc­
cess in a strong correspondence tournament
dedicated to the memory of Sergey Y esenin
(the well-known Russian poet from the early
20th century), Rusakov was also admitted
into the final of the 14th Championship.
The final began in January 1 979 and was
due to finish in December of the following
year. Playing in the tournament were nine
masters and eight candidate masters. Apart
from Russians, there was one representative
each from Ukraine, Latvia, Kazakhstan and
Uzbekistan. The arbiter was Nikolay An­
dreyev, who himself had the experience of
participating in several of the finals.
When at the end of the allotted time there
were just a few months remaining, only 75
of the 136 results had been entered into the
tournament table. Moreover, two thirds of
the completed games had ended in draws.
Understandably; it was hard to determine
the contenders not only for the prizes, but
even for the leading group. Of note were
the showings by the candidate masters Pos­
tovsky - 7 points out of 1 1 and Bodisko - 6
out of 1 0, as well as by the masters Rusakov
- 4 out of 7, Altshuler - 6 out of 1 0 and
Kopylov 8 out of 14.
-
When the allotted time expired, the deci­
sion (a highly contentious one by present­
day standards) was taken to adjudicate all
the unfinished games. The results of the
adjudication, naturally, could not satisfy
all parties, protests were made, and a long
time was spent considering them. Finally the
results were affirmed, but for a long time
afterwards various complaints and protests
were made, and the championship went
down in the history of correspondence chess
as the most scandalous.
All the places on the winning podium
were taken by candidate masters. After the
prize-winners came the well-known masters
Bodisko, Kopylov and Rusakov, while other
famous players faltered. Especially strange
was the result of the legendary chess theore­
tician Anatoly Ufimtsev, who continued ap-
pearing in the following USSR Champion­
ships, where his results were much better.
The outcome of the 14th Championship
is associated with the name of Boris Pos­
tovsky, who for his result in the tournament
was awarded the title of USSR Master of
Sport, · but who much earlier had already
shown himself to be a splendid chess or­
ganiser. In his student years (he graduated
from the prestigious Rauman Technical Col­
lege in Moscow) Postovsky played for the
college team alongside several later well­
known masters.
In the 1 970s Postovsky became a popu­
lar trainer, the coordinator of the Smyslov
Chess School, and the inspiration behind the
main successes of the 'Burevestnik' Sports
Society. In his crowded chess biography,
his participation in correspondence tourna­
ments was merely an episode. After the
USSR Championship he competed in the
team championship of the country, but this
did not bring him any laurels.
On the other hand, the respectful atti­
tude to him of many leading grandmasters,
including Kasparov himself, assisted his
appointment to the post of Russian State
Coach. When Boris Postovsky was in
charge of the Russian team in his capacity
as trainer, his team invariably finished up
the winners, irrespective of how things had
gone at the start. At the tum of the century
Boris Postovsky emigrated permanently to
the USA.
White: B.Postovsky
Black: M .Pukshansky
1 4th U S S R C C C h , 1 9 7 9 - 8 0
Modern Benoni Defence A 7 5
N otes by Boris Po stovsky
1 d4 Qjf6 2 c4 cS 3 d5 g6 4 t2Jc3 d6 5 e4
J:b.g7 6 Qjf3 0-0 7 i:b.e2 e6 8 0-0 exd5 9
cxd5 a6 10 a4 J:b.g4
If Black had preferred the usual 3 ... e6 4
t2Jc3 exd5 5 cxd5 d6, then apart from the
sharp 6 e4 g6 7 f4 White would also have
had the possibility of 6 Qjf3 g6 7 Qjd2
t2Jbd7 8 e4 J:b.g7 9 i:b.e2 0-0 1 0 0-0, avoid­
ing . . . J:b.g4. True, with the chosen move
order Black has to reckon with the variation
7 h3 e6 8 Jld3 exd5 9 exd5.
11 i:b.f4 � es
Here I I .. . i:b.xf3 12 i:b.xf3 'i/e7 is more
often played.
12 QJd2
It is well known that 12 h3 is bad because
of 1 2 ... t2Jxe4! 1 3 hxg4 i:b.xc3 (Uhlmann­
Fischer, Palma de Mallorca 1 97 1 ).
12 ... Jlxe2 13 'i/xe2 QJhS 14 i:b.e3 t2Jd7
(D)
w
15 g4! ?
The preparatory 1 5 a5 gives White
the advantage in the event of the passive
1 5 ... 'i/c7 16 g4! QJhf6 17 f3 l2Je5 1 8 @hl
� ac8 1 9 � a4 h5 20 g5 QJh7 2 1 f4 QJd7
22 e5 dxe5 23 f5 ! (Gligoric-Miles, Hastings
1 973/74).
However, in the game Beliavsky­
Kasparov (47th USSR Championship,
Minsk 1 979) after 1 5 . . . 'i/h4! 1 6 t2Jc4
Qjf4 17 'i/f3 l2Je5 ! 1 8 l2Jxe5 J:b.xe5 1 9 g3
'i/h5 ! 20 'i/xh5 t2Jxh5 2 1 t2Ja4 J:b.g7 Black
solved all his problems.
15 ... QJhf6 16 h3
Portisch chose 16 f3 against Kasparov
(Moscow 1 9 8 1 ) and after 1 6 . . . h6 1 7 @h l
l2Je5 1 8 � g l b5 ! 1 9 g5 hxg5 20 Jlxg5 c4
2 1 axb5 axb5 22 � xa8 'iVxa8 23 l2Jxb5
'iVb8 24 l2Ja3 'iVxb2 25 l2Jaxc4 l2Jxc4 26
'iVxc4 l2Jh5 Black gained an initiative that
compensated for his material deficit.
16 ...b6
If 16 ... ttJ b6, then 17 � acl followed by
b2-b3 is strong, forestalling Black's play on
the queenside.
17 f4 h6
Planning by . . . l2Jh7 and ... g6-g5 to se­
cure a post for his pieces at e5.
18 � ael?!
18 'iVd3 was preferable; now Black car­
ries out his traditional counter-blow.
18... b5! 19 °iVf3
The pawn cannot be taken: 19 axb5 axb5
20 'iVxb S � b8 2 1 'iVc6 � xb2 22 l2J c4
� c2 23 i,d2 l2Jxg4!, or 20 l2Jxb5 l2Jxe4
2 1 l2Jxe4 � xe4 22 l2Jxd6 � xe3 ! and
Black wins.
19 .. � b8 20 axb5 axb5 21 i,f2 c4 22 b4!
.
White blocks the queenside pawns and
gains control of the c5-square.
22 . l2Jh7
..
22 ... cxb3 23 l2Jxb3 b4 24 lLJ b l would
also have left White with some advantage.
23 l2J e2!
The start of a promising plan. 23 h4
would have led to unclear complications.
23 ...g5 24 i,d4 i,xd4+
24 . . . gxf4 25 i,xg7 c:i;; xg7 26 'iVxf4
l2Je5 27 l2Jg3 favours White.
25 l2Jxd4 °iVb6 (D)
w a force?
26 'iVc3 gxf4
Or 26 ... l2Je5 27 �hl l2Jd3 28 l2Jf5 ! .
2 7 c:i;; h l! l2Je5 28 l2Jf5
In such formations a knight on f5 is a
precursor of victory. It is interesting to fol­
low how over the next few moves the black
knight is unable to reach d3 .
28 ... f6 29 l2Jxh6+ c:i;; h 8 30 � xf4 .� a8 31
g5 'iVa7 32 gxf6 'iVa3 33 lLJbl!
This strong move, forcing the exchange
of queens, quickly leads to a technically
straightforward win.
33 ... 'iVxc3 34 l2Jxc3 � f8 35 l2Jxb5 � xf6
36 � xf6 l2Jxf6 37 l2Jxd6 c3 38 � cl � a3
39 l2Jhf7+ l2Jxf7 40 l2Jxf7+ c:i;; g7 41 l2Jd6
� b3 42 c:i;; g2 � xb4 43 � xc3 l2Jxe4 44
l2Jxe4 � xe4 45 � d3 c:i;; f7 46 �g3 l-O
Of course, a notable item in his biog­
raphy is the following game, in which he
outplayed an experienced master playing
the opening that bears his name.
White: B.Postovsky
Black: A.Ufimtsev
1 4th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 7 9-80
Pirc-Ufimtsev Defen ce 80 7
1 e4 d6 2 d4 l2Jf6 3 l2Jc3 c6
The veteran master, one of the co-authors
of this opening, used to tirelessly try new
methods of development. From the very
first moves, before even mobilising his
forces, Black plays actively on the queen­
side. Is this not too early, and with too small
4 f4 'iVa5 5 i,d3 e5 6 dxe5 dxe5 7 f5!
This energetic plan casts doubts on
Black's strategy. Now 7 ... b5 would have
made the play double-edged. The course
chosen by Black proves passive, allowing
White to completely dominate the position.
7 l2Ja6? 8 l2Jf3 l2Jc5 9 0-0 l2Jxd3 10 cxd3
..•
i,d7
Afraid of subj ecting his king to threats on
the right wing, Black hopes to shelter it on
the other side of the board, but here too it
comes under a very strong attack. The only
alternative was 1 0 ... Jtc5+ 1 1 @hl ll:Jg4
and then ... h7-h5, attempting to initiate
counterplay on the kingside.
1 1 Jtg5 0-0-0 12 a3 !:l, e8 13 @hl (D)
B N otes by M i k h a i l
After Black' s preventive measure (the e5-
pawn might have proved vulnerable) White
has the right to allow himself a prophylactic
move. The opponent has no counterplay.
13 ... Jtd6 14 b4 'li'b6 15 ll:Ja4 'li'b5 16
'iVc2 @b8 17 ll:Jc5 Jtc8 18 a4 'iVb6 19
ll:Jd2 ll:Jd7 20 ll:Jc4 'iVc7 21 Jte3 ll:Jf6
Combinative possibilities are already in
the air. For example, 2 l . ..b6 22 ll:Jxd7+
Jtxd7 23 a5 b5 24 Jtb6 ! .
2 2 b5 b 6 23 llJb3 llJdS
Having lost the battle strategically, Black
hopes to provoke tactical complications,
even at the cost of a piece. The sacrifice
could have been accepted, of course, but
White decides not to deviate from his at­
tacking course. And indeed, this is the
quickest way to win.
24 exd5 cxd5 25 a5 dxc4 26 axb6 axb6 27
'iVa2 Jth7 28 dxc4 1-0
Faced with the unavoidable threat of 29
!:!. fcl and 30 c5, Black resigned.
Second and third place, a point be­
hind the winner, were shared by Mikhail
Arkhangelsky, who in those years was
working as technical editor of chess litera­
ture for the publishing house 'Fizkultura i
Sport' , and Aleksandr Tsamryuk, who was
senior trainer of a junior chess school in
Samarkand.
White: M .Arkhangelsky
Black: B.Pe rsits
1 4th U S S R C C C h , 1 9 7 9-80
Queen 's Gambit D43
Arkh angel sky
1 c4 c6 2 ll:Jf3 d5 3 d4 llJf6 4 ll:Jc3 e6 5
Jtg5 h6
This continuation has become fashion­
able in recent years. Black falls behind
somewhat in development, but relies on the
potential strength of his bishops. Besides,
the double-edged positions arising in the
Botvinnik Variation - 5 ... dxc4 6 e4 b5 - are
not to everyone's taste.
6 Jtxf6 'iVxf6 7 e3 ll:Jd7 8 Jtd3 dxc4
Such an early conceding of the centre
is frowned upon by theory. However, my
opponent, an experienced correspondence
player with his own analyses, had prepared
an improvement on a well-known variation.
There is not even any point in White devi­
ating from the familiar path, as otherwise
he may lose his main trump - his lead in
development.
9 Jtxc4 e5 10 0-0 exd4 11 exd4 Jte7 12
!:I. el lLlb6 13 lLle4 'iVf4 14 g3 'iVc7
All this occurred in the game Pirc-Euwe
(Amsterdam 1 950).
15 d5!
It is this move that theory regards as the
refutation of Black's entire plan. Now both
1 5 . . . ll:Jxc4 1 6 d6 ll:Jxd6 1 7 ll:Jxd6+ @f8
1 8 ll:Jxf7 @xf7 1 9 'iVb3+ and 1 5 ... ll:Jxd5
1 6 Jtxd5 cxd5 17 ll:Jc3 ! Jte6 1 8 ll:Jxd5
Jtxd5 1 9 'iVxd5 0-0 20 !:l, acl lead to a
clear advantage for White.
15... cxd5!
But here is the improvement! Black
voluntarily gives up the right to castle, but
retains certain pluses in his position.
16 Jtb5+ @f8!
After 16 ... Jtd7 White could have replied
1 7 .i::i. c l , and if l 7 ... �c6 1 8 ltJcS ! 0-0 1 9
tt:Jxb7.
17 .i::!, cl 'i¥d8 18 tt:Jcs a6 19 �fl hS (D)
w 30 .l::i, c7 .i::i. b8
The resulting position is not easy to eval­
uate. Of course, White has a great lead in
development and the knight at cS is restrict­
ing the opponent' s forces on the queenside.
But Black has retained the two bishops and
is ready to bring his rook into play via h6.
In addition, for the moment he has an extra
pawn, even though it is isolated. Energetic
action is now demanded of White, as oth­
erwise Black's potential advantages may be
transformed into real ones.
20 ltJeS! .i::i, h6 21 'iVf3
The scope of the black rook along the
sixth rank needs to be restricted.
21. .. �f6 22 a4!
Since 22 . . . as is bad on account of 23
�bS, the knight at b6 and, moreover, the
dS-pawn begin to feel uncomfortable.
22 ... 'i¥d6 23 'i¥f4 �xeS
This exchange is forced, since 24 tt:Jg6+
was threatened, and there is no time for
23 ... �g8, if only because of 24 aS.
24 'iVxeS
Going into an ending is the only way
of retaining the initiative. After 24 .i::!, xeS
ctJd7 ! Black would have solved all his
problems.
24 ... 'iVxeS 2S .i::i. xeS .i::i. c6
Here too 2S ... ctJd7 was preferable. After
26 .i::i. xdS tLixcS 27 .i::i. cxcS �g4 the white
rooks are significantly more active, but
Biack has drawing chances.
26 as ctJd7 27 .i::i. xdS tt:JxcS 28 .i::i. dxcS
.l::i, xcS
If 28 . . . �d7, then 29 �g2 is unpleasant.
29 .l::i, xcS �g4
The bishop has at last emerged, but the
resulting endgame is difficult for Black.
30 ... �f3 would have been met by the
same reply.
31 �c4! �e6 32 �xe6 fxe6 33 b4 bS
The best chance. After passive defence,
the march of the white king into the centre
would have been quickly decisive.
34 .l::i, a7 .l::i, d8 3S .l::i, xa6 .l::i, d4 36 .l::i, xe6
.l::i, xb4 37 .l::i, b6 �f7 38 @g2 .l::i, b2 39
@f3 b4
The rest is a matter of technique. The
a-pawn is bound to decide the outcome,
but for this the king must immediately stop
Black's passed pawn, disregarding possible
losses on the kingside.
40 �e3! b3 41 a6 .i::i. a2 42 @d3 .i::i, xf2 43
�c3 h4
43 . . . .l::i, fl 44 @b2 ! or 43 ... .l::i, xh2 44
@xb3 .l::i, h l 4S @a2 does not help.
44 �xb3 hxg3 4S hxg3 .i::i, f3+ 46 �a4
.l::i, t1 47 .i::!, b3 .l::i, a1+ 48 .l::i, a3 1-0
White : M .Arkhangelsky
Black : A.Tsamryuk
1 4th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 7 9- 8 0
English Opening A 30
N otes by A l e ksand r
Tsa m ry u k
1 c4 c S 2 tt:Jf3 ctJf6 3 tt:Jc3 d S 4 cxdS ltJxdS
S g3 g6 6 �g2 �g7 7 'iVa4+ CLic6 8 'i¥c4
ltJ db4 9 0-0 'iYaS 10 'i¥h4
White is aiming to exploit the withdrawal
of the black pieces from the kingside, plan­
ning an attack on the future residence of the
enemy king. Now 10 ... 0-0 is dangerous in
view of the possible variation 1 1 d3 �d7
 12 j&h6 with the threat of 1 3 tlJg5 and 1 4
j&xg7.
B
10...h6!
For the moment Black delays castling,
trying, in tum, to exploit the 'over-active'
position of the white queen. At the same
time the development of the bishop at e6
is ensured.
1 1 d3 j&e6 12 j&d2 1i'd8 13 l:, fcl 1i'd7
Black has prepared the encirclement of
the white queen and is ready to begin pursu­
ing it with 14 ... g5. hoping that his lead in development and
14 a3 g5 15 1i'e4? the insecure position of the black king will
White avoids the draw that was pos­ compensate for his material deficit.
sible after 15 tt:Jxg5 hxg5 1 6 1i'xg5 j&h6 The play remains sharp to the very end.
( 1 6 ... j&f6 is dangerous because of l 7 1i'xc5 17 axb4 j&xe3 18 j&xe3 cxb4 19 t2J a4
t2Ja6 1 8 1i'b5.) 1 7 1i'h4 j&g7 1 8 1i'g5 l:, b8
j&h6, but he overlooks a tactical stroke. 1 9 . . . l:, c8 20 l2Jc5 1i'd6 21 C2Jxb7 1i'b8
15 ...f5 16 1i'e3 22 CLJc5 j&d5 was more accurate.
(See diagram in the next column.) 20 tt:Jc5 1i'd6 21 C2Jxg5 hxg5 22 C2Jxb7
16 j&d4!
.•. l:, xb7 23 j&xc6+ l:, d7 24 l:, xa7 f4 25
This is the whole point. It turns out that j&d2 0-0 26 j&xd7 j&xd7 27 l:, cc7 l:, d8
1 7 t2Jxd4 cxd4 1 8 1i'f3 dxc3 1 9 j&xc3 28 l:t cb7 f3!
.QJd5 20 j&xh8 g4 is not possible, as the White's threats are parried, and Black
queen is nevertheless lost. Therefore White himself launches a counter-attack.
gives up his queen for two minor pieces, 29 exf3 g4 30 j&xb4 1:Vxd3 0-1
 Fifteenth Championship
(1981 -1983)
BY THE mid- 1 970s the number of play­
ers wanting to participate in the USSR
Championships had grown so significantly,
that to the initial, quarter-final stage it was
decided to admit only players who had the
candidate master rank. (Prior to this, first
category players could also qualify from
tournaments organised by the USSR Central
Chess Club.)
In the semi-finals, apart from those who
had qualified from the quarter-final stage,
invitations were sent to over-the-board and
correspondence masters, and also to the
winners of the championships of the USSR
republics, Moscow and Leningrad. Finally,
to the final were invited USSR, FIDE and
ICCF grandmasters, the winners of the
semi-finals (two from each), the champions
of the Russian Federation and the Central
Chess Club, and the prize-winners in the
previous final.
The fifteenth championship was preceded
by four semi-finals, in each of which sev­
eral masters competed. As has already been
mentioned, year after year the masters were
largely unable to withstand the fierce com­
petition of lower-ranked players.
One of the exceptions was the only wom­
an competing in the semi-final stage - the
Leningrad master Filippova, who earned
the right to participate in the men's USSR
Championship. Personal circumstances pre­
vented her from taking up this opportunity.
However, when the composition of the tour­
nament was complete, it transpired that 2 1
players were ready to take part. True, after
the pairings had been made and the starting
list distributed, two dropped out.
Sergey Grodzensky was appointed arbiter
of the 1 5th Championship. I remember very
well how the players began grumbling about
the fact that some had to play two more
games with Black. Reporting on the situa­
tion at a meeting of the Council for corre­
spondence events, I tried to speak ironically.
(Those who had to play a majority of games
with Black reacted calmly to what had hap­
pened - what can be done, and in the end
what difference does it make? Whereas for
some reason those to whom fate had granted
two games more with White began to be­
come agitated. . . )
In fact it was no laughing matter - the
very tournament was in danger of collaps­
ing, since some of the proteste:s were
threatening to drop out if a new set of pair­
ings wasn't made. Fortunately, I was able
to quell their passions, but I was left with a
feeling of vexation at the attitude of certain
participants to this prestigious event. Thus
the FIDE grandmaster Miron Sher played as
though he was doing his military service.
The first decisive game was a fight­
ing one, with the champion of the Central
Chess Club, candidate master M.Volchikin,
defeating the experienced Leningrad master
V.Varlamov. When one third of the games
were completed, the contenders for the prize
places had emerged.
The leading group comprised . the mas­
ters T.Koshil (Ryazan) - 5 out of 7, Ana­
toly Ufimtsev (Kustanay) - 3 out of 4,
NikolayKopylov (Voronezh) - 7 out of 1 3 ,
Igor Kopylov (Ufa) - 5 out of 9 and Mikhail
Arkhangelsky (Moscow) - 3 out of 5, and
the candidate masters Aleksandr Lipiridi
N2 1 5th USSR Ch (1981-83) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

1 A.Lipiridi Kislovodsk 1 0 Yi 1 Yi Yi 1 1 y, 1 Yi y, y, y, 1 Yi 1 1 12'/z

2 A.Lutovinov Leningrad 0 Yi Yi Yi 0 1 0 Yi 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12

3 I.Kitaigorodsky Moscow 1 Yi Yi Yi 0 Yi 1 1 1 Yi Yi Yi y, 1 1 0 1 1 12

4 A.Ufimtsev Kustanay y, Yi y, 0 Yi y, 1 Yi 1 y, 0 y, 1 1 1 1 1 Yi 11'/z

5 N.Razvalyaev Tashkent 0 Yi y, 1 Yi Yi Yi Yi Yi 1 1 Yi Yi 1 'y, y, 1 1 11'/z

I ' .

6 A.Yakimenko Donetsk region Yi 1 1 Yi Yi Yi Yi 0 1 Yi 0 y, Yi 1 0 Yi 1 1 10'/z

7 I.Kopylov Ufa Yi 0 Yi y, y, Yi Yi Yi 1 Yi 1 0 Yi 1 Yi 1 Yi 1 10'/z

;

8 V.Demidenko Kuyboishev 0 1 0 0 Yi y, Yi 0 Yi Yi y, 1 0 Yi 1 1 1 . 1 91/z

9 Ya.Rusakov Omsk 0 Yi 0 Yi Yi 1 Yi 1 0 1 Yi y, Yi y, 0 1 Yi 1 91/z

10 T.Koshil Ryazan Yi 0 0 0 Yi 0 0 Yi 1 y, Yi 1 1 y, 1 y, 1 Yi 9

11 L.Levin Moscow 0 1 Yi Yi 0 y, Yi y, 0 Yi y, Yi Yi 1 0 1 Yi 1 9

12 V.Varlamov Leningrad Yi 0 Yi 1 0 1 0 Yi Yi Yi Yi
I
0 Yi 0 1 Yi Yi 1 81/z

13 M.Arkhangelsky Moscow y, 0 Yi Yi Yi Yi 1 0 Yi 0 Yi 1 Yi 0 Yi Yi 1 Yi 81/z

14 N.Kopylov Voronezh y, 0 Yi 0 Yi Yi Yi 1 Yi 0 Yi Yi Yi y, Yi y, 1 Yi 81/z

'
15 M.Volchikhin Shadrinsk y, a 0 0 0 0 0 Yi Yi y, 0 1 1 Yi 1 1 y, Yi 71/z

16 Yu.Rumyantsev Moscow region 0 0 0 0 Yi 1 Yi 0 1 0 1 0 Yi y, 0 1 y, Yi 7

17 V.Semenyuk Tula Yi 0 1 0 Yi Yi 0 0 0 Yi 0 Yi y, Yi 0 0 Yi 1 6

18 N.Mishuchkov Leningrad region 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yi 0 Yi 0 Yi y, 0 0 Yi Yi Yi t� y, 4

19 M.Sher Belgorod 0 0 0 Yi 0 0 0 0 0 Yi 0 0 Yi y, Yi Yi 0 y, 31/z

(Kislovodsk) - 6Yi out of 9 and Aleksandr
Lutovinov (Leningrad) - 2 out of 2.
A confident start was made by Aleksandr
Lipiridi, alternating full-blooded wins with
draws. In mid-tournament Nikolay Razvaly­
aev made a spurt, enabling him to challenge
the leader. Two years after the start Lipiridi
had l OYi out of 14, and Razvalyaev l OYi out
of 1 5 .
By that time Igor Kopylov, who as usual
played very quickly, had already completed
his tournament with lOYi points. His final
score could have been even better, had he
not been let down by some vexing 'slips of
the pen'. In the leading group were Koshil
(Ryazan) - 7 out of 1 1 , Lutovinov (Lenin­
grad) - 6Yi out of 9, and the oldest partici­
pant, the master Ufimtsev - 8Yi out of 14.
Any game by Anatoly Ufimtsev, in
which he employs the opening that bears his
name, is of interest.
White: V.Demidenko
Black: A. U fimtsev
1 5th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 8 1 -83
Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence 80 7
N otes by Anatoly Ufimtsev
1 e4 d6 2 d4 'Llf6 3 'Llc3 c6 4 f4 'if as
The aim of this move is to initiate active
play both in the centre and on the queen­
side.
5 �d3
The natural and strongest reply. It is
unfavourable to defend the e4-pawn in any
other way. If 5 �d2 there follows 5 ... 'ifb6
with a simultaneous attack on two pawns.
5...e5
Preventing White from establishing firm
control in the centre.
6 'Llf3
After 6 dxe5 dxe5 7 fxe5 'Llg4 Black re­
gains the pawn and achieves a good game.
6...exd4 7 'Llxd4 'iVb6 8 'Llf3 �g4 9 b3 !?
(D)
B
A non-routine continuation.
9 ... d5 10 'Lla4
The only move that parries Black's
numerous threats. After 1 0 exd5 �b4 1 1
'ife2+ @d8 White loses. 1 0 e5 is also not
good - 1 0 . . . 'Lle4 1 1 'Llxe4? dxe4 1 2 �xe4
'iVb4+, winning a piece, while after 1 1
�xe4 �b4 loss of material is inevitable.
Weak is 1 0 'ife2 �b4 1 1 �d2 0-0 with
advantage to Black.
10 ... 'if c7 11 es 'Ll e4 12 'iVe2 b5 13 'Llb2
�b4+
Preventing White from castling - this
is already an achievement by Black in the
opening.
14 �fl 'Llc5 15 �e3 'Llbd7 16 'Lldl
'Llxd3
Not 1 6 ... 0-0 on account of 17 �xh7+
@xh7 1 8 'Llg5+ etc.
17 cxd3 0-0 18 d4 � ae8
Black begins carrying a deeply-con­
ceived plan, involving the destruction of the
opponent' s pawn centre.
19 h3 �xf3 20 gxf3
20 'ifxf3 is worse, as after 20 ... f6 White
cannot use his f4-pawn for the defence of
his e5, since he does not have time to re­
move both his king and his queen from the
f-file.
20 ...f6 21 �f2
The sacrifice of the knight on e5 was
threatened, with a very strong attack.
21...fxeS 22 fxe5 (D)

B mind. The last summer before my final
22 ... ctJf6!
The knight is transferred to f4, and from
being a backward piece it is transformed
into a decisive force.
23 � cl 'lid7 24 Clib2
White tries to exchange his passive
knight for the bishop, but even this does not
bring him any relief.
24 ... Jta3 2S � c3 Jtxb2 26 'lixb2 ClihS
27 'lic2 b4 28 � e3
Bad is 28 � xc6 � xf3 29 � d6 'lib5+
30 �g2 � ef8 3 1 Jth4 � c3 with an ir­
resistible attack.
28 ... aS 29 @e2 ctJf4+ 30 @fl
30 @ d l was comparatively better, al­
though even in this case after 30 ... Cli e6 3 1
� d3 � f4 3 2 'lie2 � ef8 Black's position
is won in view of the threats of . . . Clig5 and
... 'lifl.
30...'lia7 31 'lidl cS 32 @gl
If 32 dxc5 there follows 32 ... 'lia6+ 33
�el ctJg2+ and wins.
32 ... cxd4 33 � el 'lif7 34 � h2 d3 3S
Jtcs 'lig6+ 36 @hl � rs 37 � gl 'lihS
38 Jtd6 Clie2 39 'lixd3 Clixgl 40 'iVxdS+
�h8 41 @xgl � xf3 0-1
In the 1 5th Championship the highest
award was won by Aleksandr Lipiridi, who
at that time was a chess instructor in the
Spartak junior sports society in Kislovodsk.
Aleksandr learned to play chess rather late
in life - at the age of 16.
Then, after rapidly moving up the initial
rungs of the qualification system, in 1 960 he
became a candidate master, and a year later
he won the regional championship.
My first meeting with him springs to
school year was spent at a children' s sana­
torium in the spa town of Essentuki in the
Northern Caucasus. My friends and I spent
all our free time playing chess (I then had
second category rating).
In the evenings we visited the local chess
club, where at that time the Championship
of the Stavropol Region was being held.
Virtually the youngest participant, twenty­
year-old candidate master Alik Lipiridi, was
impossible to ignore.
With his luxuriant head of j et-black hair,
he drew attention not only by his appear­
ance, but also his sharp (I would call it
counter-attacking) style. To our delight, he
in fact became champion.
That same year the young player per­
formed successfully in the zonal tournament
of the Russian Federation Championship
and qualified for the semi-final of the USSR
Championship. He won the championship of
Stavropol about ten times and by the 1 960s
he was close to master ranking.
For Aleksandr Lipiridi, 1 967 was a
memorable year when, as champion of the
Moscow Burevestnik sports society, he was
admitted into a master tournament, dedicated
to the 50th anniversary of the October Revo­
lution. To reach the master norm, in his last
two games it was sufficient for him to score
half a point against two outsiders, but at the
decisive moment fortune deserted him.
In subsequent years Lipiridi also had
some good results, but even so his play be­
gan to show a decline. A way out was found
in 1 977 when he tested his strength in a cor­
respondence event. After gaining successive
victories in the quarter-final, semi-final and
final of the USSR CC Ch, the representative
from the Stavropol District gained, along
with the gold medal, the master title and his
first grandmaster norm.
Of Lipiridi's wins I should like to men­
tion one gained over an experienced master
and at the same time a well-known corre­
spondence player.
 White: A. Lipiridi
Black: Ya . Rusakov
1 5th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 8 1 - 8 3
Queen 's Gambit Accep ted
D25
1 d4 dS 2 l2Jf3 tt::J r6 3 c4 dxc4 4 e3 S �xc4
e6 6 l2lc3 ctJbd7 7 h3 �hS 8 0-0 �d6 9
e4 eS 10 g4!
Earlier 10 �e2 was played. In the game
Hort-Kavalek (Montreal 1979) after 1 0 ...
0-0 1 1 dxe5 tt::J xe5 12 ctJd4 �c5 ! 1 3 l2lb3
'iVxdl .14 �xdl �b6 Black equalised. 1 0
g4 occurred in the game P.Littlewood-Muir
(British Championship 1 979), in which after
1 0 . . . �g6 1 1 dxe5 l2Jxe5 1 2 tt::J xe5 �xe5
1 3 f4 'iVd4+ 14 'iVxd4 �xd4+ 15 @h2
�xc3 1 6 bxc3 �xe4 1 7 g5 ! Black ended
up in a difficult position.
10 ... �g6 11 dxeS ltJxeS 12 ltJxeS �xeS
13 r4 �d4+ 14 @h2 hS lS rs hxg4 16 rxg6
rxg6 (D)
In the opening Black has · sacrificed a
piece for two pawns and an attack.
17 h4!
A strong move, enabling White to launch
a counter-attack.
17 ... 'iVd6+ 18 @g2 : xh4
Practically forced, since 1 9 �g5 was
threatened.
19 �r4 'iVcS 20 ctJdS! 0-0-0
If 20 . . . 'iVxc4, then 2 1 : c l .
2 1 : cl tt::J xe4 22 b4 l-O
When all the spaces in the tournament
table had been filled, it transpired that the
following game was decisive in the battle
for the title of champion.
White : A. Lipiridi
Black: A. Lutovinov
1 5th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 81 - 8 3
Queen 's Gambit D44
N otes by Ti m Ha rd i n g
1 d4 dS 2 l2J f3 tt::J r6 3 c4 e6 4 l2lc3 c6 S �gs
dxc4 6 e4 bS 7 eS h6 8 �h4 gS 9 ltJxgS
hxgS 10 �xgS ctJbd7 1 1 g3 b4?! (D)
w
This move, proposed by L.Radchenko
in 'Shakhmatny Byulleten' (October 1 955,
page 299), is rarely played. The main line
nowadays ( 1 1 exf6) avoids it. Black sacri­
fices his queen for three minor pieces, but
White obtains too many pawns. Instead
l l ...�b7 and 1 1 ... : gs are playable.
12 l2le4 tt::J xe4 13 �xd8 @ xd8 14 �g2
rs lS exr6
After 1 5 f3 (which is recommended in
several books) Radchenko reckoned that
Black could set up a blockade of the pawns
by 1 5 ... tt::J g5 but this seems implausible.
1S ... tt::J exr6
1 5 . . . tt::J dxf6 was Radchenko 's idea but it
is refuted by 1 6 �xe4! tt::J xe4 1 7 'iVf3 as in
several games in 1 979-80.
16 �e2 tLldS 17 �xc4 � b8
1 7 . . . �c7! ? was suggested in M.Arkhan­
gelsky's 1 985 booklet on CC.
18 0-0 � b6 19 � fel tLl7f6 20 h4 �d6 21
�h3 � e8 22 �c2 (D)
B tLic6 6 0-0 �e7 7 cxd5 exd5 8 CLic3 0-0 9
22 ... � e7?
Also after V.Agrinsky' s suggestion 22 ...
c5 23 dxc5 � c6 it seems probable that
White should win in the end.
23 � e2 tLlh7 24 � ael tLlf8 25 h5 �d7
26 � e4 @c7 27 h6 tLlf6 28 � h4 tLl8h7 29
�fl � b8 30 �g2 � b5 31 �a4 @b8 32
� cl tLldS 33 � g4 tLlhf6 34 �xd5 t2Jxd5
35 �a6 tLlf6 36 � g6 CLie8 37 � xc6
�xc6 38 �xc6 � b6 39 �bl b3 40 axb3
� bb7 41 � g8 � bc7 42 �h5 1-0
The silver medal was awarded to the Len­
ingrad player Aleksandr Lutovinov, whose
length of service as a correspondence player
exceeds twenty years. Initially he combined
participation in correspondence tournaments
with active over-the-board appearances.
Indeed, he gained the candidate master
title for over-the-board play. He was three
times winner of the championship of the
Leningrad Region. His deep interest in chess
even forced him to change profession.
· A geological engineer by training, Al­
exander Lutovinov worked for many years
as senior trainer for the Trud Junior Sports
Society of the Leningrad Regional Council.
Then he began focusing on correspondence
play, since he thought that this form of chess
was of most benefit to a trainer.
White: N . Mishuchkov
Black: A.Lutovinov
1 5th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 8 1 - 8 3
Queen 's Gambit D30
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 tLlf3 ctJf6 4 g3 c5 5 �g2
<�g5 cxd4 10 tLlxd4 h6 11 �e3 � e8 12
�a4 �d7 13 � adl �f8 14 tt"Jxd5 tLlxdS
15 �xd5 tLlb4 16 �xf7+ �xf7 17 �b3+
�g6 18 a3 �h3 19 axb4 �xfl 20 �c2+
�f7 21 �b3+ @g6 22 @xfl �e7 23
tLlf3 �xb4 24 �g8 � ad8 25 tt"Je5+ (D)
B
25 ... � xeS 26 � xd8 �e4 27 �el??
An example of chess bl indness, which in
the 'pre-computer era' sometimes occurred
even in high-level correspondence events.
After 27 @gl Black would have had to
force a draw by perpetual check: 27 ... �b l +
28 @g2 �e4+ etc.
27 ... �bl+ 28 � dl �b4+ 29 �d2
�xd2+ 30 @xd2 �xb2+ 0-1
After winning the USSR championship
silver medal, Aleksandr Lutovinov was in­
cluded in the Konstantinopolsky Memorial
Tournament, which brought him the title of
ICCF international master.
The Muscovite Ilya Kitaigorodsky, who
long before had shown himself to be one
of the strongest candidate masters, worked
persistently towards the goal he had sent
himself - the achievement of the master
norm. When pressure of work (at that time
he was an executive in the USSR Finance
Ministry) left him with increasingly fewer
opportunities to participate in tournaments,
'correspondence' came to the rescue.
Whereas the champion demonstrated a
universal style, and the play of the second
prize-winner was notable for its uncompro­
mising and rather risky nature, the bronze
medal winner was highly tenacious both
in attack, and in defence. In some cases he
was able to gain points in positions where
it appeared that all the resources were ex-
hausted.
White: M .Volchikhin
Black: I . K itaigorodsky
1 5th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 8 1 -83
Queen 's Gambit 036
1 d4 e6 2 c4 dS 3 ll:ic3 ll:if6 4 cxdS exdS S
�gs c6 6 'iic 2 ll:ibd7 7 e3 �e7 8 �d3
0-0 9 ll:if3 : e8 10 0-0 ll:if8 11 : ael
�g4 12 ll:ieS �hS 13 f4 ll:i6d7 14 �xe7
: xe7 lS �fS �g6 16 �xg6 hxg6 17 b4
'ii e8 18 bS ll:ib6 19 bxc6 bxc6 20 e4 ll:ie6
21 : dt : cs 22 'iif2 : ds 23 : d3 f6 24
ll:ixg6 'ij1xg6 2S fS 'ii e8 26 fxe6 : xe6 27
exdS ll:ixdS 28 ll:ixdS : xdS 29 : b3 : e4
30 : g3 �f7 31 'ii c2 as 32 : c3 : e2 33
'ij1b3 'ii e4 34 'ij1b7+ @g6 3S : g3+ : gs
36 : xgS+ fxgS 37 'iif7+ @h6 38 'ij1f3
'iVxd4+ 39 @hl 'iie4 40 'iVxe4 : xe4 41
h3 (D)
The winning plan that suggests itself in­
volves the activation of Black's king.
4t... : c4 42 a4!
White exchanges a pair of pawns and
aims to penetrate with his rook to a6.
42... : xa4 43 : ct g4 44 : xc6+ @hS 4S
B
(Position after 41 h3)
@h2 gxh3 46 @xh3
This is better than 46 gxh3, which would
have allowed Black to activate his king by
playing it to f5 or f4.
46 ... : h4+ 47 @g3 : g4+ 48 @ h3
If 48 @f3, then 48 ... @h4 would have
won.
48 ... : gs 49 : a6 : bS so g4+ @gs st
@g3 : b3+ S2 @f2 : a3 S3 : a7 g6 S4
: a6 : a4 SS @e3 : r4!
The advance of the a-pawn would not
have led to a win. Therefore Black pins his
hopes on his g-pawn.
S6 : xaS+ �xg4 S7 : al : f3+ SS @e2
gS S9 : gt+
After 59 : h 1 or 59 : a8 Black would
have cut off the white king by 59 ... : f5 and
ensured the advance of his g-pawn.
S9 ... : g3 60 : at @h3 61 @f2
More tenacious was 61 : h l + @g2 62
: hs g4 63 : gs @h2 64 : g6 : g 1 etc.
6t... : g2+ 62 �fl g4 63 : a3+ �h2 0-1
Again, as in the preceding championship,
the entire victory podium was occupied
by candidate masters. The organisers had
hoped that, with the introduction of a new
qualifying system that envisaged the award­
ing of the grandmaster title to a two-times
winner of the USSR Correspondence Cham­
pionship, this would break the tradition of
masters missing out in the distribution of
awards.
 1 74 Red Letters: Tactical Exercises

Find the finish ( II}

From Championships VI-XV. See the solutions on page 1 5 7 .

1 . A. Zaitsev-Gilman, 6th Championship 4. Smolensky-Zilberberg, 8th Champ.

2. Yershov-Altshuler, 5. Kuntsevich-Estrin,
7th Championship 10th Championship

3. Yershov-Romanov, 6. Poleshchuk-Foigel,
7th Championship 15th Championship
 Sixteenth Championship
(1983-1986)

THE FINAL of the 1 6th USSR Champi­ of importance for the distribution of the
onship again comprised 1 9 participants, medals, and the arbiters granted the players
including 1 0 masters. On this occasion the the opportunity to play on to the end and
representation of the Republics was quite themselves resolve their tournament fate,
wide: three from Latvia, two from Ukraine, without resorting to adjudication. The fol­
and one each from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, lowing game proved decisive in the battle
Estonia and Azerbaijan. for the championship.
By that time a rating system had been
introduced for USSR correspondence play­
ers, which enabled the average rating of the White: R .Akopov
participants to be determined - 2380. The
tournament arbiter was B.Bulgin, who was Black: D .Barash
later to receive the title of international arbi­
ter of both FIDE and ICCF. 1 6th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 8 3 - 8 6
A year after the start of play, the first
leaders had emerged. They were the winner King 's Indian Defence £8 1
of the previous championship Aleksandr Li­
piridi - 6 points out of 1 0, A.Volchok - 3Yi 1 d4 Qjf6 2 c4 g6 3 CLic3 il,g7 4 e4 d6 5
out of 6 and Yury Zelinsky - 3 out of 5 . f3 0-0 6 il,e3 a6 7 il, d3 cS 8 dxcS dxcS 9
By the middle of the tournament Vol­ il,xcS?! (D)
chok had shown his ambitions by winning 9 e5 Qjfd7 10 f4 is better, for example
five games in a row, and with 1 0 points 10 ... QJc6 1 1 QJf3 Qjd4 12 0-0 f6 13 e6!
out of 1 3 he was leading the race. At this QJb6 14 f5 lLJ xf5 1 5 il,xf5 gxf5 1 6 il,xc5.
point Lipiridi had 9Yi out of 14. Also in Now Black gains a dangerous initiative for
the leading group were S.Kastarnov - 9 out the pawn.
of 1 5, Dmitry Barash - 7 out of 1 0, Yury
Zelinsky - 7 out of 1 1 and Igor Kopylov
- 7 out of 12.
B
Long before the finish, the failure of a
prize-winner in the 14th USSR CC Ch, the
Uzbekistan master Aleksandr Tsamryuk,
became evident. He committed a breach
of discipline and then altogether stopped
playing.
When the playing time had expired the
arbiters' commission extended the event by
several months - six unfinished games were
 .....
.....
NQ 1 6th USSR Ch. (1983-86) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ' �

1 D. Barash Leningrad ±J '12 1 '12 'h '12 'h 'h I I l 1 I I 0 l I 'h I 13'h
I

2 A. Volchok Nikolaev 'h 'h 0 '12 'h I 1 I I l 'h 1 '12 1 I 'h 1 l· 13

3 R. Akopov Baku 0 '12 1 '12 'h 0 'lz 'lz '12 l 1 1 l 1 1 1 I I 13
4 Yu. Zelinsky Riga '12 l 0 'h 1 '12 I '12 'h 'h I Yi 1 1 'h 'h 1 'h 12
I

5 I. Kopylov Ufa '12 '12 '12 'h 'h '12 I l 1 '12 1 Yi 'h 'h '12 1 '12 1 12

6 A. Lipiridi Kislovodsk 'h 'h '12 0 'h 'h '12 '12 y, I 'h I 1 1 'h 1 I I 1 1 '/z
7 S. Kastarnov Grozny /
'2 '12 1 '12 'h '12 '12 'h 1 0 '12 '12 '12 '12 l 1 '12 I 11

8 A. Korolev Moscow '12 0 'h 0 0 'h 'h 'h l 0 '12 1 1 1 I 'h 'h I IO
�
9 J. Markauss Riga 0 0 'h 'h 0 V2 Yz 'h 0 I '12 'h 'Ii 'h l I I 1 9 '/z Q.

S-
-

10 L . Peleshev Narva 0 0 '12 'h 0 '12 0 0 1 'h 1 1 '12 l I 'h I 'h 9Yz
eti
11 L. Levin Moscow 0 0 0 'h 'h 0 1 1 0 y, 0 y, I I y, 'h y, 1 8'/z �
12 A. Ufimtsev Kustanay 0 '12 0 0 0 'h Yz Yz y, 0 1 1 y, '12 I y, l '12 8'/z
13 0. Batakovs Riga 0 0 0 y, Yz '12 y, 0 y, 0 y, 0 y, '12 I 'h 1 1 7'/z
14 A. Pchyolkin Nikolaevsk-Amur 0 'h 0 0 'h 0 y, 0 y, '11 0 '12 y, I 0 I Yz I 7

15 V. Borisov Moscow region 1 0 0 0 'h 0 'h 0 '12 0 0 y, Yi 0 1 Yz y, 1 6'/z

c

16 I. Kitaigorodsky Moscow 0 0 0 'h Yi Yi 0 0 0 0 Yi 0 0 1 0 I 1 I 6

17 G . Kotenko Kiev 0 'h 0 'h 0 0 0 Yi 0 'h 'h '12 y, 0 y, 0 'lz I 5'h
18 A. Lutovinov Leningrad '12 0 0 0 'lz 0 Yi y, 0 0 'lz 0 0 'lz 'lz 0 'lz 1 5
19 A. Tsamryuk Samarkand 0 0 0 '12 0 0 0 0 0 'lz 0 'lz 0 0 0 0 0 0 11/z
9 ... lt:Jc6 10 i,e3 lt:J d7 l l f4 'iYa5 12 lt:Jge2
lt:Jc5 13 i,c2 i,g4 14 'iYd2 e6 15 e5 l! fd8
16 lt:Jd4 l! xd4! 17 i,xd4 l! d8 18 h3
l! xd4 19 'iVf2 i,f5 20 i,xf5 gxf5
As a result Black has two pieces for a
rook, and the rest, as they say, is a matter
of technique.
21 0-0 lt:J d3 22 'iVg3 lt:Jxb2 23 lt:J e2 l! d2
24 lt:Jcl lt:Jxc4 25 QJb3 'iYa3 26 l! f2 l! d5
27 l! cl Qjd2 28 'iVe3 lt:Je4 29 l! fc2 a5
30 'iVb6 a4 31 'iVxb7 axb3 32 l! xc6 b2 33
l! c8+ i,f8 34 l! el l! d2 35 'iYb3 'iVa7+
36 �hl 'iVf2 37 l! gl 'iVxf4 0-1
By winning this game, Dmitry Barash
from Leningrad gained the title of cham­
pion. The path to the highest titles in cor­
respondence chess is not only difficult, but
also long. It can be shortened by overcoming
all the qualifying stages at the first attempt,
occupying first places in tournaments with­
out any mishaps. That is how Dmitry Barash
began his ' correspondence career'. Success
in the main tournament of the USSR Cham­
pionship brought the 27-year-old mathema­
tician the gold medal, the master title and a
grandmaster norm.
Dmitry began playing chess at rather a
late age. When in 1 972 he first joined the
chess club in the Pioneers' Palace, few
would have risked rating the thirteen-year­
old schoolboy - who then had fourth cate­
gory rating - as showing much promise. But
the youth quickly became a first category
player, and in his years as a student at Len­
ingrad University he gained the candidate
master title.
Then he was helped by an accident. In
1 978 Dmitry noticed that his colleague on
the university team Kolya Poleshchuk (now
a correspondence international master and
international arbiter, and a participant in
major tournaments, including finals of the
USSR championship) would spend hours
at the board, carefully analysing positions
from correspondence games.
So Dmitry himself caught the 'disease '.
The fact that his success in the USSR Cham­
pionship final was no accident was shown by
his subsequent results, which included third
place in the next championship and the con­
fident gaining of the ICCF grandmaster title.
Here is a game in which the winner of the
1 6th Championship defeated a prize-winner
from the 1 5th Championship.
White: D . Barash
Black: I . K itaigorodsky
1 6th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 83-86
French Defence C06
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Qjd2 lt:Jf6 4 e5 Qjfd7
5 i,d3 c5 6 c3 lt:Jc6 7 lt:Je2 cxd4 8 cxd4
lt:Jh6 9 0-0 i,d7 10 a3 a6 1 1 f4 g6 12 l! f3
h5 13 lt:Jfl lt:Ja7
This variation is considered difficult for
Black. The subsequent events confirm this
evaluation.
14 l! h3 i,g7 15 a4 lt:Jc6 16 i,d2 lt:Jc8
17 lt:Je3 'iVb6 18 a5 'iVa7 19 i,c3 lt:J8e7
20 'iYel f5! ? 21 exf6 i,xf6 22 �hl �f7
23 g4 (D)
B
23 ... QJxd4?
Better was 23 . . .hxg4 24 l! xh8 l! xh8 25
lt:Jxg4.
24 lt:Jxd4 i,xd4 25 f5 gxf5 26 gxf5 e5 27
lt:Jc2! i,xc3 28 bxc3 lt:Jc6 29 c4 d4 30
i,e4 'iYc5 31 i,d5+ �e7 32 l! b3 l! ab8
33 l! b6 �d8 34 lt:Jb4 �c8 35 lt:Jxc6
i,xc6 36 'iYe4
 36 �xe5 � e8 37 � xc6+ �xc6 3 8
�xd4 was also convincing enough.
36... ii,xd5 37 cxd5 � d8 38 f6 (D)
B
38... � xd5
Of course, not 3 8 ... �xd5? on account of
39 � c l +.
39 17 � d8 40 � bbl! @d7 41 � cl �e7
42 � abl �xf7
Despite Black's three extra pawns, he
loses by force.
43 � fl ! �c4 44 �h7+ �d6 45 � b6+
@c5 46 �e7+ @d5 47 � el
Here the 'curtain' could have been low­
ered, but Black plays on and receives 'mate
by post':
47...�c3 48 �e6+ @c5 49 � xe5+ � d5
50 �xd5 mate 1-0
Alexandr Volchok, the international
master from Nikolaev, won the silver
medal thanks to having a superior tie-break
coefficient to the Baku player R.Akopov.
White : A. Volchok
Blac k : J . Markauss
1 6th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 8 3 - 8 6
Sicilian Defence 842
N otes by Alexa n d r Vo l c h o k
1 e4 c 5 2 tl'if3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tl'ixd4 a 6 5
ii,d3 tl'if6 6 0-0 d6 7 c4 b6
The start of an unfortunate experiment,
which proves to be a loss of time. The
system of development that occurred in the
game Tseshkovsky-Velikov (Frunze 1 983)
came into consideration: 7 ... ii,e7 8 tl'ic3
0-0 9 ii,e3 b6 1 0 �e2 ii,b7 1 1 � fd l
tl'ibd7 1 2 � ac l �c7 1 3 ii,b l � ac8 1 4 b3
� fe8 with equality.
8 tl'ic3 ii,b7 9 ii,e3 tl'ibd7 10 f4 tl'ic5 (D)
1 1 e5!
White switches to vigorous action, aim­
ing to expose the black king that is caught
in the centre.
1 1 ...dxe5
l l . . . tl'ixd3? is unsatisfactory on account
of 1 2 exf6 tl'ic5 1 3 b4 tl'id7 ( 1 3 . . . tl'ie4 1 4
tl'ixe4 ii,xe4 1 5 f5 ! e 5 1 6 �g4) 1 4 f5 ! e5
1 5 tl'ie6! fxe6 1 6 fxg7 ii,xg7 1 7 �h5+
@e7 1 8 fxe6 and White wins.
12 fxe5 tl'ifd7
Here too the capture of the white bishop
would have led to disaster, for example:
12 . . . tl'ixd3 13 exf6 and now:
(a) 13 ... tl'ic5 14 b4! tl'id7 1 5 tl'ixe6 fxe6
1 6 fxg7 ii,xg7 1 7 �h5+, or 14 . . . tl'ie4 1 5
tl'ixe4 ii,xe4 1 6 �g4! - i n both cases
White is assured of a win.
(b) 13 . . . tl'ie5 14 �h5 tl'ig6 (If 1 4 ... �c7
1 5 fxg7 ii,xg7 1 6 tl'ixe6 or 14 ... �d6 1 5
� ad l g 6 16 �h3) 1 5 tl'ixe6 fxe6 1 6 f7+
@d7 1 7 � adl+ ii,d6 1 8 c5 ! bxc5 1 9
� xd6+! @xd6 20 �xc5+ @d7 2 1 � d l +
ii,d5 22 tl'ixd5 exd5 2 3 �xd5+! with a
rapid mate.
13 ii,c2 !
 The bishop has to be retained. It goes
without saying that White will have more
than sufficient compensation for the pawn.
13 ... CLixe5 14 'li'h5 �d6 15 � adl g6 16
'ii h3 'ii e7
Castling is bad: 1 6 ...0-0 1 7 b4 C2Jcd7 1 8
C2Jxe6 ! etc.
17 b4 C2Jcd7 18 �e4! 0-0-0 19 �xb7+
@xb7 20 C2Je4 (D)
Now Black is bound to lose material,
since there is no defence against the two
threats (2 1 �g5 or 2 1 CLixe6 followed by
C2Jxd6).
B
20 ... h6
There 1s only one, highly spectacular
way, to refute 20 ... �xb4 - 2 1 �g5 'li'e8
22 �xd8 'li'xd8 23 � xf7 ! ! CLixfl 24
C2Jxe6 'li'e8 25 � xd7+ ! .
S.G./T.H.: Instead of Volchok's line,
2 1 ...f6 ! ? came into consideration, and after
22 C2Jxf6 h6 the outcome is hard to predict.
However, 22 � xf6 ! is stronger, with some
advantage to White, but clearly this is the
defence that Black should have tried.
21 C2Jxe6 'li'xe6 22 C2Jxd6+ @c7 23 C2Jxf7
'li'xh3 24 gxh3 C2Jxc4
There was also little comfort in 24 ... QJxfl
25 � xfl.
25 �f4+ @c6
Black avoids an amusing trap: 25 ... @c8?
26 � c l b5 27 Qjd6+ and 28 C2Jxc4+, win­
ning the knight, but all the same his position
is hopeless.
26 � d4 b5 27 4Jxh8 � xh8 28 � el � h7
29 � e6+ @b7 30 � xg6 C2Jde5 31 �xe5
CLixe5 32 � f6 1-0
Good results in the tournament were
achieved by the experienced masters Yury
Zelinsky, Igor Kopylov and the winner of
the previous championship Aleksandr Li­
piridi, but at the start they made rather a
lot of draws and this prevented them from
occupying higher places.
 1 7th USSR CC Championship ( 1 986- 1 988)

N2 I I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

I. Kopylov Ufa Y2 1 0 Yz 1 1 1 1 Yz 1 1 Yz Yz 10
'
2 D. Godes Ryazan 1 Yz 1 0 Yz 1 1 0 1 1 y, Yz 9Yz

3 D. Barash Leningrad Yz Yz Y2 Yz Yz Yz 1 1 Yz 1 Yz 1 9

4 V. Yarmolik Saratov 0 0 Yz 1 Yz 1 0 Yz 1 1 1 1 8Yz

5 S. Korolev Leningrad 1 Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz 1 Yz Yz 0 1 1 8

6 L.Rubinchik Kremenchug Yz 0 Yz Yz y, y, 1 y, Yz 1 Yz Yz 8

7 Yu. Zelinsky Riga 0 1 Yz 0 Yz Yz Yz 1 1 Yz 1 y, 7Yz

8 N.Andrianov Moscow 0 Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz Yz 1 y, y, 1 Yz 7

9 Ya. Rusakov Omsk 0 0 Y2 0 Yz Y2 y, Yz 1 Yz y, Yz 6Yz

10 R. Akopov Baku 0 0 0 1 0 0 Yz Yz 1 0 Yz 1 6

11 A. Ufimtsev Kustanay Yz 1 . ; 0 Yz Yz Y2 0 0 y, 1 Yz Yz 6

12 A. Korolev Moscow 0 0 Yz 0 Yz Yz 0 Yz 0 0 1 1 5Yz

13 I. Glek Moscow 0 0 0 0 1 0 Y2 Yz Yz 1 0 1 5

14 S. Kastarnov Grozny Yz Yz Y2 0 0 Yz 0 0 Yz Yz Yz 0

15 N. Monin Leningrad Yz Yz 0 0 0 Yz Yz Yz Yz 0 Yz 0
 Seventeenth Championship
(1986-1988)
IN ORDER to raise still higher the standard
of the main competition for correspondence
players - the final of the USSR Champion­
ship - it was decided to stage the final of
these events in two Leagues, Premier and
First. The new arrangement began with the
1 7th Championship.
The only players admitted into the Pre­
mier League, in which the title of champion
was actually contested, were grandmasters,
the prize-winners from the previous cham­
pionship, and masters with the highest
individual ratings. The winners of the semi­
finals (who were mainly very strong candi­
date masters) qualified for the First League,
in which the master norm was established.
At the cost of violating the rights of the
semi-final winners, the goal was achieved
- from the formal viewpoint the 1 7th
USSR CC Ch, which consisted entirely of
grandmasters (including some future ones)
and masters, became the strongest in the
entire history of these championships. It
also proved possible to reduce the overall
number of players in the Premier League - it
was contested by 1 5 players.
In this championship, the first to be called
the Premier League, apart from Russians
there were representatives from Ukraine,
Latvia, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. The
average rating of 2439 demonstrated a
qualitative leap compared with the previ­
ous championship. The arbiter was Evgeny
Karelin.
One year after the start of play, when a
quarter of the results had been recorded,
the first leaders appeared. These were Igor
Kopylov with 5 points out of 8 and the win­
ner of the previous championship, Dmitry
Barash, who had 4Yz out of 7.
In all his correspondence tournaments,
Igor Kopylov from Ufa played very quickly,
leading on the number of completed games.
In the 1 7th Championship too, a little more
than a year after the start he already had 9
points out of 1 3 , with only his remaining
game with Andrianov to finish. His main
rivals - the winner of the previous champi­
onship Dmitry Barash, the only grandmaster
in the tournament, D. Godes, and one of the
strongest masters, S.Korolev - tried to catch
him, but did not succeed.
Igor Aleksandrovich Kopylov was born
in 1 939. After graduating from Bashkir
University he worked in the department
of scientific and technical information at a
factory in Ufa. Then for many years he was
editor of the factory newspaper.
Igor learned to play chess at about the
age of ten - rather late by present-day
conceptions. But he was fortunate with his
first trainer, the then Bashkir champion
L.K.Frolov - an ardent 'Chigorinite' , who
aimed for sharp combinative play. In 1 957
Kopylov won the Junior Championship of
the . Russian Federation, and was twice a
member of the junior republic team that won
the championship of the country.
In 1 966 he played in a tournament with
the master norm and at the very first attempt
he achieved it. That was the championship
of the Russian Federation. Kopylov even
had chances of becoming a prize-winner,
but he lost in the last round. Later too on
several occasions he was let down by a poor
finish.
One remembers the 1 970 Russian Cham­
pionship, in which the winner was the rap­
idly ascending Anatoly Karpov. Kopylov
drew with the future world champion, and
two rounds before the finish he was in the
top three, but in the end he shared 6th-8th
places, although ahead of a whole group of
masters who later became grandmasters.
For the first chess master from Bashkir
it became increasingly difficult to take part
in over-the-board tournaments. It was the
usual reason - a serious attitude to his main
profession and a constant mass of social
responsibilities.
Igor Kopylov first tested his strength
in correspondence events in the 1 960s,
three times leading the Bashkir team in the
championships of the Russian Federation,
and each time achieving the best result on
top board. Since 1 974 Kopylov has been a
constant participant in correspondence tour­
naments of the highest rank, achieving good
and stable results. He has to his credit victo­
ries in grandmaster tournaments, participa­
tion for the USSR team in the final of the
European Championship, and qualification
for the final of the World Championship.
Grandmaster Igor Kopylov is an advo­
cate of 'rapid' correspondence. He almost
always replies to moves on the day that the
letter arrives and up till now not one of his
games has been sent for adjudication. Play­
ing quickly, he completes an event ahead of
schedule, and it can happen that he himself
suffers because of this, since his final score
is known to his rivals and serves as a marker
for them. Even so, usually his rivals, observ­
ing the sprinter-like speed of the grandmas­
ter from Ufa, realise that they can only strive
for second place, as happened in the final of
the 1 7th USSR Championship.
In this event the play of Igor Aleksan­
drovich Kopylov was characterised by a
subtle positional understanding and good
technique, enabling him to transform a mini­
mal advantage into something tangible.
White : l . Kopylov
Black: V.Yarmolik
1 7th U S S R C C C h , 1 9 8 6 - 8 8
Philidor Defence C4 1
1 e4 es 2 tt:Jn d6 3 d4 tlJd7 4 �c4 c6 s
tlJgS ctJh6 6 a4
Now 6 . . . �e7? is bad on account of 7
�xf7+! tt:Jxf7 8 t2Je6 'iVa5+ 9 �d2 'iVb6
1 0 a5 'iVxb2 1 1 �c3 ! and White wins.
6 ... jVf6?!
The doubtfulness of this move becomes
evident later, when White employs a suc­
cessful novelty.
7 c3 �e7?! 8 0-0 ctJb6 9 �e2!
In the game Leonhardt-Nimzowitsch
(match, 1 9 1 1) White retreated his bishop
to a2, and after 9 �a2 jVg6 10 a5 �xg5
he ended up in an inferior position. In the
present game White prevents the manoeuvre
of the black queen to g6.
9...aS 10 f4 exd4
This conceding of the centre is forced.
1 1 cxd4 dS
1 1 . . .g6 came into consideration, enabling
the queen to retreat.
12 es jVg6 13 �hS
By pursuing the en�my queen, White has
gained time for his attack.
13 ... jVfS (D)
w
14 tt:Jxf7! tt:Jxf7 lS g4 jVd7 16 fS 'iVc7 17
e6 �xe6 18 fxe6 g6 19 exf7+ @d7 20 iVe2
'ifd6 21 $bf4 'ife6
Simplification does not bring Black any
relief.
22 Vxe6+ @xe6 23 t2Jd2 gxh5 24 t2Jb3
: hf8 25 : ael + @d7 26 tt:Jc5+
Now Black cannot avoid loss of mate­
rial.
26... $bxc5 27 dxc5 : xf7
Or 27 ... tt:Jc8 (if 27 ... tt:Jxa4, then 28 $bd6
is decisive) 28 $bh6 tt:Je7 29 $bxf8 : xf8
30 gxh5 and wins.
28 cxb6 hxg4 29 $bh6 : xn+ 30 : xn
@e6 31 : f8! : xf8 32 $bxf8 d4 33 b4
axb4 34 $bxb4 h5 35 a5
Threatening 36 a6 ! .
35 ... @d7 36 $bc5 d3 37 @ f2 h4 38 @e3
h3 39 @xd3 g3 40 ltgl 1-0
Igor Kopylov gained his last, decisive
point in the following game, which is also
of theoretical significance.
White : l . Kopylov
Black: N .Andrianov
1 7th U S S R C C C h , 1 9 8 6- 8 8
Sicilian Defence 833
1 e4 c5 2 t2Jf3 t2Jc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 t2Jxd4 t2Jf6
5 t2Jc3 e5 6 t2Jdb5 d6 7 $bg5 a6 8 tLla3 b5
9 t2Jd5 $be7 10 $bxf6 $bxf6 11 c3 tt:Je7
Kopylov admitted that he anticipated his
opponent choosing the Chelyabinsk Varia­
tion: Andrianov had published an article on
this topic.
12 t2Jc2 t2Jxd5
12 . . . $bb7 came into consideration.
13 'ifxd5 : b8 14 tLlb4 $bb7 15 'if d3 0-0
(D)
In an article in ' Shakhmatny Byulleten'
( 1 986, No.7) Andrianov and Krasenkov
wrote that after this continuation Black has
no serious problems and can hope for equal­
ity. Grandmaster Evgeny Sveshnikov in his
monograph ( 1 987) simply states that 'Black
has a good game' .
w
16 : dl a5
This activity merely plays into White 's
hands. Better is 16 ... $bg5, preparing coun­
terplay on the kingside.
17 t2Jd5 b4 18 cxb4 $bxd5 19 'ifxd5
: xb4 20 b3
Intending 2 1 $bc4, after which White 's
chances of an attack - with opposite-colour
bishops - will be clearly better. Therefore
Black forces exchanges.
20... : d4 21 : xd4 exd4 22 $bc4 Vas 23
Vxa8 : xa8 24 @e2
The resulting endgame position is ad­
vantageous to White, whose plan can be
divided into three stages: tie Blac!c down
to the defence of the d4-pawn, create a
passed pawn on the queenside and, finally,
open the position in the centre or on the
kingside. However, the opposite-colour
bishops significantly hinder the realisation
of this plan.
24 ... $bd8 25 : bl : b8 26 @d3 $bb6 27
b4! $ba7 28 b5 $bb6 29 : cl @f8 30 $bd5
$bc5 31 a4 f6 32 f4 @e7 33 e5? !
White forces events, but the further
course of the game shows the doubtfulness
of this decision.
33 ... fxe5 34 fxe5 : f8 35 ltf3 : b8 36
: el $bb6 37 $bg4 : b7!
Now nothing is achieved by 38 exd6+
@xd6 39 : e6+ @c5 40 : c6+ @b4,
while after other continuations Black's sev­
enth rank is defended. White has to start all
over again.
38 e6 : c7 39 : n d5! 40 : n+ @d6 41
$bf5 g6
 Better chances of a defence were offered
by the seemingly passive 4 1 . ..h6.
42 �h3 �cs (D)
w enriched the theory of chess.
43 e7!
This new breakthrough involves a sac­
rifice of two pawns, but the White pieces
become extremely active.
43 . :!. xe7 44 :!. f6+ @es 4S :!. a6 @f4
. .
Otherwise 46 g3 , and the black king will
not escape from the mating net without great
loss of material.
46 �e6 @eS
If 46. . . @gS, then 47 g3 h5 48 h4+.
47 �c8 @f4 48 g3+ @f3 49 �e6 @g2
SO .l::!, c6 @xh2 Sl g4! �a7 S2 b6 �b8 S3
@xd4
At last the white king has joined the
play.
S3 ... hS S4 gxhS gxhS SS @xdS h4 S6 @c4
h3 S7 �bS �es S8 �xaS @g3 S9 �xh3
@xh3 60 @bS �d4 61 aS �f2 62 :!. cS!
1-0
Second place was taken by Dmitry Godes,
who finished half a point behind the winner.
At the start of the tournament he was the
only holder of the grandmaster title and his
opponents fought against him with redoubled
energy. Dmitry Godes showed himself to be
one of the strongest over-the-board masters
in Russia. Three times, and not without suc­
cess, he took part in qualifying tournaments
for the USSR championship. If you were to
take together all the FIDE grandmasters de­
feated by him, the result would be the equal
of an Olympiad team.
From his early years Dmitry Godes en­
deavoured not to copy anyone. While still a
young candidate master he was able to de­
velop his own style of play. This was aided
by his fascination for chess composition.
He created several excellent studies that
In the 1 960s the author of these lines got
to know Dmitry Godes. The point was that
I had a long-standing dream - to organise
a correspondence tournament that would
bring together all the strongest players from
the town of Ryazan. In this tournament,
which was dedicated to the memory of the
Russian poet Sergey Y esenin, a native of
those parts, Dmitry Godes, at that time the
strongest player in the town, also took part.
Godes's analytical capabilities became
evident in his next correspondence event
- the Mirotvorsky Memorial, in which he
achieved in succession the master and then
the grandmaster norm. After gaining the
grandmaster title, Godes took part in the
final of the USSR Championship. A vivid
impression was made not only by his fine
result, but also by the creative content of his
games, played in the style of the old Russian
masters.
Wh ite : D . G odes
Black : L . Rubinchik
1 7th U S S R CC Ch, 1 9 8 6- 8 8
French Defence C0 7
1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 C2J d2 cS 4 exdS 'iVxdS S
dxcS! ?
This move was fashionable i n the late
1 930s. It leads to a little-studied position
with a minimal advantage for White.
S... �xcS 6 ct:Jgf3 ctJf6 7 �c4 'i¥d6
A loss of time. 7 ... 'i¥d8 8 0-0 0-0 9
Cllb3 �b6 came into consideration, with
chances of equalising.
8 0-0 0-0 9 Cll b3 !
 Black's imperceptible mistake on the
seventh move allows White to go directly
from the opening into the endgame and to
seize the initiative.
9 'ii'x dl 10 : xdl ib,e7 11 l2Jhd4 a6 12
...
a4 : d8
1 2 . . .b6 came into consideration, and after
13 ib,f4 ib,b7 1 4 ib,c7 l2Jbd7 White cannot
play 1 5 l2Jxe6? in view of 1 5 ... : fc8 ! , with
a material advantage for Black.
13 ib,f4 ib,d7 14 l2Je5 ib,e8 15 as l2Jbd7?
(D)
This last move is a mistake in a difficult
position, to which White responds with a
tactical blow. Black should have played
1 5 ... l2Jfd7 ! , aiming for simplification. In
the opinion of Godes, 1 5 ... �f8 ! ? came into
consideration.
w
16 l2Jec6! bxc6 17 l2Jxc6 ib,f8
After 1 7 . . . @f8 1 8 l2Jxe7 e5 1 9 ib,d2 !
White is a pawn up with the better position.
If 1 7 . . . l2Jc5 he retains the advantage by 1 8
l2Jxd8.
18 l2Jxd8 : xd8 19 ib,xa6 llJdS 20 ib,g3
l2Jc5 21 ib,e2! : a8 22 a6!
The following line is insufficient for a
win: 22 ib,f3 ib,c6 23 c4 l2Jb4 24 ib,xc6
l2Jxc6 25 ib,d6 l2Jb3 ! .
22... ib,c6
In his notes Godes commented that Black
should have combated the a-pawn not with
his bishop, but with his knight from c6, and
therefore better was 22 ... l2Je4 23 ib,f3 f5 !
24 ib,e5 ib,c6 25 a7 or 24. . . l2Jb4 25 c3 l2Jc6
26 ib,g3 with a complicated game.
23 a7 l2J a4 24 ib,f3 1-0
After 24 . . . l2Jab6 25 b3 l2Je7 26 ib,xc6
White has a decisive advantage.
After winning the silver medal in the
USSR Correspondence Championship,
ICCF grandmaster and FIDE intemati<;mal
master Dmitry Godes gave up postal play.
After his emigration to Israel he continued
to perform successfully in over-the-board
events and he also achieved success as a
chess trainer.
The winner of the previous champion­
ship, Dmitry Barash, on this occasion oc­
cupied the 'bronze step ' on the winners'
podium. He confirmed his high class in a
number of games, but especially noteworthy
was the one in which Anatoly Ufimtsev em­
ployed the defence that bears his name.
White : D . Barash
Blac k : A . U fimtsev
1 7th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 8 6- 8 8
Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence 809
1 e4 d6 2 d4 lbf6 3 l2Jc3 g6
The game between these same players
from the previous championship went 3 . . . c6
4 f4 'ii'a5 5 ib,d2 'ii'b6 6 l2Jf3 ! ? . Although
Black sensibly declined the offered pawn,
he was unable to gain full· equality.
4 f4 ib,g7 5 l2Jf3 c6 6 ib,d3 0-0 7 0-0 l2Ja6
8 e5!
White succeeds in activating his pieces.
8... l2Jd5 9 l2Jxd5! cxd5 10 'ii'el f5?
An unjustified weakening of the king­
side. LO . . . ib,f5 ! ? 1 1 ib,xf5 gxf5 12 'ii'h4 e6
1 3 'ii'h5 : c8 1 4 c3 b5 1 5 a3 l2Jb8 came
into consideration.
11 ib,d2 l2Jc7 12 'ii'h 4 l2Je6 13 h3 : f7 14
g4 'ii'b6 15 �bl ib,d7
With the idea of exchanging bishops by
1 6 . . . ib,b5, but White prevents this.
16 gxf5 gxfS 17 a4 � h8 18 'ii'h S ib,e8
If 1 8 . . . : af8 there follows 19 l2Jh4.
19 a5 'i¥c6
Not 1 9 . . . 'i¥xb2 on account of 20 J:, fb l ,
when the queen i s trapped.
20 �xf5 (D)
Striving to change the unfortunate course
of events, Black decides on an exchange
sacrifice, but even this does not help.
B
20... J:, xf5 21 'i¥xf5 dxe5 22 fxe5 �g6 23
'i¥g4 �e4
23 . . . �xc2 is bad in view of 24 J:, ac l .
24 c3 J:, f8 25 J:, ael �f5 2 6 'i¥g3 �e4 27
J:, f2 'i¥b5 28 �e3 'i¥xa5 29 @ h2 'i¥b6
30 J:, gl 1-0
After his second success in the final of
the USSR CC Ch, Dmitry Barash took part
in an international tournament dedicated
to the 1 OOth anniversary of the Lithuanian
Chess Union, in which he confidently
achieved the grandmaster norm.
Simultaneously with the Premier League,
the First League, which was also called a
final, was organised for the first time. The
Council for Correspondence Events was
obliged to ensure a master norm in the tour­
nament, for which the participation of the
required number of masters was necessary.
As a member of the Council I was the initia­
tor of this tournament and I felt obliged to
take part in it.
Not long before this I had obtained the
title of USSR master of sport and this led
to a relaxed state, which will be familiar
to many, arising when a goal has been
achieved.
When at a meeting of the Council I
reported on the results of setting up the
First League, I joked that the other masters
had agreed to participate, only after learn­
ing that I would also play - after all, it is
pleasant to enrol for a tournament, know­
ing beforehand that the last place is already
occupied. As in any joke, in this there was
a dose of truth. . .
The First League was dominated by can­
didate masters, who were as though collec­
tively angered by the fact that they had been
deprived of their lawful right to play in the
main tournament. The first six achieved the
master norm.
Here are the results of the 1 7th USSR
Championship First League:
1 . M.Yeryomin (Stavropol) - 12Yz; 2-
4. V.Yarkov (Moscow Region), O.Lykhin
(Krasnoyarsk District), A.Vikulov (Vo­
logod Region) - 1 1 Yz; 5. E.Shevelevich
(Rostov-on-Don) - l OYz; 6. M.Klimenok
(Vitebsk) - 10; 7-8. A.Belinkov (Moscow),
N.Razvalyaev (Tashkent Region) - 9; 9-1 1 .
B.Maryasin (Bobruysk), F.Feldmus (Riga),
S.Yuferov (Moscow) - 8; 1 2. V.Varlamov
(Leningrad) - 7; 1 3 . G.Zhivodov (Sara­
tov) - 5 Yz; 14. A.Lutovinov (Leningrad)
- 5; 1 5 . S.Grodzensky (Moscow) - 3Yz; 1 6 .
P.Yashelin (Bryansk) - 3 ; 1 7 . V.Borisov
(Moscow Region) - 2�.
 Eighteenth Championship
(1988-1991)
THE PREMIER League of the 1 8th USSR
Championship started on 1 st October 1 988.
The Muscovite A.Latash was confirmed as
the chief arbiter. Play began with 15 partici­
pants, but after the starting list had already
been sent out it transpired that it had been
forgotten to invite the winner of the previ­
ous championship, Igor Kopylov . . . He had
to be included as No. 16.
Apart from ten Russians, there were
Valery Neverov, Alexandr Volchok and
L.Rubinchik representing the Ukraine,
Anatoly Ufimtsev - Kazakhstan, R.Akopov
- Azerbaijan and Yury Zelinsky - Latvia.
The first results were entered in the table
in mid-summer 1 989. After six draws came
the first decisive result: Kopylov defeated
Korolev. In early 1 990 the leading group
comprised Volchok and Rubinchik with 3Yz
out of 5, and Kopylov, who had half a point
less. The debut in correspondence chess by
FIDE international master Valery Neverov,
the 1 985 Ukrainian champion and winner
of the USSR young masters tournament of
1 989, clearly did not work out. By that point
he had completed his tournament, making
about ten short draws and losing on time in
the remaining games.
By the middle of the year the serious
intentions of the following players had be­
come evident: Yarkov - 6 points out of 9,
ahead of Rubinchik (5 out of 7) and Naivelt
(5Yz out of 1 0). By the end of the summer
Yarkov was still leading with 7 out of 1 0,
ahead of Rubinchik (6Yz out of 9), Lykhin
(5 out of 7) and Kopylov (4 out of 7). In
October 1 990, two years after the start of
play, there were three players in the lead:
Yarkov - 8Yz out of 12, Rubinchik - 8Yz out
of 1 3 and Lykhin - 7Yz out of 1 0. In the last
places on the number of points scored were
Zelinsky - 2 out of 4 and Akopov - 1 Yz out
of 2. It was hard to imagine that the former
would end up as one of the winners, whereas
the latter would remain in last place with the
same one and a half points.
By the stipulated finishing date - 30th
December 1 990 - 30 games remained unfin­
ished, on the results of which the allocation
of the top places depended. It was decided
to extend the tournament to 1 5th August
1 99 1 . By April 1991 Yarkov and Lykhin
had reached l O Yz out of 1 4, Rubinchik had
completed the tournament with 9Yz out of
15, Khlusevich, on 7 Yz out of 1 1 , was in
contention for a good result, and Zelinsky
had closed on the leaders - 7 out of 10.
Then came a finishing spurt by Zelinsky,
who scored 4Yz points from his last five
games, ending the tournament undefeated
with 1 1 Y2 points out of 1 5 . Lykhin finished
half a point behind, while Yarkov had I O Y2
points and one continuing game.
When the added time had also expired,
it turned out that the two main contenders
for victory, Zelinsky from Riga and Yarkov
from near Moscow, had finished the tourna­
ment with 1 1 Yz points out of 1 5 . It became
clear that the question of the champion
would have to be resolved by a compari­
son of their additional coefficients. Both
contenders for the gold medal had gone
through the tournament undefeated, winning
an identical number of games.
The two contenders' Sonneborn-Berger
coefficients were very close. The role of
'photo-finish' was played by the unfinished
game Khlusevich-Koltsov: if Koltsov were
to make at least a draw, then the champion
would be Yarkov, whereas if Khlusevich
were to win, then gold medals would be
awarded to both winners.
 .....
f\,)
1 8th USSR CC Championship ( 1 988- 1 99 1 ) Oo

Ng I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

l V. Yarkov Moscow region y, Y2 l Y2 Y2 1 l l Y2 J l y, 1 Yz 1 l l Y,

2 l Y2 I 1;, Y2 1 1 Y2
Yu. Zelinsky Riga y, y, y, y, 1 l l 1 l 1

3 0. Lykhin 1;, Yz I Y2 Y2 Y2 ] Yz y, 1 11
D ivnogorsk y, l I 1 1

4 L.Rubinchik Kremenchug 0 Yz Y2 1 Y2 y, I 0 l y, y, 1 I Y2 l 9 Yi

5 M. Naivelt Moscow y, Y2 0 0 0 Y2 l 1 1 y, y, l l Y2 l 9

l/2 Y2 l
�
6 S.Khlusevich Izhevsk Y2 0 Y2 y, 1 1 1 Yz Y2 0 1 y, 9 Q..
.....
7 Y2 y, y, Y2 I 1h I y, 1 8 CD
I. Kopylov Ufa 0 0 0 0 l 1
:::t
8 A. Vikulov Cherepovets 0 0 y, 0 0 0 y, '
y, I I 0 I I I I 7Y2 �
(lj

9 A. Ufimtsev Kustanay 0 0 Y2 I 0 Y2 Y2 l/2 I Yi 0 1 0 I I 7Yz

10 A. Volchok Nikolaev Y2 Y2 0 0 0 y, 0 0 0 1 1 Y2 l l I 7

11 V. Koltsov B lagoveshchensk 0 0 Y2 Vi y, y, 0 0 y, 0 I 1 y, 1 Y2 I 6'/i

12 A . Korolev Moscow 0 0 0 Y2 y, l 0 I 1 0 0 0 y, Y2 y, SY,

1/2 l/2 Y2 Y2 I 5
13 I . Glek Moscow y, 0 0 0 0 y, 0 0 l 0

14 G.Karnovich Moscow 0 0 0 0 0 Y2 0 0 1 0 0 y, I I I 5

15 V . Neverov Kharkov y, y, y, y, y, y, y, 0 0 0 y, y, y, 0 0 5

16 R. Akopov B aku 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y, 0 0 l rn
 Readers of this book will know that
similar situations had also arisen in USSR
Championships in the past, and that it was
endeavoured to complete games that influ­
enced, even if only indirectly, the alloca­
tion of the places. For example, in the 1 6th
Championship games were finished by tel­
egraph. On this occasion things were done
differently. I remember well the October
1 9 9 1 meeting of the USSR Chess Federa­
tion's Council for Correspondence Events.
Despite the objections of both the Chair­
man of the Council, Professor Zagorovsky,
and the author of these lines, who was the
Deputy Chairman, it was decided to adju­
dicate the Khlusevich-Koltsov game, which
was discontinued in the following position.
White : S . Kh lu sevich
Bla c k : V. Koltsov
1 8th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 8 8 - 9 1
w skirts of Moscow he became fascinated by
Khlusevich played 45 e6+ and presented
an analysis claiming a win. White 's posi­
tion is indeed better, but Black's drawing
chances are also considerable, if only after
45 ... � xe6 46 t2Jxe6 CLJd5+ 47 @a3 @xe6.
Another variation is 45 . . . @g7 46 �a3
� xg l 47 jbxg l CLJd5, and if 48 � b l , then
48 . . . @f6 49 � fl+ <J;; e7 50 jbh2 � f8 5 1
� xf8 @xf8 5 2 jbd6+ @g7 ! 5 3 jbe5+
�f8 with equality.
True, 48 jbd4+! is possible, forcing the
opponent to solve new problems.
International grandmaster Igor Zaitsev,
a universally acknowledged analyst, spent
a long time evaluating the position before
reaching his verdict: "White has some ini­
tiative, but this initiative is of a temporary
nature and will fade against accurate play
by Black".
After this it became clear that Vladimir
Yarkov was USSR Champion. He originates
from Kostroma peasantry and was born in
an isolated village in one of the remote
northern districts of that region. After barely
completing eight years of schooling, he be­
gan work in a primary school. After serving
in the army as a gymnastics instructor he
tried studying in the Department of Geogra­
phy, but it did not last.
He made for Moscow to the chess section
of the Institute of Physical Culture, seeing
as he had first category rating, and after
completing the course he gained his train­
er's diploma. He had been participating in
over-the-board events since the age of 17,
and while still young he became a candidate
master.
But after settling in Dmitrov on the out­
correspondence play. Very soon he realised
that the job of security guard was a real
godsend for a correspondence player. The
work was not onerous, one might as well
be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb - ' dur­
ing my stint of duty nothing happened'. So
that it was possible to think as much as one
wanted.
"A real correspondence player," Yarkov
reckons, "sends a move only when every­
thing becomes completely clear to him.
Even if this takes a month." I should add
that occasionally it "becomes clear" to him
even later - three times during the final
he rushed to the sorting office to correct a
move that was about to be sent!
Yarkov's progress to the champion's title
was rapid: he won by a big margin in the
quarter-final, then also in the semi-final, and
he finished second in the First League. By
the time that he won the champion' s title his
correspondence ' term of service' numbered
1 2 years. During this time he lost only one w
game ! As for the final, the winner consid­
ered that in this tournament he was lucky
- a couple of his opponents 'helped' him to
win. The quota of luck can be judged from
the following game.

White : V. Yarkov

Bla c k : R .Akopov 28 �eS! f6

28 . . . 'iVxe4 allows an obvious mate m
1 8th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 8 8 - 9 1 three moves: 29 � b8+ etc.
29 � b8+ @g7 30 � b7+ @h6
Queen 's Gambit 049 Or 30 ... @g8 3 1 'i¥d4 fxe5 32 'iVxe5.
31 �f4+ gS 32 'iVxe6 gxf4 33 'iVxdS f3?
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 C2Jc3 c6 4 4Jf3 CLJf6 S e3 34 � f7 1-0
CLJbd7 6 �d3 dxc4 7 �xc4 bS 8 �d3 a6 9 In the game with the winner of the pre­
e4 cS 10 eS cxd4 11 ct:JxbS ct:JxeS 12 ct:JxeS vious championship, which was of crucial
axbS 13 �xb5+ �d7 14 4Jxd7 'iVaS+ lS importance for the allocation of the prize
�d2 'iVxbS 16 4Jxf8 @xf8 17 a4 'iVxb2 places, the decisive moment occurred in the
18 0-0 hS 19 �f4 @g8 following position.
Up to this point the game Chekhov-Nev­
erov (Frunze 1 98 8) had been 'quoted' ; there
1 9 . . .h4 was played. White : l . Kopylov
20 �es � d8 21 'i¥d3 CLJg4 22 �c7 � c8
23 � acl CLJf6 24 �f4 Bla ck: V. Ya rkov
24 � c4! came into consideration, and if
24 ... 4Jd5 25 �e5 � xc4 26 'iVxc4 CLJb6 27 1 8th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 8 8 - 9 1
'i¥c6! 'i¥b4 28 a5 ! , with a great advantage
to White.
24 ... � c3?!
B
Dubious activity; 24 ... � d8 was correct.
2S 'iVxd4 CLJdS 26 'i¥e4
After 26 � xc3 White also has some ad­
vantage: 26 . . . 4Jxc3 27 @hl 'i¥e2 28 � a l ,
o r 2 6 ... 'iVxc3 27 �e5 'iVxd4 28 �xd4.
26 ... g6?
Better was 26 . . . � xc l 27 �xc l , al­
though even in this case White has a clear
advantage.
27 � bl
As was pointed out by Yarkov, even Black can regain the pawn in various
stronger was 27 � xc3 ! 4Jxc3 28 �e5 with ways, but instead of this he also sacrifices
a decisive advantage. a knight!
27 ... 'i¥c2 (D) 31...CLJg4 ! !
 3 1 . . .tl'ie2+ 32 @hl tl'ixd4 33 'iVc3 tlJg4
34 tt:Jxg4 tl'ie2 35 'iVe3 'iVxd2 36 _: a l is
unclear.
32 tt:Jxg4
White loses immediately after 32 h3
tl'ie2+ 33 @hl 'iVM with mate not later
than the 36th move, or 32 tl'ixe4 'iVxd4+! .
3 2...'iVh4 33 _: a1
White fails to save the game by either
33 tl'ih6+ 'iVxh6 34 tl'ifl (34 h3 tl'ie2+ 35
@h2 'iVf4+) 34 . . .e3 35 tl'ixe3 tl'ih3+, or
33 tl'if6+ 'iVxf6 34 tl'ixe4 (34 h3 tl'ie2+ 3 5
@ h l 'iVt2; 34 _: a l tl'ih3+ 35 gxh3 'iVt2+
36 @hl e3 37 _: fl e2) 34 ... tl'ih3+ 35 gxh3
'iVfl mate. But now too Black finds a forced
way to win.
33...'iVxg4 34 tl'ifl tl'ie2+ 3S @hl _: f2 36
tl'ie3 'iVf4 37 'iVa3 h6 38 dS tl'id4 39 h3
tl'if3 40 tt:Jg4 'iVg3 41 _: gl 'iVxg2+! 0-1
For the silver medal winner, Yury Ze­
linsky, on this occasion his games took a
quiet course, and it appeared that he was
'not threatening' to finish among the prizes.
But after the Riga player had succeeded
in several games in transforming a micro­
scopic advantage into a full point, it began
to appear that the 1 8th Championship would
possibly become his ' finest hour'.
This was how he defined the style of his
wins in this tournament: "There were no
pretty games, nor any individual fragments,
but there was a fierce battle of strength". In
the following game he employed forceful
methods over the entire battlefield.
White : Yu .Zelin sky
Black: A . U fimt sev
1 8th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 8 8 - 9 1
Queen 's Gambit D35
1 d4 CLJf6 2 c4 e6 3 tl'ic3 dS 4 cxdS exdS S
i,gS i,e7 6 e3 tl'ibd7 7 i,d3 tl'if8
This manoeuvre was suggested by Gide­
on Stahlberg.
8 tl'if3 tl'ie6 9 i,h4 0-0 10 0-0 g6 11 b4
The pawn, of course, is ' inedible' :
1 1 ...i,xb4? 1 2 i,xf6 'iVxf6 1 3 tl'ixd5 and
wins.
11 ...c6
1 1 . . . tl'ig7 followed by ... i,f5 or .... tl'if5
was more consistent.
12 'iVb3 tl'ie4?
This leads to an advantage for White.
1 2 ... tt:Jg7 came into consideration.
13 i,xe7 'iVxe7 14 i,xe4 dxe4 IS tl'id2
tlJgS
1 5 . . . f5 16 d5 cxd5 1 7 tl'ixd5 also favours
White.
16 h4 tl'ie6 17 dS tt:Jg7 18 tl'idxe4 'iVxh4
19 _: adl @h8 20 tl'id6
With the threat of 21 dxc6 bxc6 22
tl'ixf7+.
20... 'iVe7 21 dxc6 bxc6 22 'iVc4 i,d7 23
,: d2
Zelinsky accurately conducts the techni­
cal phase of the game, not allowing the op­
ponent any chances.
23 ... aS 24 e4 axb4 2S 'iVxb4 f6 26 _: bl
tl'ie6 27 'iVc4 tl'id8 28 f4 i,e6 29 'iVcS
'iVa7 (D)
The exchange of queens does not ease the
position for Black, to whom it is hard to of­
fer any good advice.
w
30 'iVxa7 _: xa7 31 _: b8 @g8 32 a4 tl'if7
33 tl'ie8 fS 34 es gS 3S g3 ,: e7 36 tl'if6+
@g7 37 _: xf8 @xf8 38 _: b2 @g7 39
tl'ie2 cS 40 tl'ic3 tl'id8 41 _: bS c4 42 _: b8
tl'ic6 43 _: b6 tl'id4 44 _: d6 tl'if3+ 4S @f2
g4 46 as ,: b7
 This piece sacrifice fails to save Black.
47 � xe6 � b2+ 48 <;;t> e3 � c2 49 lL\fdS
� d2 50 lL\b4 1-0
One of the best achievements in this
tournament by the third prize-winner Oleg
Lykhin was his game with Naivelt.
Wh ite : O.Lykhin
Blac k : M . Naivelt
1 8th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 8 8 - 9 1
King 's In dian Defence £99
1 d4 lL\f6 2 c4 g6 3 lL\c3 �g7 4 e4 d6 5
lL\f3 0-0 6 �e2 eS 7 0-0 lL\c6 8 dS lL\e7
9 lL\el lL\d7 10 f3 fS 11 g4 �h8 12 h4
lL\g8 13 gS f4 14 <;;t> g2 h6 15 � hl � f7 16
lL\d3 �f8 17 'iVgl hxgS 18 hxgS+ � h7
19 � xh7+ ..t>xh7 20 'iVh2+ <;;t> g7 21 'iVh4
lL\cS (D)
w from going forward to the final.)
22 �xf4! lL\xd3 23 �xd3 exf4 24 � hl
�f7 25 eS 1-0
Some of the results in this tournament are
perplexing, in particular the one and a half
points scored by R.Akopov, who had per­
formed splendidly in the qualifying stages.
The explanation was that certain events
forced him to move urgently from Baku to
the Armenian town of Oktemberian, there
was the need to settle into a new place, and
then he began travelling away to tourna­
ments, not leaving any time for correspond-
ence events. The consequence was that
he twice overstepped the time limit in the
majority of his games. Active participation
in over-the-board play also influenced the
poor results of Igor Glek and V.Neverov,
who were then already well-known FIDE
grandmasters.
In parallel with the Premier League of the
1 8th Championship, the First League, �lso
called a final, was organised. The author of
these lines was entrusted with the control­
ling of this interesting event, which was
contested by nine masters and six candidate
masters.
The participants finished in pairs. The
first 'duet' comprised the winners - the
master E.Shevelevich (Rostov-on-Don) and
candidate master V.Sadovich (Orenburg),
who scored 9Yz points out of 14. The master
had the superior additional coefficient, and
he was deemed the winner. (Incidentally,
before this Shevelevich had been unlucky
with these 'additional coefficients' : twice in
the USSR Championship semi-final he had
shared a qualifying place, and each time an
inferior ' Sonneborn-Berger' prevented him
Half a point behind the winners were the
second pair - A.Gurin from the Belorus­
sian town of Kobrin and A.Makarov from
Troitsk on the outskirts of Moscow, who
shared 3rd place. Both achieved the master
norm. Although by the regulations of the
USSR Championship the top three qualified
for the Premier League, the Council for Cor­
respondence Events allowed all the first four
into the 1 9th USSR Championship.
The remaining places in the First
League of the 1 8th USSR Championship
were occupied by: 5 . V.Loginov (Vo­
logod Region) - 8Yz; 6. V.Buturin (Lvov)
- 7 Yz; 7-8. E.Tyulin (Vladimir), A.Bragin
(Leningrad) - 7; 9-10. V.Shemagonov
(Ufa), M.Klimenok (Vitebsk) - 6Yz; 1 1 - 1 2.
V.Yershov (Dneprodzerzhinsk), A.Belinkov
(Moscow) - 6; 1 3 . V.Lyukmanov (Moscow)
- 5 Yz; 14. Yu.Solntsev (Moscow) - 4; 1 5 .
I.Figler (Kishinev) -: 3Yz.
 Nineteenth Championship
(1991 -1993)

THE Premier League of the 1 9th USSR in which the fate of the title was decided in
Championship should have been contested favour of Vladimir Yarkov, who had an only
by 1 5 players. However, hardly had the very slightly better Sonneborn-Berger coeff­
starting list been sent out, when there came icient than Yury Zelinsky. Now three were
some sad news - the premature death of involved in the battle for the championship:
Aleksandr Khristoforovich Lipiridi. By the the leaders in the 1 8th Championship were
unanimous desire of the finalists and with joined by Anatoly Ufimtsev.
the agreement of the Council for Corre­ It appeared that on this occasion too ad­
spondence Events it was decided to restrict ditional coefficients would have to be taken
the number of participants to 14 and to into account, and that they would again
dedicate the tournament to the memory of make Yarkov the champion.
the former USSR CC Ch, correspondence In the end everything was decided by
international master Alexander Lipiridi. the adjudication of the unfinished game
Apart from the three representatives of between Zelinsky and Minakov, which was
Latvia, Kazakhstan and Belorussia, all the stopped after White' s 36th move in the fol­
remaining participants were Russians, and lowing position:
all participants had the master title. The du­
ties of arbiter were entrusted to the author of
these lines. The tournament started in 1 9 9 1 , White : Yu .Zelinsky
at the end of which the Soviet Union ceased
to exist. Play in the final of the 1 9th Cham­ Bla ck: Yu . M inakov
pionship (Premier and First Leagues), the
semi-finals of the 20th Championship and 1 9t h U S S R CC C h , 1 9 9 1 - 9 3
the quarter-finals of the 2 1 st Championship
was only just beginning.
The recently-created Russian Council for
Correspondence Events deemed it necessary
to complete not only tournaments that had B
already begun, but also to organise all the
competitions that had been previously en­
visaged. Thus it became clear that che 2 1 st
USSR Championship would be the last.
The lead was seized by the oldest partici­
pant, Anatoly Ufimtsev from Kustanay - 412
out of 5. Yury Minakov, the then Moscow
correspondence champion, had the same
number of points, but from six games. Also
noteworthy were the scores of A.Makarov In the event of a win, Zelinsky would take
from near Moscow - 3 Yi out of 5 and the first place on his own, after a draw the three
Riga player Yury Zelinsky - 2 out of 2. players would complete the event with an
The tournament intrigue largely repeated identical number of points (with Yarkov first
the scenario of the previous USSR CC Ch, on the tie-break, and Zelinsky second), while
 1 9th USSR CC Championship ( 1 99 1 - 1 993) Lipiridi Memorial

N2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Yu. Zelinsky Riga y, 1 1 1 y, 1 y, 1 1 1 1 1 lOVi

2 V. Yarkov Moscow region 1h y, y, y, 1 Y2 y, 1 1 ' 1 1 10

3 A. Ufimtsev Kustanay 1 1 1 1 1 y, y, 1 1 1 10

4 A. Makarov Moscow region 0 1 y, 0 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 9

5 G. Govashelishvili Kaliningrad 0 y, 0 y, 1 1 1 1h 1 y, 1 7Yi

6 S. Khlusevich Izhevsk 0 y, 0 0 y, Y2 y, Y2 1 Y2 1 7

7 V. Koltsov Blagoveshchensk y, y, 0 y, y, 1 0 I I I 6Yi

8 Yu. Minakov Moscow 0 0 0 1 0 y, 1 I 0 I 6

9 A. Mayorov Moscow y, y, 0 0 0 y, Y2 0 I 1 6

10 A . Gurin Brest region 0 y, y, 0 0 y, 0 1 1 1 6

11 I. Kopylov Ufa ' ;

0 0 y, 0 y, y, I 0 I 1h SYi

12 L. Levin Moscow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 I 3Yi

13 V. Skobeev Moscow 0 0 0 0 y, y, 0 1 0 0 0 I 3

14 E. Shevelevich Rostov-on-Don 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a win for Black would leave the Riga player
with the bronze medal. Black is one pawn
up and he wins a second, yet Zelinsky' s deep
analysis revealed the true situation:
36... �xc6 37 QJxc6 QJxgl
White has two dangerous passed pawns,
but at first sight he cannot hope for more
than a draw, and that still has to be demon­
strated. But let us look more closely.
38 a4 hS 39 as h4 40 �d3+!
In his analysis Yury Zelinsky remarks
that this is an important interposition, pre­
venting the activation of the black king via
g6 and f5 . The direct 40 a6 h3 4 1 a7 h2
42 a8Vi' h l Vi' leads to a won position for
Black. But it is probable that the immediate
40 �fl also leads White to his goal.
40... g6 41 �fl Qje3 42 a6 QjdS 43 a7
QJb6 44 lLJxeS h3 (D)
w 1 960s, that he began playing regularly by cor­
Now it can be said that the endgame is
not worse for White, but even so it is not
evident how his persistent victory claims
can be supported. Yet here the contender for
the champion's title demonstrates an almost
study-like win.
45 QJd7! Qj a8 46 b4 fS! 47 �xh3 !! Qjxh3
48 bS Qjf4 49 b6 Qjd3+ 50 @c2 QJcs 51
QJxcS QJxb6 52 @b3 @g7 53 @b4 @f7
54 @bS QJa8 55 @c6 @e7 56 @b7 @d6
57 QJe6! @d7
57 . . . f4 58 QJxf4 g5 59 QJh3 g4 60 Qjf2
g3 6 1 QJe4+ or 57 . . . g5 58 @xa8 and wins.
58 QJf8+ @d8 59 QJxg6 @d7 60 Qjf4
@d6 61 QJdS! f4 62 QJxf4 @d7 63 QjdS
and White wins.
Thus the winner of the first champion­
ship in the post-Soviet era was the Riga
player Yury Zelinsky. Although on the
geo-political map there was no longer a
state with the name 'USSR', nevertheless
the title of champion of the Soviet Union,
even though ' former', remained very sig­
nificant.
In 1 95 1 the 1 7-year-old first category
player Yury Zelinsky achieved his first
important success - he became schoolboy
champion of the Chemovtsy Region. Then,
already as a candidate master, he won the
championship of Kaunas. He then moved
to Riga, where for more than 30 years he
worked as a construction engineer in a Riga
radio manufacturing plant.
In the 1 960s he was close to achieving the
master norm for over-the-board play: in 1 967
he won a tournament of very strong Latvian
candidate masters and in 1 969 he became
champion of Riga. It was then, in the late
respondence. In one of the semi-finals of the
1 2th Championship (1 973-74) Zelinsky took
first place, ahead of 14 (!) masters, achieving
the master norm by a large margin.
Yury Zelinsky took part five times in
the finals of the USSR Championship and
always successfully. I should also like to
mention one other thing. Much has been said
about the poor working of communications
in general and about the sharp deterioration
in the postal links with the former Soviet
Baltic state in particular. I, as arbiter of the
1 9th Championship, had to listen to numer­
ous complaints about the difficulty of corre­
sponding with the Latvian representative.
These complaints were justified, but at
the same time the sufferings of each player
were limited to the difficulty in conducting
just one game - with Zelinsky. Imagine
how it must have been for the Riga player,
battling in such a situation with thirteen op­
ponents. He did not waste his energy griev­
ing, but steadfastly overcame the postal
impediments and methodically obtained
full-weight points.
 White : Yu .Zelinsky
Blac k : I. Kopylov
1 9th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 9 1 � 9 3
Sicilian Defence 896
l � d 2 �B � 3 M aM 4 ��4 �ffi
S �c3 a6 6 �gs e6 7 f4 'fic7 S �xf6 gxf6
9 rs 'fies
According to Lepeshkin' s analysis, 9 . . .
�c6 1 0 fxe6 fxe6 1 1 �c4 �xd4 1 2 'fixd4
�e7 1 3 0-0-0 �d7 14 �b3 'fies 1 5 'fjd3
0-0-0 1 6 �bl �b8 1 7 �e2 �b5 1 8 'fjf3
�c4 1 9 �d4 leads to advantage for White.
10 'fjd3 �c6 11 �b3
Another try for an advantage is illustrated
by the variation 1 1 �xc6 bxc6 1 2 0-0-0
�h6+ 1 3 �bl �f4 1 4 e5 ! exf5 1 5 exd6
�e6 16 �e2 �e5 1 7 �d4 �d5 1 8 d7+
�d8 1 9 �b3 'fjb6 20 'fixf5 .
1 1 ...'fjeS 1 2 0-0-0 �d7 1 3 �bl
White did not achieved anything with 1 3
g3 0-0-0 1 4 �bl @b8 1 5 'fie3 : cs 1 6
'fjb6 �a8 1 7 �e2 h5 in the game Cullip­
Le Quang, Oakham 1 992.
13 ... �e7?! (D)
1 3 ... 0-0-0! ? came into consideration.
14 �a4! �b4 IS 'fid2 �xa4 16 'fixb4
�c6
White 's position is also preferable after
1 6 ... �xb3 1 7 'fixb3 b5 1 8 fxe6 fxe6 1 9 g3
with the idea of 20 �h3.
17 fxe6 fxe6 IS �d4! dS
1 8 . . . �xe4 1 9 �d3 ! �xd3 20 : xd3
and 2 1 : el does not change things.
19 'fjb3 �cs 20 exdS �xdS 21 �c4
�xd4 22 �xdS
Not 22 : he l ? �e4 23 �xe6 : ds !
when White squanders the advantage that he
has gained with such difficulty.
22 ... 'fixdS 23 'fixdS exdS 24 : xd4 0-0-0
2S : n : heS 26 : d2 @ c7 27 ;g df2
;g d6 2S @cl ;g ee6 29 �d2 �d7 30 ;g fS
�es 31 : hs : d7 32 : et 1-0
White : A . M a karov
Blac k : Yu .Zelinsky
1 9th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 9 1 - 9 3
King 's Indian Defence £85
1 d4 �f6 2 c4 g6 3 �c3 �g7 4 e4 d6 S
a 0-0 6 �e3 es 7 �ge2 exd4 s �xd4 c6
9 'fjd2 �bd7 10 0-0-0 : es 11 �c2 dS
12 exdS
Another development of events leads to
an advantage for White: 12 cxd5 cxd5 1 3
�xd5 �xd5 1 4 'fixd5 'fjf6 1 5 'fjb3 �e5
16 �d4 �d7 17 �b l .
12...cxdS 1 3 cxdS a6 1 4 g4
1 4 �c4!? b5 1 5 �b3 �b7 1 6 : he l
;g c 8 1 7 � b 1 came into consideration.
14 ... bS IS gS �hS (D)
16 d6?
Better was 1 6 f4 �b7 17 �g2 �b6 1 8
i,d4 4Jc4 1 9 Vt2 with advantage to White.
16 ... i,b7 17 ctJd5 i,xd5 18 Vxd5 ;g c8
19 Vd2 ;g c6! 20 i,h3 i,f8 21 f4 ;g xd6
22 Vn Vc7 23 i,g4
23 �b l 4Jc5 24 i,d4 4Je4 25 VD
i,g7 with advantage to Black.
23 ... ttJcS! 24 i,xh5 gxh5 25 Ve2 4Ja4
26 ;g xd6 i,xd6 27 �bl Vc3! 28 bxc3
4Jxc3+ 29 �b2 4Jxe2 30 ;g el
If 30 ;g fl Black wins easily after 30 ...b4
3 1 i,d2 ;g e4 etc.
30... ctJxf4 31 i,xf4 ;g xel 32 i,xd6 ;g e2!
33 �c3 �g7 34 �d3 ;g e8 35 4Jd4 h6
36 gxh6+
36 4Jf5+? �g6 37 4Jxh6 ;g ds and
Black wins.
36 �xh6 37 i,f4+ �g6 38 i,e3 �f6
.•.
39 h3
White would not have saved the game af­
ter 39 i,f4 ;g e l 40 a3 ;g al 4 1 i,d6 �g5
followed by 42 ... f5 and wins.
39... ;g g8 40 4Je2 ;g g2 41 i,f4 ;g f2 42
�e3 ;g n 43 a3 ;g b l 0-1
Second place was taken by Vladimir
Yarkov (Moscow Region), who, with ac­
count being taken of his victory in the
previous championship, achieved the norm
of Russian grandmaster in correspondence
play. It was impressive that Yarkov was the
only player in the tournament to avoid de­
feat and he was also able to inflict defeats on
his main rivals. Here are these games, which
were of decisive importance for the arrange­
ment of the places on the 'podium' .
Wh ite : V.Yarkov
Black : Yu . Zelin sky
1 9t h U S S R CC C h , 1 9 9 1 - 9 3
King 's In dian Defen ce E8 1
N otes by Ti m H a rd i n g
1 d4 ctJf6 2 c4 g6 3 4Jc3 i,g7 4 e4 d6 5 f3
0-0 6 i,e3 c5 7 d5
White can exchange queens and win ma­
terial by 7 dxc5 dxc5 8 Vxd8 followed by
9 i,xc5, but masters in recent years have
investigated this gambit line deeply. The
accepted view nowadays is that Black then
obtains ample compensation for .the pawn.
The King's Indian bishop becomes very
strong, Black has a lead in development and
the white pawn formation is rigid, confining
the fl -bishop to a limited role.
In view of these considerations, Y arkov
prudently decides to avoid simplification
and instead closes the centre.
7 ... 4Je8
Zelinsky renounces the normal Benoni
lever, . . . e7-e6, and intends a . . . b5 break,
while his knight will prevent an enemy in­
vasion on c7. This plan brings the game into
unknown territory but does not work out
well for Black in the end.
8 Vd2 Vas 9 i,d3 b5 10 4Jxb5 Vxd2+
11 �xd2 i,xb2 12 ;g bl i,g7 13 f4 4J a6
14 a3 f5
Black fights for air but the negative con­
sequences of this pawn advance will be seen
after White's 22nd move.
15 exf5 gxf5 16 4Jf3 ctJf6 17 � hel 4Je4+
18 �c2 i,d7 19 '2Jg5 '2Jxg5 20 fxg5 i,eS
21 g3 ;g fb8 22 i,f4!
The position resembles a Leningrad vari­
ation of the Dutch Defence that has gone
wrong. Black's backward e-pawn will now
become a fatal weakness.
22 ... i,xf4 23 gxf4 @f7 24 ;g e3 i,xb5 25
cxb5 4Jc7 26 ;g bel e5 27 dxe6+ �e7 28
i,xf5 ;g h8 29 i,d3 h6 (D)
w
 White now dispenses with technical solu­
tions and finishes the game with two power­
ful blows that expose the black king.
30 fS hxgS 31 f6+ 1-0
Black resigns because after 3 1 . . . �xf6 32
: f3+ �e7 33 : f7+ �d8 34 e7+ �c8 (if
34 . . . �e8 35 �g6 or 34 ... @d7 35 e8#) 35
�e4 his position would be in ruins (35 ... dS
36 �xd5 etc.).
White : V. Ya rkov
Black : A . Ufimtsev
1 9th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 9 1 - 9 3
King 's Indian Defence EBO
N otes by Ti m H a rd i n g
1 d4 ctJf6 2 c4 g6 3 CLic3 �g7 4 e4 d6 S f3
c6 6 �e3 a6 7 �d3 bS? !
Postponing castling in this line has been
known for many years to be risky because of
White 's next move. Presumably, Ufimtsev
thought he had found an improvement on
theory at move 1 1 , but it is a mirage.
8 es ctJfd7 9 f4 bxc4 10 �xc4 ctJb6 1 1
�b3
Since Knaak-Grivas, Athens Akropolis
1 992, 1 1 �d3 has been reckoned to be an
even stronger move. Now Black plays his
novelty, instead of 1 1 ...dS 1 2 C2Ja4 CLixa4
1 3 �xa4 �a5+ 14 �f2 0-0 1 5 : c l which
was very good for White in H.Degenhardt­
A.Gipslis, Frankfurt 1 986.
11 ... aS
GM Gallagher's assessment of � here,
in his book on the Siimisch King's Indian,
seems over-optimistic from Black's point
of view. Yarkov crushes his opponent, who
never obtains any real counterplay.
12 C2Jf3 dS
12 . . . �a6 would be consistent but prema­
ture, on account of the reply 1 3 e6. So White
is able to get his king into safety before con­
ducting active operations on both wings.
13 0-0 e6 14 CLia4 0-0 lS : f2 : e8 16
: cl �a6 17 g4 (D)
B
17 ...fS
As in the previous game, this attempt to
block the kingside only creates new weak­
nesses.
18 exf6 �xf6 19 CLieS : a7 20 CLicS �c8
21 gS �xeS 22 dxeS ctJ8d7 23 C2Jxd7
�xd7 24 h4 : f8 2S hS : b7 26 hxg6
hxg6 27 �cs : n 28 �c2 : g7 29 : h2
C2Jc4 30 b3 : bS 31 �f2 C2Jb2 32 �f3
�f8 33 : bl 1-0
Black resigns, because the only way to
save the knight permits a mating attack:
33 . . . �a3 34 �h3 �xa2 35 �h8+ �f7 36
�xg6+! etc.
Despite that loss, an excellent result was
achieved by the famous veteran Anatoly
Ufimtsev. The acknowledged theory expert
also played splendidly, becoming a prize­
winner in the USSR Championship shortly
before his 80'h birthday.
White : A . U fimtsev
Bla ck : Yu . M inakov
1 9th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 9 1 - 9 3
King 's In dian Defen ce £63
1 C2Jf3 ctJf6 2 g3 g6 3 �g2 �g7 4 0-0 0-0
S d4 d6 6 c4 CLic6 7 CLic3 a6 8 �gS h6
8 ... : b8 9 : c 1 �g4 1 0 d5 �xf3 1 1
exf3 ttJ e5 12 'ife2 l:t e8 1 3 l:t fe 1 c5 1 4
dxc6 tt:Jxc6 1 5 l:t c d 1 with a slight advan­
tage to White (Kasparov-Van der Wiel,
Brussels 1 987).
9 �xf6 �xf6 10 'ii'd 2 �g7
In the game Ufimtsev-Kopylov from
the same tournament, after 1 0 . . . c;t>h7 1 1 h3
�g7 12 l:t ad l �d7 1 3 b3 l:t b8 14 c;t>h2
b5 1 5 c5 b4 1 6 ctJd5 e6 1 7 ctJf4 tt:Je7 1 8 h4
�c6 1 9 'ii'c2 c;t>h8 20 .i:t fe l White gained
the better chances.
11 h3 l:t b8 12 l:t fdl 'if e8? !
1 2. . . �d7 ! ? came into consideration.
13 l:t acl e5 (D)
w nevertheless like to say that among those
14 ctJd5 QJxd4
Possible was 1 4 . . . 'if d8 !? 1 5 dxe5 dxe5
(inferior is 1 5 ... tt:Jxe5 1 6 tt:Jxe5 dxe5 1 7
'ii'a5 b6 1 8 'ii' a3 with advantage to White)
16 'ii'e3 �d7 with an unclear position.
15 tt:Jxc7 'ifd8 16 ctJd5 QJxf3+ 17 exf3
�e6 18 b3 'if g5
1 8 . . . l:t e8 1 9 QJc3 �f8 20 tt:Je4 favours
White.
19 'ifxg5 hxg5 20 QJc3 b5
Or 20 . . . l:t fd8 21 tt:Je4 d5 22 tt:Jxg5 dxc4
23 l:t xd8+ l:t xd8 24 tt:Jxe6 fxe6 25 l:t xc4
with a clear advantage to White.
21 cxb5 axb5 22 tt:Je4 �h6 23 l:t xd6 g4?
23 ... l:t fc8 was better.
24 l:t c7 gxh3 25 ctJf6+ c;t> h8 26 l:t xe6
�g7 27 l:t ec6 �xf6 28 l:t xf6 @g7 29
l:t e6 hxg2 30 l:t xe5 (D)
White 's position is won. There followed:
B
30 l:t fe8 31 f4 c;t>f6 32 l:t c6+ c;t>g7 33
...
c;t>xg2 b4 34 c;t>f3 l:t a8 35 l:t xe8 l:t xe8 36
l:t b6 l:t a8 37 l:t xb4 l:t xa2 38 g4 1-0
Without wishing to comment on the re­
sults of the remaining participants, I should
who were unsuccessful on this occasion
were some well-known masters, champions
and prize-winners in the championships of
Russia and Moscow, which testifies to the
high level of the 1 9th USSR Championship.
Simultaneously with the main final,
known as the Premier League, a secondary
tournament took place - the First League
of the 1 9th Championship, in which, apart
from Russians, representatives of Ukraine,
Belarus, Latvia and Kazakhstan competed.
Here are the final scores: 1 -2. L.Levit
(Minsk), V.Volodin (Moscow) - 1 0 out of
15; 3-5. V.Kashlyuk (Lugansk), E.Tyulin
(Vladimir), S.Polyakevich (Nevinnomyssk)
- 91h; 6. O.Batakovs (Riga) - 9; 7. S.Kuznetsov
(Nikopol) - 81h; 8- 10. M.Volchikhin (Shad­
rinsk), R.Markarian (Alma Ata), A.Sirota
(Krivoy Rog, Ukraine) - 8; 1 1 -12. A.Pyshkin
(Syktyvkar), V.Shemagonov (Ufa) -- 7; 13.
V.Nasybulin (Akmola) - 61h; 14. M.Klimenok
(Vitebsk) - 5; 15. A.Mishin (Vladimir) - 41h;
16. K.Romanovsky (Ryazan) - 0.
Anatoli Sirota emigrated to Australia during
this event. He states that his unfinished games
were not properly adjudicated and that a game
he had already won against Kuznetsov appears
as a loss for him in the official crosstable.
 Miniatures ( I I )
Ya. Neishtadt - V. Bobkov,
6th USSR CC Championship, 1963-64
Catalan Opening A32
1 c4 tLlf6 2 d4 e6 3 g3 c5 4 tLlf3 cxd4 5
tt:Jxd4 j&c5 6 tLlb3 Vb6?! 7 tt:Jxc5 Vxc5
8 tLld2 Vc6 9 e4! (D)
B
9 ... h5 (9 . . . tt:Jxe4? 10 j&g2; better 9 .. b6)
. 1 d4 tLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 j&b4+ 4 j&d2 j&e7
10 j&g2 h4 11 0-0 (Threatening e4-e5)
11 ... Vc7 ( 1 1 .. .hxg3 12 e5 gxh2+ 13 @h l )
12 z:!. el hxg3 13 hxg3 d6 14 b3! tLlbd7 15
j&a3 a5 16 tLlf3 .: a6 17 tLld4 tLlc5 18
tlJh5 Ve7 19 e5! dxe5 20 z:l. xe5 l-O
Yu. Kutyanin - A. Vasilyev,
13th USSR CC Championship, 1977-78
Ruy Lopez C80
1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 j&b5 tLlf6 4 0--0 tt:Jxe4
5 d4 a6 6 j&a4 b5 7 j&b3 d5 8 dxe5 tt:Je7?!
(Played by Zukertort against Anderssen,
1 878) 9 a4 j&g4 10 c3 tLlc5 1 1 j&c2 tLle6 12
axb5 axb5 13 z:!. xa8 Vxa8 14 Vd3 j&xf3
15 Vxt3 tt:Jg6 16 Ve2 j&c5 (D)
17 @hl! (Black offered a pawn but White
prefers to keep the King in the centre.)
17 ... c6 18 f4 tt:Jgf8 19 f5 tt:Jc7 20 e6! h5 21
Ve5 Vd8 22 Vxg7 z:!. h7 23 f6! 1-0
M. Umansky - R. Zborovsky,
13th USSR CC Championship, 1977-78
English Opening A22
1 c4 e5 2 tt:Jc3 tLlf6 3 tLlf3 e4 4 tLlg5 b5
5 d3 exd3 6 cxb5 h6 7 tLlf3 dxe2 8 j&xe2
a6 9 0-0 j&e7 10 tLld4 d5 11 j&f3 axb5 12
j&f4 j&b7 13 tt:Jcxb5 tt:Ja6 14 z:!. cl 0-0 15
tt:Jxc7 Z:. c8 16 Vb3 tLlc5 17 Ve3 tLlfe4
18 tLlf5 j&g5 19 j&xg5 hxg5 20 j&xe4
z:!. xc7 21 z:!. xc5 dxe4 22 Vc3 1-0
M. Naivelt - A. Volchok,
18th USSR CC Championship, 1988-91
Bogoljubow Indian E l l
5 j&g2 d5 6 tLlf3 0-0 7 0-0 b6 8 cxd5 exd5
9 tt:Jc3 j&b7 10 z:!. cl tlJhd7 11 j&f4 tlJh5
12 j&e5 f6?! (12 ... tLleS)
13 j&xc7!! Vxc7 14 tt:Jxd5 Vd6 (If
14 . . . Vd8 1 5 Vb3 ! @h8 1 6 tt:Jxe7 Vxe7
1 7 z:!. c7 z:!. ab8 1 8 Vb5+- or 1 5 . . . z:!. f7 1 6
tt:Jxe7+ Vxe7 1 7 z:!. c7 z:!. b8 1 8 j&h3 !+-)
15 tLl h4 ! j&d8 ( 1 5 ... j&xd5? 1 6 tlJf5 Ve6
1 7 j&xd5+-) 16 tlJf5 Ve6 17 tt:Jc7 Vxf5 (If
17 . . . j&xc7 1 8 j&xb7 Vxf5 1 9 e4! Vas 20
j&xa8 z:!. xa8 21 Vb3+ @h8 22 z:!. xc7+- or
1 8 . . . z:!. ab8 1 9 j&d5 !+-) 18 j&xb7 j&xc7 19
j&xas j&f4 20 Vb3+ @hs 21 Vn Vg6
22 e3 j&h6 23 z:!. c7 Vf7 24 j&d5 l-O
 Twentieth Championship
(1994-1998)
ON THE day when the Council of the Rus­
sian Correspondence Chess Association was
confirming at its meeting the composition of
the 20th and penultimate USSR CC Cham­
pionship, the colleagues of Isaak Romanov,
the well-known correspondence chess his­
torian and ICCF international arbiter, were
accompanying him on his last journey. And
it was decided to dedicate the tournament to
his memory.
Representatives of Russia, Ukraine,
Belarus, Estonia and Latvia participated in
the championship. Yuri Baidakov was ap­
pointed arbiter. From the very beginning the
tournament was regarded as an international
,
and, apart from several international mas­
ters, the starters included two ICCF inter­
national masters and one FIDE international
master.
By the end of the event the number of
holders of international titles had grown
significantly, for the reason that in the Ro­
manov Memorial the ICCF established an
international master norm - 71h points out
of 14. I should mention that by the time that
the tournament finished, all the participants,
with the exception of Rene Talving and
E.Tyulin, and N.Vilchenkov who dropped
out, were already international masters, and
the winner had the title of grandmaster.
The tournament started on 3 1 st March
1 994 and within roughly eighteen months
the leading group had emerged, comprising
Rubinchik, Khlusevich, Muravyev and Vo­
lodin. By some point in mid- 1 996 the sole
lead was seized by Sergey Muravyev. Then
Sergey Khlusevich almost caught up with
the leader on number of points scored, and
even overtook him on points lost.
It became clear that only the two Sergeys
were in contention for the top two places,
while Kashlyuk, Rubinchik and Shikhirev
were fighting for the 'bronze' . At the very
finish, by winning his last few games, FIDE
international master Viktor Volodin gained
third place. The following game proved
decisive in the battle for the prize-winning
place.
White : V. Volodin
Bla ck: D . Lybin
20th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 94- 9 8
King 's Indian Defen ce £68
Notes by Vi ktor Vol o d i n
In this game White' s dark-square bishop
literally 'terrorised' Black ( 1 3 Jtg5 ! , 1 8
Jte3 ! , 22 Jtg5 !), then sacrificed itself (24
Jtxf6!) and after a spectacular rook sacri­
fice (27 J:t xf7!) White's position became
won, but on the way to the win he found
some 'little combinations' (Capablanca' s
expression).
1 CLJf3 CLJf6 2 c4 g6 3 d4 Jtg7 4 g3 0-0 5
Jtg2 d6 6 0-0 CLJbd7 7 CZJc3 e5 8 e4 a6 9
h3 bS 10 Vi'c2
It is surprising, but in my database this
move occurs only once (Tukmakov-Weindl,
Lugano 1 986). 1 0 dxe5 or 1 0 Vi'e2 is more
 20th USSR CC Championship ( 1 994- 1 998) Romanov Memorial

N2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

S . Khlusevich Izhevsk 1 Yi Yi Yi 1 1 1 1 Yi Yi 1 1 1 11

2 S. Muravyev Dnepropetrovsk Yi Yi Yi Yi 1 1 1 1 1 Yi 1 1 lOYz

3 V. Volodin Moscow 0 Yi Yi Yi 1 1 Yi Yi Yi 1 ' 1 1 9

4 L. Rubinchik Kremenchug Yi Yi Yi 1 Yi Yi Yi Yi Yi 1 1 SY,

5 V. Kashlyuk Lugansk Yi Yi Yi Yi Yi Yi 1 Yi 1 1 SY>

6 L. Shikhirev Moscow Yi Yi Yi Yi 0 0 1 1 . Yi Yi 1 1 SY,

7 A. Makarov Moscow region 0 Yi Yi Yi Yi 1 1 Y2 1 1 1 s

8 D. Lybin Minsk 0 0 0 0 Yi 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 s

9 I. Lensky Moscow 0 0 0 Yi Yi 1 Yi Yi 1 1 1 7

10 J. Schuster Estonia 0 0 Yi Yi Yi 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 6

11 0. Batakovs Riga Yi 0 Yi Yi Yi 0 0 0 1 Yi 5Y,

12 A. Popov Syktivkar Yi, , 0 Yi Yi 0 Yi Yi 0 Yi 0 Yi 1 5Yi

13 E. Tyulin Vladimir 0 Yi 0 Yi Yi Yi 0 0 0 1 Yi 1 5Y,

14 R. Talving Tallinn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3

15 N. Vilchenkov Moscow region 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yo 0 Vi

usual. [Later this position occurred in Stohl­
Weiss (European Team Championship,
Batumi 1 999), where 10 ... ;g, b8 was played
( 1 -0, 36 moves), and also in Borovikov­
Volokitin (Ukrainian Championship 2001 ),
where a draw was agreed after 10 ... bxc4.
- S.G.]
10 ... j,b7
In the afore-mentioned game Black
played 1 O . . .bxc4, but this was unsuccessful.
11 dxeS dxeS 12 ;g, dl 'ii'b8 13 j,gS! c6 14
b4 cS lS bxcS ;g, c8
[ 1 5 . . .bxc4! was stronger. - S.G.]
16 cxbS ;g, xcS 17 'ii'b3 axbS 18 j,e3!
;g, xc3!?
Evidently the best practical chance.
19 'ii'xc3 Jtxe4 20 ;g, acl tll dS 21 'ii'b3
tll 7f6 22 j,gS! 'ii'b 7 23 ;g, cs b4 24 j,xf6!
tll xf6 2S 'ii'c 4!
After 25 ;g, dc l Black had the reply
25 ... j,d5 .
2S ... ;g, f8
Of course, not 25 ... j,xf3? because of 26
;g, c7.
26 ;g, c7 'ii a8 (D)
w
27 ;g, xf7! ;g, xf7 28 tll gS 'ii'a7
Only in this way can the resistance be
prolonged - the f2-square is under an X-ray
attack. If 28 . . . Jtxg2, then 29 'ii'xf7+ @h8
30 tll e 6.
29 Jtxe4 tll xe4 30 tll xe4 h6 31 ;g, d2!
After this quiet move it becomes clear
that Black's position cannot be held.
31...@h7 32 'ii'x b4 ;g, b7 33 'ii' c3 ;g, bl+
34 @g2 'ii'b7 3S 'ii'f3 ;g, b4 36 a3! ;g, b6
37 h4 'iic8 38 hS gxhS 39 'ii'xhS ;g, a6 40
tll gS+ �g8 41 'ii'f7+ �h8 42 ;g_ d7 'ii' a8+
43 �gl 'ii'f8 44 'ii'dS 'ii'f6 4S ;g_ d8+ j,f8
46 tll f7+ @g7 47 tll xeS 1-0
After gaining the international master
title for his result in the 20th USSR Cham­
pionship (the Romanov Memorial), Viktor
Volodin then performed successfully in
the Russian Championship, but his main
triumph awaited him in the Kosenkov Me­
morial, where the Muscovite won first prize,
exceeding the grandmaster norm by a whole
point.
The silver medal in the 20th Champion­
ship was won by Sergey Muravyev, who
simultaneously with the main final also
participated, and not unsuccessfully, in the
First League.
Sergey Khlusevich, who by that time
had become a grandmaster, emerged as the
champion of the ' former USSR'. He con­
sidered his best creative achievement in the
tournament to be his win over Volodin.
White : V.Volodin
Bla ck: S . K hlusevich
20th U S S R CC C h , 1 9 94-98
King 's Indian Defence £68
1 tll f3 tll f6 2 c4 g6 3 d4 Jtg7 4 g3 0-0 S
j,g2 d6 6 0-0 tll b d7 7 tll c3 eS 8 e4 exd4
9 tll xd4 ;g, e8 10 h3 tll cS 11 ;g, el j,d7 12
;g, bl h6 13 b3 tll h 7 14 b4
Apparently a novelty, which did not jus­
tify itself in the present game.
14 ... tll e6 lS j,e3 hS 16 h4 tll f6 17 f3
After both 1 7 e5 tll g4 and 17 tll e6
Jtxe6 1 8 tll d 5 tll g4 Black has quite ad­
equate counterplay.
17 ... aS 18 a3 axb4 19 axb4 c6 20 tll de2
'ii'c7 21 'ii' d2 ;g, a3 22 ;g, edl j,c8!? 23
tll d4
With the idea of 24 tll db5 . After 23
'ii'xd6 'ii'xd6 24 ;g, xd6 tll d7 followed by
... tl:Je5 Black has compensation for the sac­
rificed material.
23 ... 1i'e7 24 bS?! tl:Jxd4 2S i,xd4 i,e6
Black's chances are already preferable.
26 eS? !
Or 26 bxc6 bxc6 27 'i'cl !? .l:. ea8.
26 ... dxeS 27 i,xeS tt::l e4 28 tl:Jxe4 i,xeS
29 f4 i,g7 30 tt::l d6 .l:. ea8
Black's initiative increases.
31 � h2 .l:, a2 32 1i'd3 i,g4 33 .l:, d2
Other variations also favour Black: 3 3
bxc6 bxc6 3 4 .l:, b7 1i'e2, or 3 4 .l:, e l i,e2.
33 ... .l:. 8a3 34 1i'e4 1i'xe4 3S tt:Jxe4 .l:. xd2
36 tl:Jxd2 .l:. a2 37 bxc6 bxc6 38 .l:. b8+
i,f8 39 .l:, d8 ¢;;; g7 40 tl:Jfl (D)
With the idea of 4 1 .l:. d2 and possible
counterplay.
B this indicates that his victory in the 20th
40... i,b4
Black's position is won.
41 tt::l e3 i,e2 42 .l:, e8 i,el 43 �h3 i,f2
44 cs
The resistance could have been prolonged
somewhat by 44 f5.
44... i,gl 4S rs i,f3 46 fxg6 .:. xg2 47 g4
i,xe3 0-1
Sergey Khlusevich was born in 1 956. He
learned to play chess at the . age of ten and
quickly advanc�d to become one of the lead­
ing players in Udmurtiya. For his results in
over-the-board competitions he was award­
ed the title of USSR master of sport. In an
international tournament in Gdynia (Poland)
in 1 992 he achieved the FIDE international
master norm.
Since 1 968 he has been regularly play­
ing by correspondence. He was the winner
of the 1 0th Championship of the Russian
Federation ( 1 984-1 987) and in the final of
the 1 8th USSR Championship he shared 5th
place. In the 1 0th USSR Team Champion­
ship ( 1 9 9 1 - 1 993) he made the best score on
top board.
In the memorial to the first USSR cor­
respondence champion Aleksandr Konst­
antinopolsky, organised by the Russian
Correspondence Chess Association, he suc­
cessively achieved the norm of international
master, and then also grandmaster.
Sergey Khlusevich continued to perform
successfully in international tournaments,
and from one of the 3/4 finals he qualified
for the final of the world championship. All
USSR Championship was no accident.
Simultaneously with the Premier League,
for the last time the First League was held,
with eight masters and five very strong
candidate masters, who had qualified from
the quarter-finals, fighting for three quali­
fying places to the Premier League of the
last, 2 1 st USSR Championship. Among the
participants were eight Russians, four rep­
resentatives of the Ukraine and virtually the
strongest correspondence player at that time
from Kazakhstan, A.Grishin, who finished
up as the winner. The final scores: A.Grishin
(Alatau) - 9 Yz out of 12, 2-4. A.Bragin (Bry­
ansk), A.Mayorov (Moscow), S.Muravyev
(Dnepropetrovsk) - 8Yz; 5 . S.Kuznetsov
(Kazan) - 8 ; 6. V.Malinin (St Petersburg)
- 7Yz; 7. S.Polyakevich (Novosibirsk Re­
gion) - 7; 8. A.Smirnov (Krasnodarsk Dis­
trict) - 6Yz; 9. P.Chernyakhovsky (Sumsk
Region) - 6; 1 0. A.Lopukhin (Penza) - 4;
1 1 . V.Zaitsev (Moscow) - 3; 12. A.Vlaskov
(Arkhangelsk Region) - 1 ; 1 3 . L.Gerasin
(Kiev Region) - 0.
 Twenty-First Championship
( 1 998- 2002)
IN FEBRUARY 1 998 a start was made to
the last USSR Championship. Among the
1 5 competitors were the winners of the last
First League and the semi-finals. The Baltic
republics also sent their representatives, so
that the representation of the former Soviet
republics was nearly as great as during the
time when the USSR actually existed.
The tournament was registered with the
ICCF as a memorial to ICCF international
arbiter Boris Rozinov ( 1 9 1 7- 1 997). An
international master norm was established
- 9 points out of 1 4 - and the tournament
director was ICCF international arbiter Yury
Baidakov.
The first two results were recorded soon
after the start: the author of these lines
agreed draws with White against Kuzenkov
on the 7th move, and with Kulagin on the
14th. The reason for such a peaceful attitude
was that Sergey Grodzensky, who had the ti­
tle of grandmaster, agreed to play in the last
USSR Championship as a mark of respect
to the memory of his great personal friend
Boris Rozinov - an outstanding organiser,
who became a veritable era in Soviet cor­
respondence chess.
The poor working of the post in the sec­
ond half of the half of the 1 990s became the
talk of the town. And after the break-up of
the USSR, corresponding with former com­
patriots who had ended up abroad became,
as they say, an absolute pain. Hence the
enormous spread in the number of moves
made. Some games had long been finished,
while in others the players had not yet com-
pleted the opening stage. Therefore during
the course of the tournament it is possible
to talk about the leaders only with a great
degree of arbitrariness.
Even so, we can say that by the autumn
of 1 999 a leading group had emerged: May­
orov - 6 points out of 7, Bragin - 51h out of
8, Jocas - 4Y2 out of 5, Grodzensky - 4 out
of 5, Timko - 3 out of 4 and Verhni - 2Y2
out of 3 . Note that Malinin and Grishin had
each gained three successive wins.
By the first quarter of 2000 the results
of two thirds of the games were known, but
the situation in the table remained confused.
In terms of points scored, still in the lead
was Mayorov - 8 out of 10, followed by
Grodzensky - 61h out of 9, Jocas - 6 out of
8, Malinin - 51h out of 6, Bragin - 51h out of
8, Grishin - 4 out of 5 , Timko - 3 Yi out of 5
and Verhni - 21h out of 3 .
B y August 2000 the number of contend­
ers remained quite large: Mayorov - 91h out
of 12, Bragin - 9 out of 12, Grodzensky
- 81h out of 12, Malinin - 7 out of 8 and
Jocas - 6 out of 8. Timko - 4 out of 7 and
Grishin - 41h out of 8 had dropped back
somewhat. On the current results of the Ro­
zinov Memorial, the 2000 ICCF Congress
awarded the international master title to
Bragin, Kulagin and Mayorov.
By the summer of 200 1 a trio of leaders
had practically emerged (Malinin - 1 1 out
of 1 3 , Mayorov - 1 01h out of 1 3 , Bragin
- 1 0 out of 1 3 ), but as regards the alloca­
tion of the places on the 'podium' there still
remained questions, which were not finally
 2 1 st USSR CC Championship (1 998-2002) Rozinov Memorial

NQ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

V. Malinin St. Petersburg 0 Yz Yz 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l l 'h

2 A. Mayorov Moscow Yz Yz 1 Yz 1 Yz 1 1 1 1 1 1. 11

3 A. Bragin Bryansk 1 1 Yz 1 Yz 1 Yz Yz Yz 1 1 1 11

4 S. Grodzensky Moscow Yz Yz Yz 1 Yz 1 1 1 1 1 1 10

5 A. Grishin Kazakhstan Yz Yz 0 Yz 1 1 Yz 1 1 -
1 1 9

6 A. Kulagin Moscow region 0 0 Yz Yz 1 Yz 1 L Yz 1 1 1 9

7 V. Timko Ukraine 0 Yz 0 Yz 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 S'h

8 J. Jocas Lithuania 0 0 Yz 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 7'h

9 A. Kuzenkov Moscow 0 Yz 0 Yz 0 Yz 0 Yz 1 1 1 1 7

10 Yu. Minakov Moscow 0 0 Yz 0 Yz 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 6

11 K. Vitols Riga 0 0 Yz 0 0 0 0 0 Yz 1 1 5
12 V . Bendersky Dnepropetrovsk 0 0 Yz 0 0 Yz 1 0 0 0 1 1 4
' .

13 V . Verhni Estonia 0 0 0 0 -
0 0 0 0 0 1 3'h

14 V . Vasykin Novokusnetsk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

15 A. Belousenko Minsk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

The game between Grishin and Verhni was scored as a double forfeit.
resolved even by the start of 2002. It was
decided to halt play in the tournament after
a winner had finally emerged - Vasily Ma­
linin. A few unfinished games, the results of
which could no longer affect the placings,
were adjudicated.
Thus the last USSR correspondence
champion became Vasily Malinin from St
Petersburg. Born in 1 956, he is a professor
of the St Petersburg University of the Rus­
sian Ministry of Internal Affairs. In over­
the board play he has the title of national
master.
Malinin rapidly became one of the
strongest correspondence players. He be­
gan his career in correspondence chess in
1 9 83 with a win in a USSR Championship
quarter-final. In 1 9 86 he began participat­
ing in international tournaments. He was a
finalist in the 67th European Championship,
the 9th ICCF World Cup, the 20th USSR
Championship and the First Russian Cham­
pionship.
On the results of the Konstantinopolsky
Memorial Tournament he was awarded the
ICCF international master title, and in the
Kosenkov Memorial, which was held at the
same time as the Rozinov Memorial (the
2 1 st USSR Championship) he achieved the
grandmaster norm.
In the 2 1 st USSR Championship Vas­
ily Malinin demonstrated mature play, both
with Black and with White.
White : V. Malinin
Black: A . Kulagin
21 st U S S R CC Ch, 1 9 9 8 -
2002
Sicilian Defence 889
N otes by Va s i l y M a l i n i n
1 e4 c5 2 t2Jf3 d 6 3 d4 cxd4 4 t2Jxd4 t2Jf6
5 t2Jc3 t2Jc6 6 �c4 e6 7 �e3 a6 8 1iVe2
1iVc7 9 0-0-0 l2Ja5 10 �d3 b5 1 1 a3 �b7
12 g4 � c8 13 g5 t2Jd7 14 f4
This last move is a novelty.
The 'Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings'
gives only 1 4 � he l �e7 15 1fi1h5 g6 1 6
'iVh6 tt:Je5 1 7 1iVg7 � f8 , citing the game
Fedorov-Kasimdzhanov, Moscow 1 996. 1 4
f4 ! i s stronger, since i t prevents the black
knight from going to e5.
14...�e7 15 'iVhS g6
After 1 5 . . . 0-0 1 6 f5 White' s attack devel­
ops unchecked.
16 1fi1h6 tbc4 17 �xc4 1iVxc4 18 1fi1g7
� f8 19 � hel b4 20 axb4 'iVxb4 21 t2J b3
e5
The alternative was the exchange sacri­
fice 2 1 ... � xc3 22 1iVxc3 1iVxc3 23 bxc3
�xe4, although it too would not have
equalised.
22 fxe5 dxe5 (D)
22 ... tt:Jxe5 came into consideration.
w
23 � xd7! <;i>xd7 24 1iVxe5 <;i>e8 25 � dl
1fi1c4
Black does not want to go totally onto the
defensive with 25 . . . � g8, nor to open up the
position by 25 . . .f6 or 25 ... f5.
26 tlJa5 1iVc7 27 'iYd4 �a8 28 tbc4 �cs
29 'iVd3 �xe3+ 30 tt:Jxe3 � g8
Black is ready to try and buy White off
with the exchange, but it is too late.
31 t2Jcd5 �xd5 32 t2Jxd5 1iVc6 33 t2Jf6+
<;i>f8 34 t2Jd7+ �e8 35 � d2!
Even in such positions, prophylaxis is
required.
35... � d8 36 tbf6+ 1iVxf6 37 gxf6 � xd3
38 .:1 xd3 g5 39 c4
The c-pawn cannot be stopped.
39 ... .:1 g6 40 .:1 d6 g4 41 c5 1-0
White : V. Timko
Black : V. Malinin
2 1 st U SS R CC C h , 1 99 8 -
2002
Nimzo witsch Defence 800
N otes by Vas i l y M a l i n i n
1 d4 ctJc6 2 e4 e5 3 dxe5 ttJxe5 4 f4 ctJg6
The 'Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings'
recommends 4... ctJc6.
5 i,c4
Not allowing the development of the
bishop at c5, on which there follows, of
course, i,xf7+.
5...c6
Strangely enough, this is a novelty. Pre­
viously Black played 5 ... iff6, 5 ... i,d6,
5 ... d6, 5 . .. ctJf6 or 5 ... ctJh6.
6
This would appear to radically prevent
the development of the bishop at c5. But this
direct move encounters a refutation.
6 ...iff6
The f2- and b2-pawns are under attack.
7 e5 is refuted by 7 .. ttJxe5 8 fxe5 ifh4+
. with White.
and 9... ifxc4, while the attempt to defend
both pawns by 7 'ire ! is unsuccessful : all
the same Black wins a pawn by 7 ... ctJh4 8
ifg6 9 f5 ifg4 .
7 ttJe2
White sacrifices a pawn, hoping for a
lead in development.
7 ... ifxb2 8 0-0 ctJf6
Not 8 ... ifxal because of 9
9 if d3 ifh4 10 e5 d5 11 exd6 b5 12 i,b3
ifxd6 13 ctJd4 i,e7 14 a4 ctJg4 15 ctJc3
The pawn cannot be regained: 1 5 axb5
c5 1 6 ife4 ttJxe3 1 7 ifxa8 0-0 1 8 ctJ f3
ctJxfl 1 9 @xfl i,f6 and Black wins.
15... 0-0
The main thing is to remove the king
from the centre.
16 ctJe4 if d7 17 h3 bxa4!
An important interposition: now if White
plays 1 8 i,xa4, there comes 1 8 ... i,a6 ! .
18 ,:1 xa4 ctJ f6!
Most players would have played
I 8 ... ttJxe3. Otherwise, why did the knight
go to g4? But in the given position the
knight at e4 presents a greater danger, and it
is this piece that Black wants to exchange.
19 l::l: a5 ttJxe4 20 ifxe4 i,d8 21 f5?! (D)
Realising that with quiet play Black will
simply convert his extra pawn, White sharp­
ens the game. But in sowing the wind, he
reaps the whirlwind.
B
2 1 ... : e8!
The rook cannot be taken, since after
2 1 ...i,xa5 22 fxg6 the advantage is now
22 ifg4 23 fxg6 ifxg4 24 hxg4
i,xa5
Allowing White to promote a pawn.
However, Black will have perfectly ad­
equate compensation for the queen.
25 l::l: xf7 l::l: xb3 26 l::l: f8+ <;t>xf8 27 gxh7
l::l: bl+ 28 @h2 i,c7+ 29 g3 i,f5! 30
h8if+ @f7 31 ifh5+
After 3 1 ifxa8 i,e4 Black announces
mate in three moves.
31. .. i,g6 32 ifg5 i,e4 0-1
Second and third places were shared by
Aleksandr Mayorov (Moscow) and Ale­
ksandr Bragin (Bryansk).
 Aleksandr Mayorov trained as a ship­
building engineer. In his youth he won the
adult championship of the town of Nikolaev
and successfully completed in the Ukrainian
Championships. After he moved to Moscow
he distinguished himself in competitions
of the Zenit Sports Society and had the
reputation of being a very strong candidate
master.
Mayorov began playing in correspond­
ence tournaments in the mid- 1980s. He has
to his credit a second place in the Moscow
Championship and participation in the Pre­
mier League of the 1 9th USSR Champion­
ship. As a member of the capital's team, he
participated in the last, 1 0th USSR Team
Championship. Mayorov's chief success
came in the 2 1 st USSR CC Ch, in the course
of which he became an ICCF international
master.
Mayorov considered his best creative
achievement in the tournament to be his
game with his long-standing rival Yury
Minakov. In the 9th Moscow Champion­
ship ( 1 989- 1 990) Minakov took first place,
and Mayorov finished second, half a point
behind.
In the 1 8th USSR Championship Mina­
kov and Mayorov had an identical result,
sharing 8th- 1 0th places. Now here came
their third meeting.
White : Yu . M ina kov
Bla c k : A . M ayorov
21 st U S S R CC C h , 1 9 9 8 -
2002
Sicilian Defence 876
N otes by A l e ks a n d r Ma yo rov
1 e4 c5 2 Cbt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Cbxd4 Cbf6 5
Cbc3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7 f3 0-0 8 �d2 Cbc6
9 0-0-0 d5 10 �el ! ?
1 0 exd5 o r 1 0 Cbxc6 i s more usual.
10...e5
Not l 0 . . . dxe4 because of 1 1 Cbxc6.
11 Cbxc6 bxc6 12 exd5 Cbxd5
The tempting 12 ... cxd5 would have been
met by 13 �g5, when Black loses a pawn.
13 �c4 �e6 14 �c5?! (D)
A new move, which allows Black to re­
group. 1 4 Cbe4 was better, as in the game
Dvoiris-Basin (Simferopol 1 988). After
this I was intending to play 14 ... �b8 1 5
�c5 l:! d8 , or 1 4. . . �c7 1 5 �c5 l:! fb8 1 6
�d6 �b6 1 7 �xb8 l:! xb8 1 8 b3 h6 with
chances for both sides.
B
14 ... �g5+! 15 �bl l:! fd8
Black's pieces have become active. The
threats of . . . �xg2 and . . . tt:Jxc3 are very
unpleasant. White seeks simplification and
heads for the endgame.
16 �xd5 cxd5 17 �g3 �xg3 18 hxg3
So, Black has a strong centre and the two
bishops.
18... l:! dc8!
A bold decision - the rook is removed
from the defence of the d5-pawn.
19 �f2
1 9 �a3 was better, although one is
unwilling to move the bishop off the g 1 -a7
diagonal.
19 ...d4 20 Cbe4 f5 21 l2Jg5 �xa2+! ! 22
�xa2 l:! xc2 23 �el l:! b8 24 l:! b l e4!
It is essential to include the bishop at g7
in the attack.
25 l:! xh7
If 25 fxe4 there follows 25 . . . d3 with a
threat to the b2-pawn.
25 ... d3 26 .&!, xg7+ �xg7 27 i,c3+ (D)
White defends his b2-pawn and wants to
seize the initiative by .&l, hl or fxe4.
B 33 .&!, el .&l, d2+ 34 �b3 �e5 and wins.
27... .&!, xc3 ! ! 28 bxc3 e3 ! !
After the bishop and one rook, now the
second rook is also sacrificed.
29 lLle6+ �f6 30 Qjf4
It appears that White is nevertheless win­
ning. But:
30... .&!. d8!!
The only move that leads to a win. I had
already found it when I analysed the bishop
sacrifice on the 2 1 st move.
31 .&I. el
No better is 3 1 .&l, d l e2 32 l2Jxe2 dxe2
31. .. gS 32 QJxd3
Forced.
32 ... .&l, xd3 33 �b3
Not 33 f4 in view of 33 ... gxf4 34 gxf4
�e6 with the idea of ... c;;t> d5 and . . . �e4.
33 ...f4 0-1
Now the activity of Black's king and the
protected e3-pawn assure him of a win.
The author of this book finished fourth,
for which he was genuinely glad, especially
since a higher place would have led to a
curious situation - on behalf of the Russian
Association of Correspondence Chess he
would have had to make an award to him­
self.

A FEW WORDS IN CON CLUSION

We have traversed the entire history of the main correspondence tourna­

ments in pre-revolutionary Russia, the USSR and the post-Soviet period.
On the map of the world there is no longer a state with the name USSR,
but the memory of the great chess power will forever be preserved in the
history of the game. This also applies to its correspondence chess.
 Playe rs & Arbiters in the Championsh ips
Abramov, Lev Ioakhimovich (born
14.6. 191 1 , Warsaw). IM ICCF
1979, Master of Sport of USSR
(1940), vice-president ofICCF from
1957 to 1967, International Arbiter
FIDE (1957). Resident Moscow
during Ch-01. Finalist in 8°' World
Championship.
Abramson, Dr. Moisei 0 (Sirnfer­
opo� Ulaaine; deceased). IM ICCF
1%7. Played Ch-03, Ch-08. Finalist
in 5°' World Championship.
Abroshin, MS (Saratov). Played
Ch-02, Ch-03, Ch-04.
Akopov, Roman A (Baku, Azerbai­
jan; but now living in Armenia).
Played Ch-16, Ch-17, Ch-18.
Altshuler, Roman Zinovievich
(Moscow). IM ICCF 1967. Played
Ch-04, Ch-06, Ch-07, Ch-14. Final­
ist in 5°' World Championship.
Andreyev, Nikolay Petrovich
(Moscow). Played in Ch-05, Ch-
08, Ch-09, Ch-10 and Ch-12. ID/
Arbiter for Ch-07 and Ch-14.
Andrianov, Nikolay lvanovich
(Moscow). Played Ch-17.
Antonov, Vitaly Aleksandrovich
(Leningrad). IM ICCF 1990. Played
in Ch-14.
Aratovsky, Nikolay Konstanti­
novich (born 1919, Saratov). Played
Ch-02, Ch-03.
Arkhangelsky, Mikhail Yurievich
(Moscow). IM ICCF 1992. Played
in Ch-14, Ch-15.
Aronin, Lev Solomonovich
(20.6.1920, Samara, near Kuiby­
shev-4. 10.1983, Moscow). IM
FIDE 1950. Played Ch-04
Aronson, V (Moscow). Played in
Cb- 1 3 .
Asafov, V (Leningrad). Played in Played Ch- 1 1 .
Ch-07. Bibikov, V (Moscow). Played
Atyashev, Pyotr Ivanovich Ch-03.
(15.2. 1918 Pikshen, Gorley region- Bobkov, VS (Mogilyov). Played
12.6.1984, Moscow). 2"d Cham­ in Ch-06.
pion; resident Baku, Azerbaijan, Bodisko, Aleksandr Petrovich
during this event (1932-1994, Moscow). IM ICCF
1992. Played in Ch-14.
Baidakov, Yury lvanovich. Interna­ Bogatyryov, OM (Moscow).
tional Arbiter ICCF. ID/Arbiter for Played in Ch-05.
Ch-20 and Ch-21. Borisenko, Georgy Konstantinovi­
Bakharev, A (Riga, Latvia). Played ch (born 25.2.1922, Chuguev; resi­
Ch-10. dent Leningrad and then Sverdlovsk
Balendo, Eduard Pavlovich (Minsk, during these events; now living in
Belorussia). Played in Ch-13. Uzbekistan). Master of Sport of
Bangiev, Alexander J (Sevastopo� USSR (1950), IM ICCF 1961, GM
now living in Germany). Played ICCF 1966. World Championship
Ch-12. Notable theoretician. :finalist (runner-up in 4th, withdrew
Bannik, Anatoly Aleksandrovich the next time). Was both joint 3rd
(born 7.12.1921; lived in Kiev). USSR Champion and joint 5th
Master ofSport ofUSSR 1949, five Champion.
times OIB champion of Ulaaine. Borisov, Veniamin Ivanovich
Played in Ch-06. (Moscow region). IM ICCF 1996.
Barash, Dmitry Feliksovich (Len­ Played Ch-16.
ingrad, emigrated to USA in 1990s). Bragin, Aleksandr Borisovich
GM ICCF 1993. 16"' Champion. (Bryansk). IM ICCF 2000. Played
Also played in Ch-17. Ch-2 1.
Barstatis, Reinhardas (Klaipeda, Bragin, Pavel Nikolaevich (Voron­
Lithuania; deceased). Played Ch- 1 1 . ezh). Played in Ch-14.
Batakovs, Olegs N (Riga, Latvia). Bulgin, Boris Konstantinovich.
IM ICCF 1994. Played Ch-16, ID/Arbiter of Ch-16. International
Ch-20. Arbiter of FIDE and ICCF.
Baturinsky, Viktor Davidovich Butkus, Yu (Vilnius, Lithuania).
(27.6. 1914, Odessa-22. 12.2002, Played Ch- 1 1 .
Moscow). IM ICCF 1995. Senior
Soviet chess administrator. Played Chumichyov, GA (Kolomna).
Ch-04, Ch-09 resident Moscow. Played Ch-08.
Belousenko, Artur Viktorovich
(Minsk, Belarus). Played Ch-21. Demidenko, Viktor Ivanovich
Bendersky, Valery (Dnepropetro­ (Kuibyshev). Played Ch-15.
vsk, Ulaaine). Played Ch-21 . Dragunov, VN (Torez). Played in
Bershadsky, A (Novosibirsk). Ch-06, Ch-08.
Dubinin, Pyotr Vasilievich Giek, Igor Vladimirovich (Mos­ in Ch-01 and in the Unfinished
(Born 30.6.1909, Warsaw; died cow). later GM FIDE. Played Ch- Championship.
18.1 1.1983, Gorky). Master of Sport 17, Ch-18.
of USSR (1938), IM FIDE 1950, Godes, Devis [Dmitry] Rafailovich Jocas, Juozas (Lithuania). Played
GM ICCF 1962. Joint 3rd USSR (Ryazan, now living in Israel). IM Ch-21.
Champion, living in Gorky. Also ICCF 1983, GM ICCF 1984; IM
played Ch-02, Ch-04, Ch-07 and in FIDE. Played Ch-17. Kamenetsky, Yakov Efimovich
the Unfinished Championship. Run­ Golikov, G (Voronezh). Played in (Minsk, Belorussia; deceased, dates
ner-up in 3rd World Championship, Ch-07. unknown). Played in Ch-07.
also played 4th and 7th Wch. Goiovko, Nikolay Grigorievich Karelin, Evgeny Petrovich (Mos­
(Born 04.05. 1917, Rostov-on-Don. cow). Arbiter/TD of Ch-17. Interna­
Efremov see Yefremov. Died 05.01.1988, Moscow). Master tional Arbiter ICCF 1992.
Eremin see Yeryomin. of Sport of USSR (1959). Played in Karnovich, Gely Serafimovich
Estrin, Yakov Borisovich Ch-05, (Moscow). Played Ch-18.
(21.4.1923-02.2.1987 Moscow). Gorenshtein, R (Yalta). Played in Kashlyak, Anatoly Nikolaevich
GM ICCF 1966 ('711' World Cham­ Ch-05. (Semipalatinsk). Played Ch-I I.
pion and several other times a Govashelishvili, Gennady Ana­ Kashlyuk, Victor (Lugansk,
Wch-finalist). IM FIDE 1975. Joint tolievich (Kaliningrad). IM ICCF Ukraine). IM ICCF I997. Played
5th USSR Champion. Also played in 2001. Played Ch-I 9. Ch-20.
Ch-01, Ch-04, Ch-06 and Ch-10. Govbinder, Mikhail Yudovich Kastarnov, SM (Grozny). Played
Evdokimov see Yevdokimov. (Dushanbe, now living in Israel). Ch-16, Ch-17.
Eventov, Prof Yakov Stanislavovi­ World Championship finalist, IM Khlusevich, Sergey Olegovich
ch (1906-1989; emigrated to USA in ICCF 1976. Played Ch-09, Ch-10, (Izhevsk; born 1956). IM ICCF
1977). TD/Arbiter of Ch-08. Postal Ch-1 1, Ch-12. 1 996, GM ICCF I997, current
player, important CC organizer and Grechkin, Dmitry M (Stalingrad). World Championship finalist 20th
member ofICCF Commissions e.g. Played in Ch-01, Ch-03, Ch-05. USSR Champion; also played Ch-
in the 1960s, vice-president ofICCF Grishin, Anatoly Vitalievich (Ka­ 18, Ch-19.
from 1967 to 1 975. zakhstan). IM ICCF 2002. Played Kirshanov, A (Voroshilovgrad,
Ch-21. Ukraine). Played Ch-1 I.
Filippov, Vladimir Mikhailovich. Grodz.ensky, Sergey Yakovlevich. Kitaigorodsky, Ilia Petrovich
Arbiter/TD Ch-1 1, Master of Sport IM ICCF 1 991, GM ICCF 1999, (Moscow). Played Ch-IS, Ch-I6.
of USSR International Arbiter ICCF 1991, Kitayev, LA (Yaroslavl). Played
Filtser, Feliks Mikhailovich (Mos­ Master ofSport ofUSSR 1984. TD/ Ch-08.
cow). IM ICCF 1969. Played Ch- Arbiter of Ch-15 and Ch-19. Played Klompus, Grigocy Yakovlevich
12, Ch-14. in Ch-21. Co-author of this book. (Moscow, later USA; deceased,
Fink, LA (Kuibyshev). Played Gurin, Anatoly Sergeevich (Brest dates unknown). TD/Arbiter of
Ch-04. region, Belarus). Played Ch-19. Ch-04.
Foigel, Igor Yefimovich (Kiev, Gurvich, A. (Chernovitsy). Played Kobiencs, Aleksandrs Naftalievich
Ukraine; now Israel). IM ICCF Ch-06. (Riga, Latvia). Master of Sport
1989. Played in Ch-13. USSR 1945. Mikhail Tal's coach.
Isaev, L (Moscow). Played in Played Ch-04, Ch-08.
Galdanov, Nikolai Munkovich Ch-01. Kogan, Boris Marlcovich (Lvov,
(Barguzin). Played Ch-12. Ivanov, D (Leningrad). Played Ukraine). Played Ch-10, Ch-I2,
Garkunov, Lev Pavlovich (16.3. Ch- 1 1 . Ch-13.
1901-20.1 1 .1963). International Ivanov, Anatoly Grigorievich Kolker, B (Moscow). Played in
Arbiter FIDE. TD/Arbiter of Ch-05. (Chemigov, Ukraine). IM ICCF Ch-13.
Gilman, AM (Gorky). Played in 1987. Played Ch-10. Koltsov, Vyacheslav Aleksandrov­
Ch-01, Ch-06, Ch-07. lvashin, AF (Kuibyshev). Played ich (Blagoveshchensk). IM ICCF
1995. Played Ch-18, Ch-19.
Konoval, Ya (Orenburg). Played
in Ch-13.
Konovalov, L (Norilsk). Played in
Ch-06.
Konstantinopolsky, Aleksandr
Marlcovich (19.2.1910, Zhitomir,
Ukraine-21.09.1990, Moscow).
GM FIDE 1 983, IM ICCF 1%6.
1 � Champion. Also played in: Ch-
02, Ch-03, Ch-04, Ch-06 and in the
Unfinished Championship.
Kopaev, Nikolay Antonovich
(11.1.1914, Voronezh-1 1.10.1978,
Chemovtsy). Master of Sport of
USSR (1940). Played in Ch-01 .
Kopylov, Igor Aleksandrovich
(Ufa, 1939-2002). Master of Sport
USSR 1966. IM ICCF 1986, GM
ICCF 1994, twice a World Cham­
pionship finalist 1 Jl1 USSR Cham­
pion. Also played in Ch-14, Ch-15,
Ch-16, Ch-18, Ch-19.
Kopylov, Nikolay Georgievich
(born 26.10.1919 Novonikolaevsk,
near Novosibirsk; resident Voron­
ezh; now deceased). Master of Sport
of USSR 1946. IM ICCF 1969.
Played Ch-10, Ch-12, Ch-15.
Korelov, Aleksandr Pavlovich
(Leningrad). World Championship
finalist Master of Sport USSR
1%0. IM ICCF 1984, GM ICCF
1995. Played Ch-09.
Kornilov, Anat.oly Aleksandrovich
(Kalinin). Played Ch-12.
Korolev, Anatoly Vladimirovich
(Moscow). IM ICCF 1988. Played
Ch-16, Ch-17, Ch-18.
Korolev, Sergey lvanovich (Len­
ingrad). IM ICCF 1981, GM ICCF
1995. Played Ch-17.
Kosenkov, Vsevolod Tikhonovich
(19.3.1930, Kaluga--1995, Lenin­
grad), lived in Kuibyshev. World
Championship finalist. IM ICCF
1977, GM ICCF 1979. Played Ch-
09, Ch-10.
Koshil, Tikhon Stepanovich (Rya­
zan). Master of Sport USSR 1978.
IM ICCF 1992. Played Ch-15.
Kotenko, Georgy (Kiev, Ukraine).
IM ICCF 1999. Played in Ch-13,
Ch-16.
Kozlov, N (Vyska). Withdrew from
Ch-03, games cancelled.
Kramar, N (Ufa). Played in Ch-
05.
Krivun, Nikolay Minovich (Tagan­
gor). IM ICCF 1982. Played Ch-12.
Kruglov, Dmitzy lvanovich (1899-
1978). TD/Arbiter for Ch-12.
Kryukov, Vladimir Dmitrievich
(Cheliabinsk, 1918-1982). World
Championship finalist. IM ICCF
1975. Played Ch-04, Ch-05.
Kulagin, Aleksandr Petrovich
(Moscow region). IM ICCF 2000.
Played Ch-21.
Kudinov, Igor Petrivich (Lenin­
grad). Played in Ch-13.
Kuntsevich, A (Moscow region).
Played Ch-10.
Kutyanin, Yury Fedorovich (Mos­
cow region). Played in Ch-13.
Kuuskmaa, Ende! R (Tartu, Es­
tonia; deceased). IM ICCF 1975.
Played Ch-09.
Kw.enkov, Anatoly Vasilyevich
(Moscow). Played Ch-21.
Kuznetsov, Anatoly Georgievich
(1932-2000 ; Moscow). Master
of Sport USSR 1961, IM (1980)
and International Arbiter (1965)
for chess composition. Played in
Ch-05.
Lapin, GV (lvanovo). Phtyed
Ch-03.
Latash, Albert Vladimirovich.
TD/Arbiter of Ch-18, International
Arbiter FIDE and ICCF.
Lensky, Igor Leonidovich (Mos­
cow). IM ICCF 1997. Played
Ch-20.
Levin, Leonid Bentsionovich
(Moscow). IM ICCF 1988. Played
Ch-15, Ch-16, Ch-19.
Llpiridi, Aleksandr Khristoforovich
(20.10.1940-1991, Kislovodsk). IM
ICCF 1989. 15"' Champion Also
played Ch-16.
Lnkin, A (Osh, Kyrgyzstan).
Played in Ch-05.
Lutovinov, Aleksandr lvanovich
(Leningrad). IM ICCF 1992. Played
Ch-15, Ch-16.
Lybin, Dmitzy Vitalievich (Minsk,
Belarus). IM ICCF 1998, IM FIDE.
Played Ch-20.
Lykhin, Oleg Vladimirovich (Div­
nogorsk). Played Ch-18.
Makarov, Aleksandr Madyevich
(Moscow region). IM ICCF 1997,
SM ICCF 2001. Played Ch-19,
Ch-20.
Makovkin, A (Gorky). Played
Ch-02.
Markauss, Juris (Riga, Latvia). IM
ICCF 1989. Played Ch-16.
Malinin, Vasily Borisovich (Sankt
Petersburg; born 1956). IM ICCF
1998, GM ICCF 2002; IM FIDE.
21� Champion.
Maseev, Leon losifovich
(25.7.1909-1972, Odessa). IM
ICCF 1964. Played Ch-04, Ch-05,
Ch-07.
Mayorov, Aleksandr Livovich
(Moscow). IM ICCF 2000. Played
Ch-19, Ch-21 .
Mikenas, Vladas Ionovich (born
17.4.1910 Reve� near Tallinn, Es­
tonia, but ofLithuanian descent, and
moved to Vilnius in 193 1 . Died in
1992). GM FIDE 1987 (retrospec­
tive: top board for Lithuama in five
FIDE Olympiads in the 1930s). IM
ICCF 1978. Played Ch-09.
Mikhailov, Aleksey Ivanovich
(1936-2000, Leningrad). IM ICCF
1980, GM ICCF 1983. Twice
a World Championship finalist.
Played Ch-09.
Milyutin, V (Yaroslavl). Third priz.e
in Ch-06.
Minakov, Yury Mikhailovich
(Moscow). Played Ch-19, Ch-21 .
Mishuchkov, Nikolay Mikhailov­
ich (Leningrad region). Played
Ch-15.
Monin, Nikolay Nikolaevich (Len­
ingrad). Played Ch-17.
Morozov, Igor Anatolyevich (born
27.6.1932 Yurevets lvanovsky
region; resident Gorky). Master of
Sport of USSR (1969), GM ICCF
1973. Played Ch-08, Ch-09, Ch- 1 1 .
Muravyev, Sergey (Dnepropetro­
vsk, Ukraine). IM ICCF 1996.
Played Ch-20.
Nadezhdin, Evgeny Nikoleevich
(Almalyk, Uzbekistan). Played Ch-
1 1, Ch-12.
Naivelt, Mikhail Romanovich
(Moscow). Now living in USA
Played Ch-18.
Neelov see Neyolov.
Neishtadt, Yakov lsaevich (born
6.10. 1923 Moscow, emigrated to
Israel in 1990s). Well-known theo­
retician and popular chess writer.
Master of Sport of USSR (1961),
IM ICCF 1971. Played in Ch-06
and 12tl' World Championship.
Nesis, Gennady Efimovich (Lenin­
grad). IM ICCF 1982, GM ICCF
1985. Well-known chess teacher
and writer. Runner-up in Ch-12
and Ch-13. Also ICCF World Cup
winner and world championship
runner-up.
Neverov, Valery (Kharkov,
Ukraine). GM FIDE. Played Ch-
18.
Neyolov, Yury N (Kaluga). Played
in Ch-07.
Nikitin, Victor Alekseevich (Ka­
linin). IM ICCF 1998. Played in
Ch-14.
Nosovsky, Aleksey Stepanovich
(Anadoir). Played Ch- 1 1 .
Omelchenko, Lev Evgenyevich
(born 6.6.1922 Zhashkov Kievskoy,
Cherkassy region). Resident Pyatig­
orsk at time of his championships.
Master of Sport USSR 1971. IM
ICCF 1977, GM ICCF 1986. 9th
and 10th Champion Finalist in 9th
World Championship.
Ovchinkin, GA (Nizhny Tagil).
Played Ch-04.
Pchyolkin, A (Nikolaevsk-Amur).
Played Ch-09, Ch-16.
Peleshev, Leonid D (Narva, Esto­
nia). Played Ch-16.
Perfiliev, Aleksander S (Gorky).
Played in Ch-01 .
Persits, Boris Davidovich (1916-
1992, Moscow). IM ICCF 1984.
Played in Ch-07, Ch-12, Ch-14.
Petrov, B (Odessa, Ukraine).
Played Ch-09.
Pivovarov, GA (Chelyabinsk).
Played Ch-12.
Podolsky, Arkady B (Kiev,
Ukraine). Played in Ch-13.
Pokrovsky, NV (Chelyabinsk).
Played Ch-08.
Poleshchuk, Nikolay Nikolaevich
(Leningrad). IM ICCF 2000, Inter­
national Arbiter ICCF 1998. Played
in Ch-13.
Poletaev, Sergey Mikhailovich
(Cheliabinsk). Played in Ch-01.
Polyansky, B (Saratov). Played
Ch-09.
Popov, Dr. Albert Egorovich
(Syktyvkar, Russia). IM ICCF
1990. Played Ch-20.
Postovsky, Boris Naumovich (born
31.5.1937 Moscow, now living in
USA). 14tl' Champion.
Prokofiev, S (Leningrad). Played
Ch-10.
Pnkshansky, Mikhail Borisovich
(Leningrad). IM ICCF 1992. Played
in Ch-14.
Pulkis, Visvaldis (Liepaya, Latvia;
deceased). IM ICCF 1990. Played
Ch- 1 1 .
Ragozin, Vyacheslav Vasilyevich
(8.10.1908, Petersburg-1 1 .3.1962,
Moscow). GM FIDE 1950, GM
ICCF 1959 (2°d World Champion).
Played Ch-02; resident Moscow
during this event
Razvalyaev, N.P. (Tashkent, Uz­
bekistan). Played Ch-15.
Remenyuk, Leonid (Voroshilov­
grad, Ukraine). Played in Ch-14.
Romanov, Isaak Zalmanovich
(born 3 1 .5.1920-1993, Gorky
region). International Arbiter ICCF
(1968). Chess writer. Played in Ch-
07; Moscow resident during this
event. Arbiter of the 1 1 tl, and 13th
Championships. The 20th Champi­
onship was his memorial.
Rozinov, Boris Abramovich
(1917-97). TD/Arbiter of Ch-06
and Ch-09. International Arbiter of
ICCF. The 21" Championship was
his memorial.
Rubezov, A (Sverdlovsk region).
Played in Ch-05.
Rubinchik, Leonid Y (Kremen­
chug, Ukraine). IM ICCF 1987,
GM ICCF 1999. Played Ch-17,
Ch-18, Ch-20.
Rumyantsev, Yu. E (Moscow
region). Played Ch-15.
Rusakov, Yakov Davidovich
(Omsk, 1934-1988). IM ICCF
1986. Played in Ch-14, Ch-15,
Ch-17.
Russo, DI (Alma-Ata). Played in
Ch-01 and in the Unfinished Cham­
pionship.
Ryabikin, Yu (Dzerzhinsk). Played
Ch-12.
Sadomsky, Anatoly Mikhailovich
(20.10.1910, Orenburg--07.08.1989, Ch-19.
Moscow). Master of Sport ofUSSR Shifman, A (Kharkov). Played in
(1962). Resident Moscow during Ch-01.
these events. 4th Champion. Also Shikhirev, Leonid Nikolaevich
played in Ch-02, Ch-03, Ch-05, Ch- (Moscow). lM ICCF 1998. Played
06, Ch-08 and Ch-10. Ch-20.
Sadurskis, Peteris K (10.10.1916- Shishlov, V (Sorsk, Khakasiaregion
30.04.2002, Riga, Latvia). Played of Siberia). Played in Ch-13.
Ch-09. Shulkin, Vadim V (Molodechno).
Sanakoev, Grigory Konstanti­ Played in Ch-07.
novich (born 17.4.1935 Voronezh). Shwnakher, A (Gome!). Played
lM ICCF 1971, GM ICCF 1984 Ch-02.
(12th World Champion and several Shuvalov, 0 (Nakhodka). Played
times a Wch-finalist). Runner-up in in Ch-13.
USSR Ch-06. Simagin, Vladimir Pavlovich
Schuster, Jilri (Estonia). 1M ICCF (21.6.1919, Moscow-25.9.1968,
1997. Played Ch-20. Kislovodsk). GM FIDE 1962. 6th
Semenyuk, Vladimir Vladimi­ Champion. Also played in: Ch-01,
rovich (Tula). 12th Champion. Also Ch-07.
played Ch-1 1, Ch-13, Ch-15. Sitsky, KN (Gorley). Played Ch-02.
Serebriisky, Alexandr S (Harkov, Skobeev, Viktor Aleksandrovich
Ulaaine; deceased). lM ICCF 1975. (1921-2002 Moscow). Played
Played Ch-09. Ch-19.
Shadchnev, V (Penz.a). Played Ch- Skotorenko, Vasily G (Kemerovo,
09, Ch-10. Ulaaine). Played Ch-08.
Shagapov, G (Bugulma). Played Smetanin, Anatoly Yakovlevich
Ch-09. (Ryazan). Master of Sport USSR
Shamkovich, Leonid Aleksan­ 1978. Played in Ch-14.
drovich (born 1.6.1923 Rostov-on­ Smolensky, Yury Andreyevich
Don, emigrated to Israel 1974, then (Odessa, Ulaaine; now living in
in 1976 to USA). GM FIDE 1965. USA). Played Ch-08.
Resident Moscow during Ch-02. Sokolov, Sergey Mironovich
Shapiro, I (Kiev, Ulaaine). Played (17.2. 1937 Moscow- 1992). Master
Ch- 1 1 . of Sport ofUSSR (1963), lM ICCF
Shaposhnikov, Yury Nikolaevich 1982. 8th Champion.
(Kuibyshev). Played Ch-02, Ch-03, Sokolsky, Aleksey Pavlovich
Ch-04, Ch-06. (3. 1 1 . 1908 Kangush Penz.onsky
Shapovalov, Igor Mikhailovich region-27.12.1969 Minsk, Belorus­
(Yaroslavl). Played Ch-06, Ch-08. sia). Master of Sport of USSR
Shapran, Yu (Stavropol). Played (1938). Notable theoretician and
Ch-10. chess writer. Resident Lvov during
Sher, Miron Naurnovich (Belgo-­ Ch-01. Also played in Ch-02, Ch-
rod). lM ICCF 1987, later GM 05, Ch-06, Ch-07 and Ch-08 (all
FIDE. Played Ch-15. from Minsk).
Shershnyov, A (Riga, Latvia). Solodovnikov, Viktor P (Zhdanov,
Played Ch-1 1. Ulaaine). Played Ch-12.
Shevelevich, Evgeny I (Rostov-on­ Sorokin, Garald Konstantinovich
Don, emigrated to Israel). Played (Gorley). World Championship
finalist. Played Ch-09, Ch-10. 1M
ICCF 1978.
Sychyov, Anatoly Viktorovich
(Novosibirsk). 1M ICCF 1992,
SlM ICCF 2001. Played in Ch-
07, Ch-10, Ch-1 1 and 15th World
Championship Final.
Talving, Rene K (Tallinn, Estonia).
Played Ch-20.
Tanin, Sergey Pavlovich
(Zhel=ovodsk). Played Ch-02.
Timko, Viktor (Ulaaine). Played
Ch-21.
Tolush, Aleksandr Kazirnirovich
(1.5.1910, Petersburg-2.3.1969,
Leningrad). GM FIDE 1953, 1M
ICCF 1965. World Championship
finalist. Played Ch-08.
Tsamryuk, Aleksandr A (Samar­
kand, Uzbekistan). Played in Ch-14,
Ch-16.
Tiirn, IY (Tallinn, Estonia). Played
Ch-08.
Tyulin, Evgeny Viktorovich
(Vladimir). Played Ch-20.
Ufimtsev, Anatoly Gavrilovich
(born 1 1 .5.1914 Omsk, Russia;
deceased 2002; at the time of
these events living in Kustanay,
Kazakhstan). Master of Sport of the
USSR 1946 and well-known theo-­
retician. Played in Ch-14, Ch-15,
Ch-16, Ch-17, Ch-18, Ch- 19.
Umansky, Mikhail Markovich
(born 2 1 . 1 .1952 Stavropol; at this
time living in Pyatigorsk; now living
in Gem1any). 13th USSR Champion.
13th CC World Champion and win­
ner of ICCF's Jubilee Champions
tournament 2002-3. lM ICCF 1986,
GM ICCF 1995, 1M FIDE 1997.
Varlamov, Vyacheslav Vladimi­
rovich (Leningrad). Played Ch-15.
Vasilyev, AK (Karaganda, Kaza­
khstan). Played in Ch-13.
Vasykin, Vladimir Afanasievich
(Novokusnetsk). Played Ch-21. IM
ICCF 1999.
Veltmander, Iogannes G (Izhevsk).
Played Ch-03, Ch-04.
Veresov, Gavril Nikolaevich
(08.07.1912-18.1 1 .1979, Minsk,
Belorussia). Theoretician and IM
FIDE (1950). Played the Unfinished
Championship and began Ch-08
but dropped out; his games were
cancelled
Verhni, Vladimir (Estonia). Played
Ch-21.
Veytse� David Grigoryevich
(Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky).
Played in Ch-13, now living in
Israel.
VIkulov, Aleksandr V (Chere­
povets). Played Ch-18.
VIlchenkov, Nikolai Fedorovich
(Mosc-.ow region). Played Ch-20.
Vitols, Karlis ( 1 1 .08.1938-
19.05.2002, Riga, Latvia). First
president ofthe independent Latvian
CC Federation; host and chief or­
ganizer ofthe 1998 ICCF Congress.
Played Ch-21.
Vlansky, P (Saratov). Played in
Ch-07.
Voitik, I (Voroshilovgrad region).
Played Ch- I0.
Voitsekh, Anatoly Pavlovich (Bo­
bruisk; deceased). IM ICCF 1988.
1 1th Champioll Also played Ch-10.
Volchikhin, Mikhail (Shadrinsk).
Played Ch-15.
Volchok, Alexandr S (Nikolaev,
Ukraine). IM ICCF 1983, GM
ICCF 1993. Chess writer. Played
Ch-16, Ch-18 and in 16th World
Championship Final.
Volodin, Viktor Nikolaevich
(Moscow). IM ICCF 1998, SM
2000, GM 2002; IM FIDE 1991;
Master of Sport USSR 1988. Played
Ch-20.
Vorobiyov, Viktor Dmitrievich
(Ivanovo). Played Ch-12.
Yakimenko, Aleksandr Andreevich
(Donetsk region). IM ICCF 1992.
Played Ch-15.
Yarkov, Vladimir Valentinovich
(Moscow region). SM ICCF 1999.
18th Champion, runner-up Ch- i 9.
Yannolik, Vladimir Georgievich
(Saratov). Played Che 17.
Yefremov, V (Voroshilovgrad).
Played Ch-02.
Yershov, Vladimir N (Dneprodz­
erzhinsk, Ukraine). Played in Ch-07,
Ch-08, Ch-13.
Yeryomin, M (Stavropol). Played
Ch-12.
Yevdokimov, KA (Zaporozhie).
Played Ch-02, Ch-05.
Yudin, V (Sebastopol). Played
Ch-09.
Yudovich sr., Mikhail Mikhailov­
ich (8.6.191 1, Roslavl-19.9.1987,
Moscow). IM FIDE 1950, GM
ICCF 1972. Writer. � Champion;
resident Moscow during this event.
.· Finalist in � World Championship.
Yurgenson, Viktor Nikolaevich
(Moscow, 1915-1986). Arbiter/ID
of Ch-09. International Arbiter
ICCF 1986.
Zagorovsky, Mikhail Pavlovich
(Moscow, 1918-1993). World
Championship :finalist. IM ICCF
1974. Played in Ch-07, Ch-08.
Zagorovsky, Professor Vladimir
Pavlovich (29.06.1925-06. 1 1.1994,
Voronezh). Master of Sport of
USSR (1948), GM ICCF 1965. CC
organiser, 4th World Champion and
many times a World Ch. :finalist.
Played USSR Ch-03.
Zaitsev, Aleksandr Nikolaevich
(15.6.1935-3 1 .10.1971, Vladivos­
tok). GM FIDE 1967. Played in
Ch-06 and Ch-07.
Zaitsev, Vladimir Valentinovich
(Moscow). IM ICCF 1986. Finalist
in 1 1th CC World Championship.
Played Ch-02.
Zarubin, Yu (Moscow). Played
Ch-08.
Zavemyaev, VA (Severodvinsk).
Played Ch-10.
Zbandutto, Vladimir P (Moscow).
Played in Ch-01 and in the Unfin­
ished Championship. TD/Arbiter of
2"d and 3ro Championships.
Zborovsky, R (Grodno). Played
in Ch-13.
Zelinsky, Yury (Riga, Latvia Now
living in Israel and calling himself
Jruis Zelinskis). 19th Champion.
Runner-up Ch-18. Also played Ch-
10, Ch-12, Ch-14, Ch-16, Ch-17.
Zhdanov, I (Riga, Latvia). Played
Ch-04.
Zhdarsky, Y (Bugulma). Withdrew
from Ch-03, games cancelled
Zhuravlyov, Valery I (Liepaya,
Latvia). Played Ch-10.
Zilberberg, Alik Samulovich
(7.1.1.1937 Odessa, emigrated to
USA in 1980s). IM ICCF 1973,
GM ICCF 1994. World Champion­
ship :finalist. Played Ch-08.
Zhukov, V (Kharkov, Ukraine).
Played in Ch-01.
Zubarev, Nikolay Mikhailovich
(1894-1951). TD/Arbiter ofCh-01.
Zyukov, GD (Moscow). Played
in Ch-07.
NOTE: Russian uses a different
alphabet from English and some
names (e.g. Aleksandr, Anatoly,
Nikolay and Yury) are often seen
in different spellings. Players who
emigrated to the West sometimes
changed their names and Ukrainians
can use different transliterations of
a name from Russians. When we
know what a player prefers, we
sometimes use that spelling in the
book even if it is non-standard
 Solutions to Tactical Finishes
Find the finish I (see page 54 ) .
1 . Konstantinopolsky-Perfiliev:
16 : xh6! fS ( l 6 ... gxh6 1 7 : xd7 �xd7
1 8 lbf6+) 17 exf6 lbxf6 18 lbxf6+ : xr6
( 1 8 . . . gxf6 1 9 �g6+ �g7 20 �h5) 19
�h7+ �f7 ( 1 9 ... �f8 20 : xf6+, 2 1 �h8+
and 22 �xa8) 20 : xf6+ Wxf6 (20 ... �xf6
21 : d7+) 21 e4! �cs (2 1 . .. : d8 22 �h4+
�f7 23 : xd8) 22 : d7 1-0 (22 . . . �e3+
23 Wdl ).
2. Ragozin-Abroshin:
22 : xf7! Wxf7 23 i,xe6+! 1-0
(23 . . . �xe6 24 : n+ or 23 . . . We8 24 �b7
Find the finish I I (see page 1 1 4) .
1 . A. Zaitsev-Gilman:
24 �d3 ! (This wins a piece, whereas
24 �d3 brings nothing.) 24...�xf3+
(24 . . . l2Jf5 25 i,xf5) 2S � 7g2 : es
(25 . . . : g8 26 i,e2! �d5 27 �c4 �f3
28 exd4 ! or 25 ... : d6 26 exd4 : xd4
27 �c l !) 26 exd4 : gS 27 dxcS+ f6
(27 . . . : ee5 28 �d2 : hs 29 �f5 ! : gs
30 �c2 : e2 3 1 �dl ! ) 28 �c4! 1-0 (Not
28 �c2? �xg2+! 29 : xg2 : e l +. Now
White prepares to break the pin by 29 �fl
followed by �d3 and f3. If 28 . . . : hs 29
�e2! - Zaitsev).
2. Yershov-Altshuler: 20 ... l2Jb4! 21
l2Jd2 lbxc2 22 �xc2 cS 0-1
or 23 . . . �g7 24 i,d4+).
3 . Shamkovich-Yevdokimov:
18 g4! �g6 ( 1 8 ... fxg3 19 i,xg5) 19
i,xf4 �xe4 20 i,xe4 1-0
4. Borisenko-Dubinin:
26 : xaS : b8 27 : xa6+ �xa6 28
�e2+ �a7 29 �bS : b7 30 as 1-0
5. Kryukov-Estrin:
22... i,cl ! 0-1
6. Bogatyryov-Yevdokimov:
21 : g3! i,xg3+ 22 �xhS �b7 23
�g4 i,f2 24 �f4 �d7 2S l2Jh2 1-0
3 . Yershov-Romanov:
21 : xfS! ! 1-0
(If 2 1 . . .�xf5 22 �xe3 with threats of
�c3, �d3 and �h6).
4. Smolensky-Zilberberg:
30 ... b3! (Destroys the last bastion) 31 dS
bxa2 32 Wal �b8 0-1
5 . Kuntsevich-Estrin:
White threatens mate and the a l - : , but
for the price of a bishop Black stops both
threats and forces a winning endgame the
exchange ahead.
40 ... �h3+! 41 wxh3 �f6 0-1
6. Poleshchuk-Foigel:
19 �d8+! 1-0
 Some statistics
SEVERAL years ago, Dutch chess organiser
Nol van 't Riet devised a mathematical for­
mula to determine which player had the best
record in a series of events in which several
players compete many times.
The USSR CC Championships seemed a
suitable candidate for this kind of analysis,
since there were 21 events and numerous
players competed in three or more of them.
Three players were involved in six USSR
CC Championship Finals and two played in
seven of them: one third of the total.
To determine Mister USSR CC Champi­
onships by the van 't Riet formula, you have
to find the sum of "Mister points" = S (Total
points scored) + G (Total games played) +
Percentage result (of S/G).
Performing this calculation, Tim Hard­
ing found the clear winner (with 252 Mister
Points) to be Yury Zelinsky of Riga (now Is­
rael) who played 7 championships including
a first and a second place and no bad results.
In total, Zelinsky played 1 1 4 games, scoring
73.5 which is a 64.47% record.
Runner-up, with 225 Mister Points, was
A. Sadomsky who also included a title in his
seven starts. He too had 1 44 games but his
overall score (59.5) was inferior to Zelin­
sky's. Third was A. Sokolsky, who played
1 0 1 games in six finals. He did not win the
title, but his game points total of 58.5 gave
him a better percentage than Sadomsky.
Fourth in the table, the only other player
with over 200 Mister Points, came Igor Ko­
pylov with 55.5 from 94 games i!1 six finals
(59.04%). He too was once champion.
Also highly impressive records are Dubi­
nin's 66.94% from four finals and Simagin's
73.53% from three championships.
Looking at the results in more detail, it
seems that the Mister Points formula starts
to break down after players have competed
in more than four or five events, as it is
weighted towards frequency of participation
over high percentage results. Also the fact
that the number of players in USSR Cham­
pionship finals varied between 1 3 and 2 1
perhaps skewed the results.
Some other statistics are also of interest.
Lev Omelchenko was the only player with
two outright victories, and with two consec­
utive victories. Georgy Borisenko also won
twice, but both cases involved a tie. Several
players won at their first attempt and never
competed again.
Also noteworthy is the achievement of
Gennady Nesis in finishing second in two
consecutive finals with the high overall
score of 72.97% - which would have won
some of the finals.
The greatest interval in time between first
and last participation is also down to Zelin­
sky, who began the 1 0th Final in 1 97 1 and
concluded by winning the 19th in 1 993 . He
overlaps with Sadomsky who began the 2nd
in 1 952 and also played in the 1 0th.
The record for the longest interval be­
tween two participations in championship
finals is held by M. Abramson. He com­
pleted the 3rd championship in 1 957 and
next played in the 8th, which began in 1 967.
His absence in the intervening period can
be explained by his involvement in a world
championship final.
However, if you count the unfinished
championship that began in 1 940, then Pyotr
Dubinin is the the player with the greatest
longevity. He also competed in several post­
war championships, his last being the 7th,
which ended in 1 966, giving him a span of
26 years activity in these events.
Between them, the careers of Dubinin,
Sadomsky and Zelinsky span the whole era
of those championships that were played
during the time that the USSR actually
existed.
 Index to Openings
Both indexes on this page include the miniature games on pages 84 and 140.

Bogoljubow Indian Defence Queen's Gambit 1 9, 5 1 , 1 04,1 12, 1 1 3, 1 3 1

1 40 QG Accepted 30, 34, 1 1 1
Caro-Kann Defence 23 , 66, 93 QG Semi-Slav 89, 1 1 1 , 1 3 0
Catalan Opening 1 40 Queen's Indian 70
Dutch Defence 84 Reti Opening 42
English Opening 12, 1 4, 75, 92, 1 05, 1 40 Richter-Veresov 84
Evans Gambit 1 1 , 95 Ruy Lopez
French Defence 48, 1 1 7, 1 24 Closed Defence 1 5 ,42,57 ,65,7 1 ,75,8 1 ,85
Griinfeld Defence 30 Steinitz Deferred 35, 38, 45
Hungarian Defence 4 1 Other lines 1 8, 27, 63, 83, 1 40
King's Gambit 10 Scandinavian Def. 76
King's Indian Defence Scotch Game 69
Classical 72, 132 Sicilian Defence
Lines with g3 9 1 , 138, 1 4 1 , 1 43 Dragon Variation 97, 149
Siimisch Var. 1 1 5 , 1 3 6, 1 37, 1 3 8 Najdorf Variation 29, 82, 1 3 6
Modem Benoni 77, 1 02 Scheveningen Var. 2 1 , 60
Modem Defence 91 Sozin Variation 52, 147
N imzo-Indian 6 1 , 97 Taimanov Var. 58, 98
Nimzowitsch Defence 1 48 Other lines 1 1 8, 123
Philidor Defence 1 22 Sokolsky Opening 20
Pirc-Ufimtsev 84, 1 03, 1 09, 125 Two Knights Def. 50

Index by E CO codes
AOO 20 B42 118 C6 1 18 D39 51
A06 42 B47 58 C73 38, 45 D43 1 04
Al9 75 B49 98 C75 35 D44 111
A2 1 14 B76 1 49 C78 83 D48 89
A22 1 40 B77 97 C80 1 40 D49 1 30
A28 12 B80 21 C82 27 D59 19
A30 92, 1 05 B88 52 C86 63 D87 30
A32 140 B89 1 47 C88 42 Ell 1 40
A4 1 91 B91 29 C90 15 El9 70
A6 1 77 B92 60 C93 75, 85 E42 97
A75 1 02 B94 82 C95 71 E58 61
A84 84 B96 . 136 C96 65 E63 1 38
BOO 148 C06 1 17 C97 57 E64 91
BO l 76 C07 1 24 C99 81 E68 1 4 1 , 1 43
B07 1 03 , 1 09 Cl7 48 DO l 84 E80 138
B08 84 C37 10 D2 1 34 E8 1 1 1 5, 1 3 7
B09 125 C4 1 1 22 D25 111 E85 136
Bl2 93 C45 69 D26 30 E99 72, 132
Bl4 23 C50 41 D30 112
Bl8 66 C51 1 1, 95 D35 131
B33 1 23 C55 50 D36 1 13
 Index of players of complete games

This index includes the main chapters and miniatures but not the tactical finishes.

Abroshin 42, 84 Kutyanin 97, 1 40 Shifman 20

Akopov 1 1 5, 1 30 Lipiridi 1 1 1 [2 games] Shishlov 98
Altshuler 57 Lutovinov 1 1 1 , 1 12 Simagin
Andreyev 7 1 , 89 Lybin 141 1 8, 60, 6 1 , 63, 66
Andrianov 1 23 Lykhin 1 32 Skotorenko 72
Arkhangelsky 1 04, 1 0 5 Malinin 1 47, 148 Sokolov 69, 70
Aronin 41 Makarov 136 Sokolsky
Aronson 95 Markauss 118 20, 30, 48, 84
Atyashev 27 Maseev 4 1 , 45 Solodovnikov 92
Bakharev 81 Mayorov 1 49 Sorokin 77
Bannik 61 Mikenas 75 Sozin 12
Barash 1 1 5, 1 1 7 , 1 25 Milyutin 57, 60 Sychyov 65
Baturinsky 77 Minakov 1 33 , 1 38, 1 49 Timko 148
Bobkov 1 40 Mishuchkov 1 12 Tsamryuk 1 05
Borisenko 34, 46, 52 Morozov 7 1 , 85 Ufimtsev
Chigorin 11 Nadezhdin 91 103, 1 09, 1 25 , 1 3 1 , 1 3 8 [2]
Demidenko 1 09 Naivelt 1 32, 1 40 Umansky 95, 97, 1 40
Dubinin 14, 29, 3 5, 66 Neishtadt 1 40 Urusov 11
Estrin 23,46,48,50,5 1 Nesis 92, 97 Vasilyev 1 40
Gilman 2 1 Omelchenko Veltmander 35, 38
Godes 1 24 75 [2], 8 1 , 82 Vinogradov 10
Golovko 45 Pchyolkin 75 Voitsekh 85
Gorenshtein 5 1 Perfiliev 19 Volchikhin 113
Grechkin 34, 84 Persits 93, 1 04 Volchok 1 1 8, 1 40
lvashin 14 Postovsky 1 02, 1 03 Volodin 1 4 1 , 1 43
Khlusevich 1 29, 1 43 Prokofiev 83 Yarkov
Kitayev 69 Pukshansky 1 02 1 30 [2 games], 1 37, 1 38
Kitaigorodsky 1 1 3 , 1 1 7 Ragozin 1 2, 30 Yarmolik 1 22
Kogan 91 Rubezov 52 Yershov 97
Koltsov 1 29 Rubinchik 1 24 Yudovich 63 , 65
Konstantinopolsky Rusakov 111 Zagorovsky, M 70
1 5 , 2 1 , 23 , 30, 42, 84 Russo 15 Zagorovsky, V 38
Kopaev 19 Sadomsky 42 [2] , 50 Zaitsev, V 84
Kopylov, I 1 22,1 23 , 1 30, 1 36 Sanakoev 58 Zavernyaev 83
Kosenkov 76 Semenyuk 9 1 [2], 9 8 Zbandutto 18
Kramar 84 Serebriisky 76 Zborovsky 1 40
Krivun 93 Shabelsky 10 Zelinsky
Kulagin 1 47 Shamkovich 29, 30 89, 1 3 1 , 1 3 3, 136 [2], 1 3 7
Kuntsevich 82 Shaposhnikov 27, 58 Zilberberg 72