CHESS Lubomir Kavalek

By Lubomir Kavalek
Monday, August 7, 2006

Imagine one particular opening novelty being discovered independently, almost at the same time, in two different parts of the world more than 40 years ago.

Was it a remarkable coincidence or an attempt to steal an idea created in the Closed Sicilian on move 3? Jeroen Bosch and his Dutch friends, preparing the fifth volume of "Secrets of Opening Surprises," were not sure and began to ask around.

They discovered that Duncan Suttles played this variation in June 1965 at the Canadian championship and thought that he was the inventor. They also found out that Michael Janata and I played the line one month later at the Student Olympiad in Sinaia, Romania.

Because news about new chess ideas was not traveling as fast as it does today, the Dutchmen assumed that we worked it out separately, but Suttles beat us by a month. We knew differently.

The Vinohrady Variation

The spiritual father of the variation was Jaromir Kubicek, a romantic player with a passion for the King's and other gambits and for various unusual openings. He was also a member of our school team, on which Janata was the leading player. Together we won several school championships in Prague. Janata became an exceptional player, sharing first place at the 1963 World Junior championship with Florin Gheorghiu of Romania.

At the 1965 Student Olympiad in Sinaia, Janata and I decided to introduce Kubicek's variation to the international scene.

We played it on the same day in the match against Sweden and it caused a huge stir in the tournament hall.

The Soviet captain, grandmaster Alexander Konstantinopolsky, later called it "the Czech Double-Punch."

We named the line "the Vinohrady variation," after a district in Prague where we went to school. Here is my game from Sinaia against Jan-Erik Westman.

Kavalek-Westman

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g4!? (Kubicek's idea. His bayonet attack can't be easily refuted and provides good opportunity for an opening surprise. The main idea is to grab space and save a tempo in the attack from the usual slow buildup with 3.g3. The disadvantage could be the weak dark squares f4 and h4, but that is not easy to exploit. For example, after 3...e5, white can play 4.Bc4!) 3...g6 4.d3 Bg7 5.Be3 d6 6.Bg2 Rb8 7.f4 e6 8.h4! (The four-pawn attack drew a lot of spectators, and they began encircling our chessboard. Black played the opening rather passively, allowing me to gain space on the kingside.) 8...Nge7 9.h5 b5 10.Qd2 Qa5 (Black plans to strike with 11...b4 and 12...d5, but white prevents it and keeps the black king in the middle.)

11.e5! dxe5 12.h6! (Forcing black to regroup.) 12...Bf8 13.Bxc5 (White needs only to exchange the dark bishops to exploit the weak dark squares.) 13...Qc7 14.Nge2 b4 15.Ne4 (Covering the dark squares is not easy for black.) 15...Nd5 16.Bxf8 Kxf8 17.fxe5 Nxe5 18.Qg5?! (Locking up the kingside with 18.g5 is better.) 18...Ba6 19.0-0 Nd7 20.Nf4! (Exchanging black's best piece.) 20...Nxf4 21.Rxf4 Ke8 22.Nf6+ Nxf6 23.Qxf6 Rf8 24.Re1! (Threatening 25.Rxe6+!) 24...Rb6 25.Rd4 Qe7 (Relatively the best. After 25...Rd6 26.Rxd6 Qxd6 27.Re4 Qe7 28.Qe5 f6 29.Qxe6 white wins.) 26.g5! Bb7 27.Bxb7 Rxb7 28.Re5 Qc7 (Westman allows a decisive combination. The queen exchange 28...Qxf6 loses fast after 29.gxf6 Rd7 30.Rxb4 Rd8 31.Rb7 Rd7 32.Reb5. Also after 28...Rd7 29.Rc4 wins.)

29.Rxe6+! fxe6 30.Qxe6+ Qe7 31.Qc8+ Kf7 32.Rf4+ Kg8 33.Rxf8+ Qxf8 34.Qxb7 Qc5+ 35.Kh1 (Black has no good checks and white threatens 34.Qg7 mate.) 35...Qd4 36.Qg7+! (Simplifying into a winning pawn endgame.) 36...Qxg7 37.hxg7 Kxg7 38.Kg2 h6 39.gxh6+ Kxh6 40.a3 a5 41.axb4 axb4 42.c4 Kg5 43.c5 Black resigned.

Kubicek played the variation in the late 1950s and has a 1958 game on the record. He always maintained that it could be tried in serious tournaments.

I was finally convinced after our consultation game against Vlastimil Jansa, who later became a fine Czech grandmaster, and IM Jacek Bednarski of Poland. It was played in Prague in 1964.

Kavalek, Kubicek-

Jansa, Bednarski

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g4 e5 4.Bc4! d6 5.d3 Be7 6.h4!? Bxh4? 7.Qf3?! (We got carried away with an attractive tactical variation, but correct was 7.g5! Bxg5 8.Qh5 Be7 9.Qxf7+ Kd7 10.Qxg7 Nf6 11.Bg5 and white is better.) 7...Bf6 8.g5! Nd4 9.Qg3 Be7 10.g6! (Threatening to win with 11.Rxh7.) 10...fxg6 11.Rxh7! Rxh7 12.Qxg6+ Kd7 13.Qxh7 Nf6 14.Qxg7 Nxc2+ 15.Kd1 Nxa1 16.Bg5 (Whites have some pressure for the sacrificed material.) 16...Kc6? (After 16...Qf8! black is better.) 17.Nd5 Nxd5 18.exd5+ Kb6 19.Bxe7 Qd7 20.Qf8 a6 (After 20...Qa4+ 21.b3 Bg4+ 22.f3 Rxf8 23.bxa4 Re8! [Not 23...Bxf3+? 24.Nxf3 Rxf3 25.Bd8 mate.] 24.Bxd6 Bd7 25.Ne2 and white has a slight edge.) 21.Bxd6 Ka7 22.Bxc5+ (22.b3 is more precise.) 22...b6 23.Be3 Bb7 24.Qf6 Qc7 25.a4 a5 26.b4! Rg8 27.Nf3 axb4 28.a5 and whites later won.

Solution to today's study by H. Rinck (White: Kh5,Qf1; Black: Kh7,Rg6,Bg8): 1.Qf5 Kh8! 2.Qe5+! (Not 2.Qxg6? Bf7 3.Qxf7; nor 2.Kxg6? Bh7+ and black draws.) 2...Kh7 3.Qe7+ Rg7 4.Qe4+ Kh8 5.Qe5 Kh7 6.Qf5+ Kh8 7.Qf6 (Threatening 8.Kh6.) 7...Kh7 8.Qh6 mate.