Grivas Opening Laboratory - Volume 5 6155793263, 9786155793264

Citation preview

TABLE OF CONTENTS Title page Key to symbols Foreword Description

Part 1. QGD — Various Lines (D06-D08) Chapter 1. The Albin Counter-Gambit Chapter 2. The Baltic Defence Chapter 3. The Symmetrical/Austrian Defence Chapter 4. The Marshall Defence Chapter 5. Typical Middlegame Strategy Chapter 6. Endgame Technique Chapter 7. Tactical Motifs Part 2. The Chigorin Defence (D07) Chapter 1. Various Lines Chapter 2. Main Lines Chapter 3. Typical Middlegame Strategy Chapter 4. Endgame Technique Chapter 5. Tactical Motifs Part 3. The Tarrasch Defence (D34) Chapter 1. The 9...cxd4 Line Chapter 2. The 9...c4 Line Chapter 3. The 9...Be6 Line Chapter 4. Typical Middlegame Strategy Chapter 5. Endgame Technique Chapter 6. Tactical Motifs Part 4. The Semi-Tarrasch Defence (D41) 2

Chapter 1. Various Lines Chapter 2. Main Lines Chapter 3. Typical Middlegame Strategy Chapter 4. Endgame Technique Chapter 5. Tactical Motifs

Bibliography Curriculum Vitae

3

Efstratios Grivas

Grivas opening laboratory Volume 5

Cover designer Piotr Pielach

Typesetting i-Press ‹www.i-press.pl›

First edition 2020 by Chess Evolution

Grivas Opening Laboratory. Volume 5 Copyright © 2020 Chess Evolution

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher.

ISBN 978-615-5793-26-4

4

All sales or enquiries should be directed to Chess Evolution 2040 Budaors, Templom ter 19, Magyarorszag

e-mail: [email protected] website: www.chess-evolution.com

Printed in Hungary

5

KEY TO SYMBOLS = Equality or equal chances ²

White has a slight advantage

³

Black has a slight advantage

± White is better µ Black is better +– White has a decisive advantage –+ Black has a decisive advantage ∞ unclear © with compensation „ with counterplay ƒ with initiative ‚ with an attack … with the idea ™ only move N novelty !

a good move

!! an excellent move ?

a weak move

?? a blunder !? an interesting move ?! a dubious move + check #

mate

6

FOREWORD Dear Reader, The series continuing with this book is aimed at offering a full repertoire for White based on 1.d4. The idea of small opening repertoire books is not new, but here the purpose and the presentation are different. The choice of variations against each reply from Black will be mine and will be based on my long experience, having played the game for over 40 years, and also served as a professional coach for approximately 20 of those! I hope that each book in the series will come out every two months and one to three openings will be offered in each of them. Maybe not all of the choices will appeal to you, but you should understand that what is important is to learn them in depth, rather than looking for something astounding — this is simply an illusion. What I mean by this is that nowadays no opening offers all that much; what you can expect is something between a tiny bit better and slightly better, if you have done your homework! Otherwise there is no point in the Black player following it! The recommendations are geared towards posing Black unconventional problems. Your opponents will not be able to churn out lengthy, memorised variations but will need to solve problems at the board, in positions that are somewhat different in character from those normally reached in the openings under discussion. I have also selected the systems within the repertoire in such a way that they form a seamless whole and are also reachable by transpositions. I have tried to describe the suggested systems in detail, giving my assessments as clearly and responsibly as possible, and have generally aimed to provide useful guidelines as well as many new ideas and moves. Many things in chess theory, as in life, are relative and a matter of taste. Actually, there are no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ openings. There are openings that you know and understand, and openings that you do not know and do not understand. Thus, I believe that my recommended systems will offer a lot of possibilities, new ideas and practical benefits, aspects that should not be underestimated in modern chess. Among other things, I have tried to make them ‘understandable’ to you. This book series’ main purpose is to train and educate the reader in territory that is ‘unknown’ to him. We must not forget that this is a theory book series, where concrete reaction to the opponent’s moves is of primary importance. General principles and plans do merit a place in this project but, in my opinion, move-by-move consideration is most significant. Of course, it is not necessary to memorise all the variations and moves mentioned in the books — this 7

would probably be impossible. But then, you may ask, what is the reason for someone to deal with a theory book, one that he does not need to ‘memorise’ in full? The theory of ‘subconscious education’ will help us to answer this question. By playing through the moves and variations in the books, our subconscious processes and stores similar motifs, repeated moves and plans, and also ‘learns’ to avoid traps and unwelcome positions. Such proper ‘subconscious memorisation’ will, at the critical moment, enforce the correct choice upon us. Many of the opening books I have read mainly focus on the general characteristics of the opening or the variation in question, and much less so on move-by-move theory. This can lead to unresolved questions in the reader’s mind, and the danger that he will mix things up at moments when it is necessary to find one specific concrete move or sequence. The recommended repertoire is that of a Grandmaster, without omissions or hidden secrets. On the contrary, it contains a great number of new and deeply analysed suggestions, plans, novelties, new ideas, moves, etc! Let us not forget that the basic characteristics of the openings do not frequently undergo radical changes. On the other hand, the development of move-by-move theory is explosive. Every chess player stands on the shoulders of those who came before him. Every generation of good chess players learns from and builds upon the experience and creativity of the previous generations. The chess player of the year 2020 has encountered more types of positions than the chess-player of 1980 and knows the proper ways to deal with these positions. Therefore, a chess player today would have a great advantage over a chess player (even one of equal or greater talent) of 40 years ago, simply because he could play the opening with deeper understanding; this understanding is offered to him by the multitude of deeply-analysed variations. On no occasion do I underestimate the necessity and value of learning the general characteristics and plans of each opening or variation. However, I do strongly believe that move-by-move theory and its (at least) subconscious absorption are necessary in order to survive in the labyrinth of the chess openings. One question often posed by my students is whether we must simultaneously prepare two or more different systems against an opening. My personal opinion is that only professional Grandmasters can afford this luxury. All other chess players should focus on one specific system every time, so as to specialise in it and reap maximum benefit. Only if this choice eventually proves undesirable should one change his systems. As Ernest Hemingway once wrote: ‘I guess really good soldiers are really good at very little else’. The massive development of theory in all openings has clarified that White cannot hope for anything more than a slight advantage, but in some cases even this is unattainable! My recommendations are 8

purely based on a healthy approach. I must clarify that I took the liberty of changing the original move-order of many games. In this way it was possible to provide clearer coverage and guidance. Of course, the way you reach a certain position is important, but equally important is to examine how you want to proceed upon reaching it. True value comes from knowing what to keep and what to throw away. Finally, I would like to thank my ex-students GMs Antoaneta Stefanova, Alex Ipatov, Emre Can and Ion Chirila among others), for adopting the variation, at least from time to time!

Efstratios Grivas Sharjah, September 2020

9

DESCRIPTION In the fifth book of the series we continue to deal with ‘QGD’ schemes. We will start by dealing with how to face ‘Various Lines’ in the ‘QGD’. Well, these sidelines are considered to be ‘second-hand’ and rightly so! They can be good for rapid or blitz games but are rarely adopted by top, or even simply good players, with very few exceptions from time to time. There is no real point in talking about statistics, as these lines are usually played from the black side by lower-rated players, so the results strongly favour White. It must also be noted that there are plenty of possibilities to further improve the white side as well, as a lot of games are played at club level, where the white player is ‘weak’ as well! Generally, I cannot suggest these lines to any player playing Black, as they are ‘fishy’ and rarely helpful in the development of a chess player. But the truth is that the ‘Baltic Defence’ and the ‘Symmetrical/Austrian Defence’ are quite playable and need ‘special care’ and preparation to face, something I cannot say for the ‘Albin CounterGambit’ and the ‘Marshall Defence!’ The second line we will examine is the so-called ‘Chigorin Defence’, which can be quite dangerous for White, as Black seeks early piece counterplay. My proposed line scores a solid 59%, but the games in question number approximately 210, so the sample is not so big. Then we move on to the infamous ‘Tarrasch Defence’. This is an opening that enjoyed great popularity in the 80s’, mainly owing to the success of the FIDE’s 13th World Champion, Garry Kasparov. But today it seems that it has vanished from topflight play, unlike the ‘Semi-Tarrasch Defence’, which has enjoyed a great comeback. Well, Black is ready to accept an isolated pawn in return for active play, but with the help of chess engines everything seems to be kept at bay nowadays. For this reason (mainly) White (with the suggested lines) scores a healthy 59.1%, which is way above the 52% that is the general (approximate) White ‘advantage’. However, this doesn’t sound logical, as the general score across all variations sits at 51.8%, when the average expected number of white ‘superiority’ is 51.5% to 52%, but we will see why this is so. Finally, we deal with how to face the ‘Semi-Tarrasch Defence’. This is a solid system for Black, which lately has been adopted by many top-level players, unlike the ‘Tarrasch Defence’. With our proposed system to face it, White scores a very healthy 58.8%, which looks quite enticing. In this book you will find not only a concrete and well structured move-by-move presentation, but also chapters on the middlegames, endgames and tactics that are typical for this variation, which 10

together will help you to understand it better. The only two things you have to do are to buy the book (!) and study it! Note that the research on the games included is up to mid-September 2020.

Efstratios Grivas Sharjah, September 2020

11

PART 1. QGD — VARIOUS LINES (D06-D08) In the ‘Queen’s Gambit Declined’ (QGD) there are numerous sidelines, which we will examine in this chapter. After the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4

The various sidelines from this position are: Chapter 1. The Albin Counter-Gambit: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5

12

Chapter 2. The Baltic Defence: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5

Chapter 3. The Symmetrical/Austrian Defence: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5

Chapter 4. The Marshall Defence: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6

13

CHAPTER 1. THE ALBIN COUNTER-GAMBIT The ‘Albin Counter-Gambit’ is charactirised (after 1.d4 d5 2.c4) by the move 2...e5

The ‘Albin Counter-Gambit’ is an uncommon defence, where in exchange for the gambit pawn, Black has a central wedge at d4 and gets some chances for an attack. Often White will try to return the pawn at an opportune moment to gain a positional advantage. 14

In the ‘Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings’ the opening is assigned under the codes D08 and D09. HISTORICAL APPROACH Although this opening was originally played by Mattia Cavallotti against Carlo Salvioli at the Milan tournament of 1881, it takes its name from Adolf Albin, who played it against Emanuel Lasker in New York 1893. Though it is not played frequently at master level, the Russian GM Alexander Morozevich has made some successful use of it. Salvioli Carlo Cavallotti Mattia D08 Milan 08.09.1881 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.e4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.Bf4 f6 7.exf6 Nxf6 8.Bd3 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 0-0 10.0-0 Bxd2 11.Nbxd2 Ne5 12.c5 Kh8 13.Qc2 Bxf3 14.Nxf3 Nxf3+ 15.gxf3

15...Nh5 16.Kh1 Rxf3 17.Qe2 Qf6 18.e5 Qf4 19.Qe4 Qxe4 20.Bxe4 Rf4 21.Bxb7 Rb8 22.Bc6 Rxb2 23.e6 Nf6 24.e7 Rb8 25.Rab1 Rc8 26.Rb7 Rf5 27.Re1 d3 28.Rxc7 Rb8 29.e8=Q+ Nxe8 30.Rxe8+ Rxe8 31.Bxe8 d2 32.Ba4 g6 33.Kg2 Re5 34.c6 Ra5 35.Bb3 Rxa2 36.Rc8+ Kg7 37.Rg8+ Kf6 38.c7 1–0 Lasker Emanuel Albin Adolf D08 New York 16.10.1893 15

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.a3 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.gxf3 Nxe5 8.f4 Nc6 9.Bg2 Qd7 10.b4 a6 11.Bb2 Rd8 12.Nd2 Nge7 13.Nb3 Nf5 14.Qd3 Be7 15.Be4 Nd6 16.Nc5 Qc8 17.Bf3 0-0 18.Rg1 Ne8 19.Nb3 Qd7

20.0-0-0 Qd6 21.Kb1 Qxf4 22.Rg4 Qh6 23.Bxc6 bxc6 24.Rxd4 Rd6 25.c5 Re6 26.Qxa6 Qxh3 27.R4d3 Qg2 28.Nd4 Rf6 29.Re3 Bd8 30.Nc2 Rxf2 31.Rxd8 1–0 THE LASKER TRAP The black pawn at d4 is stronger than it may appear. The careless move 4.e3? can lead to the ‘Lasker Trap’. After 4...Bb4+ 5.Bd2 dxe3 6.Bxb4?, Black plays 6...exf2+ 7.Ke2 fxg1=N+! and wins. ‘The Lasker Trap’ is notable because it is rare to see an underpromotion in practical play. THE SPASSKY VARIATION In the ‘Spassky Variation’ White plays 4.e4, to take advantage of the fact that an en passant capture must be made immediately after the enemy pawn advances. So now after 4...Bb4+ 5.Bd2, the capture 5...dxe3 is no longer available to Black. STARTING OUT The main line continues 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6, when White’s suggested option is 5.Nbd2. In the ‘Albin Counter-Gambit’ Black sacrifices a pawn in order to gain more space on the board and disturb the normal development of White’s pieces. His plan is either to create quick pressure in the centre and on the kingside with ...Be6 (or ...Bg4),

16

...Qd7 and ...0-0-0, or to regain the pawn quickly with ...Nge7-g6. The good results with the ‘Albin Counter-Gambit’ achieved by Alexander Morozevich and Rustam Kasimdzhanov show that even strong GMs can face difficulties with the white pieces. The suggested system with 5.Nbd2 is a very flexible one, which doesn’t reveal White’s intentions yet. First of all he protects the pawn on c4 (in case of ...Be6) and the knight on f3 (in the case of ...Bg4). However, White’s main idea in this system is to quickly attack the pawn on d4! In fact, with 5.Nbd2, it is White who tries to create quick pressure on Black’s position and this is exactly what this system is all about — White plays very concretely against the black pawn on d4. Since White’s main plan is to play Nb3, he usually needs to play a3 in order to prevent a check from b4. Besides, the move a3 prepares b4. The ideal scenario for White is to play a3, b4, Nb3 and Bb2, after which the d4-pawn inevitably falls. Black tries to prevent this (usually by counter-attacking the pawns on c4 or e5). So, after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Nbd2

Black can opt for 5...Bb4, 5...f6, 5...Bg4, 5...Be6 and 5...Nge7. Other ‘second-hand’ lines are even worse, but anyway, as was already mentioned, this is not a sound system, but probably interesting enough if it is played in rapid or blitz games! 1.1 — 5...BB4 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Nbd2 Bb4?!

17

A dubious move which stops White’s plan, but on the other hand it gives up the bishop pair... 6.a3! Bxd2+ 7.Qxd2 White can also opt for the other capture (planning 0-0-0) with 7.Bxd2 Bg4 8.Qb3

And now: a) 8...Qc8 9.0-0-0 Nge7 10.Bg5 Nf5 11.h3 Bxf3 12.exf3 h6 13.Bd2± Marshall,F-Reggio,A Monte Carlo 1903. b) 8...Rb8 9.0-0-0 (9.Bg5 Nge7 10.0-0-0 0-0 11.e3± Marshall,F- Showalter,J Lexington 1909) 9...Nge7 10.e3± 18

c) 8...Qd7 9.h3 Bxf3 10.gxf3 Nge7 11.f4 0-0 12.0-0-0± Livaic,D-Jakovljevski,R Zagreb 2010. d) 8...Nge7 9.0-0-0 (9.h3 Bxf3 10.gxf3 Nxe5 11.f4 [11.0-0-0 Qd6 12.f4 Qc6 13.Rg1 Nxc4 14.Bg2² Smith,V-Defibaugh,J Parsippany 2007] 11...N5c6 12.0-0-0 Qc8 13.Bg2² Gomez Olivares,A-Moya Pol,A Palma de Mallorca 2012) 9...0-0 10.e3 Ng6 11.exd4 (11.Bb4 Bxf3 12.gxf3 Nxb4 13.Rxd4 Qe7 14.axb4 Nxe5 15.Be2²) 11...Nxd4 12.Qe3 c5 13.Bc3 Qe7 14.Bxd4 cxd4 15.Rxd4 Bxf3 16.gxf3 Qxe5 17.Qxe5 Nxe5 18.f4± 7...Bg4 Alternatives also fail to impress: a) 7...Be6 8.e3 (8.b3 Nge7 9.Bb2 Ng6 10.Nxd4± Dumesnil,A-Kerbaol,J Fouesnant 2004) 8...dxe3 9.Qxe3 Nge7

10.Qc3 (10.Bd3 Nf5 11.Bxf5 Bxf5 12.0-0 0-0 13.b3 Re8 14.Bb2 Qe7 15.Rfe1± Buganca,L-De Souza,A Florianopolis 2020) 10...Qd7 11.Be2 0-0-0 12.Bg5 h6 13.Rd1 Qe8 14.Rxd8+ Qxd8 15.Be3± Urkedal,F-Kocevar,T Pula 2013. b) 7...Nge7 8.b3 (8.b4 Ng6 9.Bb2 0-0 10.Nxd4± Kamrukov,A-Romanov,V Novosibirsk 2008; 8.e3 dxe3 9.Qxd8+ Nxd8 10.Bxe3 Bg4 11.Be2± Litrento,O-De Souza,L Rio de Janeiro 2002) 8...Bg4 9.Bb2 Bxf3 10.exf3 Qd7 11.0-0-0 Rd8 12.f4± Omorjan,D-Klingher,D Porec 2015. c) 7...f6 8.exf6 Nxf6 9.e3 (9.Qd3 Bg4 10.Bg5 0-0° Knaak,H-Aepfler,G Bad Sooden 2011) 9...dxe3 (9...Qe7 10.Nxd4±) 10.Qxd8+ Nxd8 11.Bxe3± 8.b4! The expansion on the queenside is even better than the modest 8.b3 Bxf3 9.gxf3 Nxe5 10.f4 Nc6 11.Bb2 Qh4 12.e3 Nf6 13.Bg2² Riordan,C-Sagalchik,G Boston 2001. 19

8...Bxf3 9.exf3 Nxe5 10.Bb2 Qe7 11.0-0-0 0-0-0 12.f4 Nc6 13.g3 f5 13...b6? weakens the queenside and the black king as well: 14.Bh3+ Kb8 15.Bg2 Qd6 16.Qd3 Nge7 17.Qf3 a6 18.Rxd4 1–0 Tsai,C-Sagalchik,O Seattle 2003. 14.b5 Nb8 15.Bh3 Nh6 16.Rhe1 Qf7 17.Qb4 a5 18.Qb3±

Fine,R-Adams,W New York 1944. White has a clear advantage due to his bishop pair and pressure on the d4-pawn. 1.2 — 5...F6 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Nbd2 f6

20

A pawn sacrifice for better development. 6.exf6 Nxf6 6...Qxf6 is the other main capture: 7.g3 Bg4 (7...Bf5 8.Bg2 0-0-0 9.0-0 g5 10.Qa4 [10.a3!? Nge7 11.Ne1±] 10...Kb8 11.Nb3± O’Hanlon,J-Euwe,M Broadstairs 1921) 8.Bg2 0-0-0 9.h3 Bh5 (9...Bf5 10.0-0 g5 11.Qa4± Teichmann,R-Mieses,J Berlin 1910) 10.0-0 d3 11.Nb3 dxe2 12.Qxe2± Garcia Gil,J-Romero Perera,E Santa Eulalia de Roncana 2010. 7.g3

21

Expansion on the queenside can wait — for now development is more important. 7...Bg4 A logical move, preparing ...0-0-0. Black has also opted for: a) 7...Be6 8.Bg2 Qd7 9.0-0 Be7 10.a3 a5 11.Ng5! (11.b3 0-0 12.Bb2 Rad8° Hrtko,V-Dzurenda,S Slovakia 1998) 11...Bf5 12.Qb3± b) 7...Bf5 8.a3 (8.Nb3?! Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ [9...Be7 10.Nc1 0-0° Kellner-Palda,K Vienna 1947] 10.Qxd2 Ne4 11.Qd1 Qe7°; 8.Bg2 Be7 9.0-0±, transposes) 8...Qd7 9.Bg2 h6 10.0-0 Be7 11.b4 Ne4 12.Nxe4 (12.Nb3 Bf6 13.Bb2± Keller Hermann, E-Ziehr,A Schwerin 1952) 12...Bxe4 13.e3± 8.Bg2 Qd7 8...Bc5?! cannot be good here: 9.0-0 0-0 10.Nb3 b6 11.Nxc5 bxc5 12.Ne1 Bd7 (12...Qe8 13.Bf4 Rc8 14.Qd2 Ne5 15.b3±) 13.Nd3± Bilow,A-Lohse,H Troisdorf 2001. 9.0-0 0-0-0

10.a3 The usual way. Not bad is 10.Qa4 Kb8 (10...Bc5 11.a3 a5 12.b4 Bd6 13.c5 Be7 14.b5 Na7 15.c6 bxc6 16.Qxa5 Bc5 17.Ne5 Qe7 18.Qa6+ Kb8 19.Nxc6+ Nxc6 1–0 Sica,M-Doval,O Villa Martelli 2015) 11.Nb3 Be7 12.Bf4± 10...d3

22

Many continuations exist here for Black, but the text seems to be the most active, playing in the centre: a) 10...Be7 11.b4 d3 12.e3 Ne5 13.Nxe5 Bxd1 14.Nxd7 Be2 15.Ne5 Bxf1 16.Bxf1 Rhf8 17.Nxd3 Ng4 18.Ne4 1–0 Spassov,L-Janachkov,A Plovdiv 2007. b) 10...Bh3 11.b4 h5 12.b5 Na5 13.Qa4 b6 (13...Bxg2 14.Kxg2 b6 15.Nb3 h4 16.Bf4±) 14.Ne5± Sinderovitch,J-Landsrath,M Koblenz 2004. c) 10...h5

11.b4 h4 (11...d3 12.h4 [12.Qa4 dxe2 13.Re1 Kb8 14.Bb2 h4° Schneiders,A-Dintheer,W Brocco 1991] 12...dxe2 13.Qxe2±) 12.b5 Ne7 13.Ne5 Qe6 14.Nxg4 Nxg4 15.Nf3! (15.Nb3 hxg3 16.hxg3 Qe5° Virovlansky,S-Beranek,J Decin 1997) 15...hxg3 16.hxg3 Qxc4 17.Bg5± 11.exd3 White should be careful; known to be bad is 11.Nb3?! h5! (11...Qf5? 12.Be3 dxe2 13.Qxe2 Ne5 14.Nbd4± Garcia Riera,J-Romero Perera,E Barcelona 2012) 12.exd3 Qxd3 13.Qxd3 Rxd3 14.Nbd2 Bc5° 11...Qxd3 11...Nd4 does not solve Black’s problems: 12.Nb3 Nxf3+ 13.Bxf3 Bxf3 14.Qxf3 Qxd3 15.Nd2 h5 16.Re1 h4 17.Qxd3 Rxd3 18.Nf1± Holowach,W-Rauch,J Canada 1945. 12.h3 Bh5 13.Qa4±

23

Fischer,J-Dintheer,W Bad Woerishofen 2003. As long as there are tactics on the board, the extra pawn shouldn’t matter too much. But still, White should stand clearly better, not only based on his extra pawn, but also because of his well-placed pieces. 1.3 — 5...BG4 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Nbd2 Bg4

The most popular choice in practice. Black’s point is that after 6.h3 he can take on f3, give a check with the bishop on b4 and then play ...Qe7, achieving normal development and regaining the pawn. But White can handle the situation...

24

6.a3

6...Qe7 Black can deviate here: a) 6...Nge7 7.h3 a1) 7...Bxf3 8.Nxf3 Ng6 9.e3! dxe3 10.Bxe3 Ngxe5 11.Nxe5 Nxe5 (11...Qxd1+ 12.Rxd1 Nxe5 13.Be2 Be7 14.0-0± Labadie,J-Grenouilloux, A France 2001) 12.Qb3! (12.Qa4+ Qd7 13.Qxd7+ Nxd7 14.Be2 Be7 [14...Bc5!²] 15.0-0-0 Nf6 16.Bf3± O’Kelly,R-Brindle,G Manchester 1970) 12...Qc8 13.Be2± a2) 7...Be6 8.Qa4 (8.b4 Ng6 9.Bb2 Be7 [9...a5 10.b5 Ncxe5 11.Nxd4! {11.Bxd4 Nxf3+ 12.Nxf3 Bxc4² Yip,M-Pusztay,B Hungary 2016} 11...Nxc4 12.Nxc4 Bxc4 13.Qc2±] 10.Rc1 0-0 11.b5 Ncxe5 12.Nxd4 Qd7 13.e3 Rad8 14.Be2± Akdag,D-Hvenekilde,J Ballerup 2008) 8...Qd7 9.b4 Ng6 10.Bb2 Ncxe5 (10...Rd8 11.b5 Ncxe5 12.Nxd4 c5 13.bxc6 Nxc6 14.N2f3 Nxd4 15.Qxd7+ Rxd7 16.Nxd4 Bxc4 17.Rc1 b5 18.e3±) 11.Qxd7+ Kxd7 12.Nxd4 Nxc4 13.Nxc4 Bxc4 14.0-0-0± Schandorff,L-Huguet Mainar,S Istanbul 2012. a3) 7...Bf5 8.Nb3 Be6 9.Nbxd4 Bxc4

25

10.b3 (10.e4 Bxf1 11.Rxf1±) 10...Bd5 11.Bb2 Nxd4 12.Nxd4 c5 13.e4!± Miroshnichenko,E-Chos,A Alushta 2009. b) 6...Qd7 7.h3 Bh5 (7...Be6 8.b4 Nge7 9.Bb2± Koen,M-Kuperman,B Netanya 1993) 8.b4 0-0-0 9.Bb2 Qe6 10.g4 Bg6 11.Qa4 h5 12.Rg1 hxg4 13.hxg4± Tishin,D-Biliy,V Ilichevsk 2003. 7.h3 Bh5 White keeps a strong advantage after 7...Bxf3 8.Nxf3 0-0-0 9.Bg5 f6 10.exf6 Nxf6 (10...gxf6 11.Bd2! Qe4 12.Qb3 Bh6 13.0-0-0±) 11.Qd3 Qe6 (11...h6 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.g3 Ne5 14.Nxe5 fxe5 15.Bg2± Dittus,J-Bayer,E Baden 2011) 12.g3 Be7 13.Bg2 h6 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.0-0 Rhe8 16.Rfe1 Kb8 17.b4± Chatalbashev,B-Jackson,J Penarth 2012.

26

8.g4 The alternatives also look strong: 8.b4 0-0-0 9.Bb2 Nxe5 10.Qb3 Bg6 11.Nxe5 Qxe5 12.g3 Qe6 13.Qf3 d3 14.e3 Qf5 15.Bg2 Qxf3 16.Nxf3 f6 17.0-0² Graf,A-Barua, D Tripoli 2004, or 8.Qa4 0-0-0 9.b4 Nxe5 10.Nxe5 Qxe5 11.Bb2 Kb8 12.g4 Bg6 13.Bg2 Nf6 14.Nf3 Qf4 15.0-0± Nielsen,PRasmussen,K Silkeborg 2008, and, finally, 8.g3 0-0-0 9.Bg2 Nxe5 10.Nxe5 Qxe5 11.Nf3 (11.f4 Qf6 12.g4+–) 11...Bxf3 12.Bxf3 d3 13.Bf4 Qd4 14.0-0± Ding,L-Lin,C Beijing 2012. 8...Bg6 9.Bg2 0-0-0 9...h5 usually transposes to lines given below: 10.g5 (10.Qb3?! 0-0-0 11.Nf1 hxg4 12.hxg4 Rxh1 13.Bxh1 Qd7° Turov,M-Galburd,Y Pardubice 2008) 10...0-0-0 11.b4 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 Qxe5 13.Bb2 Qxg5 14.Nf3 Qf4 15.Qa4 a6 16.b5 Bc5 (16...Be4 17.bxa6 bxa6 18.Qxa6+ Bb7 19.Qb5±) 17.bxa6 b6 18.a7 Kb7 19.Nd2+ 1–0 Eingorn,V-Vion,J Metz 2002. 10.0-0 h5 11.g5

27

11...Nxe5 There is no truly satisfactory move for Black here: a) 11...f6 12.exf6 gxf6 13.Nh4 Be8 14.Ne4 Qe6 15.b4± Drnovsek,G-Simacek,P Pardubice 2016. b) 11...h4 12.b4 Nxe5 (12...f6 13.exf6 gxf6 14.b5 Ne5 15.Nxe5 fxe5 16.Ne4± Ordaz Valdes,LBelakovskaia,A Berkeley 2019) 13.Nxe5 Qxe5 14.Nf3 Qe8 15.Nxd4± Bartos,J-Constantinou,P Brno 2014. 12.Nxe5 Qxe5 13.Nf3 Qe6 Black can also try: a) 13...Qc5 14.Qa4 Be4 15.b4 Bc6 16.Qc2± Margenberg,V-Kinnert,D Troisdorf 2012. b) 13...Qd6 14.Qa4 Kb8? (14...a6 15.b4±) 15.Nxd4! a6 (15...Qxd4 16.Be3+–) 16.Be3 Ne7 17.c5+– Szwier,E-Zimolzak,P Warsaw 2000. 14.Bf4±

28

Quesada Aguilera,A-Gonzalez Galvan,J Seville 2013. White has a clear advantage, based primarily on his extra pawn. In addition, he likely has better attacking chances than Black! 1.4 — 5...BE6 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Nbd2 Be6

Again Black wants to quickly develop his queenside. 6.a3 Just as in the previous lines, White takes control over the b4-square and prepares either Nb3 or b4. 29

6...Nge7 There are plenty of alternatives here for Black: a) 6...a5 7.Nb3 Bxc4 8.Nbxd4 Nxd4 (8...Qd5 9.Nxc6 Qxc6 10.Bd2±; 8...Bc5 9.Be3 Nxd4 [9...Nge7? 10.Nxc6 Qxd1+ 11.Rxd1 Bxe3 12.Nxe7+– Schlechter,C-Reggio,A Monte Carlo 1903] 10.Bxd4 Bxd4 11.Qxd4 Qxd4 12.Nxd4± Damaso,R-Cordovil,J Lisbon 2003) 9.Nxd4 Qd5 10.Bf4 00-0 11.e3 Bxf1 12.Rxf1 Qxg2 13.Qc2± b) 6...f6 7.exf6

7...Nxf6 (7...Qxf6 8.b4 d3 9.Rb1±) 8.b4 (8.g3 Qd7 9.Bg2 Be7 10.b4 a6 11.Bb2 Rd8 12.0-0± Sanz Lazaro,A-Velasco Valentin,L Valladolid 1981) 8...a6 9.Bb2± c) 6...Qd7 7.b4 Nge7 (7...0-0-0 8.Bb2 f6 9.exf6 Nxf6 10.b5 Na5 11.Qa4 b6 12.Bxd4±; 7...f6 8.exf6 Nxf6 9.Bb2 Be7 10.b5 Na5 11.Qa4 b6 12.Bxd4 0-0 13.e3± Voelker,H-Benz,A Spree 1997) 8.Bb2 (8.b5!? Na5 9.Qa4 b6 10.c5 Ng6 11.c6 Qd5 12.Nxd4±; 8.Nb3 Ng6 9.Nbxd4 Bxc4 10.Nxc6 Qxc6 11.Bb2 a5 12.Nd4 Qa6 13.b5!± Volzhin,A-Rewitz,P Aarhus 1997) 8...Ng6 9.e3! dxe3 10.fxe3± 7.Nb3 7.b4!? Ng6 8.Bb2 Qd7 (8...Ncxe5 9.Nxd4 Nxc4 10.Nxc4 Bxc4 11.Qc2±; 8...Ngxe5 9.Qa4±) 9.e3! dxe3 10.fxe3± Maybe this is the easiest approach, as in line c) above.

30

7...Bxc4 Again Black can deviate: a) 7...Nf5 8.h4! Bxc4 (8...Be7 9.Bg5±) 9.e4 Bxf1 10.Kxf1 Nfe7 11.h5± Mut Company,G-Costa Trave,J Badalona 2018. b) 7...Ng6 8.Nbxd4 Bxc4 9.Qa4 (9.Bg5 Be7 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.Qxd8+ Rxd8 12.Bd2± Mingarro Carceller,S-Uran Bermudez,O Mislata 2014) 9...Bd5

10.e4! Bxe4 11.Bb5 Qd7 (11...Bxf3 12.Nxc6! [12.gxf3 Ngxe5 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Bxc6+ Nxc6 15.Qxc6+ Ke7 16.0-0 f6 17.Qc4 Kd7 18.Bf4 Bd6 19.Rfe1 g5 20.Bxd6 cxd6 21.Qb5+ Kc7 22.Rac1# 31

1–0 Bayarmaa,B-Sarantungalag,S Arvaikheer 2012] 12...Qd1+ 13.Qxd1 Bxd1 14.Kxd1 a6 15.Ba4+–) 12.Be3 Rd8 13.0-0-0+– Von Herman,U-Krasenkow,M Baden-Baden 2007. 8.Nbxd4 Qd5 Or 8...Nxd4 9.Nxd4 Qd7 10.b3 (10.Qc2!±) 10...Ba6 11.Bb2 Ng6 12.Nf3 0-0-0 13.Qxd7+ Rxd7 14.Rd1 Rxd1+ 15.Kxd1 Bc5 16.e3 Rd8+ 17.Kc2 Bxf1 18.Rxf1± Gilbert,J-Sweetland,G Sunningdale 2007. 9.Qc2! Nxd4 10.Nxd4 Qxd4 11.e3 Qxe5 12.Bxc4± Ivanisevic,I-Khenkin,I Subotica 2008 — see Middlegame Strategy. 1.5 — 5...NGE7 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Nbd2 Nge7

Black hurries to attack the e5-pawn. In such situations White must also speed things up and be the first one to attack, aiming at the d4pawn. 6.Nb3 Now the pawn on d4 is under attack and Black must take a decision: either to protect it with 6...Nf5, or exchange it for the c4-pawn by 6...Ng6. 1.5.1 — 6...NF5

32

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Nbd2 Nge7 6.Nb3 Nf5 The black knight looks unstable on f5, but it protects the valuable d4-pawn, while after g4 by White, he always has ...Nh4. On the down side, the e5-pawn cannot be attacked efficiently.

7.e4 White has many good options here, but the text clarifies the situation and keeps the extra pawn, which although doubled, controls important central squares. 7...dxe3 Black’s hand is almost forced: a) 7...Bb4+?! 8.Bd2 Bxd2+ (8...Nh4 9.Bxb4 [9.Nfxd4±] 9...Nxf3+ 10.gxf3 Nxb4 11.Qd2 Nc6 12.00-0 Nxe5 13.f4 Nc6 14.Nxd4 Qe7 15.Nxc6 bxc6 16.Rg1 0-0 17.Qd4 f6 18.f5 a5 19.c5 a4 20.Bc4+ Kh8 21.Rg3+– Atalik,E-Muzychuk,M Kusadasi 2006) 9.Qxd2 Nh4 10.Nfxd4 Nxe5 11.0-0-0 0-0 12.f4+– b) 7...Nh4?! 8.Nfxd4! (8.Nbxd4?! Nxd4! 9.Nxd4 Bb4+°) 8...Nxe5 (8...Nxd4 9.Qxd4 Bb4+ 10.Bd2±)

33

9.c5! a5 (9...Bg4 10.Qc2 a5 11.h3±) 10.Nb5 a4 (10...Bd7 11.Bf4 f6 [11...Nhg6 12.Bxe5 Nxe5 13.Qd5±] 12.Bxe5 fxe5 13.g3 Ng6 [13...a4 14.gxh4 axb3 15.Qh5++–] 14.Qf3+–) 11.Qxd8+ Kxd8 12.N3d4 f6 (12...Bxc5 13.Bg5+ Be7 14.Bxe7+ Kxe7 15.Nxc7+–) 13.f4± 8.Qxd8+

8...Nxd8 Worse is 8...Kxd8?! 9.fxe3 Be7 (9...Bb4+ 10.Kf2 Be7 [10...Re8 11.e4±] 11.Nbd4 Bd7 12.Bd3± Jojua,D-Adnani,M Manama 2009; 9...Nfe7 10.Nbd4 g6 11.Bd2 Bg7 12.Bc3± Van Ketel,R34

Aranovitch,E Kallithea 2008; 9...Nb4 10.Kf2±) 10.Bd2 Nh4 (10...Bd7 11.0-0-0 Kc8 12.Bd3 Re8 13.Nbd4± Fier,A-Palozi,P Curitiba 2015) 11.Bc3 Bg4 12.Kf2 Re8 13.Kg3 Bxf3 14.gxf3 Nf5+ 15.Kf4 g6 16.Rd1+ Kc8 17.Bh3+– Dokutchaev,A-Niemela,A Finland 2006. 9.fxe3 Be7 Again Black is at a crossroads: a) 9...Nc6 10.Bd3 (10.Kf2 Be6 11.Bd2 0-0-0 12.Bc3 Bb4 13.Nbd4 Bxc3 14.bxc3 Na5 15.c5² Ponkratov,P-Potapov,P Sochi 2018; 10.Bd2 Be6 11.Nbd4 Bc5 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.Kf2 0-0-0 14.Re1 h5 15.Bc3 h4 16.b4 Be7 17.Be2 c5 18.b5 Rhg8 19.Rd1 Rxd1 20.Rxd1± Lenaerts,L-Atabayev,S Internet 2020)

10...Bb4+ (10...Nfe7 11.Nbd4 Bg4 12.h3 Bxf3 13.Nxf3 Ng6 14.Bxg6 hxg6 15.Ke2 0-0-0 16.b3 Nb4 17.Bb2 Nd3 18.Bd4 Nc5 19.Ng5 Rd7 20.Rhf1± Lehmann, H-Smederevac,P Beverwijk 1965) 11.Kf2 Be7 12.Bd2 Nh4 13.Bc3± Drozdovskij,Y-Bauer,C Ourense 2009. b) 9...Ne7

35

Black realises the impossibility of regaining the pawn and intends instead to blockade it on e6. This is an interesting plan, although it is clear that basically only two results are possible and Black will have to struggle: 10.Bd2 Nec6 11.Nbd4 Bd7 12.Bd3 Bb4 13.0-0-0 Bxd2+ 14.Rxd2 Nb4 15.Bb1 Ne6 16.Rhd1± Maksimenko,A-Antoniewski,R Wysowa 2007. c) 9...Bb4+ 10.Kf2 Be7 (10...0-0 11.g4 Nh6 12.h3 Kh8 13.Bd3 Ne6 14.Nbd4 a5 15.a3 Bc5 16.Bd2± Palliser,R-Bonafont,P Torquay 2009) 11.Nbd4 (11.Bd2 0-0 12.Bc3 Re8 13.Bd3 Nh4 14.Rad1± Maksimenko,A-Perez Guerra,R Lanzarote 2019) 11...0-0 12.Bd3 Nh4 13.Bc2 c6 14.Bd2 Re8 15.Bc3 a5 16.a3 a4 17.Rad1 g6 18.Kg3± De Jong,J-Docx, S Gent 2006. d) 9...g6 10.e4 (10.Bd2 Bg7 11.Kf2 Nc6 12.Bc3 0-0 13.Nbd4±) 10...Ne7 11.Bd2 Bg7 12.Bc3 Ne6 13.c5± De Gueldre,P-Henris,L Belgium 2015. 10.Bd3 The untested 10.Bd2 also looks good enough: 10...Nc6 (10...0-0 11.Bd3 Nh4 12.Kf2±; 10...Nh4 11.Kf2±) 11.Nbd4 Bc5 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.Kf2±. There is no need to develop the f1-bishop yet.

36

10...Nh4! A much better try than 10...0-0 11.0-0 Nh4 (11...c6 12.Bd2 Re8 13.Nbd4 Nh4 14.Bc3± Grischuk,ANepomniachtchi,I Internet 2018; 11...c5 12.Be4 Rb8 13.a4 Nc6 14.Bd2 Nh6 15.h3 Re8 16.Bd5± Rahman,Y-Eldesoky,H Mahalla 2015) 12.Nxh4 Bxh4 13.Nd4 a6 14.b3 Re8 15.Nf3 Be7 16.Bb2± Velikanov,I-Reprintsev,A Kolomna 2018. 11.Kf2 11.0-0 is a bit dangerous after 11...Nxf3+ 12.gxf3 Bh3! (12...Nc6 13.f4 Bh3 14.Rf3 Bg4 15.Rg3 h5 16.Bd2 Rd8 17.Be4 g6 18.Bc3± Djokic,N-Petrekanovic,M Belgrade 2015) 13.Rf2 Nc6 14.f4 0-0-0 15.Bf1 Bxf1 16.Rxf1 Rd3°

37

11...Nxf3! Wrong is 11...Nc6?! 12.Nbd4 Nb4 13.Be4 0-0 14.Bd2 Na6 15.Bc3± Barrero Garcia,C-Guerreiro,N Granada 2014. 12.gxf3 Bh4+ 13.Kg2 Nc6 14.f4 g5! A good move, seeking the initiative on the kingside. 15.Rg1 Be6 16.Nd4 0-0-0°

38

Georgiev,K-Kolev,A Kozloduy 2014. Black has compensation for the invested pawn, so White should choose the alternative continuation back on his 10th move. 1.5.2 — 6...NG6 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Nbd2 Nge7 6.Nb3 Ng6

Not really a satisfactory continuation. 7.a3 Of course there are alternative good lines here for White, but the chosen one is simple and efficient and can also arise from transpositions. 7...Ngxe5 If Black wants a more complicated position, he should go for one of the alternative lines: a) 7...Be7 8.Nbxd4 Ncxe5 9.Nxe5 (9.e4 Nxf3+ 10.Nxf3 Qxd1+ 11.Kxd1 Bd7 12.Bd3 0-0-0° FATTAaMANO-New Man Internet 2008) 9...Nxe5

39

10.Bf4 (10.e3 0-0 11.Qc2 c5 12.Nf5 g6 13.Nxe7+ Qxe7 14.Be2 Re8 15.0-0 Bf5° Lenderman,AStopa,J Las Vegas 2014) 10...Bf6 11.e3 0-0 12.Qc2 Ng6 13.Bg3 Bxd4 14.Rd1 c5 15.exd4 cxd4 16.Be2± b) 7...Bg4 8.Nbxd4 (8.h3 Bxf3 9.exf3 Ngxe5 10.f4 Ng6 11.Bd3 Qe7+ 12.Qe2 0-0-0∞ Kempinski,RPakleza,Z Ustron 2006) 8...Nxd4 9.Qxd4 Qxd4 10.Nxd4 0-0-0 11.e3 Nxe5 12.h3± c) 7...Be6 8.Nbxd4 Bxc4 9.Qa4 Bd5 10.e4 Bxe4 11.Bb5 Qd7 12.Be3 Rd8 13.0-0-0+– Von Herman,U-Krasenkow,M Baden-Baden 2007. 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Qxd4 Qxd4 10.Nxd4 Nxc4 10...c6 11.e3 Be7 12.Be2 0-0 13.0-0± Gut,L-Batozhargalov,E Bratislava 2019. 11.e4

40

Chatalbashev,B-Czakon,J Castelldefels 2006. White has the initiative thanks to the possibility of playing a quick Nb5, producing visible discomfort in his opponent’s camp. Besides, the black knight can’t find a proper square. — See Middlegame Strategy.

41

CHAPTER 2. THE BALTIC DEFENCE The ‘Baltic Defence’, also known as the ‘Grau Defence’, or the ‘Sahovic Defence’, is an opening characterised by the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5

This is an unusual variation of the ‘Queen’s Gambit Declined’. In most defences to the QGD, Black has difficulties developing his queen bishop. This opening takes a radical approach to that problem by developing the queen’s bishop outside the pawn chain before playing ...e6. However, it weakens the b7-square, and this weakness is normally enough to ensure White good play. The Baltic has not found widespread acceptance among chess masters, but some world-class players have used it including GMs Paul Keres, Alexei Shirov, Igor Rausis and Igor Miladinovic. The ECO code for the ‘Baltic Defence’ is D06. After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5 3.cxd5

42

This is our suggested continuation for White. It is a logical one, taking before Black strengthens his central position with ...e6. 2.1 — 3...? 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5 3.cxd5

3...Bxb1 Black eliminates the b1-knight, trying to secure his queen on d5, at least for some moves to come. But of course he hands over the bishop pair quite early — a fact that White will base his plans on. 43

Other continuations are: a) 3...Qxd5?! 4.Nc3 Qa5 (4...Qd8 5.e4 Bg6 6.Bc4 c6 7.Nf3 e6 8.0-0 Nf6 9.d5! exd5 10.exd5 Be7 11.Bf4 cxd5 12.Nxd5 Nxd5 13.Bxd5 Nc6 14.Re1± Saric,I-Gradiser,D Split 2009) 5.Bd2! c6 6.e4 Bg6 7.Qb3 Qb6 8.Be3 (8.Nf3 e6 9.Qxb6 axb6 10.Bd3 Nd7 11.0-0 Ngf6 12.Rfe1² Sinka,S-Grimm,N Willingen 2019) 8...Qxb3 9.axb3 e6 10.Nge2 Bb4 11.f3 Nd7 12.Nf4 Ne7 13.Bd3 h6 14.Nxg6 Nxg6 15.0-0± Tsigankov,V-Frolov,S Vladivostok 2010. b) 3...Nf6?! 4.Nc3 Nxd5 5.Qb3 b1) 5...Nb6 6.e4 Bg6 (6...Bd7 7.Nf3 e6 8.Be3 Nc6 9.Qd1 Ne7 10.Ne5 Ng6 11.Nxd7 Qxd7 12.Be2± Amtmann,F-Moreth,A Massbach 2001) 7.Nf3 e6 8.Be3 Be7 (8...Nc6 9.d5 (9.Bb5!±) 9...Na5? 10.Qb5++– Lisboa,J-Oliveira,F Itajai 2016) 9.Be2 (9.Bb5+ c6 10.Be2 N8d7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Rfd1± Laketic,G-Serrajotto,M Arvier 2018) 9...0-0 10.0-0 Nc6 11.Rad1± Castaneda,N-Arroyo Felices,J Dos Hermanas 2004. b2) 5...Nxc3 6.bxc3

6...Be4 (6...Nd7?! 7.Qxb7 e6 8.Nf3± is out of the question, but Black can opt for 6...b6 7.f3 Be6 8.Qc2 Bc4 9.Bf4 [9.e4 Bxf1 10.Kxf1 e6 11.Ne2 Be7 12.Kf2 0-0 13.Be3²] 9...e6 10.e4 Bxf1 11.Kxf1 Bd6 12.e5 Be7 13.Ne2² Jakovljevic,Z-Veljkovic,M Belgrade 2010) 7.f3 Bc6 8.e4 e6 9.Be3² Potapova,M-Kutynec,V Sochi 2018. 4.Qa4+! A nice intermediate check to secure the a2-pawn as well.

44

4...c6 4...Qd7?! is the other way to play, but without queens on the board, Black lacks counterplay: 5.Qxd7+ Nxd7 6.Rxb1 Ngf6

7.Bd2 (7.Nf3 Nxd5 8.g3 e6 9.Bg2 c6 10.0-0 a5 11.Bd2 Bb4 12.a3 Bxd2 13.Nxd2 Ke7 14.Rfe1 N7b6 15.Nb3² David,A-Miladinovic,I Marrakesh 2010) 7...Nb6 8.f3 Nfxd5 9.e4 Nf6 10.Bd3 c6 11.Ne2± Rombaldoni,D-Miladinovic,I Frascati 2005. 5.Rxb1

45

Also good is the other continuation of 5.dxc6 Nxc6 6.Rxb1 a) 6...Qxd4 7.Qxd4 Nxd4 8.e3 (8.Bd2 Rc8 9.e3 Nc6 10.Nf3 e6 11.Bb5 a6 12.Bxc6+ Rxc6 13.Ke2 Bd6 14.Rhc1 Ne7 15.Rxc6 Nxc6 16.Rc1 Kd7 17.Bc3 ½-½ Oll,L-Rausis,I Riga 1995) 8...Nc6 9.Nf3 e6 10.a3 Bd6 11.b4 Ke7 12.Bb2 Nf6

13.g3! (13.Bd3 Rhd8 14.Ke2 h6 15.Rhc1 Rac8 16.Rc2 a5 17.bxa5 Nxa5 18.Bc3 b6 19.Nd4 Kf8 20.Nb5 Be7 ½-½ Markus,R-Miladinovic,I Niksic 2016) 13...Rac8 14.Bg2 Rhd8 (14...Rhg8 15.Ke2 Nd5 16.Rbc1 f6 17.Rhd1² Doric,D-Bontempi,P Zagreb 2012; 14...a6 15.Ke2 Rc7 [15...Rhd8 16.Rbc1± Soural,J-Mufic,G Prague 2015] 16.Rhd1 Rhc8 17.Nd2 Ne5 18.f4 Ned7 19.Rdc1± Lazarev,V-Mahe,R Nantes 2012) 15.Ke2 g6 16.Rbc1 (16.Rhc1 a6 17.Bxf6+ Kxf6 18.Nd2 Ke7 19.Bxc6 Rxc6 20.Rxc6 bxc6 21.Nb3± Prakash,G-Rausis,I Mumbai 2003) 16...Nd5 17.Rhd1± Ehlvest, J-Rausis,I Riga 1995. b) 6...e5 7.Bd2 (7.Nf3 Bb4+ 8.Bd2 Bxd2+ 9.Nxd2 exd4 10.Rd1 Nf6 11.Nb3 0-0 12.Nxd4 Nxd4 13.Rxd4 Qc7 14.e3 Qc1+ 15.Qd1 Qxb2= Grivas,E-Klaric,Z Vinkovci 1989) 7...exd4 (7...Qxd4 8.Qxd4 exd4 9.g3 Bc5 10.Bg2 Nge7 11.Nh3 a5 12.Nf4² Kaunas,K-Rausis,I Riga 1995) 8.g3 (8.Nf3 Bc5 9.g3 Nge7 10.Bg2 0-0 11.b4 Bb6 12.b5 Nb8 13.0-0± Georgiev,K-Abella Vazquez,C Bergamo 2012) 8...Bc5 (8...Qd5?! 9.Nf3 a6 10.Bg2 Qb5 11.Qd1 Bb4 12.0-0 Rd8 13.Bxb4 Qxb4 14.a3± Indjic,A-Miladinovic,I Belgrade 2013) 9.Bg2 Nge7 10.Nh3 0-0 11.Nf4 Re8 12.0-0 Bb6 13.Rbc1² Markus,R-Ivanisevic,I Belgrade 2014. 5...Qxd5 6.Nf3 White’s preferred set-up is Nf3, e3 and Bd2, securing the a5-square for his queen. 6.e3 Nd7 7.Qc4 (7.Bd2!) 7...e6 8.Qxd5 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Kxd2 cxd5 11.Rc1 Ngf6 12.Bd3 Ke7 13.Rc7 Rab8 14.Nf3 Rhc8 15.Rhc1 Rxc7 16.Rxc7 Ne8 17.Rc1 ½-½ Portisch,L-Malaniuk,V Kropotkin 1995.

46

6...Nd7 Not much different is 6...Nf6 7.e3 e6 8.Be2 (8.Bd2 Be7 9.Bd3 0-0 10.0-0² Goltseva,E-Sailer,M Internet 2020) 8...Nbd7 9.Bd2! Nb6 10.Qa5 (The point of 9.Bd2!) 10...Ne4 11.Qxd5 Nxd5 12.Bc1 Bb4+ 13.Kf1 0-0 14.a3 Bd6 15.Bd3² Grivas,E-Mortel,M Dubai 2016. 7.Bd2 Ngf6 7...Nb6 8.Qa5! Nf6 9.Qxd5 Nbxd5 10.e3 e6 11.a3 Ne4 12.Bc1 Be7 (12...b5 13.Bd3 Nef6 14.e4 Nb6 15.Ne5± Granovski,A-Dichev,K Varna 2011) 13.Bd3 f5 14.Ne5 0-0 15.f3² Siebrecht,SSaiboulatov,D Belgium 2014. 8.e3 Nb6

47

9.Qa5! This is the way to slowly improve, reaching a favourable endgame with the bishop-pair. The exchange of the queens, as has already been mentioned, reduces any potential black counterplay. 9...e6 9...Ne4 simply transposes: 10.Qxd5 Nxd5 (10...cxd5?! 11.Bb5+ Kd8 12.Ba5± Smirnov,ASharankov,G Cherepovets 2001) 11.Bc1 e6 12.Bd3 Nd6 13.Bd2 f5 14.Ke2 Be7 15.Rhc1² Arbakov,V-Drill,F Wiesbaden 1994. 10.Bd3 Ne4 10...Be7 is playable as well: 11.0-0 0-0 12.Rfc1 (12.Rfd1 Rfd8 13.Be1 Nbd7 14.Qa4² Gostisa,LSemrl,M Bled 2001) 12...Qxa5 13.Bxa5 Nbd5 14.a3 Rac8 15.Kf1 Rfe8 16.Bd2 Nd7 17.e4 N5b6 18.b4² Grivas,E-Managadze,N Athens 2000. 11.Qxd5 exd5 12.Ba5 Bd6 13.Ke2²

48

Grivas,E-Managadze,N Athens 2000. White holds a slight advantage, due to his bishop pair.

49

CHAPTER 3. THE SYMMETRICAL/AUSTRIAN DEFENCE The ‘Symmetrical/Austrian Defence’ is charactirised by the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5

First described in print by Alessandro Salvio in 1604, the opening is often called the ‘Austrian Defence’ because it was studied by Austrian chess players including Hans Haberditz (1901–1957), Hans Mueller (1896–1971) and GM Ernst Grünfeld. An uncommon variation of the ‘Queen’s Gambit Declined’, it poses the purest test of the ‘QGD’ theory. The question is whether Black can equalise by simply copying White’s moves. Most opening theoreticians believe that White should gain the advantage and at best Black is playing for a draw. The antidote is sound development and common sense. White opens up the centre under favourable circumstances, because of Black’s daft, dithering development, and obtains a game with winning chances. White often replies 3.cxd5, but other moves are playable and may lead to transpositions into betterknown variations such as the ‘Queen’s Gambit Accepted’ and the ‘Tarrasch Defence’. The biggest experts in this system (with the black pieces) are the Russian GM and writer Alexei Mikhailovich Bezgodov (see his book: The Double Queen’s Gambit: A Surprise Weapon for Black — NewInChess 2016) and also the Russian GM Konstantin Landa. Lately, the Azeri GM Shakhriyar Mamedyarov added it to his repertoire, especially in rapid and blitz games! All of them have made great contribution to the theory of the system and proved that White cannot gain more than a slight advantage. 50

So, after the natural 3.cxd5

Black can now either opt for 3...Qxd5, or 3...Nf6. 3.1 — 3...QXD5 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5 3.cxd5 Qxd5

The text gives White a lead in development. 4.Nf3 cxd4 5.Nc3 51

White must try to win the tempo, as nothing is promised by 5.Qxd4 Qxd4 6.Nxd4 Bd7! 7.e4 Nc6 8.Be3 e5 9.Nb5 Rc8= Carlsen,M-Mamedyarov,S Saint Louis 2019. 5...Qa5 As several games have shown, the retreat 5...Qd8?!, cannot be recommended on account of 6.Qxd4 Bd7 (6...Qxd4 7.Nxd4 Nf6 8.Ndb5 Na6 9.g3±; 6...Nc6 7.Qxd8+ Kxd8 [7...Nxd8?! 8.Nb5 Ne6 9.Ng5+– Vera Pons,F-Zlygostev,A Dos Hermanas 2004] 8.Bf4± Karsa,L-Groszpeter,A Budapest 1980) 7.Qf4!? (7.Ne5 Nf6 8.Nxd7 Nbxd7 9.g3 e6 10.Bg2² Dittmar,P-Lucchi,L Cesenatico 2013) 7...Nc6 (7...Nf6 8.e4 e6 9.Bc4±) 8.e4 Qb8 9.Bc4 e6 10.0-0 Qxf4 11.Bxf4± 6.Nxd4 6.Qxd4 is a fair alternative with few previous games: 6...Nc6 7.Qd5

7...Qc7 (7...e6?! 8.Qxa5 Nxa5 9.Bd2 [9.g3 Bb4 10.Bg2 b6 11.0-0 Bxc3 12.bxc3 Ba6 13.Nd4 Rc8 14.Ba3° Afonasieva,A-Grachev,A Lipetsk 2017] 9...Nc4 10.Bf4 Bb4 11.e4!±; 7...Qb6 8.e4 [8.e3 Nf6 9.Qb5 Qc7 10.Be2 a6 11.Qa4 g6 12.0-0 Bg7∞ Bekhouche,E-Bassier,J Marseille 2009] 8...e6 9.Qb5²) 8.Nb5 Qb8! (8...Qb6?! 9.Be3± Videki,S-Penz,H Austria 2003) 9.Qc4 a6! (9...Nf6? 10.Ng5+–; 9...Be6? 10.Qf4+–) 10.Nbd4 Bd7 (10...Nd8!?) 11.Nxc6 Bxc6 12.Bf4² 6...Nf6 It is too early for 6...e5?! 7.Nb3 Qc7 8.Nb5! Qb6 9.e4 a6 10.Qc2 Nc6 11.Be3 Bb4+ 12.Nc3 Qc7 13.0-0-0± 7.g3

52

The immediate 7.Nb3 usually leads to transpositions, but White can opt for a different set-up: 7...Qc7 8.e4 Nc6 9.Be2 e6 10.0-0 a6 11.Be3² Ding,L-Mamedyarov,S Huaian 2016. Also interesting is 7.Bd2 e5 8.Ndb5 Qb6 (8...Na6?! 9.Rc1 Be7 10.e4 0-0 11.Bc4 Qd8 12.Be3² Kharitonov,A-Ulybin,M Cappelle-la-Grande 2014) 9.Be3 Bc5 10.Bxc5 Qxc5 11.g3 a6 12.Nd6+ Ke7 13.Nxc8+ Rxc8 14.Bg2 Nc6 15.0-0² Malin,D-Rashitov,D Email 2014.

7...e5 7...Ne4 fails to equalise: 8.Bd2 Nxd2 9.Qxd2 e6 (9...e5?! 10.Nb3 Qd8 11.Qxd8+ Kxd8 12.Bg2 Nc6 13.0-0±; 9...g6?! 10.Nb3 Qb4 11.Rd1 Bd7 12.Bg2 Bg7 13.0-0 0-0 14.Nd5+– Donchenko,AGavrilov,A Voronezh 1999) 10.Bg2 Be7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Rfd1 Qb6 13.Qe3² 8.Nb3 Qc7

53

The text leads to the main game by transposition of moves. 9.Bg2 9.Bg5 is an alternative line for White: 9...Bb4 10.Bxf6 (10.Rc1 Ne4 11.Bd2 Nxd2 [11...Bxc3 12.Bg2! Bxd2+ 13.Nxd2 Nc5 14.Nb3 Nba6 15.Nxc5 Nxc5 16.b4 Qe7 17.bxc5!? 0-0 18.0-0 Rd8 19.Qb3²] 12.Nxd2 Nc6 13.Bg2 Be6 14.a3 Bxc3 [14...Be7 15.Nd5 Bxd5 16.Bxd5 0-0 17.0-0 Rfd8 18.Bxc6 bxc6 19.Qc2²] 15.Rxc3 f5 16.Bxc6+ bxc6 17.Qc2 Bd5 18.0-0 0-0 19.Rc5²) 10...Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 gxf6 (11...Qxc3+? 12.Nd2 gxf6 13.Rc1+–) 12.Bg2! Be6 (12...Qxc3+ 13.Nd2 Nc6 14.Rc1! [14.0-0?! Bf5 15.Rc1 Qb4 16.a3² Banikas,H-Musovic,A Skopje 2018] 14...Qa5 15.Rxc6 Bh3 16.Bxh3 bxc6 17.Qc2+–)

54

13.0-0 (13.Nc5 Nd7 14.Nxe6 Qxc3+ 15.Kf1 fxe6 16.Bxb7 Rd8 17.Rc1² Savchenko,B-Bezgodov,A Pavlodar 2015) 13...Nd7 14.Qc1! h5 15.Qa3² 9...Bb4 10.Bd2 Here White has two other options: a) 10.0-0 Bxc3 11.bxc3 0-0 (11...Qxc3? 12.Ba3+–) 12.Ba3 Rd8 13.Qc2 Be6 14.c4 (14.Rfd1 Nc6 15.Nc5 Bd5 16.Bxd5 Nxd5∞ Barbosa,O-Gleizerov,E New Dehli 2012) 14...Nc6 15.Rac1 Rac8= Yilmaz,M- Mamedyarov,S Kocaeli 2015. b) 10.Qd3 0-0 (10...Bxc3+ 11.Qxc3! Qxc3+ 12.bxc3 0-0 13.Na5²) 11.Bg5 Rd8 12.Qf3 Bxc3+ 13.Qxc3 Nc6 (13...Qxc3+ 14.bxc3² Wang,Y-Wang,H Huaian 2016) 14.0-0 Be6 15.Rac1² Fressinet,L-Degraeve,J Belfort 2010. 10...0-0 11.0-0 Rd8 Instead of the text, Black can also opt for 11...Nc6, when White should play 12.Qc1! (a key move) 12...h6 (12...Bg4 13.Bg5 Bxc3 14.Qxc3 Bxe2 15.Rfe1 Bg4 16.Bxc6 Qxc6 17.Qxc6 bxc6 18.Rxe5 Nd5 19.Re4 Bf3 20.Rc4²) 13.Ne4 Be7 14.Nxf6+ Bxf6 15.Na5 Bd7 16.Nxc6 Bxc6 17.Bxc6 bxc6 (17...Qxc6 18.Qxc6 bxc6²) 18.Qc2²

55

12.Qc1! The same idea... 12...Be6 12...Qe7 13.a3 Bxc3 14.Bxc3 Nc6 15.Na5 Nd4 16.Bxd4 Rxd4 17.Qe3², or 12...Nc6 13.Bg5 Be7 (13...Be6?! 14.Ne4 Be7 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Nxf6+ gxf6 17.Qh6±) 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.Nd5 Qd6 16.Rd1² 13.Ne4! A suggested novelty by M. Notkin over the previously seen: a) 13.Bg5 Nbd7 (13...Bxc3?! 14.Qxc3 Qxc3 15.bxc3 Nbd7 16.Bxb7 Rab8 17.Na5± Flear,GDegraeve,J Saint Affrique 2010) 14.Qe3 h6 15.Bxf6 Nxf6 16.Rac1 Bxc3 17.Rxc3 Qb8 18.Rc2 Bd5= b) 13.Nb5 Qxc1 14.Rfxc1 Bxd2 15.Nxd2 Nc6 16.Nb3 Bd5 17.Nc7 Rac8 18.Nxd5 Nxd5 19.a3² Vallejo Pons,F-Mamedyarov,S Doha 2016. 13...Qxc1 14.Raxc1 Bxd2 15.Nexd2²

56

White has good pressure on the queenside and thus he holds the advantage. 3.2 — 3...NF6 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5 3.cxd5 Nf6

A logical response, intending to recapture on d5 with the knight. 4.Nf3 cxd4 It is too early for 4...Nxd5?! 5.dxc5! a) 5...e6 6.e4 Nf6 7.Qxd8+ Kxd8 8.Bg5 Bxc5 (8...Ke8 9.Nbd2 Bxc5 10.Rc1 Nbd7 11.Bb5 Bb4 57

12.0-0± Kulbacki,J-Levadi,D Eastpointe 1993) 9.e5 h6 10.exf6 hxg5 11.fxg7 Rg8 12.Nxg5 Rxg7 13.h4± Chmielecka, A-Kozaczynska,A Bialystok 2009. b) 5...Nc6 6.e4 Nf6 (6...Ndb4 7.a3 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Na6 9.b4±) 7.Qxd8+ Kxd8 8.Nc3 (8.e5 Ne4 9.Be3 e6 10.Nc3 Nxc5 11.0-0-0+ Bd7 12.Bb5 Kc7 13.Rd2 a6 14.Rhd1± Bratovic,B-Stevanic,D Slovenia 2018) 8...e5 9.Be3 Ng4 10.Ng5 Nxe3 11.fxe3 Be6 12.Rd1+ Kc8 13.Nxe6 fxe6 14.Na4± Bouwmeester,H-Goncalves,J Leipzig 1960. c) 5...Qa5+ 6.Bd2 Qxc5 7.e4 Nf6 8.Nc3

8...Nc6 (8...Ng4 9.Bb5+ Nc6 10.0-0 Bd7 11.Rc1 Qh5 12.Nd5 Rc8 13.h3 Nf6 14.Rc5 Qg6 15.Nf4 Qh6 16.Ne6 Qg6 17.Ne5 Qxe4 18.Re1 Qxe1+ 19.Bxe1 fxe6 20.Qa4 1–0 Polland,D-Rosenzweig,P Boston 1938) 9.a3 (9.Be2 e5 10.Rc1 a6 11.Nd5± Ivekovic,I-Popovic,B Busevec 2008; 9.Nb5!?±) 9...Bg4 10.Be3 Qa5 11.b4 Bxf3 12.gxf3 Qe5 13.Rc1 e6 14.Qa4± Jeffries,M-Kikoyo,A Telfort 2002. 5.Qxd4 Qxd5 6.Nc3 Qxd4 7.Nxd4 White has a small advantage already, but this might soon vanish if Black manages to develop harmoniously, as the identical pawn structure will not offer much then.

58

7...a6 Covering the important b5-square and the truth is that Black cannot do without it: 7...e5?! 8.Ndb5 Na6 (8...Kd8 9.f4! a6 [9...Nc6 10.fxe5 Nxe5 11.Bf4±] 10.fxe5 Ng4 [10...axb5 11.exf6±] 11.Nd4 Bc5 12.Bf4! Bxd4 13.Rd1 Nc6 14.e3±) 9.g3! (9.Bg5 Be6 10.g3 0-0-0 [10...Bc5 11.Bg2 0-0-0 12.0-0 Kb8= Kazhgaleyev,M-Forintos,G Koszalin 1999] 11.Nxa7+ Kb8 12.Nab5 Nb4 13.Rc1 Nxa2 14.Nxa2 Bxa2 15.Bg2 Bb4+ 16.Nc3 h6= Buhmann,R-Nanu,C Austria 2011) 9...Bd7 (9...Be7 10.Bg2 0-0 11.0-0 Nc5 12.Be3 Bd7 13.Rfd1 Rfd8 14.Nd6± Chuchelov,V-Guilbert,J Bethune 2000) 10.Bg2 Bxb5 11.Nxb5 Bb4+

59

12.Kf1! (A suggested and strong novelty in place of 12.Nc3?! Bxc3+ 13.bxc3 Nc5 14.Be3 Rc8 15.00 b6 16.c4 Ke7 17.Rfd1 Rhd8= Kryakvin,D-Bezgodov,A Cheliabinsk 2019) 12...0-0-0 13.Bg5 Kb8 14.Bxf6! (14.a3 Be7 15.b4 h6 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.Rc1 Be7 18.Be4 g6 19.Kg2 f5 20.Bd3²) 14...gxf6 15.a3 Bc5 (15...Be7 16.b4 Nc7 17.Nxc7 Kxc7 18.Be4±) 16.b4 Bb6 17.Be4! Rd2 18.e3 Nc7 19.Nxc7 Kxc7 20.Rc1+ Kd6 21.Rc3± 8.g3 e5

9.Nb3 9.Nc2 is the main alternative, when White plans to dominate the d5-square by means of Bg5 and Ne3. But Black has few troubles to solve: 9...Bd7 (9...Nc6!? 10.Bg2 Be6 11.Bg5 (11.0-0 Rc8 12.Be3 Be7 13.Rfc1 0-0 14.Na4 Nd5= Levenfish,G — Lasker,E Moscow 1936) 11...0-0-0 12.0-0 Be7= Kosic,D-Englert,F Budapest 2015) 10.Bg2 Bc6 11.0-0 Bxg2 12.Kxg2

60

a) 12...Nc6? 13.Bg5 Be7 (13...Nd7 14.Rfd1 Rc8 15.Rac1 f6 16.Be3² Zhou,J-Fang,Y China 2017) 14.Rfd1 (14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.Nd5 0-0-0 16.Rfd1 Be7 17.Nce3² Melkumyan,H-Landa,K Minsk 2015) 14...Rd8 15.Bxf6 Rxd1 16.Rxd1 Bxf6 17.Ne3 0-0 18.Rd7± Kasparov,G-Casares,F Galicia 1991. b) 12...h6!

13.Rd1 Nc6 14.Be3 Be7 15.Bb6 (15.Nd5 0-0-0 16.Nxe7+ Nxe7 17.Nb4 [17.Bc5 Rxd1 18.Rxd1 Rd8 19.Rxd8+ Kxd8 20.Kf3 g6 21.h3 Kd7 22.Bxe7 Kxe7 ½-½ Heim,S-Westerinen,H Oslo 1999] 17...Rxd1 18.Rxd1 Rd8 19.Rxd8+ Kxd8= Lipinsky,M-Zaitsev,M Neustadt an der Weinstrasse 2019; 15.Ne1 Bb4 16.Nd5 Nxd5 17.Rxd5 Rd8 ½-½ Murdzia,P-Zaitsev,M Germany 2008) 15...0-0 16.Ne3 Bd8

61

17.Nc4 (17.Bc5 Be7 18.Bxe7 Nxe7 19.Nc4 Nc6 20.Rd6 Rfd8 21.Rad1 Rxd6 22.Rxd6 Kf8=) 17...Bxb6 18.Nxb6 Rad8 19.Ncd5 Nxd5 20.Nxd5 f5= Daamen,F-Farkas,R Budapest 2010. c) 12...Nbd7? 13.Rd1 Rc8 14.Bg5 (14.Ne3 Bc5 15.Ned5 Bd4 16.Be3 Bxc3 17.Nxc3 Ke7 18.Rd2 Rc6 19.Rad1² Portisch,L-Sosonko,G Wijk aan Zee 1978) 14...Bc5 15.Ne3 (15.Rac1 h6 16.Bxf6 Nxf6 17.Na4 0-0 18.Nxc5 Rxc5 19.Ne3 Rxc1 20.Rxc1² Cyborowski,L-Landa,K Germany 2015) 15...0-0 16.Ned5 Nxd5 17.Nxd5 f6 18.Be3 Rfe8 19.Rac1± Sasikiran,K-Breutigam,M Berlin 2015. 9...Bd7! For 9...Nc6?! see the analysed game Reti,R-Grau,R London 1927. 10.Bg2 Bc6 11.0-0

62

11...Bb4 Possible is the immediate 11...Bxg2 12.Kxg2 Nc6 13.Bg5 0-0-0 (13...Nd7?! 14.Nd5 Bd6 15.Nd2± Tomashevsky,E-Durarbayli,V Skopje 2015) 14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.e4 (15.Rfd1 f5 16.Rxd8+ Kxd8 17.Rd1+ Kc8 18.Nd5² Wastney,S-Levi,E Melbourne 2003; 15.Ne4 Be7 16.Rac1² Moreto Quintana,A-Chueca Forcen,A La Roda 2012) 15...Ne7 16.Rad1² Kurajica,B-Zovko,M Sibenik 2016. 12.Bg5 After 12.Bd2 Bxg2 13.Kxg2 Nc6 14.Rac1 0-0-0 15.a3 Bxc3 16.Bxc3 Rd5 17.Na5 Nxa5 18.Bxa5+ Kd7 19.b4 Ke6 20.Bb6 Rd6 21.Be3 Rhd8= Krasenkow,M-Landa,K Vlissingen 2015, Black should feel happy, but 12.Rd1 seems to be good as well: 12...Bxc3 13.bxc3 Bxg2 14.Kxg2 0-0 15.Na5 b6 (15...b5 16.Bb2 Rc8 17.c4 Nc6 18.Nxc6 Rxc6 19.cxb5 axb5 20.Bxe5 Re6 21.Bxf6 gxf6 22.Rd2±) 16.Nc4 Nbd7 17.Bg5 (17.Nd6²) 17...Rac8 18.Bxf6 Nxf6 19.Nxb6 Rxc3 20.Rac1 Ra3! (20...Rxc1?! 21.Rxc1 h5 22.Rc6 e4 23.Nc4± Brener,I-Ivanov,M Guben 2008) 21.Rd2² 12...Bxc3 12...Bxg2 is possible: 13.Kxg2 Nbd7 (13...Bxc3 14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.Rac1! Nc6 16.Rxc3² Seirawan,YZaltsman,V Reykjavik 1986) 14.Bxf6 Nxf6 15.Rac1 0-0 (15...Ke7 16.Na4 Rac8 17.Nb6 Rxc1 18.Rxc1 Rb8 19.f4! exf4 20.gxf4² Bischoff,K-Dragomarezkij,E Krumbach 1991) 16.Na4 (16.a3 Be7 17.Na5 Rab8 18.Nc4 Rfe8 19.Rfd1 b5 20.Nxe5 Bxa3 21.Nd3 Bf8 22.e3 a5=) 16...b5 17.Nac5 (17.Nb6 Rab8 18.Rc6 Rfd8 19.Rfc1 h6=) 17...Rfd8 18.Rfd1 Rxd1 19.Rxd1 Kf8 20.a3 Bxc5 21.Nxc5 Ke7 22.f4 exf4 23.gxf4 Rc8 24.b4² 13.Bxf6 gxf6 63

Worse is 13...Bxb2?! 14.Bxg7 Rg8 15.Rab1 Rxg7 16.Rxb2 Bxg2 17.Kxg2± O’Kelly de Galway,AKaraklajic,N Belgrade 1952. 14.bxc3 Bxg2 15.Kxg2 White seems to have the better chances on the kingside but the ‘worst of things’ on the queenside, due to the pawn structures. But the reality is rather different...

15...Ke7! The text seems to be a better try than 15...Nd7?! 16.Na5! (16.Rfd1 Ke7 [16...Rc8 17.Rd6 Ke7 18.Rad1 Rc7 19.c4² Arduman,C-Zaitsev,M Dortmund 2007] 17.Na5 Nc5 18.Rd5 Rac8 19.Rb1 Rhd8 20.c4 Rc7= Vitiugov, N-Mamedyarov, S Khanty-Mansiysk 2013; 16.Rab1 Rc8 17.Nd2 b6 18.Ne4 Rc6 19.Rfd1 Ke7= Banusz,T-Szabo,B Hungary 2016) 16...Ke7 (16...b6 17.Nc6 Rc8 18.Nb4±) 17.Nxb7 Rab8 18.Rab1 Rhc8 19.Rb3± Markowski,T-Heberla,B Warsaw 2014. 16.Na5! A suggested novelty over 16.Rab1, which offers nothing after 16...b6 17.Nd2 Nd7 18.Nc4 b5 19.Ne3 Nb6 20.Nf5+ Ke6 21.e4 Rac8 22.Ng7+ Ke7 23.Nf5+ Ke6 24.Ng7+ Ke7 ½-½ Navalgund,NYilmazyerli,M Lienz 2017. 16...b5

64

17.a4! White can press with 17.Rfb1 but Black should defend after 17...Rc8 18.a4 bxa4 (18...Rxc3? 19.axb5 axb5 20.Nc6++–) 19.c4 Nc6 20.Rb7+ Kf8 21.Nxc6 Rxc6 22.Rxa4 Kg7 23.e3² 17...bxa4 Black should be very careful, as 17...Rc8?! is not helpful: 18.axb5 axb5 19.Rfb1 Kf8 (19...Rxc3? 20.Nc6++–) 20.Ra3 Rc5 (20...Nd7 21.Rxb5 Nc5 22.Nc4 Rxa3 23.Nxa3±) 21.Nb7! Rxa3 22.Nxc5 Rxc3 23.Rxb5 Nc6 24.Ne4 Rc2 25.Nxf6 Rxe2 26.Nxh7+ Kg7 27.Ng5± 18.Rxa4 Rc8 19.Nc4 Nd7 20.Ne3² White has the initiative, as he can put pressure on Black’s weak pawn structure by means of Rh4, Nd5, Rfa1 and f4.

65

CHAPTER 4. THE MARSHALL DEFENCE The ‘Marshall Defence’ is an opening that is characterised by the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6?!

It is accepted as a fairly dubious variation of the ‘Queen’s Gambit Declined’. HISTORICAL APPROACH The line was played fairly early in chess history: Simonson Gustave Roberts S. D06 New York 1883 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.e4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Nf3 0-0 8.Bd3 Nc6 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.e5 Be7 11.h4 f5 12.exf6 Bxf6

66

13.Bxh7+? Kxh7 14.Ng5+ Bxg5 15.hxg5+ Kg8 16.Qh5 Qxd4 17.Qh7+ Kf7 18.Rh4 Qe5+ 19.Ne4 Ke7 20.0-0-0 Nd4 21.Nc3 c5 22.Re4 Qxg5+ 23.f4 Qxg2 24.Nd5+ Kf7 25.Ne3 Qg6 26.Qh1 Ne2+ 27.Kc2 Ng3 28.f5 exf5 29.Re7+ Kxe7 30.Qh4+ Kf7 31.Nd5 f4+ 32.Rd3 Re8 33.Qxf4+ Nf5 34.Nc7 Re4 35.Qxe4 Nd4+ 36.Rxd4 Qxe4+ 37.Rxe4 Bf5 0–1 But it became better known when it was played by Frank Marshall in the 1920s, although he gave it up after losing with the opening variation to Alexander Alekhine at Baden-Baden in 1925: Alekhine Alexander Marshall Frank James D06 Baden-Baden 1925 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.e4 Nf6 5.Bd3 e5 6.dxe5 Ng4 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Bg5 Be7 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nc3 Ncxe5 11.Nxe5 Qxe5 12.h3 Nf6 13.Qd2 Bd7 14.Qe3 Bc6 15.0-0-0 0-0 16.f4 Qe6

67

17.e5 Rfe8 18.Rhe1 Rad8 19.f5 Qe7 20.Qg5 Nd5 21.f6 Qf8 22.Bc4 Nxc3 23.Rxd8 Rxd8 24.fxg7 Nxa2+ 25.Kb1 Qe8 26.e6 Be4+ 27.Ka1 f5 28.e7+ Rd5 29.Qf6 Qf7 30.e8=Q+ 1–0 The defence is no longer used by strong and experienced players and rightly so! 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cxd5 The most natural continuation for White.

68

Now Black has a choice between 3...c6, 3...Qxd5 and 3...Nxd5. 4.1 — 3... 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cxd5

3...Nxd5 Barring the text, Black has also tried: a) 3...Qxd5 4.Nc3 a1) 4...Qd8 doesn’t really make too much difference: 5.Nf3 e6 (5...Nbd7 6.e4 e6 7.Bd3 Be7 8.0-0 a6 9.Re1 b6 10.e5 Nd5 11.Nxd5 exd5 12.Qc2± Kasparov,G-Scamps,R Besancon 1999; 5...c6 6.e4 Bg4 7.Be2 e6 8.0-0 Be7 9.h3 Bxf3 10.Bxf3 Nbd7 11.Bf4 Nb6 12.a4 0-0 13.a5 Nbd7 14.Qb3± Hoffman,A-Escamilla,V Seville 1994; 5...Bf5 6.Qb3 (6.Nh4 Qd7 7.Nxf5 Qxf5 8.f3 g6 9.e4 Qd7 10.Be3 Bg7 11.Qb3 c6 12.Bc4± Grivas,E-Pagalis,G Athens 1991) 6...b6 7.g3 Nbd7 8.Bg2 Rc8 9.00± Hoang, T-Csupor,P Paks 2008) 6.e4 c6 7.Bd3 Be7 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.Qe2 Qc7 10.Bg5 e5 11.Rac1± Kempinski,R-Bisse,V Dresden 2007. a2) 4...Qa5 5.Nf3 (5.Bd2 c6 6.e4 Qc7 7.Qc2 e6 8.Bd3 Nbd7 9.e5 Nd5 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.Bxh7 Nb6 12.Bd3 c5 13.Ne2± Koneru,H-Moaataz,A Sochi 2015) 5...Bf5 (5...Nd5 6.Bd2 Nxc3 7.Bxc3 Qd5 8.g3 Bg4 9.Bg2 Nc6 10.0-0 e6 11.Ne5 Qd6 12.Nxg4 0-0-0 13.Qb3 Nb4 14.Ne5 1–0 Khalifman, AKapp, V Puhajarve 2011) 6.Bd2 c6 7.e4 Bg6 8.e5 Nd5 9.e6 Nxc3 10.Bxc3 Qd5 11.exf7+ Bxf7 12.Bd3± Gareyev,T-Smith,J Las Vegas 2016. b) 3...c6 (An unsound gambit, but at least Black is trying to be active) 4.dxc6 Nxc6 5.Nf3 e5 6.e3 b1) 6...e4 7.Nfd2 Bd6 (7...Be6 8.Nc3 Bb4 9.a3 Qa5 10.Qc2 Rc8 11.Rb1± Martin Rodriguez,E69

Fuentes Arjona,A Madrid 2009; 7...Nb4 8.a3 Qa5 9.Nc3 Bg4 10.f3 exf3 11.gxf3 Be6 12.e4± Koopmeiners,K-Stier,A Troisdorf 2008) 8.Nc3 Bf5 (8...Qe7 9.a3± Djokic,D-Brajovic,M Serbia 2007) 9.Be2 Rc8 10.a3± Popovic,P-Brajovic,M Serbia 2011. b2) 6...exd4 7.exd4 Bd6 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Be2± Razuvajeva,J-Baranov,G St Petersburg 1998. b3) 6...Bg4 7.Be2 Now Black has a wide choice, but none of them is really helpful to his cause:

b31) 7...Bb4+ 8.Nc3 exd4 9.exd4 0-0 10.0-0 Bxf3 11.Bxf3 Nxd4 (11...Qxd4 12.Be3 Qe5 13.Nd5±) 12.Bxb7 Rb8 13.Ba6± b32) 7...e4 8.Nfd2 (8.Ne5 Bxe2 9.Qxe2 Nxe5 10.dxe5 Qa5+ 11.Bd2 Qxe5 12.Bc3 Qc5 13.0-0 Be7 14.Bd4 Qf5 15.Nc3±) 8...Bxe2 9.Qxe2 Nb4 10.Qd1 Nd3+ 11.Kf1 Nxc1 12.Qxc1 Rc8 13.Nc3 Bb4 14.Qc2± b33) 7...Bxf3 8.Bxf3 e4 9.Be2 Bd6 (9...Bb4+ 10.Nc3 Qa5 11.Bd2 0-0 12.0-0± Baumann,K- Egger,H Triesen 2007) 10.Nc3 0-0 11.0-0 a6 12.f3± Jimenez Martinez,A-Rivera Reyes,A Managua 2015. b34) 7...exd4 8.exd4 (8.Nxd4 Bxe2 9.Qxe2 Bb4+ 10.Bd2 Nxd4 11.exd4+± Short,N-Meerbach,F Ballarat 2016) 8...Bb4+ 9.Nc3 0-0 10.0-0± Marszalek,M- Skawinski,A Krakow 2008. 4.Nf3 Bf5

70

5.Nbd2 Of course, many moves here give White a very pleasant position. One of them is 5.Qb3 Nb6 (5...e6 6.Nc3 Nc6 7.e4 Nxc3 8.exf5 Nd5 9.fxe6 fxe6 10.Bd2± Danner,G-Mikenda,W Lienz 1981) 6.Nc3 e6 7.e4 Bg6 8.Be3 Be7 9.Be2 (9.h4 h6 10.Rd1 0-0 11.h5 Bh7 12.g4 Re8 13.g5 Bxg5 14.Nxg5 hxg5 15.Rg1 f6 16.d5 exd5 17.Nxd5 1–0 Piza Cortizo,D-Arias Moreiras,R Burgas 1993) 9...N8d7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Rfd1± Demuth,A-Stolniceanu,V Basel 2016. 5...Nf6 Black will in any event end up with his bishop on g6 and his knight retreating: 5...Bg6 6.Ne5 e6 7.e4 Nb6 8.Nxg6 hxg6 9.Nf3 N8d7 10.Bd3 Bb4+ 11.Bd2 Qe7 12.Rc1 Rc8 13.0-0± Serper,G-Mackenzie,D Reno 2006, or 5...Nb6 6.e4 Bg6 7.Bd3 e6 8.0-0 Be7 9.Nb3 0-0 10.Ne5± Jurcik,M-Jokic,M Rijeka 2010. 6.Qb3 Qc8 7.g3 c6 8.Bg2 Nbd7 9.0-0±

71

Andriasian,Z-Poormosavi,S Yerevan 2016. Harmonious development and a space advantage give White a good plus to build his future on. In general, in nearly all variations of this defence similar things happen, making it really undesirable for Black...

72

CHAPTER 5. TYPICAL MIDDLEGAME STRATEGY Knowing your good piece of opening theory in depth is a good start. But alone it is not enough to gain and increase a significant advantage. The knowledge of certain plans, manoeuvres, repeated motifs, etc, is an essential piece of opening knowledge, as the journey continues via what we call middlegame theory. Yes, middlegame (and endgame) theory does exist. The great difficulty in approaching it lies in the fact that it does not follow absolute and clear-cut paths, but rather involves deep research into the ideas and logic by which specific types of positions are treated. Moreover, unlike opening theory, the theory of the middlegame (and the endgame) does not change rapidly based on modern developments, and instead remains almost intact through the years. In middlegame theory we are obliged to study various or similar types of positions with specific strategic and tactical attributes, so as to understand the underlying ideas and be able to employ them ourselves in similar situations. Besides, while many chess players have studied these topics and acquired knowledge, it is the application of this knowledge in practice that helps differentiate between them. True, chess is not a simple activity, but it becomes so much more attractive when we acquire this knowledge... In view of the above, any chess player who wishes to follow a chess career or simply become a better player must refrain from the commonplace and assume a different approach. He must develop a good understanding of middlegame (and endgame) theory, so as to be able to proceed in a proper way after his chosen opening has reached its conclusion. And we must keep in mind that the most important asset is the pawn structure; this is what guides us to understand what to do in the middlegame — and even in the endgame! Chatalbashev Boris Czakon Jakub D08 Castelldefels 2006 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.a3 Nge7 6.Nbd2 Ng6 7.Nb3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Qxd4 Qxd4 10.Nxd4 Nxc4 11.e4

73

White has the initiative thanks to the possibility of quickly playing Nb5 and producing visible discomfort in his opponent’s camp. Besides, the black knight can’t find a satisfactory square. 11...Nd6 Black’s knight has no better square: a) 11...Ne5 12.Nb5 Kd8 13.f4 (13.Bf4 Bd6 14.Bg3 a6 15.Nxd6 cxd6 16.0-0-0± Riazantsev,AIljiushenok,I Jerusalem 2015) 13...Ng4 (13...Ng6 14.Be3 c6 15.Rd1+ Bd7 16.Bc4 Be7 17.Nd4 Rf8 18.Nf3±) 14.h3 Nf6 15.e5 Nd5 16.Bc4 c6 17.Bxd5 cxd5 18.Be3± b) 11...Nb6 12.Nb5 Bd6 13.Be3 Bd7 (13...Be5 14.f4 a6 15.fxe5 axb5 16.Bxb6 cxb6 17.Bxb5+ Bd7 18.Bxd7+ Kxd7 19.0-0-0+ Ke7 20.Rd6± Rahman,Y-Negm,A Mahalla 2014) 14.Nxd6+ cxd6 15.Rd1 Ke7 16.Bf4± 12.e5 Nf5 12...c5 doesn’t change much: 13.exd6 (13.Nb5?! Nxb5 14.Bxb5+ Bd7 15.Bxd7+ Kxd7 16.0-0 Re8= De Souza,R-Costa,A Fraiburgo 2013) 13...cxd4 14.Bf4± Colpe,M-Smid,M Pardubice 2019.

74

13.Nb5! Kd8 14.Bg5+ Be7 15.Rd1+ Bd7 16.Bd3 16.Bxe7+ is not the ‘best’, but still good enough: 16...Nxe7 17.Bc4 Kc8 18.0-0 Rf8 19.Nd4± Fernandez Garcia,M-Alcazar Jimenez,J Madrid 2012. 16...Bxb5 16...g6 loses to 17.Bxf5 gxf5 18.Bf4 c6 19.Nc7! Rc8 20.e6 fxe6 21.Nxe6+ Ke8 22.Ng7+ Kd8 23.00+– 17.Bxb5+ Kc8 18.h4!± Black is already busted; his rooks are not developed and not cooperating. 18...Bxg5 19.hxg5 Even better seems to be 19.Bd7+ Kb8 20.hxg5± Ne7 21.Bg4± 19...c6 20.Bc4 Re8

75

21.f4?! 21.g4! wins: 21...Rxe5+ 22.Kf1 Ne7 23.Rxh7 Kc7 24.Rxg7 Rh8 25.Kg2 Re4 26.Bxf7 Rxg4+ 27.Kf3+– 21...Ne3 22.Bxf7 Re7 23.g6! hxg6 24.Rh8+?! Although this isn’t really bad, after 24.Rd2!± instead White’s various threats would have cashed him the point sooner. 24...Kc7 25.Rxa8 Nxd1 26.Bxg6 Nxb2

76

27.Rxa7? But this is a clear blunder. White could still claim an advantage after the logical 27.Kd2 Nc4+ 28.Kd3 Nxa3 29.Rxa7 Nb5 30.Ra8± 27...Kb8! 28.Ra5 b6 The missed point — White’s rook is lost! 29.Kd2 29.Ra6 Kb7–+ 29...Nc4+ 30.Kd3 Nxa5 31.Kd4 Nb3+ 0–1 Ivanisevic Ivan Khenkin Igor D08 Subotica 2008 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Nbd2 Be6 6.a3 Nge7 7.Nb3 Bxc4 8.Nbxd4 Qd5

77

9.Qc2! A very strong move. By using tactical means, White gains the advantage. 9...Nxd4 After 9...0-0-0 10.e4 Nxd4 11.Nxd4 Qxd4 12.Bxc4± White is on the right track. 10.Nxd4 Qxd4 If 10...Ba6 then 11.Nf3!± with the threat of e4. 11.e3 Qxe5 12.Bxc4

78

White will soon complete his development, after which his bishop pair will give him a secure and stable advantage. Therefore Black tries to complicate matters. 12...Ng6 13.Bd2! Bd6 14.Bc3 Qg5 15.Bxg7! White has no reason to refrain from tactical complications. His bishops are very strong and in all variations he will remain at least a pawn up. 15...Rg8 16.Qe4+ Ne5 17.Qxb7 Ke7 18.Bxe5 Qxe5 19.g3 Rab8 20.Qf3 Rg7 21.0-0 Qxb2

Black has regained one of his lost pawns, but the position remains critical. 79

22.Qe4+ Although White wants to play it safe, also good is 22.Rad1 Qf6 23.Qc6± 22...Qe5 23.Qxe5+ Bxe5 24.Rad1 In the endgame White is actually two pawns up, as the black c-pawn is going nowhere, while his 4:2 kingside majority is unstoppable. 24...Bd6 25.Rd5 Bxa3 26.Ra1 Bd6 27.Rxa7 Rg6 28.Ra2 h6 29.Kg2 Rg5 30.Rd4 Of course White should avoid fixing Black’s pawns by the ridiculous 30.Rxg5? hxg5. Weaknesses should remain and be targeted! 30...Rb4 31.Re4+ Kf6 32.Rc2 Ra5 33.f4! Pawns must roll! 33...Ra1 34.Re8 Rab1 35.e4 R4b2 36.Rxb2 Rxb2+ 37.Kf3 Bc5 38.Re5! 38.e5+ Kg6 39.Rg8+ Kh7 40.Bxf7 Rxh2 41.Rc8+– 38...Bd4 39.Rf5+ Kg6 40.Bxf7+ Kg7 41.h4 Rc2 42.Bd5 c6 43.Be6 c5 44.Kg4 1–0 Grivas Efstratios Miladinovic Igor D06 Thessaloniki 2001 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5 3.cxd5 Bxb1 4.Qa4+ c6 5.Rxb1 Qxd5 6.Nf3 Nd7 7.Bd2 Ngf6 8.e3 e6

80

9.Rc1 9.Qc2 Ne4 10.Bc4 Qf5 11.Bd3 Ndf6 12.0-0 Bd6 13.Be1 Qd5 14.h3 (14.Nh4!? Be7 15.f3 Nd6 16.g3² Shurunov,A-Bezgodov,A Tyumen 2014; 14.Nd2? Bxh2+! 15.Kxh2 Qh5+ 16.Kg1 Ng4–+) 14...0-0 15.Nd2 Nxd2 16.Bxd2 e5 17.dxe5 Qxe5 18.g3² 9...Ne4 10.Bc4 Qd6 11.Qb3 Nb6 12.Be2

12...Nxd2

81

White was ‘threatening’ to retain the bishop pair with 13.Ba5, prompting this exchange on d2. 13.Nxd2 e5 The text looks natural, but now we have two different pawn majorities, one for each opponent. White’s majority is more flexible and therefore gives him the advantage. 13...Be7 14.0-0 0-0 15.Rfd1² 14.dxe5! The optimistic 14.Nc4?! Nxc4 15.Bxc4 Qb4+! 16.Ke2 Qxb3 17.Bxb3 exd4 18.exd4= only leads to equality and is therefore mistaken. 14...Qxe5 15.0-0 Bd6 16.Nf3 Qe7

17.Nd4! g6 18.Bf3! White has already determined his plan, which consists of a queenside minority attack. Therefore, he places his pieces in such a way that they will be able to fully cooperate in line with this strategy. 18...0-0 19.Rfd1 Rad8

82

20.a4! 20.Bxc6!? bxc6 21.Nxc6 is possible: 21...Qf6 22.Nxd8 Rxd8 23.g3² 20...Bc7? Black also loses after 20...Na8? 21.a5 a6 22.Bxc6! bxc6 23.Nxc6±, so he had to play 20...Qe5! 21.g3 Bb8! 22.Qc2 (intending b4) 22...Qa5 23.b3 Be5 24.Qc5!² with a slight advantage for White. 21.a5 Nd5 22.a6 Qe5 23.g3 Black’s queenside pawn structure is now destroyed. 23...Qf6 24.axb7 Ne7 25.Nxc6 Nxc6 26.Bxc6 Bb6 27.Bd7 1–0 Reti Richard Grau Roberto D06 London 1927 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 d5 4.cxd5 cxd4 5.Qxd4 Qxd5 6.Nc3 Qxd4 7.Nxd4 a6 8.g3 e5 9.Nb3

83

9...Nc6?! A very passive move, which doesn’t really solve Black’s opening problems. Many years after this game occurred, I happened to be a commentator on the FIDE World Rapid Championship in KhantyMansiysk and I was happy to comment on the correct approach: 9...Bd7! (Action on the long diagonal needs re-action!) Vitiugov,N-Mamedyarov,S Khanty-Mansiysk 2013 — see the relevant analysis. 10.Bg2 Bd7 11.0-0 Be7 A natural developing move, unlike the strange 11...Rb8?! 12.Bg5 Ng8 13.Rad1 f6 14.Be3+– Sorensen,H-Wium,O Copenhagen 1989. 12.Bg5! With the idea of fully occupying the d5-square, following an exchange on f6. But possible also was 12.Be3, intending Nc5 or Bc5, still with a nice advantage. 12...0-0 13.Rfd1 All White’s pieces come into play with some threat. Although the Silicon Monster considers this position to be only slightly better for White, the truth is that Black faces unsolvable problems. 13...Rfd8 The other option with 13...Be6 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 (14...gxf6 15.Nd5±) 15.Nc5± doesn’t change much — Black’s centre and queenside are very weak.

84

14.Bxf6! gxf6 The alternative 14...Bxf6 15.Nc5 Bg4 16.h3! Rxd1+ 17.Rxd1 Bc8 18.Nd7!± also looks terrible for Black. 15.Nd5 Rab8?! Allowing a standard combination. 15...Bg4 16.Kf1± was the only way to continue the fight.

16.Nc5! Kf8? Black appears to be completely shaken. a) 16...Bxc5 17.Nxf6+ Kg7 18.Nxd7 also loses the house! b) 16...Bg4 was the only chance to fight on: 17.Nxe7+ Nxe7 18.Bxb7 Rxd1+ 19.Rxd1 Bxe2 20.Rd2 Bb5 21.Bxa6± 17.Nxf6! A small but effective combination that wins huge material — Black resigned. A very ‘clean’ and didactic game. After his weak 9th move, Black was already in huge trouble. And he lost the game in just 17 moves, which is not that common... 1–0

85

CHAPTER 6. ENDGAME TECHNIQUE The chess player who wishes to master an opening, should not only know how to gain an advantage from it or how to increase it in the middlegame, but also finally how to convert it in the endgame. Knowledge of typical endgames with specific pawn structures is hugely important, as it helps to evaluate correctly our chances in them and to make middlegame decisions regarding choices and possibilities that are very difficult to make otherwise. The endgames that follow are characteristic of the systems we have looked at. It is not important that some of them arise via another opening or system; the important thing is to understand and master them — endgame technique is essential... Grivas Efstratios Ignatiadis Konstantinos D06 Kalavrita 1997 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5 3.cxd5 Bxb1 4.Qa4+ c6 5.Rxb1 Qxd5 6.Nf3 Nd7 7.Bd2 Ngf6 8.e3 Nb6 9.Qa5 e6 10.Bd3 Bd6 11.Qxd5 cxd5 12.Ke2 Ke7 13.Rhc1 Rhc8 14.h3 h6 15.Rxc8 Rxc8 16.Rc1 Ne4 17.Rxc8 Nxc8 18.Bc1 f5 19.Ne1 Nb6 20.Bc2 g5 21.g4 fxg4 22.hxg4 Nc4 23.Nd3 Na5 24.f3 Nf6 25.Bd2 Nc6 26.Ba4 Nd7 27.Bc3 a6 28.Bxc6 bxc6 29.Bb4 Bxb4 30.Nxb4 Nb8

White’s pawn structure is better (two islands against three, Black’s isolated a-pawn and backward c6and e6-pawns), and his knight has strong squares at its disposal (c5 and e5). Thus, White is obviously better, but must work hard to convert his advantage. 31.f4! Kd6 86

Black cannot play 31...gxf4? 32.exf4, as this will give White the additional option of creating an outside passed pawn whenever necessary (with g5). 32.Nd3 Nd7 33.b4! An important move (fixing Black’s weaknesses on a6 and c6), preventing any relevant freeing moves. 33...Ke7 34.a4 Kf6 35.Kf3 Kg6 36.a5! Black is now doomed to passivity, while White can continue to constantly improve his position. The main plan is the penetration of the king to the kingside. 36...Kf6 37.Nb2 Ke7 38.Na4 Kd6 39.Nc5!

39...Nxc5? Although Black’s position is no longer defensible, he should have preferred 39...Nb8. White can win with the help of the triangulation method (knight endings are pawn endings in a ‘sort of’ way!): 40.Kg3! (40.e4? dxe4+ 41.Kxe4 gxf4 42.Kxf4 Kd5!=) 40...Ke7 41.Kf2! (41.fxg5? hxg5 42.e4 Kd6 [42...dxe4 43.Nxe4±] 43.e5+ Ke7 44.Kf3 Kf7 45.Ke3 Ke7 46.Kd3 Kf7 47.Kc3 Ke7 48.Kb3 Kf7 49.Ka3! Ke7 50.Ka4 Kf7 51.Nxa6 Nxa6 52.b5

87

52...Nc7! [52...cxb5+? 53.Kxb5 Nb8 54.Kb6! Ke8 55.Kb7 Nd7 56.a6+–, or 52...Nb8? 53.a6! cxb5+ 54.Kxb5 Nxa6 55.Kxa6 Ke7 56.Kb6+–] 53.bxc6 Ke7 54.Kb4 Kd8 55.Kc5 Kc8 56.Kd6 Kd8! 57.a6 Nxa6 58.Kxe6 Kc7 59.Kxd5 Nb4+ 60.Ke6 Kxc6=, with a draw) 41...Kd6 42.Kf3 Ke7 43.e4 dxe4+ (otherwise e5 and f5) 44.Kxe4 gxf4 (44...Kd6 45.f5! exf5+ 46.gxf5! Ke7 [46...h5 47.f6 g4 48.Kf4 Nd7 49.Nxd7 Kxd7 50.d5 cxd5 51.b5+–] 47.Ke5! h5 48.f6+ Kf7 49.Ne4 Nd7+ 50.Kd6 Nxf6 51.Nxg5+ Kg6 52.Nh3 Nd5 53.b5+–) 45.Kxf4 Kf6 46.Ke4 Kg5

47.Kf3! Kf6 48.Kf4+– with a straightforward win. 40.dxc5+! Ke7 41.f5! exf5 42.gxf5 h5 43.b5!

88

The two separated passed pawns secure victory. A typical pawn ending, where the breakthrough was the prominent factor. 1–0 Dautov Rustem Juergens Vera D06 Dortmund 1992 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5 3.cxd5 Bxb1 4.Qa4+ c6 5.dxc6 Nxc6 6.Rxb1 Qxd4 7.Qxd4 Nxd4 8.e3 Nc6 9.Bb5 Rc8 10.Bd2 e6 11.Rc1 Bd6 12.Bxc6+ Rxc6 13.Rxc6 bxc6 14.Nf3 Ne7 15.Ke2

White stands better due to his superior pawn structure on the queenside. 15...0-0?! As an endgame has appeared, the kings are more useful in the centre. So, better is 15...Kd7 16.Bc3 (16.Rd1²) 16...f6 17.e4 Ng6 18.Rd1 Ke7 19.g3², or 15...Nd5 16.Rc1 Kd7 17.Rc4 (17.Ng5!?) 17...Rb8 18.b3² 16.Rc1 Rb8 17.b3 Kf8 18.Rc4! The rook is active on the 4th rank, as it can exert pressure on both black queenside pawns; sometimes on the kingside as well! 18...h6 After 18...Ke8 19.Rg4 g6 20.Ng5 h5 21.Ra4 Nc8 22.h3±, White has increased his advantage. 89

19.Bc3 Rb5 20.e4 Restricting the black pieces from central squares. 20...Rc5?! The text allows a tactical shot, which works great for White. 20...g5 is a better try: 21.h3 h5 22.Bf6 g4 23.hxg4 hxg4 24.Nd4±

21.e5! Rxc4? But the text is losing. Black was forced to go for 21...Nd5! 22.Bd2 (22.exd6 Nxc3+ 23.Kd3 Rxc4 24.Kxc4 Nxa2 25.Ne5±) 22...Be7 23.Ra4± 22.exd6! Rc5 There is no salvation: 22...Rxc3 23.d7 Rc2+ 24.Kd1+–, or 22...Nd5 23.Bxg7+! Kxg7 24.bxc4+– (but not 24.d7? here in view of 24...Nf4+ 25.Kd2 Rc5²) 23.Bxg7+! Ke8 After 23...Kxg7? the white pawn promotes: 24.dxe7+– 24.dxe7

90

And White has two pieces for a rook, an advantage which should hand him the point. 24...Kxe7 24...Rc2+ doesn’t help: 25.Nd2 Rxa2 26.Bf6+– 25.Bxh6 Easier was 25.Kd3 h5 26.Bd4+– 25...Rc2+ 26.Bd2 Rxa2 27.h4! The h-pawn is rolling! 27...Rb2 Or 27...c5 28.Kd3 Rb2 29.Kc3+– 28.b4 c5 29.bxc5 a5 30.Ne5 a4 31.Nc4 Rb3

91

32.c6! e5 Black can defend no longer: 32...Kd8 33.Ba5+ Kc8 34.Nd6++– or 32...a3 33.Nxa3 Rxa3 34.Bb4++–. 33.Ba5 Rb5 34.c7 Kd7 34...Rc5 35.Bb4+– 35.c8=Q+ Black resigned in light of 35...Kxc8 36.Nd6+ Kd7 37.Nxb5+– 1–0 Nikolic Predrag Ulybin Mikhail D06 Bregenz 2016 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.Nf3 cxd4 5.Nc3 Qa5 6.Nxd4 Nf6 7.g3 e5 8.Nb3 Qc7 9.Bg2 Bb4 10.Bd2 0-0 11.0-0 Nc6 12.Rc1 Bf5 13.Qe1 Bxc3 14.Bxc3 Be4 15.Bh3 Bd5 16.Nd2 Rfe8 17.b3 Rad8 18.e4 Be6 19.Bxe6 Rxe6 20.Qe2 h6 21.Nf3 Qb6 22.Rfe1 a6 23.Kg2 Qb5 24.Qxb5 axb5 25.Re2 Ra8 26.Be1 Nd4 27.Nxd4 exd4 28.Rd1 Rxe4 29.Rxe4 Nxe4 30.Rxd4 Nc5

92

White stands better, as he has the superior minor piece (bishop vs knight in an open position) and his rook can exert pressure on the black pawn structure. 31.h4?! This seems to throw away any advantage. White had to go for 31.Bb4! b6 32.Rd5 Rxa2 33.Bxc5 bxc5 34.Rxc5 g6 35.Rxb5 h5 36.h4 Rb2. Although he has won a pawn, the position is a theoretical draw, but Black will suffer for many moves to come and he would have to be accurate. 31...Ne6?! Black missed the rather easy 31...Rxa2! 32.Rd5 Nxb3 33.Rxb5 Nc1 34.Rxb7= 32.Rd5! Rxa2 33.Rxb5

93

33...Ra7? Black could equalise by 33...Nd4! 34.Rxb7 Ra3! 35.Rb8+ Kh7 36.b4 Nf3! 37.Re8 Rb3= But now the black rook is passive and White’s bishop will be proven rather strong. 34.Bd2! Nc7 Forced, due to the threat of 35.Be3. 35.Rb6 Nd5 36.Rd6! Nf6 No real options for Black, as the alternative 36...Ne7 loses to 37.Rd8+ Kh7 38.Rd7+– 37.Bxh6 White has finally won a pawn! 37...Ra3? The only way to fight was by 37...Ra5! 38.Bg5 (38.Be3 Nd5 39.Bd2 Rb5=) 38...Ne4 39.Rb6 Nxg5 40.hxg5 Rxg5 41.Rxb7, when the black rook should hurry to get behind the extra and passed white bpawn by 41...Rc5! It looks like Black will manage to hold... 38.Bg5! Ne4 38...Rxb3 39.Bxf6 gxf6 40.Rxf6+– is a lost story... 39.Rb6 Nxg5 40.hxg5 Ra7 94

White is now not only a healthy pawn up, but his rook is also perfectly placed compared to the black one. 41.f4 Kf8 42.Kf3 Ke7 43.Ke4 Kd7 44.g6! f6 45.Rb4! Black resigned, as the threat of Ra4 cannot be stopped and the pawn ending will be an easy white win. 1–0

95

Show in Text Mode

CHAPTER 7. TACTICAL MOTIFS Tactics are the salt & pepper of chess. They crown every strategy and appear in nearly every game, so we cannot live without them! Typical tactical motifs repeat themselves, and their knowledge and understanding are an essential asset to season our opening preparation. Marshall Frank James Showalter Jackson Whipps D08 Lexington 1909 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Nbd2 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Nxf3 Qe7 8.a3 0-0-0 9.Bg5 f6 10.exf6 gxf6 11.Bf4 Qe4 12.Qd2 d3 13.Qe3 Qxc4 14.exd3 Qf7 15.Be2 Nge7 16.0-0 Nd5 17.Qd2 Rg8 18.Rac1 Nxf4 19.Qxf4 Qe6 20.Qc4 Rd5

Show/Hide Solution

21.Nd4! Qf7 22.Nxc6 bxc6 23.Bf3 Bd6 24.Rfe1 Qd7 25.Bxd5 cxd5 26.Qa6+ Kd8 27.Qxa7 Qg7 96

28.Qa8+ Kd7 29.Qxd5 1–0

O’Hanlon John Kostic Boris D09 Nice 1930 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Nbd2 Be6 6.a3 Qd7 7.g3 Nge7 8.Bg2 Ng6 9.0-0 Be7 10.b4 Rd8 11.Bb2 0-0 12.Rc1 Ngxe5 13.Nxe5 Nxe5 14.b5 c5 15.Qa4 a6 16.f4

Show/Hide Solution

16...Nxc4! 17.Nxc4 axb5 18.Ne5 bxa4 19.Nxd7 Rxd7 0–1

Graf Alexander Pirrot Dieter D06 Bad Wiessee 2014 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5 3.cxd5 Bxb1 4.Qa4+ c6 5.Rxb1 Qxd5 6.Nf3 Nd7 7.b4 e6 8.e3 Ngf6 9.Qc2 a5 10.Bc4 Qh5 11.bxa5 Qxa5+ 12.Bd2 Qa4 13.Qd3 Rd8 14.0-0 Nc5 15.Qe2 b5 97

Show/Hide Solution

16.Rxb5! 1–0

El Debs Felipe de Cresce Deus Filho Joaquim D06 Foz do Iguacu 2018 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5 3.cxd5 Bxb1 4.Qa4+ c6 5.Rxb1 Qxd5 6.Nf3 Nd7 7.e3 Qf5 8.Ra1 e5 9.Be2 Nb6 10.Qb3 exd4 11.Nxd4 Qd5 12.0-0 Qxb3 13.Nxb3 Nf6 14.Rd1 Be7 15.Na5 Rb8

98

Show/Hide Solution

16.e4! Nxe4 17.Bf4 Rd8 18.Nxb7 Rxd1+ 19.Rxd1 Nd5 20.Be5 0-0 21.Na5 Bc5 22.Bd4 Nb4 23.a3 Nc2 24.Bxc5 Nxc5 25.Nxc6 1–0

Vlatkovic Sinisa Miladinovic Igor D06 Belgrade 2013 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5 3.cxd5 Bxb1 4.Qa4+ c6 5.Rxb1 Qxd5 6.Nf3 Nd7 7.a3 Ngf6 8.e3 e6 9.b4 g5 10.Qc2 g4 11.Ne5 Bd6 12.Nxd7 Kxd7 13.h3 h5 14.b5 Rhc8 15.bxc6+ Rxc6 16.Qa4 Ke7 17.hxg4 Rac8 18.Bd2 Ne4 19.Rxh5 Qa2 20.Rd1

99

Show/Hide Solution

20...Rc1! 21.Qa5 R8c3! 22.Qg5+ Nxg5 23.Rxc1 Rxc1+ 24.Bxc1 Ne4 0–1

Portisch Lajos Bronstein David D06 Monte Carlo 1969 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5 3.cxd5 Nf6 4.e4 Nxe4 5.dxc5 Nxc5 6.Nf3 e6 7.Nc3 exd5 8.Qxd5 Qe7+ 9.Be3 Nc6 10.Bb5 Bd7 11.0-0 Ne6 12.Ne5 Nxe5 13.Qxe5 Bxb5 14.Nxb5 a6

100

Show/Hide Solution

15.Rad1! Rd8 16.Bb6 Rxd1 17.Rxd1 f6 18.Qf5 g6 19.Nc7+ Kf7 20.Qd5 1–0

Fressinet Laurent Degraeve Jean Marc D06 Belfort 2010 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.Nf3 cxd4 5.Nc3 Qa5 6.Nxd4 Nf6 7.g3 e5 8.Nb3 Qc7 9.Bg2 Bb4 10.Qd3 0-0 11.Bg5 Rd8 12.Qf3 Bxc3+ 13.Qxc3 Nc6 14.0-0 Be6 15.Rac1 Rac8 16.Bxc6 Bxb3 17.Qxb3 bxc6 18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Qf3 Rd6

101

Show/Hide Solution

20.Rc4! Kh8 21.Rfc1 Qd7 22.b4 a6 23.a4 Rb8 24.Rxc6 1–0

Atalik Suat Ozen Ali D06 Marmaris 2006 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.Nf3 e6 5.e4 Nf6 6.Nc3 c6 7.Bd3 Be7 8.Qe2 0-0 9.h4 h6 10.e5 Ne8

102

Show/Hide Solution

11.Bxh6! gxh6 12.Qe4 f5 13.exf6 Nxf6 14.Qg6+ Kh8 15.Qxh6+ Kg8 16.Rh3 Bd6 17.Ne5 Bxe5 18.dxe5 Nbd7 19.Rg3+ Ng4 20.Qh7# 1–0

103

PART 2. THE CHIGORIN DEFENCE (D07) The ‘Queen’s Gambit Declined’ — ‘Chigorin Defence’, is characterised by the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6

Slightly unknown or unusual territory for 1.d4 players. This is mostly because little attention is paid to this interesting idea of Michael Chigorin, and of course because there are many other, more important matters for the White player to contemplate.

Well, I will try to make it simple, by using some ideas borrowed from the ‘NimzoIndian Defence’. After the more-or-less natural moves 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 (otherwise White would just achieve a strong centre without any counterplay by Black) 5.Nc3 Bb4 (5...Qd8 6.d5 Nce7 7.e4 is obviously not that appealing) 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 we come to our main position:

104

It seems that White has fallen behind in development, but he has achieved some very important factors for the future: 1. He has the pair of bishops. 2. His central pawn structure is far better. 3. Black’s c-pawn will be slow to attack White’s centre. White’s plans are quite simple: He will complete his development, try to advance his central pawns, and activate his c1-bishop, mostly on the a3–f8 diagonal. He must also keep in mind that almost any endgame is most welcome. On the other hand, Black should seek complications and active piece play, but this is easier said than done. Keep in mind that White can get his usual slight advantage. Openings that lead to clear advantages simply cannot be played and the ‘Chigorin Defence’ is not one of them. HISTORICAL APPROACH It seems that the proposed system was first met quite late; in 1987, at least according to ChessBase — MegaBase. It could hardly be called a success for Black, who mixed up his tactical motifs and lost rather easily: Tiller Bjorn Dunnington Angus D07 Oslo 1987 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.e3 e5 4.cxd5 Qxd5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 exd4 8.cxd4 Nf6 9.Nf3 0-0 10.Be2 Ne4 11.Bd2 Bf5 12.0-0 Rad8 13.Qc1 Bg4 14.Rb1

105

14...Ne5? 15.Rb5 c5 16.dxe5 Nxd2 17.Rxc5 Qd7 18.Rd1 Qe7 19.Nd4 Rxd4 20.exd4 Nb3 21.Qc2 Bxe2 22.Qxb3 Bxd1 23.Qxd1 Rd8 24.Qa4 b6 25.Rc1 h6 26.h3 b5 27.Qxb5 Rxd4 28.a4 Rb4 29.Qd5 Rxa4 30.Rc8+ Kh7 31.Qd3+ g6 32.Qd5 Rf4 33.Rb8 Kg7 34.Rb7 Qg5 35.Rxa7 Rf5

36.Qd4 Rf4 37.Qe3 Kg8 38.e6 Qd5 39.exf7+ Rxf7 40.Qe8+ 1–0 STARTING OUT The system proposed against the ‘QGD’ — ‘Chigorin Defence’, commences with the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 106

From here Black can choose between 7...Na5, 7...Nge7, 7...Qd6, 7...exd4 and 7...Nf6. The latter is by far the most ‘active’ move, although the previous options cannot be underestimated. My proposal is 8.Ne2, which is strongly reminiscent of ‘NimzoIndian Defence’ pawn and piece structures. Now Black should avoid the over-ambitious 8...h5?! 9.c4! and try instead 8...0-0 9.c4 Qd6 10.d5 Ne7 11.Nc3

107

This is the critical position, where not many games have been played. Black should try to destroy White’s centre, and as quickly as possible.

CHAPTER 1. VARIOUS LINES 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3

If Black doesn’t feel like giving up the bishop pair, he can opt for some passive lines, losing at least a tempo, as his queen will have to move again. So, his options are 4...Bf5, 4...e6 and 4...Nf6. 1.1 — 4...? 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 a) 4...Bf5?!

108

5.Nc3 Qa5 5...Qd8 6.d5 Nb8 7.Qb3 Qc8 8.e4 Bd7 9.Nf3 a6 10.Bf4± Wanyama,H-Mugabe,I Kampala 2017; 5...Qd7 6.d5 Nb8 (6...Ne5 7.e4 Bg4 8.Qb3 0-0-0 9.h3 Bh5 10.f4± Andrews,T-Neumann,F Dos Hermanas 2003) 7.e4 Bg6 8.Nf3 f6 9.Nd4± Van Schyndel,A-Schmidt,W Leverkusen 2012. 6.Bd2 e5 7.d5 Nb4 8.e4 Bd7 9.Nf3± Gallardo Retortillo,E-Aguado Solana,J Spain 2008. b) 4...e6

109

5.Nc3 5.a3 Nf6 6.Nc3 Qd8 7.Nf3 Be7 8.Bd3 0-0 9.0-0 Re8 10.b4± Hajenius,W-Fleuch,H Dresden 2013. 5...Bb4 5...Qd8 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.Bb5 Bd7 8.0-0± Wiewiorkowski,D-Orzechowski,M Karvina 2014. 6.Bd2 Bxc3 7.bxc3 Nf6 8.f3!±

Solomons,D-Brustkern,J Budapest 2004. c) 4...Nf6 This is probably Black’s 2nd best move after 4...e5. 5.Nc3

110

5...Qa5 A better try than 5...Qd6 6.d5! (6.Bb5 e6 7.e4 Qb4 8.a3 Qa5 9.d5 exd5 10.exd5 Ne4 11.Qe2 f5 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.Bxc6+ Kd8 14.Bd2 Nxd2 15.Qe8# 1–0 Uckuronis,A-Jarusaitis,M Kaunas 2017) 6...Ne5 7.e4 Ned7 8.Nf3± 6.Bd2 e5!

The best way to seek counterplay, as alternatives fail to satisfy: 6...e6?! 7.Nf3 a6 8.Bc4± Franco Alonso,A-Bueno Abalo,M Torrelavega 2002, or 6...Qh5?! 7.Qxh5 Nxh5 8.Nb5 Kd8 9.d5± 111

Yurenok,M-Lunn,A England 2012, or, finally, 6...Bg4 7.f3 Bh5 8.e4! (8.Nh3 e6 9.Nf4± Kludacz,MKaczmarek,J Lublin 2006) 8...Qb6 (8...Nxd4? 9.Nd5+–) 9.g4 Bg6 10.g5± 7.Bb5! A suggested novelty over the 7.dxe5?! Nxe5 8.f4 Nc6 9.Nf3 a6 10.a3 Bg4 of Jaeger,E-Schlag,F Naumburg 2002. 7...Bg4 7...exd4? 8.Nd5+–

8.Nd5! 8.f3?! Bd7 9.Nge2 0-0-0 8...Nxd5 8...Qxb5?! 9.Nxc7+ Kd7 10.Nxb5 Bxd1 11.Rxd1± 9.Bxa5 Bxd1 10.Rxd1 e4 11.Ne2

112

White preserves a small but lasting advantage, as the black e-pawn is weak and he can also apply pressure down the c-file.

113

CHAPTER 2. MAIN LINES 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5

The main move, as otherwise White would just achieve a strong centre with no counterplay for Black. Now, after... 5.Nc3 Bb4 5...Qa5?! 6.d5 Nce7 7.e4 Nf6 8.Bd2 Ng6 (8...Qb6 9.Rc1 a6 10.h3 Bd7 11.Nf3± Boudia,S-Richard,F Sautron 2009) 9.a3 c6 10.Bc4 Qc7 11.Rc1 Bd7 12.Qb3± Bartos,J-Baros,M Ostrava 2003. 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 We have come to the critical position, where Black has a number of moves at his disposal:

114

7...Na5, 7...Nge7, 7...Qd6, 7...exd4 and 7...Nf6. We will examine all of these in depth. 2.1 — 7...NA5 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Na5

At first sight this looks like a quite logical move, controlling the c4-square and preparing (in some cases) the ...c5 advance. But moving the same piece twice at such an early stage generally isn’t recommended. But after all it looks valid and gives White no more than his usual opening advantage. 115

8.Rb1 A suggested novelty. 8.Bd2 is less accurate: 8...exd4 (8...Be6?! 9.Qc2?! [9.Rb1 a6 10.Qa4+ Bd7 11.c4 Qe4 12.Qd1±] 9...0-0-0?! [9...exd4 10.cxd4 Nb3 11.Rb1 Nxd2 12.Qxd2 Nf6 13.Qb4 Bf5 14.Qb5+ Qxb5 15.Rxb5 Be4 16.f3 Bc6 17.Rb2∞] 10.Nf3² Wolf,M-Hofmann,K Vorra 1990) 9.cxd4 Nb3 10.Rb1 Nxd2 11.Qxd2 Nf6 12.Qb4± Also possible is 8.Nf3 exd4 (8...Nb3?! 9.Rb1 Nxc1 10.Rb5!±; 8...e4 9.Nd2 Nf6 10.c4 Qg5 11.Rb1² Kurkin,F-Golubyatnikov,M Lipetsk 2010) 9.cxd4 Nf6 (9...Nb3?! 10.Rb1 Nxc1 11.Qxc1 Qa5+ 12.Nd2±) 10.Be2 0-0 11.0-0 Bf5 12.Nd2² 8...a6 9.Nf3 exd4 Worse is 9...e4?! 10.Ne5 b5 11.c4 Nxc4 12.Nxc4 bxc4 13.Qa4+± 10.cxd4 Bf5 11.Bd3 Bxd3 12.Qxd3 Nf6 13.0-0 0-0 14.a4! White will place his bishop on a3, controlling c5, and then he will apply pressure on the queenside.

He holds a small but stable advantage, and Black will have to struggle to stay afloat. 2.2 — 7...NGE7 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Nge7

116

A flexible move, which keeps all of Black’s resources open. 8.c4 A principled move but White can also think of 8.Nf3 0-0 9.Be2 Qd6 (echoes of the 7...Qd6 option) 10.0-0 e4?! (10...Re8²; 10...Bg4²) 11.Nd2 Qg6 12.f3! (12.Kh1?! Nd5 13.Bb2 Nf6 14.c4² Thomsen,J-Nicolaisen,J Copenhagen 2001) 12...exf3 13.Bxf3 Nf5 (13...Qd3 14.Ne4 Qxd1 15.Rxd1±) 14.Be4 Nce7 15.Nc4± 8...Qd6 9.d5 Nb8 The alternative is 9...Nd8 10.a4 c5 11.e4 0-0 12.Ne2 f5 13.Nc3²

117

10.a4! The usual way for White — the c1-bishop will get to the excellent a3–f8 diagonal. White has also tried here 10.e4 Nd7 11.Ne2 Nc5 12.Nc3 0-0 13.Be3 Bd7 14.Be2 f5∞ and 10.Nf3 0-0 (10...Bg4 11.Bb2 Bxf3 12.Qxf3 Nd7 13.Bd3 0-0 14.0-0² Benidze,D-Zehnter,S Belfort 2005) 11.Bb2 Ng6 12.Be2 Nd7 13.Nd2² Zamar Kodelja,J-Petek,P Slovenia 2019. 10...Na6 A suggested novelty. 10...c5?! loses the important c5-square: 11.Ne2 Bg4 12.Qb3 Bxe2 13.Bxe2 Na6 14.Qb5+ Kf8 15.0-0± Rogozenco,D-Biolek,R Czech Republic 2013.

118

11.Ba3 Nb4 11...Nc5 12.a5 Bf5 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Nd2± is quite pleasant for White. 12.a5! Stopping an eventual ...a5 advance by Black. 12...c5 13.Nf3

White stands better, as it is very difficult for Black to create active play. He will continue Be2 119

followed by 0-0 and then Nd2, playing in the centre and on the kingside. 2.3 — 7...QD6 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Qd6

Avoiding an easy c4 and d5 White advance and keeping the tension in the centre. 8.a4 White has tried a few alternative moves here: a) 8.Nf3 a1) 8...Bg4?! 9.Be2 Rd8 (9...Bxf3 10.Bxf3 Nge7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Qc2± Szakacs,G-Nemeth,M Paks 1997) 10.0-0 Nge7 11.a4 0-0 12.Ba3± Cooke,E-Jamrich,G Budapest 1999. a2) 8...e4?! 9.Nd2 Nf6 10.a4± Simpson,R-Robinson,D Cardiff 2019. a3) 8...Nge7 9.Be2 (9.a4 e4 10.Nd2 Qg6 11.Rb1²) 9...e4 10.Nd2 Qg6 11.Bf1 0-0 12.g3 Nd5 13.Bg2 Nf6 14.Qc2² Budrewicz,J-Jagodzinski, W Poland 2011. a4) 8...Nf6 9.Be2 0-0 10.0-0 Re8 11.Bb2 Bg4

120

12.dxe5 (12.c4?! exd4 13.exd4 Nh5!∞) 12...Nxe5 (12...Qxd1? 13.Bxd1 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Rxe5 15.c4! [15.f3? Be6 16.e4 Bc4= Ramin,M-Franz,M Forchtenberg 2003] 15...Ree8 16.Bxf6 Bxd1 17.Rfxd1 gxf6 18.Rd7±) 13.c4² b) 8.d5 Nce7 9.c4 (9.e4?! Nf6 10.Qc2 Nd7 11.c4 0-0∞ Cooke,C-Farkas,D England 2011) b1) 9...e4?! 10.Ne2 f5 (10...Nf6 11.Bb2 0-0 12.Ng3 Re8 13.Be2 Nf5 14.Nxf5 Bxf5 15.g4! Bc8 16.Qd4±) 11.Nf4 Nf6 12.a4 Qe5 13.Qd4 Qxd4 14.exd4 Bd7 15.Ba3 Kf7 16.Be2² Higuero Caballero,L-Perez Pinazo,C Empuriabrava 1997. b2) 9...Nf6?! 10.a4 Nd7 11.Ba3 Nc5 12.Nf3 b6 13.Be2 0-0 14.0-0 Ng6 15.Nd2± Perk,E-Roedel,E Berlin 2010. b3) 9...c6! 10.e4 Nf6 11.f3 0-0 12.Ne2 b5!∞ Omelja,A-Razin,V Lutsk 2016. c) 8.Bd3 Nge7 (8...Nf6 9.a4 Bg4 10.Qb3 0-0-0 11.Rb1² Zechner,A-Virag,H Internet 2020) 9.Ne2 00

121

10.a4 (10.0-0 Kh8 11.Bb2 Bg4 12.f3 Bh5 13.e4² Jaeger,A-Jachym,C Berlin 2011) 10...Re8 (10...exd4 11.cxd4 Nb4 12.Ba3²) 11.Ba3 Qf6 12.0-0² Levin,F-Marzolf,B Rochefort 2004. Keep in mind that in most cases we have plenty of transpositions, but White’s ideas remain similar. 8...Nge7 8...Be6?! doesn’t really help Black: 9.Ba3 Qd7 10.Nf3 e4 11.Nd2 f5 12.Nb3 Bxb3 13.Qxb3 0-0-0 14.Rb1± Pogan,N-Loeffler,C Austria 2017. 9.Ba3

122

9...Qd5 Or 9...Qe6 10.Nf3 e4 11.Nd2 Qg6 12.Qb1! (12.Qc2 Bf5 13.g3 h5 14.h4 Nd5 15.Bg2 Nxe3!∞ Kavyev,R-Novikova,G Voronezh 2017) 12...f5 13.h4± 10.Nf3 Bg4 11.Be2

Gasanov,E-Makhnyov,D Pavlodar 2015. White stands clearly better, mainly owing to his excellentlyplaced a3-bishop and his good chances to apply pressure on the queenside. 2.4 — 7...EXD4 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 exd4

123

Black clarifies the situation in the centre, hoping for active piece play. 8.cxd4 Nf6 The text looks more natural than 8...Nge7?! 9.Nf3 0-0 (9...Bg4 10.Be2 0-0-0 11.0-0± Johansson,KAzizi,H Stockholm 2003) 10.Be2 Bf5 11.0-0 Na5 (echoes of the 7...Na5 option) 12.Qa4 Nec6 13.Nd2 a6 14.Bb2 b5 15.Qd1± Viland,B-Dusper,H Pula 1999. Another Black try is 8...Bf5?! 9.Ne2 (9.f3 Nf6 10.Ne2 0-0 11.Nc3 Qd6 12.Be2 Rad8 13.0-0 Bg6 14.Qb3² Inneman,M-Novak,P Czech Republic 1996; 9.Nf3 Nf6 10.Be2 0-0 11.0-0 Rad8 12.Bb2² Urbanski,M-Kuchnio,P Poland 2007) 9...Nf6 10.Nc3 Qd7 11.d5± Loos,C-Schaub,M Mulhouse 2004. 9.Ne2 Less ‘accurate’ is 9.Nf3 0-0 (9...Ne4 10.Qc2 Bf5 11.Bd3² Arauz Alonso,F-Blanco Acevedo,C Linares 2019) 10.Be2 (10.Rb1 a6 11.Be2 Ne4 12.Bd2 Rb8 13.0-0² Flynn,J-Cafolla,P Dublin 2020) 10...Ne4 (10...Re8 11.0-0 b6 12.Bb2 Bb7 13.Qc2 Na5 14.Rac1 Rac8 15.Rfd1² Jacobsen,HGottschalck,C Helsingor 2019) 11.Bd2 (11.Bb2?! Qa5+ 12.Nd2 Re8∞) 11...Bf5 (11...Na5 12.Bb4 Re8 13.0-0² ½-½ Sidorov,A-Tishin,P Samara 2002) 12.0-0 Rad8 13.Qc1 (13.Rc1 a6 14.Bb4²; 13.Qa4 Rfe8 14.Rfd1 Nxd2 15.Rxd2 Be4 16.Rb2² Deak,S-Comp Fritz 5 Debrecen 1997) 13...Bg4 (13...Nxd2 14.Nxd2± due to the weaknesses on c6 ad c7) 14.Rb1² Tiller,B-Dunnington,A Oslo 1987.

124

9...0-0 Black has also tried here: a) 9...Ne4 10.Nf4 Qa5+ 11.Bd2 Nxd2 12.Qxd2 Bd7 (12...Bf5 13.Qxa5 Nxa5 14.Rc1 Be4 [14...b6 15.Rxc7 0-0 16.Ba6 Bc8 17.Bb5± Gerber,R-Schmid,M Lenzerheide 2006] 15.Rc5! Nc6 16.f3 Bg6 17.d5 Ne5 18.Rxc7 0-0 19.Nxg6 hxg6 20.Be2 Rab8 21.f4 1–0 Schubert,R-Glinzer,C Weida 2016) 13.Bc4 0-0 14.Ra2! (14.Rb1 b6 15.Bd5 Rac8 16.Rc1² Andersen,S-Klauner,T Porto Carras 2018) 14...Qxd2+ 15.Rxd2² b) 9...Bg4?! 10.f3 Bh5 11.Nf4 Qd7 12.Rb1± Moeller,D-Doering,M Berlin 2019. 10.Nf4 Qd6 Alternatives are: a) 10...Qg5?! 11.Bd3 Re8 12.0-0±; b) 10...Qd8 11.Bd3 Ne7 12.Qc2 Ng6 13.Ne2 Re8 14.Bb2² Seiler,J-Wenghoefer,M Germany 2001. 11.Bd3 Bg4 12.Qc2 Rfe8 13.0-0²

125

Grooten,H-Grabher,H Liechtenstein 1992. White has achieved a pleasant position, with the bishop pair and a strong centre. 2.5 — 7...NF6 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Nf6

The main continuation chosen by players of the black pieces. The f6-knght is more active and the centre is not yet clarified. 8.Ne2 126

Also possible and rather strong is the direct 8.c4 Qd6 9.d5 Ne7 (9...Nb8 10.a4 Na6 11.Ba3 Nc5 12.Nf3 Bf5 13.Be2² Caceres Vasquez,S-Trakru,R Internet 2020) 10.a4 c5 (10...Nd7 11.Ba3 Nc5 12.Ne2 b6 13.Nc3 Qg6 14.Bxc5 bxc5 15.Qb1± Kukhmazov,A-Egorov,E Internet 2020; 10...c6 11.Ba3 Qd8 12.Nf3² Korchmar,V-Demkovich,A Taganrog 2016) 11.Ne2 0-0 (11...Ng6 12.Bb2 0-0 13.Nc3 Bf5 14.Be2 Ne4 15.Nxe4 Bxe4 16.f3 Bf5 17.0-0± Galojan,L-Danielian,E Yerevan 2004) 12.Nc3

12...e4 (12...Bd7 13.e4 Ne8 14.Bd3 Qg6 15.0-0± Siegmund,R-Fleuch,H Bad Neuenahr 2014; 12...a6 13.e4 Nd7 14.Bd3 f5 15.exf5 Nf6 16.Qc2 Bd7 17.0-0± Levin,F-Pitl,G Bad Woerishofen 2004) 13.Qc2 Bf5 14.Bb2 Qd7 15.h3 Bg6 16.g4 h6 17.Bg2± Karasev,V-Sepman,Y St Petersburg 1999. 8...0-0 8...h5?! 9.c4! is analysed in Grivas,E-Miladinovic,I Athens 2000.

127

9.c4 This is the little tactical secret in White’s plans! 9...Qd6 After 9...Qxc4? 10.Nf4, Black loses his queen: 10...Qc3+ 11.Bd2 Qb2 12.Nd3 Qb6 13.Rb1 Qa6 14.Nc5 Qxa3 15.Ra1 Qb2 16.Na4+– 10.d5 Ne7 11.Nc3 c6! Black must quickly attack the white centre. Passive is 11...Bf5?! 12.a4! c5 13.Be2±, or 11...e4?! 12.a4 (12.Qc2 Bf5 13.Nb5 Qd7 [13...Qc5 14.Bd2! Nexd5 15.Nd4 Nb6 16.Bb4±] 14.Bb2 Ne8 [14...c6 15.dxc6 Qxc6 {15...bxc6 16.Rd1±} 16.Rd1²] 15.Qc3 f6 16.Be2² Kouvatsos,F-Davidenko,H Kallithea 2003) 12...c5 13.Be2± 12.e4 This central advance is natural, but Black can create counterplay, as White is behind in development. 12.a4!? is White’s last chance to get an advantage: 12...cxd5 13.Ba3 Qc7 14.Nb5 Qd8 15.cxd5 Nexd5 (15...Nfxd5 16.e4 a6 17.exd5 axb5 18.Bxb5²) 16.Bxf8 Qxf8 17.Qb3²

128

12...b5! The direct assault and not 12...a6?! 13.a4 Nd7 14.Ba3 c5 15.a5 Nf6 16.Bd3± Grivas,E-Karpatchev,A Corfu 2007. 13.dxc6 ½-½ Nikolaidis,I-Mann,C France 2004. Here the stem-game ended in a draw. Not much better is 13.cxb5 cxd5 14.exd5 Nfxd5 15.Nxd5 Nxd5 16.Be2 a6= The game could continue by 13...Qxc6 (13...Qxd1+ 14.Nxd1 bxc4 [14...Nxc6 15.cxb5 Nd4 16.Bd3 Nb3 17.Rb1 Nc5 18.Bc2 Ncxe4 19.00²] 15.Bxc4 Nxc6 16.Rb1 Bd7 17.f3 Nd4 18.Ne3 Rfb8 19.Rxb8+ Rxb8 20.0-0²) 14.Nd5! Nfxd5! (14...Nexd5?! 15.cxd5 Qc3+ 16.Bd2 Qd4 17.f3 Qb6 18.Qb3 Bd7 19.Be3±) 15.cxd5 Qg6 16.f3 (16.Qf3 f5 17.Bxb5 fxe4 18.Qg3 Qb6 19.a4 Nxd5 20.0-0 Nf4∞)

129

16...f5! (16...Bd7 17.Be3² f5?! 18.d6 Nc6 19.Bxb5 Qxg2 20.Rg1 Qb2 21.Qd5+ Kh8 22.Ra2 Qc3+ 23.Kf2 fxe4 24.Qxe4±) 17.d6 Rd8 18.Bxb5 Rxd6 19.Qe2 fxe4 (19...Nc6 20.exf5 Bxf5 21.0-0²) 20.00 Bb7 21.fxe4 Bxe4 22.Bb2 Nc6 23.Rad1= As Black has succeeded in creating what he was aiming for, White has to go for the alternatives on his 8th or 12th moves.

130

CHAPTER 3. TYPICAL MIDDLEGAME STRATEGY Knowing your good piece of opening theory in depth is a good start. But alone it is not enough to gain and increase a significant advantage. The knowledge of certain plans, manoeuvres, repeated motifs, etc, is an essential piece of opening knowledge, as the journey continues via what we call middlegame theory. Yes, middlegame (and endgame) theory does exist. The great difficulty in approaching it lies in the fact that it does not follow absolute and clear-cut paths, but rather involves deep research into the ideas and logic by which specific types of positions are treated. Moreover, unlike opening theory, the theory of the middlegame (and the endgame) does not change rapidly based on modern developments, and instead remains almost intact through the years. In middlegame theory we are obliged to study various or similar types of positions with specific strategic and tactical attributes, so as to understand the underlying ideas and be able to employ them ourselves in similar situations. Besides, while many chess players have studied these topics and acquired knowledge, it is the application of this knowledge in practice that helps differentiate between them. True, chess is not a simple activity, but it becomes so much more attractive when we acquire this knowledge... In view of the above, any chess player who wishes to follow a chess career or simply become a better player must refrain from the commonplace and assume a different approach. He must develop a good understanding of middlegame (and endgame) theory, so as to be able to proceed in a proper way after his chosen opening has reached its conclusion. And we must keep in mind that the most important asset is the pawn structure; this is what guides us to understand what to do in the middlegame — and even in the endgame! Wojtaszek Radoslaw Rapport Richard D07 Biel 2015 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Nf6 8.c4 Qd6 9.d5 Nb8 10.Ne2 0-0 11.Nc3 Bf5 12.a4 Na6 13.Ba3

131

White stands better, as he has his usual pluses... 13...Nb4 An interesting concept, leaving the c5-square available for other pieces or, as in the game, for the cpawn. But, as we will see, this knight can end up doing nothing and simply be out of the game... 14.Be2 Critical is 14.Nb5! which leads to extreme complications, where White seems to be on top: 14...Qc5 15.a5! (15.Nxc7? Qa5 16.Bxb4 Qxb4+ 17.Qd2 Qb3! 18.Nxa8 Ne4 19.Qc1 Qb4+ 20.Ke2 Nc3+ 21.Ke1 Ne4+=) 15...c6 16.Qb3 Nfxd5 17.0-0-0!± 14...a5 Black has no reasons to refrain from 14...Nc2+ 15.Qxc2 Bxc2 16.Bxd6 cxd6 (exchanging the strong bishop and retaining control over the c5-square) 17.f3 Bg6 (17...Bf5 18.g4 Bd7 19.Kf2²) 18.e4 (18.g4 Rfd8 19.h4 h5 20.g5 Nd7=) 18...Rfd8 (18...Nd7? 19.Nb5±) 19.Kf2 Nd7 20.Rhb1 Nc5 21.a5² 15.0-0 Rfe8 16.Rc1

132

In principle, Black has no big worries out of the opening, but White’s space advantage and his bishop pair could tell in the long run. During the next few moves, Black will have to make some choices regarding the pawn structure — M.Marin. 16...c5?! Consolidating the knight on b4. Playing for the c5-square does not ensure Black enough stability, but it is far more acceptable than the text: 16...Ne4 17.Nxe4 (17.Nb5!? Qc5 (17...Qd7 18.c5! Nxd5 19.f3±) 18.Bd3 Bg6 19.h4! h6 (19...Nf6 20.Bxg6 hxg6 21.Qb3 Rad8 22.Rb1²) 20.h5 Bh7 21.Qb3²) 17...Bxe4 18.f3 Bf5 19.e4 (19.c5? Qxd5 20.Qxd5 Nxd5 21.e4 Nf4µ) 19...Qc5+ (19...Bd7? 20.c5±) 20.Kh1 Bd7 21.Qb3 Ra6 22.f4² 17.f3!

133

The usual White set-up in the centre. 17...Bd7 17...e4, taking the d3-square under control and giving meaning to the knight’s presence on b4, is a principled move, but White keeps a strong edge after 18.f4 Qd7 19.Bb2 Ra6 20.Nb5± 18.e4 Even though this weakens the control over the f4-square, I consider it an achievement for White. The b4-knight will not be able to influence the battle too much now (M.Marin). 18.Bb2 e4 19.f4 Re7 20.Qd2±, and 18.Nb5 Bxb5 19.axb5 e4 20.f4 Re7 21.g4! both lead to difficult positions for Black. 18...Nh5

134

19.Nb5! 19.g3 is not without risks: 19...Qg6 20.Rf2 (20.Kh1? Nxg3+! 21.hxg3 Qxg3 22.Qe1 Qh3+ 23.Kg1 Ra6! [Taking full advantage of the move ...a5] 24.Kf2 (24.Bxb4? f5! 25.exf5 Rh6 26.Kf2 Qh4+ 27.Ke3 Qd4#) 24...Qh2+ 25.Ke3 Qf4+ 26.Kf2 Rg6°) 20...Nf4 21.Bf1 Nh3+ 22.Bxh3 Bxh3 23.Qd2² 19...Qh6 Black has some counterplay now, but White will manage to neutralise it with a series of accurate moves. 20.Rc3 But not 20.Nc7? Qe3+–+ 20...Nf4 21.g3 The early 21.Nc7? fails to 21...Bxa4! 22.Qe1 (22.Qd2? Nh3+–+) 22...Na2³ 23.Re3? Nh3+! 21...Nh3+?! 21...Nxe2+ is a more practical decision: 22.Qxe2 Rad8 (22...Re7 23.f4 exf4 24.Rxf4±) 23.Bb2 (23.f4?! Bh3 24.Rf2 f5∞) 23...Bh3 24.Rf2 Qg6 25.Re3² 22.Kh1 Rac8

135

22...Rad8 23.Bd3 Qg6 24.Bb1 f5 25.exf5 Bxf5 26.Bxf5 Qxf5 27.Qe2 b6 28.Bb2± looks quite difficult for Black.

23.Bd3 White calmly starts preparing the advance f4. 23.f4 could lead to unclear complications: 23...exf4 (23...f5 24.Bb2 fxe4 25.f5²) 24.Bg4 Bxg4 25.Qxg4 f5 (25...fxg3? 26.Rxg3+–) 26.exf5 Re1! 27.Kg2 (27.Rxe1? Nf2+–+) 27...Rce8 28.Rxe1 Rxe1 29.Qh4! Ng5 30.Qxh6 gxh6 31.gxf4 Ne4 32.Rc1²

136

23...Qg6 After ignoring the bishop, the b4-knight will remain a mere spectator. But 23...Nxd3 24.Rxd3, would also leave Black struggling, since it doesn’t solve the problem of his h3-knight, nor cross White’s main plan based on f4: 24...f5 25.Bc1 Qg6 26.Nc3± 24.Bb1! h5 25.Qe1 Ng5

26.Re3?! 26.f4!±, would force the knight into retreating far from f7 and d6: 26...Nh7 (26...exf4? 27.e5+–) 27.Bb2± 26...Bxb5 27.axb5 f6! After clearing the f7-square for his knight, Black obtains only a slightly passive position. 28.f4 Nf7 29.Qe2 Nd6? Too early — It was essential to go for 29...Qg4 30.Ref3 b6 31.Bb2² 30.Bb2 b6

137

31.h3? White misses a fantastic opportunity to start a devastating attack with 31.g4! Qxg4 (31...hxg4 32.fxe5 fxe5 33.Rg1 Rc7 34.Rxg4 Qf6 35.Rf3 Qh6 36.Rfg3+–) 32.Ref3 Re7 33.Rg1 Qd7 (33...Qh4 34.Bc3!+–) 34.fxe5 fxe5 35.Rfg3+– 31...Rc7! 32.Kh2 With a tempo less and the h3-pawn exposed, the same idea is less effective, but still worth trying: 32.g4 hxg4 33.Rg3! (33.fxe5?! fxe5 34.Rg1 Rf7 35.Reg3 [35.Rxg4 Qf6µ] 35...Qh7 36.Kh2 Qh4 37.R1g2 Rf3=) 33...Qh6 34.Kh2 exf4 35.Rxg4 Nf7 36.Bc1± 32...Rce7 33.f5?! Prematurely blocking the position. White could still have exerted some pressure by exchanging on e5 or maintaining the tension: 33.fxe5?! fxe5 34.Ref3², or 33.Ref3!? a4 (33...exf4? 34.e5+–) 34.fxe5 fxe5 35.g4 h4 36.Kg2² 33...Qh7! 34.Rg1 Kf7

138

35.g4 With the position blocked this is not so scary. White cannot really increase the force of his attack by transferring his king to the other wing: 35.Kg2 Rh8 36.Kf1 Ke8 37.Ke1 Kd8 38.Kd2 Rg8 39.Kc1 Qh6∞, when the white king is vulnerable in one way or another and the c4-pawn is also quite weak. 35...hxg4 36.Rxg4 Rh8 There is not much White can do now. 37.Reg3 Ke8 38.Bc1 Kf8 39.Kg2 Qh5 40.Bd2 Rh7 41.Bc1 Rh8 42.Bd2 ½-½ Grivas Efstratios Miladinovic Igor D07 Athens 2000 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Nf6 8.Ne2

139

I played hundreds of blitz games with Igor Miladinovic when he was living in Greece and we mostly disputed this position when I had the white pieces. 8...h5?! This looks a bit too much, but Black wants to avoid 8...0-0 9.Ng3 although also natural is 9.c4! Qd6 10.d5 Ne7 11.Nc3 Bf5 (11...c6 12.e4²) 12.a4! c5 13.Be2² 9.c4! Qxc4? As this was a rapid game, Black bites the decoy! 9...Qd6 10.d5 Ne7 11.a4² is the natural continuation.

140

10.Nf4! Now the black queen will be lost! 10...Qc3+ 11.Bd2 Qb2 Or 11...Qxa1 12.Qxa1 exf4 13.d5+– 12.Nd3 Qb6 13.Rb1 Qa6 Nor is 13...exd4 satisfactory: 14.Rxb6 axb6 15.Nf4+– 14.Nc5 Qxa3 15.Ra1 Qb2 16.Na4

141

And finally the black queen is trapped! 16...Qxa1 17.Qxa1 exd4 18.Bb5 0-0 19.Bxc6 bxc6 20.0-0 dxe3 21.Bxe3 Black doesn’t have any compensation for his lost queen and is only continuing for psychological reasons... 21...Rd8 22.Bg5 Rd6 23.Bf4 Rd5 24.Bxc7 Ba6 25.Re1 Rc8 26.Be5 Ra5 27.Bc3 Rf5 28.Bd4 Bb5 29.h3 a5 30.Nb6 Rd8 31.Bxf6 Rxf6 32.Qxa5 Rd4 33.Qc3 Rdf4 34.Nd7 R6f5 35.Re8+ Kh7 36.f3 h4 37.Qe3 c5 38.Nf8+ Kh6 39.Re4 g5 40.Qc3 f6 41.Re7 1–0 Levin Felix Marzolf Bruno D07 Rochefort 2004 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Qd6 8.Bd3 Nge7 9.Ne2 0-0 10.a4 Re8 11.Ba3 Qf6 12.0-0 Bg4 13.Qc2 Kh8 14.Ng3 h6 15.h3 Be6 16.Bb5 Red8

142

White has a dream position: Black is under heavy pressure. In such cases it is a good idea to open-up the position. 17.f4! exd4 18.cxd4 The text is not that bad, but superior is 18.f5! d3 19.Bxd3 Bd7 20.Ne4 Qe5 21.f6 Nd5 22.Qf2±, or 18.exd4 Nd5 19.Rae1± 18...Bd5? Black loses his way! He needed to find 18...Nf5! 19.Qf2 (19.Nxf5 Bxf5 20.Qf2 Be4 21.Rac1²) 19...Nxg3 20.Qxg3 Bd5 21.Bd3²

143

19.e4! Nxd4 19...Qxd4+ also loses, to 20.Kh2 Be6 21.f5+– 20.Qxc7 Nxb5 21.axb5 And two black pieces are under attack, so one will be lost! 21...Qd4+ 22.Kh2 1–0

144

CHAPTER 4. ENDGAME TECHNIQUE The chess player who wishes to master an opening should not only know how to gain an advantage from it or how to increase it in the middlegame, but also finally how to convert it in the endgame. Knowledge of typical endgames with specific pawn structures is hugely important, as it helps to evaluate correctly our chances in them and to make middlegame decisions regarding choices and possibilities that are very difficult to make otherwise. The endgames that follow are characteristic of the system under consideration. It is not important that some of them arise via another opening or system; the important thing is to understand and master them — endgame technique is essential... Eljanov Pavel Taddei Benoit D07 Mulhouse 2011 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Nf6 8.c4 Qd6 9.d5 Ne7 10.Bb2 0-0 11.Nf3 Nd7 12.Be2 c6 13.0-0 f6 14.a4 Nc5 15.Ba3 b6 16.Nd2 Bf5 17.e4 Bg6 18.Bf3 Rad8 19.Qe2 f5 20.Rfd1 Qf6 21.Bxc5 bxc5 22.Qe3 Qd6 23.h3 fxe4 24.Nxe4 Bxe4 25.Bxe4 cxd5 26.Bxd5+ Kh8

White has the better endgame because his bishop is stronger than Black’s knight and the pawn structure obviously favours him, mainly due to the weak e5-pawn. 27.Bf3 Qc7 28.Re1

145

28.Rxd8 Rxd8 29.Rb1± looks even stronger, as the white rook will land on b7. 28...Ng6 29.Bd5 Again not the best. Of course White must avoid 29.Bh5? Nf4! 30.Qxe5 Qc6! 31.Bf3 Nxh3+ 32.Kf1 Qh6∞, but good was 29.Rab1 (Activity!) 29...Qa5 30.Rb7 Qxa4 31.Qxc5± 29...Rf4?! When we are in strategically inferior positions, we have to look for complications and activity in general. Black should either opt for 29...Nf4 30.Qxe5 Qa5 31.Qe7 Nxd5 32.cxd5 c4, or 29...Qa5, with much better chances than in the game. But of course he still stands badly... 30.g3! Rd4

The black d4-rook doesn’t do much there, so White finally activates his rook. 31.Rab1! Qd7 32.h4! And the knight can be kicked away with a timely h5. 32...Qh3 33.Bg2?! 33.Rb7! was more effective: 33...h6 (33...a6 34.Qe2! Qf5 35.h5 Nf8 36.Rf7 Qg5 37.Qxe5+–) 34.Be4 Qe6 35.Rxa7 Rxc4 36.a5+– 33...Qf5 34.Be4 Qf6 35.Rb7! Rf8 36.f3 Rxc4 37.Rxa7

146

White hasn’t won material, but his a-pawn will carry the day... 37...Rd4 38.a5 c4 39.Rb7

39...Qa6?! And the black knight is lost! Activity with 39...Rfd8 was Black’s last chance, but it is unlikely he could survive anyway after 40.Rb6 Qe7 41.h5 Nf8 42.h6 g6 43.a6, although he could always hope for a mistake from his opponent... 40.h5! Rd3 41.Bxd3 cxd3 42.Rb6 1–0 Swapnil Dhopade Bhakti Kulkarni D07 Pune 2016 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Nf6 8.c4 Qd6 9.d5 Nb8 10.Ne2 Nbd7 11.Nc3 a6 12.Be2 Nc5 13.0-0 Bf5 14.a4 Nfd7 15.f3 0-0 16.e4 Bg6 17.g4 h5 18.h3 f6 19.Be3 hxg4 20.hxg4 Bf7 21.a5 g5 22.Na4 Kg7 23.Rb1 Rh8 24.Nxc5 Nxc5

147

White has the bishop pair and pressure down the b-file. On the other hand, Black cannot do much on the kingside. 25.Qd2?! 25.Kg2! is accurate: 25...Rh6 26.Rh1 Rxh1 27.Qxh1±; White needs to preserve a pair of rooks on the board. 25...Rab8?! Passive. Black had to opt for exchanging both rooks, decreasing White’s pressure down the b-file: 25...Rh3! 26.Kg2 Rah8 27.Rh1 Rxh1 28.Rxh1 Rxh1 29.Kxh1± 26.Kg2! Bg6 27.Qb4 b6 28.axb6?! There is no need to clarify the situation at once. White should have instead prepared things with 28.Ra1 Ra8 (28...Bf7 29.axb6 cxb6 30.Rxa6+–) 29.Rfb1, when it looks like Black will not last long. 28...cxb6 Now Black can defend on the queenside. 29.Rb2 a5! 30.Qa3 Rhc8

148

31.Bxc5?! Again clarifying the situation on the queenside, and again it was too early for this action. White must also avoid 31.Rfb1? Nxe4!, but he should have opted for 31.Ra1 Ra8 32.Bd3 a4 33.Bc2 (33.Bxc5 Qxc5 34.Qxc5 bxc5 35.Rba2 Be8 36.Bc2 Ra6 37.Bxa4 Rca8 38.Bb3 Rxa2+ 39.Rxa2 Rxa2+ 40.Bxa2 Kf7=) 33...Be8 34.Qb4± 31...Rxc5 But not 31...Qxc5? 32.Qxc5 bxc5 33.Ra2+– 32.Rfb1?! After the text White loses all his advantage. Good was 32.Rb3 Be8 33.Ra1² 32...Rxd5! 33.Qxd6 Rxd6 34.c5 This was White’s idea. It looks like his b-pawn will become a monster... 34...Rc6 35.Rxb6 Rbc8 35...Rcxb6 was a good alternative: 36.Rxb6 Rc8 37.Rb5 a4 38.Bc4² 36.Rxc6 Rxc6 37.Rb5 a4 38.Bc4 Rc7 39.Ra5

149

39...Kf8 Not losing just yet, but Black will sooner or later have to opt for exchanging the bishops by 39...Bf7! 40.Bd5 a3 41.c6 Kf8 42.Rxa3 Ke7, when he should be assured of the half-point. 40.Bd5 Be8? 40...Bf7, in accordance with the previous note, was obligatory. 41.Kf2! Ke7 Now it is too late for 41...Bf7 due to 42.Ke2 a3 43.Kd3 a2 44.Kc4+– 42.Ke3 Bd7 43.Kd3 Rc8 44.Kc4 Rc7

150

White is now dominating, mainly due to his active king. There is little that Black can do to improve his position... 45.Ra6 Rc8 46.Ra7 Kd8 47.Ra6 Ke7 48.Ra7 Kd8 49.Bb7! Rc7 50.Ra8+ Ke7 51.Bd5 Be8 51...Rc8 offered no salvation to Black either: 52.Ra6 Rc7 53.Kb4+– 52.Kb4 Or 52.Ra6 Bd7 53.Kb4+– 52...Bd7 53.Ra6 Be8 54.Ra8 Bd7 55.Ra5 Rc8 56.Ra7 Rb8+ 57.Kc4 Ke8

151

58.c6! Bc8 59.Kc5 Praise the king! 59...Rb1 60.Kd6 Kd8 61.Ra8 There was a mate available by 61.Rh7! 61...Rc1 62.Rxa4 Rc2 63.Ra8 Rc1 64.Ra7 Rc2 65.c7+ Ke8 66.Bc6+ 1–0 Wojtaszek Radoslaw Rabiega Robert D07 Hamburg 2011 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Nf6 8.c4 Qd6 9.d5 Nb8 10.Ne2 Ne4 11.f3 Nc5 12.Nc3 0-0 13.Be2 a6 14.0-0 Nbd7 15.e4 f5 16.exf5 Rxf5 17.Be3 b6 White stands clearly better, as his bishop pair and his better pawn structure are good strategic assets.

152

18.a4! The ‘usual’ white queenside activity. 18...Rf8 18...a5? loses on the spot to 19.Nb5+– 19.a5 Nf6 Black doesn’t want to lose control over the important c5-square. After 19...bxa5 20.Rxa5 Rb8 21.Qc2 Qe7 22.Ne4± White dominates. Although this continuation is obviously not appealing to anybody, it was the lesser evil... 20.Qb1 White could go for 20.axb6 cxb6 21.Nb5 Qe7 22.d6 Qd7 23.Nc7 Rb8 24.Bxc5 bxc5 25.Nxa6 Bxa6 26.Rxa6± but he was obviously looking for something more (and safer!) 20...Rb8 21.Qb4 Rd8?! The text leaves Black with a hopeless ending. He should have tried 21...Nfd7 22.Rfb1 (22.Rab1 bxa5 23.Qxa5±) 22...bxa5 23.Qa3 Rxb1+ 24.Rxb1 Nb7 25.Qxd6 cxd6 26.Ne4 Nf6 27.Nxf6+ Rxf6 28.Rb6±

153

22.Bxc5! Time to clarify things on the queenside! 22...Qxc5+ 23.Qxc5 bxc5 24.Na4! The bishop pair is gone in exchange for further weaknesses in Black’s pawn structure. This willingness to trade advantages is a typical feature of strong players’ attitudes. 24...Nd7 25.Rab1 Stopping any counterplay down the b-file. 25...Rxb1 25...Rb4 loses to 26.Rxb4 cxb4 27.Rb1+– 26.Rxb1 Kf8 27.Bd3 g6 28.Kf2 Time to improve the white king! 28...Ke7 29.g4 Rf8 30.Ke3

154

Black resigned. Although it looks premature, his chances are slim: 30...Kd6 31.Nc3 Nf6 32.g5 Nd7 33.h4 Ke7 34.Rh1 Rf7 35.h5+– 1–0

155

Show in Text Mode

CHAPTER 5. TACTICAL MOTIFS Tactics are the salt & pepper of chess. They crown every strategy and appear in nearly every game, so we cannot live without them! Typical tactical motifs repeat themselves, and their knowledge and understanding are an essential asset to season our opening preparation. Khismatullin Denis Rimovich Pasiev Rakhim D07 Taganrog 2014 1.c4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Nf6 8.c4 Qd6 9.d5 Ne7 10.a4 Nd7 11.Ba3 Nc5 12.Ne2 Bg4 13.f3 Bd7 14.Nc3 f5 15.Be2 b6 16.0-0 0-0 17.e4 Kh8 18.Qc1 f4 19.Nb5 Bxb5 20.cxb5 Ng8 21.Bxc5 bxc5 22.Qa3 Nf6 23.Rfc1 Nd7 24.Rc2 Rf6 25.Rac1 Re8 26.a5 Qe7 27.Qc3 Rd6 28.Ra1 Rb8 29.Qe1 Kg8 30.Qf2 Kf8 31.Bf1 Ra8 32.Rca2 Rb8

Show/Hide Solution

156

33.b6! cxb6 33...axb6 34.a6!± 34.axb6 Rdxb6 34...axb6 35.Bb5± 35.Rxa7 R6b7 36.Qc2 Qd6 37.R1a6 Nb6 38.Rxb7 Rxb7 39.Qb3 c4 40.Qb5± c3 41.Bd3 Rb8 42.Qa5 Qc7 43.Ra7 Qd6 44.Ra6 Qc7 45.h3 Rb7 46.Kh2 Kg8 47.Qb5 Nd7 48.d6 Qc8 49.Rc6 Qb8 50.Qc4+ 1–0

Sjugirov Sanan Fomin Andrey D07 St Petersburg 2016 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Nf6 8.c4 Qd6 9.d5 Ne7 10.a4 0-0 11.Ba3 Qd8 12.Nf3 Bg4 13.Be2 Bxf3 14.Bxf3 e4 15.Be2 Re8 16.h4 b6 17.g4 c6 18.d6 Ng6 19.Qc2 Ne5 20.g5 Nfd7 21.Qxe4 Nc5 22.Bxc5 bxc5 23.Rd1 Qa5+ 24.Kf1 Qxa4 25.h5 Nd7 26.Qf5 Re6

Show/Hide Solution

157

27.g6! Nf6 28.gxf7+ Kxf7 29.Rg1 Ree8 30.Rxg7+! Kxg7 31.h6+ Kf7 32.Bh5+ Kg8 33.Qg5+ 1–0

Sarana Alexey Dewi Aa Citra D07 Internet 2020 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 b6 8.c4 Qd6 9.d5 Na5 10.Bd2 Nb7 11.Ne2 Nc5 12.Nc3 Bd7 13.Be2 f5 14.0-0 Nf6 15.a4 a5 16.Bc1 0-0 17.Ba3 Rae8 18.Qc2 Kh8 19.f3 f4 20.e4 Nh5 21.Nb5 Bxb5 22.cxb5 Rf6 23.Bxc5 bxc5 24.Rfc1 Rh6 25.Qxc5 Qf6 26.Qc6 Qe7 27.Qxc7 Qh4 28.Qd7 Nf6 29.Qh3 Qg5 30.Qf5 Qh4 31.h3 Rh5

Show/Hide Solution

32.Qc8! Rxc8 33.Rxc8+ Ng8 34.b6 Qf6 35.Rb1 Rg5 36.b7 h5 1–0

Miton Kamil Biolek Richard Jr D07 Brno 2017 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Nf6 8.c4 Qd6 9.d5 Ne7 158

10.Bb2 Ne4 11.Bd3 Nc5 12.Ne2 Nxd3+ 13.Qxd3 Qg6 14.Qxg6 Nxg6 15.h4 h5 16.f3 f6 17.Kf2 Bd7 18.a4 Kf7 19.Nc3 Ne7 20.e4 c5 21.Ke3 Nc8 22.Kd3 Nd6 23.g3 Rhe8 24.Bc1 Rac8 25.Be3 Re7 26.a5 Kg6 27.Rhg1 f5 28.Nb1 fxe4+ 29.fxe4 Rf7 30.Nd2 Bg4 31.Rgf1 Rfc7 32.Rf2 Kh7 33.Rb1 Kg8 34.Rb2 Rb8 35.Nb1 Rbc8 36.Nc3 Bd7

Show/Hide Solution

37.Rb6! axb6 37...Ne8 38.Rg6± 38.axb6 Bb5 39.Nxb5 Rd7 40.Na7 Re8 41.Bxc5+– Nf7 42.Kc3 Nh6 43.Bb4 Ng4 44.Rf3 Nf6 45.Kd3 Rf7 46.Bd6 Nd7 47.Rxf7 Kxf7 48.c5 g5 49.Kc4 gxh4 50.gxh4 Rg8 51.Kb5 Rg1 52.c6 Rb1+ 53.Bb4 bxc6+ 54.dxc6 Nxb6 55.c7 Ke6 56.Kxb6 1–0

Agdestein Simen Bae Torstein D07 Moss 2006 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Nf6 8.c4 Qd6 9.d5 Ne7 10.a4 Ne4 11.Ba3 Nc5 12.Ne2 f5 13.Nc3 Bd7 14.Be2 0-0 15.0-0 b6 16.Nb5 Bxb5 17.cxb5 Kh8 18.Qc2 f4 19.e4 f3 20.Bxf3 Rxf3 21.gxf3 Qg6+ 22.Kh1 Qh5 23.Qd1 Ng6 24.Bxc5 bxc5 25.Rg1 Nf4 26.Rg3 Rf8 27.d6 c4 28.dxc7 Nd3 29.Qc2 Qf7 30.Rd1 Qd7 31.Kg1 Qd4 159

Show/Hide Solution

32.f4! 32...exf4 33.Rgxd3 cxd3 34.c8=Q+– 1–0

Haba Petr Schuette Marc D07 Bayerisch Eisenstein 2013 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 b6 8.c4 Qd6 9.d5 Na5 10.Bb2 Nf6 11.Nf3 Nd7 12.Be2 f6 13.0-0 Nc5 14.a4 Nab7 15.Ba3 a5

160

Show/Hide Solution

16.Nd4! 0-0 16...exd4 17.exd4 0-0 18.Re1 Bd7 19.dxc5 Nxc5 20.Bg4± 17.Nb5 Qd8 18.f4 exf4 19.exf4 Bd7 20.Bg4 Rf7 21.Re1 Bxg4 22.Qxg4 Nxa4 23.f5 Nac5 24.Re6 Nd3 25.Rd1 Nbc5 26.Qd4 Nb4 27.Bxb4 axb4 28.d6 c6 29.Nc7 Rxc7 30.dxc7 Qxc7 31.Re2 b3 32.Rde1 Qd7 33.Qg4 Qf7 34.Re7 Qf8 35.Qe2 h6 36.h3 Kh7 37.Re6 Rd8 38.Kh1 Rd4 39.Qh5 Re4 40.R6xe4 Nxe4 41.Rxe4 b2 42.Qd1 Qb4 43.Qb1 Qd2 44.Re1 c5 45.Qe4 Qc1 46.Kh2 Qd2 47.h4 b5 48.cxb5 c4 49.b6 Qd6+ 50.Kh3 Qxb6 51.Qg4 Qc5 52.Re8 Qa3+ 53.g3 1–0

Kouvatsos Filippos Davidenko Hristos D07 Kallithea 2003 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Nf6 8.Ne2 0-0 9.c4 Qd6 10.d5 Ne7 11.Nc3 e4 12.Qc2 Bf5 13.Nb5 Qd7 14.Bb2 Ne8 15.Qc3 f6 16.Be2 c6 17.dxc6 Qxc6 18.0-0 Bg6 19.Rfd1 Bf7 20.a4 a6

161

Show/Hide Solution

21.Ba3! axb5 21...Qe6 22.Nd4 Qe5 23.Qb4 Ng6 24.Qxb7+– 22.Bxe7 bxa4 23.Qb4 Nc7 24.Bxf8 Rxf8 25.Qxa4+– Qc5 26.Rd2 h5 27.Rad1 Ne6 28.Rd5 Qb6 29.Bxh5 g6 30.Rd6 1–0

Brestian Egon Castro Rojas Oscar Humberto D07 Moscow 1994 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.e3 e5 4.cxd5 Qxd5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Nf6 8.c4 Qe4 9.d5 Ne7 10.Nf3 Ng6 11.h3 Qf5 12.g4 Qd7 13.Bb2 Qe7 14.Be2 h5 15.g5 Ne4 16.h4 Bf5 17.Bd3 Nxf2 18.Kxf2 Bxd3 19.Qxd3 e4 20.Qb3 exf3 21.Qa4+ c6 22.Bxg7 Rg8 23.Bf6 Qe4 24.dxc6 bxc6 25.Rad1 Rb8

162

Show/Hide Solution

26.Qb3! Rc8 26...Qe5 27.Qb7 Kf8 28.Bxe5 Rxb7 29.Rd8++– 27.Rd4 Qe6 28.Qd3 1–0

163

PART 3. THE TARRASCH DEFENCE (D34) The Tarrasch Defence of the QGD is characterised by the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 (by this move order White avoids the ‘Von Hennig-Schara Gambit’: 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 cxd4) 3...c5 4.cxd5 exd5

Although the ‘Tarrasch Defence’ is not a popular opening at the very top of our chess pyramid, a club-player could easily face it — often bluffed or wondering which variation to follow. I am sure that there are a lot of ‘pleasant’ variations to play when faced with this opening as White, depending on the style and preferences of each player, but it is important to be concrete and know how to handle our choices. The suggested lines (in my opinion) give Black some nasty headaches and put him on the defending side for a long time, with slim or non-existent thoughts of winning. After all, Black accepts an isolated d5-pawn in return for chances of activity and the initiative. And the question is: if he cannot get that, why is he playing the ‘Tarrasch Defence’? After the more-or-less ‘forced moves’ 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bg5 we arrive at the following basic diagram, which will serve us to identify the various answers that Black has at his disposal to face White’s plans:

164

We have to keep in mind that the ‘Tarrasch Defence’ is considered generally sound. Even if Black fails to make use of his mobility and winds up in an inferior endgame, tied to the defense of his isolated pawn, he may be able to hold the draw if he defends accurately. HISTORICAL APPROACH The opening was advocated by the great German master Siegbert Tarrasch, who contended that the increased mobility that Black enjoys is well worth the inherent weakness of the isolated central pawn. Although many other masters, following the teachings of Wilhelm Steinitz, rejected the ‘Tarrasch Defence’ out of hand because of the pawn weakness, S.Tarrasch continued to play his opening while rejecting other variations of the ‘Queen’s Gambit Declined’, even to the point of putting question marks on routine moves in all variations except the ‘Tarrasch Defence’ (which he awarded an exclamation mark) in his book ‘Die Moderne Schachpartie.’ The suggested systems were not faced in practice by S.Tarrasch, so we have no idea on how he would have reacted. The first game to be played (at least going by ChessBase’s MegaDatabase) was the following: Rotlewi Georg Lowcki Moishe Leopoldowicz D34 Cologne 1911 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.cxd5 exd5 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Bf4 Qb6

165

12.Ndb5? 12.Be3! will be our suggested line. 12...Be6 13.Bc7 Qc5 14.b4 Nxb4 15.Rc1 Nxa2 16.Nxa2 Qxb5 17.Nc3 Qd7 18.Be5 Rfd8 19.e3 Rac8 20.f4 Ng4 21.Bd4 Nxe3 22.Bxe3 d4 23.f5 dxe3 24.Qg4 Bb3 25.Qh5 Qd2 26.f6 Bxf6 0–1 Barring the game Flores Alvarez Rodrigo-Olivera Alfrendo Montevideo 1938, a top-flight game was played between Polugaevsky Lev-Bronstein David Tbilisi 1967: Polugaevsky Lev Bronstein David Ionovich D34 Tbilisi 1967 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.g3 d5 5.cxd5 exd5 6.d4 Nc6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Bf4 Qb6 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.Qc2 Bg4 14.Be3 Qa6 15.Bd4 Rfd8 16.h3 Be6 17.Rfd1 Rac8 18.Rac1 Nd7 19.e4 dxe4 20.Qxe4 c5 21.Be3 Bf6 22.Bf1 c4 23.Rc2 Re8 24.Rcd2 Bxh3 25.Rd6 Nb6 26.Bxh3 Rxe4 27.Bxc8 Qxc8 28.Nxe4 Be7 29.R6d2 Qe6 30.Nc3 Bb4 31.Bd4 Qg4 32.a3 Ba5 33.Be3 Kh7 34.Rd4 Qg6 35.Rc1 Qe6 36.Ne2 Qe5 37.Nf4 Qb5 38.Rc2 Qb3 39.Re2 Na4 40.Rd5 Bc7 41.Rd7 Be5 42.Bxa7 Bf6 43.Kh2 Nxb2 44.Rxf7 Nd3 45.Nd5 Kg6 46.Rd7 Ne5 47.Rc7 Qxa3 48.Nxf6 gxf6 49.Be3 Qd3 50.Ra2 Qf1 51.g4 Nxg4+ 52.Kg3 Ne5 53.Kh2 Nf3+ 54.Kg3 Ne1 55.Kf4 Qg2 0–1

166

So, the initial tries weren’t successful for White, but over the years — after the suggested lines were properly examined — better ways were found. STARTING OUT The system proposed against the ‘Tarrasch Defence’ commences with the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2

6...Nf6 With the exception of the main line with the text, Black has tried to be ‘creative’: a) 6...Bg4?! 7.Nc3! a1) 7...Nf6 8.Bg5 Bxf3 (8...Be7 9.dxc5 d4 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Ne4 f5 12.Nd6+ Bxd6 13.cxd6 Qxd6 14.0-0± Muzychuk,M-Haussernot,C Valencia 2018; 8...cxd4 9.Nxd4 h6 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.Ndb5 Qe5 12.f4 Qb8 13.Nxd5 Bb4+ 14.Nxb4 Nxb4 15.a3 Nc6 16.h3 a6 17.Nd6+ Ke7 18.Nxf7 Bxe2 19.Qd5 1–0 Aleksandrov,A-Begun,S Minsk 1996) 9.Bxf3 Nxd4

167

10.Bxd5 (10.Bg2 Be7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Nxd5 Re8 14.e3± Tikkanen,H-Wahlstrom,L Tylosand 2016) 10...Be7 11.Bxf6 (11.Bg2 0-0 12.0-0 Qb6 13.e3 Ne6 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.Nd5± Ikonnikov, V-In’t Veld,R Haarlem 2004) 11...Bxf6 12.0-0 0-0 13.e3 Ne6 14.Ne4 (14.Qb3 Qe7 15.Bg2 Bxc3 16.bxc3 Rab8 17.c4² Lupulescu,C- Bezold,M Germany 2011) 14...Qe7 15.Qa4 Rfd8 16.Rfd1 a6 17.Nxf6+ gxf6 18.Qe4± Gurevich,M-Viering,M Gent 1994. a2) 7...Bxf3 8.Bxf3 cxd4 9.Nxd5 Nge7 (9...Nf6 10.Bg5 Qa5+ 11.Bd2 Qd8 12.Nxf6+ Qxf6 13.0-0 [13.Qb3 Rb8 14.Qb5 Be7 15.Bf4 Bb4+ 16.Kf1 Bd6 17.Bxc6+ bxc6 18.Qxc6+ Ke7 19.Qe4+ Kf8 20.Bxd6+ Qxd6 21.Kg2± Grivas,E-Balaskas,P Iraklion 1983] 13...Be7 14.Qb3 0-0 15.Qxb7 Ne5 16.Qxa8 Rxa8 17.Bxa8± Cech,P-Zwanzger,J Germany 2010)

10.e4! dxe3 11.Bxe3 Nxd5 12.Qxd5 Bb4+ 13.Ke2 Qe7 14.Qe4 Qxe4 15.Bxe4± Andreikin,D168

Viana,D Reykjavik 2016. b) 6...cxd4 7.Nxd4 Bc5 (7...Nf6 8.0-0 Be7 [8...Bc5 9.Nb3 {9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Qc2 Qb6 11.Nc3 Be7 12.Be3 Qa6 13.Na4 0-0 14.Rfc1² Deac,B-Abdusattorov,N Internet 2020} 9...Bb6 10.Nc3 d4 11.Na4 0-0 12.Bg5² Oparin,G-Abdusattorov,N Internet 2020] 9.Nc3 0-0

10.Be3 [10.Bg5 transposes to the main line] 10...Re8 11.Qb3 Na5 12.Qc2 Bg4 13.h3 Bh5 14.Rad1 Nc4 15.Bg5± Nielsen,P-Psaras,S Eretria 2011; 7...Bb4+ 8.Bd2 Be7 9.Bc3 [9.Qa4 Nf6 10.Nc3 0-0 11.0-0² Varga,K-Tompa,J Zalakaros 2017] 9...Nf6 10.0-0 0-0 11.Nd2² Bachmann,A-Rodriguez Vila,A Niteroi 2019) 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.Qc2 Bb4+ (9...Qe7 10.0-0 Bd7 11.Nc3 Nf6 12.Bg5 [12.e4!±] 12...0-0 13.Bxf6 gxf6 14.Rac1 Bb6 15.e3² Timman,J-Velimirovic,D Rio de Janeiro 1979) 10.Bd2 Bxd2+ 11.Nxd2 Ne7 12.0-0 0-0 13.Nb3 Rb8 14.Nc5² Kuzubov,Y-Abdusattorov,N Internet 2020. c) 6...Qb6?! (Again a very ambitious try, but without proper strategic basis) 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.0-0 Nf6 9.Nc3 Be6 (9...0-0 10.Na4 Qb5 11.Nxc5 Qxc5 12.Be3± Zhukov,A-Balic,A Petrovac 2015) 10.Na4 Qb5 11.Nxc5 Qxc5 12.Be3± Bai,J-Zairbek Kyzy,B Qingdao 2019. d) 6...c4 (A version of the ‘Swedish Variation’) 7.0-0

169

7...Bb4 (7...Nf6 8.Ne5 Bd6 [8...Be7 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.b3 Ba6 11.bxc4 Bxc4 12.Na3 Ba6 13.Qa4± Can,E-Mamedov,R Konya 2019] 9.Bf4 [9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Nc3 Be6 11.b3 cxb3 12.axb3 0-0 13.Ba3 Bxa3 14.Rxa3² Bratanov,Z-Brankov,K Sunny Beach 2004] 9...0-0 10.Nc3 Be6 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Bxd6 Qxd6 13.b3 [13.Qc2 Rab8 14.Rfd1 Qb4 15.Rd2 g6 16.Rad1 Bf5 17.Qc1 Rfe8∞ Atalik,SYagiz,Y Istanbul 2006] 13...cxb3 14.axb3² Schebler,G-Miedema,D Helmond 2003) 8.b3 cxb3 9.Qxb3 Nge7

10.Bb2 (10.Ne5 Qb6 11.Nd3 Bd6 12.Qxb6 axb6 13.Nc3² Avrukh,B-Kiik,K Gibraltar 2009) 10...0-0 11.Ne5 Rb8 12.Rd1² Schaefer,M- Venturino,M Porto Mannu 2007. 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 170

8...Bf5?! looks quite artificial: 9.Bg5 Ne4 10.Bxe7 Nxe7 11.Nxe4 Bxe4 (11...dxe4 12.Nh4 Qxd4 13.Qxd4 cxd4 14.Nxf5 Nxf5 15.Bxe4 Nd6 16.Bd5± Grivas,E-Apicella,M Paris 1982) 12.Qa4+ Nc6 13.dxc5± Kuchynkova,L-Johnova,E Kouty nad Desnou 2009. 9.Bg5

From here Black can basically choose between three continuations: 9...cxd4, 9...c4 and 9...Be6.

CHAPTER 1. THE 9...CXD4 LINE 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 cxd4

171

Now, after 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Bf4

We get one of the basic positions of the ‘Tarrasch Defence’ and my suggested repertoire is based on this. From here, Black has tried a lot of moves, namely: 11...Bc5, 11...Bb4, 11...Re8, 11...a6, 11...Qb6, 11...Be6 and 11...Bg4. 1.1 — 11...BC5 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 cxd4 172

10.Nxd4 h6 11.Bf4 Bc5

The text is more complicated than it looks at first sight. Black is ready to sac his d-pawn, seeking compensation in his better development and pressure on the b2-pawn. 12.Nb3 12.Nxc6 is quite possible, avoiding long and forced lines: 12...bxc6 13.Na4 Bd6 14.Bxd6 Qxd6 15.Rc1² Summermatter,D-Mira,H Zuerich 1989.

173

12...Bb6! The only way to fight. Wrong would be 12...Bb4? 13.Nxd5 Nxd5 14.Qxd5 Qf6 15.Qb5 a6 16.Qb6± Karapanos,N-Stavrou,H Athens 1994, or 12...Bd6? 13.Nxd5 Nxd5 14.Bxd6 Qxd6 15.Qxd5 Qf6 16.Qd2 (16.Nc5 Qxb2 17.Nxb7 Bxb7 18.Rab1 Qxe2 19.Rxb7±) 16...Rd8 17.Qc3 Qxc3 18.bxc3± Ljubojevic,L-Morgado,J Moron 1981; continuations that are not really satisfactory for Black. 13.Nxd5 The text is quite attractive and obvious. But White should strongly think of 13.Na4 Re8 14.Nxb6 Qxb6 15.Be3 (15.Rc1 Qa6 16.Nd4 Bg4∞) 15...Rxe3 (15...Qb5 16.Rc1 Bg4 17.Re1²) 16.fxe3 Qxe3+ (16...Ng4? 17.Qxd5 Qxe3+ 18.Kh1 Nf2+ 19.Rxf2 Qxf2 20.Rf1 Qxe2 21.Qxf7+ Kh8 22.Qf8+ Kh7 23.Nd2!+–) 17.Kh1² 13...Nxd5 14.Qxd5 Qf6! White should now be very careful.

15.Qb5! A suggested novelty in place of 15.Rab1?! Bg4 16.Qd6 Qxd6 17.Bxd6 Rfd8 18.Bc5 Bxe2 19.Rfe1 Bc4= De Oliveira,A-De Miranda,A Rio de Janeiro 2010, or 15.Bc1?! Bg4 16.e3 Rad8° Yildiz,TEke,S Konya 2018. Another try is 15.Nc5, when it seems that Black is OK after 15...Qxb2! (15...Rd8?! 16.Qc4 Qxb2 17.Na4 Qf6 18.Nxb6 axb6 19.Be3², as White has the bishop pair and healthier pawn structure) 16.e3 (16.Na4 Qxe2 17.Nxb6 axb6 18.Rfe1 Qa6 19.a4°; 16.Qc4 Na5 17.Qa4 Nc6=) 16...Rd8 17.Na4 Qf6 18.Qb5 g5! 19.Nxb6 axb6 20.Bc7 Rd2 21.a3 Ra5 22.Qb1 Rc5 23.Ra2 Rxa2 24.Qxa2 Na5! 25.Bb8 Nc6= 174

15...Qxb2 16.a4 Be6 17.Rfb1 Qc2 18.Qd3! Qxd3 19.exd3²

White has strong pressure on the queenside and Black has to defend very carefully. 1.2 — 11...BB4 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Bf4 Bb4?!

An unsatisfactory move. 12.Rc1 175

The usual good move. An alternative is 12.Ncb5 Bg4 13.Nc2 Qd7 14.Nxb4 Nxb4 15.Nd4 Rfe8= Stojanovic,AChelushkina,I Kotor 2002. 12...Bg4 12...Ba5?! does not help much: 13.Na4 (13.Ncb5 Bb6 14.Qd3²) 13...Bc7 (13...g5?! 14.Nxc6 bxc6 15.Be5 [15.Be3±] 15...Re8 16.Bc3 Bxc3 17.Rxc3 Ba6 18.Re1 Bb5 19.Nc5 Qe7 20.Qd4 Qe5 21.Nb3 Bc4 22.Qxe5 Rxe5 23.e3 Rb8 24.Rec1 Re7 ½-½ Barreras,A-Arencibia,W Havana 1985) 14.Be3±

13.h3! The other option is not helpful for White: 13.Ncb5?! Qd7 14.Nxc6 (14.Qb3 Ba5 15.Rfd1 Bb6 16.Nf3 Rfe8 17.Nc3 (17.Rc2? Bf5 18.Rcd2 Na5 19.Qb4 Nc4 20.Qxc4 dxc4 21.Rxd7 Bxd7 0–1 Summermatter,D-Zolnierowicz,K Prague 1989) 17...d4 18.Na4 Rxe2 19.Nxb6 axb6³ Sarno,SCeschia,I Chianciano Terme 1991) 14...bxc6 15.Nc7 Rac8 16.Na6 Be7 17.b4 Bh3 18.Nc5 Bxc5 19.Rxc5 Rfe8 20.Qc2 Bxg2 21.Kxg2 Ne4= Carlhammar,M-Zolnierowicz,K Gothenburg 1989. 13...Be6 Maybe Black should try 13...Nxd4 14.Qxd4 Bxc3 15.Rxc3 Bxe2, but things don’t look too rosy after 16.Re1 Bb5 (16...Re8 17.Bc7 Qd7 18.Be5 Bb5 19.Rec1± Akesson,R-Wedberg,T Stockholm 2000) 17.Bc7 (17.Be5 Re8 18.Rd1 Re6 19.Bxf6 Rxf6 20.Bxd5 Qd7 21.Be4 Qxd4 22.Rxd4² Wojcieszyn,JGrabowski,A Naleczow 1987) 17...Qd7 18.Be5 Qe6 19.Rce3 Bc6 20.Bf4 Qf5 21.Bxh6!±

176

14.a3 Interesting is 14.Ncb5 Bd7 15.Nc7 g5 16.Nxc6 bxc6 17.Be5 Rc8 18.Qd4 Be7 19.Na6² 14...Ba5 15.b4 Also good is 15.Na4 Rc8 16.Nxe6 fxe6 17.Nc5 Qe7 18.e4± Khenkin,I-Zolnierowicz,K Krynica 1997. 15...Bb6 16.Nxe6 fxe6 17.b5 Na5 18.e4 dxe4 Or 18...g5 19.Bd2 Nc4 (19...d4 20.Na4 e5 21.Bb4 Rf7 22.f4±) 20.exd5± 19.Nxe4 Nxe4 20.Bxe4 Qxd1 21.Rcxd1

177

Shereshevski,M-Zolnierowicz,K Bydgoszcz 1990. White stands better due to his bishop pair and better pawn structure. 1.3 — 11...RE8 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Bf4 Re8 One of the standard moves in the ‘Tarrasch Defence’.

12.Ncb5! Nh5 178

Black has to deal with his c7-square, so this is a natural way. Alternatives are: a) 12...Bd7? 13.Nc7 Bc5 14.Nxc6 bxc6 15.Nxa8 Qxa8 16.Rc1 Bb6 17.Bd6 Bg4 18.Re1 Ba5 19.b4 Bb6 1–0 Ordonez Cabaneros,J-Jesus Lopez,P Spain 1997. b) 12...Qb6 (An untested move) 13.a4! Nxd4 14.Qxd4 Bc5 (14...Qxd4 15.Nxd4²) 15.Qd3 Bg4 16.e3² c) 12...g5

13.Bd2 (13.Be3!²) 13...Ne4 14.Rc1 Bf6 15.Be3 Qa5 16.a3² Lorca Cortada,D-Lazaro Pujol,A Girona 2018. 13.Be3 Bg4 Bad is 13...Ne5?! 14.Rc1 (14.Nb3 Nf6 15.Nxa7 Bg4 16.Nb5 Qd7 17.N3d4 Ra6 18.b3² Cotreau,KMercuri,L Manchester 1989) 14...Nc4 15.Nc7! Qxc7 16.Bxd5±, but playable is 13...a6 14.Nc3 Nf6 15.Rc1 Bf8 16.Nxc6 bxc6 17.Na4² Weber,F-Prunescu,C Geneve 2014.

179

14.h3! And not 14.Qa4?! Qd7 15.Nc3 Nf6 16.Rfd1 Bh3 17.Bf3 Rad8∞ Sokolov,I-Todorovic,GM Niksic 1991. 14...Bd7 No big difference is made by 14...Be6 15.Rc1 Qd7 16.Nxe6 fxe6 17.Nd4² 15.Nc3 Nf6 15...Bf6 is quite playable: 16.Nxd5 Bxd4 17.Bxd4 Bxh3 18.Bxh3 Qxd5 19.Bc3 Qg5 20.e3² 16.Nxd5 Nxd5 17.Bxd5 Bxh3 18.Nxc6 bxc6 19.Bxc6 Bxf1 20.Qxf1 Bf6 21.Bxa8 Qxa8 22.Rb1²

180

Popov,V-Yemelin,V St Petersburg 2004. With an extra pawn, and although Black has active play, White’s position is preferable. 1.4 — 11...A6 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Bf4 a6 This stops Ncb5, but weakens his queenside.

12.Rc1 Re8 181

Black’s alternatives are: a) 12...Be6 13.Nxe6 (13.Na4!? Rc8 [13...Qa5? 14.Rxc6! Bd7 15.Bc7 Qb4 16.a3 1–0 Astolfi,FBreton,Y Toulouse 1990] 14.Nxe6 fxe6 15.Bh3 Kf7 16.Qb3²; 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Na4 Qa5 15.Qd4² Hausner,I-Vlasak,L Teplice 2012) 13...fxe6 14.e4 d4 15.e5 dxc3 16.exf6 Qxd1 17.Rfxd1 Bxf6 18.bxc3± Barbero,G-Flueckiger,C Bern 1989. The move ...a6 has further weakened Black’s queenside. b) 12...Bg4 13.h3

13...Bh5 (13...Bd7 14.Nxc6 [14.Nxd5 Nxd5 15.Bxd5 Bxh3 16.Nxc6 bxc6 17.Bg2²] 14...Bxc6 15.Be5 Re8 16.Bd4 Qa5 17.Qb3 Ne4 18.Rfd1² Southam,T-Demers,C Canada 1987; 13...Be6 14.Qa4 Qd7 15.Nxe6 fxe6 16.Rfd1 b5 17.Qc2² Quirico,P-Roth,A Robecchetto 2015)

182

14.Nf5 Bg6 (14...d4 15.Bxc6 dxc3 16.Qxd8 Bxd8 17.Bxb7 Ra7 18.Bf3 Bxf3 19.exf3 cxb2 20.Rc2 Nd5 21.Bd6 Rb7 22.Rb1 Bf6 23.Bxf8 Kxf8 24.Rc8+ 1–0 Paz Mendez,G-Villavicencio Sanchez,P Tenerife 2013) 15.Nxe7+ Qxe7

16.e4! (16.Nxd5 Nxd5 17.Qxd5 Qxe2 18.Qb3²) 16...Bxe4 17.Nxe4 Nxe4 18.Qxd5 Nf6 19.Qc5± c) 12...Qb6?! 13.Be3 Qxb2 14.Nxd5 (14.Na4 Qa3 15.Nb6 Rb8 16.Bf4 Bd6 17.Nc2 Bxf4 18.Nxa3 Bxc1 19.Qxc1 Be6 20.Rd1 Rfe8 21.h3 Ne5 22.Qc7 Nc6 23.Qf4 1–0 Alvarez Marquez,J-Chemin,V Sao Paulo 2009) 14...Nxd5 15.Bxd5 is an improved version of the 11...Qb6 variation, as the inserted moves Rc1 and ...a6 are to White’s benefit. d) 12...Bd6?! 13.Bxd6 Qxd6 14.Nxd5 (14.Nxc6 bxc6 15.Na4 Rb8 16.Qc2 Re8 17.e3 h5 18.Rfd1² 183

Vigorito,D-Bordas,G Budapest 2000) 14...Nxd5 15.Nxc6 (15.e4 Bg4 16.Nf3 Rad8 17.exd5 Qxd5 18.Qxd5 Rxd5 19.Nh4 Rd2 20.Bxc6 bxc6 21.f3 Bh3 22.Rf2 Rfd8 23.g4 Rd1+ 0–1 Maczkowiak,TJoerres,T Cologne 2015) 15...bxc6 16.Rxc6 Qxc6 17.Bxd5 Qb6 18.Bxa8 Bh3 19.Bg2 Bxg2 20.Kxg2 Qxb2 21.a4± 13.Na4

The text looks somewhat better than 13.Qa4 (13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Na4 Qa5 15.Qd4² Annaberdiev,MOzen,B Istanbul 2013) 13.Qa4 Qb6 (13...Na5? 14.Qc2 Bf8 15.Rfd1 Bg4 16.h3 Bh5 17.Nf5± Sunye Neto,J-Bravo Sedamanos,H Sao Paulo 1995) 14.Nxd5 (14.Be3 Bc5 15.Nxd5 Nxd5 16.Bxd5

184

16...Bh3 [16...Bxd4? 17.Rxc6 bxc6 18.Bxd4±] 17.Bxc6 bxc6 18.Rfd1 Rad8 19.Qc4 Bxd4 [19...Rd5 20.b4²] 20.Bxd4 c5 21.Qxc5 Qb7 22.Qc6 Qxc6 23.Rxc6 Rxe2 24.Rcc1 f6°) 14...Qxd4 15.Nxe7+ Rxe7 16.Bxc6 Qxa4 17.Bxa4 Rxe2 18.Rc2 Rxc2 19.Bxc2² Polschikov,A-Manin,V St Petersburg 2019. 13...Bd7

14.Nxc6 Possible is 14.a3 Bf8 (14...Rc8 15.Nb3 Na5 16.Rxc8 Bxc8 17.Nc3² Ilic,Z-Tairi,K Struga 2012) 15.Re1 Rc8 16.Nxc6 bxc6 17.Be3 Ne4 18.Nc5² ½-½ Lembak,J-Malinovsky,K Slovakia 2013. 14...Bxc6 14...bxc6 15.Qb3 Bf8 16.Nb6 Ra7 17.Nxd7 Qxd7 18.Rc2² 15.Qb3 a5 15...Bd6 16.Bxd6 Qxd6 17.e3² 16.Rfd1 Bf8 17.Be3 Ra6 18.Bd4

185

Aleksandrov,A-Magerramov,E Dubai 2001. White stands better due to Black’s isolated pawn and somewhat misplaced pieces. 1.5 — 11...QB6 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Bf4 Qb6 This was supposed to be (in the ‘ancient years’) the ‘punishment’ of 11.Bf4. But things have since turned out rather differently...

186

12.Be3! One of the main ideas behind 11.Bf4. 12...Qxb2 Black is ‘obliged’ to capture the b-pawn, as his queen has no decent alternative square. 13.Nxd5 Nothing is achieved by 13.Ndb5 Bf5 14.a3 Qc2 15.Qxc2 Bxc2 16.Nxd5 Nxd5 17.Bxd5 Rfd8= Riedel,W-Stocker,A Austria 2001. 13...Nxd5 14.Bxd5

14...Bh3 Black’s main alternative is 14...Rd8 a) 15.Bxc6 bxc6 16.Qc1 Qxc1 (16...Ba3 17.Qxb2 Bxb2 18.Nxc6 Bxa1 19.Nxd8 Bf6 20.Nc6±) 17.Rfxc1 (17.Raxc1?! Bh3! [17...c5 18.Nc6 Re8 19.Nxe7+ Rxe7 20.Rxc5± Matnadze,A-Gavasheli,A Tbilisi 2006] 18.Nxc6 Bxf1 19.Nxe7+ Kf8 20.Nc6 Bxe2 21.Nxd8 Rxd8 22.Bxa7 Rd1+ 23.Rxd1 Bxd1=) 17...Bg5! 18.Rxc6 (18.Bxg5 Rxd4 19.Be3 Rd6 20.a4 Ba6= Zayac,E-Malysheva,P Dresden 2004) 18...Bxe3 19.fxe3² White stands better not because of his extra pawn, but due to his strong centralised knight and his more active rooks. b) 15.Nxc6 bxc6 16.Qb3 Qxb3 17.Bxb3 Ba6 18.Rfc1 Bxe2 19.Rxc6² Westphal,R-Siegel,G Eberbach 1980. 187

c) 15.Rb1 c1) 15...Qc3 16.Nxc6 (16.Bxc6 bxc6 17.Qc1 Qxc1 18.Rfxc1 Bg5 19.Rxc6 Bxe3 20.fxe3²; 16.Rb3 Qa5 17.Rb5 Qa3 18.Qb1 a6 19.Rb3 Qd6 20.Nxc6 bxc6 21.Bg2² Gonzalez Zamora,J-Juarez Flores,C Merida 1998) 16...bxc6 17.Bd4 Qa5 18.Bxc6± c2) 15...Qa3 16.Nb5 Qa5 17.Qb3 Rxd5!? (17...Kh8 18.Bxf7 Bh3 19.Rfd1 Rxd1+ 20.Rxd1 Rd8 21.Bd5±) 18.Qxd5 Be6 19.Qf3± Black has also tried 14...Nxd4 15.Bxd4 Qb5 16.e4 Qa6 17.Rb1 Bh3 18.Rxb7 (18.Re1 Rad8 19.Qb3±) 18...Bxf1 19.Qxf1 Qd6 20.Bxa7± Gurevich,M-Atalik,E Istanbul 2008. 15.Rb1! Qa3 15...Qc3 doesn’t solve Black’s problems: 16.Rxb7 Nb4 17.Bd2 Qc5 18.Bf3±

16.Rxb7! Best by test! 16...Nxd4 Or 16...Nb4 17.Nb5 Qa5 18.Rxe7 Rad8 19.Rxa7 Qxb5 20.Bxf7+! Kh8 21.Qa1! Rd7 22.Rxd7 Qxd7 23.Bb3 Qc6 24.f3 Bxf1 25.Bd4 Qd7 26.Kxf1± 17.Qxd4 17.Bxd4, is also interesting: 17...Bxf1 18.Kxf1 Rfd8 (18...Rac8 19.Kg2± intending 20.e4 and 21.Qg4) 19.Qb3 Qxb3 20.Bxb3 Rxd4 21.Rxe7 Rf8 22.Rxa7² 188

17...Bxf1 18.Kxf1°

Gurevich,M-Berelovich,A Tanta 1997. White has sufficient compensation for the sacrificed exchange: a pawn, excellent centralised pieces and a rook on the 7th rank — see the analysed game in the Middlegame Strategy chapter. 1.6 — 11...BE6 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Bf4 Be6

A somewhat passive continuation which fails to satisfy Black. 189

White gets a pleasant endgame. 12.Nxe6 The placement of the white pawn on h2 instead of h3, must be in White’s favour, compared with the 11...Bg4 line. The main alternative is 12.Rc1, which is quite possible, but there is no need to know two continuations at this point. 12...fxe6 13.e4! d4 The alternatives are 13...dxe4 14.Nxe4 Nd5 15.Bd2² Saleh,M-Eddie,M North Bay 1999 and 13...e5 14.exd5 exf4 15.dxc6 Qxd1 16.Raxd1 bxc6 17.Bxc6± Zetterberg,S-Karlsson,U Sweden 2013.

14.e5! The basic idea. 14...dxc3 Or 14...Ne8 15.Nb5 g5 16.Bc1² Kojima,S-Garma,C Kuala Lumpur 2008. 15.exf6 Qxd1 Black can also opt for 15...Bxf6 16.bxc3 Bxc3 (16...Qxd1 17.Rfxd1 Rfd8 18.Rab1 Rxd1+ 19.Rxd1 Rd8 20.Rxd8+ Nxd8² Paschall,W-Borisek,J Nova Gorica 2005) 17.Rb1 Qxd1 (17...Rf7 18.Qg4 Qf6 19.Rxb7 Rxb7 20.Bxc6 Rab8 21.Bxb7 Rxb7 22.Be3 [22.Bxh6 Rb4 23.Qg5 Qxg5 24.Bxg5 Ra4 25.Rc1²] 22...Rb4 23.Qd1 a5 24.Qd3² Marasescu,I-Madl,I Szolnok 1985) 18.Rfxd1 Rf7 19.Be3 Ba5 20.Rd6 Bb6 21.Bxb6 axb6 22.Rxe6 Rd7 23.Rxc6 bxc6 24.Bxc6 Rda7 25.Bxa8 Rxa8 26.Rb2² 190

Gelfand,B-Bauer,C France 2000. 16.Raxd1 Bxf6 17.bxc3 Bxc3

18.Rd7! 18.Bxc6?! doesn’t seem to offer much: 18...bxc6 19.Rc1 Bd4 20.Rxc6 e5= Antoshik,A-Hrabe,P Czech Republic 1998. 18...Rf7 19.Rfd1 19.Rxf7 Kxf7 20.Rb1 Na5 21.Be3² also looks good. 19...Re8 Black has a lot of tries here: a) 19...Rc8 20.Be3 Rxd7 21.Rxd7 b6 22.Bh3 e5 23.Rb7 Rd8 24.Bd7², b) or 19...Raf8?! 20.Be3 Rxd7 21.Rxd7 Rf7 22.Rd6± c) or, finally, 19...Ne5 20.Rxb7 Rxb7 21.Bxb7 Rb8 22.Rb1² 20.Be3 Ba5 21.Bxc6 21.R7d6!? Rc7 22.Rb1² 21...bxc6 22.Bxa7 Ree7 23.Rxe7 Rxe7 24.Bc5²

191

Mahjoob,M-Mallahi,A Urumia 2008. White has the better pawn structure and an important outside passed pawn. 1.7 — 11...BG4 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Bf4 Bg4

This should be considered the main line for Black. After the most common reply 12.h3 he can choose between 12...Be6 and 12...Bh5.

192

Note that other responses seem to be somewhat inferior: a) 12...Bd7 13.Nxd5 Nxd5 14.Bxd5 Bxh3 (14...Nxd4? 15.Qxd4 Bxh3 16.Rfd1±) 15.Nxc6 bxc6 16.Bg2! Bxg2 17.Qxd8 (17.Kxg2 Bf6 18.Qc2 Qd4! 19.Rfd1 Qxb2 20.Qxb2 Bxb2 21.Rab1 Bf6 22.Rb7 c5 23.Rdd7 Rfe8 24.Rxf7 Rxe2 25.Bxh6 Rf8 26.Rxf8+ Kxf8 27.Be3 Bd4 28.Bxd4 cxd4 29.Rxa7² Golod,V-Wiersma,E Bad Wiessee 2003) 17...Rfxd8 18.Kxg2

18...Bf6 (18...Rd5 19.Rfc1 Rc8 20.b3 Bg5 21.Bxg5 Rxg5 22.Rc2 Ra5 23.Rd1² Krallmann,MRezasade,A Dortmund 2006) 19.Rab1 c5 (19...g5 20.Be3 a5 21.Rfc1 Rd6 22.Rc2²) 20.Rfc1 Rac8 21.b3 g5 22.Be3 Bd4 23.Bxd4 cxd4 24.Rxc8 Rxc8 25.Rb2² Zayac,E-Vunder,A St Petersburg 1998. b) 12...Nxd4 13.Qxd4 Be6 14.Rfd1 (14.Rac1 Qd7 15.Kh2 b6 16.Qa4 Qxa4 17.Nxa4 Ne4 18.Nc3 Nxc3 19.Rxc3 Bf6 20.Rc2² Wind,P-Kralj,A Giessen 1991) 14...Qa5 15.Be5 Rfd8 16.e3² Esnaola Sansebastian,I-Nava Pereda,C Euskadi 2000. 1.7.1 — 12...BE6 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Bf4 Bg4 12.h3 Be6 The text leads to a pleasant endgame for White.

193

13.Nxe6 fxe6 14.e4! As in Sub-Chapter 1.6. 14...d4 15.e5 dxc3 Other moves are simply bad for Black: 15...Nd7? 16.Bxc6 bxc6 17.Qxd4+– or 15...Ne8? 16.Nb5 (16.Ne4 g5 17.Bd2 Nxe5 18.f4 Nc4 19.Qb3 Rc8 20.Rac1± Gagare,S-Kamble,V Mumbai 2009; 16.Qb3 Nc7 17.Rad1±) 16...g5 17.Bxc6 bxc6 18.Nxd4± 16.exf6 Bxf6 17.bxc3

194

17...Bxc3 The main alternative is 17...Qxd1 (17...Kh8? 18.Rb1 e5 19.Be3 Qc7 20.Qg4± Busch,K-Dankert,P Krumbach 1985) 17...Qxd1 18.Rfxd1 (18.Raxd1 Rad8 [18...Bxc3 19.Rd7 e5 20.Be3 a5 21.Rb1 Rad8 22.Rbxb7 Rxd7 23.Rxd7± Rohde,U-Bokelbrink,U Germany 1996] 19.Rxd8 Rxd8 20.Rb1±) a) 18...Rad8 19.Rxd8 Rxd8 20.Rb1

20...Rd7 (20...Bxc3?! 21.Rxb7 Nd4 22.Bc7 Ne2+ 23.Kf1 Rd2 24.Be4± Rylander,D-Friberg,H Skara 2002) 21.c4 Bd4 22.h4² Akesson,R-Orsag,M Aaland-Stockholm 1997. b) 18...Bxc3?! 19.Rac1 Be5 (19...Nd4? 20.Kf1+–; 19...e5?! 20.Bxh6 Bd4 [20...Nd4 21.Kf1 Rac8 195

22.Bxb7± Hracek,Z-Dugandzic,B Rabac 2003] 21.Be3 Bxe3 22.fxe3± Backelin,R-Steneskog,P Malmo 2004)

20.Bxe5 (20.Rxc6 Bxf4 21.Rxe6 Bc7 22.Bxb7±) 20...Nxe5 21.Bxb7± Sasikiran,K-Ravi,L Kolkata 1999. c) 18...Rfd8 19.Rac1 (19.Be3 is a major idea in such positions, stopping the black bishop from getting to the g1-a7 diagonal, and it is not inferior: 19...Bxc3 20.Rab1 Rxd1+ 21.Rxd1 Rd8 [21...Rc8 22.Rd7 b5 23.Rd6±] 22.Rxd8+ Nxd8 23.Bxa7 Kf7 24.Kf1

24...Ke8 [24...Ke7 25.Ke2 Kd6 26.Kd3± Dlugy,M-Vucic,M New York 1992] 25.Ke2 Kd7 26.Kd3± Vokac,M-Dvorak,J Czech Republic 2008) 19...Rac8 (19...Rxd1+ 20.Rxd1 Rd8 [20...Bxc3?! 21.Rd7! 196

{21.Bxc6?! bxc6 22.Rc1 Bd4 23.Rxc6 e5=} 21...e5 22.Be3 Rb8 23.Bd5+° Brittner,S-Jongsma,D Luxembourg 1999] 21.Rxd8+ Nxd8 [21...Bxd8 22.Be3²] 22.Be3 [22.c4 Bd4 23.Kf1 Kf7 24.Ke2 Nc6 25.Bxc6 bxc6 26.Be3 Bxe3 27.Kxe3 e5 28.Ke4 Ke6= San Segundo,P-Illescas,M Villarrobledo 1998] 22...Bxc3 23.Bxa7²) 20.Be3

20...b6 (20...Rxd1+ 21.Rxd1 Bxc3 [21...Rc7 22.Bf4 Rc8 23.Rd7 Bxc3 24.Rxb7± Obodchuk,ACarvalho,G Turin 2006] 22.Rd7 b6 23.h4!² [23.Bxc6? Rxc6 24.Rxa7 b5=]) 21.Rxd8+ Nxd8 (21...Bxd8 22.Rd1 Bf6 23.Rd7 [23.Rd6 Ne7 24.Rxe6 Rxc3 25.Be4²] 23...Bxc3 24.h4!°) 22.c4 Nc6 (22...Be7 23.Rd1 Rc7 [23...Rxc4 24.Rd7 Kf8 25.Rxa7 Bc5 26.Bf1 Rc2 27.Bd3 Rc3 28.Bxc5+ Rxc5 29.Bg6² Vesselovsky,S-Orsag,M Czech Republic 2005] 24.Bf4 Rxc4 25.Rd7 Kf8 26.Rxa7 Bc5 27.Be5!² Golod,V-Potkin,V Linares 2001 — see Endgame Technique) 23.c5 Nb4 24.a4 Nd3 25.cxb6 Rxc1+ 26.Bxc1 axb6 27.Bd2 Bd4 28.Kf1 Nc5 29.Bc6 Kf7 30.Ke2² Wojtkiewicz,A-Akobian,V Los Angeles 2003. In all this chapter’s variations, the bishop pair is the main power behind White’s position and the transfer to an advantageous ending always looms... 18.Rb1 Not much is given by 18.Rc1 Qf6! 19.Bxc6 bxc6 20.Qb3 Be5! (20...Bd4 21.Rxc6 Rae8 22.Re1 Kf7 23.Re2± Wiedenkeller,M-Bjork,C Stockholm 1988) 21.Bxe5 Qxe5 22.Rfe1 Qd5 23.Rxe6 Qxb3 24.axb3 Rf3 25.Rcxc6 Raf8 26.Rc2 Rxb3 27.Re7 Rbf3 28.Rxa7 R8f7= Wiedenkeller,M-Poulsen,A Copenhagen 1986.

197

18...Qxd1 Again Black can make other choices: a) 18...Qf6 19.Rxb7 Rad8 20.Qh5 (20.Qb1!±) 20...Nb4 21.Be3! a5 (21...Nxa2? 22.Qe2 Nb4 23.Bc5+–) 22.Be4 Bd4 23.Bxd4 Rxd4 24.Qxa5 Rxe4 25.Rxb4± Zayac,E- Shadrina,T Serpukhov 2001. b) 18...Na5 19.Qg4 Qf6 20.Be3!² Garcia Gonzalez,G-Vera,R La Habana 1984. c) 18...Rf7 19.Rxb7 (19.Qg4!?²) 19...Rxb7 20.Bxc6 Qxd1 (20...Rb2 21.Bxa8 Qxa8 22.Qd7 e5 23.Be3± Riedel,W-Hoensch,M Germany 1996) 21.Rxd1 Rab8 22.Bxb7 (22.Bxb8 ½-½ Anand,V-Fritz 6 Frankfurt 1999) 22...Rxb7 23.Rd3² 19.Rfxd1 Rad8 Or 19...Rf7 20.Bxc6 (20.Rbc1! Ba5 21.Bxc6 bxc6 22.Rxc6²/±) 20...bxc6 21.Rbc1 e5 22.Be3 Bd4 23.Bxd4 exd4 24.Rxd4 Rb8 25.Rc2 Rc7² ½-½ Krause,U-Ilgner,A Kappeln 1990.

198

20.Be3 White can also play 20.Rxd8 (20.Rdc1?! Bd2! 21.Bxd2 Rxd2 22.Rxb7 Nd4 23.Rcc7 Rfxf2 24.Rxg7+ Kf8=) which seems to be the accurate move order: 20.Rxd8 Nxd8 21.Rd1 (21.Bxb7 Nxb7 22.Rxb7 Bd4=, or 21.Be3 b6 22.Rd1° Lobron,E-Kortchnoi,V Bad Homburg 1998) 21...Nc6 22.Be3! — a transposition to the main line and better than 22.Rd7 Rf7 23.Rd6 Re7 24.Bxc6 bxc6 25.Rxc6 Bd4= Panin,A-Bataev,R Murom 2000. 20...Rxd1+ 20...Bd4! has to be tried here (the point of 20.Rxd8): 21.Bxd4 Nxd4 22.Bxb7 Ne2+ 23.Kg2 Nc3 24.Rxd8 Rxd8 25.Rb2 (25.Re1 Rd6 26.a3 Rb6 27.Bc8 Kf7 28.Re5 Rc6= Jurek,J-Florea,D Olomouc 2002) 25...Rb8 26.a3 Ne4 27.Rb4 Nc5 28.Bc6 Rxb4 29.axb4 Nd3 30.b5 Kf7= Hergott,D-Alonso,R Linares 1992. 21.Rxd1

199

21...Bb4 But not 21...Nb4!? 22.Rc1 Bf6 23.Bxb7 (23.a3 Nd5 24.Bxa7 Ra8 25.Bc5 Rc8=) 23...Nxa2 24.Rc6! Re8 25.Bc8 Kf7 26.Bc5± 22.Be4 A quite interesting move and a suggested novelty in place of 22.Rd7 Rf7 23.Bxc6 bxc6 24.Rxa7 Rxa7 25.Bxa7 Kf7 26.Bd4² Yevseev,D-Kirusha,A Gatchina 2001, although I am not entirely sure that Black can hold — the outside passed pawn is a good asset. White does not have to be in a hurry. 22...a6 23.Bb6² White has full compensation for the temporary sacrifice of a pawn (bishop pair, d-file and pressure) and can improve his position (h4, Rd7, Kg2 etc) — Black still has a long way to go.

200

1.7.2 — 12...BH5 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Bf4 Bg4 12.h3 Bh5

A try for a more complicated position. White must be careful as he can easily lose his way, but in the end he can boast a small but lasting advantage. 13.Nf5! Bg6

201

Black is obliged to cover the important g6-square. Alternatives have fared badly: a) 13...Re8?! 14.Nxd5 Nxd5 15.Bxd5 Bf6 16.Nd6 Nd4 17.Nxe8 (17.g4? Nxe2+µ Hultin,PAkerman,P Stockholm 1994) 17...Nxe2+ 18.Kh2 Nxf4 19.Nxf6+ Qxf6 20.Bf3 Rd8 21.Qa4± b) 13...d4?! 14.Bxc6 bxc6 15.Qxd4 Re8 16.Be5 Qxd4 17.Bxd4 Bd8 18.Rac1 Bxe2 19.Nxe2 Rxe2 20.Rxc6 Kh7 21.Ra6 1–0 Nachev,S-Burtasova,A Murom 2000. c) 13...Qd7?! 14.Nxe7+ Nxe7 15.Be5 (15.g4 Bg6 16.Qa4² Hracek,Z-Reutsky,S Rijeka 2010) 15...Rad8 16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Qd4± Hoffmann,M-Rioseco Pinochet,F Caleta 2010. 14.Nxe7+

14...Qxe7 The passive 14...Nxe7?! 15.Qb3 b6 16.Rfd1 Rc8 17.Rd2 Qd7 18.Be5± Arlandi,E-Illescas Cordoba,M Los Yebenes 1990 is too good for White. 15.Nxd5 Nxd5 16.Qxd5 Rad8 Worse seems to be 16...Qxe2?! 17.Qb3! Qa6 18.Rfd1 Rfd8 19.Bf1 Qb6 20.Qxb6± (½-½ Garcia Paolicchi,R- Cooper,J Manila 1992) 20...axb6 21.a3± Kostak,T-Pokorna,R Presov 1997. 17.Qc4! Nd4! Best. Black soon got a close-to-lost position after 17...Rd4?! 18.Qb3 Rb4 19.Qa3 Rd8 20.Be3 a5 21.Rad1± Grivas,E-Martidis,A Athens 1995. Now White has to be quite careful, as Black’s central activity looks quite strong. In such cases, it is important to slow down the opponent’s initiative by 202

concrete exchanges.

18.Kh2! The main alternative is 18.e4?! when Black can get an even game: 18...b5! (18...Bxe4? 19.Rfe1 b5 20.Qc3 f5 21.f3+–) 19.Qd3 (19.Qc7 Rd7 20.Qe5 Qb4∞ Mirkovic,S-Todorovic,G Senta 2009, but not 20...Ne2+? 21.Kh2 Qxe5 22.Bxe5 Re8 23.Rae1± Mariano,E- Manca,F Porto San Giorgio 2006)

19...Bh5! (19...f5?! 20.Rae1! Qf7 21.exf5 Bxf5 22.Qc3 b4 23.Qc5!² Gelfand,B-Illescas Cordoba,M Wijk aan Zee 1993; 19...Rfe8?! 20.Rfe1 Qb4 21.b3 f5 22.Rac1 fxe4 23.Qc3² Poliakov,VOdnorozhenko,E Zolochiv 2017; 19...Qf6? 20.Bc7 Rc8 21.Rad1± Quintiliano Pinto,R-Santos,M Sao 203

Paulo 2013; 19...Qb4? 20.b3 Rfe8 21.Rad1 Qc3 22.Qxc3 [½-½ Pinto,R-Santos,M Sao Bernardo 2010] 22...Ne2+ 23.Kh2 Nxc3 24.Rxd8 Rxd8 25.Rc1±) 20.g4 (20.Rfe1? Nf3+–+) 20...f5! 21.gxh5 (21.Qe3? fxg4 22.hxg4 Bxg4 23.Bg3 Nf3+–+ Feofanov,D-Vunder,A St Petersburg 2006; 21.f3? fxg4 22.fxg4 Bf7 23.Bh2 Bc4µ Tunik,G-Vunder,A St Petersburg 2011) 21...fxe4 22.Qe3 (22.Qxe4 Qxe4 23.Bxe4 Ne2+ 24.Kh2 Nxf4 25.Rad1 Nxh5 26.Bd5+ [26.Rxd8 Rxd8 27.Bf3 Nf6= Karthikeyan,PUdeshi,A Aurangabad 2011] 26...Kh8 27.Bf3 Rxd1 28.Bxd1 Nf4= Dobrov,V-Pashikian,A Moscow 2004) 22...Rxf4 23.Rad1 Nf3+ 24.Bxf3 Rxf3 25.Rxd8+ Qxd8 26.Qxe4 Qg5+ 27.Qg4 Rxh3 28.Qxg5 hxg5= 18...b5! Black has to be careful: 18...Rfe8?! 19.Rad1 b5 20.Qc7 Rd7 21.Qa5 Nxe2 22.Be3± 19.Qc3 Qxe2 19...Nxe2 20.Rfe1 Bd3 21.Qe5!² is pleasant for White.

20.Rae1! Of course, White must avoid 20.Rfe1? Qxf2µ and also not much is given by 20.Rad1 b4! (20...Qc4 21.Be5 Qxc3 22.bxc3 Ne2 23.Bf3 Rxd1 24.Rxd1 f6!= Neverov,V-Eljanov,P Ordzhonikidze 2001) 21.Qe3 Qc4! (21...Rfe8? 22.Qxe2 Rxe2 23.Be3 Ne6 24.Rxd8+ Nxd8 25.Rd1 Ne6 26.Rd2 Rxd2 27.Bxd2±) 22.b3 Qc3∞ 20...Qd3 21.Re7 The position can be classed as quite critical for Black, because White has the bishop pair and a rook 204

on the 7th rank, assets that could easily hand him the point if uncontested... 21...Nf3+ A suggested novelty and a better try than 21...Qf5? 22.Bc7! (22.Rfe1 b4 23.Qc4 Ne6 24.Be3 Qf6 25.Rb7² Demuth,A-Chirila,I Chalkidiki 2003) 22...Rd5 23.Rd1±, or 21...Qxc3? 22.bxc3 Ne6 23.Be3 Rd3 24.Rc1± Todorovic,G-Lekic,D Nis 1995. 22.Kh1 Rde8 Black cannot equalise: 22...Rfe8 23.Rxa7², or 22...Qxc3 23.bxc3 Nd2 24.Rc1², or finally, 22...a6 23.Qxd3 Rxd3 24.Be3² 23.Qxd3 23.Rxa7?! loses the advantage: 23...Ne1 24.Qxd3 (24.Rxe1 Qxc3! 25.Rxe8=) 24...Bxd3 25.Rg1 Nxg2 26.Kxg2 Re2= 23...Bxd3 24.Rxe8 Rxe8 25.Rc1²

White has the better endgame, either with the bishop pair or even just with bishop vs knight.

205

CHAPTER 2. THE 9...C4 LINE 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 c4

This is the ‘Swedish Variation’, also called the ‘Folkestone Variation’. This is a sharp line, where Black gets a 4:3 queenside pawn majority and will try to expand with ...b5, while White aims for a central break with e4 and/or kingside activity. White can also play on the queenside, with some precise continuations. In general we can say that Black is not satisfied with an isolated pawn on d5, but on the other hand surrenders the centre to White. After the more-or-less forced moves 10.Ne5 Be6 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.b3

206

Black has a basic choice between: 12...cxb3, 12...h6 and 12...Qa5. Note that 12...Rc8 has also been tried a bit: 13.bxc4 dxc4 14.Rc1 Qa5 (14...h6 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.e3 Qa5 17.Qa4 Qxa4 18.Nxa4² Mason,IClarke,J England 2018) 15.Ne4 (15.Bd2 Qa3 16.Qa4 Qxa4 17.Nxa4 Rfd8 18.e3² Mitkov,MPappelis,D Katowice 2017) 15...Rfd8 (15...Nxe4!? 16.Bxe7 Rfe8 17.Bxe4 Rxe7 18.Qc2²) 16.Nxf6+ gxf6 17.Bd2! (17.Be3 Ba3 18.Rc2 c3∞ Kesten,S-Bach,M Germany 2010) 17...Qxa2 18.Bc3² 2.1 — 12...CXB3 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 c4 10.Ne5 Be6 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.b3 cxb3

207

Black accepts a slightly worse pawn formation (weak pawns on a7 and c6) but hopes to create counterplay against the white b3-pawn (after 13.axb3) and on the queenside in general. 13.axb3 13.Qxb3 does not offer much: 13...Bf5! (13...h6?! 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.e3 c5 16.dxc5 d4 17.Nd5 Bxd5 18.Qxd5 Qxd5 19.Bxd5 Rad8 20.e4± Hutters,T-Panjwani,R Kitchener 2003) 14.Qa4 Qd7 15.Rad1 Rab8 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.e4 Bg4 18.f3 Be6= Stockmann,M-Rack,M Bruchkoebel 2002.

13...h6

208

Here, many other moves have been tried: a) 13...Re8?! 14.Qd3 Qd7 15.Rfc1 (15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Na4 Bf5 17.Qd2 Qe7 18.e3² Kopacz,GZarow,Z Rabka 2002) 15...a5 16.Na4 Qb7 17.e3± Koch,T-Heppekausen,J Aachen 1993. b) 13...Bg4?! 14.Qc2 Qb6 15.e3 Rab8 16.Rfb1 Rfc8 17.Na4 Qd8 18.Nc5± Vilela,J-Ricardi,P Havana 1986. c) 13...Qc8 14.Ra2 (14.e4!? Qb7 [14...dxe4 15.Nxe4±] 15.e5±) 14...Bh3 15.Qa1 Bxg2 16.Kxg2 Qb7 17.Bxf6 Bxf6 18.Na4² Tatai,S-Kilian,R Dortmund 1999. d) 13...Nd7 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Ra6 Nb6 16.Qd3 Qb4 17.Na2 Qd6 18.Rc1² Suba,M-Sanz Alonso,F Las Palmas 1979. e) 13...Bb4

14.Na4 (14.Qc2 h6 15.Bd2 c5 16.Na4 Bxd2 [16...Ne4 17.Bxe4 dxe4 18.Nxc5 Bxc5 19.dxc5 Bxb3 20.Qxb3 Qxd2 21.e3 a5 22.Rfd1± Hutters,T-Noritsyn,N Guelph 2004] 17.Qxd2 cxd4 18.Qxd4²) 14...Re8 15.Qc2 h6 16.Bd2² Dorfman,J-Neidhardt,C France 1991. Probably Black should choose one of the following three options, which promise him a slightly worse but defendable position: f) 13...a5 14.Na4 (14.Qc2 Qb6 15.Rfd1 h6 16.Na4 Qb5 17.Bxf6 Bxf6 18.e3² Lechtynsky,JPravdik,K Tabor 2011) 14...h6 (14...Nd7 15.Bxe7 Qxe7 16.Qc2 Qb4 17.e3 Rfc8 18.Rfc1 Rab8 19.Nc5 Nxc5 20.Qxc5 Qxc5 21.Rxc5 Rxb3 22.Rcxa5 Rcb8 23.Bf1² Mlynek,P-Muratidis,N Moravia 2003) 15.Bxf6 Bxf6

209

16.Qd3 (16.Nc5 Qb6 17.Rc1 Bf5 18.Re1 Rfe8 19.e3 Be7∞ Tarjan,J-Mindlin,A Douglas 2014) 16...g6 17.Rfc1 Qd6 18.Nc5 Bf5 19.Qc3 Rfb8 20.e3² Petri,K-Mittendorf,F Baunatal 1999. g) 13...Qd7 14.Na4 Bh3 (14...Ne4! 15.Bxe7 Qxe7 16.Qc2 Qf6 17.Nc5!² [17.e3 Bf5 {17...Ng5? 18.f3± Osieka,U-Blum,G Altenkirchen 1999} 18.Qc1 Ng5 19.Nc5²]) 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Nc5 Qf5 17.Bxh3 (17.Ra6 Rfc8 18.Qd2 Bxg2 19.Kxg2 h5 20.h3 Rc7 21.e3² Ubilava,E-Saenz,J Elgoibar 1993) 17...Qxh3 18.e3 Be7 (18...Qf5 19.Ra6± Milos,G-Araujo,C Recife 2013) 19.Qc2 h5 20.Ra6 Rfc8 21.Nd3± Molnar,L-Boricsev,O Balatonbereny 1994. h) 13...Qb6

14.Na4 (14.Qd3 a5 15.Rfb1 Rfb8 16.Na4 Qb5 17.Qc2 g6 18.Rb2 Bf5 19.Qc1 Qb7 20.h3 h5 21.Nc5 210

Qc8 22.Kh2² Ribli,Z-Pfleger,H Amsterdam 1978) 14...Qb5 (14...Qb4 15.e3 Rfb8 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.Nc5 a5 18.Qc2² Panelo Munoz,M-Garcia,E Montcada 2013) 15.Qc2 h1) 15...Rfb8 16.Rfc1 (16.Rfb1!? h6 17.Bxf6 Bxf6 18.e3²) 16...Qxb3 17.Qxb3 Rxb3 18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Rxc6² Facchetti,L-Voltolini,G Arco 2019. h2) 15...Rab8

16.Rfb1 (16.Rab1 h6 17.Bf4 Rb7 18.Nc5 Bxc5 19.dxc5 Re8∞ Grigoryan,K-Sernecki,F Liberec 2017) 16...g6 17.Rb2 Bf5 18.Qc1 Rfe8 19.Bxf6 Bxf6 20.e3² Mosetlhe,K-Jere,D Johannesburg 2017. h3) 15...Rfe8 16.Rfc1 h6 17.Bf4 (17.Bxf6! Bxf6 18.e3±) 17...Bd7 18.f3 Bb4 19.e4 dxe4 20.fxe4² Caballero Quijano,M-Suasnabar,J Lima 2012. 14.Bxf6! The text is more in the spirit of White’s plans and should be considered the main line. White has also tried 14.Bf4 Qd7! 15.Na4 Bh3 16.Qd3 Bxg2 17.Kxg2∞ Real de Azua,EBarrionuevo,P Moron 2012. 14...Bxf6 15.Na4

211

15...Bf5 Probably the best line for Black: a) 15...Be7 16.Qc2 Qd7 (16...Qa5 17.Nc5 Qb5 18.Nxe6 fxe6 19.Rfc1 Rfc8 20.Qg6± Garcia,RArguinariz,E Buenos Aires 2002) 17.Rfc1 Rfc8 18.Nc5 Bxc5 19.Qxc5² Flumbort,A-Borsos,B Hungary 2009. b) 15...Bg4 16.Qd3 Qd6 17.Rfc1 h5 18.e3

18...Rfb8 (18...Rac8 19.Qa6 [19.Nc5!±] 19...Rc7 20.Rc5 Be7 21.Rac1² Goetz,A-Jethan,M Vienna 2006) 19.Nc5 a5 20.Na6± Gagare,S-Udeshi,A Chennai 2011. 212

c) 15...Qa5 16.e3 Be7 17.Qc2 Qb5 18.Rfc1 Rab8 19.Qxc6 Qxb3 20.Qa6± Szekely,P-Witt,R Haarlem 1995. d) 15...Re8 16.e3 Be7 17.Qc2 Rb8 18.Nc5 Bxc5 19.Qxc5 Qb6 20.Rfc1 Qxb3 21.Rxa7² Mai,INehse,G Glauchau 1987. e) 15...Rb8 16.e3 (16.Nc5 a5 17.e3 Bf5 18.Qd2 Rb5 19.Rfc1² Notaros,K-Sunye Neto,J Novi Sad 1983) 16...Rb5 17.Qc2 Qb8 18.Nc5 Re8 19.Rfc1± Kestler,H-Sprotte,N Bad Neuenahr 1980. f) 15...Qb8 16.Nc5 (16.e3 Be7 17.Qc2 Rc8 18.Rfc1² Kiss,P-Nedoma,M Prague 2019) 16...Be7 17.Qc2 Bg4 18.e3 Rc8 19.h3 Bh5 20.Rfc1² Alburt,L-Vooremaa,A Riga 1975. g) 15...Qd6 16.e3 Rfb8 17.Qc2 Bd7 18.Nc5 Bd8 19.Rfc1² Sharif,M-Bhopal,R Rhodes 2019. 16.Qd2 Natural and best: 16.Rc1?! Qd6 17.Qd2 Rab8 18.Nc5 a5 19.e3 Rb5= Chelushkina,I-Petrenko,S Belgrade 2003 and 16.e3 Qb8 17.Rc1 Rc8 18.Nc5 Be7 19.Qh5 Bg6 20.Qg4² Akesson,R-Kristensen,K Malmo 2015. 16...Qd6 17.Nc5²

Nielsen,P-Rogers,I Turin 2006. White’s better pawn structure and the c5-outpost give him the advantage. Also, it seems that he runs no risk at all... 2.2 — 12...H6 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 c4 10.Ne5 Be6 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.b3 h6

213

Gaining the bishop pair as compensation for a weak pawn structure does not seem to be a bad idea, but these kinds of positions are slightly preferable for knights, so White can claim an advantage. 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.bxc4 dxc4 15.e3

15...Qa5 The other main option is 15...c5?! 16.Ne4! (16.Bxa8?! Qxa8 17.d5! Bxc3! [17...Bh3 18.Rc1 Bxf1 {18...Rd8 19.Re1 Bxc3 20.Rxc3 Rxd5 21.Qf3 Qc6 22.e4±} 19.Kxf1 Rd8 20.e4²] 18.dxe6 [18.Rc1 Bb2 19.dxe6 {19.Rc2 Bh3 20.Rxb2 Bxf1 21.Kxf1 Qe8=} 19...Bxc1 20.exf7+ Rxf7 21.Qxc1 Qe4 214

22.Qb1] 18...Bxa1 19.exf7+ Rxf7 20.Qxa1

20...Qe4 [20...Qf3 21.Qb2 Qe4 22.Qb1²] 21.Qb1! [The key move in the ensuing endgame. White has to try to win the black c4-pawn without losing his own at f2 or a2] 21...Qd3! [21...Re7 22.Qxe4 Rxe4 23.Rc1±] 22.Rc1 Qe2 23.Rc2 [23.Qc2? Rxf2 24.Qxc4+ Qxc4 25.Rxc4 Rxa2 26.Rxc5 Kf7³] 23...Qd3= Graf,A-Fish,G Altenkirchen 2005) 16...Be7 (16...cxd4 17.Nxf6+ Qxf6 18.Bxa8 Rxa8 19.Qxd4 Qf3 20.Qf4 Qc6 21.Rfc1 Bd5 22.Rab1 c3 23.Rb8+ Rxb8 24.Qxb8+ Kh7 25.Qe5+– Greenfeld,A-Garneli,E Corfu 1991, or 16...Bxd4 17.exd4 cxd4 18.Nc5 Rc8 19.Nxe6 fxe6 20.Bh3±) 17.Nxc5 Bxc5 18.dxc5 Rc8 19.c6± Kunin,V-Dargel,M Griesheim 2006. 16.Rc1 White can also think of 16.Qc2

215

16...c5 (16...Rac8 17.Ne4 Be7 18.Nd2 Qa6 19.Rab1² Eriksson,J-Lie,E Stockholm 2005. In case Black succeeds in playing a c5-advance, White will continue with d5, exchanging his d-pawn for Black’s c6-pawn. Then he will place his knight on c4 (also capturing the enemy c4-pawn) with a slight but permanent advantage) 17.Bxa8 (17.Ne4 cxd4 18.Nxf6+ gxf6 19.exd4 Rad8=) 17...cxd4 18.exd4 Bxd4 19.Be4 Qxc3 20.Qxc3 Bxc3 21.Rab1² Another interesting move is 16.Ne4 Be7 17.Qc2 Rab8 (17...Ba3 18.Nd2 c3 19.Nb3² Vrbata,ZKociscak,J Prague 2019) 18.Nd2² Zhou,J-Nuri,K Arlington 2015. 16...Rac8! Inferior is 16...Rfc8?! 17.Qa4 Qxa4 18.Nxa4 Be7 19.Rc2 Rab8 20.Nb2 Bf5 (20...c3 21.Na4 c5 22.d5 Bd7 23.Nxc3±) 21.e4 Be6 22.Nxc4± Polak,T-Netusil,M Czech Republic 1998. 17.Qa4 It seems that the queen exchange favours White, as it decreases Black’s queenside pressure. 17.Qe2?! doesn’t give much: 17...Rfd8 18.Rfd1 Be7 19.Rc2 Bb4 20.Nb1 g6 21.a3 Bf8 22.Nd2 (22.Qd2 Qc7 23.Qe1 Rb8∞ Ignacz,M-Banusz,T Hungary 2003) 22...c5 23.Nxc4 Bxc4 24.Rxc4 cxd4 25.Rcxd4 Rxd4 26.exd4 Qxa3=

216

17...Qxa4 Black has tried to preserve the queens by 17...Qc7?! but after 18.Ne4 (18.Rb1 Rfd8 19.Rfe1² Eybl,AFuchs,G Austria 2010) 18...Be7 19.Nd2± Volke,K-Doppelhammer,H Radebeul 2016, he is in trouble. 18.Nxa4 Be7

19.Nb2! White has to attack the black c-pawn at once, as after 19.Rc2 Rfd8 20.Nb2 c5∞, or 19.Rb1 Rc7 217

20.Nc3 Rd8 21.Rfd1 a5∞ Ramirez Alvarez,A-Skytte,R Cappelle-la-Grande 2012, Black should feel happy. 19...Ba3 20.Rc2 Bxb2 20...Bf5 doesn’t solve the problems: 21.e4 Bxb2 22.Rxb2 Be6 23.Rc1 Rfd8 24.Rd2 Rb8 25.f4 g6 26.Kf2²/± Swapnil,S-Bakre,T New Delhi 2017. 21.Rxb2 Rc7

22.Rc1 Possible is 22.Rfb1 g6 23.h4 Kg7 24.Rb7 Rxb7 25.Rxb7 c3 26.Rb1 Rb8 27.Rc1 Bxa2 28.Rxc3 Rb1+ 29.Kh2 Rb2 30.Bxc6 Rxf2+ 31.Kg1² Khenkin,I-Sarkar,J Hastings 2014, or 22.Rd1 g5 23.Kf1 Rd8 24.Ke1 Kg7 25.Kd2 Bd5 26.Bf1² Reid,J-Holland,J England 2014. 22...g6 22...Rd8

218

...has been played often: a) 23.Rd2 g5 24.h3 Kg7 25.g4 Kf6 (25...h5 26.gxh5 Kh6 27.Bf3 f5 28.Kh2 f4 29.e4± Rasmussen,AAagaard,J Helsingor 2012) 26.Bf3 a5 27.Rc3 Rb8 28.Be4 Bd5 29.Bf5 Re7 30.f3 Bxf3 31.Rf2 Bd5 32.e4² Balague Camps,M-Pinsach Gelabert,A Girona 2014. b) 23.Kf1 c5 24.d5 Bxd5 25.Bxd5 Rxd5 26.Rxc4 Rd1+ (26...Kf8 27.e4 Rd6 28.Rb5 Rdc6 29.Ra5 a6 30.Ke1² Bastys,R-Valantiejus,V Lithuania 2014) 27.Ke2 Ra1 28.Ra4 c4 29.Rc2 c3 30.Ra3 h5 31.h4 g6 32.Kf3 Kg7= Bekker Jensen,S-Asendorf,J Bremen 2013. c) 23.f4! g6 24.g4! f6 25.f5 is an untested try, which seems to heavily favour White... 23.Kf1 A suggested novelty — the white king must travel at once to the queenside, blocking the c4-pawn. It seems that little is offered by 23.Bf3 Kg7 24.Kf1 f5 25.a3 Bd5 26.Be2 c5 27.Rb5 Rd8 28.Rxc5 Rxc5 29.dxc5 Rc8 30.Ke1 Rxc5 31.Kd2 Ra5 32.Ra1 Rb5 33.Rc1 Rb3 34.Rc3 Rb2+ 35.Rc2 Rb3 ½-½ Oussedik,E-Jackson,J Ascot 2013, or 23.h4 Rd8 24.Rbc2 c5 25.d5! (The typical white idea for meeting the ...c5 advance) 25...Bxd5 26.Bxd5 Rxd5 27.Rxc4 Rd2! 28.Rxc5 (28.a4 Ra2=) 28...Rxc5 29.Rxc5 Rxa2 ½-½ Donchenko,A-Demuth,A Montpellier 2015. 23...Rd8 24.Ke1 Bd5 25.Bxd5 cxd5 26.a4

219

In this ending it is White who holds an advantage, despite Black’s passed and protected pawn on c4! He will place his king on c3 and then penetrate with his rooks into Black’s camp via the b-file, while a well-timed e4 advance will be welcomed. 2.3 — 12...QA5 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 c4 10.Ne5 Be6 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.b3 Qa5

This is the most frequently played continuation for Black. An active concept which plans a pawn

220

advance in the centre, with an eventual ...c5. After 13.Na4 (13.Qc2 Rfd8 14.Rfd1 Rac8 15.bxc4 dxc4 16.Ne4 Rd7?!± ½-½ Grivas,E-Marjanovic,S Pucarevo 1987)

He has a choice concerning his rooks’ placement: 13...Rfd8, 13...Rad8 or 13...Rab8. As usual, Black can try some other options. Note that we have a lot of transpositions, so a good study of everything is needed. a) 13...Rfc8 14.Bxf6 (14.bxc4 dxc4 15.Bd2 Qd8 16.e3 Rab8 17.Rb1 Rxb1 18.Qxb1 c5∞ Baliuniene,M-Gailiunaite,S Kaunas 2015) 14...gxf6 (14...Bxf6 15.Nc5 Bg4 16.h3 Bh5 17.bxc4 dxc4 18.Rc1±) 15.e3 Rab8

221

16.Qh5!²/± Schmitt,A-Dittmar,P Schramberg 1993. b) 13...cxb3 14.axb3 Qb4 (14...Qb5 15.Qc2 h6 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.e3² Zimmermann,H-Keller,C Hanau 2008) 15.e3 Nd7 (15...Rab8 16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Qh5 Qxb3 18.Rfc1 Ba3 19.Nc5 Bxc5 20.Rxc5² Jasnikowski,Z-Poulsen,A Copenhagen 1989; 15...Bf5 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.Nc5² Nyback,T-Stangl,M Germany 2010) 16.Bxe7 Qxe7 17.Qc2 Rfc8 18.Rfc1² Lechtynsky,J-Novak,P Klatovy 2002. c) 13...c5 14.Bxf6 (14.dxc5 Bxc5 15.Bxf6 gxf6

16.bxc4! (16.e3?! Rac8 17.Qh5 Rfd8² Piscicelli,D-Suarez,J Mar del Plata 1989) 16...Rad8 17.Nxc5 Qxc5 18.cxd5 Bxd5 19.Qc1+–) 14...gxf6 15.bxc4 cxd4 16.cxd5 Bxd5 17.Bxd5 Qxd5

222

18.e4! (18.Nc3 Qe5 19.Na4 Rfd8 20.Nb2 Rac8 21.Nd3² Daeubler,H-Kreie,G Bergen 2012) 18...Qd6 (18...Qxe4 19.Re1 Qb7 20.Qg4+ Kh8 21.Rab1 Qc7 22.Qxd4±) 19.Nb2± d) 13...Rac8 14.bxc4 dxc4 15.Bxf6 d1) 15...gxf6 16.Qc2 Rfd8 17.Rfd1

17...f5 (17...Rd7 18.e3 Rb7 19.Rab1 Rxb1 20.Rxb1² Picart,L-Valette,C Fouesnant 2003; 17...Kg7 18.e3 Bb4 19.Nb2² Vokac,M-Litwak,A Pardubice 2012) 18.e3 Qa6 19.Nc3 Bf6 20.Rab1² Mertens,M-Lehnert,C Leipzig 1998. d2) 15...Bxf6 16.Nc5 c3 (16...Qa3 17.e3 Rfe8 18.Qc1 Qa5 19.Qc2± Hulin,J-Verot,M France 2005; 16...Qd8 17.Nxe6 fxe6 18.Rc1 Bxd4 19.e3 Bb6 20.Rxc4± De Silva,G-Abhishek,D Ambalangoda 223

2012; 16...Rb8 17.e3 Stukan,M-Leidorf,S St Petersburg 2017) 17.Rc1 (17.Nxe6?! fxe6 18.Qb3 Bxd4 19.e3 Bf6 20.Qxe6+ Kh8∞ Ostenstad,B-Bluvshtein,M Gausdal 2002) 17...Bd5 18.Qd3± 2.3.1 — 13...RFD8 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 c4 10.Ne5 Be6 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.b3 Qa5 13.Na4 Rfd8

Black wants to try an early ...c5. 14.e3 c5 14...Rac8 and 14...Rab8 transpose to other examined lines. 15.Nxc5 Bxc5 16.dxc5 Qxc5

224

17.Bxf6! The text should be better than the alternatives: a) 17.bxc4?! dxc4 18.Bxa8 Rxd1 19.Rfxd1 Nd7 (19...Ne8!? 20.Bd8 c3³) 20.Bf4∞ Jussupow,AMarjanovic,S Sarajevo 1984. b) 17.Qf3 Qe7 18.Rac1 (18.e4 h6 19.exd5 Bxd5 20.Bxf6 Qxf6 21.Qxd5 Rxd5 22.Bxd5 Re8 23.bxc4∞ Vaulin,A-Bezgodov,A Cheliabinsk 1989) 18...Rac8 19.Rc3 h6 20.Bxf6 Qxf6 21.Qxf6 gxf6 22.Rfc1 a5 23.Bf1 cxb3 24.axb3 Rxc3 25.Rxc3 d4 26.exd4 Rxd4 27.Bd3 a4 28.bxa4 ½-½ Seirawan,Y-Piket,J Monte Carlo 1994. 17...gxf6 18.Qh5 18.bxc4 is the other main continuation, where White wishes to transpose to an endgame with two rooks vs queen, something that should give him the advantage. After 18...dxc4 19.Bxa8 Rxd1 20.Rfxd1 c3! (The text is Black’s best, especially compared to 20...Qa3? 21.Rac1! [21.Bd5? Bxd5 22.Rxd5 c3 23.Rd8+ Kg7 24.Rc8 Qb2 25.Rf1 c2 26.a4 a5=] 21...h5 22.h4 Qxa2 [22...a5 23.Rc2±, intending Bf3-e2; 22...Bg4 23.Rd8+ Kg7 24.Rxc4 Qxa2 25.Rf4±) 23.Bd5!± when by exchanging the bishops, White eliminates any possible Black counterplay and weakens the enemy queenside pawns, as in Chernin,A-Marjanovic,S Subotica 1987 — see Endgame Technique. Now White can choose between: a) 21.Be4 c2 (21...Bg4! might be even stronger) 22.Rd8+ Kg7 23.Rc1

225

23...Bh3! (Black is close to lost after the inferior 23...Bxa2? 24.Rxc2 Qe7 25.Rd4± Weiss Nowack,CMende,A Germany 1989, or 23...Qa5? 24.Rd4 Qxa2 25.Rxc2 Qb3 26.Rc5 Qb6 27.Rc1 a5 28.Bd5± Wagner,A-Mueller,M Germany 1996) 24.Bxc2 (24.Rxc2? Qb4–+) 24...Qc6 25.e4

25...Bg4! (A suggested novelty replacing 25...Qc3? 26.Rd3 Qb2 27.Rdd1 Qxa2 28.Bd3 Bg4 29.Re1 Qd2 30.Ba6² Janjgava,L-Novikov,I Lvov 1987. In this position White should aim to exchange bishops and his e-pawn for Black’s a-pawn, winning the endgame. But this is not at all easy, although White is clearly in no position to lose) 26.Rb8 Bf3 27.Rbb1 Qd7!, when White has nothing better than 28.Rb3! Qd2 29.Rbb1 Qd7= b) 21.Rdc1? Bf5! (21...f5? 22.Rc2 f4 23.e4±) 22.e4 Bg4

226

23.Re1 (23.e5? fxe5 24.Re1 f5 25.Bg2 c2 26.Rac1 Bh5 27.Bf1 e4 28.Re3 Bd1 29.Re1 Qd4 30.Be2 Qd2 31.Rcxd1 cxd1=Q 32.Rxd1 Qxe2 0–1 Olivier,P-Mozny,M Clichy 1991; 23.Rc2? Qc8! 24.Bd5 Bf3–+) 23...c2 24.Bd5 Qc3 25.Rac1 Bh3 (25...a5? 26.Bb3 Bh3 27.Re3 Qd2 28.Ree1 Qc3 ½-½ Schmidt,P-Migl,D Germany 1990) 26.e5 fxe5 27.Be4 f5!–+ c) 21.Rac1 Bf5! (21...Bxa2? 22.Rd3! [22.Be4 f5 23.Bc2 Bd5 24.Bb1 Bb7 25.Rd3 Qc6 26.e4 fxe4 27.Rdxc3 Qe6³ Nogly,C-Vandrey,W Bargteheide 1988] 22...c2 23.Be4 Qb5 24.Rd2±) 22.e4 Bg4 23.Rd3 c2 24.Bd5 Qb4 25.Bb3 Bd1 26.Rcxd1 cxd1=Q+ 27.Rxd1 Qxe4 28.Rd7 Qe1+ 29.Kg2 Qe4+= 18...Rac8 19.Rfd1 19.Qh6 doesn’t give much after 19...c3 20.Qxf6 d4 21.exd4 Rxd4 22.Rac1 Bf5 23.h4 Bg6 24.Rfe1 Rd6∞ Arlandi,E-Haag,M Arco 1999. 19...c3 After 19...Qa3?! 20.bxc4 (20.Qh6 Qb2 21.Rab1 Qxa2? [21...Qe5!∞] 22.bxc4 dxc4 23.Rxd8+ Rxd8 24.Be4+– Velikov,P-Liverios,T Bihac 1979) 20...dxc4 21.Be4 Kf8 22.Bf5!± Kirov,N-Wedberg,T Eksjo 1980, White should feel happy. 20.Rac1 c2 21.Rd2 Qc3 22.Rdxc2 Qxc2 23.Rxc2 Rxc2

227

24.Bf1! A suggested novelty over 24.Qh6 Rdc8 25.Bh3 R8c6 26.Bxe6 Rxe6 27.a4 Rb2∞ Gerard,NMeinhardt,M Budapest 2004, or 24.Bh3 Bxh3 (24...Rxa2 ½-½ Hoffmann,M-Dittmar,P Seefeld 1998) 25.Qxh3 Rxa2 26.Qg4+ Kf8 27.Qf5 Kg7 ½-½ Giles,B-Haag,M Christchurch 2002. The h7-pawn is the target, so White must try to place his bishop on the b1-h7 diagonal! 24...Rxa2! Black must try to immediately harvest some material. Worse is 24...Rd2?! 25.Qh6 Rc8 26.Qxf6 Rc1 27.Kg2 Rxa2 28.Qd8+ Kg7 29.Qg5+ Kf8 (29...Kh8? 30.Qh6 Kg8 31.Bd3+–) 30.Qh6+ Ke8 31.Bd3± 25.Bd3 d4! Black is obliged to seek counterplay. 26.exd4 Better than 26.g4 dxe3 27.Qxh7+ Kf8 28.Qh6+ Kg8 (28...Ke7? 29.Qxe3±) 29.Qxe3 (29.Bh7+ Kh8 30.Qxf6+ Kxh7 31.Qxd8 e2=) 29...Bxg4 30.Bc4 Rd1+ 31.Kg2 Bd7!∞ 26...Rxd4 27.Qxh7+ Kf8 28.Qh6+ Ke7 Black should be careful: 28...Kg8? 29.Bh7+ Kh8 30.Bb1++–, or 28...Ke8?! 29.Bb5+ Ke7 30.Qc1! Rd5 (30...Rad2 31.Qa3+ Rd6 32.Qxa7+±) 31.Bc6 Re5 32.h4±

228

29.Qe3 Rd5 30.g4! Kf8 31.h3²

White stands better, as long as the black rooks and bishop cannot cooperate to create serious threats against the white king. His extra h-pawn may prove to be dangerous, while his king should be safe on g3. 2.3.2 — 13...RAD8 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 c4 10.Ne5 Be6 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.b3 Qa5 13.Na4 Rad8?!

Again going for the thematic ...c5-advance, and now the a8-rook will not be hanging. Well, there are 229

disadvantages as well... 14.e3 c5 The usual follow-up in this system, but the black rooks are not well-placed. 14...Bf5 is ‘passive’: 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Nc5 cxb3 17.axb3 Qc7 18.Qd2 Be7 19.Qa5 Qb6 20.b4± Zoltek,T-Kupfer,M Miedzyzdroje 2016. 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.Nxc5 Bxc5 17.dxc5 Qxc5

18.Qh5! As in the line 13...Rfd8. 18...Qd6 Other Black tries are: 18...c3 Now this is out of the question: 19.Rac1 Rc8 20.Rfd1 Rfd8 21.Rd4± Also 18...Kg7 19.Rad1 cxb3 20.axb3 Qc2 21.Rd4 Qg6 22.Qd1±, indicates Black’s problems. Finally, 18...cxb3?! 19.axb3 Qb6 20.Ra4! Qxb3 21.Rh4 Rfe8 (21...Qc2 22.e4+–) 22.Qxh7+ Kf8 23.Rb1!+– Fiala,J-Chalupa,I Czech Republic 2012, is not what Black was aiming for...

230

19.f4? On first sight the text seems to be a strong continuation, also aiming for a direct attack against the weakened black king. Black faced no problem after the naive 19.Rfd1? Qe5 20.Qh4 a5 21.Bf1 Rb8 22.Qd4 Rfc8 23.Rac1 Qxd4 24.Rxd4 Kg7= Dokhoian,Y-Graf,A Moscow 1991, but White can get a more-or-less clear advantage with the simple 19.bxc4! dxc4 20.Be4 f5 21.Rad1 Qc7 22.Bxf5 Bxf5 23.Qxf5

23...c3 (23...Rxd1? 24.Rxd1 c3 25.Qg5+ Kh8 26.Qf6+ Kg8 27.Rd4+–) 24.Rc1± 19...cxb3 231

After 19...f5 20.Qg5+ Kh8 21.Qf6+ Kg8 22.Rad1±, or 19...Qc5 20.f5! Qxe3+ 21.Kh1 Bc8 22.Rf4 Rfe8 23.Rg4+ Kh8 24.bxc4 dxc4 25.Rh4 h6 26.Qxf7 Qg5 27.Rxc4 Bxf5 28.Rc6± Black faces quite a lot of problems. 20.axb3 20.f5?! would turn out badly due to 20...b2! 21.Rab1 Bc8 22.Rxb2 Qe5∞

20...Qb6! A suggested novelty and the only way to fight, as 20...d4? loses to 21.f5! Bc8 (21...Bxb3 22.Rf4+–; 21...Qe5 22.Qg4+ Kh8 23.fxe6 Qxe3+ 24.Kh1+–) 22.Rf4 Qe5 23.e4 (Also good enough is 23.exd4 Qe3+ 24.Kh1 Kg7 25.h3 h6 26.Rxa7+–) 23...d3 24.Raf1 d2 25.Rg4+ Kh8 26.Rh4 1–0 Rogozenko,DLauber,A Schoeneck 1996. Black resigned due to 26...Bxf5 27.exf5 Qe3+ 28.Kh1 h6 29.Bf3+– 21.f5 Qxe3+ 22.Kh1 Bc8 23.Rf4 Kh8

232

The position is anything but clear, but of course White should choose the great 19.bxc4! gaining a clear advantage. 2.3.3 — 13...RAB8 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 c4 10.Ne5 Be6 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.b3 Qa5 13.Na4 Rab8

The modern way to play as Black, who is seeking an initiative on the queenside. White has to be careful not to fall into passivity.

233

14.Bf4 There are many lines here for White and it is difficult to decide on the best, but the text seems good, although there haven’t been many games played with it. 14...Rb7 There is no point in 14...Rbc8 15.bxc4 dxc4 16.e4! Rfd8 17.Bd2 Bb4 (17...Qc7 18.Bc3²) 18.Bxb4 Qxb4 19.a3 Qe7 20.Nc5² Stefanova,A-Kovalevskaya,E Rostov on Don 2011. 15.Qc2 Rc8! The c6-pawn needs protection now. 16.bxc4 Rb4 Although not truly attractive, 16...dxc4 17.e4 Rd7 18.Rad1 Rcd8 19.Bd2 Qh5 (19...Bb4 20.Bxb4 Qxb4 21.Nc5 Rxd4 22.Rxd4 Rxd4 23.Rb1±) 20.Bc3² is a fair alternative for Black 17.Nb2 Qb6 17...Qa3?! looks appealing, but the truth is rather different after 18.Rfb1 dxc4 19.Bd2 c5 (19...Rb5?! 20.Nxc4±) 20.Bxb4 cxb4 21.e4! c3 22.Nd3 Bc4 23.Ne5±

18.Rab1 White can (and should) opt for 18.c5! Qb7 (18...Qb5 19.Rab1! [19.Nd3? Rxd4 20.Rab1 Qa6 21.Bd6 Rc4µ Schubert,T-Bach,M Germany 1998] 19...Rxd4 20.Be5 Rg4 21.h3 Rg6 22.Nd3±) 19.Rfb1 Rxd4 234

20.Be5 Rg4 21.h3 Rb4 22.Nd3 Rxb1+ 23.Rxb1 Qa6 24.Nf4² This continuation looks to be the most attractive in the 13...Rab8 line. 18...dxc4 18...Qxd4? is bad due to 19.Rfd1 Qc5 20.a3!± 19.Na4

19...Qa5 19...Qxd4? 20.Rfd1 Rxb1 21.Qxb1 Bf5 22.Qc1+– 20.Rxb4 Instead of the text, less good is 20.Nc3 Rd8! (20...Nd5?! 21.Bd2 Rxb1 22.Rxb1 Nb4 23.Qb2 [23.Qc1 Nxa2 24.Nxa2 Qxa2 25.Ra1 Qb3 26.Rxa7 Bf6 27.Ra3 Qb6 28.e3²] 23...Qh5 24.a3 Nd5 25.e4²) 21.Rbd1 Qb6∞ 20...Bxb4

235

21.Bc1 21.e4 would be a novelty, but it seems that Black can preserve the equilibrium with some delicate moves: 21...Rd8! (21...c5?! 22.Nxc5 Bxc5 23.dxc5 Qxc5 24.Be3 Qa5 25.Bd4²) 22.Rd1 h6 23.h3 (23.Bc1 c5 24.a3 Rxd4 [24...cxd4? 25.axb4 Qxb4 26.Bd2 Qb5 27.Bc3±] 25.Rxd4 cxd4 26.axb4 Qxb4 27.Bd2=) 23...c5 24.a3 (24.Nxc5 Bxc5 25.dxc5 Rxd1+ 26.Qxd1 Qxc5 27.Qd8+ Kh7 28.e5 Nd7∞)

24...Rxd4! (24...Bxa3 25.d5 Bd7 26.Nc3 Bb4 27.Bd2²) 25.Rxd4 (25.axb4? Rxd1+ 26.Qxd1 cxb4³) 25...cxd4 26.axb4 Qxb4 27.Bd2 (27.Nb2 Nd7∞) 27...Qa3! (27...c3 28.Nxc3 dxc3 29.Bxc3²) 28.Bc1

236

Qb4 29.Bd2= 21...Nd5 21...Rd8 now doesn’t fully equalise: 22.Bb2 Nd5 (22...Bd5 23.a3 Bd2 24.Rd1 Bxg2 25.Kxg2 Qd5+ 26.Kg1 Ba5 27.f3²) 23.Rb1 Bf8 24.Ba1² 22.a3 Bf8 23.Bd2 Qa6 24.Ra1 Rd8 25.e3 Qb5 26.Rb1 Qa6 27.Ra1 Not much is given by the other try: 27.Bb4 Nxb4! (27...Bxb4 28.axb4 Qb5 29.Nc3 Nxc3 30.Qxc3 a5 31.Be4 a4 32.Ra1 Ra8 33.Bc2²) 28.axb4 Rb8 29.Nc5 Bxc5 30.dxc5 Qa3= 27...Qb5 28.Rb1

½-½ Bareev,E-Grischuk,A Wijk aan Zee 2002. White should opt for the 18.c5! continuation, which looks quite attractive.

237

CHAPTER 3. THE 9...BE6 LINE 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 Be6

Black accepts a somewhat passive position, hoping to limit White’s small-but-lasting advantage after 10.dxc5

238

Now Black basically has a choice between two main continuations (although some others can be discussed as well): 10...d4 and 10...Bxc5. Of course, Black has tried some other (worse) options as well, but there is a strict red line between ‘activity’ and ‘stupidity’! Chess is a logical game and nobody is allowed to break the rules without punishment. So, Black should avoid careless continuations, which basically are: a) 10...a5 11.Rc1 h6 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Qa4 Qe7 14.Rfd1 Rfd8 15.e3± Conquest,S-Robberecht,J Paris 2001. b) 10...Qd7 11.Qd2 (11.Qa4!? h6 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Rac1±) 11...Rfd8 12.Rfd1 (12.Bxf6?! Bxf6 13.Ne1?! Rac8 14.Nd3 Ne5 15.Nf4 d4 16.Ne4 Be7° Martyn,R-Diermair,A Mureck 1998) 12...Rac8 13.Qf4 h6 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.Rac1± c) 10...Rc8 11.Rc1! h6 (11...Bxc5 12.Bxf6 Qxf6 13.Nxd5 Bxd5 14.Qxd5 b6 15.Qb3 Nd4 16.Nxd4 Bxd4 17.Rb1± Balduan,M-Schlefing,H Bad Zwesten 2001; 11...a6 12.Na4 Ne4 13.Be3± Schulz,WTetrault,C Winnipeg 2003; 11...Qa5 12.Qa4 [12.Bxf6! Bxf6 13.Nxd5±] 12...Qxc5 13.Nb5 Qb4 14.Qxb4 Nxb4 15.a3 Nc6 16.Nbd4² Andraschko,F-Berke,A Rijeka 2010) 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Qa4 (13.a3 a5 14.Qd2 Qd7 15.Rfd1± Briceno Quinones,R-Guidi Garcia,W Carabobo 2019) 13...Qe7 14.Rfd1 Rfd8 15.e3± Gross,D-Heinz,J Bayern 1995. d) 10...h6 11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.Qd2

d1) 12...Qd7 13.Rad1 Rad8 14.a3 a5 15.e3 Qe7 16.Qc1 Qxc5 17.Ne4 Qe7 18.Nxf6+ Qxf6 19.Nd4² Veingold,A-Martynov,P Finland 2010. d2) 12...d4 13.Ne4 Bd5 14.Nxf6+ Qxf6 15.Rfe1 Rfe8 16.Rad1± Lipka,J-Mozny,M Czech Republic 1995.

239

d3) 12...Qe7 13.Nxd5 Bxd5 14.Qxd5 Bxb2 15.Rab1 Ba3 16.Nh4± Matamoros Franco,C-Popa,C Porto Mannu 2007. d4) 12...Qa5 13.Nxd5 Bxd5 14.Qxd5 Bxb2 15.Rab1± Rios Rebollo,V-Garcia Sanz,E Madrid 2019. d5) 12...Bxc3 13.Qxc3 d4 14.Qd2 Qf6 15.b4 Rad8 16.Ne1 Bd5 17.Nd3± Lasheras,J-Caballero Frutos,J San Pedro del Pinatar 2016. d6) 12...Rc8

13.Rfd1 (13.e3 Na5 14.Nd4 Nc4 15.Qe2 Rxc5 16.Rfd1² Harikrishna,P-Kanep,M Nakhchivan 2003) 13...Qe7 14.Rac1 Rfd8 15.Nb5 d4 16.b4 Bd5 17.Nd6± Cox,J- Moen,A England 2010. e) 10...Qa5 11.Bxf6 (11.Rc1 Rad8 12.Qa4 Qxc5 13.Nb5 Qb4 14.Qxb4 Bxb4 15.Nfd4 Nxd4 16.Nxd4 Rc8 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Rfd1± Obodchuk,A-Alexakis,D Nikea 2005) 11...Bxf6 12.Nxd5 Bxb2 13.Rb1 Rad8 (13...Qxa2?!

240

14.Ng5! Rfd8 15.Qc2 Bxd5 16.Rxb2 Qa6 17.Qxh7+ [1–0 Agur,E-Dekker,K Velp 1976] 17...Kf8 18.Bxd5 Rxd5 19.Qh8+ Ke7 20.Qxa8 Rxg5 21.Rxb7+ Kf6 22.Rb6 1–0 Harikrishna,P-Valek,O Novy Bor 2014) 14.e4 Ba3 15.Rxb7± f) 10...Ne4 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 12.Nxd5 Qxc5 13.Nc7 (13.Nf4 Rad8 [13...Qb6 14.Nxe6 fxe6 15.Qc2±] 14.Nxe6 Rxd1? 15.Nxc5 Rxa1 16.Nxe4 Rxf1+ 17.Kxf1+– Cobo Arteaga,E-Simon,B Skopje 1972) 13...Rad8 14.Nxe6 fxe6 15.Qb3± Although Black seems to face quite a lot of problems in all these options, White should play his hand calmly and precise. 3.1 — 10...D4 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 Be6 10.dxc5 d4?!

241

Black wishes to be active even at the cost of a pawn. However, White seems to do well and can keep his extra material with a nice position. 11.Bxf6 The logical follow-up. Quite curious is the fact that from this position White scores an impressive 100% over a fair number of games! 11...Bxf6 12.Ne4 Also good is 12.Nb5 Rb8 13.Qa4 a6 14.Nd6 Qc7 15.Ne4± Radusinovic,L-Kopta,J Belgrade 2016. 12...Be7 The ‘active’ 12...Bd5 did not prove helpful: 13.Ne1 Be7 14.Nd3 a5 (14...f5 15.Nd2 Bxg2 16.Kxg2 Qd5+ 17.Nf3 Bxc5 18.Nxc5 Qxc5 19.Qb3+ Kh8 20.Qxb7±) 15.Nf4 Bxe4 16.Bxe4 h6 17.Nd3± Vaulin,A-Rabara,F Prague 1989.

242

13.Rc1! The natural and best way to continue. 13...f5 Black’s alternatives cannot be proven helpful for him anyway: 13...Bxa2 14.b3 Qd5 15.Nfd2 Qe6 16.Nd6! Bxd6 17.cxd6 Nb4 18.Nc4± and 13...Qd5 14.Qd3 (14.Nd6 Bxd6 15.cxd6 Qxd6 16.Qa4 Rfd8 17.Rfd1² Croad,N-Mckerras,R Dunedin 2005) 14.Ne1 Qxa2 15.Nd3 Qa5 16.Qd2 Qc7 17.b4² Gorozhanin,M-Hilova,E Kstovo 2013) 14...Bf5 15.Nfd2 Qe6 16.Qb3± 14.Ned2 Bf6 14...Rc8 is possible: 15.Ne1 Qd7 16.Nd3 Rfd8 17.a3 a5 18.Nc4 Bxc4 19.Rxc4 Bf6 20.Qd2± Maletin,P-Vasilevich,T Sochi 2015.

243

15.Ne1 The transfer of the knight to d3 occurs in a lot of lines and is a welcome feature of White’s play. From d3 the knight blockades the black d4-pawn, while protecting the extra c5-pawn and the centre in general. 15...a5 16.Qa4 A suggested novelty over the 16.Nd3 Bxa2 17.b3 a4 18.bxa4 Ra7 19.Nc4± of Fenoglio,V-Guimard,C Mar del Plata 1943. 16...Bg5 17.Rd1± White has a clear advantage, as it is not clear what kind of compensation Black has for the pawn investment. It seems that this line is only trying to lure White into complicated but unsound positions, so it would be better if it were forgotten forever... 3.2 — 10...BXC5 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 Be6 10.dxc5 Bxc5

244

The correct way to play. Black will get a slightly worse ending that he will attempt to hold. The next moves are fairly forced: 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Nxd5 Qxb2 Bad seems to be 12...Bxd5?! 13.Qxd5 Bb6 14.Qb5 Rad8 (14...Rfe8 15.e3 Re4 16.a3 Rae8 17.Rad1± Garcia,E-Lawson,B New York 2011; 14...Nd4 15.Nxd4 Bxd4 16.e3 Bb6 17.Rad1± Hanssen,GRomsdal,J Tromsø 2010) 15.e3 Rfe8 16.Rac1 Rd6 17.a4 Red8 18.Ng5 Qe7 19.Ne4 R6d7 20.Nc3 Qe6 21.b4 Rd3 22.a5 Bxe3 23.fxe3 Qxe3+ 24.Kh1 Rxc3 25.Rce1 Qh6 26.Qd5 Rf8 27.Qxf7+ 1–0 Gagare,S-Shelke,S Mumbai 2016. 13.Nc7

245

13...Rad8 Worse is 13...Rac8?! 14.Nxe6 fxe6 15.Ng5 Nd4 16.Qd3 g6 17.e3 Ne2+ 18.Kh1 Rxf2 19.Qd7 1–0 Sareen,V-Hariharan,V Chennai 2000. 14.Qc1! Qxc1 14...Ba3?! 15.Qxb2 Bxb2 16.Nxe6 (16.Rab1 Bf6 17.Nxe6 fxe6 18.Rxb7± Ivanov,N-Rozhkov,A Gornozavodsk 2009) 16...fxe6 17.Rab1 Bd4 18.Ng5 Rf6 19.Rxb7± Tratar,M-Jeraj,Z Bled 1997. 15.Raxc1

246

And here we have a famous (and well-known) endgame. Now we have a breakdown according to Black’s chosen continuation, although there are no great differences whatsoever, but White must be precise: 15...Be7, 15...Bb6 and 15...b6. Black’s alternatives are no better: a) 15...Bb4 16.Nxe6 fxe6 17.Rb1 (17.Rc4²) 17...a5 (17...b6? 18.Nh4!+– [18.Rfc1? Zajic,J-Mojzis,J Prague 1965]) 18.e3 Rf5 19.h4 h6 20.a3 Bxa3 21.Rxb7² b) 15...Ba3 16.Nxe6 fxe6 17.Rc3 (17.Rc4 Rd6 [17...Rfe8 18.Rb1 Re7 19.Ng5 h6 20.Bxc6 hxg5 21.Bxb7± Srokowski,J-Becker,T Germany 1996; 17...Rd5 18.Bh3 Rf6 19.Rb1± Vilkov,VGavrilichev,A Kaluga 2000] 18.Ng5! [18.Bh3 h6 19.Re4 Re8 20.e3² Gachon,L-Szitas,G France 1991] 18...h6 19.Bxc6 Rxc6 20.Rxc6 bxc6 21.Nxe6 Re8 22.Nd4²) 17...Bb4 18.Rb3 a5 19.a3 a4 20.Rb2 Bxa3 21.Ra2 Be7 22.Rxa4 Bf6 23.Rb1² Gregorz,R-Gabbara,F Chicago 1995. 3.2.1 — 15...BE7 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 Be6 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Nxd5 Qxb2 13.Nc7 Rad8 14.Qc1 Qxc1 15.Raxc1 Be7

247

Keeping an eye on the important g5-square, preventing a knight landing there. 16.Nxe6 fxe6 17.Rc4! This is the ‘desired’ endgame for White. His pawn structure is better and his pieces more active. But of course Black hopes for oppositecoloured bishops’ endings, where he can save the draw.

White’s most commons ideas are: 1. Play his h- and g-pawns to h4 and g4. 2. Place his bishop on h3 or on the f1–a6 diagonal. 248

3. Place his knight on the g5/e4 squares. 4. Play his rooks to e4 and/or the b- or c-files. 5. Place his king on g2/g3 or e2. A small but lasting advantage, plenty of plans and almost no chances of losing; what more can someone ask from an endgame? 17...Bf6 Or 17...Rd6 18.Rb1 (18.Rfc1 Rfd8 19.h4 Rd1+ 20.Kh2 Rxc1 21.Rxc1 h6 22.Ne1 Rd2 23.Bxc6 bxc6 24.Rc2 Rxc2 25.Nxc2 Bc5 26.Kg2 h5 27.Kf3 Kf7 28.e3 e5 29.Ke4 Ke6 30.Ne1² Kharitonov,ALegky,N Spasskoe 1996) 18...Rfd8 19.Bh3 (19.Rcc1!? R8d7 20.e3²) 19...Rd1+ 20.Rxd1 Rxd1+ 21.Kg2 Rd6 22.e3² Hansen,C-Schussler,H Gausdal 1985.

18.Rb1 White can also try 18.e3 Rd6 (18...Rf7 19.Bh3 Re7 20.Rb1 Na5 21.Rc2 b6 22.Nd2 Kf7 23.Ne4 Red7 24.Bg4² Valdes,L-Cordoba Solano,E Alajuela 2006; 18...Rd7 19.Re4 Kf7 20.h4 h6 21.Bh3 Re8 22.Rb1 Ree7 23.Kg2 Rd3 24.a4 Rd6 25.g4 g5 26.hxg5 hxg5 27.Kg3 Rd5 28.Bf1² Gasthofer,ANaiditsch,E Willingen 2001) 19.h4 (19.Re4 b5 20.Rc1 a5 21.Bf1² Voltolini,G-Farina,S Porto San Giorgio 1999) 19...h6 (19...Rfd8 20.Bh3 Kf7 21.Re4 b5 22.Kg2 a5 23.Rc1 h6 24.Rc5± Splosnov,SJankovec,I Karvina 2000) 20.Re4 Rfd8 21.Bh3 Kf7 22.Kg2 Re8 23.Rc1 Re7 24.Rc2 b6 25.Rf4 Kg6 26.g4² Jussupow,A-Spraggett,K Quebec 1989. In all these lines it is important to understand the mechanisms behind the handling of the oppositecoloured bishops...

249

18...Rd7 Black can opt for two other continuations: a) 18...Rd6 19.h4 h6 20.Re4 b6 21.Bh3 Kf7 22.Rc1 (22.e3 Rc8 23.g4 g5 24.hxg5 hxg5 25.Bf1 Na5 26.Ba6 Rc2 27.a4 Rc3 28.Kg2² Beliavsky,A-Illescas Cordoba,M Linares 1988) 22...Re8 23.e3 Re7 24.Bf1 Na5 25.Bb5² Ornstein,A-Schneider,L Eksjo 1981. b) 18...Rf7 19.Ne1 (19.h4 Nd4 20.e3 Nxf3+ 21.Bxf3² ½-½ Hugaert,A-Larmuseau,M Geraardsbergen 2009) 19...Rd2 20.Bh3 Kf8 21.Nd3 Rxe2 22.Nf4 Rd2 23.Bxe6 Re7 24.Bd5² Rozen,E-Peng,L Petah Tikva 2020. 19.h4! Nd4 19...Rfd8 20.Kh2 Rd1 21.Rb5² 20.Nxd4 Bxd4 21.e3 Bb6 22.Bh3

250

Ftacnik,L-Minev,N Bucharest 1978. White has achieved a slight plus, due to his pressure on the weak black b- and e-pawns. On the other hand, Black keeps good drawing chances due to the opposite-coloured bishops. 3.2.2 — 15...BB6 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 Be6 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Nxd5 Qxb2 13.Nc7 Rad8 14.Qc1 Qxc1 15.Raxc1 Bb6

Maintaining some pressure against the white f2-pawn, but the black b7-pawn remains weak.

251

16.Nxe6 fxe6 17.Rc4! h6 Black has a lot of similar tries at his disposal: a) 17...Nd4?! (Probably the worst of them) 18.Nxd4 Rxd4 19.Rxd4 Bxd4 20.Bxb7

20...Bb6 (20...Rb8 21.Ba6 Kf7 [21...Rb4 22.Rc1 Bb6 23.Rc6 e5 24.Bc4+ Kf8 25.Bb3± Siagodnik,AIsmagilov,D Molodezhnoe 2019] 22.Rc1 Ke7 23.Rc7+ Kd8 24.Rc4 Rb1+ 25.Kg2 Rd1 26.Rc6± Alburt,L-Meduna,E Decin 1977) 21.e3 Rd8 22.Rc1 Rd6 23.Kg2 Kf7 24.Kf3 Kf6 25.Rc4± Reznicek,J-Karaba,D Chrudim 2003. b) 17...Rf6 18.Ng5 h6 19.Ne4 Rf5 20.Bh3 Re5 21.e3² Banas,J-Starke,D Germany 1999. c) 17...e5 18.e3 Rf6 (18...Rd3 19.Ng5 Rd2 20.a4 h6 21.Ne4± Brenninkmeijer,J-De Wijs,S Netherlands 1993) 19.Ng5 h6

252

20.Bxc6 (20.Ne4 Rff8 21.h4 Rd3 22.Rb1 Rfd8 23.Bf3 Ra3 24.Rb2² Sharif,M-El Amary,K Dubai 1999) 20...Rxc6 (20...hxg5 21.Bxb7 Rd2 22.a4± Petursson,M-Olafsson,D Akureyri 1987) 21.Rxc6 bxc6 22.Ne4² d) 17...Rd6 18.h4 h6 19.Bh3 (19.Re4 Rfd8 20.e3 Kf7 21.Bh3 R8d7 22.Kg2 Bd8 23.Rc1± Dementiev,O-Kuindzhy,A Klaipeda 1977) 19...Kf7 (19...Rf6 20.Re4 Kf7 21.g4 [21.Kg2 Ke7 22.Rb1 Rd5 23.Rb2 Kd6 24.e3² Hansen,L-Antonio,R Novi Sad 1990] 21...Ke7 22.g5 Rf7 23.Kg2 Kd7 24.Rb1 hxg5 25.hxg5 Re7 26.Bg4 Rd5 27.e3² Carlier,B-Hoeksema,H Netherlands 2005; 19...Rfd8 20.Kg2 Kf7 21.Re4 Bc5 22.Rc1² ½-½ Reznicek,J-Damjanovic,M Prague 1979) 20.Rfc1 Ke7 21.Rg4 Rf7 22.Re4 Rf6 23.Kg2² Starck,B-Kripp,W Halle 2000. e) 17...Rd5 18.h4 (18.Re4 Re8 19.h4 h6 20.Rc1 Kf7 21.e3 Red8 22.Bf1² Grivas,E-Liverios,T Khania 1982) 18...h6 19.Bh3 Rf6 (19...Re8 20.Re4 Kf7 21.e3 [21.Rb1 Re7 22.e3 Ba5 23.Rc1² Erdos,VProhaszka,P Budapest 2006] 21...Re7 22.Rc1²

253

22...Bc5? 23.Rf4+ Ke8 24.e4+– Maly,A-Semerij,Y Kharkov 1999) 20.Kg2 Kf7 21.Re4 Ke7 (21...e5? 22.Bc8 Ra5 23.Bxb7 Nd8 24.Bc8+– Krueger,E-Kripp,W Halle 2000) 22.Rb1 (22.Rc1 Kd6 23.e3² Ribli,Z-Espig,L Budapest 1975 — see Endgame Technique chapter) 22...Kd6 23.Rb2² Reznicek,J-Nun,J Chrudim 2003. 18.Re4 Not much different are: a) 18.h4 Rf6 (18...Kf7 19.Rb1 Rd5 20.e3 Ra5 21.a4 Rd8 22.Re4² Smirin,I-Kiewra,K Rockville 2016) 19.Rfc1 Kf7 20.Re4 Rd5 21.Bh3 Bc5 22.Kg2²

254

Sammalvuo,T-Salmensuu,O Finland 1998. b) 18.Rb1 Rd6 19.Bh3 Rf6 20.Bg4 Nd4 21.Nxd4 Rxd4 22.Rxd4 Bxd4 23.e3 Bb6 24.Kg2 Kf8 25.a4 Ke8 26.Bf3 Rf5 27.Bxb7 Rc5 28.Be4 Rc4 29.Bd3 Rc3 30.Rd1 Ke7 31.Kf3 Kf6 32.Bb5±

Suba,M-Khamrakulov,D Albacete 2007. c) 18.e3 Rf6 19.h4 Rd5 20.g4 g5 21.hxg5 hxg5 22.a4 Kg7 23.Rb1² Moehn,H-Fish,G Germany 2015.

18...Rf6 Or 18...Rfe8 19.e3 (19.Bh3 Kf7 20.Rb1 Rd5 21.a4 Re7 22.e3 Bc5 23.Bf1² Loginov,V-Lanin,A St Petersburg 2007) 19...Rd6 (19...Bc5 20.Rc1 b6 21.Bf1 Re7 22.Bb5 Na5 23.Ne5 Rd2 24.Ra4² 255

Quinteros,M-Hase,J Quilmes 1980) 20.h4 Bd8 21.Rb1 b6 22.Bf1 Bf6 23.Bb5² Lein,A-Farago,I Moscow 1971. 19.h4 19.e3 Kf7 (19...Bc5 20.Rb1 b6 21.Kf1² Nogueiras,J-Vera,R Havana 1983) 20.Rb1 Rd5 21.Kf1 Ke7 22.Ke2² Vukic,M-Muller,L Varna 1975. 19...Rd5 20.Rc1 Rb5 21.Bh3

Maksimenko,A-Vonthron,H Odessa 1990. White holds a small but lasting advantage, as has already been described. Generally he scores approximately 70% in these positions. 3.2.3 — 15...B6 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 Be6 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Nxd5 Qxb2 13.Nc7 Rad8 14.Qc1 Qxc1 15.Raxc1 b6

256

Solving all the problems with the b7-pawn and keeping the bishop on an acceptable square, but White can still hope for an advantage. 16.Nxe6 fxe6 17.e3! White must be on the alert, as now the black b-pawn is not hanging: 17.Rc4?! Nd4! 18.Nxd4 Rxd4 19.Rxd4 Bxd4 20.e3 Bc5 21.Rd1 Rf7 (21...Re8 22.Be4 g6 23.Rd7 [23.h4 Kg7 24.Kg2 Re7 25.g4 a5= Dorfman,J-Espig,L Vilnius 1978] 23...Re7 ½-½ Vukanovic,S-Malyshev,V Dos Hermanas 2004) 22.Be4 g6 23.h4 Rc7 24.Kg2 Be7 25.Kf3 Kg7 26.Rd2 Bb4 27.Rc2 Rxc2 28.Bxc2 Kf6 29.Bd3 h6 30.Bc4 g5 31.h5 Be1 ½-½ Petrosian,T-Spassky,B Moscow 1969. 17...h6 Black needs to cover the important g5-square, as the alternatives prove: a) 17...Rd5? 18.Nd4 Rxd4 19.exd4 Nxd4 20.Kh1± Levitt,J-Crawley,G London 1985. b) 17...Rf6? 18.Ng5 Nb4

257

19.Ne4 (19.Rfd1 Rxd1+ 20.Rxd1 h6 21.Ne4 Rf5 22.Nxc5 Rxc5 23.Rd8+ Kf7 24.Rd7+ Kf6 25.Rxa7 Rc1+ 26.Bf1 Ra1 27.a4±) 19...Rf5 20.Bh3 Re5 21.Nxc5 bxc5 22.a3 Nd3 23.Rc3± Van Beemdelust,R-De Jong,P Wijk aan Zee 1991. c) 17...Nb4? 18.Ng5 Nxa2 19.Ra1 Rd2 20.Bh3 (20.Nxe6 Rc8 21.Bb7 Rb8 22.Nxc5 Nb4 23.Ne4 Rd7 24.Ba6+– Ioannidis,E-Dukaczewski,P Prague 2015) 20...Kh8 21.Ne4 Rb2 22.Bxe6 Nb4 23.Nxc5 bxc5 24.Rxa7± Van der Hurk,A-Hoogeterp,C Netherlands 1994. d) 17...Rd6? 18.Ng5 Ne5 19.Ne4 (19.Rc2 h6 20.Ne4 Rc6 21.Rd1± Danielsen,H-From,S Copenhagen 1993)

19...Rc6 (19...Rd5 20.Bh3 Re8 21.Nxc5 bxc5 [21...Rxc5 22.Rxc5 bxc5 23.Rc1± Luyks,M-Blalock,R 258

Lisbon 2002] 22.Bg2 Rd2 23.Rxc5 Nd3 24.Ra5 Rf8 25.Rxa7 Rfxf2 26.Ra8+ Kf7 27.Rd8 Rxf1+ 28.Bxf1 Ne5 29.Rxd2 Nf3+ 30.Kf2 Nxd2 31.Bd3 e5 32.Ke2 1–0 Crouch,C-Jensen,A Charlton 1983) 20.Rc2 Rfc8 21.Ng5 Rd6 22.Bh3 Rcc6 23.Ne4 Rd8 24.Rfc1± Kharashuta,E-Meshcheriakova,E Sochi 2006.

18.Rc4 It is better for White to preserve all rooks on the board (more pressure!) avoiding something like 18.Rfd1 Rxd1+ 19.Rxd1 Rd8 20.Rxd8+ Nxd8 21.Nd2 Kf7 22.Ne4 Bb4 23.f4 Ke7 24.Kf2 Nf7 ½-½ Smyslov,V-Vaganian,R Buenos Aires 1978. 18...Rd6 Again Black can deviate with: a) 18...Rxf3?! 19.Bxf3 (19.Rxc5?! bxc5 20.Bxf3 Ne5 21.Be4 Rd2 22.Rc1 c4= Perelman,H-Nogues,A Villa Martelli 2017) 19...Ne5 20.Bg4! Nxc4 21.Bxe6+ Kf8 22.Bxc4 Rd2 23.Re1! (23.Kg2? Bxe3 ½½ Barbero,G-Messa,R Dubai 1986) 23...b5 24.Bb3 a5 25.Rd1 Rb2 26.Rd5 a4 27.Rxc5 axb3 28.axb3 Rxb3

259

29.Rc7+– Schmidt,P-Justin,M Bled 1995. b) 18...Nb4 19.Nd4 Bxd4 20.exd4 Nd5 21.Re1 Rf6 22.a3² Burmakin,V-Jelen,I Bled 1994. c) 18...Kf7 19.Re4 Rd6 (19...Ke7 20.h4 Rf5 21.Bh3 Rxf3 22.Rxe6+ Kf8 23.Rxc6± Lesiege,AGreen,E Internet 2000) 20.Bh3 g6 21.Rb1 Ke7 22.Kg2 Rf6 23.Rb2² Summerscale,A-Daly,C Dublin 1997. d) 18...Rf6

19.Re4 (19.h4 Ne7 20.Re4 Nf5 21.a4 Nd6 22.Rg4 h5 23.Rf4 Rxf4 24.gxf4² Lewis,A-Findlay,D Radebeul 2016) 19...Kf7 (19...Kf8 20.h4 Ke7 21.h5! Rd5 22.Rg4 Kf7 23.Nh4²; 19...a5 20.h4 Rd6 21.a4² Knaak,R-Espig,L Plauen 1980) 20.h4 Kf8 21.g4² Radenic,F-Sundac,I Cakovec 2020. 260

19.Re4 Rf5 Not completely satisfactory. This is another important cross-roads, one where Black has also chosen: a) 19...Rfd8 20.h4 (20.Bh3 Kf7 21.Kg2 g5?! 22.Bg4 Kf6 23.Rh1 Nb4 24.h4 Rg8 25.hxg5+ hxg5 26.Rh7± Milov,V-Farina,S Porto San Giorgio 1996) 20...Kf7 21.Bh3² b) 19...Nb4

20.Ne5 (20.a4 Rf6 [20...Nd5 21.h4 Rfd8 22.Bh3 Nc7 23.Ne5² Prudnikova,S-Mladenovic,J Budva 2002] 21.h4 Nd3 22.g4 a6 23.Rb1 a5 24.Rc4 Bb4 25.g5 Rf8 26.Kf1 Nc5 27.Ra1 Nb3 28.Ra2 hxg5 29.hxg5 Rd1+ 30.Ke2² Gaprindashvili,N-Messa,R Reggio Emilia 1982) 20...Nxa2 21.Ra4 Nc3 261

22.Rxa7² Petrosian,A-Espig,L Yerevan 1982. c) 19...a6 20.h4 (20.Nh4?! Nb4 21.Ng6 Rf6 22.Nf4 Nd3= Hoang Thanh Trang-Blauert,J Budapest 1998) 20...Nb4 21.a4 Nd3 22.Rb1 Kf7 23.Bf1 Ke7 24.Bxd3 Rxf3 25.Be2 Rf6 26.Rb2² Lerner,KStripunsky,A Rostov on Don 1993. d) 19...Re8 20.h4 Nb4 21.a4 a5 22.Bh3 Kf7 23.Rc1² Kf6? 24.Rf4+ Ke7 25.Ne5± Kelecevic,NEschmann,P Zuerich 2000. e) 19...Rf6 20.h4 Kf7 (20...g6 21.Nh2 Kg7 22.Bh3 Nd8 23.Ng4 Rf8 24.Ne5² Kostov,G-Iliev,V Sunny Beach 2012) 21.Kh2 Ke7 22.Kh3 a5 23.g4 Nb4 24.a4 Nd5 25.Ne5² Tran,D-Kammers,H Germany 2012. It is obvious that it is here that Black should seek his chances. 20.h4 Kf7 20...b5 is active, but weakens Black’s queenside: 21.Rc1 a5 22.g4 Rfd5 23.Bf1 Ba3 24.Rc2² Yevseev,D-Stoliarov,A St Petersburg 1998.

21.Rb1 Another way to play is by 21.Kh2 Ke7 22.g4! Rf8 (22...Rfd5 23.g5 Rd1 24.Rxd1 Rxd1 25.Bh3²) 23.g5² Huzman,A-Stripunsky,A Simferopol 1990. 21...Rfd5 21...a5 22.a4 Nb4 23.Ne5+ Ke7 24.g4 Rf6 25.Nc4² Biriukov,I-Vasiliev,V Kimovsk 2011.

262

22.Bf1! Kf6 22...Rd1?! is out of the question: 23.Rxd1 Rxd1 24.Kg2 Nb4 (24...Bd6 25.Bc4 Nd8 26.Nd4±; 24...Rd6 25.Bb5±) 25.Bc4 Nd5 26.Bb3± 23.Kg2 Rd1 23...Ne5? loses to 24.Rf4+ Ke7 25.e4+– 24.Rxd1 Rxd1 25.Bc4 Also good is 25.Bb5 Rd6 (25...Nb4 26.Bc4 Nd5 27.h5±) 26.h5± 25...Rd6 26.Rf4+ Ke7 27.Rg4 Kf6 28.h5±

263

Tratar,M-Barthel,A Luxembourg 2014. White has achieved huge pressure and good chances to convert his advantage.

264

CHAPTER 4. TYPICAL MIDDLEGAME STRATEGY Knowing your good piece of opening theory in depth is a good start. But alone it is not enough to gain and increase a significant advantage. The knowledge of certain plans, manoeuvres, repeated motifs, etc, is an essential piece of opening knowledge, as the journey continues via what we call middlegame theory. Yes, middlegame (and endgame) theory does exist. The great difficulty in approaching it lies in the fact that it does not follow absolute and clear-cut paths, but rather involves deep research into the ideas and logic by which specific types of positions are treated. Moreover, unlike opening theory, the theory of the middlegame (and the endgame) does not change rapidly based on modern developments, and instead remains almost intact through the years. In middlegame theory we are obliged to study various or similar types of positions with specific strategic and tactical attributes, so as to understand the underlying ideas and be able to employ them ourselves in similar situations. Besides, while many chess players have studied these topics and acquired knowledge, it is the application of this knowledge in practice that helps differentiate between them. True, chess is not a simple activity, but it becomes so much more attractive when we acquire this knowledge... In view of the above, any chess player who wishes to follow a chess career or simply become a better player must refrain from the commonplace and assume a different approach. He must develop a good understanding of middlegame (and endgame) theory, so as to be able to proceed in a proper way after his chosen opening has reached its conclusion. And we must keep in mind that the most important asset is the pawn structure; this is what guides us to understand what to do in the middlegame — and even in the endgame! Grivas Efstratios Reyhan Dogan D34 Kocaeli 2008 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 c4 10.Ne5 Be6 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.b3 Qa5 13.Na4 Rfd8 14.Qc2 Rac8

265

A typical position, where White seems to have the better chances, but Black is ready for any immediate assault in the centre. 15.Bd2 Qa6 16.bxc4 dxc4 This doesn’t really help Black, who should instead opt for 16...Qxc4 17.Qxc4 dxc4 18.Bc3 Bf5 19.Rac1 Ne4 20.Ba1 (20.Bb2∞ Hansen,C- Rogers,I Vejstrup 1989) 20...Ba3 21.Bxe4 Bxe4 22.Rxc4² 17.Bc3 17.e3 Nd5 18.Rab1² looks like a more accurate continuation. 17...Nd5 18.Rfd1 Nb4 18...Nxc3 19.Nxc3 Rb8 20.e3² is quite playable.. 19.Bxb4 Bxb4 20.e3

266

White has the better pawn structure, but Black in return has the bishop pair and energetic play. 20...Bg4?! This doesn’t help Black though, who should opt for the active 20...h5!? 21.Rdb1 This is more complex than 21.Rdc1 Ba3 22.Qxc4 Qa5 23.Rcb1 Be6 24.Qc2 Bf5 25.e4 Rxd4 26.exf5 Qxa4 27.Qxa4 Rxa4, although White stands a bit better after 28.Rb7² 21...Be7 22.Nc3 Qa5 The text allows the white rook to reach the 7th rank. Instead, 22...Be6 looks solid: 23.Ne2 Bd6 24.Nf4 Bxf4 25.gxf4² 23.Rb7 Bb4?! A second inaccuracy in a row. Forced is 23...Rd7 24.Rab1 Qa6 25.Rxd7 Bxd7 26.Ne2!²

267

24.Ne4! Be6 25.a3?! Here White missed a good chance to increase his advantage with either 25.Rb1 Bf8 26.a4±, or 25.Bf1 Rb8 26.Rxb8 Rxb8 27.Bxc4± 25...Rb8?! But Black didn’t take his chance: 25...Bf8 26.Rab1² 26.Rxb8 Rxb8 27.Bf1! c3

268

28.Qc1?! 28.Ng5! looks strong enough: 28...Qxg5 29.axb4± 28...Be7 29.Nxc3 Rb3 30.Ne2 Rxa3?! Black was too anxious to take back his pawn. He should have opted for 30...Bd7 31.a4 c5 32.dxc5 Bxc5 33.Qd1±, where his bishop pair and active pieces can create compensation for the lost pawn. 31.Rxa3 Bxa3 32.Qxc6

In comparison with the previous position, Black has a passed pawn as well, but the central white pawns are more dangerous. 32...Bd5 33.Qd7 h6 34.Nf4 Bf3 35.Nd3! Qb6 36.Ne5 Bh5 What else? If 36...Qb7, then 37.Qa4 Bf8 38.Nxf3 Qxf3 39.Qxa7+–

269

37.h3 Playing it safe. Good enough is 37.Qe8+ Bf8 38.g4 Bg6 39.Bc4+– 37...Qb1 38.g4 Bg6 39.Qxa7 Bd6 40.Qa8+ Kh7 41.Nxg6 Qxg6 41...fxg6 42.Kg2 Qb8 43.Qe4+– 42.Qd5 Kg8 43.Kg2 Qf6

White is a good two pawns up with a healthy pawn structure. Of course the opposite-coloured bishops 270

could prove helpful to Black, but as long as the queens stay on board there is no chance of escape. 44.Bc4 g6 45.e4 Be7 46.Qd7 Bf8 47.e5 Qf4 48.e6! Qe4+ 49.f3 Qc2+ 50.Kg3 Bd6+ 50...Qxc4 51.Qxf7+ Kh8 52.Qxf8+ Kh7 53.e7+– 51.Qxd6 Qxc4 52.e7 1–0 Gurevich Mikhail Berelowitsch Alexander D34 Tanta 1997 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.d4 c5 5.cxd5 exd5 6.g3 Nc6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Bf4 Qb6 12.Be3 Qxb2 13.Nxd5 Nxd5 14.Bxd5 Bh3 15.Rb1 Qa3 16.Rxb7 Nxd4 17.Qxd4 Bxf1 18.Kxf1°

White has sufficient compensation for the sacrificed exchange: a pawn, excellent centralised pieces and a rook on the 7th rank. In my opinion he probably has more than simple compensation. 18...Rad8 19.Qe4! Stronger than 19.Rxa7 Qd6 20.Ra5 Bg5 21.Bxg5 (21.Kg2 Bxe3 22.fxe3 Qg6∞ Benidze,D-Alvarez Ramirez,M Yerevan 2007) 21...hxg5 22.Qg4² There is no need to be in a hurry! 19...a5?

271

Black should go for the stronger 19...Bc5 20.Bd2 (20.Bf4?

20...Bxf2!µ [20...Bd6? 21.Bxh6! Qc3 22.Be3 Bc5 23.Bg5 Rd6 24.Rxf7 Rxf7 25.Qe8+ Kh7 26.Bxf7 Rd1+ 27.Kg2 Rg1+ 28.Kh3 1–0 Sterliagova,T-Malysheva,P Kolontaevo 2005]; 20.Rxf7 Rxf7 21.Bxf7+ Kh8 [21...Kxf7 22.Qc4+ Kf6 23.Bxc5±] 22.Bf4±) 20...Qa6 21.Bc3±; 19...Qd6 is the second try here: 20.Bb3 Bg5 21.Bxa7 Kh8 22.Bxf7 Rd7 23.Bb3 Rxb7 24.Qxb7± Vokac,MSimacek,P Cartak 2004. 20.Bb3! Threatening both 21.Bxh6 and 21.Bc2. 20...Bf6 20...Bg5 loses to 21.Bxg5 hxg5 22.Qf3 Qc1+ 23.Kg2 Rd6 24.Bxf7+ Kh8 25.Bg6 Qc6 26.e4 Rxg6 27.Qxf8+ Kh7 28.Re7 1–0 Fernandez Garcia,M-Frois,A Mondariz 2007. 21.Bc2 Also great is 21.Bxh6 Rd4 (21...gxh6 22.Bc2+– [22.Qg6+? Bg7 23.Bxf7+ Kh8 24.Bb3 Qc1+ 25.Kg2 Qb2³]) 22.Qf3 Qd6 23.Bf4 Qd8 24.Kg2± 21...g6 22.Bb3! White can also opt for 22.Bxh6 Rfe8 (22...Bg7? 23.Bxg7 Kxg7 24.Qxg6++–) 23.Qf4 Qd6 24.Qxd6 Rxd6 25.Bb3± 22...Bg7 272

22...Kg7 loses to 23.Qf4 g5 24.Qc4+–

23.Bxh6! A nice combination, avoiding the faulty 23.Qxg6? Qxb3 24.Qxg7+ Kxg7 25.Rxb3² 23...Qd6 23...Bxh6 leads to mate: 24.Qxg6+ Bg7 25.Bxf7+ Kh8 26.Qh5+ 24.Bg5! Intending 25.Be7. 24...Qd4 24...Rc8 loses to 25.Be7+–

273

25.Qxd4 White should avoid 25.Qxg6?! Qd1+ (25...Rd5? 26.Bf6! Qd1+ 27.Bxd1 Rxd1+ 28.Kg2 fxg6 29.Rxg7+ Kh8 30.Rd7++–) 26.Kg2 Qxb3 27.Qxg7+ Kxg7 28.Rxb3±, but quite strong is 25.Qf3! Rd7 26.Be7 Rxb7 27.Qxb7 Re8 (27...Qa1+ 28.Kg2 Re8 29.Qd7+–) 28.Bxf7++–, which is curtains. 25...Rxd4 26.Be7 Or 26.Ra7 Kh7 27.Rxa5 f6 28.Be3+– 26...Rc8 26...Re8 27.Bc5+– 27.Ba3 Rdc4 27...Kh7 28.Rxf7+– 28.Bd6 Also good is 28.Bxc4 Rxc4 29.Rb5+– Black resigned. 1–0 Grivas Efstratios Efthimiadis Ilias D34 Amfissa 2008 274

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nf6 6.Bg2 Nc6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 Re8

One of those rare moves that do not really add much to Black’s play. 11.Rc1 11.Qa4 Bd7 12.Rad1² is another way of handling the position, but the text is logical. 11...Bg4 11...h6 now doesn’t look good: 12.Bf4 Bg4 (12...Qb6 13.Be3 Qxb2 14.Ndb5 [14.Nxd5 Nxd5 15.Bxd5²] 14...Bf5 15.Nc7± Matlak,M-Zolnierowicz,K Ceske Budejovice 1995) 13.h3 Bd7 14.Nxd5 (14.Ncb5 Nxd4 15.Nxd4 Qb6 16.b3 Ba3 17.Rc2 Rac8 18.Rxc8 Rxc8 19.Qd3 Bc5 20.Be3 a6 ½-½ Haznedaroglu,K-Citak,S Budapest 2007) 14...Nxd5 15.Bxd5 Bxh3 (15...Nxd4 16.Qxd4 Bxh3 17.Rfd1±) 16.Nxc6 bxc6 17.Bxc6±

275

12.h3 Also possible is 12.Qa4 Qd7 13.Rfd1 h6 14.Be3 Bf8 15.Nxc6 bxc6 16.Bd4² Condori Aranya,ESuasnabar,J Maringa 2011. 12...Be6 Black’s choice is limited, as the other two candidates moves seem to be inferior: 12...Bh5?! 13.Nf5 h6? 14.Nxe7+ Nxe7 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.g4 Bg6 17.Nxd5+– Lalic,S-Needham,T Bath 1987 and 12...Bd7?! 13.e3 Nxd4 14.Qxd4 Bc6 15.Rfd1 Qa5 (15...h6 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.Qd3 Qb6 18.Nxd5 Bxd5 19.Bxd5 Re7 20.b3± Zabystrzan,P-Votava,P Czech Republic 1995) 16.b4 Qxb4 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Qxb4 Bxb4 19.Nxd5± Krylov,M-Nemtzev,I Moscow 2009. 13.Nxe6 fxe6

276

White has the bishop pair and a better pawn structure, but he must find targets. 14.Na4 A novelty in place of the previously-seen 14.Qb3 Qd7 15.Rfd1² Peelen,P-Van Laatum,G Groningen 1990. 14...Rc8 14...Qa5 is one of Black’s main moves/ideas in the ‘Tarrasch Defence’. But here it seems that it’s nothing special after 15.a3 Rac8 16.b4² 15.Nc5 Bxc5 Giving-up the second bishop doesn’t look great, but Black has a difficult choice to make. He could go for 15...Bf8 16.Qa4 Qa5 17.Qxa5 Nxa5 18.Nd3², where he stands passively, but can put up a defence. In the long run, White has great chances. 16.Rxc5

277

Although the engines tend to believe that here White holds just a small plus, the practical value of the bishop pair vs the knight pair is enormous. 16...h6 17.Bd2 b6 Black could also opt for 17...Qb6 18.Rc2 Qb5 19.e3 Ne4 20.Bxe4 dxe4 21.Bc3 Ne5 22.Bxe5 Qxe5 23.Rd2², where White has traded his bishops for a much healthier pawn structure — a typical feature in modern Grandmaster play... 18.Rc2 Qe7 Another way to play for Black is in the centre by 18...e5 19.Bc3! d4 20.Bd2 e4 21.Qb1² 19.e3 Ne5 20.Bc3 Nf7 The black knights are just hanging around, while White is improving his position. Not much different is 20...Nc4 21.Qd3 Red8 22.Rfc1² 21.Qd3 Nd6 22.Rfc1 Nfe4 23.Bb4! Rxc2 24.Rxc2 Qd7

278

White has improved his position, but it’s still not quite clear how to continue... 25.Bxd6! This is one of the bishop pair advantages; the ability to exchange it for another type of advantage! 25...Nxd6 26.e4! dxe4 27.Bxe4 White has now achieved a very pleasant endgame of bishop vs knight, holding a better pawn structure. 27...Qe7 28.Bh7+ Kh8 29.Bg6 Rc8? A grave blunder! Black should have opted for 29...Rd8 30.Qf3± 30.Rxc8+? Mutual blindness! How can a Grandmaster miss the simple 30.Qxd6+–? Maybe my title should be reexamined... 30...Nxc8 31.Qc4 Nd6 32.Qc6 Nf7

279

33.Bc2! Preparing the battery against the black king by Qe4. 33...Kg8 34.h4 Nd8 35.Qe4 Qf6 36.b4 Kf7 36...Qa1+ might be a bit better: 37.Bb1 Kf8 38.Kg2± 37.Kg2 Ke7? But the text loses material. Black had to go for 37...Qc3 38.Bb3 Qc6 39.Kf3±

280

38.Qa8! Qd4 39.Qxa7+ Kf6 40.Qa3 Nc6? 40...Nf7 41.Qd3+– 41.Qf3+ 1–0

281

CHAPTER 5. ENDGAME TECHNIQUE The chess player who wishes to master an opening should not only know how to gain an advantage from it, or how to increase it in the middlegame, but also finally how to convert it in the endgame. Knowledge of typical endgames with specific pawn structures is hugely important, as it helps to evaluate correctly our chances in them and to make middlegame decisions regarding choices and possibilities that are very difficult to make otherwise. The endgames that follow are characteristic of our chosen system. It is not important that some of them arise via another opening or system; the important thing is to understand and master them — endgame technique is essential... Popov Valerij Bezgodov Alexei D34 Samara 2000 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.c4 e6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Bf4 Bg4 12.h3 Bd7 13.Rc1 Qb6 14.Nb3 Rad8 15.Be3 d4 16.Bxd4 Nxd4 17.Qxd4 Qxd4 18.Nxd4 Bxh3 19.Bxh3 Rxd4 20.Rfd1 Rfd8 21.Rxd4 Rxd4 22.Rc2 Rc4 23.Rd2 a6 24.Bg2 b5 25.Bb7 b4 26.Nd5 Nxd5 27.Bxd5 Rc1+ 28.Kg2 Bf6

White seems to stand somewhat better, as he has a target on f7 and he can also dominate in the centre by f4, e4 and e5. But still, the presence of opposite-coloured bishops should be in favour of Black, for purely defensive reasons of course. White must keep in mind that he shouldn’t allow the exchanges of the rooks, a 282

least not without very good reason. 29.f4 29.Bb3 Rc7 (29...Rb1?! 30.Rd7±) 30.f4² should be a more accurate way to handle things. 29...Rb1 Although the text seems to be welcomed by Black, he should have opted for 29...a5 30.e4 a4 31.e5 Be7 32.Be4², which is the right approach. 30.Bc4!

30...Rxb2?! Black must have felt some relief, since it looks like he is nearing full equilibrium. In fact the move is incorrect, as it loses the extremely important f7-pawn. Correct is 30...Kf8 31.Rd7 Be7 32.Ra7 g6 33.b3 Rg1+ 34.Kh2 Rd1 35.Rxa6² 31.Rd7 a5 Not much is changed by 31...Rc2 32.Bxf7+ Kf8 33.Kf3± 32.Ra7 Rd2 Or 32...Kf8 33.Rxf7+ Ke8 34.Ra7± Black’s main problem lies in the fact that he has no targets to create counterplay, so he should stay put and wait passively... 283

33.Kf3! Accuracy! White rightly avoids the hasty 33.Bxf7+ Kf8 34.Kf3 a4 (34...Bd4 35.Rb7 a4²) 35.Be6 Rd6² 33...a4 Black is in trouble anyway: 33...Kf8 34.Rxf7+ Ke8 35.Ra7 Rc2 36.Bb5+ Kf8 37.Rxa5± 34.e4 Domination! 34...b3 35.axb3 axb3 36.Bxf7+ Kf8 36...Kh7 also looks bad after 37.e5 b2 38.Ba2 Bd8 39.Bb1+ Kg8 40.Rb7± 37.e5 b2 38.Bg6 Be7 39.Rb7

284

Despite the material equality Black’s chances are not promising, since he is bound to lose the b2pawn. 39...h5 Black tries to be ‘active’ but this fails too, as does 39...Bc5 40.Rf7+! Kg8 41.Rc7 Rf2+ 42.Kg4 Bf8 43.Rb7+–, which is a lost cause... 40.Rb8+ Bd8 Black loses both pawns after 40...Rd8 41.Rxb2 h4 42.Rh2 Rd4 43.gxh4 Bb4 44.Rc2 Bd2 45.f5+– 41.Bxh5 Ke7 41...g6 42.Bxg6 Kg7 43.Bb1 Be7 44.f5+– 42.Rb7+ Kf8 42...Ke6? 43.Bf7+ Kf5 44.g4# is cute! 43.Bg6 Be7 Black is already plain lost: 43...Rh2 44.e6 Bf6 45.Rf7+ Kg8 46.e7+– 44.Rb8+ Rd8 44...Bd8 45.Ke3 Rd1 46.Rxb2+– 285

45.Rxb2 The rest is a purely technical task and White would be hard challenged to spoil it, as his pawn structure is ideal. 45...Ra8 46.Rb7 Rc8 47.Kg4 Rd8 48.Bf5 48.Kf5 Rc8 49.Ke4+–. 48...Kf7 49.Bc2 Kf8 50.Bb3 Ra8 51.Kf5 Rd8 52.Ke6 Ra8 52...Bc5 53.Rf7+ Kg8 54.Rc7 Ba3 55.Kf5+ Kh7 56.Rc2 Rf8+ 57.Kg5 Be7+ 58.Kg4 g6 59.Rc7+– 53.Kf5 But not 53.Rxe7? due to 53...Ra6+= 53...Rd8

54.g4 The extra white pawns should start rolling. 54...Ra8 54...Rd4 55.Ke6 Rb4 56.Rxb4 Bxb4 57.f5 Bc3 58.Bd5 Bb2 59.f6 Bc3 60.g5+– 55.Bd5 Rd8 56.Ke6 Bc5 286

56...Ra8 57.Bc6+– 57.Bc6 Kg8 57...Be3 58.f5+– 58.f5 Be3 59.f6! gxf6 60.exf6 Bc5 61.Rg7+ Kh8 61...Kf8 62.Bd7 Ra8 63.g5 Ra6+ 64.Kf5 Ra5 65.Kg6 Be3 66.Bf5+– 62.Rd7 Rxd7 63.Bxd7 Kh7 63...Kg8 64.g5 Bb4 65.g6 Ba3 66.Ba4 Bb4 67.Bb3+– Ba3 68.g7+– 64.Kf5 Be3

65.g5! Things can be spoiled at anytime: 65.Ba4? Kh6= is a theoretical draw! 65...Kg8 66.Be6+ Kh8 67.g6 Bh6 68.Ke4 Bf8 And Black resigned, as he understood the end: 69.Kd5 Bh6 70.Kd6 Bf8+ 71.Kd7 Bh6 72.Ke8 Bf8 73.Kf7!+– 1–0 Golod Vitali 287

Potkin Vladimir D34 Linares 2001 1.d4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nf6 6.Bg2 Be7 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Bf4 Bg4 12.h3 Be6 13.Nxe6 fxe6 14.e4 d4 15.e5 dxc3 16.exf6 Bxf6 17.bxc3 Qxd1 18.Rfxd1 Rfd8 19.Rac1 Rac8 20.Be3 b6 21.Rxd8+ Nxd8 22.c4 Be7 23.Rd1 Rc7 24.Bf4 Rxc4 25.Rd7 Kf8 26.Rxa7 Bc5

White has obtained the bishop pair and he should feel happy. But Black’s counterplay can be strong especially against the f2-pawn. 27.Be5! Rc1+ 27...Rc2 doesn’t solve Black’s problems: 28.Bxg7+ Kg8 29.Bxh6 Rxf2 30.Kh2± 28.Kh2 Nf7 Weaker seems to be 28...Bxf2 due to 29.Bxg7+ Kg8 30.h4 (30.Bxh6? Bg1+ 31.Kh1 Be3+ 32.Kh2 Bxh6–+) 30...Nf7 31.Bb2!± The bishop pair dominates! 29.Ra8+ Ke7 30.Ra7+ Kf8 31.Ra8+ Ke7 32.Bxg7 Bxf2 33.Ra7+ Ke8

288

34.Be4! Activating the second bishop. 34...b5 It seems to be difficult for Black to find a satisfactory continuation: 34...Bxg3+? 35.Kxg3 Rg1+ 36.Bg2+–, or 34...Nd6? 35.Bg6+ Kd8 36.Bxh6+– 35.Ra3! 35.Rb7? loses most of the advantage: 35...Nd6 36.Bg6+ Kd8 37.Bxh6 Rc3∞ 35...Ke7 36.Bg6 Bc5

289

37.Rc3! After the rook exchange, the white bishop pair will dominate. Less clear is 37.Rf3 Ng5 38.Bf8+ (38.Bf6+?! Kd6 39.Rd3+ Kc7 40.Be5+ Kb6∞) 38...Kd7 39.Rd3+ Kc7 40.Bxc5 (40.Bxh6 Rc2+ 41.Kh1 Nxh3 42.Rd7+ Kxd7 43.Bxc2=) 40...Rxc5 41.h4 Rc2+ 42.Kh1 Nh3 43.Rd7+ Kxd7 44.Bxc2 Nf2+ 45.Kg2 Ng4 46.Kf3 Nf6 47.g4² 37...Rxc3 38.Bxc3 Be3 Not much different is 38...Bd6 39.Bd2 (39.Kg2!? Ne5 40.Bh5±) 39...Ng5 40.Kg2 Kf6 41.Bd3 b4 42.h4 Nf7 43.g4± 39.Bb4+

290

39...Kf6?! More stubborn is 39...Nd6 40.Bd3 Kd7 41.Kg2±. Time trouble is difficult to handle... 40.Bd3 And White wins material. 40...e5 41.Bxb5 e4 42.Bc3+ Ke7 43.Bc6 Nd6 44.Bd5! Bc5 45.a4 e3 46.g4 The black knight is fully dominated — the end cannot be far away. 46...h5 46...e2 loses to 47.Bf3 Ne4 48.Be1!+– 47.Kg2 hxg4 48.hxg4 Ne8 49.g5 Nc7 50.Bc4 Ne6 51.Bf6+ Kd7 52.Kf3 Nf8 53.Kg4 Also good enough is 53.Be5 Ng6 54.Bg3+– 53...Ng6 Or 53...Kd6 54.Kf5 Nd7 55.Bc3 Nb6 56.g6+– 54.Bd3

291

54...Kd6 54...Ne7 55.Bb2+– 55.Bxg6 e2 56.Bc3 Bf2 57.a5! Black resigned due to 57...e1=Q 58.Bxe1 Bxe1 59.a6 Bf2 60.Bd3+– 1–0 Illescas Cordoba Miguel Martin Gonzalez Angel D34 Linares 1998 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.c4 e6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Bf4 Bg4 12.h3 Be6 13.Rc1 Qd7 14.Nxe6 fxe6 15.e4 d4 16.e5 dxc3 17.exf6 Qxd1 18.Rfxd1 Bxf6 19.bxc3 Rfd8 20.Re1 g5 21.Be3 Rd7 22.Bc5 Kf7 23.Re4 Ne5 24.Bd4 Nc6 25.Be3 Rc8 26.Bf3

292

White has the bishop pair and pressure on the black kingside pawn structure, but things are far from easy, as White’s c-pawn is weak. 26...Nd8? Passivity is the wrong attitude! Black had to opt for 26...Rd6 27.Bh5+ Kg7 28.Kg2² 27.Bh5+ Kg7 The alternative 27...Ke7?! leaves the black kingside undefended: 28.Bxa7 Rdc7 (28...Rxc3? 29.Bc5++–) 29.Re3 Rxc3 30.Rexc3 Rxc3 31.Bc5+ Kd7 32.Rxc3 Bxc3 33.Bf8+– 28.c4 b6 29.Kg2 It was time to exchange off his only weakness with the thematic 29.c5! bxc5 (29...Rdc7 30.Be2 bxc5 31.Ba6 Rb8 32.Bxc5±) 30.Rxc5 Rxc5 31.Bxc5± 29...Rd6?! The text cannot be helpful. Black had to opt for 29...Rdc7 30.Be2± followed by Rd1.

293

30.c5! bxc5 30...Rdc6?!, loses to 31.Ra4 (31.cxb6 Rxc1 32.Bxc1 axb6 [32...Rxc1 33.bxa7 Rc8 34.Ra4+–] 33.Be3±) 31...a5 32.Bf3 R6c7 33.c6 b5 34.Rxa5 Nxc6 35.Rxb5+– 31.Ra4 White could go for the simple 31.Rxc5 Rxc5 32.Bxc5± as well. 31...a5 Black is getting extremely pressed!

294

31...Rd7?! is losing to 32.Rxc5 Rxc5 33.Bxc5 Nc6 34.Be8+–. 32.Bf3! Everything under control! Instead 32.Rxa5?! c4 33.Ra7+ Kg8 34.Bg6 c3 could give Black the counterplay he is seeking. 32...Rd7 32...c4 33.Raxc4 Rxc4 34.Rxc4 Nf7 35.Rc7± should be a slow death... 33.Rxc5 Rxc5 34.Bxc5 Bc3

295

35.Rc4! Bd2 36.Bd4+ Kf7?! A bit more stubborn is 36...Kg6. White can opt for 37.Bd1! Bb4 38.Ba4 Re7 39.Be5, where the win shouldn’t be far away — the bishop pair dominates! 37.Bh5+ Ke7 37...Kf8 38.Bf6 Bb4 39.a4+– 38.Bg7 Nf7 39.Rc8 And Black lost on time, but his position was already in ruins: 39...Nd6 (39...Be1 40.Rf8 Nd6 41.Bxh6+–) 40.Rh8 Nf5 41.Be5+– 1–0 Ribli Zoltan Espig Lutz D34 Budapest 1975 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 c5 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.d4 e6 5.0-0 Nf6 6.c4 Be7 7.cxd5 exd5 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 Be6 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Nxd5 Qxb2 13.Nc7 Rad8 14.Qc1 Qxc1 15.Raxc1 Bb6 16.Nxe6 fxe6 17.Rc4 h6 18.Re4 Rf6

296

A typical ending, where White stands slightly better, but Black has fair chances of preserving the equilibrium, mainly due to the opposite-coloured bishops. Going by statistics, White scores a solid 75% from here. 19.h4! Stopping an eventual ...g5 and sometimes planning h5, fixing the g7-pawn. 19...Rd5 20.Bh3 Also good is 20.Rc1 Rb5 21.Bh3 Kf7 22.Rd1 Ke7 23.Rd2 Rb4 24.Rxb4 Nxb4 25.Kg2² Maksimenko,A-Vonthron,H Odessa 1990. 20...Kf7 21.Kg2 Ke7 21...e5? only weakens the e-pawn and in general it should be avoided: 22.Bc8 Ra5 23.Bxb7 Nd8 24.Bc8 Rc6 25.Bg4 Kf6 26.a4± Krueger,E- Kripp,W Halle 2000. 22.Rc1 Kd6

297

23.e3 Another typical move, which limits the b6-bishop and stops any ...Nd4 ideas. 23...Ne5 23...Ke7 24.Bg4 h5 25.Bh3 Ba5 26.Rc2² should be a fair alternative. 24.Nxe5 Rxe5 25.Rxe5 Kxe5 26.Rc8² The rook invades Black’s camp, exerting pressure on the b7- and g7-pawns. 26...Kd6 27.Re8 e5 The alternative is 27...h5 28.Rh8 g6 29.Rh7 Bc7 30.f4 b5 31.Kf3 b4 32.e4 e5 33.Rd7+± 28.Bg4 Rf7! 28...Ba5?! is difficult for Black after 29.f4! exf4 30.gxf4 g6 31.Kf3±, planning e4. 29.Re6+ 29.f4?! Re7! is fine for Black. 29...Kd5 30.Rg6 Re7

298

31.Bd1! Kc5 32.Kf3 Ba5?! Now White gets an excellently-placed and centralised king. Black should try 32...e4+! 33.Ke2 Ba5 34.Bc2 b5 35.g4 Bc3 36.g5 hxg5 37.Rxg5+ Kc4 38.Rg4 Kd5 39.Bb3+² 33.Ke4! b5 34.Bb3 Be1 35.f3 a5 36.h5 a4 37.Bd5 b4 38.g4 Bh4 39.Rc6+ Kb5 40.Rc8 With the threat of Bc6+ 40...Ra7? Black could defend by 40...Kb6! 41.Bc6 Ra7! (41...b3?! 42.axb3 a3! [42...axb3? 43.Bd5 b2 44.Rb8+ ±] 43.Bd5 Ra7! [43...a2? 44.Rb8+±] 44.Rc1 Kb5 45.b4 Bg5 46.Ba2 Kxb4=) 42.Bd5 (42.Kxe5? b3 43.axb3 a3–+) 42...b3 43.axb3 a3 44.Rc1 Kb5 45.b4 Bg5 46.Ba2 Kxb4= 41.Kxe5 Bf6+ 42.Ke4 Kb6 42...b3? now loses to 43.axb3 a3 44.Rb8+ Kc5 45.b4+ Kd6 46.Ba2± 43.Rb8+ Kc5 44.Bg8 Re7+ 45.Kd3 Rd7+ 46.Ke2

299

46...Rd8! Black’s chances to survive lie in a pure opposite-coloured bishops ending. 47.Rxd8 Bxd8 48.Kd3 b3 49.axb3 axb3? The text is losing. Black had to opt for 49...a3! 50.b4+! (50.Kc2? Kb4 51.Kb1 Bb6 52.e4 Bc7 53.Bc4 Bf4=) 50...Kxb4 51.e4 Kc5 52.e5 Bh4 53.Ke4 Kc6 54.Kf5 Bg3 55.f4 Kd7, where he should hold the draw. 50.Bxb3 Kd6

300

51.f4! Ke7 52.e4 Kf8 53.e5 Be7 54.Ke4 Bd8 55.Kf5 Bh4 56.g5! Nothing is gained by 56.Kg6 Bg3! 56...hxg5 57.Kg4! The winning idea is revealed! White cannot win after 57.fxg5? Be1 58.h6 (58.Ke6 Bd2 59.g6 Bb4 60.Kd7 Ba3 61.e6 Bb4=) 58...gxh6 59.gxh6 Bd2 60.Kg6 Bf4 61.e6 Be5= 57...Be1 The main alternative here is 57...Ke7, after which White can also win: 58.f5 Kf8 (58...Be1 59.h6! [59.f6+? gxf6 60.h6 f5+! 61.Kxf5 Kf8 62.Kf6 Bc3 63.h7 Bxe5+! 64.Kxe5 Kg7=] 59...gxh6 60.f6++–) 59.f6 Be1 (59...gxf6 60.exf6+–) 60.Kxg5 (60.e6? gxf6 61.Kf5 Bb4! 62.h6 Be7 63.Kg6 Kg8=) 60...Bc3 61.Kf5 Bd2 62.Kg6+– 58.Kxg5 Bd2 59.Kf5 Bc1 60.Bc4 Bd2 61.Ke4 Bc1

301

62.h6! The way to achieve two connected central pawns. 62...gxh6 Or 62...g6 63.Kf3 Bb2 64.Kg4 Bc1 65.Kg5 Bd2 66.Bd3!+– 63.f5 h5 63...Kg7 64.Be2 Bg5 65.Bh5 Bd8 66.Kd5 Bg5 67.Ke6 Kf8 68.f6 Bd2 69.Kf5+– 64.f6 h4 65.e6 Ba3 66.Kf3 Black resigned. White will first capture the h4-pawn and then will go with his king to d7. 1–0 Chernin Alexander Marjanovic Slavoljub D34 Subotica 1987 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.c4 e6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bg5 c4 10.Ne5 Be6 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.b3 Qa5 13.Na4 Rfd8 14.e3 c5 15.Nxc5 Bxc5 16.dxc5 Qxc5 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.bxc4 dxc4 19.Bxa8 Rxd1 20.Rfxd1 Qa3 21.Rac1 h5 22.h4 Qxa2

302

White has a clear plus, as his rooks should prove to be stronger than the black queen. Black has two passed pawns, but they are weak and will soon fall. 23.Bd5! By exchanging the bishops White eliminates any possible Black counterplay and weakens the enemy queenside pawns. 23...Bxd5 24.Rxd5 a5

25.Rc5! 303

The careless 25.Rxh5? even loses to 25...Qd2! 26.Rxc4 Qd1+–+ 25...a4 26.R1xc4 Kg7 26...a3 loses to 27.Ra4 Qb2 28.Rca5+– 27.Rb4 27.Rf4 is also good: 27...Qb1+ (27...a3 28.Ra5 Qb1+ 29.Kg2 Qb7+ 30.e4 Qb4 31.Ra6 and Rf3+–) 28.Kh2 Qb6 (28...Qb2 29.Ra5 a3 30.Kg2+–) 29.Rxh5!? Qa6 30.Rg4+ Kf8 31.Rh8+ Ke7 32.Re4+ Kd7 33.Rd4+ Ke7 34.Rd2 a3 35.Ra2+– 27...Qa3 28.Rcc4 Qa1+ 29.Kg2 a3

30.Rc5 Qd1 31.Ra5 Qd6 32.Rc4 Qd7 32...f5 33.Rc3 a2 34.Rca3+– 33.e4 Qd3 33...f5!? 34.Rxa3! fxe4 35.Rc5+– 34.Rca4 Qc2

304

35.Rxa3 White is obliged to exchange his e-pawn for Black’s passed a-pawn. 35...Qxe4+ 36.Rf3

An ideal position for White. He will now exchange his rook pair for Black’s queen and one pawn, achieving a winning pawn ending.

305

36...Kg6 37.Ra6 Qd4 38.Rf4 38.Raxf6++– was good enough. 38...Qd5+ 39.Kh2 Qd8 40.Rc6 Qe7 41.Ra6 41.g4 hxg4 42.Kg3 and Rcxf6, was also good. 41...Qd8

42.Raxf6+! Qxf6 43.Rxf6+ Kxf6 44.Kh3! Kf5 45.f3 f6 46.Kg2! But not 46.g4+? hxg4+ 47.fxg4+ Kf4= 46...Kg6 46...Ke5 47.g4 hxg4 48.fxg4 Kf4 49.Kh3!+– 47.g4 1–0 Grivas Efstratios Liverios Thisefs D34 Iraklion 1983 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.Bg5 d4 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Nd5 Qd8 13.Nd2 a6 14.Rc1 Ba7 15.Nb3 Bg4 16.Nf4 Qf6 17.h3 Bf5 18.Nc5 Bxc5 19.Rxc5 Rad8 20.Qb3 Rd7 21.Rfc1 Nd8 22.Rc7 Qd6 23.Rxd7 Bxd7 24.Rd1 Ne6 306

25.Nxe6 Bxe6 26.Qa4 b5 27.Qxd4 Qxd4 28.Rxd4 Bxa2 29.Rd6 a5 30.Ra6 a4 31.Rb6 Bc4 32.e3 Rd8 33.Bf1

Black’s position seems to be critical, as he is lacking a tempo (due to his back rank) to be active. 33...h5! Securing the draw. White will win a pawn, but the resulting 4:3 ending is drawn, as Black has managed to place his h-pawn on its 4th rank. Also playable is 33...Bxf1 34.Kxf1 g6 35.Rxb5 h5! (35...Ra8? 36.g4!, with excellent winning chances) 36.Ke2 Ra8= 34.Bxc4 bxc4 35.Rb4 Rd2! 36.Rxc4 Rxb2 37.Rxa4 g6

307

Black has reached the optimal defensive set-up; his position cannot be breached. 38.Kg2 Kg7 39.Kf3 Rc2 40.Ra6 Rb2 41.Ra4 Rc2 42.Ra5 Rb2 43.g4 hxg4+ 44.hxg4 Rc2 Black simply waits for White to push — and effectively exchange — his pawns. 45.Kg3 Rb2 46.f4 Rb1 47.Ra7 Rg1+ 48.Kf3 Rf1+ 49.Kg2 Rb1 50.Kf2 Rb2+ 51.Kg3 Rb1 52.Kh4 Re1 53.Re7 Kf6 54.Re8 Rh1+ 55.Kg3 Kg7 56.e4 Ra1 57.e5 Ra3+ 58.Kh4 Rf3 59.Kg5

59...Re3!

308

The standard drawing position. White can make no progress, as 60.f5 gxf5 61.gxf5 Rxe5! (an important drawing mechanism) 62.Rxe5 f6+ 63.Kf4 fxe5+ 64.Kxe5 Kf7 leads to a drawn pawn ending. ½-½

309

Show in Text Mode

CHAPTER 6. TACTICAL MOTIFS Tactics are the salt & pepper of chess. They crown every strategy and appear in nearly every game, so we cannot live without them! Typical tactical motifs repeat themselves, and their knowledge and understanding are an essential asset to season our opening preparation. Arencibia Rodriguez Walter Bruzon Batista Lazaro D34 Santa Clara 2005 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bg5 c4 10.Ne5 Be6 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.b3 Qa5 13.Qc2 Rfd8 14.Rfd1 Rac8 15.bxc4 dxc4 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.e3 c5 18.Ne4 cxd4 19.Nxf6+ gxf6 20.exd4 c3 21.Be4 f5 22.d5 fxe4 23.dxe6 Qe5 24.exf7+ Kxf7 25.Rac1 Rxd1+ 26.Rxd1 Rc7 27.Re1 Rc4 28.Qb3 Qd5 29.Rd1 Qe6 30.Rd7+ Kg6 31.Rc7

Show/Hide Solution

310

31...e3? 31...Rc6 32.Qxe6+ Rxe6 33.Rxc3± 32.Rxc4 e2 33.Rg4+? 33.Qc2+ Kf6 34.Qxc3+ Kg6 35.Qc2+ Kf6 36.Qb2+ Kg6 37.Qb1+ Kf6 38.Re4+– 33...Qxg4 34.Qg8+ Kf6 35.Qxg4 e1=Q+ 36.Kg2 Qd2 37.Qh4+ Ke6 38.Qe4+ Kd6 39.Qb4+ Kd5 40.Qb5+ Kd4 41.Qd7+ Kc4 42.Qc7+ Kb4 43.Qb7+ Kc4 44.Qc7+ ½-½

Verdihanov Vladislav Monin Nikolay D34 St Petersburg 1994 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bg5 c4 10.Ne5 Be6 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.b3 Qa5 13.Na4 Rac8 14.e3 c5 15.dxc5 Bxc5 16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Bxd5 Bxd5 18.Qxd5 c3 19.Qf5 Bb4 20.Qc2 Ba3 21.Rad1 Rfd8 22.Rd4 Rxd4 23.exd4 Qd5 24.Rd1 Kg7 25.Rd3 Qe4

Show/Hide Solution

26.Nxc3! Qe1+ 27.Kg2 Bb4 28.Qd1! 311

28.Qd1 Qxd1 (28...Bxc3 29.Qg4++–) 29.Nxd1+– 1–0

Grivas Efstratios Halkias Stelios D34 Thessaloniki 1998 1.c4 e6 2.g3 c5 3.Bg2 d5 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.0-0 Nc6 6.cxd5 exd5 7.d4 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.Na4 Be7 11.Be3 Bg4 12.Rc1 Rc8 13.Nc5 Bxc5 14.Rxc5 Re8 15.h3 Bf5 16.Nd4 Be4 17.Nxc6 bxc6 18.Qa4 Bxg2 19.Kxg2 Qd6 20.Rfc1

Show/Hide Solution

20...Rxe3? 20...Re6 21.Qa6 Qd7 22.b4± 21.Rxc6 Rxc6 22.Rxc6 Qb8 23.fxe3 Ne4 24.Rc7! h6 24...Qxc7? 25.Qe8# 25.Qd7 Qxb2 26.Qxf7+ Kh8 27.Qf8+ Kh7 28.Qf5+ 312

1–0

Shcherbakov Ruslan Zelcic Robert D34 Bled 1992 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bg5 c4 10.Ne5 Be6 11.f4 Qb6 12.f5 Nxe5 13.Na4 Qc7 14.dxe5 Qxe5 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.fxe6 fxe6 17.Kh1 Rad8 18.Nc3 a6 19.e3 b5 20.a3 Qxe3 21.Re1 Qb6 22.Qg4 Rfe8 23.Rad1 Kh8 24.Rd2 d4 25.Ne4 Rf8 26.h4 d3 27.Ng5 Bxg5 28.hxg5 Rf5 29.Be4 Re5 30.Rh2 g6

Show/Hide Solution

31.Rxh7+! Kxh7 32.Qh5+ Kg7 33.Qxg6+ Kf8 34.Qf6+ Ke8 35.Qxe5 Qd6 36.Qxd6 Rxd6 37.Kg2 a5 38.Kf3 b4 39.axb4 axb4 40.Ke3 d2 41.Rd1 c3 42.bxc3 bxc3 43.g6 Kf8 44.Ke2 Rd4 45.Bc2 Rg4 46.Rf1+ Kg8 47.Rf3 Rc4 48.Kd1 Rc5 49.Re3 Rc8 50.Rxe6 Ra8 51.Ke2 Kf8 52.Rf6+ Kg8 53.Re6 Kf8 54.Rc6 Re8+ 55.Kf2 Rd8 56.Bd1 Re8 57.Rc7 Rb8 58.Rxc3 Rb1 59.Ke2 1–0

313

Sveshnikov Evgeny Rogulj Branko D34 Smederevska Palanka 1980 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.g3 e6 5.Bg2 d5 6.cxd5 exd5 7.d4 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bg5 c4 10.Ne5 Be6 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.b3 cxb3 13.axb3 h6 14.Bf4 Qb6 15.Qd3 a5 16.Rfc1 g5 17.Na4 Qb5 18.Bc7 Qb7 19.Bb6 Nd7 20.Bc5 Bxc5 21.Nxc5 Nxc5 22.Rxc5 Rfb8 23.Rc3 a4 24.bxa4 Rxa4 25.Rxa4 Qb1+ 26.Bf1 Bh3 27.e3 Qe1

Show/Hide Solution

28.Rxc6! Rb2 28...Rb3 29.Ra8+ Kg7 30.Qa6 Rxe3 (30...Rb1 31.Rg6+! fxg6 32.Ra7+ Kg8 33.Qxg6+ Kf8 34.Qf7#) 31.Rxh6+– 29.Rg6+! fxg6 30.Qxg6+ Kf8 31.Qf6+ Ke8 32.Ra8+ Kd7 33.Ra7+ 1–0

Bacrot Etienne Halkias Stelios D34 Istanbul 2003 314

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nf6 6.Bg2 Be7 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bg5 c4 10.Ne5 Be6 11.f4 Ng4 12.Nxg4 Bxg4 13.Bxd5 Bxg5 14.fxg5 Qxg5 15.Rf4 Be6 16.Bg2 Rad8 17.d5 Ne7 18.e4 Ng6 19.Rf2 Bd7 20.Qd4 Ne5 21.Qxa7 Nd3 22.Re2 Qe5 23.Qb6 Bg4 24.Rd2 Rd6 25.Qe3 f5 26.Rf1 Rdf6 27.d6 Rxd6 28.h3 Bh5 29.Qg5 Bg6 30.exf5 h6 31.Qh4 Qc5+ 32.Kh1 Bxf5 33.Qe7 Rf7

Show/Hide Solution

34.Qxf7+! Kxf7 35.Ne4 Qe3 35...Qe5 36.Rxf5+ Qxf5 37.Nxd6++– 36.Nxd6+ Ke6 37.Nxc4 Qxg3 38.Re2+ Kf6 39.Ne3 g6 40.Nxf5 gxf5 41.Rf3 Qg5 42.Rxd3 Qc1+ 43.Kh2 Qf4+ 44.Kg1 Qc1+ 45.Bf1 Qg5+ 46.Rg2 Qf4 47.Rf2 Qg5+ 48.Kh1 Qh4 49.Rdf3 Ke7 50.Rxf5 Qe4+ 51.Kg1 Qe3 52.Rf7+ Kd6 53.Rxb7 Qg5+ 54.Bg2 Qc1+ 55.Kh2 1–0

Khenkin Igor Bach Matthias D34 Esbjerg 2005 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 c4 10.Ne5 Be6 11.b3 Qa5 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.Qc2 Rfd8 14.e3 Rac8 15.bxc4 dxc4 16.Ne4 Qf5 17.Rac1 Qg6 18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Qa4 f5 20.Nd2 c5 21.Nxc4 Bf6 22.d5 Bxd5 23.Bxd5 Rxd5 24.Qxa7 Rcd8 25.Nb6 Rd2 26.Nc4 R2d5 27.Qa4 f4 28.exf4 Bd4 29.Qc2 Qg7 30.Qe4 h5 31.Ne3 R5d7 32.Nf5 Qf6 315

33.Nxd4 Rxd4 34.Qf3 Qf5 35.Rfe1 R8d5 36.Re8+ Kg7 37.h4 Rd3 38.Qe2 Rd2 39.Qe7 Qh7 40.Qf8+ Kf6 41.Rce1 Rxa2

Show/Hide Solution

42.R8e6+ Kf5 43.Rh6 1–0

Gareyev Timur Akobian Varuzhan D34 Las Vegas 2010 1.d4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bg5 c4 10.Ne5 Be6 11.b3 h6 12.Bf4 Qa5 13.Bd2 Bb4 14.Nxc6 bxc6 15.Qc2 Qa6 16.Nxd5 Nxd5 17.bxc4 Rfc8 18.cxd5 cxd5 19.Qd1 Ba3 20.e4 Rd8 21.Qh5 Qc4 22.Bc1 Bf8 23.Be3 Ba3 24.Bc1 Bf8 25.Be3 Ba3 26.Rab1 Rac8 27.Rb7 dxe4 28.Bxe4 a6

316

Show/Hide Solution

29.Bxh6! Qxd4 29...gxh6 30.Qxh6+– 30.Bh7+ Kxh7 30...Kf8 31.Bf5+– 31.Be3+ Kg8 32.Bxd4 Rxd4 33.Qa5 Bc5 34.Rc7 Rxc7 35.Qxc7 Rc4 36.Qd8+ Kh7 37.Qd3+ g6 38.Re1 Rd4 39.Qxa6 Rd2 40.Rxe6 fxe6 41.Qxe6 Rxf2 42.Kh1 Rc2 43.a4 Rc1+ 44.Kg2 Rc2+ 45.Kf3 Rxh2 46.Qf7+ Kh6 47.Qf4+ 1–0

317

PART 4. THE SEMI-TARRASCH DEFENCE (D41) The ‘Semi-Tarrasch Defence’ of the ‘QGD’ is characterised by the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5

Unlike the regular ‘Tarrasch Defence’, in the ‘Semi-Tarrasch Defence’ Black does not accept an isolated pawn, since he intends to recapture on d5 with the knight, but he cedes a spatial advantage to White. White usually plays 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4, which leads to different types of middlegame play and has attracted the interest of strong players with both colours since the early 20th century. In general Black accepts a slightly worse but fully defensible position, without any structural or other major weakness. But let’s examine the positive and negative points of both sides: The white side enjoys: 1. Strong centre (majority). 2. Space advantage. 3. Easy plans in the centre and the kingside. The black side enjoys: 1. Quick development. 2. Healthy pawn structure. 318

3. Better endgame (queenside majority). So, Black aims mostly to defend and exploit his chances in the endgame and White claims his chances lie in superior middlegame motifs and plans, mostly based on the d5 advance. Then the white side can decide if he will recapture on d5 (after ...exd5) with his e-pawn or instead invest a pawn by playing e5. Both plans seem to have positives, depending on the position. HISTORICAL APPROACH It seems that our proposed system was first seen in 1906, at least according to ChessBase — MegaBase. It was played by Carl Schlechter and not by Siegbert Tarrasch himself and it could hardly be called a success for White, who was lucky enough to save the draw: Bernstein Ossip Samuel Schlechter Carl D41 Stockholm 1906 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Qa5 10.Rb1 Bxd2+ 11.Nxd2 0-0 12.Bc4 Nc6 13.d5 exd5 14.Bxd5 Ne7 15.Bc4 a6 16.0-0 b5 17.Bb3 Bb7 18.Qe2 Ng6 19.f4 Rad8 20.Rbd1

20...Rd4 21.e5 Rxf4 22.Qe3 Rxf1+ 23.Rxf1 Nxe5 24.Qxe5 Qxd2 25.Bxf7+ Kh8 26.Rf2 Qd1+ 27.Rf1 Qd2 ½-½ STARTING OUT 319

The system proposed against the ‘Semi-Tarrasch Defence’ commences with the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4

From here Black can choose between: 8...Be7, 8...Nc6 and the main continuation 8...Bb4+

As noted, White will eventually try to play in the centre and the kingside, so it is quite natural that he will try to gather his pieces on those parts of the board. After 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0-0 his bishop should be placed on c4, helping an eventual d5 advance and so after 11.Bc4 b6 12.0-0 Bb7 White must decide where to place his rooks. 320

Over the years any and every possible set-up has been tried (b1 & c1, c1 & d1, etc.) but finally the decision was made: White’s rooks should be placed on d1 and e1, protecting his centre and helping with its advance. And a factor that is also important: they cannot be exchanged easily. Yes, this is one of the main secrets of this variation: as White has achieved a spatial advantage he should refrain from exchanging more pieces! So, 13.Rfe1

...is the ‘correct’ continuation and now Black is at a crossroads and has to decide where to place his knight: a) 13...Nd7: Black considers playing ...Nf6 at a certain moment, protecting his kingside and keeping his bishop’s view clear. On the other hand, he barely puts White’s centre under any pressure. b) 13...Nc6: A more direct approach to create counterplay in the centre and the queenside. Via c6 the black knight threatens White’s centre and usually goes to the a5- and c4 squares. But Black’s king remains without proper protection.

CHAPTER 1. VARIOUS LINES 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4

321

Here, barring the so-called main line with 6...Nxc3, Black has tried some sidelines: 6...Nb4, 6...Nc7, 6...Nb6, 6...Nf6 and 6...cxd4. After 6...Nxc3 7.bxc3, instead of the main line with 7...cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+, there are sidelines as well: 7...b6, 7...Qc7, 7...Qa5, 7...Nc6 and 7...Be7. Then, after the main 7...cxd4 8.cxd4, we will examine another rather rarely played line with 8...Nc6 9.Bc4 b5. 1.1 — 6...NB4 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nb4?!

322

7.d5 The logical advance, although 7.a3 has been played as well: 7...cxd4 (7...N4a6 8.Be3 Nd7 9.Be2 Be7 10.0-0 0-0 11.dxc5 Bxc5 12.Bxc5 Ndxc5 13.Qxd8 Rxd8 14.b4 Nd7 15.Rfd1± Schroeder,KSlomczewski,M Prague 2016) 8.axb4 dxc3 9.Qxd8+ Kxd8 10.bxc3 Bd6 11.Be3 (11.e5 Bc7 12.Be3 Nc6 13.Rd1+² Espig,G-Wolff,H Fuerstenwalde 1981) 11...a6 12.Be2 Nd7 13.0-0 Ke7 14.Rfd1 Rb8 15.b5± Taylor,P-Robert,A Saint Vincent 2005. 7...exd5 8.exd5 Bf5 Or 8...Bd6 9.a3 N4a6 10.Bd3 h6 11.0-0 0-0 12.Re1 Re8 13.Rxe8+ Qxe8 14.Ne4± Qd8 15.Bc2 Bf5 16.Qe2 Qc7 17.Nxd6 Bxc2 18.Qe8+ Kh7 19.Nxf7 b6 20.N3g5+ hxg5 21.Nxg5+ Kh6 22.Ne6+ Kh7 23.Nxc7 Nxc7 24.Qh5+ Kg8 25.d6 Nd7 26.dxc7 1–0 Kasparov,G-NN Besancon 1999. 9.Bb5+ A natural suggested novelty in place of 9.Qa4+? Bd7? (9...Nd7!µ) 10.Bb5 Nd3+ 11.Ke2 Nb4 12.Re1 a6 13.Kf1+ Be7 14.Bxd7+ Nxd7 15.d6+– Castells Garriga,P-Puig Estival,J Vall del Tenes 2016. 9...Nd7 10.d6! 10.0-0 Bd6 11.Bg5± 10...Qf6 10...Nc2+ 11.Kf1 Nxa1 12.Bg5 Qa5 13.Ne5+–

323

11.0-0 Qxd6 12.Bg5

Black will not escape, as White holds a decisive advantage. 1.2 — 6...NC7 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nc7?!

Another questionable continuation, as in the previous sub-chapter. 7.Be3 cxd4

324

Or 7...Nd7?! 8.Qa4 cxd4 9.Bxd4 a6 10.Rd1 b5 11.Qa5 Bb7 12.Bb6 Rc8 13.Ne5 Qg5 14.Nxd7 Na8 15.Nxf8 Rxf8 16.Be3 Qg6 17.Qb4 f6 18.Qd6 Qf7 19.Nxb5 Bxe4 20.Qxa6 Ke7 21.Qa7+ 1–0 Schmuck,H-Kretzschmar,J Berlin 2006. 8.Nxd4 Not bad is 8.Bxd4 Nc6 9.Be3 Bd7 10.Qb3 Be7 11.Rd1 Qc8 12.Be2 0-0 13.0-0± Gulten,E-Uygun,Y Kemer 2012, or even the untested 8.Qxd4 Qxd4 9.Nxd4± 8...Bd7 Alternatives are worse: a) 8...Bc5?! 9.Be2 0-0 10.0-0 b6 11.a3 Bb7 12.b4 Be7 13.Qb3 Bg5 14.f4 Bh6 15.Rad1 Qe7 16.g3 e5 17.Nf5 Qf6 18.Rd6 Ne6 19.Nd5 Bxd5 20.Qxd5 Nc6 21.Qxc6 Rac8 22.Qd5 Kh8 23.Nxh6 Qxh6 24.Qxe5 Rc2 25.Rf2 1–0 Johansen,A-Birkisson,B Reykjavik 2014; b) 8...Bb4? 9.Qa4+ Nc6 10.0-0-0 Bxc3 11.Nxc6+– Hornung,H-Gress,P Fuerth 2016. 9.Bc4 A suggested novelty to 9.Rc1 Bb4 10.Qb3 Nba6 11.Be2 0-0 12.0-0± Hyrs,M-Stursa,L Czech Republic 2005. 9...Nc6 10.0-0±

White holds a strong plus due to his spatial advantage, better development and better-placed pieces. 1.3 — 6...NB6

325

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nb6?!

7.Be3 cxd4 What else? If 7...c4? then 8.Ne5 Bb4 9.Nxc4 Qc7 10.Qb3+– Iordachescu,V-Hillebrand,R Vlissingen 2002, or 7...N8d7 8.a4 cxd4 9.Bxd4 Nf6 10.a5 Nbd7 11.Bb5 (11.Qa4±) 11...Bb4 12.Qa4 Bxc3+ 13.Bxc3± Lisboa Torres,E-Miranda Pereira,E Rio de Janeiro 2016. 8.Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Qxd4 9.Nxd4 Bb4 10.Ndb5 Na6 11.Nxa7± Guerrero Vargas,A-Verde Noriega,J Collado Villalba 2019. 8...Be7 Or 8...Bb4 9.Ndb5 N8d7 (9...Qe7 10.Nxa7 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Rxa7 12.Bxb6 Ra3 13.Qd4 e5 14.Qe3+– Harazinska,M-Kroliczek,G Suchedniow 2016) 10.Qd4 Bxc3+ 11.Qxc3± Jalowy,S-Ellend,T Suedwestfalen 2000. 9.Be2 0-0 10.0-0 Bd7 Alternatives are more-or-less the same: 10...a6 11.Rc1 N6d7 12.f4 b5 13.e5 Nb6 14.Bf3± Kreizberg,M-Kudischewitsch,D Tel Aviv 2002, or 10...N8d7 11.Rc1 Ne5 12.Qb3 Nbd7 13.Rfd1± Keller,T-Goy,U Cologne 1994, or, finally, 10...e5 11.Ndb5 Nc6 12.Qxd8 Rxd8 13.Nxa7 Nxa7 14.Bxb6± Nechaeva,M-Belova,O Sochi 2016. 11.Rc1 326

Also not bad is 11.Qc2 Nc6 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.Rfd1 Qc8 14.Qb3 Bf6 15.f3² Kalinin,I-Zhelobanov,R Dagomys 2009. 11...Nc6 11...Bc6 12.Qc2± Kulbacki,J-Potter,G Detroit 1992. 12.Nb3 Ne5 13.Na5±

White has better-placed pieces and exerts pressure on the queenside. 1.4 — 6...NF6 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nf6?!

327

7.Be3 cxd4 Alternatives are: a) 7...Qa5 8.Bd3 (8.Nd2 cxd4 9.Bxd4 Qd8 10.Bb5+ Bd7 11.Bxd7+ Qxd7 12.Nc4² Luett,MEpding,V Leverkusen 1995) 8...Nc6 9.0-0± b) 7...Ng4 8.Bb5+ Bd7 9.d5 Nxe3 10.fxe3 Bxb5 11.Nxb5 Qa5+ 12.Nc3± Steger,M-Westphal,G Cologne 2010. c) 7...Qb6 8.Bd3 Qxb2 9.Nb5!+– (9.Na4 Qb4+ 10.Bd2 Qa3∞ Monninger,M-Grosskreuz,J Augsburg 2003). 8.Nxd4 Less accurate is 8.Bxd4 Nc6 9.Bb5 Bd7 10.Qe2 Be7 11.Be3 0-0 12.0-0² Gagnepain,L-Martin,F Angers 2012. 8...a6 It is not easy for Black to play without controlling b5: 8...Bb4 9.Qa4+ Nc6 10.Nxc6 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 bxc6 12.Rd1 Bd7 (12...Qc7 13.Bc5+– Rodriguez,A-Boutillon,N Montbeliard 2014) 13.Bc5 Ng8 14.Qd4 f6 15.Bc4 Qc8 16.Qd6 1–0 Moreno,W-Davila Chavez,J Trujillo 2016, or 8...Be7 9.Ndb5! (9.Bd3 0-0 10.0-0² Kovaliova,V-Erofeev,A Kiev 2006; 9.Be2 0-0 10.0-0² Palma,M-Vidmar,K Nova Gorica 2019) 9...Qa5 10.Bd2 0-0 11.e5± 9.Be2

328

9.Bd3 e5 10.Nf3 Nc6 11.h3 Bb4 12.Rc1² Kovaliova,V-Erofeev,A Kiev 2006. 9...Bb4 10.Qa4+ Nc6 11.Nxc6 Bxc3+ 12.bxc3 Qd7 13.Rd1±

Ochs,D-Schneider,L Wiesbaden 2017. White has the bishop pair and full control of the position. 1.5 — 6...CXD4 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 cxd4

An interesting line where White should keep an edge but only with very accurate play. 329

7.Qxd4 Nxc3 Unsatisfactory is 7...Nb4? 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Bg5+ f6 10.0-0-0+ Bd7 (10...Ke8 11.Be3 a6 [11...Be7 12.a3 N4c6 13.Nb5 Na6 14.Bc4± Thomas,C-Jimenez,B Detroit East 1984] 12.Bc4 b5 13.Bb3 N4c6 14.e5± Vavrak,P-Rachela,M Slovakia 2002) 11.Be3 a6 12.Nd4 Ke7 13.Nb3 (13.Be2 e5 14.Nf5+ Bxf5 15.exf5 Nd7 16.a3 Nc6 17.Nd5+ Kf7 18.Nc7 Rd8 19.Ne6+– Strzelecki,J-Zimmer,R Dresden 2013) 13...Kf7 14.Na5 Bc8 15.Be2± Krasiewicz,R-Gasik,A Chojnice 2005. 8.Qxc3 Nc6

9.Bb5 Bd7 Again the main continuation. Black has also tried here 9...Qb6?! 10.a4 (10.Bxc6+ Qxc6 11.Qxc6+ bxc6 12.0-0 Ba6 13.Rd1 Be2 14.Re1 Bxf3 15.gxf3 Bc5 16.Be3 Bxe3 17.Rxe3² Ju,W-Tan,Z Taizhou 2015) 10...a6 11.Be3 Qc7 (11...axb5 12.Bxb6 Bb4 13.Qxb4 Nxb4 14.Rd1 Bd7 15.Ne5 Bc6 16.Nxc6 Nxc6 17.axb5± Molander,R-Nyysti,S Vammala 1999) 12.0-0 Bd7 13.Be2 Qa5 14.Qxa5 Nxa5 15.Ne5± Carlsen,M-Naiditsch,A Sarajevo 2006. 10.0-0

330

White has a lead in development and in space, so Black must be quite careful. 10...Qb6 Two main alternatives here for Black: a) 10...a6?! a1) 11.Ba4 b5 (11...Rc8 12.Rd1 b5 [12...f6 13.Bf4 {13.Be3 Qc7 14.Rac1 Bd6 15.Qd3 b5 16.Bb3± 1– 0 Keuth,G-Mittendorf,F Germany 1992} 13...Be7

14.Rxd7! Qxd7 15.Rd1 Qxd1+ 16.Bxd1 Kf7 17.Bb3 b5 18.Nd4 Nxd4 19.Qxd4 Rhd8 20.Qa7 Rc6 21.h4 Kf8 22.Qb7 1–0 Muender,M-Michaelsen,N Hamburg 1986] 13.Bb3 Na5 14.Qe5 [14.Qd3 Bc6 331

15.Qxd8+ Rxd8 16.Rxd8+ Kxd8 17.Ne5± Jepson,C-Olsson,L Sweden 2005] 14...Qc7 15.Qxc7 Rxc7 16.Bf4 Rc8 17.Ne5 Bc6 18.Rac1± Kantsler,B-Murey,J Rishon Le Ziyyon 1997) 12.Bb3 b4 13.Qe3 Na5 14.Rd1 Qc7 15.Bd2 Nxb3 16.axb3 Be7 17.Rac1 Qb8 18.Qd4+–

18...Bf6 19.e5 Bd8 20.Bxb4 Bb5 21.Qg4 g6 22.Nd2 h5 23.Qf3 Ra7 24.Ne4 Be7 25.Bxe7 1–0 Ehlvest, J-Simutowe,A Sioux Falls 2005. a2) 11.Be2 Rc8 12.Rd1 b5 (12...f6 13.Be3 Qc7 14.Rac1 Be7 15.Qb3 Rb8 16.Bb6 Qc8 17.Bc4 Kf7 18.Qd3 Be8 19.e5 Nb4

20.Qb3 [20.Ng5+!+–] 20...Bc6 21.exf6 gxf6 22.Nd4 Bd7 23.Re1 1–0 Tukmakov,V-Osterman,R Portoroz 1995) 13.Bf4 f6 14.Bd6 Be7 15.a4 b4 16.Qc5± Koziak,V-Tokarski,L Rewal 2007. 332

b) 10...Rc8 11.Rd1 (11.Bf4 Ne7 12.Qb3 Bxb5 13.Qxb5+ Qd7 14.Qxd7+ Kxd7 15.Rfd1+± Grivas,EAlexopoulos,I Athens 1982) 11...a6 (11...Qc7 12.Be3 a6 13.Ba4 b5 14.Bb3 Qa5 15.Qd3± Yrjola,JTorkkola,H Finland 2014; 11...Qb6 12.Qd3 Rd8 13.Be3± Fessas,P-Gkertsos,G Fyli 2012)

12.Bxc6 (12.Be2!± transposes to notes above) 12...Rxc6 13.Qb3 (13.Qe5?! f6 14.Qh5+ g6 15.Qh4 e5∞ Kozhuharov,S-Yordanov,N Plovdiv 2007) 13...Qb8 14.Be3± Bc5?! 15.Rd2 Bxe3 16.Qxe3 Bc8 17.Nd4 Rd6 18.Qg3 0-0 19.Nxe6 1–0 Butnorius,A-Gelzinis,V Kaunas 1980. 11.a4 The alternative 11.Ba4 also seems to be possible: 11...Qb4 12.Qxb4 Bxb4 13.Rd1 f6 14.Be3 Ke7 15.a3 Bd6 16.Rd2² Salov,V-Barsov,A Corsica 1997.

333

11...Qc5 Challenging the white queen seems to be best. Alternatives transpose to notes above. 12.Qd3 12.Bd2 looks quite safe for White: a) 12...Qxc3 13.Bxc3

13...a6 (13...f6 14.e5 Be7 15.Rfd1 Rd8 16.Bc4 Kf7 17.exf6 Bxf6 18.Rac1± Koster,E-Chow,A North Bay 1996) 14.Bc4 (14.Be2 transposes to notes above) 14...Rg8 15.Rfd1 Bb4 16.Bxb4 Nxb4 17.Ne5² 334

Kamsky,G- Topalov,V Linares 1994. b) 12...a6 13.Be2 Qxc3 14.Bxc3 f6 (14...Rg8 15.Rfd1 Rd8 16.Rac1 Be7 17.h4 f6 18.Bc4² Hjartarson,J-Hansen,L Reykjavik 1995) 15.e5 Bb4 (15...f5 16.Nd2 Bc5 17.Nc4 Ke7 18.Rfd1² Khalifman,A-Goldin,A Moscow 1993) 16.exf6! (16.Bxb4 Nxb4 17.Rac1 Ke7 18.Rc4 a5 19.Rd1 Rac8= Van der Sterren,P-Sosonko,G Amsterdam 1994) 16...Bxc3 17.f7+ Kxf7 18.bxc3 Ke7 19.a5² 12...Qd6 12...a6? now is extremely bad: 13.Rd1 Qe7 14.Bxc6 Bxc6 15.Ne5 Rc8 16.Be3 Qc7 17.Nxc6 bxc6 18.Qxa6 Be7 19.Bf4 1–0 Schlosser,P-Meyer,J Schwaebisch Gmuend 2001.

13.Qc2 An interesting approach, although White can keep a small edge after 13.Qe2 a6 (13...Qc7 14.e5 [14.Bg5 a6 15.Bxc6 Bxc6 16.Nd4 Qe5 17.Nxc6 Qxg5 18.Nd4 Bc5 19.Nf3 Qe7 20.Rac1 0-0= Dreev,A-Zelcic,R Las Vegas 1999] 14...Bc5 15.Rd1 a6 16.Bd3 h6 17.Bf4 Nb4 18.Be4 Bc6 19.Nd2 Rd8 20.Bxc6+ Qxc6 21.Ne4² Anand,V-Adams,M Groningen 1997) 14.e5 Qc7 15.Bd3 Nb4 16.Be4 Bc6 17.Bd2 Bxe4 18.Qxe4 Nd5 19.Rfc1 Qd7 20.Rc4² Kramnik,V-Adams,M Germany 1997. 13...a6 13...Qc5?! 14.Qe2 a6 15.Be3± 14.Rd1 Qc7

335

15.Be2 As nearly always, this modest retreat is natural and best. Nothing is gained by 15.Be3?! axb5! (15...Be7? 16.Bf1 Rc8 17.Rac1 Qa5 18.Nd2 Nd8 19.Nc4± Zueger,B-Grosar,A Ptuj 1995) 16.axb5 Rxa1 17.Rxa1 Bd6 18.bxc6 0-0∞ 15...Rc8 16.Qb3! A suggested novelty in place of 16.Be3 Nd4! 17.Nxd4 (17.Qd3!? Nxe2+ 18.Qxe2 Be7 19.Rdc1²) 17...Qxc2 18.Nxc2 Rxc2= Berebora,F-Cifuentes Parada,R Benasque 1996. 16...Bb4 17.Be3 a5 17...0-0 18.Rac1± 18.Rac1 e5 19.h3² White stands better, probably more than the modest ² that I have given. His control of the critical central and queenside squares is strong and many positive tactics are hanging in the air.

336

Now, after the natural 6...Nxc3 7.bxc3, Black can opt for: 1.5.1 — 7...B6 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 b6?

A bad idea, which fatally weakens the queenside light squares. 8.Ne5! Also natural but less good is 8.d5 exd5 9.exd5 Bd6 10.Bd3 0-0 (10...Bg4 11.Qa4+ [11.Bc2?! 0-0 337

12.0-0 c4 13.Qd4 Bxf3 14.gxf3 Qc7∞ Leitao,N-Silva Filho,D Sao Luis 2017] 11...Bd7 12.Qe4+ Qe7 13.Qxe7+ Bxe7 14.Bf4±) 11.0-0 Bg4 (11...Re8?! 12.Qc2 h6 13.Bb2 Nd7 14.Rae1 Ne5 15.Nxe5 Bxe5 16.c4 Bxb2 17.Qxb2± Bd7 ½-½ Kock,H-Marjanovic,S Feffernitz 2005) 12.h3 Bh5 13.c4 Qf6 14.Rb1² 8...Bd6 Black’s alternatives are: a) 8...Bb7? 9.Bb5+ Ke7 10.Qf3 (10.Qh5+–) 10...f6 11.Qh5 fxe5 1–0 Dos Santos,F-Araujo,J Petrolina 2012. b) 8...Qf6? 9.Bb5+ Bd7 10.Qa4 Qd8 11.Ba3 (11.Bg5! f6 12.0-0-0+–) 11...f6 12.Nxd7 Nxd7 13.Rd1 a6 14.Bc6 b5 15.Qc2± Pitsch,W-Rebold,S Germany 1992. c) 8...a6!? (Probably best, avoiding the checks on a4 and b5) 9.Qf3 Qf6 (9...Ra7 10.Be2 cxd4 11.00±) 10.Bf4 cxd4 11.Nc4 e5 12.Bxe5 Qxf3 13.gxf3 Nc6 14.Nxb6 Nxe5 15.Nxa8 Nxf3+ 16.Ke2 Bg4 17.cxd4

17...Ne1+ 18.Kd2 (18.Kxe1? Bb4#) 18...Bb4+ 19.Ke3 Nc2+ 20.Kf4 Nxa1 21.Kxg4± 9.Bb5+ 9.Qa4+? Bd7 10.Nxd7 Nxd7 11.Qc6 Be7∞ Palit,V-Horowitz,J Sydney 2002. 9...Nd7 10.Nc4 Be7 11.Bc6±

338

Wachira,W-Vincent,N Nairobi 2017. Black is nearly done, as material will be lost: 11...Rb8 12.Bf4. Well, this is one of these sidelines that should be avoided, as they lead to much worse positions without any real fight and without any serious potential, or even any threats... 1.5.2 — 7...QC7 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 Qc7 A move without any serious purpose, but a hard nut to crack. White can develop in comfort, reaching a promising position, while Black seems solid.

339

8.Be2 8.Bd3?! cxd4 9.cxd4? Qc3+µ 8...Be7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Be3 Rd8 Or 10...Nd7 11.Qd2 (11.Bd3 b6 12.Rc1 Bb7 13.Nd2 Rac8∞ Kjartansson,G-Boros,D Budapest 2008) 11...Nf6 12.Bf4! Qa5 13.Qd3²

11.Qd2 A natural suggested novelty. White’s alternatives until now have been: a) 11.Rc1 b6 12.Qc2 (12.Bd3 Ba6 13.Bxa6 Nxa6 14.Qe2 Qb7 15.Rfd1 Rac8∞ Klukin,K-Den Dunnen,L Murmansk 2016) 12...Bb7 13.Bd3 (13.e5 Nd7 14.Rfd1 Nf8∞ Roux, J-Eggink,G La Fere 2009) 13...Nc6 14.Rfd1 Rac8∞ Retta,T-Niedermowwe,N Germany 1996. b) 11.Ne5 Nd7

340

12.f4 Nxe5 13.fxe5 Bd7 14.Rf3² Taus,M-Vavra,P Czech Republic 1998. c) 11.Bd3 Nd7 12.Qe2 Nf8 (12...b6!) 13.h4 Bd7 14.h5 Bc6 15.h6² Miton,K-Rivas Pastor,M La Laguna 2010. d) 11.Qb3 b6 12.Rad1 Nd7 13.d5 Nf6∞ Bodyagin,A-Belitzky,D Nizhnij Novgorod 2012. e) 11.Qb1!? Nd7 12.e5 Nf8 13.Qe4 Bd7 14.h4 Rac8 15.h5 h6 16.Qg4 Kh8 17.Qf4² Fraguela Gil,JFernandez Gonzalez,J Cienfuegos 1975. 11...b6 11...Nd7 12.Bf4 Qa5 13.Qd3² 12.d5 exd5 13.exd5²

341

White has a pleasant position, based on his spatial advantage and his passed d-pawn. 1.5.3 — 7...QA5 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 Qa5?!

An over-ambitious move. 8.Bd2 Interesting is 8.d5!? exd5 9.exd5 Qxc3+ 10.Bd2 Qf6 11.Bb5+ Bd7 12.Bxd7+ Nxd7 13.0-0 h6 14.Re1+ Kd8 15.Rb1° b6 16.d6 Bxd6 17.Qa4 Re8 18.Rxe8+ Kxe8 19.Qe4+ Ne5 20.Qxa8+ Kd7 342

21.Qxa7+ Kc8 22.Nxe5 Qxe5 23.g3 Bc7 24.Re1 Qd5 25.Bf4 1–0 Lacey,D-Shah,T Melbourne 2013. 8...cxd4 Or 8...Be7 9.Bd3 (9.Be2 Qc7 10.0-0 0-0 11.d5 exd5 12.exd5 Rd8 13.Qb3 Bf5 14.Rfe1² Montufar Berrios,L-Chang,S Blumenau 2014) 9...Qc7 10.0-0 Nc6 11.d5 Nb8 12.c4± Zueger,B-Schulz,K Arandjelovac 1985. 9.cxd4 Bb4

10.Rb1! Best by test! 10...Bxd2+ 11.Qxd2! The right recapture and not 11.Nxd2?! 0-0 12.Bc4 Nc6 13.d5 exd5 14.Bxd5 Ne7 15.Bc4 a6 16.0-0 b5 17.Bb3 Bb7 18.Qe2 Ng6 19.f4 Rad8 20.Rbd1 Rd4 21.e5 Rxf4 22.Qe3 Rxf1+ 23.Rxf1 Nxe5 24.Qxe5 Qxd2 25.Bxf7+ Kh8 26.Rf2 Qd1+ 27.Rf1 Qd2 ½-½ Bernstein,O-Schlechter,C Stockholm 1906. 11...Qxd2+ White also stands great after 11...Nc6 12.Bb5 Ke7 13.Bxc6 Qxd2+ 14.Kxd2 bxc6 15.Ne5± Vidarte Morales,A-Mateu Farre,J Barcelona 2014. 12.Kxd2 343

A famous position and a famous game from 1912 — White holds a large plus. See the analysed game in the Endgame Technique chapter. 1.5.4 — 7...NC6 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 Nc6?!

The text offers White too much and should be avoided (as well). 8.d5! exd5 Black’s alternatives are no better: 8...Na5 9.Bb5+ Bd7 10.Qa4 b6 11.Ne5 Bxb5 12.Qxb5+ Ke7 344

13.Bf4 a6 14.Qa4 Qe8 15.d6+ Kd8 16.d7 Qe7 17.Rd1 Ra7 18.Qxa5 Kc7 19.Nc4+ 1–0 Mellado Trivino,J-Barcelo Pujadas,P St Cebria 1997, or 8...Nb8 9.Bb5+ Bd7 10.Rb1! (10.dxe6 fxe6 11.Rb1 Nc6 12.e5 Be7 13.Bd3 Qc7 14.Qe2 0-0-0 15.0-0² Kollberg,L-Schumacher,G Neustadt 2016) 10...Bxb5 11.Rxb5 b6 12.c4± 9.exd5

9...Ne7 Or 9...Qe7+ 10.Be2 Ne5 11.0-0 Nxf3+ (11...Bd7 12.Re1 0-0-0 13.Bf4 Nxf3+ 14.Bxf3 Qf6 15.Be5+– Osaka,T-Nishino,T Tokyo 2018) 12.Bxf3 Qd6 13.g3 Be7 14.Bf4 Qf6 15.d6 Bxd6 16.Bxd6 Be6 17.Bxb7 Qd8 18.Bc6+ 1–0 Huebner,R-Hagemann,S Munich 2002. 10.c4 10.d6 looks quite interesting: 10...Nc6 (10...Nf5? 11.Bb5+ Bd7 12.Qe2++– Silman,J-Kramer,S USA 1987) 11.Bf4 g6 12.Bc4 Bg7 13.0-0 0-0 14.Bg5±. 10.Ne5!? a6 11.Qa4+ Bd7 12.Qxd7+ (12.Qf4?! f6 13.Nxd7 Qxd7 14.d6 0-0-0 15.Bc4 Ng6µ Vragoteris,A- Skembris,S Ano Liosia 1991) 12...Qxd7 13.Nxd7 Kxd7 14.c4± 10...Ng6 Alternatives are: a) 10...b5 11.cxb5 (11.Rb1! a6 12.Be2±) 11...Qxd5 12.Qxd5 Nxd5 13.Be2 Be7 14.Bb2 0-0 15.0-0² Krasiewicz,R-Borowicz,P Milanowek 2007. b) 10...Qb6?! 11.Bd3 g6 12.0-0 Bg7 13.Rb1 Qd6 14.Ng5+– Somody,R-Szalai,K Kisber 2011. 345

11.Bd3 11.Be2 is possible, but less accurate: 11...Bd6 (11...Be7 12.0-0 0-0 13.Qc2 a6 14.a4 Bd7 15.a5± Harnandan,S-Strand,M Iraklion 2008) 12.0-0 0-0 13.Re1 Bf5 14.Bd3² Qf6? 15.Bg5 Nf4 1–0 Jelen,JWalczak,J Mielno 2011. 11...Bd6 A suggested novelty over 11...Qd6?! 12.Bb2 Bg4 13.0-0± Martinez Martinez,J-Fidalgo Fernandez,L Oviedo 2001. 12.0-0 0-0 13.Qc2±

346

White has a spatial advantage and a well-protected passed d-pawn, while it is difficult for Black to create counterplay. 1.5.5 — 7...BE7 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 Be7 Keeping pieces on the board cannot be in Black’s favour.

8.Bc4 White has also tried here 8.Bb5+ Bd7 9.Bd3 0-0 10.Rb1 b6 11.0-0 f6 12.Bf4 Qe8 13.Re1 g5 14.Bg3 347

c4 15.Bc2 a5 16.d5 e5 17.d6 1–0 Karpov,A-Kegelij,P Kamp Lintfort 2004, or 8.Bd3 0-0 9.0-0 b6 (9...cxd4 10.cxd4 b6 [10...Nc6 11.Bb2 a6 12.Rc1 Nb4 13.Bb1± Kaufman,R-Antonenko,D Internet 2020] 11.Qe2 Bb7 12.Bb2 Nc6 13.Rad1 Nb4 14.Bc4± Esen,B-Qashashvili,A Yerevan 2014) 10.Qe2 Bb7 11.Bb2 Nd7 12.Rad1 Nf6 13.Rfe1² Miles,A-Dweritz,C Muenster 1993. 8...0-0 9.0-0 Nd7 We have, more-or-less, a lot of transpositions in this position: 9...Qc7 10.Qe2 Nc6 11.Bb2 (11.d5!? Na5 12.Bd3 c4 13.Bc2²) 11...b6 12.Rad1 Na5 13.Bd3² Nyback,T-Daskevics,V Tallinn 2004, or 9...a6 10.a4 Nc6 11.Bb2 Qc7 12.Qe2 Rd8 13.Rfd1² Shirov,A-Kaska,W Warsaw 2012.

10.Qe2 A natural way to develop, although also not bad is 10.Bf4 Nb6 11.Bd3 Qe8 12.Qe2² Esplugas Esteve,V-Sola Sendra,F Tarragona 2013. 10...Qc7 10...Qa5?! is a bit too much: 11.Bd2 (11.Bb2 Rd8 12.Bb3 cxd4 13.cxd4 b6 14.Rfd1² Riegler,DVoigt,R Hoeckendorf 2004) 11...Nb6 12.Bb5 a6 13.Bd3±, but playable is 10...Nb6 11.Bb3 Qc7 12.Be3² Illan Garcia,F- Bueno Marin,J Castelldefels 2001. 11.Rd1 Interesting is to launch a direct attack by 11.e5 Re8 12.Bf4 Nb6 13.Bd3 c4 14.Bc2 Nd5 15.Qe4 g6 16.Bd2² Provotorov,I-Nurgaliyev,S Voronezh 2019.

348

11...Nf6 A suggested novelty. Weakening the queenside with 11...a6 is almost always not the best way: 12.a4 b6 13.d5± Gligoric,S-Sanchez,L Saltsjobaden 1952. 12.Bg5 b6 13.d5²

White stands better as he exerts pressure in the centre. Of course 7...cxd4 8.cxd4, remains the main line, especially after 8...Bb4+, which will be examined in the next chapter. Here we will have to look at the main alternative, 8...Nc6, to which White responds with 9.Bc4: 1.5.5.1 — 9...B5 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nc6 9.Bc4 b5 The text looks attractive (White can’t take the pawn at once) but in a few moves Black will need to spend a tempo protecting the pawn. Besides, the weakening of his queenside (especially the c5- and c6-squares) can often become critical.

349

10.Be2 This is probably White’s best. The stem-game was played in the well-known ‘Match of the Century’: 10.Bd3 Bb4+ 11.Bd2 Bxd2+ 12.Qxd2 a6 13.a4 0-0 14.Qc3 Bb7 15.axb5 axb5 16.0-0 Qb6 17.Rab1 b4 18.Qd2 Nxd4 19.Nxd4 Qxd4 20.Rxb4 Qd7 21.Qe3 Rfd8 22.Rfb1 Qxd3 23.Qxd3 Rxd3 24.Rxb7 g5 25.Rb8+ Rxb8 26.Rxb8+ Kg7 27.f3 Rd2 28.h4 h6 29.hxg5 hxg5 ½-½ Spassky,B-Fischer,R Reykjavik 1972. 10...Bb4+ 10...a6 is Black’s main alternative and probably what he should aim for. After 11.0-0 Be7 White has a number of responses at his disposal: a) 12.a4 b4 (12...bxa4?! 13.Bf4 Nb4 14.Qxa4+ Bd7 15.Qb3 Bc6 16.d5!± Romm,M-Peretz,M Nathanya 1973) 13.d5 Na5 (13...exd5 14.exd5 Na5 15.Bb2 0-0 16.Qd4² Naumkin,I-Isonzo,D Arco 2001) 14.Bf4 exd5 15.exd5 0-0 (15...Bd6 16.Qd4 [16.Re1 0-0 17.Bxd6 Qxd6 18.Nd4 Bd7∞ Praszak,M-Michenka,J Ostrava 1981] 16...0-0 17.Rab1²) 16.d6 Bf6 17.Rb1² Van Wely,LIvanchuk,V Monte Carlo 1998. b) 12.Bb2 0-0 13.Qd2 (13.d5 Na5 14.Qd2 exd5 15.exd5 Re8 16.Rfe1 Bg4 17.Bc3 Bxf3 18.Bxf3 Nc4 19.Qd3² Mecking,H-Campora,D Sao Paulo 1993) 13...Bb7 14.Rfd1 Bf6 15.Rab1 (This is suggested by engines as a strong novelty — 15.d5 Bxb2 16.Qxb2 exd5 17.a4 Qb6 18.exd5 Ne7 19.Ne5 ½-½ Bagirov,V-Shamkovich,L Baku 1972; 15.a4 Na5 16.Qe3 b4 17.Ne5 Rc8∞ Dlugy,M-Costa,F Mendrisio 1987) 15...Rc8 16.d5 exd5 17.exd5 Nb8 18.a4² c) 12.Be3 0-0 13.Qd2 (13.Qd3 Bb7 14.Rac1 Rc8 15.Qb1 Qd6∞ Andreev,S-Filev,G Sofia 2005) 13...Bb7 14.Rfd1 (14.a4 b4 15.Rfd1 Na5 16.Qd3 Rc8∞ Llorente Fernandez,C-Delgado Pastrana,J 350

Asturias 2000) 14...Rc8 15.d5² 11.Bd2

11...Bxd2+ 11...Qa5?! does not really favour Black. In some cases White can force the exchange of queens, which is, in fact, quite good for him; Black’s queen is a very important piece in defence of his queenside, including possible squares of invasion for White’s rooks (c7). Additionally, White’s king will now be safe in the centre (d2-e3): a) 12.Rb1 Bxd2+ 13.Qxd2 a6 14.Qxa5 Nxa5 15.Kd2 Bb7 16.Ke3² Dorfman,J-Murey,J France 1992. b) 12.d5 exd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.0-0 Bxd2 15.Nxd2 0-0 16.Bf3! Nf5 (16...Bb7?! 17.d6 Bxf3 18.Nxf3 Ng6 19.Qd5± Shabtai,R-Kataev,S Tel Aviv 1994) 17.Nb3 Qd8 18.Rc1 Nd6 19.Qd4 (19.Nd4² Kramnik,V-Dlugy,M Internet 1999) 19...Qb6 20.Qf4 Bd7 21.Nd4² Jussupow,A-Ribli,Z Montpellier 1985. c) 12.a4! bxa4 (12...Bxd2+ 13.Qxd2 Qxd2+ 14.Kxd2 bxa4 [14...b4 15.Bb5 Bd7 16.Rac1 Nd8 17.Bxd7+ Kxd7 18.Ne5+ Kd6 19.Rc5± Vaisser,A-Campora,D Las Palmas 1993] 15.Bb5 Bd7 16.Bxa4 Ke7 17.d5 Nb4 18.Bxd7 Kxd7 19.Ne5+ Ke7 20.d6+ Kf6 21.Nd7+ Kg6 22.Rhc1± Petrosian,A-Luther,T Groningen 1990) 13.Rxa4 Bxd2+ 14.Nxd2 Qd8

351

15.Qa1! (15.Nb3 0-0 16.0-0 Qb6 17.Qd3² Grivas,E-Kourkounakis,I Corfu 1993) 15...0-0 16.0-0 a5 17.Rd1± 12.Qxd2 a6 Or 12...Rb8 13.d5! exd5 14.exd5 Ne7 15.d6 Nf5 16.Rd1 0-0 (16...Bd7 17.g4!±) 17.d7! Bb7 18.0-0 Qf6 19.Qf4 a6 20.g4! Bxf3 21.Bxf3 Nh4 22.Qxf6 gxf6 23.Be4± Bacrot,E-Korchnoi,V Albert 1997.

13.d5 An aggressive and good suggested novelty, but White has also tried: 352

a) 13.0-0 0-0 14.d5 (14.a4 b4 15.Rfd1 Qd6 16.e5 Qe7 17.Qf4 Bb7 18.Bd3 f6 19.Qh4 h6∞ Slipak,SHase,J Buenos Aires 2003) 14...exd5 15.exd5 Ne7 16.d6 Nf5 17.Rfd1± Grivas,E-Gontikakis,E Katerini 1993. b) 13.a4 b4 (13...bxa4 14.Rxa4 0-0 15.0-0± Greenfeld,A-Franco Ocampos,Z Pamplona 1993) 14.d5 exd5 15.exd5 Ne7 16.d6± Ftacnik,L-Paulsen,D Dortmund 1981. 13...exd5 14.exd5 Ne7 14...Na5 15.Qb4 Nb7 16.a4± 15.d6 Nf5 15...Ng6 16.Rc1 0-0 17.Rc7± 16.Rd1 0-0 17.d7 Bb7 18.0-0 Qf6 19.Qf4 Rad8 20.Rfe1±

White’s passed pawn is a real force and gives him a clear plus.

353

CHAPTER 2. MAIN LINES 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+

This is considered to be the main continuation. By exchanging pieces, Black gets nearer to the endgame, while making White’s potential initiative or attack harder. After the natural continuation 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0-0 White has to decide how to develop and place his remaining pieces (bishop and rooks).

354

As we have already noted, Black aims mostly to defend and exploit his chances in the endgame whereas White claims his chances in his superior middlegame motifs and plans. One of White’s most common central thrust mechanisms can be seen in the next diagram:

Here White can continue with 1.d5 exd5 and now reply with 2.exd5 or by 2.e5. By sacrificing a pawn he gets good attacking chances with his kingside pawn majority, blocks Black’s bishop on b7 and generally activates his pieces harmoniously. Of course, this is not White’s only plan (as can be seen in the analysis and games) but it is one of his most dangerous. As previously noted, White will eventually try to play in the centre and on the kingside, so it is quite natural that he will try to concentrate his pieces on those parts of the board.

355

11.Bc4 A natural way to support an eventual d5 advance — as we have noted this is White’s main and most dangerous plan. 11...b6 Black has tried to live without ...b6, but other moves are less appropriate. In particular, 11...Qd6 looks solid but it is a bit too early to determine the position of the queen. It can be attacked or have to retreat, losing a tempo. 12.0-0 Nc6 13.Rad1 and now: a) 13...Rd8 14.Rfe1 (14.Qe3 Qb4?! 15.d5 exd5 16.exd5 Qxc4 17.dxc6± Izoria,Z-Sulypa,O Istanbul 2003) 14...Bd7 15.d5 exd5 16.exd5 (16.Bxd5 Be6 17.Qb2 Bxd5 18.exd5 Na5 19.Qd4 b6 20.Ng5² Moor,O-Kelecevic,N Zuerich 2007) 16...Ne7 17.Ng5 Nf5 (17...Ba4?!

18.Nxf7! Kxf7 19.Re6 Qxe6 20.dxe6+ Ke8 21.Bd3 Bxd1 22.Qxd1 Rac8 23.h3 Nd5 24.Qf3 1–0 Browne,W-Olafsson,H Reykjavik 1980) 18.Ne4 Qg6 19.Qf4² Meyer,H-Wittje,B Germany 2004. b) 13...Bd7 14.Rfe1 b1) 14...Rad8 15.d5 exd5 16.exd5 Ne7 17.Qe3 (17.Ng5!? Bf5 18.Bb3²) 17...Nf5 18.Qb3 (18.Qxa7? Ra8 19.Qxb7 Rfb8–+) 18...Qb6 19.Qxb6 axb6 20.Bb3² Pinter,J-Groszpeter,A Austria 2004. b2) 14...h6 15.d5 (15.Bb5 Ne5 16.Nxe5 Bxb5 17.Re3 f6 18.Nf3 Ba4 19.Rde1 Bc6= Samdanov,SBaljiev,C Ulan Ude 2015) 15...exd5 16.exd5 Ne7 17.Ne5² b3) 14...Rac8 15.Bb3 h6 16.d5 exd5 17.exd5 Ne7 18.Ne5² Rakic,M-Melia,S Tromsoe 2014. Another try is 11...Qe7

356

12.0-0 Rd8 (12...Nd7 13.Qf4 Nb6 14.Bb3 Bd7 15.d5 exd5 16.exd5± Li,Y-Bai,X Shaoxing 2019) 13.Rad1 Bd7 14.d5 Ba4 15.d6 (15.Rde1 b5 16.Qa5 bxc4 17.Qxa4 Nd7 18.Qxc4 Nb6 19.Qd3² Gerstenberger,H-Schwalbe,G Wuerttemberg 1992) 15...Qe8 16.Bb3± Finally, we have seen 11...Nd7 12.0-0 Nf6 13.e5! Nd5 14.Ng5! Bd7 15.f4 h6 16.Ne4 Nb6?! (16...Bc6! 17.Nd6 Nb6 18.Rac1² Anton Guijarro,D-Repka,C Batumi 2018) 17.Bb3 Bc6

18.Rae1! (18.Nd6?! Nc8 19.Nxc8 Rxc8 20.f5 exf5 21.d5 [21.e6 Be4! 22.exf7+ Kh7∞] 21...Bb5 22.Rxf5 Bc4 [22...Qb6+ 23.Kh1 Bc4 24.Bxc4 Rxc4 25.Rd1² Schuh,H-Martin,S Germany 2000] 23.Bxc4?! [23.Qd4!±] 23...Rxc4 24.Kh1 Qh4 25.e6 fxe6 26.Rxf8+ Kxf8 27.dxe6 Qf6 28.e7+ Kxe7 29.Re1+ Kf8 30.Qd7 Kg8 31.Qxb7 Qf7 32.Qb8+ ½-½ Belov,V-Kholmov,R Russia 2004) 18...Bxe4 19.Rxe4 g6 20.f5! exf5! (20...gxf5? 21.Re3+–) 21.Qxh6 fxe4 22.Qxg6+ Kh8 23.Qh5+ Kg7 24.Qg4+ 357

Kh8 25.Rf5 Qxd4+ 26.Kh1 Qa1+ 27.Bd1+– 12.0-0 Bb7 Now White must decide where to place his rooks. Over the years every possible set-up has been tried (b1 & c1, c1 & d1, e.t.c.) but finally the decision was made: White’s rooks should be placed on d1 and e1, protecting his centre and helping in its advance. And it is also important that they cannot be exchanged easily. Yes, this is one of the main secrets of this variation: as White has achieved a spatial advantage he should refrain from exchanging more pieces! So, 13.Rfe1

Is the ‘correct’ continuation and now Black is at a crossroads and has to decide on where to place his knight: 13...Nd7, or 13...Nc6. In conclusion, we can say that White seems to gets a slight but not entirely ‘secure’ advantage and Black always has resources, creating complicated and difficult to assess and calculate positions. While in general I prefer White, I cannot underestimate Black’s chances. All I can do is to dig deeper and hope that my opponent does not dig deeper! 2.1 — 13...ND7 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0-0 11.Bc4 b6 12.0-0 Bb7 13.Rfe1 Nd7

358

Black considers playing...Nf6 at a certain moment, protecting his kingside and keeping his bishop open. On the other hand, he barely puts White’s centre under pressure. 14.Rad1

14...Rc8 The most natural move. Alternatives are: a) 14...Nf6 15.d5! exd5 (15...Rc8? 16.dxe6! Qxd2 17.exf7+ Rxf7 [17...Kh8 18.Nxd2 Nxe4 19.Nxe4 Rxc4 20.Nd6 Rc7 21.Re8+–] 18.Bxf7+ Kxf7 19.Rxd2+– Schulgasser,Y-Khrapatin,F Dos Hermanas 359

2004) 16.exd5 Qd6 (For 16...Rc8 17.Bb3 — main line with 14...Rc8, see below) 17.Nd4 (17.Nh4 Ng4 18.g3² Pires,G-Fernandes,J Famalicao 2015) 17...Qc5 (17...Ng4 18.g3 Ne5 19.Bb3 Bxd5 20.Qe2+– Zanan,E-Gaehwiler,G Skopje 2019) 18.Nf5! (18.Bb3 Rfe8 19.Nf5± Cuadras Avellana,JFernandez Diaz,C Barcelona 2019) 18...Bc8 19.Ne7+ Kh8 20.Qf4± b) 14...Qc7 15.Bb3 Qd6 (15...Nf6 16.d5 [16.e5!? Nd5 {16...Bxf3? 17.exf6+–} 17.Ng5²] 16...exd5 17.exd5 Qd6 18.Nd4²) 16.d5 exd5

17.e5! Qc7?! (17...Qe7!? 18.Nd4 g6 19.Qh6°) 18.Nd4 (18.Bxd5 Nc5 19.Bxb7 Qxb7 20.Nd4 Rad8∞) 18...Nxe5 19.Qf4 Rae8 20.Ba4! b5! (20...Re7 21.Nf5 Re6 22.Qg3! g6 23.Rc1! Qb8 24.Nd4 Re7 25.f4+–) 21.Bxb5 Re7 22.Nf5² Miton,K-Volokitin,A Lublin 2009. c) 14...Qf6

360

15.Bb5!? (15.e5 Qe7 16.Ng5 Rfd8 [16...Rad8 17.Qf4 a6 18.Bd3 h6 19.Ne4 b5 20.Nd6² Martirosyan,H-Thybo,J Mamaia 2017] 17.Qf4 Rac8 18.Bd3 Nf8 19.Re3 h6∞ Gueldner,K-Fritze,B Germany 1990) 15...Rfd8 16.Qb4 Nf8 17.Ne5 Rac8 18.Rd3² d) 14...Rb8?! 15.d5! (15.Bd3?! Qe7 16.d5 exd5 17.exd5 Qd6∞ Wright,J- Lombard,A Athens 1969) 15...exd5 16.Bxd5 Nc5 17.Ne5²

Here White can choose between 15.Bd3 and 15.Bb3. 2.1.1 — 15.BD3

361

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0-0 11.Bc4 b6 12.0-0 Bb7 13.Rfe1 Nd7 14.Rad1 Rc8 15.Bd3

White intends to bring his bishop to b1. Still, it is a bit inconsistent with 14.Rd1, which was largely intended to support the d5 advance. 15...Qe7 A natural move but Black has a lot of other possibilities: a) 15...Nf6 16.Bb1 Re8

362

17.Re3 (17.Qf4 Qc7 18.Ne5 Red8 19.g4 Rf8 20.Rc1 Qd6 21.Rxc8 Bxc8 22.Qe3 Rd8 23.Rc1 Bb7 24.g5 Ne8 25.Nf3 Qe7∞ Solomon,K-Nakamura,H Tromsoe 2014) 17...h6 18.h3 Nd7 19.Nh2 Qg5 20.Qe2² Werle,J-Levin,F Netherlands 2017. b) 15...Qf6 16.e5 Qe7 (16...Qh6?! 17.Ng5 g6 18.f4± Schulte,J-Feldmann,J Frankenthal 2015) 17.Ng5 h6 18.Ne4 Bxe4 19.Bxe4 Rfd8

20.f4! g6 21.Qf2 (21.Kh1 Nf8 22.Rc1 Qa3 23.Rxc8 Rxc8 ½-½ Hracek, Z-Macieja,B Novi Sad 2009) 21...Nf8 22.g3 Rc4 23.d5 (23.Re2!? Qb4 24.Red2²) 23...exd5 24.Bxd5 Rc7 25.Bb3² Van Wely,LMacieja,B Wolvega 2010. c) 15...Qc7 16.Bb1 (16.Qe3 Rfd8 17.e5 Bxf3 18.Qxf3² Kozul,Z-Gyimesi,Z Murska Sobota 2008) 16...Rfd8 17.d5 exd5 18.exd5 Qd6 19.Nd4² Sargissian,G-Gyimesi,Z Germany 2005. d) 15...h6 16.Bb1 Qc7 17.d5 Rfd8 (17...exd5 18.exd5 Rfd8 [18...Qd6

363

19.Bf5? {19.Nd4!±} 19...Rc5 20.Bxd7 Rxd5 21.Qe2 Qxd7µ Todorovic,G-Cernousek,L Internet 2020] 19.Bf5 [19.d6! Qc3 20.Re7²] 19...Qd6 20.Nd4 Rc5 21.Be4 Nf6∞ Galliamova,AKashlinskaya,A Olginka 2011) 18.dxe6 fxe6 19.Nd4² Khademalsharieh,S-Kosteniuk,A Monaco 2015. e) 15...Re8 (preparing ...Nf8 and making d5 even less likely)

16.Qf4 (16.Qe3 Rc3 17.e5 Korchnoi,V-Najdorf,M Wijk aan Zee 1971, is analysed in Middlegame Strategy) 16...Qf6 (16...Qc7 17.e5² Khademalsharieh,S-Taylor,A Caleta 2019) 17.Qg3 h6?! (17...Qg6 18.Qd6 Red8 19.Qa3 a5 20.h3²)

364

18.d5 (18.e5 Qe7 19.Nd2² Kedzierski,S-Dardha,A Belgium 2019) 18...e5 (18...Qb2 19.Nd4! Nf6 [19...Qxd4 20.Bb5±] 20.Nb5 exd5 21.Nd6±) 19.Bb5 Rcd8 20.Rc1± Durakovic,A-Kreisl,R Austria 2018. 16.Bb1 An interesting and natural follow-up. 16...Rfd8 16...e5 17.d5 Rfd8 18.Qb2 Rc4 19.Nd2 Rb4 20.Qa3 a5 21.Rc1² Werle,J-Maris,I Groningen 2016, should be nice for White. 17.Qf4 Nothing is gained by 17.Qe3 h6 (17...Qb4 18.Qf4 h6 19.h3 Rc3∞ Lustin,V-Tobak,A Odessa 2001) 18.h3 Nf8 19.Ne5 Nd7 20.Nf3 Nf8 21.Ne5 Nd7 22.Nf3 ½-½ Vescovi,G-Diamant,A Americana 2009. 17...Nf8 Of course Black can go for the ‘usual’ 17...Qf6, when the ex-FIDE Women World Champion produced a nice bishop sacrifice after 18.Qe3 (18.Qg3!? Qg6 19.Qh3 Qh6 20.Qxh6 gxh6 21.Re3²) 18...Qe7 19.d5 Nc5 (19...exd5 20.e5°) 20.Qf4 Qf6 21.Qg4 exd5 22.e5! Qe7 23.Bxh7+! Kf8 24.Bf5 Rc6 25.e6 Nxe6 26.Nd4 Rdd6 27.Qh3 Ke8 28.Bd3 Nxd4 29.Rxe7+ Kxe7 30.Qh4+ 1–0 Stefanova,A-Dittmar,P Caleta 2013. Passed pawns, classical bishop sacrifices; an interesting opening after all!

365

18.h4 A typical way to keep the black knight at bay. The alternative is 18.Rd3 Rc4 19.Red1 Ng6 20.Qe3 Qc7 21.g3 Ne7 22.h4 Rc8∞ Binder,M-Margarido,R Kemer 2009. 18...Rc3 Black can go for 18...Rc4 19.h5 (19.Bd3 Rcc8 20.Re3 Ng6 21.Qg4 e5 22.d5 Nf4 23.h5² Strutinskaya,G-Sirotkina,N Bled 2018) 19...h6 20.Bd3 Rc7 21.d5 exd5 22.exd5 Qd6 23.Qh4 Rc5 24.Nd4 Rd7 25.Nf5± Siebrecht,S-Smith,T Germany 2015, or for 18...h6 19.h5 (19.Re3 Rc4∞ Torngren,G-Rishovd,S Gothenburg 2019, which transposes below. 19.h5 h6 20.Rc1 Rxc1 21.Rxc1²

366

Khmelniker,I-Teske,H Bad Wiessee 2008. White holds a tiny advantage, thanks to his strong centre! 2.1.2 — 15.BB3 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0-0 11.Bc4 b6 12.0-0 Bb7 13.Rfe1 Nd7 14.Rad1 Rc8 15.Bb3

White concentrates on the centre and keeps the option of d5. 15...Re8 The text is the most popular continuation nowadays, but Black can also opt for: 367

a) 15...Nf6 16.d5! (16.Qf4 Qc7 17.Qxc7 Rxc7 18.d5 exd5 19.exd5 Rd7 20.Ne5 Rd6 21.Nc6² Vitiugov,N-Mastrovasilis,A Bursa 2010) 16...exd5 17.exd5 Rc5 (17...Qd6?!

18.Nd4! Ng4 [18...Rfe8?! 19.Nf5 Qf8 20.d6 Rxe1+ 21.Rxe1 Re8 22.Re7 Rxe7 23.dxe7 Qc8 24.Bxf7+ Kh8 25.Qd8+ 1–0 Galambos,M-Nemeti,K Balatonlelle 2012] 19.g3 Rfe8 20.Nb5 [20.Rxe8+ Rxe8 21.Qg5 Bc8 22.Nf5 Bxf5 23.Qxf5 Nf6 24.Rc1² Goodwin,E-Rabbitt,M England 2018] 20...Qd7 21.Nxa7 Ra8 22.Nc6± Ftacnik,L-Pachman,L Czech Republic 1992) 18.d6 Bd5 (18...Nd5

19.Re5! (19.Bxd5 Bxd5 20.Qxd5 Rxd5 21.Rxd5 Qd7= Fries Nielsen,J-Behncke,D Hamburg 1995) 19...Nf6 20.Rxc5 Ne4 21.Qd4 Nxc5 22.Ne5±) 19.Qf4! (19.Bxd5 Rxd5 [19...Nxd5? 20.Re5 Nf6 21.Rxc5 bxc5 22.d7 1–0 Neverov,V-Roghani,A Dubai 2003] 20.Qf4 Qd7 [20...Qa8?! 21.Ne5! 368

{21.Nd4?∞ Mohr,S-Eberlein,W Baden-Baden 1990} 21...h6 22.d7±] 21.h3 h6 22.Rxd5 Nxd5 23.Qe5 Nf6 24.Rc1 [24.Rd1!? Rd8 25.Rd4] 24...Rd8 25.Rc7 Qxd6 26.Qxd6 Rxd6 ½-½ Brunello,S-Basso,P Rome 2016) 19...Re8 (19...Qd7 20.h3 Rd8 21.Re7 Qxd6 22.Qxd6 Rxd6 23.Rxa7²; 19...Nh5 20.Qd4 Nf6 21.Re5 Bxf3 22.gxf3 Rxe5 23.Qxe5 Re8 24.Qf4± Olafsson,F-Unzicker,W Lugano 1970; 19...Bxb3 20.axb3 Rd5 21.Rd4± Gozzoli,Y-Nasshan,D Germany 2019) 20.Rxe8+ Qxe8 21.Bxd5 (21.Re1!? Qd8 22.g4!±) 21...Nxd5 22.Qe5± Swiercz,D-Chandra,A Columbia 2019. b) 15...Qe7 16.d5 Nc5 (16...exd5 17.exd5 Qd6 18.Nd4 Qf6

19.Ne6! Rfe8 20.Ba4 Re7 21.d6 Rxe6 22.Bxd7 Rxe1+ 23.Qxe1 Rd8 24.Qe7 Bd5? [24...Bc8 25.Qxf6 gxf6 26.Bc6±] 25.Ba4 Bxa2 26.Qxa7 1–0 Renman,N-Ornstein,A Gothenburg 2019) 17.d6 Qd8 (17...Qf6 18.e5 Nxb3 19.axb3 Qg6 20.Qd3 [20.Re3 f6 21.exf6 Rxf6∞ Brunello,S-Naiditsch,Y Douglas 2016] 20...Bd5 21.Qxg6 hxg6 22.Nd4±) 18.e5 Bxf3 19.gxf3 Qd7 20.f4 f6 21.Qe3 (21.f5 Nxb3 22.axb3 fxe5 23.Rxe5 Rxf5 24.Rxf5 exf5 25.Re1° Anton Guijarro,D-Krejci,J Prague 2019) 21...g6 22.Bc4² c) 15...h6 16.h3 and now: c1) 16...Qf6 17.Re3 Rfd8 18.Qe2 Qf4 19.e5 (19.Nh2 Nf6 20.f3 Ba6 21.Qf2 Bc4 22.Ng4 Bxb3 23.Rxb3 Nxg4 24.hxg4 Rc1= Wojtaszek,R-Wang,H Moscow 2019) 19...Nf8 20.Bc2 Rc7 (20...h5 21.g3 Bxf3 22.Rxf3 Rxc2? [22...Qg5 23.Bb3²] 23.Qd3! Rxd4 24.Rxf4 Rxd3 25.Rxd3 Rxa2 26.Rd8 g6 27.Rc8 Kg7 28.Rc7 Nh7 29.Rfxf7+ Kh6 30.Rxh7+ Kg5 31.Rcf7 b5 32.f4# 1–0 Kashlinskaya,APadmini,R Internet 2020)

369

21.g3 (21.Bb1 Rcd7 22.g3 Bxf3 23.Rxf3 Qg5 24.Rf4 Qe7 25.Qe3 Rd5 26.Bc2 Ng6 27.Bxg6 fxg6 28.h4= Haug,J-Krysa,L Caleta 2020) 21...Bxf3 22.Rxf3 Qg5 23.Bb3² c2) 16...Qc7 17.d5 Nc5 (17...e5?! 18.Nh4 Kh7 19.Nf5 Qc3 20.Qe2± Polak,T-Dawidow,J Czech Republic 2009) 18.d6 Qd8 19.Qd4² c3) 16...Re8 17.Re3 (17.Qf4 Qc7 [17...b5 18.d5 e5 19.Qd2 a5 20.a3 Rc5 21.Re3² Polak,T-Rausis,I Decin 2009] 18.e5 Nf8 19.Nd2 Ng6 20.Qg4 b5 21.Ne4 Bxe4 22.Qxe4 a5 (22...Ne7=) 23.d5 exd5 24.Rxd5 a4 25.Bd1 Rcd8 (25...Qb7 26.Bf3 Ne7 27.Rd6 Qxe4 28.Bxe4² Mamedyarov,S-Navara,D Batumi 2018) 26.Rxb5 Nxe5! 27.Rf1 Nc4 28.Qc2 Re7=) 17...Qf6 (17...Nf6 18.Qe2 Rc7 19.d5 exd5 20.e5 Nh5 21.Rd4° Illescas Cordoba,M-Comas Fabrego,L Merida 2005; 17...Qc7?! 18.d5! exd5 19.exd5 Rxe3 20.Qxe3 Qd6 21.Nd4 Qe5 22.Qxe5 Nxe5 23.Re1 Ng6 24.d6 Rd8 25.Nf5± Dziuba,MMastrovasilis,D Poland 2018) 18.Qe2 Qf4

370

19.g3 (19.Ne1 Red8 20.Nd3 Qf6 21.d5 exd5 22.e5 Qf5 23.e6 fxe6 24.Rxe6° Sakaev,K-Hera,I Budva 2009) 19...Qc7 20.d5 exd5 21.exd5 Rxe3 22.Qxe3² Mamedyarov,S-Adams,M Batumi 2018. 16.h3 A useful move. White can also opt for: a) 16.Re3 Nf6 17.d5 exd5 18.e5 Ne4 19.Qe1° Carlsen,M-Giri,A Internet 2020 — see Middlegame Strategy. b) 16.d5 exd5 17.exd5 (17.Bxd5 Nc5=) 17...Nc5! (17...Rxe1+?! 18.Rxe1 Nf6 19.d6± Illescas Cordoba,M-Lopez Martinez,J Lorca 2005; 17...Qf6 18.Ng5! [18.Rxe8+ Rxe8 19.Ba4 Rd8= Shtembuliak,E-Volokitin,A Lutsk 2019] 18...h6 19.Ne4 Qg6

371

20.Qd4! [20.Qf4 Re5 21.Ba4 b5! {21...Bxd5? 22.Bxd7 Rxe4 23.Rxe4 Bxe4 24.f3+– Molenda,MPulpan,J Bohumin 2020} 22.Bxb5 Bxd5=; 20.Ng3 Nc5 21.d6 {21.Bc2? Rxe1+ 22.Rxe1 Qg5 ½-½ Baenziger,F-Pahud,C Leukerbad 2019} 21...Bc6 22.Rxe8+ Rxe8 23.Bc2²] 20...Re7 21.Re3±) 18.d6 Bxf3 19.Rxe8+ Qxe8 20.gxf3 Qc6 (20...Qd7 21.Re1 Re8 [21...Ne6 22.f4 Rc5 23.h3²] 22.Rxe8+ Qxe8 23.Qg5 Kf8

24.Qd5 [24.Kg2?! Qd7= Navara,D-So,W Saint Louis 2019] 24...h6 25.h4 Qe1+ 26.Kg2 Qe8 27.Bc4± Anton Guijarro,D-Bindrich,F Skopje 2019) 21.Bd5 Qd7 22.Qf4² Sevian,S-Dominguez Perez,L Saint Louis 2019. 16...Nf6 372

16...h6 transposes to Mamedyarov,S-Adams,M Batumi 2018, above. 16...Nf8?! 17.d5 exd5 18.exd5 Rxe1+ 19.Rxe1± Kazhgaleyev,M-Eliet,N France 2009. 17.Qf4

17...Nh5 The main alternative is 17...Qc7 18.Ne5 Re7 19.Rc1 (19.Qh4 Qd8 [19...Ree8 20.Re3 Qe7 21.d5 Nxd5 22.Qxe7 Nxe7 23.Rd7 Ba8 24.Rf3± Andreikin,D-Dominguez Perez,L Hengshui 2019] 20.f3 h6 21.Qf2 Rec7

373

22.h4 [22.Qd2!? Qe7 23.Rc1²] 22...Rc3 23.d5 exd5 24.exd5 Qd6 25.Qd4 R3c5 26.Nc4 Qg3 27.Ne3 Re8 28.Re2 Qe5 29.Kf2 Qxd4 30.Rxd4 Kf8 31.g4² Aronian,L-Grischuk,A Internet 2020) 19...Qd6 20.Rxc8+ Bxc8 21.Ng6 Qxf4 22.Nxf4 Bb7 23.f3 Rc7

24.h4!? (24.g4 g5 25.Nd3 Kf8 26.Kf2 Nd7 27.h4² Vachier Lagrave,M-Dominguez Perez,L Internet 2018; 24.Kf2 Kf8 25.g4² Vachier Lagrave,M-Dominguez Perez,L Internet 2018) 24...h6 25.g4². 18.Qh2 Little is offered by 18.Qe5 Nf6 19.Nd2 (19.Re3 b5 20.Qf4 a5 21.d5 e5 22.Nxe5 Qd6 23.Nd3 Qxf4 24.Nxf4 a4µ Gozzoli,Y-Krassowizkij,J Germany 2019) 19...Qc7 20.Qxc7 Rxc7

374

21.e5 Nd5 22.Nc4 Ree7 23.Nd6 Nc3 24.Ra1 Bd5= Hammer,J-Dominguez Perez,L Internet 2018, but White can think of 18.Qe3 Nf6 19.Nd2 Re7 20.f3 Rec7 21.Nf1 Rc3 22.Qf2² Hammer,J- Dominguez Perez,L Internet 2018. 18...h6 After 18...Nf6

White can play 19.d5 exd5 20.e5! Nd7 21.Nd4 f6 (21...Rc5?! 22.Qg3 [22.Ba4? Ra5 23.Bc6 Qc8 24.Bxd7 Qxd7³ Di Benedetto,D-Shuvalova,P Porto Carras 2018] 22...g6 23.e6!±) 22.e6 Nc5 23.Nf5 Nxb3 24.axb3 Rc6 25.Qg3 Qc7 (25...g6 26.Nd4 Rc5 27.h4±) 26.Qg4 (26.Qxc7 Rxc7 27.Nd6 Ree7 28.Nf5 Re8 29.Nd6 Ree7 30.f4² Mulyar,M-Burke,J Philadelphia 2018) 26...g6 27.Nd4 Rc5 28.h4± 19.d5 White has many options here, and it is not clear what his best move is. a) 19.Ne5 Nf6 20.Qf4 b5 (20...Qd6 21.f3²) 21.Nxf7!? (21.Re3 Rc7 22.Nd3 Rc3 [22...Ba8 23.Nc5 Qe7 24.Qe5² Sargsyan,S-Ter-Sahakyan,S Yerevan 2020] 23.Nc5 Rxe3 24.Qxe3 Bc6 25.Rc1 Qb6 26.f3 Rd8 27.Kf2 a5 Mamedyarov,S-Ding,L Berlin 2018 — see Middlegame Strategy) 21...Kxf7 22.e5 a5 23.exf6 Qxf6 24.Qd6² b) 19.h4 b5 (19...a6?! 20.Ne5 Nf6 21.Qf4 Qd6 22.g4 Re7 23.g5 hxg5 24.hxg5 Nh5 25.Qe3± Navara,D-So,W Saint Louis 2019; 19...a5 20.g4 Nf6 21.Qf4 b5 22.Ne5 Rc7 23.a4 bxa4 24.Bxa4 Rf8 25.f3² Adhiban,B-Ding,L Astana 2019) 20.Ne5

375

20...Nf6 (20...a5 21.d5 exd5 22.Bxd5 Bxd5 23.exd5 Qf6 24.d6² Babula,V-Pulpan,J Ostrava 2019) 21.Qf4 a5∞ Lenic,L-Dragnev,V Austria 2019. c) 19.Re3 Nf6 20.d5 exd5 21.e5 Nd7 (21...Nh7 22.Nd4 Qd7 23.Qf4² Studer,N-Edouard,R Biel 2020) 22.Nd4 Nc5 23.h4° d) 19.Nd2 Nf6 (19...b5 20.Qe5 Qg5 21.Qxg5 hxg5 22.Nf3 g4 23.hxg4 Nf6 24.Ng5 a5 25.Rb1 Bc6 26.f3± Mamedyarov,S-Ding,L Zagreb 2019) 20.Qg3 Re7∞ 19...exd5 20.e5 The latest try, as equal is 20.exd5 Rxe1+ 21.Nxe1 Qf6 22.Nd3 Ba6 23.Qe5 Bxd3 24.Qxh5 Qf5 (24...Bc2 25.Rc1 Bf5 26.Rxc8+ Bxc8 27.d6 g5 28.Qd1² So,W-Kramnik,V Berlin 2018) 25.Qxf5 Bxf5= 20...g6 21.Nd4° An interesting and typical position is now on the cards.

376

White’s blockade on d4 and kingside pawn majority guarantee him decent compensation for the pawn, but the position is double-edged. 21...a6 Black has also tried 21...Ng7?! 22.Nb5 Nf5 23.g4 a6 24.Qf4 axb5 25.gxf5 Qg5+ 26.Qxg5 hxg5 27.fxg6 (27.f6 Rc3 28.Bxd5 Bxd5 29.Rxd5 Rc5 30.Red1= Mamedyarov,S-Ding,L Batumi 2018) 27...fxg6 28.Bxd5+ Bxd5 29.Rxd5² and 21...Qd7 22.g4 Ng7 23.Qf4 (23.Qg3 Ne6 24.f4 Nxd4 25.Rxd4° Potapova,M-Ning,K Moscow 2019) 23...Kh7 24.Qf6° 22.h4 Rc3 23.e6 Qc7! 24.exf7+ Kxf7! 24...Qxf7? 25.Rxe8+ Qxe8 26.Qd6± 25.Rxe8 Qxh2+ 26.Kxh2 Kxe8 27.Re1+ Kf7 28.Re6 Nf6 29.f3 b5 30.Rb6 Bc8 31.Ne2 Rc5 32.Nf4°

377

Kashlinskaya,A-Huschenbeth,N Douglas 2018. White has enough compensation for the pawn and sooner or later will regain it, but it is not clear if he can push for more. Nevertheless, he is the one doing all the pressing! As we can observe, this line is quite fashionable nowadays and new developments are expected. White has a lot of lines in which he can seek the advantage, but we cannot underestimate the fact that Black is solid. 2.2 — 13...NC6 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0-0 11.Bc4 b6 12.0-0 Bb7 13.Rfe1 Nc6

A more direct approach to create counterplay in the centre and on the queenside. Via c6 the black 378

knight threatens White’s centre and usually goes to the a5- and c4-squares. However, Black’s king remains without proper protection. 14.Rad1 Na5 Instead of the text, Black has tried many moves here: a) 14...Rc8 simply transposes after 15.d5!

And now: a1) 15...exd5?! 16.Bxd5

White’s powerful bishop guarantees him the upper hand; if Black exchanges it for his own bishop, 379

White gets a strong d-pawn. Now Black can choose between: a11) 16...Qe7 17.Qf4 (17.e5 Nd8 18.Bxb7 Nxb7 19.Nd4 g6 20.f4 Rc5 21.Qe3 [21.e6!?] 21...Nd8 22.f5 Nc6 23.Nxc6 Rxc6 24.f6 Qc5 25.Rd7² Bocharov,D-Bologan,V Warsaw 2005) 17...Rcd8 (17...Nd8 18.Nd4 Ne6 19.Qe5 Rfe8 20.Nf5 Qc7 21.Nd6 Rb8 22.Bxb7 Rxb7 23.Qd5 1–0 Epishin,VAmil Serantes,J El Sauzal 2007) 18.Nh4 g6 (18...Rd7 19.Nf5± Fokin,S-Kovacs,A Szeged 1993) 19.Nf3 Kg7 20.h4± a12) 16...Qc7

17.Qg5 (17.e5 Ne7 [17...Nd8 18.Bxb7 Nxb7 19.Nd4²] 18.Bxb7 Qxb7 19.Ng5 [19.e6 fxe6 20.Ng5 Ng6 21.Nxe6 Rfe8= Nogueiras Santiago,J-Tal,M Brussels 1988] 19...h6 20.Ne4²) 17...h6 18.Qg4 (18.Qh5 Na5 [18...Rfd8 19.Rc1 Qf4 20.g3 Qf6 21.Kg2² Cumbers,P-Gill,N Torquay 2009] 19.Nd4 Bxd5 20.exd5 Rce8 21.Nf5 Rxe1+ 22.Rxe1± Kovacs,T-Kovacs,A Heves 2001) 18...Rfd8 19.h3 Nb4 20.Nd4 h5 21.Qg5 Nxd5 22.exd5 f6 23.Qxh5 Rxd5 24.Nf5 Re5 25.Rxe5 fxe5 26.Qg4 1–0 Kolev,ADelchev,A Elenite 1994. a13) 16...Na5 17.Qf4 Qc7 (17...Qe7 18.Nd4±)

380

18.Qf5 (18.Qh4 Rce8 19.h3 h6 20.Qg4 Qc8 21.Qh5 Qc7 22.Nd4² Xu,Y-Liu,C Shenzhen 2017) 18...Bxd5 19.exd5± Spassky,B-Petrosian,T Moscow 1969. a2) 15...Na5 16.Bd3 (16.dxe6?! Qxd2 17.exf7+ Kh8 18.Nxd2 Nxc4 19.Nxc4 Rxc4 20.e5 Bc8 21.e6 Bxe6 22.Rxe6 g6= Salgado,C-Levin,F Benidorm 2009) a21) 16...Qe7 17.Qf4 (17.dxe6 fxe6 is now less favourable for White)

17...Rfd8 (17...Nc4 18.Rc1 [18.Bxc4 Rxc4 19.Ne5 Rc5 20.d6²] 18...b5 19.a4 a6 20.axb5 axb5 21.Bxc4 Rxc4 22.Rxc4 bxc4 23.dxe6 fxe6 24.Qe5 Rc8= Gyimesi,Z-Pinter,J Austria 2012) 18.h4! h6 (18...exd5 19.e5 Nc4 20.Nd4°; 18...Nc4 19.Bxc4 Rxc4 20.dxe6 fxe6 21.h5 Rf8 22.Qg4 Rc5 23.Rc1 Rfc8 24.Rxc5 Rxc5 25.Rd1² Theodorou,N-Dankhazi,A Gyor 2014) 19.h5 (19.Ne5 Rc5 20.Re3²) 381

19...Rc5 (19...Nc4 20.Bxc4 Rxc4 21.Ne5

21...Ra4? [21...Rcc8 22.d6 Qf6 23.Qg3²] 22.dxe6 fxe6 23.Rxd8+ Qxd8 24.Qf7+ Kh7 25.Qg6+ Kg8 26.Qxe6+ Kh7 27.Qf5+ Kg8 28.Qf7+ Kh7 29.Qxb7 1–0 Fridman,D-Galkin,A Internet 2006) 20.Ne5 (20.Bb1 Nc4 21.dxe6 fxe6∞ Leitao,R-Eliet,N Charleroi 2006) 20...Qf6 21.Qxf6 gxf6 22.Ng4 Kg7 23.Ne3² a22) 16...Qd6 17.dxe6 Qxe6 (17...fxe6 18.Qg5²) 18.Nd4 Qe5 19.Nf5

19...g6 (19...f6 20.f4 Qc5+ 21.Kh1² Rfd8? 22.Bc4+ Nxc4 23.Qxd8+ Rxd8 24.Rxd8+ Kf7 25.Rd7+ Kf8 26.Rd8+ Kf7 27.Rd7+ Kf8 28.Rxb7 g6 29.Rd1+– Travadon,L-Guidez,Y Agen 2017) 20.Nh6+ Kh8 21.Ng4 Qe6 22.Qf4 f6 23.Bb5 g5 24.Qg3± Dokhoian,Y-Webb,S Stockholm 1989. 382

a23) 16...exd5 17.e5 transposes to the main lines. b) 14...Qd6 15.d5 exd5 16.Bxd5 Qc7 17.Rc1 (17.e5 Na5 18.e6 Bxd5 19.Qxd5 fxe6 20.Rxe6² Cebalo,M-Lanzani,M Bratto 2003) 17...Rac8 18.Nd4± c) 14...Qf6 15.d5 Na5 16.Bd3 exd5 17.e5 Qe7 (17...Qh6 18.Qxh6 gxh6 19.Nd4 Rac8 [19...Nc4 20.f4± Garcia Roman,D-Torres Sanchez,J Spain 2004] 20.Nf5 Rc5 21.Nxh6+ Kh8 22.f4± Grigorchuk,S-Nemes,G Durham 2007) 18.Qf4² Flesch,J-Deze,A Yugoslavia 1970. d) 14...Ne7 15.d5 exd5 16.exd5 Nf5 (16...Qd6 17.Ng5±) 17.Ne5 Nd6 18.Nc6! Now Black must be very careful, otherwise he will end in a much worse ending:

18...Qf6! (18...Bxc6? 19.dxc6 Nxc4 20.Qf4 Nd6 21.Rxd6 Qc7 22.g3 h6 23.Qe5± Petrosian,TKorchnoi,V Ciocco 1977 — see Endgame Technique) 19.Bb3 Rfe8 (19...Kh8 20.Re3 Qg5 21.Qb4 Qf6 22.Rf3± Sutter,O-Kelecevic,N Wohlen 1993) 20.Rxe8+ Nxe8 21.Re1² Ree,H-Cifuentes Parada,R Amsterdam 1989. 15.Bd3 Rc8 Instead of the text, Black has also tried: a) 15...h6?! 16.Qf4 Qf6 17.Qg3 Rad8 18.d5! Qe7 (18...exd5 19.e5 Qe7 20.Nd4°)

383

19.dxe6 (19.Bb1 Nc4 20.Nd4² Gyimesi,Z-Pinter,J Austria 2004) 19...Qxe6 20.Nh4 Rfe8 21.e5± b) 15...Qe7 16.d5 Rad8 (16...e5 17.Qb2 f6 18.Re3 Rad8 19.h3 Bc8 20.Be2 Nb7 21.Nd2± Sakaev,KLima,D Khanty-Mansiysk 2005) 17.Nd4 (17.Qf4 transposes above) 17...Bc8 (17...g6 18.Qh6 e5 19.Nc2± Lautier,J-Kasimdzhanov,R Wijk aan Zee 2002) 18.Nb5 a6 19.Nc3 Bb7 20.Na4± Dreev,AJussupow,A Moscow 2003. 16.d5 exd5 17.e5

We have reached a quite famous and typical position, which is fully analysed in the game Polugaevsky,L-Tal, M Moscow 1969 — see Middlegame Strategy.

384

CHAPTER 3. TYPICAL MIDDLEGAME STRATEGY Knowing your good piece of opening theory in depth is a good start. But alone it is not enough to gain and increase a significant advantage. The knowledge of certain plans, manoeuvres, repeated motifs, etc, is an essential piece of opening knowledge, as the journey continues via what we call middlegame theory. Yes, middlegame (and endgame) theory does exist. The great difficulty in approaching it lies in the fact that it does not follow absolute and clear-cut paths, but rather involves deep research into the ideas and logic by which specific types of positions are treated. Moreover, unlike opening theory, the theory of the middlegame (and the endgame) does not change rapidly based on modern developments, and instead remains almost intact through the years. In middlegame theory we are obliged to study various or similar types of positions with specific strategic and tactical attributes, so as to understand the underlying ideas and be able to employ them ourselves in similar situations. Besides, while many chess players have studied these topics and acquired knowledge, it is the application of this knowledge in practice that helps differentiate between them. True, chess is not a simple activity, but it becomes so much more attractive when we acquire this knowledge... In view of the above, any chess player who wishes to follow a chess career or simply become a better player must refrain from the commonplace and assume a different approach. He must develop a good understanding of middlegame (and endgame) theory, so as to be able to proceed in a proper way after his chosen opening has reached its conclusion. And we must keep in mind that the most important asset is the pawn structure; this is what guides us to understand what to do in the middlegame — and even in the endgame! Mamedyarov Shakhriyar Ding Liren D41 Berlin 2018 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0-0 11.Bc4 Nd7 12.0-0 b6 13.Rad1 Bb7 14.Rfe1 Rc8 15.Bb3 Re8 16.h3 Nf6 17.Qf4 Nh5

385

18.Qh2 Technically a novelty at that time, but it’s the same idea used in the game So,W-Kramnik,V Berlin 2018. There 18.Qe5 Nf6 19.Qf4 Nh5 20.Qh2 was played. 18...h6 19.Ne5 But this was the actual novelty! W. So got little after 19.d5 exd5 20.exd5 Rxe1+ 21.Nxe1 Qf6 22.Nd3 Ba6! 19...Nf6 20.Qf4 b5

386

21.Re3 White had an interesting possibility here: 21.Nxf7!? Kxf7 22.e5, but Black could still fight after 22...a5! (22...Qc7? 23.Rc1! Qb8 24.Rxc8 Bxc8 [24...Rxc8 25.Bxe6+! Kxe6 26.exf6+ Kf7 27.Re7+ Kf8 28.Qe3+–] 25.Qf5! Kf8 26.exf6! exf5 27.Rxe8+ Kxe8 28.fxg7+–) 23.exf6 Qxf6 24.Qd6 Rc6 25.Qa3 a4 26.d5 Ra6 27.dxe6+ Kg8 28.Bc2 (28.Bd5 Bxd5 29.Rxd5 Raxe6=) 28...Raxe6 29.Rxe6 Rxe6 30.Qc5². Another plan was the standard advance 21.d5!? exd5 22.exd5 Qd6 23.Qd4 a5 24.a4 b4 25.Re3∞ 21...Rc7?! 21...Qc7 22.d5 Rcd8∞ was the correct follow-up. 22.Nd3?! It was a good time for the usual central thrust: 22.d5! exd5 23.exd5 Qd6 24.Qg3 Rd8 25.Ng4 Qxg3 26.Nxf6+ gxf6 27.Rxg3+ Kf8 28.d6 Rc6 29.Rgd3 a5 30.R1d2!²

387

22...Rc3! Any exchange should be favourable for Black, so a rook trade here would come as a big relief for Black’s position! Slightly worse is 22...Ba8 23.Nc5 Qe7 24.Qe5 Rc6 25.a4² b4 26.a5 Qc7 27.f4 Rc8 28.Ba4 Rd6 29.Rb1 Qd8 30.Rg3 Kh8 31.Rxb4 ½-½ Sargsyan,S-Ter-Sahakyan,S Yerevan 2020. 23.Nc5 Rxe3 24.Qxe3 24.fxe3 could also come into consideration: 24...Qe7 25.e5 Nd5 26.Bxd5 Bxd5 27.a3 with a tiny plus. 24...Bc6 25.Rc1 Qb6! 26.f3 Rd8 27.Kf2 a5 28.g4 The last chance to change the course of the game was represented by 28.Nxe6!? fxe6 29.Bxe6+ Kf8 30.d5 Qxe3+ 31.Kxe3 Bd7 (31...Bxd5 32.Rd1 [32.Bxd5 Nxd5+ 33.exd5 Rxd5=] 32...Bxe6 33.Rxd8+ Ke7 34.Ra8 a4 35.a3 g5 36.Ra7+ Bd7 37.g3! would be rather unclear, but White should be happy enough.) 32.Bxd7 Nxd7! (32...Rxd7 33.Rc5 Rb7 34.Kd4²) 33.Rc7 Ke8 34.Kd4 b4 35.Ra7, when White doesn’t seem to have achieved much in either line, but this was more like S. Mamedyarov’s usual chess style than the sit-and-wait policy he adopted in the game. 28...a4 29.Bc2 Nd7!

388

30.Bd3?! S. Mamedyarov overestimated his position. He should instead preserve the balance with 30.Nd3 Nf6 31.Bb1= or 31.Nc5= 30...Nxc5! 31.Rxc5 31.dxc5 Qc7µ was good only for Black. 31...b4

389

32.Bc4? This ‘active’ attempt only places White on the brink of disaster! The general feeling was that it was around here that White came to realise that his position was gradually getting worse. So, he should have tried to hold on with 32.h4! b3 33.axb3 axb3 34.Bb1 Be8 35.Qc3 b2 36.e5 Rb8 37.h5³, as it isn’t clear how Black can make progress. 32...Bd7 32...Be8! looks stronger: 33.Bd3 Qd6 34.e5 Qxd4 35.Qxd4 Rxd4 36.Ke3 Rd8µ

390

33.g5?! 33.e5 was probably a better defensive try: 33...b3? (33...Be8µ) 34.axb3 a3 35.Qd2 Ra8 36.b4!= 33...hxg5 34.Qxg5 Be8!

35.Qe7?! The text loses rather simply. White had to try to put-up a fight with something like 35.Qe3 Ra8! 36.d5 b3 37.dxe6 fxe6 38.Re5 Qxe3+ 39.Kxe3 Bd7 40.Rc5 b2 41.Bd3 a3–+ or 35.Kg2 Ra8 36.Qh4

391

36...g6! (36...b3? 37.Rh5 f6 38.Rh8+ Kf7 39.e5 fxe5 40.Qg5!+–) 37.Qf2 b3 38.Qb2 Qb8! 39.h4 bxa2 40.Qxa2 a3–+. He would anyway lose with accurate play by Black, but it was no longer in his hands. 35...b3! L. Ding had let his chances slip away in some previous games, especially in his second game vs Grischuk, but this time he stayed focused and brought home his first victory! 36.axb3 a3! The typical way to advance the pawn to its heaven! 37.b4 37.Qc7 loses to 37...Qxc7 38.Rxc7 Ra8–+

37...Ra8! Rook behind the passed pawn! 38.d5 38.Ba2 Qxb4–+ 38...a2 39.dxe6 Instead of resignation! No salvation is to be found in 39.Bxa2 Rxa2+ 40.Kg3 Qxb4! 41.Qxe8+ Kh7 42.Qxf7 (42.Rc8 Qd2!– 392

+) 42...Qxc5! 43.Qh5+ Kg8 44.Qe8+ Qf8 45.Qxe6+ Kh7–+ 39...a1=Q 40.exf7+ Bxf7 41.Bxf7+ Kh7 42.Qh4+ Qh6 43.Rh5

43...Qa7+! And as White loses the house, he resigned... 0–1 So Wesley Kramnik Vladimir D41 Berlin 2018 1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2

393

9...Bxd2+ Well-known here was 9...Qa5?! 10.Rb1 Bxd2+ 11.Qxd2 Qxd2+ 12.Kxd2 0-0 13.Bb5!± Rubinstein,A-Schlechter,C San Sebastian 1912. 10.Qxd2 0-0 11.Bc4 Nd7 11...Nc6 12.0-0 b6 is another great chapter in this variation and a matter of taste anyway! 12.0-0 b6

394

13.Rad1 It looks more logical to place the rook on the open c-file with 13.Rac1, but practice has proven that this file is just a pathway for exchanging heavy pieces. White strengthens his centre by placing his rooks behind it. In general Black welcomes an endgame, especially without heavy pieces, where his queenside pawn majority might tell. 13...Bb7 14.Rfe1 Rc8 15.Bb3 Logical, but also ‘logical’ is 15.Bd3, which is anaysed in Sub-Chapter 2.2.1. Everything is a matter of taste... 15...Re8 16.h3 W.So had played this position beforehand, but also without success: 16.Re3 Nf6 17.Qd3 b5 18.d5 exd5 19.e5 Ne4 20.Qxb5 Qb6 21.Qxb6 axb6 22.h4 h6 23.Bxd5 Bxd5 24.Rxd5 Rc1+ 25.Ne1 Nc3 26.Rd6 Nxa2 27.Rxb6 Nc3 28.Rd6 Rb8 29.Kh2 Nd1 30.Rf3 Nxf2 31.Rxf2 Rxe1 32.Rd7 Rf8 33.Re7 Re3 34.Rf3 Rxf3 35.gxf3 Rd8 ½-½ So,W-Dominguez Perez,L Saint Louis 2017. 16...Nf6 17.Qf4

17...Nh5 I am not sure that this novelty was better than the known 17...Qc7 18.Qh4 h6 19.Re3 b5∞ Epishin,VDel Rio de Angelis,S Calvia 2005. 18.Qe5 Nf6 19.Qf4 395

19.g4 Qc7 should be OK for Black. It is rather important for White to preserve the queens on board; otherwise his centre and the future d5 advance wouldn’t have the same power. 19...Nh5 20.Qh2! Avoiding the draw, at least for the time being. 20...h6

21.d5 Finally. Even if White doesn’t get anything special, this advance is the backbone of White’s strategy in this particular variation. 21...exd5 22.exd5 Lately White has tried 22.e5!? which gives him quite good compensation: 22...g6 23.Nd4

396

23...a6 (23...Ng7 24.Nb5 Nf5 25.g4² Mamedyarov,S-Ding,L Batumi 2018; 23...Qd7 24.g4° Potapova,M-Ning,K Moscow 2019) 24.h4 Rc3 25.e6 Qc7 26.exf7+ Kxf7 27.Rxe8 Qxh2+ 28.Kxh2 Kxe8 29.Re1+ Kf7 30.Re6 Nf6 31.f3 b5 32.Rb6° Kashlinskaya,A-Huschenbeth,N Douglas 2018. 22...Rxe1+ Or 22...Nf6 23.Rxe8+ (23.Re3) 23...Nxe8 24.Qe5 Nd6 25.Nd4, with a tiny white advantage. 23.Nxe1 Qf6 24.Nd3

Black’s position looked critical, as the threat of g4 was serious... 397

24...Ba6! 25.Qe5! Bxd3 Criminal would be 25...Qxe5? 26.Nxe5± 26.Qxh5 26.Qxf6?! Nxf6 27.Rxd3 Kf8³ 26...Bc2?! 26...Qf5 looks like a good alternative: 27.Qxf5 (27.Qh4 Bc2 28.Rc1 Bxb3 29.Rxc8+ Qxc8 30.axb3 Qc1+ 31.Kh2 Qc5=) 27...Bxf5 28.d6 Rd8= 27.Rc1 Bf5

28.Rxc8+?! 28.Rc6! Rxc6 29.dxc6² could have created some problems for Black. Nevertheless, this was White’s last real chance. 28...Bxc8 29.d6 g5 30.Qd1 Bd7 31.Qd5 Kg7 32.Qb7 Qa1+ 33.Kh2 Qe5+ 34.Kg1 Qxd6 35.Qxa7 h5

398

The position is equal here and the opponents could have called it a day. But they continued playing a dull position for many useless moves. 36.Qb7 h4 37.Qf3 Qe7 38.Qc3+ f6 39.Qc4 Qe8 40.Qb4 b5 41.a3 Qe5 42.Bd1 Bc6 43.Bf3 Be8 43...Bxf3 44.gxf3 Kg6 45.Kg2= 44.Kf1 Bf7 45.Be2 Be8 45...Qa1+ 46.Qe1 Qxa3 47.Bxb5= 46.Bf3 f5 47.Kg1 Bf7 48.Qd2 Kg6 49.Qc1 Be6 50.Qc6 Kf6 51.Qe8 Qa1+ 52.Kh2 Qxa3 53.Qd8+ 53.Qh8+ Ke7 54.Qg7+ Kd8 55.Qxg5+ Qe7= 53...Qe7 54.Qh8+ Qg7 55.Qd8+ Kg6 56.Qe8+ Qf7 57.Qxb5 Qc7+ ½-½ Korchnoi Viktor Najdorf Miguel D41 Wijk aan Zee 1971 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.d4 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0-0 11.Bc4 b6 12.0-0 Bb7 13.Rfe1 Nd7 14.Rad1 Rc8 15.Bd3 Re8 16.Qe3 Rc3

399

17.e5 A ‘strange’ move and obviously not in accordance with the thematic d5 advance. White plans to launch an attack and accepts a somewhat worse pawn structure. 17...Qc7 18.Ng5! Nf8 19.Ne4 Bxe4 Forced, as otherwise the knight will land on the d6-square. 20.Qxe4 Rd8 21.h4! Qe7 22.Qg4 Ra3?! Black overestimates his chances. He should have played 22...Qa3, restricting White’s advantage to the minimum. 23.Bc4 b5 24.Bb3! a5 It seems that Black has created sufficient counterplay on the queenside. But ‘Viktor the Terrible’ now comes out with a great ‘positional’ combination. 25.d5! a4? In view of what happened, Black should try 25...exd5 26.Bxd5±. But who can blame M.Najdorf for not seeing the future...

400

26.dxe6! axb3 Black has no choice but to accept the sacrifice, as 26...fxe6 27.Rxd8 axb3 (27...Qxd8 28.Bxe6+) 28.Rxf8+ Kxf8 29.Rc1 is out of the question. 27.exf7+ Kh8 Unfortunately for Black, he cannot continue with 27...Kxf7 28.Rxd8 bxa2 (28...Qxd8 29.e6+ Kg8 [29...Nxe6 30.Qxe6+ Kf8 31.Re5 g6 32.Rd5 Qe7 33.Qc8+ Kf7 34.Rd7 bxa2 35.Rxe7+ Kxe7 36.Qc5+] 30.e7 Qe8 31.Qb4! Ra8 32.exf8=Q+ Qxf8 33.Qxb3+ Kh8 34.Qxb5+– Rxa2? 35.Re8) 29.Ra8! Rxa8 30.Qf3+ Kg6 31.Qc6+ Qe6 32.Qxa8 Nd7 33.Re2 Nxe5 34.Rxa2+– 28.Rxd8 Qxd8 29.axb3 Qe7 30.e6 Ra6 30...Rxb3 31.Rc1 h6 32.Rc8 Rb1+ 33.Kh2 Re1 34.Re8 Qd6+ 35.Qg3 is curtains.

401

Now it seems that Black will get the important e6-pawn and probably the game, but the great Viktor had a different opinion! 31.f4!! h6 After the ‘obvious’ 31...Rxe6, and the forced continuation 32.Rxe6 Qxe6 (32...Nxe6 33.Qxe6) 33.Qxe6 Nxe6 34.f5 Nf8 35.h5! g6 (35...h6 36.g4! g6 37.f6) 36.h6!! gxf5 37.Kf2, White wins as he will capture the black b-pawn with his king, allowing his own b-pawn to queen. In the meantime Black can only play his knight around the f8-square, as his king is locked in a golden cage! 32.f5 Now, White’s protected and connected passed pawns will carry the day. 32...Nh7 33.Rc1 Ra8 34.Qf4 Nf6 35.Qc7! Breaking down Black’s blockade. 35...Qb4

402

36.Qc8+? White falls to Black’s last, clever trap. 36.Qc5, was decisive: 36...Qxc5+ (36...Qe4 37.f8=Q+ Rxf8 38.Qxf8+ Kh7 39.Qc5) 37.Rxc5 Rf8 38.Rxb5+– 36...Kh7! Not of course 36...Rxc8? 37.Rxc8+ Kh7 38.f8=N+!! Kg8 39.Ng6+ Kh7 40.Rh8# 37.Qxa8?! 37.Qc3 Qxh4 38.Rf1 Ng4 39.Qh3 Qxh3 40.gxh3 Ne5 41.Rc1 g6 42.Rc5 Nxf7 43.exf7 Rf8 44.Rxb5 Rxf7 45.fxg6+ Kxg6 also leads to a draw, but White should have tried it anyway. 37...Qd4+ 38.Kf1 Qf4+? Black blunders on his turn. He could have achieved an undeserved draw with the simple 38...Qd3+! 39.Ke2 Qe5+ 40.Kd1 Now White can avoid the perpetual check as his king escapes to the queenside, so Black resigned. 1–0 Polugaevsky Lev Tal Mihail D41 Moscow 1969 403

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.d4 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0-0 11.Bc4 Nc6 12.0-0 b6 13.Rad1 Bb7 14.Rfe1 Na5 14...Rc8?! is inaccurate: 15.d5! exd5 16.Bxd5 Na5 17.Qf4 Qc7 18.Qf5 Bxd5 19.exd5, with advantage for White, as in Spassky,B-Petrosian,T Moscow 1969. 15.Bd3 Rc8

16.d5! exd5 Forced, as 16...Nc4? loses to 17.Bxc4 Rxc4 18.dxe6 Qxd2 19.exf7+ Rxf7 20.Rxd2 Rxe4? (20...Re7 21.Ng5 g6 22.f3±) 21.Rxe4 Bxe4 22.Ng5!, while 16...Qe7 17.Qf4 Rfd8 18.h4, is better for White, as in Theodorou,N-Dankhazi,A Gyor 2014. 17.e5! The typical pawn sacrifice. 17...Nc4 Other ways seem to be more difficult for Black: 17...d4 18.Nxd4 Kh8 19.Qf4 Rc3 20.Re3 Qd5 21.Rg3 Rfc8 22.Qg5 Rg8 23.Rh3 Rxd3 1–0 Kanep,M-Soot,M Tallinn 2003, or 17...h6 18.Qf4 Nc6 19.Qf5 g6 20.Qg4 Kg7 21.e6 f5 22.Qa4 Qe7 23.Bb5± Pogorelov,R-Planas Ferret,R Andorra 2003, or, finally, 17...Qe7 18.Qf4 (18.Nd4 g6 19.Qh6 f5 20.h4° Pogorelov,R-Magem Badals,J Sitges 1993) 18...h6 19.h4² Briem,B-Paduano,C Bratislava 2019. 18.Qf4 Nb2? 404

Black shouldn’t accept the challenge. 18...h6?! 19.Qf5 g6 20.Qh3 Kg7 21.e6± would not improve the situation. But interesting is 18...Qe7! 19.Ng5° Piorun,K-Paravyan,D Internet 2020. As was revealed after the game, this position had been carefully studied in advance by L.Polugaevsky, who now played the typical sacrifice.

19.Bxh7+! Kxh7 20.Ng5+ Kg6 The only move. White wins after 20...Kg8 21.Qh4 Re8 22.Qh7+ Kf8 23.e6!+–

21.h4!

405

Threatening 21...-- 22.h5+ Kxh5 23.g4+ Kg6 24.Qf5+ Kh6 25.Qh7+ Kxg5 26.Qh5+ Kf4 27.Qf5# 21...Rc4 21...Nxd1? is inadequate due to 22.h5+ Kh6 23.Ne6+ 1–0 Olafsson,F-Lombard,A, Athens 1969, while other moves also do not help Black: 21...Qd7

22.e6! fxe6 23.Qg4 Rf6 24.Nxe6+ Kh6 25.Re5 g6 26.Qg5++–, or 21...f5 22.Rd4!+–, or 21...f6 22.h5+ Kxh5 23.g4+ Kh6 24.Qh2++–, or 21...Qe7 22.Rd4 Kh6 (22...Nc4 23.h5+ Kh6 24.Ne6+ Kh7 25.Qf5+ Kg8 26.Ng5 g6 27.hxg6 Nd6 28.exd6 Qxe1+ 29.Kh2+–; 22...f5 23.h5+ Kh6 24.Nf7+ Kh7 25.Qxf5+ Kg8 26.e6±) 23.Ne4+! Kh7 (23...g5 24.Nxg5+–; 23...Kg6 24.h5+ Kh7 25.Ng5+ Kg8 26.Qf5+–) 24.Nf6+! gxf6 25.Qf5+ Kh6

406

26.exf6! Qxe1+ 27.Kh2 Rg8 (27...Qc1 28.g4+–) 28.g4+– Cranbourne,C-Ninov,N Corr 1996. 22.h5+ Kh6 Or 22...Kxh5? 23.g4+ Kh6 24.Qh2+ 1–0 Avrukh,B-Donk,M Antwerp 1998. 23.Nxf7+ Kh7 24.Qf5+ Kg8 25.e6!

This vital point justifying White’s play was part of L.Polugaevsky’s deep preparation. 25...Qf6!

407

The only defence, as White was threatening both 26.e7 and 26.h6: a) 25...Qe7 26.h6!+–; b) 25...Rc7? 26.h6 Qh4 27.Qg6 1–0 Xu,Y-Thorfinnsson,B Reykjavik 2017. 26.Qxf6 gxf6

27.Rd2! 27.Nd6? Nxd1 28.e7 Rc1! is not clear: 29.h6 Rb8 (29...Rfc8! 30.Nxc8 Bc6∞) 30.Nxb7 Re8 31.Nd6 Rxe7 32.Rxe7 Ne3+ 33.Kh2 Ng4+ 34.Kg3 Nxh6 35.Rxa7² Naumkin,I-Nevanlinna,R Jyvaskyla 1993. 27...Rc6 Also interesting is 27...Na4 28.Nd6± although White of course retains his advantage. 28.Rxb2 Re8?! Black’s position was highly unpleasant, but he could have set White more problems with 28...Bc8! White retains a plus with either 29.e7 Re8 30.Nd8±, or 29.Nh6+ Kh7 30.Nf5 Rxe6 31.Rc1± 29.Nh6+! Kh7 30.Nf5 Rexe6 31.Rxe6 Rxe6 32.Rc2! Rc6 33.Re2 Bc8 Or 33...Rc7 34.Re6± 34.Re7+ Kh8? 408

This loses easily. Black should continue the fight for survival by 34...Kg8 35.Nh4 Rc1+ 36.Kh2 Rc4 37.f4!±

35.Nh4! f5 36.Ng6+ Kg8 37.Rxa7 1–0 Carlsen Magnus Giri Anish D41 Internet 2020 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0-0 11.Bc4 Nd7 12.0-0 b6 13.Rad1 Bb7 14.Rfe1 Rc8 15.Bb3 Re8 16.Re3 Nf6

409

17.d5!? A typical central breakthrough and a novelty over 17.Qd3 b5 18.d5 exd5 19.e5 Ne4 20.Qxb5² So,WDominguez Perez,L Saint Louis 2017, or 17.Qe1 Ng4 18.Re2 Qc7 19.d5 exd5 20.exd5 Rxe2 21.Qxe2 Qd6∞ Muradli,M-Eynullayev,A Baku 2019. 17...exd5 18.e5 The natural follow-up, as nothing is obtained by 18.exd5 Qd6 19.Nd4 Rxe3 20.Nf5 Qe5 21.Nxe3 Ne4!∞ 18...Ne4 19.Qe1 White has compensation for the invested pawn, but Black should be OK. 19...Qc7? Absolutely better was 19...Qe7 20.Bxd5 (20.Nd4!? g6 21.f3 Nc5 22.h4°) 20...Bxd5 21.Rxd5 Nc5=

410

20.Nd4! a6 As Black cannot really go for 20...Qxe5 21.f3±, or 20...Rxe5 21.f3 Rh5 22.h4!±, White gets a good initiative; the threat was Nb5-d6. 21.h4?! 21.f3! was clearer: 21...Nc3 22.Rdd3 Nb5 23.Nxb5 axb5 24.Bxd5± 21...Rcd8?! Passive. Black should go for 21...b5! 22.Rxe4 dxe4 23.e6 fxe6 24.Nxe6 Qe7 25.Nd8+ Rc4 26.Nxb7 Qxb7 27.Rd4 Qc6 28.Qb4 Rc8 29.Qe7 h6, where he would have quite good chances to preserve the balance. 22.f3! Nc5

411

23.h5 White continues his aggression on the kingside, but he could also go for 23.Nf5 Nxb3 24.axb3 d4 25.Re2 d3 26.Re3 Qc2 27.Rc1 Qxb3 28.Nd6 Re7 29.Rc3 Qb4 30.Rexd3² 23...Ne6?! Obviously Black is quite helpful, as here he missed the stronger 23...Qd7 24.Qg3° 24.Nf5! d4 25.Red3 Nc5? The final mistake. Black had to find 25...Bd5! 26.Nd6 Bxb3 27.Nxe8 Rxe8 28.axb3 h6 29.Qg3± 26.Rxd4 Rxd4 27.Rxd4 Nxb3

412

28.Qg3! Also good is 28.axb3 h6 29.Nd6 Qc5 30.Qd2 Re7 31.f4± 28...g6 29.axb3 Rd8?! This loses on the spot, but even with the best 29...Bxf3, Black shouldn’t survive: 30.Rc4! (30.Qxf3? gxf5∞; 30.gxf3? Qc1+ 31.Kg2 Qc2+µ) 30...Bc6 (30...Qd7 31.Nh6+ Kg7 [31...Kh8 32.Qxf3+–] 32.Qxf3 Kxh6 33.hxg6 fxg6 34.Qf6+–) 31.Nd6 b5 32.Rc5 Re6 33.h6 Qb6 34.b4+–

413

30.e6! The black queen is overloaded and her back rank weak... 30...Qc1+ 30...Qc5 loses to 31.Qe5!+– 31.Kh2 Rxd4 32.e7 Qc8

33.Qe5! Rh4+ 34.Kg3 1–0

414

CHAPTER 4. ENDGAME TECHNIQUE The chess player who wishes to master an opening should not only know how to gain an advantage from it, or how to increase it in the middlegame, but also finally how to convert it in the endgame. Knowledge of typical endgames with specific pawn structures is hugely important, as it helps to evaluate correctly our chances in them and to make middlegame decisions regarding choices and possibilities that are very difficult to make otherwise. The endgames that follow are characteristic of our recommended repertoire. It is not important that some of them arise via another opening or system; the important thing is to understand and master them — endgame technique is essential... Aronian Levon Kramnik Vladimir D41 Paris 2013 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0-0 11.Rc1 b6 12.Bd3 Bb7 13.0-0 Nd7 14.Qe3 Rc8 15.e5 Bxf3 16.Qxf3 Qh4 17.Qe3 Rfd8 18.f4 Nf8 19.Rxc8 Rxc8 20.f5 exf5 21.Bxf5 Rd8 22.Rd1 Ng6 23.Bxg6 hxg6 24.d5 Qc4 25.d6 Qe6

26.Qg3 The endgame is much better for White, due to his passed and protected d-pawn.

415

The main motif here is the threat to exchange queens. 26...b5 27.h3 There is no need to hurry, as Black cannot improve. 27...a6 It is tempting to play 27...b4?, but then White has the strong idea 28.Qg5! f6 29.exf6 Rxd6?! (29...Qxf6 30.Qc5 a5 31.d7±) 30.f7+! Kxf7 (30...Kf8 31.Qc5+–) 31.Qf4+ Ke7 32.Qxb4+–, when it would be impossible to defend such a position with an exposed king on e7. Of course, taking on a2 is bad for the same reason as before: 27...Qxa2? 28.Qh4 Rd7 29.Rc1 Qa6 30.Kh2+– 28.Qe3?! An impatient move. After 28.Kh1, or any other waiting move, Black is in zugzwang, since after 28...Rd7 there is 29.Rc1 and any other move so weakens Black’s position that the realisation of White’s advantage becomes easier. 28...Rd7 Black prepares to play ...f6. It cannot be played at once, because after 29.Qb6, the a6- and b5-pawns are attacked. 29.Qc5

29...Kh7? 416

The only chance to continue the fight was 29...f6! 30.exf6 gxf6 31.Qc8+ Kg7 32.Qxa6 Qe3+ (32...Qe2?! 33.Rb1±) 33.Kh1 Qc5, drawing, since the white queen is absolutely helpless and the pawn on d6 is not going anywhere. After 29...f6! White should opt for 30.exf6 gxf6 31.Qc6 with an advantage, which, with correct play, should not be enough to win. 30.Qd5 Qe8 Of course, Black cannot exchange queens: 30...Qxd5? 31.Rxd5 Kg8 32.Rc5 Rd8 33.Kf2+– 31.Rc1 Qd8 32.Rc6 Defending against ...f6. 32...Qg5 33.Qd4 Rd8 34.Rc5? No need for the text. After 34.Kh2! Black will fall shortly. 34...Qg3? After 34...f6! 35.e6 (35.Kh2 fxe5 36.Rxe5 Qf6 37.Rd5²) 35...Qg3! White cannot simultaneously defend the e6- and d6-pawns. 35.Qf2! Qxf2+ After the forced exchange of the queens (35...Qg5 36.e6 f5 37.d7+–), the activity of the white king decides the game. 36.Kxf2 f6 37.Rc6 37.Rc8! was also possible: 37...Rxc8 38.d7 Rd8 39.e6+– 37...fxe5 38.Ke3 Kg8 39.Ke4 Kf7

417

40.Kd5 White also wins easily after 40.Kxe5+– 40...a5 41.Rc5 b4 The advance ...e4 always fails to the rook transfer to e7. 42.Rxa5 Kf6 43.Ra7 Rb8 44.Kc6 b3 45.axb3 Rxb3 46.Ra8 Rc3+ 47.Kd7 e4 48.Rf8+ Kg5 49.Ke7 Or 49.Ke8 Rd3 50.d7 e3 51.d8=Q+ Rxd8+ 52.Kxd8+– 49...e3 50.d7 e2 51.d8=Q e1=Q+ 52.Kd6+ And mate follows. 1–0 Petrosian Tigran Korchnoi Viktor D41 Ciocco 1977 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 d5 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0-0 11.Bc4 Nc6 12.0-0 b6 13.Rfe1 Bb7 14.Rad1 Ne7 15.d5 exd5 16.exd5 Nf5 17.Ne5 Nd6 18.Nc6 Bxc6 19.dxc6 Nxc4 20.Qf4 Nd6 21.Rxd6 Qc7

418

White’s c6-pawn is passed and well-advanced and this fact gives him the advantage. Of course things are far from easy and White will improve his position by creating additional play on the kingside. 22.g3 h6 22...Rad8 fails to solve Black’s problems: 23.Red1 Rxd6?! (23...Rde8 24.Qf3 Rc8 25.Qf5±) 24.Qxd6 Qxd6 (24...Qc8 25.c7+–) 25.Rxd6 Rc8 26.c7+– 23.Qe5! Centralisation! 23...Rac8 23...Rae8 loses to 24.Qxe8 Rxe8 (24...Qxd6 25.Qd7+–) 25.Rxe8+ Kh7 26.Red8 Qe7 27.Rd1 Qc7 28.R8d6 b5 29.Rc1! Qxd6 30.c7+– 24.Qd5! Kh7 Black has to wait passively, as 24...Rfd8 25.Rd7!+–, or 24...Rcd8 25.Rd7 Qb8 26.Ree7+–, are both quite easy for White. 25.Re4 Kg8 26.Kg2 a6

419

Full domination in the centre, but the win will come from the kingside — the Rule of the Two Weaknesses! 27.h4! b5 28.g4! Kh7 29.Re2 Kh8 30.g5 h5 Even ‘worse’ is 30...hxg5 31.hxg5, when White will attack via the h-file. 31.Rd2! Rfe8 It is hard to find a satisfactory move for Black: 31...Qe7 32.Qf5 g6 33.Qd5 Rc7 34.Rd4+– 32.Qf3 g6 It is not easy to criticise the text move, as Black is lost in all continuations: 32...Kg8 33.Qxh5 Re5 34.Qg4 Rc5 35.g6 fxg6 36.Qe6+ Kh8 37.Qxg6 Kg8 38.Qe6+ Kh8 39.R2d5!+– 33.R2d5! Rf8 33...Re7 loses to 34.Rd7 Rxd7 35.cxd7 Rd8 36.Qxf7 Qc6 37.f3 Qc2+ 38.Kg3 Qc7+ 39.Kh3 Qc6 40.Qe7 Qc7 41.Rd6+– 34.Rf6! Qe7 Or 34...Rcd8 35.Rxd8 Qxd8 36.Rxf7+– 35.Rd7 Qe8 35...Qc5 36.Rfxf7 Rxf7 37.Qxf7 Qxc6+ 38.f3+– 420

36.Rxg6! A small combination to end the game. 36...Qe5 36...fxg6 37.Qc3+ Kg8 38.Qg7# 37.Qxh5# 1–0 Rubinstein Akiba Schlechter Carl D41 San Sebastian 1912 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Qa5?! This is more-or-less a bad move, leading to a very unpleasant endgame for Black. 9...Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0-0 is the right continuation. 10.Rb1! Bxd2+ 11.Qxd2 Qxd2+ What else? If 11...Nc6, then 12.Bb5 Qxd2+ 13.Kxd2 Bd7 14.d5± 12.Kxd2 0-0 The same plan as in the game is also good after 12...Ke7 13.Bb5! a6 14.Bd3 Rd8 15.Rhc1 Nc6 421

16.Ke3 f5 17.Rb6 f4+ 18.Kxf4 Nxd4 19.Rc7+ Kf8 20.Nxd4 Rxd4 21.Ke3 Rd8 22.e5 h6 23.Rd6 1–0 Yuferov,S-Dorosiev,B Plovdiv 1985. Another try is 12...b6 13.Bb5+ (13.Bd3 Ba6 14.Rhc1 Bxd3 15.Kxd3 Na6 16.Rc4± Kryakvin,D-Bodiroga,P Senta 2010) 13...Bd7 14.Rhc1 Ke7 15.Bd3± 13.Bb5! One of the many excellent ideas of A. Rubinstein. White wants to provoke the weakening of Black’s queenside. 13...a6 13...b6 is an alternative which also fails to satisfy: 14.Rhc1 Ba6 (14...Bb7 15.Ke3±) 15.a4 Bxb5 16.axb5 Nd7 17.Ra1 Nf6 (17...Rfd8 18.Ke3 a5 19.bxa6 Ra7 20.Ra2 Rda8 21.Rca1± Sahidi,SBalazs,A Bratislava 2019) 18.Kd3 Rfd8 19.Rc7± Golod,V-Lobach,P Bratislava 1993. 14.Bd3 Rd8 14...Nc6 15.Rhc1± doesn’t change much. 15.Rhc1 And White is ready to invade along Black’s 7th rank. 15...b5 White also stands excellently after 15...Nc6 16.Ke3 Kf8 (16...f5 17.Rb6 g5 18.Nxg5 Nxd4 19.Rc7 h6 20.Nh7 Nc6 21.exf5 1–0 Graf,A-Denk,A Prague 2020) 17.Rb6 f6 18.Bc2 Rb8 19.Bd3 Ra8 20.Rc3 g6 21.Bc2 f5 22.Bb3 fxe4 23.Kxe4 a5 24.a4± Makarov,M-Henriksson,C Helsinki 1992. 16.Rc7 Nd7 17.Ke3 Nf6 18.Ne5 Bd7

422

White has a clear advantage, but how to improve his position? 19.g4! Black’s pieces are badly placed and ready to fall anytime... 19...h6 Black has also tried here 19...g5 20.Rf1 (20.h4! h6 21.hxg5 hxg5 22.f4 gxf4+ 23.Kxf4+–) 20...Be8 21.f4 gxf4+ 22.Rxf4 Kg7 23.g5 Nd7 24.Ng4 Rdc8 25.Rb7 Rab8 26.Rxb8 Rxb8 27.e5 Nf8 28.Nf6± Ivanov,J-Andreev,S Sunny Beach 2006, or 19...Be8 20.g5 Nh5 (20...Nd7 21.Nc6+–) 21.Be2 f6 22.gxf6 Nxf6 (22...gxf6 23.Bxh5 fxe5 24.Bxe8 exd4+ 25.Kd3 Rxe8 26.Rg1+ Kh8 27.Rgg7±) 23.Rg1 g6 24.h4± 20.f4! Be8 21.g5 hxg5 22.fxg5 Nh7 22...Nd7, loses to 23.Nc6+– 23.h4 Rdc8 24.Rbc1 Rxc7 25.Rxc7 Rd8 Or 25...f6 26.gxf6 gxf6 (26...Nxf6 27.Re7+–) 27.Ng4+– 26.Ra7 f6 27.gxf6 gxf6 28.Ng4 Bh5 29.Nh6+ Kh8

423

30.Be2! Be8 31.Rxa6 And material is also won, without losing any of his advantages. 31...Kg7 32.Ng4 f5 33.Ra7+! Kh8 33...Kg6 loses to 34.h5+ Kg5 35.Rg7+ Kh4 36.exf5 exf5 37.Nh6 Nf8 38.Nxf5+ Kh3 39.Bf1+ Kh2 40.Rg2+ Kh1 41.Ng3# 34.Ne5 fxe4 35.Bxb5! Nf6 36.Bxe8 Rxe8 37.Kf4! Kg8 38.Kg5 Rf8 39.Kg6 J.R.Capablanca: ‘There are no doubt many people whose attention is not attracted by this game; for my part, I confess that there are few games that have so impressed me. To my mind it is a complete masterpiece, a monument of magnificent precision. For 39 moves the great Russian expert always played the exact move, the strongest! This game is a classic example, always to be conserved, of how chess should be played.’ 1–0 Nimzowitsch Aaron Tarrasch Siegbert D41 Breslau 1925 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.d4 cxd4 6.Qxd4 e6 7.e3 Nc6 8.Bb5 Bd7 9.Bxc6 Bxc6 10.Ne5 Nxc3 11.Nxc6 Qxd4 12.Nxd4 Nd5 13.Bd2 Bc5 14.Nb3 Bb4 15.Rc1 Rd8 16.Bxb4 Nxb4 17.Ke2 Ke7 18.Rc4 Na6 19.Rhc1 Rd7

424

Black’s position looks defensible and without any major — or even minor — problems to be solved. But White can claim a slight advantage, as his control of the c-file is more important than Black’s control of the d-file, and also his knight can become more active than its counterpart. The next two moves by White reduce Black’s d-file play to naught. 20.f4! Rhd8 21.Nd4 f6 22.a4!

Starting operations on the queenside, preparing an eventual b4 advance as well. 22...e5?!

425

It is understandable that Black would try to free his position and find some activity for his doubled rooks on the d-file. On the other hand, with the text move he creates a serious weakness in the centre. 23.fxe5 fxe5 24.Nf3 Ke6

25.b4! b6 Black had no option other than to further weaken the queenside: 25...h6 26.b5 Nb8 27.Rc5 Rd5 28.Rxd5 Rxd5 29.Rc7+– 26.R1c2 Also good was 26.Re4 Rd5 27.Nd4+ Kd6 28.Nb5+ Ke7 29.Rc2±. The difference in the activity of the knights is more than obvious and gives White the advantage. 26...h6 27.h4 Rd6

426

28.h5 Creating (fixing) a new weakness; the g7-pawn. White will put pressure on it with the upcoming Rg4. 28...Rd5?! Black had to prevent Rg4 and continue the fight with 28...Kf5! 29.g4+ Kf6 30.Re4 Re6 31.Rc1±

29.Rg4! R5d7

427

29...Kf6 30.Rc6+ R8d6 31.Rg6++–, or 29...Kf7 30.e4+–. Black loses material. 30.Rc6+ Rd6 Nothing is satisfactory for Black anymore: 30...Kf5 31.Rcg6 and mate follows, or 30...Kd5 31.Rc1! Ke6 32.Rg6+ Kf5 33.Rc4!+– 31.Rg6+

31...Ke7 31...Kd5? loses the knight: 32.Rcxd6+ Rxd6 33.e4+ Kc6 34.b5++– 32.Rxg7+ Kf8 33.Rxd6 Rxd6 34.Rxa7

428

34...Nxb4 Finally the poor knight on a6 makes a move; it even captures a pawn! But Black’s fate is already sealed. 35.Nxe5 White is two pawns up and the rest of the game was not that difficult. 35...Re6 36.Ng6+ Kg8 37.Ne7+ Kf8 38.Nf5 Nd5 39.g4 Nf4+ 40.Kf3 Nd3

429

41.Ra8+! 41.Rh7 Ne5+ 42.Kf4 Nf7± 41...Kf7 42.Rh8 Nc5 43.Rh7+ Kg8 44.Rxh6 Rxh6 45.Nxh6+ Kf8 46.Nf5 Nxa4 47.h6 Kg8 48.g5 Kh7 49.Kg4 Nc5 50.Kh5 Ne6 51.g6+ Kg8 52.h7+ Kh8 53.Kh6 1–0

430

Show in Text Mode

CHAPTER 5. TACTICAL MOTIFS Tactics are the salt & pepper of chess. They crown every strategy and appear in every game, so we cannot live without them! Typical tactical motifs repeat themselves, and their knowledge and understanding are an essential asset to season our opening preparation. Zaitsev Alexander Furman Semen Abramovich D41 Kharkov 1967 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0-0 11.Bc4 Nc6 12.0-0 b6 13.Qe3 Bb7 14.Rad1 Na5 15.Bd3 Rc8 16.Ng5 Nc4 17.Bxc4 Rxc4 18.f4 Qd7 19.f5 exf5 20.Rxf5 f6 21.Nf3 Re8 22.Rf4 Qa4 23.Rf1 Qxa2 24.Nh4 Rc2 25.Qg3 Kh8 26.e5 Qd5 27.exf6 gxf6 28.Rg4 Re4

Show/Hide Solution

431

29.Ng6+! hxg6 30.Qh4+ Kg8 31.Rxg6+ Kf8 32.Qxf6+ Ke8 33.Qf8+ Kd7 34.Rf7+ 1–0

Doncevic Dario Oeljeklaus Guenter D41 Cologne 1982 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 c5 3.Nf3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.d4 e6 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Qa5+ 9.Bd2 Bb4 10.Rb1 Bxd2+ 11.Qxd2 Qxd2+ 12.Kxd2 Ke7 13.Bd3 Rd8 14.Rhc1 Nc6 15.Ke3 f6 16.Rc5 Kd6 17.Rbc1 h6 18.e5+ Ke7 19.Rb1 f5 20.h4 g6 21.Bc2 Kd7 22.Ba4 Kc7 23.Rbc1 Bd7

Show/Hide Solution

24.d5! exd5 25.Nd4 Kb6 26.Rb5+ Kc7 27.Rxd5 Kb6 28.Rb1+ 1–0

Spassky Boris Petrosian Tigran D41 Moscow 1969 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.d4 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 432

Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0-0 11.Bc4 Nc6 12.0-0 b6 13.Rad1 Bb7 14.Rfe1 Rc8 15.d5 exd5 16.Bxd5 Na5 17.Qf4 Qc7 18.Qf5 Bxd5 19.exd5 Qc2 20.Qf4 Qxa2 21.d6 Rcd8 22.d7 Qc4 23.Qf5 h6 24.Rc1 Qa6 25.Rc7 b5 26.Nd4 Qb6 27.Rc8 Nb7

Show/Hide Solution

28.Nc6! Nd6 29.Nxd8! Nxf5 30.Nc6 1–0

Ivanchuk Vassily Ganguly Surya Shekhar D41 Caleta 2014 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0-0 11.Rc1 Nc6 12.Be2 Qb6 13.0-0 Rd8 14.Rc4 Bd7 15.Bd3 Qa5 16.Qb2 Rac8 17.Rfc1 Nb4 18.Bf1 Nc6 19.Rc5 Qb4 20.Qa1 Na5 21.a3 Qb6 22.Rb1 Nb3 23.Qa2 Ba4 24.Rc4 Qa5 25.Rxb3 Bxb3 26.Qxb3 b5 27.Rxc8 Rxc8 28.d5 Qa4 29.Qe3 exd5 30.exd5 Qd1 31.Nd4 Kf8 32.d6 Re8 33.d7 Rd8

433

Show/Hide Solution

34.Qe5! Rxd7 34...Qg4 35.Nf5+– 35.Qb8+ Ke7 36.Nc6+ Kf6 37.Qf4+ Ke6 37...Kg6 38.Ne5+ Kh5 39.h4 h6 40.Qf5++– 38.Qe5# 1–0

Portisch Lajos Pinter Jozsef D41 Budapest 1984 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nc6 9.Bc4 b5 10.Be2 Bb4+ 11.Bd2 Qa5 12.Bxb4 Qxb4+ 13.Qd2 Bb7 14.a3 Qxd2+ 15.Kxd2 a6 16.a4 b4 17.a5 Rd8 18.Ke3 f5 19.exf5 exf5 20.Bc4 Ke7 21.d5 Kf6 22.dxc6 Rhe8+ 23.Kf4 Re4+ 24.Kg3 Bc8 25.Rac1 Rg4+ 26.Kh3 f4 27.Ne5

434

Show/Hide Solution

27...Kg5 27...Rg3+! 28.Kh4 h5!–+ 28.Nf7+ Kh5 29.Be2 Rd3+! 30.g3 f3! 31.Rc5+ Rg5+ 32.g4+ Bxg4+ 33.Kg3 fxe2+ 0–1

Baikov Vladimir Gutop Yuri D41 Moscow 1992 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nc6 9.Bc4 b5 10.Bd3 Bb4+ 11.Bd2 Qa5 12.a3 Bxd2+ 13.Qxd2 a6 14.a4 b4 15.0-0 0-0 16.d5 exd5 17.exd5 Ne7 18.d6 Nf5 19.Be4 Rb8 20.d7 Bb7 21.Bxb7 Rxb7 22.Rfe1 Qc7 23.Ne5 Ne7 24.Rad1 Qd8 25.Nc4 Rb8 26.Qd6 Ng6

435

Show/Hide Solution

27.Na5! Qxa5 28.Qxb8! Rxb8 29.Re8+ Rxe8 30.dxe8=Q+ Nf8 31.Rd8 Qc5 32.Rc8! Qd6 33.Qd8 1–0

Pashikian Arman Mastrovasilis Athanasios D41 Aix les Bains 2011 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 c5 7.Nf3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0-0 11.Bc4 b6 12.0-0 Bb7 13.Rfe1 Nd7 14.a4 Rc8 15.Bd3 e5 16.d5 Nc5 17.Bc4 Qd6 18.Qb2 f5 19.exf5 e4 20.Qe5 Rcd8 21.Qxd6 Rxd6 22.Ng5 Bxd5 23.Rad1 Nd3

436

Show/Hide Solution

24.Nxe4! Bxc4 25.Nxd6 Nxe1 26.Nxc4 Nc2 27.g4± h5 28.h3 hxg4 29.hxg4 Re8 30.Kf1 Kh7 31.Rd2 Re1+ 32.Kg2 Rc1 33.Ne5 Ne1+ 34.Kg3 Rc5 35.f4 Rc2 36.Rd7 Rg2+ 37.Kh3 1–0

Kasimdzhanov Rustam Teske Henrik D41 Remagen 2011 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0-0 11.Bc4 b6 12.0-0 Nd7 13.Rad1 Bb7 14.Rfe1 Rc8 15.Bb3 Qf6 16.Qe3 Rfd8 17.d5 exd5 18.e5 Qh6 19.Qxh6 gxh6 20.Nd4 Rc3 21.Nb5 Rc5 22.Nd6 Bc6 23.f4 a5 24.Rd3 b5 25.Nf5 a4 26.Bd1 Rc4 27.Nd4 Nb8 28.f5 Be8 29.e6 fxe6 30.Nxe6 Rdc8 31.Rxd5 Rc1 32.Kf2 Na6 33.Nd8 Kf8 34.Ne6+ Kg8 35.Nd8 Kf8 36.f6 Nc7 37.Rd2 Rb8

437

Show/Hide Solution

38.f7! Bc6 38...Bxf7 39.Nxf7 Kxf7 40.Bh5++– 39.Rd6 Bd5 40.Rxd5 1–0

438

BIBLIOGRAPHY CBM Survey; Efstratios Grivas; ChessBase 2007 CBM Survey; Efstratios Grivas; ChessBase 2010 ChessBase Mega Database; Various Contributors; ChessBase 2020 Informator; Various Contributors; Informator 1966–2020 New In Chess (Magazine & Yearbook); Various Contributors; Interchess BV 1984–2020 New In Chess Yearbook; Efstratios Grivas; 2010 Wikipedia Various Articles; Wikipedia 2020

439

CURRICULUM VITAE Efstratios Grivas (30.03.1966) is a highly experienced chess trainer and chess author. He has been awarded by the International Chess Federation (FIDE) the titles of: – International Chess Grandmaster, – FIDE Senior Trainer, – International Chess Arbiter, – International Chess Organiser. His main successes over the board are: – Silver Medal Olympiad 1998 (3rd Board), – Gold Medal European Team Championship 1989 (3rd Board) – 4th Position World Junior Championship U.20 1985. He has also won 5 Balkan Medals (2× Gold, 1× Silver, 2× Bronze) and he was 3 times Winner of the International ‘Acropolis’ Tournament. He also has to his credit 28 times first position in Greek Individual & Team Championships and has won various international tournaments as well. He has also been awarded six FIDE Medals in the Annual FIDE Awards (Winner of the FIDE Boleslavsky Medal 2009 & 2015 (best author) — Winner of the FIDE Euwe Medal 2011 & 2012 & 2017 (best junior trainer) — Winner of the FIDE Razuvaev Medal 2014 (Trainers’ education) and has been a professional Lecturer at FIDE Seminars for Training & Certifying Trainers. During the period 2009-2018 he served as Secretary of the FIDE Trainers’ Commission. Since 2012 he has been Director of the FIDE Grivas Chess International Academy (Athens) and since 2019 he has been the Technical Director of the Sharjah International Chess Academy (Sharjah). He has published a large number of Books & DVDs in Arabic, English, French, Greek, Iranian, Italian, Mongolian, Spanish & Turkish. His 105 books/editions can be indexed in the following categories: Beginners (10), Dvds & E-Books (6), Endgame (5), History (19), Middlegame & Endgame (14), Opening (6), Plan (8), Strategy (7), Strategy Series (20) and Trainers’ Education (10). And his publishers & languages are: Apollon Ektipotiki (Greek), Chess Evolution (English), ChessBase (English), ChessCastle (English), Everyman Chess (English), FIDE (English & French), Gambit Publications (English), Grivas Chess International Academy (English & Greek), IChess (English), Kaissa Chess Center (Greek), Kedros Publishers (Greek), Klitharitmos Publishers (Greek), La Casa del Ajedrez (Spanish), Mongolian Chess Federation (Mongolian), New In Chess (English), Prisma (Italian), Russell Enterprises (English), Sabah Chess Academy (English), Sharjah Cultural & Chess Club (Arabic & English), Skyfos Ekdotiki (Greek), Soheil Hooshdaran Chess Academy (Iranian), Thinkers Publishing (English) and Turkiye Santranc Federasyonu (Turkish).

440

Table of Contents Title page Key to symbols Foreword Description Chapter 1. The Albin Counter-Gambit Chapter 2. The Baltic Defence Chapter 3. The Symmetrical/Austrian Defence Chapter 4. The Marshall Defence Chapter 5. Typical Middlegame Strategy Chapter 6. Endgame Technique Chapter 7. Tactical Motifs Chapter 1. Various Lines Chapter 2. Main Lines Chapter 3. Typical Middlegame Strategy Chapter 4. Endgame Technique Chapter 5. Tactical Motifs Chapter 1. The 9...cxd4 Line Chapter 2. The 9...c4 Line Chapter 3. The 9...Be6 Line Chapter 4. Typical Middlegame Strategy Chapter 5. Endgame Technique Chapter 6. Tactical Motifs Bibliography Curriculum Vitae

441

4 6 7 10 12 42 50 66 73 86 96 104 114 131 145 156 164 206 238 265 282 310 439 440