King's Indian: A Complete Black Repertoire 9548782715, 9789548782715

Citation preview

9s -t ' M id' clless

Special Editor:

1M Vladimir Barskiy

Technical Editor:

1M Sergey Soloviov

Translation by:

GM Evgeny Ermenkov

Cover design by:

Kalojan Nachev

Copyright © Victor Bologan

2009

Printed in Bulgaria by "Chess Stars" Ltd. ISBNI3: 978 954 8782 71 5

-

Sofia

Victor Bologan

The King's Indian A Complete Black Repertoire

Chess Stars

Bibliography Understanding The King's Indian by M.Golubev, Gambit Publications, 2006 Openings for White According to Kramnik (la, 1b) by AKhalifman, Chess Stars 2006

Other CHESS STARS Books Repertoire books: Opening for White According to Kramnik l.c!ilf3 by A Khalifman Volume 1a: Old Indian, rare lines in the Classical Variation, 2006 Volume 1b: The Classical Variation, 2006 Volume 2: Anti-Nim-Ind, Anti-Queen's Indian, English, Knight Tango, 2008 Volume 3: Maroczy, English (l ...cS), Modern, Dutch Volume 4: Queen's Gambit Accepted, Slav, Semi-Slav Volume 5: Queen's Gambit Declined Opening for White According to Anand 1.e4 by A Khalifman Volume 6: The French Defence 3.tLlc3 dxe4, 3...tLlf6, 2006 Volume 7: The French Defence 3.tLlc3 Ab4, 2006 Volume 8: The Sicilian, Paulsen-Kan and rare lines, 2006 Volume 9: The Sicilian, Paulsen-Taimanov and other lines, 2007 Volume 10: The Sicilian, Sveshnikov, 2007 Volume 11; The Sicilian, Dragon, 2009 Opening for Black According to Karpov by Khalifman

Current theory and practice series: Challenging the Sicilian with 2.a3! by Bezgodov, 2004 An Expert's Guide to the 7.Bc4 Gruenfeld by Sakaev, 2006 The Sharpest Sicilian by Kiril Georgiev and At. Kolev, 2007 The Safest Sicilian by Delchev and Semkov, 2nd rev.ed. 2008 The Queen's Gambit Accepted by Sakaev and Semkov, 3rd. rev. ed., 2008 The Easiest Sicilian by Kolev and Nedev, 2008 The Petrosian System Against the QID by Be1iavskyandMikhalchishin, 2008 Kill K.I.D. by Semko Semkov, 2009

Games collections My One Hundred Best Games by Alexey Dreev, 2007 Bogoljubow. The Fate of a Chess Player by S. Soloviov, 2004 Shirov's 100 Wms by Soloviov 316 p., inteIViews, biography, oolour photos, 2003 Leko's 100 Wins by Soloviov 340 pages, biography, colour photos, 2003 More details at www.chess-stars.com 4

Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Part 1. Minor Variations

l.d4 ltJf6 2.c4 g6 3.ltJc3 !g7 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10

4 . .lgS . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.ltJf3 0-0 S ..lgS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 4.ltJf3 0-0 S.!f4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4.e4 d6 S.!gS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4.e4 d6 S.h3 0-0 6 ..ld3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S6 4.e4 d6 S.h3 0-0 6 ..ie3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.e4 d6 S.h3 0-0 6 ..igS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 4.e4 d6 S.h3 0-0 6.ltJf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 4.e4 d6 S.ltJge2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lOS 4.e4 d6 S ..id3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Part 2. Averbakh Variation

1.d4 ltJf6 2.c4 g6 3.ltJc3 .lg7 4.e4 d6 S.ie2 0-0 6.!gS 11 12

6 ... ltJa6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 6 ...h6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Part 3. Saemisch Attack

1.d4 ltJf6 2.c4 g6 3.ltJc3 .lg7 4.e4 d6 S.f3 0-0 13 14 lS 16

6.ltJge2 140 6 . .lgS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lS0 6 . .ie3 c5 7.dc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lS7 6.!e3 cS 7.dS; 7.ltJge2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Part 4. Four Pawns Attack

l.d4 ltJf6 2.c4 g6 3.ltJc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 S.f4 0-0 6.ltJf3 cS 17 18 19

7.ie2; 7.dc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 7.dS e6 8.de; 8.ie2 ed 9.cd ig4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 7.dS e6 8 ..le2 ed 9.cd �e8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 S

Part 5. Classical Variation

l.d4 ttJf6 2.c4 g6 3.ttJc3 J.g7 4.e4 d6 S.ttJf3 0-0 6.�e2 eS 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

7.de; 7.0-0 ttJc6 B.de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 7.�e3 ttJg4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 7.dS as 236 7.0-0 ttJc6 B . .te3 ttJg4; B.dS ttJe7 9 ..tgS; 9 . .td2; 9 ..te3; 9.a4 . . . . 245 7.0-0 ttJc6 B .dS ttJe7 9.b4 ttJhS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 7.0-0 ttJc6 B.dS ttJe7 9.ttJel ttJd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 7.0-0 ttJc6 B.dS ttJe7 9.ttJd2 c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2B3 7.0-0 ttJc6 B.dS ttJe7 9.ttJd2 as . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2BB .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Part 6. Fianchetto Systems

l.d4 ttJf6 2 .c4 g6 3.ttJf3 J.g7 4.g3 0-0 S . .tg2 d6 6.0-0 ttJc6 2B 29 30 31

7.dS; 7.ttJc3 a6 without B.h3, B.dS, B.b3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29B 7.ttJc3 a6 B.h3 .td7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 7.ttJc3 a6 B.dS ttJaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 7.ttJc3 a6 B.b3 l3bB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 Other Fianchetto Systems

Double Fianchetto for White 32 l.ttJf3 ttJf6 2.g3 g6 3.b3.tg7 4.J.b2 d6 S.d4 c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 Fianchetto without c2-c4 and ttJc3 33 l.ttJf3 ttJf6 2 .g3 g6 3.d4 .tg7 4 . .tg2 0-0 5.0-0 d6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 King's Indian English 34 l.c4 ttJf6 2 .ttJc3 g6 3.g3 .tg7 4 . .tg2 0-0 S.e4; 5.0-0 . . . . . . . . . 345 .

6

.

This book is dedicated to a remarkable man, my "life-long" coach Zigurds Lanka, who uncoveredfor me the mysteries of the King's Indian Defence!

PREFACE

The King'sIndia nHouseh old The King's Indian Defence is probably the most romantic response to l.d4. It has survived the test of time and has been played at the high­ est level even to the present day .. Black gives his opponent complete freedom of choice in how to control the center and just develops quietly within his King's Indian liousehold, relying on his powerful fianchet­ toed bishop.

This position arose in the first recorded game (in the latest compu­ ter database) with the King's Indian Defence. It took place in Leipzig back in the year 1879 and one of the most eminent theoreticians of the 19th century, Louis Paulsen, was playing with Black. The Hungarian Adolf Schwarz was White and he was probably quite amazed why his opponent, despite all of the principles of playing in the opening at that time, did not fight for the center at all. He was so happy that he pushed forward all his four central pawns outright! His impressive pawn-chain was soon attacked from both sides of the board, however, and Black seized the initiative. Ironically, the outcome of the game was decided by a black passed pawn right along the central d-file. 7

This was all just a whim of destiny, since neither Paulsen, nor Schwarz knew then that they had been playing the Four Pawns At­ tack. It is still fashionable today. The name of the variation appeared about forty years later thanks to the famous GM, Savielly Tartakower - mostly due to his witty vocabulary. Right then, during the 1920s, the King's Indian Defence became a part of the opening repertoire of the future world-champion Max Euwe. The challenger for the world crown, Efim Bogoljubow, often played it too. Later, Muguel Najdorf, Andre Lilienthal and another future world-champion Vassily Smyslov all became King's Indian exponents. The present burst of popularity is due to the period of the 40' s and 50' s of the past century, when it was thoroughly analyzed by some outstanding theoreticians and powerful practical players such as Isaak Boleslavsky, David Bronstein and Efim Geller. They had to face some magnificent opposition from the White side and it would be enough to mention here two world-champions - Mikhail Botvinnik and Tigran Petrosian. (The latter once remarked , in the ironical style so typical for him, that he had fed his family thanks to the King's Indian Defence for many, many years . . . I). The theory of this already very popular opening began to develop like an avalanche. It was almost refuted at times, de­ scribed as "an incorrect opening" by many, but then it would resurrect itself like Phoenix from the ashes. The poet and chess-player Evgenij Iljin even wrote a poem about it: So many efforts and notes Were devoted to it It was buried so many times "For ever disputed . . . !" Was this witchcraft Or dark-squared magic . . ? .

Well, you need to be a romantic deep in your soul and something of a poet in order to play the King's Indian Defence well! . You have to believe in the power of your bishop on g7 and in your kingside attack to enable the triumph of spirit over matter! We will have to interrupt this short historical and lyrical escapade; otherwise, we may not even come to the essence. The book, which you are holding in your hands, is a personal endeavour. This is not just a monograph about a popular opening; it can be called "The King's In8

dian Defence According to Bologan" as I am trying to explain to you how I understand and how I play this opening. My relationship with the Kings Indian began when I was just a child, during the 1970' s. My first coach, Ivan Jakovlevich Solonar, made a very reasonable decision that he should build up the opening reper­ toire of his pupils according to Fischer! The King's Indian Defence was an integral part of the armoury of the eleventh World Champion since more than 10% of his games started with it. The statistical result, as could be expected from Bobby Fischer, was absolutely terrific for him: 66 40 in his favour. Meanwhile, the result of another super-cham­ pion and devoted King's Indian player Garry Kasparov is also superb: 91 53 in his favour, with the inclusion of some rapid chess games. -

-

Frankly speaking, I did not remember so well those first lessons, be­ cause at that time the opening was not the main focus of my attention. I simply wanted to learn to play chess well. Still, the foundations re­ mained and later on the process was running smoothly. The Moldavian players were very fond of The King's Indian Defence. I was coached only for a month by 1M Nikolay Popov (presently a famous sports com­ mentator), but I remembered well how to play against the Fianchetto system. My understanding of the King's Indian Defence was enriched im­ mensely by the concepts of the outstanding Moldavian coach Vjacheslav Andreevich Chebanenko. His ideas were entirely different from the contemporary classical axioms and he used to respect the past when, at the dawn of the appearance of the opening, players had preferred to develop the knight to the d7-square. His recommended schemes were a bit passive, perhaps, but they brought us excellent practical results. Some of them, for example 7 . . . lLlbd7 in response to the Gligoric system, are modern even today. Still, at present, I play the King's Indian Defence according to the Latvian GM and theoretician Zigurds Lanka. I have tried to recollect everything which he showed me at the beginning of the 90' s and after seeing the notes in the old notebooks and after having compared his variations with what I play now, I see no difference whatsoever. The main lines are all the same. Lanka's schemes proved to withstand the test of time in an amazing fashion!

9

We have already come to the subject of the concept of the book. It is understandable that one book cannot include everything which has been introduced and analyzed by numerous generations of players for a period of more than 100 years. I therefore have suggested a repertoire for Black only. I wished to follow Lanka's example and have tried to re­ veal to you the true spirit of the King's Indian Defence - to uncover for you its secrets and to show you its typical resources. The Yugoslavian "Chess Encyclopedia" devotes almost a half of Volume 5 to the K.I.D., with indexes from E60 up to E99. However, I did not feel bound by these frames, despite their size, and I have tried to explain to you when Black should direct the fight in the spirit of the Benko Gambit or the Modem Benoni. In the final part of the book, I have mentioned how to furnish your "King's Indian Household" in case White acts in the spirit of the King's Indian English, the King's Fianchetto without c2-c4 and lbc3, or the Double Fianchetto. I realized that one could never conquer infinity; nevertheless in the process of my work on the book, I wished I did just that! The King's Indian Defence is a living entity and is in a state -of con­ stant development. The evaluations of its various lines change con­ stantly and sometimes quite dramatically at that. I feel I should warn my readers that the book does not contain all the answers to every question. You can go, however, with this book under your arm to your next tournament with confidence. (This is, of course, an abstract as­ sessment, since if you do accept this advice literally; there might be unwanted consequences . . . ). The book is written for chess players of all levels, since the princi­ ples of the King's Indian Defence are equally applicable to the ama­ teurs as well as to the super-grandmasters.

Victor Bologan Moscow 2 0 0 9

10

Partl Minor Variations 1.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 J.g7

We will begin our survey of the King's Indian Defence with the so-called "sidelines". Their name implies that they are not at the focus of the modern theory and they are only seldom played in the contemporary tournament practice, so they should not be that dangerous for Black. This. might be however, a hasty and principally wrong assumption! For example, the set-up, which we analyze in our chapter four, is regularly played and success­ fully at that by a very aggressive White player like the Dutch GM Ivan Sokolov, while the plan, we deal with in chapter six, has been

employed quite effectively by the twelfth world champion Anatolij Karpov. Fashion in general, in­ cluding chess, is very volatile and sometimes narrow paths turn into highways, while well-trodden roads are covered by grass ... The main systems against the King's Indian Defence, like the Classical, Saemisch, Averbakh and the Four Pawns Attack were recognized (and named! ) during the middle of the past century. The "sidelines" were introduced later and they remained in the shadow for a long time. The au­ thor does not plan to invent new names of variations of the type "The Sokolov Attack", or "The Karpov System" etc. I will leave this task to the professional theo­ reticians. I intend to suggest re­ liable ways for Black to obtain counterplay in the super-popular schemes, as well as in the semi­ forgotten lines. Some day, who knows 0), they may become the arena of theoretical discussions even at the highest level.

11

Chapter 1

1.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 J.g7 4 . .ig5

White still does not wish to clarify what his plans are concern­ ing his e-pawn and the knight on g1. It is evident that he might be eyeing castling long with his last move and he also keeps the pos­ sibility of transferring to the Sae­ misch Attack. In chapter two, which is also devoted to the development of the bishop to gS, we will deal with an­ other move-order, which is more typical for the Smyslov variation: at first 4.ttJf3 0-0 and only then S.igS. A) 4 B) 4

•••

• • •

d6 c5

A) 4 d6! ? After this move, there arise • . .

12

variations connected with 4 . . . cS; the only difference being that Black cannot play d7-dS in one move. In case of 4 . . . 0-0 S.ttJf3, we reach a position, which we ana­ lyze in Chapter2 (after 4.ttJf3 0-0 S.igS). 5.c!Llf3 Following S:�d2, it deserves attention for Black to clarify im­ mediately the situation with the bishop on gS by playing S . . . h6. For example: 6.if4 ttJhS 7.ie3 ttJc6 B.ttJf3 eS 9.dxeS dxeS 10. 0-0-0 �xd2 1l.!xd2 ie6 12 .e3 0-0-0 13.ie2 ttJf6 14.h3 ttJd7= Galinsky - Kosikov, Kiev 200S, or 6.ih4 ttJbd7 7.ttJf3 0-0 B.e3 eS 9.dxeS dxeS lOJ�d1 geB 11.�c2 c6 12 .ie2 V!Jc7 13.0-0 as 14.ttJa4 b6 1S.gd2 ttJfB 16.ttJc3 ifS 17.�cl ttJBd7 with a double edged position, Troi­ anescu - Hort, Venice 1969. After S.e4, the game trans­ poses to the variation with S.igS, which will be analyzed in chapter four. In case of S.e3, Black has at his disposal another tricky idea S . . . c6 ! ? (planning �aS and ig4). 6.id3 (After 6.ttJf3, Black equaliz-

1.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. liJc3 ig7 4. ig5 es by playing 6 . . . �aS 7.�d2 .tg4= Smyslov - Geller, USSR 1969, or 7.�a4 �xa4 8.liJxa4 h6 9.!h4 gS 1O . .tg3 liJhS=, or 7.id3 ig4 - see 6 . .td3. White does not achieve anything much after 6.�c2 �aS 7.liJf3 .tg4=) 6 . . . �aS 7.liJf3 ig4 8.ih4 �hS (The exchanges are unavoidable.) 9.�b3 (9 ..tg3 .txf3 1O.�xf3 �xf3 1l.gxf3=) 9 . . .b6 (It would be too risky for Black to play 9 . . . .txf3 1O.�xb7.) 1O . .hf6 .hf6 1l . .te2 �aS 12.liJd2 ixe2 13. 'it>xe2 0-0 14.liJde4 .tg7 IS.h4 hS= and the game is equal. S h6 It is also possible for Black to try here S ... O-O 6.e3 c5 (6.. . liJbd7 7 . .te2 c6 8.0-0 h6 9 . .th4 gS 10 . .tg3 liJhS l1.�c2 liJxg3 12.hxg3 e6 13J�fdU) 7.dS with a transposition to the variations with 4.liJf3. In this situation, it is not so good for Black to play S ... c6, because White can advance his pawn to e4: 6.e4 �aS 7. .td3 .tg4 8 . .te3;t 6 .th4 •••

•

gS Or 6 ... liJbd7?! 7.h3 ! liJhS 8.e3

6

gS 9.liJd2 liJdf6 1O.ie2 gxh4 1l . .txhS;t 7 .tg3 liJhS 8.e3 c5 After the placement of White's dark-squared bishop has been clarified, Black can begin the fight for the weakened squares. 9 . .te2 In case of 9.dS, we can recommend to Black to follow the plan of Vasily Ivanchuk, connected with the creation of a piece-coun­ terplay on the queenside: 9 ... �aS 1O.�c2 liJd7 1l . .te2 liJb6 12.liJd2 liJxg3 13.hxg3 Ad7 14Jkl liJa4 IS.liJdl bS? Jussupow - Ivanchuk, Dortmund 1998. Black has nothing to fear after 9.dxc5, which was proved even in the early games of Tigran Petro­ sian: 9.dxc5 liJxg3 10.hxg3 dxcS 11.�xd8 'it>xd8 12.0-0-0 Ad7 13 . .te2 liJc6 14.liJd2 (14J!d3 'it>e8 ISJ''!:h dl .te6 16.liJdS �c8 17.liJh2 hS? Kramer - Petrosian, Leipzig 1960) 14 ... b6 IS.liJdbl e6 16.Af3 �c8= Smyslov - Petrosian, Bled 19S9. •

••.

9

•••

cxd4 1 0 .liJxd4 liJxg3 11. 13

Chapter l bxg3 �c6 - Black has solved completely all his opening prob­ lems, Anstad - S.Soloviov, Co­ penhagen 1991.

B) 4 c5 I believe this energetic counter strike in the centre suits best the spirit of the position. •••

5 ... 0 - 0 6.d5 In case of 6.liJf3, Black can fol­ low with a spectacular exchange combination in the centre: 6 ... cxd4 7.exd4 dS! 8.ixf6 ixf6 9. liJxdS (or 9.cxdS liJd7 1O . .ic4 liJb6 1l . .tb3 ig4 12.0-0 liJc8 13.liJe4 i.g7 14.�e1 liJd6= Allan - Nunn, Szirak 1987) 9 ... ig7 1O.liJc3 (After the retreat 10.liJe3, White can try the sharp piece-sacrifice, as well as the transition to an approxi­ mately equal endgame after: 10 ... �aS 11.�d2 �xd2 12.'it:;>xd2 �d8=, or 1O ... liJc6 1l.dS .Axb2 12.dxc6 �aS 13.'it:;>e2 �d8 14.�e1 .ic3 1S. �c1 bxc6GG) 1O ... ig4 1l.i.e2 liJc6 12.dS .ixf3 13 . .ixf3 .Axc3 14.bxc3 liJeS= M.Gurevich - Bekker­ Jensen, Antwerp 1999.

Bl) 5.e3 B2) 5.d5 White does not pose any problems to Black with the line: S.�f3 cxd4 6.liJxd4 liJc6 7.liJxc6 (7.e3 0-0 8 . .!e2 d6 9.0-0 �e8 1O.M3 liJeS 1l . .!e2 .!d7 12.liJdS liJe4 13 . .!f4 e6 14.liJb4 as 1S.liJbc2 �c8? Yousefzadeh - Wu, Canada 2002) 7 ... bxc6 8.�d2 h6 9.ih4 �b8 10.�b1 �aS 1l.e4 liJhS 12.�c1 gS 13.i.g3 d6 14.b3 .ie6= Dorosiev - Bojkov, Bulgaria 2 00S.

Bt) 5.e3 White postpones the decision to close the centre. 14

6 b5! This is just classical economy of resources. Black has played only the strictly necessary moves in order to begin his queenside of­ fensive without doing anything in excess. 7.cxb5 In the game Erofeeva - K.Koz•••

1.d4 ttJf6 2.c4 g6 3. ttJ c3 .ig7 4 . .ig5 lov, played on the Internet in the year 2002, White tried to place immediately a wedge in his oppo­ nent's position with the move 7. d6! ? and after 7 . . ..ib7? B.cxbS \WaS 9.dxe7 :BeB lO.'�a4 \Wb4 11. 0-0-0, Black had serious problems. It had been much stronger for him however to play 7. . .bxc4! , for ex­ ample: B ..ixc4 (B.dxe7 \Wxe7 9. ttJdS \WeS�) B ... .ia6 9 . .ixa6 ttJxa6 10.dxe7 (10.ttJf3 ! ?) 1O . . .\Wxe7 11. ttJf3 :BabB 12 .\Wd2 h6 13 . .ixf6 \wxf6= and Black had nothing to be afraid of. 7 . . . d6 In case of 7 . . . a6, White has the rather unpleasant resource B.d6 ! ? and h e can rely o n obtaining the advantage in the opening thanks to his control over the dS-square. For example: B ....ib7 9.ttJf3 axbS 1O . .ixbS exd6 11.0-0 (l1.\Wxd6 ttJe4! 12.ttJxe4 \WaSco) 1l . . . \Wb6 12 .a4 :BeB 13.\Wd3 :Be6 14 . .ic4 .ia6 IS ..ixf6 .ixc4 16.\Wxc4 .ixf6 17.ttJdSt B.lLlf3 lLlbd7 9.e4 a6 1 0 . bxa6 ha6 1l.ha6 :Bxa6 12. 0 - 0 §ta B

13. :Bel gb B 14.ge2 h6 15. .ih4 g5 16 .ig3 lLlh5 , and Black has obtained an excellent position from the Benko Gambit, Gagarin - B. Savchenko, Moscow 2006. •

B2) 5.d5

5 . . . h6 Now, after the long diagonal is opened for the bishop on g7, it is advantageous for Black to trade his knight for White's dark­ squared bishop . 6 .ih4 6 ..if4 d6 7.e4 \Wb6 (It is pos­ sible for Black to try a transition to one of the variations of the Nimzo-Indian Defence, but still it is insufficient for him to equalize after: 7 . . . ttJhS B . .ie3 .ixc3 9.bxc3 \WaS 1O.\Wb3 ttJd7 1l . .ie2 ttJhf6 12.f3 eS 13.dxe6 fxe6 14.:Bdl \Wc7 IS.ttJh3t Chernyshov - Svidler, Voronezh 2 003.) B.\Wd2 (B.\Wc2 ttJa6) B . . . gS (White's bishop is again exchanged.) 9 ..ig3 ttJhS 1O . .ie2 , Oral - Slekys, Olomouc 1996, 1O . . . ttJf4 ! 11..ixf4 gxf4 12. ttJf3 ttJd7 13.0-0 ttJeS= •

15

Chapterl

6.id2 d6 7. �c1 e6 8.dxe6 .Axe6 9.e4 �c6 10.f3 �d4 1l.id3 �d7 12.f4 �h4 13.g3 �e7 14.�ce2 l':!c8 15. f2 f5t S.Nikolic - Lanka, Old­ enburg 2001. 6 �a5 7.ti'd2 d6 8.e4 After 8 .e3, Black will gradually prepare b5, reaching favourable positions from the Benko Gam­ bit. For example: 8 ... a6 9.�f3 0-0 1O.h3 g5 1l . .ig3 �bd7 12.id3 b5 13.0-0 bxc4 14 . .Axc4, Sko­ morokhin - Kalashnikov, Mos­ cow 2008, 14. . . �b6 15 . .ie2 �a4!+ 8 g5 9 .ig3 �h5 1 0 .ie2 In case of lO.id3, Black should not be in a hurry to exchange on g3 and he should at first prepare the blockade of the kingside. For example: 1O ... �d7 1l.�ge2 �e5 12.l':!b1 �xg3 13.hxg3 g4 (Black prevents the move f4.) 14.a3 .id7 15.�f4 �xd3 16.�xd3 0-0-0 17. �e2 �xd2 18.xd2 , draw, Olsen - P.Hansen, Helsingor 2008. •••

•••

•

•

10 ... �f4 This is more precise than 10 ... �xg3 1l.hxg3 �d7, since White then has the possibility to fight for the dark squares after 12.f4 gxf4 13.gxf4 a6 14.�f3, Chilingirova - Richtrova, Wuppertal 1990, 14 ... b5 15.cxb5 axb5 16.hb5 l':!b8 17.hd7 hd7 18.0-0;!;. White will gradually parry his opponent's di­ rect threats and his control over the centre and his extra pawn should prevail. 1l.hf4 gxf4 12.�f3 .ig4 Black will annihilate the piece controlling the e5-square. 13. 0 - 0 .bf3 14. J.xf3 .ie5= Letelier - Perez Perez, Cuba 1963.

Black has only good pieces left and this does not apply to White's light-squared bishop. Black can even play for a win in this posi­ tion.

16

Chapter 2

1.d4 tl)f6 2.c4 g6 3 .tl)c3 J.g7 4.tl)f3 0-0

S.,igS In case of the rather tentative move S.e3 (White fortifies his centre and he completes his de­ velopment without being too am­ bitious.) Black has at his disposal several good plans to create coun­ terplay and they are about equally strong: S . . . d6 6.b4 (6.,ie2 lDbd7 7.0-0 ge8 8.'lNc2 c6 9.a3 eS 1O.dxeS dxeS 11.e4 'lNc7 12.b4 lDf8 13.ib2 lDe6 14.lDdl lDf4+ Grabovets Bodnaruk, Moscow 2008; 6.id3 lDbd7 7.0-0 eS 8.h3 'fie7 9.'lNc2 ge8 1O.lDgS c6 1l.b3 dS! 12.cxdS lDxdS 13.e4? lDb4 14.'fie2 exd4=F Edward - Lahno, Turin 2006) 6 ... c6 7.ib2 lDbd7 8.ie2 as 9.bS a4 1O.gc1 'lNaS 11.0-0 cS 12.lDd2

lDb6 13.lDce4 lDxe4 14.lDxe4 cxd4 1S.exd4 dS 16.lDd2 lDxc4 17.lDxc4 dxc4 18.ixc4 ifS+± Dreev - Ka­ simdzhanov, Moscow 2007; S . . . dS - After this move, the game transposes to a line from the Gruenfeld Defence in which Black has no problems at all. 6.cxdS lDxdS 7.ic4 lDxc3 8.bxc3 cS 9.0-0 'lNc7 1O.lDd2 b6 11.idS lDc6 12 .'lNa4 id7 13.'fia3 cxd4 14.cxd4 eS 1S.ib2 exd4 16.exd4 'fif4+± T.Mamedjarova - Maslak, Pardubice 2 007. S c5 White has determined the placement of his dark-squared bishop a bit too ea rly and he has thus weakened his queenside. I believe that the best way for Black to counter this is to attack immediately the enemy centre with the help of his c-pawn in or­ der to open the long diagonal for his bishop on g7 and to try to or­ ganize counterplay on the queen­ side. 6.dS We have dealt with the move 6.e3 in Chapter 1 after the move­ order 4.igS cS S.e3 0-0 6.lDf3. •••

17

Chapter 2 A) 6

d6 B) 6 h6 • • •

. • .

The gambit idea 6 . . . bS 7.cxbS a6, does not work well here in view of 8.e4 d6 9.lLld2 (9.a4 ! ? h6 1O . .if4 gS 11 . .icl!;) 9 . . . h6 10 . .if4 e6 11 . .te2 exdS l2.exdS axbS I3 ..hbS lLlhS 14 . .te3 fS IS.lLlf3 lLld7 16.0-0 l3b8 17.a4 lLldf6 18.l3el gS 19 . .id2 - White has manoeuvred quite well and he has neutralized his opponent's initiative remaining with a solid extra pawn, I.Sokolov - Nijboer, Breda 2000. A) 6 d6 This move is quite in order, since Black can counter success­ fully the immediate pawn-ad­ vance e2-e4, while in case of e2e3 he can either attack the enemy bishop with the move h6, or he can play e6, entering positions in the spirit of the Benoni system. • • •

7.e3 About 7.e4 h6 - see variation B. 7 e6 • • •

18

After this undermining move, we reach positions with the Beno­ ni pawn-structure. About 7 . . . h6 8 . .ih4 - see variation B. Whenever White's pawn is on e3, it is quite reasonable to have in mind the gambit idea, since White's pawn on dS is weaker in comparison to the variations with e4. So - 7 . . . a6 8.lLld2 bS 9.cxbS axbS (9 . . . lLlbd7 lO.e4 e6 11.dxe6 fxe6 12 . .ic4 lLleS 13.0-0 h6 14. .ih4 gS IS . .ig3 lLlxc4 16.lLlxc4 dS 17.exdS axbS 18.lLlxbS exdS 19. lLlcd6± Sargissian - Conquest, Barcelona 2 000.) 1O . .hbS .ia6 1l.a4 lLlbd7 12.0-0 h6 13 ..ih4 .hbS I4.axbS �xal lS.�xal gS 16. .tg3 lLlb6 17.e4 lLlhS;\;. Still, Black does not have full compensation for the sacrificed pawn. 7. . . eS 8.lLld2 h6 9 . .ih4 lLla6 10. .id3 lLlc7 11.0-0 YGd7 12.a3 lLlh7 13.f4 exf4 14.exf4 fS. White must be better in similar positions, since he has a space advantage and the outpost on e6, being on the only open file, forces Black to protect it additionally. IS.�c2 b6 (Black cannot solve all his prob­ lems with IS . . .bS 16.lLlxbS lLlxbS 17.cxbS .ib7 18.�ael lLlf6 19 ..ic4 �ae8 20 ..ixf6 .ixf6 21.�e6;\;) 16. l3ael lLlf6 17.h3 (17.g4!?) 17 ... .ib7 18.g4 bS 19.9xfS bxc4 20.liJxc4 lLlcxdS 21.�e6 lLlxc3, Speelman Cramling, Pamplona 1996 and here White had to continue with 22 .bxc3 �ad8 23.�fel �c6 24. �h2±. Black's initiative has been

l.d4 tiJj6 2.c4 g6 3. tiJc3 i.g7 4.tiJ/J 0 - 0 5. i.g5 c5 6.d5 neutralized, while White's threats are quite serious.

8.i.e2 White can try to play a little trickier - B.tiJd2 ! ?, in order to counter the routine reaction B . . . exd5? ! with 9.cxd5 tiJa6, obtain­ ing besides the move 1O.i.e2, the additional possibility 1O.i.c4 ! ? For example: 1O . . . tiJc7 11.0-0 h6 12.i.h4 a6 13.a4 b6 14J�bl �d7 15.�e2;t Piskov - Kotsur, Muen­ ster 1995. Still after B . . . tiJa6 (Black can play this immediately, or after he includes B . . . h6 9.i.h4.) 9.i.e2 exd5 10.cxd5, it all comes down to a transposition of moves. 8 exd5 9.cxd5 ge8 1 0 . tiJd2 This is a quite typical maneuver for this pawn-structure. White's knight has nothing much to do on the f3-square, therefore he wishes to redeploy it on c4, or eventu­ ally on the e4-square. Meanwhile, after the knight retreats to d2, it frees the way for the f-pawn, so that White can support the future advance of his e-pawn.

1 0 tiJa6 The best square for Black's queen knight is c7, because it at­ tacks White's d5-pawn from there and it helps the advance b7-b5, or b7-b6 followed by i.a6 and the exchange of the light-squared bishops. On the other hand, if it occupies the d7-square, it can go to the beautiful e5-square, but it can hardly remain there for long (as we have already mentioned, White has freed the way forward of his f-pawn) and on d7 it will then stand in the way of Black's other pieces impeding even the possibility for his queen to protect the d6-pawn. 11. 0 - 0 tiJc7 12.e4 So, contrary to the main lines of the Benoni system, White had to advance e2-e4 in two moves. The position is open, so each tempo is very important, so Black succeeds in obtaining a good counterplay thanks to the extra tempo. • • •

• • •

12 b6 White has some space-advan­ tage, therefore the exchange of an • • •

19

Chapter 2 additional couple of pieces will be definitely in Black's favour. In the next game however, he played too passively and he al­ lowed his opponent to seize the initiative for long: 12 .. JMfe7 13.a4 i.d7 14.l:!a3 'l;¥f8 15.l:!b3 l:!ab8, Efi­ mov Karl, Saint Vincent 2003, 16.l:!eU 13.f4 White is threatening with the pawn-break e4-e5, followed by llJde4. 13 h6 It will be useful for Black to repel White's bishop to the h4square. White might have the idea to try to open the f-file with f4-f5 (either immediately, or in some lines after e4-e5 d6xe5 and then f4-f5). In this case, after f4f5, Black will have the possible resource g6-g5, blocking the king­ side. 14 .th4 'l;¥d7 15 .bf6 White provokes an immediate crisis, while his opponent is a bit behind in development. 15 .bf6 16.e5 dxe5 17. llJde4 �g7 18.d6 -

•••

•

•

This is the essence of White's idea. He has already deployed one of his knights in the centre (on e4) and he wishes to place the other one on d5 creating numer­ ous threats. Meanwhile, after the retreat of Black's knight from c7, White will have the simple coun­ ter measure 19.i.b5, winning the exchange and maintaining all the pluses of his position. Therefore, Black is forced to sacrifice a piece for which he obtains three pawns and he activates all his pieces. 18 exf4 19.dxc7 'l;¥xc7 2 0 . �fJ .td4 21.�h1 .ta6 22.ge1 �g7 23.'l;¥a4 �b7 24.llJd2 ge3? Pedersen - McShane, Saint Vin­ cent 2005. •.•

B) 6 h6 Black wishes to clarify imme­ diately the position of his oppo­ nent's bishop in order to make up his mind about his further plans depending on this. •••

• • •

B1) 7.J.h4 B2) 7.i.f4 20

1.d4 lfJj6 2.c4 g6 3. lfJc3 Ag7 4.lfJ/J 0 - 0 S. J.gS c5 6.d5 In answer to the melancholic move 7.Ad2? ! Black can under­ mine immediately the d5-pawn with the move 7 . . . e6 and he ob­ tains a very comfortable game. For example: B.dxe6 (B.e3 exd5 9.cxd5 d6 10 . .id3 lfJa6 1l.a3 lfJc7 12 . .ic4 b5 13.lfJxb5 lfJcxd5 14.0-0 lfJb6 15 ..ie2 lfJe4t Ousatchij Shestoperov, Lignano 2005) B . . . dxe6 9.g3 lfJc6 1O.Ag2 e 5 1l.J.e3 V!Je7 12.lfJd2 J.f5 13J:!c1 lfJd4+ Con­ quest - Shirov, Reykjavik 1992 .

B1) 7 . .ih4 d6 This is not the right moment for the sacrifice - 7. . . b5 B.cxb5 V!Ja5 9.lfJd2 V!ib4 1O.e4 V!Jxb2 1Uk1 V!Jb4 12.a3 V!Jxa3 13.e5 V!Jb4 14.exf6 exf6 15.ic4 f5 16.lfJa2 geB 17. 'it>f1 V!Jb2 1B.d6± Tomashevsky - Ko­ valev, Pardubice 2006.

hc3 14.bxc3 V!Jxc3 15.gb1 lfJd7 16.gb3 V!Jd4 17.gd3 V!Jf6 1B.0-0 lfJe5+ Bruzon - Arencibia, Santa Clara 2 005. The variation B.lfJd2 g5 9 . .ig3 lfJh5 1O.e3 will be analyzed later see 10.lfJd2. 8 ... g5 9 . .lg3

9 lfJh5 Black can also complete here his development with tempi: 9 . . . V!Jb6 1O.V!Jc2 (10.V!Jc1 .if5) 1 0 . . ..if5 1l.e4 J.g6 12.J.d3 lfJh5 13. 0-0 lfJd7 and the game is equal. 1 0 .id3 The sacrifice 1O.lfJxg5? would not work in view of 1O . . . lfJxg3 1l.hxg3 hxg5 12.V!Jh5 J.f5 and his compensation for the piece is evi­ dently insufficient. In case of the thematic, but a bit too slow move - 10.lfJd2, Black organizes counterplay with the line: 1O . . . lfJxg3 1l.hxg3 e6, for ex­ ample: 12 . .id3 exd5 13.cxd5 lfJd7 14.V!Jc2 lfJe5 15 . .ih7 'it>hB 16.J.f5 V!Jf6 17.hcB gaxcB 1B. 0-0 c4f± Dinstuhl - Kasimdzhanov, Ger­ many 2000. •••

•

8.e3 The careless move B.e4 ena­ bled Black to seize quickly the initiative in the following game: B . . . V!Ja5 9.lfJd2 g5 10.J.g3 lfJxe4 1l.lfJdxe4 f5 12.lfJd2 f4 13 . .ie2

21

Chapter 2 After the seemingly elastic move 1O.'I¥fc2 (White does not de­ termine yet the placement of his light-squared bishop.) Black can begin immediate kingside actions and in the centre too with the move 1O . . .fS. Later, there might follow: 11.!e2 (In case of 11.!d3, Black does not exchange the bish­ op on g3, but instead he should try to trap it: 11 . . . eS 12.dxe6 he6 13.l'!dl ll'lc6 14.!e2 f4 IS.exf4 g4 16.ll'lh4 ll'lxf4 17.0-0 ll'ld4 18.�e4 dS 19.�e3 ll'lfxe2 20.ll'lxe2 l'!e8+ Lysyj - Bragin, Tula 2 003.) 11... ll'lxg3 (Black fell into a simple but beautiful trap in the next game: 11 . . . ll'ld7? 12.ll'lxgS! ll'lxg3 13.ll'le6 ll'lxe2 14.ll'lxd8 ll'lxc3 IS.ll'le6 ll'le4 16.g4+- Speelman - Polzin, Ger­ many 2002.) 12.hxg3 eS 13.dxe6 ll'lc6 14.l'!dl he6 IS.a3 �e7 16.ll'ldS �f717.ll'ld2 hdS I8.cxdS ll'le5� Bru­ zon - Arencibia, Santa Clara 2005. 1 0 f5 This is not aggression (Black is not threatening to win the bishop with fS-f4 anyway.), it is prophy­ lactic, since he must cover the bl­ h7 diagonal, which leads all the way up to the shelter of his king, particularly because with a white bishop on d3, the above men­ tioned tactical strike lLlxgS has become a real threat. On the oth­ er hand, Black does not wish to exchange deliberately his some­ what hanging knight on hS for the bishop on g3, because White then obtains the h-file and he can or­ ganize a powerful attack (He can • • •

22

leave then his king in the centre, on el, or fl, or he can also evacu­ ate it to the queenside.).

1l. ll'ld 2 After 11.0-0, Black should not worry too much about his king, since White's rook has aban­ doned the h-file. Instead, Black must play actively in the centre and he will exchange on g3 at the most appropriate moment: 11 . . . eS 12 .dxe6 he6 13.l'!bl ll'lc6 14.ll'ldS ll'lxg3 IS.hxg3, Speelman - Na­ taf, Esbjerg 2001 and here the position will be approximately equal after IS . . . �d7 16.�d2 �f7 17.e4 hdS 18.exdS ll'lb4. White's knight does not have any reliable squares in the centre and after the unavoidable exchange of the bishop on d3, the vulnerability of Black's kingside will be practically immaterial. The retreat of White's knight to d2 forces Black to exchange on g3, opening the h-file, but af­ ter this he should not worry any more about tricks like ll'lxgS and their terrible consequences.

l.d4 11Jj6 2.c4 g6 3.11Jc3 i.g7 4.11Jj3 0 - 0 5. i.g5 c5 6.d5 1l l1Jxg3 12.hxg3 l1Ja6 In principle, Black could have started with 12 . . . e6, for example: 13.Wc2 l1Ja6 14.a3 I1Jc7 15.dxe6 he6 16.0-0-0 (The vulnerabil­ ity of Black's kingside might be­ come dangerous only in a position with opposite sides castling. It is too harmless for White to follow with 16.0-0 �f6 17.e4 f4 IS.gxf4 �xf4= Henrich - Richter, Ger­ many 2000.) 16 . . . �e7 17.e4 fxe4 IS.l1Jdxe4 gadS 19.9del b5 !? Black begins his counter offensive on the queenside just in time and now White's monarch cannot feel safe at all. 13.e4 White wishes to either open the bl-h7 diagonal, or (in case of 13 .. .f4) to stabilize the situation in the centre in order to complete calmly his development and then to break systematically Black's kingside. 13 e6 This is the correct reaction - Black's bishops need space and White's pawn on d5 cramps Black's position. 14.dxe6 I1Jb4 15.i.bl f4 The e6-pawn is nor running away and in principle Black wish­ es to establish a blockade on the dark squares and then to deploy his knight on d4 and the bishop on e5, or vice versa. 16.gxf4 gxf4 17.e5!? This is absolutely necessary; otherwise White's bishop on bl will look and act like a pawn. .••

17 he6 18 .te4, Sargissian - Inarkiev, Kerner 2007 and here Black could have simply captured on e5. 18 dxe5 19.We2 (19.0-0 I1Jc6 2 0.l1Jd5 I1Jd4+) 19 �c7 2 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 gad8 21.a3 I1Jc6 22. I1Jd5 I1Jd4 23.Wd3 'ti'd6. White has sufficient compensation in or­ der to maintain the dynamic bal­ ance thanks to his pressure along the h-file and his control over the light squares, but this is all he can brag about. • • •

•

• • •

• • •

• • •

B2) 7 .tf4 •

B2a) 7 l1Jb5 B2b) 7 d6 • • •

• • •

23

Chapter 2

B2a) 7 �h5 ! ? I t i s interesting t o ask White's bishop where it is heading right now in case it is attacked? 8 .td2 The exchange of the dark­ squared bishops does not guar­ antee any advantage for White: B.J.eS J.xeS 9.ti)xeS d6 1O.ti)f3 eS 11.dxe6 J.xe6, Blees - Nij­ boer, Amsterdam 1996, 12.�d2 rllg 7 13.ti)e4 ti)c6 14. 0-0-0 'M>6 lS.�c3 rllgB 16J�xd6 gadB� 8 ... d6 9.e4 e5 White has fortified reliably his pawn-centre, therefore Black must try to focus the fight on the flanks. He plans to proceed with the standard break for the King's Indian Defence f7-fS, and his knight on hS is headed for the f4square. 1 0 .g3 White prevents the activation of Black's knight. 1 0 a6 The move 1O .. .fS would not work for Black, because of the simple response l1.exfS. Natu­ rally, he does not wish to present his opponent with an outpost on e4, meanwhile after 11 ... i.xf5 , it is very good for White to play 12.ti)h4 and after 11 ... gxf5, White's stand­ ard reaction would be 12.lLlxeS, exploiting the defencelessness of the knight on hS. The move 10 ... a6 protects just in time the bS­ square and Black plans to follow with �eB and f7-fS (After the pawn-exchange on fS, the knight • • •

•

• • •

24

on hS will be protected by Black's queen). Additionally, the queen on eB supports the pawn-break b7-bS, which might become pos­ sible, for example after J.fl-g2.

1l.�h4 This move is aimed against f7-fS and at the same time White wishes to postpone his decision concerning the future of his bish­ op on fl. For example after 11 ... �eB, he can follow with 12.ie2 and the knight on hS will have to retreat. 1l rllh7 12 .td3 lLlf4 Black succeeds in redeploying his knight to a more active posi­ tion, thanks to this small tactical trick. Note that Black has waited patiently for the development of White's bishop on fl and he has played his last move with tempo. 13 .tc2 ti)h3 14.�e2 Castling short has become impossible, so White begins the preparation of castling long. 14 ti)d7 15.a4 In case of lS.0-0-0?! it •••

•

•••

•

1.d4 CiJf6 2.c4 g6 3. CiJ c3 �g7 4. CiJj3 0 - 0 5.j,g5 c5 6.d5 would be rather unpleasant for White to counter the move 15 ... b5 (This is what the move 1O ... a6 was about... ), opening files on the queenside. 15 gb8 16.CiJg2 CiJf6 Black creates the rather un­ pleasant tactical threat CiJg4 and he also frees the d7-square for the bishop. 17.CiJe3 .i.d7 18.b3 White decides to leave his king in the centre for the time being, since after 18.0-0-0?! it might easily come under attack. • • •

18 �h8 Black does not have enough space and there are still numer­ ous pieces and pawns left on the board. Accordingly, each piece should mind its own maneuvers, so that it does not impede the mo­ bility of the other pieces. Present1y' Black has freed the h7-square for his knight and after this the pawn-break fl-f5 will become possible. 19.f3 CiJh7 2 0 .�g2 CiJ7g5 The knight on h3 is quite an-

noying for White and of course Black does not wish to retreat it from there. 21.gfl :f5!? Black has ful­ filled his plan and he has obtained excellent counter chances, Ghaem Maghami - Rathnakaran, New Delhi 2008. -

B2b) 7 d6 8.e4 If now White manages to com­ plete calmly his development (j,d3, 0-0 etc.), then he will have the advantage thanks to his extra space. Therefore Black must play very energetically in order to ob­ tain good counter chances. •••

• • •

8 e5! This typical sacrifice of the d6pawn is also encountered in the Averbakh system. It is worse for Black to play 8 ... b5 9.cxb5 a6 1O.CiJd2, since he thus enters the course of actions in the game I.Sokolov - Nijboer, Breda 2000, which we have al­ ready analyzed after the move or­ der 6 . . . b5 7.cxb5 a6. On the other hand, it is always • • •

25

Chapter 2 interesting for Black to try the move: S . . . ttJh5 9 . .te3 e5 1O.dxe6 (In case White does not capture en passant, then Black maneuvers in the spirit of the variation B2a and it would not be quite clear whether White's bishop is better placed on e3, or on d2.) 1O . . . he6 11.�d2 \t>h7 12J''1d 1 'lMfb6 13 . .te2 ttJc6 14.0-0 l"1adS 15.b3 ttJf6 16.h3 �a5 17.l"1c1, draw, Kanep - Nataf, Dresden 2007. 9.dxe6 he6

1 0 .hd6 In case of 1O.�d2, Black has an excellent reply - 10 ... �a5, pro­ tecting indirectly his h6-pawn. For example: 11..te2 (1l . .txh6 .txh6 12 .�xh6 ttJxe4 13.ttJg5 ttJxg5 14.�xg5 ttJc6=) 11...g5 12 . .tg3 ttJc6 13.0-0 ttJh5 14.hd6 l"1fdS:::g Silva - Damaso, Portugal 1996. 1 0 )3e8 1l . .te2 The loss of the second pawn should not be dangerous for Black: 11.hc5, Lengyel - Kava­ lek, Tel Aviv 1964, 1l ... �a5 12 .b4 �a6 13.l"1c1 ttJbd7 14 . .te3 (14 . .td4 hc4 15.b5 �e6+) 14 . . . l"1acS 15.b5 • • .

26

�a5=. He has already completed his development and the problem with regaining the pawns on e4 and c4 seems to be almost a sure thing in the future. 1l . . . �b6 This is a multi-purpose move. The queen attacks the b2-pawn, it protects the c5-pawn and it also frees the dS-square for the rook.

12.hb8 White's bishop is very unsta­ ble on d6 and it might be pinned there, so he decides to get rid of it. Still, after this the powerful King's Indian bishop on g7 remains without an opponent and Black obtains an excellent game despite being a pawn down. It would be harmless for Black if White plays 12.0-0 l"1dS 13.e5 ttJeS 14.ttJd5?! (White should bet­ ter continue here with 14.�d2 ttJxd6 15.l"1ad1 .tfS 16.exd6 l"1xd6 17.ttJd5, maintaining the balance.) 14. hd5 15.�xd5 ttJxd6 16.l"1ad1 .tfS 17.exd6 l"1xd6 1S.�e4 l"1e6 19.'lMfc2 ttJc6+ Chekhov - Dydy­ shko, Tallinn 19S0.

l.d4 0,f6 2.c4 g6 3. 0,c3 i.g7 4. 0,j3 0 - 0 5. i.g5 c5 6.d5 White's only serious alterna­ tive to the move in the text is 12. eS, but then Black has a sufficient counterplay by attacking the eS­ pawn. 12 . . . 0,fd7 (Black can even capture a pawn: 12 .. .'�xb2 ! ? 13. :gc1 0,fd7 14.0-0 0,c6 lS.0,dS 0,dxeS 16.0,c7 :ged8 17.0,xa8 :gxd6 18.'�xd6 �xe2 19.0,xeS i.xeS 20. �d1 �xa2. Black is in fact two ex­ changes down, but he has two pawns and White's knight on a8 is out of the actions, so Black's pros­ pects are superior.) 13.0,bS (13.0-0 0,c6 14.0,a4 �aS lS.a3 0,cxeS 16.0,xeS 0,xeS 17.b4 cxb4 18.axb4 �d8 19.:gc1 0,c6 2 0.0,cS i.c8 21.i.f3 0,d4 22.i.g3 �b6 23. 0,e4, Alburt - Hebden, Hastings 1984, 23 . . . �xb4! ? 24.0,d6 :ge7, or 24 . . . 0,xf3 2S.�xf3 :ge7 26.0,bS �aS?) 13 . . . 0,c6 14.i.c7 (14.0-0 :gac8 1S.�d2 0,dxeS 16.0,xeS 0,xeS 17.i.xeS i.xeS+ Grigorov - Maslak, Internet 2006; White can capture the exchange with the move 14. 0,c7, but he fails to keep it: 14 ... 0,dxeS lS.0,xeS 0,xeS 16.0,xa8 :gxa8 17.i.xeS i.xeS 18.0-0 i.xb2 - 18 . . . :gd8 ! ? 19.�c2 �xb2 20. �xb2 i.xb2 21.:gab1 :gd2 and Black's counterplay is quite suffi­ cient - 19.:gb1 i.fS 20.�d2 i.xb1 21.fub1 i.c3 22.fub6 i.xd2 23.fub7 :ge8 24.mfl as= Yatneva - Ersho­ va, Serpuhov 2003.) 14 . . . �a6 lS. 0-0 :gec8 16.�b3 (16.b3 0,dxeS 17.0,xeS 0,xeS 18.�d2 �c6 19.i.xeS i.xeS 2 0 .i.f3 �b6=) 16 . . . 0,dxeS 17.0,xeS 0,xeS 18.i.xeS i.xeS 19. :gfe1 �b6 20.i.f3 i.g7 21.0,c3 :gd8=

Neishtadt - Nesis, corr. 1984. 12 . . . �axb8 13.�c2 �h5 It is not acceptable for White to let the enemy knight to the f4square, so he needs to weaken his kingside. 14.g3

14 . . . hc3 White's knight on c3 was not threatening to go to dS in the next few moves, so maybe Black did not need to exchange it. Instead, he could have played for example 14 . . .i.h3 ! ? Meanwhile, Black has an excellent game after the move in the text as well. 15.bxc3 In case of lS.�xc3, Black re­ gains his pawn by force and he equalizes: lS . . . i.h3 16.eS i.g2 17. :ggl i.xf3 18.i.xf3 �d6 19.mfl �xeS 2 0.�xeS :gxeS 2 1.mg2 (21.:ge1 :gxe1 22.mxe1 0,g7=) 21...0,g7 22.:gge1 fuel 23.fue1 mfB 24.:ge3 b6= Tuk­ makov - Gufeld, Moscow 1983. 15 . . . i.g4 Black frees the e6-square for his queen in order to regain his sacrificed pawn. 27

Chapter 2 16.h3 White can hold the pawn with the move 16.tLld2 as well, but this move seems too risky. After 16 . . . h:e2 17.'�xe2 'lWe6 18.f3 1!bd8 19. 1!hfl 'lWh3 20.1!f2 f5 21.1!e1 fxe4 22.fxe4 1!e6 23.�d1 tLlf6 24.e5 tLlg4 25.1!fe2 'lWh5, in the game Agzamov - Chekhov, Telavi 1982, the opponents agreed to a draw. The computer programme Rybka however, asserts that Black had been better . . . . 16 .hf'3 17 .hf'3 'lWe6 18. 0-0-0 18.�fl tLlf6 19.1!e1 \1;\1xc4 20. �g2 b5 21.e5 tLld7 22.1!e4 \1;\1e6 23.1!he1 h5 24.'lWd2 c4 25.\1;\1h6 tLlc5f± Goriatchkin - Kurnosov, Orsk 2001. 18.0-0 'lWxh3 19.1!fe1 tLlf6 2 0 . .ig2 'lWh5 21.f3 \1;\1g5 22.\1;\1f2 \1;\1e5 23.1!e3 b5f± Muse - Nowak, Poznan 1986. • • •

28

•

18 b5!f±. The game Yermo­ Hnsky - Kindermann, Groningen 1997, followed later with 19.9he1 b4? ! 20.e5 'lWa6 21.1!d7 tLlf6 22.1!d3 \1;\1a3 23.'lWb2 'lWa6 24.1!e2 tLlh7 25 . .id5 and White obtained the advantage. It was much stronger for Black to have played 19 bxc4 !, opening files against the enemy king immediately. After 2 0 .bh5 gxh5 21.h4 'lWa6 the position would be double edged. • • •

••.

•

Chapter 3

1.d4 tLlf6 2.c4 g6 3 .tLlc3 i.g7 4.tLlf3 0-0

Black's attempt to wait for White's bishop to come to f4 and then to chase it will not be suc­ cessful: 4 ... d6 S.M4 ltJhS 6.i.gS h6 7. .te3.

5.J.f4

In principle, White's ideal set­ up would look like this - pawns on e3, d4 and c4, knights on f3 and c3, bishops on e2 and f4, queen on c2 and his king's rook on dl, so that Black will have great prob­ lems advancing both c5 as well as eS, while White could increase his pressure on the queenside with b4 and c5. 5 d6 After S ... dS, there arises one of the variations of the Gruenfeld Defence. • • •

A) 6.h3 B) 6.%Yd2 C) 6.e3

The pawn-move 6.e4 does not seem to combine well together with the development of the bish­ op on f4: 6 . . . i.g4 7 . .te2 ltJfd7 8.0-0 .txf3 9.hf3 eS 1O.J.e3 ltJc6= A) 6.h3 White wishes to save his dark­ squared bishop from its being exchanged and he ensures the h2square for its retreat. This move is a bit too slow however. 6 ... c5 In general, if Black wishes to obtain equality in this system he must almost always go for the pawn-break c7-c5. The plans with c7-c6 and b7b6 seem to be too slow, for exam­ ple: 6 ... c6 7.e3 a6 8.J.e2 (Black can counter 8.a4 with the typical reply 8 ... aS. His pawn has reached the as-square in two moves indeed, but he obtains an excellent posi­ tion mostly because of his control over the b4-square. 9.i.e2 ltJa6 9 ... ltJfd7! ? - 10.0-0 ltJd7 ll.ti'd2

29

Chapter 3 eS 12 . .!h2 Yffe 7 13JUd1 geS 14.if1 llJb4 lS.gac1 e4 16.llJe1 llJf600 Al­ burt - Kristiansen, Reykjavik 19S6.) S . . .bS. This plan is not so dangerous for White however, since it does not solve Black's main problem - to fight for the centre. 9.0-0 (9.itJd2 ib7 lO.O-O itJbd7 1l.ig3 llJb6 12.�b3 llJfd7 13.a4;!; Zacurdajev - V.Onischuk, Narva 2 006) 9 . . . itJbd7 lO.gel geS 1l.ih2 �aS 12 .itJd2 ib7 13.cS dS 14.a3 eS lS.b4 Yffd S 16.itJb3;!; Ser­ geev - Folk, Usti nad Orlici 2006; 6 . . .b6 7.e3 cS S.dS bS. This is something like the Benko Gambit in a rather slow version. In the next game Black failed to obtain complete equality: 9.cxbS a6 lO.a4 YffaS 1l.llJd2 ib7 12.e4 Yffb4 13. Yffb3 llJbd7 14.J.e2 axbS lS.ixbS ia6 16.0-0 gtbS 17.Yffc 2 ixbS lS.axbS;!; Drozdovskij - Kasim­ dzhanov, Ajaccio 2006.

White has three possibilities with his pawn on d4 - to go the side, to go forward and to keep it there. 30

Al) 7.dxc5 A2) 7.d5 A3) 7.e3 Al) 7.dxc5 dxc5 8.Yffxd8 gxd8 9.itJb5 This attack on the flank can be easily parried by Black. 9 tLle8 1 0 .J.e5 tLlc6=i= Black's pieces are better mobilized and therefore his chances are better in this symmetrical position. .••

A2) 7.d5 Now, Black has again the per­ fect possibility to enter the Volga Gambit with the ridiculously looking moves for White like if4 and h3. 7 b5 8.cxb5 In case of S.itJxbS, it is very strong for Black to play S . . . itJe4 ! , opening the diagonal for the bishop on g7 and cutting off the ways of retreat of the knight on bS. After 9.iel, Iljin - Novikov, Moscow 200S, 9 . . . a6 lO.itJa3 �aS 1ViJd2 fS 12.e3 f4, Black's initia­ tive is very powerful. 8 ... a6 • • •

l.d4 CiJf6 2.c4 g6 3. CiJ c3 �g7 4. CiJj3 0-0 5. �f4 d6 9.bxa6 After this straightforward move Black's game is easy and quite understandable. His queen goes to as, the bishop goes to a6, his queen's knight to d7 and his rooks occupy the a and b-files. White will be faced with a rather unpleasant defence in the middle game as well as in the majority of the endgames. It would be trickier for White to play 9.e3, trying to win several tempi in order to develop his piec­ es. Black must then capture on bS only after careful preparation, for example: 9 . . . CiJbd7 10 .�d3 Wfa5 11.Wfb3 l:'!b8 12.0-0 axb5 (This is the right moment, because if White recaptures on b5, his piec­ es will be pinned.) 13.CiJxb5 (In case White does not recapture, he will have problems again, be­ cause Black will have a powerful initiative in a position with mate­ rial equality.) 13 . . . �a6 14.a4 CiJb6 15.e4 c4! 16.hc4 CiJxe4+. White's extra pawn is absolutely immate­ rial, his pieces are hanging and his pawns on d5 and b2 are weak. Black can counter 9.a4 with 9 . . . �a5, creating the threats axb5 and CiJe4. After 1O.�d2 axb5 11. CiJxb5 Wfb6 12.CiJc3 (This is a smart resource for White, but Black is not forced to capture on b2, iso­ lating his queen from the actions.) 12 . . . �a6 (but not 12 ... Wfxb2? 13. l:'!b1 �a3 14.�c2 and 15.�c1) 13. Wfc2 CiJbd7+. The end is more or less similar - White is noticeably

behind in development, he has numerous weaknesses and his ex­ tra pawn is meaningless. 9 ... �a5 1 0 .�d2 ha6 11.g4 This move seems to be too slow and artificial. White should better follow with 11.e3, complying with the loss of his castling rights. 1l .tc4! Black attacks immediately White's pawn on d5, which has run away from the pack. 12.l:'!dl �4 Black's initiative is developing quite effortlessly. White saves his pawn on a2, but he must weaken his flank. 13.a3 %Yb3 14.e3 CiJbd7-F F. Portisch - Kozma, Budapest 1992 . Black's next move will be l:'!fb8 and White's pawns will start fall­ ing like ripe apples. • • •

A3) 7.e3

7 cxd4 Denis Yevseev demonstrated an interesting plan of quick un• • •

31

Chapter 3 dermining of White's centre: 7 . . . �a5 ! ? B.i.d3 cxd4 9.exd4 e5! ? This move has become possible because of the placement of Black's queen on a5 and also due to the fact that White's king is still in the centre. 1O.i.d2 (White loses after 1O.dxe5 dxe5 11.ttJxe5? l:!eB.) 10 . . . exd4 1l.ttJxd4 l:!eB 12. ttJce2 �6 13.0-0. White has managed to complete his devel­ opment somehow, but his pieces are rather uncomfortably piled up in the centre. 13 . . . ttJc6 14.i.e3. If White exchanges on c6, Black will get rid of his only weakness cover­ ing the d5-square. White does not wish to retreat his night from the d4-square either, since Black's knight will continue with its maneuver with tempo (14.ttJb3 ttJe5). Black succeed in finding a tactical solution to the move in the text: 14 . . . ttJg4! 15.hxg4 ttJxd4+ Zacurdajev - Yevseev, St. Peters­ burg 2006. 8.exd4 d5

on f6 and later on d5, therefore Black should not mind the loss of a tempo. 9.a3 White's attempt to occupy ad­ ditional space on the queenside is not dangerous for Black, be­ cause White cannot stabilize his position in view of his lag in de­ velopment: 9.eS b6 1O.b4, Horak - Hadraba, Decin 1997, 1O . . . ttJe4 1l.l:!c1 bxc5 12 .bxeS ttJc6 13 . .tb5 ttJxd4 14.ttJxd4 �a5 15.i.c6 ttJxc3 16.�d2 ,txd4 17.�xd4 ttJe4 18.�d1 .b6! t This is why White has played 9.a3 in the first place - in order to prepare eS and b4. In case of 9 . .te2 ttJc6 10.0-0 dxc4 1l.,txc4, White's bishop comes to c4 in two moves and Black manages to mobilize his forces for a successful fight against his opponent's isolated pawn. For example: 11.. .ttJa5 12 . .td3 .ie6 13.l:!c1 l:!cB 14.i.e5 ttJc4 15.�e2 ttJxe5 16.dxe5 ttJd5 17.ttJxd5 �xd5 1B.b3 �a5= Gonzalez - Ortega, Linares 199B. 9 tOc6 l O .c5 tOe4 11 .ie2 • • •

Now, contrary to the variation with i.g5, White cannot capture 32

•

l.d4 tiJf6 2.c4 g6 3. tiJ c3 i.g7 4. tiJj3 0-0 5. i,{4 d6 White has taken preventive measures against the undermin­ ing move b7-b6, but instead of this, now he is faced with a power­ ful counter strike in the centre. 1l lOxd4! 12.lOxd4 eS 13. �e3 exd4 14.hd4 lOxc3 IS. bxc3 ti'gS+ White can hardly complete his development without consider­ able material or positional con­ cessions. • • •

ing 1l . . . lOxe4.) 1l . . . i.a6� Welling - Hebden, Caleta 2 005. 7 ... �6 8.ti'xh6 cxd4 9.lOxd4 lO c6 The position is of the semi­ open type and Black is consider­ ably ahead in development, since White has lost too much time ex­ changing the dark-squared bish­ ops. He has no chances of creat­ ing real threats against the king on g8, so he should better think about maintaining the equality. 1 0 .ti'd2 lOxd4 11.ti'xd4 .te6

B) 6.ti'd2

6 cS The inclusion of the move 6 . . . a6 looks a bit slow: 7 . .th6 c5 8.hg7 @xg7 9.g3 lOc6 1O.i.g2 i.g4 1l.dxc5 dxc5 12 .ti'e3 tiJd4 13.0-0-0 hf3 14 . .hf3 ti'c7 15.g4 @g8 16.h4 �ad8 17.h5:t Wu Wen­ jin - Li Shilong, China 2006. 7.i.h6 We can recommend to Black to counter 7.d5 with motives of the theme of the Benko Gambit: 7. . . b 5 8.cxb5 a 6 9.e4 axb5 1O.hb5 ti'a5 1l.i.e2 (Black was threaten. • .

12.e3 White should not be eager to play 12 .e4, when only the light­ squared bishops are left on the board. Instead, he wishes to bring his bishop to the f3-square after a while and to exert positional pres­ sure on the queenside. Black how­ ever succeeds in reducing the ten­ sion in the centre and he equalizes completely. 12 :\WaS 13 .te2 �Uc8 14. 0 - 0 , Wu Wenjin - Wang Pin, China 2006, 14 dS! lS.cxdS lOxdS= ••

•

• • •

33

Chapter 3 e) 6.e3 c5 The chase after White's bishop - 6 . . . ttJhS 7.j,gS h6 8.j,h4 gS would not lead to success in view of 9.ttJd2 ttJf6 1O.j,g3. Black weak­ ened his kingside deliberately and he did not obtain any compensa­ tion for this and accordingly this had to be quite bad for his pros­ pects in the subsequent fight. For example: 10 . . . ttJc6 (10 . . . cS 11.dS ttJbd7, Evdokimov - Khismatul­ lin, Serpuhov 2003, 12.�d3 ! ?;!;) 11.h4 g4 12.hS eS 13.dS ttJe7 14.e4 ttJh7 1S.�4 j,f6 16.hf6 ttJxf6 17.j,e2 �h8 18.ttJf1;!; Benjamin Rao, Chicago 1986.

el) 7.d5 e2) 7 .te2 •

About 7.h3 - see variation A3. It would be harmless for Black if White plays 7.dxcS dxcS 8.j,e2

ttJc6 9.0-0 �xd1 (Black is not forced to exchange queens and he should not have any problems in the endgame either. There are no weaknesses in his position 34

and his pieces are harmoniously deployed.) 1O.�fxd1 j,fS 11.ttJeS ttJxeS 12.heS �ad8 13 . .if3 �d7= Finegold - Scholseth, Saint John 1988.

el) 7.d5 White reduces the tension in the centre prematurely and Black obtains excellent counter­ play thanks to his offensive on the flanks. 7 . �b6 .

.

8.gbl 8JWb3 �xb3 9.axb3 ttJa6 10.e4 ttJb4 11.0-0-0?! ttJg4 12.j,g3 fS 13.h3 fxe4 14.ttJxe4 ttJh6 (14 ... ttJf6 ! ?) 1S . .id3 ttJfS 16.j,h2 j,d7 17.�he1 bS't Anastasian - Kruppa, St. Petersburg 1993. 8 e5 ! This is a spectacular move, but Black could have continued even simpler with 8 . . . �aS 9.j,d3 (9.�d2 j,g4 1O . .ie2 �a6 11.0-0 hf3 12.gxf3 ttJbd7=) 9 ... ttJhS 10.0-0 ttJxf4 11.exf4 j,g4= 9.j,g5 It would be too risky for White • • •

l.d4 0,f6 2.c4 g6 3. 0, c3 i.g7 4. 0,./3 0-0 5. i.f4 d6 to grab a pawn, because after 9.dxe6 .he6 1O.�xd6 0,c6 11.�d1 i.f5, Black would have a huge lead in development and a very power­ ful initiative. 9 ... i.f5 1 0 .J.d3

extra space, so these pluses and minuses are approximately bal­ ancing each other. 16.f4 f5 = Now, Black only needs to bring his knight to f6, having played be­ fore this rJlh8 (so that he does not blunder his f5-pawn, because of the pin) in order to be completely happy about his position.

C2) 7.J.e2

1 0 e4! ? The straightforward exchange of the light-squared bishops does not guarantee complete equal­ ity for Black: 10 . . . .hd3 11.�xd3 0,bd7 12.0,d2 gae8 13.a3 a6 14.f3 V!!c7 15.J.h4 0,h5 16.g4 (16.0-0 f5) 16 . . . e4!?, Ivanchuk - Radjabov, Sochi 2008, 17.0,cxe4 f5 18.gxh5 fxe4 19.fxe4 0,e5 20.V!!e 2 gxh5 21.J.g5 gO 2 2.J.f4;!; 1l ..hf6 exf3 12.hg7 fxg2 13.gg1 .hd3 14.�xd3 rJlxg7 15.�g2 0,d7 The forced play has ended and the position has been simplified considerably. White's king is vis­ ibly more endangered than its counterpart and in addition he must worry about the e5-square in the nearest future. Meanwhile, White has preserved a very pow­ erful pawn-centre and he has • • •

7 �h5 We will see soon that follow­ ing the inclusion of the moves 6 . . . c5 7.J.e2, the chase after White's bishop should be crowned with success. It is not so good for Black to play 7 . . . 0,c6, because after 8.d5, he will need to retreat with his knight to the edge of the board - 8 . . . �a5 and this will be exactly the case illustrating the correct­ ness of the famous principle of Dr. Tarrasch concerning the knight at the edge of the board. For exam­ ple: 9.gc1 J.d7 1O.0-0 lLlh5 1l.J.g5 h6 12 . .!h4 f5 13.lLld2 lLlf6 14.a3 • • •

35

Chapter 3

b6 15.b4;!; Klauser - Zueger, Len­ zerheide 2006 and Black's knight will have to go to the pathetic b7square. In case of 7. . . cxd4 8.exd4 d5 9.cS, Black fails to break his op­ ponent's position. For example: 9 ... ltJe4 10.0-0 ltJc6 1l.h3 (After White has castled short, Black's possible strikes against his centre of the type ltJxd4 and e5 are not so dangerous for White any more.) 1l ... .tf5 12.'fMa4, Milos - Lee, Sao Paulo 2007 (12J!e1 l:!c8) 12 ... .td7! 8 .lg5 h6 9 .lh4 g5 1 0 .lg3 In case White's knight retreats - 1O.ltJg1, Black has the important intermediate move 10 ... cxd4! (at­ tacking the knight on c3). If now 1l.exd4, then Black plays another move with tempo 1l ... ltJf4+ and this provides him with a power­ ful initiative, Nielsen - Burgess, Denmark 1992. •

•

Black can play even more ag­ gressively - 10 . . .f5, but White can react quite calmly to this 1l.dxc5 ltJxg3 12.hxg3 dxc5 13.Wc2 ltJc6 14J�d1 'fMe8 (14 ... 'fMa5) 15.a3 Wfl 16.0-0 .le6 17.ltJd5 l:!ad8= Golod - Bologan, Romania 1994. 1l.ltJxd4 This move forces Black to ex­ change on g3. In case of 1l.exd4, Black has interesting additional possibili­ ties like ll ... .lfS, or 1l ... ltJc6. 1l ltJxg3 12.hxg3 •••

•

12 ltJc6 It looks a bit dangerous for Black to have given his opponent an open file against his king in­ deed, but just because of this he must play actively in the centre. Meanwhile, his dark-squared bishop is a quite reliable defender of his king. 13.'fMd2 'fMa5 14.gdl .td7 15. ltJd5 'i'xd2 16.�d2 gae8= Ar­ duman - David, Leon 2001. •••

10

36

•••

cxd4

Chapter 4

1.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3 . � c3 Jog7 4.e4 d6 5.J.g5

A) 5 �bd7? ! , This is not a good move for Black, because White can simply enter quite advantageously the Saemisch variation. This is the most precise and principled move and it creates numerous problems for Black. Meanwhile, I would like to warn the readers who would not agree with the evaluations of the author and would like to try S . . . lLlbd7 i n practice anyway that even after the simple developing move 6.lLlf3 , Black's task would be very difficult as well. The main drawback of his set-up is that he has committed his queen's knight to the d7-square a bit too early. It is rather passively placed there and Black would be incapable of exerting any pressure against his opponent's pawn-centre. 6 ... c6 The other possible attempt to create counterplay on the queen­ side would not be effective either: 6 . . . cS 7.dS 0-0 S.�d2 a6 (After S . . .l'!eS, White's centre is so pow­ erful that he can begin an imme­ diate offensive on the kingside •••

This move looks rather simple and straightforward, but it re­ quires from Black a good opening preparation and a precise play. The idea behind the move for White is to either provoke h6 and then to transpose into a favour­ able line from the Saemisch At­ tack, or to consolidate the bishop on gS after �d2 and this would be in principle rather unpleasant for Black. You will soon notice in our book that Ivan Sokolov is one of its main exponents and he is fa­ mous for being a very aggressive White player.

A) 5 B) 5 C) 5

•••

•••

•••

�bd7 h6 0-0

37

Chapter 4 with 9 . .th6 �8 10.h4 ! ? .!Dh5 11.l3h3t. He has covered the g3square and he can follow this with g2-g4 continuing with the pawn­ onslaught.) 9 . .!Dh3 (Black has demonstrated his wish to organ­ ize a queenside counterplay even­ tually sacrificing a pawn, there­ fore White should take care of his rapid development.) 9 . . .b5 lO. cxb5 �a5 11 . .!Df2 (This waiting can be quite typical sometimes - nei­ ther side wishes to waste a tempo capturing a pawn.) 11.. . .!Db6 12. .!Dfdl axb5 13 . .!Dxb5t. White has regrouped his forces quite favour­ ably and Black's compensation for the sacrificed pawn is insuffi­ cient.

first place - to avoid sacrificing a pawn.) 10.l3dl �a5 11.a3 l3b8 12 . .te2 bxc4 (It is much more fa­ vourable for Black to exchange here after White has played a2a3 : his b-pawn is vulnerable on this semi-open file both on b2 and b4. It would be best for White to place it on b3, under the protec­ tion of the a2-pawn, but this is already impossible.) 13.,txc4 c5 14 ..te3 ttJb6 15 . .ta2 .te6 16.d5 .!d7 17.0-0 .!Da4== Ibragimov - Yur­ taev, Calcutta 2000 . 7 a6 8. 0 - 0 - 0 �a5 9 .th6 0-0 After 9 . . ..txh6 lO.�xh6 b5 11. �bl l3b8 12.�d2, White parries his opponent's threats quite easily and he maintains the advantages of his position. He dominates in the centre and on the kingside and he has plenty of space for piece maneuvering. 1 0 .h4 b5 11.�bl b4? ! It would be a bit better for Black to play 11 . . . l3b8 ; since it is not reasonable for him to block deliberately the queenside, be­ cause he is in fact stronger there. 12 .!Dce2 .bh6 13.�xh6 c5 14 .!Dh3 White demonstrates his quite straightforward intention to checkmate the enemy king. 14 cxd4 15 .!Dg5 .!Dc5 16. .!Dxd4± - Black's defence seems to be very difficult against White's simple but dangerous threats, Rajkovic - Dokimakis, Iraklion 1994. •••

•

•

7.�d2 White plans to evacuate his king to the queenside and then to begin a massive kingside offen­ sive. It would be too slow for him to play 7 . .!Dh3 a6 8 . .!Df2, ena­ bling Black to create counterplay 8 . . . 0-0 9.�d2 b5 (This is why Black has played a6 and c6 in the 38

•

•••

•

l.d4 0,f6 2.c4 g6 3. 0, c3 �g7 4.e4 d6 5. �g5 B) S h6 • • .

suffer in the end because of this. Meanwhile, he will also need to retreat soon his knight from the g4-square, since it is vulnerable there.

B1) 7 eS B2) 7 cS • • •

• • •

Bl) 7 eS S.dS f5 • • •

It was considered for a while that Black could not only win a tempo with this move, but he could equalize easily. This is not quite true, however. White can gradually compensate for the lost time and his set-up turns out to be rather sound in the long run. Still, the original analysis of the author shows that Black can reach a quite playable position. 6 .ie3 It is not good for White to play 6.�h4, because of 6 . . . c5 7.d5 '\1;I[a5 8.�d3 0,bd7 9.f4 b5! t and after the retreat of his bishop to the h4square, it cannot come back any more to d2, or c1 in order to join in the protection of the queenside. 6 tLlg4 It is only a transposition of moves after 6 . . . e5 7.d5 0,g4 8.�cl. 7 .tc1 The escapade of White's bish­ op to g5 and back was not exactly a loss of time. Black has weak­ ened his kingside and he will .

• • •

.

9.exfS White pushed aggressively his g-pawn in the following game, but he failed to reap any great dividends out of this: 9.�e2 0,f6 1O.exf5 hi5 11.g4? ! (We will show you later in our notes to the move 9 . . . gxf5, that it is stronger for White to continue with 1l.0,f3 ! , this position arises after the move-order 9.exf5 hi5 10.�e2 ! 0,f6 11.0,f3.) 1l . . . �d7 12 .'\1;I[c2 e4 (Black wishes to trade his e-pawn for his opponent's g-pawn in order to open the diagonal for his dark­ squares bishop.) 13.g5 (It would not be so attractive for White to opt for 13.0,xe4 0,xg4, but still it deserved attention to try 13.h3, 39

Chapter 4

preserving the control over the fS-square.) 13 ...hxgS 14.hgS .tfS lS.�d2 tilbd7 16.h4 tileS. It becomes obvious that Black has seized the initiative. There fol­ lowed: 17.tLlh3 �d7 18.tilf4 tilh7 19.0-0-0 tilxgS 2 0.hxgS �e7 21. �xh8 .bh8 22.tilbS a6 23.tild4 �xgS 24.tLlfe6 �xd2 25. i>xd2 i>t7 26.�h1 �g8 27.�h7 j,g7 28.tilxc7 �h8 29J'!xh8 .bh8+ I.Sokolov Volokitin, Silivri 2 003. 9 gxf5 In case of 9 ... i.xf5, White fails to use effectively the weak­ ening of the e4-outpost: 1O.j,d3 0-0 11.i.xf5 (After 11.tilf3?! e4 12.tilxe4 �e8 13.tilfd2 �h4! He has great problems to worry about.) 11 ... gxfS 12.h3 tilf6 13.tilf3 tila6 14.0-0 tileS lS ..te3 tilfe4 16.tilxe4 tilxe4 17.�c2 as and White's edge is only symbolic. He should try to act smarter in­ stead: 1O.j,e2 ! tLlf6 11.tilf3 (threat­ ening 12.tilh4) 11 ... gS. Now, after White has provoked the move g6gS, he should set about exploiting the e4-square: 12.j,d3 '.Wd7 (12 ... e4? ! 13.tild4) 13.0-0 tila6 14.�e1 0-0-0 lS.hiS �xf5 16.tLlbS i>b8 17.j,e3 b6 18.a4± Opinca Shcherbina, Ilyichevsk 2 006. 1 0 .j,e2 tilf6 1l .lh5 White's too academic play in order to weaken and then occupy the e4-outpost would not be suc­ cessful: 11.h3 as 12.g4 tLla6 13.gxfS i.xf5 14 . .tg4 �d7=. Here however, despite Black's impressive centre, his king is a bit unsafe. .••

•

40

1l

•••

�.'l:xh5 12.�xh5 i>f8 13.

f4 In one of his first games in this line, GM Ivan Sokolov tried to provoke the pawn-advance fS-f4, so that he could establish a firm control over the e4-square, but he failed to pose any serious prob­ lems to his opponent: 13.tilge2 '.We8 14.tilg3 tila6 15.0-0 j,d7 16.h4 i>g8 17.�b1 i>h7 18.tLlbS gf8 19.�xe8 �axe8 2 0.tilxa7 j,a4 21.j,d2 j,c2 22.gbc1 Ad3 23.gfe1 e4, draw, I.Sokolov - Ivanchuk, Linares 1995. This move 13.f4 looks more up to the point, since White tries to reduce the scope of action of Black's bishop on c8.

13 �e8 Black's main task now is to ensure the safety of his king. His prospects in the endgame seem quite promising thanks to his powerful bishops and excellent pawn centre, while in the mid­ dle game, he might come under a crushing attack. His alternative is 13 ... e4 14. •••

l.d4 CiJf6 2.c4 g6 3. CiJ c3 �g7 4.e4 d6 5. �g5 CiJge2 �e8 15.�xe8?! (White should better preserve the queens on the board with: 15.�h3 !;!;) 15 . . . �xe8 16.i.e3 l:!g8 17.0-0 CiJa6 18.i.d4 i.d7 19.1:!adl CiJc5 2 0.l:!d2 �f7 21. hg7 l:!xg7 22.CiJd4 a5 23.CiJdl a4f± Banikas - Fedorov, Dresden 2008. 14.�h3 Naturally, White should avoid the trade of queens. 14 CiJa6 15.CiJge2 CiJb4 16.0-0 •••

Black's knight is doubtlessly placed beautifully here, but it does not have any bright prospects and White can always exchange it if he so wishes. 19.9d2 gg8 2 0 .td4 This is an excellent example on the theme of advantageous and disadvantageous exchanges. Black's bishop on g7 is very good, so White should better get rid of it, depriving his opponent of his two-bishop advantage in the process. 2 0 a6 21.CiJdl h:d4 22. CiJxd4 �f6 White is threatening to play 23.CiJe3, wining the f5-pawn, so Black must force his opponent to occupy the e3-square with his queen. 23. �e3 .td7 24.CiJf2 White's knight has found an­ other quite useful square and again the forthcoming exchange is favourable for him. 24 CiJxf2 25.gfxf2;!; •

• • •

16 e4 If Black plays something else, he should worry about the possi­ ble exchange sacrifice on f5 after fxe5. It might be equally unpleas­ ant for him if White plays for a positional pressure with CiJg3. Generally speaking, Black should keep the f-file closed. 17.�e3 The move 17.l:!bl, which White played in the following game turned out to be just a loss of time: 17 . . . i.d7 18.i.e3 l:!g8 19.i.d4 �g6 2 0.hg7 l:!xg7 21.a3 CiJd3 22.CiJc1 CiJc5= Psakhis - Nijboer, Vlissin­ gen 2000. 17 �g6 18.gadl CiJd3 •••

• • •

• • •

White enjoys the typical ad­ vantage of a knight against a bish41

Chapter 4 op, so he has the edge, Nikolaidis - Netzer, France 2 0 04.

B2) 7 cS • • •

B2a) 9 eS B2b) 9 lLlf6 • • •

• • •

B2a) 9 eS 1 0 .dxe6 It is worse for White to play 1O.lLlb5, in view of 1O . . . lLlf6 (at­ tacking the e4-pawn) 11.f3 hh3 12.gxh3 lLlh5oo and Black succeeds in establishing a blockade on the dark squares. 1 0 .txe6 1l .ie2 White's hasty attempt to get rid of the bishop on d4 with Il.lLlb5, turns out again to be wrong: 11 . . . lLlc6 12.lLlxd4 lLlxd4 13.lLlf4 �h4 14.g3 �f6 15 . .ie2 lLle5+ 1l �h4 12. 0 - 0 lLlc6 13. lLldS 0 - 0 - 0 Black can try to continue the game with a "centralized" king, but this might be dangerous, for example: 13 ... �d7 14 . .if4 lLlge5 15 . .ig3 �dB 16.�b3 E:bB 17.lLlhf4 h5 IB.h3 h4 19 . .ih2 etc. The situ­ ation in the centre is absolutely unpredictable, but still White is better, because of his safer king. 14.i.f4 It is worse for White to opt for 14.lLldf4 lLlge5 15.lLlxe6 fxe6 16.�hl g5 17.f4 gxf4 1B.lLlxf4 E:dfB 19 . .id2 . Black was dominant in the centre in the game I.Sokolov - Solleveld, Netherlands 2001. Here, he had better occupy sim­ ply the g-file, generating numer­ ous threats with 19 . . . E:hgB+ 14 gS In case of 14 . . . lLlf6, White has the powerful argument 15 ..ig3 �xe4 16 . .if3 (It is only a repeti• • •

• • •

8.dS The transfer into an endgame with the line: B.dxc5 dxc5 9.�xdB �xdB, does not create any serious problems for Black, but he still needs to play accurately in order to obtain a good game, for exam­ ple: 10.h3 (1O.f4 lLlc6 11.h3 hc3 12.bxc3 lLlf6=) lO . . . hc3 11.bxc3 lLle5 12.f4 lLled7 13 . .ie3 b6 14. 0-0-0 .ib7 15 ..id3 lLlc6 16.lLlf3 �c7 17.f5 g5 IB . .if2 f6 19 . .ig3 lLlce5= Kovacevic - Mrva, Steinb­ runn 2 005. 8 ... .td4 9.lLlh3 Black has two active pieces at the moment, but they seem to have reached their maximal po­ tential. White has a solid centre and a space advantage, so he must complete calmly his development and repel gradually his opponent's pieces. Black's task is to maintain by all means the position as sharp as possible. 42

• • •

• • •

•

l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. � c3 !i.g7 4.e4 d6 S. !i.g5 tion of moves after 16.!i.d3 �g4 17 . .te2 �e4.) 16 . . .�fS 17.�hf4 gS 18.�e2 .teS 19.�e3 �g6 20.i.xc6 bxc6 21.�a4t and White's initia­ tive for the sacrificed pawn is very dangerous. 15 ..tg3 �h5 16.gblt

neously in the process - against the e4-pawn and the knight on h3. 1 0 .�d3 In case of 1O.f3 ixh3 1l.gxh3 �b6, Black protects his bishop on d4 just in time and he succeeds in blockading the position. For ex­ ample: 12.�bS a6 13.�xd4 cxd4 14.b3 eS ! ? 1 0 �bd7!? This move has not been tried in practice yet. In one of the games, Black acted in the spirit of the Benoni Defence and he transferred his knight to c7 - 1O . . . �a6 1l.a3 �c7. It remained idle on this square though and it also precluded the placement of his queen to b6: 12 .�e2 eS 13.�xd4 cxd4 14 . .te2 as IS.f4 ixh3 16.gxh3 �a6. Black's knight-maneuvers at the edge of the board are not impres­ sive at all. Meanwhile, White has succeeded in the completion of his development and he is ready to open the position: 17.0-0 �c5 18.�f3 �cxe4 19 . .tdl �b6 20.fxeS dxeS 2 1..tc2± Ibragimov - Kazh­ galeyev, Nice 2000. We should also mention here that the dis­ covered check 21...d3 is harmless, because of 22 . .te3. 1l.f4 �b6 12.�b5 g5! oo (diagram) This original position is quite interesting and it deserves a thorough analysis, nevertheless the first impression is that Black should not be worse at all thanks • • •

Black's counterplay has reached its dead end, while White can continue calmly with his queenside offensive.

B2b) 9 ... �f6

Black follows his opponent's example and he retreats his piec­ es, creating two threats simulta-

43

Chapter 4

to his control over the dark squares in the centre. C) 5

• • •

0-0

6.Yfd2 About 6 . .te2 �a6, or 6 . . . h6 see Chapters 11-12. About 6.f3 - see Chapter 14. As for 6.�f3 - see Chapter 20, 6 ..tg5. The overly ambitious move 6.f4 enables Black to begin imme­ diate actions in the centre and on the queenside with 6 ... cS 7.d5 'lWa5 8.'lWd2 b5 9 .cxb5 a6 1O.bxa6 ha6 11.ha6 �xa6 12.�f3 gfe8. As a result, he has obtained an excel­ lent version of the Benko Gambit. 44

White's pieces are not well coor­ dinated and his queenside needs additional protection. Black has defended his e7-pawn with his last move, since White's only rea­ sonable plan is connected with the central break e4-e5. 13.0-0 gab8 14.e5 �d7 15.gae1 �c7 16.ge2 �b6 (Black has regrouped suc­ cessfully his forces and he exerts pressure against the d5-pawn.) 17.b3 c4 18.gd1, draw, Svetly Pribyl, Czech Republic 2003. Black's other standard plan includes the undermining move 8 . . . e6, for example: 9.dxe6 fxe6 1O.i.d3 �c6 11.�ge2 �g4 ! ? (This is the beginning of a quite origi­ nal maneuver. Black could have played instead routinely 11 . . . i.d7, followed by �d4.) 12.h3 �h6 13. 0-0 �f7 14 . .th4 �d4 15.gad1 .td7 16 . .tf2 gac8 17 . .te3, Belozerov Pokazanjev, Novokuznetsk 2008 and here, instead of the very bad exchange on e2, Black had better complete what he had begun, by playing 17 . . . �d8 with the idea to follow with �dc6. White should avoid being squeezed and he will have to sacrifice a pawn with the line: 18.f5 exfS 19.�g3oo with a double edged position. 6 c5 7.d5 b5! This classic resource exploits the fact that White's knight on c3 must protect the e4-pawn He is forced to capture on b5 with his pawn and this enables Black to seize the initiative on the queen­ side. •••

1.d4 CfJf6 2.c4 g6 3. CfJ c3 �g7 4.e4 d6 5. Ag5 8.cxb5 a6 White has a wide choice of possibilities here. We should be acquainted with them thoroughly, in order to understand better the plans of both sides in this typical pawn-structure for the King's In­ dian (pawns on d5 and e4 against Black pawns on c5 and d6).

a development of his knight to the e2-square 1l.CfJge2 �b6 12.0-0 l:!tbB 13.l:!abU) 1l . . . c4 12.0-0 �c5 13. '\!!![ e2 CfJd3 14. CfJel �b6, I.Sokolov - Stellwagen, Hoogeveen 2004. In this position, White can take the pawn: 15.CfJxd3 cxd3 16.'\!!![xd3 '\!!![xb2 17.l:!abl �a3 IB.l:!b3 �a5 19.J.xf6! J.xf6 2 0.a3;!; 1 0 .�d3 After 1O.CfJf3, Black can make another useful move 1O . . . CfJbd7. In principle, he can also capture the pawn, because after 1O . . . J.xa6 1l.J.xa6 '\!!![x a6, White loses his castling rights, while the trade of the queens (12.�e2) is in favour of Black, since he plays CfJbd7 and l:!tbB and he exerts a powerful queenside pressure. 1 0 �bd7 11.�13 ha6 12. 0 - 0 �Ub8 • . .

Cl) 9.bxa6 C2) 9.a4 C3) 9.�13 C4) 9.13 Cl) 9.bxa6 Now, the game develops in the spirit of the Benko Gambit. 9 ... �a5 Before Black captures on a6, he should better wait for White's bishop on f1 to m ake a move and thanks to this win a tempo for the development of his queenside ini­ tiative. After the immediate 9 . . .J.xa6 1O . .b:a6 CfJxa6, White enters a favourable version of the Benko Gambit. For example, 1l.CfJf3 (It is also interesting for him to choose

l3.ha6 In case White refrains from castling and he plays for example 13.l:!abl, then Black can exploit the overburdening of the queen on d2, starting the hunt for his opponent's dark-squared bishop 45

Chapter 4 by playing 13 . . .h6!? There might follow 14.�h4 hd3 15.'�xd3 g5 16 . .ig3 lLlh5 and Black has a good counterplay. 13 lb:a6 14.ti'c2 This move is quite purposeful. White frees the d2-square for his knight and in addition, his bishop may come back later to protect the queenside. White cannot cre­ ate serious problems for his oppo­ nent with 14J'!abl, because of 14 . . . �ab6 15.b3 h6! 16.hf6 hf6 17. lLla4, Khanukov - Winter, Wies­ baden 2001, 17. . . �b4� and Black's compensation for the sacrificed pawn is quite sufficient. 14 h6 15 .id2 �g4 Black increases his control over the e5-square with this move and over the entire dark-squares complex as well. The juxtaposi­ tion of the bishop and the queen does not worry him, since the knight on c3 does not have any dangerous square to go to. 16.l3:fel In case of 16.b3, Black can sac­ rifice temporarily a second pawn and he obtains an excellent posi­ tion with the line: 16 ... c4! 17.bxc4 �c8 18.ti'b3 lLlde5 19.lLlxe5 lLlxe5� 16 �ge5 17.� /ill{e5 18.b3 (diagram) 18 c4! Black saves the day again with the same idea. It is essential for him not to allow his opponent to consolidate his queenside. 19.13:abl 19.1Lla4 ti'b5 20.�abl �c8= • • •

•••

•.•

•••

46

•

19 l3:ba8 2 0 .a4 cxb3 21. l3:xb3 �c4 Black is a pawn down indeed, but he has an excel­ lent position. •••

-

C2) 9.a4

White does not wish to lose a tempo for a move with his bishop on fl just yet and he makes a use­ ful defensive move instead. This plan can be regularly encountered in the Benko Gambit schemes. 9 ti'a5 1 0 .J.d3 After 1O.f3 the game transpos­ es to variation C4. In case of 1O.lLlf3, Black fol­ lows with a typical combination: •••

l.d4 CiJf6 2.c4 g6 3. CiJ c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. i.g5 10 . . . axbS 1l.hbS CiJxe4! 12.CiJxe4 �xbS 13.axbS �xal 14.@e2 �xhl IS.he7 �e8 16.�gS h6 17.CiJf6 i.xf6 18.�xf6 �b1+ After 1O.�a3 �b4, he re­ gains his pawn by force: 1l.i.d3 axbS 12.axbS �xa3 13.bxa3 �xa3 14.CiJge2 �al (Black equalizes with 14 . . . CiJbd7, but he can already try to seize the initiative.) IS.CiJdl CiJbd7 16.0-0 CiJeS 17.CiJec3 h6 18.i.h4 CiJxd3 19.�xd3 �a3oo Mi­ lov - Lanka, Austria 2005. 10 ... axb5 11.CiJxb5 �xd2 It is useless for Black to opt for 1l . . . c4 12 .i.c2 . 12.i.xd2 CiJa6 13.�£J �d7 This maneuver of the knight is just typical. Black prevents the pawn-break e4-eS and he also opens the way for the march of his f- pawn. 14.i.c3 �b4 This move demonstrates the drawbacks of White's move nine, since Black's knight is perfectly placed on b4 eyeing the dS-pawn. 15.@e2

This i s another typical resource for Black in the pawn-structure of the Benko Gambit. He undermines the support of his opponent's dS­ pawn and he opens the f-file.

C3) 9.�£J

9 �a5 1 0 .b6 In case of 1O.bxa6 ha6 II. ha6 �xa6 12 .�e2, Black organ­ izes his counterplay according to the same scheme as in the varia­ tion we have just analyzed: 12 ... h6 13.i.f4 CiJfd7 14.CiJd2 �xe2 15. @xe2 fS ! (You are familiar with this resource, aren't you? ! ) 16.h3 fxe4 17.i.e3 Holland - Hebden, London 1987 17 . . . CiJf6 18.CiJc4 CiJa6 19.�hdl CiJc7 2 0.a3 �fb8 2 I.�d2 CiJbS - Black has obviously a pow­ erful initiative. White gives back his extra pawn with the move in the text, but he keeps the a-file closed. 1 0 �bd7 11.i.d3 White achieves nothing much with 1l.i.e2 CiJxb6 12.0-0 CiJa4= 1l ... CiJxb6 12. 0 - 0 i.g4 White's pawn on a6 is still alive • • •

• • .

15 f5 ! f± • • •

47

Chapter 4 and Black cannot exchange the dark-squared bishops. He must find another task for his bishop. 13.�h4 Black's position is again pref­ erable. White creates no real problems for his opponent with the passive line: 13.�el .td7 14)lJc2 ttJa4= It is unfavourable for him to allow the exchange of Black's bishop on g4: 13. VNf4 .ixf3 14JWxf3 c4 IS . .tc2 (After IS . .te2 VNb4 16. !!abl !!fc8+, his position is again preferable.) IS . . . !!ab8 16.!!fdl tlJbd7 17.!!abl ttJeS 18.VNe2 !!b7 and Black exerts powerful pres­ sure on the queenside.

Moscow 1983, 16 gfeS. Bala­ shov retreated his bishop imme­ diately to d7 (in order to try to trade it via the bS-square), but he could have postponed this for a while. White must retreat his knight in order to bring it back to action and therefore he must lose time to repel the enemy bish­ op from g4. 17.h3 .td7 IS ..td2 (After 18.a4, Black has a strong reply - 18 . . . e6 and he will cre­ ate counterplay along the e-file. Now, he trades the light-squared bishops and he equalizes.) IS ... fla3 19.�f3 .tb5= - After the exchange of two couples of light pieces, White's slight material ad­ vantage becomes irrelevant. •••

C4) 9.f3 After this move, the game transposes definitely into the Sae­ misch system.

13 tlJa4! This is also a typical resource. Until a certain moment, the ex­ changes on the queenside are favourable for Black, since he en­ larges the scope of action of his long-range pieces, including his queen, his rooks and his King's Indian bishop. 14.�xa4 VNxa4 15.b3 VNb4 16.VNc2, Jussupow - Balashov, • • •

48

9 fla5 1 0 .a4 As a rule, White should not be in a hurry to capture 1O.bxa6, for example: 1O ... tlJbd7 1l.tlJbS (This is a typical attempt to enter • • •

1.d4 GiJf6 2.c4 g6 3. GiJ c3 J.g7 4.e4 d6 S. J.gS an endgame with an extra pawn.) 11 . . :�xd2 12.@xd2 ba6 13.GiJh3 (The most comfortable f3-square for White's knight has been occu­ pied by a pawn, but he must de­ velop his kingside somehow. The following exemplary variations show that after White's alterna­ tives, Black obtains a good posi­ tion in this complex endgame: 13.GiJc3 gfb8 14.@c2 c4 15.GiJh3 GiJc5 16.GiJf2 GiJd3 ! t; 13.a4 GiJb6 14.J.e2 gab8 15.b3 GiJfxd5 16.exd5 hal 17.he7 GiJxd5 18.hd6 gbd8 19.hf8 c;!,>xf8 20.GiJh3 J.f6GG) 13 . . . gfb8 14.a4 h6 15.hf6, Kelecevic - Mantovani, Switzerland 1996 (White should not be so greedy and he had better give back his extra pawn preserving the dark­ squared bishop: 15.i.e3 GiJe8 16. c;!,>c2 GiJe5 17.GiJf2 bb5 18.bb5 GiJc7=) 15 . . .hf6 16.gb1 GiJb6 17.b3 i.c8 18.GiJf2 c4!t - White was too busy keeping what he had ac­ quired so laboriously, but Black seized firmly the initiative in the process. We must also analyze the logi­ cal move 1O.J.h6. The exchange of the powerful bishop on h6 is doubtlessly in favour of White, but he loses precious time and he is behind in development already. In answer to this, we can recom­ mend to Black 1O . . . i.xh6 (He should deflect White's strongest piece away from the queenside, which will soon need additional protection.) 1V.wxh6 GiJbd7. Black wishes to place his rook on b8 and

force his opponent to capture on a6 and then the knight goes to the important c4-square via e5, or b6. For example: 12.bxa6 (After 12.GiJh3 gb8 13.GiJg5 axb5 14.h4 ge8 15.h5 GiJf8 16.hxg6 fxg6 17.J.d3 c4 18.i.e2 b4 19.GiJd1 c3, White's hasty attack reaches its dead end and Black increases the pressure effortlessly, Vasvari - Farkas, Hungary 2000.) 12 . . . GiJe5 13:�d2 ba6 14.f4 GiJc4 15.bc4 hc4 16. gd1 e6 17.dxe6 fxe6 18.GiJge2 d5:: and Black has an excellent game for the sacrificed pawn, Bae P.H.Nielsen, Gausdal 1999. 10 GiJbd7 • . •

This is an important position, in which Black has a wide variety of plans for further actions.

C4a) Iv!£Jdl C4b) IV!£Jge2 C4c) 1l.ga3 C4d) 1l.�h3 C4a) ll.�dl §'d8! ? Black's queen was not s o well placed on c7 and after the move 49

Chapter 4 in the text, his pawn is protected after the knight on f6 moves. This trade of queens is bad for him now, since he cannot create any pressure along the a and b-files (White will support firmly his outpost on b5.) and the other plan - to bring the knight from d7 to b4 and to push e7-e6 is too diffi­ cult to accomplish. 12.a5 White is reluctant to give up the a-file: 12Jk1 axb5 13.axb5 ttJb6 (Nimzowitsch understood long ago that the knight was an excellent blocker of passed pawns. Here it supports the attack against the d5-pawn.) 14.j,d3 e6 15.dxe6 (White must play this, otherwise his weak d5-pawn is bound to fall soon.) 15 . . . he6 16.ttJe2 W'd7 17.0-0 c4 (Black's game is easy and White should play accurately to maintain the balance.) 18.j,b1 W'xb5 19.ttJdc3 W'a5 20.j,e3 l'UdS 21.ttJf4 ttJa4= 12 axb5 13.hb5 j,a6 14. ha6 �xa6 15.ttJe3 •..

15 ... W'a8 50

Notice this manoeuvre. Black's queen increases the pressure against the a5-pawn and opens the way for the rook on fS. 16.�a4 �b8 17.ttJe2 ttJh5 18. ttJc4 ttJe5gg After Black manages to trade the knight on c4, his queenside counterplay would be very dan­ gerous.

C4b) 1l.ttJge2

1l ttJb6 12.ttJcl After 12 .ttJg3, White's knight is too far from the basic field of actions and this enables Black to provoke an immediate crisis. 12 . . . axb5 13.hb5 j,a6. This exchange is quite useful. Black needs to re­ duce the number of light pieces and to open files. 14.�b1 hb5 15.axb5, Rogers - Socko, Saint Vincent 2 0 01, 15 . . . ttJfd7 16.0-0 ttJc4 17.W'e2 ttJxb2. This tactical strike has long become a simple technical resource. 1S.Eixb2 hc3 19.Eibb1 EifeS+ 12 .Eia2 ! ? looks attractive, leav­ ing the rook on the a-file on a ••.

l.d4 CiJf6 2.c4 g6 3.tiJc3 il.g7 4.e4 d6 5. il.g5 protected square, so that White can capture later on b5 with his pawn. 12 . . . liJc4 13.�c2. He must play carefully, because of his con­ siderable lag in development. (In case of 13. �d3, Black follows with 13 . . . �b4 14.li>f2 axb5 15.liJxb5 gxa4=F) 13 . . . h6 14.il.c1 il.d7 15.b3. White overlooks an elegant tacti­ cal strike. (After the routine line: 15.liJf4 liJe5 16.liJd3, Black equaliz­ es easily: 16 . . . liJxd3 17.hd3 axb5 18.hb5 hb5 19.axb5 �b4=) 15 ... liJxd5 ! This is a beautiful resource and if you see it, you must play it! (Meanwhile, it would be also good for Black to maintain the tension with 15 . . . liJe5 ! ?) 16.bxc4 (The least of evils for White seems to be 16.exd5 il.f5 17.�d1 hc3 18.liJxc3 �xc3 19.1i>f2 liJe5 20.bxa6 gfb8�) 16 ... liJb4 17.�d2 liJxa2 18.liJxa2 �xa4 19.1iJec3. White had a hard task completing his develop­ ment, but the knight on a2 is a sorry sight. 19 . . . �a5 20.il.b2 axb5 21.cxb5 gfb8 22.�c4 hb5+ Lut­ sko - Kornev, Kstovo 1994. 12 ... axb5 White must capture on b5 with a piece now. 13 ..b:b5 il.a6 14.�la2 If White can refrain from capturing on a6, he should bet­ ter do it: 14.ha6 �xa6 15.liJ1e2 tt'lc4 16.�c2 h6 17.il.c1, Delaune Kaufman, Washington 1997, 17 . . . gfb8� 14 ....Axb5 15.axb5 �h5 Black must activate his King's Indian bishop.

He can follow the same idea in another fashion: 15 . . . gfe8 16.0-0 liJfd7 (but not 16 ... e6 17.dxe6 E1xe6 18.gfb1 liJfd7 19.�dl;!; Dreev - I. Sokolov, Nussloch 1996) 17.b3 il.d4 18.il.e3 hc3 19.1iJxc3 �xa1 20.gxa1 gxa1 21.li>f2 gea8°o

16.gbl In case of 16.gd1, Black has a typical combination, which we are already familiar with: 16 . . . tt'lc4 17.�e2 liJxb2 ! 18.�xb2 �xa2 19.�xa2 hc3 2 0.�d2 hd2 21. li>xd2 f6 2 2 .�6 ga2 23.li>e3 gfa8+ Black can counter 16.0- 0 ! ? with 16 . . . il.d4 17.li>h1 hc3 18. �xc3 �xb5, with the idea ga2 . 16 ... .id4 17. .ih6 The following variations show that White has already lost his control over the position and he fails to consolidate. For exam­ ple: 17.b3 f5 18.il.e3 (18.he7 fxe4 19.fxe4 gf2 20.�xf2 hf2 21.li>xf2 c4 22 .il.g5 �a7+) 18 . . . fxe4 19.fxe4 (19.hd4 cxd4 2 0 .�xd4 exf3=F) 19 . . .il.e5t. White cannot castle and his queenside is in ruins. He 51

Chapter 4 suffers all this just for a pathetic doubled extra pawn.

C4c1) lI tOeS C4c2) lI tOb6 •••

•••

17 J�fd8 ! This rook is perfectly placed here. Later it will be useful in the preparation of d5. The move 17 . . . l:Ue 8 i s not s o good, for exam­ ple: 18.b3 e6 19.dxe6 fxe6 (19 ... �e6?! 2 0.J.e3 he3 21.�xe3 d5 2 2.b4t Ivanchuk - Kasparov, Linares 1997.) 2 0 . .te3 e5 21.0-0 d5 2 2 .exd5 lDxd5 (22 . . J�ed8 23. d6 �d6 24.e2 0,xd2 2 0 .It>xd2 0,xe4 21. It>c2 gabS 22J�b3;!:: •••

C4c2) 1l

• • .

tLlb6

14.tLlge2 ! ? White has also played here 14.i.d2 0,e8 15.ttJge2 ttJc7 (forcing White to clarify his intentions con­ cerning the bishop on b5) 16.hd7 0,xd7 17.ttJb5 ttJxb5 18.ha5 ttJxa3, Gelfand - Ivanchuk, Monte Carlo 2007, 19.bxa3 l:'lxa5 20.lt>f2 l:'lfa8 21.0,c3 hc3 22 .WI'xc3 l:'lxa4 23.l:'la1 c4 and Black is not worse at all. 14 i.xb5 15.axb5 Wl'b4 16. �b3 §'c4! It is bad for Black to opt for 16 . . . 'lWa5 17. 0-0 0,c4 18.ttJd1 0,e5 • • •

53

Chapter 4 (18 . . . tiJb6 19.tiJec3 c4 20J�a3 �b4 21.fu:aB l3xaB 2 2.tiJe3 e6 23. l3dU) 19.tiJe3 Wfb6 20.f4 tiJed7 21.tiJc4 �b7;t;, or 16 . . . l3a1 17.�f2 �xb3 18.�xb3 l3xh1 19.tiJa4 tiJbd7 2 0 .b6±

11 �b6 Black should not be in a hurry to exchange on b5: 11 . . . axb5 12.,ixb5 .ia6 13.0-0 l3tbB 14.Wfc2t He can try here a spectacu­ lar line: 11 . . . c4 12.tiJf2 (12.hc4 lbe5 13 . .ie2 .ixh3 14.gxh3 axb5 15.0-0 bxa4 16.fu:a4 Wfb6 17. .ie3 Vlb3 1BJ3fa1 l3xa4 19.13xa4 l3bB�; 12J3a3 lbc5 13.hc4 �b4 14 . .ie2 lbb3 15.�d3 .ixh3 16.gxh3 lbd4 17.�f2 lbd7 1B.bxa6 lbe5 19.�d2 lbxe2 2 0.�xe2 lbc4�) 12 . . . �b4 13.l3a3 (In case of 13.b6, Black has the typical move for the Benko Gambit 13 . . . a5.) 13 . . . axb5 14.axb5 l3xa3 15.bxa3 �xa3 16.,ixc4, Nikolaidis - Sofronie, Istanbul 2002. Black must continue here with 16 . . .h6! ? 17 . .te3 lbg4! 1B . .id4 lbge5 19 . .ie2 Wfb4 20.,ixe5 (this is forced) 20 . . . lbxe5 21.lba2 �b1. After this important intermedi­ ate move, White loses his b5pawn and this leads to a draw­ ish position: 22.lbd1 .id7 23.0-0 Wfb3 24.lbh4 lbc4 25.,ixc4 �xc4 26.lbc6 �xb5 27.lbxe7 �h7= l2.�f2 'The capture 12 .bxa6 cannot be good for White, as we have • • •

I will supply you here with a long exemplary variation, in which you will see Black's possi­ ble main ideas. 17. 0 - 0 h6 18. .te3 �fd7 19.9dl ga7 2 0 .�g3. White's knight is headed for the d2-square in order to attack Black's queen. 2 0 .td4! 21.�f1 �e5 22.�hl g5 23.gbl (23.h3 f5 24.exf5 tiJxd5+t) 23 gfa8 24. �d2 Vld3 25.�xd3 �xd3 26. �e2 he3 27.�d3 hd2 28. �d2 ga4 29.�gl gb4 3 0 .�c3 gaS 31.�f2 �a8+ After Black re­ gains his pawn, he has good win­ ning chances. • • •

• • •

C4d) 11.�h3 'The maneuver h3-f2 of White's king-knight is promising more than the straightforward move 11.�ge2. 54

l.d4 tDf6 2.c4 g6 3. tDc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. i.g5 already seen. For example: 12 ... ha6 13.tDbS i.b7 14.WxaS gxaS IS.tDc3 gfa8 16.i.d2 c4 17.gbl tDfd7 18.b4 cxb3 19.9xb3, Droz­ dovskij - Urban, Dresden 2 007, 19 ... i.a6 20.ha6 gSxa6 21.@e2 tDcS 22.gb4 tDbxa4 23.tDxa4 gxa4 24.ghbl i.eS+

13 . .b:b5 .ta6 14.gc1 White achieves little with 14. ga3 tDc4 15.hc4 hc4GG 14 .b:b5 15.axb5 • • •

15 h6!? This is the right time to ques­ tion White's bishop about its in­ tentions. Black can also play the stand­ ard 15 . . . tDa4 16.tDfdl gtb8 17.h4 tDxc3 18.tDxc3 Wb4 and if White plays too actively 19.94, as he did in the game Stefansson - Djurh­ uus, Reykjavik 1997, then Black sacrifices another pawn with 19 . . . tDd7 20.he7 tDe5 and h e seizes the initiative for long. 16 . .b:h6 After the exchange of the knight 16.hf6 hf6 17.tDg4, Black can sacrifice bravely one more pawn - 17 . . . i.d4 !+, creating numerous threats. 16 tDc4 17.Wg5 tDh7 18.Wfh4 .tf6 19.Wh3 tDxb2 2 0 .f4 hc3 21.Wfxc3 Wxc3 22J�xc3 gtb8 = Black regains his b-pawn and he equalizes. . • .

12 axb5 Black can always open a sec­ ond front with 12 . . . e6 !?, but he must play very precisely, be­ cause he has already sacrificed a pawn. For example: 13.dxe6 he6 14.bxa6 (Black is quite OK after 14.i.h6 hh6 IS.Wxh6 Wb4 16.aS axbS 17.tDd3 Wb3 18.ga3 Wfc2 19.tDxbS tDc4 20.gc3 Wfa4 21.tDc7, Lapcevic - Antic, Bar 200S, 21.. .tDxb2 22.tDxa8 tDxd3 23J�xd3 c4 24.gxd6 WfxaS 2S.Wfd2 c3 26.We3 gxa8) 14 . . . tDc4 1S.hc4 hc4 16.tDbS! (This typical re­ source puts in doubt Black's move twelve.) 16 ... Wxd2 17.@xd2 gxa6 18.ghc1 hb5 19.axb5 gb6 20.ga6 gxb5 21.gxd6 gxb2 22.gc2 gxc2 23.@xc2;!; • • •

. • •

-

55

Chapter 5

1.d4 tL)f6 2 . c4 g6 3 . tL) c3 Jog7 4.e4 d6 5 .h3

This is a useful prophylactic move. First, White takes the g4square under control and Black would not have the possibility It)g4 in answer to .!e3, after It)f3. The basic idea of the move is different, however. White usually advances g2-g4, following various set-ups of his pieces and begins a plan of squeezing the enemy on the king­ side. These are the advantages of the move 5.h3, while its drawback is obvious too. White makes four pawn-moves out of his first five and the development of his pieces suffers because of this. 5 0 - 0 6.J.d3 White does not protect his pawn on d4 with a bishop on d3. • • .

56

Meanwhile, he has lost a tempo for h3, therefore Black's plan is obvious - he must attack the d4square. It would be too straightfor­ ward for White to play 6.g4, he must develop his pieces after all. In answer to this, Black should better begin his standard queen­ side counterplay: 6 ... cS 7.d5 e6 8.lt)ge2 exd5 9.exd5 (White lags considerably in development and an asymmetrical position is too risky for him: 9.cxd5 b5 1O.lt)g3 b4 11.lt)ce2 �e8 12 . .ig2 lt)fd7 13.a3 It)a6 14.0-0 �b8 and Black had the initiative in the game Karolyi - V.RajIich, Budapest 2 001.) 9 . . . It)bd7 1O.lt)g3 �e8+ 1l . .!e2 It)f8 12 . .!e3 a6 13.mfl b5 14.b3 b4 15. It)a4 It)e4 16.lt)xe4 �xe4 17.�bl .!d7 with excellent prospects for Black, Castillo - Estrada, Mar del Plata 1954. In fact, in response to 6.g4, Black has another attractive plan, connected with an offensive on the dark squares on the kingside: 6 . . . e5 7.d5 lt)e8 8.lt)ge2 .!f6 9 . .!h6 It)g7 1O.�d2 .!h4 1l.�gl as 12.lt)g3 f6 13 . .!e3 It)a6 14 ..id3 .!d7 15.

l.d4 CiJf6 2.c4 g6 3. CiJ c3 ig7 4.e4 d6 5.h3 0 - 0 6. i.d3 0-0-0 CiJc5 16.ic2 a4+t Tosic Ilincic, Novi Sad 1995. The move 6.CiJge2 is not flex­ ible either, since White's plans became clear. He will have to play g4 and CiJg3 in order to complete the development of his kingside. Black can counter this with an interesting plan suggested by the famous German GM and theore­ tician Wolfgang Uhlmann: 6 ... eS 7.dS a6! ? We should mention that the knight on e2 has covered the diagonal of the bishop on f1 and Black can prepare quickly b7-bS. Naturally, he can continue with the more abstract plan - as, CiJa6c5 etc. avoiding for a while a di­ rect confrontation. S.g4 bS 9.gS CiJhS 10.cxbS axbS 11.CiJxbS fS 12.CiJbc3 CiJa6 13J3g1 CiJcS 14.f3 fxe4 1S.CiJxe4 CiJxe4 16. fxe4 �d7 17.a4 CiJf4 1SJ3a3 c6� with an excellent compensation for the sacrificed pawn, Kataly­ mov - Uhlmann, Bad Liebenzell 1996.

A) 6 e5 B) 6 CiJc6 • . .

•••

A) 6 e5 This straightforward move is quite possible. 7.d5 7.CiJge2 CiJc6 - see variation B 6 . . . CiJc6. 7 a5 8.CiJge2 B.igS CiJa6 9.CiJge2 c6 - see variation Al. 8 CiJa6 • • •

• • •

•••

Al) 9 . .ig5 A2) 9.g4 Al) 9.ig5 In case of 9 .ie3, Black should adhere to his basic plan with 9 . . . c6 (After 9 ... CiJd7 1O.g4, there might arise a transposition to variation A2 .) 10.0-0 cxdS 1l.cxdS CiJcS 12 . .ic2 .id7 13 .a3. In case of the prophylactic move 13.a4, Black's knight obtains an eternal outpost on b4. Now, he can enlarge the field of actions. 13 . . . a4 14.�d2 CiJeS 1SJ3ae1 �aS 16.CiJc1 fS. This is a standard situation. Black at­ tacks his opponent's powerful centre from both sides and he ob­ tains an excellent game. 17.exfS 57

Chapter S gxfS 18.f4 e4= Kovalenko - Kos­ tin, Kaluga 2 007. 9 c6 The set-up .ld3, lLlge2, h3 is aimed basically against Black's routine pawn-break V-fS. He has great problems organizing it (White always has the resource g2-g4 up his sleeve.), therefore he should better play on the queen­ side. 1 0 •d2 J.d7 11. 0 - 0 1l.dxc6 bxc6 1 2 . .tc2 .te6 13. �dl h6 14 ..txh6 .txh6 IS.�xh6 hc4 16.0-0, Nogueiras - Santa, Merida 2 00S, 16 . . . �e7oo with a double-edged position. 11 �cS 12 .lc2 cxdS It is essential for Black to cap­ ture on dS, prior to the move .b6, in order to be able to play b7-bS in answer to c4xdS. 13.exdS After 13.cxdS, Black has al­ ready prepared 13 . . . bS; it is not advisable for White to play 13.tLlxdS? tLlfxe4+ 13 •b6 14.�g3 Black's plans are not imped­ ed by the line: 14 . .te3 �a6 IS.b3 bS, or 14.�abl, Soln - Ivanisevic, Ljubljana 2004, 14 . . .•a6 IS.b3 bS 16.cxbS .lxbS 17.tLlxbS .xbS= White's attempt to begin king­ side actions with 14.mhl �ae8 IS. f4 (It is better for him to opt for IS . .te3 .a6 16.b3 bS 17.hcS dxcS 18.cxbS hbS=) can be countered by Black with IS . . . e4 16.fS .ixfS 17.� gxfS 18.tLld4 e3 19.he3 tLlfe4=t •••

14 gfc8 lS.J.e3 ea6 16. V!re2 White increases his control over the bS-square. After 16.b3 bS= Black solves effortlessly all his opening problems. ••.

•

•••

•

16 ... �e8 17.f4 f5 18.�bS, Bareev - Gelfand, Linares 1994. Black must follow here with 18 e4 19.�d4 �d3 2 0 .b3 bS!+ •.•

A2) 9.g4

•••

S8

9 �d7 He wishes to establish control over the dark squares on the king­ side and this has become possi.•.

l.d4 tiJf6 2.c4 g6 3. tiJc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5.h3 0 - 0 6. i.d3 ble due to the absence of White's knight on f3. In case of 9 ... hS, White should better ignore this threat and continue his development with 1O.i.gS hxg4 11.hxg4 i.xg4 12.'lWd2 l"!e8 (After 12 . . . tiJcS 13.0-0-0 i.hS 14.l"!dgl, he creates a power­ ful kingside pressure.) 13.0-0-0 tiJcS 14.l"!dgl 'lWd7 IS.tiJg3 i.f3 16. l"!h4. White's attack might be­ come dangerous in the long run, for example: 16 . . . tiJg4 17.i.e2 i.xe2 18.'lWxe2 f6 19.i.d2 tiJxf2 20.tiJhS ! � Gottsmann - Punzen­ berger, Austria 1999. The gambit play 9 ... c6 1O.tiJg3 cxdS (1O . . . tiJd7!?) 1l.cxdS tiJcS 12 .i.e2 bS, can hardly be justifi­ able: 13.i.xbS i.a6 14.i.xa6 l"!xa6 IS.i.e3± Anand - Borras, Spain 2007. Finally, White has only a slight advantage after 9 ... tiJcS 1O.i.c2 hS 11.i.gS hxg4 12.hxg4 i.xg4 13.'lWd2 'lWc8 (or 13 . . . a4 14.l"!h4 'lWd7 IS. 0-0-0 tiJh7 16.i.h6 i.f6 17.l"!h2) 14.'lWe3 i.xe2 IS.'lWxe2� 1 0 .i.e3 After 1O.tiJg3 tiJdcS 1 l.i.bl , Korotkjevich - Oertel, Germany 2004, 1l ... i.f6, Black improves gradually his blockade on the flank: 12.i.h6 l"!e8 13.'lWd2 i.d7 14. 0-0 i.h4 IS.l"!el f6 ! , followed by i.gS and equality. 1 0 llJde5 1l.i.e2 In answer to 1l.tiJg3, it is also good for Black to play 11...'lWh4, with the idea to trade the dark. . •

squared bishops after for exam­ ple: 12.'lWd2 tiJxd3 13.'lWxd3 i.h6 with a comfortable game. 1l 'I§'h4 12.'I§'d2 llJb4 Naturally, it does not work for Black to play 12 . . . i.xg4, in view of 13.i.gS 'lWhS 14.tiJg3. 13. 0 - 0 - 0 White cannot capture his op­ ponent's queen after 13.i.gS tiJxc2 14.mfl i.h6 and Black's position is quite acceptable. The same hap­ pens in case of 13.i.bl i.f6. 13 b6 • • •

• . •

14.mb1 The all-powerful PC program "Rybka" asserts that after 14.i.gS 'lWxf2 IS.l"!dfl 'lWg2, Black's queen is safe and White has nothing better than repeating moves with 16.l"!fgl 'lWf3 17.l"!fl. 14 llJxe2 15.'lWxe2 f5 This undermining move is played just in time; otherwise, White would have established a positional bind on the kingside. 16.exf5 gxf5 17.llJg3 f4 18. be5 fxg3 19.fxg3 'l§'xg3 2 0 . llJe4 'l§'f4 21.i.f2 i.d7= . • .

S9

Chapter 5

B) 6 �c6 •••

after 8 . .le3 exd4 9.c!l)xd4 �e8 is advantageous to Black. 8 li)d4 After the passive line: 8 . . . c!l)e7 9.g4 c6 10.c!l)g3 cxdS 1l.cxdS a6 12 . .le3 bS 13.b4;!;, White ends up with a slight, but stable edge, Perovic - Ivanovic, Belgrade 1999. •••

This is the most precise move for Black. He provokes an imme­ diate contlict in the centre. 7.li)ge2 It is only a transposition of moves after 7.c!l)f3 eS 8.dS c!l)d4 9.c!l)xd4. White can hardly afford leaving his opponent with a cen­ tralized knight. In case of 9.ie3 c!l)hS!?, or 9 . .!gS c5, Black has a comfortable game. It is again a transposition after 7 . .!e3 eS 8.dS (If 8.c!l)f3?! exd4 9.c!l)xd4 �e8, then the move h3 turns out to be not only useless, but harmful as well, since White will probably need to protect his e4-pawn with f3 and then his kingside will be in ruins. It is also not advisable for White to opt for 7.dS, since besides 7 . . . c!l)d4 8 .ie3 e S , transposing t o a variation, which we will analyze later, Black has the additional at­ tractive possibility - 8 . . . c5! ? 7 e5 8.dS White must play this move. As I have already mentioned, the reduction of tension in the centre •••

60

9 .le3 White fails to win a pawn with the direct approach: 9.c!l)xd4 exd4 1O.c!l)e2 �e8 1l:�c2, Guigonis Degraeve Montpellier 1997, (but not 1l . .!gS h6) 1l . . . c!l)d7+ - Black's prospects are preferable in view of his control over the dark squares in the centre. White must consider very carefully the possibility of leaving his opponent with a centralized knight in the centre on d4: 9 . .lgS? ! cS 1O.'�d2 a6 11.c!l)xd4 exd4 12.c!l)e2, Fuellgrabe - Happel, Ruhrgebiet 2000, and here Black had better think about seizing the initiative: 12 . . .bS ! 13.cxbS axbS 14.hf6 (14.hbS? .!lJxe4=F) 14 . . . �xf6 IS.hbS �e7 16.f3 gb8 17.a4 •

l.d4 'tJf6 2.c4 g6 3. 'tJ c3 j.g7 4.e4 d6 5.h3 0 - 0 6. j.d3 fS and his compensation for the pawn is more than sufficient. 9 'tJh5 1 0 .J.bl White should not let his oppo­ nent consolidate on the d4-square with cS, for example: 1O.'l;Yd2 cS! 11.dxc6 bxc6 12.i.h6 hh6 13. %Vxh6 'tJe6 14J'�dl 'l;Yf6+ Gerusel ­ Bilek, Bad Pyrmont 1970. White might be checkmated in a beautiful fashion after 1O.g4? %Vh4! 11.gxhS 'tJf3 12.@f1 'l;Yxh3 13.fOc:h3 hh3# 1 0 c5! ? This i s exactly how Black should play! This move has be­ come possible thanks to the inter­ mediate capture on e2. Black's alternative is 10 . . .fS ! ? 11.'tJxd4 f4 (After the long semi­ forced line: 11 . . . exd4 12.hd4 'l;YgS 13.hg7 %Vxg2 14.J.xfB 'l;Yxhl 15. @d2 'l;Yxd1 16.'tJxdl @xfB 17.exfS J.xfS IB.J.xfS gxfS 19.'tJe3, there arises an endgame with a minimal edge for White.) 12.'tJe6 (White's knight cannot go back: 12.'tJc2? %VgS! 13.g4 fxe3 14.'tJxe3 'l;Yh4 15. %Ve2 'tJf4=F; it would be a disaster for him to continue with 13.j.cl %Vxg2 14Jm hh3 IS.'l;Yd3 'l;Yh2 ! 16.@dl J.xf1 17.'l;Yxf1 'tJg3, or 14. @d2 'l;Yxf2 1S.'l;Ye2 'l;Yxe2 16.llJxe2 f3-+) 12 . . . he6 13.i.d2 i.d7f! fol­ lowed by the prophylactic moves c6 and as on the queenside and preparing a pawn-onslaught on the kingside. • • •

1l.dxc6 llJxe2! Black does not have a full com­ pensation for the pawn after 11 . . . bxc6 12.llJxd4 exd4 13.hd4 hd4 14.%Vxd4 llJf4 1S.g3 llJe6 16.'l;Ye3 �bB I7.b3t

• • •

12.'tJxe2 White must play prudently here. It is too risky for him to opt for 12.cxb7 llJxc3 13.bxaB'l;Y llJxd1 14.@xd1 llJg3 ! 1S.fxg3 i.g4 16.hxg4 'l;YxaB=F, as well as 12.c7 'l;Yxc7 13.llJdS %VaS 14.i.d2 'l;YcS 1S.%Vxe2 (White comes on the verge of losing after 1S.i.e3 llJd4 16.b4 'l;Yxc4 17.i.d3 'tJc2 1B.@d2 'l;YxdS ! 19.exdS llJxal.) 1S ... llJf4!+, and Black brings additional wood into the raging fire. 12 bxc6 13. 0 - 0 �b8 14. 'l;Yd2 j.e6 15.b3 ti'c7= Black has a pawn majority in the centre, but he can hardly ex­ ploit this effectively, so the objec­ tive evaluation of the position is equality. •••

61

Chapter 6

1 .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 J.g7 4.e4 d6 5.h3 0 - 0 6.i.e3

after 7.dxeS dxeS 8.VNxdB (He has no problems either with queens present on the board: B.�c2 lLlbd7 9.lLlf3 c6 1O.i.e2 VNc7 11.0-0 !!eB 12 .lLld2 i.fB 13.!!ac1 as 14.g4 lLlcS� Russ - Moroder, Seefeld 200B.) B . . . !!xdB, for example: 9.lLlf3 lLlc6 1O.i.e2 lLld4 1l.i.d1 cS 12.0-0 i.e6 13.b3 !!acB, Heinatz Pinter, Bern 2 0 04. 7 . . �a6 In case the game develops calmly like: 7 . . . lLlbd7 B.lLlf3 lLlc5 9.lLld2 as, White can realize his plan of establishing a positional bind on the queenside and he ends up with a stable advantage. 1O.g4 c6 1l.ie2 lLleB 12.lLlb3 lLld7 13.a4 fS 14.gxfS gxfS lS.exfS lLldf6 16.i.d3 hB, Riazantsev - Svi­ dler, Sochi 200B and here White should take some measures against e4: 17.lLld2 cxdS 1B.cxdS e4 19.1Lldxe4 lLlxe4 20.he4 i.xfS 2 1.i.xfS !!xfS 22.�d3. He has an extra pawn at the end of this line. It is not advisable for Black to be in a hurry to play t7-fS, be­ cause of 7 . . . lLlfd7 B.g4 fS 9.exfS gxfS 1O.gxfS, Karpov - Hansch, Germany (simul) 2 007, 1O . . . lLlcS .

This is a very reasonable set­ up. It is a part of the opening repertoire of world champion number 12 - Anatolij Karpov. A) 6 e5 B) 6 ... �a6 C) 6 c5 •••

•••

A) 6 e5 This is what the order of moves with an early J.e3 is aimed to cope with. 7.d5 White can exploit later the circumstance that he has not de­ veloped his knight on f3 yet. (The positions arising after 7.lLlf3, will be analyzed in our chapter B.). Black is OK in the endgame •••

62

l.d4 !c'f6 2.c4 g6 3. !c' c3 Ag7 4.e4 d6 5.h3 0-0 6. Ae3 ll.!C,ge2 (You see now that White has kept his knight on gl quite sensibly, because it will be very troublesome for the opponent of the g3-square.) ll . . .hiS 12.!C,g3 Ag6 13.h4±. White's initiative against Black's compromised kingside can turn soon into a dan­ gerous attack. In comparison to the variation we have just analyzed, Black can­ not change much if he retreats his king's knight to another square 7 . . . !c'eB 8.1lNd2 (It is also good for White to try the straightforward line: B.g4 fS 9.gxfS gxfS 1O.exfS hiS ll.!C,ge2 1lNh4 12.!C,g3 Ag6 13.�g4 1lNxg4 14.hxg4 !c'd7 IS. 0-0-0 !c'ef6 16J�h4 !c'cS 17.gS± Zablotsky - Bogachkov, Kazan 2007.) B .. .fS 9.f3 !c'd7 10. 0-0-0 a6 (It is stronger for Black to play 1O .. .f4, building up a fortress on the kingside, since if he sacrifices a pawn, he fails to create any real threats against the enemy king just yet.) ll.g4 fxe4 12 .fxe4 bS l3.cxbS axbS 14.hbS Aa6 IS.ha6 �xa6 16.g5± Gorovets - Mokriy, Minsk 2006. The line: 7 ... c6 B.!c'f3 as 9.!c'd2 !C,a6, leads to positions, which we have analyzed in our Chapter B. (after the move-order 6.!c'f3 eS 7.dS as B.Ae3 !c'a6 9.!c'd2 c6). In case of 7. . . aS, White has prepared B.cS, with the idea of exploiting later the premature weakening of the bS-square. B .. . !c'a6 (The direct counter strike B .. . c6 is interesting indeed, but White

can avoid complications and con­ tinue with his development in or­ der to make use later of the posi­ tional weaknesses of his opponent on the queenside, for example: 9.dxc6 !c'xc6 1O.!c'f3. White avoids capturing on d6 and he develops simply his knight, controlling the central d4-square. 1O ... dxcS ll.hcS �eB 12 .Ab5 Ad7 13.0-0 !c'd4. The position has not been stabilized yet and Black must try to find some tricks here. 14.hd7 !c'xd7 IS.!c'xd4 !c'xc5 16.!c'dbS AfB 17.!c'dS �cB IB.1lNf3 �c6 19J�adl 1lNh4 20.�feU Izoria - Fedorov, Moscow 2006.) 9.cxd6 cxd6 (In the next game the Ukrainian GM Evgenij Miroshnichenko tried to play in a gambit style 9 . . . �xd6 1O.!c'f3 c6 ll.dxc6 1lNe7. The ex­ world champion avoided accept­ ing the gift and soon he started ex­ ploiting his opponent's positional weaknesses: 12 .Ac4 ! bxc6 13.0-0 !c'cS I4.�c2 !c'fd7 15.!c'a4± Karpov - Miroshnichenko, Sochi 200S.) 1O.!c'f3 !c'cS (Black can go the cS­ square with his other knight, but he fails to build up a impenetrable fortress on the queenside anyway: 1O ... !c'd7 ll.�c1 !c'dcS 12 .ha6 !c'xa6 13.1lNb3 !c'b4 14.0-0 Ad7 IS.a3 !c'd3 16.l:k2 a4 17.�c4 !c'f4 IB.hi4 exf4 19.1lNb4±) ll.hcs dxcS 12.AbS a4, Khenkin - Man­ ca, Reggio Emilia 2006, 13.0-0 a3 14.b3± 8.g4 In case of B.1lNc2 (in order to counter B ... !c'cS with 9.b4) Black 63

Chapter 6 plays 8 . . . ltlh5, followed by fl-fS, while against 9 .g4, he has the re­ source 9 . . .tBf4. About B.�d3 lLleS, or B.lLlf3 lLlh5 - see variation C3 (6 . . . lLla6). S lLlc5 ..•

blotsky - Chuprov, Krasnoyarsk 2007.) 1l.�d2 (White is reluctant to play 1l.f3, while his bishop is on g2 and after 1l.gS lLlh7 12.h4 f6, Black opens advantageously the f-file, therefore White decides to sacrifice a pawn) 1l . . .hxg4 12.lLlg3 c6 13.0-0-0 cxdS 14.cxdS a4 lS.hxg4 lLlxg4 16.heS dxcS 17.f3 .tf6! (This is an important inter­ mediate move after which Black seizes the initiative indefinitely.) 1B.'it>b1 i.gS 19.�e2 lLle3=t Zablot­ sky - Fedorov, Voronezh 2 007. 9 a5 1 0 .lLlge2 c6 1l.tLlg3 i.d7 Black is preparing patiently the undermining pawn-break b7-bS, since after the transfer of White's knight to g3, Black's plan with t7-fS, would not work, so he has nothing else to do. 12.J.e2 cxd5 13.cxd5 a4 This is a typical resource, Black enlarges the field of actions on the queenside and he frees the as-square for his queen. 14.�dl White's queen, runs away from the open file, on which the enemy rook will soon appear and it sup­ ports the g-pawn in case Black tries the counter strike h3-h4-hS. 14 ... �a5 15 .td2 (diagram) 15 ti'b6 The following spectacular line for Black would not work: lS . . . a3 16.b3 i.h6!?, in view of 17.hh6 �xc3 1B ..td2 �b2 (Black would not change much with lB . . . �d4 •••

9.Vc2 White should protect his e4pawn with his queen, leaving his light-squared bishop aside for the time being. It can be developed later to e2 in order to protect the g4-pawn and it prevents the un­ dermining move b7-bS from the fl.-square. It is not advisable for White to opt for 9.i.g2 in view of 9 . . . a 5 (This prophylactic i s neces­ sary, otherwise White will repel the knight with the move b2-b4.) 1O.lLlge2 h5 (It is also good for Black to continue with 1O . . . c6 1l.lLlg3 cxdS 12.cxdS a4 13.�d2 �aS 14.0-0 bS. He has realized his plan and he has seized the initia­ tive on the queenside. lS.�ac1 i.a6 16.�fd1 �fcB 17.f3 lLlfd7 1B . .tfl. b4 19.1Llb1 hfl 2 0.'it>xfl .tf6 2 1.�e2 i.h4 2 2.lLlh1 a3 23.bxa3 bxa3+ Za64

•

•••

l.d4 0,f6 2.c4 g6 3. 0,c3 �g7 4.e4 d6 S.h3 0 - 0 6. �e3 superior after this, mostly thanks to his space advantage.

B) 6 ... li'Ja6 ! ?

19.f3 0,d3 20.hd3 �xd3 21.i.gS) 19.f3 l'!fc8 20.0-0 0,e8 21.l'!f2;!;. White has coped with his oppo­ nent's ill-prepared assault and he has stabilized the position. 16.gb1 gfeS 17.c,t>f1 It is sensible for White to evac­ uate his king away from the cen­ tre, while he should better leave his rook on the h-file, where it might be handy in the future. It will not work for him to play im­ mediately 17.h4?, because of 17 . . . 0,xg4! 18.hg4 0,d3 19.�e2 (19. �f1 �f2#) 19 ... hg4 etc. 17 �dS 1S.h4 gabS 19.f3 b5 White has failed to occupy the bS-square and Black succeeds in creating counterplay. 2 0 .l'!c1 b4 21.li'Jb1 �6 22.�g2 i.b5 23.�f1 he2 24. �xe2 li'JeS, Dinstuhl - Sieglen, Bad Godesberg 1991, 25.i.e3;!;. White's knight on b1 will join the actions soon (via d2 to c4), after which Black's counterplay on the queenside will reach its dead end. White's prospects in the centre and on the kingside are evidently • • •

After this move, Black exploits in principle the plan connected with e7-eS, but he preserves the possibility c7-c5 just in case.

B1) 7.g4 B2) 7.li'Jf3 B3) 7.i.d3 Black should better counter 7.0,ge2 with 7. . . cS. Here after 8.g4, there arises a transposition to line C1. In case White closes the cen­ tre with 8.dS, then Black contin­ ues with the standard pawn-break 8 . . . e6 and he obtains a good coun­ terplay, for example: 9.0,g3 hS 1O.i.e2 exdS 1l.exdS �b6 12J�'d2 h4 13.0,ge4 0,xe4 14.0,xe4 �xb2 1S.�xb2 hb2 16.l'!d1 i.fS 17.0,xd6 i.c2 18.�d2 hd1 19.l'!xd1 b6=i= Rai­ cevic - Lentze, Cattolica 1989. B1) 7.g4!? e5 This is a typical case. It is usu­ ally reasonable for Black to open 6S

Chapter 6 the queenside in answer to the compromising of White's king­ side. 8.�ge2 White fails to block the posi­ tion effectively: 8.d5 e6 9 ..ig2 exd5 10.cxd5, Mateo - Moreno, Madrid 2007 and here the move 10 . . . b5 ! t would lead to complica­ tions favourable for Black. 8 cxd4 9.�xd4 In case of 9 . .ixd4 \Wa5 1O.lLlg3, Sulava - Cebalo, Asti 1998, Black transfers with tempo his knight on a6 to its perfect square - c6 and he establishes control of the dark squares in centre: 1O . . . lLlb8 ! 1l.\Wd2 lLlc6 12 . .ie3 lLld7+ •••

19.\Wd2 .if6 20.lLlb4 lLl8c7 2U�cd1 E:fd8= Romero Holmes - Illescas, Pamplona 2 003.) 14 . . . .ic6 15.lLlg3 lLle6 16.\Wd2 \Wa5 (Black would not change anything with 16 . . . lLlf4 17.E:fd1.) 17.E:fd1 E:fe8 18.b4!± 1 0 .ig2 lLle5 1l.\We2 .ie6 It is sensible for Black to pro­ voke the weakening move b2-b3. His not afraid of the exchange of the e6, since White cannot attack the e6-pawn effectively and the d5 square will be reliably covered. 12.b3 lLlc5 13. 0 - 0 lLlc6 Black should strive for ex­ changing pieces in order to neu­ tralize his opponent's space ad­ vantage. 14.gadl Va5 15.lLld5 .txd5 16.exd5 lLlxd4 17 .txd4 .txd4 18.gxd4 �Ue8oo Black's king only looks help­ less, while in fact his queen and knight can quickly offer a helping hand. White can hardly attack ef­ fectively the e7-pawn and the as­ sault with the f2-pawn is too risky. In that case, Black's knight can occupy the e5-outpost. He also can employ a plan connected with b5. We can evaluate the prospects of both sides as approximately equal. •

•

9 lLld7!? This is a new idea. After 9 . . . .id7 1O ..ig2 !k8 1l.b3 lLlc5 12.0-0 a6 13.lk1 e5?! Black has his weaknesses just like his opponent. Still, the vulnerability on d6 creates certain problems for him. For example: 14.lLlde2 (This is more reasonable for White than 14.lLlc2 .ic6 15.f3 lLle6 16.\Wd2 lLle8 17.lLld5 .ixd5 18.\Wxd5 \We7 •••

66

B2) 7.lLlf3 (diagram) 7. . . e5 The preparatory move 7 . . . '?Ne8 includes a loss of time and that would be very important even in

l.d4 Cfjf6 2.c4 g6 3. Cfjc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 S.h3 0-0 6. ie3 B2a) 8.d5 lOh5 Black wishes to prepare f7-fS.

a closed position: 8.ie2 eS 9.dxeS dxeS 1O.cS (White occupies addi­ tional space and he emphasises the awkward placement of the knight on a6. 1O ... CfjhS 11.0-0 Cfjf4 12.j,xa6 (Black's bishop-pair can­ not compensate fully his numer­ ous pawn weaknesses.) 12 . . . bxa6 13J3e1 �b8 14.b3 Cfje6 lS.'iMS ib7 16JMfc4 @h8, Krush - Efimenko, Montreal 2 00S, 17.�adlt

B2a) 8.d5 B2b) 8.dxe5 In case White allows the ex­ change on d4, then Black equal­ izes easily, since he leads in devel­ opment anyway and he has open files for his pieces. 8.id3 exd4 9.hd4 Cfjb4 10. 0-0 �e8 11.�e1 cS 12 .ie3 �b6 13.�e2 i.e6 14.�c1 �ad8 lS.b3 Cfjxd3 16.�xd3 a6� Kantsler Yurtaev, Frunze 1985. 8.ie2 exd4 9.Cfjxd4 �e8 10.f3 c6 11.�d2 Cfjc7 12.0-0-0 dS 13. igS dxe4 14.fxe4 Cfje6 lS.Cfjxe6 �xd2+ 16.�d2 he6� Schmitz van Der Veen, Dieren 2003.

9.lOh2 White is eyeing the knight of hS preventing the accomplish­ ment of Black's plan for the time being. In general, it is essential for White to choose the right square for the retreat of his knight. Sta­ tistically speaking, he plays more often Cfjh2, maybe in order to jus­ tify the move h2-h3. Meanwhile, even after the more natural re­ treat 9.Cfjd2, Black builds up his counterplay according to the same scheme with 9 . . . �e8. 1) After 10.ie2 , Black's knight runs away from the attack: 10 . . . Cfjf4 11.�h2 fS 12.f3 �e7 13.if2 CfjcS� Kursova - Kochyev, St. Pe­ tersburg 1997. 2) 1O.Cfjb3 fS 11.exfS gxfS 12. ie2 Cfjf6 13.f4 exf4 14.i.xf4 CfjhS lS.ih2 f4 16.0-0 �e3 17.�f2 Cfjg3� Izeta - Milos, Pamplona 1991. 3) 1O.g3 fS 11.exfS gxfS 12 .ie2 Cfjf6 13.�gl (13.igS, Krogius 67

Chapter 6 Salo, Jyvaskyla 1991, 13 ... �g6! ? 14.h4 h 6 lS.hS! ? �f7 - after I S. . . �xgS? ! 16.lLlf3 �g4 17J:'1h4, Black's compensation for the queen is in­ sufficient - 16 ..ie3oo) 13 ... �hB 14.lLlb3 �g6 lS.f4 lLle4+t Akesson - Hellers, Naestved 19BB. It is too slow for White to play 9.lLlg1, for example: 9 ... �eB 1O . .ie2 lLlf4 1l . .if3 fS 12 .g3 fxe4 13.ixe4 .ifS 14J�h2 lLlb4 1S.f3 lLlhS 16.a3 lLla6 17.g4 he4 1B.lLlxe4 lLlf6 and Black's chances are at least equal, Andonov - Korobov, Sautron 2003. Finally, White can leave his knight of f3, but Black can still continue with the same plan. 9.a3 �eB 1O.b4 fS 11.E:c1 f4 12 . .id2 cS 13.dxc6 bxc6 14 . .id3 �hB lS.�e2 lLlc7 16.bS cS 17.lLldS lLle6 1B.a4 .if6 19.aS .idB 2 0.a6 gS 2 1.�d1 lLlf6+t Bewersdorff - Timoshenko, Mainz 1995. 9 'leeS 10 .ie2 fS ll.exfS Black is better after 1l ..txhS gxhS 12.lLlf3 fxe4 13.lLld2 �g6 14.�e2 .ifS 1S.0-0-0 lLlb4 16.E:dgl c6, Anastasian - Neverov, Minsk 1990. 11.0-0 lLlf6 12.exfS gxfS 13.f4 exf4 14 ..txf4 lLlcS lS.lLlbS �e7 16. lLld4 lLlfe4 17.lLlhf3 .id7 1B.E:e1 as+t Grunberg - Nevednichy, Ro­ mania 1994. 1l lLlf4 12 .txf4 White wins a pawn, but Black seizes the initiative 12.0-0. For example: 12 ....txfS 13.E:e1 �f7 14.lLlf1 .txh3 lS.gxh3 lLlxh3 16. �g2 lLlxf2 17.�b1, C.Hansen •••

•••

6B

•

•

Kasparov, Svendborg 1990 and here if we trust the PC programme "Rybka", Black can force a per­ petual with 17 ... .ih6 1B ..txh6 �d7 19 . .txfB E:xiB 20 . .if3 �h3 21.�xf2 �xf3. Kasparov chose something else 17... e4, but the game ended in a draw anyway after a sharp play not devoid of mistakes. 12 exf4 13.fxg6 �xg6t •••

Black has two wonderful bish­ ops, an active queen and White has great problems castling. In the game Akopian - Hernandez, Linares 1996, the opponent's agreed to a draw. 14.�f1 .ifS IS.lLlf3 .if6 16. lLld4 .ixd4 17.�xd4 lLlb4 1S.�kl gaeS 19 .ig4 lLlc2 2 0 .ixf5 �xf5 21. �d2 lLle3 22. �gl lLlxc4 23.'lec2 'lehS. Possibly, Black,s play can be improved and in the final position he could have tried to play on for a win. •

•

B2b) S.dxeS This attempt to occupy space on the queenside is not dangerous for Black.

l.d4 I1Jf6 2.c4 g6 3. 11Jc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 S.h3 0 - 0 6. i.e3 S dxeS 9.c5 The next line seems harmless for Black: 9.\Wxd8 l':!xd8 1O.a3 b6 1l.b4 J.b7 12.cS bxcS 13.bxcS l1Jb8 14.l1Jd2 I1Jc6 lS.l':!b1 l3ab8 16.l1JbS I1Jd4+ Nikolic - Ilincic, Yugosla­ via 1993, or 9.a3 c6 10.J.e2 I1JhS 11.Wlc2 I1Jf4= •••

l':!d6 f4 19.i.d2 gS 20.\Wc3 ! (20.l':!cl g4 21.hxg4 .b:g4 22.l':!c3 h8 23. l':!cd3 Wlfl 24.Wlc3 WlhS 2S.a4 l3g8 26. f1 l1Jc7� Karpov - Istratescu, Bucharest 200S.) 20 . . . g4 21.hxg4 hg4 22.l3dU Black provoked interesting complications with 1l . . . J.d7 12. Wlb3 \We8 13.i.c4 I1Jxe4? ! Still af­ ter 14.l3xd7! I1Jxc3 lS.l3xf7 I1Jd3 16 . .b:d3 l':!xf7 17.bxc3 a4 18.Wlc4 h8 19.i.e4 c6 20.h4± the evalu­ ation of the position has become perfectly clear. White had a great advantage in the game Karpov Golubev, Odessa 2008. 12.a3 I1Jc6 13 .te2 J.d7 14. "l'c2 gfdS 1S. 0 - 0 i.e6 16.i.bS l1Ja7 White's game is simple and natural. He succeeds gradually in squeezing his opponent. 17.i.a4 i.c4 1S.gfe1 c6 19. i.b3 J.e6 2 0 .ix:e6 "l'xe6 21. �dS gxdS 22."I'a4± Radjabov - Milov, Warsaw 200S. •

B2b1) 9 l1Jb4 B2b2) 9 b6 B2b3) 9 Wlxd1 •••

•••

•••

•

B2b1) 9 l1Jb4 This is the sharpest line for Black with queens present on the board. White's prospects look somewhat preferable, since he can cope with his lag in develop­ ment, preserving his pressure on the centre and on the queenside. 1 0 .Wla4 aS 1Uld1 Wle7 In response to 1l . . . \We8, White has the powerful resource 12.i.bS ! c6 13.J.e2 I1JhS 14.a3 I1Ja6 1S.WlxaS I1Jf4 (Black's compensation for the pawn is insufficient, but he can still create problems for White's king.) 16.0-0 I1Jxe2 17.l1Jxe2 fS 18. •••

B2b2) 9 b6! ? Black's enemy number one is White's cS-pawn and he wishes to get rid of it outright. 1 0 .cxb6 After 10.\Wa4 I1JxcS 1l.hcS bxcS 12.l':!d1 \We7, Black's game is quite acceptable, Kukov - Spa­ SOY, Plovdiv 2008. His queenside pawn-structure has been compro­ mised, but he has an extra pawn and open files and diagonals for his rooks and bishops. •••

69

Chapter 6

Markus - Kotronias, Vrnjacka Banja 2006.

B3) 7 ..td3

1 0 Jbdl 11.lhdl axb6 12 . .tc4 .tb7 13 .td3 �fe8 14.a3 .tf8 IS .tbS c6 16 .te2 tLJc5= Karpov - Kasimdzhanov, Spain 2007. Black has realised his plan with precision and he has equal­ ized. There are just a few games with the move 9 . . . b6 and only further tournament practice will show its defects if at all. • •

•

•

•

B2b3) 9 �xdl Black has a more straightfor­ ward way to equality, connected with a trade of queens and then knights. 1 0 .�xdl tLJb4 11.�d2 1l . .tc4? lLlc2+ 12.@e2 lLlxe3 13.fxe3 lLld7 14.b4 c6 15J%hfl .tf6 16.lLld2 .te7 17 . .td3 a5 18.a3 b6=F Crouch - Tkachiev, London 1994. 1l .te6 12.a3 tLJa2 Black exploits the fact that his opponent's e4-pawn needs pro­ tection and he provokes a favour­ able exchange. 13.tLJxa2 ha2 14 ..td3 �fd8 IS. 0 - 0 �xd3 16.�xd3 .tc4 17. lLlxeS hd3 18.tLJxd3 tLJxe4= •..

• ••

70

7 eS The following game shows that is still sensible for Black to wait a bit with determining the pawn­ structure in the centre: 7. . . �e8 8.lLlge2 (8.lLlf3 ! ?) 8 . . . e5 (Here, when White's king's knight can­ not go along the route f3-g5-e6, the plan with e7-e5, followed by f7-f5 is quite sensible.) 9.d5 lLlhS 1O.�d2 fS 11.exf5 gxfS 12 . .tgS e4 13 . .tc2 lLlb4 14.g3 f4? Lutsko Golubev, Odessa 2008. 8.dS tLJc5 In case of 8 . . . lLld7, White must prevent f7-fS with 9.g4 (Black should not be afraid of 9.a3 fS 1O.b4 lLlf6 1l.lLlf3 cS 12J'!b1, draw, Khenkin - Efimenko, Subotica 2008.) 9 . . . lLldc5 1O . .tc2 fS 1l.a3 (White exploits the fact that Black's knight on a6 is misplaced at the moment and he cannot play a7-aS.) 1l . . . fxe4 12.he4 �b8 (M­ ter 12 . . . lLlxe4 13.lLlxe4 b6 14.b4, •••

l.d4 CiJf6 2.c4 g6 3. CiJc3 ig7 4.e4 d6 S.h3 0-0 6. i.e3 Black will have great problems to bring his knight into the actions, for example: 14 . . . ib7 15.CiJe2 c6 16.dxc6 hc6 17.CiJ 2c3 CiJc7 1S.0-0 d5 19.cxd5 hd5 20.CiJxd5 �xd5 2 UkU) 13.b4 CiJxe4 14.CiJxe4 b5 (This looks smart, but it is still insufficient for equality.) 15.cxb5 Ei:xb5 16.CiJe2 CiJbS 17.CiJ2c3 Ei:b7 lS.0-0 �h4 19.@g2 ih6 20.�d2� Miroshnichenko - Lutsko, Minsk 2007. 9.i.e2 a5 1 0 .�d2 1O.g4 id7 11.CiJge2 CiJeS 12.�d2 f5 13.gxf5 gxf5 14.exf5 �h4 15. b3 hf5 16.i.xf5 Ei:xf5 17.CiJg3 Ei:f7 lS.0-0-0 @hSf± Potapov Schepetkova, Vladimir 200S. This is a precise move aimed at 1O . . . c6, which now White can counter with 11.dxc6 bxc6 12. 0-0-0 and Black can hardly pro­ tect his d-pawn. The fight would be very interesting after 10.CiJge2 c6 1l.a3 cxd5 12.cxd5 i.d7 13.b4 axb4 14.axb4 CiJa6 15.Ei:b1 CiJh5 16.�d2 Ei:cS 17.g3 Ei:c4 lS.tLld1 f5 19.id3 Ei:c8°o Gerusel - Becke­ meier, Germany 19S3. 1 0 . . . CiJh5 11.CiJge2

1l ... f5 12.exf5 i.xf5, Bets Fedoseev, Peterhof2007, 13.i.xf5 gxf5 14.g4 (White establishes control over the e4-square after this important resource.) 14 ... fxg4 15.hxg4 CiJf4 16.he5 dxe5 17.tlJg3�. Black cannot threaten seriously the enemy king, while his bishop might be endangered after one of White's knights occu­ pies the e4-square. Black should possibly play here 17 . . . e4, giving back a pawn deliberately, with the idea to place the bishop of d4. White can however, deprive his opponent of this resource starting with 17.CiJe4. C) 6 ... e5! ?

Black plays analogously t o the Averbakh system, which we will deal with in the second part of our book. The difference is that here White has a pawn on h3, instead of a bishop on e2, while Black's pawn is not on h6.

C1) 7.tlJf3 C2) 7.dxe5 71

Chapter 6

But not 7.eS, in view of 7. . . ltJeB B.dxc5 ,beS+ In case of 7.dS, Black can sac­ rifice a pawn: 7 . . .bS (7. . . e6! ?) 8.cxbS a6 9.bxa6 ltJbd7 10.'lWd2 'lWaS. The following game shows that the Benko Gambit is quite ap­ plicable here for Black (White has played some not so useful moves like h3 and i.e3.) 1Uk1 ,ba6 12.,ba6 'lWxa6 13.b3 ltJeS 14J:;:d1 c4 lS.ltJge2 ltJd3 16.f1 ltJb4+ Za­ blotsky - Kryakvin, Krasnoyarsk 2 007.

el) 7.ltJf3 White plans to transfer the game to the Maroczy system of the Sicilian defence. 7,..cxd4 Black has also tried in prac­ tice 7 . . . 'lWaS, but I do not think this is reasonable. For example: B.i.d3 (In case of B.'lWd2 ltJc6 9.dS, Black's knight is deployed in the centre in a typical fashion - 9 ... ltJd4! It is not good now for White to play 1O.ltJxd4 cxd4 11.,bd4 ltJxe4! 12.ltJxe4 'lWxd2 13.ltJxd2 ,bd4, or 11.'lWxd4? ltJxe4! 12.'lWxe4 ,bc3, while after 1O.,bd4 cxd4 1l.lLlbS 'lWxd2 12.lLlxd2 lLld7 13. lLlb3 lLlcS 14.lLlxcS dxcS lS.i.d3 a6 16.lLla3 eS+ Meynard - Nataf, France 2006, Black ended up with an advantage.) B . . . lLlfd7 (8. .. cxd4 9 .lLlxd4 lLlc6 10.0-0 i.d7;!;) 9.0-0 lLlc6 1O.i.e2 cxd4 l1.lLlxd4 lLlxd4 12.,bd4 ,bd4 13.'lWxd4 'lWb6, Karpov - Efimenko, Sochi 200B. White should have pre72

served queens here with 14.'lWd2, maintaining the typical for the Maroczy system slight edge. 8.ltJxd4 b6! This is the right move for Black with the idea of developing the bishop to the long diagonal, emphasizing that the move h3 has been premature. In case he choses something else, then White ob­ tains an excellent version of the Maroczy system for example: B . . . lLlc6 9.i.e2 lLlxd4 1O.,bd4 i.d7 11.0-0 i.c6 12 .'lWd3 as 13J':'1ad1 lLld7 14.,bg7 xg7 lS.'lWd4 gB 16.f4 'IWb6 17.'lWxb6 lLlxb6 (The ex­ changes have facilitated Black's defence, but White maintains his space advantage and he is bet­ ter in the endgame.) 1B.b3 fEfdB 19.f2 lLld7 20.e3 lLlcS 2 1.g4t Lysyj - Kokarev, Novokuznetsk 200B. 9.i.d3 9.g3 i.b7 1O.i.g2 lLlbd7 11.0-0 fEbB 12.'lWc2 a6 13.b3 e6 14.fEad1 'lWe7 lS.i.c1 fEfcB 16.a4 lLlcSf± Khairullin - Shomoev, Zvenigo­ rod 200B. 9,. .i.b7 1 0 . 0 - 0 ltJbd7 11.f3 Black was threatening lLlcS, with a double attack against d3 and e4. 1l,..1''k 8 12.i.e2 ltJhS 13.'lWel, Skembris - Nikolaidis, Gly­ fada 1995, 13, ..i.eS. White fails to protect all his dark-squared weaknesses and his move h2-h3 has contributed to this, for exam­ ple 14.f4? ltJxf4 IS.fExf4 M4 16.M4 eS=F

l.d4 CBf6 2.c4 g6 3 . l1Jc3 j,g7 4.e4 d6 5.h3 0 - 0 6.j.e3 C2) 7.dxeS

7 Va5 8.j,d3 Black organizes a very dan­ gerous attack, which more than compensates his sacrificed ex­ change after B.cxd6 CBxe4 9.dxe7 hc3 1O.bxc3 YNxc3 1l.j.d2 CBxd2 12.exfBV 'iflxfB 13.YNc1 YNa5!+ 8 dxc5 It deserves attention for Black to play the gambit move B .. J'1dB ! ? I n the game Cramling - Forster, Horgen 1995, White decided not to accept the sacrifice and this en­ abled Black to develop his forces comfortably: 9 . .td2 YNc7 1O.YNe2 dxc5 1l.e5 CBfd7 12.f4 CBb6 13.CBf3 CBc6 14. 0-0 .te6= 9.e5 Black has here three possible retreats of this knight and two of them are quite acceptable - CBfd7 and CBh5. (diagram) C2a) 9 ... CBh5 C2b) 9 CBfd7 • • •

.••

• . .

The passive line: 9 ... CBeB 1O.f4 CBc6 is not good for Black. (It is

not so easy for him to get rid of the pawn-wedge on e5, for exam­ ple: 1O .. .f6 11.CBf3 CBc6 12.0-0 fxe5 13.fxe5 CBc7 14.CBd5 CBxd5 15.cxd5 CBxe5 16.CBxe5 13xf1 17.Vxf1 .txe5 1B.d6, with a powerful initiative for White, Miroshnichenko Grigore, Romania 2 007.) l1.CBf3 .te6 12 .YNe2 13dB 13.0-0 CBc7. This knight is not well placed here and the bishop on g7 is also out of ac­ tions. 14.a3 CBd4 15.hd4 cxd4 16.b4 Vb6 17.c5. White contin­ ues to build up a positional bind. (The hasty line: 17.CBa4 Vc6 1B.b5 YNeB 19 ..te4, enabled Black to ac­ complish the undermining pawn­ break 19 . . . a6 and after 2 0.13ab1 axb5 21.cxb5 CBd5+ his pieces were so active that he seized the initiative, Akopian - Khalifman, Linares 1995; it was also impre­ cise for White to play 17.CBe4 f6.) 17 . . . YNc6 1B.CBb5;!;

C2a) 9 CBh5 1 0 .g4 The first impression is that Black is losing his knight of h5. Still, he has a tactical trick justify­ ing this play. •.•

73

Chapter 6 1 0 .l�d8 ! Is it bad for him to opt for 10 . . . heS?! 1l.gxhS hc3 12.bxc3 �xc3 13.@e2 �d8 14.�c1 �f6 1S.�b3 .id7 16 . .ie4 tDc6 17.tDf3 tDd4 18.hd4 cxd4 19.@fU - White has parried his opponent's attack, maintain­ ing his material advantage. 1l.tDf3 After 1l.gxhS .ifS, Black re­ gains his piece thanks to the pin. 1l tDc6 12. 0 - 0 ! tDxe5 13. tDxe5 GM Fressinet recommended here 13.tDdS ! ?, but then the line: 13 . . . tDxd3 14.1Wxd3 tDf6 1S . .id2 �xdS! 16.cxdS �d8oo would lead to a position with a mutual chanc­ es. 13 ,ixe5 14.tDd5 tDg7 Black's knight is headed for the d4-square along this some­ what unusual route. The more routine retreat 14 . . . tDf6, would enable White to obtain an advan­ tage: 1S.tDxe7 @h8 ! ? (but not 1S . . . @g7 16.1We2 �c7 17.f4!t Fressinet - Golod, Biel 2006) 16 . .igS (16. 1We2 �c7 17.tDxc8 �axc8=) 16 . . . .ie6 17.�f3 tDg8 18.tDxg8 �xg8 19.�ae1 .ig7 20.b3 �ae8 21.�e2± 15.tDxe7 @h8 16.�b3 tDe6 17 .ie4 tDd4 18.,ixd4 ,ixd4oo Black can look to the future optimistically, because of his cen­ tralized bishop and White's com­ promised king's fortress. • •

•••

•••

Black has a combination at his disposal: 12 . . . tDd4! (After 12 . . . tDf8 13.0-0 tDe6 14.tDdS± White main­ tains some positional pressure.) 13.tDxd4 (Just like always, it is too risky for White to leave his op­ ponent's knight on d4 - 13.�f1?! tDb6 14.0-0-0 .ifS 1S.hiS tDxfS 16.l"ixd8+ �xd8 17 . .if2 �b4 18.g4 and Black was soon victorious af­ ter a series of simple, but beauti­ ful tactical strikes: tDxc4 19.�e2 tDxb2 20.�xb2 �xf4+ 21.tDd2 �xf2 2 2 .gxfS heS; White re­ signed, Burkhalter - Boger, corr. 1994.) 13 . . . tDxeS 14.fxeS cxd4 1S . .id2 dxc3. In the game, Miro­ shnichenko - Markos, Plovdiv 2008, the adversaries agreed to a draw at this moment, but after 16.hc3 �b6+ Black's prospects would have been somewhat bet­ ter.

•

C2b) 9 tDfd7 1 0 .f4 gd8 1l.tDf3 In case of 1l.�e2 tDc6 12.tDf3, •••

74

1l tDc6 Here, Black can try to solve his problems in a tactical fashion: 11...tDxeS ! ? 12.tDxeS heS 13.fxeS .ifS 14.0-0 (After 14.�f3 hd3 1S.�xb7 hc4 16.�xa8? .idS-+ . . •

l.d4 I1Jf6 2.c4 g6 3. 11Jc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5.h3 0-0 6. i.e3 White's queen is trapped.) 14 . . . .ixd3 (White wishes t o deploy his knight on the d5-outpost in the next few moves, therefore it deserves attention for Black to try the exchange-sacrifice: 14 . . . l'!xd3 15.�e2 l'!xc3 16.bxc3 .te6. Still after 17.l'!ab1 �c7 1B.l'!f4 I1Jd7 19.�f3 l'!bB 20.l'!h4± he fails to equalize completely, Romero Hol­ mes - Guseinov, Calvia 2004.) 15.e6 (This is a useful intermedi­ ate move, thanks to which White compromises the position of the enemy king.) 15 . . .f5 (It is too risky for Black to capture the pawn, be­ cause there would be too many open files in the vicinity of his king on gB.) 16.l1Jd5 l'!xd5 17.cxd5 .hfl 18.�xf1 l1Ja6 19.94 (Natu­ rally, White has some other active possibilities, because the situa­ tion of the enemy king seems per­ ilous. It is not easy to checkmate it however.) 19 . . . l1Jc7 20.l'!d1 �xa2 21..ixc5oo. The first impression is that Black should be able to hold this position. 12. 0 - 0 The line: 12.�e2 I1Jd4! trans­ poses to what he have just ana­ lyzed (in our notes to White's move eleven.) as in the game Mi-

roshnichenko - Markos, Plovdiv 200B. 12 l1Jb4 Black begin his fight for the d5-square. 13.�d5 �b6 14.�xe7 The pin along the d-file is doubtlessly very dangerous, but White has an attractive tactical trick up his sleeve. 14 ... �f8 15.�xc8 l'!xd3 16. .td2 This is the essence of White's idea, since now he can counter 16 . . . l'!xcB with 17..ixb4, regaining his piece. •••

16 l'!xd2 ! 17.�xd2 gxc8+ Black has a slight material ad­ vantage and it is even more im­ portant that White has no objects to attack. •••

75

Chapter 7

1.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 J.g7 4.e4 d6 5.h3 0-0 6.J.g5

There were times when this line was considered to be prob­ lematic for Black. Contrary to the Saemisch Attack, White pre­ serves the possibility to develop his knight to the f3-square. The only drawback of this setup, is that the e4-pawn is not protected sufficiently.

A) 6 . . . �a6 B) 6 ... �bd7 C) 6 c5 •••

A) 6

•••

�a6

Al) 7 .id3 A2) 7.�f3 •

that the plan with 7.�ge2 (with the idea g4 and ltlg3) is too slow, since Black manages to create a powerful queenside counterplay: 7. . . eS 8.dS c6 9.g4 cxdS 1O.cxdS id7 1l.ltlg3 %Vb6 12.%Vd2 ltlcS 13 . .te2 as 14 . .ie3 :!3fc8 1S.:!3c1 a4 16.f3 %VaS 17.g;,f2 bS (It is evident that Black is much ahead of his oppo­ nent, without too much of an ef­ fort. His initiative is developing effortlessly.) 18.g;,g2 b4 19.ltld1 a3 20.b3 ltlxb3 ! (White's rooks are not coordinated and therefore, this combination on the theme of a pawn-break becomes possible.) 21.axb3 :!'!xc1 22.%Vxc1 a2 23.1Wa1 ltlxdS (This is the point.) 24.exdS e4 2S.ltlb2, Gyimesi - J.Ivanov, Andorra 2001 and here the quick­ est way for Black to victory wound be 2S . . . 1WxdS 26.ltlxe4 1Wxb3 27. ic1 %Vc2 28.ltld2 ic3-+ - and White is completely stalemated and even his two extra pieces are not enough to save the day.

Al) 7 .id3 eS S.dS •

Ala) S 1WeS Alb) S c6 •••

The following game shows 76

•••

l.d4 CiJf6 2.c4 g6 3. CiJc3 j,g7 4.e4 d6 S.h3 0 - 0 6. j,gS Ala) 8 1Ye8 •••

CiJxb6 19.CiJxb6 axb6 20.1Yxb6 l3a6 21.Yfb2 CiJe8� Sergienko - Efi­ menko, St. Petersburg 2004) 14 . . . �e7 1S.CiJd1 CiJab8 16.CiJf2 l3f7 and in the next game White was too greedy to win the exchange and he ended up in a very unpleas­ ant position: 17.cS dxc5 18.d6 cxd6 19.j,c4 CiJb6 2 0 .hf7+ @xf7 21.Yfc2 j,e6+ Janssen - Reinder­ man, Hilversum 2 0 08. 9 c6 Black can hardly avoid this move. Naturally, he can organize the undermining move b7-bS, leav­ ing the c-pawn on its square, but after 9 . . .j,d7 1O.CiJge2 CiJcS 1l.j,c2 as 12 .1e3 bS 13.cxbS hbS 14. 0-0 l3b8 1S.l3b1 j,a6 16.a3 Yfe7 17.b4 axb4 18.axb4 CiJcd7 19.j,d3;!; the backward c7-pawn will be a long term weakness in Black's posi­ tion, Ungureanu - Balla, Roma­ nia 2007. l O .CiJge2 cxd5 This move is considered the best for Black. He wishes to see what pawn White will recapture with and only after that, he will decide what to do with his queen's knight. After the symmetrical capture (ll.cxdS) the knight will go to cS and Black will continue with his pawn-offensive a7-aS-a4 and b7-bS. If White play's 1l.exdS, then Black will leave his knight on a6 and he will be threatening CiJ b4 followed by the exchange of the important white light-squared bishop. •••

The plan with f7-fS is not effec­ tive in this pawn-structure. Black should seek his chances on the queenside, opening the c-file after c7 -c6, but in this case, his queen is placed better on the d8-square. It can go from there to as, or b6. Meanwhile, the move in the text has its advantages as well: Black has freed his knight on f6 and also his queen on e8 can sup­ port the pawn-advance b7-bS. 9.g4 This is a prophylactic move against CiJhS-f4 and f7-fS. White plays here quite often 9 .CiJge2 - he develops his knight taking control once again over the f4-square. Then Black should play flexibly maneuvering his king's knight back, instead of for­ ward: 9 . . . CiJd7 1O.a3 fS 1l.b4 (1l.f3 CiJac5 12.1c2 fxe4 13.fxe4 as 14.b4 axb4 1S.axb4 l3xa1 16.�xa1 CiJa6� Kazhgaleyev - Sande, Lisbon 2000.) 1l .. .f4 12.f3 j.f6 13.hf6 l3xf6 14.�a4 (14.�3 @h8 1S.@d2 cS 16.bS CiJc7 17.CiJa4 �d8 18.b6

77

Chapter 7 In the next game Black tried to put this evaluation to the test by playing it first lO . . . lLlcS and only after 1l . .tc2 - 1l . . . cxdS 12.exdS e4! ? This is a very interesting idea, since both White's flanks have been compromised and it will be very dangerous for him to try to win his enemy's e4-pawn, while his king remains in the centre. Still, White succeeded in obtain­ ing the advantage: 13.lLlbS VlJe7 14.VlJd2 .!d7 1S.lLlbc3 gfe8 16.�fl a6 17.a4 gac8 18.lLlg3 VlJd8 19.�g2 VlJb6 20.aS VlJb4± Romanov - Kha­ lifman, Moscow 2008, but in case of 2 0 VlJc7!? the situation would have remained double-edged. 1l.cxdS lLlcS 12 .lc2 as 13.a3 a4 14.lLlg3

lS.VlJf3 VlJdS 16.lLlge2 .!d7 17.lLla2 White's actions are not im­ pressive at all. Small wonder that Black position is excellent. 17 gcS 1S.lLlec3 h6 19 .!h4 gS 2 0 .lg3 lLlb3 21 .b:b3 axb3 22.�b4 hS+t Beliavsky - Kozul, Portoroz 1997. •••

•

•

Alb) S

•

••.

c6

.•.

•

14 bS This is why Black needed his queen on the e8-square. Still, this is not quite exact, since the pawn-move would have been pos­ sible with the queen on d8 as well. White can hardly afford to open the b-file and the diagonal a6-fl with his knight still on e1. •••

78

This looks like a more logical move. Black can always play VlJe8 after all! 9.�ge2 cxdS 1 0 .cxdS 1O.lLlxdS lLlcS 11.0-0 lLle6 12. lLlxf6+ .!xf6 13 . .!e3 .!gS 14.VlJd2 be3 1S.VlJxe3 .td7 16.gad1 .!c6 17. .tc2 VlJe7 18.gd2 as 19.9fd1 gfd8 20.lLlc3 lLld4 21 . .!a4 VlJe6, draw, Stocek - Smirin, Goteborg 200S. 1O.exdS h6 1l ..!e3 lLld7 12 .0-0 fS 13.f4 e4 14 . .!b1 lLlb6 1S.b3 lLlcS 16 . .tc2 .!d7 17.'!d4 as 18.bg7 �xg7 19.VlJd4+ VlJf6+t Kazhgaleyev - Zhou Jianchao, Hyderabad 200S. 1 0 ... �cS ll.J.c2 as 12. 0 - 0

1.d4 CiJf6 2.c4 g6 3. CiJc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 S.h3 0-0 6. i.gS About 12.a3 a4 13.0-0 i.d7 see 12.0-0. 12 i.d7 13.a3 a4

i.e8, draw, Kasparov - Kramnik, Las Palmas 1996.

• . •

A2) 7.tLlfJ

In this position, White has tried in practice numerous moves, but he has failed to create any se­ rious problems for his opponent: 14.CiJcl? ! h6 15.i.e3 �a5 16J'1bl l=!fc8°o Yermolinsky - Manion, Chicago 1995; 14.g4 �b6 15.i.e3 l=Uc8 16.Wg2 �a6? Bates - Hebden, Swansea 1995; 14.whl �b6 15.l=!bl wh8 16.g4 CiJg8 17.CiJg3 1Wa6= Dreev - Fedo­ rov, Maikop 1998; 14J'1bl �e7 15.f3 l=!fc8 16.g4 i.e8 17JU2 b5 18.CiJa2 �b7 19.CiJb4 h6 2 0.i.d2 CiJfd7 21.CiJc3 CiJb6 22. CiJca2 CiJc4 and in the game Baciu - Fedorov, Bucharest 2008, Black seized the initiative; 14.�d2 �b6 15.l=!abl l=!fc8 16. CiJg3 (16.whl i.e8 17.i.h6 CiJfd7 18.CiJg3 �d8 19.hg7 Wxg7 20. CiJdl �h4 2 1.CiJe3 wg8 22.CiJg4 h5 23.�h6 �e7 24.CiJe3 �f8= Mitite­ lu - Planinec, Bath 1973) 16 ... �d8 17.i.h6 hh6 18.�xh6 �f8 19.�e3

7 e5 S.d5 The transfer into an endgame with 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.�xd8 l=!xd8 see Chapter 8, line A2b. S WeS 9.g4 This move is played to counter Black's plan with CiJh5 and f7-f5, prepared with the move 8 . . . 1We8. In case of 9.i.e2, Black real­ izes his idea 9 . . . CiJh5 1O.g3 f6 (It is reasonable to repel the bishop to less active square, although Black can also try the immediate 1O .. .f5, for example: 1l.exf5 gxf5 12.CiJh4 CiJf6 13.�c2 CiJc5 14.0-0-0 CiJce4 15.CiJxe4 CiJxe4 16.i.e3 c6? Ivani­ sevic - Hausrath, Biel 2008.) 1l.g4 (White had better retreat with his bishop to d2. Black is much better prepared for the con­ flict on the kingside and in addi­ tion, he will have the two-bishop advantage.) 1l . . . fxg5 12.gxh5 gxh5 13.CiJxg5 �e7 14.l=!gl �f6 15.l=!g2 ••.

.••

79

Chapter 7 mhB 16.hhS .ih6 17.h4 ltJcS lB. b4 �f4 19.1tJe2 �xh4 20.ltJf7 1'M7 21 . .ixf7 .ih3+ Gyimesi - Shirov, Moscow 2001. It also interesting for White to opt for 9.ltJd2, keeping the pawn­ structure on the side flexible with the idea to counter 9 ... ltJhS with the move 1O . .ie2. Therefore, it is sensible for Black to send his knight via another route: 9 ... h6 1O . .ie3 ltJh7 11.g4 c6 (This is a typ­ ical situation. Whenever it is not advantageous to open files on the kingside - look for your chances to the queenside!) 12J'ig1 .id7 13.h4 cxdS 14.cxdS bS lS.ltJb3 b4 16.ltJb1 .ibS 17.ltJ1d2 gcB 1B . .ixa7 .ixf1 19.ltJxf1 �e7 2 0 . .ie3 �xh4? Schuurman - Krush, Beijing 200B 9 ... �d7 Black's knight cannot go to hS and it is not advisable for him to play 9 ... h6 10 . .ie3 ltJh7? 11.�d2. There is another route for the knight however. 1 0 .ggl White's king has been strand­ ed in the centre, so he would like to avoid the premature opening of the game. The complications after 1O.ltJd2 fS ll.gxfS gxfS 12 .gg1 mhB 13.exfS ltJdcS, lead to a double­ edged position: 14.f6 .ixf6 lS . .ih6 ggB 16.gxgB �xgB 17.�hS .id7 1B.0-0-0 .ieB 19.�fS .ig7 20 . .ie3 .ig6 21.�g4 �f7? San Segundo ­ Shirov, Madrid 1994. lO mh8 This is a useful prophylactic •.•

BO

- Black has always the counter strike f7-fS up his sleeve. In case Black plays only on the queenside, his might come under a positional bind: 1O ... ltJdcS 1l.a3 .id7 12.b4 ltJa4 13.ltJbS (Naturally White should avoid exchanges.) 13 ...ltJb6 14.�d3 mhB lS . .ie2 f6 16 . .id2 fS (This undermining move is a bit too slow, since White manages to find a safe square for his king on c1.) 17.gxfS gxfS lB. 0-0-0 �e7 19.1tJgS fxe4 20.ltJxe4 .ifS 21.ltJbc3± Krasenkow - Smi­ rin, Belgrade 1999.

11.�d2 It is harmless for Black if White plays 1l . .ie2 f6 12 . .ie3 fS (Black's pawn has come to fS in two moves, having repelled the enemy bishop to e3 in the proc­ ess.) 13.gxfS gxfS 14.exfS ltJdcS lS.ltJh4 .ixfS 16.ltJxfS gxfS 17.�d2 �fB 1B.0-0-0 gf6 ! 19.9g4 .ih6 (Black brings his king to safety, exchanging the dark-squared bishops.) 20.gdg1 .ixe3 21.�xe3 �h6 22.md1 gafB? J.Ivanov Akopian, Ubeda 2001.

l.d4 0,f6 2.c4 g6 3. 0, c3 �g7 4.e4 d6 5.h3 0 - 0 6. �g5 In case of 1l.0,d2, Black suc­ ceeds in inflicting a powerful strike against the enemy centre, employing both his knights in the process: 1l . . .fS 12.gxfS gxfS 13.a3 0,f6 14.'lMfc2 0,cS 1S.�e3 0,fxe4 16.0,dxe4 fxe4 17.0-0-0 0,d3+ 18.hd3 exd3 19.'lWxd3 �fS 2 0.'lMfd2 'lMfhS+± Trapl - van Oost­ erom, corr. 1998. It is also very reasonable for White to play 1l.a3 with the idea to follow with b4, depriving his opponent of the cS-square, since he can use it for both of his knights. Therefore, Black must play very energetically in order to avoid coming under a positional bind: 1l .. .fS 12.gxfS gxfS 13.b4 0,f6 14.�d3 0,xe4 IS.0,xe4 fxe4 16.he4 �fS 17.0,d2 'lMfg6 18.l'!g4, Krasenkow - Andonovski, Panor­ mo 2001, 18 . . .�h6 ! 19.i.xfS 'lMfxfS 20.�h4 (20.hh6? 'lMfxf2 #) 2 0 . . . hd2 21.'lMfxd2 l'!g8= 1l ... 0,dc5 12.0,h4 In reply to 12.�e2, Black can try to exchange advantageous­ ly the knights (In fact, he has an "extra" knight, since both of them are aiming at one and the same square - cS.) - 12 . . . 0,a4 and White has problems avoiding this exchange, because Black can counter 13.0,bS with 13 ... 0,4cS ! and if 14.'lMfc2 , then 14 ... �d7. In some games, the adversaries chose this variation as a short and reliable way of drawing the game (after 14.0,c3 0,a4 IS.0,bS 0,4cS etc.) . If White allows the trade of

knights, then Black's game is sim­ ple and comfortable: 13.�e3 13 . . . 0,xc3 14.'lMfxc3 0,c5 IS.hc5 dxcS 16.0-0-0 'lMfe7 17.wbl a6 18.'lMfe3 h6, with a double-edged position, Weber - Bruckel, corr. 2002. In case of the quite sensible move 12.0-0-0, Black builds up his game according to a standard scheme: 12 . . .�d7 13.Wbl f6 14.�e3 l'!g8 15.0,el fS 16.gxf5 gxfS 17.f3 'lMfe7 18.0,c2 f4 19.�f2 �f6oo Joen­ gensen - Kurylo, corr. 2002. 12 0,a4 13.0,b5 After 13.�d3 0,xc3 14.'lMfxc3, White maintains a slight edge, thanks to his space advantage. Still, the exchange of a couple of knights, facilitates Black's defence and he should manage gradually to solve his problems, for exam­ ple: 14 . . . c6 IS.'lMfa3 h6 16.�e3 cS 17.�d2 'lMfe7 18.0,g2 0,c7 19.b4 0,a6 20.b5 0,b8 21.'lMfc1 Wh7 2 2 .a4 f5 Dziuba - Skalski, Lubniewice 2002. 13 0,4c5 In the game Ostenstad - Maki, Haifa 1989, White was evidently not reluctant to draw and he opt­ ed for 14.0,c3 (White could have still tried to obtain some advan­ tage with the move 14.f3.) In his stead, Black could have tried to play for a win with the line: 14 �d7 15J�bl 0,a4 1 6 . 0,xa4 ha4 17.£1;!; White's prospects are still su­ perior, because of his space ad­ vantage and a very powerful cen­ tre. . • •

•..

. . •

81

Chapter 7 B) 6

•••

�bd7

bishop is away. (Meanwhile, Black can play immediately 8 . . . bS, since it will not work for White to con­ tinue with 9 .ttJxbS? ttJxe4.) 9.ttJf3 bS 10.cxbS �aS 1l.bxa6 J.xa6 12. J.xa6 �xa6 13.YNe2 �tb8 14.�bl ttJb6gg Hautaniemi - Kiltti, Fin­ land 1995. After 7.J.d3, Black can try both cS and eS.

Bl) 7 e5 B2) 7 c5 •.•

•••

This is a very flexible move, because later Black can use both the standard plan with eS, but in some cases, he can also play cS. Meanwhile, White is dominant in the centre and he can try to obtain some advantage. 7 .id3 I believe White's strongest move here is 7.�f3! and after 7. . . e S (the best) B.dS, there arises a position, with we analyze in variation B in the next chapter (after the move order 6.ttJf3 eS 7.dS ttJbd7 B.J.gS). There, White obtains some advantaqge after all. After 7. YNd2 cS B.dS a6, Black enters favourably a position from the Benko gambit. This is because White's set-up with J.gS, �d2 and h3 is good against the plan with e7-eS, while he is practically not well prepared to counter Black's queenside counterplay. White has lost a tempo for the move h3 and his important defender of the queenside - the dark- squared •

82

BI) 7 e5 S.d5 c6 9.�ge2 �c5 1 0 .J.c2 a5 Black can reduce the tension in the centre outright if he so wish­ es: 10 . . .cxdS 1l.exdS as 12.0-0 J.d7 13J�bl �eB 14.ttJg3 hS IS.J.e3 b6 16.f4 h4 17.ttJge2 exf4 IB . .!xf4 ttJfe4 19.YNel J.f5= Kazhgaleyev Ju.Polgar, Spain 2007. 11. 0 - 0 Following 1l.�d2, Black can­ not play h6, but he should not worry about that. He should use the same plan for counterplay on the queenside as in the main line. ll . . .cxdS 12.exdS (12.cxdS a4 13.0-0 J.d7 14.ttJg3 �b6 IS,l'!abl �fcB 16.a3 ttJb3 17.J.xb3 �xb3= Cousigne - Relange, France 2003) 12 . . .J.d7 13.0-0 �b6 14.lt>hl (14. ttJg3 �fc8 IS.J.e3 �a6 16.�e2 ttJeB 17.f4 fS 18.ttJbS ttJc7 19.a4 ttJxbS 20.axbS �b6=i= Bareev - Gelfand, Linares 1994) 14 . . . ttJhS IS.J.e3 �a6 16.b3 fS 17.f3 �ac8 IB.a4 b6+± Bazhin - Fedorov, Kstovo 1994. 11 h6 12.J.e3 cxd5 •••

•••

l.d4 t'iJf6 2.c4 g6 3. t'iJc3 iLg7 4.e4 d6 5.h3 0-0 6. iLg5 White cuts off Black's queen away from the kingside and he frees the d5 square for his knight making the position even sharper. Still, Black has enough resources to maintain the dynamic balance. 21 'i'd8 22.gbdl Ad7 23. gf3 �b3 24.'i'f2 ga6 25.J.xb3 axb3 26.Ac5 Ae600 Dziuba Areshchenko, Dresden 2007. • • •

13.exd5 White has another sensible plan with the move 13.exd5, be­ cause then both his bishops exert a powerful pressure against Black's kingside, for example: 13 . . . iLd7 14.�d2 rJih7 15.f4 �c8 16.t'iJg3 a4 17J�ac1 ga6 18.rJih2 exf4 19.hf4 t'iJe8 20.t'iJh5 ! (This is when the bishop on c2 turns out to be ex­ cellently placed!) 20 . . . iLe5 21.gce1 and White had a powerful posi­ tional bind in the game Avrukh - Soln, Szeged 1994. Still, Black's play can be improved: 15 . . . exf4!? 16.t'iJxf4 ge8, or 16.hf4 �b6 with a double-edged position. 13 iLd7 14.a3 a4 15.rJihl ge8 16.�d2 rJih7 17.f4 This move is usually good in case Black cannot place his knight immediately on the e5-outpost, after the exchange on f4. Here Black's light-squared bishop occu­ pies the important d7-square for his maneuvers and also after 17 . . . exf4 18J�xf4, White exerts power­ ful pressure along the f-file. 17 �b6 18.tt�g3 gee8 19. gabl .Ae8 20 .fxe5 dxe5 21.d6 • • •

•••

B2) 7 e5 •••

8.d5 After 8.dxc5 t'iJxc5 9.iLc2, Urtel - Kunze, Heimbach Weis 1997, 9 . . . �b6! 1O.gb1 �b4, Black wins a pawn without any sufficient com­ pensation for White. 8 �e5 9.�f3 As a rule, the exchanges are advantageous for the side, which has less space. In addition, White should not present his opponent with the two-bishop advantage deliberately. Therefore, he plays much more often here 9.iLe2 . Common sense of course is quite applicable here, but tournament •••

83

Chapter 7

practice has shown that even af­ ter the simple move 9.tll f3 Black's task is still complex. White can simply complete his development and get rid later of Black's power­ ful centralized knight. In reply to 9 . .te2, Black should better play in a Benko gambit style: 9 ... bS 10.cxbS a6 1l.a4 (After the straightforward line: 1l.bxa6 �aS 12.j,d2 ha6, Black can quickly seize the initiative 13.�c2 �fb8 14.�b1 tll fd7 lS.f4 tll c4 16.hc4 hc4 17.b3 hc3 18. hc3 �xa2+ Pinter - Tkachiev, Porec 1998.) 1l ... �aS 12 . .td2 axbS 13.tllxbS �6 14.�c2 c4 lSJ3a3 .ta6 16 . .te3 (16.tll f3 tll xf3 17.gxf3 �fc8 18.0-0 hbS 19.axbS �xa3 2 0.bxa3 �xbS=) 16 ... �b7 17.tll f3 tll xf3 18 ..txf3 , Sandstrom - Ste­ fansson, Copenhagen 1991, 18 ... hbS 19.axbS �xbS 20.0-0 tll d7= 9 . . �xd3 It also interesting for Black to opt for 9 ... tll fd7!?, preserving for the time being his outpost on eS. 1 0 .�xd3 a6 11.a4 .

Black has not played that move in practice yet. In answer to 1l ... e6, it good for White to try both 12.dxe6 he6 13.0-0 �c7 14.�fd1 �ad8 lS.aS;t, as well as 12.0-0 h6 13.j,e3 eS 14.aS tll h S lS.�d2 @h7 16.g4 tll f6 17.tll e U tll xe4?! (The attempt to provoke crisis brings Black only additional problems.) 18.tll xe4 fS 19.tll c3 f4 20.hcS dxcS 21.tll e4± Avrukh - Krakops, Groningen 1995. It looks like Black can also play sharper 1l ... tll hS 12.0-0 h6 13.j,d2 (White cannot change much with his other possible retreat: 13 ..te3 fS 14.exfS .txf5 lS.\Mfe2. White's queen should protect the knight on f3 and it is not good for him to choose lS.�d2? hh3 - lS ....td7 16.�fe1 tll f4 17.hf4 �4 18.\Mfxe7 hh3 19.9xh3 �= Beliavsky ­ Smirin, Belgrade 1998.) 13 ... e6 (It is premature for Black to play 13 ... fS, in view of 14.exfS hfS lS.�e2 j,d7 16.tll h4 �e8 17.�e4 @h7 18. g4 tll f6 19.�c2 tll g8 20.tll e4;t White's prospects are superior, thanks to his excellent control over the e4-outpost.) 14.dxe6 he6 lS.tll dS (1S.�ab1 tll f6 16.j,f4 �e8 17.hd6 �6�) lS .. J3e8 16. l!ad1 hdS 17.exdS �d7 18.b3 bS= Mikhalevski - Smirin, Rishon Le Zion 1998. 12 .tf4 In case of 12.0-0, Black would also follow with 12 .. .fS ! 1 2 f5 13. 0 - 0 Wb6 14.gtb1 fxe4 15.�xe4 �b4 16.gc1 •

•••

84

l.d4 ltJf6 2.c4 g6 3JiJc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5.h3 0 - 0 6 . i.g5 Black is quite OK after 16.aS bS 17.ltJgS ltJeS. 16 :i'xb2 17:�'e6 �f7 18. �ab1 f«a3 19.1We3 bS!f± ••

C) 6 cS 7.dS .••

Black is on crossroads, wheth­ er to continue in a Benko gambit style, (C1) or to follow the scheme of the Benoni system (C2).

C1) 7 bS C2) 7... e6 •••

C1) 7 bS! ? 8.cxbS a6 9.a4 Black reaches a favourable set-up of the Benko Gambit in case of 9.bxa6 �aS, for example: 1O.lWd2 (1O.i.d2 lWb4 11.�c2 ha6 12.i.xa6 ltJxa6 13.a3 �c4 14J'l:b1 ltJb4! 1S.axb4 cxb4 16.ltJge2 bxc3 17.ltJxc3 l".1fcB� Rashkovsky - Gel­ ler, Sochi 1977) 1O . . . ltJbd7 11.ltJf3 ha6 12.ha6 �xa6 13.i.h6 i.xh6 14.�xh6 l".1fbB 1S.l".1b1 ltJb6 16.b3 ltJbd7 17.�e3 l".1b4 1B.l".1b2 l".1abB 19.1".1e2 c4 20.0-0 cxb3 21.axb3 �b6 22 .�xb6 l".1Bxb6, draw, Suba - Schmidt, Polanica Zdroj 1976. •••

9 lWaS 1 0 . .td2 The bishop is necessary for the protection of the flank, therefore, in this line the move i.gS turned out to be just a lost of time. 1 0 �b4 Human players understood mostly because of the computers that queens sometimes would go back home only after having en­ tered the inferno . . . 1l.i.d3 c4 Black could have postponed this move for a while, for example: 1l ... ltJfd7 12.ltJf3 c4 13.i.e2 �xb2 14.l".1b1 �a3 1S.�c2 axbS 16.axbS ltJb6 17.0-0 ltJBd7 1B.ltJd1 �a2 19.1".1c1 ltJcS+ Katalymov - Foygel, Krasnoyarsk 19BO. 12.ltJa2 Black has plenty of problems to solve in cause of 12.i.c2 ! ? He should better take care of his safety immediately with 12 . . . axbS 13.ltJxbS �cS and after 14.tLlf3 i.a6 1S.ltJc3 ltJbd7 16. 0-0 l".1fbB, he has a standard Benko gambit type of position.There might follow 17.l".1b1 �c7 IB.l".1el ltJcS 19.eS ltJfd7 20.e6 fxe6 21.ltJgS, J.Eriksson Reid, Goteborg 200S and here Black could have played 21.. .eS, without being afraid of 22.tLlxh7 xh7 23.�hS+ gB 24.�xg6 (Black is better after 24.hg6 ltJf6.) 24 . . . ltJfB 25.�g4 e6, with a double-edged position 12 '%bb 2 Black must capture this pawn, since the tentative move 12 . . . �cS i s insufficient for equality: •••

•••

.•.

BS

Chapter 7 13.i.e3 YNc7 14.b6 YNb7 15.i.xc4 lLlxe4 16.lLle2 (16.i.d4 e5! 17.i.e3 as 18.b4oo, or 18.lLlc3oo) 16 . . . a5 17.0-0 lLlc5 18.lLlec3 (It is also good for White to opt for 18.lDac3 �xb6 19.i.b5;!;) 18 . . . �xb6 19J3el;!; 13 .tc3 Va3 14 .tc2 After 14.ixc4 lDxe4, the knight and the bishop come to the rescue of the queen: 15.i.xg7 @xg7 16.lDe2 (It is even worse for White to play 16.YNd4 lDf6 17.lDe2 YNxa4+) 16 . . . YNc5 17.YNd4 YNxd4 18.lDxd4 lDd7 19.bxa6 lDb6 2 0.i.b3 ixa6=l= 14 axb5 15.�e2 White can force here a draw by repetition: 15.i.b4 YNb2 16.i.c3 YNa3= Disconzi da Silva - Sorin, Buenos Aires 2005. The position would have re­ mained unclear otherwise. 15 Vc5 16 .td4 Vc717.axb5 i.b7 18.�ac3 �bd7 •

•

•••

•••

the demarcation line, but they are all reliably blocked for the time being. Black plans to push e7e5, after which the bishop on b7 would become very active and he will be dominant in the centre. Meanwhile, he will have great problems advancing his pawns. In general, there exists a typical dynamic balance on the board. 19. 0 - 0 1b:a1 2 0 .Vxa1 ga8 21.f!Yb2 Va5 22.�a4 White prevents the penetra­ tion of the enemy to the a3-square, which would have enabled Black to activate his forces a bit. 22 e6 23.dxe6 fxe600 •••

C2) 7 e6 •••

•

8 .td3 After 8.lDf3 exd5 9.cxd5, there arises the Benoni system with the move i.g5. This variation is con­ sidered to be harmless for Black, for example: 9 . . . h6 1O.i.e3 ge8 1l.i.d3 (It is smarter for White to play 1l.lDd2, not overburdening the bishop with the protection of the e4-pawn, but then Black will •

White has a slight space ad­ vantage, but all his pieces, with the exception of the bishop of d4, are deployed on very passive de­ fensive positions. Both sides have passed pawns, which have crossed 86

l.d4 l'iJf6 2.c4 g6 3. l'iJ c3 ig7 4.e4 d6 S.h3 0-0 6. igS have an extra tempo for his coun­ terplay: 11.. .a6 12 .a4 l'iJbd7 13 ..ie2 Ei:bB 14.aS, Aleksandrov - Logi­ nov, Minsk 2 00B, 14 . . . bS ! ? IS. axb6 'lWxb6 16.l'iJc4 'lWc7 17.if4 ifB IB.'lWc2 E1b4f±) 11 . . . a6 12.a4 l'iJbd7 (Black should strive for b7-bS and here half-measures are useless: 12 . . . b6 13.0-0 E1a7 14.'lWd2 �h7 IS.Ei:fel l'iJbd7 16.Ei:abl c4 17 ..ic2 l'iJcS IB.aS Ei:b7 19 ..id4;!; Avrukh B.Socko, Szeged 1994.) 13.0-0 gS 14 . .ic2 E1bB lS.aS bS l6.axb6 Ei:xb6 17.l'iJd2 l'iJeS IB.b3 Ei:b4= Sakaev Andreikin, Dresden 2007. 8 ... exd5

C2a) 9.cxd5 C2b) 9.exd5 C2a) 9.cxd5 There arises now an asymmet­ rical pawn-structure and as a rule, it implies more aggression. 9 .id7! ? It is quite understandable where Black must seek his chanc­ es. The point is how to do this in the right fashion. The move in the text seems to be too direct, but its reliability has been proved time and again. Veselin Topalov has treated this position in another fashion and he is considered to be a su­ per-expert of the Benoni system: 9 Ei:eB 1O.l'iJge2 l'iJbd7 11.0-0 h6 12 .ie3 l'iJeS 13.a4 (in case of 13 . .ic2, Black can play 13 . . . l'iJc4 14.ic1 bS! ?) 13 . . . l'iJxd3 14.'lWxd3 b6 IS.l'iJg3 l'iJh7 16.f4 hS 17.fS h4 • • .

IB.fxg6 fxg6 19.1'iJge2 gS (Black set-up looks rather risky, but his two bishops are covering reliably his king and his pawns on cS, gS and h4 restrict White's knights considerably.) 20.E1f2 a6 21.Ei:afl Ei:a7 22.l'iJbl g4 23.hxg4 hg4 24. l'iJd2 hb2 2S.l'iJc3 Ei:g7 26.l'iJc4 hc3 27.'lWxc3 .ihSf± Ponomariov - Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 2007. l O .a4 It is dangerous for White to give his opponent a free hand on the queenside: 1O.l'iJf3 bS 11.0-0 c4 12.ic2 E1eB 13.a3 as 14.l'iJd4 'lWb6 1S.ie3 'IWb7 16.if4 (16.a4 ! ? b4 17.l'iJcbS hbS lB.ctJxbS E1a6oo) 16 . . . l'iJ a 6 17.'lWf3 (17.hd6 b4) 1 7. . . b4 IB.axb4 axb4 19.ctJce2 b3 2 0.ibl l'iJcS 21.E1xaB 'lWxaB+ Sakaev - Mu­ eller, Germany 2 007. lO ... lt:la6 Black's knight is headed for a wonderful square - b4. 1l.lt:lf3 lt:lb4

.•.

12.ibl The retreat 12.ie2 has its drawbacks as well, since after 12 . . . h6 13.if4 'lWe7 14.l'iJd2 Ei:feB B7

Chapter 7 15.0-0, Black has a very promis­ ing piece-sacrifice: IS . . . tLlfxdS ! ? 16.exdS Axc3 17.bxc3 tLlxdS I8 . .ie3 tLlxc3 19.V;\'el dS 20 . .if3 d4+ Akes­ son - Jobava, Antalya 2004. Now, Black can open the b-file. 12 b5 13.axb5 13.0-0 bxa4 14.V;\'d2 !!e8 1SJ:!el V;\'b6 16.tLlxa4 Axa4 17.!!xa4 tLld7= 13 ti'b6 14. 0 - 0 J.xb5 15. gel tLld7 16 .lf4, Prusikin - Lo­ effler, Warszawa 2005, 16 a6 17.V;\'d2 gfe8= •••

•••

•

•••

C2b) 9.exd5

This move seems risky, but White has nothing else to do. Black can counter 1O.tLlf3 with 1O . . J:!e8+ 11 . .ie3 (The evacuation of White's king ended tragically: 11.�fl h6 12.M4 tLleS 13.tLlxeS dxeS I4 . .ie3 b6 1S.a4 as 16.V;\'d2 hS 18 . .le2 tLld7 19.wdl tLleS 20.�c2 .if5 21.�b3 V;\'d7 22.J.h6 .ih8 23.!!afl h4 24J:!el !!ad8 2S.V;\'f4 bS! and Black won the game with a direct attack, Suba - Chepari­ nov, Dos Hermanas 2002.) 11 . . . tLlhS ! ? 12.0-0 tLleS 13.tLlxeS AxeS 14.V;\'d2 a6 IS.!!fel old7 16.!!e2 fS 17.olgS V;\'aS 18J:!ael bS and Black had excellent counterplay in the game Ignatescu - Nevednichy, Romania 2002. 1 0 •a5 11 •d2 11. �f2 h6 12 ..ih4 a6 13.a4 tLlhS 14.tLlge2 fS IS.V;\'c2 gS l6.fxgS �d8 17.�gl hxgS 18 ..tf2 tLleS=F Suba YIjola, Manila 1992. 1l a6 12.tLlge2 b5 13.cxb5 axb5 14. J.xb5, Suba - Sznapik, Dortmund 1981, 14 h6 15 .txf6 (In order to ensure the safety of his dS-pawn, White will have to part with his dark-squared bishop anyway: IS ..ih4 tLlb6 16 . .hf6 .hf6 17.0-0 olfS 18.g4 .td7=) 15 tLlxf6 16. 0 - 0 tLle4 17.tLlxe4 (Af­ ter 17.�d3? ! .if5, Black seizes the initiative.) 17 V;\'xb5 18.tLlxd6 (Black's position is quite accept­ able after 18.tLl2c3 �6 19.!!fel .id4 20.�h2 !!b8=) 18 •xb2 19 •xb2 J.xb2 2 0 .tLlxc8 gfxc8 21.gad1 gxa2 = •••

•

•••

•••

The symmetrical pawn-struc­ ture enables White to continue playing without any risk, but he can hardly rely on achieving any­ thing much. 9 tLlbd7 9 . . . a6 10.a4 tLlbd7 11.tLlf3 !!e8 12.�fl h6 13 . .ie3 b6 14.V;\'d2 hS IS.g3 as 16.�g2 tLleS 17.tLlxeS dxeS, Potapov - Nataf, Dresden 2 007, 18.f3! 1 0 .f4 •••

88

•

• • •

•••

•••

•

Chapter S

1.d4 �f6 2 . c4 g6 3.�c3 j,g7 4.e4 d6 5.h3 0 - 0 6.�f3

A) 7.dxe5 B) 7.d5

You can play chess in numer­ ous ways and this natural devel­ oping move with the knight to its lawful place the f3-square cannot be bad at all. The point is that it does not combine too well with h3, because as we have already seen, White often postpones the deployment of his knight on gl, so that he can develop it to e2 and g3, or maybe even to f3. On the other hand, it is useful to restrict the bishop on c8 and the knight on f6, establishing control over the g4-square. In general, Black must play energetically in the centre in or­ der to emphasize the drawbacks of White's tentative plan. 6 ... e5

In amateur games, people of­ ten play here 7.i.e3, which I be­ lieve does not fit the plan h2-h3 . Black should better exchange im­ mediately on d4 and begin attack­ ing the e4-pawn: 7 . . . exd4 S.tilxd4 (8.hd4 tilc6 9.i.e3 1'!e8 1O.i.d3 tilb4 11.0-0, Caminero - Radom­ skyj, Parsippany 2001, 11 . . . b6! 12.1'!el .tb'7+) S ... 1'!eS 9.Wlc2 Wle7 1O.i.d3 (10.f3 ! ?, Szilagyi - Sza­ bo, Budapest 1950, 1O . . . tilc6 11. 0-0-0 tilxd4 12.hd4 i.e6=) 10 . . . tila6 l1.a3 ttJc5 12.f3 c6. Black has increased maximally the pressure against the e4-pawn and he has provoked the move f3, weakening his opponent's set-up along the e-file, (the position of the bishop on e3 has become unstable) and here he is preparing the standard counter strike d7-d5. White must start defending now. 13.tilb3 tilxd3 14.Wlxd3 d5 15.cxd5 cxd5 16.tilxd5 tilxd5 17.Wlxd5 i.e6 18.Wlb5, Don­ ner - Ligterink, Nijmegen 1977 and now the greedy approach IS . . . hb2 19.1'!bl Wlxa3=F would have 89

Chapter B provided Black with an obvious advantage. In response to 7 . .igS?! Black must eye the e-pawn as well: 7. . . exd4 (After 7 . . . ltJa6, there arises a position, which we analyze in Chapter 7, variation A2.) 8.ltJxd4 �e8. Now, in case of 9 . .id3? Black has an attractive typical combina­ tion: 9 . . . ltJxe4! 1O.ltJxe4 �xgS 11. 0-0 �d8 and he ends up with a solid extra pawn, Maiko - Lah­ no, Kramatorsk 2 001. Naturally, White is not obliged to overlook this tactical strike, but even af­ ter 9 .�c2 h6 10 . .ie3 �e7 11.f3 c6 12.0-0-0 dS 13.cxdS ltJxdS 14. ltJxdS cxdS lS ..ibS .id7 16.hd7 ltJxd7, Fuentes - Giustolisi, Ma­ drid 19S1, Black has an excellent game. 7.dxe5 White forces a transition into an endgame in the hope of ex­ ploiting the vulnerability of the eS-pa-wn, the wonderful dS-out­ post for his knight and his lead in development. In addition, Black's pieces are not harmoniously placed. 7 dxe5 8.t1xd8 In case of 8 . .igS, Max Euwe demonstrated a sensible plan for Black when he was young: 8 . . . ltJbd7 9.�c2 h 6 10 . .ixf6 (White had better preserve this bishop admitting the senselessness of the move .tgS.) 10 . . . �xf6 11.ltJdS VAld8 12.0-0-0 c6 13.ltJe3 �aS 14.�b1 ltJcS lS.g4 ltJe6 16.VAlc3 �xc3 17. bxc3 ltJcS 18 . .id3 fS! 19.9xf5 gxfS ••.

90

20 . .tc2 fxe4 21.ltJh4 .ie6+ Von Hartingsvelt - Euwe, Amsterdam 1923. The Bulgarian 1M Bogomil Andonov came out with an inter­ esting idea to play immediately 8 . .te3 ! ? White presents his oppo­ nent with a choice whether to have queens on the board, or not (in case of the exchange on d1, since White's rook will enter the actions immediately) and he wishes to advance quickly c4-c5, occupying additional space on the queenside and obtaining a stable advantage. White's d4-square is potentially weak however and Black can reach an acceptable position: 8 . . . ltJbd7 9.c5 (9.�c2 c 6 1 O ..ie2 VAle7 11.0-0 b6 12.a3 �d8 13J3fd1 .ib7 14.b4 ltJe8 lSJ3d2 ltJf8 16.gad1 �d2 17.�d2 ltJe6 18.�d1 gd8 19J3xd8, draw, Ermenkov - Tra­ tar, Zadar 2006) 9 . . . c6 1O.a3 (10. .te2 b6 11.cxb6 axb6 12.0-0 �e7 13.�c2 ltJhS 14.�fd1 ltJf4 lS ..ifl ltJe6 16.�d2 bS 17.a3 .if6 18.ltJa2 ltJdc5 19.�c2 .ib7 20.ltJb4 gfc8, Kukov - Ermenkov, Sunny Beach 2007) 10 . . . �e7 11.b4 gd8 12.VAlb3 ltJf8 13 ..tc4 .te6 14.0-0 .hc4 IS. �xc4 ltJe8 16.gfd1 ltJe6 17.�d8 �d8 18.gd1 �dl 19.ltJxd1 ltJ8c7, draw, Andonov - Damljanovic, Struga 200S. 8 ... �d8 (diagram)

A1) 9.�d5 A2) 9 .ig5 •

l.d4 CiJf6 2.c4 g6 3. CiJc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 S.h3 0-0 6. CiJj3 e5

It is bad for White to play 9.CiJxe5?, because of 9 . . . CiJxe4 10.CiJxe4 (White loses after lO. CiJxt7? hc3+ ) lO . . . he5 and Black is evidently better thanks to his lead in development in this open position, for example: 1l.i.g5, Rodriguez Codes - Romero Can­ tos, Spain 1998 (1l.i.e2, De Biasi - Carno, France 2008, 1l . . . i.f5 12.CiJg3 i.c2+) 1l . . . hb2 12 .hd8 (12J!bl �e8) 12 ... hal 13.hc7 i.f5 14.CiJd6 i.c3+ 15.�e2 CiJa6+

Al) 9.CiJdS CiJxdS Black exchanges the knights and then he begins undermining his opponent's d5-pawn, which hampers the natural development of his queenside: 1 0 .cxdS c6 1l.i.c4 White wishes to place his bish­ op in the centre, instead of his pawn, but Black is not ready to comply with this. 1l ... bS I2.�b3 If White begins with 12 .i.g5, Polajzer - NickI, St. Ingbert 1988, in order to force his opponent's rook to retreat to e8 (it goes to d7

in the main line), then Black has the resource 12 .. .f6, without being afraid of the discovered check, for example: 13.i.b3 (Black is even better after 13.dxc6 bxc4 14.c7 �d3 15.cxb8=� �xb8 16.i.c1 i.b7.) 13 . . . cxd5 14.i.e3 (but not 14.hd5? �d5 15.exd5 e4) 14 . . . i.e6 15.exd5 i.t7 16.0-0 CiJd7 and Black's pros­ pects are at least equal. 12 . . . J.b7 13.�gS There begins a sharp fight for the central outpost. In case of the indifferent line: 13.dxc6 hc6 14.i.e3 h6 15.CiJd2 a5+ only White might have prob­ lems - he will soon need to begin defending, Pedersen - Lanka, Linz 1995. 13 ... gd7 14.gcl as

It is not advisable for Black to exchange on d5, because of the vulnerability of his last rank. Still, he must develop somehow his queenside. He leaves therefore his knight on b8 at its place and he tries to bring his rook on a8 into the actions. IS. 0 - 0 91

Chapter B lS.We2 a4 16.dxc6 lLlxc6 17. .!dS lLlaS 18.hb7 :B:xb7 19.:B:hd1 f6 20 . .ie3 lLlc4 21.:B:c2 .!f8 22.:B:dS :B:c8 23.lLld2 WO, draw, King Kindermann, Germany 1996. 15 a4 16.dxc6 lLlxc6 17 .id5 �b4 18.hb7 Ei:xb7 19 .id2. It is understandable that Black cannot capture on a2, because he will lose his knight. Formally, White has a "good" bishop against a "bad" knight, but Black maintains the dynamic balance thanks to his ac­ tively deployed pieces and pawns on the queenside. 19 �d3 2 0 . gc2 .if'S 21.gdl f6 22.�el �c5 23.f3 gd7= Huebner - S.Kinder­ mann, Nussloch 1996. •••

•

•

• • •

A2) 9 .!g5 •

A2a) 9 ge8 A2b) 9 �a6 A2c) 9 c6 • • •

• • •

•••

A2a) 9 ge8 This used to be considered as the best move for Black for a long time. Now I am no so sure about that . . . •••

92

A2al) 1 0 .�d5 A2a2) 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 A2al) 1 0 .�d5 White simplifies the position prematurely and this facilitates Black's defence. 1 0 ... �xd5 11.cxd5 c6 He succeeds in exchanging White's pride �dS for his miser­ able lLlc7 and he equalizes com­ pletely. 12 .tc4 cxd5 Black's rook is on e8 and not on d7, so it is not good for him to play aggressively on the queen­ side with 12 ...bS 13 . .!b3 '!b7 14. :B:c1 :B:c8 (Black defends in advance against the possible penetration of the enemy rook to the 7th rank.) lS . .!e3 h6 16.We2 lLld7 17.dxc6 hc6 18.:B:hd1 lLlb6 19.hb6 axb6 20 . .!dS i.xdS 21.:B:xc8 :§:xc8 22. :B:xdS. White is clearly better in this endgame. His knight is supe­ rior to Black's bishop, his king is much more active than its coun­ terpart is and Black has weak doubled pawns. If White manages to exchange rooks, then Black will be in a great trouble. 22 ... :B:c2 23. :B:d2 :B:c4 24.:B:d8 wh7 2S. wd3 :B:a4 26.:B:dS fS 27.lLld2 b4 28.:B:bS;!; Roeder - Gelashvili, Balaguer 2007. 13.hd5 �d7 14.�d2 It is obvious that White's knight is headed for the e4-square and if possible even to d6. Black must either prevent this idea, or look for counterplay immediately. •

1.d4 CfJf6 2.c4 g6 3. CfJ c3 !g7 4.e4 d6 S.h3 0 - 0 6. CfJj3 e5 14 CfJc5 The defensive play would not be a remedy for Black: 14 ... CfJb6 IS.!b3 !e6 16.i>e2 ! (It is also good for White to play 16.!e3! with an exemplary variation illus­ trating his opponent's problems: 16 . . . !fB 17.i>e2 .td7 IB.a4 l:!acB 19.aS !bS 20.i>f3 CfJc4 21.CfJxc4 hc4 22.!a4 l:!e6 23.l:!hc1±) 16 ... ,txb3 17.axb3 a6 IB.!e3 CfJd7, Kei­ tlinghaus - Panzer, Brilon 19B6, 19.CfJc4. Black has too many weak­ nesses on the queenside and in the centre and his dark-squared bishop has no good prospects at all. 19 . . .!fB 20.l:!hdl CfJcS 21.hcS !xeS 22.l:!d7 b6 23.b4±. White's knight will occupy soon the dS­ outpost and Black's position will become pathetic. 15 .ie3 IS.CfJc4 !fB. Black must pro­ tect the d6-square. 16.0-0 !e6 17.,txe6 CfJxe6 IB.!f6 (IB.!e3 CfJcS 19.f3 l:!acB=) IB . . . CfJcS I9.f3, Cvet­ kovic - Zontakh, Arandjelovac 1993, 19 . . . l:!e6 20.!gS bS 21.CfJe3 h6 22.!h4 CfJd3 23.CfJdS l:!cB and he is even slightly better thanks to his active pieces. 15 CfJd3 16.i>e2 CfJf4 Naturally, Black ignores the b2-pawn and he forces the ex­ change of his knight for one of White's bishops with good pros­ pects for the future. 17 .bf4 exf4 (diagram) IS.CfJc4 White's active attempt IB.l:!ac1 • • •

•

i.xb2 19.1:!c7, would only lead to an additional simplification: 19 . . . !e6 20.!xe6 l:!xe6 21.l:!xb7 !c3 22.l:!dl l:!a6 23.l:!b3 !f6= Black can counter the mys­ terious rook-move IB.l:!abl sim­ ply with IB ... !e6 19.!xb7 �abB 20.!c6 �e7 21.b3 l:!cB (He pen­ etrates on the 2nd rank and he ob­ tains an excellent compensation for the pawn, because of his active pieces.) 22 . .tbS �c2 23.a4 �ec7gg; and for the players who enjoy tac­ tical complications, we can sug­ gest the following idea 23 . . . f3 ! ? 24.gxf3 !h6 2S.l:!hdl �ec7 26.!d3 l:!a2gg IS .ie6 19.i>f3 .bd5 2 0 . exd5 gedS= Andreikin - Fedo­ rov, Minsk 2006. • • •

• • •

•

A2a2) 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 CfJa6 11. .te3 1l.!d3 c6 12 .!c2 h6 13.!e3 It'lhS 14.g4 CfJf4 IS.i>bl .te6 16.b3 CfJb4 17..tcS It'lxc2 IB.i>xc2 f5 and Black has seized the initiative for long, Wewers - Lichman, Germa­ ny 2 006. 11 c6 12.c5 •••

93

Chapter 8 'The same applies to the line: lS . . . ltld7 16.ltla4 f5 17.f3 i!abB 1B.ltlaS. 16.�a5 geeS 17.a3 �d7 1S. b4 .i.e7 19.f4t - White has squeezed his opponent on one of the flanks and he begins active ac­ tions on the other side.

A2b) 9 White has now attractive tar­ gets to attack, while Black has weak pawns and problems acti­ vating his bishops. 12 J.f8 1 2 . . . ltl c7 1 3 . ltl d 2 , White's knight is headed for a familiar route - to d6 via c4. 13 .ha6 bxa6 14.�d2 White should not try to find something better than a plan, which works quite well, sending his knight in the wrong direc­ tion: 14.ltle1 as lS.b3 .!a6 16.ltld3 (now, what . . . ?) 16 . . . ltld7 17.ltla4 fS 1B.exfS gxfS 19.f4 exf4 2 0 . .bf4, Aloma - Gurbanzade, Calvia 2007, 2 0 . . . i!e2+ 14.b3 i!bB lS.ltle1 as= 14 .i.e6 15.�b3 lS.b3 i!abB 16.�b2 i!b4 17.i!c1 as 1B.i!hd1 h6 19.f3 i!ebB 20.�a1 ltlhS 21.ltldb1 ltlf4, with an ap­ proximate equality, Kosic - Mar­ janovic, Yugoslavia 2000. 15 i!abS It is premature for Black to play lS . . . ,bb3 16.axb3 i!ebB 17. �c2 i!b7 1B.i!a1 ltld7 19.i!aS i!abB 2 0.i!dU

•••

� a6

• • •

•

• • •

• • •

94

This move looks modest, but it is possibly the most reliable. 1 0 .�d5 gd6 11 .hf6 1l.ltld2 c6 12.�xf6 .bf6 13. .bf6 i!xf6+ Bruch - Pokrupa, Ger­ many 2001. 1l .hf6 White's knight on dS seems to be perfectly placed, but this is all that he can brag about, because his other pieces cannot support it. His light-squared bishop has no good prospects and his knight on f3 is going nowhere. He can only try to exploit his minimal lead in development by fighting for the d-file. 12. 0 - 0 - 0 12.i!c1 c6 (12 . . ..!dB 13.cS i!e6 •

.•.

l.d4 l:iJf6 2.c4 g6 3. l:iJc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 S.h3 0-0 6. l:iJ/J eS 14.a3 c6 15 . .ixa6 cxd5 16.i.d3 �e7 17.0-0, Kapnisis - Kotronias, Athens 2004, 17 . . . i.d7 18.�fdl �c8=) 13.l:iJxf6 �xf6 14.c5 b6 15. cxb6 axb6 16.l:iJxe5 l:iJc5 17.i.c4 i.e6 18.0-0 l:iJxe4 19.,be6 �xe6= Goritsas - V.Kotronias, Salonika 2006 12.b4 c6 13.l:iJxf6 �xf6 14.a3 c5 15.b5 l:iJc7 16 . .te2 �e6+ Larsen Bellers, Esbjerg 1988. Black will gradually make use of the superi­ ority of his bishop over its coun­ terpart and his potential control over the d4-square. 12 mg7 13.gd2 13.b4 c6 14.l:iJxf6 �xdI 15.mxdl @xf6 16.a3 c5 17.b5 l:iJc7+ Feo­ fanov - Levin, Peterhof 2007. 13.i.e2 i.e6 14.l:iJxf6 �xdl 15. �xdl lt>xf6 16.l:iJd2 l:iJc5 17.lt>c2 a5 18.f3 lt>e7 19.l:iJbl c6= Santos Luis - Garrido, Evora 2006. •••

13 �d7 This dancing of the rooks on the open file is just amusing. White's rook has made a step forward and Black's rook a step backward. The idea is quite un• • •

derstandable, however. Black wishes to repel the enemy knight with the move c7-c6, White will counter this with l:iJxf6 and then it will become clear whether Black will manage to hold the d-file, or not. 14.g4 c6 15.l:iJxf6 mxf6. As a consequence of the move �d2, Black has failed to trade the rook with a check, but thanks to the move �d7, his rook is protected now and he can calmly centralize his king. 16.g5 1t>e6 17.h4 gxd2 18.lt>xd2 md6= Ljubojevic Ree, Amsterdam 1981.

A2c) 9

••.

c6

This move is reliable. It is rea­ sonable for Black to cover the d5square, which is like a magnet for White's knight. 1 0 .l:iJxe5 After 1O.�dl �xdl 11.'it>xdl l:iJa6 12.l:iJxe5, Bayram - Inarkiev, Is­ tanbul 2003 (12.i.e3 l:iJh5 13.lt>cl l:iJf4 14.b3 b6 15.g3 l:iJe6 16.!g2 i.b7 17.�dl �d8 18.�xd8 l:iJxd8 19. lLla4 lLle6= Boenig - Schlecht, 95

Chapter 8 Germany 1994) 12 ... tLlxe4 13. tLlxe4 AxeS 14 . .if6 .hf6 1S.tLlxf6 'itlg7 16.tLlg4 (16.tLle8 ! ? 'itlf8 17.tLlf6 hS) 16 ... tLlc5 17.tLle3 .te6 - Black ends up with a slight edge in the endgame and this is because of his well deployed light pieces and the possibility of quick activation of his king. He would not have any seri­ ous problems after 1O . .ie2 tLla6 11.tLld2 (11.0-0 l3e8 12 ..te3 M8 13.tLld2 tLlcS 14.l3fd1 tLle6 1S.tLlb3 as 16.a4 .tb4 17.f3 tLld7 18J!ac1 tLldc5 19.tLlxc5 tLlxc5 2 0.l3a1 .te6=i= Borsuk - Kaminski, Warsaw 1992) 11 ... tLlcS 12 .0-0-0 tLle6 13 . .ie3 tLld4 14.l3he1 .te6 1S.b3 .if8 16.'itlb2 .ib4 17. .ifl 'itlg7 18.a3 .ie7 19.93 tLld7+t Schiraldi - Vocaturo, Verona 200S. 10 h6 Black should strive to regain his sacrificed pawn as quickly as possible. For example, White can counter 1O ... l3e8 with a per­ fect response 11.0-0-0, protect­ ing indirectly his knight on eS in the process: 11 ... tLla6 (l1 . . . EtxeS 12J!d8 l3e8 13 ..ixf6±) 12.tLlf3 tLlcS 13.eS (13.tLld2 h6 14 . .ixf6 .hf6 1S.f3 .ieS�) 13 ... tLlfd7 14 . .ie3 tLle6 1S.tLle4 tLlxeS 16.tLld6 l3e7 17.tLlxeS heS 18.g3 cS 19 . .ig2 tLld4 20.tLle4 l3c7 21.l3heU 1l .tf4 This is the best square for White's bishop, supporting the knight. 11 ..te3 tLlxe4 12.tLlxe4 heS 13. l3d1 l3xd1 14.'itlxd1 hb2 1S . .ixh6

tLla6 16 ..tgS .te6= Stoisavljevic Todorovic, Yugoslavia 19 94. 11 . .hf6 .hf6 12.tLlg4 .txg4 13. hxg4 tLla6! 14.f4 .txc3 1S.bxc3 tLlc5� - Black's compensatio n for the pawn is sufficient, Cvetkovic - Kozul, Novi Becej 1986. He has an excellent blocking knight and it, together with the pawns on b7 and c6, restricts considerably White's light-squared bishop. 1l... � a6

•••

•

96

12 ..te2

White can protect his e4-pawn with 12.f3, but Black can use this tempo in order to create unpleas­ ant threats 12 . . . tLlb4 13.l3c1 tLlhS 14 ..th2 .tf6 1S.f4 (1S.a3 .igS) 1S . . . gS! (1S . . ..th4 16.'itle2 g S 17.fS tLlg3 18 . .txg3 .txg3 19.tLlg4±) 16.g3, Gagarin - Shchekachev, Moscow 1991 (After 16.fxgS hgS 17.l3d1 .ie6, Black has the initiative.) 16 ... .ie6 17.tLlg4 tLld3 18.hd3 l3xd3 19.tLlxh6 'itlg7 20.tLlg4 hg4 21.hxg4 tLlxg3 22 . .txg3 l3xg3 23.eS .te7= 12 �c5 13.'fJ In case 13 ..tf3, Keitlinghaus •••

l.d4 CiJf6 2.c4 g6 3. CiJc3 .tg7 4.e4 d6 5.h3 0 - 0 6. CiJfJ e5 Skembris, Dortmund 1990, Black has a powerful argument 13 . . . CiJhS 14.hhS gxhS IS.0-0 geB 16.CiJf3 CiJd3 17 ..tcl .te6, with a good com­ pensation for the pawn. 13 g5 This is a new idea, because in the game Lopez Colon - Shchek­ achev, Las Palmas 1993, Black tested 13 . . . CiJhS. 14.J.e3 (14 . .th2 .te6�, fol­ lowed by CiJf6-hS-f4, or CiJd7) 14 � e 6 15.CiJd3 (IS.CiJg4 CiJf4 16. hf4 gxf4�) 15 �h5 16. 0 - 0- 0 �d4 17.E:he1 .te6! (Black is now attacking the weak c4-pawn.) 18. �c5 �xe2 19.�xe2 E:xd1 2 0 . '.!?xdl hc4 21.b3 E:d8 22.'.!?c2 he2 23.E:xe2 b6= • • •

• • •

•••

B) 7.d5

maintain an advantage in this po­ sition: 1) 1l.g4 c6 12 . .te2 .td7 13.'.!?f1 a4 14.b4 axb3 IS.axb3 �b6 16. '.!?g2 �b4 17.�c2 cxdS IB.cxd5 gxal 19.gxal E:cB 2 0.gel b5 21.f3 hS 22 .gS CiJh7 23.�b2± Conquest - Hennigan, England 2007. 2) 1l.J.e2 CiJeB (ll . . . @hB 12.g4 c6 13.h4 cxdS 14.cxd5 bS IS.g5 CiJh5 16.,txc5 dxcS 17.J.xhS gxh5 IB.CiJxbS .tg4 19.f3 J.d7 20.CiJc3± Romanov - A.Spielmann, Paris 200B; 1l . . . c6 12.a3 a4 13.,txc5 dxc5 14.CiJxa4 CiJd7 15.0-0 �e7 16.gbl hS 17.b4 .th6 IB.CiJf3 f5 19.d6 �g7 20.exf5 gxfS 21.CiJxc5 CiJxc5 22.bxc5 e4 23.CiJh2 �xa3 24.�b3 �xb3 2S.�xb3± Akesson ­ Pedersen, Pardubice 2 00B) 12.g4 (12.h4 hS 13.CiJb3 b6 14.�d2 a4 IS.CiJxcS dxcS 16.f3 CiJd6 17.�c2 fS IB . .td3 J.f6 19 . .tf2 J.d7f± To­ dorovic - M.Nikolic, Belgrade 200B) 12 .. .fS 13.exfS gxf5 14.�glt - White has won the fight for the e4-outpost, meanwhile the safety of Black's king is rather question­ able.

B1) 8 .tg5 B2) 8 .te3 •

•

7 a5 7 . . . CiJbd7 - This move presents White with a great choice of alter­ natives. B . .tgS h6 (About B. . . aS 9.g4 CiJcS 1O.CiJd2 c6 - see B.J.gS.) 9.J.e3 CiJcS 10.CiJd2 as. The recent tournament practice shows that White has at least two plans to • . •

B.g4 CiJa6 9 ..tgS - see variation. B1; 9.J.e3 - see variation B2. It is not so reasonable for White to continue with B . .td3, since his bishop will soon come under at­ tack on this square, for example: B ... CiJa6 9.J.e3 h6 1O.�d2 @h7 1l.g4 CiJgB 12. 0-0-0 b6 13.gS? 97

Chapter B (White should not try to block the kingside, It will be better for him to play 13J�dgl with the idea h3h4 and then after 13 ... ttJc5 14 ..ic2 .ia6 15.'1We2 ttJe7 16.h4 1'!h8, there would arise a complicated posi­ tion with mutual chances.) 13 ... h5 14.ttJe2 ttJc5 15.ttJg3 ttJxd3 16. �xd3 ttJe7 17.�e2 �e8 18. cj;>bl .ia6 19.1'!cl, Tarrasch - Euwe, Amster­ dam 1923 and here Black should start an offensive with 19 ... c5! (threatening b6-b5) 20.dxc6 d5! After 8 . .ie2 ttJa6, White will have to make up his mind where to develop his queen's bishop - to g5 (BI), or to e3 (B2).

.ixf6 �xf6 22.1'!dgl 1'!g8= Gulko Becerra, Stillwater 2007. The move 9 . .ie2 1eads to posi­ tions, which have been analyzed in Chapter 22, variation B .

Bla) 9 c6 BIb) 9 :i'e8 •••

BI) 8 .ig5 �a6 This development of the knight is much more flexible than on the d7-square. At first, from a6 it has two squares to go to - c5 and b4, and secondly the d7-square re­ mains free for the other knight, or for his bishop. 9.�d2 Despite the fact that the pawn­ chain on c4-d5-e4 is on light squares, the bishop on f1 is a very important piece, therefore the move 9 . .id3, will be connected with a loss of a tempo, as we have already mentioned, (It is not ad­ vantageous for White to allow its exchange for Black's knight after �a6-c5.) for example: 9 ... �e8 10.g4 ttJd7 11.1'!gl cj;>h8 12.a3 lLldc5 13 . .ic2 .id7 14.'1We2 f5 15.gxf5 gxf5 16.lLld2 f4 17.�f3 a4 18.1'!g2 h6 19 ..ih4 �f7 20.0-0-0 .if6 21. •

98

••

Bla) 9 c6 1 0 . .ie2 ! This is the right way for White to complete his development and he has adequate responses against all Black's possibilities. lO.g4 .id7 11 . .ie2 - see lO. .ie2. lO.a3 .id7 11.1'!bl �b8 12 .g4, van Wely - Lanka, Germany 1998 (with the idea �f3) 12 . . .h6 13 . .ie3 1'!c8. Black has tried to postpone the exchange on d5 as long as pos­ sible, so that his opponent cannot occupy the b5-square, impeding his counterplay on the queenside. Now however, he is quite well prepared to fulfil his plans. I O .td7 11. 0 - 0 In case White plays something else, Black solves all his prob­ lems. •••

•••

1.d4 tiJf6 2.c4 g6 3 . ciJc3 �g7 4.e4 d6 S.h3 0 - 0 6. tiJj3 e5 1l.h4 tiJc5 12.h5 a4. Black in­ tends to build up the classic set-up in this variation - �a5, l:!c8 and then capture cd, advance later b5 and then if necessary f5, having played before tiJe8. (Black tried relatively recently another idea: 12 ... cxd5 13.tiJxd5 tiJe6 14.tiJxf6 �6 15.�6 �xf6 16.�g4 b5 17. 0-0 bxc4 18.tiJxc4 �b5� Berry Hebden, England 2 008. It worked quite well indeed, however the entire plan seems a bit risky.) 13.h6 (It is harmless for Black, if White plays 13.hxg6?! fxg6 14.b4 axb3 15.tiJxb3 tiJa4 16.tiJxa4 l:!xa4 17.dxc6 hc6 18.f3 'Wic7+ Dobosh - Lanka, Germany 1996.) 13 ... �h8 14.b4 axb3 15.tiJxb3 �b6 (White has already compromised his pawn-structure on the queen­ side; therefore, Black has numer­ ous promising alternatives. For example, it looks very good for him to opt for 15 ... tiJa4 16.tiJxa4 l:!xa4 17.0-0, Siebrecht - Lanka, Hamburg 2006, 17 ... cxd5 18.exd5 'Wic7+) 16.tiJxc5 �xc5 17.�e3 'Wia3= Krasenkow - Lanka, Germany 1999; ll.l:!bl a4! ? (1l ... h6 12.�e3 tiJh7 13.0-0 h5 14.tiJa4 c5 15.'Wib3 b6 16.a3 'Wie7 17.�dl l:!ab8 18.b3 tiJg5 19.tiJb2 l:!bd8 20.tiJd3 f5= Morchi­ ashvili - Inarkiev, Izmir 2004) 12.0-0 tiJc5 13.b4 (13.'Wic2 'Wic7 14.b4 axb3 15.axb3 cxd5 16.�6 �6 17.tiJxd5 'Wid8=) 13 ... axb3 14.axb3 cxd5 15.cxd5 tiJxd5 !? Black has obtained a rook, a bishop and a pawn for his queen, so it was not

exactly a sacrifice, but just an ex­ change of pieces of different value. 16.hd8 tiJxc3 17.'Wiel tiJxbI 18.�e7 tiJxd2 19.�xd2 tiJxe4 20.'Wib4 l:!fe8 21.�xe4 l:!xe7 22.�xb7 l:!a2 = ; 1l.a3 'Wib8. Black would like to enlarge the field of actions on the queenside by pushing b7-b5-b4. (He would hardly equalize with 11.. .'Wib6 12.l:!bl l:!fc8 13.0-0;t, or 11...tiJc5 12.b4 axb4 13.axb4 tiJa6 14.�b3 c5 15.bxc5 tiJxc5 16.'Wib2;t) 12.l:!bl (This is the correct reaction for White preparing b2-b4.) 12 ... h6 (12 ... cxd5 13.cxd5 b5 14.b4;t; 12 ... l:!c8 13.b4 axb4 14.axb4 cxd5 15.exd5 b5 16.0-0;t) 13.�e3 tiJc5 14.g4 (Black has not played b5 yet and it would be too dangerous for White to play I4.b4, in view of I4 ... axb4 15.axb4 cxd5 16.cxd5 tiJa4, while in case of 17.tiJxa4, Black has the resource 17... ha4, this is why it was essential that the b­ pawn had remained on its place. 18.'Wic1 l:!c8 with a double-edged position. Therefore, White makes a useful prophylactic move on the other side of the board.) 14 . . . l:!c8 (In case of 14 ... cxd5 15.cxd5 b5, White has the powerful argument 16.b4 axb4 17.axb4 tiJa4 18.tiJxa4 bxa4 19.b5;t - Black has prepared this maneuver and he places his rook on the c-file in advance, so that White's knight on c3 might be hanging in some variations.) 15.a4, Potapov - Inarkiev, Par­ dubice 2003 (After 15.h4 cxd5 16.cxd5 b5 17.g5 hxg5 18.hxg5 tiJe8 19.tiJb3 tiJxb3 20.�xb3 tiJc7 99

Chapter B 21..ifl, White maintains only a symbolic edge.) IS ... V;Yc7 16.h4 (In case of 16. 'it>f1, Black has an excel­ lent response: 16 ... §'b6 17.'it>g2 V;Yb4 1S.§'c2 cxdSoo) 16 . . . ltJeS I7.hS gS IS.ltJb3 ltJa6oo; It is too slow for White to opt for 1l.g4 ltJcS.

17.gxf6 ltJxf6 IS.!xd7 §'xd7 19. ,ixc5 dxcS 20.ltJde4 1tJxe4 21.ltJxe4 !!f4� Schlosser - Arbakov, Pas­ sau 1996; 12.h4 V;Yb6 13.!!gl (13.!!h3 hS+ Kacheishvili - Bologan, Rethym­ non 2003) 13 ... §'xb2 14.!!g3 §'b6 IS.hS h6 16 . .ie3 cxdS 17.cxdS a4+ 1l h6 1l ... 'it>hS 12.!!c1 (As a rule, it is not advantageous for White to capture on c6 - 12.dxc6 bxc6, with an unclear position. It looks how­ ever, quite reasonable for White to continue with a plan of prepa­ ration of a pawn-offensive on the queenside. 12.a3 §'bS 13.!!bl ltJgS 14.b4 axb4 IS.axb4 c5 16.bxcS ltJxc5 17. .ie3 !!cS IS.ltJb3 ltJa4 19.1tJxa4 ha4 20.§'d3;;!;: Meissner - Lanka, Austria 2002.) 12 ...§'c7 13.a3 ltJgS (13 ... !!aeS? ! 14.cS!) 14..ie3 c5 IS.ltJbS §'b6 16.f4 .ih6, Gelashvili - Inarkiev, Athens 2005 and here White should have played 17.§'b3;;!;: with a clear edge because he would have an ample space advantage on both flanks. 12 .ie3 �e5 Black would not equalize with 12 ... ltJeS 13.§'b3 ltJcS 14.,ixcS dxcS IS.ltJa4;;!;: 13.a3 cxd5 14.cxd5 a4 15. ,Axc5 dxe5, Zakhartsov - Y.Vovk, Lviv 2006, 16 •c2 �e8 17.gadl �d6 18.ltJc4 �e8 19.d6;;!;: •••

He has tried in practice numer­ ous other moves here, but he has never achieved anything much: 12 . .ie3 a4 13.b4 axb3 14.axb3 ltJa6 IS.'it>f1 ltJeS 16.'it>g2 ltJec7 17. 1tJf1 cxdS IS.cxdS 1tJc5 19.!!xaS V;YxaS� Varga - Bologan, France 2004; 12.V;Yc2 a4 13.!!dl §'as 14.0-0 h6 IS . .ih4 !!fcS 16.f3 cxdS 17.exdS !!eS� Kunin - Gaule, Austria 2004; 12.ltJb3 ltJxb3 13.§'xb3 §'c7 14. 0-0-0 a4 IS.§'a3 c5 16.!!dgl V;YaS 17.f3 !!fcS IS.h4 §'b4= Larsen Gligoric, San Antonio 1972 ; 12.0-0 'it>hS 13.!!bl §'cS 14. i.e3 §'dS IS.f3 ltJgS 16.'it>g2 fS 17.ltJb3 ltJxb3 IS.V;Yxb3 cS 19.§'dl .ih6 20 . .if2 .if4+ Arbakov - Inar­ kiev, Alushta 2002; 12.'it>f1 V;YeS 13 . .ie3 cxdS 14. exdS §'cS IS.gS ltJeS 16 ..ig4 fS 100

•

•

BIb) 9 •e8 This is much better than the traditional plan with c6, which •••

1.d4 CiJf6 2.c4 g6 3. CiJc3 j,g7 4.e4 d6 5.h3 0 - 0 6 . CiJj3 e5 Zigurds Lanka had taught me back in the year 1991.

l O .j,e2 The move 1O.g4, leads usu­ ally to positions, which he have analyzed after 10.,te2, with the exception of 1l.a3. 1O ... CiJd7 1l.a3 (1l.,te2 - see 10.ie2 ; llJ!gl CiJdcS 12.,te2 - see 1O.j,e2) 11...CiJb6 (Black should not be in a hurry to play the thematic ll .. .fS?! , since White manages to continue with his plan quite effectively: 12 .gxfS gxfS l3J�gl i>h8 14.exfS e4 1S.j,e3 CiJeS 16.CiJdxe4 !xis 17.j,e2± P. Nielsen - Mortensen, Denmark 2003) 12.h4. This is a very un­ pleasant plan for Black and its idea is evident. White wishes to checkmate his opponent along the b-file, therefore Black must play very energetically. (In case of 12.,td3 CiJc5 13.,tc2 j,d7 14.b4 14.�f3 ! ? - 14 ... axb4 IS.axb4 i'!xal 16.�xal CiJca4 17.CiJe2;t White obtains a stable advantage, but Black can play better - 13 ... a4!?, blocking the queenside and plan­ ning to continue with his opera-

tions there. 12J:!gl i>h8 13.j,d3 f5 14.,te3 CiJxdS IS.exdS f4 (15 ... e4 16.CiJdxe4 fxe4 17.CiJxe4 hb2 18J:!a2 j,g7 19.1:!e2 ,td7, Haimov­ ich - Fedorov, Kerner 2007, 20.i>fU) 16.CiJde4 fxe3 17.fxe3 �e7=) 12 .. .fS ! It is essential for Black to play this before hS. (It is weaker for him to opt for 12 ... CiJcS 13.hS CiJba4 14.CiJbS �d7 IS.b3 CiJb6 16.�f3 c6= ; 14.CiJxa4 %lIxa4 IS.b3 �d7. Black must impede the transfer of his opponent's queen to the h-file. 16.J.e2 h6 17.j,e3 and we have to admit that White's chances are superior. Black would have to play eventually gS, but then there will be only one ques­ tion left to answer, whether he will manage to sustain White's pres­ sure on the queenside.) 13.gxfS gxfS 14.l:!gl i>h8 1S.hS CiJcS 16.,te3 CiJba4 17.CiJbS %lIe7? l O CiJd7 10 . . .'t!?h8 1l.h4 h6 (1l . . . CiJg8 12.g4 f6 13.J.e3 fS 14.gxf5 gxfS IS.exfS J.xf5 16.CiJde4 CiJf6 17.CiJg3 %lId7 18.hS l:!f7 19.h6 j,f8, Polak - S.Novikov, Pardubice 2 007, 20.CiJxfS %lIxfS 21.�d2 CiJcS 22. O-O-O;t) 12.J.e3 hS 13.f3 CiJg8 14.g4! fS (14 . . .!h6 IS.CiJf1!?; 14 ... hxg4 IS.fxg4 f5 16.gS±) lS.gxfS gxfS 16.�c2;t 1l.g4 Black continues with his standard counterplay after 1l.h4 CiJdcS 12.hS fS. It would be insufficient for White to try 1l.CiJb3 f6 12.,te3 b6 13.g4 CiJac5 14.CiJxcS CiJxc5 IS.f3 fS • • •

101

Chapter 8 16.YMd2 !d7 17.0-0-0 a4 1B.J.xcS bxcS+ Mchedlishvili - Movszi­ szian, La Laguna 2007. He obtains no advantage after 1l.a3 f6 (1l ... ttJb6! ? 12.0-0 a4 13. b4 axb3 14.ttJxb3 id7 lS.c5 ttJa4 16.ttJxa4 ixa4 17.cxd6 cxd6 lB. YMb1 Wd7= Poluljahov - Ki.Geor­ giev, Tivat 1995) 12.ie3 (12.ih4 ttJb6 13.b3 ih6 14J'!b1 ttJc5 lS.b4 axb4 16.axb4 ttJca4 17.ttJbS YMdB 1B.YMb3 @g7 19J'!d1 c6 20.ttJa3 cS 21.bS ttJd7 22.ttJab1 YMaS 23.l3c1 YMb4 24.l3c2 YMxb3 2S.ttJxb3 igS= Legky - Shirov, France 1995) 12 ... fS 13.f3 f4 (13 ... ttJf6 14.g4 id7 lS.Wc2 c6 16.id3 cxdS 17.cxdS bS 1B.exfS gxfS 19.9xfS e4 20.ttJdxe4 b4, Vulfson - Iskusnyh, Moscow 1994, 21.ttJxf6 ixf6 22.ttJe4±) 14. M2 ttJf6 lS.b4 ttJhS 16.c5 ttJg3 17.,txg3 fxg3 1B.cxd6 axb4 19. axb4 cxd6? 1l ttJdc5 12.�gl It would be too slow for White to play 12.ttJf1 - Black will at first repel the bishop from gS and then he will organize a counter offen­ sive on the kingside: 12 .. .f6 13.!e3 fS 14.gxfS gxfS lS.exfS ixfS 16.ttJg3 ig6 ! The bishop will support from this square the knights on cS and b4 and it will create dangerous threats. Meanwhile, the following analysis shows that Black is not supposed to hold on to his bishop by all means: 16 ... YMg6! ? 17.h4! ? (17.ttJxfS WxfS 1B.ig4 YMg6 19.13gl @hB 20.¥Mb1 e4+ Galkin - Ibragi­ mov, Sochi 1997) 17 ... ih6 (17 ... ttJb4 1B.hS;!;) 1B.hS YMg7 19.ttJxfS

l"MS 20.YMd2 ixe3 21.YMxe3 @hB 22.0-0-0 l3gB= If Black succeeds in exchang­ ing queens, he will be simply bet­ ter in the endgame.) 17.h4 ttJb4 1B.hS ttJc2 ! (but not 1B ... ttJcd3? ! , because of 19.@d2 ttJxf2 20.ixf2 l"M2 21.hxg6 YMxg6 22.ttJce4± Miroshnichenko - N.Mamedov, Cappelle la Grande 2007) 19. @d2 l:M2 ! 20.hxg6 ttJxe3 21.@xe3 WfB+ 12 @h8 •••

••.

102

13.a3 Black can counter 13.ttJf1 in a standard fashion - 13 . . .fS! 14.gxfS gxfS lS.ttJg3 fxe4! (1S ... YMg6 16.h4 fxe4 17.!hS ttJd3 lB. d2 ttJxb2 19.We2 l"M2 20.YMxf2 e3 21.YMxe3 ttJxc4 22.@c1 ttJxe3 23.hg6± Kli­ mov - Sandstrom, Stockholm 1999.) 16.ttJhS (16.ttJcxe4 ixh3 ! ? 17.YMd2 ttJxe4 1B.ttJxe4 if5 19.f3 ixe4 20.fxe4 ttJc5+) 16 ...YMg6 17. ttJxg7 (17J'!g3 J.g4! 1B.ie7 WxhS 19.ixg4 ¥Mh6 2 0.J.xfB l"MB+; it is even worse for White to play lB. ttJxg7 ttJd3-+) 17 ... YMxg7 1B.YMd2 (lBJ�g3 YMfl 19.ie3 l3gB+) lB ...

l.d4 0,f6 2.c4 g6 3. 0,c3 �g7 4.e4 d6 S.h3 0-0 6. 0,./3 e5 0,b4 (18 . . . h6 ! ? 19.0-0-0 hxg5 20J'!xg5 VNf6 - with the idea �f5 - 21.l3h5 @g8 22 .l3g1 @fl 23.l3h7 @e8-+) 19.0-0-0 0,xa2 ! 20.@b1 0,xc3 21.bxc3 �f5-+ Jovanic Kozul, Ljubljana 2004. 13 �d7 14.h4 14.VNc2 f5 15.exf5 gxf5 16.�h4 0,a4? 14 f5 IS.gxf5 gxf5 16.hS �f6 17 .bf6 gD6 18.�c2 ti'fS 19. 0 - 0 - 0 fxe4 2 0 .�cxe4 After 20.0,dxe4, Black will fol­ low with a same response - 20 ... l3f4. 2 0 l3f4 21.f3 otf5 22.l3g2 �h6 23.@bl ti'xhS White will not have sufficient forces to organize an effective kingside attack, so Black can gob­ ble up a pawn. 24.l3dgl J.g6+ M.lvanov Cvitan, Cappelle la Grande 1995. • • •

• • •

•

•••

B2) 8.�e3

8 . . . �a6 9 .�d2 9.g4 0,d7 1O.a3 0,ac5 1l.0,d2 �f6 12.0,f3 a4 13.g5 �g7 14.0,d2 f5 15.h4 c6 16.f3 0,b6 17.�e2

�d7 18.�c2 l3c8 19.0-0-0 cxd5 20.cxd5 fxe4 21.fxe4 l'!f4!? Ria­ zantsev - Inarkiev, Novokuznetsk 2008. If White accepts the ex­ change-sacrifice, then the King's Indian bishop on g7 would not be weaker than a rook at all. Natu­ rally, White can refrain from cap­ turing, but in that case, Black's rook on f4 will be acting on his nerves and squeeze his forces on the kingside. 9 . . . �d7! I have collected numerous points in tournaments with this move, particularly in rapid chess. My opponents felt rather uncom­ fortable in every case and quite deservedly at that! The object of the attack - my knight on f6 was soon becoming the hunter and where White was planning to at­ tack, he was soon facing a power­ ful counter strike fl-f5. I have already mentioned above that the move 9 . . . c6 is grad­ ually coming out of fashion. 10.g4 (1O.�e2 �d7 11.0-0 ti'b8 12.b3 @h8 13.a3 0,g8 14.l3b1 f5 15.exf5 gxf5 16.ti'c2 0,f6oo; 1l.a3 0,e8 12. g4 0,c5 13.b4 axb4 14.axb4 0,a6 15J'!b1 c5 16.bxcS li)xc5 17.li)b3, all this happened in the game Breuti­ gam - Lanka, Germany 1997 and here the guru of the variation had better simply fortify his knight of c5, by playing 17 . . . b6=, with the idea to continue on the next move with f5.) 1O . . . li)c5 11.�e2 �d7 12. b3. We are still following the an­ cient game Kalantarian - Niki103

Chapter 8 tin, Lugansk 1989. (The position would be double-edged after 12.g5 lLle8 13.h4 cxd5 14.cxd5 f5 15.f3 a4+t) 12 ...�b8 13.a3 cxd5 14.cxd5 gc8 (14 ...b5 15.b4! axb4 16.axb4 �al 17.�xal lLla4 18.0-0 lLlxc3 19.�xc3 gc8 20.�b2;!;) 15.a4 �c7! (15 ... lLld3? 16 ..ixd3 gxc3 17.lLlbl! gc8 18.lLla3± Todorovic - Murey, London 1987) 16.gcl �d8 17 ..tc4! lLle8 18.�f3;!; The piece sacrifice is inter­ esting, but insufficient after 9 ... lLlxe4 1O.lLldxe4 f5 1l . .ig5 (11. g4 fxe4 12.lLlxe4 b6 13 ..id3 lLlc5 14.b3 lLlxd3 15.�xd3 .td7= Kava­ lek - Torre, Skopje 1972) 1l ... �e8 12.lLld2 h6 13 ..th4 g5 14 ..tg3 e4 15 ..ih2 a4 16.gcl lLlc5 17. .te2 e3 18.lLldbl exf2 19.xg7 15.liJhl �e7 16.f4 exf4 17.�xf4 f5 18.exfS hfS with an •

,

109

Chapter 9 approximate equality, Ghaem Kozul, Dresden 200S. 9 c6 9 ... hS 10 . .igS 'iffe S 11.'iffd 2 tDh7 12 . .ih6 'iffe 7 13.0-0-0 .ixh6 14.'iffxh6 'ifff6 lS.f3 .id7 16.tDfU Ader - Bolbochan, Mar del Plata 19S2. 10 .lg5 10.hS cxdS 11.cxdS (It de­ serves attention for White to try the rarely played move 11.exdS ! ? "Rybka" recommends 11 ... tDd7, in order for Black to form a mobile pawn-tandem in the centre.) 11 ... tDcS 12 . .ie3 (12 . .igS - see 10 . .igS; the position remains sharp with mutual chances after 12.h6! ? .ihS 13 . .igS 'iffb 6 14.'iffd 2 .id7 lS.0-0 �fcS 16.�ac1 a4, Kaposztas - Bo­ hati, Hungary 200S.) 12 ... 'iffb 6 13.�b1 .id7 14.tDf1 a4 1S.tDd2 'iffaS=i= Lutz - Gelfand, Horgen 1994. It is evident that Black has obtained a very comfortable position, in which the attack with the h-pawn has created problems only for his opponent. 1 0 �c5 • • •

•

• • •

1l.h5 In case of 11.'iffd 2, Black should exchange immediately on dS 11 ... cxdS (It is worse for him to play 11 ... a4 12.hS 'iffaS, in view of 13.0-0 "YPlc7 14.�ad1 tDeS, Chris­ tiansen - Lanka, Eupen 2000, lS . .ie3±) and as the analysis shows, Black has a comfortable game, no matter how he recaptures. For ex­ ample: 12.cxdS .id7 13.f3, Dive - Abou el Zein, Thessaloniki 19S5, 13 ... a4 14.0-0 bS; 1ViJxdS tDe6 13.tDxf6 .ixf6 14. .ixf6 'iffxf6 lS.'iffxd6 gdS 16.'iffa3 tDf4+ Ruf - Schmaltz, Gstaad 1993; 12.exdS hS 13.0-0-0 (13 . .ixhS gxhS 14.tDxhS .ihS) 13 . . ..id7 14. 'iffe 3 (14 . .ixhS gxhS lS.tDxhS tiS 16.�xg7 �xg7 17. .ih6 �h7 lS. .ixf8 'iffxf8 19.'iffgS 'iffh 6 20.f3 tDeS) 14 ... 'iffc7 (14 'iffe S lS . .ixf6 .ixf6 16.tDge4 tDxe4 17.�xe4 'iffe 7 lS.g4 hxg4 19.hS .tiS 2 0.hxg6 fxg6 21. �dg1) lS . .ixf6 (1S.�b1 tDh7 16. .ih6 fS) lS ....ixf6 16.tDge4 tDxe4 17.tDxe4 .ig7. U cxd5 12.exd5! White should not open the f­ file, because Black's rook joins in the actions then: 12.hxg6 fxg6 13.exdS 'iffb 6 , Rekkedal - Gabri­ elsen, Bergen 2002, 14.�b1 (14. "YPlc2 tDg4) 14 ... tDg4 lS . .ixg4 tDd3!+ The position remains double­ edged after 12.h6 .ihS 13.exdS (13.�xdS tDe6 14 . .ih4 gS) 13 ... 'iffb 6 14.�b1 .id7 1S.0-0 gfeS (lS ... gfcS ..•

•••

110

l.d4 lZ:Jj6 2.c4 g6 3Ji}.c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 S. lZ:Jge2 0-0 6. lZ:Jg3 16.i.e3 �dS 17.i.xcS l"!xcS 1S.lZ:Jge4 lZ:Jxe4 19.1Z:Jxe4 l"!c7 20.lZ:Jxd6 �fS 21.lZ:Je4 i.fS 22.f3 �xh6) 16.b3 e4 17.�d2 lZ:Jg4 1S.,bg4 i.xg4 19.i.e3 fS 20.lZ:JbS l"!acS 21.i.d4 i.eS 22. l"!be1 �dS. l2 :llYb 6 l3.gbl i.d7 14. �d2t ••

B2b) 7 c6 S.J.e2 a6 • • •

�dS 17.h4 lZ:Jdf6= Comas - Xie Jun, Pamplona 1999. 9.a4 as 10.h4 hS 11.i.gS �b6 12.l"!a3 lZ:Jbd7 13.�c2 lZ:Jc5 14.i.e3 i.d7 1S.lZ:Jf1 l"!acS 16.lZ:Jd2 �b4= Ionov - Bologan, Moscow 1991. 9 ... cxd5 l O .cxd5 tt)bd7 11. i.e3 11.a4 hS 12.i.gS �eS 13.�d2 It'lh7 14.i.e3 h4 1S.lZ:Jh1, Johans­ son - Gaponenko, Varna 2002, 1S ...h3 16.g3 lZ:JcS? 11.i.gS h6 12.i.e3 hS 13.i.gS �eS 14.�d2 lZ:Jh7 1S.i.h6 h4 16. lZ:Jh1 �e7 17.i.xg7 �xg7 1SJ:!ac1 lZ:JgS 19.�e3 �dS 20.b4 fS? She­ meakin - Stefanishin, Alushta 1999. 11 h5 • • .

Black creates the possibility to inflict a counter strike with b7bS if White goes too far with his active actions on the kingside. It only seldom comes to this how­ ever, since he usually evacuates prudently his king away from the centre. 9. 0 - 0 9.h4 hS 1O.i.gS cxdS 11.exdS lZ:Jbd7 12.�d2 �c7 13.0-0 lZ:Jh7 14.i.h6 fS 1S.i.xg7 �xg7 16.f4 lZ:Jhf6 17.lZ:Jh1 exf4 1SJ:�xf4 lZ:JeS? Frohberg - Bekker-Jensen, Ger­ many 1995. 9.i.gS h6 1O.i.e3 cxdS 11.cxdS hS 12.i.gS �eS 13.�d2 lZ:Jbd7 14.a4 lZ:Jh7 1S.i.h6 i.xh6 16.�xh6

l2.i.g5 12.l"!c1 h4 (The following game proves that Black must play very energetically, since if he slows down this might end up badly for him: 12 . . . lZ:Jh7 13.�d2 h4 14.lZ:Jh1 fS 1S.exfS gxfS 16.f4 exf4 17.i.xf4 lZ:JeS 1S.lZ:Jf2 i.d7 19.�h1 l"!cS 20. lZ:Jh3 bS 21.a3 �f6 22.i.e3 lZ:Jg6 23.i.hS lZ:JeS 24.i.e2 lZ:Jg6 2S.lZ:Jf4 111

Chapter 9

Il)xf4 26 ..bf4 YHg6 27.J.d3;!; Pono­ mariov - Bologan, Tomsk 2006) 13.ll)h1 bSI ? 14.f3 (14.J.gS h3 1S.g3 YHaS 16.f3 Il)cS 17.a3 b4 18.ll)a2 VHb6 19.J.e3 as 20.YHd2 j.d7 21.ll)f2 �tb8oo) 14 ... ll)hS 1S.a4 (1S.YHd2 fS 16.a4 f41? 17.J.f2 bxa4 18.ll)xa4 h3oo) 1S ...b4 16.ll)a2 as 17.J.bS f5 18.J.c6 �a6 19.YHd2 f4 20.J.f2 h3 and Black has a powerful attack, since he has managed to open the shelter of White's king. 12 YHe8 13.YHd2 �h7 14.J.e3 The alternative for White is to trade the dark-squared bishops with 14 ..ih6 h4 1S ..hg7 'it>xg7, but then his knight must remain in the corner for a while - 16.ll)h1 and Black obtains effortlessly an excellent position: 16 ...f5 17.exfS gxf5 18.f4 YHg6 19.1l)f2 'it>h8 20. 'kth1 Il)hf6 21.�g1 bS 22.g4 J.b7, Shemeakin - Gaponenko, Alushta 1998. 14 h4 15.�hl (diagram) 15 ... �df6!? It is premature for Black to •••

•••

112

play 1S ...f5, because of 16.exf5 gxfS 17.f41;!; and all his pieces must look for a new field of action, since his plan proved not to be working well, Berta - Brglez, corr. 1975. 16.h3 16.f3 Il)hS 17.�f2 J.d7 18.�fc1 V!Je7 19.�cd1 gfc8 with an ap­ proximate equality. 16 J.d7 17.Mcl Y!le7 18.gc2 gfc8 19.9acl b5 2 0 .b4 Y!le8. White must play 21.f3, in order to bring his knight on h1 into the actions and this presents Black's knight with the possibility Il)hS­ f4. 21 �h5 22.�f2 Y!ld8 23. �g4 �f4;t •••

•••

Chapter 1 0

1.d4 li)f6 2.c4 g6 3.li)c3 AgJ 4.e4 d6 5.Ad3

According to Chebanenko, it is not advisable for White to devel­ op his bishops to d3 and e3, since they might turn into objects for an attack by Black's knights. In this case, White's bishop is safe be­ hind the pawn-shelter c4, d4, e4, so Black must find a way to reach it. One of the obvious drawbacks of White's last move is that his d4pawn has been weakened. 5. . 0 - 0 A plan with the immediate move e7-eS came into fashion in the year 2008. I believe that it is not so logical, because White should not worry any more about his d4-pawn. The following games show that he has good chances of obtaining a small edge: S ... eS 6.dS .

0-0 (6 ... llJ a6 7.llJge2 llJc5 8.�c2 as 9.f3 c6 1O.i.e3 cxdS 11.cxdS i.d7 12.0-0 b5 13.a3 b4 14.llJa4 llJxa4 IS.i.xa4 0-0 16.�el 'ifib8� Prohaszka - nincic, Budapest 2008) 7.llJge2 llJa6 (7 ... cS 8.h3 llJe8 9.g4 llJa6 10.i.e3 i.d7 11.llJg3 i.f6 12.'�d2 i.h4 13J!gl f6 14. 0-0-0 �b8 15.f4 exf4 16.i.xf4 llJac7 17.llJf5 gxf5 18.gxfS �h8 19. �g4 i.gS 20.�dgl, with a powerful attack for White, which brought a full point to him in the game Gonzalez Zamora - Zapata, Me­ rida 2 008.) 8.i.c2 llJhS 9.0-0 cS 1O.i.e3 i.d7 11.a3 'ifie7 12.'l;Yd2 b6 13.llJg3 llJxg3 14.fxg3 �fb8 IS.�abl �b7 16.�f2 f6 17.i.d3 �ab8 18.b4 �c8 19.h3 h5 2 0.i.e2 �h7 21.bS llJc7 22.�bf1t Fodor - nincic, Bu­ dapest 2008. 6.llJge2 The indifferent development 6.i.e3 can be countered effectively by Black with 6 ... eS 7.dS llJg4 and White must either lose a tempo for the retreat of his bishop (af­ ter which Black pushes V-fS with an excellent game), or he should comply with its exchange: 8.'l;Yd2 llJxe3 9.'ifixe3 llJa6 10.llJge2 f5 11. 113

Chapter 10 f3 llJc5, Aleksic - Cetkovic, Bel­ grade 2009 and Black's prospects are not worse at all. White's bishop is not so well placed on g5 after 6 . .ig5 h6 7 ..ih4 llJc6 S.d5 llJe5 9 . .ie2 g5 10 . .ig3 llJg6 11.llJf3 llJh5 12.llJd4 llJhf4 13. 0-0 e6 14.l3e1 h5 15.f3 .ie5 and Black had the initiative in the game Vistaneckis - Gufeld, Viln­ ius 1960. In case of the overly aggres­ sive move 6.f4, Black obtains a good game by attacking the d4square, since it is not protected by the queen on d1 after he has developed his bishop to d3: 6 ... llJc6 7.llJf3 (Black is quite OK after 7.llJge2 e5 S.d5 llJb4 9.fxe5 llJg4 1O.llJf4 dxe5 11.llJh3 V;Vh4 12.i>f1 f5, Ljubisavljevic - Atalik, Kasto­ ria 1996, or 7.d5 llJb4 S.llJf3 llJxd3 9.V;Vxd3 c5 1O.h3 .id7 11.g4 13bS 12.13f1 llJeS 13.f5 llJc7 14.a4 llJa6 15.g5 llJb4 16.V;Vb1 l3eS, Khanna Femic, Herceg Novi 2005) 7. . . .ig4 S . .te3 e5 9.d5 exf4 10.hi4 llJd4 11.h3 .ixf3 12.gxf3 llJh5 13 . .ie3 c5+ A.Arafat - Petrosian, Nice 1974. Black can counter the tentative move 6.h3, with another equally mysterious reply 6 ... a6, for exam­ ple: 7.llJge2 (7.llJf3 c5 S.d5 b5 9.0-0 b4 1O.llJe2 e5 11.llJh2 llJh5 12.g4 llJf4 13.llJxf4 exf4 14.hi4 .txb2 15.l3b1 .ig7 16 . .ig3, draw, Tyomkin - Mikhalevski, Beer­ Sheva 1997) 7 ... c5 S.dxc5 dxc5 9. e5 llJeS 1O.f4 f6 11.exf6 llJxf6 12. .ie3 llJc6 13.0-0 V;Vd6 14.llJa4 13dS 15 . .ic2 V;Vc7 16.V;Vc1 llJd4 17.llJxd4 114

cxd4 1S . .if2 .if5+t Romanov Ponkratov, St. Petersburg 200S. Finally, after 6.llJf3, it is again sensible for Black to attack the d4-pawn 6 ... llJc6 7.0-0 (7.d5 llJb4 S ..ib1 c6 9.�a4 llJa6 10.dxc6 llJc5 11.�c2 bxc6 12.0-0 .ta6 13.l3d1 .ixc4+ Stamatovic - Vujacic, Pod­ gorica 200S) 7....tg4 S . .ie3 e5 9.d5 llJe7 1O.h3 .td7 11.V;Vd2 llJeS 12.llJh2 f5 13.f4 llJf6 14.l3ae1 llJh5 15.fxe5 dxe5 16.g4 fxg4 17.l3xfS hiS 1S.hxg4 llJf6, with a good position for Black, Nikolov - Dra­ giev, Sofia 2009.

In this situation, Black has two possibilities to attack White's d4-pawn. We will analyze them both, leaving the alternatives (6 ... a6, 6 ... c6) aside, because I believe they are obviously insufficient for equality.

A) 6 B) 6

• • •

•••

c5 llJc6

A) 6 c5 7.d5 In case of 7.0-0, Black can play 7... llJc6, after which White •••

1.d4 !iJf6 2.c4 g6 3. !iJ c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 S. i.d3 0-0 6. !iJge2 will have to block the centre any­ way, but under less favourable circumstances, for example: B.dS !iJeS 9.!iJg3 !iJxd3 10.V;Yxd3 a6 11.f3 bS 12 .i.e3 bxc4 13.V;Yxc4 as 14. �f2 i.a6 lS.V;Ya4 !iJd7 16.V;Yc2 !iJeS+ Chang - Dembo, Calvia 2004. 7.. e6 8. 0 - 0 Black has no problems after B.dxe6 he6, for example: 9.f4 !iJc6 10.0-0 i.g4 11.h3 he2 12. %Vxe2 �eB 13.g4 a6 14.i.d2 �bB lS.�ae1 h6 16.b3 bS 17.cxbS !iJd4 1B.V;Yf2 axbSt Radev - Ki.Geor­ giev, Sofia 19B1. On the contrary, the plan with B.i.gS is very unpleasant for him and it has been used by the Ukrainian GMs Pavel Eljanov and Alexander Moiseenko, for ex­ ample: B . . . h6 9.i.f4 (9.i.h4 exdS 1O.cxdS a6 11.a4 !iJbd7 12.0-0 !iJeS 13.f4 !iJeg4? ! ! 14.V;Yc1 c4 15. hc4 V;Yb6 16.c;t>h1 !iJe3 17.i.f2 !iJfg4 1B.i.g1 %Vb4 19.he3 V;Yxc4 20.h3 !iJxe3 21.V;Yxe3 V;Yb4 22.fS± Moiseenko - Gajewski, Polanica Zdroj 200B; it deserved atten­ tion for Black to continue simply with 13 . . . !iJxd3 14.V;Yxd3 �eB with mutual chances.) 9 . . . !iJg4 1O.V;Yd2 !iJa6 11.a3 !iJc7 12 .f3 !iJeS 13.0-0 exdS 14.cxdS !iJxd3 lS.V;Yxd3 b6 16.%Vd2 c;t>h7 17.!iJg3 i.a6 1B.�fe1 �eB? Eljanov - Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 200B. Black equalized effortlessly af­ ter B.h3 exdS 9.exdS !iJfd7 1O.0-0 !iJeS 11.b3 !iJxd3 12.V;Yxd3 !iJd7 13. %Vg3 !iJf6 14.i.gS h6 lS.i.d2 Ms 16.%Vf3 !iJd7 17.g4 !iJeS 1B.%Vg3 i.d3

19.9ae1 V;Yh4 2 0.V;Yxh4 !iJf3 21.c;t>g2 !iJxh4 2 2 .c;t>g3 gS= Y.Vovk - Go­ lubev, Mukachevo 2009.

.

8 �g4 After B . . . exdS 9.cxdS, there arises a position from the Benoni defence with a bishop on d3 and a knight on e2: 9 . . . a6 1O.a4 !iJbd7 11.h3 �eB 12.!iJg3 V;Yc7 13.f4 �bB, followed by c4, !iJcS. If you wish to be better acquainted with it, look at some opening books devoted to the Benoni. It would be interesting to dis­ cuss the pawn-structure, arising after 9.exdS. For example: 9 . . . !iJg4 1O.f4 (1O.i.c2 �eB 11.h3 !iJeS 12. b3, Dreev - Ivanchuk, Stepa­ nakert 2005 and here Black played 12 . . . bS, overlooking the spectacular combination 12 . . . !iJf3 13.gxf3 :Bxe2 14.V;Yxe2 hc3 lS.�b1 hh3 16.�d1 !iJd7 with a good compensation for the exchange.) 10 ... �eB 11.h3 !iJe3 12.he3 :Bxe3 13.V;Yd2 geB 14.�ae1 (14.c;t>h2 !iJa6 lS.gae1 !iJc7 16.!iJg1 �xe1 17.:Bxe1 i.d7 1B.!iJf3 a6 19.!iJe4 !iJeB 20.b4 b6 21.gb1 V;Yc7 22 .g3 !iJf6 23.!iJf2 •••

115

Chapter 1 0

b5+ Seirawan - Wojtkiewcz, Til­ burg 1992; Black should not worry about 14.f5 tDd7 15.tDe4 tDf6, since he preserves his control over the f6-square.) 14 ... tDd7 15.tDg3 gxe1 16.�xe1 a6= 9 .tc2 9.h3 tDe5 1O.f4 tDxd3 11.�xd3 exd5 12.tDxd5 f5 13.tDg3, Vido­ niak - Ionita, Romania 1992, fxe4 14.tDxe4 tDc6= 9.tDf4!? tDe5 10 ..te2 �e7 11.g3, Knaak - Dinstuhl, Germany 1994, 11 ... tDa6 12.tDg2 exd5 13.tDxd5 �dS= 9.f4 exd5 1O.tDxd5 tDc6 11.h3 tDf6 12.tDdc3 (12.f5 tDxd5 13.cxd5 tDe5 14.g4 b5 15.Wg2 b4 16.gb1 aSf Dumitrache - Nevednichy, La Fere 2002) 12 ... geS 13.ie3 tDb4 14.M2 b6 15 ..th4 .tb7� Shomoev - Iskusnyh, Novokuznetsk 200S. 9 tDeS 9 ... tDa6 10.a3 tDc7 11.gb1 b6 12.b3 exd5 13.tDxd5 tDxd5 14. �xd5 gbS 15 . .tf4 .te5 16.�d2 J.xi4 17.�xf4 �e7 1S.gbdl± Dreev - Ivanchuk, Merida 2005. 1 0 .b3 exd5 11.cxdS This capturing is in principle better than 11.exd5. For exam­ ple: 11 ... geS 12 ..tf4 tDa6 13.a3 f5 14.�d2 .td7 15.gae1 tDt7 16.�c1 tDc7 17.a4 tDa6+ I.Sokolov - To­ palov, Wijk aan Zee 2005. 11 bS I2.f4 12.gb1 b4 13.tDa4 ia6 14.h3 tDed7 15.a3 bxa3 16.ha3 tDb6 17.tDb2 geS lS.ge1 tDSd7� Bru­ zon - Nataf, Calvia 2 004. 12 b4 13.fxeS heS 14 .tf4 •

.txf4 IS.tDxf4 bxc3 16.�el .ta6 17 .td3 hd3 18.tDxd3 tDd7 19. �xc3 �gS= Grigore - Marin, Bu­ charest 1994. •

B) 6 tDc6 7. 0 - 0 7.£3 tDd7 S ..te3 e5 9.d5 tDb4 1O.ib1 as 11.a3 tDa6 12.tDa4 .!h6 13.�d2 .txe3 14.�xe3 tDdc5 15. tDxc5 tDxc5 16.ic2 f5 17.exfS �h4 lS.g3 �h5 19.0-0-0 gxf5 20.h4 a4� Akhmedov - Fedorov, Baku 200S. 7.d5 tDe5 S.O-O c6 9.b3 cxd5 1O.cxd5 tDxd3 11.�xd3 id7 12 . .te3 �a5 13.h3 gacS 14.a3 a6 15.gfc1 gfeS 16.b4 �dS 17.tDd4 e6 1S.dxe6 fxe6� Likavsky - Yurtaev, Bratis­ lava 1991. •••

•••

•••

•••

116

•

7 tDhS!? The Greek GM Vasilios Kotro­ nias defends successfully the vari­ ation with 7... e5, for example: S. d5 tDd4 9.tDxd4 (9.ig5 h6 1O ..!h4 c5 11.gb1 .td7 12.£3 g5 13.M2 tDh5 14.b4 b6 15.bxc5 dxc5 16.a4 as 17. hd4 exd4 lS.tDb5 tDf4 19 ..tc2 tDg6+ Graf - V.Kotronias, Mos­ cow 2004) 9 ... exd4 and here: •••

1.d4 !i:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3. !i:J c3 Ag7 4.e4 d6 S. i.d3 0 - 0 6.!i:Jge2 10.!i:Je2 !i:Jd7 (1O .. J3e8 11.f3 c5 12 . .igS 'i!!c7 13.'i!!d 2 !i:Jd7 14.f4 bS lS.b3 bxc4 16.bxc4 13b8 17.!i:Jg3 13b4 18.eS dxeS 19.f5 'i!!b 6 20.!i:Je4 f6 21.J.h6 13b2 22.Y1!lc1 13e7oo Cha­ talbashev - Timoshenko, Vi­ enna 2 008) 11.b3 !i:JcS 12.Ab2 13e8 13.f3 'i!!gS 14.f4 'i!!e 7 lS.hd4 !i:Jxe4 16.hg7 rllxg7 17.he4 Y1!lxe4 18.Y1!ld4 'i!!xd4 19.!i:Jxd4 a6= Skem­ bris - V.Kotronias, Greece 1995; 1O.!i:JbS 13e8 11.13e1 .ig4 (11... Ad7 12 .h3 a6 13.!i:Ja3 .ic8 14. .igS h6 lS ..ih4 gS 16 . .ig3 !i:Jd7 17.!i:Jc2 'i!!f6 18.b4 as 19.c5 axb4 20.c6 bxc6 21.dxc6 !i:Jc5=t Brenninkmei­ jer - V.Kotronias, Wijk aan Zee 1995; 12.AgS h6 13 . .ih4 gS 14.J.g3 !i:Jg4 lS.h3 !i:JeS 16.J.f1 d3 17. .beS heS 18.!i:Jc3 Y1!lf6� Ar­ duman - V.Kotronias, Zouberi 1993) 12.f3 (12.'i!!c2 a6 13.!i:Jxd4 !i:Jxe4 14.!i:Jb3 !i:JcS= Olafsson V.Kotronias, Reykjavik 1992) 12 ... Ad7 13.J.f1 hbS 14.cxbS !i:Jd7 lS . .id2 hS 16.13c1 !i:JeS 17.M4 h4 18.h3 gS 19 . .ih2 !i:Jg6= Chekhov V.Kotronias, Gausdal 1991.

Bl) 8.Ae3 B2) 8 .lc2 •

Black is quite happy after 8.dS !i:JeS 9.f4 !i:Jxd3 1O.Y1!lxd3 fS 11.!i:Jd4 cS 12.dxc6 bxc6 13 . .ie3 J.d7 14.exfS gxfS lS.cS eSf± van Der Werf - Gallagher, Cannes 1997.

B1) 8 .le3 e5 9.d5 9 . .ic2 exd4 10.!i:Jxd4 !i:JeS 11. !b3 (Black has a good position •

in case of 11.b3 !i:Jg4 12 .!c1 'i!!f6 13.!i:Jde2 'i!!e S 14.g3 f5 lS.h3 !i:Jgf6 16.exfS J.xfS 17.g4 !i:Jxg4 18.hxg4 .txg4 19.J.d2 J.f3) 11 ... c5 12.!i:JfS gxfS 13.'i!!xhS fxe4 14.!i:Jxe4 .ig4 lS.'i!!gS f5+ Tupy - Gladischev, Ceske Budejovice 1997.

9 !i:Jd4 Black is ready to sacrifice a pawn in order to open files for his pieces. In principle, this line is sufficient for equality, but there is an attractive alternative for the players who prefer compli­ cated positions: 9 ... !i:Je7 1O.'i!!d2 fS 11.exfS and now: 11 ... !i:JxfS ! ? 12 . .igS Af6 13.J.xf6 Y1!lxf6 14.!i:Je4 Y1!lg7 (14 Y1!le7!?=) lS.cS !i:Jf6 16.13ac1 (16.cxd6 !i:Jxe4 17.he4 cxd6=) 16 ... 'i!!e 7 17.cxd6 cxd6 18.13c3 !i:Jxe4 19 . .txe4 b6 20.13fc1 Ad7= Piket - Ju.Polgar, Amsterdam 1995; 11 ... gxfS 12.f4 (12 .AgS f4 13.f3 Y1!ld7 14.he7 Y1!lxe7= Christiansen - Gallagher, Bern 1996; 12.f3 rllh 8 13.cS f4 14.!f2 !i:JfS 1S.cxd6 cxd6 16.!i:Je4 13g8 17.'i!!b 4 J.f6 18.rllh 1 13g6, with a good counterplay for • • •

.•.

117

Chapter 1 0 Black, Videki - Shaked, Budapest 1997) 12 ... c!lJg6 13.g3 (13.fxeS? ! dxeS 14 . .tgS �d6 1S.c!lJbS �d7 16.c!lJg3 c!lJxg3 17.hxg3 a6 1S.c!lJc3 �d6+) 13 ... @hS 14.@h1 .td7 1S.l3f2 c!lJf6 16.fxeS c!lJxeS 17.l3ffl �eS 1S ..td4 �hS 19.c!lJf4 �h6oo Tunik - Shulman, Minsk 1995. 1 0 .tc2 We must have a look at the other possibilities for White: 1O.�d2 cS 11.dxc6 bxc6 12.b4 .te6 13.bS fS 14 . .tgS �d7 1S.bxc6 c!lJxc6 16.c!lJdS f4 17.f3 @hS 1S.@h1 h6 19 ..th4 gS 20.M2 g4� Seira­ wan - Kasimdzhanov, Bled 2002; lOJk1 cS (1O ... a6 11.b4 �eS 12 . .tb1 c!lJxe2 13.c!lJxe2 fS 14.exfS gxfS 1S.f3 f4 16.M2 .tfS 17.hf5 l3xfS 1S.c!lJc3 �g6 19.c!lJe4 @hS 20 ..th4 l3gS 21.l3c2 .th6 22.cS l3fl 23.cxd6 cxd6 24.@h1 c!lJg7 2S.l3g1 c!lJfS� Tunik - Fedorov, Minsk 1995) 11.dxc6 bxc6 12.c5 .te6 (12 ... dS 13.exdS cxdS 14.hd4 exd4 1S.c!lJbS) 13.b3 (13.cxd6 �xd6 14.�d2 cS) 13 . . . dS (13 ... M6 14.�d2 �d7 1S.cxd6 �xd6 16.c!lJa4 l3fdS 17.hd4 exd4 1S.c!lJc5;!;) 14.exdS c!lJxe2 1S.he2 cxdS 16.hhS gxhS 17.c!lJbS d4 1S . .td2 h4 19.h3 aS�; 1O.c!lJbS c!lJxe2 (White is better after 1O ... c!lJxbS 11.cxbS fS 12.f3.) 11.he2 c!lJf4 12 ..tf3 (Black's coun­ terplay is quite sufficient after 12.c!lJxa7 l"bca7 13.ha7 b6 14 . .tf3 .td7 1S.g3 c!lJh3 16.@g2 c!lJgS 17. .tg4 c!lJxe4 or 14.a4 cS 1S.dxc6 �c7 16 . .tf3 �xa7) 12 .. .fS 13.c!lJc3 (13. c!lJxa7 fxe4 14.he4 l3xa7 1S.ha7 b6 16.a4 �gS 17.@h1 .tfS 1S.�f3 •

l1S

l3aS) 13 ... .td7 (13 ... b6! ?) 14.exfS gxfS 1S . .txf4 (1S.�b3 b6 16.�c2 c!lJg6) 1S ... exf4 16.�d2 �h4+ Kise­ lev - I.Zaitsev, Moscow 1992; 1O.hd4 exd4 11.c!lJbS c5 12. dxc6 bxc6 13.c!lJbxd4, Mendelson - Collins, Bunratty 200S, 13 ... �b6 14. .tc2 h6� 1 0 c!lJxc2 1O ... c!lJxe2 11.�xe2 c!lJf4 (l1 ... fS 12.exfS .txfs 13 . .txfS l3xfS 14.c!lJe4 c!lJf4 1S.�d2 �e7 16.f3;!; Ionescu - Navrotescu, Romania 2 000) 12.�d2 fS 13.exfS .txfS 14 . .txfS l3riS 1S.c!lJe4 �4 16.f3 l3hS 17.g3± 1l.�xc2 f5 12.exfS gxf5 13.f4 .td7 13 ... b6 14.l3ae1 as 1S.a3 .td7 16.b4 axb4 17.axb4 �e7 18.�d2 l3a3� 14.gael Black has nothing to complain about after 14.c5 exf4 1S . .td4 hd4 16.c!lJxd4 dxc5. 14 exf4 It is not good for him to opt for 14 ... �eS?! in view of 1S.c5 �g6 16.�b3 exf4 17 ..txf4 and White exerts a powerful pressure, but it deserves attention for Black to continue with 14 . . .b6. 15.c!lJxf4 c!lJxf4 16 .txf4 �f6 17.@hl gae8= Christiansen Nunn, San Francisco 1995. •••

•••

•

B2) 8 .tc2 e5 9.d5 ! About the move 9 . .te3, look at the previous comments; 9.dxeS dxeS= (9 ... c!lJxeS?! 10.b3 �h4 1l . .td2;!;). •

l.d4 l:iJf6 2.c4 g6 3. l:iJc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 S. i.d3 0-0 6. l:iJge2 9

. . .

�e7

13 . . . gS 14.h4 gxh4 lSJINhS l:iJg6 16.hh6 Vlffe 7= 1Q.i.e3 fS 11.exfS gxfS 12.f4 l:iJg6 13JINd2 l:iJhxf4 14.l:iJxf4 exf4 lS.i.xf4 l:iJxf4 16.Vlffxf4 i.eS and Black is not worse at all. 1 0 f5 ! ? H e should not lose a tempo for the move 1Q . . . aS, since it would provide his opponent with anoth­ er resource - l:iJbS. The immediate move l1.l:iJbS is premature for White, because this knight can be attacked later with tempo after c6, for example: 1l .. .fS 12.exfS i.xfS, threatening i.c2 and c6. (If 12 . . . l:iJxfS, then 13J�a3 ! - Black is quite OK after 13.g4 l:iJh4 14.gxhS l:iJf3 lS.�g2 ygh4 - 13 . . . l:iJh4 14.i.e4 i.g4 lS.f3; 14 . . . h6 lS.Vlffc 2 l:iJf4 16.ge1 i.g4 17.i.xf4 exf4 lS.l:iJed4 f3 19.93 i.eS 20.gee3 ygf6 21.l:iJxf3 i.xf3 2 2 .i.xf3 l:iJfS 23.ge2t LSokolov - Smirin, Bled 2002) 13 . .txf"5 gxfS 14.l:iJg3 l:iJxg3 lS.hxg3 lLlcS 16.VlffhS (16.g4 ! ? f4) 16 ... c6 17.i.gS YGd7 1S.l:iJc3 l:iJb6 19.yge2 cxdS 20. l:iJxdS l:iJxdS 21.cxdS f4 22.gxf4 h6 23.i.h4 gxf4= It would be considerably stronger for White to continue with 11.ga3 �hS (orll . . .fS 12.exfS l:iJxfS 13.l:iJe4 l:iJf6 14.i.gS Vlffe S IS. l:iJ2c3 l:iJxe4 16.he4 i.f6 17.i.c1 yge7 1S.l:iJbS ga6 19.ge1 YGf7 20.g3 �hS 21.gf3 YGg7 22.gd3t Bareev - Dolmatov, Elista 1997) and only now 12.l:iJbS ! (12 .�h1 lLlgS 13.l:iJbS yge7 14.i.e3 l:iJh6 lS.f3 f5 16.exfS gxfS 17.f4 l:iJg4 lS.i.g1 . • •

1 0 .a4 White is ready to bring his rook into the actions along the third rank. He is not afraid to weaken (after Black's response a7-as) chronically the dark cS and b4-squares, because the kingside will focus the future battle. Black has nothing to be afraid of after lQ.gbl WhS 1l.i.d2 a6 12.YGc1 fS 13.exfS gxfS 14.f4 l:iJg6 lS.wh1 exf4 16.l:iJxf4 lLlgxf4 17. i.xf4 lLlxf4 lS.Vlffxf4 i.eS 19.Vlffh 6 gf6 20.Vlffh3 VlfffS+t Borne - Shche­ kachev, France 2000. In case of 1Q.�h1 fS 11.exfS gxfS 12.lLlg3 l:iJf4, Black obtains again a very good position, for example: 13.l:iJhS l:iJxhS 14.YGxhS i.d7 1S.f4 Vlffe S 16.Vlffh3 l:iJg6 17.i.d2 exf4 lS.gae1 lLleS, Gonda - Hen­ driks, Austria 2 00S. It would be premature for White to choose 1Q.f4 l:iJxf4 1l.lLlxf4 exf4 12.i.xf4 h6 13.i.e3, Eggleston - Arakhamia-Grant, Swansea 2 006, since here Black had better play immediately

119

Chapter 1 0 lLlxf4 19.1Llxf4 exf4 20.l'M"4 .ieS 2U3af3 .txf4 22.l'M"4 l3f7 23.h3, draw, Moiseenko - van Wely, Cala Mayor 2008) 12 ... lLlg8 13.f4 exf4 (but not 13 ...f5 14.exfS .txfs IS . .hfS gxfS 16.l3h3±) 14.lLlxf4 lLlxf4 IS . .txf4 b6 (IS ... .b:b2 16. l3b3) 16.l3e3 V!fe7 17.l3feU It is also insufficient for Black to opt for 1O ... c;f;>h8?! 1l.aS lLlg8 (1l ... f5 12.exfS gxfS 13.lLlg3 lLlf4 14.lLlhS lLlxhS IS.%'IxhS a6 16 . .igSi Piket - Fedorov, Wijk aan Zee 2001) 12.b4 f5 13.exfS gxfS 14.f3;!; 1l.ext'S 1l.lLlg3 lLlf4 12.ga3 fxe4 13. lLlcxe4 as 14.lLlc3 c;f;>h8 IS.lLlbS lLlg8 16.lLle4 lLlf6 17.lLlxf6 hf6 18 ..ie3 b6= Malakhov - Dyach­ kov, Dagomys 2006. 1l gxt'5 ll ... lLlxfS 12.lLle4 lLlf6 13 ..igS V!fe8 14.lLl2c3 lLlxe4 1S.,ixe4 lLld4i •••

12.lLlg3 White has tested some other plans as well: 12.f4 lLlg6 13.fxeS lLlxeS (13 ... dxeSoo) 14.lLlf4 (14.aS ! ? V!fh4 IS.

120

lLlf4 lLlxf4 16.l3xf4 V!fe7oo) 14 ... lLlxf4 IS.l3xf4 lLlg6= Drozdovskij - Efi­ menko, Ukraine 2006. 12 ..igS V!fd7 (12 .. .f4 13.lLlg3 lLlf6 14.lLlhSi Gormally - Gour­ lay, England 2006) 13.lLlg3 lLlf4 14 ..txf4 (14.lLlhS! ? lLlxhS IS.V!fxhS lLlg6 16.gael V!ff7 17. .icl .id7 and White has an enjoyable position indeed, but Black has nothing to worry about.) 14 ... exf4 IS.lLlhS .ieS 16.g3 lLlg6 17.V!fd2 f3 18.c;f;>hl f4 t Bruzon - M. Martinez, Spain 2006. 12 �f4 13.gga3 13.ltJhS!? lLlxhS 14.V!fxhS, Ko­ rchnoi - Radjabov, Buenos Aires 2001, 14 ... a6 IS ..igS V!fe8 16.V!fe2 f4 17.,ixe7 %'Ixe7 18.V!fhS .if6= and %'If7 next. 13 ... �eg6 14.�ce2 The following game showed that White could not afford to ignore his opponent's power­ ful knight on f4: 14.c;f;>hl V!fh4 IS.ggl e4! 16.f3 (According to GM M.Golubev, in case of 16.lLlfl, he was planning 16 ... ltJd3 17 . .b:d3 exd3 18.ltJbS ltJeS ! , or 18.f4 V!fg4!) 16 ....id7 17.ltJf1 ltJd3 18.i.xd3 exd3 19.V!fxd3? (White had better take the eS-square under control with 19.f4.) 19 ... lLleS 20.'!Wdl ltJxc4 with an advantage for Black, I.Sokolov - Golubev, Germany 2003. 14 V!fg5 15.�xf4 �xf4 16. gf3 .td7 17.c;f;>hl J.e8 18.gggl c;f;>h8 19.J.xf4 exf4 2 0 .V!fd2 J.e5oo Borne - Relange, France 2007. •••

•••

Part 2 The Averbakh Variation 1.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 J.g7 4.e4 d6 S.J.e2 0 - 0 6.J.gS

My computer base asserts that the move 6.J.gS has been played for the first time back in the year 1930 in a game between two ama­ teurs. It began to be considered seriously only after the famous Soviet GM and theoretician Yuri Averbakh started analyzing it at the beginning of the past century. Naturally, the system was named after him. White's idea is inherent to the other variations with a bishop on gS and it is aimed at preventing Black's standard plan including e7-eS and f7-fS (after a move with the knight on f6, usually to hS) The absence of the knight on f3 (usually after closing of the cen­ tre) enables White to play imme-

diately the prophylactic move g2g4, not losing time for h2-h3 and then to play h2-h4 in one move (Averbakh used the same plan in his games.). I was taught to develop my knights first and only then my bishops in my adolescent years. Yuri Lvovich Averbakh consid­ ered that White could postpone the development of the knight on g1 in this situation. White has a wide choice of possibilities and therefore we will see that the Averbakh Variation provides him with opportunities of transposing advantageously to other systems, like the Saemisch Attack, the Four Pawns Attack and the Petrosian system. In the Averbakh Variation, White takes cares mostly of pre­ venting his opponent's coun­ terplay and not so much of his own creative endeavours. Black's main task is to wait patiently for his chances in the middle game without doing anything too com­ mitting, despite having to comply usually with a somewhat passive position. 121

Chapter 11

1.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 J.g7 4.e4 d6 5 .J.e2 0 - 0 6 .ig5 �a6 •

A) 7.fYc2 B) 7.f4 C) 7.lLlf3 D) 7.fYd2 E) 7.h4 About 7.f3 c6 8.Wfd2 e5 9.d5 see 7.Wfd2.

Black's knight is already eying the c5-square, although some­ times it needs to occupy the mod­ est c7-square. I will have to quote here GM Mikhail Golubev, who is the author of the interesting book Understanding the King's Indian. "For a long time 6 ... cS was consid­ ered to be Black's most principled answer, until in 1988 Glek intro­ duced an absolutely new idea: the flexible (in comparison with lLlbd7) 6 ... lLla6!?, which quickly proved to be fully playable. It was really too much for White, whose successes after 6 ... cS were also rather mixed. Thus, many play­ ers started to look for other sys­ tems." 122

A) 7.fYc2 This seemingly unpretentious move requires pinpoint precision from Black. 7... h6 White's position is slightly bet­ ter after 7... cS 8.d5 h6 9.,if4. 8 . .te3 Or 8.,if4 c5 9.d5 e5 1O.dxe6 ixe6 1U'!d1 lLlb4 12.fYbl (12.fYd2 ! ? 13e8 13 . .txh6 hh6 14.fYxh6 lLlc2 15.';t>f1 lLld�; 12.�b3 lLle8 13.lLlf3 f5+t) 12 ... 13e8 13.ixd6? ! �a5 14.a3 lLlc6 15.lLlf3 lLlxe4 16.Wfxe4 �3 17.fYd3 i.xg2 18.13g1 .ixf3 19.�xf3 lLld4 and Black seized the initia­ tive in the game Boensch - Gal­ lagher, Germany 2003. 8 ... e5 9.dxe5 9.d5 lLlg4 1O.,id2 f5 1l.ixg4 fxg4=

3. ttJc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. i.e2 0-0 6. i.g5 ttJa6 9 dxe5 1 0 .gdl WeS ll.ttJd5 ttJg4 Black's alternative is the posi­ tional approach 11 . . . ttJd7! ? 12.�d2 c6 13.ttJc3 @h7 14.g4 �e7 IS.h4 ttJdcS 16.hS gS 17.ttJf3 ttJe6+ Uhl­ mann - Popovic, Austria 1995. 12 .bg4 .bg4 13.13 i.e6 14. .bh6 hdS 15 .bg7 he4 16. 'f«xe4 @xg7 17.t!txb7 �a4 IS. f«b5 Wxa2 19.ttJe2 gabS 2 0 . 'f«xe5 @gS= Black regains his material and equalizes. • • •

•

•

B) 7.f4 This is White's most aggres­ sive line.

7 c6 Black takes the dS-square un­ der control, freeing the c7-square for maneuvers in the process. It is worse for him to opt for 7. . . �eS S.eS (S.i.h4 eS 9.fxeS dxeS lO.dS, Korchnoi - Ju.Polgar, Zurich 2006, 10 . . . ttJc5 ! ? 11.�c2 as 12.h3 - otherwise Black would play ttJg4 - 12 . . . tLlfxe4! 13.ttJxe4 i.fS 14.i.f3 he4 IS.he4 fS 16.i.f3 e4 17.i.dl ttJd3 IS.@f1 ttJxb2 19J'!bl �eS�) • • •

S . . . ttJd7 9.ttJf3 cS (9 . . .f6 10.exf6 exf6 11.i.h4;t) 10.0-0 cxd4 11.ttJdS f6 (ll . . . e6 12.ttJe7 @hS 13.�xd4 dxeS 14.fxeS f6 IS.exf6 ttJxf6 16. ttJxcS l'!xcS 17.ttJeS±) 12.exf6 ttJxf6 13.i.xf6 i.xf6 14.ttJxf6 l'!xf6 IS. ttJxd4 ttJc5 16.i.f3± Yakovich Trygstad, Bergen 2000 . S.ttJf3 White's direct attack does not deserve attention, because in an­ swer to 8.eS, Black has a powerful resource, which has not been test­ ed in practice yet - S . . . ttJhS ! (I do not like so much the line: S . . . ttJeS 9.ttJf3 ttJac7 1O.i.h4 ttJe6 11.g3 f6 12.exf6 tLlxf6 13.0-0 �b6 14.�d2; 1O ... bS 11.0-0 bxc4 12 .hc4 ttJe6, Del Rio - Cuenca, Evora 2007, 13.�d2 i.h6 14.g3;t) 9 .i.xhS gxhS lO.ttJf3 f6 and Black seizes gradu­ ally the initiative. S. �d2 ttJc7! (It is interesting for him, but probably insufficient to sacrifice a pawn with S . . .bS! ? 9.cxbS cxbS lO.hbS �b6 11.i.e2 i.b7; 1l.ttJge2 i.b7 12.hf6 i.xf6�; 9.eS b4 1O.exf6 bxc3 11. bxc3 exf6 12 .i.h4 �aS 13.ttJf3 i.fS 14.0-0 l'!feS+ Moskalenko - Nadyrhanov, Alushta 1994.) 9.eS ttJg4 lO.h3 ttJh6 1l.g4 f6 12.exf6 exf6 13.i.h4 ttJf7 14.0-0-0 dS IS.ttJf3 ttJd600 S ttJc7 Black can hardly equalize with S ... dS, for example: 9 .i.xf6 exf6 10.exdS cxdS 11.ttJxdS ttJc7 12 .ttJc3 i.g4 13.�d2 hf3 14.hf3 l'!eS IS. ttJe2 fS 16.0-0 ttJe6 17.l'!adU Ko­ rotylev - Chuprov, Krasnoyarsk 2007, but it would be interesting • • •

123

Chapter 11 for him to try 8 ... /t)hS 9.fS ! ? gxfS 10.exfS h:f5 1l./t)h4 i.g6 12 . .bhS VNaS 13.dS hc3 14.bxc3 VNxc3 IS. i.d2 VNxc4 16./t)xg6 fxg6 17.VNg4 VNxdS 18.hg6=

in which Black must attack ener­ getically the d4-square: 12 . . .i.fS! 13.0-0 i.e4 14.b4 /t)e6 lS.l3ad1 fS and Black equalized completely, Meins - Smirin, Groningen 1996. 9 b5 1 0 .e5 /t)g4 11.VNc1 It is worse for White to play 1l.VNd2 dxeS 12./t)xeS (12.dxeS /t)e6�) 12 ... /t)xeS 13.fxeS (13.dxeS VNxd2 14.8 18.i>a1 gc8f± Krush Kacheishvili, Berkeley 2008) 13 ... tDcS 14.0-0-0 'm>8! lS.i>b1 bS, with an initiative for Black. 1l.h4 ti'e8 (ll ... ti'aS 12.g4 gfc8 - 12 ...hS! ? - 13.tDh3 tDcS 14.gb1 tDa4 lS.tDbS ti'xd2 16.xd2 tDe8 17.tDf2 f5!t) 12.g4 hS! Naturally, Black should not go berserk and open the g-file for his opponent's heavy pieces. He is ready to sacri­ fice a pawn in order to gain access to the f-file. 13 ..txf6 .hf6 14.gxhS i>g7 lS.hxg6 fxg6 16.0-0-0 gh8 17.hS, Gaprindashvili - Makro­ poulou, Kuala Lumpur 1990 (17. J.xa6 bxa6 18.tDge2 gxh4 19.i>b1 ti'e7 2 0.gm4 ixh4) 17 ... gJllS ! 18.gxhS gxhS 19.ha6 bxa6=i= 1l ti'b6 In case of 1l ... ti'aS 12.a3 bS 13.tDge2 gtb8 14 ..ie3 b4 lS.tDa2 'm>S 16.axb4 tDxb4 17.ti'xb4 ti'xb4 18.tDxb4 �b4 19.b3, White main­ tains a slight edge.

gfc8 14.tDge2 ti'xd2 lS.J.xd2 bS 16.b4;t; 13.tDge2 f5 14.J.e3 ti'd8, Sapi - Gonzalez Garcia, Buda­ pest 1995, 15.exfS gxt'5 16. 0 - 0 .ie8!? (16 ... f4 17.M2 j,f5 18.�c2 hc2 19.ti'xc2 .if6 20.tDe4 i>h8 21.g4!±) 17.f4 Ag6 18.gctl

D2) 8 ti'e8 This waiting move enables Black to vary his reaction to his opponent's next move. •••

•••

9 .idl Black's task would be much easier against White's other pos­ sibilities. 9.f3 tDhS 10 . .id1! fS 11.tDge2 �d7 12 . .ic2 tDb4 13 ..ib1 as 14.a3 tDa6 1S.�c2 f4 16.�4 gS ! (Thanks to the weakness of the g2-pawn, Black succeeds in advancing gS­ g4, dominating on the kingside.) 17.M2 g4f± Farago - Tratar, Ma­ ribor 1994. 9.h4 tDcS 1O.�f3 (1O.ti'c2 as 1l.hS tDxhSf±; 10.f3 tDhS 1l.g4 tDf4! 12.hS h6 13 ..txf4 exf4 14. hxg6 fxg6 lS.tDh3 �eS+ Guichard •

12.a3 ! 12.tDge2 tDcS 1 3 ..ie3 �xb2 ! 12 tDh5 12 ... tDcS 13.b4; 12 ... ti'd4 13 . .ic2 •••

128

3. ltJc3 !J.g7 4.e4 d6 5 . .te2 0 - 0 6 . .tg5 ltJa6 - Apicella, France 200S) 10 ... as 11.ltJge2 (l1.hS ltJxhS) 11 ...hS 12.0-0 .td7 13.b3 b6 and Black ends up in a good version on the Petrosian variation. 9.0-0-0 ltJcS 1O.f3 ltJhS! 11. b4 (l1.ltJbS Y;\'d7 12 .b4 a6 13.bxc5 axbS 14.cxbS dxc5 lS . .tc4 Y;\'d6+ Aleksandrov - Fedorov, Minsk 1993) 11 ... ltJa6 12.a3 ltJf4 13.W f6 14.!J.h4 !J.h6 1S. c.t>b2 fS 16.Y;\'c2 fxe4 17.ltJxe4 !J.fS lS ..tf2 ltJbS 19.!J.e3 as 20.bS (20.g3? axb4! 21.axb4 ltJxdS! 22.!J.xh6 l3a2 23.'i!?xa2 ltJxb4, Golubev) 20 ... !J.g7 21.g3 ltJhS 22 . .td3 ltJd7= 9.!J.d3 ltJhS (It deserves atten­ tion for Black to transfer his sec­ ond knight to the queenside: 9 ... ltJd7 1O.ltJge2 ltJdcS 11.!J.c2 ltJb4 12.ltJbS ltJxc2 13.%Yxc2 Y;\'d7 14.!J.e3 fS lS.f3 fxe4 16.fxe4 a6 17.ltJbc3 %Yg4 1S.ltJg3, Santa Torres - Mata­ moros, Turin 2006 and here Black could have played simply b6 fol­ lowed by as, consolidating a slight edge.) 10.ltJge2 fS 11.f3 !J.d7 (11 ... f4 12 ..ih4 .if6 13.!J.f2 Y;\'e7 14.h4 cS lS.dxc6 bxc6 16.ltJa4 ltJc7 17. 0-0-0 !J.e6 1S. 'i!?b1 !J.f7 19.l3c1 .ig7 20.l3hd1 gfdS 21.Y;\'aS ltJf6 22 .l3c2 ltJe6 23.%Ya6 dS� Bekker-Jensen - Fedorov, Aars 1999) 12.0-0-0 ltJcS 13.!J.c2 as 14.h3 f4 lS.!J.h4 a4 16.!J.f2 b6 17.'i!?b1 !J.f6 lS.ltJc1 %Ye7 19.1tJd3 ltJxd3 20.!J.xd3 !J.h4+ - Black has obtained his perfect position and after the trade of the dark-squared bishops he can calmly prepare a pawn-offensive in front of his king. Korotylev -

Fedorov, Kstovo 1994. 9 c6 1 0 . tOge2 It is not advisable for White to play 1O.dxc6, since it presents his opponent with several tempi: 1O ... Y;\'xc6 11.Y;\'e2 tOcs 12.!J.c2 Y;\'b6 13.0-0-0 !J.e6 14.'i!?b1 Y;\'b4t 1O.f3 cxdS 11.cxdS, Valdes Cabrera, Isla Guitart 1994, 11 ... tOhS 12 .!J.a4 (12.tOge2 fS 13.exfS gxfS 14.0-0 !J.d7 1S.a3 ltJc7 16.l3cl l3cS 17.!J.c2 b6=) 12 ... !J.d7 13.!J.xd7 Y;\'xd7 14.ltJge2 f5 15.0-0 f4 16. !J.h4 !J.f6 17.!J.f2 !J.dS !� - after the unavoidable exchange on b6, Black will solve the problem with his "bad" bishop. • • •

1 0 cxd5 1l.cxd5 ltJc5, Ba­ ragar - Langner, Manitoba 1996, 12.f3 a5 13.a4 !J.d7 14. 0 - 0 l3cS 15 .te3 Y;\'dS 16.ltJcl ltJh5 17.ltJb3 b6 IS.ltJxc5 bxc5 19. !J.e2 f5 - White's position is slightly preferable, but Black has his chances as well. • • •

•

E) 7.h4 This attack on the flank is one of White's resources, which is an 129

Chapter 11 integral part of the Averbakh Var­ iation. It is an illustration of an­ other plus of the move ie2 in the absence of the knight on f3. He can open the h-file in order to cre­ ate direct threats just in case. It is a dangerous plan and it requires from Black precise and energetic actions. There is something how­ ever, which is not exactly in the spirit of the system, because it is aimed at prevention and building a positional bind and not so much at attacking directly.

draw, Lugovoi - van Wely, Ant­ werpen 1995) 15 . . . cxd5 16.cxd5 �a5. There arose objectively an equal position. (16 ... ixg4 17.fxg4 ttJfxe4 1S.ttJxe4 ttJxe4 19.�b4±) 17.ttJb1 �xd2 (17 ... ttJfxe4 1S.fxe4 ttJxe4 19.�xa5 l"Ixa5 20.ttJc3! ttJg3 21.l"Igl± Bareev - Kasparov, Li­ nares 1992) 1S.ttJxd2 b5 19.ttJf2 l"IfcS 20.a3 (20.ttJd3?! ttJxd3 21. ixd3 a3 22 .b4 ttJxg4! 23.fxg4 l"Ic3 24.'it>e2 ixg4 25.ttJf3 l"Ixd3 26.'it>xd3 i.xf3't) 2 0 ... ifS= S.d5 tlJc7 9.'\Wd2 Black can counter 9 .h5 with a counter attack in the centre: 9 ... e6 1O.a4 (1O.�d2 - see 9.�d2) 1O ... exd5 1l.cxd5 a6 12 .�d2 id7 13.�f4 �e7 14.h6 ihS 15.ttJf3 b5 (Black succeeds in attacking White's centre prior to his cas­ tling.) 16.e5 ttJfxd5 17.ixe7 ttJxf4 1S.i.xfS l"IxfS 19.exd6 b4! 20.ttJd1 ttJeS 21.ixa6 ttJxd6GG with a good compensation for the exchange. 9 e6 1 0 .e5 1O.h5 exd5 1l.exd5 (11.cxd5 b5 12.f3 id7 13.�f4 �e7 14.hxg6 fxg6 15.�h2, Hager - Karner, Austria 1999, 15 ... l"IO=) 1l ... a6 (1l ...b5? ! 12.cxb5 ib7 13.if3 �d7 14.ttJge2 ttJxb5 15.ttJxb5 �xb5 16.ttJc3 �d7 17.�f4, Onischuk - Wegener, Ber­ lin 1993, 17. . . l"IaeS! 1S.'it>f1 l"1e5 19. i.xf6 l"If5GG; 13.0-0-0 �d7 14. ih6. Black is a pawn down and White also has an attack, Alter­ man - Kindermann, Bad Hom­ burg 1997.) 12.�f4 (12.0-0-0 b5 13.�f4 bxc4 14.g4, Kachiani-Gershinska - Kiethaber, Germany •••

7 c5 Black can rise up to the challenge and push pawns in front of his king: 7. . .h6 S.ie3 e5 9.d5 ttJc5 10.�c2 c 6 1l.h5 (Now, Black has no more counterplay on the kingside.) 1l ... g5 12.f3 as 13.g4 (13.l"Id1 cxd5 14.cxd5 id7 15.ixc5 dxc5 16.a4 c4 17.ixc4 l"IcS 1S.ib5 ixb5 19.axb5 ttJeS, followed by ttJd6 with some compensation for Black.) 13 ... id7 14.ttJh3 a4 15.�d2 (15.ttJf2 �a5 16.�d2 l"IfcS 17.l"Ic1 a3 1S.b3 cxd5 19.ttJxd5 ttJxd5 20.�xa5 l"Ixa5 21.exd5 ttJxb3, • • •

130

3. ttJ c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. i.e2 0 - 0 6. i.g5 ttJa6 2003, 14 . . J'�b8?) 12 ... ttJce8 13. i.d3 bS l4.cxbS axbS 1S.hbS �aS 16.hxg6 fxg6? Kekki - Yrjola, Finland 1994. 10 dxe5 1l.d6 �ee8 • . .

�xd6+ - Black has managed to parry his opponent's assault, while White has even failed to re­ gain his pawn. 12 . . . �d7!? 13.�:rJ 13.�e3 b6 14.ttJf3 ttJhS IS . .te7 f6 16.M8 M8� Bareev - Nunn, Hastings 1993. 13.hS bS 14.cxbS i.b7 IS.i.h6 (IS.hxg6 fxg6) IS . . . hg2 16.gh2 i.dS 17.hg7 �xg7 18.ttJf3 �xd6 19.hxg6 fxg6 2 0.�gS, Zakhare­ vich - Dolmatov, Kazan 1995, 2 0 ... e4+ 13 e4 14. �e5 �xd6! This is the tactical motive this variation is based on. 15. Vxd6 �xd6 16.lhd6 �e8 . . •

12.�dl In response to 12.0-0-0, Black has additional possibilities of or­ ganizing a queenside offensive: 12 ... �d7 (12 ...h6? 13.hh6 �xd6 14.�e3-+) 13.hS (13.ttJf3 ttJg4! 14. ttJe4 �c6 ! ; 13.�e3 b6 14.hS i.b7 14 ... ttJxd6? IS.hf6 hf6 16.ttJe4 - IS.hxg6 fxg6 16.�3 hSoo) 13 ... bS! 14.cxbS j.b7 IS.hxg6 (IS.�6 �xd6 16.�gS hh6 17.�xh6 �e7 18.�gS ttJg7 19.i.f3 e4 20.ttJxe4 he4 21.he4 h6 22 .�e3 ttJxe4 23.�xe4 gS 24.ttJe2 a6 2S.bxa6 gxa6+ Bareev - Ju.Polgar, Hast­ ings 1993; IS.ttJf3 ttJdS 16.�6 ttJxc3 17.bxc3 e4 18.hxg6 exf3 19. gxh7 �h8 20.gxf3 f6 21.ghgl gO 22.gg4 gd8oo) IS ... fxg6 16.�e3 (16.ttJf3 ttJdS; 16.f3, Antreasyan Andersen, Copenhagen 1994, 16 ... .tdS 17.�e3 �xd6 18.ttJe4 �c7+) 16 ... hg2 17.gh2 i.dS 18.�h3

17.�xf7 17.gd2 he5 18.�xe4 b6 19. i.e7 i.b7 20 . .tf3 fS 21.ttJgS hf3 22.gxf3 i.f4 23.ge2 hgS 24.hf8 (24.hxgS gO 2S.gxe6 �c7 26J:1e3 �e8 27.i.d6 f4+) 24 ... i.f4 2S.i.e7 h6+ 17... �xf7 18.�d2 he3 19 . bxc3 �f6 =

131

Chapter 12

1.d4 tlf6 2.c4 g6 3.tlc3 J.g7 4.e4 d6 S .te2 0-0 6 .tgS h6 •

In the variation with 6 .. .lZla6, Black presents his opponent with a free choice in developing pieces and choosing a plan, while now he is trying to force the issue. 7 .te3 In reply to 7 ..tf4, White's bish­ op might come under attack after e7-e5, for example: 7 ... �c6 B.d5 (B.�d2 �xd4 9.�xd4 e5 1O.ixe5 dxe5 11.�xe5 !!eB 12.�f4, Dual­ ibe - Hadas, Warsaw 1991, 12 ... c6 13.!!d1 �e7 and Black has more than sufficient compensation for the pawn. 8.�f3 e5 9.dxe5 �h5 1O ..te3 dxe5 11. �xdB �xdB 12.lZld5 �e6 13.�e7 c;t>h7 14.0-0-0 �ef4 15 ..tfl .tg4= Krush - Reinderman, Wijk aan Zee 2 00B) B ... e5! 9 ..te3 (9.dxe6 he6 1O.�f3 !!eB=) 9 ... •

132

•

�d4 1O.ixd4 exd4 11.�xd4 !!eB 12.�d3 �d'lF - Black has not only regained his pawn, but he seizes the imitative, Brinck-Claussen B.Andersen, Aarhus 1966. After 7.ih4, White's bishop cannot come back anymore to protect the queenside and natu­ rally this is very favourable for Black: 7... c5 B.d5 (B.dxc5 Yfa5 9.f3 Yfxc5 10 ..tf2 Yfa5 11.�a4 YfdB 12.!!d1 id7 13.�3, Stanek - Tikovsky, Brno 200B, 13 ... �c6 ! ? with initiative for him) B ... �a5 9. �d2 a6 1O.f3 �bd7 11.�h3, Bout­ teville - Benoit, Dieppe 1967, 11 ... �b6 12.�f2 g5 13 ..tg3 �h5t 7 c5 This is the most principled move for Black White has three main lines here: •••

A) 8.dS B) 8.dxc5 C) 8.eS A) 8.d5 e6 Black can also try now the gambit idea B ...b5 9.cxb5 a6 10.a4 Yfa5, but White completes his de-

3. ttJ c3 j,g7 4.e4 d6 5. j,e2 0 - 0 6. j,g5 h6 7.j,e3 c5 velopment comfortably 11.'!d2 axbS 12.hbS .!a6 13.ttJge2, Taba­ tadze - E.Ragozin, Riga 1988, 13 ... ttJbd7 14.0-0 and he can rely on obtaining an edge. 9.Vd2 White will not achieve much by a deliberate exchange of his key dS-pawn, which restricts Black's possibilities considerably: 9.dxe6 he6 10.Vd2 'it>h7 11.h3 (It looks too risky for White to castle long: 11.0-0-0 VaS 12.'it>b1 ttJc6 13.f3 gab8 14.ttJh3 bS 1S.cxbS a6 16.ttJf4 axbS 17.ttJxe6 fxe6 18.%!fxd6 gfc8 19.eS b4-+ Bukhman - Lukin, USSR 1973.) 11 ... ttJc6 12.ttJf3 Ve7 (12 ... VaS 13.0-0 gad8 14.gfd1 a6 1S.Vc2 ttJe8 16.ttJdS ttJb4 17.ttJxb4 %!fxb4 18.eS VaS 19.Vd2 %!fc7, Por­ tisch - Sax, Budapest 1984, 20. .!f4 dxeS 21.Vxd8 exf4 22.gab1±; 20 ... dS 21.cxdS hdS 22.Ve3;t) 13.0-0 l3ad8 14.l3ad1 gfe8 1S.l3fe1 Vf8 16.Vc2 ttJd7 17.ttJdS ttJdeS= Black takes under control the important d4-square, Crouch Lane, Brighton 1984. It is usually reasonable for White, in pawn-structures of the Benoni type, to have the g4square covered, restricting in the process his opponent's bishop on c8 and knight on f6. Still, play­ ing 9.h3 in this situation is a bit too slow and Black manages to organize a powerful counterplay, although he needs some time to begin it effectively with a typical pawn-sacrifice: 9 ... exdS 10.exdS (lO.cxdS ge8) 10 ... l3e8 11.ttJf3 (11.

!d3 bS 12.cxbS ttJbd7 13.ttJge2 ttJb6 14.Vd2 ttJfxdS 1S.ttJxd5 ttJxdS 16.J.xh6 J.xh6 17.Vxh6 Vf6� Ka­ menets - Efimenko, Alushta 2000; 11.Vd2 'it>h7 12.'!d3 bS 13.ttJxbS ttJe4 14.he4 gxe4 1S.l3c1 a6 16.ttJa3 f5 17.ttJe2 gS 18.f3 ge8 19.'it>f2 l3a� Frog - Bagaturov, Moscow 1991) 11 . . ..!f5 12 .g4 (12. 0-0 ttJe4 13.ttJxe4 he4 14.'!d3 hf3 1S.Vxf3 ttJd7 16.l3ab1 ttJeS 17. %!fd1 %!fh4 18.b3 ttJxd3 19.%!fxd3 ge4 20.l3be1 l3ae8 21.'!d2 fS, draw, Beliavsky - Tal, Sochi 1986) 12 ... !e4 13.%!fd2 (13.0-0 hf3 14.ixf3 ttJbd7 1S . .!f4 ttJb6 16.Vd3 ttJfd7 17.l3ae1 ttJeS 18.heS heS 19.b3 %!ff6= Averbakh - Geller, USSR 1974) 13 ... ttJbd7 14.0-0-0, Sna­ jdr - Nitsche, COIT. 1987, 14 . . . ttJb6 1S.b3 hf3 16.ixf3 ttJfd7+t Black has an excellent posi­ tion after 9.ttJf3 ttJg4 1O . .!d2 exdS, Dybowski - Hawelko, Naleczow 1985, 11.cxdS (l1.ttJxdS ttJc6, with the idea ttJgeS; 11.exd5 f5 !?) 11. . . fS 12.exfS J.xfS 13.h3 ttJf6 14.ttJh4 .!e4 15.0-0 gSoo 9 exd5 •••

133

Chapter 12 1 0 .exd5 White has chosen a symmetri­ cal pawn-structure and he hopes to restrict in the future his oppo­ nent's light-squared bishop with h2-h3, or even h2-h3 and g2-g4, obtaining a slight but stable edge, thanks to his space advantage. The ambitions move 10.cxdS presents Black with more chances of creating counterplay and this was proved in an old game played by Garry Kasparov 10 . . J'!e8 11.f3 hS 12.a4 (12 ..tdl lDbd7 13.lDge2 a6 14.a4 �aS IS.!ta2 !tb8 16.0-0 V!!c 7 17.aS bS 18.axb6 lDxb6 19.b3 lDbd7 20 . .tc2 lDeS 21.!tdl h4 2 2.h3, draw, Gheorghiu - Gavri­ kov, Suhr 1991; 12 . .igS a6 13.a4 �aS 14.!ta3 lDh7 1S.M4 V!!c7 - IS . . . V!!d 8 ! ? - 16.aS, Fedorowicz - van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 1990, 16 . . .bS 17.axb6 V!!xb6 18.lDbS axbS 19. !txa8 h6 20.lDh3 V!!b 7 21.!txb8 V!!xb8 22.0-0 V!!b 6=) 12 . . . a6 13.aS lDh7 14 . .tdl lDd7 IS.lDge2 lDeS 16. b3 V!!h4 17. .tf2 V!!f6 18.V!!e 3 h4 19. h3 gS 20.0-0 .td7 21.hl lDf8 22 . .tgl lDfg6 23 . .th2 c4 24.!tbl !tac8oo Seirawan - Kasparov, Skelleftea 1989. 10 c;t>h7 11.h3 White must waste a tempo on prophylactic, because in case of 11.lDf3 lDg4 12 . .tf4 fS, Dalin Gustavsson, corr. 1991, 13.lDbS a6 14.lDxd6 gS IS . .ig3 f4f± Black will not have any problems at all. 1l ge8 12.J.d3 White loses another tempo in •••

•••

134

order to prevent the appearance of the enemy bishop on fS. The in­ different move 12.lDf3, would en­ able Black to equalize equally: 12 . . . .tfS 13.0-0 (13 . .td3 lDe4 14. lDxe4 ixe4 IS.ixe4 !txe4 16.V!!d 3 V!!aS 17.lDd2 13e7 18.0-0 lDd7 19. lDe4 �a6 20 . .tf4 lDeS+ L.Bron­ stein - Quinteros, Argentina 1985) 13 . . . . lDe4 14.lDxe4 ixe4= Belkadi - Kavalek, Skopje 1972.

12 b5! White lags considerably in de­ velopment, so this is the right mo­ ment for Black to inflict a power­ ful strike against the enemy cen­ tre. 13.cxb5 In case of 13.lDxbS, White's control over the vital e4-square is diminished and Black can ex­ ploit this immediately: 13 . . . lDe4 14.ixe4 !txe4 IS.!tc1 a6 16.lDa3 (White must send his knight into oblivion in order not to lose his c4-pawn.) 16 . . . V!!h 8!� Meins Schebler, Duisburg 2 0 03. 13 lDbd7 14.tOge2 After 14.lDf3 lDb6, Black cap•••

•••

3. ltJc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. i.e2 0 - 0 6. i.g5 h6 7. i.e3 c5 tures the dS-pawn with an excel­ lent game, for example: lS.0-0 i.b7 16J::! a d1 lMld7 17.a4 ltJbxdS IS. ltJxdS i.xdS 19.i.e2 gadS� Hradeczky - AdOljan, Budapest 1972 . 14 tLle5 15.gdl lS.ltJg3? ltJxd3 ! ? 16.'iMxd3 a6 17.0-0 axbS 1S.ltJxbS i.b7-F Garcia Gonzales - Schmidt, Camaguey 1974. 15 a6 16.a4 ltJxd3 17.lMlxd3 axb5 lS.axb5 .tfS 19.'iMd2 .td7 2 0 . 0 - 0 gbS 21.'iMd3 'iMa5= Tis­ dall - Hellers, Sweden 1992. • • •

•••

B) S.dxc5 'iMa5

16.ltJxe2 i.g4+) 14 . . . ltJd4, since his centralized knights control prac­ tically the entire board, for ex­ ample: lS.ltJf3 (lS.hS gS) lS ... lMlb4 16.hS gS 17.ltJxgS tLlf6 lS.ltJxt7 (lS.ltJf3 ltJxe2 19.'iMgS i>h7 20.a3 'iMxb2 21.ltJxe2 i.g4 22.h6 ggS; IS. i.d3 i.fS) lS ... i>xt7 19.'iMg6 i>e6 20.0-0 ggS 21.'iMd3 i>t7 22.gfe1 i.fS 23.'iMe3 e6+ Avrukh - Kamin­ ski, Warsaw 1991. 9 .YlYxc5 1 0 .tLlf3 1O.h3 ltJc6 11.ltJf3, C.Horvath - Kotronias, Peer Gynt 1994, 11 ... ltJeS ! 12.ltJxeS 'iMxeS�, with the idea to follow with 13.lMlc2 i.e6 and later gfcS. 1O.i.e3 'iMaS 11.lMld2 ltJc6 12.h3 i>h7 13.ltJf3 i.e6 14. 0-0 ltJd7 IS. gfd1 gacS 16.gael ltJdeS 17.b3 ltJxf3 lS.i.xf3 f5 19.exfS i.xfS= Dokhoian - Balashov, Sverdlovsk 19S7. 1 0 .tg4 1l .te3 11.0-0 .txf3 12.i.xf3 ltJc6 13. i.e2 lMleS (13 . . .lMlaS 14.i>h1 gacS ls.gb1 'iMdS 16.b3 ltJd7 17.gc1 ltJcS lS.f3 i>h7 19.i.e3 b6 20.lMld2t Petursson - Markzon, Lina­ res 1994) 14.f3 gS lS.i.e3 tLlhS 16.'iMd2 ltJf4 17.i.d1 ltJe6 lS.gel i>hS 19.i>h1 'iMaS= Yakovich Inarkiev, Novokuznetsk 200S. White maintains some symbolic advantage, but Black's game is quite comfortable. 1l 'iMa5 11 . . . 'iMcS 12.gc1 ltJc6 13.b3 hS 14.h3 i.xf3 lS . .txf3 ltJd7 16.0-0 ltJcS 17.ltJdS 'iMdS lS.b4 ltJe6, Quinn - Kovalev, Istanbul 2000, • •

• • •

9 .td2 9.cxd6 ltJxe4 1O.dxe7 geS, Ide - Tilch, corr. 19S4, 11.i.d4 ltJxc3 12.bxc3 ltJc6+ 9.'iMd2 dxcS 1O.i.xh6 gdS (This is an important intermedi­ ate move.) 11.lMle3 i.xh6 12.'iMxh6 ltJxe4 13.gel ltJc6 and Black should not be afraid of the di­ rect attack against his king after 14.h4 (14.ltJf3 ltJd4 lS.0-0 ltJxe2 •

•

• • •

13S

Chapter 12 1l .lxc5 �xe5 •

19 . .te2;t; 12.�d2 12.0-0 lDc6 13.h3 (13.lDd2 he2 14.�xe2 - see 12.lDd2) 13 ... .bf3 14 . .bf3 Y«b4 15.�b3 a5 16.ioe2 a4 17.�c2 l3fc8 18.a3 Y«b3 19.�xb3 axb3 2 0.f4 lDd7 and in the oncoming endgame Black's knights are at least comparable to White's bishops. Kalashian - Nal­ bandian, Yerevan 2006. 12 he2 13.�xe2 �c6 14. 0 - 0 �fc8 14 . . . �5 15.f3 lDd7 16.l3fcl l3ac8= 15.�ac1 lDd7 16.�fd1, Gulko - Ivanchuk, Bie1 1993, 16 Wh7 17.a3 �a6 followed by lDce5 with equality for Black. •••

•••

C) 8.e5

This is a forced line and com­ mon sense is nearly irrelevant here. The variation must be thor­ oughly analyzed and it requires an excellent memory. 12.�d5 12.,txe7 l3e8 13.lDd5 Ae6 14. i.a3 (14.ltJc7 l3xe7 15.lDxa8 ltJec6+ - White's knight is stranded now on the a8-square and he has also problems castling.) 14 . . .hd5 15.cxd5 ltJc4, Ryskin - Mochalov, Minsk 1993, 16.Wfl lDxa3 17.bxa3 ltJd7� 12.ltJf3 ltJbc6 13.0-0 iof5 14. ltJh4 ioe6 15.ltJd5 l3ac8 16.he7 l3fe8 17.ltJf6 .txf6 18 . .txf6 ltJxc4= Borisenko - Yurtaev, Tashkent 1988. 12 �bc6 13.f4 13.he7 ltJxe7 14.ltJxe7 c,f,Jh7 15.ltJxc8 l3axc8 16.b3 l3fe8 17.c,f,Jfl l3cd8 18.l3xd8 l3xd8 19.f4 ltJc6 20.ltJf3 ltJb4= Roeder - Arizmen­ di, Ubeda 2000. 13.b3 i.f5 14.ltJf3 (14.he7 l3fe8 15.iof6 ioe4 16.c,f,Jfl hd5 17.hg7 c,f,Jxg7 18.cxd5 ltJb4 19.a3 ltJc2 20.a4 l3ad8) 14 ... l3fd8 15.ltJxe5 •••

8 dxe5 9.dxe5 �xd1 1 0 . �d1 �g4 The Kirgizian GM Leonid Yurtaev is the inventor of this variation and he has played some memorable games in it. His pupil Ernesto Inarkiev has contributed to his endeavours later. •••

136

3. ltJc3 !g7 4.e4 d6 5. !e2 0 - 0 6. !g5 h6 7.!e3 c5 !xeS 16.0-0 (16.f4 !g7 17.ltJxe7 ltJxe7 IS.he7 13eS 19.!b4 as 20. !d6 !J.g4 21.13d2 !c3) 16 ... �fS 17.if3, Seifert - Feige, Germany 2002, 17... !d6= 13 �g4 14 . .tf3 White provoked amusing com­ plications in a recent game, played in the super-final of the Russian Championships: 14.h3 tDf6 IS.if3 ifS 16.g4!? (16.ltJe2 - see 14.!f3 ifS IS.ltJe2 �fdS 16.h3) 16 ... !c2 17.13d2 ltJe4 IS.ixe7 ltJxd2 19. �xd2 !bl 20 . .ixfS �xfS 21.ltJc3 13dS 22 .!dS, Maslak - 1narkiev, Moscow 200S and here Black could have exploited the defence­ lessness of his opponent's king­ side by playing 22 ...ixc3 23.�xc3 ltJe7 24.hb7 �d3 2S. �b4 ixa2 26.�c5 13d7!? 27.!a6 13dl� .•.

14 ifS It would be insufficient for Black to continue with the attrac­ tive line: 14 ... ixb2 IS.ltJe2 (ISJ�bl ig7 16.h3 ltJf6 17.ltJc7 !fS lS.13xb7 ltJaS 19.13bS 13acS 2 0.13xaS 13xc7+ Tsemekhman - P.H.Nielsen, Bue­ nos Aires 1993) IS ... �h7 (IS ...ig7 • • •

16.h3 ltJf6 17.ltJc7 �bS IS.!xc6 bxc6; 16.!xe7 13eS 17.!c5) 16.h3 ltJf6 17.13d2 ltJd7 1S.ixe7 ltJxe7 19. �b2 ltJfS 20.�f2 ltJcS 21.13dU lS.�e2 IS.b4 13fdS 16.bS ltJaS 17.ltJxe7 �h7 1S.ltJxfS gxf5 19.�dS (19.13c1 �acS 20.ixa7 �c4 21.ltJe2 �xc1 22.ltJxc1 ic3 23.�fl ltJc4 24.h3 ltJf6 2S.g4 b6oo) 19 ... �dS 20.ltJe2 b6 21.ie7 13d7 22.ib4 ltJxc4= lS . . . lUd8 16.b3 16.0-0, Kalygin - Svirjov, Alushta 2003, 16 ... e6! = 16.ltJg3 ixb2 ( I have already told you that a brilliant memory is required in this line, but my own memory left me when I needed it most. I lost all my time dur­ ing a game, I failed to remem­ ber the correct move and I lost: 16 ... e6 17.h3 ltJf6 IS.ltJe7 ltJxe7 19.he7 �dl 20.�xdl !bl 21.b3 13eS 22.ixf6 ixf6 23.�cl ixa2 24.�c2 bS 2S.ltJe4± Bareev - Bo­ logan, Poikovsky 2006.) 17.ltJxfS gxfS IS.13bl id4 19.ixd4 ltJxd4 20.�xb7 e6 ! 21.ixg4 exdS 22.ihS dxc4 23.�d2 ltJbS 24.�c2 ltJd6 2S.�c7 13dcS 26.13d7 13dS= Alexan­ drov - 1narkiev, Sochi 2006. 16 ... �f6 17.�g3 17.g4 !c2 IS.�cl id3f± 17.0-0 !c2 IS.13d2 tDe4 19. ixe4 ixe4 20.�fdl ixdS (20 ... !fS 21.ltJec3 ixdS 22.ltJxdS �g7 23. ltJb4 �xd2 24.�d2 �cS, Norri V.Kotronias, Moscow 1994, 2S. ltJxc6 �c6 26.!d4 �gS 27.b3 �d6 2S. �f2;!;; White is better after 20 ... b6 21.tDxe7 �h7 22.tDxc6) 21.cxdS 137

Chapter 12 �a5 22.b3 l'M7 23 . .tb4 b6=

play 21 ... b6 22 ..if2 hd2 23.l3xb1. 22.gxbl In case of 22.dxc6 ha2 23. cxb7 l3ab8 24.ha7 hf4 25.hb8 l3xb8 26.�e4 l3xb7 27.�f6 exf6 28.hb7 hb3= Black is not worse at all. 22 .tb4 23.dxe6 Axe5 24. e7 gfS 25 .txb7 •••

•

17 .te2 ! Black's bishop sets up on a critical long journey, which it might never come back from. 18.gd2 18Jk1 .td3 19.�b4 �xb4 20. hb4 h5 21..tc3 .ih6+ Zakharevi­ ch - Yurtaev, Samara 2002. 18.�xe7 �xe7 19J3xd8 fud8 20.he7 l3d7 21..ic5 b6 22.M2 �h7, draw, Alexandrova - Kova­ lev, Alushta 2003. 18 .tbI 19.b3 After 19.�xe7 �xe7 20.he7 l3xd2 21.@xd2 ha2, White fails to capture the enemy bishop. 19 . . . �xd5 2 0 .cxd5 .ic3 21. @e2 21.0-0 �b4+; 21.dxc6 l3xd2 22.0-0 b6+ Yurtaev. 21 .txd2 It is less advisable for Black to •••

•••

•••

138

25 .id6 26 .txa8 l3xa8 27.gel Following 27.@f3 hc7 28.b4 l3d8 29.l3b3 l3d1, it is only Black who can be better, since a rook and a bishop coordinate much better in similar positions with asymmetrical pawn-structure, than a rook and a knight. Therefore, the exchange of the rooks should be the right deci­ sion. 27 :Ele8 28.@f3 �e7 29. �e7 he7 and this endgame is approximately equal, Bareev Yurtaev, Moscow 1990. • . •

•••

•

Part 3 The Saemisch Attack 1.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 J.g7 4.e4 d6 5.0

The Saemisch Attack is one of White's most aggressive reactions to the King's Indian Defence. He

protects reliably his e4-pawn and he plans his development ac­ cording to the scheme .ie3, �d2, 0-0-0 and follows this later with an offensive on the kingside with pieces and pawns. It is because of this dangerous attacking system that some King's Indian players choose their favourite opening only after White has already de­ veloped his knight to f3. Still, the vampire is not so bloodthirsty and Black has reliable ways of obtain­ ing a comfortable position.

139

Chapter 13

1.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 J.g7 4.e4 d6 5.£3 0 - 0

6.�ge2 This seemingly unpretentious move is full of venom. As a recom­ mendation, we will tell you that it is an integral part of the open­ ing repertoire of an outstanding GM and theoretician like Alexey Dreev. White can hardly achieve any­ thing much if he pushes too many pawns: 6.g4? ! lilc6 7.lilge2 e5 8.d5 lild4 9.lilxd4 exd4 10.lile2 lild7 11.h4 �f6 12 ..ig2 lile5 13.�b3 d3 14.lilg1 �e7 15 ..ig5 f6 16 ..id2 a6:j: Mostovic - Shultz, Yerevan 1968. In case of 6 ..td3, Black's re­ action is standard - 6 ... lilc6, at­ tacking the d4-pawn, which is not protected by the queen on d1 after his previous move. There 140

might follow: 7.lilge2 (Black ob­ tains a good counterplay after 7.d5 lile5 8.lilge2 lilfd7 9.b3 lilxd3 1O.�xd3 c6 11 ..ig5 h6 12 ..te3 cxd5 13.cxd5 b5! ? This pawn-sacrifice is not forced, but it is interest­ ing - 14.�xb5 �b8 15.�d3 �a5 16. �f2 .ta6� Umstead - Fishbein, New York 1997. Black has an ex­ cellent position after 7. .te3 e5 8.lilge2?! lilg4 9 ..ig1 exd4 10.lild5 lile3 11.lilxe3 dxe3 12.he3 .txb2 13.�b1 .tg7=i= Gerczuk - Schmaltz, Baden-Baden 1990; 8.d5 lild4 9.hd4 exd4 1O.lilb5 a6 11.lila3 c5 12.lile2 .id7 Janvari - Slugin, Kobanya 1996) 7 ... e5 8.d5 lild4 9 ..te3 (White lags in develop­ ment, so he must avoid compli­ cations: 9.lilxd4 exd4 1O.lilb5 a6 11.lilxd4 lilxd5 12.lile2 lilb4 13.0-0 b5, with an initiative for Black, Shevelev - Ippolito, Paris 1994.) 9 ... lilh5 1O.�d2 c5 11.dxc6 (11.0-0-0 a6 12 . .th6 .td7 13.hg7 �xg7 14.�df1 b5 15.g4 lilf6 16.h4 h5 17.�g5 bxc4 18.hc4 .ib5, Sei­ gerschmidt - Reichmann, Guben 2002) 11 ... bxc6 12.0-0 (12.b4 .te6 13.�d2 f5 14.�h1 f4 15 . .if2 g5 16.lila4 g4 17.lilxd4 exd4 18.fxg4

3. ttJc3 J.g7 4.e4 d6 5.fJ 0 - 0 6. ttJge2 c5 7.d5 e6 bg4� Kolbus - Kasimdzhanov, Groningen 1999) 12 ... aS 13.b3 cS 14J�ab1 ie6 1S.ttJdS hdS 16.cxdS �b6� Lokvenc - Boleslavsky, De­ brecen 1961. 6 c5 7.dS In case of 7 ..te3, Black increas­ es his pressure against his oppo­ nent's central pawn with the move 7... ttJc6. There might follow: B.dxc5 dxc5 9.�xdB (9.hc5 YffaS 10.J.e3 �dB 11.�c1 ttJhS 12. ttJg3 ttJxg3 13.hxg3 ie6 14.c.t>f2 gacB 1S.ttJdS bdS 16.exdS ttJeS 17.gh4 bS� Polugaevsky - Dzind­ zichashvili, USSR 1974) 9 ... l:!xdB 10.bcS ttJd7 1l.ie3 ttJdeS 12.ttJc1 ttJb4 13.c.t>f2 ttJc2 14.gb1 ttJxe3 15. c.t>xe3 .th6 16.f4 ttJc6GG Privman - Nakamura, New York 2003; B.�d2 a6 9.dS (Black should not be afraid of the line: 9.dxcS dxc5 10.�d1 ttJd7 1l ..th6 .bh6 12.Yffxh6 e6 13.h4 �e7 14.hS gS 1S.f4 f6 16.�h3 ttJdeS 17.fxeS ttJxeS 1B.ttJf4 gxf4 19.�xf4 .td7 Morei­ ra - Stellwagen, Morelia 2007. It looks too optimistic for White to try 9.0-0-0 �aS 1O.c.t>b1 eS! 1l.dxcS dxc5 12.ttJdS �xd2 13.hd2 ttJxdS 14.cxdS ttJd4+; 13.ttJxf6= Glek; 13.l:!xd2 ttJxdS 14.cxdS ttJd4 1S.ttJxd4 - 1S.ttJc3 bS+; 1S.b4 b6! Glek - 1S ... exd4! ? 16 ..tgS 16 ... bS ! and Black seized the initiative in the game Hoi - Glek, Copenhagen 1995.) 9 ... ttJeS 1O.ttJc1 (1O.ttJg3 hS 1l ..te2 h4 12.ttJf1 h3 13.g4 bS 14.cxbS axbS 1S.ttJxbS .ta6 16. c.t>f2? ttJexg4! 17.c.t>g1 ttJxe3 1B.ttJxe3 ttJhS Al-Khaja - A.Kuzmin, Oberwart •••

2002) 1O ... e6 1l.a4 exdS 12.cxdS ttJhS 13.J.e2 f5 14.exfS gxfS 15.0-0 id7 16.ttJ1a2 �f6 17.�ac1 bS 1B.b4 c4, with mutual chances, Ferreira - Matamoros, Evora 2006; No doubt, White's most princi­ pled move here is B.dS and Black should reply to this in the major­ ity of cases with centralizing his knight B ... ttJeS. The drawback of this move is that it has been criti­ cized by theory and quite deserv­ edly at that. We recommend an­ other retreat of the knight to the edge of the board - B ... ttJaS ! ? It has been tested in practice just a few times, but it is not bad at all. There begins some rather original play right now and we will show you some games to illustrate the fine points: 9.ttJg3 (9.ttJc1 a6 1O.�d2 bS 1l.cxbS axbS 12.bbS id7 13.ie2 �b6 14.0-0 �fbB 15. gb1 �c7GG Deegens - Wemmers, Netherlands 1993) 9 ... a6 1O.�d2 (10 ..te2 ttJd7 11.�c2 ttJeS 12.b3 Yffe B 13.0-0 fS 14.f4 ttJg4 1S.i.xg4 fxg4 16.gac1 bS 17.Yffd3 �bB� Skacelik - Mrva, Pardubice 199B) 1O ... bS 1l ..th6 e6 12.0-0-0 b4 13.ttJb1 exdS 14.hg7 c.t>xg7 1S.exdS geB 16.h4 hS 17.�f4 ga7 1B.ttJd2 gae7 19.ttJge4 ttJxe4 20.fxe4 .tg4 21.ge1, draw, Zueger - Wojtkie­ wicz, Bern 1992. 7 e6 •••

A) S.J.e3 B) S.ttJg3 Black can counter B ..tgS with 141

Chapter 13 S ... h6 9.i.e3 (9.i.f4 exd5 1O.exd5 ltJh5 1l.i.e3 ltJd7 12.Wfd2 ltJe5 13. ltJf4 1tJxf4 14.i.xf4 Wfh4 15.i.g3 Wfe7 16.0-0-0 a6 17.f4 ltJg4 ISJ3el WfdS 19.h3 ltJf6 20.i.h4 b5? Shamkovich - Gligoric, Sarajevo 1963) 9 ... exd5 1O.cxd5 h5, trans­ posing to variation A.

A) 8.J.e3

8 exd5 9.cxd5 h5 Black prevents the appearance of the enemy knight on g3. If he slows down, then White will com­ plete the development of his king­ side and he will obtain a stable edge: 9 ... ltJbd7 1O.ltJg3 h5 1l.i.e2 h4 12.1tJf1! l O . ltJcl It is senseless for this knight to go to g3: 1O.ltJg3 ltJbd7 and if he continues with his development with 1l.i.d3, then 1l ...h4 12.ltJge2 h3 13.g3 ltJe5 and Black seizes the initiative. Therefore, he maneu­ vers his knight to the other side of the board, but it does not have a good square there either and it impedes the movement of the •••

142

other pieces. It deserves attention for White to try ltJf4 immediately, or a bit later: 1O.ltJf4 ltJbd7 1l.i.e2 a6 12 .a4 ltJe5 13.0-0 i.d7 14.Wfd2 13bS I5.a5 ltJeS 16.ltJa4 i.xa4 17.13xa4 1tJc7 1S. ltJd3 1tJd7 19.13c4 b5 20.axb6 1tJxb6 21.13cc1 ltJb5? I.Sokolov - Smirin, Burgas 1993; lOJWd2 ltJh7 (Black prepares the same pawn-break, as in the main line.) 1l.ltJf4 1tJd7 12.i.e2 (12. ltJh3 ltJe5 13.ltJf2 i.d7 14.13c1 b5 15.i.e2 13bS 16.b3 geS 17.0-0 a6= Costa - Gheorghiu, Lugano 19S9) 12 ... ltJe5 13.0-0 i.d7 14.13abl 13cS 15.13fcl a6 16.a4 Wfa5 17.b3 13feS 18.�hl f5 19.1tJe6 i.xe6 20.dxe6 fxe4 21.f4 ltJg4 22.ltJxe4 Wfxd2 23. i.xd2 d5 24.i.xg4 dxe4 25.i.h3 ltJf6? Sadler - Fedorowicz, Lon­ don 19S5. l O �h7 lt .ie2 •••

•

It ...f5 This thematic pawn-advance provides Black with a good coun­ terplay, but he can postpone it a bit 1l ... ltJd7 12.0-0 Wfe7 13.ltJd3

3.tiJc3 197 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6Ji:o.ge2 c5 7.d5 e6 lLle5 14.lLlf2 f5 15.�d2 a6 16.a4 g5 17.exfS i.xf5oo Dolmatov - Khalif­ man, Kiev 1986. 12.exfS After 12.lLld3 fxe4 (12 . . . g5 ! ?) 13.lLlxe4, White has two central­ ized knights, but this is not much ofan achievement 13 . . . lLlf6 14.0-0. After an exchange on f6, White has nothing special to brag about. By castling, he wishes to make use of the fact that the d5-pawn seems "poisoned", but Black can put this assumption to the test with: 14 ... lLlxd5 15.�b3 .te6 16.lLlg5 �e7 17.lLlxe6 �xe6 18.lLlf2 lLld7. White fails to exploit the vulnerability of the a2-g8 diagonal, while Black is a pawn up after all. 12 .ixfS 13. 0 - 0 �e7 14. 1f2 lLld7 15.ge1 �f6 • • •

16 a6 17.a4 lLle5 18.lLla5 g5 19.1f1 �g6= Black's active piece-play compensates White's minimal space advantage, Ako­ pov - Glek, corr. 1988. • • •

B) 8.lLlg3

At first, White must take care of the deployment of his king's bishop, since this may tum into a real problem for him. The devel­ opment of the other bishop on c1 can be delayed for a while. 8 exd5 9.cxd5 •••

B1) 9 lLlh5 B2) 9 a6 B3) 9 h5 • • •

• • •

• • •

B1) 9 lLlh5 There were times when I even liked this move. Black pushes quickly f5, removing the superflu­ ous piece in the process. The ap­ pearance of doubled pawns is the only thing he must worry about. 1 0 .lLlxh5 gxh5 1l .id3 White remains flexible con­ cerning the problems of develop• • •

16.lLlb3 The knight is even better placed here than on d3. Naturally, the e4-square will be the best for it. Black can develop easily his pieces, he has the e5-outpost and he exerts powerful pressure on the long dark-squared diagonal.

•

143

Chapter 13 ment. It is essential for him now, to bring his king to safety after which the pawn-weaknesses of his opponent will be a permanent factor for the future. He can try to prepare castling long, but this is a long and unsafe process: 1l.J.e3 f5 12.119 d2 'lWf6 13. J.gS 'lWg6 14.J.d3 tlJa6 lS.0-0-0 J.d7 16.g4 bxg4 17.fxg4 fxg4=F Ha­ rakis - Buckley, London 2000. 1l.M4 fS 12.'lWd2 a6 13.a4 Wff6 14.J.gS 'lWeS lS.M4 'lWf6 16.J.gS 'lWeS 17.J.f4, draw, Dearing Jones, England 200S. 11 f5 12. 0 - 0 12.exfS .hfS 13.0-0 tlJa6 14. ha6 bxa6 lS.J.e3 gbS 16.'lWd2 'lWf6 17.gac1 'lWg6 lS.b3 h4+t Ward - Mortensen, Copenhagen 1999. 12 tlJd7 This is an attempt by Black to ensure having the eS-outpost for a permanent use during the game. In case of 12 . . .f4!? White will at­ tack immediately this pawn: 13. tlJe2 J.eS 14.g3 and Black would be happy to have a pawn on gS. •••

•••

13.exfS 144

In case White tries to prevent the appearance on of the enemy knight on eS, by playing 13.f4, then Black can go for the e4 and g4-squares: 13 . . . tlJf6, Agrest - Ka­ zhgaleyev, Nice 2000, 14.eS (14. exfS tlJg4) 14 ... tlJg4 lS.h3 (lS.e6 i.d4 16.�h1 'lWh4 17.h3 'lWg3-+) lS ... dxeS 16.d6 e4 17.J.c4 �hS+t It is interesting for White to try the prophylactic move 13.i.c2, but Black will have to play any­ way 13 ... tlJeS 14.tlJe2 tlJg6 (14 . . . 'lWh4 lS.f4 tlJc4 16.tlJg3 tlJxb2 17. 'lWe2 Wfg4 lS.gf3 h4 19.eS dxeS 20.h3 Wfg6 21.fxeS tlJc4 22.'lWxc4 !xeS 23.gb1 hg3 24.M4;!; Dreev - Peng, Beijing 2000) lS.exfS (lS.tlJg3 fxe4 16.he4 h4 17.tlJe2 Wff6+t) lS ... .hfS 16 . .hfS gxf5 17. tlJg3 gf7 lS.tlJxhS J.d4 19.�h1 'lWh4 20.f4 (The move 20.g4 com­ promises White's position con­ siderably and this creates for him additional problems with his de­ velopment: 20 ...'lWh3 21.'lWe2 ge7 22.'lWg2 Wfxg2 23.�xg2 ge2+, or 21.J.gS gafS 22 .J.h6 tlJh4 23.'lWe2 ge7 24.'lWc2 lW3; 22 .f4 tlJeS 23. Wfb3 J.e3!=F) 20 ... gafS ! (threaten­ ing tlJeS) 21.J.d2, Iljin - Sjugirov, St. Petersburg 200S and here Black will have to play 21...tlJeS 22 .tlJg3 tlJg4 23.h3 tlJf2 24.gxf2 J.xi2 2S.tlJe4 J.d4 26.tlJxd6 ge7+ Following 13.tlJe2 ! ? Black can sacrifice a pawn for initiative: 13 ... c4 14.hc4 (14.J.c2, draw, Dreev ­ Bologan, Beijing 2000, 14 ... 'lWb6 lS.�h1 fxe4 16.he4 tlJcS 17.Wfc2 tlJxe4 1S.'lWxe4 J.d7 19.tlJc3 gacS+t)

3.liJc3 �g7 4.e4 d6 5.fJ 0 - 0 6 . ltJ ge2 c5 7.d5 e6

14 .. J�'b6 15.'it>h1 fxe4 16.fxe4 fufl. 17.Y;Vxf1 ltJf6. Indeed, even if White plays the best moves, the maxi­ mum that he can rely on is equal­ ity: 1B.ltJc3 (lB.Y;Vf3 ltJg4) 1B ... ltJg4 19.1tJd1 �d7 20.h3 (20.,tf4 �fB 21.h3 ltJe5+) 20 ... �fB 21.Y;Ve2 ltJf2 (21...ltJe5 22 .,te3) 22 .ltJxf2 �xf2 23.Y;Vel �c2 24.,td3 Y;Vf2 = 13 ltJe5 14.f6 YlYxf6 14 ... .txf6 15.,te4± 15.�e4 15.ltJe4 Y;Vg6 16.,tc2 �f5 17.'it>h1 b5 18.�b1 h4 19.h3, I.Novikov Langer, Lindsborg 2002, 19 ... �aeB= 15 h4 followed by ,tf5 and Black's position is quite acceptable. • • •

•••

B2) 9

• • •

a6

0-0 ltJe5 16.�e3 f5 17.f4 ltJg4 lB. hg4 hxg4 19.e5± Campos Saldano, Sevilla 2004; 12 ... Y;Ve7 13.Y;Vd2 ltJd7 14.,tg5 f6 15.�4 ltJe5 16.�e2 ltJg6 17.M2 f5+± Grischuk - Bologan, Internet 2004) 12 ... f5 13.0-0 (13.,td2 ltJd7 14.Y;Ve2 ltJe5 15.�c2 f4 16.a5 ,td7 17.0-0 h4 lB. 'it>h1 'it>hB 19.,ta4 ,tcB 20.ltJd1 h3 21.�gl, Hoeksema - Glek, Neth­ erlands, 199B 21...hxg2 22.fug2 ltJg6 and Black has the e5-outpost under control and this provides him with an advantage.) 13 ... ltJd7 (13 .. .f4 14.ltJe2 i.e5 15.g3 fxg3 16. hxg3 ,th3 17.�f2 c4 1B.hc4 h4 19.f4 ,tg7 20.�a3 !± - the possibil­ ity of this rook-maneuver is the positive side of the inclusion of the moves a6 and a4, Iljin - Er­ dogdu, Moscow 2005.) 14.ltJe2 c4 (14 ... ltJe5 15.,tc2 fxe4 16.he4;!;) 15.hc4 ltJe5 16 . .td3 Y;Vb6 17.'it>h1 ltJxd3 1B.Y;Vxd3 fxe4 19.Y;Vxe4 ,tf5 20.Y;Vh4 �aeB 21.ltJg3 Y;Vd4� 11.�e2 We will now analyze in short the position arising after 1l.i.e3 h5 12.i.e2 h4 (It is also possible for Black to play 12 ... ltJh7 - see variation B3a) 13.ltJf1 ltJh7

l O .a4 ltJbd7 It is also good for him to play here 10 ... ltJh5, since the inclusion of the moves a6 and a4 would not change the character of the fight, because White does not have the possibility to play ltJb5. 1l.ltJxh5 gxh5 12 .,td3 (12 .,tf4 Y;Vf6 13.Y;Vd2 ltJd7 14.,te2 Y;Vg6 15. 145

Chapter 13 14.�f2 fS 1S.exfS gxfS 16.f4 geB 17.lt'le3 .td4 1B.lt'lxfS .ixf2 19.1!?xf2 gfB 20.g4! (20.%!fd3 c4 21.%!fe4 EMS 22.WfxfS Wfb6 23.1!?f1 Wfxb2+; 20.lt'lxd6 gxf4 21.l!?el WfgS 22.gg1 Wfe7 23.lt'lxcB gxcB 24.gfl gcfB 2S.gxf4 gxf4 26.Wfd3 %!fgS 27.Wfh3 It'lhf6 2B.gdU) 20 . . .hxg3 21.hxg3 gxfS 22.lMl7 I!?xh7 23 . .td3 It'lf6 24.g4 c4 2S . .ixfS i.xf5 26.gxfS Wfb6 27.1!?f3 Wfxb2 2B.Wfel, Dreev - Gallagher, Catalan Bay 2004, 2B . . . Wfh2 29.Wfhl Wfxhl 30.gxhl I!?g7=; 14.g4 fS IS.gxfS gxfS 16.exfS gxfS 17.gg1 I!?hB IB.Wfc2 WffB 19.f4 It'ldf6 20 . .td3 It'lhS+± I.Sokolov Ki.Georgiev, Burgas 1993; 14.lt'ld2 fS IS.f4 (IS.exfS gxfS 16.f4 lt'ldf6 17.h3 Wfe7 1B.l!?f2 geB+± Korchnoi - Xie Jun, Roquebrune 199B) IS ... h3 16.g3 geB 17.0-0 It'lhf6 IB.g4 It'lxe4 19.1t'ldxe4 fxe4 20.gS Wfb6+± Jussupow - van Wely, Wolvega 200B. 1l h5 Black wishes to repel the knight away from c g3 and he pre­ pares fS in the process with Kh7 to follow. 12.�g5 12.0-0 It'lh7 13 . .te3 - see vari­ ation B3a. 12 Wfc713.Wfd2 ge8 14. 0 - 0 tLlh7 15.�h6 IS . .te3 WfaS 16.gael Wfb4 17.f4 It'lhf6 IB.eS dxeS 19.fS h4+ Hoch­ strasser - Suetin, Bie1 199S. 15 . . . �8 16.gac1 16 . .te3 fS 17.gadl h4 IB.lt'lhl hc3 19.bxc3 fxe4 20.f4 It'ldf6 • • •

21.h3� Svetushkin - Dochev, Kavala 2002. 16 Wfa5 17.tLlhl, Dreev - Ko­ tronias, Las Vegas 1999, 17 tLle5 18.h3 %!fb4+± . • •

• • •

B3) 9 . . . h5

This is the contemporary approach to the problem. Black does not wish to wait until his opponent completes his develop­ ment and begins a kingside at­ tack and instead, he starts active operations on the same side of the board. The move hS is pro­ phylactic, because Black wishes to impede his opponent to deploy calmly his forces before the beginning of the decisive as­ sault.

•••

146

B3a) 1 0 .te2 B3h) 1 0 .tg5 •

•

B3a) 1 0 .te2 ! ? White ignores his opponent's threats. He considers that after hS-h4, Black's rook-pawn would •

3. ltJc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5..fJ 0 - 0 6. ltJge2 c5 7.d5 e6 turn into a tasty target for at­ tack, while his knight on g3 will be comfortably redeployed to the wonderful e3-square. 1 0 lOb7 It deserves attention for Black to repel the enemy knight imme­ diately: 1O ...h4 1l.ltJf1 lOh7 (pre­ paring the thematic fS) 12.i.e3 (12 .h3 ! ? a6! 13.ltJe3 bS+±) 12 .. .fS 13.exfS i.xfS 14.i.f2 (14.h3 ltJa6 lS.i.f2 '?9gS! with a powerful initi­ ative for Black; 14.g4 .td7 lS.�c2 �e8+±) 14 ...bS ! This pawn is ad­ vanced to a square attacked twice. Black is perfectly prepared for ac­ tions all over the board. lS.h:bS (In case of lS.a3, he can simply consolidate his achievements on the queenside with lS ... a6, or he can seek an immediate confron­ tation with - lS ... '?9aS ! ?) 16.ltJe3 ltJd7 17.g4 hxg3 18.hxg3, Dreev - Tkachiev, Shanghai 2001, 18 ... ltJgS 19.iDxfS gxfS 2 0.f4 '?9aS 21. 0-0 iDh3 22.st>g2 iDxf2 23.gxf2 h:c3 24.bxc3 '?9xc3 2S.i.g4 iDf6�) lS ... �aS 16.i.e2 hc3 (16 ... h3 17. g4) 17.bxc3 '?9xc3 18.iDd2 . Now, Black must play precisely: 18 ... h3 19.94 i.d3 20.0-0 iDd7 21.gc1 �a3 22 .iDb1 h:b1 23.gxb1 iDeS. White cannot exploit here his two-bishop advantage, because Black creates new threats all the time. 24.�c2 gxf3 2S.h:f3 �xf3 26.i.g3 '?9xg4 27.st>h1 gf8 28.gxf8 iDxf8 29.h:eS �f3 30.st>gl '?ge3 31.�f2 '?9xeS= 1l.i.e3 a6 12.a4 • • •

12 lOd7 It would be too hazardous for Black to opt for 12 ... h4 13.iDf1 fS 14.exfS gxfS lS.i.f4! This is an excellent multi-purpose move. The bishop blocks the fS-pawn (restricting the bishop on c8 in the process), it attacks the d6pawn (impeding the development of the knight on b8) and it frees the e3-square for the knight. It is hardly possible to require more than that from a single move! lS ... iDd7. Black sacrifices a pawn, but he is practically forced to do that. He obtains some initiative for that however. White can parry that relatively easily, remaining with extra material. 16.h:d6 ge8 17.�d2 iDeS 18.h:cS h3 19.st>f2 hxg2 20.st>xg2 f4 21.'?9xf4 iDg6 22 .�g3± Dreev - Topalov, New Delhi 2000. 13. 0 - 0 b4 14.lObl f5 15. '?9d2 �f6 16.exfS 16.f4 fxe4 17.iDf2 '?ge7 18.iDcxe4 (18.iDfxe4 iDdf6 19.iDxf6 iDxf6 20.h3 i.fS= Murali - Deepan, Kolkata 2007) 18 ...iDdf6 19.iDxf6 • • •

147

Chapter 13 V!fxf6, Dreev - Karpov, Reykjavik 2004, 20.lLle4!? V!fe7 21.lLlc3 lLlf6 22.�f3= 16 gxf5 17.�f2 (17.f4 V!fg6 18.�f2 lLldf6 19.h8, E!g8, �f6, E!g7, E!ag8, lLlh4, with a powerful kingside attack. After 8.lLlge2, Black should better transpose to Chapter 13 (variation B) : 8 ... h6 9.ie3 exd5 10.cxd5 a6 1l.a4 lLlbd7 12 .lLlg3 h5.

B1) 8 exd5 B2) 8 ... �a5 •••

BI) 8 exd5 9.cxd5 h6 This move is based on a famil­ iar tactical motive. I O .J.e3 If 1O.ixh6, then 10 ... lLlxe4. This is a typical tactical resource! Whenever White has played f2-f3 (this is the move, which defines the Saemisch Attack), he opens the diagonal e1-h4, so he must consider the possible check on h4 in all the variations. 1l.lLlxe4 %Yh4 12 .g3 �xh6 13.%Yxh6 ixh6 14.lLlxd6 lLld7. White has won a pawn indeed, but Black has more than a sufficient compensation with his-bishop pair in an open po­ sition.15.f4 (15.ih3 lLlb6 16.lLlxc8 lLlxc8 17.f4 E!e8 18.c;t>f2 ig7 19.lLlf3 lLld6� Rotstein - Vidarte, alot •••

8.%Yd2 In case of 8.id3, Black should better delay the trade on d5 and continue with his development. This approach would be very un­ pleasant for his opponent, because it is not favourable for White to ex­ change in e6, while the trade exd5 is still on the agenda, acting on

153

Chapter 14 1994; White's extra pawn is ir­ relevant, while Black's positional compensation is excellent.) 15 ... ttJb6 (but not IS ... ttJf6 16.0-0-0 gd8 17.ttJxc8 gaxc8 18 . .th3 gc7 19.d6 gc6 20.d7±) 16.0-0-0 gd8 17.ttJxc8 gaxc8 18 ..ih3 f5 (18 ... gb8 19.d6 .ig7 20.d7 fS 21.g4) 19.ttJf3 (19.ttJe2 .ig7; 19.d6 ttJc4 20.ttJf3 ttJxd6 21.ghel ttJe4 22 . .tfl gS=) 19 ... ttJxdS 20.ghel .ig7 21..ifl, K.Berg - Onoprienko, Groningen 1994 and here Black had to play actively: 21...c4 22.ttJeS c3 23.b3 J.xeS 24 ..tc4 (24.gxeS ttJb4) 24 ... �f8 2S.gxdS M6= with equality in a position with bishops of op­ posite colours. 1 0 h5 11.ttJge2 We have to analyze in short White's alternatives. In some of the games, which we will quote later, White's bishop on e3 and Black's pawn on hS have gone there in one move. (Le. without the inclusion of the maneuver .igS h6), but we have changed the numbering on the moves to make our readers comfortable and it has been unified everywhere. 11 . .ih6 a6 12.J.xg7 �xg7 13.a4 'iNaS 14.ga3 ge8 IS.ttJge2 ttJbd7 16.ttJdl 'iNb4 17.ttJec3 ttJeS 18.ttJe3 h4 19. .ie2 Wd4 20.'iNc1 c4 21.ttJc2 'iNc5f! Graf - I.Belov, Cappelle la Grande 1995. 11 ..ie2 a6 12.a4 ttJh7 13 . .tdl ttJd7 14.ttJge2 gb8 IS.aS bS 16. axb6 �b6 17.0-0 ttJeS 18.b3 fSf! Jussupow - Dolmatov, Wijk aan Zee 1991.

11 . .td3 ttJbd7 12.ttJge2 ttJeS 13. 0-0 a6 14.a4 ge8 IS.b3 ttJxd3 16.Wxd3 gb8 17.gabl ttJd7f! Al­ terman - Dolmatov, Beer-Sheva 1991. 11.a4 a6 12.ttJge2 ttJbd7 13.ttJdl ttJeS 14.ttJec3 ttJh7 IS ..ie2 'iNh4 16.ttJf2 fS 17.exfS .ixfS 18.0-0 gae8f! Urban - Kempinski, So­ pot 1997.

•••

154

1l lt)h7 Black maims the enemy knight to the disadvantageous f4-square. He tests in practice much more often 11 ... ttJbd7 12.ttJc1 ttJeS 13 ..ie2 ttJh7 14.0-0 fS IS.f4 ttJf7 16.eS dxeS 17.J.xc5 ge8 18.ttJd3 e4 19.ttJel b6 20 . .td4 ttJf6, with ap­ proximate equality, Ernst - Tal, Subotica 1987. White can develop his knight to f4, of course, but in fact it is doing nothing there and it even impedes the pawn-advance f3-f4: 12.ttJf4 ttJeS 13 . .ie2 .id7 14. 0-0 a6 IS.a4 gb8 16.aS ttJe8 17. ttJa4 J.xa4 (It is sometimes fa­ vourable for Black to part with his light-squared bishop, enlarging the scope of action of his knight in • . •

3. 0, c3 .tg7 4.e4 d6 5.fJ 0 - 0 6 . .tg5 the process.) 18.E1xa4 0,c7 19.0,d3 (19.b4 c4 20 .E1c1 0,bS 21 ..b:c4 0,xc4 22.E1xc4 E1c8 23.'lWd3 E1xc4 24.'lWxc4 'lWc8 2S.'lWxc8 E1xc8�) 19 ... 0,d7 20.E1c4 bS 2I.axb6 0,xb6 22 .E1cc1 0,bS= I.Sokolov - Smirin, Burgas 1993. 12.tiJf4 Otherwise, Black intended to continue with fS. 12 0,d7 13 .te2 0,e5 14. 0 - 0 .td7 15.13ab1 l:k8 16.13fc1 a6 17.a4 �a5 18.b3 13fe8= Sa­ dler - Fedorowicz, London 1988. Black is preparing either fS, or bS, depending on the situation. • . .

B2) 8

•

• . .

'lWa5

He could have tried to be trick­ ier and delayed the exchange on dS for a while. 9.0,ge2 After 9 . a4, the b4-square would be weakened and Black can exploit this by playing 9 ... 0,a6. 9.0,bS 'lWb6 1O.a4 (1O.dxe6 .b:e6 11.'lWxd6 0,c6 12 . .te3 0,d7 13. 'lWd2 E1fd8 14.'lWc2 a6 lS.0,c3 0,d4, with a more than sufficient com-

pensation for the pawn, F . Romero - Martinez Sanchez, Barcelona 2002) 1O ... a6 1l.aS axbS 12.axb6 E1xa1 13.�f2, Tolush - Boleslavsky, Moscow 19S2, 13 ... bxc4! 14 . .b:c4 exdS IS.exdS 0,bd7 16.�f4? ! E1e8 ! 17.'lWxd6? 0,g4 18.fxg4 .td4 19.�f3 0,eS-+ (Tolush) . 9 . .td3. This move has the ha­ bitual drawback that the bishop can be attacked with tempo af­ ter 0,eS. 9 ... exdS (9 ... a6 1O.0,ge2 0,bd7 1l.dxe6 fxe6 12.0-0 0,eS 13.f4 0,c6 14.fS 0,eS, Magalash­ vili - Dzhakaev, Batumi 2002, IS.fxg6 hxg6 16.0,f4 'lWc7 17..th4 .td7 18.E1ad1 0,h7 19 . .tg3 E1ad8 20 . .te2 .tc8oo) 1O.cxdS 0,bd7 II. 0,ge2 0,eS 12.0-0 .td7 13.a3 bS 14.b4! ? This is a typical resource for White. 14 ... cxb4 (14 ... 'lWb6 IS . .te3) IS.axb4 'lWxb4 16.E1fbl 'lWcS 17 . .te3 and now I had to include at first 17 ... .th6 (17. . . 0,c4 18 . .b:c4 'lWxc4 19.E1c1 b4 20.0,a2 �bS 2I. 0,d4 �b7 22.0,xb4± Lutsko - Bo­ logan, Nikolaev 1993) 18.f4 and only then to play 18 ... 0,c4 19 . .b:cS 0,xd2 20 . .b:d6 0,xb1 2I.E1xbl E1fc8 with equality. 9 exd5 1 0 .cxd5 1O ..b:f6? .b:f6 1l.0,xdS 'lWd8 12.0,xf6 'lWxf6 13. 0-0-0 E1d8 14. h4 0,c6 lS.hS .te6= (diagram) 1 0 .td7 It is also interesting for Black to try 1O ... bS lI.0,g3 (U.0,c1 b4 12.0,bS 'lWb6 13 . .tf4 0,e8 14.a3 .ta6 1S.a4 0,d7 16.aS 'lWb7 17.0,xd6 0,xd6 18 . .b:d6 E1fe8�) 1l ... c4 12. . • •

. . •

ISS

Chapter 14 11 ....!DxdS 12.exdS f6 13 ..ih4 gS 14.hgS fxgS lS.Wixd6 bS with a powerful initiative for him.) 12. Wixd6 �e8 13.ie7 �xe7! 14.Wixe7 f6 1S.g4 if8 16. YNxf8 wxf8 17.gxhS gS 18.h4 .!Da6oo Kludacz - Dwora­ kowska, Sopot 1998. 1l J�c8 12 .te2 c4 ••

ie2 .!Dfd7. He needs to bring his bishop into the actions in order to support the planned advance of his c-pawn (White can coun­ ter 12 ... .!Dbd7 with 13.b4! This is a typical resource, thanks to which he can neutralize his opponent's counterplay on the queenside, for example: 13 ... cxb3 14 . .!DxbS Wib6 lS.ie3 .!DeS 16.axb3 .!Dfxe4 17.fxe4 hal 18.b4 .!Db3 19.Wid3 .!Del 20. hel ia6 21.Wia3± Dreev - Shi­ rov, Wijk aan Zee 1996.) 13.0-0 (13.ie7 b4 14 . .!Ddl c3 1S.bxc3 bxc3 16.YNc2 .!Da6 17.hd6 �d8 18.a3 .!DeS 19.ie7 �e8 2 0.id6 �d8 and Black has at least a draw.) 13 ...b4 14 . .!Dd1 c3. His passed c3-pawn, supported by the bishop on g7 provides him with an advantage. 1l .!Dg3 11. Wif4 .!DhS (It might be more precise for Black to opt here for •

lS6

•

13.a4 White should never allow his opponent to advance bS: 13.0-0 bS 14.�fel .!Da6 lS.wh1 .!De8 16 . .!Dd1 Wixd2 17.,ixd2 .!DcS 18.ic3 as+ Zhukova - Kiseleva, Warsaw 2001. 13 .!Da6 14. 0 - 0 .!DeS 15. hc4 Wib4 16 .ta2 ha4 17. tLlge2 tLlfd7 18 .te3 tLle5+ Black's pieces are all over White's posi­ tion and he will maintain an ad­ vantage even after a transfer into an endgame. •••

•

•

Chapter 15

1.d4 !i)f6 2.c4 g6 3.!i)c3 J.g7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0 - 0 6.J.e3

This is the most natural and popular plan for White - his bish­ op is developed to e3, the queen to d2, then he castles long and makes up his mind where to de­ velop his kingside pieces. 6 eS I believe this is the most pre­ cise and aggressive reply by Black. He is ready to sacrifice a pawn in order to obtain a slight lead in development and an active piece­ play. 7.dxeS We will analyze in the next chapter the other popular alterna­ tives for White - 7.dS and 7.ttJge2. 7 dxeS 8.Yfxd8 White tried to play with queens present on the board in some • • •

• • •

games, but that case Black's pos­ sibilities to create powerful coun­ terplay were even greater. S.ixc5 ttJc6 and now: 9:�xdS fudS - see S:�xdS �xdS 9.ixcS ttJc6; 9.Yfa4 ttJd7 10 . .!f2 ttJb6 1l.'�a3 ixc3 ! 12.bxc3 (Black is better af­ ter 12.'�xc3 ttJa4 13.'�'c2 YfaS.) 12 ... .!e6 13.�d1 VlJc7 14.cS ttJc4 1S.hc4 ixc4GG White must still solve the problem with his castling and his extra pawn is much rather a bur­ den than something to brag about, Hartmann - Rakovic, corr. 2000; 9 . .te3 ttJd7 1O.�c1 (10.ttJge2 YfaS 1l.ttJd4, Ibragimov - Kamin­ ski, Warsaw 1990, 1l ... Yfb6 12.ttJa4 YfaS 13 . .!d2 Yfc7 14.ttJbS VlJbSGG) lO ... VlJaS 1l.ttJh3 �dS 12.ttJf2 ttJc5 13 ..!d2 hc3 ! (This rather un­ typical capturing again provides Black with the initiative.) 14.bxc3 .!e6 lS.Yfc2 ttJeS 16 . .!f4 ttJxc4+ Dlugy - Gelfand, Palma de Mal­ lorca 19S9; 9.ttJge2 VlJaS 10 ..!e3 �dS ll.Yfc1 ttJhS 12.ttJg3 (12.lt>f2 fS! This is one of the top-ten resources for Black in the King's Indian Defence. 13.exfS ttJb4 14.ttJg3 .txf5 lS.ttJxfS lS7

Chapter 15 gxf5 16.g3 �h8 17.a3 tLlc6 18 . .ie2 f4 19.9xf4 tLld4� Graf - Zulfugar­ Ii, Dubai 2003; 13 ... hf5 ! ? 14.g4 tLle5 15.�g2 tLld3 16.�M2 tLldf4 17. hf4 l:'Dcd2 18 . .hd2 gd8 19 ..ic1 .id7 20.gxh5 �xh5oo) 12 ... tLlxg3 13.hxg3 .ie6 14.�f2, Polugaevsky - Dzindzichashvili, USSR 1974 and here it would have been more precise for Black to have played 14 ... �b4 15.a3 �b3 16.tLld5 .hb2 17.�b1 .hd5 18.ga2 .ie6 19.9xb2 �xa3 20.gxb7 tLla5 2H9b2 �xb2 22.gxb2 tLlxc4 23 . .hc4 .hc4 24. gb4 .ie6 25.ga1= 8.e5 (This is an interesting attempt to restrict the enemy pieces.) 8 ... tLlfd7 9.f4 f6 (Black must get rid of the pawn-wedge on e5 as soon as possible.) 1O.exf6 (1O.e6 tLlb6 11.�xd8 l:'Dcd8 12 . .hc5 .he6 13.b3 f5 14.gc1 tLla6 15 . .ia3 .id4 16.tLld1 .ic5 17 . .hc5 tLlxc5 18. tLlf3 a5 = Bronstein - Smirin, Oslo 1994) 1O ... tLlxf6! (It deserves at­ tention for Black to opt for the unusual transfer of his rook along the sixth rank after 1O ... gxf6 11. �d5 �h8 12.tLlf3 gd6 13.�f7 gf6 14.tLlg5 �b6 15.tLld5 gxf7 16.tLlxb6 axb6 17.tLlxf7 �g8oo; 11 . .ie2 gd6 12.�c1 tLlc6=) 11.�xd8 gxd8 12. .hc5 .if5 13.tLlf3 (13.tLlge2 tLlc6 14.tLlg3 .ie6 15 . .ie2 tLld7 16 . .ie3 tLlb6 17. .hb6 axb6 18.tLlge4 tLld4+ Rustemov - Shulman, Minsk 1994) 13 ... tLle4 14.tLlxe4 .he4 15. .ia3 tLlc6 16 . .ie2 tLld4 17.tLlxd4 .hd4 18 . .if3 hf3 19.9xf3 gac8= Campos Moreno - Mortensen, Barcelona-Arhus 1991. 158

S !hdS 9 .bc5 9.e5 tLlfd7 1O.f4 b6, Bilgin Topel, Turkey 2002, 11 . .ie2 .ib7 12 . .if3 hf3 13.tLlxf3 tLlc6 14. 0-0-0 f6 15.exf6 tLlxf6= 9 tLlc6 •••

•

•••

A) 1 0 . .ia3 B) 1 0 .tLld5 C) 1 0 .tLlge2 White cannot create great problems for his opponent if he retreats with his bishop to e3, for example: 1O . .ie3 b6 1U'k1 tLld7 12.tLlh3 tLlc5 13.tLlf2 .ie6 14 ..ie2 tLlb4� Levitt - Fedorowicz, New York 1994. The move 1O.gd1 would not contribute to White's develop­ ment, therefore Black can feel safe, for example: 1O ... gxd1 11. tLlxd1 (11.�xd1 tLld7 12 ..ia3 .hc3 !? 13.bxc3 tLlde5= Dlugy - van der Wiel, Hoogovens 1990) 11.. .tLld7 12 ..ia3 a5 13.tLle2 tLlb4= Moe­ schinger - Salzgeber, Arosa 1996 .

A) 1 0 .ia3 a5 This advance of the pawn •

5.j3 0 - 0 6 . .ie3 c5 7.dc dc B. f1xdB 'fl.xdB 9.hc5 lLlc6 is particularly effective when White's bishop is on a3. Black is preparing a reliable square for his knight and he increases the scope of action of his rook on a8. ll.'fl.dl 1l.lLld5 lLlxd5 12.cxd5 lLlb4 13. 0-0-0 e6 (In principle, Black could have captured a pawn here with 13 . . . lLlxa2.) 14 . .ic4 exd5 15. ,ixb4 axb4 16.'fl.xd5 (16.,ixd5 .ie6 17.@bl 'fl.a5 18.lLle2 ,ixd5 19. exd5 'fl.axd5 20.'fl.xd5 'fl.xd5=) 16 ... .ie6 17.'fl.xd8 'fl.xd8 18 . .id5 .ih6 !+ Bel­ iavsky - Nunn, Amsterdam 1990. Black has an excellent coun­ terplay after 1l . .ic5 lLld7 12 . .ie3 a4 13.0-0-0 a3 14.lLlge2 axb2 15.@xb2 b6 16.@bl .ia6 Knaak Wojtkiewicz, Stara Zagora 1990. 1l ... .te6

Al) 12.'fl.xd8 A2) 12.lLld5 It would be harmless for Black if White plays 12.lLlh3 lLlb4 13. lLlf4, draw, Jobava - R.Mamedov, Kusadasi 2006, 13 . . . lLlc2 14.@f2 lLlxe4 15.fxe4 lLlxa3 16.lLlxe6 fxe6 17 . .id3 hc3=

Al) 12.'fl.xd8 gxd8 13.lLld5 h.:d5 14.cxd5 lLlb4 15.J.b5 White fails to cover all the files for penetration of the enemy rooks anyway: 15.,ixb4 axb4 16. .ic4 'fl.c8 17.b3 b5 (Black is not forced to sacrifice a pawn, because he can enter the enemy camp in another fashion: 17 . . . 'fl.a8 18.lLle2

'fl.xa2 19.@f2 lLld7 2 0.'fl.bl .ic3 21. @e3 @g7=) 18.,ixb5 'fl.el 19.@f2, Milovanovic - Dujkovic, Nis 1995, 19 . . . lLlxd5 20.exd5 .id4= 15 ... lLlc2 15 ... lLle8 16.,ixe8 'fl.xe8 17. lLle2;t 16.@f2

16 lLlxd5 ! ! This is a surprising sacrifice, thanks to which Blacks succeeds in exploiting White's lag in devel­ opment. 17.exd5 gxd5 18 .tc4 gd4 19 .ie2 It would be more prudent for White to comply here with the repetition of moves after 19 . .ib5= 19 lLlxa3 2 0 .bxa3 gd2 21.@e3 gxa2+ Black has three pawns for the piece and two of them are dangerous connected passed pawns supported by his rooks and the bishop on g7. •••

•

•

•••

A2) 12.lLld5 White would not mind occupy­ ing such a juicy outpost, but Black has serous counter arguments in 159

Chapter 15 view of his opponent's lag in de­ velopment.

12 �b4! Black sacrifices a second pawn. 13.�xe7 13.hb4? axb4 14.lLlxb4 lLld7, De Oliveira - Stephan, Email 2 001, 15.l%d2 lLlc5+ 13 ..!d3 hd5 14.cxd5 lLlxd3. This is the most precise reac­ tion by Black. He isolates his opponent's d5-pawn and then he attacks it from all the sides. (It would be somewhat slow for him to opt for 14 ... lLld7!? 15.lLle2 lLlc5 16 ..ib1 e6 17.lLlc3;t; 15 ... lLle5 16 ..!b5 e6 17.d6 lLlc2 18.'it>f2 lLlxa3 19.bxa3 l%acB 20.a4 l%c2+± James - Hebden, Great Britain 1993; 17.dxe6! ? fxe6 1B.0-0; 17 ... lLled3 1B.hd3 lLlxd3 19.1%xd3 l%xd3 20. lLlf4 l%d4 21.e7 - Black must play very precisely in order to neu­ tralize White's dangerous passed pawn.) 15.l%xd3 e6 16 ..!e7 (16.d6 b5 17 ..!c5 lLld7 1B . .id4 lLle5+) 16 ... l%d7 17.d6 (17.hf6 hf6= Dya..•

160

chkov - Kaminski, H alle 1995) 17 ... l%a6 1B.lLle2 (The attempt to penetrate with the rook into the enemy camp 1BJk3 can be easily parried by Black in two ways: lB ... l%aB 19.1%c5 lLleB 20.e5 b6 21.l%b5 lLlc7 22.dxc7 l%xe7 23.lLle2 l%xc7 24.lLlc3 a4+ Zhou Jianchao - Vo­ lokitin, Moscow 2007, or 1B ... l%c6 19.1Lle2 lLleB 20.l%xc6 bxc6 21.lLlc3 lLlxd6 22.hd6 l%xd6 23.'it>e2 hc3 24.bxc3 c5 25.l%b1 c4= Wang Yue - Dyachkov, Moscow 2 007) lB ... lLleB 19.0-0 i.e5 20.l%fd1 f6= Pel­ letier - Glek, Bie1 1995. 13.@f2, Quinteros - Garcia Raimundo, Florida Valle 1993, 13 ... hd5 14.cxd5 (14.exd5 e6 15.d6 l%a6 16.c5 l%c6) 14 ... e6 (Black builds up his counterplay according to the already famil­ iar scheme, meanwhile with a knight on a b4 White cannot play i.e7 and then d6.) 15.d6 (15.hb4 axb4 16.i.c4 exd5 17.exd5 b5! ? 1B.i.b3 lLld7 19.1Lle2 lLlc5t). Now, Black has a pleasant choice to make - to attack immediately the annoying pawn, or to activate at first his queen's rook: 15 ... l%acB ! ? (15 ... lLleB 16.d7 lLlf6 17.i.b5 'it>fB 1B.lLle2 - 18.e5 lLlfd5 - 1B ... 'it>e7 19.1Llc1 lLlxd7 20.lLld3) 16.i.b5 (16. lLlh3 l%c2 17.i.e2 lLlxa2 1B.'it>e3 lLlb4 19.f4 h5 20.lLlf2 ; 17 ... lLleB 1B.d7 lLlf6) 16 ... l%c5 17 ..b4 b5 1B.hb4 axb4 19.i.b3 lLleB. Black regains his pawn and he balances the po­ sition. 13 'it>h8 •.•

5.f3 0 - 0 6 . .te3 c5 7.de de B. V!!xdB 'i!.xdB 9 . .txc5 tDe6

A2a) 14.tDd5 A2b) 14.'i!.xd8 A2a) 14.tDd5 b5 This spectacular move is not so well analyzed yet. According to GM M. Golubev, Black has no problems to worry about after 14 . . . tDc2 15.�f2 tDxa3 16.bxa3 b5, but this is not exact­ ly true. We have to continue the analysis of this position: 17.tDh3 'i!.acB 1B . .te2 (It would be dubi­ ous for White to continue with 1B.cxb5, Rogozenko - Anton­ sen, Vejle 1993 , 1B 'i!.c2 19 . .te2 tDxd5 20.exd5 hh3 21.gxh3 'i!.eB 22.'i!.he1 .tc3, since Black ends up in a better endgame.) lB . . . bxc4, Bigler - Har-Zvi, Bie1 1993, 19.tDb6. It becomes clear now, that the rook on cB is overbur­ dened. It must protect its neigh­ bour and control the movement of the passed c4-pawn. 19 ... c3. This exchange-sacrifice looks smart, but it is insufficient. 20.tDxcB 'i!.xcB 21..ta6! This is the same motive to repel the enemy rook from its optimal cB-square, from •••

where it supports the c-pawn and takes care of the safety of the last rank. 21...'i!.bB 22.tDf4 'i!.b2 23.�e3 .th6 24.g3 c2 25.'i!.dB �g7 26 . .td3. White's pieces are coming closer to the dangerous passed pawn on c2 . It is not destined to promote into a queen... 26 ... 'i!.xa2 27.'i!.c1 .tb3 2B.'i!.cB 'i!.xa3 29.'i!.c3± It looks like Golubev's intuition was cor­ rect and he chose the right move in his game - 14 ...b5. 15.hb4 axb4 16.tDxb4, Rogozenko - Golubev, Nikolaev 1993. 16 bxc4 This move was recommended by M. Golubev. 17.'i!.xd8 17.tt'le2 'i!.dbB 1B.a3 .tfB 19.tDd4 hb4 20.axb4 'i!.xb4� 17 'i!.xd8 18.tDe2 J.h6 19. tDc3 'i!.d2 19 ... .tc1 ! ? 2 0 .tDdl 'i!.d4 21.tDc2 'i!.d2 22.tDa3 c3 23.bxc3 'i!.xa2 24. tDc4 tDd7 25.tDce3 tDe5 - Black is too pawns down indeed, but his compensation is sufficient to draw the game. • • •

•••

A2b) 14.'i!.xd8 'i!.xd8 15.tDd5 It seems amazing, since White has two extra pawns and a beauti­ ful knight on the d5-outpost, but Black's resistance has not crum­ bled yet! In case of 15.,txb4 axb4 16.tDd5 'i!.aB 17.tDxb4 tDd7 1B . .td3 tDeS 19.�d2 'i!.a4 20.a3 hb2+ Black seizes the imitative, Taleb - Wa161

Chapter 15 tanabe, Yerevan 1996. 15 ltlc2 16.Wf2 16.Wd2 lLlxa3 17.bxa3 b5 IS. lLlh3 bxc4 19.,hc4 lLlxd5 20.exd5 .hd5 21.,hd5 �xd5= Gual Timoscenko, London 1993. 16 ltlxa3 17.bxa3 b5! White's centre is in ruins after this move. 18.ltlh3 bxc4 19 ..b:c4 gc8 • • •

21 ... .td4 22.Wf3 .b:b6 23. .b:e6 gc3 24.Wg4 fxe6 25.gb1 J.c7 with equality.

•••

2 0 .ltlb6 In case of 20 . .tb3, Black sacri­ fices even a third pawn with 20 ... a4! , with the idea later, just like in the game of checkers, to regain everything with tempo: 21..ha4 lLlxd5 22 .exd5 ,hd5 23 . .tb3 ,hb3 24.axb3 �c2 25.'t!.>g3 (25.'t!.>e3 �c3, Martinovic - Saric, Bjelolasica 2007, 26.'t!.>e4 �xb3 27.�d1 f5 2S. 't!.>f4 .th6 29.'t!.>g3 fua3=) 25 ... .te5 26.f4 �c3 27.'t!.>f2 .td4 2S.'t!.>e2, Lahlum - Gullaksen, Hamburg 2002, 2S ... �e3 29.'t!.>d2 fub3= ; 20.lLlxf6 ,hc4 21.e5 ,ha2 22.'t!.>g3 .tfSgg with a probable draw. 2 0 . . . ltlxe4! 21.fxe4 21.'t!.>e3 �c6 22.,he6 �xe6 23. fxe4 �xb6= 162

1 0 . . . ltld7 Black should not stop in the middle of the road. The activity of his pieces takes precedence over everything else! 1l.ltlxe7 1l.,he7 According to statistics, this is the most popular move. Still, it is logical that White can hardly strive for anything real if he parts deliberately with his dark-squared bishop. 11...lLlxe7 12 .lLlxe7 't!.>fS 13.lLld5 (13.lLlxcS hb2 14J'1bl i.c3+) 13 ... ,hb2 14. �bl i.g7 15.lLlh3 (15.h4 lLlc5 16.h5, Wang Rui - Moradiabadi, Cebu 2007 and White has nothing to do on the h-file: 16 .. .f5! 17.lLlh3 fxe4 1S.hxg6 hxg6 19.fxe4 lLlxe4+) 15 ... lLlc5 16.lLlf2 i.e6 17.i.e2 (17. lLld3 �acS lS.lLlxc5 �xc5 19.�xb7 �a5� Andresen - Sonntag, Ger­ many 1993.) 17 ... �acS IS.0-0 b6 19.�fc1, Christiansen - Renet,

5.j3 0 - 0 6 . �e3 c5 7.de de 8. V!ixd8 'Sxd8 9.hc5 lile6 Cannes 1992, 19 . . .fS!� 11.�a3. This is an attempt by White to stabilize the position, preserving his extra pawn. We know however, that his bishop is misplaced on a3 and its exchange for a knight is not favourable at all. Black has more than enough resources to maintain the balance. 1l . . . e6 12.1i1c7 (12.1i1e3 b6 13.'Sd1 �b7 14.1i1e2 lilc5� Black has won the battle for the dark squares in the centre, Avery - Valvo, Chica­ go 1992) 12 . . . 'Sb8 13.0-0-0 (13. lilbS a6 14.1i1d6 bS lS.cxbS axbS 16.1i1xbS �a6 17.1i1c3 hfI 18.'it>xf1 lildeS�; 17.'Sc1 lildeS+ Benidze Grigoryan, Yerevan 2007) 13 . . . b6 14.1i1e2 �b7 lS.1i1bS (lS.�d6 lilcS 16.tt'lbS 'Sbc8 17.1i1ec3 a6 18.1i1a3 fS 19.exfS gxfS 20.'it>b1 lild4 21. �e7 'Sd7 22 .�h4 eS and Black has seized the imitative, Peturs­ son - Sax, Biel 1985) lS . . . 1i1cS 16.1i1d6, Stoljarov - Teemae, COIT. 1986, 16 . . . �a8 17.b4 1i1b7 18.1i1xb7 hb7+ - White's kingside has not been developed yet and Black has enough time to organize an attack against the pawns on c4 and b4. 1l c!Llxe7 12.he7 hb2 13. gb1 In case of 13.'Sd1 'Se8 14.�d6 tt'leS, Black's piece-activity com­ pensates the sacrificed pawn, for example: lS.c5 �e6 16.f4 �c3 17.'it>f2 lilg4 18.'it>f3 c!Llf6 19.h3 ha2 = Behling - Hazai, Hamburg 1984. Following 13.hd8 �c3, Black wishes to displace the enemy king • • •

at first and only then he recap­ tures the rook. 14.'it>d1 (The evalu­ ation of the position remains the same after the more prudent line: 14.'it>f2 hal lS.c!Lle2 c!LleS 16.tt'lf4 .id4 17.'it>g3 �e6 18.tt'lxe6 fxe6 19.�c7 'Sc8 2 0.heS heS 2l.f4 i.c3 22.�d3 'Sd8 23.'Sd1 eS� Csi­ bor - Timar, corr. 1992) 14 . . .ha1 lS.tt'lh3 tt'lcS 16 . .ie7 tt'le6 17. .id3 b6 18.'it>d2 �eS 19.93 tt'ld4 2 0.tt'lgl �b� Gerasimov - Klimov, St. Pe­ tersburg 2005. 13 J.c3 14.'it>f2 J.d4 •••

15.'it>g3 After 15. 'it>e1 i.c3, White should better comply with the repetition of moves, since his king will be rather unsafe in the middle of the board, for example: 16. 'it>d1 'Se8 17.tt'le2 (17.�a3 tt'leS 18.'it>c2 i.aS 19.'SbS b6 20 . .ib2 tt'lc6 21.a3 a6 22.'SdS �e6 23.tt'lh3 hdS 24.cxdS tt'leS 2S.f4 'Sac8 26. 'it>b1 tt'lc4+ Man­ keyev - Klimov, St. Petersburg 2004; 17.'it>c2 .ig7 18.�d6 tt'leS 19.heS 'SxeS 20.tt'le2 'SaS 21.tt'lc1 b6 22.'SbS �d7 23.'SxaS bxaS 24. �e2 'Sb8 2S.tt'ld3 �e6 26.'Sb1 'Sxb1 163

Chapter 15 27.d2 iDf2 ; 7.exd6 exd6 B.iDf3 iDf6 9 . .id3 l3eB 1O.iDe2 c5 11.d5 b5 12.cxb5 .ib7 13 ..ic4 iDbd7 14.0-0

iDb6 15 . .ib3 c4 16 ..ic2 iDbxd5+ Psarakis - Hatzidakis, Chania 199B.) 7 . . . c5 B.d5 (After B . .ie3 cxd4 9.hd4 dxe5 1O.he5 iDxe5 11.iDxe5 iDd7 12.iDxd7 hd7 13 . .ie2 .ic6 14.�xdB l3fxdB+ - White's centre has disappeared and Black's two bishops will be omni­ present in this endgame, Glicen­ stein - Amsellem, France 1997; B.exd6 exd6 9.d5 l3eB lO ..ie2 hc3 11.bxc3 �e7 12.a4 iDf6 13.l3a2 iDe4 14.�b3 �f6 15 . .id2 iDxd2 16.l3xd2 �xf4+ Zibell - Riebert, Germany 2002.) B . . . dxe5 9 . .id3, Fonoage Marcu, Deva 1999, 9 ... f5 1O.fxe5 iDxe5 11.iDxe5 he5 12.�e2 iDd7 13 ..ig5� - White has some com­ pensation for the pawn, but not more than that. The move 6 . .ie3 ? ! , aimed at preventing c7-c5, brought suc­ cess to White in the ancient game Spassky - Rukavina, Sochi 1973, since Black responded with the tentative move 6 . . . c6. What was White going to do after 6 . . . iDg4 - ? He would be reluctant to part with his bishop, for example: 7.�d2 iDxe3 B.�xe3 iDa6 9.a3 c5 1O.d5 �a5 n.iDge2 .id7 12.l3bl IB3

Chapter 17 bSt Vicainne - Renard, Bethune 2007. If it goes back to its initial position 7 . .ic1, then Black can repeat moves with 7 ... tLlf6, but he can also try to seize the initia­ tive with: 7... cS B.dS .id4 9.tLlh3, J.Balogh - Szittar, Zalakaros 1993, 9 ... eS! 10.dxe6 ixe6, with a very active position. In case of 6 . .id3 c5 7.dS e6 B.tLlf3, or B.dxe6 fxe6 9.tLlf3, there arise positions analyzed in chapter lB. White connects some­ times the early development of the bishop on d3 with the idea to deploy his knight to e2 - B.tLlge2. The rather modest e2-square is not the best for his knight in an aggressive scheme like the Four Pawns Attack. The knight on e2 does not support the eventual pawn-break e4-eS and it cannot go to c4 after the exchange exdS cxdS. It can only go to g3, from e2, but with a black pawn on g6, it has practically nothing to do there. It is not surprising that Black ob­ tains easily an excellent position after: B ... exdS 9.exdS (9.cxdS a6 10.a4 tLlbd7 11.0-0 �eB 12.tLlg3 'ffic7 13.h3 c4 14 . .ic2 �bB lS.r,!;>h1 bS 16.axbS axbS 17.eS dxeS 1B.fS b4 19.tLlce4 .ib7+ F.Benko - Naj­ dorf, Buenos Aires 1960) 9 ... tLlhS 10.0-0 fS 11 . .id2 �eB 12.�c2 tLld7 13.h3 tLlfB 14.�ae1 .id7 1S.r,!;>h2 a6 16.a3 tLlf6 17.tLlg1 �c7 1B.tLlf3 bS 19.fueB fueB 20.�e1 �bB? Keres - Panno, Los Angeles 1963. The game develops in the spir­ it of the Benko Gambit after 6 ..ie2 1B4

c5 7.dS (7.tLlf3 - see variation A) 7 ...bS B.cxbS (White's attempt to advance his pawn-centre back­ fires after B.eS dxeS 9.fxeS tLlfd7 1O.e6 fxe6 11.dxe6 tLleS 12.�xdB fudB 13.cxbS .txe6 14.tLlf3 tLld3 lS . .ixd3 �xd3? Olivares - D alin­ ger, Acasusso 1991.) B ... a6 9.eS (9.a4 axbS 1O . .ixbS .ia6 11 . .id2 .ixbS 12.axbS tLlbd7 13.tLlge2 e6 14.dxe6 fxe6 lS.0-0 �b6? Wre­ denberg - Johnson, Sweden 199B; 9.b6 �xb6 10.tLlf3 e6 11.dxe6 .ixe6 12.tLlgS tLlc6 13. tLlxe6 fxe6 14.0-0 tLld4 1S . .if3 �adB 16.r,!;>h1 dS 17.eS tLld7? Isbulatov - Shishkin, Minsk 1996; 9.bxa6 �aS 1O . .id2 .ixa6 11.tLlf3 .ixe2 12.�xe2 �a6 13.�xa6 tLlxa6 14.0-0 �tbB lS. �ab1 tLld7 16.b3 tLlc7 17.a4 �b7 1B. tLla2 fS 19.exfS tLlxdS 20.fxg6 hxg6 21.tLlgS �abB? Behm - Bischoff, Bad Wiessee) 9 ... dxeS 1O.fxeS tLlfd7 11.tLlf3 (11.e6 tLleS 12.tLlf3 tLlxf3 13 . .ixf3 axbS 14.d6 �a6; 14.exf7 �xf7 lS.0-0=) 11 ... tLlxeS 12.tLlxeS .ixeS 13.0-0 .ib7 14.bxa6 .ixa6 lS . .ixa6 tLlxa6? Karpeta Stanach, Krakow 200S. 6 c5 This is Black's most principled response. White's infantry is al­ ready away from his panzer regi­ ments and Black should better at­ tack it immediately, before it has the adequate piece-support. In this chapter we will have a look at some relatively seldom played variations and in the next chapter we will deal with the main line - 7.dS. • • •

3. tilc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 0 - 0 6. tilf.3 c5

A) 7.i.e2 B) 7.dxeS A) 7.J.e2 cxd4 8.tilxd4 tilc6 It turns out now that White has played f4 in a popular posi­ tion from the Maroczy system. As a result, he lags in development and his e4-pawn is not supported by its neighbour. Black has excel­ lent chances of seizing the initia­ tive. 9.J.e3 After 9.c!tJc2 i.e6 10.0-0 �cS, White's c4-pawn has become an attractive target for Black's attack. White cannot protect it with b2b3, because his knight on c3 will be hanging along the long diago­ nal (Black has the tactical strike I1Jxe4 up his sleeve.), as well as along the c-file, after a6 and bS. Now, White's hasty kingside attack can only cause additional problems for him: ll.fS i.d7 12.g4 h6 13.h4 c!tJeS 14.gS hxgS lS.hxgS c!tJh7 16.c!tJa3 (In the Chelyabinsk variation White has the dS-square as a compensation for the fact that his knight is on a3 ... ) 16 ...

c!tJc6 17.l:!b1 '!Wb6 18.�g2 i.eSoo the position remains sharp, but Black's game is evidently easier, at least because his king is safer. On the other hand, White must do something on the king­ side; otherwise, Black will have his hands free for queenside ac­ tions: 1l.i.e3 a6 12.Vffe 1 c!tJaS 13.b3 bS 14.cS c!tJb7 lS.b4, Yewdokimov - Grechkin, COIT. 1962, lS ... dxcS+ or 1l.l:!b1 a6 12 .b3 bS 13.cxbS axbS 14.i.f3, Jezek - Boleslavsky, Vienna 19S7, 14 . . . VffaS lS.i.d2 b4 16.c!tJa4 c!tJd7+ Boleslavsky. 9 i.g4 Black can try another version of the same idea: 9 ... c!tJg4!? 10. .bg4 .bd4 1l . .bd4 .bg4 12.V;\'d2 c!tJxd4 13.Vffxd4 eS ! (preparing the check on the h4-square) 14.fxeS Vffh4 lS.Vfff2 Vffxf2 16.Wxf2 dxeS 17.l:!ac1 l:!adS lS.c!tJdS i.e6 19.1:!hd1 fS 20.exfS gxfS= Uhlmann Fischer, Leipzig 1960. 1 0 .tilxc6 1O . .bg4 c!tJxg4 1l.Vffxg4 c!tJxd4 12 .V;\'d1 c!tJc6= Benko - Reshevsky, Los Angeles 1963. 10 i.xe2 11.c!tJxd8 hd1 12. lhdl But not 12.c!tJxb7, Winter Uhlmann, Hastings 1960, 12 ... i.c2+ 12 lUxd8 13.We2 gdc8 14. b3 14.cS c!tJg4 lS.cxd6 c!tJxe3 16. Wxe3 exd6 17.c!tJdS WfS lS.l:!d2 �c6 19.1:!f1 l:!eS 20.Wd3 fS 21.exfS �c5, draw, Malich - Stein, Berlin 1962. •••

• • •

•••

lSS

Chapter 17 14 b5 15.e5!? White can win a pawn, but his pieces will be isolated on the flank and Black will obtain an excellent compensation by ad­ vancing his pawns in the centre: lS.�xbS �xe4 16.@f3 fS 17.�xa7 !kb8 18J'!dS, Schroeder - Moe­ hring, Aschersleben 1963, 18 ... �c3 19J'!aS eS 20J:!e1 e4 21.@f2 dS 22.cxdS gd8f± 15 dxe5 16.fxe5 �g4 17. �xb5 a6 18.tOc3 he5 19.tOd5 tOxe3 2 0 .@xe3 ga700 - Black has sufficient counter arguments against his opponent's passed pawns. •••

•••

B) 7.dxc5 This move is absolutely not in the spirit of the Four Pawns At­ tack. After this exchange, there remains no venom in White's set­ up, including the move f2-f4.

worse, but a very complicated po­ sition with 7 WaS (Bl). •••

Bl) 7 Wa5 8 .td3 The developments are in fa­ vour of Black after 8.cxd6 �xe4 9.dxe7 ge8 1O . .id2 �xc3+ It looks dubious for White to try to acquire even more space on the queenside with: 8 . .id2?! WxcS 9.b4 (9.Wc1 �c6 1O . .ie2 .ig4 1l . .ie3 WaS 12.0-0 eS 13.fS gxfS 14.exfS hiS lS.�h4 .ig6 16.�fS hiS 17J�xfS �e7 18.gf2 �e8 19 . .ih6 fS 20.WgS Wd8 21.gafl gf6 22 .hg7 gg6 23.Wd2 �xg7+ Rotstein - Westerinen, Dresden 2006; 1O ... �g4! - This is strong­ er for Black. 1l.gf1 �d4 12.�xd4 hd4+ - White's king is stranded in the centre and he can hardly complete his development.) 9 ... Wb6 (This possibility can attract only players who would not mind a quick draw in the opening: 9 ... Wxb4 10.�a4 Wa3 1l . .ic1=) 1O . .id3 �c6 1l.�a4 Wc7 12.gc1 .ig4 13.h3 hf3 14.Wxf3, Chtcher­ bine - Zuriel, Buenos Aires 1999 and here, Black had to play 14 ... eS 15.0-0 exf4 16.Wxf4 �hS 17.%!ff2 .id4 18 . .ie3 �xb4, with an advan­ tage. 8 %!fxc5 It is worse for Black to play 8 ... �fd7? ! 9.cxd6! (In one of my games, my opponent was afraid to sacrifice his rook and he soon lost the battle for the dark squares in the centre: 9 . .id2 �xcS 1O . .ic2 �c6 1l.a3 %!fa6 12.�bS .ig4 13.gb1 • • •

.••

Black is faced with a choice here. He can enter an approxi­ mately equal endgame with 7 dxc5!? (B2), o r h e can preserve the queens and go to a slightly • • •

186

•

3. lLl c3 .!g7 4.e4 d6 5/4 0 - 0 6 . lLlfJ c5 lLld4 14.lLlbxd4 i.xd4 15.'1We2 �ac8 lLlc5= Vokac - Marholev, Prague 16.h3 i.xf3 17.gxf3 lLla4+ Gorbatow 2007; 12.�ac1 lLld7 13.V;Vf2 �c5 - Bologan, Novgorod 1995.) 9 . . . 14.'!b1 �ac8 15.lLld2 lLlb4 16.h3, i.xc3 1O.bxc3 �xc3 11.�d2 V;Vxa1 draw, Neuman - Havlik, Klatovy 12.dxe7 �e8 13.e5. Presently, 2007; 12.h3 i.xf3 13.�xf3 lLld7 White has only two pawns for 14.�f2 �a5 - White's pieces are the rook (Black can even recap­ misplaced) 12 . . .i.xf3 13.gxf3 ! ture one of them when he pleas­ Black would have been quite es.), but Black's queen has been happy in an endgame, but now it trapped on the a1-square, while becomes clear that his queen is his king's position has been com­ misplaced and his opponent can promised and there are almost exert a powerful pressure along no defenders around it. 13 ... lLlc6 the g-file. 13 . . . V;Va5 14.�h1 lLld7 15. 14.0-0 lLld4 15.lLlg5! (The idea of �ac1 �fc8 16J3g1, Heberla - Zhe­ sacrificing a rook is well familiar, rebukh, Pardubice 2007, 16 . . . �c5 but in the first game played in this 17.'!b1 �b4 (17 . . . lLla4 18.lLlxa4 line, White followed the wrong �xa4 19.f5t) 18.f5;!; - White has path: 15 . .!b2? ! lLlxf3 16.gxf3 �xa2, good attacking chances. Ljubojevic - van Der Wiel, Wijk 1 0 .!e3 �a5 11.gc1 aan Zee 1986, 17.�c3 lLlcS 18.e6 It would be reasonable for V;Vxb2 19.�xb2 lLlxd3 2 0.V;Vd2 i.xe6 White to protect his knight on c3 21.V;Vxd3 �xe7+) 15 ... lLle6 16.lLlxe6 in advance, in order to anticipate fxe6 17.i.xg6 ! hxg6 18 . .!a3 V;Vxf1 Black's counterplay connected 19.�xf1 - The material is equal with moves with his knight on f6. indeed, but White's kingside at­ In case of 11.0-0, Black has the tack will soon become decisive, resource 11 . . . lLlg4!?, for example: Vukadinov - Smirin, Winnipeg 12.'!d2 (12.�fc1 lLlxe3 13.�xe3 1997. .!g4 14.�ab1 e6 15.h3 i.xf3 16.�xf3 9.�e2 �c6 �ac8+; 12 . .!c1 lLld4 13.lLlxd4 i.xd4 The move 9 ....!g4, does not 14.�h1 V;Vh5 15.h3 �h4+; 15.g3 have any separate importance in e6 16.lLlb5 .!c5 17.V;Vg2 .!d7 18.h3 connection with V;Vh5: 10 . .!e3 �h5 .!c6+) 12 . . . �b6 13.�h1 V;Vxb2 14. 11.0-0 lLlc6 (11 ... �bd7 12J!ac1 �ab1 (14.lLlb5 ! ? a6 15.lLlc7 �b8 V;Va5 13.h3 i.xf3 14.l'!xf3 �fc8, 16.h3 lLlf6 17.�tb1 V;Va3 18.�b3 Sieciechowicz - B.Socko, War­ V;VcS+ and White cannot trap saw 2 006, 15.a3 V;Vd8 16.V;Vd2 lLlc5 Black's queen) 14 . . . V;Va3 15.lLlb5 17.'!c2;!;) 12 .V;Vf2 (12.�ad1 lLld7 13. V;Vc5 16.h3 a6. This is an important .!b1 �a5 14.h3 i.xf3 15.�xf3 i.xc3 intermediate move. After White's 16.bxc3 lLlb6 17 ..!f2 lLla4 18.V;Vc2 knight retreats, Black will not be �ac8 19.�d5 �a6 20.�b5 lLlb6 afraid that his queen might be 21.V;Ve2 lLla5 22 .'!d3 lLla4 23.�b4 trapped on the c5-square. (White •

187

Chapter 17 is better after 16 ... �h5 17.�e1 tLlf6 1B.tLlh2 tLleB 19.f5 .th6 20.tLlg4 ixd2 21.�xd2;!; Flear - Likavsky, Saint Vincent 2002.) 17.tLlc3 (17. tLlc7 tLld4 1B.tLlxd4 �xc7+) 17 ... tLlf6 1B.tLla4 �h5 19.tLlb6 l3bB 20.f5 gxf5 21.tLlxcB l3fxcB 22 .exfS tLld7. Black's knights have numerous good squares in the centre, while his opponent's pawn-structure has been compromised. His two bishops compensate this indeed, so the chances are approximate­ ly equal. 23 . .te4 tLlce5 24.ixb7 l3xc4= 1l J.g4 Black must get rid of this bish­ op. 12. 0 - 0 �d7 •••

�b4 (15 ... tLla4 16.tLlxa4 �xa4 17. l3f2 �b4 lB. �xb4 tLlxb4 19.c5 dxc5 20.l3xc5;!; Garcia Palermo Solana, Ponferrada 1991) 16.b3 as 17.tLld5 �xd2 1B.ixd2 e6 19.tLlc7 tLld4 20.tLlxaB tLlxf3 21.gxf3, Jones - Taimbert, Great Britain 19B9 and here Black should better give an intermediate check on d4 21.. . .!d4 22.l!lfl l3xaB= 13.l!lh1 �c5 14 . .tb1 l3fcB 15.h3 .!xf3 16.gxf3 tLla4 17.tLlxa4 �xa4 1B.h4 �b4 19.13f2 .td4 20.l3g2 �c5+ Giardelli - Crosa, Pinamar 2002. 13.l3fd1 �h5 14.'!b1 l3adB 15. l3d5 .!xf3 16.gxf3 �h3 17.l!lh1 tLlf6 1B.l3dd1 tLlh5 19.�f2 .th6 20.tLle2, Bjornsson - Unnarsson, Reykja­ vik 2005, 20 ... e5 2l.f5 ixe3 22. �xe3 I!lhB 23J!gl l3gB 24.l3cd1 tLlf6 25.l3g3 �h4 26.fxg6 l3xg6= 13 .bf'3 13 ... l3fcB 14.tLld2 tLlc5 (14 ... tLlb4 15 . .!b1 tLlc5, Capo - Elbaba, Turin 2006, 16.tLlb3 tLlxb3 17.axb3;!;) 15 . .!b1 .td7 (15 ... tLla4 16.tLlb3 �a6 17.tLlxa4 �xa4 1B.f5) 16.a3 �dB 17.e5;!; Elbaba - Flores, Turin 2006. 14.gxf3 14.�xf3 !? ixc3 (14 ... l3acB 15. a3) 15.l3xc3 �xa2 16.�f2 �a5 17.g4, Usachyi - Kostecky, corr. 19BB, 17 ... tLlc5 - White has some compensation, but not more. 14 �c5 15 .i.bl �a4 The trade of the knights is in favour of Black. It is somewhat worse for him to opt for 15 ... l3acB !? 16.e5 (16.tLld5 e6 17.b4 •••

13.�f2 White's queen can avoid the pin with 13.�d2, but Black can coun­ ter this in numerous fashions: 13 . . .ixf3 (13 ... tLlc5 14 . .tb1 l3fdB 15.b3 l3acB 16.h3 ixf3 17.l3xf3; 14 ... �b4 15.b3 as; 15.l3f2 .txf3 16. gxf3 �xc4 17.tLld5 �a4, Garcia Palermo - Flores, Buenos Aires 2001, 1B.b4;!;) 14.l3xf3 tLlc5 15 . .!b1 1BB

••.

•

3. lD c3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.J4 0 - 0 6. lDfJ c5 lDxb4 1B.lDe7 @hB 19.1DxcB l:!xcB 20.l:!fd1 Wfa3 21 ..id4 lDc6 22 ..txg7 @xg7co Grinev - V.Onischuk, Kiev 2005) 16 ...b6 17.exd6 exd6 1B.lDd5 l:!feB 19.f5 lDe7 20.l:!cdU

16.lDdl Tournament practice has con­ firmed the reasonability of this move. White wishes to preserve both knights with the idea to use them for an attack in the centre, or on the kingside. Black's game is much easier after the exchange on a4: 16.lDxa4 Wfxa4 17.l:!fd1 (17.b3 Wfa3 1B.l:!fd1 b6; 1B.l:!c2 a5 19.e5 a4 20 . .ic1 Wfc5 21 . .ie3 Wfa3 22 .i.c1, draw, Barrett - Wu, Great Britain 2007; 1B.c5 dxc5 19 . .txc5 Wfxc5 ! 20J�c5 .id4 21.l:!d1 ixf2 22.@xf2 l:!fdB 23.l:!cd5 e6 24.l:!xdB l:!xdB 25.l:!xdB lDxdB 26.@e3 @fB= Topalov - Kasparov, Linares 1994) 17 ... b6 (17 ... Wfb4 1B.b3 as 19.c5 l:!fdB 20.cxd6 l:!xd6 21.�d6 Wfxd6 22.e5;!;; 1B .. J�fdB 19.1:!d5 Wfa3 20.l:!cd1 .ib2 21.e5;!; Flear - Rouchouse, France 2004; 17 ... l:!acB 1B.b3 Wfa5 19.1:!d5 Wfc7 2 0 Jkd1 b6 21.a3 l:!fdB 22.h4 e6

23.l:!g5 Wfe7+±, Black is preparing the pawn-break in the centre d5, Topalov - Dolmatov, Elenite 1995; 23 ... lDe7! ? with the idea d5) 1B.@h1 l:!acB 19.h4 lDb4 (19 ... l:!c7 20.h5;!; I.Sokolov - Xie Jun, Breda 1999) 20.b3 Wfa3 21.l:!gl Wfb2 22. Wfxb2 hb2 23.l:!cd1 lDc6 24.h5 .ia3 25.f5 .ic5 26 . .txc5 bxc5 27.hxg6 fxg6= Zimmerman Morev, Lipetsk 2007. 16 . . .b6 16 .. .f5, Serov - Solovjov, St. Petersburg 2006, 17.exfS gxf5 1B.@h1 @hB 19.1:!gl e6 20.a3 l:!gB 21.b3 lDb6 22.Wfa2 lDd7 23.b4 WfdB 24.Wfd2;!; 16 ... l:!acB 17.@h1 l:!feB 1B.l:!gl lDc5 19.h4 Wfc7 20.Wfd2 lDe6 21. lDc3 lDed4 22.Wff2 Wfd7 23.l:!g3 .if6 24.Wfh2 e6 25.h5;!; - Black has managed to hold the position, but White has prepared a dangerous attack, Gabriel - Hausrath, Ger­ many 1997.

17.f5! Now, Black's queen has no ac­ cess to the h5-square. If 17.a3, then 17 ... Wfh5 (It looks 1B9

Chapter 17 like this is the best square for the queen, because it would only im­ pede the maneuvers of his other pieces on the queenside.) 1B.b4 a5 19.b5 tLlbB ! ? (19 . . . tLldB 20.@h1 tLlc5, Kapnisis - Gelashvili, Ka­ vala 2007, 21.tLlc3 e6 22.tLle2;!;) 20.@h1 (20.hb6 tLlxb6 2U�fxb6 .th6 22.�e3 �h4+) 20 . . . tLld7 21.f5 tLlac5 22.tLlc3 e6 23.tLle2 .th6 24. tLlf4 hf4 25.hf4 tLle5 26J;fd1 l:!adBoo - White can hardly protect his weaknesses. 17... �ac8 18 .td2 �c5 19. .i.e3 Va5= - Both sides should probably comply here with the repetition of moves. •

B2) 7 ... dxc5

9 ... tLlh5 ! ? - 1O . .tb1 �xd1 11.tLlxd1, D.Fridman - Szelag, Warsaw 200B, 11 . . . tLlh5 ! 12.0-0 .i.e6 13. b3 f6f±) 9 ... tLlh5 ! 10 ..i.e3 (10. �e2 .tg4; 1O.e5 f6 ! 11.exf6 hf6 12.tLld5 .tg4 13.tLlxf6 l:!xf6+) 10 . . . .td4 (This move changes abrupt­ ly the character of the fight.) 11.hd4 cxd4 12.tLle2 .i.g4 13.e5 (Otherwise, Black will occupy the centre himself.) 13 . . . �b6 14.�b3 �xb3 15.axb3 tLlb4 16.l:!ad1 l:!adB 17.h3 hf3 1B.l:!xf3 tLlg7 19 ..tb1 tLle6 20.f5 tLlc5= White's bishop on b1 is completely out of action and Black will soon seize the ini­ tiative. 8 ... �xd8 9.e5 tLle8 It is bad for Black to opt for 9 . . . tLlh5 1O . .te3 tLlc6 11.g3 ( l 1 . .te2 b6 12.0-0 f6 13.tLld5 .i.g4 14.h3 ; 11 ... tLlb4 12.@f2 b6 13.l:!hdU) 11 . . . .tg4 12 . .te2 tLlb4 13.@f2 tLlc2 14.l:!ad1 tLlxe3 15.@xe3. White has consoli­ dated his position in the centre, while Black's knight on h5 is safe indeed, but it is totally misplaced. 1 0 .i.e3 1O.tLld5 tLlc6 11 ..te3 e6 12.tLlc3 b6 13.l:!d1 .tb7 14 . .te2 f6 15.exf6 hf6f± Coves - Almenar, Manises 2003. 1 0 ... b6 11 . .i.e2 Black should not be afraid of 11.tLld5 tLlc6 12. 0-0-0 .tb7 13 ..td3 (13 . .te2 e6 14.tLlc3 l:!xd1 15.l:!xd1 l:!dB 16.l:!xdB tLlxdB 17.a3 tLlc6 lB . g3 @fB 19.tLlg5 h6 20.tLlge4 @e7 21.tLlb5 f6 22.exf6 tLlxf6 23.tLlxf6 hf6 24 . .tf3 a6 25.tLla7 @d7= Maksimenko - Cherednichenko, •

8.'I'xd8 Black does not have too many problems after B . .te3 b6 9 . .td3 tLlg4 1O.�e2, Ube - Garcia Millan, Formigal 2002, 1O . . . tLlxe3 11.�xe3 .td4 12.�e2 tLlc6. Naturally, White can preserve the queens - B . .td3, but Black has a good game then too: B ... tLlc6 9.0-0 (9 ..te3 tLlg4 ! ; 9.e5 tLlb4 190

3. lLlc3 !g7 4.e4 d6 514 0-0 6. lLlfJ c5 Legnica 2005) 13 ... e6 and White's knight must retreat: 14.lLlc3 lLld4! lS.hd4 i.xf3 16.gxf3 �d4 17.lLle2 �d7 18.!e4 �ad8 19.�xd7 �xd7 20.!c6 gd8 2 1.he8 �xe8 22.gd1 f6 !f± - Black will have no prob­ lems after he activates his bishop, Kazhgaleyev - Kovalev, Istanbul 2000.

lLld6 20.lLlxd8 gxd8 2 1.!d3 gf8 22.gac1 !h6+ Jianu - Petrenko, Bucharest 2000. 12.�f2 f6 13.exf6 lLlxf6 14.h3 !fS lS.gad1 gac8 16.ghg1 !c2 17.gxd8 gxd8 18.gel !fS 19.9d1, HH'lbH, Phillips - McDonald­ Ross, Oxford 1967. 12 f6 13.gad1

1l lLlc6 Black plans to push f6, but he can simply develop his pieces as well: 11 ... !b7 12 .�f2 lLlc6 13.ghdl lLlc7 14.g4 (14.gd2 lLle6 lS.�ad1 gxd2 16.gxd2 gd8 17.�xd8 lLlexd8 18.lLldS lLle6 19.94 f6 20.exf6 exf6 21.!d3 �f7= Capo - Alvarez, Cali 2007) 14 . . . gxd1 lS.gxd1 gd8 16.gxd8 lLlxd8 17.a3 f6 18.b4 cxb4 19.axb4 fxeS 20.lLlxeS lLlf7= Capo - Waldo, Morelia 2007. 12. 0 - 0 12.a3 f6 13.lLldS !e6 14.0-0 fxeS lS.lLlgS hdS 16.cxdS lLld4 17.hd4 exd4 18.fS gxfS 19.1Lle6

13 .te6 Black undermines the pawn­ wedge on eS, he controls the eS­ square and the pawn-structure is symmetrical. It is not surprising that White's initiative evaporates gradually. 14.lLld5 fxe5 15.fxe5 .bd5 16.cxd5 lLlxe5 17.!g5 !f6 18. lLlxe5 .bg5, Velvart - Nagy, Hungary 1990, 19.1Llf7 - This is White's last tactical trick, but it is sufficient only for a draw. 19 .te3 2 0 .�h1 gdc8 21.l:�d3 !d4 22.lLlh6 �g7 23.gf7 �xh6 24.gh3 =

•••

•••

••.

•••

191

Chapter 18

1.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 j,g7 4.e4 d6 S.f4 0 - 0 6.�f3 c5 7.dS

This is no doubt White's most principled move. He has placed his four pawns in the centre, in order to keep there his beautiful pawn-chain. 7 . . . e6

A) 8.dxe6 B) 8.�e2 There arise interesting com­ plications after 8.eS!? dxeS 9.fxeS �g4 10.�gS (W . .tf4?! exdS ll.cxdS �d7 12 . .te2 �dxeS 13.ygd2 c4 14. �xeS �xeS 15.0-0 .tfS=F Yepez - Eliskases, Tel Aviv 1964) 10 ... ygaS 1l ..te2 (White must give up a pawn here smiling; otherwise, it would be much worse for him: 192

1l.yge2, Holt - Thomas, Mel­ bourne 1992, 1l ...exdS 12.cxdS �xeS 13.�xeS ge8 14 . .tf4 �d7+) 1l ... exdS 12.cxdS and here, in­ stead of the move (played in fact mostly between amateurs ... ) 12 ... �xeS, we will analyze 12 ... c4!?, with the idea to open the a7-g1 di­ agonal, where soon White's king will appear. There might follow: 13.0-0 h6 14 . .tf4, Zabala - Garcia Ruido, Los Barrios 1995, (14 . .te7 ge8 1S.d6 .te6 and Black seized the initiative in the game Povah Kruppa, Oerebro 1995.) 14 ... ygb6 1S.YGd4 (1S.l!Jh1! ? �d7oo) 15 ... ygxd4 16.�xd4 �xeS 17.heS heS 18.�f3 .tg7 19.hc4 �d7, with an approximately equal endgame. In case of 8 ..td3 exdS 9.cxdS, Black begins an immediate queenside action - 9 ...bS !?, with a good counterplay, for exam­ ple: W.eS (10.0-0 c4 1l . .tc2 b4 12.�a4 ge8 13.ge1 �a6 14.h3 ygaS 1S . .td2 .td7 16.a3 ha4 17.ha4 �e4 Oud - Stellwagen, Vlissin­ gen 2004; W.hbS �xe4 1l.�xe4 ygaS 12.l!Jf2 ygxbS 13.�xd6 ygb6 14.�c4 yga6 1S.yge2 .td7 16 . .te3 .tbS 17.ghc1 ge8, draw, A.Zaitsev

3.i'i1c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 0 - 0 6. &tJIJ c5 7.d5 e6 - Bogdanovic, Sochi 1967) 10 . . . dxeS l1.fxeS &tJg4 12.hbS &tJxeS 13.0-0 i.g4 14 . .te2 i.xf3 lS.gxf3 (lS . .bf3 &tJxf3 16.'lWxf3 &tJd7) 15 . . . fS 16.i.e3 &tJbd7 17.f4 &tJ f7 lS.i.b5 !!eS 19.i.f2 &tJd6 20 . .b:d7 'lWxd7 2 1..b:cS !!abS� Platonov - Geller, Kiev 1955.

A) 8.dxe6

S . . .fxe6 Black's alternative here is S . . . he6 9.i.d3 &tJc6. He must pre­ serve his light-squared bishop, since he needs it to control the dS-square. (Naturally, after the exchange on f3, Black will deploy his knight on the d4-outpost, but this is not sufficient for equality, because his second knight does not have a good square and the knight on d4 closes the diagonal of the dark-squared bishop. For example: 9 . . . i.g4 10.0-0 &tJc6 11.h3 i.xf3 12.'iNxf3 &tJd4 13.'iNf2 a6 14.i.d2 b5 lS.Bael b4 16.&tJe2 . This move is played with the idea to trade Black's wonderful cen-

tralized knight and not the other one, which has no good perspec­ tives at all. 16 . . . &tJxe2 17J�:e2 &tJd7 lS.i.e3;t West - Solomon, Mel­ bourne 1995. If Black manages to transfer his knight to d4, then he will have a very good position. He needs however three tempi to do it and in a sharp situation like this each tempo is vital.) 1O.f5 (10.0-0 &tJaS 11.'lWe2 !!eS 12.!!e1 &tJc6 13.'lWfl. i.g4 14.h3 i.xf3 lS.'lWxf3 &tJd4 16. 'lWf2 a6 17.i.e3 &tJd7+± Bernasek - R.Mamedov, Pardubice 2007) 1O . . ..td7 11.0-0, Bukhman - Ka­ rasev, Leningrad 1967, 11 . . . 'lWb6 12.i.f4 'lWxb2 13.&tJa4 'lWa3 14 . .tc1 'iNb4 1S.i.d2= 9.i.d3 9.eS dxe5 1O.'lWxdS !!xdS 11. fxeS (11.&tJxeS &tJfd7 12.&tJxd7 hc3 13.bxc3 Bxd7 14.i.e3 b6 lS.!!d1 Bxdl 16.mxd1 &tJc6 17.i.d3 i.a6=i= Karasev - Nicevski, Polanica Zdroj 1974) 11 . . . &tJg4 12.i.g5 Bd7 13.&tJe4 &tJxeS 14.&tJxc5 &tJxf3, draw, G.Kuzmin - Bilek, Reggio Emilia 1977. 9.i.e2 &tJc6 10.0-0 b6 11.&tJgS (11.mh1 i.b7 12 .i.e3 'iNe7 13.'lWd2 gadS l4.Bael mhS lS.f5 exfS 16. exfS gxfS 17.i.g5 'lWd7 lS.i.d3, Pi­ ket - Nunn, Wijk aan Zee 1992, lS . . . &tJb4 19.i.b1 BdeS+±) 11 . . . &tJd4 12 .i.d3 'iNe7 13.'lWel i.d7 14.i.d2 BadS lS.mhl &tJhS 16.'lWdl i.f6+± Fridman - Conquest, Liverpool 200S. 9 &tJc6 It is interesting for Black to play 9 . . . eS, but this move looks a •••

193

Chapter 18 bit unnatural, because he closes deliberately his dark-squared bishop and he weakens the dS­ square. 10.0-0 - This is White's inost flexible move. He evacuates his king from the centre, before making the decision about the pawn-structure. (We must have a look at White's alternatives: 1O.fxeS dxeS 11.0-0 ltlc6 12 .i.gS h6 13.i.h4 �d6 14.ltldS gS 1S.i.e1 i.g4 16.i.c3 ltld4= Dokhoian Smirin, Sverdlovsk 1987; lO.fS gxfS 1l.exfS dS. This move has be­ come possible, since White's king has been stranded in the centre. The line 12.ltlxdS ltlxdS is in favour of White: 13.cxdS e4 14.he4 ge8 15. 0-0 gxe4, Krause - Mattern, St. Ingbert 1991, 16.ltlgS; correct is 12 . . . e4 13.ltlxf6 hi6 14.he4 ge8 1S.�e2 hiS 16.i.dS Wh8 17. i.e3 �aS 18.wf2 ltlc6�) 10 . . . ltlc6 (1O . . . exf4 1l.hf4 ltlc6 12.i.e2;!;) 1l.f5 ltld4 12 .fxg6 (12.ltlgS - see 9 . . . ltlc6) 12 . . . hxg6 13.ltlh4 ltlg4 14.gxf8 hi8 1S.'IWe1 Wh7 16.ltldS i.e7, Turov - B.Socko, Kusadasi 2006, 17.ltlxe7 �xe7 18.�g3 'lWg7;!; 10.0-0

194

1 0 tDd4 It is also interesting for Black to try here 1O . . . a6 1l.i.d2 (White's attempt to play hazardously, sac­ rificing material backfires: 1l.Wh1 gb8 12.tDgS 'lWe7 13.fS exfS 14.exfS hiS 1S.hiS gxfS 16.ltldS ltlxdS 17.'lWxdS wh8 18.i.f4 i.eS+ Inkiov - Antic, Nis 1994) 1l ... gb8 (ll ... ltld4 12 .�e1 tDxf3 13.gxf3 i.d7 14. gd1 i.c6 1S.gfl ltlhS 16.Wh1 bS 17. cxbS axbS 18.ltlxbS hb2 19.i.c4 hbS 20.hbS i.d4 21.fS; 12 . . . ltld7 13.gd1 ltlxf3 14.grl3 b6 1S.i.e3 i.b7; 13 . . . ltlb8 14.ltlgS ltlbc6 1S.eS h6 16.ltlf3 dxeS, Turov - Nijboer, Kusadasi 2006, 17.'lWg3;!;) 12 .'lWe1 ltlhS 13.fS ltleS 14.i.e2, Polajzer Rakic, Ljubljana 1981, 14 . . . ltlxf3 1S.i.xf3 exfS 16.exfS i.d4 17.wh1 gxfS+ 1l.tDg5 11. Wh1 i.d7 12.i.d2 i.c6 13.ltlgS h6 14.ltlf3 ltlhS 1S.ltlxd4 cxd4 16.ltlbS 'lWh4 17.i.e1 'lWf6= Yuneev - Fedorov, St. Petersburg 1994 1l.i.d2 i.d7 12.'lWe1 ltlhS 13. ltlxd4 cxd4 14.ltle2 eS 1S.b4 exf4 16.ltlxf4 ltlxf4 17.hi4 i.eS 18.�g3 �e7= Estevez - Ostojic, Kec­ skemet 1977. 1l.ltlxd4 cxd4 12.ltlbS ltle8 13. i.d2, Turova - Nebolsina, Sochi 2007, 13 ... a6 14.ltla3 ltlf6 1S.ltlc2 �b6 16.b4 eS= 1l.'lWe1 ltlhS 12.ltlxd4 (12. ltlh4 i.d7 13.fS i.c6 14.fxg6 gxf1 15. wxf1 hxg6+ and the pawn is un­ touchable) 12 ... cxd4 13.ltle2 i.d7 14.g4 ltlf6 1S.gS ltlg4 16.'lWg3 ltle3 17.he3 dxe3 18.gab1 �aS, with a • • •

3. ltJ c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 0 - 0 6 . ltJj3 c5 7.d5 e6 double-edged position, Spyrou Mecklenburg, Germany 1997. 1l e5 12.f5 h6 13.ltJh3 13.fxg6 hxg5 14.hg5 i.g4 15. hf6 lMfd7 16.hg7 hd1 17.hfB gxfB 1B.gaxd1 lMfg4 19.1tJd5 @g7 20.h3 gxf1 21.gxfl, Toporov Chehlov, St. Petersburg 199B, 21...lMfxg6oo 13 gxf5 14.exfS e4! ? 1 4. . .b 5 15.i.e3 (15.ltJxb5 ! ?) 15 ... bxc4 16.hc4 @hB 17 ..ixd4 cxd4 1B.ltJd5 i.a6=F Christiansen Kasparov, Moscow 19B2. 15.ltJxe4 .bf5 16.ltJxf6 lMfxf6 17 . .bf5 ltJxfS 18.ltJf4, Pajeken - Shevelevich, Hamburg 2002, (18.�d5 gt7 19.i.f4 lMfd4 2 0.lMfxd4 hd4 21.@h1 hb2 22.gad1 i.d4+ Lampen - Zivkovic, Kallithea 2 00B) 18 l:'!ae8 19.1td5 1tffl The d5-square is not so impor­ tant here. Black controls the long diagonal and the d4-outpost and he has the edge. • • •

•••

• • •

-

B) 8.i.e2 exd5

9.cxd5

In case of 9.e5, Black can use the e4-square as a base for his pieces: 9 . . . ltJe4 ! ? (The more pru­ dent move 9 . . .ltJfd7 also leads to an advantage for Black: 1O.cxd5 dxe5 11.fxe5 ltJxe5; 11.0-0 exf4 - 11 . . . a6 12.a4 b6 13.i.c4 i.b7 14. 1tb3� - 12.hf4 ltJf6 13.�d2 i.f5 14.d6 ltJc6 15.i.c4 �b6 16J!ae1 �b4+; 13.�b3 a6 14.a4 ltJbd7 15.a5 bS 16.axb6 ltJxb6 17.ltJeS, Kirillov - Zhidkoy, Riga 196B, 17 . . . ltJbxdS 1B.gad1 1tb6+) 1O.ltJxdS (10.cxdS ltJxc3 11.bxc3 ltJd7 and White has no more resources to preserve his centre: 12.0-0 dxeS 13.fxeS ltJxeS=F Li Zunian - Gheorghiu, Dubai 19B6) 10 . . . ltJc6 11.0-0 (11. lMfc2 f5 12.0-0 dxeS 13.fxeS ltJxeS 14.i.f4 ltJc6 lS.gad1 gS 16.ltJc7? ltJd4 17.ltJxgS 1txc7 and White re­ signed, Wesseln - Vogt, Germany 1992; 16.i.e3 g4 17.ltJd2 ltJd4+; 11. i.d3 f5 12.exf6 ltJxf6 13. 0-0 ltJxdS 14.cxdS ltJd4 lS.ltJgS lMff6 and now, White's hasty attack would not work 16.ltJxh7? - he should better opt for 16.ltJe4 with mu­ tual chances - 16 . . . @xh7 17.�hS i.h6 1B.g4, because of 1B . . .i.fS ! 19.hfS ltJxf5 2 0.�h3 'Wd4-+ San Segundo - Howell, Gausdal 19B6) 11 ... dxeS 12 .fxeS ltJxeS 13.i.f4 ltJc6, Friesen - Zozulia, Vlissin­ gen 2 00S. White could have won the exchange here - 14.ltJc7 gbB lS.ltJdS hb2 16.gb1 i.g7 17.hbB ltJxbB+, but Black would be better with his two pawns and a beauti­ ful dark-squared bishop. 9 i.g4 • • •

19S

Chapter 18 Black's light-squared bishop is not so useful sometimes in the King's Indian pawn-structures. This is particularly true in the Benoni defence. After the ex­ change on f3, Black has two pos­ sible plans. The first is to deploy his knights on c7 and d7 and he thus prevents eS and prepares bS. His second plan is connected with the set-up �e8, tilbd7, c4, tileS. In the next chapter, we will analyze another very popular line for him - 9 ... �e8. 10.0-0 White's pawn-break in the centre cannot be effective, at least because his king has not castled yet: 1O.eS dxeS 11.fxeS .hf3 12. ixf3 tilfd7 13.e6 tileS 14.0-0 ! ? (14.exf7 fuf7 lS.0-0 tilbd7 16.d6 tilxf3 17.�xf3 � 18.%Yxf3 %Yb6+; 16.tile4 tilxf3 17.� �xf3 18. %Yxf3 tileS+ Knezevic - Gligoric, Yugoslavia 1970) 14 ... fxe6 lS.Ae3 tilxf3 16.� � 17.%Yxf3 exdS 18. tilxdS tilc6 19.ixcS @h8= Borg - Kovacevic, Panormo 1998. The plan with 1O.tild2, looks a bit artificial: 1O ...ixe2 11.%Yxe2 �e8 12.0-0 tila6 13.'1Wd3 (13.eS dxeS 14.fS e4!+; 13.YNf3 tilb4 14.fS tilc2 lS.�b1 tild4 16.YNd3 YNe7+) 13 ... tilb4 14.%Yb1 tilg4 lS.a3 Ad4 16.@h1 tilxh2 ! !-+ Zaric - Ciric, Yugoslavia 1968. 1O.h3 ixf3 11.ixf3 tilbd7 12. 0-0 - see variation B2 (10.0-0 tilbd7 11.h3 .hf3 12 . .hf3). 10 tilbd7 •••

196

BI) 11.l1�el B2) 1l.h3 11.@h1 �e8 12.tild2 ixe2 13. %Yxe2 a6 14.a4 YNc7 lS.aS �ab8 16.�a3 h6 17.tilc4 bS 18.axb6 tilxb6? Rogers - Hulak, Nis 1985. After 11.a4, Black is not forced to play a6, but he can go imme­ diately with his knight to b3 and d3, after c4 and tilcS: 11 ... �e8 12.h3 .hf3 13 ..hf3 c4 14.Ae3 YNaS lS.Ad4 tilcS 16.eS tilfd7 17.e6 fxe6 18.dxe6 (18.ixg7 @xg7, Kahn Kayar, Budapest 2006, 19.YNd4 eSoo) 18 ... tilxe6 19.ixg7 @xg7 20. @h1, Hausner - Vogt, Czecho­ slovakia 1978, 20 ... �ad8 21.tilbS tilf6= The exchange of the light­ squared bishops after 11.tild2 is obviously in favour of Black: 11 ... ixe2 12.YNxe2 �e8 13.YNf3 �c8 14.tilc4 tilb6 ! (Black exchanges pieces favourably and he gradual­ ly obtains an advantage.) lS.tilxb6 (lS.tilxd6 %Yxd6 16.eS YNd7 17.exf6 Axf6+ Moreto - Timoshenko, Lorca 2007) IS ... %Yxb6 16.fS YNb4

3. ltJ c3 1l.g7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 0 - 0 6 . ltJj3 c5 7.d5 e6 17.fxg6 (17.a3 VNc4 1B.1l.g5 ltJxe4 19.fxg6 fxg6 20.VNt7 hB 21.ltJxe4 �xe4 22.1l.f6 .bf6 23.�xf6 gB=) 17 ... fxg6 1B . .ig5 l:UB+ Khaghani Babaev, Lahijan 2005.

B1) 1l.gel!? ge8 1l ... ltJeB 12.h3 .ixf3 13 . .bf3 a6 14.a4 ltJc7 15.1l.e3 13bB 16.a5 b5 17. axb6 l3xb6 1B.�d2 (18.e5, Khmel­ niker - Stellwagen, Vlissingen 2005, 1B . . . l3xb2 19.1tJa4 13b4 20. exd6 ltJb5+) 1B ... �bB 19.13a2 ltJb5 20.ltJa4 13b7 21.e5 dxe5 22 .d6 ltJd4 23.hb7 VNxb7 24.ltJc3 VNc6= Ger­ ard Woodward, Budapest 2005. 12.h3 12 .1l.f1 a6 (12 ... 13cB 13.h3 .ixf3 14.VNxf3 a6 15.a4 c4 16 . .ie3 ltJc5 17.1l.f2, Jobava - Nebolsina, Be­ nidorm 2007, 17...VNb6+ - After the retreat of White's bishop to f2, Black's queen is totally dominant on the queenside.) 13.a4 ltJh5 14.h3 (14.g3 f5 15.1l.e2 hc3 16.bxc3 13xe4 17.ltJg5 l3xe2 1B.13xe2, Khmelniker - David, Dresden 2007, 1B .. . h6 19.1tJe6 VNa5 20.c4 �c3+) 14 .. . .ixf3 15.VNxf3 VNh4 16.13d1 (16.1l.e3 .id4) 16 ... �g3 17 . .ie2 .id4 1B.h1 �xf3 19 ..ixf3 hc3 20.bxc3 ltJg3 21.h2 ltJxe4+ Khmelniker - Cvi­ tan, Dresden 2007. 12 .bt'3 13 .bt'3 (diagram) 13 VNa5 Garry Kasparov played here 13 ... 13cB and he equalized, but later White's play was improved: 14.h1 (14.1l.e3 b5! 15.ltJxb5 ltJxe4 16.he4 13xe4 17.ltJxd6 l3xe3 -

• • •

•••

•

1B.l3xe3 1l.d4 19.VNf3 13bB ! = No­ gueiras - Kasparov, Barcelona 19B9) 14 ... a6 15.a4 VNc7 (15 ... c4 16.1l.e3 ltJc5 17.hc5 l3xc5 1B.e5 dxe5 19.fxe5 ltJd7 20.e6 ltJe5 21. ext7 xt7 22 . .ie2;l;) 16.13e2 VNbB 17.a5 (White maintains a slight edge after 17.g4 h6 1B.a5 b5 19.axb6 VNxb6 20.VNa4) 17... 13e7 1B. .ie3 13ceB 19 . .if2 1l.h6 20.VNc1 b5 21.axb6 VNxb6 22 .1l.h4 13bB 23.g4;l; Banikas - Arakhamia-Grant, Ika­ ria 1995. 14.1l.e3 14.a4 c4 15.1l.e3 ltJc5 16.hc5 VNxc5 17.h1 ltJd7 1B.13c1 VNb4 19. 13e2 13acB 20 . .ig4 13cdB+t Forestier - Billon, Pau 200B . White can also try to squeeze his opponent on the kingside with 14.g4 and Black should bet­ ter counter this with 14 ... h6 15.h4 c4 16.g5 (or 16.VNe2 ltJc5 17.VNxc4 ltJfxe4 1B.b4 �dB+) 16 ...hxg5 17. hxg5 ltJh7 1B.1l.e3 (lB ..ig4 ltJc5 19.e5 ltJd3 !+ Barrett - Povah, Bir­ mingham 2001) 1B ... ltJc5 19.hc5 VNxc5 20.g2 b5 21.13c1 as 22.VNe2 a400 Vaisser - David, France 1997. 197

Chapter 18 14 . . .b5 It deserves attention for Black to play here 14 . . . c4! ? , for example: 15.�hl ll'lc5 16.hc5 'i;¥xc5 17. e5 dxe5 18.fxe5 ll'ld7 19.e6 ll'le5 20. exf7 ll'lxf7 21.ll'le4 �b4 22.d6 l:!ad8oo Cebalo - Timoscenko, Ita­ ly 2 003. 15.a3 lLlb6 15 .. J!ac8 16.�hl ll'lb6 17.i.f2 ll'lfd7 18.'1Wc2 a6 19.i.g4 h5 20. hd7 ll'lxd7 21.e5 ! ? dxe5 2 2 .f5 'i;¥b6 23.l:!adl, Cebalo - Smi­ rin, Solin 1999, 23 . . . �f6 24.ll'le4 'i;¥xf5+. It is better for White to continue with 16.i.f2, not allow­ ing his opponen's knight to go to b6, but Black can ensure another square for his knight with: 16 . . . h6 (16 . . . a6 17.i.g3 ll'lb6 18.e5±; 16 . . . c 4 17.a4) 17.i.g3 ll'lh7 - White has a slight edge, but Black's position is solid enough. 16.e5 16.i.f2 ll'lc4 17.'i;¥c2 (17.e5 ll'ld7) 17 . . . ll'ld7 18.a4 (l8.e5 dxe5 19.d6 l:!ac8 2 0.i.b7 l:!cd8 21.i.c6 'i;¥b6 2 2.hb5 ll'lxd6 23.hd7 �d7 24. b4 'i;¥a6 - Black is not worse at all; 18.i.e2 l:!ab8 19.a4 b4 2 0.ll'ldl ll'la3 ! ; 20.ll'lb5 ll'lxb2 21.ll'lxd6 b3 2 2 .'i;¥bl ll'lxa4 23.l:!a3 l:!ed8= Ceba10 - Mohr, Rabac 2003; 2 0.hc4 bxc3 21.b3 a6 2 2.l:!ecl ll'lb6=F Ko­ zul - Nunn, Wijk aan Zee 1991.) 18 ... b4 19.1l'lb5 a6 2 0.'i;¥xc4 axb5 21.axb5 (21.'i;¥xb5 'i;¥xb5 22.axb5 hb2 23.l:!a6 l:!xa6 24.bxa6 l:!a8 25.i.e2 f6 26.l:!bl i.c3=F) 21...�xal 22.�al �aI 23.�h2 hb2 , Slad­ kov - S.Makarov, Dagomys 2004, 198

24.e5 he5 ! ? This is a very at­ tractive piece-sacrifice for Black. He annihilates his opponent's potentially dangerous pawns and he seizes the initiative. (It might be even stronger for Black to play here 24 . . . ll'lb6 25.'1Wd3 i.c1.) 25.fxe5 ll'lxe5 26.�b3 l:!a3 27.'i;¥bl ll'lxf3 28.gxf3 l:!b8oo - His con­ nected passed pawns are very powerful and White's king is bare. On the other hand, he should not underestimate the might of the queen in this open position, since it can be perfectly helped by the dark-squared bishop. The pros­ pects are balanced in this sharp position.

16 ... lLlfd7! Black should not be in a hurry to open the game. 17.e6 lLlc4! 18.exd7 18.i.d2 ll'ldb6 19.b4 cxb4 20. exf7 �xf7 21.ll'le4 �e4 2 2.hb4 �el 23.�xel l:!e8 24.'i;¥xe8 �xe8 25.l:!el �f8 26.ha5 ll'lxa5 27.l:!c1 ll'lac4-+ Colson - Parmentier, Paris 2006. 18.�b3 ll'lxe3 19.exd7 l:!e7, Bro-

3. 0,c3 ig7 4.e4 d6 5/4 0 - 0 6. 0,}3 c5 7.d5 e6 mann Manthey - Wichmann, Germany 2001, 20J'!e2 gxd7 21. gae1 id4+ 18 ... gxe3 19.9xe3 0,xe3 2 0 .ti'e2 2 0.ti'd3 b4 21.0,b5, van Unen - Krebs, Email 2002, 21 . . .bxa3 22.0,xa7 ti'xa7 23.gxa3 ti'b8+ 2 0 gd8 2V.i)h2 21.0,xb5 gxd7 22 .ti'xe3 �xb5 23.'iNe8 if8� 21 id4 22.�xb5 gxd7 Black has not only neutralized his opponent's passed d-pawn, but he has remained with a very advantageous material ratio. 23.b4 ti'd8 24.�xd4 cxd4 25.gc1 ti'f6+ Ludden - De Vilder, Wijk aan Zee 1999. • • •

•••

B2) 1l.h3

White postpones the develop­ ment of his rook on e1 with the idea that after e5, it may be better placed on d1. 1l .bf'3 12 .bf'3 ge8 I considered before that the immediate move 12 . . . c4! ? was very strong, but after some analysis • • •

•

with "Rybka" I came to the conclu­ sion that Black should better avoid it: 13.ie3 'iNa5 14.�e2 (14.id4 0,c5 15.e5 0,fd7 16.e6 fxe6 17.ixg7 @xg7 18.dxe6 �xe6 19.'iNxd6 'iNc5 20.'iNxc5 0,dxc5=) 14 . . . gac8 15.g4 �c5 and here in case of 16.g5 �fd7 17.'iNxc4, he would have the powerful tactical strike 17 . . . �xe4! ! 18.'iNxe4 gfe8 19.'iNa4 (19. 'iNd3 ixc3 20.ig4 ixb2 21.ixd7 gc3 22.'iNd2 gexe3 23.'iNxb2 gg3 24.@h1 (24.@h2 'iNc7+) 24 . . . �xd5 25.@h2 f5! 26.gxf6 �h5-+) 19 . . . �xa4 20.0,xa4 gxe3 21.ig4 gd8 (21.. .id4 2 2.@h1 gc7 23.gac1 gxc1 24.gxc1 f5 25.gxf6 0,xf6 26.gc8 @g7 27.gc7 @h6+) 22 .gae1 gxe1 23.gxe1= Potterat - Al-Modiahki, Biel 2007. But after 16.e5 ! Black is in trouble: 16 . . . 0,fd7 (16 . . . dxe5 17.fxe5 0,fd7 18.e6 fxe6 19.dxe6 0,xe6 20.ixb7 �c7 21.�g2;!;) 17.e6 0,b6 18.f5 ixc3 19.bxc3 �xc3 20. ih6 gfe8 21.ig2t and the final position is so pathetic for Black, that he should not see it even in his worst nightmares. 13.�c2 In case White is in a hurry to begin active actions on the king­ side with 13.g4, Black's defensive resources are sufficient: 13 ... h6 14.h4 h5! (He exploits his oppo­ nent's lag in development and his vulnerable king and he opens the position.) 15.g5 (15.gxh5 0,xh5 16.ixh5 �xh4! + Otano - Otero, Cuba 1997) 15 ... 0,g4 16.ixg4 hxg4 17.ge1 (17.'iNxg4 ixc3 18.bxc3 gxe4 19.id2 �e7 2 0.gae1 �b6oo 199

Chapter 18 Bach - Trisic, Hamburg 1996) 17 ... c4 18 ..ie3 hc3 19.bxc3 �e4 20.¥;Yxg4 ¥;Ye7 21 ..tf2 tDc5= Kouat­ ly - Kindermann, Trnava 1987. 13.'it>hl b5 14.¥;Yc2 b4 15.tDdl �c8 (15 ... tDh5 16.hh5 gxh5) 16. tDe3 c4 17.tDg4, Krcmar - Felix, Karvina 1989, 17 ... c3=F 13 e4 14 .te3 Black must decide now how to organize his queenside actions. •••

•

14 ¥;YaS His alternative is a pawn-as­ sault: 14 ... a6! ? 15.�ael b5 (15 ... �c8 16.¥;Yf2 h6 17. .!d4 ¥;Yc7 18.'it>hl b5 19.a3 \!;!lb8 20.�e2 a5 21.a4 bxa4 22.�fel tDh7 23 . .hg7 'it>xg7, Buckley - Timoscenko, Metz 1996, 24.tDxa4;t) 16.a3 ¥;Yc7 17.¥;Yf2 �ab8 18.�e2 a5 19 . .!a7 �b7 20.e5 (20.a4!?) 20 ...b4 2 1.exf6 tDxf6 22. �e8 tDxe8 23.�el tDf6 24 . .id4 bxc3 25.bxc3 �b8= lS.gad1 In case of 15.\!;!lf2, Black should transfer his knight immediately to

c5: 15 ... �ac8 16.l'�ael, Oud - Van­ cini, Martigny 1988, 16 . . . tDc5f± lS �c5 Black has saved a tempo for the move b5, assuming quite cor­ rectly that he must first improve the placement of his pieces. 16.eS White plays this move almost always in the Four Pawn Attack. 16 dxeS 17.fxeS gxeS 18. .td4 gee8 19.d6 •••

•••

•••

200

19 tDd3 ! Black severs the connection between his opponent's forces. 2 0 .�a4 20 ..ixf6 .ixf6 21.tDd5 ¥;Yc5 22. 'it>hl ¥;Yxd6= 2 0 gad8 21. \!;!lxe4 tDeS 22. V!lli3 �d6 23.hb7 gd7 24 .te3 ¥;Ye7 2S.gxd7 �fxd7=. White's two-bishop advantage is immate­ rial in this position, because Black has a wonderful bishop on g7 and his knights have complete free­ dom of movement. •••

•••

•

Chapter 19

1.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 j.g7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 0 - 0 6.�f3 c5 7.d5 e6 S .te2 exd5 9.cxd5 geS •

Black begins an immediate at­ tack against the e4-pawn, deploy­ ing his rook on the semi-open file on which White's king remains at present. White has a choice. He can push the attacked pawn; he can protect it, or just sacrifice it.

A) 1 0 .�d2 B) 1 0 .e5 In case of 1O.'iNc2, Black can even capture on e4: 1O . . . lLlxe4 (It is also possible for him to play 10 ... lLla6 11.,ixa6 bxa6 12.0-0 gb8 13.f5 gxf5 14.�g5 'iNb6+', or 10 . . . a 6 11.a4 �g4 12.0-0 lLlbd7 13.h3 i.xf3 14 ..ixf3 c4 15.ge1 lLlc5f± Des Bouillons - Sorin, France 1999.) 1l.lLlxe4 �f5. This is a deadly pin

(although White has a queen on c2 and not a king) and White can­ not get rid of it at all. If he pro­ tects his knight on e4 with his bishop, then the king on e1 comes under the x-ray by the rook on e8. 12.lLlfd2 (12 .�d3 lLla6 13.�d2 ,ixe4 14.,ixe4 f5 15.lLlg5 fxe4 16. lLle6 'iNh4 17.g3 'iNh5+) 12 . . . 'iNe7 13.�f3 .be4 14.lLlxe4 f5 15. 0-0 fxe4 16.�g4 'iNf6+' Black should know how to react to the straightforward re­ sponse 10.0-0. There may follow: 1O ... lLlxe4 1l.�xe4 gxe4 12.�d3 Ele8 13.f5 lLld7 14.lLlg5. It looks like White's attack is running smooth­ ly, but Black has sufficient defen­ sive resources. 14 . . . lLle5 15.lLlxf7 lLlxf7 16.fxg6 lLle5 17.'iNh5 (17.gxh7 �h8+) 17 . . . h6 (If Black wants more than a draw, he should cal­ culate the following variation 17 . . . hxg6 18.,ixg6 lLlxg6 19.'iNxg6 Ele5 20.�d2 'iNe8 21.'iNxd6 �e6 ! !+ and he has extra material and the initiative.) 18.,ixh6 18.gf7, Ot­ ten - Muhren, Rotterdam 2000, 18 . . . lLlg4!-+ White's attack has suddenly reached its dead end. 18 ... �g4 19.gf7! ! White must play 201

Chapter 19 imaginatively in order not to end up in a lost position with mate­ rial deficit. 19 .. J�e7 (19 ... .ixh5 20J�xg7 with a perpetual.) 20. �h4 l3xt7 21.gxi7 lDxt7 22 .�xg4 lDxh6 23.�g6 \wh4 24.\Wh7 �f8 25.l3f1 �f6 26.\Wh8 �t7 27.�h7= White has nothing more than a draw by a perpetual.

A) 1 0 .�d2 This is a very logical move. White's knight protects the pawn for the time being and later it will occupy the comfortable c4square. Still, it is far from clear whether it will be better placed there, in comparison to f3. In fact, White's main threat in the Four Pawns Attack is to push his cen­ tral pawns, for example with e4e5. He postpones this operation by playing lDd2 .

1 0 a6 It is interesting for Black to prepare b5 with pieces, leaving his a-pawn on its place at the mo­ ment 1O ... i.d7!? and then: 11.\Wb3 lDa6! (Black is prepar-

ing a trap for White's queen.) 12.0-0 l3b8 and the pawn-ad­ vance b7-b5 is unstoppable. 11.a4!? (As usual, with the in­ clusion of the moves a4 and a6, Black obtains the wonderful b4square for his knight.) 11 ... lDa6 12.0-0 lDb4 13.�f3 h5 14.lDc4 (14.h3 lDg4!t) 14 ... lDg4 15.h3 �d4 16.�h1 lDf2 17.l3xf2 �2 18. lDxd6 .ixh3! , Aliev - Askerov, Baku 2004, 19.�f1 i.d4 20.lDxe8 i.g4!+; 11.0-0 b5 ! (White's knight on c3 is busy protecting the e4pawn.) 12.i.xb5 (12.�c2 b4 13.lDd1 lDxd5 14.\Wd3 lDc7 15.f5 i.b5-+ Ilic - Petrovic, Yugoslavia 1981) 12 ... i.xb5 13.lDxb5 lDxe4 14.lDxe4 (14.f5 lDxd2 15.i.xd2 a6 16.lDc3 lDd7=) 14 ... l3xe4 15.f5 l3b4 16.\We2 a6 17.lDc3 lDd7 18.a3 i.d4 19.�h1 l3b3+. Black has achieved almost everything. He controls the long diagonal; he has the b-file for his rook and the e5-square for his knight. 1l.a4 �bd7

•••

202

12. 0 - 0

3. liJ c3 j,g7 4.e4 d6 5/4 0 - 0 6 . liJj3 c5 7.d5 e6 8. j,e2 ed 9.cd '8eB Following 12.aS, Black opens the b-file 12 . . .bS 13.axb6 liJxb6 and he obtains excellent coun­ ter chances (see the notes to the move 13.aS, after 12.0-0 'Sb8 in the main line). 12 '8b8 13.'i!1hl In case of 13.Wlc2 Wle7 14.'Sa3 liJb6 1S.Wlb3, Black's pieces do not have enough good squares, but they will find space later on the queenside: lS . . . Wld8 16.�d1 j,d7 17.j,f3 liJc8 18.aS j,bS 19.'Se1 liJd7 20.j,e2 j,d4 21.'i!1h1 liJa7? Ramon - Levitina, Salonika 1988. If 13.'Se1, Black can try active queenside actions with: 13 ... c4! ? 14.eS dxeS lS.liJxc4 bS 16.axbS axbS 17.liJxeS b4 18.liJa4 liJxeS 19.fxeS liJxdS 2 0.j,f3 '8bS? van der Sterren - Chandler, Amster­ dam 1983. If White plays 13.aS, with the idea to stop the b7-pawn, Black should ignore this and continue with 13 . . .bS 14.axb6 liJxb6. He must capture here with his knight, in order to establish control over the c4-square. His a6-pawn looks weak indeed, but White cannot capture it, because of the pin 'Sa8. Black has now a wonderful ob­ ject for his counterplay - White's b2-pawn, attacked by the rook on b8 and the bishop on g7. The c4-square is an excellent base for White's pieces, but Black has a good b4-outpost for his pieces, if they can reach it! lS.'i!1h1 c4. This is a typical resource. Black's c4pawn cannot be easily attacked •••

and he covers his a6-pawn, ob­ taining the cS-square for his king's knight. 16.'Sa3 Wlc7 17.b4? ! cxb3 18.fub3 liJfd7 19.1iJa4 liJxa4 20.'8xb8 liJc3 21.'Sxc8 Wlxc8 22. �e1 liJxe4 23.liJxe4 fue4=F Navara - Gashimov, Reggio Emilia 2007.

13 h5 Black's light pieces do not have enough reliable squares, so he is trying to ensure a base on g4. 14.a5 14.Wlc2 liJg4. Black eyes the e3-square. If White ignores this, Black will play j,d4 creating very dangerous threats on the dark squares. lS.liJf3. White coves both critical weaknesses e3 and d4. He weakens the e4-pawn in the proc­ ess. lS ... liJdf6 16.h3 liJh6 17.j,d2 (It deserved attention for White to play 17.liJgS, or 17.'Se1, impeding the possible pawn-advance b7bS.) 17 ... bS ! 18.axbS axbS 19.hbS liJxe4 20.he8 liJg3 21.c;t>gl liJxf1 22 . .txf7 liJxf7 23.'8xf1 j,fSgg Vegh - Borocz, Hungary 1998. Black has sacrificed a pawn, but he has excellent counterplay and all his •••

203

Chapter 19 pieces are very active. 14 b5 15.ax:b6 �b6 16. �c4 �xe4 17.�xe4 �e4 18. �xb6 �xb6 19.,ha6 gd4� Kozul - Pantsulaia, Rethymnon 2 003. •••

B) 1 0 .e5 dxe5 11.fxe5 �g4

This is in fact the main line of the Four Pawns Attack in the King's Indian Defence. White opens the centre by advancing his pawns and the position becomes very sharp. Black should not be afraid of the pawn-break and he must find a way to create counter threats.

Bl) 12. 0 - 0 B2) 12 .ig5 B3) 12.e6 •

12.if4 �xeS 13.�xeS (13.0-0 �bd7 - see 12.0-0) 13 ... J.xeS 14 . .txeS �eS lS.0-0 ifS ! ? - see 12.0-0 �xeS 13.if4 .ifS 14.�xeS.

Bl) 12. 0 - 0 �xe5 13 . .if4 �bd7 204

It is also very good for Black to opt here for 13 ...ifS, for example: 14.�d2 �bd7 1SJ'!ad1 c4 16. cj{h1 �d3+ Sydor - Hever, Hun­ gary 1976; 14. cj{h1 �bd7 1S.d6 YlYb6 16.YlYd2 l3ad8 17.l3ad1 �xf3 18 . .txf3 �eS+ EI Gindy - Murey, Clichy 1998; 14.�xeS .txeS lS ..txeS (lS. YlYd2 �d7 16.d6 �f6 17.l3ad1 .id4 18.cj{h1 a6 19.M3 �e4 20.�xe4 .txe4 21..txe4 l3xe4,+ De Lagontrie - Sarakauskas, Port Erin 2006; 16.l3ad1 id4 17.cj{h1 �f6 18.if3 �e4 19.�xe4 .txe4 2 0 . .txe4 l3xe4 21.d6 �d7+ Tsivelekidis - Soulei­ dis, Aghia Pelagia 2004) lS ... l3xeS, De Lagontrie - Chevrier, Cham­ bery 1994, 16.YlYd2 �d7 17.l3ad1 (17.g4 J.e4 18.l3ae1 YlYe7 19.ibS l3d8 20.YlYf2 fS 21.YlYg3 cj{h8 22.d6 �e6 23.�h4 YlYf6'+ - White's of­ fensive has ended and Black is safe with an extra pawn.) 17 ... a6, without being afraid of 18.g4 .txg4 19.J.xg4 l3gS 20.h3 fS 21.l3de1 fxg4 22.�e4 l3fS 23.hxg4 �1 24.l3xf1 YlYe7+ - Black has covered all the dangerous squares and he has preserved his extra pawn. 14.d6 In case of14.ibS! ? Black would not mind numerous exchanges - 14 ... a6 lS.�xeS J.xeS 16.J.xeS l3xeS 17. .txd7 .txd7, since White's knight would not have any access to the vulnerable dark squares. 14 . . . Yfb6 Black obtained a comfortable position in the following game af­ ter 14 ... a6, but this move was not

3. ltJ c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 0 - 0 6. ltJj3 c5 7.d5 e6 8. i.e2 ed 9.cd 'i!.e8 tested sufficiently in practice, so it would be too early to evaluate it properly: lS.ltJdS 'i!.fB 16.'1!;Vd2 ltJxf3 17.M3 ltJeS 1B.i.gS f6 19.1tJe7 mhB 20.i.h6 ltJc4 21.�f4 �xd6 22. ltJxcB �xf4 23.M4 'i!.axcB 24. hb7 ltJxb2 2S.hcB 'i!.xcB 26.'i!.f3 fS 27.'i!.c1 c4't' Gerard - Shirazi, Sautron 200S.

terial is equal, but Black's bishops are much stronger than his oppo­ nent's cavalry and in addition White's pawn on d6 is much rath­ er a weakness than a threat. 15 ltJxe5! 16.he5 16.ltJdS �xd6 - see lS.ltJdS. 16 ... 'i!.xe5 17.d7 hd7 18. �xd7 �xb2't' - Black has not only regained his material, but he has seized the initiative, S.Ivanov - Shulman, Minsk 1995. •••

B2) 12 .tg5 •

15.ltJxe5 ls.ltJdS! ? �xd6 16.ltJxeS (It might become even more com­ plicated after 16.i.bS 'i!.dB 17.i.gS ltJxf3 1B.�xf3 ltJeS 19.1tJf6 mhB; 17.ltJgS ltJf6 1B.i.c4. This is all temporary. Black should bet­ ter sacrifice his queen: 1B ... ltJxdS 19.1tJxf7 ltJxf4 20.ltJxd6 ltJxc4 21. 'i!.xf4 ltJxd6=F and his three light pieces are superior to White's queen.) 16 ... ltJxeS 17.i.gS mhB lB. ltJf6 'i!.e6 19.�xd6 'i!.xd6 20.ltJeB 'i!.b6 21.ltJxg7 mxgi+ lS.i.bS c4 16.mh1 ltJd3 17.hc4 ltJxf4 1B.ltJgS ltJeS 19.'i!.xf4 ltJxc4 20.'i!.xc4 h6 21.ltJge4, Vaisser Nataf, France 1997 (21.ltJdS �xd6 22.ltJc7 �xd1 23.'i!.xd1 i.g4! 24. 'i!.xg4 'i!.adB=F) 21...i.fS=F - The ma-

12 �b6 13. 0 - 0 White's attempt to seek com­ plications in a position with op­ posite sides castling backfires: 13.�d2 ltJxeS 14.0-0-0 ltJxf3 (It is advantageous for Black to have a knight on eS and not a bishop. For example, after 14 ...i.fS, White can play lS.ltJxeS heS 16.'l'!.he1oo, threatening g4.) lS.M3 ltJd7 16. 'l'!.he1 (16.d6 ltJeS 17.i.e2 i.e6 lB. 'l'!.hf1 ltJd7 19.i.e7 'lMfaS=F De Lag­ ontrie - Vigneron, France 1995) 16 ... ltJeS 17.i.e2 i.d7 1B.d6 �aS 19.mb1 i.e6't' - Black controls reli•••

20S

Chapter 19 ably the d7-square and four of his pieces are eyeing White's king. 13 �xe5 It deserves attention for Black to continue with the forced line: 13 . . . c4 14.h1 ttJd7 lS.e6 fxe6 16. dxe6 (16.,bc4 ! ? �xb2 17.�a4! bS lS.,bbS ttJf2 19.gloo), but here not ttJdf6, like everybody has played up to now, but 16 . . . ttJcS ! ? 17.,bc4 (17.e7 .te6 18.ltJd4 �d6 19.,bg4 �xd4 20 ..tf3 h6=) 17 ... ,be6 lS.ltJdS ,bdS 19.hdS hS 20J'k1 ltJe4 21.,be4 fue4 22 .�c2 gaeS 23. �xe4 fue4 24.gcS .tfS 25. gxfS g7 26.ltJd2 gel! 27.gSt7= with a draw by a perpetual. 14.ltJxe5 14.�d2 .tg4, Ochkoos - Mi­ haljevic, Toronto 1992, lS.gae1 ixf3 16.gxf3 ltJbd'7+ In case of 14.d6, Black should play 14 . . . c4, not being afraid of forced lines like: 15. h1 �xb2 (lS . . . ltJd3 16.,bd3 cxd3 17.�xd3 MS l8.�d2 ltJd7 19.gadl;!; Gorelov - Shashin, Krasnodar 19S0) and here: 16.ltJa4 �b4 17.gb1 �aS IS. ltJxeS gxeS 19 ..td2 �dS 20.gel fue2 21.�xe2 �xd6 22 ..tc3 hc3 23.ltJxc3 ltJc6 24.�xc4 .te6=; 16.�el �xel 17.gaxel ltJbc6 IS. ltJbS gbS 19.1tJc7 ttJxf3 20.ixf3 geS 21 ..tf4 gaS 22 .�c4 .tfS=F; 16.ltJdS ttJxf3 17 . .txf3 (17.ttJe7 hS lS.gb1 �eS 19.,bf3 �xgS 20.ltJxcS gxcS 21.,bb7 ltJd7-F) 17. . . �xa1 18.�xa1 hal 19.9xa1 ttJd7 20 . .te7 (20.ltJc7 geS) 20 . . . gbS 21.ltJc7 (21.ge1 c3 ! 22.ltJc7 B:fS • • •

206

23 . .txfS ltJxfS 24.gel .te6 2S.gxc3 B:dS=F) 21 ... B:fS 22.ge1 bS=F Goczan - G.Horvath, Eger 19S7. 14 gxe5 There arise interesting com­ plications after 14 ... ,beS ! ? and then: lS.�d2 �b4 ! ? (lS . . . ltJd7 16. B:ad1 a6 17.h1 .td4 18.�f4 fS 19.d6! ± Vaisser) 16.gae1 .tfS 17 . .tbS �d4 lS.h1 �xd2 19.,bd2 .td7 20 ..tc4 f6 21 . .th6 ttJa6 22.d6 hS 23 ..tt7 gedS 24 . .tf4 .td4oo; lS.!bS !d7 16.�f3 fS (16 . . . f6-+) 1 7. .tc4 �xb2 lS.d6 hS 19. gael .tc6 2 0.�h3 ltJd7-+ Nei Ciocaltea, Zinnowitz 1966; lS . .tc4 �4! ? 16.�f3 (16.�b3 .tfS 17.d6 �xb3 lS.axb3 ,bd6 19.1tJdS ltJd7 20.gxfS gxf5 21..tbS .teS 22.,bd7 gedS 23.,bdS gxdS 24.ltJe7 fS 2S . .txfS xe7 26. gxa7 f6 27 . .txh7 bS= Janose­ vic - Forintos, Vrnjacka Banja 1973) 16 . . ..tfS (16 . . .f6 17 . .txf6 ttJd7 lS . .tg7 xg7 19.�t7 h6 20.�xeS �xc4 21.B:ae1-+) 17 . .tbS, Vaisser ­ Degraeve, Cannes 1990, (White loses after 17.g4?, in view of 17 . . . �xb2 lS.ltJe2 .td4 19.1tJxd4 �xd4 20.gf2 �xa1, Mueller - Sjugirov, Kirishi 2004; or lS.gfe1 ttJd7 19. gxfS �xh2 2 0.fl .td4 21.�g2 �xg2 22.xg2 ,bc3) 17 . . . .td4 IS. h1 B:fS 19 ..th6 �xb2 20 ..txfS �xc3 21.�xc3 ,bc3 22 .B:ac1 .tb2 23.hcS ,bel 24.�el a6 2S . .tfl ltJd7 26 . .td4 bS= 15.�d2 In case of lS ..tf4, Black should simply sacrifice the exchange: • • •

3. lDc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 514 0 - 0 6. lDj3 c5 7.d5 e6 8. i.e2 ed 9.cd 'Be8 15 . . . �xb2 16.he5 he5 17.lDb5 a6 1B.'Bbl �xa2 19.1Dc7, Delalande Delalande, Trignac 2001, 19 . . . 'Ba7 20.d6 b5+ 15 i.f5 •••

hd5 22.hd5 'Bf5+ - White's first attacking wave has been parried and Black's life is easier now. 16 i.d7 16 . . .i.e4! ? 17.i.f4 geS lS.�h1 lDa6 19. gael gadS+ - This position re­ sembles very much the Gruenfeld Defence, except that White has some problems with his kingside pawns. One of them is missing and the other one is placed rather awkwardly on g4. •••

B3) 12.e6 fxe6

16.g4 16.i.f4 'BeB 17.d6 lDc6+ 16.i.c4 lDd7 17.i.f4 (After 17. d6, Black should control the d5square: 17 . . . i.e6+) 17 ... 'BeeB lB. 'Bad1 'BadB+ 16.d6 lDd7 17.lDd5 'Bxd5 lB. �xd5 i.e6 19.�d2 �xb2 20.�xb2 hb2 21.'Bab1 i.d4 22.�h1 'BbB+ Jones - Sandler, Gold Coast 2001. 16.'Bae1 lDd7 17.d6 c4 1B.�h1, Banikas - Grigore, Genoa 2000 and here Black had to contin­ ue with 1B . . . i.d3! 19.i.f4 he2 20.'Bxe2 'Bxe2 21.�xe2 �c6 22.i.g3 b5+ - His knight is an excellent blocking piece and it neutralizes White's only dangerous idea. 16.'Bad1 lDd7 17.d6, Cebalo Isonzo, Montecatini Terme 2002, 17. . . 'BaeB 1B.i.e7 (lB.i.f4 'Bxe2 19.1Dxe2 �xb2+; 1B.Ac4 i.e6) lB . . . c4 19.'Bf2 'BcB 20.i.f3 i.e6 21.lDd5

B3a) 13.d6 B3h) 13 .tg5 •

It would not be consistent for White to play 13.0-0 exd5 14.lDxd5 i.e6 15.i.c4 (15.lDf4 �xd1 16J''!x d1 i.f7 17.lDg5 lDe5 1B.lDxf7 lDxf7 19.i.c4 Ad4 20.�h1 lDc6+ Czuchnicki - Karbowiak, Poznan 2006) 15 . . . lDe5 16.i.g5 (16.lDxe5 he5 17.�b3 lDc6 1B.lDf6 i.xf6 19.he6 �hB+) 16 . . . lDxf3 17.�xf3 �xg5 1BJ''! a el l'!fB ! 19.'Bxe6 Ad4 20.�h1 'Bxf3 21.'BeB �g7 22.'8xf3 2 07

Chapter 19 'lWc1 23.i.fl liJc6 24J'�xaB liJe5-+ Niemela - Tal, Riga 1959.

B3a) 13.d6 The positions with a white pawn on d6 deserve a very thor­ ough attention. It is one thing when there are only a few pieces left on the board and the blocking knight is safe and it is quite differ­ ent when the board is full of piec­ es and Black's every imprecision may have terrible consequences for him. It is essential for him to know how to deploy his pieces. 13 .id7! Black wishes to place his bish­ op on c6 and his knight on d7, which is more flexible than the straightforward approach 13 ... liJc6 14.0-0 (14.liJg5 liJh6 15.0-0 liJf5 16.liJge4 h6 17.liJb5 l3fB lB. liJc7 l3bB 19.i.c4, Vasilchenko Kovalev, Katowice 1990, 19 ... �h7! 20.l3e1 i.d4 21.�h1 liJxd6=t) 14 .. . l3fB ! ? (White is better after 14 .. . liJd4 15.liJe4 liJf6 16.i.g5 liJxe4 17.hdB fudB, Arencibia - Pere­ dun, Toronto 2003, lB. �h1 liJxd6 19.1iJxd4 hd4 20.'lWb3;!;; 15 ... l3fB 16.i.g5 'lWd7 17.liJxd4 hd4 lB. �h1 l3xf1 19.i.xf1 h5 20.�c2;!;) 15.i.g5 i.d4 16.liJxd4 (16.�h1 'lWxd6 17.g3 liJce5 1B.i.f4 'lWc6 19.i.b5 \Wb6 20. liJxe5 liJxe5=t Gloria - Sutter, Ge­ neva 1993) 16 ... l3xf1 17.'lWxfl 'lWxg5 1B.liJxc6 �e3 19.�h1 liJf2 20.�gl liJh3, with a perpetual check. 14. 0 - 0 14.liJg5 liJe5 15.0-0 i.c6 - see 14.0-0.

14 .ic6 15.�g5 �e5 16. .ie3 16.liJge4 liJbd7 17.i.g5 'lWb6 lB. 'lWc2 c4 19.�h1 h6 20.liJf6 i.xf6 21.i.xf6, Kantorik - Sikora, Tat­ ranske Zruby 2 006, 21 ... liJxf6 22.l3xf6 �g7 23.l3afl 'lWd4!=t After 16.if4 liJbd7 17.l3e1 h6 1B.liJge4 'lWb6, Black has complet­ ed successfully his development, while White still must prove the correctness of his pawn-sacrifice. •••

•••

20B

16 �bd7 17.'lWd2 'lWa5 18.h3 gad800 - Black has mobilized his forces, preventing his opponent from starting an offensive after d6. In this position, he can go for c4, or he can transfer his knight to d5 via b6. •••

B3b) 13 .ig5 I encountered over the board this seldom played move and nat­ urally' I considered 13 \Wb6! However, I was either not res­ olute enough or I was not in the right mood, but I failed to find the correct decision. •

•••

3. ltJ c3 j,g7 4.e4 d6 5.J4 0 - 0 6. ltJj3 c5 7.d5 e6 B . .ie2 ed 9.cd 'SeB I preferred 13 ... ltJf6 14.d6 h6 (Black has an interesting al­ ternative here, but it requires a thorough analysis - 14 ... \Wb6!?) 15 . .te3 ! (This would have been stronger for White than what my opponent chose 15.M6 'lWxf6 16. ltJb5 ltJc6 17.ltJc7; 16 ... ltJa6 17.d7 .bd7 1B.'lWxd7 \Wxb2 19.'Sd1 'lWxa2 20.ltJd6 'SfB 21.ltJxb7±; 16 ... .td7 17.ltJc7 'lWxb2 1B.'Sb1 'lWc3 19.�f2 ltJc6 20.ltJxaB 'i!.xaB 21.'i!.xb7 'SdB±; 17 ... ltJc6 1B.ltJxaB 'i!.xaB 19.0-0, Jobava - Bologan, Turin 2006 and now, Black should have com­ pleted his development: 19 ... 'SdB ! 20.'Sb1 ltJd4 21.b4 cxb4 22.'i!.xb4 ltJf5 with a complicated posi­ tion.) 15 ... ltJbd7 16.0-0 (16.ltJb5 ltJd5). I know now that White has compensation for sure, but I do not know what to recommend to Black. For example: 16 ... ltJg4 17 ..td2 c4 1B.'lWc2 ltJde5 19.1tJxe5 ltJxe5 20 . .!f4t 14.\Wd2

his bishop - 14 . . .hc3, but he had to calculate this variation to the end: 15.bxc3 exd5 16.0-0 c4 17.ltJd4 ltJc6 1B.h3 ltJxd4 19.cxd4 and here Black would have an important intermediate move 19 ... h6! 20.'Sab1 (20.hg4 hg4 21.hh6 .te2+) 20 . . . 'i!.xe2 ! 21.'lWf4 'i!.f2 ! After this, there arises by force a material ratio of a rook and a bishop against a queen and neither side has any serious chances of winning the game: 22.'i!.xf2 'lWxb1 23.'Sf1 \wxf1 24.\wxf1 hxg5 25.hxg4 .bg4= 1S. 0 - 0 - 0 White's attempt to hold on to his passed d-pawn 15.d6, would lead to the loss of his castling rights: 15 ... 'lWf2 16.�d1 'lWc5 17.�c1 ltJd7 1B.h3 ltJgf6 19.\Wd4 ltJd5+ 1S exdS 16.'i!.he1 In case of 16.ltJxd5, Black exploits the overburdening of White's queen: 16 ....bb2 ! 17.'lWxb2 \Wxb2 1B.�xb2 'i!.xe2 19.�c3 ltJc6 20.'She1 'i!.xe1 21.'i!.xe1 h6! = It is essential for Black to repel the en­ emy bishop from g5, because he obtains additional squares for his king. 16 ... ltJc6 16 ....te6 17.ltJxdS .bdS 1B..txc4!;l; 17.hc4 .if5 18.hdS �h8 19.1tJh4, I.Popov - Inarkiev, 80chi 200B and here Black could have retreated his bishop: 19 .td7 2 0 .lhe8 lhe8 21 .tf7 �U8 22.\Wxd7 hc3 23.bxc3 ltJceS= with an equal position. •••

• • •

•

14 c4 Inarkiev could have given up • • •

209

Part S The Classical System 1.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 .lg7 4.e4 d6 5.�f3 0 - 0 6 . .le2

White's last two moves lead to the so-called Classical system,

210

which is White's most popular response to the King's Indian De­ fence. This name is due to the fact that White develops his pieces ac­ cording to the classical principles. He occupies the centre with pawns and then he develops his knights and later the bishops. Black's counterplay is usually connected with the pawn-advance e7-e5, after which there appears in the centre the thematic juxtaposition of the pawns on e4 and e5.

Chapter 2 0

1.d4 lDf6 2.c4 g6 3.lDc3 J.g7 4.e4 d6 5.lDf3 0 - 0

6 .te2 At first, at the dawn of the appearance of the Classical sys­ tem, White used to play the move 6 . .tgS, which was introduced by Alexander Alekhine in his game against Reti in the year 1922 and later in the 60ies of the past cen­ tury Lajosh Portisch and Wolf­ gang Uhlmann started playing it too. For a period of about more than ten years this line was very popular, but it came gradually out of fashion, since it became clear that Black had several comforta­ ble ways of countering it. The line might still become modern some day, because it seems reasonable from the positional point of view. It is in fact a hybrid between the •

Averbakh system and the Classi­ cal system. According to theory, Black's main reply against it should be: 6 . . .h6 7 . .th4 gS 8 . .tg3 llJhS 9 . .te2 e6 (9 . . . llJd7 1O.0-0 e6 11.llJel llJxg3 12.hxg3 fS 13.exfS exfS 14.llJc2 c6 IS.�d2 llJf6 16.dS c5 17.l'!ael llJe8 18 . .td3 .td7 19J'!e2 g4, draw, Ma­ lich - Boleslavsky, Minsk 1968) 1O.dS fS 11.llJd4 llJxg3 12.hxg3 fxe4 13.llJxe6 .txe6 14.dxe6 .txc3 IS.bxc3 �f6� Uhlmann - Fischer, Habana 1966, but it also interest­ ing for Black to opt for 6 . . ..tg4 7 ..te2 llJfd7 8.dS llJb6 9.llJd2 .txe2 1O.�xe2 as (1O . . . llJ8d7 11.0-0 c6 12.f4 l'k8 13.l3f3 �e8 14.l3el e6 IS.�f1 f6� Uhlmann - Stein, Mar del Plata 1966) 11.0-0 llJa6 12.l3acl �d7 13.f4 e6 14.f5 exfS IS.exfS l3ae8 16.�f3 �xfS 17.�xfS gxfS 18.l3xfS llJc5= Malich - Tai­ manov, Harrachov 1966. 6 e5 Black has completed building up his "King's Indian household" and he has brought his king to safety, so that it is high time that he started fighting for the centre. His counter strike e7-eS, which ...

211

Chapter 20 is an integral part of the tactical resources of the position, is his most principled possibility. The knight on b8 and the bishop on c8 should be better left aside for the moment, since it is not clear yet where they would be most use­ ful. The move 6 ... cS, would much rather transpose to the Benoni system. In this chapter we will have a look at the endgame arising after the exchange dxe5 (either imme­ diately, or with the inclusion of the moves 7... 0-0 lDc6).

A) 7.dxe5 B) 7. 0 - 0 lDc6 8.dxe5 A) 7.dxe5

According to the principles of the fight for the centre, capturing dxeS is a concession by White. He usually plays like this only if he wants to win material, or enter safely an endgame. 7 dxe5 8.ffxd8 In case, White tries to be smarter and he plays 8 . .igS, with • • •

212

the idea of winning a tempo in case of the exchange of the queens on d1, then Black can continue playing with queens present on the board: 8 ... lDbd7 9.0-0 c6. Like usual, in similar pawn- struc­ tures, Black has covered the dS­ square reliably, while White should take care all the time of the d4-square. In the oncoming mid­ dle game, Black's chances would be at least equal, for example: lO. ffc2 ffe7 1 U!ad1 lDc5 12.h3 lDe6 13 ..ie3 lDhS 14JUe1 lDhf4 15. .if1 �f6? Schammo - Kupreichik, Vilnius 1995. 8.0-0 lDc6 - see variation B. 8 �d8 9 .ig5 The move 9.lDxeS is played by White only if he wants an easy bloodless draw. There might fol­ low: 9 ... lDxe4 lO.lDxe4 heS 11 . .tgS (White must play precise­ ly, because after 11.0-0?! lDc6! 12 J!e1 wg7 13.a3 .ifS 14.lDg3 .ie6 lS . .tf1 as 16J!b1 a4, Black has even a slight edge, Sanchez - Gel­ ler, Saltsjobaden 19S2.) 11 .. J!e8 (As it is well known "There is an agreement reached only if there is no opposition from either side ... " and GM M.Golubev demonstrat­ ed here an interesting way of con­ tinuing the fight: 11 .. J!f8 ! ? 12 . .tf6 hf6 13.lDxf6 wg7 14.lDdS lDa6 lS.0-0-0 �e8 16 ..if3 c6 17.lDe3 .ie6 18.�d4 �ad8 19.�hd1 �xd4 20.�xd4 hS and the endgame is a bit better for Black, Mankeyev Golubev, Alushta 2006.) 12.lDf6 hf6 13.hf6 .ifS 14.�d1 lDd7 • • •

•

5. 0,f3 0 - 0 6. :ie2 e5 7.de de B. WlxdB 'gxdB 9. :ig5 1S.:igS 0,eS 16.0-0 f6 17.:ie3 0,g4 18.:ixg4 :ixg4= Prokhorov - Kuri­ lin, Tula 2002. The move 9.0,dS, as a rule, leads to numerous exchanges and quick equality: 9 ... 0,xdS 10.cxdS c6 1l.:ic4 (ll.:igS f6 12.dxc6 0,xc6 13.:ic4 hS 14.:ie3 :ig4 15.0-0 'gacS 16.'gac1 :ifS= Doncea Jianu, Bucharest 2004) ll ... bS 12 .:ib3 (12 .:igS f6 13.:ib3 cxdS 14. 0-0-0 :ie6 1S.exdS :if7 16.:ie3 0,a6't Brumen - Cvitan, Medu­ lin 2002) 12 ... :ib7 13.:igS 'gcS 14.'gd1 (14.dxc6 0,xc6 1S.:idS 0,aS 16.'gd1 :ixdS 17.'gxdS a6 1S.e2 'gc2 19.'gd2 'gc4't Svirin - Lanka, Podolsk 1990) 14 ... 0,d7 (14 ...cxdS 1S.:ixdS :ixdS 16.'gxdS f6 17 .:ie3 a6 1S.0-0 0,c6 19.'gd7 'gdS 20.'gfd1 'gxd7 21.'gxd7 'gdS, draw, Kotov - Smyslov, Hastings 1963) 1S.d6 cS 16.:idS :ixdS 17.'gxdS f6 1S.:ie3 'gc6 19.e2 f7 20.'gc1 'gacS+± Re­ zan - Cvitan, Split 200S.

In this position, we will ana­ lyze Black's two main lines, but at the end we will recommend to you to opt for the second one.

Al) 9 lU8 A2) 9 Ete8 • • •

• • •

Al) 9 EtfS Thanks to Lanka and his pu­ pils, this ancient move has be­ come an important part of the theory of the exchange variation. In fact, we used to play 'gfS, think­ ing not only about a draw, but of playing for win as well. That is what Lanka taught us to do ... l O .0,d5 This is exactly where one of the fine points of the variation with 'gfS is emphasized. White obtains no advantage with the routine attempt to win a pawn: 1O.:ixf6 :ixf6 1l.0,dS :idS 12.0,xeS 'geS 13.'gd1, Korell - Koenig, Berlin 2002, 13 ... c6 14.0,c3 :iaS 1S.0,f3 'gxe4't It would be harmless for Black if White tries 10.0-0-0 0,c6 11.h3 :ie6 12.:ie3 'gadS 13.a3 h6 14.b4 as 1S.bS (I declined a draw offer at the beginning of this game and the moment had come to justify my decision.) 1S ... 0,d4! 16.0,xd4 exd4 17.:ixd4 'gxd4 1S.'gxd4 0,g4 19.:ixg4 :ixd4 20.:ixe6 fxe6 21. 0,d1 :icS 22.a4 'gdS= Wang Yue Bologan, Moscow 2006. Unfortunately, after 1O.0,xeS, White is better: 1O ... 0,xe4 11.0,xe4 :ixeS 12.0-0-0 0,c6 13.f4 (13.'ghe1 g7 14.f4 f6 1S.fxeS fxgS 16.0,xgS 0,xeS=) 13 ... :id4 14.0,f6 rJlg7 15. 0,dS f6 16.:ih4 :if5, Ravisekar Bologan, Calcutta 1992. White should have completed his cen• • •

213

Chapter 2 0 tralization with 17.l3heU, ending up with a slight edge. 1 0 . . . �xd5 1l.cxd5 c6 12. .i.c4 b5 13.J.b3 J.b7 14.gc1 14.0-0 cxd5 15.hd5 hd5 16.exd5 e4 17.lLld2 f6, followed by f5 with an advantage for Black (according to an old analysis by Lanka). Or 14.0-0-0 c5, planning c4, lLld7-c5, l3fcB, as, b4 with equality (Lanka). 14.dxc6 lLlxc6 (14 . . .hc6 15. l3c1 ! as 16.J.e7 l3eB 17.J.d6 a4 1B . .ixf7 Wxt7 19.hbB l3a6 2 0.J.a7 J.f6 2 1.lLld2 J.b7 22 .J.e3;!;) 15.J.d5 l3fbB 16.0-0-0 lLlb4 17.hb7 l3xb7 1B.wb1 f6 19 . .id2 .ifB= 14 a5 15.a3 In case Black's rook had been on eB, then White would have played 15.a4 bxa4 16.ha4 with a slight edge. With a rook on fB however, Black can already cap­ ture 16 . . . cxd5 and he would seize the initiative. • • •

pawns on the queenside on dark squares with this move and that would provide him with chances of playing for a win even in the endgame. It is worse for him to opt for 15 . . . cxd5 16.l3c7 dxe4, Ka­ char - Inarkiev, Moscow 2006, 17.J.e7! exf3 1B.MB fxg2 19.13g1 J.xfB 20.l3xb7±; 17 . . . l3cB 1B.l3xcB hcB 19.1Llg5 h6 20.lLlxt7 wh7 21.J.d6 lLlc6 22 .J.d5 J.b7 23.Wd2;!;, because White ends up with a slight edge. 16.'!a2 gc8 17 .i.e3 17.dxc6 lLlxc6 1B . .i.d5 lLla5 19. hb7 lLlxb7 20.We2 lLlc5 21.lLld2 lLle6 22 . .ie3 lLlf4 23.Wf3 f5+ Kar­ kanaqe - Bologan, Xanthi 1991. 17.J.e7 J.h6 1B.lLlg5 (18.l3d1 l3eB 19.J.d6 lLld7 20.dxc6 hc6 21. .i.d5?! hd5 22.l3xd5 lLlf6 23. l3xb5 lLlxe4 24 . .i.b4 .i.c1+ Chemiak - Bo­ logan, Moscow 1995) 1B . . . c5 19. l3c3 ! ? (19.h4 lLld7 2 0.l3c3 .i.fB 21. J.xfB l3xfB 22 . .i.b1 h6 23. lLlf3 f5? L'Arni - Gladyszev, Bethune 2006) 19 . . . lLld7 2 0.l3h3 Wg7 21.lLlxh7 l3hB 22.l3xh6 Wxh6 23.lLlf6 lLlxf6 24. J.xf6 l3heB 25.f3 l3a6 26 ..ih4oo 17 b4! 18.axb4 •

• • •

15 a4 Lanka used to teach us that Black should fix his opponent's • • •

214

s.tiJfJ 0 - 0 6 . .ie2 e5 7.de de B. fixdB 'i'!xdB 9 . .igS 18 a3! This is another of Lanka's ideas. Black sacrifices material temporarily and he opens files in order to develop his initiative to a maximal degree, because White's King has not castled yet. 19.bxa3 !ha3 2 0 .ic4 (M­ ter 2 0 . .ibl cxd5 21.'i'!xc8 .hc8 22.exd5 .ia6 23.i>d2 tLld7 24.'i'!el .if8, Staniszewski - B.Socko, Warsaw 2001, in principle, White should be able to draw af­ ter a precise play, but the initia­ tive, including the psychological one, is on Black's side; 20.dxc6 tLlxc6 21..id5 tLlxb4 22 ..hb7 'i'!xe3 23.i>d2 'i'!d3 24.i>e2, Brunner Gladyszev, Chambery 2007, 24 . . . 'i'!cd8=) 2 0 cxd5 21.exd5 e4t Hertneck - Bologan, Germany 1994. • • •

•

•••

A2) 9

•••

'i'!e8

1 0 .tOd5 In case White wishes to do something real, he must act swift1y. For example, after 10.0-0-0

h6 11 . .!h4 (11 ..ie3 c6 IViJel .ie6 13.f3 .if8 14.b3 tLla6 15.tLlc2 i>g7 16.'i'!d2 tLld7 17.'i'!hdl tLlb6 18.i>b2 tLlc5 19.93 as? Nei - Tal, Tallinn 1973) 11 . . . tLla6 12.tLlel c6 13.tLlc2 (13.f3 tLlh5 14.M2 tLlf4 15 ..if1 .if8 16.a3 .ic5 17 . .ixc5 tLlxc5 18.b4 tLlb3 19.i>b2 tLld4 2 0.tLld3 tLlxd3 21..hd3 .ie6= Petersen - Yur­ taev, Lyngby 1990) 13 ... tLlcS 14.f3 as= there arises a comfortable endgame for Black, De Castro Kavalek, Manila 1973. It is not advisable for White to opt for 1O . .hf6?! .hf6 l1.tLld5 .id8, because the weakness on d4 will be a very important factor for the future. For example: 12. 0-0-0 c6 13.tLle3 tLld7 14.a3 tLlc5 15.tLld2 tLle6 16 . .ig4 h5 17. .he6 .he6 18.tLlf3 .ic7+ Computer "No­ vag Scorpio" - Bronstein, Hague 1992 . lO.h3 tLl a 6 11 . .ie3 .if8 12.0-0 c6 13.a3 tLlcS 14.tLld2 tLle6 15.tLlb3 tLlf4 16.'i'!fel tLlxe2 17.'i'!xe2 b6+ P.Perez - Zapata, Mexico 2007. 10.0-0 tLla6 11.tLld2 tLld7 12. a3 tLldc5 13 . .ie3 tLle6 14.'i'!fdl tLld4 15.'i'!ael f5 16.f3 tLlc5 17.b4 f4 18 . .if2 tLlxe2 19.tLlxe2 tLld3 20. 'i'!bl tLlxf2 21.i>xf2 .ie6+ Nikas Kr.Georgiev, Ano Liosia 1993. This is a very unusual double­ edged position, which arose in a game played more than forty years ago: 1O.'i'!dl tLla6 11.0-0 tLlc5 12.tLld5 tLlxd5 13.exd5 tLla4 14.'i'!d2 .id7 15 . .idl tLlc5 16 ..ic2 b6 17. .ie3 tLlb7 18.b3 f5 19.'i'!ddl tLld600 Shamkovich - Stein, Kiev 1969. 2 15

Chapter 2 0 1 0 ... �xd5 1l.cxd5

1l . . . c6 "The scythe has faced flint!" 12 . .tc4 The move 12 .d6? ! dooms this battle unit, for example: 12 .. .f6 13 . .te3 .te6 14J!d1 �dS lS.b3 .tfS Di Pasquale - Goldwaser, Argen­ tina 2006. The Norwegian player Joran Jansson invented an interest­ ing gambit here: 12.0- 0 ! ? cxdS (Black's alternative is 12 . . .h6 13. .te3 cxdS 14.exdS fS lS.�fd1 ltJd7 16.�ac1 f4 17 . .tcS, Jansson - Tryg­ stad, Fuegen 2006, 17 . . . e4 1S.ltJd4 ltJxcS 19.�xcS fS, with an inter­ esting and approximately equal position.) 13.exdS e4 14.ltJd2 hb2 (White is slightly better after 14 . . . �eS l S . .te3 �xdS 16.ltJxe4 ltJc6 17 . .tc4 �dS lS.�ad1 .tfS 19.1tJd6 Jansson - Thomassen, Norway 200S.) lS.�ab1 .tg7 16.�fc1 ltJd7 17.d6 ltJb6 and it looks like White's piece-activity compensates fully the sacrificed pawn. 12.�d1 cxdS 13.exdS (It is bet­ ter for him to play 13.AbS Ad7 216

14.�xdS hbS lSJ!xbS b6 16.@e2 ltJa6 ! ?�) 13 ... e4 14.ltJd2 hb2 lS. 0-0 h3 16.ltJc4 Ac5 17.d6 .te6 lS.ltJeS ltJd'n= Nazarov - Vitaljski, Dagomys 2004. 12.dxc6 ltJxc6 13 . .tbS .te6 14. hc6 bxc6 lS. 0-0 f5 16.ltJd2 h6 17..te3 �edS lS.�fd1 �d3 19.1tJb3 fxe4 20.ltJcS �xd1 21.l!xd1 AdS� Mirza - Irzhanov, Abudhabi 1999. 12 . . . cxd5 Black's alternative plan in­ cludes the advance of his queen­ side pawns. He presents his oppo­ nent with the right to exchange on c6 (He is not afraid of the pawn­ advance d6, but he should better consider it.) and he gains space on the queenside, exploiting the saved tempi: 12 . . . bS 13 . .tb3 as (The developments are in favour of White after 13 . . ..tb7 14.l!c1 as lS.a4 �cS 16.d6 bxa4 17.ha4 see lS . . .bxa4 16.ha4 �cS 17.d6; lS . . . bxa4 16.ha4 �cS 17.d6 ltJd7 lS ..te3 l!abS 19.0-0 Aa6 20.�fd1 .tbS 21.�al;!;; 17 . . .f6 lS . .tb3 fS 19 . .te3 ltJd7 20.h4! ? - 20.ltJd2;!; - 20 ... cS 21 ..te6 �dS 22.ltJd2 �a6 23.hd7 �d7, Vallejo Pons Morozevich, Monte Carlo 2007, 24.ltJb3±) 14.a4 (14.dxc6 ltJxc6 lS.�c1 .td7 with an equal game. 14.a3 a4 lS . .ta2 cS 16.Ae3 ltJd7 17.Ab1 AfS lS.ltJd2 c4. Black's position is slightly preferable, be­ cause of his space advantage on the queenside, Barbero - Dolma­ tov, Buenos Aires 1991.) 14 . . . .td7 lS.dxc6 ltJxc6 16.axbS ltJb4 17.0-0

5. 1:iJj3 0 - 0 6 . i. e2 e5 7.de de B. 'i!!xdB 'SxdB 9. i.g5 ixbS 1B.'Sfc1 a4, A.Shneider Smirin, Leningrad 1990. The op­ ponents agreed to a draw here, be­ cause after the forced line: 19 . .tc4 ixc4 20.'Sxc4 tDd3 21.'Scxa4 'Sxa4 22.'Sxa4 tDxb2= most of the mate­ rial disappears from the board. 13.,hdS IOd7 This knight is headed along the route cS-e6 and then Black will make a decision where to go with it - to d4, or to f4. His other possibility after tDf6 is the simul­ taneous attack against dS and e4.

14.0-0-0 h6 lS.i.h4 tDb6 16. i.b3 i.g4 17.'Sd3 'SacB 1B.�b1 as 19.a3 a4 2 0.i.a2 .td7 21.'Sd6 i.c6 22.'Se1 �f8= Ki.Georgiev - Uhl­ mann, Hungary 19B5. 14 lOcS 1S. 0 - 0 - 0 lS.i.e3 tDd3 16.�e2 tDf4 17. .ixf4 exf4 18.�f3 i.e6 19.tDc4 hdS 2 0 .exdS 'SedB 21.'Shd1 'SacB 22J!ac1 'Sc5 23.d6 bS 24.tDd2 'Sxcl 2S.'Sxc1 hb2 26.'Sbl i.d4 27.'SxbS 'Sxd6+ Ostojic - Makarov, Bel­ grade 1993. lS.tDc4 i.fB 16.0-0 .te6 17. ixe6 'Sxe6 IB.f3 bS 19.tDe3 h6 20 . .th4 tDd3 21.tDdS 'ScB+± Acebal - Gallagher, Candas 1992. lS.�e2 tDe6 16 ..!e3 tDf4 17. .ixf4 exf4 1B.'Sac1 ixb2 19.'Sc7 i.e6 20.ixe6 'Sxe6 21.'Sb1 i.eS 22. 'Scxb7 'Sa6+ Bonin - Liu, New York 200B. lS i.e6 Black solves his last problem with this move - he takes the dS­ square under control. It is also interesting for him to try here lS . . . tDe6 ! ? 16.i.e3 tDf4 17 ..ixf4 exf4 1B.f3 i.e6= Khetsuri­ ani - W.Schmidt, Katowice 1990. 16.,he6 IOxe6 White would have been better off with a knight on dS, while now Black forces simplifications. 17.i.e3 IOf4 18.g3 After IB . .ixf4 exf4 19.f3, Kri­ vonosov - Maes, Poland 1007, 19 ... 'SacB 20.�b1 fS ! ? the position remains equal, because White's knight cannot easily abandon the passive d2-square • • •

• • •

14.tDd2 It would be unsuccessful for White to try to do something along the c-file: 14.'Sc1 h6 lS.i.e3 tDf6 16 . .!b3 tDxe4 17.'Sc7 i.e6 lB. he6 'Sxe6 19.'Sxb7 'Sa6 20.a3 tDd6 21.'Sb4 'Sc6+ and he should already think about equalizing, Teschner - Fischer, Stockholm 1962. 14.0-0 h6 IS . .th4 gS 16.i.g3 tDf6 17.'Sfd1 tDxdS 1B.'SxdS f6 19. b3 i.e6 20J!d2 i.fB 21.tDel i.cS+ Zuehlke - Kindermann, Fuerth 2000.

2 17

Chapter 20

2 0 .�bl White fails to trap the en­ emy knight, while after 20.Jid2? Movsziszian - Strikovic, Beni­ dorm 2007, Black can play 20 ... gf6 and White suffers material losses. It is only equality after 20J:!gl! ? ltJxe3 21.ltJxe3 gf6 22.ggfl Jih6= Ki.Georgiev - Sutovsky, Gibraltar 2 0 06. 20 gf6 21.gd2 gf3 22.ge2 ll:lxe3 23.ll:lxe3 gdS 24.gc1 .th6= Black exchanges the last light piece and he equalizes completely.

8 . . . dxe5 In principle, it would be fa­ vourable for Black to exchange the knights as well, by playing 8 . . . ltJxe5, i n order t o control the d5square with c6. Naturally, White should not capture on e5: 9.Jif4 ! ? (After 9.Jig5 h 6 10.Jih4, White's bishop is isolated and Black can easily exchange it. 10 . . . ltJc6 11. 'IWc2 g5 12 .Jig3 ltJh5 = ; 1l.ltJd4 ltJxd4 12.'lWxd4 g5 13.Jig3 ltJh5 14.'lWd2 ltJxg3 15.hxg3 Jie6=; White would not achieve much with 9.Jie3 ltJfg4 1O.Jid2 ltJxf3 ll.bf3 'lWh4 12 .bg4 bg4 13.'lWc1, Urban - B.Socko, Poznan 2005, 13 ... Jie6 14.b3 f5't) 9 ... ltJxf3 10.Jixf3 Jie6 1l.b3 (11. Jie2 h6 12 .'lWd2 wh7 13.gadl ltJd7, draw, Gleizerov - Fedorov, Eforie Nord 2 008)

•••

B) 7. 0 - 0 ll:lc6 S.dxe5 Black can begin a piece-play on the kingside with 1l . . . ltJh5 ! ? (He must adhere to some con­ crete plan; otherwise, White will gradually squeeze his opponent exploiting his space advantage and the excellent d5-outpost. 1l . . . ltJd7 12.'lWd2 ge8 13.gacl a6 14.gfel gb8 15.Jie2 ltJe5 16.Jig5 f6 17.Jie3 f5 18.exf5 Jixf5 19.1tJd5 218

5. f1Jj3 0 - 0 6. !i.e2 eS 7.de de B. fixdB 'l'!.xdB 9. i.gS �d7 2 0.i.d4 i.e4 21.f4 hdS 22. cxdS f1Jf7 23.hg7 @xg7, Ernst Stellwagen, Amsterdam 2006, 24.h3±) 12.i.d2, Saric - Pesotsky, Plovdiv 200B. Later, Black should make use of some tactical motives by playing 12 . . . f1Jf4! (The diagonal a1-hB has been opened and Black often exploits the motive of de­ flection.) 13.�c2 (13.hi4 hc3=) 13 ... fih4 14.@h1 i.g4 lS.hi4 (IS. hg4 �xg4 16.hi4 �xf4 17.f1JdS fih4 1B.f1Jxc7 hal 19.'l'!.xa1 'l'!.acB 20.f1JdS f5+t) lS . . . hf3 16.i.g3 �hS 17.'l'!.ae1 (The bishop on f3 is taboo.) 17 ... fS+t 9.i.g5 Black does not have any prob­ lems if White transfers into an endgame when the pawn on eS is protected and the dS- square is covered. 9.fixdB 'l'!.xdB I0.i.gS 'l'!.fB 11.i.e3 (11.'l'!.fd1 - see 9.i.gS �xd1 1O.'l'!.fxd1; 11.'l'!.ad1 - see 9.i.gS �xd1 1O.'l'!.axd1) 11 . . . i.g4 12.'l'!.fd1 'l'!.fdB 13.'l'!.xdB �dB 14.'l'!.d1 'l'!.eB lS.h3 hi3 16.hf3 a6 17.f1JdS f1JxdS 1B.cxdS, draw, Melnichuk G.Timoshenko, Alushta 2007. 9.i.e3 i.g4 1O.h3 hf3 11.hf3 f1Jd4 12.f1JdS f1Jd7 13.'l'!.c1 c6 14.f1Jb4 f1JcS lS.hd4 �xd4 16.�c2 f1Je6= Schuster - Taimanov, Ober­ hausen 1961. 9.h3 �e7 1O.i.e3 'l'!.dB 11.�c2 f1Jd4 12.hd4 exd4 13.f1JdS f1JxdS 14.exdS c6 lS.dxc6 bxc6 16.'l'!.ad1 'l'!.bB 17.b3 i.fS 1B.i.d3 hd3 19. �xd3 cS= Papa - Hoffmann, Lip­ pstadt 1999. 9 �xdl . . .

1 0 .'l'!.fxdl Capturing with the other rook - 1O.'l'!.axdl is not so logical, so White should better leave his rook on aI, since his only chances of an active play are on the queenside: 1O . . . i.g4 11.'l'!.d2 (11.'l'!.fe1 h6 12.!i.e3 'l'!.fdB 13.f1JdS f1Jxe4 14.h3 i.d7 IS. b4 f1Jf6 16.f1Jxc7 'l'!.acB 17.f1JbS e4 1B.f1Jfd4 f1Jxb4+ Bu Xiangzhi Dyachkov, Moscow 2006) 11 . . . hf3 12.hf3 f1Jd4 13.llJbS c S 14. f1Jxd4 cxd4 lS.hi6 hi6= Bacrot - Radjabov, Rishon Ie Zion 2006. lO ... h6 It is useful for Black to repel the enemy bishop to a less ac­ tive position, but he could have played immediately 1O . . . i.g4, for example: 11.h3 (11.'l'!.d3 a6 12 .h3 hf3 13.hi3 f1Jd4 14.f1JdS f1JxdS lS.cxdS, Chekhov - Iordaches­ cu, Dresden 1996, lS .. .fS+t) 11 . . . hi3 12.hi3 f1Jd4 13.f1JdS f1JxdS 14.cxdS fS (14 ... c6 lS.dxc6 bxc6 16.'l'!.ac1 'l'!.fbB 17.b3 as 1B.'l'!.c4 a4 19.bxa4 'l'!.b2 2 0.'l'!.d2 'l'!.b1 21.@h2 i.fB 22.i.dU Ernst - Nijboer, Di­ eren 2006) lS.i.e3 f1Jxf3 16.gxf3 'l'!.f7 17.'l'!.ac1 i.fB 1B.i.cS i.h6 19.'l'!.c3 219

Chapter 2 0 gd7= Shneider - Beliavsky, Bern 1995.

11 .1e3 It is risky for White to present his opponent with the two bish­ op advantage, particularly when the bishop on e2 does not have any good prospects whatsoever: 1l.hf6 hf6 12 . .!t)d5 �d8 13.h3 ge8 14.cS .!t)d4 15 . .!t)xd4 exd4 16.�d4 c6 17. .!t)c3, Alexandrova - Motoc, Istanbul 2003, 17 ... �e7 18.gad1 (Black's position is again preferable in case of 18 . .!t)a4 if6 19.9b4 - 19.9c4 �e6 - 19 ... a5 20.gb3 �e4+) 18 ... ixc5=i= 11 .1g4 Of course, Black should fight for the d4-outpost, moreover that his knight is already on c6. 12.gd3 12.h3 .txf3 13.hf3 gfd8= Ale­ xandrova - Golubev, Alushta 1999. 12 . .!t)d5 .!t)xe4 13.h3 hf3 14.

.txf3 .!t)g5 15.hg5 bxg5 16 . .!t)xc7 gac8 17 . .!t)b5 a6 18 . .!t)d6 gc7+ Vnu­ kov - Kotsur, Krasnoyarsk 1998.

•

•••

220

12 .!t)xe4! Naturally, this sacrifice is not forced, but Black does not have so often the possibility of equalizing so easily in the King's Indian De­ fence. 13.lOxe4 f5 14.lOc5 14 . .!t)c3 e4 15.gd2 exf3 16.gxf3 f4 17.ic5 ixc3 18.bxc3 gf5= Pe­ run - S.Pavlov, Kiev 2004. 14 e4 It would have been more pre­ cise for Black to have started with the other pawn - 14 . . .f4!? 15.h3 (15.�d2 e4 16 ..!t)xe4 gae8 17 . .!t)c3 ixc3 18.ixc3 gxe2 =) 15 ... if5 16.ic1 e4 17.gb3 b6 18 . .!t)a6 exf3 19.hf3 .!t)d4 with an approximate equality. 15.gb3 exf3 16.gxf3 f4 17. fxg4 fxe3 18.fxe3 IOd4 ! = Itkis - Golubev, Romania 2000. •••

•••

Chapter 2 1

1.d4 �f6 2.c4 g 6 3.�c3 J.g7 4.e4 d6 5.�f3 0 - 0 6.J.e2 e5

7 .te3 This system is named after the famous Yugoslavian GM Svetozar Gligoric. White completes the de­ velopment of his light pieces and he waits for the response of his opponent to m ake up his mind about the situation in the cen­ tre. The e5-pawn continues to be hanging; the exchange exd4 lLlxd4 is not advantageous for Black at all and the move lLlc6 will be countered by White by playing d4-d5 with tempo. It is hardly advisable for White, to follow with 7.h3? ! , because af­ ter 7 . . . exd4 8.lLlxd4 �e8, Black will attack the e4-pawn and White will have problems protecting it. For example, after 9.f3, the dark .

squares on the kingside are weak­ ened and Black can exploit this ef­ fectively. For example: 9 . . . lLlh5 10.0-0 lLlg3 11.�el �h4 12.ifl lLlxf1 13.�1 ixh3! 14.lLlde2 (It would be hopeless for White to try 14.gxh3 �g3 15.@hl �xh3 16.@gl .hd4 17.�xd4 �g3 18.@hl �e5.) 14 ...ie6 and Black won a pawn in the game Vark - Stein, Piarnu 1971. In the more recent games White failed to achieve anything much, for example 9. �d3 (instead of 9.f3) 9 . . . lLlbd7 10.ilJb3 a5 1l.a4 lLle5 12.Y;Vc2 ie6 13.lLld2 lLlc6+ Dzha­ garov - Morozov, Voronezh 2 007, or 9.ig5 h6 1O ..hf6 Y;Vxf6 1l.lLlf3 lLla6 12.0-0 �d8 13.id3 lLlc5 14. �el .hc3 15.bxc3 �f6? B.Hansen - Borge, Copenhagen 1997. In case of 7 . .tg5, Black should attack immediately the enemy bishop with 7. . . h6, and now: It would be harmless for Black if White plays 8 .ie3, in view of 8 . . . lLlg4 and contrary to the main line White's bishop would not have the g5-square anymore. In the game Sablic - Cetkovic, Bel­ grade 2006 after 9.icl lLld7 1O.h3 lLlgf6 1l.ie3 exd4 12.lLlxd4 �e8 221

Chapter 21 13.f3 liJhS 14.�d2 liJg3 1SJ!g1 liJxe2 16.liJcxe2 a6 17.liJc3 liJeS 18.b3 cS 19.1iJde2 bS, Black seized the initiative. The simple exchange here is full of venom 8 . .ixf6 .ixf6 9.a4!? (In the endgame after 9.dxeS .beS 1O.liJxeS dxeS 11.�xd8 �d8, Black holds the position successfully, for example: 12.liJdS liJa6 13.0-0-0 i.e6 14.liJc3 c6= Stefanac - Juric, Zadar 1996.) 9 ... liJc6 1O.dS liJe7 11.0-0 i.g7 12.b4. White's queenside offensive is de­ veloping seemingly fast, but Black manages to create counterplay: 12 .. .fS 13 . .id3 hS 14.h4 i.h6 1S.cS as 16.cxd6 cxd6 17.bxaS gxaS 18.liJbS gf6 19.1iJgS i.d7 20.�b3 .bbS 21.axbS .bgS 22.hxgS gt7, with mutual chances. Eingorn Ivanchuk, Odessa 2006. White tries more often to pre­ serve the pin with the move 8.i.h4, but Black can be more persistent and get rid of it with 8 ... gS. There might follow 9 .i.g3 (There arise interesting complications after 9.dxeS gxh4 10.exf6 �xf6 and they lead to a double-edged posi­ tion. 11.liJdS �d8 12.�d2 liJa6 13.liJd4 liJcS 14.f3 as 15.0-0 c6 16.liJe3 �gS? Loeffler - Lanka, Hamburg 2002, or 11.�d2 i.e6 12.gd1 liJd7 13.�e3 liJb6. It is es­ sential for Black to cover the dS­ square. 14.cS dxcS 1S.�xcS gfe8 16.0-0 c6 17.liJd4 �gS 18.�xgS hxgS 19.f4 .ba2, draw, Smejkal ­ Sax, Vrsac 1981.) 9 . . . g4 (This is the most precise move for Black, 222

because he provokes an immedi­ ate crisis, making use of his lead in development.) 1O.liJh4 exd4 11. �xd4 ge8 12 .�d3 liJbd7 13.f3 (Black is better after 13.liJfS?! liJcS 14.�c2, Uusi - Lanka, Daugavpils 1979, 14 . . . liJfxe4 1S.liJxg7 �xg7 16.liJxe4 liJxe4 17.0-0 i.fS.) 13 ... liJcS 14.�c2 (14.�d2 liJhS 15. 0-0-0 liJxg3 16.hxg3 aSoo Marcus - Sosonko, Leeuwarden 1973) 14 . . . liJhS 15.0-0-0 (1S . .if2, Web­ ster - Hebden, England 1999, 15 . . . liJf4 16.0-0-0 �gS 17.�b1 .bc3 18.bxc3 i.d7t) 1S . . . liJxg3 16.hxg3 c6 17.�b1 a6 18.�d2 i.e6 19.1iJfS .ixfS 20.exfS �f6 21.fxg4 liJe4 22. liJxe4 �e4 23.gc1 bS, with ap­ proximately equal chances, Schus­ ter - Peralta, Buenos Aires 1998. 7 liJg4 This is the most principled and best move for Black. He frees the way forward of his f-pawn with tempo and he opens the diagonal of his dark-squared bishop. His knight is not stable on the g4square indeed and he will need to retreat it to h6 in the future. 8.i.g5 f6 • • •

5. 11Jf.3 0 - 0 6. �e2 e5 7. �e3 I1Jg4 8. �g5f6 A) 9 . .tc1 B) 9 .th4 •

Black does not have too many problems to solve after the "ab­ stract" move 9.�d2, for exam­ ple: 9 . . . l1Jc6 10.d5 l1Je7 11.h3 I1Jh6 12 .g4 11Jf7 13.�c2 c5 14.0-0-0 a6 15.�dgl �d7 16.l1Jdl b5, with mu­ tual chances, Tarasov - Biriukov, St. Petersburg 1995.

A) 9.�c1 This retreat of the bishop only looks like a loss of time, but in fact Black can hardly make any use of tempi like I1Jh6 and f6. On the contrary, he would need to decide now what to do later. Al) 9 exd4 A2) 9 f5 • • •

•••

Al) 9 exd4 This is the simplest solution for Black. He clarifies the situa­ tion in the centre and after 1 0 .l1Jxd4 f5 He regains his bishop and White's advantage becomes high­ ly questionable, if at all . . . • . •

1l.h3 White falls into a beautiful trap after Il.exf5 - 11 . . . l1Jxf2 ! ! 12.'it>xf2 �h4 13.g3 (13. 'it>e3 I1Jc6-+) 13 . . . �xd4 14.�xd4 hd4 15.'it>g2 M5+ Iskusnyh - Sudakova, St. Petersburg 2002. 11.hg4 fxg4 12.�e3 c6 13.�d2 �eS 14.l1Jde2 I1Jd7 15.�dl l1Je5 16.b3 �a5 17.l1Jd4 a6 IS.0-0 b5+ Marcelin - Bologan, France 2003. In case of 11.0-0, Black contin­ ues with exchanges in the centre: 11 . . . fxe4 12 .hg4 hg4 13.�xg4 hd4 14.�h6, Harikrishna - Her­ nandez Guerrero, Merida 2007 (14.�xe4 I1Jc6 15.�e3 �g7 16.�adl �eS 17.�xeS �axeS IS.l1Jd5 �f7= D'Costa - Degraeve, Le Touquet 2007; 14.l1Jd5 �d7 15.�xd7 I1Jxd7 16.�6 �f7 17.l1Jxc7 �cS IS.l1Jb5, Kruppa - S.Pavlov, Kiev 2005, 18. ..�e5 19.�adl �f6 2 0.�g5 �e6 21.b3;!;; 14 . . . l1Jc6, V.Popov - Dju­ kic, Saint Vincent 2005, 15.�6 �eS 16.�ael �cS) 14 . . . �eS 15. I1Jxe4 I1Jc6 16.�ael �cS ! (Black activates his queen, because its eventual trade is favourable for him.) 17.�f3 �f5= 1l l1Jh6 Black should consider very seriously the possibility 11 . . . l1Je5 ! ? 12.exf5 gxf5 13.l1Jd5 I1Jbc6 (13 . . . l1Jg6 14.h4 I1Jc6 15.�g5 �d7 16.l1Jb5 h6 17.�d2± Volkov Nevednichii, Silivri 2003) 14.l1Jb5 �f7, L'Arni - Di Berardino, Hoog­ eveen 200S, 15.�e3 (15.�h5 I1Jg6 16.0-0 I1Jce5CXl) 15 . . . l1Jg6 (15 . . . •••

223

Chapter 21 a6 16.�bxc7) 16J�'d2 f4 17.�xf4 �xf4 18 . .hf4 ti'f6.

16 . .h:e4 �t7 - Black's pieces are harmoniously deployed and his pawns control all the important squares in the centre. The posi­ tion is about equal. In case of 12.h4, Black should react energetically with 12 . . . fxe4 13.�xe4 �f5 14.�xf5 J.xf5 15.ti'dS It>h8 16.ti'xb7 �d7 17.hS ti'e7 18. �g3 �c5f± 12 .txh6 13.exfS gxf5 14. 0 - 0 �c6 15.Af3 lS.c5, Aliavdin - Evdokimov, Sochi 2 007, 15 . . . J.g7 16.�xc6 bxc6 17.ti'a4 J.d7 with mutual chances. 15.�xc6 bxc6 16.J.f3 l:!b8 17.l:!b1, Williams - van Der Weide, Oslo 2004, 17 ... c5 18.l:!e1 J.d7 19.ti'd3 J.g7= Black's two bishops com­ pensate the defects of his pawn­ structure. 15 ... �xd4 16.ti'xd4 Ag7 17. ti'd5 It>h8 18.gadl Ae5 19.9fel c6 2 0 .ti'd3 ti'f6 21.g3 Ad7= Black has completed his develop­ ment, having equalized success­ fully. •••

12 .hh6 Naturally, White should be re­ luctant to present his opponent with the two-bishop advantage, but as the analysis below will show, the alternatives for White provide him with even less chanc­ es of obtaining the advantage. 12.exfS �xfS 13.�xfS hiS ! (Black is ready to part with his b7pawn, but he completes quickly his development and exerts pow­ erful pressure against his oppo­ nent's queenside.) 14.ti'dS (14. J.e3 �c6 IS.ti'd2 as 16.0-0 It>h8 17J3adl ti'f6 18.�dS ti'f7 19.b3 b6 2 0.a3 l:!ae8f± Aronian - Grischuk, Linares 2009; 14. 0-0 �c6 lS.J.e3 ti'f6 16.l:!c1 �d4 17.b3 l:!ae8 18.lLldS �xe2 19.ti'xe2 ti'f7= Gustafsson ­ Shomoev, Dresden 2007) 14 . . . l:!t7 IS.ti'xb7 �d7 16.0-0 �cS 17.ti'dS l:!b8� , with an excellent compen­ sation for Black. 12.0-0 �c6 13.�xc6 bxc6 14. J.f3, Ornstein - Westerinen, Hel­ sinki 1975, 14 . . . J.d7 15.cS fxe4 •

224

A2) 9 f5!? •••

5. lDfJ 0 - 0 6. Ae2 e5 7. Ae3 lDg4 8. ig5f6

A2a) 1 0 .ext'S A2b) l O .Ag5 Black has nothing to worry about after 1O.dxeS lDxeS 11.exfS (l1.lDxeS heS 12.1J.h6 geB 13.'lWd2 lDc6 14.igS 'lWd7 lS.0-0 fxe4 16. lDxe4 'lWf7 17.gae1 ifS 1B.lDg3 lDd4 19.b3 liJxe2 20.gxe2 id7� Winants - David, France 2007) 11 . . . hfS (It is also possible for him to choose another captur­ ing 11 . . . �S 12.0-0 lDbc6 13.lDdS lDxf3 14.1J.xf3 gfB lS.ie4 lDd4 16. ie3 cS 17.'lWd2 ie6 1B.ih6 'lWh4 19.hg7 c;t>xg7 20.gae1 gf7� Krup­ pa - Baklan, Pivne 200S.) 12.lDd4 lDd3 13.hd3 hd4 14.JixfS hc3 lS.bxc3 gxfS 16.c5 dS 17.0-0 lDc6 1B.ie3 bS 19.'lWe2 a6 with approx­ imately equal chances, KnIppa Moliboga, Kiev 200B. After the indifferent move 10.0-0, Zivanic - G. Timoshen­ ko, Kavala 200B, Black reduces the tension in the centre, reaching an acceptable position. 10 . . . fxe4 11.lDxe4 exd4 12 .h3 lDf6 13.'lWxd4 lDc6. He can counter 1O.h3, with the beautiful tactical strike 10 . . . lDxf2 ! , which surprisingly enough ( ! ) worked even against Ivanchuk in a game with a classical time-con­ trol. 11.c;t>xf2 fxe4 12.lDxe4 'lWh4 13.c;t>gl (White's king succumbed in a beautiful fashion in the mid­ dle of the board after 13. c;t>e3 ih6 14.c;t>d3 'lWxe4 1S.c;t>xe4 ifS 16.c;t>dS c6 17.c;t>xd6 gf6 1B.mc7 gf7 19.c;t>d6 ig7, with a checkmate in three

lS. c;t>c3 exd4 16.lDxd4 ig7-+ Elet­ skikh - Pancevski, Herceg Novi 200S.) 13 . . .'�xe4 14.id3 (14.dxeS dxeS=t; 14.dS .tiS=t Ivanchuk - Bo­ logan, Edmonton 200S; 14 . . . 'lWfS ! ?+) 1 4. . . 'lWc6=t A pawn i s a pawn, even in Africa!

A2a) 10 .ext'S This move might lead to inter­ esting complications. 1 0 exd4 This is the thematic move for Black, although even after 10 . . . JixfS, he preserves good chances of holding the position, for example: 11.h3 lDf6 12.dxeS dxeS 13.'lWxdB gxdB 14.lDxeS lDe4 1S.lDxe4 he4 16.if3 1J.xf3 17.lDxf3 lDc6. White evidently lags in development and in addition his queenside has come under attack. 18.0-0 lDd4 19.1Dxd4 gxd4 20.b3 gxc4 21.bxc4 hal 22 .ie3 if6 23.gd1 b6= Oni­ schuk - Smirin, Turin 2006. 1l.lDd5 White's attempt to compli­ cate matters with 11.igS 'lWeB 12. lDdS (12.lDxd4, Hoang Thi Bao Dembo, Beijing 200B, 12 . . . 'lWeS 13.lDf3 'lWxfS 14.llJdS llJc6, and the c7-pawn is poisoned. lS.lDxc7? can be countered by Black with the surprising fork lS . . . 'lWaS+ and if lS.0-0, then lS . . . 'lWf7 and later Black develops his bishop on cB, completing the mobilization of his queenside.) 12 ... d3 ! (This is the elegant trick, which Black's defence is based on.) 13.'lWxd3 (13. llJxc7 'lWf7) 13 ... 1J.xfS 14.'lWd2 (14. • • •

22S

Chapter 21 ClJe7 Wfxe7 1S.!xe7 !xd3 16 ..ixfB !xb2 = ; 14.�b3 ClJa6 1S.Wfxb7 1S.ClJe7 'i!?hB - 1S . . . ClJc5 16.�xc7 ClJd3 17.'i!?f1 ClJdxf2 1BJ3g1 ClJe4=F) 14 . . . Wfd7 (14 . . JU7! ?) 15.0-0 (15. h3 ClJeS 16.ClJxeS !xeS 17.ClJe7 'i!?hB 1B.ClJxfS WfxfS 19.0-0 ClJc6 20 ..te3 .tf4 21.Wfc3 �f6 22.Wfxf6 E:xf6 23 . .ixf4 E:xf4= A.Rychagov - Amonatov, Moscow 2007) 1S . . . ClJc6 16.E:ad1 E:aeB 17.b3 .te4 1B.ClJe1 .tfS 19.h3 ClJd4 20.ClJc3 ClJxe2 21.ClJxe2 ClJf6+ Gavrilov Amonatov, Moscow 2007. 1l ht'5 12.h3 •••

.te3 ClJxdS 16.cxdS f4 17.dxc6 fxe3 1B.cxb7 exf2 19.'i!?f1 E:bB 20 ..tf3 �h4; 1S . .tf4 ClJe4 16.0-0 ClJd4 17. .td3 c6 1B.ClJc3 ClJe6) 1S . . . ClJxdS 16.WfxdS 'i!?hB 17 . .te3 f4 1B . .td2 !xb2 19.E:ab1 Wff6 and he is not worse at all... 13.hxg4 dxe2 14.'mJ3 .ixg4 14 . . . .te6 1S.ClJgS !xdS 16.cxdS Wff6, Damljanovic - Miljanic, Ti­ vat 2002, 17 . .te3;!; 15.c5 'i!?h8 ! 16.ClJf4 Black's e2-pawn is like a bone up White's throat. He will try to annihilate it and castle, but Black is so much ahead in development that he manages to seize the ini­ tiative for long. 16 .tf5 17.ClJh4 Wff6 18. �xb7 �d7+ •••

A2b) 1 0 .tg5 �e8 •

12 d3 We are already familiar with this resource. Meanwhile, the soundness of Black's defence can be empha­ sized by the fact that he has a quite reasonable alternative - 12 . . . ClJf6 13.ClJxd4 ClJc6 14.ClJxfS gxfS. Black's pawn-structure has its defects indeed, but his pieces are full of enormous potential energy. White has numerous moves to choose from, but Black can counter all of them quite effectively. 15.0-0 (15. • • •

226

This is another important vari­ ation for Black. 1l.dxe5 1l.h3?! Pfeiffer - Mischke, Merzig 1996, 1l . . . ClJxf2 12.'i!?xf2 exd4 13.ClJxd4 WfeS=F 1l.ClJdS fxe4 12.ClJxc7 �f7 13.

5. tiJj3 0 - 0 6 . .ie2 e5 7. .ie3 tiJg4 8. il.g5f6 tiJxa8 exf3 14.gxf3, Kolesnikov Abdulov, Urgup 2 0 04, 14 . . . exd4+± 11.exfS h6 (11...gxfS ! ?) 12.f6 (12. tiJdS hxgS 13.tiJxc7 Wie7 14.tiJxa8 e4 lS.tiJd2 tiJxf2 - lS . . . gxfS� 16.i>xf2 e3 17.i>e1 exd2 18.i>xd2 ,ixd4 19.Wib3 .ixfS=t; 12 ..ih4 e4 13.tiJd2 tiJxf2 14 . .ixf2 e3 lS.,ixe3 Wixe3 16.tiJdS Wixd4 17.tiJe7 i>h7 18.fxg6 i>h8oo) 12 . . . tiJxf6 13 . .ixf6 .ixf6 14.dxeS dxeS 15.0-0 tiJc6 16.tiJdS e4! +± 1l tLlxe5 It is obviously disadvanta­ geous for Black to close the e­ file and particularly the long dark-squared diagonal: H ... dxeS 12.exfS ,ixfS 13.tiJdS l3t7 14.h3 tiJf6 lS.tiJxf6 .ixf6 16.hf6 l3xf6 17.WldS i>f8 18.WlxeS tiJd7 19.Wic3 i>g8 20.l3dl± Gustafsson - End­ ers, Germany 2007. 12.&iJxe5 Wlxe5 13.exfS .bf5 Black queen on eS is deployed quite well; therefore it should re­ main there, while he must worry about the development of his queenside: 13 ... WlxfS? ! 14 ..ie3 tiJc6 lS.Wld2 .ie6 16.0-0 l3ae8 17. b3 .ic8 18.l3ad1 Wlt7 19.tiJdS b6 20.f4 tiJd8 21..if3 tiJe6 22 ..ig4 tiJcS 23.,ixc8 l3xc8 24.fS;t Reshevsky ­ Byrne, Chicago 1973. 14. 0 - 0 Black's game is quite accept­ able in the variation 14 . .ie3 tiJa6 15.0-0 l3ae8 16.l3c1 tiJcS 17.b3 tiJe4 18.tiJbS, Nguyen Huynh Minh - Lo Kin Mun, Singapore 2006, 18 ... tiJxf2 19 . .ixf2 Wixe2 20.WidS i>h8 21.tiJxc7 l3eS.

14 &iJc6 15.ge1, Marzolo Perpinya, Tarragona 2007, 15 .te6 1 6 .ie3 tLld4 1 7 .td3 gae8 18.Wla4 a6 19.f4 Wic5 2 0 .if2 b5+ Black has seized the initia­ tive. •••

• • •

•

•

•

B) 9 .th4 •

••.

9 g5 It looks like this is not a logi­ cal move for Black "to pack" his King's Indian bishop in such fashion. After all, it was eulogised by chess giants like Geller, Bron­ stein, and particularly Gufeld. On the other hand, there arises a question - what is White's bishop going to do on g3? 1 0 .ig3 tLlh6 White retreats prudently with his knight, creating the threat g4 in the process and this might be very useful in the fight for the centre. 10 . . . tiJc6?! H.dS tiJe7 12.tiJxgS tiJxf2 13.,ixf2 fxg5 14 . .ig4 tiJg6 15. g3 h6 16.0-0 i>h7 17.Wie2 c5 18. dxc6 bxc6 19.l'�ad1 ,ixg4 20. Wixg4 Wie7 21.cS± Malaniuk - Szczepin­ ski, Barlinek 2006. • • •

•

227

Chapter 21 B1) 1l.dxe5 B2) 1l.h3 B3) 1l.d5 White should better avoid the line: 11.h4? ! g4 12 .llJh2 fS+ Black's position is perfectly ac­ ceptable after I1.VNd2 g4 12.llJh4 llJc6 13.dS llJd4 14.f4 gxf3 IS.llJxf3 fS, H alldorsson - Popovic, Pula 2006. After 11.0-0, there appeared a game as if it had been played by Robert James Fischer on the In­ ternet: 11.0-0 exd4 12.llJxd4 llJc6 13.llJxc6 bxc6 14.h3 gbB lS.VNd2 fS 16.exfS llJxfS 17.J.h2 llJd4 IB.J.d3? (Naturally, White was not obliged to blunder a pawn here . . . ) IB . . . .ixh3 ! 19.VNe3 J.fS 20J'l:ael hd3 21. y,yxd3 gxb2 and White resigned, Raynolds - Fischer, 2002. We will hardly ever know now who had been Black, but this player acted quite purposefully and around move seventeen his posi­ tion was at least equal. 11.cS - White is trying to play all over the entire board. Black has more than sufficient counter chances and his development is superior, so he will hardly have any problems at all. 11 . . . g4 (begin­ ning the fight for the d4-square) 12.llJh4 (12.llJd2 llJc6 13.dxeS dxeS 14.llJb3 J.e6 15.0-0 It>hB 16 . .ibS VNe7 17.llJdS VNf7, Matveeva - Xie Jun, New Delhi 2000, IB.f3 gxf3 19.VNxf3 fS=) 12 . . . llJc6 13.dxeS (13.cxd6 cxd6 14.dxeS fxeS - see 13.dxeS) 13 . . . fxeS 14.cxd6 cxd6 22B

IS.llJbS (IS.llJfS llJxfS 16.exfS J.xf5 17.,ixg4 llJd4+ Ksieski - B.Socko, Glogow 2001; IS.llJdS .te6 16.0-0 llJd4 17.llJe3 l'!cB IB.b3 VNd7 19. J.c4 ,ixc4 20.llJxc4 J.f6 2l.f4 VNe7 2 2.fxeS dxeS 23.llJfS llJhxfS 24.exfS hS+ Poluljahov - An­ toniewski, Koszalin 1999) IS . . . a6 16.llJxd6 VNaS 17.1t>f1 l'!dB IB.VNb3 It>hB 19.1lJhfS .txis 20.llJxb7 llJd4 21.llJxaS llJxb3 22.llJxb3 he4gg Slugin - I.Belov, Dagomys 2009.

Bl) 1l.dxe5 Vasily Ivanchuk liked to cap­ ture regularly on eS. In fact, Black's queenside weaknesses enable White to hope for an ad­ vantage, but tournament practice shows that Black should hold. 1l dxe5 • • •

12.c5 It deserves attention for White to try to attack his enemy's weak­ nesses directly with 12.h4 ! ? In that case however, Black succeeds in occupying the d4-square: 12 ... g4 13.llJh2 (13.VNxdB l'!xdB 14.llJd2 llJc6 IS.llJb3 llJd4 16.llJxd4 l'!xd4

5. tfJ/J 0 - 0 6. �e2 e5 7. .ie3 tfJ g4 8. .ig5f6 17.tfJbS l3d7 1B.f3 c6= V.Shishkin - Kanarek, Mielno 2006) 13 . . . tfJc6 ! 14.ti'xdB l3xdB lS.tfJdS tfJd4 16.l3c1 fSt Gulkov - Dyachkov, Voronezh 1999. White can exchange queens with 12.YNxdB l3xdB 13.tfJdS (13. tfJd2 �e6 14.0-0-0 tfJa6 lS.h4 g4 16.a3 c6 17.b4 tfJc7 1B.tfJb3 b6 19.�b2 f5; lS.f3 c6 16.tfJb3 tfJfl 17.�f2 �fB 1B.l3xdB tfJxdB 19.13d1 b6 20.tfJa1 tfJb7 21.tfJc2 l3dB 22. l3xdB tfJxdB, draw, Ivanchuk Bologan, Foros 2006.) and then Black will have to part with his light-squared bishop: 13 . . . tfJa6 14.tfJe7 (14.0-0-0 .ie6 lS.h4 g4 16.tfJh2 c6 17.tfJe3 tfJc5 1B.f3 gxf3 19.9xf3 fS 20.l3hg1 �fB= Kaka­ geldyev - AI Modiahki, Dubai 1996) 14 . . . �fB lS.tfJxcB 1!axcB 16.a3. He should not be afraid of this however, because he will succeed in occupying the weak d4-outpost after a while: 16 . . . tfJcS 17.tfJd2, Timoscenko - Pinter, Hlohovec 199B, 17 . . . l3d7 1B.h4 g4 19.0-0-0 l3cdB 20.�c2 as= White has tried in practice to give a check at first 12 .ti'dS �hB and exchange queens only then: 13.ti'xdB (13.0-0-0 YNe7 14.ti'aS c6 lS.tfJd2 b6 16.YNa4 .id7 17.f3 cS 1B.ti'a3 tfJc6 19.tfJdS YNfl 20 . .id3 .ie6 21.h3 fSoo Motylev - Radja­ boy, Wijk aan Zee 2007) 13 . . . l3xdB 14.h4 ! ? (14.tfJd2 cS! lS.f3 tfJc6 16. 0-0-0 tfJd4 17 . .id3 .ie6 1B.tfJb3 l3acB 19.�b1 fS= Ivanchuk - Rad­ jabov, Sochi 2007) 14 . . . g4 lS.tfJd2 tfJa6 16.0-0-0 �e6 17.tfJb3 tfJfl

(17. . . c6? ! 1B.tfJaS 1!xd1 19.13xd1 l3bB 2 0.a3 .ifB 2 1.�c2 tfJfl 2 2 .f3 gxf3 23.gxf3 tfJdB 24.f4 b6 2S.tfJb3 tfJfl 26.fS± Onischuk - Shomoev, Sochi 2 007) 1B.tfJaS tfJd600 In case of 12.0-0, Black's sim­ plest reaction is too take an imme­ diate control over the dS-square: 12 . . . c6 13.YNxdB l3xdB 14.1!fd1 l3xd1 (14 . . . l3eB! ?) lS.l3xd1 �e6 16.l3dB �fl 17.heS! fxeS 1B.tfJxgS �e7 19.tfJxe6 �xe6 20 . .ihS, Giorgadze - A.Kuzmin, Benasque 1997, 20 . . . .if6 21.1!eB �d7 22.cS b600 12.ti'b3 c6 13.c5 �hB 14.tfJd2 YNe7 (14 . . . tfJd7 1S.ti'c4 YNe7 16.tfJa4 l3dB 17.ti'c3 fS 1B.f3t Giorgadze - Z.Polgar, San Sebastian 1991) lS.h4 g4 16.0-0-0 ti'xcS, with ap­ proximately equal chances. 12 tfJc6 13.ti'xd8 Black will need to face com­ plex problems after this simple exchange. 13 ..ic4 �hB 14.ti'xdB tfJxdB lS. 0-0-0 (lS.tfJbS �e6 16.�b3 .ixb3 17.axb3 tfJe6= V. Shulman Umanskaya, St. Petersburg 1994) lS . . . tfJe6 16.b4 as 17.a3 axb4 lB. axb4 c6 19.�b2 tfJf4 2 0.hf4 exf4 21.�b3, draw, San Segundo Romero Holmes, Vendrell 1996. 13.0-0 g4 14.tfJh4 .ie6 lS.ti'a4 YNd4 16.ti'bS YNb4 17.f4 gxf3 (17 . . . l3adB ! ?) 1B.tfJxf3, Ivanchuk Radjabov, Odessa 2007, 1B . . . a6 19.YNxb4 tfJxb4 2 0.a3 tfJc2 21.l3ac1 tfJe3 22.l3fe1 tfJfl= 13 ... �d8 !? This is an attempt by Black to counter attack. • • •

229

Chapter 21 The defence of this position is a hard and laborious task. 13 ... ttJxdS 14.ttJbS �!f7 15.0-0-0 .ie6 (After lS . . . ttJe6 16 . .ic4 Black has great problems unpinning his pieces.) 16.h4 g4 17.ttJgS ! (White emphasises the awkward place­ ment of Black's knight on a6 with this move.) 17 . . . fxgS lS.hxgS ttJc6 19.9xh6 .ifS 20J3hS, with an edge for White, Grabliauskas - Krogh, Ringsted 1992. 14.ttJd5 Black can counter 14.ttJbS in the same fashion, by playing 14 ... g4 lS.ttJd2 ttJd4 and after captur­ ing on c7, there arises a transpo­ sition to the main line, while af­ ter 16.ttJxd4 �xd4 the position is equal. 14 g4 15.ttJd2 ttJd4 16.ttJxc7 (or 16.�c1 ttJxe2 17.l!7xe2 ttJfS ! IS. ttJxc7 ttJd4 19.1!7e1 �bS, with a good compensation for the pawn.) 16 ttJc2 (but not 16 . . . �bS? 17 . .ic4 ttJf7 lS.0-0-0) 17.�dl �xal 18 .lc4 (l8.ttJxaS .ie6=) 18 �f7 19.�xa8 .ih6 20 .ld5 J.d7 21.�c7 gc8 22.�e6 .lxe6 23.,be6 �c5 with mutual chances. •••

• • •

•

•••

•

B2) 1l.h3 (diagram) 1l �d7 It would be premature for Black to opt for 1l . . . exd4?! IVDxd4 ttJc6 (12 .. .fS 13.exfS .ixfS 14.0-0 ttJc6 lS.ttJxfS ttJxfS, Shulman - Fine­ gold, Bolingbrook 2005, White had better preserve his bishop • • •

230

- 16 . .ih2;!;) 13.h4 (13.0-0 fS 14.ttJxfS ttJxfS lS.exfS ttJd4 16 . .ig4 .ixfS 17.�e1 �hS lS.�c1 'i;Vd7 19.�e4, Timoscenko - Abbasov, Ohrid 2 001, 19 . . . .ixg4 20.hxg4 �e6; 13.ttJxc6 bxc6 14.0-0 fS 15. exfS ttJxfS 16 ..ih2 �bS 17.'i;Vd2 cS lS ..if3 ttJd4 19 ..ie4 .ie6 with an equal game. Engqvist - Hermans­ son, Hasselbacken 2001. In case of 13.cS, Black succeeds in push­ ing 13 .. .fS.) 13 .. .fS 14.hxgS .ixd4 (14 . . . WfxgS lS.�dbS f4 16 . .ih4 'i;Vxg2 17 ..if3 .ixc3 lS.bxc3 Wfg7 19.WfdS �hS 20.0-0-0, Volkov - B.Socko, Neum 2000, 2 0 . . . �eS 21.�dg1 .ig4 22 . .ixg4 �hxg4 23.�d4 'i;Vf7oo) lS.gxh6 fxe4 16. 'i;Vd2 (16.�xe4, Hilarp Persson - Blehm, Ohrid 2001, 16 . . . .ixb2 17.'i;VdS I!7hS lS.�d1 .if5 19.0-0 .ixe4 20.Wfxe4 'i;Vf6 21.cS �aeSf±) 16 . . . e3 ! ? 17.fxe3 .ieS lS ..ih4 .if6 19 . .ixf6 'i;Vxf6 20. 0-0-0± 12.d5 12.0-0 fS 13.exfS (13.dxeS! ? f4, Belmonte - Bass, Salta 1993, 14.WfdS I!7hS lS . .ih2 �xeS 16.cS �xf3 17 . .ixf3 �f7 lS.�ad1 'i;Vf6oo) 13 . . . �xfS 14.dxeS, S.Ivanov -

5. 0.fJ 0 - 0 6 . .1e2 e5 7. .1e3 0.g4 8 . .1g5f6 Inarkiev, Moscow 2005, 14 ... g4! 15.hxg4 0.xg3 16.fxg3 0.xe5 17.�d5 mh8 18.0.xe5 .ixe5 and Black's position is at least equal. 12.�d2 f5 13.�xg5 exd4 14. �xd8 Eixd8 15.0.b5 d3 16.0.xc7 fxe4 17.0.xa8 dxe2 18.0.g5 0.c5� V.Belov - Inarkiev, Moscow 2007. 12 . . . f5 White has already blocked the centre, so Black can continue with this thematic pawn-break. 13.exfS 13.h4 g4 14.0.g5 0.f6 15.exfS 0.xf5 16.0.ce4 0.xe4 17.0.xe4 0.xg3 18.fxg3 .1f5� Tarek - Mahia, Mendoza 1985. 13.�c2 0.c5 14.0.d2, Berkes van Delft, Hamburg 2003, 14 . . . fxe4 15.0.dxe4 0.xe4 16.0.xe4 0.f5= 13.0.d2 0.f6 14.ygc2 (14.exf5 .ixf5 15.0-0, Timoscenko - Kur­ nosov, Satka 2008, 15 ... .1g6 16.0.f3 0.h5�) 14 ... c6 15.a4 cxd5 16.cxd5 fxe4 17.0.dxe4 0.xe4 18. �xe4 �b6 19.0-0 0.f5 20 ..1d3 .1d7 21.b4 Eiac8� Gustafsson Solleveld, Enschelde 2 003. 13 0.cS! This is an important fine point - White's f5-pawn is running no­ where, so it is essential for Black to take the e4-square under con­ trol. Following 13 . . . 0.xf5 14.0.e4, White can rely on obtaining some edge. 14.0.d2 In case of 14.�d2, Black has

a promising pawn-sacrifice at his disposal: 14 . . . 0.xf5 15.0.xg5 .ih6 16.h4 0.xg3 17.fxg3 as 18.g4 �e7 19.0-0-0 .1d7 20.Eihf1 Eixf1 21.Eixfl Eif8 2 2 .Eixf8 �xf8= Akes­ son - Nataf, Stockholm 2002. 14 .hf5 1S. 0 - 0 15.f3 e4! 16.fxe4 .ixc3 17.bxc3 .ixe4+ lS e4 16.0.b3 0.xb3 16 . . .b6 17.0.d4 ygf6 18.0.c6 as 19.f4 .1d7 20.0.b5 .ixc6 21.dxc6 �xb2 22 .Eib1 ygxa2� Sasikiran Topalov, Sofia 2007. 17.ygxb3 .i.g6 18.gae1 ge8 ! ? 19. ygxb7 0. f5 2 0 .i.g4 gb8� Oni­ schuk - Smirin, Toljatti 2003. • . .

• . .

•

H3) H.dS

• • •

H 0.d7 Black should better not be in a hurry to play 1l .. .f5 12.exf5. There begins a fight for the light squares in the centre and Black will be not so well prepared for it, because of his knight stranded on the b8square. 12 . . . g4 (12 . . . 0.xf5 13.0.d2 ttld4 14.0-0 0.xe2 15.ygxe2 �e8 16.0.de4 ygg6 17.f3 .if5 18.h3 • • •

231

Chapter 21 hS 19.c5 dxc5 20.tt)xcS tt)d7= Ki.Georgiev - Bologan, Gibral­ tar 2006; 14.tt)de4 g4 IS.f3 gxf3 16 . .txf3 tt)xf3 17.gxf3 @h8 18.�e2 .tfS= Prusikin - B.Socko, Ger­ many 2 003; 14.i.d3! .tfS IS.i.xf5 l3xfS 16.tt)de4;!;. Both knights, white and black, occupy beauti­ ful squares in the centre, the only difference being that White can exchange the enemy knight on d4 with his bishop on g3 after some time, reaching a classical position with his good knight dominating over Black's bad bishop.) 13.tt)d2 i.xfS 14.tt)f1 (This is trickier than 14.tt)de4 tt)d7 IS.i.d3 @h8 16.0-0 as 17.�el? ! - 17.�e2 - 17 ... i.g6 18.�e2 �e7 19.a3 a4 20.l3adl tt)b6+ Gofshtein - Kasimdzhanov, Hoogeveen 1999; 15. 0-0 �e7 16.l3el as 17.a3 tt)f6 18 . .th4 �e8 19.i.xf6 i.xf6 20.cS i.e7 21.�b3;!; Zhao Xue - Xiu Deshun, Jinan 2005.) 14 . . . tt)d7 IS.tt)e3 e4 (Black cannot avoid the trade of his light­ squared bishop; otherwise, he will simply lose his g4-pawn without any compensation whatsoever. IS . . . tt)cS I6.0-0 �d7 17.tt)xfS �xfS 18.b4 tt)d7 19.tt)bS;!;) 16.0-0 tt)cS 17.l3cl as 18.tt)xg4 tt)xg4 19.i.xg4 �gS 20.i.xfS l3xfS 21.�c2 e3 22. l3cel exf2 23.i.xf2± Roiz - Rad­ jabov, Saint Vincent 2 005. White has a solid extra pawn. 12.tt)d2 The move 12 .h3 leads to vari­ ations, which we analyze after 1l.h3. There arise original positions 232

after the pawn-advance 12.h4 ! ? g4 13.tt)d2 ! ? (13.tt)h2 f5 14.exfS tt)xf5 IS.tt)xg4 tt)xg3 16.fxg3 tt)c5 17.tt)f2 e4�. Black's compensation for the pawn is more than evident and he has even seized the initiative.) 13 . . . fS 14.exfS tt)f6 (14 . . . tt)xf5 IS.i.xg4 tt)xg3 16.fxg3 tt)c5 17.i.xc8 �xc8 18.tt)de4± D.Gurevich - Zenyuk, Stillwater 2007) IS.tt)de4 tt)xfS 16.tt)xf6 �xf6 17.tt)e4 �g6 18.hS �h6 19.i.xg4 tt)xg3 2 0.fxg3 �e3 21.�e2 �xe2 22 .i.xe2 .th6� The move 12.0-0 has focused the attention recently and its merit is its high reliability. Black must play very precisely in order to equalize. 12 .. .fS 13.exfS tt)xf5 (The developments would be much more interesting after 13 . . . tt)c5 ! ?) 14.tt)d2 tt)d4 IS.tt)de4 h6 (It is also good for Black to opt for IS ... tt)xe2 16.�xe2 h6 17.b4 tt)f6 18.h3 i.fS 19.13fel �d7 2 0.a3 �f7 David - Bologan, Moscow 2005.) 16 . .tg4 b6 17.f3 tt)cS I8.i.xc8 �xc8 19.i.f2 �d7 20.tt)g3 as 21.tt)ce2 tt)fS 22 .tt)xfS �xfS 23.tt)g3 �g6 24.i.xcS bxc5 2S.�b1 (It would be better for White, to continue with 2S.tt)e4, but even then after 2S . . . g4, Black obtains an excellent position.) 2S . . . �xbl 26.l3axbl e4! (Black activates his King's Indian bishop thanks to this thematic pawn-sacrifice.) 27.tt)xe4 i.d4 28. @hl a4 and Black has seized the initiative, Wang Yue - Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2009. 12 f5 Black has no time for prophy•••

5. � 0 - 0 6 . .te2 e5 7. .t e3 liJ g4 8. .tg5j6 lactic like 12 . . . aS I3.h4 g4 14.i.xg4 liJxg4 IS.�xg4 liJc5 16.Wle2 fS 17. f3 .ih6 IS . .tf2 b6 19.exfS i.xf5 20 . .bcS bxc5 21.liJde4± Gheor­ ghiu - Southam, Bie1 1990.

E:hbl l:UbS 22.a4 as 23.bxa5 bxa5 24.liJb5 �dS= Bacrot - Radjabov, Cap d'Agde 2006. White's only reasonable plan can be connected with an attack against the e5-pawn with .tc3, liJb3, �d2 , but in the meantime Black can advance g4. 15.liJdxe4 In answer to 15.fxe4, Black should try to acquire some space for his knights: 15 . . . g4 16 ..th4 WleS, Zhao Xue - Ju, Wuxi 2006, 17.c5 Wlg6 18.�b3 liJh5 19.0-0-0 liJf4 20 ..tfl b6! ? and the position is rather unclear. 15 liJxe4 Black can also begin his op­ erations with 15 . . .liJfS 16 . .tf2 liJh4 (16 . . . liJxe4! ? 17.fxe4 liJd4 IS . .tg4 .ixg4 19.hxg4 c5=) 17.E:gl liJxe4 IS.liJxe4 .tfS 19 . .te3 h6 2 0.�d2 .th7 21.0-0-0 a6 22.'>tbl liJf5 23 . .td3 c5 !f± Prusikin - Stellwa­ gen, Pulvermuehle 2004. 16.liJxe4 16.fxe4 g4 17.hxg4 (17.h4 c5 IS . .tf2 .td7 19 . .te3 a6 2 0.Wld2 liJf7=) 17 . . . liJxg4 1S.�d2 .tf6 19 . .tf3 Wle7 20.�e2 Wlg7= The knight on g4 cements Black's compromised kingside. 16 liJf5 17 .tf2 c5 This is a typical preparatory move by Black for his queenside offensive. Meanwhile, the pawn on cS emphasizes the presence of Black's almighty knight in the centre on d4. 18.�d2?! It looks like this developing move cannot be criticized at all. It •••

B3a) 13.f3 B3h) 13.exfS B3a) 13.f3 White restricts the enemy knight on h6 and he deprives Black of the possibility to sharpen the game with the pawn- sacrifice eS-e4. He loses however, the ex­ cellent e4-square, as well as the bl-h7 diagonal, which can be used later by his bishop on e2 and his queen. 13 liJf6 14.h3 fxe4 It would be also quite reliable for Black to continue here with 14 . . . cS IS ..tf2 f4 16.a3 (16J'�bl b6 17.b4 cxb4 1S.E:xb4 liJd7 19.a4 liJc5 20.a5 .td7 21.axb6 axb6 22 .liJb3 liJf7 23.Wlbl E:a6 24.'>td2 �c7 and the game remains approximately equal, Gelfand - Radjabov, Turin 2006.) 16 . . .b6 17.b4 liJf7 IS.�b3 hS 19.'>tdl .td7 20.'>tc2 �c7 21. • • •

• • •

•

233

Chapter 21 all depends however on the pawn­ structure. White forfeited his right to capture en passant - lS.dxc6 ! bxc6 19.�d2 dS 20.cxdS cxdS and now he could have equalized with 21.tDcS (21.tDxgS h6; 21.0-0-0 tDd4) 21...tDd4 22 .hd4 exd400 18 h6 It becomes clear suddenly that Black has excellent prospect on both sides of the board, while White has nothing else to do but only admire his beautiful knight on e4. 19. 0 - 0 - 0 19.0-0 tDd4+ 19 b5! ? The merit of this sacrifice, in comparison to the game, is that Black is acting faster. It is worse for him to opt for 19 . . . a6 20.g4 (20.r,!?b1 tDd4 21.h4 tDxe2 22.V9xe2 g4 23.fxg4 l"if4 24.ig3 hg4 25. �d3 l"ifS) 20 . . . tDh4 21.!xh4 gxh4f± Huzman - Bologan, Moscow 2006. 2 0 .cxb5 a6 (but not 20 . . . tDd4 21.h4 g4 22.hd4 exd4 23.fxg4) 21.bxa6 (or 21.b6 l"ibS 22 .r,!?b1 V9xb6 23.h4 gxh4) 21 ha6 22 .txa6 l:i:xa6 23.r,!?bl �a8 24. tDc3 l:i:b8 and White's position is obviously beyond salvation. • • •

• • •

• • •

•

B3b) 13.exf5 (diagram) 13 tDf6 14 .1d3 The fight is now focused on the e4-square. Black has enough tactical counter chances in order to avoid entering a dull position, in which he might be only fighting • • •

234

•

for draw. 14. 0-0 !xis lS.f3 tDhS 16. tDde4 ig6 17.if2 tDf4 lS.l"ie1 tDxe2 19.�xe2 tDfS 2 0.l"iac1 cS ! = with equality, Markus - Miljanic, Budva 2003. 14.tDde4 tDxe4 lS.tDxe4 !xis (lS . . . tDxfS 16.0-0) 16.i.d3 g4 (Now, if White wishes to bring his dark-squared bishop into the ac­ tions he must have an idea what to do with the enemy g4-pawn.) 17.0-0 (The position would be double-edged as a result of 17.�e2 r,!?hS lS.0-0-0 VgeS 19.r,!?b1 �g6 20.h3 gxh3 21.gxh3 tDgS ! followed by tDf6 and equality, Dorfman Nataf, Mondariz 2000; lS.0-0 �e7 19.f3 gxf3 20.l"ixf3 ig4 21. l"ixfS l"ixfS 22.�c2 tDfS 23.!f2 tDd4 24.�d2 a6= Prusikin - B. Socko, Dresden 2007.) 17. . . he4. Black will have to part with this bishop sooner or later; otherwise, it is inconceivable how to develop the knight. (17 . . . �eS lS.cS V9g6 19.1"ie1 tDfl 20.!h4 l"iaeS 21.l"ic1 dxcS 22 J':ixcS tDd6 23.�a4 he4 24.he4 �h6 2S.ig3;!; Aronian Radjabov, Morelia 2006) lS.he4

5JiJj3 0 - 0 6. i.e2 e5 7. i.e3 liJg4 8. i.g5f6 VNgS 19.VNd3 (19.�c1 VNhS 20.c5 �f7 21.cxd6 cxd6 22.VNc2 i.f6 23.�ad1 �afB 24.VNa4 liJfS 2S.VNxa7 liJd4gg Vanheste - Piket, Amster­ dam 19BB) 19 . . . liJfS 20.�ac1 �f7 21.i.xfS, Arsovic - Mozetic, Podgorica 1996 and here Black had better capture with his queen - 21...VNxfS 22.VNxfS �xfS, ending up in an equal endgame . . 14 �xf5 15.liJde4 liJxe4 Radjabov tried to use an­ other plan against Kramnik: 15 . . . i.h6! ? 16.0-0 mhB 17.cS g4 (The pawn is not hanging with check now.) 1B.liJxf6 �xf6 19.1iJbS �e7 20.VNe2, Kramnik - Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2007. Here, Volodya could have continued simply with 20 . . . a6 21.i.xfS �S 22 .liJc3 �fB 23.liJe4 mgB 24.VNc4 i.fS= with an approximate equality. 16.liJxe4 16.he4 �eB 17.f3 VNhS 1B.i.f2 liJh4 19.0-0 g4 2 0.fxg4 hg4 21.VNc2 liJg6 22 .hg6 hxg6 23.i.e3 e4 24.VNxe4 i.eS 2S.i.f4 i.g7 26.i.e3, draw, Avrukh - Smirin, Haifa 200B. .••

16 �h4! Black's knight prefers to oc­ cupy the juicy d4-outpost, instead of going on a long journey all the way to the h4 square. This is all done, because of a tempo. It is es­ sential for him to push g4. I real­ ized all this over the board. Black is not afraid of his pawns being doubled, because of his ample space advantage on the kingside. 17. 0 - 0 After 17.i.xh4 gxh4 1B.VNhS i.fS, Black's light-squared bishop protects reliably his king. 17 g4 18.�d2 I was planning to counter 1B.c5 with 1B . . . liJg6 (Black is threaten­ ing �f4 and he is also preparing hS-h4.) 19.�c1 liJf4 20.�e1 �xd3 21.VNxd3 i.fS= 18 �g5 19.�e4 19.cS liJfS 20.cxd6 cxd6 21.liJc4 hS 22.f4 gxf3 23.i3xf3 bS 24.liJaS i.d7 2S.liJc6 h4 2 6.i.f2 liJd4 27.hd4 exd4= 19 ... �e7 2 0 .�d2 This was a silent draw-offer, but I decided to play on and I lost.. . 2 0 h5 21.t'3 � f5 22 .tf2 i.h6 23.�e2 �g7 24.hf5 hf5 25.i.e3, Wang Yue - Bologan, Wuxi 200B. I understood here that my position had been slightly better, except that I had to find the correct decision concerning the pawn-structure. 25 .tf4!?+ Black thus provokes his opponent to capture on f4. •••

•••

• • •

•••

•

• • •

235

Chapter 2 2

1.d4 �f6 2.c4 g 6 3.�c3 J.g7 4.e4 d6 5.�f3 0 - 0 6.J.e2 e5 7.d5

This is the most straightfor­ ward decision by White, because he fixes the pawn-structure in the centre outright. 7 a5 That is some useful prophylac­ tic, since there will not be a better square for his queen's knight than cS. The move restricts the mobil­ ity of White's queenside pawns as well. • • •

A) 8 .ie3 B) 8.h3 C) 8.�d2 D) 8. 0 - 0 E) 8 .ig5 •

•

Black has too many attractive possibilities after B.a3, for exam236

pIe: B ...ttJhS 9.ttJgl ttJf4 10 ..if3 fS 11.g3 fxe4 12.ttJxe4 ttJhS 13 ..tg2 ttJf6 14.igS if5 IS . .bf6 .bf6 16. ttJe2 ttJd7 17.ttJ2c3 ig7f± Zvja­ ginsev - Morozevich, Pamplona 1995. The French GM Bachar Kouat­ ly liked to play the move B.h4, with the idea to begin a swift kingside assault, at the end of the BOies of the last century, until he was crushed by Garry Kasparov: B ... ttJa6 9.ttJd2 ttJc5 10.g4 a4 11.hS gxhS 12.gS ttJg4 13.ttJfl fS 14.f3 ttJf2 ! ? IS.@xf2 fxe4 16.@g2 a3 17J�hS exf3 IB.ixf3 e4 19.,ie2 ifSgg Kouatly - Kasparov, Evry 19B9.

A) 8.J.e3 The game develops now simi­ larly to the Gligoric system, in a very good version for Black. 8 ... �g4 9 .tg5 f6 1 0 .J.h4 1O.,id2 f5 11.exfS gxfS 12.ttJgS �eB 13.cS dxc5 14.m3 @hB 15.0-0 ttJf6 16 ..tc4 a4 17.'i;Vc2 c6 IB.ie3 bSf± Zlotnik - Moroze­ vich, Moscow 1991. 10 ... �a6 1l.�d2 11.0-0 �eB 12.ttJel fS 13.ttJd3 •

s. ltlj3 0 - 0 6 . .le2 e5 7.d5 as h5 14.exf5 i.xf5 15.Wld2 e4 16.hg4 bxg4 17.ltlc1 Wld7 1S.ltl1e2 �aeS 19.ig5 ltlc5 2 0.ltlg3 ltld3� Gran­ da Zuniga - Sasikiran, Andorra 1995. 1l h5 12.a3 12.h3 ltlh6 13.a3 .ld7 14.�b1 ltlc5 15.b4 axb4 16.axb4 ltla4 17. ltlxa4 ha4 18.\!;!fc1 \!;!feS 19.f3 .ld7 2 0.c5 f5� Kumaran - Shirov, Oa­ kham 1992. .•.

cramped and the exchanges are advantageous for him. In ad­ dition, he occupies the a-file.) 17.\!;!fc2 ltlxc3 1S.Wlxc3 g5 19.ig3 h4 20 . .ih2 f5 2 1.c5 g4 22 .c6 .lcS 23.cxb7 hb'n Bareev - Kasparov, Tilburg 1991. 14 g5 15 .lg3 f5 16.h3 tOf6 17.13 17.hh5 fxe4 1S.0-0 if500 17 •eS IS.Wlc2 fxe4 19. fxe4 White's rook on b1 may come under attack by the bishop on f5, so he will need to capture with the pawn on e4 anyway: 19.1tldxe4 ltlcxe4 20.ltlxe4 ltlxe4 21.fxe4 \!;!fg6+ 19 \!;!fg6 2 0 .b4 axb4 21. axb4 tOa6 22.tOfl, Loginov - Fe­ dorov, St. Petersburg 1997, 22 g4! 23.h4 J.h6+. Nearly all of Black's pieces are active and even his knight on a6 cannot be defined as bad, because White's rook must restrict its movements. •••

•

•••

•••

•••

12 J.d7 Black protects his rook on as with this modestly looking move and he prevents b2-b4 in the process. 13.gbl 13.0-0 WleS 14.h3 ltlh6 15.b3 fS 16.f3 mhS 17J:!b1 ggS 1S.g4 ltlt7, draw, Petrosian - Geller, So­ chi 1977. 13 ltlc5 Now, in case of b2-b4, the knight will go the f4-square and again the move id7 turns out to be very useful. 14.b3 14.h3 ltlh6 15.b4 axb4 16.axb4 ltla4 (Black's position is a bit •••

B) S.h3

•••

237

Chapter 22 This is the most logical move for Black, since he continues calmly with his development. He has an interesting and more dy­ namic alternative, though: B . . . lLlh5 9.lLld2 lLlf4 1O . .ifl lLla6 11.g3 lLlh5 12.lLlb3 c6 13 . .ie3 .id7+± Zvjaginsev - Beliavsky, Tivat 1995. 9.Ag5 White achieves nothing much after 9 . .ie3 .id7 10.0-0 lLleB 11. lLlel f5 12.exf5 .ixf5 13.g4 .id7 14.�d2 lLlc5 15.f3 lLlf6 16.lLld3 lLla4 17.lLlxa4 .ixa4 1B.lLlf2 .id7 19J:1adl b6, draw, A.Ivanov - Dolmatov, Toljatti 2003. White fails to build up a posi­ tional bind with 9.g4 lLlc5 10.�c2 c6 11 . .ie3 a4 12.0-0-0 (12 .g5 lLlh5; 12.lLld2 �a5 13.g5 lLlh5 14 . .ixh5 gxh5 15.0-0-0 a3 16.b3 f5 17 . .ixc5 �xc5 IB.exf5 .ixf5 19.1Llde4 �b4 20J�d3 b5) 12 . . . cxd5 13.cxd5 �a5 14.lLld2 .id7+± Yurtaev - Shulman, Vladivostok 1995. 9 h6 1 0 .Ae3 lLlh5 •••

In case of 11.�d2, Black is ready to sacrifice a pawn: 11 ... lLlf4 12 ..ixf4 (In case White declines the gift with 12 . .ifl, Black succeeds in advancing 12 .. .f5 13.g3 fxe4 14.lLlxe4 .if5 15.�c2 c6 16.gxf4 lLlb4 17.�b1 exf4-+ ; 15.lLlc3 lLlb4 16.gxf4 lLlc2 17.�dl lLlxal lB.fxe5 dxe5 19.1Llel c6, with a double­ edged position.) 12 . . . exf4 13.�xf4 lLlc5 14.0-0 geB l5.gfel g5 16.�d2 lLlxe4 17.lLlxe4 fue4 - Black has equalized, Cramling - Romero Holmes, Ceuta 1993. 11.g3 f5 12.exf5 gxf5 13.lLlxe5, Popovic - Narayanan, Reykjavik 2 0 0B (13.gg1 f4 14.gxf4 lLlxf4=) 13 . . .f4! (Black seizes the initia­ tive, thanks to this intermediate move.) 14.gxf4 lLlxf4 15.lLld3 lLlg2 16.�d2 lLlxe3 17.fxe3 .if5 IB.ggl �hB 19.1Llf4 lLlc5� 11 �f4 12.M1 f5 The idea of sacrificing a piece would not work: 12 ... lLlb4 13.lLldbl f5 14.a3 lLlbd3 15 . .ixd3 lLlxg2 16. �e2 f4 17 ..icl f3 IB.�d2 �h4 19. �gl .ixh3 2 0.lLldl g5 21.�c2 g4 22.lLlbc3± Zvjaginsev - Loginov, Loosdorf 1993. 13.g3, G.Schebler - van den Dikkenberg, Zwolle 1996 (13. exf5 .ixf5 14.lLlde4 c6 15.g3 cxd5 16.cxd5 �e7 17.a3 b5 ! with mu­ tual chances) 13 �d3 ! 14.hd3 f4 15.�e2 fxe3 16.�xe3 Ad7 17.h4 a4 18. 0 - 0 g5 19.hxg5 �xg5 2 0 . �xg5 hxg5 2 1 .ie2 g4!� Black's compensation should be sufficient for a draw in this endgame. .••

•••

•

23B

S. l2Jj3 0 - 0 6 . .ie2 eS 7.d5 as

C) 8.tbd2

axb3 15.liJxb3 liJa4 White's knight on b3 is mis­ placed, so Black must avoid its exchange. 16.liJb5 16.l2Jxa4 Elxa4 17.1Mfc2 .id7 lB. hxg6 hxg6 19.f3 f5? 16 liJc7 17.liJxc7 1Mfxc7 18 . .ie3 liJc3 19.1Mfc2 liJxd5+ Kart­ tunen - Iuldachev, Istanbul 2000. . • •

D) 8. 0 - 0 This move is usually connect­ ed with advancing h4-h5, but its obvious drawback is that White's dark-squared bishop is temporar­ ily isolated from the actions. 8 ... liJa6 9.h4 9.l2Jb3 a4 1O.l2Jd2 l2Jc5 1Ulbl c6 12.0-0 liJeB 13.b4 axb3 14.l2Jxb3 l2Jxb3 15.axb3 f5? Palacios - Za­ noletty, Logrono 2002. 9 liJc5 1 0 .h5 1O .g4 c6 ll.g5 and now Black can sacrifice a pawn with 11.. .l2Jh5 ! 12 . .ixh5 l2Jd3 13.lt>f1 gxh5 14.1Mfxh5 f5 15.1Mfd1, Minaya - Avrukh, Be­ nidorm 200B, 15 ... 1Mfb6+ 1 0 ... c6 11.g4 ll.h6 .ihB 12 .f3 l2Jh5 13.l2Jf1 l2Jf4 14.g3 l2Jxe2 15.1Mfxe2 f5 16 . .ie3 fxe4 17.fxe4 .if6 1BJ�d1 .id7? Av.Bykhovsky - Caspi, Herzelia 2006. 1l cxd5 12.cxd5 12.exd5 e4 13.g5 l2Jxh5 14.hh5 gxh5 15.l2Jcxe4 EleB 16.1Mfxh5 .if5 17.f3 .ig6 1B.1Mfh4 ElcBgg Shchukin - Inarkiev, St. Petersburg 2 001. 12 a4 13.g5 liJe8 14.b4 . . •

• • •

••.

This move cannot change Black's plans. 8 liJa6 9.liJd2 9.1Mfc2 .id7 1O.l2Je1 l2Jc5 ll . .ig5 h6 12 ..ih4 g5 13 . .ig3 l2Jfxe4 14. tLlxe4 tLlxe4 15.1Mfxe4 f5 16.1Mfc2 f4 17 . .id3 g4 1B . .ie4 fxg3 19.hxg3 b6= Danner - Inarkiev, Saint Vincent 2005. 9.l2Je1 l2Jc5 1O.f3 l2Jh5 ll.g3 .ih3 12.Elf2 f5 13.l2Jd3 l2Jxd3 14. 1Mfxd3 f4! ? 15.g4 l2Jg3 ! ? 16 ..id1 1Mfh4 17 . .id2 h5 1B . .ie1 Elf7 19.Elg2 hg2 20.lt>xg2 hxg4 21.fxg4 .if6 22.hxg3 1Mfh6oo Faraj - Mirosh­ nichenko, Amman 200B. . . •

239

Chapter 22 After 9 . .!gS h6 10 . .th4 Wie8 l1.lLld2 (l1.lLlel lLlh7 12.lLld3 fS 13.f3 lLlf6 14.a3 gS IS . .tel Wig6 16.exfS ixfS 17.g4 .td7 18.lLlf2 lLlcS 19.b4 axb4 20.axb4 fucal 21.Wixal lLlb3 2 2.Widl lLld4? Lugovoi Diu, Ekaterinburg 2002) 11 . . . lLlh7 12.a3 (12 .b3 hS 13.f3 .!h6 14.a3 .!e3 IS.hl .td7 16J!a2 fS 17.exfS gxfS 18.f4 exf4 19 . .txhS WieS 20. lLlbS Wih8 21 . .!e2 lLlf6? Eliet Relange, France 2008; 12.hl hS 13.f3 .!h6 14.a3 .!d7 1SJ'!bl a4 16.b4 axb3 17.lLlxb3 .te3 18.lLlbS .!xbS 19.cxbS lLlc5 20.lLlxc5 .!xcS 21.a4 l3a7 22.'!d3 g7 23 . .!el b6? Cherniaev - Avrukh, Biel 2001; 12 .f3 .td7 13.a3 hS 14.l3bl a4 IS. lLlbS .th6 16.b4 axb3 17.lLlxb3 h8 18.a4 l3g8 19.hl fS 20.cS gS 21.'!el Wig6? Gligoric - Gel­ ler, Sochi 1968) 12 . . ..td7 13.b3, the game transposes to 8 . .!gS (see variation E2). In case of 9 . .!e3, Black can at­ tack the enemy bishop with 9 ... lLlg4 1O . .!d2 (White tries to gain some time with 1O . .tgS f6 11..!d2, but Black pushes fS anyway, while in case of 11 . .!h4, there arise po­ sitions analogous to variation A) 1O . . . lLlcS l1.lLlel fS (Black com­ plies with the doubling of his pawns, but he succeeds in occupy­ ing space on both flanks.) 12 . .!xg4 fxg4 13 . .!e3 b6 14.Wid2 .!a6 15.b3 Wih4 16.f3 l3f7, with an equal posi­ tion, Speelman - Gelfand, Mos­ cow 1990. 9 lLlc5 1 0 .gbl 1O.Wic2 .!h6 11.lLlb3 .!xc1 12. • • •

240

lLlxc5 .th6 13.lLld3 lLld7+ Spirido­ nov - Tal, Tbilisi 1969. 1O.a3 a4 11.f3 .th6 12.b4 axb3 13.lLlxb3 .!xcI 14.lLlxel b6 IS.lLld3 lLlxd3 16 . .!xd3 lLld7= AI Qauasmi - A.Kuzmin, Doha 2002. 1O.f3 lLlhS 11.lLlb3 b6 12.lLlxc5 bxcS 13.a4 fS 14.Wiel lLlf4 IS.g3 lLlh3 16. g2 lLlg5 17.h4 lLlf7 18J'!hl .!h6 19 . .txh6 lLlxh6 20.Wid2 g7 21.l3afl .!d7? Kaminski - Kova­ lev, Katowice 1990 . 1O.b3 lLlfd7 11.a3 (11.l3bl - see 1O.l3bl) 11 .. .fS 12.f3 lLlf6 13.Wic2 lLlhS? Moriarty - Thorvaldsson, Skopje 1972. 1 0 ttlfd7 1l.b3 f5 12.a3 ttlf6 • • •

Black has managed to outrun his opponent just by a tempo. 13.b4 13.f3 .!d7 14.b4 (14.Wie2 .!h6 IS.hl lLlhS 16.b4 axb4 17.axb4 lLla4 18.lLlxa4 .!xa4 19.1Llb3 .!xci 20.l3fxel Wih4 21.gl WigSt Inkiov - Komljenovie, Torey 1991) 14 . . . axb4 IS.axb4 lLla4 16.lLlxa4 (16. Wie2 .!h6 17. .!d3 .!e3 18.hl lLlxc3 19.Wixe3 .!d4 20.Wic2 lLlhSt Gre-

5. lLlj3 0 - 0 6. J.e2 e5 7.d5 as goir - A.Adamski, Belgium 2003) 16 . . . ixa4 17.�el fxe4 18.fxe4 .ih6+ Erwanto - Peng Xiaomin, Beijing 1993. 13 axb4 14.axb4 lLlcxe4 15.lLldxe4 lLlxe4 16.lLlxe4 fxe4 17.J.e3 17.cS 'lNh4 18J�b3 ga2 19.9c3 �h6 20.hh6 'lNxh6 21.cxd6 cxd6+ Karayannis - Bologan, Xanthi 1991. 17 'lNh4 18.'lNd2 J.g4 19. J.xg4 'lNxg4+ Black's extra pawn cannot be easily converted into a full point, but he has his chances, Bacrot - Kritz, Mainz 2004. •••

•••

E) 8.J.g5

8 h6 9.J.h4 White retreats usually his bishop to this square. If 9.J.e3, then Black continues with the chase: 9 . . . tDg4 1O.J.cl f5 (1O . . . tDa6 l1.h3 lLlf6 12.J.e3 - see 8.h3) 11. exf5 gxf5 12 .g3 tDa6 13.tDh4 tDc5 14.0-0 e4 15.tDxf5 tDxf2 16.tDxh6 .txb6 17.gxf2 gxf2 18.hh6 gU, but despite his extra exchange, the prospects are balanced, Volzhin -

Balcerak, Senden 1999. 9 lLla6 1 0 .lLld2 J.d7 11. 0-0 11.b3 �e8 12.0-0 - see varia­ tion E2. 11.gbl 'lNe8 12 .b3 tDh7 13.f3 h5 14.a3 tDc5 15.'lNc2 J.h6 16.tDb5 tDa6 17.b4 axb4 18.axb4 f5 19.J.f2 'lNe7 20.0-0 h4f± Panno - Kava­ lek, Wijk aan Zee 1978. After 11.a3, Black can continue with 11 . . . 'lNe8, transposing to the main lines, but he can also try a tactical operation: 11 . . . h5 12.gbl (12.J.g5 �e8 13.b3 tDh7 14.J.e3 h4 15.gbl f5 16.f3, Kiss - Vlcek, Slo­ vakia 1999, 16 .. .f4 17.J.f2 h3 18.g3 fxg3 19.hxg3 .ih6, with a slight edge for him.) 12 . . . .ih6 13.f3 (13. tDf3 a4 14.J.xf6 'lNxf6 15.tDxa4 ixa4 16.'lNxa4 tDc5 17.'lNc2 'lNf4 18.g3 - 18.J.d3 f5 - 18 . . . �xe4 19.'lNxe4 tDxe4+ Titz - Brunner, Munich 1992) 13 . . . ixd2 14.'lNxd2 tDxe4! 15.tDxe4 �xh4 16.g3 'lNe7 17.�h6 J.f5 18.J.d3, Krijgelmans ­ Hausrath, Belgium 1997, 18 .. .f6+ •••

•••

E1) 1l lLlc5 E2) 11 'lNe8 • • •

• • •

241

Chapter 22 El) 1l tLlcS 12.ti'c2 Mer 12 J�e1 �eB, it is not clear what White's rook is doing on el. Black can counter 12 .b3 with an interesting queen-sacrifice: 12 . . . ltJfxe4 13 . .hdB ltJxc3 14.�e1 �fxdB 15.ltJb1 (15.f3 l:'i:eB 16.@h1 e4 17.fxe4 f5 ! 18.�f2 ltJ3xe4 19.1tJxe4 ltJxe4 20.ti'f4 .hal 21.�a1 @g7= ; 16 . . .f5 17.ltJe4 ltJ3xe4 1B.fxe4 ltJxe4 19.94 ltJg5 2 0.gxf5 i.xf5 21. h4 ltJh3 22 .ti'g3 ltJf400 and the game remains very complicated, L.B.Hansen - van Der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee 1995.) 15 . . . ltJxe2 16.�xe2 e4 17.ltJd2 �eB (17 .. .f5 1BJ�ad1 g5 19.f4 a4 2 0.fxg5 hxg5 21.g4 axb3 22.ltJxb3 f4 23.ltJxc5 dxc5 24.ti'xe4 and White is close to winning, Gulko - van Wely, Gro­ ningen 1994) 1B.ti'e3 (lB.f4 .td4 19.@h1 e3 20.ltJf3 .hal 2U'!xa1 .tfS 22.ltJe1 �e4 23.g3 �aeB+) lB . . . f5 19.�ad1 (19.f3 f4 2 0 .�xf4 e3 21.ltJe4 e2 22.�fe1 ltJxe4 23.fxe4 .td4 24.@h1 .hal 25J'!xa1 �fB-+; 19.f4 ltJd3 20J'! ab1 c5 21.dxc6 bxc6 2 2 .ltJf3 c5 23.@h1 a4t) 19 . . . a4+± 12.f3 ! ? g5 (12 . . . ti'eB 13 . .tf2 ltJh5 14.g3) 13.M2 ltJh5 14.g3 (14.a3 ltJf4 Rybansky - Beres, Slovakia 1999) 14 . . . ltJf6 15.ltJb3 b6 16.ltJxc5 bxc5 - White is a bit better. 12 gS 13 .i.g3 hS 14.f3 14.h4 ltJg4 15.hxg5 �xg5 16. ltJf3 �h6 17.ltJh4 .tf6 1B.ltJf5 i.xf5 19.exf5 h4 20.i.xg4 hxg3 21.fxg3 e4+ Shulman - Fedorov, Ohrid 2001. • • •

• • •

242

•

14 h4 IS.Aft ltJhS 16.g3 hxg3 17.hxg3 •••

It would be worth mentioning that Black does not have enough squares for kingside maneuver­ ing. 17 ti'f6 18.@g2 If 1B.f4, then 1B . . . ltJxg3. 18 �g6 19.�hl f5 19 . . . g4 2 0.fxg4 .hg4 21..hg4 ti'xg4 22.�h4 �g6 23.�ah1 ltJf4 24.@f3 ltJfd3 25 . .hc5± 2 0 .,ixcS dxcS 21.exfS .txf5 22.ltJde4;!; White has blocked reliably the bishop on g7 and he can calmly trade the superfluous pieces along the light squares, continuing the game with practi­ cally an extra piece. • • •

• • •

-

E2) 1l ti'e8 12.b3 After the prophylactic move 12.@h1, Black realizes simply his plan with: 12 ... ltJh7 13.a3 (13.f3 h5 14.ltJb3 b6 15.ltJc1 .th6 16.ltJd3 .te3 17J'!e1 ltJc5 1B . .tfl, draw, Pet­ rosian - Hort, Lugano 196B) 13 ... h5 14.f3 .tf6 15.i.xf6 (15 . .tf2 .tg5 16.b3 c5 ! 17.dxc6 bxc6, Iskusnyh • . •

S. ttJj3 0 - 0 6. i.e2 eS 7.d5 as - Dolmatov, Kemerovo 1995 and here White could have tried 18.c5 ttJxc5 19 . .txc5 dxc5 2 0.ttJc4, but after 20 . . . i.e6 2U�'d6 i.e7 ! , it looks like Black will hold the bal­ ance.) 15 . . .ttJxf6 16.b3 V!!e 7 17.V!!e l rllg7 18.V!!f2 h4 19.f4 (19.V!!xh4 ttJxd5 !) 19 . . .exf4 20.V!!xf4 h3 21. gxh3 (21.g3 ! ?) 21.. . .txh3 22.l'!f3 l'!h8 23.l'!e3 l'!ae8 24.l'!gl V!!e 5+ with an obvious advantage for Black, Gulko - Kasparov, Novgo­ rod 1995. After 12.a3, (without previ­ ously played move b2-b3) Black has a standard response - 12 . . . a4 13.ttJb5 (13.b4 ! ? axb3 14.ttJxb3 b6 15.a4 ttJxe4 16.ttJxe4 f5 17.ttJed2 g5 18.i.g3 f4 19.i.h5 V!!c 8 20.ttJe4 i.f5 21.f3 fxg3 22 .hxg3 V!!d7+± Illescas - Krakops, Bled 2002) 13 . . . .txb5 14.cxb5 ttJc5 15.f3 ttJfd7 16.b4 axb3 17.ttJxb3 f5= Duhr - Klundt, Germany 1982. 12 tflh7 13.a3 •••

h4. Its other idea is less obvious and that is to transfer the passive bishop on g7 to the queenside. 14.f3 i.h6 15.l'!bl 15.l'!a2 i.e3 16.rllh l rllg 7 17. V!!b l f5 18.exf5 gxf5 19.b4 V!!g 6+± D.Gurevich - Yermolinsky, Du­ rango 1992. 15.i.f2 V!!e 7 16.l'!a2 rll g 7 17.l'!b2 l'!h8 18.l'!el h4 19.i.f1 i.f4 20.ttJe2 i.g5 21.ttJc1 tflf6 22.b4 axb4 23.axb4 ttJh5+± G.Gutman - Chu­ prov, Pardubice 2008. 15 .te3 White maintains an edge af­ ter 15 . . .f5 16.b4 axb4 17.axb4 i.e3 18.i.f2 i.xf2 19.M2 f4 20.c5 g5, Lyrberg - Sanden, Sweden 1993, 21.cxd6 cxd6 22 .ttJc4. 16.rllh l 16 . .tf2 i.xf2 17.M2 V!! e7 18.b4 axb4 19.axb4 c5 20.dxc6 bxc6 21.ttJf1, Stiller - Roos, Dresden 1998, 21...l'!fb8 2 2 .b5 ttJc5 23.ttJe3 ttJg5. Both Black's knights are well placed, so he is not worse at all. •••

E2a) 16 .tc5 E2b) 16 f5 • • •

• • •

E2a) 16 .tc5 17.V!!c 1 c6 17 . . . rllh 8 18.ttJa2 (18.i.f2 V!!e7 19 . .txc5 ttJxc5 20.b4 axb4 21.axb4 ttJa4 22.l'!al ttJxc3 23.V!!xc3 b6 24.ttJb3 f5 25.i.d3 ttJf6 26.ttJd2 h4 27.l'!xa8 l'!xa8 28.V!!c 2 ttJh5+ Mohammad - Belkhodja, Dubai 2005) 18 . . .f5 {18 . . . g5 19.i.el f5 20.b4 axb4 21.axb4 i.e3 22.exf5 i.xf5 23.l'!b3 i.d4 24.ttJc3 ttJf6 25. ttJb5 i.b6 26.i.f2, draw, Naum• • •

13 h5 This is a multi-purpose move. Its idea is evident. Black wishes to trap the enemy bishop with g5 and •••

243

Chapter 22 kin - T.Paehtz, Budapest 1991) 19.b4 axb4 2 0 .axb4 .ie3 21.lDc3 gS 22 . .ie1 g4 23.exfS .ixf5 24J3b3, Naumkin - Maxion, Ostend 1991, 24 . . . gxf3 2S.lM3 .if4 26.ffiJ2 �g6oo 18.'ml2 18.lDa2 cxdS 19.b4 axb4 20. axb4 .ie3 21.exdS, Naumkin - Ye Jiangchuan, Belgrade 1988 (21. cxdS? 13c8=F) 2 1 .. .fS 22.lDc3 �f7 23.id3 �g7 24.if2 .bf2 2S.13xf2 13fc8 26.13e2 lDgS. 18.,if2 .ixf2 19.13xf2 c5 20.lDa2 �d8 21.13f1 fS 2 2 .exfS .ixfS 23.lDe4 he4 24.fxe4 13xf1 2S ..ixf1 @g7 2 6.�e1 lDf6+t Vaillant - Degraeve, Metz 2000. 18.lDa4 .id4 19 . .if2 .ixf2 20. 13xf2 \1;!fd8 21.dxc6? ! hc6 22.lDc3 lDcS 23.b4 axb4 24.axb4 lDe6=l= Jussupow - Damljanovic, Saint John 1988. 18.dxc6 bxc6 19.lDa4 .id4 2 0.cS lDxcS 21.lDb6, Franco Ocampos Sion Castro, Pamplona 1991, 21... 13a7 2 2 .lDdc4 �e6+t

This bishop maneuvers like a shuttle and it is destroying White's seemingly solid position. It would be worse for Black to play 18 . . .f6 19 ..if2 .bf2 20.13xf2 cS 21.lDbS ! �e7 22.f4 exf4 23.13xf4 13ad8 24.13bf1 .ie8:t 19.b4 axb4 2 0 .axb4 c5 21. bxc5 lDxc5 22.�c2, Enders Rossmann, Leipzig 1989, 22 . . .fS+t

E2b) 16 f5 17.exfS gxf5 It is also possible for Black to capture on fS with the bish­ op: 17. . . .ixfS 18.lDde4 lDcS 19.b4 axb4 20.axb4 lDxe4 21.fxe4 .id7 22.13xf8 �xf8= Demin - Lavrov, Dagomys 200S. 18.f4 18.b4 axb4 19.axb4 @h8 2 0 . .id3 �g6 21.\1;!fe2 \1;!fh6+t Topalov - Mamedyarov, Wijk aan Zee 2008. 18 exf4 19 .hh5 \1;!fe5 2 0 . lDe2 20.�c2 \1;!fg7 21 ..if3 lDf6 2 2 . .if2 13ae8 23.13be1 lDcs 24.b4 axb4 2S.axb4 .ixf2 26.13xe8 13xe8 27.13xf2 lDfe4 28.,ixe4 lDxe4 29. lDdxe4 13xe4!=F Zielinska - Blimke, Czestochowa 1998. 2 0 lDc5 Black's pawns on fS and f4 only look weak. In fact, they provide his pieces with excellent outposts in the centre. 21.lDf3 \1;!fg7 22.g3 fxg3 23. lDxg3 f4=F Naumkin - A.Kuzmin, Moscow 1987. •••

•••

•••

18 ,id4! •••

244

•

Chapter 23

1.d4 tLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.tLlc3 j,g7 4.e4 d6 5.tLlf3 0 - 0 6 .te2 e5 7. 0 - 0 tLlc6 •

S.dS Black has nothing to worry about after 8.�g5 h6 9 . .hi6 (9. �c1? exd4 10.tlJxd4 tlJxe4 11.tlJxc6 tlJxc3 12.tlJxd8 tlJxd1 13J"�xd1 �xd8 T. Johanssen - Ernst, Bad Ems 2004) 9 ....hi6 1O.dxe5 tlJxe5 11. tlJd4 tlJc6 12.tlJxc6 bxc6 13.�d2 �g7 14.�ac1 �e6 15.b3 f5 16.exf5 .hi5 17.�f3 ¥«d7f± Mas - Delgado, Paretana 2000. The move 8.�e3! ? has been very popular at the beginning of the 90ies and it is still played by GMs and IMs until now. Black should react in the same fashion as against the Gligoric system 8 . . . tlJg4 9.�g5 f6 and White must choose where to retreat his bishop to:

1O.�4 h5 ! ? (Black protects his knight and he is threatening to trap the enemy bishop on h4 in some variations.) 11.h3 (White has tried in practice numerous moves here, but has not achieved anything real, for example: 11.d5 tlJe7 12.tlJd2 �e8 13.b4 g5 14.�g3 f5 15.exfS .hi5 16.tlJde4 ¥«g6 17. �e1 a5, draw, Fahnenschmidt Nunn, Germany 1988; 11.dxe5 dxe5 12.¥«xd8 tlJxd8 13.h3 tlJh6 14.tlJd5 tlJe6 15.tlJe7 cj;>t7 16.tlJxc8 �axc8 17.�fd1 �fd8= Krylov Klimov, St. Petersburg 1995) 11...tlJh6 12.dxe5 dxe5 13.c5 �e6 14.�a4 �e8 15 . .tc4 g5 16 . .tg3 cj;>h7 17.he6 �xe6 18.tlJd5 �t7 19.�ad1 �g8f± Vera - Ki.Georgiev, Thes­ saloniki 1988. White usually plays 10.�c1, in order not to isolate his bishop from the actions. Black obtains some lead in development and he wishes to exploit it immedi­ ately: 1O .. .f5 (1O . . . cj;>h8 11.d5 tlJe7 12.tlJg5 tlJh6 13.tlJe6 he6 14.dxe6 tlJc6 15.hh6 hh6 16.tlJd5 tlJe7 17.�d3;!; draw, L.B.Hansen - Bolo­ gan, Stavanger 1992.) 11 ..tg5. This is the thematic line for White - his 245

Chapter 23 bishop is activated with tempo. (We should mention some other possibilities for him too: 1l.dxeS ltlgxeS 12.exfS ixfS 13.ltlxeS dxeS 14.�f3 �e8 lS.�dS \!th8 16.�gS h6 17.�h4 ltld4? Cebalo - Nunn, De­ brecen 1992; 1l.exfS exd4 12.ltlbS l:!xfS 13.h3 ltlgeS 14.ltlfxd4 l:!f7 lS.�e3 a6 16.ltlxc6 bxc6 17.ltld4 cS 18.ltlc2 �b7? Bu Xiangzhi T.Petrosian, Tiayuan 2005; H.dS ltle7 12.ltlgS ltlf6 13.exfS ltlxfS 14.ltlge4 cS lS.dxc6 bxc6 16.�gS �e6 17.ixf6 ixf6 18.ltlxf6 �xf6 19.�d2 ltld4? Djurhuus - van Wely, Gausdal 1992; 14.�d3 ltld4 lS.ltle2 ltlfS 16.ltlg3 c6 17.ltl3e4 cxdS 18.ltlxf6 �xf6 19.cxdS h6 20.ltle4 Ylff7? Farago - Ju.Polgar, Budapest 1991) 1l . . . �e8 (I have played many times this modestly looking retreat and I am quite happy with my results.) 12.dxeS (12.exfS gxfS 13.dxeS dxeS 14.h3 ltlf6 1S.ltldS Ylff7 16.�e3 h6 17.ltlh4 �e6 18.f4 e4+ Kantsler - Bolo­ gan, Moscow 1991; 12.ltldS Ylff7 13.�e7 ltlxe7 14.ltlgS �e8 lS.ltlxc7 �d8 16.ltlce6 he6 17.ltlxe6 �d7 18.exfS gxfS 19.1tlxf8 l:!xf8 20.h3 ltlh6 21.dxeS heS 22.�f3 b6? Lputian - Bologan, Azov 1991; 12.dS ltlb8 13.ltle1 ltlf6 14.exfS ixfS 1S.ltlc2 as 16.ltle3 �d7 17.ltlg4 ltla6 18.ltlxf6 ixf6 19.�e3 e4 2 0.�d4 ltlc5 21.ixf6 l:!xf6 22.Ylfd4 l:!fS? Murugan - Bologan, Gaus­ dal 1991) 12 . . . dxeS 13.ltldS �f7 14.ltld2 (14.�d2 ltlxf2 lS.l:!xf2 fxe4 16.�e3 exf3 17.l:!xf3 Ylfd7 18.l:!xf8 \!txf8 19.�f1 \!tg8 20.l:!d1 ltld4? 246

Csoli - Pirisi, Hungary 2001) 14 . . . h 6 lS.�h4 g S 16.hg4 (16.�g3 ! ? ltlf6 17.f3 ltld4 18.�f2=) 1 6 . . . fxg4 17.�g3 ltld4 18.f3 gxf3 19.1tlxf3 �g4? Burmakin - Bologan, Sochi 2004. 8 ltle7 •••

We need to know a lot of the­ ory and to memorize numerous variations nowadays, so there is not enough time for second rate lines. I will try to recommend to you short, but effective receipts how to play against White's side­ lines on move nine.

A) 9 .i.d2 B) 9 .i.e3 C) 9.a4 D) 9 .ig5 •

•

•

9.l:!b1 as 1O.a3 a4 1l.ltld2 �d7 12 .b4 axb3 13.ltlxb3 b6 14.l:!a1 ltle8 lS.a4 fS 16.aS bxaS 17.l:!xaS l:!xaS 18.ltlxaS Ylfa8 19.1tlb3 ltlf6? Brun­ ner - Nunn, Nuremberg 1990. 9.h3 ltle7 1O.e4 ltld7 11.�e3 fS 12.exfS gxfS 13.ltlgS ltlf6 14.f4 .ih6 lS.�d2 exf4 16.hf4 ltlg6 17.g3

5. CiJj3 0 - 0 6. i.e2 e5 7. 0 - 0 CiJ c6 B.d5 CiJ e7 CiJxf4 1B.gxf4 CiJe4 19.CiJcxe4 fxe4 20.�e3 �f6? Grachev - Guba­ jdullin, Samara 2 003. 9.wh1 CiJd7 1O.g4 whB l1.l'!gl as 12 .i.e3 CiJc5 13.l'!c1 i.d7 14.b3 CiJgB 15.CiJd2 f6 16.h4 f5 17.g5 CiJxe4 1B.CiJdxe4 fxe4 19.CiJxe4 CiJe7 20.i.g4 CiJf5? Carlsen - Radjabov, Bie1 2006. 9.l'!e1 CiJh5 1O.1O.b4 - see Chapter 24, variation C.

A) 9 . .td2 This is another version of the system with CiJe1, except that White begins with a move with the bishop and awaits Black's re­ action. 9".tiJe8 9 ... CiJh5?! 1O.g3 (1O.l'!c1 f5 11. exf5 tiJxf5 12.CiJg5 CiJf4 13 . .hi4 exf4 14.CiJe6 he6 15.dxe6 c6 16.i.g4 �e7 17.l'!e1 l'!adB 1B.b4, Wunnink - Klinova, Amsterdam 2002, lB . . . i.e5+; after 12.g4, Black plays 12 ... CiJd4 13.gxh5 CiJxe2 14.�xe2 i.g4, regaining his piece) 10 .. .f5 11.CiJg5 (11.exf5 .his 12.tiJg5 CiJf6 13.g4 i.d7 14.f4 exf4 15 ..hi4 \WcB 16.h3 h6 17.tiJge4 g5 1B . .tg3 tiJxe4 19.CiJxe4 CiJg6 20.\Wd2 \WeB 21.l'!xfB �xfB 22 .l'!f1 �e7 23.i.d3 CiJe5+ Ligterink - Landtman, Nether­ lands 1995) 11 . . . CiJf6 12 .f3 (There arises a position from the Bayo­ net attack, except that White has played i.d2, instead of b4.) 12 . . . c6 13.i.e3 h6 14.CiJe6 he6 15.dxe6 �c7 16.\Wb3 \WcB 17.l'!ad1 �xe6, Knezevic - Milosevic, Sibenik 2007, 1B.l'!xd6 !±

l O . tiJel White transposes to the sys­ tem with CiJe1, with a black knight on eB. The inclusion of the not so useful move i.d2 enables Black to equalize easily. The move 10.l'!c1 brought disaster to White in the famous match Fischer - Taimanov and understandably was almost ig­ nored by theory. I believe, the move is much better than its rep­ utation and Black must play very precisely in order to obtain a good game: 1O .. .f5 11.CiJg5 (11.exf5? ! gxf5 12.CiJg5 h6 13.CiJe6 he6 14.dxe6 \WcB 15.\Wb3 c6 ! ? 16.i.h5 16.CiJd5? cxd5 17.cxd5 �bB-+ Tal - 16 ... \Wxe6 17.�xb7 CiJf6+ Taima­ nov - Fischer, Vancouver 1971, mj1; 11.�b3 WhB ! ? 12.exf5 gxf5 13.CiJg5oo Tal; 11 . . . b6 12.exf5 gxf5 13.CiJg5 h6 14.CiJe6 he6 15.dxe6 �cB 16.CiJd5 \Wxe6 17.CiJxe7 �xe7 1B.c5� Taimanov - Ma.Tseitlin, USSR 1973; 13 . . . CiJf6 14.f4 h6 15.fxe5 dxe5 16.c5 CiJfxd5 17.CiJxd5 CiJxd5 1B.cxb6 axb6 19.1'!c6 whBoo Taimanov - Fischer, Vancouver 1971, mj3) 11 . . . h6 12.CiJe6 he6 13.dxe6 �cB (13 . . . c6 ! ? 14.exf5 CiJxf5 15.f4 e4 16.CiJxe4 hal 17. �xa1 CiJf6? Pein - McShane, Isle of Lewis 1995) 14.\Wb3 (14. c5 \Wxe6 15.cxd6 cxd600 Geller Minie, Skopje 197B) 14 ... c6 15.f4 exf4 16 ..hi4 g5 17.i.g3 f400 Ftac­ nik - Kr.Georgiev, Groningen 1975; 17 . . . i.d4! ?oo There is another interesting move for White, which remains 247

Chapter 23 in the shadow - 1O.b4. There may follow 1O . . . fS 1U�'b3 .!Df6 12.exf5 gxf5 13.c5 @hS 14.cxd6 cxd6 15J:!ac1 (15 . .!Dg5 h6 16 . .!De6 he6 17.dxe6 d5! oo) 15 . . . .!d7 (15 . . . h6 ! ? 16 . .!Dh4 .id7= Kozma - Uhlmann, Leipzig 1975) 16.a4, Korchnoi Geller, Moscow 1971, 16 . . . a6! = Boleslavsky. 1 0 f5 11.tld3 11.f3 @hS 12 . .!Dd3 .!DgS 13.exf5 gxf5 14.f4 e4 15 . .!Df2 c5 16.dxc6, draw, Lechtynsky - Babula, Czech Republic 1995. 1l :fxe4 12.tlxe4 c6 13. ti'b3 13.dxc6 bxc6 14 . .ic3, Akopian - Dimitrov, Linares 1996, 14 . . . d5 15.cxd5 cxd5 16 . .!Dxe5 'ffc7 17.f4 dxe4 lS.'ffb3 @hS 19 . .!Df7 @gS 20 . .!Dh6 @hS 21..!Df7 with a per­ petual check. 13 @h8 Black takes his king away from the juxtaposition with White's queen on b3 and he prepares the powerful counter strike b7-b5. 14.f4 14J==1 ae1 .!DfS (14 ... b5? ! 15 . .!Db4 bxc4 16.hc4 l==1b S 17.'ffa3 'ffb 6 lS.b3 cxd5 19 . .!Dxd5 .!Dxd5 20.hd5 'ffa 6, C.Hansen - Bologan, Skan­ derborg 2003, 21..ib4;!;) 15.i.c3 .!Df6 16 . .!Dxf6 M6 17.dxc6 bxc6 lS.c5 .!Dd4 19.'ffa4 .!f5oo 14 b5 15.c5 15.cxb5 cxd5 16 . .!Dc3 d4 17 . .!De4 d5 lS . .!Dec5 e4+ 15 dxc5 16.tlexc5 exf4 17.tlxf4 tlxd5 18.tlxd5 gxf1 19.9xf1 'ffxd5 2 0 .'ffxd5 cxd5=

Sosonko - Nijboer, Netherlands 1993.

B) 9 .ie3 •

• • •

•••

• • •

• • •

• • •

24S

Naturally, the bishop on e3 is perfectly placed; therefore Black should not let his opponent to play calmly .!Dd2, followed by f3. 9 tlg4 1 0 .id2 1O . .!g5 h6 11.'!d2 (11 . .!h4 g5 12 . .!g3 f5 13.exf5 .!Df6 14.c5 M5 15.'ffb3 .!Dg6 16.'ffxb7 l==1bS 17.'ffxa7 l==1xb2 lS ..!c4 .!DeS 19.'ffa3 l==1b S 2 0 . .!Db5 h5� Wehmeier - LBelov, Germany 1991) 11 . . . fS 12 . .!Dh4 (12. .!Del .!Df6 13.f3 f4 14 . .!Dd3 g5 15.c5 .!Dg6 16.l==1 c 1 l==1f7 17 . .!el h5 lS.cxd6 cxd6 19 . .!f2 g4f± Oberbichler Arztmann, Feffernnitz 2 007) 12 ... .!Df6 13.exf5, Shengelia - Komora, Cappele Ie Grande 2005 and here Black had better continue with 13 . . . g5 14 . .!Dg6 .!Dxg6 15.fxg6 .!f5= with equality. 1 0 f5 11.tlg5 11 . .!De1 .!Df6 12.f3 f4 13.b4 g5 14.c5 .!Dg6 15 . .!Dd3 l==1f7 16.cxd6 cxd6 17 . .!e1 .!d7 lS . .!f2 l==1 c Sf± Piket - Long, USA 1990. • • •

•••

•

S,CiJ/J 0 - 0 6. i.e2 e5 7. 0 - 0 .!tJc6 B.dS .!tJ e7 1l.exfS .!tJxfS 12 . .!tJe4 .!tJf6 13. .!gS, Lomineishvili - Topel, Ku­ sadasi 2006, 13 . . .h6= 1l .!tJf6 12.exfS .!tJxf5 12 ... gxfS 13.f4 e4 14 ..!e3 h6 IS . .!tJh3 cS 16 ..!tJf2 .!d7 17J�bl %YeB IB.h3 �hB 19.�h2 �gB 2 0.�gl hS 21.g3 Wlg6 22 .Wld2 .!h6 23.b4 b600 Lejbovich - Katalymov, Dau­ gavpils 197B. 13.i.d3 c5 13 . . . c6! ? ; 13 . . . .!tJd4oo 14.�hl, Ljubojevic - Vukic, Zagreb 1977, 14 . . . tOd4 15.f4 exf4 16.gxf4 tOd7 17.gxfS .lxf8 18 .!tJe2 tOe5 19.tOxd4 cxd4= •••

•

C) 9.a4

This move looks like a posi­ tional mistake at first sight, be­ cause after 9 . . . a5 Black has seemingly stopped his opponent's pawn-offensive on the queenside. White succeeds however, in advancing in the long run b4 and cS with the support of his pieces. I O .tOel

After 1O.b3 tOhS 1l . .b3 b6 12.b4 axb4 13.hb4 .!tJf4 14.aS bxaS IS.haS %Yd7 16.�el .!tJxe2 17.�e2 .!a6= White's attack on the queenside is harmless in the absence of his light-squared bishop, Iturrizaga - Bachmann, Linares 200B. IO ... tOd7 1O . . .b6 ! ? 1l . .!tJd3 i.a6 12.b3 .!tJd7 13.f3 fS 14 . .!tJf2 �hB IS . .!d2 .!tJgB 16.exfS gxfS, with an approx­ imately equal game, Evdokimov Inarkiev, Dagomys 200B. 1l.tOd3 1l . .!e3 f5 12.f3 .!tJc5 13 . .!tJd3 b6 14.b4 .!tJxd3 IS.Wlxd3 axb4 16 . .!tJbS �hB 17.Wlb3 .!tJgB 18.Wlxb4 .!tJf6? Korchnoi - Kasparov, Barcelona 19B9. 1l . . . f5 12.f3 12.exfS .!tJxfS I3.�a3 tDb6 14.b3 c6 IS.dxc6 bxc6 16.c5, Ftacnik Nijboer, Hamburg 2005, 16 . . . .!tJdS 17 . .!tJe4 %Yh4 IB.'!f3 .!tJd4, with a powerful initiative for Black. 12 ... �h8 It would be premature for him to close the position with 12 ... f4 13.b3 gS 14. .!a3 b6 IS.b4 axb4 16.hb4 .!tJcS 17.aS .!d7 IB . .!tJbS %YbB 19.axb6 �xal 20.Wlxal cxb6 21.%Ya3 .!tJcB 22.�al hbS 23.cxbS �t7 24.%YaB �b7 2S . .!tJb2 (25. .!tJxc5 dxc5 26 . .!c3 .!tJd6) 25 . . . .!fB 26.%YxbB �xbB 27.�a3 �t7 2B.g3 �b7 29 . .!f1 �c7 30 . .!tJc4 .!e7 31.tDd2 �f6 32.�aB;!; V.Popov Amonatov, Sochi 2 0 07. 13 .Ae3 b6 14.Wlbl, Pankov N.Mamedov, Plovdiv 200B (14.b4 •

249

Chapter 23 axb4 IS.c!tJxb4 c!tJf6 16.c!tJd3 c!tJeg8 17.c!tJf2 c!tJh5 18J�el .th6 19.hh6 c!tJxh6 20 . .tfl f4 21.c!tJbS gS? S.Khmelevskyi - Beckhuis, Vien­ na 2006). Here, Black had to in­ clude at first 14 .ta6 15.b3 and only then continue with 15 c!tJg8 with equality. He should consider IS .. .f4 as well. • • •

•••

D) 9 .tg5 •

This move was tested in sev­ eral games by Yannik Pelletier (Vjacheslav Eingorn played it even earlier.), but I do not like this idea for White, because he only helps the offensive of his opponent on the kingside. 9 . . . h6 Black can also try to capture his opponent's other bishop: 9 . . . c!tJhS 1O.c!tJel c!tJf4 ll.c!tJd3 c!tJxe2 12.'lNxe2 h6 13.i.e3 fS 14.f3 gS IS. cS c!tJg6 16.l:!fc1 l:!t7. In general, in positions of this type when the board is full of pieces, it is not easy for Black to decide where to place his second knight and the attack with f4 and g4 is impeded by the 2S0

presence of White's light-squared bishop. Now, Black's task is much easier. 17.l:!c2 c!tJf4 18.YNd2 c!tJxd3 19.YNxd3 g4 20.fxg4 f4 21.i.f2 i.xg4 22.cxd6 cxd6 23.l:!acl a6+ Pelle­ tier - Fedorov, Plovdiv 2 003. 10 .bf6 1O.i.d2 c!tJd7 ll.YNc1 @h7 12. c!tJel fS 13.g3 fxe4 14.c!tJxe4 c!tJfS IS.c!tJc2 c6 16.dxc6 bxc6 17.i.b4 c!tJf6 18.i.f3 a5 19.i.a3 YNc7 20.YNd2 l:!d8? Golombek - Bronstein, London 19S4. 1 0 . . . .bf6 11.b4 c6! This is a pre-emptive move aimed at neutralizing White's pawn-assault on the queenside. 12.gc1 12.a4, I.Belov - Tuzan, Moscow 1990, 12 . . . aS 13.bxaS cS+ 12 . . . a5 13.a3 .tg7 14.YNb3 14.c5 axb4 1S.axb4 .tg4= 14 ... cxd5 15.exd5 b6 16. l:!fdl axb4 17.axb4 i.d7 18.b5!?, Pelletier - Bologan, Cap D'Agde 2002. (The straight­ forward approach for White would not work after 18.cS?! bxcS 19. bxcS dxcS 20.d6 (20.i.bS c!tJfS) 2 0 ... c!tJc6 and besides the extra pawn, Black obtains an access to the wonderful d4-square: 21.c!tJe4 c!tJd4 22.YNe3 .ta4 23.l:!fl .tc6 24J�xc5 i.xe4 2S.YNxe4 YNxd6=t; 18.l:!al l:!xal 19.1:!xal e4 2 0.c!tJel c!tJf5+). I had to opt here for 18 ... g5 19.c!tJa2 g4 2 0 .c!tJel �g6 21. �b4 YNg5 22.�c6 e4, ignoring completely White's knight on c6. 23. YNb4 i.e5 24.g3 h5 and Black would have a powerful attack. •

Chapter 24

1.d4 lLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.lLlc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5.lLlf3 0 - 0 6.i.e2 e5 7. 0 - 0 lLlc6 S.d5 lLle7 9.b4

This is the so-called Bayonet attack. White starts an immediate queenside pawn-offensive and he hopes to survive his opponent's attack against his king. 9 ... lt)h5

A) I O .eS B) I O .g3 C) I O .�el 1O.�b3 �h8 11.cS h6 12.a4 fS - see 1O.cS. 10.a4 ttJf4 11.cS (11.aS h6 12. i.d2 ttJxe2 13.Wfxe2 fS 14J'01acl gS lS.exfS i.xfS 16.ttJe4 i.g4 17. l'!c3 ttJg6 18.h3 i.fS 19.1'!d1 ttJf4 20.i.xf4 exf4? Lobron - Golu­ bev, Internet 2004; 11.i.a3 fS 12. ttJd2, Weiss - V.Rajlich, Budapest

2002, 12 . . . fxe4 13.ttJdxe4 ttJfS?) 11 .. .fS 12.i.c4 fxe4 13.ttJxe4 h6 14.g3 ttJhS lS.ttJfd2 �h8 16.l'!a3 a6 17.cxd6 cxd6 18.bS i.fS 19.bxa6 bxa6 20.Wfe2 Wfd7? Bareev Amonatov, Sochi 2008. 1O.Wfc2 ttJf4 11.i.xf4 exf4, with the idea to follow with h6, gS and ttJg6, with equality. 1O.ttJd2 ttJf4 (Black should re­ act in the same fashion against ttJe1 as well.) 11.i.f3 fS 12.a4 �h8 13.ttJb3 gS 14.exfS ttJxfS 1S.g3 ttJh3 16.�g2 ttJh6 17.i.e4 ttJg4 18.l'!a2 �e8 19.f3 ttJf6 20.i.b1 WfhS 21.�hl i.d7oo Sosonko - Nibojer, Amster­ dam 1996.

A) I O .e5 Now, Black has a pleasant choice between 1O .. .fS and 10 . . . ttJf4. I O ... lt)f4 10 .. .fS 11.�b3 (11.ttJd2 ttJf4 12. cxd6 cxd6 13.ttJc4 �h8 14.i.f3 Wfc7 lS.Wfb3 i.d7 16.i.d2 l'!ac8 17. ttJe3 fxe4 18.i.xe4 ttJfS 19.1'!fe1 ttJd4 20.Wfb1 �d8? Chibukhchi­ an - Amonatov, Yerevan 1996; 11.ttJgS ttJf4 12.i.xf4 exf4 13. eS i.xeS 14.l'!c1 �h8 lS.�d2 as 251

Chapter 24 16.cxd6 Wlxd6 17.bxaS c6f! Bunz­ mann - Degraeve, Bethune 2002; 12 .J.c4 h6 13.tDe6 he6 14.dxe6 fxe4, Samarin - Jarasz, Mikolajki 1991, 1S.tDdS tDfxdS 16.,ixd5 c6 17.cxd6 tDxdS+) 1l . . . h6 12.a4 @h8 13J:�d1, I.Sokolov - Piket, Gron­ ingen 1992 , 13 . . . fxe4 14.tDxe4 J.fS 1S.Wlc4 tDf4, with equality. 1l.hf4 1l.J.c4 @h8 12J�e1 J.g4 13.h3 J.hS 14.W f5 1S . .ixf4 exf4 16J3c1 as 17.a3 axb4 18.axb4 J.xf3 19.gxf3 fxe4 20J3xe4 tDfSf! Av.Bykhovsky - Avrukh, Beer-Sheva 1996. 1l.tDd2 fS 12.f3 tDxe2 13.Wlxe2 f4 14.tDc4 gS 1S . .ta3 l3f6 16.bS tDg6f! Commons - Gligoric, Lone Pine 1975. 1l exf4 12.lilcl 12.Wld2 J.g4 13J3ac1 J.xf3 14. .txf3 gS 1S ..tg4 tDg6 16.l3fd1 Wle7 17.cxd6 cxd6 18J3e1 a6 19.a4 l3ae8 20.@f1 tDeS 21..tfS f3 2 2.g3 g4f! Larsen - Gligorie, Lugano 1970. 12.�b3 h6 13.l3ad1 gS 14.eS dxeS 1S.d6 exd6 16.l3xd6 Wle8 17. h3 tDfS 18.l3dd1 e4 19 . .tbS Wle7 2 0 .tDxe4 �xe4 21.l3fe1 tDe3 22.J.d3 Wle6 23.fxe3 Wlxb3 24.axb3 J.c3f! Najer - Kotsur, Elista 2000. 12 h6 13.tDd2 13.h3 gS 14.a4 tDg6 1S.aS l3e8 16.tDd2 fS 17.exd6 cxd6 18.exfS J.xf5 19.tDbS J.b2 20.l3e4 tDeS 21. l3e2 he2 22.Wlxe2 a6 23.Wlxb2 axbS 24.hbS �f6 2SJ3b1 l3e7f! Sosonko - van Wely, Amsterdam 1995. 13.tDd4 @h8 14.l3e1 tDg8 1S.a4 a6 16.Wld2 �f6 17.tDf3 gS 18.g3

fxg3 19.hxg3 �g6 20.@g2 f5f! Lau­ ritzen - Delchev, Benasque 1996. 13 g5 14.�c4 a6 15 .th5 1S.a4 tDg6 16.exd6 exd6 17. as l3e8 18.h3 l3b8 19 ..!hS tDeS 20.tDxeS l3xeS 21.J.f3 b6 22.tDe2 bxaS 23.tDd4, draw, Keene - Gli­ gorie, Bad Lauterberg 1977. .••

•

•••

15 b5 16.�a5 .ie5 17.�e2 dxc5 18.bxc5 c6 19.�xc6 �xc6 2 0 .dxc6 'i'f6 21.h3 .ie6 22. Wlc2 lilac8 23.�c3 .b:c3 24.Wlxc3 Wlxc3 25.lilxc3 lilxc6+ Legky Bologan, Sevastopol 1997. •••

B) 1 0 .g3

•••

252

The plusses and minuses of

5. rtJ,tJ 0 - 0 6.j, e2 e5 7. 0 - 0 rtJc6 B.dS rtJe7 9.b4 rtJh5 this move are evident. White cov­ ers the f4-square, but he weakens his king. 1 0 f5 11.c�:Jg5 This is a standard plan for White in the Classical system: his knight is headed for the e6square, forcing Black to exchange his light-squared bishop. He will have great problems attacking without it, but he can try to encir­ cle and capture White's pawn on e6. It all comes to the eternal di­ lemma - what is more important in chess - spirit or matter, the pawn or the initiative? 1l.rtJd2 rtJf6 12.c5 f4 13.rtJc4 .ih3 14J!el rtJc8 15.a4 h5 16.�d3 rtJg4 17.rtJdl rtJh6 18J!a3 j,g4 19. .ifl rtJe7 2 0.h3 j,c8 2 U3b3 g5+t Sosonko - Kavalek, Waddinxveen 1979. 1l rtJf6 12.t3 12.j,f3 f4 13.c5 @h8 14.cxd6 cxd6 15.b5 rtJe8 16.rtJe6 he6 17. dxe6 �c8 18.�b3 CiJc7 19.j,a3 �xe6 2 0.%!Ixe6 rtJxe6 2 1.hd6 l'!t7 22 .j,e2 rtJc8 23.j,b4 rtJd4+t Hern­ andez Holden - Lopez Martinez, Barcelona 2008. • • •

•••

Bl) 12 f4 B2) 12 c6 •••

•••

B1) 12 f4 This move was considered the best for Black for a long time, but after Loek Van Wely's improve­ ment Black had to study the line with 12 . . . c6 much more seriously. 13.b5 13.rtJe6 he6 14.dxe6 fxg3 15.hxg3, Cole - Jensen, Aarhus 1993, 15 . . . �c8 16.rtJd5 �xe6 17. rtJxc7 �h3= with a perpetual. In case of 13.c5, Black should react with the forced line: 13 . . .fxg3 14.hxg3 h6 15.rtJe6 he6 16.dxe6 d5 17.exd5 rtJfxd5 18.rtJxd5 rtJxd5 19.j,c4 c6 20.e7 �xe7 2 1..ixd5 cxd5 22.�xd5 %!It7, with equality, Barucker - Wagner, COIT. 1989. 13.�g2 c6 14.�d3 (14.b5 c5 15.�d3 rtJe8 16.rtJe6 he6 17.dxe6 �c8 18.rtJd5 �xe6 19.1'!dl h5+ Mi­ chelakis; 14.Wfb3 h6 15.rtJe6 he6 16.dxe6 �c8 17.l'!dl l'!d8 - 17 ... �xe6 18.l'!xd6 - 18.rtJd5? cxd5 19.cxd5 %!Ic7!, followed by l'!ac8-+ Fedorov; 18.b5 ! ? %!Ixe6 19.bxc6 rtJxc6=) 14 . . . rtJe8 15.c5 (15.rtJh3, Michelakis - Egger, Buenos Aires 1992, 15 ... cxd5 16.cxd5 j,d7 17. rtJf2 g5 18.g4 h5+t) 15 . . . rtJxd5 16. exd5 �xg5 17.dxc6 (17.rtJe4 %!Ie7 18.dxc6 dxc5 19.�c4 @h8+t) 17 . . . bxc6 18.rtJe4 �h6 19.cxd6 .ih3 20.�hl .txfl 21..txfl l'!d8+t 13 h6 14.rtJe6 .lxe6 15. dxe6 fxg3 16.hxg3 1:Yc8 17. rtJd5 There begins a more or less •••

• • •

253

Chapter 24 forced play: Black's threats seem to be very dangerous, but pres­ ently, with the help of the com­ puter, all kinds of attacks may be neutralized. 17 .'lbe6 18.�xc7 �h3 19. gf2 �xe4

�f6 3 0 .ge1 �g4 31.%Yd3 (31. �xc5 Wixe4=) 31, ..b6 32.rJlcU White's advantage is doubtless.

-

B2) 12,..c6 ! ?

••

2 0 .:fxe4 This is the improvement we mentioned. In general, Van Wely is a very principled player and he never gives up studying and playing variations if he believes in their positional correctness. At first, he tested here 20J�h2, but that ended up badly for him after: 20 .. :�d7 21.�xa8 lZlxg3 22.ixh6 hh6 23J:(xh6 rJlg7 24J':ih2 lZlef5 25.rJlf2 l'!xa8 26.!d3 Wic7 27.!xf5 lZlxf5 28:�'d3 l'!c8 29.f4 Wic5 30. rJlf3 e4-+ van Wely - Degraeve, Mondariz 2000. 2 0 ,. .gxf2 21.rJlxf2 gfS 22. rJle3 �xg3 23.rJld2 gf2 24.�e8 h5 25.�xg7 rJlxg7 26.�b3 �g2 27.�e3 �g8 28.c5 dxc5 29.!b2, van Wely - Radjabov, Dresden 2008, while here, even in case Black plays the best 29,.. 254

13.J.e3 13.b5 c5 14J'lbl lZle8 15.rJlg2 f4, with an unclear position. 13.rJlg2 lZle8 ! ? 14.Wib3 lZlc7 15. c5 (15.dxc6 bxc6 16J'idl rJlh8 17.c5 d5 18.exd5 cxd5 19.b5 h6 20.lZlh3 Wie8f±) 15 ...cxd5 16.lZlxd5 lZlexd5 17.!c4 !f6 18.cxd6 Wixd6= Muru­ gan - Wood, London 1993. 13,. .J.h6 14.rJlh1 14:�d2 lZlh5 15.f4 exf4 16.gxf4 fxe4, draw, Nikolov - Kr.Georgiev, Bulgaria 1988. 14, ..�:fxd5 ! 15.cxd5 f4 16. gxf4 exf4 17.dxc6 hg5 18. cxb7 hb7 19.!d4 M6= Black's position is quite acceptable, Miles - Kr.Georgiev, Komotini 1992.

C) 1 0 .ge1 White prepares the retreat of his bishop to f1 and he thus reduc­ es the effect of the occupation of the f4-square by Black's knight.

5. 0./J 0 - 0 6 . .te2 e5 7. 0 - 0 0. c6 B.dS 0. e7 9 . b4 0.h5

l2 c6 He takes the d5-square under control in anticipation of the pen­ etration of the enemy knight to e6. It is also interesting for Black to try 12 . . . fxe4 ! ? 13.0.gxe4 (13. 0.cxe4 0.f5 14.0.xf6 hf6 15.0.e4 0.d4 16 . .te3 0.xf3 17.�xf3 .th4 1B.�e2 .tf5 19.0.c3 .tg5 2 0.a3 he3 21.�xe3 �t7 22 .c5, draw, Topalov - Gelfand, Novgorod 1996; 14 . .tb2 0.xe4 15.0.xe4 a5 16.b5 b6 17.g3 .td7= Sherbakov - Balabaev, Karaganda 1999; 14.0.e6 he6 15.dxe6 0.d4 16 . .te3 0.xf3 17.�xf3 b6 1B.0.c3 �e7 19. �h3 c6 20.b5 �feB 21.bxc6 �acB=) 13 ... 0.f5 14 . .tg5 a5 15.bxa5 �xa5 16.a4 b6 17.0.b5, Eljanov - Gapo­ nenko, Polanica Zdroj 2000, 17 . . . �d7 1B . .td2 0.xe4 19.he4 �aB 20.a5 .ta6 ! 2 UWb1 hb5 22 .�xb5 �xb5 23.cxb5 bxa5 24.ha5 �fcB 25.�ebl 0.d4 Black should man­ age to hold this position. •••

Cl) 1 0 f5 C2) 1 0 a5 • . .

. . •

Cl) 1 0 f5 This is a popular move, but both opponents need to know the theoretical lines very well. The evaluation of this variation may change with every game. Look at the encounter between Van Wely and Radjabov. 1l.0.g5 H.c5 fxe4 12.ltJxe4 0.f4 13.hf4 �xf4 14.0.fd2 dxc5 15 . .tc4 0.xd5 16.0.b3 c6 17.0.bxc5 �hBoo Kram­ nik - Gelfand, Novgorod 1996. 11.0.d2 0.f6 12.a4 a5 13.bxa5 c5 14.0.b3 f4 15 . .ta3 g5 16.h3 0.g6 17.0.xc5 dxc5 1B.hc5 �xa5 19.0.b5 .td7 20.hfB .ixfB 21.d6 �b6oo Brodsky - Degraeve, Cap­ pelle la Grande 2 009. 1l tLlf6 • • •

• • •

Cia) l2 . .tfJ Clb) l2.fJ Cia) l2 .tfJ Black should not be in a hurry to play h6 in this position. •

Clal) l3 .tb2 Cla2) l3 .te3 Cla3) l3.�3 •

•

255

Chapter 24 13J'!:b1 h6 14.l2'le6 .b:e6 1S.dxe6 fxe4 16.l2'lxe4 l2'lxe4 17 ..b:e4 dS 1B . .tc2 �d6 19.�g4, Bareev Radjabov, Sarajevo 2003, 19 . . . e 4 2 0.E1d1 �eS 21..tb2 �bB! with equality. 13.bS cxbS 14.cxbS h6 lS.l2'le6 .b:e6 16.dxe6 fxe4 17.l2'lxe4 l2'lxe4 1B . .b:e4 dS 19 . .ta3 dxe4 2 0.�xdB E1fxdB 21..b:e7 E1eB 22 . .tcS E1xe6 23 . .te3 (23.E1xe4 a6 24.bxa6 E1exa6 2S.a3 .tfB 26.MB, draw, Pelletier - Radjabov, Kerner 2007) 23 . . . a6! 24.b6 .tf6 2S.g3 .tgS ! and af­ ter the trade of the bishop, there arises an equal rook and pawn endgame, Lautier - Ivanchuk, Calvia 2004. 13 . .ta3 ! ? h6 14.l2'le6 .b:e6 IS. dxe6 fxe4 16 ..b:e4 l2'lxe4 17.l2'lxe4 dS 1B.l2'lcS �d6 19.12'lxb7 �xe6 20. bS, Kramnik - Grischuk, Moscow (blitz) 200B, 20 . . . E1aeB 21.bxc6 �xc6 22.l2'ld6 E1dB 23.cxdS �a6 24.l2'lbS �xbS 2S . .b:e7 E1xdS=

C1a1) 13 ..th2 ! ? h6 14.l2'le6 .b:e6 15.dxe6

15 fxe4 • •.

2S6

Black's other plan is connect­ ed with the chase after White's e6-pawn: lS . . . �c7!? 16.�b3 E1adB 17.E1ad1 fxe4 1B.l2'lxe4 l2'lxe4 19. .b:e4 �cB 20.�h3 E1f6 21.cS ! ? (21..tc2 E1xe6 22.f4 E1fB 23.cS dS 24.fxeS, Paschall - Karatoros­ sian, Budapest 2004, 24 . . . hS 2S.E1f1 E1xf1 26.E1xf1 .b:eS 27 . .b:eS E1xeS 2B.�xcB l2'lxcB 29 ..b:g6 l2'le7=; 2S.E1d3 l2'lfS 26.E1f3 E1e7 27.E1ef1 E1et7 2B.a4 �e6 Black has equalized completely.) 21... �xe6 22.cxd6 E1xd6 23.E1xd6 �xd6 24.�b3 @h7. The following exemplary variation illustrates that he has sufficient resources to maintain the equality: 2S.E1d1 �c7 26.�c2 E1d6 27.h4 @hB 2B. �e2 �d7 29.E1xd6 �xd6 30.hS gxhS 31.�xhS �xb4 32 . .b:eS �e1 33.@h2 �xe4 34.�xh6 �h7= 16.l2'lxe4 It is worse for White to play 16 . .b:e4, since Black succeeds in advancing 16 . . . dS 17.cxdS (17 . .td3 e4 1B . .tfl �b6 19.E1b1 l2'lhS 20.cS �c7 21.bS, Bareev - Radja­ boy, France 2003, 21...l2'lf4=t) 17. . . cxdS 1B . .tc2 e4! (lB ... �d6 19 . .tb3 �xe6 20.l2'la4, Tukmakov - Hu­ lak, Tucepi 1996, 20 . . . l2'ld7 21.�d2 e4 22 ..b:g7 @xg7 23.E1ad1 l2'lf6 24.l2'lcS �b6 2S.f3GG Tukmakov) 19.12'la4 (19 . .tb3 �b6 20.E1c1 @h7 21.bS �xe6 22 . .ta3 E1adBoo) 19 . . . b 6 2 0.f3 exf3 21.�xf3 �d6+, fol­ lowed by l2'le4 and Black obtained a slight edge in the game Mista Antoniewski, Trzebinia 199B. 16 l2'lxe4 17.E1xe4 .•.

5. liifJ 0 - 0 6 . J.e2 e5 7. 0 - 0 lLlc6 8.d5 lLl e7 9.b4 lLlhS White achieves nothing much after 17.J.xe4 d5 Peek - David, Amsterdam 2000. 17 dS 18.cxdS 18J'!el �d6 19.b5 �xe6 20.cxd5 cxd5 2U{fb3 �f7 22.�adl �f5+ 18 cxdS 19.heS! ? This positional exchange-sac­ rifice is like an identity card of this variation. 19 heS 2 0 .heS Vb6 21 .tb2 21.�d2 �xe6 22.�el �xf3 23. gxf3 lLlf5+ Kallai - Barbero, Bern 1997. •••

•••

Austria 2005, 22 ... gac8! 23 .teS (23 . .tg7 '\Mfxbl 24.�xbl @xg7 25. h4 b6oo) 23 ...ti'a3 ! (Black at­ tacks the c1-square.) 24.ti'd2 �h7 2S.gxb7 ti'el 26 .td1 ti'xd2 27.gxe7 �g8 28.gg7 with a per­ petual. •

•

C1a2) 13 .te3 •

•••

•

21 �xb4! Black's only chance is to play actively. At first, he must prevent White's set-up J.b2+�d4 and sec­ ondly he must create threats him­ self. In the first game, in which this variations was played, there followed 21.. .@h7 22 .�e2 (22. '\Mfd2 ! ?) 22 ... d4 23.h4 �f6 24.�el '\Mfxb4 25.a3 �d6 26.h5 ! t with a powerful initiative for White, Shi­ rov - Radjabov, Linares 2004. 22.gb1, Rudolph - Pantaleev, •••

Black should exchange on d5 immediately in this variation: 13 ... cxdS 14.cxdS and continue only later with 14 ... h6 1S.lLle6 .be6 16. dxe6 fxe4 17.lLlxe4 lLlxe4 18. he4 dS 19 .ic2 19.J.c5 dxe4 2 0.'\Mfxd8 �fxd8 21.J.xe7 �e8 22 .J.c5 �xe6 23.�e4 gd8 24.h4 (24.J.xa7 i!a6 25.J.e3 i!xa2 26.i!c1 i!c2 27.i!al @f7= A.Spielmann N ataf, France 2004) 24 . . . a6 25.a4 i!d5 26.J.e3 i!c6= The weak pawn on e5 is ir­ relevant in this position, because of the reduced material, Gyimesi - Baklan, Tusnad 2 005. 19 ...b6 2 0 .�g4 20.b5 '\Mfd6 2 1.J.c1 i!ad8 22.J.b3 @h7 23.a4 �xe6 24.J.a3 i!d7-F •

-

257

Chapter 24 Malakhatko - Sivokho, Polanica Zdroj 1999. 2 0.i.a4 Wld6 21.i.d7 Wlxb4 22. l:!bl Wlh4 23.f3 l:!f5 24.i.f2 '!!;Vf6 25.i.g3 h5 26.h3 l:!fS 27.rJhl '!!;Vg5 2S.i.h2 e4+ Malakhatko - Jenni, Istanbul 2000. 20 e4 2U:!:adl '!!;Vc7 22 .tb3 22 .i.a4 l:!f5 23.i.d7 l:!afS 24. '!!;Ve 2 i.e5 25.h3 .ih2 26.rJhl i.f4 27.i.d4 i.e5 2S . .te3 .tf4 29 . .td4 .te5 30 . .te3, draw, Shariyazdanov - Iskusnyh, Tula 1999. 22 !U5

2S.Wlh4 .tf6, draw, Xu Jun - Po­ nomariov, Shenyang 2000. 23.l:!cl Wld6 24.l:!edl, Gerzhoy - Rajlich, Budapest 2002, 24 . . . '!!;Vxb4 25.l:!c7 h 5 26.'!!;Ve 2 (26.'!!;Vh 3 a5 27.g4 hxg4 2S.'!!;Vh4 l:!eS 29 . .tg5 e3 ! ?) 26 . . . '!!;Vd 6 27.l:!xe7 Wlxe7 2S. l:!xdS l:!xdS 29..txdS l:!cS 30.g3 M6= 23 l:!afS 23 . . . Wlc6 ! ? 24.gedl Wlc6 25.h4 rJh7 26. gc2 '!!;Vxe6= S.Savchenko - Po­ nomariov, Alushta 2000.

Theory has gone too far in this line. 22 moves have been played, but this is just the introduction. White has tested in practice nu­ merous alternatives here. 23.gd2 23.Wle2 l:!afS 24.l:!fl, draw, Radjabov - Moreno, Pamplona 2002. 23 . .td4 hd4 24.l:!xd4 Wlc3 25. Wldl l:!afS= Iskusnyh - Motylev, Moscow 1999. 23.l:!e2 h5 24.Wlh4 .tf6 25.Wlg3 .te5 26.Wlh4 .tf6 27.'!!;Vg3 .te5

13 h6 14.c!De6 he6 15. dxe6 Wlc8 16.gdl Black should not be afraid of 16.b5 Wlxe6 17 . .ta3 c5 ! ? IS.exf5 gxf5 19.hb7 l:!abS 20 ..tf3 (20 . .td5 c!Dfxd5 21.cxd5 Wlf7+ Korobov - Yev­ seev, Sochi 200S) 2 0 ... e4 21..te2 c!Dc6! 22 ..tb2 c!Dd4 23.Wldl c!Dd7+ White's only attempt to hold on to his pawn with 16.c5 can be countered by Black with 16 . . . fxe4 17.cxd6 exf3 IS.dxe7 l:!eS 19 . .tb2 (19.gxf3 l:!xe7 20.l:!xe5 c!Dh5 21.l:!e3 c!Df4 22 . .tb2 '!!;VfS 23.l:!ael '!!;Vf6+

• • •

•

• • •

25S

• • •

Cla3) 13.'!!;Vb3

• . •

5. &iJf3 0 - 0 6. ie2 e5 7. 0 - 0 ttJ c6 B.dS ttJ e7 9.b4 ttJ h5 White's extra pawn i s immate­ rial, moreover that Black can recapture the e-pawn at some moment.) 19 .. J!xe7 20J!xe5 Vlfc7 21J'! ee1 fxg2+ Pelletier - Inarkiev, Istanbul 2003. 16.ia3 Vlfxe6 17.l'!ad1 l'!fd8 18. b5 @h7 19.1'!d2 (19.bxc6 bxc6 2 0 . Vlfa4 f4 21.l'!e2 l'!d7 22 .l'!ed2 l'!ad8, this line transposes to 19.1'!d2 gd7 20.l'!ed1 l'!ad8 21.bxc6 bxc6 22. Vlfa4 f4) 19 . . . l'!d7 20.bxc6. White must play like this, since Black was threatening c5. 20 . . . bxc6 21. ged1 gad8= Eljanov - Radjabov, Moscow 2005, with an approxi­ mately equal position. White has compensation thanks to his more active pieces, but Black has every­ thing reliably protected. 16 gd8 17.b5 17.c5 fxe4 18.cxd6 exf3 19.dxe7 gxd1 20.Wlxd1 Vlfxe6 2 1.Wld8 @h7 22 .gxf3 Wlg8 23.Wlc7 Vlfc4 24.id2 ge8+ Kallio - V.Kotronias, Ba­ tumi 2002. 17 Vlfxe6 • • •

18.ia3. There arise original posi­ tions after 18 . . . ttJxc6 19.exf5 Vlfxf5 2 0.Vlfxb7 ttJd4 2 1.id5 @h7 22.ie3 gab8 23.Vlfxa7 gb2 24.@h1, Bac­ rot - Radjabov, Tripoli 2004, 24 ... ttJc2 (24 . . . ttJxd5 25.cxd5 gc2 26.Wlb6 l'!c8 27.ttJb5;!;) 25.l'!ab1 ttJxe3 26J'!xb2 ttJxd1 27.ttJxd1 Wld3 28.ttJe3 ttJxd5 29.cxd5 gc8= 18 @h7 19.bxc6 19.9ab1 gd7!? 20.bxc6 ttJxc6 21.exf5 Vlfxf5 22 .ixc6 bxc6 23. �d6 gad8 24.c5 e4= and Black has nothing to worry about. 19 ttJxc6! ? 1 9 . . . bxc6 20.Wlb7 gab8 2 1.Wla6 ttJe8! 22.gab1 �b1 23.gxb1 ttJc7 24.Wla4 fxe4 2S.ttJxe4 d5 26.ttJc5 Wlf500 2 0 .exfS VlfxfS 21.Wlxb7 �d4 22.hd6 gac8 23.�b5 �xf3 24.Vlfxf3 Vlfxf3 25.gxf3 a6 The quick draw is the most probable outcome here. • • •

• • •

Clb) 12.f3

• • •

12 c6 13.@hl 13.ie3 h6 14.ttJe6 ixe6 15.dxe6 Vlfc7 16.gb1 (16.Vlfb3 gfd8 17.b5 • • •

18.ia3 18.bxc6 bxc6 19.ia3 @h7 - see

259

Chapter 24 �c8= Black wins a pawn, while his opponent still has the initiative, but he cannot create any serious threats.) 16 . . . l:!fd8 17.b5 �c8 18.bxc6 bxc6 19.�a4 'it>h7 2 0.l:!edl �xe6 21.l:!b7 l:!d7 22.�a6, Komljenovic - A.Kuzmin, Be­ nasque 1999, 22 . . . h5! ?, Black begins his kingside counterplay, while White's pressure against the d6-pawn is not effective at all: 23.l:!xd7 Vlixd7 24.�c5 lDc8 25.hd6 lDxd6 26.c5 .if8= 13 h6 14.lDe6 he6 15.dxe6

lDcxd5 22 . .ic4 Vlic7 23.hd5 l:!fd8 24 . .ic4 l:!xdl 25.Vlixdl �xc5 26. .ib3;!; Mraz - Spitz, COIT. 2004.

•••

Clbl) lS .tl:Je8 Clb2) lS ... �c7 • .

Clbl) lS lDe8 'This is an interesting attempt by Black to recapture the pawn with the knight. 16.�3 lDc7 17.cS! 'The position is opened now and White is better prepared for this. 17 dS 18.exdS cxdS 19.J.b2 �e8 19 . . . b6! ? 1 9 . . .a 5 20.l:!adl axb4 21.lDxd5 • • •

• • •

260

2 o .lDxdS! This very sacrifice has forced Black to reconsider the evaluation of the variation with 15 . . . lDe8. White achieves less with 2 0.a4 a6 21.l:!adl (21.lDxd5 lDcxd5 22.l:!adl �c6 23.J.c4 l:!fd8 24. he5 he5 25.l:!xe5 lDf6 26. l:!eel, van Wely - V.Kotronias, War­ saw 2005, 26 . . . 'it>g7+) 21 . . . l:!d8 22.lDxd5 (22.b5 'it>h7 23.J.a3 lDxe6 24.lDxd5 lDxd5 25J'ixd5 lDd4 26. l:!xd8 �xd8 27.�b1 axb5 28. axb5 lDxe2 29.l:!xe2 Vlia5 30 . .ic1 �c3oo; 24.bxa6, Bareev - Topalov, Dort­ mund 2002, 24 . . .bxa6 25.ha6 lDd4 26.�a2 �d7 27.�b5 lDdc6=) 22 . . . lDcxd5 (22 ... l:!xd5 23 . .ic4 l:!xdI 24.l:!xdl Vlib8 25.l:!d7 .if6, van Wely - Stellwagen, Leeuwarden 2005 and here Loek overlooked the possibility of the double strike - 26.Vlie3±) 23 . .ic4 �c6 24.he5 he5 25.l:!xe5 lDf6 26.l:!d7 l:!fe8 27.b5 axb5 28.axb5 Vlic8 Black still holds the position.

S,CiJj3 0 - 0 6 . .ie2 eS 7. 0 - 0 lLlc6 B.d5 lLl e7 9.b4 lLlh5 2 0 lLlcxd5 21.gad1 c.!lh7 22.Ac4 lLlf6 23.he5 b5 24.Afl a6, van Wely - V.Kotronias, Goteborg 200S. It is more than obvious that White has excellent compensation. He has two passed pawns for the piece and wonder­ ful squares for penetration on the d-file. There may follow: 25.c.!lgl ga7 26.a3± •••

C1b2) 15 .. :�c7 16.b5 gfd8 17.bxc6 bxc6 18.gb1 'i'c8 19. 'i'a4 Wlxe6 2 0 .gb7 a5 21 .te3 �M7 22.gb6 gc7 23.geb1 lt:ld7= Black has parried all his oppo­ nent's threats. His position is a bit passive indeed, but he should manage to draw without any problems. •

C2) 1 0 ... a5

1l.bxa5 Naturally, it would be more advantageous for White if Black captures on b4. He can play with this idea 11..ia3, but following 11...axb4 12 . .ixb4 ttlf4 13 . .ifl (13. cS lLlxe2 14.Wlxe2 dxcS 1S . .ixcS

b6 16 . .ib4 .ia6 17.lLlbS 'i'd7 1S.a4 E!feS 19.E!ec1 lLlxdS 20.exdS e4; 16 . .ixe7 'i'xe7 17.lLlbS E!aS 1S.'Wc4, Pelletier - Bologan, France 2 0 07, 1S . . . .id7+) 13 . . ..tg4 14.h3 .txf3 1S.'Wxf3, Black has the remarka­ ble resource 1S . . . cS! with the idea 16.dxc6 lLlxc6 17.a3 It:le6= 1l ... gxa5 It deserves a very serious at­ tention for Black to try the idea of Smirin - the immediate move ll .. .fS. For example: About White's most principled response 12.a4 E!xaS - see 11 . . . E!xaS; 12.lLlgS lLlf4 (12 . . . lLlf6 ! ? 13 . .if3 E!xaS 14.a4 I:t>hS 1S . .ia3 fxe4 16. lLlcxe4 ttlxe4 17.lLlxe4, Flumbort - Nevednichy, Hungary 200S, 17 ... lLlfS 1S.cS lLld4 19.cxd6 cxd6 20 . .ixd6 E!xf3 21.gxf3 E!xdS 22 . .icS .id7 23.'Wd3 .ic6�) 13 . .ixf4 (13 . .ifl h6 14.lLlf3 fxe4 1S.lLlxe4 .ig4) 13 ...exf4 14.E!c1 E!xaS 1S.'Wd2 h6 16.lLle6 .ixe6 17.dxe6 fxe4 1S.lLlxe4 'WaS+ and Black has an edge; 12.cS E!xaS 13.cxd6 cxd6 14.E!b1 fxe4 (14 . . . E!cS 1S.E!b3± Mrva Smirin, Czech Republic 2004) 1S.lLlxe4 lLlf4 16 ..ic4 .ig4f±; 12.lLld2 lLlf6 (maintaining the pressure against the e4-square) 13.cS (White can try to win a pawn 13.exfS lLlxfS 14.lLlb3, but after 14 . . . lLld4 1S ..id2 .ifS 16.E!c1 cS 17.f3 b6� Black obtains good compensation for it.) 13 . . . E!xaS 14.cxd6 cxd6 1S.lLlc4 (Black can counter 1S.a4 with 1S . . . .ih6 16 . .ia3 .ixd2 17.'i'xd2 fxe4 1S ..ibS 261

Chapter 24 i.fS 19.h3 �a8 20.g4 i.c8 2VLlxe4 lLlxe4 2 2 .�e4 i.d7oc Kramnik Smirin, Moscow 2002.) lS . . . �a6 16.lLle3 �a8 17.f3, A.Rychagov Bragin, Voronezh 2002 and here he had better exchange: 17... fxe4 18.fxe4 �aS 19.i.d2 i.h6 20.i.f3 i.d7= with a good game.

C2a) 12.a4 C2b) 12.�d2 C2a) 12.a4 This is a thematic move for White's plan, since his queenside offensive includes it always. He is preparing i.a3-b4 and cS (if Black prevents this with b6, White push­ es as) and he ensures the wonder­ ful a3-square for his rook. 12 f5 I used to play 12 . . . cS imme­ diately in the past and it was not refuted: 13.�a3 (Zigurds Lanka taught me that in case of 13.lLld2 lLlf6 14.lLlb3 �a6 lS.�c2, with the idea as, lLla4-b6, capturing the light-squared bishop, it would be enough for Black to place his knight on d7: lS . . . lLld7 16.lLlbS . . •

262

fS 17.lLld2 - 17.f3 lLlf6 - 17. . . lLlf6 18.i.d3, Golod - Bologan, Inter­ net 2004, 18 . . . fxe4 19.1Llxe4 lLlxe4 20.,ixe4 lLlfS=) 13 ... lLlf6 14.lLlh4 (14.i.d2, Kiselev - Bologan, Mos­ cow 1998, 14 . . . h6 ! ? with the idea lLld7 and fSoc; 14.i.fl, Gulko - Fe­ dorov, Las Vegas 1999, 14 . . . lLld7 lS.lLlbS �a6 16.i.b2 h6 17.lLld2 fS 18.exfS lLlxfS 19.i.d3 lLlf6=) 14 . . . lLld7 lS.g3 fS 16.f4, Bacrot - Bolo­ gan, Enghien-Ies-Bains 1999 and I had to capture on f4 - 16 ... exf4 17.i.xf4 lLleS 18.lLlf3 lLlf7! (other­ wise, White establishes control over the eS-square) 19.i.d3 fxe4 20.lLlxe4 h6, followed by gS, or i.g4. 13.�d2 In case of 13.lLlgS, Black usu­ ally replies with a counterattack 13 . . . lLlf4 14.i.xf4 exf4 lS.�c1 lLlxdS 16.lLlxdS V4'xgS 17.exfS c6+ Kirusha - Manakov, St. Petersburg 1999. 13.�a3 lLlf6 14.i.f1, I.Sokolov - Smirin, Dresden 1998, 14 . . . fxe4 lS.lLlxe4 lLlxe4 16.�xe4 c6= 13 �f6 14.J.a3 14.f3 cSf± 14 b6 15.i.d3 lS.exfS, Harikrishna - Fedo­ roY, Dubai 2004, lS . . . lLlxfS 16. lLlbS (16.i.b4 �a8 17.aS bxaS 18. haS lLld4) 16 ... e4 17.i.b4 �a8 18. �b3 i.h6 19.aS e3 20.fxe3 he3 21.@h1 bxaS 22.�xaS �b8oc 15 .th6 Black exerts additional pres­ sure against the e4-square. 16.13 16.i.b4 �a8 17.lLlbS (17.aS cS) .••

• • •

. • •

5JiJfJ 0 - 0 6. ie2 e5 7. 0 - 0 lLl c6 8.d5 lLl e7 9.b4 lLlhS 17 . . . id7 18.f3 fxe4 19.1Llxe4 lLlxe4 20.fxe4 !xbS 2 1.cxbS @g7 22 J:�a3 lLlg8 23.ie2 �h4= Dydyshko Mihajlovskij, Minsk 2006. 16 fxe4 17.c!Odxe4 17.fxe4 lLlg4tt 17... c!OfS 18.ib4 ga8 19.a5 c!Oxe4 2 0 c!Oxe4 20.fxe4 lLle3 21.�e2 ig4 22. �b2 �h4� 2 0 ... J.e3 21.@hl J.d4 22. ga3 bxa5 23.gxa5 gb8= with an equal position. ••.

•

C2b) 12.c!Od2 c!Of4 13.if1

C2bl) 13 ... c5 C2b2) 13 ... b6 C2bl) 13 ... c5 This move was considered nec­ essary for Black for a long time. 14.a4 14.lLlb3 l'!a6 lS.a4 fS 16.g3 lLlhS 17.ie2 lLlf6 18.igS h6 19.ixf6 l'!xf6 20.aS �f8 2U�a2 @h8 22.lLla4 fxe4 23.ig4 !xg4 24.�xg4 l'!f3 2S.l'!b2 lLlfS 26. �xe4 lLld4tt Mala­ khatko - Golubev, Ukraine 1997. 14 ... @h8

Alexey Fedorov's plan includes the improvement of the position of the knight, so the g8-square is freed for it and later Black will ad­ vance fS, depending on the situa­ tion .. It also deserves attention for him to play here 14 . . . lLlhS ! ? The idea to retreat this knight to my half of the board came to me once after having a bath. The knight is vulnerable on f4 and it hampers the pawn-advance fS. It seemed to me that such slow maneuvers were possible in a closed position like this, for example: lS.g3 ih6 16.lLlbS l'!a6. In case of lSJ�a3, Black can retreat the knight again: lS . . . lLlf6 16.lLlbS lLle8. Still, after 17.ib2 fS 18.f4 exf4 19.eS (19.!xg7 lLlxg7 20.eS dxeS 2 1.l'!xeS id7) 19 . . . dxeS 20.!xeS !xeS 2 U�xeS, van Wely - Fedorov, Leon 2001, 2 1 . . . lLld6 22 .lLlb3 l'!a8 23.lLlxc5 lLlxbS 24.cxbS �d6 2S.�d4;t White maintains an edge. He is better too following lS.lLlb3 l'!a6 16.aS lLlf6 17.lLla4 lLld7 18.id2 (18. ie3 fS 19.f3 f4 20.if2 hS) 18 . . .fS 19.f3 and then �c2 and lLlb6;t 15.ga3 lS.lLlb3 l'!a6 16.aS fS 17.g3 lLlhS 18.exfS (18.f3 fxe4 19.fxe4 lLlg8 20.ie2 lLlhf6 2 1.g4 h6 22.l'!f1 lLlh7=) 18 . . . lLlxfS 19.1Lla4 (19.g4 lLld4) 19 . . .'!Wf6 2 0.l'!a2 lLlh6oo Gran­ da Zuniga - Nunn, Leon 1997. 15 ... c!Og8 16.c!Ob5 16.g3 lLlh3 (16 . . . lLlhS 17.lLlbS) 17.@g2 f6 18.lLlb3 l'!a6 19.aS lLlgS 20.h4 lLlf7 21.lLla4 fS. 263

Chapter 24 16.tLlf3 tLlh6 17.,td2 ga6 (17 .. .f6 1B.�c1 tLlf7 19 ..bf'4 exf4 20.�xf4 f5 21.�d2 g5) 18.�c1 .ig4 19 ..txf4 exf4 20.�xf4 f5� 16 tLlh6 Black plans to arrange his pieces according to the scheme: ga6, f6, tLlf7, or .id7 and �cB. 17.tLlf3 f6 17 . . . ga6 1B . .ixf4 exf4 19.e5 tLlf5 2 0.exd6 tLlxd6 21.tLld2, Eljanov ­ Fedorov, Dubai 2004, 21...tLlxb5 2 2 .cxb5 gd6 23.,tc4 �a5 24.�c1 ,tf5= 18 .bf4 exf4 19.�d2 tLlf7 2 0 .�xf4 f5 21.�d2 2 1.�c1 gaB 22.h3 fxe4 23.gxe4 .if5 24.ge1 .id7 25.�c2 tLle5 (25 . . .�a5 26.ge7 �dB 27.gee3) 26.gee3, Dorfman - Bologan, Belfort 2004, 26 ... tLlxf3 27.gxf3 gxf3 2B.gxf3 �e7� 21 g5 22.g3 f4 23.e5 dxe5 24.tLlc3 g4 25.tLlh4 .if6 26.tLle4 .ixh4 27.gxh4 ga6 28.tLlg5 tLlxg5 29.hxg5 ge8+ Sargissian - Fedorov, Moscow 2002. • • •

c5, or f5. 15 ga8 16.a5 After for example: 16 . .id2, he is perfectly prepared to continue with: 16 . . .f5 17.g3 tLlh5, Markus - G.Horvath, Balatonlelle 2001, 1B.a5 bxa5 19.tLlxa5 tLlf6 2 0 .f3 c6, solving all his opening problems. 16 bxa5 •••

•••

•

•••

C2b2) 13 b6 This is a very fresh idea in the theory of this variation. Black wishes to challenge his oppo­ nent's straightforward play on the queenside. 14.a4 .id7 15.tLlb3 In case of 15 . .ia3, Landa Maiwald, Muelheim 2009, Black should transfer his queen to the queenside: 15 . . . �aB 16.,tb4 ga6 17.tLlb5 �b7 1B.ge3 gfaB 19.93 tLlh5, followed by tLlf6-eB, f5 and •••

264

17.gxa5 This is a simple and reliable decision. White's attempt to act too quickly - 17.c5 ! ? would not bring him any dividends: 17 ... a4 1B.tLld2 dxc5 19.tLlc4 tLlcB 20 . .ie3 tLlb6 21.g3 (21.hc5 tLlxc4 22 .hc4 �g5 23.g3 gtbB+) 21...tLlh3 22. �g2 �f6 23.tLlxb6 cxb6 24 ..ib5 hb5 25.tLlxb5 tLlf4+ and Black had the initiative in the game Zhigalko Fedorov, Minsk 200B. 17 l!!lxa5 18.tLlxa5 �b8 19. tLlb5 f5 20 .ixf4 20.g3 tLlh5 21.exf5 tLlxf5 2 2 . tLlc6 �b6 23.�c2 tLlf6 2 4 ..ig2 .ih6 25 ..ixh6 tLlxh6+ 2 0 exf4 21.exfS tLlxfS 22. tLlc6 �6= L'Arni - Bologan, Plovdiv 200B. •.•

•

•••

Chapter 25

1.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 J.g7 4.e4 d6 5.�f3 0 - 0 6.J.e2 e5 7. 0 - 0 � c6 S.d5 �e7 9 .�el

1O.�h1 fS 11.exfS gxfS 12.f4 ltJg6 13.g3 exf4 14.gxf4 ltJf6 1S.ltJg2 ttJe4 16.ttJxe4 fxe4 17.a4 ttJe7 18. �a3 ttJfS 19 . .tg4 Wfe7 2 0.�h3 �h8 2 1.b3 cS? Miles - Romero Hol­ mes, Las Palmas 1996. A) 1 0 .ttJd3 f5

In principle, the d3-square should be the best for White's knight in this position. It supports from there his both strategically important pawn-breaks - f4 and b4. 9 ttJd7 • . .

A) 1 0 .ttJd3 B) 1 0 .£3 C) 1 0 .te3 •

About 1O . .id2 fS 11. ltJd3 , or 1Uk1 �h8 12.ltJd3 - see varia­ tion A. 1O.g4 fS 11.f3 �h8 12.�g2 ltJg8 13.gS f4 14.h4 h6 lSJ�h1 �t7 16.ltJd3 .if8? Giuriati - Nataf, Porto San Giorgio 1997.

1l . .id2 It is premature for White to play 11.exfS, since Black can react with 11 . . .ttJxfS 12.f3 ttJf6 (12 . . . cS 13.ttJf2 ttJf6 14 . .id3 lDd4 1S.lDfe4 a6 16 . .ie3 lDhS 17.g3 lDf6 18.�f2 �b8 19.Wffl lDxe4 20.lDxe4 .if5't Vokac - Oral, Olomouc 1995) 13.lDf2 !h6 (13 ... lDd4 14.lDfe4 c6 lS.!e3 lDxe4 16.lDxe4 cxdS 17.cxdS .ifS 18 . .id3 26S

Chapter 25 he4 19.he4 �b6 20J!f2 gac8= Markus - Polzin, Austria 2006; 14 . .ie3 tt'lhS lS.ge1 a6 16 . .ifl cS= Dzindzichashvili - Geller, USSR 1975) 14 . .ixh6 tt'lxh6 1S ..id3 (lS.g4 tt'lt7 16.�d2 h6 17.h4 tt'lh7, Schulz - Webersberger, Germany 2 003, 18.�c2 ctJg7 19.ctJg2 �xh4 20.gh1 �e7+) lS . . . tt'lfS 16 . .ixfS .ixfs, draw, Markus - Smirin, Plovdiv 2008. The position is simplified after 11.f4, for example: 11 ... fxe4 12.tt'lxe4 tt'lfS 13.fxeS tt'lxeS 14 . .igS �e8 lS.tt'ldf2 h6 16 ..id2 �e7 17.�c1 b6 18 . .ic3 .ia6 19.b3 gae8= Varniene - Gaponenko, Halle 2000. In answer to the move 11.f3, fortifying White's centre, Black should better prepare the appear­ ance of his bishop to h6 with 11 . . . ctJh8 ( I believe that h e should not play here 1l .. .f4, reducing the ten­ sion in the centre, since White has sufficient resources to parry his opponent's kingside attack, for example: 12.g4 hS 13.gS h4 14.ctJh1 ctJt7 1S . .id2 gh8 16.b4 ghS 17.gg1 tt'lg8 18.cS a6 19.�b3 gxgS 20.c6 gxg1 21.gxg1 tt'lf8 22.cxb7 hb7 23 . .ie1 gS 24.bS and Black's defence is very difficult, despite his extra pawn, Miladinovic Korneev, Vrsac 2 006.) 12 . .id2 tt'lg8 13.gc1 .ih6 14.b4 tt'ldf6 lS.cS .id7 16.a4 �e7 17.tt'lf2 a6 18.cxd6 cxd6 19.aS gac8 20 ..ixh6 tt'lxh6 2 1.�d2 tt'lt7 22 .bS axbS 23.tt'lxbS tt'lhS 24.gxc8 gxc8 2S.gc1 �d8= Figuero - Narciso Dublan, Calvia 2007. 266

1l ctJh8 It deserves attention for Black to simplify the position a bit with the idea to gain access to the d4square via fS : 11.. .fxe4 ! ? 12.tt'lxe4 tt'lfS 13 . .ic3 (13.f3 tt'lf6 14.tt'ldf2 tt'ld4 lS.tt'lxf6 �xf6 16.tt'le4 �e7 17 . .igS �e8 18.gc1 b6 19.b4 as= Black succeeded in opening the a­ file, Krush - Xie Jun, Xiapu 200S; 13.ge1 tt'lf6 14 . .if3 tt'ld4 lS.tt'lxf6 �xf6 16 . .ie4 .id7 17.�c1 cS 18.f3 bS 19.cxbS hbS+ Krush - David, France 2007) 13 . . . aS ! ? (13 . . . tt'lf6 14 . .if3 tt'lh4 - 14 ... tt'ld4 ! ? - lS.tt'lxf6 �xf6 16 . .ie4 .ifS 17.f3 �gS 18.�e2 .ih6 19.ctJh1 �e3 20.�xe3 he3 21.gfe1 .ih6 22.cS;!; with a slight edge for White, Ftacnik - Ba­ nas, Trnava 1983) 14.g4!? (14. cS? ! tt'lf6 ! = ; 14.g3 tt'lf6 lS . .if3 tt'ld4 16.hd4 tt'lxe4 17 . .ie3 tt'lf6 18 . .ig2 .ifS=; 14.ge1 b6 1S . .if3 tt'lf6 16.gc1 tt'lh4 17.tt'lxf6 �xf6 18 ..ie4 .ifS 19.9c2 �gS 20 . .id2 �g4 21.�xg4 hg4 22.f3 .id7 23.b3 tt'lfS= Ne­ verov - Darban, Abudhabi 2 006) 14 ... �h4! lS.tt'le1 tt'ld4 16.tt'lg2 (16. hd4 exd4 17.f4 �e7 18.�c2 c6+) 16 . . . �e7 17.f3 bS !+ Neverov • • •

5. !£Jj3 0 - 0 6. i.e2 e5 7. 0 - 0 !£Jc6 B.dS !£J e7 9. !£J eJ !£J d7 Nevednichy, Nikolaev 1993. Black has opened a second front with the help of his wonderful knight on d4. Meanwhile, White's king seems vulnerable. 12.gcl White can hardly achieve much with 12 .b4 !£Jf6 13.f3 hS 14.exfS (14.cS f4) 14 . . . !£JxfS 1S.!£Jf2 c6oo, followed by cxdS, i.d7, �b6 with mutual chances, Lutz - Shi­ rov, Santiago 1990. He has tried in practice 12.f3, but in general, he should better play this move only after !£Jf6. 12 ... f4

and here: 13J�c1 hS 14.b4 (14.cS !£JxcS 1S.!£Jxc5 dxcS 16.b4 cxb4 17.!£Ja4 aS 1B.�c2 c6? Quiroga - Danos, Potrero de los Funes 1995) 14 ... gS 1S.c5 !£Jf6 16.!£JbS !£JeB 17.�c2 i.d7 1B.!£Jf2 a6 19.!£Ja3 bS 20.cxb6 cxb6 21.!£Jc4 E1cB 22:�d1 bS 23.!£JaS E1xc1 24:�xc1 1&b6? Hjartarson ­ Shirov, Reykjavik 1992 ; 13.g4 !£JgB 14.i.e1 (14.@g2 i.f6 1S.b4 hS 16.h3, Gritsch Jurisic, Germany 1991, 16 . . . i.h4 17.cS !£Jdf6) 14 ...i.f6 1S.b4 (1S. @g2 hS 16.h3 !£Jh6 17.E1h1 i.h4

1B.b4 !£Jf7 19.E1c1 as 20.a3 axb4 21.axb4 he1 22:�xe1 !£Jf6 23.!£Jf2 @g7 24.E1a1 E1xa1 2S.�xa1 E1hB 26.�d1 i.d7 27.!£Jd3 E1h7 2B:�a1 !£JgS 29.!£Jf2 hxg4 30.hxg4 E1xh1 31.�xh1 �aB+ This is a wonderful example how to play with Black in this pawn-structure, Lassila Frolov, Jyvaskyla 1994) 1S . . . i.h4 16.cS, Navarro - Almagro Maz­ ariegos, Cordoba 1990, 16 . . . he1 17.�xe1 gS 1B.E1c1 hS 19.cxd6 cxd6 20.gxhS !£Jdf6 21.!£JbS i.h3 22.E1f2 E1f7? with a double-edged game; 13.b4 hS 14.cS gS 1S.E1c1 !£Jf6 16.cxd6 (16.!£JbS !£JeB 17.1&c2 i.d7 1B.!£Jf2 a6 19.!£Ja3 bS 2 0 .cxb6 cxb6 21.!£Jc4 l:!cB 22 .�d1 bS 23.!£JaS E1xc1 24.�xc1 �b6+ Hjartarson - Shi­ rov, Reykjavik 1992 ; 16.!£Jf2 !£JegB 17.cxd6 cxd6 1B.!£JbS !£JeB 19.a4 - transposing to 16.cxd6) 16 . . . cxd6 17.!£JbS !£J e B 1B.a4 (1B.1&c2 i.d7) 1B . . . !£JgB 19.!£Jf2 !£Jh6 20.h3 i.f6 21.l:!c3 (21.�b3 i.d7 22.E1c3 �bB 23.l:!fc1 i.dB 24.aS a6 2S.!£Ja3 bS=F) 21...E1gB 22 .�c2 i.d7 23.E1c1 g4 24.fxg4 i.h4 2S.i.e1 (2S.gxhS a6 26.!£Ja3 bS 27.i.f3 1&b6 2B.i.e1 hh3 29.@h1 i.d7 30.�e2 !£Jf6oo) 2S . . . a6 26.!£Jc7 !£Jxc7 27.E1xc7 hxg4 2B.!£Jxg4 hg4 29.hg4 !£Jxg4 30.hxg4 i.g3= Silva - Markovic, Buenos Aires 1993. (diagram) 12 ... c5 The alternative here is - 12 . . . !£Jf6 and only after 13.f3 - 1 3 ... cS, for example: 14.g4 (14.dxc6 !£Jxc6 1S.!£Jf2 f4+) 14 . . . a6 {14 . . . h6 1S.h4 a6 16.E1b1 !£Jh7 17.@g2 !£JgB 1B.E1h1 267

Chapter 25 arose a typical pawn-structure for this variation, in which Black has the d4-outpost, while his oppo­ nent's possible queenside actions are developing only along the b­ file. 13.f3 f4 14.�b1 hS lS.a3 (lS.b4 cxb4 16.tLlbS tLlcS 17.hb4 b6=) lS ... gS 16.b4 b6 (with the idea tLlg8-h6, Lanka) 17.tLlbS �f6 18.h3 �g6 19.tLlf2 tLlg800 .!f6 19.�el± White has prevented maximally Black's kingside ac­ tions and his queenside offen­ sive is running smoothly, Kozul - Fedorov, Pula 1997) lS.tLlf2 (15. �b1 bS) lS . . . h6 16.h4 fxg4 17.fxg4 tLleg8 18.@g2 tLlh7 19.�h1 .!f6 (White has problems maintaining his control over the squares gS and h4.) 20.gS, Gelfand - Kasparov, Linares 1990, 20 . . . !e7! 21..!g4 (21.�b3 !d7) 21 . . .hxgS 22.hS �e8 23.hxg6 'I!;l(xg6 24.�e2 tLlgf6. Black seems to defend successfully. 13.f4 13.a3 fxe4 14.tLlxe4 tLlf6 lS.f3 tLlfS 16.b4 b6°o Lanka. 13.b4 cxb4 14.tLlxb4 tLlcS 1S.!f3 .id7 16 . .!e3 b6= Khalifman - Shi­ rov, Lvov 1990. 13.dxc6 tLlxc6 14.f3 tLlcS 1S . .ie3 tLle6 16.'I!;l(d2 b6 17.�fd1 .ib7 18. tLlel tLlcd4 19.tLlc2 'I!;l(h4 20 . .!f2 'I!;l(hS 21.exfS �xfS 22 .tLlxd4 tLlxd4 23.!e3 �af8f± Akopian - Shirov, Santiago 1990. 13.�b1 fxe4 14.tLlxe4 tLlf6 15. tLlxf6 (lS.f3 as ! 16.g4 tLleg8 17. tLldf2 tLlxe4 18.tLlxe4 !h6't) 15 . . . .ixf6 16.b4 b6 17.f3 tLlfS= There 268

13 exf4! Black must make here several non-standard decisions, based on concrete tactical variations. It is weaker for him to play 13 . . . tLlg8 14.exfS gxfS lS.fxeS (lS.�c2 e4 16.tLlf2 .id4 17.tLlcdl bS 18.b3 b4= Kozul - Fedorov, Elista 1998) lS ... tLlxeS 16.tLlf4 tLlf6 17.tLle6 he6 18.dxe6 �e8 19.�c2± 14.tOxf4 14.hf4 hc3 ! lS.bxc3 (lS.�xc3 fxe4 16.tOc1 tOfS 17.g4 gS; 16.tLlel tLlfS 17.g4 gS! 18 . .id2 tLld400 Black dominates two important out­ posts in the centre - d4 and eS and he has still an extra pawn, so this is more than sufficient • • •

5. I£JIJ 0 - 0 6 . .te2 e5 7. 0 - 0 I£Jc6 B.d5 l£Je7 9. l£JeJ l£Jd7 compensation for the absence of his dark-squared bishop and his weakened king.) 15 . . .fxe4 16.l£Jb2 I£Jf5 17.g4 (17.V;l[c2 g5 1B ..td2 e3) 17. . . g5 1B . .td2 I£Jh4 19J�xfB l£JxfB+ He has restricted completely his opponent's dark-squared bishop and has an extra pawn, so he is clearly better. 14 ,id4 15.�hl �f6 16. J.d3 16.exf5 I£Jxf5 17.l£Je6 i.xe6 lB. dxe6 V;l[e7= 16 fxe4 17.�xe4 �xe4 18. he4 hb2 (lB ... l£Jf5) 19.9bl J.e5 2 0 .�e6 gxfl 21.V;l[xfl he6 22.dxe6 �f5= Black is holding this position thanks to his won­ derful bishop on e5. •••

•••

B) 1 0 .f3

This move is connected with the paradoxical idea to organize a counterattack from the position of his own king. 1 0 f5 11.g4 About 1l.l£Jd3 �hB - see vari­ ation A; 1l . .te3 f4 - see variation •••

c.

Bl) 11 �f6 B2) 11 �h8 • • •

• • •

B2) 11 �f6 Black plans to close the game with f4 in this line. 12.�d3 It is a mistake for White to play 12.h4, because of 12 . . . �d7 ! , and he loses his g4-pawn. There may fol­ low: 13.exf5 gxf5 14.g5 I£Jh5 15.f4 I£Jxf4 16 . .txf4 exf4 17.l£Jg2 I£Jg6+ Dos Santos - Barahona, Maringa 1991. 12 .l£Jg2 c6 (12 ... h6 13.!d2 c6 14.b4 .td7 15Jk1 fxg4 16.fxg4 cxd5 17.cxd5 V;l[b6 1B. �h1 V;l[d4= Ivkov ­ Udovcic, Yugoslavia 1963) 13J:�b1 (13 ..te3 f4 14 . .tf2 g5, Bertok - F. Portisch, Virovitica 1977, 15.h4 h5 16.hxg5 I£Jh7 17.gxh5 I£Jxg5 lB. .th4 .tf6 19.�h1 �g7?) 13 ... cxd5 14.cxd5 .td7 15.!e3 (15 . .td2 �cBoo Nikitin - Stein, Kislovodsk 1966) 15 .. .f4 16.!f2 g5 17.V;l[d3 h5 1B.h3 hxg4 19.hxg4 �f7 20.l£Jb5 hb5 21.�xb5 �hB 22 .�bc1 V;l[gB 23 . .te1 V;l[h7= Portisch - Stein, Erevan 1965. In case of 12 . .te3, Black can prevent White's plans with 12 . . . c5 13.l£Jd3 h 6 14.�h1 � f7 15.�gl fxg4 16.fxg4 g5 17.h4, Ovod Amonatov, Moscow 2 0 07, 17 . . . gxh4 1B.g5 hxg5 19.i.xg5 a 6 20. !xh4 b500 After the more modest devel­ opment of the bishop - 12 . .td2, Black can try to undermine his opponent's centre with 12 . . . c6 ! ? 12 h6! ? • • •

• • •

269

Chapter 25 12 .. .f4 13.b4 (13.h4! hs? ! 14.gs± Pinter - Tibensky, Hunga­ ry 1991; 13.csoo) 13 . . . hs 14.gs ltJh7 Is.h4 ltJxgs 16.hxgs ltJxds 17.ltJxdS �xgs 18.Whl, draw, Grigorian Yurtaev, Frunze 1979. 13.h4 13.cs fxg4 14.fxg4 gs= Greefe - Bouazis, Cleveland 1975. 13 ..id2 fxg4 14.fxg4 gs Is . .ie3 ltJg6 16.ltJf2 Yfie7 17.b4 as 18.a3 ltJf4 19 . .if3 hs 20Jkl axb4 21. axb4 !!a3+ Henley - Biyiasas, New York 1977.

13 c6 13 . . . cs 14.!!bl (14 . .id2 a6 Is.!!f2 bs 16.cxbs axbs 17.b4 c4 18.ltJb2 Yfib6+ Polovets - Kon­ dratiev, Leningrad 1974; Is.ltJf2 wh8 16.Wg2 ltJeg8 17.!!hl ltJh700 Hanazawa - Kopylov, corr. 1980) 14 ... wh7 Is.Wg2 .id7 16.b4 cxb4 17.!!xb4 b6 18 . .ie3 !!c8 19.ltJf2 !!c7 2 0.!!gl ltJeg8 21.a4;l; The actions on the kingside have come to a stand-still, while on the queen­ side White can still continue with his initiative, Shtyrenkov - Shul­ man, Ostrava 1998. • • •

270

14.c!Of2 a6! 15 .te3 Is.Wg2 bs 16.b3 .id7 17 . .ie3 !!c8°o Kozlov - Gufeld, Ordzhoni­ kidze 1978. 15 wh8 16.Wg2 b5! 17. dxc6, Zaitshik - Podgaets, USSR 1978, 17 f4 18.J.d2 c!Oxc6 19. cxb5 c!Od4 2 0 .a4 J.e6 and Black has good compensation for the pawn. •

• • •

• • •

B2) 1l

• • •

�h8

He is preparing the maneuver of his knight g8-f6. 12.c!Og2 In case of 12.ltJd3, Black man­ ages to block the queenside with 12 . . . as (with the idea b6, ltJcs) 13.J.e3 b6 14.b3 (14.gs ltJcS Is.h4 c6) 14 ... ltJcS Is.gs ltJxd3 16.J.xd3 f4 17.J.d2 .ih3 18.!!f2 ltJg8+ 12 .h4 c6 13 ..ie3 ltJf6 14.a4 J.d7 Is.ltJd3 Yfic7, followed by !!ae8°o 12 ..ie3 ltJg8 13.ltJg2 J.h6 14. .if2 as Is.a3 ltJcSf± 16.b4? ! axb4 17.axb4 !!xaI 18.Yfixal ltJb3 19.Yfidl ltJd2 2 0.!!el fxg4 21.fxg4 �f6 2 2 . J.g3 ltJf3 23.J.xf3 �xf3+ Moura-

5. tDj3 0 - 0 6 . .te2 e5 7. 0 - 0 tD c6 8.d5 tD e7 9. tD el tD d7 tidis - Kotronias, Thessaloniki 2 005. 12 a5 13.h4 �c5 14 .te3 �g8 15.gbl 15.exf5 gxf5 16.g5 f4 17.hc5 dxeS 18.tDe4 tDe7 19.tDxcS tDf5 20.tDe4, Zilberstein - Petrushin, USSR 1979, 20 . . . h6, with a dou­ ble-edged position. 15 .td7 16.b3 b6 17.a3 a4! 18.b4 �b3+ Black has succeeded in occupying the b3-square in a typical fashion with his knight and it is ready to go to d4 from there, Pinter - Nunn, Thessal­ oniki 1988. • • •

•

• • •

C) 10 .te3 f5 ll.ffl f4 12 .tf2 •

•

g5

CI) 13.a4 C2) 13.�d3 C3) 13.gel Before we start analyzing the main lines, we must deal with some other not so popular vari­ ations, which may create certain problems for Black.

13.�b5 b6 14.b4 a6 lS.tDc3 h5 16.f2 hb2 26.1'!b1 .!c3-+) 23 . . . lt>h8 24.�xe5 (24.Wle1 1'!g8 25 . .!d1 .!f6=) 24 ... dxe5 25 . .!d3 1'!g8 26.Wlc2 Wlh1

272

27.lt>f2 Wlh4 28.1'!fe1 c6 29.�c7 �f5 30.lt>gl �d4 31.Wlf2 1'!xg2 32.Wlxg2 1'!g8 33.Wlxg8 It>xg8 and Black's attack is very dangerous. 4) 22 . .td3 c6 23.dxc6 bxc6 24.�c2 cxb5 25.cxb5 Wlh1 26.lt>f2 Wlh4 27.he5 he5 28 . .!c4 It>g7 29.a5 hb2 30.1'!a2 �f6 31.�b4 �xe4 32.lt>gl �c3+ 5) 22.�d3 �xc4 23.�xf4 hd4 24.�xd4 �e3 25.Wlc1 Wlxf4 26.1'!e1 Wlh6 27 . .!f1 c5 28.dxc6 Wlh1 29.lt>f2 �g4 30.lt>xg3 Wlh2 31.lt>xg4 h5 32.lt>g5 1'!a5 ! ! 33 ..!b5 It>h7 34.�e6 Wlxg2 35.lt>xh5 Wlh3 with a perpetual. 14 gf7 14 ... h5 15.�b5 �f6 (15 ... a6 16.�a7 �f6 17.�xc8 Wlxc8 18.c5t) 16.�xa7 (16.c5 a6 17.�a3 g4t) 16 ...�d7 (16 ... g4 17.�xc8 g3 18. hxg3 fxg3 19.hg3 h4 20 . .!h2 Wlxc8 21.�d3± Kozul - Sherser, Biel 1993) 17.cS g4 18.c6 g3 19. hxg3 fxg3 20.hg3 1'!xa7 (20 ... h4 2 1..!f2 bxc6 22.�xc6 hc6 23. dxc6 �h5 and now, White opened the scope of action of his light­ squared bishop in a typical fash­ ion: 24.f4 ! �g3 25 . .tc4+- Ikon­ nikov - Strovsky, Metz 1994) 21. cxd7 Wlxd7 (21.. .h4 22 . .!f2 1'!a8 23.�c2 .!h6 24.�e3 .!f4 25.�f5± Korchnoi - Xie Jun, Prague 1995) 22 .�c2 1'!aa8 23.�e3 h4 24 . .!f2 .!h6 25.�f5;!; White has again a stable edge, thanks to the transfer of his knight to the f5-square, P.H.Nielsen - Dolmatov, Ke­ merovo 1995. •.•

5. 0.f3 0 - 0 6 . .te2 e5 7. 0 - 0 0.c6 B.dS 0.e7 9. 0.el 0. d7

15.b4 15.0.d3 0.f6 16.c5 if8 (16 . . . h5 17.cxd6 cxd6 18.0.b5 g4 19.0.xa7 id7 20.ib6 �b8= ; 19.ixa7 and here the exchange-sacrifice would not work for Black 19 . . . l'3xa7 20.0.xa7 id7 21.�b3 0.h7 22.�b6 �h4 23.@h1 g3 24.�gl+-; 19 . . . g3 20.ib6 �e7 21.0.c7 0.xd5 22.0.xd5 �h4 23.h3 ixh3 24.gxh3 �xh3 25.l'3f2 0.h4 26.�f1 gxf2 27.0.xf2 �g3 28.@h1 0.xf3 29.�g2±; 21 . . . 0.h7 22.0.xa8 �h4 23.h3 ixh3 24.gxh3 �xh3 25J'!f2 gxf2 26.0.xf2 0.h4 27.�f1±) 17.cxd6 ixd6 18. 0.c5 0.f8 19.�b3 �e7 20.0.e6 (20.0.xb7 g4 21.l'3ac1 l'3g7?) 20 . . . 0.xe6 21.dxe6 ixe6 22 .�xb7 �f8 23 .�a6 g4 24.ic4 ixc4 25.�xc4 @h8= Golubev - Ovsejevitsch, Alushta 1999. 15.0.b5 0.f6 16.0.xa7 g4 17. 0.xc8 (17.fxg4 0.xe4 18.0.xc8 0.xf2 19J1:xf2 e4! with a sharp double-edged position, Ikon­ nikov - Brustman, Crailsheim 1996) 17 ... g3 18.0.xd6 (18.hxg3 0.h5 19.9xf4 exf4 20.0.a7 0.g3 21.0.b5 �h4 22 .id4 0.e5. White is in trouble and Black continues

with his attack following already analyzed examples: 20.0.d3 l'3xc8 2 1.�e1 �g5 22.id1 0.g3 23.0.xf4 0.xf4-+ A.Volodin - Purtov, Gyongyos 1995) 18 . . .gxf2 19.1'3xf2 �xd6 2 0.0.d3 c5 21.b4 0.d7oo 15.c5 0.xc5 (15 . . . 0.f6 16.cxd6 cxd6 17.0.b5 g4 18.fxg4 0.xe4 19.ixa7 l'3xa7 20.0.xa7 .td7 21. 0.b5±) 16.ixc5 dxc5 17.ic4 @h8 18.a6 bxa6 19.0.d3 if8 20.ixa6 (20.0.a4 g4 2 1.fxg4 �g5 22.0.f2 id6 23.l'3a3 l'!b8 24.l'3c3 l'!b4oo Llopis - Volke, Biel 1993) 20 . . . ixa6 21.l'3xa6 c4 2 2 .0.f2 ic5 2 3 . �e2 g4! ? 1 5 0.f6 16.c5 .tfS 17.c6 17.cxd6 ixd6 18.0.d3 h5 19. 0.c5 0.f8 2 0.0.b5 g4 21.!h4 l'3g7 22. �b3 @h7 23J'!fdl 0.g6 24.ig5 0.f8 25.!h4 0.g6 26.ig5, draw, Psa­ khis - Kaminski, Groningen 1993. 17 h5 18.@hl 18.0.b5 bxc6 ! ? (18 ... g4 19.cxb7 ixb7 2 0.fxg4 hxg4 21.ixg4 0.xg4 22 .�xg4 ic8 23.�xg6 l'3g7 24. �xg7 ixg7 25.0.xa7;!; White has an easy plan for actions, connected with the advance of his a-pawn, Pavlovic - Pancevski, Belgrade 2008) 19.0.xa7 cxd5 2 0 .exd5 0.e7 21.0.xc8 �xc8 22 .ic4. White is slightly better, but Black has his counterplay, based on advancing pawns. (diagram) 18 . . . gg7!?N Black's rook is better placed on the g-file. But not 18 . . . l'!h7 19.cxb7 ixb7 20.a6 .tc8 21.0.b5 g4 22.0.xa7 g3 • • •

••.

273

Chapter 25 28.h3 �h4 29.'it>g1 ltJgS 30.i'!a2 i'!g7� followed by the unavoid­ able .ih3 ; 2S . .ib6 �xb6 26.bxcS dxcS 27 . .ic4 tOe8oo; 26.�a4 �d8 27.i'!a2 ltJh7 28.h3 �h4 29 ..ibS ltJgS 30.a7 .ixh3 31.gxh3 tOxh3 32.'it>g2 ltJf2 33.i'!fxf2 VNh2 34.'it>f1 �h1 3S. 'it>e2 gxf2 36. 'it>xf2 ltJh4 37.'it>e2 i'!g1 38.i'!a1 ltJxf3-+) 25 dxc5 26.d6 tOh7 27. .ic4 'it>h8 28.ga2 �h4 29.h3 .ixh3 (29 . . . ltJgS 30.bxcS) 3 0 .gxh3 VNxh3 31.'it>gl tOh4. Black is threaten­ ing g2, while in case of 32.�e2 he can simply continue with 32 cxb4 33.a7 gxa7 34.gxa7 hd6 35.ga8 'it>g7 36.ga5 �c8 ! ? Black has only a piece for his two rooks, but he is not worse at all. • • •

23.ltJc6 �d7 24 . .ig1, Korchnoi Xie Jun, Wenzhou 1995, 24 . . . gxh2 2S ..if2 h4 26.ltJa7± 19.cxb7 .ixb7 2 0 .a6 .i.c8 21. tOb5 g4 22.tOxa7 g3 23 .i.gl 23.tOc6 �e8? White has won some material due to his queen­ side actions, but the speed of his attack has diminished considera­ bly. On the other hand, Black sac­ rifices another pawn, in order to provoke even sharper complica­ tions. •

23 J��xa7 Black sacrifices the exchange to advance c7-cS. 24 .ixa7 c5 25 .ixc5 (2S.dxc6 i'!xa7 26. VNd2 ltJh7 27 . .ic4 'it>h8 ••

•

274

•

• • •

Clb) 13

• • .

a5!

It is essential for him to defend well, besides attacking effectively. The move as slows down White's attack and it deprives him of his standard space advantage on the queenside. 14.tOd3

5.ti'Jj3 0 - 0 6. Ji.e2 e5 7. 0 - 0 0, c6 B.d5 0, e7 9. 0, el 0, d7 14.0,b5 b6 15.b4 axb4 16.0,d3 0,f6 17.0,xb4 Ji.d7 IB.�c2 @hB 19. 13a3 13gB 20.13fal Ji.fBoo 21.a5? ! 13xa5 22.13xa5 bxa5 23.13xa5 c5 24.dxc6 �xa5 25.cxd7 0,xd7 26. 0,d5 0,xd5 27.exd5 g4t Goloshchapov - Barthel, Mainz 1995. Following 14.g4, Black should simply capture en passant: 14 . . . fxg3 15.hxg3 h5= l4 b6

�d7 21.�d2 �xh3 22.Ji.dl 0,eB=F White's bishop is trapped and his king is just in a pathetic situation, Pacher - Mrva, Tatranske Zruby 2 004.) 19 gxf6 and Black's attack is overwhelming. • • •

Clb2) lS.b4

• • •

Clbl) lS.0,bS Clb2) lS.b4 Clb3) lS .tel •

Clbl) lS.0,bS 0,f6 15 . . . 0,c5 ! ? 16.Ji.el @hB 17.b4 axb4 IB.Ji.xb4 c6= Suvrajit - Zhou Jianchao, Hyderabad 2005. l6.b4 g4 l7 .th4 17.@hl, Tuominen - Niemela, Vantaa 1991, 17 . . . axb4 1B.0,xb4 g3 19.Ji.gl 0,h5 20.�d2 gxh2 21.Ji.f2 0,g3 22 .Ji.xg3 fxg3 with an attack for Black. •

lS axb4 l6.0,xb4 16.0,b5 0,c5 17.Ji.el (17.0,xb4 g4 IB.a5 - IB.Ji.h4 �d7 - IB . . . g 3 19.hxg3 fxg3 20.Ji.xg3 13xa5 21.13xa5 bxa5 22.0,d3 0,xd3 23. �xd3 0,g6oo Zueger - Cvitan, Geneva 19BB) 17 . . . g4 IB.Ji.xb4 g3 19.h3 0,g6, O.Kalinin - Scham­ berger, Bayern 2003, 20.a5 i.xh3 21.gxh3 �d7--+ Black regains the sacrificed material and his attack is running smoothly. l6 0,f6 l7.ga3 17.0,b5 g4! f± I n answer to 17.@hl, Black can retreat with his king: 17 . . . @hB ! IB.Ji.el �d7 19.a5 (19.h3 h5) 19 . . . 13xa5 20.13xa5 bxa5= 17.0,c6 0,xc6 IB.dxc6 �eB 19. 0,d5 (19.a5 bxa5 2 0.c5 dxc5 21. �a4 g4 22 .fxg4 Ji.xg4 23.Ji.xg4 • • •

• • •

l7 g3 l8.h3 (IB.hxg3 0,g6 19.hf6 hf6) l8 0,g6 19 .hf6 (After 19.Ji.g5 Ji.xh3 2 0.gxh3 • • •

•••

•

275

Chapter 25 llJxg4 24.ixcS m7 25.11Jd5 tiB 2 6 . .hfB V«xfB+ Mandiza - Ezat, Windhoek 2007) 19 . . . Wlt7 (He can also play here 19 . . . l3t7 Kiriakov ­ Lobzhanidze, Groningen 1996, but it is essential for him not to capture on d5.) 20.a5 bxa5 21.Wla4 (21..iel g4 22.ha5 gxf3 23 . .ixf3 .ie6 24 . .ic3 l3xal 25.Wlxal) 21 ... g4 22.l3fbl .ia6oo 17 . .iel l3t7 (17. . . Wld7 IB.llJd3 llJg6 - IB . . . g4! ?oo - 19.11Jf2 h5 2 0.h3;!; Black's kingside attack is practically over, while White's queenside actions continue un­ opposed, Gladyszev - S.Solovjov, Russia 2005) IB.llJd3 .ifB 19.11Jf2 h5 2 0.11Jb5, Ikonnikov - Khairal­ lah, Dieren 2007, 2 0 . . . g4 21.fxg4 hxg4 22.11Jxg4 11Jxe4oo 17.11Jd3 11Jg6 IB . .iel l3t7 19.11Jf2, Gladyszev - Stets, Chambery 2 0 07, .ifB 20.11Jb5 h5 21.a5 bxa5 22.l3xa5 l3xa5 23 . .ixa5 l3g7 24.c5 dxc5 25.V«b3 �h7 26.l3dl .id6 27.h3 WleB= followed by g4. 17 .td7 18.�bS

(20.�d3 g4 2 1.a5 bxa5 2 2.ixa5 hb5 23.cxb5 Wld7=) 20 . . . fxg3 21.hxg3 g4 22 .�g2 gxf3 23 . .ixf3 .ih6 ! ? 24.l3hl .ig5 25.11Jd3 llJg6, with an equal position, Jussupow - Kasparov, Yerevan 1996. 19.fxg4 �xe4 2 0 .V«c2 20 . .id3, Vershinin - Bets, Vol­ gograd 1997, 20 . . . 11Jxf2 21.l3xf2 V«cB 22.h3 .if6? 2 0 ... �xf2 21.lhf2 and here it would be interesting for Black to place his bishop on g6: 21 ... .te8 22 ..td3 .tg6 23 .te4 V«d7= •

Clb3) IS .tel �f6 16.�f2 16.b4 axb4 17.11Jxb4 - see Clb2. 16 ...hS 17.h3 �h8 18.�bS IB.b4 llJegB 19.bxa5 bxa5 20.11Jb5 l3t7 21.c5 .ifB 22.cxd6 cxd6 23.l3c1 l3g7 24.l3c6, draw, Doric - Zivkovic, Sibenik 200B. 18 . . . �eg8 19.b4 �h6 2 0 .cS bxcS 21.bxcS l3f7 •

• • •

18 g4! ? IB . . . �hB ! ? 19 . .iel l3gB 20.g4 •••

276

This position can be reached in different fashions, but it is always a result of forced actions.

5.liJj3 0 - 0 6. ie2 e5 7. 0 - 0 lDc6 8.d5 lDe7 9. lDel lD d7 22.cxd6 White can try to deploy his knight to c4, with the idea to capture the as-pawn: 22 .lDa3 ifS 23.lDc4. This line looks tre­ mendously slow for White, since Black's attacking pieces are al­ ready in the vicinity of the white king on gl. There may follow: 23 . . . g4 (It looks also very good for Black to opt for 23 . . . gg7 24.ga3 @gS 2S.lDxaS g4 26.fxg4 hxg4 27.hxg4 lDhxg4 2S.lDxg4 lDxg4+ Ghane Spasov, Izmir 2003.) 24.fxg4 (24. haS gxh3 - 24 ... �aS 2S.lDxaS 2S.gxh3 gg7 26.@hl gg3 27.gg1 lDxe4 2S.fxe4 'lWh4 29.�3 fxg3 30.ifl gxf2 31.�f3 ig4 32.'lWg2 ie7+) 24 . . . hxg4 2S.hxg4 �g7 26. �a3 (26.haS lDhxg4 27.lDxg4 lDxg4 2S.hg4 !xg4 29.�d3 �gS-+ with an attack for Black) 26 . . . lDhxg4 27.lDxg4 lDxg4 2S.gh3 @gS 29.�h4, Zakhartsov - Voicu, Alushta 2005, 29 . . . 'lWgS+ 22 cxd6 23.1!kl Af8 • . .

ed the preparation of the pawn­ advance g4. 24.Yfc2 24.gc6, Poniaev - Severiukhi­ na, Izhevsk 2007, 24 . . . g4 2S.fxg4 hxg4 26.hxg4 gg7t 24.�c4 g4! 2S.fxg4 (2S.�c2 gg7 26.hxg4 hxg4 27.lDc7 g3 2S.lDxaS, draw, Brunner - Helstroffer, Nan­ cy 2006) 2S ...hxg4 26.hxg4 gg7 27.gS �xgS 2S.�c2 lDhS 29.if3 lDg3 30.lDc7, Krivoshey - Or­ tiz, Sort 2006, 30 . . . lDxfl 31.@xfl �g7+ 24 lDe8 Black must cover the c7square, since White is ready to counter 24 . . . g4 with 2S.lDc7 gxh3 26.lDxaS and Black will be a rook down and he can hardly check­ mate his opponent! 25.�b3 2S.'lWd3 �g7 26.�c2 @gS 27.'lWdl id7 2S.'lWcl, Bachmann - Fro­ loy, Berlin 1994, 2S . . . g4 29.hxg4 hxg4 30.lDxg4 lDxg4 31.fxg4 lLlf6 32 .ih4 ie7 33.lLlc7 lLlxe4 34.he7 gxe7 3S.lLlxaS �xaS+ 2S.ic3 g4 26.hxg4 hxg4 27. fxg4 �g7 2S.�d2 �h4oo • • •

It is evident that White wishes to occupy the c6, or the c7-square, while Black has already complet277

Chapter 25 25 . . . gg7 26.gc6 J.d7 27.J.d2, P.Nielsen - Golubev, Internet 2004. Black is not forced to cap­ ture on c6 and he should not be in a hurry to advance g4 either. 27 cj{g8 (It is not easy to see how White can improve his posi­ tion.) 28.gfc1 g4 29.fxg4 hxg4 3 0 .�xg4 �xg4 31 .b:g4 .ixg4 32.hxg4 �g4 33. Yfh3 Yfg5= Both sides have a clear-cut plan for actions, so the position is ap­ proximately equal. • • •

•

C2) 13.�d3

Bois - Bologan, Bern 1997) 16 . . . cxd6 17.ttJbS g 4 18.1&c2 (1B.ttJxa7 g3 19.hxg3 fxg3f±) IB ... g3 19.hxg3 fxg3 (19 . . . ttJhS?! 20.gxf4 exf4 21. ttJc7 ttJg3 22.ttJxaB) 20.,txg3 (White cannot afford to leave his opponent's g3-pawn alive . . . : 20. i.e3 ttJxdS 21.exdS IMfh4 22.�fel e4 23.ttJxd6 IMfh2 24.cj{f1 1&hl 2S.i.gl i.d4 26.i.dl IMfxgl 27. cj{e2 1&xg2 and he resigned, Toth - Durik, Topolcianky 1997.) 20 . . . i.h6 21. �cdl, Jorns - Ermeni, Bern 2000, 21...i.d7 22 .ttJc3 ttJhS� IS.cxd6 cxd6 16.ttJbS (16.�c1 �f7 - see ISJkl), White's knight is in front of all his army and Black must repel it immediately: 16 . . . a6 17.ttJc3 hS IB.ttJa4 g4 19.�c1 �f7 20.1&c2 g3 21.hxg3 fxg3 22.,txg3 bS 23.ttJc3 i.h6 24.�cel h4 2S.i.h2 ttJhS+ Lauf - Rigo, Slovakia 199B. 15 cj{h8 16.a5 a6 17.cj{hl 17Jkl �gB IB.cxd6 (IB.ttJa4 i.fB) IB ... cxd6 19.ttJa4 g4! (Black exploits the overburdening of White's f3-pawn.) 20.ttJb6 �bB 21. ttJxcB fucB 22.�xcB 1&xcB 23. 1&b3 g3 24.hxg3 fxg3 2S.,txg3 i.h6� 17 J�g8 18.cxd6 cxd6 •••

13 �f6 14.c5 14.g4 fxg3 IS.hxg3 a6 16.cS lMfeB 17.cxd6 cxd6 IB.cj{g2 IMfg6 19. �hl g4 20.�h4 J.h6 21.IMfgl i.gS 22.�h2 bSf± Seickel - Rotermund, Frankfurt 2006. 14.a4 �g6 IS.c5 - see 14.cS. 14.�c1 ttJg6 IS.c5 - see 14.cS. 14 �g6 15.a4 IS.�c1 �f7 16.cxd6 (16.ttJbS g4 17.a4 g3 IB.hxg3 fxg3 19.,txg3 ttJhS 2 0.i.h2 i.h6 21.�c3 a6 22. ttJa3 i.e3 23.ttJf2 i.f4=F with excel­ lent compensation for Black, Du • • •

• • •

27B

••

5. l:iJj3 0 - 0 6. ie2 e5 7. 0 - 0 l:iJc6 B.d5 l:iJe7 9. l:iJel l:iJ d7

19.b4 19.iel !? id7 20.l:iJa4 (20.l:iJf2 bS 21.l:iJa2 hS 22 .l:iJb4 ifB?) 20 . . . g 4 21.l:iJb6 gbB 2 2 .l:iJxd7 Wfxd7 23. ga4 gxf3 24.ixf3 gbcB 2S.if2 ih6 26.Wfb3 igS, with about equal. In case of the retreat of the knight on c3 - 19.1:iJa4, Black fol­ lows as a rule with 19 ... g4 20.l:iJb6 gbB 21.b4 (21.gcl g3 22 .igl l:iJh4 23.l:iJxcB gxcB 24.gxcB WfxcB 2S.h3 hS 26.Wfb3 l:iJh7 27.gcl �d7 2B.ifl l:iJgS 29.l:iJel if6) 21...g3 22 .hxg3 (22.igl gxh2 23.if2 l:iJhS) 22 ... l:iJhS and he obtains excellent counterplay. 19 id7 2 0 .ga3 (20.l:iJa4 g4 21.l:iJb6 gbB 22 .gc1 ih6 23Jk3 g3 24.hxg3 l:iJhS 2S.gxf4 l:iJgxf4 26. g4 l:iJxd3 27.ixd3 l:iJf4 Black has long-lasting compensation, so he should not worry about the lost pawn.) 2 0 ... if8 2V�Jb2 h5 22. tlJc4 g4 23.tlJb6 gb8 24. tlJxd7 Wfxd7 25.fxg4 hxg4 26. tlJa4 f3 27.gxf3 ih6 28.fxg4 tlJf4 29. tlJb6 §'h7 3 0 .i.f3 tlJxe4 31 .tel tlJg� Kozul - Lanka, Batumi 1999. • • •

13 tlJg6 14.c5 This is a very complicated stra­ tegical situation, so the positional pawn-sacrifice is just a possibil­ ity. In this particular case, White obtains compensation, connected with his possible actions along the c-file and against Black's entire queenside. The preparation of the pawn­ break c4-cS takes time and Black manages to create powerful threats on the kingside, for exam­ ple: 14.b4 l:iJf6 lS.cS gf7 16.a4 ifB 17.cxd6 ixd6 IB.tlJd3 gg7 19.mhl hS 20.tlJcS g4? Miles - Ree, Am­ sterdam 19B2. 14 tlJxc5 15.b4 tlJa6 • • •

• . •

•

C3a) 16.tlJb5 C3b) 16.tlJd3 C3a) 16.tlJb5 White's plan is quite simple. He wishes to capture his oppo­ nent's a-pawn. 16 id7 17.tlJxa7 17.a4 hS lB.l:iJd3 b6 19.iel ih6 20.gc4 gf7 21.l:iJf2 gg7 2 2 . mhl tlJfB 23.g4 fxg3 24.hxg3 tlJg6? Nemet •••

2 79

Chapter 25 - Jenni, Pontresina 2000. 17.'!Wa4 h5 ! ? (I am going to en­ rich the knowledge of my readers how the King's Indian attacking machine works by quoting the following game: 17 . . . g4! ? 18.fxg4 f3 ! 19.9xf3 lLlf4 20.�d1 h5 2Vit>h1 hxg4 22.lLlc3 lLlxe2 23.'!Wxe2 gxf3+ Kozul - Fedorowicz, Wijk aan Zee 1991; 19.1Llxf3 ! ? lLlf4 20.�d1 hg4 21.a3 '!Wd7 22 ..!g3 .ih6 23.l�c2 llJh5 24 . .!f2 lLlf4 25.l�c3 .!h5 26.�c2 �g4 27 . .!g3 .!g6) 18.h3 .!f6 19. '!Wa5 g4 20.fxg4 hxg4 21.hg4 hg4 22 .hxg4, Chernuschevich Oral, Bratislava 1993, 22 ... �d7!= 17 h5 Black plays this move not only to prepare g4, but he ties up his opponent's light-squared bishop with defending against that. • • •

'!We8co) 19 . . .g 4 2 0.ha6 bxa6 2 1 . '!Wxc7 '!Wf8 22.'lWb6 h4 23.fxg4 hg4 24.lLlc6 h3co Korcnoi lS bxa6 19.'!Wc2 19.1Llc6, D.Gurevich - Becer­ ra Rivero, Stillwater 2007, 19 . . . �e8 ! ? 2 0.lLla5 .!a4 21.�e2 '!Wd7= 19 gf7 2 0 .'!Wxc7 �f8, Kes­ ten - Jorczik, Bad Woerishofen 2008. Black gives up the fight on the queenside in the hope of set­ tling the issue with a kingside at­ tack. 21.�6! g4 22.�xa6 g3 ! This cannot be even called a sacrifice! 23.hxg3 fxg3 24 .ixg3 .!h6 25.gc7 J.eS 26.gxf7 J.e3 27.M2 J.xf2 2S.gxf2 �xf7 29.'!Wxd6 '!Wxa7 3 0 .�c5 lLlf4co. It looks like White has four pawns for the piece, but they are all too far from promotion, while Black has an ex­ cellent knight on f4. • • •

• • •

•

C3b) 16.lLld3

lS.J.xa6 18.a4 .!h6 19Jk3 @h7 20.lLlb5 gg8 21.@h1 gg7 22.gg1 lLlf8 23.g3 fxg3 24.gxg3 lLlg6 25.lLld3 .!e8 26.'!Wc2 gO 27.gg1 g4t Yermo­ linsky - Kreiman, Philadelphia 1997. 18.a3 gO 19.'!Wc2 (19.h3 ! ? 280

16 gf7 In this situation, Black will have to play this move anyway. •••

S.tiJj3 0 - 0 6 . .t e2 e5 7. 0 - 0 lLlc6 8.d5 lLl e7 9. lLl el lLld7 He protects additionally the c7square and he wishes to place this rook on g7 after .tfS. 17.a4 16.lLlb5 l'U7 17.lLld3 .td7 1S.a4 h5 19.�h1 �bS 2 0.lLla3 �dS 2l. lLlb5 .tfS 22.lLlxa7 gg7 23.b5 lLlc5 24.lLlxc5 dxc5 25.lLlc6 �f6 26.�b3 �h7oo Pavlovic - Fedorov, War­ saw 2005. 17 h5 18.c!Db5 .td7 Black should not mind giving up his a7-pawn, moreover that it is extra. 19.c!Dxa7 In case of 19.�h1, he should better protect his a7-pawn: 19 . . . �bS 20.lLla3 �dS 2 l.lLlb5 �bS= with a repetition of moves. If Black wishes to play for a win, he could try 19 . . . .tfS 20.lLlxa7 gg7 2l.lLlb5 (2l.b5? lLlc5 22 .lLlxc5 dxc5 23.lLlc6 �f6!+ Pavlovic - Fe­ dorov, Warszawa 2005.) 21.. .lLlhS 22 .�c2 (22.g3 ! ? fxg3 23.,txg3 lLlg6 24.gg1, Yermolinsky Becerra, Chicago 2 00S, 24 . . . c6 25.lLlc3 lLlc7oo) 22 ... g4 23.g3 fxg3 ! ? 24.hxg3 lLlt7oo 19 .tfS •••

•••

2 0 .c!Db5 White does not achieve much with 20.b5 lLlc5 2 l.lLlxc5 dxc5 22 .lLlc6 �eS !+ Csiszar - Enders, Balatonlelle 2006. He has an interesting alterna­ tive - 2 0.lLlc6. This is a very typi­ cal motive for similar positions. He gives back the extra piece, in order to ensure domination on the queenside. He relies on a variation like: 20 . . .�f6 2l.lLla5 b6 22.b5 lLlc5 23.lLlxc5 dxc5 24.lLlc4, with an advantage for White. We know however, that it is not al­ ways reasonable to accept gifts for granted. There are some ex­ ceptions to the rule: 2 0 . . .bxc6 2l.dxc6 .te6 22.b5 lLlc5 23.lLlxc5 dxc5 24.�xdS gxdS 25.,txc5 gd2 26.gf2 ga2+ 2 0 gg7 21 .tel!? 2U'k4 lLlhS 22 .g4, Piket - Ni­ jboer, Rotterdam 1999. White needs to play in this fashion, be­ cause of the particular deploy­ ment of his forces. 22 . . . fxg3. This should be Black's standard reac­ tion to g4. It is essential for him to open the position of White's king. 23.,txg3 (23.hxg3 ! ? lLlg6 24.�d2 g4. Black is playing intuitively and he prevents his opponent from closing the game. 25.fxg4 h4 26.�el .te7 27 . .te3 lLlhSoo. It would be worse for Black to opt for 24 ... h4, since White closes the position with 25.g4;!; and Black has nothing left, but the f4-square; 24 ... .te7! ?) 23 . . . lLlg6 24.�h1 c6 25.lLlc3 lLlc7. Black is solidly de•••

•

2S1

Chapter 25 ployed in the centre and on the kingside the situation cannot be better for him.

21 c!Llh8 He is not in a hurry to advance c6. At first, he transfers his knight to f7 and from there it will sup­ port the attack with g4 and it will defend the d6-square. 22.h3 c!Llf7 23.c!Llf2 It would be useless for White to play 23.�c2, because the c7square is protected and Black can calmly continue with the regroup­ ing of his forces, for example with 23 . . . �h6 ! ? 23 c!Llh6 24.a5 24 . .td2 .te7! ? 25Jk4 g4 26.fxg4 bxg4 27.�xg4 �xg4 28.bg4 c6 !+ White is in trouble after his oppo­ nent has opened a second front. 24J�c4 .te7 25.�c2 'e7 20 . .tc6 gb6, Ruck - Fedo• • •

3. 0,fJ :ig7 4.g3 0 - 0 5. :ig2 d6 6. 0 - 0 0, c6 7. 0,c3 a6 B.b3 '8bB roy, Fuegen, 2006 21.hd7 '8xd7 2 2 .'8f3= ; 17.'8fd1 '8fd8 18.:ig2 ,,*c5 19.,,*xc5 dxc5 20.'8d3 r;t>f8 2 1.'8e3 f6 2 2 .f4, Mamedyarov - McShane, Lausanne 2003, 22 . . . :ic8=) 17. ,,*xa6 (17.:if3 ,,*b6 18.,,*xb6 '8xb6 19.'8fd1 :ic6 20.hc6 '8xc6= ; 17. '8fd1 ,,*b4 18.:ig2 ,,*a5 19.'8d3=) 17 . . . ,,*xa6 18.ha6 '8b6, with a drawish endgame. 1l ,,*e7 12.e4 12 .,,*d2 e5 13.d5 0,d8 14.'8ac1 b6 15.e4 f5 16.exf5 gxf5 17.'8ce1 ,,*f6 18.,,*g5 "*xg5 19.0,xg5 f4+! Medic - lonica, Rijeka 2009. 12.'8c1 e5 13.d5 0,d8, Ruck Efimenko, Ohrid 2001, 14.e4 f5 15.exf5 :ixf5 16.0,d2 0,t7 17.0,e4 0,g5= 12 e5 13.d5 tOd8 14.tOd2 ! White is preparing to counter f5. It is not so good for him to opt for 14.,,*d2 f5 15.exf5 gxf5. This capturing has become possible, because White does not have the resource f4. (Black cannot equal­ ize completely with 15 . . . :ixf5 16.0,h4 :id7 17.f4 0,t7 18.'8ae1 ,,*d8 19.0,f3 and White takes the e5-square under control. 19 . . . exf4 20.hg7 r;t>xg7 21.gxf4 ,,*f6 22 .0,g5 0,xg5 23.fxg5 ,,*d8 24.,,*c3 r;t>g8 25.'8f6 :if5 26.:ie4!;!; Romanishin - S.Atalik, Bled 2000) 16.'8ae1 (16. '8fe1 0,t7 17.'8e2 :id7 18.'8ae1 ,,*d8 19.0,h4 f4 2 0.0,f3 0,g5 21.0,xg5 "*xg5 22 ..!e4 :if5 23.f3) 16 . . . 0,t7 17.0,d4 ,,*f6 18.0,e2 "*g6 and here, after his queen has come to the kingside, Black should not • • .

be afraid of 19.f4 :id7 2 0.'8c1 (20. ,,*a5 b6 21.,,*d2 :if6+!) 2 0 . . . b6oo 14 fS 15.exfS .!xf5 It is worse for Black to cap­ ture on f5 with his pawn: 15 . . . gxf5?! 16.f4 e4 17.,,*c2 c 5 18.'8ae1 h5 19.h3;!; Supatashvili - Fedorov, Batumi 2002. 16.tOe4 tOf7 16 . . . he4 17.he4 0,t7 18.h4;!; Mchedlishvili - Milov, Batumi 2002. 17.'I'd2 17.h4 g5 18.hxg5 0,xg5+! 17 ,txe4 18.he4 tOg5 19. 'l'e2 tOxe4 2 0 .'I'xe4 '8fS 21.£3, with a minimal edge for White. • • •

• • •

B) 9.e3

• • •

White fortifies his centre, postponing his active actions for a while. 9 b5 1 0 .tOd2 In case of lO."*e2, Black should better open the position : 10 ... bxc4 (1O ...b4 11.0,a4 e5 12.dxe5 dxe5= ; 1l.0,d5 0,xd5 12.cxd5 0,a7 13.:ib2 :id7 14J%fc1 :ib5 15.'I'd2 c6 16.,,*xb4 cxd5 17.0,e1 as, Mo• • •

335

Chapter 31 radiabadi - Muralidharan, Abud­ habi 2005, IS:�c3;j;) IVMlxc4 (11. bxc4 tLJa5 12 ..ta3 c5 13.dxc5 dxc5 14J'Udl tLJd7 15J3acl tLJc6 16.tLJel WIc7 17.WId2 �dS IS.tLJd5 Wla7 19. tLJd3 e6 20.tLJ5f4 .tb7= Stangl Ankerst, Germany 1997) 1l ... tLJa5 (1l . . . tLJb4 12 .a3 .te6 13.Wle2 tLJbd5 14. tLJxd5 hd5 15.b4 a5 16.bxa5 c5 17 . .td2 tLJe4 1S.�abl �xbI 19.�xbl tLJxd2 20.WIxd2 WIaS 21.tLJel hg2 2 2 .tLJxg2 cxd4 23.exd4 Wle4 24.�el WIxd4= Stangl - Baklan, Austria 2 007) 12.WIe2 c5 13.dxc5 tLJd7 14. .tb2 tLJxc5 15.�acl tLJc6 16.�fdl a5+ Donchenko - Kostin, Moscow 2 0 04.

10 .tg4! This move is often played by Black in similar positions. 11.f3 White restricts his light­ squared bishop and if he plays later f4, he will weaken addition­ ally his position. 1l . .tf3 .td7 12 . .tb2 e5 13.d5 tLJe7 14.�c1 h5 15.cxb5 axb5 16.b4 h4 17.tLJb3 hxg3 IS.hxg3 tLJh7 19 . .tg2 tLJf500 Danailov - Hebden,

Toulouse 1990. There arises a position with mutual chances after 1l.tLJe2 tLJa5 12 .h3 .td7 13.Wlc2 c5°o Slipak Milov, Buenos Aires 1996. 11 .Ad7 12. WIe2 12 ..tb2 e5 13.d5 tLJe7 14.e4 c6 15.�bl i.h6 16.Wle2 cxd5 17.cxd5 WIb6 IS.whl tLJh5+± Schoene A.Kuzmin, Berlin 1991. 12 .tlJa5 13 .Ab2 e5 14.dxe5 dxe5 15.cxb5 axb5 16.b4 tLJb7 17.tLJde4 ttJxe4 IS.ttJxe4 f5 19. ttJf2 ttJd6= Karpov - Gelfand, Tilburg 1996. • • •

••

•

C) 9 .Ab2 White complies with Black's b5 pawn-advance. •

•••

336

9 b5 1 0 .cxb5 The character of the game re­ mains the same after 1O.tLJel .id7 1l.cxb5 axb5 12.�cl b4 13.tLJa4 tLJa5 14.tLJd3 ha4 (14 . . . e6 15.Wld2 ha4 16.bxa4 WId7 17.tLJxb4 WIxa4 IS . .tc3 tLJd7 19.WIc2 �xb4 20.hb4 Wlxb4 21.Wlxc7 tLJf6 22 .�bl WIa4 23.WIxd6 Wlxa2 24.WIa6± Nikolic - Nijboer, Rotterdam 1999; 14 . . . • • •

3. l1JfJ 11.g7 4.g3 0 - 0 5. i.g2 d6 6. 0 - 0 I1Jc6 7. 11J c3 a6 8.b3 �b8 l1Je8 15.�d2 ixa4 16.bxa4 �d7 17.l1Jxb4 �xa4 18.i.c3;!;) 15.bxa4 �d7 16.�d2 (16.e4 c6 17.�e1 �a7 18.�d2 b3 !+ Nemet - Bologan, Biel 1993; 18.e5 I1Jd5 19.�g4 b3 20.a3 I1Jb6 21.exd6 exd6 2 2.ixc6 I1Jxc6 23.�xc6 I1Jxa4f±) 16 . . . �fc8 (16 . . . �xa4 17.�c7 e6, Navrotes­ cu - Nevednichy, Romania 1993, 18.d5 exd5 19.ixf6 ixf6 2 0.ixd5 b3 21.axb3 I1Jxb3 22.�f4 �xf4 23.l1Jxf4 I1Jc5 24.e3;!;) 17.l1Jxb4 �xa4 18.i.c3 c6 19.�b1 d5 2 0.l1Jxd5 I1Jxd5 21.ixa5 ixd4 22 .e3 �a8= About 1O.d5 l1Ja5 1l.cxb5 axb5 - see variation A2a from Chapter 30 (10.i.b2 b5 n.cxb5 axb5) 1 0 axb5

�fd8co Konovalov - Kokarev, St. Petersburg 2007. 1l.l1Je1 11Ja5 12.l1Jd3 b4 13.l1Je4 I1Jd5 14.e3 i.a6 15.�e1 e6= Topa­ loy - Shirov, Belgrade 1995. White can try to place his knight on d4 - n.d5 l1Ja5 12.l1Jd4 b4 13.l1Ja4 (After 13.l1Jcb5, Black has a tactical strike at his disposal: 13 . . . l1Jxd5! 14.ixd5 �xb5 15.l1Jxb5 ixb2 16.�b1 i.g7 17.a3 c6 18.axb4 cxd5 19.bxa5 �xa5 2 0.l1Jd4 �b6+ Porfiriadis - Spassky, Europa­ Pokal 1987; 13.l1Jb1 i.b7 14.e4 c5 15.dxc6 I1Jxc6 16.l1Jxc6 ixc6+ Black has solved all his problems and he has pawn-majority in the centre, while White has not even completed his development yet, R.Sergejev - Bologan, Tallinn 1998.), but then it becomes a tar­ get for attack by Black: 13 . . . e5! 14.dxe6 (14.l1Jc2 i.d7 15.�e1 ha4 16.bxa4 tLlc4 17.�b1 I1Jxb2 18.�b2 e4 19.�xb4 I1Jxd5 20.�xe4 �b2 21.�d2 I1Jc3 22.�c4 I1Jxa2 23.i.c6 �b8f± Burmakin - Khalifman, Elista 1995; 15.l1Je3 ih6 16 . .tc1, Arkell - Nunn, England 1983, 16 ... �b5 17.�d3 �a8+) 14 . . . fxe6 15.l1Jc6 I1Jxc6 16.hc6 e5 17.�c2 ll.�cl The other plan for White is i.h3 (17 ... .te6 18.�ad1 �c8 19.i.c1 connected with the advance of �a6 2 0.i.g2 �fc8+ Khamdamov his e-pawn: 1l.�e1 b4 12.l1Ja4 i.d7 Fedorov, Dresden 2 008) 18.i.g2 13.e4 I1Ja5. If he plays 14.e5, Black ixg2 19. �xg2 �f7+ Black has a can always respond with 14 . . . slight edge, thanks to his pawn­ majority in the centre, Najdorf ­ I1Jd5co 11.�c2 b4 12 .l1Jd1 11Ja5 13.e4 c6 Nunn, England 1983. 1l".b4 12.l1Ja4 14.l1Je3 I1Jg4 15.�fe1 �b6 16.�ad1 White's knight is of course I1Jxe3 17.�xe3 i.g4 18.h3 ixf3 19.i.xf3 e6 2 0.�e2 �bc8 21.�d3 not well placed at the edge of •••

337

Chapter 31 the board, but it is protected and more active there, than on b1: 1Vt�b1 ttJa7 13.ttJe1 (13.�c2 c6 14.ttJe1 �a6 lS.ttJd3 ttJd7 16.ttJd2 c5 17.ttJf3 i.xd3 18.�xd3 ttJbS 19. �d2 ttJxd4 20.ttJxd4 cxd4 2 1.i.xd4 i.xd4 2 2.�xd4 ttJcS= Richter Hoffmann, Germany 2008; 13. ttJbd2 c6 14.ttJe1 ttJdS lS.ttJc4 ttJbS 16.�d2 ttJdc3+ Black has the initiative, Ribli - Adorjan, Buda­ pest 1979) 13 . . . ttJd7 14.ttJd3 �a6 lS.�d2 (lS.dS i.xd3 16.i.xg7 i.xe2 17.�xe2 �xg7 18.�d2, Kiss - Kis­ lik, Savaria 2008; Black must not hold on here to his extra pawn and he should better complete his development: 18 . . . ttJf6 19.l'k4 �d7 2 0.l'�xb4 !!xb4 2 1.�xb4 cS 22.dxc6 ttJxc6 23.�d2 !!c8=; lS.�h3 e6 16.!!c2 c6 - 16 . . . cS ! ? - 17.�d2 �b6 18.ttJf4 ttJf6 19.!!fc1 !!fe8 20. �e1 gS 21.ttJd3 i.xd3 2 2.exd3 �a6 23.�d2 h6 24.�a1 ttJdS+ Lutz Bologan, Germany 1994) 15 . . . i.xd3 16.�xd3 c S 17.�d2 ttJbS= Arishin - Kabanov, Omsk 2001.

12 ttJa5 Black's knight is better placed on as, than on a7. In case of 12 . . . ttJa7, it does not control the c4-square. There may follow: 13.�c2 (13.ttJd2 �d7 14.ttJc4 i.xa4 lS.bxa4 ll'ld7 16.�c2 cS 17.!!fdU; 14 . . .�bS lS.!!e1 e6 16.e4 ttJc8 17.�d2 ttJxe4 18.i.xe4 dS, Nikolic - McShane, Istanbul 2003 and here White should con­ tinue with 19.ttJcS dxe4 20.�xb4 ttJd6 2 1.ttJeS;!;) 13 ... c6 14.e4 �aS! (with the idea �hS, �h3, ttJg4) lS.!!fe1 (lS.h3 �a6 16.!!fe1 �bS, planning ttJd7, �a4, ttJb6) 15 . . . �hS 16.eS? ! (16.ttJd2 ! ?oo) 16 .. . ttJdS 17.ttJd2 �h3 18.�e4?! (18.�f3 �g4 19.i.xg4 �xg4 20.ttJc4oo) 18 ... fS ! --t S.Guliev - Bologan, Ostrava 1993. 13.�c2 In response to 13.dS, Black attacks immediately this pawn 13 ... e6 14.�d4 !!bS, forcing his op­ ponent to capture on e6: lS.dxe6 i.xe6 16.�a7 cS= 13 c6 14.ttJel After 14.e4, Black transfers his bishop to bS with tempo: 14 ... �a6 lS.!!fd1 �bS 16.h4 �d7 17.eS ttJdS 18.hS �g4 19.hxg6 fxg6+ Brunello - N.Mamedov, Spain 2008. 14 �a6 15.ttJd3 �b5 16.gbl, Beilfuss - Bluebaum, Lemgo 1983, 16 ttJd5 17.e4 ttJc7 18.gfdl �d7 with an approximately equal position. • • •

• • •

. • •

• • •

338

Chapter 32

1.tLlf3 tLlf6 2 .g3 g6 3 .b3 i.g7 4.i.b2 d6 5.d4 Double Fianchetto for White

The King's Indian players en­ counter sometimes the double fi­ anchetto and they must play very precisely against it.

5 c5! It is essential for Black to begin the attack against White's centre prior to his castling. 6 .ig2 6.c3 0-0 7 ..ig2 cxd4 8.cxd4 Vlfa5 9.Vlfd2 Vlfxd2 1O.ttJbxd2 ttJc6 11.0-0 .if5 12.E1fc1 E1fc8 13.ttJe1 d5, draw, Andersson - Kochyev, Hastings 1979. 6.e3 0-0 7 ..ig2 d5 8.0-0 ttJc6 9.dxc5 Vlfa5 1O.ttJd4 Vlfxc5 11 . .ia3 Vlfb6 12.ttJxc6 bxc6 13 . .ixe7 E1e8 14 . .ixf6 .ixf6 15.c3 .if5 16.Vlfd2 a5 17.E1c1 E1ad8 18.Vlfd1 c5 19.ttJd2 . • •

•

d4GG, draw, Badea - Grigore, Efo­ rie Nord 2008. Following 6.dxc5, Black suc­ ceeds in capturing on c5 with his queen 6 . . . Vlfa5! 7.ttJbd2 (7.Vlfd2 Vlfxc5 8.Vlfc3 Vlfxc3 9 . .ixc3 .if5 10. ttJd4 .ie4 11.f3 ttJd5 12 . .ib2 ttJe3 13.c3 .id5 14.ttJa3 ttJc6f! Lainburg - Taimanov, Naumburg 2002) 7. . . Vlfxc5, obtaining pawn-majority in the centre: 8.e3 (8 . .id4 Vlfa5 9.e3 .ig4 1O.h3 .ixf3 11.1Wxf3 ttJc6 12.a3 O-Of! Chigvintsev - Smikovski, Novosibirsk 2002) 8 ... 0-0 9 . .ig2 ttJc6 10.0-0 Vlfh5= Black's pieces are comfortably placed, Istratescu - Kotronias, Korinthos 2000. After 6.d5, Black plays 6 . . . b5 and he opens easily later the b­ file: 7 ..ig2 0-0 8.0-0 .ib7 9.c4 bxc4 (9 . . . e6! ? ; 9 . . . ttJbd7 10.ttJbd2 bxc4 11.bxc4±:) 1O.bxc4 ttJbd7 11. ttJbd2, Petkevich - Arizmendi, Biel 2003, 11 . . . 1Wa5 12 .1Wc2 E1ab8 13.e4 ttJg4 14 . .ixg7 �xg7 15.E1ab1 .ia6= In case of 6.c4, Black can ex­ ploit the fact that his opponent's king is in the centre: 6 . . . ttJe4 7 . .ig2 (7.Vlfc1 Vlfa5 8.ttJbd2 ttJxd2 9.Vlfxd2 1Wxd2 1O.�xd2 ttJc6 11.e3 .ig4 12. .ie2 E1b8 13.�c1 cxd4 14.ttJxd4 339

Chapter 32 hS+± Korchnoi - Kasparov, Paris 1990) 7 .. .'�aS 8.lLlfd2 lLlxd2 9.i.c3 ! (this is an important intermedi­ ate move) 9 .. .'�b6 1O.dxcS lLlxbl 1l.i.xg7 �b4 12.