The Berlin Wall [1 ed.] 9185779024, 9789185779024

Citation preview

John Cox

The

Berlin

Wall

~

QUALITY CHESS ~

John Cox The Berlin Wall

The

variation that brought down Kasparov

QUALITY CHESS

www. q uali tychessbooks. corn

First edition 2008 by Quality Chess UK LLP

Copyright© 2008 John Cox

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

ISBN 978-9 1 8 5779-02-4

All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK LLP, 20 Balvie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow G62 7TA, United Kingdom e-mail: [email protected] website:

.qualitychessbooks.com

www

Distributed in US and Canada by SCB Distributors, Gardena, California, U S www.scbdistributors.com Distributed in Rest of the World by Quality Chess UK LLP through Sunrise Handicrafts, Smyczkowa 4/9 8 , 20-844 Lublin, Poland

Edited by John Shaw Typeset by Jacob Aagaard Proofreading by John Shaw and Jacob Aagaard Cover design Vjatseslav Tsekatovsk and Carole Dunlop Printed in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutri.ikikoja LLC

5

Bibliography 1

Understanding the Berlin Wall

7

Chapter 1

Positional Introduction

9

Chapter 2

Typical Berlin Endings

17

Part

Pawn Endings

17

Knight Endings

19

Knight vs. dark-squared Bishop

20

Knight vs . light-squared Bishop

22

Bishop vs. Knight

23

Bishops of the same Colour

28

Opposite-coloured Bishops

37

Rook Endings

43

Dark-squared Bishops

& Knights & Knights Two Knights vs. Bishop & Knight

47

Opposite-coloured Bishops

49

The Two Bishops

56

Rooks

& dark-squared Bishops & Knight vs. Rook & Queen's Bishop Rook & Knight vs. Rook & King's Bishop

57

Rook

59 62

Double-rook Endings

63

& Bishops of opposite Colours

65

Endings with three Minor Pieces each

70

Rooks

Chapter 3

51

Positional Themes The e6 Break

75 75

Sacrificing e5

80

Attacks with the Rook Pawns

84

The lll d 6/f6t Trick

89

Th e Exchange Sacrifice

90

Capturing on d5

93

Th e g4 Trick

95

(Chapter 3 continued) The Classical Blockade Set-up

96

Black's ...lll d4

1 03

Correct and incorrect handling of Black's Queenside Pawns

1 04

Black's ... '41c6!

1 05

Restraining g4 - forestalling it with ... h5 -h4

1 06

Striking back with ... h5 after g4

1 10

Black's ... g5 Thrust

1 12

Black's ...f6 Break

1 19

...f5: Blockade or Counterattack

1 23

Black's ... c4 Break: a Controversial Undoubling

125

Black's ... b5 Break

1 27

Developing Black's Rook with ... a5

1 28

Black's ... lllx e5 Trick

1 29

Black's ...i.xc3

1 30

Black's early King Activation

1 32

Part2

The Theory of the Berlin Wall

135

Chapter 4

... lll e7 Systems without h3

1 37

Chapter 5

... lll e 7 Systems with h3

1 55

Chapter 6

... lll e7 Systems without an immediate ... lllg6

1 77

Chapter 7

...i.d7 Systems

20 1

Chapter 8

...i.e7 Systems

229

Chapter 9

Berlin Endgame: White Alternatives and Miscellaneous Black Systems

253

Chapter 1 0

White Plays 4.d3

277

Chapter 1 1

Other White Tries

29 1

Index of Variations

319

Index of Theoretical Games

328

•

Books: Bareev/Levitov: From London to Elista, New in Chess 2008 (comments on the Kasparov- Kramnik games that are rather different from Kramnik's)

Bologan: Victor Bologan: Selected Games 1985-2004, Russell 2007 Bronstein: 200 Open Games, Dover 1 9 92 Comas Fabrego: True Lies in Chess, Quality Chess 2007 Davies: Play I e4 e5!, Everyman 2005 Gershon & Nor: San Luis 2005, Quality Chess 2007 Greet: Play the Ruy Lopez, Everyman 2007 Hansen, L.B.: Secrets ofChess Endgame Strategy, Gambit 2006 (some interesting general reflections on the Berlin and a chapter annotating six games, plus some examples in the general text)

Kaufman: The Chess Advantage in Black and White, McKay 2004 (repertoire coverage for Black of . . . 12.e7 systems, assisted by Sherzer)

Khalifman: Opening for White According to Anand: Volume

I, Chess Stars 2003 (biased but

authoritative, wide-ranging and interesting repertoire coverage for White)

Shamkovich: The Chess Terrorist's Handbook, American Chess Promotions 199 5 (some little­ known ideas in lines with 5 .:ge l and 12.d3)

Stohl: Garry Kasparov's Greatest Chess Games: Volumes

I and 2, Gambit 2005 and 2006

Periodicals: Almasi: New in Chess Yearbooks (various) Chess Informant 1 -9 8

Electronic Resources: ChessPublishing. com

Kramnik: My Path to the Top, Chess Base DV D 2007 (great comments on Kasparov-Kramnik Berlins from 2000)

Ree: Dutch Treat column, ChessCafe.com Mega Database 2008 (various annotators including Wedberg, Stohl, Postny, Muller and Hecht) The Week In Chess Of the above Almasi, Khalifman and Kaufman are the main theoretical sources, and Kramnik by far the most relevant of the others .

Part I Understanding

the Berlin Wall

Positional Introduction The heart of this book is the position which

Classical (3 ... i.c5) and the present debut, and

is reached after the moves l.e4 e5 2.tt::l f3 tt::l c6

those in which Black does not intend to fight

3.i.b 5 tt::l f6 4.0-0 tt::lxe4 5.d4 tt::l d6 6.i.xc6

against the formation of the c3/ d4 pawn centre

dxc6 7.dxe5 tt::l f5 8.'!Mfxd8t \t>xd8, the so-called

and does not want to push the bishop towards

Berlin Wall. Chapters 4-9 attempt to pro­

its ideal spot on c2, the Cozio (3 ...tt::l ge7) and

vide comprehensive analysis of this position

the variously-named 3 ... g6 lines (Pillsbury?

from both sides, while Chapter 2 deals with

Smyslov?).

typical endings arising, and Chapter 3 with typical middlegame themes. After 3 ... tt:Jf6 this sequence is usually considered White's only serious try for advantage, and Chapters 1 0 and 1 1 provide repertoire coverage only from Black's point of view of the various de­ viations White has between moves four and eight: with the exception of 4.d3 these are more common at dub level than international level. Let us go through the initial eight moves and see why this might be so.

1.e4 e5 2.tlif3 lli c6 3.i.b5 lt'if6 It was Morphy who first proposed that Black ought to insert 3 ... a6 in order to give himself the option to break the pin quickly. Basically the great man was right: the only variations of the Ruy in which Black does not benefit from having ...a6 i.a4 thrown in are those in which the bishop is at some moment attacked on b 5 , the Bird (3 ... tt:Jd4) , the Schliemann ( 3... f5 ) , the

a

4.0-0

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

4.d3 and 4.'!Mfe2 are respectable ways to avoid Black's main idea and are dealt with in Chapter 1 0 and Game 55 respectively. The former en­ visages either the old Steinitz plan with d3/c3 tt::l b d2-fl-g3 before castling or else a build-up with c3 and d4, the latter perhaps 0-0md l / c3/d4 along the lines o f the Worrall Attack in the normal Closed Ruy. However from a

10

Th e Berlin Wall

logical standpoint 4.d3 should not be the most critical test: if the game had gone 3.ic4 ll'if6 4.d3 then most people would not think that White was opting to press Black particularly in the opening, while if he isn't going to exploit the pressure created on the e-pawn by 3.ib5 to force the concessions (queenside weaknesses or surrender of central space, basically), which are typical of the main lines of the Ruy, then it's not clear why White put his bishop on b5 instead of c4 at all. 4.ll'ic3 is the Spanish Four Knights, which could of course have arisen by 3.ll'ic3 ll'if6 4.ib5, and is not covered in this work: read­ ers are referred to grandmaster Mihail Marin's recent Beating the Open Games for (excellent) coverage. 4.d4 (game 56) is the Central Attack, and is not so effective before Black is committed to . . . d6 and can still go . . . d5 in one, as the traditional reply shows: 4 . . . exd4 5.0-0 a6 6.ia4 ie7 7.e5 (after 7.�e l b5 8.ib3 d6 White's tragedy is that 9.ll'ixd4?? falls into the Noah's Ark trap with 9 . . . ll'ixd4 1 0.Wfxd4 c5 and . . . c4, so he has either to gambit a pawn for vague com­ pensation only with 9.c3, or else give up the bishop with 9.id5) 7 . . . tl'ie4 8.ll'ixd4 0-0 9.ll'if5 d5. 4.hc6 (game 57) , like in the Exchange Vari­ ation (3 . . . a6 4.hc6) is not so bad, but obvi­ ously Black would rather have played 3 . . . ll'if6 than 3 . . . a6.

4 tl'ixe4 •••

Were Black to play 4 . . . ie7 now, analogous to the normal Chigorin defence with . . . a6/ia4 added, he would quickly find out the wis­ dom of Morphy's advice: White continues with 5 .�e l defending his own e-pawn and so threatening to win a pawn by hc6 and ll'ixe5, thus forcing 5 . . . d6 6.d4 renews the threat and

forces 6 . . . id7 if Black wants to maintain a pawn on e5, and now after 7.ll'ic3 Black finds that 7 . . . 0-0 loses material after 8.hc6 hc6 9.dxe5 dxe5 1 0.Wfxd8 �axd8 1 1 .ll'ixe5 , and if 1 1 . . .he4? 12.ll'ixe4 ll'ixe4 1 3 .ll'id3 f5 14.f3 ih4 l 5 .g3, the famous Tarrasch Trap, and so he is forced to cede central space to White with 7 . . . exd4, transposing to the old Steinitz defence. 4 . . . ic5, the Classical Berlin, is another reason­ able line which is not covered in this book, but by omitting . . . a6 Black usually telegraphs his intention to play the text. Black plays in a way akin to the Open Defence (5 . . . ll'ixe4 with the inclusion of . . . a6/ia4) .

5.d4 5 .�e l (games 5 8-59) is possible and is in some ways the most natural move. In the nor­ mal Open Defence this move is rubbish be­ cause 6 . . . ll'ic5 attacks the bishop on a4 and simply trades it off with a slight edge for Black. Here Black has to go 5 . . . ll'id6 to gain the same tempo, which of course blocks his develop­ ment and gives White possibilities, but even so it turns out that Blacl{s difficulties can be fairly easily surmounted. 5 .Wfe2 is also possible and is dealt with in Game 60. s ... tl'id6

This move, the trademark of the Berlin Wall, was the whole point of leaving out . . . a6. Both here and in the Open Defence proper 5 . . . exd4 is frowned upon because of the hair-raising se­ quence 6.�e l d5 7.ll'ixd4 id6 8.ll'ixc6 ixh2t 9.'tt> h l Wfh4 1 0.�xe4t dxe4 1 1 .Wfd8t Wfxd8 1 2.ll'ixd8t 'tt>xd8 1 3 .'tt> xh 2, so in the Open proper Black normally plays 6 . . . b5 to enable . . . d5 (in fact he can try to reach the same posi­ tion here by 5 . . . a6 6.ia4 b5 7.ib3 d5) . The text move however hits b5 and threatens to

Chapter 1 - Positional Introduction consolidate Black's gains with . . . e4, so White is forced to concede the bishop. Black can also try the strange 5 . . . i.e7 6.Eie l tll d6 7.i.xc6 bxc6 8.dxe5 tll b 7, known in some circles as the Rio de Janeiro varia­ tion (although properly this refers to a Black plan later on) . This book does not cover this option.

11

(as opposed to 7 . . . tll e4) was to meet that with 8 . . . tll d4 9.tll xd4 Wxd4, when Black can trade the queens anyway if he wants to after 1 0.Eidl ig4, and obtain comfortable play (game 65).

8 ... d7 Now let us suppose that White resists the temptation to eliminate the knight and sits tight with: 34.ial 34.ixd4 cxd4 35.lll c4 i>e6 36.c3 i>d5 37.lll a3 dxc3t 38.©xc3 if5 39.lll b 5 i>e4 40.lll xc7 ©f3 4 1 .lll d 5 ©xg3 42.lll xb6 i>xh4 loses very much as in the game, the bishop is about to demonstrate in very clear fashion its traditional strengths when play is on both wings. 34 . . . me6 35 .ic3 Blacl{s best way forward now is to take play into the pure opposite-coloured bishop ending. 35 . . . lll f5 ! 36.lll xf5 ©xf5 Without attempting an exhaustive analysis, one can say that White has a difficult task to hold this. A sample line: 37.@cl i>g4 38.ie l ©f3 39.©d2 if5 40.©dl �e6 4 1 .i>d2 ig4 With this neat manoeuvre Black ensures he can get in on the kingside, and now White has little choice but to bust out with: 42.©dl ©e3t 43.©cl ©e2 44.e6 ixe6 45.ic3 i>f3 46.ieS c6 47.ic7 b5 48.ixa5 1ixg3 49.id8 But it looks to me as though Black should win: 49 ... bxa4 50.bxa4 ©xf4 5 Lie7 @f5 52.a5 �c4 53.ixc5 f6 54. ©d2 g5

I

23

And so on. There are other similar lines, but don't see salvation for White.

29 ... lll d4t 30.hd4 After 30.©e4 lll xc2 3 1 .lll xc2 if5t 32.md5 ixc2 33.©c4 idl 34.i.d2 i.e2t 35.©c3 c4! (a typical method) 36.bxc4 idl Black gradually wins.

30 ... cxd4 3 1 .lll c4 mc6 32.me4 mes 33. d3 mds 34.c3 White is lost in any case: 34.f4 i.f5t 35 .i>d2 ©e4 36.me2 i.g4t

34 ...i.5t 35.md2 dxc3t 36.mxc3 me4 And the black king simply sails in and takes White's kingside the co-ordination of black pawns and light-squared bishop in restricting the knight is striking.

37.£4 ma 3s.md4 i.e6 39.lll d2t mg2 40.lll e4 mxh2 0-1 It's a little surprising how effortlessly Black won here, and it has a lot to do with the white knight being poorly placed at the beginning of the ending - if it could have got to g5 the outcome might have been different. But this ending does quite often arise and in general Black will be the one with the winning chances.

Bisho p vs. Knight The ending with White's bishop against Black's knight is one of the most favourable for Black. Especially if the queenside pawns have become fixed on a4/b3/c4, so that Black is always threatening . . . lll d4, it is difficult for White to make any progress. The sort of breakthrough we saw in Carlsen - Kharlov simply won't work, since Black can just trade pawns down

24

The Berlin Wall

and arrange to blockade the e-pawn with . . . llie6 after f5 and exchanges on f5 .

- � � � 8� ��ef ""'�� �---0% 7 -� f� ----% • ��if� --� · � � �&¥----%� '0 �®if�'0 'i)-' � � 5 � f� % � % 4 'lt� '8 � - - ��3" !� �� �� �� �� �----%®'"",� ��-�----%-�-�--f� 2� WO.

6

1

a

b

c

d

- �� e

f

g

h

Indeed this position was agreed drawn without further ado in Ponomariov - Kramnik, USSR-ROW 2002, while in J. Polgar - Milov, FIDE KO 2005, White did no more than play h3 and g4 before giving up. Black cannot play completely passively: he mustn't allow the king into g5/h6 and the bishop to the h4-d8 diagonal, but unless his pieces are very badly placed at the outset of the ending it is easy enough to stop this by keeping the knight on c6 within striking range of d4. However, the position isn't necessarily a draw if White hasn't gone f4. The next position is reached by Khalifman in his analysis, and as the ex-FIDE champion says, White has much better chances in this version.

He has basically three ideas: getting the king to g5 (he would have to be willing to lose b3 to do this, but that may not matter unlike the similar situation in the opposite-bishop ending where losing b3 generally is the end of the world) penetrating with the bishop to d8 (a pipe dream just now but may become important) and, most significantly, making a passed pawn on the kingside (one significance of not having played f4 is that White can play g4 and present Black with a dilemma either he takes and allows a potential passed h-pawn, or he doesn't and ensures that there will be a pawn left on the kingside after gxh5 . . . gxh5 and a later f4-f5, which greatly increases White's winning chances) . Indeed I suspect White may be winning here. I won't attempt a detailed analysis, but here is a sample continuation which shows Black's difficulties.

29 lll e7 30.@e4 •••

White should go straight for it if he dallies with 30.ic3 then Black can put great difficulties in his way with 30 . . . @c8 3 1 .@e4 llic6 32.©f4 ttJd4 33.@g5 llixf3t 34.@xh5 ttJxh2 35.@g6 @d7, for example 36.@xg7 @e7 37.@g6 c6 38.@h5 @f7 39.g4 @g7 40.g5 llif3 4 1 .g6 @f8 42.@g4 llid4 43.id2 llixb3 44.ih6t @g8 45 .@g5 llid4 46.@f6 b5 47.cxb5 cxb5 48.axb5 llixb5 49.@xe6 a4 50.@d? llid4 5 1 .e6 tDf5 52.e7 llixe7 53.@xe7 a3

30 ... lll c6 3 1 .@f4 tll d4 32.@g5 tll xb3 33.@xh5 White doesn't need to worry about losing his c4-pawn although it seems that 33.ic3 lll d4 34.f4 wins also.

33 ... lll d2 34.@g6 llixc4 35 .!c3 c6 •

35 . . . @c6 36.@xg7 ttJe3 37.h4 llif5t 38.@f6 @d5 39.h5 and 3 5 . . . llia3 36.f4! (and not 36.@xg7 b5 37.axb5 a4 when Black

Chapter 2 - Typical Berlin Endings is

suddenly better) 36 . . . b5 37.axb5 tLlxb5 (37 . . . a4 38.f5 exf5 39.e6 lLixb5 40.ie5 queens) 38.ha5 are no better.

36.@xg7 b5 37.h4 b4 38.ial b3 39.hS b2 40.hb2 tLlxb2 41 .h6 c4 42.h7 c3 43.h8\W c2 44.\Wh6 tlid3 45.@£6 cl\W 46.\Wh7t !fb6 47.\Wxd3 I suppose that White should win this queen endgame. It does have to be said though that Black's difficulties stem to a large extent from the fact that his king is in the next parish at the start of the endgame, and Khalifman has Black playing some pretty bad moves shortly before the diagram to ensure that should be so. Let's see a more cheerful example for Black.

Berescu - Mastrovasilis

25

25 @e6 26.@f3?! •••

White doesn't appreciate the danger. He ought to have taken control of d5 with 26.c4, and if Black challenges that control with 26 . . . b5 then he should stick to his guns with 27.b3. If Black could immediately attack the c4-pawn this would be a disaster, but White is in time to meet 27 . . . bxc4 28.bxc4 tLle7 with 29.ia5 .

26 @ds •••

26 . . . t0d4t 27.�e4 lLixc2 28.f5t 'it>d7 29.�d3 was impossible, of course, but now White needs to guard against this threat.

27.c3 An unpleasant move to have to make, but since the pawn ending after 27.ie3 c5 28 .g3 t0d4t 29.hd4 cxd4 is lost White has to play it sooner or later.

Kavala 2005

27 tlih4t 28.@g3 tli5t 29.@f3 c5 30.!el c4 31 .g3?! •••

A slightly curious move, Black could hardly have hoped to win after 3 l .h3 h4: of course 32.©g4 ©e4 33.ixh4 tLlxh4 34.©xh4 ©xf4 is bad, but White could just play 32.if2-e l instead and Black could never move his knight and thus couldn't make any progress. So Black shouldn't play 3 1 . . .h4, but in that case there was no need to lose a tempo with 3 1 .g3.

3 1 . bS 32.h3 a5 33.g4 hxg4t 34.hxg4 tlie7 35.ih4 tlic6 36.a3?! ••

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Here we see the same situation without the queenside pawns frozen, which you would think ought to favour the bishop. On the other hand Black has already made good progress with his king, and if anything it is White who already needs to be careful. In the game it turns out that the decisive factor is the dominating black king on d5, which is possible precisely because White doesn't have his pawn on c4.

White can't go on with his kingside play and is therefore already worse, but there wasn't any need to make this concession. I may be wrong, but I don't see how Black could have won if White had waited passively. He can go . . . b4b3, but that takes away the b3-square. The significance of that is apparent in the note to White's 38th.

36 a4 37.@e3 tlib8 38.id8 •••

26

The Berlin Wall

When you see the game you wonder whether White could have held by keeping this bishop inside his own lines, but he does need to prevent . . . lll a 5, for example 38.ie l c5 39.id2 lll c6 40.©f3 lll a 5 4 1 .icl lll b 3 42.ie3 (White has to keep on this diagonal to prevent . . . lll c l -d3) 42 . . . g6 43.gS b4 and White is in zugzwang and has to let the black king in to e4 or the knight to cl and d3.

38 ... cS 39 . .!c7 'bc6 40.@f3 b4 41.fS b3! 4 1 . . .lll xeSt? 42.ixeS ©xe5 43.©e3 is only a draw, but Black has a better idea.

42.Wf4 'bb4! 43.@gS 'bd.3 44.e6 fxe6 45.f6 gxf6t 46.©xf6 'b:f.2 47.gS 'be4t 48.@g6 'bxg5 49.WxgS @e4 A final insult to White's bishop, which is comprehensively outgunned by Black's king.

0-1

R. Perez - Narciso Dublan Capablanca Memorial, Havana 1 999

The next example comes from a game quoted by Khalifman as an example of a model exploitation of White's possibilities in the Berlin endgame, so it's a pity that he fails to mention what an utter hash Black makes of holding what should have been a fairly simply drawn ending.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

29.a4 It's not totally clear this was necessary, but in practical terms it's a mean little teaser.

29 ... tll e7 Obviously 29 . . . lll d4? would be terrible: the pawn ending after 30.ixd4 cxd4 is simply lost (White also wins, perhaps slightly deceptively at first sight, with the pawn back on a7) . But the question is what is happening in the 'other' pawn ending after: 29 . . . lll b4 30.ixb4 cxb4 Always the right recapture, and also correct and drawing if White's pawns are on c4 and b3: in Shaw - Neubauer, European Team Champs 2005, Black played . . . axb4? in such a position and should have lost) . This ending is tricky and all three results would be well possible in practice, but I think it's a draw. 3 1 .©e4 White's problem is that following . . . cxb4 Black's pawns can now make a passed pawn on their own, and so he has either to make f5 work somehow without neutralising the pawns first (which it turns out he can't do) or else organise c3 bxc3 bxc3 and then c4, which will win if he can organise it peacefully, but it turns out he can't do that either. 3 1 .c3? at the moment loses to 3 1 . . .bxc3 32.bxc3 b5! so White has to get nearer. 3 1 . . .c6 Black has to stop the threat of c3 immediately. 3 1 .. . ©e7? loses to 32.c3! only. Others don't work: a) 32.fS?? actually loses to 32 . . . exfSt 33.gxfS gxf5t 34.WxfS b5 35 .b3 bxa4 36.bxa4 c5 37.©e4 c4 38.©d4 c3. b) 32.©d4 c6 33.©e4 (33.b3?! g5 introduces a new unpleasantness for White, although he can still draw after 34.fxgS ©f7 35.We3 Wg6 36.Wf4 b5 37.©e3 ©xg5 38.©d4 bxa4 39.bxa4 Wxg4 40.©cS Wf5 4 1 .Wb6! Wxe5 42.WxaS c5 43.©bS i>d6 and so on)

Chapter 2 Typical Berlin Endings -

33 . . . b5 34.b3 bxa4 35.bxa4 c5 36.@d3 @d7 37.©c4 @c6 holds easily. c) 32.c4 doesn't quite do the trick: 32 . . . c6 33.f5 (33. @d4 is subtler and forces Black to play 33 . . . @d8! (33 . . . @e8 loses to the exquisite line 34.c5 b5 35.axb5 cxb5 36.c6 a4 37.f5 gxf5 38.gxf5 a3 39.fxe6! ©d8 40.bxa3 bxa3 4 1 .©c3 33 . . . ©d7 34.c5 b5 35.axb5 cxb5 36.f5 exf5 37.@d5 is also winning.) 34.b3 (34.c5 b5 is now dangerous only for White) 34 . . . @d7 35 .c5 b5 36.axb5 cxb5 37.f5 gxf5 is now fine for Black since . . . al ('W) is now check after b3 has been played.) 33 . . . exf5t 34.gxf5 gxf5t 35.@xf5 b3! draws (if White had played b3 earlier to avoid this then in this position . . . b5! would draw Black queens on bl with check) . d) So the winning lines go: 32.c3! bxc3 33.bxc3 c6 34.c4 @d7 3 5 .f5 g5 36.@e3 (only not 36.c5 ?? exf5t!=) 36 . . . @d8 (or 36 . . . c5 37.fxe6t @e7 38.©d3 @xe6 39.@e4) 37.c5 this line illustrates White's basic idea. 32.b3 32.c3 now is no good because of 32 . . . bxc3 33.bxc3 b5 again, although at least White can still draw with 34.g5! 32. ©d4?! too comes close to losing although White can also still draw here with 32 . . . g5 33.fxg5 @f7 34.c4 bxc3 35.bxc3 b5 36.axb5 cxb5 37.@c5 a4 38.@b4 @g6 39.c4 bxc4 40.@xa4 @xg5 4 1 .©b4 @xg4 42.@xc4. 32 . . . @e7 33.f5 The only try: we already saw 33.@d4 g5 , although Black can also wait. 33 . . . exf5t! 34.gxf5 g5! This is the whole point the natural 34 . . . gxf5t 3 5 .@xf5 @f7 [or 35 . . . b5 36.@e4] loses after 36.e6t @e7 37.©e5 b5 38.@d4 :ii d6 39.e7 c5t 40.©d3! (not 40.@e4 iixe7 4 1 .axb5 [4 1 .@d5?? c4-+] 4 I . ..@d6=) 40 . . . ©xe7 4 1 .axb5. White is now close to losing, but ifhe collects himself sufficiently he can still draw with 35 .©f3 b5 36.@g4 bxa4 37.bxa4 c5 38.f6t @f8

27

39.@xg5 c4 40.e6 b3 4 1 .cxb3 cxb3 42.@g6 b2 43.e7t @e8 44.@g7 b l °W 45 .f7t @xe7 46.f8'Wt @d7 So all in all my conclusion is that Black could have held with 29 . . . t0b4, although by no means trivially. Probably he would have had to have seen this position-type before to be confident over the board.

30.@e4 @f7 An interesting point. In the similar position with Black having a bishop, the king needs to be on d7, but here it needs to be on f7. The reason is this. Black has two problems. He has to prevent i.d8, and he also has to prevent White's king penetrating on the kingside. With the bishop, Black needs to escape with the bishop on to the far side of the pawn chain once White takes the h4-d8 diagonal, and thereafter the bishop can hold the king back from entering via g5, as we shall see in some of the next few examples, but it can't defend the queenside pawns, so the king has to guard d8. The knight by contrast can protect the queenside pawns, but it can't stop the king entering once it is dominated by the bishop on h4, so the king needs to be on f7.

3 1 .i.el �c6 32.i.h4

The Berlin Wall

28

32 ... tlJd4?? It's hard to say whether Black missed White's next move completely or thought he was losing if he held still and just panicked. In fact Black has a fortress and could have held on by doing nothing. 32 . . . @e8 33.c3 @f7 34.f5 gxf5t 35 .gxf5 lll b 8 As usual in these positions Black cannot let the king to f5 . Instead he has to allow f6 if White wants it, but after that White can't do anything at all the king defends the kingside and the knight the queenside either by . . . c4 and . . . lll c6 or just waiting for @b5 and then going . . . lll b 8. 36.id8 lll a6 White can't make any progress Black's next move is to kick the bishop out with . . . @e8, and White doesn't have time to get in on the queenside after: 37.ih4 lll b 8 38.f6 lll c6 39.ig3 c4. Black can also play 32 . . . c4 at once, followed by tempoing with his king unless pressed. I don't see how White can try and break this fortress either, for example: a) 33.f5? gxf5t 34.gxf5 exf5t 3 5 .@xf5 lll d4t b) 33.@e3 lll b4 34.@d4 (34.c3 lll d3 34.@d2 lll d 5) 34 . . . lll xc2t 35.@xc4 @e8 c) 33.c3 @e8 34.f5 gxf5t 3 5 .gxf5 @f7 36.ig5 lll b 8, and the pawn being on c4 makes no difference White can't win c4 without playing fxe6, and then he loses e5 .

33.idS b5 34.axb5 tlJxb5 35.c4 1-0

Bisho p s of the same Colour If White is left with the dark-squared bishop the best balance of forces for him is for Black to also have a dark-squared bishop, and in that

event, other things being equal, White will have at least good winning chances. The generic ending normally arises after an exchange of knight for bishop on e6 at some point, as in the following position:

Deep Fritz - Kramnik Bahrain ( I ) 2002

81 •-��r�-J--�·����}f%-��r�-� �. , , ,, %� 'iY,� ,,,,,%�r���q i 5 %�� r�� �� %� i"' �1 �� ��� � �1���0!'1 ��;� �., , , , ��-� 1� 6

4

� %

-

,,,,,

� ,,,, �-% ,,,,,

� a

b

,,,,,

%

� • c

�

�r%

%

d

e

f

m g

h

This endgame is very close and, as we shall see in a moment, strong grandmasters have lost it as Black and others have published analysis which (in my opinion, naturally) is mistaken, so it's worth knowing something about it. As a general observation, Black's chances to defend are based on blockade, and White's main weapon is zugzwang. It is possible to see quite easily how the play will go at some moment White will play g4 and f5 with his king on e4. At this point Black cannot gaily trade all the pawns and leave himself facing a lone pawn on e5 with the king on f5 this position is lost. Instead he has to wait and hope that neither f6 nor fxe6 wins. He also has to bear in mind that he can rarely permit White to seize the h4-d8 diagonal, since the obligation to prevent id8 as well as hold the kingside will usually be too much. Black's best approach in this endgame is the following.

Chapter 2 - Typical Berlin Endings 1. The best place for the king is d7. From there it defends both dB and e6. Black has to manage on the kingside without it. The king should come towards f7 only in case of need: either to meet iig5 by . . . iif7, or to meet i.xh4 . . .i.xh4 ©xh4 with . . . iih6. 2. The move . . . c6 should not be played. This has several disadvantages: first, as we saw in Korneev - Fontaine it means that after g4 ... hxg4, hxg4 and later i.h4 . . . i.xh4, Wxh4 ... iih6 the pawn endgame is lost secondly it means that fXe6t . . . iixe6 i.d8 cannot usefully be met by . . . iid?, and thirdly it weakens d6.

3. f5 should be met by . . . gxf5t, gxf5 . . . i.h4 or ... i.g5. The h-pawns can either be exchanged or not. Generally it will be simpler to do so, but especially if White's b-pawn is still on b2, then Black has to be careful about playing ...hxg4 before f5 is played. More about this in the next example, Howell - Parker. If this programme is followed, Black should not lose.

24.g4 White might try 24.g3 with the same idea as Parker's suggested 28.h4 in the next game, but Black can deal with it easily with 24 . . . We8 25.h4 ©f7, and if 26.i.g5 hg5 27.hxg5 ©g6 28.f4 ©f5 29.i>f2 iig4 30.iig2 h4 3 1 .gxh4 :;t?xf4 32.iih3 g6 White even loses.

24... g6 This move caused much speculation that Kramnik had analysed this endgame in his preparation, and perhaps he had. Another try to draw, which is here both unnecessary and unsuccessful, but is important in other positions, is 24 . . . hxg4 25.hxg4 g5 26.iig2 �e8 27.f4 gxf4 28.hf4 ©f7, but White can prevail here with 29.iih3 (there is no time to

29

dally if Black had another tempo, for example after 29.i.d2? iig6, then White can do nothing at all since 30. ©h3, with the idea of ih4, can be met with 30 . . . i.fS 3 1 .i.el i.g7) Wg6 30.i.g3 i.g5 (30 . . . i.fB 3 1 .i.h4 i.g7 32.i.f6 hf6 33.exf6 iixf6 is a winning pawn ending) 3 Li.h4 i.f4 32.i.f6 iif7 33. iig2 iig6 34. ©f3 i.d2 35 .i.dB c6 36.i.xb6 ib4 at first sight this looks like a draw but White can break Blacl{s fortress with 37.id8 ©f7 38.i.h4 ©g6 39.if2 iig5 40.ie3t iig6 (40 . . . ©h4 4 Liif4 decides at once) 4 1 . iie2! (zugzwang the black king has to retreat) iig? 42.id2 (this is possible now that the black king is two moves from g5) , and White wins.

25.h4?! Not the most compelling try. 25 .gxh5 gxh5 would be hopeless, of course, allowing the black king to come to g6, but Stohl gave analysis to prove that Black holds even after the natural: 25.f4 i>eB 26.iig2 hxg4 This move is not obligatory: Black also draws after 26 . . . iid? 27.iif3 id8 28.iie4 ie7 29.gxh5 gxh5 30.f5 ih4 3 1 .i.h6 i.g3 32.ig5 ie l when White does not have any way to make progress: this is important if the pawn is on b2, as we shall see in the next game, since this is then Blacl{s only efficient way of making a draw. 27.hxg4 iif7 28.iif3 28.iih3 iig? 29.ie3 ©h7 30.if2 iig? 3 1 .i.h4 i.xh4 32.iixh4 iih6 is drawing, as we saw on p. 1 8- 1 9. 28 . . . i.d8 It is also possible to reach the correct set­ up with 28 . . . ih4!? 29.iie4 ie l 30.f5 gxf5t 3 1 .gxf5 ©e7 32.i.g5t ©d7 33.iif4 id2t 34.iig4 i.e l 35.i.f4 ©e7 36.iig5 ©f7, when again White cannot go any further. 29.iie4

The Berlin Wall

30

White can't progress. This timely control of the c l -h6 diagonal is Black's fundamental defensive idea. 29 . . . @e8 is the right idea but is badly timed since Black can't fight against the @f4-g4-g5 plan. 30.f5 gxf5t 3 1 .gxf5 @d7 32.@f4 �4 33.@g4 if2 34.@g5 and wins. 30.f5 c6 3 1 .Ae3 @g7 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

29 . . . g5? A desperate attempt, but I don't believe Black needs to panic like this. Better was: 29 . . . ie7 30.f5 �4 (30 . . . id8 3 1 .ih6 followed by @f4 and ig5 wins: Black has to try and prevent this) 3 1 .ih6 (3 1 .@f4 gxf5 32.gxf5 Af2 33.@g4 id4 also keeps White out) 3 1 . . .gxf5t (3 1 . ..g5 32.@e3 wins since Black has to let the bishop out of the cage) 32.gxf5 @e7! (always to d7: 32 . . . ig3? 33.ig5, but even 32 . . . c6 might draw since after 33.@f4 Ael 34.ig5 id2t 35.@g4 ic3 36.if6 id4 37.@f4 Black has 37 . . . b5, and I don't see how White can win since if 38.axb5? cxb5 39.cxb5 c4 he loses.) 33.@f4 Ael ! (33 . . . @d7? 34.ig7 @e7 35.@g4 Ael 36.if6t @d7 37. ©g5 and Black has to give way) 34.@g4 (34.@g5 @f7 forces retreat, and certainly not 34 . . . id2t?? 35.@g6 .bh6 36.f6t) 34 . . . @d7 35.if4 @e7! (else @g5) 36.ig5t @d7 37.if6 id2

=

�

�- � �� � � µ" .... %� �� -, �� 6 w� m & �·� � 5 .�----"� �- - . % 8 .• % �8% @.�, 4 � � � 8� � � �� �� ��-� �� � �� ��[;3� � � . . �

� ! a

b

-

c

d

e

f

g

h

• � � �� •

8

7

�

� �;...�� = � � � 6 � �%�.F' � �-0 ��-0 -�'"·-� 5 .�% •% � � � �. �% 4 � 8� 8 � .8 � � � 0 � � � � � �� � � � �� � �� � ��

T T

� 1 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Stohl thought Black holds here but, as Jacob Aagaard pointed out to me, White wins with: 32.fxe6 ©g6 33.if2 ie7 34.ig3 id8 35 .e7 he7 36.e6 @f6 or 36 . . . id8 37.id6 @f6 38.e7 37.ic7 @xe6 38.hb6.

25 ... hxg4 Kramnik could even have fallen into the computer's trap - after 25 . . . .bh4 26.g5 White can win the black bishop, but he can't win the game - Black's position is unbreachable, as the reader can check for himsel£

26.ig5 hg5 27.hxg5 @e8 28. @g2 The pawn endgame is an easy draw. The variation with 29 ... ie7 is very important, since it proves that so long as his pawn is on c7 Black can even hold by keeping the king on f7 and playing . . . hxg4. 1/2-1/2

Chapter 2 Typical Berlin Endings -

In the next diagram Black is very significantly worse placed than in Fritz - Kramnik because White's pawn is still on b2.

Howell - Parker British League 2005

� �-/�-."� . � � : �J--!�� %� % ®!%� � 5 /� �I.% ��� �• i%��----%��,,,,%� �• 4 � � � 3 8. �'%� 0 � � �® �® �% J %� 2 �f� , , ,% 8 � ""'� f�@� --% - - � � �

8

-

1

a

,,

b

� �

'

,

c

d

e

f

g

h

This means that the pawn endgame is lost after f4, g4 . . . hxg4, hxg4, and consequently that Black has to be very careful about . . . hxg4, hxg4 since if this is played White can take his king to h3 and go .ih4, winning the crucial diagonal. This is only immediately fatal if Black allows his bishop to be trapped in his own camp otherwise I believe he can survive even this, but White can be cunning and take his bishop to e l before breaking with g4.

27.c4 White needs to play this at some point, since otherwise Black does have the possibility of counterplay after . . . c4.

27 cii es •••

27 . . . g5 tries to avoid White's h4 idea, but loses in the same way as shown in the note to Black's 24th move in Fritz - Kramnik above.

28.f4? White can win at this point with a different

31

idea altogether, which has never been shown as far as I know in any of the various commentaries on this type of ending: 28.h4! (this move was pointed out by Jonathan Parker) 28 . . . .ie? 29.cii h 3 cii f7 30.g4 iie8 (30 . . . hxg4 3 1 .iixg4 cii f7 32 . .ig5 followed by h5 wins comfortably) 3 1 .gxh5 (not 3 1 ..ig5? hg5 32 hxg5 hxg4 drawing as in Fritz - Kramnik) 3 1 .. .gxh5 32 .ig5 .if8 33 f4 ig7 34 @g3 @d7 (34 . . . c6 3 5 .cii f3 cii d? 36.cii e4 iic8 37.f5 @d7 38.b3! [again] 38 ... .if8 39.fxe6t iixe6 40 ..id8 .ih6 4 1 .hb6 .ic l 42.hc5, and White wins with the two extra pawns) 35.@f3 .if8 36.iie4 .ig7 37.f5 (zugzwang I think White could always force this position with Black to move by tempoing with cii f3-e3 if needs be, but even if it were somehow White's move he would have b3!) 37 . . . .if8 38 . .if6 .ih6 39.fxe6t iixe6 40 . .id8 @d7 4 1 .ig5! (the point) and White wins. This idea works because of some quite specific circumstances White hasn't yet played f4 and Black has played . . . g6, so that his king cannot get to that square.

28 ciif'l 29.ciiB c6? •••

It seems to me that this move ought to have been the fatal error. Black needed to hold his position as it was, avoid . . . hxg4, and draw in the way hidden in the comments on Black's 26th (26 . . . iid7) in the hypothetical line given in the note to White's 25th in the Deep Fritz - Kramnik example, starting with 25.f4 (page 29) .

30.g4?! In my opinion this is premature, although as it happens I think White is still winning. Before playing g4 it would be good to take control of h4 in order to prevent the bishop escaping from its own camp and gaining the c l -h6 diagonal. To achieve this no good is 30 . .ie l g5 gaining the g6-square for Black's king and drawing easily, but White can win with first 30.@e4 .ie7 3 1 ..ie l .id8 32.g4.

The Berlin Wall

32

This places Black in an unpleasant dilemma either he keeps the h-pawns and loses as in the game, or he exchanges, but then White can win without f5, thus: 32 . . . hxg4 (32 . . . ie7 33.ig3 ids 34.gxh5 gxh5 35.f5 ig5 36.if4 ih4 37.ih6 is like the game) 33.hxg4 ie7 34.iif3 ids 35.iig3 iif8 36.iih3, and now Black either goes in for 36 . . . g5 37.f5 , when he loses as shown in the notes to White's 25th in the last game, or he allows ih4 with his bishop still trapped in his own camp, which is fatal.

30 ...i.h4! The only move, to prevent the lines given in the last note: 30 . . . hxg4t? 3 1 .iixg4 ie7 32.ie l iieS 33.i.h4 if8 34.ig5 iid7 35 .h4 and h5 wins easily.

31 .iie4

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White isn't yet ready for 3 1 .gxh5 in view of 3 1 . . .gxh5 32.iie4 iig6.

31. .. iie7 It's a big decision whether or not to exchange h-pawns, but as it happens Black is lost either way, albeit only by some clever tempo play after: 3 I .. .hxg4 32.hxg4 ©eS 33.f5

33.ie3 iid7 34.iif3 ie l 35 .if2 id2 36.i.h4 icI 37.b3 id2 3S.iie4 icl 39.if6 id2 is less effective by his messing about White has given Black the chance to force b3, and now White cannot do any better than 40.f5 gxf5t 4 I .gxf5 icl (4 I . . .ic3 also draws) 42.fxe6t ©xe6 43.idS id2 44.i.xb6 ib4, and Black holds. 33 . . . gxf5t 34.gxf5 ©d7 35 .ih6 iie7 Necessary to prevent ifS-d6, for example 35 . . . ig3 36.ifS ©eS 37.id6 iid7 3S.f6 iieS 39.i.c?. 36.iif4 iel Not 36 . . . i.f2? 37.ig5t ©d7 3S.if6 and iig5 . 37.ig5t 37.iig5 iif7 3S.©g4 ©e7 doesn't improve White's position. 37 . . . iid? 3S.fxe6t 3S.i.f6 is now met by 3S . . . i.d2t. 3S ... iixe6 39.idS i.d2t 40.iie4 icl 40 . . . i.e l 4 I .i.xb6 ib4 42.b3 4 1 .i.xb6 i.xb2 42.i.xa5 i.xe5 43.ib6 id4 Any bishop move leads to the same finale. 44.a5 iid7 45.iif5 iicS 46.a6 ig7 47.iie6 if8 4S.iif6! i.d6 49.©f7 ig3 By his last manoeuvre White has driven the bishop to this diagonal, and now he wins d6 for his king and with it the game. 50. iie6 if4 5 I .i.xc5 ig3 5 1 . . .©c7 52.id6t! is the point. 52.id4 if4 53.ie5 id2 54.iid6 And White picks up c6 and wins.

32.gxh5 gxh5 33.5 iif7 34.b3?! It was possible to play 34.i.h6 iie7 35 .iif4 iid7 36.if8 at once, but Howell prefers to mark time a little until the time control. Something like 34.ie3 was a much better way of doing this, though. b2-b3 is a terrible move for at least two reasons: it takes away a reserve tempo which is useful in many lines, and it gives Black a square on c3 which White didn't have to give him.

Chapter 2 Typical Berlin Endings

33

-

34 ... @e7 35.ih6 @f7 36.@£4 iel 37.@e4 ih4 38.ie3 @e7 39.igl? This really is taking the policy of reaching rhe time control too far. White could still have won cleanly with: 39.ih6 ©f7 39. . . iel 40.ig5t @d7 4 1 .fxe6t \t>xe6 42.id8 ic3 43.hb6 ib4 is the same as 4 1 . . .iel . 40.©f4 ie l 4 1 .©g5 ig3 42.fxe6t \t>xe6 43.©xh5 \t>xe5 43 . . .ixe5 44.\t>g6 44.©g4 ie l 45.if4t \t>d4 46.ig3 id2 47.h4 1h6 47 . . . \t>c3 48.if4 ie l 49.h5 \t>xb3 50.h6 ic3 5 1 .\t>f5 \t>xa4 52.h7 \t>b3 53.ie5 48.if4 ig7 49.\t>f5

39 ... ig3?! Black could have tried 39 . . . ie l , and now I don't see that White can do better than: 40.ie3 (40.\t>f4 id2t 4 1 .ie3 ic3 [4 1 . . .he3t?? 42.\t>xe3 exf5 43.\t>f4 \t>e6 44.h4 wins] 42.\t>g5 he5 43.fxe6 \t>xe6 44.\t>xh5 @f5 draws easily Black wins the queenside pawns after something like 45 ig5 ©e4.) 40 . . . ic3 4 I .ig5t ©d7 42.fxe6t \t>xe6 43.id8 he5 44.hb6 ic3 45 .hc5 This endgame looks as though White ought to be able to win somehow, but I'm far from sure how he can do it. He is handicapped by the fact that often an exchange of bishops and then . . . c5 is a draw.

40.ie3 ih4 41 .icl @f7 4 1 . . .iel 42.ig5t \t>d7 43.fxe6t \t>xe6 44.id8 definitely wins because Black doesn't have time to pick up e5 in return for c5 without also allowing b4, as can be seen here: 44 . . . ic3 45 .hb6 (or 45 .ic7) 45 . . . ib4 46.ia7 ia3 (46 . . . ic3 47.hc5 he5 48.b4) 47.ib8 ib2 48. id6 ib4 49.\t>f4 4 1 . . .\t>d7 42.ih6 \t>e7 43.\t>f4 is the game.

42.ih6 @e7 43.@f4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Now White has what he wants. Either king move allows a fatal bishop entry, and if the bishop moves then a fatal king entry at g5 follows.

43 ... @d7 43 . . . ie l 44.\t>g5 (44.ig5t \t>d7 45.fxe6t \t>xe6 46.id8 ic3 47.ic7 id2t 48.\t>e4 ic3 49.hb6 also wins) 44 . . . @f7 45.fxe6t ©xe6 46.ig7 h4 47.\t>g4 ig3 48.if6, and ixh4 leaves White with a winning ending.

44.i.£8 And the added threat of id6 decides: if . . . c6 had not been played . . . \t>e8 would now defend comfortably.

44...ie1 45.@g5 ig3 46.@f6 exf5 47.@xf5 h4 48.@f6 @es 49.id6 @d7 50.@f7 @ds 5 1 .ibs @cs 52.e6 @xb8 53.e7 @c7 54.eSV!Y 1-0 This game demonstrates that Black's problems are greater with the pawn on b2. His difficulty is that if White is careful and takes the king to e4 and the bishop to e l before going g4 then . . . hxg4, hxg4 simply loses because of the

The Berlin Wall

34

possibility of coming round to h3 with the king and going .ih4. So Black has to permit gxh5 . . . gxh5 . He can then still draw as in the line with 26 . . . ©d7 in the notes to White's 25th in Deep Fritz - Kramnik, but only so. It is obvious that with any worse set-up Black is probably going to be lost. Another intriguing example is the following. At first sight the pawn structure looks worse for Black, and on the kingside there is no doubt this is true, but perhaps the possibility of . . . b5, leaving only . . . c5 as a weakness on the queenside and more importantly still allowing the bishop an easy route to the critical areas via a5, will assist Black?

Greet - Howell Gausdal 2005

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

34... mf7 35.mf3 mes 36.ig5 mf7 37.mg3 mes 3S.mg4 mf7 39.h4 mes 40.h5 White commits himsel£ The alternative plan of g4 doesn't work so well when Blacl{s bishop is still free, for example 40.mf3 mf7 4 1 .g4 a6 42.me4 b5 43.f3 gxf5 44.gxf5 bxa4 45.bxa4 ia5, and the active bishop can thwart any efforts to bring the king to g5 .

4o ... gxhst This might look a bit on the compliant side, but Black cannot avoid it forever, for example 40 . . . mf7 4 I .ih4 a6 42.ig5 b5 43.ih4 ia5 44.if2 ib4 (44 . . . ib6 45 .ie3 bxa4 46.bxa4 ia7 47.a5 is worse) 45.'itig5 gxh5 46.mxh5 .ia3 47.g4 and now 47 . . . g6t is forced, with similar play to the game, since if 47 . . . ib4 48.f5 White is winning: 48 . . . ic3 49.ig3 id4 50.fxe6t ©xe6 5 1 .mg6 bxc4 52.bxc4 he5 53.he5 mxe5 54.mxg? mf4 5 5 .mf6 mxg4 56.me6 f8 when White cannot win: 44.h5 g8 45 .h6 ic2 46.f6 h7 47.xf7 hf5 48.id2 c3 49.icl ig6t 50.f6 c2 5 l .e6 id3 52.e? ig6 53.e6 ie8 54.d6 ib5 5 5 .Wc?

g6 56.d8 f7 57.ib2 g6 and Black is saved by the c-pawn: without this White could indeed win by this method by taking her bishop to f8 here (she needs to cover both g7 and h6) .

42 ... gxh5 43. xh5 Of course not 43.gxh5 which fails as in the last note.

43 ... fB 44.ib4t g8 45.g5 ie2 46.f5 g7 47.ic3 f8 48.g5 e7 Black had no way to prevent White achieving this position, and now she cannot prevent White bringing her king to f6 followed by a decisive breakthrough. 48 . . . g? 49.e6t f8 50.ib4t e8 5 1 .exf7t xf7 52.g6t also loses for much the same reasons as the text. For the reason given in the note to White's 53rd, you might think that Black needed to try and get the bishop to d5 to prevent e6 . . . fxe6, xe6, but the bishop check from b4 followed by an appropriate king invasion is still fatal. For example 48 . . . if3 49.f6 ie4 50.f5 id5 5 Lib4t g8 52.e? ie4 53.g6 fxg6 54.f6 id5 5 5 .e6, and White just queens. The white bishop on b4 and the black pawn on f7 shutting the black king out from the king­ or queenside, as the case may be, is a recurrent theme of Berlin opposite-bishop endings.

49.ib4t e8 50. f6 id3 5 1 .f5 ie4 52.e6 fxe6 53. xe6 For anyone such as myself who can use an occasional refresher on basic endgame theory, connected pawns on the fifth rank with opposite-coloured bishops win unless the defender is able to establish a set-up such as White e4 l!ie5 f5 i(any), Black ic8 f7. Black plays ic8-d7-c8, and since White can never play either d5 or e6t, he can't progress. With pawns on f5 and g5, the equivalent

Chapter 2 Typical Berlin Endings

39

-

set-upwould beiif7 i.h7. Since i8 is not available to the bishop, though, White then passes with his bishop, and Black has to allow the fatal g6 (for the same reason, connected pawns on the sixth win almost always) . It follows that White has already reached a theoretically winning position (the c-pawn makes no difference) .

57...i.xc4 58.a4 r:j;; c7 59.a5 ie6 60.a6 ic8 61.a7 r:j;; b7 62.r:j;; d6 b4 63.e6 c5 64.e7 1-0

Patterson - Pitre Canadian Championships 200 1

53 ...id3 54.g6 c3 55.hc3 @£8 56.iif6 ;t>gs 57.iig5 ic2 57 . . . i.b5 58.f6 i.e8 59.i.b4 illustrates the zugzwang point I was making before.

58.£6 ib3 59.ib4 ic4 60.iif4 ib3 6I .iie5 ic4 62.iid6 1-0 Blockade of course is a fundamental feature not only of opposite-bishop endings but of the Berlin in general. Here it looks as though Black has a fireproof construction, but even at two seconds per move (to be fair, a long period of aimless tacking led up to this position) Balogh proves this wrong.

Balogh - Chen De

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Another blocked-looking situation which White can resolve with a breakthrough.

55.e6! fxe6 56.r:j;; e5 Black's problem is that the kingside position freezes both of his pieces, so he can obtain no counterplay.

Internet blitz 2003

56 r:j;}fl 57.r:j;; d6 ie4 58.ie5 b5 59.r:j;;xc5 a4 60.bxa4 bxa4 6J.r:j;; b4 ic2 62.r:j;; c5 ie4 63. r:j;; d6 a3 64.c5 a2 65. r:j;; d7 .•.

57.c4!

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Decisive. There's really no more to be said.

Putting Black into zugzwang, although in fact 65 .h? i.xh7 66.iixc6 was winning very simply. The position well illustrates the theme of the 'single diagonal' in opposite-bishop endings White's bishop renders both Black's pawns irrelevant from its position, and indeed defends f6 as well, so that White just wins the bishop for the c-pawn in peace and Black can't do anything at all. If the e-pawn were on say g6, so that the bishop couldn't do this, the outcome would be different.

40

The Berlin Wall

65 ...id5?? 65 . . . @ffi was more resilient - Black can spare the e6-pawn easily - and would have forced White to find the plan mentioned in the last note.

66.h7 1-0

Berescu - Madan Romanian Championships 2005

8

� -� �

• �� �Jlr�

���r� : Jl.JIJl JI. JI 0 �� ' ef ,,,J� � F 5 �� f�� �=f[j� [j� � 3 �JI� JI � � � ��'JI �� ,,,,J ,"0 � 4

,,,,,

%

,,,,,

%

,,,,,

�

----

%

2 W'£" � f�.i."%� � --� �

im a

b

� c

d

- e

f

g

h

Material is equal but White's active king and, most important of all, his ability to cut the black king off from the h-pawn, enable him to win.

49.ic7 In fact White could also win with 49.id6 at once since after 49 . . . 'it>d7 50.'it>e5 a4 it is true that he cannot retreat the bishop so as to go 'it>f6-g7 without leaving it en prise, but on the other hand he doesn't need to: 5 1 . 'it>f6 'it>xd6 52. 'it>xf7 wins easily. Still, lengthening the d6ffi diagonal for the bishop as in the next note is thematic.

49 ... a4 It's tempting to hold two with one, but this move loses because White's capture attacks

another pawn and Black either has to let his king be shut out or go two pawns down. No better however was 49 . . . b5, not because of 50.ha5? 'it>f8 5 1 .'it>e5 c4, when Black's bishop can defend the queenside single-handed from d7 and his king holds the kingside from g8, but 50.id6!, shutting the king off decisively and following with 'it>e5-f6-g7 and wins. 50 . . . 'it>d7 5 1 .'it>e5 c4 52.ic5 'it>c6 53 . .iffi even preserves White's bishop as well.

50.hb6

50 . .id6 'it>d8 5 I . 'it>e5 was still winning easily, but the text is also adequate .

50 ... @rs 50 . . . c4 5 L.ic5 loses just like 49 . . . b5, but Black must have placed his hopes on this move it looks as though his king can hold one flank and the bishop the other, and indeed this would be so had he just one more tempo . . .

5 1 .hc5t @gs 52.b4! Just so. "Box", as the Informant symbols have it. If Black could play . . . .ib3 he would be safe, since in order to remove the bishop from that square White would need to simplify the kingside in order to prevent the black king simply playing from g8 to h7. And then Black can hang on, thus: 52 . .id4 .ib3 53.g6 fxg6 54.hxg6 'it>IB 55.'it>g5 'it>g8 56.'it>h6 'it>f8! (56 . . . .ic2 57.b4 axb3 5 8.g7 is like the game: if 58 . . . b2 59.hb2 mf7 60.a4) 57.'it>h7 (57 . .if6 'it>g8 58 . .ig7 shifts the bishop but to no avail: 58 . . . .ic2 59.b4 axb3 60 . .ib2 hg6=) 57 . . . .ic2 (a typical device for preventing pawns advancing in opposite-bishop endings) , and White can't progress. Now b4 is useless since the king heads for a8 and the bishop controls the g-pawn, so there follows, for example, 58 . .ic5t 'it>e8 59.'it>g7 (59.'it>h6 .ib3 60.g7 .ig8 6 1 .'it>g6 md7 gives Black a blockade) 59 . . . .te4 60.mh7 .ic2 6 1 .'it>h6 .tb3 with a draw.

Chapter 2 - Typical Berlin Endings

52... axb3 53.id4 And it's over. White wins the bishop for the a-pawn, returns and snacks on the b-pawn and wins on the kingside at his leisure. Black can't obtain any counterplay because once again the bishop multi-tasks on the single diagonal, preventing . . . b2 but also preventing any assault by . . . f6 on the white kingside pawns.

41

on one wing, since these are fixed on the colour of the opponent's bishop, the defending king is far away and the bishop can't help them. We join the game as White has been struggling for some moves to show that his rook really is more effective than the mighty bishop on e4, which is both athletic and stable.

49 b4 •••

53 ©h7 .••

53 . . . @ffi 54.h6 @e7 loses on the kingside instead: 55.a4 @d6 56.a5 @d5 57.i.b2 i.g6 58.a6 @c6 59.@e5 @b6 60.@f6-g7 and so on.

The young Evgeny Postny (a Berlin expert by the way) must have been feeling good about this move. 50.id2 f4 5 I .ixf4 bxc3t isn't particularly clear at all.

so.gh6tn 54.i.b2 i.dl 55.h6 ©g6 56.a4 i.e2 57.i.£6

id.I 58.a5 i.e2 59.©e3 i.a6 60.©d2 1-0

Maybe the rook wasn't better than the bishop after all?

50 .ixh6 •••

Tseitlin - Postny Dov Porath Memorial, Israel 2000

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1

50 . . . @f7 5 Li.d2 f4 can now be met by the deflating 52.�h4, so Black doesn't have a lot of choice.

5 1 .gxh6 bxc3t After any other move White wins with c4, @cl -d2, and then i.c7xa5xb4, for example: 5 1 . . .id3 52.c4 ie4 53.@cl M3 54.@d2 i.e4 5 5 .i.c? @xh6 56.i.xa5 @g5 (56 . . .f4 57.ixb4 i.f5 5 8.a5 ic8 59.@d3 @g5 60.@d4 @f) 6 I . @c5 f3 62.ie l changes nothing) 57.ixb4 @f6 58 .a5 @e6 59.a6 @d7 60.a? c5 6 I .!xc5

52.©xc3 id5 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

My final example of White victory again shows the vital importance of establishing widely-spaced passed pawns in these endings, but also introduces a theme which more commonly works in Black's favour, where one side in a fixed pawn structure is able simply to remove this opponent's entire pawn skeleton

Nothing makes any difference: after 52 . . . c5 53.@c4 ic2 54.@xc5 ixb3 5 5 .@b5 it's the single diagonal again the bishop holds f4 and h6 and White's king wins the bishop.

53.b4 axb4t 54.©xb4 Even if the c-pawn were on c2 now it wouldn't help Black the f4 bishop holds everything.

54 ...i.g8 55.a5 ©h5 56.a6 ©g4 57.a7 1-0

The Berlin Wall

42

Frequently however Black actually has the advantage in these endings. For the reasons I discussed in chapter 1 , his bishop can be a mighty piece which defends the whole kingside from say e6, while also helping on the queenside. As we will see in the theory section very often the structure a4/b3/c4 vs. a5/b6/ c7/c5 arises, and you won't have to play very many internet blitz games with the opening before you win an opposite-bishops ending for Black which starts with the move . . . i.c2, and continues with the removal of White's entire queenside. This fate can overtake even the world's elite as White. Here Naiditsch is actually a pawn down, but still the threat of . . . i.dl gives him the advantage. In the normal way Black's pawn would be on c5 rather than d4, and if that were the case White would have no defence at all against this procedure. Here at least he can trade some of his queenside pawns rather than just losing them.

Bologan - Naiditsch European Cup, St Vincent 2005

when Postny (and presumably Bologan, since he can't have been under many illusions about the text) thinks that Black is dearly winning, although I'm not entirely sure. After the long variation 38.i.e l hb3 39.a5 c4 40.h4 c3 (40 . . .i.dl ? 4 1 .a6 si?c6 42.if2 forces 42 . . . d3 with a draw) 4 1 .h5 si?c6 42.h6 i.c2 43.i.f2 si?c5 44.a6 i.e4 45 .e6! fxe6 46.a7 c2 47.a8'1W .ba8 48.hd4t si?xd4 49.h7 c l 'IW 50.h8'1Wt e5 5 l .'1Wxa8 it seems probable that Black is winning, but accidents can occur in this sort of line.

36 axb4 37.hb4 c5 38.i.d2 .ie2 39.g4 hc4 40.si?g3 i.d3 41.si?f4 c4 42.i.b4 c3 43.h4 si?e6 44.hS si?d5 45.a5 bxa5 46.i.xaS £2 ©e6 36. @ e3 .ta.6 37. @ e4 i.h7t 38. @ e3 g6 39. @ d3 @ d5 0-1 Black is ready for . . . b5 and thereafter with any kind of care the connected pawns win.

Rook Endings It's hard to generalise about rook endings since they don't often arise without some changes in the structure, and activity of the pieces is everything. What can be said is that the characteristic ending which will be familiar to Ruy Exchange practitioners is usually a draw. A typical example is the following:

Gdanski - Grabarczyk Polish Championships, Warsaw 200 1 8

7 6

5

4 3

2

1

a

b

42.!!hS !!d7

c

d

e

f

g

h

In view of 42 ... !!e6 43.E:B E:e7 44.E:f6 Black cannot simply defend his pawns, so he decides to go active at once.

43. @ e2 White's plan to defend the b3-pawn with his king does not bring success, and generally will

44

The Berlin Wall

not do so in such positions. If White wants to try and win, and doesn't mind taking a chance on overstepping the mark and losing, then he has to risk abandoning his queenside with 43.E:xh6. After that the position is still within the bounds of the draw, but Black definitely has to play more carefully, and right away has a decision to make. I) Greediest is 43 . . . E:d2t (computers tend to favour this move) when Black has at least to play very accurately: 44.We3 (44.Wg3 E:d3t 45.Wh4 gets nowhere: 45 . . . Wd?) 44 . . . E:b2 45.E:f6 E:xb3t 46.We4 E:xh3 47.E:xf7 and now Black has a choice: a) 47 . . . wds 48.g5 wes (48 . . . E:g3 49.Wf5 E:f3t 50. Wg6 E:a3 5 1 . Wh7 E:xa4 52.g6 E:xc4 53.g? E:g4 54.g8Wft E:xg8 5 5 . Wxg8 is lost, for example 5 5 . . . a4 56. Wg7 b5 57. Wf6 b4 58. We6 Wc8 59.Wd5 b3 60.E:fl a3 6 1 .Wc4. If Black wanted to do this he shouldn't have played . . . Wd8.) 49.g6 E:c3 50.Wf5 E:f3t (50 . . . E:xc4? 5 1 .E:f6 E:cl 52.g?) 5 1 . We6 E:xf7 52.gxf7t Wf8 53. Wd7 (and not 53. Wf6?? expecting 53 . . . c6 5 5 We6 and wins but i n fact running into 53 . . . b5 0-1 ) 53 . . . b5 54.axb5 a4 5 5 . Wxc? a3 56.b6 Wxf7 57.b? a2 58.b8Wf al WI 5 9.Wb? Black has a fairly horrid defence ahead.

52.E:c6 E:fl t I think this is the only move: 52 . . . E:cl 53.g6 c3 54.g? E:fl t 5 5 .Wg6 E:gl t 56.Wf7 E:fl t 57.Wg8 E:f3 58.E:c4! E:d3 59.E:c5! Zugzwang! 59 . . . Wd6 (59 . . . E:g3 60.E:d5t We6 [60 . . . wcs 6 1 .E:h5 c2 62.E:h l ] 6 1 .E:h5 c2 62.E:c5 E:g2 63.E:xc? Wd6 64.b6) 60.Wf7 E:f3t 6 1 .We8 :B:e3t 62.Wd8 :B:g3 63.E:xc? c2 64.E:xc2 E:xg7 65.E:c6t and White wins. 53.We5 E:gl 54.wf6 E:fl t 5 5 . Wg? :B:cl Only once White has been forced to block his own pawn. 56.g6 c3 57.Wg8 c2 58.g? Wd8 59.E:c5 Threatening E:d5t-d2-h2. 59 . . . Wc8! 60.b6 c6! 6 1 .E:xc6t Wb7 And Black holds.

E:al 5 1 .g? E:gl 52.E:f8t Wb7 53.g8W E:xg8 54.E:xg8 with a position I hesitate to assess it is clear that White is not losing, and it is interesting to note that if Black plausibly heads for the well-known draw with a3/b4/c5 and is so incautious as also to play . . . c6, he is likely to lose because W::B:a4 Wc4 B: Wb6, a3, b4, c5 and c6 is zugzwang, whereas without the offending c6-pawn . . . Wc6 is a theoretical draw.

2) 43 . . . E:d3 This is easier. 44.E:f6 E:xh3 44 . . . E:xb3 45.Wg2 Wd7 should also draw. 45.E:xf7 Wd8 46.g5 We8 47.E:f3!? Or 47.g6 E:h6 48.E:f6 We? 49.E:c6 Wf8 (49 . . . Wd??? 50.g? wins) 50.Wg3 E:h l 5 1 .Wg4 E:b l 52.E:xc? E:xb3 53.Wf5 E:f3t 54.Wg5 E:c3 5 5 .Wf6 E:f3t 56.We6 E:d3 57.E:b? E:d4. 47 . . . E:h5! Much worse is the immediate 47 . . . E:h2t 48.Wg3 E:hl 49.Wg4. 48.g6 E:h2t! Certainly not 48 ... E:g5 ? 49 E:g3, nor 48 . . . E:h8? 49.We3 E:g8 50.E:g3 wf8 5 1 .We4 Wg7 52.Wd5 E:e8 53.Wc6 E:e7, when White breaks the fortress with 54.Wb7-c8-d8) 49.Wg3 E:h6 50.E:f6 We? 5 1 .E:c6 wfs 5 1 . . . Wd??? 52.g? we know already. 52.Wg4 Wg8 53.Wf5 E:h3 54.E:xc? E:xb3 5 5 . @e6 E:d3 And Black draws.

c) 47 . . . E:h l 48.g5 E:gl 49.Wf5 b5 50.cxb5 c4 5 1 .E:f6 Wd7 5 1 . ..c3 52.E:c6 :B:cl 53.b6

43 E:e7t 44. Wd2 E:d7t 45. Wc2 E:e7 46.�xh6 �e3 47.�h7 �g3 48.�xf7 �xh3 1/2-1/2

b) 47 . . . E:c3 48.g5 E:xc4t 49.Wf5 E:xa4 50.g6

•••

Chapter 2 - Typical Berlin Endings A draw was agreed as White has no realistic try to make progress, e.g. 49.g5 Ei:g3 50.Ei:g7 Wb7 5 1 .g6 Wc6 52.'3g8 (52.@d2 E:xb3 53.'3f7 '3g3 54.g7 Wd6 55.We2 @e6 56.E:xc7 @f6 57.Ei:c6t @xg7 58.Ei:xb6 Ei:a3 is also nothing) 52 . . . @d7 53.g7 @e6 54.'3e8t @f7 5 5 .Ei:c8 Wxg7 56.'3xc7t @h6. As you

can see White could have forced Black to play reasonably accurately if he had been willing to sacrifice a queenside pawn or two, but White has to be pretty favourably placed to start with before he has serious winning chances in these positions. It is a theme of them, well seen in the notes to White's 43rd, and indeed of the Berlin in general, that it takes a deal of time for Black's majority to get going even after he's won b3.

Kasparov - Kramnik Wijk aan Zee 200 1

45

to activate his king on g4, Kramnik has to go for counterplay.

30 ... aS A very plausible alternative, which goes unmentioned either by Kramnik in Informant or by Wedberg in ChessBase, is 30 .. .f6 with the idea that after 3 1 .exf6 gxf6 32.Ei:e3t (32.@f3 Ei:g8 prevents White activating his king, while after 32.Ei:a3 Black can afford to go passive for a moment with 32 . . . Ei:a8. White has no way to strengthen his position while Black plays . . . @f5 and only then breaks out with his rook looking for counterplay. Effectively this saves a tempo over an immediate 32 ... @f5 or the like.) 32 . . . Wf5 33.Ei:e7 '3d8 Black activates his own rook and draws - the king cannot keep it out because of 34.@e3 (34.E:xc7 E:d2t 35 .Wf3 '3xa2 36.E:xc6 E:b2 37.b5 is completely drawn despite White's extra pawn) 34 . . . Ei:g8 (we also saw this switching of files in Gdanski Grabarczyk) . I don't know why this move wasn't played from what I can see it holds more easily than KramJ?,ik's choice.

31.bxaS Ei:a8

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White controls the only open file and Black cannot oppose rooks because the pawn ending is lost. In addition Kasparov has managed to obtain a slightly favourable queenside pawn structure in which Black's a-pawn is artificially backward on a non-open file. If the queenside were locked then it might be possible to wait passively, but here, rather than wait for White

Again Kramnik passes over this in his notes. I'm not quite sure what was wrong with 3 1 . . .bxa5 . Of course after 32.Ei:a3 (32.'3b3 Ei:d8 33.@e3 Ei:dl activates radically and holds easily) Black doesn't play the feeble 32 . . . Ei:a8 but 32 . . . Ei:b8 and he seems to have enough activity to hold, for example 33.Ei:xa5 '3b4 34.E:c5 @d7 35.f5 Ei:b2t 36.@f3 Ei:xa2 37.e6t fxe6 38.f:xe6t @d6.

32.Ei:a3 @f5 33. �£3 '3a6! Intending to proceed with . . . c5 . White is much better after 33 . . . bxa5 34.Ei:d3 (Kramnik) .

34.cS f6?! Now this is mistimed. It was better to play 34 . . . bxc5 , when Black holds after 35 .We3 c4

46

The Berlin Wall

36.:B:a4 (36.iid4 c3 37.iixc3 iixf4 38.iid4 iif5) 36 . . . c5 (36 . . . c3? 37.iid3) 37.iif3 (37.:B:xc4 :B:xa5 38.a4;l;) 37 ... c3 38.iie3 c4 (38 . . . :B:g6? 39.iid3) 39.:B:xc4 :B:xa5 40.a4 c5 (Kramnik again) .

35.:B:e3! 3 5 .exf6 gxf6 36. iie3 bxa5 37.:B:a4 :B:a8 is rather like what Black is aiming for after 30 . . . f6, and gives White little chance of winning. The great thing for Black about the game developing into a situation like this where both sides are snatching pawns as fast as they can is that his two c-pawns both need to be snatched and thus count for as much as any of White's pawns!

35 ... :B:xaS 36.e6 :B:a8 37.e7 :B:e8 38.a4 g6! 38 . . . g5 39.:B:e4

39.:B:e6

(49 . . . iie8 50.:B:b4) 50.iixg5 :B:xa4 5 I . iih6! (Kramnik's exclam, but it seems to me that the right way to do it is 5 l .:B:b2 iie8 52.:8:£2 :B:b4 53.:B:f4 :B:b2 54.:B:g4) 5 l . .. :B:a6t 52. iih7 'and :B:g7 wins' according to Kramnik, but Black can hang on annoyingly with 52 . . . :B:a2 53.:B:g7 :B:d2 54.iih6 :B:d8 5 5 .:B:g4 i>fl 56. iig5 :B:h8. 4 5 .iig4 4 5 . iie4 :B:a5 45 . . . iih6 46.g3 46.:B:d4 :B:d7 46 . . . hxg3 47.iixg3 :B:a5 =

40 ... :B:a8! 4 1 .cxb6 White can no longer win. After 4 I .:B:xc7 bxc5 42.e81Mft iixe8 43.:B:xg7 :B:xa4 he lacks a tempo to exploit Black's loose-looking pawns: 44.iig4 (44.:B:g4 c4) 44 . . . :B:d4 Now all equal are 45 .:B:h7 c4 46. iif5 :B:d2, 4 5 . iif5 c4 46.:B:c7 iid8, and 4 5 .:B:c7 c4.

After 39.iig4? i>fl 40.iixh4 :B:xe7 4 1 .:B:xe7t iixe7 the pawn ending is not better for White at all.

41 ... cxb6 42.:B:xb6 :B:xa4 43.:B:e6 e8 44.:B:e4

39 ... @f7 40.:B:xc6?

44... :B:a3t 45.:B:e3

Possibly missing Kramnik's next. Kramnik gave lengthy variations to show that Black has good chances to hold even after the correct: 40.fS g5! White wins after 40 ... :B:xe7 4 1 .:B:xc6 bxc5 42.a5 :B:el 43.:B:xc7t iig8 44.:B:xc5 :B:al 45.iie4 :B:a2 46.iid5 :B:xg2 47.iic6, and still more so after 40 . . . bxc5? 4 1 .a5 c4 42.iie2 c3 43.iid3 g6 44.iixc3 gxf5 45.:B:e l , but Kramnik mentions that 40 . . . g6!? is also interesting. 4 1 .:B:xc6 :B:xe7 42.cxb6 cxb6 43.:B:xb6 :B:a7 44.:B:b4 iig7! Black has to cover h5 . 44 . . . :B:a5 45. iig4 iig7 46. iih5 :B:xf5 (46 . . . :B:a7 47.a5 :B:xa5 48.:B:b7t iif8 49.iig6) 47.:B:b7t iif8 48.iig6 :B:a5 49.iixf6 :B:a6t

44. iig4 :B:a2 45. iixh4 :B:xg2 gets nowhere. 45.iig4 :B:g3t 46.iifS? doesn't work: 46 . . . :B:xg2 47. iie6 :B:g3 48.:B:a4 :B:e3t

45 ... :B:xe3t 46. xe3 f5 11z_11z

White is only optically better: 46 . . . fS 47.iid4 iixe7 48.iid5 g6 49.iie5 i>fl 50.iid6 iif6 keeps him out. I would love to know why 30 .. .f6 isn't a good move. This is a notoriously dangerous idea in the Berlin, because the pawns themselves become weak and White's pieces gain stable squares on the f-fi.le, but here it has two things going for it. First, because f4/h3 and . . . h4 are in, White's g-pawn is backward and his f-pawn artificially isolated, so his pawns

Chapter 2 - Typical Berlin Endings on the kingside are j ust as weak as Black's. Second, with only rooks on the board the pawn structure doesn't grant important stable squares the way it would with minor pieces. If it were down to me I would say 30 . . .f6 was thus quite thematic in the given position, but of course one doesn't lightly contradict Kramnik. I can only suggest further study on the reader's part.

Dark-s quared Bishops & Knights The reader will be glad to hear I don't intend to go through every combination of pieces the Berlin is too diverse for that - but there are some endings which come up regularly and are worth knowing. The diagram shows one of these with bishop and knight against Black's king's bishop and knight.

47

after the obvious l .g4. Here however Black has managed to cripple White's pawns. It is possible to imagine from afar that Black might have some difficulty in this ending, but in fact it is a complete draw. The first point to note is that White cannot simply gang up on h4 and win it, since when the king gets to g4 it can be repelled by . . . lll h 6t, or more cutely Black can wait in the hope White will return the knight to f3 with a triple attack on the h-pawn, when Black has the resource . . . lll h 6 mate. It follows that White has little hope of making progress but to try the break g4. Let us say he goes:

1 .�d3 ids 2.�e4 ie7 3.tt::l g l ids 4.lll e2 ie7 5.g4 hxg3 6.tt::lxg3 Black can simply stick to his waiting tactics with:

6 ... ids White can still do nothing.

7.tt::l xf5 gxf5t s.�f3 �g6

s

7

6

5 4 3 2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This is not a good combination for Black, who has allowed the exchange of his best piece and also of both rooks (usually a bad idea) . The addition of a pair of knights to the generic bishop endgame clearly makes it harder to defend, and if Black's pawn were on h5 in the diagram he would have a difficult, perhaps insurmountable, task to defend

I

� �] •• �0 ·-m. �

�r� �f�- - - %� � �� -� · -•� �,,,,/,- �� ·-� ,2r� 'lr� _ ___ ,,,� � '·•••••'Jil�-�.cS ••

�···· l· a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This is completely dead, so the only hope is to try and organise h5, but it is unrealisable. As before, after h4 Black can either wait for c;t>g4 and go ... tlih6t at once, or wait in the hope of h5?, when . . . lll h 6t actually wins a pawn and lets Black start playing for the win.

48

The Berlin Wall

Here is a less happy example in which some inept handling of the early middlegame has seen Black obliged first to play . . . g5 in order to free his bishop after a knight appeared at h5, and worse still to play . . . hg4, hxg4. To add to his troubles his king is offside, and White wins more or less at a canter.

Karjakin - Kunte

30 ... @es If 30 . . . i.d8 then 3 1 .llif6t @c7 32.llig8 forces either the win of the h-pawn or the exchange of knights.

31 .i.cl gxf4 32.gxf4 ids 33.@e4 l:i:Je7 34.l:i:Jf6t @f8 35.£5 @g7 36.l:i:Jest @h7 37.l:i:Jd6 f6 38 ..bh6 1-0

Emms - Ferguson (variation)

Calvia Olympiad 2004

8

7

- �� �

&f:w,, , m rm

British League 200 1

,, , , ,?,�rif-- - J�� �� �%!-� s m if.I.% iff!J if.f.% tZJ � 4 ���?.·�)ll � � �--- - ?.� . ����?.

�J.1%1'0 ��r0 �,J� �� wi 3 � �� 2 ��� �� �Wi -/t!r� 6

1

-' 8� ��?. % , , , , , %:%� l'; ,,, � •, , � � � � a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

26.@g2 @c6 27.@f3 @d7 28.@e4 c6 29.£4 After 29.llig7 llie7 30.llif5 llig8 White's knight is rather in the way and Black hangs on for a bit. White does better to keep Black defending against both @ and lli coming to f5 .

� � 0 � %! �""'� ' � - � � 7 � %1 � � ' -£ 1'1 �� -�£ if�'L� · · • ,z � � 3 � 0 �W 0 ' 5 -� -� ��! �� 4 -8• � iff!j--?. • 3 � 8m m-- m 8 �� 2 � • �------��?r� �/ii?� 8 �;� � �� z 8

6

1

.,,,,,l':�z �� ,, ,,, - � a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

A final example of this ending arises after White meets 9 . . . ll\e7 without h3 (chapter 4) , and Black takes advantage of that to go . . . i.g4xf3. Mark Ferguson understandably rejected this position in the game, but I am not sure that was actually necessary.

29 ...ie7 Black is alarmingly short of moves that don't concede material at once. 29 . . . @e8 allows 30.llig7t and llif5 winning the h-pawn, while 29 . . . gxf4 30.gxf4 i.h4 fails to 3 1 .llig7 llie7 32.llif5 forcing a decisive exchange of knights.

30.@f5 Now that . . . llie7t is impossible White invades.

26.@f3 26.ll\xf5 gxf5 is completely drawn, as a few moments' contemplation will show.

26 @c6 27.@e4 l:i:Jxe3 •..

As

we saw in the knight vs. king's bishop ending, this structure transformation favours White, but the alternatives were less appealing still.

Chapter 2 - Typical Berlin Endings

28.fxe3 @d7 29.fS Black now faces a critical decision, and I think his only way to hold is:

29 ... gS 29 . . . ig5 30.e6t is bad and so is 29 . . . gxf5t 30.©xf5 , when Black loses slowly and thematically, e.g. 30 ... ig5 (30 . . . ih4 3 1 .e4 @e7 32.icl h5 33.if4 c6 34.e6 is no better) 3 1 .e4 c6 32.ic3 @e7 33.ie l a6 34.h4 ie3 35.h5 ig5 36.ic3 ie3 37.e6 fxe6t 38.©g6 29 . . . @e7 30.e6 gxf5t 3 1 .©xf5 fxe6t 32.mg6 is the same story. I don't think White now has a way to break through. So far as I can see his best try is what follows.

30.@f3 h5 3 1 .icl c6 32.e4 a6 33.id2 @es I think this is the only move. Black has to be ready to meet f6 immediately with . . . ic7, so moves like 29 . . . ie7? 30.f6 are out of the question, and also bad is 33 . . . mc7 34.f6 md7 35 .hg5 me6 36.if4 ic7 37.@g3 he5 38.he5 mxe5 39.mh4 ©xe4 40.@xh5 @f5 4 I .h4 with a winning pawn ending.

49

36.eS @g7 37.@e4 @g6 And White can't get any further.

Opposite-coloured Bishops & Knights The same structure as the diagram on page 47 (with the f-pawn still on f7, of course), may arise with Black having a light- rather than a dark-squared bishop. In that event Black can sometimes be in danger of simply losing the h-pawn, which obviously he can defend only once, while White can attack it twice. However, in the present position White's knight is on e4 not f3, and the bishop is far away, and Sergei Erenburg demonstrates how to obtain counterplay.

Hunt - Erenburg Amsterdam 2006

34.e6 Black is ready to carry on with . . . @d7-e8, and White has no way to strengthen his position, so he has to try some breakthrough. The other one, 34.f6, is clearly ineffective after 34 . . . ic7. For example, 35.e6 fxe6 36.hg5 ie5 or 35 .hg5 he5 . White can try 34.h4 g4t 35.@g3 ©d7 36.ig5 ic7 (36 . . . hg5 loses) if he likes, but he can't make any progress after that.

34 fxe6 35.fxe6 @flu .•.

This is the point. Black can bring his king to g6 and prevent White being in time for ©f5 .

35.lll g5 ll'lg7 36.@e3 White has to attend to the threat of . .. if5-c2, but he might very well have tried 36.ltJxe6t, when it is important that Black replies 36 . . . ttJxe6, when the position is simply a draw. For example 37.©e3 ltJg7 38.ic3 ttJf5t

50

The Berlin Wall

39.@d3 @d7 40.J.e l @e6 4 Lif1 ©d7 42.@e4 @e6, when White should call it a day rather than venture 43.@f3 lll d 4t 44.@g4 lll x b3, when he is already worse. 36 . . . fXe6 is far more tenuous and worth having a look at, since the same position could arise from an earlier lll xe6 when . . . fXe6 is forced in reply. 37.@f3 lll f5 38.@g4 @e7 (Black is not in a position yet to enter a race: 38 . . . lll d4 39.@xh4 ltJxb3 40.Wg5 lll d 2 4 1 .@xg6 lll xc4 42.h4 @e7 43.h5 and White wins) 39.J.c3 and now Black has a critical decision: a) 39 . . . @e8 Black wrongly believes he has to defend d8: 40.J.el lll d4 and now White has two tries both of which are quite promising:

a l ) 4 1 .@xh4 lll x b3 42.@g5 42.J.c3? is ineffective because the pawn endgame is losing: 42 . . . ltJ d4 43.J.xd4 (43.@g4 lll c2 is also no good) 43 . . . cxd4 44.@g3 b5! 42.@g3 tries to play against the knight, but the fortunate positioning of king and bishop enables Black j ust to save himself with 42 . . . b5 43.axb5 cxb5 44.cxb5 a4 45.b6 @d7 46.f5 gxf5 47.h4 lll d4 48.h5 a3, when both sides queen (49.@£2 lll b 5!) and in the resulting position Black's king is too exposed to give him any chances. 42 . . . @f7 43.h4 lll d4 44.J.d2 ltJc2 45 .i.cl ltJb4 46.g4 lll d3 47 . .ie3 lll e l 4 7. . . lll b 2 4 8 . f5 lll xc4 49.J.f4 gxf5 50.gxf5 exf5 5 l .h5 and wins. 48.J.£2 48.h5 is ineffective due to 48 . . . lll f3 t 49.@h6 gxh 5 5 0 . gxh 5 lll d4 and ... lll f5 . 48 . . . lli d3 48 . . . lll f3 t 49.@h6 lll d4 50.@h7 and the g-pawn decides, e.g. 50 . . . lli e2 5 1 .J.e3 lli d4 52.h5 gxh 5 53.g5 lll f5 54.g6t @e7 5 5 .J.f2 @f8 5 6.J.h4.

49.J.g3 White seems to win, for example: 49 . . . lll c l 50.f5 gxf5 5 1 . gxf5 lll e 2 52 . .tf4 exf5 52 . . . lll d4 53.f6 5 3 .h5 lll d4 54.h6 lll e 6t 5 5 . @xf5 lll d 4t 56.@e4 @g6 57.ie3 lll e 6 5 8.h7 @xh7 5 9.@f5 lll d 4t 60.@f6 @g8 6 1 .J.h6 @h7 62.J.f8 @g8 63.J.d6 a2) 4 1 .@g5 @f7 42.@xh4 ltJxb3 43.@g3 @e8 The point of White's dragging the king back to f7 was to take it further away from a newborn b-pawn, so that 43 . . . b5 should now fail to 44.axb5 cxb5 45.cxb5 @e7 46.b6 @d7 47.f5 ! .

43 . . . lll d4 44.@£2 lll c2 45.@e2 also allows White to drive Black back and establish a static advantage which should be enough to win, e.g. 45 . . . @e7 46.@d2 lll d4 47.J.£2 lll f5 48.@d3 @d8 49.g4 lll h 6 5 0.J.h4t @e8 5 l .@e4 @d7 52.i.g5 llif7 5 3 .J.f6 lll h 6 54.J.g7 lll g 8 5 5 .f5 and so on. 43 ... llial 44.@£2 lll c 2 45.@e2 is much the same. 44.i.c3 And the knight is again trapped, so that Black really has to try 44 . . . b5, but now the extra tempo means that White wins, thus: 45.axb5 cxb5 46.cxb5 a4 47.b6 @d7 48.f5 gxf5 49.h4 llid4 5 0.i.b2 lll c 6 5 l .h5 lll e 7 52.@f4 lll g 8 53.@g5 @c6 54.@g6 b) 39 . . . lll d4 40.@xh4 lll x b3 4 1 . @g4 illustrates Black's basic difficulty, which is that the pawn ending after 4 1 . . .lli d4 42.hd4 cxd4 43.@f3 c5 is lost: 44.@e4 @d7 45.@d3 @e7 46.h4 @f7 47.g4 @g7 48.@d2! (zugzwang: White has to get the king off its perfect square on g7) 48 . . . @h7 (or 48 . . . @f7 49.h5) 49.f5, and the pawns queen by themselves.

Chapter 2 - Typical Berlin Endings c) 3 9 . . . @ f7 40.i.e l lLi d4 4 Li.xh4? (White should prefer 4 1 . @xh4 llixb3 42. @g3 transposing to variation a2 above) 4 1 . . .tLlxb3 (not 4 1 . .. @e8 when White has time to trap the knight: 42.i.e l llixb3 43.i.c3 @f7 44.@f3 llicl 45.h4 tLla2 46.i.d2 and so on) 42.i.e 1 (it turns out that 42.i.d8 is no threat in view of 42 . . . b5 43.axb5 cxb5 44.cxb5 @e8! and Black is better) 42 . . . lLid4 43.i.d2 lli c2 White is no position to start sacrificing pawns and has to accept the draw: 44.i.c l tLl e l 45 .i.d2

36 e7 37.d3 i.f5t 38.c3 llih5 39.i.cl llig3 40.i.e3 •••

40.tLlf3 is no better: 40 . . . i.e4 4 1 .llixh4 @e6 and Black's next move is . . . lli f5 . 42.i.e3 (certainly not 42.i.d2 tLlf5 43.tLlf3?? i.xf3 44.gxf3 lLih4) 42 . . . tLl f5 43.tLlxf5 @xf5 44.g4t @e6 45.h4 i.f3 Black freezes the kingside pawns with an inevitable draw.

51

for Black's light-squared bishop occurs) is a rare balance which occurs most often from the systems with an early . . . i.e7 examined in chapter 8. Usually it is reasonably favourable for White. He has traded his worst piece and achieved the double exchange of rooks his knights defend the queenside much better than the dark-squared bishop can, and best of all he can now achieve equality of arms on the kingside light squares where Black tries to hold up his majority (normally Black's king's bishop can join this fight by threatening to exchange or drive off any knight which tries to control, say, f5, whereas White's queen's bishop virtually never can) . The diagram shows a typical such ending.

Lutz Marcelin -

Bundesliga 2004

40 ... i.e4 4 1 .llixe4 llixe4t 42.@d3 llig3 43.i.fl llJf5 The position is drawn as after 36.tLlxe6 lLixe6, although the players continued moving around for another ten moves or so in order to demonstrate something or other. Clearly the action here is all in the notes it is obvious to keep e6 clear for the king and Erenburg would never have played 36 . . . fxe6, but it is interesting to note that the ending gives White such good winning chances after that. Intuitively I would not have found this obvious.

Two Knights vs. Bisho p & Knight Two knights against bishop and knight (invariably the queen's bishop unless some indirect exchange of White's dark-fielder

20.g4 llJe7 2 1 .g3 d7 Black is a bit worse, but you feel he shouldn't lose this ending quite as easily as he does. The text is obviously a solid move, bringing the king nearer to its perfect e6 post. 2 1 . . .tLld5, aiming for counterplay against the queenside pawns, is a shot in the dark at the moment in view of 22.tLle4 lLib4 23.lLic5 i.c8 24.tLld4, when Black dare not play 24 . . . tLlxa2, and

52

The Berlin Wall

24 . . . b6 25.llicb3 c5 fails to 26.a3 cxd4 27.axb4.

22.tDel g5 The only move. Black can't allow himself to be rolled up with f4-f5 . After White's next though Black has to find counterplay against the plan of h4-h5 and g5/Wxg5 otherwise White will establish a devastating outside passed h-pawn.

23.f4 gxf4t 24.@xf4 lDg6t I suspect it was better to play 24 . . . id5 which holds White up just long enough for Black to get organised. The point is 25 h4? llig6t, while after other moves Black gets time to achieve the right defensive set-up and get counterplay against the e5-pawn. 25.llixd5 25.llid3 llig6t 26.©f5 ©e7 and Black is set up for . . . llih4t, . . . b6 and . . . We6. White cannot prevent this, e.g. 27.llie2 (27.llixd5t cxd5 is only cosmetically better for White) 27 . . . ig2 28.lli£2. (28.llief4?? llih4#) 28 . . . c5 . 25 . . . cxd5 26.llif3 We6 27.llid4t ©d7 28.b4 28.llif5 llig6t 29.We3 We6 30.llixh6 llixe5 3 1 . b3 c5 is nothing, and Black is threatening . . . c5. 28 . . . llig6t 29.Wf5 We7 30.llif3! White prevents himself being driven backwards immediately, but Black can regroup. 30 . . . llif8 3 1 .h4 llie6 32.h5 32.g5 llig7t 33.Wf4 h5 34.c3 llie6t 35.We3 c6 36.a4 llif8 and White has nothing better than a draw with 37.Wf4. 32 . . . llig7t 33.Wf4 llie6t 34.©e3 f6 35.exf6t 'it>xf6 Although White is still better Black should hold this ending. It is tempting still to undouble the pawns with 24 . . . llid5t 25.llixd5 cxd5, but the endgame

which arises is simply lost for Black: 26.h4 d4 27.h5 ixa2 28.g5 hxg5t 29.Wxg5 We7 30.h6 Wf8 3 Lllif3 c5 32.Wf6 Wg8 33.llig5 id5 34.h7t Wh8 35.llixf7t etc.

25.@e4 ic4 Black needs to do something quickly against the plan of llig2 and h4-h5 . The alternative 25 . . . id5t is now too late: 26.©f5 We7 27.llixd5t (otherwise . . . llih4t is going to drive White back) 27 . . . cxd5 28.llig2 c5 29.h4 d4 30.h5 llif8 3 1 .llif4 is very unpleasant for Black.

26 .llif3 i.xd3t Necessary. After 26 . . . b6 27.llif4 llixf4 28. Wxf4 Black loses routinely to h4-h5 , g5 and so on.

27.cxd3 @e6 28.d4 f6 29.exf6 @xf6 30.@6 After 30.d5? cxd5t 3 1 .llixd5t Wg5 32.llixc7 llif4 Black is out of danger.

30 @e6 31 .b4! •••

In the end White's plan has to involve Wg3 and h4/h5, but first he fixes Blade's pawns and gives himself an edge in any tempo play. The immediate 3 1 . Wg3 is not quite so effective, for example 3 l . . .b6 32.h4 llie7 33.b4 llig6 (33 . . . a6 34.h5 llid5 35.llixd5 cxd5 36.Wf4 Wf6 37.a4 is now winning) 34.h5 (34.llie2 llie7 35 .llif4t Wf6 36.Wf3 llic8 also gives Black chances to hold) 34 . . . llif8 35.Wf4 llih7 36.llie4 llif6 and Black defends since the pawn ending is a draw: 37.llixf6 Wxf6 38.a4 (38.a3 b5) 38 . . . a6 39.a5 b5 40.g5t hxg5t 4 1 .Wg4 c5 42.dxc5 c6 43.Wf3 Wg7 44.Wg3 Wh7 and so on.

3 1 . b6 ••

This allows White to win in another way, but after 3 l . ..a6 32. ©g3 b6 33.h4 Black is also in trouble:

Chapter 2 - Typical Berlin Endings

53

a) 3 3 . . . ll.Je? 34.h5 ll.Jd5 loses to 35 .ll.Jxd5 cxd5 36.'i!?f4 @f6 37.a4, so Black has to allow White to obtain his ideal set-up with mf4, when Black's chances of defending are slight.

that Black's king finds a good post on e7 and is ready to come quickly into the game via e6 in the event of simplification into an endgame of this kind.

b) 33 . . . ll.Jf8 is no good now since the pawn endgame is losing: 34.h5 ll.Jh7 35 .'i!?f4 @f7 (35 . . . ll.Jf6 36.g5 hxg5t 37. 'i!?xg5) 36.ll.Je4 ll.Jf6 37.ll.Jxf6 'i!?xf6 38.a4 a5 (38 . . . b5 39.a5) 39.bxa5 bxa5 40.'i!?e4 'i!?e6 4 1 .©d3 mf6 42.©c4 'i!?g5 43.'i!?c5 ©xg4 44.'i!?xc6 mf5 45.'i!?xc? 'i!?e4 46.'i!?b6 ©xd4 47.'i!?xa5 ©c5 and White wins in these so-called Bahr positions the defender always loses if the attacker's pawn is over the halfway line.

Anand - Ponomariov Linares 2003

32. 'i!?e4 'i!?f6 33. 'i!?f3 'i!?e6 34. 'i!?e4 'i!?f6 35.bS cxb5 After 35 . . . c5 36.dxc5 bxc5 White wins with either 37.'i!?d5 ll.Jf4t 38.©xc5 ll.Jxh3 39.ll.Jd5t ©e5 40.ll.Jxc? ll.Jf2 4 1 .a4 ll.Jxg4 42.a5 , or 37.ll.Jd5t 'i!?g5 38.a4 ©h4 39.ll.Jxc? ©xh3 40.ll.Jd5 .

36.ttJxbS c6 Also losing are 36 . . . 'i!?g5 37.ll.Jxc7 ll.Jf4 38 .d5 ll.Jxh3 39.d6 ll.Jf2t 40.'i!?d5 ll.Jxg4 4 1 .ll.Je8 and 36 . . . c5 37.dxc5 bxc5 38.ll.Jxa? 'i!?g5 39.ll.Jc6.

37.tlJxa7 tlJe7 38.h4 b5 39.a3 Zugzwang. Black has nothing better than falling for the following trick.

39 'i!?e6 40.tlJxc6 1-0 •••

Clearly this ending is very unpleasant to defend if White establishes control like he did in this game. However, this was a relatively favourable version in which Black started with his king on the back rank, and also the white queenside pawns were not fixed on light squares, so the bishop could find no active role. Usually an attraction of these bishop exchange lines is

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

I am starting this next example of two knights against bishop and knight a little earlier to include another positional theme.

23 c4 •.•

A controversial moment. Anand gave this a question mark, Stohl an exclamation mark. Without necessarily attempting to adjudicate (put me with Anand, who proposes instead either 23 . . . ll.Jg? or 23 . . . a5), what one can say is that . . . c4 in the Berlin is always a move which needs very careful consideration. Yes, it undoubles Blade's pawns, but it has two serious drawbacks. One, it loses control over squares on the cl-file, which is particularly serious in the Berlin since the cl-file is normally White's territory (for two reasons: he gets to it first and Black is handicapped in competing for it because he usually does not want to trade all the rooks) . Two, if the resulting ability to create a passed pawn doesn't produce decent counterplay, it often means that Black's queenside pawns

54

The Berlin Wall

become more vulnerable. In particular losing control over d4 means that Black's bishop (or indeed king) , when posted on its ideal square at e6, loses its stability as it can be molested by a white knight from d4. Indeed, as far as 23 . . . a5 goes, if you experiment with defending such an ending as the one which occurs in the game, I believe you will find that Black does better to have played . . . a5-a4xb3 than he does . . . c4xb3. The former has the advantage that (if done before an exchange of rooks) White will surely have to reply axb3, and thereafter his queenside pawns are always just that bit more vulnerable - to a knight coming to d4, for example - than in the game. It is also true that Black's pieces are far more able to cope with the passed e-pawn and simultaneously defend c7 then they are to defend a7.

24.©fl

24.b4 c3 25.�d4 .ixa2 26.tll xc3 i.e6 27.g4 tll g7 would also leave White slightly better, but Anand wants to give his c-pawn for the c4-pawn, not the a-pawn. He foresees a minor piece ending in which an outside passed pawn might be useful for Black.

Stohl gives 29.ltJb5 a6 30.tll d 6 and implies that by following with liJh4 and f5 White obtains a crushing initiative, although it is not obvious to me that this is true, for example 30 . . . b6 3 1 .tll h4 md? 32.fs gxf5 33.gxf5 Ads 34. me3 liJh5 3 5 .ltJe4 a5 . Anand prefers 29.liJe4 b6 30.tll f6 c4 (I'm not sure either what he would have in mind after 30 . . . tll e 8, neither 3 1 .tll g 8 h5 32.f5 i.d5 33.gxh5 gxh5 34.me3 a5 3 5 .h4 a4 36.tll d 2 axb3 37.axb3 md?, nor 3 1 .tll xe8 mxe8 32.me3 me? 33.me4 i.c8 34.f5 i.b7t 3 5 .me3 g5 seem to give White much.) 3 1 .tll d4 (3 1 .b4 c3) 31 . . . cxb3 32.axb3, which he gives without an evaluation. One would suppose that Black ought to be able to hold this position. Anand regards 29.ltJd2 b6 30.tll de4 tll e 8 as less effective I suppose because he thinks that White would rather get a knight to f6 or d6 before . . . tll e 8 can be played, and presumably that White should then exchange knights.

28.©g3 hxg4 29.hxg4 �d8

Anand's exclamation mark. 25.axb3 a5 gives Black better chances to defend than the text.

Anand doesn't mention this, but Stohl calls it a positional error and says that having opened the h-file Black should have been consistent with 29 . . . �h l 30.tll b 5 a6 3 1 .tll d 6 b6, and certainly one can see what he means.

25 ... c5

30.�xd8 ©xd8 3 1 .liJg5 ©e7 32.liJge4 b6

Part of the mischief of . . . c4 was that now in order to get his pawns into motion Black needs to play this move, weakening d6. Stohl suggests that 25 . . . �d8 immediately was better if Black wanted to exchange rooks, although I doubt Black can refrain forever from moving his queenside pawns.

32 . . . c4? is weak because of 33.bxc4 .hc4 34.tll d 6 i.a6 3 5 .tll d 5t me6 36.tll c ?t.

24 cxb3 25.cxb3! .••

26.g4 liJg7 27.liJc3 h5 It's very natural to remove these pawns. Both Stohl and Anand dislike 27 . . . �d8 28.�xd8 mxd8.

33.©h4 i.d7 34.liJ dSt ©£8! A strong and not entirely obvious defensive move. Black needs to leave e6 free for his knight. Stohl gives the following nice variations to show how White wins after: 34 . . . me6 3 5 .tll d f6 i.c6 35 . . . me? 36.tll xd? mxd7 37.mg5 me? (37 . . . tll e 8 38./tJf6t) 38.f5 gxf5 39.gxf5 tll e 8 (39 . . . mf8 40.tll d 6) 40.f6t mf8 (40 . . . me6

Chapter 2 - Typical Berlin Endings 4 1 .'it>f4 and etJg5t) 4 1 .e6 fxe6 42.'it>g6, and White wins the knight for his pawn. 36.tll d 6 'it>e7 37.f5 gxf5 38.gxf5 tll e 8 The fact that Black cannot escape like this with his knight is the point. 39.tll fxe8! he8 40.etJxe8 'it>xe8 And White wins the pawn ending: 4 1 . 'it>g5 b5 Black cannot keep White out of d5 : 4 1 . . . 'it>e7 42.'it>f4 'it>d7 43.'it>e4 'it>c6 44.a4 a6 45.f6 'it>d7 46.'it>d5 42.'it>f4 f6 43.e6 'it>e7 44.'it>e4 'it>d6 45 .a3 'it>c6 46.a4 a6 47.axb5t axb5 48.e7 'it>d7 49.'it>d5 c4 50.bxc4 bxc4 5 1 .'it>xc4 'it>xe7 52.'it>c5!

35.etJd6 3 5 .tll df6 i.c6 36.etJd6 now has no point because of 36 . . . etJe6.

55

4 5 .tll d7 etJb4 46.f6t 'it>h7 47.a4 tll d 5 48.etJe5 'it>g8 49.etJc4, followed by the king to the queenside, seems to be the way to do it.

36.etJc4 b5?! After this move White can always force f5 and . . . c4, when in the long run the c-pawn cannot be defended. If instead 36 . . . i.e6 37.tll c e3 and 'it>g5, f5 and so on: Black's knight is terrible, but Anand laconically gives 36 . . . etJg7 with the idea of . . . tll e 6-d4, but no evaluation. Obviously White needs a better move than 37.tll d 6, and it isn't at all easy to come up with one. For example 37.'it>g5 (37.tll ce3 etJe6 38.f5 ll'ld4 39.'it>g5 gxf5 40.gxf5 'it>g7 4 1 .etJf6 tll f3 t 42.'it>f4 i.c6, and now what?) 37 . . . tt:\e6t 38.'it>f6 tll g7 39.etJce3 etJe6 40.f5 gxf5 4 1 .gxf5 etJg7 and White still needs to come up with an idea to crack Black's fortress.

37.etJce3 etJg7 38.@gS i.c6 38 . . . lll e 6t 39. 'it>f6 ll'ld4 40.f5 (Anand) wins much like the game: 40 . . . gxfS 4 1 .gxfS c4 42.bxc4 bxc4 43.tll c3.

39.etJc7 A decisive manoeuvre White takes advantage of the rash 36 . . . b5?! to force Black's pawns further forward. a

35 etJe8

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

•••

In view of Anand's next note it is natural to wonder about 3 5 . . . tll e 6. Stohl gives 36.f5 gxf5 37.gxf5 tll d4 (37 . . . i.c6 38.tll e 3 tll d4 39.'it>g5 'it>g7 40.tll c 8 is worse) 38 'it>g7 39.tll f6 tll f3 t 40.'it>f4 i.c6 4 1 .tll c 8 tll e l 42.etJg4 with the observation that 'it is not a bowl of roses' for Black, but he does seem to be able to hold on with 42 . . . tll d 3t 43.'it>e3 (43. 'it>g5 i.f3) 43 . . .i.d7! 44.tt:\d6 etJb4 45.tt:\f6 i.c6, when White's advantage has evaporated. Instead 42.etJxa7 tll d 3t 43.'it>g5 tll x e5 44.etJxc6 tll xc6

39 aS 40.5 gxf5 41.gxfS i.d7 •••

4 1 . . .tll e 8 42.tll x e8 'it>xe8 43.'it>f6

42.etJa6 c4 43.etJcS i.c8 44.bxc4 bxc4 45.etJe4 i.d7 46.etJcS i.c8 46 . . . i.b5 47.a4

47.e6 c3 After 47 . . . fxe6 48.f6 White wins with 48 . . . tt:\f5 (48 . . . tll e 8 49.etJxc4) 49.tll xc4 e5 (49 ... @f7 50.tll x a5) 50.tll b 6 tll d 6 5 1 .tll xc8 tll xc8 52.'it>g6 ll'ld6 53.tll d 7t 'it>e8 54.ll'lxe5 a4 5 5 .a3! (zugzwang, and not the inept

The Berlin Wall

56

5 5 .f7t? @e7 56.a3 tll xf7 57.tll xf7 @e6 drawing) 55 . . . @f8 56.tll d ?t @e8 57.tll b 6.

48.e7t @e8 Hopeless also were 48 . . . @xe? 49.f6t @f8 50.fxg?t @xg7 5 1 .tll e4 i.e6 52.a3, and 48 . . . @g8 49.f6 tll e 8 50.tll e 4.

49.f6 GtJe6t 50.GtJxe6 he6 50 . . . fxe6 5 1 .tll c4 queens.

51.@f4 @d7 52.@e5 i.g4 Or 52 . . .i.xa2 53.tll f5 c2 54.tll d6 clWf 5 5 .e8Wft @c7 56.Wi'c8t.

53.@d4 i.dl 54.@xc3 i.a4 55.@d4 @e6 56.GtJd5 @5 57.@c5 @e5 58.a3 @e6 59.GtJc7t @xf6 60.e8VN he8 61.GtJxeSt @e6 62.@b5 @e5 63.@xa5 5 64.tll g7 f4 65.GtJh5 f3 66.GtJg3 @f4 67.GtJfl 1-0 Another endgame where Black could probably have held on with perfect play but went down in practice. It's plain though that this balance of forces is quite uncomfortable for Black unless either his king is active or the bishop has fixed queenside pawns to aim at.

The Two Bisho p s

bit of a kicking to various distinguished commentators, White played really horribly in both games in order to permit this, and missed several opportunities to transpose to drawn opposite-coloured bishop positions a pawn down, or simply organise his pieces so as to keep the king out. Instead, here is a rather dull but correct game, which shows how Black can use the two bishops to hold a standard type of endgame. The young German grandmaster Leonid Kritz is a virtuoso of the . . . i.e7 systems which most frequently lead to these positions.

Kotronias - Kritz Isle of Man 2007

8 - ..t. �·- � �%1' ��f�,,,,,� � .. .i 1'� 7� · 1'�L�� ,,, %� -� . %�

� % , � "" %1,�� ��/� �� -� t�ef s %i' �� %,,, , %� w,,,,,% � w,,,,,%

6

4

' - �j 8 - �W{;��j �� 8 -� lZJ 32 j �- ��� �� � �., , ,,,,Y, � 1 � m � � % "'"

a

35 £6

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

•••

Surely no section on Berlin endings could be complete without an example of the two bishops? What about Harmonist - Tarrasch and Taubenhaus - Tarrasch? Well, the truth is that Black very seldom wins because of the two bishops in the Berlin. In the two Tarrasch games Black had achieved . . . c4 and forced c3 from White, and he won by invading in one case through b3 and the other through d3. However, as Lluis Comas Fabrego pointed out in True Lies in Chess while giving a

Black could also j ust wait, but in principle opening the position like this for the bishops can't be wrong. What Black really wants is to clear the obstacles to his queen's bishop gaining the b l -h7 diagonal (notice how White has arranged his kingside pawns to prevent this) and the text is a step towards achieving this.

36.exf6 gxf6 37.i.f4 i.b7 38.gd3 gg7 39.@g3 i.c8 40.gd5 White despairs of finding any active use for his rook, and decides to trade it off. . .

Chapter 2 - Typical Berlin Endings

40... ie6 41.E1h5 if7 42.E1h8t 43.E1xgst .ixgs

E1g8

. . . but in the process Black's bishop arrives on its ideal post. In truth, the reason Black holds this endgame so easily is not at all his bishop pair - if he had a knight on c6 instead of his dB-bishop he might even have winning chances - but the perennial theme of White's weak queenside pawns, which permanently tie down one of White's pieces to their defence.

44.lLJfl ih7 45.llie4 White didn't have any other way of defending b3, but now Black takes the chance to liquidate his weakness.

45 ... fS 46.gxfS 46.llid2 fxg4 47.fxg4 ic2 is no better White is in no danger of winning this position at all. At least this way he can keep his knight active on e4 while continuing his attempts to find a set-up which will enable some progress.

46 ... .bfS 47.@f2 @d7 48.@e3 ie7 49.ie5 ids 50.@d2 @e6 5 1 .if4 ig6 52.lLJc3 White has now freed this knight and for the next dozen moves he wanders around trying to find something it can do.

52 ... ih5 53.@e2 ig6 54.lLJe4 if5 Notice how Black doesn't panic with 54 . . . .L:e4?? 55.fxe4. This would be a horrible error in principle, exchanging the piece which is tying down one of White's pieces on the queenside while simultaneously helping to hold White up on the queenside, and it would also lead directly to a lost position. We considered a similar position with the pawn on e5 in the section on dark-squared bishop endings. There Black draws with his king immovable on e6, but here White has no trouble in playing his king to g4, when Black is in zugzwang and has to allow White's king to f5, after which e5-e6 wins.

55.@d2 58.ig3 61.@e2 64.ih2 67.lLJd5

57

ig6 56.lLJg3 ih7 57.lLJfl @e6 59.@dl ig6 60.lLJe3 ig6 62.if4 @d7 63.ie5 @d7 65.@d2 ih5 66.£4

@f5 ih5 @e6 ie7

67.f5 ig5 draws at once.

67 ... idS 68.ig3 ig6 69.lLJe3 @e6 70.@e2 ie4 71 .@d2 ig6 72.@e2 ie4 73.@d2 1/2-1/2

Finally White gives up trying. A dull game, but it's worth remembering Kritz's patience.

Rooks & dark-s quared Bisho p s Palac - Hracek Turin Olympiad 2006

�-� �I s -� ��r�- � - - li� ��r�- - - if 7 �?, · 7;�?, � �if�?.�,p,; "

--- ��A ��� ����'-

5 � - if[j?. • ----

6

,,,,,

,,,,

�-- - ?. �B ���� � �� � ��-!• !d � £?, �� 1 - - - � �� 4� ?r@},-��-0 � � a

b

c

d

e

f

g

?r@},

h

Endgames with rooks and minor pieces are beginning to get too multifarious to speak about usefully or attempt to classify, but there are some which turn up reasonably often. The diagram shows a position with rook and bishop against rook and same-squared bishop which occurs quite frequently. Black should be able

The Berlin Wall

58

to hold this without too much difficulty. He could of course play . . . E:d7 and transpose into the bishop ending, but as we saw in Howell - Parker, this isn't easy to defend. It is much better just to sit tight as Hracek does in this game.

b3 or so, and then strike with . . . g5 (as perhaps his last move was meant to remind White) . If White tries h4 at any point to prevent this, then Black can comfortably offer the rook exchange with . . . E:d7.

31 gh7 32.@g2 ie7 33.gdl ids 34.gd3 ie7 •••

19.@fl h5 20.g3 ie7 21 .@e3 g6 22.@e4 E:h7 23.gdl a6 Black has now established the basic set-up, and doesn't propose to do anything other than . . . .ie7-d8-e7 unless White challenges him in some way.

24.id2 if8 25.ie3 b6 26.c4 c5

8 7

� � ·�,, � .: .,(� �� �� �� .J�.��� �

��

£

-l t�·�j� 5 ! t� -� · 4 �� �� �� �7:�8%� �m.· � �r� 3 � • � � -- %tf!j 8 6

2 1

,,.�� �-- - %� . : 8� " '� � � � �� � � :� a

b

c

d

e

f

g

%

h

It would be a mistake to allow c5, when White would get additional possibilities to open the queenside. Black can cope with a war on a narrow front he would be much more stretched if he had to defend both wings.

27.gd3 ie7 28.ga3 a5 29.gd3 id8 30.@f3 gg7 31 .g4 It looks as though White has scored a small success in provoking . . . a5, and that he may be able to take his king to a4 and perhaps threaten some kind of penetration on the queenside. Black however can watch the progress of the king with detached amusement until it gets to

112-1/2

White recognises the reality. If he takes on h5 then Black recaptures with the rook and has a completely airtight blockade. Any move like E:g3 can be met with . . . @f7, and if E:d3 then . . . e8 again, so the king can keep out the rook on its own. If on the other hand he prepares for f5 then Black's option of opening the rook file at a time of his choosing is too annoying to be coped with, for example: 35.a4 .id8 36.b3 .ie7 37.f3 .id8 38 ..if2 ie7 39.©e4 hxg4 40.hxg4 E:h8 4 1 .E:f3 d7 42.f5 This same position arose in Timofeev - Ni Hua, Russia-China match 2007, except that Black's king was on e8. I think it is very slightly inaccurate for Black to allow that in the Ni Hua game White met . . . gxf5t, gxf5 . . . exf5t with @d5 and although Black held on I think he subjected himself to unnecessary hassle. At the moment 42.gd3t @e8 43.f5? is ineffective in view of 43 . . . gxf5 t 44.gxf5t exf5 45.@xf5?? gf8t, and 42.ie l ghl or 42.ig3 gh3 (and if now 43.f5?? ih4! wins in view of 44.ixh4 gxf5t etc.) also prevent White from actually getting f5 in the Timofeev - Ni Hua position. 42 . . . gxf5t 43.gxf5 exf5t 44.@xf5 44.E:xf5 e6 44 . . . E:h5t 45.e4 e6 46 . .ig3 E:h3 White can't get any further.

Chapter 2 - Typical Berlin Endings

Rook & Knight vs. Rook & Queen's Bisho p Ganguly Kritz -

World Junior, Nakhchivan 2003

59

sometimes hard to remember that e5 is no longer obstructing anything but on the contrary defining White's central advantage, but with this balance of forces it's reasonably dear that . . . f6 is frequently an achievement for Black. The other is the immediate attempt to solve Black's problems with 26 . . . h5, when I don't see that White can do better than 27.gxh5 (27.tt'le4 hxg4 28.tt'lf6 gxh3 29.tt'lxe8 iixe8 is just a draw, I think.) 27 . . . gxh5 28.tt'lxh5 (If White lets this pawn to h4 then Black obtains counterplay, e.g. 28.Wh2 h4 29.tt'le4 :B:g8 30.tt'lf6 :B:g3 3 1 .:B:d3 :B:xd3 32.cxd3 c5, while 28.h4 :B:g8 also forces the exchange of h-pawns.) 28 . . . :B:h8, but Black must surely be better off going in for this with his active rook than the game.

27.tll e4 !ie6

26.tll g3 The endgame with white rook and knight against rook and light-squared bishop occurs quite often in the . . . fie7 lines, and generally speaking is fine for Black. Here however he has fallen into an unpleasantly passive version with f6 beckoning the white knight, and goes down rather quickly, although this can mainly be attributed to his next move.

26 ... l:!g8? An incomprehensibly bad move, so much so that one wonders about the score, although no immediately obvious correction comes to mind. If White establishes his knight on f6 then Black is going to lose, so he has exactly two moves worth considering. The first is 26 .. .f6 27.exf6t Wxf6, with a position which Black should be able to hold, although White can still claim some advantage. Once the dark-squared bishop has gone it's

It looks from Black's last move as though he had intended 27 . . . h5, but it's difficult to imagine what he can have overlooked in the variation 28.tt'lf6 :B:h8 (28 . . . :B:d8 29.:B:xd8 iixd8 30.gxh5 gxh5 3 I .h4 fif5 32.c3 fig6 is also very obviously losing) 29.gxh5 !ixh3 30.:B:h2.

28.a3 a5 29.@£2 l:!h8 Black cannot even activate his rook via a8 (often a theme of this line) without dropping h6 to 29 . . . a4 30.iie3 :B:a8 3 1 .tt'lf6 :B:a5 32.tt'lg8t, while the endgame after 29 . . . :B:d8 30.:B:xd8 iixd8 is hopeless with the pawn stuck on h6, e.g. 3 1 .tt'lf6 a4 32.iie3 c5 33.tt'lg8 h5 34.f5.

30.tll f6 h5 31 .gxh5 .bh3 32.h6 I can only suppose that Kritz had overlooked this trick at some point. Now Black is completely lost.

32 ... !J.e6 33.iig3 b6 34.h7 !id5 35.iih4 @£8 36.c4 1-0

The Berlin Wall

60

A most uncharacteristic effort by Kritz who has a superb record in the Berlin endgame - this is his only loss with it and he has a performance rating of more than 1 00 points above his actual rating.

Timman - Kritz Lost Boys Open 2002

queenside and looks to his beautifully posted knight for compensation.

34... �b4 35. 'it>g3 White might have tried to set the trap . . . !%xc4?? lll xe6, but it isn't easy to find a plausible move that keeps it in the position, so Timman plays a sensible improving move.

35 ... �xc4 36.�xc4 ixc4 37.@f4 The position is also drawn after 37.f4, perhaps 37 . . . f6 is the simplest reply.

37 ... ie2 38.'it>g5

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Here we see a more balanced version. White has met Black's thematic . . . a5 with a4, but this fixes a pawn on a light square, which is bound to be significant later on. a

28.b3 b5 If Black had been concerned only to make a draw, he could have played 28 . . . !%d8 29.!%xd8 'it>xd8. With the queenside pawns fixed as they are, White has no chance to win such an endgame indeed he can hardly claim to be better at all. With the text however Kritz aims for active play on the queenside.

29.ltJd3 After 29.cxb5 cxb5 30.axb5 !%b8 Black wins back the pawn with advantage.

29 ... bxa4 30.bxa4 i5 3 1 .tll c5 !%b8 32.g4 hxg4 33.hxg4 ie6 34. 'it>g2 White would be slightly worse after 34.lll xe6 'it>xe6. He is bound to lose a pawn on the

37...if3!

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

A cute method of preventing f4. Black would not be lost after other moves, but his task would be much harder.

39.'it>f4 ie2 40.g5 ic4 41.'it>e3 id5 42.f4 ic4 43.d4 ie2 44.c3 if3 45.c2 id5 46.@d2 If Timman had been trying to set up tll b 7 without losing his a-pawn in reply he thinks better of it on observing that after 46.tll b7 �e6 47.lll xa5 'it>f5 48.tll b 7 c5 only Black can win.

46 ... ie6 47.c3 l!z-1/2

Chapter 2 - Typical Berlin Endings A much more typical version of the endgame in which Black was able to establish equal play by counterplay on the queenside before White could get control via lll f6, @e4, f4-f5 and so on.

23 a4

Nijboer - Kritz

24.ltJg5

� . � � 8 ��-� �w�� 7 � ... ��% i! i �� 7:�· � �wl:-0 ���·� �• �7:��, , % -� ·� 5 ,� , , % �� �� � � 4 � � � �� � 3 � � � � � w� �0 /, � � " A i_ff� A : � i_ ff � A 2 0 0 ��_j0 0 · % - - --� -- _ � 1 n

European Championships, Istanbul 2003 "

6

:

61

..•

23 . . . !!d8 leads nowhere much after 24.lll g5 (24.!!dl ? i.c4t 25.@el !!xdl t 26.@xdl @e6 is almost winning for Black) 24 . . . i.f5 25 .c3. Black's chances lie more on the queen's wing. White has to enable f4. After 24.a3 !!a5 he loses a pawn at least by force.

24 i.fS 25.!!cl ..•

25.c3 !!a5 26.f4 !!b5 wins a pawn, so the rook has to reconcile itself to this miserable placement.

-0

iO�, __

a

b

_

,, _ _ _

c

d

� �

_

e

f

g

h

In this version Black is better. He has got in . . . h5, which is useful despite the light-squared bishop. It is important to win f5 for the bishop as well as to ensure that if things do turn against Black he can eliminate the h-pawns, and he has also just played ... a5, posing a dilemma for White whether he should follow Timman with a4 in order to prevent the rook obtaining a good square on the fifth rank or content himself with a3. Also, White has not played f4 and thus may find the e5-pawn vulnerable to a king coming to e6.

23.'it>e2 White decides to give himself the chance to challenge the d-file. He can't easily do this after 23.a4 !!d8t 24.@e3 (24.@e2 i.f5 25.c3 c5 26.!!dl !!xd l 27.@xdl i.e4 is much better for Black, a typical good version of the bishop vs. knight endgame) 24 . . . c5 25.!!el i.f5 26.!!e2 �dl .

25 c5 26.£4 c4 27.a3 c5 28.!!dl b5! •••

28 . . . i.xc2? 29.!!d6 gives White good counterplay. Instead Black continues thematically, and in passing sets a trap, which he must have seen some while ago, since otherwise White is simply better after his next move or 29.!!d6.

29.:i:!d5?? 29.c3 i.d3t 30.@e3 b4 leaves Black with the initiative, but at least it doesn't lose on the spot.

29 ... c3!! 30.bxc3 30.!!xc5 b4 3 I .:i:!c4 (3 I .!!b5 b3 and queens) 3 1 .. .!!b8 32.bxc3 b3 33.cxb3 axb3 34.lll f3 b2 3 5 .lll d2 b l 'W 36.lll xb l !!xb l is not over, but Black should win this ending.

30 ... b4 31 .cxb4 cxb4 32.!!c5

32.axb4 a3 33.:i:!dl a2 34.!!al i.xc2 35.@e3 i.b I looks decisive to the human eye, but the computer wants to be shown after 36.@d4. It certainly isn't easy and this was by some way White's best chance, but I think Black is winning. I can't resist offering the following line: 36 . . . !!d8t 37.@c5 !!d2 38.g3 l:!g2 39.b5 !!xg3 40.b6 @d7 4 1 .lll xf7 !!xh3 42.e6t @e7 43 .b7 !!b3 44.lll d6 !!xb7 45.lll xb7 h4 46.lll d6

The Berlin Wall

62

h3 47.lDe4 .he4 48Jha2 @xe6 49.gh2, when 49 . . . !g2 completes an extremely poor day out for White's unfortunate rook.

32 bxa3 33.gc7t !d7 34.gc3 l:k8 35.i>d2 •••

Probably White was lost after 35.gxa3 gxc2t 36.@fl !b5t 37.'kt>gl .ic6 38.lDf3 i.xf3 39.gxf3 h4, but he generously allows the pretty finish in the game instead of battling on there.

35 gxc3 36.'kt>xc3 h4 37.ltJS !c6 38.ltJxh4 !e4 39.g4 g5 40.fxg5 'kt>e6 4I .ltJf5 hf5 42.gxf5t @xf5 43.h4 'kt>g6 0-1 •••

This endgame is usually fine for Black, and his active ideas are well shown in this game, although you won't often be so lucky as to come across a move like . . . c3!!.

Rook and Knight vs. Rook & King's Bisho p

Rook and knight against rook and king's bishop is rare, but here is one interesting example. Again it turns out that the knight is better than the bishop, and also that . . . lDxe3 fxe3 was not such an achievement for Black.

18 gf5 •••

The ending after 1 8 . . . gd8 1 9.gxd8t @xd8 20.llJf4 @d7 2 1 .lDg6 gxf3t 22.gxf3 is extremely favourable, probably winning, for White.

19.gxf5 exf5 20.@a 'kt>e7 2 1 .e4 g6 Black strives to keep what control he can over the light squares. Both 2 1 . . .fxe4t 22.@xe4 gfg 23.lDf4 and 2 1 .. .gf8 22.lDf4 are even worse.

22.exf5 gxf5 23.ltJf4 ggs 24.g4 fxg4t 25.hxg4 gg5 26.ghl @f7 27.gh5 Volokitin points out that White can't quite win on the spot with 27.e6t @g7 28.e7 @f7 29.lDe6 because of 29 . . . ge5, but 27.e6t @g7 28.llJh5t @f8 29.liJf6 @g7 30.llJe4 ge5 3 1 .gd l .ie7 32.gd7 gxe6 33.gxc7 was a very reasonable alternative.

27 !e7 •••

Volokitin - Karjakin Cuernavaca 2006

27 . . . gxh5 28.gxh5 .id4 29.lDd3 is hopeless: White's king comes to f5 .

28.ltJh3 gg6 29.ltJf4 gg5 30.ltJg2 gg6 3 1 .ltJh4 ge6 32.'kt>f4 c5 33.i>f5 ga6 34.ltJS !fll

n view of White's next move this looks like a concession, but in the long run I don't think Black could defend anyway.

35.g5 Excellent. White effectively decides the game with an attack on the king.

35 'kt>es •.•

35 . . . hxg5 36.gh7t @e8 37.gxc7

Chapter 2 - Typical Berlin Endings

36.e6 hxg5 37.:B:hS r:Jle7 37 . . . :B:xa2 38.ltJe5 :B:al 39.l0g6 :B:fl t 40.©g4 and e7 wins.

38.ttJe5 1-0 38 . . . ig7 39.l0g6t ©d6 40.:B:d8t ©c6 4 1 .e7. Volokitin's tactical alertness was impressive, but as usual with the knight against the king's bishop Black's underlying strategic problem was that he could not keep control of the light squares.

Double-rook Endings Double-rook endings are quite rare in the Berlin Black should normally have tried to trade off a pair of rooks. The diagram shows why: if White is allowed to get both rooks doubled on the d-file then he has two active against two passive pieces, and decent winning chances.

Anand - Topalov Leon (rapid) 2006

63

A surprising decision. It was difficult to choose between this and defending passively with 26 . . . :B:ae8 27.f4 :B:e7, which also leads to an unpleasant position, although probably a typically drawn single-rook ending. 28. WfL. h4 29.Wf3 Wf5 30.:B:d7 :B:he8 3 1 .:B:2d5 (3 1 .:B:xe7 :B:xe7 32.:B:d8 leads nowhere after 32 . . . g5 . e.g. 33.fxg5 :B:xe5 34.:B:d7 Wg6 35.:B:xc7 :B:f5t 36.We2 :B:xg5 37.Wf3 :B:f5t) 3 1 . ..We6 32.:B:d8 :B:xd8 33.:B:xd8 f6 34.exf6 gxf6 With accurate play I believe Black can hold such positions. But the best move was surely 26 . . . h4. Black defends economically with one rook and assigns the other to attack. Black is not then worse at all, for example 27.:B:d7 (or 27.f4 :B:h5 28.:B:dl :B:f5 29.:B:fl :B:g8) 27 . . . :B:ac8 28.f4 :B:h5 29.WfL. E:f5 30.We3 g5.

27.E:e3t @f6 28.:B:d7 :B:hf8 Another difficult choice. Activity with 28 . . . :B:hd8 is the alternative, but I suspect Topalov didn't care for the way the position develops after something like 29.:B:f3t We6 30.:B:dxf7 :B:d2 3 l .:B:xc7 :B:xc2 32.b3 :B:xa2 33.:B:xg7 :B:d8 34.g4 hxg4 35.hxg4 b5 36.:B:f5 :B:d3 37.:B:g6t ©e7 38.:B:xc5 :B:xb3 39.:B:c7t Wf8 40.:B:d6 :B:b i t 4 1 .Wg2 :B:el , when indeed Black is under serious pressure. But the text also leaves Black struggling.

29.:B:xc7 g5 30.@fl h4 31 .a4 @g6 32.E:ee7 :B:ad8 33. r:Jle2 a5 34.:B:c6t f6 35.E:xb6 Black is now lost and although he had various alternatives over the last few moves I don't see one which would have made a huge difference.

a

b

26 ... r:Jlxe5?!

c

d

e

f

g

h

35 ... E:d4 36.b3 c4 37.:B:ee6 cxb3 38.cxb3 @5 39.:B:e3 :B:c8 40.:B:f3t @e4 41.E:e6t @d5 42.:B:fxf6 :B:c2t 43. @fl :B:dl t 44.:B:el :B:dd2 45.r:Jlgl :B:b2 46.:B:5t r:Jld4 47.:B:xg5 :B:xfl 48.:B:g4t

Snuffing out the last hopes. This is always

The Berlin Wall

64

the rook placement to aim for against doubled rooks on the seventh.

48 'it>d.3 49.�e5 �fc2 50.�xa5 1-0 •..

Black's error at move 26 is instructive not only in itself for the effect . . . h4 has on White's majority, but in the way it illustrates a theme of the Berlin. White has a development advantage which it takes a very long time to get rid of and often persists even into the ending, and almost always it is better for Black to slow White down and blockade rather than open the position.

but is quite hard to crack. The basic idea is 20 . . . g5 (20 . . . ©f7 2 1 .�fl 'it>g6 22.�f2 �fd8 23.g4 gsd4 24.gcfl and 20 . . . 'it>e7 2 1 .gfl gfd8 22.gf2 gxf2 23.'it>xf2 gd2t 24.@£3 both leave positions which I would have thought White ought to be able to defend perhaps this last line is Black's best try.) 2 1 .ged l ge2 22.ge l gxel t 23.gxel gxf4 24.g4, when White is not worse at all.

20 ... h5

Balogh Kritz -

Budapest 2004

21.'it>h2?! 2 1 .g3 now loses to 2 1 . . .g5 22.gb4 gxf4 23.gxb? fxg3 24.gxc7 gffi.

a

c

e

f

g

h

In the interests of balance, here is the equivalent position-type where White has gone wrong and Black dominates the d-file. Here White is in much worse trouble than Topalov was, essentially because once White starts having to defend he has weak pawns everywhere.

19.�acl

m'8

20.�e4

The alternative was 20.g3, which looks horrible, cutting off White's own king,

But a serious alternative was to begin White's counterplay a move earlier with 2 1 .gb4 b5 22.a4 a5 23.ge4, when Black has a number of good possibilities, but nothing decisive (White is about to reduce the number of pawns sharply with b4) . White's idea in taking his king to h2 was to meet 2 1 . ..g5 (now that g4 has been taken away from his rook) with 22.fxg5 gffi 23. ©g3, but it costs time. The immediate 2 l .gc4 was also logical. Balogh was presumably afraid of 2 1 . ..g5 22.fxg5 g£n 23.g4, but it isn't clear that this is decisive.

21. .. h4 22.'it>gl @fl 23.�c4 'it>g6 24.gel

Chapter 2 - Typical Berlin Endings

gfd8 25.ge3 This has been the idea of White's last few moves, to activate his rooks, but meanwhile Kritz has gained time to bring his king into a dominating position and is now able to trans­ pose into a very favourable single-rook ending.

25 ... gsd4 26.gxd4 gxd4 27.ga gd1 t A difficult choice. The alternative was 27 . . . ©f5 28.g4t hxg3 29.:gxg3 :gdl t 30.iif2 ©xf4 3 1 .:gxg7 :gd2t 32.©el gxc2 33.b4 gxa2 34.:gxc7 b6 35.:gxc6 iixe5. It's very difficult to say whether this position gives better chances than the game continuation.

28.iih2 gd2 29.gb3 b6 30.gc3 c5 3 1 .a3 iif5 32.b4 iixf4 33.bxc5 b5 34.gf3t iixe5 35.m'7 gxc2?! If Marin is right that the ending this produces is a theoretical draw then Black should have preferred 35 . . . c6 36.:gxa7 (worse is 36.:gc7 :gxc2 37.gxc6 a5 38 .ga6 a4 39.c6 iid6) 36 . . . :gxc2 37.:gxg7 :gxc5 38.:gh7 :gc4, when he must objectively be winning, although there is still a lot of play.

36.gxc7 g5 37.gxa7 gxc5 38.a4 bxa4 39.gxa4 @f5 40.ga2? This endgame is one of those on the border between theory and practice. It was extensively investigated by Marin and Stoica in ChessBase Magazine, and their conclusion was that White's only way to hold is to play the counterintuitive 40.g4t. I won't reproduce their analyses, but the basic point is that to make progress Black has to allow an exchange of g-pawn for h-pawn, and White then has counterplay with the g-pawn which is enough to draw.

4o gc3 41 .m'lt iie4 42.grs gcs 43.ggs gf5?! ..•

According to the doctrine of the above duo 43 . . . iif4 was best, to prevent g4.

65

44.g3? . . . while this was the last chance for 44.g4.

44 iia 4s.gxh4 ..•

Once the king is so close 45.g4 ga5 is too late Black can ignore the h-pawn and is quicker with the e-pawn than White's g-pawn.

45 ...gxh4 46.gas e5 47.ga3t iif4 48,gal e4 49.gfl t iie5 so.gel gf'lt 5 1 .iigI ga 52.iig2 iif4 53.gal gg3t 54.iih2 e3 55.ga4t @a 56.gxh4 e2 0-1 The ending where Black gets in on d2 and nails White's king to the back rank is quite common, and as this game shows Black has at least very good chances in it.

Rooks & Bisho p s of o pp osite Colours Rook and opposite-coloured bishops is probably the most favourable endgame Black can hope for in the Berlin. In the first example we see this balance of forces enabling Black to hold an ending two pawns down.

Stellwagen Cox -

Amsterdam 2006

66

The Berlin Wall

22.l:''k l ? This example i s interesting i n that even so strong a player as Daniel Stellwagen over­ estimates his chances in the ending considerably. Instead of this Stellwagen had to play 22.ll:\d6 hdl 23.ll:\xf7 with complications which favour White Black's best is to insist on keeping the light-squared bishop with 23 . . . id2 (the point is that 23 . . . :gfB 24.:gxdl :gxf7 25.:gdst wins White's rook back) 24.hd2 :gfg 25.lll d 6, but he will have his work cut out to survive. Exchange sacrifices are quite common in the Berlin, and when White is able to destroy Black's structure, as here, and open play before Black is ready for it, they are frequently very effective.

After 45 . . . ®c6 there is little left to play for, indeed Black's h-pawn could even provide him with chances if White were to get careless. This next example looks completely drawn, but Black's activity, and the fragility of White's light-squared pawn chain on the kingside, allows Black to play for a win even here.

Ramesh - Harikrishna Indian Championships, Calcutta 2003

22 ... cx:bS 23.axb4 :gc8 24.icS b6 Of course it is worth this pawn in order to be able to co-ordinate and trade a pair of rooks to reduce the danger to Black's king.

25.hb6 !!xcl 26.:gxcl @b7 27.:gc3 ie6 28.id4 :gc8 29.icS :gd8 30.id6 :gc8 3 1 .icS :gd8 32.:ga3 White has a Herculean task to win this endgame. Whatever he tries leads to positions of a similar character to the game, for example 32.ie3 :gc8 33.:gd3 :gc2 34.:gd6 :gxb2 35.Elb6t ®c7 36.:gxb5 id? 37.Elc5t ic6 38.:gc4 Elxg2t 39.@fl Elb2 40.h4 ®b7 or 32.Elc2 if5 33.:ge2 :gd l t 34.@f2 Elcl 35.@£3 :gc2 36.:ge3 Elxb2 37.:ga3 ie6. In neither case does White have any real chance to win.

32 ... :gdl t 33.@h2 :gd2 34.:ga7t @c6 35.:ga6t @c7 36.:ga7t @c6 37.:ga6t @c7 38.@g3 id5 39.@h4 :gxg2 40.:gas ie6

a

b

c

d

e

27.c4 :gd3 28.:gebl b5!

f

g

h

Black cannot just win a pawn with 28 . . . if5 29.£3 :gc3 30.Elel :gcxb3 3 1 .Elxb3 :gxb3 because 32.:ge? gives White counterplay, but with the text he retains the initiative albeit in a simplified position.

29.cx:b5t @xb5 30.hc7 hb3 3 1 .@fl c4 White ought to be able to draw this position, but the practical difficulties of defending this sort of thing are immense the task just seems eternal.

40 . . . ©c6 was also perfectly good.

41 .�bS :gxb2 42,:gas :gb3 43.bS :gxh3t 44.@gs :gc3 45.b6t 1/2-1/2

32.@e2 @b4 33.if4 :gd5 34.:gd2 !!xd2t 35.@xd2 :ga2t 36.@e3 :ga8 37.id6t @c3 38.:gal Clever, but wrong. White has repelled the

Chapter 2 - Typical Berlin Endings first wave and could now have pretty much assured himself of holding on with 38 . .ie5t ©c2 39.E:b2t d7 38.ie5 c6 is fine for Black) 35 . . . lll g? 36.lll d 5 id? 37.©f3 ic8 38.i.c3 lll e 6 (the threat of . . . lll d4 ties White's bishop down and prevents him from really applying any meaningful pressure) 39.f5 (if 39.'it>e4 still 39 . . . lll d4) 39 . . . gxf5 40.gxf5 lll d4t 4 1 .i.xd4 cxd4 42.'it>e4 d3 43.'it>xd3 i.xf5 t . It's strange

72

The Berlin Wall

himself with a horribly weak h-pawn which hampers him enormously in the game.

29.i.cl Indeed 'this endgame could just be lost for Black' (Bologan) .

29 ... tll c6 Bologan says that Black should already be thinking of panicking with 29 . . . bS 30.axbS a4 3 1 .bxa4 J.xc4 32.tll d7 or 29 . . . c6 30.tll d2 b5 3 l .f4, although he does concede that neither of these ideas work for Black.

30.tll gS Again this idea, which in this case forces a concession on the kingside.

30 ... g5 The only move, says Bologan. Of 30 . . . hS he cryptically observes that he 'does not believe in such miracles', and offers the variation 3 1 .i.b2 hxg4 32.hxg4 ©c8 33.tll gS tll d4 (it's not obvious to me that it's necessary to hurry with this 33 . . . 'it>d7!?) 34.J.xd4 cxd4 35 .'it>f3, with the advantage for White. I'm not so sure about this. Black ought to start by taking his bishop to the c l -h6 diagonal with 35 . . . i.a3, and after a bit of investigation I haven't found a good way for White to play for a win in this ending. I am fairly sure that the primitive 36.tll xe6 fxe6 37.©e4 'it>d7 38.tll f6t 'it>e7 39.'it>d3 i.b2 40.tll e4 c5 is not enough (White can box in the bishop, but is handicapped by the fact that he cannot threaten tll c 8xb6 as his knight is then trapped, and tll f7 'it>e8 tll h 8 g5 tends to have the same effect) , but if that doesn't do it, then what does?

3 1 .tll f6 tll d4?! A terribly difficult decision. With the text Black places his hopes in the opposite­ coloured bishop endings arising a few moves further on, but it turns out that these are lost.

Meanwhile Bologan proposes instead: 3 1 . . .i.g7 32.i.b2 tll b4 33.tll e l b5 33 ... c6 34.tll e4 i.f8 35 .h4 gxh4t 36.©xh4 b5 37.tll d2 'it>b6 38.f4 is worse Black shouldn't give White the time to bring the knight back to d2 if he hopes for counterplay on the queenside light squares. 34.axbS a4 35.bxa4 J.xf6 Bologan points out 35 . . . i.xc4 36.tll d7 to justify this exchange, but it seems to me that it was desirable for Black anyway. 36.exf6 J.xc4 37.f4 'With a sharp game' and certainly this is true. Without attempting a definitive analysis, though, I offer the sample line: 37 . . . tll d3 38.fxgS hxg5 39.tll xd3 J.xd3 40.i.cl 'it>b6 4 1 .hgS ©a5 42.h4 'it>xa4 43.hS ©xb5 44.i.d2 'it>c6 45.gS 'it>d7 46.g6 'it>e6 And not the fine shot 46 . . . fxg6 47.i.gS!. 47.g7 i.h7 It seems to me that this ending is simply a draw, even without the queenside pawns. Black can even allow the king to f4 as long as he recognises that after 'it>f4 there is already a threat of g7(�) i.xg8 'it>g5 i.h7 'it>h6 i.c2 'it>g7 etc, and forestalls this with . . . i.g8.

32.tll xd4 cxd4 33.f4 gxf4t 34.�xf4 c5 35.�e4 �c6 36.lll h 5 i.cS 37.tll f4 i.e7 38.tll d5 i.f8 39.i.d2 i.e6 40.tll f6 i.g7 4I.lll h5 i.f8 42.tll g3 �d7 43.tll 5 White could have reached this position before, but repeated moves to clear move 40.

43 ... b5 This breakout attempt is doomed, but the opposite bishop endings arising after 43 . . . 'it>e8 are lost also. Bologan gives the lines: a) It is a mistake to loosen White's structure with 44.h4 i.c8 45 .hS (worse still 45.'it>f4 'it>d7 46.gS hxg5t 47.©xgS ©e6) 45 . . . i.b7t 46.©f4 ©d7 47.gS hxg5t 48.'it>xgS ©e6! (not 48 . . .i.e4 49.'it>f6 i.c2 50.h6 i.xh6 5 1 .J.xh6

Chapter 2 - Typical Berlin Endings �b3 52.tll d6 ha4 53.lll xfl winning) 49.h6 1xh6t 50.tll xh6 ie4, and Black can draw. b) 44.if4 ic8 45.lll d6t is quite the wrong idea: 45 ... i.xd6 46.exd6 ib7t 47.©f5 if3 48.ixh6 ldl 49.h4 hb3 50.h5 hc4 5 1 .id2 ib3 c)

44.lll xh 6! ixh6 45 .ixh6 ic8 46.Wf4 Less convincing - not working at all, in fact - is 46.Wd5 ©d7 47.e6t fxe6t 48.We5 ib7 49.g5 We7 50.g6 d3 5 Lh4 if3 52.ig5t ©f8 53.Wxe6 ©g7 54.©f5 ih5 5 5 .if6t Wh6 56.g7 Wh7 57.ic3 idL 46 . . . ib7 47.ig5 Not 47.h4 d3 48.We3 ic8 49.g5 if5 50.ig7 ig6 5 1 .e6 fxe6 52.ie5 ©d7 53. Wd2 Wd8. 47 . . . ig2 Or 47 . . . d3 48.Wf5 if3 49.h4 idl 50.h5 ic2 5 1 . Wf6 ©f8 52.id2 'it>gs 53.h6. 48.h4 ifl 49.©f5 id3t 50.Wf6 ic2 5 1 .h5 �f8 5 L.ixb3 52.h6 ic2 53. 'it>g7 52.id2 Wg8 53.g5 id3 54.e6 fxe6 5 5 .g6 e5 56.h6 And White wins. Black has some other ideas which it is quite instructive to work out, but he does seem to be lost.

44.axb5 a4 45.bxa4 hc4 46.hh.6 hh.6 47.llJxh6 i.b3 47 . . . ifl 48.h4 ig2t 49.©f4 c4 50.tll f5 d3 5 1 . We3 is also hopeless.

48.a5 ia4 49.b6 i.c6t 50.@f4 1-0 Like a lot of Berlin endgames, this one is harder hold if Black has pawns on the kingside stuck on dark squares. By contrast, in both the famous Tarrasch games Black had played . . . g5 . . . gxf4 gxf4, and he had a king on e6 and dominated f5 and the central light squares generally. Then Black, if anyone, has grounds rn play for a win. rn

73

Positional Themes In this chapter I want to look at various

connected. There are many ways in which an

positional themes and typical positions of the

unwary Black can allow this break let us look

opening. From the endings chapter certain

first at a very simple one.

themes will have already arisen, in particular about the exchanges both sides are seeking. Of

The e6 Break

course one can't lay down absolute rules about this: both sides should make the exchanges which improve their positions in the given

Morrison - Cox

situation. Generally however, the exchanges that Black would like to make are, in order of

British

desirability, his king's bishop for a knight, one pair of rooks, and a pair of knights. White's

League 2006

most favoured exchange is a knight for the queen's bishop.

An

exchange of dark-squared

bishops is contentious in principle perhaps it slightly favours White, but usually it gives Black's king a good square on e7 and slightly frees Black's pieces.

An exchange of both rooks

is also difficult to call probably it favours White slightly more often than Black. First, though, I want to look at White's

breakthrough ideas . fu I said in the positional introduction, White almost always wants to

a

his most fundamental way of doing this is the

13 h6?

try to open the position in the early stages, and

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

...

break e6. This releases many of his pieces at

Black has achieved a comfortable position

a stroke the bishop from b2 or f4, the rook

from the opening (White had played a rather

on el and the king's knight which can now

unchallenging Ele l early on, allowing Black

go to e5 . It also frequently embarrasses Black's

to achieve his dream exchange with . . . i.b4) .

- · ng and reminds him that his rooks are not

Black should now have played either

1 3 . . . i.e6

76

The Berlin Wall

14.llJgS gd8, leading to a type of ending in which he has nothing to fear, as we saw in the last chapter, or else, if he wants to prevent lDg5xe6, the slower 1 3 . . . b6 followed by . . . h6, . . . i.e6, . . . llJe7-c6, . . . @e7 and so on.

14.gds i.e6 Oops. After a doleful huddle Black realises that he simply has to give up a pawn and carry on, since 1 4 . . . b6 1 5 .e6 doesn't allow him to capture on e6 without losing the f5-knight, while 1 5 . . . lDe7 ( 1 5 . . . llJd6 1 6.i.xg7 gh7 is the best Black can do) 1 6.exf7t @xf7 1 7.lDeSt is a massacre.

Black's king is normally well placed on c6, but it's handy to have . . . b6 in as well, and here this is Black's downfall.

20 i.xe6 2 1 .gxe6t fxe6 22.liJeSt @d6 23.tll f7t 1-0 •••

From the ridiculous to the sublime: we've seen punters blundering away material now let's watch the two greatest players of the modern era and see how even such a defensive virtuoso as Kramnik can underestimate the e6 break.

15.gxc5 @d7

Kasparov - Kramnik

And the game goes on. Black in fact managed to draw after trading the rooks on the d-file, but it would have been easier if he'd kept hold of the front c-pawn.

Astana 200 1

Timman - Ferguson Kilkenny 1 999

16.e6! If White allowed . . . llJe6 Black's shell would be very hard to crack.

16 llJxe6 •••

The only move. 1 6 . . . i.xe6 loses at once to 1 7.llJf6t while after 16 . . . £Xe6 17.i.eS c7 falls and thereafter Black is torn apart in the centre.

20.e6!

17.tll d4?!

Chapter 3 - Positional Themes According to Kasparov much stronger was 1 7 . .ie5 gc8 ( 1 7 . . . .ic8 1 8 .tll f6t @e7 1 9 .tll h4 is also very strong for White the best Black can do seems to be 1 9 ... gxd l 20.tll f5t @d8 2 1 .gxdl t .id6 22.tll e4 f6 23.tll xf6 gfg 24.tll xd6 gxf6 2 5 .tll f5t @e8 26 ..ic3 when White wins a kingside pawn and should win.) 1 8 .tll h4 gh7 1 9.f4 .ie7 20.tll f5 with a big advantage for White.

17 ... cS This move took Kramnik 60 of his remaining 78 minutes. It seems that a miracle save was available: 1 7 . . . gh7! Prophylactic moves with this rook are actually quite common in the Berlin here the most constructive thing Black can do is defend g7 to avoid all those lines with tll f6t and hf6, and he comes here rather than g8 because after 1 7 . . . gg8 1 8.tll f5 .ic8 White wins his pawns back and remains better with 1 9 .tll xh 6!. 1 8.f4 Now 1 8 .tll f5 .ic8 is nothing. 1 8 . . . c5 Still Black cannot weaken the kingside with l 8 . . . .ie7? l 9 .tll f5 .ic8 20.tll xe7 gxdl 2 1 .gxdl @xe7 22.f5 tll f4 23.f6t. 1 9 .tll f3 1 9.tll xe6 is feeble: 1 9 . . . he6 20 ..if6 gxdl 2 1 .gxdl .id6 22 . .ih4 f6 - Stohl. 1 9 . . . .ic6 20.gb l ! Kasparov's intention, keeping Black's king nailed to the e-file. Black can defend after 20.gxd8t @xd8 2 1 .f5 he4 22.gxe4 tll g 5 . 20 . . . he4 2 1 .gxe4 g6 22.g4 gd5 23.c4 gd3 24.tll e l gd2!! Wedberg: Kasparov had given only 24 .. _gxh3 25.f5 . 25.f5 gxf5 26.gxf5 .ig7! 27 . .icl Or 27.hg7 gxg7t 28.@h l g£1 29.fxe6 gfl t and perpetual.

77

27 . . . .id4t 28.'itih l gdl 29.fxe6 f5 30.ge2 gg7 3 1 .@h2 .igl t With a draw (and certainly not 3 1 . . .ggl 32 . .ie3) .

1 8.lDfS gh7 19.i.£6 gc8 20 ..bg7?! Kasparov decides to cash in, but it was better to maintain the tension and create threats with 20.f4, e.g. 20 . . . .ic6 2 1 .tll fg3 g6 (22.f5 was a big threat and 2 1 . . . .id6 22.tll xd6t cxd6 23.f5 gxf6 24.fxe6 is very strong), and now many moves including 22.c4 and 22.f5 give White the initiative and the advantage.

20 ...i.xg7 2 1 .CDxg7t gxg7 22.ttJf6t @e7 23.CDxd7 gd8 24.CDeS gxdl 25.gxdl Black has survived and has quite good drawing chances, but Kramnik, pressed by the clock, doesn't make the most of them.

2s ... ttJf4 26.@h1 ggs 27.tDg4 gds 28.gel t @f8 29.tDxh6 gd2?! 29 ... @g7 30.tll g4 gd2 3 1 .ge4 tll e 6 32.c3 gxa2 33.f4 gb2 34.f5 tll f8 (Stohl) was the way to try and hang on.

30.ges gxf2? While here 30 . . . gxc2 3 1 .gf5 gx£1 32.tll g4 gxg2 33.gxf4 gxa2 was the last chance to put up resistance.

3 1 .grs @g7 32.lDg4 �2 33_gxf4 gxc2 34.gfZ gc3 35.@g2 b5 36.h4 c4 37.hS c:x:b3 38.axb3 gcs 39.h6t @f8 40.CDf6 gg5t 4I .@hl 1-0 This game is perhaps the most classic example of the e6 break. Others in the main theory section are Games 6 (Adams - Mitkov) and 1 8 (Adams - Almasi) . The next two fragments are slightly less classic but still examples of the theme in slightly different settings.

78

The Berlin Wall

Gomez Esteban - Sargissian

15 ... hf7 1 6.llJd6t @d7 17.llJxf'7 �g8

Spanish Team Championship 2006

White has the better structure and more active pieces, and he soon managed to win a pawn, and thereafter convert his advantage.

18.i.e3 i.d6 19.�adl �ae8 20.c4 �gf8 21 .llJgS h6 22.llJB b6 23.cS bxc5 24.hcS �xel t 25.llJxel a5 26.lt:Jd3 �5 27.id4 �f7 28.i.c3 a4 29.llJcSt @c8 30.llJxa4 ... 1-0 This sort of low-level annoyance of the centralised king is actually more typical than the sort of grandiose attack we saw in Kasparov - Kramnik. a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Sargissian has played the opening a little unsuccessfully, losing a tempo with . . . ig4-f5, and now White can use his slightly unusual set-up to advantage:

14.e6! White had another tempting continuation in 1 4.g4 id? 1 5 .f4, but the text assures him of a lasting advantage.

14 ... he6

Erenburg - Jonkman Essent 2004 (analysis)

�

8 A'%U �w -0/,U �%1-� �%1'%U & & 'fi•% 7 ,,,,,% ���� A i•z A •z ,, %iz� 'f,,,,,% ,,..-, ,,%�� ��� :ZIi 6

�� ��-0 �%'"/. ,

,

s � - �� m %�8 ----4 �@7,� � /�, _ , ,, ;� -� � � � �� � � -� 1 � .i.. - 411 � � a b c d e f g h

ll£f.lli ll£ � �

14 . . . fxe6 1 5.g4 ( 1 5 .lll xe6 he6 1 6.lll g5 @d7 1 7.�xe6 is another similar possibility) 1 5 . . .he4 1 6.�xe4 @d7 1 7.lll xe6 �e8 1 8 .lll xf8t �hxf8 1 9.�xe8 �xe8 20.i.e3 also gives White the advantage. In this open position without the e5-pawn his bishop is better than the knight, and he has the usual pawn structure advantage, although Black's temporary activity does give him reasonable chances to draw.

This position arises in Erenburg's analysis of the game. White has sacrificed a pawn on the queenside, relying upon his active pieces, and now he has to use them.

1 5.lt:Jxf'7!

22.e6

1 5 .lll xe6 fxe6 1 6.lll g 5 e5 would be less good, but this little tactic allows White to obtain the clean exchange of e-pawn for f-pawn which is often his aim with e6.

According to Erenburg this move gives White a winning position and there is no more to be said. White could if he wanted draw flashily at once with 22.lll d 5t cxd5

Chapter 3 - Positional Themes 23.gxf7t @e8 24.gxg7 gd8 25 .ltJe6. But let's just have a look and see whether White is indeed winning so easily.

22 fxe6 •••

Forced since 22 .. .f6 23.ltJg6t @e8 (23 ... @d6 24.gd3t @c5 25 .e7) 24.ltJe4 followed by gxf6 simply queens.

uncommon in the Berlin (see the notes to Kasparov - Kramnik a couple of pages back for another example), and while Black's pawns don't look quite as frightening as a nice row of four would, the extra pawn does tend to come in useful, if for no other reason than that once White has eliminated the front two there are a couple left.

23.ctJgGt @d7 24.gd3t @es 25.gxdl

Nijboer - Erenburg

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

79

European Championship, Istanbul 2003

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Presumably this was what Erenburg had in mind, winning a piece, but say Black fights on.

25 hc2 26.gel hb3 27.gfl gds 2B.m'7 �dlt 29.@fl e5 30.�xg7 a5 3 1 .�c7 gd7 •••

These look like natural moves to me, but is it clear White is winning here? I'll just give a sample continuation which was generated by me playing natural moves for White and the machine doing its thing as Black:

32.gxd7 @xd7 33.@e3 a4 34.ctJxe5t @d6 35.ltJd3 a3 36.ctJcl i.g8 37.ctJe4t @e7 38.ctJc5 b6 39.ctJ5b3 By now I'm pretty sure White isn't winning. This type of piece sacrifice for the queenside pawns resulting in mad pawn races is not

13.e6 A very typical move with the bishop on f4 and the king on e8, which Black should not usually allow.

13 he6 14.hc7 •••

White is better now, and more so than usual because of the weakness of b6, which Black's next move disastrously fails to address. Something like 14 ... i.d8 was needed, but still White's low-level initiative is annoyingly hard to contain.

14 i.b4? 15.ctJa4! i.c4 •••

I suspect Black saw too late that 1 5 ... gcs 16.i.b6 i.c4 fails to 1 7.g4 i.xfl 1 8.@xfl , when in view of 1 8 ... ltJe7 1 9.a3 Black will lose two pieces for a rook.

80

The Berlin Wall

16.tlJb6

29.e7! 'it>d7 30.�d4 'it>e6

White's initiative now wins him at least a pawn: the game continued:

16 ... hfl. 17.'it>xfl. 'it>e7 18.g4 �ac8 19.�d7t 'it>e8 20.tlJe5 �xc7 21.�xc7 tlJd6 22.tlJd3 id2 23.c4 ig5 24.c5 tlJe4 25.f3 id8 26.�xb7 And White won.

Rozentalis - Aagaard

Or 30 . . . c6 3 1 .c4.

3 1 .c4 ic6 32.�d8 1-0

Sacrificing e5 A similar idea to the e6 push is simply to leave e5 to be taken, usually by Black's knight from g6 . The result tends to be that he5 .fxe5 occurs and White is left with the two kn"ights against the bishops, and play against the king in the centre. An absolutely typical example is_ the following. · ·

Sigeman & Co., Malmo/Copenhagen 2004

z. Almasi -

Dumitrache

Odorheiu

8 :i�. - �--��-J� 1 �% · -.i.- i �Al a ·� . ... � D --� - ... .. � � . -� 5 � � . . % � �% � D 4 -• � �� -. � �D 3 � tiJ m � � �- ., � A �A"� A-- -- -� � � �.� A Wi'W � /-).J.G?.� . % + �\�/'W'�% .. .. 1 �� � - �� . �� 6

a

c

e

g

One final example - even in a simplified position e6 is always on the cards.

28.e6! 28.1'!f4 allows 28 . . . idS , with equality, but now White all but wins.

28 ... id5? 28 . . . fxe6? 29.1'!f4 id5 30.1'!f8t of course does not work. 28 ... f6 29.�f4 id5 30.e7 ic6 3 1 .gS wins the f-pawn, after which Black will have to endure extremely lengthy torture. Still this was the best chance.

1 995

.0

.

.

.

2

�

. % ."//%

...

.....

a

b

c

d

e

f

C.::dLS g

h

Here a young Zoltan Almasi has handled �he opening in a slightly 90's fashion �s White, going tt:ld4 and meeting . . . ic5 with tt:lb3, where the knight is misplaced, and now has very little with normal moves. Instead he decides to introduce complications.

1 6.tlJe4 It's particularly tempting to play this move _ since Black was beginning to thmk about

Chapter 3 - Positional Themes

81

. . . ib4. For example, this might well have been the reply to 1 6.f4. As I said, Black normally wants to exchange this bishop for a knight if he can.

24 @gs 25.c3 a6

16 l!JxeS

26.l!Jc4 id7 27.l!Jxd6 cxd6 28.Ele7 Elf7 29.l!Jb3 Elxe7 30.Elxe7 Eld8 3 1 .l!JaS

•••

1 6 . . . b6? 1 7.tll f6t (another typical stroke) 1 7 . . . gxf6 1 8 .exf6 ie6 1 9.fxe7 @xe7 20.tll d4 is clearly better for White, but a sensible alternative was 1 6 . . . ie6 l 7.tll b c5 b6 ( 1 7 . . .ixc5 1 8. lll xc5 b6 1 9 . lll xe6 fxe6 is better according to me as we saw in the last chapter Black should hold such a position easily.) 1 8 .tll xe6 fxe6 (Wedberg) although here I do believe that White is a little better.

17.ic3 f6 1 8.heS fxe5 19.l!JecS ic8 1 9 . . . b6 20.Elxe5 Elf8 (20 . . . bxc5 ? 2 1 .Elae l ) 2 1 .Elae 1 El f7 was certainly a possible alternative to this undeveloping it isn't clear how White might continue to develop his initiative here.

20.l!Jd3 Less good is 20.Elxe5 @f7 2 1 .Elae l if6, and White's initiative evaporates.

20 ElfB 2 1 .l!JxeS Elf6 22.Ele2 •••

A slightly strange move. The rook surely had more possibilities on e3. Possibly Almasi already had it in mind to bring the b3-knight to d4 and didn't want . . . ic5 to be a pin. It seems to me though that better possibilities to develop White's tiny advantage were offered by Rybka's favoured 22.Ele3 @f8 23.Elae l id6 24.h3. The difference can be seen if Black continues exactly as in the game: 24 . . . @g8 (24 . . . c5 25.tll d2) 25.tll c4 id7 26.tll xd6 cxd6 27.Ele7 Elf7 28.tll a5, and White retains pressure.

•••

A common move to prepare . . . c5 against a knight on d4. White is now forced to resolve the tension.

One tempo too late. This is exactly the resource which White needed to leave his knight on b3 a moment longer for.

3 I . c;!;if8 32.Ele3 ic8 33.f3 c5 34.l!Jc4 b5 35.l!Jd2 c;!;if7 ••

Black has now equalised, although he went on to lose. The former example was absolutely typical: usually this passive sacrifice leads to positions where with care White's initiative can be contained, but more complex versions of the sacrifice do arise. A superb example is Game 1 2 (Svidler - Topalov), and here is another:

Topalov - Ponomariov Wijk aan Zee 2003

22 @fB 23.Elael id6 24.l!Jd4 •••

This move turns out to lose a tempo in the game continuation. Maybe still 24.h3.

Black is threatening to lock the door with . . . tll e 6, so White's next move is clear.

82

The Berlin Wall m-s

17.'Df6t i.xf6 18.exf6 'De6 19.'De5 'Df4 20.Elel i.e6 21 .i.cl 'Dd5?

25 cxb4 26.i.xfG 28.c5?!

Only this move leads to the type of sacrifice of e5 I am discussing here, and Ponomariov says that it was a mistake and that he should have played 2 1 . .. ltJxh3t 22.iig2 ltJf4t 23.hf4 gxf4 24.iif3 Eld2 25.c4 h5 26.g5 Elg8 27.iixf4 Elxf2t 28.itJf3 Elxf3t 29.iixf3 13xg5, which he evaluates as unclear. Certainly it seems to me unlikely that Black should lose.

This move, while a natural line-opening attempt, doesn't quite work out: White is playing in the area where he is weakest and as often happens merely accelerating Black's counterplay. Better was either just 28.13adl t iic8 29.iig2 or Ponomariov's logical 28.13e4 with the idea of f4.

.•.

27.i.xdS iixd8

28 ... iid7 29.Elacl iic6 30.Ele5 22.'Dd3 b6 23.c4! White could have defended the pawn, of course, but after 23.ib2 c5 24.c4 (24.ie5 iid7 White has to keep the king on e8 to have any chance of the advantage) 24 . . . ltJb4 25.ltJxb4 cxb4 26.13adl Elxdl (26 . . . 13d7?? 27.13xe6t) 27.13xdl id7! the king crawls away to c8 just the same, and . . . 13e8 equalises.

23 ... ltJxf6 24.'Db4 c5! The best try, both 24 . . . ©f8 25.ltJxc6 13d3 26.ib2 iig7 27.13adl 13xdl 28.13xd l (Wedberg), and 24 . . . 13d6 25 .ib2 iie7 26.ie5 (Ponomariov) are acutely unpleasant for Black.

25.i.b2 A very difficult choice. The text wins material and is hard to resist, but Ponomariov thinks it was nastier for Black if White kept the initiative with 25.ltJc6 13d6 26.ltJxa7 13g8 27.ib2 13g6 28.ie5 13d7 29.gad l h5 30.f3. It quite often happens in the Berlin that it is better for White to keep the initiative and try to make progress against Black's disorganised pieces than to cash in for a small material advantage at the expense of allowing Black stability, especially where that stability features the Berlin bishop acquiring some massive central square from which it can both defend and attack. Another example was Stellwagen - Cox in the last chapter, page 65.

30.cxb6t ©xb6 3 1 .13e5 (3 1 .f4 gxf4 32.ge4 a5 33.13xf4 gd8 gives Black good counterplay) 3 1 . . _gds (3 1 .. .c6 and . . . i.d5 looks more natural to me) 32.13ec5 13d7 33.13c6t iib7 was another possibility which Ponomariov regards with equanimity, although Black looks horribly passive and I'm really not sure how Black intends to meet a general kingside advance with iih2-g3, f3, perhaps g l c5, h4h5, f4, etc.

30 ... b5! An instructive move. Black doesn't care about dissolving the doubled pawns what he wants, as the side with the minor piece almost always does in these exchange-down endings, is stability for his pieces, and particularly his king on c6, combined with activity. In this case, this means the plan of . . . a5-a4 supported by the bishop on e6.

31 .Eldl a5 32.gd4 Ela8 33.f4 gxf4 34.gxf4 a4 35.gxb4 35_gf6 axb3 36.axb3 ga3 37.13xh6 gxb3 38.g5 iid7 39.iif2 was all but winning for White according to Wedberg, but Black does much better with 38 . . . ©b7. It is more important to keep the king safe than to try and use it actively.

35 ... axb3 36.axb3 ga3 37 .h4 i.xb3 38.h5 i.c4 39.iifl Also nothing much for White is 39.g5 f6!

83

Chapter 3 - Positional Themes (and not 39 . . . hxgS 40.ElxgS Elal t 4 I .@h2 idS 42.Eld4 Elh i t 43.@g3) 40.gxf6 Elf3 4 1 .Elb2 Elxf6 (Ponomariov) .

39 Elal 40.Elb2 f6 41 .Ele7 •••

4 I .Elf5 Elfl t 42.@e3 ElxfS 43.gxfS @xcS is also a draw.

41. 5 42.Elh7 ••

In lesser company White might even lose now, but in fact S 8.@e3 b2 S9.Elb7 c3 60.@d4 is a well-known draw after 60 . . . @d2 Black still isn't threatening to do anything with the pawns. An instructive game not so much as an example of the eS sacrifice (for which it is rather atypical) but for the ending, which is a type that sometimes occurs and shows some typical features of such endings.

42.gxfS Elfl t 43.@g3 Elxf5 44.@g4 ElgSt 4S.@h4 Elgl is similar.

42 fxg4 43.Elxh6t @xc5 44.Elg6 Elhl 45.Elg5t

Hou Yifan - Laznicka Aerofl.ot Open, Moscow 2008

•••

4S .h6 is met by 4S . . . id3, and on no account 4S . . . Elh2t? 46.@g3 Elxb2 47.h? Elb3t 48.@xg4 ie2t 49.@h4 ifl SO.Elh6.

45 @b6? •••

4S . . . �d4 or 4S . . . idS were both possible and much better Black is no longer worse at all.

46.@g3 c6 47.Elxg4 Ponomariov claimed that 47.@xg4 could be met by 47 . . . Elgl t 48.@f4 ElxgS 49.�xgS id3 "=" ) but White is winning here, e.g. SO.Eld2 ih7 (Black has nothing better because the bishop cannot find a safe square on the diagonal on b l it loses him tempi because . . . b4 is now impossible in view of Elb2, and on e4 it is vulnerable to �f4 and also sometimes being cut off with EldS-fS.) S I .Eld? ib l S2.h6 b4 S3.@f4, and White can stop the pawns while winning the bishop at a convenient moment. It is notable how Black's problems begin the minute his bishop loses its stability. Instead 47 . . . ie6t should draw.

(

47 id3 48.Elh2 Elxh2 49.@xh2 c5 50.Elg6t @a5 5 1 .Elc6 c4 52.h6 @b4 53.@g3 @c3 54.@f4 b4 55.Elc7 b3 56.h7 ixh7 57.Elxh7 @c2 58.@e3 •••

1/2-1/2

8 7 6

5

4 3

2

'

�� � �� �- _),: :� ·� & ��·�, �� & ��� ,,,,, ,� ,,,,,,,� , , , -�-� ,,,,,,,� �� �!�&% � � £ ,, ,,,/,� --� �� . �� � (�� ��� �� ¥.�t.tz... '-' 0 ,,,, ,/,�8- -� Y,D.1 8� � � , 1 ii.fir � - :%1

�

l::

,E� · :%i

��:

,,,,,

a

15.tll d4

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Faced with a slightly unusual handling of the opening by Black, the young Chinese girl goes straight for the throat.

15 tll xe5 1 6.tll xe6 fxe6 17.id4 tll c4 •••

The placement of the a3-pawn makes it a genuine pawn sacrifice, in view of 1 8 .b3 lll xa3.

1 8.ixg7 Elh7 19.id4 e5 20.ie3 tll xb2 21 .Elbl ha3 22.tll e4

This was the idea. 22.icl ll:\c4 23.Elxb? ll:\d6 24.Elb l ixcI 2S.Elbxcl aS is perfectly acceptable for Black.

84

The Berlin Wall

22 ... E:f7

33 ... al YM 34.E:xe7t 'ktid8?

After 22 . . . E:h8 23.ic5 .bc5 24.tll xc5 tll c4 25.E:xb? the lost tempo (since c7 is not covered) makes things much less agreeable for Black.

Losing obviously the players were in desperate time trouble. 34 . . . i?b7 (20 . . . E:h5 2 1 .g4!) 2 1 .l0e3 and Black has to give up his bishop since after 2 1 . . .ie6 22.f4 his position collapses - Kramnik. 2 1 . . .ie4 or 2 1 . . .E:h5 are not so tragic, but clearly Black should avoid this.

20.lll d5 @b7 2 1 .lll e3 E:h5 'Last very important move' - Kramnik. Now White has another piece covering f5 , Black needs one too, and not by 2 1 . . .tll e7 22.tlJf4 removing the important bishop.

22.ic3 'Essentially a waiting move, but already it's not clear how White will improve his position, while Black still has several useful moves' (Bareev) . Of course if 22.f4 l0e7.

22 E:e8 23.E:d2 mc8 24.£4 •..

Without this Black's next move was probably . . . E:d8, but it offers nothing: it just isn't possible to get White's majority going.

24 lll e7 25.lll f2 lll f5 •••

1/2-1/2

Kramnik's timing in this game was absolutely superb, and playing through it one cannot but sense Kasparov's frustration. Bareev offers the following variations:

97

25 . . . lll fS 26.tlJxf5 i.xf5 27.tlJg4 E:d8 Or 27 . . .ie7 28.tlJe3 ie6 (28 . . .ie4 29.E:fdl g6 30. 'itif2 by implication he considers less sound) 29.E:d3 (29.f5?? ig5) 29 . . . g6 30.tlJdS id8. 28.E:xd8t 'tf?xd8 29.tll e3 ie4 It is interesting that he doesn't mention 29 . . . g6 30.tlJxfS gxf5. To me it seems that White has virtually no chance of winning the ending which then arises. 30.f5 c6 3 1 .E:f4 id3 32.f6 32.'>i?f2 ie7 32 . . . g6 33.E:f2 ie4 34.E:d2t 'tf?e8 3 5 .tlJg4 if5 36.e6 i.xe6 37.tlJeS ih6 38.E:e2 And he considers the position in either case still equal, although with some play remaining. In the next example Black has a slightly different set-up, without . . . tlJg6. This means that White can establish a knight on f4, which in turn means that Black's bishop cannot achieve stability on e6, and thus Black cannot achieve the perfect blockade seen in the last example. However, the blockade he does manage to achieve turns out to be perfectly adequate.

Morozevich - Ivanchuk Morelia/Linares 2007

98

The Berlin Wall

I6.lDf4 ic6 17.lDdS

19.E:d2

Black's reaction to 1 7 .e6 is instructive: 1 7 . . . i.xf3 (securing the knight on f5) 1 8.gxf3 J.d6. Very often Black's best reaction to e6 is not an immediate . . . fxe6, and here knocking the pawn's prop away turns out to be good enough. Having the knight on f5 instead of g6 does turn out to have the benefit that the pawn on g7 is defended. The best White can now do is 1 9.E:d5 tll d4 20.i.xd4 i.xf4 2 1 .E:f5 (2 1 .i.xg7 fxe6) 2 1 ...cxd4 22.E:xf4 fxe6 23.E:xd4, with a drawn ending.

1 9 .tll xe7 is met by 1 9 . . . E:xdl ( 1 9 . . . tll xe7 20.tll g5 now would be quite annoying) 20.E:xdl J.xf3 (this was impossible before the trade of rooks because f5 was hanging, but now . . . i.xdl would win a whole rook it is effective) 2 1 .E:d7 (2 1 .gxf3 tll xe7 is at least equal for Black) 2 1 . . .tll xe7 22.E:xe7 J.dl 23.E:xf7 i.xb3 24.E:xg7 i.xc4 25.f4 E:f8 with a very sharp position where I don't think Black is worse.

17 e3 gg3t 39.r;t>d2 lbxh3 Or four, indeed.

40.gxf'lt 'it>g6 41.gxc7 lbf2 0-1 One more example.

Kasimdzhanov - Topalov World Championship, San Luis 2005

� � s ��� �- �� -JI 7 z,,,,,% �� • r.� ·· ,%� �� �� 6 �� � � �� %1'0%� B� 5 �%� -%��---ftj � � '0 �%'"//, ��-0 �� � 3 /�% m� �lt:JB� 8 2 z,,,, �8-- ,,,,,%�8 �� . :'?"� : .-j ·"1 Wh/ � ,

.

% ""

-----

4

%

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

13 h5! 14.gfel h4 15.ltJd4 a6

h

•••

Later 1 5 . . . :gh5 was played, and this is perhaps better. See Game 1 5 (Stellwagen Khenkin) . Presumably the idea of . . . a6 is to play . . . c5 without being troubled by lLib5, but in the game Black doesn't manage to realise this idea.

16.f4 gh5 17.lbe4 id7 18.c4 a5 Topalov could have played l 8 . . . c5 instead. Then 1 9.lLie2 b6 20.lLi2c3 i.e6 2 1 .lLid5 i.d8 gives Black a normal enough looking position, although he is suffering from an issue which often arises when he has combined . . . r;t>e8 with this sort of . . . c5 position, which is that it is hard to defend c7 and hence to activate the a8-rook. It is still very hard to do anything for White, but of course this sort of passivity is not Topalov's style.

19.c5 a4 20.gcl A strong move: the rook would be very well placed on c4, perhaps threatening even just lLic3 winning the a-pawn. This sort of position is atypical, but the game is worth following for its ending.

109

Chapter 3 - Positional Themes

20 f5 •••

This move is probably necessary. Black is in danger of his position remaining cut in two.

2 1 .exf6 If the knight moved Black would play ... lLif8e6 and not be worse.

21 hf6 •••

Of course. Black is usually happy to unload this piece, and here it has even fewer prospects than usual, having no stability because of the c5-pawn.

22.f5 l:iJe7 23.l:iJxf6t gxf6 24.i.£4 'iflf7 25.i.xc7 l:iJxf5 26.gc4 1:£Jxd4 27.gxd4 i.e6 28.i.d6 gas Black is worse, but Topalov saves himself in sublime fashion by sacrificing an exchange, which is typical not only for him but also for this type of ending the unopposed bishop on d5 can be a real monster.

29.gde4 i.dS 30.ge7t 'iflg6 3 1 .gxb7 gb5 32.gb6? This is a key mistake according to Gershon and Nor in San Luis 2005. They suggest 32.:B:xb5 cxb5 when White has 'decent winning chances' as long as he avoids trading the second pair of rooks.

39 f5 4o.gds i.xg2t 41 .'iflgl i.ds 42.g8xd5 •••

White is just in time to save himself with this move, which really amounts to a capture of material rather than a counter-sacrifice.

42 cxdS 43.gcl gxb2 44.c6 :B:b8 45.'iflg2 £4 46.'iflB 'iflg5 47.h4t •••

1/2-1/2

Finally, one example where . . . h4 doesn't work. The diagram arose from the . . . j.e? variations, and in this more open position Black needs to attend to development.

Erenburg - Jonkman Essent 2004

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

32 :Ei:gS 33.ge2 gb3 34.'iflh2? •••

White should have traded the b3-rook while he could. Of course with only one pair of rooks an exchange sacrifice is not dangerous.

34 ge3 35.gd2 geg3! 36.i.xg3 hxg3t 37.'iflhl g5 3s.gd1 gf'2 39.gbs! •••

After 39.:Ei:gl f5-f4-f3 White would be in serious danger of losing, although perhaps he could still save himself by arranging :B:xd5 as in the game.

a

13 h4?

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

•••

1 3 . . . Ei:d8 1 4.lLif4 h4 1 5 .:B:fd l j.e6 was better with a reasonable game (Erenburg) with the f-file momentarily blocked . . . h4 is okay. Jonkman is underestimating White's tactical potential.

14.g4 hxg3 15.fxg3 i.e6 Trying to win h3 with l 5 . . . f6 loses to 1 6.lLif4.

1 10

The Berlin Wall

16J'!f2! Black simply can't hold the f-file.

he can maintain the rest without dropping his e-pawn.

Striking back with . . . h5 after g4

16 J!ad8 •.

The alternative 1 6 . . . E:hd8 1 7.g4 llie3 1 8.llif4 E:dl t 1 9.E:xdl llixdl 20.E:f3 ha2 2 1 .b3 Ab l 22.e6 would have led to the position we looked at on page 78 and was also winning for White according to Erenburg.

17.g4 tll e3 1 7 . . . llid4 1 8.llif4 Ac4 1 9.e6 llixe6 20.E:e l was just as bad: Black collapses around f7 and e6, with the toxic possibility of llig6t thrown into the mix.

If it isn't possible to ensure that g4 is prevented by mechanical means, then another way of ensuring it is restrained is to see to it that the immediate counterplay down the opened h-file, or from the opened h4-square in one way or another, or exploiting the loose g4pawn tactically, is such that White has to refrain. Here is a simple example.

18.tll f4 E:hg8 19.tll fxe6 fxe6 20.E:flt? An instructive moment. Even grandmasters sometimes rush in incapably. The calm 20.E:e l , driving the knight offside first, was much better and would have forced resignation in a move or two.

20 ... @es 2 1 .E:xc7 E:d7 22.E:c8t E:d8 23.E:xdSt @xd8 24.tll xe6t? It was still better to play 24.E:el even though it now leaves the c-pawn en prise after 24 . . . llixc2 25.E:fl E:e8 26.E:fl E:e7 White has the happy resource 27.E:xg7.

24 ... @e7 25.tll d4 E:d8 25 . . . E:h8? was played in the game and lost feebly after 26.E:e l presumably Jonkman had missed 26 . . . E:xh3 27.E:xe3.

26.c3 26.llifSt llixf5 27.gxfS E:d2 28.E:fl E:xc2 29.E:fL. E:cl t 30.'kt>g2 E:el 3 1 .e6 @f6 is also a draw.

26 ... c5 27.tll f3 E:dl t 28.E:xdl tll xdl The knight endgame would not be easy for White at all he must lose one queenside pawn and it is not apparent, if at all possible, how

Topalov - Vallejo Pons Benidorm (rapid) 2003

u - � �� 8 -? ��-ef"' �� -� %�,�---7 %,,,,/, �� • r'�.i.. .t. r""'" �� " ""� � "'"�� 6

� � � � � �r� �if�-�� lt) i1� 4i)5� i �� �----� � � � -� � � �:- --�� -��

4 23

�

-���r� � -9)/ilj fj��-�----}� ��

1 � a

23.E:dl

b

� c

d

�� e

f

g

h

23.g4? is bad after 23 . . . hxg4 24.hxg4 llid4 25.c3 (25.llixd4 cxd4 is just as bad) 25 . . . llixf3 26.@xf3 gh3t 27.llig3? (better is 27.@g2 i.xg4 28.llifL. E:h4 29.llixg4 E:xg4t, but obviously White didn't want this) 27 . . . Ac6t 28.@fL. Ah4 29.E:gl c4 and the eternal pin dooms White.

23 ... @es 24.tll c3

Chapter 3 - Positional Themes 24.g4? is still met by 24 . . . hxg4 25.hxg4 tLld4 26.tLlxd4 cxd4 when White's best is to keep the rook out with 27.�g3, but if anyone is better it is Black after 27 . . . c5 .

24 tll d4 25.tll ds ids •••

And the weakness of h3 forced White into

26.lLixd4 cxd4 27.!hd4 i.xh3 when Black was slightly better.

111

An excellent move. 2 1 . . .a:xdl 22.l:!xdl tLlf4 was more natural but if you follow the game you will see that in the end Black's e8-rook is more active than White's on d l . It would be much harder, if possible at all, to win the endgame which arises with only one pair of rooks.

22.a:fe1 tll f4 23.tll g5 White must lose a pawn, but at least she can exchange the bishop.

The next game is a more famous example.

23 ie7 24.tll xe6 fxe6 25.gxh5 tll xh3t 26.@fl a:xhs 27.tll g4 igs 2s.hgs a:xgs 29.f3 a:f8 30.@g2 tll f4t 31.@g3 l:!h5 •••

J. Polgar - Topalov World Championship, San Luis 2005

32 tll g6 33.a:d7 l:!h3 34.a:e3 tll h4 35.a:dd3 @c6 36.a:c3 a:hl 37.a:ed3 tll f5 38.tll e3 •••

20 hS! •••

Of course. It's difficult to understand what other move Polgar was expecting. Possibly she missed some detail, but I think it's more likely that the fact the pawn had only recently gone to h6 lulled her sense of danger and she didn't really consider this move at all.

21.tll e3 a:e8!

The knight cannot stay where it is, since the knight coming to d4 in conjunction with the invasion of the black rooks is immediately decisive, e.g. 38.�g2 a:b l 39.a:c2 (39.tLlf2 39 ... tLlh4t 40.�h3 a:gl is also crushing)

The Berlin Wall

1 12

39 . . . lll d4 40J'kc3 Elb2t 4 1 .lll f2 lll e2 winning the exchange. Remember Topalov's 2 1 . . .Ele8 and notice how important it is now that White has two passive rooks cramped for room.

38 ltJd4 41.Elcd3 •••

39.lDfl

Elh5

40.Ele3

Shirov Z. Almasi -

Rubinstein Memorial 2000

Elf4

However White plays, Black inches his way in, for example 4 1 .©g2 Elg5t 42.Wf2 Elh4 43.Elcd3 Elh l 44.Ele4 Elhgl 45.lll e3 Elb l .

41. g5 42.Ele4 Wb7 43.@g3 Elxe4 44.fxe4 Elh4 45.ltJd2 @c8 46.Ele3 @d7 47.Elel @e7 48.ltJf3 ltjxf3 49.@xf3 @f7 50.Eldl Elf4t • .

An important move which Topalov foresaw long ago. The rook comes to its perfect position on f7, and White could resign.

a

b

c

d

19 g5 20.ie3 ltJg6

e

f

g

h

.••

5 I .@e3 @g7! 52.Eld7t Elf7 53.Eldl @g6 54.EldS g4 55.ElgSt @h5 56.ElhSt @g5 57.ElgSt @h4 58.Elg6 Elf3t 59.@e2 @g3 60.Elxe6 @f4 61 .Ele8 Ele3t 62.@f2 g3t 63.@g2 @xe4 64.e6 @d3!

Notice how Almasi doesn't exchange the b4-bishop, despite the fact that this exchange usually favours Black, and of course that the bishop is presently cut off. After the coming f4 the bishop is a valuable piece.

It looked close for a moment, but this move makes everything clear.

21.lDd3 ic6 22.f4 gxf4 23.lDxf4 ic3

0-1

Black's ... g5 1hrust If Black isn't able to restrain g4 by . . . h5 or meet it strongly by that move, another option is to meet it with . . . g5 . This is usually a second choice. White will usually proceed with f4. Black will have to take that, and in the structure that arises there are dangers for the unwary, especially (strangely for the Berlin) in opposite-coloured bishop positions. First, let's have a look at a successful operation for Black.

23 . . . lll xe5 24.lll d 5 Wb7 gives White the initiative and should be avoided according to Wedberg (and by implication Almasi) , and in any case the text gives Black a nice game without problems.

24.ltJfe2 24.lll xg6 fxg6 25.Elf6 Wb7 26.Elxg6 ixe5 is similar to the game and also quite nice for Black, while 24.lll f5 , though at first sight quite strong, is met by the excellent prophylactic move 24 . . . Elh7, defending e7 in good time, and leads again to similar play after 25.lll xg6 fxg6 26.lll xh6 ixe5.

24... he5 25.Elxf7 @b7 26.Elffl It isn't obvious that this was the best move, but what is obvious is that Black is at least not worse.

Chapter 3 - Positional Themes

26 .. J�ae8 Rybka has a strong preference for 26 . . . E:ad8, and looking through the lines it's apparent that what it wants to do is exchange one pair of rooks, because it believes that Black can then stretch White more, basically because the vulnerability of b3 comes more to the fore. This particular positional problem (whether or not to exchange a pair of rooks) comes up quite often in the Berlin.

27.E:d3 E:e6 28.E:fl E:he8 29.i.d2 lll h4 30.@fl i.d6 3 1 .lll c3 i.xg3 32.E:xg3 E:d8 33.i.cl E:de8 34.i.d2 E:d8 35.i.cl E:d7 36.i.f4 E:de7 37.i.d2 E:d7 38.i.cl E:de7 39.i.d2 E:d7 40.i.cl E:de7 l/2-1h

Next, something of a horror show. Black has played the opening slightly irregularly, taking his knight to d5 and thence b6 (a square which, at the risk of sounding like Doctor T, is never a good one in the Berlin) , and its present unhappy location of d7.

1 13

This works out terribly. Generally Black would prefer to have his king tucked away on the queenside for this plan, and it would also be better if White didn't have his knight quite so handily on e4 already! It must be admitted though that Black's position is already rather difficult. The machine wants to take advantage of the fact that . . . b6 has not been played with 1 9 . . . E:a6 20.f4 E:b6 2 1 .lll d2 (2 1 .f5? hc4 is the point) 2 1 . . .lll b 8 22.f5 i.d? and, who knows, perhaps it's right. It looks pretty terrifying, but Black does have some ideas for counterplay, notably . . . h5 and . . . ll\c6-d4, even as a pawn sacrifice. 1 9 . . . h5 is also possible at once.

20.lll fl i.g7 21.lll eg3 lll f8 This move evidently doesn't work out, but while it's easy to suggest alternatives, it's harder to suggest a plan.

22.l!Jh5 E:g8 23.lll fg3 i.h8 24.lll e4 lll d7 25.E:adl E:d8 26.E:d2 b6 27.E:edl @e7 28.lll ef6 E:gffi 29.f4 lll b 8 29 . . . gxf4 30.lll xf4 lll xe5 doesn't work 3 1 .E:xd8.

Milos - Galego Sao Paulo 2005

a

a

19 ... g5

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

30.f5 !!xd2 31.E:xd2 i.d7 32.lll d 5t @d8 33.e6 fxe6 34.fxe6 i.xe6 35.tll df4t i.d7 36.lll e6t 1-0

1 14

The Berlin Wall

A grim warning. Black must be better developed to get away with this plan. Finally an example where Black seems to be doing fine, but falls victim to a couple of themes it's good to know about.

-

L'Ami S. Ernst Groningen 200 1

�,-� .���,J-��-���J 3� �� � � �� :r �� -- - --/.w- -••/, � ��r� s � � �� Cal 43 ,-2r�fllfll �fllfl7-l � ' , , 'fll ' � �� � � /, j � � � - �� 2 � 8 q I�� � 8 7

?.I

6

�: • •i%

%

:%i

can win here, but I haven't found how.

25.'it>g3 c5 26.c4 E:c8 27.i.c3 E:b8 28.f4 gxf4t 29.llJxf4 llJxf4 30.'it>xf4 h5 It's definitely too late now for 30 . . . E:d8 3 1 .l:!xd8 'it>xd8, for example 32.h4 'it>e? 33.h5 'it>f8 34 . .iel c6 35 . .ih4 'it>e8 36.g5 hxg5t 37.hg5 and so on. Instead Ernst tries to get rid of the weak h-pawn, but runs into a theme which is quite common and worth bearing in mind - the weakness of the h4-d8 diagonal. In fact I think Black is already lost.

%

-----

,_____/,=

1 � ,, , Y,� � -

,,

a

b

c

d

22 gS 23.lll hS llJg6

e

L� f g h

a

•••

Black's position is much more precarious than it looks. It is possible that this natural move was already a mistake and that it was correct to play 23 . . . c5 24.c4 l:!d8 25.l:!xd8 'it>xd8, when the threat of . . . ll'lf3t-d2 gains a crucial tempo and enables Black to hold up f4 with his knight for a time. For example, 26. 'it>fl lll f3 followed by . . . .ic6 and . . . 'it>d7-e6, when Black seems to hold.

3 1 .i.el!

b

c

Black decides to stay passive. The ending after 24 . . . l:!d8 25.E:xd8 'it>xd8 26.'it>g3 ©e7 27.f4 gxf4t 28.ll'lxf4 ll'lxf4 29.©xf4 is very dangerous (and quite common) , and if Black is going in for it there isn't a second to lose, but perhaps he can hold after 29 . . . c5 30.c4 .ic8 3 1 .h4 .ib? 32.h5 .ig2, schlepping round to the vital b l -h? diagonal. It's possible White

e

f

g

h

Unfortunately Black has t o submit t o having his rook shut totally out of the game, and goes down without being able to put up much of a fight. (Another example of this sudden .ie l -h4-f6 plan proving decisive is Nijboer Jonkman, Essent 2006.)

3 1 ... hxg4 32 .ih4t 'it>e8 33.hxg4 34 .if6 E:b8 35.E:d2 E:c8 36.'it>g5 37.'it>h6 @m 38.g5 E:e8 39.g6 40.'it>xg6 i.f7t 41.'it>g5 i.e6 42.E:h2 43.E:h8 @f7 44.@£5 c6 45.E:h2 b5 •

24.'it>g2 i!b8

d

•

E:c8 E:b8

fxg6

i.g8

Ernst doesn't want to wait and watch White demonstrate the triangulation with 45 . . . 'it>f8 46.©g6 .tf7t 47.'it>g5 .ig8 48.E:h8 @f7 49.©f5

Chapter 3 - Positional Themes

1 15

46.axb5 cxb5 47.cxb5 @£8 48.ghs gbs 49.e6 ges 50.b6 gbs 5 1 .'it>g6 1-0

According to Timman White is still slightly better, but I doubt it.

The next game is a perfect example of this ih4-theme.

1 8.ig5 now can be met simply by 1 8 . . . h6 1 9.ih4 g5 .

Timman - Gelfand

18 b6 19.b4 gds 20.ig5 gd4 21 .c3 gc4 22.ga3 'it>d7 23.bxa5 bxa5 24,gxa5 gxc3

Tilburg 1 990

Timman believes that 25 .ie3 would have maintained a slight advantage, although again I doubt it. The game ended in a draw after an interesting struggle in which Black obtained winning chances.

.•.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

17.id2?!

b

c

d

e

f

g

18.ga4

h

White's task here is to dominate the h4-d8 diagonal and prevent Black from uniting his rooks, and the way to do that was Timman's superb Informant suggestion of 1 7.ie 1 ! intending f4 and ih4, as Timman laconically says. He gives 1 7 .. .f6 ('only move') 1 8.exf6 gxf6 1 9 ,:gf4 :ggs 20.f3 ©f7 2 l .ic3 :gg6 22.a4 with a dear advantage to White, which must be right, although Black still retains very considerable defensive resources. In fact after 1 7 . . . a4 1 8.f3 (1 8.f4 axb3 1 9.axb3 :ga2 is rather annoying) 1 8 . . . axb3 1 9.axb3 :1:1g8 (the only defence apparent against ih4, c4 and :gfd l ) 20.c4 ie6 2 1 .f4 c5 22.:gd2 if5 23.ih4 h6, White does indeed maintain a slight advantage, although I suspect less than in Timman's variation.

The move . . . g5 isn't always a reaction to g4. Sometimes it's played freely by Black in order to control f4 and keep a knight from molesting his bishop on e6, and to develop his problem child, the f8-bishop, actively on g7. In the next diagram Black has done rather well in the early going and he seizes the chance to develop fully and freely.

Struk - Volke Vlissingen 2005

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

19 ... g5 20.gadl ig7 21 .g4 ig6 17 ... ie6

h

Black can even afford to keep this bishop on

The Berlin Wall

1 16

the active diagonal. He is going to play in the centre, not against the kingside pawns.

49.axb6 axb6 so.@e5 @f8 5 I .@d4 @e8! 0-1

22.tlJg3 ghe8 23.tll f5 if8 24.f4

A second example where White has made a rather better job of it so far, but even so Black is able to develop actively and equalise.

24.h4 .ixf5 25 .gxf5 gxh4 26.Ele4 f6 27.e6 tlJe7 was no better.

24 gxf4 25.lll xf4 icSt •••

It is clear that Black is fine and I give the rest of the game only for the cute triangulation at the end.

A. Sokolov

-

Levin

Bundesliga 2007

26.@h2 if2

a

27.gfl?

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

27.Ele2

27 ixfS 28.gxfS id4 29.lll d3 ixeSt 30.tllxe5 gxeS 3 1 .gdel gxel 32.gxel hS 33.c4 tll b6 34.igS ggs 35.if4 lll xc4 36.ge7 lll d6 37.ixd6 cxd6 38.gxf7 dS •.•

At first sight it looks as though White may have chances with Black's king cut off, but his own king is far more seriously cut off, and if he doesn't do something Black just pushes the d-pawn.

39.ge7 gf8 40.ges @d7 4I.@g3 ges 42.@f4 h4 43.b4 gxe5 44.@xeS @e7 45.a4 @f7 46.aS @e7 47.f6t @f7 48.@f5 b6

18.b3 gad8 19.ih2 gxdl 20.gxdl ges

Chapter 3 - Positional Themes

21.ltJxg7 ltJxg7 22.ltJel a5 23.£3 a4 24.@fl axb3 25.cxb3 ttJ5 26.ltJc2 llz-1h

Black has no problems. He could, for instance, continue with ... e8 1 2.h3 if5 1 3 .llice4 ( 1 3.ge2 llid5 1 4.g4 llixc3 1 5 .bxc3 ie6 1 6.llixe6 fxe6 1 7.ie3 lt>d8 gave White nothing in Shirov - Short, Dubai 2002) 13 . . . llig6 (falling, perhaps deliberately, for a trick: 1 3 . . . h6 1 4.llif3 gds looks like a better try) 14.e6 he6 1 5 .llixf7 hf7 1 6.llid6t lt>d7 l 7.llixf7 gg8, when White was better as we saw in Gomez Esteban - Sargissian.

1 1 .li:Je4 In Jakovenko - Bacrot, Aeroflot 2005, White strangely played l l .ig5t lt>e8 12.llih4 (neither 1 2.llie4 ie7 nor 1 2.gadl ig4 look to give much either), and after 1 2 . . . h6 1 3.llixg6 fxg6 1 4.id2 ie6 1 5.llie4 g5 Black was already for choice with the permanently invincible e6bishop.

A good move, ready to come to d6 in many lines.

15.a4 A strange-looking move that aims to undermine d6 and give White's rook an open line at the expense of straightening Black's pawns by the sequence axb6 . . . cxb6. But it seems that Black's plan of . . . lt>c8, . . . b6 and . . . lt>b7 enables him to unravel however White plays, for example the more natural 1 5 .h3 id? 1 6.gad l �c8 l 7.llif3 b6: White retains some compensation but the onus is on him.

15 ... cS 16.lDe2 b6 17.lt:Jf6 1 7.a5 lt>c8 1 8.a6 llid6 is no better: it is clear that White does not have enough play for the material deficit, and in the game Black went on to win.

17 i.d7 18.aS •••

1 1 . .. h6 12.i.d2 1 2.h3 id? would transpose after 1 3.b3 lt>c8 1 4.ib2 b6 1 5 .gadl to a position which would naturally occur after 9 . . . id7, although in fact White doesn't usually play exactly like this in that system (the knight usually has to return to c3 to get to d5 later on) .

12 ig4 •••

1 2 . . . id? is sensible and will surely also transpose to . . . id? systems, since White can hardly avoid h3 forever, but the text is more challenging.

13.lDd4?!

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 8.gadl llid6 achieves nothing: Black often finds the d6-square a sheet anchor in defending against this kind of pawn sacrifice.

Chapter 4 - . . . !£Je7 Systems without h3

147

18 @c8 19.!£Jh5 !!g8 20.axb6 cxb6 21.!£Jef4 ic6 22.!£Jd3 lll d6 23.!£Je5 @b7 24.!!e3 !£Jf5 25.!!d3 f6 26.!£Jxc6 @xc6 27.g4 lll d6 28.!!el !£Jb5 29.!£Jg3 c4 30.!!e6t @c7 31.!!d5 !£Jxc3 32.bxc3 ic5 33.!£Je4 !!gd8 34.!!xd8 !!xd8 35.!£Jxc5 bxc5 36.@fl Eld6 37.!!e7t !!d7 38.!!e4 @b6 39.!!xc4 @b5 40.!!e4 a5 41 .!!el @c4 42.!!al @xc3 43.!!xa5 c4 44.!!c5 !!d4 45.!!c7 !!xg4 46.h3 Ele4 47.!!xg7 @xc2 48.!!1'7 !!e6 49.!!c7 c3 50.@g2 @d2 5 1 .!!d7t @cl 52.!!c7 c2 53.£4 Elb6 54.@g3 !!b5 0-1

A natural move: the bishop is often well­ placed on b2 in the Berlin, out of the way of white rooks or black knights, and enhancing the strength of the e6 break. It's especially appropriate against the . . . lll g6 plan as it defends e5 easily and means that the knight on g6 is more vulnerable than in other lines to an f4-f5 push.

Conclusion:

1 0 . . . if5 has also been played and is logical since in the similar lines after 1 0 .h3 if5 b2-b3 is almost a wasted tempo. 1 1 .lll d4 ig6 1 2.Eldl \ties 1 3.ig5 lll d 5 13 . . . h6 1 4.i.h4 c5 1 5 .lll d b5 a6 1 6.lll d 6t iib8 1 7.lll e 8 lll f5 1 8 .EldSt iia7 1 9 .lll xc7 was the interesting course of Bobras P.H. Nielsen, Warsaw 2005, and now 1 9 . . . !!xd8 20.i.xd8 i.d6 2 1 .exd6 gxd8 (Almasi) was equal at least for Black. 14.lll ce2 h6 1 5 .ih4 i.b4 1 6.a3 ic3 17.lll xc3 lll xc3 1 8.gd2 c5 Perhaps for once the computer is right when it wants to keep the knights with 1 8 . . . lll e4 1 9.ge2 c5 : the point is that the white knight inhibits f4 and after say 20.lll f3 a5 2 1 .a4 if5 22.lll d2 lll xd2 23.Elxd2 g5 a position like the game arises but without White having the chance to get in f4. 1 9 .lll e2 lll xe2t 20.l:'!xe2 if5 This was Karjakin - Vallejo Pons, Benidorm (rapid) 2003, in which the Ukrainian prodigy now made an instructive slip with 2 1 .c4?! and found himself forced to struggle for a 1 00-move draw after 2 1 . . .a5 22 a4 g5! Instead 2 l .f4 would have ensured continued domination of the d-file and kept White out of

•••

The pawn sacrifice in the game isn't quite good enough, but in any case this line seems to leave White's e-pawn in a bit of difficulty and force him into an ineffective piece set-up.

I Game 6 I -

Calvia Olympiad 2004

1.e4 e5 2.!£Jf3 !£Jc6 3.ib5 !£Jf6 4.0-0 lllxe4 5.d4 !£Jd6 6.hc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 !£Jf5 8.�xd8t @xd8 9.!£Jc3 l:£Je7 10.b3

b

c

d

e

•••

A logical way to exploit the absence of h3, but it may be better to pre-empt White's next move first see the next game.

-

Adams N. Mitkov

a

10 ig4

f

g

h

148

The Berlin Wall

any danger. It looks to me as though 1 0 . . . .if5 could be Black's best line against 1 0.b3.

anything to oppose to the pawn advance as far as I can see. For example 2 1 . . .�d8 22.�adl tlJe6 23.tlJhS (23.f4 �h4 is not so clear) .

n .llig5 c;t>es 1 1 . . . .ihS has not been played: obviously it is conceivable, but Black is wasting a lot of time, since the bishop will have to retreat to g6 and then in all probability move again.

12 ..ib2 ll:)dS?! 12 . . . h6 1 3 .tlJge4 tlJd5 14.�fe l ( 1 4.h3 .if5 1 5 .g4 tlJxc3 is the difference) 1 4 . . . tlJxc3 1 5 ..ixc3 a5 1 6.h3 .ie6 1 7.f4 was played in Djukic - lvanovic, Montenegro (Ch) 2004, and looks pretty sensible for Black to me. Black has equalised.

13.h3 .if5 14.g4

b) The game went 1 5 . . . hS 1 6.c4 ttJb4 1 7.�adl hxg4 1 8.tlJxf7 'iffxf7 ( 1 8 . . . �h4 1 9 .e6 .ixe6 20.tlJgS .if5 2 1 .�fe l and 1 8 . . . �xh3 1 9.tlJf4 m3 20.e6 �xf4 2 1 .exd?t 'iff xf7 22.d8� �xd8 23.�xd8 [Wedberg] are both much better for White) 1 9.�xd7t 'iff e 6 20.�xc7 and White was better. 20.�fdl was also interesting in view of 20 . . . tlJdS 2 1 .�7xd5 cxd5 22.cxdSt ©d7 23.hxg4 with good compensation for the exchange.

15.lDxdS cxd5 16.f4 .ie7 A nasty choice. 1 6 . . . h6 1 7.fS hxg5 1 8.fxg6 fxg6 1 9 . 'iff g2 is also an extremely unpleasant ending.

17.e6 hg5 18.exf7t

8 i. • --� ��,��� ,,,, � 1 � i v� - 8 V� i , ,, ,, /,� ,, ,,, /,� � @,� �� � : ��� � - �� � ""ef,';,,,�� �� �� '0-< � 1 ,9 � - � m

,��r��

6 �� �i!'ir � � � "' � 3 2 !8!.�. , a

1s ... c;t>d7 a) 1 5 . . . h6 1 6.tlJe4 h5 1 7.c4 tlJb4 1 8.f3 was recommended by Wedberg and given as unclear, but I don't like it very much: if Black hopes to find a role for his knight then he really has to go 1 8 . . . hxg4 1 9.hxg4 tlJd3, and then 20 . .ic3 tlJc5 2 1 .tlJ4g3 leaves it rather difficult to find

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Wedberg gives 1 8 . . . 'iffxf7 1 9.fxgSt 'iff g 8 20.�adl c6 2 1 .c4 �d8 (2 1 . . . .ie4 22.cxdS .ixd5 23.�de l ) 22.cxdS �xd5 23.�xdS cxd5 24.�cl as virtually winning for White, but much stronger is 20 . . . .ie4 2 1 .c4 h5, after which it is an open question whether White can maintain any significant advantage at all. Instead though 20.�ael really is very good for

Chapter 4 - . . . tfJ e7 Systems without h3 White. The text move also leads straight to a virtually lost ending.

19.fxg5 g� 20,gadl c6 21 ..hg7 gxf7 22.gxf7t hf7 23. @f2 Black has only remote survival chances. If he could exchange rooks he would be fine, but he can't. The doubled pawn is no problem in view of the break g6 . . . hxg6 h6, as in the game.

1 49

what Black would have liked to get in Kasparov - Kramnik, Astana 200 1 , and continued thematically seeking the knight exchange with reasonable play after 17 . . . ll:ic5.) 1 3.ll:ifd2 ll:if4 14.f3 i.e6 1 5 .g3 ll:id5 1 6.c4 ll:ie3 1 7.gfcl ll:if5 1 8.f4 h5 1 9.ll:if3 ie? as in De Vreugt Jonkman, Curro 2002. White is better now after 20.@f2 (Almasi) : Black hasn't organised himself well to stop h3, g4 and so on.

23 .. ,ges 24.@f3 i.g6 25.c4 i.e4t 26.@f4 b5 27.cxb5 cxb5 28.h4 gcs 29.h5 gc2 30.g6 hxg6 3 1 .h6 g5t 32.@xgs @e6 33.gel @f7 34.gfl t @e7 35,gf4 i.h7 36.i.f6t @e6 37.i.d4 1-0

I don't see much logic in l 1 . ..ll:ig6. If Black wants to play . . . ig4 then this knight doesn't nc:cessarily belong on g6 better to get on and find out whether the f-pawns are going to be doubled or not.

Conclusion:

12.ll:id2 and 1 2.ll:id4 are both untested but look very sensible to me. I don't think White gains much by allowing his pawns to be doubled.

I don't think Black's play in this game will do. Either 1 0 . . . ifs or 1 2 . . . h6 seem to be the places to look against 1 0.b3, or else as in the next game.

I

Game 7

I

Szelag - Grabarczyk Poland 2003

I.e4 e5 2.tll f3 tfJc6 3.i.b5 tfJf6 4.0-0 tll xe4 5.d4 tfJd6 6.i.xc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 tfJf5 8.'WxdSt @xd8 9.tfJc3 tfJe7 10.b3 h6 Black prevents the ll:ig5 resource we saw in Game 6 above.

1 1 .i.b2 i.g4 l l . . . ll:ig6 has also been tested, after which play may continue 1 2.ll:ie4 ig4 (Even the relaxed 1 2 . . . @e8 is possible. After 1 3.ll:id4 .!Llf4 14.gadl ig4 1 5 .f3 id? 1 6 .icl [ 1 6.e6 is ineffective here since after 1 6 . . . fxe6 there is no 17 .ie5 as in Kasparov - Kramnik on page 76-77] 1 6 . . . ll:ie6 1 7.lll e 2, in Stellwagen - Naiditsch, Corus 2004, Black had achieved

12,gadlt

12 ... @es 1 2 . . . �c8 doesn't seem to be so logical. lstvan Almasi gave an entertaining if unforced piece of analysis: 1 3.gd4 ixf3 1 4.gxf3 ll:ig6 (Zoltan Almasi's 14 . . . g5 is perhaps better: after 1 5.f4 ll:ig6 1 6.ll:ie2 i.g? 17.ge4 ge8 1 8.gel White doesn't have so much, and 1 5 .gfdl ig? 1 6 . gd7 tll g6 l 7.gxf7 ixe5 i s not all that effective either) 1 5.ll:ie2 1ie7 1 6.gg4 h5 l 7.gg3 @d7 1 8.gd l t @e8 1 9.e6 id6 20.f4 gh7 2 1 .f5 ll:ih4 22.f6, when Black has difficulties. But it looks right to keep the king on the kingside if Black is going to double the f-pawns.

13.tfJe4 A later game Popovic - Grabarczyk, Bundesliga 2005, challenged the worth of Black's idea still more directly with l 3.h3 ixf3 1 4.gxf3 gd8 1 5 .gxd8t @xd8 1 6.gdl t @e8 1 7.tll e2 gg8 1 8.@fl ll:if5 1 9.ll:ig3. 19 . . . g6 now was certainly possible - White can't do anything after an exchange of knights - but in

The Berlin Wall

1 50

the game Black also drew comfortably enough after 1 9 . . . llih4 20.f4 ie7 2 1 .c4.

a

13 ... �ds

b

c

d

e

f

g

17.c4 a6 18.£4 h5 19.J.a3

h

The point of White's 1 3th move was to 'prevent' 1 3 . . . .ixB because after 1 4.gxf3 �d8 1 4 . . . llif5 followed by . . . ie7 and . . . �d8 may be better. 1 5 .�xd8t @xd8 1 6.�d l t Black has to play 1 6 . . . @c8 16 . . . @e8? 1 7.llic5 b6 1 8.llia6, a common theme. Even here, though, I can't see how White can make any serious winning attempt, say after 1 7.f4 1 7.llig3 g6 1 8 .e6 �h7 1 9.llie4 fxe6 20.llic5 llif5 2 1 .llixe6 J.d6 1 7.@g2 llif5 1 8.@h3 ie7 1 9.@g4 g6 1 7 . . . �g8 1 8.llig3 g6 and . . . llif5 If Black isn't going to do this then there wasn't much point in playing l l . . .ig4 at all.

Almasi gives 30.f5 �g5 3 1 .e6 g6 32.llie3 id2 33.llid5 �xf5 34.llixc?t @e? 35 .@d3 �£2 36.llixa6 @xe6 37.c5 if4 38.a4 @d5 39.cxb6 @c6 which I expect is winning, but I don't see a lot wrong with the simple 30.exf6 either. In the game White fritters it away.

14.�xdSt @xd8 15.tlid4 @es 16.h3 J.cs

30 fxeS 31 .fxeS?

1 6 . . . id?, as an alternative way to control b5 in preparation for . . . c5, comes to mind, but it doesn't alter the play much.

20.he7 he7 21 .llixc6 J.a3 2 1 . . .ib? 22.llixe? @xe7 23.llig3 g6 24.�dl should be winning for White as well, although Black can resist.

22.�dl J.d7 23.tlid4?! 23.llib8 ic8 24.llic3 and llid5 was winning as the knight comes to c7 - a common theme in lines with an exchange of rooks followed by �dl t . . . @e8.

23 J.b2 24.@fl �h6 25.tlic2 J.c6 26.@e3 �g6 27.�bl he4 28.@xe4 J.c3 29.�gl f6 30.g4?! •••

•••

3 1 .f5

3 1 . �gS ••

-

151

Chapter 4 . . . ti:J e? Systems without h3 White can defend e 5 only by allowing a drawish rook endgame.

32.ti:Jd4 hd4 33.@xd4 @d7 34.@d5 c6t 35.@e4 @e6 36.@f4 gxe5 37.gxh5 g5t 38.@g4 b5 39.cxb5 axb5 40.gelt @£6 41 .gdl gcs 42.gd6t @f7 43.b4 gc2 44.@f5 gxa2 45.gxc6 gb2 46.gc7t @g8 47.gb7 gxb4 48.@g6 @f'8 49.gf7t @es 50.gxg7 gb3 5 1 .h6 gg3t 52.@h7 gxh3 53.gg4 @f7 54.gf4t @e7 55.@g6 gg3t 56.@h5 gh3t 57.@g5 b4 58.gxb4 @f7 59.gbs gg3t 6o.@f5 gh3 61 .@gs gg3t 62.@h4 gg1 63.gh7t @gs 64.@hs 1/2-l/2

Conclusion:

this line is a very solid way of dealing with b3 without h3. White shouldn't be able to win the positions arising after Black doubles the pawns. Having said that, White certainly shouldn't be in much danger oflosing them either. Naiditsch's plan in the notes to Blade's 1 1 th is also interesting. In comparison to Kasparov - Kramnik White does miss his h3 move, since the knight is driven away from f3 and that gives Black critical time for his ... ll'if4-e6 trip.

I Game 8 I

Nisipeanu - McShane Bundesliga 2005

1.e4 e5 2.ti:Jf3 Ci:Jc6 3.ib5 ti:Jf6 4.0-0 �xe4 5.d4 ti:Jd6 6.hc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 ti:Jf5 8.YMxdSt @xd8 9.ti:Jc3 Ci:Je7 10.ig5 At first sight a rather amateurish way of combating Black's manoeuvre, but in fact White intends after . . . h6 simply to take on e7 and follow up with ll'id4/e4 and rooks to e l an d d l , when his lightning development does press Black considerably.

8

·�.t.. �

w � w

�·t �a

,,·--%r /�,,,,.& ��r�·,,,, & �.1� �..1.. .�%_ & ,,,,1,�%���r� ,%� .,,.. ...� �� ��r� �� -� � s �-� �� w�%� � ,, ... �

7

6

.e. �

��

% -�

% · �

�-: · � .�: �

%

4

% .

,,,,,

� 3 �m� !� 2 !8'8' �n!� . . % a� �.. .. � � ·:k·if"' 1

a

10 @es

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

•••

Blade's first reaction was 1 0 . . . h6 but after 1 1 .gad l t ©e8 1 2.ixe? ixe7 1 3.ll'id4 Black didn't quite manage to equalise in Volokitin - Z. Almasi, Bundesliga 2003/4. 1 3 . . . h5 13 . . .ic5 14.lll e4 ixd4 1 5 .l:l:xd4 ©e7 1 6 .l:l:fdl l:l:e8 1 7.f4 b6 1 8 .h3 @f8 1 9.@f2 if5 20. ©f3 was a similar sort of endgame in Erenburg - Aronian, Gibraltar 2005. Black now broke out with 20 . . . f6 but White could have obtained a big advantage with 2 1 .exf6 c5 22.fxg?t ct?xg7 23.l:l:a4 b5 24.lll g3 (Almasi) . 14.ll'ie4 id? 1 5 .gfe l l:l:h6 1 6.lll g3 l:l:d8 Almasi mentioned 16 . . . ifB 17.ll'idf5 l:l:g6 1 8.e6, but I think White retains a small advantage. For example 1 8 . . .ixe6 1 9 .lll xh5 l:l:d8 20.lll d4 id6 2 1 .lll xe6 fxe6 22.lll g3. 17.lll df5 l:l:h7 1 8.ll'ixe7 @xe7 1 9.h4 White was definitely a little better.

1 1 .gadl 1 1 .lll d4 is seen in the next game.

1 1 ig4 12.gd4 if5 •••

A natural move now that the d4-square is blocked off from White's king's knight, but an

The Berlin Wall

1 52

innovation. 1 2 . . .hf3 1 3.gxf3 h6 ( 1 3 . . . lll f5 is possible although this blockading strategy does tend to leave Black passively placed) 1 4.he7 rtlxe7 1 5 .lll e2 g5 1 6.f4 gxf4 also failed quite to equalise in Volokitin - Grischuk, Sochi 2005. Almasi now proposed 1 7.lll xf4 l:!g8t 1 8.i>h l but I'm not sure I understand it. I don't see how White can win without his king and after 1 8 . . . i:l:d8 trading all the rooks is a draw, and I don't see how White intends to play otherwise. Instead 17.i:l:fd l i:l:g8t 1 8.i>fl f3 1 9 .lll xf4 led in the game to a typical endgame where White's extra kingside pawn gave him the advantage, but the inconveniences of the split pawns and the bishop against the knight gave Black enough play to hold reasonably easily. 1 2 . . . Ae6 had been Grischuk.'s proposal after the game, offering the line 1 3.i:l:fdl ( 1 3.i:l:b4 b6 14.lll d4 Ad7 also doesn't make an impression) 1 3 . . . h6 1 4.he7 ( 1 4 . .icl lll d 5) 1 4 . . . he7 1 5 .i:l:e4 with an unclear position.

13.4:\e4 h6 14 .td2 •

1 4.he7 he7 doesn't have much point now that White's development has been disrupted Black is better already.

Black has already at least equalised: the game continued as an unclear struggle until the time control, but Black was never in danger, quite the reverse.

17.ic3 ie6 18.4:\fd2 i:l:d8 19.fu:d8t i>xd8 20.lll fl b5 21 .b3 b4 22.Ah2 c4 23.bxc4 hc4 24.l:fal g5 25.lll e3 Ae6 26.a3 i>cS 27.h4 gxh4 28.£4 hxa3 29 .txO .txa3 30.l::l xa3 :gds 3 1 .fS id7 32.e6 fxe6 33.£6 m'8 34.4:\c4 e5 35.:ga6 ieS 36.c3 i>dS •

The computer proposes the fine regrouping 36 . . . i>b7 37.lll c 5t i>a8 38.lll e4 lll b 8! 39.:ga5 lll d7 40.lll xe5 lll xf6, but this is far from easy to find in time trouble.

37.i>h2 ig6 38.4:\cd2 Ae8 39.lll c4 ig6 40.4:\cd2 ieS 1/2-1/z

Conclusion:

The exact sequence in this game seems to have dealt with I O . .ig5 and 1 1 .i:l:adl for the time being.

I Game 9 I

14 b6 15.i:l:el

Volokitin - Vallejo Pons

•••

1 5 .lll g3 Axc2 1 6.i:l:cl c5 leads nowhere.

Cuernavaca 2006

15 c5 16.i:l:d3 4:\c6 •••

1 .e4 e5 2.4:\6 4:\c6 3 .ib5 4:\£6 4.0-0 4:\xe4 5.d4 4:\d6 6.hc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 4:\f5 8.'!WxdSt i>xd8 9.4:\c3 4:\e7 10.ig5 i>eS 1 1 .4:\d4 •

In view of the irritating 1 1 .i:l:ad 1 .ig4 White tries another sequence to set up his dream position. 1 1 .lll e4 lll g6 1 2.i:l:fel h6 1 3.ie3 Af5 is easy enough for Black.

1 1 4:\g6 •••

1 I . . .lll f5 1 2.lll de2 ( 1 2.i:l:adl lll xd4 1 3.:gxd4 Af5 14.i:l:fdl Ae7 1 5 .Axe7 i>xe7 1 6.g4 Ae6 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 53

Chapter 4 - . . . l:iJe7 Systems without h3 17.h3 h5 1 8.@g2 hxg4 1 9.hxg4 �h4 20.@g3 �ah8 is equal too - Almasi) 1 2 . . . ie? 1 3.he? @xe7 1 4.h3 h5 1 5 .�adl ie6 1 6.tll f4 h4 1 7.tll e4 �hd8 1 8 .tll g5 c5 1 9 .tll fxe6 fxe6 Black had equalised in Anand - Z. Almasi, Bundesliga 2006, but the impression is that White might have some way to gain an edge around moves 1 6- 1 9 .

to have any difficulty in achieving a sound position, e.g. 1 5 .a3 (against . . . ib4) 1 5 . . . ic5 1 6.tll b 3 and now even 16 . . . ib6 is possible.

15 .!c8! •••

12.gadl 1 2.�fe l is met with 1 2 ... ib4 as usual.

12 .!d7 13.gfel •.•

i. - - ·��-��, /, •. . r- -, -,Y. - - ;� . . /.� �- � � 6 �.. ., -�-� � � 'r � . ,,,,%� / ., _ /, /, , --� . 53 ��®-���:-��/��.....-®� �� 2 8 r� 8 r®-�� . 8 • r�� 1 . . .. /,u r�m - - /.= - 8

7

a

.

4

a

13 ... h6

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 3 . . . ib4 doesn't achieve its aim at the moment since Black cannot exchange the c3knight: 14.e6 he6 ( 1 4 ... ic8?? 1 5 .tll d b5 wins) 1 5 .tll xe6 fxe6 1 6.�xe6t @f7 1 7.�e4 and now 1 7 . . . id6 is necessary, when White is slightly better.

14 .!cl

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

The only move according to Almasi, whose analysis of his Anand game this game followed, but at the same time sufficient for instant equality.

16.gd3?! 1 6.exflt @xf7 17.tll e4 ie7 was more sensible after the text White is in danger of becoming worse.

16 .!e7 17.exflt �xf7 18.ll\e4 ghe8 19.gddl gd7 •••

And indeed 1 9 . . . ib4 20.c3 c5 would have given Black an advantage: in the game too it looks as though he should be better at move 22 but White manages to draw.

•

If White tries 1 4.e6 fxe6 1 5 .icl in order to get e6 in before the g5-bishop has to retreat, so that capturing on e6 should be forced, then Black has 1 5 . . . e5 1 6 . tll f3 id6.

14 gds 15.e6

20.l:iJb3 gd5 21 .l:iJc3 gxdl 22.gxdl .if6 23 .!e3 b6 24.l:iJd4 .!g4 •

White escapes after this perhaps it was better to send the knight on the other circuit with 24 . . . tll e ?.

•••

If White plays quietly then Black is unlikely

25.gd2 l:iJeS 26.b3 .!e7 27.f4 .!b4 28.fxeS

1 54

The Berlin Wall

i.xc3 29.l:l:d3 i.xd4 30.i.xd4 i.5 3 U '!d2 E:d8 32.c3 i>e6 33.b4 c5 34.bxc5 bxc5 35.ie3 E:xd2 36.i.xd2 i>xe5 37.i>fl i>d5 38.ie3 i>c4 39.i>e2 ihl 40.a3 ie4 1/2-1/2

Conclusion: this is an important game since I O.ig5 has proved both popular and dangerous, but at the moment Black seems to have the answers to it in the form of the previous two games. In general these systems are not quite as dangerous as the main ones with h3, to which I turn in the next chapter, but it is important for Black to have an idea how to handle them, since I O.b3 is a very natural move. I O.ig5 retains its popularity at sub-GM level, and presumably there are still Khalifman devotees out there who will venture I O.tll d4.

••.

fiJ e7 Systems with h3

This chapter deals with White's systems arising after this move, which is by far White's most

common choice. AB we saw in the last chapter

White's direct attempts don't work terribly

9

. . .

h6 and only then 1 0 . . . 'Ll e7 and 1 1 . . . 'Ll g6,

a sequence which Khalifman ignores and thus arguably fails to deal with the main line of Black's entire opening.

well, and instead of those White prefers this universally useful semi-waiting move. One day

I l .ig5t

White will have to advance his kingside pawn majority, and this move lays the foundations for that while preventing the pesky . . . �g4 which we often saw in the last section, and not committing White to any particular plan of development.

I Game lO I

Elsness - Sepp Finland 2004

1.e4 e5 2.ctJB lt'ic6 3.ib5 lt:Jf6 4.0-0 lt'ixe4 5.d4 lt'id6 6.ixc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 lt'if5 8.'1Wxd8t xd8 9.ctJc3 ctJe7 10.h3 lt'ig6 Often Black will play 1 0 . . . h6

(his next

two moves will usually be . . . 'Ll g6 and . . . h6, retaining flexibility with his king and preparing the dream e6-square for his bishop without fear of molestation by a knight from g5) , but it normally makes no difference which he plays first. The present game shows the only system whereby White can try to take advantage of one or the other move. Black can also begin with

1 1 ... b7 24.h5 tfJe7 19.l'!xdSt i.xdS 20.Wg3 c5 21 .b3 i.c6 22.tfJd5 c4 An interesting moment. White very often feels the urge to prevent this move with c2-c4 in these positions, but it's not by any means clear that he ought to. First, quite often c5-c4 doesn't work out as well for Black as one might think. Sure he's dissolving his doubled pawn, but he's also giving away d4, weakening himself

This doesn't look right to me: presumably it already intends Black's coming exchange, but if so it's a terrible distress signal. More normal to my eyes would be 24 . . . lll f8, when Black has various ideas: perhaps the knight can come to d7 or e6, or maybe he can leave it where it is and play . . . cxb3, . . . c6, and . . . .id7-e6. I don't see what White can do then that's so terrible possibly his best is to continue like the game

1 68

The Berlin Wall

I Game 14 I

with 25.llJc3, but 25 . . . cxb3 26.cxb3 llJd7 continues to restrain f4 since the f3-knight can't yet move, while Black may even be able to consider . . . l'lJc5 . Then at least Black would be deriving some benefit from . . . c4 as the game goes it just looks like a positional mistake.

25.llic3! Perhaps Harikrishna overlooked the force of this certainly a player of his strength must have miscalculated something to slide so atrociously from a normal position to a strategically lost game in a few moves as he does.

Bacrot Gyimesi -

Bundesliga 2005

1.e4 e5 2.lli6 llic6 3.ib5 llif6 4.0-0 llixe4 5.d4 llid6 6.ixc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 llif5 8.�xd8t �xd8 9.llic3 llie7 10.h3 llig6 1 1 .id2

25 cxb3 26.cxb3 hf3 •••

A grim move to have to make, but otherwise l'lJd4 and f4 was next up.

27.�xf3 llic6 28.�e4 ie7 After this White has a dream position for the opening, but the tactical attempt 28 . . . llJxe5 29.cj;1xe5 if6t 30.cj;1f5 Lc3 3 1 .1%d7 ©c6 32.1%xf7 1%d8 33.if4 1%d7 34.1%xd7 ©xd7 35.ie5 leads to a lost pawn ending.

29.llibS :gd8 30.:gxd8 llixd8 31 .f4 llie6 32.f5 llig5t 33.hgS Of course - the knight holds back the queenside pawns which are fixed on the dark squares.

33 hgS 34.e6 fxe6 35.fxe6 c6 36.llid4 �c7 37.�f5 �d6 38.cj;1g6 �e7 39.llif5t �xe6 40.llixg7t �d5 41 .llif5 b5 42.llixh6 i.£4 43.llif5 ie5 44.llig7 if4 1-0 •••

A horrid defeat for Black, but he was doing fine out of the opening.

Conclusion: l l .a3 is a deceptively poisonous little move, and it's worth considering carefully the games in the notes to White's 12th and the ideas in the notes to Black's l 5th and White's l 6th.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

A multi-purpose move. White may play b4 in some lines he may go ic3 (he figures that this way of coming to the diagonal has its advantages, since it doesn't provide the hook for Black's counterplay which b3 does), and he also reckons that if he has to block a central file with the bishop, better the d-file than the e-file. Moreover he makes ready for 1%e 1 without being harassed by . . . ib4. Most likely, therefore, we can expect a follow-up with 1%el , llJe4, 1%ad l , ic3 and perhaps l'lJe4-g3-h5 .

1 1 ... h6 Another idea is to put the king on the kingside: l l . ..ie7 1 2.1%adl cj;1es 1 3.1%fe l a6 If Black wants to play . . . c5 with the king on e8 then he usually has to play this move to prevent l'lJb5 in reply.

Chapter 5 - . . . f:i:Je? Systems with h3

169

1 3 . . . ie6 is another way to play although the positions after 14.tll d4 l:!d8 1 5 .tll xe6 fxe6 are always at least a little worse for Black. 1 3 . . . hS is another possibility, as Topalov plays with the bishop on e3. 14.tll e4 @f8 1 5 .a3 An enigmatic move. 1 5 .ic3 is an alternative, so as to meet 1 5 . . . c5 ?! by 1 6.tll d 6! but more sensible would be 1 5 . . . ie6. An immediate 1 5 .tll d6 is ineffective after 1 5 . . . tll xe5 , and not 1 5 . . . cxd6? 1 6.exd6 hd6 1 7.ib4!. 15 ... c5 1 6.ie3 b6 17.tll c3 if5 1 8.l:!d2 h6 1 9 .tll d 5 id8 20.a4 a5 2 1 .l:!edl @e8 22.tll c3 tll f8 Y2-Y2 Lutz - Khenkin, Eppingen 2005. This position-type is rare with the king on e8 and it looks as though it ought to be better to have it on b7: nonetheless in the final position it is very hard to come up with a constructive plan for White Black is about to regroup with ... id7-c6 and . . . tll e 6.

. . . ie7/l:!g8 or leaving the kingside pieces where they are) it means the rook can be developed secondly, it means that the e-pawn is under maximum pressure, which makes it hard for White to move the knight from f3 and get going on the kingside. In this exact position though White has a strong counter in 14.tll g3 l:!e8 1 5 .tll h 5 if8 16.l:!fe l dic8 1 7.ic3 when the unavoidable threat of tll xg7 and e6 gives him the advantage, since 1 7 . . . ie6 1 8.tll d4 is unpleasant. Contrast the position in Lutz ­ Votava (given in the notes to Game 1 3) , where the same position arose with the addition of a3 and . . . c5. There Black has time to play this way, since if White tries this same idea Black is in time to move the bishop from d7 either to e6 or c6, without having it bothered by tll d4 .

12J!adl id7 13.f:i:Je4

14.E:i:Jg3

s i, �

7

- m

�if�·-�--.�-- - """"�� 'i"�� �� ��

������":�� '�����·· · ��"�8 : � ��-0 ���-�0 i� ��p 2 [j f[j [j � f[j [j� � 6

5

1 - - -"ai•i= � a

13 cS

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

•••

As

always it deserved consideration to meet tll e4 with an immediate: 13 . . . ie? so that the sequence tll g3 . . . l:!e8 tll h 5 . . . if8 may follow: this minimises the impact of the knight on h5. First (as compared to playing

Heading to h5. Of course many other moves are possible.

14 cs •••

1 4 . . . h5 is well worth considering: 1 5 .ig5t can be met with 1 5 . . . @c8 followed by the usual . . . b6, . . . ie6, . . . dib7 regrouping, perhaps followed by . . . l:!e8 and even . . . h4 and . . . l:!h5 .

15.!'!fel ie7 There was a case for starting with 1 5 . . . ie6: it is clear this move will need to be made whereas it isn't absolutely clear . . . ie7 will be, and I don't see that there was any need to play it now. Certainly 1 6.h4 ie7 1 7.h5 tll h4 was nothing Black need fear.

16 ..!c3 Threatening e5-e6, always the move to watch out for when the bishop comes to this diagonal.

170

The Berlin Wall

16 ... Ei:g8 17.tll hS A typical knight posting which is always troublesome for Black.

8 � � 1 ,,.,,%� • I• ��;��• w�.t• w� � � i)� 6 ttJ ��-��� ����-� �� �• �-- - --%-�,,,Ji ?II� � �� 45 � � 3 "w7� ,,.,,

%

-----

�

�� �

21 !Jl. ""%%.� ,,.,,%� ��----efi!a a

�

17 ... �e6

b

� : t� c

d

e

f

� g

h

Both sides have played very naturally up to here and White now needs a plan to advance his kingside. First however he wants to prevent . . . b5. One of the drawbacks of the bishop on c3 is that blocking the c-pawn makes it harder to restrain Black on the queen's wing, and also exposes the bishop to . . . lll d 5 sometimes. In Rowson - Granda Zuniga, Bled (ol) 2002, Black ignored the e6 'threat' with l 7 . . . �c6 1 8 .e6 f6. Probably Rowson's 1 9.lll d2 b5 20.lll b 3 wasn't the best since after 20 ... b4 2 1 .id2 a5 Black was already fine, but it's surprisingly hard to demonstrate any advantage for White in any case.

18.a4 b6 19.tll h2 Preparing the advance of the kingside pawn majority. If White wants to get f4 in it's important to start with lll h2 and not 1 9.g4, since after the latter Black can hold f4 up irritatingly, for example 1 9 . . . Wb? 20.iig2 (20.lll h2 ig5) 20 . . . a6 2 1 .lll h2 ig5 22.iig3 .th4 t and so on.

19 ... tll f'S

Black decides he cannot tolerate the knight on h5. An alternative was to connect the rooks with 1 9 . . . iib?. Since 20.g4 ig5 is the previous note I suppose that White intended to continue with 20.f4, but Black has resources to disrupt the advance of the pawns: 20 . . . if5 2 1 .Ei:e2 (2 1 .Ei:cl c4 22.g4 id? also allows counterplay) 2 1 . . .Ei:ad8 22.Ei:xd8 ixd8 23.g4 ic8, and although White perhaps enjoys some advantage, it isn't at all easy to press ahead with the pawns.

20.g4 20.f4 was another way to advance the pawns after 20 . . . @b? 2 1 .g4 the impatient 2 1 . . .g6 22.lll f6 ixf6 23.exf6 is bad as the white knight comes powerfully to e5, but perhaps 2 1 . . .c4 22.lll f3 id? offers Black sufficient counterplay.

20 ... g6 20 . . . @b? 2 1 .f4 c4 was possible, as in the last note, but Black prefers to try and prevent the pawns advancing.

21.tll f6 !? Postny suggests that 2 1 .lll f4 followed by lll xe6 would have given White 'a small but long-lasting advantage'. Perhaps this is true but the knight is very well placed on e6 as well, and the obstacles to getting the pawns moving in view of the weakening of f4 remain considerable. 2 1 . ..iib? 22.lll xe6 lll xe6 23.lll f3 Ei:ad8 24.Wg2 h5 25.iig3 Ei:h8 is a natural development of events, and White is nowhere near getting the sort of control he wants.

21 ... .txfG 22.exf6 g5 Black would greatly prefer to leave these pawns on light squares, but he must bring the knight to g6 otherwise he cannot activate his men at all.

23.tll f3 lll g6 24.tll e5 tll xe5

Chapter 5 . . . tfJ e7 Systems with h3

171

-

Postny criticises this and suggests plausibly that Black was fine after 24 . . . lLif4 25.h2 (25.i.d2!?) 25 . . . lLid5, though perhaps Black ought to be okay after the text too.

37.:B:de2 Threatening 38.i.d2 and hg5, which cannot be prevented in view of 37 . . . :B:g6 38.:B:xe6.

37 ... !!h8 38.:B:xe6t?!

25.fu:eS h7 26. g2 Postny gives White much the better of it here: I'm not sure it's so much, but if the task defeats an endgame expert like Gyimesi then it's clear Black still has problems to solve.

Just 38.i.d2 winning the g-pawn was required either the moves are wrongly recorded or the players must have been in grave time­ trouble.

38 ... fxe6 39.f7?? 39.i.d2 was still better, whether it is 'winning easily' as Postny says after 39 . . . :B:4h7 40.hg5 e5 4 1 .h4 d5 42.h5 e6 is not quite clear to me since White still needs to find a way to untangle his pieces and pawns, and I don't see one mysel£

39 ... :B:4h7?? Rather than blundering a rook 39 . . . :B:f8 was winning if this position truly arose in the game. a

26 ... c6

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

I really don't understand why Black didn't seek to activate his rooks centrally in this endgame, for example with 26 . . . :B:ad8 at this moment. 27.:B:xd8 (or 27.:B:ee l :B:xdl 28.:B:xdl :B:e8) 27 . . . :B:xd8 28.g3 c6 29.f4 (29.:B:e l a6 30.f4 gxf4t 3 1 .xf4 b5) 29 . . . gxf4t 30.xf4 :B:dl seems to enable Black to defend, to my eye more naturally than the game.

27.g3 !!g6 28.:B:e3 :B:ag8 29.:B:ed3 29.f4? permits a draw by rook checks after 29 . . . gxf4t 30.xf4 hg4! 3 1 .hxg4 :B:xg4t 32.f3 :B:g3t 33.e2 :B:g2t 34.el :B:h2!.

29...hS 30.f3 hxg4 31.fxg4 :B:h8 32.:B:d8 :B:h4 33.:B:el !!h7 34.:B:e2 :B:gh6 35.:B:h2 :B:h4 36.:B:dd2 :B:7h6? 36 . . . :B:4h6 was needed White is better but Black can surely still defend.

40.hh8 :B:xh8 41 .:B:f2 :B:f8 42.h4 1-0 I chose this game for its interesting ending, but I don't think Black was badly off out of the opening.

Conclusion: The Germans know a bit about the Berlin Wall they even have a better name for it than we do die Mauer is so much more onomatopoeic than anything we can manage, and l l .i.d2 is very popular there, which ought to tell us something. The lines in the game are problematic for Black since it is hard for him to prevent the pawns advancing to f4 and g4, albeit White needs to make concessions to achieve this. I think Black should look into . . . h5 ideas, which haven't as yet been explored in this line as they have in others. -

172

The Berlin Wall

I Game 15 I

Stellwagen - Khenkin Sigeman

&

Co, Malmo 2006

1.e4 e5 2.llif3 llic6 3.i.b5 llif6 4.0-0 llixe4 5.d4 llid6 6.i.xc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 llif5 8.Vxd8t @xd8 9.llic3 llie7 10.h3 llig6 1 1 .i.e3

8 7 6 5 4 3

2

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Another simple and popular developing move. l l .b3 is also possible of course and is dealt with in the next chapter via the move order 1 0 . . . h6 l l .b3 llig6.

Vrnjacka Banja 2005, went: I 2.�ad I t Wc8 I 3.a3 h6 I4.llid4 Curious not to play I 4.�feI after White's las' move, although the sequence in the game does gain in force once g6 is weakened. I4 . . . llixe5 I 5 .llixe6 fxe6 I 6.�feI llif7 1 6 . . . llic4 I7.i.cl .id6 I 8.�xe6 is a typical advantage for White after . . . llixe5 llixe6 . . . fxe6. I 7 . .id4 c5 I 8 . .ie5 a5 And now as Almasi points out I 9.hc7! would have sunk Black after: I9 . . . @xc7 20.llib5t @b8 20 . . . @b6 2 l .�xe6t! @b5 22.a4 t leads to mate. 2 1 .�d7 White regains the piece shortly with a winning ending. Black doesn't have to let that happen but this doesn't seem like a very attractive way to play to me. l I . . ..id7 1 2.�adl @c8 is of course possible and transposes to lines with 9 . . . .id7. l I . . .h6 12.�ad I t @e8 is seen in the notes to Game 23.

12.a3 White ends up playing this move anyway to prepare �fe l .

1 1 ... @es l I .. .i.e7 1 2.�adI t @e8 I 3.a3 (and not I 3.�fe I i.b4), is another route to the main position, and the one actually taken in Kasimdzhanov - Topalov, San Luis 2005, where Black's I 3th was introduced. It's quite natural to play . . . i.e7 after i.e3, since i.g5 now costs a tempo, and the bishop won't be coming to the long diagonal and fingering g7 either, but no less a Berliner than Alexei Aleksandrov has tried I I . . . i.e6, and his choice was endorsed by Zoltan Almasi in Yearbook 81. Nonetheless Ki. Georgiev - Aleksandrov,

1 2... i.e7 13.�adl h5!

Chapter 5 . . . 0,e7 Systems with h3

1 73

-

A strong move and typical of Topalov's handling of the Berlin. By choosing a moment at which . . . h4 cannot be prevented he ensures that he will be able to develop his king's rook on h5, which otherwise can be a problem when the king goes to e8.

14.l::ffel h4 15.0,d4 White has to move this knight so as to defend the e-pawn with f4, but his position becomes unpleasantly ossified.

1s ... ghs Kasimdzhanov - Topalov had gone slightly oddly: 1 5 . . . a6 1 6.f4 E:h5 17.lll e4 i.d7 1 8.c4, and now 1 8 ... a5 . We saw the rest in Chapter 3: Black obtained a reasonable position, but the thought naturally occurs that it was only necessary to cover b5 once in order to play ... c5, and that this was best done by developing the bishop.

20.lt::l dS Black can more or less force a draw after this, but White doesn't have anything better: otherwise Black was ready for . . . E:d8

20 ... ixdS 21.gxdS f6 22,gfl fxe5 23.fS lbm 24,gxe5 lt::l d7 25,gd5 lt::l f6 26,ges 1/2-1/2

26.lll xf6t i.xf6 could bring troubles only to White. Conclwion:

l l .i.e3

isn't looking too threatening at the moment thanks to Topalov's handling. I must say this accords with my sense of the proprieties: of all the places White could develop his bishop, e3 seems to me the one where it has the fewest prospects and creates the maximum obstruction to his remaining pieces .

I Game 16 I

1 5 . . . lll xe5 1 6.i.f4 f6 1 7.i.xe5 fxe5 1 8.E:xe5 @f7 1 9.lll e4 gives White the initiative and is not worth getting involved with.

Kasimdzhanov - Gyimesi Bundesliga 2005

16.£4 i.d7 17.0,e4 c5 This is the difference: Topalov never managed to get this move in.

18.lt::l e2 b6 19.lt::l 2c3 i.c6

1 .e4 e5 2.lt::l f3 lt::l c6 3.i.b5 lt::l f6 4.0-0 lt::l xe4 5.d4 lt::l d6 6.ixc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 lt::\ f5 8.'Wxd8t �xd8 9.lt::l c3 lt::l e7 10.h3 lt::l g6 1 1 .lt::l e4

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 74

The Berlin Wall

A move with some pedigree: one of Kramnik's only two defeats in some 50 Berlin games came from this position in a blitz game against Karjakin. It was also Kramnik's own choice as White in a notorious game at the Turin Olympiad against Aleksandrov, Judit Polgar's choice against Topalov at San Luis, and in his time Topalov has also played it as White.

l l ... h6 1 1 .. .i.d? would lead into the paths of the 9 . . . Ad7 variation. Against Kramnik, Aleksandrov played 1 1 . . . Ae7 1 2.b3 h5 1 3 .!!e l if5 14.lll d4 id? 1 5 .lll g5 !xg5 1 6.!xg5t �e8 1 7.e6 fxe6 1 8.lll xe6 ( 1 8.l:!ad l may be stronger still), when clearly White had some advantage. It doesn't look right to weaken g5 when White hasn't committed his bishop and has already rushed his knight to e4 after the text move White often finds himself returning to c3.

12.l:!el This is part of the idea of the early lll e 4. White can post this rook here without needing to play a3 to rule out . . . i.b4. The other popular continuation is: 1 2.b3 c5 1 2 . . . We8 1 3.ib2 a5 14.a4 lll f4 1 5 .!!fel ib4 1 6.c3 ie7 1 7.l:!adl lll e 6 1 8.c4 ib4 1 9.l:!e3 id? with a slight advantage to White was the Karjakin - Kramnik game in the 2004 Dortmund blitz play-off about this time Kramnik was interested in this . . . We8, ... lll f4-e6 plan in various lines of the Berlin, but he never did very well with it and in this line in particular it seems unnecessary when Black has good play with the normal plan. 1 3 .ie3 We saw 1 3.ib2 Ae6 14.c4 in Pruijssers I.:Ami in Chapter 1 , when Cheparinov calls 1 4 . . . i.e? the 'theoretical' move, although

I.:Ami's 14 . . . �d? seems absolutely correct to me. 13 . . . b6 1 4.!!ad l t Ad7 1 5 .lll c3 l 5 .h4!? was widely suggested but h4-h5 is a double-edged sword, and doesn't seem especially_effective to me here after either 1 5 . . . Wc8 1 6 h5 lll e7 or 1 5 . . . ie? 1 6.h5 lll f8 , when l 7.e6 fxe6 gets nowhere and Black has no problem meeting 1 7.lll c3 with 1 7 . . . Wc8 1 s .lll d 5 ids. 1 5 . . . �c8 16.lll d 5

�-i•� ·�-J . � if� .t. • . .. ��.i. • �� . ... . •. ····- ��-0 �w-0 �� �- - · ef��� qjef�---�� • 5 �� �---� � � �� � - �� �- � �- �� �, � -� -� �!]� � � -�� �� 8

7

6

4

z

.

.

3

� .

�0

3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

�

h

'.At first sight a strong move, but the knight only looks good on d5' - Cheparinov. 1 6 . . . ie6 1 7.c4 Wb7 1 8 .icl a5 1 9.a4 l:!d8 This was the model game for Black, J. Polgar - Topalov, San Luis 200 5 . The tide was already flowing Black's way before the impulsive 20.g4? h5 gave Black a virtually winning position, as we saw in Chapter 3, page 1 1 1 .

12 ... cS

Chapter 5 - . . .liJe7 Systems with h3 A very logical continuation when the white knight has wandered away from c3. The less logical-looking 1 2 . . . meS would lead to a position covered in the notes to Game 24.

13.a4 An innovation. 1 3.ie3 This has been played more often. 1 3 . . . b6 1 4.Eladl t id7 14 . . . ©eS was played by Zhang Zhong but I don't like it so much: 1 5 .c4 ie6 1 6.b3 EldS 1 7.llJc3 c6 (this is the trouble: this weakening move is more or less forced since with c7 unguarded Black cannot tolerate a knight on d5 or b5), when White would have been better in Grischuk - Zhang Zhong, ACP Blitz 2004, had he played something sensible like 1 S.llJe4 instead of the rash 1 S .h4? Elxd l and . . . ig4 winning material. 1 5.c4 mes 1 6.llJc3 ie6 1 7.b3 ie7 1 S .llJd5 ids Always a controversial question in this very typical set-up certainly it is also possible to ignore the 'threat' of llJxe7 with 1 S . . . mb7 but probably Naiditsch wanted to play for a win, when a strong GM found alarmingly little for White to do in Lupulescu - Naiditsch, Warsaw 2005. 1 9 .icl a5 20.llJc3 mb7 2 1 .llJh2 h5 22.llJf3 ©c6 23.llJe4 a4 Black already has the better prospects. White has also tried: 13.c4 when Black produced a model effort in Acs - Ki. Georgiev, Plovdiv 2003: 13 . . .ie6 1 4.b3 ie7 14 . . . md7 immediately was possible also. 1 5 .llJg3 md7 1 6.llJh5 ElhgS 1 7.ib2 Wedberg proposed getting on with it by 1 7.llJh2 when ifhe can Black wants to insert 17 . . . a5 1 S.a4 before 1 S . . . mc6, with the idea

175

that after 1 9.f4 llJh4 his counterplay down the d-file or after . . . llJf5-d4 gains in strength with the b3 weakness. The critical question may be what happens ifWhite ignores Black with 1 S.f4 a4, but Black seems reasonably well off in the complications, for example 1 9.ie3 if5 20.g4 ic2 2 1 .llJf3 llJh4 (2 1 . . .axb3 22.axb3 Elxal 23.Elxal hb3 24.e6t fxe6 25 .llJe5t ©d6 seems to be only a draw, albeit a scary one) 22.llJd2 mc6, with a tense game. 17 . . . mc6 1 S.llJd2?! a5 1 9.a4 And Black seized the initiative with 1 9 . . . ElgdS 20.llJfl This kni ght placement prevents Black's idea of . . . if5-c2 because of llJe3, but Black can still get at b3 . . . 2 0 . . . Eld3! 20 . . . llJh4 is another idea, to come to f5 and d4. 2 1 .Ele3 EladS 22.llJxg7 ig5 23.llJxe6 fxe6 24.Elxd3 24.Elg3 llJf4 is no better. 24 . . . Elxd3 25 .g3 Elxb3 26.!'la2 h5 27.f4 ih6 Clearly Black was much better, so much so that Acs felt obliged simply to toss a pawn overboard with 2S.icl llJxe5

13 ...id7 It would be interesting to know what Kasimdzhanov had in mind after 1 3 . . . a5. 1 4.Eldl t id7 1 5.Ela3 exploits White's move order to force Black to go to the kingside with 1 5 . . . mes ( 1 5 . . . ©cS?? 1 6.Elad3), but it isn't clear that White can exploit that after 1 6.llJc3 ElcS.

14.aS ic6 Black wants to prevent ie3, when White's a-pawn justifies its existence, either by capturing on b6 and forcing . . . cxb6, opening the d6-square for the e4-knight or by keeping the tension and discouraging Black from

176

The Berlin Wall

connecting his rooks with . . . @c8-b7 by the threat of a6t. After 14 . . . @e8 1 5 . .ie3 !c6 1 6.llJxc5 hf3 1 7.gxf3 Black can recuperate a little with 1 7 . . . llJh4, but 1 8.ge2 llJxf3t 1 9 . @g2 llJh4t 20.@fl still leaves White better. Having said that, it isn't easy even after the compliant 14 . . . Ae7 1 5 .!e3 b6 for White to demonstrate the advantage, since the direct 1 6.gedl ©c8 1 7.axb6 cxb6 1 8.llJd6t @c7 1 9.llJxf7, while admirably thematic, fails to 1 9 . . . ghf8 20.llJd6 llJxe5.

15.h4 White is at a little bit of a loss to develop, since either 1 5.!d2 or 1 5.b3 can be met by 1 5 . . . @d7 followed by . . . ge8 or (if gdl t) . . . @e6. The text move is always a consideration after . . . .ic6 (otherwise . . .Ag4 tends to be an annoying reply) and is a logical way of keeping up the pressure on c5, but Black's coming deft regrouping takes care of it. 1 5 .ga3 would be another way of exploiting White's moves with the a-pawn and would prevent the above idea, but what use White can make of the rook on the third rank isn't quite clear: 1 5 . . . Ae7 (even 1 5 . . . @c8 1 6.h4 Ae7 1 7.h5 llJf8 is possible) 1 6.gc3 b6 1 7.llJg3 llJf8 1 8.llJf5 llJe6 is fairly like the game.

15 ...Ae7 16.hS llif8 17.llig3 llie6 18.llif5

The knight is pretty here, but it's not stable. White has no advantage.

18 ... @eB 19.!e3 Ae4 20.llixe7 ixf3 20 . . . @xe7 was also fine. Black has difficulties.

no

2 1 .gx6 @xe7 22.f4 f5! 23.exf6t @xf6 24,ga4 gads 25.ge4 gd5 26.Ad2 llid4 27.!c3 ghd8 28.�g2 gsd7 29.ges 1/2-1/2

No doubt Gyimesi was happy enough to make a draw in a team match after Kasimdzhanov's innovation, but in lesser company Black could even play on for a win.

Conclusion: One has to respect l l .llJe4's backers, but as theory stands it doesn't seem particularly effective. Perhaps we can look for some developments in this line as whatever ideas Kramnik had are shown. Generally, the lines in this chapter are some of the most critical in the Berlin endgame, and deserve careful attention from any Black player. At the time of writing Black seems to have the answers. The most dangerous try seems to me likely to be the non-committal 1 1 .a3. (Kramnik: 'in the Berlin sometimes you have to play h3 and then next move a3, and other times first a3 and then h3, and you do not yourself know why.. .')

•••

CiJ e7 Systems without an immediate ... CiJ g6

I Game 17 I

In this chapter we discuss Black's alternatives to 1 0 ... tLi g6. These come down to the feisty 1 0 ...i.f5 , which is seen in Game 24, and

Lutz - Itkis

1 0...h6. According to Almasi, the point of this move is to 'wait and see if you want to

Kusadasi 2006

go on with ...i.d7 or ...tLig6 ' , although there are other squares the bishop may come to also. Black may also sometimes take the e7-knight to d5 . Historically perhaps the main idea was to avoid the line 1 0 ... tLig6 1 l .i.g5 t , although

1 .e4 e5 2.lLi8 lLic6 3.i.b5 l2Jf6 4.0-0 lLixe4 5.d4 l2Jd6 6.hc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 lll f5 8.Wfxd8t i>xd8 9.ctJc3 h6 1 0 .h3 tli e7

this isn't now thought quite so formidable as it once was. The move has some drawbacks too - most noticeably that it loses a tempo if ... h5 is later played - but it seems at the moment to be a fully viable alternative to 1 0...tLi g6. (The late Tony Miles, by the way, believed that ...h6 was, in principle, an error in the Berlin because of the loss of tempo, and very seldom employed the move.) White's ideas are more or less the same as after 1 0 ... lLig6, give or take i.g5. Systems with i.d2 are dealt with in Game 1 7, Games 1 8-20 show various b3 ideas (some of which might j ust as well have been in the last chapter) , Games 2 1 2 3 are i.e3 systems, and finally Game 24 a rare and tricky attempt which forces White into tactical play if he doesn't want to allow Black a fairly easy game.

a

1 1 .i.d2

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

l 1 .l2Jd4 This is ineffective for the same reason as it was on move 1 0 without h3 and ...h6.

178

The Berlin Wall

l 1 .. .c5 1 2 .lll b 3 1 2.lll f3 is now clearly completely pointless since lll g5 is impossible. 12 . . . b6 1 3.:!'l:dl t i.d7 14.a4 a5 1 5 .i.e3 Wc8 1 6.f4 i.f5 1 7.:!'l:d2 h5 1 8.:!'l:ad l lll c6 1 9.lll b 5 After 1 9.lll d 5 normal and sound would be 1 9 . . . Wb?, but Almasi suggests instead the notable line 1 9 . . . lll b4 20.lll xb4 axb4 2 1 .:!'l:d8t?! Wb7 22.:!'l:xa8 Wxa8 23.:!'l:d8t Wb7 24.c3 bxc3 25.bxc3 g6 when Black is much better. 1 9 . . . i.e? 20.tt:lcl Wb7 2 1 .lll e2 E:ad8 22.:gxd8 E:xd8 23.E:xd8 hd8 With the better ending for Black in Palac Z. Almasi, Geneva 2004. White's knight trip to b3 essentially cost him four tempi in this game for nothing, so it isn't surprising that Black obtained a very comfortable game.

12 ... cS An innovation in this game. Previously 1 2 . . . lll g6 had been played, but it seems chat this way of restraining the pawns doesn't quite work here.

Y, , �� , ,,, z�.i'� ,, , , , z� , , , , ;,� 6s �����o W f % lj � a , � � - : �®'�efm"'";���,0 ��®'�0 ����! 2 8 r� 8 � r� 8 -

1 1. .. i.fS Normal enough would be 1 1 . ..tt:lg6 transposing to Bacrot - Gyimesi (game 1 4) . The text is an independent attempt.

12.:!'l:acl 1 2 .lll d4 i.g6 doesn't do White a lot of good because he has to lose time to defend against the threat . . . c5 . For example 1 3.f4 (possibly White already does better to refrain from this and play 1 3.:!'l:fe l , aiming for e6, a course strongly favoured by Rybka. For example 1 3 . . . c5 14.lll b 3 b6 1 5 .:gacl Wc8 1 6.e6 Wb7, although with the knight on b3 in dire need of recycling White can't hope for much even from this approach. The move e5-e6 is seldom much to be feared unless it catches the black king with his trousers down in the centre otherwise the gain for White in freeing his bishop is balanced by the greater freedom afforded to Black's two bishops, particularly the dark-squared one.) 1 3 . . . c5 14.lll b 3 b6 1 5 .:!'l:acl h5 when, according to Dautov, Black is already better.

m.:Ii_� s 1. .. , -�� ,,,,

7

1

%

Y,

,

,_,,,

z __ , , ��,_, ,y,•f= a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 3.:!'l:fe l c5 1 3 . . . i.b4 14.tt:ld4 .id? 1 5 .e6 clearly favours White. 13 . . . We8 1 4.tt:ld4 i.e6 1 5 .lll xe6 fxe6 is a type of position which is always a little more appealing for White. 1 4.g4 White seems to have time for this. In Lutz - Dautov, Germany 2005, he played less directly: 1 4.tt:le4 i.e6 1 5.c4 (This move doesn't contribute much perhaps Lutz wanted to stop . . . c4 by Black, but there's no need. Better was 1 5 .lll g3 a5 [ 1 5 . . . ha2? 1 6.b3 c4 1 7.:!'l:e3 wins] 1 6.a3 Wd7 17.lll h 5 with a typical position) 1 5 ... i.e? (Almasi gives 1 5 . . . Wd? as better) 1 6.b3 ( 1 6.:gcdl Wc8 1 7.b3=) 1 6 . . . Wd? 1 7.:!'l:cdl Wc6 1 8 .lll g3 E:hd8 (an excellent move: 1 8 . . . h5 was equal but with the text Black can obtain good play) 1 9 .lll h 5 i.f8 20.i.c3 a6+: Black isn't often able to get this active . . . b5 plan in, but when he does it can be very effective. 14 . . . i.d? 1 5.lll h 2 c4 1 5 . . . h5 l 6.f4 hxg4 1 7 .hxg4 is still better for White. Beware of this sort of position

Chapter 6 - . . . l:i:Je? Systems without an immediate . . . l:i:Jg6

1 79

when analysing the Berlin with silicon: the machines almost always overrate Black's temporary activity. I 6.f4 i.c5t 1 7.©g2 i.c6t 1 8.Wg3 h5 1 9.lliS h4t 20.©g2 i.d4 2 Ukd l ©e8 22.i.cl i.xc3 23.bxc3 llie7 This was given by Dautov and is better for White: Black does have other tries but his activity always seems to expire leaving White's pawn front as the dominant feature of the position.

13.llih4 White needs to take the knight here in order to give himself control of f5 . Otherwise his plan of pushing forward quickly on the kingside cannot work, for example 1 3.g4 i.e6 14.i.e3 b6 1 5 .:i'kd l t Wc8 1 6.llih4? h5, and if the knight goes anywhere else . . . g6 holds up the kingside push for a long time.

13 i.d7 •••

With the knight on h4 the bishop feels the need to take pre-emptive avoidance action against f5 , although in fact even 13 . . . i.e6 14.f4 g6 l 5 .i.e3 b6 is worth considering since 1 6.g4 h5 l 7.f5 .!c4 is embarrassing.

14.£4 g6 This is ltkis' plan he intends to leave the knight where it is and develop the bishop to g7. From e7 the knight has many options, and with . . . g6 played it is almost impossible for White to enforce f5 . The downside is that the bishop on g7 has no life unless Black gets in either . . . f6 or . . . g5 to undermine e5, and both of those moves need notoriously careful handling in the Berlin. However in the game Lutz doesn't find anything effective against the idea, and it remains to be seen whether this is possible.

15.i.e3 b6 16.l:kdl lt>c8

These moves are all too natural to need explanation, and now White needs to decide upon a plan.

17.1%d2 The trouble is that l 7.g4 h5 l 8.f5 hxg4 simply favours Black, while 1 7.lliS i.g7 1 8.g4 h5 is also annoying. 1 8.Wh2 i.c6 1 9.g4 Wb7 20.Wg3 1%ad8 would be a more sensible way to get the pawns moving, but Black still has approximate equality, with a flexible position with ideas of .. .f6 or . . . llid5 . So White settles for doubling on the d-file this does sometimes afford him tactical shots, and also prevents Black from exchanging a pair of rooks, but the rooks don't have a natural invasion point along the d-file.

17 ...i.g7 18.lli6 i.c6 19.©fl ©b7 20.1%fdl It's still not time for 20.g4 1%ad8 2 1 .1%xd8 (2 1 .1%fdl 1%xd2t 22.1%xd2 g5! 23.fxg5 hxg5 24.llixg5 i.xe5 illustrates another point of Black's set-up) 2 1 .. .1%xd8 22.Wg3 llid5 23.llixd5 i.xd5 . This exchange of knights normally favours Black in the Berlin.

20 £6 21 .exf6 •.•

After this Black has no troubles, but 2 1 .e6 is always a dangerous way to go: if Black manages to simplify then the chances are that e6 will

1 80

The Berlin Wall

simply drop off. The knight is exceptionally well placed on e7 to prevent White from making anything ofthe advanced pawn. 2 l . . . h5 22.lll h4 gae8 23.ge2 gd8 24.geel Wc8 25.a3 gxdl 26.gxdl gd8 27.gd2 gxd2t 28.hd2 Wd8 29.g4 hxg4 30.hxg4 f5! illustrates the sort of thing that can happen: the e-pawn is already beyond good and evil and White has a defensive task ahead of him.

21. .. hf6 22.ge2 ghf'S

52.!e5 c3 53.bxc3 b3 54.c4 Wa3 55.!h2t @b4 56.!f6 1/2-1/2

An impressive opening idea by ltkis. Black doesn't normally develop like this, but it's interesting how many options keeping the knight on e7 gives him.

Conclusion: On the evidence of this game 1 1 . . .!f5 is a particularly effective way to play against !d2 systems and a strong recommendation for waiting with 1 O . . . h6 against them.

I Game 18 I

Adams - Z. Almasi Calvia Olympiad 2004

1.e4 e5 2.lll f3 lll c6 3.!b5 lll f6 4.0-0 lll xe4 5.d4 lll d6 6.hc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 lll f5 8.VHxd8t Wxd8 9.lll c3 lll e7 10.gel h6 1 1 .h3 lll g6 12.lll e2

23.!cl lll f5 24.lll e4 !d4t 25.lllxd4 lllxd4 26.geel lllxc2 27.ge2 lll d4 28.geel g5 29.g3 gae8 30.lll c3 gxf4 31.gxf4 lll f5 32.gxe8 gxe8 33.ggl b5 34.lll e2 !d7 35.lll g3 gg8 Black must have thought the coming ending was winning, but it isn't instead 35 . . . lll d6 preserved a big advantage.

36.lllxf5 gxgl 37.Wxgl !xf5 38.h4 wc6 39.wfl wd5 40.We2 h5 41 .!e3 b4 42.wd2 a5 43.a3 wc6 44.wcl @b5 45.!fl c4 46.axb4 axb4 47.!d4 Wa4 48.!e5 c6 49.!£6 Wb3 50.!e5 Wa2 5 1 .!£6 c5

This line is not necessarily specific to this chapter: the move order could have been 1 0 .h3 lll g6 1 1 .lll e2 h6 1 2.ge l , although White seldom if ever plays l 1 .lll e2 in that

Chapter 6 - . . . ti:Je7 Systems without an immediate . . . ti:Jg6 order and Black might look elsewhere than 1 1 . . .h6 after it. Adams' idea has been played only in this game, but Adams is a great expert on the White side of the opening (almost as great as his brash observation that 'let's face it, a good player ought to win this ending every time' would suggest) , and losses by Almasi in the Berlin are rare, so clearly it deserves a serious look. With 1 2.lll e4 White could of course transpose to Kasimdzhanov - Gyimesi, and Almasi said that the knight on e2 'did not fit into the position'. If the knight is going to come to g3 and h5 then it doesn't make any difference, but the knight on e2 does have one square available to it which it doesn't have from e4, and that is f4. In the game Adams manages to exploit this factor, although presently the knight on g6 seems to be preventing it from becoming relevant. As we shall see, probably Almasi would have done better to be guided by the general idea that Cll e2 can't be a good move if the knight can be kept off f4.

12 cS •••

Always a natural move once the knight leaves c3, and the same move Black normally plays after 12.lll e 4.

13.b3 Again as per the 12.lll e4 lines. White could also play for example 1 3.lll g3, which would very probably transpose directly.

13 i.e6 14.i.b2 ©d7 •••

1 4 . . . Wc8 and 1 4 . . . i.e7 are plausible alternatives indicated by Almasi, but the text is a natural attempt to take advantage of White's tardiness in arranging for a rook to come to d l , seeking to gain a tempo or two by tucking the king away on c6 straightaway instead of having to traipse round via c8.

15.h4

s

181

�

�1

� -.�.- - ­ dmt ��w-!0����ilw- : ,� ·· " �" 5 B - �� -� � �----� �� ,� ��� ����L� , ,. �1 !m!��n!• . � � �i{"" ' � �� -

.1m m

�

-0

4

Ii"

a

b

c

d

e

�- - -� f g h

1 5 .lll g3 ©c6 1 6 .lll h 5 l:!g8 would lead to a position similar to Bacrot - Gyimesi, although Black has obtained a rather more active version this time, since he has got the king to c6 and managed . . . i.e6 in one go rather than two. With the text though Adams has some very specific ideas to justify his knight's placement.

15 i.g4?! •••

1 5 ... i.e7 1 6.h5 lll h4 ( 1 6 . . . lll f8 1 7.lll f4 also favours White) 17.lll xh4 i.xh4 1 8.lll f4 would lead to a type of position which quite often arises in the Berlin, in which White has at least some winning chances after the capture on e6. But the real question is how White proceeds after: 1 5 . . . h5! (Adams) , steadfastly refusing to allow the knight to be driven from g6 and thus denying the white steed access to f4. Almasi said this was what he should have played, and Adams gave the line: 1 6 .l:!ad l t ©c6 17.lll g 5 IfWhite doesn't play this then . . . 1J..e7 follows and h4 was simply a bad move. 1 7 . . . lll xh4 1 8 .lll f4 i:!e8 1 9.g3 lll f5 20.©g2 l:!h6 2 1 .l:!h l g6 22.lll fxe6 fxe6 23.i.cl 'with compensation'.

The Berlin Wall

1 82

This is a remarkable line with its idea of bringing the rook to h 1 to force . . . g6 and give White the disruptive possibility of g4, and at the end White's pressure is a good deal greater than at first sight appears, but even so it does leave some unanswered questions. In particular the move 1 8 . . . ge8 seems curious if Black is going to have to play . . . gh6 anyway before he can go . . . Ae?. Far more natural seems 1 8 . . . gh6, and how White then proposes to show compensation for his pawn I'm not sure. If he follows the same idea with 1 9 .g3 lll f5 20.@g2 then Black is in time for 20 . . . Ae?, and after either 2 1 .lll fxe6 fxe6 22.lll e4 or 2 1 .lll gx:e6 fxe6 22.gh l gah8! the tempo saved shows and White does not obtain what he is looking for in return for his pawn. Now, however, Adams is able to execute a textbook breakthrough.

w ,_, , ,·%-�·--

s xn

-�- -%�·�- - -%� �� :4 ���.- ��� �a11 " " ��!� ,� �� !•" 2 !�!� �n!• % �g: 7%:-v� � i ,� � D � � 7

- - - - - Z�r�

3

____t ____ ,y,� a

16.e6t

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Virtually decisive, although it is hard to imagine that so thematic a move came as a surprise to Almasi. He must have overlooked something down the line.

16 fxe6 •••

Losing is 1 6 . . . @xe6 17.lll f4t @f5 1 8 .lll xg6 @xg6 1 9 .lll e 5t @h5 20.f3 i.e6 2 I .@f2, and 1 6 . . . .he6 1 7.h5 lll e? 1 8.gad l t @c8 1 9 .lll f4

Ag4 20.lll d 5 (the calm silicon 20.gd3 may be stronger still, but it's not important) 20 . . . Ae6 2 1 .lll xe?t .he? 22 ..hg? is also pretty unpleasant (these and the remaining lines were indicated by Adams) .

17.lll f4 lll xf4 1 8.lll e 5t @e8 19.lllxg4 h5 No other method of defending e6 is apparent but, as usual with these sacrifices, once the game becomes open with Black's pieces still sprawling around the edges and his king in the centre he has grave difficulties, particularly since White's b2-bishop is transformed instantly from ugly duckling to laser.

20.lll e5 gh6 21 .gadl Ae7 22.c4! A splendidly calm move which Adams preferred to winning material with 22.g3 lll d 5 23.c4 ll:\b4 24.Acl gf6 25 .Ag5 lll c2 26.ge4 ll:\d4 27 . .hf6 gxf6. It would take more than a tempo for Black to get himself co-ordinated.

22 gds 23.fu:dBt .hd8 24.g3 lll g6 25.lll d3 b6 26.Axg7 gb7 27.Ac3 •••

White has an almost decisive advantage in the hands of a player like Adams, and he duly managed to convert it.

27 @d7 28.@g2 Ae7 29.@6 Ad6 30.@e4 gf7 3 1 .ge3 lll e7 32.gf'3 ll:\5 33.lll e5t .he5 34.@xe5 gf8 35.Ad2 a6 36.il6 gbs 37.gd3t lll d6 3B.@f6 g8s 39.H4 h5 4o.gd2 bxc4 41.bxc4 @c6 42 .hd6 cxd6 43.@xe6 gest 44.@5 ggs 45.gd3 gg4 46.£4 ggs 47.@f6 ges 48.@g6 ge4 49.gc3 d5 50.cx:d5t @xd5 5 1 .@xh5 @d4 52.gcl c4 53.5 1-0 •••

•

A splendid example of The Spider's patient style, but theoretically the note to Black's 1 5th seems to provide the answer to this line.

Chapter 6 - . Ji:J e? Systems without an immediate . . . tll g 6 Conclusion: Adams' idea was perhaps only good for one game it hasn't been repeated but Black needs to remember why. Logic seems to dictate that as long as the knight is kept from f4 Black will be fine, and Adams' proposed pawn sacrifice to get it there seems to give White not quite enough.

I Game 19 I

Ehlvest - N. Mitkov

1.e4 e5 2.'ll f3 'll c6 3 .ib5 'll f6 4.0-0 'll xe4 5.d4 'll d6 6.hc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 'll f5 8. Y«xdBt 'it>xd8 9.'ll c3 'll e7 10.h3 h6 1 1 .b3 .if5 •

m �� s i. B B , / 4,,,,� ��ref ,,,, % :% . , , �_____��,__ �. ��,. (� t�� A 1 z•� i·� �. - - - - & i·� �- - - A& ��r�·----

...

� �� ' �)ii %� ��, � �, �� : �� �� � !� ts 3 � !m � �� '· � 2 !�' ' t ; - - � ��:� �-- - - %� 1 ,G a

b

� c

d

�M� e

f

g

(blindfold) 2003, which went 1 3 J�ad l 'it>c8 1 4 J:ffe l 'll f4! ? ( 1 4 . . ..ib4 followed by exchanging on c3 is also solid and has equalised in various games) 1 5 . 'll d4 a5 1 6 .'ll ce2 'll e6 1 7. 'll xe6 .ixe6 1 8 .'ll d4 a4 1 9 .'ll xe6 fxe6 20.E:e4 axb3 2 1 . axb3

E:a2, with equality according to Informant 87, although White could perhaps claim a slight edge (Anand won after interminable tacking) . In the present chapter we look at two more pure ' . . . 'lie?' ideas for Black.

12.E:dlt

Calvia Olympiad 2004

6

1 83

h

Reaching the same position as Game 24 with the addition of the moves . . . h6 and b3. Whom this might benefit is not immediately clear, although one suspects that it is Black, whose bishop can retreat directly to h? in the sharp lines with g4 and run no risk of being trapped after f4. l 1 .. .'ll g6 1 2 . .ib2 .id? is a 'normal' but surprisingly rare response leading to a hybrid . . . .id? system the most significant reference after it being Anand - Z. Almasi, Monaco

White has also tried 12.'ll d4 .ig6 1 3 . .ia3, which poses more of a challenge than it might seem at first sight. 1 3 . . . 'll f5 ( 1 3 . . . 'll d 5 1 4 . .ixf8 E:xf8 1 5 . 'll a4 is surprisingly dangerous, for example 1 5 . . . 'll b4 1 6.E:adl 'it>e? 1 7.f4 .ixc2 1 8.E:d2 .ih? 1 9 . f5 . The knights on d4 and a4 co-ordinate remarkably well, with the constant threat of 'll c 5 the pressure on c6 stops Black preventing this with . . . b6.) 14 . .ixf8 E:xf8 1 5 . 'll f3 'lie? 1 6.E:ad 1 t 'it>e8 1 7 .E:d2 E:d8 1 8.E:fdl E:xd2 1 9.E:xd2 .if5 20.g4 .ie6 left White a little better in Fercec - Pavasovic, Zadar 2004.

12 ... 'it>cB It is also very possible to play 12 . . . 'it>eS, when White made no impression by 1 3.'ll d4 .ih? 14.'ll ce2 ( 1 4 . .ib2 E:d8) 1 4 . . . E:d8 1 5 . .ib2 'll d 5 1 6.e6 in Motylev - Sutovsky, Aeroflot 2005, which went on 16 ... .ic5 l 7.a3 'll f6 1 8 .b4 .ib6 1 9.c4 c5 20.exf7t 'it>xf7 with at least adequate play for Black.

13.E:d2 If this is the best move White has then Black's idea is justified. As the game goes we reach a line which could have been reached in the . . . .id? system save that Black's bishop has lost a tempo going from .. .f5 to . . . e6 rather than from . . . d?.

13 ... b6

1 84

The Berlin Wall

I have chosen this move because the game well illustrates typical play after White achieves tbh5, but instead 1 3 . . . tbd5 seems to equalise very directly. If the knight moves then . . . !b4 follows, so instead Black must achieve the generally desirable trade of knights and has then only to complete his development. 1 4.!b2 1 4.tbxd5 cxd5 1 5 .E1xd5 hc2 1 6 .!b2 was already abandoned as a draw in Ehlvest Bacrot, Moscow 2005, but Black has nothing . to fear and could perfectly well play on. 14 ... tbxc3 1 5 .hc3 c5 1 6.tbh4 !e6 1 7.f4 g6 1 8.E1fl 1 8.g4 !e? holds back the hordes. 1 8 . . . h5 An important move preventing g4, which already left Black for preference in Vescovi Harikrishna, Bermuda 2005.

14 .tb2 @b7 •

15 ... tbg6 1 6.tbe2 a5 17.tbg3 i.e6 18.tlJhS 1 8.tbd4 is well met with 1 8 . . . i.c8 as in Leitao - Zuniga 1 8.a4 i.b4 1 9.c3 i.e? is rather annoying for White. This is often a useful resource when . . . a5 a4 has occurred before . . . c5 and the rooks are lined up as a tempting target on the d-file.

18 ... c5 It is interesting that both sides agree that Black does not want to open the a-file with 1 8 . . . a4, although it is by no means clear to me that they were right. 1 9.tbd4 axb3 20.axb3 i.c8 followed by . . . E1a2 looks just fine to me.

19.a4 E1g8 20.c4 i.e7 21 .g4 A very typical position in which White's queen's knight is much better placed on h5 than it would have been on d5 . Nonetheless Black has a normal Berlin position and is not worse.

.i� � �F � 7 -- �� - · �� _ , � :r� 'iw 6 �-J. r� ��r � �--,, if�� �-ltJ � ---J��if�� �- - --%� t!;� 43 'lt�,�8%����� Lj ��-0 �% ' " " ��-0 �� 7. � 2 � �� �� � .i -�p � 8� � ��-0 ,

,

%

5

1

... .g. ,,, Y.

a

21. .. E1ae8

b

-

c

d

e

; ,0�

----% f

g

h

Black could also have considered the interesting tactical strike 2 1 . . .b5, emphasising in the most direct way the thematic weakness of the light-squared queenside pawn chain. After 22.axb5 a4 23.bxa4 E1xa4 he can regain his pawn with advantage, while otherwise it's not clear what White should play.

Chapter 6 - . . . l:iJ e7 Systems without an immediate . . . lLig6

22.@g2 22.lll h2 can be met with 22 . . . �g5, but Black needs a way to meet the plan lt>g3/lll h 2/f4. The one he chooses is typical.

22 ... lll fS 22 . . . �g5 23.lll xg5 hxg5 24.@g3 is better for White with his possibilities (after preparation with @g3, f3 and so on) of �cl and (if the bishop moves from e6 to prevent this move by putting pressure on e5) a breakthrough with some combination of e6/lll xg7, as well as just h4 followed in due course by f4 and so on. Black has no active play.

23.lll g l g6 24.lll f6

1 85

30.gxhS E:h8 3 I .@g2 lhh5 32.E:hl E:eh8 33.E:e2 l'l:8h7 There must have been time pressure. 33 . . . E:xh3 was safe enough. In trying to defend against E:xe6 Black only gives White the time he needs to make it work.

34.E:e3 E:h4 35.E:xe6 fxe6 36.E:el @c8 37.E:xe6 @d7 38.E:eS g4 39.hxg4 E:xg4t 40.@f3 E:gh4 41 .E:e2 E:h3t 42.@g4 E:xb3 43.f4 E:bh3 44.@5 After 44.f7 Black has to play 44 . . . E:3h4t 45.@g5 E:xf7 46.@xh4 E:xf4t 47.@g3 E:xc4 if he wants to try and win, but I suspect this ending is quite nasty for White.

A typical decision for White, and his choice is controversial. 24.lll f4 followed by the capture on e6 is usually safer and leads to a small but enduring advantage for White, although the ending after 24 . . . g5 25.lll xe6 lll xe6 followed by the exchange of all the rooks along the d-file is generally a draw - a knight on f5 is neutralised by . . . �£8, and if the knight retreats Black plays . . . �e7 and meets @f5 with . . . lll g7t. White can't really make any progress, although Black needs to defend carefully for a long time.

44... E:3h5t

24 ... .hf6 25.exf6 g5 26.lll e2 lll g6

Conclusion: This line also looks very reasonable for Black, especially with 1 3 . . . lll d 5, and may be another reason to prefer the more flexible 1 0 . . . h6.

The point of White's 23rd was that he is in time to meet 26 . . . lll h 7 27.lll g3 E:g6 by 28.lll h 5. But an alternative and perhaps better regrouping for Black was 26 . . . �d7 27.lll g3 �c6t 28.@h2 lll g6. Usually in this structure the knight is best on g6 where it keeps White's pieces off the important crossroads e5, militates against either f4 or h4, and does not obstruct the rooks on the e-file, while the bishop has most active possibilities on c6. Still, Black is fine in any case.

27.lll g3?! lll f4t 28.@h2 h5 29.lllxhS lllxh5

44 . . . E:h2 45.E:xh2 E:xh2 was the way to carry on trying to win, but this being at an Olympiad, presumably some fatuous semi­ rapid time limit was in operation and the players were on increment by now.

45.@g6 E:5h6t 46.@gS E:hSt 47.@g6 E:5h6t 48.@gS 1/2-1/i

I Game 20 I

Nijboer - Jonkman Essent 2005

1 .e4 e5 2.lll f3 lll c6 3.�b5 lll f6 4.0-0 lllxe4 5.d4 lll d6 6.hc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 lll 5 8.�xd8t @xd8 9.lll c3 lll e7 10.h3 h6 1 1 .b3 lll g6 12.�b2

1 86

The Berlin Wall

•..t. �·-�_� �.i 8 i. --- "7, � " ' ill , , 7 ,,,,,% Wtf. � % �

, � � �� � W-' 0 % �----� �� � � 5 � ef � � � �- - - - % � 4 � �� � �� � �%'"//, � 6

�

8 3 � ��8-�m -----:� •tZ:l• ��' 0 �lw. 2 8 � 8 • j( � r� 8 � 1

�, , , ,, � � -.1� a

1 2 . . . tlJf4

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This plan is similar to Vladimir Kramnik's in his only slow-play Berlin loss, a famous game against Kasparov at Astana 200 l , although, as we saw in Chapter 3, there the knight tour came too late to prevent an e6!! break. Black can also introduce the same strategy with: 1 2 . . . a5 1 3.a4 The crucial question must be what happens if White ignores Black's demonstration with something like 1 3.gad l t @e8 l 4.tlJd4, although in Timofeev -Yemelin, Rethymnon 2003, he wasn't able to show anything after 14 . . . tlJf4 1 5 .gfe l GtJe6 1 6.GtJf5 h5. The rest of the game is worth showing as a Black model and an illustration of how little even a 2600 GM can find to do as White in the Berlin when it goes wrong: 17.ge3 b6 1 8.GtJe4 h4 19.a4 c5 20.geel i.b7 2 1 .GtJd2 gd8 22.f3 g6 23.GlJe3 i.h6 24.tlJdc4 @e7 25 .i.cl gd4 26.@f2 i.f4 27.tlJfl i.xcl 28.gxcl ghd8 29.GtJa3 i.a6 30.GtJb l c4 3 1 .c3 g4d7 32.b4 tlJf4 and 0-1 . 1 3 . . . tlJf4 1 4.gad l t @e8 1 5 .tlJe4 .!f5 1 6.gfe l c5 1 7.@h2 h5 1 8.tlJfg5 GtJe6 1 9.GlJxe6 fxe6 20.ge2 gds 2 1 .gxdSt @xd8 22.i.cl Quite the wrong idea. 22 . . . i.e7 23.i.g5 hg5 24.tlJxg5 @e7 25.gd2 c4 26.bxc4 gds

White was lost in Michielsen - Jonkman, Haarlem 2005 (see page 1 25).

13.gadl t @e8

8 7 6

5

4

3

2

1

a

14.gfel

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 4.gd4 is a loss of tempo which aims to incarcerate Black's queen's bishop: 1 4 . . . tlJe6 1 5 .gd2 .!e7 1 6.gfdl a5 l 7.tlJe4 a4 1 8.tlJd6t led only to equality in Aveskulov - Kryvoruchko, Lvov 2006, but after slower moves Black can emerge from his chrysalis with . . . b6, . . . i.b7, . . . c5 , . . . h5-h4, . . . gds and . . . gh5 in some convenient order. 14.gd2 i.e7 1 5 .gfdl GtJe6?, incarcerating the bishop all by himself, was therefore a thoroughly inept effort in Torres Novalbos - Rizouk, Erandio 2005, which shortly saw Black needing to escape by a nicely timed draw offer to his 500 points lower-rated opponent in a position where Fritz reads +7.25 or so. Of course much better was 1 5 . . . .!f5 when Black is fine. 14.@h2 i.e7 1 5 .gfe l tlJe6 (again 1 5 . . .i.f5 was better) 1 6.GtJe2 c5 1 7.GtJd2 (It looks more natural to go 1 7.GlJc3 but as usual the knight on d5 is more decorative than threatening: Black is fine after 1 7 . . . b6 1 8.tlJd5 i.b7.) 17 . . . h5 1 8.tlJe4 b6 1 9.c4 i.b7 20.GtJ2c3 gds

Chapter 6 - . . . tt:J e7 Systems without an immediate . . . tt:Jg6 2 1 .lll d 5 �d7 22.�fl lll d4!? (22 ... h4 was a sound alternative) 23.lll ec3 (surely 23.hd4 cxd4 24.�xd4 c6 25.lll xe7 �xd4 26.lll f5 �d7 27.lll xg?t was worth a try?) 23 . . . h4 24.lll e3 �h5 25 .f4 f6 26.exf6 and in de Vreugt - Erwich, Hoogeveen 2004, White again demonstrated the sort of grandmasterly timing in the peace negotiations which he had rather lacked in the play, before Black could entirely take over the show.

14 lll e6 •••

1 4 . . . a5 would transpose to Timofeev Yemelin unless White could find a better move than 1 5 .lll d4, which would not be simple, for example 1 5 .mh2 �b4 1 6.a3 hc3 1 7.hc3 lll e6 1 8.mg3 b6 1 9.�d2 c5 20.�edl �b7 with an ideal set-up for Black and comfortable equality. l 4 . . . �f5 is appealing but with a rook on the e-file White has 1 5 .lll d4 �g6 1 6.e6, when it is difficult for Black to avoid the slightly worse type of ending which arises after a sequence such as 1 6 . . . lll xe6 l 7.lll xe6 fxe6 1 8.�xe6t @f7 1 9.�e3 �d6 20.lll e4 he4 2 1 .�xe4.

15.mh2 a5 16.lll g l h5 17.lll ge2 �b4 18.a3 hc3 19 .hc3 b6 20.£4 g6 21.lll g3 •

1 87

I don't think this move addresses itself to the right issues. Of course Black wants to keep the white rook from the f-file, and he is concerned about a pawn on h4 becoming vulnerable, but still I think it was better to drive the knight away and hamper the advance of the majority with 2 1 . . .h4 22.lll e4 me7. After 23.lll f6 Black can either venture 23 . . . lll xf4 24.e6 lll xe6 25.lll d 5t cxd5 26.hh8 c5 27.g3 �b7 28.�e5 hxg3t 29.mxg3, when he should be fine, or else carry on with his plan of . . . c5 and . . .�b7 before thinking about . . . a4, and after other moves the same plan gives Black equality.

22.£5 gxf5 23.lllxf5 This knight is terribly strong here, almost stronger than it would be on f6. The trouble is that it attacks all the weak dark squares, and yet it can't really be driven away since the bishop can't get at it without the knight on e6 moving, and this is the piece which is holding Black's position together.

23 �dS 24.�xdSt mxd8 25.�dl t me8 26.�el! •••

Black often needs to watch out for this way of activating the bishop in this case once it is on h4 it single-handedly prevents either the black rook or the black king entering the game.

26 �cS 27.il4 �d7

8

•••

27 . . . c5?? 28.lll g?t wins, so there isn't time to stop White's next.

7

6

28.b4!

5

Further restricting both Black's minor pieces by fixing c6 and controlling c5 . Remember Philidor? On the side where you have to defend, the pawns belong on the colour of your own bishop.

4 3

2

1

a

21. �a6?! ••

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

28 a4 29.�£6 �g8 30.c4 �g6 3 1 .c5! •••

Either opening lines on this side, which is trouble for Black with his rook out of the

The Berlin Wall

1 88

game, or else fixing the majority totally and safeguarding all White's own pawns after 3 1 . . .b5.

3 1 . bxc5 32.bxc5 lllxc5 33.lll g7t l:!xg7 33 . . . @f8 34.lll xh5 was also grim, but now ••

White wins easily.

34.hg7 'it>e7 35.l:!d4 MS 36.l:!c4 lll e6 37.filt6 c5 38 .ie3 'it>d7 39.hc5 'it>c6 40 ..ie3t @d5 41.l:!xa4 c5 42.l:!a5 lll d4 43.'it>g3 lll b3 44.l:!b5 'it>c4 45.l:!b7 .ie6 46.l:!c7 .id5 47.a4 @b4 48.a5 c4 49.a6 c3 50.a7 lll d2 5 1 .l:!xf'l lll c4 52.l:!f4 'it>b3 53.l:!xc4 'it>xc4 54.e6 1-0

1 1 ... .id7!? This hasn't been played all that much but it must be the critical question if Black can hide away on the queenside then White is committed to a plan against the . . . .id7 set­ ups with his own bishop on e3, which is nor particularly effective. Black's tardiness in starting the manoeuvre, however, gives White some tactical opportunities.

•

A powerful and thematic performance from White after move 2 1 , but at that point Black was fine if he had just continued with his thematic approach of putting the pawns on dark squares to complement his bishop and knight on e6.

Conclusion: This line is another interesting option against b3 systems, which is available either after 1 0 . . . h6 or 1 0 .. lll g6 and thus might just as well have been in the last chapter. .

I Game 21 I

J. Polgar - Ponomariov Sofia 2005

1 .e4 e5 2.lll f3 lll c6 3 .ib5 tt:\£6 4.0-0 lllxe4 5.d4 lll d6 6.hc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 lll f5 8. �xd8t 'it>xd8 9.lll c3 h6 10.h3 lll e7 1 1 ..ie3 •

Just a sensible developing move, getting ready for l:!ad 1 t and not giving Black the hook for his counterplay that b3 often does.

12.l:!adl 'it>c8 This was played for the first time in this game, and still hasn't been played much, but White has yet to put any theoretical dents in it. 1 2 . . . 'it>e8 is Game 23 .

13.l:!d2 White could continue more quietly but, for the reason I gave above, if she can't do anything quickly then this is the way Black should play.

13 ... b6 14.l:!fdl .ie6 15.lll d4 White achieves nothing by rushing in with 1 5 .l:!dSt?! '1t>b7 1 6.l:!xa8 'it>xa8 1 7.l:!dSt 'it>b7 since 1 8.lll d4 is calmly met with 1 8 . . . .icS! (Ponomariov) , and Black is ready to expel the rook with . . . c5 and . . . lll c 6.

Chapter 6 - . . . CiJe7 Systems without an immediate . . . CiJg6

1 89

1 5 . . . ©b? 1 6 . .!Dxe6 fxe6, while not obviously fatal, is a worse version for Black than 1 6 . .!Dxe6 in the game, and 1 5 . . . i.d??! 1 6 . .!Ddb5 i.f5 1 7.l:M8t ©b7 1 8.l:!xa8 ©xa8 1 9 . .!Dxc?t ©b7 20 . .!Z\e8 is also no good, so Black has to offer a pawn.

16 .!Dxc6?! •

Ponomariov indicates the following lines: 16 . .!Z\xe6!? fxe6 1 7 . .!Z\xd5! The exclamation mark is Ponomariov's, but I don't know that his other line 1 7.l:!d3 g5 1 8 . .!Z\e2 i.g7 1 9.c4 .!Db4 20.!%3d2 c5 2 1 .f4 gxf4 22 . .!Dxf4 .!Dc6, which he labels unclear, isn't the more promising in the long run. 17 . . .cxd5 1 8.c4 dxc4! Weaker alternatives are 1 8 . . . c6 1 9.cxd5 exd5 20.f4 g6 2 1 .g4, and 1 8 . . . i.b4 1 9.l:!c2 l:!d8 20.cxd5 exd5 2 1 .f4 ©b7 22.f5 . 1 9.l:!d8t ©b7 20.l:!xa8 ©xa8 2 1 .l:!d8t ©b7 22.l:!e8 a5 23.l:!xe6 i.b4 24.l:!g6 l:!e8 25.l:!xg? 3xe5 26.i.f4 l:!e l t 27.©h2 l:!e2 28.l:!xc?t it>a6 Ponomariov adorns this with the 'with counterplay' sign, although in fact I think simply '=' would have been more accurate.

16 .!Dxc3 17.!!dSt •••

Ponomariov gave 1 7.bxc3 i.a3 as unclear, pointing to the queenside weaknesses, and this assessment was borne out in Kosteniuk Zhukova, Gothenburg 2005, which went on 1 8.f4 g6 1 9 . .!Z\d4 i.c4 20.l:!b l i.c5 2 1 .a4 ©b7 22.©f2 l:!ad8 23.l:!bdl a5 24.g4 h5 25.©g3 hxg4 26.hxg4 !!de8 27.l:!e l l:!h7 28 . .!Z\f3 i.e7 29.l:!gl i.e6 30 . .!Z\d4 i.d7, by which time it was apparent that White wasn't succeeding in the task of simultaneously consolidating on the queenside and advancing the kingside pawns.

17 ©b7 18.bxc3 i.d6 .••

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Equalising. Black has a more combative alternative in 1 8 . . . i.a3!? 1 9.l:!xh8 !!xh8 20 . .!Dd8t (20.l:!d8 !!h7! is fine for Black) 20 . . . l:!xd8! 2 1 .l:!xd8 i.xa2 22.l:!dl (Ponomariov's description of this as the only move seems a bit exaggerated, but certainly the computer­ beloved 22.l:!g8? g6 23.hl6 a5 is unwise) 22 . . . i.e6 (22 . . . i.b2?! 23.i.d4 c5 24.e6! is bad but 22 . . . i.c4!? is a reasonable alternative) 23.g4 a5 24.f4 g6 25.©f2 i.b2. While Black might be able to hold here, I think he's taking more risks than White - the a-pawn can be stopped in its tracks by i.cl when it reaches a3.

19.!%xh8 !%xh8 20.exd6 20 . .!Da5t bxa5 2 1 .exd6 cxd6 22.l:!xd6 l:!c8 23.i.d4 g6 24.a3 l:!c6 25 .l:!d8 l:!c8 gives White only the most symbolic of edges.

20 ©xc6 21 .dxc7 ©xc722.a3 !!d8 23.!!xdS ©xd8 24.g4 h5 25.gxh5 hh3 26.h6 gxh6 27.hh6 MS 28.©fl hc2 29.©e2 •••

•/2-1/2

An interesting game which exemplifies Almasi's point that the idea of 1 0 . . . h6 is to see whether . . . i.d7 or . . . .!Dg6 will be more appropriate at Black's next turn.

1 90

The Berlin Wall

Conclusion: There's no particular reason not to follow the 'main' lines with . . . llig6 against ie3 systems, but Ponomariov's approach is also interesting. White hasn't shown anything at all against this line as yet.

I Game 22 I

Anand - Vallejo Pons Monaco (blindfold) 2007

I.e4 e5 2.llif3 llic6 3.ib5 llif6 4.0-0 llixe4 5.d4 llid6 6.hc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 llif5 8. %Yxd8t 'it>xd8 9.llic3 h6 10.h3 llie7 1 1 .ie3 if5

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

It's hard to believe this idea is better than 9 . . . llie7 1 0.h3 if5, but some good players have tried it here. Black's other independent alternative, l 1 . . .llid5 1 2.l:fadl ie6, is dubious for at least two reasons: a) Most commentators admired White's play in Volokitin - Karjakin, Cuernavaca 2006, which went: 1 3.llid4 llixe3 14.fxe3! 'it>e8 14 . . . 'it>e? 1 5 .llice2 is also better for White according to Volokitin. 1 5 .llixe6 fxe6 1 6.llie2 ic5 1 7.l:'lf3 gf8

1 7 . . . gd8 looks like a better try to me since 1 8.gxd8t 'it>xd8 1 9.llif4 'it>d7 20.llig6 can be met with the cool 20 . . . gd8. 1 8.'it>f2 g5 1 8 . . . gd8 1 9.gxd8t 'it>xd8 20.llif4 'it>d7 2 1 .llig6 gxf3t 22.gxf3 is also a miserable ending for Black. 1 9 .gxf5 exf5 With a definite advantage for White, as we saw in chapter 2. b) In my opinion White presented a still more convincing argument in Stellwagen - Cox, Amsterdam 2006: 1 3.llixd5 cxd5 14.c4 c6 1 5 .llid4 g6 1 5 . . . 'it>d7 1 6.f4 is also nasty in view of 1 6 . . . dxc4 ( 1 6 . . . g6 1 7.g4 gg8 1 8.llib5! again) l 7.llixe6t 'it>xe6 1 8.f5t 1 6.f4 1 6.llixe6t fxe6 l 7.gd3 is at least a little better for White. 1 6 . . . h5 1 7.cxd5 ixd5 1 8.llib5! 'it>c8 1 9 .llixa?t 'it>b8 20.llib5 ib4 2 1 .a3 ib3 Black managed to hold on after 22.gc l , while as I said i n chapter 3, 22.llid6 was a better try and gave at least some advantage to White. 1 l . . .b6 didn't work out at all well after the typical central build-up 12.gadl t 'it>e8 1 3.llid4 a6 14.gfe l ib7 and now 1 5 .e6 llig6 l 6.e7! in lvanchuk - Bologan, Spanish Team Championship 2006.

12.gadl t 'it>e8 Almasi had tried 12 . . . 'it>c8 1 3.llid4 ih7, but got the worst of it in Harikrishna Z. Almasi, Paks 2006, after 14.e6 c5 1 5 .llidb5 a6 1 6.gd7 axb5 1 7.llixb5? (White should have continued 1 7.gfd l llic6 1 8.llixb5 gas 1 9.c4 id6 20.g l xd6 cxd6 2 1 .llixd6t 'it>b8 22.e7 with the advantage) 1 7 . . . llidS! (after 17 . . . fxe6 1 8.gxc7t 'it>b8 1 9 .gd l llid5 20.if4 ga4 White seems to keep the advantage with -

191

Chapter 6 - . . . t'iJe7 Systems without an immediate . . . t'iJg6 2 l .c4 with the point 2 1 . . .l:!xc4?! 22.ig3 id6 23.l:!xb?t) 1 8.l:!xd5 fxe6 1 9.l:!d2 l:!xa2 20.l:!fd l ie7 2 1 .l:!d? and now instead o f 2 1 . . .i.d6?? Black would actually have been better after 2 1 . . .id8 22.hc5 hc2 in view of 23. l:!l d2 ie4 24.tt:\a?t l:!xa7 25 .ha? b6.

18.ie5 hd4 19.hd4

13.tt:\d4

8 -'�� -0 u*,(�� -JI 7 ,,,,,%� �� lt� p� if�%� & iA% & iA% •% a a ,,%� ,mi: �------� 6 . � ��% � ····· � ��,� : �� � �% '"/d1'"" ' ;�'0 �� � � • 8 3 � m � 2 rn8, ;� , - - Y-� �� ,,,,,

1

13

- - - %u f•:-,

•••

a

.td7

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 3 . . . i.g6 might be worth a try since Black is threatening the relieving . . . tt:\f5 and 14.e6 tt:\f5 doesn't obviously lead anywhere.

14 .tf4

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White has a nagging edge in this French-type ending, although in the game, Nimzowitsch's logos was decidedly absent.

19 ... l:!gS 20.l:!fel l:!c8 21.l:!d2 b6 22.l:!e3 l:!c4 23.l:!f3 rJJ e7 24.rJJ h2 ie8 25.l:!a3 l:!a4 26.i:!dd3 g5 27.i:!xa4 .txa4 28.l:!a3 hc2 29.l:!xa7t rJJ d6 30.hb6 e5 3 1 .i.c7t rJJ e6 32.l:!a6t rJJ f5 White must be objectively winning somewhere about these parts, but the young Spaniard fights fiercely.

•

1 4.f4 tt:\d5 ( 1 4 . . . tt:\fS!?) 1 5 .tt:\xd5 cxd5 1 6.tt:\b3 (it looks better to keep the tension with 1 6.c3) 1 6 . . . .tfS 1 7.l:!xd5 hc2 1 8.l:!cl c6 1 9.l:!d4 hb3 20.axb3 a6 had brought the draw into sight in Leitao - Granda Zuniga, Villa Martelli 2005.

14 tt:\d5 15.tt:\xd5 •••

A simple approach suitable for rapid blindfold play, although 1 5.tt:\db5 tt:\xc3 1 6.tt:\xc?t rJJ e7 1 7.bxc3 is a very decent alternative.

15 cxd5 16.e6 fxe6 17.hc7 ic5 •••

A pragmatic decision to limit Black's disadvantage.

33.l:!c6 .tbl 34.a4 d4 35.a5 d3 36.i:!d6 i:!g6! 37.l:!dS 37.g4t? rJJ e4 38.l:!xg6 d2 39.l:!d6 id3, of course.

37 g4 38.i.b6?! •••

Missing Black's imaginative resource on the next move.

38 g3t! 39.fxg3 rJJ e4 40.b4 .ta2 41.b5 ic4 42.a6 hb5 43.a7 ic6 44 .ta5 rJJ e3 45.g4 e4 46.aStf .txas 47.l:!xaS i:!d6 48.rJJ g3 rJJ e2 •••

•

48 . . . d2 makes the draw clear at once, of course, but possibly Black now had victory in mind.

1 92

The Berlin Wall

49.!b4 gb6?? Dancing bears. Any sensible move drew why Mr van Oosterom prefers this sort of thing to chess is anybody's guess.

50.ga2t @dl 5 1 .!d2 gc6 52.!e3 gf6 53.h4 Wei 54.h5 gd6 55.@f4 1-0 Conclusion: I don't think this is Black's best way of using the flexibility of 1 0 . . . h6 against ie3. The move . . . !f5 is not so effective once White is ready to meet it immediately with E:ad i t . Ponomariov's idea shown in the previous game looks better to me.

blunder 1 3 . . . Wc8?? 1 4.gfd l ) 1 3.a3 (The value of this prophylactic move was seen when White skipped it in Horvath - Pavasovic, Zalaegerszeg 2004, which went 1 3.lLid4 !f5 14.f4 [ 1 4.lLie4 lLixe5] 14 . . . hc3 1 5 .bxc3 !d7 1 6.f5 lLixe5 1 7.!f4 f6 1 8.he5 fxe5 1 9.lLif3 with equality, although White did have some options on the way.) 1 3 . . . !e7 1 4.gfe l . Now we have the following options: 1 4 . . . lLih4 hardly looks sensible after . . . lLif5e7-g6, and 1 5 .lLixh4 hh4 1 6.lLie2 h5 1 7.lLid4 a6 1 8.e6 !f6 1 9 .!f4 c5 20.lLib3 c4 2 1 .lLicS gave White a big advantage in Cheparinov Hermansson, Malmo 2007.

I Game 23 I

14 . . .!d7 1 5 .lLie4 b6 1 6.!d2 !e6 1 7.lLid4 c5 1 8.lLixe6 fxe6 1 9.f4 gf8 20.g3 also gave White a typical small advantage in Volokitin Jonkman, Bundesliga 2003.

Bundesliga 2007

Possible is the semi-waiting 1 4 . . . a5 - there is no need yet to prevent g4 and by not playing the weakening . . . h5 yet Black continues to restrain lLid4, since . . . lLixe5 !f4 f6 he5 fxe5 E:xe5 is not so effective as after 1 4 . . . h5. So after 1 4 . . . a5, 1 5 .!cl lLif8 1 6.lLid4 lLie6 1 7.lLixe6 he6 gave Black easy equality in Kuzin Smirnov, Moscow 2004, but perhaps 1 7.lLif5 was better.

Shirov - Naiditsch

1 .e4 e5 2.lLif.3 lLic6 3.!b5 lLif6 4.0-0 lLixe4 5.d4 lLid6 6.hc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 lLif5 8. Y:Yxd8t Wxd8 9.lLic3 lLie7 10.h3 h6 1 1 .!e3 We8

1 4 . . . h5 1 5 .lLid4 h4 1 5 . . . lLixe5 ? 1 6.!f4 gives White a definite initiative . . . h5 is not at all a useful move for Black to have played in the event of this common transformation. 1 6.f4 gh5 1 7.lLie4 !d7 1 7 . . . a6 1 8 .b4 a5 1 9.c3 axb4 20.axb4 E:a3 2 1 .!cl ga2 22.lLif6t was similar and also a little better for White in Shirov - Levin, Bundesliga 2005. 1 8.c4 b6 1 9.b4 A good move directed against c6-c5 . 1 9.a4 gds 20.lLie2 !f8 2 1 .a5 !b4 had led

Chapter 6 - . . . tfJe7 Systems without an immediate . . . l:iJg6

1 93

nowhere a day or two before in Motylev Karjakin, Tiayuan 2005. Now Black blundered immediately in Motylev - Harikrishna, Tiayuan 2005, with 1 9 . . . lll f8? Whether White has any advantage and if so how much after 1 9 . . . a5 remains to be seen. And we saw 20.f5! in Chapter 3.

12.gadl Two weaker alternatives which each allow Black to trade knights - usually desirable for Black in the Berlin - are: 1 2.gfel lll d 5 1 3.i.d2 lll xc3 1 4.i.xc3 c5 1 5 .lll h 2 i.e6 1 6.f4 h5 17.lll fl g6 1 8 .lll e3 b5 A. Sokolov - Naiditsch, Montpellier 2006. And 1 2 .lll d4 lll f5 1 3 .lll e4 lll xd4 1 4.hd4 tf5 1 5 .gfe 1 gds 1 6.c3 h5 1 7.f4 h4 1 8 .lll g5 c5 1 9.i.f2 gh6 20.lll f3 i.e7 Ovetchkin Jakovenko, Sochi 2005. In both cases Black had achieved a dream position for the opening.

12 i.d7 •••

After 1 2 . . . i.e6 1 3 .lll d4 lll d 5 14.lll xe6 fxe6 in Palac - Hracek, Turin (ol) 2006, White should have preferred 1 5 .lll e2 a la Volokitin to the game's 1 5 .i.d2 lll xc3 1 6 . .!xc3, after which we saw Black's correct handling to draw in Chapter 3. In this structure it is important for White to avoid an exchange of knights. 1 2 . . . lll g6 is the note to Blade's l l th.

13.gfe1 White needs a rook on the e-file 1 3.a3 gd8 1 4.gd2 ( 1 4.gfe l transposes) 14 . . .i.e6 1 5 .lll d4 lll d 5 1 6.lll xe6 fxe6 1 7.gd3 lll xe3 1 8.gxe3 (perhaps the Volokitin-style 1 8.fxe3 was better) 1 8 . . . i.c5 had left Black for choice in Khairullin - Naiditsch, Moscow 2007.

13 ... gds

14.a3 An innovation. The present game is very significant, since Shirov has a lot of experience and success with this line on the white side, and Naiditsch likewise for Black. I believe that we shall see White using this a3/b4 set-up increasingly. It has advantages in terms both of restricting Blade's pieces (no . . . i.b4) and his pawns (no . . . c5) , and experience does seem to be showing that it is better for White to have his queenside pawns fixed on black rather than white squares. On the latter they are always potentially vulnerable. It can also have the effect after an exchange of black-squared bishops (perhaps following the sequence . . . h4 i.g5 i.e7) of allowing White to establish an effectively invulnerable knight on d4. 14.lll e4 was given as a clear advantage to White by Ponomariov, but after 1 4 . . . i.f5 ( 1 4 . . . b6!?) l 5 .lll c 5 ( l 5 .i.d2 was perhaps better as in the main game) in Smirnov - Aronian, Tripoli World Championship (blitz) 2004, it seems to me that the fault lay in Black's next move 1 5 . . . b6, after which 1 6.lll a6 ( a typical annoyance after . . . @e8/gd8) 1 6 . . . lll d 5 l 7.c4 lll xe3 1 8.lll xc7t @e7 1 9.fxe3 was good for White. Instead after 1 5 . . . gxdl 1 6.gxdl i.c8 I don't see how White could have prevented Black from setting up the usual . . . b6, . . . c5 fortifications.

1 94

The Berlin Wall

14 a6 •••

This isn't a happy move to play at all. It's notorious that . . . a6 is rarely a good move in the Berlin, or if it isn't notorious it should be.

16 . . . llid5 also changes little, for example 1 7.g4 i.g6 1 8.llih4 i.h7 1 9.llif5, and if 1 9 . . . h5 20.i.g5 .

17.g4 i.e6 18.llig3 i.d5 19.llih2 llih4 It seems to me that a better way to handle the queenside pawns was 1 4 . . . b6. If White continues as in the game with 1 5 .llie4 then I think Black ought to play l 5 . . . llig6. 1 6.llig3 can be well met with 1 6 . . . c5 1 7.llih5 i.c6, and otherwise Black is able to obtain a normal Berlin set-up. It's too late for 14 . . . llig6 1 5 .llie4 i.e7 in view of the devastating 1 6.ha? b6 1 7.llid6t, but another idea is to go 1 4 . . . i.f5 without waiting for a knight on e4: 1 5 .llid4 ( 1 5 .E:xdSt @xd8 1 6 ..ixa? b6 is just bad) 1 5 . . . i.g6 1 6.g4 llid5 1 7.llixd5 cxd5 is risky, but a clear line for White to exploit his pressure is not immediately apparent.

15.llie4 .i5 16 .td2 •

8

m ��· - ��

�

�

-ef_;.: ' '-�' -ef_, ;.: ' ' ' Y,��-: �i.:.: .,,/�'•""�i.:.: • � ,, �"" , , , , 1 11 � 6 .t. � �� l!llw 0"� !!11!!1 & ;j .• & ;j� � : : l!lll!ll 3 �p ���l � � � 0 2 � 8 � �� 8 -

7

!!II� l!ll U. �i l!ll m �l!llm l!llm �!!11

""'

1

a

��

16 llig6

'0

- - - 7-aK�� - - /-, b

c

d

e

f

g

h

•••

Black's play gives the impression of being slightly mistimed somehow, but still I think White is already better. For example 16 . . . i.g6 1 7.g4 h5 1 8.@g2 hxg4 1 9.hxg4 llid5 20.@g3 (20.llid4 llie3t is less effective) sees White steadily strengthening his position.

- �� -- �it - - Y-� ,,�-"'¥i" ' ·""' "-- · 'l!ll l!ll ·m !!110 0 " •

8

m" !!II� l!ll l!llm :3 l!ll�l!lll!llml!ll,l!llm0!!11l!ll !. m" E % �0 � , _ , , ; ,"//h � � w2 7

6

'""

�� 8 � �� �

\�r

0

- - %� , i�� - - %�,�' " " �

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

A good moment to mention one pitfall for anyone who analyses the Berlin with computers: almost always they overrate this type of set-up where White achieves g4 and Black meets that with . . . i.d5/ . . . llih4. Here, for example, Rybka and Fritz give the position as equal, but the evaluation for White climbs steadily over the next few moves without Black doing anything noticeably wrong.

20.i.c3 .!e6 2 1 .llihS It seems to me that White is already better here. I don't see a plan for Black in the long term to prevent White establishing the f5/e5 duo, and that almost always means that White stands considerably better.

21. b6 22.b4 g6 ••

A slightly desperate expedient, but Black lacks a constructive plan.

23.llif6t @e7 24.f4 h5 25.@fl hxg4 26.hxg4 Black's problem is the knight on h4. White

Chapter 6 - . . . /:jj e ? Systems without an immediate . . . /:jj g 6 can proceed with Wg3, llifl -e3 and so on, and Black can't release the knight and so his rook at least will remain tied down to defending it.

26 ... :Eixdl 27.:Eixdl g5 28.fxg5 llig6

1 95

Conclusion: This set-up is dangerous for Black. I think he does better to keep the king on the queenside as Ponomariov did (as did Almasi in his recent New in Chess Yearbook survey) .

I Game 24 I

Parligras - Aleksandrov European Championship, Warsaw 2005

1.e4 e5 2.llif3 llic6 3.�b5 llif6 4.0-0 llixe4 5.d4 llid6 6.hc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 llif5 8.'i'xd8t ©xd8 9.llic3 llie7 10.h3 j,£5

Black has activated three of his pieces, but the ffi-bishop is a very poor piece. You couldn't wish for a better illustration of why Black seeks to exchange this piece for a knight in the Berlin: if the f8-bishop and h2-knight were removed Black would hold comfortably.

29.Wg3 llif4 30.:Eid2 :Eih3t 3 1 .Wxf4 :Eixc3 Black is now lost in the face of the plan of bringing the knight to f5, which Shirov demonstrates in the game.

32.lligSt We8 33.llif6t We7 34.llif3 :Eic4t 35.©g3 :Eic3 36.lligSt ©e8 37.llif6t ©e7 38.©fl c5 39.llih4 :Eic4 40.lligSt We8 41 .llif6t We7 42.Wg3 :Eic3t 43.Wg2 �c4 44.llih7 cxb4 45.llif5t ©e6 46.llixfSt Wxe5 47.axb4 ©f4 48.g6 fxg6 49.:Eid4t We5 50.llixg6t ©f6 5 1 .llif4 c5 52.bxc5 bxc5 53.:Eid2 Wg5 54.llid3 �b5 55.Wfl ©xg4 56.llid6 �a4 57.lliel ©f4 58.llig2t We5 59.llie3 �c6 60.llidc4t ©f4 61 .:Eid6 �e4 62.©e2 1-0

An

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

interesting attempt. In principle one recoils from starting complications involving grabbing a pawn in a position like Black's, but c2 is really quite awkward to defend, and if it goes then apart from being a pawn it also gives Black the d5-square for his knight and thus enables him to keep the central files closed. Almasi long used to favour 1 0 . . . We8, but according to him the move was simply refuted in Adams Z. Almasi, Las Vegas 1 999, with 1 1 .:Eie l llig6 1 2.llie4 c5 1 3.a4. We saw what happened to Almasi after 1 3 . . . h6 on page 86, but Black has actually been more successful -

1 96

The Berlin Wall

after 13 . . . a5 . This line isn't really something I recommend, so I won't go into a lot of detail, but Khalifman now as usual claims that White is more or less winning with 14.l'!a3 h6 1 5 .l'!d3, when he says that Black has problems to complete his development. That may be so, but the Berlin is a slow old thing supposing Black simply plays 1 5 . . . b6. To judge from the moves Khalifman considers ( 1 5 . . . l'!a6 and 1 5 . . . i.d7) he believes that White is threatening 1 6 .lll c 3, but after 16 . . . i.fS Black can meet 1 7.lll b 5 or 1 7.lll d 5 with 17 . . . '3c8 followed respectively either by . . . c6 or . . . li:Je7, and in my opinion he should be able to reach a respectable standard position-type: White's co-ordination isn't so splendid either.

1 1 .l'!dl t @c8 1 2 .lll d4 i.g6 1 3.i.f4 was Anand's approach against Luke McShane in the Bundesliga 2006. 1 3 . . . b6 (McShane rejected both 13 . . . c5 14.lll f3 hc2 1 5 .l'!d2 i.g6 1 6.l'!ad l lll c6 1 7.e6 fxe6 1 8 .lll e 5 i.e7 and 1 3 . . . lll d 5 14.lll xd5 cxd5 1 5 .e6 i.c5 1 6.c4 dxc4 1 7 .l'!ac l , although the former looks not too bad for Black) 1 4.e6 @b7 1 5 .l'!el Now McShane played 1 5 . . .f6 and surely stood worse (although he almost won later) , but I don't see that there was anything wrong with 1 5 . . . l'!e8. For example, 1 6.exf7 hf7 1 7.lll e6 lll g6 1 8.lll g 5 l'!xe l t 1 9.l'!xe l i.c4 20.i.d2 i.e7 with equality.

1 1 .g4 White treats Black's opening idea with some contempt, forcing Black to execute what Black hoped was his main threat. 1 1 .lll d4 i.g6 1 2.f4 12.i.e3 and 12.i.f4 are both well met by 1 2 . . . lll d 5. White obtains a different version of the notes to Howell - Bacrot below, with the rook on f2 instead of f1 , although it isn't clear that this helps. Grischuk - Anand, Monaco (blindfold) 2006, continued: 1 2 . . . c5 1 3 .lll f3 hc2 14.l'!f2 i.g6 1 5 .g4 f5 1 6.i.e3 b6 1 7.l'!d l t @c8 1 8 .lll h4 @b7 Now White took advantage of his extra move with: 1 9 .i:!fd2 fxg4 20.hxg4 i.e8 2 1 .f5 lll c6 22.lll f3 although after 22 . . . h5 23.g5 h4, followed by . . . i.h5, Black would have had reasonable chances. If White can't do better than 1 1 .l'!dl t @c8 1 2.l'!d2 then everyone would play 1 0 . . .i.fS after 12 . . . h6 1 3.b3 b6 ( 1 3 . . . lll d 5 has also produced a couple of virtually-instant high­ level draws) 14.i.b2 @b7 Black is fine.

13.f4

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This looks more logical than 1 3.l'!dl @c8. White's compensation for the pawn lies in getting his pawn phalanx on the march, and there doesn't seem to be any need to determine the position of the rook yet. White may be best off with rooks at e 1 and d 1 . In the first game in which 1 1 .g4 was played the unclear sequence 14.f4 c5 1 5 .lll de2 f5 1 6.exf6 gxf6 1 7.f5 i.f7 1 8.lll e4 lll c6 l 9.lll xf6 i.g7 20.i.g5 a5 2 1 .lll f4 l'!a6 22.@g2 h6 23.i.h4 lll b4 24.lll e4 hb2 25.lll xc5 l'!c6 26.i:!ab l i.e5 led to a position with a slight advantage for Black, V. Iordachescu Ki. Georgiev, Budva 2004. -

Chapter 6 - . J iJe7 Systems without an immediate . . . ltJg6

13 ... c5! By driving the knight away from d4 before playing the blockading . . . f5 Aleksandrov avoids the fate which overtook Black in Nijboer - N.V. Pedersen, Dutch League 2006, which went 13 . . . f5 14.exf6 gxf6 1 5.lll e 6t 'it>d7 1 6.f5 if7 1 7.lll xf8t E:hxf8 1 8.ih6 and White was much better: 1 8 . . . E:g8 is met by 1 9 .lll e4 lll d 5 20.E:adl when even E:xd5 is in the air, so Black was reduced to 1 8 . . . E:fe8 1 9.ig7 lll g8 20.E:adl t id5, and White won quickly after 2 1 .g5!.

14.lll f3 5 15.lll h4

8 .i � k-� �

��

, ,,�,,,,,Y,��,.� r1ef, ,&,,, 7 •z (��� A t�� "x-:-!� & �ref iAz A iAz •:

� -----"� �- - - ---� r� 6 -----"� W,& 5 • -- % � ----% · 4 ��- -- � �- % lm � � � 3 ��;-�� - - - ;� ��--�- �'' ��8' -

'" '

'

"-

2 [j r[j � • � %-� ""ef "" "�;��� 1 ,� � �� �� .

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Later Etienne Bacrot was willing to play this position for Black, and the young Englishman David Howell tried: 1 5.ie3 But the French super-GM soon had the advantage: 1 5 . . . b6 1 5 . . . lll c6 is an interesting idea: 1 6.E:ad l t 'it>c8 1 7.lll h4 fXg4 1 8.hxg4 (or 1 8 .lll xg6 hxg6 1 9.hxg4 b6) 1 8 . . . if7 is certainly playable for Black, who has much better chances to restrain the pawns here than it might appear - White isn't quite ready yet to meet . . . h5 or . . . g5 ideas. 1 6.e6 A doubtful push, since it gives Black the

1 97

chance to freeze the pawns with his next pawn break. 16.E:ad l t 'it>c8 1 7.lll h4 (Parker) is more dangerous: a) 17 . . . h5 1 8.lll xg6 lll xg6 1 9.gxf5 lll h4 20.f6 (20.@f2 lll xf5 2 1 .'it>f3 is a little better for White according to lordachescu, although Black can surely hold, for example 2 1 .. .ie7 22.'ll d 5 ih4 is fine for Black) 20 . . . gxf6 2 1 .if2 lll f5 22.exf6 and White retains an initiative, although Black should be able to contain it. b) 17 . . . c4 is another interesting idea Black's object is to threaten . . . id3 after . . . fXg4 and thus force White into lll xg6. 1 8 .e6 ( 1 8 .E:d4 fXg4 1 9.lll xg6 hxg6 20.hxg4 E:h4 illustrates Black's point) 1 8 . . . 'it>b7 1 9.E:d4 E:e8 20.E:xc4 lll c8 2 1 .lll b 5 c6 is a plausible continuation when Black stands acceptably. c) 1 7 . . . 'it>b7 1 8.'it>g2 E:e8 seems satisfactory for Black: he is now ready for . . . h5 and if White seeks to prevent that with 1 9.E:d7 then 1 9 . . . fXg4 20.hxg4 if7 introduces complications which seem to be acceptable for Black, for example 2 1 .f5 ic4 22.E:f4 'it>c6. 1 6 . . .ie8 1 7.if2 This looks rather soft, but it's not easy to find anything that makes any impact on Black's position, for example 1 7.E:adl t 'it>c8 1 8.'it>f2 h5, and now the instructive manoeuvre 1 7 . . . fXg4 1 8.hxg4 h5 1 9.g5 g6 gave Black a solid blockade which leaves White already struggling: 20.E:ad l t 'it>c8 2 1 .lll e 5 lll f5 It looks to me as though this wasn't necessary and 2 1 . . .'it>b7 was better. 22.lll d 5 wasn't anything to fear: 22 . . . lll xd5 23.E:xd5 E:h7! is excellent for Black. 22.lll d 5 id6 23.E:fe l 'it>b7 24.lll f6 'll e7 24 . . . ixe5 might have been wiser in view of the next note.

1 98

The Berlin Wall

25.l:!d2 Good or bad, 25.lDf7 had to be played, and perhaps Black would have had to give up the exchange, since 25 . . . hf? 26.exf7 tDf5 27.l:!d5 followed by l:!xf5 is dangerous for him. 25 . . . he5 26.l:!xe5 i.c6 27.l:!e l l:!ad8 28.l:!edl @cB 29.@h2 l:!xd2 30.l:!xd2 l:!d8 3 1 .l:!e2 0-1 , D. Howell - Bacrot, French Team Championship 2006. 1 5 .exf6 gxf6 1 6.f5 i.f7 1 7.tDe4 lDd5 is possible but Black can hold his own.

1 5 ... fxg4

possibilities in the next note, although I don't think White needs to.

19 ttJd4 •••

There were many complicated tactical possibilities around here, for example 1 9 . . . g6 20.f6 i.d7 2 1 .mg2 f2 with 25 . . . Eld5 . After that Black still retained some chances of saving himself, but after the text I think White is winning.

24.ltJe6 hb4 25.i.b2 Ele8 26.hd4 �e6 The only chance, but not sufficient, and White wraps up without incident.

27.fxe6 'itib7 28.gfl Eld8 29.Elf7t lt>a6 30.a3 i.d2 3 1 .i.f2 i.g5 32.gxg7 h6 33.Elel gd3 34.Elc7 i.a4 35.e7 � 36.Ele4 i.b5 37.Elb4 i.e8 38.Eld4 i.g6 39.Elc6 i.f7 4o.ge6 gai t 41 .'itig2 ga2 42.e8� he8 43.gxe8 i.e3 44.ga4 t 1-0 A defeat for Alexei Aleksandrov in the Berlin is a collector's item, but here he was never really able to deal with Parligras' idea.

Conclusion: The play after I O i.f5 is very . . •

complicated and there is certainly scope for the debate to continue, but one has to admit that White's position is easier to play. On the other hand it makes a pretty decent surprise weapon, since White is virtually forced to sacrifice a pawn, and if caught unprepared he is not likely both to go for the sacrifice and to perform well thereafter. Probably the lines in the notes to Black's 1 5th are the most critical. Generally, it seems to me that these lines are in excellent shape and together offer a very good alternative repertoire to the main . . . ltJg6 systems.

1 99

. . . �d7 Systems This was

the set-up

that catapulted

the

Berlin into the spotlight: in the 2000 World Championship

match

this

was

the

way

Kramnik played. It seems incredible now that before 1 9 97 no-one had thought of the idea of hiding the black king on the queenside, but that was when 9 . . . �d7 was first played at a high level by Zoltan Almasi (although I have to mention that my Barbican team mate Jonathan Rogers got in a few rounds earlier in the same event to make his mark first in the databases at least) . The idea of the move is very simple: Black reasons that the only place he can easily put his king which will enable him to link up his rooks is b7, and he figures the three or four tempi spent to get it there is time well spent, since once he has repaired the only real defect of his position his other assets will surely come into their own.

I Game 25 I

Venkatesh - Harikrishna

a

10.�dl

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White's replies are, as usual, most easily divided according to what he does with his queen's bishop: i.g5 is now pointless with the cl-file closed and no knight on e7, while �e3 is also undesirable with the knight still on f5 . Instead �f4 (game 26) and most popular of all b3/�b2 (games 27-29) are the most usual set-ups for White (unlike . . . lDe7 systems, �d2 is hardly ever chosen, although it isn't obvious why this should be) . In the present game,

Indian Championship 2003

however, White has a specific idea to exploit the fact that Black's proposed king trek leaves

1 .e4 e5 2.lDf3 lDc6 3 . .ib5 lDf6 4.0-0 lDxe4 5.d4 lDd6 6.hc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 lDf5 8.Wxd8t �xd8 9.lDc3 .id?

f7 undefended.

10 ... �cS

202

The Berlin Wall

There is no time for 1 0 . . . h6, which loses at once to 1 l .g4 CfJe7 1 2.e6 fxe6 1 3.CfJe5 (and not, as Kramnik rather quaintly gave on his DVD, 1 l .e6? fxe6 1 2.CfJe5 CfJd6, although as Dr Johnson pointed out, on ChessBase DVDs a man is not upon oath) .

1 1 .ll:Jg5 This was the point of 1 0.E:d l , forcing the bishop to waste time while exploiting the absence of pressure on e5 to transfer the knight to e4, out of the way of the f-pawn.

.

1 1 . .i.eS 12.b3 12.CfJge4 b6 makes no difference unless White intends something other than a fianchetto or Black tries Kramnik's 1 3 . . . c5. Here White has two options that deserve investigation: 1 3 .h3

.i.� �I i.Ufl ��-Y, · Yd_ , 6 ,,,,,%-·%� ��7:,, ,,%�,, ' '� �!'{) % �� �� a �� : �� � �� /':, �� �� �. ,. 2 ! . ----%rf(;�� -- - -��8 � - , %�-� s

7

3

1 ,_� a

b

�g- � c

d

e

f

g

h

This was White's original idea in this system, but Kramnik showed the answer shortly after the Kasparov match: 1 3 . . . ©b7 1 4.g4 CfJe7 A more flexible post than h4, as Kramnik soon demonstrates. After the older 1 4 . . . tfJh4 1 5 .f4 ( 1 5 .i.f4 might well be better) 1 5 . . . c5 ( 1 5 . . . h5 looks

more to the point: 1 6.i.e3 i.e7 1 7.'itf.: hxg4 1 8.hxg4 CfJg6 1 9.@g3 c5 20.E:h l ict 2 1 .E:adl E:ad8 is the same position as migh: have occurred if Kasparov had tried 1 5 .f4 1 6.@f2 CfJg6 1 7.b3 h6 1 8.i.e3 i.c6 1 9 .lll d � White had been better in the line's debut Ac; - Cvek, Charleville 2000. 1 5.i.f4 1 5 .f4 c5 1 6.f5 ( 1 6.i.e3 h5 1 7.©g2 i.cE 1 8.@g3 hxg4 1 9.hxg4 CfJg6 20.E:h l i.e2 1 .E:adl E:ad8 is also equal) looks frightening. although obviously White would like his other rook on f1 , and Black can obtair: counterplay by bringing the knight the other way: 1 6 . . . CfJc6 1 7.i.f4 CfJd4 1 8.E:acl h5 with good play for Black - Wedberg. 1 5 . . . h5 1 6.£3 c5 1 7.@f2 CfJc6 Excellent. Better than . . . CfJg6: with the f3knight having left and the bishop on f4 the knight should aim for d4, and also it can get to the dream e6-square without the f8bishop needing to move. 1 8.CfJd5 CfJd4 1 9.c3 CfJe6 20.ig3 20.i.e3? hxg4 2 1 .hxg4 E:h2t 20 . . .ic6 2 1 .E:d2 2 1 .f4!? is met the same way and White doesn't care to play 2 1 .c4 with nothing guarding d4. 2 1 . . .hxg4 22.hxg4 c4! Quite an unusual move in the Berlin, but isolating the knight on d5 enables Black to equalise speedily. 23.@g2 E:d8 24.E:ad l i.a4 25.E:el ic6 26.E:edl ia4 27.E:e l i.c6 Y2-Y2 Kasparov - Kramnik, Zurich 200 1 : another Berlin model from the greatest Berliner of all. Returning to 1 2.CfJge4 b6, here White also has the option: 1 3.b3 13 ... i.e7 or 13 . . . ©b7 will probably lead to the main game, but in Leko - Kramnik,

Chapter 7 . . . id? Systems

203

-

Budapest (rapid) 200 l , Kramnik tried: 1 3 . . . c5 1 4 . .ib2 tLld4 1 5 .gd2 1 5 .tLld5 was worth a thought: 1 5 . . . tLixc2 1 6.gacl c6 ( 1 6 . . . tLlb4 1 7.tLlxb4 cxb4 1 8.tLld6t hd6 1 9.exd6 c5 20.gel gg8 2 1 .ge? is worse) , and White doesn't seem to have any route to advantage. 1 5 . . . 'i!?b? 1 6.tLld5 gds 1 7.c4 i.c6 1 8.hd4 cxd4 1 9.gxd4 .ia3 20.gd2? The wrong way to protect b2 also no use was 20.gd3 .ib2 2 1 .ge l he5 22.tLlg5 hd5, but with 20.gb l ghe8 2 1 .f4 Leko could have made Kramnik fight for the draw. 20 . . . ghe8 2 1 .ge l f6 22.exf6 ib4 23.f7 gxe4 24.gxe4 hd2 25.ge? hd5 26.ges hf7 27.gxd8 ic3 And Black was winning. A rare but direct try is 12.h3 b6 1 3.g4, but Black managed to equalise with 1 3 . . . tLlh4 14.f4 ( 1 4.if4!?) 1 4 . . . ie? 1 5 .tLlge4 h5 1 6.'i!?f2 tt:\g6 1 7.©g3 ih4t 1 8.'i!?f3 Ae7 1 9.©g3 ih4t 20.'i!?f3 ie? in De Firmian - P.H. Nielsen, Malmo 2004.

12 ie7 •••

1 2 . . . c5 1 3.ib2 tLld4 is misguided in view of 14.tLld5 h6 ( 1 4 . . . tLixc2 1 5 .e6) 1 5 .tLle4 when Black could find nothing better than 1 5 . . . tLlf5 in Gdanski - Grabarczyk, Warsaw 200 1 , the problem being that the critical 1 5 . . . tLixc2 16.gacl tLlb4 1 7.tLlxb4 cxb4 1 8.tLld6t ixd6 1 9.exd6 ic6 20.hg? gg8 2 1 .d?t! hd? 22.hh6 is very nasty for Black. 1 2 . . . b6 This is just a transposition if Blacl{s next move is either . . . ie? or . . . 'i!?b?, but there are a couple of independent ideas: 1 3.ib2 ib4?! Miles loved this move in the Berlin but here it is not good. 1 3 . . . .ie? 1 4.tLlh3!? id? ( 1 4 . . . 'i!?b? as in the

main game seems fine: if 1 5 .gd3 [ 1 5.tLlf4 gds 1 6.gxd8 hd8 1 7.gdl .ig5 1 8 .tLlce2 gg8 is also okay for Black] then 1 5 . . . gds 1 6.gadl gxd3 1 7.gxd3 f6! makes White wish his knight was on e4, and equalises at once) 1 5 .tLle4 h6 1 6.tLlf4 gds 1 7.h3 g6 1 8.g4 tLlg7 1 9.tLlg2 h5 20.f3 was a bit better for White in Nijboer - Gross, Germany 2002. Blacl{s problem is that sooner or later ig5 is coming. 14.gd3 14.tLle2 is also likely just to gain a tempo over Khalifman's 17 tLle2 in the note to Blacl{s sixteenth. 1 4 . . . hc3 1 5 .hc3 h6 1 6.tLlh3 c5 1 7.gadl ib5 1 8.g3d2 ge8 1 9.tLlf4 ic6 20.tLlh5 With an edge for White in Stefansson Miles, Havana 200 1 . 1 2 . . . a5 1 3.ib2 b6 14.gd3 Ae7 1 5 .tLlge4 Ad? 1 6.a4 gd8 is also weaker it is Black's queen's rook which he needs to trade, not his king's, as was shown in Sutovsky - Grabarczyk, Ohrid 200 1 : 1 7.gad l tLlh4 1 8.tLle2 if5 1 9.gxd8t hd8 20.tLl2g3 ig6 2 1 .f3 tLlf5 22.tLlxf5 hf5 23.e6 he6 24.hg? ie? 25.if6 with a near­ decisive advantage for White.

13.lll ge4 b6

a

14.ib2

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

204

The Berlin Wall

Natural, but White can also try: 1 4.ig5 ixg5 1 5 .lll xg5 h6 1 6.lll ge4 c5 1 7.�d3 lll d4 1 8.lll d 5 @b7 1 9.c4 ic6 20.�e l a5 was fine for Black in Hernandez - Rizouk, Dos Hermanas 2002. 14.h3 @b7 1 5 .ib2 h5 1 6.g3 c5 Inexplicably making the same mistake as Morozevich in the note to Black's 1 5th better was the normal 1 6 . . . �d8, when 1 7.�xd8 ixd8 1 8 .�dl @c8 1 9 .icl (Khalifman offers 1 9.f3 id7 20.�d3 lll h 6 [A peculiar move Black ought to develop normally with 20 . . . �e8 when White has no great advantage if any, for example 2 1 .lll e2 c5 22.@f2 ic6 23.g4 (23.c4 g5) 23 . . . hxg4 24.hxg4 lll h4 with equality.] 2 1 .g4 hxg4 22.hxg4 ie7 23.@g2 and White is better - Khalifman) 1 9 . . . c5 20.ig5 (as usual this doesn't achieve much, especially after losing two tempi with icl -b2-cl ) 20 . . . ic6 2 1 .hd8 �xd8 22.lll g5 lll d4 was already a bit better for Black in Teran Alvarez - Rizouk, Seville 2003. 1 7.lll d 5 ic6 1 8.c4 �ad8 1 9.�d2 �he8 20.�adl The two tempi White hasn't spent on lll c3e2-c3-d5 mean Black cannot organise . . . lll d4 as in Nijboer - Nielsen below, and that means he has to suffer: 20 . . . �d7 2 1 .f4 ids 22.g4 hxg4 23.hxg4 lll h6 24.g5 lll f5 25.�h2 ie7 26.@f2 �ed8 27.lll g3 lll d4 28.ixd4 ixd5 29.cxd5 �xd5 30.lll f5 if8 3 1 .�h7 cxd4 32.lll xg7 �a5 33.a4 d3 34.lll f5 b5 35.�xf7 bxa4 36.bxa4 �xa4 37.@f3 d2 38.e6 ic5 39.e7 �d3t 40.@e2 1-0 Bologan - P.H. Nielsen, Bled (ol) 2002.

14 ... @b7 1 5.�d3 1 5 .lll e2 c5 1 6.lll 4c3 ic6 1 7.lll d 5 �he8 1 8.©fl ( 1 8.c4 id6) 1 8 . . . a5 1 9.a4 �ad8 20.c4 if8 2 l .ic3 lll d4! (White had no good way to prevent this move) 22.lll xd4 ixd5 23.cxd5

(23.lll e2 ie4+) 23 . . . cxd4 24.ixd4 �xd5 was � little better for Black in Nijboer - P.H. Nielser: Istanbul 2003. 1 5 .g3 a5 1 6.a4 �d8 1 7.�xd8 hd8 1 8 .l::1 d : @c8 1 9 .lll e2 c 5 20.c4 ic6 2 1 .lll 4c3 ge� 22.lll d 5 f6 23.exf6 ixf6 24.ixf6 �xe2 25.ltf: Y2-Yi was another nicely-timed effort frorr_ Black in Ramesh - Sandipan, Calcutta 2003 . Notice . . . a5 before . . . �ad8, and . . . c5 only afte lll e 2.

..t..-� B�-%�I s i.'0 � 0� � ��'i" " , � 1 �·r i W�� , �� -----�� .�

6

%,,,,%

%

%

��� •��"•�� �:.�� �� �� : w.�%!-!ml -0 8 W�-0 � k? ""' ; 2 8 � 8 - W� � 5

1

,,,,,

�

�

�

��-----�- - � a

15 ... �dB

b

c

d

----%

e

f

g

----

h

As usual Black should trade one pair of rooks witness the efficient way he was asphyxiated in Grischuk - Morozevich, Wijk aan Zee 2002, in Chapter 3 after 1 5 . . . c5? (there's not usually any call for this move until after the c3-knighr has moved) 16.lll d 5 ic6 1 7.c4 �he8 1 8.�f3 (this move is the main difference from Nijboer - Nielsen above) .

1 6.�adl 1 6.�xd8 hd8 1 7.�dl is quite often played but can hardly be better. A model Black performance was 1 7 . . . ©c8 1 8.g3 id7 1 9 .lll e2 c5 20.c4 �e8 2 1 .f3 ic6 22.©f2 a5 23.a4 ie7 24.lll 4c3 lll d4, equalising in Nijboer - Kunte, Mallorca 2004.

16 ... �xd3

Chapter 7 - . . . i.d7 Systems Black doesn't have to play this now he can also play 1 6 . . . c,!.ics when Khalifman recommends 17.tlie2!:

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

with the idea of g3/h4/tlif4, which he attributes to Bezgodov, and gives the following lines: a) 1 7 . . . :B:xd3 1 8.:B:xd3 i.d7 (In my opinion, now that the knight will need to lose a tempo to return to d5, Black should bring the bishop to c6 as quickly as possible with 1 8 . . . c5 1 9.g3 [ 1 9 .tlif4 i.c6 20.tlid5 :B:d8 2 1 .c4 i.xd5 22.cxd5 tlid4 23.tlic3 b5 also equalises] 1 9 . . . i.c6 20.f3 :!'!d8. Presumably Khalifman thinks White can obtain something in this ending, but I don't see it.) 1 9.g3 h5 20.tlif4 :B:h6 2 1 .h4 c5 22.c4 ic6 23.f3 a5 24.a4;!; b) 1 7 . . . h5 1 8.g3 c5 ( 1 8 . . . a5 1 9.c4 c5 20.tli4c3 [20.tlif4 looks much better to me I don't think White's set-up with knights on d5 and f4 works] 20 . . . :B:xd3 2 1 .:B:xd3 id? 22.tlid5 id8 23.tlief4 h4 24.g4 tlid4 25 .i.xd4 cxd4 26.:B:xd4 i.xg4 27.tlig6 llz-Y2 Bacrot - Sasikiran, Biel 2004.) 1 9.tlif4 :B:xd3 20.:B:xd3 ic6 2 1 .f3 g5 (2 1 . . .h4 22.g4 [or 22.e6 hxg3 23.hxg3 fxe6 24.tlixe6 tlid6] 22 . . .i.xe4 23.fxe4 c4 is a better way to play and should give Black enough counterplay) 22.tlid5±

205

Returning to 16 ... c,!.ic8, two other ideas are: 1 7.g3 h5 l 7 . . . a5 1 8.a4 I don't see why this move is necessary when Black has no rook behind . . . a4: is . . . a5-a4 really such an achievement for Black? 1 8 . . . :B:xd3 1 9.:B:xd3 id? 20.f3 h5 2 1 .c,f.if2 :B:h6 (2 1 . . .ie6 22.tlie2 c5 23.c4 [23.tlif4 c4 24.bxc4 i.xc4 25.:B:c3 ia2] 23 . . . g5 24.icl :B:g8 was another way to erect the typical blockade. I don't see what plan White has to make progress here.) 22.tlie2 g5 23.icl :B:g6 24.h3 c5 25.g4 tlig7 26.c4 hxg4 27.hxg4 tlie6 was equal in Zakharstov - Yemelin, Tomsk 2006. 1 8.f3 a5 1 9 .icl :B:xd3 20.:B:xd3 id? 2 1 .tlie2 c5 22.c4 a4 23.@£2. axb3 24.axb3 i.c6 25 .ib2 :B:d8 26.:B:xd8t c,!.ixd8 This leads to the endgame we saw in Chapter 2 in Chandler - Jonkman, Port Erin 2004, page 70. 1 7.h3 h5 1 8.icl :B:xd3 1 9.:B:xd3 h4!? (just 1 9 . . . id? 20.tlie2 :B:e8 2 1 .i.b2 a5 22.g3 c5 23.tlif4 ic6 24.tlid2?! h4 25 .c4 :B:d8 26.g4 tlid4 gave Black the initiative in Bakre Aleksandrov, Calcutta 2002. Evidently h3 does not contribute much to White's plan if he intends to bring a knight to f4.) 20.ig5 :B:h5 2 1 .:B:f3 tlid4 22.i.xe? tlixf3t 23.gxf3 :B:xe5 was equal in Rowson - Miles, Scarborough 200 1 .

17.�xd3 �c8 This flexible move, calmly preparing . . .id?, has taken over from 17 . . . h5 as Black's move of choice here. 17 . . . c5 1 8.tlid5 ic6 1 9.c4 :B:e8 20.g4 is another possible way to play. For some reason Khalifman now analyses 20 . . . tlih6 and 20 . . . tlid4, the former until move 46, but ignores the normal 20 . . . tlih4 which is critical, and thanks to the trick 2 1 .f4 tlig6 22.f5 tlif4 it isn't clear that White can demonstrate anything. Nonetheless

206

The Berlin Wall

the flexible text must be better: there's no need to rush with . . . c5 . The problem with 1 7 . . . h5 is supposed to be 1 8.i.cl ('!' according to some), eyeing g5 .

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Given that it is not clear that White actually intends to put any piece on g5 and that after . . . l'%e8 he quite frequently has to retract icI , in my heretical view it isn't likely that icI is the best move. White has also tried: 1 8.g3 iic8 ( 1 8 . . . a5 1 9.h4 b5 20.icl f6 2 1 .exf6 gxf6 22.f3 ig6 23.iif2 ltJd6 24.if4 was also a little better for White in Nijboer - N.V. Pedersen, Dieren 2003. Or 1 8 . . . c5 1 9.ltJd5 ic6 20.c4, and now either 20 . . . :gd8 or 20 . . . :ge8 also gives a normal position where Black is only very slightly worse if at all.) 1 9 .l0e2 a5 20.c4 id? 2 1 .l0f4 :gh6 22.h4 :gh8 23.ltJg5 ie8 24.:gf3 Lg5 25.hxg5 iid7 26.:gd3t iic8 27.c5 was obviously better for White in Nijboer - Van den Doel, Enschede 2003. Black's play was not consistent: if he's going to play . . . a5 then there is no point in . . . ©c8. After 1 8.i.cl there is a difference of learned opinion about whether i.g5 is a threat now. Kramnik obviously thought so, because in the first game to reach this position (Leko Kramnik, Budapest rapid 200 1 ) , he reacted

with 1 8 . . .f6, and the game continued 1 9.exf6 gxf6. This is always a controversial transaction since it has pros and cons: on the one hand it is easy for White's minor pieces to find stable squares on the kingside and his bishop is no longer pointing at its own pawn on the other Blade's bishop pair now has better chances to become active. The consensus is that Black is worse, but the game to my mind didn't demonstrate that with much clarity: 20.l0e2 c5 (after the natural 20 . . . l0d6 it seems to me that Black's chances are in no way worse . . . ig6 is annoying.) 2 1 .i.b2 m� 22.ltJf4 ic6 23.f3 ltJh4 (23 . . . c4 24.bxc4 Le4 25.fxe4 �c5+ 26.iifl l0e3t 27.iie2 l0xc4 is a better try Black has counterplay with . . . :ge8) 24.ltJd5 f5 25.ltJef6 id6 26.g3 l0g6 27.ltJxh5 when it was clear that White was better in view of 27 . . . ie5 28.ltJe?. Svidler also obviously thinks ig5 is a threat. because after 1 8 . . . iic8 he went 1 9.ig5 in Svidler- P.H. Nielsen, Germany 2002, however he was not able to demonstrate any advantage and indeed after 1 9 . . . id? 20.h3 :ge8 2 1 .Le-:­ l0xe7 22.l0g5 (22.f4 l0g6 23,:gf3 h4 is no better) 22 . . . l0g6 23.ltJxf7 he offered a draw Black seldom has much to fear in positions with :g+ttJ vs. :g + Qi after this exchange of a pair of pawns. Instead, after l 7 . . . h5 1 8.icl ©c8, Khalifman proposed 1 9 .g3 and backed it up with extensive variations: a) 1 9 . . . h4 20.g4 l0h6 2 1 .h3 f5 22.exf6 gxf6 23.:gf3 i.g6 24.ltJxf6 Lc2 25.ltJfe4 ©d26.g5 l0g8 (26 . . . :gg8 27.iifl +-) 27.:ge3± b) 19 . . . c5 20.ltJd5 ic6 2 1 .c4 :gd8 22.ib2 a5 23.a4 .tf8 24.l0g5 :gd7 25 .e6 fxe6 26.l0xe6 i.d6 27.h3 g6 28.f4 Ld5 29.cxd5 :gf7 30.g4 hxg-: 3 l .hxg4 ltJh6 32.f5 gxf5 33.g5 l0g8 (33 . . . ltJg-= 34.g6 :ge7 35.:gh3+-) 34.g6 :ge7 35.l'%h.3

Chapter 7 - . . . id7 Systems :B:e8 36.:B:h8 ©d7 37.©f2 :B:c8 38.:B:h?t /:iJe7 39.i.f6 :B:g8 40.@S c6 4 Ll:iJf4+c) 19 . . .i.d7 20.@g2 (;!; Khalifman) and now: cl) 20 . . . i.e6 2 1 .l:iJe2 :B:d8 22./:iJf4 :B:xd3 (22 . . . i.d5 23.f3 g6 [23 . . . h4 24./:iJxd5 cxd5 25./:iJg5 hxg3 26.hxg3 l:iJh6 27.e6;!;] 24.l:iJc3 ie6 25.:B:xd8t @xd8 26.l:iJxe6t fxe6 27./:iJe4 a5 28.c3 b5 29.g4 hxg4 30.fxg4 /:iJg7 3 1 .@g3±) 23.cxd3 g6 24./:iJxe6 fxe6 25 .i.b2 c5 26.h3 a5 27.g4 hxg4 28.hxg4 /:iJh6 29.@g3 /:iJf7 30.f4 l:iJd8 3 1 .@S l:iJc6 32.a3± l:iJd4t 33.i.xd4 cxd4 34.a4 ©d7 (34 . . . c5 35 ./:iJf6 @c7 36.@e4 ©c6 37.f5 gxf5t 38.gxf5 exf5t 39.@xf5 i.d8 40.@e6+-) 35 .l:iJf6t @c6 36.@e4 @c5 37.l:iJe8 c6 38.l:iJc7+c2) 20 . . . h4 2 1 .g4 h3t (2 1 . . .l:iJh6 22.S) 22.@s l:iJh4t 23.@g3 l:iJg6 24.f4 ih4t 25.@S c5 26.l:iJd5 i.c6 27.c4 :B:d8 28.i.b2 l:iJe7 29.l:iJec3 /:iJxd5 30.l:iJxd5 id7 3 1 .f5 ± c3) I gave Khalifman's lines against other moves in full partly as a tribute and partly because they show typical endgames, but it seems to me that 20 . . . :B:e8 is clearly what Black should play.

207

with 2 1 . . .id8. Clearly the bishop ought to move and Khalifman thinks it needs to keep g5 under observation, but there are two more natural destinations which challenge this view: c3a) 2 1 . . .i.b4!? and now: c3al ) 22.a3 i.xc3 23.hc3 c5 24.f3 (24./:iJg5 ic6t 25.@h3 f6 gives enough counterplay) 24 . . . i.b5 25.:B:d2 :B:d8 leads to a typical endgame where Black is not worse at all. c3a2) Much the same is 22.f4 hc3 23.hc3 c5 since 24./:iJg5 f6 still gives enough counterplay. c3a3) 22.l:iJg5 :B:xe5 23.l:iJxf7 :B:el is clearly nothing. c3a4) 22.l:iJe2 f6 23.l:iJf4 h4 24.S fxe5 25.l:iJg6 h3t 26.@gl l:iJd6 27./:iJxe5 if5 is better for Black. c3b) 2 1 . . .if8 22.f4 c5 23.l:iJd5 i.e6 is another pretty sensible way to play, when White is inconvenienced by ideas with . . . /:iJd4 and/ or . . . :B:d8 and has a lot to do to demonstrate any advantage, e.g. 24.@f2 :B:d8 25 .l:iJe3 :B:xd3 26.cxd3 /:iJxe3. c3c) 2 1 . . .i.d8 22.f4 22.l:iJe2 c5 23./:iJf4 l:iJd4 was at least equal for Black in Kabanov - Bruron, Tripoli (4) 2005. 22 ... c5 22 . . . h4 23.g4 /:iJh6 24.h3 f5 25.exf6 gxf6 26.l:iJd2 i.e7 27.l:iJf3 i.d6 28.icl :B:g8 29.l:iJe4 i.e7 30./:iJf2 if5 3 1 .:!'l:d2 i.d6 32.:B:e2+- Khalifman. 23.l:iJd5 Now the ex-world champion's analysis continues 23 . . . h4?! 24.g4 l:iJd4 25.hd4 cxd4 26.@f3±. I don't understand why

208

The Berlin Wall

Khalifman even analyses 23 . . . h4. Black should almost never play it in this structure unless g4 . . . lll d4 works tactically for him: it destabilises his knight and creates a weakness. 23 . . . c6 This is one of many better moves (23 . . . f6 is another) when Khalifman gives another strange line: 24.lll e 3 lll xe3t Basically a knight exchange helps Black in this structure. 25.gxe3 fi.c7 26.lll g 5 f6 27.lll f3 fi.f5 28.c4 ib l 29.a4 Wd7 30.Wf2 ge6 3 1 .tLlh4 fxe5 32.fi.xe5 he5 33.fxe5 And now 33 ... g5 ?! 34.lll f3 g4 3 5 .lll e l ge8 36.lll g2 gffit 37.lll f4 h 4 38.ge2 We? 39.gd2±, but 33 . . . g5 is a ridiculous move to my mind. Black should just play: 33 . . . ge8 And take his king to the e-file. I don't believe Black is even worse at all in this ending.

White hasn't shown much from this position yet. 1 8 .h3 h5 1 9.g3 a5 20.f3 fi.d7 2 1 .tLle2 c5 22.g4 hxg4 23.hxg4 lll h4 24.c4 lll g6 25.lll 4g3 ge8 26.e6 (after 26.lll f5 iffi 27.f4 f6! 28.ge3 fxe5 29.fxe5 fi.e6 Black obtains stability for his minor pieces and is not worse) 26 . . . fi.xe6 27.fi.xg? was about equal in Bezgodov Asylguzhin, Russia 2005 .

I don't apologise for that exceptionally lengthy digression since Khalifman's single-handed attempt to refute the Berlin demands serious attention, but at last I now return to Venkatesh - Harikrishna.

18 ... tll h4!?

1 8 .lll e2 would transpose to Khalifman's lines above after 1 6 . . . Wc8 1 7.lll e2 and might be best. Nijboer's 1 8 .g3 also has less impact without . . . h5, for example 1 8 . . . fi.d? 1 9.tLle2 ge8 20.Wg2 c5 2 1 .c4 ic6 22.f3 gd8 with equality. The point of Black's last is that l 8.g4 is nor in fact terribly effective, for example 1 8 . . . lll h4 1 9.h3 h5 20.lll e2 hxg4 2 1 .hxg4 id? 22.f3 lll g6 23.e6 fi.xe6 24.fi.xg? ge8 . Black didn't have anything to fear after 1 8 . . . lll xg3 1 9.gxg3 gg8, for example 20.lll e4 fi.d7 2 1 .lll f6 fi.xf6 22.exf6 g6, but presumably Harikrishna was anxious to win and wanted to keep more tension.

19.tll ce4 �g8 I suppose that Harikrishna wanted to avoid 1 9 . . . id7 20.e6 fi.xe6 2 1 .fi.xg? followed by fi.f6. although it isn't clear that this is so terrible.

20.£4 i.d7 2 1 .fS Consequent but not terribly effective White could play something like 2 1 . Wf2 but it isn't clear what the knight on g3 is contributing to his efforts. a

18.tll g3

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Not a particularly challenging move, but

21 ... tll xfS 2 1 . . .fi.xf5 22.lll xf5 lll xf5 23.gf3 g6 was certainly playable but Harikrishna prefers to

Chapter 7 . . . i.d7 Systems

209

-

take play into an ending where only two results are possible.

22.gxd7 llixg3 23.�e7 llixe4 24.gxf7 llig5 25.g5 llie6

••• � i. � ��if�f% � �• ��� ,�....%%. if� .t. r��----%� ,%� � �-- '� �r@'b7 1 8.:gxa8 c;t>xa8 1 9.:gdst c;t>b? 20.g4 :gh7 leads to the position in Baramidze - Naiditsch, Germany 2007, which we saw in chapter 2. (Kramnik had spoken casually of 20 . . . ie?, but it turns out that Black doesn't actually need to eject the white rook) . 1 7 . . . ie? 1 7 . . . h5? is bad in view of 1 8. llig5 llixh4? 1 9.llixe6 fxe6 20.llif4 but in my view the critical test is l 7 . . . ig4, when according to Wedberg White's idea was 1 8.llih2 ( 1 8 .llig3 ie7 1 9.h5 llif4) 1 8 . . . he2 1 9.:gxe2 llixh4 20.:ge4 ie7 (Wedberg only gave 20 . . . llif5 2 1 .:gf4 and 20 ... llig6 2 1 .e6) , when I'm not convinced that White has any advantage at all. For example 2 1 .g3 llig6 22.e6 f5 23.:ge2 if6 24.hf6 gxf6. 1 8.h5 llih4 1 9 .llixh4 ixh4 20.llif4!! White was doing very well, as we saw in chapter 3, page 9 1 .

17.c4 An innovation. Much theory developed following the game Anand - Kramnik, Mainz (rapid) 200 1 , about the position after 1 7 _:gdst ©b7 1 8.:gxa8 ©xa8 1 9.h4 g4 (or 1 7.h4 g4 1 8.:gdst and so on) but it seems to me that the question is whether White can actually reach his desired position at all. a) Another attempt by White to reach Anand - Kramnik is 1 7.h4 but Black has discovered the good reply

217

1 7 . . . c;t>b? This caused Peter Svidler to play 1 8.hxg5 and make a no doubt disgruntled draw offer in Svidler - Grabarczyk, Panormo 200 1 . Grabarczyk gave the following lines in the Informant". 1 8.:gdg :gxd8 1 9.:gxd8 llic6 just drops a couple of tempi for White on the old theory. 1 8 . . . hxg5 1 9.:gds l 9.llixg5? .th6 20.f4 (or 20.llixe6 hd2 2 1 .llixc5t bxc5 22.:gxd2 :gad8 which is slightly better for Black according to Socko) 20 . . . .txgs 2 1 .fxg5 :gags 1 9 . . . .th6 20.:gxa8 c;t>xa8 2 1 .icl 2 1 .llig3 g4 2 1 . . . :ggs 22.llig3 g4! 23.ixh6 23.llid4 cxd4 24.ixh6 c5 23.llih2 hcl 24.:gxcl :gdg 23 . . .gxf3 24.gxf3 llif5 With at least equality for Black. It is clear that Black is already fine after 1 7 . . . c;t>b 7. b) 1 7.llig3 llic6 1 8 .c4 :gg8 1 9 .llih5 ie7 20.llih2 c;t>b7 2 1 .llig4 :gad8 22.c;t>fl :gxd2 23.:gxd2 a6 was played in Hernandez - Jonkman, Andorra 200 l , and despite White's impressive array on the kingside Black's activity with . . . b5 enabled him to equalise. c) 1 7.llih2 llig6 l 8.llig4 hg4 l 9.hxg4 ig7 left White with a choice of unconvincing ways to give up a pawn in Rausis - Ki. Georgiev, Liepaja 2006. d) 1 7.:gdst c;t>b7 1 8.:gxa8 c;t>xa8 1 9.h4 g4 1 9 . . . gxh4!? has not yet been played but perhaps it ought to be: 20.llixh4 ig7 2 1 .f4 (2 l . llif4 ic8 is the resource White has made available by inserting the rook exchange before h4) 2 L..c;t>b7 22.c4 a5, for example, looks to me to offer Black decent counterplay. It's hard for White to get his pawns on the

218

Th e Berlin Wall

kingside going. In general terms . . . gxh4 is an under-investigated resource in the Berlin: we saw a similar possibility mentioned by Bareev, and ignored by Kramnik, in their respective notes to Game 3 of the K-K match in chapter 4 (page 1 1 7, note to Black's 26th) . 20.lll e l Th e older move was 20.ttJh2, but Black seems to have won the argument in a few ways: 1 ) 20 . . . i.g7 2 1 .lll f4 h5 22.lll fl (22.lll xe6 fxe6 23.l:!d7 lll f5 24.l:!xc7 allows Black enough counterplay after 24 . . . l:!d8, e.g. 25.lll fl ©b8 26.l:!f7 [26.l:!c6? l:!e8!] 26 . . . l:!dl ) 22 . . . lll f5 23.g3 (23.lll xe6 fxe6 24.l:!d7 ©b7 25.lll g3 ©c8! holds) 23 . . . i.c8 was fine for Black in Socko - Grabarczyk, Warsaw 2003. 2) 20 . . . h5 2 1 .l:!d8t ©b7 22.lll f4 lll g6 23.g3 c4 24.bxc4?? lt:\xf4 25.gxf4 g3 and wins was Anand - Kramnik, Mainz (rapid) 200 1 , but far stronger was 24.lll xe6 fxe6 25.bxc4, when Black drew only with great difficulty in Socko - Kharlov, Batumi 2002. 3) 20 . . . lll c6 2 1 .ttJf4 l:!g8 22.lll xe6 fxe6 23.l:!d7 ©b7 24.l:!f7 i.e7 25.g3 h5 26.l:!h7 l:!d8 27.lll fl c4 also gave Black at least adequate counterplay in Galkin - Jonkman, Hoogeveen 200 1 . 20.l:!d8t ©b7 2 1 .ttJh2 is well met by 2 I . . .i.g7 rather than transposing to Anand - Kramnik with 2 1 . . .h5 . 20 . . . lll c6 20 . . . ©b?? 2 1 .lll f4 lll g6 (The point is that 2 I . . .i.f5 now loses to 22.e6 in view of 22 . . . l:!h7 23.l:!d8: Black needed to keep his back rank covered. An instructive example of Black's need for tactical alertness in establishing his blockade.) 22.lll xe6 fxe6 23.g3 i.g7 24.f4 lll e7 25 .h5 favoured White in Mista - Grabarczyk, Poraj 2003.

2 1 .lll f4 i.f5 Now 22.e6 l:!h7 is fine. 22.lll d 5 i.g7 23.lll xc7t Smirin - Z. Almasi, Pula 200 l , was agreed drawn here. 23 . . . ©b8 24.lll d 5 l:!d8 25.c4 This occurred in Socko - Grabarczyk, Poznan 2005, when I suspect 25 . . . lll xe5 was a better bet than 25 . . . he5 26.he5 lll x e5 27.©h2, as in the game, when I think White was slightly better. After for example: 26.lll d 3 i.xd3 27.he5t he5 28.l:!xd3 i.d4 it seems to me that Black is better off keeping the dark- rather than the light-squared bishop.

17 ... @b7 18.ltJg3 1 8 .lll c3 lll g6 1 9.lll d 5 was drawn at once in Volokitin - Eljanov, Dresden 2007. As usual White's knight on d5 doesn't do anything by itsel£

18 . . ttJc6 .

Rizouk's plan is to seek counterplay on the queenside with . . . a6 and . . . b5, and for that he needs the knight here rather than on g6. Black has not fared well with more static plans, for example: 1 8 . . . l:!g8 1 9.ttJh2 lll g6 20.ttJh5 i.e7 2 1 .ttJg4 hg4 22.hxg4 l:!gd8 23.g3 l:!xd2 24.l:!xd2 l:!d8 25.l:!xd8 i.xd8 26.©g2 ©c6 27.©f3 ©d7 28.©e4 c6 29.f4 Karjakin - Kunte, Mallorca 2004. And 1 8 . . . a5 1 9.a4 lll c6 20.lll h 5 l:!g8 2 1 .ttJh2 i.e7 22.lll g4 l:!ad8 23.l:!xd8 i.xd8 24.lll e3 i.e7 25.g4 l:!e8 26.lt:\f5 i.f8 27.©g2 hf5 28.gxf5 lll d4 29.i.xd4 cxd4 30.l:!xd4 l:!xe5 Ganguly Moradiabadi, Esfahan 2005. In both cases White won the endgame on the kingside light squares.

Chapter 7 - . . . i.d7 Systems

219

19.llJhS a6 20.llJh2

Conclusions:

White didn't do any better with 20.g4 b5 2 1 .E:cl bxc4 22.bxc4 llia5 23.E:dc2 E:d8 24. ©fl llic6 25.E:d2 lie? 26.©e2 E:xd2t 27.llixd2 E:d8 28.llig? llib4 29.E:c3 llixa2 30.E:f3 llib4 3 l .llixe6 fxe6 in Nijboer - Rizouk, Salou 2005. Indeed he must have been a bit relieved to be offered a draw at this moment.

1 ) This old line remains popular. White's moves are very logical. 2) Move order is important. White should go llie2 before E:d8t since otherwise . . . llig6 is a good reply. 3) Black should investigate Grischuk Marciano to see whether 1 6.llie2 llig6 1 7.h4 is indeed bad for him. If it is not then it is not necessary to weaken himself with . . . g5 at all. 4) If he wants to play h4 White has to play 1 7.E:d8t first since otherwise the rook on d2 hurts him tactically as in Svidler Grabarczyk. 5) In my opinion the untested 1 9 . . . gxh4 is then worth investigating. 6) If Black does want to allow Anand Kramnik then Jonkman's play against Galkin seems to provide an answer to 20.llih2, and Black also appears to equalise against 20.lliel along the lines of Socko - Grabarczyk. 7) The 1 7 .c4 plan in the game is best met with . . . a6 and . . . b5, which seems to equalise, rather than more static . . . a5 plans.

20.a4 llia5 is also annoying.

20 bS 21 .E:cl bxc4 22.bxc4 llJa5 23.E:dc2 E:d8 24.llJfl llic6 25.i.c3 llJb4 •••

I Game 28 I

Emms - Ferguson 26.E:b2 @c6 27.llJe3 llJd3 28.E:dl tLixb2 29.E:xd8 llJa4 30.i.al i.g7 31 .E:d3 E:g8 32.llJdS?! 32.llixg? E:xg7 33.E:a3 llib6 34.E:xa6 E:g8 is nothing for White either, but at least he can maintain equality.

32 i.ffi 33.llJhf6 E:h8 34.f4 llJb6 35.fxgS hxg5 36.llJxb6 cxb6 37.E:d8 hc4 38.e6 he6 39.llJdS E:h4 40.llJxb6 i.d6 41.llJcS i.c7 42.llJe7t @b7 43.E:e8 E:e4 44.i.c3 E:e3 45.i.d2 E:e2 46.hgS i.g3 47.i.d2 i.fZt 0-1 •••

British League 2002

1.e4 e5 2.llJf3 llJc6 3.i.b5 llJf6 4.0-0 llJxe4 5.d4 llJd6 6.hc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 llJf5 8.�xd8t @xd8 9.llJc3 i.d7 10.h3 b6 l l .b3 @cs 12.i.b2 h6 13.E:adl llJe7 14.llJd4 We saw all this in the last game, but the text, Shirov's move, is perhaps the most dangerous alternative to the main 1 4.E:d2.

14 cS •••

Black has tried various alternatives but it seems necessary to remove the knight from its active position.

The Berlin Wall

220

a) 1 4 . . . lLig6?! Black tries to prevent the pawn roller by attacking e5 but it doesn't work - usually Black needs to get in . . . lLig6 before the white knight moves from f3 if this method is to be effective. 1 5 .f4 a5 1 5 . . . .ic5 1 6.lLie4 ixd4t 17.�xd4 �e8 1 8.g4 and 1 5 . . . c5 1 6.lLide2 h5 1 7.lLie4 (Wedberg) are also both terrible. 1 6.a4 h5 Keeping the knight off e4 doesn't help either: 1 6 . . . c5 1 7.lLide2 .ifs ( 1 7 . . . .ic6 1 8.lLid5 �b7 1 9.c4 �e8 20.lLiec3 .ie7 2 1 .lLib5 is also bad) 1 8.�d2 h5 1 9.lLid5±

Maybe Black does a little better wicl: 1 5 . . . fxe6 1 6.�fe l e5 17.�xe5 lLig6. 1 6.�fe l �d8 1 7.exf7 ixf7 1 8.lLie6 �xd l 1 9.lLixd l ixe6 20.�xe6 White had a typical nice advantage in De Vreugt - N.V. Pedersen, Amsterdam 2002.

Not even opposite-coloured bishops can save Black: 1 6 . . . .ic5 1 7.lLie4 ixd4t 1 8.�xd4 c5 1 9.�d2 .ic6 20.lLig3± 1 7.lLie4 The usual reaction to . . . h5 in this variation. 17 . . ..ie? 1 8 .lLig5! c5 1 9.lLixf7! White was already winning in Shirov Rizouk, Moscow 200 1 .

15.lLide2

c) 14 . . . lLif5 1 5 .lLide2 has clearly improved White's position, and after 1 5 . . . .ie? 1 6.lLie'± �d8 1 7.g4 lLih4 1 8.f4 c5 1 9.c4 �b7 20.lLi2c3 he was already well on the way in Shirov Stefansson, Dresden 2006. d) 1 4 ... a5 1 5 .�fe l lines up e6, which even 1 5 . . . c5 doesn't prevent.

b) 1 4 . . . @b?

� � � � �· ��P �,,.,,,d""''\rar�- - --� ef� 7 -�-ef · .� j_- ' r,,..,%. � 6 -- � ---- . 5 � ----- - � 8

4 3

2 1

-

>,, , , ; � � � ��� �m- - - "� �� � � � ��m0- /�, , ,;"�! �- - · ' ���-0 � � � �·� �� -- ---- -� 1.� 'j;'0� � -0

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black makes the point that f4 isn't really a threat yet, but White has another idea, and after: 1 5 .e6 1 5 .f4 lLif5 1 5 . . . .ie8

a) 1 5 . . . c4!? This was suggested by Alexei Bezgodov on ClubKasparov. corn: 1 6.bxc4 lLic6 l 7.lLid5 1 7.lLie4 lLia5 1 8.c5 lLib7! 'with counterplay' was given by Bezgodov, correctly: Black's point is that after, say, 1 9 . .id4 he goes 1 9 . . . .ic6 before taking on c5, so as to prevent

Chapter 7 - . . . i.d7 Systems White having 1::1 d 5 at the end. 17 . . . lll a 5 1 8 .lll e3 i.e6 1 8 . . . i.c5 1 9 .lll d4± 1 9.lll f4 i.xc4 1 9 . . . lll xc4? 20.lll xe6 lll xb2 2 1 .1::1 d 8t 'it>b7 22.1::1xa8 'it>xa8 23.lll xc?t± 19 . . .i.c5 20.i.d4 i.xd4 2 1 .1::1xd4 20.lll xc4 lll xc4 2 1 .ic3 Bezgodov gives White a ;!;, but it seems to me that Black is worse off than that. It is a rare event in the Berlin if Black can get away with opening the position quickly like this, especially if he has to give up his light-squared bishop in the process. b) 1 5 . . . if5 This is a very reasonable move. 1 6.1::1 d2 h5 17.lll g3 ig6 Other options are: 1 7 . . . h4 1 8.lll xf5 lll xf5 1 9 .lll e4 i.e7 20.g4! is a handy trick giving White a strong initiative, but there is a strong case for keeping the bishop on the c8-h3 diagonal with 1 7 . . . i.e6. Black's point is that after 1 8 .lll ge4 (or 1 8.lll ce4) he can continue with 1 8 . . . g6 1 9 .lll g5 ih6 20.lll ce4 'it>b7 2 1 .1::1 fdl i.xg5 22.lll xg5 lll c6 followed by . . . 1::1 d 8, with a type of position where White faces an impossible task to try and win. Other alternatives at move 1 8 seem to allow Black to set up his desired blockade. 1 8.f4 h4 1 9.f5 ih7 20.lll ge4! 20.f6?! gxf6 2 1 .exf6 i.h6 22.1::1 e2 lll c6 gives Black counterplay. 20 . . . i.xf5?! I saw 20 ... lll xf5 2 1 .lll g 5 given as clearly good for White somewhere, but this is far from obviously true, since the natural 2 1 . . .i.g6 22.lll xf7 i.xf7 23.1::1xf5 ie6 24.1::1 g 5 'it>b7 25.lll e2 allows Black the tactical escape 25 . . . ie? 26.1::1xg7 i.f8 27.1::1 g6 ih6 28.1::1 d l if5 . 2 1 .lll g 5 f6 22.exf6 gxf6 23.lll d 5 White's initiative outweighs the pawn.

22 1

c) 1 5 . . . lll c6 went fine for Black after 1 6.lll d 5 lll b4 1 7.lll xb4 cxb4 1 8.lll f4 h5 1 9 .1::1 fe l ( 1 9 . e6 fxe6 20.lll g6 1::1 g8 2 1 .lll xf8 1::1xf8 22.i.xg? 1::1g 8 is equal) 1 9 . . . 1::1h 6 20.1::1 e2 i.f5 2 1 .1::1 ed2 'it>b7 22.1::1 d 8 1::1xd8 23.1::1xd8 ie7 24.1::1 g 8 until he fell for 24 . . . ig5?? 25.1::1xg7 i.xf4 26.1::1xf7 and lost in M. Pavlovic - Abramovic, Banja Koviljaca 2002. d) 1 5 . . . a5

dl) The first point is that White is not ready for 1 6.f4, if for no other reason than because after 1 6 . . . h5 ( 1 6 . . . lll f5 is one alternative which keeps more play) 1 7. lll e4 lll f5 1 8.1::1 d3 h4 1 9 .lll g5 i.e6 20.lll xe6 fxe6 2 1 .lll c3 ie7 Black's position is quite impregnable. If he wants to, he can even trade all the rooks, as we saw in the thematic example on page 24 in chapter 2. d2) 1 6 .1::1 fel allows 16 . . . a4 ( 1 6 . . . lll c6 17.lll f4 lll d4 is also possible) . Black is fine after 17.lll xa4 ( 1 7.lll f4 axb3 1 8.axb3 lll f5 is nice for Black because White is a tempo short for his most dangerous plan of doubling on the cl-file) 1 7 . . .ixa4 1 8.bxa4 1::1xa4. It's a pity to lose the

222

The Berlin Wall

bishop but the time saved by developing the rook this way, and the ruptured white pawns, compensate for that. d3) 1 6 .lll f4 This is White's most challenging if he isn't going to play a4. 1 6 . . . lll c6 16 . . . a4 is not so good now: 17.E:d2! axb3 1 8.axb3 and Black has no good way to develop and meet the threats down the d-file. For example 1 8 . . . g5 ( 1 8 . . . Ac6 1 9 .e6 fxe6 20.lll xe6 1 8 . . . lll f5 1 9.E:fdl Ac6? 20.E:d8t ©b7 2 1 .E:xa8 iixa8 22.E:d8t iib7 23.e6 f:xe6 24.lll g6 1 8 . . . lll c6 1 9 .E:fd l and the threats of lll b 5 and E:d7 after the bishop is either exchanged or driven away give White the upper hand.) 1 9 .E:fdl Af5 20.e6 lll c6 (20 . . . gxf4? 2 1 .lll b 5 E:h7 22.E:d7) 2 1 .lll b 5 E:h7 22.e7 lll xe7 23.lll h 5 iib7 24.lll f6 E:g7 25.g4 Ae6 26.E:d8 E:a2 27.E:al E:xal t (27 . . . E:xb2 28.E:a7t) 28.hal lll g6 29.lll d7 E:g8 30.E:b8t iic6 3 1 .lll f6 iixb5 32.lll xg8 With reasonable winning chances for White - a long variation, but hard to improve on. 1 7.E:d2 Ae7 l 7 . . . lll xe5 1 8.E:fdl i.f5 l 9.lll b 5 lll g6 20.lll xg6 hg6 2 1 .Ae5± 1 8.E:fdl Af5 1 9 .lll fd5 Ae6! 1 9 . . . h5 20.lll b 5 i.d8 2 1 .lll x b6t is a trick Black has to avoid, while 1 9 . . . iib7 20.g4 ie6 2 l .f4 g6 allows White to establish what he wants. 20.g4 Black is not disturbed by the alternatives: 20.f4 g6 (not 20 . . . h5? 2 1 .lll b 5 id8 22.f5 ixf5 23.lll x b6t again) and White has no way both to maintain his pawn front intact and to prevent . . . a4, for example 2 1 .lll b 5 (2 1 .g4 iib7 22.iig2 h5 is similar 2 1 .a4 h5) 2 I . . . .id8 22.g4 iib7 23.iig2 h5. 20.a4 g5 2 1 .lll b 5 id8 should be fine for Black. He can follow with . . . @b7, . . . E:c8 and . . . .ie7-f8-g7. For example, 22.c4 ©b7

23.ic3 E:c8 24.iih2 Ae7 25.iig3 if8 26.E:e l ig7. 20 . . . h5 2 1 .lll b 5 White has to play this before going for the bishop in view of 2 1 .lll f4? i.g5 . 2 1 . . .id8 22.lll f4 hxg4 23.lll xe6 fxe6 24.hxg4 a4 This should be fine for Black these positions are not so dangerous with the a-file opened. d4) 1 6.E:d2 After this Black seems to do best by bringing the bishop the other way: 1 6 . . . ic6 l 7.lll f4 iib7 With the bishop on c6, E:d2 is basically a wasted tempo, since the c-pawn is not attacked and doubling rooks on the d-file has no point. 1 8.e6 1 8.a4 g5 1 9.lll h 5 lll f5 20.lll d 5 lll d4 is fine for Black too. 1 8.E:e l threatens e6 (which is a good reply to 1 8 . . . a4) Black has instead to start developing his kingside with 1 8 . . . lll f5 ( 1 8 . . . lll g6 1 9 . lll xg6 favours White since Black cannot blockade e6) , which is possible because of the tactical line 1 9 .lll cd5 E:d8 20.c4 .ie7 2 1 .g4 (2 1 .e6 ig5!) 2 1 . . .lll h4 and the threatened fork gives Black time for . . . E:he8, when he should be fine. 1 8 . . . g5 1 9.lll d3 fxe6 20.lll e4 E:h7 2 1 .lll f6 E:g7 White has no better than making a draw on the rook. d5) 1 6 a4 lll c6 l 6 . . . ic6 would be an attempt to improve upon Grischuk - Aleksandrov below, but 17.lll f4 ©b7 1 8.lll b 5 g5 ( 1 8 . . . lll f5 1 9 .lll d 5) l 9.lll h 5 E:g8 20.E:fe l is not easy for Black maybe this lll b 5 idea was why Aleksandrov didn't want a4 . . . a5 in. l 7.lll b 5

Chapter 7 . . . i.d7 Systems -

1 7.llid5 llib4 1 7 . . . .tf5 1 s.gd2 h5 1 9.llif4 iib7 20.llid5 gcs 2 1 .f4 h4 22.llie3 gh5 23.llixf5 gxf5 24.gd? llib8 25.gd3 ge8 26.llic3 f6 27.exf6 gxf6 28.llid5 Y2-Yz Tischbierek - Pinter, Austria 2003. e) 15 ... i.c6 1 6.llif4 iib7 1 7.llicd5 A surprising idea: trading off Black's e7knight like this is rarely the way for White to play. But 1 7.e6 g5 ( 1 7 . . . fxe6 1 8.llixe6 ge8 1 9.gfe l is worse) 1 8.llid3 fxe6 1 9.llie4 gg8 20.llif6 gg7 2 1 .llih5 gh7 doesn't lead anywhere much. For example, 22.llie5 llif5 23.llixc6 xc6 24.gfel ge7 25.f4 gxf4 26.llixf4 i.g7. 1 7 . . . llixd5 1 8.llixd5 c4!? Once llid5 and the exchange of a pair of knights has occurred the usual defect of this move - that is, losing control of d4 - is less serious, but of course there remains the acid test of accepting the pawn sacrifice. Less committal moves were possible but White's knight exchange does seem to have freed the way for his kingside majority, and 1 8 . . . a5 1 9.f4 ( 1 9.a4 c4) 1 9 . . . a4 20.gf2 axb3 2 1 .axb3 ga2 22.c4 g6, for example, leaves White with the pleasant choice between 23.g4 gh7 24.gfd2 h5 25 .g5, when Black can only defend, with very uncertain prospects, and winning the exchange with 23.e6 gxb2, although Black has definite compensation in the latter line. 1 9.bxc4 i.a4 20.llie3 i.c5 2 1 .i.d4 hd4 22.gxd4 gae8 Grischuk had already had enough of trying to exploit his extra pawn in Grischuk Aleksandrov, Poikovsky 2004, which ended with a draw after 23.c5 . White certainly doesn't have much chance to demonstrate the advantage once Black exchanges a pair of rooks, cxb6 . . . axb6 occurs and Black establishes an active rook on a4 against one on a8, and

223

I haven't been able to discover another serious way to play for the advantage.

16.lll f4?! It seems obvious to me now that it's correct to head straight for g5 with 1 6.llie4 (as Mark Ferguson rather unkindly showed me in a training game), when Black is in difficulties the structure after 1 6 . . . h4 1 7.llig5 i.e6 1 8.llixe6 fxe6 is fine with f4 in but no good at all when the white knight still has that square. 1 6 . . . i.f5 ( 1 6 . . . h4 1 7.llig5 gh5 1 8.llixf7 g5 1 9.llid8! iixd8 20.e6 is an important trick) 1 7.lli2g3 i.g6 ( 1 7 . . . i.h? 1 8.llig5 hc2 1 9.llixf7±) 1 8.f4 h4 1 9.f5 i.h7 20.f6 with an initiative for White had already been given by Wedberg.

16 i.5 17J�d2 @b7 18.lll cdS •..

It's seldom a good thing for White to play this move while the knight is still on e7.

18 ... lll xdS 19.lll xdS i3d8 20.i3fdl h4

21 .c4 i3e8 22.f4 i3h5 23.iifl i.e6 24.ii:f3 @c8 25.i.c3 @b7 26.lll e3 i.e7 27.i:3f2 g6 28.@e4 i3g8 29.i3fd2 @c8 1/2-1/2

224

The Berlin Wall

Conclusion: At the moment this line is an acid test of 9 . . . Ad7. Black should be able to plot his way to equality, but he hasn't yet identified quite how. It looks to me as though all of 1 5 . . . a5, 1 5 . . . if5, 1 5 . . . tll c6 and Aleksandrov's 1 5 . . . Ac6 are worth looking into. The only move which probably is bad is 1 5 . . . h5?! as played in this game.

I Game 29 I

Z. Almasi - Aleksandrov

12.Ei:adl White has tried many set-ups. When Black's idea was first introduced Leko reacted with: 1 2.Elfe l a5 1 3 .h3 h5 14.tll e4 a4 1 5 .tll eg5 Ae6 Kramnik surprisingly missed the typical twist 1 5 . . . tll h 4! 1 6.tll xh4 (or 1 6.tllxf7 tll xf3t 1 7.gxf3 Elf8 1 8.e6 Axe6 1 9.Elxe6 Elxf7 and Black is fine with his idea of . . . Ela5h5) 1 6 . . . Axg5 17.tll f3 Ae7 and if anything Black is better. 1 6 .tll xe6 fxe6

Aeroflot Open, Moscow 2007

1.e4 e5 2.ltJf3 ltJc6 3.i.b5 ltJf6 4.0-0 ltJxe4 5.d4 ltJd6 6.hc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 ltJf5 8.Y!Yxd8t @xd8 9.ltJc3 i.d7 10.b3 @c8 1 1.i.b2 1 1 .tll g 5 now misses the mark after 1 l . . .i.b4 1 2.Ab2 h6, since 1 3 .tll xf7 Elf8 is just bad. n ...Ae7

8

7

,

::0

� -0 � �-J� - ��� � �· f�� ..i.�� i f�� i %

�8:� :6 �������. ,� ��� % '"//, �� �� � � � 3 - 8- � - � ­� ,,,,,%

%,,,,%

,,,,,

,,,,,%

W /,

���if8 ,_,,,;- ��;i' 2 8 f�'-0 � 8 f�-% 1 ,o-- ---%a �- 1� % -

a

b

c

d

e

----

f

g

h

This move introduces an altogether different scheme of development Black intends to leave the king where it is and use the time saved on moves like . . . b6, . . . @b7 and . . . h6 to develop more actively with . . . a5 , . . . h5, and thereafter perhaps . . . Eld8 and maybe even . . . Ela6.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Reaching a type of position where White is slightly better, but having got in . . . a4 Black should be able to keep the advantage within bounds with his active rook. As Kramnik explains on his DVD, in such a position Black should try to exchange knights if possible, while White should try to take his knight to e4. The sequel was a fairly typical example of such positions which is worth looking at for that reason: 17.Ele4 axb3 1 8.axb3 Ei:xa l t 1 9.hal Eld8 20.@fl Eldl t 2 1 .Elel Eld5 22.@e2 Ela5 23.@d3 Ac5 24.Ac3 Ela2 25.Elfl @d7 26.tll g 5 Ae7 27.tll e4 tll h4 28.g3 lll f3 29.Eldl @es 30.@e3 30.h4 was worth considering. 30 . . . tll g 5 3 1 .tll xg5 hg5t 32.@d3 Ela8 33.@e4 Ela2 34.'it>d3 Ela8 35.Elfl Ae7 36.f4 g6 37.@e4 Ela2 38.Elf2 b5 39.g4 hxg4 40.hxg4 c5 4 1 .'it>d3 @f7 42.Elh2 'it>g8 43.Elhl Ela8 44.f5 gxf5

Chapter 7 - . . . i.d? Systems Y2-�

Leko - Kramnik, Budapest (rapid)

200 1 .

12.tll e4 h5 Now that the knight has left c3 it is also logical to play 1 2 . . . c5 as Black did in Rozentalis - Aagaard, Malmo 2004. After 1 3 .h3 i.c6 14.gfel h5 1 5 .lll fg5 gfg 1 6.gad l a 5 1 7.a4 c4 1 8.g4 lll h4 1 9.ge3 tll g2 20.gc3 hxg4 2 1 .hxg4 Black should have played 2 1 . . . tll h4 (Atlas) , when 22.gxc4 i.xg5 23.tll xg5 (23.gxc6 is better and maintains approximate equality) 23 . . . tll f3t 24.lll xf3 i.xf3 25.gd3 (25 .gdd4?? gh8 and mate) 25 . . . .ie2 26.gf4 i.xd3 27.cxd3 ga6 28.i.a3 ge8 29.gxf7 gb6 does not give enough compensation, as Atlas says. 1 3.gfe l a5 14.lll eg5 Less good is 1 4.a4 ge8 1 5 .tll eg5 due to 1 5 . . . lll h 4!.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

The twist Kramnik missed. This gave Black an excellent game in Miroshnichenko - P.H. Nielsen, Panormo 2002, which is also worth following to the end: 1 6.lll xh4 i.xg5 17.tll f3 i.e? 1 8.h3 c5 1 9.tll d2 i.f5 20.lll e4 b6 2 1 .ge2 'i!?b? 22.gae l i.e6 23.tll d 2 gad8 24.lll c4 gd7 25 .i.c3 i.g5 26.'i!?h2 h4 27.gfl i.f4t 28.g3 hxg3t 29.fxg3 i.g5 30.h4 i.e? 3 1 .gd2 gxd2t 32.i.xd2 gds 33.i.c3 g5 34.hxg5 ghst 35.'i!?gl i.xg5 36.gdl 'i!?c6 37,gd3 i.d5 38.i.d2 gh l t 39.'i!?f2 i.xc4

225

40.bxc4 i.xd2 4 1 .gxd2 gal Up to this point the game has been a real model and with 4 1 . . .gh5 Black could have collected the e-pawn and pressed on towards likely victory: 42.e6 gh2t 43.'i!?e3 gxd2 44.'i!?xd2 f5 ! and wins with a subsequent . . . c6/ b5 after the e-pawn has been collected, and not 44 . . . fxe6 which is only a draw. Instead he suffered a fate which has overtaken many Blacks in these Berlin endings, and won queenside pawns too early at the expense of allowing White's king to get active on the kingside. 42.'i!?e3 ga3t 43.'i!?e4 gc3 (43 . . . gxg3) 44.@f5 gxc4 45.'i!?f6 ge4 46.c4 ge3 47.g4 gst 48.'i!?e? gf4 49.g5 gf5 50.e6 fxe6 5 1 .gg2 1-0 1 4 . . . i.e8 14 . . . lll h4 is not so effective with both the a-pawn blockaded and the rook still on h8: l 5 .tll xf7 lll xf3t 1 6.gxf3 gfg l 7.e6 i.xe6 1 8.tll g 5 i.xg5 1 9.gxe6;!; 1 5.a4 ga6 1 6.e6 It's strange to release the e8-bishop so easily. 1 6.ge4!? 16 .. .f6 17.lll e4 c5 1 8 .tll g3 i.g6 With a roughly equal game in Rendle Rizouk, Cappelle la Grande 2002. 12.tll e2 looks like the best move to me, and produced typical slight advantages for White after both: a) 12 . . . h5 13.gfe l a5 14.a4 c5 1 5 .lll f4 i.e6 1 6.lll xe6 fxe6 Socko - Wang Rui, Cappelle la Grande 2005, and b) 1 2 . . . a5 1 3 .tll f4 h5 14.a4 i.e6 1 5 .tll xe6 fxe6 I.:Ami - Sai, Kochin 2004. c) Possibly Black should accept that e6 is inevitable and change course to prepare himself for that as best he can with 1 2 . . . gds 1 3 .tll f4 b6 1 4.gfe l 'i!?b? 1 5 .e6 (the computer

226

The Berlin Wall

has a remarkable idea after 1 5 .gad l : 1 5 . . . g5 1 6.lll h 5 lll h4!? 17.lll xh4 gxh4. I don't think I've ever seen . . . lll h4 played after . . . g5 like this, but it seems reasonably effective.) 1 5 . . ..L:e6 1 6.lll xe6 fxe6 1 7.gxe6 ic5 1 8.gae l gd5.

12 ... aS 1 2 . . . b6 1 3.gd2 a5 1 4.a4 h5 1 5.gfd l ie8 ( 1 5 . . . ie6 1 6.lll e2 id5 l 7.lll fd4 lll xd4 1 8.lll xd4 'kt>b7 1 9.f3 gad8 20.c4 ie6 2 1 .lll xe6 gxd2! [to keep one pair of rooks as in Palac - Hracek] 22.gxd2 fxe6 leads to an endgame which should be defensible, although it is less comfortable with the king on c8 than on e8) 1 6.g3 'kt>b7 1 7.h4 gh6 l 8.gd3 gg6 1 9.'kt>fl c5 This worked out well for White in the end, although it was still pretty unclear at this stage in Mista - Markos, Czech League 2006. 12 ... h6 A strange move to my eye: Black isn't about to play . . . g5 and I don't see why he would need to cover g5 again either. 1 3.g4 lll h4 14.lll xh4 hl4 1 5 .h3 h5 1 6.f3 ie7 1 7.lll e4 ie6 1 8 .lll g3 g6 1 9 .lll e2 a5 20.lll f4 a4 2 1 .lll xe6 fxe6 22.'kt>g2 b5 23.f4 hxg4 24.hxg4 axb3 25 .axb3 gh4 26.©g3 Black's activity was holding him comfortably equal in Carlsen Aronian, Monaco (rapid) 2008.

13.a4 White made a complete hash of the opening in Shirov - Kramnik, Monte Carlo 200 1 , with: 1 3 .h3 h5 1 4.g3?! I suppose Shirov wanted to prevent ... h4 or ... lll h4 ideas, but 1 4.a4 looks like the best to me, while 14.lll e4 a4 1 5.c4? b6 1 6.icl ge8 1 7.ig5 c5 1 8.he7 gxe7 1 9 .lll c3 axb3 20.axb3 ic6 2 1 .lll d 5 gd7 22.gfe l ga3 saw Black already taking a decisive initiative with impressive smoothness in Rjabzev - Yemelin, St Petersburg 2006.

14 . . . ga6!? Ponomariov and Komarov in Chess Informant mention 1 4 . . . ie6 1 5 .lll e4 id5 1 6.lll fg5 . 1 5 .icl It's difficult to believe in this plan Kramnik gives instead 1 5.gd3 ie6!? ( 1 5 . . . c5 1 6.lll d 5 a4 1 7.gfdl ie6 1 8.c4) 1 6.lll e4 ( 1 6.a4 gd8 17.gfd l gxd3 1 8.gxd3 c5) 1 6 . . . c5 1 7.c4 ( 1 7.lll fg5 c4) 1 7 . . . lll d4!? ( 1 7 . . . a4 1 8 .lll fg5): to the non-world-champion eye all of these variations look acceptable for Black. 1 5 . . . ge8 Kramnik implies that he avoided 1 5 . . . a4 on account of 1 6.ig5, although 1 6 . . . axb3 1 7.axb3 ge8 1 8.lll e4 b6 1 9.he7 gxe7 20.gfe l doesn't look too bad. 1 6.ig5 Kramnik offers as better l 6.gd3 lll h 6!? 1 1.hl6 ( 1 7.'kt>h2 if5 1 8.gd2 ib4) 1 7 . . . gxh6 1 8.'kt>g2 if5 1 9.ge3 hc2 20.e6 which he assesses as unclear. 1 6 . . . ib4 An alternative is 1 6 . . . hg5 17.lll xg5 gxe5 1 8 .lll xf7 gc5 1 9.gfe l (Threatening ge8t. If instead 1 9.gd3 then perhaps 1 9 . . . lll d 6!?.) 1 9 . . . b5 (Kramnik) . 17.gd3? 17.lll e 2? f6 1 8.if4 g5! is bad critical is l 7.lll e 4! lll d 6!? (Kramnik) . 1 7 . . . lll e 7! And Black was already winning.

13 ... gds Kramnik preferred to stick to his original plan and demonstrated a classic method for Black with: 1 3 . . . h5 14.gd3 14.icl ie6 1 5 .lll g 5 hg5 1 6 ..ixg5 b6 1 4.h3!? 1 4 ... b6 1 5 .gfdl ie6 1 6.lll e4 c5 1 7.c4 1 7.lll fg 5 c4 1 7 . . . 'kt>b7 1 8 .lll fg5

Chapter 7 - . . . id7 Systems

s 1 6

5

4 3

2

• • %' ' � � I. � � -�E-� �-r i r�J -· 0·"� w-:r0 � 1·�· · "� �J · % � � i · · · �I� · �r�41)W � �� Z�"� '· · · � �� ���"� �� �A g� �i t3:i w� • �w� � �� r� · · · "��f. . �

a

b

c

d

�r

�d%

e

f

g

....

�d h

And now the thematic: 1 8 . . . .ixg5! 1 9.llJxg5 l:%ae8 20.g3 !%hf8= 2 1 .llJxe6 If 2 1 .f4 then 2 1 . ..ic8 followed by . . . llJe7c6, . . . if5 gives Black an excellent game. 2 1 . . .fxe6 22.f4 ©c8 23.Wg2 l:%d8 24.©f3 l:%xd3t 25.l:%xd3 !%d8 26.!%xd8t Y2-Yi Ponomariov - Kramnik, ROW-Russia (rapid) 2002. By contrast 13 . . . b6 1 4.h3 h5 1 5 .llJe4 ie8 1 6.llJfg5 h4 1 7.l:%d3 l:%h5 1 8.g4 hxg3 1 9.fxg3 was the wrong way to play for Black in Z. Almasi - Tu Hoang Thong, Bled 2002. It's better to deal with llJg5 plans by . . . .ixg5 and . . . ie6 as Kramnik did in the Ponomariov game.

14.h3 h5 15.l:%d3 b6 16.�fdl ie8

227

1 6 . . . ie6?! 1 7.llJe2 l:%xd3 1 8.l:%xd3 Wb7 1 9.llJf4 h4 20.llJxe6 fxe6 would be a type of endgame where White benefits from having omitted f4, since one day, perhaps after the exchange of rooks and the king to e4, he can play g4 and more or less force an outside passed pawn: compare with Hunt - Erenburg in chapter 2, page 49.

17.l:hdSt hd8 18.tlJe2

1 8.llJe4 ©b7 1 9.Wh2 h4 allows Black his blockade Almasi plays instead for the e6 break.

18 ie7 19.e6 fxe6 20.tlJf4 b5!? •••

This form of counterplay has to be weighed carefully, but here it is natural with the bishop on e8.

21.tlJxe6 bxa4 22.bxa4 g6 23.g4 hxg4 24.hxg4 tlJh6 24 . . . llJd6 is usually right but hereAleksandrov wants to play . . . c5 next and keeps that square covered with the e7-bishop. White is perhaps slightly better but Aleksandrov holds easily enough .

25.tlJe5 c5 26.ia3 �a6 27.tlJxc5 hc5 28.hc5 ixa4 29.ie3 tlJg8 30.ig5 �d6 31 .�al hc2 32.�xa5 tlJf6 33.�c5 ie4 34.a ih7 35. Wfl tlJd7 36.tlJxd7 cj{xd7 37.if4 1/2-1/2 Conclusion: This plan is an interesting alternative to the very theoretical lines of the last two games. In my view l 2. llJe2 is a logical, and possibly the most challenging, reply, aiming for e6 now that the bishop on e7 makes it hard for Black to deal with that. In general, 9 . . . id7 is still in good shape. White has discovered ways to challenge it, so

228

The Berlin Wall

it's not the wonder weapon it was in the first years of the century, but the debate continues. The theory runs deeper here than in any other line of the Berlin endgame, nevertheless Black keeps discovering new resources.

. . . ie7 Systems

I Game 30 I

In this chapter I a m going t o look a t plans with . . . ie7. This is the repertoire choice recommended for Black by Kaufman. The

Milman - Kritz

idea of the move is simply to exchange a pair of knights with . . . lUh4. It's not immediately obvious why this would be a good idea, although to be sure it does free Black's position a little, and also gets rid of the knight which is otherwise often a target for g2-g4. On the other hand it frees White's pawn maj oriry.

New England Masters, Peabody 2007

1.e4 e5 2.lUB tt:lc6 3.ib5 tt:lf6 4.0-0 tlixe4 5.d4 tt:ld6 6.hc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 tt:\f5 8.Wfxd8t �xd8 9.tll c3 �e8 10.h3 ie7

Kaufman's explanation is disarmingly simple: he says that it is a positional principle that the side with the two bishops should seek to exchange its remaining knight since it removes one piece with which the opponent might seek to eliminate the bishop pair. I don't know about that - I 've never heard of this principle - but it does seem to be a useful manoeuvre. Certainly it saves time in a way: Black no longer needs to go . . . lU f5 -e7-g6, and nor does he need to play . . . h6 before installing his bishop on e6, in fact, j ust as Kaufman's dictum suggests, the knight exchange has the merit of solidifying the bishop on e6.

1 1 .igS This was long supposed to be the most serious obj ection to Black's last move, since he cannot avoid an exchange of dark-squared bishops,

230

The Berlin Wall

which was thought to solve one of White's biggest problems. Kramnik's contribution was to realise that it was worth Black allowing the exchange in return for the resultant easing of Black's position, with an unassailable post for the king on e7.

1 1 ... hgS 12.tll xgS h6 It is important to know where the white knight will go. If Black were unwisely to play . . . ®e7 first then later the knight would retreat to f3, creating the threat of trapping the black knight with g4.

Candidates 2002, but it seems clear that the e6-square should be reserved for the king. 1 7.tDf6 �ad8 1 8.CDg3 ®e6 1 9.b4 Unfortunately at this point a typo crept into Kaufman's book, since he proposes 1 9 . . . �d2, but in any event it is clear that Black is better. He could, for example, continue with . . . tDh4-g6.

14 ....ia6

13.tll ge4 Natural, although it does leave the e5-pawn looking a little lonely. 1 3.tDB is seen in the next game.

13 b6 14.�adl •..

Kramnik said that this move was inaccurate because of what Kritz now plays, but actually White doesn't seem to have anything here anyway. 14.�fdl ®e7 14 . . . tDe7 is less effective and after 1 5 .f4 tDg6 1 6.�fl h5 1 7.�ae l Af5 1 8.CDg3 CDe7 1 9.tDxf5 tDxf5 20.®f2 White was a bit better in Kasparov - Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 200 1 . 1 5 .®h2 Khalifman proposed 1 5 .f4 in a similar situation (without h3 and . . . b6) but here that can be met with . . . h5-h4. 1 5 . . . g5 This is Topalov's ambitious move, which aims to artificially isolate e5. 15 ... h5 1 6.CDe2 �e8 1 7.tDf4 'i!lf8 1 8.CDxh5 �xe5 1 9 .CDhg3 .ie6 was also fine in Anand ­ Kramnik, Leon (rapid) 2002. 1 6.tDe2 .ib7 Kaufman's recommendation. l 6 . . . .ie6 was played in Lutz - Topalov, Dortmund

15 ... ®e7 16.g4 It's possible this is rather imprudent and that White should prefer some quiet move, but it's clear that Black is comfortable.

16 ... lll h4 17.�e3 g5 18.tll g3 �ad8 19.�del .icB Now that Black dominates the queen's file he prefers to stabilise the situation in the e-file absolutely by transferring his bishop to e6.

20.tll ce4 .ie6

Chapter 8 - . . . ie7 Systems

23 1

I Game 31 I

Topalov - Krasenkow Wijk aan Zee 2003

1.e4 e5 2.l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3.ih5 l2Jf6 4.0-0 l2Jxe4 5.d4 l2Jd6 6.hc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 l2Jf5 8.'i!Yxd8t @xd8 9.l2Jc3 @e8 10.h3 ie7 1 1.ig5 ixg5 12.ltJxgS h6 13.l2Jf3

21 ..Jl:d5 22.l2Jc3 l'l:d2 23.l'l:le2 l'l:xe2 24.lll gxe2 l'l:d8 25.£4 gxf4 26.lll xf4 l'l:d2 27.l'l:e2 l'l:xe2 28.ltJcxe2 i.xa2 White couldn't have avoided losing a pawn somehow, and now he is probably lost.

29.@fl ihl 30.c3 c5 3 1 .lll d St @e6 32.l2Jxc7t @xe5 33.@e3 l2Jg2t 34.@fl ie4 35.l2Jg3 ic6 36.tlJbS l2Jf4 37.l2Jxa7 l2Jxh3t 38.@e3 id7 39.l2Jf5 h5 40.l2Jh6 @f6 41.gxh5 @g7 42.l2Jrl'7 @xf'7 43.h6 l2Jg5 44.b4 cxb4 45.cxb4 @e6 46.@d4 @d6 And Black converted his extra piece over another fifty or so rather uninteresting moves.

0-1 Conclusion: It's clear that 1 3.llige4 is at least as dangerous for White as for Black, and attention has now turned to 1 3.llif3.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

13 ie6

b

C

d

e

f

g

h

•••

I've chosen this game because Kaufman has some interesting comments on it, but if White wants to get anywhere in this variation he needs to demonstrate a way to overcome the plan which Leonid Kritz has demonstrated on a number of occasions, which is . . . h5, ... ©e7, wait for a rook move and then trade one pair of rooks, play . . . g6 if necessary after llif4, . . . llig7, . . . a5-a4 and then either . . . �.f5 or . . . llie6 according to circumstances. White has shown nothing against this, for example: 1 3 . . . h5 14.llie2 ( 1 4.l'l:adl @e7 1 5 .l'l:d2 l'l:d8 1 6.E:xd8 ©xd8 l 7.llie2 @e7 1 8 .llif4 g6 1 9.E:e l was now agreed drawn in Goloshchapov Kritz, Bundesliga 2003) 1 4 . . . @e? 1 5 .llif4 g6 1 6.E:adl ( 1 6.E:fdl llig7 1 7.E:d2 l'l:d8 1 8.E:xd8 @xd8 1 9.@fl @e7 20.@e2 a5 2 1 .@d2 llie6

232

The Berlin Wall

Nijboer - Kritz, Istanbul 2003) 1 6 . . . tll g7 1 7.l:%fe l l:%d8 1 8.l:%xd8 'it>xd8 1 9.tll gS 'it>e7 20.l:%dl a5 2 1 .a4 .!f5 Timman - Kritz, Lost Boys Open 2002. In all three cases Black was fully equal at least. Less skilled practitioners sometimes play . . . h4 for Black, which has led to trouble in a couple of games - this pawn is hard to defend, and even g4 has sometimes proved a problem.

14.l:%adl l:%d8 15.b3 gS

19.l:%xd4 i.e6 20.l:%a4 a6 21.£4 l:%d2 22.l:%fl l:%hd8 It seems more natural to trade the active rook with 22 . . . l:%dl t 23.'it>h2 l:%e l , but it is necessary to be confident about the complications after 24.fS .!d5 .

23.fxgS hxg5 24.tll e4 gxfl 25.'it>xfl i.f5 26.lll xgS l:%d2t 27.'it>f3 i.xc2 28.g4 l:%d5 29.'it>f4 c5 30.h4

The other characteristic plan, which seeks to isolate and attack e5 . Typically it is linked to . . . l:%ad8 rather than . . . l:%fd8, although it's hard to put into words why this should be so.

16.lll e4 .ids 17.lll f6 t 1 7.l:%fe l @e7 1 8.g4 tll g7 is only the most temporary of inconveniences for the knight, which will soon be back by way of e6.

17 'it>e7 1 8.lLJd4 •••

3 1 .hS 'it>g7 32.e6 f6 33.tll e4 l:%e5 34.g5 l:%xe6 35.tll xf6 b5 36.l:%a5 l:%c6 37.h6t 'it>g6 38.tll d7 l:%d6 39.lll xc5 gd4t 40.'it>eS l:%d2 41.l:%xa6t 'it>xg5 42.tll e6t 'it>xh6 43.tll xc7t 'it>g7 44.tll xb5 @f7 White won shortly. 1-0 Conclusion: I don't think Black has too much to fear from 1 1 . .!gS he seems to have at leasr equal play both in this game and the previous one in more ways than one.

Chapter 8 . . . 1J.e7 Systems -

I Game 32 I

Gouliev - Knoll Vienna 2006

1.e4 e5 2.ltJf3 ltJc6 3.§J.bS ltJf6 4.0-0 CLJxe4 5.d4 ltJd6 6.hc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 ltJfS 8.%Yxd8t @xd8 9.ltJc3 @e8 10.h3 1J.e7 1 1 .g4 This move is the other direct challenge to Black's system. Most often, as in this game, it leads to a type of position which Black really shouldn't lose, but in which he has very few winning chances and has to defend quite carefully. I've chosen this particular game for its instructive value, basically because it shows Black not doing this.

1 1 ltJh4 12.ltJxh4 JJ.xh4 •••

233

square away with 1 5 .fxg6 he can't have any pretensions to an advantage. 1 5 . . . hxg4 1 6.hxg4 Black doesn't have time for 1 6 . . . gxf5 ? in view of the threat of Elh 1 , but he can simply retreat the bishop, and White's development isn't good enough to maintain his e5/f5 duo: 1 6 . . . 1J.e7 1 6 . . . i.d8 is a clever alternative, designed to make . . . Elh5 Elh l Elxhl Elxhl 1J.xf5 more possible by ensuring that Black can meet Elh8t with . . . ®d7. 1 7.®g3 ( 1 7.i.e3 gxf5 1 8.gxf5 Elh5 1 9.Elhl Elxh l 20.Elxh l ixf5 2 1 .ElhSt ©d7 would illustrate Black's idea, so White is compelled to play this move to defend his pawns) 1 7 . . . gxf5 1 8.gxf5 Elh5 1 9.®g4 Elh4t 20.®g3, and now Black can either force a draw by 20 . . . Elh5 or play on, for example with 20 . . . b5. 1 7.i.d2 Kaufman gives some variations which prove that Black is fine after other moves, as follows: 17.i.e3 (this move is directed against . . . Elh5 ideas) 17 . . . gxf5 1 8.gxf5 Elg8t ( 1 8 . . . Elh5 ? 1 9.Elh l ! Elxf5 20.ElhSt ©d7 [20 . . . i.f8 2 1 .i.c5 is the difference from 1 7 .§J.d2] 2 1 .Eldl t ®e6 22.Ele8! with the idea of Eldd8 is very good for White) 1 9.©h2 b6 20.tlie4 c5 is equal at least for Black.

a

13.@g2

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 3.f4 This is an obviously critical, although not particularly effective, alternative. Black must strike back at once with: 1 3 . . . h5 which compels White to lurch forward with 14.f5 g6 1 5.©g2 White must maintain f5 if he gives the e6-

l 7.f6 i.b4 1 8.®g3 hc3 1 9.bxc3 i.e6 20.ie3 Eld8 is basically a draw. 1 7.tlie4 Elh4 seems pretty good for Black to me Kaufman gives a line I find curious: 17 . . . gxf5 1 8.gxf5 Elg8t 1 9.®h3 (why into a pin and not to h2?) 1 9 . . . b6 20.ie3 c5 2 1 .CLJc3 ®d7 22.Elad l t ®c6 23.tLld5 ids 24.icl i.d7, when Black is at least a little better . . . Ele8 is an annoying threat and so is . . . Elg7 followed by bishop moves and . . . Elh8 mate.

234

The Berlin Wall

17 . . . gxf5 1 8.gxf5 gh5 1 8 . . . ggst 1 9.i>h2 b6 is of course also possible. 1 9.gh l Black i s not worse after 1 9.e6 fxe6 20.f6 e5 2 1 .fxe7 ih3t 22.i>g3 i.xfl 23.gxfl i>xe7. 1 9 . . . gxhl 20.gxh1 hf5 2 1 .ghst ifs 22.�6 ©e7 23.ig5t i>e6 24.ih6 With a draw. Karjakin - Wang Yue, Sochi 2008, went 1 3 .gdl ie7 14.i>g2 ie6 1 5 .ie3 a5 16.lll e2 h5 1 7.f3 a4 1 8 .lll f4 g6 1 9.gd2 gds 20.gxd8t ©xd8 2 1 .gdl t ©e8 22.lll xe6 (Shipov suggested 22.b3 was a tougher test) 22 . . . fxe6 23.gd4 b5 24.gd3 gh7 25 .b3 axb3 26.cxb3 ia3 27.ig5 gd7 28.gxd7 i>xd7 and Black drew comfortably.

13 ... hS 14.f3 i.e7 Black could play lots of moves of course two other ones he has played are: 1 4 . . . ie6 When after: 1 5 .ie3 b6 1 6.gadl gds Black played rather strangely in Nisipeanu Ki. Georgiev, Bled (ol) 2002, with 1 6 . . . ic4 17.gh l ie7 1 8.b3 ie6 1 9.lll e 2 gds, and now Nisipeanu and Stoica give a line I don't find altogether convincing: 20.lll d4 id? (Provided he can exchange one pair of rooks and avoid some immediate unpleasantness on the h-file, Black need not absolutely fear lll xe6 fxe6 in this line. As always in this structure he is better off without knights, and can defend afterwards as in Palac - Hracek from the endings chapter.) 2 1 .lll f5 i>f8 (the pair don't reveal how they would like White to tackle 2 1 . . .ixf5 22.gxf5 h4 followed by . . . gh5 and . . . gxf5, which is a shame, because I don't see it myself) 22.ghe l ie6 (N&S say that 22 . . .hxg4 23.hxg4 hf5 24.gxf5 gh5 [24 . . . gxdl 25.gxdl i>e8 looks like the same sort of thing only better] 25 .gh l gxdl -

26.gxh5 i>g8 27_gh 1 gxh l 28.i>xh l g6 is a considerably better ending for White. To me it seems as though Black draws easily by bringing the king round to e6, but I'm going to leave this as study material for the reader.) 23.gxdSt hd8 24.gdl ie7 25.lll d4 id? 26.lll b 5 hxg4 (26 . . . cxb5 27.gxd7 hxg4 28.hxg4 is hopeless) 27.gxd7 (27.hxg4 hg4) 27 . . . gxf3t 28.i>g3 cxb5 29.gxc7 with a big advantage for White. 1 7.b3 i>e7 17 . . . g6 1 8.lll e4 gxdl 1 9.gxdl hxg4 20.hxg4 ie7 2 1 .c4 c5 22.if4 is an instructive position and something Black should avoid. He is threatened with lll f6t hf6 exf6 when c7 will fall, and if he prevents this with . . . id? then he is exposed to e6 exchanging the e-pawn for c7, with an ending where White's better bishop can give Black a lot of grief on the other hand the paradigm way to defend this ending would be 1 7 . . . ie? 1 8.lll e4 hxg4 1 9.gxdSt hd8 20.hxg4 gh7 followed by waiting to see what White proposes to do and reacting accordingly. As I said before 2 1 .lll g 5 gh8 22.lll xe6 fxe6 is not anything to be afraid 0£ 1 8 .lll e2 c5 1 9 .lll f4 hxg4 20.hxg4 c4 2 1 .gxd8 gxd8 22.ghl cxb3! 23.axb3 g5 24.lll xe6 ©xe6 25.f4 gxf4 26.hf4 ie7 27.gh6t i>d7 28.i>f3 This is analysis by Nisipeanu and Stoica, with another endgame which they say is better for White but looks completely drawn to me (Black ought to start with . . . gg8 to tie the king to the g-pawn and prevent i>e4-f5) . The second example o f the alternatives is 14 . . . a5, when 1 5 .a4 b6 1 6.gdl ie7 17.lll e2 id? 1 8.if4 c5 1 9.ig3 (it seems to me that 1 9 .lll c3 might have given Black more trouble and that 1 8 . . _gd8 and . . . ic8 before . . . c5 would have been more prudent, but I'm sure this possibility occurred to both grandmasters) 1 9 . . . gdg 20.c4 ic8 2 1 .b3 gxdl 22.gxdl hxg4

Chapter 8 . . . ie7 Systems -

23.hxg4 id8 24.lll f4 was Kotronias - Kritz, Isle of Man 2007, much of the remainder of which we saw in chapter 2. It's noticeable that Kritz is in no doubt that . . . a5 a4 is a desirable interposition for Black.

15.ie3 ie6 16.b3 1 6.!:!ad l a5 1 7.a4 was A. Sokolov - Marcelin, France (Ch) 2002, which Nisipeanu and Stoica say is also preferable for White, but it's exactly the typical set-up for this line, while 1 6.!:!fdl !:ld8 would transpose to Adams - Zhou Jianchao, Khanty-Mansyisk 2007, which went on 1 7.b3 hxg4 1 8.hxg4 !:lxdl 1 9.!:lxdl a6 20.lll e2 b6 2 1 .c4 1%h7 with the typical small edge for White.

16 b6 17.l:!adl l:!d8 1 8.lll e2 c5 •••

It's understandable that Black wants to stop lll d 4, but this move is a small concession before c4 is played. 1 8 . . . 1%d5 1 9.lll f4 hxg4 20.fxg4 1%xe5 2 1 ..id4 1%g5 22.1%fel is a typical passive sacrifice of the e5-pawn. White's active pieces give him the edge here, but 1 8 . . . 1%xdl 1 9.l:'!:xdl hxg4 20.hxg4 1%h7 was the typical and most uncompromising way to defend.

19.lll f4 hxg4 20.hxg4 fu:dl 21.l:!xdl

23 5

21. icB ••

Black doesn't need to do this, although perhaps it's most convenient to preserve this bishop. We saw in chapter 2 that Black should be able to hold the sorts of position that arise after 2 1 . . .1%h7 22.lll xe6 fxe6. I don't think the fact c4 hasn't been played makes a decisive difference. 23.1%h l (23.c4 g6 24.1%h l 1%xhl 25.Wxh l @f7 26.f4 is a draw, as we saw, because White can't manage .ih4 since the pawn ending is a draw, while if White dallies with 26.@g2 then 26 . . . g5 locks the position, since 27.f4 @g6 achieves nothing.) 23 . . . l:'!:xh l 24.Wxhl @f7 25.f4 g6 The position is like Greet - Howell with the pawn structure on the queenside more flexible I believe Black ought to be able to hold, although it's a delicate task.

22.lll d5 ids 23.c4 f6 This too isn't necessary and Black could just wait with 23 . . . l:'!:h7, but there's nothing wrong with how he plays.

24.exf6 gxf6 25.!£4 l:!h7 26.@g3 f5 27.l:!el t @d7? 27 . . . @f7 was much better the best White can do is exchange g4 for c7 with a draw.

28.l:!e5 fxg4 29.fxg4 c6 30.lll e3 ih4t 3 1 [email protected] if6 32.l:!e4 @d8 Black now has a few difficulties with his king cut off, especially as a2 is not quite as vulnerable as b3 would have been had . . . a5 a4 been played.

33.lll f5 id7 34.lll h6 l:!e7?! An understandable but fatal move it was better to move the bishop from its vulnerable position and then take the other bishop via e8 to g6.

35.g5 id4 36.ic7t @e8 37.id6 l:!xe4 38.@xe4 ih3 39.g6 ig7 40.lll f5 hf5t

The Berlin Wall

236

A counsel of despair, but Black was about to lose some pawns anyway.

41 .@xfS id4 42.@e6 b5 43.a4 1-0 Conclusion: Black surely ought to be able to hold these positions, but his winning chances are negligible and for that reason this entire line will not appeal to everyone.

I Game 33 I

EmilV Hedgehog

This solid option is always a system to bear in mind, and in the present set-up takes aim menacingly at the unguarded c7-pawn.

1 1 ... ie6 l 1 . . .lll h4 is a very reasonable alternative favoured by Kritz. Khalifman proposes 1 2.tlid2 ( 1 2.tlixh4 .txh4 1 3 .lll e2 i.e7 14.:gadl i.c5 was equal in Bacrot - Kritz, Istanbul 2003) , giving among others the line 1 2 . . . i.5 1 3 .lll ce4 ( 1 3.tlide4 i.b4) 1 3 . . . tlig6 1 4.i.h2 :gd8 1 5 .:gfel :gd5 1 6.tlifl lll xe5?? l 7.tlic3 and wins, but Black has many better alternatives such as 1 5 . . . h5 or 1 6 ... iid? (or d8) .

-

12.a3 PAL/CSS Freestyle open 2006

This was one of those internet no-holds-barred games. While we don't know who the players were it's safe to assume they were equipped with some pretty decent hardware, and most of the finalists in these events are either strong correspondence players, strong OTB players, or computer specialists.

1 .e4 e5 2.lll f3 lll c6 3.ib5 lll f6 4.0-0 lll xe4 5.d4 lll d6 6.hc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 ll\5 8JWxd8t @xd8 9.ttJc3 @e8 10.h3 ie7 1 1 .if4

This is the method recommended by Khalifman, following the game Ponomariov Vallejo Pons, Bled (ol) 2002. 1 2.g4 is seen in the next game.

12 ... :gds 12 . . . :ggs was Kaufman's main line, intending . .. g5 and . . . h5, but I like Khalifman's recipe of 1 3.tlie4 i.d5 14.:gfe l , intending g4 tlih4 lll f6t gxf6 tlixh4 fxe5 tlif5 .

13,:gadl h5 This seems like the safest way to play. The stem game had gone: 1 3 . . . h6 1 4.:gfe l 1 4.g4 lll h4 1 5 .:gxdSt i.xd8 16.tlie4 i.d7 1 7.tlid4 b6 1 8.c4 h5 1 9.f3 tlig6 20.i.g3 was equal in Z. Almasi - Aronian, Bundesliga 2002. 14 . . . a6 1 5 .tlie4 :gd5 1 6.g4 tlih4 1 7.tlixh4 .txh4 1 8.i.g3 i.e7 1 9.tlic3 And now Black ought to have played: 1 9 . . . :gd? As suggested by Ponomariov. The game itself went 1 9 . . . :gxdl 20.:gxdl and was instructive in a number of regards - 20 . . . h5 2 1 .f3, and we saw the rest in chapter 3 on page 1 04.

Chapter 8 - . . . ie7 Systems 20.'itig2 'tt> d 8 This is the point: Black crosses the d-file before exchanging and brings his remaining rook easily into play. 2 1 .lll e2 2 l .f4 g6 is no problem. 2 1 . . .'tt> c 8 22.l'!xd? hd7 23.lll f4 l'!d8 24.e6 he6 25.lll xe6 fxe6 26.l'!xe6 if6 27.b3 l'!d2 28.l'!e8t 'itid7 29.l'!b8 b5 30.l'!b7 l'!xc2 3 1 .l'!xc?t 'tt> d 8 32.l'!a7 l'!c3 With equality.

237

18.ll'lf3 if7 19.exf6 gxf6 20.icl E:e8 2 1.E:el ig6 22.@fl ll'ld6 23.E:e2 @d7 24.ih2 b6 25.ll'lel if7 26.lll d3 if8 27.E:xeS @xe8 28.@e2 1/2-1/2

Conclusion: This line doesn't seem to be too threatening. Black has ways to spirit his king across the d-file to c8 and develop his king's rook eventually.

I Game 34 I

14.E:xdSt 14.E:fe l E:d7 1 5 .lll e4 E:xdl ( 1 5 . . . 'tt> d 8!?) 1 6.l'!xdl id5 17.lll c 3 hf3 1 8.gxf3 ih4 1 9 .lll e4 'tt> e7 likewise solved the problem of the king's rook and left Black at least equal in 'Ciron' - 'Klosterfrau' in the same event.

Leko - Adams Wijk aan Zee 2004

1 .e4 e5 2.ll'lf3 ll'lc6 3.ih5 ll'lf6 4.0-0 lll xe4 5.d4 ll'ld6 6.ixc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 ll'lf5 8.Y«xdSt @xd8 9.ll'lc3 @es 10.h3 ie7 1 1 .if4 ie6 12.g4!r

14 ... 'tt>xdS 15.E:dl t 'tt> c8 16.ll'lg5

8

7

16 ... ic4!

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Probably after 1 6 . . . l'!d8 1 7.l'!xd8t 'tt> xd8 1 8.tll xe6t fxe6 Black would be fine owing to the happy accident that he is threatening . . . lll d4 now, but the text is easier.

17.h3 £6! A critical intermezzo. Black is now equal and the game concludes peacefully.

-

� �� : ��w-�efm� �� ��%�� �® ; � % 2 8 �[§ 8 8 �[§ � 1 ' d""�- �.,� � 6 5

a

� �i ��� • i� ¥�J•� ¥,� ,- %� m ,,,,,% :r� %� � � � �®' �%% �� 41) --� q • � ¥,,,,, �/% ,,,,,

;'@.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

12.l'!fd l E:d8 1 3.g4 lll h4 14.lll xh4 ixh4 1 5 .'itig2 h5 1 6.f3 ie7 leads to the same position Kaufman recommends 1 2 . . . h6 as in Socko - Krasenkow, Poland 2003, but White should then play 1 3.g4 with a slightly favourable version of the text.

The Berlin Wall

23 8

12 ... llJh4 13.llJxh4 .bh4 14.ci>g2 14.gfdl /J.e7 1 5.f3 gdg 1 6.©g2 gd7 1 7.tLle2 c5 1 8.tLlg3 g6 l 9.lLie4 h6 20.lLif6t .L:f6 2 l .exf6 ©d8 22.a3 mc8 led to a drawn ending in Dominguez - Alekseev, Biel 2008. 1 4 ...ie7

17... c5

1 4 . . . gd8 1 5.gfdl h5 1 6.f3 is again the same thing after 1 6 . . . ie? much less good is 1 6 . . . me? 1 7 ./J.g3!.

15,gfdl 8

As we saw in Palac - Hracek, I believe that Black should hold the sort of endgame arising after 1 7 . . . gxdl 1 8.gxdl g6 1 9.tLld4 gh7 20.lLixe6 fxe6 but it's a thankless task and Adams prefers to preserve the bishop for the moment.

18 .!ll g3 hxg4 19.hxg4 gxdl 20.gxdl •

7

s

6

5

7

4

6

��@.,� •$! ��@-Jz'"I,Z �� · ��� � :r · �� ·0

....,z

� 5 �

3

2 1

Axg5 20 . .!ll xg5 gd5 2 1 .tLlxe6 fxe6 22.f4 hxg4 23.hxg4 me? 24.c4 gdd8 25.a4 c5 26.gxd8 gxd8 27.gfl mf7 28.mg3 gd3t 29.gf3 gxf3t 30.mxf3. Leko has a more dynamic plan, aiming for lLid4.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Kaufman had merely observed that the position after 1 4 . . . /J.e? was equal and left it at that, but evidently Leko has his own ideas. Leko gave 1 5.gadl /J.b4! without further comment but I must confess I'm not entirely sure what his point is one might think that the idea of the present move rather than gadl was not to lose a tempo to . . . Ac4, but certainly the straightforward 1 6 .lLie4 Ac4 1 7,gh l /J.e2 1 8.gd4 c5 1 9.gd5 Ac4 20.gddl .ie2 2 1 .gcl is far from effective for Black.

15 .. ,gds 16.6 h5 17 .!ll e2! •

This position had been considered equal after Korneev - Fontaine, Cap d'Agde 2002, which headed straight for the pawn ending we saw earlier by 1 7.b3 b6 1 8.tLle4 a5 1 9.Ag5

�� � ��-% ��-%� if� if ,,,,.z

,,,,.z

• � � � � �--..% � - ?,�:� �m

: �·���!r � � !8!�� ���

2

1

�. .

a

20 ... c6!?

,,?,� � � � .: � �

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Leko and, by implication, Adams think that Black is better off to have his rook tied down to g7 rather than to make the concession 20 . . . g6 2 1 .tLle4, when White can perhaps proceed with ig5 and attempt to exploit the weakened dark squares.

2 1 .llJh5 gh7 22.ie3 b6 White was preventing 22 . . . f6 by the trick 23.exf6 gxf6 24 . .L:c5!.

23.b3! Threatening c4.

239

Chapter 8 - . . . ie7 Systems

23 ... c4 Leko doesn't mention it - perhaps he considers c4 a more important threat - but White still has a trick after 23 .. .f6: 24.exf6 gxf6 25.�d6

24.tll f4! cx:b3?! .fu

Leko points out, it was better to play 24 . . . ig5 when 25.l'll xe6 (25 .icl ixf4 26.ixf4 @e7! [and not 26 . . . cxb3 27 axb3: it is important not to open a file on the queenside for the white rook before Black is organised] is also fairly comfortably holdable: 27.�d6 c5 28.�dl �h8) 25 . . .ixe3 26.l'll d4 ixd4 27.�xd4 cxb3 28.axb3 is a rook endgame which Black should certainly draw, although he is a little worse, while in the game he has problems.

25.axh3!

26.tll xe6 fxe6

8

1

6

5

-�r�• · � � � � � • w�� 1.%-� .i. � �� � -, � � ��f% ��----%�.i' if�%� if� �� 8 � � � '%

,,,,,%

,,,,,

%

4 3 � � t� � ��t • �

2

1

a

27.b4!!

----%

�-- - - %

�� ��-0 �� � 8 � -- - � � ;� � ���-:b

c

d

e

f

g

�

h

Leko's punctuation. Another common theme though is this break coming when Black is mainly committed to the other side.

25.l'll xe6 fxe6 26.axb3 g6 27.�al id8 is equal, but now Black has serious difficulties . .fu so often . . . c4xb3 has only changed the nature of Black's problems rather than relieving him of them entirely.

27 ... cx:b4 28.E!:al a5 29.hb6 ig5! 30.E!:xa5 if4 31 .igl @f7 32.E!:b5

25 ... c5

32 ... E!:hB 33.E!:xb4 he5

25 . . . ig5 is too late now: 26.�a l ! ixf4 (26 . . . a5 is better but White still has the advantage after 27.�d l ) 27.ixf4 a5 28.ie3 c5 29.�dl gives White a strong initiative (it is analogous to the point I made before Black should not open the queen's wing with . . . cxb3 until he is ready) . However, 25 . . . id8, with the idea of bringing the bishop to c7 and perhaps following up with . . . g5, was quite a serious alternative. Provoking f4 prematurely is often useful for Black in Berlin endings for various reasons (see p.22 for an example) here it hampers White's bishop and makes the third and fourth ranks a bit slippier for his king, and thus increases the effect an active black rook may have after getting in down the h-file.

Leko gives variations to suggest that 32.�a7t!? rtlg6 33.�e7 was a better try. Obviously White has good winning chances, but after a stern struggle Black managed to hold about fifty moves later. 1/2-1h

Conclusion: This game is rather typical of this variation Black can draw if he defends carefully for a long time, but the line will suit only certain types of player.

I Game 35 I

Cheparinov - Cifuentes Parada Dos Hermanas 2005

1 .e4 e5 2.t2Jf3 tll c6 3.ib5 tll f6 4.0-0 tll xe4

240

The Berlin Wall

5.d4 lll d6 6.hc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 ltJf5 8.VNxdSt @xd8 9.ltJc3 @e8 10.h3 fJ.e7 White has tried a number of other ideas, some less pressing than others, which I round up in this final game with this exact move order.

1 1 .b3

l l .a3 is Ivanchuk's pointed idea, trying to avoid the knight trade: l 1 . ..lll h4 1 2.ll'ld4 lll f5 ( 1 2 . . . ll'lg6 1 3.l'!e l is the point: White's a3 prevents . . . ib4, which would otherwise be annoying) 1 3.ll'lde2 h5 1 4.l'!dl b6 1 5 .if4 ie6 l 6.l'!d2 l'!d8 1 7.l'!ad1 was Ivanchuk - Fontaine, Silivri 2003. Now rather than the game's 1 7 . . . l'!d7 Black ought to have played 1 7 . . . l'!xd2 1 8.l'!xd2 g5 1 9.ih2 @fg 20.ll'le4 ©g7 which is unclear according to Ivanchuk, although to me it looks unlikely that Black is worse. l l .ll'le2 aims for a square in which the knight is often well-placed, but Black countered logically in Felgaer - Neubauer, Turin (ol) 2006, with l 1 . . .h5 (keeping the knight on f4 off this square) 1 2.ig5 ie6 1 3.ll'lf4 id5 1 4.ixe7 @xe7 1 5 . llig5 llid4 1 6.l'!fdl ll'le6

1 7.ll'lgxe6 ixe6 1 8.h4 g6 1 9.f3 and now the typical plan 1 9 . . . a5 20.@f2 a4 2 1 .a3 l'!a5 22.l'!d4 with an equal position. 1 1 .l'!dl This has been popular but looks a bit pointless to me. Black can continue with l 1 . . .lll h4 1 2.ll'ld4 1 2.ll'lxh4 ixh4 1 3.g4 h5 14.f3 would lead to the same sort of position as Kotronias Kritz, but it doesn't seem sensible to use the f-rook for d l if that's the way White's going to play. 1 2 . . . llig6 Black could also play l 2 . . . a6 in order to drive the knight away with . . . c5, when Kaufman and Sherzer offer 1 3.a3 h5 1 4.ll'le4 c5 1 5 .lll e2 ll'lg6 1 6.f4 b6 1 7.ll'l2c3 if5 1 8.ie3 h4 1 9.a4 a5 20.©f2 l'!d8 2 1 .@f3 c6 with equality. 1 3.f4 h5 Black assures himself of crippling White's pawns. 1 4.ie3 ll'lh4 Now that the f5-square is secured the knight returns there. 1 5 .ll'le4 ll'lf5 1 6.@f2 h4 1 7.l'!d2 ll'lxd4 1 8.ixd4 ie6 1 9.ic5 id8 20.a4 b6 2 1 .ia3 Kosteniuk - Karjakin, Brissago 2003. 2 1 . . .a5 2 l . . .c5 22.a5 l'!h5 was the game, when Kaufman/Sherzer say that White is better after 23.@e3, although 23 . . . g5 looks acceptable enough to me. Instead Kaufman/Sherzer's line is: 22.l'!adl c5 23.b3 ie7 24.ll'lc3 l'!d8 25.lll b 5 l'!xd2t 26.l'!xd2 id8 27.ib2 l'!h5 leading to a typically iron blockade.

1 1 fJ.e6 •••

A natural move, but White's sequence in reply leaves him with a shade the better of it in the typical grindy positions which arise in this line.

Chapter 8 . . . i.e7 Systems

24 1

-

1 1 . . .lll h4 is also well possible and perhaps preferable. White's idea so far seems to have been the rather extravagant 1 2 .lll xh4 .txh4 1 3 . .ia3, but Black is fine with 1 3 . . . i.f5 14.:gacl h5, for example 1 5 .lll d l a5 16.lll e 3 .ie6 1 7.f4 ( 1 7.g4 a4 1 8 . .ib4 hxg4 1 9.hxg4, as in Nijboer - Kritz, Dresden 2002, is also okay for Black after a number of moves including 1 9 . . . .ie7 20 . .ixe7 @xe7, with the idea of 2 1 .f4 :gh3, and otherwise . . . g5.) 17 . . . f5 (or 17 . . . a4 1 8.ib2 [ 1 8.f5 axb3 1 9.fxe6 fxe6] 1 8 . . . g6 - Kaufman/ Sherzer) 1 8.exf6 .ixf6 1 9.f5 ic8 20.:gcdl @f7 Nijboer - Van den Doel, Leeuwarden 2002.

18.lt:Jxe6

12 ..ib2 E1d8 13.E1adl E1xdl 14.E1xdl h5 15.lt:Je2

18 E1xe6

a

15 ... gS

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

As in lvanchuk's suggestion in lvanchuk Fontaine above, Black grabs space and makes a space for his king on g7.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

•••

A difficult decision. Black could certainly consider l 8 . . . fxe6, as in Palac - Hracek, although the difference here is that he has played . . . g5, which I'm not entirely sure about, and also the queenside is less closed, which can only help White. I suspect though that Black can hold such an ending if he plays sensibly. Even an exchange of rooks isn't a disaster: the pawn on g5 does have the advantage that Black's king then has the excellent g6-square in a pure bishop ending, and while on the face of it g5 is a weakness fixed on a dark square, in order to get his pawns going White has to exchange it. There's a definite structural logic to Black extending his influence over the light squares, and f5 in particular, by . . . fxe6, although the downside is that the rook has less chance to become active.

19.E1d3 c5 16.lt:Jfd4 lt:Jxd4 17.lt:Jxd4 :gh6 l 7 . . . .ic8 1 8.e6 also leaves Black with difficult endings to hold after either l 8 . . . :gh7 1 9 .lll f5 .ixe6 (or 1 9 . . . fxe6 20.lll xe7 :gxe7 2 1 ..if6 :gd7 22.:gxd7 @xd7 23.hg5, which may actually be lost since White can create two passed pawns with f3 and g4) 20.lll g?t @fg 2 1 .lll xe6t fxe6 22.:gd7.

In principle Black might quite like to transpose to the rook ending with 1 9 .. .f6 20.exf6 .ixf6 2 1 ..ixf6 :gxf6: usually these rook endgames are drawn with reasonable defence. Here Black seems to just about hold after 22.:ge3t @f7 23.:ge5 @g6 followed by . . . :gf7-d7, but it's a difficult task and Cifuentes probably wanted to play more actively.

242

The Berlin Wall

20.c4 a6 21 .g3 b5

39 ... ge2 40.h6 gxe6 41 .@hS

This is usually a distress signal in such positions, but Black wants to activate his rook.

4 1 .E:e3!? forces a queen, but it doesn't win the game: 4 l . . . E:xe3 42.h7 @d7 43.h8Wi' E:xb3, and Black will succeed in establishing a fortress. Possibly Cheparinov satisfied himself of this too late.

22.ic3 gb6 23.gdl g4 24.@g2 b4 25.ib2 a5 26.f4 gxBt 27.@xf3 a4 28.icl ga6 29.if4 axb3 30.axb3 ga2 3i .gc13 gh2 32.h4 gc2 33.g4 hxg4t 34.@xg4 f6

41. .. @fl 42.gg7t @f8 43.gg6 ge3 44.@gs gh3 45.@xf5 @f7 46.gxd6 gxb3 47.gc6 1/z-1/2

Conclusion: A miracle save, but unless Black can find a sequence which holds on to his bishop after l l . . . ie6 then it looks as if l l ...lLih4 is safer.

I Game 36 I

Anand - Ponomariov a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black's activity hasn't led to the desired result at all - Black has to be so careful about weakening his queenside pawns in the Berlin, and he is teetering on the brink here.

35.e6 An extremely difficult decision between two moves which both seem to offer very good winning chances. 3 5 .exf6 Lf6 36.Lc7 is very tempting, but whether White can actually win after something like 36 . . . E:c3 37.E:g3 @f7 38.h5 id4 39.if4 E:c2 40.@f5 E:b2 4 1 .h6 E:b l I'm not sure. Black has succeeded in creating play against the usual b3 weakness which may just save him.

35 ...id6 36.i.xd6 cxd6 37.hS gg2t 38.gg3 fSt 39.@h4 39.@f4 E:h2 40.@g5 @e7 is nothing: the text looks good but there is a sting in the tail.

Linares 2003

Sometimes Black introduces his . . .ie7 idea directly at move 9, without first moving the king. This is usually thought to be a bit inaccurate because White can play a more useful move than h3, as Anand demonstrates in this game (and Khalifman in his book) , although some questions certainly remain.

l .e4 e5 2.ltJ6 lll c6 3.ibS lll f6 4.0-0 lll xe4 5.d4 lll d6 6 ..bc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 lll fS 8.'1Yxd8t @xd8 9.lll c3 ie7 10.gdl t After 1 0 .h3 Black could play 1 0 . . . @e8 anyway or tty to save a tempo with 1 0 . . . ie6, when l l .ig5 (l l .g4 lLih4 1 2.lLid4 always has to be considered, but here is well met by the cool 1 2 . . . id7, since White is in no position to make an e6 break work.) l 1 . . .Lg5 12.lLixg5 @e7 1 3.E:adl ic4 14.gfe l h6 1 5 .lLif3 g5 saw him solve the problem of the trapped f5-knight economically and equalise easily after 1 6.g4 lLig7 1 7.lLid4 ie6 1 8.lLie4 E:ad8

Chapter 8 . . . fie? Systems -

1 9.llig3 c5 20.llidf5t ixf5 2 1 .gxf5 f6 in J. Polgar - Ponomariov, Benidorm 2002. 1 0.i.g5 ixg5! 1 1 .llixg5 c8 is also nothing special for

268

The Berlin Wall

White) 1 6 . . . .ic4 doesn't seem to be much for Black to fear.

16.g4 E:xdl t 17.E:xdl lll h4?! Black had a difficult choice between allowing the exchange of his light-squared bishop as he does in the game and the more thematic: 17 . . . id5 1 8 .E:e l tll h4 And I think perhaps he chose the wrong one. Possibly Milov perceived the problem with the latter to be: 1 9 .tll f6t gxf6 20.tll xh4 ©d7 2 1 .tll f5 But it seems that Black holds his own. 2 1 . . .id8 22.tll xh6 22.exf6 .ixf6 23.E:dl b5 24.tll d4 ig5 and 22.ixh6 fxe5 23.l'l:xe5 ie6 24.if4 if6 25.E:a5 hb2 26.E:xa4 l'l:xh3 are both worse. 22 . . . fxe5 23.l'l:xe5 if6 24.E:e2 ig? 25 .g5 ixh6 26.gxh6 l'l:g8t 27 . .ig3 27.@fl ic4 28.ie5 looks fine for a moment until you notice 28 . . . he2t 29.©xe2 l'l:e8, with a cruel check to come. 27 . . . E:g6 With an ending Black can expect to hold pretty comfortably.

18.lll xh4 hh4 19.lll cS b5 20.tlixe6 fxe6 21 .@g2 E:f8 22.i.e3

his position would be worse but defensible. As it is, he is close to lost, if not actually lost. We saw a similar example in Ponomariov - Vallejo Pons in chapter 3.

22...igS 23.E:d3 he3 24.E:xe3 E:f4?! After this Black is simply lost. White is threatening l'l:c3 @d? l'l:f3, forcing either the gain of the f-file or a winning pawn ending, and the text merely serves to initiate a tortoise/ hare style pawn race. In principle if Black hoped to defend it had to be passively with: 24 . . . c5 25.l'l:f3 l'l:g8 Striving to prevent White from penetrating or trading rooks. It looks as though White should win easily against this, but it's not obvious how he should go about it. 26.b3 26.l'l:c3 c4 27.b3 axb3 28.cxb3 cxb3 29.l'l:xb3 c6 30.l'l:c3 ©d7 doesn't achieve anything. 26 . . . axb3 2?.gxb3 c6 28.a4 This looks right, but it still isn't absolutely clear: 28 . . . b4 29.c3 ©e7 30.cxb4 30.f4 E:b8 3 1 . ©f3 g5 32.f5 exf5 33.gxf5 l'l:a8 is also surprisingly resilient. Or 30. @f3 gb8 3 1 . ©e3 g5, and at least Black puts up a better fight than in the game. 30 . . . l'l:b8 3 1 .b5 c4 32.l'l:b l cxb5 33.axb5 c3 34.b6 c2 35 .E:cl E:xb6 36.E:xc2 This, for example, is one way perhaps to fluff it - I imagine Black ought at least in theory to hold this endgame.

25.E:c3 @d7 26.E:S E:c4 27.E:flt @e8 28.E:xg7 E:xc2 29.E:g6 E:xb2 30.E:xe6t @d7 3 1 .E:xh6 c5 32.gS E:e2 33.g6 E:xe5 34.f4 E:e2t 35.@S E:e8 36.fS b4 37.E:h7t @d6 38.£6 @e6 39.g7 39.g? l'l:g8 40.l'l:h8 @f7 4 1 .@e4 bxa3 42.@f5 a2 43.l'l:xg8 @xg8 44.@g6 al WT 45.fl mate, so to be fair maybe the race was closer than I gave it credit for. An efficient win by Tony Kosten.

1-0

Chapter 9 - Berlin Endgame: White Alternatives . . .

Conclusion: I don't feel that this line ought to be difficult for Black, although he clearly has to do better in various ways than Milov manages in this game. It's interesting to compare the games in the notes to White's eleventh with the present game. I'm not sure I believe that . . . fle7 and . . . lll h4 really fit into the spirit of Black's system with . . . a5 at all.

8

7

Shirov I. Sokolov -

6

1 9 99

1 .e4 e5 2.ll)f3 ll)c6 3 ..!b5 ll)f6 4.0-0 ll)xe4 5.d4 ll)d6 6.hc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 ll)f5 8.%Yxd8t c,!;ixd8 9.tlJc3 c,!;ies 10.h3 a5 1 1.flf4 8

7 6 5

4 3

2

1

a

c

d

e

bishop on e6. The point is that at the moment 1 2.g4 lll e7 1 3 .lll d4 lll d 5 14.lll xe6 fxe6 1 5 .fld2 flb4! (Galkin - Aleksandrov, Krasnodar 1 997) gives Black sufficient counterplay, while after 12.lll g5 flc4 1 3.:gfd l flb4 Black achieves his desired trade of the dark-squared bishop and establishes the other on e6.

12 ....!c5

I Game 46 I

Sarajevo

269

f

g

h

This bishop doesn't look so great here, but this deployment is usually a sign that White wants to go g4, move the knight from f3 (probably to d4), and then play !lg3 and f4. If achieved, this plan will bring White a dominating set­ up, so Black needs to take measures against it.

5

4 3

2

1

i. �

� - � �� -.Y, �r� �-r�� r�- 7-� -·-0/-� ®' 0 � � � � � � ¥� 41) --"- /-/,�� . . , /,�� �7� �� . . '0,/,� %' � �� � � m •ttJ8 � . . , /,� 8- ;- � r� "ef " " � �-- - - 'f-� .0� %�

'0

" g

?,

.

a

b

� c

d

- :- � e

f

g

�

� h

Black changes course. This move is a little unusual in the Berlin, but Black aims to eliminate the knight once it arrives on d4 instead of aiming for the one on b4. The alternatives, all given by Khalifman, (whose repertoire choice this line is) allow White to establish the sort of position he is after, with lll xe6 . . . fxe6 (this structure, as we have seen, is more or less acceptable for Black if he has managed to exchange knights, but with the knights on the board they are quite grim to defend) .

1 1 . .. .!e6 12.a3!?

1 2 . . . :gds (aiming for . . . lll d4) 1 3.:gfdl h6 1 4.g4 lll e7 1 5 .lll d4 lll d 5 1 6.lll xe6 fxe6 17.lll e2 (as I said, White must keep this knight) 1 7 . . . flc5 1 8.flg3 g5 1 9. Wg2 and I agree with Khalifman that White is better - although not every computer agrees with us.

Although it doesn't look it, this move is also part of the plan, and directed against Black's

12 . . . lll e 7, by speeding the knight towards d5,

270

The Berlin Wall

enables Black to avoid the exchange on e6. Khalifman gives the long line 1 3.lDd4 ic4 (knight moves allow White what he is after) 14.me l lDd5 1 5 .l2Jxd5 ixd5 1 6.e6 id6 1 7.hd6 cxd6 1 8.gad l fxe6 1 9.lDxe6 g6 24.E:h2 g4! and Black is much better. 2 1 . . . dxe4 22.fxe4 E:d5! White's position falls apart. 23.@e2 E:xf5 24.E:h2 E:f4 25.£3 f5 0-1

1 1 . .ia7 12.d4 g4 13 ..ih4!? ••

Anand very much needed to play for a win given the tournament situation, but the alternative 1 3.dxe5 gxf3 14.exf6 fxg2 1 5 .'it>xg2 Wfxf6 was simply better for Black.

13 ... gxf3 14.Vxf3 @g7 15.Wfg3t White has no realistic prospect of playing for the win. In San Luis 2005 Gershon and Nor backed up this assertion with detailed analysis. Their main line was: 1 5 .E:fe l E:g8 1 6.0.fl 'it>g6 1 7.COe3 exd4 1 8.'0f5 dxc3! 1 9.bxc3 (or 1 9.Wfxc3 E:b8! 20.E:adl E:b5 stops the attack) 1 9 . . . WffS 20 . .ixf6 'it>xf6 2 1 .'0xh6t 'it>g7 22.'0xg8 'it>xg8 23.e5 d5 and Black is fine.

15 @h7 16.Vf.3 'it>g7 17.Wfg3t •••

1/2-1/2

The Berlin Wall

284 Conclusion: Topalov's play seems

quite bold but undoubtedly had some serious preparation behind it. White doesn't seem to be in any position to take advantage of the visual weakening of Black's kingside.

I Game 52 I

Mainz (rapid) 2007

1.e4 e5 2.lliB llic6 3 . .tb5 llif6 4.d3 i.cS 5.0-0 Another move-order wrinkle. White takes advantage of the fact that 5 . . . 0-0?! 6.i.xc6 bxc6 7.llixe5 is now less convincing than after 5.c3 to try and force 5 . . . d6, when after 6.c3 0-0 7 .i.g5 he will achieve his desire. Black however has a way to avoid this.

s ... llid4

b

c

d

e

6.i.a4 'We? 7.c3 llixf3t 8.'Wxf3 c6 9.i.g5 d6 10.llid2 h6 1 1 .i.xf6 'Wxf6 1 2.'Wxf6 gxf6 didn't get White anywhere either in Rozentalis Adams, Bled (ol) 2002.

6 ....txd4

Jenni - Sargissian

a

6.llixd4

f

g

h

Effectively Black is reaching a variation of the Classical, 3 . . . i.c5 4.0-0 llid4, with the extra moves d3 and . . . llif6. Since in the Classical line White's best tries are usually thought to be based on c3 and d4, this position should be fairly easy for Black, and so it proves.

So Black has exchanged his passive knight on c6 for the active f3 one - wasn't exploiting this slight superiority in mobility in a sense White's entire idea in the Ruy? The tempo Black has lost is largely illusory, since the c5-bishop usually has to drop back to b6 anyway, while White's bishop on b5 tends to lose not one but two tempi establishing itself somewhere sensible.

7. lli d2 Yet another move-order finesse. More usual has been 7.c3 i.b6 when the best move must be 8.d4 (8.llid2 c6 9 .ia4 0-0 1 0.llif3 d5 is absolutely nothing for White, while after 8.i.g5 h6 9.i.h4 c6 1 0.i.a4 d6 White has to be very careful to avoid some such unpleasantness as 1 1 .llia3 g5 1 2.i.g3 h5 with an attack in Zawadzka - Hermansson, Marianske Lazne 2007, and 8.@hl c6 9.i.a4 0-0 1 0.f4 d5 also worked out horribly in Handke - Kosten, Montpellier 2006.) 8 . . . 0-0 9.i.g5 (9.dxe5 llixe4 1 0.i.d3 d5 is also equal) 9 . . . h6 1 0.i.h4 d6 when White found no better way to defend her centre pawns than l 1 .dxe5 dxe5 1 2.llid2 c6 1 3.ie2 'We? with complete equality in Hou Yifan - Fontaine, China 2005.

7 c6 8 . .ia4 i.b6 •••

Previously Sargissian had preferred 8 . . . d6, but I wonder if he was unhappy about 9.llic4 b5 (if he likes, Black can throw in 9 . . . ig4 1 0.'We l ) 1 0.c3 .ic5 1 1 .b4 i.b6 ( 1 I . ..i.xb4 1 2.cxb4 bxa4 1 3.'Wxa4) 12.llixb6 axb6 1 3 . .ib3.

9 . .tb3

285

Chapter 1 0 - White Plays 4.d3 9.c3 0-0 1 0 .lll c4 1J.c7 is less effective since Black retains the possibility of . . . d5 .

1 8 .lll xh6 was too dangerous for a rapid game, but now Black has definitely equalised and goes on to win.

9 d6 •••

%� 9-� �I .i.. S s i.'%-�� , , ,, � .ref"'"Y, 7 -�� �� �%lJ�£ F •, � • 6 • � • w � "'"� , , ,,,%._, ,,; � 5 4

3 2 1

%

�� �� ��'8'� � � �� � � ' �W!J � �m� ��r� 8� W� 8 /;; w� 8 �r� -----%•w•��---a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

If 9 . . . 0-0 then perhaps White intended to try and get by without c3 altogether, for example 1 0.lll c4 1J.c7 1 l .iJ.g5, although I don't think Black has any particular difficulties after 1 1 . . .h6 1 2.iJ.h4 d5. For example, 1 3.exd5 cxd5 1 4.hf6 '1Wxf6 1 5 .lll e3 d4 1 6.lll d 5 '1Wd6 17.lll xc? '1Wxc7. But Sargissian has another plan.

10.llic4 1J.c7 1 1 .'IWB 1 1 .iJ.g5 before Black has castled still runs the risk of 1 1 .. .h6 1 2.iJ.h4 g5 1 3.iJ.g3 h5 with an attack. 1 l .c3 0-0 1 2.iJ.g5 h6 1 3.iJ.h4 would lead to a position from which Sargissian had had troubles against Tatiana Kosintseva at Wijk aan Zee 2007 after 1 3 . . . g5 1 4.iJ.g3 lll e 8, but he would surely have played 1 1 ... h6 as in the game.

1 1 h6 12.lll e3 g6 13.h3 V!le7 14.a4 1J.e6 15.he6 V!lxe6 16.c3 llih5 16 . . . iif8 was a sound alternative. •••

17.lll c2 Both players judge that 17.lll g4 0-0-0

17 0-0-0 18.V!lg4 lll g7 19.V!lxe6t lll xe6 20.ie3 a6 21 .d4 f5 22.dxeS dxe5 23.f3 l:!d3 24.exfS gx:f5 25.l:!fel l:!hd8 26.l:!e2 l:!g8 27.iifl f4 28.iJ.fl lll g7 29.l:!ael llif5 30.lll a l l:!d7 3 1 .lll h 3 l:!dg7 32.l:!xeS he5 33.l:!xeS l:!g5 34.l:!e4 l:!xg2 35.l:!xf4 llid6 36.llid2 l:!h2 37.l:!g4 l:!g5 38.ie3 l:!d5 39.iiel llif5 40.l:!gBt xf8 1 6 .lll d 5 i.d8 is okay for Black - 1 7.b6 lll a6!. 13 . . . 0-0 14.lll c3 14.lll xe6 '1Wxe6 1 5 .'1Wxe6t he6 1 6.�xe6 i.f6= 14 . . . c6 1 5 .lll xe6 '1Wxe6 1 6.'1Wxe6t he6 17.�xe6 i>f7 1 8.�e4 i.f6 Again with just an edge to White.

10.lll c3

i. � .iJ �-� �� � � · � ·-

' . , �� � �� � �" �� �� �� �%'"//, �� �� 8

�-0 ��-%"•"%%'"/d""':v.% -'1{""' 7 %'·� ?f,� f� �� • ?f..&"� • & i·� & --�· i.% " " "' / -" , , , , ,,

6

"

3 � � - �2 � �� 8-��----- - - %�w�-----�n8�.----%%=1 �� � °ii° • li ?. . !< �

a

10 lll g6

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

•••

1 0 . . . lll f5 is the other branch: White's best is 1 1 .lll d4 when both Black's natural tries are under a cloud: 1 1 .. .'1Wf6 ( 1 1 .. .lll xd4 1 2.'1Wxd4 @f7, with the idea of . . . .ie7-f6, fails to 1 3 .lll e4 Ae7 14.�a3 with an attack - Yemelin) 1 2.b6! cxb6 1 3 .lll db5 '1Wd8 14.lll e4 (14.ig5 is probably more effective in truth) 14 . . . d5? (14 ... i.d? 1 5 .lll bxd6t .!ll xd6 1 6 .lll xd6t hd6 1 7.'1Wxd6 i.b5 1 8.'1Wxe6t 'We? is not in fact so tragic for Black) 1 5 .i.f4+- (Nunn) . 1 0 . . . i.d? This is well worth investigation in my view: Black deprives White of his b6 resource and prepares to develop his kingside pieces in the

310

Th e Berlin Wall

light of White's next move. 1 1 .Elel Wfc8 This looks critical, but it isn't easy for White to make an impression: sometimes Black continues first of all as in the present game with . . . h6 and . . . mf7-g8. In such a plan it isn't clear that . . . llig6 is necessary. 1 2.llig5 After the (probably stronger) 1 2.b6 then 1 2 . . . axb6 1 3.Elxa8 'Wxa8 1 4.llig5 e5 1 5 .Wfh5t g6 1 6.Wff3 is no good, but 1 2 . . . llig6 might not be so bad: it has the machines reeling in horror, but perhaps they overestimate the a7-pawn. 1 2 . . . h6 1 3 .llige4 'iflf7 1 4 . .ie3 'iflg8 1 5 .Wfg4 'iflh7 1 6 .Wfh5 .ie8 This is just a sample line, which sees White getting nowhere.

Black's position looks ridiculous, but it isn't at all easy to show value for the pawn. 1 3.Elxa7 Elxa7 1 4.Wxa7 ie7 1 5.Wfd4 Elf8 is approximately equal, and 1 3.Wfd3 .ie7 14.Ele4 .if6 also defends the kingside and compels White to recoup his pawn with 1 5 .Elea4 Elf8 16.Elxa7, which is not terribly frightening. 13.llid5 at once can be met by 1 3 . . . .ie7 1 4.b6 c5.

13 ... cxb6 14.llidS e5

n .Wfd4 1 I .llig5 .ie7 1 2 .Wh5 hg5 1 3.hg5 Wfd7 1 4.b6 cxb6 1 5 .llid5 exd5 1 6.Elfel t 'iflf8 1 7.Ela3 llie5 1 8.Elxe5 dxe5 1 9 .Elf3t 'iflg8 20 . .ih6 Wfe7 2 I ..ixg7 'iflxg7 22.Elg3t 'iflf8 23.Elf3t 'iflg7 was the rather impressive course of Halprin - Pillsbury, Munich 1 900. It's depressing if White has a forced draw after all, but according to Fritz 10 1 08 years later, both players played perfectly in this game (after 1 I .llig5, that is) .

1 1 ... h6!? The previously played 1 1 . . . Wff6 was regarded as a mistake because of 1 2.Wf c4 Wf d8 1 3.llig5 llie5 1 4.Wfe4, Chandler - Brunner, Lucerne 1 989, although after 14 . . . .ie7 Black is not quite so badly off as was thought at the time.

12.Elel After 1 2.h4 Black can perhaps contemplate 1 2 . . . Wf6 ( 1 2 . . . llie7 with the idea of . . . llif5 is also possible) 1 3.Wfc4 and now 13 ... .ie7: 1 4.Wfxc7 W/f5 is not particularly clear.

12 ... 'iflfl 13.b6!?

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 4 . . . exd5? 1 5.Wxd5t 'iflf6 1 6.ig5t wins of course, but another, perhaps better, idea was 1 4 . . . .id7 1 5.Wfe4 Wfc8 1 6.llid4 llie5 1 7.llif4 g5 1 8.llih5 ic6. Meanwhile 1 4 . . . ie7 now allows simply 1 5 . llixb6 - this of course was the idea of 1 3 .b6!?.

15.Wfe4 White ought maybe to have thought about winning back his material with 1 5.Wfc3 'iflg8 1 6.llic7 Elb8 1 7.Elxa7 'iflh7 1 8.ie3 if5 1 9 . .ixb6 when he perhaps has some advantage, although certainly Black has developed and it's a game.

Chapter 1 1 - Other White Tries

311

15 ... .ie7 16.h4? White has lost the plot: he just needed to develop with 1 6 . .id2, still with some �ompensation.

16 ....ixh4 17 .ie3 .ie6 •

Black is much better now.

18.ltJxb6 d5 19.ltJxeSt ltJxe5 20.VxeS .if6 21 .VhSt g6 22.Vh2 axb6 23,gxaS Vxas 24.Vc7t lt>gs 25.Vd6 VcS 26 .id4 .hd4 27.1'!xe6 Vm 2s.gxg6t lt>h7 0-1 •

Conclusion: This will always be a very risky pawn sacrifice to accept and Black still needs reinforcements here, but there is considerable scope for home analysis and new ideas. 1 0 . . . .id? might be worth looking at, or Granda's play in this game. Psychologically 6.dxe5 is quite a tricky gambit inasmuch as Black has either to accept a draw or subject himself to pressure which theory and practice alike hold to be dangerous. But on the other hand it isn't psychologically so easy for White to offer either a draw or a murky pawn sacrifice at Black's option.

I Game 63 I

Socko Lautier -

European Team Championships, Leon 200 1

1 .e4 e5 2.ltJf3 ltJc6 3 .ib5 ltJf6 4.0-0 ltJxe4 5.d4 ltJd6 6 .ig5 •

•

A well-motivated move. White wants to provoke 6 . . . .ie7, when he can exchange his ineffective dark-squared bishop.

6 ... £6!

6 . . ..ie7 7.he7 Wxe7 8.hc6 dxc6 9.dxe5 ltJf5 10.ltJc3 0-0 is perfectly possible and had occurred in previous games by Socko among many others. White does have prospects of obtaining a small edge in this line, though, which resembles positions reached in the 3 . . . g6 line more than a true Berlin Wall.

7.dxe5!? White is committed to sharp play since bishop retreats leave Black clearly better. He has two reasonable alternatives, which are really only versions of the same thing: 7.hc6 dxc6 8.ltJxe5!? (Black has no problems after 8.dxe5 fxg5 9.exd6 .ixd6 [or 9 . . . cxd6 1 0.ge l t .ie7 1 l .'1We2 which is unclear according to Lauder, while even 9 . . . Wxd6 is possible] 1 0.ge l t lt>f7 1 1 .ltJc3 [ 1 l .'1Wd4 gf8+] 1 l . . .g4 1 2.ltJe5t he5 1 3.gxe5 '!Wxd l t 14.gxdl \t>f6 followed by . . . .if5 with advantage to Black.) 8 . . . .ie6 (for 8 . . . fxg5 see the 7.ltJxe5 line) 9.gel (9.'1Wh5t can be met with just 9 . . . ltJf7 or 9 . . . g6 1 0.ltJxg6 hxg6 1 1 .Wxg6t .if7 1 2.Wxf6 [ 1 2.gel t We?! 1 3.gxe?t he?+] 1 2 . . . '\Wxf6 1 3.hf6 gh6+) 9 . . . .ie7 1 0.ltJf3 .id5 This is better for Black with his two bishops

312

Th e Berlin Wall

according to Stohl, although that would need demonstrating after l l .if4 0-0 12.lll c3 if7 1 3 .d5 . 7.lll xe5! fxg5 (exchanging knights is a mistake since Black cannot play as in the game: 7 . . . lll xe5 8.dxe5 lll xb5 ? 9.exf6 gxf6 1 0 .°1Wh5t cll e7 l 1 .hf6t cllxf6 1 2.'1Wh4t wins the queen) 8.hc6 (8.°1Wh5t g6 9.lll xg6 hxg6 1 0.°1Wxh8 lll x b5 is nonsense so White has to exchange) 8 . . . dxc6 9.°1Wh5t g6 1 0 .lll xg6 hxg6 ( I O . . . ig4! 1 1 .�el t · ie7 1 2.Wxg5 [ 1 2.Wh6? lll f7-+] 1 2 . . . hxg6 1 3.°1Wxg6t cll f8 !? [ 1 3 . . . lll fl 1 4.Wxg4 '1Wd6 1 5 .h3 �d8 1 6 .lll c3 is less good] 1 4.Wxg4 �h4+, f),_llJfl was given by Stohl, but the text is simpler.) l l .°1Wxh8 @f7 followed by . . . Wf6 occurred in Mladenov - Cheparinov, Bulgaria (Ch) 2004, and Black won convincingly: all these variations were indicated by Stohl.

Naiditsch can have had in mind in this line. Surprisingly, the meek 9 . . . d5 I O.'!We2t lll e7 l l .°1Wxb5t c6 1 2.°1Wd3 :IJ.g7 1 3 .lll d4 ( 1 3.�el 0-0 14.lll h4 looks more to the point, preventing the knight from coming to g6 so easily) 1 3 . . . 0-0 was played in Naiditsch Ki. Georgiev, Turkey 2006, although perhaps Black is simply better here and certainly this is the safest solution. -

9 ... lll d6 1 0.�e l t �f7 ( I O ... :IJ.e7 l 1 .hd6!? cxd6 1 2 .lll c3 is similar: Black has to be careful but in the end his extra piece ought to carry the day) l 1 .lll h4 :gg8 1 2 .°1Wh5t clearly enables White to save a tempo on the present game and would be genuinely dangerous for Black, although still the position is unclear.

9 ... �f'7 10.°1Wd5t 7 lllxb5 8.exf6 •••

White could try 8.ih4, depending upon the same trick as the last game, but 8 . . . ie7! 9.a4 (9.c4 fxe5 is similar) 9 ... fxe5 1 0.axb5 .txh4 l l .bxc6 dxc6 1 2.°1We2 if6 is clearly better for Black (Stohl) .

8 ... gxf6 9.�el t

9.°1Wd5 ? fxg5 1 0.�e l t :IJ.e7 l 1 .lll xg5 lll d6 12.lll xh? lll f7 does nothing since White can't attack f8.

But an important option was 9.:IJ.f4 (threatening We2 t, which if played at once fails after 9. We2 t �f7 1 0.'1Wxb5 fxg5 l 1 .lll xg5t �g7) . Black has three sensible tries now. 9 . . . ie7 I O .lll h4 lll d6 ( I O . . . d5 l 1 .°1Wh5t �f8 1 2.�d l ! is very dangerous with the threat of �xd5) l 1 .hd6 (otherwise . . . lll fl) l I . . .hd6 1 2.°1Wh5t �f8 1 3 .lll g6t ( 1 3 .lll f5 lll e 5 1 4.Wh6t �f7 should also enable Black to defend) 13 . . . �g? 14.lll xh 8 �xh8 (Kaufman) is winning for Black. It's difficult to see what

I O.if4 lll d6 ( I O . . . d5 was presumably what White wanted to avoid by his move order: 1 1 .lll h4 �g8 1 2.°1Wh5 is given by Stohl as offering White adequate play, but after 1 2 . . . Wd7 I don't see it, for example after Kaufman's 1 3.c4 lll d6 1 4.Wxd5t lll f7 .) l 1 .lll h4 would transpose to 9.:IJ.f4 lll d6 while cutting out some of Black's ninth-move options.

313

Chapter 1 1 - Other White Tries

1 1 .i.£4 1 1 .Wxb5? fxg5 12.lll xg5 d5 was hopeless. Lautier gave l 1 .ih4!? lll d6 1 2.lll c3 h5 ( 1 2 . . . Elg8 1 3 .Wh5 ©h8 14.lll d 5 ig7 1 5 .Elad l offers White genuine compensation and is much weaker, but a good alternative is 1 2 . . . ie?, meeting 1 3.Wh5 with 1 3 . . . Wg8 followed by . . . Wf7.) 1 3.Eladl Elh6 as unclear, but I think this was unduly modest: Black just stands to win here after recycling the knights towards the kingside with ... lll e7 and . . . lll f7 (or f5) .

1 1 ... lll d6 12.ltJh4 Elg8 Now this works well White lacks the tempo to get the set-up he did after 1 1 .ih4 lll d6 12.lll c3 Elg8, and it turns out that he loses control of d4 at the critical moment.

13.lll c3 1 3.ixd6 ixd6 (or 1 3 ... cxd6 14.lll c3 ©h8) 1 4.ltJf5t @h8 1 5 .lll xd6 ( 1 5 .lll h6 wins the exchange back but after 1 5 . . . Elg? 1 6.lll f7 t Elxf7 1 7.Wxf7 lll e 5 1 8.Wh5 Wg8 1 9 .lll c3 b6 Black should win) 1 5 . . . cxd6 1 6.Wxd6 b6 is no better.

13 ... ©hs 14.WhS Lautier queries this and says that White should have prevented Black's next move with 1 4.Eladl but it seems to me that Black is winning: 1 4 . . . lll e 5 Lautier's own proposal to activate the rook with 14 . . . a5!? does no harm, but after 1 5 .a4 ( 1 5 .Wh5 a4 1 6.lll d 5 Ela5 17.lll f5 is unclear according to Lautier but I don't understand why: 1 7 . . . Elxd5 1 8.Elxd5 lll xf5 1 9.Wxf5 d6 must be much better for Black) Black ought to play 1 5 . . . lll e 5 again rather than 1 5 . . . lll b4 1 6.Wh5 Ela6. This is much better for Black according to Lautier but I think he is mistaken: 17.lll b 5 with its threat of lll xd6 and lll f5 is more than a little difficult

to meet, for example 17.lll b 5 lll xc2 1 8.Ele2 lll b4 1 9 .lll xd6 ixd6 20.lll f5 . 1 5.he5 fxe5 1 6.lll f3 1 6.Wxe5t ig7 17.Wh5 ixc3 1 8.bxc3 Wg5 also wins. 1 6 . . . e4 17.lll xe4 lll xe4 1 8.Elxe4 Wf6 And ordinary care should see Black convert his material .

14 ... lll d4 1 4 . . . b6 1 5.lll d 5 ib7 1 6.Eladl (also possible after 1 4.Elad l ) is approved by Stohl and Kaufman, but here I agree with Lautier that White's play is very dangerous - Eld3 is going to be his next move. I assume that the point of White's last was to prevent 1 4 . . . lll e 5 in view of 1 5 .Elxe5! fxe5 1 6.ixe5t Elg? 1 7.lll d 5, when White's compensation is more than adequate, although if so it is surprising Lautier didn't mention 1 4.Eladl lll e 5 .

15.lll dS White doesn't have much choice in view of 1 5.Eladl lll e 6.

15 ...b6

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

By the flickering light of a computer screen one can easily calculate the variation 1 5 . . . lll xc2

314

The Berlin Wall

1 6.tlJxf6 '\Wxf6 1 7.ie5 ig7 1 8.ixf6 ixf6 1 9 .'\Wf3! ixb2 20.°1We2 ixal 2 1 .°1Wxc2 if6 22.°1Wxc7 l'!e8 23.l'!xe8t tlJxe8 24.'\Wc4 d5 25 .'\Wxd5 ixh4 26.'\We4 ixfL.t 27.@xfL. tlJg7 (Kaufman) , but humans find it easier to play with the initiative, and anyway in this line 1 9.tlJf5 probably enables White to draw.

19.l'!e3�! Stohl mentions 1 9.l'!adl ib7 20.l'!xd4!? ixd4 2 1 .l'!e7 ie4 22.c3 if6 23.l'!xd7 l'!ad8 (or 23 . . . l'!ae8) . Black is better, but perhaps the game is worse.

19 ib7 •••

1 9 . . . tlJxc2? 20.l'!h3 is bad.

16.tt:Jxf6 I'm not sure at all why Socko didn't throw in 1 6.l'!ad l !? tlJe6 ( 1 6 . . . tlJc6 17.l'!d3-h3 is crushing) 1 7.tlJxf6 '\Wxf6 1 8.ie5 '\Wxe5 ( 1 8 . . . ig7 1 9 .ixf6 ixf6 20.l'!xd6 cxd6 2 1 .°1Wf3 is the difference) 1 9.°1Wxe5t ig7 20.°1We3 l'!f8, which appears to me a decidedly better version of the game.

20.l'!g3 20.l'!ae l ixh4 2 1 .°1We5t l'!g7 22.'\Wxd4 l'!ag8! ought to win for Black with his threats of . . . ixg2 and . . . tlJf5, and so does 20.l'!h3 ixh4 2 1 .°1Wxh4 l'!xg2t 22.@fl l'!g7 23.'\Wxd4 ig2t.

20 l'!ae8 2 1 .@hl •••

16 YlYxf6 17.ie5 ig7 18.ixf6 •••

White has nothing better: 1 8.ixd4 is met not by 1 8 . . . '\Wxd4?? but by 1 8 . . . '\Wf7 winning, while after 1 8.l'!e3 the cunning deflection 1 8 . . . tlJe2t! (pointed out by Socko) enables Black to survive and win (it is possible that Socko had intended 1 8.l'!e3 when choosing 1 6.tlJxf6 and that was why he didn't insert l'!ad l ) .

18

•.•

ixffi

8

7 6

5

4 3

2 1

The smoke clears and Black is better with his co-ordinated pieces.

Stohl gives the attractive 2 1 .l'!xg8t l'!xg8 22.c3 ixh4 23.°1We5t l'!g7 24.'\Wxd4 ixg2! 25 .'\Wxh4 ie4t! 26.@fl id3t 27.@el tlJe4 28.'\Wd8t l'!g8 winning. Lautier's line has a similar result: 2 1 .tlJg6t l'!xg6 22.l'!xg6 tlJe2t 23.'\Wxe2 (23.@fl tlJf4) 23 . . . l'!xe2 24.l'!xf6 @g7 25 .l'!f4 ie4

21. tlJe4 ••

2 1 . . . l'!e4!? was another good move, but it is clear that Black is on top and the rest is not so interesting.

22.tlJg6t 22.l'!xg8t l'!xg8 23.f3 (23.l'!fl ia6) 23 . . . tlJd6! cuts offWhite's queen and wins nearly by force: 24.c3 tlJe6 25.°1Wh6 ig5 26.'\Wh5 tlJf4 27.'\Wg4 ic6 28.°1Wg3 tlJd3 (Stohl) .

22 l'!xg6! 23.l'!xg6 tlJxflt 24.@gl tlJe2t! 25.@fl •••

25.@xfL. id4t devastating.

26.Wfl

tlJf4 is also

25 tt:Jf4 26.l'!xf6 •••

White prefers a lost ending to the continuing

Chapter 1 1 - Other White Tries

315

attack after something like 26.Wff5 ia6t 27.@xf2 (27.@gl id4 28.Wfxd7 ll'ie2t 29.@fl ll'ig3t 30.@gl llih3#) 27 . . . id4t 28.@g3 llixg6.

26 llixh5 27.� @ g7 28.c4 llif6 29.gdl ic6 30.ge2 llie4! 31. @ gl a5 32.gfl ge6 33.gf4 h5 34.ge3 @ g6 35.h4 llif6 36.gxe6 dxe6 37.gd4 id7 38.c5 b5 39.gd3 e5 40.c6 ie6 41.gg3t llig4 42.gc3 ha2 43.ga3 ic4 44.b3 ie2 45.gxa5 llif6 46.gas @f7 47.gcs llid5 48. @ f.2 ig4 49.ghs @ e7 50.gh6 b4 5 1 . @ el e4 52.g3 llie3 53.ghs @ d6 54. @ d2 llid5 55.gh6t @ c5 56.gg6 @ d4 57. @ el @ c3 58.gg5 llie3 59. @ f.2 llif5 60. @ el e3 6 1 .ggs llid4 0-1 •••

Conclusion: I'm not sure Kaufman is right to hold that this line is simply refuted. It seems to me that White's improvement at move 1 6 leads to an unclear game, and that in Kaufman's own line (given in the note to Black's 1 5th) White can draw, although of course that is a theoretical triumph for Black. There is some homework to be done here.

I Game 64 I

Papin - Karjakin European U- 1 4 Ch. Chalkidiki 200 1

1.e4 e5 2.llif3 llic6 3.ib5 llif6 4.0-0 llixe4 5.d4 llid6 6.hc6 dxc6 7.llixe5 This isn't the most challenging move White can make, but it's common at lower levels and it's important not to underestimate it as perhaps Karjakin did here, albeit at the age of eleven or so it's not so easy to obtain free play for Black's pieces.

7 ie7 8.llid2 •••

9 . . . llif5 This manoeuvre, dating from Pillsbury at least, is the simplest approach, but Black still has to be careful. 1 0.c3 c5 1 1 .d5 ( 1 1 .dxc5 Wfxdl 1 2.l'l:xdl ixc5 is better for Black) 1 l .. .if6 1 2.llia3 llie7 (12 . . . id7? 13.Wfh5 llie7 14.Wff3 llig6 1 5 .llixg6 hxg6 1 6.gadl illustrates careless play by Black) 1 3.c4 llig6 14.ig3 and Black hasn't quite equalised yet, for example 14 . . . ge8? (or 14 . . . id7 1 5.llixg6 hxg6 1 6.Wfb3 b6 1 7.llib5 perhaps best is 14 ... a6) 1 5 .llixg6 gxe l t 16.Wfxel hxg6 17.llib5. 9 ... ie6 is unnecessary and perhaps even harmful if Black aims for ... llif5 and . . . c5 : 1 0.ll'id2 llif5 1 l .c3 c5 1 2.dxc5 ixc5 1 3.ll'ie4 Wfxdl 14.gaxdl ie7 1 5 .ll'id3 is just a tiny bit annoying, for example 1 5 . . . c6 ( 1 5 . . . ha2 1 6.llig3) 1 6 .ll'iec5 ixa2 1 7.llixb7. 9 . . . ge8 1 0.llid2 ie6 ( 1 0 . . . f6 1 1 .llid3 if8 is another good approach) may be easier, for example l 1 .Wfh5 ( 1 1 .llidf3 can be met with 1 L .id5 1 2.b3 f6) 1 l . . .llif5 1 2.c3 Wf d5 ( 1 2 . . . c5 1 3.ll'ixf7 ixf7 1 4.Wfxf5 cxd4 is probably fine too) 1 3.b3, when Black can play a variety of moves including 1 3 . . . c5, 1 3 . . . a5, and 13 ... llid6. Quite probably any of these

316

Th e Berlin Wall

is fine but the play is keener than one might imagine.

Black still can't find a good way to arrange 1 8 . . . c5 and instead resigns himself to a draw.

8 0-0 9.tlJdf3 if6

19.he5 f6 20.if4 YlYd7 21 .c3 @f7 22.f3 l:!xel t 23.l:!xel l:!e8 24.l:!xe8 @xe8 25.YlYe2t YlYe7 26.YlYxe7t @xe7 27.hc7 ibl 28.a3 ia2 29.b4 b5 30.@fl a6 3 1.@e3 id5 32.g4 @e6 33.h4 @f7 34.@f4 @e6 35.@e3 @f7 36. @f4 @e6 37. @e3 @f7 38. @f4 @e6

•••

8

7 6

•h-1h

5

4

Conclusion: This line is nothing of course,

3

but perhaps this slight game does illustrate that if Black wants to do any better than the worse end of a draw he needs to choose his first few moves carefully.

2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

It's clear that this is one satisfactory possi­ bility among many, but nonetheless I don't really like this move. The bishop has no prospects here and its presence helps White cement his outpost. To my mind it was more logical to play 9 . . . l:!e8 1 0.l:!el f6 (now this restrains both knights at once) 1 1 .tlJd3 if8 . Black then has free development, and the f8bishop will have its say later on.

10.if4 ie6 1 1 .l:!el l:!e8 12.b3 tlJf5 13.YlYd.3 tlJh4 Since 1 3 . . . c5 14.dxc5 'Wxd3 1 5.cxd3 is not really possible, Black is reduced to trading pieces without solving the main problem of how to free his bishops and queen, get rid of the e5-knight and erode White's slight superiority in central control.

14.tlJxh4 Axh4 15.tlJf3 if6 16.tlJeS 1 6.l:!adl was better but no doubt the young White player wanted to draw with his already famous opponent.

16 ... g6 17.l:!adl if5 18.YlYd2 he5

I Game 65 I

Vedder - Aleksandrov European Junior Championships, Vejen

1 9 93

1 .e4 e5 2.tlJf3 tlJc6 3.ib5 tlJf6 4.0-0 tlJxe4 5.d4 tlJd6 6.hc6 6.ia4 is an active player's way to keep the queens on, but Black has no serious problems. There are two good options: a) 6 . . . e4 7.l:!e l ie7 8.tlJe5 with a further pleasant choice for Black: a l ) 8 . . . 0-0 is the main line of this sideline, as chosen by Kiril Georgiev and twice by Aronian. 9.tlJc3 f6 1 0.tlJxcG dxc6 1 l .tlJxe4 tlJxe4 1 2.l:!xe4 f5 1 3.l:!el f4 The game is equal, yet Aronian has won twice from this position, after facing 1 4.c3 and 1 4.'Wf3. The most recent game in this line was Ganguly - Roktim, Dhaka 2005, which White won after 14.YlYh5 . Instead o f 1 4 . . . id6 1 5 .ib3t @h8 1 6.c4 g6?! when Roktim's king had predictable problems along the long diagonal, Black should have

Chapter 1 1 - Other White Tries tried 1 4 . . . £3!?. For example, 1 5 .ib3t @h8 1 6.if7 .ig4! 17. 'Wxg4 i::!:xf7 and Black is equal, as 1 8.gxf3?! 'Wd5 is too risky for White. a2) 8 . . . b5!? is worthy of particular attention because it was the choice of a Berlin expert the second time he faced 6.ia4 against the same opponent, so we may assume he was prepared. 9 . .ib3 llia5 1 0.llic3 ( 1 0 . .id5 c6 1 1 .he4 llixe4 1 2.i::!:xe4 d6 also nets the bishop pair) 10 . . . llixb3 1 l .axb3 0-0 1 2 .llixe4 llixe4 1 3 .i::!:xe4 ib7 Black's bishop pair gave him at least equality in Sulskis - Aleksandrov, Warsaw (rapid) 2007. b) 6 . . . exd4 is also safe. White's only threatening try is 7 .c3 when lvanchuk has chosen to decline this offer. Ganguly - lvanchuk, Canada 2005, continued 7 . . . d3 8 .'Wxd3 .ie7 9 .ic2 g6 1 0 . .ih6 llif5 1 l .'Wd2 d6 1 2.i::!:e l .ie6 1 3.ia4 llixh6 1 4.'Wxh6 ifs 1 5.°We3 ig7 1 6.llig5 'Wd7 1 7.llixe6 fxe6 1 8.'Wxe6t 'Wxe6 1 9.i::!:xe6t and was now agreed drawn.

317

9.llixd4 %Yxd4 10.llid2 White has tried many ways to avoid the exchange of queens, all without success. Let's see a few examples: 1 0.i::!: d l ig4 l l .i::!:xd4 he2 1 2.llic3 ih5 1 3 . .ig5 h6 14 . .ih4 ic5 1 5 .i::!: d2 ie7 1 6.he7 ©xe7 V. Popov - Mitkov, Skopje 2002. 1 0.h3 .ie6 1 1 .:!:l:dl 'Wc4, Pavlov - Zubov, Ukraine (Ch) 2003. 1 0.llic3 .ig4 l l .°We3 'Wxe3 1 2.he3 ib4 1 3 .llie4 .if5 1 4.c3, Taubenhaus - Tarrasch, Monte Carlo 1 903, and also, bizarrely, Fischer - Neikirkh, Portoroz lnterzonal 1 958. In all cases Black is at least equal: the continuation of Taubenhaus - Tarrasch can be found in many books on the middlegame, and my comments on why it isn't in this book are in chapter 2.

10 ifS 1 1 .llib3 %Ye4 12.%Yxe4 he4 13.c3 0-0-0 14.ie3 b6 15.i::!:fdl ie7 •••

6 dxc6 7.dxe5 llif5 8.%Ye2 llid4 •••

16.f3 ig6 17. @ fl a5 1 7 . . . c5 would have stopped White's next and looks sensible.

18.llid4 @ b7 19.llie2

318

Th e Berlin Wall

1 9.g4 E:d5 20.f4 E:hd8 2 1 .f5 c5 22.f:xg6 hxg6 favours Black: after . . . cxd4 either White drops the e-pawn or he is left with weak central pawns stuck on the dark squares. White has to be thinking in terms of getting his pawns going somehow, but it's easier said than done.

often has to choose in these positions between besieging the e-pawn and clearing it out of the way to give scope to this bishops, and here he makes the wrong choice: 30 . . .f6 3 1 .exf6 ixf6 32.E:dd2 E:he7 33. ©f2 (the bishop is pinned just at the wrong moment White would be better off if the rook were still on e l ) 33 . . . ic4 34.E:e l id5 ties White in knots.

19 a4 20.tt'if4 •••

White can't find a plan, but the knight is poorly placed here, blocking the f-pawn and artificially isolating e5 .

20 ...ic2 21 .E:dcl if5 22.g4 ic8 23.a3 g6 24.E:dl E:de8 25.iig3 h5 26.tt'ig2 In principle White wants to take back on g4 with the h-pawn, but here 26.h3 hxg4 27.hxg4 ih4t 28.iig2 c5 followed by . . . g5 is horrid: the e-pawn just drops off.

31 .ifl?

3 l .ig5 would have prevented Black's next and kept White's disadvantage to a minimum.

31 ... £6! Now this simply wins material.

32.E:de4 fxe5 33.tt'ih4 id5 33 . . . l'l:g? 34.tt'if3 id6 was more careful.

34.E:4e3 26 ...hxg4 27.fxg4 ie6 28.E:d4 ih3 29.E:el E:h7

a

30.E:e2

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This is feeble White at least had to play 30.h4. The rook isn't even well placed on e2, as we see in the next note.

30 ... iffi And this is a little over-schematic. Black quite

34.tt'ixg6 ixe4 35.E:xe4 was a last chance. I stressed in chapter 3, sometimes this sort of exchange sacrifice can turn the tables quite sharply White's pawns can turn from weakness to strength, and his king from exposed to active, very quickly with only a slight simplification, and this can easily outweigh the slight material loss. Here Black still stands to win, I think, but certainly he would have had to play more accurately than he does in the game.

As

34 ... gS 35.tt'if5 ic5 36.E:xeS hflt 37.iixfl E:xe5 38.E:xeS E:xh2t 39.iie3 E:xh2 40.tt'id4 E:a2 41.E:xgS E:xa3 42.iid3 E:a2 0-1 Conclusion: This variation can be dangerous only for White. In general, the lines in this chapter pose no theoretical threat to Black. In several lines the challenge for Black is not to equalise, but to equalise in such a way that playing for a win is still possible.

Index of Variations

The B erlin Defence is a complex opening with many possible transpositions . And even when there are no transpositions, even grandmasters find it difficult to tell the various variations apart. For this reason I have created the following extensive Index of Variations, which not only should help to guide you to the relevant variations, but also get an overview over the opening. Even with the index the opening can feel very confusing, but at least the reader is now left with a fighting chance. The page numbers refer to the start of the game where the relevant line is covered.

Chapter 4 (Games 1 -9) (Pages 1 37- 1 54) 1 .e4 eS 2.�f3 � c6 3 . .tbS �f6 4.0-0 �xe4 S.d4 �d6 6 ..bc6 dxc6 7.dxeS �fS 8.Ylrxd8t @xd8 9.�c3 � e7 10.'Sd l t @e8 l l .�d4 (11 . 'Sel = JJ. ie3 = 11. i/4= ll. � e4= ll. J.g5=) (143) 1 1 �g6 12.f4 (12. � e4,,,, 12. J.g5=) 12 J.g4 (12 . . . .tc5=) 13.'Sd3 'Sd8 14.J.e3 J.cS= 10.'Sel �g6 (JO . . . ig4t.) 11.�e4 (Jl. ig5 f @e8 12. lll h4 h6+) 11 ... h6 12.J.d2 (12.h3rx;) 12 J.g4 (12. . . id7rx;) 13.lll d4? ! (13. 'Sadl =) 13 ... �xeS 14 . .tc3 lll c4 1 5.a4 (15.h3+) 15 ... cS 1 6.�e2 b6+ 10.b3 h6 (149) 1 0 . . .if5 1 1 .lll d4 ig6 1 2.'Sdl @c8 1 3 .ig5 lll d 5= (13 . . . h6+) (14 7) 1 0 . . . .ig4 1 1 .lll g 5 @e8 (11 . . . J.h5 t.) 1 2.ib2 lll d5? ! (12 . . . h6,,,,) (14 7) 1 3 .h3 J.f5 1 4.g4 ig6 (14. . . hc2?+- 14 . . . idn) 1 5 .lll xd5 cxd5 1 6.f4± 1 1 ..ib2 J.g4 1 1 . . .lll g 6 1 2 .lll e4 @e800 (12 . . . J.g4t.) 12.'Sadlt (12. lll d2!? ,,,, 12. lll d4!? ,,,,) 1 2 ... @es (12 . . . @c8t.) 13.lll e4 (13.h3=)13 'Sd8 (13 . . . hj3 14.gxj3 'Sd8 15. 'Sxd8 f @xd8 1 6. 'Sdl f @c8t.) 1 4.'SxdSt @xd8 15.�d4 @e8 1 6.h3 J.c8 17.c4 a6 1 8.f4 hS 19.J.a3 b6± (19. . . lll g6t.) 1 0 . .tgs @es 10 . . . h6 1 1 .'Sad l t @e8 1 2.J.xe7 J.xe7 1 3 .lll d4 h5t. (13 . . . .ic5t.) 11 .�d4 (ll. lll e4=) (152) 1 1 .'Sad l J.g4 1 2.'Sd4 J.f5 (12 . . . ixj3 t.) (151) 1 3 .lll e4 h6 1 4.id2= (1 4. he7+) •..

••.

.•.

•••

11

. . •

�g6 (Jl . . . lllj5 t.) 12.'Sadl J.d7 13.'Sfel h6 (1 3 . . . ib4t.) 14 .icl 'Sd8 1 S.e6 J.c8 1 6J�d3 ? ! + (1 6. exj7f=) •

10.lll d4 cS 1 0 . . . lll g6 l l .f4 ic5 1 2.ie3 .tb6 (12 . . . hd4?±) (13 7) 1 3 .'Sae l lll h4 (1 3 . . . lll e n 13 . . . 'Se8,,,,) 1 4.e6 (1 4. lll e4t.) 1 4 . . . fxe6?± (14 . . . c5,,,,) U .lll f3 ( l 1 .lll db5? ! + 1 1 .lll b 3? ! +) (141) 1 1 .lll de2 J.f5 1 2.ig5 ! ? (12. 'Sdl f=) (139) 1 2 . . . ixc2 1 3 .'Sac l (13. lll d5+) 1 3 . . .if5 1 4 .lll d 5+ (14. b4!? ,,,,) 11 ... J.fS (ll. . . h6?+- ll. . . a6± 11 . . . J.e6t. ll . . . idn) 12.lll gS (12. 'Sel =) 12 @eS 13.lll b S lll d S 14.c4 a6!+ (14 . . . .td3 ?!t.) ..•

Chapter 5 (Games 1 0- 1 6) (Pages 1 5 5- 1 76) 1 .e4 e5 2.li:Jt3 li:J c6 3 .i.b5 li:Jf6 4.0-0 li:Jxe4 5.d4 li:Jd6 6 . .i.xc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 li:Jf5 8.ti'xd8t ©xd8 9.li:Jc3 li:Je7 10.h3 li:Jg6 •

11 .a3 h6 (JJ. . . .i.d700) 12 .i.e3 (164) 1 2 .:Be l .i.d7oo (12 . . . c5oo) 12 ... .i.d7 (12 . . . ie6t) 13.l;adl ©c8 14.l;d2 i.e7 1 5.l:'!fdl l;d8 (15 . . . i.e600) 1 6.g4 (1 6. li:J e2 t) 16 ... a5 17.a4 b6 18.©g2 i.e8= (18 . . . .ie600 1 8. . . i.b400) 11 . .id2 h6 (168) l l . . .ie7 1 2.:Badl ©e8 1 3 .:Bfe l a600 (1 3 . . . i.e6t. 13 . . . h500) 12.l;adl i.d7 13.li:Je4 c5 (1 3 . . . .ien) 14.li:Jg3 ©c8 (14 . . . h500) 1 5.l;fel i.e7 (15 . . . .ie600) 16 .ic3 l;g8 17.li:Jh5 .ie6 (1 7. . . .ic600) 1 8.a4 b6 19.li:Jh2 (19.g4=) 19 ... li:JfS 20.g4t. (20f4=) 11 .ie3 ©e8 (ll. . . ie6t. ll. . . id7 transposes to 9 . . . id7 ll. . . h6 transposes to 1 0 . . . h6 - ll. . . ie 7 12. :Badl f ©e8 13.a3 transposes to l l . . . ©e8) (1 72) 12.a3 ie7 13.l;adl h5 14.l;fel h4 15.li:Jd4 l;b5 (1 5 . . . a6= 1 5. . . liJxe5 t.) 1 6.f4 .id7 17.li:Je4 c5= 11.li:Je4 h6 (11 . . . ien ll . . . id7 transposes to 9 . . . i.d7) (1 73) 12.l;el 1 2 .b3 c5 (12 . . . ©e8t.) 13 ..ie3= (13. i.b2=) 12 ...c5 13.a4 (13. ie3 = 13.c4 =) 13 ... .id7 (13 . . . a5!? 00) 14.a5 .ic6 (14. . . ©e8t. 14. . . ie700) 1 5.h4 (15. :Ba3 00) 15 ... ie7 1 6.h5 li:Jf8 17.li:Jg3 li:J e6 1 8.li:Jf5= •

•

•

11 ..igSt ©e8 (11 . . . i.en) 12.l;adl .id7 1 2 . . . ie6 1 3 .liJd4 (13. a300 13. b3 00) (156) 1 3 . . . ic4 (13. . . ib4?!±) 1 4.:Bfe l ib4 (14. . . h6t.) 1 5 .i.d2 (15. liJf5=) 1 5 . . . :Bd8 1 6.liJfS :Bg8 1 7.liJe4= (l 7. a3 =) 13.l;d2 (158) 1 3 .liJd4 h6 1 4 . .ie3 (160) 1 4 . . . i.b4 1 5 .liJe4 (1 5f4 = 15 . .id2 =) 1 5 . cSt. (15. . . liJxe500) 1 4 . . . liJxeSt. 14 . . . hS 1 5 .f4 (15. CLJj3 =) 15 . . . h4 (1 5 . . . .ic5t.) 1 6.fS (1 6. :Bd3 = 1 6. CLJ e4 =) 1 6 . . . liJxeS 1 7.f6 :BhS?t. (1 7. . . gx/6=) 1 3 .a3 h6 1 4 .ic l = (14. .ie3 =) 13 ... ie6 (13. . . ie n) 14.l;fdl (14. liJd4=) 14 ....ie7 15 . .ie3 (15. liJ e2?+ 1 5 .he7=) 1 5 .liJe4 .ids 1 6.:Be l hg5 1 7.liJexgS= (1 7. lD.fxg5=) 1 5 ... a6 (1 5 . . . ib4 t.) 16.li:Je2 (l 6. liJ e4t.) 1 6 ... l;dS 1 7.l;xd8t .ixd8 1 8.b3 .ie7 1 9.c4 h5 20.li:Jfd4 .ic8 21 .f4 h4= . .

.

Chapter 6 (Games 1 7-24) (Pages 1 77- 1 99) 1.e4 eS 2.�t3 �c6 3.i.bS �f6 4.0-0 �xe4 5.d4 �d6 6.hc6 dxc6 7.dxeS �fS 8.'%Yxd8t ®xd8 9.�c3 �e7 10.h3 10 ...i.fS ll .g4 (195) 1 1 .c!Lld4 ig6 1 2 . f4 c5oo 1 1 .E:d l t ®c8 1 2.c!Lld4 (12. E:d2 =) 1 2 . . . ig6 1 3 .if4 b6 (13. . . c5 t 13. . . .!ll d5oo) 1 4.e6 ®b7 1 5 .E:e l f6t (15. . . E:e800} 11 ... ixc2 12.�d4 ig6 13.f4 (13. E:dl +) 13 ... cS (1 3. . .f5 ?!±) 14.�tJ f5 15.�h4 1 5 .ie3 b6 (15. . . .!ll c600) 1 6.e6+ (1 6. E:adl f ®c8 1 7. .!ll h 400) ) 1 5 fxg4 (15. . . @d700 15 . . . hM) 16.E:dlt ®c8 17.hxg4t 10 @eS 11.gel �g6 12.�e4 cS 13.a4 aS (13. .. h6t) 1 4.ga3 h6 15.gd3 b600 1 0 . . . h6 ll ..ie3 1 1 .c!Lld4 c5= (1 77) 1 1 .c!Lle2 c!Llg6 1 2.E:e l c5 1 3 .b3 ie6 1 4.ib2 @ d7 (14 . . . @c800 14. . . ie 700} 1 5 .h4 (180) •••

.•.

(15 . .!ll g3 ®c6 1 6. .!ll h5 E:g8=) 1 5 . . . ig4? !± (1 5 . . . ien 15. . . h500)

1 1 .b3 if5 (183) Jl. . . .!ll g6 12. ib2 id7 13. E:adl ®c8 14. E:fel .!llf4= (14 . . . ib4=) 1 2 .�d l t (12 . .!ll d4 ig6 13. ia3 t) 1 2 . . . @c8 (12 . . . @e8=) 1 3 .E:d2 b6 (13 . . . .!ll d5=) 1 4.ib2 @b7 1 5 .E:adl (15 . .!ll e2=) 1 5 . . . c!Llg6 1 6 .c!Lle2 a5 1 7.c!Llg3 ie6 1 8.c!Llh5 (18.a4= 18. .!ll d4=) 1 8 . . . c5 (18 . . . a400} 1 9.a4 E:g8 20.c4 ie7 2 1 .g4 E:ae8 (21 . . . b5!? 00) l l .b3 c!Llg6 1 2 .ib2 .!ll f4 (185) 12 . . . a5 13. E:adl f= (13.a4=) 1 3 .E:ad l t ®e8 1 4.E:fe l (1 4. E:d4= 14. E:d2 = 14. ®h2=) 14 . . . c!Lle6= (14. . . a5= 14 . . . if5t) 1 l .id2 if5 (11 . . . .!ll g6 transposes to chapter 5) (1 77) 1 2.E:ac l (12. .!ll d4=) 1 2 . . . c5 (12 . . . .!ll g 6t) 1 3 .c!Llh4 (13.g4=) 1 3 . . . id7 1 4.f4 g6 1 5 .ie3 b6 1 6 .E:cd l @c8= ll .i.d7 (188) 1 1 . . .b6t (190) 1 1 . . .if5 1 2 . E:adl t ®e8 (12 . . . @c8t) (190) 1 3 .4Jd4 id? (13 . . . ig6oo) 1 4 . .if4 (14f400) 1 4 . . . 4Jd5 1 5 .4Jxd5 (15. 4Jdb5t) 1 5 . . . cxd5 1 6.e6 fxe6 1 7.ixc7 ic5 1 8 .ie5 .ixd4 1 9.ixd4t 1 1 . . .c!Lld5 ? ! 1 2 .E:ad l ie6 1 3 .c!Llxd5t (13 . .!ll d4t) (190) l l . . .®e8 1 2.E:ad l (12. E:fel = 12 . .!ll d4=) 1 2 . . . id7 (12 . . . i.e6t) 1 3 .E:fe l (13.a3 =) 1 3 . . . E:d8 1 4.a3 (14. .!ll e4t) 14 . . . a6 (1 4. . . b600 14. . . .!ll gM 14. . . i/500) 1 5 . c!Ll e4 if5 1 6.id2 c!Llg6t (1 6. . . ig6t) 1 1 . . .c!Llg6 1 2.E:ad l t ®e8 1 3 .a3 (13. .!ll d4=) (192) 1 3 . . . ie? 1 4.E:fe l h5 (14 . . . idn 14. . . a500 14. . . .!ll h 4±) 1 5 .c!Lld4 h4t 12Jfadl ®c8 13,gd2 b6 14,gfdl ie6 15.�d4 (15. E:d8f=) 1 5 ... �dS! (15. . . @ b n 15. . . id7? !±) 16.�xc6 (1 6. .!ll x e6oo) 1 6 ... �xc3 17,gd8t 1 7.bxc3 ia300 1 7 @b7 1 8.bxc3 .id6= (18 . . . ia3 00) •.

.••

Chapter 7 (Games 25 -29) (Pages 20 1 -228) 1 .e4 e5 2 . .!lif3 .!li c6 3 .ib5 .!lif6 4.0-0 .!lixe4 5.d4 .!lid6 6 ..bc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 .!lif5 8.YlYxd8t ©xd8 9 .!li c3 i.d7 •

•

10.E:dl ©c8 n . .!lig5 i.e8 12.b3 (201) 1 2 . .!lige4 b6 1 3 .h3 1 3 .b3 c5 (13 . . . ie7 and 13 . . . © b 7 both transposes to 1 2.b3) 1 4.ib2 .!lid4 1 5 .E:d2 (15 . .!lid5 =) 1 5 . . . ©b7;!; 1 3 . . . ©b7 1 4.g4 .!lie7 (14 . . . l:iJh4;!;) 1 5 . .if4 (1 5f4=) 1 5 . . . h5 1 6.f3 c5 1 7 . ©t2 l:iJc6= 1 2.h3 b6 1 3 .g4= 12 .ie7 (12 . . . c5;!; 12 . . . a5;!;) 1 2 . . . b6 1 3 . .ib2 ib4;!; 1 3 . . . ie7 1 4.l:iJh3 (1 4. l:iJge4 transposes to 1 2 . . . ie7) 1 4 . . . ©b700 (14 . . . idn) ) 13 .!lige4 b6 14 . .ib2 (14. h3= 14. ig5=) 14 ... ©b7 1 5 �d3 (1 5 . l:iJ e2 = 1 5 .g3 =) 1 5 ... E:d8 (15 . . . c5 ?;!;) 1 6.E:adl (1 6. E:xd8=) 1 6 ... E:xd3 16 . . . ©c8 1 7 .l:iJe2 1 7 .g3 h5= (1 7. . . a5=) 1 7.h3= �xd300 (1 7. . . h5oo) 1 7.E:xd3 ©c8 1 7 . . . c5 1 8.l:iJd5 .ic6 1 9.c4 E:e8 20.g4 l:iJh400 1 7 . . . h5 1 8 . .ic l (1 8.g3 =) 1 8 . . . ©c8 (18 . . f6;!;) 1 9 .g3 (1 9. ig5) .id7 (19. . . h4;!; 1 9. . . c5;!;) 20. ©g2 ie6;!; (20. . . h4;!; 20. . . E:e800) 18 .!lig3 (1 8.g3 = 1 8.g4 = 18.h3= 1 8. l:iJ e2 transposes to 1 6 . . . © c8 1 7.l:iJe2) 18 ... .!lib4oo (18. . . l:iJxg3 =) • • •

•

J

•

1 0.b3 ©c8 11 .i.b2 (JJ . l:iJg5 ib4=) n ... h6 (214) 1 l . . .ie7 (224) 1 2.l:iJe4 c5= (12 . . . h5=) 1 2.l:iJe2 h5;!; (12 . . . a5;!; 12 . . . E:dBoo) 1 2.E:adl (12. E:fel =) 1 2 . . . a5 (12 . . . b6;!; 12 . . . h6=) 1 3 .a4 (13.h3 h5 14.g3 + (14. l:iJ e4 + 1 4. a400) 1 3 . . . E:d8 (1 3 . . . h5= 1 3 . . . bM) 14.h3 h5 1 5 .E:d3 b6 1 6.E:fd l ie8 (1 6. . . ie6?f;!;) 1 7.E:xd8t ixd8 1 8 .l:iJe2 ie7 1 9.e6 fxe6 20.l:iJf4 b500 1 2.l:fadl b6 (12 . . . a5;!;) 13 .!lie2 (13. E:d3 00) 13 c5 (13 . . . a5±) 14.c4 1 4.l:iJf4 ic6 1 5 .E:fe l .bf3 ?;!; (15. . . ©b 7=) 14 ic6 1 5 . .!lif4 ©b7 1 6 .!lid5 (1 6. E:fel =) 1 6 .!li e7 (1 6. . . a500) 17.E:fel E:g8= •

•..

•••

•

•..

1 0.h3 h6 ll.b3 l l .if4 ©c8 1 2.E:ad l b6 (12 . . . ib4;!;) (209) 1 3 .l:iJe4 (13. E:d3 = 13.b3 = l 3.g4= 13. l:iJ e2 = 13. ih200) 1 3 . . . c5 (13 . . . ieM) 1 4.E:fe l (14. ih200) 1 4 . . . ie6 1 5 .a3 ©b7 1 6.g4 l:iJe7 1 7.i.g3 l:iJc6 (1 7. . . g500) 1 8 .l:iJh2 g5 (1 8. . . ie700) 1 9.l:iJf6 ie7 (19 . . . c4!?00) 20.l:iJh5 E:ad8 2 1 .f4;!;

1 3 .a3 ie6 (13 . . . l:iJ e 7= 13. . . c500) 14.g4 (14. E:fel =) 14 . . . l:iJe7 1 5 .l:iJd4 ic4 1 6.�fe l c5 1 7.l:iJf5 l:iJc6 (1 7. . . ieM) 1 8 .l:iJd5 (18. ©g200) 1 8 . . . ixd5 1 9.E:xd5 g6 20.e6=

11

..•

©c8 (ll. . . ©e8t) 12.J.b2 b6 13Jfadl tb e7 1 4J:�d2 (14. 'Bfel = 14. li:Jel =) (214) 1 4.li:Je2 li:Jg6 1 5 .tbel (15. li:Jg3 = 15.c4=) 1 5 . . . hS 1 6.li:Jd3= (1 6f4=) (214) 1 4.li:Jd4 c5 (14 . . . li:JgM 14 . . . @ b n) 1 5 .li:Jde2 (219) 1 5 . . . hS? ! (1 5. . . c4i 15. . . !f500 1 5 . . . li:Jc600) 1 6.li:Jf4= (1 6. li:J e4!t) 1 5 . . . aS 1 6.a4= (1 6. 'Bfe l = 1 6. li:J/400 1 6f4= 1 6. 'Bd2 =) 1 5 . . . ic6 1 6.tbf4 ©b7 1 7.li:JcdS li:Jxd5 1 8 .li:JxdS c4 (1 8. . . a5t) 1 9.bxc4 ia4� 14 ... cS 15.'Bfdl ie6 (15. . . if5 t) 1 6.tbe2 gS 1 6 . . . tbg6 1 7 .h4 ie7i (1 7. . . h5± 1 7. . . i1..g400)

17.c4 (1 7. tbg3 = 1 7. li:J h2 =) 1 7.h4 ©b7= 1 7. l"i:d8t ©b7 1 8.l"i:xa8 ©xa8 1 9.h4 g4 (19 . . . gxh4!?00) 20.li:Je l (20.tbh2 ig7= (20. . . h5t 20 . . . li:J c6=) 20 . . . li:Jc6= (20. . . © b 7?±) 17 ©b7 18.tbg3 (18. tb c3 =) 18 ... tb c6 (18 . . . E:g8t 18 . . . a5t) 19.tbhS a6 20.tbh2= (20.g4= 20. a4=) .••

Chapter 8 (Games 30-39) (Pages 229-252) 1 .e4 eS 2.tbf3 tbc6 3.ibS tbf6 4.0-0 li:Jxe4 5.d4 tbd6 6 ..bc6 dxc6 7.dxeS tbfS 8.Vfxd8t ©xd8 9.tbc3 9 ie7 10.'Bd l t (JO. ig5=) (242) 1 0.h3 ( J O . . . ©e8 transposes to 9 . . . © e8) 10 . . . ie6 l l .ig5= (11 .g400) 1 0 . . . J.d7 ! ? 1 1 .l"i:dl ©c8 1 2.igS (12.g400) 1 2 . . . h6 1 3 .he7 li:Jxe7 1 4.'Bd2 c5 1 5 . li:Je4 b6 1 6.li:Jg3 ic6 1 7.li:Jh2 li:Jg6 1 8 .l"i:e l tbf4= (245) 1 0 . . . h6 l l .g4 lbh4 1 2 .tbxh4 ixh4 1 3 .f4 h5 1 4.fS hxg4 1 5 .hxg4 b6 (15 . . .gM) 1 6.if4 g6 1 7.©g2± (250) 10 ... ©e8 11 .ig5 l l .g3 h6i (ll . . . ie6=) 11 ... ixgS 12.tbxgS ©e7 (12 . . . h600) 13.'Bd3 h6 14.tbf3 (1 4. li:Jge4=) 14 g6 (14. . . g5t) 1 5.'Badl tbg7 (1 5. . . ie6t) 1 6.h3 J.e6 (1 6. . . i/5 00) 17.tbd4 'Bad8 1 8.f4 (18. li:Jxe6= 18. li:J e400) 18 J.c4 19.'B3d2 cS 20.tbf3i (20. tbdb5 ? +) .••

•..

..•

9 . . . ©e8 10.h3 J.e7 11 .if4 (11.a3= JJ. li:J e2 =) l l .g4 li:Jh4 1 2 . li:Jxh4 ixh4 1 3 . © g2 (13f4 h5=) 1 3 . . . hS 1 4.f3 ie7 (1 4. . . ie6= 14 . . . a5=) (233) 1 5 .ie3 ie6 1 6 .b3 (1 6. E:adl =) 1 6 . . . b6 1 7.l"i:ad l l"i:d8 1 8 .li:Je2 c5 (1 8. . . E:xdl =) 1 9.tbf4 hxg4 20.hxg4 l"i:xd l 2 1 .l"i:xd l ic8= (21 . . . E:h7=) 11 . . . J.e6 1 l . . .tbh4 1 2 .tbd200 (12. Ci:Jxh4=) 12.a3 (236) 1 2.g4 C/Jh4 1 3 .Ci:Jxh4 ixh4 1 4 .©g2 (14. E:fdl =) 1 4 . . . ie7 1 5 .l"i:fd l (15. E:adl ib400) 1 5 . . . 'Bd8 1 6.f3 h5 1 7.C/Je2i (1 7. b3 =) (23 7) 12 ... 'Bd8 ( 1 2 . . . l"i:g8 1 3 .C/Je4t) 13.l"i:adl hS 13 . . . h6 1 4.l"i:fe l (1 4.g4=) 1 4 . . . a6 1 5 .C/Je4 l"i:d5 1 6.g4 C/Jh4 1 7 .C/Jxh4 hh4 1 8 .ig3 ie7 1 9.C/Jc3 E:xd U (19 . . . E:d7=) 14.'BxdSt (1 4. E:fel=) 14 ©xd8 15.'Bdlt ©c8 1 6.tbg5 J.c4 (1 6. . . E:d8=) 1 7.b3 f6= 11 .'Bdl lbh4 (240) l l . . .J.d7 1 2.g4 (12. ig500) 1 2 . . . C/Jh4 1 3 .C/Jxh4 ixh4 1 4 .©g2 l"i:d8 1 5 .ie3 b6 1 6.f3 ie6= (248) 12.tbd4 (12. li:Jxh4=) 12 tbg6= (12 . . . a6=) ll .b3 J.e6 (229) 1 l . . .Ci:Jh4 1 2 .Ci:Jxh4 ixh4 1 3 .ia3= 12.ib2 'Bd8 13J�adl l"i:xdl 14.'Bxdl hS 15.tbe2 g5 1 6.tbfd4 tbxd4 17.tbxd4 'Bh6 18.tbxe6i 11 .J.gs .bgs 12.tbxgS h6 13.tbge4 (229) 1 3 .C/Jf3 ie6 (13 . . . h5=) 1 4 . 'Bad l l"i:d8 1 5 .b3 g5 1 6.C/Je4 ids (231) 1 7.f:/Jf6t (1 7. E:fel © e 7 18.g4 Ci:Jg7=) 1 7 . . . ©e7 1 8 .Ci:Jd4 C/Jxd4? (1 8. . . Ci:Jh4+) 1 9.'Bxd4i 13 b6 14.'Badl= (1 4. E:fdl =) •••

••.

•..

Chapter 9 (Games 40-48) (Pages 2S3-27S) 1 .e4 e5 2.tLlf3 tLlc6 3 ..ib5 tLlf6 4.� tLlxe4 5.d4 tLl d6 6 ..bc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 lLlf5 8.'9xd8t ©xd8 9.tLlc3 9. tll bd2= (2 74) 9 . .igSt= (2 74) 9.b3 as 1 0 .tll c 3 ib4 1 1 .tll e2 a4= (2 72) 9.c4 ie6 1 0.b3 as 1 1 .tll c 3 (ll . a4=) l l . . .ib4= (2 74) 9 ... @e8 1 0.h3 a5 1 0 . . . b6 (259) 1 1 .:Be l ib4 1 2.id2 ie6 1 3 .a3 .bc3 1 4.hc3 cS= l l .b3 ib7 1 2 .tll e4 :Bd8 1 3 .ib2 tll e 7? ! ± (13. .. c500) l l .if4 ib4 1 2 .tll e4 ia6 1 3 .:Bfc l ie2 1 4 .tll h2 :Bd8 1 S .g4?+ (15. c3 00) ) 11 .:Bdl (JJ .g4oo) 1 1 .tll e2 tll e 7 (ll . . . a400 ll . . . ie6?!i) (261) 1 2 .tll g 3 (12. :Bdl = 12. tllfd4 =) 1 2 . . . a4 (12 . . . h5i 12. . . c5! ? 00) 1 3 .a3 1 3 . . . tll dS 1 4.:Be l 00 (1 4. id2 =) 1 3 . . . h6 1 4 . .td2 cS l S .:Badl ie6= l l .a3 h6 (11 . . . ie7=) 1 2.:Bel ie7 1 3 .tll e4 .ie6i (13 . . . tll h400) (266) l l .if4 ie6 1 2.a3 (12.g4 = 12. tll g5=) 1 2 . . . .icS (12 . . . :Bd8i 12 . . . tll e lt) (269) 1 3 . :Bad l h6 14.g4 tll e 7 1 S .tll d4 hd4 1 6.:Bxd4 cS (l 6. . . h500) l 7. :Bd2 tll c 6 1 8 .tll dS .ixdSi (18. . . :Bc8i) u ... a4 12.a3 (267) 1 2 . g4 tll e 7 1 3 .©g2 hS (13 . . . tll g6=) (264) 1 4 .©g3 hxg4 1 S .hxg4 tll g6 (15 . . .f5!?00) 1 6.igS ie7 1 7.ixe7 ©xe7 1 8.:Be l .ie6 1 9 .lll d4? (19. :Badl i) 1 9 . . . hg4+ 12 ... h6 (12 . . . .ie600) 13 ..if4 (13.g400) 13 ....ie6 14.tLle4 ie7 (1 4. . . tLl e 700) 1 5.:Bacl :Bd8 (15 . . . h500) 1 6.g4 :Bxdlt 17.:Bxdl tLlh4;!; (1 7. . . id500) 9 ... .ie6 10.tLlg5 (253) 1 0.:Bdl t ©c8 (1 0. . . ©e8i) (257) 1 1 .tll g S .ic4 1 2 .b3 .ib4 1 3 . .ib2 hc3 (13 . . . h M) 1 4.hc3 .idS 1 S .tll h 3 ie6 (l 5 . . . h5i) 1 6.l2Jf4 b6 1 7.tt'lhS ? ! = (1 7.j3!? a500) 1 0 ... ©e7 ll .b3 1 1 .:Bdl h6 1 2 .tll ge4= (12. tll x e6= 12. lllj3 =) l l .f4 l l . . ..ic4 (ll . . . h5?± 11. . . h6! ? 00 ll . . . tl\d4!?00) 1 2.:Bdl (12. :Bj2 = 12. :Bel =) 1 2 . . . h6i (12 . . . :Bd8oo) l l . . .:Bd8 ! ? 1 2 .tll xe600 (12.g400) ll ... h6 (11. . . :Bd8!?00) 12 . .ta3 t (12. tll ge4=) 12 ... ©d7 13.:Badl t ©c8 14.tLlxe6 (1 4. bj8+) 14 ... ixa3 (14 .. .fxeM) 1 5.tLlf4 :Be8 1S . . .ib2 1 6 .tll fe2;!; (1 6. :Bd3 =) 1 6.g4 t2Je7 17.tLlbli (1 7. lll h5!?i)

Chapter 10 (Games 49-54) (Pages 277-290) 1.e4 e5 2.�f3 �c6 3.i.b5 �f6 4.d3 ic5 5.0-0 �d4 (5 . . . 0-0±) (284) 6.�xd4 (6. ia4=) 6 ...ixd4 7.�d2 (7. c3 =) 7 c6 8.i.a4 i.b6 (8 . . . d6t.) 9.i.b3 (9. c3 =) 9 ... d6 (9. . . 0-0=) 10.�c4 ic7 1 1 .Y«f3 (JJ. i.g5 h600 11.c3 h6=) 11 ... h6 12.�e3 g6= •••

5.i.xc6 dxc6 6.ig5 (285) 6.ie3 i.d6 (6. . . he3 =) 7.h3 (7. � bd2+) 7 . . . c5 8 .ll'lbd2 0-0 9.ll'lc4 ll'ld7 1 0.a4 (J O. 'i«d2=) 1 0 . . . l::1 e 8= 6 Y«d6 (6. . . h600) 7.�bd2 i.e6 8.Y«e2 �d7 9.c3 f6 10.i.e3 i.xe3 11 .Y«xe3= •..

5.�c3 d6 (28 7) 5 . . . 0-0 6.0-0 l::1 e 8 ! ?oo 6.0--0 0--0 7.�a4 7.ig5 h6 8 .J.h4 i.g4oo 7.hc6 bxc6 8 .h3= (8. d4 exd4 9. ll'lxd4 ll'lg4 +) 7 ... ib6 7 . . . ll'ld4 8 .ll'lxc5 ll'lxb5t. (8. . . dxc500) 8.�xb6 (8. h3=) 8 axb6 9.c3 (9. ig5=) 9 h6 (9. . . ll'l e n) 10.h3 i.d7 11 .ia4 l::1 e8 12.i.b3 i.e6 13.ic2 d5 14.a3 dxe4 (14 . . . Y«en 14 . . . b5t. 14. .. d400) 1 5.dxe4 ic4 1 6.l;el Y«xdl (1 6. . . l::1 e 7t.) 17.laxdl;!; •..

•..

5.c3 0-0 (5. . . d6t.) 6.0--0 (6. 'i«e2 =) (2 77) 6.i.g5 h6 7.i.h4 g5 8 .ig3 d6 9 .ll'lbd2 a6 (9. . . �h500) (282) 1 0.ia4 ia7 1 1 .0-0= (11. 'i«e2f?oo) I O.ixc6 bxc6 1 1 .0-0= 6.hc6 bxc6 7.ll'lxe5 d5 (2 79) 8.0-0 dxe4 9.d4 id6= 8 . d4 ib6 (8. . . id6 9. exd500) 9.ig5 (9. 0-0=) 9 . . . c5 (9. . . 'i«e800) 10.dxc5 ixc5 1 1 .ll'ld3 ie7 1 2.e5 (12. exd5+) 12 . . . �e4 1 3 .ixe7 Y«xe7 14.0-0 ia6� 8 .ig5 l::1 e 8 (8. . . dxe400) 9 . f4 dxe4 1 0.d4 ib600 (JO . . . ij8+) 6 d5 7.�bd2 ig4 (7. . . l::1 e 8= 7. . . dxe4t.) 8.h3 ih5 9.lael (9. exd5t.) 9 lae8 10.YNe2 a6 11 .ia4 ig6= .••

•••

Chapter 11 (Games 55-65) (Pages 29 1 -3 1 8) 1 .e4 e5 2.c!ll f3 c!ll c 6 3.i.b5 c!ll f6 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0 (29 7) 5 . e5 c!ll e4 6.0-0 a6 7.h.c6= (7. i.c4 d5=) 5 a6 6.1a4 (6. hc6= 6. ic4 c!ll xe4=) 6 ... 1e7 7.gel 7.e5 c!ll e4 8 . c!ll xd4 0-0 9.c!ll f5 d5 I 0.1xc6 (J O. c!ll x e7f= J O. exd6=) 10 . . . bxc6= 7 ... b5 8..ib3 8 . e5 c!ll x e5 9.gxe5 d6= 8 ... d6 9.1d5 c!ll x d5 10.exd5 c!ll e5 11.c!ll xd4 0-0 12.1f4 (12. a4= I 2. c!ll c3 =) 12 1b7= ..•

..•

4.hc6 dxc6 5.d3 (5. c!ll c3 ig4=) (29 7) 5 ...1d6 6.0-0 c5 7.l\'e2 c!ll d7 8.c!ll bd2 c!ll f8 = 4.l\'e2 a6 5.1a4 b5 6.1b3 1e7 7.c3 (291)

7.d4 d5 8. dxe5 c!ll xe4= 7. a4 ib700 7 ... 0-0 8.0-0 d5 9.d3 (9. exd5?!=) 9 ge8 1 0 .lg5 (J O. gel = 1 0. 'lJ.dl = •••

•

J O. c!ll bd2=) 10 ...1e6 ll.c!ll b d2 h6 12 ..ih4 c!ll h5= 4.0-0 c!ll xe4 5.l\'e2 c!ll d6 6.1xc6 dxc6 7.fixe5t fie7 8.fia5 1e6 (304) 8 . . . l\'d8 9.l\'c3 (9. l\'e5 t=) 9 . . . c!ll b 5= 8 . . . b6 9.�c3;!; 9.gel 9.d3 �d7 (9. . . liJf5 1 0. if4;!; 9. . . g600) 1 0.liJd4 ie7 (JO . . . id5?!±) l l .c!ll xe600 9 g6 (9. . . liJ c4;!;) 1 0.l\'e5 ggsoo .•.

s.gel c!ll d6 6.c!ll xe5 ie7 7.i.d3 (298) 7.tvh5 (298) 7 . . . c!ll x e5 8.�xe5 0-0= 7 . . . 0-0 8 .id3 f5oo (8. . . g6=) 7 .ifl liJxe5 8 . 'lJ.xe5 0-0 (301) 9.liJc3 liJe8 I O .liJd5= (J O.d4=) 9.d4 1f6 1 0.'lJ.e l liJf5 l l .d5 d6 1 2.liJd2 ig5 (12 . . . 'lJ.e8;!;) 1 3 .c3 1d7 (13. . . c!ll e 700) 1 4.g3;!; (14. i.d3 ;!;) l l .c3 d5 1 2.if4 (12. id3 liJh4=) 1 2 . . . liJh4 (12 . . . c6=) 1 3 .liJd2 1f5= 7 ... c!ll x e5 8Jbe5 0-0 9.c!ll c3 c6 1 0.b3 1 0.l\'e2 if6 (1 0. . . 'lJ.e800) l l .'lJ.e3 .id4 (JJ . .. g6;!; 11. .. liJeB?? +-) 1 2 .hh7t= (12. 'lJ.h3 g6+) 1 0.�f3 1f6 l l .'lJ.e3 id4= 10 c!ll e8 11 .1b2 (11. �e2= JJ. l\'j3 = JJ. l\'h5=) 11 ... d5 12.l\'f3 1f6 (12 . . . id6=) 13.ge2 c!ll c7 14 .ia3 (14. c!ll a4=) 14 i::l e8 15.i::l a el i::l x e2 16.c!ll x e2 c!ll e6= ..•

•

••.

5.d4 tll d 6 6.i.g5 f6 7.dxe5 (311) 7.1xc6 dxc6 8.tZlxeS ie6+ (8. . ftg5 transposes to 7 . . . tll x e5) 7.tZlxeS fxg5 8 .1xc6 dxc6 9.�hSt g6 I O.lll xg6 hxg6 (J 0. . . 1g4+) 1 1 .�xh8 @f7+ 7 c!lixb5 8.exf6 (8. 1h4+) 8 ... gxf6 9.l:!elt (9.�d5?+) 9 .if4 1e7 (9. . . d5+ 9. . . lll d6�) 1 O.lll h4 lll d600 9 @n 1 0.�dSt (J 0. 1f4 d500) 1 0 ... @g7 ll ..if4 (JJ . 1h4+) ll ... c!lid6 12.c!lih4 l:!g8 13.c!lic3 (13. hd6+) 13 ... @h8 14.�h5 (14. 'fl.adl +) 14 c!li d4 (1 4 . . . b6 15. lll d5�) 15.c!lid5 b6 (15 . . . lll xc2 =) 16.c!lixf6+ (1 6. 'fl.adl 00) •..

•••

..•

6.dxe5 c!lixb5 7 .a4 7.c4 d6= (7. . . lll bd4t) (308)

7 d6 8.e6 (8. axb5+) (308) 8 fxe6 (8. . . he6t) 9.axb5 c!lie7 (9. . . lll b8t) 1 0.c!lic3 c!li g6 (J O. . . lllf5t J O. . . !i.d7!?00) ll .�d4 (JJ . lll g5 =) ll h6 (11. . . �JM) 12.'fl.el @n 13.b6 (13. 'fl.xa 7= 13. �d3 = 13. lll d5�) 13 ... cxb6 14.c!lid5 e5 (14. . . exdS ? +- 14. . . .te n 14. . . 1d700) 15.�e4 (15. �c3 t) 15 ....ie7 1 6 . h4 (1 6. 1d2�) 1 6 hh4+ ..•

•••

..•

•..

7 ... c!libd4 (7. . . lll d6? ?+-) (306) 8.c!lixd4 c!lixd4 (8. . . 1c5t 8. . . d5t) 9.�xd4 d5 10.c!lic3 (J O. exd6=) 10 c6 ll .a5 (JJ. 1e3 = JJ. lll e2 =) 11 ....ifS 12.f4 �d7 13.'fl.f2 (13. lll a4+) 13 ....ie7 14 .ie3 0-0 15.lll a4 (15. �a4 'fl.fd8+) 15 b6+ •..

•

6 ..bc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 (31 6)

•..

7.lll x e5 1e7 (315) 8 .1f4 0-0 9.l':!e l 'fl.e8 (9. . . !i.f6t 9. . . lllf5 t) 1 0.lll d2 1e6= (1 0. . f6=) 8 .lll d2 0-0 9.lll df3 .if6= (9. . . 'fl.e8 J O. 'fl.el f6=) 7 . . . c!lif5 8.�e2 c!li d4 9.c!lixd4 �xd4 10.c!lid2 (1 0. 'fl.dl = J O.h3= J O. lll c3 =) 1 0 ... .if5 11.tll b 3 �e4 12.�xe4 1xe4=

Index of Theoretical Games Game 1 Shirov - Z . Almasi Game 2 Shirov - Sargissian Game 3 Holzke - Levin Game 4 Berescu - Mastrovasilis Game 5 Nijboer - Jonkman Game 6 Adams - Mitkov Game 7 Szelag - Grabarczyk Game 8 Nisipeanu - McShane Game 9 Volokitin - Vallejo Pons Game 10 Elsness - Sepp Game 1 1 J. Polgar - Topalov Game 1 2 Svidler - Topalov Game 13 Vescovi - Harikrishna Game 14 Bacrot - Gyimesi Game 1 5 Stellwagen - Khenkin Game 1 6 Kasimdzhanov - Gyimesi Game 1 7 Lutz - ltkis Game 1 8 Adams - Z. Almasi Game 19 Ehlvest - Mitkov Game 20 Nijboer - Jonkman Game 21 J. Polgar - Ponomariov Game 22 Anand - Vallejo Pons Game 23 Shirov - Naiditsch Game 24 Parligras - Aleksandrov Game 25 Venkatesh - Harikrishna Game 26 Carlsen - P.H. Nielsen Game 27 lordachescu - Rizouk Game 28 Emms - Ferguson Game 29 Z. Almasi - Aleksandrov Game 30 Milman - Kritz Game 3 1 Topalov - Krasenkow Game 3 2 Gouliev - Knoll Game 3 3 EmilV - Hedgehog

1 37 1 39 141 1 43 145 1 47 1 49 151 1 52 155 1 58 1 60 1 64 1 68 1 72 1 73 1 77 1 80 1 83 1 85 1 88 1 90 1 92 195 20 1 209 214 219 224 229 23 1 233 236

Game 34 Leko - Adams Game 35 Cheparinov - Cifuentes Parada Game 36 Anand - Ponomariov Game 37 Jakovenko - Z. Almasi Game 38 Korneev - Jonkman Game 39 Sherzer - Basescu Game 40 Ramesh - Aleksandrov Game 4 1 Kruppa - Aleksandrov Game 42 Shirov - Kramnik Game 4 3 Nevostrujev - Aleksandrov Game 44 Wahls - I. Sokolov Game 45 Kosten - MrFearless Game 46 Shirov - I. Sokolov Game 47 Klovans - Parker Game 48 Kindermann - Z. Almasi Game 49 Kobalia - Bacrot Game 50 lvanchuk - Kramnik Game 5 1 Anand - Topalov Game 52 Jenni - Sargissian Game 53 lnarkiev - Ki. Georgiev Game 54 Svidler - Kramnik Game 5 5 Paehtz - Hebden Game 56 Fressinet - Kramnik Game 5 7 Gharamian - Kharlov Game 5 8 Zhao - Postny Game 59 G. Garcia - Bacrot Game 6 0 Marcelin - Stefansson Game 6 1 Loskutov - Yemelin Game 62 Lacasa Diaz - Granda Zuniga Game 63 Socko - Lautier Game 64 Papin - Karjakin Game 65 Vedder - Aleksandrov

237 239 242 245 248 250 253 257 259 26 1 264 266 269 272 274 277 279 282 284 285 287 29 1 294 297 298 30 1 304 306 308 311 315 316

Games/Chess

The Berlin Wall The Berlin variation of the Spanish is one of the most popular openings among world class players. After 1.e4 e5 2. ttJ f3 ttJ c6 3..ib5 ttJ f6 Black can playa completely sound opening based mainly on understanding rather than memorizing theory. Many opening books make this claim, but the scarcity of forcing lines in the Berlin mean that in this case it is true. The trick is to gain the requisite understanding, and this is where John Cox's eloquent prose comes into its own. After reading his explanations it will be clear why this robust opening has gained the nickname The Berlin Wall.

• • •

Expert guidance on one of the soundest openings Play the opening that Kramnik used to dethrone Kasparov A trustworthy opening that requires little memorization of theory

John Cox is a lawyer and International Master from London. He is an experienced author whose previous books have received high praise.

QUALITY CHESS www.qualitychessbooks.com