The New Old Indian: A Repertoire for Black Against 1 d4 1857446674, 9781857446678

Citation preview

Alexander Cherniaeν Eduard Prokuronoν

thenew

Ο

Ιπ

•

Ian

a repertoire for Black against 1 d4

EVERYMAN CHESS Gloucester Publishers plc www.everymanchess.com

First published in 2011 by Gloucester Publishers plc (formerly Eveτyman Publishers plc), Noτthburgh House, 10 Noτthburgh Street, London EC1V ΟΑΤ Copyτight

© 2011 Alexander Cherniaev and Eduard Prokuronov

The rig ht of Alexander Cherniaev and Eduard Prokuronov to be identified as the authors ofthis work has been asseτted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. ΑΙΙ

rights reserved. Νσ paτt of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system στ transmitted in any form στ by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording στ otherwise, without prior permission ofthe publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data Α

catalogue record for this book is available fτom the British Library.

ISBN: 978 1 85744 6678 Distributed in Noτth America by The Globe Pequot Press, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CΤ 06437-0480.

Ρ.Ο Βσχ

480,

ΑΙΙ

other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Noτthburgh House, 10 Noτthburgh Street, London EC1V ΟΑΤ tel: 020 72537887 fax: 020 7490 3708 email: [email protected]; website: www.everymanchess.com Eveτyman

is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under licence fτom Random House Inc.

Eνeryman

Chess Series

Chief advisor: ΒΥτση Jacobs Commissioning editor: John Emms Assistant editor: Richard Palliser Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton. Cover design by Horatio Monteverde. Printed and bound in Great Britain by Clays, Bungay, Suffolk.

Contents

Bibliogτaphy

4

Preface

5

Part Ι: The Old Indian

1

Gheorghiu's 4 ... e4

2

1 d4 ttJf6 2 c4 d6 3 ttJC3 e5 without 4 ttJf3

39

3

Preventing e2-e4 with ...~f5

72

7

Part 11: Completing the Repertoire

4

2 ttJf3 d6 without 3 c4

108

5

White's Other Second Moves

130

Index of Variations

159

Index of Complete Games

160

Bibliography

Books

Batsford Chess Openings 2, Garry Kasparov & Raymond Keene (Batsford 1994) Grandmaster Repertoire 2: 1 d4 Volume Two, Boris Avrukn (Quality Cness 2010) Janowski Indian Defense, Eric Scnil1er (Cness Enterprises 1988) Nunn's Chess Openings, Jonn Nunn, Granam Burgess, Jonn Emms & Joe Gallagner (Everyman Cness 1999) Play 1 d4!, Ricnard Pal1iser (Batsford 2003) Starting Out: 1 d4, Jonn (οχ (Everyman Cness 2006) Starting Out: d-pawn Attacks, Ricnard Pal1iser (Everyman Cness 2008) Starting Out: The Trompowsky Attack, Ricnard Pal1iser (Everyman Cness 2009) Winning with the Trompowsky, Peter Wel1s (Batsford 2003) Electronic and Periodicals

Chess Informant, Mega Database 2011 (CnessBase) and TWIC.

Preface

Ιη this book Ι will show you some fascinating new ideas that have been developed by modern grandmasters in the Old Indian Defence. Studying them will give you a very practical approach with Black after 1 d4. The main move order of our suggested repertoire is 1 d4 tbf6 2 c4 d6, but then to navigate away from the classical Old Indian lines with ...tbbd7 and ... e5. The concept of this book is that οη the one hand it offers a complete, independent repertoire for Black, and οη the other hand King's Indian players may use our f1exible move order to avoid some undesirable systems. Ι have played a lot of these fresh lines myself. The biggest highlight was a win against Korchnoi in 2009. Among other grandmasters ννπο are experts οη this modern handling of the Old Indian, there are Vladimir Georgiev, Andrei Volokitin, Zahar Efimenko, Igor Glek and Anna Muzychuk. Ι had some interesting conversations and undertook some analysis οη the opening with them, mostly during the Olympiad in Khanty-Mansiysk last year. Ι want to thank them all for sharing their opinions. Ι also did some analysis with Anatoly Karpov and Vladislav Tkachiev not experts in this particular opening, but great players. Ι thank especially Anatoly Evgenyevich, ννπο opposed me in a thematic blitz match with our opening, giving me the possibility to feel and benefit from his level of positional understanding. Our repertoire will focus οη active piece play, control of the centre, in particular the e4-square, and we have in store some surprises for unsuspecting ορρο­ nents! Moreover, you won't be required to learn endless theory playing these lines. Why? Well, simply, sometimes there is not yet a lot of existing theory. There are many unexplored paths in this opening, even within the criticallines. So this book contains a considerable amount of original analysis, with emphasis οη the critical positions. Of course these ideas need to be tested further in practice and that's where you come in. Ι very much hope that these secret weapons will give the club player an excellent opening repertoire against 1 d4, and will also prove useful for aspiring masters οτ even grandmasters. Moreover, Ι hope you will learn from my experience with the New Old Indian and enjoy playing creative

5

The New O/d /ndian

chess in original positions as much as Ι do. Finally, my thanks go to my co-author, Eduard Prokuronov, for all his invaluable help throughout the project. Aleχander

6

Cherniaev, London, Apri12011

ChapterOne Gheorghiu's 4 ...e4

1 d4lΔf6 2 c4 d6 3lΔc3 e5 4lΔf3 e4!?

This is quite an unusual defence, but one which gives 81ack immediate activity. 81ack plays aggressively fτom the start and tτies to obtain a space advantage. His play will be in the centre and οη the kingside. lη 8elfort in 1988, the English Gτandmasteτ Jonathan Speelman successfully employed 4... e4 against Kaspaτov ννπο τesponded with 5 lΔg5. Ι have an eχcellent τecoτd with this line and have played it against grandmasteτs Victoτ Koτchnoi, Simon Williams and Danny Goτmally. Ι am ηονν happy

to bring to a wideτ audience my analysis and ideas in these lines. lη the 2009 Staunton Memoτial Touτnament in London, Koτchnoi τe­ plied with 5lΔd2, a move suggested by Gelleτ ννπο gave it an eχclamation maτk, but the τesulting positions are faτ fτom cleaτ and τequiτe moτe analysis. Williams and Gormally played 5 lΔg5, but after 5.. :iHe7, one of Floτin Gheoτghiu's ideas fτom the eaτly 1970s, both were οη unfamiliaτ ground and weτe unable to pτove any advantage. lη general White has thτee kinds of strategy conceτning the advanced pawn οη e4: a) Το attack the pawn in every way possible, with both knights, ~c2 and the undermining g4 - see Games 1, 2, 4 and6. b) Το eχchange the pawn with f2-f3, as weΊΙ see in Game 5. c) Το ignore it before finishing development, as White does in Games 3 and 7. The first method allows a shaτp bat7

The New Old Indian

tle to begin at an early stage in the opening, whereas the eχchange of pawns leads to a nonstandard structure. Here the basic resource that Black has in the centre, ... c7-c5, can lead to a structure similar to the Samisch Benoni, with the difference that White has a c-pawn instead of a g-pawη. Finally, the preservation of the pawn structure in centre usually results in White playing οη the queen's f1ank and Black οη the king's.

Game1 Z.Gyimesi-A.Volokitin German ιeague 2005 1 d4 ltJf6 2 c4 d6 3 ltJC3 e5 4 ltJf3 e4 5

ltJg5 'Wie7 6 'iWC2ltJc6!?

Black immediately attacks the d4pawn. This interesting continuation leads to a shaτp struggle linked with a pawn sacτifice. Black obtains some compensation for the pawn, although it's questionable whether it's quite enough.

8

7d5 Α cτitical advance, but in practice White has often preferred: a) Το eχchange the central pawns is absolutely not dangerous for Black: 7 ltJgχe4 ltJχe4 8 ltJχe4 ltJχd4 9 'i!fd3 ltJc6 10 ltJc3 Sιe6 11 b3 0-0-0 and Black was ahead in development in F.De Andres Gonalons-F.Ribeiro, San Sebastian 1996. b) After 7 e3 Black is committed to playing 7... i.f5. Here White has a wide choice of moves, but most of them are not dangerous for Black: b1) The immediate 8 f3? is bad due to 8... ltJχd4. b2) Another way to break through the e4-outpost is 8 g4 3ιχg4 9 ..tg2, which leads to mass eχchanges οη e4: 9... iιf5 10 ltJgχe4 ltJχe4 11 iιχe4 i.χe4 12 "iiχe4 1!Vχe4 13 ltJχe4 Φd7 14 wf1 f5 15 ltJC3 ..te7 16 iι.d2 f4 17 Φe2 :hf8 with an even position, V.LazarevM.Tratar, Trieste 2005. b3) 8 ltJh3 'iVd7 9 a3 ltJe7 10 ltJg5 (a time-wasting return, but White decided to attack the e4-pawn again, as it is not directly protected) 10... c6! 11 d5 .:!c8 12 dχc6 ltJχc6 13 b3 h6 14ltJh3 g5 15 iιb2 ltJe5 16 1:.d1 iιg7 saw Black taking the upper hand in J.LautierB.Damljanovic, Spanish Team Championship 2004. b4) 8 h4 was Lautier's neχt try, but 8...h6 9 ltJh3 g5 10 ltJd5 'iWd8 11 ..td2 ..tg7 12 0-0-0 'Wid7 13 ..te2 ltJχd5 14 cχd5ltJχd415 eχd4 e3 16 ..td3 ..tχd3 17 'Wiχd3 eχd2+ 18 'Wiχd2 0-0-0 gave Black

Gheorghiu's 4 ... e4

good play in J.Lautier-I.Glek, Corsica (rapid) 2005. b5) 8 lbd5 lbxd5 9 cχd5 ikxg5 10 dxc6 b6 11 h4 'iWg6 12 d5 ~e7 13 ~d2 ο-ο 14 .ic3 .ig4 15 .ie2 iιxe2 16 'iVxe2 iιf6 and after exchanging the bishops, the d5-pawn became a target ϊη P.Meister-J.Zwanzger, German League 2007. b6) 8 d5 lbb8 9 f3 allows White to gain an extra pawn by replacing Black's e-pawn with his f-pawn.

However, the resulting structure is good for Black as both doubled epawns become a target: 9... lbbd7 10 lbgxe4 (10 lbb5 lbC5 11 b4 lbd3+ 12 .ixd3 exd3 13 'iVa4 ~d7 14lbxC7+ ~d8 15 lbb5 lbxd5 16 e4 h6 is unclear) 10 ... iιxe4 11 fxe4 (οτ 11 lbxe4lbxe4 12 fxe4 g6 13 iιd3 .1i.g7 14 iιd2 'iWh4+ 15 g3 'ii'g5 16 0-0-0 ο-ο 17 Itdf1 a5 which favoured Black ϊη H.Mecking-R.Disconzi da Silva, Guarapuava 2006) 11 ... g6 12 lbb5 1i'd8 13 ~d2 (if 13 b4 a6 14 lbC3 a5! 15 bxa5 .1:.xa5 16 iιe2 .ig7 17 ο-ο ο-ο 18l:tb11:!.a7 19 a4l:te8 20 'itJh1lbc5 and Black has slightly the better

chances, V.lazarev-A.5trikovic, Lisbon 2001) 13 ....1i.h6!? 14 .id3 a6 15 lbc3 lbg4 with counterplay. c) 7lbd5 leads to a forced continuation, where Black's king loses castling rights, but White's pieces are insufficiently developed: 7...lbxd4! 8 'iVa4+ ~d7 9 lbxc7+ 'itJd8 10 "ii'd1 'itJXC7 11 ~xd4 h6 12lbh3 g5 and Black is better, Z.Mamedjarova-B.5avchen ko, Gjovik 2008. d) With 7 iιe3 White prepares lbd5 ideas, while keeping both the d4-pawn and g5-knight protected. Then 7...~f5 8 lbd5 lbxd5 (better than 8...lbxd4 9 iιxd4 lbxd5 10 cχd5 'iWxg5 11 e3 when White is better, D.Rajkoνic-S.5aric, Kragujevac 2009) 9 cχd5 lbd8 10 g4 ~xg4 11 'iVxe4 (11 lbxe4 c6 gives White an edge) 11... iιd7 12 .ί:ί.c1 :c8 13 .ig2 h6 14 "ii'xe7+ .ixe7 15 lbe4 f5 16 lbC3 .if6 17 f4 c5 produced a roughly level game ϊη V.5hishkin-N.Firman, Krakow 2007. 7...lbd4

81i'bl Somewhat more cτitical than 8 1i'd1?! lbf5 (avoiding the fiendish

9

The New Q/d Indian

8.. :iie5? 9 lbcxe4! lbxe4 10 f4 which favours White) 9 g4 (οτ 9 e3 h6 10 lbh3 g5 11 lbg1 ~g7 12 lbge2 ο-ο 13 lbg3 lbh4 and Black is better, M.Gavi1an Diaz-A.5trikovic, Malaga 2009) 9 ...lbh4 10 ~d4lbxg411 ~xe4 (l1lbgxe4lbe5!

gives Black good play) 11 ...~f5 12 "ii'xe7+ .i.xe7 with a slight advantage for Black. 8... e3! Instead 8...Μ 9 lbgxe4 (οτ 9 e3 hxg5 10 exd4 g4 11 .i.g5! ~f5 12 g3 g6 13 ~C1 when White has slightly the better chances) 9 ...lbXe4 10 lbxe4 ~f5 11 f3 doesn't give Black full compensation for the pawn.

9 fxe3 lbfS 10 e4lbh4 11 .i.f4 Ιη

this

cτitical

position, White also

has: a) 11 lbf3 lbg6 12 g3 lbd7 gives Black decent compensation thanks to his use ofthe e5-square. b) The latest practice shows good results for White after 11 g3!?, but the total number of games is veτy small and much more testing is required. Moreover, there are several possible

10

improvements for Black after 11 ...lbg6 and ηονν:

Μ) 12 .i.g2 lbe5 (another way of setting up the pieces deserves definite attention: 12 .. :iid8!? followed by ....i.e7, ... c6, with the idea of .. :iib6, and ...lbg4: for example, 13 ο-ο .i.e7 14 'i!Vc2 ο-ο 15 lbf3 c6 16 b3 lbg4, giving Black good play οη the dark squares; ....i.f6, ....:!.e8 and ... ~6 may follow) 13 "ii'c2 g6 14 lbf3 lbfd7? 15 lbb5! ~d8 16 .i.g5 lbxf3+ 17 exf3 ~xg5 18 lbXC7+ with a large advantage for White, A.Moiseenko-Z.Jovanovic, European Championship, Rijeka 2010. b2) 12 i..h3 lbe5 (12 ... ~xh3!? 13 lbxh3 lbe5 deserved attention, keeping the possibility of long castling: for example, 14 "ii'C2 0-0-0 15 ο-ο h5 16 ..ig5 ~d7 17 lbf2 il.e7 18 'i!Vd2 lbfg4 would have been quite unclear) 13 ~xc811xc8 14 ~C2 lbfd7 15 lbh3 h6 16 b3 g6 17 ~e3 a6 18 lbf2 h5 19 h3 ~h6 20 .ixh6 kf.xh6 21 ~d2 kth8 22 ο-ο h4 23 g4lbf6 24 lbd3 lbh7 25 'ii'f4 gave White the better chances in E.Najer-P.Haba, German League 2009.

Gheorghiu's 4 ... e4

11... tZΊg6 11 ...tZΊh5 12 .i.d2 is a touch better for White. 12 e3 h6 13 tZΊf3 tZΊxf4! Better than 13 ... tZΊh5?! 14 'iVc1 (14 g3 gives White an edge too) 14...tZΊh4 15 tZΊxh4 'iVxh4+ 16 g3 'iWd8 17 .i.e2 with advantage to White. 14 exf4g5!

Black must try to exploit White's temporarily-overextended position. 15 c5! Instead 15 ..Iίd3 gxf4! 16 'iVc1 tZΊg4! (if 16 ...1:tg8 17 'iixf4 ~xg2 180-0-0 .ί:Ig4 19 'iWd2 tZΊd7 20 tZΊb5 and White has slightly the better chances) 17 'iWxf4 h5 gives Black decent compensation. 15 ... a6! Correct, as 15 ... gxf4 16 .i.b5+ iιd7 17 .i.xd7+ 'iii'xd7 18 cxd6 cxd6 19 'iWc1 'iVg4 20 ο-ο would have been excellent forWhite. 16 iιd3? The best approach was 16 1WC2! gxf4 17 'iVa4+ when 17 ... .i.d7 (17 ...tZΊd7 18 tZΊb5 gives White the better chances too) 18 c6 bxc6 19 dxc6 iιe6 20 iιd3

.i.g7 21 ο-ο ο-ο 22 1:lae1 favours White. 16..•gxf417 ~C1 tZΊd7? Better is 17 ...tZΊg4! 18 'iWxf4 h5 19 cxd6 cxd6 20 h3 .i.h6 21 'iWg3 tZΊe3 with compensation. 18 cxd6 'iVxd6 19 ο-ο .i.g7 20 ~h1 tZΊe5 21 .i.b5+ ~e7

22 'iVxf4? Returning the favour. Instead 22 .te2! tZΊxf3 23 .txf3 .i.e5 24 tZΊa4 gives White an edge. 22 ... axb5 23 tZΊxe5? 23 tZΊxb5 would have been very unclear: for example, 23 ... tZΊg6 24 "iic1 ~6! 25 tZΊxc7 1:r.a5 26 d6+ Φχd6 27 1:r.d1+ Φe7 28 tZΊd5+ .:ι.χd5 29 .:txd5 iιe6 30 :d2 1:!.c8 with by ηονν a slight advantage for Black. 23 ....i.xe5 24 1Wxf7+ Φd8 25 tZΊxb5 "i8e7 26 'iii'f2 1:.a6! Obtaining control over b6. 27 d6? This breakthrough idea doesn't work here, although after 27 :ac1!? 1:.98 (White's idea was to meet 27 ...1:.f6? with 28 d6!) 28 d6 iιxd6 Black was better in any case.

11

The New Qld Indian

27 ... i.xd6 Also possible was 27 ... cxd6!? 28 %:tac1 i.d7 29 tΔC7 ~c6 30 tΔds 'ilVgs and White's compensation is insufficient. 28 ':I'ad1 i.d7 29 tΔxd6 .ί:!.Χd6 30 lIVa7 i.c8! 31 'iWa5 .ί::te8 32 h3 "it'e5

Black has fully consolidated his ρο­ sition and went οη to win. 33 'ila4 i.d7 34 'i!Va8+ i.c8 35 'ila4 I:txd1 36 ':xd1+ Φe7 37 .:I.d5 ~f4! 38 'i!Vd4 'ittf7 39 .ί::tC5 ':I'e7 40 ~C3 ~f1+ 41 'iith2 'i!Vf4+ 42 Φg1 1:1d7 43 'i!Vc4+ 'iite7 44 .:I.f3 1:td1+ 45 φ,2 'iWd2+ 46 'ittg3 'i!Vd6+ 47 'itth4 i.e6 48 'iWC3 ~d4! 49 g4 "iVe5 50 lIVa3+ Φd7 51 'i!Ve3 h5 52 .ί::tf4 hxg4 53 hxg4 i.C4 0-1

to be worτied by ideas of d4-d5.

7 g4 The most principled and also the sharpest continuation. Others: a) 7 f3 also leads to very complex play, where Black generally has fair compensation after 7 ...tΔc6 8 fxe4 (8 dS tΔe5 9 tΔgxe4 tΔxe4 10 tΔxe4 g6 11 "iVa4+ iιd7 12 ~3 i.g7 13 'iVxb7 .:I.c8 14 e3 ο-ο 15 i.e2 i.fs 16 ο-ο .:I.b8 17 "it'a6 i.xe4 18 fxe4 tΔd7 19 i.f3 tΔC5 20 ~as i.xb2 21 i.xb2 ':I'xb2 22 ~xa7 .:I.fb8 gave Black a perfectly acceptable position in L.Pytlik-J.Vozda, corτespon­ dence 2003) 8...i.g6.

Game2

D.Gormally-A.Cherniaev London 2009 1 d4 tΔf6 2 c4 d6 3 tΔC3 e5 4 tΔf3 e4 5 tΔg5 "iVe7 6 'i!Vc2 iιf5 Α less-risky approach than Volokitin's 6... tΔc6!? It does still entail a pawn sacrifice, but Black ηο longer has

12

Black has sacrificed a pawn, but

Gheorghiu's 4 ... e4

keeps White's centre under strong pressure. Νονν: a1) 9 d5 t2Je5 10 g3 c6 11 i.g2 t2JxC4 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 ~M t2Je5 14 ο-ο t2Jfd7 15 .te3 ~d8 16 t2Jf3 .te7 17 t2Jxe5 t2Jxe5 18 i.d4 "iVd7 19 1:tad1 1ib7 20 t2Jd5 Sιd8 21 t2Jf4 Sιb6 22 Φh1 Sιxd4 23 ':'xd4 .:!.d8 24 .:tfd1 ο-ο 25 Sιf3 "iVxb2 26 ':'xd6 1:txd6 27 1:.xd6 'iWb6 28 "i!fd1 ':'e8 led to an approximately equal position ϊη l.5harpe-A.Cherniaev, British League 2007. a2) 9 e3 0-0-0 10 a3 d5! 11 cxd5 t2Jxd5 12 t2Jf3 t2JxC3 13 bxc3 Sιxe4 14 Sιd3 f5 15 ο-ο g6 16 Sιxe4 fxe4 17 t2Jd2 Sιh6 18 1:le1 was A.CherniaevM.Cornette, Geneva 2006, and here 18 ...lIhe8 deserved attention, followed by ...'δ'h4 and ...:d5-h5. That game made me realize that this whole variation had been rather underestimated. a3) 9 t2Jd5? 12Jxd4! 10 "iVa4+ "iVd7 11 t2JxC7+ Φd8 is a little trap which has caught out a few players.

V.Vorotnikov, Moscow 1996) 12 ...t2Jxe4 13 "iVd1 t2Jxb5 14 cxb5 Wixb5 15 t2Jxe4 .txe4 16 e3 ~e5 17 Sιd2 i.e7 18 ~M i.h4+ Black already had a decisive advantage ϊη I.Glek-V.Zhuravliov, Blagoveschensk 1988. b) 7 e3 leads to a more established pawn structure, where each opponent mostly plays οη the flank where he has a space advantage: for example, 7... h6 8 t2Jh3 c6 9 Sιd2 "iVd7 10 t2Jf4 g5 11 t2Jfe2 d5 12 c5 t2Ja6! (12 ... i.g7 13 Μ) 13 a3 t2JC7 14 b4 h5 15 :b1 h4 16 h3 .th6 1712JC1 t2Je6 18 Vi'a4 ο-ο 19 b5 Sιg6 20 bxc6 bxc6 21 ~b4 t2JhS 22 t2Jb3 1:.ae8! 23 t2Ja5 t2Jd8 with counterplay, N.Giffard-T.Manouck, Puteaux 1980. 7 •••i.g6! Το take the pawn either way is worse: a) 7 ... Sιxg4 8 t2Jgxe4 t2Jbd7 9 .tg2 c6 10 Sιf4 t2Jxe4 11 t2Jxe4 .tf5 12 t2Jxd6+ 'ii'xd6 13 Wixf5 ~xd4 14 ο-ο g6 15 :Lad1 with advantage for White, P.HabaR.Lau, Austrian League 1998. b) 7...t2Jxg4 8 t2Jgxe4 is also good for White. Black wants to maintain his cramping e-pawn for as 10ng as possible. 8SιB2

After 12 t2Jb5 (12 Wid1 ΦχC7 13 'iWxd4 h6 14 t2Jh3 Sιxe4 15 .tf4 "iVa4 was also better for Black ϊη B.Annakov-

After 8 t2Jd5 t2Jxd5 9 cxd5 t2Jd7 10 "iVxC7 t2Jf6 11 'iVC4 t2Jxg4 12 'ifl>5+ Φd8 13 i.g2 e3 Black had the better chances ϊη F.Gonzalez Velez-V.Jansa, Benasque 1999. 8 ...t2Jc6 8 ... e3?! is an interesting but likely insufficient idea: 9 ~a4+! c6 10 i.xe3

13

The New O/d Indian lΔxg4

11 .tf4 lΔf6 12 C5!? (12 d5 ΎWd7 13 dxc6 lΔxc6 14 :d1 is also better for White), with the idea of 12 ... dXc5 13 d5 'iVd7 14 iιxb8 with a decisive advantage for White.

S.Belkhodja, Meudon 1990) 15 ...-νwd7 is about equal. Black will expand with ...f5 followed by ....te7-f6. b) 9 lΔgxe4lΔxe4 10 i.xe4 lΔxd4 11 -νwd3 (11 'ilVa4+ 'iνd7 12 -νwxd7+ was unϊη helpfully agreed drawn A.5hariyazdanov-E.Dizdarevic, Pula 1999) 11 ...lΔe6 12 iιe3 iVh4 13 h3 .te7 140-0-0 i.g5 15 i.xg5 'iVxg5+ 16 ΎWd2 -νwxd2+ 17 :xd2 .txe4 18 lΔxe4 VZ-V2 I.Farago-F.Gheorghiu, Baile Herculane 1982. Clearly Black has ησ problems here. c) 9 lΔd5 deprives Black of castling rights, at the cost of a pawn, and leads to interesting and complex play.

ge3 Ιη this critical position, White also has: a) 9 d5 lΔe5 (not 9...lΔd4?! 10 'iνd1!) 10 lΔgxe4 (10 'iνM+ leads to an approximately equal endgame after 10.. :YWd7 11 'iVxd7+ Φχd7 12 lΔgxe4 lΔxe4 13 lΔxe4, as in E.GasanovV.Varavin, Alushta 2001, and then 13 ...lΔxg4 14 lΔg3 h5) 10...lΔxe4 11 iιxe4 (11 lΔxe4 lΔxg4 12 h3 was preferred in J.Lautier-B.Gulko, Horgen 1995, and here 12 ... lΔe5!? requires testing: for example, 13 h4 h6 14 h5 .th7 15 iιf4 0-0-0 is about equal) 11...lΔxg4 12 h4 (after 12 'iνa4+ Φd8!? White should take care about his σννη king and 13 'ii'c2 'iνh4 14 e3 iιe7 15 'iνe2 lΔxf2 16 -νwxf2 i.xe4 led to a decisive advantage for Black in Ι. KutsykV.5avon, Alushta 1999) 12 ... 0-0-0 13 f3 lΔe5 14 h5 .txe4 15 iVxe4 (A.Vaisser-

14

After 9...lΔxd4 (worse is 9... lΔxd5 10 e3 because 11 -νwM 'ilVxg5 12 SΙxe3 'iVxg4 13 iLf3 gives White the better chances) 10 'iνM+ 'iVd7 11 lΔXC7+ Φd8 12 ~d1 (preferable to 12 'iVxd7+ Φχd7 13 lbxa8 lΔc2+ 14 Φd1 lΔxa1 15 iLe3 SΙe7 16 Φd2 :xa8 17 .ί:txa1 h6 18lΔh3 lbxg4 with a decisive advantage for Black, W.5chmidt-T.Manouck, Bagneux 1981) 12 ... ι;;t>XC7! (12 ...'iνXC7 13 iVxd4 'iVC5 14 'iVxc5 dXc5 15 h4 favours cχd5

Gheorghiu's 4 ... e4

White) 13 'iNxd4 iYxg4 14 ο-ο i.e7 15 i.e3 l:!.hd8 (preparing to bring the king to safety νia d7 and e8) 16 ~ad1 b6 17 b4 Wd7 18 lΔxe4 i.xe4 19 f3 iVg6 20 fxe4 We8 the situation is dynamical1y balanced. Black has successful1y evacuated his king and wants to establish a blockade ση e5, but White's long-range pieces stil1 have some potential.

f4?!, but this favoured Black as the e3pawn was weak after 17 ... i.h5 18 ο-ο Wh8 19 i.C3 ':'ae8. Instead, White should have chosen 17 lΔf4 i.f7 18 0-0-0, which would have given him an edge. b) 9... d5!? with the idea of ... lΔb4 also requires more testing.

10h4 9 ••. 0-0-0

Here Black has some virtual1yunexplored alternatives: a) 9 ...lΔxg4 10 lΔgxe4 f5 11 lΔd5 ~d7 12 lΔec3 (στ 12 h3 lΔxe3 13 i.xe3 fxe4 14 i.xe4 0-0-0 15 i.xg6 hxg6 16 iVxg6 lΔe7 17 lΔxe7+ i.xe7 18 iVxg7 which gave Black kingside pressure and compensation for the pawns in G.Kal1ai-W.5chmid, Lenk 1989) 12 ... i.e7 13 lΔxe7 (after 13 'ifb3 1:.b8 14 i.d2 i.h4 15 ο-ο ο-ο 16 h3 lΔf6 17 lΔxf6+ i.xf6 18 lΔd5 i.g5 19 f4 i.h4 Black was better in V.Hort-A.Miltner, German League 1997) 13 ...iVxe7 14lΔd5 'iVd7 15 h3 lΔh6 16 i.d2 ο-ο was played in J.Ovchinikova-V.Varavin, Perm 1997. Ιη this position White continued with 17

This leads to interesting complications and there doesn't seem to be anything better for White: a) 10 lΔgxe4? is bad due to 10... d5! 11 cχd5 (not 11 lΔxd5? :xd5 12 cχd5 lΔb4 13 ~a4 i.xe4 with a decisive advantage for Black, T.Braun-A.Miltner, Bad Wiessee 2002) 11 ...lΔb4 12 'iWb1 lΔbxd5 13 lΔxd5 (White was also in some trouble after 13 f3 lΔxC3 14 bxC3 lΔxe4 15 fxe4 ~4+ in G.BorgE.Dizdarevic, Internet (blitz) 2003) 13 ...:xd5 14 f3 hS 15 g5 lΔXN 16 fxe4 .ί:txg5 was excel1ent for Black in P.5kalik-V.Varavin, Anapa 1991. b) 10 a3 lΔxg4 11lΔgxe4 f5 12 lΔd5 'ifh4 13 lΔg3 lle8 sees White fighting for equality.

15

The New O/d Indian

10... h6 lo ... liJb4!? reaches another complicated position which seems at least okay for Black. The critical line is 11 'ii'a4liJd3+ 12 We2 wb8 13 h5, but after 13 ...liJχg4 14 liJgχe4 .iχe4 15 liJχe4 f5 16 Wχd3 fχe4+ 17 Φe2 'ii'f7 the safety of his king is a problem for White. 11 h5 hxg5 12 hxg6 l:!.xh1+ 13 .ixh1 liJb4 14 'iVa4liJd3+ 15 We2 'i'e6 16 f3

play for a win.

27 a4 .:th2 28 'iW1 .ig5 29 Wf2 ..th4+ 30 Wf1.i.g5 31 Wf2 .i.h4+ 32 Φf1

vz-vz

Game3 Τ.Roussel

Roozmon Z.Efimenko

Montreat 2005 The critical moment in the game. Ι spent much time here. 16... a6?! Unfortunately not best. Instead 16 ... c5!? 17liJχe4liJχe4 18 fχe4liJb4 19 .id2 'i'χC4+ with compleχ play οτ the simple 16 ...fχg6 should haνe been preferred. 17 liJxe4 liJxe4 18 fxe4 liJXC1+ 19 ':XC1 ~xg4+ 20 .if3 'iWg3 21 b4 Instead 21 gχf7 g4 22 .ih1 'i!Vh2+ 23 Φd3 ~χb2 24 'i'c2 giνes White a small

1 d4 liJf6 2 c4 d6 3 liJC3 e5 4 liJf3 e4 5 liJg5 ~e7 Νονν we will turn our attention to those lines where White does not go after the e4-pawn with 6 WHc2 .

adνantage.

21 ... g4 22 .ih1 .ie7 23 'iVd1 fxg6 24 'iWg1 'i'xg1 25 ':xg1l:.h8 26 .ig2 .i.f6 ΒΥ ηονν Ι was short of time, but in any case Black has ηο real chances to

16

6 h4

Gheorghiu's 4 ... e4

White secures some space οη the kingside and ensures a comfoτtable retreat square for his knight, but οη the other hand, this approach costs a tempo and is potentially weakening. 8efore exploring 6 h4, we should mention too: a) 6 g3 is another 10ng-term strategical move and was recommended in NCo. After 6... h6 7 tΔh3 81ack has: a1) After 7... g5 the knight οη h3 is temporarily out of play, but the weakening of the black kingside may begin to tell: for example, 8 i.g2 i.f5 9 "iib3 c6 10 ο-ο .i.g7 11 f3 ο-ο 12 tΔf2 exf3 13 exf3 tΔa6 14 g4 i.e6 15 d5 tΔC5 16 ~d1 cxd5 17 cxd5 ~d7 181:.e1 'i!Vd8 19 .i.e3 J::te8 20 b4 tΔa6 21 'iVb3 slightly favours White, S.5avchenko-V.Zhuravliov, St Petersburg 1992. a2) With 7... g6 81ack keeps a solid position οη the kingside, albeit without limiting the fuτther movement of White's knight. After 8 i.g2 .i.g7 9 ο-ο ο-ο 10 tΔf4 c6 11 f3 g5 12 fxe4!? (sacτi­ ficing a piece for just two pawns, but White also obtains a very strong pawn centre - this idea in the spirit of the Cochrane Gambit, 1 e4 e5 2 tΔf3 tΔf6 3 tΔxe5 d6 4 tΔxf7!?) 12 ... gxf4 13 gxf4 Φh8 14 f5 J:lg8 15 i.f4 tΔh5 16 i.e3 i.f6 17 .i.xh6 .i.g5 18 e3 .i.xh6 19 'iνxh5 White had full compensation for the piece in 8.Chatalbashev-Z.Jovanovic, Rijeka 2007. a3) 7... ~f5 allows White an interesting manoeuvre in tΔf4-g2!?-e3 (recalling Nimzowitsch!), in order to pressure

the d5-square: 8 tΔf4 c6 9 tΔg2 d5 10 tΔe3 .i.e6 11 ~g2 iνd7 12 a3 b5 13 b3 tΔa6 14 ο-ο tΔC7 15 cxb5 cxb5 16 f3 was a touch better for White in M.HrivnakR.Hasangatin, Fτydek Mistek 1997. a4) The f1exible 7... c6 might well be best.

Νονν:

a41) After 8 i..g2 the bishop takes the g2-square away from White's knight, so ηονν it's sensible to play 8... i.f5 9 e3 g5 10 tΔg1 (White should spend some tempi to return the knight to the action) 10....i.g7 11 tΔge2 tΔa6 12 a3 (Vadim Milov has successfully played this position as White, but we believe the reason for his good results here is his high class, as objectively White hasn't any advantage here) 12 ... d5 13 cxd5 cxd5 14 .i.d2 ο-ο 15 h3 i.e6 16 g4 tΔe8 17 tΔg3 tΔd6 18 f3 exf3 19 i.xf3 tΔC7 wasn't at all easy to assess in V.Milov-A.Zapata, Merida 2006. a42) 8 tΔf4 g6 (again, if 8... g5 9 tΔg2 has the idea of tΔe3) 9 h4 (ηονν 9 tΔg2 .i.h3! is a very unusual way to exchange the light-squared bishops, but

17

The New Q/d Indian

it seems positionally desirable for Black, as he will put his pawns οη light squares: 10 liJe3 iιxf1 11 Φχf1 i.g7 12 b3 ο-ο 13 iιa3 a6 14 d5 c5 15 .1:ϊ.b1 liJbd7 16 b4 cχb4 17 i.xb4 1:tfc8 and Black was better Ίη R.FrombachG.5chebler, Weτther 2006) 9... i.g7 10 e3 (this kind of set-up weakens the light squares) 10...liJa6 11 i.g2 ο-ο 12 b3 i.g4 13 iVd2 .1:ϊ.fe8 14 iιa3 "iWd7 15 1:tc1 liJC7 16 ZΙc2 :ac8 17 liJce2 d5 18 liJC3 g5 and Black is better, F.CruzD.Paunovic, La Roda 2009. b) 6 liJh3 c6 7 g3 h6 8 liJf4 transposes to variation 'a42'. c) 6 f3 is another principled way to play. After 6... exf3 7 gxf3 White gets a strong pawn centre, but the kingside is somewhat weakened.

C1) 7...h6 8 liJh3 g5 leaves Black in danger of over-extending. 9 liJf2 c5 10 h4! gxh4 11 .1:ϊ.χh4liJC6 12 liJd5 liJxd5? 13 1ie4! saw him cτashing to defeat in Y.Yakovich-S.Novikov, Sochi 2006. C2) 7... g6 is a more solid set-up: 8 e4 (οτ 8 i.g2 i.g7 9 ο-ο liJc6 10 e4 ο-ο 11 i.e3 i.d7 12 iVd2 ::tae8 13 liJh3 iVd8 14

18

liJf2 liJh5 - Black brings all his pieces into the action and is ηονν ready to promote ... f5 - 15 f4 f5 16 e5 g5! with advantage for Black in the model game G.Andτuet-M.Apicella, Rouen 1987) 8... i.g7 9 liJh3!? (after 9 iιe3 ο-ο 10 "ii'd2 c5 11 d5 h6 12 liJh3 i.xh3 13 i.xh3 liJxd5 14 "ii'xd5 "iWh4+ Black has the better chances, M.lvanov-B.Heberla, Marianske Lazne 2009), and now:

C21) The immediate 9... i.xh3?! is incorrect, in view of 10 ..txh3 liJxe4? 11 liJxe4 "iWh4+ 12 liJf2 i.xd4 13 ο-ο! with a serious initiative for White. C22) 9... 0-0 10 i.g5 c6 11 "iVd2 gives White a small advantage. C23) 9... liJc6 10 i.e3 i.xh3! (ηονν this seems correct) 11 ..txh3 liJxe4 12liJxe4 "iVh4+ 13liJf2 ο-ο 14 ο-ο ':ae8 and Black will regain his material with the upper hand. d) 6 e3 h6 7liJh3 g6 (7 ... c6 8 f3 g6 9 liJf2 exf3 10 "ii'xf3 ..ig7 11 i.d3 ο-ο 12 ο-ο liJa6 13 .td2 liJC7 14 :ϊae1liJe6 was about equal in C.Matamoros FrancoF.Ribeiro, Cienfuegos 1996) 8 liJf4 c6 9 i.e2 h5 {another thematic plan is

Gheorghiu's 4 ... e4

9.. .'~Ja6 10 1:i.b1 tΔo 11 h4 .1g7 12 b4 a6 13 a4 tΔe6 14 tΔχe6 ..iχe6 15 ..ib2 d5 with mutual chances, D.Del ReyR.Damaso, 5antiago 1995) 10 h4 ..th6 11 "iVc2 ο-ο 12 g3 tΔa6 13 a3 tΔc7 14 b3 .:te8 15 ~b2 d5 16 a4 ..iχf417 gχf4 .1g4 gives Black a promising game, R.BiolekV.Jansa, Czech League 2006. Returning to 6 h4:

6 .•• h6

Black doesn't have to push the knight and 6....1f5!? 7 g3 c6 (7 ...h6 8 tΔh3 c6 9 tΔf4 tΔa6 10 "ii'a4 "ii'd7 11 a3 tΔC7 12 Jίg2 Jίe7 13 .1e3 a6 14 'i!kc2 d5 15 tΔa4 gave White a pull in 5.Conquest-J.Mercier, French League 1993) 8 ..ig2 (οτ 8 "ii'b3 h6 9 tΔh3 "ii'd7 10 tΔf4 .1e7 11 tΔg2 d5 12 cχd5 cχd5 13 tΔf4 tΔc6 14 e3 1:td8 which was drawn in B.5oos-H.Degenhardt, Hessen 1998) 8...h6 9 tΔh3 tΔbd7 10 tΔf4 g6 11 e3 .1g7 12 a3 tΔb6 13 b3 ο-ο 14 ο-ο .ί:i.fe8 15 .1b2 d5 16 c5 tΔbd7 17 b4 g5 18 hχg5 hχg5 19 tΔh3 .1h6 20 'it>h1 Φg7 gave Black good play in A.Galiano Martinez-P.Garre Murcia, Totana 2003. 7tΔh3

7,..c6 This followed by ... tΔa6-c7 is the most solid way to develop the queenside. Black may also continue his development οη kingside: 7... g6 8 g3 (8 e3 c6 9 ..ie2 tΔa6 10 b3 tΔC7 was fine too for Black in C.Horvath-E.Dizdarevic, Pula 1998) 8.....tg7 9 .1g2 c6 10 ..if4 ..if5 11 'iVb3 ο-ο 12 0-0-0 tΔa6 13 f3 eχf3 14 eχf3 tΔh5 15 1:the1 'i!kC7 16 g4 tΔχf4 17 tΔχf4.1c8 18 d5 tΔC5 19 -.wC2 a5 with an even position, A.Gupta-B.Damljanovic, Kavala 2009. 8 ~f4tΔa6 Οτ 8... tΔh5!? as played by Gheorghiu himself: 9 e3 g6 10 ..ie2 tΔχf4 11 tΔχf4 tΔd7 12 .1g4 .ί:i.g8 13 .1χd7+ .1χd7 14 ~3 0-0-0 15 a4 g5 16 hχg5 hχg5 17 tΔfe2 .1g7 18 a5 .1:.h8 19 :gl f5 with some advantage to Black in R.DouvenF.Gheorghiu, Amsterdam 1986. 9 e3 .1fs :1.0 iVa4 'iVd7 :1.:1. 0-0-0 .1g4?! This helps White to develop his play. Black should simply continue his development with 11...~e7 followed by ...tΔc7 and ... 0-0. Moreover, in the case

19

The New Q/d /ndian

of 12 f3 he has an interesting reply in 12 ... gS!? 13 .Jίg3 (13 hxgs?! hxgs 14 ~xgs exf3 exploits the knight's position οη h3) 13 ... g4!? with complex play. 12 .1:!.d2 tΔC7 13 tΔg1! With the idea of f2-f3 - a simple and effective approach. 13 ... a6? Black should have acknowledged his error and returned with 13 ....i.fS. 14 f3 exf3 15 gxf3 .Jίe6 16 'iYa5 b5 17 d5 .i.f5 18 e4 tΔh5 19 tΔge2 b4 20 tΔa4 .ί:lb8 21 dxc6 'i!Vxc6

22 exf5? Black's position is νεΤΥ loose and 22 tΔd4 would have led to a decisive advantage for White. 22 ... tΔxf4 23 tΔd4 'i!Vb7 24 .i.d3 tΔxd3+ 25 .1:!.xd3 .i.e7 26 :te1 Φf8 27 f6? Missing 27 tΔcs dxcs 28 .ί:!.χε7, again with a decisive advantage for White. 27 ....Jίxf6 28 tΔf5 'iVc6 29 Φb1? And here 29 tΔxd6 have been quite uncleaT. 29 ..:ii'xc4 30 l:ίxd6 .1:!.b5 31 tΔb6 ':xa5 32 tΔxC4 .1:!.xf5 33 :'c6 i..d8 34 :ι::td6 i..e7 35 1:1.d7 tΔe6 36 tΔe3 !le5 37 ':'C1 .ί:lxe3

20

38 IIc8+ .Jίd8 39 .1:!.cxd8+ tΔxd8 40 l:.xd8+ l:Ie8 0-1

Game4

G.Kasparov-J.Speelman Belfort 1988 1 d4 d6 2 c4 e5 3 tΔf3 e4 4 tΔg5 tΔf6 With this move order Black can also consider 4 ...fS!? The text brings play back into our repeτtoire . 5 tΔC3 .i.f5 At first this seems more logical than the clumsy S.. :iVe7, but ηονν Black might encounter the immediate 6 g4 and his queenside is weakened in the event of an early ~3. 6g4

Α cτitical test. See Game 5 for White's other possibilities. 6....i.xg4 The main continuation. Other moves haven't given Black a fully satisfactory game: a) 6 ... tΔxg4 7 tΔgxe4 and then: a1) 7... .i.e7 8 .i.g2 ~h4?! activates

Gheorghiu's 4 ... e4

the bishop, but after 9 h3 lbf6 10 lbxf6+ 'ii'xf6 11 lbd5 'iVd8 12 'iVb3 i..c8 Black was in full retreat and 13 'iVe3+ wf8 14 ii.d2 lbc6 15 0-0-0 gave White the better chances in A.MoiseenkoO.Romanishin, Alushta 2005. a2) 7...ii.xe4?! 8 lbxe4 d5 9 cχd5 ~xd5 10 i..g2 'iVa5+ 11 ii.d2 ~a6 12 h3 followed by 13 ο-ο and 14 ~c1 οτ perhaps 14 a4 and 15 b4 is good for White. a3) 7... c6 is probably a bit stronger, albeit not enough to equalize: 8 h3lbf6 9 lbxf6+ 'ii'xf6 10 e4 i..g6 11 h4 h6 12 i..e3 'iVd8 13 h5 .ih7 14 'iVf3 lbd7 15 0-0-0 was a touch better for White in D.Komarov-Q.Romanishin, Saint Vincent 2000. a4) 7 ...lbc6 8 i..g2 i..e7

9 lbg3! (the critical approach, whereas after 9 b4 .ih4 10 e3 ο-ο 11 a3 z:te8 12 ο-ο i..xe4 13 lbxe4 J::!.xe4 14 i..xe4 i..xf2+ 15 Itxf2 lbxf2 16 .ixh7+ Φχh7 17 'ii'h5+ Wg8 18 Wxf2 'iVf6+ 19 Φg2 'ii'e6 20 c5 dxc5 Black was better in A.Nozdrin-G.Glidzhain, Ufa 2007) 9....ig6 10 h3lbf6 11 e4 ~d7 12 i..e3 a6 13 'iινe2 ο-ο 14 ο-ο h6 15 f4 left White

clearly better in G.Kasparov-Allen & Overy, London (simul) 1993. b) Perhaps taking with the knight isn't so bad if followed up precisely, but 6 ...ii.g6?! 7 ii.g2 is definitely good for White:

b1) 7...lbxg4 8lbgxe4 f5 9lbg5 c6 10 i..f4 ~d7 11 d5 c5 12lbb5 lba6 13 'iVa4 with the initiative for White in C.Van Tilbury-D.Johansen, Bled Olympiad 2002. b2) 7... c6 8lbgxe4lbxg4 9 iVb3 Ψilc7 10 ii.f4 f5 11 lbC5 already with some advantage for White in P.Morais PintoH.Freitas, Brazil1998. b3) 7 ...'iινe7 8 h4!? (instead 8 ΨilC2 would take play back into Game 2) 8... h5 9 gxh5 ~xh5 10 i..f4 (οτ 10 lbh3 ~xh4 11.ig5 ~g4 12lbd5 Ψild7 13 i..xf6 ~xg2 14 lbe3!, as in J.Bellon LopezJ.Hodgson, Dos Hermanas 1992, and ηονν 14...l:.xf2 15 lbxf2 gxf6 with a slight advantage for White) 10... c6 11 'iVb3 lba6 (again, if 11 ... d5 12 c5 i..f5 13 f3 lba6 14 fxe4 dxe4 15 .ί:ϊ.f1 0-0-0 16 ii.d6 'iVd7 17 ii.xf8 ~xf8 18 1:Ixf5 ~xf5 19 .ih3 and White is better,

21

The New Old Indian

M.Lomineishvili-V.Vorotnikov, Moscow 1996) 12 0-0-0 and if 12 ... 0-0-0 then 13 C5! dxc5? 14 i.h3+ shows that both kings are not equally safe ση the queenside. 7.tg2 This move prepares to bring the bishop to e4, but 7 lbgxe4 is the main line. We'll see this in Game 6 where the position arises from a 5 lbd2 move οτ­ der.

7...i.e7 7 ... lbc6!? is a good alternative: 8 lbgxe4 lbxe4 (8 ... .te7 gives White the

option of 9 lbg3!?) 9 .txe4 (for 9 lbxe4 see note 'a' to 81ack's 8th move in Game 6, below) 9... g6!? (this move was recommended by Kasparov in 8CO; instead 9 .. :~·d7 10 'iVb3 1:[b8 11 .te3 lbe7 12 d5 b6 13 11g1 g6 14 .td4 1:1g8 15 .td3 f5 16 ~xg4! fxg4 17 lbe4 gave White an attack in Y.YakovichA.Kharlov, Vladivostok 1994) 10 'iVd3 (if 10 h3 .td7) 10...f5 11 h3 .th5 12 .tg2 .tg7 13 lbd5?! .txd4 14 lbf4 "iVf6 15 lbxh5 gxhS 16 .txc6+ bxc6 17 'iif3 Φd7 18 'iixhS .ί:.ae8 with advantage for

22

81ack, J.Rudd-A.Chemiaev, 8righton 2011. However, 7... c6 8 lbgxe4 (στ 8 'iVb3 'iVb6 9 lbgxe4 lbxe4 10 lbxe4 'iνxb3 11 axb3 'it>d7 12 .td2 lba6 13 1:!.a5! f6 14 .ί::!.gllbC7 15lbc3 b6 16 Iίa1 .te6 17 d5 cχd5 18 cχd5 i.f7 19 .th3+ 'it>d8 20 Ir.g4 with a dangerous initiative in ι.Υuτtaeν-V.Ζhuτaνliον,

Leningτad

1989) 8....te7 (8 ... lbbd7?! 9 'iVd3 is excellent for White) 9 'iΚb3 lbxe4 (9 .. :iVd7 10 lbg3 ο-ο 11 h3 .te6 12 e4 Ψilc7 13 a4 lba6 14 ο-ο 'iVb6 15 'iνxb6 axb6 16 b3 slightly favours White too, J.8renninkmeijer-H.Ree, Amsterdam 1988) 10 lbxe4 'iVd7 11 lbg3 (with the idea of 12 h3 i.e6 13 d5; instead 11 "iVg3 ο-ο 12 ~gl .tf5 13 i.h3 g6 14 .txf5 'iVxf5 15 lbxd6 'iVe6 16 c5 b6 17 ~g5 f6 18 ~e3 Ψilxe3 19 .txe3 .txd6 20 cχd6 lbd7 was okay for 81ack in 1980) V.Eingorn-A.5uetin, Tallinn 11 .. :iVC7 12 ο-ο ο-ο 13 .tf4 was a touch better for White in J.Pinter-C.McNab, Malta 01ympiad 1980. 8 lbgxe4lbxe4 9 .txe4

9... c6

Gheorghiu's 4 ... e4

Here 9 ... tΔc6 doesn't giνe an equal game: 10 11g1 (οτ the immediate 10 ..te3!?) 10 ..:iIi'd7 11 ..te3 left White clearly better in A.Lastin-N.Kurenkoν, Moscow 2007. 10 "iVd3! .ihS Not 10... tΔd7? 11 i..xh7!, netting an extra pawn.

b2) 13 .. :ild7!? 14 h5 ..txe4 15 "iVxe4 slightly faνours White too . b3) 13 ... d5 14 cχd5 tΔb4 15 "iVe3 cχd5? (not 15 ... tΔxd5? 16 ..txd5 cχd5 17 h5 .if5 18 iVe5 with a decisiνe adνan­ tage for White) 16 ..txg6 hxg6 17 a3 tΔc6 18 'iVf3 ':h5 19 e4! faνours White, L.Polugaeνsky-J.Hickl, European Team Championship, Haifa 1989. 11... i..g6 Black should aνoid 11 ....ih4? because of 12 1:I.g1. Then 12 ... 0-0? runs into 13 .ig5! when White wins materia1. 12 ..txg6 fxg6 13 i..f4 ο-ο!? Speelman wants to use the halfopen f-file, but there was nothing wrong with the solid 13 ..."iVd7.

11 'ili'h3

White opts to double his opponent's pawns and create a hole οη e6. This is by ηο means forced, howeνer: a) 11 ':91 is well met by 11 ... i..g6 12 f4d5!. b) 11 i..f4! .ig6 12 0-0-0 is simple and strong, giνing White an edge after 12 ...tΔa6 (12 ...tΔd7!? may improνe; then 13 "iig3! tΔf6 14 i..f3 has the idea of h2h4 with a slight adνantage for White) 13 h4! (οτ 13 .ixg6 hxg6 14 d5 .:ι.h4 15 e3 'ifa5 16 Φb1 :c8 17 ..tg3 ':h5 18 e4 and White has slightly the better chances, J.Brenninkmeijer-A.Blees, Hilνersum 1989), and ηονν: b1) 13 .....txh4 14 ..txg6 fxg6 15 "iie4+! Φf7 16 i..xd6 giνes White a small adνantage.

14e3 Probably a bit more precise was 14 ..tg3 which doesn't giνe Black the possibility of ... g6-g5, while retaining the option to adνance with e2-e4. Instead 14 "iie6+ Φh8 15 ..tg3 tΔa6 16 h4 :tf5 17 0-0-0 was about equal when L.Psakhis-J.Hickl, Dortmund 1989, was agreed drawn.

23

The New O/d Indian

14••.ltJa6 14... .ί:.f5!? 15 0-0-0 ltJd7 16 i..g3 'iνa5 17 e41:!.f7 isn't at all easy to assess. 150-0-0 t"Δc7 16 'iifb1 a6 17ltJe4? Better is 17 'iifa1! with slight advantage for White, due to the idea of 17 ... b5 18 c5. 17... g5! 18 i.g3 'ili'e81 19 'iifa1 'iWg6 20 'iWg2 ltJe8 21 %:tdg1 b5 22 c5 dxc5 23 ltJxC5 i..xc5 24 dXC5lιd8 25 h4!?

25 •••gxh4 Black can also play 25 ... g4 and if 26 '115 ~e6 27 i..h4 then 27 ...!1d5 28 'iWxg4 'iWxg4 29 %:txg4 l:ixh5 when his chances in the endgame are not worse. 26 ~xM %:td2 27 ~d4 1:!.e2 Instead 27 ...1:txd4? 28 exd4 leaves c6 rather weak. 28 'ii'h1!? 'iνc2 29 1:Xb1 "ifxC5 30 ~e4 ltJf6 31 'iWe6+ 'iifh8 32 i.e5 32 i..d6? 'iνxd4! 33 i..xf8 "iWd7 was excellent for Black, with the idea of 34 i.g7 'ili'g7 with a decisive advantage. 32 •.. h6! Speelman remains alert and avoids 32 ...1:!.xf2? 33 i.d6. 33 .i:ί.h1 %:txf2 34 a3

24

Preparing iιd6, since 34 i..d6 would have been met by 34..."iWh5! 35 :dd1 'ili'f7!. 34 •• :ii'c2! 35 1:Xdh4

35 ..:iWg6? Black was frightened ofnonexistent threats, but that's quite understandable when one is low οη time and up against Kasparov! Instead after 35 .. :iYf5 36 'iWe7 ..t>g8 37 e4 'iWg6 38 'ii'e6+ 'it'f7 39 "iVxc6 'iWd7 Black is consolidating and has good chances to realize his extra pawn, since if 40 'ikxa6? then 40 ...ltJg4. 36 'iWxc6 'iWf5 37 ~f4! Itxf4 38 exf4 'iifh7 39 ~gl nf7 40 'iVxa6 b4! 41 "iWc4 ltJd7!

vz-vz Here 42 'it'xb4 ltJxe5 43 fxe5 'it'xe5 leads to an absolutely equal position.

Game5 B.CΊuIko-J.8enjamin US Champίonship,

long Beach 1993 1 c4 e5 2 ltJc3 ltJf6 3 ltJf3 d6 4 d4 e4 5

Gheorghiu's 4 ... e4 tΔgs

ii.fs Ιη this game we will examine the alternatives to Kasparov's 6 g4.

6f3 Αη

interesting move, which leads to complex play with mutual chances. Practice has seen a wide range of alternatives: a) After 6 'ii'c2 Black can take play back into the realm of Game 2 with 6...'iWe7, but he isn't forced to protect the pawn and has a couple of interesting alternatives: a1) 6 ...h6!? forces the play: 7 tΔgxe4 tΔxe4 8 tΔxe4 'iWh4 9 tΔxd6+ ii.xd6 10 'iνxf5 ii.b4+ gives Black some initiative for the two pawns, which he will shortly regain. Νονν 11 'tί:td1 'ft'xd4+ 12 'iVd3 'ii'xf2 13 'iVe4+ i..e7 14 i..e3 'iVf6 15 i..d4 'iWd6 16 c5 'iWd7 17 e3lbc6 18 ii.b5 ο-ο 19 i..xc6 bxc6 20 Wc2 f5 21 'ii'd3 'ft'd5 22 'iWb3 reached a roughly level position in H.Koneru-B.Roktim, Calicut 2003. a2) After 6...~d7 7 e3 c6 8 d5 lba6 9 tΔgxe4 tΔxe4 10 tΔxe4 ':c8 11 i..d3 i..g6 12 'ii'e2 tΔb4 13 f3 Black hadn't enough

for the pawn in T.Bosboom lanchavaE.Kovalevskaya, Dresden 2004. a3) 6... g6 avoids the possibility of tΔxd6 in comparison with variation 'a1', although after 7 tΔgxe4 lbxe4 8 tΔxe4 'iWe7 9 f3 ii.xe4 10 'iVxe4 'ii'xe4 11 fxe4 ii.g7 12 e3 c5 13 e5 cxd4 14 exd6 tΔc6 15 c5 ο-ο, as in V.ArbakovA.Lokasto, Moscow 1992, and then 16 1:t.b1 Black's compensation is dubious. Μ) 6... i..g6! is the best possibi1ity. The critical line runs 7 tΔgxe4 (7 g3 tΔbd7 8 tΔgxe4? tΔxe4 9 tΔxe4 is ηο good in view of 9... c6 10 d5 ':c8) 7... tΔxe48 lbxe4 d5! (Black makes good use of the pin and exploits the ροοτ position of the white king; 8...'ii'h4 is also possible and leads to complex play) 9 'iVa4+ (after 9 cxd5 ii.b4+ White loses the possibi1ity to castle).

Νονν

9...b5! is the key move, giving Black a tempo to take the knight. The rook in the corner will fall, but after 10 'ii'xb5+ c6 11 ~7 dxe4 12 'YWxa8 White's development is nonexistent and 12 ... ii.b4+ 13 ii.d2 ii.xd2+ 14 ΦΧd2 'iVxd4+ 15 Φe1 'ii'xb2 16 .:td1 ~4+ 17

25

The New Q/d /ndian

l:td2 e3 18 fxe3 ο-ο saw him being cτushed in A.Goldin-J.Hodgson, Las Vegas 1995. b) 6 e3 h6 7 tίJh3 c6 (the exchange 7... ~xh3 8 gxh3 c6 looks in White's favour, improving his bishop and giving him the possibility of play down the gfile) 8 tίJf4 tίJa6 9 ..te2 g6 10 f3 1ιg7 11 ο-ο 'i!i'e7 12 a3 ο-ο with reasonable play for Black in a complex position, C.Carleson-J.5peelman, Stockholm 1987. c) 6 h4 h6 7 tίJh3 c6 8 tίJf4 (8 e3 g5! restricted the knight in D.QuinnJ.Hodgson, East Kilbridge 1996) 8 ...1ιe7 (8 ... a6 9 e3 b5 may look quite active, but 10 'i!i'b3 was slightly better for White ϊη G.Kovacs-A.Czebe, Hungarian League 2008) 9 e3 tίJa6 10 Sιe2 iVd7 sees Black having coπectΙΥ placed his pieces and after 11 d5 ο-ο 12 1:.g1 ϊη T.Bosboom Lanchava-R.Van Dijken, Dutch League 1998, with 12 ...tίJg4 he could have seized the upper hand. d) 6 g3 h6 7 tίJh3 g6!? (after 7... g5 White will need some tempi to sort out his knight's position, but after 8 1ιg2 ~d7 9 tίJg1 c6 10 h4 the weakness of Black's kingside will begin to tell) 8 tίJf4 i.g7 9 tίJfd5 tίJxd5 10 cxd5 tίJd7 11 Sιg2 tίJf6 12 h3 ο-ο 13 ο-ο b5 14 'iVb3 l:.b8 15 tίJd1 a5 16 tίJe3 ..td7 171ιd2 b418 ~fC1 tίJe8 19 Sιχe41ιΧd4 20 tίJC4 a4 21 'iVd3 Sιg7 22 ~g2 f5 was quite unclear in D.Neelotpal-Q.Romanishin, Kolkata 2004. e) 6 'ifb3!? is a rare positional continuation, but White wants to exploit the downside to Black's ...~f5.

26

After 6...tίJc6 (if 6 ...'iVc8 7 g4!) 7 e3 h6 (οτ 7 ...'iWd7 8 d5 tίJd8 9 'iWc2 when White has the better chances, T.5aloK.5kold, Stockholm 1960) 8 tίJh3 'iWc8 (8 .. .'t!Vd7! looks more exact) 9 tίJf4 ..te7 10 Sιe2 ο-ο 11 ο-ο .:i.e8 12 f3 1ιf8 13 tίJfd5 tίJxd5 14 cxd5 exf3 15 Sιxf3 tίJa5 16 ~a4 b6 17 e4 Jιd7 18 'it'c2 g6 19 Sιf4 1ιg7 (V.lnkiov-V.Jansa, Gausdal 1988) 20 l:I.ad1 White is slightly better since he controls the centre and the knight οη a5 is out of play. 6•••exf3 7 gxf3 Α

double-edged continuation. White cτeates a strong centre and will ννϊη a tempo by attacking Black's bishop with e2-e4, but does weaken his kingside. Alternatives: a) 7 exf3 Sιe7 8 1ιd3 (8 tίJge4 tίJc6 9 Jιe3 ο-ο 10 1ιd3 J:ιe8 11 Φf2 ~g6 is about equal, F.Benko-B.Wexler, Buenos Aires 1954) 8... ~xd3 9 'i!i'xd3 c6 10 ο-ο d5 11 c5 b6 12 b4 h6 13 tίJh3 a5 14 tίJM tίJbd7 15 Sιf4 axb4 16 tίJxb6 tίJxb6 17 cxb6 'iWxb6 18 lIfe1 %ιa7 with mutual chances in J.DeΙemaπe-J.Van der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee 1995.

Gheorghiu's 4 ... e4

b) 7 l2Jxf3 C5! (aiming for a 8enoni stτucture where White ννϊΙΙ be νulner­ able down the e-file is correct; instead 7... l2Jc6 8 e3 .i.e7 9 .i.d3 iιxd3 10 'ii'xd3 ο-ο 11 ο-ο is a touch better for White) 8 e3 l2Jc6 9 iιd3 iιg4 10 ο-ο iιe7 11 'ii'e1 iιxf3 12 1:.xf3 ο-ο 13 'ifh4 g6 14 iιd2 d5 15 cχd5 l2Jxd5 16 1Wf2 cχd4 17 exd4 l2Jdb4 18 a3 l2Jxd4 19 axb4 l2Jxf3+ 20 ~xf3 'iVd4+ 21 'iie3 I:tad8 was better for 81ack ϊη R.lrzhanov-J.Hodgson, Moscow 01ympiad 1994.

12 f4l2Jc6 13 iιe3 1:.c8 14 a3 g6 15 iιe2 a6 16 'it'c2 f5 170-0-0 and White is better, M.Meyer-T.Nyback, German League 2003. b) 9.. :iVc8 10 l2Jf4 1WxC5 11 e4 gives White the better chances too. c) Thus 81ack should sacτifice: 9...l2Jc6! 10 cχd6 iιxd6 11 iιf4 .tC5! (not 11 ...iιxf4 12 iVxd8+ z:txd8 13 l2Jxf4l2Jb4 14 I:td1! which is excellent for White) 12 'ifxd8+ ZΙxd8 when he seems to have full compensation for the pawn.

7••• C5!? Again this is the key move ϊη the fight for the centre. Instead 7 ...iιe7 is a little meek and 8 e4 iιg6 9 1:.g1 ο-ο 10 iιe3 c5 11 d5 led to a slight advantage for White ϊη B.Gu1ko-A.Haik, Paris 1986.

Indeed, after 13 e4 .te6 14 l2Jd5 l2Jd4 81ack is quite active and ϊη the case of 15 ο-ο-ο? there follows 15 ...l2Jxd5 16 exd5 iιχh3 17 iιxh3l2Je2+ and ...l2Jχf4. 8 ... g6! Correctly arranging the bishops ϊη comparison with Haik's ...iιg6 and ... i.e7. 9 e4 .tc8 10 iιe3 .i.g7 11 'ii'd2 l2Jbd7 12 f4 ο-ο 13 .ίIg1?! This move doesn't prevent ...l2Jg4 for long, so correct was 13 0-0-0 1:te8 14 iιd3 with mutual chances. 13 .••a6 14 a41Ie8 15 iιd3l2Jf8 16 'ug3

8d5

Gu1ko plays ϊη the manner of his earlier game with Haik. After 8 dXc5 the principled continuation is 8...h6 9 l2Jh3 (οτ 9 e4 iιd7 10 l2Jh3 dxc5 when 81ack is okay), and now: a) 9... l2Jfd7 10 l2Jf2 l2JxC5 11 e4 iιe6

27

The New O/d /ndian

Preparing a retreat square for the dark-squared bishop. Instead 16 0-0-0 ttJg4 gives Black reasonable play in this compleχ position. 16•.• ttJg4 17 .Jtg1 h6 18 ttJh3 After 18 ttJf3 advancing with 18 ...fS also works well. 18•.•f5

Black has eχcellent play both in the centre and οη the queen's f1ank. 19 0-0-0 i.xc3 20 ~xc3 fxe4 21 ..ie2 ttJf6 22 f5!? Otherwise after 22 i.e3 .JtfS White is strategically 10st. 22 ...i.xf5 23 Sιe3 '>t>h7 24 ttJf4 ~e7 25 Iιf1 'iVe5 26 ~e1 b5! 27 cxb5?! axb5 28 Sιxb5 .ί:teb8 29 ~f2 .ί:txb5 30 axb5 ttJxd5 31 Wb1 ttJxf4 32 'iVxf4 ~xf4 33 1:txf4 ttJe6 Black has a decisive advantage in the endgame. 34 :f2 d5 35 b4 d4 36 bxc5 dxe3 37 Iιxe3 ttJxC5 38 Iιc2 ttJd7 39 .ί:!.C7 .tIb8 40 :b3 l:ι.b6 41 .!:tc6 Wg7 42 Wc1 '>t>f7 43 .:!.xb6 ttJxb6 44:C3 ..id7 45 .!:te3 ttJC4 46 Iιb3 e3 47 '>t>d1 ttJd6 48 '>t>e2 .Jtxb5+ 49 '>t>xe3 wf6 50 :b4 We5 51 '>t>f2 i.d3 52

28

1:ta4 .JtC4 53 :b4 ~d5 54 1:ta4 ttJf5 55 1!a5 g5 56 .ί:tb5 h5 57 l:ta5 '>t>e4 58 .ί:ί.a4+ We5 59 1:ta5 g4 60 J:lb5 h4 61 1:ta5

61 .•. ttJd6 White has resisted well, but here 61 ... g3+ was the fastest way to win. 62 '>t>g1 ttJe4 63 1:ta4 '>t>f4 64 '>t>g2 We3 65 :a3+ '>t>e2 66 .:ta5 ttJC3+ 67 '>t>g1 We1 68 1'!a1+ Wd2 69 '>t>f2 ttJe4+ 70 wf1 ttJg5 71 ~a5 SιC4+ 72 Wf2 ttJh3+ 73 '>t>g2 ttJf4+ 74 '>t>f2 ttJh3+ 75 '>t>g2 .Jtd3 76 1:[a4 .Jte2 77 .1:;Ia2+ '>t>e3 78 :a3+ .Jtd3 Wisely avoiding 78 ...Wf4?? 79 :χh3! gχh3+ 80 '>t>h1 which οηlΥ leads to a draw. 79 :a7 .Jte4+ 80 '>t>f1 i.d3+ 81 wg2 ttJf4+ 82 Wg1 '>t>f3 83 .:If7 .JtC4 84 .:tf5 .Jtd5 85 :f8 g3 86 hxg3 hxg3 87 Wf1 Wg40-1

Game6

V.Laznicka-S.Movsesian Ostrava 2007 1 d4 ttJf6 2 c4 d6 3 ttJc3 e5 4 ttJf3 e4 5 ttJd2

Gheorghiu's 4 ... e4

This move was recommended by Efim Gel1er in his classic book οη the King's Indian. The knight is less active here than οη gs and blocks the darksquared bishop, but White hopes to come under less pressure, especial1y οη the kingside, than in the lines we'νe considered thus far. We should also mention that 5 tZJg1 is occasional1y seen, but of course White can't pretend to claim an edge with this retreat: for eχample, s ...i.fs 6 .i.gs tZJbd7 7 e3 h6 8 .i.χf6 tZJχf6 9 tZJge2 c6 10 tZJg3 i..g6 11 i.e2 hs 12 h4 a6 13 tZJf1 ds 14 cχds cχds 15 tZJd2 i.e7 16 ~3 bs was slightly better for Black in D.5ands-A.Cherniaev, London 2009. S... i..fs For Black's other options see the neχt game.

6g4

This pτincipled continuation wil1 often transpose to the variation 5 tZJgs .tfs 6 g4, but there are some differences, as weΊΙ see. There are also some impoτtant altematives:

a) 6 ~3!? is another principled chal1enge, aiming to eχploit the early development of Black's bishop. White wants to disrupt Black, who should protect both the b7- and e4-pawns, but then it is impossible to build the pawn chain with ... c6 and ... ds. The only route to a relatively satisfactory game for Black we could find is narrow and has not yet been seen in practice. Here Black has: a1) After 6... tZJc6?! 7 e3 :b8 (7 ...tZJas? 8 'iVbs+ loses a piece) 8 g3! Black has ηο direct protection for the pawn οη e4 and any tricks he might try don't help: for instance, 8...hs (8 ... ds?! gives Black nothing after 9 cχds tZJb4 10 i.c4 .i.d6 11 a3 tZJa6 12 ~M+ Φf8 13 b4 .1:ι.a8 14 h3 which left White clearly better in A.AleksandrovV.Varavin, St Petersburg 2000) 9 i..g2 h4 10 tZJdχe4 tZJχe4 11 tZJχe4 Ψlie7 12 tZJf6+ 'ii'χf6 13 i..χc6+ Φd8 14 i.g2 i.g4 was played in R.Bairachny-V.Varavin, Tula 2001, and here White had to find a way to protect his light squares with 15 ο-ο i.f3 16 i.χf3 ~χf3 17 'it'dl when Black would have had ηο real compensation for the pawn. a2) 6...Ψlic8! 7 g3 (again, the most principled - White threatens to simply eat a pawn; instead 7 e3 was given by Pal1iser in Play 1 d4!, but then he didn't mention 7... i.e7 when 8 g3 cs 9 ds transposes to variation 'a21Ί below) 7... cs 8 ds i..e7 (8 ... tZJbd7? leaves the bishop οη fs temporarily unprotected, so White can simply pick up the pawn

29

The New O/d Indian

with 9 'iW(2), and ηονν:

a21) White may try to avoid ... e4-e3 ideas with 9 e3 when Black can't protect the pawn, so he should try to blast open the position: for example, 9...h5! 10 .i.g2 h4 11 tbdxe4 tbxe4 12 tbxe4 tbd7 13 ο-ο tbe5 14 f4?! .i.xe4 15 .i.xe4 hxg3 16 fxe5 ~3 17 ~c2 gxh2+ 18 Φf2 1::thS is quite unclear. a22) 9 .tg2 e3! 10 fxe3 i.g6 11 e4 tbbd7 12 .th3 Ψ1iC7 13 Ψ1iC2 ο-ο 14 lΔf3 I:i.ae8 followed by ...iιd8, ... 'iWb8 and ....ta5 gives Black acceptable game. Nevertheless, Ίη general Black's position Ίη this line seems to hang by a thread, so the black player shou1d either study this line quite deeply οτ prefer to avoid it with the 5...'iVe7 of Game 7. b) 6 g3 combines development with an attack οη the e4-pawn with .i.g2 and probably 'iVc2. This idea is quite dangerous even without starting with 6 'iVb3. That said, after 6... c6 Black has the idea of ... d6-d5 and ηονν a queen οη e7 ννΊΙΙ protect both the b7- and e4pawns.

30

After 7 d5 (Black has little to worry about if he is allowed to build the pawn chain: 7 .i.g2 d5 8 ο-ο i.e7 9 cχd5 cχd5 10 f3 exf3 11 tbxf3 lΔc6 12 tbe5 i.e6 13 .i.g5 ο-ο 14 lΔxc6 bxc6 15 'iid3 'fWd7 16 .1:tac1 ~ab8 17 1:tc2 l:tfe8 with an even position, A.Otto-H.Huss, German League 1996) 7....i.e7 (it seems better for Black to be ready to sacrifice the pawn with ... e4-e3 than to hold it; Ίη the latter case his development is delayed and his possibilities are limited, as shown by 7... lΔbd7 8 1ιg2 'iVe7 9 'fWc2lΔc5 10 ο-ο .tg6 11lΔb3 e3 12 'iVd1 exf2+ 13 .i:!.xf2 lΔce4 14 lΔxe4 tbxe4 15 ~f4 c5 16 lΔa5 with advantage to White) 8 .i.g2 cχd5 9 cχd5 e3! 10 fxe3 lΔbd7 11 ο-ο .i.g6 12 tbf3 ο-ο 13 tbh4 lΔe5 followed by ... ~d7 and ... .td8-b6 Black has decent compensation Ίη a complex positional struggle. c) Following 6 e3 g6!? (οτ 6... c5 7 iιe2 lΔc6!? 8 g4!? cχd49 exd4 .tg6 10 g5 e3! 11 fxe3 tbd7 12 tbf3 Μ! 13 gxh6 I:txh6 with decent compensation Ίη V.Murashko-V.Varavin, Alushta 2001) 7 .te2 h5 8 b4 (this leads to interesting

Gheorghiu's 4 ... e4

opposite-f1ank play; instead 8 ifb3!? 'ifc8 9 f3 requires testing) 8....tg7 9 a4 tbbd7 10 b5 h4 11 h3 lίJf8 12 .i.a3 tbe6 13 1Wb3 a6 14 c5 dXc5 15 dXc5 axb5 16 .txb5+ c6 17 .tC4 ο-ο 18 ο-ο 'iie7 19 'iVc2 tbg5 20 .ί1fd1 tbd7 21 ..tf1lίJe5 22 tbC4 Black had established a model attacking set-up in J.Doτfman­ D.Andreikin. Internet (blitz) 2006.

He ηονν broke through with the decisive 22 ....txh3!. with the point that 23 gxh3 tbgf3+ 24 Φh1 lίJXC4 25 .tXC4 ~e5 threatens mate οη h2 and the knight οη c3. d) 6 lίJb3 h6 (οτ 6... c6 7 .tg5 .te7 8 e3 lίJbd7 9 .te2 a5 10 :'c1 iιg6 11 .tf4 a4 12 lίJd2 'it'a5 13 a3 h6 14 ο-ο ο-ο 15 .tg3 :ι.fe8 16 f4 exf3 17 .txf3 tbf8 with an even game in C.Crouch-C.McNab. Oxford 1998) 7 h3 lίJbd7 8 .tf4 g5 9 .th2 and ηονν the simple 9 ....tg7 leads to equal play. but the experimental 9... e3?! didn't give Black enough play after 10 f3 'ife7 11 'ifc1 0-0-0 12 lίJd1 .ί:ϊe8 13 .tg1 .tg6 14 tbxe3 ..tg7 15 .tf2 tbh5 16lίJd51!Vd8 171!Vd2 in G.KamskyD.Andreikin. Intemet (blitz) 2007.

e) 6 'iVc2 c6 7 f3 (otherwise. 7lίJdxe4 tbxe4 8 tbxe4 "iYh4 9 tbxd6+ .txd6 10 'it'xf5 .tb4+ 11 .td2 .i.xd2+ 12 Φχd2 "iVxd4+ 13 Φe1 'iixb2 14 'iie4+ 'it>f8 15 l:.d1 \lVc3+ 16 :'d2 tba6 was slightly better for Black in A.Dubinsky-V.Yurkov. Moscow 1963. while 7 g4 .tg6 8 e3 lίJxg4 9 tbdxe4 d5 10 cχd5 cχd5 11 'it'a4+ lίJc6 12 .tb5 'ild7 13 h3 lίJh6 14 lίJg3 .td6 15 tbxd5 .txg3 16 tbb6 was pretty unclear but agτeed drawn in I.Rogers-R.Keene. Manila 1979) 7... d5 8 cχd5 cχd5 9 e3 tbc6 10 .tb5 :'c8 11 ο-ο i..g6 12 fxe4 dxe4 13 lίJdxe4 lίJxe4 14 tbxe4 a6 15 .i.xc6+ 1:i.xc6 16 "tWb3 ΨilC7 gives Black good activity and play for the pawn. R.5hocτon-B.Wexler. Buenos Aires 1958. Finally. we can return to 6 g4: 6....txg4 Black pursues an independent approach. Instead 6... tbxg4 7 lίJdxe4 would transpose to note 'a' to Black's 6th move in Game 4.

7lίJdxe4

Here we can see one significant difference between 5 tbd2 and 5 lίJg5:

31

The New Q/d Indian

after 7 .i.g2 Black has the typical resource 7... e3! 8 fχe3 c6 with good 10ngterm compensation. 7...t2Ίxe4 8 t2Ίxe4

8.....te7 Natural enough, but there are alternatives, of which 'a' may even be Black's most accurate move order: a) 8...t2Ίc6!? 9 ibg2 (οτ 9 d5 t2Ίe5 10 'iνd4 ..te7 11 f4 ..th4+ 12 Φd1 t2Ίg6 13 'iVχg7 "iie7 14 ~d4 0-0-0 with reasonable play for Black in this compleχ position, E.Vegh-N.Davies, Budapest 1987) 9.....te7 and ηονν: a1) 10 ..tf4 ο-ο 11 'iVd2 1:te8 12 0-0-0 f5 13 t2Ίg5 .i.xg5 14 .i.χg5 "iVd7 15 f3 ..th5 16 :de1 d5 17 e3 dχc4 18 'iitb1 l:.ab8 19 1:thg1 b5 20 f4 a5 was better for Black in M.Bojchev-A.Asenov, Pleven 2004. a2) 10 h3 ibd7 11 b3 f5 12 t2Ίc3 ..th4! (a multipurpose move, opening a route for the queen, targeting the f2-pawn and thus complicating White's bid to go 10ng) 13 1!gl ο-ο 14 ..tb2 1:!.b8 with a slight plus for Black in Sa.WilliamsA.Cherniaev, British League 2011.

32

a3) 10 ..te3 ο-ο 11 'iVd2 ..tf5 12 t2Ίc3 ..th4 13 ο-ο 'iVd7 14 Φh11:tae8 15 1:.g1 ..tg6 16 .1:taf1! t2Ίe7 17 ibg5 t2Ίf5! with compleχ play, V.5alov-J.5peelman, Brussels 1988. a4) 10 d5 t2Ίe5 11 'iYb3 ο-ο 12 'it'χb7 t2Ίxc4 13 h3 .i.d7 14 'iVb3 t2Ίe5 15 :gl f5 16 t2Ίd2 ..tf6 17 1!b11!e8 18 t2Ίf1 "iVc8 19 ~a3 1:tb8 20 t2Ίg3 t2ΊC4 and Black was better in N.Rebaudo-B.Herbst, conespondence 1997. as) 10 t2Ίg3!? ο-ο 11 'iWd3 (perhaps not best; instead 11 ibe3 a5 12 :gl ..th4 led to an early draw in R.cifuentes Parada-E.Fernandez Romero, Dos Hermanas 2005) 11 ....ί:!.e8 12 .i.d2 ..tf6 13 ..tC3 a5 is slightly better for Black. b) Ιη the case of 8 ... c6 9 'iWb3 "iid7 a strong idea is 10 :911'

Νονν

if Black continues his development with 10... t2Ίa6? then 11 ~e3! leads to the 10ss of material after 11 .....te7 (οτ 11 ... 0-0-0 12 l:.χg4 'iixg4 13 ..th3) 12 t2Ίχd6+ 'iVχd6 13 .1:!.χg4. c) 8... dS!? 9 t2ΊC3 (9 cχd5 ~χd5 10 ..tg2 ..tb4+ 11 'ititf1 'it'd7 12 'iVb3 t2Ίc6 13 .i.e3 ..te6 14 ~d3 ..td5 15 a3 ..te7 16 h4

Gheorghiu's 4 ... e4

f5 gave Black a perfectly acceptable position in D.Poldauf-J.Vesely, Prague 1989) 9... dxC410 't!Va4+ and ηονν:

C1) 10... c6! 11 'iwxc4 ~e6 12 ~d3 tba6 13 a3 ~4 gives Black a solid position with good piece play, and after 14 e4 Iιd8 15 "ile3 ~e7 16 .tg2 ο-ο 17 ο-ο .tC4 18 ~d1 iιb3 19 ~e1 .td6 20 e5 .tb8 he was definitely for choice in E.Wilen-T.Miettinen, Vantaa 2007. C2) The 10 ...tbd7 11 'iWxC4 ~d6 12 ~gl tbb6 13 'iWd3 ~h5? 14 'iWb5+ 'iYd7 15 't!Vxh5 of G.Grigorov-M.Nikolov, Teteven 2004, demonstrates why Black must always keep an eye οη his lightsquared bishop as the centre opens up. c3) 10...'iWd7 11 'iYxC4 'iWc6 12 ~5 was a touch better for White in A.LeinG.Lisitsin, Riga 1968. d) 8....tf5 9 ~g2 c6 10 ~3 .txe4?! 11 .txe4 ~6 12 "ii'e3 .te7 13 .td2 left White clearly better in L.Szabo-V.PiTC, Budapest 1965. e) 8..."iVd7 9 .tg2 c6 10 h3 .tf5 11 tbg3 ~g6 12 e4 with a slight advantage for White in H.Wiτthensohn-W.schmid, San Bernadino 1982.

9 Iιg1 Otherwise, 9 b3 tbc6 10 .tg2 ο-ο 11 .tb2 a5 (οτ 11 ...f5 12 tbC3 .:te8 13 d5 tbe5 14 ο-ο tbg6 15 h3 .th5 16 f4 ~f6 17 "ii'd2 tbh4 and Black has the better chances, J.Yrjola-N.Murshed, Yerevan Olympiad 1996) 12 tbg3 :e8 13 h3 .td7 14 ο-ο ~f8 was drawn in L.Poτtisch­ L.Schmid, Oberhausen 1961, while 9 ~g2 tbc6 transposes to note 'a' to Black's 8th move, above. 9.•..tf5 10 tbg3 .tg6 11 .tg2! Α strong novelty. Instead 11 e4 .th4 12 'iVe2 ο-ο 13 ~e3 "ile7 14 .th3 tba6 had been good for Black in L.Poτtisch­ J.Hickl, Panormo 2001. 11... c6 12 e4 ~h4 13 ~e3 ο-ο 14 'iVg4 iιxg3 15 't!Vxg3 d5 16 h4 dxe4 17 .txe4 tbd7 18 h5 'iWa5+ 19 .td2 't!Vxh5 20.ί:rh1 As a result of the tactical complications resulting fτom his novelty, White has ννοη a queen for rook, piece and pawn. Later Black had difficulties due to his queenside weaknesses, although Movsesian eventually managed to hold by defending actively:

20...1:tae8 21 ':xh5 ltxe4+ 22

Φf1

.txh5

33

The New Q/d Indian

23 J::te1lΔf6 24 .u.xe4lΔxe4 25 'ii'f4.i.g6 26 .i.b4 Iϊc8 27 .i.e7 h6 28 d5 cxd5 29 cxd5 ':'c2 30 d6 lΔC5 31 'iHg4 1:c1+ 32 ..t>e2 .i.d3+ 33 Φd2 :'C2+ 34 'iite3 1:.e2+ 35 'iitf3 1:!.e6 36 'ild4 .i.e4+ 37 Φg3 lΔd7 38 'ii'xa7 .i.c6 39 b4 1:'!g6+ 40 Φf4 h5 41 b5 1:.g4+ 42 Φe3 J1e4+ 43 Φd2 .i.d5 44 'ila8+ 'iith7 45 'iic8 :d4+ 46 'iite3 Iϊe4+ 47 Φd2 ~d4+ 48 'iite2 :e4+ 49 ~1 i.C4+ 50 'iitg2 ':'g4+ 51 'iith2 .i.xb5 52 'ii'xb7 lΔe5 53 f3 .i.c6 54 'ii'xc6 lΔxc6 55 fxg4 hxg4 56 d7 'iitg6 57 a4 'iitf5 58 a5 'iite6 59 d8'i1lΔxd8 60 .i.xd8 Φd7 61 a6 'iitc8 Vz-Vz

Game7 V.Korchnoi-A.Chemίaev

London 2009 1 d4 lΔf6 2 C4 d6 3 lΔC3 e5 4 lΔf3 e4 5 lΔd2 Νονν

we will examine Black's alternatiνes to 5...i.f5.

sacrifice designed to disrupt White's otherwise harmonious deνelopment. After the reply 6 fxe3 Black has a choice of continuations, although in general his attention is often οη the dark squares: a) 6... C5 7 g3 π5 8 lΔf3 π4 9 lΔxΠ4 ':'xh4 10 gxh4 lΔg4 11 .i.g2 'ii'xh4+ 12 'it>d2 cxd4 13 exd4 lΔf2 14 1fg1 sees Black regaining the exchange, but he was still a pawn down for insufficient compensation in N.Konoνaloν-I.Glek, Moscow 2006. b) 6 ... d5 7 g3 π5 8 lΔf3 π4 9 lΔxΠ4 lΔe4 10 lΔxe4 dxe4 11 'iia4+ .i.d7 12 'iHC2 1:txh4 13 gxh4 'ii'xh4+ 14 Φd1 lΔc6 15 .i.d2 and again Black's compensation is dubious, M.Petr-D.5utkoνic, Pula 2007. c) 6... g6 7 g3 (more challenging than 7 e4 .i.g7 8 lΔf3 ο-ο 9 .i.g5 π6 10 iιxf6 'ii'xf6 11 e3 C5! 12 lΔd5 1fd8 13 .i.e2 .i.g4 with thematic dark-square play for Black in S.5ergienko-S.5hamugia, Voronezh 2003) 7....i.g7 8 .i.g2 ο-ο 9 ο-ο .:te8 10 lΔde4 lΔxe4 11 .i.xe4 lΔd7 12 .i.g2 lΔf6 13 e4 c6 14 .i.f4lΔh5 15 'iVd2 'ii'e7 16 1:tad1 and White was slightly better in A.Graf-I.Glek, Dresden 2006. 6lΔb3

5..:it'e7 There's also 5... e3!?, an interesting if perhaps not wholly sufficient pawn

34

White prefers to start solνing his deνelopment problems by freeing the dark-squared bishop, though we should note that b3 is not an ideal square for the knight (recalling Tarrasch).Others: a) 6 e3 is the most common continuation.

Gheorghiu's 4 ... e4

b) 6 'it'C2!? ~f5 (instead 6... e3?! 7 fχe3 'tWχe3 8 lbf3 'i!ie7 9 i.g5 favours White somewhat, W.Martz-B.Parham, Chicago 1973) 7 f3lbc6 8 fχe4 i..g6 9 e3 0-0-0 gives Black decent practical compensation, but objectively it may not be enough.

Νονν:

a1) 6 ... ~f5 7 ~e2 h5 8 b4 g6 9 a4 10 b5 ο-ο 11 a5 c5 12 bχc6 bχc6 13 i..a3 c5 14 lbb3 lba6 15 ο-ο and White is slightly better, A.Riazantsev-O.Maksimov, Moscow 2006. a2) 6... c6?! 7 'ii"c2 i.f5 8 f3 d5 9 cχd5 cχd5 10 fχe4 dχe4 11 i.b5+ lbbd7 12 ο-ο i.g6 13 .ί:r.χf6! 'iVχf6 14lbd5 'ii"d6 15 lbc7+ 'it>d8 16lbχa8 with a decisive advantage for White in N.Popov-M.Makarov, Kuibyshev 1981. a3) 6...g6 7 i.e2 h5!? (after 7...i.g7 the immediate 8 g4!? has not been seen in practice, but deserves serious attention) 8 f3 (οτ 8 'ii'a4+ c6 9 lbd5lbχd5 10 cχd5 i.d7 11 dχc6 i.χc6 12 ~b5 d5 13 ο-ο "ila 14 "ii'b3 lbd7 15 f3 f5 16 i.χc6 bχc6 17 fχe4 fχe4 18 lbχe4 dχe4 19 'iWe6+ i.e7 20 'iWχg6+ 'it>d8 21 'iιfχM which was quite unclear in A.5hestoperov-V.Varavin, Krasnodar 1991) 8...eχf3 9 lbχf3 ~g7 10 ο-ο ο-ο 11 'ii"e1 c5 12 'iVh4 lbc6 13 i.d2 i.f5 14l!ae1lbe4 15 lbχe4 'iWχh4 16 lbχh4 i.χe4 17 lIf4 :tae8 and Black was better iTJ P.Taalsma-A.Cherniaev, Bury 5Ι Edmunds 2008. ~g7

Indeed, after 10 a3 l:te8 (10 ... d5 11 12 lbχd5 1:tχd5 13 ~d3 1:i.hS 14lbf3 'iVd8 15 i.d2 i.d6 16 0-0-0 1:Ie8 17 i.c3 i.e7 18 g4 ~h3 19 'iWg2 ZΙχf3 20 'iWχf3 left White clearly better in I.Kashdan-O.Chajes, Chicago 1926) 11 i.d3 lbg4 12 lbf3 h5 13 ο-ο h4 14lbd5 'i!Vd8 15 lbf4 i.h7 16 h3lbh6 17 ~d2 g5 18 lbd5 g4 19 hχg4 lbχg4 20 e5 i.χd3 21 'it'χd3 'it>b8 22 'ii"f5 White was consolidating his advantage in J.DonnerE.Vasiukov, Wijk aan Zee 1973. c) 6 g3 has almost never been seen in practice and, like 6 "ilC2, requires more testing. Here White has in mind a simple and effective plan of i.g2, ο-ο, f3 and, after ... eχf3, lbχf3 with a promising position. Here 6... c6 7 i.g2 (οτ 7 'ii'C2!? e3 8 fχe3 'ii"χe3 9 lbf3 'ii'e7 10 i.g2 g6 11 ο-ο i.g7 12 e4 when White cχd5 lbχd5

35

The New Old Indian

has slightly the better chances) 7... d5 8 cχd5 (8 ο-ο ~e6 would haνe been quite unclear) 8... cχd5 9 LΔb3 it'd8 10 ~g5 ~e7 11 ο-ο ο-ο 12 f3 eχf3 13 eχf3 LΔc6 14 ..tχf6 ~χf6 15 f4 a5 16 LΔχd5 a4 17 LΔχf6+ 'iVχf6 18 LΔC5 LΔχd4 resulted in K.Mitonan eνen position in Q.Romanishin, Heνiz 2010. Returning to 6LΔb3:

9 Μ!? Preνenting

6... c6 Logical but a little stereotyped. Instead 6...h6!? preνenting ~g5 deserνes attention. After 7 ~f4 (7 g3 a5 8 ~g2 ~f5 9 iLe3LΔbd7 10 h3 d5 11 c5 c6 12LΔa4 b5 13 cχb6 'S'b4+ 14LΔd2LΔχb6 15 LΔχb6 'iVχb6 16 'iVc2 ~d6 17 ο-ο ο-ο 18 LΔb3 1:.fb8 gaνe Black a perfectly acceptable position in J.Candela PerezL.Galego, La Coruna 1996) 7... g6 8 e3 ..tg7 9 iLe2 ο-ο 10 'iVc2 1:.e8 110-0-0 a6 12 Wb1LΔc6 13 a3 iLd7 14 h4 :ab8 15 LΔd5 ~d8 16 LΔχf6+ 'iiχf6 17 g4 "fIe7 18 f3 b5 19 cχb5 eχf3 20 iLχf3 :χb5 Black enjoyed eχcellent play in V.Iotoν­ P.Garcia Castro, Vilagarcia de Arousa 2006. 7 ..tg5 ~f5 8 e3LΔbd7

36

Black's counterplay with ...h6 and ... g5. Korchnoi thought for about 20 minutes oνer this moνe. Instead 9 ~e2 h6!? (9 ..."fId8 10 g4 ..tg6 11 h4 h6 12 iLf4 d5 13 LΔd2 was a touch better for White in A.GrafE.Dizdareνic, Skopje 2002) 10 iLh4 g5 11 ~g3 iLg7 requires practical testing, but Ι would haνe been happy enough here. 9... h6 10 iLf4 "fId8 11 iLe2 With the thematic idea of g2-g4, which Black hurries to stop. 11... h5 12 d5 c5 13LΔd2 a6 14 a4?! The standard reaction, but 14 'ii'b1! with the idea of iLd1-C2, attacking the e4-pawn, was critical. Black seems to haνe nothing better than to seek some compensation in lines like 14.. :iWe7 15 ..td1 g6 16 iLC2 LΔe5 17 ο-ο (calm, and likely stronger than both 17 ~a4+ b5 and 17 LΔcχe4 ~χe4 18 iLχe4 LΔχC4 19 LΔχC4 "fIχe4) 17 ....Jtg7, but whether it would haνe been sufficient, and against such a renowned materialist as Korchnoi ...

Gheorghiu's 4 ... e4

14.. :~e7 15 'iib3 Νονν after 15 'iib1!? Black has direct way to protect his pawn in 15 ... 0-0-0 16 .1d1 g6 17 .1C2 ~e8, although 18 b4 would then give White an attack. 15 ...~b8

16f3 There was ηο need to hurry to help Black get rid ofhis weak pawn. 16 .1g5!? deserved attention: for example, 16 ... g6 17 f3 (17 .1d1!? .1g7 18 .1C2 'iVe5 19 0-0-0 ο-ο 20 .1f4 'iVe7 21 f3 also gives White an edge) 17 ... exf3 (οτ 17 ........e5!? 18 .1f4) 18 gxf3 with advantage to White. 16 ... exf3 17 gxf3 tL\e5 18 e4 Νονν if 18 .1g5 Black should be okay after 18 .. :iWc7!? 18....1c8! Α good move, which allows Black to arrange the coordination of his pieces. 19 .1g5 "WiC7 20 tL\f1 tL\h7 Back again, and once more the strongest move. 21 .1f4 g6 22 tL\e3 .1g7 23 ~d2?! ο-ο 24 Uhg1 ~e8 25 1:tg2 "Wie7 26 .1g3 Φh8 27 f4 tL\g4 28 .1xg4 .1xg4 29 tL\xg4 hxg4

30 l:te1

30... b5! Α strong pawn sacrifice, played οη both tactical and strategical grounds. 31 axb5 axb5 32 tL\xb5 tL\f6 33 .:tge2 Ιη the case of 33 e5 Black has the resource 33 ...tL\xd5! leading to unclear complications, and this was the tactical grounds for his 30th move. Then 34 exd6 (if 34 cxd5 'iVd7) 34... "Wid7 35 nxe8+ (οτ 35 .ί:[ge2 ~xe2+ 36 .ι:ι.χe2 tL\b6) 35 ...1:Ixe8 36 .:ϊ.e2 ':'xe2+ 37 Φχe2 "iVe6+ 38 Wf2 tL\b4 would have been quite unclear. 33 ...tL\h5 34 e5 dxe5 35 fxe5 J:txb5! Breaking through οη the most reinforced point. 36 cxb5 c4 37 .....c3 ~C5 38 d6 'iVxb5 39 .th2?! g3 Preferable is 39 ...I!d8. 40 .1g1 'ud8 41 'ue4? Αη impulsive move, especially considering that the time control had been reached. Better would have been 41 .1d4, maintaining mutual chances. 41 ...~xd6+ 42 Ud4

37

The New O/d Indian Οτ

42 exd6 .txC3+ 43 ΦχC3 iYb3+ 44 Φd4 tt:Jf6 with a decisive advantage. 42 ...1:1c6 43 1:1ee4 Φh7

Black has a near-winning advantage, but the position is still complex. 44J:.d7 Instead 4411xc4 ~XC4 451:!.XC4 (οτ 45 'ivxc4 'iWxb2+) 45 ....txe5 results in a decisive advantage for Black. 44...1%.a6 45 :a7 'iVd5+ 46 'ii'd4 'ii'a5+ 47 'it>e2 ':'xa7 48 'ii'xa7 'ii'b5 49 'iVb6 'ii'a4 50 'ii'd4 Black wins too after 50 Φf3 'iVd1+ 51 'it>g2 'iWc2+ 52 Φf3 'iWd3+. 50.•.'iWal! 51ltg4 .txe5 52 ~xC4 'iWxb2+ 53 c2 .tf5+ 16 e4 .tg6 17 a3 .i.C5 18 :'112 1:.g8 19 i.h3 .i.h5 20 1:!.e1 lZΊd7 and Black is better, A.Tolush-A.Lutikov, Leningrad 1955. C2) 10 g5 lZΊb6 11 gxf6 gxf6 12 lZΊd2 .i.e6 13lZΊce4lZΊ8d7 14 b3 a5 15 a4l:lg8 16 '114 '116 17lZΊg3 .tc5 18 .i.xc5lZΊxC5 19 i.h3 f5 20 1:.hg1 ~af8 leads to an approximately equal position, S.YuferovB.Gelfand, Belarus 1983.

60

d1) The plan of exchanging lightsquared bishops οη the h3-c8 diagonal doesn't work: 8 ..ih3 .tb4 9 .td2 lZΊb6 10 i.xc8 'it>xc8 11 b3 1;ld8 12 :d1 a5 13 lZΊe4lZΊc6 14 a4 .i.e7 15 i.c3lZΊd7 16 ο-ο 'u'a6 17 'u'd5 f5 and Black is better, G.5anjib-E.Ubilava, New Delhi 2008. d2) 8 i.e3 c6 9 i.h3 ~C7 10 ο-ο .i.C5 11 .i.xC5 lZΊxC5 12 .txc8 J::txc8 13 1:ί.fd1 a5 14 b3 lZΊba6 15 :td2 a4 and again Black is better, A.Zirngibl-D.Neikirkh, Kienbaum 1958. d3) 8 .i.g2 c6 9 i.e3 (the most subtle approach, as applied by Malaniuk; instead 9 ο-ο ΦC7 10 i.e3 a5 11lZΊa4lZΊa6 12 lZΊd2 lZΊdc5 13 lZΊC3 i.e6 14 b3 i.e7

1 d4 tΔI6 2 c4 d6 3 tΔc3 e5 without 4 tΔI3

15 J:tac1 nhd8 was equal and drawn in M.Vidmar-A.Bozic, Ljubljana 1947) 9 ... a5 (if 9 ...ΦC7 10 tΔd2 White has the idea of tΔde4 and probably f2-f4) 10 tΔa4 (οτ 10 ο-ο ΦC7 11 1Ifd1 i.C5 with rough equality) 10...tΔa6 is unclear. e) 7 e3 is absolutely harmless: 7 ...f6 8 i.e2 c6 9 ο-ο a5 10 1:td1 tΔa6 11 tΔd2 '3;C7 12 tΔde4 tΔdC5 13 i.d2 tΔxe4 14 tΔxe4 tΔC5 15 tΔXC5 i.XC5 with an even position in M.Bobotsov-F.Gheorghiu, Bucharest 1971. f) The aggressive swoop 7 tΔg5 is an interesting try to create some complications and exploit Black's inability to castle, but objectively it shouldn't give White any advantage. After 7.. .'.t>e8 8 f4 .Jtb4 9 i.d2 exf4 10 0-0-0 (if 10 g3 π6 11 tΔf3 fxg3 12 hxg3 tΔb6 13 tΔb5 .i.xd2+ 14 tΔxd2 tΔa6 15 i.g2 c6 16 tΔd4 Φe7 17 i.f3 ~d8 and Black is better, J.Lautneτ-ΙΜaΖi, Aschach 2002) Black has:

f1) 10...h6 11 tΔf3 tΔC5?! 12 e3! and Black's inability to castle began to tell in O.Romanishin-A.Valdes Castill0, Cienfuegos 1977.

f2) 10...tΔC5 is correct and if ηονν 11 e3 then 11...f6 12 tΔf3 i.XC3 13 .Jtxc3 fxe3. Here in comparison to Romanishin's game, Black's king has a safe square οη f7 and the g7-pawn is not under attack. Returning to the critical 7 g4: 7.••c6

8 b3

White protects the c4-pawn and prepares to finish his queenside development by i.b2 and 0-0-0. Others: a) The immediate 8 g5 is also in the spirit of White's plan. Α possible continuation is 8 ...ΦC7 (worse is 8 ....i.b4 9 i.d2 a5 10 a3 .i.d6 11 tΔe4 i.C7 12 .i.c3 Φe7 13 π4 with the initiative for White in ΙChτistiansen-Ν.Μuτshed, New York 1989) 9 i.d2 tΔa6 10 0-0-0 f5! (if Black tries to avoid moving his f-pawn, White will put pressure οη the e5-pawn with tΔe4 and .i.C3) 11 gxf6 gxf6 12 ':'gl tΔdC5 13 b3 .i.e6. (See jollowing diagram) Here with the idea of ....1:td8 and ...1:1g8 Black can maintain rough equality.

61

The New O/d Indian

b) 8 .i.e3 f6 9 0-0-0 xd7 19 ..txe5 .i.a3+ 20 b2 to pτotect the b3-pawn and so facilitate the idea of a3 and b4), the weakening of the c1π6 diagonal can be exploited with .....th6+, and e2-e3 will weaken the d3squaτe, thereby inviting ... tbb4 and ....i.f5. 9•..a5 Not just securing space οη the queenside, but also having ϊη mind the idea of ... a5-M at an appropτiate moment. Instead 9... WC7 is unnecessary, but 9...tbC5 is enough for equality, haνing in mind the setup consideτed, above, afteτ 9 g5. 100-0-0 'it>C7 11 g5 tbc5

12.u.g1

Instead 12 π4 has not been seen in practice yet, but the idea of h5-h6, as well as probably ..th3, is a logical plan to destτoy Black's pawn chain (g7-f6e5). However, it does give Black the tempi required to finish his development and cτeate counterplay, with

62

1 d4 'ΔΙ6

12 ...tiJba6 (12 ... a4 13 b4 a3 14 .ia1 tiJcd7 15 liJe4 .ixb4 runs into 16 gxf6 gxf6 17 tiJxf6!) 13 h5 .ie7 14 h6 g6 15 gxf6.ixf6.

From a structural point of view White has achieved his goal here, but it's problematic to take control over the critical e4-square. Α tactical idea is 16 tiJxe5! (if 16 tiJd2 then 16 ....if5), but 16...tiJb4! leads to interesting complications: 17 tiJxg6! Ir.g8! 18 tiJe5 a4! 19 liJxa4 liJe4! and by the sacrifice of three pawns, Black has maximized the power of his pieces. Apart from 20 ..tiJxf2, he threatens 2o ...b5. The 'quiet' opening has led to an extremely unclear situation! Indeed, this line represents the brightest demonstration of the strategical and tactical ideas for both sides. 1.2 ....if5 It is not the suitable moment for 12 ... a4?! ϊη νiew of tactical ideas οη the e5-square: 13 b4 a3 14 .ia1 tiJcd7 (οτ 14... liJa4 15 gxf6 gxf6 16 tiJxe5!) 15 gxf6 gxf6 16 liJe4 i..xb4 17 tiJxf6! is again rather annoying for Black. 1.3 ':g3

2 c4 d6 3 tiJc3 e5 without 4 'ΔΙ3

With the idea of .ih3. This is the correct idea from a positional point of νiew, but again it costs a tempo. 1.3 ...tiJbd7 Probably ηονν was the right moment for 13 ... a4! 14 b4 a3 15 .ia1 tiJcd7, leading to complex play. 1.4 tiJh4 .ie6 1.5 gxf6

1.5 ...tiJxf6! Α concrete approach. Instead if 15 ... gxf6 then 16 .ih3 begins to exploit Black's light-square weaknesses. 1.6 .ih3 'ue81.7 .ixe6 :txe6 1.8 tiJf3 h6

1.911g6

White tries to fix some weaknesses

63

The New O/d Indian

in Black's camp in a bid to maintain the pressure. 19...Φc8 20 lZJh4 I:!.e7 21 .ί:!.g3 l:tg8 22 lZJg6 1:.e8 23 llf3 e4 24 I:!.f5 b6

White has kept up some pressure, but Black has enough resources to hold. 25 ΦC2lZJcd7 26 e3 ΦC7 27lZJe2 Jιd6 28 lZJg3 1:.e6 29 lZJf4 1:tee8 30 lZJg6 .ί:i.e6 31 lZJf4 1:.ee8 32 h4 ~e5 33 Jιxe5+ lZJxe5 34 h5 lZJf3 35 lZJg2 ':e5 36 ':f4 1:!.d8 37 ':xd8 ΦΧd8 38 lZJxe4 lZJxe4 39 1:Ixf3 1:.xh5 401:!f7 g5 41lZJe1 ~h2 42lZJd3 g4 43 1:tf4 g3 44 !:txe4 gxf2 45 lZJxf2 1:txf2+ 46 wd3 JIxa2 Vz-Vz

Game13 R.DzindzichashviIί--I.Sokolov

New Vork 1996 1 d4lZJf6 2 c4 d6 3lZJC3 e5 4 e3 This quiet and solid continuation is usually chosen by players who do not aspire to theoretical discussions in compleχ opening lines and prefer to transfer the game into the middlegame. White's play reminds one of the

64

manner in which Black often plays against the King's Indian Attack, such as with 1 e4 c5 2lZJf3 e6 3 d3 d5. 4 ...lZJbd7 4 .. :iVe7!? can be suggested as an alternative, recalling Chigorin's variation of the French Defence, 1 e4 e6 2 'iVe2. Νονν White's possibilities of development are limited (5 ~d3 is impossible), and Black's b8-knight may find a different route into the game than via d7. Ιη paτticular against a g3, Jιg2 and lZJe2 set-up Black can tτy to play ... c6, ... a5 and ... lZJa6, as was played in a similar situation in M.Kobalia-A.Cherniaev, Wijk aan Zee 1998.

Here White has three ways to develop his kingside: lZJf3 and Jιe2, Jιd3 and lZJe2, οτ g3, ~g2 and lZJe2. 5 Jιd3 Alternatively: a) For 5 g3 see the neχt game. b) 5 lZJf3 deprives White of the possibility of f2-f4 and after 5... g6 he has tried: a) 6 b3 .tg7 7 dχe5 lZJχe5 8 lZJχe5 lZJd7 9 .te2 ~χe5 10 ~b2 ο-ο 11 ο-ο a5

1

d4 CΔI6 2 c4 d6 3 CΔC3 e5 without 4 CΔI3

with the idea of ... CΔC5 is about equa1. b) 6 g3 .1ιg7 7 .1ιg2 ο-ο 8 ο-ο c6 9 b3 e4 10 CΔg5 d5 11 cχd5 cχd5 12 f3 exf3 13 iixf3 π6 14 CΔΠ3 CΔb6 with an even position, G.Barcza-W.Uhlmann, Prague 1954. c) 6 .1ιe2 .1ιg7 7 ο-ο ο-ο reaches a typical situation for the aforementioned King's Indian Attack οτ Sicilian lines, here with colours reversed and an extra tempo for White.

Νονν 8 b4 is the fastest way to create queenside play (if White plays quietly, then Black has the plan of ... e5-e4 followed by obtaining a kingside initiative, just like Fischer used to do in the King's Indian Attack: for example, 8 'ii'c2 1:!.e8 9 b3 iie7 10 iιb2 e4 11 CΔd2 CΔf8 12 b4 π5 13 b5 π4 141:!.ae1 .1ιf5 15 iid1 CΔ8Π7 16 f3 CΔg5 17 f4 CΔgh7 18 ~3 'ifid7 19 1:!.d1 i..h6 20 d5 g5 with mutual chances in B.5armiento Alfonso-A.5trikovic, Mesa 1992), but after 8... a5 9 b5 (9 bxa5 1:ιχa5 10 a4 l:ϊe8 11 iιa3 exd4 12 exd4 b6 13 CΔb5 CΔe4 gives Black a promising game) 9...1:!.e8 10 a4 exd4 11 exd4 CΔb6 12 i..b2 (12

.1ιe3

.te6 13 CΔd2 'ii'd7 has the idea of

... CΔg4 and 14 π3 i..xh3!? willlikely lead to a draw by perpetual check) 12 ... .1ιe6

13 CΔd2 CΔfd7 the weak pawns οη d4 and c4 give Black good play, such as after 14 CΔce4 d5. 5... g66CΔge2 6 CΔf3 is less consistent, as White loses the possibility to push the f-pawn. After 6 ...iιg7 7 ο-ο ο-ο we have:

a) 8 d5 CΔC5 9 iιc2 e4 10 CΔd4 a5 11 π3 .1:!.e8 12 ..td2 CΔM 13 ~e2 CΔf4 14 exf4 il.xd4 is unclear. b) 8 l:te1 1:!.e8 9 'ifiC2 exd4 10 exd4 1:!.xe1+ 11 CΔxe1 c5 12 d5 CΔe5 13 ..te2 .1ιf5 14 ~3 'ifie7 with an even game. c) 8 iiC2 1:!.e8 9 CΔd2 exd4! 10 exd4 c5 is slightly better for Black. Practice has also seen the immediate 6 f4, but after 6 ...il.g7 (οτ 6.. :~e7 7 CΔge2 e4 8 .i.b1 c6 9 'iVc2 CΔb6 10 b3 i.f5 11 a4 with mutual chances in F.Dus Chotimirsky-J.Mieses, St Petersburg 1909) 7 CΔf3 ο-ο 8 ο-ο 1:.e8 9 ~C2 ~e7 10 CΔg5 exd4 11 exd4 CΔg4 Black prepared to invade the resulting hole οη e3 in S.5chmidt Schaeffer-M.5hvartz,

65

The New Old Indian Geπnan

League 2009.

6••...tg7 7 ο-ο

Instead after 7 'iVc2 ο-ο 8 b3, 8... C5!? deserves attention, utilizing the temporari1y-weakened 10ng diagona1. For examp1e: a) 9 ο-ο cχd4 10 exd4 t2Jg4 11 d5 f5 with excellent play for Black. b) 9 dxc5 allows Black to create a dangerous initiative after 9... e4 10 .1ιχe4 t2Jxe4 11 'iνxe4 t2Jxc5 12 'iVd5 'iVa5 (as well as 13 ...1i.XC3, Black threatens 13 ... t2Jxb3) 13 .ib2 i.f5 14 ο-ο i.d3. c) 9 dxe5 t2Jxe5 (with the idea of breaking with ... d6-d5) 10 e4 .ί:ίe8 11 f3 t2Jh5 followed by ...f5 gives Black the initiative. d) 9 d5 e4 10 i.xe4 t2Jxe4 11 'iVxe4 b5! 12 cχb5 a6 with good compensation for the pawn. 7 ...0-0

8 b4 White chooses to start some action οη the left-hand side ofthe board, thus leaving the right flank for Black's counterplay. Alternatively: a) White might further his devel-

66

opment with the aim of playing in the centre: 8 ~C2 t2Jh5 (8 ...1:te8 9 .id2 c6 leads to an approximately equal position) 9 f3 (9 f4?! f5 10 fxe5 dxe5 11 c5 Φh8 12 .id2 c6 13 .1ιC4 t2Jdf6 is better for Black) 9...f5 10 .id2 c6 11 b4 exd4 12 exd4 C5 13 bxc5 dXc5 14 d5 t2Je5 is unclear. b) 8 f4 c6 and then:

b1) 9 f5 .ί::te8 10 t2Jg3 d5 gives Black slightly the better chances. b2) 9 b4?! :e8 10 .:tb1 t2Jb6 11 fxe5 dxe5 12 c5? exd4 13 t2Jxd4 t2Jg4! already gives Black a decisive advantage. b3) 9 fxe5 dxe5 10 d5 t2JC5 11 .1ιc2 cχd5 12 cχd5 e4 is quite unclear. c) 8 b3 1:.e8 (οτ the initially morerestrained 8...b6 9 f4 i..b7 10 t2Jg3 exd4 11 exd4 t2Jh5 12 t2Jce2 t2Jxg3 13 hxg3 t2JC5 14 l::ι.b1 t2Jxd3 15 'iVxd3 .1ιc8 and Black was better in F.Filipov-B.Markov, 50fia 1945) 9 .ib2 exd4 10 exd4 d5 11 .ia3 dXc4 12 bxc4 c5 gives Black a promising game. d) 8 d5 t2Jc5, leading to: d1) 9 .ic2 t2Jh5 10 e4 f5 isn't at all easy to assess.

1

d4

t:ΔI6 2 c4

d6 3

t:ΔC3

e5 without 4

t:ΔI3

d2) 9 t:Δg3 t:Δχd3 10 'iWχd3 t:Δg4 11 e4 fS is uncleaT. d3) 9 e4 t:Δχd3 10 ~χd3 t:ΔhS 11 ~e3 (after 11 f4 fS 12 ~e3 fχe4 Black is better) 11 ... a6 12 a4 fS 13 eχfs gχfS 14 f3 'ir'f6 is slightly better for Black.

8•••.ί:ίe8

Alternative plans are: a) Το define the queenside pawn structure and finish development after 8... as 9 bS b6 10 Sιa3 .:!.e8 11 ':c1 Sιb7 12 t:Δa4 eχd4 13 eχd4 t:ΔhS with the idea of ...'ir'gS. b) Το start counterplay in the centre: 8... eχd4 9 eχd4 dS (οτ 9... CS!? 10 ~f4 cχd4 11 t:ΔbS t:ΔeS 12 t:Δeχd4 a6 13 t:ΔC3 ..tg4 when Black is better) 10 cS .:!.e8 with the idea of ...t:Δf8-e6. 9..tb2 Instead 9 "iVc2 cS!? gives Black reasonable play in this compleχ position. 9 ... hS

Black starts to attack οη 'his' side of the board (i.e. where he has a space advantage), just as often happens in the King's Indian Attack with opposite colours.

The tactical aim is to prepare ... eSe4, avoiding the pawn being attacked by t:Δg3. While at the moment White's development seems slightly better, the first thing we should notice when estimating the chances in this oppositeside play is 'where are the kings?' They are οη Black's side of the board, so Black's play may potentially be the more dangerous, as checkmate is, of course, always the biggest threat. Α quieter but also quite valid approach is 9... c6. 10 h3

Aimed against ... h4-h3, but this cτe­ ates a target for attack with ... g5-g4. Still, after 10 'ii'c2 h4 it's not clear White has anything better than 11 h3, reaching the neχt note. 10... h4 11 "iVb3 If 11 'iVc2, obtaining control over the e4-square, then 11 ... c6 with the idea of ...'iWe7 and ... e4, thereby avoiding 11 ...'iWe7 12 t:ΔdS. 11••• e4 12 ..tc2 t:Δf8 Black is ready to push ... gS-g4. 13 dS

67

The New Q/d Indian

White has ηο real target οη the queenside, so he has to try to attack the e4-pawn with 1:.d1-d4. 13 ...g5 14 :ad1lbg6 15 .:I.d4 g4

This seems like the critical moment. Sokolov opts to ννϊη the exchange. Instead 22 ...fS 23 l:!.xes Iιxes 24 f4 wasn't at all easy to assess, but 22 ... h3! 23 .:I.g1 'iVh6 would have left Black with some advantage thanks to his active queen and passed h-pawn. 23 .:I.g1 ~h6 24 ~b1 ':I'ad8 25 z:teg4 .txg4 26 ':I'xg4 b5 27 ~h1 e4 28 ':I'xh4 ~f6 29 .i.xe4 bXc4 30 lbd4 1:.e5 31 .:I.f4 'iίVh6 32 1:.h4 'iίVf6 33 1:.f4 'iίVh6 V2-V2

Game14 Υ.Balashov-A.Chernin

16lbxe4 White has destroyed an important central pawn, but his kingside is ϊη danger. Indeed, Black has good attacking prospects. 16 ... gxh3 17lbxf6+ 'iVxf6 181:.e4lbe5! The only move, but this was probably underestimated by White in his preliminary calculations. 19 .txe5 dxe5 20 f3 hXg2 21 'it>xg2 'iVg5+ 22 'it>f2

22 ••• Sιf5

68

German league 1997 1 c4 lbf6 2 lbc3 e5 3 e3 d6 4 d4lbbd7 5 g3 g6 6 ..ig2 iιg7 7 lbge2 ο-ο

This position also may arise from the Fianchetto Variation of the King's Indian and was the subject of a discussion in the 1954 World Championship match between Botvinnik and Smyslov. With White, Smyslov liked to play the C10sed Sici1ian and here White's set-up reminds us of ΊΊονν Black often plays

1 d4 tΔI6 2 c4 d6 3 tΔC3

against that opening. 8 a4

This rare continuation was recommended by Botvinnik as an altemative to the plan of b3 and ..ta3. White's idea is to gτab space οη the queenside and prevent Black's possible counteτplay with ... a6, ...1::tb8 and ...b5. Practice has also seen: a) 8 ο-ο 1::te8 9 b3 and ηοw: a1) 9... hS 10 dxe5! dxe5 11 ..ta3 h4?! was strongly met by the unexpected 12 gxh4! with advantage for White in V.Kovacevic-J.Mukic, Yugoslavia 1988. a2) 9... e4 10 ~C2 ~e7 11 g4! (White wants to annihilate the stτong e4pawn at any cost) 11 ...tΔxg4 12 'iYxe4 and White has slightly the better chances, as pointed out by Kovacevic. a3) 9... c6 is the main theoretical continuation and offers Black good chances to equalize.

Here 10 .ia3 (οτ 10 'iYc2 exd4 11 tΔxd4 tΔC5 12 .ib2 "WIe7 13 :f.ad1 a5 14 h3 h5 15 z:tfe1 tΔfe4 16 tΔxe4 tΔXM 17 tΔf3 a4 with an even position, A.KostenJ.Gallagher, French League 2002)

e5 without 4

tΔI3

10... exd4 (10 ... i.f8 looks a bit passive and then 11 ~C2 ~a5 12 ..tb2 e413 a3!? d5 14 cxd5 cxd5 15 f3 blows up Black's pawn chain in the centre) 11 tΔxd4 (11 exd4 tΔb6! 12 I:te1 d5 13 c5 tΔbd7 14 b4 tΔe4 is slightly better for Black) 11 ...tΔC5 12 ~C2 (this is rather similar to a line of the Fianchetto King's lndian, but there the pawn is οη e4; in either case the bishop is rather useless οη a3) 12 ... a5 13 1::tad1 ~e7 14 h3 h5 15 I:tfe1 a4 16 iιb2 axb3 17 axb3 tΔfe4 reached a roughly level position in U.Andersson-R.Dzindzichashνili, Buenos Aires Olympiad 1978. b) The immediate 8 b3 1::te8 9 iιa3 was Botvinnik's choice in the match to prevent ... c7-c6. After 9 ...ktb8 10 ο-ο a6 11 dxe5 (if 11 1::tc1 why not 11 ...b5! grabbing the initiative οη the queenside?; then 12 tΔd5 bXc4 13 bxc4 exd4 14 exd4 tΔxd5 15 cxd5 tΔb6 gives Black reasonable play in this complex position) 11 ...tΔxe5 12 c5 d5!? (improving over 12 ... dxc5 13 ..txC5 b6 14 ~xd8 1::txd8 15 .td4 1::te8 16 e4 .ib7 17 f4 when White was better in M.BotvinnikV.5myslov, World Championship (Game 16), Moscow 1954) 13 tΔd4 tΔc6 14 tΔxc6 bxc6 15 .i:!.c1 hS the position isn't at all easy to assess. 8...1::te8 Also possible is 8... a5 9 b3 1::te8 10 ο-ο e4 11 tΔf4 c6 12 f3 g5!? with unclear play in L.BTuzon Bautista-J.Rohl Montes, Merida 2005. 9 a5 a6 10 ο-ο h5!

It's useful in this structure to probe White's weaknesses οη the kingside.

69

The New Q/d /ndian

12 ... exd4 13 lΔxd4 c5 14 lΔde2 lΔe5 15 b3 'i!JC7 Showing that the pawn οη a5 is a weakness. 16 .Jtg5lΔc6 17lΔf4 Jιe6 18 'iVd3 81ack might have met 18 'iWd2 with 18 ...lΔh7!?, targeting the key bishop. 18...lΔb4 19 Wi'd2lΔh7 20 lΔxe6 I:txe6 21 .Jtf4lΔf6

11h4 White defines the pawn structure. Instead 11 e4 exd4 12lΔxd4lΔg4 13 f3 lΔge5 14 b3 lΔC5 leads to complex play, but 11 h3 seems safer. 11 •••'iWe7

White's idea was to meet 11 ... e4 with 12 'iWc2 Ψiie7 13 lΔf4 when h2-h4 is useful to suppoτt the knight's position. 22~a4

12 e4 This move cτeates a Fianchetto King's Indian structure, but h2-h4 and a4-a5 are not typical for it. Instead 12 'iWc2 deserved attention when 12 ... c6 would have been quite unclear.

70

This is somewhat aτtificial. More natural was 22 f3 with the idea of iιh3. 22 ...lΔg4 23 lΔd5lΔxd5 24 exd5?! lnstead 24 cxd5 ~ee8 25 1:.c4 with the idea of b4 would have allowed White to justify his ':'a4 idea. 24....i:!.e7 25 i.g5 1:ί.ee8 26 Jιf3 'iνd7 27 i.d1?! White should return the rook to play with 27 :a2. 27 ...lΔf6 28 iιxf6 It is necessary to try to equalize. After 28 f3 lΔh7 29 .i.f4? iVh3 a killer check οη d4 is inevitable, while after 28 'i!νf4lΔe4 29 ~a2lΔxg5 3Ο 'lixg5 :!e5 31 'iWd2 'lih3 81ack is better. 28 ...Jιxf6 29 'tWf4

1

d4 tΔI6 2 c4 d6 3 tΔC3 e5 without 4 tΔI3

After 29 .i.f3 'iVh3 30 .i.g2 (if 30 'it'f4 .tes 31 iιg2 'ii'xg2+!) 30.. :ii'f5 Black keeps up some pressure. 29 ... i.e5 30 'ii'f3 'ii'h3 31 .1:I.a2 .td4 32 ~f4.:ι.e5

331:!.e2? The decisive error, although after 33 ~f3 .ί:!.ae8 34 fj'g2 fj'fs White would have come under very strong pressure. 33 ....:f5 34 'iVxd6 :f6 35 fj'e7 Οτ 35 fj'C7 .1:I.c8. 35 ...fj'xg3+ 36 'it>h1 'it'h3+ 37 'it>gl l:!.f3 381:!.e3 l:!.xe3 0-1

Summary The most dangerous of White's deviations after 1 d4 tΔf6 2 c4 d6 3 tΔc3 e5 is 4 dS which tends to lead to strategically complex play. Ι have played a series of blitz games against it facing ηο lesser player than Anatoly Karpov who interprets it ingeniously. ΜΥ feeling is that objectively Black is not worse, but he should play subtly, energetically and creatively. The exchange 4 dxes has a harmless reputation, but White's most principled plan, namely g4, followed by g5, b3, .i.b2 and probably h4-hS-h6 to break through the main diagonal, can lead to sharp and complex play, and should not be underestimated. White's two other options, 4 e4 and 4 e3, are totally harmless from a theoretical point of view, but it's still useful for black players to be familiar with these lines as they are seen quite often in practice.

71

Chapter Three Preventing e2-e4 with ...~f5

3.

d4lbf6 2 c4 d6 3lbf3 g6 4lbc3 ..ifs

Αη unusual but logical continuation which has gained some popularity in recent times mainly thanks to the effoτts of the Ukrainian Grandmasters Volokitin and Efimenko, as well as Morozeνich. With this moνe Black indicates he wants to play either a King's Indian οτ Old Indian without allowing White the space-gaining e2-e4. Black controls the cτitical central square e4 while deνeloping a piece. Οη the other hand, the bishop's position, and therefore control oνer e4, is not stable and the queen's flank (the b7-pawn) is

72

weakened. Ιη general this continuation seems quite playable as an alternatiνe to usual King's Indian schemes. This system has some suτprise νalue and is ϊη fact not so easy to counter with White. Seνeral logical set-ups yield him little οτ ηο edge, which is why quite a few strong players haνe used it to play for a win as Black. White's main possibilities are to: a) Continue his kingside deνelop­ ment with 5 g3 (Game 15). b) Retake control oνer the e4square immediately with 5 lbh4 (οτ 5 lbg5 οτ eνen 5 lbd2), as we'll see ϊη Game 16. c) Exploit the queenside weakness with 5 'iVb3, the subject of Game 17. GM Zahar Efimenko, a leading expeτt οη the ... ..tf5 νariation, as we haνe noted, considers this the most dangerous option for White. d) Employ a central strategy, with the 5 d5 followed by lbf3-d4 of Game 18.

After 3 lbf3 g6, White can also fi-

Preventing e2-e4 with ... .i.f5

anchetto with 4 g3 when 4...Jιg7 5 Jιg2 6 ο-ο c6 7 tίJc3 .i.fs brings us directly to a line of the Fianchetto King's Indian. ο-ο

Game15

E.Bacrot-A.Volokitin Cap d' Agde (rapid) 2006 1 tίJf3 tίJf6 2

c4 d6 3 d4 g6 4 tίJC3 ..tf5 5

g3 Α solid continuation. White simply continues his kingside development. 5... tίJe4

Again Black tries to clamp down οπ the e4-square and we'll see this related idea in action in Games 19 and 20. Likewise, after 1 d4 tίJf6 2 c4 d6 3 tίJC3 the idea to prevent White from playing the space-grabbing 4 e4 with 3.....ifs is also playable. It is called the 'Janowski Indian Defence' and was introduced by David Janowski in the 1920's (AlekhineJanowski, New York 1924), although it did not gain much popularity then οτ since. However, it was a favourite of Mikhail Tal's during the 1960'S and 1970's, when he used it as a way of avoiding the Samisch and the Four Pawns Attack in the King's Indian. Several other grandmasters have employed the opening multiple times too, including Bent Larsen, Florin Gheorghiu, and Kamran Shirazi. We'll take a look in Games 21 and 22, as an alternative to the 3... eS of the last two chapters.

The main idea. Black wants to place his light-squared bishop directly οπ the impoτtant e4-square. This allows him to keep good control over the central squares. Moreover, an exchange of pair of pieces is favourable for Black, who has a bit less space, so his remaining pieces will find it easier to take up comfoτtable positions. 6 tίJxe4 The main continuation, but there are alternatives: a) 6 Jιd2 avoids any doubling of White's pawns, after which 6.....ig7 7 iιg2 c6 (7 ... tίJXC3!? 8 iιxc3 ..ie4 also deserves attention: for example, 9 l:tc1

73

The New O/d Indian

d5 10 ο-ο c6 11 cxd5 'iVxd5 12 a3 ο-ο 13 e3 lt:Jd7 14 'ife2lt:Jf6 and Black is better, M.5avon-V.Komliakov, Tula 2001) 8 ο-ο ο-ο 9 %:ί.c1 'iVb6 10 b3 lt:Jxd2 11 'ifxd2 lt:Jd7 12 h3lt:Jf61ed to an approximately equal position ϊη G.KamskyA.Morozevich, Almaty (blitz) 2008. b) 6 lt:Jd2 keeps control over the e4square at the cost of doubled pawns. After 6...lt:Jxc3 7 bxc3 C5! Black will obtain effective pressure against d4.

Νο

lesser game than M.CarlsenA,Volokitin, Cap dΆgde (rapid) 2006, continued 8 ~g2 (οτ 8 'i!Vb3 'iic8 9 ~g2 lt:Jc6 10 dXc5 dxc5 11 'tWb5 when White uses his queen as an avant-guard to attack to the black pawns, but after 11 ....ig7 12 .ib2 ο-ο 13 ο-ο lt:Jd8 14 lt:Jb3 b6! 15 .i.xa8? .id7 the queen was trapped ϊη C.Cacco-M.5calcione, Cτe­ mona 2005) 8 ...lt:Jc6 9 lt:Jb3 .i.g7 10 ο-ο ο-ο 11 .i.e3 lt:Ja5 12 lt:Jxa5 'iixa5 13 ~xb7 I!ab8 14 ~f3 ii'xc3 15 ':C1 'iVa5 16 dxc5 dXc5 17 ii'd2 'ii'xd2 18 ~xd2 ':b2 and Black was better. c) 6 lt:Jh4 lt:Jxc3 7 bxC3 .ie4 (better than 7...~d7 8 1ιg2 'iVc8 9 ':b1 c6 10

74

ο-ο

.i.g7 11 e4 ο-ο 12 ~g5 with advantage for White ϊη D.5utkovicD.Milanovic, Zupanja 2007) 8 f3 i..c6 9 e4 iιg7 (οτ 9... e5 10 ~h3 i..e7 11 lt:Jg2 ~d7 12 i..xd7+ lt:Jxd7 with complex play, H.Tikkanen-K.Enigl, Schwarzach 2008) 10 iιe3 ο-ο and this complex ρο­ sition is acceptable for Black: for example, 11 .:!.b1 (οτ 11 'iVd2 b6 12 .i.d3 ~b7 13 ο-ο e5 14 f4 exf415 iιxf4 c5 16 ~g5 ΨilC7 17 iιh6 lt:Jc6 18 lt:Jf5 which was agτeed drawn after 18 ... gxf5 19 iιxg7 Φχg7 20 ~g5+ Φh8 21 'iff6+ in G.Balazs-D.Antok, Hungarian League 2009) 11 ...b6 12 iιd3 e5 13 ο-ο ~d7 14 c5 dxc5 15 dXc5 'ile7 16 'i!Vb3 lt:Jc6 17 lt:Jg2 lt:Ja5 18 'i!Vb4 .:Ife8 19 .i.b5 i..xb5 20 'iWxb5 'ife6 and Black retained some useful positional trumps in C.MarzanoJ.lvanov, Montecatini Terme 2003. d) 6 'i!Vb3 lt:JXC3 7 bxc3 (if 7 ~XC3 ~g7 with the idea of ... c5) 7... .i.e4 8 i,h3 iιg7 9 ο-ο b6 also looks good for Black thanks to his better structure.

For example, 10 a4 (10 'iVa4+ ~c6 11 ii'c2 ο-ο 12 e4 e5 was okay for Black ϊη V.Alexandrov-V.Georgiev, Dupnica

Preventing e2-e4 with ... iιI5 1998) 10.. .'=tJc6 11 c5 dXC5 12 dXc5 Ί\ΙΜ5 13 'iWxd5 iιxd5 14l::td1 Z1d8 and Black is better, P.Benkovic-D.Milanovic, Vrnjacka Banja 2005. e) 6 .i.g2 t2JxC3 7 bxc3 ..ie4 8 ο-ο iιg7 9 ..ih3 (instead 9 iιf4 ο-ο 10 'iWC1 1:te8 11 iιh6 e5 12 a4 t2Jc6 13 I:f.d1 file7 14 iιxg7 ~xg7 15 a5 b6 16 axb6 cxb6 17 iιf1 t2Ja5 18 t2Jd2 iιb7 19 'iWb2 J:tac8 was quite unclear in A.CantoreV.Georgiev, Turin 2000) 9... 0-0 10 t2Jg5 Sιc6 11 "i!kd3 e5 with a good game for Black in A.Karpov-A.Cherniaev, Cairo (blitz) 2010, where one of your coauthors managed to make a draw against the former World Champion. f) 6 t2Jd5!? is interesting - White avoids the exchange of knights, having in mind to trade his knight instead for the bishop οη f5. Νονν:

f1) The immediate 6 ... c6 is a bit hasty: 7 t2Je3 'iia5+ 8 t2Jd2 iιg7 9 f3 t2Jxd2 10 iιxd2 "iVb6 11 t2Jxf5 gxf5 12 iιc3 d5 13 'iVd3 e6 14 e4 gave White the better chances in A.VeingoldJ.lvanov, San Fernando 2003. f2) 6...iιg7 7 iιg2 (οτ 7 'iVb3 b6 8

.i.g2 c5 9 t2Je3 ..id7 10 t2Jg5 t2Jxg5 11 iιxa8 cxd4 12 t2Jf5 iιxf5 13 iιxg5 t2Jd7 when Black is better, N.MilchevE.Mollov, Plovdiv 2004) 7... c6 8 t2Je3 'iia5+! (this allows Black to exploit White's lack of development, leading to interesting complications) 9 t2Jd2 Sιxd4 10 g4 t2Jxf2! 11 'it>xf2 iιxe3+ 12 'it>xe3 ..ixg4 and Black had more than enough for the piece in N.5traub-M.Van Leeuwen, German League 2009. Returning to 6 t2JXe4: 6... iιxe4

7 iιh3 Again, the most principled continuation. 7 iιg2 is a more simple approach and one which doesn't promise too much for White after 7... iιg7 8 ο-ο ο-ο and then: a) 9 b3 c5 10 iιb2 t2Jc6 11 "i!kd2 .i.xf3 12 iιxf3 iιxd4 13 iιxd4 cxd4 14 iιxc6 bxc6 15 'iixd4 c5 16 'iWC3 a5 17 e4 a4 was drawn in A.Miles-R.Dzindzichashvili, Wijk aan Zee 1979. b) 9 t2Je1 iιxg2 10 t2Jxg2 c5 11 d5 t2Jd7 12 a4 a6 13 a5 b5 14 axb6 'iWxb6

75

The New O/d Indian

15 :ϊa3 :J:ιfb816 b3 a5 17 tίJe3 'tIVb4 gaνe Black good Benko-like pressure in ι.Οrtega-Ο.Rοmanishin, Arco 1999. c) 9 iιd2 c5 10 iιC3 tίJc6 11 d5 ..ixC3 12 bxC3 tίJa5 13 tίJd2 .i.xg2 14 'iitxg2 ~d7 15 a4 e6 16 .:I.b1 b6 leads to an approximately equal position, N.Pushkoν-K.Shirazi, Cappelle la Grande 2002. d) 9 i.e3 tίJd7 10 'iVd2 (οτ 10 'iWb3 c5 11 dxc5 tίJXC5 12 ..iXC5 dXc5 13 tίJh4 ..ixg2 14 tίJxg2 'tIVb6 with full equality in A.Koroboν-N.Jakupoνic, Mureck 1998) 10... c5 11 .:ι.ad1 ΨιJιo 12 .i.h6 (instead 12 dXc5 tίJXC5 13 .i.h6 1:Ifd8 14 ..ixg7 Φχg7 15 h4 tίJd7 16 ΨιJιe3 tίJf6 17 b3 ΨιJιa5 was roughly equal in M.Maki Uuro-Z.Efimenko, Saint Vincent 2005) 12 ....i.xf3 13 ..ixf3 cχd4 14 ..ixg7 Φχg7 15 ΨιJιxd4+ tίJe5 16 b3 Φg8 17 i.g2 a5 with equal chances, J.CzakonA.Volokitin, Lublin 2009.

after 9 .....ixf3 10 exf3: a) 10... C5 11 .:ι.e1 tίJa6 12 ..ig5 i.f6 13 'ii'd2 tίJC7 14 f4 b5 15 b3 'u'b8 16 .:I.ac1 and White has slightly the better chances, E.Gleizeroν-I'Glek, Krasnoyarsk 2003. b) 10... c6 11 .:ι.e1 tίJd7 12 f4 tίJf6 13 f5 cχd5 14 cχd5 ~d7 15 'iid3 .:I.fe8 16 i.d2 wf8 17 1'1e2 was excellent for White in ι.Christiansen-κ.shiraΖi, Estes Park 1986 . c) 10... tίJd7 11 1:te1 tίJC5 12 .:ι.b1 a5 13 b3 1:te8 14 ..ig5! h6 (14 .....if6 15 .i.e3 e5 16 dxe6 tίJxe6 17 f4 also slightly faνours White) 15 i.e3 e5 16 dxe6 tίJxe6 17 f4 ~f6 18 ΨιJιd5 b6 19 f5 is a touch better for White. 8 ο-ο .i.xf3 Black can also employ the moνe order 8... dxc4 when 9 'iVa4+ c6 10 'ii'XC4 i.xf3 11 exf3 reaches the notes to White's 10th, below. gexf3

7 ... dS!

If Black simply continues his deνel­ opment with 7.....ig7 8 ο-ο ο-ο then 9 d5! with the idea of tίJg5 giνes White the upper hand, as practice has shown

76

9... dxC4

Independent souls may wish to in9...tίJc6!? Certainly 10 'iib3 tίJxd4 11 ~xb7 1ιg7 12 i.e3 tίJxf3+ 13 νestigate

Preventing e2-e4 with ... ii.f5 'iitg2 lZJe5 14 cχd5 .ί:f.b8 15 'iVχa7 'ii'χd5+ 16 f3 1:tχb2+ 17 'iitg1 ο-ο 18 .tg2 .ί:f.a8 19 ΨHχC7 lZJg4! and 0-1 ϊη F.MaurerM.5harif, Liechtenstein 1996, was all very inspiring from B1ack's point of view.

16 f4? h6 17 iιh4 g5118 fxg5 hxg5 19 'iVg4 Ψlih6 20 'iWd7+ Φf8 21 'iVxb7 1:!.e8 22 iιd7 gxh4 23 g4 1:td8 24 iιxc6 'iVg5 25 iιxd5 "iWxd5 26 Ψlixe7+ Φg8 27 h3 Mh6 28 .:!.e4 iιf6 0-1 10Me1 Α 10ss of tempo. Correct is 10 'i!Va4+! c6 11 'ii'χC4 when B1ack has: a) 11 ... lZJd7 runs into 12 d5! lZJb6 13

Game16 Υ.Yakovich-E.Ubilava

Santo Antonio 2001

ΨHc3.

b) 11 ....tg7 12 .tg5 'ii'χd4 13 'iVe2 'iVe5 14 'iVd2 ΨliC7? 15 ~fe1 e5 16 :ad1 f6 17 :1χe5+! fχe5 18 ii.d8 "iWf7 19 YWd6 b6 20 iιg5 and 1-0 was a comp1ete disaster for B1ack ϊη G.FahnenschmidtI.Stoh1, German League 1993. c) 11 ... lZJa6!? seems the best way to ho1d, a1though 12 .tg5 π6 13 iιf4 iιg7 still gives White chances for an edge. 10.••lZJd7 11 YWa4 c6 12 'iVxC4 lZJb6 13 ΨHe2 ii.g7 14 iιg5 lZJd5 15 :ad1 'ii'd6 B1ack is at 1east okay here thanks to his contro1 of the d5-square, but after White's misguided neχt it didn't take Vo10kitin 10ng to ννπϊρ up a decisive attack down the h-fi1e!

1 d4 d6 2 lZJf3 lZJf6 3 c4 g6 4 lZJc3 ii.f5 5 lZJh4 White beats back the bishop, ϊη­ tending to follow through with e2-e4. The two other ways to prepare that advance are: a) 5 lZJd2 e5 6 d5 iιΠ6 sees B1ack countering οη the dark squares and 7 g3 (οτ 7 e3 ο-ο 8 Sιe2 'iVc8 9 h3 a5 10 g4 iιd7 11 lZJf3 .tg7 12 e4 lZJa6 13 iιe3 lZJC5 14 'iVc2 lZJe8 15 g5 b6 16 h4 f5 17 h5 fχe4 18 lZJχe4 lZJχe4 19 'iVχe4 ii.f5 20 'ifh4 c6 which was unc1ear ϊη I.KrushP.B1atny, Kansas 2003) 7... a5 8 iιg2 lZJa6 9 lZJb3 .tχC110 :χC1 b6 11 ο-ο ο-ο 12 e4 iιd7 13 f4 lZJg4 14 Ψlie2 a4 15

77

The New Old Indian

lbd2 exf4 led to complex play in D.Komarov-G.Grimberg, Massy 1993. b) 5lbg5 .id7 6 e4 e5 7 d5 a5! again sees Black switching his approach to the dark squares.

After the active 8 .id3 (στ 8 f4 exf4 9 ~xf4 .ig7 10 'iVd2 ο-ο 11 .id3 lba6 12 ο-ο lbc5 13 .tc2 lbg4 14 lbf3 "ile7 15 J:.ae1 ~ae8 16 .ig5 f6 17 ~f4 b6 18 π3 lbe5 19 lbxe5 dxe5 20 .ie3 lbb7 with the idea of ...lbd6 and ...f5, with an even position in R.Palliser-N.Davies, Swansea 2006) 8... lba6 9 ο-ο i.g7 10 h3lbh5! 11 J:.e1 lbf4 12 i.xf4 exf4 13 lbf3 fie7 14 fid2 .ie5 15 lbe2 lbC5 16 .iC2 g5 17 lbed4 h5 matters were rather unclear in Z.Kozul-A.Volokitin, Murska Sobota 2006. S•••.id7 The most reasonable retreat. With this withdrawal Black doesn't really lose a tempo, as the knight ννϊΙΙ return fτom π4 sooner στ later. lηstead: a) 5... i.g4 provokes h2-h3, but this is favourable for White: for example, 6 π3 .td7 7 lbf3 i.g7 8 e4 is a good version of the King's lηdiaη line with 6 h3,

78

since ο-ο is more useful than ... i.d7. b) 5... i.c8 6 e4 leads to usual King's lndian lines if the knight returns to f3, but White is not committed to that and so Black's ... i.f5 hasn't brought him any benefit here.

6e4

The consistent continuation. Practice has also seen 6 g3 e5 (also possible is 6... i.g7 7 i.g2 lbc6 8 ο-ο ο-ο 9 e4 e5 10 d5 lbd4 with mutual chances) 7lbf3 (στ 7 Jιg2lbc6 8 d5 lbe7 9 ο-ο i.g7 10 e4 ο-ο 11 π3 h6 12 ΦΠ2 lbh7 13 .ie3 g5 14lbf3 f5 with an even position, T.Roussel RoozmonA.Moiseenko, Montreal 2008) 7 ...lbc6 8 Jιg2 .tg7 9 ο-ο ο-ο with the extra move ....id7 in comparison to a normal line of the Fianchetto King's lndian. Following 10 l:te1 (if 10 d5lbe7) 10...h6 (στ the Pannoesque 10 ....:tb8!? with the idea of ... a6 and ...b5) 11 d5 lbe7 12 I:tb1 a5 13 b3 (White has to prepare b4) 13 ...lbh7 14 a3 f5 15 b4 axb4 16 axb4 g5 Black had good attacking chances ση the kingside in D.5hapiro-P.Blatny, Philadelphia 1994.

Preνenting

Instead after 6 tΔf3 Black can play either 6....i.g7 στ 6....i.f5, repeating moνes. After the former, 7 e4 (στ 7 .i.f4 ο-ο 8 'iWd2 c5 9 d5 b5 10 cχb5 a6 11 bxa6 tΔxa6 12 e4 'iVb6 with Benko-like counterplay) 7...e5 8 dxe5 (8 .i.e2 transposes to note 'a' to Black's 6th moνe, below) 8... dxe5 9 tΔxe5 tΔxe4 10 tΔxe4 iLxe5 leads to an approximately equal position. 6 ... es!? The way we like, but Black also has: a) 6... .1ιg7 7 .i.e2 e5 8 tΔf3 ο-ο reaches a position νery similar to the main line King's Indian, although the extra moνe ...iLd7 giνes the position some specifics.

e2-e4 with ... .i.f5

14 ..txf6 a5!? 15 ο-ο 1;!a6 16 .i.c3 :d6 is unclear. a3) 9 d5 a5 10 ο-ο tΔa6 11 tΔd2 tΔC5 12 b3 .i.h6 13 "iVc2 tΔe8 14 tΔf3 ..txCl15 ~axc1 f5 16 tΔd2 f4 17 a3 g5 with complex play ϊη O.5tork-M.Jonker, Arnhem 1990. a4) After 9 ο-ο tΔc6 10 d5 tΔe7 White has to find a plan where the bishop is badly placed ση d7, but with 11 tΔe1 (11 tΔd2?! a5 is about equal; here the bishop ση d7 is good, as shown by 12 a3? Μ!) 11 ...tΔe8 (usually Black has to aνoid weakening moνes ση the queenside, because this is White's teπitory: 11 ... c6 12 tΔd3 h5?! 13 'iit>h1 ~e8?! 14 f3 "iVb6 15 .i.d2 ~ac8 16 C5! and the queenside belonged to White ϊη B.Gelfand-P.Wolff, New York 1989) 12 .i.e3 f5 13 f3 f4 (13 ...tΔf6?! 14 c5 J::i.f7 looks quite natural too, but then 15 'iYb3! is rather awkward) 14 ..Itf2 π5 15 c5 dXc5 16 .i.xC5 tΔd6, as ϊη D.Gureνich­ V.Georgieν, Mermaid Beach 1998, and then 17 a4 White manages to proνe a small adνantage. b) After 6... C5 7 d5

Here: a1) 9 iLe3!? tΔg4 10 .i.g5 f6 11 1ιΠ4 tΔc6 12 dxe5 dxe5 13 ~d5+ is possible because of the inclusion of ....i.d7. After 13 ... Wh8 14 ο-ο-Ο! .i.e8 15 'iVxd8!? ~xd8 16 .t:i.xd8 tΔxd8 17 tΔb5 .i.xb5 18 cχb5 tΔe6 19 1:td1 White has an edge with his bishop-pair. a2) 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 tΔxe5 tΔxe4 11 tΔxe4 ..txe5 12 ..tg5 'tWe8 13 tΔf6+ ..txf6

79

The New O/d Indian

Black has the extra move ... i.d7 in a Benoni set-up, but this is not a big achievement, because in many lines the knight belongs οη this square. After 7... e6 (perhaps Black should try 7...i.g7 8 tΔf3 ο-ο 9 h3 tΔa6) 8 tΔf3 exd5 9 exd5! (better than 9 cχd5 i.g7 10 iιd3 ο-ο 11 ο-ο b5!? with reasonable play for Black in this complex position) 9... i.g7 10 h3! (if 10 i.d3 ο-ο 11 ο-ο i.g4) 10... 0-0 11 iιd3 again the extra move ... i-d7 can only be a problem for Black. 7 tΔf3

vantage for White in L.Albuτt-K.shirazi, Los Angeles 1987. 8 tΔxd4 .1ιg7 9 i.e2 Αη alternative is 9 f3 ο-ο 10 i.e3 tΔc6 11 'ir"d2 a6!? when Black prepares to staτt queenside counterplay in the case of 0-0-0. Here: a) 120-0-0 1:.b8 with the idea of ...b5 when Black has decent attacking chances. b) 12 iιe2! switches to a quieter setup. Νονν ... a6 seems not especially necessary in comparison with the main game, although 12 ... tΔh5 13 ο-ο tΔf4 is still similar enough to it. 9 ••• 0-010

ο-ο

7 ... exd4 Ιη

the case of 7 ...tΔc6 8 d5 tΔe7 the most principled way is 9 C5! 1ιg7 10 cxd6 (10 ~3 irb8 11 cxd6 cxd6 12 iιb5 ο-ο 13 a4 i-g4 14 tΔd2 also gives White an edge, L.Psakhis-P.Wolff, New York 1992) 10 ... cχd6 11 tΔd2 ο-ο 12 iιe2 tΔe8 13 a4 f5 14 tΔC4 fxe4 15 tΔxe4 tΔf5 (15 ... i.f5!? 16 f3 tΔf6 17 tΔcχd6 tΔxe4 18 tΔxe4 tΔxd5 19 ο-ο 'iVb6+ 20 ~h1 tΔf4 21 .ic4+ 1ιe6!? was suggested by Polugaevsky) 16 ο-ο tΔd4 17 1ιe3 i.f5 18 tΔg3 1:.'t.c8 19 .i.xd4 exd4 20 'iVb3 :0 21 tΔxf5 gxf5 22 ~ad1 with a slight ad-

80

This position is similar to the King's Indian line, 1 d4 tΔf6 2 c4 g6 3 tΔc3 iιg7 4 e4 d6 5 tΔf3 ο-ο 6 i.e2 e5 7 ο-ο exd4 8 tΔxd4. Ιη this case the extra move ...iιd7 favours Black, because it is usually played in that line, which was popularized by grandmasters Glek, Miles and others. 10..•:e8 Οτ 10... tΔc6 11 i.e3 and then: a) 11 ... tΔxd4 12 i.xd4 .i.c6 13 b4 b6

Preventing e2-e4 with ... i.f5

14 Ite1 .ί:f.e8 15 f3 tZJd7 16 tZJd5 and White has slightly the better chances. b) 11 .. :Yi'e7 12 f3 Itae8 13 'iUd2 tZJxd4 14 iιxd4 i.c6 15 .ϊ:!.ac1 tZJh5 16 i.xg7 ~xg7 17 b4 b6 18 tZJd5 giνes White a small adνantage. c) 11...l:te8 transposes to our main game. d) 11 ... a6 12 tZJxc6 (12 'iVd2!? .ί:f.e8 13 f3 might be a better plan) 12 ...iιxc6 (οτ 12 ... bxc6!? 13 'iVd2 1:ι.e8 14 f3 c5 15 .ί:!.ad1 ':b8) 13 f3 and White had a small edge because of his space adνantage in A.Beliaνsky-o.Romanishin, Ινον 2000, although here we can recommend the following set-up for Black: 13 ... tZJd7!? 14 'iVc2 a5 15 I!.ad1 b6 16 tZJd5 tZJC5 with the idea of ...'iVd7, ... ':ae8 and ...f5. 11 f3 tZJc6 Instead 11 ... tZJh5 12 g4! tZJf6 (not 12 ... ~e5? 13 f4) 13 ..ie3 tZJc6 14 'ifd2 giνes White better chances of an edge.

witsch's classic ΜΥ System and here 13 ..ig5 ~8 14 iVd2 c5 151:!.ac1 i.c6 16 b3 a5! 17 ..id1 'iVb4 18 .J:ι.e1 tZJd7 19 h4 tZJb6 20 h5 a4 was a peτfect demonstration of Nimzowitsch's ideas in M.Medic-D.5utkoνic, Zadar 2009.

That game continued 21 hxg6 hxg6 22 g4 axb3 23 axb3 and here 23 ...1:t.a3!? deserνed attention with the idea of ... ':xb3. If ποw 24 tZJd5? then 24 ...iιxd5 25 cxd5 tZJxd5!. b) 12 tZJC2 tZJh5! (this is ποw better timed than a move earlier) 13 g4 (White wants to push the knight back immediately, but there are some tactical issues) 13 ....te5! (better than

12..ie3 Natural, but practice has also seen: a) 12 tZJxc6 bxc6! giνes Black control oνer the key d5-square. This pawn structure was discussed in Nimzo-

13 ... tZJf6 14 i.g5 h6 15 ~h4 g5 16 i.g3 tLJe5 17 \!rIfd2 which slightly favours White) 14 1:t.f2 (instead 14 tLJd5 .1ιχh2+! οτ 14 gxh5 .ixh2+! leads to peτpetual check) 14...tZJf4 (ποw Black's pieces dominate the dark squares) 15 iιf1 tZJe7 (with the idea of ... g5 and ...tZJeg6) 16 .ie3 b6 17 'iVd2 g5 18 h4 tZJeg6 with reasonable play for Black in this complex position, D.Zagorskis-J.Bielczyk, Hlohoνec 1994.

81

The New O/d /ndian

12 ...ίtJh5! This is the main idea here. Black obtains control over the dark squares. 13 'iWd2 ίtJf4 13 ...f5 would be premature due to 14ίtJxc6 bxc615 C5I.

14~fd1

Οτ

14 ίtJxc6 ίtJxe2+ 15 ίtJxe2 bxc6 16 l:lad1 .1i.e6 17 b3 C5 18 ίtJf4 ~c8 with rough equality in M.Cebalo-R.Loncar, Croatian Team Championship 1995. 14...ίtJxd4 The right exchange. Instead if 14...ίtJxe2+ 15 ίtJdxe2 ίtJe5 16 b3 a6 17 .ί:!.ac1 b5 18 c5 and White is slightly better, l.Jelen-V.Srebrnic, Ljubljana 2007. 15 iιxd4 'iNg5 16 iιf1 iιxd4+ 17 'iVxd4 The exchange of bishops has shown that the dark squares in White's camp are somewhat weakened, although οη the other hand he has a strong outpost οη d5 for his knight. 17....1i.c6 18 b4 b6 19 ~ac1 a5 20 a3 axb4 21 axb4 h5 The sharpest possibility was 21 ...f5!? 22 c5 bxc5 23 bxc5 fxe4 24 cxd6 exf3 which would have been pretty unclear.

82

22 'iith1 h4

23 ~a1 Φh7?! Α loss of time. More in the spirit of the position was 23 ...ίtJe6 24 'iWf2 h3!? 25 g3 ~xa1 26 ~xa1 'iVf6, grappling with the weaknesses in White's camp. 24 ίtJd5! iιxd5 25 cxd5 ίtJh5 26 'iWC3 ':xa1 27 ~xa1 'iνe5 28 fVxe5 ~xe5 29 .ί:!.a7 :e7 30 'iitg1 Νοw White has some pressure in the endgame, but Black has enough resources to hold. 30...f5 31 e5 .ί:!.χe5 32 1:!.XC7+ Φh6 33 ~c6 ίtJf4 34 1:!.xb6 ίtJxd5 35 l:ιb5 Φg5 36 iιC4 ίtJC3 37 ':xe5 dxe5 38 Φf2 Φf6 39 Φe3 ίtJa4 40 Φd3 ίtJb6

Preventing e2-e4 with ... iLf5

The endgame is drawish, but Black shou1d still be carefu1. 41 SΙg8 We7 42 g3 hxg3 43 hxg3 Φf6 44 SΙb3 We7 45 1i.C4 '&t>f6 46 SΙb5 '&t>e7 47 SΙc6 '&t>d6 48 SΙe8lbd5 49 '&t>C4 e4 50 fxe4 lbf6 51 SΙxg6 fxe4 52 Wd4 e3 53 ~d3 lbh5 54 g4 lbf4 55 '&t>xe3 lbd5+ 56

1t>e4 lbxb4 57 SιC4 lbc6 58 g5 lbe5 59 ~b3 lbg6 60 'it>f5 lbh4+ 61 '&t>f6 'it>c5 62 ~d1 '&t>d5 63 SΙf3+ Wd4 64 SΙb7 We3 65 ~c8 Φf4 66 SΙe6 '&t>g3 67 SΙd7 'it>f4 68

.ic6 'it>g4 69 SΙa4 '&t>g3 70 SΙd1 Φf4 71 SΙe2 '&t>e3 72 SΙg4 We4 73 SΙh5 Wf4 74 SΙd1 Φg3 75 '&t>g7 '&t>f4 Vz-Vz

Game17 S.Skembris-O.Romanishin Bratto 2002 llbf3 lbf6 2 c4 d6 3 d4 g6 4 lbc3 iLf5 5 'iVb3

Α

logical way to exploit the weakening of Black's queenside. 5...~c8 The alternative is 5...b6!? This weakens the long diagonal and looks

rather unnatural, but the expert οη this line, the Bulgarian GM V1adimir Georgiev, believes that Black has good counterchances. White can play: a) 6lbg5!? again has the idea of e2e4 and then 6...lbc6 7 e4 i.d7 8 lbf3 e5 leads to complex play. b) With 6 C5!? SΙg7 7 e4 White wants to play a real gambit. Accepting the sacτifice yields White some compensation for the pawn, although after 7 ... lbxe4 8 lbxe4 iLxe4 9 lbg5 d5 10 lbxe4 dxe4 11 ii.e3 c6 he is yet to prove the correctness of his sacτifice. c) 6 g3 lbc6 7 d5 lba5 8 'iVd1 c5 9 dxc6 lbxc6 10 ii.g2 iLg7 11 ο-ο ο-ο 12 lbh4 SΙd7 13 b3 lbe4 14 Sιχe4 iLxC3 15 ii.h6 J:.e8 16 1:ϊ.c1 SΙb2 17 1:lb1 i.f6 18 lbg2 .ί:ι.c8 19 ~d2 lbe5 with an even position, A.Timman-I.Glek, Haarlem 2007.

6 g3 The most popu1ar continuation. ΑΙ­ ternatives are: a) With 6 h3 White wants to obtain a space advantage ση the kingside and

83

The New Qld Indian

in the centre. However, this is quite ambitious and 6 ... i.g7 7 g4 1Ld7 8 e4 h5!? (more vigorous than 8 ... 0-0 when 9 ..ie3 lΔc6 10 1Le2 a5 11 'iVd1 a4 12 ~d2 a3 13 b3 lΔb4 14 e5 lΔe8 15 lΔe4 c5 16 dχc5 1Lc6 17 'iVχb4 i.χe4 18 cχd6 eχd6 19 ο-ο dχe5 20 i..c5 was eχcellent for White in P.Eljanov-A.Volokitin, Russian Team Championship 2008) 9 g5 lΔh7 10 1Le3 c5 11 d5 ο-ο 12 i.g2 lΔa6 13 0-0-0 lΔC7 14 e5 b5 15 cχb5 lΔχb5 16 lΔχb5 l1b8 17 a4 a6 left Black better in M.De Verdier-D.Jakobsen, Borup 2008. b) 6 i..f4 is a rather simple development which doesn't trouble Black: 6 ... i..g7 7 h3 ο-ο 8 e3 c5 9 d5 lΔa6 10 ..te2 lΔb4 11 ο-ο i..C2 12 ~a3 a6 13 .:tac1 i..d3 14 .ί:tfd1 iιχe2 15 lΔχe2 b5 and Black is better, J.Wendt-V.Baklan, Ohrid 2009. c) 6 lΔh4 is a new version of a familiarmotif.

Sad 2009) 8 dχe5 dχe5 9 lΔf3 lΔc6 10 i.,g7 11 i..d3 i.,g4 12 ..ig5 lΔd7 13 'iVa3 ..iχf3 14 gχf3 h6 15 i.,e3 "iVd8 16 f4 eχf4 17 ..tχf4 lΔce5 the position was about equal in K.Lahno-I.Kurnosov, Satka 2008. 6...i.,g7 7 1Lg2 lΔd5

Threatening 8 lΔh4. 7•.. lΔc6 Black can also block the long diagonal with 7... c6, but then 8 ο-ο ο-ο 9lΔh4 στ 9l:i.e1 is slightly better for White because ofhis space advantage. 8 dS

After 6 ... i..d7 7 e4 e5 (στ 7...lΔc6 8 'iVd1 e5 9 d5 lΔd4 10 i.,e3 iιg7 11 i.,χd4 eχd4 12 "iVχd4 ο-ο 13 ~d2 lΔχe4 14 lΔχe4 1:te8 15 i.,d3 f5 and Black was better in S.Rautanen-A.Muzychuk, Novi

84

After 8 ο-ο ο-ο 9 :d1 a5 10 iιg 5 1:te8 (στ 10 ... lΔe4 11 lΔχe4 ..tχe4 12 ~e3 iιχf3 13 i.,χf3 e5 14 dχe5 lΔχe5 and Black was okay in V.EpishinV.Nevednichy, Nova Gorica 2006) 11 J::!.ac1 h6 12 i.χf6 i..χf6 13 e3 ..ig7 14 l:td2 e5 Black was left trying to realize the power of the two bishops in ι.οstrσwski-Ε.Κeηgis, Suwalki 1999. 8••• lΔd8

This is not a very attractive position for the knight, but it's not as bad as it looks.

Preventing e2-e4 with ... .tj5 Instead Joe Gallagher believes that 8... 4Jb8 deserves ηο less attention, although practice with this move has been very small: for example, 9 .i.e3 (οτ 9 4Jh4 .i.d7 10 e4 ο-ο 11 ο-ο 4Ja6 12 "ii'c2 e6 13 .i.d2 c6 with an even position, V.Malaniuk-D.5hilin, Odessa 2005) 9... 0-0 10 :c1 4Ja6 11 ο-ο c5 12 1:!.fe1 4JC7 13 .1g5 116 14 ..Itd2 4Je4 15 4Jxe4 .txe4 16 'iWe3 .i.xf3 17 .i.xf3 "iVd7 18 .i.C3 and White was perhaps slightly better in L.Ftacnik-A.Collinson, British League 2000. 9 ο-ο ο-ο

terplay in this complex position. a3) 10 ....th3 11 c5 .txg2 12 'it>xg2 'iVd7 (instead 12 ... c6 13 1:!.fd1 cxd5 14 4Jxd5 gives White an edge) 13 π3 dXc5 14 .1xC5 b6 15 iιd4 c5 16 .1e5 4Jb7 17 e4 4Ja5 18 ~C2 4Jc4 and finally the knight is back in the battle, with equal chances in V.Epishin-C.Bauer, Bad Zwesten 1997 . b) 10 iιd2

10... c5

10:el

White wants to avoid the exchange of his fianchettoed bishop, but this is by ηο means compulsory: a) 10 .i.e3 with the idea of c5 and l:ι.ac1 allows Black a choice: a1) 10...4Je4 11 4Jxe4 ..ItXe4 12 c5 e6 13 dxe6 4Jxe6 14 cxd6 cxd6 15 1:tac1 'iVd8 16 1:ϊ.fd1 iie7 17 "ii'b4 iιc6 18 b3 J:!.fd8 slightly favours White, L.PsakhisE.Dizdarevic, New Delhi 2000. a2) 10 ... C5!? 11 a4 4Je4 12 4Jxe4 .txe4 13 iιd2 e5 with reasonable coun-

(οτ

10... 4Je4 11 4Jxe4 .1xe4) 11 l:ι.fe1 (11 l:ιae1 was suggested by Karpov during some analysis; the idea is to follow up with 4Jh4, e4 and f4, when White's rooks are correctly placed, but 11 ... 4Je4!? 12 4Jxe4 .1ιχe4 keeps the situation fairly unclear) 11 ....i.h3 12 iιΠ1 π6 13 ~C2 e5 14 e4 b6 15 'iVd3 4Jb7 16 .:Iab1 iid7 17 4Jh4 J:!.fe8 18 iιf3 .i.g4 19 a3 1:ϊ.e7 20 .1xg4 'iVxg4 21 1Wf3 1Wxf3 22 4Jxf3 'it>h7 with an even position in A.KhalifmanV.Tseshkovsky, Sochi 2005. c) 10 4Je1 c6 11 4Jd3 .i.h3 12 ..Itxh3 'i1i'xh3 13 f3 'iWc8 14 e4 b6 15 .i.g5 π6 16 ..Ite3 4Jb7 and with the knight returning to the action, Black had ηο prob-

85

The New Old Indian

lems in 8.Kurajica-o'Romanishin, 50lin/5plit 2004. 10 •••tί'Je4!

This is the typical manoeuvre here in order to obtain a hold οη the e4square. 11 tί'Jxe4 ..txe4 12 'ii'e3 81ack should meet 12 ~g5 with 12 ... f6!? 13 .td2 c5, with prospects to expand οη either f1ank. Instead 12 ... e5 13 c5 ~d7 (13 ... dXC5!? may improve; after 14 i..e7 ~e8 15 .tXC5 c6 16 dxc6 .txc6 17 .1:!.ac1 tί'Je6 18 .te3 ~d7 81ack appeared to be okay in P.NielsenO.Romanishin, European Championship, Aix-les-8ains 2011) 14 tί'Jxe5 .txe5 15 .txe4 dXc5 16 .tg2 prepares the movement of White's central pawns, as otherwise 81ack's knight would take up a comfortable position οη d6. After 16 ... b6 17 f4 .tg7 18 e4 White has slig htly the better chances. 12 ...fS This was fairly forced and ηονν the pawn structure reminds one of the Leningrad Dutch, although the position of some of the pieces, especially the

86

bishop οη e4, is unusual. Instead 12 ...i.xf3?! 13 .txf3 e5 14 dxe6 tί'Jxe6 15 .tί.d1 gives White a small advantage, as his unopposed lightsquared bishop οη the long diagonal is very strong.

13.th3

White wants to avoid the exchange of bishops, but this plan is too slow to really trouble 81ack. Alternatives are: a) 13 tί'Jg5?! .txg2 14 Φχg2 h6 is pretty comfortable for 81ack. b) 13 tί'Jd4 .txg2 14 Φχg2 1:te8 with the idea of ... e5 is also fine for 81ack. c) Ιη the case of 13 'iYb3, 13 ... e5 deserνes attention, as after 14 dxe6 tί'Jxe6 15 c5 81ack can play 15 ... d5 with a good game. 13 ... e6 5tarting to blast from the other hand. Instead 13 ... c6!? has not been seen in practice, but also deserves attention. If 14 tί'Jg5 then 14 ... cχd5 15 cχd5 .txd5 16 ~xe7 ~c6 with the idea of ...11e8. 14~b3

Instead 14

tί'Jd4?!

with the idea of

Preventing e2-e4 with ... ..if5 f2-f3 is refuted by 14... exd5 15 f3 f4! when Black is better, while 141:ί.d1 is an unexplored path, but Black hardly has any problems ϊη this line: for example, 14... c6!? (14... exd5 15 cχd5 tiJf71eads to an approximately equal position) 15 dxe6 (15 dxc6 'ikxc6 16 tiJg5 isn't at all easy to assess) 15 ...'iixe6 16 tiJg5 'iWxc4 17 'iJxe4 fxe4 18 ':'xd6 c5 19 b3 Vι\VC2 20 1:ί.d2 ~C3 21 J:.b1 is unclear. 14... c6!

It is obvious that Black has solved his opening problems. 15 dxe6 If 15 dxc6?! tiJxc6 with complex play, likely favourable to Black. 15 ...tiJxe6 The knight has emerged from passivity. However, 15 ..."iVxe6? 16 tiJg5 'iWe7 17 'iJxe4 ~xe4 (17 ...fxe4 18 ..te3 is excellent too for White) 18 ..ie3 wou1d have given White the better chances. 16 ..te3 d5 The best move. Instead 16 .....txf3 17 exf3 tiJd4 18 ~d1 c5 fights for equality, but Black can aim for more. 17 cxd5

Romanishin had actually reached this position ϊη an earlier game, where 17 tiJd2 dXc4 18 'iJxC4 ..id5 19 ..ig2 f4!? corrupted White's kingside, with a good game for Black ϊη M.KrasenkowD.Romanishin, Cutro 1999. 17 .....ixd5 18 'iνC2 'iVd8

19 J:.ad1 19 Ited1 W/e7 20 ':'d2 a5! 21 1:tad1 a4 sees Black taking the upper hand, due to the weak pawns ση a2 and b2. 19...~a5 19 .. :~e7! looks more logical, again with the idea of ... a5-a4. 20 b3 ~C3 21 ~xC3 ..ixc3 22 .td2 ..if6 Black is still a little better, but White is able to hold. 23 .tg21:ife8 24 h4 a5 25 tiJg5 ..ixg2 26 tiJxe6 J:.xe6 27 wxg2 a4 28 .te3 axb3 29 axb3 VI-Vz

Game18

J.Gu5tafsson-J.HickI Germa n League 2004 1 d4 tiJf6 2 C4 d6 3 tiJf3 g6 4 'iJC3 ..if5

87

The New Old Indian

5 dS

White grasps a space advantage and releases the d4-square for his knight. This plan costs two tempi, but the f5-bishop will have to retreat, thereby leaving the e4-square in White's hands. John (οχ recommended this ambitious if logical approach in Starting Out: 1 d4, but didn't consider that Black should hit back in the centre with ... e5, which is his best approach, as we'll see. White also has severalless-common continuations, none of which are dangerous for Black: a) 5 π3

88

This is an original move with the idea to drive away Black's bishop with g2-g4. However, practice shows that Black has ηο problems after the thematic 5...4Je4 6 4Jxe4 (οτ 6 ~3 4Jxc3 7 'iWxb7 1i.e4 8 d5 4Jd7 9 bXC3 .i.g7 10 4Jd4 ο-ο with good compensation in R.Webster-D.Jakobsen, Gibraltar 2008) 6...1i.xe4 74Jg5 (if 74Jd2 .i.c6 8 d5 1i.d7 with rough equality) 7 ... SΙf5 8 e41i.d7 9 ~e3 (9 h4 h6 10 4Jf3 .i.g7 11 Sιe3 c5 12 ~d2 4Ja6 is unclear) 9 ... Sιg7 10 'iUd2 4Ja6: for example, 111i.e2 (οτ 11 .1:ι.d1 c5 12 4Jf3 cχd4 13 1i.xd4 Sιxd4 14 ~xd4 f6 15 1i.e2 ~6 16 ο-ο which was drawn in Z.Kozul-E.Dizdarevic, Solin/Split 2000) 11 ... c5 12 ο-ο cχd4 13 ~xd4 Sιxd4 14 'iUxd4 f6 15 4Jf3 ~6 16 .1:ι.fe1 'iUxd4 174Jxd44JC5 and Black was very solidly placed in Sokolov-E.Dizdarevic, Sarajevo 2001. The next group of possibilities is 5 e3, 5 Sιg5 and 5 1i.f4. The common feature of these options is that White continues his development without becoming involved in the immediate struggle for the e4-square. However, it is impossible to achieve an opening advantage without interfering with the opponent's plans. b) 5 e3 1i.g7 6 1i.d3 (this exchange is logical from the .point of view of placing White's central pawns οη light squares, e4 and d5; instead 6 Sιe2 ο-ο 7 ο-ο c5 8 b3 e5 9 dxc5 dXc5 10 1i.b2 4Jc6 11 4Jd5 .1:ι.e8 12 'iUc1 e4! sees Black grab the initiative in the centre, A.YegiazarianA.Minasian, Yerevan 2006) 6....txd3 7

Preventing e2-e4 with ... iιI5 ~xd3 ο-ο

8 ο-ο lbbd7 9 e4 (totally (οη­ sistent; instead 9 b3 e5 10 iιb2 1:te8 11 'iVc2 exd4 12 exd4 d5 led to an even game in T.Lentrodt-P.Blatny, Bad Wiessee 1997) 9... c5!? (Vitaly Valerieνich has an interesting plan in mind) 10 d5 lbg4 11 'iVe2 lbge5 12 lbd2 f5! uncovers the potential of Black's pieces and leads to complications.

14 f4 f5 15 iιd3 fxe4 16 lΔdxe4 0-0-0 17 'iVd2 .i.xe4 18 iιxe4 'iVb4 19 iιd3 lbb6 saw Black taking the upper hand in F.Doettling-M.Krasenkow, German League 2000) 6...lΔe4 7 lΔxe4 (if 7 .i.h4 lΔxC3 8 bXC3 c5 with rough equality, M.Foisor-S.Peeters, Charleroi 2006) 7....i.xe4 is again pretty comfortable for Black.

The game E.Fomichenko-V.Tseshkovsky, Krasnodar 1999, continued 13 f4 lbg4 14 lbf3 iιd4+ 15 'it>h1 lbdf6 16 lΔg5 'iVd7 17 h3 iιxC3 18 hxg4 h6 19 exf5 hxg5 20 bXC3 gxf5 21 gxf5 g4 and the complications had resulted in a promising position for Black. c) 5 iιf4 iιg7 6 e3 (otherwise, 6 iVd2 h6 7 h3 lbe4 8 lbxe4 .i.xe4 is about equal, while 6 'iVb3 transposes to note 'b' to White's 6th move in the previous game) 6... lbh5!? (6 ... lΔe4 7 lΔxe4 .i.xe4 also reaches a level game) 7 iιg5 h6 8 i.h4 g5 9 lΔd2 'iVd7 10 iιe2 c5!? leads to complex play with mutual chances. d) 5 .i.g5 iιg7 6 e3 (instead 6 lΔd2 h6 7 .i.h4 g5 8 i..g3 lΔh5 9 e3 lΔxg3 10 hxg3 c5 11 d5 'iVb6 12 iVC1 lΔd7 13 e4

For example, 8 i..d3 (οτ 8 i.e2 c5 9 h6 10 i.h4 cxd4 11lΔxd4lbc6 12 f3 lΔxd4 13 exd4 .i.f5 14 'iVd2 ο-ο 15 ':fe1 ];te8 16 ~f1 a5 17 b3 ~C7 18 1:tad1 e5 19 dxe5 dxe5 20 'iVd6 'iVxd6 21 ':xd6 .tf8 22 1:td5 e4 with equal chances in P.Cramling-I.Glek, Mu1heim 2010) 8... iιxd3 9 ~xd3 C5!? (again this is the most challenging approach; instead 9...lΔc6 10 ο-ο "iVd7 11 .ί:!.ad1 h6 12 iιh4 ο-ο 13 d5 lΔb4 14 'i1Vd2 a5 was about equal in E.Kuligin-D.Andreikin, Sochi 2007) 10 ο-ο lΔc6 11 Itab1 ο-ο 12 d5 lΔb4 13 'ifb3 ];tb8 14 a3 lΔa6 15 ~c2 "iVd7 16 b4 cxb4 17 aΧb4.:ϊ.fc8 18 'iVa2 .i.c3! 19 b5 lΔC5 20 J:Hc1 .i.g7 21 lΔd4 ~a8 22 f3 a5 and Black was better in P.5inkovics-P.Blatny, Vienna 1996.

iιg6

ο-ο

89

The New Q/d /ndian

Returning to 5 d5: 5... i.g7 6lbd4 6 lbd2 is less consistent with White's previous move and after 6... e5 (οτ 6 ... 0-0 7 e4 ..td7 8 .1ιe2 e6 9 ο-ο 1:te8 10 1:te1 lba6 11 i..f3 c6 with counterplay, R.Loetscher-J.Adler, Swiss League 2007) 7 e4 .1ιd7 8 ..te2 lba6 9 J:tb1 c5 a compleχ manoeuvring struggle ensues along King's lndian lines. 6... .1ιd7 7 e4

L.Poliakoff-C.Rosenfield, USA 2000. c) 9 lbC2 transposes to our main game. 8lbc2 lnstead 8 dχe6 fχe6 9 .i.e2 ο-ο transposes to the last note, but 8 lbb3!? ο-ο 9 .i.g5 deserved attention, preventing Black's idea of ...lbe8 and ...f5. 8... 0-0 9 .1ιe2 a5 10 g4 Eχcitable play, as White has not yet finished his development. The so1id 10 ο-ο was about equal, although the knight οη c2 is not too well placed here. 10...lba6 11 h4lbc5 12 iLf3 c6 13 h5 lnstead 13 g5!? lbe8 (13 ...lbh5 is too ambitious: 14 .i.χh5 gχh5 15 .i.e3 gives White a small advantage) 14 h5 lbC7 prepares ... b5 with mutual chances. 13 ... cxd5 14 cxd5 b5

7 ...e5

Perhaps 7... 0-0!? 8 ..ie2 e5 is a more realization of the same idea.

f1eχible

For eχample: a) 9 dχe6 fχe6 10 ο-ο e5 11lbc2 ..ie6 12 .1ιg5 lbbd7 13 'iVd2 Wh8 14 f3 .1ιg8 15 b41:!.f7 16 lbd5 lbf8 17 1:tfd1lbe6 18 lbχf6 .1ιχf6 19 ..te3 1:ιd7 20 b5 c5 21 bχc6 bχc6 22 :ab1 c5 was about equal in B.Gelfand-A.Morozevich, Monte Carl0 (rapid) 2006. b) 9 lbb3 lbe8 10 h4 f5 11 .1ιg5 lbf6 12 'iVc2 h6 13 .i.χf6 'iVχf6 140-0-0 a5 15 lbd2 lba6 16 a3 h5 17 f3 lbc5 18 .ί:!.df1 f4 19 Wb1 'ike7 20 lba2 .i.f6 21lbc3 a4 22 lbb5 c6 and Black was better in

90

Both opponents play οη their f1ank, but White's attack is not supported by sufficient development. 15 g5?! lbxh5! White had clearly underestimated this idea. 16 .i.xh5 b4

Preventing e2-e4 with ... iιI5

The key follow-up. 17 tΔe2 tΔxe4 18 iιf3 tΔxg5 Thus Black obtains three pawns for the piece and gains the initiative. 19 iιg2 f5 20 f4 exf4 21 tΔcd4 Not 21 tΔxf4? :e8+ with a neardecisive advantage for Black. 21 .• :iWb6 22 iιxf4 Black would have been doing very well too after 22 tΔe6 f3 23 tΔxg5 fxg2 24 :gl f4. 22 ...1:!.ae8 This creates irresistible threats and Hickl should really have gone οη to win, despite Gustafsson's best attempts to resist. 23 Φf1 tΔe4 24 'iVd3 iιc8 25 'iVe3 'iVC5 26 tΔe6 iιxe6 27 dxe6 .ί:ϊ.χe6 28 iιxe4 'iVxe3 29 iιxe3 ':'xe4 30 iιb6 1:.fe8 31 tΔg1 iιxb2 32 .ί:ϊ.d1 a4 33 tΔf3 a3 34 iιd4 1::.f4 35 Φf2 iιxd4+ 36 Iίxd4 1:.xd4 37 tΔxd4 1:te4 38 .ϊ:.d1 Φg7 39 Φf3 h5 40 tΔC2 .ί:ϊ.C4 41 tΔe3 :C3 42 .ί:ϊ.Χd6 b3 43 axb3 .ί:ϊ.Χb3 44 1:.a6 h4 45 Φf2 :C3 46 tΔd5 ':g3 47 tΔe3 f4 48 tΔc4 h3 491:txa3 .ί:ϊ.χa3 50 tΔxa3 g5 51 tΔC4 Φf6 52 tΔd2 g4 53 tΔf1 Φe5 54 tΔd2 Φf5 55 Φg1

55 ...f3?? Proof that it's never too late to resign! The text is a terrible mistake, whereas the calm 55 ... g3 56 tΔf1 Φg4 57 tΔd2 f3 58 tΔe4 Φf4 59 tΔd2 f2+ 60 Φf1 Φe3 61 tΔC4+ Φd3 62 tΔe5+ Φe4 63 tΔg4 h2 would have seen Black converting his decisive advantage. 56 tΔf1 Φf4 57 Φf2 h2 58 tΔg3 Vz-Vz Αη interesting game. Though Black missed a victory in the endgame, he played very well in the opening and middlegame stages.

Game19

R.Wojtaszek-LMcShane Stockholm 2010 1 d4 tΔf6 2 c4 d6 3 tΔf3 g6 4 g3 .tg7 5 .tg2 ο-ο 6 ο-ο c6 7 tΔC3 iιf5 First played at grandmaster level by Smyslov in his 1957 World Championship match against Botvinnik. Black plays in a similar manner to our last four games, aiming to clamp down οη the e4-square and follow up with

...tΔe4. 8tΔh4

The most common continuation. 'As White should not allow ... tΔe4, and moves such as 8 tΔd2 οτ 8 tΔe1 are less forced, this move is obvious.' - Botvinnik. Not everyone agrees these days, and for White's other options see the next game. 8 ...iιe6

91

The New Q/d /ndian

9 dS

Grabbing space, otherwise Black will play ... d5 himself: a) 9 b3?! d5! gives Black good counterplay. For example: a1) 10 c5 b6 11 b4 a5 12lba4lbbd7 13 ii.d2 b5 14 lbb2 lbe4 15 ii.e1 axb4 16 .txb4 lbexc5 and Black had wοη a pawn in P.5inprayoon-E.Torre, Auckland 1977. a2) 10 "iVd3 lba6 11 c5 iιc8! (with the idea of ... e5) 12 ii.f4 lbg4 13 lbf3 f6 14 iιC1 e5 gives Black a promising game. a3) 10 cxd5 cxd5 11 iιb2 lbc6 reaches a nearly symmetric and equal position, where the exchange of lightsquare bishops, with ..."iVd7 and ....th3, is desirable for Black from a positional point of view: for example, 12 l':tc1 (οτ 12 e3 "iVd7 13 "iVd2 l:!.ad8 14 l':tac1 iιh3 15 iιxh3 'iVxh3 16 f3 iιh6, targeting the weak pawn οη e3 and after 17lbd1 l':tfe8 18 lbg2 e5 Black had realized all his strategic aims in A.Denker-E.Torre, Lone Pine 1975) 12 ...1:Ic8 13 e3 (instead 13 lba4 b6 14 lbC3 .th6 15 e3 ~d7 16

92

f4 both protects the pawn οη e3 and prevents ... e5, but this cτeates additional light-square weaknesses οη the kingside; after 16 ....th3 17 ~e2 .txg2 18 Φχg2 .tg7 19 lbf3 lbe4 Black was better ϊη C.Mengual Bolo-S.Garcia Martinez, Cullera 2003) 13 ...~d7 14 l:ι.e1 iιh3 15 lba4 ~xg2 16lbxg2 b6 with an even position, Z.Beil-I.Nemet, Reggio Emilia 1991. b) 9 "iVd3 d5! 10 cxd5 (10 c5 b6 11 cxb6 axb6 12 f4 ~c8 13 f5 b5 14 b4 lbe4 gives Black good play) 10... cxd5 reaches another symmetrical structure, where there are ηο objective reasons for white to obtain the upper hand:

Μ) 11 lbf3 lbc6 12 iιf4 lbe4 13 lbxe4 i.f5 14 lbf6+ i.xf6 15 'iVd2 "iVb6 with equal chances. b2) 11 f4 lbc6 12 f5 .tc8 with an even game. b3) 11 "iVb5 ~d7 12 lbf3lbc6 13lbe5 ~C7 is about equal too. b4) 11 iιd2 lbc6 12 e3 a6 13 l':tfc1 l':tc8 14 lba4 lbe4 15 lbC5 lbe5! (the culmination of the knights' battle for the cτitical central squares) 16 dxe5

Preventing e2-e4 with ... .i.f5 lL\xc5 reached a roughly level game in

R.Vaganian-I.5mirin, Odessa 1989. c) 9 'iVb3 doesn't give White anything after 9...'iWb6, while for 9.. :~O see note 'c2' to White's 8th move in the next game. 9... cxdS Black can also wait with this exchange: for example, 9....td7 10 .te3 lL\a6 11 lL\f3 cχd5 12 cχd5 transposes back to the main game. 10 cxdS .td7

... e6) 12 ...lL\g4! 13 .td4 .ixd4 14 "iVxd4 'iWb6!? 15 "iVd2lL\e5. c) 11 ~3 iVC7 12 iιd2 lL\a6 13 "iVa3 (White tries to avoid both ...lL\C5, which can πσνν be met by b2-b4, and ... b5) 13 ..."iVC5 14 iVxC5 lL\xC5 15 b4 lL\a4 again gave Black good play in R.Mascarinas-M.Fuller, Brisbane 1979. d) 11 .ϊ:ι.b1 a5! 12 b4 axb4 13 .ϊ:ι.Χb4 'iYa5 14 .ϊ:ι.b3 lL\a6 15 .td2 ~fc8 with a slight advantage for Black. e) 11 .td2 a5 12 lL\f3 lL\a6 13 lL\d4 ~6 14 e3 .ϊ:ι.fc8 and Black has slightly the better chances. 11 ••• lL\a6!

Better than 11 ... b5 12 a3 (12 .i.d4 b4 13 lL\e4 lL\xe4 14 .ixg7 Φχg7 15 iιxe4 'iVb6 is about equal) 12 ... a5 13 lL\f3 lL\a6 14 lL\d4 lL\g4 15 iιf4 'iWb6 16lL\c6 which

slightly favours White.

Ιπ general, the main area of Black's activity here is the queenside, while for White it is the centre. 11.te3 White has also tried: a) With 11 h3 White wants to prepare an ideal set-up with e4 and iιe3, but this is too slow: 11 .. :i!Hc8!? 12 ~h2 b5 13 a3 a5 14 e4 lL\a6 15 .i.e3 b4 16 lL\e2 lL\C5 sees Black creating good counterplay σπ the queenside. b) The immediate 11 e4 gives Black a promising game after 11 ...lL\a6 12 J.e3 (στ 12 1:tb1 .ϊ:ι.c8 13 h3 b5 14 iVe2 lL\C7 15 a3 a5 with the idea of ... b4 and

12lL\f3

Instead 12 iιd4 with the idea of e4 was Botνinnik's original plan. After 12 ...'iYa5 White has: a) 13 ':'e1lL\c5 14 e4 'iVb4!? has the idea of ...lL\g4, exchanging the darksquared bishops and exploiting White's

93

The New O/d Indian

dark-square weaknesses. If 15 iVd2? then 15 ... l2Jfxe4. b) 13 e4 l2JC7 14 .ί:f.e1 e5 15 dxe6 l2Jxe6 leads to an approximately equal position. c) 13 a3 l2JC7 14 b4 iia6 15 J:.e1l2Jb5 16l2Jxb5 iVxb5 17 e4 .ϊ:.fc8 18 "ii'd2 ~a4 19 e5 1:[c2 and Black is better, E.5woboda-A.Duer, Vienna 1979. Likewise, 12 lIc1 "ii'a5 13 a3 I:!.fc8 14 i..d4 CΔC7 15 e4 l2Jb5 gives Black good play. 12 .• :ilfa5 Black emerged slightly for choice after 12 ... l2JC5!? 13 .i.d4 ~a5 14 I:1.b1 CΔa4 15l2Jd2 l:r.fc8 16 b4l2JxC3 17 bxa5l2Jxd1 18 CΔb3 lίc2 19 1:1.b2 ~ac8 in C.BauerJ.Degτaeve, Belfoτt 2002.

13l2Jd4 After 13 a3 CΔC7 14 b4 "iWa6 15 i..d4 CΔb5 16 l2Jxb5 i..xb5 17 lίe1 .i.a4 18 "iWd2 .ί:ι.ac8 19 e4 ':c2 Black had slightly the better chances in O.RomanishinG.Kuzmin, Kherson 1989. 13 •..1:1.fc8 14l2Jb3 ~d8 15 h3 Instead 15 i..d4l2Jg4 16 i..xg7 Φχg7 17 'fid4+ Φg8 181:.tfc1l2Jc5 19 CΔd2 'fib6

94

20 h3 l2Jf6 led to an equal position in J.Demina-A.Borsuk, Podolsk 1990.

50, White has a space advantage, but does this mean that his chances are better? 15 ....i.e8 Releasing the d7-square for the knight. Black can also consider: a) 15 ... ~C4 16 "ilfd2 i..e8 (after 16 .. :ifc7 17 I1fd1 1:1.c8 18 iιd4 b5 19 e4 b4 20 l2Je2 White is better, E.Pursiainen-M.Nouro, Jyvaskyla 2008) 17 .ί:ι.fC1 CΔd7 18 CΔd4 .ί:!.α8 19 1::!.ab1 CΔac5 20 Φh2 CΔf6 with an even position, M.Kapelan-D.5ahovic, Vrsac 1979. b) 15 ... l2JC7!? with the idea of ... l2Jb5. 16.td4 16 "iWd2 CΔd7 17 f4 CΔb6 18l2Ja5 CΔC4 19 CΔxC4 .ί:!.χC4 20 lίfc1 iVa5 gave Black good play on the queenside in A.5hendur-V.Moskalenko, Yalta 1996. 16••• CΔd7 17 iιxg7 'i&;>xg7 18 ~d4+ 'i&;>g8 19 ~ac1 'fib6 Black will have fair chances in the endgame as he has no weaknesses and White's space advantage will count for less after the foτthcoming exchanges.

Preventing e2-e4 with ... ..tj5

20 :fd1 l:tc7 21 ctJa4 'ii'xd4 22 ctJxd4 :ac8 23 I!xC7l:txC7 24ctJb5 :c2 25 ctJd4 :c8 26ctJc3ctJb6 27 e3ctJa4 Νοw Black is even a touch better because of his control over the οηlΥ opened line. 28 ctJxa4 ..txa4 29 :a1 ':C5 30 a3 ctJC7 31 b3 ..td7 32 Φf1ctJb5 33 ctJe2 ctJc3 34 ctJd4ctJb5 35 ctJe2ctJc7 36 ':C1 ~xc1+ 37 ctJXC1 ctJb5 38 a4 ctJC3 39 ctJe2 ctJa2 40 Φe1 a5 41 'it>d2 'it>f8 42 ctJd4 'it>e8 43 lLΊC2 ~d8 44 lLΊa3 ΦC7 45 lLΊC4 b6 46 h4 h6 47 e4 f6 48 f4 e5 49 lLΊe3 exf4 50 gxf4 g5 51 fxg5 fxg5 52 hxg5 hxg5 53 ctJc4lLΊb4 54 e5 dxe5 55 lLΊxe5 Φd6 56 lLΊf7+ ΦC5 57 ctJxg5 lLΊxd5 58 iιxd5 'it>xd5 Vz-Vz

but quite reasonable nonetheless: the f5-bishop will be driven back by e2-e4 and the knight can find a better position οη d3. Though 8lLΊe1 is played less frequently than 8 lLΊh4, Kasparov, Karρον and Topalov are among the players who have employed it, while Avrukh recently recommended it in his Grandmaster Repertoire work. lnstead quiet moves are met by 8 ...lLΊe4, which usually allows Black to equalize comfoτtably: a) 8 b3 lLΊe4 9 iιb2 (οτ 9lLΊxe4 iιxe4 10 iιb2 a5 11 ~d2 a4!? 12 ~e3 d5 13 ~fd1 lLΊa6 14 iιc3 lLΊC7 15 iιh3 lLΊe8 with the idea of ...ctJd6, controlling some key central squares) 9...lLΊxC3 (9 ...~d7 10 ctJxe4 ..txe4 11 'iWd2 ctJa6 is about equal) 10 ..txC3 lLΊd7 11 e3 lLΊf6 12 lLΊh4 iιg4 13 'ii'd3 d5 reaches a roughly level game. b) 81:!.e1lLΊe4 and then:

Game20

B.Kurajica-A.Strikovic Santa Cruz de Tenerife 1995 1 d4 lLΊf6 2 c4 d6 3 ctJf3 g6 4 g3 iιg7 5 iιg2 ο-ο 6 ο-ο c6 7 lLΊC3 iιf5 8 ctJe1 Α less direct approach than 8 lLΊh4,

b1) 9 ctJxe4 ..txe4 10 ..th3 iιxf3 11 exf3 gives White the bishop-pair at the cost of some defects in his pawn structure. Then 11 ...lLΊd7 12 ..tg5 :e8 13 'iVd2 lLΊb6 14 b3 c5 15 iιe3 e6 with the

95

The New Q/d Indian

idea of ... cχd4 and ... d5 leads to an approximately equal position. b2) After 9 t2Jh4 t2JxC3 10 bXC3 i.e6 the doubled pawns are Black's natural targets: 11 "iWd3 t2Jd7 12 t2Jf3 "ifa5 13 t2Jg5 t2JC5!? (an interesting possibility to utilize the weakness of not only c4, but also the c3-pawn) 14 dxc5 iιxC3 15 t2Jxe6 fxe6 isn't at all easy to assess. b3) 9 t2Jd2 t2JxC3 10 bxC3 'iiiC7 with the idea of ... c5 is unclear. Μ) 9 'iiib3 t2JxC3 10 bxc3 (if 10 "iWxC3 c5 11 .ie3 t2Jc6 12 "iWd2 'iVb6 13 1::ted1 ~fe8 and Black has slightly the better chances)

dark-square weaknesses in Black's camp) 15 ... dxc5 16 e5 e6 17 t2Jg5 cχd4 18 cχd4 c5 leads to mutual chances. c) After 8 "iWb3 the queen is a bit awkwardly placed in νiew of ... ..te6 οτ ... t2Ja6-c5 ideas. Black should develop with 8 .. :iVC7.

Νοw:

10... i.c8 11 e4 (instead 11 h4 c5 12 ~e3 t2Jd7 13 "iWa3 "iWC7 14 t2Jd2 a5 15

t2Je4 t2Jb6 16 t2Jd2 t2Jd7 17 'iVb3 a4 18 "iWa3 ~a7! cleared the long diagonal, thereby facilitating ...b6 when Black had a target οη c4, but White had ηο concrete target in V.Tkachiev-V.Baklan, French League 2002) 11 ...t2Jd7 12 a4 (12 h3 I:!.e8 13 i.a3 ~a5 is about equal) 12 .. :~a5 13 i.a3 .ί:!.e8 14 h4 Z:tb8 15 C5! (a typical pawn sacrifice played to obtain some piece activity and create

96

C1) After 9 t2Je1, in comparison to 8 t2Je1, the inclusion of "iWb3 and ...ΨliC7 gives White ηο benefit: 9... e5 10 e4 i.d7 11 d5 t2Ja6 12 t2Jd3 J::tfc8 13 h3 cχd5 14 cχd5 b6 15 ..te3 t2JC5 16 'iHd1 "iWb7 17 .i:!.c1 a5 18 l:te1 t2Jxd3 19 "iWxd3 b5 with an even position, J.ZarkovicD.5ahovic, Cetinje 1992. C2) 9 t2Jh4 by analogy should be compared to 8 t2Jh4. Here 9 .....te6 10 d5 cχd5 11 t2Jxd5 t2Jxd5 12 cχd5 iιd7 13 i.e3 t2Ja6 14 .i:!.fc1 t2JC5 15 'iHc2 a5 leads to an approximately equal position. c3) 9 i.f4 has the idea of c4-c5, preventing ... e7-e5. Then 9 ... t2Jbd7 10 c5 t2Jh5 leads to rough equality. c4) 9 i.g5 t2Jbd7 10 l:tfd1 h6 11 ~d2 a5 12 .ί::tac1 i.e6 13 t2Je1 a4 and here too the awkward position of the queen

Preventing e2-e4 with ... .i.f5 οη

b3 begins to tell: for example, 14

~4 'iib6 15 'ifxb6 tbxb6, leaving the

pawn οη c4 weak. c5) 9 lle1 e5 10 e4 .i.g4 11 .i.e3 tbbd7 12 tbd2 exd4 13 ..ixd4 1:.fe8 14 h3 .i.e6 15 "ii'c2 a6 with the idea of ... b5 gives Black decent counteτplay. Returning to 8 tbe1:

'ifd3 tbXC3 with advantage for Black. 9 ••• cxdS Delaying this exchange hardly gives Black any profit, although practice has also seen 9 ... a5 when 10 h3 (Black should also be ready to encounter 10 e4 ..id7 11 dxc6) 10... cχd5 11 cχd5 tba6 12 e4..id7 13 a4 (if 13 tbd3 b5 14 a4 b4 15 tbb1 tbh5 with the idea of ...f5) 13 ... tbC5 (13 ...'iVc8!? 14 Φh2 'ifC4) 14 tbd3 b6 15 Φh2 tbe8 16 f4 exf417 .txf4 ..ic8 18 .i:te1 ..ia6 led to complex play in L.Javakhishvili-L.McShane, Moscow 2010. 10 cxdS Instead 10 tbxd5 tbxd5 11 ..txd5 tbc6 12 tbC2 ~c8 13 tbe3 .i.h3 14 .i.g2 ..txg2 15 Φχg2 f5 would have been quite unclear.

8...es Αη

alternative plan is 8 ...'iHc8 with the idea of ... .i.h3: for example, 9 e4 .th3 10 'ife2 (Avrukh prefers 10 i.,xh3 "ii'xh3 11 f3 when 11 ... C5!? 12 d5 tbfd7 deserves attention) 10... a6 11 tbd3 (11 e5!? requires testing) 11 ... ..ixg2 12 Φχg2 b5 13 c5 dXc5 14 tbXC5 tbfd7 15 tbxd7 tbxd7 16 ..ie3 ~7 17 f31Iac8 18 llac11Ife8 19 .ί::i.fd1 e6 20 tbb1 .i.f8 21 'iVf2 e5 with an even position in V.Tkachiev-L.McShane, Khanty Mansiysk Olympiad 2010. 9dS 9 e4 ..ig4 leads White into trouble: 10 'iVd3 (οτ 10 f3 exd4 11 'ii'xd4 .i.e6 with the same idea, ...tbd5) 10... exd4 11 'iVxd4 ..ie6 12 tbf3 (if 12 'iVd3 tbbd7 with the idea of ...tbe5) 12 ...tbd5! 13

10••• tba6!

Again this is the right development. Black has also tried to secure the c5square for the knight with 10... a5, but 11 e4 (οτ 11 tbC2 tba6 12 tba3 nc8 13 .i.e3 tbd7 14 tbcb5 tbb6 15 ..id2 tbC4 16 e4.i.d7 17 tbxC41:tXC4 18 tbxd6 I;Id4 19 tbxb7 ~8 20 tbxa5 and White is bet-

97

The New Qld Indian

Z.llincic-I.Khmelniker, Budapest 2004) 11 ....td7 12 a4! (not 12 lίJd3 b5) 12 ...lίJa6 13lίJd3 slightly favours White.

ter,

11e4

Instead 11 lίJd3 provokes Black into playing ... e4, which weakens the d4square, but there is ηο rose without a thorn - Black will receive the useful e5square in return. Indeed, 11 ... e4 12lίJe1 1Wd7 13 lίJC2 J:!.fe8 14 a4 i..h3 15 .te3 1:te5!?, attacking the pawn οη d5 and with the idea of ... .ϊ:ι.h5!?, resulted in mutual chances in M.ChiburdanidzeM.Klinova, Dresden Olympiad 2008. 11....td7 12lίJd3 If White prevents Black's queenside play with 12 a4 then Black can switch to the other flank: 12 ... lίJe8 13 lίJd3 f5 14 f4 lίJb4 15 lίJf2 a5 16 exf5 .ixf5 17 iVe2 lίJc2 saw Black taking the upper hand in K.Hulak-D.5ahoνic, Pula 1984.

queenside comes under pressure after 14 i..e3 ~7 15 iVe2 b4 16 axb4 lίJxb4 17 lίJxb4 iVxb4 18 .txa7) 14 b4 (οτ 14 'iνe2 b4 with rough equality) 14... .I:ί.c8 15 .td2 ':C4 is unclear. However, 12 .. :fie7?! is a loss of time and the queen will be missed οη the queenside: 13 a4 .ϊ:ι.fc8 14 i..d2 lίJC5 15 lίJXC5 1:txc5 16 a5 iVd8 17 'i!Vb3 lίJg4 18 h3 .th6 19 .txh6 lίJxh6 20 "iWxb7 left White doing pretty well in G.KasparovM.Adams, New York (rapid) 1995. 13 iVb3 Νονν 13 a4 probably gives White an edge in view of lίJb5 ideas, as the a7pawn is unprotected: for example, 13 ... 'iνc7 (οτ 13 ...lίJe8 14 'iνb3 b6 15 lίJb5) 14 lίJb5 and White has slightly the better chances. 13 ..:fic7 14.I:ί.d1 Instead 14 Jιe3 b6 15 f3lίJC5 16 'fiC4 1Wb7 17 lίJXC5 bXc5 18 b3 a5 19 l:tfc1 lίJe8 20 .if1lίJC7 is about equal, J.Grau Ribas-A.5hikalov, correspondence 2000. 14... b6 15 a4lίJc5

12 ....ϊ:ι.c8 Α more precise approach is to immediately get Black's queenside play under way with 12 ...b5!? Then 13 a3 iVb8! (this idea is not considered by Avrukh; less precise is 13 ...'iVb6 as the

98

Black has achieved a fully satisfactory position.

Preventing e2-e4 with ... .i.js

16 'ilt'a3 ttJxd3 This was unnecessary as the knight held a poweτful position. 16 ...ttJe8 with the idea of ...fS was the right plan. 17 !ιΧd3 a6 18 .i:!.d1 b5 19 axb5 axb5 20 ,i,d2 After 20 ,i,f1! Black would have been held down by the necessity to protect the weak pawns οη bS and d6. 20•..ifb8 21 ttJa2 I!c4 22 ,i,b4 'ilt'b6 23 ttJC3 ttJg4 24l::tf1 f5 25 b3 ~d4 26 ttJe2

26 ...ltxb4! 27 'iVxb4 f4 28 'iVa5 'iVxa5 29 ':xa5 f3 30,i,xf3? Collapsing. Instead after 30 ,i,h3 fxe2 31 1:.e1 1:.xf2 32 ,i,xg4 .ί:1.f1+ 33 1:txf1 ,i,xg4 34 IIxbS the endgame isn't at al1 easy to assess. 30...1:txf3 311:ta7 ~e8 32 b4 ttJf6 331:tC1 ttJxe4 341:tc81:tf8 35 .ί::.e7 j,f7 36 1:txf8+ ~xf8 37 1:tb7 ,i,xd5 381::ϊ.ΧbS ,i,C4 0-1

Game21 M.Suba-V.CΊeorgiev

Balaguer 1997 1 d4 ttJf6 2 c4 d6 3 ttJc3 .i.f5

Again, the idea behind this variation is that by playing ... .i.fs, Black prevents White fτom immediately playing the space-grabbing 4 e4. 4f3 The most common choice, preparing to move the e-pawn to e4. Alternatives wil1 be seen in the next game. 4 ... es

5 e4 This can also be delayed: a) After 5 dxes dxes 61!Vxd8+ Φχd8 as usual Black is fine in this ending. Following 7 e4 (οτ 7 i,gs c6 8 0-0-0 cJJC7 9 g3 ,i,e6 10 b3 ,i,cS! 11 e4 ttJa6 which gives Black a perfectly acceptable position) 7 ... ,i,e6 8 ~e3 c6 9 0-0-0 ΦΟ Black wil1 usual1y try to exchange the dark-squared bishops in order to obtain dark-square outposts for his knights. For example: a1) 10 g4 ttJa6 11 gs ttJhS 12 ttJa4 j,e7 gives Black a promising game. a2) 10 ,i,d3 ttJbd7 11 Wb1 a6 prepares counterplay with ...bS. a3) 10 j,e2 ,i,b4 11 Wc2 ttJa6 12 g4 j,cS 13 ,i,xc5 ttJxC5 14 π4 :ad8 15

99

The New O/d Indian

1:txd8l:.xd8 16 ttJh3 a5 17 ttJf2 ttJfd7 18 b3 f6 and Black is better, F.HanssenR.Van Berkel, Dutch League 1993. a4) 10 Φb1 ttJa6 11 g3 ..tC5 12 ..tXC5 ttJxC5 13 ttJh3 1:!.ad8 14 ttJf2 .ί:ι.χd1+ 15 ttJcχd1 .ί:ι.d8 16 Φc1 a5 17 iιe2 b5 18 ttJe3 b4 and again Black is better, Y.Nikitin-E.Vasiukov, Alma-Ata 1968. a5) 10 g3 ttJbd7 11 ttJh3 JLC5 12 ..tXC5 ttJXC5 13 ttJg5 h6 14 ttJxe6+ ttJxe6 15 ..th3 ttJg5 16 i..g2 ttJe6 was drawn in D.llic-G.Kosanovic, Kladovo 1989. b) With 5 d5 White hopes to follow through with 6 Ν, but 5... e4! is the nail which destroys White's pawn chain.

prevents g2-g4 and undeτtakes aggτes­ sive action οη the kingside) 8 g3 ttJbd7 9 ~c2 i..g6 10 fxe4 h4! 11 iιg2 ttJg4 and Black is better, M.Lacτosse­ Z.Bratanov, Montpellier 2003. b4) After 6 "iVb3 Black can sacτifice the pawn, as after 6 ...ttJbd7 7 'iHxb7 iιe7 followed by ...0-0 his supeτior development gives him full compensation . b5) 6 g4 ttJxg4! forces a draw: 7 fxg4 (not 7 .tf4 exf3 8 ttJxf3 ttJd7 9 e4 ..tg6 10 iιh3 h5 11 iVe2 ..te7 12 0-0-0 ..tf6 with advantage to Black) 7 ...'iHh4+ 8 Φd2 e3+ (Black can't deviate: 8 .. :~xg4? 9 ..th3 is very good for White) 9 Φχe3 'iVg5+ 10 Φf2 'iVh4+ 11 Φg2 ~xg4+ 12 Φf2 'iYh4+ with a draw in A.Wojtkiewicz-A.5habalov, Βοηη 1994. If Black wishes to avoid the forced draw in variation 'b5', he might meet 5 d5 with 5...ttJh5!? 6 g3 iιe7 7 e4 iιc8 which is unexplored and not at all easy to assess. 5. .,exd4

b1) 6 ~d4 ..tg6 7 ttJh3 ttJa6 8 fxe4 ttJb4 9 ~d1 a5 10 ttJf2 iιe7 11 g3 ttJd7 12 iιg2 ..tf6 13 iιd2 h5 14 .ί:ι.b1 ttJe5 15 a3 ttJa6 16 ttJd3 h4 with decent counterplay for Black in M.Van der Weτf­ V.Georgiev, Andorra 1997. b2) 6 iιg5 iιe7 7 g4!? ..td7 (keeping the option to sacτifice οη g4) 8 iιe3 exf3 9 exf3 ο-ο 10 iVd2 c6 11 g5 ttJe8 12 iιd3 ttJa6 13 f4 ttJec7 14 ttJf3 ttJb4 with mutual chances. b3) 6 ..te3 JLe7 7 ~d2 h5!? (Black

100

6~xd4

The natural recapture, but there are alternatives:

Preventing e2-e4 with ... Jιjs

a) After 6 tίJdS ~g6 7 'ii'xd4 ii..e7 8 'iWxe7 9 ii..gs tίJc6 10 'iWd2 ΊΊ6 11 ii..e3 ο-ο 12 tίJΊΊ3 :tae8 Black had the superior development and was ready to play ...tίJd7 and ... fS in H.5chusslerR.Keene, Skara 1980, where 13 ο-ο-ο? walked into the hugely-destructive blow 13 ...tίJxe4!. b) 6 tίJce2 ~d7 (if Black is happy to allow the exchange ofhis light-squared bishop, he might try 6...i..e6!? 7 tίJxd4 c5 8 tίJxe6 fxe6 9 tίJe2 tίJc6 when after ... e5 and ... tίJd4 the knight will strengthen Black's position, but due to his light-square weaknesses and 'bad' remaining bishop, Black's position is not perfect; perhaps instead of ... e6-e5 he might thus consider ... d6-dS ideas) 7 tίJxd4 tίJc6 and ηονν: b1) 8 tίJxc6 bxc6 9 .td3 d5 (exploiting White's lack of development and dark-square weaknesses) 10 exd5 cxd5 11 tίJe2 ~cs and Black has slightly the better chances. b2) 8 i..e3 'iWe7 9 tίJge2 d5! (another situation where this break works) 10 cxd5 tίJxdS 11 exdS? 1Wxe3 12 tίJC2? ii..b4+ and 0-1 was the miniature R.Gross-L.Christiansen, Lone Pine 1973. b3) 8 tίJge2 g6 9 ~e3 ii..g7 10 1Wd2 ο-ο 11 tίJC3 unexpectedly transposes to a line ofthe Samisch King's Indian, 1 d4 tίJf6 2 c4 g6 3 tίJC3 ~g7 4 e4 d6 5 f3 ο-ο 6 ii..e3 e5 7 tίJge2 exd4 8 tίJxd4 ~d7 9 1Wd2 tίJc6, but with an extra tempo for Black and here 11 ...tίJΊΊ5 is unclear. c) 6 tίJbS ii..d7 7 tίJxd4 transposes to variation 'b'. tίJxe7

6 ..•Jιe6

Arguably less f1exible is 6...tίJc6 7 "iYf2?! (the simple 7 "iYd2 shou1d be preferred) 7...ii..e6 8 Jιe3 and ηονν: a) 8... g6?! 9 0-0-0 ~g7 10 Φb1 slightly favours White. b) One of your authors recently improved with 8...tίJe5! in J.RowsonA.Cherniaev, British League 2011, where 9 C5 (9 b3 c6 gives Black an easy game) 9... dxc5 10 ii..xC5 i..xC5 11 'iWxC5 tίJfd7 12 ~f2?! f5! 13 f4 tίJg4 14 'ii'd4 'iWe7 15 0-0-0 ο-ο-ο! 16 1Wxa7 tίJb6 gave Black a very strong initiative for the pawn.

After the text move, the pawn structure resembles the C1assical Samisch King's Indian when the exchange ... e5xd4 happens. 7.te3 Another natural deployment, but again by ηο means forced: a) 7 f4 g6 8 ~e3 tίJc6 9 'ii'd3 tίJg4 10 ii..d2 tίJb4 11 'iVb1 ~g7 wasn't at all to assess in L.Portischeasy L.Christiansen, Szirak 1987. b) 7 b3 and then:

101

The New O/d Indian Νονν:

b1) 7 ... c6 8 i..b2 d5 9 cχd5 cχd5 10 LΔxd5 LΔxd5 11 exd5 'i!Vxd5 12 'iYxd5 i..xd5 13 0-0-0 with a slight advantage for White in Lin Weiguo-T.lmanaliev, Frunze 1989. b2) 7 ...LΔc6 8 'iYd2 a5 9 Jιb2 g6 10 i..d3 Jιg7 11 LΔge2 LΔd7 12 ο-ο ο-ο 13 .ί:!.ad1 LΔC5 was quite unclear in M.Lacrosse-M.Benoit, Le Touquet 1992. b3) 7 ... g6!? 8 Jιb2 LΔc6 9 'iVd2 i..g7 10 LΔge2 ο-ο 11 LΔg3 LΔd7 12 Jιe2 h5 and Black has slightly better chances. c) 7 LΔd5 LΔc6 sees White trying to keep a grip οη the position, while Black will play around d5, aiming for counterplay οη the dark squares:

102

C1) 8 'i!VC3 LΔe5 9 Jιe3 c6 10 LΔxf6+ 'iNxf6 11 ~c1 i..e7 12 'iVd2 ο-ο 13 h4 Jιd8 14 Jιg5 'i!Vg6 15LΔe2 f6 was pretty good for Black in G.Pieterse-J.Timman, Dutch Championship 1987. c2) 8 'it'e3 Jιe7 9 Jιd3?! LΔe5 10 LΔe2 LΔfd7 11 b3!? Jιh4+! 12 LΔg3 c6 13 LΔc3 Jιg5 14 'i!Vxg5 LΔxd3+ 15 Φe2 LΔXC1+ 16 1WXC1 'i!Vh417 'i!Vd2 0-0-0 18 Φf2LΔe5 19 11hd1 g6 with the idea of ...f5 gave Black promising play in L.Popov-M.Tal, Tallinn 1973. c3) 8LΔxf6+ gxf6 9 'ilVe3 Ψie7 10 Jιd2 0-0-011 Jιd3 LΔe5 12 JιC3 :g8 13 'it>f2 f5 and Black is better, M.Ferro-K.5hirazi, Cappelle la Grande 2005. c4) 8 'i!Vf2 is perhaps White's safest approach when 8... Jιe7 9 LΔe2 ο-ο 10 LΔec3 LΔd7 11 i..e2 Jιh4 12 g3 Jιf6 reaches a roughly level game. d) 7 Jιg5 Jιe7 8 b3 (οτ 8 Jιd3 LΔc6 9 \\Ve3LΔg4 10 Jιxe7LΔxe3 11 i..xd8 Z1xd8 12 Φf2 LΔXC4 which sees Black taking the upper hand) 8 ... 0-0 9 LΔge2 c6 10 :td1l:.e8 11 LΔg3 'ii'a5 12 1Wd2 d5! gets in the key break and favours Black. e) 7 Jιd3 LΔc6 8 'iVe3 LΔd7 again sees Black redeploying the knight to a better position, while avoiding an exchange in the case of LΔd5. Here 9LΔd5 (quieter play with 9 LΔge2 is possible, but allows Black to obtain a comfortable set-up: 9...LΔc5 10 b3 g6 11 ο-ο a5 followed by ... Jιg7 and ...LΔb4) 9 ... g6 (9 ...LΔce5 10 Jιe2 c6 11 f4LΔg4 12 'iVd4 is unclear) 10 f4 Jιg7 11 LΔf3 ο-ο 12 ο-ο LΔC5 leads to quite a complex manoeuvring struggle.

Preventing e2-e4 with ... il.f5 7...g6

8 'ii'd2 Again it helps to explore the alternatiνes to further our understanding of both sides' typical aims in this structure: a) 8 b3 iιg7 9lbge2 ο-ο 10 'ii'd2lbc6 (10 ... a5 11 lbd4lbc6 12 iιe2 l:!.e8 13 ο-ο iιd7 was fine for Black in T.Paunoνic­ S.Martinoνic, Belgrade 2004) 11lbf4 a5 12 :d1 lbd7 13 iιe2 lbC5 14 ο-ο a4 15 iιxc5 dXc5 16 'ii'xd8 .ί:i.fxd8 17 lbxa4 .td4+ 18 Φh1lbb4 19lbxe6 fxe6 20 f4 lbxa2 and Black is better, C.Naνrotescu­ K.5nirazi, French League 2006. b) 8 ~d1

8 ... i..g7 9 'iWd2 ο-ο 10 b3 c6 11lbge2 'ii'a5 12 g3 lba6 13 i..g2 b5 14 cχb5 cχb5 15 ο-ο b4 16 lbd5 i..xd5 17 exd5 ~fe8 18lbf4lbc7 19 a4lbfxd5 20 lbxd5 lbxd5 and Black's actiνe play οη the queenside gaνe him the upper hand ϊη I.Krush-J.Whitehead, Hawaii 1998. c) 8 lbge2 lbc6 9 "iVd3 lbe5 10 "tWC2 lbXC4 11 il.g5 iιg7 12lbd4lbb6 13 1:td1 π6 14lbcb5 ο-ο 15 il.xf6 'ii"xf6 16 "iVXC7 d5 17 il.d3 dxe4 18 i..xe4 lbd5 19 'iVc1 a6 and again Black is better, V.Vorotnikoν-K.Elfimoν, Voronezh 2006. 8 ...iιg7

9':C1 Α slow method of deνelopment. If Wnite is ready to exchange his light-squared bishop for Black's knight, he might try 9 iιd3lbbd7 10 lbge2lbe5 11 b3 when 11 ... c6 12 ο-ο ο-ο 13lbf4 d5 14 cχd5 cχd5 15 exd5 lbxd5 16 lbfxd5 iιxd5 17 lbxd5 'ii'xd5 18 .te4 'ii"xd2 led to drawish simplification in De G.BoerG.Ligterink, Amsterdam 1987. 9 ...0-0 10 b3lbc6 Black may also use his temporarily superior deνelopment to break with

103

The New Qld Indian

10... c6!? 11 tΔge2 d5 and after 12 cχd5 cχd5 13 exd5 tΔxd5 14 tΔxd5 'ii'xd5 15 'ii'xd5 i.xd5 16 .1:i.d1 i.c6 17 tΔd4 :d8 18 ..ie2 ..ie8 19 ~f2 tΔc6 20 tΔxc6 i..xc6 a draw was agreed in M.KaposztasG.Moehring, Trnava 1988. 1.1. tΔge2 tΔd7 1.2 tΔf4 tΔC5 1.3 .ie2 a5 1.4 tΔb5 .id7 1.5 ο-ο tΔe7 16 :fd1 b6 1.7 l:!.b1f5!

Black has achieved a fully satisfactory game and Georgiev went οη to triumph in thematic style: 18 tΔd5 tΔxd5 19 exd5 ..ixb5 20 cxb5 ~e8 21 .iC4 ~f6 22 l:!.dc1 Ψiie7 23 .if2 .if6 24 .ixC5 bXc5 25 :e1 Jιd4+ 26 ~h1 ..ie3 27 'iWd3 'iWg5 28 :e2 :e5 29 g3 f4 30 g4 'iWh4 31 .ί:i.f1 Ψiih3 32 :ee1. ~ae8 33 "iWc2 Ψiih4 34 .ί:i.e2 .ί:i.8e7 35 'iVc3 Ψiih3 36 l:!.g2 i.d4 37 'iWxa5 .:!.e3 38 "iWd2 .:!.xf3 39 'iVd1 J:tfe3 0-1

Game22 CΊ.Andruet~M.Benoίt

VaI Maubuee 1990 1 d4 tΔf6 2 c4 d6 3 tΔC3 ..if5

104

4g3 Alekhine's choice and still the most challenging option against the Janowski-Indian. As well as the 4 f3 ofthe previous game, White has also tried: a) 4 tΔf3 and ηονν with 4... g6 Black transposes to the first four games of this chapter. He can also consider 4... h6!?, preparing to retreat the bishop to h7 if necessary, keeping the pressure οη the central square e4. Here 5 g3 (if 5 d5 with the idea of tΔd4 then 5... e5 6 dxe6 .ixe6 7 tΔd4 .id7 8 g3 tΔc6 9 .ig2 g6 10 b3 Jιg7 11 i.b2 ο-ο 12 ο-ο :e8 13 e3 is about equal) 5.. :iνc8 6 i.g2 tΔbd7 7 ο-ο e5 8 e4 .ih7 9 J::te1 i.e7 10 b3 ο-ο 11 Jιb2 ~e8 12 Ψiid2 c6 13 :ad1 Ψiio 14 d5?! tΔC5 reached a roughly level game in J.Rodriguez Gonzales-M.Tal, Halle 1974. b) 4 ..ig5 tΔbd7 and ηονν: b1) 5 f3 π6 6 JιΠ4 e5 7 e4 .ih7 8 d5 reaches a familiar structure. Yes, the bishop οη h7 is not overly useful in this structure, but οη the other hand, White's dark-squared bishop will have to retreat too, as he doesn't want to exchange it. Here 8....ie7 9 .if2 ο-ο 10 i.d3 tΔe8 11 tΔge2 f5 12 exf5 ..ixf5 13 tΔe4 JιΠ4 saw Black activating his bishops with rough equality in J.HebertD.Allan, Calgary 1975. b2) 5 e3 is absolutely non-ambitious and 5...Μ 6 i.h4 e6 7 i.d3 i.xd3 8 Ψiixd3 i.e7 9 tΔf3 c6 10 ο-ο ο-ο leads to an approximately equal position. b3) 5 tΔf3 somehow reminds one of the Capablanca Variation, 1 d4 tΔf6 2

Preventing e2-e4 with ... SιI5 tZJf3 d6 3 tZJC3 Sιf5 (see the first game of the next chapter).

The difference is that White has played c2-c4 and Black has an additional tempo, which allows him to create dangerous dark-square counterplay: 5...h6 6 SιΠ4 (στ 6 iιf4 c5 7 d5 g5 8 i.g3 'fWa5 9 tZJd2 Sιg7 10 e4 tZJxe4 11 tZJcxe4 iιxe4 12 "it'e2 Sιxb2 13 1:i.d1 .tC2 which was better for Black in H.Mueller-M.5tichlberger, Finkenstein 1992) 6 ... g5 7 Sιg3 C5! followed by ... "iWb6 (στ .. :ifa5) and ....tg7 sees Black starting action ση the queenside, while the bishop is out of play ση g3. c) As always 4 "iWb3 should be taken into account when Black leaνes his b7pawn unprotected. Νσνν 4 ... tZJc6 attacks the d4-pawn while preparing ... a5 with the idea of ... tZJb4, and after 5 e3 (στ 5 tZJf3 a5 6 d5 tZJb4 7 tZJd4 Sιd7 8 e4 e5 which is unclear) 5... a5 6 a3 "iWc8 7 tZJf3 e5 8 d5 tZJb8 9 tZJh4 Sιg6 10 tZJxg6 hxg6 11 "iWc2 tΔbd7 12 1:tb1 c6 13 e4 .te7 14 Sιe2 Sιd8 15 ο-ο .i.b6 16 ΦΠ1 Sιd417 f4 tZJns 18 SιxΠ5 I;Ixh5 19 tZJe2 Sιb6 20 f5 "ikd8 complex play had arisen ϊη R.Leνit-

H.Multhopp, Chicago 1990. d) The gambit continuation 4 e4?! isn't entirely sound, but should not be underestimated. After 4 ... iιxe4 5 tZJxe4 tZJxe4 6 'iVf3 d5 7 'fWb3 (7 Sιd3 tZJf6 8 .tg5 e6 9 0-0-0 c6 10 tZJe2 iιe7 11 g4 tZJbd7 12 .tf4 dxc4 13 .i.xC4 tZJd5 14 iιe5 tZJxe5 15 dxe5 'fWo with the idea of ... 0-0-0 was excellent for Black ϊη A.Berube-Y.Poliquin, Quebec 2004), probably Black's strongest moνe is 7... e5!, although this has not yet been seen in practice. Indeed, 8 "iWxb7 tZJd7 9 dxe5 (and not 9 "ikxd5? Sιb4+) 9 ... .J1.C5 10 tZJh3 ο-ο sees Black grabbing the upper hand. Returning to 4 g3:

4 ••• es

This is the classic Old Indian plan of confronting the pawn at d4, but the bishop's position ση f5 is not perfect here. It would be thematic and ideal if Black could play 4 ... tZJe4, but this is is met by 5 'i\Vd3 d5 6 cxd5 (στ 6 iιg2 tZJd6 7 'fWd1 dxc4 8 e4 which giνes White an edge) 6 ... tZJxC3 7 'iVxf5 tZJxd5 8 a3 which

105

The New O/d Indian

is somewhat better for White as he has more control of the centre, C.NoglyV.Georgiev, Hamburg 1999. Another option is to tτy the King's Indian set-up, 4...c6!? 5 i..g2 g6. Then: a) 6 lbf3 i..g7 7lbh4 (7 ο-ο ο-ο takes play back into Games 19 and 20) 7... i..e6 8 d5 i..d7 9 ο-ο ο-ο 10 e4 lba6 11 h3 ~c8 12 Wh2 cχd5 13 cχd5 ~C4 14 .:Ie1 lbC5 15 i.d2 Itfc8 and Black has excellent queenside play, L.JakobetzA.Nadassy, Hungarian League 2003. b) After 6 e4 Black is going to be a tempo down οη a normal Fianchetto King's Indian, but this doesn't have to be fatal for him. Indeed, the cτeative 6... i..e6 7 b3 iιg7 8 lbge2 ο-ο 9 ο-ο ~c8 10 f3 a6 prepared counterplay with ... i..h3 and ...b5 in G.Ligterink-A.Mestel, Marbella 1982, and after 11 a4 a5 12 ..Ite3 lba6 13 Iίc1 "ilC7 14 ~d2 i.c8 15 h3 e5! 16 f4 exd4 17 lbxd4lbc5 18 .fi.f2 ~e8 Black had a good position, with pressure against e4 and b3.

5 i..g2 Instead 5 d5 c6 6 i.g2 iιe7 7 e4 ..Itg4 8 f3 i..c8 9 i.e3 ο-ο 10 lbge2 a6 11 iVd2

106

b5 led to complex play, acceptable enough for Black in S.Volkov-A.Potapov, Internet 2006, while 5 lbf3 lbc6!? (after 5...lbbd7 6 i.g2 c6 7 ο-ο i..e7 8 lbh4 i.g6 9 lbxg6 hxg6 10 e3 ο-ο 11 b3 White is slightly better with his bishOpS, A.Graf-S.Maτtinovic, German League 2004) 6 d5 (6 i..g2 transposes to the note to White's 6th move ϊη our main game) 6... lbb8 7 ..Itg2 i..e7 8 ο-ο ο-ο 9 lbh4 i..d7 10 "iνc2 "iνc8 is quite unclear and requires practical testing. 5...lbc6 Not 5... exd4? 6 iιxb7! dxc3 7 i..xa8 with a decisive advantage for White. 6d5

white also has 6 lbf3 when 6... exd4 (6 ... ~d7 7 d5 lbb4? is badly misguided οη account of 8 ο-ο lbC2 9 e4) 7 lbxd4 lbxd4 8 'i!Vxd4 c6 9 ο-ο .fi.e7 slightly favoUTS him. 6...lbd4 7 e4 .fi.g4 8 f3 .fi.d7 Returning to the bishop's initial square with 8... i..c8 seems less logical and 9 lbge2lbxe2 10 'i!Vxe2 iιe7 11 i..e3 c5 (11 ... c6!?) 12 I:ιb1 (12 dxc6 bxc6 13 0-0-0 is a touch better for White) 12 ... 0-0 13 ο-ο lbe8 (a typical manoeuvre with the idea of ...i..e7-g5, ... g6, ...lbg7 and ...f5) 14 b4 gave White an edge in G.Flear-J.lvanov, Elgoibar 2004. 9lbge2 lbxe2 Αη alternative was 9... c5 when 10 dxc6 lbxc6 11 iιe3 ..Ite7 12 ο-ο ο-ο 13 'i!Vd2 a6 had the idea of ... lba5 and ...b5 in J.Piket-I.Sokolov, Amsterdam 1996, although ηονν the prophylactic 14 b3! would have given White an edge.

Preventing e2-e4 with ... .tj5 J:ί.xa3

10 'iVxe2 i.e7 11 f4

The more solid option was 11 ο-ο 12 .te3 followed by queenside play with b4 and c5, although the situation isn't so clear after 12 ... c6.

26 :xa3 'iVb6 27 'ifxb6 axb6 28 :a8+ 1-0

ο-ο

11... c6

11 ... exf4!? 12 gxf4 .tg4 with the idea of ... ltJd7 and ...i.h4+ deserved definite attention . 12 f5?!

Instead of removing the central tension, it wou1d have been better to incτease it and 12 C5!? wou1d have been a good idea. 12 ... cxd5 13 cxd5 h5 14 h4 g6 15 gxf5 16 exf5 ltJg4

ο-ο

Black has excellent prospects. 17 .:I.f3 'it'b6+ 18 Φh1 Itc8 19 ltJe4 .tb5 20~e1 f6?

The threat of f5-f6 cou1d have been simply ignored and after 20 ....1:.c2 Black would have retained the initiative. 21 .ί:ί.b3 ~a6 22 .te3 I:tC4?

Black should have prepared a retreat for his queen with 22 ...b6, whereas ησνν he rather collapses. 23 a4 ~xa4 24 ~ba3 ltJxe3 25 'iVxe3

Summary After 1 d4 ltJf6 2 C4 d6 3 ltJf3 Black can choose either a King's Indian (when White's choice is limited due to the knight already being ση f3) στ 01d Ιη­ dian set-up, but we recommend 3... g6 4 ltJC3 .tf5. White has a lot of possibilities here, including 5 'iYb3 when the main line is 5.. :~Vc8 (Georgiev's 5...b6 also deserves fuτther attention) 6 g3 .tg7 7 ο-ο ο-ο 8 d5 ltJd8. Black's setup seems clumsy, but White hasn't shown a clear route to an advantage. Instead 5 ltJh4 drives back the bishop and returns the game to King's Indian types ofposition, but Black shou1d be okay here too, especially if he goes in for an early central exchange with ... e5xd4. Smyslov's set-up of ... c6 and ...1i.f5 is also good against the Fianchetto King's Indian, which we reach νia 3 ltJf3 g6 4 g3. One way στ another White will dτive back the bishop and gain control of the centre, but Black is in time to cτeate sufficient queenside counteτplay. Again complex play results with chances for both sides to play cτeatively. After 1 d4 ltJf6 2 c4 d6 3 ltJC3 Black may try Janowski's 3....tf5 as an alternative to 3... e5. Complex play results fτom 4 f3 e5 when Black's early lead in development promises him enough counterplay, but Alekhine's 4 g3 is a tough nut to cτack and seems to give White slightly the better chances.

107

Chapter Four 2 lbf3 d6 without 3 c4

1 d4 tΔf6

2 tΔf3 d6

After 2 c4, 2 tΔf3 is White's most common choice and against 2... d6 he has a number of options instead of 3 c4. Α natural continuation corresponding to the opening principles (piece development and the struggle for the centre) is 3 tΔc3. White plans e2-e4 when the game will transpose into the Pirc Defence. Black has a number of options after 3 tΔC3, but we will focus οη 3... ii.f5!?, which is in the spirit of our repertoire as it directly prevents e2-e4. This defence was first played by the Cuban chess genius Jose Raίι1 Capab108

lanca. It offers Black a number of fighting resources and often leads to compleχ positions where Black is fighting for the full point, as weΊΙ see in Game 23. 3 g3 may lead to the Fianchetto King's Indian, but there is an independent approach where White doesn't follow up with c2-c4 - see Games 24 and 25. Finally, 3 ~f4, the London System, is rarely seen ϊη grandmaster practice, but is quite popular at club level and so will be the focus of Game 26.

Game23

M.Hebden-M.Adams British Championship, Hoνe 1997 1 d4 tΔf6

2 tΔf3 d6 3 tΔC3 Hebden likes to meet 2... g6 with 3 tΔc3, the so-called Barry Attack, so it's ηο surprise to see him trying to force through e2-e4 here.

2 'ΔΙ3 d6 without 3 c4

3... i.fS!?

One of two possible ways to preνent White's plan. It was first played by the young Capablanca in 1912. The other way, 3... d5, is also possible, but then White has an extra tempo (lZJf3) oνer the Veresoν (1 d4lZJf6 2 'ZJc3 d5 3 Sιg5). 4SιgS

The strongest continuation, with the idea of .i.xf6 and e2-e4. The other possibilities are less dangerous for Black: a) 4 lZJh4 banishes the bishop and makes e2-e4 ineνitable, but comes at the cost of the knight leaνing the centre: a1) 4... i.g6 was played in the pioneering game where 5 lZJxg6 hxg6 6 e4 e5 7 dxe5 dxe5 8 ~xd8+ Φχd8 9 i.g5 lZJd7 100-0-0 c6 11 iιC4 'iite8 12 f3 lZJb6 13 i.b3 lZJfd7 14 a3 iιe7 15 i.e3 i.C5 16 iιg5 f6 17 iιd2 xf7 24 .i.xg7 Φχg7 25 tΔXC5 .i::L.c8 26 e4 .ί:i.XC5 27 exf5 ':'a5 with an even position in I.Bondarevsky-D.Bronstein, Moscow 1951) 6 c3 ο-ο 7 .i.e2 b6 8 tΔbd2 iιa6 9 .i.xa6 tΔxa6 10 ο-ο 'ilVd7 11 "it'e2 tΔC7 12 dXc5 bxc5 13 e4 e5 14 iιe3 :ab8 15 b3 'i'c6 16 'iνC4 tΔd7 17 tΔh2 tΔb6 18 ~d3 d5 19 f3 1:.bd8 20 "it'c2 f5 and Black was better in I.Bondarevsky-D.Bronstein, Leningrad 1963.

tΔI3 d6 without 3 c4

tΔbd2

.i.f5 12 tΔC4 'i'C7 13 a4 ':'c8 14 'iVd1 d5 15 tΔa3 c4 16 tΔd2 tΔa5 17 .i.e2 e6 18 ο-ο ο-ο and Black is better, J.Lopez Martinez-L.5anchez Silva, Catalunya 1996) 11 tΔbd2 tΔd7 gives Black a perfectly acceptable position. c) 4 .i.g3 gives Black the bishop-pair: 4 ... g6 5 c3 .i.g7 6 e3 ο-ο 7 .i.e2 e5 8 dxe5 tΔxg3 9 hxg3 dxe5 10 "iixd8 ':'xd8 11 .i.C4 h6 12 a4 tΔd7 13 tΔbd2 a5 14 'it>e2 tΔC5 15 tΔb3 tΔe4 16 tΔfd2 tΔd6 17 iιd3 b6 18 e4 .i.e6 and Black is better, T.Bree-V.Kupreichik, Munster 1995.

4iιd2

The main response. Others: a) 4 .i.C1 is not logical if White is looking for more than a draw. Here 4 ... g6 5 e4 iιg7 6 c3 ο-ο 7 .i.e3 tΔc6 8 tΔbd2 e5 is about equal, P.ZabystrzanV.5ergeev, Karvina 2006. b) 4 .i.g5 is not too logical either because after 4...h6 5 iιh4 g5 6 .i.g3 White is simply losing time, not to mention an important bishop. Here 6....i.g7 7 e3 c5 (by analogy with our approach against 3 .i.g5, which weΊΙ see in the first game of the next chapter, 7... e6 is also good) 8 c3 tΔxg3 9 hxg3 "iVb6 10 "it'c1 .i.f5 (στ 10 ... tΔc6 11

4 ... g6

The most logical response for a King's indian player, but Black has some alternatives: a) 4...iιg4!? was an interesting interpretation by the first British Grandmaster. Black exploits the impossibility of tΔbd2 in order to double White's pawns and after 5 h3 .1ιχf3 6 eχf3 g6 7 iιe2 iιg7 8 c3 tΔd7 9 f4 tΔhf6 10 'iVc2 c5 11 dχc5 tΔXC5 12 iιb5+ ~8 13 ο-ο ':'c8 14 iιe2 e6 15 .i.e3 tΔd5 16 .i.f3 tΔxe3 17 fxe3 b5 18 'i'd2 'iWb6 he was better in Y.5azonovA.Miles, Agios Nikolaos 1995.

127

The New Q/d /ndian

b) 4 ...f5 is in the spirit of the Dutch Defence.

5 c4

Another principled option is 5 e4 which leads to an original Pirc-type position: 5 ...iιg7 6lΔo (6 c4 transposes to note 'a' to White's 6th move, below) 6... C5!? with compleχ play.

5... iιg7

Here 5 c4 (after 5 e4 fχe4 6 tΔg5 tΔf6 7 f3 tΔc6 8 d5 tΔχd5 9 fχe4 tΔf6 10 tΔc3 h6 White didn't have quite enough compensation in E.Prang-V.Kupreichik, Munster 1994) 5... g6 6 tΔc3 ..tg7 7 e4 ο-ο 8 eχf5 .iχf5 9 h3 ..td7 10 i-e3 Wh8 11 ~d2 'ilVe8 12 0-0-0 is a touch better for White, M.Glienke-M.Quinteros, Hanover 1983. c) 4 ... tΔf6 was played in the pioneering game, E.Cohn-A.Nimzowitsch, Ostend 1907. White's bishop is hardly all that better placed οη d2 than c1, and 5 c4 (instead 5 g3 lΔbd7 6 iιg2 e5 7 ο-ο .ie7 8 c4 c6 9 lΔC3 ο-ο 10 e4 a6 11 d5 cxd5 12 cxd5 b5 13 b4lΔb6 14 a4 .id7 15 axb5 aχb5 16 'iVb3 lΔC4 gave Black good play in K.Wesseln-T.5yed, Oldenburg 2000) 5... lΔbd7 6 i.C3 (6 tΔC3 e5 7 i.g5 transposes to the classical Old Indian) 6... e6 7 e3 d5 8 c5 lΔe4 9 ..td3 f5 10 b4 g6 11 iιb2 iιg7 12 tΔC3 ο-ο 13 'ilVc2 c6 14 lΔe2 'ilVe7 15 ο-ο e5 saw Nimzowitsch reaching an unclear position.

128

6 iιc3 Protecting the pawn οη d4 and preparing to eχchange Black's fianchettoed bishop. White also has: a) Ιη the case of 6 tΔC3 ο-ο (6 ... C5 7 d5 reaches an unusual Benoni-type position) 7 e4 iιg4 8 iιe2 e5 the knight may find a good role οη f4. b) 6 e4 c5 7 iιC3 (if 7 iιe3 i.g4 8 i-e2 lΔc6 attacking the critical d4square) 7... cxd4 8lΔχd4 (οτ 8.iχd4lΔf6 with the idea of ... 0-0 and ... lΔc6) 8 ...0-0 with a good game for Black. 6...0-07 g3

The diagonal is the most promising position for the light-squared bishop. Instead after 7 e3 lΔd7 8 ..te2 f5!? (going in for a Leningrad Dutch structure, but here the bishop οη c3 is well placed; instead the more thematic

2 8 ... e5 9 lΔbd2 Ψiie7 leads to a good game for Black) 9 d5 lΔdf6 Black concentrates his pieces οη the king's flank (9 ... lΔhf6 followed by ... e5 was again more solid), but 10 lΔbd2 c5 11 ο-ο Ψiie8 12 a3 iιΠ6 13 b4 b6 14 iιd3 g5 15 Ίl!Vα lΔg7 16 :Lfe1 'iYh5 17 lΔf1 lΔfe8 18 bXc5 bXc5 19 .1:ί.ab1 g4 20 lΔ3d2 lΔf6 21 e4 was excellent for White in R.AppelD.Flores, Vlissingen 2007. 7...lΔd7 8 d5lΔhf6 9 iιg2lΔc5 10 lΔbd2 a5

lΔI3

d6 without 3 c4

ideas, such as 19 ...lΔce4 20 iιb2 (οτ 20 lΔxΊΊ4 iιxg4) 20 ... iιxg4!, but the ρτοphylactic 19 ΦΊΊ1!? deserved attention. 19 ...iιxg4?! 20 hxg4lΔxg4+ 21 'ίt>h1 Better was 21 wg1 when Black has to prove whether his sacτifice was correct. If 21 ... iιxe3 by analogy with the game, then after 22 iιd5 lΔe5 23 fxe3 Ίl!Vg4+ White can simply play 24 iιg2 h3 25lΔe4!.

21 ...~xe3 22 iιd5 With the idea of 23 'i\Yxg6!+, but Black can ηονν force a draw. 22 ... lΔe5 23 iιxf7+ Wh7 24 fxe3 Ψiih3+ 25 wg1 Ίl!Vg3+

vz-vz

Summary

Mikhail Golubev, a well-known expeτt οη the King's Indian, has reached a good King's Indian-type of position. 11 ο-ο e5 12 dxe6 iιxe6 13lΔd4 iιd7 14 Ψiic21:te8 15 b3 h5 Black searches for an object to attack and so provokes a weakness in White's kingside. 16 h3 Ίl!Vc8 17 'ίt>h2 h4 18 g4 iιh6!? Adding fuel to the fire. Instead 18 ... c6 was simple and good. 1ge3 Taking up the challenge. 19 lΔ2f3, intending to win the h4pawn, was not good in view of ...iιxg4

Completing the repeτtoire for Black against 1 d4 is one of the key sections of any chessplayer's preparation. Ιη this chapter we explored White's most common deviations after 1 d4 lΔf6 2 lΔf3 d6. Against each of them we suggested the line we believe is the best οτ the most interesting amongst numerous Black options. Some lines we suggested for Black are not the most common and may suτprise your ορρο­ nent, such as 1 d4 lΔf6 2 lΔf3 d6 3 iιf4 lΔΊΊ5!? against the London System. The Capablanca Variation, 1 d4lΔf6 2lΔf3 d6 3lΔc3 iιf5!?, is an interesting, independent option for Black if he wants to avoid the Pirc. It has been known for 100 years, but is still badly unexplored. We hope that our analysis will lead to fuτther exploration of this interesting variation.

129

Chapter Five White's Other Second Moves

1

d4lbf6

Here we will examine the remaining deviations after 1 d4 lbf6 in order to complete our repertoire against 1 d4. The Trompowsky Attack is a popular alternative to the more common 2 c4 and 2 lbf3 lines. ΒΥ playing 2 iιg5 White avoids much opening theory and prepares to inflict doubled pawns upon Black. This is not a lethal threat, but we advocate 2... e6, so that the queen can recapture if White plays ..txf6. The Torre approach, 3 lbf3, will be seen in Games 27 and 28, while the more critical 3 e4 C5!? is considered in Game 29. 130

With 2 lbC3 d5 3 ..tg5 the RichterVeresov Attack comes about. Here too we like an early 3... C5!?, which gives Black an active game, as Games 30 and 31 will demonstrate. Finally, the gambits 3 e4 and 3 f3 followed by e2-e4 are considered in Game 32. The BlackmarDiemer Gambit is an aggressive opening which Black should be ready for, though its soundness continues to be the subject of much debate.

Gome27

K.Mueller-M.Wahls German Championship, DudweiIer 1996 d4lbf6 2 ..tgs Note that 2lbf3 d6 3 i.g5lbbd7 and then the common sequence 4lbbd2 π6 5 i.h4 g5 6 i.g3 lbh5 7 e3 i.g7 8 c3 e6 9 ..td3 is another move order which leads to the same position. 1

2•••e6

The only alternative to 2 ...lbe4 if

White's Other Second Moνes

Black wishes to avoid the doubling of his pawns. 3 tΔf3 h61 Immediately putting the question to the bishop. Νονν White must retreat, as Mueller does, οτ exchange, as weΊΙ see in the next game. 4~h4d6

back οη 5... g5?! 6 jιg3 tΔΠ5 because of 7 e4 jιg7 8 tΔfd2! t2Jxg3 9 hxg3 tΔc6 10 tΔa3 ο-ο 11 jιd3 which leaves his kingside a little sensitive) 6 t2Jbd2 transposes to the notes to White's 6th move in our main game. c) Ιη the long term it's better for White to avoid 5 c4 because his darksquared bishop will be exchanged and his pawns are better placed οη dark squares. After 5... g5 6 ~g3 tΔΠ5 7 e3 jιg7 8 tΔc3 tΔd7 practice has seen:

Νονν

it's time to introduce an Old Indian element to Black's play. 5 tΔbd2 The most common continuation. Others: a) 5 e3 tΔbd7 is usually just another route into our main game, but White can try 6 iLd3!? (6 tΔbd2 is the transposition), with the idea of 6... g5 7 ~g3 tΔΠ5 8 tΔfd2, trying to exploit the lightsquare weaknesses οη the kingside. Black should, however, be okay after 8... tΔdf6, while 8...tΔxg3 9 hxg3 ~g7 10 c3 a6!? 11 g4 c5 12 tΔe4 ~e7 13 tΔbd2 d5 14 tΔg3 tΔf6 covered the kingside and supplied full equality in P.Martynov-R.Palliser, Finnish League 2011. b) 5 c3 tΔbd7 (Black should hold

C1) 9 ~e2 has the idea of tΔd2 and iLf3, taking control of the long lightsquare diagonal, but 9... tΔxg3 10 hxg3 ~e7 11 'tic2 b6 12 ~d3 iLb7 13 0-0-0 0-0-014 "iVa4 ~b8 15 iLe4 d5! 16 cxd5 tΔf6 leads to mutual chances. c2) 9 ~C2 ~e7 100-0-0 tΔb6 11 iLe2 ~d7 12 tΔd2 tΔxg3 13 hxg3 0-0-0 14 tΔde4 c5 15 g4 ~b8 prepared ....:c8, targeting the weak pawn οη c4 in ι.Κarsa-Ρ.DeΙΥ, Hungarian League 1991. c3) 9 ~d3 ~e7 10 1νΩ (οτ 10 tΔd2 tΔdf6 11 iLe2 tΔxg3 12 hxg3 c5 13 dXc5 dXC5 14 jιf3 ο-ο 15 'tie2 J::tb8 16 ο-ο b6 17 ~ad1l:ld8 18 e4 tΔd7 with an even

131

The New Q/d /ndian

position, P.Harikrishna-A.lljin, Mainz (rapid) 2007) 10...ttJdf6 110-0-0 .i.d7 12 .ί:the1 ttJχg3 13 hχg3 g4 14 ttJd2 c5 (Black start to fight for the main darksquare diagonal) 15 ttJde4 0-0-0 16 ~3 'it>b8 17 f4! gχf3 18 gχf3 h5 19 ttJχf6 ~χf6 20 .i.e4 (White, ση the other hand, enjoys control over the main light-square diagonal) 20 ... Sιc8 21 f4 cχd4 22 .ί::tχd4 h4 gives Black a promising game. J.Mihailovs-E.Prokuronov, Moscow 2003. d) 5 ttJc3 g5 6 .i.g3 ttJh5

7 e4 (this is the most natural central set-up, but the downside is that the d4square may become a target; that said, 7 e3 is ησ panacea for White and 7 ... .i.g7 8 ttJd2 ttJχg3 9 hχg3 ttJd7 10 'it'f3 a6 11 g4 d5 12 e4 ο-ο 13 0-0-0 c5 14 dXc5 d415 ttJa4 ttJe5 16 ~e2 ~a5 17 ttJb6 d3 already resulted in a decisive advantage for Black in T.PetersenJ.Rowson, Torshavn 2000) 7 ....i.g7 8 SιC4 (στ 8 ~d2 ttJc6 9 .i.b5 .i.d7 10 Sιχc6 .i.xc6 11 0-0-0 g4 12 .i.h4 .i.f6 13 .i.χf6 ~xf6 14 d5, as in K.GriazovE.Prokuronov, Arkhangelsk 2002, when

132

14... gxf3 15 g4 ttJf4 16 dxc6 bχc6 would have been better for Black) 8 ... a6 9 ttJg1 ttJχg3 10 hχg3 b5 11 .i.e2 .i.b7 12 Sιf3 c5 13 dχc5 dχc5 14 'ilVχd8+ ~χd8 with a slight advantage for Black, D.5ummermatter-M.Wahls, Lucerne 1989. e) With 5 h3 White protects his bishop from exchange.

Black's plan is to finish his development (....ie7 and ... 0-0), and to play in the centre and ση the queenside (with ... c5 and perhaps ...b5): for eχample, 5... ttJbd7 6 ttJbd2 .i.e7 7 e3 ο-ο 8 c3 (after 8 Sιd3 C5 9 c3 b6 10 ~e2 .i.b7 11 .iC2 1:ιc8 12 g4 cχd4 13 eχd4 ttJd5 14 'iWd3 f5 15 .ig3 :C7 16 gχf5 exf5 17 0-0-0 "iVc8 18 .i.b3 'it>h8 19 "iVe2 ttJ7f6 20 :the1 ttJe4 Black had the better chances in K.Griazov-E.Prokuronov, Arkhangelsk 2003) 8 ...1:tb8! 9 "iVc2 b5 10 Sιe2 c5 11 ο-ο a6 12 .u.fd1 'it'C7 13 1:i.ac1 .tb7 14 a4 .u.fc8 was about equal in R.BellinV.Epishin, Gibraltar 2003. Returning to the main line, 5 ttJbd2: S...ttJbd7 6 e3 Instead 6 c3 g5 7 Sιg3 ttJh5 8 e4 is White's most principled set-up, but he

White's Other Second

Moνes

has failed to trouble Black after 8...iιg7:

a) 9 .i.C4 a6 10 a4 "ile7 11 ο-ο l2Jf8 12 .:I.e1 l2Jg6 13 l2Jf1 l2Jxg3 14 hxg3 h5 15l2Je3 g4 16l2Jf5 'iVf8 17l2Jxg7+ ~xg7 18 l2Jd2 'iVh6 with the idea of ...h4 left Black doing well ση the kingside in C.Marzano-5.Drazic, Milan 1992. b) 9 l2JC4 Ψlie7 10 l2Jfd2 l2Jxg3 11 hxg3 b6 12 l2Je3 iιb7 13 i-C4 c6 14 a4 d5 15 exd5 cχd5 16 i-d3 f5 17 a5 ο-ο 18 Ψlie2 Ψlid6 19 ο-ο g4 and again Black is better, P.Juergens-M.Bezold, Passau 1996. c) 9 Ψlib3 g4 10 l2Jg1 ο-ο 11 iιd3 l2Jxg3 12 hxg3 c5 13 l2Je2 cχd4 14 cχd4 e5 with mutual chances. d) 9 .i.d3 e5!? sees Black tτying to cut thτough the main diagonal. The pressure ση d4 can be strengthened by ... g5-g4, and 10 dxe5 (στ 10 ΨliC2 g4 11 l2Jh4l2Jb6 12 dxe5 .i.xe5 13 0-0-0 "ilg5) 10... l2Jxg3 11 hxg3 g4 12 l2Jd4 l2Jxe5 gives Black reasonable play in this complex position. 6...g5 7..tg3l2Jh5 Again, Black hunts down the darksquared bishop.

8.i.d3 The most η atural , but quite often White hasn't made this move: for example, 8 c3 iιg7 9 a4 (this makes long castling unsuitable for both players; instead 9 .i.e2 ~e7 10 Ψlic2 l2Jb6 11 .i.b5+ .i.d7 12 .i.xd7+ Ψlixd7 13 a4 a5 14 c4 ο-ο 15 ο-ο l2Jc8 16 c5 l2Jxg3 17 hxg3 l2Je7 18 cχd6 cχd6 19 l2Jc4 Ψlio 20 Ψlib3 l2Jd5 favoured Black in J.Fries NielsenC.Hoi, Gladsaxe 1979) 9 .. :iVe7 10 a5 a6 11 ΨliC2 f5 12 iιc4l2Jdf6 13 Ψlib3 l2Jg4 14 l2Jf1 l2Jgf6 15 .i.d3 Ψlif7 16 h4 Ψlig6 17 hxg5 hxg5 18l2J3d2 .i.h6 19 f3 g4 20 f4 l2Jd5 gave Black good play in X.Lopez Sanchez-A.Cherniaev, Manresa 1997. 8 ...iιg7 9 c3 Τννο other strategies are ννoτtΠ noting: a) 9 l2Jf1 f5 10 l2J3d2 l2Jdf6 11 π3 l2Jxg3 12 l2Jxg3 'ilie7 13 e4 ο-ο 14 c3 fxe4 15 l2Jdxe4 l2Jd5 16 l2Jh5 l2Jf4 (16 ... e5!?) 17l2Jxf4 J::!.xf4 18 'iVe2 'iVf7 19 9 3 .:I.fs 20 l2Jd2 was seen in A.5ummerscale-E.Prie, Orange 1993, when after 20 ... e5!? Black would have had a strong bishop-pair as compensa-

133

The New Q/d Indian

tion for the exchange. b) 9lίJg1lίJxg3 10 hxg3 Wke7 11lίJe2 lίJf6 12 lίJc3 ..td7 13 lίJde4 lίJxe4 14 iιxe4 c6 15 ..td3 0-0-0 16 'iVe2 f5 17 0-0-0 e5 and Black is better, J.JonczykY.Novikov, Koszalin 1997. 9...'ilVe7

Black will continue his development with ...b6 and ...iιb7 στ ... lίJdf6(b6) and .....td7, keeping castling options open for as long as possible, as the king is not totally safe ση either flank. 3.0 'iVc2 Again there are alternatives: a) 10 lίJg1 forces the exchange and after 10... lίJxg3 11 hxg3 White will be happy if he can take control of the position with lίJe2, g4 and lίJg3. Black should oppose that plan with 11 ...lίJf6 when White might try: a1) 12 "iWf3 g4 13 'ilVd1 ..td7 14 lίJe2 h5 15 "ikc2 0-0-0 16 0-0-0 Φb8 17 J::ι.h2 c5 18 ~dh1 cxd4 19 exd4 e5 with a slight advantage for Black. a2) 12 'iVc2 iιd7 13 lίJe2 0-0-0 14 0-0-0 Φb8 15 Φb1lίJg4 16 .1:i.df1 c5 17 lίJC1 f5 18 "iid1 e5 and Black has the

134

better chances, C.Gokhale-R.Ramesh, Dubai 2001. a3) 12 lίJe4 ..td7 13 lίJxf6+ J.xf6 14 "iYc2 0-0-0 15 0-0-0 Φb8 16 g4 :'c8 17 lίJe2 c5 was quite unclear in D.Kovaljov-S.lonov, Paide 1999. b) After 10 'iVe2 Black may try 10... lίJxg3 (also possible is 10...lίJb6!? with the idea of ... iιd7 and ... 0-0-0 by analogy with OUf main game) 11 hxg3 g4 as the most natural retreat for the knight, lίJg1-e2, is temporarily blocked, but ση h4 the knight will be out of play. c) 10 ο-ο ο-ο 11 lίJe1 lίJxg3 12 fxg3 c5 13 lίJC2 b6 14 'iVe2 ..tb7 15 1:tf2 f5 16 .ί:[af1 d5 17 lίJe1lίJf6 gave Black a perfectly acceptable position in N.Dzagnidze-N.Bojkoνic, Antalya 2002. 3.0...lίJb6 3.3. 0-0-0 Instead 11 a4 again makes long castling unsafe for both sides and 11 ...iιd7 12 a5 lίJd5 gives Black reasonable play in this complex position.

Ιη

general the ideal scenario for Black in this variation is when both kings are castled ση the same flank, and the main battlefield is the centre

White's Other Second Moves

and opposite f1ank. Then after opening the game the power of Black's bishops can be shown. White, οη the other hand, would prefer to castle and attack οη opposite f1anks, when he may have the better chances because of his advantage ϊη terms of central control. 11...i.d7 12 e4 ':c8!? This leads to sharp play with mutual chances. Black prepares ... c5, but deprives himself of the possibility of ... 0-0-0. 12 ... 0-0-0 was more solid. Α possible continuation could be 13 ς,t>b1 ς,t>b8 14 tbb3 g4 15 4:Jfd2 ':'hf8 (with the idea of ...f5; 15 ...tbxg3 16 hxg3 hS is a decent alternative) 16 ':'de1 e5 which gives Black promising play with the idea of

nice checkmate: 24 tbb3! 'iVxb3? 25 'iVχc8+ i.χc8 26 ':'d8+ Φe7 27 4:Jc6 mate. 22 ...4:Jfd5 23 .i.e4 tbe7 24 .ί:ι.Χd6 This breakthrough is much less dangerous than the one οη es would have been. 24... cxd6 25 ~xb6 .i.c6 26 i.C2 'iWd5 27 tba3 a4 28 1:rd1 'iVe6 29 'iWe3 Φf7 30 'iWe2 zthd8 311:ί.e1 .i.d7 32 4:Jd4 ~f6 33 tbdb51:ί.C5 34 .i.xa4 tbd5 35 .i.b3 Φf8 36 ~d1 tbf4 37 .i.xf4 'iVxf4+ 38 Φb1 d5 39 g3.i.g4!

...tbf4.

13 d5 e5 14 tbf1 f5 15 exf5 tbxd5 16 f6 tbhxf6 17 .1g6+ Φf8 18 ~b3 ~e6 19 ~xb7 a5 20 tb1d2 tbb6 21 .I:!.he1 'i!Vxa2

224:Jb1? Unnecessary. Instead 22 i.xes! would have kept this shaτp battle very much raging, since if 22 ... dxe5? 23 tbxe5 i.e6 the game could finish with a

Black has a decisive advantage, although White managed to resist for a long time: 40 ~e1 'i!Vf5+ 41 .i.C2 ~f6 42 ':'d2 ~b8 43 .ta4 'iHa6 44 b3 ':'cxb5 45 tbxb5 l::!.xb5 46 .txb5 'iVxb5 47 ς,t>b2 d4 48 ~e4 i.e6 49 'iVf3+ Φg8 50 'iHa8+ ς,t>h7 51 ~e4+ ς,t>h8 52 'iVa8+ ~g8 53 'iVa4 ~f1 54 'i!Va8 1We1 55 ς,t>C2 ς,t>h7 56 1Wf3 ~a1 57 cxd4 exd4 58 l:td3 ς,t>h8 59 'iVf5 'iYa8 60 'iHf3 .td5 61 ~d1 'iVa2+ 62 Φc1 ~xf2 63 'iVh5 ς,t>h7 64 'iVg4 ~e1+ 65 'iVd1 ~f2 66 'iYg4 iVg1+ 67 iVd1 ~xh2 68 .!::ι.Χd4 i.xd4 69 'ifd3+ Φg8 70 'i!Vxd4 'ii'h1+ 71

135

The New Q/d Indian

Wb2 'iVf3 72 'ife5 ~xb3+ 73 Wc1 'ifC4+ 74 Wd2 iιf7 75 ~f6 'iNd5+ 76 Wc3 ~e6 77 'ifd8+ Wg7 78 Φc2 'ifb3+ 0-1

Game28

J.Timman-A.Karpov 9th matchgame, Amsterdam 1993 1 d4 ltJf6 2 iιg5 e6 3 ltJf3 h6 4 iιxf6 'ifxf6 5 e4 d6

Thus an unbalanced position arises where White has a strong centre in return for the bishop-pair. 6ltJC3 Instead White may try a set-up with iιd3, ltJd2 and c2-c3 in various move orders. The plan of ... g5 followed by advancing the kingside pawns, combined with the development of the queenside and long castling, is also good there for Black, as the following examples show: a) 6 iιd3 ltJc6 7 c3 (7 ο-ο g5 8 c3 iιd7 9 ltJbd2 0-0-0 is unclear) 7... g5! and now:

136

a1) 8 ~3 g4 9 tΔfd2 h5 prepares to deploy the bishop to the c1-h6 diagonal. a2) 8 h3 doesn't prevent Black's plan and Black is actively placed after 8...h5 9 h4 g4 10 ltJg5 iιh6. a3) 8 ltJbd2 g4 9 ltJg1 h5 10 ~3 iιh6 11ltJc4 e5 (οτ 11 ...h4!?, hoping for 12 ltJe2? h3! 13 g3 'iNf3 when Black wins material) 12 dxe5 (if 12 d5 ltJe7 and Black has slightly the better chances) 12 ... ltJχe5 13 ltJχe5 dχe5 14 ltJe2 h4 15 ~d1 c6 16 a4 iιg5! 17 iιc4 h3 18 g3 'iff3 19 ~gl ο-ο was excellent for Black in 1.lvanov-W.Browne, US Championship 1989. b) 6ltJbd2 g5 with another divide: b1) 7 c3 g4 8 ltJg1 h5 9 iιd3 ltJc6 transposes to variation 'a3'. b2) 7 h3 ltJc6 8 c3 iιd7 9 iιd3 h5 gives Black an acceptable position. b3) 7 e5 'iVg7 8 ltJC4 ltJc6 9 h3 iιe7 10 c3 iιd7 11 Sιe2 h5 12 exd6 cχd6 13 d5 exd5 14 'ifχd5 Jιe6 15 ~5 0-0-0 and Black is slightly better in this compleχ position, C.Merino Araguas-J.Jezek, correspondence 1996.

White's Other Second Moves

7 lΔbd2 g5 8 i..d3 is another route into variation 'a3'. d) 6 e5 is a somewhat more radica1 approach, but after 6... dχe5 7 dχe5 'iiVf4 the pawn οη e5 will become a target for B1ack following ...lΔc6 and probab1y ... g5-g4: for eχamp1e, 8 lΔbd2 (οτ 8 c3 lΔc6 9 g3 Wke4+ 10 Wke2 Wkχe2+ 11 Sιχe2 g5 with the idea of ... g4 and ... i..g7 when the e5-pawn is under some pressure) 8... g5 9 g3 (of 9 Wke2 g4) 9...Wkb4 and the most harmonious method of deve10pment for White, which inc1udes 0-0-0, is broken. c) 6 c3

lΔc6

6 ... gS!?

It's important for B1ack to find a good ro1e for his dark-squared bishop, which has ηο counterpart. The teχt enab1es it to be active1y dep10yed to g7 οτ even h6. Another approach is 6... lΔd7 7 "iid2 a6 (a well-known trap is 7... c6 8 0-0-0 e5 9 dχe5 dχe5? 10 lΔb5! with a decisive advantage for White) 8 0-0-0 "ii'd8 with reasonab1e p1ay for B1ack and a comp1eχ manoeuvring strugg1e ahead.

Aiming to open the position, but White can a1so try: a) 7 h3 tries to prevent B1ack becoming active οη the c1-h6 diagona1 after ... g4 and ...h5. However, with 7... i..g7 B1ack presses instead οη the main diagona1 and 8 Wkd2 (οτ 8 SιC4 lΔc6 9 d5 lΔe5 10 lΔχe5 ~χe5 11 ο-ο h5 12 lΔb5 'it>d8 when despite the 10ss of cast1ing rights, B1ack has good chances: he has ηο weaknesses and there are prospects of attack with ... g5-g4, J.5pee1manA.Karpov, Roquebrune (b1itz) 1992) 8 ...lΔc6 9 0-0-0 (9 lΔb5 Wke7 10 c3 f5 11 i..d3 a6 12 lΔa3 Sιd7 13 0-0-00-0-0 14 d5 fχe4 15 iιχe4 eχd5 16 i..χd5 k:the8 gave B1ack good p1ay in C.HaukeC.Pfrommer, Hockenheim 1994) 9 ... i..d7 is very comfortab1e for him.

B1ack will finish his deve10pment by going long and has a 10ng-term edge because of the potentia1 of his bishoppair after the opening of the centre. For eχamp1e:

7eS

a1) 10 lΔe2 0-0-0 11 ..t>b1 ~g6 12 lΔg3 ..t>b8 13 c3 f5 with a slight advantage for B1ack.

137

The New Old Indian

a2) 10 .tC4 0-0-0 11 l:.he1 h5 and again Black has slightly the better chances. a3) 10 Φb1 (prophylaxis against ...h5 and ...i.h6) 0-0-0 11 ..tb5 a6 12 i.xc6 i.xc6 (White has reduced the pressure ση d4 with this exchange, but ησνν Black's bishop-pair might later become very strong) 13 ':he1 .:the8 14 1:te3 'i!Vg6 15 d5 exd5 16 exd5 .td7 17 tiJe2 1:txe3 18 'iWxe3 ~f6 was slightly better for Black with the bishop-pair in F.Alvarado Ascanio-P.Lezcano Jaen, Madrid 2000. b) 7 tiJb5 Ψlie7 8 c3 .tg7 9 .td3 a6 10 tiJa3 ο-ο 11 ο-ο b5 12 tiJc2 c5 with mutual chances. c) 7 .tb5+ tiJd7 8 ο-ο a6 9 e5 (E.Meduna-J.5tocek, Turnov 1996) 9... 'i!Vg7 with reasonable play for Black in this complex position. 7••• Ψlie7 8 i.b5+ Instead 8 ..td3 allows Black to comfortably finish the development of his queenside and to put White's centre under pressure (with ...tiJc6, ....tg7 and ... g5-g4). After 8....tg7 9 'iWe2 (στ 9 exd6 cχd6 10 ο-ο ο-ο 11 1:!.e1 f5 12 .tC4 g4 and Black is better, D.lsonzoR.Kasimdzhanov, Halle 1995) 9 ...tiJc6 White has tried: a) 10 .tb5 .td7 11 0-0-0 g412 i.xc6 .txc6 13 tiJd2 dxe5 14 dxe5 Ψlig5 15 Φb1 0-0-0 16 .:the1 h5 favours Black, J.Nilssen-F.Berend, Moscow Olympiad 1994. b) 10 0-0-0 g4 11 tiJd2 tiJxd4 12 'iixg4 ..txe5 13 f4 h5 14 ~g3 ..tf6 15

138

tiJde4 .td7 and White still has to prove whether he has enough compensation for the pawn. C) 10 'iVe4 ..td7 11 0-0-0 0-0-0 12 .!:the1 d5 13 'iVe3 g4 14 tiJg1 h5 15 f4 gxf3 16 gxf3 ..th6 17 f4 'iih4 saw White's kingside coming under pressure in L,5anta-A.Rivera, Ciego de Avila 1997. Α more radical idea is 8 h4!? when 8 ... g49 tiJd2 h5 10 f4 gxf3 11 tiJxf3 ..td7 isn't at all easy to assess, although Black should be okay and will again complete his development with ...tiJc6, ....th6 and ... 0-0-0. 8....td7 9 ο-ο The king can also go the other way: 9 'ike2 .tg7 100-0-0 tiJc6 11 ':he1 0-0-0 is unclear.

9 ... d5

Black avoids any possibility of d4d5, but strategically it's not useful to close position since he has the bishoppair. 9...tiJc6?! 10 exd6 cχd6? 11 d5 was well worth avoiding, but it was possible to maintain the pressure with 9.....tg7

White's Other Second Moves

10 'iVe2 tΔc6 when 11 ktad1 (if 11 1:tfe1 g4 12 .1i.χc6 .1i.χc6 13 tΔd2 dχe5 14 dχe5 0-0-0 and Black has slightly the better chances) 11 ... g4 12 tΔe1 h5 would have been quite uncleaT.

10.1i.d3 The staτt of an overly-ambitious plan. Instead: a) 10 a4 was recommended by Korchnoi, staτting to push the pawns in the eχpectation that Black will go 10ng. Then 10 ... tΔc6 11 tΔe1 0-0-0 12 .fιχc6 Sιχc6 13 tΔd3 with the idea of b2-b4 leads to mutual chances. b) 10 Sιχd7+ tΔχd7 11 tΔb5 tΔb6 12 tΔe1 a6 13 tΔC3 'iWb4 14 .ϊ::i.b1 \i'C4 was okay for Black in J.Brousek-J.Vaassen, correspondence 2001. c) 10 .1i.e2 tΔc6 11 a3 .1i.g7 12 b4 a6 13 "iWd3 ο-ο 14 tΔd1 f6 15 eχf6 'iVχf6 16 c3 g4 17 tΔd2 e5 and Black is better, A.Vaisser-L.Comas Fabrego, Escaldes 1998. 10...tΔc611 tΔb5?! Better is 11 tΔe2 when 11 ...tΔb4 leads to an approχimately equal position.

11...0-0-0 12 c3 h5 13 a4 'it>b8 14 b4 15 tΔa3 1:tdf8 16 'iWe2 g4 17 tΔd2 f6 18 exf6?! Sιxf6 19 b5

SιB7

19...tΔa5 Rejecting 19 ... tΔχd4! 20 cχd4 .iχd4 21 tΔb3 Sιχa1 22 1:tχa1 e5 with some advantage for Black. 20 f4 "iWg7?! And here 20 ...~c8! with the idea of ... c5 was a better approach. 21 tΔC2 Sιe7 22 tΔe3 g3? Another strange decision from Karρον. Instead 22 ... .id6 23 f5 e5 24 tΔχd5 eχd4 25 c4 would only have led to a slight advantage for White. 23 h3 Sιd6 24 f5 .ϊ:f.h6 25 .1:!.ae1 a6? Black weakens himself. He hopes for 26 bχa6 b6!, but why not simply 25 ...b6? 26 tΔf3! 1:te8?! If 26 ... eχf5 then 27 tΔh4!, but 26 ...b6 with the idea of ...Φa7 again deserved attention. 27 'iVd2! .:td8?! 28 bxa6 b6 29 tΔe5 .ic8 30 fxe6 Itxe6 31 tΔf5 'iWg8 32 tΔh6 After 32 tΔχd6!? .ί:teχd6 33 'iWf4 White has the better chances.

139

The New O/d Indian

32 ...'iVg7 33 lίΊf5 \\Vg8 34 lίΊh6? \\Vg7 35 lίΊhf7l::!.f8 36lίΊxd61::[xd6 37l::!.xf8 ~xf8 38 ~f1 l:tf6 39 ~e3 h4 40 lίΊf3 lίΊc4! 41 'iVg5 iιxa6

42 a5!?~h6? Black should simply gτab the pawn with 42 ...bxa5!, as οη a close look White's threats are not as dangerous as they seem at first. 43 'iVxh6? Instead 43 axb6 .:i.xb6 44 iVd8+ iιc8 45 iιf5 lίΊd6 46 i.xc8 lίΊxc8 47 'iVxd5 'iVe3+ 48 Φhι iVXC3 49lίΊe5 would have been excellent for White. 43 ...1:!.xh6 44 axb6 cxb6 45 lίΊg5 i.b5! 46 :!.f8+ Φa7 47 Φf1 γΖ-γΖ Here Black might have continued and 47 ... lίΊa3!? 48 .:i.f3 .:i.c6 leads to mutual chances in the unbalanced endgame.

Game29 Ν.Τavoufaris-A.Cherniaev

Coulsdon 2007 1 d4lίΊf6 2 i.g5 e6 3 e4

140

This is the cτitical and most popular choice by White. 3... c5!?

The most direct and concτete response. 'ΒΥ advancing his c-pawn and fτee­ ing his queen at such an early stage, Black shows that he is keen to fight for the initiative. The resu1ting play tends to be quite dynamic and often revolves around whether Black's dark-square play fully compensates for whatever concessions he has made.' - Palliser. Black also hasn't spoilt his pawn structure, such as after 2... c5 3 iιxf6 gxf6, while if here 3...h6 4 iιxf6 \\Vxf6 then White is not committed to going into the Torre lines of the last game by playing 5lίΊf3, but may keep his f-pawn free and usually selects either 5 lίΊc3 οτ 5 c3. 4e5 The cτitical response. White should play aggτessively if he wants to fight for the advantage, although practice has also seen: a) 4 d5 is another principled re-

White's Other Second Moves

sponse and one which leads to a Benoni-type structure. After 4... d6 White has tried:

~xf6

7 tΔC3 ~C5 8 tΔf3 tΔc6 Black has slightly the better chances. c) 4 c3 cxd4 5 cxd4 Sιb4+ 6 tΔC3 (if 6 Sιd2 'i!Vb6, while 6 tΔd2? loses a pawn after 6....txd2+ 7 i.xd2 tΔxe4) 6...~C7 7 e5 tΔe4 is pleasant for Black. d) 4 i.xf6 (a hardly justified exchange) 4...~xf6 5 e5 'iVg6 6 dxc5 tΔc6 7 tΔf3 .txC5 8 c3 ο-ο 9 ~d3 'iVh5 10 'iVe4 f6 with the superior development for Black, P.Hidalgo Begines-D.Escobar Dominguez, Dos Hermanas 2005. 4 ... h6

a1) 5 i.b5+ tΔbd7 6 dxe6 fxe6 7 e5 dxe5 8 tΔf3 a6 9 i.xd7+ ~xd7 10 tΔc3 'fiiC7 11 'iVe2 .fιd6 12 0-0-0 b5 with mutual chances. a2) 5 c4 .fιe7 with the idea of ... tΔxd5 οτ ... tΔxe4 demonstrates that the bishop is not always so well placed οη g5. a3) 5 tΔC3 a6!? (οτ 5... i.e7 6 i.b5+ i.d7 7 dxe6 fxe6 with reasonable play for Black in this complex position, A.Moiseenko-Y.Kruppa, Alushta 2004) 6 a4 (οτ 6 f4 i.e7 7 tΔf3 ο-ο 8 dxe6 ~xe6 9 f5 ..tc8 10 ~e2 tΔbd7 11 ο-ο b5 12 a4 .fιb7 13 axb5 axb5 14 ~xa8 i.xa8 15 ~xb5 tΔxe4 with rough equality, S.Conquest-p.szekely, Athens 1997) 6.....te7 7 tΔf3 ο-ο 8 ~C4 tΔxd5 9 exd5 ~xgs 10 dxe6 i.xe6 11 Sιxe6 fxe6 12 tΔxg5 'iVxg5 13 'iVxd6 'iVxg2 with advantage for Black. b) 4 tΔf3 cxd4 5 tΔxd4 is like a Sicilian where White has played the strange move .tg5. After 5... h6 6 ~xf6

5.tCl This unexpected return is the best and most common response. Here the bishop is away from the clutches of the black knight and also keeps b2 usefully protected in the event of any .. :ifb6 ideas.Otherwise: a) After 5 i.d2 tΔe4 White should give up his bishop (οτ lose one more tempo) when 6 Sιd3 tΔxd2 7 tΔxd2 cxd4 8 f4 tΔc6 9 tΔgf3 d5 sees the structure from Nimzowitsch's variation of the French Defence arise, where White sacrifices the d4-pawn. After 10 a3 ~C5 11

141

The New Old Indian

b4 ~b6 12 tίJb3 ~d7 13 ο-ο a6 14 'iVe1 ο-ο 15 Wh111c8 16 g4 f6 17 'iVg3 fxe5 18 fxe5 g5 Black is better, N.PovahA.Cherniaev, Portsmouth 2003. b) 5 .i.e3 tίJd5

6 tίJf3 (if 6 c4 tίJxe3 7 fxe3 cχd4 8 exd4 ~4+ and White's king is in danger) 6 ...tίJc6 (οτ 6 ... cχd4 7 ~xd4 tίJc6 when the bishop has made a lot of moves, but still not found a safe position) 7 c4 tίJxe3 8 fxe3 d6 (the inevitable break in the centre will open up Black's bishops and expose White's weaknesses) 9 tίJC3 cχd4 10 exd4 dxe5 11 d5 exd5 12 cχd5 tίJd4 13 tίJxd4 'iVh4+ 14 g3 'iWxd4 is excellent for Black. c) 5 ~xf6 is hard to recommend, as after 5... gxf6 White has not only given up the bishop-pair, but his centre will quickly be destroyed. After 6 tίJf3 cχd4 7 exf6 (7 'iVxd4 tίJc6 loses the e5-pawn in view of ..."iνa5 next up) 7.. :~Vxf6 8 tίJbd2?! d5 9 ..ib5+ tίJc6 10 "iνe2 iιg7 11 ο-ο ο-ο 12 1:tfe1 Ue8 13 tίJb3 e5 14 tίJfxd4 tίJxd4 15 tίJxd4 I:ι.d8 16 tίJf3 e4 17 tίJd2 "iVxb2 181:tab1 'iVxc2 White had ηο compensation in T.Rahman-

142

A.Dunnington, Scarborough 1999. d) 5 ..ih4 is a bit more sharp, but also good for Black. After 5... g5 6 ..ig3 (if 6 exf6 gxh4 7 d5 'iVxf6 8 tίJC3 ..ig7 and Black's dark-squared bishop, which has ηο counterpart, is very powerful) 6... tίJe4 White's centre becomes a target and his dark-square weaknesses in general begin to tell.

Νονν:

d1) 7 c3 doesn't help to strengthen White's centre as he can't recapture οη d4 with the pawn in view of ...~b4+: 7... cχd4 8 "iνxd4 tίJxg3 9 hxg3 tίJc6 10 'iVe3 b6 11 iιd3 WΙΙC7 12 f4 .tb7 13 tίJf3 0-0-0 14 tίJbd2 d6 15 tίJxg5 dxe5 and Black is better, N.Povah-J.Rowson, British League 1997. d2) 7 tίJf3 deprives White ofthe possibility of protecting the e5-pawn with f2-f4 and the knight itself isn't a good protector in view of ... g5-g4 ideas: for example, 7... cχd4 8 "iνxd4 tίJxg3 9 hxg3 tίJc6 10 'iVe4 "iνb6 and ηονν White has ηο suitable protection for the pawn οη b2. d3) 7 tίJd2 tίJxg3 8 hxg3 cχd4 9 f4 (if

White's Other Second Moves

9 'iVg4 lbc6 10 lbgf3 i.g7 and Black is better) 9... d6 10 lbgf3 (οτ 10 lbe4 dxe5 11 fxg5 iιg7 12 lbf3 lbc6 13 iιb5 iιd7 and White has ηο compensation for the pawn) 10 ... iιg7 11 lbC4 dxe5 12 fxe5 lbc6 13 i.d3 g4 14 ο-ο ο-ο 15 lbh2

b5 with by for Black. 5...lbd5

ηονν

a decisive advantage

5... lbh7!? is an interesting alternative, employed by Bologan and other Moldavian players. This is a very unusual and strange-looking retreat, but quite reasonable as the knight is safe οη the kingside from White's pawn pushes:

a) 6 d5 (the most common response) 6... d6 7 lbC3 exd5 8 'iVxd5 lbc6 9 i.b5 'iVc7! (Bologan's improvement; other options give White an edge) 10 iιf4 iιe6 11 "iie4 d5 12 "iVe2 a6 13 iιxc6+ ~xc6 14lbf3 iιe7 15 ο-ο g5 16 ..td2 g4 17 lbe1 lbg5 was promising for Black in M.5zymanski-V.Bologan, Warsaw 2005. b) 6 c3 reminds one of the 2 c3 Sicilian with Black's knight οη h7, not d5,

but curiously it seems not so bad for him, as the knight can often be exchanged via g5: for example, 6... lbc6 7 lbf3 cxd4 8 cxd4 d6 9 iιb5 i.d7 10 lbc3 dxe5 11 dxe5 a6 12 i.d3lbg5 was quite comfortable for Black in S.DrazicJ.Lopez Martinez, ΕΙ Sauzal 2007. c) 6 dXc5 is a less-explored idea. Here 6...lbc6 (White's point is that 6... iιxC5 is met by 7 "ii'g4) 7 lbC3 (7 lbf3 allows Black to exchange his bad knight: 7...lbg5 8 lbxg5 hxg5 9 ..te3 b6 10 cxb6 axb6 11 lbc3 iιb4 gave Black sufficient counterplay in A.5mirnovV.lordachescu, Sochi 2008) 7... lbxe5 8 iιf4 lbc6 9 lbb5 (οτ 9 iιd6!?) 9... e5 10 iιe3 is an unexplored line, probably critical to the assessment of 5...lbh7.

6C4

The nearest analogy for this variation is 1 e4 c5 2 c3 lbf6 3 e5 lbd5 4 d4 e6 5 c4. The inclusion of ...h7-h6 is generally good for Black as it controls g5square, but in some particular situations the weakening of the kingside maytell. Instead after 6 dXc5 iιxC5 7 'iVg4

143

The New Q/d Indian ςt>f8

8 i..C4 'WiC7 9 'iVe2 tΔc6 10 tΔf3 tΔd4 11 tΔxd4 Sιxd4 12 i..xd5 exd5 13 f4 d6 14 c3 dxe5 15 tΔd2 i..b6 16 fxe5 i..f5 17 tΔf3 .:te8 Black is better, E.HintikkaM.Kanep, Jyvaskyla 2003, and 6 tΔf3 cxd4 7 'Wixd4 tΔc6 8 'iVe4 d6 9 jιC4 dxe5 10 tΔxe5 i..d6 also gives him a promising game.

6 ...tΔb6 6 ... tΔe7 is a viτtually unexplored alternative, which may deseτve attention. Black's knight stays in touch with the kingside, thereby neutralizing any 'Wig4 ideas. After 7 dxc5 (7 d5 d6 isn't at all easy to assess) 7 ... tΔg6 (after 7...tΔbc6 8 tΔf3 tΔg6 9 i..e3 tΔgxe5 10 tΔxe5 tΔxe5 11 tΔc3 White has a slight advantage according to Wells) 8 f4 (οτ 8 tΔf3 i..xC5 with an even game) 8 ...SιxC5 9 tΔf3 d6 10 i..d3 tΔΊΊ4 11 tΔxΊΊ4 "iVxh4+ 12 g3 'iVe7 13 iVg4 ο-ο 14 tΔc3 tΔc6 Black was better in L.Krysa-A.De Dovitiis, Villa Maτtelli 2008. 7 dxc5

Again the most challenging approach.Others: a) 7 d5 d6! breaks up White's centre

144

with easy play for Black: 8 exd6 jιxd6 9 tΔf3 (9 tΔc3 ο-ο 10 iιd3 exd5 11 cxd5 tΔa6 12 tΔge2 jιg4 was excellent for Black in G.Zilahi-N.Tavoularis, Budapest 2004) 9... exd5 10 cxd5 ο-ο 11 tΔc3 tΔ8d7 12 iιe2 tΔf6 13 iιe3 .ί:!.e8 14 'ti'd2 jιg4 15 0-0-0 tΔe4 16 tΔxe4 .I;:!,xe4 and Black was attacking in A.KinsmanL.Gofshtein, Paris 1996. b) 7 tΔf3 cxd4 8 tΔxd4 (8 iVxd4 tΔc6 9 ~e4 d5 gives Black a peτfectly acceptable position, I.Danilov-B.ltkis, Predeal 2006) 8 ... d5 9 exd6 i..xd6 10 tΔC3 ο-ο leads to an approximately equal position. c) 7 a4 (with the idea of a5) 7... d5 8 exd6 'iVxd6 (avoiding 8 ... i..xd6 9 b4!?) 9 tΔf3 (if 9 a5 tΔ6d7) 9 ... cxd4 10 tΔxd4 tΔc6 isn't at all easy to assess. 7... iιxC5

8~g4

White explores the weaknesses οη the kingside, but there is an element of risk here, as the queen is the οηlΥ developed white piece at the moment. The more solid option is 8 tΔf3 d5 9 exd6 'ti'xd6 10 'iVxd6 (10 i..d2 e5 11 tΔC3

White's Other Second Moves

..tf5 is unclear) 10... Sιχd6 11 tΔc3 tΔc6 12 ..td2 tΔe5 with an eνen game, while 8 tΔc3 tΔc6 9 tΔe4 ..tb4+ 10 Jιd2 'iWh4 11 'iVe2 ..tχd2+ 12 tΔχd2 ~d4 13 tΔdf3 'iVC5 140-0-0 a5 15 π4 a4 16 'iie3 "iWχe3+ 17 fχe3 1:!a5 was eχcellent for Black in Kusadasi L.Winants-V.lordachescu, 2006.

8...~f8!? At the cost of castling rights, Black protects his kingside and keeps his adνantage ϊη deνelopment.

Instead 8... g6 creates a weakness and 9 tΔf3 tΔc6 10 tΔC3 d6 11 eχd6 ..tχd6 12 c5 ..tχC5 13 ..tb5 e5 14 'ii'g3 iιd6 15 ο-ο gaνe White decent play for his pawn due to those kingside weaknesses ϊη P.Wells-Z.Efimenko, Hastings 2003/04, while 8.....tf8 aνoids creating a weakness, but fails to equalize after 9 tΔf3 tΔc6 10 tΔc3 d6 11 ..tf4 (Palliser). 9tΔC3

Wells ϊη his classic book οη Trompowsky recommended 9 a3!? when 9 ...tΔc6 10 tΔf3 reaches the critical position to assess for his idea. Our analysis, together with Igal

Amzallag, showed the following:

a) 10 ...'iiC7 is the line giνen by Wells. It doesn't promise Black a fully satisfactory game and after 11 'iie4 d5 12 eχd6 ..tχd6 13 tΔC3 a6 14 b4 White is better, N.Poνah-L.Wu, British League 2002. b) 10 ... a5 preνenting b2-b4 is more interesting. The main line of our analysis runs 11 tΔC3 d6 (the position is similar to the game, but with the inclusion of a3 and ... a5) 12 tΔe4 (but this was not good without a3 and ... a5 ϊη νiew of ..tb4+) 12 ... tΔd4 13 .ί:!.b1 tΔc2+ 14 Φd1 tΔd4 15 tΔχC5 dχc5 16 tΔχd4 cχd4 17 b3 which slightly faνours White. c) 10... d6!? leads to interesting complications after 11 b4 tΔχe5! 12 tΔχe5 'iif6 when there is a nonstandard situation where the chances could be estimated as nearly equal: for eχample, 13 tΔd3 'iVχa114 bχc5 tΔd7 15 tΔd2 tΔχC5 16 'iid1 ..td7 with reasonable play for Black ϊη this compleχ position. d) 10 ... d5! is probably the clearest way to reach a fully satisfactory game. After 11 tΔC3 (11 b4 Sιe7 12 cχd5 'iVχd5

145

The New O/d /ndian

14 tιJxd5 tιJxg4 15 tιJxe7 Φχe7 is also better for Black) 11... dxc4 12 i.e2 tιJd4 13 tιJxd4 .txd4 14 'ii'e4 .txc3+ 15 bXC3 ~d5 Black even has a slight advantage. Instead if White develops his kingside with 9 tιJf3 tιJc6 10 ..te2 d6 11 "ti'g3 then Black will equalize with exchanges after 11... dxe5 12 tιJxe5 tιJxe5 13 ~xe5 'iVd4. 9 ... tιJc6 Οτ 9... d5 10 exd6?! (this allows Black to activate his pieces; instead 10 tιJf3 deserves attention: for example, 10... tιJc6 11 .td2 i.d7 12 .te2 dxc4 13 tιJe4 with compensation) 10... tιJc6 11 .td2 e5 12 "ti'h5 tιJd4 13 iιd3 i.xd6 14 0-0-0 i.e6 and Black is better, G.PitlB.5avchenko, Dresden 2007. 13

tιJc3 tιJxe5

White compensation) 14 .te2 tιJxe5 15 'i!Vd4 tιJxf3+ 16 .txf3 e5 is quite unclear. 10... d6 Again 10... d5 is possible too and 11 i..d2 iιd7 12 .te2 ':'c8 13 ο-ο tιJe7 14 a3 tιJxC4 15 iιxC4 dxc4 16 tιJe4 tιJd5 17 tιJxC5 .ί:i.xC5 18 .tb4 tιJxb4 19 axb4 1:td5 20 I:!:xa7 iιc6 reached a roughly level game ϊη C.Natsidis-Z.Ksieski, Leutersdorf2007. 11.tf4 gS!? Α less logical idea is to release the tension ϊη the centre: 11... dxe5 12 tιJxe5 'iVf6 (if 12 .. :tWd4 13 'iVg3 g5 14 .te3 ~xe5 15 'i!Vxe5 tιJxe5 16 iιxC5+ Wg7 17 .td4 and White is better, J.Vigus-L.Williams, British League 1998) 13 0-0-0 (13 tιJxc6 e5!) 13 ... g5 14 tιJxc6 Wixf4+ 15 ~χf4 gxf4 16 tιJe4 iιχf2 17 tιJxf2 bxc6 leads to an approximately equal position. Meanwhile another interesting and aggressive idea is 11 ...h5!? 12 'i!Vg3 h4 13 ~g4 ..tb4 14 .te2 tιJd7, winning the e5-pawn as after 15 exd6? tιJf6 16 'i!Vg5 l:i.h5 the queen is trapped.

10 tιJf3

Alternatively, 10 .tf4 g5 (10 ... d5!?) 11 .te3 (not 11 ..tg3?? h5 with the idea of ...h4) 11 ....txe3 12 fxe3 WiC7 13 tιJf3 (οτ 13 c5 tιJd5 14 tιJxd5 exd5 15 0-0-0 'iVxe5 16 'iVf3 tιJe7 17 tιJe2 b6 and Black is better, E.Brondum-W.Rosen, Halle 2004) 13 ... d5 (13 ...tιJxe5 14 "ti'd4 gives

146

12..tg3

White's Other Second Moves

This 10ses control over the e1-aS diagona1. Probably better was to give up the es-pawn, although 12 iLd2 dxeS 13 h4 fS 14 'iVhs ~g7 lS hxgs hxgs 16 'iWxh8+ 'iixh8 17 1:.xh8 ~xh8 18lLΊxgs still gives Black good play. 12 ... h5 12 ... i.b4!? deserved attention, fol10wed by ... lLΊa4 and ...'iVa5: for example, 13 ~c1 lLΊa4 14 a3 i.xc3+ 15 bXC3 'iVa5 with advantage for Black. 13 wt'xg5 'i*'xg5 14lLΊxg5 h4 Winning a tempo and gaining space. 15 iLf4 dxe5 16 .Jte3 White is agτeeing to the weakening of his pawn structure after the exchange of bishops to protect the d4square. 16...i.xe3 17 fxe3 ~e7 18 0-0-0 lLΊd7

The knight is coming into play. The endgame is slightly better for Black, mainly because of his strong central pawn triangle. 19 i.e2 White allows an exchange of the g2-

pawn for h4. This strengthens Black's position, but White hopes οη counterplay with the resulting passed h-pawn. Instead 19 a3 a5 20 lLΊa4 deserved attention. 19....:g8 20 lLΊf3 ~xg2 21lLΊxh4 Οτ 21 ~dg1 h3!? 21...1:I.g8 22 lLΊf3 lLΊC5 23 h4 e4 24 lLΊg5 f5 25 l:tdg1 iLd7 26lLΊh3 White could push his passed pawn, but it would not change the assessment: 26 hS lLΊe5 27 Φα a5 28 h6 :g6 29 h7 .1:.h8 and Black has the better chances. 26 ...lLΊe5 27lLΊf4 a5 28 ~c2 iLc6 29 .:tg5 lLΊf7 30 1:!.xg8 ~xg8

31.i:i.h2?! Relatively best was to prevent the rook's invasion οη g3 by 31 h5 lLΊh6 32 lLΊg6+ ~f6, slightly better for Black though this would have been. 31...:g3 32 h5 lLΊh6 33 Φd2 lLΊd7 34 lLΊg6+ ~6 35 ~e11:tg1+ 36 Φf2? Again allowing a fuτther invasion by the rook, ηονν decisively so. 36...,U,C1 37 ~g2 .I:tc2 38 lLΊd1 e5 39 Φf1 a4 40 lLΊh4lLΊf8 41lLΊg6lLΊe6 42 a3 f4 43

147

The New O/d Indian

t2Jxf4 exf4 44 .I:f.g6+ Wf7 45 1:f.xh6 f3 46 i..xf3 exf3 47 'it>e1 t2Jg7 481:!.h8 .ί:!.e2+ 49 Φf1 t2Jf5 0-1

{jame30 M.Van der Werf-DJakovenko European CIub Cup, Saint Vincent 2005 1 d4 t2Jf6 2 t2JC3 d5 3 i..g5

The Veresov Opening (also known as the Richter-Veresov Attack). This opening looks like a mirrored Ruy Lopez, but of course, since the d-pawn is protected fτom the staτt by the queen, the dynamics of play are quite different. White's plans typically include rapid queenside castling, as well as an early f2-f3 and e2-e4 pawn push. Ιη­ deed, the German master Kuτt Richter, after whom the opening is half-named, usually continued 4 f3, hoping to build up a large pawn centre. The Soviet player Gavril Veresov, οη the other hand, usually played 4 .ixf6, damaging Black's pawn structure. The opening

148

has never been very popular at the top level, but various prominent players have employed it occasionally. Instead 3 i.f4 is like a reversed Giuoco Piano, only worse because White is cτeating a weakness οη b2 by developing his queen's bishop so early: 3... i.f5 (3 ... c5 4 e3 e6 5 t2Jf3 a6 6 i.e2 t2Jc6 7 ο-ο i.e7 8 t2Je5 ο-ο 9 t2Jxc6 bxc6 10 t2Ja4 cχd4 11 exd4 a5 12 .1:Ie1 i..a6 reached a roughly level game in K.Chernyshov-S.Himanshu, New Delhi 2006) 4 t2Jf3 e6 5 e3 .ib4 6 .id3 (οτ 6 a3 .1ιχC3+ 7 bxC3 t2Je4 8 "iVb1 b6 9 c4 g5 10 .1ιg3 h5 with reasonable play for Black in this complex position, A.BelyA.lvanov, Kharkov 2003) 6... i.xd3 7 "iVxd3 (if 7 cχd3 ο-ο 8 ο-ο t2Jh5 with rough equality, A.Georghiou-H.Velasquez, Thessaloniki 1988) 7... a6 8 0-0-0 ο-ο 9 t2Je5 c5 10 g4? c4 11 ~e2 .ixc3 12 bXC3 t2Je4 13 ~e1 f6 14 t2Jf3 ~a5 with advantage for Black in B.LyonsM.Quinn, Bunratty 2007. 3... C5!?

This is one of Black's most challenging approaches against the Veresov.

White's Other Second Moves

Comparisons with the Chigorin Defence of the Queens Gambit (1 d4 d5 2 c4 liJc6 3 liJf3 ~g4 οτ 2 liJf3 liJc6) are obvious. The extra tempo is surprisingly hard for White to use in a productive way. Ιη this game we will consider those lines where White opts for a relatively closed set-up (mainly with e2-e3), while the shaτper options (mainly with e2-e4) are the subject of the next game. 4..ixf6 Damaging Black's structure, but White also has: a) 4 e3 without the exchange οη f6 is seen in practice quite often. Ηοw­ ever, it seems not in the spirit of the 2 liJC3 opening - the position reminds one of a Queen's Pawn Game where the queen's knight is a little misplaced, obstructing the c-pawn. After 4...liJc6 White has tried: a1) 5 ~b5 cxd4 6 exd4 ..ig4 7 f3 ~d7 8 liJge2 e6 9 ο-ο ~d6 10 'ii'd2 ο-ο 11 1:[ad1 1:[c8 12 ΦΊΊ1 a6 13 ~d3 liJb4 and Black is better, B.BorysiakE.5veshnikov, Warsaw 2005. a2) 5 dXc5 e6 6 liJf3 ..ixC5 7 a3 i.e7 8 iιd3 ΊΊ6 9 .th4 ο-ο 10 ο-ο b6 11 liJd4 ~b7 12 f4 ':'c8 13 liJcb5 liJe8 14 .tg3 liJxd4 15 liJxd4 ..if6 16 'iVe2 liJd6 17 1:[ad1 "fie7 18 c3 1:!.fd8 and Black has slightly the better chances, I.Miladinovic-R.Ruck, Murska Sobota 2008. a3) 5 liJf3 ..tg4 6 i.e2 (instead 6 dXc5 e6 7 liJa4 ..txf3 8 gxf3 'iVa5+ 9 c3 b5! 10 cxb6 axb6 11 'iVb3 'iνxa4 12 'i!Vxa4 ':'xa4 13 ..tb5 :C4 was excellent

for Black in A.Roizman-E.Rodin, correspondence 1987) 6... e6 7 ο-ο (οτ 7 h3 .txf3 8 ..ixf3 cxd4 9 exd4 'iVb6 10 ο-ο 'iνxd4 and Black is better) 7 ...iιe7 (avoiding 7... cxd4 8 exd4 iιxf3 9 .txf3 'iVb6 10 iιxf6 gxf6 11 .txd5!) 8 liJe5 .txe2 9 liJxe2 liJxe5 10 dxe5 liJd7 11 ~xe7 'iνxe7 12 f4 ο-ο with the idea of ...f6 gives Black a promising game. b) 4liJf3liJe4 and then:

b1) 5 iιf4 f6!? 6 e3 ~a5 gives Black active counterplay. b2) 5 e3liJxg5 6liJxg5 e6 7liJf3liJc6 8 i.b5 a6 9 ~xc6+ bxc6 10 ο-ο ~d6 11 liJa4 cxd4 12 exd4 ο-ο gave Black good play with the bishop-pair in I.DerjabinD.Boguslavsky, Dnipropetτovsk 2002. b3) 5 dxc5 liJxC3 6 bxc3 f6 7 .tC1 e5 again with advantage for Black. b4) 5 ~ΊΊ4 'iνa5 and Black has the better chances. b5) 5 iιd2 cxd4 6 liJxd4 liJxd2 7 'iνxd2 e5 8 liJb3 d4 9 liJe4 (9 liJd1 liJc6 10 e3 a5 11 exd4 a4 is excellent for Black) 9... a5 10 e3 a4 11 liJC1 'iVb6 12 1:tb1 f5 and Black is better. 4 ... gxf6 5 e3liJc6

149

The New Q/d Indian Α

less explored but promising alternatiνe is 5... cxd4 6 exd4 h5!?, preνent­ ing 'iVh5 and facilitating the idea of ... iιh6+: for example, 7 i..e2 h4 8 ..if3 e6 9 "iVe2 t2Jc6 10 i..xd5 t2Jxd4 11 ~e4 e5 (11 ...'iWb6 also giνes Black a promising game) 12 i..xb7? (12 ..ib3 isn't at all easy to assess) 12 ...1ιΧb7 13 'iWxb7 llb8 14 'iWe4 ':'xb2 with adνantage for Black ϊη T.Naνinsek-B.Aνrukh, Ljubljana 1998. Howeνer, 5... e6 is less f1exible as ϊη some sidelines Black 10ses options like ... i..g40r ... e7-e5, although most often it just transposes to the main game after 6 ifh 5 t2Jc6.

6~h5

The most principled approach. The main purpose of the exchange οη f6 was to create this comfortable base for the queen, where it creates pressure οη the kingside and ηονν also attacks the pawn οη d5. Again the alternatiνes are less challenging: a) 6 dXc5 e6 7 t2Jf3 (otherwise, 7 'iVh5 transposes to note 'c' to White's 7th moνe ϊη our main game, while 7 t2Jge2 ..ixc5 8 g3 h5 9 h4 t2Je5 10 i..g2

150

'iVb6 11 t2Ja4 'ilka5+ 12 c3 i..e7 13 b4 'iJlC7 14 t2Jb2 1ιd7 15 a4 a5 16 ο-ο axb4 17 cxb4 i..xb4 18 t2Jf4 'ifc3 was νery good for Black ϊη S.5magin-J.Dorfman, Iνano Frankoνsk 1982) 7... i..xc5 8 i..e2 (if 8 1ιd3 f5 9 ο-ο a6 and Black has slightly the better chances) 8... 1ιd7 9 ο-ο t2Je5 10 e4 t2Jxf3+ 11 iιxf3 d4 12 t2Je2 'iWb6 13 :lb1 ..ib5 14 b4 1ιe7 15 'iVd2 0-0-0 16 ':fc1 Φb8 17 t2Jf4 1:I.c8 was slightly better for Black ϊη J.KuceraJ.Hudecek, Sloνakian League 1995. b) 6 ..ib5 e6 and then:

b1) 7 t2Jge2 iιd7 8 ο-ο a6 9 iιxc6 iιxc6 10 a4 f5 giνes Black a perfectly acceptable position. b2) 7 e4 dxe4 8 d5 a6 9 1ιχc6+ bxc6 10 dxe6 1ιχe6 11 'iVxd8+ ':xd8 12 t2JXe4 f5 giνes Black a promising game. b3) 7 'ilkf3 iιd7 8 0-0-0 cxd4 9 exd4 iιd6 10 t2Jge2 a6 isn't so easy to assess. b4) 7 t2Jf3 iιd7 8 ο-ο (if 8 e4 dxe4 9 tΔxe4 "ifa5+ 10 'iVd2 'iWxb5 11 tΔxf6+ Φe7 12 dxc5 "ifxb2 13 .ud1 i..g7 14 ο-ο iιxf6 15 'ifxd7+ Φf8 and Black is better, H.Nouri-E.Ghaem Maghami, Cebu City 2007) 8 ... a6 (οτ 8 ... cxd4 9 exd4 i..d6 10

White's Other Second Moves 'iνe2

a6 wit11 a slig11t advantage for 81ack) 9 .i.xc6 .i.xc6 10 dxcS (after 10 1:.e1 'iνb6 11l:ίb1 0-0-0 12 dxcS .i.xcs 13 lZΊd4 11s 81ack 11as slig11tly t11e better c11ances) 10...i.xcs 11 lZΊd4 fS is about equal. c) 6lZΊf3 i..g4 (6 ... cxd4 7 exd4 i..g4 8 SΙe2 e6 9 ο-ο 1:.g8 10 1:[e1 i.e7 wit11 t11e idea of ... fS and ....tf6 also gives 81ack a peτfectly acceptable position) 7 SΙe2 e6 8 ο-ο 1:[c8 9 dxcS i.xcs 10 lZΊd4 i..xe2 11 lZΊcxe2 fS 12 lZΊxc6 bxc6 wit11 reasonable play for 81ack in t11is complex posiE.Mensc11-S.Zagrebelny, Metz tion, 2002. d) 6 lZΊge2 cxd4 7 exd4 eS 8 ~d2 ii.e6 9 0-0-0 'iWas 10 g3 0-0-0 11 b1 11s is better for 81ack. e) 6 g3 cxd4 7 exd4 Μ!? is unclear according to S11eres11evsky.

better c11ances οτ 7 lZΊf3 .i.d7 8 0-0-0 cxd4 9 lZΊxd4 lZΊxd4 10 1:.xd4 1:[c8 w11ic11 is slig11tly better for 81ack. Instead 7 dxcS ..txcS gives W11ite a few options: a) 8 i..bs a6 9 i.a4 fS! wit11 t11e idea of ...'ii'f6 w11en 81ack is better. b) 8 .td3 i.d7 9lZΊge2 fS again gives 81ack a promising game wit11 ...'iνf6 next up. c) 8 0-0-0 'iie7 9 lZΊge2 (9 .i.bs .i.d7 10 lZΊge2 a6 gives 81ack good play) 9 ...fS (9 ... a6 10 lZΊf4 ..td7 11 lZΊcxdS exdS 12 lZΊxdS 'i!νes 13 'iWxes+ lZΊxes 14 lZΊo+ We7 lS lZΊxa8 ':'xa8 16113 ..tc6 17 1:.112 1:[g8 and 81ack is better, N.Rya11iN.Nguyen, Esfa11an 200S) 10 lZΊf4 ..td6 is unclear.

6 ..•e6

7...i.d7

70-0-0

S11ou1d W11ite try a plan wit11 s110rt castling, t11en 11is weaknesses οη t11e queenside will begin to tell: 7 lZΊge2 .td7 8 g3 cxd4 9 exd4 'iνb6 10 .i.113 lZΊxd4 11lZΊxdS 'ii'xb2 and 81ack 11as t11e

81ack 11as some good alternatives: a) 7...fS 8 f4 c4 (8 ... cxd4!? 9 exd4 ..tb4 is anot11er approac11) 9 g4?! (too adventurous) 9 ...fxg4 10 e4 lZΊe7 11 fS exfs 12 exds 'iVd6 13 I:te1 a6 and 81ack 11as t11e better c11ances, R.KnaakV.Georgiev, German League 1999. b) 7 ... cxd4!? 8 exd4 SΙb4 9 lZΊge2

151

The New O/d Indian

iLd7 10 f4 Ψιke7 (10...f5!? 11 g4 fxg4 12 f5 π6 with the idea of ...'iHg5+ 100ks excellent for Black) 11lbb5 (11 f5 0-0-0 12 g3 lba5 was drawn in L.AronianM.5ibenik, Paris 1994) 11...1:ι.c8 12 f5 d8 13 g3 a6 14 lbbc3 lba5 15 l:!.d3 lbC4 gave Black a peτfectly acceptable position in F.Berkes-A.Timofeev, Oropesa del Mar 1999. 8lbge2

8...f5 Thematically clamping down οη the e4-square and increasing the darksquared bishop's scope, but Black can also first go 8... cxd4 9 exd4 before 9... f5 when 10 ':g1 (οτ 10 g3 Ψιkf6 11 ~b1 .td6 12 iLg2 ο-ο 13 ':'hg1 ~M 14 f4 lba5 15 g4 'iHg6 16 ~4 fxg4 17 π3 f5 with reasonable play for Black in this complex position, J.5alimaki-V.Lehto, Finnish League 2004) 10 ...Ψιkf6 11 f4 0-0-0 12 b1 ~b8 13 ~f3 ':'c8 14 'iVe3 ~g7 15 g3 .:thg8 16 .:td2 lba5 gave Black good play in B.5ebestyenD.Magyar, Hungarian League 2004. 9g4 This push is principled, but does not

152

seem profitable. Thus 9 dxc5 .txC5 10 lbf4 may deserve attention. 9... cxd4 1.0 exd4 fxg4 1.1. 'iHxg4 Οτ 11 π3 'iVf6 with a plus for Black. 1.1.... h5 1.2 'iVg2 'ile7 1.3 f4 0-0-0 1.4 ':'g1.?! White may find this is the right moment to get rid of the weak pawn with 14 f5, but after 14...lba5 15 'iHf3 ~Π6+ 16 ~b1 lbc4 he still doesn't achieve an easy game. 1.4...'iHf6 1.5 Wb1. .id6 1.6 'iVf3 ':'dg8 1.7 ':'xg8+ Not 17 .ih3? ':'xg1 18 ':xg1 lbxd4 with a decisive advantage for Black. 1. 7....1:f.xg8 1.8 iLh3 lbe7 1.9 'iVxh5 ':'h8 20 'ii'f3 ~h6 21. .tg2lbg6

22 a3 After 22 ':'f1 lbh4 23 ~f2 lbxg2 24 'iVxg2 ~xΠ2 25 'ilxh2 1:!.xh2 Black has slightly the better chances. 22 ...lbxf4 23 lbxf4 ~xf4 24 'iVxf4 iLxf4 25 h3 ':g8 26 .tf1.? Better was 26 lbe2 .td6 27 .if3 ':'Μ 28 ':'π1 ':'h4 29 c3 when White has good chances to hold. 26 ...f5! 27 lbe2 .te3 28 lbc1. l:.g1. 29

White's Other Second Moves

tbe2 Οτ

29 i.e2 lIxd1 30 .ixd1 .ixd4 with a decisive advantage for Black. 29 ....ί:.h1 30 tbg3 .t!.h2 31 tbhs i.e8 32 tbg7 i.f7 33lIe1 ..td2 34lIe2 .ί:.h1 0-1

Game31 M.Hebden-V.MiIov Isle of Man 1995 1 d4 ds 2 tbC3 tbf6 3 iιgs cs

this game we willlook at White's shaτper options. 4 i.xf6 Consistent, but it's also useful to have seen: a) 4 e4 is a dubious gambit line: 4...tbxe4 5 tbxe4 dxe4 6 dS (6 dxc5 iVa5+ 7 "iWd2 "iWxC5 8 0-0-0 tbc6 9 ii.e3 ~es 10 f4 ~d6 is slightly better for Black) 6...h6!? (it's useful to define the dark-squared bishop's position before staτting to exploit the dark-square weaknesses οη the queenside; after 6... ~6 7 tbe2! g6 8 lIb1 i.g7 9 tbC3 f5 10 i.f4 tbd7 11 d6 exd6 12 i.bs a6 13 Ιη

tbds iVa5+ 14 b4 cxb4 15 ..txd6 White is attacking) 7 i.h4 (οτ 7 i.f4 tbd7 8 c3 tbb6 and Black is better) 7.. :itib6 8 tbe2 g5 9 i.g3 i.g7 10 lIb1 fS with a decisive advantage for Black. b) After 4 dxc5 d4 5 i.xf6 exf6!? (s ... gxf6 transposes to the notes to White's 5th move, below) 6 tbe4 i.f5, in comparison with the Chigorin line 1 d4 d5 2 c4 tbc6 3 tbf3 iιg4 4 tbC3 dxc4?! 5 d5 .ixf3 6 exf3 tbe5 7 iιf4 White has an extra tempo (Black has not played ... tΔb8-c6 yet), but this extra tempo is surprisingly not enough even to equalize: for example, 7 tΔd6+ (not 7 tbg3 i.xcs 8 tΔxf5? "iWa5+ with a decisive advantage for Black) 7... i.xd6 8 cxd6 "iWb6! sees Black taking the upper hand. 4... gxf6 5 e4 The sharpest line. Instead 5 dxcS d4 6 tΔe4 ~dS 7 tΔd2 (οτ 7 tΔg3 "iWxC5 8 "iWd2 h5 with the initiative) 7..."iWxcs 8 tbgf3 tbc6 9 a3 (9 ':'c1 i.e6 10 a3 .:td8 is better for Black) 9... iιe6 10 g3 lId8 11 i.g2 ~6 12 tΔb3 aS favours Black. S... dxe4

153

The New Q/d Indian

6dS

White wants to play a real gambit and ηοw play resembles the Albin Counter-Gambit. The more common continuation is 6 dxcS and after 6...fS White has a choice:

gxf3 :g8 12 liJd4 e6 gives Black a perfectly acceptable position. 6...fS 7 'iVhS?! This seems logical: White takes up an advanced post οη the kingside and prepares to go long. The reason why this plan fails is that White is under threat by a queen exchange with ... ~6-Π6+.

a) 7 JtbS+ Jtd7 8 liJge2 liJc6 9 'iVd2 e6 10 ο-ο :g8! 11 :ad1 JtxcS and White had almost ηο compensation for the pawn in I.Miladinovic-S.5magin, Montreal 2000. b) 7 'iVhs Jtg7 8 SιC4 ο-ο 9 liJh3 π6 10 ο-ο e6 11 :ad1 "WIe7 with the idea of ... 'iVxcS and Black has the better chances. c) 7 'iVxd8+ Φχd8 8 0-0-0 (if 8 .:ι.d1+ Sιd7 9 ~C4 e6 10 g4 fxg4 11liJxe4 Φe7 12 liJe2 i..c6 13 liJ2g3 fS with a large advantage for Black, M.VasilevM.Krasenkow, Kavala 2001) 8...~d7 (it's hard to believe that White has full compensation here) 9 f3 (οτ 9 JtbS ':g8 10 liJge2 Φc8 11 ~hg1 e6 12 b4 i..xbs 13 liJxbs aS and Black is better, R.BelisA.Le Bideau, correspondence 2006) 9... Sιg7 10 liJge2 (10 liJbs liJa6 11 liJd4 ΦC7 is excellent for Black) 10... exf3 11

154

Το continue the kingside development with 7 i..C4 gives Black a tempo for ...liJd7-eS: for example, 7... a6 8 a4 1i.g7 9liJge2liJd7 10 ο-ο liJes with comfortable play for Black. Instead playing in the centre with 7 f3 is not logical in view of White's lack of development and 7.. :ifb6 8 :b11i.g7 9 ~bS+ liJd7 10 fxe4 fxe4 11liJge2 ο-ο sees Black taking the upper hand.

7... i.g7 The immediate 7...~6 is also good. After 8 i.,bS+ (8 0-0-0 'iVh6+ is Black's idea) 8...liJd7 it's dangerous for White to grab the pawn with 9 'ikxfs a6 10 1i.xd7+ i.xd7 as then Black's longrange pieces develop rapid activity. 8liJge2

White's Other Second Moves Νονν in the case of 8 iLb5+ Black simply plays 8...Φf8 9lbh3 "t\Vd6 10 iLe2 'Wh6 11 lbg5 '1Wxh5 12 i.xh5 lbd7 13 1:I.d1 (οτ 13 lbxf7 lbf6 with a decisive advantage for Black) 13 ... i.xc3+ 14 bxc3 lbf6 15 i.e2 l:tg8 16 lbh3 Iίxg2 with some advantage, Z.MestrovicO.5ermek, Tucepi 1996. 8..:iVb6 9 0-0-0 iVh6+ 10 ~xh6 i.xh6+ 11 Wb1lbd7 12lbg3 The queens have come off and White seems to have ηο compensation for the pawn. Likewise, 12 d6lbf6 13 f3 exd6 14 lbg3 i.f4 15 fxe4 iLxg3 16 hxg3 lbxe4 leads to a big advantage for Black and 12 lbb5 Wf8 13 d6 lbf6! is also better for Black. 12 .•.lbf6 13 f3 e3 14 iLb5+ Φι8 15 Iίhe1 Neither 15 d6 exd6 16 .:txd6 Φe7 17 ktdd1 (if 17 .:thd1 iLe6) 17 ...f4 ηοτ 15 iLd3 e6 seems like a route to salvation. 15 ....:tg8

Black is clearly better. 16lbf1

Instead 16 d6 iLe6!? with some advantage for Black οτ 16 .ι::ϊ.e2 a6 17 iLd3 f4 when he definitely has the initiative.

16...f4 The alternative 16 ... a6 17 i.d31:txg2 18 lbxe3 i.xe3 19 1:.xe3 lIxh2 was also good. 17 g3 iLh3 18lbe2 After 18 gχf4 iLxfl19 oU.xf1 iLxf4 20 h4 .:tg2 Black again has the better chances. 18...lbh5 19 d6 If 19 lbxf4 lbxf4 20 gxf4 iLxf1 21 .:txf1 iLxf4 and despite the oppositecoloured bishops, Black has good winning chances as the pawn οη e3 is very dangerous. 19 ...e6

20 gxf4 If 20 g4 lbf6 21 lbg1 iLxg4 (21 ... iLg2!?) 22 fxg4 lbxg4 and Black's pawns are worth much more than a piece. 20... iLxf1 21 .:txf1 lbxf4 22 lbC3 a6 23 iιd3 f5 24 .:tfe1 lbg2 25 I:!.gl l:td8 26 iιC4 Φf7 27 a4 iιf4 28 d7 We7 29 a5 iLd6 30 lba4 lbh4 31 Itxg8 .u.xg8 32 f4 lbf3 33 Φa2 lbd2 34 b3 Wxd7 35 .ί:t.e1 lbxC4 36 bXc4 i.xf4 37 lbxcs+ 'Ot>d6 38 lbd3 eS 39 Itb1 Φc7 40 Φb3 .i.xh2 0-1

155

The New Q/d Indian

Game32 Ιίη

Gambit again), and after 4 White has tried:

.:ιJxe4

dxe4

Weiguo-M. Wahls Adelaide 1988

1. d4.:ιJf6 2 .:ιJC3

With 2 f3 White wants to reach the main line of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, while avoiding the Hubsch Gambit (see below). After 2... d5 (other possibi1ities are 2... c5 3 d5 d6 4 e4 g6, οτ 2... d6 for Pirc players when after 3 e4, 3... e5 deserves attention) 3 e4 c5!? (the most ambitious option; Black could also simply play 3... e6 with an excel1ent French Defence ϊη prospect, since the move f3 does not seem particularly useful, while 3... dxe4 4 .:ιJC3 reaches the main line of the BlackmarDiemer Gambit) 4 e5 (for 4.:ιJc3 see the main game) 4 ....:ιJg8 (also possible is 4 ....:ιJfd7 5 c3 .:ιJc6 6 f4 e6; this Frenchtype of position is good for Black and most often occUTS when White avoids the Alekhine with 1 e4.:ιJf6 2 d3 d5 3 e5 .:ιJfd7 4 d4, etc) 5 f4 play transposes to the unusual Caro-Kann line 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 c5 4 f4. Ιη comparison to the French-type positions above, the queen's bishop wil1 be able to get out and the king's knight can use the route ....:ιJe7-f5 to put pressure οη d4. 2 ... dS 3 f3 The same idea as with 2 f3. Instead 3 e4 .:ιJxe4 is cal1ed the Hubsch Gambit (3 ... dxe4 4 f3 is the main line of the Blackmar-Diemer

156

a) 5 f3 e5! 6 i..e3 exd4 7 .txd4.:ιJc6 8 i.b5 i.f5 is excel1ent for Black. b) 5 i..f4 (White wants to take his opponent out of al1 known theory) 5... e6 (logical development) 6 .:ιJe2 C5 7 c3?! .:ιJc6 8 ~a4 i..d7 9 dxc5 i.xC5 10 ~xe4 'iVb6 11 0-0-0 i..xf2 and Black simply netted a pawn ϊη D.ZimbeckS.Atalik, Burbank 2005. c) 5 .te3 .:ιJd7 6 c3 e6 7 i..C4 .:ιJf6 8 ~C2 i.d7 9 f3 i..c6 10 fxe4 .txe4 11 ~e2 c6 12 i..g5 i.g6 13 .:ιJf3 .te7 14 .:ιJe5 .:ιJd7 15 i.xe7 ~xe7 16 ο-ο .:ιJxe5 17 'iVxe5 ο-ο and Black is better, C.Blaauw-J.Van ΜϊΙ, Groningen 1994. d) 5 c3 e5 6 i.C4 exd4 7 .:ιJe2 was seen ϊη E.Diemer-F.Heger, Ketsch 1978, and after 7... d3 8.:ιJg3 .:ιJc6 9.:ιJxe4.:ιJe5 Black is again better . e) 5 i.C4 has been the most popular choice for White. Here and later Black has a lot of alternatives, but we consider only the line we believe is the best: 5... .:ιJc6 6 c3 (almost obligatoτy; after 6 i.e3 e5 7 d5 .:ιJa5 8 .te2 c6 9 c4

White's Other Second Moves

f5 10 'ii'a4 .td7 11 ~d2 b6 12 ~xa5 cxd5 13 'iVd1 bxa5 14 'iVxd5 .te7 15 'ii'xe5 ο-ο 16 ~d5+ Φh8 17 l:.d1 iLe8 18 'iVxd8 l:.xd8 Black is better, H.NausedC.Bourgoin, correspondence 2001) 6 ...e5! (again the best)

ο-ο 'ίWb6

8 1:ι.e1 ~c8 and Black is better, A.Gramatopoulos-H.Banikas, Thessaloniki 1999. b) 4 dxc5 d4 is again a good reνersed Chigorin for Black. The extra moνe f2-f3 may not help White and 5 tΔe4 (5 tΔa4 iia5+ 6 c3 b5 sees Black taking the upper hand) 5...tΔxe4 6 fxe4 e5 7 b4 a5 giνes Black good play. 4 ... cxd4 5 ΎWxd4 tΔc6 6 iLb5 .td7 7 .iιxc6.iιxc6

7 d5 tΔe7 8 f3 (recommended by Serper as White's best course; instead 8 ΎWa4+ is met by 8 ... .iιd7 9 ~3 tΔf5 10 'ii'xb7 .ί:Ib8 11 "YWa6 e3 when Black is better, L.Faber-J.Rehder, correspondence 2002) 8... tΔg6 9 ~e2 exf3 10 tΔxf3 .iιd6 11 ο-ο ο-ο (Black has finished his deνelopment with a solid ρο­ sition) 12 tΔg5 h6 13 tΔe4 f5 14 tΔxd6 cxd6 15 'iVh5 'it>h7 16 ~e3 f4 17 .td3 'ii'g5 somewhat faνoured Black in P.Alessandri-W.Helmers, Val Thorens 2008. 3••• C51

If 3....iιf5 then after 4 e4 dxe4 White gets what he wants - a line of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit while aνoid­ ing the Hubsch. 4e4 Alternatiνely:

a) 4 e3 tΔc6 5 .iιb5 e6 6 tΔge2 .td7 7

8e5 Α

principled but hardly satisfactory continuation. Maybe White should try to equalize with 8 exd5 tΔxd5 9 tΔge2 (not 9 tΔxd5 'iVxd5 10 'ii'xd5 iLxd5) 9... e6 10 tΔxd5 (if 10 .iιd2 tΔxC3 11 'ii'xC3 "YWh4+ 12 g3 'iVa4 with a slight adνantage for Black) 10... 'ii'xd5 11 "YWxd5 .iιxd5 12 b3 with the idea of C4 and ..tb2, and an eνen game. 8...tΔd7 9 e6 Again there are alternatiνes: a) Perhaps relatiνely best is 9 f4, although 9... e6 10 tΔη .iιC5 11 'ii'd3 'iΚb6 12 tΔd1 'iΚb4+ 13 c3 'ii'e4+ 14 "YWxe4

157

The New Q/d Indian

dxe4 15 4:Jd4 .i.xd4 16 cχd4 4:Jb6 was slightly better for Black ϊη S.WarkentinO.Korneev, Le Touquet 1993. b) 9 .i.g5 'Wb6 forces the exchange of queens, with the better ending for Black due to the bishop-pair. Indeed, 10 'tIkxb6 axb6!? (οτ 10... 4:Jxb6 11 4:Jge2 f6) 11 i..f4 g5 gives Black a promising game. c) 9 i..e3 e6 10 4:Jge2 (10 b4 with the idea of b5 weakens the c4-square and 10 ... 4:Jb6 is better for Black) 10 ... .i.c5 11 'iWf4 g5 12 ~xg5 ~xg5 13 .i.xg5 .ί:!.g8 14 h4 4:Jxe5 with a slight plus for Black. d) 9 4:Jxd5? 4:Jb61oses the knight. 9 ...fxe610f4 After 10 .i.f4 ~6 11 'iWxb6 axb6 12 4:Jge2 e5 Black has the better chances once again, T.Ellenbroek-H.Plasman, Enschede 1998.

results ϊη mutual chances, but simple and good was 10...4:Jf6!? with the idea of ... g6, ... .i.g7 and ... 0-0. 11.i.e3? This sacrifice of two pawns is not correct. Instead 11 4:Jf3 keeps complex play, but Black's chances are still slightly preferable after 11 ...1:!.g8!? with the idea of ... g6. 11,.:~xb2 12 .ί:ϊ.b1 'iWxc2 13 4:Jge2 eS 14 fxe5 e6 15 ο-ο White was probably hoping for something like 15 'YWg4, but it would have been met by 15 .. :i!t'g6. 15,..i..C5 16 'iWf4 "i!Vf5 16 ... ~f8! 17 'iWg31:txf1+ 18 :txf1 ~d3 was even more convincing. 17 ~g3 iιxe3+ 18 'YWxe3 ~xe5 19 'i!Vd2 4:Jf6 20 .:!.fe1 'iVd6 21 4:Jd4 ο-ο 22 .ί:!.χe6 'iVC5 23 Φh1 .:!.ad8 24 1:!.c1 4:Je4 25 'iWe3 ΨlixC3 26 .:!.xe4 ~xc1+ 27 ΨliXC1 dxe4 28 4:Je6 .i.b5 29 4:Jxd8 e3 30 'iWxe3 ':I'f1+ 31 'iVg1.ί:ϊ.χg1+ 32 Φχg1 iιc6 0-1

Summary

10,..~b6

Instead 10... e5 11 fxe5 e6 12 4:Jf3 .i.C5 13 'iVg4 Ψlie7 (13 ... 0-0 14 i..h6 Ψlie7 15 0-0-0 .ί:i.f5 16 'iVg3 is quite unclear) 14 .i.g5 Ψlif7 15 0-0-0 ο-ο 16 4:Je2 'YWg6

158

The active but sound lines recommended ϊη this chapter complete our proposed repertoire against 1 d4. Black appears to be ϊη good shape when White allows 3 e4 c5 ϊη the Trompowsky, although much remains to be explored there. Instead a Torre-like approach gives Black an easy game, while the Veresov is unsurprisingly rare at grandmaster level, partly because of the active riposte 3... c5.

Index ofVariations 1 d4ltJf6 and now: Α:

2 c4

Β:

2 Others

Α)

2 c4 d6 3 ltJc3 3ltJf3 g6 4ltJC3 il.f5 5 g3 - 73 5ltJh4 -77 5 'iVb3 - 83 5 d5 - 87 4 g3 ..tg7 5 ..tg2 ο-ο 6 ο-ο c6 7 ltJC3.1Lf5 8ltJh4 - 91 8ltJe1 - 95 3•••e5

3.....if5 4 f3 - 99 4g3 -104 4ltJf3 4 d5ltJbd7 5 e4ltJc5 6 ~C2 -40 6 ..id3 - 45 6 f3 - 47 4 e4 - 53 4dxe5 - 58 4 e3ltJbd7 5 il.d3 - 64 5 g3 - 68

4 ...e45ltJg5 5ltJd2 5... il.f5 - 28 5.. :tWe7 - 34 5.. :~e7 5... il.f5 6 g4 - 20 6 f3 - 24 6~c2

6 h4-16 6 ...il.f5 - 12 6 ...ltJc6 - 8 Β)

2ltJf3 2 il.g5 e6 3ltJf3 h6 4 .1Lh4 -130 4 ..ixf6 -136 3 e4 -140 2ltJC3 d5 3 ..ig5 c5 4 ..ixf6 gxf6 5 e3 -148 5 e4 -153 3 f3 -156 2...d6 3 g3 3ltJC3 - 108 3 il.f4 - 126 3... g6 4 il.g2 .1Lg7 5 ο-ο ο-ο 6 b3 -115 6ltJC3 - 122

159

Index of Complete Games Andruet.G-Benoit.M, Val Maubuee 1990 .................................................................. 104 Bacrot.E-Volokitin.A, Cap dΆgde (rapid) 2006 ............................................................ 73 Balashoν.Y-Chernin.A,

German League 1997 .............................................................. 68 Bauer.C-Iνanchuk.V, European Club Cup, Neum 2000 ........................................... 122 Birjukoν.S-Golubeν.M, Alushta 2005 .......................................................................... 126 Dzindzichashνili.R-Sokoloν.l, New York 1996 ............................................................. 64 Epishin.V-Vorotnikoν.V, st Petersburg 1997 ............................................................... 58 Gormally.D-Cherniaeν.A, London 2009 .........................................................................12 Gulko.B-BenjaminJ, US Championship, Long Beach 1993 ...................................... 24 Gustafsson.J-HickI.J, German League 2004 .................................................................. 87 Gyimesi.Z-Volokitin.A, German League 2005 ............................................................... 8 Hebden.M-Adams.M, British Championship, Hove 1997 ...................................... 108 Hebden.M-Miloν.V, Isle of Man 1995 ......................................................................... 153 Kasparoν.G-Speelman.J, Belfort 1988 ........................................................................... 20 Kazhgaleyeν.M-Akopian.V, Moscow 2006 ................................................................... 47 Korchnoi.V-Cherniaeν.A, London 2009 .........................................................................34 Kurajica.B-Smirin.I, Pula Zonal 2000 ........................................................................... 115 Kurajica.B-Strikoνic.A, Santa Cruz de Tenerife 1995 ................................................. 95 Laznicka.V-Moνsesian.S, Ostrava 2007 .........................................................................28 Lίη Weiguo-Wahls.M, Adelaide 1988 .......................................................................... 156 Mueller.K-Wahls.M, German Championship, Dudweiler 1996 ........................... 130 Polugaeνsky.L-Nezhmetdinoν.R, Sochi 1958 ............................................................... 53 Roussel Roozmon.T-Efimenko.Z, Montreal 2005 .......................................................16 SabeI.R-Akopian.V, Bad Wiessee 2001 ..........................................................................45 Skembris.S-Romanishin.O, Bratto 2002 ........................................................................ 83 Suba.M-Georgieν.V, Balaguer 1997 ............................................................................... 99 Taνoularis.N-Cherniaeν.A, Coulsdon 2007 ................................................................ 140 Timman.J-Karpoν.A, 9th matchgame, Amsterdam 1993 ...................................... 136 Van der Werf.M-Jakoνenko.D, European C1ub Cup, Saint Vincent 2005 .......... 148 Varga.P-Akopian.V, French League 2002 ......................................................................40 Wojtaszek.R-McShane.L, Stockholm 2010 ...................................................................91 Yakoνich.Y-Ubilaνa.E, Santo Antonio 2001 .................................................................. 77

160

ISBN 978 - 1-85744-667-8

111111 9 781857 446678

52695

11