Boris Avrukh...Avrukh: Grandmaster Repertoire 2 -J .d4 Volume Two, Quality Chess 2010 Davies: !he...

Boris Avrukh

Tir d of bad position ? Try the mail Ime !

QUALITY CHESS

Grandmaster Repertoire 8

The Griinfeld Defence Volume One

By

Boris Avrukh

Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co. uk

First edition 20 1 1 by Quality Chess UK Ltd

Copyright © 20 1 1 Boris Avrukh

Grandmaster Repertoire 8-The Griinf eld Defence Volume One

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,

electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher.

Paperback ISBN 978- 1 -906552-75-6 Hardcover ISBN 978- 1 -906552-76-3

All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK Ltd, 20 Balvie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow G62 7TA, United Kingdom

e-mail: [email protected] website: www.qualitychess.co.uk

Distributed in US and Canada by SCB Distributors, Gardena, California, US www.scbdistributors.com

Distributed in Rest of the World by Quality Chess UK Ltd through Sunrise Handicrafts, Smyczkowa 4/98, 20-844 Lublin, Poland

Typeset by Jacob Aagaard Edited by Colin McNab, Andrew Greet

Proofread by John Shaw Cover design by Adamson Design

Printed in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutriikikoja LLC

Pref ace After the great success of my first two Grandmaster Repertoire books (l .d4 for White) , it was not long before the idea of writing about my favourite Black opening, the Griinfeld Defence, was discussed. Ironically this meant searching for an antidote to the line of the Fianchetto Variation on which I had worked so diligently in the second of my l .d4 volumes. My solution to this problem can be found in Chapter 4 of the present book.

I would like to share the story of how I became a devotee of this great opening. After I moved to Israel in 1 995 my opening repertoire was rather shaky, so during my first few months there I made a serious effort to improve it. Fortunately the Beer-Sheva Club and its manager Ilyahu Levant provided the best possible conditions for such work. My first coach in Israel was Mark Tseitlin, whom I continue to regard as something of a 'Griinfeld guru'. I also received high quality support from Alex Huzman, a strong player who is best known for being the long-term coach of Boris Gelfand.

Ever since my first few lessons with Mark, I immediately understood that the Griinfeld was the opening for me. I was attracted by the combative and dynamic positions to which it leads, and relished the prospect of fighting for the initiative with the black pieces. It was especially helpful that all the strong players in my new club knew this opening well. Indeed, in the present work the reader will find plenty of references to the games of Mark Tseitlin, Alex Huzman, Alon Greenfeld, Victor Mikhalevski and Alex Finkel. At that time the influence of the computer was not so strong, and by analysing together we managed to discover a lot of interesting ideas. The Griinfeld has remained my first choice against l .d4 for sixteen years (and counting!), whereas against l .e4 I have changed quite a lot.

The Griinfeld is one of the most prominent openings at the highest level, with players such as Shirov, Svidler, Leko and Kamsky using it as their main weapon, while Anand, Carlsen, Topalov and Grischuk also employ it frequently. Let us not forget Garry Kasparov, who made huge contributions to Griinfeld theory from the late eighties until his retirement.

The recent Candidates matches paint a remarkable picture. Vladimir Kramnik refused even to allow Alexander Grischuk to play the Griinfeld (which is understandable given that one of Grischuk's seconds was Peter Svidler), and opened all his white games with 1 .lllf3. Gata Kamsky played only the Griinfeld against l .d4, and his main second Emil Sutovsky is one of the leading Griinfeld experts in the world. Two of Kamsky's clashes with Boris Gelfand in the fashionable 4.ig5 system can be found in Chapter 23. Of course Grischuk lost his vital last game in the final against Gelfand with the Griinfeld, but as we shall see, he did not play the line I recommend!

I have always enjoyed the Griinfeld from either side of the board, as the rich positions offer considerable scope for creativity and investigation for both sides. I hope that after reading this book the reader will share my enthusiasm!

Boris Avrukh, Beer-Sheva, May 20 1 1

Contents Key to Symbols used & Bibliography 6

Early Deviations 1 .d4 lLif6 2.c4 g6

1 Rare Third Moves 7 2 3.f3 1 3

Fianchetto Systems 1 .d4 lLi f6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 d5 4.cxd5 lLixd5 5.e4 lL!b6

3 Rare Lines 37 4 5.b3 43 5 Rare Seventh Moves 50 6 7.'1Wb3 58 7 White exchanges on d5 67

Various 4th Moves 1 .d4 lL!f6 2.c4 g6 3.lLic3 d5

8 Rare Options 85 9 4.'1Wa4t 94 1 0 4.'1Wb3 1 04

Closed Variation 1 .d4 lL!f6 2.c4 g6 3.lLic3 d5 4.e3 �g7

1 1 Various Fifth Moves 1 1 5 1 2 5.lt:Jf3 127

1 .d4 lLif6 2.c4 g6 3.lLic3 d5 4.�f4

1 3 Sidelines 1 48 1 4 6J:kl 1 57 1 5 5.e3 c5 - Introduction and Sidelines 172 1 6 7J:kl - Sidelines and 9.lt:Jge2 187 1 7 9.lt:Jf3 203

1 .d4 lllf6 2.c4 g6 3.lllc3 d5 4.J.g5

18 Sidelines 226 19 5.if4 242 20 5.!h4 - Sidelines 255 21 7 .e3 - Sidelines 259 22 8.:9:bl 266 23 8.tlJf3 275

1 .d4 lllf6 2.c4 g6 3.lllc3 d5 4.lll£3 J.g7

24 Rare Fifth Moves 291

1.d4 lllf6 2.c4 g6 3.lllc3 d5 4.lll£3 J.g7 5.J.g5 llle4

25 6.!h4 296 26 6.cxd5 304

Russian System 1 .d4 lllf6 2.c4 g6 3.lllc3 d5 4.lll£3 J.g7 5.'%Yb3 dxc4 6.'%Yxc4 0-0 7.e4 lllc6

27 Without 8.!e2 317 28 8.!e2 327

Variation Index 341

Key to symbols used White is slightly better Black is slightly better

± White is better + Black is better +- White has a decisive advantage -+ Black has a decisive advantage

equality iii with compensation +? with counterplay m unclear --+ with attack t with initiative

a weak move ?? a blunder

a good move !! an excellent move !? a move worth considering ?! a move of doubtful value # mate

Bibliography Avrukh: Grandmaster Repertoire 2 - J .d4 Volume Two, Quality Chess 20 1 0 Davies: !he Grunfeld Defence, Everyman 2002 Delchev & Agrest: !he Safest Grunfeld, Chess Stars 20 1 1 Dembo: Play the Grunfeld, Everyman 2007 Grivas: Beating the Fianchetto Defences, Gambit 2006 Rowson: Understanding the Grunfeld, Gambit 1999 Periodicals New in Chess Yearbooks Secrets of Opening Surprises (SOS)

Electronic/Internet resources ChessBase Magazine ChessPublishing.com

Early Deviations

A) 3.�c2 B) 3.d5 C) 3 . .ig5 �e4 4 . .if4 c5

Cl) 5.d5 C2) 5.�c2

A) after 9 ... llld4

Rare Third Moves

Variation Index 1 .d4 � f6 2.c4

2 ... g6

B) note to 5.bxa6

a b c d e f g h

9 ... lllxd5!

a b c d e f g h

C) note to 7.f3

8 9

10 10 1 1

8 Early Deviations

1.d4 c!llf6 2.c4 g6 The starting point of our journey into the

Griinfeld Defence. Why not start earlier? Sometimes you cannot cover everything; I am sure you will find this book heavy enough as it is. Besides, there should also be room for another book later on . . .

In this chapter we shall look at A) 3.'if c2, B) 3.d5 and C) 3.i.g5. Obviously there are many more possible moves, but some of them do not have any point and are not worth studying. And the rest we shall consider in the following chapters.

3 .h4!? This outlandish move has been championed by Simon Williams, who recently wrote an SOS article on the subject.

3 . . . c5! Black steers the game towards a posmon where the move h2-h4 is of limited value.

4.d5 b5 4 . . . e6!?N also deserves attention, angling for an improved version of a Modern Benoni.

5 .e4?! A bit too creative. Williams suggests the improvement 5 .h5!?N lllxh5 6.cxb5 a6 7.e4 d6, reaching an unusual kind of Benko position which should be roughly equal.

5 . . . lllxe4 6.h5 Wa5t 7.llld2 ig7 8 .Wf3 llld6 8 . . . f5! ?N is also good.

9.cxb5 ib7 1 0.hxg6 hxg6 1 1 .:B:xhSt i.xh8 12.a4 a6 13 .:B:a3

This was Vinoth Kumar - Shivananda, New Delhi 2009. White's play has been enterprising but ultimately unsound, and in this position both 13 . . . c4N and 13 . . . Wb4N give Black some advantage.

A) 3.'if c2

Maybe not such a bad idea against the Griinfeld, but the problem is that White gets

a poor version of the King's Indian Defence, where he can have trouble fighting for the vital d4-square. Here is one illustrative example:

3 . • • i.g7 Certainly 3 . . . d5 4.cxd5 lllxd5 5.e4 lllb6

6.lllf3 is not such a bad version of the AntiGriinfeld for White.

4.e4 0--0 5.tll c3 d6 6.i.e2 c!llc6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

7.i.e3

a b c d e f g h

After 7.lllf3 Black has a pleasant choice between 7 . . . ig4 8 .ie3 llld7 and 7 . . . e5, in both cases winning the battle for the d4-square.

7 • • • e5 8.dxe5 Obviously 8.d5 llld4 couldn't satisfy White

either.

8 ••• dxe5 9J;d1 c!lld4 White has lost the battle for the d4-square,

and very soon finds herself in a clearly inferior position.

10.i.xd4 l O.Wd2 ie6+

10 •.. exd4 1 1 .c5 'if e7 12Jhd4 'ifxc5+ Koneru - I..:Ami, Wijk aan Zee 2006.

Chapter 1 - Rare Third Moves 9

B) 3.d5

When this chapter was almost ready, I was playing in a rapid tournament and my opponent managed to surprise me with this rare move. But after the game I did some work and came to the conclusion that the most promising response for Black is:

3 ... b5!? Playing in the spirit of the Benko Gambit

is logical, since the dark-squared bishop can find a lot of activity on the long diagonal after White has advanced his d-pawn. That said, I believe there is nothing wrong with more classical play, for example: 3 . . . c6 4.tllc3 cxd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 ig7 7.tllf3 0-0 8.ie2 tt:lbd7 9.ie3 lllc5 10 .tlld2 e6 With equal chances.

4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6 During the aforementioned game I was

concerned about 5.b6N. However, Black is not forced to take this pawn and can try 5 . . . c6 6.Wb3 ib7 with interesting play.

5.e3 ig7 6.tllc3 0-0 7.tllf3 ib7 8.ie2 axb5 9.ixb5

a b c d e f g h 9 . . . tt:lxd5! 1 0.tt:lxd5 ixd5 1 1 .Wxd5 c6 1 2.ixc6 lllxc6 1 3.0-0 Wc7 14.Ei:dl Spassov - Ribli, Camaguey 1 974. As pointed out by Ribli in Chess Informant 17, 14 ... Ei:fb8 would have secured excellent compensation for Black.

5 ... c6 6.dxc6 If 6.tllc3 then Black develops with tempo:

6 . . . cxd5 7.tllxd5 Wa5t 8.tllc3 ig7 9.id2 Peev - Radev, Bulgaria 1 975. Here simply 9 . . . ixa6N 10 .tll f3 0-0 1 l .g3 tt:lc6 1 2.ig2 Ei:fb8 13 .Ei:b l llld5! offers Black tremendous compensation.

6 ... tllxc6 7.e3 Or 7.tllc3 ixa6 8.g3 ig7 9.ig2 0-0 10.tt:lh3

Varga - Feher, Hungary 1998, and now the natural 1 0 . . . e6N 1 1 .0-0 d5 1 2.tt:lf4 tt:lg4! would give Black ample compensation for the pawn.

7 ... i.g7 8.tllf3 8.tll c3 0-0 9.tll f3 occurred in Alber -

Banas, Germany 2000. Black now hurried with 9 . . . ixa6, but instead the more accurate 9 . . . Wa5N 1 0.id2 ixa6 would have given him an excellent version of the Benko.

8 ... 0-0 9.i.e2 ha6 10.ha6?! Better is 1 0.0-0 but after, for example,

1 0 . . . tt:le4 Black still has great compensation.

1 1 .tllc3 tlle4! 12.0-0 tllxc3 13.hxc3 �ha6; Dzindzichashvili - Adorjan, Amsterdam

1 978.

10 Early Deviations

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

C) 3.i.g5

a b c d e f g h

Quite a tricky move, especially taking into account that it's a rarely seen continuation.

3 ... llle4 The most challenging reply. Certainly Black

can continue with 3 . . . i.g7, but then he must be ready to play the King's Indian, which is not in our plans, even though White's setup after 4.lt:lc3 is generally considered quite harmless.

4.i.f4 c5 The text is logically connected with Black's

previous move and resembles Black's play in a line of the Trompowsky ( 1 .d4 lt:l f6 2.i.g5 lt:le4 3.i.f4 c5 etc.). Obviously after 4 . . . i.g7 5.f3 lt:lf6 6.e4 we would get a strange version of the Samisch King's Indian, with White's i.f4 being an extra move.

We have reached the main crossroads in this line. At this point the most logical moves are Cl) 5.d5 and C2) 5.Wi'c2, but we shall take a quick look at a couple of other moves that White has tried:

If 5 .lt:ld2 then the response 5 . . . lt:lxd2 6.Wxd2 i.g7 is too compliant. After 7.d5 White has a reasonable game, with chances for an

advantage. Instead Black should play 5 ... Wa5! 6. W c2, transposing into line C2 below.

5.f3 Wa5t 6.lt:ld2 lt:lxd2 This looks more natural than retreating, as after 6 ... lt:lf6 7.d5 d6 8.e4 Black's queen is somewhat misplaced on a5.

7.i.xd2 Wb6 8.i.c3 i.g7 9.e3 In the event of 9.d5 i.xc3t 1 0.bxc3 Wf6 (also threatening the c4-pawn, by means of l 1 . . .Wh4t) l 1 .Wb3 d6, Black has an excellent position. This position arose in Koops -Tesic, e-mail 2005 , and now simplest for Black is:

9 . . . lt:lc6N 1 0.lt:le2 0-0 Obviously there is no advantage for White.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Cl) 5.d5

a b c d e f g h

s ... i.g7 6.lt:ld2 lt:lf6 Also not bad is 6 . . . Wa5 7.Wc2 f5 .

7.e4 d6 Finally the game has transposed to a King's

Indian type of position, but with White's knight misplaced on d2.

8.Wi'c2 As a consequence of the knight being on d2,

White has to take time to defend the b2-pawn, because the natural 8.lt:lgf3 would just lose this pawn to 8 . . . lt:lh5 followed by 9 ... i.xb2.

Chapter 1 - Rare Third Moves 1 1

8 ... 0-0 9.©gf3 e6 10.i.d.3 If 1 O.ie2 then Black can obtain good play

with 1 0 ... lllhS! 1 1 .igS f6 12.ie3 fS .

10 ... llia6 A useful move to insert before returning

attention to the kingside; the threat of . . . lllb4 causes White to lose more time.

11.a3 In Straeter - Gross, Germany 1 999, Black

should now have played:

12.i.g5 f6 13.i.e3 After 1 3.ih4

a b c d e f g h Black gets a good version of the King's Indian

with: 13 . . . eS! (less clear is 13 . . . exdS 14.cxdS

lllf4 1 5 .0-0 gS 1 6.ig3 lllxd3 17.1Mfxd3 fS 1 8.exfS ixfS 1 9.1Mfb300) 14.0-0 '1We8 Black cannot be prevented from carrying out his main idea, the .. JS-advance, which will give him excellent play. However, 14 . . . lllf4!? is also worthy of consideration.

13 ... e5 Again I don't see how White can stop the

. . . fS advance; Black has great play.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

C2) 5.�c2

a b c d e f g h

White's best choice, according to theory.

5 ... �a5t 6.llid2 f5 The justification for the previous move;

White will have to spend some time if he wants to chase Black's knight away from the centre. After 6 . . . lll f6 7.dS d6 8 .e4 ig7 9.llle2 followed by 1 0.lllc3, White is fighting for an opening advantage.

7.f3 The most natural reply. Another game saw:

7 .lllgf3 Black should continue:

7 . . . ig7 In Speelman - Ehlvest, Reykjavik 1 99 1 , Black immediately went wrong with 7 . . . cxd4?! and after 8.lllxd4 ig7 9.lll4b3!

12 Early Deviations

White was better. 8.d5

This position has occurred once in tournament practice, via a different move order, in the game Serafimov - Ignatenko, Russia 1 996. I found the following natural improvement:

8 . . . tt:Ja6!N 9.a3 White can hardly allow 9.e3 tt:Jb4 1 0.°tWb3 ( 1 0.°tWcl is clearly inferior: 1 0 . . . Wa4! 1 1 .lUb3 d6 12.ie2 lt:Jxa2! 1 3.°tWc2 tt:Jb4 1 4.'tWd l Wd7+ Black remains with a healthy extra pawn.) 1 O . . . e5! l 1 .dxe6 dxe6 Black has a comfortable game, with excellent chances to take over the initiative.

9 . . . 0-0 1 0.e3 lt:Jxd2 1 1 .lt:Jxd2

a b c d e f g h 1 l . . .e5!

Black is probably better already, e.g. 1 2.dxe6 dxe6 1 3.0-0-0 e5 14 .ig3 id7

The idea of ... ia4 is unpleasant for White.

7 ... �f6 8.d5 i.g7 9.i.e5 A natural idea, White's dark-squared bishop

is transferred to c3, neutralizing the annoying pin along the e l -a5 diagonal. This position occurred in Barsov - Vareille, Val Thorens 1 995. I found the following improvement:

9 ... 0-0N 10.�h3 e6 Black strikes in the centre, aiming to use his

lead in development.

12 ... fxe4 13.fxe4 b5! Black not only creates unpleasant tension

in the centre, but also has the major threat of playing 14 . . . b4, which would force White to give up his dark-squared bishop. In my opinion Black has good chances to take over the initiative.

Conclusion White may be attracted to these rare thirdmove options because they make it problematic (or even impossible) for Black to continue in traditional Griinfeld style. However, by adopting a flexible approach, I believe that Black can obtain good chances. Against 3.'t!fic2 it is promising for Black to head into a King's Indian in which White's d4-pawn can quickly be targeted. I recommend meeting 3 .d5 with the aggressive 3 . . . b5!? when Black can expect to obtain compensation typical of the Benko Gambit. Finally 3.ig5 can be met by an idea from the Trompowsky, 3 ... tt:Je4 followed by 4 . . . c5, which assures Black of good play.

Early Deviations 3.f3

Variation Index 1 .d4 llif6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 4.cxd5 llixd5 5.e4

5 . . . llib6

a b c d e f g h

A) 6.a4 14 B) 6.llic3 �g7 7.�e3 0-0 15

Bl) 8.�cl 15 B2) 8.f4 llic6 9.d5 llia5! 10.�d4 e5! 1 1.�xeS he5 12.fxeS �h4t!

13.g3 �e7 14.�d4 �d8! 15.b4 lliac4 16 B21) 16.hc4 �xb4 17.llif3 �xc4 18.�e3 �e8!N 19

B21 1) 19.�dl 20 B212) 19.e6 20 B213) 19.�cl 20

B22) 16.llif3 21 B3) 8.�d2 llic6 9.0-0-0 f5 22

B31) 10.exfS 23 B32) 10.h4 fxe4 1 1.hS gxh5! 23

B321) 12.dS 24 B322) 12.�xhS 25

B33) 10.eS llib4 29 B331) 1 1 .�h6 29 B332) 1 1 .h4 �e6 30

B3321) 12.c.!fbl 3 1 B3322) 12.hS 3 1 B3323) 12.a3 32

B333) 1 1 .llih3 34

14 Early Deviations

I .d4 tDf6 2.c4 g6 3.f'3 d5 The response most in the spirit of the

Griinfeld. Obviously 3 . . . fi.g7 4.e4 transposes to the Samisch King's Indian, while for those looking for an offbeat line, 3 . . . tll c6 is an interesting alternative.

4.cxd5 4.tll c3 will be examined via the 3 .tll c3 d5

4.f3 move order.

4 ... tDxd5 5.e4 tDh6

a b c d e f g h

We shall look at A) 6.a4 and B) 6.tDc3, noting that 6.fi.e3 fi.g7 7.tll c3 is simply a transposition into line B .

A) 6.a4

This has occurred in a number of games. The idea is to undermine the position of Black's b6-knight and make it vulnerable in the future struggle. However, White fails to achieve his goals, and meanwhile the weakness of the b4-square is significant.

6 ... a5 7.i.e3 i.g7 s.tDc3 0-0 9.�cl The alternative is absolutely harmless:

9.�d2 tt:lc6 1 0.d5 ( 10.tllb5 tt:l b4! is also excellent for Black)

a b c d e f g h 1 0 . . . tt:l b4!N This is a natural improvement on the game Dumpor - Sarenac, Obrenovac 2004. The following line is a good illustration of how play may unfold: 1 1 .Elcl e6 12.tllb5 c6! 13 .dxe6 �xd2t 14.Wxd2 fi.xe6 1 5 .fi.xb6 cxb5 1 6.fi.xb5 f5! Black takes over the initiative.

a b c d e f g h

9 ... tDc6!N A strong improvement over 9 . . . c6, after

which 1 0.b3 is pretty unclear.

10.tDb5 This is evidently the move that Black was

concerned about.

10 ... i.d?! The key idea; it transpires that White has

to worry about his a4-pawn. In ·fact, Black obtains good play as a result of his development advantage. Here is my brief analysis:

Chapter 2 - 3.f3 1 5

1 1 .b3 B) 6.�c3 i.g7 7.i.e3 0-0 A more aggressive try is: 1 1 .d5 �b4 1 2.�xc7

( 12.:I"i:xc7 is impossible in view of 1 2 . . . i.xb5 13 .i.xb6 i.xfl 14.Wxfl :I"i:a6! and White loses) 12 . . . �xa4 1 3.�xaS �xb2 14.Wi'd2 Wi'xa8 Black clearly has the initiative.

1 1 . .. �b4 This move still works.

12.i.f4 After 1 2.�xc7 :I"i:c8 1 3.�b5 :I"i:xcl 14.Wi'xcl

i.xb5 1 5 .i.xb5 i.xd4 Black certainly has nothing to worry about. Play may continue 16.i.xd4 Wi'xd4 1 7.�e2 Wi'd6 1 8.0-0 Elc8, when Black has some initiative.

a b c d e f g h

12 ... eS! 13.dxeS Clearly inferior is 1 3.i.xe5 i.xb5 1 4.i.xb5

i.xe5 1 5.dxe5 Wi'g5! and Black is better.

13 ... c6 14.�d6 i.e6 Despite being a pawn down, Black's lead

in development gives him great play. For instance:

15.i.g3 Or 1 5 .�xb7 Wi'xdlt 16.:I"i:xdl i.xb3 1 7.:I"i:d2

i.xa4 and the black a-pawn is very dangerous.

15 ... Wi'e7 16.f4 gads 17.�B �c8 Black regains the pawn with dividends.

Bl) 8.gcl �c6 9.dS �eS

a b c d e f g h

10.i.d4 Black need not fear 1 0.�b5 c6 1 1 .dxc6

�xc6 1 2.Wi'xd8 :I"i:xd8 1 3.�xa7, as was played in Decsey - R. Horvath, Tapolca 1 998, because he has a convincing answer in: 1 3 . . . �a4!N 14.�xc6 ( 1 4.b3 �b2 1 5.�xcS Eldxc8 1 6.a4 �d4 also leads to an initiative for Black) 1 4 . . . bxc6 1 5 .b3 i.c3t! 1 6.WfL �b2+ White is in trouble, as Black is

16 Early Deviations

threatening not only l 7 . . . Elxa2, but also 1 7 . . . li:Jdlt.

10 ... c6 1 1 .f4 lllg4 12.hg7 ©xg7 13.J.e2

a b c d e f g h

13 ... eS! The best reply, since after 13 . . . li:Jf6 White

can hope for a slight edge with l 4.dxc6 bxc6 l 5 .li:Jf3, thanks to his superior queenside pawn structure.

14.hg4 Wih4t 15.g3 W/xg4 16.W/xg4 l 6.fXe5 would be an error, in view of

1 6 . . . Wxd l t 1 7.Elxdl li:'ic4! and Black is already better.

16 ... hg4 I7.dxc6 bxc6 1 8.h3 i.e6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

19.lllf.3 exf4 20.gxf4 �fd8 The position was level m Goglidze -

Spielmann, Moscow 1 935; Black's damaged pawn structure on the queenside is balanced by the vulnerability of White's central pawns.

B2) 8.f4

a b c d e f g h

A very sharp line. Black needs to know exactly how to respond, in order to avoid landing in an inferior position - as once happened to yours truly.

8 ... lllc6 9.dS The most challenging continuation. Black's

task is much easier after: 9.li:'if3 ig4 1 0.d5 li:'ia5 1 l.i.d4

Black has replied to 1 1 .i.e2 in three different ways, but not played what I consider the most natural continuation: 1 l . . .li:'iac4N 12.i.cl e6 1 3.dxe6 ixe6 Only Black can be better.

1 l . . .i.xf3 12.gxf3

Chapter 2 - 3.f3 17

12 . . . e6! Very simple and at the same time strong; the threat of ... Wh4t is most unpleasant for White.

13.i.xg7 I tried to improve White's play with 1 3.h4, but he still stands worse: l 3 ... i.xd4 l 4.Wxd4 ll'ic6! 1 5 .Wgl (or 1 5 .Wd2 exd5 1 6.exd5 We7t 17.<;t>f2 1"i:ad8 and Black is clearly better) 1 5 . . . exd5 1 6.0-0-0 Wf6 17.Wg5 Wxg5 1 8.hxg5 dxe4 1 9.ll'ixe4 <;t>g7!+ Black is a pawn up and ready to meet 20.ll'if6 with 20 . . . h5!.

13 ... Wh4t! With this intermediate move, Black takes over the initiative.

14.<;t>e2 <;t>xg7 1 5.Wd4t <;t>gs 1 6.<;t>e3? Not the best place for the king, but it is difficult to offer White any good advice - he probably has to just give up the f4-pawn.

� if��•f& , 6 __ ;, ___ ;,.r� r� s If�:�� ,,,,� �""'"';��-"' �""'"' 4 � ��

3 � � �zr.---2 ��-------%� �� %��,�-�

a b c d e f g h We have been following Y. Popov - Elizarov, Tula 2007, and now Black should have played:

16 . . . 1"\adSN It's hard to believe White can hold out for

long.

9 ... lDa5! The critical move. Retreating with 9 . . . ll'ib8

gives White reasonable chances to fight for an opening advantage after 1 O.a4!. For example: 1 0 . . . c6 l l .a5 ll'i 6d7 12.e5 cxd5 1 3.Wxd5 ll'ic6

14.ll'if3 ll'i db8 l 5 .Wb5!;!; Rabar - Cruz, Rio de Janeiro 1 952.

IO.J.d4 Clearly worse is 1 0.ll'if3 i.g4, transposing to

the note to White's 9th move above.

10 ... e5! I am really inspired by this move, and believe

that it is Black's clearest route to equality, although 1 o . . . i.g4 is a decent alternative.

a b c d e f g h

1 1.he5 White has a couple of other possibilities:

The attempt to win a piece by l l .i.xb6? axb6 1 2.b4 obviously fails to 1 2 . . . exf4 1 3 .Wc2 Wh4t and Black wins.

1 l . fXe5 c6! Black has only played this once, but I have come to the conclusion that it is his best continuation.

1 2.d6 An unfortunate decision. I examined White's stronger options: a) 1 2.ll'if3 cxd5 13 .i.c5 allows a very nice idea: 13 . . . ll'ic6! ( 13 ... 1"\e8 14.i.b5 i.d7 1 5 .i.xb6 axb6 16.i.xd7 Wxd7 is sufficient for equality) l 4.i.xf8 Wxf8 1 5 .exd5 ( 1 5.ll'ixd5 ll'ixe5 1 6.i.e2 ll'ixf3t l 7.gxf3 i.xb2 1 8.1"\b l i.g7 i s also promising fo r Black) 1 5 ... ll'ixe5

1 8 Early Deviations

l 6.�e2 lt:l g4 17. W d2 Black has excellent compensation. b) 1 2.e6 fxe6 13.�xg7 �xg7 14.Wd4t Wf6 1 5 .Wxf6t l"i:xf6 1 6.dxc6 lt:lxc6 With equality.

1 2 . . . lt:lac4 1 3.lt:lf3 �g4 Very simple and strong; Black is going to regain the e5-pawn, after which the d6-pawn becomes weak. In the following encounter Black easily achieved an advantage:

14.�xc4 lt:lxc4 1 5 .Wb3 �xf3 1 6.gxf3 lt:lxe5 1 7.0-0-0 Wxd6+

Ward - Howell, Gibraltar 2004.

1 1 ... .L:eS 12.fxeS

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

12 ... ffh4t! A very important intermediate check

that forces White to advance his g-pawn, weakening his position and depriving him of the possibility of recapturing with the g-pawn in the event of an exchange on the f3-square.

1 2 . . . We7 1 3.lt:lf3 �g4 14.Wd4 �xf3 1 5 .gxf3 c5 was played in Gajewski - Gluszko, Warsaw 2008, and now White missed the very strong: 1 6.d6! Wh4t (or 1 6 . . . cxd4 1 7.dxe7 l"i:fe8 1 8.lt:ld5 lt:lxd5 1 9.exd5 l"i:xe7 20.f4±) 1 7.Wf2 Wf4 1 8.Wg3 We3t 19 .�e2 lt:l ac4 20.f4! Wd2t 2 1 .c;;t>f2 Such a huge pawn mass in the centre secures White's advantage.

13.g3 ff e7 14.fid4 White is lacking worthy alternatives, for

example:

14.lt:lf3 �g4 1 5 .b3 f5!+ Black seizes the initiative.

14.b3 Wxe5 1 5.l"i:cl occurred in Dokhoian - Krasenkow, USSR 1 986, and now Black should play: 1 5 .. .f5!N 1 6.lt:lf3 We7 1 7.e5 l"i:d8! White's centre is vulnerable, with Black threatening 1 8 . . . �e6 or 1 8 . . . lt:lc6. White's best is 1 8.Wc2 lt:lxd5 1 9.lt:lxd5 l"i:xd5 20.Wxc7 �d7 2 1 .�c4 lt:lxc4 22.Wxc4 �c6 23.0-0 l"i:ad8, but Black is clearly in control.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

i. �.i.� ��-''% %�.f'l: %;w·;.•/'""Y,� �·f� �·�· ,,,,, %�/,,,,, %- ,,,,, /,-·� '"/<{"""�

��-� �� 8f� � /------m �Btrm ) ��;-/<{""'/,�

��-� � ;� �f� ��-�----- '� �� ',,/,�-� Li,,n� �"'" �",Jj

� ,��mn � � � � : a b c d e f g h

14 .. JMS! Unless you are familiar with the theory,

this is not an easy move to find. When I met this position for the first time I reacted with the more natural-looking 14 . . . c5? but my opponent demonstrated that this is a serious error: 1 5 .d6! cxd4 1 6.dxe7 l"i:e8 1 7.lt:ld5! lt:lxd5 1 8.exd5 l"i:xe7 1 9.b4 The point of White's play. l 9 . . . �f5 (relatively better is 1 9 . . . l"i:xe5t but White still has a clear advantage after 20.c;;t>d2 �f5 2 1 .lt:lf3 l"i:xd5 22.bxa5) 20.lt:lf3 �e4 2i.c;;t>f2 l"i:c8 22.d6 l"i:ee8 23.bxa5 l"i:c2t 24.�e2 d3 25.lt:ld4! White had a decisive advantage in Sakalauskas - Avrukh, Bled (ol) 2002.

Chapter 2 - 3.f3 19

15.b4 White's only way of fighting for the

advantage, as otherwise Black would continue with l 5 . . . lLJc6, regaining the e5-pawn.

15 ..• lbac4 Black has an interesting alternative:

l 5 . . . lLJc6!? l 6.Wc5 The point behind White's 1 5th move.

1 6 . . . Wg5 This trick allows Black to avoid losing material, as Black's knight is untouchable in view of the mate on d2.

17.lLJf3 Wh5 1 8.i.e2 lLJxe5 1 9.0-0 Obviously l 9.Wxc7? is impossible because of l 9 . . . lLJxf3t 20.i.xf3 Wxf3 2 l .Wxd8t 'it>g7 and White loses.

8 ��jj� �· 7 �··(,···· ,J-,J��:� : �, �"-�-if 4 "O'' ,/,� -,� � %//,� ;-;,,;,(ffl,�� '�fr� 3 � �- �t.U�a 2 r;•'-aia"--;,rs , -� � � :z-r,{ � � �:�

a b c d e f g h 19 . . . i.h3!?N

In my opinion this is stronger than 1 9 . . . lLJxf3t 20.i.xf3 We5 2 1 .lLJb5 i.h3 Naslund - A. Horvath, Budapest 2008, as now 22.l"i:fcl !N l'l:d7 23.a4 would give White definite pressure.

20.l'l:f2 lLJbd7! 21 .We3 Another line is 21 .lLJxe5 Wxe5 22.We3 lLJf6 with reasonable play for Black. Note that the c7-pawn is not really hanging, since after 21 .Wxc7 l'l:dc8 22.lLJxe5 l'l:xc7 23.i.xh5 lLJxe5 24.lLJb5 l'l:c4!+ Black regains the pawn and remains with the better position.

2 1 . . .i.g4

A very complicated posmon has arisen, which I would evaluate as balanced.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

White now chooses between B21) 16.hc4 and B22) 16.lb£3.

B21) 1 6.i.xc4 Wi'xb4 17.lb£3

Absolutely harmless is l 7.lLJge2 Wxc4 1 8 .0-0. Moskalenko - Ftacnik, Belgrade 1 988, continued 18 . . . \';lrxd4t 1 9.lLJxd4 c6 20.e6 fxe6 2 1 .lLJxe6 i.xe6 22.dxe6 l"i:d3 and Black was clearly better.

17 • . . Wfxc4 18.Wi'e3 White should avoid the queen swap; Black

is absolutely fine after both 1 8 .l"i:b l Wxd4 1 9.lLJxd4 c6! and 1 8.\';lfxc4 lLJxc4 1 9.l"i:b l l"i:e8.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

20 Early Deviations

18 .. J�eS!N In my opinion this is a very important

novelty. Previously Black has suffered after: 1 8 . . . c6 1 9.l"lcl ( 1 9.e6 fxe6 20.li:le5 also looks scary. Although 20 . . . 'l.Wb4 2 1 .0-0 li:lc4 eventually led to a draw in Kaidanov - Peng Xiaomin, Seattle 200 l, I wouldn't be surprised if White could improve his play.) 1 9 . . . �g4 20.li:ld2 'l.Wb4 21 .0-0 This position is very dangerous position for Black, as shown by 2 1 . . .cxd5 22.exd5 li:lxd5 23.li:lxd5 l"lxd5 24.li:le4± Mamedyarov - Shirov, Baku (rapid) 2009.

The position after 18 . . . l"le8! is extremely complicated. I investigated B21 1) 19JU1 , the critical B212) 19.e6 and also the natural B213) 19Jkl .

B21 1) 19J�dl i.g4 20.e6 i.xf3

It is essential to eliminate this knight.

21.exf7t @xf7 22.'1Wxf3t @g7 23J�fl 4Jd7 Black is slightly better, thanks to his control

over the key e5-square.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B212) 19.e6

a b c d e f g h

A thematic idea in this line, but here it does

19 ... fxe6 20.4Je5 '!Wb4 2I.4Jg4 �:U-8 22.gbl '!We7 23.'!Wd4 e5!

A practical approach, although the more complicated 23 . . . 'l.Wg5!? is also strong.

24.'!Wxe5 Even worse for White is 24.li:lxe5 'l.Wg7!+.

24 ... '!Wxe5 25.4Jxe5 i.h3 Black clearly has the better chances, in view

of the vulnerable situation of the white king.

B213} 19.gcl 4Jd7

a b c d e f g h

20.tlJbl The alternatives are:

20.'l.Wf4 is strongly met by: 20 . . . li:lc5! 2 1 .'l.Wh6 li:lxe4 22.'l.Wf4 �f5! 23.g4 'l.Wd3 24.li:le2 �d7 25.l"ldl li:lc5! 26.e6 �xe6! (26 . . . fxe6 27.li:le5 probably leads to perpetual check) 27.dxe6 l"lxe6 28.li:l e5 'l.We4 29.'l.Wxe4 li:lxe4 30.li:ld3 l"ld8+ Despite the material being balanced, Black's chances are much higher, due to the poor coordination of the white pieces.

20.'l.Wh6 l"lxe5! This is the key idea. In the event of 2 1 . li:lxe5 li:lxe5 the white king comes under attack and Black takes over the initiative.

not really work: 20 ... '!Wa6!

Chapter 2 - 3.f3 21

I t i s important to keep the white king in the centre, and this is clearly much stronger than 20 . . . Wb4t 21 .'Llbd2 'Llxe5 22.'Llxe5 E:xe5 23.E:xc?, with a double-edged position.

21.°Wc3 Other moves are not dangerous for Black

either:

2 1 .°Wd4 c6! 22.d6 (after 22.'Llc3 Black has 22 . . . c5!+ and the e5-pawn falls) 22 . . . 'Llxe5 23.'Llxe5 Wa5t Black ends up with an extra pawn.

2 1 .:!'l:xc? 'Llxe5 and Black takes over the initiative, for instance: 22.'Llc3 Wd6 23.'Ll b5 Wb4t 24.'Llc3 'Llxf3t 25.Wxf3 �f5+

21. .. b6 A very strong idea; Black prepares to activate

his knight by . . . 'Llc5 .

22.°Wc6 This looks threatening, but Black is ready

with a nice retort.

22 ... Wf d3 23.i>fl

B22) 16.lll£3 �g4

The following sequence of moves is more or less forced.

17 . .L.:c4 .L.:£3 18.0-0 Wfxb4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

19.e6 a b c d e f g h

This is the most challenging move. White has also tried: 1 9.E:xf3?! Wxc4 20.We3 'Ll d7!

White's initiative has been slowed down, and Black has the better chances.

2 1 .°Wf4 E:f8 White has no good answer to Black's primitive idea of . . . E:ae8 followed by the capture of the e5-pawn.

22.E: b l ?! E:ae8 23.'Llb5 Probably White realized only now that 23.E:xb? was not really a threat, as after 23 . . . 'Llxe5 24.E:e3 f5 25.exf5 Wa6 followed by 26 . . . E:xf5 , Black will win material.

23 . . . a6 24.E:c3 Wxa2 25.'Lla3 'Llxe5 Black had achieved a decisive advantage in

Moskalenko - Konguvel, Barcelona 2004.

19 ... fxe6 20.:gxf) White tried 20.Wf6? in Fodor - Katsuhara,

Budapest 2005, but it is just bad. The easiest solution for Black is 20 . . . Wc5t 2 1 .E:f2 E:f8 22.Wxe6t 'ttig7 and White loses one of his minor pieces.

22 Early Deviations

20 ... Wxc4 21 .Wf6 exd5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

According to my database, seven games have reached this position. White has to force a draw by perpetual check:

22.We6t Or 22.Wf7t i>h8 23 .Wf6t=.

22 ... <±ihs 23.Wf6t=

B3) 8.Wd2

White's main continuation, according to theory.

8 ... CLJc6 9.0-0-0 This is clearly White's first choice. We shall

just take a brief look at the alternatives:

9.d5?! This advance is premature, and only helps Black to seize the initiative: 9 . . . li:Je5 1 O . .ig5 (1 O.b3 e6 is also good for Black) 1 0 . . . c6 1 1 .�dl cxd5 12.exd5 .if5 Black's lead in development gave him a clear advantage in Alekhine - Bogoljubow, Bled 1 93 1 .

9.�d l e5 Another possibility is 9 ... f5 , but the text easily solves Black's problems and is more thematic.

1 0.d5 li:Jd4 1 1 .li:J b5 This gets rid of the central black knight, but Black's development advantage gives him good play. Another option is: l 1 . .id3 f5N (more ambitious than l 1 . . . c6, which was good enough for equality in Simon - Temi, Cannes 1 996) 1 2.tlige2 fxe4 13 . .ixe4 lllc4 14.Wcl lllxe3 1 5 .Wxe3 Wd6 1 6.0-0 .id7 Black's chances are slightly better, thanks to his strong knight on d4.

1 1 . . .li:Jxb5 1 2 . .ixb5

a b c d e f g h 1 2 . . . f5 ! 1 3 . .id3 fxe4 1 4 . .ixe4

14.fxe4 runs into the unpleasant 14 . . . .ig4!. 14 . . . .if5 1 5 . .ixf5 gxf5 1 6.b3

We have been following Scekic - Bercys, New York (rapid) 2004. Black should now have opted for:

1 6 . . . Wh4t!N 1 7 . .if2 Wf6 1 8.li:Je2_Elfd8+

9 ... f5

Chapter 2 - 3 .f3 23

The current fashion in this position. More common is 9 . . . e5, which leads to a very complicated battle after 1 O.d5 liJ d4 1 1 .f4.

We shall take a look at B31) 10.ex5, before turning to the main alternatives, B32) 10.h4 and B33) 10.eS.

B31) 10.ex5 Lf'5 1 1 .h4

8 �� · '% ��:.tef,,,,,/�r:;f,,,,,Y,�,/;;

1 � • w� w� � • 6 ,

,,

,,/,·�� ,,,,,/,� ,,Y,� 5 , ��'1� �� !11%�� M"' 4 �/, N/J�/, ';; �� 3� m �8R 2 l:ri""''R,,,,�� m ,,,,,/,w,,d'""/,?ffffi �/, N/£� 1 �li��mli

a b c d e f g h

This has been played only once, but my main reason for sharing this line with the readers is to show some of Black's ideas in this kind of position.

11 . .. llJb4!N The game Perez Lopez - Navarro Cia,

Barcelona 2000, saw 1 1 . . .e5 12.d5 liJd4 13.g4 with unclear play.

12.g4 The key point of Black's novelty can be

seen in the following line: 12.h5 '\Wd5! 13 .g4 '\Wxa2 14.gxf5 Wal t 1 5.liJbl c5 Black has a devastating attack.

12 ... i.e6 13.Wbl llJc4 14.Lc4 No better is 14.'\Wel llixe3 1 5.'\Wxe3 '\Wd7+

and Black is already threatening 16 . . . liJxa2.

14 ... Lc4 1s.a3 This is necessary, as after 1 5.h5 i.d3t 1 6. Wcl

c5 Black's attack is decisive.

8 �� · 7 �·-,,,,,/,-,,,,,Y,� '

,,,,,/,� ,,,,,/,� ,,,,,/,� ,,,,,Y,� : ��-�.�� /, N//, �'.:/, ';; �'.:/, �/, '/ 4 ,J'll!J�;/, ';;-� � 3 � � �8-

2 ,,,

,

,/,H,,,,,;E"'""R ;/,m 1 �-��m1 a b c d e f g h

15 ... aS Since the game Motylev - Svidler, Wijk aan

Zee 2007 (see the note to Black's 13th move in B333), this idea has become quite thematic in this line. Instead 1 5 . . . liJ d5 1 6.liJxd5 '\Wxd5 17.h5 would lead to double-edged play.

16.hS Wfd7 Black is doing well.

B32) 10.h4

A very aggressive approach, leading to highly interesting play, although it seems to me that Black manages to keep everything under control.

10 ... fxe4 1 1 .hS

24 Early Deviations

This pawn sacrifice is the idea behind White's 1 0th move.

1 1 . .. gxh5! It is essential to keep the h-file half closed.

After 1 l . . .e5 1 2.d5 tlld4 1 3.hxg6 hxg6 14.fxe4 White has an almost perfect score.

White generally chooses between B321) 12.d5 and B322) 12.1§:xh5, although there are a couple of less serious options:

12 . .ih6?! has been played twice, but I think it is a blunder, since Black can simply grab the central pawn: 1 2 . . . '1Mfxd4!N 1 3.'1Mf g5 (Black's point is that 1 3.'1Mfxd4 runs into 1 3 . . . .ixh6t-+) 1 3 . . . '\Mi' e5 14.'1Mf xg7t '1Mf xg7 1 5 . .ixg7 i;!;ixg7 16.tllxe4 .if5 1 7.E!:xh5 .ixe4 1 8.fxe4 E!:ad8+ White has absolutely no compensation for being a pawn down.

1 2.g4 This surprising continuation was first employed by Dutch Grandmaster Stellwagen in 2008, but we shall follow a later correspondence game, in which White was convincingly punished: 1 2 . . . exf3 13.E!:xh5 (after 13 .gxh5 .ig4 1 4.'1Mf f2 i;!;ih8 Black is also better) 1 3 . . . .ixg4 14.E!:g5 '1Mfd7 1 5 .d5 f2! This nice tactical trick clarifies the situation. 16 . .ie2 .ixe2 17.'1Mfxe2 tll e5 1 8 . .ixb6 fl ='IMf 1 9.E!:xfl E!:xfl t 20.'IMfxfl axb6 2 1 .tllge2 i;!;ih8 Black had a big advantage, which was easily converted in Wojtyra - Staf, e-mail 2009.

B321) 12.d5

This leads to very concrete play.

12 • • • tlie5 13 . .ih6 tt.'iec4! This is much stronger than 1 3 . . . E!:f7?

14 . .ixg7 E!:xg7 l 5 .E!:xh5, which gave White a serious initiative in Sakaev - Timofeev, Istanbul 2003.

14.'1Mf g5 1§:f7

8��.t� �· 7 � t•,,,,/,mi�' , , , , ,/,c/� , , , ,/,� - ,,,/,� ,,,,,�� 6 -��-: �.�aT-n '� 3 � :'/,� U[!JU 2 :n,,,,,,n n [!J � ,,,,,/,�,;;� /,� + �«� 1 �� .,t�.g

a b c d e f g h

A remarkable position. At first sight it looks as if White has a serious initiative, due to the exposed black king. However, Black's position is like a coiled spring, and in a very short time he manages to develop his pieces and even create significant threats against the white king.

15.hc4 Another line is: 1 5 .E!:h4 '1Mfd6! (but not

1 5 . . . lllxb2? 16.E!:f4! and Black ends up losing the knight on b2, Rodshtein - Sanikidze, Chalkidiki 2003) 1 6 . .ixg7 E!:xg7 1 7.'1Mfxh5 .id7! 1 8.E!:xe4 '1Mfb4! 1 9.E!:d2 '1Mfc5 20 . .ixc4 (or 20.E!:dl tll d6 2 1 .E!:ed4 tll f5 22.E!:4d2 llle3+) 20 . . . tllxc4 2 l .E!:dd4 tll d6 22.E!:f4 lllf5-+ Black is winning material and he went on to win the game in Aleskerov - Sanikidze, Istanbul 2005. I have to say that Black's play in this game was most impressive; all his moves from 1 5 . . . '\Mfd6 onwards were simply the best.

15 • • • tt.'ixc4 1 6.1§:d4 White tried 1 6. lllxe4? in Meessen - Peschlow,

Germany 2006, but Black could just grab an important pawn: 16 . . . tllxb2!N 17.E!:d2 (or 17.E!:d4 c5) 17 . . . lllc4 1 8.E!:d4 tll d6 Black has a winning position.

White's best option is 16 . .ixg7, which has not been played, but is recommended by Ftacnik.

Chapter 2 - 3.f3 25

A logical c_ontinuation is then: 1 6 .. .l''i'.xg7 17.Wxh5 exf3 1 8.gxf3 (after 1 8.tt:'ixf3 �g4 Black is clearly better) 1 8 . . . Wif fg Ftacnik evaluates this position as unclear. It is true that White has a certain amount of compensation following 1 9.tt:'ige2 �f5 20.tt:'id4 �g6 2 1 .Wifh2, but after 2 1 .. .Wf6 I prefer Black's position, due to his strong bishop. It should be noted that White cannot take the pawn back, as after 22.Wxc7? tt:'id6 Black has too many threats (such as . . . e5, . . . :Ei:c8 and . . . Wf4t).

a b c d e f g h

16 ... �d6 With this natural 'human' move, Black's

queen enters the play with great effect. However, the computer indicates an even better move for Black: 1 6 . . . tt:'ixb2!N 17.@xb2 (or 17.:Ei:xe4 tt:'id3t 1 8.@d2 �f5! 1 9.@xd3 e6 and Black is clearly better) 17 . . . cS! The nice point of the sacrifice. 1 8.:Ei:xe4 Wb6t 1 9.@al Wxh6 Black has a considerable advantage.

17.hg7 After 17.:Ei:xhS Black quickly develops a

decisive attack: 17 .. . Wb4! 1 8.tt:'idl Wc5 1 9.tt:'ie2 exf3 20.gxf3 tl'ie5t 2 1 .tt:'idc3 tt:'ixf3 Black won easily in Gubajdullin - Belov, Moscow 2009.

17 .. Jlxg7 18.�xh5 �f4t 19.@brn �6 Black's last piece comes into play with

decisive effect.

20.fxe4 �g4 21.ltige2

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

21. .. �d2! 0-1 Mamedyarov - Kurnosov, Moscow 2009.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B322) 12.l3xh5

a b c d e f g h

The most natural continuation.

12 ... J.6 13.l3g5 White's first choice according to theory,

but I would like to mention a couple of other options:

13.�h6 Essentially the situation is the same as we saw with 12 . �h6?! above, and here too Black can capture the central pawn with great effect:

26 Early Deviations

a b c d e f g h 1 3 . . . Wxd4!N This novelty was pointed out by Krasenkow in ChessBase Magazine 120. 1 4.Wxd4 (or 14.Wg5 Wf6+) 14 . . . i.xd4 1 5 .i.xf8 E!:xf8 Black is clearly better.

1 3.d5 This looks quite interesting, but Black can keep everything under control.

13 . . . i.g6! Much stronger than 1 3 . . . tll e5 I 4.i.d4, when White is fighting for an advantage.

1 4.i.h6 An understandable attempt, as after 14.E!:h3 you don't have to be a grandmaster to find the following series of moves: 14 . . . tll e5 1 5 .fxe4 tt:lec4 1 6.i.xc4 tt:lxc4 17.We2 tt:lxe3 1 8 .Wxe3 Wd6+ Black has a pleasant game, thanks to his bishop pair.

14 . . . i.xh5 Now we have a more or less forced line.

1 5 .i.xg7 @xg7 1 6.Wg5t i.g6 17.dxc6 Wc8 1 8.Wxe7t

a b c d e f g h

1 8 . . . @g8!N This improves on 1 8 ... E!:f7 19 .We5t @g8 20.tt:lxe4, which was rather unclear in Hillarp Persson - Howell, Jersey 2005 .

1 9.tt:lxe4 I don't see any ideas for White after 1 9.cxb7 Wxb7 20.We6t E!:f7 21 .fxe4 E!:b8 22.b3 c5 followed by 23 . . . °1We7.

1 9 . . . bxc6 Black comfortably parries all of White's tries, and remains the exchange up.

20.tllh3 White does not get anywhere with: 20.tll f6t @h8 2 1 .g4 (or 2 1 .tlld7 E!:f5 22.g4 E!:d5 23.E!:xd5 lllxd5 24.We5t @gs+) 2 1 . . .E!:f7 22.We5 Wf8 The discovered checks are not dangerous, and so Black has the advantage.

20 . . . i.xe4! The simplest way; eliminating the knight leaves White short of active ideas.

2 1 .°1Wxe4 Wf5 22.Wxc6 E!:ad8 Black clearly has the better chances.

13 ... i.g6

14.i.e2 This is nearly always played, but White has

also tried the fairly natural:

Chapter 2 - 3.f3 27

l 4.li:lxe4 e5 J 5 .d5 Definitely more challenging than l 5.dxe5 Wxd2t 16.�xd2 lllxe5, when Black has no problems.

1 5 . . . li:ld4 16.li:lc3 c6 17.dxc6

a b c d e f g h 17 . . . Wc7!

A great concept! Black needs the open c-file much more than he needs the pawn. If l 7 . . . bxc6?! then White would be very happy to continue l 8.�d3 with an advantage.

1 8.cxb7 Now 1 8.�d3 is well met by: 1 8 . . . Wxc6 l 9.�xg6 hxg6 20.Wd3 i;t>f7+ Black's pieces feel quite comfortable behind his strong central knight.

1 8 . . . l"i:ab8! Another fine move; it's important for Black to keep his queen on the c-file.

l 9.f4?! After 19 .�d3 l"i:xb7 20.li:lge2 li:la4 Black develops a serious initiative on the queenside.

19 . . . l"i:fd8! 20.fxe5 llle6 Now Black wins the exchange.

21 .We2 l"i:xdl t 22.Wxdl lllxg5 23.�xg5 Right now White has three pawns for the exchange, but not for long.

23 . . . �xe5 24.�a6 �xc3 25 .Wb3t We have been following Vallejo Pons -Navara, Wijk aan Zee 2009. Here Black could have decided the game on the spot with the simple:

25 ... �f7N 26.Wxc3 li:ld5 27.Wxc7 lllxc7 28.�d3 �xa2-+

14 ... eS Nobody has tried 14 . . . exf3 here; after

1 5 .lllxf3 e5 1 6.d5 ( 1 6.dxe5 Wxd2t 17.l"i:xd2 �h8! is great for Black) 1 6 . . . li:ld4 we reach a position that is examined in the following note.

15.d5 llid4 The alternative l 5 ... exf3 keeps an extra

pawn, but helps White's development: l 6.li:lxf3 li:ld4 I think White can improve here with l 7.li:lh4!N, which was suggested by Golod in ChessBase Magazine 8 1 . White's position seems promising, for instance l 7 . . . Wf6 l 8.li:lxg6 hxg6 1 9 .�d3 allows him a long-term initiative.

16.fxe4 c6

a b c d e f g h

Black must attack White's centre; this move also helps to open some lines on the queenside.

17.dxc6 White has also played:

l 7.li:lf3 cxd5 1 8 .exd5 It looks risky for White to open the diagonal for Black's light-squared bishop. There is a reasonable alternative in: l 8.lllxe5

28 Early Deviations

lt:lxe2t 1 9.°l&xe2 i.xe5 20.l'l:xe5 Wc7 2 1 .i.d4 dxe4 White has definite compensation for the pawn, but only enough for equality.

1 8 . . . l'l:c8 19 .lt:lxe5! The plausible l 9.lt:lxd4 would run into: 19 . . . Wxg5! 20.lt:lc6 (20.i.xg5 exd4 gives Black a decisive initiative) 20 . . . :e:f4! Black is much better.

1 9 . . . lt:lxe2t 20.Wxe2 l'l:e8 2 1 .lt:lxg6

a b c d e f g h 2 l . . . l'l:xc3t! 22.bxc3 Wxg5 23.i.xg5 l'l:xe2 24.lt:lh4 l'l:e5

Black could try 24 . . . i.xc3!? 25.d6 lt:ld7 26.l'l:d3 i.e5 27.i.d2 <iif7, and White still has a bit of work to do to secure the draw.

25.lt:lf3 l'l:xd5= A draw was soon agreed in Thaler - Winge,

corr. 2006.

a b c d e f g h

17 ... ltJxc6 18.VNel

White decides to keep the queens on, in an attempt to justify his rook being on g5 . Indeed, after 1 8.lt:lf3 Wxd2t 1 9.l'l:xd2 lt:ld4! Black is fine, while the white rook looks a bit misplaced.

1s ... VNf6

8 .i.� � ��-7 �·� �� ,,,,,Y,?tl i 6 1�1-·-�.'.� sn"a�•'B 4 %m %S"!i%m,,,, _Y,� �/,"//, ��-;; �� 3� m � � 2 t:�/!(��i�A� 1 �:g� ��'

a b c d e f g h

19.:!3g3N This improvement was suggested by

Krasenkow in ChessBase Magazine 1 1 8. Laznicka has twice played: 1 9.°l&g3?! lt:ld4

A natural improvement over l 9 ... l'l:ad8, which led to an unclear position in Laznicka - Krasenkow, Ostrava 2007: 20.lt:l f3 lt:ld4 2 1 .i.d3 lt:lxf3 22.gxf3 l'l:c8 23.ciib l Wxf3 24.Wgl�

20.i.h5 i.xh5 2 1 .l'l:xh5 l'l:ac8 Black takes over the initiative.

22.<iib l ? This allows an elegant combination. White's best try was: 22.i.h6 Wg6 23.Wxg6 hxg6 24.i.xg7 gxh5 25 .i.xf8 l'l:xf8 Black is slightly better, but White has good chances of saving the game.

22 . . . l'l:xc3 23.bxc3 lt:la4! The point of the sacrifice; Black now develops a decisive attack.

24.i.xd4 exd4 White was already defenceless against Black's

Chapter 2 - 3 .f3 29

attack in Laznicka - Ponomariov, Carlsbad 2007. I beli�ve that as a result of this game 19 .Wg3?! will not find any followers in the future.

19 .. .l::&acS I prefer this to 1 9 . . . tiJd4 20.tiJf3 tLlxe2t

2 l .Wxe2 with an unclear game, as pointed out by Krasenkow.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

20.ig4 Other possibilities:

20.tiJf3? is a serious inaccuracy that allows Black to seize the initiative on the queenside: 20 . . . tiJb4 21 .Wb l :B:xc3 Black has a dear advantage.

20.Wbl is a more important alternative: 20 . . . tiJd4 2 1 .tiJf3 tLlc4 (after 2 1 . . .:B:xc3?! 22.bxc3 ixe4t 23.id3!± I don't see any good way for Black to continue) 22.ixd4 exd4 23.tiJxd4 Wb6 Black has fine long-term compensation for the pawn, thanks to his dark-squared bishop.

20 .. J�cdS 20 . . . :B:c?!? is also worth considering.

21.:88 Y!f e7 22.:Bxf'St :8xf'8 23.!iJS !iJd4 24.@bl Y!ib4

Black is by no means worse, due to his strong knight on d4.

B33) IO.es

In my opm10n this is the critical continuation. Black's dark-squared bishop is cut off from play for a long time, but on the other hand, Black is able to seize control over the light squares in the centre.

IO ... llJb4 We have arrived at an important crossroads

for White; his options are B331) 1 1 ..ih6, B332) 1 1.h4 and B333) 1 1 .llJh3.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B331) 1 I .ih6

a b c d e f g h

30 Early Deviations

This leads to very concrete play, as White intends to launch a direct offensive on the black king after swapping dark-squared bishops.

1 1 ...i.e6 12.©bl White has also tried:

1 2.i.xg7 'ttixg7 13 .'tt>b l

8 �0 ��rJ��rJ�Yc%0,, 7 l�&�I� �1� � & %.%1 % %1 /, ��-6

'%. ,' %� .r� ,,%� 5 ';,��

�!� 4 �.�n _?,� �� 3 ';,,�,%�!� 'WK( ��'%%�,W� 2 0;10, �� •0;10 �-:�I�:

a b c d e f g h 1 3 . . .f4!?N

I like this very natural idea. In practice Black has played: 1 3 . . . c5 14.dxc5 li:la4! 1 5 .li:lge2 ( 1 5.li:lxa4? loses to 1 5 . . . i.xa2t 1 6.iicl '1Wa5) 1 5 . . . '\Wxd2 1 6.:B:xd2 :B:ad8 17.li:ld4 li:lxc5 With an equal game, Sjodahl - Hermansson, Sweden 2007.

14.g4! White would be in trouble ifhe did not have this resource.

14 . . . a5 1 5 .li:lh3 li:l6d5 Black has very comfortable play.

12 ... i.xh6 13.Wfxh6

13 ... Wfd7!?N I believe that this is a serious improvement

over 1 3 . . . li:J6d5, as played in Drazic - Koko!, Nova Gorica 2008. White could have responded with the natural 14.li:Jh3N, when the threat of li:lg5 would force Black onto the defensive.

14.lllh3 After 14.a3 li:l4d5 1 5.li:lge2 li:l a4+ Black's

initiative develops quite smoothly.

14 ... lllxa2! This move sets off some fireworks on the

board.

15.lllg5 lllxc3t 16.bxc3 B:f7

17.lllxf7 Wf a4 1 8.Wf d2 i.xf7 Black is the exchange for a pawn down, but

it is obvious that he has more than enough compensation.

B332) l l .h4

This aggressive thrust looks very natural. Black has to react quickly, because the further advance of the h-pawn might cause serious damage.

Chapter 2 - 3.f3 3 1

1 1 . .. i.e6 Black attacks the a-pawn. White can defend

it by B3321) 12.©hl , ignore the threat with B3322) 12.hS or move it with B3323) 12.a3.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

B3321) 12.©bl

a b c d e f g h

12 ... f4!N Sacrificing this pawn to clear the f5-square

for the bishop is often a tempting idea in this variation, but this particular position is one of the few occasions that it actually works. In Kowzan - Jurek, Wysowa 2003, Black played very passively: 12 . . . ttJ4d5 13.ltJh3 ltJxe3 14.Wxe3 lDd5 1 5 .ltJxd5 i.xd5 1 6.h5±

13 . .txf4 c5! All Black's pieces are brought into play, even

the dark-squared bishop.

14.dxcS It is dangerous for White to play: 14.lDge2

i.f5t! 1 5 .ltJe4 Wd5 1 6.ltJ2c3 Wf7 17.dxc5 (after 17.ie3 1"lad8 1 8.Wel ltJa4 1 9.b3 ltJxc3t 20.Wxc3 ltJd5+ Black retains an initiative) 17 . . . tba4 1 8.i.b5 ltJxc5 Black has good compensation for the pawn.

14 ... ltJ6d5

15 ... i.fSt 16.©al ltJc2t 17.©bl ltJh4t=

B3322) 12.hS

This is of course very tempting. Play continues:

12 ... ltJxa2t 13.ltJxa2 ba2 14.hxg6 hxg6 1 5.i.h6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

32 Early Deviations

15 ... Wfd7!N An important improvement, as otherwise the

whole line is somewhat dangerous for Black. The e8-square should be kept free for the king, so I don't like 1 5 ... We8 1 6.lLie2 f4, as in Av. Bykhovsky - Dub, Tel Aviv 2002. White could then play: 17.lLic3N .ib3 1 8.l'l:e l :gd8 1 9.g4! White has a serious initiative, while Black is lacking in activity.

1 6.llle2 White needs this move in order to shelter his

king. Obviously 1 6 . .ixg7? runs into 1 6 . . . Wc6t and Black remains with a healthy extra pawn after the exchange of queens.

1 6 ... i.b3 17.i.xg7 17.:gel is too slow, although Black has to

find the strong response: 17 . . . ttJ d5 ! 1 8 . .ixg7 'it>xg7 1 9.Wh6t \t>f7 20.Wh7t 'it>e8 2 1 .Wxg6t 'it>d8 White's king is much more vulnerable than his black counterpart.

17 ... @xg7 18.Wfh6t @f7

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

19.d5!

a b c d e f g h

White's best continuation. After 1 9.Wh7t?! 'it>e8 20.Wxg6t 'it>d8 2 1 .Wh6 :ge8 Black is better, due to the vulnerable white king.

19 ... Wf a4 20.Wfh7t @es 21.lllc3 Wfal t

Clearly worse is 2 1 . . .Wf4t 22.:gd2 lLixd5, as

after 23.e6! Black is under serious pressure.

22. lll b 1 i.a2! Black must certainly avoid 22 . . . .ixd l ?

23 . .ib5t iid8 24.Wg7! and White wins.

23.@c2 llla4

The following variation now seems forced.

24.i.bSt @ds 25.ha4 hbl t 26.gxbl Wfxa4t 27.b3 Wfb5

The struggle should end in a draw, for example:

28.gbel Wiest 29.@b2 Wif2t 30.@bI Wfb6 3I.@b2=

B3323) 12.a3

Chapter 2 - 3.f3 33

This move_ is the latest fashion, having been played twice by Israeli Grandmaster Evgeny Postny.

12 ... tiJa2t This looks like Black's best option. After

12 . . . a5 White can even accept the piece sacrifice by: 13.axb4 ( 1 3.h5!? is also possible. I am not sure what Black should do.) 13 . . . axb4 14.llJbl . In Postny - Howell, Kallithea 2009, Black failed to obtain enough compensation: 14 .. . !'lal 1 5 .Wxb4 c5 16.Wxc5 l2ld5 17.@d2 !'la5 1 8.Wc l ±

13.tiJxal La2 14.h5

8 � � � ��-'0 ��?,ref" ,,/,�.(�,_, , ,Y,�'0 7 � .t. w� w� � ' 6 ,, , ,,%.f,_, /,-,_, , , /,-,,�� s �" •�nf•fj 4 //,� ��,_, , /,� �� ,��'0,,, , %�7;;�� 3 �% - � 8-2 .f� /,-,_,,,�- 8%�

, , , , , /, _;;,,,,,/, � 1 �.:� Jtm.: a b c d e f g h

14 ... ih3!?N This natural move is my attempt to improve

on the game Postny - Gopal, Calcutta 2009, which went 14 . . . c5 1 5 .dxc5 ib3. I believe that White now missed a good opportunity to sacrifice the exchange with 1 6.f4! ixdl 17.@xd l . I really don't like Black's position. In particular I am worried that h5-h6 will leave Black's dark-squared bishop out of play for a long time to come.

15.hxg6 hxg6 16.�el I also examined an exchange sacrifice here,

but it doesn't look dangerous for Black: 1 6. l2lh3 ixdl 17.Wxdl (or 17.@xdl We8! 1 8.l2lf4 e6

followed by . . . E:d8, . . . c5 or ... l2ld5) 17 ... e6 1 8.l2lf4 @f7! Black is ready to meet l 9.g4 with l 9 . . . E:h8! 20.E:gl ih6, with advantage.

16 ... c5 17.tlJe2 The white knight is heading for the c3-square.

Instead 17.dxc5?! favours Black: 17 . . . Wxd2t 1 8.ixd2 E:fc8+

17 ... �c8 1 8.iihl 1 8.ih6? fails to 18 . . . cxd4t 1 9.@b l l2lc4!

20.Wg5 Wb6 and Black has a winning attack.

1 8 ... .if7 19.tiJc3 After 1 9.l2lf4 cxd4 20.ixd4 l2lc4 2 1 .'1Wf2

(2 Lixc4 E:xc4+) 2 l . . .g5! Black takes over the initiative.

19 ... cxd4 20.Ld4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

20 ... �d7! Not only preparing . . . E:fd8, but in the right

circumstances the queen may transfer to e6 in order to create threats against the white king.

21 .�h4 tlJc4 I prefer this to 2 1 . . .We6 22.ixb6! axb6

23.ib5 E:c7 24.f4, when Black has a problem with his dark-squared bishop.

22.Lc4

34 Early Deviations

This is probably necessary, as after 22.Wg5 it's Black who strikes first: 22 . . . tiixa3t! 23.bxa3 We6 White is in trouble.

22 ... :gxc4 Finally we have reached a balanced position,

where Black's activity compensates for his temporarily passive dark-squared bishop. Here is an illustrative line:

23.:gehl :gds 23 . . . j,e6!?

24.:gh7

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

24 ... f4! The only move, but good enough to maintain

the balance.

a b c d e f g h

1 I . .. i.e6 12.@bl The main move according to theory. White

has also tried: l 2.a3 tiia2t

I had found this idea and intended to offer it as a novelty, but before I could do so, it appeared in a game.

1 3.tiixa2 j,xa2

25.Wxf4 Wf5t 26.Wxf5 gxf5 27.ba7 he5 a b c d e f g h 28.@c2 f4 14.j,h6

Threatening 29 . . . j,g6t.

29.:g7h4 i.g6t 30.@b3 :gc6 31 .:gel i.f7t 32.@c2 i.g6t=

B333) I I .tiih3

In my opinion this is the most serious continuation.

I also analysed other moves here: 14.tiif4 tiid5! Black has a good game. 14.Wc2 Wd5 1 5.tiif4 (or 1 5.Ei:d3 j,c4 16.Ei:c3 j,xfl 17.Ei:xfl c6 with equal play) 1 5 ... Wb3 l 6.j,d3 Ei:fd8= Black shouldn't experience any problems once the queens come off.

14 . . . Wd7 1 5.j,xg7 \tixg7 16.Wc2 j,g8 White was threatening to trap the bishop with 17.b3.

Chapter 2 - 3.f3 35

17.tt:lf4 llld? 1 8.tt:lxd5 �xd5 1 9.�c5 �xc5t 20.dxc5 �fd8

Black had the better endgame in the game Vitiugov - Wang Yue, Ningbo (rapid) 20 10.

12 ••• 'l1;Yd7 12 . . . tt:lc4 was played in Av. Bykhovsky -

Golod, Tel Aviv 200 l , but it is inaccurate: 13.ixc4!N ixc4 14.b3 if7 1 5 .ih6 White clearly holds the initiative.

13.t!Jf4

1 5.ib5!

This tricky move is stronger than 1 5.d5 ixe5 1 6.axb4?! axb4 1 7.tt:l b5 �a5 1 8.ixb6 cxb6 19.�xb4 �fa8, which was good for Black in Motylev - Svidler, Wijk aan Zee 2007.

1 5 ... c6 After 1 5 ... �c8?! White can accept the piece sacrifice: 1 6.axb4 axb4 1 7. tLl ce2 Black doesn't have the same coordination as in Motylev - Svidler, and White is clearly better here.

16.d5! ixe5 1 6 . . . cxb5 1 7.ixb6 ixe5 is just a transposition.

1 7.ixb6 cxb5 1 8.�hel if6

1 9.id4! Black's extra pawn is absolutely irrelevant, and meanwhile his pieces are badly coordinated. 1 9 .axb4? would be a serious mistake: 1 9 . . . axb4 20.tt:lce2 �d6! White is facing a dangerous attack.

1 9 . . . ixd4 20.�xd4 tt:la6 2 1 .d6! �xd6? Black had to try: 2 1 . . .exd6 22.tt:lfd5 ixd5 23.�xd5t �f7 24.tt:lxb5 tt:lc7 25.tt:lxc7 �xc7 26.h4! White is not even obliged to regain the pawn. Black's position remains unpleasant.

22.tt:lcd5 ixd5 23.tt:lxd5 White had a winning attack in Bitan -

Vokarev, Bhubaneswar 20 10 .

I4.h4

36 Early Deviations

I also examined: 14.tt:lxe6 Wxe6 1 5 .a3 (not 1 5 .h4? ixe5+) 1 5 . . . a5 1 6.f4 c5 1 7.Wcl tt:l4d5 1 8.tt:lxd5 Wxd5 1 9.dxc5 We4t 20.Wa2 Elxdl 2 1 .Wxdl Wxe3 22.cxb6 Wxf4 23.Wd5t Wh8 24.Wxb7 Eld8 25 .Wc7 Wd4 26.b7 ixe5 27.Wc3 We4 28.Wc8 Wd4= Of course this line is not all forced, but it is a good illustration of the possibilities in the position.

14 ... .if7 Black has no time for 14 . . . tt:l c4 1 5 .ixc4

ixc4, since after 1 6.b3 if7 17.tt:la4!± he is facing concrete problems.

We shall now follow the game Salem - So, Olongapo City 2010, which reached this position via a different move order.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

15 . .th5?! White should also avoid 1 5 .h5?! g5!+ but he

has two better options:

1 5 .Wel tt:la4 1 6.b3 tt:lxc3t 1 7.Wxc3 a5 1 8.i.c4 e6 1 9.Elcl ifB The position is roughly level.

1 5 .i.e2 a5 We have a double-edged position, which I reckon is balanced. For example: 1 6.g4 fxg4 1 7.fxg4 Wc6 18 .a3 ixe5 1 9.i.b5 Wf3 20.i.e2 (20.Elhfl Wxg4 2 1 .i.e2 Wc8 leaves White two pawns down for nothing) 20 .. . Wc6 2 1 .i.b5= White does not have anything better than repeating moves.

15 ... c6 16 . .ie2 c5! 17.e6 ix.e6 18.dxc5 hc3 19.bxc3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

19 ... �a4! The key move; Black seizes the initiative.

20.�xdSt �hd8 2Uhd8t @f7 22JH8t No better is: 22.cxb4 Wxa2t 23.Wcl tt:ld5!

Despite his material advantage, White is in a difficult situation.

22 ... @xfS 23.llixe6t @gs 24.cxb4 �xb4t 25.@c2 llld5

Black has a powerful attack.

Conclusion I heartily recommend 3 . . . d5 as a suitably combative response to 3.f3. Black must expect to be subjected to a rather scary-looking kingside attack in several lines in this chapter, but provided he is well-prepared, I believe he can face such attacks with confidence and obtain ample counter-chances on the queenside.

In the main line of 4.cxd5 tt:lxd5 5.e4 tt:lb6 6.tt:lc3 i.g7 7.i.e3 0-0 8.Wd2 tt:lc6 9.0-0-0 I have decided to advocate the fashionable 9 . . . f5 thrust. This has scored well up to now, and I see no reason why it should not continue to do so.

Fianchetto Systems

A) 4.dS B) 4.i.g2 dS

Bl) S.b3 B2) S.�b3 B3) S.�a4

A) after 7 .i.g2

a b c d e f g h 7 . . . \Wa5!

Rare Lines

Variation Index 1 .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.g3

3 ... c6

B l ) after 6.bxc4

a b c d e f g h 6 .. . eS!

B2) after 9.i.xdS

a b c d e f g h 9 .. . tllc6!

38 39 39 40 41

38 Fianchetto Systems

I .d4 tlJf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

This continuation really caused me a headache, especially taking into account that I recommended this system for White in my earlier book, Grandmaster Repertoire - J.d4 Volume Two. Finally I came to the decision to offer readers the very solid system featuring the moves . . . c6 and . . . d5. Some of my friends advised me to give another system, where Black plays . . . d5 without . . . c6, and recaptures on d5 with his knight. There were many interesting ideas played in this line at the latest Olympiad, but I still adhere to the view that White has good chances of a slight advantage.

3 ... c6 It is essential to play this move straight away,

because if Black delays it for a single move, White will get the chance to play 5.e4.

White's fundamental decision when facing . . . c6 and . . . d5 is whether to exchange pawns on d5. The lines with an early exchange will be covered in Chapter 7, after we first deal with various other options. In this chapter we examine A) 4.d5 and B) 4.i.g2, before turning to 4.tt:l f3 in Chapters 4 to 6.

A) 4.d5

White unequivocally prevents Black playing . . . d5. However the text has obvious drawbacks;

it uses an important tempo and it opens up the long diagonal, allowing Black to become very active.

4 •.• cxd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.tlJc3 i.g7 7.i.g2 �a5! A key move, which disrupts White's normal

development. After 7 . . . 0-0 8.tt:lf3 White completes his development and can even fight for the advantage in a complex game.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

8.i.d2 This looks a bit awkward, but White faces

some difficulties after the natural: 8.e4 ig4!

9.tt:lge2N White cannot play 9.f3? in view of the tactical blow 9 . . . tt:lxe4 and . the white position collapses: 1 0.fxg4 (or 1 0.°1Wa4t 'Wxa4 1 1 .tt:lxa4 id7!-+) 1 0 . . . tt:lxc3 1 1 .Wd2

Chapter 3 - Rare Lines 39

Wc5 Black had a decisive advantage in Graf - Yandemirov, Omsk 1996. 9.Wb3 runs into 9 ... lt:Ja6! and Black intends . . . lt:Jc5 next, while the b7-pawn is untouchable: 1 0.Wxb?? l'l:b8 1 1 .Wc6t id? 12.Wc4 ib5 1 3.Wd4 lt:Jb4-+

9 ... ixe2 1 0.�xe2 White's problem is that 1 0.Wxe2 can be met by: 1 0 .. . lt:Jxd5! 1 I .Wb5t Wxb5 1 2.lt:Jxb5 lt:Jb4! 1 3.0-0 lt:J8a6 Black remains with an extra pawn.

10 ... lt:Jbd? With the white king on e2, there is no doubt

that Black has a very good position.

8 ... 0-0 9.e3 White has problems completing his

development, as the vulnerability of his d-pawn renders moves like 9.lt:Jf3 and 9.lt:Jh3 impossible. He has also tried:

9.e4 lt:Jbd7 1 0.lt:Jge2 lt:Je5 1 1 .0-0 ig4 1 2.ie3 (or 12.f3 id? 13.iel Wa6 and Black has the initiative) 1 2 . . . lt:Jc4 1 3.icl l'l:fc8 White was in trouble in Psakhis - Veingold, Tallinn 1 983.

9.Wb3 as usual allows Black to get his knight to c5 with tempo: 9 . . . lt:J a6 1 0.lt:Jf3 id? 1 1 .0-0 lt:Jc5 1 2.Wc2 l'l:fc8 Black was better in Kornev - Yandemirov, Saratov 2006.

9 ••• tlibd7 10.tlige2 tli e5 1 1 .0-0 tlic4

Black's play is logical and simple.

12 . .icl .ig4 13.�b3 l:Uc8 14.tlid4 .id? 15.l:�dl l:fab8 16.h3

We have been following Korchnoi - Geller, Moscow 1 97 1 , and now Black should have played:

1 6 ... �c5N With . . . b5 coming next, Black has a fine

game.

B) 4 . .ig2 d5

a b c d e f g h

White now has many options, and we shall look at Bl) 5.b3, B2) 5.�b3 and B3) 5.'Wa4. The most common moves, 5 .lt:Jf3 and 5.cxd5, are covered in the following chapters, while 5 .lt:Jd2 ig7 6.lt:Jgf3 0-0 7.0-0 transposes to Chapter 5.

Bl) 5.b3

Not the most popular move here, but it has nevertheless been employed in almost fifty games.

5 ... dxc4! Black seizes the chance to take advantage

of White's slightly unusual move order. After 5 . . . ig7 White can play either 6.lt:Jf3 or


6.�b2 0-0 7.tll f3, both of which transpose to Chapter 4.

6.bxc4 e5! A fantastic idea! It is not often in the Griinfeld

that Black creates the option of developing his dark-squared bishop on the a3-f8 diagonal.

Initially my intention was to suggest: 6 . . . c5 7.tll f3 (after 7.d5 tllxd5! White cannot capture the knight, as he would then lose material to 8 . . . �g7) 7 . . . �g7 8.�b2 Wb6 9.Wb3 tlle4 1 0.e3 0-0 1 1 .0-0 tll c6 Play has transposed into line B2 in Chapter 4.

s i, �.i.�9� �·,,� ,,, , ,/,� ,,�� ,, : '�f��-f� 5 ��- � 4 ��id '�� 3 �� ,�� mef '0w 2 �, ��';; ��J�,,�J� 1 met:J�V� � �

a b c d e f g h

7.tllf3?! I think White would be better off

playing 7.d5 cxd5 8.cxd5 �b4t and now sacrificing a pawn with: 9.�d2 tllxd5 1 0.°'1Wb3 �xd2t 1 1 .tllxd2 White has reasonable compensation, but he is not really fighting for an advantage.

7 •.. exd4 8.Wxd4 Wxd4 9.tllxd4 i.g7 10.tlld2

White should have preferred to play 1 O.�b2, although 1 O . . . tll fd7 is still excellent for Black.

10 .•• tllfd? 1 l .e3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

This was played in Schiller - Siefring, e-mail 2003. There was no reason for Black refraining from the following:

1 1 . • • c5N 12.tllb5 hal 13.tllc?t Wd8 14.tllxa8 tlla6

With his knight stuck on a8, White is in a very dangerous situation.

B2) 5.°'1Wb3 i.g7 6.tllc3

This looks very tempting, since it would appear that Black has to decide what to do about the attack on his d5-pawn. Instead 6.tllf3 0-0 7.0-0 would transpose to Chapter 6.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

6 ... 0-0!

Chapter 3 - Rare Lines 41

I t transpin;s that Black i s not obliged to make an immediate decision about the d5-pawn, but can temporarily sacrifice it.

7.cxd5 Obviously 7.ctJf3 'IWbG 8.0-0 is another

transposition to Chapter 6.

7 ... cxd5 8.llJxd5 llJxd5 9.ixd5

8 � �E A � ��· .ES. ,. , .lL �JS� �§V� 7 :61_ ;� - - - - -%--1y,m • 6 "•:-� "•!� : �.-�.·� 3 '�"-- - -%� �, �"'""��mW' 'm'-' 2 �j[J��p ��Jtl,, ,,/j[J 1 � � � Wn

a b c d e f g h

9 ... llJc6! This is an important moment; Black must

make use of his lead in development by playing actively. Hurrying to regain the pawn is not so good: 9 . . . .ixd4 10 . .ihG! 'IWaSt 1 1 .lt>fl .ig7 1 2 . .ixg7 lt>xg7 13 . .ixb7 White ends up winning a pawn, and Black's compensation is questionable, Carnevali - A. Fernandez, Piriapolis 1987.

10.ixc6 White cannot play 1 0.ctJf3? in view of

1 0 . . . ctJaS 1 1 .'IWbS aG and he loses a piece.

10 ... bxc6 1 1 .llJf3 I also examined l 1 . .ie3. Black has the strong

response: 1 1 . . .cS! 1 2.dxcS 'IWaSt 13 . .id2 '1Wxc5 14.Ei:cl '1Wf5 White faces a hard time, with so much open space for the black bishops.

1 1 ...ih3 12.llJg5

In Almeida Saenz - Ruiz Gonzalez, Mexico 1 996, White tried the ugly 1 2.Ei:gl ; Black should simply have replied 1 2 . . . .ig4!N with the better chances.

12 ... ig2 13,gg1 id5 14.YNd3 YNb6 Black's develops his initiative with natural

moves.

15.llJf3 gfd8 16.@fl c5!+ White was in trouble in Kalinin - Gobet,

Thessaloniki (ol) 1 988.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B3) 5.YNa4

a b c d e f g h

This unexpected queen sortie is not as strange as it looks at first sight, and it has been employed by such opening experts as Grischuk and Tkachiev. The idea of the move is obvious; White wants to force Black to clarify the situation with the d5-pawn, and after the obvious 5 . . . dxc4 White will obtain a spatial superiority in the centre.

5 ... llJfd7!? This seems to be an easy way to equalize;

Black's idea is simply to maintain the d5-pawn.

6.cxd5 llJb6 7.YNdl The alternative is:


7.Wb3 cxd5 8.tt:Jc3 tt:J c6 This symmetrical position is pretty harmless, as shown in the following encounter:

9.e3 I also briefly examined other continuations: 9.l2Jf3 j,g? 1 0.0-0 j,g4 l l .j,e3 j,xf3! l 2.j,xf3 e6 Black has a comfortable game. 9.tt:Jxd5?! tt:Jxd4 1 0.Wd3 j,g? White's pieces lack coordination.

9 . . . j,g? 1 0.l2Jge2 e6 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2.Ei:dl j,d?=

The position is level, Bocharov - Sturua, Abu Dhabi 2009.

7 ... cxd5 s.lt)f3 .ig7 9.0-0 0-0 10.b3 li)c6 1 1 ..ib2 .if5

12.h3?! This is already a slight inaccuracy; l 2.e3

would keep the position balanced.

12 ... Wfd? 13.'itih2 .ie4! Black starts to take over the initiative.

14.li)bd2 iUdS 15.li)eS Le5 16.li)xe4 i.xd4 17.i.xd4 dxe4 1 8.Lb6 axb6 19.Wfxd7 �xd7 20.Le4 �d2;

Black clearly had the better endgame in Grachev - Khismatullin, Dagomys 20 1 0.

Conclusion Black should not be unduly concerned about the early deviations for White that we have looked at in this chapter. The best White can expect to achieve is a transposition to the main lines covered in the following chapters, while in some lines, such as B l ) 5 .b3 dxc4! 6.bxc4 e5!, Black can even seize the initiative at a very early stage.

Fianchetto Systems 5.b3

Variation Index 1 .d4 llif6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 c6 4.llif3 d5 5.b3 i.g7 6.i.g2

A) 7.i.b2 B) 7.0-0 dxc4 8.bxc4 c5

Bl) 9.e3

6 ... 0-0

B2) 9.i.b2 �b6 10.�b3 llie4 1 1 .e3 llic6 12.llie5 llid6 B21) 13.llid2 B22) 13.llixc6

A) after 1 2.i.xg7

s XaI.i.; J ?B9 1 liR Ri�i 6 R R Bi � s � •'S)R R 4 •8R R � 3 � R RtiJ� 2 8 R R 8 B�� I S% �'if= � .s

a b c d e f g h 1 2 .. . li:le3!

B l ) after 1 1 .11fl'e2 B22) after 19.li:lb3

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h l l . . . cxd4N 19 . . . Wb4N

44 45 45 47 47 48

I .d4 tiJf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 c6 4.tiJf3 d5 5.b3 This is the line that I recommended for White

in Grandmaster Repertoire - J.d4 Volume Two. Since then, theory has developed considerably, and Black has found some interesting new ideas.

5 ... i.g7 6.i.g2 White can also play 6.ib2 0-0 7.ig2, which

is examined in line A.

6 ... 0-0 Another possible move order is: 6 . . . dxc4

7.bxc4 c5 8.ib2 Wb6 9.Wb3 llle4 1 0.e3 0-0 1 1 .0-0 Play has transposed to line B2.

White now chooses between A) 7.i.b2 and B) 7.0-0.

A) 7.i.b2

White's aim is to avoid problems on the long diagonal, but I have nevertheless found an interesting counter for Black.

7 ... dxc4 8.bxc4 c5!?

9.d5 This is White's only independent try, made

possible by the early development of his queen's bishop. Otherwise 9.0-0 is just a transposition to B2.

9 ... e6 Black's only sensible idea is to undermine

the white centre as quickly as possible.

10.tiJc3 I also analysed:

1 0.lllh4 This attempt to hold the centre allows Black serious counterplay.

1 o . . . exd5 1 1 .cxd5

s Eatt.� ��-1 �.-., ,/. • • Y.�· 6 _ J.�.�.,r� 5 ��'/ ,,� 4 ��" >.��

3 ��wt/''' ' ' ��/;;�� -:;,{ , %� <;( 2 8 � � 8 1�.i.1� ��;�- '-� -� a b c d e f g h

1 l . . .g5 ! 1 2.lllf3 lllxd5 Black may also go for a queen swap: 12 . . . Wxd5 1 3.Wxd5 lllxd5 14.ixg7 <±>xg7 1 5 .lllxg5 lll b4 1 6.tll a3 lll 8c6 With his healthy queenside majoriry, Black cannot be worse.

1 3.ixg7 <±>xg7 14.0-0 White has a certain amount of compensation for the pawn, due to the slightly exposed black king, but I prefer Black's position.

14 . . . h6 1 5 .h4 1 5 .lllxg5 is worse: 1 5 . . . tll b4! 1 6.a3 hxg5 17.axb4 Wxdl 1 8 .Elxdl cxb4 1 9.Eld4 a5 20.Elxb4 Eld8! White is in trouble.

1 5 . . . lllc6 1 6.hxg5 hxg5 17.'tlffd2 Regaining the pawn does not solve White's problems: 17.lllxg5 Wxg5 1 8.Wxd5 (after 18 .ixd5? Elh8! it is slightly surprising that Black's attack is already winning) 1 8 . . . Wxd5 1 9.ixd5 lll b4 20.tll c3 lllx9.5 2 1 .lllxd5 ie6 White will have to fight to draw this endgame.

Chapter 4 - 5.b3 45

17 . . . g4 1 8.�h4 l2Jde7 1 9.Wcl Wd4 20 r:-. 3 We5+

. '1.J C

White does not have full compensation for the pawn.

10 ... exd5 l I .flixd5

.Of course 1 l .cxd5? l2Jxd5 just leaves Black

with an extra pawn.

1 1 . .. llixd5 12.J.xg?

8

f g h

The key move.

13.fxe3 'i!?xg? 14.0-0 '1We7i Black's superior pawn structure gives him

the better chances.

B) 7.0-0 dxc4 8.bxc4 c5

This constitutes one of the most cha!! . "d .

engmg I eas against the white set-up. There are now a couple of ways for White to support his cl-pawn: Bl) 9.e3 and B2) 9 . .ib2.

Bl) 9.e3 llic6 IO • .ib2 '1Wb6!

l l .'1We2 Other options are:

1 1 .i'fefcl cxd4N This is an improvementon: 1 1 . . .�f5 1 2.l2Jbd2 l2J d7 1 3.l2J b3 l2Jb4?! 14.dxc5 �xb2 1 5 .Wxb2 l2Jxc5 1 6.l2Jxc5 Wxc5 17.l2Jd4± White had the better chances in Badea M I h B . 1

- ano ac e, a1 e Tusnad 2005.

12.l2Jxd4 Black has no problems after 1 2.exd4 �f5 1 3.l2Jbd2 l'!ac8.

1 2 . . . �d?! 13 .l2Jd2 1 3.l2Jc3 l'!ac8 looks great for Black, since the c4-pawn becomes a serious target.

1 3 . . . l'!ac8 �ite . might obtain a slight pull after

immediate simplifications: 1 3 . . . l2Jxd4 14.�xd4 We? 1 5 .Wa3 �c6 16 � 6 b 6 l ? 'l"i b +

. .li!.XC XC

.1=1a 1 = 14.l'!b l Wa6

14 . . . Wc?!? 1 5 .�c3 l2Jxd4 1 6.exd4 b6 also looks reasonable for Black.

1 5 .�c3 l2Jxd4 1 6.exd4


Black has a comfortable game after l 6.i.xd4 i.c6, as he manages to neutralize the pressure along the h l-a8 diagonal.

1 6 . . . b5!

1 I .iWb3 This has occurred only once, in Maslov - Zaper, Kastela 2005. I have found a convincing continuation for Black:

1 1 . . .llla5N 1 2.Wxb6 axb6 13 .lllbd2 �d8! This is a very accurate move; the more natural 1 3 . . . i.f5 allows 14.d5 e6 1 5 .�ac l , with a complex game.

14.�fcl I also analysed: 14.d5 e6 1 5 .e4 ( 1 5 .dxe6 i.xe6 is clearly better for Black) 1 5 . . . lllxe4 (or 1 5 . . . exd5 16.exd5 b5! 17.cxb5 �xd5!? and Black is at least equal) 1 6.i.xg7 lllxd2 1 7.i.f6 lllxf3t

1 8.i.xf3 �d6 Despite the two bishops providing some compensation, White is fighting to equalize. 14.�fel llle8 Black will continue with . . . llld6 with good play.

14 . . . i.f5 1 5 .lllb3 llld7 Black has decent play against the white

pawns.

1 1. .. cxd4N An important improvement. Black found

himselfunder pressure after: 1 1 . . .llle4 1 2.lllc3! lllxc3 1 3.i.xc3 cxd4 14.exd4 ( 14.lllxd4 may be more accurate) 14 . . . lllxd4 1 5.i.xd4 i.xd4 16.�ab l;:!; Kempinski - Dolmatov, Istanbul 2003.

12.exd4 12 .lllxd4 is well met by: 12 . . . i.g4! 13.f3

i.d7 Provoking f2-f3 significantly reduces the pressure on the h l -a8 diagonal. 14.llla3 �ac8 1 5 .�ab l Wa6 16.md l �fd8 Black has the more comfortable position.

12 ... �g4 13.d5

14 . .txf3 tlJd4 15.hd4 ti'xd4 16.tiJd2 tiJd7

Chapter 4 - 5 .b3 47

17.�acl llle_5 The game is fairly level, for instance:

18.�fdl �ac8 19.�e4 Wb2! 20.�bl Wxe2 21.ixe2 h6=

B2) 9.i.h2 Wb6

a b c d e f g h

10.Wb3 Against 1 0.Wcl Black can equalize with

natural moves: 1 0 . . . cxd4 l l .CDxd4 CDc6 12.CDxc6 (I also examined 1 2.l"ldl id7 1 3.CDa3 l"lfd8 14.l"lb l Wa6 with equality) 12 . . . bxc6 l 3.CDd2 ie6 ( 13 . . . if5!? deserves attention) 14.l"lb l Wa6 1 5 .ia3 l"lfe8 16.l"lb3 CDd7 l 7.Wc2 Goldin - Yandemirov, Elista 1 995. Now the simple l 7 . . . CDe5N 1 8.l"lcl l"lad8 would be fine for Black.

10 ... llle4 A popular alternative is 1 0 . . . CDfd?, but after

the strong l l .CDc3! White has pressure.

1 1 .e3 After l l .CDc3 CDxc3 12.ixc3 Calotescu _ �ara, Kiskunhalas 1 995, Black can play very

simply: 1 2 . . . cxd4N 13 .Wxb6 axb6 14.ixd4 (after l 4.lDxd4?! l"la4! White is in trouble) l4 . . . CDcG l 5.ixg7 Wxg7 16.l"lfbl l"la6 Black is even slightly better in the endgame.

1 1...lllc6 12.�eS

The only way to fight for an advantage.

12 ... �d6

B21) 13.llld2 cxd4

Black failed to equalize in a recent game: 1 3 . . . ie6 14.ixc6! bxc6 1 5 .dxc5 Wxc5 l 6.id4 Wa5 17.CDxc6 We? 1 8.ixg? Wxg7 19 .wc3t Wg8 20.lD

_a5 �!�ck did not have enough for

the pawn m Gm - P.H. Nielsen, Amsterdam 20 1 0.

14.exd4


14 ... i.e6 Here I found the interesting 14 ... lt:l f5!?N,

after which play may continue: 1 5 .lt:lxc6 bxc6 1 6. Wxb6 axb6 1 7 .ixc6 :E'i:a7 Black has sacrificed a pawn, but his pieces are so active that White cannot hold onto the extra pawn. 1 8.lt:lf3 lt:ld6 1 9.:E'i:fcl :E'i:c7 20.ib5 ie6 2 1 .llle5 :E'i:fc8=

15.�fcl I checked a couple of other moves:

1 5 .:E'i:fel lt:lxe5 ( 1 5 . . . ixe5 16.dxe5 lllf5!? is also worth considering) 16.dxe5 lt:lxc4! The easiest route to equality. 1 7.lt:lxc4 ixc4 1 8.Wxc4 Wxb2 1 9.:E'i:abl 'Wd2 20.:E'i:edl :E'i:ac8=

1 5 .ixc6 bxc6 16.lt:lxc6 (after 1 6.Wxb6 axb6 17.lt:lxc6 :E'i:fe8+ Black will regain the pawn with dividends) 1 6 . . . Wxc6 1 7.d5 :E'i:fb8! 1 8.dxc6 :E'i:xb3 19 .axb3 ixb2 20.:E'i:a6 Wf8 Black has the better chances.

a b c d e f g h

15 .. J:�fcS 16.Wi'xb6 White has tried 1 6.c5, but it's quite harmless:

16 . . . ixb3 17 .cxb6 ia4! Black keeps everything under control. 1 8.bxa7 :E'i:xa7 1 9.lt:ldc4 This was Zhou Weiqi - Ding Liren, Danzhou 20 1 0, now simply 1 9 . . . lt:lxe5 20.lt:lxe5 ic2 gives Black the more pleasant position.

16 ... axb6 17.f4 tlJxe5

A draw was now agreed in Jakovenko -Svidler, Dagomys 20 10 , although Black might have played on for a bit.

18.dxe5 tlJxc4 19.tlJxc4 �xc4 20.a3 White clearly has compensation for the

pawn, but it may still take some effort to secure the draw.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B22) 13.tlJxc6

a b c d e f g h

This was my recommendation in Grandmaster Repertoire - l .d4 Volume Two.

13 ... bxc6 14.dxc5 Taking the pawn by 14.Wxb6 axb6 1 5 .ixc6

is clearly worse for White.

Chapter 4 - 5 .b3 49

17.i.e4 cxd4 1 8.exd4 i.xd4 l 9.a4 (worse is 19.ltJd2 i.a6 20.Elfel i.c3!+) 1 9 . . . Eld8 20.Ela3 i.a6 2 1 .Elcl f5 Black has strong pressure.

14 ... �xc5 15.hg7 'itixg7 16.etJd2 In my earlier book I stopped at this

position, considering it slightly favourable for White. However, it was tested at the recent Olympiad:

16 ... i.e6 17.gfcl A serious alternative is l 7.�a4, when Black

should react with: 17 . . . Elfc8 (after 17 . . . ltJxc4 1 8.Elfcl ltJb6 19.Elxc5 ltJxa4 20.Elxc6± White retains some pressure) 1 8.Elfcl Elab8 1 9.ltJ b3 We5 20.Wxa? i.xc4 2 1 .ltJa5 Ela8 (also possible is 2 1 . . .i.d5 22.ltJxc6 i.xc6 23.i.xc6 Elb2 and Black has enough compensation for the pawn) 22.ltJxc6 Elxa7 23.ltJxe5 Elxa2 The draw is obvious.

17 ... gabS 18.�d.3 Black has no problems after: 1 8.Wc3t f6

1 9.ltJb3 (or 19 .Elc2 Elfc8 20.Elacl Wb4=) 19 ... Wxc4 20.Wa5 Wb4 2 1 .Wxa? Elb7=

18 ... gfcS 19.etJb3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 a b c d e f g h

This occurred in Laznicka - Svidler, KhantyMansiysk (ol) 20 10 , and now I found the following improvement:

19 ... �b4N In the game, Black faced real problems after:

19 . . . Wa3 20.c5 ltJb5 2 1 .We4!

20.�d4t 'itigS 21.�xa7 etJxc4 22.�c5 22.Wd4 c5 23.Wh4 f6 24.i.h3!? is an

interesting attempt, but Black can maintain equality: 24 . . . i.xh3 25.Elxc4 Wb5 26.Elacl i.e6 27.Elxc5 Elxc5 28.Elxc5 Wd3=

22 ... f6 23.gc2 I have been unable to find any way for White

to pose serious problems:

23.i.xc6 Wxc5 24.ltJxc5 i.f7 25.ltJ a6 Elb2 26.i.a4 Ela8 27.i.b3 Elxa6 28.i.xc4 i.xc4 29.Elxc4 Elaxa2=

23.i.h3 i.xh3 24.Elxc4 'Wxc5 25.ltJxc5 Elb2 26.a4 Eld8= (or 26 . . . Ela8=)

23 ... �xc5 24.etJxc5 etJa3! 25.gc3 gbl t 26.gxbl etJxbl 27.gc2 etJa3 28.gd2 i.c4 29.h4

Also completely equal is 29.Eld? �f7=.

29 ... @f7=

Conclusion If White opts for 5 .b3, then 7 . . . dxc4 8.bxc4 c5 is a challenging way for Black to increase his pressure down the al -h8 diagonal, even when White tries to neutralize this pressure with 7.i.b2. Throughout this chapter I have faced the somewhat tricky task of fighting against my own recommendations from Grandmaster Repertoire - J.d4 Volume Two. A particular case is B22) 1 3.ltJxc6, which I had assessed as favourable to White. However, in the light of my analysis of the recent game Laznicka - Svidler, I now feel that this line is entirely satisfactory for Black.

Fianchetto Systems a b c d e f g h

Rare Seventh Moves

Variation Index 1 .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 c6 4 . .ig2 d5 5.�f3 .ig7 6.0-0

A) 7.�a4 B) 7.�bd2 C) 7.�c3 dxc4

Cl) 8.e4 C2) 8.a4 C3) 8.�e5

A) after I 0 .i.f4

a b c d e f g h ! O . . . b6N

6 .. . 0-0

B) note to 1 2.�b3

a b c d e f g h 1 4 . . . a5!N

C3) note to 9.f4

51 51 55 55 56 57

Chapter 5 - Rare Seventh Moves 5 1

1 .d4 tlif6 2�c4 g6 3.g3 c6 4.i.g2 d5 5.tlif3 i.g7 6.0-0 0-0

Black has a serious alternative in 6 . . . dxc4, but I have always preferred to castle here.

8 .i �.i.� ��· 7 lf•.;-,,,,,/,_.,y,� ' 6 "•!• "•;n� �� /,, , , , ,� : �.f��-�. 3 �� ,_ , , ,/,��' 2 fn�•fn'J:n 1 �lLSDiBim--- -

a b c d e f g h

We shall examine A) 7.W/a4, B) 7.tlibd2 and C) 7.tlic3 in this chapter. Of the other seventh moves, 7.b3 transposes to the previous chapter, while 7.Wb3 and 7.cxd5 are covered in the following two chapters.

A) 7.W/a4

When one of my students mentioned this move, I was surprised to discover that it has occurred in almost a hundred games. After checking all the options, the one I like most is:

7 ... tlifd7!? This somewhat resembles the variation with

5.Wa4 tt:Jfd7 that we covered as line B3 in Chapter 3.

8.Wlc2 The most challenging move. Other options

are:

8.cxd5 cxd5 9.lt:Jc3 tt:Jb6 1 0.Wdl tt:Jc6 1 l .i.f4 i.f5 12.:gcl :gc8 Blackhad comfortable equality in Pigusov - Huzman, Sverdlovsk 1 987.

8 .lt:Ja3?! results in a loss of time: 8 ... tt:J b6 9.Wc2 i.f5 1 o.W c3 i.e4! With his knight having gone to a3, White is unable to attack this bishop. 1 l .c5 lt:J6d7 1 2.i.f4 b6 13.cxb6 Wxb6 1 4.i.e3 c5 The opening had clearly turned out in Black's favour in Grigorian - Sveshnikov, Moscow 1 973.

8 . • • tlib6 9.c5 tli6d7 10.i.f4

10 . . • b6N In Sargissian - Volokitin, Germany 2008,

Black carried out the natural . . . e5 break, but failed to equalize: 1 0 . . . :ge8 1 1 .lt:J bd2 e5 1 2.dxe5 tt:Jxe5 13.lt:Jxe5 i.xe5 14.i.xe5 :gxe5 1 5 .e4 dxe4 16.Wc3! We? 17.lt:Jxe4 White has an initiative.

1 1 .cxb6 axb6 12.tlic3 tlif6 13.E:acl i.5 14. Wlb3 ttJ bd7

The position is unclear.

B) 7.tlibd2

This is not a particularly dangerous system, but it is quite playable and Black must know exactly how to react.

7 ... i.5


8.b3 White has several alternatives:

8.e3 seems to me in the spirit of this line, but I rather like the black side of chis recent example: 8 ... tllbd7 9.We2 Wa5 1 0.!'i:el !'i:ac8 1 1 .a3 Wa6 12.h3 c5! Black had easily solved his opening problems, and soon took over the initiative. 13 .g4 ie6 14.g5?! lllh5 1 5 .cxd5 Wxe2 1 6.!'i:xe2 ixd5+ Kurajica - Efimenko, Sarajevo 20 10.

8.Wb3 is not uncommon, but after 8 . . . Wb6 White has a poor version of the Wb3-line (see Chapter 6), since the knight is clearly misplaced on d2. For example: 9.Wxb6 axb6 1 0.b3 llle4 (this is fine, but Black could also consider the more active 1 0 . . . b5!?) 1 1 .ib2 !'i:d8 1 2.!'i:fdl lllxd2 13 .tllxd2 dxc4 14.lllxc4 b5 1 5.tlle3 ie6 1 6.!'i:d2 tll a6 Y2-Y2 Orso - Barczay, Kecskemet 1 979.

8 .tllh4 ie6 The bishop is quite well placed on e6, whereas the white knight is a bit misplaced: 9.b3 a5 1 0.ib2 a4 1 1 .e3 This was Hough -Khachiyan, Pasadena 2008, and now I like 1 1 . . .Wa5N 12 .ia3 !'i:e8 13 .tllhf3 tllbd7, and Black may even play . . . b5 next.

8 ... c!be4 9.�b2 Wf aS!?

8 �;tx� ��,J�;j! 7 � · - �� · � · 6 , , , , ,/,m i�1f ,,/,m,,�� 5 � m • m.tm 4 ,,, , , � 8 �4al� -3 ��• 'aPs' ��,� ��:'//,/, ��,�,, , ,%�r00 2 8 � �� 8 ��8 1 �,,,,,�•v•�=,,, ,

a b c d e f g h

This looks slightly unnatural in this line, but it is quite popular and has been played by such strong players as Timman, Gligoric and Hore. Black's idea is to provoke the advance of the white queenside pawns, and then later obtain counterplay against them.

10.a3 A natural response to the black queen sortie,

but there are also some other reasonable options:

1 O.e3 tlld7 1 1 .tllxe4 1 1 .!'i:e 1 was tried in Shengelia - Kratschmer, Oberwart 2005 , and Black now missed the nice: 1 1 .. .lllec5! 12.ifl tlld3 1 3.ixd3 ixd3 14.e4 e6 1 5 .!'i:e3 dxe4 1 6.lllxe4 ixe4 17.!'i:xe4 !'i:fd8 (or 17 . . . b5!?) The position is level.

1 l . . .ixe4 12.We2 !'i:ad8

Chapter 5 - Rare Seventh Moves 53

13.Ei:fcl Other moves: The typical 1 3.ih3 can be met by: 1 3 . . . ixf3 14.Wxf3 dxc4 1 5 .bxc4 e5 Black has a very comfortable game. 13.cxd5 Wxd5!? (there is also nothing wrong with 13 . . . cxd5=) 14.Ei:fd l Wh5 15 .1"i:d2 1"i:fe8 16.Ei:adl Bolbochan - Darga, Moscow 1 956. Now the simple 1 6 . . . lllb6N 17 .h3 e6 would give Black a very sound position.

1 3 . . . Ei:fe8 14.ic3 Wa6 This is a nice square for the black queen.

1 5 .ifl dxc4 16.bxc4 P. Nikolic - Dorfman, Germany 2003, was agreed drawn here, but play could have continued with the simple and strong:

1 6 . . . e5! Black has good play.

1 0.Wel lllxd2 l 1 .Wxd2 Or 1 1 .lllxd2 lll d7 1 2.e4 dxe4 1 3 .lllxe4 Wxel 14.Ei:fxel ixe4 ( 14 . . . a5!?) 1 5 .Elxe4 e6 1 6.Ei:e2 lll f6 with equality, Byrne - Gligoric, Lugano 1 970.

1 1 . . .Wxd2 1 2.lllxd2 1"i:d8 It is hard to believe that White can fight for the advantage without queens.

1 3.e3 llla6 14.cxd5 cxd5 1 5 .ia3 Forintos - Soos, Polanica Zdroj 1 968, and now just:

1 5 . . . e6!N 1 6.Ei:fcl 1"i:ac8 17 .h3 Or 17.lllc4 if8.

17 . . . if8=

10 .Wcl llld7 1 1 .Eldl White has also tried 1 1 .lllxe4 ixe4 1 2.ih3, but after 1 2 ... ixf3! 1 3.exf3 e6 Black has no problems. Indeed, White must be careful to avoid being worse, for example: 14.Wc2 dxc4 1 5.bxc4 lll b6 16.a4 c5 Black was already better in Gyorkos - Groszpeter, Zalakaros 2005.

1 1 . . .ih6 12.e3 Ei:ac8

13 .lllxe4 13 .lllh4 does not cause Black any problems, as he can just reply 1 3 . . . ig4.

1 3 . . . ixe4 14.Wd2 14.ic3 Wa6 1 5.llle5 is more ambitious, but Black is still doing fine: 1 5 ... Ei:fd8 1 6.ixe4 dxe4 17 .lllxd7 1"i:xd7 1 8 .Wc2 f5 The game is balanced.

14 . . . Wxd2 1 5 .lllxd2 ixg2 1 6.<;tixg2 ig7 Without queens, the position is equal,

Averkin - Gufeld, Moscow 1 969.

lO ... liJd7 1 1 .b4 After 1 1 .Ei:cl I like 1 l . . .1"i:fc8!? 1 2.b4 Wd8

13 .Wb3 Todorcevic - Rodriguez Cespedes, Malaga 1 987, and now Black should continue with: 1 3 . . . lll df6N 14.Ei:fdl a5 (or 14 . . . lllxd2 1 5.lllxd2 a5) Black gets exactly what he was wanting, counterplay on the queenside.

1 1 ...'Wds I prefer this calm retreat to 1 1 . . .Wa6, where

the black queen can be a bit vulnerable. Play may continue: 1 2.Ei:cl ih6 ( 1 2 . . . lllb6 1 3 .c5 llla4 14.ial looks dubious for Black) 13 .e3 lllxd2 1 4.lllxd2 id3 1 5 .Wb3! ixfl 1 6.ixfl Wb6 17 .cxd5 cxd5 1 8.Wxd5 lll f6 Kir. Georgiev - Ftacnik, Varna 1 987, and after 19 .Wg2N 1"i:ac8 20.lllc4 White has good compensation for the exchange.

12.'Wb3 Other possibilities are:

1 2.:§cl b5!? l 3.cxd5 cxd5 14.a4 Neither 14.l2Je5 l2Jb6 nor 14.l2Jh4 l2Jb6 1 5.l2Jxf5 gxf5 give Black any problems.

a b c d e f g h 14 . . . a5!N

In this way, Black can even fight for the advantage; after 1 4 . . . bxa4 1 5.Wxa4 l2Jb6 1 6.Wa6 Wd7 Black had equalized in Tseshkovsky - Dvoretsky, Leningrad 1 97 4.

1 5 .axb5 Black obtains real pressure after 1 5 . bxa5 Wxa5 1 6.axb5 Wxb5.

1 5 ... axb4 1 6.Wb3 Wa5! 1 7.Wxd5 l2J b6 White is even slightly better after: 17 .. . Wa2?! 1 8.Wb3 Wxb3 1 9.l2Jxb3 2:%a2 20.ial l2J d6 2 1 .lLJfd2 lLJxb5 22.2:%c4!

1 8.Wb3 Wxb5+ White will have to show some accuracy in

order to hold the balance.

12.a4 Wb6!?N

Black starts concrete play on the queenside. There is a solid alternative in: 1 2 . . . l2J df6 1 3 .Wb3 Wd7 1 4.:§fd l ih3 1 5 .cxd5 ixg2 1 6.<;t>xg2 Wxd5 1 7.Wxd5 cxd5 With equality, Saidy - Gligoric, Los Angeles 1 974.

13 .Wb3 White cannot go for: 13.a5 Wxb4 14.ia3 Wc3!+

1 3 . . . c5! 14.dxc5 l2Jdxc5 1 5.Wa3 ixb2 1 6.Wxb2 a5 1 7.b5 :§fd8=

Black has a very sound position.

1 2.c5 It is hard to believe that this is a good idea. As White has released the tension in the centre, Black should start play on the queenside: 1 2 . . . b6!N (only 12 . . . l2Jxd2 has been played here) 13 .Wcl bxc5 14.dxc5 ( 14.bxc5 2:%b8 is excellent for Black) 14 . . . e5 1 5 .l2Jh4 l2Jxd2 1 6.Wxd2 ig4 1 7.h3 ie6 (or 17 . . . ih5!?) 1 8.f4 exf4 1 9.ixg7 <;t>xg7 20.Wxf4 Wf6 The position is unclear.

12 ... tllb6

13.cS This is forced, since 13.a4? runs into

13 . . . dxc4 14.l2Jxc4 ie6! and White loses material.

13 ... tlld? 14.a4

White has_also tried: 14J:l:fd 1 lllxd2 1 5 .lllxd2 Wt c7 l 6.e3 e5 (chis is very natural, but first playing 16 .. J'fad8 is also worth considering) 17.dxe5 ixe5 1 8 .e4 dxe4 1 9.lllxe4 ixe4 20.ixe4 :1'l:fe8 Black had reached comfortable equality in Ruck - Gonzalez Zamora, Koszeg 1 996.

14 ... ges 15.gfdl eS

C) 7. lll c3 dxc4

Taking the c-pawn makes a lot of sense once White has developed his queen's knight to c3; regaining the pawn will not be straightforward, and moreover . . . b5-b4 can be a useful resource for Black. White now chooses from Cl) 8.e4, C2) 8.a4 and C3) 8.llleS.

Cl) 8.e4 bS

This ensures chat White will not get the pawn back in the immediate future. In my opinion, Black has good chances of fighting for the advantage from this position.

9.gel Other options are:

9.Wie2 White is aiming to place his rook on d l , but before he can do so, Black creates concrete play on the queenside:

9 . . . b4 1 0.llla4

8 .1. •.t.� ��· 7 :6' � - --%-·Y,�· 6 %�T� - - %ar•��

�� ;/ ,,,� 5 ��':;��-':;��

4 Qj�� i �£!1: [3:i � � 3 ;; ;,�;;, , ;,·q)� �;,;, % �� -0£ - %� ,,, 2 t;if !lW<:� �i�!lJ;JB

� � � M � a b c d e f g h

1 0 . . . �a5!?N 10 ... ia6 1 1 .lllc5 ib5 has been played in a couple of games, but I believe that White could now obtain decent play for the pawn with: 12.a4N bxa3 1 3.:1'l:xa3 c3 14.llld3 cxb2 1 5.ixb2�

1 1 .lllc5 lllfd7 12.�xc4 12.lllxd7 lllxd7 leaves White without much compensation.

12 . . . lllxc5 13 .�xc5 �xc5 14.dxc5 llld7


It is clear that it is Black who is fighting for the advantage.

9.e5 ll'i d5 1 0.a4 ( 1 0.ll'ie4 Van Gool - Rendboe, Maastricht 20 1 0, is best met with 1 O . . . lt:'ia6 followed by . . . i'Nb6) 1 0 . . . b4 1 1 .lt:'ie4 a5 1 2.:!"lel ll'ia6 13 .i'Nc2 ll'ib6 14.id2 ie6 1 5.i'Nc l Aleksic - Dinic, Nis 1 995. Black should now play 1 5 . . . id5 with a clear edge; he need not fear 1 6.ih6 because 1 6 .. .f5 ! is a strong reply.

9 ... l!Ja6 10.l!Je5 .ib7 1 1.a4 b4 12.l!JblN An obvious improvement on the game

Bagaturov - Jojua, Izmir 2003: 1 2.ll'ia2? b3 13.ll'ic3 ll'ib4 14.ll'ixc4 White cannot do much against the knight coming to c2, so he tries an exchange sacrifice. 14 . . . ll'ic2 1 5.ie3 ll'ixal 1 6.i'Nxal lt:'ig4 17.e5 ll'ixe3 1 8 .fxe3 Here Black missed the strong: 1 8 . . . iaG!N 1 9.ll'ia3 (or 1 9.ll'id2 ixe5+) 1 9 . . . c5!+

12 ... l!Je8 13.l!Jxc4 .ixd4 14.ih6

Here I found an interesting exchange sacrifice.

14 ... l!Jc5 After 14 . . . ll'ig7 1 5.lt:'i bd2 ll'ic5 1 6.i'Nc2 White

has some compensation for the pawn.

15.ixf8 @xf8

I think that Black is doing very well, for example:

16.'Wc2 l!Jf6 Threatening . . . lt:'ig4.

17.if3 ia6 18.l!Jbd2 �b8 Black has excellent compensation.

C2) 8.a4 l!Ja6!

9.e4 Other attempts also fall short:

9.a5 ll'id5 1 0.i'Na4 lt:'i db4 1 1 .ll'ia2 Sinanan -A. Young, Internet 20 10, and here Black can play, for example: 1 1 . . .ll'ixa2 12.2"lxa2 i'Nd5! l 3.e3 Wb5 14.id2 :!"ld8 1 5.ic3 if5 I do not see any compensation for the pawn.

9.ll'ie5 is well met by: 9 . . . ll'ig4! 1 0.f4 ll'ib4 1 1 .h3 ll'ixe5 1 2.dxe5 i'Nb6t 1 3.'it>h2 a5 14.id2 :!"ld8+ Heinatz - Hirn, Germany 1 998.

9.h3 ll'id5 10 .e4 has occurred twice, and in both games Black exchanged knights, but I believe he should prefer: 1 O . . . lt:'idb4N l 1 ..ie3 ll'i d3 1 2.b3 ie6+


9 ... llJb4 10.llJeS ie6 10 . . . llleS!? is also worth considering.

1 I.ie3 llJd7 12.f4 llJxe5 13.dxeS YBaS!+ Hardie - Spiller, Newport 2004.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

C3) 8.llJeS llJg4

a b c d e f g h

An idea that we have already seen after 9. tLl e5 in C2 above.

9.f4 The main alternative is:

9.lllxg4 �xg4 1 0.h3 1 0.d5 cxd5 1 1 .Wxd5 Wxd5 12.�xd5 lllc6 13.�xc4 1 3 . . . Ei:ac8 14.�g2 Deutsch -Kwatschewsky, Austria 1 994. White has managed to regain the pawn, but the price has been high, and the black pieces are now much better coordinated. I believe that Black could now increase his pressure with: 14 . . . Ei:fdSN 1 5.f3 �f5 16.�b3 llla5!+

1 0 . . . �e6 1 1 .e3 White has some compensation, but 1t s hardly enough, and I definitely prefer Black. Here is one example of how play may go:

1 1 .. .Wd7 1 2.�h2 llla6 13.a3 Preventing . . . lllb4-d3.

13 . . . lllc7 14. llle4 Vierroth - Mueller, Bad Wildbad 1998. Now I like the simple:

8 � � � )�· 7 � · ·\W�i � i 6 - - - %8/i,,8.fB'iY,�

� � � � �.r��-�

� 3 � • � � � ,,%�,,, �

� %,,,, %�-,J--- - %y,,rn 2 J�

�1�v1w a b c d e f g h

14 . . . �d5N This allows White to exchange his knight for this bishop, but only at the cost of weakening the d4-pawn.

1 5 .lllc5 Wc8 16.e4 �e6 17.�e3 Ei:d8 Black has the advantage.

9 • • • llJa6! Although 9 . . . lllxe5 is more popular, I see

no reason for rushing to exchange, as White is short of useful moves.

10.e3 llJxeS 1 1 .fxeS llJ b4N This is an improvement on: 1 l . . .c5?! This

move increases the power of White's lightsquared bishop and is rarely a good idea in this line. 12.b3 cxb3 13 .axb3 lllb4 14.�a3 White had decent compensation for the pawn in I . Schneider - Karpatchev, Bad Woerishofen 2009.

12.b3 ie6 13.llJe4 llJd3 Black retains the better chances.

Conclusion Both 7.Wa4 and 7.tllbd2 can be categorized as solid, but not too dangerous, and Black can expect to equalize quite comfortably. By contrast, the more aggressive 7.lllc3 offers a pawn sacrifice, which I recommend Black to accept. Although White gets a certain amount of compensation in various lines, in none of them is it really enough.

Fianchetto Systems 7.�b3

a b c d e f g h

Variation Index 1 .d4 li)f6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 c6 4.i.g2 dS s.lt)f3 i.g7 6.0-0 0-0 7.VNb3

7 ... VNb6

A) 8.cS B) s.VNxb6 C) s.lt)c3 �ds

Cl) 9.cxdS C2) 9.i.f4 C3) 9.fNa3 C4) 9.�dl CS) 9.h3 C6) 9.cS

A) after 1 4.li:le l ?

a b c d e f g h 1 4 . . . b6N

C3) after 1 1 . WI a3

a b c d e f g h l l ... li:la6N

C6) after l 7.:1'1.a4

8 � �j_�� · 7 .�i·'i)·i· 6 .i. -i� 5 � � • • 4 �- �ttJ- � 3 � � • attJJ� 2 ��·�� ;.; �Af �q"I i� �q"mq

a b c d e f g h 1 7 .. . li:lfS!N

59 59 60 61 61 62 63 64 64

Chapter 6 - 7.'Wb3 59

1.d4 llif6 2.c, g6 3.g3 c6 4.J.g2 dS S.llif3 J.g7 6.0-0 0-0 7.�b3

Quite a popular line at GM-level.

7 ... �b6

a b c d e f g h

This is a thematic response to White's queen sortie in positions with a Slav pawn structure, and it works well for Black here. White's options are: the premature A) 8.cS, B) 8.�xb6 and C) 8.llic3.

A) 8.cS �xb3 9.axb3

I have developed a useful 'rule' for this pawn structure: if Black manages to stop White's dangerous idea of b4-b5, then he will have absolutely no problems.

9 ... llia6 Stopping White's only idea. Black will now

prepare to advance his e-pawn, which should give him chances to fight for the initiative.

10.llic3 llid7 1 1 .�a4 After 1 l .e4 dxe4 1 2.tt:Jxe4 Teske - Balinov,

Graz 1 9 96, simplest is the calm 1 2 . . . tt:Jf6N 13.ltJc3 tt:Jb4 and only Black can be better.

1 1 ... eS 12.e3 llic7 13.J.d2 e4

8 �-,,!·��-; 7 � • �'ll� i m i , , , , ,/,� /,, , , , ,� �� ,,,,,�� 6 !IA !i!i !i� : �.�Af•=• 3 � � � Wf!fi:1:JW� �%i'�''' ' ' '�-ef'' ' ' '"%i'ef''""%i'{0, 2 w� � w�..t.w� 1

�,,,, , /,.,,, ,,�·�=--,, a b c d e f g h

14.lliel? The closed pawn structure makes the

position fairly drawish, and 14.tt:Jg5 should allow White to maintain the balance, although he would still have to play accurately.

14 ... b6N This is an improvement on Ernst - I.:Ami,

Groningen 2003, and takes advantage of White's last move; the threat of ... J.a6 poses serious problems for White, due to the awkward placement of his minor pieces.

15.£3 exf3 16.llixf3 bxcS Black is just a pawn up.

B) 8. �xb6 axb6

a b c d e f g h

This is also a premature decision, since Black can use the semi-open a-file to generate play on the queenside.

9.cxd5 tl'lxd5! Black is already aspiring to an advantage;

he is not satisfied with the more symmetrical position after 9 . . . cxd5.

a b c d e f g h

10.e4 I O.lilc3? allows Black good play: 1 O . . . tt:lxc3

l l .bxc3 ie6 1 2.a3 tt:ld7 13 .lild2 b5 14.tt:le4 f5 1 5 .tt:lg5 ic4 Black was clearly better in Palme - Kraus, Kirchheim 1 947.

I O.id2 c5 (1 O ... b5 l 1 .tt:lc3 tt:l b6 also looks fine for Black, Lundvik - Eriksson, Sweden 2003) l l .e4 tt:lc7 12.ic3 tt:lb5! 1 3.dxc5 tt:lxc3 l 4.tt:lxc3 Ree - Moisieev, Amsterdam 1 967. After the natural 14 ... bxc5N Black would be clearly better.

10 ... tl'lb4 1 1 .tlla3 tlld3 12.tllc4 We have been following Levitin a- Kasoshvili,

Naleczow 1 988, and now Black could improve her play:

12 ... tlld7N 13.�dl tl'lxcl 14.�dxcl b5 15.tl'le3 tll b6i

Black enjoys a comfortable edge with the bishop pair.

C) s.tllc3

This natural move is the only way for White to fight for an advantage.

s ... �ds I have always considered 8 . . . if5 to be an

equally playable continuation, but recently White has found some new ideas against it. At the same time White has been struggling to demonstrate any advantage after the rook move, hence my choice of it for this book.

White now chooses from a wide range of approaches: Cl) 9.cxd5, C2) 9.if4, C3) 9.f;Ya3, C4) 9.�dl , C5) 9.h3 and C6) 9.cS.

White has also tried: 9.'Wxb6?! axb6 1 0.cxd5

This is quite harmless, since Black can recapture on d5 with his pieces.

1 0 . . . tt:l xd5 1 1 . lil xd5 �xd5 !

8 .1•.t.� �· ,, � ��P' ��0 : �,!.��,,� � .i� � � �-��-�-3 ��% , ��' ��,'?;�� ·ef· %�'/,;, 2 �/flW<7� �j �flJ;JlJ

� � � : m a b c d e f g h

One of the ideas behind 8 . . . �d8. The rook can be very useful on the fifth rank, and I think that Black already has the better chances. For example:

1 2.�dl 1 2.e3 �d8 13 .id2 c5 14.ic3 lilc6 1 5 .tt:le5? This is a serious error, although White's position was already unpleasant. l 5 . . . tt:lxd4! 16.exd4 cxd4 17.ib4 ixe5 1 8 .ixe7 Kavalek - Ogaard, Manila 1 975. Now the simple 1 8 . . . �d7N 1 9.ib4 d3 would leave Black with a clear advantage.

Chapter 6 - 7.°1Wb3 61

12 . . . E!b5! 13.e4 �e6 14.a3 This was Rogozenko - Donchev, Debrecen 1992, and here Black should play the natural:

14 . . . ltJd?+N Black's queenside pressure gives him the

better chances.

Cl) 9.cxdS '1Wxb3! 10.axb3 tllxdS

It is a clever idea to change the pawn structure in this way, as White may have problems in the future with his b3-pawn.

1 1 .i.gs @£8 This is more flexible than l 1 . . . f6, which

blocks the long diagonal and makes the darksquared bishop passive.

12.�fcl White tried 1 2.E!fdl in Greenfeld - Nataf,

Albufera 1 999, and here I would recommend: 12 ... h6N 13.�d2 �e6 14.e3 (after 14 .e4?! l2Jb4 White pawns become serious targets) 14 . . . ctJa6 The position is balanced.

12 ... i.e6 13.i.d2 h6 Defending against White's idea of ctJg5.

14.e3 tlld7 15.tllel tllxc3 A well-timed exchange.

16.�xc3 Unfortunately for White, he cannot

recapture with the pawn: 1 6.bxc3? ctJc5! White is in trouble.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

16 ... gS! A multi-purpose move, which really appeals

to me. First of all Black takes control over the f4-square, preventing White's idea of ctJd3-f4; secondly Black is planning ... �f5, and so he vacates the g6-square as a retreat for this bishop in the event of e3-e4.

17.tlld3 i.fS Black's idea is to play . . . e5, so White must

react quickly.

18.tllcS tllxcS 19.�xcS i.g6 20.i.c3 e6 21 .b4 a6 22.�caS

Neither side can make any progress in this position, so it is no surprise that a draw was agreed in P.H. Nielsen - Radjabov, Tripoli (2.2) 2004.

C2) 9.i.f4 dxc4 10.'1Wxc4 i.e6

Grabbing the b-pawn obviously looks risky, although I don't see any refutation: 1 O . . . Wxb2 l l .ctJg5 (or 1 1 .E!ab l Wa3 1 2.ctJg5 e6 1 3.e4 b5 14.Wd3 b4 1 5 .E!b3 Wa6 16.Wf3 bxc3 17.�xb8 c2 and Black seems to be doing well in this


messy posmon, Vachier Lagrave - Svidler, Moscow [blitz] 20 1 0) l l . ..e6 1 2.ic? l'l:e8 1 3.l'l:abl Wa3 14.ixb8 l'l:xb8 1 5 .ixc6 l'l:d8 1 6.ig2 We? Black had a comfortable game in Fomichenko - Piankov, Rennes 2009.

1 1 . ti' d3 tlJ a6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

Black continues to activate his minor pieces, using the slightly misplaced position of the white queen to help generate counterplay in the centre.

12.ti'c2 Nor do other moves pose Black any serious

problems:

12.Wd2 c5! 13.ie5 cxd4 14.ixd4 Wa5 1 5 .l'l:fdl Maletin - Kapnisis, Plovdiv 2008. Black should now play: 15 . . . tllb4N 1 6.Wf4 (after 1 6.Wg5 Wxg5 1 7.tllxg5 tllc2 the complications are in Black's favour) 1 6 . . . tllc6 17.ie3 tlld5 18 .tllxd5 ixd5 Black has strong pressure on the queenside.

12.ie5 c5 13 .Wb5 Wxb5 (the immediate l 3 ... tlld5!? also comes into consideration) 14.tllxb5 ic4 1 5 .tllc3 Maletin - Vokarev, Nizhnij Tagil 2007. Black is doing fine, and a simple continuation is l 5 ... tlld5 1 6.ixg? 'ttixg7 17.tllxd5 ixd5 1 8 .El:fdl l'l:ac8 with equality.

12 ... tlJb4 Recently Black demonstrated another route

to equality: 1 2 . . . c5 1 3.tlla4 Wb5 14.tllxc5 tllxc5 ( 14 ... l'l:ac8 may be even stronger) 1 5.dxc5 ( 1 5.Wxc5 Wxe2 16.Wxe? tlld5 is good for Black) l 5 . . . l'l:ac8 1 6.l'l:fdl l'l:xdl t 17.l'l:xdl tlld5 1 8.tlld4 ixd4 1 9.l'l:xd4 tllxf4 20.gxf4 Wxc5 21 .Wxc5 l'l:xc5= Alekseev - Radjabov, Astrakhan 20 1 0.

13.ti'a4 lbbd5

14 ... tlJxf4 15.gxf4 i.d5 Black can also consider 1 5 . . . a5!? with the

typical idea of . . . Wb4.

16.e3 e6= Black has an extremely solid position,

Sargissian - Guseinov, Dubai 2005.

C3) 9.ti'a3

At first I thought that this move might be worth playing as White, but after delving deeper into the position I now feel that Black is doing fine here.

9 ... dxc4! Obviously the most principled continuation.

Chapter 6 - 7.°Wb3 63

10.Wfxe7 ge8 1 1 .Wf a3 I don't see much point in: l l .°Wd6 if5

( l L.lt:Ja6!? also comes into consideration) 12.Wiff4 Switching to the kingside, but the queen is not well-placed here. 1 2 . . . lt:Ja6 (also possible is 1 2 . . . lt:J bd7!?) l 3.h3 llJ b4 l 4.g4 lt:Jbd5 1 5.Wifd2 lt:Je4! 16.lt:Jxd5 cxd5 17.Wiff4 ie6 Black had a clear positional advantage in Burmakin - Midoux, Porto San Giorgio 2006.

s i, •J.. � i. �<t!f 7 �·,;-�-r� , , , , ,j�r� �.,� 6

'!ii !11!!1 , !ii � !ii.�-!ii. !11!!1

3 � m uq)' 2 li%0"""� !Id�W!J , , , ,� ,, , ,%�:� �.,,,,%f0'i{"" 1 � � ��

a b c d e f g h

1 1 . .. llia6N I like this natural developing move, with

the idea of jumping to b4. Illetsko - Sanchez Rodenas, e-mail 2008, continued l l . . . if5 1 2.Wifa4 Wifa6 and now retreating with 13 .Wif dl ! is strong; White intends to play in the centre, while the black queen is slightly misplaced on a6.

12.b3 cxb3 Initially I was tempted by the immediate

12 . . . lt:J b4, but then I discovered the following idea: 1 3.lt:Ja4 Wifb5 1 4.bxc4 Wfxc4 1 5 .lt:Jb6! axb6 1 6.Wifxa8 I don't think that Black has full compensation for the exchange.

13.axb3 13.Wif xb3 is possible, but after 13 . . . Wifxb3

l 4.axb3 llJ b4 l 5.id2 a5! Black is doing very well.

13 ... llib4 14.Wfb2 White can force a draw with 14.lt:Ja4 Wfb5

1 5 .lt:Jc3 Wfb6, and that may well be his best option.

14 ... i.5 15.i.f4 llie4 We have reached a very complicated position

in which Black is at least equal.

C4) 9.gdl i.5

Introducing the possibility of . . . Wf xb3 followed by . . . ic2. The alternatives are weaker:

9 . . . lt:J a6?! runs into 1 0.Wifxb6 axb6 l 1 .lt:J a4! with a clear advantage for White, lnarkiev -Svidler, Moscow 2006.

9 . . . Wif xb3 1 0.axb3 if5 1 1 .lt:Je 1 is slightly better for White.

10.lliel The main attempt to fight for an advantage.

Absolutely harmless is: 1 O.Wf xb6 axb6 l l .cxd5 lt:Jxd5 1 2.lt:Jxd5 cxd5 (this is safe, but I prefer the combative 1 2 . . . gxd5!N when the rook may become active on the 5th rank) 1 3 .if4 Elc8 1 4.lt:Je5 e6= Jankovic - Muslic, Pula 200 1 .

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

10 ... i.e6!


Forcing White to release the tension in the centre. I am not so convinced by: 1 O . . . dxc4 1 1 .Wl'xc4 lCi a6 12.e4 It is not clear that Black has enough counterplay against the white centre, Inarkiev - Svidler, Astrakhan 20 1 0.

1 1.c5 'Wf xb3 12.axb3 li) bd7 The more typical 1 2 . . . 4Ja6 was also

mentioned by Nataf in Chess Informant 79 as a decent alternative.

13.b4 a6= Black had absolutely no problems in Anic -

Nataf, Vichy 2000.

C5) 9.h3

This is surely too modest to trouble Black.

9 . • . i.e6! I like this move, which forces White to

clarify the situation in the centre.

10.c5 Aronian has tried: 1 0.ltJg5 if5 1 1 .Wi'xb6

axb6 12.cxd5 ltJxd5! 1 3.e4 (more advisable is 13.4Jxd5 cxd5 14.g4 ic2 1 5.ie3 ltJ c6 16.:!:l:fcl ia4 1 7.4Jf3 when White is very slightly worse, but he should be able to hold) 1 3 . . . ltJxc3 14.bxc3 id7 1he weakness of the a-pawn gave Black the advantage in Aronian - Ivanchuk, Wijk aan Zee 2006.

a b c d e f g h

10 • . . 'Wfxb3 Black can even consider 1 0 . . . Wl'a6!?N with

the idea of undermining the white pawn chain with . . . b6. After 1 1 .ltJg5 ic8 1 2.if4 h6 13.4Jf3 ie6 the position is very complicated, but Black seems to have reasonable chances.

1 1.axb3 li)a6 This is the thematic response to White's c4-

c5, but there is nothing wrong with: 1 l . . .4Jbd7 12.b4 a6 1 3.if4 ltJe4 Y1-Y1 ). Horvath -Neuman, Aschach 2007.

12.i.f4 li)d7 Black begins to prepare . . . e5.

13.g4 f6 14.g5 fxg5 15.li)xg5 i.f7!

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

The position is roughly balanced, but in Ippolito - Antal, Lubbock 2009, White was tempted into some incorrect complications:

16.li)xf7 @xf7 17.i.xd5t? cxd5 18.c6 li)b4! 19.cxd7 i.xd4

Black is clearly better.

C6) 9.c5

This is the main continuation according to theory.

9 • . . 'Wfxb3 10.axb3 li)a6

Chapter 6 - 7.Wfb3 65

As we hav<; already seen, this is a standard reaction to the advance of the white c-pawn.

1 1.J.f4 This is very logical, preventing . . . li'Jc7

followed by .. . a6. White has also tried: 1 1 .h3 li'Jd7 12.if4 :B:e8N

Black is planning ... e5. This is an improvement on the rather passive: 1 2 . . . li'Jf8 13.:B:a4 if5 14.:B:fal li'Je6 Tregubov - Vorobiov, Moscow 2004. Here simply 1 5 .ie3N ic2 1 6.:B: la3 would ensure the better chances for White, due to the somewhat problematic position of Black's light-squared bishop.

13.:B:a5 13.e4 dxe4 14.li'Jxe4 li'Jb4 would give Black good play.

13 . . . e5 14.li'Jxe5 li'Jxe5 1 5 .ixe5 ixe5 1 6.dxe5 :B:xe5 17.e3 li'Jc7 1 8.b4 a6

Black has equalized comfortably.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

l I ...llid7! Black prepares the thematic . . . e5.

12.gfdl Other moves:

12.e4 is quite risky from a positional point of view, because White gives up the d5-square and his d4-pawn becomes a target; after 12 .. . dxe4 13.li'Jxe4 li'Jf8 followed by . . . if5 , Black has the much easier game.

1 2.:B:a3 :B:e8 13 .ih3 f5! 14.:B:c l e5 1 5 .li'Jxe5 li'Jxe5 l 6.dxe5 This was played in A. Petrosian - Lamprecht, Germany 1 994, and now there is no good reason for Black to refrain from the obvious 1 6 . . . ixe5N, giving him the better chances.

1 2.li'Ja4 :B:e8 1 3.:B:fdl e5 Once he carries out ... e5, Black can expect to be at least equal. 14.li'Jxe5 li'Jxe5 1 5 .dxe5 ixe5 1 6.ixe5 :B:xe5 1 7.e3 if5 1 8.:B:d2 li'Jc7 1 9.b4 :B:ae8 20.li'Jc3 a6+ Black eventually won in Gagunashvili -Elsness, Novi Sad 2009.

12 ... ge8! This is an important move. It is not so good

to rush with the e-pawn: 12 ... e5?! 1 3.li'Jxe5 li'Jxe5 14.ixe5 ixe5 1 5 .dxe5 if5 1 6.:B:a5 ! ic2 17.:B:d4 ixb3 1 8.f4 White had the better chances in Aronian - Svidler, Beersheba 2005.

13.e4 White fails to prevent . . . e5 with l 3.ih3, in

view of: 13 ... f5 14.g4 e5!

13 ... dxe4 14.llixe4 llib4

a b c d e f g h

I don't believe that Black faces any problems in this position.

15.J.g5


White has also tried two other moves:

1 5.ltJc3 ltJf6 1 6.ie5 ie6 17.ltJd2 Eled8 1 8.ltJc4 tt:Jbd5 1 9.Ela3 h5 20.Eldal a6= Black is fine, and in fact went on to win in Bocharov - Kamsky, Khanty-Mansiysk 2005.

1 5 .id2 ltJd5 16.ltJc3 ltJ7f6 17.ltJe5 ie6 1 8.ltJc4 Eled8 l 9.ltJe2 ltJe8 20.ltJa5 Eld7 The position is about equal, Sakaev - Svidler, Russia 2007.

15 ... h6 l 5 ... tt:Jf6!? is worth considering.

16 . .idl tlic2!? There is nothing wrong with the natural

1 6 . . . tt:Jd5.

17J�a4

We have been following the game Tregubov - Vachier Lagrave, Paris 2007. Here the computer points out that Black can play the calm:

17 ... tlifS!N 18 . .ic3 It transpires that Black need not be afraid of

1 8.Elc l , as 1 8 . . . if5! 1 9.ltJc3 ltJe6 20.g4 id3 2 I .ie3 f5! gives him a strong initiative.

18 ... .if5 Black has an excellent game, thanks to the

following line:

19.tlih4 .ie6 20.tlid2 ged8 21.tlihf3 .if5 Black has the better chances.

Conclusion We have looked at a wide variety of options for White on his 8th and 9th moves, but have found little to trouble Black. I would just like to draw the reader's attention to an important theme that features in several of the lines in this chapter. When White advances c4-c5, Black almost invariably reacts by exchanging queens, playing . . . tt:J a6 to restrain the white b-pawn, and then preparing . . . e5; this should secure him at least equal chances, even after losing a tempo with . . . Eld8-e8.

Fianchetto Systems White exchanges on d5

Variation Index 1 .d4 lDf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3

3 . . . c6

A) 4.lDf3 B) 4.�g2 dS

Bl) S.lDf3 B2) S.cxdS cxdS

B21) 6.lDc3 �g7 B21 1) 7.lDh3 B212) 7.e3

B22) 6.lDf3 �g7

B I ) no re ro 8. �b3

B221) 7.lDc3 B222) 7.lDeS lDe4

B2221) 8.0-0 B2222) 8.lDd2

B223) 7.0-0 0-0 B2231) 8.lDc3 B2232) 8.lDeS

B222 l) nore ro l 5.e5

a b c d e f g h 20 .. . h5!N

a b c d e f g h

B2232) afrer 1 2.�e3

a b c d e f g h 1 2 . . . f6N

68 69 69 70 70 70 71 72 72 74 74 77 78 78 82


I .d4 lllf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 c6 In this chapter we shall be concentrating on

the lines in which White exchanges pawns on d5. White has a wide range of move orders at his disposal, and Black must often react precisely in order to avoid finding himself in an undesirable variation. Here White chooses between A) 4.lllf3 and B) 4 . .ig2.

A) 4.lllf3

This will often transpose into B, but we shall look at some lines where White delays the development of his king's bishop.

4 ... d5 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.lll c3 .ig7 7.llle5 7.ig2 li:le4 is line B22 1 below.

7 ... lllfd7! I find it surprising that this move has been

played only five times, as I think that it is a good way to avoid the variations arising after 7 . . . 0-0 8 .ig2 e6 9.0-0 li:lfd7 1 0.f4 etc. Although Black is solidly placed in this well-known line, I am personally not too keen on his prospects, and so I have designed the repertoire to avoid this possibility.

a b c d e f g h

8.f4 This looks the most challenging. Other

options are clearly not dangerous for Black:

8.li:lxd7 ixd7 9.ig2 e6 1 0.0-0 0-0 Despite the rarity of Black's 7th move, this position has occurred nearly a hundred times in practice, via many other move orders. I cannot see any idea that offers White chances of an advantage. I like the following illustrative example: l l .b3 li:lc6 1 2.e3 Wa5 1 3.id2 Wa6 14 . .8'.el .8'.fc8 1 5.ifl Wa3 The position was pretty level in Izoria - Ivanchuk, Yerevan 2004.

8.li:lxd5 Wa5t! 9.li:lc3 li:lxe5 1 0.dxe5 ixe5 l l .id2

Black has no problems after l l .ig2 0-0 1 2.0-0 li:lc6.

l l . . .id7!? An interesting idea; the bishop is heading for c6, which will force the exchange of the light-squared bishops. There is also nothing wrong with l l . . .li:l c6 12.ig2 0-0. Here I examined a nice variation: 13.li:ld5 ( 13.0-0 .8'.d8 even looks better for Black) 1 3 . . . Wd8 14.ih6 E'.e8 1 5.Wd2 li:ld4 1 6.o-o ih3! Black equalizes comfortably.

12.ig2 ic6 1 3.li:ld5 Wd8 14.if4 ixf4 1 5 .li:lxf4 Wa5t 16 .Wd2 Wxd2t 17.Wxd2 ixg2 1 8 .li:lxg2 li:l c6

The position is absolutely equal. A draw was agreed in Bocharov - Roiz, Dagomys 2008.

8 ... lllxe5! This was played in Sebenik - Bosiocic,

Austria 20 1 0. Previously Black had tried: 8 . . . e6 9.ig2 li:lc6 1 0.0-0 Wb6 1 l .e3 0-0 Play has transposed into the theoretical line that we are trying to avoid, Drasko - Kozul, Zadar 2005.

9.fxe5 After 9.dxe5 d4 1 0.li:le4 0-0 1 l .ig2 li:lc6

1 2.0-0 Wb6 (or 1 2 . . . if5!?) Black is certainly well in the game, and may even be better.

9 ... .ie6 IO . .ig2 0-0 1 0 . . . li:l c6? is premature, in view of l l .e4!.

Chapter 7 - White exchanges on dS 69

1 1 ...�c6 We have transposed to B2232 at the end of

the chapter.

B) 4.�g2 dS

a b c d e f g h

The main continuation is the exchange of pawns now, but we shall also look at what happens if White improves his king's knight first: Bl) 5.�f3 or B2) 5.cxdS.

Bl) 5.�f3 i.g7 6.�eS

With this move White is generally planning to exchange pawns in the near future, having somewhat limited Black's options. The immediate 6.cxdS cxdS is line B22.

6 ... �e4! We have to pay attention to White's move

order. For example, the natural 6 . . . 0-0 would allow 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.�c3 - the variation we are aiming to avoid.

7.0-0 0-0 8.'1Wb3 Usual here is 8.cxd5 cxd5, leading into B222.

We shall look at a few other options:

8.�c3 Quite a risky approach.

8 . . . �xc3 9.bxc3 .ixe5! 1 0.dxeS dxc4 White's bishop pair is not very active, and Black's position remains quite solid.

1 1 Y!ic2 Black is happy to go into an endgame: 1 1 ..ih6 Wxdl 12.l"lfxdl l"\e8+

1 1 . . .Wc7 12 . .ih6 l"ld8 1 3.f4

a b c d e f g h This was Fier - Achutti, Florianopolis 1 999. Black should have continued:

1 3 . . . llla6!N White's play does not look fast enough.

14.h3 Or 1 4.l"\adl l"lxd l 1 5.l"lxdl lllc5 1 6.h3 .if5! 17.e4 .id7+ and the d3-square is significant.

14 ... Wb6t 15 .�h2 We3! It is not clear how White will create play, and

meanwhile he is a pawn down.

8.b3 tt:J d7 9.j,b2 (after 9.tt:Jxd7 j,xd7 1 0.j,b2 j,e6 Black has comfortable play) 9 ... tt:Jxe5! 1 0.dxe5 j,e6 l 1 .Wd3 f5 1 2.exf6 ( 1 2.cxd5 Wxd5 1 3 .Wxd5 j,xd5 leads to a balanced position) 1 2 . . . tt:Jxf6 1 3.cxd5 j,xd5 Black's activity compensates for his slightly damaged pawn structure. 14.j,xd5t Wxd5 1 5.Wxd5t tt:Jxd5 1 6.j,xg7 �xg7 17.lt:Jd2 lt:Jc3 1 8.�g2 l"lf6 Black had no problems in Znamenacek -Dolezal, Czech Republic 2008.

8 . • . dxc4! A well-timed operation.

9 •.• l'ild6 10.l'ileS A critical try is: 1 O.lt:Jxd6 exd6 l l .d5

Otherwise Black will play ... d5 with equality. l l . . .c5 1 2.lt:Jc3 lt:J d7 Black has a good Benoni, as he has managed to exchange a pair of knights.

IO ..• i.e6 l l .�c2 l'ild7 12.f4 Safer is 1 2. ttJ xd7, but Black has a pleasant

game after 1 2 . . . j,xd7 13 .l"ldl Wb6.

12 ... l'ilxeS 13.dxeS 1 3.fXe5 lllf5 14.e3 l"lc8 is also fine for

Black; he may be able to play ... c5 in suitable circumstances.

13 ••• �b6t 14.hl l'ilf5! Black had the better game in lnarkiev -

Bosiocic, Rijeka 20 10.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B2) 5.cxdS cxdS

a b c d e f g h

White may develop either knight: B21) 6.l'ilc3 or B22) 6.l'ilf3.

B21) 6.l°ilc3 i.g7

Usual now is 7.lt:Jf3 (see B221 ) , but I will also examine two minor ideas, B21 1) 7.l°ilh3 and B212) 7.e3.

B21 1) 7.l°ilh3

Chapter 7 - White exchanges on d5 71

7 ... ixh3!? I like this decision; with his light-squared

bishop exchanged, Black can develop his other pieces very naturally. Black can also play: 7 . . . t2Jc6 8.t2Jf4 e6 9.0-0 0-0 1 0.e3 b6 1 1 .b3 (or 1 1 .id2 ib7 1 2.Wa4 We? 1 3.�fcl �fc8 14.ie l a6 with an equal game, Jirovsky - Neuman, Klatovy 200 1) 1 1 . . .ia6 1 2.�el �c8 13 .ia3 �e8 14.�c l = Stahlberg - Flohr, Kemeri 1937.

8.ixh3 llJc6 9.0-0 0-0 10.e3 e6

8 � �. � ��· 1 � ' m m • � • 6 . . . J�:� r•r� � � // . . . . . ; : ·��-3 OmJ•o•mJl� 2 �/fl�;� �J!l0:Yf/J 1 � �ii°� M�

a b c d e f g h

I remember that during the game I felt this position was very easy for Black to play.

1 Lig2 llJd7 12.b3 a6 13.ia3 :Se8 14.:Scl :Sc8 15.'!Wd2 '!Wa5 16.id6 llJa7!?

16 . . . if8 is good enough as well.

17.llJbl The tempting 17.b4 is a bit dubious, since

after 17 . . . Wd8 Black can easily get his knight to the c4-square.

17 ..• �xd2 18.llJxd2 llJb5 19.ib4 if'S Y2-Y2 Fridman - Avrukh, Germany 2008.

B212) 7.e3 0-0 8.llJge2 llJc6 9.0-0 b6

By developing his bishop to a6, Black will secure equal chances in a complex game.

10.b3 Or: 1 0.t2Jf4 e6 1 1 .b3 ia6 1 2.�el Wd7 (also

quite good is 12 . . . We? 1 3.ib2 �ac8 14.Wd2 �fd8 1 5 .�acl l2Je8 1 6.t2Jd3 t2Jd6 17.ia3 Wb7= and neither side can make real progress, Pachman - Taimanov, Moscow 1 956) 13 .ia3 �fd8 14.�cl �ac8 1 5 .h4 We8 1he position is level, Cekro - Kozul, Zlatibor 1 989.

10 . • • ia6

1 Lia3 :Se8 12.'!Wd2 More accurate is: 1 2.�cl �c8 1 3.�e 1 e6 1he

play is much the same as we saw after 1 0.t2Jf4, and the position is clearly balanced.

12 ... e5!? This leads to a more interesting game,

although of course there was nothing wrong with 1 2 . . . e6.

13.dxe5 llJxe5 14.:Sfdl? This is the wrong rook, as it leaves the f2-

pawn inadequately defended. White should play: 14.�adl Wd7! (also interesting is 14 . . . Wc8!? as recommended in the annotations in ChessBase) 1 5 .Wc2 �ac8 1 6.Wb l Wf5 (this is simpler than 1 6 . . . Wg4 17.h3 t2Jf3t 1 8.'it>hl Wh5 1 9.t2Jf4 Wh6 20.t2Jcxd5 ixfl 2 1 .t2Jxf6t

i.xf6 22.i.xfl , when White has definite compensation for the exchange) 17.�xf5 gxf5 1 8.Ei:d2 tt:'ie4 19.tt:'ixe4 dxe4 20.Ei:fdl i.xe2 2 l .Ei:xe2 Ei:ed8= Black has no problems.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

14 ... �d.3! 15.�c2 �xfl! 16.@xfl �g4t 17.@gl �xe3 18.Wd2 �xg2! 19.@xg2 d4!

Black's attack is decisive.

20.�xd4 �b7t 21.@fl Wd7 White decided it was time to call it a day in

R. Byrne - Fischer, New York 1 963.

B22) 6.�f3 �g7

B221) 7.�c3 �e4!

This is essential, as 7 . . . 0-0 8.tt:'ie5 once again leads to the line that we wish to avoid.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

8.�b3

a b c d e f g h

The main continuation is 8.0-0 0-0, which will be examined in B223 1 .

A rarer alternative is 8.tt:'ixe4 dxe4 9.tt:'ie5 and here, since the players haven't castled, Black can go for 9 . . . i.xe5 1 0.dxe5 �xdl t 1 1 .<;tixdl i.f5. With his king on d l , White seems unable to pose Black any problems. For example: 1 2.g4 i.xg4 13.i.xe4 after 13 . . . tt:'ic6 14.i.xc6t bxc6 1 5 .f3 0-0-0t 16.<;tiel i.e6 17.i.e3 <;tib7 1 8. <;tif2 Ei:d5 1 9.Ei:hcl Ei:hd8 The game is absolutely equal, Maherramzade - Sideif Sade, Baku 1 997.

8 ... �xc3 9.bxc3 0-0! This is most accurate, since 9 . . . tt:'ic6 runs

into 1 0.tt:'id2 e6 1 l .i.a3, as was seen in the well-known game Karpov - Gelfand, Sanghi Nagar (2) 1 995.

10.0-0 Another option is: 1 O.tt:'id2 e6 1 1 .e4 tt:'ic6

1 2.exd5 ( 12.0-0 transposes to the main line) 1 2 . . . tt:'ia5 1 3.�b4 exd5 14.0-0 b6


8 i. �.i.� ��· 7 � 0,�I( .%� i"� i 6 %. %� %�-.�� s If .%� :� �� / r '·, ��r� �� 4 Ni its% � � • .%i'9,l ef %� %i'9,J''0 � !��m�Jr� ' ' ' �W;:ef' ' ' ' ' •.. , , %;z,i{'' ' '

a,, � « . : � a b c d e f g h

Black has absolutely no problems, for instance: 1 5.�e l (or 1 5 .ib2 ia6 16.me l �c8= Sergejev - Glek, Internet 2000) l 5 . . . ie6 16.'llf3 �c8 l 7.ig5 We? 1 8 .�acl �fe8 The position was balanced in Galego - Movsziszian, Can Picafort 2008.

10 ... liic6 I 1 .liid2 This is the main move. The alternatives are

harmless, for example: l Lif4 'll a5 1 2.Wb4 b6 13.'lld2 ib7 14.e4 dxe4 15 .'llxe4 �c8 16.�fel �e8 I already prefer Black, with the white cand cl-pawns providing permanent targets, Samsonkin - Zilberstein, Edmonton 2009.

1 1 ... e6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

12.e4

a b c d e f g h

Quite similar is: 12.ia3 �e8 13 .e4

With 1 3.e3?! White is probably hoping to carry out the c3-c4 advance, but Black is in time to prevent it: 1 3 . . . 'lla5 14.Wb l b6 1 5 .�el ia6 1 6.e4 dxe4 17.'llxe4 'llc4 1 8.icl �c8 Black has the better chances, Graf - Krasenkow, Sanxenxo 2004

1 3 . . . 'lla5 14.Wc2 Other queen moves are possible, but they don't change the character of the game.

14 . . . b6 1 5 .�fel 1 5 .ib4 'llc6 16.ia3 ib7 (Black can of course repeat moves with 1 6 . . . 'lla5) 17.'llb3?! dxe4 1 8.ixe4 We? Black was slightly better in Timofeeva - Duer, Wattens 1 995.

15 . . . ib? 1 6.e5 �c8 1 7.Wd3 This was Nambiar - Rey, San Francisco 2002, and now I like:

17 . . . Wd? Black will play . . . Wa4 next, with a nice

position.

12 ... ltia5 13.�b4 After 1 3.Wc2 Black as always continues:

1 3 . . . b6 14.�el ( 14. ia3 �e8 transposes to the previous note) 1 4 . . . ib? ( 14 . . . ia6? is careless; after 1 5 .exd5 exd5 l 6.ia3 �e8 17 .�xe8t W xe8 l 8.ixd5 White is just a pawn up, Aramil -Langreck, Kokomo 2000) l 5 .e5 �c8 Black has a good game.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

13 ... b6 I 4.exd5 exd5


We have reached an equal position that we saw in the note to White's 1 0th move above.

B222) 7.tLle5 tLl e4!

Once again we avoid the variation arising after 7 . . . 0-0 8.ttJc3 e6.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

White now chooses between B2221) 8.0-0 and B2222) 8.tiJd2.

B2221) 8.0-0 0-0 9.tLlc3

Black is also doing okay against the alternatives:

9 .f3 is hardly a serious try for an advantage: 9 . . . lll d6 1 0.ttJc3 e6 l l .f4 f6 1 2.ttJd3 ttJc6 1 3.e3 :§:f7 l 4.a4 b6 Black had comfortable equality in Johannessen - Schandorff, Roskilde 1 998.

9. lt:J d2 i.f5 Black does not achieve equality with: 9 . . . lt:lxd2 1 0.i.xd2 ttJd7 (or 1 0 . . . lt:lc6 l 1 .ttJxc6 bxc6 12 .i.b4± Kasparov - Howell, London [simul] 1 998) l 1 .i.c3!±

1 0.ttJxe4 1 0.ttJdf3 1Wb6! is good for Black, Kr. Georgiev - Donchev, Prague 1 995.

1 0 . . . i.xe4

a b c d e f g h l l .1Wb3

Other moves: a) l l .f3 i.f5 1 2.i.e3 ttJd7 13.f4 lllf6 (there is also nothing wrong with 13 . . . ttJxe5 14 .dxe5 e6) 14.1Wb3 1Wb6 1 5 .:§:fc l Gross - Ungr, Plzen 2000. Now the natural 1 5 . . . :§:fc8N 1 6.:§:c5 1Wxb3 17.axb3 a6 would lead to an equal game. b) l l .i.xe4 dxe4 1 2.1Wb3 ttJc6 13.ttJxc6 bxc6 transposes to the line with l l .1Wb3.

l l . . .ttJc6 Black could try: l l . . .i.xg2 12.c;t>xg2 i.xe5 1 3.dxe5 (not 13.1Wxb7? i.g7 14.1Wxa8 1Wd7! and White is defenceless against the threat of . . . lt:lc6) 1 3 . . . 1Wd7 14.:§:d l :§:d8 1 5.i.f4 ttJc6 The position is double-edged. However, if he wishes White can avoid this possibility by using the move order l l .i.e4 dxe4 1 2.1Wb3.

1 2.ttJxc6 bxc6 1 3.i.xe4 dxe4 14.:§:dl Weaker is 14.e3?! :§:b8 1 5.1Wc2 1Wd5 16.:§:dl :§:fc8! and the coming ... c5 will give Black the advantage, Sunye Neto - Illescas Cordoba, Linares 1 994.

14 . . . :§:b8 1 5 .1Wc4?! Better is 1 5.1Wc2 1Wd5 16.i.e3 :§:fc8 17.b3 e6 1 8.:§:acl a5 with balanced play.

1 5 . . . 1Wd7 1 5 . . . 1Wd5 is also good.

1 6.b3 :§:b5 l 7.e3? 17 .i.e3 was necessary, although after l 7 . . . :§:d5 Black is doing quite well.

l 7 . . . :§:h5! Suddenly ... 1Wh3 is a serious threat.


1 8.�fl l"i:d8 19.�a3 l"i:d5 20.l"i:acl e5 Black was better in Zhidkov - Vorobiov,

Moscow 1999.

9 ... llixc3 This is the easiest route to equality. More

complicated, but also good enough is: 9 . . . �f5 10 .�b3 tlic6 1 1 .l"i:d l ( 1 1 .�xd5 ctJxc3 12.bxd �xd5 1 3.�xd5 tlixe5 14.dxe5 �xe5= Benko -Fischer, New York 1962)

8 .i � � �Ei• 7 � •• , ;,�lfiY,Wffi i 6 , , , %u'!iu , , %u ,,7,� 5 �� lml.� 4 �u��.u�� Im,,, , %� �� 3 �W,�, , , ,� �w,JJW," 2 �/!lW;7� �j �!lJ;JlJ 1 � � .s. � �

a b c d e f g h This recently occurred in the high-level game

Mamedyarov - lvanchuk, Nalchik 2009, and Black missed the well-known blow: 1 1 . . . tlixd4! 12.l"i:xd4 ctJxc3 1 3.bxd �xe5 14.l"i:xd5 �c7 White must play carefully to hold the balance. 1 5 .�h6 �e6 16.�xf8 l"i:xf8 1 7.l"i:cl �xd5 1 8 .�xd5 b6 19 .�c4 Y2-Y2 Kholmov -Liberzon, Sukhumi 1 99 1 ; the final position is still slightly more pleasant for Black.

10.bxc3 llic6

1 1 .llixc6 This leads to a symmetrical and level

position, but other moves do not offer White any advantage either:

l 1 .ctJd3 tlia5 12.h4 b6 1 3.h5 �a6 14.hxg6 hxg6 1 5 .�g5 Gutman - Hort, Germany 1 984. After the natural improvement 15 . . . l"i:c8N 16.l"i:cl �d7 Black enjoys the better chances, thanks to his superior pawn structure.

1 1 .f4 tlia5 (also worth considering is 1 l . . .�e6!?) 1 2.e4 (after 1 2.�a4 Mascaro March - Gaya Llodra, Palma de Mallorca 2008, the typical 12 . . . b6N followed by . . . �b7 and . . . l"i:c8, would give Black the more pleasant game) 1 2 . . . dxe4 1 3.�xe4 Nemeth - Juhasz, Hungary 1 998. Now Black should play: 1 3 . . . �e6N 14.�a3 (Black needn't worry about 14.f5 �xf5 1 5 .�xf5 �xe5!+) 14 . . . l"i:c8+ I do not see any compensation for White's weakened pawn structure.

1 1 . .. bxc6

13 .ia3 1 3.e4 ia6 14.l"i:el e6 1 5 .if4 id3! This is an important resource. 1 6.id6 ( 1 6.l"i:adl dxe4 1 7.ixe4 ixe4 1 8.l"i:xe4 l"i:fd8 also leads to equality) A draw was agreed here in Schmidt - Averbakh, Polanica Zdroj 1 975, and indeed after 16 . . . l"i:fdS 1 7 .e5 ifs 1 S .ixf8 l"i:xfS 1 9.ifl ixfl 20.Wxfl l"i:fbS Black has absolutely no problems.

1 3 . . . Wa6!

s .i �.t. � �B• 7 � ;<. ;<-·v,�' Wi•i•,,,,,%.-,�� 6 �� 5 �� j;;�� 4 if• w� • � 3 � � . � 2 88 -�� m

a b c d e f g h 14.Wxa6 ixa6

The position is very drawish. 1 5 .l"i:fb 1

Or 1 5 .l"i:fe1 l"i:feS 1 6.ic5 e6 1 7.l"i:ab 1 ifs 1 S.ixfS 1/2-1/2 Marin - Fressinet, Eforie Nord 2009.

15 ... ixe2 1 6.ixe7 l"i:fbS! 16 ... l"i:feS 1 7.l"i:b7 leads to some pressure for White.

1 7.id6 l"i:xb l t l S.l"i:xbl ib5 1 9.ifl a6 20.f3 ifS 2 1 .ixfS WxfS

l/z-1/2 Vaisser - Nataf, Pau 200S.

12.e4 ia6 (12 . . . ie6 is also reasonable) 13.l"i:el Wa5 14.id2 e6 1 5.c4 Wb6 16.c5 (I think White should have been satisfied with equality after 16.exd5 ixd4 1 7.ie3 ixe3 1 S.l"i:xe3 cxd5 l 9.cxd5 l"i:adS) 1 6 . . . Wb2 1 7.ie3 Issing - Voigt, Germany 1 999. After 1 7 . . . l"i:fbSN 1 S.exd5 exd5 Black has slightly the better chances.

12 ... .ta6 13J�el ges 14.e4 e6 15.e5 White has also tried:

1 5 .h4 ic4 1 6.e5 White decides to block the centre anyway. He is probably right to avoid 16.h5 e5!? with good play for Black.

16 . . . l"i:bs 17.Wd2 Or: 1 7.h5 Wg5! A good square for the queen. 1 8.if3 (after 1 S .hxg6 hxg6 19.ifl ixfl 20.l"i:xfl ifS! Black may even have an edge, as he can play for . . . c5) l S . . . ifS 19 .icl WdS Vz-1/z Csom - Tampa, Hungary 1974. I think that in the final position Black stands better; he will meet 20.hxg6 with 20 . . . fxg6!.

1 7 . . . ifS

a b c d e f g h This is a key positional idea; after trading dark-squared bishops Black will have chances to penetrate on the queenside.

1 S .ixfS l"i:xfS 1 9 .ifl After the natural 1 9.h5 Black can respond in an interesting manner: 1 9 . . . gxh5! 20.Wh6 id3 2 1 .Wxh5 ig6 Having managed to stabilize his kingside, Black can play on the queenside with . . . Wa5, . . . c5 etc.

1 9 . . . ixfl 20.Wxfl


20 . . . hS!N This gives Black a good game. It is a logical

improvement on 20 . . . c5 2 1 .h5, which allowed White attacking chances in Tregubov -Yandemirov, Maikop 1 998.

1s ... iffi 16.ixfs @xf'8 17.h4 Wg7!? 18.gbl

Black is not afraid of l 8.h5 in view of 1 8 ... �g5!.

18 ... Wi'e7 19.ifl Lf1 20.gxfl geb8 21 .Wi'd2 gb6 22.gb3 gab8 23.gfbl h5=

Ragger - Miroshnichenko, Austria 20 10 .

B2222) 8.Clld2

a b c d e f g h

8 ... llld7! In my opinion this is the most accurate move.

I am not satisfied with Black's other options:

8 . . . lllxd2 9.ixd2 llld7 Here nobody has tried 1 O.ic3, which seems to me to promise White some pressure.

8 . .. if5 runs into 9.lllxe4 ixe4 1 0.ixe4 dxe4 1 1 . �b3 and the double attack on b 7 and f7 is most unpleasant.

9.Cllxd7 I also examined 9.lllxe4 dxe4 1 0.if4, but

here Black has 10 . . . '&a5t l l .'&d2 '&xd2t

1 2. iiixd2 and now there is an unexpected idea: 1 2 . . . g5! 1 3.ixg5 lll b6! The threat of .. .f6 is very strong.

9 ... Wi'xd7 10.Cllxe4 dxe4

8 � �£�;��,Ji 1 � • -�r� ' � ' 6 , , , , ,%0 ;/,0,,, , ,%0,,�� %� %� %� : �.�.!.�. 3 �

�0,,, ,,%0 �wr 2 �.�-��tu 1

�,,,,%�'=,,,,%·� a b c d e f g h

1 1 .ie3 I also checked:

l l .ixe4 �xd4 This is stronger than: l l . . .ixd4 1 2.0-0 0-0 13 .ig5 .E!d8 14.�c2 White preserved some pressure in Pearce - Zuev, e-mail 2008

1 2.'&xd4 ixd4 1 3.0-0

a b c d e f g h 1 3 . . . ih3!N

This is an important improvement. After 1 3 . . . 0-0 14 . .E!dl if6 Schandorff - Sulypa, Esbjerg 2004, the correct l 5 .if4 would be unpleasant for Black. For example: 1 5 . . . ixb2 1 6 . .E!ab l if6 17.ixb? ixb7


1 8.E!:xb7 Black is doomed to a passive defence.

14.J.xb7 14.E!:dl 0-0-0! 1 5 .id2 ie5 is level.

14 . . . J.xfl 1 5 .ixa8 ixe2 1 6.J.c6t 'it>d8 1 7.if4 e5

Black doesn't have any problems.

1 1 . .. WfdS 12.Wfa4t J.d7 13.Wfa3 i.c6 14.0-0

s � �� i ��,JI 1 � · - r� • � • , , , , ,%� .(� , , , , ,%� ,,�� 6 llll llll llll : ll.llAf.llll ��,,,,, ,�� w� 3 �� 00 �0% 2 ii/,� %� ii�w1£� , , , ,!{, , , ,%� �.,,,,%�,�,, , , 1 � � � n�

a b c d e f g h

14 ... Wfe6N This is simplest. Keene - Eichhorn, Ybbs

1968, saw: 14 . . . 0-0 1 5.Wfxe7 ixd4 1 6.ixe4! Wfxe4 1 7.Wfxe4 ixe4 1 8.ixd4 Black eventually managed to achieve a draw, but he suffered for the rest of the game.

15.Ei:acl 0-0 Black has a comfortable game.

B223) 7.0-0 0-0

We have arrived at a final crossroads: B2231) 8.liJc3 or B2232) 8.liJe5.

B2231) 8.liJc3 llJe4!

As should be clear by now, we wish to avoid the lines 8 . . . tllc6 9.tlle5 and 8 . . . e6 9.tlle5.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1 a b c d e f g h

9.llJxe4 The most challenging continuation. Other

options are:

9.tll e5 transposes to line B222 1 .

9.Wfb3 tllxc3 1 0.bxc3 tllc6 was examined in B22 1 .

9 . tll d2 tll xd2 This is simplest. After 9 . . . tllxc3 1 0.bxc3 lllc6 l 1 .e4 White can fight for an advantage.

1 0.Wfxd2 White can also recapture with the bishop: 1 0.ixd2 e6 1 1 .e3 (or 1 1 .e4 dxe4 12.he4 tllc6=) 1 1 . . .tllc6 1he position is symmetrical and absolutely equal.

1 o . . . e6 1 1 .b3 lllc6 l 2.e3


This seems easier than: 1 2 . . . b6 1 3.ia3 l"\e8 14.l"\fcl i:b7 1 5 .li:lb5 if8 1 6.Wb2 Wd7 17.ixf8 l"\xf8 18 .ifl a6 1 9.li:lc3 Wd6= Dydyshko - Bernasek, Canak 2004.

13.a4 13.li:la4 Wxd2 14.ixd2 b6=

13 . . . id7 14.ia3 l"\fc8 Black has full equality.

9.if4 li:lxc3 1 0.bxc3 li:lc6 l l .li:le5 Or: 1 1 .l"\bl li:la5 12.li:ld2 b6 1 3.e4 (after 1 3.c4 ib7 14.e3 l"\c8 1 5 .l"\c l Wd7 1 6.cxd5 ixd5 1 7.ixd5 Wxd5 Black has some advantage in a typical Griinfeld position, De Groot - Glek, Utrecht 1 999) 13 . . . ib7 14.l"\el dxe4 1 5 .li:lxe4 Wd7 1 6.l"\cl l"\ac8 Black had good play in Juswanto -H. Olafsson Yerevan (ol) 1 996.

l l . . .li:la5 I prefer this to l l . . . li:lxe5 , although that is obviously good enough for equality.

12.e4 ie6 1 3.Wf3 dxe4 14.Wxe4 l"\c8 Black has a comfortable game, Muhring -

Sajtar, The Hague 1 947.

9.e3 This is quite harmless. For example:

9 . . . li:lxc3 1 0.bxc3 li:l c6 l l .li:l d2 After l l .ia3 I like the following example: l 1 . . .l"\e8 12.li:ld2 ie6 1 3.l"\bl Wd7 14.We2 b6 1 5.l"\fcl l"\ac8 1 6.c4

a b c d e f g h Marin - Margvelashvili, Plovdiv 2008. Now

the simple 1 6 . . . dxc4N 17.li:lxc4 id5 is fine for Black.

1 1 . . .ieG 1 2.l"\b l l 2.ia3 transposes to l l .ia3 above. 1 2.li:lb3 b6 1 3.a4 Wd7 14.l"\el occurred in Strikovic - Alonso Garcia, Lorca 2007, and here I found a nice positional idea: 14 . . . l"\fc8N l 5 .We2 li:ld8! 1 6.ib2 li:l b7 Black will play . . . li:ld6 next, with a good game.

12 . . . Wd7 1 3.c4?! This is a mistake, although Black was comfortable anyway.

13 . . . dxc4 14.d5 ixd5 1 5 .li:lxc4 l"\fd8 1 6.Wxd5 Wxd5 l 7.ixd5 l"\xd5 l 8 .l"\xb7 l"\c5! l 9.li:ld2 l"\c2

Black had the better chances in Fontaine -Nunn, Paignton 2000.

9 . . . dxe4

8 .i �.i.� ��-7 .,,,�,,,,,/,_,,y� ' , , , , , /,� �� ,,,, ,%� ,,,,,�� 6 �� ,, : ��-�� LY.��0% 3 �;/, ,� �� ,��,� 2 8/[j�:�� [j�flJ 1 � �il� �m

a b c d e f g h

10.llleS Less popular is:

1 0 .li:lg5 Wxd4 l 1 .Wxd4 White does not benefit from delaying the queen exchange: l l .li:lxe4 li:l c6 12 .Wb3 (Inaccurate is 12.Wxd4 li:lxd4 1 3.li:lc3 ig4 l 4.e3 Ilincic - Vaganian, Yerevan 2000. Here Black missed the strong 14 . . . li:lc2N 1 5 .l"\bl l"\fd8 with the point that after 1 6.ie4 li:l b4 1 7.ixb7 l"\ab8 1 8 .ig2 ie6!+ White is in trouble.) 12 . . . l"\b8


s �B.i. � �B• 7 �·Y,·�-,Y,� i 6 , , %� ;)� , %� -,%� � � �%, : �.-d--� 3 �� " ' , %� ��-% �'if� �� Jl!J;,�'/ 2 t3J � � t3J �8lt�� f %� %,� 'i�t�"

a b c d e f g h 1 3 . .ie3?! (White probably should have preferred 1 3 . .if4 .ie6 14.e3 Wxb2 1 5 .Wxb2 .ixb2 1 6 . .ixb8 .ixal 17 . .ixa7 .ig7 1 8 . .ib6 and a draw seems likely) 13 . . . Wxb2 14.Wxb2 .ixb2 1 5 .l'l:abl .id4 16.lt:Jc5 .ixe3 17.fXe3 Allahverdiev - Radjabov, Baku 2005. Now best for Black is 17 . . . lt:J a5!N 1 8.lt:Ja6 .if5 1 9.l'l:xf5 gxf5 20.lt:Jxb8 l'l:xb8 2 1 .l'l:b5 b6 22.l'l:xf5 l'l:c8 and White will suffer in this endgame.

l 1 . . . .ixd4

s �-.i. � �B• 7 �·� �--,Y,� i 6 . . . . %� ��" -;,�'· 5 �� , �� -//�� , - � 4 • � ·- � 3 %%� ,,,,,%� ),%� ��-%�� -� -- ;,�'/ 2 8J!l�0 �i �!l!JlJ

� � � .M � a b c d e f g h

1 2.lt:Jxe4 An alternative is: 1 2.l'l:dl lt:J c6 13.he4 (after 1 3.lt:Jxe4 .ig4 14.i;t>fl l'l:fd8 only Black can be better, Voelzke - Christ, Kappeln 1990) 13 . . . .ig7 14.i;t>g2 (not so good is 14.l'l:bl h6 1 5 .lt:Jf3 .ie6 and White unexpectedly experiences some problems, for example 1 6.b3 lt:J b4! 17.lt:Jd4 l'l:fd8 1 8 . .ie3 .id5 19 . .ixd5 lt:Jxd5+ Godes - Ma. Tseitlin, Belgorod 1989) 14 . . . a5!? 1 5 .l'l:b l a4 1 6.b4

axb3 17.axb3 l'l:a2 1 8.l'l:d2 l'l:xd2 19 . .ixd2= Smejkal - Kadlec, Hlinske 1 993.

12 .. . lt:Jc6 1 3.lt:Jc3 13 . .ih6 l'l:d8 14.lt:Jc3 .ie6 1 5.l'l:fd l Berkell -Schussler, Stockholm 1 978. After 1 5 .. .f6 it is White who has to play carefully to keep the balance.

1 3 .. . .ie6 1 3 . . . l'l:d8 is also good enough.

14 . .id2 l'l:ac8 1 5 .l'l:fd l Olszewski - Zugic, North Bay 1998. Simplest now is:

1 5 . . . l'l:fd8N 16.l'l:ac l The game is just equal.

10 ... Wd5 I also consider 1 0 . . . lt:Jd7 sufficient for

equality. I shall give just one example of typical play: 1 I ..if4 lt:Jf6 1 2.Wa4 .if5 1 3.l'l:fd l lt:Jd5= Adianto - Peng Xiaomin, New Delhi/Teheran 2000. After 14 . .id2 Black can maintain equality with 14 . . . lt:Jb6 1 5 .Wb4 l'l:c8 1 6.l'l:acl a5 17.Wxa5 Wxd4 1 8 . .ie3 l'l:xcl 19.l'l:xcl Wxb2.

1 l .b3 .if5!? ( 1 I . . .lt:Jc6 is also vel'y reasonable, but I prefer the text, since it equalizes without needing to know much theory) 12 . .ib2


tlld7 13 .tllc4 ( I also examined 1 3.!"lc l , but after 13 . . . tiixe5 14.dxe5 2"lfd8 1 5.Wxd5 2"lxd5 1 6.Elc? 2"ld2 it is White who has to fight for the draw) 13 ... tllf6 ( 13 . . . ih6!? is interesting) 14.tlle3 Wd6 1 5.tllxf5 gxf5 Black was very solid in Lima - Finkel, Ubeda 1997.

1 l .f3?! doesn't work, because of the strong 1 1 . . .tllc6! 1 2.tllxc6 bxc6 13 .e3 if5 14.g4 exf3 1 5.Wxf3 Helbig - Riefner, Germany 2000. Black can now play: 15 ... ie6!N 1 6.Wxd5 (or 16.id2 Wb5! 17.Wxc6 Wxb2+) 1 6 . . . ixd5 17.id2 ixg2 1 8.�xg2 e5 Black has the better chances, due to White's weakened pawn structure.

1 1 .Wa4 llld7 12.if4 Black has no problems after: 1 2.Eld 1 tLl b6 1 3.Wc2? Strangely enough, this weak move occurred in both games that reached this position. (Better is 13 .Wb3 ie6=.) 1 3 . . . if5 14.g4 Elac8 1 5 .Wb3 ie6 16.Wxd5 ixd5 Benko - Niephaus, Moscow (ol) 1956. Black stands better, as it's not easy for White to deal with the threat of . . . f6.

12 . . . tllb6 This is clearly better than the unnecessary: 1 2 . . . g5?! 1 3.ie3 tll b6 14.Wc2 if5 1 5.g4! White had a big advantage in Barbero -Kaposztas, Hungary 1 989.

13 .Wb4 if5N This novelty is connected with a new plan. Blechar - S. Jones, corr. 1 996, saw 13 . . . ie6 14.!"lfcl g5 1 5 .2"lc5 Wd8 1 6.ixg5 f6 17.ixe4 fxg5 1 8.ixb? with a messy position.

14.!"lfdl We6!oo Black's idea is to bring his knight to d5.

The position remains very complicated, with chances for both sides.

l l ... tl:)d7 12.VlYc2 This is White's first choice according to

theory. Other options:

12.Wb3 Wxb3 1 3 .axb3 occurred in Nogueiras - Krasenkow, Merida 2005 . I recommend the simple: 1 3 . . . tllxe5N ( 13 .. .f5 was played in the game, but I am concerned about 14 .tllc4 followed by f3) 14.dxe5 if5 1 5 .if4 2"lfc8=

1 2. tLl d3 tLl f6

1 3 .Wa4 I also examined: 13 .h3 2"ld8!N (This looks simpler than 1 3 . . . Wb5 14.a4 Wb6 1 5 .a5 Wb5 16 .tll c5 Wxb2 Ilincic - Simic, Novi Sad 1995 . Here White can play 1 7.�h2!N regaining the pawn and obtaining some pressure.) 14.Wd2 Wd6 1 5 .tll c5 b6 1 6.tllxe4 lllxe4 17.ixe4 ixh3 The position is roughly equal. 1 3.tll f4? !Wb5! 14 .Wc2 g5 1 5.a4 Wb4 16 .tllh3 h6 White was in trouble in Dobrzynski -Pytel, Lublin 1 969.

13 . . . tllg4!? A very concrete approach, although there is nothing wrong with 1 3 . . . if5N 14.!"lacl (or 14 .tll e5 We6) 14 ... 2"lfd8.

14.tll f4 Wd6 1 5 .id2 After 1 5 .ixe4 lllxe3 1 6.fxe3 e5 17.dxe5 Wxe5 Black has excellent compensation for the pawn.

1 5 . . . Wxd4 1 6.Wxd4 ixd4 1 7.ixe4 This was Granda Zuniga - Krasenkow, Madrid 1 998, and now I suggest:

17 . . . tll f6N 1 8.ig2 if5 Black has nothing to worry about.


12 ... lllxe5 Black may also choose: 1 2 . . . llif6 1 3.i"i:fcl

if5 l 4.Wfb3 1"i:fc8= Vlasov - Yandemirov, Kaluga 2007.

13.he4 '!Wc4 14.dxe5 '!Wxc2 15.hc2 he5 l 6 . .ie4 .ie6!

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

The game has simplified to a very drawish position.

17.�fdl �ad8 1 8 . .ixa? Y2-� Kosyrev - Yandemirov, St Petersburg

200 1 .

B2232) 8.lll e5 tlJg4!

For a final time I shall point out that 8 . . . e6 9.llic3 goes into a line that we wish to avoid.

8 . . . llie4 is a valid alternative though, and was covered in B222 l . However, even if you want to choose that option, much of the following analysis is relevant to our repertoire, as our main line can also be reached via the move order 6.lli c3 ig7 7.llie5 llifd7 8.f4 llixe5 9.fxe5 etc.

9.f4 This looks the most challenging. The

alternatives are:

9.if4 llixe5 1 0.ixe5 (not good is 1 O.dxe5?! e6 and the e5-pawn is weak) 1 O . . . f6!?N This new idea seems to me the most natural move. l l .if4 (also leading to an equal position is l l .ixb8 1"i:xb8 12.llic3 e6 13 .Wfb3 [White has no time for 1 3.e4? dxe4 14.llixe4 f5 and he loses the d4-pawn] 13 . . . f5=) l 1 . . .llic6 12.llic3 e6 13 .Wfd2 f5=

9.llixg4 ixg4 1 o.llic3 llic6

l l .h3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 a b c d e f g h

I believe that White should settle for this calm move, since entering complications can easily lead to him being worse, for instance: a) l l .ie3? e5! 1 2.llixd5 (Even worse is 1 2.dxeS? d4 1 3.ixc6 dxc3 14.ixb? 1"i:b8


1 5 .ie4 cxb2 16.!!b l Wang Yue - Vachier Lagrave, Lausanne 2006. Now Black could have secured his advantage by 1 6 . . . ixe5N 17.ixa7 8c8 and the b2-pawn should decide the game.) 12 . . . exd4 13.icl 8e8 14.!!e 1 8c8 Black has the better chances and he soon seized the initiative in Malakhov -Mamedyarov, Sant Lluis 2005: 1 5 .h3 if5 16.a3 Wd7 17.ciih2 ie4+ b) 1 l .ixd5 tt:lxd4 12.ixb7 1 3.ig2 8b8 ( 13 .ia6 Wa5 14.id3 8fd8 gave Black great compensation for the pawn in J. Akesson -Poley, Sweden 2008) 1 3 . . . tt:lxe2t (here too, Black can play for long-term compensation with 1 3 . . . Wa5!?) 14.tt:lxe2 Wxdl 1 5 .!!xd l ixe2 16.8d7 8fd8 17.8xd8t 8xd8 White will have to fight for the draw.

1 l . ..id7! 12.e3 This leads to a symmetrical and equal position. But playing more actively does not promise White any advantage: 12.tt:lxd5 tt:lxd4 13 .ig5 8e8 14.ciih2 (14 .Wd2? loses a pawn to 14 . . . ixh3!) 14 . . . ic6 1 5 .e4 Wd6 1 6.Wd2 Sargissian - Smirin, Bursa 20 1 0. Black should now play 1 6 .. .f5N 17.tt:l c3 8ad8 with good chances.

12 . . . e6 1 3.b3 Wa5 14.id2 After 14.ib2 tt:le7 1 5.Wel tt:lf5 16.!!c l 8fc8 17.g4 tt:ld6 1 8.f3 8c6 1 9.8f2 8ac8 Black was even slightly better in Arencibia Rodriguez -V. Mikhalevski, Montreal 2004.

14 . . . Wc7 14 . . . Wa3!? could be tried.

1 5.!!cl 8ac8 16.We2 Y2-Y2 Polugaevsky - Kasparov, Moscow

198 1 .

9 ... llJxe5 10.fxe5 Recapturing with the other pawn is

harmless: 10.dxe5 Wb6t 1 1 .ciih l 8d8 Black has no problems at all. 12.tt:lc3 ie6 1 3.b3 tt:lc6 14.ib2 d4 1 5.tt:la4 Wb5+ Damaso - Markos, Dresden (ol) 2008.

10 ... llJc6 1 1 .l£ic3

8 � �.t� �-· (� f� ,,,,,/,��,,&y,W� & 1 • • � �• • oo •

6 , , , , , /,u4iu,,, , , /,u,•�� r��: ��ft "•�� /, "/,,,(, , , , /,� �W-'� 3 � � � �[!fi

2 ��ff("'"�� l�):� Q �(.j/, � � -:/, , , ,��,, , , , 'W�'\lXXJ� R � 1 � � '§ � g �;; a b c d e f g h

1 1 .. . .ie6! It is important to play this, because after the

more natural 1 1 . . . e6 White has an interesting pawn sacrifice at his disposal: 12.e4 dxe4 13 .ie3 f5 14.exf6 8xf6 1 5 .tt:lxe4 l:!xfl t 16.Wxfl ixd4 (after 16 . . . tt:lxd4? 17.l:!d l e5 1 8.tt:lgS White wins on the spot, as in the wellknown game Kasparov - Nunn, Brussels 1 986) 17.ixd4 tt:lxd4 Theory considers this to be a balanced position, but it looks a bit suspicious to me and I prefer something more solid.

12 . .ie3 In my opinion this is the main continuation,

but White has other options:

First of all, it is important that 1 2.e4 doesn't work: 12 . . . dxe4 13.d5 ( 1 3.ie3 Wb6 also favours Black) 1 3 . . . Wb6t 14.ciih l 8ad8+ Black wins material.

l 2.if4 f6N I do not see any reason for refraining from this thematic idea, although Black can also carry it out a move later. ( 12 ... 8c8 13.Wd3 f6 14.exf6 exf6 15 .!!adl Larsen - Weber, e-mail 2009, and now I like 1 5 .. .f5N, when Black is certainly not worse.) 1 3.exf6 exf6 14.e4 This is White's only aggressive try, but it's not dangerous. 14 .. . dxe4 1 5 .d5 Wb6t! 1 6.ciihl 8ad8 17.tt:lxe4 ixd5 1 8.tt:lxf6t hf6 19.ixd5t ciih8 It is White who must fight for equality.


1 2.mh1 The main alternative according to theory.

1 2 . . .'�d7 Now 1 2 . . . f6? fails to 13 .e4, since Black doesn't have a check on b6.

1 3.e4 This does not promise an advantage, but nor do other continuations: 13 .�a4 i.h3!? (the calm 1 3 . . . a6 is worth considering) 1 4.i.xh3 �xh3 1 5 .i.f4 Elad8 1 6.Eladl f6 Black had no problems in Turov - Galkin, Elista 200 1 . 13 .i.e3 f6 14.exf6 exf6 1 5 .�d2 f5! I n my opinion, this pawn structure secures Black's position and White must be careful to avoid being worse. For example: 1 6.Elac 1 Elfe8 1 7.Clla4 b6 1 8.b3 h5 1 9.Elc3 Elac8+ Papin -Vitik, Belorechensk 2009.

13 ... i.g4

a b c d e f g h 14.e6!

Were it not for this cute tactical trick, White would just be worse.

14 . . . i.xdl 1 5.exd7 i.g4 1 6.i.g5 f6 1 7.i.e3 Schulze - Ostojic, Germany 1 988. Now Black could have achieved easy equality with:

1 7 . . . e5!N 1 8.dxe5 d4 19 .exf6 Elxf6 20.Elxf6 i.xf6 2 1 .Clld5 i.g7 22.i.f4 i.xd7=

8 i. � � ��-7 �ru,_ __ ,%m-•Y,m • - - - - - %u;uiu-,�� 6 �� %ii'!%��

: �� IP� �� %-,,/J--- -%�-0 ��r� 3 � � � 'f[j 2 r;�---- - ;Uii�U"£� 1 �--- -%�1� fm --

a b c d e f g h

12 ... f6N All three games which reached this position

continued 12 . . . �d7, but again I do not see any reason for Black to avoid the main idea.

13.exf6 exf6 Black intends to follow up with . . . f5.

14.�b3 lllaS Black has a comfortable position.

Conclusion When White exchanges on d5 the symmetrical structure does of course limit Black's chances for active play. On the other hand, Black faces fewer problems equalizing than against some other lines. My aim in constructing this repertoire was to ensure that Black does not face the unpleasant task of defending a passive, slightly worse position. I believe that by responding accurately to the various possible white move orders, Black can confidently expect to achieve full equality.

Various 4th Moves

A) 4.g4 B) 4.h4 C) 4.f3 cS!

Cl) S.cxdS C2) 5.dxcS

D) 4 . .id2

A) note to 7.e3

a b c d e f g h

7 . . . ti'ic6!N

Rare Options

Variation Index 1 .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3

3 ... dS

C2) after I O.�d3

a b c d e f g h I O . . . ti'id7!N

a b c d e f g h

D) after 1 5 .Ei:cl

a b c d e f g h l 5 . . . Ei:c8N

86 87 90 90 91 92

86 Various 4th Moves

1 .d4 lLJf6 2.c4 g6 3.lLJc3 d5

In this chapter we shall examine four ofWhite's rarer fourth moves: A) 4.g4, B) 4.h4, C) 4.f3 and D) 4.i.d2.

Another possibility is 4.g3. lhis is a uncommon move order for playing the Fianchetto System, probably because it allows Black some extra options connected with . . . dxc4. However, I recommend the straightforward 4 . . . ig7 5.ig2 (5.cxd5 tllxd5 is covered in Volume Two) 5 . . . c6. There is no way for White to benefit from this move order, so he should just enter one of the lines that were covered in the previous chapters.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

A) 4.g4

a b c d e f g h

This aggressive approach does not pose Black any real problems.

4 ... dxc4! It is hardly wise to enter the complications

after 4 . . . ixg4 5 .'Wb3.

5.h3 White generally settles for this calm move,

since he doesn't achieve much with: 5 .g5 tlld5 6.ig2 c6 7.e4

7.'Wa4 tllb6 8.'Wa5 ig7 9.if4 0-0 was clearly

better for Black in De Nucci - Mekhitarian, Campinas 20 1 0.

7 . . . tllb4

8 i. •.t� �·- �.i 7 �·/� ,, ,/,···� 'i 6 , , %·'· %-'� 5 %� %� %� 4

�.

,�,�� %� 3 ,, , r;J · ·�� ef ;� ��'" ��''%'. 2 �Jll�,, �y�,,J8l�JB

� �'if� m .: a b c d e f g h

The point; Black's knight penetrates to d3 with check.

8 .lllge2 llld3t 9.<iifl ig7 9 . . . e5 is also strong, with the idea: 10.dxe5 llld7!+

1 0.h4 Damnjanovic - Hemmer, e-mail 2009. There is no reason for Black to refrain from capturing the white centre pawn.

1 0 . . . ixd4N l l .lllxd4 'Wxd4 Black has a large advantage.

5 ... i.g7 6.e4 White may choose not to bother regaining

the c4-pawn, but he does not obtain much compensation: 6.ig2 0-0 7.e4 c5 8.d5 e6 9.f4

This is an understandable decision, since the natural 9.lllge2 exd5 1 0.exd5 runs into a strong response: 1 O . . . h5 l l .g5 tt:l e8 Black transfers his knight to d6. His extra pawn and the exposed white kingside make Black's advantage obvious.

9 . . . exd5 1 0.e5 This was Amelchenko - Leonov, Ufa 1 996. It is not difficult to improve Black's play:

1 0 . . . d4!N l l .exf6 'Wxf6 12.tll e4 'i!fe7 1 3.<iif2 tll c6

Black is clearly better, with three pawns

Chapter 8 - Rare Options 87

for the piece, a lead in development and an exposed white king.

6 ... 0-0 7.i.xc4 c5 A well-timed counter in the centre.

8.d5?! This leads to an advantage for Black.

Objectively White's best is: 8.dxc5 ctJ bd7!

8 . . . 1.Wxdl t 9.ltixdl is not so clear. 9.Cllf3

After 9 .�e3 \W a5 White experiences problems defending his e-pawn.

9 . . . Cllxc5 1 o .\We2 b5! This nuance assures Black of an excellent game.

1 1 .�xb5 �b7 Black will regain the pawn, and meanwhile

White will hardly be able to find any compensation for the weakening of his kingside.

8 ... b5! This thematic idea works perfectly.

9.i.xh5 c!llxe4 IO.c!llxe4 Wfa5t I I .c!llc3 i.xc3t 12.bxc3 Wfxb5 13.i.e3 i.a6 14.Wfe2 Wfa4 15.Wfd2 c!lld7

Black's advantage was already decisive in Wehmeier - Sygulski, Germany 1 995.

B) 4.h4

This move has been a favourite of the Croatian Grandmaster Miso Cebalo, but his fairly recent game against Riazantsev constitutes a serious blow to this line. I find it hard to believe that this variation can be repaired for White.

4 . . • c5! Black is seeking to take over the initiative.

Were it not for this move, the line would be perfectly playable for White.

5.dxc5 The alternative is:

5.cxd5 Cllxd5 6.h5 �g7

a b c d e f g h Black's pressure on the white centre underlines that White's idea has not been a resounding success.


7.ltJf3 7.e3 cxd4 8.exd4 ltJc6 9.hxg6 (9.�b5 can be met by 9 . . . 0-0 and Black has the better chances) 9 . . . hxg6 1 0.l"i:xh8t �xh8 1 1 .ltJ f3 Wa5 (the simple 1 1 . . .�e6 is good too) 12.Wb3 Delis - Koukos, Ano Liosia 2007. Now 12 ... ltJxc3N is the best solution: 1 3.Wxc3 ( 13.bxc3? just loses a pawn to 1 3 . . . �xd4!) 13 . . . Wb6 14.�e3 �e6 Black has good play against the isolated cl-pawn.

7 . . . ltJc6 8.h6 �f6 9.e3 This was Lichman - Neerforth, Bad Woerishofen 2008, and now simplest is:

9 . . . cxd4N 1 0.exd4 0-0+ Black has a comfortable position.

s ... d4 6.lllbs e5! This is an important move. After 6 ... ltJc6

7.e3 e5 8.exd4 ltJxd4 9.b4! we reach a very complex position, in which White is fighting for an advantage.

7.e3 Other options:

7.b4 I believe that Black has a very strong reply:

7 . . . ltJc6!N My improvement on 7 ... a6, when the following idea gives White reasonable play: 8 .Wa4 �d7 9.�g5 Dobos - Fodor, Hungary 2005.

8 .�g5 White does not have time to slowly defend the b4-pawn: 8.a3 a6 9.Wa4 �e6! l O.ltJd6t �xd6 1 1 .cxd6 �xc4 Black has a clear advantage.

8 ,,,�-,��f : %.1.�.,� �m"��,ef' �� s �tt:Jr� r� � ,;,��%- , ,%� , , , , ,�� 4 ;c , ,%�r,, , %� ��r,, � !��!�!� ��l=i�n

a b c d e f g h 8 . . . ltJxb4!

A very strong idea; Black sacrifices material, but in return gets powerful play against the white king, which is stuck in the centre.

9.�xf6 9.Wa4 is met with 9 . . . �xc5! (strongest, though 9 . . . ltJc6 1 0.�xf6 Wxf6 1 1 .ltJc7t �dB 1 2.ltJxa8 �xc5 also gives Black great compensation) 1 0.ltJc7t �f8 1 1 .ltJxa8 d3 White is facing a huge attack, for example 1 2.0-0-0 Wd4! wins for Black.

9 . . . Wxf6 1 0.ltJc7t �d8 l 1 .ltJxa8 �f5 12.l"i:cl After 1 2.Wb3 ltJc2t 1 3.�dl Black has the great resource: 13 . . . �e4! 14.c6 (White has no time for 14.l"i:cl Wxf2 and he is losing) 14 . . . Wxf2 l 5.ltJf3 b6 Black is clearly better.

1 2 . . . �xc5


A critical p_osition for the evaluation of my idea. Despite being a rook down, I strongly prefer Black. Firstly, the white knight is unlikely to escape from the corner, which means that White's material advantage will not be so great. And most importantly, Black is clearly ahead in development and it's not easy for White to develop his kingside. Here is an illustrative line that clearly shows the dangers of White's position:

13.Wb3 Wc8 Not only intending to capture the knight in the corner, but also vacating the d8-square for the rook.

14.a3 After l 4.g3 Ei:d8 l 5 . .ig2 d3 Black seizes a decisive initiative.

l 4 . . . 'llc6 l 5 .g4 .ie4! This is stronger than 1 5 . . . .ixg4 16.Ei:b l ! b6 17 . .ih3, when White is still in the game.

16.'llf3 16.f3 runs into 16 . . . d3! with a powerful attack.

1 6 . . . d3 17.Ei:h3 �b8+ White is in trouble.

7.'llf3

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h A key idea is that Black is not forced to defend his e-pawn, but can make use of his development advantage:

7 . . . .ixc5!N Improving on 7 . . . 'll c6, which has been played in a couple of games.

8 .'llxe5 a6 The point of Black's play.

9.Wa4 9.'lla3 runs into the strong: 9 . . . .ib4t! (but not 9 . . . .ixa3?! intending to follow up with ... Wa5xe5, as White can insert the intermediate move 1 0.Wa4t!) 1 0 . .id2 .ixd2t l 1 .Wxd2 'lle4 1 2.Wb4 (otherwise 1 2 . . . Wa5t would be a killer) 12 . . . Wc7 13 .'ll f3 'll c6 14.Wa4 0-0 Black's development advantage looks scary from White's point of view.

9 . . . 'll c6 1 0.'ll d3 .ie7 l 1 .'lla3 0-0 1 2 . .ig5 .if5�

White is again experiencing serious problems with his development.

7 • • • hc5 8.exd4 exd4

8 .i�.t�- � �.i 7 �·,,� ,,, , ,/,� r� -, 6 ,��.T� ��'>';; �� //,,,,, ;� 5 �ttJ� � � �� ,,,,,��r� �� /,w:: 4 �i·�� fD=•�P-!M 1 � �V�l��Zt�

a b c d e f g h

It is already clear that White's opening concept has been a failure; his knight is totally misplaced on b5, while the advance of the h-pawn has only created weaknesses in his own camp. It is not surprising that Black achieved a convincing victory in the following encounter:

9.�f3 0-0 There is also nothing wrong with the natural

9 . . . 'll c6.

IO . .ie2


Accepting the pawn sacrifice wouldn't help White: 1 0.lll bxd4 l:'i:e8t l l .j,e2 lllc6! l 2.lllxc6 (or 12.j,e3 Wb6 13 .lllc2 j,f5!+) 12 . . . Wxdl t 13 .'i!?xdl lllg4! Black is doing very well.

10 ... l'ilc6 l 1 .i.f4 i.f5! 12.i.d3 White had no time to castle, since Black was

threatening 12 . . . d3.

12 ... i.xd3 13.'Wxd3 a6 14.l'ilc7 E:c8 15.a3 E:xc7 16.i.xc? 'Wxc7

Black had a decisive material advantage in Cebalo - Riazantsev, Biel 2009.

C) 4.£3

In my opinion this is not a dangerous variation, but it still has to be covered, as it has occurred more than rwo hundred times in practice!

4 ... c5!

This aggressive response is best. Black immediately tries to profit from the slight vulnerability of White's centre caused by the previous move. White now chooses berween Cl) 5.cxd5 and C2) 5.dxc5.

Cl) 5.cxd5 l'ilxd5 6.l'ila4

I find this much more interesting than the more popular:

6.e4 lllxc3 7.bxc3 j,g?

a b c d e f g h I don't think that it makes sense for White to play like this. Comparing the position with the Exchange Variation, it is hard to imagine that anyone would choose 7.f3 instead of the normal 7.j,c4, 7.j,e3 or 7.lllf3.

8.j,b5t Black is not troubled by: 8.j,e3 lllc6 9.j,b5 cxd4! 1 0.j,xd4 0-0 l l .j,xc6 bxc6 12.j,xg7 'i!?xg7 13.Wd4t Lecluse - Bosch, Herlies 1 999. Now the simple 1 3 . . . Wxd4N l 4.cxd4 l:'i:b8 would leave Black with a clear advantage.

8 . . . j,d7 This natural continuation is of course quite sufficient, but I like the more challenging 8 . . . lllc6, inviting the complications: 9.d5 j,xc3t l O.j,d2 Wa5! Black is doing well.

9.j,xd7t Wxd7 10 .llle2 cxd4 l l .cxd4 lllc6 12.j,e3 0-0 13.l:'i:b l

This was Alsina Leal - Garcia Andrinal, Lisbon 200 1 , and now I suggest:

1 3 . . . llla5N 14.d5 lllc4 1 5 .j,d4 e5! Black has a comfortable position.

6 ... i.g7! Black accepts the challenge and sacrifices

the c5-pawn, hoping to make use of his lead in development. Of course White would be happy to see: 6 . . . cxd4 7.Wxd4_ f6 8.e4 lllc7 9.Wxd8t 'i!?xd8 1 0.j,e3 White has the better endgame, Blasko - Varadi, Hungary 2003.

7.lllxc5 After 7.dxc5 0-0 8 .e4 li:lb4 Black has a

serious initiative for the pawn, thanks to the tactical point: 9.a3 Wxd lt 1 0.<j:;>xd l E:d8t l I .id2 ih6!+

7 ... lllc6 8.lllb3 lll b6 9.e3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

9 ... e5N I. Botvinnik - Greenfeld, Israel 2002,

continued: 9 ... 0-0 1 O.f4! White prevents Black's key idea of . . . e5. Although Black still has definite compensation, I prefer to attack the white centre immediately, which I consider more in the spirit of the Griinfeld.

10.dxe5 After 1 O.li.Je2 Black has a pleasant choice

between 1 0 . . . ie6!? and 1 0 . . . 0-0.

10 ... ¥Bxdlt 1 1 .<j{xdl he5 I prefer this to l l . . .li:lxe5 12.ib5t.

12.ib5 0-0 Black has full compensation for the pawn.

C2) 5.dxc5 d4

We now have a more or less forced sequence of moves.

6.lllb5 lllc6 7.e3 e5 8.exd4 lllxd4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

9.lllxd4 White has other options here:

9.ig5 ixc5 1 0.li:lxd4 (It is not a good idea to grab material with 1 0.ixf6? Wxf6 l l .li:lc7t Coenen - Gertosio, Calvi 2009. After l l . . .<j:;>f8N 1 2.li:lxa8 ib4t 1 3.<j:;>f2 e4! 14 .ie2 li:lf5 White should not survive for long.) 10 . . . exd4 l l .id3 Nestorovic - Misailovic, Budva 2003. Here I like 1 1 . . . 0-0N 1 2.li.Je2 Wa5t 1 3 .id2 Wb6 14.E:bl a5 1 5.0-0 E:e8 and the strong d4-pawn means that only Black can be better.

9 .b4 a5!


Konopka, Decin 1 996, and now the simple 16 . . . bG!N 17.ixf6t i;t>xf6 1 8.ll'ie4t i;t>g7 leads to a definite advantage for Black) 1 o . . . ie7 1 1 .ll'ie2 ll'ixb5 12 .Wxd8t Wxd8 13.cxb5 axb4 14.E!:dl t Nihal - M. Andersen, Kerner 2009. After 14 ... i;t>e8N 1 5. ll'icl ie6 Black has a clear superiority.

9 ... exd4 10.id3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c

10 ... �d7!N

e

In my opinion this is a nice improvement over 1 O . . . ixc5, which occurred in all four games that reached this position; after 1 1 .ll'ie2 0-0 1 2.0-0 the play is balanced.

1 1 .b4 White attempts to prevent Black achieving

an optimal arrangement of his pieces. Black gets exactly what he wants after l 1 .ll'ie2 ll'ixc5 12.0-0 ig7, when the d4-pawn secures him a long-term edge.

1 1 ...aS 12.ie4 Or 12 .We2t We7 13 .ib2 ll'ie5! and Black

is better.

12 ... ig7 13.ib2 After 13 .c6 bxc6 14.ixc6 E!:b8 1 5 .b5

0-0 White is in trouble, as Black's lead in development will soon start to tell.

13 ... axb4 14.i.xd4 0-0 15.�e2 �h4t 16.g3 �e7

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

Black will regain the c5-pawn, leaving him with the better pawn structure and a generally favourable position.

D) 4.id2

This is a relatively rare continuation, but since Ivanchuk played it in 2007, a few other strong grandmasters have also tried it.

4 ... clxc4!? This is a critical reaction, temporarily going

a pawn up. Black will gain time for developing his pieces while White is regaining the pawn. The natural 4 . . . ig7 is of course possible, and after 5.cxd5 ll'ixd5 we have transposed into Volume Two (4.cxd5 ll'ixd5 5 .id2).

5.e3 It is hard to believe that White can afford

to calmly continue 5 .ll'if3, as Black can hold onto the extra pawn: 5 . . . a6 (5 . . . c6 followed by . . . b5 also comes into consideration) 6.e4 b5 7.e5 ll'id5 8.a4 ll'ixc3 9.ixc3 Wd5! White does not have enough compensation for the pawn. 1 0.axb5 axb5 1 1 .E!:xa8 Wxa8 12.d5 ig7 13.b3 Wa3!+ Burnier - Lagarde, France 2009.

s ... ie6 6.�f3 c6 7.�g5

White is obliged to play this if he wants to regain the pa�n.

7 ... i.d5 8.e4 h6 9.exd5 hxg5 IO.dxc6 After 1 0.i.xc4 cxd5 1 1 .i.b5t 'Llc6 12 .i.xg5

i.g7 Black has the better pawn structure, and has nothing to worry about.

IO ... c!!Jxc6 1 1 .bg5 ig7 Black has several other possibilities here, but

it is natural to complete the development of his kingside.

8 � ��i��-Ji 1 � · - r� • m 6 , , , , . /,m'm,,, , . /,�f,�m 5 �� //,, , , , ;, 4 �.r.�. ,� 3 . %� .,, /,� %�

��-%.,, , , ;� ��-% ��-'0 2 8 r� m r� 8 rtJ � .. , , /,�i=.r•� a b c d e f g h

12.hc4 Ivanchuk correctly indicated that the

alternative 1 2.d5 wouldn't pose Black any problems: 1 2 . . . 'Lle5 13 .i.xc4 ( 13 .f4?! is too weakening, and after 13 . . . 'Lleg4 14.i.xc4 14 . . . :B:c8 1 5.i.b5t <;!;>f8 White's position looks vulnerable) 1 3 . . . 'Llxc4 14.Wa4t Wd7 1 5 .Wxc4 White has won a pawn, but Black has ample counterplay. 1 5 . . . :B:c8 1 6.We2 :B:h5! 1 7.h4 'Llh7 1 8.i.d2 i.xc3 (Black can also invite a repetition by 1 8 . . . 'Llf6) 1 9.i.xc3 Wxd5 20.<;!;>fl 'Llf8 Black's position even looks slightly preferable to me.

12 ... c!!Jxd4 13.i.e3 13.0-0? is a serious mistake, due to the

double attack 1 3 . . . Wc7; after 14.Wa4t <;!;>f8 1 5.h3 'Llg4! Black obtains a decisive attack.

1 3 .Wa4t Wd7 14.Wxd7t 'Llxd7 leads to a comfortable endgame for Black.

13 ... e5 14.0-0 0-0 15Jkl 1 5 .f4? is premature in view of: 15 ... 'Llf5

16.i.c5?! Wxdl 1 7.:B:axdl :B:fc8!+

a b c d e f g h

We have been following the game Ivanchuk - Sutovsky, Montreal 2007, and now I suggest the natural improvement:

15 .. JkSN 16.Wd3 Other options are 1 6.'Lle2 'Ll d5! and 1 6.b3

a6 1 7.a4 Wd7. In both cases Black's position is perfectly playable.

16 ... a6 17.a4 Wd7 18.�fdl �fd8 The position is balanced, Black's centralized

knight fully compensating for White's bishop pair.

Conclusion White's early lunges, 4.g4 and 4.h4, are too loosening. Black should follow the classical advice to counter in the centre, and White will often end up regretting the self-inflicted weakening of his kingside. The other two moves we looked at, 4.f3 and 4.i.d2, are more solid options, but neither of them is particularly dangerous.

Various 4th Moves 4.�a4t

Variation Index 1 .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 dS 4.Wfa4t .id7 S.Wfb3 dxc4 6.Wfxc4

6 .. . .ig7 A) 7 . .if4 �a6 8.�f3 0-0 9.e4 cS

Al) 1 0.eS A2) 1 0.dxcS

B) 7.e4 0-0 Bl) 8.�f3 B2) 8.eS

A) note to 8.li:lf3 Al ) after l 9.li:lc3 B2) note to 9.�b5

95 96 97

100 100 102

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h 9 . . . 0-0!N l 9 . . . li:lb4N 1 6 . . . fG!N

Chapter 9 - 4.'&a4t 95

1 .d4 ltlf6 2.<:4 g6 3.lllc3 d5 4.W/a4t This cheeky check aims to disrupt Black's

natural development. Having said this, Black does gain a tempo as well.

4 ... id7 5.°&b3 dxc4 6.W/xc4 The b-pawn is obviously untouchable:

6.'&xb7? llJc6 White is in trouble due to the threat of . . . :gb8 followed by . . . llJb4.

6 ... ig7

a b c d e f g h

Now 7.llJf3 is covered as line A in Chapter 24; we shall look at A) 7.if4 and B) 7.e4 here.

A) 7.if4 llla6 8.lllf3

The alternatives are:

8.e4 0-0 9.:gdlN I checked this new idea for White. (9.llJf3 transposes to the main line.) 9 . . . c5 1 0.dxc5 °&a5 1 1 .e5 �e6! This is a convincing route to equality. 1 2.°&b5 '&xb5 13 .�xb5 llJh5 14.�e3 (after 14.�g5 llJxc5 1 5.�xe7 :gfc8 Black has compensation for the pawn) 14 . . . �xe5=

8.:gdl c5 9.e3 (This is hardly the way to try for an advantage, but after 9 .dxc5 '& a5 Black has nothing to worry about.)

9 . . . 0-0!N This enables Black to fight for the initiative. Other moves: 9 . . . °&a5 10 .°&b3 led to unnecessary complications in Julve - Lucas, France 2003. 9 ... cxd4N is the simplest way to equalize: 1 0.°&xd4 0-0 1 1 .�xa6 bxa6 1 2.llJf3 '&b6=

1 0.°&b3 1 0.dxc5 °&a5 1 I .llJf3 :gac8 and 1 O .d5 llJh5 are hardly satisfactory for White either.

1 0 . . . cxd4 1 1 .exd4 °&a5 1 2.llJf3 :gac8+

8 ... 0-0 9.e4 White does not hesitate to sieze the centre. The modest 9.e3 should not pose Black

any problems. For example: 9 . . . c5 1 0.°&b3 cxd4 1 1 .exd4 �c6 1 2.�e2 llJc7 1 3.0-0 llJcd5 14.�e5 '&b6+ M. Gurevich - Akesson, Antalya 2004.

9.:gdl This is a thematic move in this variation, and it can lead to an interesting battle.

9 . . . c5 1 0.dxc5 °&a5 1 1 .e4 Giorgadze - Sion, Castro Mondariz 1 995, was agreed drawn after 1 1 .llJd4; if we continue with l l . . .°&xc5 1 2.°&xc5 llJxc5 then Black is very slightly better.

1 l . . .:gac8 The endgame arising after 1 l . . .�e6 1 2.°&b5 '&xb5 13 .�xb5 llJxc5 is fine for Black.

1 2.e5


White must continue to play sharply. He has no time to simply complete his development, for example: 12.�e2 El:xc5 13 .'\Wd3 �a4! 1 4.Ei:d2 El:xc3 1 5 .bxc3 tlJc5 Black will play . . . 4Jfe4 next, with a big advantage.

1 2 . . . Ei:xc5

13 .'\Wb3N It is clear that this is the critical continuation. Otherwise: 1 3.exf6? loses on the spot: 13 . . . Ei:xc4 14.fxg7 Ei:e4t! 1 5 .�e3 Ei:d8-+ Ermenkov - Orev, Bulgaria 1 973. 1 3.'\Wd4? fails to 13 ... 4Jb4!.

1 3 . . . �e6 14.'\Wxb7 White cannot play 14.exf6? m view of 14 . . . �xb3 1 5 .fxg7 Ei:d8 1 6.Ei:xd8t '\Wxd8 1 7.axb3 4Jb4! and the white king will be stuck in the centre.

1 4 . . . 4Jb4!? 1 5 .exf6 �xf6 16 .�e2 Settling for the draw. Other moves cannot be recommended: 1 6.Ei:d2? �xc3 1 7.bxc3 Ei:xc3 1 8.�e2 Ei:cl t 1 9.�dl 4Jd3t-+ 1 6.�d3 �c8! 17.'\We4 �f5 1 8.'\We2 4Jxd3t 19 .Ei:xd3 �xd3 20.'\Wxd3 Ei:d8 2 1 .'\We2 '\Wb4 Black is much better.

1 6 . . . �c8 1 7.'\We4 17.'\Wa8 �f5 also repeats moves, but 1 7.'\Wb8? loses to 17 ... �a6 1 8.'\Wxa7 tlJc2t.

1 7 . . . �f5 1 8.'\Wb7=

9 ... cS

Closing the centre with 1 O.d5 is strongly met by: 1 0 . . . b5! 1 1 .4Jxb5 ( 1 1 .'\We2 c4 12.e5 4Jh5 13 .�d2 4Jb4+ was not much fun for White in R. Popov - Pavlov, Novosibirsk 2002) 1 1 . . .4Jxe4 1 2.'\Wxe4 �xb5 Black is already clearly better. 13 .0-0-0 �xfl 1 4.Ei:hxfl '1Wa5 1 5 .'\Wc4 Ei:ab8! 1 6.�xb8 Ei:xb8 17.Ei:d2 Ei:b4 Black had a decisive attack in Demchenko -Gabrielian, Armavir 20 1 0.

Al) 10.eS .!DhS 1 1 .i.e3 cxd4 12.'1Wxd4 i.c6

a b c d e f g h

Krasenkow sums up the position rather well: "Both black knights are on the edge of the

Chapter 9 - 4.�a4t 97

board but his �ishops are active and he is ahead in development."

13.i.e2 Wfa5 The alternative is:

13 .. . �c? I was intending to recommend this move and had already sent material to my editor when White posed serious problems to this continuation in a game in the latest European Championship.

14.0-0! 14.�h4 was played in a previous game: 14 . . . i.xe5! 1 5 .lllxe5 �xe5 1 6.0-0-0 ( 1 6.0-0 is stronger, but Black is absolutely fine after 1 6 .. . lllg? 1 7.i.f4 1 7 . . . lllf5 [even 1 7 . . . �d4!? 1 8.Ei:adl �b4 could be considered] 1 8.�xh?t c;t>xh7 1 9.i.xe5 f6 20.i.f4 e5=) 16 ... lllg?!N (an improvement over 16 ... lllc? Grigoriants - Esen, Warsaw 2005) 1 7.i.f4 �e6 ( 17 . . . lllf5 1 8.�xh?t c;t>xh? 1 9.i.xe5 f6+) 1 8.i.g4 lllf5+

14 . . . i.xf3 1 5 .i.xf3 i.xe5 1 6.�e4 lllc5 17 .�b4! llld3

Black's play looks very logical, but he still finds himself in difficulties. The power of the two bishops is not easily contained.

18 .�b3 i.xc3 1 9.�xc3 �xc3 20.bxc3 The endgame is very unpleasant for Black

and White won effortlessly by clearing the queenside and advance his a-pawn; Feller -Jansa, Aix-les-Bains 20 1 1 .

14.0-0 .ixf3 14 . . . lllb4 did not work well for Black in

Jakovenko - Topalov, China 2009. Now 1 5 .�c5!N is strong.

15 . .ixf.3 he5 16.WfdS �xd5 17.llJxdS :ares 18.:aacl

This looks harmless. The most challenging option is probably 1 8.g4N lllg7 1 9.Ei:ad l . Here I developed the following defensive strategy for Black: 19 . . . h5!? 20.h3 (20.gxh5 lllxh5 solves the problem of his misplaced knight and is fine for Black) 20 . . . hxg4 2 1 .hxg4 lll e6 22.b4 c;t>g? 23.Ei:fel f6 White obviously has compensation for the pawn, but Black is in decent shape and I would evaluate the position as balanced.

18 ... e6 19.l!Jc3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

19 ... llJb4N I prefer this to the slightly passive 1 9 . . . Ei:e? as

in I. Sokolov - Van Wely, Belgium 2003.

20.:afdl :aad8 Black obtains good activity.

A2) 1 0.dxcS .ie6 l l .�b5 .id7 12.�xb7

12.�c4 would lead to a repetition.

12 ... llJxcS 13.'!Wb4 �e6


8 i. � � ��· 7 � �ur_,,y,�, , , , , ,%� �u•ar•�� 6 ��···· · · · ·� 5 �;/.'''-'��-�;:";;�� 4 � - lS � � 3 �,, , ,,Y,��-li)-��'%"""%% ��,%��''.0, 2 lS r� - r� lS rt!J 1 .,,,,%� �=£•�

a b c d e f g h

14.i.e5 Another option is:

14 .ig3 a5 Black chases the white queen away from the b4-square in order to undermine the defence of the e4-pawn.

1 5 .Wa3 1 5 .Wb3 a4 16.Wa3 ic6 17.lt:'id2 lt:'id4 1 8.0-0-0 Smithers - De Waard, e-mail 200 1 . Black should now play the straightforward: 1 8 . . . ih6N 1 9.�b l ( 1 9.f4 Wc7!+) 1 9 . . . ixd2 20.l"\xd2 lt:'ixe4 2 1 .:1'\dl Wb6 Black is clearly better.

1 5 . . . ic6 1 6.:1'\dl Wb6

8 � ��,J�; 7 � • 1.U i � i 6 �BT� i).,,�� 5 �,, , , %� �� /, ,, ,� 4 J��-,�� \tttl�" "'% �� '!/, 3 8§?� � •etJ� 2 ,�%0, ' � �O'�� 1 , , /,�,=�� ,�

a b c d e f g h Black's lead in development provides full compensation for the pawn.

17.id3 17.e5 lt'ih5 18 .lt'id5?! is too risky: 1 8 . . . ixd5 1 9.l"\xd5 l"\fc8 20.:1'\d l Sitnik - Balenovic,

Sisak 2000. Now the simple 20 . . . lt:'ixg3N 2 l .hxg3 :1'1c2 22.ie2 l"\xb2 would leave Black with a considerable advantage.

17 . . . lt'ic5 1 8.e5 lt'ih5 1 9.ie2 lt:'ixg3 20.hxg3 e6 2 1 .0-0 lt:'id7

2 1 . . .ixf3 22.gxf3 ixe5 23.lt'ib5 would have led to an equal game, but Black tries to squeeze a bit more out of the position.

22.Wd6 :1'1ad8 23.Wd4 This was Ftacnik - Ilincic, Prague 1 989, and now Black could have put the finishing touch to his strategy with:

23 . . . Wb8N Black will win back the e5-pawn and then be

able to press with his bishop pair.

14 ... a5 15.�a3 �b6 16.i.c4 The alternatives do not promise White any

advantage either:

1 6.lt:Jd5 This leads to a forced line.

1 6 ... lt:'ixd5 17.exd5 lt:'id4! 1 8.ixd4 ixd4 19.lt:'ixd4 Wxd4

a b c d e f g h Black is in no danger, and it is actually White who must be careful to avoid getting a worse position.

20.ie2 20.:1'\dl We5t 2 1 .ie2 ib5 22.We3 Wxb2 23.Wd2 Mujica - Laczay, e-ma}l 2009. Here Black could maintain some pressure with: 23 . . . We5N 24.We3 Wxe3 25.fxe3 l"\ab8+

Chapter 9 - 4.\&a4t 99

20 ... !'i:ab8 21 .0-0 !'i:xb2 22.!'i:adl 22.'l&xe7 i�4! 23.ia6 (23.if3? !'i:e8 24.'l&c7 ib5 25.!'i:fdl 'l&xf2t 26.'it>h l !'i:xa2+) 23 . . . '1Wxd5 White has not fully equalized, due to the poor coordination of his pieces.

22 .. . '1Wb4N This is more testing than 22 .. . '1Wb6, as I played in Pelletier - Avrukh, Biel 1 999.

23.'1Wxb4 !'i:xb4! 24.if3 !'i:c8 25.!'i:fel \t>f8 26.d6!

White should manage to hold the balance.

16.ixf6 exf6 17.!'i:dl White has also tried 17.ctJd5, but 17 ... '1Wc5 is a strong reply: 1 8.'1Wxc5 ctJxc5 1 9.0-0-0 ie6 20.ctJd2 f5! Black had a dangerous initiative in Novoa - Jelen, e-mail 2002.

17 ... ic6 1 8.ic4 f5!

8 .i. �

a b c d e f g h l 9.ctJd5

In Chess Informant 78 Sutovsky gives the following lines: 1 9.ixe6 f:xe6 20.exf5 ixf3 (20 . . . '1Wb4! is even stronger) 2 1 .gxf3 !'i:xf5t 1 9.exf5 ctJf4 20.0-0 ixf3 2 1 .gxf3 '1Wf6 22.'it>hl '1Wxf5 23.ctJd5 !'i:ae8�

19 . . . ixd5 20.exd5 20.ixd5 ixb2 2 1 .'1We3 (21 .'1Wb3 '1Wxb3 22.axb3 ic3t 23.'it>fl !'i:ad8+ Sutovsky) 2 1 ...'1Wb4t 22.ctJd2 !'i:ad8+ Sutovsky

20 . . . ixb2 Clearly it is Black who is fighting for an

advantage, Mittelman - Sutovsky, Israel 2000.

16 ... tlJg4! The most direct approach.

17 . .ig3 'l&b4!

18.'l&xb4 axb4 19.tiJd5 White is far from equalizing after 19.ctJdl

!'i:fc8! 20.id5 !'i:a7! as pointed out by Sutovsky in Chess Informant 76.

19 ... i.xb2 Once again we are in a situation where it is

Black who is trying for an advantage. However I believe that White can maintain equality with accurate play.

20.�dl After 20.!'i:b 1 ic3t Black takes over the

initiative: 2 1 .ctJxc3 (2 1 .'it>e2 ctJc5! 22.ctJb6 ie6! 23.ixe6 f:xe6 24.ctJxa8 !'i:xa8+ Rustemov - Sutovsky, Polanica Zdroj 1 999) 2 1 . ..bxc3 22.0-0 Bacrot - Sutovsky, Albert (6) 200 1 . Now Sutovsky gives 22 . . . !'i:fc8N 23.id5 c2 24.!'i:bcl !'i:a3 with a clear advantage for Black.

20 ... .ia4 This was Johansson - Pasko, e-mail

200 l , and now White should sacrifice the exchange:


B) 7.e4 0-0

White now chooses between Bl) 8 . .!Lif3 and B2) 8.e5.

Bl) 8 . .!Lif3 b5!

9 • .!Lixb5 White may refrain from this capture:

9.Wb3 c5 1 0.e5 White has also tried: 1 0.dxc5 tll a6 l l .e5 ( l l .i.e3 runs into l l . . .lll g4 12 .i.d2 lllxc5

1 3.W d5? Wb6 and Black was already winning in Witte - Lonoff, Chicago 1 990) l l . . .lllg4 Play has transposed to 1 O.e5.

1 0 ... tllg4

l l .dxc5 Worse is: l l .i.xb5?! cxd4 1 2.lllxd4 i.xb5 (Kasparov pointed out that 12 . . . i.xe5!? also leads to an advantage for Black) 13 .llldxb5 a6 14.llla3 Wd4! 1 5.Wc2 ( 1 5 .0-0 Wxe5 16.g3 Wh5 l 7.h4 lllc6+) 1 5 . . . lllc6 1 6.We2 Wxe5! Black was clearly better in Hubner -Kasparov, Brussels 1986.

l l . . .lll a6 l 2.i.xb5 White should hurry to complete his development, or he may find himself in trouble. For example: 12.e6? lllxc5 13.exf7t 'it>h8 ( 13 . . . :!:%xf7!? is also possible) 14.Wa3 Osieka - Pein, Lugano 1 986. Black could have decided the game on the spot with 14 . . . Wb6!N 1 5.tlld5 Wd6-+.

1 2 . . . lllxc5 13 .Wc4 :!:%c8 14.0-0 lllxe5 15 .lllxe5 i.xe5 l 6.i.h6

Valtera - Vagenknecht, corr. 1999. Black should now play:

l 6 . . . :!:%e8N l 7.:!:%fdl Wb6 Black is slightly better, thanks to his pressure

down the long diagonal.

For the record I also checked 9.Wc5N, but it does not pose Black any problems: 9 ... lt:la6 1 0.Wa3 b4 l 1 .Wxa6 bxc3 l2.i.d3 cxb2 l 3.i.xb2 Black can think about taking the initiative. 1 3 . . . :!:%b8 l 4.i.c3 :!:%b6 l 5.Wa3

Chapter 9 - 4.\Wa4t 101

(l 5 .'1Wxa7 i.b5!) l 5 . . . i.c6 l 6.lLJd2 i.h6 White is under pressure.

9 ••• lLJxe4 10.°1Wxc7 Theory considers 1 0.lLJxc? very dangerous

for White, and rightly so.

8 i. � � ��-7 &f'' -�:fi••y,� I. 6 •- • , %.-.�� 5 � • • • 4 .,��- %� 3 �;;,rn • • ctJ. 2 [j �[j • � b � � - -� %��

a b c d e f g h 1 0 . . . lLJc6! 1 l .lLJxa8 'IWaSt 12.i.d2 (or 12 .lLJd2 lLJxd4 13 .'1Wc7 '\Wf5! and White was in trouble in Kiselev - Kozlov, Moscow 1 986) 12 . . . lLJxd2 13.lLJxd2 lLJxd4 14.lLJc? i.c6! White will find that he is unable to castle without suffering material losses. 1 5 .i.e2 '1Wxc7 1 6.lLJb3 (1 6.0-0 loses to 1 6 . . . '\Wf4! with the deadly threat of ... i.bS) 16 . . . lLJxe2 1 7.'IWxe2 i.xg2 1 8.Elgl \Wxh2 ! 9.0-0-0 '1Wf4t 20.'1We3 Wff5! The white king is also unsafe on the queenside. 2 1 .lLJcS Elc8 22.b4 '\Wf6 0-1 Almeida Quintana - Herrera, Santa Clara 2002.

1 0.i.d3 is harmless: 10 ... lLJd6 l l .lLJxd6 cxd6 12.i.e4 i.e6 1 3.'1Wa4 d5 (in Zhou Jianchao -Ganguly, Subic Bay 2009, Black settled for the draw with 13 . . . i.d? 14.Wfc4 i.e6 1 5 .'\Wa4 i.d7 Y2-Y2) l 4.i.d3 '1Wb6 1 5.0-0 lLJc6+

10 • • • lLJc6 l l .id3 1 l .'1Wxd8 Elfxd8 12.i.d3 has been played in

two game. Black should continue: 12 . . . i.fS!N 13.0-0 (after 13 .i.e3 E!:ab8 the white knight is vulnerable on b5) l 3 . . . a6 14.lLJc? Ela? l 5 .lLJxa6 li:'ig3! 16.i.xfS lLJxf5 1 7.lLJcS lLJcxd4 Black's initiative is enough to give him the advantage.

8 i. � � ��· 1 (� ,�,,A%M __ &y,w� i •% �§'� .JL iA% A � 6 , , , , , __ i) _____ ,%_,,�� 5 ��-�,,,,,n_ ,n, 4 -� ��'11- � 3 ��'?,:_£_%�

,-

2 � 'f� - � � � ,�f--- -/,w� '%,�----�� - - - -1 � re � � M a b c d e f g h

1 1 . .• lLJb4 12.ixe4 ixb5 13.°IWxdS White has to swap queens, in order to

prevent his king becoming too vulnerable. For example: 1 3 .'1Wc3 a5! 14.a3 '1Wd7!? 1 5 .i.e3 Elac8 l 6.'1Wd2 f5 1 7.i.b 1 lLJdS+ White failed to solve the problem of his king in Rasmussen -Schandorff, Denmark 20 1 0.

13 • . JfaxdS 14.i.d2 f5! Theory considers this move dubious, but I

believe that it is the easiest way to equalize. The main continuation is: 1 4 . . . lLJd3t 1 5 .i.xd3 i.xd3 Al though Black should hold this without much difficulty, I prefer the more active text move.

15.ixfS gxf5 16.ixb4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h


16 ... e5!?N This was mentioned by Giorgadze in Chess

Informant 7 1 . In Giorgadze - Khalifman, Germany 1 997, Black prematurely captured the d-pawn: 1 6 . . . i.xd4?! 17.E!:d l ! e5 1 8 .E!:d2 White was slightly better.

I found another interesting idea in l 6 . . . i.c6N, when play may continue: 17 .i.c3 i.xf3 1 8.gxf3 E!:xf3 1 9.©e2 E!:df8 20.E!:afl E!:3f4=

17.a4 Other moves are:

17.dxe5 i.xe5 1 8.E!:dl E!:e8! 19 .lllxe5 E!:exe5t 20.©d2 E!:xf2t 2 1 .©cl E!:xg2=

17.0-0-0? e4 1 8.lll d2 i.h6! Even though he is two pawns down, Black has seized the initiative.

17.E!:cl E!:e8! (Giorgadze gives only 17 . . . exd4 18 .©dl d3 1 9 .b3±) 1 8 .dxe5 i.xe5 19 .lllxe5 E!:exe5t 20.©dl E!:d5t=

l 7 .. .i.c6 18.dxe5 i.xf3 19.gxf3 i.xe5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

Black is not worse, despite being two pawns down.

20.0-0 gd4 21.i.d i.xh2t 22.@xh2 gh5t 23.@g2 gg5t 24.@h3=

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B2) 8.e5

a b c d e f g h

8 ... i.e6! 8 . . . lll e8 9.h4 looked very promising for

White in Aleksandrov - Olszewski, Warsaw 2009.

9.Wib5 White can get a position with three pieces

versus queen and two pawns by: 9.exf6 i.xc4 1 0.fxg7 ©xg7 1 1 .hc4 Wxd4

s i,· � �� ,%' '" )3:.l'% "'!3'.l''ef , , v,/,('/,/, 7 l� & l:.JI� l:.11� & ,� & % . %' z %' % - �� -6 %B %B ,%B 'i"� �% �% �% 5 �� : �fl ,;,�� ,� � ��,%��';;( 2 8Jll�,, ��J�%gJlj

� � m � : a b c d e f g h

think that the poor coordination of the white forces makes Black's chances preferable.

1 2.i.e2 lll c6 1 3.lllf3 Wb6 14.0-0 E!:ad8 1 5 .E!:b 1

I also examined: 1 5 .i.b5 t2Jd4 1 6.lllxd4 Wxd4 17.E!:el c6 1 8.i.a4 E!:d7+

1 5 . . . e5 1 6.E!:el

Chapter 9 - 4.'&a4t 1 03

1 6.ie3 is s�rongly met by 1 6 . . . tlld4 and the eS-pawn is untouchable: 17.lllxeS? lllxe2t 1 8.lllxe2 �bS-+

a b c d e f g h 1 6 .. .f6!N

This is more accurate than: 1 6 ... a6 l 7.b4 Ei:fe8 1 8 .ifl f6 19.tlla4 �a7 20.lllcS White had a reasonable game in Lev - Huzman, Israel 1999.

l 7.b4 tlld4 1 8.idl �a6 Black has the better chances.

9 ... llld5 10.'&xb? If White does not take the pawn then he is

just positionally worse.

a b c d e f g h

10 ... tllb6! I l .Wfe4 White's problem is that he cannot play the

natural l 1 .lllf3 because l l . ..c6! would trap his queen and threaten . . . ic8.

1 1 ... .ifS 12.Wfh4 lllc6 Black has an enormous lead in development,

which provides more than enough compensation for the pawn.

13 . .igS White gives up his d-pawn without a fight.

He was no doubt concerned about the threat of . . . tll b4, but he would have been better off giving up the exchange, for example: l 3.ie3 tllb4 14.Ei:cl ( 1 4.0-0-0 �d7 would give Black a very powerful attack) 14 . . . lll c2 t 1 5 .Ei:xc2 ixc2 1 6.tll f3 White is in the game, although Black's chances are clearly better.

13 ... Wfxd4 14.Wfxd4 lllxd4 15.0-0-0 llle6 16 . .ie3 he5-+

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

White's position has collapsed, Chekhov -W Schmidt, Polanica Zdroj 1 98 1 .

Conclusion A key position arises in line A after 7.if4 llla6 8.lllf3 0-0 9.e4 cS. When White chooses Al ) 1 O.eS Black must react accurately, but i f he does so then he can expect to equalize. With A2) 1 0.dxcS White goes a pawn up, but Black can count on obtaining full compensation. Line B is less critical and should not worry Black overmuch.

Various 4th Moves a b c d e f g h

4.VNb3

Variation Index 1 .d4 llJf6 2.c4 g6 3.llJc3 d5 4.°l&h3 dxc4 5.°l&xc4 .ig7 6.e4

6 ... 0-0

A) 7 . .if4 llJa6 8.llJf3 cS Al) 9.�dl A2) 9.e5 A3) 9.dS e6

A31) 10 . .ie2 A32) 10.d6 e5! 1 1 ..ixe5 llJb4

A321) 12.�cl A322) 12.�dl

B) 7 . .ie2

A) note to 8.li:lf3 A3 l ) after 1 2.8dl B) after 9.dxe5

106 107 108 109 1 10 1 10 1 1 1 1 12 1 12

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h 1 0 . . . b5!N 1 2 . . . li:lc2tN 9 . . . li:lg4!N

Chapter 1 0 - 4.'&b3 105

1.d4 tlJf6 2.�4 g6 3.tiJc3 d5 4.�b3

8 7

6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

This line has been quite popular recently. By employing this tricky move order, White may intend to transpose into the Russian System (4.tlJf3 �g7 5.'&b3) , or may hope to profit from delaying the development of his king's knight.

4 ... dxc4 5.�xc4 i.g7 6.e4 6.ctJf3 would transpose to the starting

position of the Russian System - see Chapters 27 and 28.

The only other reasonable alternative is: 6.�f4 tlia6 7.e3

7.e4 0-0 will be examined in line A below. 7 . . . 0-0 8.ctJf3 c5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 a b c d e f g h

Black has comfortable play.

9.1"\dl After 9.dxc5 '1Wa5 1 o.\Wb5 '1Wxb5 1 1 .�xb5 tlixc5 1 2.0-0 a6 13 .�e2 b5 14.a3 �b7 Black was even slightly better, Avanzi - G. David, corr. 1 99 1 .

9 . . . cxd4 1 0.1"i:xd4 After I O.'&xd4 Black can avoid an immediate queen swap by 1 0 . . . \Wa5! and the white queen cannot feel comfortable in the centre.

1 0 . . . \Wb6! The white pieces are rather awkwardly placed.

1 l .ctJa4 '&a5t 12 .'1Wc3 White offers to swap queens in order to try and complete his development, Khan -Hallope, France 2005. Black should now play:

1 2 . . . \Wf5 The threat of . . . 'IWb l t followed by . . . \Wxa2

poses White definite problems.

6 ... 0-0

Other than going into the Russian System, the main options for White are A) 7.i.f4 and B) 7.i.e2.

On both occasions that 7 .f3 was played, Black's response was rather unconvincing. I will spare you the details and focus on the logical improvement 7 . . . tlic6!N.

8 � �.i.,},,J )�· 7 � · � � · � · 6 , , , , %�� ,,,%.-,�� 5 �� /,, , ,� 4 �-1�,�� 3 %��f ,,%�!� 2 !�- --��,Wlj } ,,;,� / �;0/ �% "/)' ,,

� � =�� .M a b c d e f g h

Black's idea is to play . . . e5 next, which White can hardly stop. Here is a nice illustrative line: 8 .ie3 e5 9.d5 (after 9.dxe5 lllxe5 1 0.Wd4 We7 Black's chances are also preferable) 9 . . . lll d4 1 0.lllb5?! c6! l l .dxc6 bxc6 1 2.lllxd4 exd4 1 3.:I"l:d 1 (it transpires that l 3 .ixd4? loses on the spot to 1 3 . . . lllxe4!) 1 3 . . . c5 Black is clearly better.

A) 7 .J.f4 lLi a6

This looks to me the most challenging response to the development of the bishop to f4. It is quite possible to play 7 . . . lll c6 8.:I"l:dl lll d7, though if White chooses the move order with 6.if4 then Black has to play . . . llla6 anyway.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

s.llJO

a b c d e f g h

There is also: 8 .:I"l:dl c6

I have come to the conclusion that this is Black's best idea, since 8 . . . c5 9.d5 Wb6 1 O.:I"l:d2! offers White serious chances for an advantage.

9.ie2 The alternative is: 9.lllf3 Wa5! (9 . . . Wb6 is again met by 1 0.:I"l:d2!) 1 0.Wd3 :I"l:d8 1 1 .Wb l Black has gained a couple of tempos as a result of the slightly misplaced white queen. 1 l . . .ig4 1 2.ie2 Legky - Mrdja, Larange 2000. I believe Black should now play: 1 2 . . . lll e8N 1 3.e5 (After 1 3.ie3 e5 [ 13 . . . c5 l 4.d5 b5!? also looks interesting] 1 4.dxe5 ixf3 1 5 .ixf3 :I"l:xd l t 16 .Wxdl ixe5 17.0-0 Black has a decent game. Play may continue 17 . . . :I"l:d8 1 8.Wb3 lllc5 [ 1 8 . . . b6!?] 1 9.ixc5 Wxc5 20.Wxb7 lllf6 and Black has good compensation for the pawn.) 13 . . . lllec7 1 4.0-0 if5 1 5 .Wcl lll b4 We have a complex game in which Black's chances are not worse, due to his control over the d5-square.

9 . . . Wa5 1 0.Wd3

a b c d e f g h This occurred in Peters - Mach, Hamburg 1 989. This is a good moment for:

1 0 . . . b5!N l l .a3 After l 1 .lllf3 b4 1 2.lllb l b3t! 1 3.Wc3 Wxc3t 14.lllxc3 bxa2 1 5.ic4 lllb4 Black is better.

1 1 . . .b4 1 2.axb4 lllxb4 13.Wb l ie6 14.lllh3! The natural 14 .lllf3 is met_ by the very unpleasant: 14 ... ia2! 1 5.Wcl (or l 5.lllxa2 lll d3t 1 6.<;t>fl lllxf4+) 1 5 . . . lllxe4+

Chapter 1 0 - 4.'@fb3 107

14 . . . ib3 1 5 .2'l:d2 llld7 1 6.0-0 e5 1 6 ... lt:lb6 also makes sense.

17.dxe5 lt:lxe5 Black is fine.

8 . • . c5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

White has many ways to react to the blow against his centre. k well as Al) 9,gdl, A2) 9.e5 and A3) 9.d5, we also have:

9.dxc5 ie6 transposes to line A2 of Chapter 9.

9.0-0-0?! can hardly be recommended. Black easily gets good play: 9 . . . cxd4 1 0.lllxd4 id7 1 l .f3 l:l'.c8 1 2.Wb3 lllc5 1 3 .Wa3

a b c d e f g h 13 . . . lll fxe4! Not a difficult tactical blow. 14.fxe4 e5 Black was clearly better in Korchnoi - Tukmakov, Moscow 197 1 .

Al) 9.gdl

s X �..t� ��· 7 �•n,,, , ,%_,,y,m' 6 4in �-,,,, ,%1ifl�� 5 � �� -/,,,, , ,-4 �DiVnfa�� 3 �m,,,,%� ::,,,�� -�,,, , , ;� �� -� 2 b r[j - r[j b r!J 1 , , , , , %� i=1£� !t

a b c d e f g h

9 ... cxd4 This is the most principled continuation,

although Black has a decent alternative in: 9 . . . Wa5 1 0.Wb5 Wxb5 l 1 .ixb5 cxd4 12.lt:lxd4 l:l'.d8N (this is more accurate than 12 . . . lt:lc5 13.e5, when White has chances for an advantage) 13.ixa6 (1 3.e5 is now strongly met by 1 3 . . . lt:lh5+) 13 . . . bxa6 14.lt:lc6 13'.xdlt 1 5.<iixdl <iif8! 16.f3 id7 The position is balanced.

10.gxd4 Capturing with the knight is weaker: 1 O.lt:lxd4

Wb6 1 1 .Wb5 lt:lxe4! 1 2.Wxb6 axb6 13.lt:lxe4 e5 14.ixe5 ixe5 Black was clearly better in Kozakov - Musicki, Backa Palanka 2002.

10 ... �b6 l 1 .e5 .ie6 12.'@fb5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

This is quite old theory, which to tell the truth was rather unfamiliar to me before I started work on this book. It is important for Black to react actively.

12 ... llid?! 13.lLidS Another line is:

13.B:xd7 ixd7 14.Wxd7 Wxb2

1 5 .Wd2 1 5 .'lidl Wxa2 16 .Wxb7 'lic5 l 7.Wb5 (or 17 .Wb2 Wxb2 1 8 .'lixb2 B:ab8 1 9.'lidl B:bl 20.ie2 B:d8 2 1 . 0-0 Szegedi - Miniboeck, Balatonbereny 1 986, and after the simple 2 l ... a5N White would have to fight for a draw) l 7 . . . B:fc8 1 8.ic4 B:ab8! An important tactical trick. l 9.Wxc5 (l 9.Wxb8? fails to 1 9 . . . 'li d3t!-+) 1 9 . . . Wxc4 20.Wxc4 B:xc4 2 l .ie3 a5 Again it is White who is trying to draw, Kobayashi - Graeser, corr. 1 989.

1 5 . . . Wal t 1 6.Wcl Wxcl t 17.ixcl B:ac8 1 8 .id2

Maybe l 8.ib2 is an improvement, although after l 8 . . . B:c5 l 9.ixa6 bxa6 20.0-0 B:b8 Black is in no danger.

1 8 . . . Clib4 1 9.'lib5 'lic6 20.e6 f5 2 1 .ie2 This was Strand - Vukcevic, corr. 1 984, and now Black should improve upon that game with:

2 1 . . .B:fd8N 22.idl B:d5+

13 ... hdS 14.�xdS

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

14 ... llic?! 15.\Wxd? lLixdS 16.'IWxdS '1Wxb2 17.i.e2 '!Wblt 18.i.dl �ad8 19.°1Wh3 '1We4t 20.i.e3

After 20.We3 Wb4t 21 .'lid2 B:d7 22.a3 Wb2 Black is not worse.

20 ... �d3 21.°1Wc2?! Correct is: 21 .Wa4! B:xe3t 22.fxe3 Wxe3t

23. <j;ifl B:d8 Black has sufficient compensation for the knight.

a b c d e f g h

21. .. i.h6! 22.0-0 he3 23.i.e2 hnt 24.�xfl �e3

Black was better in Van Dijk - Kruger, e-mail 2000.

A2) 9.eS lLihS!

Chapter 1 0 - 4.Wb3 109

This is the most straightforward way to meet White's rather risky advance.

IO.ie3 cxd4 1 1 .0-0-0 Another line is also quite illustrative: 1 1 .l:'i:dl

ie6! 12.Wb5?! (stronger is 12.'Wxd4 'Wa5 13.ie2 l:'i:fd8 14.'We4 l:'i:xd l t 1 5.ixd l 'Wb4! although Black has no problems) 12 . . . id7! Black takes over the initiative. l 3.'Wxb7 ctJc5 14.'Wd5 Ider - Bernard, Issy Les Moulineaux 2009. Black could now stabilize his advantage by: 14 . . . dxc3!N 1 5.bxc3 (or 1 5 .'Wxc5 cxb2+) 1 5 . . . ia4! Black remains with a material plus.

1 1 . .. ie6 12.'!Wxd4 'IWaS!

The white king is not safe on the queenside.

13.ic4 I also examined: 1 3.ixa6 bxa6 14.g4 l:'i:ad8

1 5.'We4 l:'i:c8! Black develops a dangerous attack.

13 .. J�fd8 14.We4 ixc4 15.'!Wxc4 ixe5 16.�xdSt �xd8 17.lllxeS '!Wxesi

White did not have enough compensation for the pawn in Molo - Marcos Nozar, e-mail 2008.

A3) 9.d5 e6

1 0.0-0-0 exd5 1 l .exd5 White usually castles short with this pawn structure, and it's clear that the white monarch cannot feel safe on the queenside. 1 1 . . . if5 ( 1 1 . . . l:'i:e8!? also looks good) 12 .id3 ixd3 1 3.l:'i:xd3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h This was Wagner - Neubauer, Ketsch 1 978.

Black could now seize the initiative on the queenside with: 1 3 . . . ctJ d7!N 14.d6 ctJb4 1 5 .Eld2 'Wa5 1 6.'it>bl ctJb6 17.'Wb5 'Wxb5 1 8 .ctJxb5 ctJc4 1 9.l:'i:e2 ctJxb2! Black has an advantage.

1 0.l:'i:dl This is a thematic move for this pawn structure, but White's problem is that he is behind in development, which allows Black

1 10 Various 4th Moves

an easy game: 1 O . . . exd5 1 1 .exd5 iWb6! White has no convenient way to defend his b-pawn, for example: 12.:B:d2 :B:e8t 13 .�e2 �f5 14.0-0 ti:le4+ White cannot avoid losing material.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

A31) 10.i.e2 exd5 1 1 .exd5

a b c d e f g h

A similar position often occurs when Black plays . . . ti:la6 against the Russian System, but with White having castled rather than developed his queen's bishop. Here Black can benefit from this slight difference in concrete fashion.

1 1 . .. tlJb4! 12.:B:dl White has also played: 12.0-0 ti:lfxd5N (in

my opinion this is stronger than 1 2 . . . tiJ bxd5) 13 .:B:adl �e6 1 4.ti:lg5 Wi'xg5! 1 5.�xg5 ti:lxc3 1 6.bxc3 (after 1 6.Wi'xc5 ti:lxe2t 17.'it>hl ti:lc6+ Black's three pieces are stronger than the white queen) 1 6 . . . �xc4 17.�xc4 ti:lc6 White does not have enough compensation for the pawn.

12 • . • tlJc2tN In three games Black has played 12 . . . b6

here, but it makes sense to force the white king to move.

13.@fl b6 I do not believe that White can really hope

for an advantage with his king on fl .

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

A32) 10.d6 e5!

a b c d e f g h

This was played by Garry Kasparov, which is indeed a strong endorsement for the move. Black sacrifices a pawn for the initiative.

1 1 ..L:e5 Much weaker is 1 l .ti:lxe5? ti:lh5! and Black

is better.

1 1 . .. tlJb4 We shall look at A321) 12.:B:cl and A322)

12.:Sdl . Other moves are:

1 2.iWb3 This occurred in Khurtsilava - Chigladze, Tbilisi 2009. Black should now play:

1 2 . . . ti:lc6!N 1 3.�c4 After 1 3.�f4 ti:lh5 Black regains the pawn.

1 3 . . . �g4 14.Wi'xb7 �xf3 1 5 .iWxc6 �xg2

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 0 - 4.Wb3 1 1 1

16.l"lgl An important point of Black's play is that the tempting 1 6.0-0-0 runs into the incredible 16 . . . tt:lxe4!! and White cannot play 1 7.�xg7 in view of 1 7 . . . Wg5t followed by . . . tt:lxc3.

16 ... �xe4 17.Wc7 �f5+

12.0-0-0 is mentioned in the comments to the above game, but the white king is hardly safe on the queenside: 1 2 . . . �e6 13.Wb5 (not 13.Wxc5? tt:lxa2t!) 1 3 . . . a6 14.Wxb7 �h6t! An important tactical nuance. 1 5 .'itib l tt:lxe4! Black suddenly has a serious initiative.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

A321) 12Jkl

a b c d e f g h

This was played in Taitt - N. Arias, Guanare 2000. Black should respond with:

12 ... b6!N A very flexible decision. Black defends the

c5-pawn and keeps all his options open; he may develop his light-squared bishop to a6, b7, or e6.

13.a3 An alternative is:

13.Wb3 �b7 14.�e2 Another exciting line I found is: 14.a3 tt:lc6 1 5.�c4 tt:la5 1 6.Wa4 tt:lxe4!? Not the only option for Black. 17.tt:'lxe4 l"le8! 1 8.d7 l"lxe5

1 9.tt:lxe5 �xe5 20.0-0 �xh2t 2 1 .'itixh2 Wh4t 22.'itigl Wxe4 23.f3 We3t 24.'itih l Wh6t= It finishes in perpetual check.

14 . . . tt:lc6! Black has enough activity for the sacrificed pawn, for instance:

1 5.�g3 tt:ld4 1 6.tt:lxd4 cxd4 1 7.tt:ld5 tt:lxd5 1 8.exd5 l"le8 1 9.l"lc2

After 1 9.'itid l l"lxe2! 20.'itixe2 Wg5 Black has excellent compensation for the exchange.

1 9 . . . �a6 20.�dl �xe2t 2 1 .l"lxe2 l"lxe2 22.'itixe2 West 23.'itidl We4 24.l"lel Wb l t 25.'itid2 �h6t 26.f4 Wf5

The game is balanced.

13 ... .ie6 14.'1We2 tl1c6 15 . .if4 After 1 5 .�g3 Black would have the additional

possibility of 1 5 . . . �h6.

15 .. J�eS!

a b c d e f g h

It is clear that Black's lead in development should count, for example:

16.'1We3 Black has an initiative after both 1 6.h3 tt:ld4

1 7.Wd3 tt:l d5! and 1 6.Wd3 tt:l d4!.

16 ... tl1d4 17 . .ie2 i.f5 18.tl1d2 tl1xe2 19.'1Wxe2 tl1h5 20 . .ie3 hc3 21.gxc3 i.xe4

Only Black can be better.

1 1 2 Various 4th Moves

A322) 12J'�dl i.e6

1 2 . . . li:Jc2t 13.'it>d2 ie6 will come to the same thing.

13.V;Yxc5 It is very dangerous for White to play 1 3.We2

1:'1'.e8, when Black has good compensation for the pawn, and a lot of ideas based on the white king still being in the centre.

13 ... tlJc2t 14.@d2

a b c d e f g h

14 ... tlJd? The key move.

15.V;Yc? tlJxe5 16.V;YxdS White has also tried: 1 6.'it>xc2 li:Jg4! 1 7.1:'1'.d2

ih6 18 .1:'1'.e2 It is dangerous to allow Black to keep the queens on. ( 1 8 .Wd8 1:'1'.axd8 transposes to our main line.) 1 8 . . . Wf6 1 9.WcS 1:'1:fd8 20.Wd4 Wf4! 2 1 .1:'1'.d2 1:'1'.ac8 Black had a strong initiative in Boecker - Kappes, e-mail 2008.

16 .. JfaxdS 17 .@xc2 As mentioned by Kasparov, 17.li:JxeS? would

be a serious mistake: 17 . . . 4Jb4 18 .li:Jc4 ih6t 1 9.f4 ixf4t 20.'it>el fS! Black is clearly better.

17 ... tlJg4

Also playable is the less ambitious: l 7 . . . ti:Jxf3 1 8.gxf3 ieS 1 9.ti:JdS 1:'1'.xd6 20.ic4 1:'1'.fd8 2 1 .a4 'it>f8 22.b3 ixdS 23.1:'1'.xdS 1:'1'.xdS 24.ixdS 1:'1'.c8t 25.'it>d2 b6 Black made a draw without any problems in Latronico - Neven, e-mail 2003.

18.E:d2 .th6 An important resource, which forces White

to return one of his extra pawns.

19.E:e2 :!!hd6 20.h3 tlJf6 21.g4! Otherwise White could easily find himself

being worse.

21...tiJd? Black had sufficient compensation for the

pawn in Piket - Kasparov, Wijk aan Zee 2000.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

s . .te3

B) 7.i.e2 tlJc6

a b c d e f g h

8.ti:Jf3 is covered in Chapter 28.

8 .dS does not pose Black any problems: 8 . . . ti:JeS (or 8 . . . ti:JaSN 9.Wa4 c6 1 0.dxc6 ti:Jxc6 l l .ti:Jf3 ie6 1 2.0-0 a6=) 9.Wb3 S. Pedersen -Mogranzini, Beijing 2008. Now 1 like 9 . . . e6N 1 0.f4 li:Jeg4 l 1 .h3 ti:Jh6 and the opening up of the position should be in Black's favour.

Chapter 1 0 - 4.Wi'b3 1 1 3

8 ... eS Black takes advantage of the lack of a knight

on f3 to obtain counterplay with this punch in the centre.

9.dxe5 Other moves:

9.d5 tlld4 1 0.Wd3 1 0.ixd4 exd4 l 1 .Wxd4 �e8! ( l l . . .c6 1 2.d6 tlld5!? is also interesting) 1 2.Wd3 (or 1 2.e5 tllg4 1 3.f4 f6! with a strong initiative for Black) 12 .. . tlld7 1 3.f3 f5! Black has ample compensation.

10 . . . c6 l l .dxc6 bxc6 1 2.tllf3 lllxe2 I think that 1 2 . . . tllg4!N is even stronger, for example: 1 3.0-0 lllxf3t l 4.gxf3 lllxe3 1 5.Wxd8 �xd8 16.fxe3 �d2 Black has a clear advantage.

13.Wxe2 Wa5 Thanks to the possibiliry of . . . ia6, Black

has the better game, Potpara - Csiba, Batumi 20 10.

9 .tllf3 exd4 1 0.lllxd4

8 ��.t� ��-7 �·-· ·'-···Y.·· 6 ' /,� �� %1ifi"� ��·-. :� � �.,�,.�� % ... �/" %'"' �� 3 � � � � 2 b� · a£DfIWfj m "� %� .. /,� :

a b c d e f g h This position occurred in Vanderhallen -

Swinkels, Vlissingen 2005, and here Black missed the strong idea: 1 0 . . . tllg4!N l l .ixg4 (after l l .lllxc6 lllxe3 12.lllxd8 lllxc4 1 3.ixc4 �xd8 Black has a pleasant edge in the endgame) l 1 . . .tlle5! Black will play 12 . . . tllxg4 with advantage.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

9 ... llig4!N This idea should be familiar by now. Instead

Shabalov - V. Mikhalevski, Philadelphia 2009, saw 9 ... tllxe5 1 0.Wa4 ig4 l l .�dl with unclear play.

10.i.cS 1 0.ixg4 is met by: 1 0 . . . lllxe5! l 1 .Wb3 tlld3t

12 .iiifl ixg4 Black has a clear advantage.

10 ... lligxeS 1 1.YlVa4 After l 1 .Wb3 ie6 Black has a clear

initiative.

1 1. .. llid3t l 1 . . .Wg5!? is also worth considering.

12.i.xd3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

1 14 Various 4th Moves

12 ... i.xc3t! The key move. White would even be better

after: 1 2 . . . 'Wxd3?! 13 .tllge2 1"le8 14.i"i:dLt

13.bxc3 Wfxd.3 14.tlie2 B:e8 15.f3 .td7 Black has the initiative, thanks to his better

pieces.

16.Wfdl This is stronger than: 1 6.:!"ldl llle5! 1 7.'Wb3

'Wa6 White is in trouble, due to the threat of . . . ia4.

I6 ... Wfc4 17 . .td4 After 1 7.if2 tll e5 1 8.0-0 ib5 1 9.a4 ia6

20.tllg3 h5! Black has a clear plus.

17 ... f5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

Black keeps a strong initiative.

Conclusion After A) 7.if4 tlla6 8.tllf3 c5 White has several options, but none of them promise him an advantage. In particular line A32 with 9.d5 e6 10.d6 e5! offers Black good compensation for his pawn sacrifice. In line B with 7.ie2 lllc6 I do not believe that White can gain anything by avoiding the transposition to the Russian System, as Black obtains fine counterplay after 8.ie3 e5.

Closed Variation Various Fifth Moves

Variation Index 1 .d4 lDf6 2.c4 g6 3.lDc3 dS 4.e3

A) S.b4 0-0 6.lDf'3 c6 Al} 7 . .ie2 A2) 7 • .ib2

B) S.�b3 e6 Bl) 6.lDf'3 0-0

B l l} 7 . .ie2 Bl2} 7 . .id2

B2) 6.�a3 q s . .id2 D) S.cxdS

B I 2) 1 7.d5

s ,i� �.i�ff 7 I R Ri•i 6 • R.t•i� � ��-,,.-� 3 �. R R R 2 fj� R.t�fj� I � . . � g� .. t""f

a b c d e f g h 1 7 . . . �xd5!N

4 ... .ig7

C) after l 5.�e2

1 5 . . . �h6!N

a b c d e f g h

D) after 1 2.exd5

1 16 1 17 1 18 120 120 120 121 122 124 125

1 16 Closed Variation

I.d4 c!llf6 2.c4 g6 3.c!llc3 d5 4.e3 .ig7

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

White's quiet fourth move can be played with various follow-ups in mind. In this chapter we shall examine A) 5.b4, B) 5.\.Wb3, C) 5 . .id2 and D) 5.cxd5, while 5 .tt:'if3 is covered in the following chapter.

A) 5.b4

5 ... 0-0 6.c!llf3 White's other options do not have much

independent significance:

6.ib2 c6 7.tt:'if3 is line A2. 6.Wb3 c6 7.a4?!

This is a somewhat suspicious strategy; White gains space on the queenside, but completely neglects his kingside development. The natural 7.tt:'if3 is clearly better and transposes to the line with 7.Wb3 in the following note.

a b c d e f g h 7 . . . e5!N

This strike in the centre seems to me a very natural response to White's provocative play.

8 .dxe5 tt:'ie4 The point; Black's bishop starts to work on the long diagonal.

9.tt:'if3 I also examined a couple of other moves: 9.tt:'ixe4 dxe4 1 O.ib2 tt:'id7 l l .e6 tt:'ie5 Black has an initiative. 9.cxd5 cxd5 1 0.ib2 ie6! 1 Uldl tt:'ic6 1 2.tt:'if3 a5! 1 3.b5 tt:'i b4 Black has excellent play for the pawn.

9 . . . tt:'ixc3 1 0.Wxc3 tt:'id7 l l .cxd5 �e8! 12.ib2 tt:'ixe5 1 3.tt:'ixe5 ixe5 14.Wd2 ixb2 1 5 .Wxb2 Wxd5 16.:!"ldl We4 17.�d4 We5 1 8.id3 a5

Black has a very pleasant position, and the only question is whether White can hold on.

6 ... c6 As well as our main lines of Al) 7 . .ie2

and A2) 7 . .ib2, White has a couple of other options:

Chapter 1 1 - Various Fifth Moves 1 17

7.'W'b3 dxc4 8.ixc4 b5 9.ie2 a5 1 0.0-0 (a nice line is 10 .ia3? ie6 1 1 .'W'b2 c5! and the white position collapses) 1 O . . . ie6 We have transposed to the note to White's eighth move in line Al with 8.'W'b3 etc.

7.a4 ig4 8.'W'b3 8.h3?! is too slow and deserves to be punished: 8 ... ixf3N (the illogical 8 . . . if5 was played in Baudot - Philippy, Luxembourg 1 994) 9.gxf3 (after 9.'W'xf3 Black breaks up the centre by 9 . . . e5 1 0.dxe5 li:lfd7 and White is in danger) 9 . . . li:lbd7 1 0.f4 White has managed to stop the . . . e5-break, but Black now strikes on the queenside. 1 0 . . . a5 l 1 .b5 c5 Black has a strong initiative.

8 � - � ��· 7 lf•�, ,,%-·Y,� · 6 ' ' %·'· %·,·%� �� ',, � 5 ��;)'�,;;�� 4 fj ��w��1£W/0 3 � i§i "'2.J �a "'2.J • ;;� ', ' � ". ' %%'"� ;;%1''0 2 , ��/;;�Y/J�j��

� � m�� : a b c d e f g h

Black's play from this position has been rather unconvincing in practice, so I was obliged to find a new idea:

8 . . . li:lbd7!?N 9.cxd5 cxd5 1 0.li:lxd5 White cannot really hope for an advantage after: 1 0.ie2 e6 1 1 .h3 ixf3 12.ixf3 li:lb6 The black knight will land on the c4-square.

1 O . . . ixf3 1 1 .gxf3 e5 Black's activity fully compensates for the

sacrificed pawn.

Al) 7 . .ie2 .ig4 8 . .ib2

Releasing the tension in the centre does not have much point: 8.cxd5 li:lxd5 9.li:lxd5 'W'xd5 1 0.0-0 li:ld7 1 1 .a4 (after 1 1 .ib2 Black strikes from other side with 1 1 . . . a5!) 1 1 . . . e5 This solves

all possible problems. 1 2.dxe5 'W'xd l 13 .�xd l li:lxe5 Black had a comfortable endgame in Tunik - Belov, Internet 2004.

8.'W'b3 dxc4! 9.ixc4

8 � - � ��· :ii•,�';, , ;,···Y,� . : • %� T� . , ,%•,•%� ��',, ,, � 5 �%1'0 �%''% �W/0 �� 4 W3-�� -.i.� 3 �v�,,%��-2 fl�,,, , ·� % ,%� tlwtf ' , � ��:'% �:z ;;{· , %., '

� � � BM a b c d e f g h

This was Duong The Anh - Le Quang, Ho Chi Minh City 2005 . Black should now play:

9 . . . b5N Although this is a new move in this particular position, play soon transposes into an old game.

10.ie2 1 0.ixf7t �xf7 1 1 .li:le5 'W'e8 is not dangerous for Black.

1 0 . . . a5 1 1 .0-0 ie6 1 2.'W'b2 axb4 13 .'W'xb4 li:la6 14.'W'b2 b4! 1 5 .li:la4 'W'a5 16.'W'c2 if5 17.'W'b3 li:le4

Black clearly had the better chances in Troianescu - Botvinnik, Budapest 1 952.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

1 1 8 Closed Variation

8 ... dxc4 9.hc4 c!llbd7 Black's main idea is to carry out the . . . e5

advance.

IO.i.e2 Black is not troubled by: 10.0-0 e5 l 1 .dxe5

ixf3 1 2.gxf3 (Black has no problems after 1 2.Wxf3 c!llxe5 13 .We2 We7) 1 2 . . . c!llxe5 13 .ie2 Wc8! Black immediately uses the slightly vulnerable position of the white king by heading towards h3. 14.f4 :§:d8 1 5 .Wc2 Wh3 ( 1 5 . . . c!ll d3 also leads to a draw) 1 6.fxe5 c!llg4 17.ixg4 Wxg4t 18 .�hl Wf3t 1 9.�gl Wg4t 20.�h l Wf3t Y2-Y2 Karjakin - Van Wely, Foros 2008.

10 ... c!lldS 1 1 .�b3 c!llxc3 12.hc3 e5! Black makes use of his lead in development.

13.c!llxe5 After 13 .dxe5 ixf3 14.ixf3 ixe5 the

exchange of dark-squared bishops secures equality for Black.

13 ... c!llxe5 14.dxe5 he2 15.@xe2

16.h4 White could have settled for a draw by:

1 6.�fl ixe5 17.f4 ixf4! 1 8.exf4 Wxf4t 1 9.�gl We3t Black has perpetual check.

16 ... �g4t! The correct decision. After 1 6 . . . Wxg2?!

17.:§:ag l We4 1 8.f3 Wf5 19 .h5± White consolidates and has the better chances, as Ftacnik pointed out in ChessBase Magazine 84.

17.@fl gads 18.f3 �f5 19.�b2 gfes 20.f4?

This allows Black to seize the initiative. Instead White could have maintained equality with: 20.�f2 ixe5 2 1 .ixe5 :§:xe5 22.:§:ad l =

20 ... gd3 21 .@n ged8 Black was clearly better in Kempinski - Ara.

Minasian, Ohrid 200 1 .

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

8.c!llg5

A2) 7.i.b2 i.e6!?

a b c d e f g h

There are several other moves:

8 .Wb3 lli bd7 9.llig5?! Not the best moment for this aggressive move, but White was probably scared of the black knight penetrating to the c4-square.

Chapter 1 1 - Various Fifth Moves 1 1 9

For example: 9.�e2 tt:lb6 1 0.c5 tt:lc4 Black has a good game.

8 .i � � }�· 7 �i �'il�i�i , , , , %� r� .far;r� : ��,�;;

� 4 ��,��;;, , � 3 wrfi -

%f!f �� %0 , � ?,: __ , ,�%J'<q; �%1''0. 2 fj � • 1� fJ 1fj �---- -"� {},�i:� -� a b c d e f g h

9 . . . dxc4N An obvious improvement over 9 . . . �f5, played in Lushenkov - Prianikov, Saratov 2007.

10.�xc4 No better is: 1 0.tt:lxe6 cxb3 1 1 .tt:lxd8 :8:fxd8 12.axb3 a6 White's position is unpleasant, due to his weak b4-pawn.

10 . . . �xc4 1 l .'Wxc4 e5+ Black has a great game, while the white

knight is clearly misplaced on g5 .

8.tlld2 tt:lbd7 9.�e2 9.'Wb3 a5N (This nice idea improves on 9 . . . tt:lb6 1 0.c5 tt:lbd7 1 l .�d3 Birnboim - Lein, Beersheba 1 982, which is quite promising for White, although Black is very solid of course.) 1 0.b5 dxc4 1 l .�xc4 a4!

idea is seen in the remarkable line: 1 2.tt:lxa4 cxb5 13 .'Wxb5 Ela5 14.'Wb4 b5! 1 5 .�xe6 [White is clearly worse after 1 5 .�xb5 tt:l d5 1 6.'Wb3 tt:lxe3 17.'Wxe3 Elxb5 1 8.0-0 'Wa8] 1 5 . . . Elxa4 16 .'Wxb5 Ela5 17.�xd7 Elxb5 1 8.�xb5 Wd5 1 9.a4 'Wxg2 Black is better, although White has some counter-chances.) 12 ... c5! 13.dxc5 tt:le5 14.�e2 a3! 1 5 .�xa3 tt:ld3t 1 6.�xd3 Wxd3 Black has a strong initiative.

9 . . . dxc4 1 0.tt:lxc4 This is more natural than: 1 0.�xc4 tt:ld5 1 1 .0-0 a5 Black has a comfortable game.

8 .i � � ��· 7 � ·� i)-·y,�' 6 - - %� f� .fafi"� �� ;;,, ,, ;� 5 �%'-�%'-��·� 4 ;ef�lt:J;ef� • � "- , ,%�, ,%f!f {},� 3 ��-�- - :�?,:- �%''" �%''" 2 fj � • .i,1� fj 1!J 1 �-----"� viffi" , %� -�

a b c d e f g h 1 0 . . . �xc4!

The simplest way for Black to free his game. 1 l .�xc4 e5 12.dxe5 tt:lxe5 13 .�e2 'We7 14.'Wb3 Elfd8+

Black will play ... tt:l d3 next; he has successfully solved his opening problems.

8.c5 This is not unreasonable, but on the other hand it presents Black with a straightforward plan of preparing the . . . e5 advance.

8 . . . tt:l bd7 9.h3 Necessary prophylaxis, as otherwise it's too easy for Black: 9.�e2 �g4 1 0.0-0 Ele8 And . . . e5 is coming.

9 ... a5 1 0.b5 tt:le4 The idea behind Black's ninth move was that he is now threatening . . . tt:ldxc5.

1 l .'Wc2

120 Closed Variation

8 .i. � � ��· � ';, ,,% ef""'"'�'/ 7 � • • ')). , . , 6 �� ·� .f� 'i"� -'0�m-'0�� 5 � 8 i?'� · � � 4 , , %�� - %�� ?%� �z --/d' %m,"' �� 3 � m r�ltJ� 8 2 l-iYflf -%� l� �""'"� �� :

a b c d e f g h This occurred in Strating - I. Sokolov, Amsterdam 200 1 . Here I like:

l l . . . .if5 1 2.lt:Jh4 Another line is: 1 2 . .id3 lt:Jxc3 1 3 . .ixd .ixd3 1 4.Wxd3 We? 1 5 .0-0 e5 Black is fine.

1 2 . . . e5 1 3.lt:Jxf5 gxf5 The position is complex and unbalanced.

8 ... i.£5 9.h3 h6 10.lllf3 lllbd7 1 1 .c5 A dubious looking decision, which allows

Black an easy game.

B) 5.�b3 e6

White now chooses between Bl) 6.lllf3 and B2) 6.�a3.

Bl) 6.lllf3 0-0

B l l) 7.i.e2 b6

Black shouldn't hurry with 7 . . . dxc4 8.W'xc4 since after 8 . . . b6 White has 9.b4!, countering both . . . .ia6 and . . . c5, and securing an edge, Tarasov - Piankov, USSR 1 966.

8.0-0 This is considered to be Black's most reliable White can release the tension in the centre reply, although other moves are also playable. by:

Chapter 1 1 - Various Fifth Moves 121

8.cxdS exdS 9.0-0 9.llleS is strongly met by: 9 . . . cS 1 0.0-0 �aG 1 1 .�xaG lllxaG Black has no problems whatsoever.

9 . . . cS! A very aggressive approach. 9 ... �b 7 has been more popular in practice, but that seems to me more in the spirit of the Queen's Indian. It is hard to believe that any Griinfeld players would refrain from the thematic . . . cS when it works.

1 0.dxcS 1 0.�d2 transposes to B 1 2. 1 0.:!"i:dl �eG 1 1 .lllgS lllbd7 is not dangerous for Black.

1 0 . . . bxcS 1 1 .:!"i:d l �eG 1 2.lllgS lllbd7 1 3.e4 White's most aggressive response.

13 . . . :!"i:b8 14.'\Wc2 d4 1 S .llla4 '1We7 We have reached a complicated position

with mutual chances.

8 ... dxc4! The correct solution, since each recapture

has its own drawback. Black failed to equalize after: 8 . . . cS 9.dxcS

bxcS 1 0.:!"i:dl �aG 1 1 .cxdS �xe2 1 2.lllxe2 exdS 13 .llld;!; Hesse - S. Fischer, Germany 1993.

9.Wfxc4 9.hc4 �b7 10 .�e2 (after 1 0.:!"i:dl I

recommend the simple 1 0 . . . '\We7N 1 1 .�e2 lllbd7 followed by . . . cS) 1 0 . . . lll bd7 1 1 .:!"i:dl

'\We7 1 2.�d2 cS= Black has solved his opening problems, Hassan - Bernasek, Oropesa del Mar 1 998.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

9 ... i.a6N Previously Black tried 9 . . . �b7, but failed to

equalize: 1 0.b4 lllbd7 1 1 .�b2;!; Viner - Hill, Toowoomba 1 986.

10.W/a4 he2 1 1.�xe2 W/d7 1 1 . . .cS would be premature: 1 2.dxcS bxcS

13.:!"i:d l 'IWbG 14.�d2 lllcG 1 S.�c3 White's better pawn structure gives him an edge.

12.Wic2 �c8 White cannot do anything against the

coming . . . cS. For instance:

13.b4 c5 14.bxc5 bxc5 15.dxc5 W/b5 Black regains the pawn with a comfortable

position.

B12) 7 . .td2 b6 8.cxd5

Other options:

8.�e2 cS 9.cxdS exdS transposes to the main line.

8 .:!"i:c l cS 9.cxdS exdS 1 0.�e2 lllcG 1 1 .0-0 M. Ivanov - Hillarp Persson, Gothenburg


20 I 0. Now simplest is I l . . .:1%e8 and Black can comfortably meet 12.Wi'a3 with 12 . . . i.f8.

8 ... exdS 9 . .ie2 cS fu we have already seen, Black is not forced

to continue with the natural 9 . . . i.b7, but can play more aggressively. Meanwhile the lightsquared bishop can be very useful on the h3-c8 diagonal.

a b c d e f g h

10.0-0 I also checked:

1 0.tt:leS i.b7!?N An interesting pawn sacrifice. The alternatives 1 O . . . i.a6 and 1 O . . . i.e6 are playable too.

1 1 .dxcS 1 1 .0-0 tt:lc6 12.tt:lxc6 i.xc6 leads to a comfortable game for Black.

1 1 . . .Wi'e? 12.c6 I believe that White should return the pawn, since 12.ctJd3 ctJc6 followed by . . . d4, looks very promising for Black.

12 . . . ctJxcG 13.ctJxcG i.xc6 14.0-0 :gfd8 Black will play ... d4 at a suitable moment,

with comfortable equality.

10 ... �c6 1 1 .:Sfdl .ie6 This is quite a nice square for the bishop,

but the more flexible 1 1 . . . :1%e8!?N is worth considering, since Black would then be able to meet Wi'a3 with . . . i.f8.

12.°1Wa3 cxd4 13.�xd4 Black has no problems after l 3.exd4 tt:le4

14.i.f4 ctJxc3 1 5 .Wi'xc3 :1%c8.

13 ... �xd4 14.exd4 �e4 15.�xe4 dxe4 16 . .ib4 :Se8 17.dS

17 ... hdS!N 18 . .ic4 After 1 8.i.bS :1%e5 1 9 .i.c3 ms Black is just a

healthy pawn up.

18 ... hc4 19.:SxdS :Sexd8i Black has sufficient material for the queen,

and objectively the position is level.

B2) 6.Wa3

a b c d e f g h


An unusual idea that temporarily prevents Black castling.

6 ... a5 This seems to me the most challenging

option, preparing . . . lt:la6-b4 to block the a3-f8 diagonal.

7.lt:lf3 c6 This is necessary to defend the a5-pawn.

8.b3 The immediate 8.cxd5 does not pose Black

any problems: 8 . . . exd5 9.id3 lt:la6 1 0.0-0 lt:lb4 1 1 .ibl b6 1 2.'IMl'a4 0-0 1 3 .a3 ib7 14.'IMl'b3 lt:la6 1 5.id2 Gulko - Cu. Hansen, Rome 1988. Now simply 1 5 . . . E!:eSN would give Black a fine game, for instance: 16.Eld l c5 17.lt:le5 c4 1 8 .'IMl'c2 lt:lc7 1 9.a4 lt:ld7 Black has the much better coordination.

8 ... lt:la6

a b c d e f g h

9.id2 White has a couple of other possibilities:

9.c5 This seems too ambitious.

9 ... lt:ld7 1 0.ixa6 Elxa6 1 1 .lt:la4 0-0 The extravagant 1 l . . .g5 turned out okay for Black in Korchnoi - Van Wely, Istanbul 2000, but the text is more logical.

1 2.ib2

� �!�i•f&, 6 1.r.r��t� ''% �''% � �, s � r�• • • 4 ltS'a , ,%��-�� 3 ��-,,, %�� 2 'A"w� �� ,%�� '�� 0 00 � �d, Q �Q �,,,,,r,� W/?,� , %� .:

a b c d e f g h Here I found the following idea:

1 2 . . . E!:eSN In Korchnoi - Kurnosov, Chelyabinsk 2007, Black opted for: 1 2 . . . 'IMl'e7 1 3 .0-0 Ele8 14.Elacl ifs 15 .ial b5 16.lt:lb2 White has managed to maintain balanced play.

1 3.0-0 if8! Suddenly the threat of . . . b5 is very powerful.

14.b4 axb4 1 5 .'IMl'xb4 b6 Black is clearly better.

9.ie2 lt:lb4 (there is also nothing wrong with 9 . . . lt:le4 Korchnoi - Krasenkow, Lvov 2000) 10 .'IMl'b2 c5 Black immediately attacks the white centre. 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2.Eld l b6 1 3.a3 lt:lc6 14.'IMl'c2 cxd4 1 5 .exd4 ib7 16.if4 Elc8 17.h3 This complex position occurred in Jakobsen - Ruck, Koszeg 2000. Black should continue 17 .. . lt:le7N 1 8.lt:lb5 lt:le4 with a sound game.

9 ... lt:le4 With the white bishop on d2, this idea is

now even stronger.

10.'IMl'b2 White defends his bishop again, since after

1 0.ie2 lt:lxd2 1 1 .lt:lxd2 e5 Black takes over the initiative.

10 ... 0-0 l l.ie2


This was U. Baumgartner - Siger, e-mail 2008. Black now has various attractive options - the one I like most is:

1 1 . .. cSN 12.0-0 cxd4 13.exd4 liJxd2 14.�xd2 dxc4 15.bxc4 e5 16.dS liJcS

Black is doing well.

C) 5.i.d2 0-0 6Jkl

a b c d e f g h

This relatively rare continuation has been tested several times by Belarusian GM Aleksandrov. It may look as if White is wellprepared to meet . . . c5 , but Black can still play it.

6 ... c5 7.dxc5 llJa6 8.liJxd5

This is White's main idea. Black has an excellent game after 8.cxd5 lllxc5 9 .ic4 if5, for instance: 1 0.lllge2 id3! 1 l .i.b3 ia6 1 2.0-0 E:c8 1 3.E:b l Wd6 14.a3 lllg4 Black had a dangerous initiative in Cusi - Yermolinsky, Chicago 2003.

8 ... llJe4! A very strong idea. After the exchange of

White's dark-squared bishop, Black will have fine compensation for the pawn.

9.f3 liJxd2 10.�xd2 e6 1 l.liJc3 �a5 Black has no intention of easing White's task

by swapping queens.

12.a3 gds 13.�c2 i.d7! Black is waiting for a better moment to

capture the c5-pawn, since 1 3 . . . Wxc5 could be met by 14.Wf2.

14.i>f2 After both 14.tt:lge2 Wxc5 and 1 4.i.d3

lllxc5, Black is clearly better.

14 ... gacS 15.i.e2

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

15 ... i.h6!N This is an improvement on 1 5 .. :Wxc5, which

allowed White to stabilize the position with 1 6.b4 in Aleksandrov - Ivanchuk, Chalkidiki


2002. Black's idea is that when he plays . . . Wxc5 he will be atticking the e3-pawn.

16.£4 e5! The position opens up in Black's favour.

D) 5.cxd5 tlJxd5 6.tlJxd5

This line has recently been very fashionable. I would also like to mention: 6 . .ic4 t2Jb6 7 . .ib3 0-0 8.tLige2 This can hardly pose Black any difficulties. (The natural 8.t2Jf3 transposes to line 02 in the following chapter.) 8 . . . c5 9.dxc5 tlJ6d7 10.tLie4 tLia6 l 1 .Wc2 tLib4 1 2.Wd2 Wa5 13.0-0 tLixc5 14.t2Jxc5 Wxc5 15 .a3 tLic6 Black clearly has the better chances, Sinprayoon -Ogaard, Haifa (ol) 1 976.

6 • • . Yfxd5 7.tDe2

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

The point of White's play; the second knight will come to c3 with tempo.

7 .•. o-o s.tDc3 Vf ds Some strong players have opted for 8 . . . Wd6

in recent games, but I prefer the d8-square for the queen.

9.i.e2 c5 This is of course more active than 9 . . . c6,

which is also quite popular.

10.dS The only way to fight for an advantage.

1 0.dxc5 Wa5 can only be better for Black, for example: 1 l ..id2 (after 1 1 .0-0 :§d8! 12 . .id2 Wxc5 Black has the more pleasant position) l 1 . . .Wxc5 12.tLia4 Wg5 ( 12 . . . Wc7 is fine too) 13.0-0 :§d8 14.Wcl This occurred in Gregor - Sulko, Slovakia 2002, and now the simple 14 . . . .ih3N 1 5 . .if3 tLic6 1 6 . .ic3 :§ac8 would have led to a better position for Black.

10 ... e6 1 1.e4 exd5 12.exdS Here I have a new idea to suggest:

8 .i �.t� ��-7 lfl"U,,,,,/,U,ly,m i ,,,,,/,� /,� �� ,,,,,�� : �-!�� 4 �. ,.�.�� 3 0,� �� 0,� 2 !n ufu!� 1 �,,,,/,�'=,,,,/,·�

a b c d e f g h

12 ... Vfb6!?N I like the idea of preventing the white bishop

from easily jumping to f4 or g5 . Now White will need to spend time solving the problem of the b2-pawn. In practice Black's most popular continuation has been 12 . . . b6.

13.0-0 tlJa6 1 3 . . . .if5 is also worth considering. The position is very complex, but my feeling

is that Black is doing fine. Here is my brief analysis:

14.d6 This looks the most challenging continua

tion, but of course there are reasonable alternatives:


14.�el i.d7 ( 14 . . . i.f5 would allow White to free his pieces by 1 5 .lt:Ja4 Wd6 16 .i.e3) 1 5 .i.f3 �fe8 It is not dear how White can develop his queenside.

14.i.c4 i.f5 looks good for Black.

14.Wb3 i.f5 ( 14 . . . Wxb3 1 5.axb3 tt:Jb4 looks tempting, but after 16 .i.g5 White might have some initiative) 1 5 .i.e3 mes 16.i.b5 ( 1 6.Wxb6 axb6 17.i.b5 �f8 1 8.d6 lt:Jb4 is not dangerous for Black, and it seems to me that White's passed pawn is rather weak) 1 6 . . . �ec8 1 7.lt:Ja4 Wa5 1 8 .i.xa6 bxa6 1 9.�acl i.f8 Black will play . . . �ab8 next, with fine play.

Conclusion We have covered a range of different approaches from White, but in all of these lines I believe that Black can count on obtaining good play. The most important variation is probably D) 5.cxd5 tt:Jxd5 6.tt:Jxd5 '1Mfxd5 7.lt:Je2, which has been all the rage in the last year or so. In that line I think that my new idea of 12 . . . Wb6!?N offers Black promising counterplay.

Closed Variation 5.�f3

Variation Index 1 .d4 ll:if6 2.c4 g6 3.ll:ic3 d5 4.e3 i.g7 5.lt.J£3

5 ... 0-0

A) 6.i.e2 c5 Al) 7.dxc5 A2) 7.cxd5 A3) 7.0-0 cxd4 8.exd4 ll:ic6

A31) 9.c5 ll:ie4

B) 6.i.d2 C) 6.i.d3

A31 1) 1 0.i.£4 A312) 1 0.i.e3

A32) 9.cxd5 A33) 9.�el i.g4

A331) 10.c5 A332) 10.cxd5

A34) 9.h3

D) 6.cxd5 ll:ixd5 7.i.c4 ll:ib6 Dl) 8.i.e2 D2) 8.i.b3

a b c d e f g h

128 128 130 131 133 134 135 135 136 136 137 138 139 141 143 143 144


1 .d4 tlJf6 2.c4 g6 3.tiJc3 d5 4.e3 i.g7 5.tiJf3 0-0

6.b4 (via the 5.b4 move order) and 6.1.Wb3 e6 were covered in the previous chapter, but there are still four other serious continuations to be examined: A) 6.i.e2, B) 6.i.d2, C) 6.i.d3 and D) 6.cxd5.

A) 6.i.e2 c5

8 i. �.i.� ��· 7 :6•,;� , , , , ,/,_,,y,� ' 6 "g��! "•.l� 5 ��:� /,,, , , ,� 4 ��',ti,'g�� :,/J",,, ,%;ar% �� 3 � ;� ��ltJ-2 tlrti,,,, , ;-�� tl� �,,,,/,�'=,,,,/,-�

a b c d e f g h

White now chooses from Al) 7.clxc5, A2) 7.cxd5 and A3) 7.0-0.

Al) 7 .clxc5 WT a5

Also playable is: 7 . . . dxc4 8.Wxd8 :!"lxd8 9 . .ixc4 liJ bd7 1 0.c6 bxc6 1 1 .0-0 liJ b6 Black will play . . . liJfd5 next, with equality.

8.cxd5 There is also:

8 . .id2 dxc4 9.liJa4 Or 9.ixc4 Wxc5 and: a) 1 0 . .ib3 liJc6 1 1 .0-0 :!"ld8 The position resembles those that can arise from the 4 . .if4 Variation (see line C of Chapter 17) , but the passivity of White's dark-squared bishop makes a difference and Black is very comfortable here. 12.h3 Dvoranova- Purgar, Herceg Novi 2008. Black can now go after the light-squared bishop by: 12 . . . liJa5N 1 3.We2 liJxb3 14.axb3 b6 l 5.e4 .ib7 Black's chances are preferable. b) 1 0.Wb3 liJc6 l l .liJa4 Wh5 1 2 . .ie2 (White probably only now realized that the natural 1 2 . .ic3 runs into the extremely unpleasant 12 . . . .ih3!) 1 2 . . . liJe4 Black captures the white dark-squared bishop and has the better game, Serrano Pertinez - 'Chess bolo', Internet 2004.

9 . . . Wc7 1 0 . .ixc4 liJe4 1 1 .:!"lcl

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h White has managed to temporarily retain the extra pawn, but his pieces are lacking in coordination, while Black has active pieces and full compensation.

l L.ig4 1 2.Wc2 An important variation is 12.h3 .ixf3 1 3.gxf3 liJxd2 14.Wxd2 Cvitan - Donchev, Polanica Zdroj 1 985 , and now best is 14 .. . liJc6N, for example: 1 5 .Wc2 ( 1 5 .0-0 is dangerous in view of 1 5 . . . liJe5 16 . .ie2 Wc6!) 1 5 . . . Wa5t

Chapter 1 2 - 5 .�f3 129

16.�fl bS 1 7.cxb6 axb6 1 8.tt'lc3 e6 Black has excellent positional compensation for the pawn.

12 . . . .ixf3 12 . . . Wc6!? is also interesting.

13.gxf3 tt'lxd2 14.Wxd2 :!"ld8 1 5 .Wc2 Wast 16.�e2

a b c d e f g h This was Adamski - Dueball, Raach 1 969. The following seems to me the best way for Black to play:

16 . . . tt'lc6N 17.:!"lhdl tt'leS 18 .Wb3 e6 1 9.f4 tt'lxc4 20.:!"lxc4

20.Wxc4 bS! 2 1 .cxb6 axb6� 20 . . . bS 2 1 .cxb6 axb6

Black is doing well; he is threatening not only . . . bS, but also . . . WhSt followed by . . . Wxh2.

8 ... �xd5 9.Wxd5 L.c3t 10.i.d.2 Other options:

10. �fl ?! looks unnatural, and indeed after 10 . . . :!"ld8 1 1 .Wc4 .if6 Black has more than enough compensation. For example: 12.Wc2 tt'la6 13 . .id2 WxcS Black had an obvious advantage in Zlotnik - Sion Castro, Palma de Mallorca 1 99 1 .

1 0.bxc3 This exchange sacrifice deserves attention; it brought an important victory for Milov in his game against the young Indian GM Negi in the 2009 World Cup.

10 . . . Wxc3t 1 1 .Wd2 Wxal 12.0-0

s .1. m.t. � ��• 7 �·--� �-."� i 6 ..... %� �� ... .. %� T� 5 ��-�. 4 -� ..... %� �� )'%�� 3 �� -·"J�� -/ 2 �- �i,,��

"''"'i !0,�;ef'"""� . . . .. %?2'•'1'"" 1 � � � g � 'l. a b c d e f g h

12 . . . tlic6! I prefer this natural move to 12 . . . .ie6, as played in the above-mentioned game.

1 3 . .ib2 After 13 . .ic4 Korpas - Matyas, Nyiregyhaza 1 999, Black should play: 1 3 . . . Wf6N 14 . .ib2 eS 1 5 . .ibS Wd8!+

13 ... Wxa2 1 4.Wc3 eS 1 5 .tt'lxeS tt'lxeS 1 6.WxeS f6 17.Wc3

17.We7 fails to 17 . . . .ifS-+. We have been following Thoma - Postl, Austria 1 998, and here Black should play the simple:

17 . . . .ie6+N White will have to work hard in order to

demonstrate his compensation .

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

10 . . J:�d8! A very important move, which comfortably

solves all Black's opening problems.


1 1 .hc3 Sacrificing the queen is possible, but tends

to leave White fighting for equality rather than for the advantage:

l 1 .Wxd8t Wxd8 12.�xc3 llld7 1 3.b4 a5!

a b c d e f g h 14.0-0

White cannot maintain his pawn structure by means of the natural 14.a3 in view of: 14 . . . axb4 1 5 .axb4 Ei'.xal t 16 .�xal lllxc5! 1 7.0-0 llle4 Black had the better chances in Murach - Packroff, corr. 1 977. On l 4.bxa5 Klinghammer - Hallier, corr. 1 986, Black should of course recapture: 14 . . . Ei'.xa5!N 1 5.0-0 (after 1 5 .�xa5 Wxa5t 1 6. '\f;ifl lllxc5 Black has a serious edge, due to the misplaced white king) 1 5 . . . Ei'.xc5 16 .�b4 Ei'.c7 17.Ei'.fdl Wf8 Black has the advantage, although White has reasonable drawing chances.

1 4 . . . axb4 1 5 .�xb4 Wc7 1 6.Ei'.fcl lllb8 The knight is heading for the c6-square.

l 7.llld4 �d7 1 8.lll b5 We5 Again Black is better, but White has chances

of surviving, Moehring - Tukmakov, Leipzig 1975.

1 1 ...Wxc3t 12.bxc3 12 .Wd2 Ei'.xd2 1 3.bxc3 Ei'.d5 transposes to the

main line.

12 ... :BxdS

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

13.c4 White has tried 13.Ei'.d 1 more often, but Black

can respond: 13 . . . Ei'.xc5 14.Ei'.d8t '\f;ig7 1 5.llld4 e5! 16.lllb5 Suvrajit- Ganguly, Visakhapamam 2004. Here the simple 16 . . . lllc6N l 7.Ei'.e8 Ei'.b8 would solve the problem of the back-rank pin and leave Black with much the better chances.

13 ... :Bxc5 14.ltJd4 ltJd7 15.0-0 ltJf6 16.:Babl e5

16 . . . Ei'.b8!? is worth considering.

17.:Bb5 We have been following Struzka - Hlavac,

e-mail 2005. Black should now play:

17 ... ltJe4N 18.:BxcS ltJxc5 19.liJb3 ltJa4 20.:Bcl ie6

Black has slightly better chances.

A2) 7.cxd5 ltJxd5 8.Wb3

A common alternative is: 8.0-0 lllc6 9.dxc5

White has a wide choice: 9.h3 cxd4 1 0.exd4 is examined in the note to White's tenth move in A32. 9.Wb3 �e6 1 0.Wxb7 cxd4 l l .exd4 transposes to the main line of A32. 9.lllxd5 Wxd5 1 0.dxc5 Wxc5+ Black has a thematic advantage, due to the contrast between the dark-squared bishops.

Chapter 1 2 - 5 .lllf3 13 1

9 ... lllxc3 1 0.bxc3 °Wa5! 1 1 .�d2 °Wxc5 12.Elb l b6 13.°Wc2 -

Holtorp - Schoene, Bensheim 2002. Here there is the simple:

1 3 ... l2ie5!N Black has a pleasant edge.

8 ... llJxc3 9.bxc3 llJc6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

Quite a common pawn structure in this opening. Here Black has a good version, since the white queen is obviously misplaced on b3; Black can at some point win a tempo with the thematic . . . lt:'ia5.

10.0-0 b6 Black has a comfortable game, as we can see

from the following examples:

1 UM1 I also examined: l l .�a3 lt:'ia5 1 2.°Wc2 °Wc7

13 .:B:acl :8:d8 I 4.dxc5 This exchange is slightly premature. 14 . . . bxc5 l 5.c4 Trojan - Lazanek, Czech Republic 1 998. Now Black can maintain better chances with: 1 5 . . . �f5N 1 6.'Wa4 (after 1 6.e4 �g4 the nice d4-square will be available to the black minor pieces) 1 6 . . . lt:'ib7 Black will continue with . . . llld6. White's main problem is his clearly misplaced dark-squared bishop.

1 1 . •• Wl'c7 12.e4 llJa5 13.Wl'bl

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

13 ... i.h?!N I like this straightforward approach for

Black. Instead l 3 ... �d7 14.�g5 �a4 1 5.Elcl was unclear in Fries Nielsen - Giorgadze, Gausdal 1 992.

I 4.i.e3 iUds 14 . . . cxd4 l 5.cxd4 :8:ac8 also comes into

consideration.

15.i.d3 cxd4 16.cxd4 ifac8 17.Wl'b4 Wl'd6! 18.a3 e6

Black has a good game.

A3) 7.0-0 cxd4 8.exd4

There have also been a large number of games in which White recaptured with the knight: 8.lt:'ixd4 dxc4 9.�xc4 a6


There are more than a hundred games from this position; however I believe that a short review is quite sufficient to show how Black should play here.

1 0.a4 Other options are: 1 0.�e2 Vffc7 l l .�d2 e5 The key idea - Black grabs a lot of space. 1 2.lll b3 lllc6 13 .l"i:cl l"i:d8 14.Vfiel Hoang Thanh Son - Erhembayar, Shenyang 1 999. Now the natural 14 . . . �f5N 1 5 .llla4 b6 would secure Black's slight edge. 1 0.Vfie2 b5 l l .�b3 �b7 1 2.l"i:d l lll bd7 Black has comfortable development. 13 .e4 Vffc7 14.�g5 lllc5 1 5 .l"i:acl e6 1 6.e5 lllfd7 17 .f4 This occurred in Bisguier - Daskalov, Tallinn 1 97 1 , and here l 7 . . . l"i:ac8N would give Black a sound position in a very complex game.

1 0 . . . Vffc7 l l .Vfie2 e5 1 2.lllc2 e4 I like this move, grabbing more space and creating possibilities such as . . . lllg4 or . . . �g4.

a b c d e f g h 13 .llld5

13 .lll b4 is strongly met by: 13 . . . �g4! 14.f3 exf3 l 5 .gxf3 �e6 Black has the better chances, due to the exposed white king.

1 3 . . . lllxd5 l 4.�xd5 l"i:e8 l 5 .llld4 llld7 16.Vff c4 Vff xc4 1 7 .�xc4 lLl b6 1 8 .�e2

After 1 8.�b3 �xd4 1 9.exd4 �e6 Black retains a pleasant edge.

1 8 . . . �d7 1 9.a5 llld5 20.�d2 l"i:ac8

Black has a slight advantage, although White remains solid, Golombek - Smyslov, Bucharest 1 953.

8 .. . lllc6

a b c d e f g h

We have arrived at a real crossroads, as White has a huge choice here. Our main lines will be A31) 9.c5, A32) 9.cxd5, A33) 9.gel and A34) 9.h3, but first we shall take a look at three other options:

9 .llle5 Provided he replies correctly, this doesn't pose Black any problems.

9 . . . dxc4! 1 0.lllxc6 bxc6 l l .�xc4 l"i:b8 1 2.h3 1 2.�b3 l"i:b4 13 .llle2 (I also examined 1 3.�e3 lllg4 14.h3 lllxe3 1 5 .fxe3 �f5+) 1 3 . . . �a6 14.l"i:el llld5 1 5.�e3 e5 Black took over the initiative in Vehkalahti - Jolkkonen, Finland 2005.

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 2 - 5 .lllf3 133

This was_ Gierth Summermatter, Switzerland 1996, and now simplest is:

12 . . . llld5N 1 3.ib3 e6 Black enjoys a comfortable game.

9.ig5 ie6 10.cxd5 A different pawn structure arises after: 1 O.c5 llle4 Black has an improved version of line A3 1 below. 1 l .ie3 lllxc5! This works very well here. 1 2.dxc5 d4 13 .lllxd4 lllxd4 14.id3 Wa5 Black was dearly better in Drzemicki - Hass, Mikolajki 1 99 1 .

10 . . . lllxd5 1 1 .Wd2 Wb6 1 2.l"i:fdl After 12.ih6 l"i:fd8 1 3.ixg7 i;t>xg7 14.:§adl lllf6+ Black's position is preferable, as White doesn't have enough activity to compensate for the isolated d-pawn, Sbarra - J. Horvath, Verona 2005.

12 . . . :!:%fd8 1 3.:!:%acl ?! This inaccuracy was committed in Vekshenkov - Yandemirov, Tomsk 1 998, although Black was fine anyway.

a b c d e f g h 13 . . . llldb4!N

Black wins a pawn.

9.ie3 dxc4 10.ixc4 White occasionally tries a pawn sacrifice: 10.d5 llla5 1 1 .Wd2 ( 1 l .b4 cxb3 1 2.axb3 looks tempting, but there is a dear refutation: 12 . . . lllxd5! 13 .lllxd5 ixal 14.b4 lllc6 1 5.b5 Kapetanovic - Gardner, Toronto 1 998. Now Black should play 1 5 . . . ig?N 1 6.bxc6 e6

1 7.lllb4 Wxdl 1 8.:§xdl a5 19 .tlld3 bxc6 with an obvious advantage.) 1 l . . .b6 1 2.:§adl ib7 Budde - Peelen, Dieren 1 983. White does not have sufficient compensation for the pawn after, for example, 13 .id4 Wc8.

1 0 . . . llla5

1 1 .ie2 The main choice according to theory. After 1 l .id3 Black has a comfortable game: 1 L.ie6 1 2.We2 :!:%c8 13 .llle5 llld5! 14.lllxd5 ixd5 1 5.b3 lllc6 1 6.:§acl Wd6 Black was slightly better in Singher - Legky, Montreal 2003; again White does not have enough activity to compensate for the isolated d-pawn.

1 L.ie6 1 2.Wa4 llld5 13 .lllxd5 ixd5 1 4.:§acl

Bregadze - Pavlidis, Kerner 2007. Black should have continued:

14 . . . lll c6N 1 5.l"i:fdl e6+ Again Black has good play against the

isolated pawn.

A31) 9.c5

By releasing the tension in this way, White signals that he wants to make use of his queenside majority, but Black's counterplay in the centre will be too strong.

9 ... tt:le4


8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

White generally chooses between A31 1) 10 • .if4 and A312) 10 • .ie3 .

I would also like to mention 1 O.h3, after which I recommend: 1 0 . . . b6 l l .ib5 ib7N 1 2.\;Wa4 l"i:c8 Black has slightly the better chances.

A31 1) 10 . .if4

This doesn't look best, since White may subsequently need to defend the d4-pawn with ie3 anyway.

10 ... .ig4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

1 1 ..ie3 Other moves:

l l .tll e5? tt:lxe5!N This just leads to the win of a pawn. (In all six games to reach this position Black has played l l . . . ixe2, after which l 2.tllxc6 leaves White only slightly worse.) l 2.ixe5 (also after l 2.ixg4 tt:lxg4 l 3 .\;Wxg4 ixd4 Black is a pawn up) 12 . . . ixe2 1 3.\;Wxe2 ixe5 14.dxe5 tt:lxc5 Black has a healthy extra pawn.

1 1 .l"i:cl e6 12.h3 ixf3 13.ixf3 Chachere -Stone, Chicago 1 990. Black should now play 1 3 . . . tllg5!N when there is no good way for White to defend the d4-pawn.

1 1 ...e6 I think that Black can already aspire to an

advantage, and therefore should not be satisfied with: l 1 . . .tt:lxc5, 12.dxc5 ixf3 13.ixf3 d4 14.ig5 dxc3 1 5 .bxc3 The game was more or less equal in Dumitrache - Nisipeanu, Romania 1 992.

12.h3 There is also: 1 2.tllel ixe2 1 3.tllxe2

a b c d e f g h l 3 . . . e5N (I consider this more challenging than 13 . . . b6, which is nevertheless okay for Black) l 4.f3 exd4 l 5 .tllxd4 tllg5! 16.tt:lec2 ttJ e6 1 7. tt:lxe6 fxe6 1 8. ttJ d4 \;W f6 1 9. tt:lxc6 bxc6 Black has promising position.

12 • . . i.xa 13.i.xa f5 Black has a fine game. I like the following

example:

Chapter 1 2 - 5 .tll f3 135

14.he4 dxe4 15.d5 exd5 16.llJxd5 E:f7! 17.Wfd2? E:dl 18.E:adl llJd4! 19.ig5 Wff8

Black had a decisive advantage in Mirkovic -Tringov, Vrnjacka Banja 1 996.

A312) IO.ie3 b6!

When the white bishop goes directly to e3, I think this is the strongest idea.

1 1 .cxb6 Other moves are no better:

1 l .Wfa4 �d7 12.�b5 lllxc3 13.bxc3 Wfc7 14.�f4?! Wfxf4 1 5 .�xc6 �xc6 16.Wfxc6 bxc5 17.Wfxc5 e6 Black had a clear positional advantage in Haritakis - Alterman, Katerini 1 992.

1 l .�b5 lllxc3 1 2.bxc3 tlla5 1 3.cxb6 axb6 14.Wfe2 Wfc7 1 5 .�g5 �a7 1 6.�fel e6 Black's superior pawn structure gave her the better chances in Mamedjarova - C. Foisor, Plovdiv 2008.

13.Wfd2 ig4 14.E:fbl llJa5 15.llJe5 he2 16.Wfxe2 f6 17.llJf3 Wf d6

Black had the slightly better position in Brumen - Smirin, Rabac 2004.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

A32) 9.cxd5 llJxd5

a b c d e f g h

10.Wfb3 Let us take a brief look at the alternatives:

1 0.�g5 h6 1 l .�e3 �e6 1 2.Wfd2 @h7 Black has quite a comfortable set-up. 1 3.tlle4 Wa5! Swapping queens is a standard idea for the side playing against an isolated pawn. 14.�fdl Ozgibcev - Novik, Sochi 2005. Now the simple 14 . . . Wxd2N 1 5 .�xd2 b6 would give Black the better chances.

1 0.h3 b6 The plan of fianchettoing the lightsquared bishop offers Black a healthy game, for instance: 1 l .�c4 lllxc3 1 2.bxc3 tlla5 13 .�d3 Wfc7 14.�a3 �d8 1 5 .�cl e6 1 6.Wfe2 �b7 Black had a pleasant position in Pierna Manzano -Hoffman, Aviles 1 992.

1 0.�el �f5 ( 1 0 ... �e6 is also quite good) 1 l .�g5 h6 1 2.�e3 �c8 13 .Wfb3 lllxe3 1 4.fxe3 e5! After this strong idea White will experience difficulties on the dark squares. 1 5 .d5 e4 Black had the initiative in Wright - Stean, Canterbury 1 973.

10 ... ie6!


This move effectively refutes White's queen manoeuvre.

1 1.\Wxb7 tllxd4 12.tllxd4 .ixd4

a b c d e f g h

Black has carried out a favourable exchange of his b7-pawn for the white d-pawn, and enjoys a pleasant edge.

13.:!3dl 13 .ih6 is strongly met by: 13 . . . Elb8 14.Wa6

Elxb2! 1 5 .tllxd5 Wxd5 1 6.ixf8 iixf8 With great play for the exchange, Black clearly has the better chances. 17 .a4? Klyuner - Siebrecht, Duisburg 1 999. Black could now have decided the issue with the tactical trick: 17 . . . Elb6N 1 8.Wxa7 Elb l !-+

13 ... :!3b8 14.\Wa6 tllb4! 15.\Wa4 \Wb6 Black was clearly better in G. Gonzalez -

Goldenberg, Mar del Plata 1 96 1 .

A33) 9.:!3el i.g4

White now decides whether to advance his c-pawn or exchange it: A331) 10.c5 or A332) 10.cxd5.

A331) 10.c5

This type of position is already familiar from previous lines.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g

10 ... tlle4 1 1.i.e3 tllxc3 I prefer this to: l l . . .f5 1 2.h3! ixf3 1 3.ixf3

e6 14.tlle2 The position is very complex and it is hard to be sure what Black should do. 14 . . . e5?! This natural advance seems to be premature. 1 5 .dxe5 tllxe5 1 6.ixe4 fxe4 17.tllf4! Elxf4 1 8 . .ixf4 tlld3 l 9 . .id6 id4 20.Wb3 ixf2t 2 1 .iih2 White was much better in Benatar -J. Fernandez, e-mail 1 999.

12.bxc3 b6! We have already seen this plan, aiming (after

cxb6 axb6) to get a pawn structure in which the white queenside pawns will turn out to be weak.

13.\Wa4 I believe that this is the best try, since

1 3.cxb6 axb6 significantly eases Black's task. Play might continue: 14.h3 ixf3 1 5.ixf3 tlla5 (the prophylactic 1 5 ... Wd6 is also worth considering) 1 6.ig5 Ela? 17.Elb1 W d6 1 8 .Wa4 e6 1 9.Wb5 Elc8 Black had obtained a clear positional superiority in Szeles - Galyas, Hungary 1 998.

13 ... \Wd7! This is my new idea. Black threatens

14 . . . tllxd4, thereby forcing White to either release the tension or move his queen away from the a4-square.

Chapter 1 2 - 5 .ctJf3 137

I was not satisfied with Black's position following: 13 . . . lliaS 1 4.i::;:ab l e6 1 5 . .if4 .ixf3 1 6 . .ixf3 'llc4 l 7 . .ie2 Wf6 Ernst - I..:Ami, Netherlands 2006. Here l 8.g3N would maintain White's advantage; in the long term his c-pawn could well become a dangerous passed pawn.

14.Wfa3 Black need not fear 14 . .ib5 .ixf3 1 5 .gxf3

i:=;:fcg and the pin is not dangerous.

14 ... e6 I am not sure about the position which arises

after 14 . . . bxc5 1 5.dxc5 e5 16.i::;:ad l , as the d5-pawn is a bit vulnerable.

15.h3 ixf3 16 . .ixf3 bxc5 17.dxc5 :gab8 Black's chances are not worse.

A332) 10.cxd5 tlJxd5 1 1 .h3 ie6

1 1 . . . .if5 is also reasonable, but I prefer the e6-square.

a b c d e f g h

12.ifl The main alternative is:

12 . .ig5 h6 13.ie3 White has also tried 13 . .ih4, but this allows the black knight to jump to the f4-square: 13 . . . llif4 14 . .ifl g5 1 5.ig3 'llxd4 1 6 . .ixf4 gxf4 l 7.2"le4 Tisdal! - Ostenstad, Norway

1994. Now l recommend: 17 . . . llif5N 1 8.2"lxf4 Wxdl l 9.2"lxdl 2"lfd8 Black's bishop pair gives him the advantage in this endgame.

13 . . . Wa5 14.'!Wd2 ctJxe3 Now is the right time to capture this bishop, to avoid wasting a tempo defending the h6-pawn.

l 5.fxe3 i::;:ad8 l 6.a3 .ib3! Black prevents b2-b4 and at the same time clears the way for . . . e5.

17 . .idl

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h This was Steinbrecht - Hennig, Hamburg 1997. Black should now continue:

17 . . . .ic4N 1 8 . .ie2 .ixe2 1 9.'!Wxe2 After 1 9.b4 We? 20.llixe2 e5 Black also obtains good play.

1 9 . . . e5 20.d5 e4! Black takes over the initiative.

12 ... :gcs 13.ig5 h6 14.ie3 This position has occurred more than a

dozen times, and practice shows that Black has an excellent game. Black can choose from various plans, and I like the straightforward:

14 ... tlJxc3 15.bxc3 tlJa5 Black has the c4-square at his disposal, and

of course the c3-pawn is a clear target.

16.Wfdl 'i!?h7 17.if4 ic4 18.ie5 Also harmless is: 1 8.'!Wb2 .ixfl 1 9.'i!;>xfl e6

20 . .ie5 '!Wd5 21 .hg7 'i!;>xg7 22.2"le5 Wc4t 23.'i!;>gl b6+ Eljanov - Strelnikov, Kharkov

2000. White doesn't have enough compensation for the weakness of his queenside pawns.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g

18 ... .ixfl.N I prefer this to: 18 .. . if6 19 .ixf6 exf6

Novkovic - Kalod, Presov 2000. Black is not worse, but it is hard to believe that he has chances for an advantage.

19.bg7 <iixg7 20.<iixfl e6i Black retains the better chances, due to his

superior pawn structure.

A34) 9.h3 i.e6

8 i. � � ��· 7 � ,,�,,,,,%m,1ym ' 6 , , , , , %�"'�£�'fl�� 5 .llllll , ll 4 llll f A llll llll 3 llm 'll �ll !", 2 f� .:.f. 1 d,,,,%�,-�,

a b c d e f g h

Black has several more popular options here, but I believe that the text move is simple and good.

10.c5 White has also tried:

1 0.ti:Jg5 if5 l l .ie3 dxc4 12.ixc4 li:J a5 1 3 .ie2 tiJ d5

l 3 . . . 2"1c8 is also fine for Black. 14.li:Jxd5 Wi'xd5 1 5 .Wa4

I also examined 1 5 .Elcl when it's dangerous to accept the pawn sacrifice, but Black can continue 1 5 . . . 2"1ac8 16.Wa4 li:Jc6 17.ic4 Wd6 with a comfortable game.

1 5 . . . id7 1 6.Wa3 This happened in Sahovic - Milanovic, Belgrade 200 1 . Now Black should play:

1 6 . . . ic6N 17.if3 Wb5 The exchange of light-squared bishops is clearly in Black's favour, and meanwhile grabbing the e-pawn doesn't help White.

l 8.Wxe7 2"1ae8 l 9.Wi'c5 Wxc5 20.dxc5 li:Jc4 Black has the better game.

l O.ig5 Wa5!

8 � �� ,J�� 1 � · � r�• � • 6 , , ,%•'i)•.f•'i�B 5 a �� :� ,, , , , 4 , ,�.,��.�,,j. 3 � �m , %•�• � 2 ru ,•ro.r� � �"ii� �'

a b c d e f g h This renews the threat to the c4-pawn.

l l .Wi'b3?! An unfortunate move, after which White is soon in trouble. l l . . .dxc4 12.Wxb7 ( 12.ixc4 runs into 1 2 . . . ti:Jxd4! 1 3.ti:Jxd4 ixc4 14.Wxc4 Wxg5 with an extra pawn for Black) 12 .. . 2"1fc8 1 3.Wi'b5 Wxb5 14.ti:Jxb5 2"1ab8+ Hebden - Cavendish, Eastbourne 1 990.

1 O.cxd5 li:Jxd5 1 1 .Ele 1 2"1c8 This is very comfortable for Black, for instance: 12.ifl li:Jxc3 1 3.bxc3 li:J a5 14.Wa4? Elxc3! 1 5.id2

Chapter 1 2 - 5 .ttJf3 139

�d7 16.�b5 (1 6.Wb4 is strongly met by 16 . . . �xf3! 17.gxf3 l2Jc6 1 8 .Wxb7 ttJxd4t) 16 . . . �c4! 17.�b4 �c6+ Bosboom - Van der Sterren, Wijk aan Zee 1 989.

10 ... tlle4 1 1 .i.e3 Other possibilities:

1 1 .�f4 b6 12.�b5 l2Jxc3 ( 12 . . . ttJa5 is worth considering) 13 .bxc3 ttJa5 14.c6? (White should have played 14.cxb6 axb6 1 5 .�el �d7 16.�d3 �c8, maintaining a balanced position) 14 . . . We8! Now White loses his c-pawn. 1 5 .We2 ttJxc6 1 6.�fe l Wc8 Black was clearly better in Vragoteris - Tukmakov, Kavala 1 99 1 .

l 1 .�b5 The plan of exchanging this bishop for the c6-knight only helps Black strengthen his centre. 1 1 . . .Wa5 1 2.�xc6 bxc6 13.ttJe2 f6 14.�el �f7 1 5.ttJd2 �ab8 Black had an excellent game in Rajan - Mahjoob, New Delhi 2008.

12.dxcS d4 13.lllxd4 lllxd4 14.i.f3 gc8 15.i.dS i.xdS 16.i.xd4 eS 17.i.e3 i.c4 18.Wxd8 gfxd8 19,gfdl f5

Black was better and went on to win in Adly - Ponomariov, Khanty-Mansiysk 2005.

B) 6.i.d2 cS

7.dxcS Black is very comfortable after 7.cxd5 cxd4

8.ttJxd4 ttJxd5. Here is one illustration of how play may proceed: 9.�e2 ttJ c6 1 0.ttJxc6 bxc6 1 1 .�cl �b8 1 2.b3 Borges Mateos - E. Garcia, Sharjah 1 985. Now 1 2 . . . l2J b4N 13.0-0 �e6 would be promising for Black.

7 ... tll a6 8.cxdS The alternative is harmless: 8.�c l ttJxc5

9.cxd5 ttJxd5 1 0.ttJxd5 Wxd5 1 1 .�b4 (1 1 .�c4 runs into 1 l . . .ttJd3t! and only Black can be better) 1 1 . . .Wxd l t 1 2.�xd l b6 1 3.b3 a5 14.�xc5 �c3t 1 5.ttJd2 bxc5 1 6.�c4 a4 White may have chances to hold, but the bishop pair means that Black is clearly better, Bender -Zelic, Sibenik 20 10 .

8 ... tllxcS 9.i.c4 a6 Black sometimes chooses 9 . . . �f5 10.0-0

�c8, which is of similar value and should also be sufficient for equality. But I have a preference for including the moves . . . a6 and a2-a4.

10.a4 White can hardly manage without this move,

but he sometimes tries:

10.b4 ttJce4 1 1 .�cl �f5N (this seems to be more logical than 1 l . . .b5 or 1 l . . .�g4, the


moves which have been played here) 12.ib3 Wd6 1 3.a3 :1'1:ac8 14.0-0 :B:fd8 Black has very active pieces and has full compensation for the pawn; he intends to attack the c3-knight next by moving his knight from f6.

1 0.0-0 b5 l l .ie2 ib7 1 2.:B:cl :B:c8 Black will regain the pawn at a suitable moment, with the better chances, Taimanov - Kamsky, Leningrad 1 987.

1 1 ..J:ks Black continues his mobilization, planning

. . . ltJ d3 next.

12.�e2 The main alternative is: 1 2.l2'ld4 id3

1 3.ixd3 l2'lxd3 14.Wb3 l2'lc5 1 5.Wa2 Wd7 Black simply intends to continue with . . . :B:fd8 and regain the pawn. (I prefer this to the more popular 1 5 . . . l2'lce4.) 1 6.:B:fdl :B:fd8 17.l2'lb3 Kahn - Pioch, corr. 1 977. Now 17 ... l2'l d3!N would give Black a pleasant edge, for example: 1 8 .Wb l Wf5 1 9.iel lLixel 20.Wxf5 gxf5 2 1 .:B:xe 1 l2'lxd5+

12 ..• l2Jfe4

1 3.l2'ld4 results in a more or less forced line: 1 3 . . . l2'lxd2 14.Wxd2 l2'le4 1 5 .l2'lxe4 ixe4 16 .Wb4 ixd4 l 7.exd4 ixd5 1 8 .ixd5 WxdS 1 9.Wxe7 :B:fe8 20.Wa3 Clearly only Black can fight for an advantage here. It seems to me that his best chance is 20 . . . :B:e2N 2 1 .:B:fe 1 :B:d2+ and White still has some work to do in order to reach a peaceful result.

1 3.l2'lxe4 ixe4 14.ib4 ixd5 1 5.:B:fdl Wb6 l 6.ixc5 ixc4 17 .ixb6 ixe2 l 8.:B:d2 (White has also tried 1 8 .:B:d7 ixb2 19.:B:b l Gulko - Navarovszky, Moscow 1 971 , and now 1 9 . . . ia3N 20.:B:xb7 :B:c4 21 .a5 :B:fc8 would lead to an unpleasant endgame for White, since Black's bishop pair is very powerful.) 1 8 . . . ic4 1 9 .h3 :B:c6 ( 1 9 . . . :B:fe8!? deserves attention) 20.a5 ib5 2 1 .l2'ld4 ixd4 22.exd4 The oppositecoloured bishop endgame is of course drawish, Efimov - Stangl, Lavena 2003.

13 ... l2'lxc3 14.hc3 ixc3 15.bxc3 l2'le4 16J:�d4

Otherwise White would be worse: 1 6.:B:dcl Wa5 l 7.l2'ld4 l2'lxc3 18 .Wfl ie4+ The cl-pawn is falling next, Haygarth - A. Williams, Eastbourne 1 973.

16 ... �aS 17.�el

Chapter 1 2 - 5 .tll f3 141

An important line is: l 7.g4 Wxc3 18 .:E'i:adl ll'id6! 1 9.ll'ie5 ie4 20.id3 ixd3 2 1 .:E'i: lxd3 Czubak- Hueser, e-mail 2008. Now the sim pie 2 1 . . .Wal t 22.:E'i:dl :E'i:cl would give Black the better chances.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1 a b c d e f g h

I 7 ... llJd6!?N I believe that this logical novelty allows Black

to fight for an advantage. After 17 . . . Wxc3 1 8.id3 Wxel t 1 9.:E'i:xel ll'ic3 Fehmers -Brinkmann, Germany 200 l , White should play: 20.ixf5N gxf5 21 .d6 exd6 22.�fl His activity should enable White to obtain a draw without too much difficulty.

18.J.d3 Another line I examined is: 1 8 .ifl Wxc3

l 9.Wxc3 :E'i:xc3 20.tt:'id2 :E'i:c2 2 l .e4 id7 The endgame is slightly better for Black.

18 ... J.xd3 19J�xd3 :!'k4! Reminding White that the a4-pawn is also

weak.

20.llJd.2 gxa4 Black has the better chances in a complex

middlegame.

C) 6.i.d3 c5 7 .0-0

It is inaccurate to play: 7.dxc5 dxc4 8.ixc4 Wxdl t

After 8 . . . Wa5 9.0-0 Wxc5 Black has no problems, but with the text he is fighting for an advantage.

9.iixdl No better is: 9.ll'ixdl tt:'ie4 1 0.0-0 ll'ic6 Black has much the better game, due to the superiority of his dark-squared bishop. In Gomes - Santos, Brazil 1 993, White lost very quickly: 1 1 .:E'i:b l ?! ll'ixc5 1 2.b4? if5-+

9 . . . tt:'ibd7

a b c d e f g h Due to the misplaced white king, Black's chances are higher.

1 0.c6 bxc6 1 l .�e2 tt:'ib6 1 2.id3 ll'ifd5 1 3.tt:'ixd5

1 3 .id2 tt:'ib4! secures an edge for Black. 1 4.a3 ll'ixd3 1 5 .�xd3 ia6t 16.�c2 :E'i:fd8 17.:E'i:adl id3t 1 8.�cl tt:'ic4+ S. Kasparov -Aronian, Minsk 1 998.

13 . . . cxd5 1 4.:E'i:dl This position has occurred in a couple of games. Black should play the natural:

1 4 . . . :E'i:b8N White is struggling to equalize.

7 ... cxd4 8.exd4 8.tt:'ixd4 allows Black to grab space in the

centre: 8 . . . e5 9.ll'ib3 e4 I O.ie2 dxc4 l l .ixc4 Wc7 1 2.ie2 tt:'ic6 1 3.ll'ib5 Wb8 1 4.id2 :E'i:d8 1 5 .tll 5d4 ll'ie5 1 6.h3 b6 17.:E'i:cl ib7+ Black had more space and the better chances in T. Fischer - Steinmacher, Baunatal 1 996.


8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

8 ... �c6 9.h3 This is necessary prophylaxis. After 9.Ag5

i.g4 the pin is highly unpleasant: 10.i.xf6 Axf6 1 1 .tllxd5 Axd4 1 2.i.e2 i.g7 1 3.tlle3 Ae6 Black was much better in Sterliagova -Pogonina, Serpukhov 2002.

9 ... dxc4 Black has other playable moves, but this

seems to be the most logical.

10.hc4 �a5

improvement: 14 . . . 1:'i:xc4N 1 5 .Wd2 1:'i:e8 16 .:t:'i:acl tlld5= Black has no problems. 1 2.tlle5 1:'i:c8 1 3.Af3 tlld5 14.tlle4 tllb4 1 5 .tllc3 Heberla - Vehi Bach, Plovdiv 2008. The simple 1 5 ... Wb6N followed by ... 1:'i:fd8 would secure an advantage for Black.

1 2 . . . 1:'i:c8 1 3.tlle5 tlld5 14.i.d2 tllc6! As is well known, swapping pieces is favourable for the side playing against the isolated pawn.

1 5 .tllxc6 1:'i:xc6 1 6.i.f3 1:'i:c4 Black was better in Zhukova - Beshukov,

Berlin 1 995.

1 I . . . i.e6 12.�el If White plays 1 2.We2 1:'i:c8 13.Ag5 Levitt -

Beaumont, Birmingham 1 999, then Black has the strong: 1 3 . . . tllc6N 1 4.:t:'i:adl tllb4! White has to give up his light-squared bishop.

12 ... �cS 13.i.g5 Black must be ready for the thematic

positional exchange sacrifice: l 3.1:'i:xe6 fxe6 1 4.We2 'itih8 1 5 .tllg5 ( 1 5.Wxe6 Wd6!+) 1 5 . . . tll c6 16.tllb5 Lputian - Magerramov, Daugavpils 1 978. Now strong is: 16 . . . e5!N 17.tlle6 Wd5 1 8.tllxf8 Axf8 19 .tllc3 tllxd4 20.We3 Wd6+ Black is doing fine, with an extra pawn in the centre, although White has some compensation.

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 2 - 5 .tt:Jf3

13 ... lDc6!N An unexpected change of direction. Black

has previously tried 13 . . . lllc4 or 13 . . . i.c4, but the text looks more promising.

I 4.ic2 Vf/b6! Everything comes with tempo.

15.ih3 Neither 1 5 .d5? lllxd5 1 6.lllxd5 i.xd5

1 7. Vfl xd5 ltJ b4+ nor 1 5 .:gxe6 fxe6 1 6.i.b3 llla5+ is any good for White.

15 ... ixh3 16.Vfixh3 Vfixh3 17.axh3 �Uds; The endgame is favourable for Black.

D) 6.cxdS lDxdS 7.ic4

By far the most popular continuation. Other possibilities are:

7.i.e2 c5 8.0-0 tll c6 9.Wb3 i.e6! 10 .Wxb7 cxd4 1 1 .exd4 transposes to line A32.

7.Wb3 lllxc3 8.bxc3 c5 9.i.a3 9.i.e2 lllc6 was examined in A2.

9 ... cxd4 1 0.cxd4 lllc6 l l .i.e2 Wa5t!

7 ... lDb6

8 7 6 5

White has problems completing his 4 development. 3

12.llld2 Clearly bad is: 12.iifl ? i.e6 13 .Wb2 Steele 2 - Blomquist, corr. 1 99 1 . Now simplest is 1 13 . . . b5N 14.i.c5 b4 and Black has a big """=------"="'-=::...==---"""'�=-i

advantage. a b c d e f g h

l 2 . . . i.e6 9.dxcS In Szekely - Porreca, corr. 1 963, Black tried a remarkable piece sacrifice: 12 . . . i.xd4 1 3.exd4 lllxd4 l 4.Vflb2 :gd8!? It is very interesting, but a bit risky.

Another option is: 9 .0-0 cxd4

The untried 9 . . . llla6!? looks interesting. 1 O .lllxd4

143

13 .Vflb2 This position occurred in Kreiman - Shipov, Internet 200 1 . Black can now seize the initiative by:

Black has an excellent game after: 1 O.exd4 lllc6 l 1 .i.e3 i.e6 12.:gcl :gcs+ Book -Keres, Turku 1 964.

13 ... :gfd8N 14.:gcl Wb6 1 5 .lllc4?! i.xc4 1 6.i.xc4 e5t

1 0 . . . i.d? Black prepares . . . lllc6. After the immediate 1 0 . . . lllc6 l l .lllxc6 bxc6 12 .Vflc2! i.e6

1 3.l''M l Wc8 14.e4 White has some pressure, Nikolaev - Zhelesny, Moscow 1 999.

1 1 .a4 a5 Also reasonable is l 1 . . .lt:Jc6 1 2.a5 lt:Jc8 followed by ... lt:Jd6.

1 2.lt:Jdb5 lt:Jc6 1 3.e4 ie6 14.if4 Wxdl 1 5 .E!:fxdl

Spassky - Gligoric, Niksic 1 983. 1 5 . . . E!:ac8=N

9 ... '!Wxdl t 10.hdl 1 0.lt:Jxdl Mititelu - Stoica, Bucharest 1 97 1 ,

is not accurate as it allows: 1 0 . . . lt:Ja4!N 1 1 .id2 E!:d8+

10 ... tt:J6d7 1 1 .tt:Jds Another try is: l 1 .lt:Ja4 lt:Ja6 12.c6 bxc6

Black's activity fully compensates for the problems with his pawn structure. 13.0-0 Oust bad is 1 3 .id2? lt:Jac5 14.lt:Jxc5 lt:Jxc5 1 5 .ie2 ixb2 1 6.E!:b 1 E!:b8 and Black has won a pawn for no compensation, Dake - Smyslov, Lone Pine 1 976.) This was Burmakin - Khalifman, St Petersburg 1 996, and now Black should play 1 3 . . . E!:b8N 14.tt:Jd4 ib7 followed by . . . c5 at the right moment. I prefer Black's position.

1 1. .. c!lJc6 12.i.a4 Black has no problems after: 1 2.lt:Jd4 lt:Jxd4

1 3 .lt:Jxe7t lt>h8 14.lt:Jxc8 E!:axc8 1 5 .exd4 ixd4 1 6.0-0 lt:Jxc5+ Bobotsov - Hort, Lugano 1 968.

12 ... <.f.ihS! 13.0-0 White doesn't have 1 3.ixc6 bxc6 14.lt:Jxe7?

ib7, as the knight would be trapped on e7.

13 ... e6 14.hc6 bxc6 15.c!lJb4 c!lJxc5 1 5 . . . ib7!?N may be even stronger, but the

game continuation is also good enough.

16.c!lJxc6 i.a6 17.:!3dl c!lJd.3! Black has excellent compensation for the

pawn, Letelier - Gligoric, Havana 1 967.

D2) 8.i.b3

This retreat is much less challenging, but still a bit tricky.

8 ... c5

9.0-0 White has also tried:

9.dxc5 This is hardly a good decision, as it opens the long diagonal for the black bishop.

9 . . . tt:J6d7 10 .lt:Je4 1 0.Wd5 did not bring White success either: 1 0 . . . lt:Ja6! 1 1 .c6 bxc6 1 2.Wxc6 E!:b8 1 3.0-0 lt:Jac5 Black has an extremely powerful initiative for the pawn. 14.°1Wd5 ib7 1 5.Wg5 ixf3 1 6.gxf3 Wa5 White is defenceless against Black's threats, Fodor - Matlakov, Chotowa 20 1 0.

Chapter 1 2 - 5 . tlJ f3 14S

10 ... tlia6 l l .c6 After l l .'Wc2 tlidxcS 1 2.tlixcS 'WaSt 13 .id2 'WxcS Black has the better chances, thanks to his pressure down the long diagonal, Gasser - Mikhalchishin, Bled 1 996.

l l . . .bxc6 1 2.0-0 :B:b8 Black's activity is more important than the weakness of his pawn structure. 1 2 . . . tlidcS is not bad either.

13.:B:b l ?! An unfortunate move, after which Black takes over the initiative.

13 . . . tliacS 14.ic2 ia6 l S .Elel llixe4 1 6.ixe4 llicS l 7.ic2 tlid3+

Brujic - Vujacic, Obrenovac 2004.

9 . . . cxd4 10.exd4 1 O.tlixd4 id7! This accurate move equalizes

comfortably. l l .e4 ( l l .'We2 tlic6 12.tlixc6 ixc6 1 3.Eldl 'Wc7 l 4.e4 has occurred a couple of times, and here I would recommend l 4 . . . e6 l S .ie3 :B:fd8 with equal play.) l l . . . tlic6 1 2.tlixc6 ixc6 1 3.'Wf3 e6! This important positional move restricts the white minor pieces. 14.'Wg3 This was Kuzmin - Jansa, Zinnowitz 1 97 1 , and now Black should play: l 4 . . . tlid7!N l S .if4 'WaS Black has good activity on the queenside and a sound position.

10 ... i.g4 1 O . . . tlic6 is more popular, but I think that

the text is strong.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1 a b c d e f g h

1 1.d5 Another natural line is:

l 1 .h3 ixf3 1 2.'Wxf3 tlic6 13 .ie3 The most popular alternative is: 1 3.:B:dl aS (I prefer this thematic idea to 1 3 . . . tlixd4 1 4.'Wxb7 eS 1 S .ie3, when White retains some pressure) 14 .ie3 a4 1 S .ic2 a3 ( 1 S . . . tlic4!? is worth considering, although the text is also fine) 16.bxa3 :B:xa3 l 7.ib3 lliaS 1 8.:B:ab l llixb3 1 9.:B:xb3 :B:xb3 20.axb3 Engelbert - Kunsztowicz, Hamburg 1 993. Now the simple 20 . . . 'Wd7!N would keep everything under control for Black.

1 3 . . . 'Wd7 14.:B:ad l 14.dS tlid4 1 S .ixd4 ixd4 16 .:B:adl was played in Busche - Tkachuk, Germany 2008. Here I like the following solution: 1 6 . . . ixc3!?N 17.bxc3 aS 18 .'We3 'Wd6 1 9.a4 :B:ac8 20.:B:d4 tlid7 Black is doing fine.

8 .i. � � ��· %,%, %,%, 0- - < 7 1·� a ��\Ul/�1-� a W#;; a % A •E � % A W A ' ' %-'� , %� -,�� 6 ,, �� -��-�� ;;: ,,,;, � 3 %%�� 1fi� fj 2 �o---- .-----��!· 1 �---->-� r��,,

a b c d e f g h 14 . . . tlixd4

Maintaining the tension by 14 . . . tliaS also comes into consideration.

1 S.ixd4 ixd4 1 6.tlie2 1 6.tlidS leads to an absolutely equal position: 1 6 . . . tlixdS l 7.Elxd4 e6 1 8.ixdS exdS 1 9.:B:xdS 'Wc6=

16 . . . eS 1 7.tlixd4 exd4 1 8.Eld3 :B:ad8 1 9.:B:fd l 'We7

White regains the pawn, but meanwhile Black manages to exchange some major pieces and liquidates to an easily tenable endgame.

20.:8'.xd4 :8'.xd4 2 1 .:8'.xd4 We l t 22.<;t>h2 We5t 23.Wf4 Wxf4t 24.:8'.xf4 <;t>g7

Black is ready to solve the problem of his f7-pawn by playing .. .f5 .

25.:8'.d4 :8'.e8 The endgame is equal, Smirin - Grischuk,

Rishon LeZion 2006.

1 1 . .. ltisd? 12.h3 .tx£3 13.Wfxf3 �ks Black has given up his light-squared bishop,

but in return he has very active pieces and can create counterplay on the queenside. Theory considers 13 . . . li::l c5 14.:8'.dl li::lxb3 15 .axb3 li::l c8 as the main line; after bringing his knight to d6 Black has a very solid position. However I prefer the text move, which I have twice played as Black.

14 . .tg5 Another popular continuation is:

14.:8'.e l li::le5 1 5 .°1We2 :8'.e8 Black needs to defend the e7-pawn in order to prepare . . . li::lec4.

16.i.g5

a b c d e f g h 1 6 . . . Wd7

A natural human move, but the computer shows that 1 6 . . . li::lec4N is already possible. After l 7.i.xe7 Wd7 White has nothing better than 1 8.d6 li::lxd6 1 9.:8'.adl i.f8 20.:8'.xd6 Wxe7 2 1 .Wxe7 :8'.xe7 going into a drawish endgame.

17.:8'.adl

17 .:8'.acl was played in Guichard - Collas, Belfort 20 1 0, and now I do not see any reason to refrain from the planned: l 7 . . . li::lec4N l 8.li::la4 ( 1 8 .:8'.edl Wf5 l 9.i.h4 We5 is excellent for Black) l 8 . . . li::lxa4 l 9.i.xa4 (Black has no problems after l 9.i.xc4 a6!) 19 . . . Wxa4 20.b3 Wa5 21 .bxc4 i.f8 Black intends . . . e6 next. The position is roughly level.

l 7 . . . li::lec4 l 8.:8'.d3 l 8 .i.xc4?! li::lxc4 l 9.:8'.d3 b5 20.i.cl li::lb6 2 1 .:8'.edl b4 22.li::le4 Wb5 Black had the better chances in Erdos - Sedlak, Hungary 2009.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h l 8 . . . li::lxb2!

A nice tactical solution. 1 9.Wxb2 Wf5

The following play is now more or less forced.

20.°1Wd2 :8'.xc3 2 1 .:8'.xc3 i.xc3 22.°1Wxc3 Wxg5 23.d6 e6

Aleksandrov - Safarli, Moscow 2009. White should now force a draw by:

24.Wc7N :8'.c8 25 .Wxb7 :8'.cl 26.Wb8t <;t>g7 27.:8'.xcl Wxcl t 28.<;t>h2 Wf4t=

14 ... h6! A very useful move, which I found over the

board; it obliges White to choose a diagonal for his dark-squared bishop. Previously I played: 1 4 . . . li::le5 1 5.°1We2 :8'.e8 Pelletier - Avrukh, Biel 2007. Here White could try 16.li::la4N li::lec4 l 7.li::lxb6 li::lxb6 1 8.:8'.adl with slight pressure.

Chapter 1 2 - 5 .lllf3 147

15.if4 Of course -l 5 .ih4 is also possible: l 5 . . . llle5

16.We2 Wd7! I think it is necessary to take control of the a4-square. ( 1 6 . . . E!:e8 was suggested by Vitaly Golod in Chess lnfonnant 1 04, but I feel uncomfortable after l 7.Clla4!) 17.E!:fdl E!:fe8 1 8.E!:acl Cllec4 Black has a comfortable game.

15 ... tlic4 16.hc4 �hc4 17.d6 Golod gave 17.E!:ael as deserving attention.

It is a decent option, but Black has nothing to complain about after l 7 . . . E!:e8 1 8.E!:e2 Wc8.

17 ... exd6 In Golod - Avrukh, Israel (ch) 2008, I played

the less convincing l 7 ... e6.

18.hd6 tlie5!

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1

a b c d e f g h

19.J.xe5 In my calculations I had missed that White

cannot play 19.Wd5? in view of the beautiful: 1 9 . . . E!:d4!! 20.Wxd4 Cllf3t 2 1 .gxf3 ixd4 22.ixf8 Wxf8 Black has a clear edge.

19 ... J.xeS 20.Wxb7 Wi'b8 Black regains the pawn with comfortable

equality, Castaneda - Belov, Moscow 2009.

Conclusion When White chooses any of 6.ie2, 6.id2 or 6.id3, I believe that Black should immediately attack the centre with 6 . . . c5, obtaining good activity in each case. The most important position in the chapter occurs in line A3 after 6.ie2 c5 7.0-0 cxd4 8.exd4 Cllc6. White has a huge range of ninth move options here, but none of them promise him the advantage. Black's thematic advance arrives later in line D) 6.cxd5 Cllxd5 7.ic4 tt:lb6, but there too, after either 8.ie2 or 8.ib3, Black gets good play with 8 . . . c5.

A) 5.�b3 B) 5.�a4t C) 5.�cl tlih5!

Cl) 6 . .ig5 C2) 6 • .ie3 C3) 6 • .id2

A) after 1 3.lllxaS

a b c d e f g h 1 3 . . . i't/xd5!N

4.if4 Sidelines

Variation Index 1 .d4 llJf6 2.c4 g6 3.llJc3 d5 4.J.f4

4 ... J.g7

C3) note to 7.e3

a b c d e f g h 1 0 . . . dxe3!N

C3) after 1 8.lll c?

149 150 152 152 153 154

8 � �% '''Jj!Jlef�it : �.m.¥.1iT�, 5 � •.t.• .')) 4 • •d_ . � �i��ft8;� �W"ji\l,!K/� """ � �� i§ � .§ �'el?

a b c d e f g h 1 8 .. J"1a2!N

Chapter 1 3 - Sidelines 149

l.d4 .!l)f6 2.c:;4 g6 3 • .!LJc3 d5 4.i.f4 i.g7

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

A) 5.%Yb3

a b c d e f g h

This move is unusual and looks slightly odd in connection with 4.if4, but still it is essential to know how to respond.

6.lllxd5N is objectively better, but after 6 . . . lllxd5 7.cxd5 cxd4 8.lllf3 0-0 9.Eldl '%Ya5t! 1 O.id2 '%Yb6 Black has nothing to worry about.

6 ••• cxd4 7.'%Ya4t 7.lll b5 0-0 8.lllc7 does not work in view

of 8 . . . lllh5 9.ig3, De Groot - Hebels, corr. 1 990, and now Black could have seized a decisive initiative with: 9 . . . lllxg3N 1 O.'%Yxg3 llla6! l 1 .lllxa8 '1¥ra5t 1 2.'it>dl if5 White can hardly expect to survive with his king on such a square.

7 ••• .!LJfd7 Also not bad is 7 . . . lll bd7!?N 8.'1¥rxd4 lllh5

9.'1¥fd2 lllxf4 1 0.'1¥rxf4 0-0� with obvious compensation.

8 . .!lJb5 .!lJa6 9.�cl 0-0 I O . .!lJc7?! This move is consistent but bad. Objectively

White should have tried something else, although Black has the advantage in any case.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a

1 0 • • • .!LJdc5!

c e g

5 . • • c5 This refutes White's idea. I like this thematic Griinfeld strike, especially

as White has lost some control over the d4- l l .�xc5 .!LJxc5 12.'%Ya3 .!LJa6 13 • .!LJxaS square. Here in the game Flear - Bejaoui, Tunis

2000, Black could have decided the issue by 6.cxd5 means of:

1 50 4.if4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a c e

13 ... %Yxd5!N 14.tllc7 '%Yf5!-+

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B) S.'%Ya4t

a b c d e f g h

This move is unlikely to pose Black many problems. It has been tested twice by Karpov, albeit in blitz games, and he lost both times.

s ... .id7 6.%Yb3 tll c6! The most principled response.

7.e3 Other moves are weaker:

7.cxd5? Cllxd4 8.Wdl Cll b5! Already it is White who must fight for equality. 9.Cllxb5 ixb5 1 0.e4 ixfl 1 1 .i>xfl 0-0 12.Wc2 !'i:c8 1 3.!'i:dl c6 Black was better in Rothman - Reshevsky, New York 1 946.

7.Wxb7?! is risky: 7 . . . Cllxd4 (7 . . . !'i:b8 is also considered satisfactory according to present theory.) 8.0-0-0 Clle6 9.ie5 !'i:b8 10.'%Ya6 ( 1 0.Wxa7 d4 1 1 .ixd4 !'i:a8 1 2.Wb? Cllxd4 1 3.!'i:xd4 Cllg4 14.!'i:xd7 i>xd7-+ Black has a winning position.) 1 0 . . . d4! 1 1 .Cllb5

8 ,J��j:��Ji 7 � ��.!.�� ·-· 6 ii• , , %·�-,,�. 5 ��- �� ,-4 �. !.,�, , ,�. �� - ,%. �-3 ��,%�� ,%��''0 2 ��,i��i

a b c d e f g h This position occurred in Slepoy - G.

Goldberg, Leningrad 1 956, and now the simple 1 l . . .ixb5N 1 2.cxb5 0-0 would have secured Black's advantage, for example: 13.e3 Clle4 14.ixg7 i>xg7 15 .Cllh3 Wd5+ White has considerable problems.

7 ... tllaS 8.%Yb4 tllxc4

Chapter 1 3 - Sidelines 1 5 1

looks better, _ but here too Black can use his development advantage effectively: 1 5 . . . ib? 16.Wc5 LiJd7! l 7.LiJxd5 ixd5 1 8 .Wxd5 liJxe3 l 9.fxe3 Wxc7 Black has a serious initiative.)

8 ,, ,. �! �w.-J•* 7 \tXU �?+% �;fl81 & �� & �§'� M � ;: A W A 6 · . z•:f• · ,•r�r� 5 �� ', , ;� 4 �

.1,�.

�� 3 ��D � ��', · � , , , , /,�'/ ��·� 2 l �� J��i

a b c d e f g h The present position was reached in

Szeberenyi - Blasko, Budapest 200 1 , and here 1 5 . . . ib?!N would have been a strong improvement, for example: l 6.ia5 W d7 (threatening . . . :8'.a8) 17.Wc5 :8'.a8 1 8.ixc4 dxc4 1 9.LiJge2 ixg2 20.:8'.gl :8'.c8+ Black has an obvious advantage.

9 ... dxc4 10.Wxb? The most principled continuation. 1 0.Wxc4

is playable, but in this case Black's bishop pair promises him a good game: 10 . . . c6 1 I .LiJ f3 ie6 1 2.°We2 This occurred in Serrano Pertinez - Hernandez Jimenez, Barcelona 2000, and here I would recommend the following idea:

0-0 1 6.0-0 if7 Black will open the position for his bishops with . . . e5 at an appropriate moment.

10 ... WbS! 1 0 . . . :8'.b8 1 1 .°Wxa? :8'.xb2 1 2.LiJge2 0-0

13.ixc? Wc8 14.ie5 looks rather unclear.

1 1 .WxbSt gxb8 12.0-0-0

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

12 ... ic6!N Despite a fantastic score of 3Y2/4 on the

database, I was not fully satisfied with Black's position after 1 2 . . . :8'.b?. The problem is seen after 13.LiJf3 ig4, Spiridonov -Jansa, Polanica Zdroj 1 979, and now after 14.:8'.d2N LiJ d7 1 5.LiJe5! liJxe5 1 6.dxe5 Black will have to fight for the draw.

13.ttia ttids1 I like the idea of exchanging the c3-knight,

which stabilizes White's position on the queenside. The game might continue:

14.tllxd5 .ixd5 15 . .ixc? gb5 16.ghel .ie4 Preventing the e-pawn from advancing.

17.tlle5 .ixg2 18.tllxc4 @d7 19 . .ig3 gcs 20.b3 .id5 2I .@d2 hc4 22.bxc4 gxc4 23.gbl gcb4 24.gxb4 gxh4=

The endgame is drawish.

1 52 4 . .if4

C) SJ'kl

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

5 ... tlJhS! This is considered the most principled

answer to White's move order. The three main responses are Cl) 6 . .igS, C2) 6 . .ie3 and C3) 6.id2.

Cl) 6.igS h6

Forcing the bishop to define its intentions.

7 . .ih4 7 . .id2 is best met by: 7 . . . dxc4! (7 . . . c5 is

possible, although compared with line C3 Black's kingside has been loosened slightly.) 8.e3 .ie6 By playing in this way, Black uses the free tempo . . . h7-h6 to his advantage. 9 .tllf3 c6 1 0.tlle4 .id5 1 l.'\Wc2 b5 12.tll c5 This was J. Pinter - P. Popovic, Thessaloniki (ol) 1 988. Now after Rowson's suggestion of 1 2 . . . .ixf3N 1 3.gxf3 tll d7 Black should be at least equal.

7 ... cS Challenging White's centre makes good

sense. Another direction is 7 . . . dxc4 8.e3 .ie6 9 . .ie2 tllf6 with a reasonable position for Black.

8.e3 This is the main continuation, although

other moves have occasionally been seen:

8.dxc5? is a mistake in view of 8 ... d4 9.tlld5 g5 1 0 . .ig3 tllxg3 l 1 .hxg3 0-0 when Black is better.

8.cxd5? is also poor: 8 . . . cxd4 9.tllb5 tlla6 The opening of the centre is clearly favourable for Black: 1 0.tllxd4 Wa5t l l .1"i:c3

a b c d e f g h Stefansson - Borge, Copenhagen 1 998. At

this point l l . . . g5!N would have been strong: l 2.e3 (l 2 . .ig3 tllxg3 l 3.hxg3 tLl b4!-+) 1 2 . . . tllf6 1 3 . .ib5t c;t>f8 Black is clearly better.

8.tllxd5?! tllc6 9.e3 has occurred twice in tournament practice, but for some reason in both games Black refrained from the natural 9 . . . cxd4N when 1 0.exd4 transposes to the next note with 9.tllxd5.

Chapter 1 3 - Sidelines 1 53

9.lllxd5?! lllc6 1 0.exd4 runs into the simple and strong (o ... �e6! l 1 .lll f3 0-0 when Black takes over the initiative: 1 2.�e2 �xd5 13.cxd5 'ffxd5 14.0-0 g5 1 5 .ge l gad8! (it is senseless to rush with 1 5 . . . gxh4? 16.gc5) 16 .'ffa4 e6 l 7.�g3 This was Taboada - Klimakovs, corr. 2008, and now the simple l 7 . . . lllxg3N l 8.hxg3 lllxd4+ would have secured an extra pawn and a clear advantage for Black.

9 ... llic6 9 . . . dxc4 is also a decent move.

10.cxd5 1 0.lllf3 �g4 l l .cxd5 lllxd4 transposes to the

main line.

10 ... llixd4 Black has the better position, as demonstrated

by the following encounter.

1 1 .llif'3 ig4 12.'ffa4t id7 13.'ffdl llif5! Black certainly has no intention of repeating

the position.

14.g4?! llixh4 15.gxh5 llixf'3t 16.'ffxO g5 Black was clearly better in Paunovic - Krnic,

Brezovica 1 988.

C2) 6.ie3

a b c d e f g h

It is hard to imagine that I would have paid attention to this move, were it not for the fact that it appeared in the game I. Sokolov -Smirin, St Petersburg 20 1 0.

6 ... dxc4 7.'ff a4t llic6 8.llif'3 0-0N The aforementioned game continued

8 . . . �e6?! 9.lll g5 when White had the better chances.

9.'ff xc4 ie6 Black tries to make use of his development

advantage.

10.'ffc5 Other queen moves are also unimpressive.

1 0.'ff a4 a6 l l .g3 lllf6 1 2.�g2 (White has no time for 12.h3 in view of 12 . . . llld5!) 12 . . . lllg4 13.0-0 lllxe3 14.fxe3 �h6 1 5 .llld l �d5 Black has a great position.

10 .'ffd3 'ff d7 l l .g3 (After l 1 .llle4 �d5 12.lll c5 'ff d6 White's centre comes under attack and the b7-pawn is untouchable in view of the check on b4.) l l . . . gfd8 White has problems with his d4-pawn. 12.�g2 lllxd4 13 .lllxd4 �xd4 14.'ffxd4 'ffxd4 1 5 .�xd4 gxd4 16.lllb5 gc4 17.gxc4 ( 1 7.0-0 c6 1 8.lll c7 gxcl 1 9.gxcl gd8 20. lllxe6 fxe6+) 17 . . . �xc4 l 8. lllxc7 gc8 1 9.llld5 �xd5 20.�xd5 b6!+ White has problems as the black rook will penetrate to the second rank.

1 54 4 . .if4

10 ... �d6! The simplest solution.

l l .�xd6 1 1 .tt:le4 Wd5! 1 2.Wxd5 .ixd5 1 3.tt:lc5 E:fd8!

is dangerous for White.

l l ... cxd6 12.g3 tllf6 13 . .ig2 tlld5+ Black has the more comfortable position.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

C3) 6 . .id2

a b c d e f g h

This is White's top choice according to theory.

6 ... c5! Once again this typical counterattacking

move works well.

7.e3 The alternatives are no better:

7.dxc5 d4 8.tt:ld5 8.tt:le4 can be met by 8 . . . 0-0� or 8 . . . a5!?�. 8.tt:la4 Komarov - V. Mikhalevski, Kiev 1 995. 8 . . . 0-0!N After this natural novelty Black can already fight for the advantage, for example: 9.tt:lf3 e5 1 0.e4 We8! 1 l ..id3 (After 1 1 .b4?! f5 12 . .id3 tt:lf6+ White cannot hold the centre.) 1 1 . . . .id? 1 2.b3 .ixa4 1 3.bxa4 tt:la6 Black has a positional advantage.

8 . . . e6 9.tt:lb4 0-0 1 0.tt:lf3 a5! l 1 .tt:ld3 tt:lc6 Black is ready to advance his central pawns, so White's next move is understandable.

1 2.e4 dxe3 1 3 . .ixe3 e5 14.tt:ld2 This was Balogh - Stohl, Slovakia 1 994, and here Black could have improved with:

a b c d e f g h 14 . . . f5! 1 5.f3 We7

White's position is critical, for instance: 1 6 . .ie2 e4 17.fxe4 fxe4 1 8.tt:lf2 tt:lf4 1 9.0-0 .id4!

White has no good defence.

7.cxd5 cxd4 8.tt:lb5 tt:la6 9.Wb3 9.tt:lxd4 Wxd5 gives Black easy play.

9 . . . 0-0 1 0.e4 Maksimenko - David, Odessa 1 990. Now Black should have played:

a b c d e f g h 1 0 . . . dxe3!N

With a clear advantage in development, Black should take the opportunity to open the position.


1 1 .�xe3 'llf6 1 2.'llc3 1 2.�c4 'llg4! is strong.

12 . . . �a5 1 3.�c4 13 .�xa6 �xa6 14.'llge2 e6! does not change the assessment.

1 3 . . . �f5 14.'llge2 'll c5 1 5 .�b5 Also after 1 5 .�dl 'llg4 Black's chances are preferable.

1 5 . . . �xb5 16.�xb5 %:lfc8 17.0-0 a6 1 8 .�c4 'llg4!

Black is on top.

7 ... cxd4 8.exd4 dxc4 8 . . . 'llc6 9.cxd5 'llxd4 10 .'llge2 gives White

a slight plus.

a b c d e f g h

9.d5 The alternative is:

9.�xc4 0-0 9 . . . �xd4 is risky: 1 0.'lld5 �e5t 1 l .�e3 'llc6 1 2.'llf3 �d6 13.0-0 0-0 14.b4! White has definite compensation.

1 0.d5 10.'llf3 �g4 1 l .d5 (worse is 1 1 .0-0?! 'llc6 12.d5 'lld4) 1 1 . . .'lld? Black is fine.

1 o . . . 'lld7 1 1 .'llf3 a6! We have transposed to the main line.

9 ... 0-0 IO . .ixc4 tlld7 1 1 .tllO a6! With this key move, Black intends to develop

his queenside by means of . . . b5 and . . . �b7.

Instead after 1 1 . . .'llb6?! 12 .�b3 Black's knight is clearly misplaced.

12.a4 l 2.�e3 occurred in Venturino - Nizynski,

corr. 1 99 1 , and now Black should have proceeded with his planned move:

a b c d e f g h 1 2 . . . b5N Presumably he was concerned about 13 .�e2 intending 'lld4 next, but after the courageous 1 3 . . . �xc3t! Black gets a good position thanks to the direct attack on the d5-pawn: 14.bxc3 (or 14.E!:xc3 'lldf6 1 5 .E!:d3 �a5t!) 14 . . . 'lldf6 1 5 .c4 bxc4 1 6.�xc4 �b7 The onus will be on White to demonstrate compensation after the d-pawn perishes.

a b c d e f g h

12 ... b5! Black takes a concrete approach to the

position, which is justified by his lead in development.

1 56 4.if4

13.axb5 tiJb6! 14.b3 axb5 15.tiJxb5 After 1 5 .ixbS lllxdS 1 6.lllxdS Wxd5 l 7.ic6

We6t 1 8.ie3 Elb8+ only Black can be better.

15 ... tiJxd5 16.0-0 ih7 17.i.xd5 ixd5 18.tiJc7

This position was reached in Lauber- Holzke, Germany 2000. Now instead of exchanging on f3 Black should have played:

a b c d e f g h

18 .. J'fa2!N The most ambitious, although there is

nothing wrong with Krasenkow's suggestion of l 8 . . . Elb8 1 9.lllxdS Wxd5 with equality.

19.tiJxd5 Wxd5 The rook is well-placed on the second rank,

and the b-pawn is likely to become more of a weakness than a strength.

Conclusion Most of the lines in the present chapter are used by players looking to avoid theory. None of them should worry the second player, and in most cases a quick . . . c5 should give Black a promising game when followed up correctiy.

4.if4 a b c d e f g h

Variation Index Ld4 llJf6 2.c4 g6 3.llJc3 dS 4.�f4 �g7 s.ttJa 0-0 6.E:cl

6 ... dxc4

A) 7.e3 �e6 8.llJgS �dS 9.e4 h6 1 0.exdS hxgS 1 1 .�xgS llJxdS 12.hc4 llJb6 13.�b3 llJc6 160 Al) 14.dS 161 A2) 14.llJe2 163

B) 7.e4 �g4 8.�xc4 llJhS 9.�e3 ha 165 Bl) 1 0.W/xS 166 B2) 10.gxS eS! 1 1.dxeS �xeS 12.Wfxd8 E:xd8 167

B21) 13.llJe2 1 69 B22) 13.0-0 170

note to 6.:1'\cl B l ) after 1 4.:1'\fdl B22) after l 9.e5

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h ! 6 .. . �a3!N ! 4 . . . li:lf6!N

1 58 4.i.f4

l .d4 tDf6 2.c4 g6 3.tDc3 d5 4.i.f4 i.g7 5.lDf3 0-0

a b c d e f g h

6.�cl This move is the primary subject of the

present chapter.

6.'i/ffb3 dxc4 7.1lf1xc4 l2ia6 would take us to Chapter 1 0.

6.e3 c5 From this position the most likely outcome is a transposition to one of the main lines considered elsewhere. Let us briefly consider a few independent possibilities.

7.dxc5 7 . .ie2 cxd4 8.exd4 l2ic6 leads to a reversed Tarrasch in which White has the extra tempo .ic1 -f4. Black should have no real problems here, considering that f4 would seldom be the bishop's preferred square in such positions.

7 . . . 'i/ffa5 8.1lf1a4 White's best and most common continuation is 8 . .E\cl , after which 8 . . . dxc4 9 . .ixc4 'i!f1xc5 takes us to the starting position of Chapter 1 7. The alternatives are worse, for instance: 8 .cxd5? l2ixd5! 9 . .ie5 l2ixc3 1 0.'i/ffd2 .ixe5 1 1 .lUxeS 1lf1xc5 1 2.1lf1xc3 1lf1xc3t 1 3.bxc3 l2id7 Black's superior pawn structure gives

him the advantage, as shown in several games. 8.l2id2?! dxc4 9.l2ixc4 (9 . .ixc4 looks inconsistent, and after 9 . . . 'i/ff xc5 it is not clear what the knight is doing on d2.) 9 . . . 'i/ffxc5 1 0 . .ie2 l2ic6 ( 10 . . . ltJhS!?N may be even stronger) 1 1 .0-0 !"ld8 It is clear that Black has won the opening battle, Lilienthal - Boleslavsky, Moscow 1 944.

a b c d e f g h 8 . . . 'i!f1xc5 9.'i/ffb5 1lf1xb5 1 0.l2ixb5 l2ia6

White's exchanging manoeuvre has achieved very little. Here is one illustrative example:

1 1 ..E\d l .ie6 1 2.l2ifd4 .id7 1 3 . .ieS !"lfc8 14.cxdS l2ixd5 1 5 . .ixg7 \f;>xg7

Black's position was already more pleasant in Levenfish - Borvinnik, Leningrad 1 937.

The only other noteworthy alternative is: 6.cxd5?!

This is not a great idea, as White seems to have forgotten about developing his kingside.

6 . . . l2ixd5 It is worth considering two options here.

a) It has long been known that White cannot take the c7-pawn, so I just want to show you why: 7.l2ixd5?! 1lf1xd5 8 . .ixc7 l2ic6 9.e3 .if5

White has tried several moves here, but in all cases the evaluation is clear: Black's superior development is more valuable -than White's extra pawn.

Chapter 1 4 - 6J:kl 1 59

1 0.ie2 1 O.a3 ElacS l l .ig3 runs into a powerful retort: l l . ..ic2! 12.We2 llla5 1 3.flld2 e5 14.Wb5 Wxb5 1 5 .ixb5 exd4 1 6.exd4 ixd4 17.0-0 Elfd8+ Shestakov - Zilberstein, Soviet Union 1 974.

10 ... E!:ac8 l l .ig3 Wa5t

1 2.Wd2 12.©fl has occurred in two games. 12 ... lllb4!N is the right way to develop Black's initiative, for instance: l 3.Wb3 Elc6 14.a3 lllc2 1 5 .Eldl E!:b6 1 6.Wa2 ie6 17.Wb l Elc8 Black is clearly better.

12 ... lllb4 1 3.0-0 Elc2 14.Wel Elxb2 From this position Black has made a 1 00% score from four games. Here is one example:

15 .llle5 ixe5 1 6.ixe5 This is Anikaev - Giorgadze, Soviet Union 1 973, and now the following improvement looks strong:

1 6 . . . Wa3!N l 7.d5 Elc2 White is in trouble.

b) 7.ie5 This is safer, although it can hardly trouble the second player.

7 . . . ixe5 8.lllxe5 c5

9.e3 Dubious is: 9.dxc5?! fllxc3 10.Wxd8 E!:xd8 1 1 . bxc3 T unik-Mikheev, St Petersburg 2009. Here Black missed the strong 1 1 .. .ie6!N 12.Elbl llld7 13 .llld3 Elab8 intending ... E!:dc8 and . . . lllc5 . White is in trouble here.

9 ... lllxc3 1 0.bxc3 llld7 l 1 .lllf3 In the event of l 1 .llld3?! Black has a strong response: l l . ..cxd4 12.cxd4 e5! 1 3.ie2 (Also after 13 .dxe5 fllxe5 14.lllxe5 Wa5t 1 5 .Wd2 Wxe5 1 6.Eldl ie6 Black has the better chances.) 1 3 . . . exd4 1 4.exd4 Wf6+ White is likely to lose his central pawn, Pomar Salamanca - Jimenez Zerquera, Marianske Lazne 1 965.

160 4 . .if4

1 1 . . . W a5!?N It seems to me that Black can play for more than just an equal game with l l . ..b6 1 2 . .ie2 .ib7 1 3.0-0 Wc7 14.a4 lllf6 when a draw was agreed in Akobian - Golod, Las Vegas 2004.

1 2.Wd2 b6 White's position is a bit uncomfortable, as shown by the following line:

1 3 . .ie2 After 1 3.d5 lllf6 14.c4 Wxd2t 1 5.lllxd2 e6 White cannot hold his centre: l 6.e4 �e8! 17.f3 exd5 1 8.cxd5 lllxd5 1 9.ib5 �e6 20 . .ic4 ltJ b4 2 l . .ixe6 .ixe6 Black will collect a second pawn for the exchange and he retains clearly better chances.

1 3 . . . lllf6 1 4.lll e5 .ib7 14 . . . lll e4 1 5 .lll c6! leads to a balanced position.

1 5 .lllc4 Wa4 1 6.0-0 �ac8+ Black has the more pleasant game.

a b c d e f g h

6 ... dxc4 Now we reach an important crossroads

where White must choose between A) 7.e3 and B) 7.e4.

A) 7.e3 i.e6 8.l!Jg5

It is doubtful that White has any reasonable alternative here, for instance: 8.lll e5?! c5 9.dxc5 lllh5 1 0.Wxd8 �xd8 l 1 .lllxc4 lllxf4

l 2.exf4 This was Lebreton - Spielmann, Port Barcares 2005, and now after the simple 1 2 . . . lll c6N 13 .lll e3 �ac8 14 . .ie2 .id4+ Black regains the pawn and his bishop pair gives him clearly better chances.

8 ... i.d5 9.e4 The alternative is:

9 .lllxd5 lllxd5 1 O . .ixc4 lllxf4 1 l .Vfif3! White's chosen line is tricky, but Black should be doing well if he responds correctly.

l l . . . e6! Black should not be tempted to win a pawn, since after l 1 . . .lllxg2t?! 12.Wxg2 c6 13.h4 Wa5t 14.We2 White's attack is dangerous.

1 2.Wxf4 c5! Black should act quickly, otherwise his opponent will generate a dangerous attack on the kingside.

1 3.dxc5 13 .lllxf7? does not work in view of the calm reaction 1 3 . . . We7! 14.lllh6t ( 1 4.We4 Wxf7) 14 . . . Wh8 when White loses material.

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 4 - 6.i:'i:cl 1 6 1

1 3 . . . Wa5t!N_ 1 3 . . . li:ld7 was played in Borges Mateos -Staniszewski, Polanica Zdroj 1 988, but I am a bit worried about 1 4.b4!N when White tries to hold onto his extra pawn.

1 4.<iie2 li:ld7 This is the best square for the knight. The inferior l 4 . . . li:la6? runs into l 5 .i.xa6! Wxa6t l 6.Wc4 W c6 l 7.b3 and after 1 7 . . . Wxg2 1 8.Wh4 h6 1 9.li:lf3 g5 20.We4 g4 21 .li:ld2 Wxe4 22.li:lxe4 White is clearly better.

1 5 .Wh4 h6 1 6.li:lxe6 This looks nice for White, but it turns out that Black has everything under control.

8 .i � � ��· 7 �·-�-·<� • %� 0.� -0.0.� ,,,,,"�f'0 6 \W��i�• 5 8� f� � � 4 , ,�� 0.. 0.� 3 �� ,, ,, ��,�� %��"" 2 � w� •ww� � w� . . %�.m�� %�·:

a b c d e f g h l 6 . . . g5! l 7.li:lxg5

It is of crucial importance that the following line is in Black's favour: l 7.Wh3?! fxe6 l 8 .i.xe6t ciih8 l 9.i.xd7 White has won two pawns, but his exposed king will be his undoing. 19 . . . Wa6t! 20.ciiel Wxa2 Black has a decisive attack.

1 7 . . . hxg5 1 8.Wxg5 li:le5 1 9.i:'i:hdl i:'i:ac8+ The position is complex and unbalanced,

but it seems to me that Black's chances are preferable due to his strong pieces.

9 ... h6 10.exd5 hxg5 l 1 .Axg5 lllxd5 l l . . . b5!? is interesting, but I prefer the

straightforward regaining of the pawn.

12.i.xc4

1 2.Wf3?! is not really a serious alternative due to 12 . . . li:lb4!, for example: 1 3.i.xc4 Wxd4 1 4.li:le2 We5 1 5.h4 li:l 8c6 1 6.i.f4 This was Govciyan - D'Costa, Chalkidiki 200 l , and now Black could have secured his advantage by means of:

12 ... lllb6 13.i.b3 lllc6

a b c d e f g h

Now White has two options: Al) 14.d5 and Al) 14.llle2.

Al) 14.d5 ltld4 15.0-0

In this position Black can choose between two routes to an equal game.

162 4.if4

15 ... Wf d? l 9 ... l"le2! According to theory this is the main move. Now Black becomes rather active and White

should be careful. l 5 . . . lllxb3 l 6.Wxb3 ixc3 20.l"ldl ?!

This is equally playable and is a bit more drawish, which may be a good or a bad thing depending on one's opponent and tournament/match situation.

l 7.l"lxc3 l 7.bxc3 is also possible: 1 7 . . . Wxd5 l 8.ixe7

a b c d e f g h 1 8 ... l"lfeS (I would prefer to swap queens in order to eliminate the danger of being attacked on the dark squares: 1 8 ... Wxb3N 19.axb3 l"lfe8 20.ic5 lll d7 21 .ie3 a5 22.l"lfdl llle5= Black has no problems.) l 9.c4 This position occurred in Gershon - J. Horvath, Chalkidiki 2002, and now Black could have equalized as follows: 1 9 ... Wc6N 20.l"lfel lllc8! 2 1 .ia3 llld6 22.ib2 l"lxe l t 23.l"lxel l"le8 24.l"lxeSt Wxe8 25 .Wc3 f6 Black easily holds.

17 . . . Wxd5 1 8.ixe7 l"lfe8 1 9.ic5 More accurate would have been l 9.Wa3 with an equal game.

a b c d e f g h

The calm 20.h3 was preferable. 20 ... l"laeS 21 .l"le3??

A disastrous blunder. Instead 21 .ie3 Wf5 22.l"lfl lll d5 23.l"ld3 was unpleasant but probably still tenable for White.

2 1 . . .Wxc5 0-1 Gershon - Avrukh, Tel Aviv 2002.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

16.gel l 6.ie3 also fails to pose Black problems:

l 6 ... lllxb3 l 7.Wxb3 ixc3 l 8.ixb6 axb6 l 9.l"lxc3 l"lfd8 20.l"ldl l"la5!= Vegh - Flumbort, Hungary 2004.

l 6.h4 is equally harmless: 16 ... l"ladS l 7.a3 lllxb3 l 8.Wxb3 lllxd5 l 9.lllxd5 Wxd5 20.Wxd5 l"lxd5 2 l .l"lxc7 Y2-Y2 Giorgadze - Shirov, Cala Galdana 200 1 .

16 ... gfe8 17.h4 l 7.ie3?! lllxb3 l 8.Wxb3 ixc3 l 9.bxc3

Wxd5 White has tried this sacrifice several times, but it seems to me that it is dubious due to the following variation: 20.c4 Wc6 21 .id4 l"lad8 22.ial f6 23.l"lc3 This was Dreev -Sutovsky, Moscow 2002, and here I found a natural improvement:

Chapter 1 4 - 6.:B'.c 1 163

a b c d e f g h 23 . . . e5!N 24.:B'.g3 <iif7 25 .�c2 l:!g8 White's compensation is inadequate.

17 .. J�ad8

a b c d e f g h

18.i.a4 Other possibilities also fail to trouble the

second player.

1 8.h5?! is met strongly by: 1 8 . . . gxh5 19 .�xh5 �f5! White's attacking chances are illusory, and in the following game Black soon got the upper hand: 20.i.dl lt:Jxd5 2 1 .�h4 (21 .i.g4 lt:Jf6! is strong) 2 1 . . .lt:Jf6 22.lt:Je4 c6 23.l:!c5 lt:Je2t 24.i.xe2 �xe4 25 .�g3 �g6 Black slowly converted his extra pawn in Nguyen Ngoc Truong - Li Chao, China 20 1 0.

l 8.l:!e4 lt:Jxb3 1 9 .�xb3 lt:Jxd5 (I also like 1 9 . . . i.xc3N 20.bxc3 �xd5 2 1 .l:!xe7 l:!xe7

22.i.xe7 l:!e8 23.i.g5 �c4 when Black has nothing to worry about.) 20.�xb7 lt:Jxc3 2 1 .bxc3 a5 The position is equal, Xu Jun -Ghinda, Timisoara 1 987.

18 ... c!lixa4 19.Wi'xa4 This position occurred in Bareev - Van Wely,

Germany 200 1 .

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

19 • • • c6!?N In the game Black exchanged queens and

a draw was soon agreed, but I prefer the text move slightly.

20.dxc6 20.l:!e4?! is a mistake due to 20 . . . b5 2 l .�b4

a5! 22.�c5 b4 23.dxc6 lt:Jxc6 when Black takes over the initiative.

20 ... c!lixc6 The position is equal.

A2) 14.tlie2 a5!

It is thanks to this important move that this whole variation in no longer fashionable at grandmaster level.

15.a4 The main continuation. Clearly worse is: 1 5.0-0?! a4 l 6.i.c4 lt:Jxc4

( 16 . . . lt:Jxd4N also leads to an advantage, but

1 64 4 . .if4

there is nothing wrong with the text move.) 17 .Eixc4 '\W d5 1 8. '\W cl This was Hartoch -Timman, Leeuwarden 197 1 , and now the forcing 1 8 . . . lllxd4!N would have been very strong, since after l 9.lllxd4 ixd4 20.Eixc7 'Wxa2 2 1 .Eixb7 Eiab8! White loses the b2-pawn.

1 5 .a3 This is a more respectable alternative.

1 5 . . . a4 1 6.ia2

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h l 6 . . . lllxd4

For players who wish to avoid the drawish main line I can recommend the following more enterprising approach: 1 6 . . . Eia5!? The possibility of activating the rook in this way constitutes one of the main advantages of advancing the a-pawn. 17.'Wd2 Eib5! 1 8.ie3 e6 ( 1 8 . . . llla5!?N looks interesting as well) 19.0-0 1Mfe7 1he game is complex and approximately equal, Uifelean - Clark, corr. 2007.

l 7.lllxd4 Playing for an attack on the kingside is not really an option for White as 17 .h4 can be met by 17 ... Eia5!.

17 ... 'Wxd4 1 8.'Wxd4 ixd4 l 9.Eixc7 Eiac8! 20.Eixc8

The alternatives are equally harmless: 20.Eixb??! Eic2 2 1 .Eixe7 ixb2 22.Eie2 Eifc8 23.Eixc2 Eixc2 White already has to fight for the draw, Bergner - Packroff, e-mail 2008. 20.Eixe7 Eic2 2 1 .'tt>dl (After the inaccurate

2 1 .Eie2? Eifc8 White is in trouble.) 2 1 . . .Eixb2 22.Eie2 Eib5 23.h4 lll d5 24.ixd5 Eixd5 25 .Eid2 f6 In this equal position a draw was agreed in Timar - Marcinkiewicz, corr. 2003.

20 ... Eixc8 2 1 .'tt>d2 e6 22.ie3 ixe3t 23.fxe3 lll c4t 24.ixc4

1/2-1/z Dreev - Khalifman, Wijk aan Zee 2002. The resulting rook endgame is equal.

8 i. � � ��-7 �r-,,---%--1.y,m 6 �-·----- -%--,��

·%"·· · · ·.111 .111.111 !1111ifi;� : �.111 .1111.111.111.111 �.111 .111.111 " '.111 .111.111 3 �� -� ��-� 2 �!l%""'-�J!ljlfJ 1 ��v� � n

a b c d e f g h

15 .. J:kS! I found this important move over the

board in my game against Giorgadze in 1999, completely unaware that it had been played as early as 197 1 . It has been played in several subsequent games and practice has shown that Black is fine.

16.0-0 Two other moves of interest are:

1 6.d5?! is inferior as White's cl-pawn becomes weak: 1 6 . . . lll b4 17. lll c3 Now in the game Tibensky - Banas, Slovakia 2002, Black missed the very strong: 17 . . . c5!N 1 8.0-0 (The main tactical point is that 1 8.dxc6? is impossible due to 1 8 . . . lll d3t when Black wins.) 1 8 . . . c4 1 9 .ic2 lLl 6xd5+ Black is simply a pawn up.

1 6.ie3 e5 1 7.dxe5 ( 17.d5 is not dangerous: 1 7 . . . llld4 1 8.lll c3 This was Dreev - Ni Hua,

Chapter 1 4 - 6.i::1c l 1 65

Shanghai 200 1 , and now it would have been a good idea to-exchange White's central pawn by means of: 1 8 . . . c6!N 1 9.dxc6 i::1xc6 20.0-0 lt:Jc4 Black is at least equal.) 17 . . . i.xe5N (There is also nothing wrong with 1 7 . . . Wxdl t 1 8.i::1xdl lt:Jxe5 19.i.xb6 cxb6 20.0-0 i::1fd8 with equality, Giorgadze - Atalik, Batumi 1 999.) 1 8.Wc2 Wf6 19.0-0 i:!fe8= The position is balanced.

16 ... tiJxd4 In the stem game Grigorian - Savon,

Leningrad 197 1 , the players agreed a draw here.

17.tLlxd4 Wxd4 18.i.xe7 White should take the opportunity to regain

the pawn. 1 8.Wf3?! looks too risky: 1 8 . . . e6! 19.1"!c2

lt:Jd5 ( 19 . . . lt:Jd7!?N is also promising) 20.i:!d l Wb4 2 1 .i.d2 Wb6 22.i.xd5 exd5 23.Wxd5 i:!cd8 24.Wf3 c6 Even after regaining the pawn White is under some pressure, Kerssemakers -Lont, corr. 1 990.

18 ... Wxdl 19J:kxdl 1 9.i:!fxd l does not change much: 1 9 . . . i.xb2

20.i.xf8 (20.1"!c2 i:!fe8 2 l .i.c5 i.f6=) 20 . . . i.xc 1 2 1 .i.c5 i.g5 In this equal position a draw was agreed in Ebner - Mezera, e-mail 2007.

19 ... gfeg 20.i.cS 20.i.a3?! i.f8! can only help Black.

a b c d e f g h

20 ... gcd8! This is the last accurate move, which secures

equality.

20 . . . i.xb2? would have been a mistake: 2 1 .i.xb6 cxb6 22.1"!d7 1"!f8 23.i:!xb?;t Black is under some pressure and the £7-pawn is a clear target.

21.i.xb6 cxb6 22.i.dS i.xb2 23.i.xb7 i.d4=

The position is absolutely equal, Giorgadze -Avrukh, Bugojno 1 999.

B) 7.e4

7 ... i.g4 This is not the only playable move, but it is

the main line and the one I consider the most reliable.

8.i.xc4 This is almost always played.

8 .e5?! is premature due to 8 . . . lt:Jh5! 9.i.e3 c5 1 O.dxc5 Borges Mateos - Llobel Conell, Albacete 2002, and now the simple 1 0 . . . lt:Jc6N 1 1 .i.xc4 Wxdl t 12 .i:!xdl i.xf3 1 3 .gxf3 i.xe5+

166 4 .if4

would have given Black the more pleasant game.

8 .ie3?! does not seem very logical. 8 . . . c5 (8 . . . lllh5 9.ixc4 transposes to the main line, but Black should try to take advantage of his opponent's questionable move order.) 9 .dxc5 Wa5 10 .Wc2 ie6! 1 1 .h3 ( 1 I .lllg5 runs into l 1 . . .lll g4! 1 2.lllxe6 lllxe3 1 3.fxe3 fxe6 14.ixc4 llla6 1 5 .ixe6t i;t>h8 when Black has a long-term initiative due to White's unsafe king.) l 1 . . .lllc6 1 2.a3 llld7 The initiative is with Black, Mudra - Zahour, corr. 2005.

s ... ttihs

9.i.e3 This is the clear first choice, but in a few

games White has deviated with: 9.ig5?! ixf3!

9 . . . lllc6 1 0.ie2 ixf3 l I .ixf3 Wxd4 12.ixh5 gxh5 1 3.Wxh5 Wd3! 14 .We2 Wxe2t 1 5.i;t>xe2 llld4t 1 6.i;t>fl e6 was a convincing route to equality in Dreev - Smirin, Moscow 2002, but Black can strive for more.

1 0.Wxf3 Wxd4 l 1 .lll d5 The present position was reached in Dreev -Peng Xiao min, Shanghai 200 1 . At this point White's opening concept could effectively have been refuted as follows:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1 2.ie3 We5 just leaves Black with an extra pawn. 1 2.llle?t i;t>h8 1 3.0-0 We5 White's opening has been an obvious failure, as he is a pawn down and his knight is almost trapped on e7.

1 2 . . . We5! 13 .lllxa8 Wxg5 1 4.0-0 ie5! 1 5.Wb3 lllc6 1 6.Wxb?

Objectively 1 6.g3 would last longer, but after 16 . . . We? White loses his knight on a8 and Black's material advantage should decide the game.

1 6 . . . lllf4 l 7.g3 Wh5! Black has a winning attack.

9 ... hf.3 In this position White must choose between

Bl) 10.Wxf3 and B2) 10.gxf3.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Bl) 10.�xf3

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 4 - 6.i::I'.c l 167

This move _is considered harmless by theory, and with good reason.

10 ... i.xd4 1 1 .0-0 I also examined: 1 1 .i::I'.dl c5 1 2.0-0 ctJc6

l 3.We2 ( 13.ih6 looks more challenging, but after 13 . . . ctJe5 14.We2 Black has the elegant: 14 . . . e6! 1 5 .g3 [Obviously the rook is untouchable in view of the threatened 1 5 ... 0if4.] 1 5 . . . 0ig7 Black is better.) 13 ... Wb8 14.id5 This position occurred in Nogues - Villanueva, Argentina 2007, and now Black should have played 14 . . . i::I'.d8!N with the point that 1 5 .ixc6 bxc6 1 6.0ia4 can be met by 16 . . . We5! with a clear advantage.

1 1 ...c5 12.e5 After 12.ih6 0ig7 Black has no problems.

12.�fd 1 ctJc6 1 3.ih6 can be met by the attractive 13 . . . 0ie5 14.We2 e6!, just as in the note to move 1 1 above. The following is a great example of Black's chances: 1 5 .ctJb5 ( 1 5 .ixf8 Wg5!! gives Black a serious initiative)

a b c d e f g h 1 5 . . . Wh4! 16.0ixd4 cxd4 1 7.ixf8 0if4 1 8.Wfl i::I'.xf8 With two fantastic knights plus a strong passed pawn, Black had more than sufficient compensation in Petukhov - Darci, e-mail 2006.

12 ... liJc6 13.e6 f5! 14.gfdl

We have been following the game Kohlweyer - LAmi, Vlissingen 2006. Here I found an improvement:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

14 ... liJf6!N The knight returns to the centre and takes

control over some important squares. Here is an illustrative line:

15 . .ih5 '!Wc7! 16.hc6 he3 17.fxe3 bxc6 18.lDa4 gfd8 19.lDxc5 gxdl t 20.gxdl '!We5

Black's chances are clearly higher.

B2) 10.gxf3

1 68 4.�f4

1 1.dxe5 After 1 1 .d5 lt:J f4 White can hardly hope for

an advantage with such a weakened kingside, Klee - Saering, Oberwinden 2007.

1 1 ... i.xe5 I did a lot of work on this system a number

of years ago, when I played it quite often. For some time I considered l 1 . . . Wfh4?! to be an interesting attempt,

a b c d e f g h based on the idea of a positional exchange

sacrifice after 12 .�c5 lt:Jc6! 1 3.�xf8 El:xf8 with decent compensation.

However, in the following encounter White introduced an extraordinary idea which refutes Black's eleventh move: l 2.�xf7t!! El:xf7 1 3.e6 El:f8 14.Wfb3! The key move, after which Black has no good defence against the dual threats of e7t and Wfxb7. 1 4 . . . lt:Jc6 1 5 .e7t 'it>h8 1 6.exf8=Wft El:xf8 White has a winning position although he later went horribly wrong and lost in Bosboom - Finkel, Dieren 1 997.

12.Wfxd8 This is the main line. Exchanging queens

is logical, as White's best chances to make something of his bishop pair will come in the endgame. Nevertheless Black also has certain advantages in the form of a better pawn structure and potential knight outpost on f4. We will see that with correct play the position

should be balanced, but first we should pay attention to a couple of lesser moves.

Avoiding the queen exchange with 12.Wfb3?! is rather risky, as White's damaged pawn structure will render his king rather vulnerable. 1 2 . . . lt:Jc6! 1 3.Wfxb7 lt:Jd4 As practice has shown, Black's initiative is dangerous:

a b c d e f g h 14.�xd4 (After 1 4.lt:Jd5 lt:Jxf3t 15 .'it>e2 lt:Jd4t 1 6.'it>d3?! El:b8 17.Wfxa7 lt:Je6 White's king was in a precarious position to say the least, Barbero - Szeberenyi, Budapest 2000.) 14 . . . �xd4 1 5 .lt:Je2 �e5! (Black has no interest in allowing a queen exchange after 1 5 . . . El:b8?! 1 6.Wfd5.) 1 6.Wfc6 El:b8 17.El:dl This position occurred in J. Garcia - Pacheco, Lima 2002, and here Black missed a powerful idea:

Chapter 1 4 - 6.1:'1.c l 169

'Wf6 White is �nder permanent pressure on the dark squares.

l 2.§lh6?! is met by a powerful counterargument: 12 .. . lllc6! 1 3.1lxf8 'Wxf8 After his excellent positional exchange sacrifice, Black's domination over the dark squares gives him more than enough compensation. One example continued: 14 .llle2 ll'lf4 1 5 .lllxf4 flxf4 16.Elc3 Rogers - Timofeev, Amsterdam 2005, and here I found a logical improvement:

� �· 1 Ii� .,., 6 .'ii. · ·� �� .,.,.�� 3 �� b� 2 !� Y.-�� %�-Im ?.��

a b c d e f g h 16 . . . Eld8N l 7.1ld5 llle5 1 8.Elxc? lllxf3t 19 .'Wxf3 1lxc7 20.0-0 'We? Material is level, but Black has the advantage as the white king is not very safe. In such situations the oppositecoloured bishops are only likely to make the defender's life more difficult.

12 ... �xdS

a b c d e f g h

Here we have two options: B21) 13.ltJe2 and B22) 13.0-0.

1 3.b4?! turned out badly in the following encounter: 1 3 . . . lllf4 l 4.llld5?! ll'lg2t! 1 5 . \!?fl ll'lxe3t 1 6.fxe3 c6 17.f4 cxd5 1 8.1lxd5 lllc6 l 9.fxe5 lllxb4+ Lputian - Ivanchuk, Elista 1 998.

B21) 13.ltJe2

With this move White takes control over some dark squares and prepares to advance his f-pawn. When I worked on this line several years ago I considered the text move to be White's most challenging approach, but nowadays I do not find it in the least bit frightening.

13 ... ltJc6 14.0-0 1 4.f4?! is weaker, but it demands an

accurate reaction: 1 4 . . . 1lxb2 1 5 .Elb l llla5! An important resource! l 6.1ld5 ( l 6.Elxb2 lllxc4 17.Elxb? ll'lxe3 [ l 7 . . . lllf6!?N was also worth considering] l 8.fxe3 lllf6 l 9.e5 lllg4 20.Elgl ll'lxe3 Black was slightly better in Relange -Palac, Bastia 1 998.) l 6 . . . c6 17 .1lxf7t 'i!?xf7 l 8.Elxb2 Wichmann - Gleichmann, Leipzig 2009. Black should have considered: 1 8 . . . b5!?N Securing the c4-square for the knight. ( 1 8 . . . b6N 19.ll'lg3 ll'lg7 20.'i!?e2 c5 also looks promising) 1 9.ll'lg3 lllc4 20.Elc2 ll'lg7 2 1 .'i!?e2 Eld? I prefer Black's position in this endgame.

170 4.if4

14 • • • tlJd4 I like this more than 14 . . . tt:'ia5 1 5 .i.d5!

c6 1 6.i.xf7t <;t>xf7 17.b4 i.c7 1 8.i.g5 �d6 1 9.bxa5 i.xa5 20.�fdl �xdl t 2 1 .�xdl when Black still had some problems to solve in Wirig - Pinter, Pardubice 2008.

15.tlJxd4 hd4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c

16JUdl Another game continued l 6.i.d5 i.xe3

1 7 .fXe3 c6 1 8 .i.b3 �d2 1 9 .�f2 �ad8 when Black was not worse, Beliavsky - Leko, Dortmund 1 998.

16 ... he3 17.fxe3 'it>f'8 18.'it>fl 'it>e7 19.e5 Now in Grishchenko - Belov, Sochi 2008,

Black should have played:

19 ••• f6!N 20.exf6t tiJxf6 With a balanced endgame.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B22) 13.0-0

a b c d e f g h

13 • . • tlJd7 This is more flexible than 1 3 . . . tt:'ic6 14.tt:'id5

tt:'ia5 1 5 .i.g5 �d7 1 6.i.b5! c6 17.b4 cxb5 1 8 .bxa5 when White was slightly better in Drozdovskij - Eljanov, Poltava 2006.

14.tlJe2 White has tried a few other moves.

14.�fd l tt:'ib6 1 5 .i.b3 (Or 1 5 .i.fl c6 1 6.b3 �xdl 1 7.tt:'ixdl Bykhovsky - Vydeslaver, Beer-Sheva 1 996, and here Black should have played 17 . . . �d8N with a comfortable position.) 1 5 . . . tt:'if4 1 6.<;t>fl c6 1 7.�xd8t?! (This exchange is premature. Instead the correct 17.�b 1 would have maintained the balance.) 1 7 . . . �xd8 1 8.a4 tt:'id3 1 9.�d l �d6+ White had to defend carefully to reach a draw, Portisch - Ruck, Hungary 1 999.

14.�c2 White defends the b2-pawn in advance. Here I recommend:

14 . . . tt:Jb6 1 5 .i.b3 lt:Jf4 Also interesting is 1 5 . . . i.f4!?N.

Chapter 14 - 6.Scl 171

16.tt:'ie2 The best way to meet 1 6.a4, Huang Qian -Gara, Khanty-Mansiysk (ol) 20 10 , is simply to block the a-pawn with 1 6 . . . a5N. Black need not fear 17.tt:'ib5, as 17 . . . Eld7 keeps everything under control.

1 6 . . . tt:'ixe2t 17.Elxe2 The position is equal, and in the following game both sides played accurately.

17 . . . c;t>g7 l 8.c;t>g2 sd7 1 9.scl cG 20.scc2 Sad8 2 1 .f4 �d4 22.�d2 tt:'ia8!? 23.�b4 tt:'ic7 24.Eled2 tt:'ie6 25.c;t>f3 �b6=

Aalderink - M. Rubinstein, e-mail 2007.

14 ... Lb2 15.�bl

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

15 ... �e5! This accurate move enables Black to equalize

comfortably.

16.�xb2 �xc4 17.�xb7 �xe3 This is the most straightforward move,

although Black can also consider 17 . . . Elab8!? 1 8.Elxa7 sb2� with nice compensation as in Newman - Krueger, e-mail 2003.

18.fxe3 �d2 19.�c3 c6 20.�c7 �d.3 21.�xc6 �xe3 22.�d5 �a3 23.�fl �e8

The endgame is equal, Zubov - Timofeev, Moscow 2009.

Conclusion Line A with 7.e3 normally leads to an unusual type of pawn structure, with Black losing his h-pawn in return for one of White's central pawns. Practice has shown that Black's active pieces should ensure the second player a pleasant game, and if White becomes too ambitious his attacking attempts could easily backfire.

In Line B after 7.e4 �g4 8.�xc4 tt:'ih5 9.�e3 �xf3, White must choose between B l ) 1 0.'1Wxf3 and B2) 1 0 .gxf3 . The former is a speculative pawn sacrifice, which allows Black to obtain a favourable position if he responds correctly. The latter normally leads to a queenless position in which the advantage of White's bishop pair is roughly balanced by the weakness of his kingside structure. Once again, there is little for Black to fear here.

4.if4 5.e3 c5 - Introduction and Sidelines

Variation Index 1 .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4 . .if4 .ig7 5.e3

s ... c5

A) 6.hb8?! 173 B) 6.�f3 cxd4 174

Bl) 7.exd4 174 B2) 7.�xd4 175

C) 6.dxc5 � a5 177 Cl) 7.cxd5 �xd5 178 C2) 7.�b3 179 C3) 7.�a4t �xa4 8.�xa4 .id7 9.�c3 � e4! 10.�xdS �a6

l 1 .f3 �exes 180 C31) 12 . .igS 182 C32) 12.�hl 183 C33) 12.0-0-0 184

A) after 1 5 .0-0 B2) note to 8.tt:ldb5 C33) note to 13.tt:lc7t

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h 9 . . . �xd4!N ! 6 . . . :1'1c8N

Chapter 1 5 - 5 .e3 c5 - Introduction and Sidelines 173

l .d4 tiJf6 2.c� g6 3.tiJc3 d5 4.�f4 �g7 5.e3

a b c d e f g h

5 ... c5 From here we will consider the rare

A) 6.hb8?! followed by the more respectable B) 6.tiJf3 and finally the main line of C) 6.dxc5.

6.cxd5?! This is not a serious option.

6 ... ti:lxd5 White's last move is usually connected with the following idea:

7.i.xb8 Intending to simplify to an endgame. 7.i.b5t ti:lc6 is good for Black.

7 ... l"i:xb8 8.Wa4t 8.i.b5t i.d7 9.Wa4 transposes.

8 ... i.d7 9.i.b5 9.Wxa7? ti:lb4 1 0.l"i:cl cxd4 1 l .exd4 ti:l c6 was terrible for White in Palme - Dorn, Bad Gastein 1 948, and l l ... i.h6!N would have been even stronger.

9 . . . ti:lxc3 1 0.bxc3 a6 l l .i.xd7t Wxd7 1 2.Wxd7t �xd7

Black has the slightly better endgame, for instance:

13 .lllf3 l"i:hc8 14.�d2 b5+ Hult - Welin, Stockholm 1 980.

A) 6.hb8?! �xb8

8 ... cxd4 9.�xd4 9.exd4?! is even worse, as after 9 ... i.c6!

White will have serious difficulties completing development. 1 0.l"i:dl 0-0 1 1 .Wa3 dxc4 1 2.d5 lllxd5 1 3.i.xc4 e6 Black already has a big advantage, Carvalho - Tsuboi, Registro 1 999.

9 ... 0-0 10.cxdS 10.Wd2 does not alter the assessment:

1 O ... dxc4 l l .i.xc4 b5! Black has the makings of a powerful initiative. 12.i.d3 b4 1 3.ti:lce2 i.b5!? 14.ti:lcl ?! (Better would have been 14.i.xb5 although after 14 ... Wxd2t 1 5.�xd2 ti:le4t 1 6.�el l"i:xb5 17.ti:ld4 l"i:c5 1 8.f3 ti:ld6 Black keeps the better chances.) This position was reached in Triana Ruiz - Tur Gutierrez, corr. 1 998, and here Black missed a beautiful win:

a b c d e f g h

174 4.if4

14 . . . tlle4!!N 1 5.ixe4 '1Wxd2t 1 6.l!?xd2 1 6.:!:l:fd l ixf3 17.gxf3 '1Wxf3+ :!:l:fd8t 17.id3 ( 1 7. ltic2 ia4t; 17.tlld3 f5; 17.ltiel ixb2 Black wins easily in all these 16 ... tlJe4 17.�c2 gbc8 18.Le4 �a5! lines.) 1 7 . . . ixb2 1 8.:!:l:bl ixcl t Black regains 19.ic6 b3 his piece while keeping an overwhelming Black has a considerable advantage. initiative.

1 1 .�d2 b5 12.i.d3 b4 13.tDce2 �xd5 14.tlJf3 gfd8 15.0-0

This position was reached in Donner -Gheorghiu, Amsterdam 1 969. At this point Black missed a powerful continuation:

B) 6.tiJf3

After the main move White occasionally tries Bl) 7.exd4 but the more important line is unquestionably B2) 7.tlJxd4.

Bl) 7.exd4


7 ... 0-0 8.i.e� tlic6 Black has a good version of the e3 line seen

in line A3 of Chapter 1 2, as White's darksquared bishop does not really belong on f4, especially at such an early stage in the game. Black's position is easy to handle, and I will just show one interesting line to illustrate how the game might develop.

9.0-0 i.g4 10.h3 With this move White initiates complications

which are not unfavourable to Black, but the second player was doing fine in any case.

10 ... LB 1 1..ba dxc4 12.dS tLi b4! 13.d6

8 i. � � ��· 7 �·� , , , , ,/,_,,Y,�' ,� �- "••"� 6 �� ,�

, � 5 �� "//,� �� 7;; �� 4 :a1: i � � � 3 //, , , , , ;m�miu fj ��,�,, , , , ,� ��''0 /:;-,� 2 fj �� fj � 1 �,,, , /,�--!�

a b c d e f g h

13 ... e6 This is the simplest reaction, but it is not the

only good move. Equally playable is: 13 ... tlld3 14.ixb7

A remarkable situation has been reached in which Black has no less than four opportunities to sacrifice the exchange. Three of them are promising, but amazingly in practice Black has always opted for the worst option.

14 . . . tllxf4? The following alternatives deserve attention: 14 ... tllh5N 1 5 .ig5 Wxd6 1 6.ixa8 1"i:xa8�; 14 . . . 1"i:b8N 1 5.dxe? Wxe7 1 6.ixb8 Wxb7 17.id6 1"i:d8 1 8.ia3 tllh5�; 14 . . . exd6N

1 5.ixa8 d5!� In all three cases Black has promising compensation for his small material deficit.

1 5.dxe7 Wxe7 1 6.ixa8 tllxh3t 17.gxh3 1"i:xa8 1 8.Wf3

White was clearly better in Zharkov -Etchegaray, France 2005.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

14.d?? a b c d e f g h

White should have preferred 14.Wa4 although Black is still doing fine after 14 .. . Wb6 or 14 . . . tll fd5 .

14 ... tlid3 15.i.d6 Wfxd7 16.hffi gxf'8 17.Wfc2 gd8

With two pawns for the exchange and a monstrous knight on d3 Black is clearly better, Materniak - Slawinski, corr. 1 999.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B2) 7.�xd4

a b c d e f g h

176 4 .if4

This makes a lot more sense, although it is hardly likely to trouble the second player.

7 . . . 0-0 8.c!bdb5 This is the only really challenging

continuation. I doubt that White can fight for the advantage with anything else.

8.'.Wb3 can be met forcefully with: 8 . . . lllh5! 9.ixb8 This position has occurred in three games but so far nobody has played the best move:

8 .i �.i.� ��· 7 l%'i" . . . . . %_.,v,�i . . . . %� �� ... . %� ··"� 6 ��r��'Sl 5 �%,%, �/, "//,

�%,%, �%,%, 4 • l'.i m • � 3 %,%,;� ' � .• %%�r�.. �" . ��.,,, %�."" 2 r��J�i�

a b c d e f g h 9 . . . ixd4!N 10 .ig3 (After 1 0.exd4 dxc4! 1 l .ixc4 gxb8 White risks becoming worse in the IQP position.) 1 0 . . . lllxg3 1 l .hxg3 dxc4 1 2.ixc4 ixc3t!? ( 12 . . . ig7 is a good alternative) 1 3.'.Wxc3 ifS With a quick . . . gc8 on the agenda, Black is doing fine.

8 ... 'iNa5! This is the key move to remember. Now

Black has no problems and can even fight for the initiative.

9.a3 9.lll c7? llle4! is no good for White.

Another key line is 9.cxd5 a6! 1 O.lllc7 llle4 1 l .id3 lllxc3 1 2.bxc3 ixc3t 1 3.�fl ga? and Black is better.

9.gcl dxc4 1 0.ixc4 lllc6 1 1 .0-0 was seen in Schmitzer - Schoenbach, e-mail 2005,

8 .i �.i.� ��· 7 �, . .. , ,/,-·V,�' . . . /,� •� /,afi"� 6 ��'' ·� : ��,��

�/, "'/, ��·�""�%,%, 3 %,%, m r� �

2 ��···· · ·· /,� b ·� % . %�:mvl�/,'� a b c d e f g h

and here Black should have played l 1 . . . a6!N with the following justification: 1 2.lllc? e5 13.lllxa8 exf4 14.llld5 lllxd5 1 5 .Wxd5 '.Wb4 16.lllc? We? 17.lllxa6 fxe3 1 8.fxe3 ixb2 1 9.gc2 ia3 White is in trouble with his knight being stranded on the edge of the board.

Perhaps White should consider 9.'.Wa4 at which point the game Turov - Vocaturo, Eforie Nord · 20 1 0, was immediately agreed drawn. The continuation might be 9 . . . Wxa4 10 .lllxa4 and now both 1 0 . . . llla6 and 1 0 . . . id?!? look fine for Black.

9 ... dxc4N With chis logical novelty Black safeguards

his queen and gets a pleasant position. 9 . . . id7


a b c d e f g h 1 0.ic7! gave Black some problems in A. Mikhalevski - Greenfeld, Israel 1 999.

10.hc4 c!lie4 1 1 .0-0 1 l .b4?! only leads to problems for White:

1 1 . . .lllxc3 12.bxa5 lllxd l 13.!'lxdl lllc6 14.lllc7 !'lb8 White suffers from a weak pawn on a5 and knight jumps can always be met by .. . e5.

1 1 ...a6 12.b4 12.lllxe4 axb5 13 .id5 e6! is fine for Black.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

12 ... axb5! 13.bxa5 c!lixc3 14.hf7t 'itixf7! With three pieces for the queen, only Black

can be better.

C) 6.dxc5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

This is by far the most important option.

6 ... Wi'a5 In this posmon 7 .!'!cl is the main line

and the subject of Chapters 16 & 17. In the remainder of the present chapter we will deal with the alternatives Cl) 7.cxd5, C2) 7.Wi'b3 and C3) 7.Wi'a4t.

7.'1Wd2?! is toothless and generally results in an improved version of the main line for Black: 7 . . . dxc4 8.ixc4 Wxc5 9.!'lcl 0-0 10 .ib3 Wa5 1 1 .lllf3 lllc6 12.0-0 This position has occurred in four games, but so far nobody has played the following strong idea:

a b c d e f g h 12 . . . lllh5!N 13 .ig5 h6 14.ih4 g5 1 5.ig3 lllxg3 1 6.hxg3 ig4 Black has an excellent game thanks to his two bishops.

178 4.if4

7.ctJf3 This is a slightly unusual move order, and indeed it seems to leave the c3-knight looking vulnerable. Nevertheless the database contains approximately fifty games from this position, with even a few strong grandmasters playing the white side.

7 . . . tt:le4 This is the most principled reply. There is nothing wrong with 7 . . . 0-0, when the most likely outcome is a transposition to Chapter 1 7 after 8.l"lcl dxc4 9.ixc4 'Wxc5.

8.ie5 ixe5 9.ctJxe5 ctJxc3 1 0.'Wd2 White was relying on this move followed by the delayed recapturing on c3.

1 0 . . . f6 1 0 . . . ie6!? is an interesting alternative.

1 l .ctJf3 dxc4 1 1 . . .tt:lc6 has been more popular, but according to my analysis the text move is the cleanest route to equality.

12.ixc4

s .i•..t.�-� 1 :6iU %.• %.Bi 6 , , , , ;,� %.�"- - ;,-·� s s��,, _;,� 4 , ,;,•t•�-�� %.. %.�� 3 ��r�- - :"", _"_J 3�r% ��r" 2 � r� � r� � rtJ 1

� - %� - -%m- - %� : a b c d e f g h

1 2 . . . 'Wb4!?N This is my new idea. Previously Black has tried only 1 2 . . . ctJd7, Farago - Conquest, Dordrecht 1 988, but I became slightly concerned about 1 3.c6!N (After the game continuation of 1 3.l"lcl tt:lc5 Black equalized comfortably.) 1 3 . . . bxc6 14.l"lc l ! , when Black's queenside structure is a problem.

1 3.°Wxc3 'Wxc3t 14.bxc3 tt:ld7 1 5.ib5 This looks like the only challenging option, as after 1 5 .c6 bxc6 1 6.0-0 tt:lb6 17.ib3 e5 Black has comfortable equality.

1 5 . . . a6 1 6.ia4 l 6.ixd7t ixd7 17.l"lb 1 can be met by the calm 17 . . . l"lb8! followed by . . .c;t>f7 and . . . l"lhc8 when Black has no problems.

1 6 . . . c;t>f7 17.c6 ctJc5 1 8.cxb7 ixb7� Black has promising compensation, for instance:

a b c d e f g h l 9.ib3t c;t>g7 20.0-0 l"lhc8

Black will regain his pawn in the near future.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

Cl) 7.cxd5 tllxd5

c e f g h

Chapter 1 5 - 5.e3 c5 - Introduction and Sidelines 179

8.�xd5 Simply b�d for White is 8.i"lc l ? ctJxc3 9 .Wd2

Wxa2 1 0.bxc3 Wxd2t 1 l .<;t>xd2 ctJd7. Black already has a much better position, which quickly became a winning one in the following game: 1 2.i.b5 0-0 1 3.c6 ctJc5 14.<;t>el a6 1 5.cxb7 i.xb7-+ Khanukov - Van Muenster, Cologne 2004.

8 ... Lc3t 9.bxc3 �xc3t 10.@e2 �xal 1 1 .i.eS

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

1 1 . .. �bl!? This is an interesting winning attempt. It is

important to emphasize that Black has a forced draw in his pocket should he desire it. The safe theoretical recommendation is 1 1 . .. Wc l 1 2.i.xh8 i.e6 1 3.Wxb7 Wc2t 14.<;t>el Wcl t 1 5 .<;t>e2 Wc2t l6.<;t>f3 Wf5t= with a draw by perpetual.

12 . .ixhS i.e6 13.�d3 �xa2t 14.@£3 f6 To tell the truth I have never seriously

investigated this position, as no serious opponent is ever likely to choose this line for White in view of the aforementioned drawing line. However, my gut reaction is that the position looks quite promising for Black. Here is one illustrative example:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

15.i.g7 1 5 .<;t>g3?! <;t>f7! trapped the bishop in Farago

- Ftacnik, Passau 1 994.

15 ... lild7 16.@g3 gcs 17.i.h6 gxc5 18.lilf3 gh5! 19.i.f4 lilc5 20.�d4 �c2!

White was in trouble in Lorscheid -Flumbort, Germany 2006.

C2) 7.�b3

a b c d e f g h

This move is rarely seen nowadays, but it enjoyed a brief spurt of popularity in the early nineties thanks to the efforts of Vladimir Akopian.

7 ... dxc4 I consider this to be Black's best continuation.

1 80 4.if4

8.i.xc4 0-0 9.Wfb5 9.4Jf3 causes Black no real problems as

long as he plays accurately. The following is a good example: 9 . . . 4Je4 1 0.0-0 l!Jxc5 1 1 .°Wc2 l!Jc6 1 2.:B:ac l if5 1 3.°We2 :B:ad8 1 4.e4 ig4 1 5.4Jd5 l!Je6 1 6.id2 This was Beliavsky -Timoscenko, Ashkhabad 1 978, and now Black could have obtained a better position by means of 1 6 . . . 'Wc5!N 17.b4 'Wd6 when the d4-square makes the difference.

9 . • . Wf xb5 10.i.xbS l O.liJxb5 liJ a6 gives no problems at all.

10 . • . i.d7 Black's lead in development should enable

him to regain the pawn with minimal fuss.

8 i. � � ��-7 ••,;�.l�&fiY,m ' 6 , , , , ,%� �� ,,,, ,/-,,�� "�� , � : �18��f/7�� / "// ��,J�� 3 � � �� 2 88,,,, , ;�,,, , ,/�8� ��t,,, ,/� ��,,, ,/�jf\{� 1 � � � �; �

a b c d e f g h

1 1 .i.e2 Other moves are absolutely harmless, for

example: 1 1 .ixd? 4J fxd7N (I prefer not to allow the black pawn structure to be damaged, as occurs after 1 1 . . . liJ bxd7 1 2.c6 bxc6 1 3.0-0-0, even though Black was not really worse in Ruzele - Sakalauskas, Vilnius 1 994.) 12 .4Jge2 l!Jxc5 1 3.0-0-0 4Jc6 Black has a comfortable game.

1 1 ...i.c6 From here Black should obtain comfortable

equality with a few moves, for instance:

12.tlJO 1 2.if3 was played in Stahlberg - Lehmann,

Zevenaar 1 96 1 , and here

12 .•• tiJbd7 13.0-0 tlJxc5 13 . . . l!Je4!?N deserves consideration.

14.tlJeS tiJdS 15.tlJxc6 bxc6 16.tlJxdS cxd5 17.:aadl e6

The position is balanced, Pachman -Yanofsky, Amsterdam 1 954.

C3) 7.Wfa4t

a b c d e f g h

This is the most critical of the options examined in the present chapter.

7 • • . Wfxa4 s.tlJxa4 We have reached an important tabiya.

Chapter 1 5 - 5 .e3 c5 - Introduction and Sidelines 1 8 1

8 . . • i.d7! Several other moves have been tried, but the

text is currently the last word of theory.

9.llic3 llie4! This is the point behind Black's previous

move. The idea is to sacrifice a second pawn temporarily, in order to maximize the activity of the minor pieces.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

10.llixdS Nothing else can trouble the second player.

1 0.l"i:c l ?! lt:'ixc3 1 l .bxc3 dxc4 1 2.i.xc4 i.c6! 1 3.f3 lt:'id7 14.e4 lt:'ixc5+ Black's superior pawn structure promises him a long-term edge, Purnama - Sasikiran, Kolkata 2009.

1 0.lt:'ixe4?! dxe4 Black will soon obtain an easy game after regaining the c5-pawn. 1 1 .l"i:b 1 ?! (So far this is the only move to have been tested. 1 1 .0-0-0 looks better although 1 l . . .lt:'ia6 is still comfortable for Black.) 1 l . . .lt:'ia6 12.lt:'ie2 lt:'ixc5 13.lt:'ic3 i.xc3t! 14.bxc3 This was Panush - Danin, Serpukhov 2003, and now after 14 . . . f6N Black would have obtained a strategically winning position.

1 0.lt:'ige2 lt:'ixc5 After this move the weakness of the d3-square could become a factor. 1 l .lt:'ixd5 lt:'iba6 (A serious alternative is 1 l . . .lt:'id3t!?N

1 2.<iid2 lt:'ixf2 13 .lt:'ic7t <iid8 14.lt:'ixa8 e5 with a wild position.) 1 2.lt:'iec3 e6 1 3.lt:'ic7t lt:'ixc7 14.i.xc7

s ��·/,�-��JI 7 � · �.t.•• � · 6 %� '"""� �� "'""� 5 �� 4 ��,/�,�� % "//. �W.'/ �% 3 � m r� • ��·ef" '� ' %�/, ��-/, 2 tJ �fl • �� tJ rtJ � � ·=.r� :

a b c d e f g h 14 . . . i.xc3t! 1 5 .bxc3 f6 Black's superior structure gives him enough compensation for the missing pawn. 1 6.f3 l"i:c8 17 .i.d6 e5 1 8.0-0-0 i.e6 19 .<iic2 b6 20.i.e2 <iif7 2 1 .h4 h5 Black was not experiencing any problems in Jensen - Woelfl, e-mail 2008.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

IO • . • llia6 Preventing the knight invasion on c7. Later

Black might take on c5 with either knight depending on circumstances.

I I .f3 This has been almost universally played.

1 l .lt:'if3? is senseless, and after 1 l . ..e6 12.lt:'ic7t lt:'ixc7 1 3.i.xc7 i.xb2 1 4.l"i:b l i.c3t 1 5 .<iie2

1 82 4.�f4

'Llxc5 Black was much better in Houriez -Touboulic, Besancon 2006.

1 1 .Elb 1 This move was played in Faldt - Hermansson, Sweden 2003. At this point I found the following interesting idea:

1 l . . .g5!?N 1 2.'Llc7t 'Llxc7 1 3.�xc7 Elc8

C31) 12.�g5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a c d e f g h

This has only been seen in a single game thus far, but it should be taken seriously as it was by Alexey Dreev, a specialist in this line.

1 4.c6! 12 ... .L:b2 13.:Sbl f6!

Despite being surprised over the board, Black was able to find the strongest response. Without this White might experience

difficulties, for instance: l 4.�a5 �f5! 1 5 .�d3 'Llxf2! 1 6.�xf5 Elxc5 17.'itixf2 ( 1 7.�c2 'Llxhl 1 8 .�d2 g4! Thanks to the ideas of . . . g3 and . . . Elh5 White is unable to trap the knight in the corner.) 17 . . . Elxf5t 1 8 .'Llf3 Elxa5 Black has a slightly better endgame.

1 4 . . . Elxc7 Black also obtains good compensation after 1 4 . . . �xc6 1 5 .�a5 g4! 1 6.'Lle2 b6 1 7.�b4 Eld8!.

1 5 .cxd7t Elxd7 1 6.�e2 0-0 Now Black has the strong idea of . . . 'Lld2 at his disposal. His compensation for the pawn is entirely adequate, for instance:

1 7.h4 'Lld2 1 8 .Elcl �xb2 l 9.Elc2 �a3 20.hxg5 Elfd8 2 1 .�g4 e6 22.'Llh3 'Lle4

The position is balanced.

1 1 . .. lliexcS In this position White can choose benveen

C31) 12.�g5, C32) 12.:Sbl and C33) 12.0-0-0.

14.:Sxb2 fxg5 15.g4 The attempt to activate the king's rook with

1 5 .h4 should be met by 1 5 . . . g4 1 6.h5 g5! when Black is doing well.

15 ... hS! 16.llih3 hxg4 17.llixgS �c6 Black continues to play the best moves.

18.fxg4?! H

_aving failed to obtain any advantage,

White gambles with a risky piece sacrifice.

Objectively he should have preferred 1 8 .�e2N gxf3 l 9.'Llxf3 e6 20.lll f4 when the position remains dynamically equal.

18 ... e6 19.e4 exd5 20.cxdS �d7 21..L:a6 bxa6 22.0-0

We have been following the game Dreev - Go pal, Zurich 2009. At this point Black should have continued:

Chapter 1 5 - 5 .e3 c5 - Introduction and Sidelines 1 83

a b c d e f g h

22 ... i.xg4N 23JU6 l:kS! 24Jhg6 .!iJd.3 25J'�bl l:k7 26.d6

26.Ei:bSt can be met by 26 .. . ic8! when Black has a clear advantage.

26 ... .!lJe5! Black is fighting for a win.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

C32) 12.ghl

a b c d e f g h

12 ... e6 13 . .!iJc?t As we have already seen, the structure arising

after 13 .lll c3 ixc3t ( 13 . . . ia4!? also deserves attention) 14.bxc3 f6 promises Black good long-term compensation.

13.b4!? has only been played once. I doubt that it is really dangerous, but it is certainly

not stupid either. 1 3 . . . exd5 (l 3 . . . tlla4!?N looks interesting as well.) 14.bxc5 dxc4 1 5 .id6 (After 1 5 .ixc4 lllxc5 1 6.llle2 Ei:c8 Black has a comfortable game.) l 5 . . . Ei:c8 1 6.ixc4 lllxc5 17.llle2 Elc6! This is the easiest way to solve the problem of Black's king. 1 8.ig3 0-0 1 9.0-0 This position occurred in Faldt - Von Bahr, Hallstahammar 2002, and here I would suggest 1 9 . . . Ei:e8N 20.lll d4 Elcc8 when Black has a comfortable position.

13 ... .!lJxc7 14.i.xc7 .!lJa4 15.i.d6 .!lJxb2 Black must of course avoid 1 5 ... ixb2?

16.Ei:xb2 lllxb2 17.ie5 when White wins material.

16.i.a3 White must restore his material advantage,

otherwise he will simply have a worse position.

16 ... .!lJa4 17.gxb7

a b c d e f g h

17 ... i.ffi! This is an excellent positional move. By

exchanging the dark-squared bishops Black frees his king and obtains the c5-square for his knight. These achievements in turn enable him to fight for the b-file.

18.i.xffi

1 84 4.i.f4

l 8.l"i:b3 i.xa3 I 9.l"i:xa3 '\f:Je7 is also fine.

18 ... gxf'S 19.llJe2 rJJe7 20.llJd4 Attempting to improve the king only leads

to trouble: 20. '\f:Jd2?! l"i:fb8 2 l .l"i:xb8 l"i:xb8 22.'\f:Jcl e5! White can hardly move.

20 ... llJc5 2 1.gb4 The inferior 2 1 .l"i:b 1 ? was played in Rat

- Okhotnik, Zalakaros 2000, and now the natural 2 1 . . .l"i:fb8N would have given White some difficult problems to solve.

21...gfbs 22.a3

22 ... gb6! After this strong move it is White who will

have to play accurately to draw.

There is nothing much wrong with 22 ... a5, and after 23.l"i:xb8 l"i:xb8 24.llib5 llia4! 25 .'\f:Jd2 i.xb5 26.cxb5 l"i:d8t 27.'\f:Jc2 l"i:c8t 28.'\f:Jb3 llic5t the players agreed a draw in Novikov -Sutovsky, Koszalin 1 998.

23.@d2? This is a clear mistake. After the correct:

23.i.e2 l"i:ab8 (Delchev and Agrest recommend 23 . . . l"i:a6 which is also fine, although White should not be worse here either, as long as he plays accurately.) 24.'\f:Jd2 l"i:xb4 25.�b4 l"i:xb4 26.l"i:al White should hold the posmon without much trouble.

23 ... ga6! Perhaps White overlooked this move and was

expecting a doubling of rooks on the b-file.

24.llJb3 gd6t! The rook continues to show off its mobility,

and in the process Black gets a decisive advantage.

25.rJJel a5 26.llJxc5 axb4 27.axb4 gal Black was winning and he soon converted

his advantage in Gerhards - Lohmann, e-mail 2003.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

C33) 12.0-0-0

1 �L_--":5��=...;;;;_;;_........,""--:-� a b c d e f g h

This natural move is the main theoretical continuation.

12 ••• e6 1 2 . . . l"i:c8 has so far yielded a perfect score,

but I consider it less reliable. In a recent highlevel game Black opted for this move but failed to equalize: 13.i.g5 f6 14.i.h4 '\f:;f7 1 5 .llie2 eG 1 6.lt:Jdc3 i.h6 17.i.£2 e5 1 8.'\f:Jb l ± Wang Yue _ Topalov, Nanjing 20 1 0.

13.llJc7t 1 3.llic3 -

This has been played in a few games, but it should not worry the second player.


13 . . . ixc3 As usual, this thematic reaction works well.

14.bxc3 f6 1 5.e4 In the following example White gradually slipped into a difficult position: 1 5 .id6 l"i:c8 1 6.li:'lh3 li:'la4 1 7.'it>c2 li:'l b6 1 8.l"i:b l 'it>f7 1 9.li:'lf2 l"i:hd8 20.ia3 f5! 2 1 .ie2 ia4t 22.'it>cl l"i:d7 Hertneck - Ftacnik, Austria 2005. The c4-pawn is about to fall, which would leave Black in a strategically winning position. Perhaps out of desperation White sacrificed the exchange on b6 but soon lost.

1 5 . . . e5 1 6.ie3 This position occurred in Lohse - Rawlings, e-mail 2007. At this point I suggest a modest improvement:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h 16 . . . l"i:c8N

With this calm move Black prepares to target the c4-pawn.

17.h4 ie6 In my estimation it is White who will have

to play more carefully to avoid getting a worse position.

13 ... ltJxc7 14.hc7 gc8 15.id6 b5! This move is the key to Black's counterplay.

16.b3 Obviously the b-pawn is untouchable:

1 6.cxb5? li:'le4t 1 7.'it>bl li:'lf2+

1 6.e4? is not much better: 1 6 . . . bxc4 17 .e5 ia4! 1 8.l"i:d4 li:'ld3t 1 9.ixd3 cxd3t 20.'it>d2

ib5 Black obtained a decisive advantage in Camus - Gladyszev, France 2008.

16.li:'le2?! This strange move was played in Ballon - Kohlweyer, Triesen 2004. Even more strange to me was the fact that Black refrained from capturing the c4-pawn, since after 16 . . . bxc4N 1 7.li:'lc3 li:'la4 1 8.l"i:d2 a5! only Black can be better.

The attempt to block the queenside with 1 6.ixc5 l"i:xc5 1 7.b4 l"i:c7 1 8.c5 is doomed to fail, as shown by the following analysis of Delchev and Agrest: 1 8 . . . ic3 1 9.a3 a5 20.'it>c2 (20.l"i:xd7 'it>xd7 2 1 .ixb5t 'it>e7+) 20 . . . axb4 2 1 .'it>b3 l"i:xc5 22.axb4 l"i:c7+

16 ... bxc4 17.hc4

a b c d e f g h

17 ... ltJa4! This important tactical nuance maintains

Black's initiative and should enable him to count on a balanced game.

18.gd.2 So far this is the only move to have been

tested in practice.

I also examined 1 8.'it>d2N when the simplest solution for Black is 1 8 . . . ic3t 1 9.'it>e2 liJ b2 20.l"i:b l li:'lxc4 2 1 .bxc4 l"i:xc4 with equality.

1 86 4.i.f4

18 • • • i.b5 19Jk2 i.xc4 20.bxc4 'it>d7 21.c5 Conclusion 2 l .i.a3 ltJ c3 regains the pawn immediately,

and after 22.lt:'ie2 lt:'ixe2t 23.1''1xe2 1"1xc4t 24.1"1c2 1"1hc8 25.1"1dl t 'it>e8 the position is equal.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

21..Jk6 2 l ... i.f8N is another way to regain the pawn

and reach an equal position.

22.ltJe2 ltJxc5! This small finesse leads to easy equality.

23.gdl ghc8 Equally effective is 23 . . . 1"1xd6 24.1"1xc5 1"1xdl t

25.'it>xdl 1"1b8 26.1"1a5 Yz-Yz Kiss - Ruck, Hungary 1 998.

24.gxc5 gxc5t 25.i.xc5t 'it>e8 26.'it>d.2 gxc5

Black almost has the makings of a slight endgame advantage, but White has just enough time to activate his rook.

27.gbl gas 28.gbst 'it>e7 29.gb?t 'it>es 30.gbst 'it>e7 31 .gb?t lf2-l/2

Novikov - Yermolinsky, New York 1 998.

Variation A is deservedly rare, and we saw that White's pawn-grabbing expedition is likely to lead to nothing but trouble for him. Variation B with 6.lt:'if3 is a bit more respectable, but here too we saw that Black can equalize and fight for the initiative in many lines.

It follows that variation C) with 6.dxc5 �a5 is the only option that can really threaten the second player, and indeed the next two chapters will be devoted to the critical continuation of 7.1"1c 1 . In the previous pages we saw that none of White's alternatives on the seventh move should be feared. The only one that demands serious attention is variation C3) with 7.�a4t, but we saw that with the aid of an energetic pawn sacrifice Black can obtain a fine position with the kind of dynamic counterplay which is absolutely typical for the Griinfeld.

4.J.f4 a b c d e f g h

7.�cl - Sidelines and 9. � ge2

Variation Index 1 .d4 lt:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3.lt:Jc3 d5 4 . .if4 .ig7 5.e3 c5 6.dxc5 �a5 7.�cl dxc4 8 . .ixc4

8 ... 0-0 A) 9.a3 B) 9.lt:Jge2 �xc5 10.�b3 lt:Jc6 1 1.llJbS �h5

Bl) 12.lt:Jc7 B2) 12.lt:Jg3 �h4 1 3.lt:Jc7 e5!

B21) 14.heS B22) 14 . .igS �xg5

B221) 15.lt:Jxa8 B222) 15.h4

note ro 8.ixc4

a b c d e f g h 13 . . . a6!N

B l ) after 1 5 .ixf7t

1 5 . . . i>g?!N

8222) after 2 I .1/;\ld6

189 189 192 193 194 198 198 199

188 4.if4

l.d4 tiJf6 2.c4 g6 3.tiJc3 d5 4.i.f4 i.g7 5.e3 c5 6.dxc5 �a5 7.�cl

7 ... dxc4 7 . . . tll e4 is a valid alternative, but the text

move is the main line and the one I like the most.

s.Lc4 The only other move to have been tried is:

8.1Mfa4t 1Mfxa4 9.lllxa4 id? 1 0.£xc4?! White should have preferred 1 0.tll c3 although Black equalizes easily: 1 0 . . . tlla6 1 1 .ixc4 lllxc5 1 2.tll f3 0-0 13 .0-0 £ac8 1 4.tll e5 ie6 1 5 .ixe6 lllxe6= McMichael -Hjelm, Hallsberg 1 99 1 .

1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 .lllf3

a b c d e f g h

1 1 . . .lllc6!? Black can also fight for the advantage with 1 1 . . .£c8 1 2.tllc3 lllc6 1 3.tlle5 ie6 14.lllxc6 £xc6 1 5 .£b4 Gunawan - Dorfman, Sarajevo 1 988, and now after the strong 1 5 . . . tllh5!N 1 6.£xb7 lllxf4 1 7.exf4 £xc5 Black is better.

1 2.£cl llld5 Black has the initiative. Here is one possible continuation.

13 .ib5 Briet - Schrader, France 1 998. Now Black should have played:

a b c d e f g h 1 3 . . . a6!N 1 4.ic4

14 .ie2 runs into the strong 14 .. . tllcb4! with advantage to Black.

l 4 . . . tllcb4 l 5 .tll c3 lllxf4 l 6.exf4 £ac8 White will have to fight for a draw.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a c g

8 ... 0-0

Chapter 1 6 - 7.Ei:cl - Sidelines and 9.Cllge2 1 89

A well-known mistake would be 8 . . . Wxc5?, after which - 9.Cllb5 Wb4t 1 0.i±ifl ! wins material.

From this posmon we will examine two moves in the present chapter: A) 9.a3 and B) 9.c!tJge2.

The most frequently played option has been 9.Cllf3, which will form the subject of the next chapter.

9.Wa4 Wxc5 1 0.Cll b5 is simply a dubious idea in view of: 1 0 . . . Clld5! l 1 .Clle2 'lla6! 1 2.Wb3 'llxf4 1 3.Cllxf4 Wb4t 1 4.'llc3 Wxb3 1 5.�xb3 Farago - Schmidt, Bagneux 1 980. Black could have secured his slight edge with the nice positional move l 5 . . . e6!N+.

A) 9.a3

a b c d e f g h

9 ... c!tJc6! Black has to postpone taking on c5, as

9 . . . Wxc5?! would allow the awkward 1 0.Cllb5, when 1 O . . . �e6 is necessary if Black is to avoid material losses.

From this position Black need not fear l l .�e2 Wf5 1 2.Cllc7, as played in Nikolov -Delchev, Pamporovo 200 l , as after l 2 . . . Wa5tN 1 3.i±ifl Cllc6 14.'llxa8 Ei:xa8 he has decent compensation for the exchange.

However, after the superior l l .b4!N Wc6 1 2.�xe6 Wxb5 1 3.�c4 White's bishop pair gives him some advantage.

IO.c!tJge2 In the event of 1 o.Wb3, as played in Almeida

Quintana - Bacallao Alonso, Santiago de Cuba 2009, I do not see any problem with 1 0 . . . Wxc5N. From this positioa l l .Cllb5?! does not work due to l l . . .Clld5!+, and even after the superior l 1 .Wb5 Wxb5 1 2.�xb5 Cllh5! only Black can be better.

IO ... Wxc5 I I.c!iJb5 This is the only way to try and make sense of

the early a2-a3.

1 1. .. '!Wh5 12.b4 �d7 13.'!Wb3 �ac8 14.0-0 a6 15.c!iJbc3 b5

Black was doing fine in Almeida Quintana -Jerez Perez, Canovelles 2008.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

B) 9.c!lJge2

a b c d e f g h

This is a much more serious move than 9.a3, and has yielded a higher statistical score for White than the 'official' main line of 9.Cll f3 , which will be examined in the following chapter.

9 ... '!Wxc5 10.'!Wb3

1 90 4.if4

This is firmly established as the main continuation, but a few other moves have been tried.

1 O.ib3 is harmless, for instance: 1 O . . . <ilc6 1 1 .0-0 Wa5 1 2.<ild4 id? 1 3.ig3 <ilxd4 ( 13 . . . :!"i:ad8N also comes into consideration) 14.exd4 This position was reached in Lund - Teplyi, Silkeborg 2009, and now after the natural 1 4 . . . ic6N 1 5 .ie5 :!"i:fd8 1 6.We2 e6 Black has a comfortable game.

1 0.<ilb5?! This looks principled, but it does not hold up to the hard scrutiny of analysis.

1 0 . . . Wb4t! Much better than 10 . . . ie6? l 1 .Wb3 when Black is in trouble.

1 1 .@fl

l l . . . a6! This is not the only playable move, but it is the strongest one, and effectively refutes White's play.

1 2.a3 Wxb2 1 3 .:!"i:bl After 1 3.:!"i:c2 Wxc2 14.Wxc2 axb5 1 5.ixb5 :!"i:xa3! 1 6.Wb2 ( 1 6.ixb8? :!"i:al t 1 7.<ilcl if5-+) we reach the same position.

1 3 . . . Wxb l ! With this elegant queen sacrifice Black obtains the advantage.

1 4.Wxb l axb5 1 5.ixb5

s K •.t � ��· 7 ,, ,� �-,y,� i 6 �.�. %afiY,� �� ',, , � � �,�-�� 3 -� �� -----Y,� 2 ��J��!�-� :��

a b c d e f g h l 5 . . . :!"i:xa3!

This move and the associated tactics provide the justification for Black's queen sacrifice.

1 6.Wb2 White had better avoid l 6.ixb8? <ile4 when he will suffer heavy material loses due to the weakness of his back rank: l 7.Wxe4 ( 1 7.Wel :!"i:al 1 8.<ilcl ic3 1 9.Wd l ib2-+) 17 . . . :!"i:al t 1 8.<ilcl :!"i:xcl t 19 .@e2 :!"i:xhl Black was winning in Zaja - Brkic, Omis 2005.

16 ... :!"i:a8 17.ie5 ttJ c6 1 8.ixc6 bxc6 1 9.h3+ Dydyshko - Begun, USSR 1 990. Although

White's opening was far from a success, he should still be able to hold the position.

1 0.Wd4 This has only been seen in two games, neither of which featured the strongest reply:

a b c d e f g h 1 0 . . . Wa5!N

1 0 ... Wh5 is not a bad mo�e, and after l l .ixb8 :!"i:xb8 1 2.Wxa? id? Black had

Chapter 1 6 - 7.1:kl - Sidelines and 9 .lll ge2 1 9 1

enough compensation for the sacrificed pawn in Istratescu - Iordachescu, Predeal 2006.

l l .b4 Otherwise Black will gain an important tempo with . . . tt:lc6.

l l . . . Wa3! On this square the queen is quite safe and indeed rather disruptive for the opponent.

12.�xb8 In the event of 1 2. b5 �f5 1 3.0-0 tLl bd7 Black's pieces are much better placed.

12 . . . :1'1'.xb8 1 3.0-0 tt:lg4! 14.We4 �f5 1 5 .Wxe7 �f6 16.Wd6 �e5

Black regains his pawn and his two bishops provide him with an ongoing initiative.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

10 • • . c!Dc6 This natural move is unsurprisingly the

main line. For those who wish to investigate a different path I can point you in the direction of 1 0 . . . Wa5, as played by Carlsen in 2009.

1 1 .c!DbS White's entire opening strategy is centred

around this move and the subsequent invasion on c7. Other continuations are harmless, for instance: 1 1 .0-0 tt:la5 12.iiffb5 iiffxc4 (There is also 12 . . . Wxb5 1 3.�xb5 a6 14.�d3 .!d7 15 .e4 tt:lc6 1 6.�b l �e6 with equality, Kakageldyev -Sasikiran, Esfahan 2005.) 13.Wxa5

8 J: �.i. � )�-7 � · � � · � · 6 /,� �� .%.-,%� 5 �� -/ , ,� 4 ,, ,��1� �� %'"'/, ��-'0'""'%� 3 � � -i� � 2 �n-- -•�� ,/,�� '.i� "

a b c d e f g h 1 3 . . . b6!?N (Black needs an improvement over 1 3 . . . �e6?! 14.:1'1'.fdl b6 1 5 .iiffa3;:!; when his queen is misplaced, Godesar - Gerfault, corr. 1 993) 14.Wa3 :1'1'.e8 White is unable to take advantage of the apparently vulnerable queen on c4, for instance 1 5 . .!e5 �b7 1 6.:1'1'.fd l Wg4 1 7 .�g3 tLl h5 1 8 .h3 iW e6 1 9 .�h2 :1'1'.ec8 and the position is balanced.

1 1 . • • WfhS

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

We will pay attention to the tricky though ultimately unimpressive Bl) 12.c!Dc? followed by the main line of B2) 12.c!Dg3.

12.iWa3?! was seen in the game Dreev -Sutovsky, Internet (blitz) 2002, but the idea makes little sense, and after the logical 12 . . . a6!N 1 3.tll c7 :1'1'.a7 the knight invasion to c7 has accomplished nothing.

1 92 4.if4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Bl) 12.liJc?

a b c d e f g h

Objectively not great, but it took some time before the best response was discovered.

12 .. J'�bS The tempting 12 ... tll a5?!, as seen in the game

Piket - Van Wely, Monte Carlo (blindfold) 200 1 , can be met strongly by 13 .°1Wa3!N lllxc4 14.:B:xc4 :B:b8 1 5 .tllg3 Wg4 1 6.:B:d4! with some advantage for White.

13.liJd5 13 .tll a6? is unimpressive: 13 . . . Wa5t 1 4.tll c3

:B:a8 1 5 .tll c7 e5! 1 6.lllxa8 exf4 17.0-0 fxe3 1 8 .fxe3 We5 1 9.tll d5 tllg4 20.g3 tll a5+ Black's advantage was close to decisive in Perun -Shishkin, Kiev 2005.

The tempting 13 .ixf7t? :B:xf7 14.:B:xc6 allows a clever rebuttal:

14 . . . Wa5t! 1 5 .tll c3 ( 1 5 .:B:c3 llle4 saw White lose the exchange in Bernasek - Brkic, Brno 2006. No better is 1 5 .°1Wc3 Wxa2 16.lllc l Wal 17.b3 Wxc3t 1 8.:B:xc3 tllh5 1 9.:B:c4 b5 20.:B:c5 e5 2 1 .ig5 if8-+ Grycel - Bobras, Augustow 2004.)

a b c d e f g h 1 5 . . . e5! Winning material by force. 16.:B:xf6 There is nothing better. 1 6 . . . ixf6 17.tlle8? A mistake in an already unfavourable position. 17 . . . ie7-+ The trapped knight will soon perish, Crowdy - Clifford, England 1 994.

13 ... e5

a b c d e f g h

14.tlJxf6t?! White should have settled _ for the less

ambitious 14.ig3N, although after 14 . . . tlle4 Black has no problems whatsoever.

Chapter 1 6 - 7.E!:cl - Sidelines and 9 .lt:Jge2 1 93

14 . • . Lf6 15!i.xf7t This was White's idea. It is too late to turn

back with 1 5 .�g3, as after 1 5 . . . lt'i a5 Black is much better.

We have been following the game Lukacs -Szeberenyi, Budapest 2000. At this point Black could have refuted his opponent's idea with:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

15 ... i>g?!N The following line is now forced.

16.i.g3 �hf7 17Jhc6 bxc6 18.�xbS �a6 19.f.3 e4!

Black has a serious initiative. One possible continuation is:

20.i>fl exf.3 21.gxf.3 �b7 22.�cS �b5 23.�el �e7

White is in trouble as he is losing all his queenside pawns.

B2) 12.�g3

Although the previous variation should be studied closely, the present line is where the serious work begins.

12 ... �h4 The queen might look precariously placed,

but she is in no real danger.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1 a b c d e f g h

13.�c7 White's previous play has been directed

towards this invasion, so it is too late for him to back out of the complications.

13 • • • e5! 1 3 ... E!:b8? allows l 4.�xf7t E!:xf7 I 5 .Elxc6

when White is clearly better. l 3 . . . g5 is a playable alternative, but the text

move is my preference. The most recent games and analysis indicate that Black should be doing fine.

We have reached a major crossroads. White is poised to win the rook on a8, but his darksquared bishop is a goner and he must decide on the best way to lose it. His main choices are B21) 14.he5 and B22) 14.�g5.

1 94 4.if4

1 4.tt:lxa8? exf4 would open the position in Black's favour.

14.ih6?! According to the database this has only been played once. It is unlikely to become popular as it enables Black to activate his dark-squared bishop. The following game provides a remarkable example of how Black may develop his initiative.

1 4 . . . ixh6 l 5.tt:lxa8 tt:lg4 1 6.tt:lc7 tt:ld4! Black takes full advantage of the position of his bishop.

a b c d e f g h 1 7.Wa3

I examined a few other moves as well: 1 7.W c3!? deserved attention. Black should respond by calmly bringing another piece into play with l 7 . . . :§d8, when White's king remains rather uncomfortable. l 7.Wb4?! looks riskier due to l 7 . . . ixe3! l 8.fxe3 tt:lxh2 when Black has a dangerous attack. Here is a nice illustrative line: l 9.exd4 Wxg3t 20.'it>dl ig4t 2 1 .ie2

2 1 . . .tt:lfl !! 22.:§xfl Wd3t 23.Wd2 ixe2t 24.@el ixfl Black emerges with healthy extra pawn.

1 7 . . . tt:l f5! With this move Black brings huge pressure to bear on the e3- and g3-squares.

1 8.tlld5 tt:lgxe3! 1 9.tt:lxe3 ixe3

8 �.i. � �Bi• 7 �·- 0, •• Y, •• 6 . %� �� %�� : �� ,��a�B "' "' �� -/ �% "//;.. . 3 � � � � 2 'ti/� 0,� ""''"�ti fj \• •u ��.;'/,{ %� , 1 ��

a b c d e f g h 20.ixf7t?

This is just agony, but even after the superior 20.:!'%c2 ig5 2 1 .0-0 tt:ld4 Black regains the sacrificed exchange and remains with a clearly better position.

20 . . . @xf7 2 1 .Wb3t @f6 22.fxe3 tt:lxg3 White was completely busted and resigned a

few moves later in Piskov - Dvoirys, Podolsk 1 992.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B21) 14 . .L:es

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 6 - 7.l'l:cl - Sidelines and 9.'llge2 1 95

With this move White grabs as much material as h� can, but the drawback is that he opens additional lines for Black's already active pieces.

14 ... li:)xe5 15.li:)xa8

8 ltJ �.i. � ��· 7 �·- 0, __ ,Y,� · 6 , , , , ,%n %n %--,�� 5 �� ,,, , , ;� 4 �� f�,, � �� 3 1� �� m0��30J 0'-' 2 t3J ��c , �0:,�J��[j 1 � �� -�

a b c d e f g h

15 ... b6!? This is actually a bit unusual, but it has

scored well and my analysis has convinced me that it is at least as good as the more popular 1 5 . . . id? 1 6.liJc? ic6.

16.li:)c? So far this is the only move to have been

tested, but I would like to share my analysis of a few other possibilities.

Firstly it should be noted that 1 6.0-0? is already a fatal error in view of 1 6 . . . ib? 17.liJc? liJfg4! 1 8.h3 liJf3t! 1 9.'tt>hl liJg5 with a crushing attack.

1 6.i'fib5!?N is quite a serious alternative, but I found what I believe to be a nice idea for Black: 1 6 . . . liJfd?!? The knight is heading for c5, from where it will restrict the white queen while preparing ideas of . . . ia6 or . . . id?. Here is an illustrative line: 1 7.0-0 liJc5 l 8.liJc7 liJg4 1 9.h3

a b c d e f g h 1 9 . . . liJxf2! This tactical strike is obvious but pleasing nonetheless. 20.ixf7t :8:xf7 2 l .:8:xf2 Wxg3 22.i'fie8t ms 23.:8:xf8t ixf8 24.:8:xc5 bxc5 25 .i'fixc8 i'fixe3t+ White will have to fight for a draw.

16 ... �b?

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1

a b c d e f g h

l?.li:)d5 White has tried a few other moves here.

17 .id5 liJxd5 1 8 .liJxd5 ixd5 1 9.i'fixd5 just transposes to the main line.

17 .i'fib5 ixg2 1 8.i'fixe5 liJg4 1 9.i'fib5 1 9.i'fid6 ixhl 20.liJxh l liJxe3 requires additional investigation, although my initial impression is that the queen is better on b5.

19 . . . ixhl 20.liJxhl liJxe3

1 96 4.i.f4

a b c d e f g h 2 1 .ixf7t

I also examined 2 1 .lllg3N which is probably White's best continuation: 2 l . . .'1Wxh2 22.ixf7t This seems to lead to a forced draw after an incredible line: 22 . . . :1'i:xf7 23.'1We8t if8 24.'1Wxe3 'IWgl t 25 .'it>e2 :1'i:xf2t! 26.'it>d3 (26.'1Wxf2? 'IWxcl is winning for Black as the c7-knight will soon drop) 26 . . . '1Wg2 27.:1'i:c2! This is the only move which allows White to escape. 27 . . . :1'i:xc2 28.'1We6t 'it>h8 29.'1Wf6t The game ends in a perpetual.

2 1 . . .:1'i:xf7 22.'1We8t if8 23.'1Wxe3 This position occurred in Lysyj - Kurnosov, Russia 2008, and here Black should have played:

a b c d e f g h 23 . . . :1'i:e7!N 24.lt:le6 '1Wg4!

Regaining the piece with an obvious advantage.

17.f3 Surprisingly this natural-looking move

has only been played once. My preferred response would be:

1 7 ... lllfg4N 17 ... :1'i:c8 was Black's choice in Ludwig - A. Hunt, France 2009. Here I found a remarkable improvement for White: 1 8.ixf7t!?N lllxf7 1 9.0-0 ih6 20.'it>hl In this strange position White's chances are slightly higher.

a b c d e f g h 1 8.id5

1 8.fxg4? ixg2 is not a serious option for White. The main alternative is 1 8 .ie2 but after 1 8 . . . lllxh2 1 9.'it>f2 Black has a strong continuation: 1 9 . . . :1'i:d8! 20.:i'i:hdl This is forced. 20 . . . :i'i:xdl 2 1 .:i'i:xdl lllhxf3! 22.ixf3 ixf3 23.gxf3 '1Wh2t 24.'it>fl '1Wxg3 Black has a dangerous initiative.

1 8 . . . ixd5 1 9.lllxd5 lllxh2 20.'it>f2

Chapter 1 6 - 7.:gcl - Sidelines and 9 .lllge2 197

23.�f2 'i:Jg4t From here White should probably take the repetition, as the attempt to play on would be risky:

24.�gl 24.�f3=

24 . . . '&xg3 25.:gfl h5 26.:gh3 '&d6� Black has ongoing compensation for the

small material sacrifice. Overall I prefer Black's position, as the white king will remain vulnerable for a long time to come.

a b c d e f g h

17 ... tlJxd5 18.hd5 hd5 19.�xd5 :Sd8 20.�b3

Clearly worse is 20.'&e4? ti:Jd3t 2 1 .�e2 '&f6! 22.'&xd3 :gxd3 23.�xd3 '&xb2 when the position of White's king gives him cause for concern.

a b c d e f g h

20 ... ttJd3t 2I.@e2 tlJxcl t Black should not be too hasty in regaining

his pawn: 2 l . . .'&f6?! 22.f4 'i:Jxcl t 23.:gxcl '&xb2t 24.'&xb2 ixb2 25 .:gc7 Black faces a difficult endgame despite having level material.

22.:Sxcl

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

22 ... i.e5! With this strong move Black covers the

c7-square against a rook invasion while also increasing his influence over the kingside.

23.�b5 Now there are two routes to equality.

23 ... i.bS!? 23 . . . ixg3 is also fine: 24.hxg3 '&g4t 25 .�e l

'&e4 26.:gdl This is tantamount to a draw offer. (White achieves nothing with other moves: 26.'&c6 '&d3 27.'&c3 '&d5 regains the pawn; 26.�fl :gd2 27.�gl �g7 Black's activity fully makes up for his small material deficit.) 26 . . . :gxd l t 27.xdl '&b l t 28.�d2 '&xa2 29.'&e8t Vz-Vz Govciyan - Negi, Coubertin 2009.

24.�c6 hg3 25.hxg3 �h5t 26.f3 26.�el '&h l t 27.�e2 '&h5t repeats the

position.

1 98 4.if4

26 ... 1Wh2 27.£4 1Wxg3 28.1Wf3 1Wh4= Golod - Nesterovsky, Israel 2009. The players

kept fighting for another twenty moves, but the position remained balanced until a draw was agreed.

B22) 14.i.gS 1Wxg5

a b c d e f g h

In this variation White allows the e5-pawn to live, in the hope that it will stifle Black's pieces and reduce his active prospects. From the present position White can choose between capturing the rook immediately with B221) 15.tllxa8 and inserting the zwischenzug B222) 15.h4.

B221) 15.tllxa8

a b c d e f g h

15 ... e4! This move is positionally useful and tactically

essential in order to keep the a8-knight caged in.

16.0-0 Thanks to Black's last move l 6.lt:Jc7?? is

impossible due to 16 . . . 1Wa5t.

16 ... 'IWeS l 6 . . . h5 has been more popular, but I rather

like the text move in conjunction with a new idea on the following turn.

17.i.e2 White has to counter the threat of . . . 1Wb8

trapping the knight, so he prepares the rebuttal of �xc6.

Other moves are likely to lead to trouble for White, for instance 17.mdl ?! ig4 1 8.ie2 ixe2 1 9.lt:Jxe2 1We7!+ and the knight is doomed.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

17 ... hS!?N This is my new idea, with which Black

commences his counterplay on the kingside.

In the one previous game to reach. this position Black opted for l 7 . . . 1We7?! but soon got into trouble: 1 8 .1Wa3 1We5 1 9.b4! White is able to

Chapter 1 6 - 7.�cl - Sidelines and 9 .ctJge2 199

save his knight by tactical means. 1 9 . . . id? 20.b5 :8:xa8 2 l .bxc6 ixc6 22.:§:fd 1 ± Kuzubov - Swinkels, Neuhausen 2007.

18.h4 It would be risky for White to allow the

h-pawn to advance further, for instance: 1 8 .:§:fdl h4 19.tt:Jfl h3 20.g3 (After 20.gxh3 Black has the strong manoeuvre 20 . . . tt:Jh?! 2 l .ctJg3 ctJg5 with good attacking chances.) 20 . . . ig4 21 .ixg4 ctJxg4 22.\Wxb?

a b c d e f g h 22 . . . tt:JdS!! Now White has to swap queens in order to prevent the deadly knight manoeuvre . . . tt:Jd8-e6-g5-f3. 23.'1Wc7 tt:Je6 24.\Wxe5 ixe5 25.ctJd2 �xaS 26.tt:Jxe4 ixb2 With two minor pieces for the rook, Black stands better.

18 ... '1We7 19.'1Wa3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

19 ... �d8! After this accurate move it seems to me

that the logical outcome should be a draw by repetition.

20.�b3 20.b4?! is too risky in view of 20 . . . ig4!

2 1 .b5 ixe2 22.ctJxe2 tt:Jg4 with a powerful attack.

20.:§:fd 1 ?! is also inadvisable due to 20 . . . id? winning the knight on aS.

20 ... �e7 It would be risky to play on with 20 . . . id??!,

as after 2 1 .'1Wxb7 'IWxaS 22.'IWxaS �xaS 23.ib5 ctJe5 24.ixd? ctJexd7 25 .�c? White's extra rook and pawn are stronger than Black's two minor pieces.

21.�a3 �d8= Neither side has an advantageous way to

avoid the repetition.

B222) 15.h4

a b c d e f g h

This has been slightly the more popular of the two options, although statistically White has done less well with it.

15 ... �g4 16.tlJxas tLia5!

200 4.if4

This was Black's choice in the first game which reached the present position. Since then borh 1 6 . . . e4 and 1 6 . . . 'Wd7 have been tested (the latter most notably by Topalov) , but I strongly prefer the text move.

17.'WbS White has never played 1 7.'Wb4 and rightly

so, since after 1 7 . . . ie6! 1 8.'Wxa5 ixc4 1 9.lllc7 lllh5! 20.'Wd2 lllxg3 2 1 .fxg3 if6!+ Black obtains slightly better chances with . . . :1'1:d8 on the way.

17 ... lllxc4 18Jhc4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

18 ... .id7! This tactical finesse justifies Black's play.

19.'Wb4 1 9.'Wc5 e4 20.lllc7 ic6 2 1 .'Wd6 merely

transposes to the main line.

19 ... e4 20.lllc7 In the very first game in this line White

preferred: 20.'Wxb7 ie6 2 1 .:1'1:d4

But Black equalized comfortably with: 2 1 . . .llld7! 22.:1'1:xd7

I also examined: 22.:1'1:xe4 lllc5 23.:1'1:xg4 lllxb7 24.:1'1:b4 lllc5 25 .:1'1:b5 (25 .0-0?! :1'1:xa8+) 25 . . . llld3t 26.c;f;>e2 ic4 Black's initiative is

enough for a draw after the following forced sequence: 27.lllc7 llle5t 28.c;f;>d2 ixb5 29.lllxb5 :1'1:b8 30.a4 a6 3 1 .llld4 :1'1:xb2t 32.lllc2 lllc4t 33.c;f;>d3 llle5t=

22 ... ixd7

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

23.lllc7 a b c d e f g h

In a more recent correspondence game White deviated but never got close to an advantage: 23.0-0 ie6 24.lllc7 ixa2 25.lllxe4 'Wxh4 26.:§:dl 'We7 27.lllc3 ie5 28.lllxa2 Yi-1/i Miillhaupt - Killer, corr. 20 1 0.

23 . . . ie5 24.0-0 'Wxh4 Mamedyarov - Eljanov, Gothenburg 2005.

The position is complex and unclear, but it seems to me that it is White who will have to be more careful. At any rate, Black's eventual defeat should certainly not be attributed to his opening play.

20 ... .ic6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 6 - 7.l':'i:cl - Sidelines and 9 .lllge2 201

21.Wi'd6 So far this is the only move to have been

tested in practice, but I also considered two alternatives.

21 .0-0N Wxh4 (It is worth considering the positional approach with 2 l . . . l"i:d8!? when . . . i.f8 becomes possible.) 22.l"i:dl lllg4 23.llld5 f5 24.llle?t Wh8 25.lllxc6 bxc6 26.l"i:d7 f4 27.exf4 lllxf2!= Black forces a perpetual.

21 .Wi'e?N can be met by: 2 1 . . .lll d? 22.0-0 (22.l"i:xc6?! does not quite work: 22 . . . bxc6 23.Wxe4 Wxe4 24.lllxe4 lllb8! Surprisingly White's knight is still in danger. 25.lllc5 l"i:c8 26.lll7a6 lllxa6 27.lllxa6 c5+ Black has emerged with a comfortable position and a slight plus.) 22 . . . i.f6!? (22 . . . ie5 also leads to a level position according to my analysis: 23.llle8 We6 24.Wxe6 fxe6 25.l"i:xc6 bxc6 26.l"i:dl lllc5 27.b4 llla4=) 23.Wxe4 i.xe4 24.l"i:xe4 Wxh4 25 .l"i:xh4 i.xh4 26.llle4 l"i:c8 The endgame is balanced.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

21 ... h5!?N This interesting move was mentioned by

Ruslan Sherbakov in New In Chess Yearbook 93. I decided to recommend it as my main line, although it is important to emphasize that it is by no means the only playable move.

2 1 . . .llld? This also leads to a decent position for Black.

22.llld5 22.f3?! runs into 22 . . . i.e5! 23.Wxf8t Wxf8 24.fxg4 i.xg3t 25.Wd2 i.xc7 when Black's three pieces are stronger than White's two rooks.

22 . . . ie5 23.llle?t Worse is 23.Wxe5?! lllxe5 24.lll f6t Wg7 25.lllxg4 lllxc4 26.b3 lllb6 27.h5 f5 with a better endgame for Black, Matveeva -Danelia, Rijeka 20 1 0. After the knight check a draw was agreed in T. Schmidt - Krzyzanowski, corr. 20 1 0, but it is useful to see how the game might have continued.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

202 4.�f4

27.Wxd6! In view of the potential check on f5 , Black must settle for 27 . . . Wxc4 28.fllxc6 Wcl t 29.Wd l Wxc6 30.0-0 when White is a healthy pawn up.

24.Wb4 24.Wa3 also leads to a draw: We6 25.fllxc6 Wxc4 26.fllxe5 Wcl t 27.We2 Wc2t=

24 . . . a5! It is important to chase White's queen away from the b4-square.

25.Wb3 Another line leading to equality is: 25.Wxa5 We6 26.fllxc6 Wxc4 27.fllxe5 Wel t 28.We2 Wxb2t 29.Wd2 Wb5t 30.tll d3 exd3t 3 1 .Wxd3 Wb2t 32.Wd2 Wb5t=

25 ... �xg3 26.tllxc6 bxc6 27.fxg3 tlle5 28.Wc3 f6 29.0-0 fllxc4 30.Wxc4 Wxg3 3 1 .Wxe4 Wg7=

The position is drawish.

22.b3 :gcs 23.a4 23.f3 allows a lovely queen sacrifice:

23 . . . exf3! 24.:B:xg4 fllxg4

Black has powerful compensation and White had better take the opportunity to force a draw by means of: 25.tll d5! �xd5 26.gxf3 �f8! 27.Wf4 (The bishop is untouchable: 27.Wxd5? �b4t 28.We2 :B:c2t 29.Wd3 :B:d2t 30.Wc4 fllxe3t 3 1 .Wxb4 fllxd5t-+) 27 ... �h6 28.Wd6 �f8 The game ends in a repetition.

23 • • . a6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

Black has good positional compensation for the exchange and it is not clear how White should improve his position. The following is a plausible continuation:

24.\We7 i.d5 25.tlixd5 tlixd5 26.:gxcSt \Wxc8 27.\Wxe4 'tWcl t 28.We2 \Wb2t 29.Wfl

After 29.Wf3?! Wf6t 30.tll f5 tll c3 31 .WeSt �f8 32.Wc8 gxf5 only Black can be better.

29 • • • \Walt= The game ends in perpetual check.

Conclusion It is clear that line A with 9.a3 is not in the least bit threatening to Black. On the other hand, variation B with 9.tllge2 is a serious option which some would argue is a more critical try for an advantage than the more classical 9.fllf3 of the next chapter. Black must react with great precision and be willing to sacrifice at least an exchange, relying on his superior development and active piece play to provide dynamic compensation. According to the latest games and analysis Black's resources appear fully adequate; perhaps the only disappointing thing is that so many of the critical lines have been analysed all the way through to a perpetual check or drawn endgame, although in terms of the theoretical dispute this can at least be considered a moral victory for the Griinfeld.

4.if4 a b c d e f g h

9.�f3

Variation Index 1 .d4 lbf6 2.c4 g6 3.lbc3 dS 4 . .if4 .ig7 S.e3 cS 6.dxcS �aS 7.:gcl dxc4 8 . .ixc4

0-0 9.lbf3

A) 10.liJbS .ie6 Al) 1 1 .lbc7?! A2) l l ..ixe6

B) 10.�b3

9 ... �xcS

C) 10 . .ib3 lbc6 1 1 .0-0 �aS Cl) 12.�e2 C2) l 2.h3 .if5

C21) 13.lbgS C22) 13.�e2 lbe4

C221) 14.lbxe4 .ixe4 C222) 14.g4!? C223) 14.liJdS eS

C2231) lS . .igS C2232) 1 S.:gxc6 C2233) 1 S . .ih2 .ie6

C22331) 16.:gxc6 C22332) 16.:gfdl

20S 20S 207 208 209 210 212 212 21S 21S 217 219 219 220 223 223 224

204 4.i.f4

1 .d4 tDf6 2.c4 g6 3.tDc3 d5 4.i.f4 i.g7 5.e3 c5 6.dxc5 Wfa5 7Jkl dxc4 8.i.xc4 0-0 9.tDf3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

This classical knight development can at least historically be considered the ultimate main line of the 4.i.f4 system.

9 • • • �xc5 I do not see any point in allowing White

an extra option with 9 . . . ltJc6?! 1 0.0-0 Wxc5, since here instead of 1 1 .i.b3 he can try the assault 1 1 .l2ib5!? with reasonable chances for an advantage.

After the text move there are three main moves to consider: A) 10.tDb5, B) 10.�b3 and C) IO.i.b3. Other moves are sometimes seen, but none of them should worry the second player.

1 0.b3 This is a pet line of the Israeli IM Alexander Mikhalevski as well as some of his students. Mikhalevski is a good player but objectively the move is harmless.

1 0 . . . ltJc6 1 1 .0-0 i.g4 1 2.h3 :E'i:fd8 1 3 .°1We2 i.xf3 14.Wxf3 Wa5

After a series of natural moves, Black has obtained a comfortable position in which the bishop pair is unlikely to hurt him.

a b c d e f g h 1 5 .l2ie4

In the following encounter White played too extravagantly and soon found himself in a worse position: 1 5 .g4? :E'i:ac8 16.i.g3 e6 17.ltJbl Wxa2+ A. Mikhalevski - Greenfeld, Tel Aviv 200 1 .

1 5 . . . ltJxe4 1 6.Wxe4 e6 With this solid positional move Black neutralizes the unopposed light-squared bishop.

17.a4 a6 1 8.:E'i:fdl :E'i:ac8 The game was balanced in Porat -Wittmann,

Budapest 2004.

1 0.Wd4 This has also been used by some strong players, but it too is absolutely harmless.

8 .i a1.i. � �.1%• 7 :6i'� �-··%�' 6 . . %.�. .% •• ,�. s �E��t .. � 4 �.i��-3 ��" '"d�� ref· · '� %�-��·� 2 � r.��J�,�

a b c d e f g h 1 0 . . . Wh5!?

With this move Black attempts to seize the initiative. If Black wishes to play it safe then the following alternative is absolutely fine:

Chapter 1 7 - 9.lt:Jf3 205

1 0 . . . Wa5 1 1 .We5 ll'lc6 12.Wxa5 lllxa5 The endgame is harmless for Black, for example: 13 . .ie2 .ie6 14.llld4 .id? 1 5 .0-0 l"i:ac8= Bu Xiangzhi - Peng Xiaomin, HeiBei 200 1 .

1 1 ..ixb8 l"i:xb8 1 2.Wxa?

1 1 ..id3?! is ineffective: 1 1 . . .Wb4t 12.Wd2 ll'lc6 13 .ll'lc? This occurred in Lenic - Predojevic, Portoroz 2005, and now Black should have played 1 3 . . . Wxd2tN 14.c;t>xd2 l"i:ad8 1 5 .ll'lxe6 fXe6 1 6.c;t>e2 ll'ld5! when he has the better

This position was reached in Golod - Ma. chances. Tseitlin, Ashdod 2004, and here I found a remarkable idea for Black:

a b c d e f g h 12 . . . .ih3!N

In the aforementioned game Black easily obtained a draw after 1 2 . . . .ig4 13 . .ie2 llld5 14.0-0 l"i:a8 1 5.Wxb? .ixc3 1 6.bxc3 l"i:fb8 17.Wc6 l"i:c8 1 8.Wb? l"i:cb8 with a repetition, but he has every reason to be more ambitious.

13 . .ifl Also after 1 3.gxh3 Wxf3 14.0-0 Wxh3 1 5 .f3 lllg4! Black has a strong initiative.

13 . . . llld5! 14.llld4 lllxc3 1 5.l"i:xc3 Wd5 1 6.f3 .ie6

Black has great compensation for the pawn.

A) 10.CllbS

This is the first of White's three 'serious' options, but it should certainly not worry a well-prepared Gri.infeld player.

10 ... .ie6 1 O . . . Wb4 t is also fine according to theory,

but I have chosen to recommend the text move, after which White has two main options: Al) l l .Cllc7?! and A2) 1 1 .he6.

Al) l 1 .Cllc7?!

l 1. .. .ixc4 12.b3 White has tried two other moves.

l 2.ll'ld2 b5 1 3.b3 ( 13 .ll'lxa8 is not much better: l 3 . . . llld5! 14.ll'lxc4 bxc4 l 5 .Wa4 Eitel Bensch, Bavaria 2003, and now after the simple 1 5 . . . lllxf4N 16.exf4 l"i:c8 17.l"i:c2 c3 1 8.0-0 ll'lc6 1 9 .bxc3 l"i:xa8 Black is clearly better.)

206 4 . .if4

1 3 . . . li:ld5 (A very 'human' move, but even stronger would have been 1 3 . . . e5!N 14.li:lxa8 exf4 when White is in serious trouble.) 14. li:lxa8 li:lc3 1 5 .E!:xc3 .ixc3 1 6.bxc4 'Wxc4 1 7.'We2 .ixd2t 1 8.'Wxd2 li:lc6 Black was winning in Popchev - Lalic, Sarajevo 1 988.

1 2.li:lxa8 'Wa5t

a b c d e f g h 13 .°Wd2

I checked two other moves as well: 1 3.li:ld2 ha2 14.0-0 li:lc6 Black is clearly better. 1 3.b4 'Wxb4t 14.'Wd2 'Wxd2t 1 5 .li:lxd2 .ixa2 16.E!:a1 li:l c6 17 .E!:xa2 E!:xa8 With two connected passed pawns for the exchange, Black has good winning chances.

1 3 . . . 'Wxa2 14.li:le5 14. 'Wb4 was played in Boudignon- Baruchel, corr. 1 994,

1 6.bxa3 li:le4 (threatening ... .ic3t) 17 . .ie5 li:l a6 to a winning position for Black.

14 . . . li:le4 15 .'\Wb4 .ixe5 1 6 . .ixe5 b5 17 . .ixb8 E!:xb8 1 8 .li:lc? a5 1 9.°Wa3 'Wxa3 20.bxa3

a b c d e f g h 20 . . . E!:d8!

Keeping the king boxed in. 2 1 .f3 li:lc5 22.E!:bl li:ld3t 23.lt>e2 b4

Black was clearly better in Hartnack - Haar, e-mail 1 995.

8 i. � � ��· :if'&'W:�'. ;;;;,wJ-&�W� a 7 ·� · ,�-J �• • oo • 6 , , , , , --/,, , , , ,-,, , , , %1ifl�� 5 � .Nil �� , � �%% ,,,,,%%% ��-� �% 4 �j_� � � 3 � [3J -u ;;/;,n�-2 lli ill %• "nfn 1 �mim----%� -�

a b c d e f g h

12 •.• 'Wa5t 13.'Wd2 Wfxd2t 14.lllxd2 i.d3 15.lllxa8 li:ld5!

The key move, which solidifies Black's compensation for the exchange. Thanks to the powerful bishop on d3, he has a strong and easy-to-handle initiative.

16.li:lc7 �c8

Chapter 1 7 - 9.4Jf3 207

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

17.�f3 17.'it>dl !N would have been White's best

chance to survive, for instance: 1 7 . . . tt:lxf4 1 8.exf4 �b2 l 9.E!:c5 b6 20.E!:d5 E!:xc7 2 l .E!:xd3 Eld t 22.'it>e2 E!:xhl 23.E!:d8t 'it>g7 24.E!:xb8 E!:xh2 25.'it>f3 E!:h5 26.tt:lc4 �d4 27.Elb7 White should be able to hold the endgame.

17 ... �xf4 18.exf4 .ih2 19.'it>d2 .hcl t 20.l:!xcl .ie4 21 .�bS �xcl 22.'it>xcl .txf3 23.gxf.3 tt:lc6+

White faces a miserable endgame, lnkiov -Lputian, Saint John 1 988.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

A2) 1 I .ixe6 �xb5

a b c d e g h

Here White is playing less ambitiously than

in the previous line; on the other hand he is less likely to fall into trouble.

12.ic4 1 2.�b3?! is worse, and after 1 2 . . . tt:lc6

White has difficulties arranging castling. After the further 13 .We2 Wb4t! 14 .Wd2 Wxd2t 1 5 .tllxd2 tllh5 Black had clearly taken over the initiative in Dlugy - Kasparov, Saint John 1 988.

12 ... �xb2 13.0-0 �c6 14.�a4 14.E!:b l ?! was played in F. Portisch -

Kaposztas, Lohmar 1 999, and here Black should have replied with: 14 . . . Wa3!N 1 5.Wcl (The main point behind Black's last move is that 1 5.E!:xb?? can be refuted by 1 5 . . . tlla5 16.E!:c7 tt:le8! winning material.) 1 5 ... Wxcl 1 6.E!:fxcl tlla5 and Black remains a pawn up.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

This is not the only playable move, but it is the most accurate.

15.�bl tt:lb6 Also 1 5 . . . Wf6 16.�g5 tt:lb6 1 7.�xf6 tt:lxa4

1 8.�xg7 'it>xg7 19 .E!:xb7 tlla5 leads to easy equality for Black.

16J!xb2 tt:lxa4 17.�xb? tlla5

208 4.�f4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

18.:!k7?! White could and should have maintained

the balance with 1 8.2:b4N lllxc4 1 9.2:xa4!, when the endgame is equal.

18 ••• lllxc4 19J�xc4 lllc3!+ Black's powerful knight gave him the

advantage in Boehnke - Brendel, Berkel 2003.

B) 10.Wb3

8 � a1.i.� ��-7 �·--� �--·y,�' 6 "iii iiliil "Si"iil 5 iii %� iilil,, iii

"iii ; "iii iii%'{;"/ !iii@

4 �%! ��-J�� 3 �vm r��n 2 r;n---- - -� - -- - - %o7trtJ , , , , ,%:;- - - - -�w0,(--- -%.,,,, 1 ��

a b c d e f g h

Compared with the analogous posmon occurring after 9.lllge2, as seen in the previous chapter, this queen development fails to create real problems for Black. The difference is due to the fact that in the present position the clrook i s unprotected.

10 ... lllc6 1 1 .lllb5 This looks tempting, but it fails to achieve the

desired effect for the reason already mentioned. Other moves are also harmless.

l 1 .lllg5 e6 1 2.0-0 llla5 13.Wb5 Wxc4 14.Wxa5 b6 1 5.Wa3 �b7 16.We7 Wa6! With this slightly odd-looking but effective move, Black neutralizes his opponent's activity and starts putting his bishop pair to work. l 7.�e5 2:ae8 1 8.Wb4 h6 1 9.lllh3

a b c d e f g h This position occurred in Tachikart -

Guilleux, La Roche sur Yon 2008, and now Black could have obtained an excellent game with 1 9 . . . lll d5!N, for instance 20.lllxd5 �xe5 2 1 .lll c7 �xc7 22.Elxc7 2:c8 23.Elxc8 Elxc8 with a clear advantage.

l 1 .Wb5 Wxb5 12.�xb5 �d7 The queenless position is absolutely harmless for Black and he equalizes without any difficulties. 1 3.0-0 a6 (A worthy alternative is 1 3 . . . 2:ac8 14.h3 2:fd8 1 5 .Elfdl c;t>f8 with balanced play, Olsen - Brinck Claussen, Naestved 1 99 1 .) l 4.�e2

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 7 - 9.lDf3 209

This was �cardi - Barbosa Valdes, Santiago de Chile 2005 , and here the simplest continuation for Black would have been 14 .. . Elad8N 1 5 .Elfdl �.f5! when Black is in no way worse.

1 1 .0-0 White can hardly aspire to an advantage by giving up the bishop pair. 1 1 . . .ltJaS! 1 2.WbS Wxc4 1 3.WxaS b6 14.Wa3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

:!"lac8 1 9.h3 Wb7 White has to fight for equality, Ruiz Bernal - Hoemske, e-mail 2009.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

1 1 ...i.e6!

Here we see the big disadvantage of the knight's position on f3 instead of e2. The text move is only possible thanks to the undefended rook on c l .

12.llic7 It is too late for White to back out now:

1 2.0-0?! tDa5 1 3 .ixe6? (The lesser evil was 13 .Wa3, but even here after 1 3 . . . Wxa3 14.4Jxa3 4Jxc4 1 5.4Jxc4 :!"lfc8 the endgame is clearly better for Black.) 13 . . . 4Jxb3 14.:!"lxcS 4Jxc5 Black was already winning in Somogyi - Nogrady, Budapest 1 996.

12 ... .hc4 13.gxc4 Wa5t 14.@e2 gac8 15.ghcl?

White had to play l 5.Wxb7! and after 1 5 . . . eS 1 6.Wxc6 exf4 1 7.:!"lhcl Wxa2 18 .Wa6! he holds on for equality.

We have been following the game Z. Almasi - Hracek, Germany 2003. At this point Black could have seized the advantage by means of:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

15 ... llihS!N 16.llib5 llixf4t 17.exf4 Wfb6+ Black is better coordinated, his king is safer

and . . . 4Ja5 is a serious threat.

C) 10.i.b3

210 4 . .if4

a b c d e f g h

This natural move is the clear first choice.

10 • . • .!lJc6 There is no need to move the queen yet, as

any discovered attacks can be met by a check on a5 or b4.

1 1 .0-0 '\Wa5 Sometimes Black tries 1 1 . . .'\Wh5 but after

1 2.h3 e5 1 3 . .ih2 �d8 both 14.'\We2 and 14.li::ld2 promise White good chances for an advantage.

8 -�.i. � ��· 1 ,1 , n W'& 'm' 6 n41'�""'%*,,�� 5 � � �� /, , , , , ,� ,,, , ,� �, n n 4 n n � ,� 3 �� n�n 2 88'"'"- , , , , ,%� �Wt!f 1 , , , , ,%��,·�=, , , ,

a b c d e f g h

After the text move White sometimes plays Cl) 12.'1We2 but the main line by far is C2) 12.h3.

White gets nowhere with other moves, for instance 12 .li::ld5?! li::lxd5 13 .'\Wxd5 .ixb2 1 4.�b l .ig7 1 5 .�fcl .if5 1 6.e4 .ig4 and White has a hard time demonstrating compensation, Tikkanen Hermansson, Gothenburg 2005

Cl) 12.'1We2 .!lJh5!

It is not by accident that the main line C2 involves creating a retreat square for the darksquared bishop.

13 • .ig5 13 .li::ld5 is hardly a serious alternative, and

after 1 3 . . . li::lxf4 14.exf4, Somogyi - Boros, Budapest 2000, 1 4 . . . e6N l 5.li::le3 '\Wb4 1 6.�c4 '1We7 only Black can be better.

13 ••• .ig4 Better than 1 3 . . . h6 1 4 . .ih4 g5 1 5.�fdl !

when White has promising play.

a b c d e f g h

14 • .ih4 White has also tried two knight moves.

14.li::l e4?! '\Wf5 1 5 . .ic2 '1We6 ( 1 5 . . . .ixf3 1 6.gxf3 '1Wh3 1 7 . .ia4 was unclear in Hauser - Connelly, e-mail 2008.) 1 6 . .ib l

Chapter 1 7 - 9 .ll'if3 2 1 1

a b c d e f g h This position occurred in Levin - Shirov,

Dagomys 2009, and now Black could have obtained an excellent position with: 16 . . . ixf3!N 17.gxf3 (After 1 7.Wxf3 ixb2 l 8.l"i:c5 ig?+ White does not have enough compensation.) 1 7 . . . Wh3 1 8.tt'lg3 h6 1 9.tt'lxh5 hxg5 White might encounter serious problems along the h-file.

14.tt'ld5?! e6 1 5.tt'le7t iiih8 1 6.tt'lxc6

a b c d e f g h 1 6 . . . Wxg5! 17.tt'lxg5

l 7.tt'lcd4 is best met by: l 7 . . . ixd4! ( l 7 . . . We7 is enough for comfortable equality, but Black can play for more.) 1 8.exd4 Wf4! 19 .We5t Roussel Roozmon - V. Mikhalevski, Montreal 2005, and now Black could /have created problems for his opponent by / means of: 1 9 .. .f6N 20.We3 ixf3 2 1 .gxf3 l"i:fe8+

17 ... ixe2 1 8.l"i:fe l ixb2 19 .l"i:c2

8 � � � �� 7 � {� W;?,� ·Y,� ., 6 , , , ;,.!.!.!� 5 � � �')) 4 �.�.��If" · '� 3 �t- �� -��·;; ��;.; . . !'.�./ ��·/ 2 � �i ��/il�BJB 1 � ��

a b c d e f g h l 9 . . . if6!N (This creates more problems for the opponent than l 9 . . . ib5 20.tt'lxa7 l"i:xa7 2 1 .l"i:xb2 ic6 when the position was equal in Heinig - Konopka, Germany 1 997.) 20.l"i:exe2 ixg5 2 1 .tt'le5 id8 22.l"i:ed2 tt'lf6 23.tt'ld7 tt'lxd7 24.l"i:xd7 White should be able to hold this endgame.

a b c d e f g h

14 ... g5!? With this move Black aims for a more

complex game in which he has chances to take over the initiative.

There is also a clear route to equality with 14 . . . Wb4 1 5.Wc4 Wxc4 16.ixc4 ixf3 17.gxf3 if6= as seen in Yusupov - Leko, Essen 2002, and a number of other games.

15 . .tg3 tllxg3 16.hxg3 l 6.fxg3 l"i:ad8 (l 6 . . . h6!?N also looks sensible)

212 4.if4

was pleasant for Black in Gretarsson - Hellers, Sweden 2000.

This position was first reached in Szymczak - Ogaard, Lublin 1 975, and has since been repeated in several other games. Usually Black has opted for 1 6 . . . :B:ad8, but I would like to propose a modest deviation.

16 ... h6N It is useful to stabilize the kingside before

determining the position of the rook.

17.'1Wc4 After l 7.ll'ie4 ll'ie5 1 8.:B:c5 Wb6 1 9.:B:fcl

:B:ad8 the idea of . . . ll'id3 is unpleasant for White.

17 • • • Wb4! Now that the g5-pawn is securely defended,

Black can afford to offer a queen exchange. In the resulting position his bishop pair gives him some chances to take over the initiative.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

C2) 12.h3

a b c d e f g h

With this move White safeguards the future of his dark-squared bishop while incidentally preventing the pinning . . . ig4.

12 • . . ifS

This logical developing move is the clear number one choice for Black. Now we will analyse C21) 13.c!llgS and C22) 13.'1We2.

1 3.ll'id4 has been considered harmless for Black ever since the following game: 1 3 . . . id7 14.We2 tl'ixd4 1 5 .exd4 e6 1 6.ie5 ic6 17.:B:fd1 :B:fd8 Black has a comfortable position thanks to his firm control over the d5-square. 1 8.We3 :B:d7 1 9.Wg5 Wd8 Black has defended against White's only active idea. Although the position is objectively equal, Black is a bit more comfortable and in the game Petursson - lvanchuk, Reggio Emilia 1989, he eventually managed to win.

C21) 13.c!llgS

a b c d e f g h

This continuation recently became fashionable after it was employed by Kramnik to defeat Morozevich in 2009. (It was only in a blindfold game though . . . )

13 ••. eS Certainly the most active and principled

response. Morozevich preferred 1 3 . . . Wa6?! but after l 4.e4 the initiative is very much with White.

14.ih2

Chapter 1 7 - 9.tllf3 2 13

Out of th� two possible bishop retreats, this one looks more logical as the resource of g2-g4 might be useful. We will also consider the retreat to g3 after first looking at a few forcing continuations.

14 . .ixf7t? does not work, as after 14 . . . Wh8 1 5.e4 (or 1 5 . .ig3 h6) 1 5 . . . exf4 1 6.exfS h6+ Black wins material.

14.lllxf7?! is also premature. 1 4 . . . exf4 1 5 .e4 From here Black's objectively strongest continuation is 1 5 . . . .ic8! 1 6.eS tt:le8 when White lacks an effective discovered check. However, if Black yearns for safety then l 5 . . . tt:lxe4!? is quite playable, and after 1 6.tt:lxe4 .ixe4 17.tt:lgSt Wh8 1 8.tt:lxe4 :I"i:ad8 only Black can be better.

14.e4 This move is not dangerous, but it can lead to interesting complications. 14 . . . exf4 1 5.exfS :I"i:ad8 1 6 . .ixf7t Otherwise the white queen lacks a decent square.

a b c d e f g h 1 6 . . . Wh8!?N (The game continuation was not bad either: 1 6 ... :I"i:xf7 1 7.°Wb3 :I"i:dd7 1 8.:I"i:fdl Wxf5 1 9.:I"i:xd7 Wxd7 20.tt:lbS Wd5 2 1 .tllxf7 'Wxb3 22.axb3 Wxf7 23.tt:ld6t We7 24.tt:lxb7 tt:le5 The ending was more or less equal in De Blois Figueredo - Bortnik, corr. 20 1 0.) The justification for the cheeky king move is revealed in the following line: 17.°Wb3 Wxf5 1 8.tt:lf3 tt:la5! 1 9.'We6 :I"i:xf7! 20.'Wxf7 :I"i:d7 1he queen is caught, so Black regains the sacrificed

material with interest. 2 1 .tt:lh4 :I"i:xf7 22.tt:lxfS gxf5 23.lllbS tt:le4 24.:I"i:c8t :I"i:f8 25.tt:lxa7 :I"i:xc8 26. tt:lxc8 .ixb2+ In the resulting endgame Black's minor pieces are stronger than White's rook.

1 4 . .ig3 This is the only serious alternative to the main line, although it does have the drawback of blocking the g2-pawn, as noted previously.

14 . . . :I"i:ad8! Black has no reason to fear the ensuing complications.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1 5 . .ixf7t

a b c d e f g h

If White refrains from this move then Black has no problems at all, for instance: 1 5 .°Wf3 h6 1 6.tt:lge4 tt:lxe4 1 7.tt:lxe4 'Wb4 1 8.tt:lc3 e4 ( 1 8 . . . :I"i:d2!?N 1 9.llldS Wa5 also deserves attention) 1 9.°We2 This position occurred in Wang Li - Tan Zhongyi, Hefei 20 1 0, and here I recommend:

a b c d e f g h

214 4 . .if4

1 9 .. J''id3N 20.tlld5 Wd2 2 1 .°1Wxd2 :t"ixd2 22.:t"ic2 :t"ixc2 23 . .ixc2 :t"id8 24.:t"idl i;iif8 Black has no problems at all.

l 5 . . . :t"ixf7 l 6.Wb3 Now Black must find the right way to deal with the pin.

a b c d e f g h 1 6 . . . :t"idf8!N

This is a clear improvement over 16 .. . W c7? as played in Grigore - L'Ami, Bratto 20 1 0. In that game White missed the strong 17.e4!N which would have more or less forced Black to accept a clearly worse position by taking on e4, as l 7 . . . .ic8? leads to even bigger problems: 1 8.tlld5 Wd7 19 .:t"ifdl tll d4 20.:t"ixd4! exd4 2 l .:t"ic7 lllxd5 22.:t"ixd7 :t"ifxd7 23.tll e6! White has a huge advantage.

17.:t"ifd1 .ih6! This is the best way to force White to take on f7.

l 8.tllxf7 :t"ixf7

a b c d e f g h

The position is complex and unbalanced, but in my opinion Black should be at least equal and has realistic chances to take over the initiative. Here is an illustrative line:

1 9 . .ih4 g5 20.tllb5!? tll e4! 2 1 .tlld6 lllxd6 22.:t"ixd6 .ig6 23 . .ig3 .if8 24.:t"id7 Wb4

Following the queen exchange Black is by no means worse.

14 ... :gad8!

15 . .ixflt 1 5 .°1Wf3 does not lead anywhere special for

White: l 5 . . . h6 l 6.tllge4 (Not dangerous is 1 6.tllxf7 :t"ixf7 17.:t"ifd l :t"idf8 intending . . . i;iih7.) 1 6 . . . tllxe4 17.tllxe4 Wb4 (It was worth considering 17 . . . :t"id3!? with the tactical threat of . . . tlld4.) 1 8.:t"ic4 We7 Black was doing fine in Littlewood - Conquest, Torquay 2009.

15 ... :gxf7 16.Wb3 :g<iffi! I prefer this square for the rook, as 16 . . . :t"idd7,

which was played in Garcia Roman - Garcia Gil, Barbera de! Valles 2009, can be met by 17.:t"ifdlN when 17 . . . Wb4 allows White to regain his piece by means of 1 8.°1Wxb4 tllxb4 1 9.g4!.

Chapter 1 7 - 9 . lll f3 2 15

a b c d e f g h

17.e4? This poor move allows the black knight to

take up a dominating position on d4.

An obvious improvement is 17.i"lfd1 N when I analysed the following line: 17 . . . a6 I like this prophylactic move, which stops White's idea of ti:lb5-d6. (In the event of 17 . . . h6 1 8.ti:lxf7 1"lxf7 19.g4 ic8 20.ti:lb5 ie6 2 1 .Wxe6 Wxb5 22.1"lc2 the position looks rather unclear.) 1 8.g4 ic8 1 9.ltJa4 Wb5 20.Wxb5 axb5 21 .ti:lxf7 1"lxf7 22.ttl c5 if8 Black is doing fine without queens.

17 ... tlid4 18.�c4 b5 19.Wd3 This position was reached in Ristovic -

Haessel, Calgary 2009, and here Black missed a good opportunity:

19 ... tlixe4!N 20.tlicxe4 �d7 Despite the level material, Black has an

obvious advantage thanks to his superblyplaced pieces.

C22) 13.�e2

13 ... tlie4 Black offers a knight exchange and opens the

long diagonal for his dark-squared bishop. In response White may choose C221) 14.tlixe4, C222) 14.g4!? or C223) 14.tlid5.

C221) 14.tlixe4 ixe4

a b c d e f g h

216 4.i.f4

15.l�Udl White develops his final piece and tries to

make the tempting lllg5 more dangerous for Black.

The immediate knight jump is unimpressive: l 5 .lllg5 �d5 l 6.�c7

16 .�xd5 Wxd5 17.b3 �ac8 1 8 .�fd l Wa5 cannot be dangerous for Black, and after the inaccurate 1 9.lllf3? e5 20.�g3 e4 he took over the initiative in Orsag - Oral, Czech Republic 2002.

1 6 . . . Wxc7 17.�xd5

a b c d e f g h 17 . . . Wa5! 1 8.�xc6

Black need not worry about 1 8.�xf7t �xf7 19.lllxf7 ©xf7 20.Wc4t ©f8 when his king is quite safe, and after 2 1 .�fd l �f6 22.�d5 Wb6 I prefer Black's position.

1 8 . . . bxc6 19 .lllf3 Wxa2 20.llld4 �xd4 2 1 .exd4 e6 22.�xc6 �ab8+

The position should be a draw, but Black can press for a win without taking any risks, M. Horvath - Serner, corr. 1 996.

1 5 .llld2 Retreating the knight is also unlikely to trouble the second player.

1 5 . . . �d5 1 6.�xd5 Wxd5 17.lllb3 �fd8 1 8.�fd l

Now my slight preference is: 1 8 . . . Wf5

1 8 . . . We4 should also be absolutely fine.

1 9.g4 At this point Black has an easy improvement:

a b c d e f g h 1 9 . . . We4N

The inaccurate 1 9 . . . Wf6? 20.Wb5! left Black facing awkward problems in Loetscher -Widmer, Zug 2003.

20.lllc5 Perhaps Black was put off by this knight move, but it fails to achieve much for White.

20 . . . Wb4 Black has no problems.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

15 ... Wh5! This is my preferred solution, although

the alternatives 1 5 . . . �ad8 and 1 5_ . . . �f3 seem reliable enough as well.

Chapter I 7 - 9. tLl f3 2 17

16.:Sd7 16.ic2 ixf3 This well-timed exchange

completely solves Black's opening problems. 17.�xf3 �xf3 1 8.gxf3 �ad8 1 9.ie4 1 9 . . . ixb2 20.�xd8 �xd8 21 .�c2 ia3 22.ixc6 bxc6 23.�xc6 f6 Black has equalized comfortably, Portisch - Arakhamia-Grant, Roquebrune 1998.

16 ... :Sac8! Such strong players as Shirov and Roiz have

preferred 1 6 . . . e6, but the text move is better. The immediate threat is . . . tt:ld4.

17.:Scdl e6 18.:Sld2 The lesser evil would have been 1 8.tt:ld4N

although after 1 8 . . . �xe2 1 9.tt:lxe2 tt:l a5+ White will have to work hard to equalize.

19.ic2 ic6 20.:Sc7 e5! 21.:Sxc8 :Sxc8 22.ig3

The tactical justification for Black's play is revealed after 22.tt:lxe5 ixe5 23 .�xh5 gxh5 24.ixe5 tt:lc4 when Black wins an exchange.

22 ... e4 Black was clearly better in Hoffmann -

Holzke, Germany 1 998.

C222) 14.g4!?

This aggressive continuation has become quite fashionable recently. White is willing to accept some weaknesses in his position in order to drive Black's pieces away from their active positions.

14 ... �xc3 15.bxc3 id7 16.:Sfdl :Sad8 17.:Sd5

a b c d e f g h

17 ... "Mfa3! This is stronger than 17 . . . '\Wb6 18 .�b l ! ic8,

Kasimdzhanov - Svidler, San Sebastian 2009, at which point the unexpected 19 .�g5!N would have underlined the unfortunate position of Black's queen.

18.:Scdl ie6

218 4 .i.f4

It is essential to exchange some pieces in order to dampen White's initiative. In the event of 1 8 . . . i.c8 1 9.e4 White retains some pressure.

19.�xdS c!Dxd8 20.'1Wb5 a6 It is best to insert this move, as in certain

positions the pawn will be slightly less vulnerable on a6 than a7.

2l.'1Wb6 hb3 In an ideal world Black would prefer not

to unite his opponent's queenside pawns, but vacating the e6-square for the knight is a much more pressing concern.

22.axb3 c!De6

23.c4 This is the most ambitious idea at White's

disposal.

23.Wxb7?! is unattractive in view of 23 . . . 'llxf4 24.exf4 i.xc3.

23.i.e5 enables Black to play: 23 . . . Wc5! 24.Wxc5 'llxc5 25.b4 This position occurred in Sachdev - Safarli, Delhi 20 1 0, and now the most precise continuation would have been 25 . . . i.xe5N 26.'llxe5 'll e4 27.l"!d7 f6 28.'lld3 f7 29.c4 l"!c8 30.c5 E!b8 with equality.

23 . • • a5! Commencing counterplay.

24.'!Wxb7 We have been following the game

Mamedyarov - Sutovsky, Bursa 2010 . At this point Black should have played:

a b c d e f g h

24 ••. '1Wb2!N Activating the queen and threatening . . . a4.

The position is just as dangerous for White as for Black, and according to my analysis the game should end in a draw after accurate play from both sides.

25.'1Wb5 '1We2 26.'1Wd5 '1Wc2! Continuing to target the b3-pawn. Now

27.i.g3 Wxb3 28.l"!d3 Wb4 is fine for Black.

27.�d3 '!Wbl t 28.�g2

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 7 - 9.tt:lf3 219

28 • . • .!Llc5! 15 • • • .!Ll:xg5 16 • .!Ll:xg5 §'d8! This small finesse seals the fate of the b3- This key defensive move is the only way to

pawn. parry the dual threats of :S.xc6 followed by ctJe7t, and g4 followed by Wf3.

29.E:dl Wfxb3 30.ie5 ixe5 3 1..!Llxe5 From here the following line looks like a

logical end to the game:

31...a4 32.E:al Wfb2 33.Wxc5 Wfxal 34.Wxe7 Wbl 35 • .!Lld7 E:a8 36 • .!ilf6t 'i!?g7 37.Wf e5 Wb7t 38.e4 a3 39 • .!Lld5t 'i!?g8 40 • .!ilf6t=

The game ends in perpetual check.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

C223) 14 • .!Lld5

a b c d e f g h

This is the main line according to theory.

14 • • • e5 Now we reach another important crossroads,

at which White can choose between the surprising C2231) 15.ig5, the aggressive C2232) 15.E:xc6 and the more restrained main line of C2233) 15.ih2.

C2231) 15.ig5

It is hard to believe that White can aspire to an advantage by giving up his dark-squared bishop. Nevertheless the idea is not completely without merit, and Black cannot afford to relax his guard.

17.h4! This is White's latest try, and the only way to

set Black any problems.

After 17.ctJxf7? :S.xf7 1 8.ctJc3 We7 the players agreed a draw in Gustafsson - Lindinger, Hamburg 1 999, but Black is dearly better in the final position.

17.ctJf3 This has been the most popular choice, but it is much too timid.

1 7 . . . e4! 1 8.ctJd2 l 8.ctJh2 occurred in Lev - Alterman, Israel 1 992, and a couple of subsequent games. Despite Black's good results I would like to recommend a new move, which seems to me like the most logical: 1 8 . . . ctJe5!N 1 9.:S.cd l Wg5 20.liih l :S.ad8 Black is dearly better.

1 8 . . . Wg5 19.ct:Jf4 This position was reached in Meins -Kaufeld, Dortmund 200 1 , and here Black missed a good opportunity:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h 19 . . . ct:Jd4!N 20.exd4

20.Wc4 should be met by 20 . . . :S.ad8!, rather than 20 . . . ctJ f3t 2 1 .ctJxf3 exf3 22.g3 �xb2 23.:S.cd 1 when White has some compensation for the pawn.

220 4 . .if4

20 .. .'�xf4 2 1 .°We3 ih6 Black has the advantage.

18 • • • i.d7 19.ltJe4 'Wxh4 20.f"3 White's play looks a bit crazy, but his active

minor pieces provide some compensation for the pawn.

20 ••. 'itihs 21.'itig2 f5 22J�h1 Lysyj - Salem, Biel 2009. Here Black should

have gone for the calm approach:

a b c d e f g h

22 • • • °WdSN

In the game he needlessly sacrificed material with 22 . . . fxe4? and went on to lose.

23.gxfS Worse is 23.li:lc5?! fxg4 24.fxg4 ic8 when

White's compensation is questionable.

23 . • • i.xfS We have reached a rich position in which

White has sufficient compensation to maintain the balance, but not enough to claim an advantage.

C2232) 15J�xc6

a b c d e f g h

This exchange sacrifice is well-known, having most famously been used by Karpov in the eleventh game of his third match against Kasparov from London/Leningrad 1 986.

15 • • • bxc6 According to the latest theory this is the

soundest response.

Kasparov preferred l 5 . . . exf4 1 6.�c7 and the game was eventually drawn after both sides missed some chances. Modern analysis indicates that White has good chances to obtain an advantage here.

16.ltJe7t 'itih8 17.ltJxc6

Chapter 1 7 - 9. 'Li f3 22 1

The careless 1 7.'Llxe5? does not lead to a transposition- in view of 17 . . . i.xe5! 1 8.'Llxc6 Wd2, and after the further 1 9.1Mfxd2 'Llxd2 20.i.xe5t f6 21 .i.c3 'Llxfl Black had won a second exchange and obtained a technically winning position in I. Sokolov - Shirov, Wijk aan Zee 1 999

17 ... Wb6 18 . .!l'lcxe5 White must avoid 1 8 .'Ll fXe5? f6 when he

loses material.

19.i.xe6 Other options are not dangerous, but still we

need to examine a few of them.

19.'Llc4 Wa6 20.'Lld4 i.d5 2 Uk l Elac8 gave Black a fine position in Shliperman - Ashley, Manhattan 1 999.

19 .'Lld4 i.xb3 20.'Llxb3 We6 By chasing the enemy knight away from the centre, Black easily solves his problems. 2 1 .'Ll f3 Elac8 22.Eldl Elfd8 23.Elxd8t Elxd8 24.'Llfd4 This was Karlzen - Carlhammar, Gothenburg 2004, and now the natural 24 . . . Wd5+N would have retained all the pluses of Black's position.

19 .1Mfc2 i.xb3 20.Wxe4 After 20.axb3 Wb7 Black can feel happy playing against the weakened queenside pawns.

20 . . . i.e6 2 1 .'Llg5 'itig8! The best defensive move.

22.'Llc6 i.xa2 23.i.d6 This interesting position occurred in Gavrikov - Kochyev, Tallinn 1 987. The white knights look quite dangerous, but Black could have solved all his problems with the following precise continuation:

a b c d e f g h 23 . . . Elae8!N 24.Wa4 i.d5! 25.'Lle7t Elxe7 26.i.xe7 Elb8

Black may be a pawn down, but his bishops are superb.

27.i.a3 Wb7 28.Wf4 h6 29.'Ll f3 Elc8 Black has full compensation.

19 ... Wxe6 20.Wc2 This is White's main attempt to fight for the

advantage.

I would also like to mention: 20.b3 Elac8 2 1 .1Mfd3 (After 2 1 .'Llc4 Elfd8 22.'Llg5 'Llxg5 23.ixg5 Eld5 only Black can be better, Heinig - Schulze, Bad Koenigshofen 2007.) This position was reached in Tarczykowski -Bugalski, Sepolno Kraj 2006, and now Black could have exploited the recent weakening of the c3-square by means of:

222 4.�f4

a b c d e f g h 2 1 . . .ll'ic3!N 22.ll'ig5 Vffe7 23.Vfid6 Vfib? Black has the better chances.

8 � �� m�,d• 7 � - - · � · 6 , , , , ,%U �UiU'i�� 5 �� %� %� 4 ·-·-il�·-3 � u fttt:J� 8 2 3 '�1u,,,, ,%�r-1 , , , , ,%� �.i,

a b c d e f g h

20 ... f5! This active move is stronger than 20 . . . ll'if6,

as confirmed by both analysis and tournament praxis.

21.Vlia4 With this move White defends the a2-pawn

while at the same time gaining some space on the queenside.

2 1 .ll'ic4 This knight retreat is playable, but it is hardly dangerous for Black.

2 1 . . .Ei:ac8 22.b3 Ei:fd8 Black is unlikely to experience any problems after deploying his pieces so harmoniously.

23 .E!:ci mgs

By removing the king from the long diagonal Black stops his opponent's main idea of ll'id4 followed by f3. Also worthy of consideration is 23 ... Vff e?!?N 24.ll'id4 Vffh4!?.

24.�e5N The passive 24.Ei:e 1 ? occurred in Shryrenkov - Grandelius, Pardubice 2007, and here Black should have switched to active play on the kingside by means of 24 . . . Vff e?!N 25 . .ih2 g5! when his chances are higher. After the superior text move I discovered the following beautiful line:

24 . . . .ixe5 25.ll'ifxe5 Ei:d2! 26.Vfib 1 Ei:e2 27.f3 Vffe7 28.fxe4 Vfig5 29.ll'ig4! fxg4 30.@fl gxh3 3 1 .mxe2 Ei:d8 32.gxh3 Vffg2t 33.mel Vfigl t=

We finish with a common scenario, as accurate play from both sides has resulted in a draw by perpetual check.

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 7 - 9 . ttJ f3 223

21. .. ElacS I do not see much point in entering the

complications resulting from 2 l . . . g5 22.ih2 g4 23.hxg4 fxg4 24.'Wxe4 gxf3 25.gxf3.

22.�xa7 One other game continued:

22.llld4 'We8 23.lllec6? With this unfortunate move White self-pins his knight and enables Black to generate strong play without any difficulties. The correct continuation was: 23.'Wxe8 Elfxe8 24.lllec6 ixd4!? (I like this move, although there is also nothing wrong with the calm 24 . . . g5 25 .ih2 a6.) 25.lllxd4 'itig8 Black is doing fine in this endgame; his plans include . . . g5, . . . f4 and . . . lllf6-d5.

23 ... g5! 24.ih2 f4 Advancing the kingside pawns is often a strong plan for Black in this variation. 24 . . . Elf6!?N 25.Elcl f4 was also very strong.

25.exf4 gxf4 White is in serious trouble, Kosyrev - Sakaev,

Internet 2004.

22 ... ElaS 23.�b7 �xa2 24.c!lid4 Ela? The position is equal, Meins - Holzke,

Germany 1 999.

C2233) 15 . .ih2

a b c d e f g h

This calm retreat has been White's most popular choice.

15 ... .ie6 Black has experimented with several

alternatives, but I strongly prefer the old and classical approach. Now we reach a final division between C22331) 16.Elxc6 and C22332) 16.B:fdl .

16 .lllc3?! is unimpressive: 1 6 . . . ixb3 1 7.axb3 lllc5! Immediately attacking the newly-created weakness. 1 8.'Wc4 'Wb4! 1 9.'Wxb4 lllxb4 20.ixe5 lllxb3 21 .hg? 'itixg7 22.Elcdl Elfd8+ Dziuba - Swinkels, Deizisau 2009. Black has the better chances in view of his potential to create a passed pawn on the queenside.

The simplest reaction to 1 6.'Wc4 would be 1 6 . . . lllf6 1 7.e4 (or 1 7.lllxf6t ixf6 1 8.'Wc2 ixb3 1 9.'Wxb3 'Wb6=) 1 7 . . . Elfd8 and here White has nothing better than 1 8.Elfdl , transposing to line C22332 below.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

C22331) 16.B:xc6

a b c d e f g h

We have already encountered this thematic exchange sacrifice, but this time the slight change in the position leads me to prefer a different reaction.

224 4.if4

16 ... i.xdS! 1 6 . . . bxc6 is less appealing, as after 17. ltJ e 7t

Wh8 1 8.ixe6 fxe6 1 9.ltJxc6 Wxa2 20.ltJfxe5 we reach a rather unbalanced position in which I prefer White's chances.

17.i.xdS �xdS 18Jk7 l'fac8 19.�c2 This position occurred in Soln - Perus, Bled

200 1 , and now Black could have obtained a slight advantage by means of:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

19 .. J;xc7N 20.�xc7 f6!+ White's position is a bit uncomfortable due

to his misplaced bishop.

C22332) 16.:!Udl

a b c d e f g h

White brings his final piece into play.

16 .. JUd8 17.�c4 This has been an almost universal choice. 17.We 1 has been tried in a couple of games,

but White cannot expect to achieve much with this timid move. 17 . . . Wxel t ( l 7 . . . Wf8!?N also looks interesting) 1 8.ltJxel lDa5 19.ltJc?? A serious mistake. (White should have opted for 1 9.ltJe?t Wf8 20.Ei:xd8t Ei:xd8 2 l .i.xe6 fxe6 22.b4 Wxe7 23.bxa5 ltJd2, although even here his position is a bit unpleasant.) 19 . . . ixb3 20.ltJxa8 Ei:xdl 0-1 Urday Caceres - Rytshagov, Yerevan 1 996.

17 • . . c!llf6 18.e4 gac8

a b c d e f g h

19.c!llgS This is the consistent and principled follow

up to White's previous play, and is justified by some tactical ideas.

The queenless position resulting from 1 9.Wc5 Wxc5 20.Ei:xc5 is perfectly playable for Black, who can adopt a concrete approach to force further simplifications: 20 . . . ltJxe4 2 l .Ei:xc6 Ei:xc6! 22.ltJe?t Wf8 23.ltJxc6 Ei:xd l t 24.ixd l bxc6 25 .ic2 id5! This seems like the easiest solution. 26.ixe5 ixe5 27.ltJxe5 1his position occurred in Cardon - Goormachtigh, Sas van Gent 1 988, and now after 27 . . . ltJc5N 28.a3 We? 29.Wfl ltJe6 Black's more active pieces easily make up for the slight weakness

Chapter 1 7 - 9.ll'if3 225

of his queens!de pawns. Overall his position is slightly preferable, although it should be a draw of course.

19 ... �d4 20.�e7t f8 Black must certainly avoid 20 . . . 'it>h8??

21 .Wxe6! fxe6 22.�£7 mate!

21.�xe6t xe7 22.�xdS �hc4 23.hc4 The position appears wildly complicated,

but like many such variations, it has all been analysed out to a forced draw.

a b c d e f g h

23 ... �xe4 24.�xf7 Wb6! There is not much that White can do about

the impending raid on the fl-square.

25.�xe5 It is not too late for White to go astray:

25.ixe5?? �f3t! 26.gxf3 Wxf2t 27. 'it>h l Wxf3t 28.'it>h2 Wf2t 29.'it>h l ixe5 30.ll'ixe5 ll'ig3#

25 ... he5 26.he5 �f3t Leading to a trivial draw.

27.gxf3 Wxf'2t 2s.h1 Wxf3t 29.h2 Wflt 30.hI Wf3t l/2-l/2

Timman - lvanchuk, Hilversum (5) 1 99 1 . So far five subsequent games have ended in the same way.

Conclusion The 9.�f3 system has been White's most popular method of handling the 4.if4 variation. White develops his pieces classically and will usually focus his energy towards the centre, although we have seen over the course of the chapter that the battle might play out across any and all areas of the board.

The unusual options of A) 1 0.�b5 and B) 1 0.Wb3 should not be ignored, although neither will present much of a threat against a well-prepared opponent. The main line of C) 1 0.ib3 is more serious, and leads to rich positions in which both sides will face plenty of challenges. The list of variations requiring particularly careful study involves the tricky C2 1 ) 13 .ll'ig5, the presently fashionable C222) 14.g4!?, the two versions of the thematic exchange sacrifice, C2232) 1 5.:!'i:xc6 and C2233 1 ) 1 6.:!'i:xc6, and finally the classical C22332) 1 6.:!=i:fdl which can lead to a forced draw.

We have reached the end of our investigation into the entire scheme of development starting with the move 4.if4. The theoretical verdict looks perfectly healthy for Black at present, and although some improvements and refinements will inevitably be found for both sides, I am confident that the Grilnfeld will continue to prove its soundness.

4.igS Sidelines

Variation Index 1 .d4 lDf6 2.c4 g6 3.lDc3 d5 4 . .ig5

4 ... lDe4 A) 5.lDf3 B) 5.h4 C) 5.cxd5 lDxg5 6.h4 lDe4! 7.lDxe4 �xd5 8.lDc3 �a5

Cl) 9.�a4t C2) 9.e3 C3) 9.lDf3 C4) 9.h5

D) 5.lDxe4 dxe4 D I) 6.�a4t D2) 6.f3 D3) 6.e3 D4) 6.�d2 .ig7 7.e3 c5

D41) 8.lDe2 D42) 8.d5 �b6!

D421) 9.0-0-0 D422) 9.�bl

a b c d e f g h

227 228 229 230 231 232 233 233 234 234 235 237 238 239 239 240


1.d4 l!Jf6 2.c� g6 3.f!Jc3 d5 4.i.g5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

4 ... l!Je4 This is the main line and undoubtedly Black's

most principled reply. White has a number of possible responses; 5 . .if4 is the subject of Chapter 1 9, but the big main line is 5 . .ih4 which will be considered in Chapters 20-22.

In the present chapter we will deal with the relatively minor, though still significant options of A) 5.l!JO, B) 5.cxd5, C) 5.h4 and D) 5.l!Jxe4.

A) 5.l!JO

and indeed Black obtains a comfortable game with minimal fuss.

5 ... l!Jxg5 6.l!Jxg5 dxc4 Having obtained the advantage of the two

bishops so early in the game, Black begins to open the centre.

7.�a4t 7.e3 may be a slight improvement, although

Black should have few problems in any case, for instance: 7 . . . e5 8.tt:lf3 exd4 9.tt:lxd4 .ig7 1 O . .ixc4 0-0 1 1 .0-0 Illichmann - L. Hoffmann, Hambuehren 2002, and now after l l . . . c6N or l l . . . tt:ld7N Black can look towards the middlegame with confidence thanks to his strong pair of bishops.

7 ... l!Jd7 8.�xc4 e6 9.l!JO i.g7 10.e3 1 0.tt:lb5 can be met strongly by 10 . . . c5!

l l .dxc5 (or l 1 .tt:ld6t 'itle7 1 2.dxc5 .ixb2+) 1 1 . . .0-0 1 2.0-0-0 a6 13.tt:ld6 'i!tia5 when Black has the initiative.

10 ... 0-0 I Li.el This position occurred in Lautner - Jansa,

Passau 1 999, and here it would have been good for Black to play:

It is hard to imagine that White can achieve 1 1 . .. eS!N much by giving up the dark-squared bishop, With the possible continuation:

228 4.ig5

12.d5 Otherwise Black will improve the scope of

his powerful bishop by taking on d4.

12 ... �b6! 13.�b3 13 .Wfc5 is well met by 1 3 . . . e4 14.tt:ld4 :8:e8

intending . . . :8:e5.

13 ... e4 14.�xe4 �xd5i Black's bishop pair gives him the better

chances.

B) 5.h4

a b c d e f g h

Initially I was not going to cover this move, but when I saw that Jobava had played it recently I decided to pay more attention to it.

5 ... i.g7 Amazingly this natural move has only been

played a couple of times. The whole variation is quite rare, but in the majority of games Black has exchanged on c3 or g5.

6.cxd5 �xc3 7.bxc3 1Mfxd5 8.e3 8.Wfb3 was tried in Naumov - Kanter, Kazan

2008, and here I like 8 . . . ie6!N when I do not see how White can pose his opponent any problems, for instance 9.Wfxd5 ixd5 1 0.f3 f5! ( 1 0 . . . ic4!?) l l .e3 e5 and Black has an excellent game.

a b c d e f g h

8 ... c5N A natural improvement, since White

managed to obtain a slight plus in the following game: 8 . . . h6 9.if4 e5 1 0.ixe5 ixe5 l l .dxe5 Wfxe5 1 2.Wfd4 tt:lc6 1 3.ib5! id7 14.tt:lf3 Wfxd4 1 5 .cxd4t Jobava - Safarli, Aix-les-Bains 20 1 1 .

9.�f3 cxd4! 9 . . . tt:lc6 gives White the extra option of

1 0.Wfb3!?, as well as 1 0.ie2 when 1 0 . . . cxd4 l l .cxd4 reaches the main line.

10.cxd4 �c6 1 I.i.e2 1Mf a5t! With this move Black highlights the negative

side of White's fifth move.

12.�d2 12.tt:ld2 is well met by 12 . . . h6 1 3.if4 e5!

l 4.dxe5 0-0 when Black has the better game.


12 ... �xd2t �3.tllxd2 In the analogous position that may arise

after the main line of 5 .�h4, White can obtain a pleasant endgame after recapturing with his king. In the present position the same idea suffers from a flaw: 1 3.�xd2 f6! Black can take advantage of the fact that the bishop is still on g5 . 14.�f4 e5! 15 .�g3 exd4 1 6.tllxd4 tllxd4 17.exd4 �e6+ White will have to play carefully to equalize.

13 ... eS! This freeing move is a key idea for Black in

this type of pawn structure.

14.tlle4 1 4.dxe5 �xe5 1 5.i"lbl h6 1 6.�f4 �xf4

17.exf4 tlld4! is good for Black.

14 ... ie6 I have chosen to focus on this move, although

Black has other reliable options as well.

15.gbl

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

15 ... h6! This move leads to mild complications which

soon peter out to equality.

16.dS 1 6.�f6 is also not unfavourable to Black:

1 6 .. . 0-0 ( 16 . . . �xf6!? 1 7.d5! �e7! 1 8.dxe6 f5

leads to a highly unclear position.) 17.�xg7 �xg7 18 .tll c5 exd4 1 9.tllxe6t fxe6 20.i"lxb7t i"lf7 The endgame is drawish.

16 ... i.xdS 17.tllf6t i.xf6 18.i.xfG 0-0 19.gxb7

a b c d e f g h

19 ... tlld4! The most accurate way to force a draw.

20.gd7 hg2 21 .ggl tllf3t 22.La La 23.gxg6t

White had better take the draw while he has the chance.

23 ... fxg6 24.gg7t= The game ends in perpetual check.

5 4 3 2

C) 5.c:xd5

a b c d e f g h

230 4.i.g5

This is not fully correct, but it could be an effective surprise weapon if Black is unprepared.

5 ... lllxg5 6.h4 .!lle4! This important move takes the sting out of

White's idea.

7 . .!llxe4 fixd5 I do not believe White has enough activity to

compensate for the absence of his dark-squared bishop, which is a key piece in the Griinfeld.

8 . .!ll c3 8 .Wd3

This was tested in one recent game against a world-class player.

8 . . . i.g7 9.tt:lf3 0-0N Black is also okay after the game continuation of 9 . . . tt:lc6, but this move interferes with my principal concept of preparing the . . . c5 advance in order to activate the Griinfeld bishop. The game continued 1 0.tt:lc3 Wa5 1 1 .e3 0-0 1 2.Wb5! when White had a reasonable position, Ezat - Jakovenko, Bursa 20 1 0. After my suggested improvement, I examined the following line:

1 0.h5 This must be the critical test of Black's decision to castle.

1 0 . . . l"i:d8 1 1 .tt:lc3 Wa5 1 2.hxg6 hxg6 1 3.0-0-0

In this position 13 .Wb5 is less effective in view of 13 . . . Wxb5 14.tt:lxb5 tt:la6! intending . . . c5 when Black stands better.

1 3 . . . c5 1 4.d5 tt:la6 Black has the makings of a powerful initiative

on the queenside.

8 ... fia5 White's main options are Cl) 9.fia4t, C2)

9.e3, C3) 9.lllf3 and C4) 9.h5.

Cl) 9.fia4t

a b c d e f g h

The queen exchange is not really consistent with the overall spirit of the present variation, but it has been tested in a few games.

9 ... fixa4 10.lllxa4 White's opening play has not been particularly

threatening, but if he can develop smoothly and stabilize the centre then he might obtain a decent position with chances to press on the c-file. Fortunately Black has a convincing way to prevent any of this from happening.

10 ... .!llc6! 1 1 ..!llf3 e5! With this key move Black ensures that his

dark-squared bishop will enter the game.

12.lllxe5 1 2.dxe5 i.g7 also looks promising for

Black.


12 ... llixd4 �3.0-0-0 llie6 14.e3 ig7 15.llif3

We have been following the game Meduna - Votava, Lazne Bohdanec 1 996. At this point the best way for Black to proceed with his development would have been:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

15 ... id7N 16.llic3 llicsi Black's strong bishop pair gives him the

better chances.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

C2) 9.e3

a b c d e f g h

9 ... ig7 10.ic4 The most common continuation is 1 0.h5

which transposes to variation C4 beginning with 9.h5. In the present section we will deal with a few minor lines.

1 0.ctJf3 reaches the note to White's tenth move in line C3 below.

1 0.Wb3 0-0 1 Lh5 c5 In positions in which White has allowed his dark-squared bishop to be exchanged for a knight, a good rule of thumb is that if Black can arrange to attack the centre with . . . c5, without suffering any immediate consequences, then he will almost always obtain an excellent game.

1 2.hxg6 hxg6 1 3.Wb5 Objectively this may well be the best move, but it is obvious that Black's bishop pair stands him in excellent stead for the endgame.

13 . . . Wxb5 14.ixb5 a6 1 5 .t2J d5

a b c d e f g h 1 5 . . . :!"i:d8!

This strong move secures Black's advantage. 1 6.ic4

The tactical justification for Black's play can be seen in the following variation: 1 6.ctJxe?t 'it>f8 1 7.ctJxc8 axb5 1 8.t2Jb6 :!"i:a6 1 9.dxc5 ixb2 20.:!"i:b l ic3t 2 1 .'it>fl :!"i:xa2+ The text move is not much ofan improvement for White though . . .

16 . . . ctJc6 17.dxc5 ixb2 Black is clearly better, Gavariev - Brendel, St

Petersburg 2006.

10 ... cS Once again this central strike offers excellent

prospects to Black.

232

a b c d e f g h

4.i.g5

18.@bl i.f5t 19.@al gads+ Black keeps everything under control, and

his extra pawn and bishop pair give him excellent winning chances.

8 7 6 5

C3) 9.tlif3

1 1.'!Wb3 0-0 12.tlige2 cxd4 13.exd4 tlic6 4 14.hS 3

At first glance it appears as though White has some attacking chances, but in reality he cannot create any serious threats as Black's mighty dark-squared bishop controls all the important squares.

14 ... tlixd4 15.tlixd4 hd4 16.hxg6 hxg6 17.0-0-0

This position was reached in Canal -Gligoric, Dubrovnik 1 950, and here the most accurate continuation would have been:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

17 ... 'IWcS!N Maintaining the bishop's strong central

position while eyeing the king on the c-file.

2 1

a b c d e f g h

9 ... i.g7 10.'!Wa4t White has also tried (without much success):

1 0.e3 c5 1 1 .i.c4 ( 1 1 .i.b5tN should be met by 1 1 . . .li:Jd?) l 1 . . .cxd4 12.li:Jxd4 li:Jc6 Black already has the upper hand. 1 3.li:Jde2 0-0 14.h5 li:Je5 15 .�b3 At this point a draw was agreed in Mititelu - Sehlstedt, Varna 1 958, but of course after 15 . . . li:Jxc4N 16.�xc4 i.e6 17.�e4 l':l:fd8 Black is clearly better.

10 ... '!Wxa4 l 1 .tlixa4 Here it looks interesting for Black to try:

1 I ...tlid7!?N Black develops modestly and leaves the light

squared bishop at home, hoping to exploit the power of the bishop pair later in the game.

In the following game Black equalized without difficulty, but never had a chance to take over the initiative either: 1 1 . . .i.g4 12.e3 li:J d7 1 3.l':kl c6 1 4.liJc5 lLixc5 1 5 .�xcS i.xf3 1 6.gxf3 h5 17.f4 e6 1 8.i.g2 Wd7 = Voloshin - Smejkal, Mlada Boleslav 1 994.


12.:gcl c6

8 7 6

a b c d e f g h

Black is ready to break open the centre with . . . e5, so the following line looks natural:

13. CD c5 CDxc5 l 4.:gxc5 ie6 l 5.a3 id5 l 6.e3 0-0-0

The position is close to equal, but Black can still hope to make something of his bishop pair.

8 7 6

C4) 9.h5

a b c d e f g h

9 ... ig7 I0.'11Nd2 White has also failed to obtain much success

with other moves.

1 0.h6 .�.f6 1 1 .e4 c5 1 2.ib5t llic6 1 3 .llige2 cxd4 14. llixd4 0-0 1 5. lli de2 Eld8+ It is

clear that White's opening has been a failure, Shianovsky - Suetin, Kiev 1 958.

1 0.e3 c5 1 1 .hxg6 hxg6 1 2.ElxhSt i.xh8 1 3 .Elcl cxd4 14.exd4 llic6 1 5 .d5 lli d4 1 6.llige2 This position was reached in Meister - Michaelsen, Germany 1 992, and now the simple 1 6 . . . llif5N 17.�d2 i.d7 would have given Black a clear advantage.

10 .•. c5 l l .dxc5 CDc6 12.e4 ie6 Black has easy play, and in the following

game the absence of White's dark-squared bishop soon made itself felt.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

D) 5.CDxe4 dxe4

234 4.�g5

This vanauon leads to rather irregular positions - it is not often that one encounters such a pawn structure in the early :;tages of the game. From the present position White has tried practically every legal move, but I only consider the following four to be worthy of serious investigation: DI) 6.Yffa4t, D2) 6.£3, D3) 6.e3 and D4) 6.Yff d2.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

DI) 6.Yffa4t

This move has seldom been played, but according to the database it is one of the very few options from the previous position to have yielded a score of at least 50% for White. Nevertheless if Black responds correctly he has nothing to fear.

6 . . • .td7!? The most popular reply has been 6 . . . c6, but

the text move seems like the simplest route to a good game.

7.Yffc2 Another game continued: 7.Wb3 �g7 8.e3 c5

9.'Lle2?! Wuensch - Auburger, Mittelfranken 2009, and here Black could have obtained an excellent position with 9 . . . Wa5t!N 1 0.Wc3 Wxc3t l l .bxc3 'Llc6 when he has easy play against the doubled pawns.

The present posltlon was reached in Hirn - Reitzler, Fuerth 2000, and here Black should have played a strong temporary pawn sacrifice:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

7 ... i.g7!N 8.Yffxe4 8.e3 c5 9.ctJe2 Wa5t! gives Black a great

position.

8 • • • c5! Black's lead in development gives him a

strong initiative, for example:

9.dxc5 hb2 10.:!'!dI tLia6 White's position is already becoming

precarious.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

D2) 6.f3

a b c d e f g h


This move js less than impressive, as White's centre will quickly come under fire.

6 ... ig7 7.e3 c5 8.fxe4 8.tlie2 is not much of an improvement:

8 . . . exf3 9.gxf3 cxd4 1 O.exd4 (1 O.tlixd4?? �a5t-+ Weirowski - Bornschein, Kiel 2000) 10 ... ctJc6 l l .�e3 0-0 Black is already more comfortable in view of White's weakened kingside, Theodorakis - Gustafsson, Ano Liosia 2000.

8 ... cxd4 8 . . . �a5t is also good.

9.exd4 �xd4 10.�xd4 ixd4 1 1.0-0-0 'lic6 12.'lif3

This position was reached in Br. Miller -G. Nunes, Sackville 200 1 , and here I found a modest improvement.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

12 ... ib6N In the game Black opted for l 2 . . . �g7 and

was doing fine, but I prefer to post the bishop on a different diagonal.

13.ie2 ie6; Black's position is preferable in view of

his more compact pawn structure and active prospects on the queenside.

D3) 6.e3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

This natural move has been White's most popular choice.

6 ... ig7 7. lli e2 Once again it is risky for White to go after

the central pawn: 7.�c2?! c5 8.0-0-0 cxd4 9.�xe4 (No better is 9.exd4 �a5! 1 0.�e3 �xa2 1 l .�xe4 llic6 1 2.�b l �a5 1 3.tlif3 ttJ b4 when Black obtained a decisive attack in Pirrung - Heinelt, Germany 1 989.) 9 . . . ctJc6 1 0.exd4

a b c d e f g h Now in Palsson - Helgadottir, Reykjavik

2008, Black could have seized the initiative with 1 0 . . . �a5!N 1 l .d5 �xa2 1 2.�b l �a5! when White's vulnerable king gives him problems.

7 ... c5

236 4.i.g5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

8.�a4t White's best continuation is 8.Wd2, which

transposes to variation D4 1 beginning with 6.Wd2. The text move is the most significant independent try.

8 ... i.d7 9.�a3 cxd4 IO.lt)xd4 1 0.exd4 tllc6 1 1 .E:dl occurred in Granda

Zuniga - Kekki, Embalse 1 98 1 , and here Black missed a strong idea in 1 1 . . .aS!N intending . . . tllb4 when it is hard to see how White completes development.

The present position was reached in Guilbert - Plate!, Le Touquet 2005. At this point Black should have developed naturally by means of:

10 ... lt)c6N This should ensure a comfortable game, as

shown by the following analysis.

1 I .lt)xc6 i.xc6 12.i.e2 I also examined: 12.E:d l Wc7 1 3.�f4 (White

cannot play 1 3.�e2? in view of 1 3 . . . WeS 14.�h4 gS l 5 .�g3 Wxb2 winning a pawn.) 1 3 . . . Wb6 14.b4 Wa6! 1 5 .Wxa6 �c3t l6.<;tie2 bxa6 1 7.a3 aS 1 8.bS �d7 Black has strong counterplay on the queenside.

12 ... 0-0 13,gbl 1 3.�xe7? �xb2 only leads to trouble for

White, and 13 .0-0? allows 1 3 . . . Wd2! winning material. Therefore White has to spend time securing his queenside before completing development.

13 ... ges 14.0-0 �d2 15.gfel

16.i.h4 After 16.�xe7 �xb2 White's split queenside

pawns might become weak in the long run.

16 ... g5 17.i.g3 a5 Black has a good game.


D4) 6.�cl2

8 i. �.i.�-� �.i 1 lfi"W'" ,%-,,�� 'i 6 'n 'n 'nf� 5 � �- �- �, 4 �.�.:-� '� 3 �0=-� ,"n0:n0" 2 b r� � b r� b r�

�,,,,%.,,, , ,%m�m� a b c d e f g h

This has only been White's second most popular move, although it often leads to the same positions as 6.e3. The present move order has been the most common choice amongst higher-rated players.

6 . .. i.g7 7.e3 A frequently-played alternative is:

7.0-0-0 It looks logical to prevent ih6 by means of:

7 ... h6 8.ie3 Another option is: 8.if4 'ilc6! Usually it would not be a good idea to block the c-pawn, but due to the position of the white bishop it makes more sense to prepare . . . e5. 9.d5 (After 9.e3 e5 1 0.dxe5 \!;lfxd2t 1 l .�xd2 'ilxe5 Black has an excellent game.) 9 . . . 'ile5 1 0.\!;lfc2 Now in the game M. Brodie -Martinovsky, USA 1 994, Black could have ventured a promising pawn sacrifice:

1 0 . . . 0-0!N l l .ixe5 ( l l .\!;lfxe4? if5) 1 l . . .ixe5 12.\!;lfxe4 ig7� The powerful darksquared bishop gives excellent compensation.

8 . . . b5! This energetic move enables Black to obtain promising play on the queenside.

9.f3 9.cxb5 a6 gives Black a promising initiative.

9 . . . bxc4 1 0.fxe4 This position was reached in Kempinski - Urban, Lubniewice 1 995. At this point itlooks good for Black to play:

a b c d e f g h 1 0 . . . 'ild7N l l .ClJf3 ib7 1 2.e5 'ilb6+

I would evaluate Black's chances as somewhat higher in this complex middlegame.

7 . .. c5 In this position White's main options are

D41) 8.tlJe2 and D42) 8.d5.

238 4.�g5

D41) 8.tl::ie2

10.exd4?! Recapturing with the e-pawn will

make it harder for White to complete his development.

1 0.ltJxd4 would have been the lesser evil, although Black has no problems here either: 1 0 . . . 0ic6!?N (There is also 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 .l"ldl , K. Savage - Kern, e-mail 2002, l l . ..g5N 12.ig3 Wb6 with unclear play.) l l .ltJxc6 (Too risky is 1 1 .0-0-0?! Wb6 when the white king can hardly feel safe on the queenside.) l 1 . . .Wxd2t 1 2.<jfxd2 bxc6 13 .<jfc2 a5= Black's pressure on the long diagonal fully compensates for his structural defects.

10 ... 0-0 1 1.dS This seems to be the best way to solve the

problem of the d4-pawn, but Black is well placed to meet it.

1 1. .. gS 12 . .ig3 f5! This active approach is fully justified.

13.f4

l 3.ixb8 would have been an obvious concession, and after l 3 . . . Elxb8 l 4.ltJc3 Wb6 Black has a clear advantage.

14.fxeS The alternatives are much worse, for instance

1 4.dxe6? Wxd2t 1 5 .<jfxd2 ixe6 1 6.ltJc3 Eld8t 1 7.<jfcl ltJc6 and Black has a huge advantage.

14 ... f4 15.tl::ixf4 Giving up the bishop is much worse: 1 5.ifL.?

e3 16.ixe3 fxe3 17.Wxe3 Wa5t! 1 8.ltJc3 Elf5-+

15 ... gxf4 16 . .ixf4 .ig4 17.h3 We have been following the game Golod -

Khmelniker, Israel 20 10 , and now Black could have gained the upper hand as follows:

a b c d e f g h


17 ... i.h5!N J8.i.e2 1 8.e6 is unsatisfactory in view of

1 8 . . . ixb2!.

18 ... i.xe2 19.'it>xe2 Wfc7! 20.!!acl .L:e5 21..L:h6

From a materialistic point of view the situation is more or less balanced, but the quality of Black's position is higher. A logical continuation would be:

21..J:U6 22.!!hfl !!g6 23.g4 llld7� Black's extra knight is more valuable than

White's three pawns.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c

D42) 8.d5

e g

8 ... \Wb6! With this strong move Black forces his

opponent to decide how to deal with the threat to the b2-pawn. The alternatives are weaker, for instance 8 . . . tll d7 9.tlle2 tlle5 1 0.tllc3 f5 1 l .ie2 and White has reasonable chances to fight for the advantage.

We will examine two responses: D421} 9.0-0--0 and D422) 9.!!bl .

D421) 9.0-0-0

9 ... llla6! This strong move gives Black promising play

on the queenside.

10.llle2 In the following game White quickly got

into trouble: 1 0.f3?! tllb4 1 1 .�b l h6 1 2.ih4 g5 1 3.ig3 if5+ H. Meyer - Lihtonen, corr. 1 957.

10 ... lllb4!N This tempting idea is an obvious improve

ment over 1 0 . . . ig4 1 l .a3 h6 1 2.if4 when the position was rather unclear in Groszpeter - Pridorozhni, Zalakaros 1 999.

240 4 . .ig5

1 1 . l!J c3 .ig4! Exploiting the fact that a bishop exchange

on e2 would leave the d3-square too weak.

12.gel Wa5 13.a3 White has no comfortable way to defend

the a2-pawn, because 13 .Wbl runs into the following interesting line: 13 . . . tt'lxa2! 14.tt'lxe4 tt'l b4 1 5 .tt'lc3 h6 16.�h4 E:d8 17.�g3

a b c d e f g h 17 . . . �d7! The bishop is heading for a4 and b3, from where it will create decisive threats. 18 .�d3 �a4 1 9.�c7! This is the only way to survive, but after 1 9 . . . Wxc7 20.tt'lxa4 b5! White faces a powerful attack.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

13 ... ixc3 The bishop was a strong piece, but it is worth

taking the opportunity to weaken the enemy pawns.

14.bxc3 l!Jd3t! 14 ... Wxa3t is less convincing: 15 .'Wb2 '!Wxb2t

16.Wxb2 tt'ld3t 17.�xd3 exd3 18 .f3 �d7 19.e4 �a4 20.E:al �c2 21 .E:a5 Wd7 22.E:xcS a6 23.�e3 E:hc8 24.E:xc8 E:xc8 25.cS White is OK.

15.ixd3 exd3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

Black has the advantage.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

D422) 9.gbl

a b c d e f g h

This is a more reliable continuation, but it is not particularly threatening.

9 ... l!Jd7 10.l!Je2 l!Je5 1 I.l!Jc3 h6 I like the idea of driving the bishop away

from the h4-d8 diagonal in order to remove


the pressure _on the e7-pawn. Another idea is l l . .. f5 12.ie2 id? 1 3.0-0 if6 with an unclear position.

12.ih4 g5 13.ig3 if5 14.ie2

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

a b c d e f g h

18 ... h5! This is the correct moment for Black to

commence his kingside counterplay.

19.ixe5 l 9.h3 h4 20.ixe5 ixe5 2 1 .El:cl El:fd8 leads

14 ... �g6!?N to similar play. This is my new idea. 14 . . . 0-0 was played in

Golod - Fercec, Rijeka 20 1 0, but here I am 19 • . . ixe5 20.a4 id7 21.a5 h4 slightly worried by 1 5 .h4N when White might Black's chances are not worse in this obtain some attacking chances. complicated position.

15.0-0 IfWhite refrains from this move, for instance

with l 5 .h4?!, then he will have to deal with the consequences of 1 5 . . . lllf3t! 1 6.gxf3 exf3 when Black has good chances to take over the initiative.

15 ... 0-0 Black is not yet ready to embark on a kingside

offensive with 1 5 . . . h5?! in view of l 6.b4! cxb4 l 7.lllb5!t when White is better.

16.b4 cxb4 l 6 . . . lllf3t? would be a mistake due to 17 .gxf3

exf3 l 8.ixf3 ixc3 l 9.'\Wxc3 ixb 1 20.bxc5 when White has excellent compensation for the exchange.

17Jhb4 b6 18.t[)b5

Conclusion In this chapter we have dealt with all of White's sensible options after 4.ig5 llle4 which do not involve retreating his bishop. The rare options of A) 5 .lllf3 and B) 5 .h4 should not cause Black too much concern, although the latter is not a bad move at all. The temporary piece sacrifice C) 5.cxd5 is tricky, but we saw that Black's bishop pair should stand him in excellent stead.

Of the four options examined in the present chapter, variation D with 5 .lllxe4 dxe4 is by far the most significant. The resulting positions with doubled e-pawns are a bit irregular, but we saw that in most lines Black can obtain good counterplay by means of an early . . . c5, making full use of the Griinfeld bishop.

4.ig5 s.if4

Variation Index 1 .d4 li:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3.li:Jc3 d5 4 . .igS li:Je4 5 . .if4

s ... li:Jxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7.e3 c5 8.li:Jf3 0-0 A) 9.B:bl 245 B) 9.�b3 246 C) 9.cxd5 cxd4 10.cxd4 Wi'xd5 1 1..ie2 li:Jc6 12.0-0 .ifS 13.�a4 �a5 247

Cl) 14.�xaS 250 C2) 14.�b3 251

note to 7.e3 A) after l 6J''\b4

a b c d e f g h 8 . . . igraS!N 1 6 . . . igrdS!N

C2) note to 1 6.ic4

8 � � � J�• 7 � , • • ,�, 6 iR'i)R Ri� : �m!�m!� 3 � R � R8 2 8R �.t� � 1 · · · ·� ��{®I� J� / �; i§' � �

a b c d e f g h 20 . . . lt'ixd4!!

Chapter 1 9 - 5 .if4 243

1.d4 tiJf6 2.c4 g6 3.tiJc3 d5 4.ig5 tlJe4 5.if4

-

a b c d e f g h

This variation has been tested in numerous high-level games.

5 ... tlJxc3 6.bxc3 ig7 It is important to understand that in the

present position Black should avoid 6 . . . dxc4?!, as in that case the white bishop will be much more effective on f4 than h4. White has at least two good replies:

a) 7.'\Wa4t Wd7 (or 7 . . . c6 8 .Wxc4 ig7 9.tllf3;!;) 8 .Wxc4;!; Compared with the 5.ih4 variation Black has no time for . . . b6 followed by . . . .ia6 as the c7-pawn is hanging.

b) White can also play 7.e3 .ie6 8.�b l and once again Black cannot continue in the same way as in the 5 .ih4 variation, as there is no time for the . . . tlld7-b6 manoeuvre due to the vulnerable c7 -pawn.

7.e3 This is the usual continuation, but there are

some minor options as well.

7.tllf3 c5 usually transposes to a main line, for instance 8.cxd5 (8.e3 transposes immediately) 8 . . . Wxd5 9.e3 cxd4 1 0.cxd4 tllc6 l l ..ie2 0-0 and we have reached the main position after move 1 1 in variation C below.

7.cxd5 Wxd5 8.Wb3 (8.e3 c5 transposes to the main line.) So far in all games Black has gone for the queen exchange, but a much more purposeful idea would have been:

a b c d e f g h 8 . . . Wa5!N The queen exerts useful pressure along the a5-el diagonal. 9.e3 0-0 1 0.tll f3 c5 l l ..ic4 ( l l ..ie2 .ie6! is nice for Black, and illustrates another point behind avoiding the queen exchange.) l l . . .cxd4 1 2.exd4 When White recaptures with the e-pawn instead of the c-pawn, it practically ensures Black of a good game. 1 2 . . . tllc6 13 .0-0 Wf5! White must deal with the attack on the bishop, after which . . . tlla5 will eliminate his light-squared bishop.

7.Wa4t id? 8.Wa5 is not dangerous for Black. The simplest solution seems to be:

a b c d e f g h 8 . . . e5! 9 .ixe5?! This natural move gives Black chances to fight for the initiative. (Safer would have been 9.dxe5N dxc4 1 0.tllf3 tllc6 l 1 .Wc5 We? 12 .Wxe?t Wxe7 although Black

244 4.ig5

is comfortably equal here.) 9 . . . ltJc6! 1 0.Wxd5 ltJxe5 l l .dxe5 We? 12.ltJ f3 ic6 1 3.Wa5 ixf3 14.gxf3 ixe5+ Despite being a pawn down it is Black who has the upper hand, Anastasian -Wu Wenjin, Dubai 2005.

7 ... cS 8.ltif3 8.cxd5 cxd4 9.cxd4 Wxd5 l O.ltJ f3 is just

another way of reaching the main line.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

8 ... 0-0 From this position we will look at A) 9.:Sbl

B) 9.�b3 and C) 9.cxdS in detail, after first considering a few of White's minor options.

9.ie5 cannot pose any problems; the following is one good example: 9 . . . ixe5 1 0.ltJxe5 ltJc6 l l .ltJxc6 bxc6 1 2.Wa4 Wb6 13 .Wa3 This position occurred in Wu Wenjin -Huzman, Moscow 2004, and now the simple 1 3 ... cxd4N 14.cxd4 gb8 1 5 .id3 Wb2 16.Wxb2 gxb2 leads to a position in which only Black can be better.

9.gcl ltJc6 10 .ie2 ( 10.cxd5 Wxd5 l l .c4? does not work in view of l 1 . ..Wd8 1 2.d5 Wa5t! 1 3.Wd2 ltJb4 when Black is clearly better, as shown in the following game: 14.ie5 Wxa2 1 5.ixg? Wxd2t 1 6.i>xd2 i>xg7+ Bernei -Nogrady, Ko ban ya 1 996.) 1 O . . . dxc4 l l .ixc4 cxd4 1 2.cxd4

s .1 �..t.a ��• 7 �·� , ,/,-·V,�· 6 , , , /,·'· %.-.�� : ��!�� 3 �� ' , /,�tiS� �� "- -!'.�)'%��-� 2 b ��mlJ�i� a b c d e f g h

1 2 . . . Wa5t! This timely check enables Black to solve his problems easily. 13 .Wd2 This was Anastasian - Mirumian, Yerevan 1 996, and now the simplest route to equality would have been 1 3 . . . if5N 14.0-0 Wxd2 1 5.ltJxd2 e5 1 6.dxe5 ltJxe5 when Black is fine.

9.ie2 dxc4 Black is happy to make this exchange now that White must move his bishop for the second time.

l O.ixc4 ltJc6 1 1 .0-0 if5 12.gc l gc8 Black has a comfortable game, as the following examples demonstrate.

1 3.gel I also examined: 1 3.Wa4 a6! Black should have no qualms about sacrificing the c5-pawn. 14.dxc5 Wa5! Black regains his pawn and White will have nothing to _make up for his damaged pawn structure. 1 5 .Wb3 Wxc5 1 6.ixf7t? White was already worse, but this

Chapter 1 9 - 5 .if4 245

was hardly_ the way to solve his problems. 16 . . . Ei:xf7 17. llig5 Ei:cf8 1 8.llixf7 Ei:xf7 Black emerged with a winning position in Balcerowski - Gligoric, Moscow 1 963.

13 .. . cxd4 14.exd4 This was the idea behind putting the rook on the e-file, although we already know that this pawn structure is unlikely to cause us any problems. Alternatively after 14.cxd4 ie4 1 5.h3 llia5 16.ie2 Wd7 Black is fine.

14 . . . Wd7 1 5 .a4 a6 Black is doing well, Gligoric - Olafsson,

Bled 1 96 1 .

A) 9,gbl

a b c d e f g h

Both this and line B share a common idea: White delays the development of his light-squared bishop, hoping to save time by recapturing on c4 in one move rather than two. As we will see, Black is well-placed to counter this plan.

9 . . . l!Jc6 10.ie2 Another idea is:

1 0.Wa4 White is waiting for his opponent to release the tension in the centre, but Black has another useful move available.

1 0 . . . a6!

I only found one game from this position, which continued as follows:

1 1 .Wa3 cxd4 1 2.cxd4 dxc4 1 3.ixc4 if5! 14.Ei:cl

14.Ei:xb7 could have been met by 14 .. . Wa5t! 1 5 .Wxa5 llixa5 1 6.Ei:c7 llixc4 17.Ei:xc4 Ei:fc8 1 8.Ei:xc8t Ei:xc8 19 .0-0 f6� when Black's bishop pair gives him fantastic compensation for the pawn.

14 . . . Wa5t 1 5 .Wxa5 llixa5 16 .ib3 llixb3 17.axb3 2:ac8 1 8.Wd2

Fernandez Garcia - Quintero Torres, Madrid 1 999. Now the most logical continuation would have been:

10 ... dxc4 1 1 .ix.c4

246 4 .i.g5

1 I. .. .tf5! Winning an important tempo.

12.�b5 After 1 2.2:xb7? llla5 1 3 .i.c7 Wc8 White

loses the exchange.

8 7 6

B) 9.�b3

12 ... tlJaS!? 5 1 2 . . . cxd4N 1 3.cxd4 2:c8 is also nice for 4

Black.

13 . .ie2 Presumably White was not satisfied with the

position arising after l 3.2:xc5 lllxc4 14 .2:xc4 2:c8 1 5 .2:xc8 Wxc8 1 6.Wb3 i.d3!. Indeed, in the long run the exposed position of White's king should eventually tell. Nevertheless the game continuation is also pleasant for Black.

13 ... cxd4 14.cxd4 �c8 15.0-0 a6 16.�b4 We have been following the game Kraus -

Vydeslaver, Budapest 1 992. At this point the best continuation would have been:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

16 ... �dS!N Black has achieved everything he could wish

for in the Griinfeld. The b4-rook is misplaced, and it is obvious that White's strategy beginning with 9.:!:l:bl has been an abject failure.

3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

This is another way in which White can attempt to save time by developing his lightsquared bishop to c4 in one move. However, we will soon see that the present idea suffers from its own drawbacks.

9 ... cxd4! 10.exd4 My personal opinion is that White can almost

never hope for an advantage with the hangingpawn structure against the Griinfeld. However, in this position the otherwise desirable 1 0.cxd4 runs into the disruptive 1 o . . . Wa5t! when White will have to spend valuable time arranging castling: 1 1 .llld2 dxc4 1 2.i.xc4

a b c d e f g h Now in Shahisavandi - Strugies, Ladenburg

1 992, Black missed the strong idea of 1 2 . . . llld7N 13 .:!:l:dl lll b6 with comfortable

Chapter 1 9 - 5 .J.f4 247

play, for instance 14.0-0 J.g4 1 5.f3 J.d7 16.'1Wb2 ClJxc4 1 7.ClJxc4 Wb5 and Black's bishop pair offers him a slight plus.

10 •.. lllc6 1 1 .cxdS lllaS 12.'t'Na4 12.'1Mfb5 was played in Versporten - Deman,

Gem 2000, and here the best continuation would have been:

a b c d e f g h 12 . . . a6!N 13 .Wc5 b6 14.Wb4 J.b7 1 5 .c4 e6!t Black has the initiative, thanks to his better development.

12 ... 't'NxdS 13.J.e2 J.d7 14.'t'Nb4 Frih - Stephan, France 2008. Now it looks

promising for Black to play:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

14 ... gac8N 15.0-0 tllc4! 16.'t'Nxe? gfeg 17.J.xc4 gxc4

Black has nice compensation, for example:

18.'t'Na3 gec8 19.gfcl 't'NfS 20.J.e3 J.c6 21.tlld2 ga4 22.'t'Nb2 b6�

With two excellent bishops, a sounder pawn structure and active major pieces, Black has every reason to feel optimistic.

C) 9.cxdS

9 ... cxd4 10.cxd4 't'NxdS 1 1 .J.e2 Alternatives have seldom been seen. One

example that is worth mentioning briefly is 1 1 .Wif d2 J.f5 1 2.:§:c l , as played in Berezhnoi -Silakov, Rostov on Don 1 975. At this point I believe Black should have continued in the spirit of the main line with: 12 . . . ctJc6N 13.J.e2 ( 13 .J.c4 can be met comfortably by 13 . . . Wa5.) 13 ... :1'i:ac8 14.0-0 ( 14.:1'i:c5 Wd7 is not dangerous, for instance 1 5 .0-0 b6 16.:1'i:cc l e5 and Black is already slightly better.) 14 ... Wa5 l 5.'1Mf xa5 ClJxa5 The endgame is equal.

1 1 ...lllc6 12.0-0 J.fS The f5-square is generally the best home

for the light-squared bishop in the present variation.

13.'t'Na4 This is the main continuation, but it is worth

checking the numerous alternatives which have been tried.

248 4 .ig5

Firstly, it is important to understand that 1 3.l2id2, which works well in the analogous position with the bishop on h4, is not so strong here in view of: 1 3 . . . e5!N Strangely, in the only two games on the database Black refrained from this logical move. 14.if3

8 � � � ��· 7 Ii.. �.,,Y,� i 6 , ,,��:� ��t� 5 ��-1.f. �� ,J," , %�/ �� 4 � r� � � 3 �� ' ' "O:r� �� :,/i J�,% ��,� 2 8 • 0 �� 8 �fj � ��v��:m ,

a b c d e f g h 14 . . . Wd7!? With this ambitious move Black attempts to fight for the advantage. (Alternatively 14 . . . Wb5 1 5 .ixc6 bxc6 1 6.dxe5 ixe5 is just equal.) 1 5.ixc6 Wxc6 1 6.ixe5 (After 1 6.dxe5 :gfd8 the evaluation is similar.) 1 6 . . . ixe5 17 .dxe5 mds Black has a great game, and will easily regain his pawn with the imminent . . . We6.

13 .°1Wb3 Wxb3 14.axb3 This type of endgame holds no dangers for Black.

8 " �� ,J•$! 1 � • � r�• • • , %� r� , ,%� ,,Y,� 6 �� 5 ��,�� 4 . ifj% � � 3 8

"� ' "O�B

2 �-�-�� %·'=, , a b c d e f g h

1 4 . . . a6!?N I like this prophylactic move, which allows the a8-rook to enter the game. (Black has achieved excellent results with 14 . . . :gfcg as well.) 1 5.:gfc l :gac8= Black has no problems.

1 3.a3 Taking control over the b4-square is not a bad idea for White. 13 . . . :gac8 14.:gcl l2ia5 This is my preferred reaction; it looks logical to eye the b3-square, as well as the a3-pawn after a future knight jump to c4.

a b c d e f g h 1 5.l2id2?! After this unfortunate move the initiative passes to Black. (White should have played 1 5.Wa4N after which 1 5 . . . ie4 1 6.Wb4 if6 reaches a roughly equal position.) 1 5 . . . :gxcl 1 6.Wxc l :gc8 Having taken over the c-file Black stands clearly better, Nistri -Albesa, e-mail 2007.

13.:gcl

a b c d e f g h This pawn sacrifice has been tried in two blitz games. White won both of them, but Black's play can easily be improved.

1 3 . . . Wxa2 1 4.ic4 The more active 14.d5?! occurred in Anand Wolff, New York (blitz) 1 993, but it was not a good idea, as after the natural 14 . . . :gad8N

Chapter 1 9 - 5 .�f4 249

1 5.�c4 W�3 1 6.We2 tlia5 17.e4 �g4 Black is clearly better.

14 .. . Wa3 1 5 .We2 This position occurred in the game Gofshtein - Casella, Internet (blitz) 2000, and here Black should have played:

a b c d e f g h 1 5 . . . Elac8N

This natural move improves on the somewhat

Black can play 14 . . . bG!?N with a reasonable position.

14.Wa4 Other moves are also not dangerous. 14.Wb3 Wxb3 1 5 .axb3 �e6 is comfortable for Black. 14.Elbl can be met by 14 . . . Wxa2, and with the b7-pawn defended, White will have to work hard to demonstrate compensation.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

strange 1 5 . . . E!:ad8 as occurred in the game. a b c d e f g h 1 6.Elal 14 .. . tlixd4!

I do not see any other way for White to create problems for his opponent.

1 6 . . . Wb4 17.�d3 �xd3 1 8 .Wxd3 e6 1 9.Elfb l We7

White has some compensation for the pawn, but the most he can realistically hope for is equality.

1 3.tlih4 .ic8!? This slightly surprising move, with its tacit draw offer, makes a good deal of sense. The point is that if White does not intend to offer a repetition with 14.ctJf3, then he will have to address the threat of . . . g5, winning a piece. The most natural way to meet this challenge would be to play !'lb 1 , after which . . . g5 can be met by Elb5. I n view of this, Black anticipates the attack on the b7-pawn. Nevertheless, if Black prefers not to allow a repetition then 1 3 . . . .id7 is a reasonable alternative, and after 14.E!: b 1 as played in R. Garcia - Lujan, Buenos Aires 2002,

This clever tactical idea is based on the disharmony of White's minor pieces.

1 5 .exd4 We4 1 6.tlixg6! hxg6 Ftacnik's 1 6 . . . fxg6!? also looks decent.

1 7 . .ie3 .ig4! The exchange oflight-squared bishops enables Black to maintain a balanced position.

1 8 . .ixg4 Wxg4 1 9.!'!:acl This position occurred in Zvjaginsev - Leko, Tilburg 1 998, and now the most accurate continuation would have been:

a b c d e f g h

250 4.�g5

19 ... �e4N 20.!'!:fel E!:fd8 With easy equality.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

13 ... Wi'a5 There is nothing wrong with l 3 . . . E!:ac8, but

the text move is Black's first choice according to theory. From this position White can choose between removing the queens with Cl) 14.Wi'xa5 and keeping them on the board with C2) 14.Wi'b3.

Cl) 14.Wi'xa5

Of the two continuations, this is the slightly less challenging option.

14 ... lllxa5

15J:Ucl This has been White's usual choice. The

alternatives are harmless, for instance:

1 5.�c7 is best met by 1 5 . . . lllc6 followed by a rook to the c-file, rather than 1 5 . . . b6? which weakens the queenside and gives White the option of i.a6 to control the c-file.

1 5.Elacl E!:fc8 16.llle5 i.e6! Attacking the a2-pawn. 17.llld3

a b c d e f g h 17 . . . i.d5 (It is understandable that Black preferred to refrain from 17 . . . i.xa2!?N 1 8.Elal Elc2 1 9.i.f3, even though 1 9 . . . lll b3 20.lllb4 lllxal 2 1 .Elxal Elac8! should enable him to maintain the balance.) 1 8.lllc5 (In the event of 1 8 .lllb4 i.c4 19.i.xc4 Elxc4 20.llld5 e6 Black has no problems.) 1 8 . . . e6 The position was equal in Loginov - Turov, Bor 2000.

15 .. J:Uc8 16.'it>fl Another game continued 1 6.llld2 i.e6 17.a3

i.d5 1 8.i.b5, Novikov - Ulko, Moscow 1995, and now 18 . . . e6N intending .. . i.f8 would have maintained equality.

16 ... lllc6 Black is trying to activate his knight via the

b4-square.

17.'it>el White played inaccurately in the following

encounter: 17.Elc3?! lllb4 1 8.Elb3 a5 1 9.Elb2

Chapter 1 9 - 5 .if4 25 1

Shaposhnikoy - Shipov, Internet (rapid) 2002, 19.llJd2 ic2= and here Black could have obtained some Black had no problems in Volkov - Leko, initiative by means of: New Delhi 2000.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

17 ... ifS

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

C2) 14.'1Wb3

a b c d e f g h

14 ... Wb4 Once again the queen exchange suits Black

just fine.

15.�fcl This is generally considered the best try. Also

possible is: 1 5 .ic4

This leads to similar positions to the main line.

15 . . . °1Wxb3 1 6.axb3 a6 It is always useful to free the rook from the defence of the a7 -pawn.

1 7.ic? 17.:gfcl reaches the note to White's 17th

Also worthy of consideration was move in the main line below. 17 . . . tt:'ib4!?N 18 .�d2 tl'id5 1 9.ig3 tt:'if6!? 1 7 . . . :gac8 1 8.ib6 intending to jump to e4.

18.a3 Preventing any . . . tt:'ib4 ideas, but the a3-

pawn might eventually become a target for Black's dark-squared bishop.

18 ... llJaS White's last move weakened the b3-square.

8

252 4.ig5

1 8 ... eS! Now that White's dark-squared bishop has vacated the h2-b8 diagonal, this central break becomes possible.

1 9.h3 exd4 20.exd4 This position occurred in Boensch - Holzke, Germany 2004. At this point Black's play can be improved with:

s �.i � �B• 7 �'· � • • ��. %�7� �� ,,,,,Y,� 6 £�'1� �· : �.,�� 3 ��-�-�� ·�vr

a b c d e f g h 20 . . . ie4N

This leads to easy equality, for instance: 2 1 .:§adl

2 1 . ttJ g5 ic2 leaves White nothing better than 22.etJf3 ie4 with a repetition. The attempt to play more ambitiously with 22.icS?! only leads to trouble after 22 . . . ixd4 23.ixf8 ixal 24.ih6 ig7 25 .ixf7t iih8 when Black stands slightly better.

2 1 . . .ixf3 22.gxf3 etJb8 23.:8fel etJd7 24.iaS :8fe8=

The position is equal, as Black can easily blockade his opponent's passed pawn.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

15 ... a6! This move has only been played in two games,

but both of them involved Peter Svidler, one of the greatest Griinfeld experts in the world.

The main theoretical continuation is l 5 . . . :8ac8, but it seems to me that after 16.ic4 Wxb3 17.axb3 a6 1 8.idS White can develop some pressure.

16.i.c4 This was an attempt to improve over the

following game: 16.h3 :8ac8 17.g4 ie4 1 8.Wd l

This position was reached in Vallejo Pons -Svidler, Dresden (ol) 2008, and here I found a nice idea:

8 �!��)�� 1 � .t � r�i � i �� , %� ,,,,,Y,� 6 i �!i1�� i � 5 �!'' "'·�'/ ·�'/ ·� 4 � r�.i.� 8 � 3 �,,, ,%� ,, , %6l5'�8 2 !��/�� , 'i;�f'i;��/:, ' \0 '7/ 1 m �mw� �

a b c d e f g h 1 8 . . . Wa3!N

Preventing a2-a3. This easily solves Black's problems, while also setting a devious trap.

l 9.etJd2 1 9.Wb3 Wxb3 20.axb3 ttJb4 is equal.

1 9 . . . idS 20.ic4? This natural move meets with a stunning refutation. The best continuation is 20.etJc4 ixc4 2 1 .:8xc4 e5 22.dxeS ixe5! 23 .:8a4 We7 when Black is fine.

20 . . . etJxd4!! 2 l .exd4 Or 21 .ixdS :8xcl 22.:8xcl Wxc l ! 23.Wxcl etJe2t with a decisive material advantage.

2 l . . . :8xc4! 22.:8xc4 22.etJxc4 Wxh3 wins easily.

22 . . . Wxh3 23.f3

Chapter 1 9 - 5 .i.f4 253

23 ... b5! 24.E!:b4 a5! 25 .E!:b3 White can allow his rook to be captured, but then he will just be a pawn down with a miserable position.

25 . . . ixd4t 26.E!:e3 26.ie3 ixb3-+

26 . . . e5 Black is winning.

a b c d e f g h

16 ... Wxb3 17.i.xb3 l 7.axb3 transposes to Spassov - Lopez

Martinez, Salou 2009. At this point it was necessary to play l 7 . . . lllb4!N taking control over the d5-square, when Black is fine. Instead 17 . . . id7?! allowed 1 8.id5! e6 1 9.ie4;!; when White had some pressure.

17 .. J:facS 18.J.d5 tlia5 There is a playable alternative in l 8 . . . E!:fd8!?N

19 .ixc6 bxc6 20 .E!:c5 E!:d5 ! 2 1 .E!:acl f6! when

Black is not worse, as his bishop pair makes up for his weakened queenside structure, and 22.E!:xc6? E!:xc6 23.E!:xc6 E!:a5 is better for Black.

19.tlie5 The inaccurate 19 . lll d2?! allows the tactical

idea 1 9 . . . E!:cd8 20.if3 e5! and Black is better.

19 ... i.xe5 Usually Black will not wish to exchange his

Griinfeld bishop for a knight, but in simplified positions such as the present one, the idea can work well.

20.i.xe5 At this point the game Eljanov - Svidler,

Bundesliga 2009, was agreed drawn, but it is worth considering how the game might have continued. At this point my preferred continuation would be:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

20 ... J.e6!?N 21 .i.f3 After 2 l .ixe6 fXe6 Black's doubled pawns

are not weak, and White runs the risk of ending up with a bad bishop against a good knight.

21..J:hclt Another idea is 2 1 . . .b5 22.d5 id7 when

the strong outpost on c4 should be enough to compensate for White's bishop pair.

254 4.i.gS

22.�xcl .L:a2 23.�c7 23.:B:a l ? is met by 23 . . . :B:c8 when the

weakness of the first rank gives Black time to prepare . . . :B:c2 next.

a b c d e f g h

23 ... �eS From here I do not see anything better for

White than regaining his pawn:

24 . .L:b7 tiJxb7 25.�xb7 It is hard to see this opposite-coloured

bishop endgame finishing in anything other than a draw.

Conclusion The system beginning with s.i.f4 is a sensible try which has been tested in numerous highlevel games. Following the usual sequence of S . . . tllxc3 6.bxc3 i.g7 7.e3 cS 8.tll f3 0-0, we investigated three main moves. Attempting to save time with either A) 9.:B:b l or B) 9.Wb3 leads nowhere for White, so the main line of C) 9.cxdS cxd4 1 0.cxd4 Wxd5 l l .i.e2 tll c6 1 2.0-0 is critical. Then after 1 2 . . . i.fS 1 3.Wa4 WaS both Cl ) 14.WxaS and C2) 14.Wb3 lead to roughly similar situations without queens. The latter is considered slightly more challenging, but according to the above analysis Black should experience no particular problems. In all these lines his position remains fundamentally sound, with considerable dynamic potential, as illustrated by lines such as the note to White's 16th move in line C2.

4.igS 5.ih4 - Sidelines

Variation Index 1 .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.i.g5 �e4 5.i.h4

A) 7.e4?! B) 7.�a4t

A) after 1 2.@fl

8 .i �.t �-� �-7 li R � i ·i 6 ••• B i � s � R � R R 4 ·�·�· � � !•0a!D!'tf 1 S,11 �if�� g

a b c d e f g h 1 2 . . . li:le5!N

5 ... �xc3 6.bxc3 dxc4

B) note to 1 2.e3

a b c d e f g h 1 3 . . . e6N

B) after 1 2.e3

256 257

a b c d e f g h 1 2 . . . cxd4!N

256 4.ig5

1.d4 llif6 2.c4 g6 3.llic3 d5 4.ig5 llie4 s.ih4

s ... llixc3 6.bxc3 dxc4 Capturing the c4-pawn works better against

the bishop on h4 compared with f4. Now we will consider the rare and dubious A) 7 .e4?!, followed by the more interesting B) 7.�a4t. The main line of 7 .e3 will be handled in the following three chapters.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

A) 7.e4?!

a b c d e f g h

7 ... ig7 Simple development works well for Black.

The greedy 7 . . . b5?! would justify White's idea, as after 8.a4 c6 9.f4 he has decent compensation for the pawn.

8.ixc4 c5 We have reached a normal position except

that White's bishop has moved from cl to h4. This 'free' developing move might seem like an advantage, but in fact the opposite is true as the d4-pawn is too vulnerable.

9.llie2 cxd4! 10.cxd4 llic6 Black exploits the aforementioned advantage

and delays castling in order to intensify the pressure against the enemy centre.

1 1 .dS 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2.d5 is unimpressive: 1 2 . . . �xal

1 3.'Wxal 'lia5 14.�d3 f6 Compared with the well-known exchange sacrifice line, Black is once again better off thanks to the misplaced bishop on h4.

1 1 . .. �aSt 12.@fl This position was reached in Ostermeyer -

Riefner, Germany 1 982, and here Black should have played:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

This move cannot work properly when the a b c d e f g h

h4-bishop is so far away from the defence of 12 ... llieS!N 13.ib3 id7 the d4-pawn. Black has a great position.

Chapter 20 - 5 .i.h4 - Sidelines 257

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1

B) 7.%Ya4t

a b c d e f g h

This is an important alternative, and a speciality of the Greek grandmaster Efstratios Grivas.

7 • • . %Yd7 This is the main line, and my preferred

choice. The minor pieces have more appealing squares than d7 available.

8.%Yxc4 b6! This is an important resource. Black intends

to exploit the slightly vulnerable position of White's queen by winning a tempo with . . . i.a6.

9.i.g3!? It is this move which gives the present

variation an independent character. In the event of 9.ctJf3 ia6 1 0.Wb3 ig7 1 1 .e3 the play transposes to line B22 of Chapter 25, beginning with 4.ctJf3.

9 . . • c5 10.i.eS Again 1 0.ctJf3 ig7 reaches Chapter 25.

10 . . . £6 With this move Black hopes to exploit his

bishop pair later in the game. 1 o . . . ia6 looks tempting, but after 1 1 .Wi'b3 f6 12.ixb8 Ei:xb8

1 3.ctJf3 White will soon be able to exchange the light-squared bishops - a definite achievement for him.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

I I .i.xb8 gxb8 This is my main recommendation, but it

is worth pointing out that Black has a solid alternative available: 1 1 . . .b5!? 1 2.Wi'b3 (Black would have excellent compensation after 1 2.Wxc5 El:xb8 13 .Wb4 e5 1 4.Wb2 exd4 1 5 .cxd4 Wc7�) 1 2 . . . c4 13 .Wi'c2 El:xb8 14.e3 ib7 1 5 .ctJf3 ig7 1 6.a4 a6 17.ie2 0-0 1 8 .0-0 f5 The position is roughly equal, Postny -Kurnosov, Evora 2007.

12.e3 White has also tried:

12.ctJf3 cxd4 1 3 .cxd4 Malakhatko - Stephan, Gibraltar 2010 . In this position I found the following idea:

258 4.ig5

13 ... e6N 14.e3 a5! Intending a check on b4, which should offer Black nice play as shown by the following lines:

1 5 .id3 15 .ltJd2 <j;>f7 ( 1 5 . . . ib7!?) 1 6.ie2 ib4 17.Wi°d3 (After 17.a3 ixd2t 1 8.c;t>xd2 ib7 intending . . . E:hc8 Black's position is preferable.) 17 ... ib7 1 8.0-0 E:hc8+ Black has a nice game.

1 5 . . . ib4t l 6.c;t>e2 b5 17.Wb3 ib7 1 8.E:hcl 0-0 1 9.a3 id5 20.Wb2 ie7+

The position is complicated, but it seems to me that the bishop pair and queenside pawn majority gives Black the upper hand.

s ��-*-�•m �� 7 �,,, ,,Y,_,_ . . . . . �-., 6 "•�� "mfm 5 "-�� "• 4 �uv.�.�� m·�,, , ,/,�r�� 3 � �t!Y �t!Y -� �,,, , /,� �,, , , /,m·'0 ;/,m·'.0, 2 8. �� WJ�/;:J[j 1 � � �i..Wn

a b c d e f g h

12 ... cxd4!N This is an important improvement over

the following game: 1 2 . . . ib7 13 .Wi°b3 cxd4 1 4.cxd4 e6?! ( 14 . . . a6 was necessary) 1 5.ib5 ic6 16.ixc6 Wxc6 17.ltJe2 <j;>f7 1 8 .0-0t Following the exchange of light-squared bishops White had the better chances in Hillarp Persson - Grandelius, Stockholm 2009.

13.cxd4 e6 14.�b3 14.4Jf3 a5! transposes to 1 2.ltJf3 above.

14 ... �dS! The queen exchange works well for Black in

this line.

15 . .ibSt i>f7 16.�xdS exdS Black has one extra pawn island, but the d5-

pawn is not really weak. A more significant factor is Black's bishop pair, which could become a powerful force in the endgame.

17.�cl

a b c d e f g h

17 ... a6!? 17 . . . id6 is fine, but Black can even allow

the rook to come to c7 temporarily.

18.�c?t i>e6 19.�d3 .id7 Black will soon chase the rook away with

. . . id6, and his bishop pair promises him the better chances.

Conclusion In this short chapter we have examined two rare lines. A) 7 .e4?! is just a mistake which allows Black to develop strong pressure against White's pawn centre. B) 7.�a4t is more significant, especially as Black must keep in mind the possibility of a transposition to Chapter 25. Fortunately we saw that, in the cases where White attempts to derive independent value from the early queen check, Black has at least enough resources to maintain the. balance, and quite possibly fight for the advantage.

4.igS 7 .e3 - Sidelines

Variation Index 1 .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4 . .ig5 �e4 s . .ih4 �xc3 6.bxc3 dxc4 7.e3

7 ... .ie6 A) 8.�h3 260 B) 8 . .ie2 261 C) 8.�bl c5! 9.�xb7 .id5 10.�bSt �d7 l l J�bl �xb5 12,gxbS �d7 262

Cl) 13.�f3 263 C2) 13.�e2 264

A) after 12.ixc4 C) note to 9.1/t!xb7 Cl ) after 1 8 .ig3

12 . . . fG!N

260 4.ig5

1 .d4 .!llf6 2.c4 g6 3.tll c3 d5 4.�g5 .!lle4 s.�h4 tllxc3 6.bxc3 dxc4 7.e3

s .i a1.i..�9m �B 7 .,,,-,,, ,,/,-,,�� ,, 6 x� "� "�'� �� : �.,��-�. 3 � !ii,lft "•�-2 l� "� "•'� ,, , , , �� -;--/""/,% '"//,!"" 1 � � w�i,,� n

a b c d e f g h

7 ... �e6 This is a key move in Black's strategy.

Black may not be able to keep his extra pawn indefinitely, but he can force White to waste time regaining it.

From this important tabiya White has tried several moves. The two most important options of 8 .:1'i:b l and 8.lllf3 will be covered in Chapters 22 and 23 respectively. In the present chapter we will consider the alternatives of A) 8.tllh3, B) 8.�e2 and C) 8.°IWbl .

8.llle2 ih6! This important move i s directed against the idea of lt:lf4. 9.ig3

into consideration.) 1 0.lt:lf4 ixf4 1 l .ixf4 c5 12 .ie2 cxd4 1 3.exd4 Manor - Groszpeter, Haifa 1 989. Now the simple 1 3 . . . Wa5N 14.Wd2 lt:ld7 1 5 .0-0 lt:lf6+ would have led to a position in which White does not have sufficient compensation for the pawn.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

A) 8.tllh3

a b c d e f g h

This move has seldom been seen, but it is not without merit. White's idea is to attack the light-squared bishop with lt:l f4 or lllg5.

8 ... �h6! This move works well, just as it did against

8.lt:le2.

I t i s worth pointing out that Black should refrain from 8 . . . ixh3, as after 9.gxh3 Wd5 1 0.:1'i:gl White's light-squared bishop comes into the game with a lot of power.

9.tllg5 �d5 10.e4 If White delays taking action then Black will

drive the knight away with . . . f6.

10 ... hgs 1 1 .hgS he4 12.hc4 This position occurred in Schlehoefer -

Kurz, Germany 1 987, and here_ Black could have safely eaten a second pawn:

Chapter 2 1 - 7 .e3 - Sidelines 261

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

12 • . . i.xg2!N 13.�b3 1 3.l'l:gl i.d5 leaves White without much

compensation.

13 ... 0-0 14.ggl i.c6 15.d5?! This looks critical, but it turns out that Black

can refute it.

Objectively White should prefer 1 5 .i.h6, but after 15 . . . e6 16.i.xf8 Wxf8+ Black reaches a stable position with two pawns for the exchange and a better pawn structure.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

15 ... b5! 16.dxc6 bxc4 17.�b7 Nothing else can cause Black any problems.

17 ... �d6! 18.�xa8 �xc6 19.�b7 gbs 20.�a6 �xh2

Black has a decisive attack, with . . . llJe5 coming next.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

B) 8.i.e2

a b c d e f g h

8 ... .ig7 9.gb1 This is an independent try. The more popular

9.llJf3 reaches line A of Chapter 23.

9 ... �d7!?N I decided to analyse this as yet untested

move. I must stress that there is also nothing wrong with 9 . . . b6, after which l O.llJf3 0-0 reaches line C3 of Chapter 23.

IO.i.f3 Once again, I O.llJf3 llJ b6 is a transposition,

this time to line C2 of Chapter 22.

10 ... gbs

a b c d e f g h

262 4.i.g5

1 1 .�xb7 1 1 . liJ e2 liJ b6 is fine for Black.

1 1 . .. �xb7 12.i.xh7 c5 13.llie2 cxd4 14.cxd4

After 14.exd4 0-0 1 5 .0-0 i.f6 1 6.i.g3 Wa5 Black has a solid position with equal chances.

a b c d e f g h

14 ... g5!? This is my preferred solution, exploiting the

fact that taking on g5 would cost White his bishop.

15.i.g3 .if5 16.llic3 After 1 6.0-0?! Wb6 1 7.i.d5 i.d3 Black has

the initiative.

16 ... 0-0 17 . .ie4 i.xe4 18.�xe4

a b c d e f g h

18 ... e5! With this dynamic move Black maintains

enough activity to offset his minor pawn weaknesses.

19.dxe5 tlixe5 20.Y*fxdS �xd8 2I.@e2 �b8 Black is not worse in the endgame.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

C) 8.Y*fhl

a b c d e f g h

8 ... c5! With this great solution, Black returns

his extra pawn but gets a lot of activity. The alternative 8 . . . Wd5 has been tested in several top-level games, but it seems to me that White has reasonable chances to fight for the advantage against that line.

9.Y*fxb7 In one game White tried taking a different

pawn: 9.Wb5t liJc6 1 0.Wxc5

But Black found a strong reply: 1 0 . . . Wb6! l 1 .Wxb6

Black has a nice game after l l .°1Wa3 i.d5 1 2.liJf3 e5 1 3.Wc l i.g7 followed by . . . 0-0.

l l . . .axb6 1 2.liJh3 1 2.e4?! looks premature, since after 12 . . . i.g? 1 3.c;f;>d2 :9:a3 14.liJe2 i.d7!, intending . . . b5-b4, Black has clearly better chances.

Chapter 2 1 - 7 .e3 - Sidelines 263

12 . . .f6!N Black's light-squared bishop is a key piece which should be safeguarded. This is an important improvement over 12 .. . b5 1 3.lt:Jf4 :1'i:a3 14.�e2 �h6 1 5 .lt:Jxe6 fxe6 16. ©d2 when White was better in Iljushin - Dominguez Perez, KhantyMansiysk 2007.

l 3.lt:Jf4 Worse is: 1 3.�g3 :1'i:a3 1 4.lt:Jf4 �£7 1 5.©d2 (or l 5.d5 lt:Ja5 l 6.lt:Je6 �xe6 l 7.dxe6 �g7!+) 1 5 . . . e5 16.lt:Je2 b5+ The impending . . . b4 will be highly unpleasant for White.

13 . . . �f7 14.e4 :1'i:a3 White's idea must have been to meet 14 . . . g5 with 1 5.lt:Jd5.

1 5.lt:Jd5 �xd5 16.exd5 lt:Ja5+ Black has the better game.

a b c d e f g h

9 .. . .id5 10.°ffb5t °ffd7 I U�bl

l l .'Wxc5?! looks too risky, and i t i s hardly surprising that nobody has tested it yet. Black should respond with l 1 . ..e5! 12.°Wa5 lt:Jc6 1 3.'Wa4 exd4 14.exd4 'We6t 1 5 .lt:Je2 �d6 and it is hard to see how White can complete development.

1 1 . . • °ffxb5 12Jhb5 flld7 From here White has tried CI) 13.lllf3 and

C2) 13.llle2.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Cl) 13.lllf3

a b c d e f g h

13 ... e6 14 . .ie2 .ie7 Another game saw l 4 . . . a6, which is also not

bad, but I prefer to concentrate on the text move.

15.'it>d2 After l 5 .�g3 Black should play l 5 . . . cxd4

1 6.exd4 lt:Jf6 with equal chances.

15 ••. cxd4 16.exd4 1 6.cxd4? runs into the nice trick: 16 . . . c3t!

17. ©cl (The pawn is untouchable: 17. ©xc3? �xf3! l 8.�xf3 :1'i:c8t White loses his bishop on h4.) 17 . . . a6 1 8.:1'i:a5 :1'\b8 Black is better as . . . :1'\b2 is coming.

16 ••• a6

264 4.�g5

8 !. � �- � �.i 7 ��rmr�,, 6 {q �� .,�q ·�

111111 111111 111111 5 �!�A��,� 4 - · � - � 3 �

mH , , , ,%� �-,,,,. ;:/,� , , , , ,%�%;��·;; ��,� 2 � � ��r� � rl3

1 �� , , , , .%. , , , , %� � a b c d e f g h

17J�bbl l 7.l"i:a5 ixh4 1 8 .tllxh4 l"i:b8 was mentioned

by Krasenkow. I decided to analyse further: 1 9.l"i:cl l"i:b6 20.l"i:a4 ile7 2 1 .tll f3 (White cannot play 2 1 .ixc4? in view of 2 1 . . .l"i:b2t 22.l"i:c2 l"i:xc2t 23.ilxc2 tt:lb6 winning material.) 2 l ... l"i:c8 Black is not worse.

17 ... gS 18.J.g3 Perhaps White should have preferred:

18 .tllxg5 l"i:g8 19 .tllf3 l"i:xg2 20.ig3 (In the event of 20.l"i:hgl ?! l"i:xgl 2 1 .l"i:xgl ixh4 22.l"i:g8t tllf8 23.tllxh4 l"i:b8 Black is better, as he will penetrate along the b-file.) 20 . . . tllf6 2 1 .l"i:bfl if8! The position is more or less balanced.

So far we have been following the game Sargissian - Naiditsch, Germany 2006. In this position I would suggest:

a b c d e f g h

18 ... fS!N 1he game continuation of l 8 . . . g4 1 9.tllel h5

was at least equal for Black, but I like the text move even more. The positional threat of .. .f4 is not easy for White to meet, for example:

19.tiJeS This creative solution falls short.

19 .J.e5? is met by 1 9 . . . 0-0 followed by . . . g4 when White is in big trouble.

Perhaps White should consider 19 .h3!?, although I doubt that many players would be comfortable with the prospect of the bishop being driven back to h2 at any moment.

19 ... f4 20.J.hst @ds 21.tiJf7t @c7 22.tiJxhs gxhs+

The two minor pieces outclass White's rook.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

C2) 13.tiJe2

a b c d e f g h

This move was tested in a couple of subsequent games, but it does not seem to be much of an improvement. Indeed, it soon transpires that White will have trouble equalizing.

13 ... eS! Black should play actively, without worrying

about such trivialities as an imperfect pawn structure.

Chapter 2 1 - 7.e3 - Sidelines 265

14.f3 I also examined the natural alternative:

14.dxe5N lt'ixe5 1 5 .lt'if4 �c6 1 6.!'la5 (After the passive 16.!'lbl �e7 Black already stands better.) 1 6 . . . �e7

a b c d e f g h 17.�g3 (Clearly worse is 17.�xe7? r:J:dxe7 1 8.!'lxc5 r:J:dd6 1 9 .!'la5 !'lhb8 when Black takes over the initiative.) 17 . . . 0-0 1 8.�e2 !'lfd8 Black's activity more than makes up for his doubled pawns, for instance: 1 9.0-0 !'ld2 20.!'ldl !'lxdlt 21 .�xdl !'ld8 22.�e2 !'ld7! With . . . lt'id3 coming soon, Black has the more promising position.

14 ... i.g7

a b c d e f g h

15,gbl Also after 15 .dxc5 0-0 1 6.e4 �c6 17.!'lb 1

!'lfb8! Black emerged with the better position in Arutinian - Pashikian, Armenia 2007.

15 ... i.c6 16.ctJcl Allowing a favourable liquidation of the

centre, but it was hard to suggest another way to develop the kingside pieces.

16 ... exd4 17.cxd4 cxd4 18.hc4 dxe3 19.i.gS lt'ib6 20.i.bS hb5 21.gxbS 0-0 22.he3 ctJ c4

Black was clearly better in Sanikidze -Rodshtein, Plovdiv 2008.

Conclusion After the moves 7 .e3 �e6, none of the sidelines presented here should worry Black. A) 8.tllh3 is not completely without merit, but analysis shows that Black can obtain an excellent game with resolute play. B) 8.�e2 is not such a bad move, and usually transposes to a line examined in a different chapter. As we have seen, Black has nothing to fear from the independent possibilities. In terms of popularity, C) 8.°IWb 1 is the most important of the options examined in the present chapter, but after the active 8 . . . c5! I have full confidence in Black's chances.

4.ig5 8.�bl

Variation Index 1 .d4 tlif6 2.c4 g6 3.tlic3 d5 4.ig5 tlie4 5.ih4 tlixc3 6.bxc3 dxc4 7.e3 ie6 s.:ab1

8 ... tli d7! A) 9.:axb7 B) 9.Wfa4 C) 9.tlif3 tlib6

Cl) 10.a4 C2) 10.ie2

B) after l 5.�xb3 C l ) after l 7.g4

l 7 . . . 1/ijxd5N

C2) after l 5 .ig4

267 267 271 271 273

Chapter 22 - 8.'.!':1b l 267

1 .d4 tl:)f6 2_.c4 g6 3.tl:)c3 d5 4.ig5 tl:)e4 5.i.h4 tl:)xc3 6.bxc3 dxc4 7.e3 ie6 sJ:&bl

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

8 ... tl:)d?! Once again Black should be happy to return

his extra pawn for the sake of activity. It is essential to understand that after 8 . . . b6 White has the promising idea of 9.lllh3! �h6 1 0.e4 with interesting play.

After the text move White has three main options: A) 9J:&xb7, B) 9.�a4 and C) 9.tl:)f3. It is barely worth considering 9.d5? �f5 1 0Jhb7 lllc5 when Black is clearly better.

A) 9Jhb7

Of course this move should not be ignored, but it is too simplistic and Black easily gets a good game.

9 ... tl:)b6 9 . . . �g7 is also fine, but I prefer to limit the

rook's movement.

10.ig3 c5 1 1.tl:)f3 The c5-pawn is untouchable: l l .dxc5??

Wxdl t 12.i;i>xdl 0-0-0t!-+

In the event of 1 1 Jk7 Black should play l 1 . .Jk8! 12Jha7 �g7 with nice play for the sacrificed pawn, for instance 13 .lllf3 cxd4

14.lllxd4 llld5 1 5 .Wcl Wb6 1 6.l"1.a3 �f5 intending . . . �d3.

l l ... �g7 Black has an easy game. In the following

encounter White quickly went downhill.

a b c d e f g h

12.tl:)d2? cxd4 13.exd4 �d5 14Jk7 e5! 15Jk5 exd4 16.tl:)xc4 0-0

Black was already winning in Kaganskiy -Baron, Petah Tiqwa 2007.

B) 9.�a4

a b c d e f g h

Amazingly, this move already implies a queen sacrifice, at least if White wishes to conduct the opening in a remotely principled way. The critical line runs as follows.

268 4 .ig5

9 ... �d5 9 . . . ig7?! would be a serious concession,

as after 1 0.ixc4 ixc4 l l .'Wxc4 White has regained the pawn while keeping a safe positional edge.

After the text move Black is threatening to consolidate his extra pawn with . . . a6 followed by . . . b5, so White is more or less forced to take the following path:

10.hc4 hg2 1 1 .Wl'b3 �h6! It is crucial to take the f4-square under

control, as after l l . . . ig7? l 2.ixf7t <;t>f8 13 .llle2 �xhl 14.lllf4 White has a serious initiative, Kaganskiy - Bykhovsky, Petah Tiqwa 2008.

12.Lflt @f'8 13.�d5

a b c d e f g h

13 ... lllcS! Without this key move Black would

be worse, as after 13 ... �xh l ? 14.�xh l� White has fantastic compensation for the exchange.

14.�xg2! White's preceding play has been leading up

to this sacrifice.

14 ... lllxb3 15J'hb3

After a more or less forced sequence of moves, we have reached the position for which White has been aiming. Despite having only two minor pieces for the queen, he has reasonable compensation thanks to his superior coordination and safer king. Nevertheless I do not believe that Black should have any serious problems, and I was happy to defend my point of view at the 2008 Dresden Olympiad, in a remarkable game against Tiger Hillarp Persson, which we will now follow.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

15 ... �b8 This was a new move at the time, although it

is logical enough, as Black needs to activate his rook with . . . b5 followed by . . . �b6.

1 5 ... b5 had already occurred in three games, and after 1 6.lllf3 �b8 the play is similar to the main game and may even transpose directly.

16.lllf3 �g7 It is useful to take control over the e5-square,

preventing White from strengthening his position by means of llle5 and f4. A secondary point behind the last move is to prepare the regrouping plan of . . . �g7-f6 followed by . . . <;t>g7(f7).

17.0-0

Chapter 22 - 8 .l':l:b 1 269

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

17 . . . b5! I consider this the most accurate move. I

rejected 17 . . . �f6 18 .�g3 b5 in view of 1 9.Ei'.a3! when suddenly it is not easy to defend the a7-pawn.

18.i.g3 There are two important alternatives to

consider.

In the present position 1 8.Ei'.a3 is not dangerous, as after 18 . . . Wi'c8! 1 9.Ei'.xa7 Ei'.a8 Black achieves a highly desirable rook exchange, which more than justifies the loss of the a-pawn.

18 .lllg5!? This is more interesting, but Black has sufficient resources to meet the challenge.

1 8 . . . Ei'.b6 1 9.Ei'.xb5 Otherwise there would be no point to White's previous move.

a b c d e f g h

1 9 . . . Ei'.xb5! Black should be content to return most of his material in order to reach a good endgame. Less advisable would be 1 9 . . . Wc8 20.Ei'.c5 �f6 2 1 .�g3 c6 22.llle4�, or 2 1 . . .�xg5 22.Ei'.xg5 c6 23.Ei'.c5�, with interesting compensation for White in both cases.

20.llle6t Wf7 2 1 .lllxdSt Ei'.xd8 22.�g3 Black has kept a modest material advantage, and now he has a pleasant choice.

8 6 5 4 3 2

22 . . . e6!?

a b c d e f g h

This is the more ambitious option. In the event of 22 . . . e5 23.c4 Ei'.a5 (23 . . . Ei'.b4 24.�d5t Wf8 25 .dxe5 c6 26.�xc6 Ei'.xc4 27.�b7=) 24.dxe5 �xe5 25.�d5t Ei'.dxd5 26.cxd5 Ei'.xd5 the endgame is equal.

23.�xc7 Ei'.c8 24.a4 Ei'.b2 25.�a5 �f6!+ The endgame is slightly better for Black,

although it looks to me like White should be able to hold it.

a b c d e f g h

270 4.i.g5

18 .. J�b6 19.c4!? White opts for a temporary pawn sacrifice in

order to open the c-file for his rooks.

A serious idea was: 1 9.ltlg5 h6 20.tt:le4 <iif7 2 1 .ltlc5 The knight is very well placed on c5, but I am not convinced that this can offer White full compensation, and for this reason after the quiet 2 l . . . a6+ I prefer Black's position.

19 ... bxc4 1 9 . . . a6 is too passive, and after 20.c5 �f6

2 1 .ltle5 White obtains some pressure.

20Jk3 i.f6 Black continues the strategy of improving

his piece coordination. With his last move he vacates the g7-square for his king, enabling him to develop the h8-rook.

2U�xc4 c6 22.ltle5 After 22.�fcl <iif7 23.ltle5t i.xe5 24.i.xe5

�g8 we transpose to the game.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

22 ... he5!? Eliminating the knight is a very human

decision, but it is worth noting that our silicon friend prefers 22 ... <iig?N 23.tt:lxc6 Wd7, evaluating the position as favourable for Black.

The following line clearly justifies Black's safety-first strategy: 24.i.xc6 �xc6! 25.�xc6 Wd5 26.�c2 <iif7+ Black can press for a win without taking any real risk.

24 ... @f7 25.d5! This fantastic tactical resource enables White

to keep the game interesting. Clearly inferior is 25.�xc6? �xc6 26.i.xc6 Wa5!+ and with a pair of rooks off the board, Black is clearly better.

25 .i.xc6 can once again be met strongly by 25 . . . �xc6! 26.�xc6 Wd5+, just as in the note to the previous move.

25 ... cxd5 26Jk5 ge8! The strongest continuation. Instead after

26 . . . �d6 27.i.xd6 exd6 28.�c?t <iif6 29.�xa? White is not worse.

27.gxd5 gd6! Black must obviously avoid 27 . . . Wa8??

28.�d4 �b7 29.i.d5t and White wins.

a b c d e f g h

28.Ld6 exd6 29.gc6 ge6; Hillarp Persson - Avrukh, Dresden (ol)

2008. The complications have mostly subsided, and we have reached a calm position in which White has a rook and bishop against Black's queen. Overall Black stands slightly better, as he has managed to secure his king while preserving a small material advantage.

Chapter 22 - 8.1"1.bl 271

Nevertheless White has managed to construct a fortress which is hard to breach, and in the game I had to settle for a draw.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

C) 9.tllf3

a b c d e f g h

This useful developing move also carries the threat of ttJ g5, harassing the bishop.

9 ... tllb6 Black creates an escape route for the bishop,

while also safeguarding the b7- and c4-pawns. At this point White's most important choices are Cl) 10.a4 and C2) 10.i.e2, although a few other moves have also been tried.

1 0.Wc2 �g7 1 l .�e2 Wd7!? 1 2.0-0 Wa4 This slightly unusual queen manoeuvre gives Black interesting play. 13 .Wd2 �f5 14.Eib4 Wc6 15 .Wcl a5 16.Eib2 Now in Tomashevsky -Sutovsky, Kallithea 2008, Black should have played:

a b c d e f g h

16 . . . �e4!N Setting up a nice bind on the light squares, for instance: 17.lt:iel f5 1 8.f3 �d5+ With an extra pawn and a firm grip on the centre, Black stands better. The plan for the next few moves is . . . �f6 and . . . 0-0.

1 0.e4 This move seems a bit premature, as it allows Black an extra option.

10 . . . �g? 1 l .�e2 c5!? The fact that White has not yet castled is what makes this move a viable option. It is also quite reasonable to play 1 1 . . .f5!?N, just as in line C2 below. I do not see any way for White to take advantage of the fact that neither side has castled.

1 2.0-0 This position occurred in Halkias - L'Arni, Amsterdam 2006, and now the logical continuation of Black's play would have been:

s ��--��JI 1 �.t.• r�.t.�.t. 6 , %-�� .f� ··"� 5 ;; ,, ;�� - , %�'0 �� -0 4 •.t.r�8• � ��-� , %� ��

,,,,, 3 �� -0 2 8 r�11v1� a b c d e f g h

1 2 . . . cxd4N 1 3.cxd4 In the event of 1 3.lt:ixd4 �d7 14.f4 �a4 1 5 .Wd2 0-0 1 6.e5 Wd?+ Black has an extra pawn and a very solid position.

13 . . . Wd? 14 .Wc2 0-0 1 5.h3 f6 16.�g3 Eiac800

In this complex position Black looks to be in good shape.

Cl) 10.a4

272 4.ig5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

This is a thematic idea in positions where the black knight goes to b6, but in the present position the inclusion of the move !'i:al-b l renders the a4-pawn vulnerable.

10 ... aS 1 1.liJgS White provokes complications, which is

understandable as normal development does not promise him much: 1 l .i.e2 ig7 1 2.0-0 0-0 1 3.e4

s x� � ��• "�'0;{' '''"�-ef''' ''"'�-;;; 7 � · 11� 11� · - · 6 �---- "� .r� 'i"� 5 &{,,, , ;�� ,%� ��--;-; �� - , 4 8••11�8� � 3 �� , /,� �� ,,,,, 2 �-- -}·'�'� 1�1��,m--

a b c d e f g h 1 3 . . . id7! The a4-pawn is a clear target. 14.Wcl ( 14.!'i:al is pointless in view of 14 . . . We8!.) 14 . . . ixa4 1 5 .Wa3 Wd6! 16.i.xe7 Wxa3 17.ixa3 !'i:fe8 1 8.llid2 i.c2 1 9.!'i:b2 i.d3! 20.i.xd3 cxd3 Black was clearly better in Akobian - Roiz, Khanty-Mansiysk 2007.

1 1 . .. .adS! 12.e4 h6 Black accepts the challenge, and indeed the

complications are not unfavourable to him.

13.exd5 hxg5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

14.hgS After 14.!'i:xb6 Sutovsky demonstrates the

following illustrative line in ChessBase Magazine 1 1 3: 14 . . . cxb6 1 5.ixc4 Wc7! 16.ib5t �d8 17.ixg5 Wxc3t 18 .i.d2 Wxd4+

s x� • � �� 7 � ·- -·· 6 � a al� 5 ·�-8- • 4 _ _ }� �B �� 8 ��s_ j�� 3 �� '/ ��-;-; �� 2 ��1J�ii

a b c d e f g h Black is clearly better due to 1 9.0-0 i.h6!

20.i.xa5 if4! with a winning position.

14 ... .ah6 This seems more thematic than 14 . . . Wxd5

1 5 .!'i:b5 We4t 16.i.e2 f6 17.i.d2 Wxg2 18 .i.f3 Wh3 1 9 .ixb 7 Yz-1h Banikas - Smirin, Athens 2007. The position is messy and interesting but unfortunately it seems that neither player was in the mood for a fight.

15.i.xh6 �xh6 16.�f3

Chapter 22 - 8.:!'l:bl 273

Now Black found a natural, bur still highly attractive id�a:

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

Black clearly has the upper hand. Material is level, but White's pawns are weaker and his pieces lack coordination.

8

7 6 5 4 3

C2) 10.�e2

a b c d e f g h 2 16 ... E:h5! 17.g4

Otherwise the rook will be activated along the fifth rank. This occurred in Hillarp Persson - Sutovsky, Turin (ol) 2006, and now for some reason Black refrained from the natural continuation:

17 ... �xd5N The following continuation is more or less

forced:

1s.�g2 �xf3 19.La E:h3 20.Lb? E:ds 21.f3 E:d6!!i=

a b c d e f g h

a b c d e f g h

This time White simply completes his development before taking any direct action.

10 ... �g7 1 1 .0-0 0-0 12.e4 f5! This looks a bit dangerous, but in fact it is

the most active and principled idea available to Black, without which White could obtain long-term positional compensation. This strong move has only been played once, by a sub-2 1 00 player. Curiously, in 20 1 0 two grandmasters reached the same position with Black, but both of them opted for different and in my opinion less promising continuations.

13.tiJg5 This must be the critical reply.

13 ... �d7 14.exf5 White opts for a positional approach,

presumably hoping to develop pressure along the e-file.

It is important to note that the following tactical solution does not quite work for White: 14.:B:xb6 axb6 1 5.�xc4t

274 4.ig5

1 5 ... e6! The key move.

1 6.Wi'b3 1 6.g3 can be met comfortably by 1 6 . . . if6. The other important line is 16.exf5 l:"i:xf5 17.lLixe6? Wi'xh4 1 8.lUxc?t h8 1 9.lLixa8 l:"i:h5 20.h3 ixh3 with a winning position for Black.

1 6 . . . ih6 17.ixe6t g7 1 8.ixd7 ixg5 1 9.ixg5 Wi'xg5

White's compensation is hardly sufficient.

14 .. Jlxf5 In return for his damaged pawn structure

Black has secured the use of the important d5-square.

15.i.g4 This position occurred in Gladyszev -

Dubois, Metz 2007, and now Black should have played:

a b c d e f g h

15 . . . i.f6!N 16.f4 After 1 6.i.xf5 i.xf5 Black has great

compensation for the exchange, for instance 17.gb5 e6 and White's material advantage is unlikely to last for much longer.

It is also worth mentioning that 1 6.Wi'd2 can be met strongly by 16 . . . e5!.

16 .. ,gaS!

a b c d e f g h

White's compensation for the pawn is highly questionable.

Conclusion We have seen that the active move 8.:§:bl leads to complex and dynamic positions which can present tricky problems for both sides. After the correct 8 . . . tt:l d7!, taking the b7-pawn is harmless, but White's two alternatives should be studied carefully. The queen sacrifice associated with B) 9.Wi'a4 is fascinating, but as long as Black keeps a cool head and finds the right moves at a few key moments, he should be able to count on at least equal chances. Line C with 9.tt:lf3 sees White developing more calmly, but after 9 . . . tt:lb6 Black secures his extra pawn and keeps enough dynamic potential to fight for the initiative, perhaps with a material sacrifice of his own.

4.ig5 8.�f3

Variation Index 1 .d4 tt:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3.tiJc3 d5 4.J.g5 tt:Je4 5.J.h4 tlJxc3 6.bxc3 dxc4 7.e3 J.e6 8.tt:Jf3

8 ... J.g7 A) 9.J.e2 c5 10.0-0 0-0

Al) l 1 .tlJg5 A2) 1 1 .:gbl cxd4 12.tt:Jxd4 J.d5 13.�c2 �d7

A21) 14.e4 A22) 14.:gfdl

B) 9.�hl �d5 lO.J.e2 J.f5 Bl) 1 1 .�b4 B2) 1 1 .�b2

C) 9.:gbl b6 Cl) lO.tlJg5 C2) lO.tiJd2 C3) 10.J.e2 0-0

C31) 1 1 .tiJd2 C32) 1 1 .0-0

Al) after 2 1 .h5?!

a b c d e f g h 2 1 .. .Wf4!N

C l ) after 1 3.Wa4t

1 3 . .. c6!N

C32) after 1 8.!l:bdl

277 277 280 281 282 283 283 285 285 286 287 288 288 289

276 4 . .ig5

1 .d4 lllf6 2.c4 g6 3.lllc3 d5 4.i.g5 llle4 5.i.h4 lllxc3 6.bxc3 dxc4 7.e3 i.e6 8.lllf3

s 1. � �•m �� 7 if&"-""'%-,,�-,, , , , , , %� , , , , ,%� ,, , , ,%� �� 6 �� .-�� : �.,�--� 3 ��,,,, /,��-,;,,, 2 ttS""/,S,, , ,/,� ltwt! 1 �

�� lrlit•� a b c d e f g h

This time White makes a kingside developing move before deciding which of his major pieces, if any, to place on the b-file. Compared with the previous chapter, this small difference leads to some significant differences in the subsequent play for both sides.

8 ... i.g7 From here we will analyse the patient A)

9.i.e2, the recently fashionable B) 9.\Wbl , and finally C) 9.�bl . Before doing so, it is worth checking a couple of rare knight moves.

9 .tt:lg5?! is premature: 9 . . . id5 1 0.e4 h6 1 l .exd5 hxg5 1 2.ixg5 Wxd5 1 3.h4 This was Gerber -Belov, Biel 2009, and now Black should have immediately attacked the opponent's centre by 13 . . . c5!N, with the following point: 14.Wa4t tt:lc6 1 5 .Wxc4 l"!d8 1 6.Wxd5 l"!xd5 Black is clearly better.

9.tt:ld2 With this retreat White is not going for outright aggression, but instead strives for long-term compensation.

9 . . . b5 1 0.a4 c6 1 1 .ie2 In the following game White played too slowly and soon got into trouble: 1 1 .l"!b 1 a6

12.ie2 0-0 1 3.0-0 tt:ld7 14.e4 tt:lb6+ Lysyj - Kurnosov, Internet (blitz) 2004.

1 1 . . .a6 1 2.if3 l"!a7 13 .0-0 0-0 14.We2

8 ?� � ; -;,,"II�· /ml: :-: 'l /�� 7 �- -� -- -%--.f�.t. , , , , ,Y. � , , , /, ' " '" 6 , .. , .. j_ .. , .. � � '/,� 5 ��-/��-;;; 4 b�tJil�,%�� 3 ��J��'f{N1 2 � ,� §Y W� o Wb � ?%?� , --��

a b c d e f g h This position was reached in Lehmann -Ftacnik, Kiev 1 978, and here Black's play could have been improved by:

14 . . . if5!?N Provoking the following move.

1 5.e4 This is practically forced, since 1 5.tt:le4 tt:ld7 leaves White with very few ideas.

1 5 . . . ie6 White's 'free' move e3-e4 has reduced the scope of his minor pieces, especially his light-squared bishop. The resulting position is complex and holds chances for both sides. Black is a bit cramped, but his extra pawn is secure and White still needs to prove his compensation. Here is one illustrative line:

1 6.E!fb 1 ?! This natural move turns out to be a mistake.

Chapter 23 - 8 .lt'lf3 277

16 . . . b4! 17.ig3 White cannot play l 7.l"i:xb4 in view of l 7 . . . c5!.

l 7 . . . lt:Jd7 Black stands better.

A) 9.J.e2

9 ... c5 This is my top choice, although there is a

serious alternative in the . . . lt'ld7-b6 manoeuvre, which can be carried out either immediately or after castling.

10.0-0 0-0 At this important crossroads White's

principal choices are Al) l 1 .tllg5 and A2) 1 1.�bl.

1 1 .Wbl This move should prove harmless if Black responds correctly.

l l . . . lt'lc6! This idea is already known to us from the two preceding chapters: Black returns his extra pawn in order to maximize the activity of his pieces. In the event of l l . . .b6 12.l"i:dl White's position looks preferable to me.

12.Wxb7 id5

13 .Wb5 I also checked 13 .Wa6N cxd4 14.exd4 (after 14.cxd4 lt'lb4 15 .Wa4 a5 Black has sufficient counterplay) 14 . . . Wc8 1 5.Wxc8 l"i:axc8 when the position is balanced.

l 3 . . . cxd4 l 4.lt'lxd4 Ei:b8 l 5 .Wc5 l"i:c8 l 6.lt'lxc6 l"i:xc6 l 7.Wxa7

White has won a pawn, but after Black's next accurate move, his piece activity easily makes up for the small material investment.

8 ®J·��.Jmi! 7 21§� � f� · - · 6 ,, , ,/,•i• . ,,/, •.• �� : �� ,,��

3 ��-,,, 2 �- , %·�� 1 � �� m:m· ·

a b c d e f g h 17 . . . Wa8! 1 8.Wxa8 l"i:xa8 19.Ei:fdl e6 20.l"i:acl

Harikrishna - Howell, Wijk aan Zee 2010. 20 . . . h6!N

This would have been the best way to safeguard the king. Black will easily regain one of the queenside pawns, and if anything it is White who will have to take care to avoid becoming worse.

Al) l 1 .tllg5

278 4.Ag5

8 1. • � ��-� 7 :6i"� ,

, , , , , __ ,y,�· 6 "D DD I'D i"D �w.-:: �� /,'"/� 5 � �� m � 4

�m�,��

�./,,, , , ;� 3 D

�O "i@I�� 2 tt•,,,,%·t,� �� 1 ��1aim----

a b c d e f g h

1 1. .. Ads In the 2009 Gibraltar tournament I chose

an inferior option: 1 L . .if5 I should mention that during this event my computer was only working for a maximum of five minutes at a time before switching off, and my preparation suffered accordingly. 1 2 . .ixc4 tl:ic6 13 .Wb3 (the more accurate 1 3.Wf3!N would have created more serious problems) 1 3 . . . e6 1 4.tl:if3 Wb6 1 5.tl:id2 cxd4 1 6.cxd4 Ei:fc8 Black was fine in Harikrishna - Avrukh, Gibraltar 2009, although I later went wrong and lost.

12.e4 h6 13.exd5 hxg5 14 . .hg5 cxd4 15.hc4 dxc3

After a more or less forced sequence we reach a position in which White has tried two different moves.

16J!el The alternative is:

1 6.Ei:cl Wd6 17.Ei:el

a b c d e f g h Here I like the new idea:

17 . . . .ie5!?N 17 ... Ei:e8 also looks good enough for Black, despite the fact that he went on to suffer a painful loss. 1 8.We2 'i!?f8! 1 9.Wf3 tl:id7 Black has consolidated his position and there is no way he can be worse with such a strong pawn on c3. 20 . .if4 This was Harikrishna -Svidler, Dresden (ol) 2008, and now the best idea would have been:

a b c d e f g h 20 . . . Wf6N 2 1 ..ib5 g5! 22 . .ixd7 El:ed8 The simplifications work in Black's favour.

1 8.f4 1 8.We2 was mentioned by Mikhalchishin, but now instead of 1 8 . . . f6? Black should prefer 1 8 . . . tl:id7 when he is doing fine.

1 8 . . . .if6 1 9 . .ixf6 Wxf6

Chapter 23 - 8.lt:'if3 279

Black is at least equal, with . . . tt:ld7 and . . . Ei:ac8 coming quickly.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

16 ... i.f6! This is a key defensive idea. After the inferior

16 . . . Ei:e8? l 7.d6! White seized a decisive initiative in Banikas - Fier, Internet (blitz) 2009.

17.i.h6!? This is the most challenging move, although

White is also taking a serious risk in allowing the c-pawn to live.

After the safer 1 7 .i.xf6 a draw was agreed in Banikas - Rodshtein, Budva 2009. The logical continuation would seem to be 1 7 . . . exf6 1 8.Ei:cl Wd6 1 9.Ei:xc3 tt:ld7 with a perfectly playable position for Black.

17 ... Wfd6 This seems like the most natural and 'human'

move, especially taking into account that after 17 . . . Ei:e8 1 8.d6! White's bishops look extremely powerful.

However, I considered another interesting exchange sacrifice: 1 7 . . . tt:ld7!?N 1 8.d6!? (after 1 8.i.xf8 Wxf8 1 9.d6 e6 20.i.b3 tt:lc5 2 1 .i.c2 Wg7!+ Black's position is more pleasant) 1 8 . . . e6 19 .Wc2 Ei:e8 20.Ei:adl (20.Elxe6? does

not work: 20 . . . Ei:xe6 2 1 .i.xe6 fxe6 22.Wxg6t Wh8-+) 20 . . . Wa5 2 1 .Ei:e3 Ei:ad8 22.Ei:g3 Wh5 23.Ei:h3 Wc5 Black is holding his own in this complicated position.

18.hfs @xf8 19.E:bl b6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

20.h4! Opening the kingside with h4-h5 is White's

only attractive plan.

20 • . • tlld7 Of course the h-pawn is untouchable:

20 . . . i.xh4?? 21 .Wg4 i.f6 22.Wc8t Wg7 23.Wb7+-

21.hS?! In his column for the famous Russian

magazine 64, Alexey Kuzmin proposed 2 1 .g3N as an improvement for White.

a b c d e f g h

280 4.�g5

However, it seems to me that after 2 1 . .Jk8 22.�b3 (or 22.'Wg4 �k5 23.�b3 b5!) 22 . . . tLic5 23 .�c2 :!'!d8 24.h5 gxh5 25 .'Wxh5 'Wxd5 Black is out of danger.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

We have been following the game Al Sayed - Kasimdzhanov, Guangzhou (rapid) 20 1 0. In this position Kuzmin points out a significant improvement for Black:

21 . .. Y*l'f4!N Black takes over the initiative, with . . . �d4 or

. . . tLie5 coming next.

A2) 1 1 .�bl

In my opinion this is the critical continuation. It featured twice in the recent World Championship Candidates match between Gelfand and Kamsky, which took place just a few weeks before the book went to print.

1 1 ...cxd4 In the first of the two aforementioned games

Black tried a different approach but soon found himself in trouble: l 1 . . .�d5?! This looks rather risky. 1 2.'Wc2 cxd4?! (If Black is to make his previous move work then 12 .. .f5!?N might be the way, although I have my doubts about it . . . ) 13 .cxd4 b6?! ( 13 . . . 'Wd7 was the lesser evil, although Black is struggling here too.) 14.�xc4 tLic6 1 5 .:!'!fcl �xc4 16.'Wxc4 tLia5 17.'Wc7 Black had a depressing position although he eventually managed to hold a draw, Gelfand -Kamsky, Kazan (2.2) 20 1 1 .

12.t2Jxd4 White has also played:

12.cxd4 'Wd7 I should mention that the alternative 12 . . . 'W c7!? also deserves attention.

1 3.lLig5 �d5 14.e4 �c6 1 5.�xc4

8 .i� � }�· 7 ·�· -if�·�· 6 •-*-• -· � 5 � � � ��,"��,, ·� � 4 �,��j�� 3 ��,%�� 2 8 r�1�v1°

a b c d e f g h 1 5 . . . 'Wxd4N

This looks better than 1 5 . . . �xd4 16.'Wb3, which gave White dangerous compensation for the pawn in Leitao - Lima, Sao Paulo 2005.

16.'Wb3 e6 l 7.�xe6 Sacrificing on e6 is clearly critical. There is also: 17.:!'!bd 1 'Wb2 l 8.�xe6 'Wxb3 1 9 .�xb3 tLia6 Black intends to continue . . . lLic5 with a fine position.

17 . . . fxe6 1 8.'Wxe6t Much worse for White is: 1 8 .lLixe6 'Wxe4

Chapter 23 - 8 .tl:Jf3 28 1

19 .tllxf8t c;t>xf8 20.Wh3 tll d7+ 1 8 . . . c;t>h8 1 9

·.md1 Wf6 20.Wh3 id7 2 1 .l':!xd7

tllxd7 22.tllxh7

a b c d e f g h 22 . . . Wc3! 23.tllxf8 Wxh3 24.tllxg6t c;t>h7 25.gxh3 c;t>xg6 26.l':!xb7 tllc5 27.l':!b4 l':!h8+ After all the tactical fireworks, we have reached a position where only Black can play for a win.

12 ... i.d5 13.%Yc2 White recently tried:

1 3.f3 b6 14.e4 ib7 1 5 .ixc4 tll c6 The pawn structure is favourable for Black, and White's hope must be that his activity provide enough compensation.

16.idS l':!c8 17.tllbS

a b c d e f g h This position occurred in Vuckovic -Sanikidze, France 201 1 . Here Black can immediately solve all his problems by:

l 7 . . . a6N l 8.tlla7 The only move that poses any danger, but Black can deal with it.

1 8 . . . l':!c7! 1 9.l':!xb6 After 19 .tllxc6 ixc6 20.if2 (or 20.c4 Wd7!) 20 . . . l':!d7 2 1 .ixb6 Wc8 Black will very soon regain the pawn.

1 9 . . . tllxa7 20.ixb7 l':!d7 2 1 .Wb3 tllb5 22.if2 lllxc3 23.l':!xa6 l':!d2

Black has powerful compensation for the pawn; indeed it is White who must play accurately in order to maintain the balance.

13 ... %Yd7 Not the most aesthetic move, but definitely

the strongest one. After 1 3 . . . b6 14.e4?! ib7 1 5 .ixc4 tllc6 1 6.l':!bdl We8 Black was doing well in Caruana - Nepomniachtchi, Moscow (blitz) 201 O; but instead 14.md 1 !N would have been highly unpleasant for Black to meet.

After the text move White has tried A21) 14.e4 and A22) 14JUdl.

A21) 14.e4 i.c6 15.hc4 hd4! 16.cxd4 %Yxd4

a b c d e f g h

It looks a bit scary to give up the dark-squared bishop, but it's very principled, and according to my analysis it is not easy for White to pose Black many problems.

17J�bdl I also examined: 17.me l e6 1 8.l':!bdl Wc5

l 9.if6 This is not as dangerous for Black as

282 4.�g5

it looks at first sight. 19 .. . tlld7 20.�d4 (after 20.l"i:xd7 �xd7 2 1 .Wd2 l"i:fc8 Black will have . . . Wf8 to defend the dark squares on the kingside) 20 . . . We7 I do not think that White has enough for the pawn.

17 ... Wxe4 The endgame is not dangerous for Black.

18.'!Wxe4 he4 19.gfel �fS 20.he7 White avoids the totally equal 20.l"i:xe7 tll c6

2 1 .l"i:xb7 tlla5, but he lacks the resources to fight for an advantage.

20 ... ges 21 .f3 llJc6 22 . .if6 The strong dark-squared bishop gives White

enough compensation to hold the balance, but not more. In the game, Black decided to liquidate into a drawish endgame.

22 ... gxel t 23.gxel .ie6 24.he6 ges 25.i.xflt @xf7

Moiseenko - Kurnosov, Moscow 2009.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

A22) 14.gfdl

a b c d e f g h

This logical move was introduced by Boris Gelfand in the second of his recent games against Kamsky in this line. I had analysed it already, having proposed it as a novelty at a seminar I gave in Stuttgart.

14 ... �xd4! This is one of the key motifs associated with

the move . . . Wd7 .

15.cxd4 1 5 .e4 �e5 16.exd5 b5 is fine for Black.

1 5 .l"i:xd4 is also harmless: 1 5 . . . tllc6 16.l"i:d2 We6 The queen is well-placed here. 17.Wdl �e4 1 8.l"i:xb7 l"i:ab8 The position is equal.

a b c d e f g h

15 ... We6! This is clearer than 1 5 . . . l"i:c8 16.e4 �c6

1 7.l"i:b4! with interesting play for White.

16.�f3 ixf3 17.gxf3 llJd7! The idea of returning the pawn for quick

mobilization works well here. In the event of 17 ... Wd5 1 8.We4! White has the advantage.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 23 - 8 .lll f3 283

18.gxb?!?N This is a natural attempt to improve White's

play. In fact I had already analysed the move, along with what follows, at a time when the "N" mark could be found four moves earlier.

1 8.'We4 led nowhere for White in the recent Candidates match: 1 8 . . . b6 1 9.:1%dc l :1%ac8 20.:1%b4 c3 21 .:1%b3 tll f6 22.Wxe6 fxe6 23.i.xf6 Y2-Y2 Gelfand - Kamsky, Kazan (2.4) 201 1 .

18 • • • gfb8 19.dS After 1 9.:1%db l :1%xb7 20.:1%xb7 :1%c8

21 .:1%xa7 c3 the c-pawn gives Black sufficient counterplay.

19 ••. Wfh3 20.gxb8t gxb8 21 .Wi'e4 c3 22.i.xe7

a b c d e f g h

22 ... gb2! 23.i.d6 This seems to be White's only move to

maintain the balance. Worse is: 23.i.b4?! tlle5 24.Wxe5 :1%xb4 25 .:1%c l Wxf3 26.'Wxc3 2:g4t 27.ltifl :1%g5! Black has the initiative, due to the vulnerable white king.

23 • • • hS! This accurate move secures equality; It 1s

important to create a safe square for the black king on h7.

24.Wf e8t ltig7 25.i.eSt lt.JxeS 26.WfxeSt ltig8=

White is not forced to take the perpetual, but avoiding it does not bring him any advantage.

B) 9.'IWbl

The idea of sacrificing a pawn by 9 . . . c5 doesn't work here; continuing in the same way as we did in line C of Chapter 21 with 1 0.Wxb7 i.d5 1 l .'Wb5t Wd7, then both 1 2.'Wxc5 and 1 2.i.xc4 are advantageous for White.

9 . . . b6 1 0.i.e2 0-0 1 1 .0-0 c5 1 2.:1%dl looks quite pleasant for White.

10 • .ie2 .if5 It is essential to improve the position of

the light-squared bishop with tempo, taking control over the important e4-square at the same time.

White now has a choice of squares for his queen: Bl) l l .'1Wb4 or B2) l l .'1Wb2.

Bl) l l .'1Wb4

284 4.ig5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

1 1 . • • c5 12.Wxc4 Capturing the c4-pawn the other way allows

Black a surprising resource: 1 2.ixc4

s E • �-� �.i 7 :di'• �� l�.lfi 6

%� %/a� ,%� -----�� 5 �.1�!� ��/.' ,_fl-J�,,, �� -,, 4 �.,�,J� � � 3 �

- , ,%� %��------2 �-� -;,.s _ ;,��W{j 1 �

�� =- ->-��.: a b c d e f g h

1 2 . . . Wxd4!N 1 2 . . . Wxf3 1 3.Wa4t id? 14.Wxd?t llixd7 1 5 .gxf3 gave White a slight pull in Aronian - Svidler, Novi Sad 2009, although Svidler defended well to draw. Even before that game finished, Svidler realized that he had missed this spectacular move.

1 3.ib5t The critical response.

1 3 . . . id?! Black now manages to achieve the favourable exchange of light-squared bishops.

14.Wxd4 cxd4 1 5 .ixd?t llixd7 16.cxd4 e5 17.Elcl

a b c d e f g h 1 7 . . . 0-0

This is simplest, although 17 . . . exd4 1 8.llixd4 0-0 19 . We2 Elfc8 is also okay.

1 8 .We2 Elac8 The position is equal.

12 ... Wxc4 13.i.xc4 tlic6 Black might be slightly worse after 13 . . . llid?

14.0-0 Elc8 1 5 .id5.

14.0-0 l:k8 15.:Sacl llia5 16.i.b5t i.d7 17 . .ie2 i.e6 18.llid2

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

This position was reached in Pantsulaia -Sutovsky, Gothenburg 2005 . Black can easily equalize with:

18 ... f5!N The attack on the e7-pawn prevents Black

Chapter 23 - 8.t2Jf3 285

castling, how�ver the king can find a safe haven on f7.

19.i.f'3 cxd4 20.cxd4 @f7 Black has comfortable equality.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B2) 1 1.�b2

a b c d e f g h

1 1 ...tlld7 12.0-0 i.d3 There have been another couple of Griinfeld

dashes between Aronian and Svidler:

12 . . . e5 13 .Wb4 c5 14.Wxc4 Wxc4 1 5 .�xc4 :1'1c8 16.�d5 White had definite pressure in Aronian - Svidler, Dortmund 2006.

12 ... tt:Jb6 13.a4 a5 14.t2Jd2 �d3 1 5 .�xd3 cxd3 16.Wb l! ? ( 1 6.:1'\fbl Wc6 17.Wa3 0-0 was unclear in Aronian - Svidler, Moscow 2006) 16 ... e5 (after 16 . . . Wc6 17.Wxd3 tt:Jxa4 1 8 .c4 tt:Jb6 19.Elfbl White has good compensation for the pawn) 17.Wxd3 0-0 1 8.Elfb 1 White had an edge in Paikidze - Popova, Plovdiv 2008.

13.hd3 cxd3 14JUdl White has tried 14.e4, but 14 ... Wc6 1 5.e5

Wa6! 1 6.Elfel e6 17.l2Jd2 0-0 1 8 .l2Je4 c5 gave Black the better position in Romanov -Nepomniachtchi, St Petersburg 2009 .

14 ... �e4 15.�bl c5 16J�xd3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

16 ... b6N I offer this as an improvement on 1 6 . . . Elc8

as played in Eljanov - Svidler, Astrakhan 20 10 . In that game White later penetrated with his rook along the a-file, suggesting that it may have been a bit premature for Black to move his rook away from a8.

17J�dl Another line runs: 17.a4 0-0 1 8 .a5 ( 1 8.Eld l

Wxb 1 1 9.Eldxb 1 e5 20.a5 is just a transposition) 1 8 . . . e5 1 9.Eldl Wxbl 20.:1'\dxb l exd4 21 .exd4 :1'\fc8 Black has no problems.

17 ... �xbl 18Jfaxbl l:k8 Now that the white rook has left the a-file,

this move is natural and good.

19.a4 cxd4 This is necessary in order to activate our

rook.

20.cxd4 f6 This seems to be the best way to solve the

problem of the e7-pawn.

21.a5 @f7 22.i.g3 l:k4 Black doesn't have any problems m this

endgame.

C) 9.:gbl b6

286 4.1g5

Black is unable to use the same remedy as in the previous chapter, because here 9 . . . liJd?? runs into the unpleasant 1 0.llig5 .

White now has three main options, Cl) 10.lbgS, C2) 10.lbd2 and C3) 10.i.e2, although he has also tried a fourth move:

10 .�c2 c6N 1 0 . . . 0-0?! allows White to reveal his idea with: 1 1 .llig5! .id5 1 2.e4 .ib7?! (after 1 2 . . . f6 1 3.liJf3 .if7 14.liJd2 White regains the pawn with an edge) 1 3 . .ixc4 �c8 14.�b3 White had strong pressure in I. Sokolov - Arman, Stockholm 201 1 .

l 1 .llig5 .id5 1 2.e4 f6! 1 3 .liJf3 .i f7 14.a4 Otherwise White may not get the pawn back.

14 . . . a6 1 5 .�a2 b5! 16 .axb5 cxb5 17.l"!.xb5 axb5 18 .�xa8 0-0 1 9 . .ie2 liJd7

Black has a good game, with chances to take over the initiative.

Cl) 10.lbgS i.d5

a b c d e f g h

1 1 .e4 1 l .�a4t is pointless, in view of: 1 1 . . .�d?N

1 2.�xd?t llixd7 13 .e4 .ib7 1 4 . .ixc4 h6! 1 5.llixf7 l"!.f8 The complications turn out in Black's favour.

l 1 . .. h6 12.exdS hxg5 13.�a4t The alternatives have not brought White

success:

1 3 . .ixg5 �xd5 14.�g4 lli d7! 1 5 . .ie2 Kahn -Caruana, Budapest 2005. Black should now play the straightforward: 1 5 . . . l"!.cSN 1 6.0-0 c5+

13 . .ig3 �xd5 14 . .ie2 �a5 1 5 .0-0 Jorczik - P. Popovic, Germany 2009. Now Black can simply capture the c-pawn: l 5 ... �xc3N 1 6.�a4t c6 17.l"!.xb6 axb6 1 8.�xa8 0-0 1 9 . .ixb8 .ixd4! 20.�b? �c2 2 1 ..if3 �d2 Black's position is close to winning, thanks to the powerful c-pawn.

8 i. a1 �-� �i. ,�,,,,, ;�.ref""'";;;r% ��:r;;t"" 1 � ri% ri% i m 6 , , , , , /,. , , , , %- , , , , , %- ,,�-, , , , , /,� �� ,�

: lnT��.•. 3 �6"""� �� ,,,,, ��' '� �m·0�m·" � � �� a b c d e f g h

13 ... c6!N I believe that this move, suggested by the

computer, effectively refutes this line. In all the games that have reached this position Black played the natural 13 . . . iiifS. Although that is also fine for Black, it gives White more chances than the text.

14.dxc6 After 14 . .ixg5 �xd5 1 5 . .ie3 b5 Black

remains with a healthy extra pawn and the better position.

14 ... �dS!

Chapter 23 - 8.lllf3 287

This strong follow-up is the point of Black's novelty. It transpires that c6-c7t is not such a deadly threat. Meanwhile the white bishop is hanging and Black threatens . . . �e4t winning the rook on b l .

15.i.g3 �e4t 16.@d2 �xbl 17.hc4 This is White's most challenging try.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

17 ... �6! 17 . . . '\Wxh l ? allows the stunning 1 8.c?t

llld7 1 9.'Wxd?!!t c;t>xd7 20.ib5t with a most unusual perpetual check.

18.i.d.3! This is stronger than 1 8.ixb8 '1Wxf2t 1 9.c;t>dl

0-0, when Black is decidedly better.

18 ... �a5 1 8 . . . b5!? looks interesting as well.

19.�xa5 bxa5 20.i.e4 White clearly has some compensation, but

not quite enough.

20 ... 0-0 21.�bl e5 Black has the advantage.

C2) 10.tlld2

This has been White's most popular choice, but it is not particularly dangerous. White ensures that he will regain his pawn, but Black gets enough time to develop his counterplay.

10 ... 0-0 1 1.�f3 Other options include the following:

1 l .ie2 c5 transposes to C3 l .

1 1 .ixc4? is certainly no good, due to l 1 . . . ixc4 1 2.tt:Jxc4 �d5 followed by 1 3 . . . �xg2.

1 l .llJxc4 c5 1 2.ie2

1 2 . . . llJcG 12 . . . tt:Jd? 1 3.0-0 tt:Jf6!? is worth considering.

1 3.0-0 cxd4 14.cxd4 l"ic8 1 5 .l"icl White has also tried 1 5.°1Wa4, but after 1 5 . . . �d? White has to spend a tempo

288 4 .i.g5

defending against the .. . lllxd4 threat. 1 6.'it>hl Kahn - Todor, Budapest 1 994. Simplest now is: 16 ... llle5N 1 7.Wxd7 lllxd7 1 8.l"i:fcl i.f6 19 .i.g3 i.f5 20.l"i:al Ei:fd8 Black is not worse.

1 5 . . . Wd7 1 6.Wd2

a b c d e f g h Here I found an interesting idea:

1 6 . . . i.h6!?N Threatening to play . . . lllxd4.

17.f4 Not the most desirable move, but after 17.Ei:fd l Black's idea works well: 1 7 . . . lllxd4 18 .i.fl Ei:fd8!+

17 . . . i.g7 1 8.Ei:fd l Ei:fd8 Black will play . . . i.d5 next; his position is

very comfortable.

a b c d e f g h

1 1 ...i.dS 12.e4 i.b7 13 . .L:c4 c5 14.dS .!lid? 15.�e3

1 5 .i.g3 llle5 16.i.xe5 i.xe5 17.We3 occurred in Hillarp Persson - lzoria, Kusadasi 2006, and now strong for Black is: 17 . . . e6N 1 8.dxe6 (after 18 .0-0 exd5 19 .exd5 l"i:e8 Black has an excellent game) 1 8 . . . fXe6 1 9.i.xe6t 'it>h8 White is in trouble, as he cannot castle due to . . . i.f4.

15 ... llleS 16.i.e2 f5 17.f4 .!llg4! This is more active than 1 7 . . . lllf!, which has

been played a couple of times.

18 . .L:g4 fxg4 19.0--0 �d7 20.a4 e6! 21 .dxe6 �xe6 22.a5 gae8 23.axb6 axb6 24.gbel h6

Black had solved all his opening problems in Wang Yue - CAmi, Istanbul 2005.

C3) 10.i.e2 0--0

White now chooses between C31) l l . .!lld2 and C32) 1 1 .0-0.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

C31) 1 1 ..!lld2

a b c d e f g h

1 1 . .. cS! 12.i.£3 After 1 2.0-0 Black has no problems:

12 . . . cxd4 1 3.exd4 llld7 14.lllxc4 lllf6= Nogueiras - Sasikiran, Internet 2005.

12 ... cxd4! 13.i.xaS Taking the rook seems critical. The stem game continued:

Chapter 23 - 8.lllf3

13.cxd4 liJd7l 14.ixa8 19 ... �b4 20.tl!fe2 Another line is 14.d5 if5 1 5.e4 and here White sensibly prepares to castle. Krasenkow in ChessBase Magazine 1 07 gives 1 5 . . . c3 ( 1 5 . . . :§c8 first may be more accurate) 20 ... lbc5 21.lbd4

289

1 6.liJb3 :§c8 17.Wc2 g5! 1 8 .ixg5 ig6 with After 2 1 .0-0 Black has 2 1 . . .if5! with an excellent position for Black. advantage.

14 . . . Wxa8 Black's strong passed pawn and bishop pair 21. .. .id7 22.0--0 �a4 gives him more than enough compensation Black clearly has the initiative. for the exchange.

1 5 .0-0 c3 1 6.llif3 :§c8 17.Wa4 llif6 C32) 1 1 .0-0 c6 Black was better and went on to score a

convincing victory in Moiseenko - Svidler, Sochi 2005.

15Jkl tDa6 16.�b7 tlJc5 17 . .L:e7 We have been following Sorokina -

Gorozhankina, St Petersburg 2005. Black should now play:

17 ... tlJxb7N 18 . .L:fs .L:fs I feel that Black should be able to slowly take

over the initiative.

19Jk2 Black is also better after: 1 9. liJ d4 ib4

20.:§c2 id5!

1 a b c d e f g h

12.e4 One game continued:

1 2.llid2 b5 1 3.if3 a6 14.a4 :§a7 1 5.ig3 This was Ruehlemann - Rohde, Krumpa 1 972, and now I believe Black should play:

290 4.ig5

Black provokes a pawn move that will block the pressure of White's light-squared bishop - just as was suggested against the sideline 9.llld2 at the start of the chapter.

16.e4 After 16.Elal id3 17.ie2 ixe2 1 8.Wxe2 llld7 Black is better.

16 . . . ie6 17.We2 llld7 1 8.We3 Here Black can even play:

1 8 . . . lllb6 19 .axb5 axb5 20.d5 cxd5 2 1 .exd5 ixd5! 22.ixd5 lllxd5 23 .Wxa7 lllxc3

Black's two queenside pawns could well decide the issue.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

12 ... bS 13.llJg5 .td7 14.f4 f6 15.llJO If White plays 1 5.lllh3 then I recommend:

1 5 .. .f5 16.if3 (or 16.e5 ie6 17.a4 a6 1 8.if3 Ela? 19.Wcl id5 20.Wa3 Elb7+) 16 . . . llla6 Followed by . . . lllc7; I prefer Black, since it is not clear how White should continue.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

15 ... .th6! 16 . .tg3 llJa6 Black activates his knight; it is heading

for c7 and later to e6 or d5, depending on circumstances.

17.Wc2 llJc7 18.gbdl This occurred in Postny - Bykhovsky, Israel

20 10 . It is now the right moment to play the thematic:

18 ... f5!N 19.d5 Wes! Black has the better chances.

Conclusion Simply developing with A) 9.ie2 is a sensible option; Black must play accurately, but if he does so then he can count on securing equal chances. Attacking the b7-pawn with B) 9.Wb l is well met by 9 . . . Wd5. White will regain the c4-pawn, but the queens are liable to come off, resulting in a level endgame. The other method of attacking the b7-pawn is 9.Elb l , which can lead to very interesting tactical play; in particular, C3 1) 9 . . . b6 1 0.ie2 0-0 1 1 .llld2 c5! 12.if3 cxd4! is a highly promising rook sacrifice.

4.�f3 Rare Fifth Moves

Variation Index 1.d4 lbf6 2.c4 g6 3.lLic3 d5 4.lLif3

4 • . . i.g7 A) 5.'1Wa4t B) 5.g3 dxc4 6.'1Wa4t lLifd7 7.'1Wxc4 lbb6

Bl) 8.'1Wb3 B2) 8.\Wd3

B l ) note to 1 0.e3 B 1) after l 3.a3

a b c d e f g h 1 3 .. . e5N

a b c d e f g h

B2) note to 9.ig2

292 293 293 294

292 4.tll f3

1 .d4 tiJf6 2.c4 g6 3.tiJc3 d5 4.tlJf3 i.g7

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

We shall look at A) 5.Wfa4t and B) 5.g3. Note that 5 .e3 was covered via the move order 4.e3 ig7 5.tlif3 in Chapter 12.

A) 5.Wfa4t i.d7 6.Wfb3 dxc4 7.Wfxc4 0-0

This variation is clearly similar to the line with 4.�a4t that we examined in Chapter 9. Indeed the two most popular moves here, 8 .if4 and 8.e4, transpose directly into that chapter, to lines A and B 1 respectively. There remains one other reasonable move to look at:

8.g3 i.e6 Chasing the white queen away should help

Black to get in the desirable . . . c5, although

it might also be interesting to try 8 . . . tlia6N 9.ig2 c5.

9.Wfa4 Another option is 9.�d3 but Black is doing

well after: 9 . . . c5 1 0.ig2 tlic6 1 l .dxc5 �a5N (also quite attractive is 1 1 . . .�xd3 12.exd3 Ahrendt - Gerlach, corr. 1 973, and now 1 2 . . . tli d5N is at least equal for Black) 1 2.�b5 �xb5 1 3.tlixb5 :E'lac8 14.0-0 tlie4 White will have to play accurately in order to avoid being worse.

9 ... tlJd5 10.i.g2

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

10 ... c5 1 0 . . . tlic6 is also playable.

1 1 .tiJxd5 i.xd5 12.dxc5 tlJa6 13.Wf a3 Wf d7 14.0-0 Wfb5

The calm 14 . . . :E'\fd8 deserves attention.

15.c6?! White should be satisfied with: 1 5 .tlid4

ixd4 1 6.ixd5 e6 17 .if3 tlixc5 The game is fairly equal.

15 ... i.xc6 16.Wfxe7 gfe8 17.Wfh4 ge4 18.i.f4 gxe2

Black was clearly better in Adianto -Formanek, Liechtenstein 1 992.

Chapter 24 - Rare Fifth Moves 293

B) 5.g3

I have never faced this move in practice, but in my database I found over 600 games where it has been played.

5 ... dxc4 6.�a4t The alternative is:

6.�g2 c6! le is already not so easy for White to regain the pawn. The arising position slightly resembles some Catalan lines where White plays for compensation for the pawn, but I believe that Black's dark-squared bishop makes a big difference here - from g7 it has a lot of influence on the centre.

7.li:le5 7.0-0 0-0 and 7.a4 0-0 8.0-0 transpose to lines C and C2 respectively of Chapter 5.

7 . . . li:lg4!

a b c d e f g h With this thematic reaction we immediately feel the influence of the dark-squared bishop.

8.li:lxg4 �g4 9.d5 0-0 1 0.h3 1 0.0-0 is another transposition to Chapter 5, this time to the note to White's ninth move in line C3. This was Hvenekilde - Knudsen, Aarhus 1984, and now I like:

1 0 . . . �c8N Black is intending to exchange on d5 next move, so the bishop is better placed on c8 rather than d7.

1 1 .0-0 cxd5 1 2.li:lxd5 After 1 2.'1Wxd5 '1Wxd5 1 3.�xd5 ( 13 .li:lxd5 li:l c6 is just a pawn up for Black) 13 . . . li:l c6 1 4. <;t>g2 �e6, Black is better.

1 2 . . . li:l c6 Black is doing well, particularly after:

13.'1Wa4 �xh3!+

6 ... tiJfd7 7.�xc4 After 7.�g2 0-0 White is obliged to play

8 .'1Wxc4 anyway, returning to the main line.

7 ... tiJb6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

White has to choose between two different retreats: B l) 8.�b3 or B2) 8.�d3.

Bl) 8.�b3 0-0 9.i.g2 tlJc6

294 4.lt:Jf3

10.e3 1 3 .ifl ixfl 14.'it>xfl e5 is obviously very Other moves do not promise White much good for Black.

either:

1 O.d5 This pawn sacrifice doesn't work here: 1 0 . . . ixc3t 1 1 .bxc3 Wxd5 12.0-0 ie6 White had no compensation for the pawn in Niebaum - Krueger, Essen 2006.

1 0.0-0 lllxd4 1 1 .lllxd4 Wxd4 1 2.E1dl (after 12 .lllb5 Docekal - Dvorak, Znojmo 2002, Black should play 12 ... Wc5!N 13 .ie3 Wc4 and White does not have enough compensation for the pawn) 12 ... Wg4 13 .if3 Schwartzman -Martinovsky, Saint John 1 988. Here 1 3 . . . Wf5N 14.if4 c6 would make it difficult for White to demonstrate compensation.

10 ... .ie6 1 1 .Wfdl .ic4 An important idea, disrupting White's

development.

12.tlid.2

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

12 ... .id3!

c e g h

This is stronger than: 1 2 . . . ia6 13 .lllde4 e5 14.d5 lLl b4 1 5 .lllc5 White had achieved an acceptable game in Mascarinas - Djuric, Subotica 1 984.

13.a3

13 ... eSN Not so clear is 13 . . . ixd4 Machacek -

Jansa, Havirov 1 970, and now White should take the bishop: 14.exd4N lllxd4 1 5.ie4D lllc2t 16.Wxc2 ixc2 17.ixc2 With three pieces for the queen, I would rather be White here.

14.dS tlid4!

16 ... dxc3 17.Wfxd3 cxb2 18.hb2 hb2 19.gbl i.g7 20.0-0

White has some compensation for being a pawn down, but it's obvious that he is fighting for a draw.

B2) 8.Wf d3 0-0 9.i.g2

After 9.if4 Black can quickly arrange counterplay in the centre, and the white queen on d3 is quite vulnerable: 9 . . . llla6 1 0.e4 (White cannot complete his development normally, since 1 0.ig2 c5 puts his centrn under too much pressure) 1 0 . . . c5 1 1 .d5

Chapter 24 - Rare Fifth Moves 295

a b c d e f g h l l . . .f5! Thus powerful thrust is a logical way for Black to use his lead in development. 12.e5 tt:Jb4 1 3.'1Wd2 lt:J4xd5 1 4.0-0-0 e6 Black had the better chances in Obukhov - Najer, Krasnodar 1 997.

9 ... CLJc6 10.�f4 Other possibilities are hardly satisfactory for

White:

10.e3 e5+

10.�e3 �f5 1 1 .'\Wdl lt:Jc4+

1 0.0-0 lt:Jxd4 1 1 .llJxd4 '1Wxd4 1 2.'1Wxd4 �xd4 White failed to demonstrate compensation after 1 3.a4 (or 1 3.lt:Jb5 �e5 14.�h6 :gd8 1 5.:gfdl �d7+ Bancod - Jayaram, Subic Bay 2009) 13 . . . a5 14.lt:Jb5 �e5 1 5 .�h6 :gd8 16.:gadl �d7 17.b3 �e6!+ Othman - Frhat, Manama 2009.

a b c d e f g h

10 ... tlJxd4! A convincing way to solve any opening

problems.

1 1.CLJxd4 e5 12.CLJdb5?! This may look at first sight to be the most

challenging continuation, but objectively better is l 2.�xe5 �xe5 1 3 _:gd l , which leads to an only slightly inferior position: 1 3 . . . '\We7 14.0-0 c5 ( 14 . . . c6!?N also gives Black a comfortable game) 1 5 .lt:Jf3 �g7 1 6.tt:Jd2 �f5 1 7.'\Wb5 �e6+ Massimini Gerbino - Krueger, e-mail 2003.

12 ... Wfxd3 13.exd3 exf4 14.CLJxc7 gbg Black has a strong initiative.

15.0-0 1 5 .gxf4 runs into 1 5 . . . :gd8 1 6.0-0-0 �g4+.

1s ... fxg3 16.hxg3 gds+ Black enjoys a clear advantage, thanks to

his bishop pair and superior pawn structure, Hubner - Topalov, Dortmund 1 996.

Conclusion The rare fifth moves we looked at in this chapter should not trouble Black unduly. In particular, ifWhite wants to enter the Fianchetto System then I don't think that the move order featured in this chapter with 5 .g3 is the most accurate; after 5 . . . dxc4 6.Wa4t tt:Jfd7 7.'1Wxc4 lt:Jb6 Black quickly obtains good play against the white centre.

5.ig5 6.ih4

Variation Index 1 .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.�f3 .ig7 s . .ig5 �e4 6 . .ih4

6 ... �xc3 7.bxc3 dxc4 A) 8.e3 B) 8.\Wa4t

Bl) 8 ... �d7!? B2) 8 ... \Wd7 9.\Wxc4 b6!

B21) 10 . .ig3 B22) 10.\Wh3 .ia6 1 1 .e3 .ixf1

B221) 12.©xfl

B2 l) after l 4.d5

a b c d e f g h 14 . . .Wf5!N

B222) 12.gxfl 0-0 13.©e2 c5 B2221) 14.gfdl B2222) 14.dxc5

B221 ) after 1 7.Wc4

1 7 . . . l'l:fcS!N

B222 l) after l 5.dxc5

297 298 298 299 300 301 301 303 303 303

Chapter 25 - 6.ih4 297

I.d4 llif6 2.c4 g6 3.llic3 dS 4.llif3 Ag7 5.i.gS llie4 -

6.i.h4 The most popular 6.cxdS will be covered in

the following chapter.

The other main alternative is 6.i.f4 tllxc3 7 .bxc3 cS, reaching a position that was examined in Chapter 19 (note to White's seventh move) .

6 ... llixc3 7.bxc3 dxc4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

White now chooses between A) 8.e3 and B) 8.�a4t.

A) 8.e3 b5

Black can of course play 8 . . . i.e6 transposing to Chapter 23. However White's move order allows Black the option of defending the c4-pawn in a different way, and it is certainly tempting to take advantage of this opportunity.

9.a4 c6 10.llid2 a6 1 1 .Ae2 0-0 12.i.f3

8 .i �ti.� ��· '/, , , , , ,,, , , , , ,/,�.f'.%{"'"Y,a:::r� : r.! •• ,,j

�� s �t·w��-%W, 4 8 -��Jt!ra:;f/% �� 3 �

�[!} �t!J�-

2 :;/.,,, ,/,�,, , ,/,� !IWfJ 1 � W&,�w=,,,,/,Eri a b c d e f g h

12 ... :ga? This move has been played in all the games

to reach this position, but I fail to understand why 1 2 . . . i.b 7 has never occurred in practice. I guess everybody is worried about 1 3.tll e4, but I don't see anything wrong with 1 3 . . . Ele8 (after 1 3 . . . tll d7? 14.tlld6 White regains the pawn with advantage) 14.tll cS Wc8 followed by . . . tlld7. It seems to me that the onus is on White to demonstrate sufficient compensation.

13.0-0 We have already examined this type of

position in the note on 9.tlld2 at the start of Chapter 23 (page 276), but here Black has an improved version since he hasn't wasted time defending the c-pawn with ... i.e6.

13 ... Af5 This is a well-known idea to provoke the

move e3-e4, which significantly reduces the pressure on Black's queenside.

298 5 .�g5

14.e4 Another option for White is:

14.l:'lel i.d3 Black can avoid offering the repetition by playing 14 .. JWb6 with a complicated game.

1 5 .lllb3 i.f5 1 6.llld2 Black has no problems after 1 6.lll c5 lll d7.

1 6 . . . i.d3 17.g4?! Objectively there was no reason for White to avoid the repetition.

17 . . . l:'lc7! A5 always, it is a great pleasure to see how Kasparov handles the middlegame.

1 8.lllb3 cxb3 1 9.Wxd3 c5 20.i.g3 e5! 2 1 .axb5 c4 22.We4 axb5

Black was clearly better in Sorin - Kasparov, Buenos Aires (simul) 1 997.

14 . • . .icS 14 . . . i.e6 is also playable, but I prefer not to

block the e-pawn.

15.'%Ybl?!

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

Black now forcefully takes over the initiative.

15 ••• c5! 16.axb5 �b7! 17.tllxc4 cxd4 18.e5 �xb5 19.'%Yd3 tlld7 20.�fel tllxe5+

Delchev - Karr, Marseille 20 1 0.

B) 8.'%Ya4t

I would like to look at two options for Black, Bl) 8 • . • tlld7!? and B2) 8 .•• '%Yd7.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Bl) 8 • . . tlld7!?

a b c d e f g h

This is the more combative choice, although objectively it may be weaker than blocking with the queen.

9.e3 White aims to recapture the c4-pawn with

his bishop. Not so good is: 9.Wxc4 c5 1 0.e3 Wa5!

Black has an ideal game. 1 1 .l:'lb 1

Other possible moves are: a) 1 1 .i.e2 cxd4 (Black can also consider l I . . .lllb6N 1 2.Wb5t Wxb5 13 .i.xb5t i.d7 with a good endgame) 1 2.exd4 lt:lb6 13 .Wb5t (better is 1 3.Wc7 0-0 14.0-0 i.d7!=) 1 3 . . . Wxb5 14.i.xb5t i.d7 1 5.l:'lb l l:'lc8 Black's superior pawn structure promises him the better chances, Heinsohn - Von Alvensleben, Germany 1 989. b) Relatively best may be 1 I .lll d2N in order to recapture with the c-pawn, but Black is certainly doing fine after 1 l . . . cxd4 1 2.cxd4 e5!.

1 l . . .cxd4 1 2.lllxd4

Chapter 25 - 6.i.h4 299

Not a good sign for White, as his pawn structure will be weak in the long term.

12 . . . WcS! 1 3.lllbS .ieS! 14 . .ig3 Wxc4 1 5 . .ixc4 0-0 l 6 . .ie2 .ixg3 17 .hxg3 ltJ cS+

Black was positionally better in Cebalo -Avrukh, Biel 2008.

9 . . . 0-0 10.Wa3 Other continuations do not pose Black any

problems:

1 0.Wxc4 cS 1 1 ..ie2 cxd4 1 2.exd4 (after 12.cxd4 WaSt 1 3.llld2 eS! Black has an initiative) 12 . . . lllb6 1 3.WcS llldS 14.0-0 .ig4 Black was better in Bogner - Romanov, Neustadt 2008.

10 . .ixc4 lllb6 1 1 .'&b3 lllxc4 12.'&xc4 b6 13.0-0 .ib7 14.'&e2 cS 1 5.!'lfdl cxd4 1 6.cxd4 Wd7 Black is slightly better thanks to his bishop pair, Beilfuss - Giemsa, Germany 1 99 1 .

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

10 . . • c!llf6 I think it makes sense to delay 1 0 . . . cS since

White can reply: 1 1 ..ixc4 '&c7 1 2.!'lc l ! (but not 1 2 . .ixe7 cxd4! 1 3 . .ixf8 .ixf8 with strong compensation for the exchange, Kahn - Nagy, Budapest 2004) 1 2 . . . e6 1 3.0-0 b6 14 . .ig3! White has the better chances.

1 1 ..ixc4 b6 12.0-0

After 1 2.llleS .ib7 1 3.0-0 Wd6! 14.Wb3 e6 1 5 .f3 cS 1 6.!'ladl !'lac8 Black had equalized in Raetsky - Timofeev, Sochi 2005, and now the inaccurate 17 .e4? let him take over the initiative: 17 . . . cxd4 1 8.cxd4 lllhS! 1 9.<;f;ihl !'lc7 20 . .iel .ixeS 2 1 .dxeS WxeS White does not have enough for the pawn.

12 ••• .ib? 13J;fdl '1Wd6 14.°1Wb3

This occurred in V. Georgiev - Swinkels, Ohrid 2009, and here Black should play the calm:

14 • • • e6N 15 • .ig3 We700 The position is complex.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B2) 8 • . . Wd7

a b c d e f g h

300 5 .ig5

The main theoretical continuation.

9.W/xc4 b6!

1 1 .. . .ixeS 12 . .ixeS White's bishop pair is not significant here,

since Black will obtain a serious lead in Black wants to use the slightly misplaced development.

white queen in order to win a tempo with . . . ia6. 12 ... .ia6 13.Wib3 0-0 14.d5

We shall now examine two independent lines, B21) 10 . .ig3 and B22) 10.Wib3. In practice 1 0.e3 is frequently played, but then 1 0 . . . ia6 1 1 .Wb3 is just a transposition to B22.

B21) 10 . .ig3 c5 1 1 .ltle5

The alternative l 1 .e3 ia6 1 2.Wb3 ixfl 1 3.Ei:xfl liJc6 is just an inferior version of line B222 for White. After 14.c;iie2 liJa5 15 .Wb2 0-0 Black has the better game, Sahovic -Dorfman, Lvov 1 984.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

White has also tried: 14.dxc5 liJc6 (the immediate 14 . . . Wf5 also deserves attention) 1 5 .Ei:dl Wf5 16.ic7

a b c d e f g h This position occurred in Kantsler - Avrukh,

Israel 2002, and here I missed a very nice idea: 1 6 . . . Wxc5N 17.Ei:d5 ic4! 1 8.Ei:xc5 ixb3 1 9.Ei:xc6? id5+ White's rook is surprisingly trapped on c6.

8 •J� � ;�· 7 ,1 m"ifm•m• 6 .i.m m m• �

�':/ �':/ � s � r� 8 � � 4 ;/,m ,, , , , /,m ,, , , ,i<m ;/,� 3 �1� �- �-2 fa 'n f� fwt3 � �� mt•�

a b c d e f g h

14 ... W/f5!N This is a strong and forcing novelty. Black's

play in the two previous games to reach this position was rather unconvincing.

Chapter 25 - 6.�h4 301

15.ig3 Clearly White cannot be happy with:

1 5.�xb8 E:axb8 1 6.Ei'.dl E:fd8 Black's lead in development looks scary.

15 ... c4! 16.�a3 �xd5 17J�dl This is better than: 1 7.�xb8 Ei'.axb8

1 8.�xa6 !"l:bd8 1 9.f3 �d2t 20.ltif2 �xc3 2 1 .!"l:el Ei:d2 Black's c-pawn should decide the issue.

17 ... �b7 18.e3 ibS+ I do not believe that White has full

compensation for the pawn.

B22) 10.�b3 ia6 1 1.e3 �xfl

Much of the time, both of White's recaptures will come to the same thing, but there are a few possible divergences, so we shall look at B221) 12.©xfl and B222) 12.gxfl.

B221) 12.@xfl 0-0

8 � � � ��-:it'"" '?f�.Jli?f�"&'y,?f� & 7 • /,- ef /,· · � -6 , , , , ,%-,,, ,%-,,, , ,%-,,�� ,, , , ,%� �� : �.�.�-�� 3 �;n, , , ,%��- ""'

�� , , , , ,%� , , , , , %

� � ,�

2 1��n�•it a b c d e f g h

13.©e2 Bringing the queen's rook to dl did not

prove successful: 1 3.!"l:dl ?! li:l c6 1 4.ltie2 li:l a5 1 5.�b4 !"l:fe8 ( 1 5 . . . �d5!? is also promising for Black) 1 6.Ei'.d3 !"l:ac8 1 7.!"l:hdl �d5 1 8.a4 Cifuentes Parada - Rodriguez Guerrero, Dos Hermanas 2005.

13 ... cS 14.dxcS More common is 1 4.E:hd 1 , transposing to

B222 1 .

14 ... tlla6 15.gadl This seems illogical, since it is not clear what

White intends to do with his king's rook. The more natural 1 5 .E:hdl leads to B2222.

15 ... �c7 16.c6 lll cS! Black is not satisfied with 1 6 . . . �xc6 1 7.�xe7

!"l:fe8 1 8.ia3 !"l:ac8 with equality.

17.�c4

302 5 .ig5

This is stronger than: 17 . . . e5 1 8.ig3 Wxc6 1 9.ixe5 ixe5 20.lllxe5 Wxg2 2 1 .lllg4 With mutual chances, Stefanova - Cmilyte, Dagomys 2009.

18.tlld4 e5 19.i.g3 We7 Black regains the pawn with a clear positional

advantage.

B222) 12.:axfl 0-0 13.@e2 c5

Here we have the main crossroads for White in this variation: B2221) 14.:afdl or B2222) 14.dxc5.

B2221) 14.:afdl tllc6!?

16.:ads Black has easy equality after 1 6.cxb6 axb6

1 7.Wfl Wc5 1 8.a4 :gfcg 19 .lll d4 e6 20.:gab l llle5 2 1 .Wxb6 Wxc3, as White is also losing the a-pawn.

16 • • • We4! 1 6 . . . llla5 1 7.Wdl We6 is very close to

equality, but Black would still need to be accurate after 1 8 .:gd7.

17.cxb6 axb6 18.:aadl e6 19.:ad7 tlla5 20.Wb4 tllc4

20 . . . Wc4t also equalizes.

21.@fl :aa4! 22.Wb3 :aa3= White cannot profitably avoid the

1 4 . . . cxd4 1 5 .cxd4 lll c6 is more frequently repetition. played, but I rather like the text move.

15.dxc5 This looks more critical than 1 5 .:gab 1 ,

as played i n Cramling - Howell, Hinckley 2009. Here I like the following line for Black: 1 5 . . . lll a5N 1 6 .Wb5 We6!? 1 7.Wfl cxd4 1 8.cxd4 mes Black has good Griinfeld play.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

B2222) 14.dxc5

a b c d e f g h

This wins a pawn but seriously damages White's pawn structure.

14 • . . tlla6! Black nearly always obtains good

compensation in the Griinfeld when White captures the c5-pawn and is left with his a2-and c3-pawns.

15.:afdl

Chapter 25 - 6.i.h4 303

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1 a b c d e f g h

15 ••• \:Wc?! An important point here is that Black

shouldn't play: l 5 . . . \:Wb7?! l 6.c6! 'l:Wxc6 17.i.xe7 !'lfe8 1 8 .i.a3 'Wxc3 1 9.°Wxc3 i.xc3 20.!'lacl i.b4 2 1 .i.b2± White went on to win an instructive endgame in Carlsen - Eljanov, Wijk aan Zee 2008.

16.cxb6 axb6 17 .i.g3 This seems best, as other moves can lead to

an advantage for Black:

1 7.!'lab l? ! lllc5 1 8.'Wc4 This was the game Mascaro March - Llaneza Vega, Villava 2009, and now I found the following idea: 18 ... !'la4N 1 9.!'lb4 b5! 20.'WxbS tt:le4! The point. 21 .!'lxe4 !'lxe4 22.!'ld7 'Wxc3 23.i.xe7 !'le8 It is not clear whether White can hold this.

1 7.a4 tt:lc5 18 .\:Wb4 !'la5! 1 9.i.g3 e5 20.tll d2?! !'lfa8 2 1 . tt:l c4 tt:lxa4 White was facing difficulties in Lautier - Ivanchuk, Terrassa 1 99 1 .

17 ••• \:Wc6 This is an attempt to avoid the inevitable

draw which might arise after: l 7 . . . 'Wxc3 1 8.'Wxc3 i.xc3 1 9.!'lacl Yi-1h Ibragimov -Volzhin, Ubeda 1 996.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

18.©fl It is too risky for White to play 1 8.tt:ld4

'Wxg2 l 9.'Wxb6 !'lfc8. The exposed position of the white king gives Black an edge.

18 ••. lllc5 19.f!Yd5 \:Wxd5 20.!!xd5 i.xc3 21 .!!cl i.f6 22.!!c2=

The position was equal in Bosboom Lanchava - Gustafsson, Amsterdam 200 1 .

Conclusion Following 6.i.h4 lllxc3 7.bxc3 dxc4 White has to decide how to go about recovering the c4-pawn. After A) 8.e3 Black can keep the pawn with 8 . . . b5, when it is not clear that White can obtain enough compensation. Therefore it is safer for White to regain the pawn immediately with B) 8 .'Wa4t. However Black can then choose between B l ) 8 . . . tt:l d7!? and B2) 8 . . . 'Wd7, and can reasonably expect to achieve equal chances in either line.

5.ig5 6.cxd5

Variation Index I .d4 lt)f6 2.c4 g6 3.lDc3 d5 4.lDf3 i.g7 5.i.g5 lDe4 6.cxd5

6 ... lDxg5 7.lDxg5 e6 A) 8.�a4t B) 8.�d2 h6

Bl) 9.lDf3 exd5 Bl I) 1 0.�e3t B12) 1 0.b4

B2) 9.lDh3 exd5 B21) lO.lDf4 B22) 1 0.�e3t @f8 I I .lDf4

B221) 1 1 . .. c6 B222) 1 1. .. c5

C) 8.lDf3 exd5 9.e3 0-0 Cl) 1 0.b4 C2) IO.i.e2 c6 1 1 .0-0 i.e6 12.b4 lDd7

C21) 13.a4 C22) 13.�cl

A) after l 8.d5 B 1 2) note to 12 . .te2 C22) after 1 6.axb5

306 307 307 307 308 309 309 310 310 312 312 313 314 315 315

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h 1 8 . . . .td?!?N 1 7 . . .fSN 16 . . . c5N

Chapter 26 - 6.cxd5 305

1.d4 tlif6 �.c4 g6 3.tlic3 d5 4.tlif3 ig7 5.igS tlie4 6.cxd5 tlixg5 7.tlixg5 e6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

White has a wide choice here. Before examining the three main lines, A) 8.Wf a4t, B) 8.Wf d.2 and C) 8.tlif3, we shall take a brief look at three minor options:

8.dxe6? is adventurous, but not correct: 8 . . . Wfxg5 9.exf7t 'i!:?xf7 1 0.e3 l"i'.e8 1 1 .ic4t 'i!:?f8 1 2.0-0

a b c d e f g h This occurred in Rossen - R. Pert,

Copenhagen 2002, and now the simple 12 ... c6N 1 3.Wff3t Wff6 14.Wfg3 tt:ld7 would keep a clear advantage for Black.

s i. a1.i.E ��· 7 �,,.,,, ,/,tl{iV,� ' 6 , , ,J. �. �-,� 5 �·� �� , , , "':3r'0 �� //, , :3r� 4 �% />/J� � �£§ 3 � �� 2 �o , ,., , /,�� sl , %�wm , %� II a b c d e f g h

1 1 .lllxh? cxd4 1 2.exd4 (after 1 2.tt:lxf8 dxc3 Black is much better) 1 2 . . . 'i!:?xh? 1 3.h5 'i!:?g8 14.hxg6 Wfg5 1 5 .Wfe2 lllc6 Black was winning in Sjodahl - T. Ernst, Sundsvall 1 989.

8.tt:lh3 exd5 9.tt:lf4 This is not very impressive; White obtains an inferior version of line B 2 1 .

9 . . . 0-0 1 0.e3 After 1 O.g3 l"i'.e8 1 1 .ig2 Black can afford to play actively: 1 1 . . .tt:lc6 ( 1 1 . . .c6 is perfectly playable too) 1 2.0-0 lllxd4 1 3.tt:lfxd5?! c6 14.tt:lf4 ig4 1 5 .f3 id? The opening up of the position clearly favours the bishop pair, and Black has a clear advantage, Kovacevic -Jansa, Amsterdam 1 973.

a b c d e f g h 1 0 . . . c5

If Black manages to get his dark-squared 8.h4 is hardly sensible either: 8 . . . exd5 9.e3 0-0 bishop involved then White can easily stand 1 O.id3 c5! Black strikes first. worse.

1 1 .dxc5 d4 1 2.exd4 ixd4 1 3.ie2 lllc6 14.0-0

306 5 .i.g5

Wg5 1 5.g3 This was Hebert - Gutman, Hastings 1 984, and now Black should play the natural:

1 5 . . . Wxc5 1 6.E!:cl i.g7 Black retains the better chances, thanks to

his bishop pair.

A) 8.'Wa4t

8 ... c6 This is a clearer line than 8 . . . i.d7 9.Wb3

Wxg5 1 0.Wxb? 0-0 with great complications.

9.dxc6 l!Jxc6 IO.t!Jf3 J.d7 1 1 .'Wdl It is dangerous for White to play:

1 1 .0-0-0 0-0 12 .Wa3 12 .e3? is very bad for White: 12 . . . lllxd4 13 .E!:xd4 i.xa4 14.E!:xd8 E!:fxd8 1 5 .tllxa4 E!:ac8t 1 6 .tll c3 i.xc3 1 7.bxc3 E!:xc3t 1 8.iib2 E!:dc8! 19 .tll d4 e5 20.tll b3 E!:c2t 2 1 .iibl E!:xf2 Black was winning in Knaak - Forintos, Skopje (ol) 1 972.

12 ... b5! 13 .tllxb5 E!:b8 Black has a serious initiative.

1 4.e4 Wb6 1 5 .tll d6 tt:lb4 l 5 . . . tt:lxd4 is not bad either.

1 6.e5 i.c6 1 7.i.c4 E!:fd8 1 8.E!:hel i.xf3 1 9.gxf3 i.f8! 20.iib l i.xd6 2 1 .exd6 E!:xd6

Black had emerged with a clear positional edge in Lindsalu - Trubetskoi, e-mail 2009.

1 1...'Wb6 12.'Wd2 l!Jxd4 13.0-0--0 .ic6 14.l!Jxd4 gds 15.e3 e5 16.'Wel exd4 17.exd4t 'it>f'8 18.dS

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

18 ... J.d7!?N I find the text quite an interesting attempt

to avoid the drawish: l 8 . . . i.xd5 1 9 .E!:xd5 E!:xd5 20.We?t iixe7 2 1 .lllxd5t iid6 22.tllxb6 axb6 This totally level endgame has occurred in more than a dozen games.

19.'We3 After 1 9.iib l E!:c8 20.iial i.f6 2 1 .Ei:cl iig?

the strength of the dark-squared bishop secures Black excellent compensation for the pawn.

19 ... 'Wxe3t Here too, Black can go for a drawish line:

1 9 . . . Wa5 20.iib l E!:c8 2 1 .Ei:cl i.xc3 22.Ei:xc3 Wxd5=

20.fxe3 gcs 21.'it>d2 gc5 22.e4 'it>e7li5

Black has good compensation for the pawn and is definitely not worse.

B) 8.'1Wd2 h6

The approach I recommend here is quite similar to what I give against 8.li:lf3 in line C below. Personally I have never liked 8 . . . exd5 9.'1We3t <;t>fg 1 0.Wf4 .if6 1 l .h4; although it is considered perfectly playable for Black, it requires a lot of theoretical knowledge.

White has a choice of retreats for the knight: Bl) 9.lilf3 or B2) 9.lilh3.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

Bl) 9.lilf3 exd5

e f g h

We shall examine B 1 1) 10.'1We3t and Bl2) 10.b4, but first there are a couple of other options:

10 .e3 is frequently played, but is not of independent significance, since White will soon follow up with b2-b4. For instance, 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 l ..ie2 c6 12.0-0 .ie6 1 3.b4 li:ld7 transposes to the main line of B 1 2.

10 .g3 0-0 1 l ..ig2 The kingside fianchetto against the black pawn chain b 7 -c6-d5 does not offer White much, for example: 1 l . . .c6 12.0-0 li:l d7 1 3.:!"i:acl 1"i:e8 1 4.e3 li:lb6 1 5 .b3 a5 1 6.li:lel h5!? 1 7.li:ld3 h4+ White is very solid, but Black's position is definitely the

more promising, Scekic - Golod, Schaumburg 2006.

B 1 1) 10.'1We3t

This doesn't make much sense in my opinion, since Black is happy to play:

10 ... i.e6

1 1 .g3 It is a mistake to be tempted by: l 1 .li:le5?

(threatening 1 2.li:lxg6) 1 l . . .c5! Black immediately strikes in the centre and takes the initiative. 1 2.0-0-0 cxd4 1 3.1"i:xd4 0-0 1 4.:!"i:dl li:l c6 1 5 .li:lxc6 bxc6 The strength of the bishop down the long diagonal gave Black a decisive queenside attack in Jorgensen -Paaske, Copenhagen 2000.

1 1 . .. 0-0 12.i.g2 c5 13.Wfd2 !ilc6 14.clxcS d4!?

Black goes for complications; instead 14 . . . Wa5 1 5 .0-0 Wxc5 1 6.:!"i:ac l 1"i:ac8 1 7.e3 Wa5 would lead to just a small plus for Black.

15.lila4 Black also keeps the initiative after 1 5 . li:l e4

.id5 1 6.li:ld6 b6.

15 ... i.c4 16.0-0 i.h5 17.h3 d3! 18.lilc3

308 5.i.g5

18 ... dxe2N 19.�xb5 exfl='?;Vt 20Jhfl b6 Black has a serious advantage.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B12) 10.b4 0-0 1 1 .e3 i.e6

a b c d e f g h

Black develops normally; his set-up will include . . . c6 and . . . � d7.

12.i.e2 White may also try:

1 2 . .td3 tli d7 1 3.0-0 c6 1 4.a4 Black is ready to meet 1 4.b5 with: 1 4 . . . c5! 1 5.h3 (or 1 5 .dxc5 tlixc5 1 6.tt:Jd4 �a5 1 7.!'i:acl !'i:ac8+) 1 5 ... c4 16 . .tc2 f5+

White has no prospects for activity, while Black can play on the kingside, Pelts -Benesa, Chicago 1 993.

1 4 .. . a6 Black could consider: 14 . . . a5!? 1 5.!'i:ab 1 (as we have already seen, l 5.b5 can be comfortably met by 1 5 . . . c5) 1 5 . . . axb4 1 6.!'i:xb4 b6 The position is complex and unclear.

1 5 .tlie2 White has also played 1 5 .b5 axb5 (also good is 1 5 . . . c5!?) 1 6.axb5 !'i:xal 1 7.!'i:xal c5 1 8.tlie2 Jakab - Farkas, Budapest 1 998. Now 18 . . . .tg4!N would have been rather unpleasant for White.

1 5 . . . �e7 1 6.h3 g5 17.!'i:acl

a b c d e f g h This occurred in Barsov - Rowson, York 2000. The logical continuation of Black's strategy would be:

1 7 . . . f5N Depending on circumstances, Black may go

for . . . f4 or . . . g4. Undoubtedly Black has the more promising position.

12 ... �d7 13.0-0 c6 14Jfabl !!es Black carries out an original idea, although

I also like 1 4 . . . a6, playing in the style of the previous note.

1 5.l:!fcl i.f8!? Black's bishop may turn out to be useful on

this diagonal.

26 6 cxd5 Chapter - ·

6 b5 with ,.,.. 4

meet 1 . 16."Z..l a

d to 1 k was rea y B ac 1 6 . . . \1{efa5.

309

3 1 0 5 .ig5

13.exd4 Compared to the line with 8.lllh3 that

we mentioned at the start of the chapter (page 305) , White has an extra option here: 13 .0-0-0 dxc3 Black may consider other moves, but this equalizes comfortably. l 4.'W'xd8 cxb2t 1 5 .<iib l if5t 1 6.°W'd3 Marchand - Feher, Eger 1 997. Now the simplest is: 1 6 . . . ixd3tN 1 7.ixd3 lllc6 1 8 .ie4 Elac8=

13 ... Wfxd4 14.Wfxd4 i.xd4

1 5 .ic4 Ele8t 1 6.<iid2?! The wrong square. (After the correct 1 6.<iifl llld7 l 7.lllxg6 lllxc5 1 8 .Eldl ixc3 l 9.bxc3 ie6 20.ixe6 Elxe6 2 1 . lllf4 Ela6 22.Eld2 llle4 23.Elc2 Elc8 the position is equal.) 1 6 . . . llla6 ( 1 6 . . . ixc5 l 7.lllxg6 lllc6 would give Black slightly the better chances) 1 7.Elael Eld8 1 8.<iic l <iif8 1 9 .Eldl ig4 20.f3? ie3t 2 1 .<iibl if5t 22.llld3 lllxc5 White ended up in a very bad position in Renman - Svidler, Copenhagen 1 99 1 .

1 5 .lllfd5 lllc6 1 6.ie2 (this is too passive; 1 6.0-0-0 returns to the main line) l 6 . . . ixc5 1 7 .0-0 Ligaard - Maciej a, Copenhagen 1 996. Now Black should continue with the calm:

17 . . . <iig7N 1 8 .Elfdl Elb8 1 9.Elacl Eld8 The bishop pair gives Black an edge.

15 ... l!Jc6 16.l!Jfd5 .L:c5 17.l!Je4 ih6 I believe this is best.

18.l!Jxb6 axb6 19.ic4 i.f5 20.l!Jd6 l!Je5 2I.l!Jxf5 l!Jxc4 22.l!Je?t 'it>g7=

Black has enough activiry to compensate for his doubled pawns, Davies - King, Hamar 1 982.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

B22) 10.W/e3t 'it>f'8 I I .l!Jf4

a b c d e f g h

Black has two very different approaches here, and I have decided to cover them both: B221) 1 1...c6 and B222) 1 1 ...c5.

B221) 1 1...c6

Black first supports his centre and will then slowly solve the problem of his king.

12.Wlf3 W/f6 Another plan is: 1 2 . . . <iig8 1 3.e3 llld7 1 4.id3

lllf6 1 5.h3 'W'd6 1 6.a3 id7 1 7.0-0 h5 Black had obtained a perfectly playable position in Schroll - Wach, Austria 1 995.

13.e3 It looks a bit risky to play 1 3 .0-0-0 h5 as

Chapter 26 - 6.cxdS 3 1 1

in Penalver - Eksmyr, Sweden 2009. Black threatens .. :ih6, and of course 14.e3? is impossible due to l 4 ... ig4.

13 ... hS

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

An important resource; Black not only plans to activate his dark-squared bishop via h6, but also . . . ig4 will come with tempo.

14.h4 White grabs some space on the kingside and

prevents the possibility of the . . . gS advance. Previously White had tried: 14.id3 ig4 ( 14 . . . gS l 5.liJfe2 Wxf3 1 6.gxf3 g4 is possible, but seems rather unclear to me) 1 5 .Wg3 ifS ( 1 5 . . . liJd7!?) 1 6.ixfS WxfS 1 7.!'i:dl h4 1 8.Wh3 Wxh3 Black had equalized comfortably in Guramishvili - Karavade, Yerevan 2007, which was agreed drawn here.

14 . • • ig4 White is okay after 14 . . . ih6 1 5 .liJd3 Wxf3

1 6.gxf3. Black's bishop pair is not a significant advantage, because the coming f3-f4 will leave the dark-squared bishop somewhat passive.

15.Wf g3 llid7 16.ie2 After 1 6.id3 I intended to play 1 6 . . . !'i:e8

1 7.0-0 'ttig8 1 8 .!'i:fe 1 if8 followed by . . . id6, with balanced play.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

16 . • • ifS!? Also fine is 16 ... ixe2 followed by 17 ... We7

and 1 8 . . . liJf6.

17.�cl White didn't like 1 7.0-0 in view of l 7 ... Wd8.

The threat of ... if6 looks unpleasant, but White can still maintain the balance with: 1 8 .Wh2 if6 1 9.g3 'ttig7 20.id3=

17 ... llib6 A useful move, principally defending against

possible sacrifices on dS, but also looking to improve the knight with . . . liJc8-d6.

18.b4 White starts his play on the queenside, but

it is already somewhat risky. It was still not too late to play 1 8 .id3 with equality.

18 ... a6 I believe that it is useful for Black to swap the

a-pawns in order to activate his queen's rook.

19.a4 Wfe7 20.bS The tactical idea 20.aS?! liJ c8 2 1 .liJ cxdS?!

doesn't work: 2 1 . . .cxdS 22.liJxdS Wd8! (but not 22 . . . Wd6?? 23.!'i:xc8t!+-)

20 ... axbS 21.axbS if6!:j: White is starting to experience problems

3 1 2 5 .ig5

with the defence of his h-pawn, Markos -Avrukh, Germany 2009.

B222) 1 1 ...c5

12.dxc5 Less popular is 1 2.Wf3 cxd4 1 3.li:lcxdS 'it>g8

when Black has good chances for an advantage. For example: 1 4.e4 (or 1 4.E!:cl li:lc6 1 5 .b4 g5! 1 6.li:lhS li:le5 1 7.Wg3 Wxd5 1 8 .li:lxg7 'it>xg7 1 9 .E!:c5 W e4 20. W xe5 t W xe5 2 1 .Ei:xeS ie6 and the vulnerability of the white queenside gave Black the better endgame in Salus - Blees, Lyon 1 990) 1 4 . . . dxe3 1 5 .ic4

a b c d e f g h 1 5 . . . exf2t 1 6.Wxf2 'it>h7 17.0-0 Peters -Michaelsen, Hamburg 1 990. Now Black should

just play the simple: 1 7 . . . E!:f8N 1 8.E!:adl li:lc6 White does not have sufficient compensation for the pawn.

12 ... d4 13.�d2 �a6 14.e3 if5 I introduced this move in the game

mentioned below. Theory considers 14 . . . li:lxcS good enough too.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a c d e f g h

15.�dl White can easily become worse after other

moves:

1 5.exd4 Wxd4 1 6.ixa6 bxa6 17.0-0-0 (after 1 7.Wxd4 ixd4 1 8.0-0 ixc3 1 9.bxc3 E!:c8 the endgame is very pleasant for Black) 1 7 . . . WxcS Black had a good position in Damaso -Avrukh, Albufeira Algarve 1 999.

1 5.0-0-0 dxc3! 1 6.Wxd8t E!:xd8 17.E!:xd8t 'it>e7 1 8.E!:d4 cxb2t 1 9.'it>xb2 li:lxc5+ White will have to fight for the draw.

15 ... dxc3 16.�xdSt �xd8 17.�xdSt @e7 18.�xh8 cxb2 19.�d5t @e6 1/2-1/2

Markus - Eljanov, Balatonlelle 2000. Neither side can avoid the repetition after 20.li:Jf4t @e7 2 1 .li:ldSt @e6.

C) 8.�f3 exd5 9.e3


White can play the immediate 9.b4 but then 9 . . . 0-0 1 0.e3 }use transposes to C l .

As always I a m sceptical about a kingside fianchetto in chis variation. Here is one example that I like: 9.g3 0-0 1 0.ig2 c6 1 1 .0-0 Wie7 12.Wid2 tt'i d7 13.a3 tt'ib6 1 4.b3 id? 1 5 .e3 tt'i c8!? 16 .Wib2 tt'i d6 17.ctJd2 f5 Black had a nice game in Jackson - Groszpeter, Novi Sad (ol) 1 990.

9 ... 0-0

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

White generally chooses between Cl) 10.b4 and C2) IO.i.e2, although they often come to the same thing.

Cl) IO.b4 c6 1 Ukl

l l .ie2 ie6 12.0-0 just transposes to C2.

1 1 ...a6 1 1 . . .ie6 followed by . . . tt'i d7 is of course

playable, and is likely to transpose below.

12.i.e2 Vff e7 13.Vffh3 i.e6!? Illescas has suggested chat 1 3 . . . ig4N is

equal.

14.0-0 llid7

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1

15.a4

a b c d e f g h

White has another way to cry and generate play on the queenside, but it's harmless: 1 5 .tl'ia4 �ae8 1 6.tl'ic5 tt'ixc5 1 7.�xc5 (le is surely much more natural to recapture with 1 7.bxc5N, although 1 7 . . . ic8! is still slightly better for Black. The b7-pawn is soundly protected, making White's queenside play irrelevant, while Black will slowly advance his kingside pawns.) 1 7 .. .f5 Black's main idea in this middlegame is to advance . . . f5-f4 and get the dark-squared bishop involved in the play. 1 8.a4 f4 l 9.�c3 1his was Martin - Hoffmann, Seefeld 1 998, and now 1 9 ... g5N would give Black a serious initiative.

15 .. JHe8 Black can also start a kingside advance

immediately by: 1 5 . . . f5 1 6.me l g5 1 7.id3 g4 1 8.ctJd2

a b c d e f g h

314 5 .i.g5

This occurred in Toth - Cocozza, Nuoro 1 984, and now Black should continue his attack with 1 8 .. .f4!N. For example: 1 9.Wc2 fxe3 20.�xh7t (20.fxe3 �h6 also looks promising for Black) 20 . . . iih8 2 1 .fxe3 �h6 22.�d3 g3! 23.hxg3 �g4 24.e4 Wxb4 25.tllb3 l"lae8 Black has the better chances.

16.lllel?! Better is 1 6.l"lfdl and Black has only a slight

edge.

16 ... lllb6 17.llld3 lllc4 18.�fel i.5! Black had a clear positional advantage in

Franco - Illescas Cordoba, Spain 1 997.

C2) 10.i.e2 c6 1 1 .0-0 i.e6 12.b4 llld7

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

White has a wide choice in this position. We shall examine the main lines C21) 13.a4 and C22) 13.�cl , first let's first take a look at four other possibilities:

13.b5?! is premature: 13 . . . c5 1 4.l"lc l Wa5 1 5.Wa4 Wxa4 16 .tllxa4 c4 17.tllg5?! a6 Black had the better chances in Lemos - Liascovich, Buenos Aires 2005.

1 3.tll el is quite a thematic idea. The knight is heading for the d3-square, where it will support White's queenside play. 13 . . . a5! This active idea works very well for Black here.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h l 4.a3 b5 Fixing the b4-pawn and at the same time securing an outpost on c4 for the black knight. 1 5 .tlld3 �f5 1 6.l"lel l"le8 17.�g4 �xd3 1 8.�xd7 Wxd7 1 9 .Wxd3 �f8 Black is slightly better, but White's position is probably tenable, Akesson - Gavrikov, Gothenburg 1998.

1 3.Wb3 We7 14.a4 ( 14 .l"lacl a6 transposes to line Cl above) 14 .. .f5 ( 1 4 . . . tllb6 deserves attention) 1 5 .l"lfel (After l 5.b5 Waldmann -Krueger, Germany 1992, I like the prophylactic 1 5 . . . l"lab8!N 1 6.a5 f4 17.exf4 l"lxf4 1 8.l"lad l Wd6. In this complex position, I rate Black chances as being better.) 1 5 .l"lfel iih8 1 6.�fl g5 l 7.b5 g4 1 8.tlld2 This was Nemet - Peredy, Basle 1999, and now 1 8 . . .f4!N would offer Black good attacking chances.

13 .tlla4 We7 There is a good alternative in 13 . . . b5 l 4.tllb2 and now very logical is: 14 . . . a5 N 1 5 .a3 tLl b6 Black has a promising position.

14.tllc5 lllxc5 1 5 .bxc5 l"lae8

Chapter 26 - 6.cxd5 3 1 5

We have ;i!ready seen this idea, centralizing the rook before securing the queenside with . . . j,c8.

1 6.�a4 a6 1 7.El:ab l j,c8 1 8.El:fel f5 1 9.j,d3 j,f6 20.g3 g5

Y2-Yi Ostermeyer - Brueckner, Germany 1 986. Black would be justified in playing on. Although White has a solid position, he is lacking a good plan, whereas Black can continue . . . �g7 and then try to play . . . f4 under favourable circumstances.

C21) 13.a4

a b c d e f g h

13 ... '?Me7 The active counter 1 3 . . . a5!? also comes into

consideration: 1 4.b5 ( 14.�b3 axb4 1 5 .�xb4 b6 looks slightly preferable for Black, although White does have reasonable counterplay on the queenside) l 4 . . . c5 1 5.El:cl El:c8 ( l 5 . . . c4 reaches a different type of position, but one that is also good for Black) 1 6.dxcS This occurred in Antosh in -Jansa, Sochi 1 97 4, and now best is: 1 6 . . . El:xc5N 1 7.tt:'ld4 tt:'lb6 1 8.�d2 �e7 Black enjoys the better chances.

14.'?Mb3 a6 15.b5 1 5 .El:acl would transpose into line C l .

15 ... axb5 16.axb5 c5!

17.c!llxd5 hd5 18.'?Mxd5 c!llb6 19.'?Mg5 Or 1 9.�b3 cxd4+.

19 ... ,tf6 20.'?Mh6 cxd4 Black is clearly better.

C22) 13.�cl a6 14.a4

Another option for White is: 1 4.ttJa4 f5 1 5 .g3 g5 1 6.tt:'le 1 (or 1 6.h4 h6 l 7.hxg5 hxg5 1 8. Wg2 f4 1 9.exf4 gxf4 20.tt:'lc5 tt:'lxc5 2 1 .bxcS Raetsky - Tukmakov, Biel 1 995, and now 2 1 . . .fXg3N 22.fXg3 �d7 23.!'lh l j,f5! 24.j,d3 El:ae8 would give Black the better chances) 1 6 .. .f4 l 7.exf4 gxf4 l 8.j,g4

8 i.� � ��-"'� ,,,,,/,� , Y,� // 7 ��,�� 6 ,. , .%.!.. � 5 ��-Y,•;,,•�-Y,·� 4 etJr!'!1:. r!!1:. r� � � 3 , ,%� , %� , ,%, 2 '·�-�J(� ��ii� .M �

a b c d e f g h This happened in Raetsky - Liss, Biel

1 993, and now Black should play: 1 8 . . . �f6N

3 1 6 5 .i.g5

1 9.�e6t Wxe6 20.lllc5 lllxc5 2 1 .bxc5 :B:ae8 Black has some advantage.

14 ... Wf e? 15.b5 I 5.Wb3 is another transposition to line C l .

1 5 ... axb5 16.axb5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

16 ... c5N

Conclusion Of White's eighth move options, A) 8.Wa4t is not too threatening. Black should equalize easily, although the resulting positions can be very drawish; perhaps I 8 . . . �d7!?N in the main line can keep some life in the game.

After 8.Wd2 h6 9.lllh3 exd5 I O.We3t iif8 l 1 .lllf4 the displacement of the black king should not be too worrying. With B22 1 ) 1 1 . . . c 6 Black aims to unravel slowly, but his long-term prospects seem good; however if that is not to your taste then B222) 1 I . . . c5 offers a more direct route to equal chances.

The lines B l ) 8.Wd2 h6 9.lllf3 and C) 8.lllf3 tend to be quite similar, often leading to a strategical battle berween White's minority attack on the queenside and Black's kingside attack. Matters are not entirely clear, but my view is that in most lines it is Black's attack

This natural move improves on the rwo that is the more dangerous. previous games that reached this position.

17.dxc5 Wfxc5 18.tlld4 Wf d6 19.i.g4 tllf6 20.he6 fxe6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

Black stands slightly better.

Russian System a b c d e f g h

Without 8.ie2

Variation Index 1 .d4 l!Jf6 2.c4 g6 3.l!Jc3 d5 4.l/Jf3 .ig7 s.Wfb3 dxc4 6.Wfxc4 0-0 7.e4

7 ... l!Jc6 A) 8.d5?! B) 8 • .if4 C) 8 . .ie3 D) 8 . .ig5 E) 8.h3 F) 8.e5

A) after 14.ixf3

a b c d e f g h 14 . . . llld4!N

B) after 1 4.ixc7 E) after 18 .\Wd3

318 318 320 322 323 324

3 1 8 Russian System

1 .d4 tlJf6 2.c4 g6 3.tlJc3 d5 4.tlJf3 i.g7 5.'1Wb3 dxc4 6.'1Wxc4 0-0 7.e4

White grabs space in the centre, but falls a little behind in development. Black will try to use this lead in development to tear the White centre apart.

The alternative 7.if4 'll a6 8.e4 was covered as line A of Chapter 1 0.

7 • . • tlJc6 This is not the most popular choice at the

top level, but I am convinced that this move is a viable alternative to the more common lines.

White most frequently chooses 8.ie2, which is the topic of the following chapter, but he has a host of other options: A) 8.d5?!, B) 8.i.f4, C) 8.i.e3, D) 8.i.g5, E) 8.h3 and F) 8.e5.

A) 8.d5?! tlJa5

Black will continue with . . . c6 and easily destroy the white centre.

9.'1Wc5 Black also obtains an ideal position after:

9.'i;Wd3 c6 1 0.dxc6 'llxc6 l l .'i;Wxd8 Elxd8 1 2.ie2 b6 13 .0-0 ib7 14.if4 'll b4! Black begins active operations before White has managed to consolidate. l 5.e5 ( l 5.a3 'lld3

l 6.ixd3 Elxd3 17 .E!:fel ctJ d7 was clearly in Black's favour in Herndl - J. Horvath, Austria 1 996) 1 5 . . . 'lle4 16 .'llxe4 ixe4 Black has the better chances, since the e5-pawn is somewhat vulnerable, Ohlmann - Korchnoi, Stockholm 1 962.

9 • • • c6 10.dxc6 There is no way that 1 0.b4? should work.

The easiest refutation is: 1 0 . . . cxd5 l l .bxa5 'llxe4 12.'llxe4 dxe4 1 3 .'lle5 'i;Wd6 Black is winning.

10 ... tlJxc6 1 1 .i.e2 i.g4 12.i.e3 tlJd7 13.'IWa3 hf3 14.i.xf3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a c d e f g h

It is clear that Black has a comfortable game, Richardson - S. Ernst, Lichfield 2000. Most accurate now is:

14 ... tlJd4!N The position is unpleasant for White.

B) 8.i.f4

The start of a remarkable line.

8 ... i.g4 9.d5 9.Eldl ?! was played in Gereben - Doncevic,

Zurich 1 986, and should be met by the thematic: 9 . . . ixf3N 1 0.gxf3 'llh5 l Lie3 e5 12.dxe5 ( 1 2.d5 'lld4 1 3.ig2 'i;Wf6! is fantastic for Black)

Chapter 27 - Without S .ie2 319

12 . . . Wh4 Bl<i:ck has the better chances - he will regain the e5-pawn and maintain control over the important dark squares.

s .i� � ��-'/; ;:;::�·if-- - -��r:0--· --�. ·/ 7 � · �� • m •

6 ,, , , --�----- - %�fi

�� s � mt!Jm ---- - -m 4 mvm t3J ·�t.� 3 � %� ::

- - ·"� ��/�,,, , , ;� �.ttJ � 2 t3J �[j � � t3J �

1 �--- -%�

%=£·� a b c d e f g h

9 ... i.xa 10.dxc6 I examined the logical novelty:

1 0.gxf3N ltJh5 l l .ie3 It is dangerous for White to play: l l .dxc6 b5! 12.ixc7 Wxc7 l 3.Wc5 (neither l 3.ctJxb5 Wb6t nor 13 .Wxb5 ixc3t 14.bxc3 l'l:abS 1 5.Wc5 ltJf4+ is any better) 1 3 . . . ixc3t 1 4.Wxc3 l'l:abS 1 5.ih3 e6 1 6.0-0-0 ltJ f4 Black clearly has the better chances, thanks to the superiority of his knight over the white bishop.

l l . . .ctJa5 1 2.Wb4 c6 1 3.0-0-0 Wc7oo The game is very complicated.

10 ... bS! A very important resource.

1 1 .liJxbS For a long time I considered l l .Wxb5 to be

a serious alternative, but I recently discovered that Black can reply: l l . . . ctJxe4! (much stronger than the natural-looking l l . . .ixe4) 1 2.ctJxe4 ixe4 1 3.l'l:dl Wes 14.l'l:d7 l'l:bS 1 5 .Wa4 if5 Black has a clear advantage.

l 1 .Wd3?! Wxd3 1 2.ixd3 ixg2 1 3 .l'l:gl l'l:fdS! Here I analysed: l 4.ixb5 ctJxe4 l 5 .ixc7 ctJxc3 1 6.bxc3 ixc3t 1 7.cj;ie2 l'l:d2t 1S .cj;ie3 l'l:d5 1 9.l'l:ab l id4t 20.cj;ie2 ie4 Black is much better.

1 1 . .. he4 12.�dl The c7-pawn is untouchable: 1 2.ixc7?

Wes 1 3.l'l:d l a6 14.ctJc3 Wxc7 1 5 .ctJxe4 ctJxe4 16.Wxe4 Wa5H and 1 2.ctJxc7? e5 1 3.ixe5 We7 14.f4 l'l:acS+

12 ... WcS! 13.£3 Black is clearly better after: 1 3.ie2 Wf5!

14.ixc7 ixg2 1 5 .l'l:gl id5 1 6.Wc5 l'l:fc8! White will surely find l 7 ... a6 to be an unpleasant threat.

13 ... WfS! 14.hc7

a b c d e f g h

This position occurred in Van Heirzeele -Pujos, Guingamp 20 1 0. Black now missed an important tactical resource:

320 Russian System

14 ... LB!N 15.i.d3 It transpires that White cannot take the

bishop: 1 5 .gxf3 Wxf3 1 6.:B:gl We3t!-+

15 ... i.dS 16 . .txf'S bc4 17.i.d3 i.xd3 18.�xd3 �fc8+

The c6-pawn is falling and Black will remain with an extra pawn.

8 7 6 5 4

3 2 1

9.e5

C) 8.i.e3 tlig4

a b c d e f g h

In my opinion this is the only continuation that makes some sense and can try to justify giving up the dark-squared bishop.

9.0-0-0 llixe3 1 0.fxe3 e5!

a b c d e f g h I believe that after this important move only Black can be better.

1 1 .�bl ig4 1 2.d5 White certainly cannot find 1 2.dxe5 We8 satisfactory, in view of his exposed pawns.

1 2 . . . llie7 1 3.h3 id7 14.h4 This occurred in Jakobsen - Howell, Copenhagen 2006. Now I really like the positional:

14 . . . ig4N Black prevents h4-h5 and will follow up

with . . . lli c8-d6. I believe that in the long term Black will be positionally better, due to White's weakened pawn structure.

9.:B:dl This doesn't change the character of the game.

9 . . . llixe3 1 O.fxe3 e5 1 1 .d5

a b c d e f g h 1 1 . . .llie7

This is slightly stronger than: 1 1 . . .llib8 1 2.ie2 a6 13 .0-0 Wd6 14.llid2 (or 14.:B:cl b5 1 5.Wb3 llid7+±) 14 .. . llid7 Black gradually obtained the better game in Beliavsky -Avrukh, Dresden (rapid) 2007.

12.lli b5 After 1 2.ie2 Raceanu - Gerard, Bucharest 2002, Black should continue with 1 2 . . . a6N. Play will be similar to the above Beliavsky - Avrukh game, but with the black knight rather better placed. In my analysis during that game I was a bit concerned about the text move, but it transpires that it is not such a big deal:

Chapter 27 - Without 8.ie2 321

12 . . . c6! 13 .�c6 Wb6 1 4.c? ie6 1 5 .Wc3 a6 1 6.lt:Jd6 ixa2

Black is a little better.

9 • • . ie6 Before capturing the bishop it is important

to include this developing move.

10.Wc5 �xe3 1 1 .fxe3 id? I think that Black's only constructive plan is

to prepare the . . . c5 break. To do this he first needs to chase the white queen away from the c5-square by arranging to play . . . b6.

12.0-0-0

a b c d e f g h

12 ... b6N A natural novelty. Previously played was:

12 . . . ih6?! 1 3 .d5! b6 1 4.Wc4 ixe3t 1 5.lt>b l ctJa5 1 6.We2 ( 1 6.Wh4!?N may be even stronger) Lima - Tsuboi, Brasilia 2000. Black has won the e3-pawn, but his pieces have lost coordination and White has seized the initiative.

13.�a3 I also examined 13 .Wd5, but that allows

Black to gain important tempos for regrouping: 13 . . . e6 1 4.We4 lt:Jb4! 1 5 .a3 (after 1 5 .ic4 b5! 1 6.ctJxb5 ixb5 1 7.ixb5 ctJxa2t Black has a strong attack) l 5 . . . ic6 l 6.Wg4 lt:J d5 1 7.lt:Jxd5

Wxd5 1 8.lt>b l ( 1 8.id3 allows 1 8 . . . ia4, and with ideas of . . . Wa2 and ... c5 , Black's queenside initiative looks dangerous)

8 .1.� � �-· 7 ��-�.-,(,� i 6 , , , , %-�.,.,,�� 5 � •i� �. 4 �. �6,,,,%·'� 3 :fj�.----,%��-2 ,;i� �-----%-��

��r�r�� a b c d e f g h

1 8 . . . We4t A solid approach, although keeping the queens on should also be promising. 1 9.Wxe4 ixe4t 20.id3 ib7 Black will continue with ... c5, with the better endgame.

13 ... a5 14.h4 After 14.ib5 tt:Jb4 1 5 .ixd7 Wxd7 1 6.Wb3

c5 1 7.dxc5 We? 1 8.cxb6 Wxb6+ Black has good play for the pawn.

14 ... �b4 15.h5 c5 16.hxg6 hxg6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

17.dxc5 Or 1 7.d5 Wb8! and the plan of . . . b5 and

... c4 looks strong for Black.

322 Russian System

17 ... Wfc8 18.cxb6 i.e6 Black has plenty of play for the sacrificed

pawns.

D) 8.i.g5 i.g4 9.0-0-0 tlJd7

10.e5 It is not a good idea to play: 1 0.d5 ttJ ce5

l l .'1.We2 f5 Black takes over the initiative.

10 ... ttJb6 1 1 .Wfc5 f6 12.i.e3 fxe5 1 2 . . . Wh8? is a serious mistake: 1 3 .e6 f5

1 4.d5 White was clearly better in Epishin -Roiz, Valle d'Aosta 2002.

13.dxe5 Wfe8! I found this improvement in late 2003, but

as so often happens I did not get a chance to employ it myself. Clearly worse is 13 ... '1.Wc8 1 4.h4! with an initiative for White, as has occurred in three games of Epishin's.

14.i.e2 An important idea behind 1 3 . . . '1.We8 is

seen in the following line: l 4.h4 l:'i:xf3! l 5 .gxf3 i.xf3 1 6.i.h3 Now this move does not gain a tempo by attacking the queen. 1 6 . . . Wf7 1 7.e6 Wf8 1 8.l:'i:hgl i.xd l 1 9.l:'i:xdl i.h6! White has no compensation for the pawn.

8 i. � �if�B• ''/ �p ,��:?,(�" ' " '�''/ 1 � • w� w� m t.

6 , , , , ,%••m , _ , , ,%m ,•�� 5 �/,, , , , ,� %� %� 4

%m: :: ,�:m , _ , , ,%mr� 3 � � �lt:J-2 8%ft' "'m"£�1I� 1 , , , , ,%� l� , , , , %� ,�

a b c d e f g h

14 ... :gf5!?N This is an interesting improvement on:

1 4 . . . Wh8 1 5 .l:'i:he l ( 1 5.h3!?) 1 5 . . . l:'i:f5 1 6.Wb5 i.xf3 1 7 .i.xf3 l:'i:xe5 Atalik - Khmelniker, Dresden 2007. Now 1 8.Wb3N would lead to an unclear game, with White having sufficient compensation for the pawn.

15.:ghel I also examined: l 5.i.d3 Elh5! (less clear

is 1 5 . . . l:'i:xf3 1 6.gxf3 i.xf3 1 7.i.e4 i.xh l 1 8.i.xh l00) 1 6.i.e4 ctJxe5 1 7.Wxc7 l:'i:c8 1 8.'1.Wxb7 ctJec4 Black's attack is very powerful.

15 ... i.xf3 16.i.xB

a e f g - h

16 ... :gxe5

Chapter 27 - Without 8 .ie2 323

After 16 . . . lt:'ixe5 White has the following resource: l l.ixb7! lt:'id3t l 8.�xd3 �xc5 l 9.ixc5 ixc3 20.�xc3 White has decent compensation for the queen.

17.hc6 bxc6 18.'?Na3 lLid5 Black is better.

E) 8.h3 e5!

Black's first choice according to theory is 8 . . . lt:'id7, but the text seems to solve Black's opening problems quite convincingly.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

9.dxe5

a b c d e f g h

After 9 .d5 ltJ d4 Black has great play, since the pawn is untouchable: 1 0.lt:'ixd4? exd4 l 1 .'Wxd4 lt:'ixe4 l 2.'Wxe4? �e8-+

9 ... lLid7 10.e6 White does not benefit from: 10.ig5?!

10 ... lt:'idxe5! l 1 .ixd8 lt:'ixc4 1 2.ixc4 �xd8+ Black's bishop pair gave him an edge in Henrichsen - Roberts, Budapest 2008.

10 ... fxe6 1 1 .'?Nxe6t ©h8 12.'?NdS White fails to pose Black any problems with:

1 2.ig5

s .1. �..t..� �� m 7 � ·-·� y-,· 6 , %� ,,%� �� ,,,,,Y,� �1�1�, � �.�.,.�,,,�� 3 � �� -�-� 2 ro -��r� �L ;,� '%��

a b c d e f g h 12 . . . lt:'ide5! 13.ixd8 (both 1 3.'Wxe5 lt:'ixe5 1 4.ixd8 lt:'ixf3t 1 5.gxf3 �xd8 and 1 3.lt:'ixe5 ixe6 l 4.ixd8 ixe5 l 5 .ig5 ltJ b4 offer Black fine compensation for the pawn) 1 3 . . . lt:'ixf3t 1 4.gxf3 ixe6 1 5 .ixc7 lt:'id4 1 6.0-0-0 �ac8 17 .id6 �xf3 Black will regain the second pawn and have the better chances.

12.'Wb3 lt'i c5 13 .'Wc4 lt:'i d4! 1 4.lt'id5? (this should lose on the spot; relatively best is 14.'Wxc5 lt:'i c2t 1 5.We2 lt:'ixal 1 6.ig5 'Wd7!+) In Ranson - McNally, e-mail 1 998, Black now missed the nice:

324 Russian System

14 . . . lllxe4!N 1 5 .lllxd4 lllxfL. 1 6.Ei:gl c6-+

13.gxf.3 llJd4 14.i.e3 I considered 1 4.iidl for White, but his

position is very shaky after: 14 ... c6 1 5 .Wg5 ( 1 5.Wd6? ie5 16 .Wa3 lllc5! gives Black a decisive attack) 1 5 . . . if6 1 6.We3 lllxf3 17 .iic2 lllde5 1 8.ig2 llld4t 1 9.iib l lll c4 20.Wd3 ie6 Black has a definite initiative here.

14 ... llJc2t 15.iid2 llJxal 16.i.e2 There is also:

1 6.id3 c6!N This is an important improvement over: 1 6 . . . We8 1 7 .f4 ill b6 Portisch - Korchnoi, Bad Kissingen (6) 1 983. Here I am not sure how Black should counter 1 8.Wg5!N followed by Ei:xa l .

17 .Wd6 1 7.Wg5 is now well met by: 1 7 . . . Wf8 1 8.Ei:xal lll e5 19 .ie2 lllxf3t 20.ixf3 Wxf3 2 1 .Wd8t Wf8 22.Wxf8t ixf8 23 .id4t iig8 The bishop pair gives Black a plus in this endgame.

1 7 . . . ie5 1 8.We6 Wf8 1 9.Ei:xal ig7 Preparing to discover an attack on the white queen.

20.f4 lll e5 2 1 .Wb3 lllxd3 22.iixd3 ixh3 Again the bishop pair means that Black's

chances are preferable.

16 ... c6 17.�d6 i.e5 18.�d3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

18 ... �flUN Another important improvement in this line.

Ki. Georgiev - W Schmidt, Warsaw 1 987, continued: 18 . . . Wf6 19 .�xal lllf8! 20.iic2 lll e6 2 1 .Ei:dl Although Black clearly has some compensation for the pawn, I do not believe that he has full equality.

19.�xal llJc5 20.�c4 b6! 21.iic2 J.e6 Black has a safe alternative in 2 1 . . .ia6,

which seems likely to lead to a draw: 22.ixc5 (or 22.id4 Wf6 23.ixe5 Wxe5 24.Wf7 ixe2 25.lllxe2 lllxe4 26.fxe4 Wxe4t 27.iid2 Ei:d8t 28.iicl Wd3 29.Wf6t iig8 30.We6t with perpetual check) 22 . . . ixc4 23.ixf8 ixe2 24.id6 ixc3 25 .iixc3 ixf3 The endgame is drawish.

22.�b4 i.xh3co The position is very complex.

F) 8.e5 llJ d7

A position with three minor pieces versus queen and two pawns arises after: 8 . . . ie6 9.exf6!

Chapter 27 - Without 8 .ie2 325

ixc4 1 0.fxg7 �xg7 l l .ixc4 ltJxd4 1 2.ltJxd4 Wxd4 1 3 .iel I personally don't like it, but objectively it may be quite okay for Black.

9.ie3 White cannot play 9.e6? in view of 9 . . . 4Jb6

1 0.exf7t �xf7 l 1 .Wb3 ltJxd4+.

9.ie2 ltJb6 1 0.Wc5 a5 l 1 .ie3 transposes to the main line.

9 .•• .!Lib6 IO.Wf c5 a5!

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

This is an important move with two active ideas: transferring the knight from c6 to d5 via the b4-square, and bringing the rook into play with . . . a4 followed by . . . �a5.

l I ..ie2 After l l .a3 Black's second idea work well:

l l . . .a4 1 2.ib5? (White should play 1 2.ie2 �a5 1 3.ltJb5 ig400 with a complex game) 1 2 . . . �a5! Now White is in trouble, since the pin along the fifth rank is highly unpleasant. 1 3.�dl This was Miranda - Tsuboi, Curitiba 1 999, and already Black could have virtually decided the game with the simple 1 3 . . . id7N followed by . . . ltJ a7.

1 1 . • . .!Lib4 12.0-0 1 2.�cl ?! is inaccurate: 12 . . . if5 1 3.0-0 id3!

White unexpectedly faces serious problems. 1 4.e6 fxe6 1 5 .ltJe5 ltJd7 1 6.ltJxd7 Wxd7 Black had a clear plus in De Barros - Shankland, Sautron 2009.

12 • • • c6 Black establishes total control over the d5-

square.

13 . .!Lie4 .if5 I4 • .!Llg3 After 1 4.ltJfd2?! ltJ 6d5 the white pieces are

lacking in coordination: 1 5 .ltJg3 ie6 1 6.a4 V. Milov - Ma. Tseidin, Tel Aviv 1 994. Black can now seize a clear advantage by: 1 6 . . . b6N 1 7.Wi'cl c5!+ White's position is on the verge of collapse.

14 ... .id3

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

326 Russian System

15 . .id.2 Other possibilities are:

1 5 .ixd3 l2ixd3 1 6.Wc2 ttJb4 1 7.We4 Wd5 1 8 .Wh4 (this looks logical, but it is better to allow the queen swap with 18 .a3 Wxe4 l 9.l2ixe4 ltJ4d5 with approximately equality) 1 8 . . .fG! This strong move greatly restricts White's play on the kingside. 1 9.ihG This was Gershon - Ma. Tseitlin, Ramat Aviv 2000, and now I believe that Black can afford to capture the pawn with: 1 9 . . . ttJxa2N 20.ixg7 'i!ixg7 2 1 .Elae l ttJb4 22.Ele2 Wf7! Black will continue with . . . ttJ6d5 and he seems to keep everything under control.

1 5.Wc l ixe2 1 6.ltJxe2 This occurred in Volke - Brendel, Dresden 2007, and here I developed the following regrouping for Black: 1 6 . . . Wd?N 1 7.a3 ltJ4d5 1 8 .l2ig3 l2ic7 1 9 .l2ie4 l2ie6 20.Eldl Elfd8 The position is balanced.

15 ... llld? 16.Wcl he2 17.lllxe2 c5 18.a3 1 8 .dxc5 is not a good idea, because 1 8 ... l2ixe5

gives Black a fine game.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

We have been following Kozul - Borisek, Nova Gorica 200 1 . Black should now play:

18 ... lt.Jd5N 19.lt.Jc3 e6m The position is complex.

Conclusion After 7 . . . ttJc6 White has a wide range of alternatives to the usual 8.ie2, but none of these moves promise him any advantage.

Perhaps the two most tricky lines are variation B) 8.if4, which we meet with a spectacular line, leading to an advantage for Black, and variation E) 8.h3, when instead of the usual 8 . . . l2id7, the blunt 8 . . . e5! solves all problems.

Russian System 8.ie2

Variation Index

a b c d e f g h

I .d4 CiJf6 2.c4 g6 3.ctJc3 d5 4.'lJf3 i.g7 5.�b3 dxc4 6.�xc4 0-0 7.e4 ctJc6 8.i.e2

8 ... i.g4 A) 9.i.e3 i.xf3

Al) lO.i.xf3 A2) 10.gxf3 e5

B) 9.d5 ctJa5

A2 l) l 1 .dxe5 A22) l l .d5

Bl) 10.�a4 i.xf3 1 I .i.xf3 c6 12.0-0 b5! B l l) 13.�b4 Bl2) 13.�dl

B2) 10.�b4 i.xf3 1 1 .i.xa c6 B21) 12.dxc6 B22) 12.i.e3 cxd5 13.exd5 �ks

B221) 14.i.xa7 B222) 14.0-0

B23) 12.0-0 �b6 13.�a4 ctJd7 B23 l) l 4.i.e3 B232) 14.dxc6 B233) 14.i.e2 B234) 14J;dl

328 328 329 329 331 332 332 333 334 334 335 335 336 336 337 338 338 338 339

328 Russian System

1 .d4 tlJf6 2.c4 g6 3.tiJc3 d5 4.tlJf3 i.g7 5.'iNb3 dxc4 6.YNxc4 0-0 7.e4 tlJc6 8.i.e2 i.g4

A) 9.i.e3 i.xf3

Black immediately prepares to attack the white centre. White has a choice of recaptures: Al) 10.i.xf3 or A2) 10.gxf3.

Al) 10.i.xa

8 � ��,)��,)-� 7 � • w� w� • � • , , , , , %� ��

,, , , ,%-,,

�� 6 iiliil iiliil ,, iii : iii·'·!. iiliil 3 iii �m ,�!iii 2 �%n,,,, , ;-_,,,,��f� 1 �,,, ,%� �m,,, ,%•�

a b c d e f g h

10 ... eS 1 1.dS tlJd4 12.tlJe2 This will be our main continuation, since

it recently led to a victory against a strong

grandmaster. White has also tried various alternatives:

1 2.i.xd4? is just bad here, in view of the following line: 1 2 . . . exd4 1 3.Wxd4 lt:lxe4 1 4.Wxe4? Be8-+

1 2.0-0-0 lt:l e8 1 3.lt:le2 This looks better than: 13 . 'tt> b 1 lt:l d6 14. W d3 c5 1 5 .dxc6 bxc6 1 6 .Wa6? l"lb8 17.lt:la4 l"lb5! 1 8.i.xd4 exd4 1 9.l"lcl d3-+ Black won very quickly in Sapi - Lechtynsky, Berlin 1988.

13 ... lt:l d6 14.Wd3

14 . . . f5!N This gives Black a strong initiative. In both games to reach this position Black instead went for the strange-looking 14 . . . lt:l 6b5.

1 5 .lt:lxd4 exd4 1 6.i.xd4 fxe4 17.i.xe4 Wg5t 1 8.l"ld2! i.xd4 19.Wxd4 lt:lxe4 20.Wxe4 Elae8 2 1 .f4!

White just manages to survive.

1 2.i.d l I believe that Black has several ways to obtain good play here; my preference is for the following idea:

1 2 . . . c6 13.dxc6 Bc8! 14.Wa4 Bxc6 1 5 .0-0 White cannot take the pawn: 1 5 .Wxa? We? 1 6.Wa3 l"ld8 (threatening the deadly .. . i.f8) l 7.i.xd4 exd4 1 8.lt:ld5 lt:lxd5 l 9.exd5 We5t 20.@fl Wxd5+

-

1 5 . . . a6 1 6.Wa3 Ele8!

Chapter 28 - 8.ie2 329

Here too, the threat of . . . if8 is a real headache for White.

17.b4 Wd6 1 8.Wb2 Elec8 1 9.Elcl Wc7 20.tt:'le2 Elxcl 2 1 . ttJ xcl ttJ xe4

White was lost in Rajkovic - Sedlak, Kragujevac 2009.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

12 ... b5N This novelty makes a lot of sense. The most

recent game from this position saw: 1 2 ... tt:'lxf3t 1 3.gxf3 tt:'le8 14.h4 tt:'l d6 1 5.Wd3 h5 1 6.0-0-0t Black had failed to equalize in Riazantsev -Delchev, Le Port Mady 2009.

13.�cl Nor do other squares for the queen offer

White any advantage:

1 3.Wd3 tt:'lxf3t 14.gxf3 c6 1 5 .d6 Wd7! White is liable to lose his passed pawn very soon.

1 3.Wc5 tt:'ld7 1 4.Wc3 b4! 1 5 .Wc4 tt:'lb6 16.Wd3 c5 1 7.0-0 f5 Black has good activity and is at least equal.

13 ... �e8 This is more challenging than: 1 3 . . . tt:'lxf3t

14.gxf3 Wd7 1 5 .tt:'lg3 Elac8 1 6.Wc6 Wxc6 17 .dxc6 Elfd8=

14.�dl

14 .Wd2 Wd7 1 5 .0-0-0 c5! is dangerous for White.

14 ... c6 15.dxc6 �a5t 16 . .id2 tllxf.3t 17.gxf3 �a6

Black regains the pawn and equalizes easily.

A2) 10.gxf3

The pawn recapture is thematic for the Russian System, but here Black obtains timely counterplay.

10 ... e5 White must decide what to do with his

d-pawn: A21) 1 1 .dxe5 or A22) 1 1 .d5.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

A21) 1 1 .dxe5 tllxe5

a b c d e f g h

330 Russian System

12.�b5 weakened pawn structure and exposed king, This is rather risky. Other options are: Amigues - Karr, Besancon 1 999.

1 2.'Wd4 is objectively best, but Black will be comfortable in the endgame: 12 . . . 'Wxd4 1 3 . .ixd4 lt:l c6 1 4 . .ie3 l"i:fd8 1 5.l"i:cl lt:ld4 1 6.lt:lb5 (I also checked 1 6.e5 lt:lh5 1 7.f4 and here Black equalizes with 1 7 . . . lt:lxe2 1 8.lt:lxe2 c6 1 9.lt:lg3 lt:lxg3 20.hxg3 f6) 1 6 . . . lt:lxb5 17 . .ixb5 c6 18 . .ie2 lt:lh5 1 9.0-0 .ie5 The position is level, M. Gurevich - Kaidanov, Lvov 1 987.

1 2.°Wb3 lt:lh5! The same idea as we shall see in the main line.

1 3 .h4 I won a nice game after: 13 .lt:l d5 c6 1 4.lt:lf4 lt:lxf4 1 5 . .ixf4 'Wf6 1 6 . .ig3 .ih6! 1 7.h4?! ( 1 7.0-0 would limit Black's advantage) 1 7 . . . l"i:ad8 1 8.0-0 l"i:d2 19 .l"i:fe 1 l"i:xb2!-+ Aloma Vidal - Avrukh, Andorra 2003. 13 .f4? is just bad: 13 . . . lt:l d3t 14 . .ixd3 'Wxd3 1 5 .l"i:dl .ixc3t 1 6.'Wxc3 'Wxe4 Black was winning in Maurer - Korchnoi, Arvier 2006.

1 3 . . . lt:ld3t 1 4.�fl After 1 4 . .ixd3 'Wxd3 1 5 .l"i:dl 'Wa6 Black has slightly the better chances.

1 4 . . . lt:l df4 1 5 .l"i:dl 'Wc8 1 6 . .ic4 c6 17.a4 'Wc7+

Black's position is preferable, due to White's

12 ... �h5!

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

The key move; otherwise Black would be in trouble.

13.�xb7 White has three other notable tries:

1 3.f4? c6 followed by . . . lt:ld3t is very good for Black.

13 .l"i:dl 'Wh4 1 4.'Wxb7 Kaufman - Winer, Washington 1 999. Now the natural 1 4 . . . lt:lf4N would leave White in great danger.

13 .h4 c6 1 4.'Wxb7

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 28 - 8.�e2 33 1

14 ... Wf6!?N (I believe that this is stronger than 14 . . . ElbS 1 5.Wxa7 Elxb2 1 6.�fl Wf6 17.�g5 We6 1 8.Elb l Elxb l t 1 9.tt:lxb l and White managed to hold in Werle - Howell, London 2009.) 1 5 .0-0-0 Elfb8 1 6.Wa6 tt:lf4 l 7.Eld2 tt:lxe2t 1 8 .Wxe2 tt:lxf3 Black has a very promising position.

13 .. J�bs 14.Wd5 At a tournament in Zurich I witnessed the

following remarkable encounter: 14.Wxa7 Elxb2 1 5 .ltJd5

After 1 5 .0-0 Black wins by force: 1 5 . . . Elxe2! 1 6.tt:lxe2 tt:lxf3t 1 7.�g2 tt:l h4t 1 8.�h l �xal 19 .Elxal Wd3-+

1 5 . . . Wh4 I discovered that even without queens White is in trouble: 1 5 .. .f5!? 1 6.Wxc7 Wxc7 17.tt:lxc7 6ce4 1 8.6ce4 tt:lf4 19.�xf4 Elxf4 20.ltJd5 Elxe4 2 1 .ltJe3 �h6 Black's attack looks decisive.

1 6.f4 Elxe2t 1 6 . . . tt:lg4 is also worth considering.

17.�xe2 Wg4t 18 .�d2 tt:lc4t 19.�d3 tt:lb2t 20.�d2

8 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h We have been following the game Miroshnichenko - Brendel, Zurich 2009, in which Black later missed a forced win and eventually lost. Simplest now is:

20 ... c6N White is defenceless, for example:

21 .ltJe7t �h8 22.Wc7 tt:lc4t 23.�d3 tt:lxf4t !

24.Wxf4 ltJe5t 25.�d2 Wd7t 26.ltJd5 cxd5 Black has a winning attack.

14 ... Wf6 15.0-0-0 liJf4 16.Wd.2 ltJxe2t 17.Wxe2 liJrl3 18J�d5 c6

1 8 ... Elb7 is also strong.

19Jk5

a b c d e f g h

In none of the three games that reached this position did Black play the strongest move:

19 .. JUdS!N 20J�dl gxdl t 21.liJxdl �d8+ Black has a clear advantage.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

A22) l l .d5 liJd4

a b c d e f g h

332 Russian System

12.0-0-0 It is obviously bad to grab the pawn:

1 2.i.xd4? exd4 1 3.Wxd4 lt:Jh5 14.We3 ie5 1 5.i.fl Wf6 Black was dominating in Reimaa - I.:Ami, Internet 2000.

After 1 2.lt:Jb5 I like: 12 . . . lt:Jh5 1 3 .lt:Jxd4 exd4 14 .ixd4

8 i. � � �Ei• 7 � ,., ,?,�

,,Y,�' 6 , ,, ;<� , , ;<� ��

,,,,,�� 5 ��,��')) ��7�� 4 �1�i�� 3 ��,/��,� 2 � r� �j,,r� r�

� , %� �m' "� '� a b c d e f g h

14 . . . c6!N (an improvement on 14 . . . ixd4 1 5.Wxd4 lt:Jf4 1 6.ifl ± Ackermann - Peschlow, Essen 2003) 1 5 .ie3 (after 1 5 .ixg7 cxd5! 1 6.Wxd5 Wxd5 17.exd5 'it>xg7 Black will regain the d5-pawn and then be slightly better) 1 5 . . . i.xb2 1 6.:§b 1 Wf6 Black has a comfortable position.

12 ... l!Jes A thematic idea; the knight is heading for

the ideal d6-square.

13.h4 1 3 .f4? is premature: 1 3 . . . tt:Jd6 14.Wd3

lt:Jxe2t 1 5.Wxe2 exf4 1 6.i.xf4 2:e8 17.f3 Feldman - Kudrin, North Bay 1 998. Now the straightforward operation 17 . . . ixc3! 1 8.bxc3 Wf6 1 9.i.d2 2:ac8 followed by 20 . . . c6 would give Black a serious edge.

13 ... l!Jd6 14.ffd.3 a6 14 . . . c5!? is also an option.

15.:gdgl b5 16.£4 l!Jxe2t 17.l!Jxe2 exf4

18.i.xf4 :ges Black was better in Dimitrijevic -

Damljanovic, New York 1 987.

B) 9.d5 l!Ja5

White must choose where to put his queen: Bl) 10.ff a4 or B2) 10.ffb4.

A third option doesn't pose Black any problems at all: 1 0.Wd3 c6 1 1 .h3 ( 1 I .b4? lt:Jxe4 12.lt:Jxe4 ixal 1 3.bxa5 Wxa5t 14.i.d2 Wxd5 is just bad for White) 1 I . . .i.xf3 1 2.Wxf3 cxd5 13.exd5 2:c8 14.0-0 lt:Jd7 ( 14 . . . lt:Jc4!? is also worth considering) The position is roughly balanced.

Bl) 10.ffa4

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 28 - 8 .i.e2 333

10 . . • Lf.3 It is important to include this exchange,

thereby avoiding the nice trap: 1 O . . . c6?? 1 l .e5!+-

1 1.Lf.3 c6 12.0-0 b5! I definitely prefer this to 12 ... cxd5 1 3.:gdu.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

Again the queen has a choice of squares: Bll) 13.'1Wb4 or B12) 13.'!Wdl .

B l l) 13.'1Wb4 a6 14.i.e3

The alternative is: 14.:gdl ll'id7

Already it appears that White cannot maintain equality.

1 5.ll'ibl Black was clearly better after 1 5 . ll'i e2 c5 16.We 1 ll'ie5 17.ll'if4 ll'ixf3t 1 8.gxf3 ll'ic4+ Ehlvest - Shahade, New York 2003. 1 5 .ie3 runs into a nice idea: 15 ... c5! 16.ixc5 ll'ixc5 17.Wxc5 :gc8 1 8.Wa? ll'ic4! Black has a serious initiative. 1 9.:gab l Wd6 20.e5 ll'ixe5 2 1 .We3 ll'ic4+ Krivousas -Borisek, Balatonlelle 200 1 .

1 5 . . . cxd5 16.exd5 :gc8+ Black had the more pleasant game in Kozul

- Rowson, Istanbul (ol) 2000.

14 ... l!Jd?

78 i: ��!wJfi a � �...aJ;'fA% A W A 6 rm,_,,, , , /,� ,,�� 5 .f.f.

��

4 /,, , , , ;r'"':�� /, u/ �ff).q �, 3 � � �j,,-2 �8,,,, , ;.,,,,�� 1 d,,, , %� ��;o�m,,, ,

a b c d e f g h

15.i.e2 Weaker is:

1 5.:gadl ?! This allows Black to carry out a familiar idea.

1 5 ... c5! 1 6.ixc5 ll'ixc5 17.Wxc5 This was Lugovoi - Ma. Tseidin, Chalkidiki 2002. Now the best continuation is:

8 .i � � �B1• 7 � �� , ,;,.,,,Y,�· �� ;(, ,;��,,?;1�

: ''E'�� 4 / , ;� ,,, ,/�,�� / �� ,0 � 3 � m �..t• 2 �� , ,.,,,,,%��

,/�r� ,t� a b c d e f g h

1 7 . . . ll'ic4!N 1 8.Wb4 Wd6! 1 9.Wxd6 No better is 1 9.Wb3 :gfc8! and Black will regain the pawn with advantage.

l 9 . . . exd6 Black retains the initiative, for instance:

20.b3 ll'ib2 2 1 .:gcl ll'id3 22.:gcdl ll'ib4 22 . . . ll'ixf2 is also slightly better for Black.

23.a3 ixc3 24.axb4 ixb4+ White will have to work hard to draw this

opposite-coloured bishop endgame, since Black's a-pawn is potentially very dangerous.

334 Russian System

15 .. J!ks 16.%Va3 c5!

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

Now I have nothing to add to the following correspondence game. Both sides played perfectly in my opinion.

17.liJdl e6 18.dxe6 fxe6 19.gcl %Vb6 20.b4 liJb7 21.bxc5 liJdxc5 22.%Vb4 %Vd6 23.liJc3 J.e5 24.g3 liJd7 25.%Vxd6 ltJxd6 26.gfdl liJf6 27.f4 hc3 28Jhd6 ltJxe4 29Jha6 J.d4!

And when both sides play flawlessly, the game ends in a draw, De Carlos Arregui -Fenwick, e-mail 2008.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Bl2) 13.%Vdl

a b c d e f g h

White's latest attempts have involved this retreat.

13 .. JkS! This accurate move easily solves Black's

opening problems.

14.dxc6 After 14.if4 b4 1 5 .tt:'ia4 cxd5 1 6.exd5 Wd7

I prefer Black's position.

14 ... b4 15.e5 Maybe White could try 1 5 .tt:'ib5 tt:'ixc6

16.Wa4, although Black has no problems and can respond 16 . . . tt:'ie5 with some attacking ideas.

15 ... bxc3 16.exf6 ixf6 17.bxc3 ltJxc6 18.J.h6 J.g7 19.hg7 @xg7

Although the position looks fairly equal, there is some strategical danger for White due to his weak c-pawn. In Vallejo - Roiz, Dresden (ol) 2008, White had to suffer for a while before eventually securing the draw.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B2) 10.%Vb4

a b c d e f g h

Undoubtedly the most challenging option.

10 ... i.xf.3 Once again, 1 0 . . . c6?? 1 1 .e5!+- must be

avoided.

Chapter 28 - 8 .ie2 335

1 1 .ixa c6

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

The threat of . . . E!:fb8 forces White to give up the exchange.

1 5.E!:dl 1 5 .4Jb5? is just bad: 15 . . . \Wb4 1 6.a3 4Jxf3t l 7.gxf3 '1Wb3 White is in trouble.

1 5 . . . E!:fb8 16.E!:xd4 1 6.e5? '1Wxe5 17 .\Wxa8 E!:xa8 1 8.ixa8 4Jg4 1 9.g3 \Wh5 20.h4 '1Wc5 2 1 .E!:fl 4Jf5!-+

16 . . . \Wxd4 17.'1Wxe7 if8 1 8.'1Wc7 id6 19 .\Wa5 '1We5 20.'1Wxe5 ixe5+

White is facing a fight for a draw.

14 ... Wf d6 15.f4 gabs 16.e5 But not: 16.\Wxa7? E!:a8 l 7.'1Wb7 E!:fb8 l 8.e5

a b c d e f g h \Wd8-+

White's options are B21) 12.dxc6, B22) 12.ie3 and B23) 12.0-0. 16 ... gxb7 17.exd6 exd6 18.0-0 ge8

Black is slightly better, but White should be B21) 12.dxc6 able to hold the position.

Nobody has tried this, which is not too B22) 12.ie3 cxd5 13.exd5 gc8 surprising in view of:

12 ... 4Jxc6 13.Wi'xb7 tlJd4!

14.idl This is probably better than:

14.0-0 \Wd6!

With the clear intention of playing the knight to the c4-square.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

White usually chooses between B221) 14.ixa7 and B222) 14.0-0. A third option is:

14.E!:dl lt:J c4! 1 5 .id4 \Wd6! Black is already better. 1 6.\Wb3 (after 1 6.\Wxb7 E!:b8 17.\Wxa7

336 Russian System

llixb2 1 8.l"ld2 ih6! White is in trouble) 1 6 . . . tli d7 17.0-0 ixd4 1 8.Elxd4 Wc5 19 .l"lfdl M. Gurevich - Urban, Groningen 1 997. Here Black should play 1 9 . . . tli d6N with a very pleasant game.

B221) l 4.ha7

Snatching this pawn is rather risky.

14 ... llJc4 15.0-0 1 5.Eld 1 ?! runs into the spectacular: 1 5 . . . llixb2!

1 6.Wxb2 tlie4 17.id4 ixd4 1 8.Elxd4 llixc3 19.0-0 b5 Black is slightly better, due to the superiority of his knight over the white bishop, Vshivkov - Vokarev, Omsk 1 998.

15 ... llJd2 16J'Udl �'k4! An important resource; before capturing the

bishop, Black arranges for his rook to join the kingside offensive.

8 � � ��-';; '.:/,� , , , , ,/,�.f�,,, , ,Y,�-;; : -� �� ff.l�lf� �� //,, , , , ;� : �t"��·�·� 3 -�IJ�.!. ��-d""""y, "//, ��-;; '.:/,�-� 2 � '1� � '1� � '1fj d,,,,/,•�t•,,, ,/,=,,, ,

a b c d e f g h

17.�b5 White has also tried: 17.Wb6 llixf3t

1 8.gxf3 Wc8 1 9.l"ld4 Farago - ]. Horvath, Budapest 1 99 1 . Now I believe Black should play: 1 9 . . . Elxd4N 20.Wxd4 lli d7 2 1 .We3 b6! 22.ixb6 llixb6 23.Wxb6 ixc3 24.bxc3 Wxc3 25.Eldl Wxf3 26.Wd4 Eld8 Despite the equal material, White is facing a difficult defensive task due to his exposed king.

I also examined: 17.Wxb7 llixf3t 1 8.gxf3 l"lc7! This is an important idea; it transpires that the a7-bishop is in danger. 19 .Wa6 Wa8 20.tlib5 Eld7 Black will capture the d5-pawn and will obtain good attacking chances, in addition to the unpleasant pin of the white bishop.

17 ... llJxBt 18.gxf3 �c8 19.gd4 19 .id4 is refuted very nicely: 1 9 . . . tlig4!

20.ixg7 llixh2! 2 l .l"ld3 (2 I .ixf8 Wh3 leads to a quick mate) 2 1 . . . �xg7 Black is clearly better, since the h2-knight is untouchable.

19 ... gxd4 20.i.xd4 �h3 21.i.xf<i The natural 2 1 .We2 runs into the unpleasant

2 1 . . . llixd5!.

21. .. hf<i 22.�e2 gc8 23.llJe4 i.e5 24.llJg3 i.d6i

Miton - Tyomkin, Philadelphia 2004. Despite White's extra pawn, it is clear that Black's chances are preferable, in view of the vulnerable white king.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

B222) 14.0-0 llJc4 15.i.c5

a b c d e f g h

15 ... �c7!N This is an important improvement over:

1 5 . . . tli d2 1 6.ixe7 llixf3t 17.gxf3 llixd5 1 8.ixd8 llixb4 19.ie7 llic2 20.ixf8 ixc3 2 1 .l"lab 1 ! Black was in trouble in C. Horvath -Vegh, Hungary 1 99 1 .

Chapter 28 - 8 .�e2 337

16.La? 16.�xe7? loses to: 16 ... a5 17.d6 axb4

1 8.dxc7 bxc3 1 9.�xf8 cxb2-+

16 ... b6 17.gfcl 17.tt:lb5 Wd7 1 8.a4 llle5! looks dangerous

for White.

17 ... '1Wxa7 18.c!DbS '1Wd7 19.gxc4 c!DxdS 20.'1Wb3

The position is equal.

B23) 12.0-0 '1Wb6

Black has often tried 12 . . . cxd5 1 3.exd5 Ei'.c8, but theory considers White's chances to be preferable after 14.Ei'.e U.

13.Wxb6 axb6 The endgame is comfortable for Black.

14.dxc6 bxc6 15 .Ei'.d l After 15 .Ei'.b l Ei'.fd8 16.�e2 llld7 17.�e3 b5 1 8.Ei'.fcl tt:lc4 19.�xc4 bxc4 Black had some pressure in Kaspi - Sutovsky, Ramat Aviv 2000.

1 5 . . . tt:lb3N

The idea of exchanging White's darksquared bishop appears very logical to me. Instead 1 5 ... Ei'.a7 was played in Radjabov -Rowson, Torshavn 2000, and although Black managed to draw this game, the text seems simpler.

1 6.Ei'.b l lllxcl 17.Ei'.bxcl e6= White cannot hope for any advantage

without his dark-squared bishop.

l 3.Wxe7 tt:lc4 14.dxc6 The inclusion of 14.a3 a5! does not really change the situation. Note that White does have the option of forcing a repetition by: 14.tt:la4 Wa5 1 5.llld Wb6=

14 ... bxc6 1 5 .�f4 Ei'.fe8 1 6.Wc7 Wxc7 Black may also play: 16 . . . Wxb2 17.Ei'.acl Wb6 1 8.tt:la4 Wxc7!N (but not 18 ... Wb5? Gyimesi - Berkes, Hungary 2007, when White can obtain a serious advantage with 19 .�e2!) 1 9 .�xc7 llld2 20.Ei'.fd l tt:l fXe4 2 1 .Ei'.xd2 tt:lxd2 22.�xc6 �d4 The position is equal.

17.�xc7 Ei'.ac8 1 8.�g3 lllh5! 19 .Ei'.acl lllxg3 20.hxg3 tt:lxb2 2 l .Ei'.c2 tt:ld3 22.a3

The game was balanced in Gyimesi -Swinkels, Liverpool 2006.

13 ... c!Dd?

338 Russian System

We have arrived at an important crossroads, with four options for White: B231) 14.i.e3, B232) 14.dxc6, B233) 14.i.e2 and B234) 14.gdl .

B231) 14.i.e3

This leads to a forced sequence.

14 ... V*fxb2 15.gfcl Lc3 16.gabl

a b c d e f g h

16 ... b5 Black has good chances to hold the position

after 16 ... lll b6 17 . .ixb6 axb6 1 8.Elxb2 .ixb2 19.Elb l .if6 Kovacs - Roiz, Oberwart 2004. But the text seems to be more active.

17.gxb2 bxa4 18.gxc3 cxd5 19.exd5 White has also tried: 1 9.Elb5 lllc4 20.exd5

llldb6 2 1 ..ixb6 llld6 22.Elb4 axb6 23 .Elxb6 Elfb8 Black was slightly better in Gyimesi -Roiz, Tel Aviv 200 1 .

19 ... gac8 20.gbc2 c!iJb6 21.gc7 2 1 .c;t>fl lllac4 22 . .if4 Elfd8 gives Black easy

equality.

2 1 ..ic5?! runs into 2 1 . . .lllac4! and White cannot take the pawn due to back rank problems: 22 . .ixe7 Elfe8 23.2"le2 llle5!+

24.gxe3 gd8 25.h4 c!iJb6 Black comfortably achieved a draw in Babula

- Mirumian, Olomouc 1 998.

B232) 14.dxc6 c!lJxc6 15.c!lJd5 V*f d8 16.i.g5

Black is comfortable after: 1 6.Eldl e6 17.lllc3 Vfie7 1 8 . .ie3 Elfd8=

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

16 ... h6!N In Cmilyte - Howell, Gibraltar 2005,

Black played 16 ... lllb6, which was enough to maintain the balance, but I prefer the text move.

17.i.h4 17 . .ie3 e6 1 8.lllc3 lll b6, followed by ... llld4,

is also slightly better for Black.

17 ... g5 18.i.g3 e6 19.c!iJe3 V*fe7i Black has the better chances, thanks to the

passivity of White's light-squared bishop.

B233) 14.i.e2 c!lJc5 15.V*f c2

White should avoid the following line: 1 5 .Vfia3?! .ixc3 1 6.Wxc3 lllxe4 17.We5 cxd5 1 8 . .ih6 lll f6 1 9 . .ixf8 Elxf8 With two pawns for the exchange, Black has the better chances.

15 ... V*fb4

Chapter 28 - 8 . .ie2 339

16 ... i.xc3 17.l:!acl i.d4! 18.hd4 %Yxd4 19.%Yxc5 %Yxb2! 20 . .ta b6

20 .. . Wxa2? loses to: 2 1 .l:'i:al lll b3 22.Wc3! lllxal 23.l:'i:xal +-

21.%Yxe7 l:!fe8 22.%Yg5 The alternative is: 22.Wd? We5!N

(this is an important improvement over 22 . . . l:'i:ed8?! 23.Wc?! and White was better in Bareev - Lalic, Jahorina 2003) 23.dxc6 (23.l:'i:fdl l:'i:e7 24.Wg4 l:'i:d8 25.dxc6 l:'i:xd l t 26 . .txd l l:'i:c7 27.g3 mg? also results in an equal position) 23 . . . l:'i:ed8 24.Wg4 l:'i:ac8= Black regains the pawn and has no problems.

22 ... %Ye5 23.%Yd2 l:!ad8 24.g3 cxd5 25.exd5 ltJb7 26.l:!fel %Yf6 27.@g2 l:!xel 28.%Yxel ltJc5

Black had equalized without any difficulty in Babula - Ruck, Novi Sad 2009.

B234) 14.l:!dl l:!fd8

14 . . . lllc5 1 5 .Wc2 lllc4 16.l:'i:b l ! led to serious problems for Black in Kasimdzhanov -

1 5 . .ie2 In the following encounter Black demonstrated the correct route to equality: 1 5 . . . lllc5 1 6.Wc2 Wb4 17.i.e3 i.xc3

8 �0��.'0�-7 1% i � if� i � i 6 . . . %�·��. %�·� 5 ��:��

m m £3J � � 4 ' ··· ··r ,,r · � �� ·�� 3 � � � � 2 �Dii�� 1 gt· · %�r� · · %� .

a b c d e f g h 1 8.l:'i:ac l ! b6! 1 9 . .ixc5 Wxc5 20.Wxc3 Wxc3 2 l .l:'i:xc3 cxd5 22.l:'i:xd5 l:'i:dc8! 23 . .ia6 l:'i:xc3 24.bxc3 i>fs 25 .mfl mes 26.i±>e2 e6 27.i.b5t Wf8 28.l:'i:d? a6 29 . .id3 l:'i:c8 Rakay - Van den Bos, e-mail 2008. Incredibly, I had all these moves written in my notes in 2007.

15 ... l:!acS 1 5 . . . lllc4?! is pointless on account of

16 . .ie2.

Sutovsky, Batumi 200 1 . 16 . .ie3

340 Russian System

After 1 6.dxc6 tt:Jxc6! 17.tt:Jd5 Wc5 Black is slightly better, thanks to his powerful darksquared bishop.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

16 ... Wfc?!N This is an important improvement over a

game of mine in which I opted for 1 6 . . . Wb4 but failed to equalize after 17.dxc6;!; in Onischuk Avrukh, Biel 2007.

17.gacl I also examined 17 .dxc6 tt:Jxc6 1 8 .Elacl and

here Black shouldn't have any problems after: 1 8 . . . Wbs 1 9.Wb3 e6=

17 ... cxd5 18.'1Wa4 This is the move I was worried about during

the above-mentioned game. Instead 1 8 .Elxd5 e6 1 9.Elddl a6= is not dangerous.

18 • • . lllc5! This solves all Black's problems, but it

requires accurate calculation.

19.Wfa3 The alternative is: 1 9.i.xc5 Wxc5 20.i.g4

(20.b4 Wc6 2 1 .Wxa5 i.xc3 is just equal) 20 . . . Elc7 2 1 .b4 Wc6 22.Wxc6 Elxc6 23.tt:Jxd5 Elxcl 24.tt:Jxe7t 'it>f8 25.Elxcl 'it>xe7 26.bxa5 Eld2 27.Elc7t 'it>f8=

19 . • . lllc4 20.lllxd5 lllxa3 21.lllxc7 gxdl t 22.gxdl gxc7 23.gdst �f8 24.bxa3 'it>g7

Black has full equality.

Conclusion When White develops with A) 9.i.e3 Black should immediately strike in the centre with 9 . . . i.xf3 and 1 0 . . . e5, which promises him equal chances in all lines.

Chasing the black knight away with B) 9 .d5 is a more challenging approach, but in return White loses time with his queen, and with careful play Black can be confident of equalizing. However White must also play with care; as I point out in the notes to line B 1 1 , the pawn sacrifice with 1 4 . . . tt:Jd7 and 1 5 . . . c5 can be dangerous in certain circumstances. Finally in line B234 I refer to a game in which I suffered, but that was because I chose the wrong square for my queen; with 1 6 . . . Wc7!N Black can solve all his problems.

Variation Index Chapter 1

1.d4 'i:lf6 2.c4 g6 A) 3.�c2 8 B) 3.d5 9 C) 3.�g5 'i:le4 4.�f4 c5 1 0

C l ) 5.d5 1 0 C2) 5.�c2 1 1

Chapter 2

1.d4 'i:lf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 dS 4.cxd5 'i:lxd5 5.e4 'i:lb6 A) 6.a4 1 4 B) 6.'llc3 �g7 7.�e3 0-0 1 5

B l ) 8.Elc l 1 5 B2) 8.f4 'llc6 9.d5 'i:la5! 1 0.�d4 e5! l l .�xe5 �xe5 12.fxe5 �h4t! 1 3.g3 �e7 14.�d4 Eld8! l 5.b4 'i:lac4 1 6

B 2 1 ) 1 6.�xc4 �xb4 1 7.'llf3 �xc4 1 8.�e3 Ele8!N 1 9 B2 1 l ) 1 9.Eldl 20 B212) 1 9.e6 20 B2 1 3) 1 9 .Elcl 20

B22) 16.'llf3 2 1 B3) 8 .�d2 'llc6 9 .0-0-0 f5 22

B31) 1 0.exf5 23

Chapter 3

B32) 1 0.h4 fxe4 l 1 .h5 gxh5! 23 B32 1 ) 12.d5 24 B322) 12.Elxh5 25

B33) 1 0.e5 'i:lb4 29 B33 1 ) l 1 .�h6 29 B332) l l .h4 �e6 30

B332 1) 1 2.'it>b l 3 1 B3322) 1 2.h5 3 1 B3323) 12 .a3 32

B333) l 1 .'llh3 34

1.d4 'i:lf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 c6 A) 4.d5 38 B) 4.�g2 d5 39

B l ) 5 .b3 39 B2) 5 .�b3 40 B3) 5.�a4 4 1

342 Grandmaster Repertoire 8 -The Griinfeld Defence Volume One

Chapter 4

l.d4 tllf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 c6 4.tllf3 d5 5.b3 .ig7 6 . .ig2 0-0 A) 7.ib2 44 B) 7.0-0 dxc4 8.bxc4 c5 45

Bl) 9.e3 45 B2) 9.ib2 �b6 1 0.�b3 tlle4 l l .e3 tllc6 1 2.tlle5 tlld6 47

B2 1 ) 13 .tlld2 47 B22) 13 .tllxc6 48

Chapter 5

l.d4 tllf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 c6 4 . .ig2 d5 s.ttia .ig7 6.0-0 0-0 A) 7.�a4 5 1 B) 7.tllbd2 5 1 C) 7.tllc3 dxc4 5 5

C l ) 8.e4 55 C2) 8.a4 56 C3) 8 .tll e5 57

Chapter 6

Ld4 tllf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 c6 4 . .ig2 d5 s.ttia .ig7 6.0-0 0-0 7.'11:Yb3 '11:Yb6 A) 8.c5 59 B) 8.�xb6 59 C) 8.tllc3 Ei:d8 60

Cl) 9.cxd5 6 1 C2) 9.if4 6 1 C3) 9.�a3 62 C4) 9.Ei:d l 63 CS) 9.h3 64 C6) 9.c5 64

Chapter 7

l.d4 tllf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 c6 A) 4.tllf3 68 B) 4.ig2 d5 69

B 1) 5 .tllf3 69 B2) 5.cxd5 cxd5 70

B21) 6.tllc3 ig7 70 B21 l) 7.tllh3 70 B2 1 2) 7.e3 7 1

B22) 6.tllf3 ig7 72 B22 1 ) 7.tllc3 72 B222) 7.tlle5 tlle4 74

Chapter 8

Variation Index

82221 ) 8.0-0 74 82222) 8.llid2 77

B223) 7.0-0 0-0 78 8223 1 ) 8.llic3 78 B2232) 8.llie5 82

1 .d4 � f6 2.c4 g6 3. � c3 dS A) 4.g4 86 B) 4.h4 87 C) 4.f3 c5! 90

Cl ) 5.cxd5 90 C2) 5.dxc5 9 1

D) 4.i.d2 92

Chapter 9

Ld4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 dS 4.Wa4t i.d7 s.Wb3 dxc4 6.Wxc4 i.g7 A) 7.i.f4 llia6 8.llif3 0-0 9.e4 c5 95

Al) 1 0.e5 96 A2) 1 O.dxc5 97

B) 7.e4 0-0 100 B l ) 8.llif3 1 00 B2) 8.e5 1 02

Chapter 10

Ld4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 dS 4.Wb3 dxc4 s.Wxc4 .tg7 6.e4 0-0 A) 7.i.f4 llia6 8.llif3 c5 1 06

Al) 9.E!:dl 1 07 A2) 9.e5 1 08 A3) 9.d5 e6 1 09

B) 7.i.e2 1 1 2

Chapter 1 1

A3 1) 1 0.i.e2 1 1 0 A32) 1 0.d6 e5! l l .i.xe5 llib4 1 1 0

A32 1) 12.E!:cl 1 1 1 A322) 12.E!:dl 1 1 2

1.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 dS 4.e3 .tg7 A) 5.b4 0-0 6.llif3 c6 1 1 6

Al ) 7.i.e2 1 17 A2) 7.i.b2 1 1 8

B) 5 .�b3 e6 1 20

343


B l ) 6.llif3 0-0 1 20 B l 1 ) 7.ie2 1 20 B l 2) 7.id2 1 2 1

B2) 6.�a3 1 22 C) 5 .id2 1 24 0) 5 .cxd5 1 25

Chapter 12

1 .d4 ltjf6 2.c4 g6 3.lDc3 d5 4.e3 .ig7 s.lDa 0--0 A) 6.ie2 c5 1 28

A l ) 7.dxc5 1 28 A2) 7.cxd5 130 A3) 7.0-0 cxd4 8 .exd4 llic6 1 3 1

A3 1 ) 9.c5 llie4 1 33 A3 1 l ) 1 0.if4 1 34 A3 1 2) 10 .ie3 1 3 5

A32) 9.cxd5 1 3 5 A33) 9.:il:el ig4 1 36

A33 1 ) 1 0.c5 1 36 A332) 1 0.cxd5 1 37

A34) 9.h3 138 B) 6.id2 139 C) 6.id3 141 0) 6.cxd5 llixd5 7.ic4 llib6 143

01) 8 .ie2 1 43 02) 8 .ib3 1 44

Chapter 13

1 .d4 ltJf6 2.c4 g6 3.lDc3 d5 4 . .if4 .ig7 A) 5 .�b3 1 49 B) 5 .�a4t 1 50 C) 5 .:il:cl llih5! 1 52

Cl ) 6.ig5 1 52 C2) 6.ie3 1 53 C3) 6.id2 1 54

Chapter 14

1 .d4 ltJf6 2.c4 g6 3.lDc3 d5 4 . .if4 .ig7 s.lDa 0-0 6Jkl dxc4 A) 7.e3 ie6 8 .llig5 id5 9.e4 h6 1 0.exd5 hxg5 l l .ixg5 llixd5 1 2.ixc4 llib6 13 .ib3 ctJc6 1 60

A l ) 1 4.d5 1 6 1 A2 ) 1 4.llie2 1 63

B) 7.e4 ig4 8 .ixc4 llih5 9.ie3 ixf3 1 65 B l ) 1 0.�xf3 1 66

Variation Index

B2) 1 0.gxf3 eS! 1 1 .dxeS .ixeS 12 .�xd8 Elxd8 167

Chapter lS

-B2 1 ) 13.ll'ie2 169 B22) 13.0-0 1 70

1.d4 ltJf6 2.c4 g6 3.ltJc3 dS 4 . .if4 .ig7 S.e3 cS A) 6 . .ixb8?! 1 73 B) 6.ll'if3 cxd4 1 74

B l ) 7.exd4 1 74 B2) 7.ll'ixd4 l 7S

C) 6.dxcS �aS 1 77 Cl) 7.cxdS ll'ixdS 1 78 C2) 7.�b3 1 79 C3) 7.�a4t �xa4 8.ll'ixa4 .id7 9.ll'ic3 ll'ie4! 10 .ll'ixdS ll'ia6 l l .f3 ll'iexcS 1 80

C3 1) 1 2 . .igS 1 82 C32) 1 2.Elbl 1 83 C33) 1 2.0-0-0 1 84

Chapter 16

1 .d4 ltJf6 2.c4 g6 3.ltJc3 dS 4 . .if4 .ig7 S.e3 cS 6.dxcS '!Was 7.�cl dxc4 8 . .L:c4 0-0 A) 9.a3 1 89 B) 9.ll'ige2 �xcS 1 0.�b3 ll'ic6 1 1 .ll'ibS �hS 1 89

B l ) 12.ll'ic7 1 92 B2) 1 2.ll'ig3 �h4 1 3 .ll'ic7 eS! 1 93

B21) 1 4 . .ixeS 1 94

Chapter 17

B22) 1 4 . .igS �xgS 1 98 B22 1 ) 1 S .ll'ixa8 1 98 B222) l S .h4 1 99

34S

1.d4 ltJf6 2.c4 g6 3.ltJc3 dS 4 . .if4 i.g7 S.e3 cS 6.dxcS \Was 7.�cl dxc4 s . .L:c4 0-0 9.ltJf3 '!WxcS A) 1 O.ll'ibS .ie6 20S

Al ) l 1 .ll'ic7?! 20S A2) l l . .ixe6 207

B) 10 .�b3 208 C) 10 . .ib3 ll'ic6 1 1 .0-0 �aS 209

Cl ) 12.�e2 2 1 0 C2) 12.h3 .ifS 2 1 2

C2 1 ) 1 3.ll'igS 2 1 2 C22) 13 .�e2 ll'ie4 2 1 S

C22 1 ) 14.ll'ixe4 .ixe4 2 1 S C222) 1 4.g4!? 2 1 7 C223) 1 4.ll'idS eS 2 1 9


Chapter 18

C223 1 ) 1 5.ig5 2 1 9 C2232) 1 5.�xc6 220 C2233) 1 5.ih2 ie6 223

C2233 1 ) 1 6.�xc6 223 C22332) 1 6.�fdl 224

1 .d4 lilf6 2.c4 g6 3.lilc3 d5 4.ig5 llle4 A) 5 .lllf3 227 B) 5 .h4 228 C) 5.cxd5 lllxg5 6.h4 llle4! 7.lllxe4 �xd5 8 .lllc3 �a5 229

Cl ) 9.�a4t 230 C2) 9.e3 231 C3) 9.lllf3 232 C4) 9.h5 233

D) 5 .lllxe4 dxe4 233 D l ) 6.�a4t 234 D2) 6.f3 234 D3) 6.e3 235 D4) 6.�d2 ig7 7.e3 c5 237

D4 1 ) 8 .llle2 238 D42) 8.d5 �b6! 239

Chapter 19

D42 1 ) 9.0-0-0 239 D422) 9.�b l 240

1 .d4 lilf6 2.c4 g6 3.lilc3 d5 4.ig5 llle4 s.if4 lilxc3 6.bxc3 ig7 7.e3 c5 8.lilf3 0-0 A) 9.�bl 245 B) 9.�b3 246 C) 9.cxd5 cxd4 1 0.cxd4 �xd5 1 1 .ie2 lll c6 1 2.0-0 if5 1 3.�a4 �a5 247

Cl ) 1 4.�xa5 250 C2) 1 4.�b3 2 5 1

Chapter 20

1 .d4 lilf6 2.c4 g6 3.lilc3 d5 4.ig5 lll e4 5.ih4 lilxc3 6.bxc3 dxc4 A) 7.e4?! 256 B) 7.�a4t 257

Variation Index

Chapter 21

1 .d4 ltlf6 2.c4 g6 3.lllc3 d5 4.Ag5 llle4 5.Ah4 lllxc3 6.bxc3 dxc4 7.e3 Ae6 A) 8.ltlh3 260 B) 8.ie2 261 C) 8.�b l c5! 9.�xb7 id5 10 .�b5t �d7 1 1 .l'!b l �xb5 1 2.l'!xb5 '2l d7 262

Cl ) l 3.'2lf3 263 C2) 1 3.'2le2 264

Chapter 22

1 .d4 ltlf6 2.c4 g6 3.lllc3 d5 4.Ag5 llle4 5.Ah4 lllxc3 6.bxc3 dxc4 7.e3 Ae6 8.:B:bl llld7! A) 9.l'!xb7 267 B) 9.�a4 267 C) 9.ltlf3 ltJ b6 271

Cl ) 1 0.a4 27 1 C2) 1 O.ie2 273

Chapter 23

1.d4 lllf6 2.c4 g6 3.lllc3 d5 4.Ag5 llle4 5.Ah4 lllxc3 6.bxc3 dxc4 7.e3 Ae6 8.lllf3 Ag7 A) 9.ie2 c5 1 0.0-0 0-0 277

Al) l 1 .ltlg5 277 A2) 1 1 .l'!b l cxd4 12.'2lxd4 id5 13 .�c2 �d7 280

A2 1 ) 14.e4 28 1 A22) 14.l'!fdl 282

B) 9.�b l �d5 1 0.ie2 if5 283 B l ) l l .�b4 283 B2) l l .�b2 285

C) 9.l'!b l b6 285 C 1 ) 1 O.ltlg5 286 C2) 1 O.ltld2 287 C3) 10 .ie2 0-0 288

Chapter 24

C3 l) l l .'2l d2 288 C32) 1 1 .0-0 289

I.d4 lllf6 2.c4 g6 3.lll c3 d5 4.lllf3 Ag7 A) 5 .�a4t 292 B) 5.g3 dxc4 6.�a4t '2lfd7 7.�xc4 '2lb6 293

B l ) 8.�b3 293 B2) 8.�d3 294

347


Chapter 25

1 .d4 llif6 2.c4 g6 3.llic3 dS 4.llif3 .ig7 5 . .igS llie4 6.ih4 llixc3 7.bxc3 dxc4 A) 8.e3 297 B) 8 .1Wa4t 298

B l ) 8 ... '2ld7!? 298 B2) 8 . . . 1Wd7 9.1Wxc4 b6! 299

Chapter 26

B21) 1 0.ig3 300 B22) 1 0.1Wb3 ia6 l l .e3 ixfl 301

B22 1 ) 1 2.iixfl 301 B222) 1 2.Elxfl 0-0 1 3.iie2 c5 303

B222 1) 14.Elfd l 303 B2222) 1 4.dxc5 303

1 .d4 llif6 2.c4 g6 3.llic3 dS 4.llif3 ig7 5.i.g5 llie4 6.cxd5 llixgS 7.llixg5 e6 A) 8.1Wa4t 306 B) 8.1Wd2 h6 307

B l ) 9.'2lf3 exd5 307 Bl 1 ) 1 0.1We3t 307 B l 2) 1 0.b4 308

B2) 9.'2lh3 exd5 309 B21) 1 0.'2lf4 309 B22) 1 0.1We3t iif8 l 1 .'2l f4 3 1 0

B221) l l . . .c6 3 1 0 B222) l l . . .c5 3 1 2

C) 8.'2lf3 exd5 9.e3 0-0 3 1 2 C l ) 1 0.b4 3 1 3 C2) 1 0.ie2 c6 1 1 .0-0 ie6 1 2.b4 '2ld7 3 1 4

C2 1 ) 1 3 .a4 3 1 5 C22) 1 3 .!'lcl 3 1 5

Chapter 27

1 .d4 llif6 2.c4 g6 3.llic3 dS 4.llif3 .ig7 5.Wl'b3 dxc4 6.Wl'xc4 0-0 7.e4 llic6 A) 8.d5?! 3 1 8 B ) 8.if4 3 1 8 C) 8.ie3 320 D) 8 .ig5 322 E) 8.h3 323 F) 8.e5 324

Variation Index

Chapter 28

1.d4 ll:lf6 2.c4 g6 3.lllc3 d5 4.lllf3 .ig7 s.'t'Mb3 dxc4 6.'t'Mxc4 0-0 7.e4 lllc6 8 . .ie2 .ig4 A) 9.ie3 ixf3 328

Al ) 1 0.ixf3 328 A2) 1 0.gxf3 e5 329

A2 1 ) 1 l .dxe5 329 A22) 1 l .d5 33 1

B) 9.d5 ltJa5 332 B l ) 1 0.�a4 ixf3 l l .ixf3 c6 1 2.0-0 b5! 332

B l 1) 1 3 .�b4 333 B 12) 1 3 .�dl 334

B2) 1 0.�b4 ixf3 1 l .ixf3 c6 334 B21) 1 2.dxc6 335 B22) 1 2.ie3 cxd5 1 3.exd5 �c8 335

B22 1 ) 14.ixa7 336 B222) 1 4.0-0 336

B23) 12.0-0 �b6 1 3.�a4 ltJ d7 337 B23 1 ) 1 4.ie3 338 B232) 1 4.dxc6 338 B233) 14.ie2 338 B234) 14.�dl 339

349

by Boris Avrukh

Grandmaster Repertoire is a series of high quality chess books based on the main lines, written by strong grandmasters. The aim is to provide the reader with a complete repertoire at a level good enough for elite tournaments, and certainly also for the club championship.

Grandmaster Repertoire 8 - The Griinfeld Defence

Volume One offers a repertoire for Black after 1.d4 lLJf6 2.c4 g6. This volume covers the Fianchetto Variation, the Russian Variation with S.tib3, the J.f4 and J,gs lines, as well as all White's minor tries. Grandmaster Repertoire 9 will complete the repertoire .

•

•

Boris Avrukh is a grandmaster from Israel. He is an Olympiad gold medallist, former World Junior Champion and analysis partner of World Championship finalists. Avrukh's two previous Grandmaster Repertoire books on 1.d4 received universal rave reviews and have been hugely influential on chess players all over the world, including at the very highest level.

€24.99 $29.95

ISBN 978-1-906552-75-6

I www.qualitychess.co.uk 9 781906 552756

Boris Avrukh...Avrukh: Grandmaster Repertoire 2 -J .d4 Volume Two, Quality Chess 2010 Davies: !he...

Documents

Transcript of Boris Avrukh...Avrukh: Grandmaster Repertoire 2 -J .d4 Volume Two, Quality Chess 2010 Davies: !he...