� ClJessStilrs

',('jill/PI'

Chess Stars www.chess-stars.com

Editorial Panel:

Technical Editor:

Translation by:

GM M.Makarov, GM R.Ovetchkin, 1M O.Biriukov, 1M S.Klimov 1M I .Smikovski, 1M S .Soloviov

1M Semko Semkov

GM Evgeny Ermenkov

Author Khalifman's photograph by Elisabeth Karnazes

Cover design by Kalojan Nachev

Copyright © Alexander Khalifman 2007

Printed in Bulgaria by "Chess Stars" Ltd. - Sofia ISBN13: 978 954 8782 54-8

Opening for White According to Anandl.e4

Book IX l.e4 c5 2.tlJf3 tDc6 3.d4

Miscellaneous Lowenthal Variation

Kalashnikov Variation Four Knights' Variation

Taimanov Variation Paulsen System

Alexander Khalifman 14th World Chess Champion

Other CHESS STARS books

Repertoire books: Opening for White According to Kramnik l.Nf3 by Khalifman Volume la: Old Indian, rare lines in the Classical Variation, 2006 Volume Ib: The Classical Variation, 2006 Volume 2: Anti-Nimzo-Indian, Anti-Queen's Indian, English, Knight Tango Volume 3: Maroczy, English (1...c5), Modern, Dutch Volume 4: Queen's Gambit Accepted, Slav, Semi-Slav Volume 5: Queen's Gambit Declined

Opening for White According to Anand l.e4 by A. Khalifman Volume 1: Petroff, Ruy Lopez without 3 ... a6 Volume 2: Ruy Lopez with 3 ... a6 Volume 3: Caro -Kann; 1...c6, 2 ... g6 Volume 4: 1 ... d6, 1 ... g6 ... and others Volume 5: Alekhine's Defence, 1 ... b6 and other rare lines Volume 6: The French Defence 3.Nc3 dxe4, 3 ... Nf6, 2006 Volume 7: The French Defence 3.Nc3 Bb4, 2006 Volume 8: The Sicilian, Paulsen-Kan and rare lines Opening for Black According to Karpov by Khalifman Caro-Kann, Queen's Indian, Nimzo-Indian, Catalan, English, Reti Current theory and practice series: The Queen's Gambit Accepted by Sakaev and Semkov An Expert's Guide to the 7.Bc4 Gruenfeld by Sakaev, 2006 Challenging the Sicilian with 2.a3! by Bezgodov The Safest Sicilian by Delchev and Semkov, 2006 The Sharpest Sicilian by Kiril Georgiev and At. Kolev, 2007 Games collections Bogoljubow. The Fate of a Chess Player by S. Soloviov Capablanca. Games 1901-1224, Second Revised Edition Capablanca. Games 1925 - 1939 Second Revised Edition Alexander Alekhine. Games Volume 1: 1902 - 1922 Volume 2: 1923 - 1934 Boris Spassky's 400 Selected Games by Soloviov, 556 pages + photos Super Tournaments 2003, 456 pages + colour photos Super Tournaments 2002, 556 pages + colour photos Super Tournaments 2000, 448 pages + colour photos Shiroy's One Hundred Wins by Soloviov 316 pages, interviews, biography, photos, hardcover or softcover Leko's One Hundred Wins by S. Soloviov 340 pages, biography, colour and bjw photos More details at www.chess-stars.com

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Partl. Rare Lines j LowenthalVariationj KalashnikovVariation l . e4 c5 Vt:lf3 lbc6 3 .d4 cxd4 4. lbxd4

1 various; 4 .. . lbxd4; 4 . . . a6; 4 . . . d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 2 4 . . . 1Mfb6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3 4 . . . e5 5. lbb5 a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 4 4 . . . e5 5 . lbb5 d6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Part2. RareLinesj FourKnights'VariationjTaimanovVariation l.e4 c5 2 . lbf3 lbc6 3 .d4 cxd4 4. lbxd4 e6 5. lbc3

5 5 . . . d5 ; 5 . . . ic5 ; 5 . . . �b6; 5 . . . ib4; 5 . . . .!Dxd4; 5 . . . d6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 6 5 . . . lbf6 6 . .!Ddb5 various; 6 . . . a6; 6 . . . ic5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 7 5 . . . lbf6 6 . lbdb5 ib4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 14 8 5 . . . a6 6 . .!Dxc6 bxc6 7.id3 without 7 . . . d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 9 5 . . . a6 6 . .!Dxc6 bxc6 7.id3 d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Part 3. Paulsen System l.e4 c5 2 . lbf3 lbc6 3 .d4 cxd4 4 . .!Dxd4 e6 5. lbc3 �c7 6.ie3

10 various ; 6 . . . lbf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 98 1 1 6 . . . a6 7.�d2 various; 7 . . . b5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 22 1 2 6 . . . a6 7.�d2 lbf6 8.0-0-0 without 8 .. . ib4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 13 6 . . . a6 7.�d2 .!Df6 8.0-0-0 ib4 9.f3 without 9 . . . lbe5 . . . . . . . 245 14 6 . . . a6 7.�d2 lbf6 8.0-0-0 ib4 9.f3 .!De5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

Index of Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

5

Dear readers,

You are holding in your hands book nine of the series "Opening for White According to Anand - l.e4". We continue in it the analysis of the Super Opening, which we know as the Sicilian Defence.

In this book, we begin analyzing variations arising after the moves V tlf3 tt:lc6. Meanwhile, it is worth mentioning that in parts 2 and 3 we deal also with systems arising after 2 . . . e6.

In answer to 2 . . . tt:lc6, just like after the majority of the basic lines, I recommend the most principled answer for White - 3 .d4. In fact, recently, mostly because of Black's successes in the Chelyabinsk varia­tion, many strong players prefer to fight for the advantage with White by playing 3 . .!bS, or 3 .tt:lc3. Still, Black usually equalizes in these side­lines. Anand however, is not afraid at all of the Chelyabinsk variation, so we will follow his example.

The first part of the book is devoted to some rarely played moves for Black after the practically forced line 3 . . . cxd4 4.tt:lxd4. If we take into account the fact that from the point of view of common sense we will analyze the "early Dragon" - 4 . . . g6 in one of our next books together with the "true Dragon" variation - then the only moves for Black, which deserve separate analysis are 4 . . . 1fNb6 and 4 . . . eS. The queen-move is quite insidious : experienced Sicilian players use it often with the idea to avoid the comparison of extensive theoretical knowledge. We sug­gest against it an aggressive plan for White, including castling long and it is not the most popular indeed; nevertheless, it is the most dangerous weapon for him.

6

The variation 4 ... eS S.liJbS d6 - is "the younger brother" of the Che­lyabinsk variation and it has been tested even at the highest level. I see no sensible reasons to call that opening system the Kalashnikov varia­tion, although that name is gaining in popularity and it is universally accepted. It is very important to know well the theory of it, but still White can rely on obtaining the advantage.

In the second part of this book we begin analyzing variations con­nected with the order of moves: 2.liJf3 liJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.liJxd4 e6 S.liJc3. As a rule, the move S ... liJf6 is like an invitation to the Chelyabinsk vari­ation and the game transposes to it after 6.liJdbS d6. That will be the subject however of our next book, while here we analyze some not so popular replies for Black on move six. After them, as a rule, there arise much simpler positions and White maintains his advantage against all of them. The correct approach here for White is not to go for more than the position can really provide.

The variation S ... a6 needs a special treatment by White. Black is try­ing to play the Paulsen system, avoiding the aggressive plan for White connected with castling long. The number of the adherents to that move-order has increased lately. Still, Black's task in that line is far from easy. There are plenty of new ideas in the principled variation for White - 6.liJxc6 bxc6 7.id3 and that enables him to be optimistic for the future. Meanwhile, the pawn-structure in that line is quite specific and that introduces plenty of strategical nuances, so it is essential for White not only to be well acquainted with the theory, but also to under­stand profoundly the arising positions.

Finally, in the third part of our book, we deal with the basic tabia of the Paulsen system: 2.liJf3 liJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.liJxd4 e6 S.liJc3 Vlic7. It is amazing that the peak of interest towards that variation at the begin­ning of the 21st century is due mostly to Anand, who began to play like that regularly with Black and he had excellent results. His opponents, belonging to the world elite, started gradually to find the antidote to that system and Vishy decided quite reasonably that there were some other acceptable systems for Black as well. The system is still quite popular though. I recommend to White an aggressive set-up, which as we will see later, has become nowadays an almost universal plan in numerous lines of the Sicilian Defence. It includes ie3, followed by Vlid2, castling long and a kingside attack. All that is too schematic, since

7

Black has numerous plans at his disposal, but White can rely on ob­taining the advantage thanks to our interesting analyses in many varia­tions. In particular, I believe that the principally new idea (11.�d4!?) in the main line might become the subject of lively theoretical discussions in the forthcoming years.

I hope that the new book would help the White players against the Sicilian Defence to create more problems for their opponents and it would help to clarify why the Super Opening is so popular after all. I wish my readers won many beautiful games in the future!

8

A.Khalifman 14th World Chess Champion

Partl

1.e4 c5 2.lZ:Jf3 �c6 3.d4

rare 3rd moves for Black

3 . . . cxd4 4.ttJxd4

rare 4th moves for Black

Lowenthal Variation 4 . . . eS S.ttJbS a6

Kalashnikov Variation 4 ... eS S.ttJbS d6

3.d4 This is a universally accepted

move. White fights for the domi­nance in the centre in the most natural fashion. The Chelyabinsk variation has become so popular lately that White is often trying to fight for the advantage with the moves 3.lLlc3 and 3.ib5. V.Anand has often played them as well. Still, despite the whims of fashion in the openings, the move with

the d-pawn remains White's first priority in the diagrammed posi­tion.

3 . . . cxd4 White is threatening to ad­

vance d4-d5, therefore capturing on d4 seems to be the obvious de­cision for Black. He has seldom tried some other moves here, though:

About 3 ... e6 4.d5 - see Book 8, Chapter 10;

It is just terrible for Black to play 3 .. .f5 4.exf5!?, or 3 .. .f6?! 4.d5, or 3 ... e5? 4.d5;

3 .. :W'b6?! - Black is trying to exert pressure against White's d4-pawn. The simplest line here is 4.d5!? and after 4 ... lLld4 5.lLlfd2!, Black must worry about the possibility for his knight to be

9

trapped with 6.a4 and 7.c3. After the practically forced line S . . . ltJbS and 6 .�d3±, White can develop his pieces comfortably;

In case of 3 . . . lMfaS+? ! 4.�d2 lMfb6 (or 4 . . . ltJb4? S.a3 e6 6 .dxcS ,hcs 7.ltJc3+- Rehder - Krahl, corr. 2001) S .dS ltJd4 6.�c3 ltJbS (or 6 . . . ltJxf3+ 7.lMfxf3±) 7.�xbS �xbS 8 .a4 �a6 (Black is trying to impede his opponent's castling.) 9 .ltJa3 (White's knight is headed for the bS-square.) 9 . . . lMfxa4 1O .0-0± - and White has a great lead in development for the pawn;

3 . . . ltJf6? ! 4 .dS ltJb4 (Black has no compensation for the pawn af­ter: 4 . . . ltJd4 S.ltJxd4 cxd4 6.�xd4 d6 7.�bS+ �d7 8.,hd7+ lMfxd7 9.ltJc3+- Federman - Finch, corr. 1998; while in case of 4 . . . ltJaS S.eS, Black cannot play S . . . ltJhS, Caspar - Elchenroth, Germany 1997, because of the obvious reac­tion - 6 .g4+-, while after: S . . . ltJg4 6.h3 ltJh6 7.a3, Black's position is strategically hopeless and that can be confirmed indirectly by the line: 7 . . . e6 8.,hh6 gxh6 9.ltJc3 d6 1O .�bS+ �d7 1l.dxe6 fxe6 12 .exd6 ,hbS 13.ltJxbS+- Pan­teleyev - Lafargue, corr. 2001 .) S .c3 ltJa6 6.eS ltJe4 (In case of: 6 . . . ltJg8 7.�d3 d6 8 .0-0 �g4 9.h3 �d7 1O .e6 fxe6 11.ltJgS ! , White is threatening 12 .lMfhS+, while Black's defence 11 . . .ltJf6 would not work, because of: 12 .dxe6 �c6 13.ltJf7+- Peterlunger - Bodic, Austria 1994.) 7.�d3 fS (or 7 . . .

10

ltJxf2 8 .�xf2+- Haase - Fast, corr. 1996) 8 .ltJh4 ! e6 9.lMfhS+ g6 10.ltJxg6 hxg6 1l .lMfxg6+- Cortese - Goetzelmann, corr. 1996;

3 . . . b6? ! 4.dS - and here no matter where Black's knight re­treats to, White's initiative in the centre is very powerful. For ex­ample: 4 . . . ltJb4 (After: 4 . . . ltJb8 S.eS d6 6.�bS+ �d7 7.�xd7+ ltJxd7 8.e6 ltJdf6 9.exf7+ �xf7 10. ltJgS+ �e8 11 .ltJe6 lMfd7 12 .ltJc3 �f7 13.1Mff3 ltJh6 14.,hh6 gxh6 1S.ltJe4 �g7 16 .h4-t Black's king came under a very strong attack in the game Lagos - Santalla, Fer­ro12002 ; while in case of: 4 . . . lt:laS S.eS d6 6 .e6 fxe6, Le Duc Nhan - Le Quoc Ngoc, Vietnam 2001, White could have continued his offensive with the line : 7.ltJgS ! ? eS 8.�bS+ !d7 9 .ltJe6 �c8 1O.ltJc3 ltJf6 11 .0-0 It:lb7 12.f4-t) S.lt:lc3 ltJf6 (If S . . . g6, then White can opt for the interesting move 6.�bS !? and here a7-a6 deprives Black of the only square for the retreat of his knight on b4, while if Black does not attack his opponent's bishop - then the pin of the d7-pawn helps White's offensive in the centre : 6 . . . ltJf6 7.eS ltJg4 8.a3 ltJa6 9 .e6 fxe6 1O.ltJgS ltJc7 11.�xg4+- Egeland - Vea, Oslo 2003.) 6 .a3 ltJa6 7.eS ltJg4 8 .h3 ltJh6 9.e6 fxe6 1O .dxe6 ltJc7 (10 . . . dxe6 11 .�bS+ ! �d7 12 .�xa6+-) 11.,hh6 gxh6 12 .ltJeS+- and Black has no defence against the maneuver of White's queen to f3, or to the hS-square;

3 . . . d6 4 .dS (White can also opt for 4 .dxcS dxcS S.1!9xdB±) 4 . . . lDbB (Black has played sometimes with his knight in the centre - 4 . . . lDeS? ! , but then as a result of: S.lDxeS dxeS 6 .1!9hS! Black must give up a pawn: 6 . . . 1!9d6 7.ibS+ id7 B.ixd7+ 'lWxd7 9.1!9xeS lDf6 1O.lDc3 a6 11 .a4 e6 12.if4+­A.Berg - Canbolat, corr. 1996; af­ter 4 . . . lDb4 S .a3 lDa6 6.ibS+ id7 7.c4 eS B .O-O lDf6 9.lDc3 ie7, Be­nito - Sanchez, Binissalem 2002, 1O .lDh4 ! ?±; or 4 . . . lDaS s.ibS+ id7 6 .lDc3 lDf6 7.ixd7+ 'lWxd7 8 .0-0 g6 9 .eS dxeS 10 .lDxeS 'lWfS 11.1!ge2 ig7 12 .1!9bS+ @fB, Hamalainen -Hogan, corr. 1996, 13J�el± White can organize an offensive, exploit­ing the vulnerability of the light squares in his opponent's camp.) S.ibS + ! ? id7 6.ixd7+ lDxd7 7.c4 lDgf6 B .lDc3 g6 9 .0-0 ig7 1O.Ele1 lDb6, Berch - Wammack, corr. 1999, 11 .eS±;

The humble move - 3 .. . g6 does not impede the advance of White's d-pawn either. After 4.dS lDbB (Black's position remains very difficult after the other retreats of his knight: 4 . . . lDaS S.lDc3 ig7 6 .ie2± Paglilla - Quinteros, San Isidoro 1993, or 4 . . . lDb4 S.c3 lDa6, Doel - Walsh, Belconnen 1994, 6.eS d6 7.ibS+ id7 B.1!9b3±) it looks very attractive for White to continue with S.lDc3 ! ? ig7 6.eS± and his advantage is doubtless;

As you have seen in the previ­ous lines, Black is in a big trou­ble after the advance of White's

d-pawn to dS. Therefore the move 3 . . . dS? ! might seem logi­cal enough. 4.exdS 'lWxdS (or 4 . . . lDxd4? S.lDxd4 cxd4 6.1!9xd4 if 5 7.lDc3 7.ibS+ id7 B .ixd7+ 'lWxd7 9 .c4 e6 10 .0-0 lDf6 11.igS+- An­germann - Krahl, corr. 2002) S.lDc3 . There might follow: S . . . 1!9dB (or S . . . 1!9d7?? 6.dS+-; S . . . 'lWhS? 6.lDbS ElbB 7.if4 eS, Trienekens -Reichert, Willingen 2001 , B .lDxeS 1!9xd1+ 9.Elxd1 lDxd4 1O.lDf3+-; S . . . 1!9d6, Wienrich - Truelove, corr. 1997, 6 .lDbS ! ? 1!9bB 7.dS lDb4 B.c3 lDa6 9 .'lWa4+- with the un­avoidable threat 10 .if4; Black can retreat with his queen with tempo S . . . 1!ge6+, but then after 6.ie3 ! ? White i s again threatening t o ad­vance his d-pawn. The exchange in the centre: 6 . . . cxd4 7.lDxd4 lDxd4 8.1!9xd4 only enhances the development of White's pieces : 8 . . . id7 9.0-0-0 lDh6 1O.ic4 1!9g4 11.ixh6 and here it is equally bad for Black to try: 11 . . . gxh6 12 .ixfl + @xf113.1!9xh8+- Silveira - Nasci­mento, Brazil 1998, as well as: 11 . . . 1!9xd4 12 J:'lxd4 gxh6 13.ixf1 + @xf1 14.Elxd7+-) 6 .dS lDaS (or 6 . . . lDd4 7.lDxd4 cxd4 8.'lWxd4 lDf6, Ru­snak - Marek, Plzen 2001, 9 .if4 a6 10 .0-0-0+-; after 6 . . . lDb8 7.ibS+ id7 8.'lWe2 a6 9 .ixd7+ 1!9xd7 1O.if4 e6 11 .0-0-0 ie7 12. d6 if6 13.lDdS+- Ligon - Miller, USA 1998; or 6 . . . lDb4 7.a3 lDa6 8 .ic4 e6 9.0-0 lDf6 1O .Ele1+- Vi­touch - Riedler, Austria 1995 and White's attack in the centre was so powerful that both games

11

were over in just a few moves.) 7.ib5+ id7 8 .�e2 a6 9.ixd7+ �xd7 10.0-0-+. White's position is strategically winning. Black's kingside is practically stalemated and it is far from clear when and how he can develop it.

4.ft�xd4

The position on the last dia­gram is the key starting point of numerous systems. Now, Black must clarify the subsequent scheme of development of his

12

pieces . If we ignore for a while the great amount of theory connected with the Paulsen system 4 .. . e6 5.ti.)C3 (parts 2 and 3) as well as the line 4 .. .lb f6 5.�c3, which we will analyze in book 10, then there are three basic defensive systems left for Black: 4 ... g6 (Book 11), 4 . . J;ib6 (Chapter 2) and 4 ... e5 (Chapters 3-4) . They have a com­mon idea - Black is attacking im­mediately his opponent's knight on d4. The first two moves are not so popular anymore presently, but the move 4 . . . e5 still can be encountered in super high-level tournaments, including Wijk aan Zee and Linares.

We have also analyzed in the first chapter of this book numer­ous lines for Black on move four, which are only very seldom played nowadays.

Chapterl l.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4

In this chapter we will pay a thorough attention to the lines: a) 4 . . )l)xd4, b) 4 ... a6 and c) 4 . . . d5.

Black has also tried here some quite strange moves:

4 ... h6?! - This is just a loss of time. 5.ctJc3 e5 (about 5 ... ctJxd4 6.�xd4 - see variation a) 6.ctJdb5 a6 7.ctJd6+ ixd6 8.�xd6 �e7 (or 8 ... ctJge7 9 . .!e3 0-0 10.0-0-0 ge8 1l.g3 �a5 12 . .!c4 �b4 13.�xb4 ctJxb4 14 . .!b6 ctJbc6 15.gd6+- Ger­main - Furger, Sherbrooke 2005) 9. �xe7 + ctJgxe7 1 0 .'!e3± - and the dark squares remained complete­ly under White's domination;

4 .. .f6?! 5.ctJc3 g6 (about 5 ... ctJxd4 6.�xd4 - see 4 ... ctJxd4 5.�xd4 f6, variation a; 5 ... e5?! 6.ctJb3 .!b4 7 . .!d2 ctJge7 8 . .!c4 a6 9.�h5+ g6 1O.�h6 ixc3 1l.bxc3

b5 12.�g7 gfS 13 . .!h6+- Zalys -Rabinowitz, corr. 1966; 5 ... e6 6 . .!e3 a6 7 . .!e2 .!b4 8.0-0 .!xc3 9.ctJxc6 bxc6 1O.bxc3 d5 1l.exd5 cxd5 12.c4 ctJe7 13 . .!h5+ g6 14 . .!f3 .!b7, Grierson - Barnes, Nel­son 1913, 15.gb1 �c7 16.�e2±) 6 . .!e3 .!g7 7.�d2 ctJxd4 8.ixd4 ctJh6 9.f3 ctJf7 10.0-0-0 .!h6 1l . .!e3 .!xe3 12.�xe3 a613 . .!c4 b5 14.'!b3 .!b7 15.ghel± - and White had a great advantage in develop­ment, Kuzder - Polyak, Aggtelek 1998;

4 ... ctJe5?! - That move only enhances White's initiative in the centre. 5.f4 ctJg6 (Or 5 ... ctJc6, Lau­reles - Krahl, corr. 2001 6.ctJc3 d6 7 . .!e3 ctJf6 8 . .!e2 e6 9.�d2 .!e7 10.0-0-0 0-0 1l.g4!t and here it would not work for Black to play: 1l ... ctJxd4? 12.�xd4 ctJxg4 13 . .!xg4 e5, due to: 14.fxe5 ixg4 15.exd6+-) 6.ctJc3 (or 6.f5 ctJe5 7.ctJc3 ctJf6 8 . .!f4 d6 9 . .!b5+ .!d7 1O.�e2 a6 11.ixd7 + ctJfxd712.0-0 �b6 13 . .!e3 �xb2 14.ctJd5± Man­nion - Damary, Yerevan 1996) 6 ... a6 7.f5 ctJe5 8 . .!f4 d6 9.�d2 ctJf6 10.0-0-0 �c7. White's lead in development is so great

13

Chapter 1

that he wins by force: 1l .. beS! dxeS lz.tt'JdbS ! axbS 13.ltJxbS �b6 14.�c3 .td7 lS.ltJc7+ �dS 16.ltJxaS+- A.Horvath - Zunic, Neum 2003;

The move 4 . . . b6 is only very seldom played. The reason is quite evident, in case of: S .ltJxc6 ! ? dxc6 6.�xdS+ �xdS 7 . .tf4 f6 (Black's bishops have no scope for action in that pawn-structure - 7 . . . ltJf6 S .ltJc3 .tb7 9 .0-0-0+ �cS W.eS ltJdS 1l.ltJxdS cxdS 12 .e6 ! fxe6 13. .te2 hs 14.Elhel a6 lS.Eld3 �d7 16.Elh3 g6 17 . .tg4 .tg7 lS . .txe6+ �eS 19 . .tgS± Simmelink - Schol­bach, corr. 1999) 8.eSt and Black is faced with a difficult fight for a draw;

After 4 . . . �aS+ S.ltJc3 a6 6 .ltJb3 �dS 7 . .te3 ElbS S.a4 b6 9 . .tc4 e6 W.O-Ot, White has already com­pleted the development of his pieces, while Black has not even started the mobilization of his forces on the kingside, Battikhi - Babikur, Doha 1993 ;

It is quite acceptable for Black to play the move - 4 . . . �c7. Only after S.ltJc3, he must take the dS­square under control. The best move for that is S . . . e6 (about S . . . ltJxd4? ! 6.�xd4 - see variation a; as for S . . . ltJf6? ! 6 .ltJdbS! - see 4 . . . ltJf6, Book 10 ; i t i s too bad for Black to play S . . . eS? in view of: 6 .ltJdbS �bS 7.ltJdS .td6 S . .tgS �f8 9 . .tc4 a6 W.ltJxd6 �xd6 11. .te3 bS 12 . .tb3 ltJf6 13.ltJxf6 �xf6 14.�dS h6 lS.0-0+- S.Christen­sen - S.Hansen, Gistrup 1997; it

14

is also bad for Black to try S . . . a6?, because of 6 .ltJdS ! and now White wins by force after: 6 . . . �eS 7 . .td3 �xd4 S . .te3 �eS 9 . .tf4 �xb2 10 . ltJc7+ �dS 1l.ltJxaS eS 12 . .td2 ltJf6 13.0-0+- Dzwikowski - Grodzen­sky, corr. 1999, as well as in case of: 6 . . . �dS 7 . .te3, because it is acceptable for Black to play nei-ther: 7 . . . e6 S .ltJxc6 and 9 . .tb6+-, nor: 7 . . . ElbS 8 .ltJbS �aS+ 9.c3 axbS W . .tb6 �xb6 1l.ltJxb6+­C.Dominguez - Letelier Martner, Mar del Plata 1961) about 6 . .te3 - see Part 3 .

a) 4 . . . ltJxd4 5.�xd4

White's queen is centralized now. Usually, similar early activi­ty is not to be recommended. This is another case, though. Black has nothing to attack White's stron­gest piece with, if he does not make any concessions in the cen­tre.

5 .•. �a5+ In case Black ignores his oppo­

nent's queen in the centre, he can hardly complete the development of his pieces.

Objectively speaking, the

l.e4 c5 2. tDj3 tDc6 3.d4 cxd44.tDxd4

check with the queen is by far not the best move for Black. We do not plan however, to elaborate on that subject in this chapter. His other more acceptable alterna­tives will be analyzed later: about s ... e6 6 .tDc3 - see 4 . . . e6 s.tDc3 tDxd4 6 .'1Wxd4 (Chapter 5), as for s . . . d6 6 .tDc3 - see the book with 2 . . . d6 (or 2 . . . d6 3 .d4 cxd4 4.tDxd4 tDc6 s .tDc3 tDxd4 6.'liNxd4), s . . . a6 6 .tDc3 and here about 6 ... e6 - see Chapter 5, as for 6 . . . d6 - see the book about 2 . . . d6.

s . . .f6? ! 6 .tDc3 g6 7.ic4 tDh6 (After: 7 . . . e6 8 .ie3 b6 9 .0-0-0 ics lO .'liNd3 ixe3+, Gahn - Ruth­satz, Germany 1996, White can continue 11 . 'liNxe3+- andhe creates the unpleasant threats 12 .ixe6, as well as 12 .tDbS and 13.tDd6.) 8.es! (The natural move 8 .0-0, after 8 . . . e6?, Em. Lasker - Bird, New­castle on Tyne (m/s) 1892, should bring swift disaster to Black, in view of: 9 .tDbs! a6 lO.ixh6 ixh6 11.Cbd6+ @f8 12 .f4+-, but it is more resilient for him to try: 8 . . . ig7 9.f4i; it is attractive for White to play 8.tDdS and af­ter 8 . . . tDt7? 9.'liNcs ! ig7 10.tDc7+ @f8 11 .tDxa8+- Black's position is completely resignable, Keres -Raud, Tartu 1932, but it is stron­ger for Black to defend with 8 . . . d6 9 .0-0i) 8 . . . tDfS 9 .exf6 ! exf6 (the idea is - 9 . . . tDxd4?? lO .t7#; while in case of: 9 . . . ig7 lO.ixh6 ixh6 11 .exf6 exf6 12 . 0-0-t White's at­tack is very powerful.) lO.'liNe4+ 'liNe7 (or lO . . . ie7 11.if4+-) 11 .0-0

'liNxe4 12 .tDxe4 ie7 13J!e1 @f8 14.if4-t and White has a power­ful attack against his opponent's king, stranded in the centre even in case of the trade of queens.

s . . . h6? ! 6 .tDc3 e6 6 . . . d6 7.es ! ? dxes 8.'liNxes-t) 7.if4 a6, Georgiou - Megaloudis, Athens 2002 (af­ter 7 . . . d6 8 .0-0-0+- Black loses his d6-pawn) 8.'liNa4! and White has the tremendously unpleasant threat 9 .tDbs+-

s . . . 'liNc7? ! 6 .tDc3 e6 (or 6 . . . es 7.tDbs ! 'liNb8, M.Smith - Vaughn, Detroit 1990, 8 .'liNc3+- ; 6 .. . d6, Di Natale - L.Vazquez, Villa Ballest­er 2003 , 7.tDdS 'liNb8 8.ibs+ id7 9.'liNc4+-) 7.tDbs ! 'liNxc2 , RFischer - Tordion, Quebec (simultaneous display) 1964, 8 .id3 'liNc6 9.if4 d6 lO .Elc1+-

It is too early for Black to de­velop his knight, just like on the third move, s . . . tDf6? ! ' After 6.es, it must retreat to its initial square 6 . . . tDg8 (or 6 . . . tDhs? 7.g4+-; 6 . . . 'liNas+ 7.tDc3 tDg8 8.id2 'liNd8 9 . 'liNc4 !+- with the idea to follow with lO.tDbS, or lO .tDds). There might follow: 7.tDc3 e6 (or 7 . . . d6 8.if4 dxes 9 .'liNxes e6 10 .ibs+ id7 11 .0-0-0 tDf6 12 .tDe4 ie7 13.Elxd7 tDxd7 14.'liNxg7 Elf8 15. tDd6+ ixd6 16 .ixd6+- Gerzina - Tamayo, corr. 2001) 8 .tDbs ! ? a6 9.tDd6+ ixd6 lO .'liNxd6 f6 (or lO . . . 'liNe7 11.'liNd4 f6 12 .if4+-) 11.exf6 'liNxf6 12 .if4 !-t 'liNxb2 13 .ies 'liNxc2 14.id3 'liNc6 1s.'liNxc6 bxc6 16. ixg7+- Noble - Ramunno, corr. 1996.

15

Chapter 1

The exchange of queens: S ... iWb6 6.Wfxb6 axb6, weakens con­siderably Black's queenside. Af­ter: 7.�e3 e6 (or 7 ... l'!a4 8.tt:Jc3 l'!b4 9.b3 tt:Jf6 1O.f3 e6 1l.a3+­G.Schmidt - Neumann, corr. 1997; 7 ... l'!aS 8.hb6 l'!eS 9.tt:Jc3 d6 10.0-0-0 tt:Jf6 1l.f4+- Maltez - Beraglia, corr. 1996; 7 ... tt:Jf6 8.tt:Jc3 eS, Balsai - Simon, Fuzesa­bony 2001, 9.tt:JbS l'!a4 1O.f3 �cS Il.b3 he3 12.bxa4+-) 8.hb6 tt:Jf6 9.�d3 dS 10.eS tt:Jd7 11.�d4 b6 12.tt:Jc3± - Black's compensa­tion for the pawn is insufficient, Foord - Calton, Flint 1992.

White maintains a powerful initiative after: S ... b6 6.tt:Jc3 �b7 (or 6 ... tt:Jf6?! Vasquez Ramirez - Meira, Cascavel 1996, 7.eS tt:Jg8 8.�f4 �b7 9.0-0-0+-) 7.�e3 e6, O.Hansen - Pranzas, Schleswig Holstein 1989, 8.0-0-0t and he has a great lead in development.

6.tt:Jc3

6 ... e5 Now, the dS-outpost will be

chronically weak in Black's camp. After 6 ... e6 7.�d2 Wfb4 8.iWd3±, his position would be even worse,

16

because of his considerable lag in development, Podlesnik - Krni­car, Bled 1992.

7.'1W c4 The other retreats of the queen

still lead to a better position for White.

7 • • • tt:Jf6 Black's position would be

quickly in ruins after: 7 ... �cS 8.�d2 Wfb6 9.tt:JdS iWc6 1O.iWc3 �d6 1l.Wfg3 g6 12.�c3 f6 13.0-0-0 bS 14.h4+- Ashby - C.Sanchez, corr. 2000.

Black's situation is rather sus­picious in case of: 7 ... �b4 8.�d2 d6 (or 8 ... tt:Je7 9.a3 tt:Jc6 1O.l'!dl hc3 1l.�xc3 iWc7 12.WfdS 0-0 13.�c4 a6 14.Wfd6 iWxd6 IS.l'!xd6 l'!e8 16.<hd2 <hf8 17.<he3 <he7 18.l'!hdl+- Brennecke - Wolf, corr. 2001) 9.a3 hc3 10.�xc3 Wfb6 ll.l'!dl �e6, Saint Amour - Wochnik, corr. 1998. White can play: 12.Wfa4+!? �d7 13.Wfb4 tt:Jf6 14.Wfxb6 axb6 IS.f3 <he7 16.�b4 tt:Je8 17.�e2±, creating new pawn­weaknesses in Black's camp.

8.i.d2 It is obviously weaker for

White to play: 8.�gS �b4 9.hf6 gxf6 10.0-0-0 hc3 1l.bxc3 d6 12.iWb4 Wfxb4 13.cxb4 <he7 14.�c4 l'!g8 IS.g3 �g4= Cavril - Debrus, corr. 1995. According to chess logic, Black should strive to trade queens in the pawn-structure af­ter his move six, because he would then solve his defensive problems with his d6-pawn much easier.

l.e4 c5 2.tDj3 tDc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tDxd4

8 . . . �b6 9.ie3!? White has often tried in prac­

tice here 9 .0-0-0, threatening 1O .tDbS.

9 • • • �b4 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 'lWxc4 1l.,lxc4

Black has exchanged queens indeed, but at the price of a con­siderable lag in development.

1l • • • tl:)g4 12.tl:)b5 tl:)xe3 13. fxe3 @d8

If Black is reluctant to give up his f7-pawn, then after: 13 . . . <Jle7 14.tDd6 f6 lSJ�d2 g6 16J�hd1 ih6 17.tDxc8+ �hxc8 18 .�xd7+ <Jlf8 19.ib3 ixe3+ 20.<Jlb1 icS 21 .�f7+ <Jle8 22 J�xh7+- the game might be quickly over, Lategui - F.Martinez, corr. 1999.

14 . .ixf7 ic5 Black's pieces are stranded

on the queenside and after: 14 . . . ib4 lS.�hf1 �f8 16.idS as 17.c3 �xf1 18 .�xf1 icS 19.�f7 ixe3+ 20 .<Jlc2+- Jaskula - van Es­broeck, corr. 1999, he failed to of­fer any resistance.

15.l3hf1± - Black can hardly save that position, because of his catastrophical lag in develop­ment.

b) 4 . . . a6

5.�c3 That is a usual move for the

Sicilian Defence. White wishes to complete the development of his queenside according to the scheme ie3, 'lWd2 , 0-0-0, in case Black does not do anything ac­tive in the centre in the nearest future.

5 ••• e5 About S . . . e6 - see 4 . . . e6 S.tDc3

a6. In case of S . . . d6 6.ie3, there arises a position, which we will analyze after the following or­der of moves - 2 . . . d6 3 .d4 cxd4 4.tDxd4 tDc6. About S . . . g6 6.ie3 - see Book 11 (The Dragon varia­tion) .

6.�f5 White's knight is just perfectly

placed on fS, impeding the devel­opment of Black's kingside.

6 . . . d6 About 6 . . . tl:)f6 7.tDd6 ixd6

8.�xd6 - see 4 . . . eS S.tl:)bS a6 6. tDd6 ixd6 7.�xd6 tDf6 8 .�c3 .

Black cannot free his position with the help of the move - 6 . . . dS, He sacrifices a pawn: 7.tDxdS .ixfS 8.exfS �aS+ (or 8 . . . tDf6 9 .ic4 ie7

17

Chapter 1

1O . .te3 0-0 l1.c3 �d6, Geenen -Werner, Belgium 2001, IVtJb6 ! ? �ad8 13 .'1Wxd6 �xd6 14.�dl+-) 9 .�d2 lDb4 (or 9 . . . .tb4 10.lDxb4 lDxb4 1l.c3 lDc6, Gaponenko -Thorhallsson, Reykjavik 2006, 12 .�gS ! g6 13 . .tc4+-) 10.lDxb4 hb4 11.c3 .te7 12 . .tc4 lDf6 13.0-0 e4 14.�f4 �cS lS . .tb3 0-0 16 . .te3 �c6 17.�adl �ad8 18 . .td4 �d7 19.h3 �fd8 20.�e3+-, but his compensation is insufficient, Ren­don - L.Guzman, Columbia 1988.

Black's position is not any bet­ter after: 6 . . . .tb4 7.lDxg7+ ! ? �f8 8 .lDhS ! (In case of 8.lDfS, Brusco - Miguel, Pan American 1998, and 8 . . . dS ! ??, Black would have some counterplay.) 8 . . . �h4 9. lDg3 lDf6 10 .�d3+-

After 6 . . . h6, Daponta - Spyrou, Greece 2002 , White has the choice between the prosaic move 7 . .tc4± and the sharper line: 7 . .te3 d6 (The variation: 7 . . . lDf6 8 .lDd6+ hd6 9.�xd6 �e7 1O . .tcS±, leads to a position, in which the d7-pawn will remain for long on its place.) 8 .lDdS hfS 9.exfS �c8 1O.c3 lDge7 1l.lDb6 �c7 12.�f3 dS 13. 0-0-0 d4 14.�bl±

18

7.,ac4!? White's bishop occupies imme­

diately the strategically important a2-g8 diagonal. Black has three main possibilities : bI) 7 ••• .txf5, b2) 7 .•• tLlf6 and b3) 7 . . • .te6 .

He has tried sometimes 7 . . . g6. There might follow: 8 .lDe3 lDf6 9.lDedS (After 10 . .te3, Black's po­sition becomes rather unpleasant and he should try to release the tension somehow.) 9 . . . lDxdS 9 . . . lDg4? 1O.f3 lDh6 11..te3+- Ku­tuzovic - Kusterle, Nova Gorica 1999) 1O .hdS ! ? (White plans to castle queenside, but he can also consider the simple line : 1O .lDxdS .te6, Melnikov - Dubinka, St. Petersburg 1999 and here after: 1l . .te3 ! ? �c8 12 . .tb6 �h4 13.0-0 .tg7 14.lDc7+ �xc7 IS.he6 �e7 16 . .tdS± White could have re­mained with a clear advantage.) 1O . . . .tg7 1l . .te3 lDe7 12 .�d2 lDxdS (after 12 . . . 0-0 13.0-0-0� Black has problems defending against his opponent's kingside attack, without the exchange on dS) 13.tLlxdS 0-0 14.lDb6 �b8 IS. 0-0-0 �h4 (After IS . . . .te6 16 .h4 hS I7.�xd6+- Black has no com­pensation for the sacrificed pawn.) 16.f3 .te6 17 . .tgS �hS 18.h4 ! +­and Black's queen was trapped in the game Milliet - Ragot, France 2003.

bt) 7 .•. .txf5 8.exf5 The exchange on fS should not

be good for Black. If White man­ages to complete his development

l.e4 c5 2.tDj3 tDc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tDxd4

without losing his fS-pawn, Black's position will be very difficult from the strategical point of view. The central dS and e4-squares will be then totally dominated by White.

8 . . • �f6 9. 0 - 0 Or 9.i.gS - see line b2. 9 . . . gc8 In fact, Black has no time for

the move - 9 . . . i.e7, Roca Diaz - Navarro Alvarez, Sant Boi 1997, due to 1O .tDdS (planning 1l.i.e3) 1O . . . tDd4 1l .c3 tDxfS 12 .'lWb3 0-0 13.'lWxb7±. Black's bishop on e7 is like a pawn and his position is very bad.

1 0 .�d5! White's light-squared bishop

needs a safe outpost on the a2-g8 diagonal. The dS-square is just perfect for that, except that the knight on f6 must be exchanged before that.

1 0 . . . �d4 In case of the immediate ex­

change of the knights - lO . . . tDxdS, White can play: 1l.i.xdS 'lWd7 12 .�hS (after 12 .c3 tDe7 13.i.b3 dS� Black succeeds in organiz­ing some counterplay) 12 . . . tDd4 13.c3 tDxfS (or 13 . . . �xfS 14.'WxfS

tDxfS IS.i.xb7+-) 14.i.e3 ! ? (This is more to the point that: 14.f4 g6 IS.'Wf3 gc7 16.'We4�) 14 . . . g6 (M­ter: 14 . . . tDxe3 IS.fxe3 g6 16.�f3 fS 17.i.xb7± Black loses a couple of pawns on the queenside.) IS.�f3 bS 16.a4 bxa4 17.g4 tDh6 18.'Wf6 gg8 19.h3±. Black has two extra pawns, but that should not make you evaluate the position wrong­ly. His king has lost its castling rights, the knight on h6 is totally helpless and his light squares are quite vulnerable.

11.�xf6+ �xf6 12 .�d5 gc7 If 12 . . . gxc2, then the simplest

line for White is: 13 .i.e3 ! gc7 (or 13 . . . gcS 14.i.xb7+-) 14.i.xd4 exd4 IS.'lWa4+ *d8 16.E1fc1 'lWe7 17.'Wxd4+-

The other possible capture of that pawn - 12 . . . tDxc2, after 13.i.xb7 gc7 14.E1bl (or 14.�g4? ! gxb7 IS.'Wa4+ E1d7 16.'Wxc2 dSt) 14 . . . �e7 (or 14 . . . �xfS IS.ixa6+-) IS.i.e4 tDd4 16.'Wa4± would not save Black from serious trouble.

13.ie3 ie7 Or 13 . . . tDxc2? 14.i.b6+­Capturing - 13 . . . tDxfS? is bad

for Black due to P . Blatny's recom­mendation: 14.i.b6 E1d7 1S.c4 ! tDe7 (or IS . . . i.e7 16 .�a4+-) 16.'Wa4 tDxdS 17.cxdS+-

14.c3 �c6 Black's knight must retreat,

because he loses after 14 . . . tDxfS?, in view of 15. 'Wa4+ *f8 16.i.b6+-

15.'Wg4 g6 Black is trying to exploit some­

how the placement of his rook on

19

Chapter 1

h8. The standard move 15 . . . 0-0, would enable White to develop his initiative with the help of the move 16.g3 !±, with the rather un­pleasant threat 17.h4 and 18.ig5 (recommended by P.Blatny).

16.fxg6 hxg6 Black's move 16 . . :rgxg6? ! , does

not combine well with his previ­ous move, moreover that after: 17.'rgh3 0-0 18.f4--+ Black comes under a dangerous attack.

17.f4!? In case of 17.g3, White obvi­

ously did not like the response - 17 . . :rgf5 ! ?

17 • • . 'rg h4 18.YlVxh4 hh4 19. g3 if6

If 19 . . . ie7, then 20 .f5 !± 2 0 .ib6 13d7 21.13adl 0 - 0 Black loses immediately after

21 . . . tDe7?, because of 22 .ixf7+ <it>xf7 23 .fxe5+-

After 21 . . .id8? 22 .ixd8 tDxd8 (The other two possible captures are not any better for Black: 22 . . . Eixd8 23.ixc6+ bxc6 24.fxe5 dxe5 25.Eixd8+ <it>xd8 26. Eixf7+-; or 22 . . . <it>xd8 23 .ixc6 bxc6 24. fxe5+-) 23.fxe5 dxe5 24. ixf7!+­and White enters a rook and pawn

20

endgame with an extra pawn for him.

Possibly Black's best chance here is: 21 . . .exf4 22 .Eixf4 ie5, but after 23.Eif2± White's advantage is more than obvious.

This position was reached in the game Illescas Cordoba - Bel­lon Lopez, Seville 1992. After 22.f5± White consolidated his advantage along the light squares even more; meanwhile Black's bishop had no good prospects at all.

b2) 7 • • • tLlf6

8.ig5!? White wishes to reduce the

control of his opponent's pieces over the d5-outpost. He has also tested in practice numerous times the move - 8 .tDe3.

l.e4 cS 2. lDj3 lDc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lDxd4

S . • . .hf5 After 8 . . . h6 9.hf6 �xf6 10.

lDdS 'lWd8, Bilgen - Mijatovic, Duesseldorf 2004, White's strat­egy triumphs, particularly if he follows with 1l .c3±.

9.exfS J..e7 Black's situation is just terrible

after: 9 . . . �a5 1O.M6 gxf6 1l.�hS dS 12 .hdS 0-0-0 13.hc6 bxc6, Dietrich - Eichler, Germany 1998, 14.�xf7 J..a3? 1S.'lWb3+-

In case of 9 . . . lDd4, Elder - Mah Jabeen, Adelaide 1988, White should also exchange on f6. After: 1O .hf6 'lWxf6 1l .lDdS 'lWxfS 12 .lDc7+ �d8, Black's counter­play would not work, because of: 13.J..d3 ! e4 14.lDxa8 exd3 15.cxd3 �c8 16 .0-0 �xa8 17.'lWhS± and if he does not wish to lose his knight (White is threatening 18 .'I1Mh4+.) , Black must give up his f7-pawn.

1 0 .hf6 hf6 11. 0 - 0 White must simply complete

his development. The bishops are of opposite colour indeed, but they are not of equal value at all. White has a clear advantage thanks to his control over the light squares. The complications after: 1l .lDe4 lDd4 12.c3 dS 13 .lDxf6+ (or 13.cxd4 dxc4 14.dS �aSco Koba - Schupljak, Yaroslav1 199S) 13 . . . gxf6 14.J..d3 lDc6co Szalanczy -Fodre, Dortmund 1987 are com­pletely unnecessary for White.

1l . . . gcS If Black tries to capture his op­

ponent's fS-pawn with: 1l . . . �d7? ! 12 .lDdS gd8 13.'lWhS lDd4 14.

J..d3 J..e7 1S.c3 lDc6, W.Huebner - Schemmel, Bad Ems 2005, he loses several tempi and White wins after: 16.f6 ! g6 (or 16 . . . M6 17.J..fS+-) 17.�h4+-

12)l::ld5 0 - 0 13.c3± - Black's position is very difficult. White has blocked his opponent's cen­tral pawns on the light squares.

b3) 7 . . . J..e6

S.lLld5 White occupies the dS-outpost

at an opportune moment. S . . • b5 The exchange - 8 . . . hfS

9.exfS, in comparison to varia­tion bl, looks like a loss of time. It is not amazing that after: 9 . . . bS 10.J..d3 lDge7 11 .J..e4 gc8 12 .J..gS lDd4 13.c3 lDdc6 14.f6+- Black re-

21

Chapter 1

signed in the game Milos - Mar­colino, Sao Caetano 1999.

In answer to: S . . J3CS 9 .0-0 tt:ld4, Rosen - Hunold, Menden 1974, it seemed quite attractive for White to follow with 1O.tt:lfe3± and then 11 .c3 .

9.i,b38:c8 After 9 . . . g6 1O .tt:lfe3 tt:ld4 11.c3

tt:lxb3 12 .axb3 ;ge7 13.c4 bxc4, White's exiled knight might come quite handy - 14.tt:lxc4 ! (It is also good for White to play 14.bxc4±, but capturing the knight is even better.) 14 . . . tt:lf6 lS.tt:lxd6+ ! iWxd6 (or 15 . . . ;gxd6 16.tt:lxf6+ iWxf6 17. iWxd6+-) 16.tt:lxf6+ @dS, Vouldis - Grivas, Athens 1996. Here, after: 17.iWf3 @c7 lS .0-0+- it would be practically impossible for Black's king to find a safe haven.

1 0 .;ge3 g6, Delanoy - Fodre, Paris 1990. White can continue with: 1l.;gb6!? iWd7 12.tt:lfe3 ;gg7 13.a4!± and he destroys Black's fortifications on the queenside, using his b5-pawn as a target.

c) 4 . . . d5 5.;gb5 White is trying to exploit his

lead in development.

22

5 . . . dxe4 This capture is practically

forced. After 5 . . . iWd6? 6 .exdS iWxdS

7.tt:lxc6 iWxd1+ S .@xd1 a6 9.tt:lxe7+ axbS 1O .tt:lxcS gxc8 11.ge1+ ;ge7 12 .;gd2 h6 13.tt:lc3+-, Black loses a pawn and he ends up in a lost position, Jimenez - Hebbelynck, corr. 1999.

5 . . . ;gd7? ! - This move is also unsatisfactory for Black: 6 .exdS tt:lxd4 (or 6 . . . tt:lb4? 7.;gxd7+ iWxd7 S.c4+- Palinkas - Karkus, Hun­gary 2002) 7.;gxd7+ iWxd7 S.iWxd4 e6 (or S . . . tt:lf6, Kitov - Shensnov­ich, Tula 2005, 9 .tt:lc3 gd8 1O.;gf4 tt:lxd5 11 .0-0-0 tt:lxc3 12 .iWxc3 iWcS 13.gxdS+ iWxdS 14.8:d1 iWaS lS.;gc7+-) 9 .tt:lc3 tt:lf6, Praedel - Tumpkin, Detroit East 19S4. White could have returned tem­porarily his extra pawn with: 1O .;ge3 ! tt:lxdS 11 .tt:lxd5 iWxds 12 . iWxdS exdS 13 .0-0-0± and he could have exploited his lead in development.

6.tt:lxc6 iWxdl + Black is now forced to ex­

change queens. In case of: 6 . . . bxc6? 7.;gxc6+

;gd7 S.;gxaS iWxaS 9 .0-0 g6 (or

l.e4 c5 2. ttJj3 ttJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. ttJxd4

9 . . . eS 1O .ttJc3 fS 1l.'?NdS '?NbS 12. l'!d1 ttJf6 13.'&b3 '?NcS 14 . .te3+­Juergens - Ales Garcia, Germany 1994) 1O.ttJc3 .tg7 1l . .te3 ttJf6 12. '?Nd4+-Padalkin - Doroginsky, Kiev 2002 , his compensation for the exchange is insufficient.

7.�xdl White has temporarily an ex­

tra piece, but he cannot keep it.

7 • • • a6 Both sides are forced now to

play only moves. It is understandable that Black

cannot capture the knight, be­cause after: 7 . . . bxc6?? S .hc6+ .td7 9 .haS+- he loses a rook. It is also lost for him if he tries: 7 . . . .td7? S.ttJd4 eS 9.hd7+ �xd7 1O.ttJb3+- Brattin - Tumpkin, Detroit East 19S4, as well as 7 . . . .tg4+? S.f3 .td7 9.ttJd4 l'!dS 10.�e2 hbS+ 1l.ttJxbS+- Bisguier - Mc Cord, Pittsburgh 1946.

8 • .ta4 After the retreat of White's

knight: S.ttJd4+? ! axbS 9.ttJxbS .tg4+ 1O.�e1 l'!dS 1l.ttJ1c3 fS+, Black has the better position, be­cause of his powerful centre and his bishop pair, Terrill - Varas,

corr. 2002 . If White captures the e7-

pawn, then Black has an easy road to equality: S .ttJxe7+ �xe7 9 . .te2 (9 . .tc4, Jentzsch - Preiss, Duisburg 2004, 9 . . . .te6 1O .he6 �xe6=) 9 . . . .te6 1O .ttJc3 l'!dS+ 11.�e1 fS 12 . .tgS+ ttJf6 13.f3 h6 14 . .te3 ttJdS lS.ttJxdS+ hdS= J.Schneider - Kropp, Wallert­heim 1992.

8 . . . J.d7 9.tLlC3 Now, Black can captureWhite's

knight in two ways : el) 9 • . • bxc6 and c2) 9 • • • hc6.

el) 9 . .. bxc6

1 0 .ttJxe4 The material equality has been

restored. White cannot castle any­more, but Black has pawn-weak­nesses in his camp.

1 0 . . . 0 - 0 - 0 It is not good for Black to play

1O . . . e6? ! , because after: 1l . .tf4 ! .te7 12 .ttJd6+ hd6 13 .hd6 ttJf6 14.f3 ttJdS 1S.�e2 ttJb6 16 . .tb3 l'!cS 17 . .tcS ttJdS 1S.l'!ad1 l'!c7 19.l'!d2 f6 20.l'!hd1 l'!b7 21 .c4 ttJf4+ 22 . �f2± White managed to obtain the two-bishop advantage in the

23

Chapter 1

game, Alba - Bayon Garcia, Gijon 2000 .

If 10 . . . e5 , then i t deserves at­tention for White to try: 1l.!e3 ! ? f5 (or 10 . . . 0-0-0 1l.!b6 !t) 12.liJc5 f4 (after: 12 . . . lLlf6 13.<J?e2 lLld5, it is very strong for White to continue with 14J�hd1 ! ! and now the line: 14 . . . lLlxe3 15.l'�xd7 hc5 16.!xc6 l'k8 17J'!c7+ \t>d8 18J3xc8+ \t>xc8 19.fxe3± leads to a position with an extra pawn for White, while in case of: 14 . . . hc5 15.hc5 0-0-0 16.<J?f1 <J?c7 17.c4 ! lLlb6 18.hb6+ <J?xb6 19J3d6 \t>c7 20 J3ad1 E1he8 21 .b3 e4 22 .f4 ! exf3 23.gxf3± Black's pieces are tied up with the protection of the pawn on c6 and the bishop on d7, Unzicker - Steiner, Krems 1967) 13.lLlxd7 \t>xd7 14.!d2 !d6 15.<J?e2 lLlf6 (after 15 . . . lLle7 16.E1ad1 as 17J3he1 <J?c7 18. <J?f1 E1he8, Charlesworth - Truscott, Nottingham 1946, White can use the e4-square as a transfer point: 19.E1e4 ! lLld5 20 .E1c4 lLle7 21.!c3±) 16.E1adl;!; - White maintains his advantage thanks to his bishop pair, Borisek - Barle, Ptuj 2005. Black's central pawns on e5 and f4 are placed on squares of the same colour as his bishop and that is advantageous for White.

11.<J?e2 e5 12.ie3 tlJf6 Black loses a pawn after: 12 . . .

<J?c7? ! 13.E1ad1 f5 14.tlJc5 f4 15. lLlxa6+ <J?c8 16.ic5± Torrente - Galan, Malaga 2005. In case of: 12 . . .f5 13.lLlc5 hc5 14.hc5 lLlf6 15.E1hdl;!; White has the two-bish-

24

op advantage, A.Zaitsev - Shens­novich, Tula 2005.

13.ttJxf6!? I t i s not so clear after: 13 .ttJg5

!e8 14.c4 h6 15.lLlf3 e4 16.lLld2 !d7 17.h3 !d6oo Magergut - Frid­stein, Moscow 1947.

13 • • . gxf6 14.!b6 ge8

15.ghdl;!; - White is clearly better, because of his superior pawn-structure.

c2) 9 . . . !xc6

1 0 .!xc6+ Now, just like in variation ct,

Black's queenside pawn-structure will have defects.

1 0 • • • bxc6 11.tlJxe4 (diagram)

11 . • . e5 Black has tried numerous

l.e4 c5 2. ltJj3 ltJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tiJxd4

moves in practice here. It looks like the worst is - 11. . .ltJf6, since after: 12 .ltJxf6+ gxf6 Black's pawn-chain is considerably com­promised. There might follow, for example: 13. me2 E1g8 (After: 13 . . .f5 14.E1d1 E1d8 15.�e3 �g7 16.E1xd8+ mxd8 17.E1d1+ mc8 18.�d4 E1g8 19. g3, the bishops were exchanged later and the rook and pawn endgame ended up in favour of White, Tissir - Belkhodja, Cairo 2003.) 14.g3 E1b8 (Following: 14 . . . e5 15.E1d1 me7 16.E1d3 f5 17.E1b3 �g7 18 .�g5+ me6 19.E1d1 E1ab8 20 .E1bd3 f4 21 .b3 fxg3 22.hxg3 �f8 23 .�e3 f6 24.E1d7± White oc­cupied the d-file, A.Kovacevic -Barle, Ljubjana 2004; as a result of: 14 . . .f5 15.i.e3 i.g7 16.E1ab1 �e5 17.E1hd1 E1g4 18.b3 h5 19J1d3 �d6 20 .E1bd1 h4 21 .mf3 hxg3 22 .hxg3 E1e4 23 .E1hl± White's rook again managed to occupy the open file, Tatar Kis - Szuk, Hungary 2005.) 15.E1d1 e5 16.E1d3 �e7 17.E1b3 md7 18.�e3t - White's position was better thanks to his pawn-struc­ture in the game, Pfrommer -E.Mueller, Lampertheim 2000.

There might arise a similar sit­uation after 11 . . .e6. In that posi-

tion Black has tried 12 .�e3 (White is slightly better too after: 12 .me2 E1d8 13.�e3 ltJf6 14.ltJxf6+ gxf6 15.E1hdU R.Fischer - Vine, New York 1956.) 12 . . . ltJf6 13.ltJxf6+ gxf6 14.me2 0-0-0 (As a result of: 14 . . . E1b8 15.b3 E1g8 16.E1ad1 e5 17.g3 �a3 18.E1d3 me7 19.Eic3 E1gc8 20 .E1c4 E1a8 21 .E1d1 me6 22 . E1d3 �e7 23 .E1dc3 md5 24.E1h4 E1h8 25.f4± Black's pieces were tied up to protect the pawn-weak­nesses, Michel - Ullrich, Bad Elster 1937; after 14 . . . E1g8 15.g3 0-0-0 16.E1hd1 �e7 17.E1xd8+ E1xd8, Szymczak - Sygulski, War­saw 1983, White had to avoid ex­changing the second pair of rooks and to fix Black's kingside pawns with the move: 18.g4 !t) 15.Eiad1 �e7 16.E1xd8+ E1xd8 17.g4 ! (That is a typical idea in similar positions.) 17 . . . E1d7 18.f4 md8 19.E1f1 me8 20. E1f3 mf8 21.�d2 E1b7 22 .�c3 E1b5 23.E1d3 E1d5 24.�d4t - Black had to be very careful protecting his pawn-weaknesses, Tiviakov - Er­menkov, Calcutta 1993.

The pawn-structure was more or less similar after: 11 . . . 0-0-0+ 12.me2 e5 13 .�e3 ltJf6 14.ltJxf6 gxf6 15.E1ad1 �e7 16.g4 mc7 17. mf3 h5 18 .h3 hxg4+ 19.hxg4 E1xh1 20 . E1xh1 md7 21 .me4 me6 22 .c4 E1b8 23 .b3 as 24.f4 a4, in the game Luukkonen - Kosonen, Jarvanpaa 1998. White could have continued with 25.E1d1 !t, creating the very unpleasant threat - 26.f5#

The line: 11 . . . E1d8+ 12 .me2 e5 13 .�e3 f5 14.ltJd2 ltJe7 15.ltJc4

25

Chapter 1

e4, Cox - Rolanda, corr. 2002, 16.tLlaS ! ? �c8 17.f3t would have led to a position, in which Black would be very much behind in de­velopment and he would have to protect his weak pawns.

After 1l . . . g6 12 .�e3 �g7, Sa­reen - Del Rio Angelis, Andorra la Vella 2006, White had to con­tinue the fight for an advantage with the line: 13.c3 ! ? tLlf6 14.tLlcS tLldS IS.�eU. Ris superior pawn­structure would have provided him with a slight edge then.

In case of: 1l .. .fS 12 .tLld2 eS (After: 12 . . . g6 13.c3 �g7 14.<;t>c2 eS IS.tLlc4 e4 16 .�e3 tLlf6 17.�ad1 tLldS 18.�cS �f8 19.�d4 �g8 20 .f3 exf3 21 .�he1+ �e7 22 .gxf3 0-0-0 23.tLlaS cS 24.�f2± Black's ad­vanced central pawns only helped White to open new files for his rooks, Pliester - Z.Polgar, Aruba 1992.) 13.tLlc4 0-0-0+ 14.<;t>e2 tLlf6 and there arises the same po­sition, as after 1l . . . eS.

12.<;t>e2

12 • • • f5 Black repels his opponent's

knight from the e4-square. Following: 12 . . . h6 13.�dl �d8

26

14.�e3 fS, the knight can remain at its place. The point is that af­ter: 1S.�xd8+ <;t>xd8 16.�dl + <;t>c7, Betko - Mesaros, Sala 1991, White has a very powerful argu­ment: 17.�d2 ! <;t>b6 (if 17 . . . fxe4, then White regains his piece with : 18 .�aS+ <;t>b7 19.�d7+ <;t>c8 20 . �d8+-) 18.tLlg3 tLle7 19.�c3± and White is clearly better.

After: 12 . . . tLlf6 13.tLlxf6+ gxf6 14.�e3 <;t>d7 1S.�hd1+ <;t>e6 16.�d3 �e7 17.�c3;j; White has a powerful pressure, due to his better pawn­structure, Meszaros - Borgo, Brno 2006.

13.tLld2 White's knight is redeployed

to the c4-square in order to attack the eS-pawn.

The consequences of the his knight's maneuver deep into en­emy lines do not seem to be so clear to me: 13.tLlgS tLlf6 14.b3 �e7 IS.tLle6 <;t>f7 16.tLlgS+ <;t>e8oo, Kash­dan - Sandrin, South Fallsburg 1948.

13 • • • tLlf6 Black has also tried here : 13 . . .

�d6 14.tLlc4 �c7 1S.b3 tLlf6 16. �b2 0-0-0 17.�he1 e4, A.Sokolov - Szabolcsi, France 2004, but af­ter 18.tLle3 ! ?t White could have emphasized the fact that Black's central pawns were not so reliably protected.

14.tLlc4 0 - 0 - 0 It is instructive that after:

14 . . . tLld7? ! 1S.�dl (It is also good for White to follow with: 1S.b3 0-0-0 16 .�b2 �cS 17.�ad1 <;t>c7

l.e4 c5 2. ct:Jj3 ct:Jc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. ct:Jxd4

18.ic3± Izbinski - Krogulski, Po­lanica Zdroj 1999.) 1S . . . h6 16.id2 cfQe7 17.ic3 cfQe6 18 .Elxd7 cfQxd7 19. ct:Jb6+ cfQc7 20 .ct:Jxa8+ cfQb7 21.Eld1 cfQxa8 22 .Eld8+ cfQb7 23 .ib4+- in the game Hamina - Soovares, corr. 1988, Black resigned.

15.b3 It is weaker for White to play

1S.ct:JxeS, because of: 1S . . . Ele8 16.f4 i.d6 17.cfQf3 heS 18.fxeS ElxeS 19.if4 Ele6 20 .Elhe1 ct:Je4= Bernard - Brochet, France 2002 .

15 . . . i.d6 16.i.b2 rute8 17.ghdl ct:Jd5 18.tDxd6+ gxd6 19.g3;!;

White preserves some edge in this position, mostly thanks to his better pawn-structure. It might be also essential that his bishop is stronger than Black's knight.

Conclusion

Black has many possibilities at his disposal on movefour, but that should not make you change the correct evaluation of his prospects. His moves can be divided in two not so equal categories: 4 . . . d5 (vari­ation c) and all the rest. The correct appraisal of the second group has been made long ago and that is - Black has serious difficulties. In variation a, he falls behind in development considerably, while in variation b, his pawn-structure presents Mite with a clear advan­tage. Meanwhile, it is essential that Mite's bishop manages to occu­py the a2-g8 diagonal and his knight on d4 not only does not retreat from the centre, on the contrary - it is redeployed to a more active position . Our negative evaluation of the rest of Black's possibilities, which have been mentioned in short at the beginning of the chapter, should not put you in any doubt about that too.

Concerning variation c, Black manages to simplify the position in­deed, but only at the price of compromising his pawn-structure on the queenside. That type of playing seems not to be so attractive to the ad­herents to the Sicilian Defence nowadays. Infact, Mite does not risk anything and the maximum that Black can rely on is a draw, since he has practically no chances of seizing the initiative whatsoever.

27

Chapter 2 1.e4 c5 2.lLlf3 lLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 �b6

The main idea of Black's last move is to transpose to the basic positions of the Sicilian Defence with an extra tempo for White, which has been used in fact to retreat his knight away from the centre.

5.llJb3 In the this position, Black

plays most often the moves a) 5 . . . e6 and b) 5 . . . llJf6.

It is easier for White to claim the advantage after Black's other moves :

About 5 . . . VNc7 6.lLlc3 e6 - see 5 . . . e6 6 .lLlc3 VNc7; as for 5 . . . a6 6 .lLlc3 lLlf6 7.ie3 - see 5 . . . lLlf6 6 .lLlc3 a6 7.ie3;

5 . . .'!Wb4+? - White obtains a great lead in development after Black plays so many moves with his queen. 6 .lLlc3 lLlf6 (It is not

2B

better for Black to play: 6 . . . e6 7.id3 d5 B.exd5 exd5 9 .0-0 ie6 1O .ttJb5± and because of the lack of development of his kingside, Black is forced to castle long and that provides White with excel­lent attacking prospects, Barthel - K.Hofmann, Germany 2000. ) 7.id3 d5 B .a3 VNd6 9 .lLlb5 VNdB (or 9 . . . VNbB 1O.exd5 ttJxd5 11 .0-0±) 1O.exd5 lLlxd5 1l .ic4± and Black can hardly avoid material losses, because of his great lag in devel­opment. 11 . . .e6? ! - That is an at­tempt by Black to save the situ­ation by just giving up a pawn. 12 .ixd5 exd5 13.if4 !+- and Black has no satisfactory defence against the penetration of White's knight to the c7-square, Almagro Llanas - Perez Perez, Madrid 2003;

5 . . . ttJh6? ! - That is not the most active placement of Black's knight. 6 .lLlc3 e6, D.Sokolov - Ka­pnisis, Moscow 2005 and here af­ter 7.lLlb5 a6 B .ie3 VNdB 9 .lLld6± White has a bishop pair in addi­tion to his lead in development.

5 . . . g6 6.ie3 Wffc7 (In answer to 6 . . . VNdB, Grosar - Pongrac, Bled

l .e4 c5 2. f.ijf3 f.ijc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.f.ijxd4 Vf1b6 5.f.ijb3

1997, White obtains a clear edge by entering a Maroczy type set­up with the line : 7.c4 i.g7 B.Vf1d2 f.ijf6 9.f3 0-0 10 . f.ijc3;!;. It seems very strange if Black continues with his queen-maneuvers: 6 . . . ¥tfb4+ 7.f.ij1d2 i.g7 B.c3 Vf1a4, Rosa - Queirolo, Santiago 199B, 9.i.d3 f.ije5 - this is forced, because af­ter : 9 . . . f.ijf6 1O.Vf1e2+- Black loses his queen - 10.i.e2 f.ijf6 11.f4 f.ijc6 12.i.f3±; it is not any better for him to try B . . . ¥tfd6, Lewis - As­bury, Flint 1990, since after 9.f4±, Black's queen will need to lose even more time in order to find a suitable square.) 7.lDc3 i.g7 (In answer to 7 . . . d6, M.Hoffmann - Kovac, Cesky Brod 1996, White has a very unpleasant line for Black: B .i.e3 i.g7 9.0-0-0t, reaching a position more typical for the Dragon variation.) B .Vf1d2 lDf6 (It is very bad for Black to play B . . . e6? ! 9 .f.ijb5 Vf1dB 1O.f.ijd6± Smeckert - Asbury, Lansing 1990.) 9 .i.e2 d6 10 .0-0 h5 11.f4 i.g4 12.f.ijd5 ¥tfd7 13.i.d3± Iermito - Cabrera, Buenos Aires 2004;

5 . . . d6 6 .lDc3 e6 (About 6 . . . f.ijf6 7.i.e3 - see 5 . . . f.ijf6 6.f.ijc3 d6 7.i.e3; after 6 . . . g6, Zeleic - Kisel­jak, Tucepi 1996, White can trans­pose to the Dragon variation with two extra tempi with: 7.i.e3 Vf1dB B.Vf1d2 lDf6 9.f3±) 7.i.f4! f.ije5 B. i.e3 Vf1c7 9.f4 f.ijc6, Z.Medvegy -H.Dobosz, Austria 2004 and now White can transpose to variation a with an extra tempo by playing 10.id3 a6 11 .0-0 f.ijf6 12 .a4±;

5 . . . e5 - This move weakens the squares along the d-file, although it is not so easy for White to exploit that, Badura - Zok, Germany 1995, 6.i.c4 f.ijf6 (It is hardly advisable for Black to fall even more behind in development with the line : 6 . . . Vf1b4+ 7.f.ij1d2 f.ijf6 B.Vf1e2;!;) 7.0-0 i.e7 (After 7 . . . f.ijxe4 B.i.xf7+ @xf7 9.Vf1d5+ @eB 10.Vf1xe4± Black's king is bound to remain in the centre for a long time.) B .lDc3;!; and White has a slight but stable advantage, because of his lead in development and the weakness of the d5-square.

a) 5 . . . e6 6.f.ijc3

6 . . :�c7 About 6 . . . f.ijf6 7.Vf1e2 - see 5 . . .

f.ijf6 6.f.ijc3 e6 7.Vf1e2. Black has tried in practice

some other moves too : 6 . . . g6? - That move compro­

mises the dark squares and it does not contribute to Black's quick development, Vaassen - Klemm, corr. 1990, 7.lDb5±;

6 . . . Vf1dB? ! - This is simply a loss of time, Herges - Thiery, Saarlouis 2004 and here after:

29

Chapter 2

7.i.f4 d6 8 .'Wd2 eS 9 .i.e3 lLif6 10 . o-o-o± there arise positions from the variation: l .e4 cS 2 .1Lif3 lLic6 3 .d4 cxd4 4.lLixd4 lLif6 S.lLic3 d6 6 .i.e3 eS 7.lLib3, except that White has played two more moves - 1Wd2 and 0-0-0;

6 . . . a6? ! - That is also a loss of time. 7.i.f4 i.b4 (Black loses after 7 . . . eS? B .lLidS 1WdB 9.i.e3 E1bB 1O .i.b6 'Wh4 11.lLic7+ <lde7 12 .'Wd3+- Graham - Zupa, Saint Paul 2000.) B.'Wg4 lLige7, Baramidze - Straub, Bad Wild­bad 2002 (It is hardly better for Black to continue with: B . . . g6, Schapotschnikov- Roerig, Bayern 2001, after 9.'Wg3, Black is faced with the choice between a difficult endgame: 9 . . . hc3+ 1O.1Wxc3 'Wb4 11.1Wxb4 1Lixb4 12.lLid4± and a very unpleasant middle game: 9 . . . lLid4 10.i.c7 1Wa7 n.o-o-O±), now, White can gobble a pawn: 9.'Wxg7 lLig6 (It is even worse for Black to play 9 . . . E1gB 1O.1Wxh7±) 1O .i.e3 'WdB n.'Wh6± and Black has no compensation for the pawn;

6 . . . i.b4 - This development of the bishop is premature. 7.1Wg4 lLige7 (After 7 . . . g6 B .i.d2 lLige7, Dennison - Galant, Stillwa­ter 2 005, it looks very good for White to continue with: 9 .a3 hc3 10.i.xc3 eS 11 . 'Wf3± and he leads in development and he has a couple of powerful bishops.) B.1Wxg7 1Lig6 9.a3 i.fB 1O.1Wf6± and Black had no compensation for the pawn in the game Wolski - McCready, Reno 1994.

30

7.f4 Now, Black's knight is not on

f6 and the set-up for White, which we have analyzed in variation b (1We2, i.d2) would not be so logi­cal.

7 . . • d6 In answer to 7 . . . i.b4? ! , Berg

- Carton, Oropesa del Mar 199B, White has the aggressive line: B .1Wg4 ! ? lLige7 (After B . . . hc3+ 9 . bxc3 g6 1O .i.a3±, or B . . . g6 9.i.d2 lLif6 1O .1Wf3± the vulnerability of the dark squares on Black's king­side is quite obvious, while in the variation: B . . . <ldfB 9.i.d2 dS 1O .eS lLih6 n.'WhS± Black has prob­lems with the coordination of his pieces.) 9 .i.d2 0-0 1O .i.d3 dS (or lO .. .fS 11.exfS lLixfS 12 .0-0-0 dS 13.<ldbl!;) n.eS f6 12 .exf6 E1xf6 13. 1WhSt - and White has excellent attacking chances.

7 . . . a6 B .i.e3 1Lif6? ! (It is prefer­able for Black to play here B . . . d6 9.g4 - see 7 . . . d6 B.i.e3 a6 9.g4.) 9.eS lLidS 10.lLixdS exdS 11 .c3 bS, Kao - Greene, Los Angeles 1993 and now after: 12 .'WxdS i.b7 13. lLicS± White should win with his extra pawn.

S.J\e3 tiJf6 In answer to B . . . a6, Auer -

Blum, Roethenbach 1996, it also deserves attention for White to play in the spirit of the Keres at­tack, 9.g4 bS (about 9 . . . lLlf6 1O .gS - see B . . . lLlf6 9.g4 a6 1O .gS) 10 .a3 i.b7 n.i.g2 lLlf6 12 .gS lLld7 and here after 13.'We2 !? , followed by castling long, as well as after the

1 .e4 cS 2. 0,/3 0,c6 3.d4 cxd4 4. 0,xd4 Vf1b6 S. 0, b3

not so sharp line 13.0-0 !?t White has a powerful initiative.

9.g4

9 • • • a6 In case of 9 . . . 1J.e7 1O .g5 0,d7,

J.Hoffmann - Knebel, Wies­baden 2000 , it looks very strong for White to play: 1l.'lWh5 a6 12 . 0-0-0 b5 13.1J.d3t and Black's dark-squared bishop has already been developed to e7, so it is not good for him to repel White's queen from its aggressive place­ment.

In answer to 9 . . . d5, Geyler - Seiser, Vienna 2003, it deserves attention for White to play: 10.e5 0,d7 1l.0,b5 Vf1d8 12.Vf1f3t and he has occupied the d4-square, lead­ing in development.

9 . . . h6 - This move prevents the further advance of White's kingside pawns. 10.Vf1f3 a6 l1 .ig2 0,d7 12 .h4t b5 13. 0-0-0 0,b6 14.*bl .id7 15.g5 0-0-0 16.Vf1f2;!; and White has good chances to create threats on both sides of the board, while Black can hardly or­ganize any counterplay, Beliavsky - Cabrilo, Lviv 1981.

1 0 .g5 tLld7 11. YNf3 b5

Or 1l . . . tLlc5 12 .0-0-0 .id7 13.*bl 0-0-0 14.Vf1f2;!; Nieder­maier - Kyas, Germany 1995.

12. 0 - 0 - 0

12 • • • .ib7 This move looks to be quite

natural. Black is trying to orga­nize some counterplay on the queenside and he will take care of his king only later.

12 . . . tLlc5? ! - This move en­ables White to exploit his lead in development. 13.0,xc5 dxc5, V.Onischuk - Gasanov, Alushta 2005 and here after 14 . .ig2 .ib7 15.e5 b4 16.lLle4± White has a powerful pressure along the hl-a8 diagonal, he has extra space and he dominates on the open file.

12 . . . Eib8 13.*bl .ie7 (about 13 . . . lLlb6 14.id3 - see 12 . . . Eib8 13.*bl lLlb6 14.id3) 14.h4 lLla5 15. h5 lLlc4, Mashian - Temanlis, Tel Aviv 1993 and now after 16 .id4 0-0 17.g6� White's attack looks very dangerous.

12 . . . b4 13.lLle2 .ib7 14.*bl 0-0-0 15.c3 bxc3? ! (It looks more resilient for Black to defend with 15 . . . lLlc5 16 . .ig2;!;) 16.lLlxc3 *b8 17.Vf1f2 Eic8 18.Eicl± and

31

Chapter 2

White has excellent attacking chances, while Black can hardly organize any counterplay on the kings ide, Smirin - L.Kaplan, Oviedo 1993.

12 . . .cDb6 - Black is trying to seize the initiative on the queen­side by occupying the c4-square. 13.�b1 8:bS 14.i.d3 g6 1S.tDd4! tDaS (After 1S . . . i.g7? ! - it looks very attractive for White to sacrifice a piece : 16.hbS! axbS 17.tDdxbS Vge7 1S.tDxd6+ �f8 19.eS±; Black fails to develop his bishop on g7 af­ter: 1S . . . tDc4 16 .i.xc4 bxc4 17.tDxc6 V9xc6 1S.i.d4±; it is not good for him to opt for: 1S . . . tDb4 16.i.e2 tDc4 17.a3 tDc6 1S.tDxc6 V9xc6 19. i.d4±; while after: 17 . . . tDxa3+ 1S .bxa3 V9xc3 19.i.f2+- Black re­mains a piece down.) 16.fS b4? ! (but not 16 . . . i.g7? 17.i.xbS! +-. It is slightly better for Black to play 16 . . . tDbc4 17.i.c1 b4 1S.tDce2 tDeS 19.V9h3t with a powerful initia­tive for White.) 17.tDcbS ! ! axbS (Black loses after: 17 . . . Vge7 1S.eS ! dxeS 19.tDc6 ! tDxc6 20 .V9xc6+ i.d7 21 .V9c7 V9dS 22 .V9xeS+-, or 1S . . . axbS 19.i.xbS+ i.d7 20.exd6 V9xd6 21 .tDxe6+-; he would not save the game either after: 17 . . . V9d7 1S .fxe6 fxe6 19.tDxe6 ! +-) 1S .hbS+ �dS (It is bad for Black to try 1S . . . i.d7 19.fxe6 fxe6 20 .V9f6 ! +-) 19 .fxe6 i.g7 20 .eS ! heS, Rogers - Brom­berger, Augsburg 2004 (It is not any better for Black to defend with 20 . . . dS 21 .exf7 8:fS 22 .e6±) and here after 21 .exf7 8:fS 22 .8:hfl± White has a more than sufficient

32

compensation for the piece. He has two pawns, a better piece­coordination and his opponent's king is seriously endangered.

13.h4 8:c8 13 . . . b4 14.tDe2 8:cS 1S.8:d2

tDceS? ! (It is slightly better for Black to try: 1S . . . dS 16.tDg3 tDaS 17. tDxaS V9xaS 1S.�b1t, but White's initiative is dangerous even then.) 16.fxeS tDxeS 17.V9h3 tDc4 1S.tDed4 tDxd2 19.tDxd2 eS 20 .i.c4! exd4 21.i.xd4� White has a lead in de­velopment and a safer king as a compensation for the exchange, while after: 21 . . .dS? ! 22 .exdS i.e7, Bogut - Kurajica, Kastel Stari 1997, White could have played: 23.i.xg7 8:gS 24.i.f6± winning a couple of pawns and keeping his opponent's king in the centre for long.

14.a3 b4 lS.axb4 tDxb4

16.8:h2 i.e7, Belotti - Dorf­man, Cannes 1993 and here it deserves attention for White to continue with the aggressive line : 17.hS !? dS (After 17 . . . 0-0? ! 1S.g6 h6 19.9xf7+ 8:xf7 2 0.i.h3± Black fails to create any dan­gerous threats on the queen-

l .e4 c5 2. l?Jj3 l?Jc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. l?Jxd4 'Wb6 5. l?Jb3

side. ) 18.exd5 0 - 0 19.96 tDxd5 2 0 .gxh7+ <;t>xh7 (or 20 . . . <;t>h8 21 .tt'lxdS .bdS 22J�xdS ! ? exdS 23.h6�) 21.tDxd5 hd5 22 .gxd5!? exd5 23.%bd5� - White has a pawn for the ex­change and good attacking pros­pects on the kingside.

b) 5 . . . tt'lf6 6.tDc3

6 . . . e6 The other moves for Black look

less logical : 6 . . . tt'leS? - This move only fa­

cilitates White's task to occupy the centre quickly, Padioleau - Alan­ic, France 1998 and here after 7.f4 tt'lc6 (or 7 . . . tt'leg4 8 .'Wf3±) 8.eS± White has an overwhelming lead in development and a huge space advantage;

6 . . . eS? ! 7.ie3 'Wd8 8.f3 ie7, Horsak - Alaverdyan, Czech Re­public 2000 and now after: 9 .'Wd2 d6 10 .0-0-0 ie6 11.g4± White has three extra tempi in compari­son to the variation 1 .e4 cS 2.tt:lf3 tt'lc6 3 .d4 cxd4 4.tt'lxd4 tt'lf6 S.tt'lc3 d6 6.ie3 eS 7.tt'lb3 ie6 8.f3 ie7 and that no doubt provides him with clearly better chances;

6 . . . 'Wc7 - That move enables White to obtain a considerable space advantage. 7.f4 d6 8.tt'ldS tt'lxdS 9 .exdS l?Jb8 1O.ie3 tt'ld7 11 . c4 tt'lf6 12 .ie2 g6 13.0-0 ig7, Mo­radi - Abbasifar, Mashad 2003 and here White can emphasize his advantage with the move 14.l?Jd4±;

6 . . . a6 - This move is quite standard for the Sicilian De­fence, but here it only weakens the queenside. 7.ie3 Vf!c7 (In an­swer to 7 . . . Vf!d8, Riggs - Hosking, Australia 1995, it looks logical for White to continue with: 8.l?JdS tt'lxdS 9 .exdS l?JaS 1O.tt'ld2 e6 -but not 1O . . . bS? 11.b4 tt'lb7 12 .a4± and Black's queenside crumbles. 11 .id3±) 8.tt'ldS tt'lxdS (The "cen­tralization" of Black's queen leads practically by force to a very dif­ficult position for him: 8 . . . 'WeS 9.tt'lb6 gb8 1O .id3 dS 11.f4 'Wxb2 12 .ic1 Vf!c3+ 13.id2 Vf!b2 14.exdS ig4 1S.tt'lc4 Vf!xb3 16.axb3 .bd1 17.dxc6± and White remains at least with an extra pawn, Han­sen - Olesen, Copenhagen 1990.) 9 .exdS tt'leS 1O.'Wd4 d6 11 .c4 ifS 12 .ie2 e6 13.0-0± and White has a huge space advantage, mean­while Black has problems devel­oping his kingside. After the natu­ral line: 13 . . . gc8 14.gac1 ie7?, Ball - Eickmann, Email 2000, White wins with : 1S.f4 tt'ld7 16.Vf!xg7 if6 17.'Wh6 .bb2 18.dxe6+-;

6 . . . d6 - This move enables White to use the dS-square. 7.ie3 - now all possible retreats of Black's queen are of about equal

33

Chapter 2

strength and White has excellent chances of maintaining the ad­vantage:

7 . . :f!c7 8.ttJd5 ! ? - That is the most energetic line. 8 . . . ttJxd5 (Af­ter 8 . . . Wd7 9.ttJxf6+ gxf6 1Q .Wd2 ttJe5 11 .0-0-0 b6 12.f4± Black has serious problems to create some counterplay, because of his lag in development, his lack of space and his static pawn-mass in the centre, Swiercz - Bosch, Bethune 2001 . ) 9 .exd5 lLld8, Brulic - Bi­liskov, Kastela 2005, and here af­ter 1Q .id3± Black does not have a single active piece in action;

7 . . . Wd8 - Black's queen goes to its initial square losing two tempi in the process . 8 .f3 g6 (Af­ter 8 . . . e5 9:f!d2 ie6 10 .0-0-0 - there arises a position from the variation 1 .e4 c5 2 .ttJf3 ttJc6 3 .d4 cxd4 4.ttJxd4 ttJd6 5.ttJc3 d6 6.ie3 e5 7.ttJb3, except that White has played two extra moves - Wd2 and 0-0-0. He follows with his standard plan and he obtains an overwhelming advantage. 1Q . . . a6 11.g4 ie7 12 .ttJd5± Hoepfl - Rei­nartz, Passau 1999; Black would not change anything much with 8 . . . a6, Ulrich - Steen, Kappeln 1990, 9 .Wd2 e6 - it is even worse for Black to play: 9 . . . b5 1Q .a4 b4 1l .ttJd5± and his queenside will crumble at any moment. 10 . 0-0-0 ie7 1l.g4±) 9 .Wd2 ig7 10 .0-0-0 - there arises a stan­dard position from the Dragon variation with two extra tempi for White. 10 . . . 0-0 (or 10 . . . ie6

34

11.�b1 0-0 12 .h4t Ried - Lau­gensen, Tingkaerskolen 1997) 1l.g4 a6? ! 12 .h4 ie6 13.h5� White can proceed here with his typical kingside attack, Garcia Abrante - Barcelo, Palma de Mal­lorca 2002 ;

6 . . . g6 - Black is trying to reach a position of the Dragon type, but he loses important tempi in the process. 7.ie3 Wc7 (About 7 . . :�d8 8.f3 ig7 9 .Wd2 0-0 10 .0-0-0 d6 11.g4 - see 6 . . . d6 7.ie3 'Wd8 8.f3 g6 9.Wd2) 8.f4 d6 - White has the unpleasant threat 9 .e5, Pelerin - Bosch, Bethune 2001 and here after: 9 .ttJd5 ttJxd5 1Q.exd5 ttJb8 1l.id4± White has a clear lead in development, he has extra space and strangely enough he has oc­cupied first the a1-h8 diagonal.

7.'We2 !?

Black's queen i s not so well placed on b6, therefore White wishes to develop his forces with­out forcing it to occupy a bet­ter placement. Meanwhile, he is threatening to occupy additional space with the move e4-e5.

Now, we will analyze in details bt) 7 . . . d6, b2) 7 • • • 'We7 and b3)

l .e4 cS 2. 0,13 0,c6 3.d4 cxd4 4. 0,xd4 Wib6 S. 0,b3

7 • • • • i.b4. Black has also tried in prac­

tice: 7 . . . 0,d4? ! - This attempt to

simplify the position only loses additional tempi. B .0,xd4 Wixd4 9 . 0, b5 Wib6 (It is not good for Black to play: 9 . . . Wie5 1O.f4 WibB 11.e5 0,d5 12 .c4± and White has a huge space advantage and better devel­opment.) 1O.i.f4 i.c5 (After the best for Black: 1O . . . d6 11 .0-0-0 e5 12 .i.e3 WidB 13.Wic4± White keeps his opponent's king in the centre and he ensures a huge lead in development for long.) 11.0,c7+ @e7 12 .0-0-0 Wia5 13.@b1+- and White wins unavoidably plenty of material, which is more than enough to win the game, Siklosi - Zapolskis, Kecskemet 1992 ;

7 . . . i.e7 - That move leads to a slight, but stable edge for White. B .e5 0,d5 9 .0,xd5 exd5 1O.M4 W1h4+ 11 .i.d2 Wie4 12 .Wixe4 dxe4, Zontakh - V.Damjanovic, Bel­grade 1993 and now it seems that the most unpleasant line for Black is : 13. i.f4! 0-0 14.0-0-0± and the backward d7-pawn impedes the development of Black's queen­side; meanwhile he has problems protecting his e4-pawn.

In answer to 7 . . . a6, Korneev - Anastasian, Linares 1996, the simplest line for White is 8.e5 0,d5 9.0,xd5 exd5 1O .i.g5 i.e7 11.ixe7 0,xe7 12 .0-0-0;1; with a slight, but stable advantage for White, thanks to Black's weak pawns on the d-file.

bt) 7 . . . d6

Black prevents mechanically the advance of his opponent's e­pawn, but now it looks very prom­ising for White to continue in the spirit of the Keres attack by ad­vancing the g-pawn (l.e4 c5 2 .0,f3 d6 3 .d4 cxd4 4.0,xd4 0,f6 5.0,c3 e6 6 .g4) .

8.g4 a6 About B . . . Wic7 9.i.g2 - see 7 . . .

Wic7 B .g4 d6 9 .i.g2 . The alternatives are not better

for Black: B . . . h6 - Black stops temporar­

ily the advance of White's king­side pawns, but he weakens the g6-square in the process. 9.i.e3 Wic7 1O.f4 a6 11 .0-0-0 b5 12 .h4 i.b7 13.i.g2 0,d7 14.g5± White has a huge space advantage and Black's king is deprived of a safe shelter. 14 . . . 0,b6 15.g6 ! 0,c4 (It looks very dangerous for Black to try: 15 . . . fxg6 16.Wig4� and he los­es his extra pawn, coming under a dangerous attack too.) 16.f5 fxg6 17.fxe6 0,xe3 1B.Wixe3 0,e5 19. 0,d5 ixd5 20 .exd5± White has much better prospects thanks to his protected passed pawn in the

35

Chapter 2

centre and his opponent's endan­gered king, Siklosi - S.Polgar, Kecskemet 1992 ;

Black would not change any­thing much with: 8 . . . ie7 9.gS tLJd7 1O.h4 a6 1l.ie3 Wc7 12 .0-0-0 bS 13.a3 ib7 14.f4 b4 1S.axb4 tLJxb4 16.ih3 as 17.tLJd4± and he has failed to organize any counterplay, so his position turned quickly into a hopeless one. 17 . . . tLJcS 18.fS eS 19.tLJdbS 'lWc6 20 .f6 gxf6 21.gxf6 if8 22 .'lWc4+- and Black had no defence against White's numer­ous threats in the game L'Arni - Erwich, Wijk aan Zee 2003.

9.ie3 Wc7 1 0 .g5 tLld7 U. 0 - 0 - 0 b5

About 11 . . .ie7 12 .f4 bS 13 .h4 - see 1l . . . bS.

12.f4 ie7 In case of 12 . . . tLJb6, Martin

Gonzalez - Csom, Malaga 1981, it deserves attention for White to follow with his standard king­side offensive: 13 .h4 tLJc4 14.if2 ib7 (about 14 . . . ie7 1S.ig2t - see 12 . . . ie7) 1S.ih3 l:lc8 16.fS± and White's attack is clearly faster than Black's counterplay.

13.h4 tLlb6 The move 13 . . . ib7 - would not

save Black from the attack. 14.ih3 b4 1S.tLJdS ! exdS 16.exdS tLJaS 17.tLJxaS WxaS 18.l:lhe1 0-0-0 19.ia7+- and White soon won, N.Kirov - Th.Paehtz, Bialystok 1979.

(diagram) 14.ig2 !? - and here after

14 . . . tLJc4 1s.if2t White had a

36

powerful kingside initiative in the game Patrici - Cella, corr. 1985, while in answer to 14 . . . b4, White had the standard piece-sacri­fice - 1S.tLJdS ! exdS 16.exdS tLJd8 17.id4�. Black's king is stranded in the centre, his piece-coordina­tion has been disrupted and that provides White with an excellent compensation, for example after: 17 . . . wf8 18.l:lde1 ! l:lb8 19 .hS h6 20.gxh6 l:lxh6 21 .l:lhg1 f6 22 .ie4± Black can hardly parry the on­coming attack against his king.

b2) 7".'lWc7

That move also enables White to begin his kingside offensive.

8.g4 d6 Black completes his develop­

ment, ignoring White's kingside onslaught.

l .e4 c5 2. 0.f3 tiJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. tiJxd4 Wffb6 S. tiJb3

8 . . . ib4 9 .id2 0-0 1O.g5 tiJe8 1l .a3 ie7, Baron - Sadvakasov, Ninos Li 1993 and here after 12 .0-0-0 a6 13.h4± White's king­side initiative is evidently faster than Black's counterplay.

8 . . . h6 - Black is trying to im­pede temporarily White's pawn­onslaught on the kingside. 9 .ig2 a6 1O.f4 d6 l1 .id2 b5 (In case of 1l . . . �b8 12 .0-0-0 b5, Yagupov - Arzumanian, Tula 2000, it de­serves attention for White to sac­rifice a pawn with: 13.e5 ! ? dxe5 14.fxe5 tiJxe5 15.�hfl tiJfd7 - but not 15 . . . b4? 16.if4+- - 16.1f4 id6 17.'.ttbl� b4 18.tiJe4 ie7 19.h4t and White's initiative is very powerful due to the unsafe placement of Black's king; 11. . . b6 12 .0-0-0 ib7 13.h4 0-0-0 14.g5t and Black's king is safer on the queenside than in the centre, but he has no counterplay at all, Alex.Ivanov - V.Akopian, New York 1994; it is hardly any better for Black to play: 1l . . . ie7 12 .h4 g6 13 . 0-0-0 id7 14.if3 0-0-0 15.g5 tiJh5, M.Tseitlin - Avsha­lumov, Balatonbereny 1989 and here after 16.'lWf2 c.ttb8 17.ie3± White has dangerous threats on the queenside.) 12 .0-0-0 ib7 13. if3 ie7 14.h4 tiJd7 15.tiJd5 exd5 16.exd5 tiJce5 (The greedy move - 16 . . . tiJd8, leads to huge mate­rial losses for Black after: 17.�hel tiJb6 18.ia5+-, or to a position in which Black is practically stale­mated completely after: 17 . . . tiJb8 18.ia5 'lWd7 19.tiJd4+-) 17.fxe5

tiJxe5, Ye Jiangchuan - Anasta­sian, Beijing 1991 and now the best line for White seems to be: 18 .ic3 �c8 (It is not better for Black to follow with 18 . . . if6 19.ie4 Wffc4 20 .'lWg2±) 19.c.ttbl b4 (After 19 . . . Wffc4 20 .Wfff2 Wfff4 21.ixe5 dxe5 22 .Wffa7 Wffxf3 23.'lWxb7 'lWxg4 24. d6± White wins a piece.) 20 .ixe5 dxe5 21.g5 id6 22 .ie4± and White has a space advantage and good chances to organize an at­tack against Black's king, which is deprived of a reliable shelter.

9.ig2 a6 1 0 .f4

1 0 . . . ie7 About 1O . . . b5 11.ie3 ie7 12 .g5

tiJd7 13 .0-0-0 - see 1O . . . ie7. After 1O . . . tiJd7 B.ie3 b5 12 .

0-0-0 tiJb6 13.�hel tiJc4 14.if2 ie7, Siklosi - Peric, Kecskemet 1992, it deserves attention for White to continue with the stan­dard line: 15.g5 0-0 16.h4t with excellent prospects on the king­side.

H.g5 tiJd7 12 .ie3 b5 13. 0 - 0 - 0 ib7

It is worse for Black to try to simplify the position with 13 . . . tiJa5? ! , Rautanen - Rantanen,

37

Chapter 2

Finland 1997, because White can break through in the centre - 14.tLlxaS '@lxaS IS .eS ! dS (It is a disaster for Black to try: IS .. J!b8 16.exd6 b4 17J3dS '@ld8 18.dxe7 Vlfxe7 19J3xd7+- and White has good attacking chances, besides his material advantage.) 16.tLlxdS! exdS 17.ixdS gb8 18.fS-+ White's attack is very dangerous, because Black's king has no safe shelter and that can be illustrated by the fol­lowing variations : 18 . . . !b7 19.e6 and now Black loses after: 19 . . . hdS 20 .exd7+ @d8 21 .ghel ! +-, as well as following: 19 . . . fxe6 20 .VlfhS+ @d8 21 .fxe6+- and in both cases White reaches easily his opponent's king, stranded in the centre. Black's more reliable variation seems to be 19 . . . 0-0 20 .exi7+ @h8 21 .@bl± although his defence would be difficult even then, despite the approxi­mate material equality.

14.h4 b4

15.tLld5!? - This is a stan­dard piece-sacrifice with the idea to keep Black's king in the centre. 15 . . . exd5 16.exd5 tLla5 17.tLlxa5 Vlfxa5 18.!d4 @d8 (It

38

is not easy for Black to defend the position after: 18 . . . b3? ! 19 .axb3 '@lal+ 20 .@d2 VlfaS+ 21..tc3±. It is quite possible that Black's more reliable line is to sacrifice back a piece with 18 . . . '@lxa2 19.9hel tLleS ! 20.fxeS 0-0 21 .@d2 !±, although White's pieces remain much more active too.) 19.9hel ge8 (Black's defence is still very difficult after: 19 . . . .tf8 20 .Vlfe8+ @c7 21.Vlfxf7 '@lxa2 22 .b3 ! gd8 23 . .th3 '@laS -he would not save the game after: 23 . . . .tc8 24.@d2 ! VlfaS 2S.gal VlfbS 26.i.fl '@lb8 27 . .txa6+- and Black fails to complete his development. 24.ge8 ! and now Black loses after 24 . . . '@lxdS 2S . .tb6+ @xb6 26.gxdS hdS 27.VlfxdS gxe8 28 .hd7+­with a huge material advantage for White, as well as following: 24 . . . hdS 2S.gxd8 i.xf7 26.gxd7+ @c6 27.gxf7+- and Black can­not defend his king without great material losses .) 2 0 .gd3 '@lb5 (After 20 . . . @c7 21 .ge3 hdS 22 . i.h3 !± White regains his piece, maintaining greater piece-activ­ity.) 21.hg7 tLlc5 22.ge3 Vlfxe2 23.g1xe2 .tc8 24 • .td4 .tg4, U.Andersson - Kuijpers, Wijk aan Zee 1971 and now White's most energetic line to preserve a huge advantage seems to be: 25.hc5 he2 (After 2S . . . dxcS 26.d6 he2 27.dxe7+ gxe7 28.gxe7 @xe7 29. has+- White must win with his extra pawn.) 26 • .tb6+ @c8 27J�xe2 @b7 28.�d4 hg5!? (In case of: 28 . . . .tf8 29 . .te4±, Black's bishop remains out of ac-

l.e4 c5 2. 1t1j3 ltlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. 1t1xd4 Wib6 S. ltl b3

tion.) 29.!3xe8 .hf4+ 3 0 • .ie3 !3xe8 31 • .ixf4± and White's two bishops must be stronger than Black's rook.

b3) 7 • • • J.b4

This is the most aggressive move for Black.

8.J.d2 0 - 0 About 8 . . . eS 9 .0-0-0 0-0

1O.a3 ,hc3 1l.,hc3 - see 8 . . . 0-0. 8 . . . aS - That move only helps

White to redeploy his knight to a more active position. 9 .a3 ,hc3 1O .. bc3 a4 11.1t1d2 'WcS 12.0-0-0± L.Boer - Boer, Miskolc 1999.

After 8 . . . d6 9 . 0-0-0 0-0 10 . a3 hc3 1l.,hc3 ltleS 12 .f4;i; White has the bishop pair and excellent attacking prospects, Yagupov -Karasev, St. Petersburg 2000.

9.a3 Now, Black has two possibili­

ties - b3a) 9 • • • .ixc3 and b3b) 9 • • • .ie7.

b3a) 9 • . . .ixc3 Black is trying to seize the ini­

tiative by presenting his opponent with the two-bishop advantage.

1 0 • .ixc3 e5 1l. 0 - 0 - 0

1l • • • gd8 That is the most logical move.

Black wishes to complete his de­velopment with d7-d6, while in answer to the careless move 12 .g4? ! - he has the powerful ar­gument - 12 . . . dS !+t

11 . . .1t1eS? ! - This move enables White to bring his knight into the centre. 12 .1t1d2 Wic7 13.1t1c4 bS 14.1t1e3 [1bS lS.1t1dS 'Wb7 16.f4± K.Szabo - Gara, Hungary 2006.

After 1l . . . Wic7 12 .g4 d6 13.gS ltle8 14.h4t White maintains a powerful kingside initiative and Black's knight on eS is not only very passive, but it impedes the coordination of the rest of his pieces, Mrdja - Wohl, Cutro 2006.

11. . .d6 ! ? - This is an interest­ing pawn-sacrifice. 12 .[1xd6 ltld4 (12 . . . !e6? ! - This move looks like a blunder, because after: 13 .J.aS ltlxaS 14.[1xb6 axb6 lS.1t1xaS bxaS 16.f3±, Black's compensation for the queen is evidently insuffi­cient, Rothuis - Souleidis, Hoo­geveen 2005.) 13.,hd4 (It also deserves attention for White to try: 13J�xd4 ! ? exd4 14.hd4 'Wc6 lS.f3� with a good compensa-

39

Chapter 2

tion for the exchange.) 13 . . . �xd6 14.i.cS �c7 IS.hiB wxfB 16.f3 (16.�c4 ! ? �xc4 17.hc4 tLlxe4 IBJ�el tLld6 - IB . . . tLlxf2? 19.Elfl - 19 .i.d3 J.Shaw) i.e6 17.�bS;!; and in that position in the game A.lvanov - Yermolinsky, Seattle 2000 , the opponents agreed to a draw, although Black's compen­sation for the pawn did not seem to be good enough for equality.

ll . . . EleB - This is a rarely played move, but it is interesting and it relies on White's schematic play. After: 12 .g4 dS 13.exdS hg4 14.f3 tLld4 IS.tLlxd4 exd4 16.hd4, it seems dubious for Black to fol­low with 16 . . . �d6, because after: 17.�f2 �f4+ IB.Eld2 hf3 19.hi6 Ele4 (The endgame is clearly in favour of White after: 19 . . . �xf6 20 .i.g2 hg2 21.�xf6 gxf6 22 .Elxg2±) 20.i.g2 Ele2 21 .�d4 Ele4 (Black loses too after: 21 . . . �xd4 22 .hd4 Elxg2 23.Elxg2 hg2 24.Elgl hdS 2S.Elxg7+ wfB 26. Elxh7+-) 22 .Elfl ! ElaeB (It is very bad for Black to play: 22 . . . Elxd4 23.i.xd4 �xd2+ 24.Wxd2 hg2 2S.Elgl+-) 23.�gl ! +- and White won soon, M.Sorokin - Karasev, Blagoveshchensk 19BB, but after: 16 . . . Elxe2 17.hb6 Elxc2+ IB.Wxc2 hi3 19.i.d4, the opponents agreed to a draw in the game Amonatov - Arzumanian, Tula 2004. White's compensation for the pawn can be sufficient indeed only for a draw. Therefore, instead of the seemingly attractive move - 12 .g4? ! , it deserves attention for

40

White to continue with the more precise move 12 .wbl ! ? with the following eventual developments : 12 . . . d6 13.Elxd6 tLld4 14.Elxd4 exd4 IS.hd4 �c6 16.f3;!; and White has two pawns for the exchange and a couple of bishops, so that pro­vides him with superior chances; or 12 . . . �c7 13.g4 dS ! ? 14.exdS hg4 IS.f3 tLld4 16.hd4 exd4 17. �f2 ! �f4 IB.i.e2± and Black is faced with an unpleasant choice - to play a middle game without a pawn, or to enter an inferior end­game with: IB . . . i.hS 19.Elxd4 �e3 20.�xe3 Elxe3 21 .i.d1 hf3 22 . .b:f3 Elxf3 23.Elel WfB 24.tLlaS±, in which White's queenside pawns seem to be much more dangerous than Black's kingside pawns.

12.Eld6! That is an excellent idea.

White sacrifices the exchange, he destroys the pawn-shelter of his opponent's king, and he prevents the activization of his pieces.

It is worse for him to play 12 .g4? ! dS !?

12 • . . �c7 The placement of Black's rook

on dB precludes the line 12 . . . tLld4?? in view of 13.Elxd4 exd4 14.i.aS+-

13.Elxf6 gxf6 14.�g4+ Wh8 White's attack is very power­

ful in case of: 14 . . . wfB IS.�h4 d6 16.�xf6 i.e6 17.f4� Calzetta Ruiz - Milliet, Chisinau 200S.

15.�h4 �d6 It is very bad for Black to opt

for: lS . . . Wg7 16.i.d2 �d6 17.�h6+

l.e4 c5 2. 4:Jj3 4:Jc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. 4:Jxd4 VPlb6 S. 4:Jb3

�gB 1B.1g5 VPlfB 19.VPlxf6± and White regains the exchange, re­maining with an extra pawn.

Black's task would not be any easier if he enters the end­game after: 15 . . . d6 16.VPlxf6+ �gB 17.'%lfg5+ �hB 1B.f4 '%lfe7 19.VPlxe7 4:Jxe7 20 .fxe5 dxe5 21 .he5+ �gB 22 .1f6±, because White's two pawns and greater piece-activity is a more than sufficient compen­sation for the exchange, Nijboer - Piket, Amsterdam 2001.

16.f4

16 . . • '%lfe7 Or 16 . . J�gB (Nijboer) 17.g4 !?

'%lfe7 1B.1b5 d6 19.h3 with an ex­cellent compensation for White, for example: 19 . . . �g7 20Jm a6 21.1xc6 bxc6 22 .fxe5 dxe5 23.1b4 VPldB 24.4:Ja5 ! +- J.Shaw.

After 16 . . .l:�eB 17.1b5± White's pieces are much more active. 17 . . . '%lfe6 IB.E:dl d6 19.f5 VPle7 20 . 1b4+- and Black has failed to develop his pieces, so the game was quickly over: 20 . . . 'I&fB 21.E:d3 4:Jxb4 22 .axb4 E:dB 23.'I&xf6+ 1-0 Sax - Farkas, Hungary 2004.

17 • .tb5 ge8 It would not help Black to

try: 17 . . . d6 IB .hc6 bxc6 19 .fxe5 dxe5, because after 20 .1b4!± his defence would be tremendously difficult, for example: : 20 . . . 'I&e6 21 .4:Jc5 'l&d6 22 .4:Jd7! +- and Black cannot avoid being checkmated without huge material losses : 22 . . . '%lfxd7 23.'%lfxf6+ �gB 24.VPlg5+ �hB 25.VPlxe5+ f6 26.VPlxf6+ �gB 27.'I&g5+ White regains his mate­rial, preserving a powerful attack, or 20 . . . c5 21 .4:Jxc5 ! �g7 (Black loses too after: 21 . . .a5 22 .4:Jd7 VPlxd7 23.VPlxf6+ �gB 24.VPlg5+ �hB 25.VPlxe5+ f6 26.VPlxf6+ �gB 27.VPlg5+ �f7 2B.E:f1+ 1-0 Levi­czki - Mihok, Budapest 2007. ) 22 .4:Jd3 'l&e6 23.E:fl 1a6 24.4:Jc5 VPlc6 25.4:Jxa6 VPlxa6 26.E:f3 E:eB 27.b3 !+- and Black can hardly defend his ruined kingside with­out huge material losses .

18.E:dl d6 19.4:Ja5 1d7 2 0 . 4:Jxb7 4:Jd4

21.�d4! hb5 22.4:Jxd6+-. Now, Black loses plenty of materi­al . 22 • • • exd4 (or 22 .. .f5 23.VPlxe7 E:xe7 24.fxe5 1c6 25.exf5+-) 23.hd4 'l&xd6 24.hf6+ 'l&xf6 25. tvxf6+ �g8 26. tvg5+ @f8 27.tvxb5 gxe4 28.VPlc5+ @g8

41

Chapter 2

29.b4+- and White realized soon his material advantage in the game Adams - Knezevic, France 1997.

b3b) 9 . . . iLe7

Black goes back with his bish­op in the hope of exploiting the a3-pawn as a target on the queen­side later.

1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 d5 Now, there arise positions,

which are more typical for the French Defence.

1O . . . d6 - This move enables White to begin a massive pawn­onslaught on the kingside. 1l.g4 a6 12 .gS lLld7 13.h4 V!ic7 14.f4 bS IS.'it>bl b4 16.axb4 lLlxb4 17.fS ! E:b8 (It i s not better for Black to opt for 17 . . . lLleS? ! , Muellneritsch - Wegerer, Austria 2001 and now White's most energetic line to develop his initiative is opening files on the kingside. 18.f6 ! gxf6 19.9xf6 ixf6 20.J.h6 and Black has problems finding a good move, for example he loses after: 20 . . . E:d8 2U'lgl+ 'it>h8 22 .V!if2 V!ie7 23.V!ig3 lLlg6 24.hS+-; or 20 .. :�e7 21.�g2+ 'it>h8 22 .E:gl+-. It looks

42

like the most resilient defence for him is to complete his develop­ment with 20 . . . i.b7, but White's chances are evidently better af­ter that too : 21 .E:gl+ 'it>h8 22 .�f2 �e7 23.i.xf8 E:xf8 24.lLlaS i.a8 2S.E:xd6± Black's king has been re­liably protected, he is an exchange down, but White must play pre­cisely, since Black's dark-squared bishop is very powerful.) 18.i.f4 exfS 19.exfS lLleS 20 .i.h3 E:e8 (It is hardly better for Black to try 2 0 . . . i.b7 21.E:hfl f6 22 .i.g2±) 21 .g6 hxg6 (It is bad for Black to play 21 . . .i.f6 22 .lLle4±, but after 21 . . . fxg6 22 .fxg6 h6 23.i.xc8 E:exc8;!; he would have preserved a some­what worse, but still defensible position.) 22 .i.xeS dxeS 23 .fxg6 fxg6 24.hS i.fS? ! (That move loses quickly, but even after the more tenacious line: 24 . . . gS 2S.h6 i.f8 26.hxg7--+ White's attack is very dangerous, because Black's king is deprived of a pawn-shel­ter.) 2S.hxg6 ! ! ixh3 (2s . . . hc2+ 26.V!ixc2 ! lLlxc2 27.i.e6+ 'it>f8 28 . E:h8#) 26.E:xh3 i.gS 27.lLle4 i.f4 28.lLlbcS, 1-0 Anand - Kramnik, Mainz 2001 .

In answer to 1O . . :�c7 l1.g4 dS, Van Delft - Kurajica, Vienna 2003, it looks logical for White to continue with: 12 .gS lLlxe4 13 . lLlxe4 dxe4 14.V!ixe4;!; and he has good chances to develop his king­side initiative.

1O . . . a6 - Black does not wish to lose a tempo for the move d6, but White is faster anyway. 1l .g4

1.e4 c5 2. 0,./3 0,c6 3.d4 cxd4 4. 0,xd4 Wfb6 S. 0, b3

Vf!c7 (About 1l . . . d6 12 .h4 - see 1O . . . d6 11 .g4 a6 12 .h4.) 12 .g5 0,eB 13J!g1 b5 14J!g3 b4 15.axb4 0,xb4, Neverov - Lazarev, Sautron 2001 and here after 16J%h3 .tb7 17 . .tg2 g6 (It is considerably worse for Black to play: 17 . . JkB 1B.Wfh5 h6 19.9xh6 g6 2 0 .h7+ mhB 21.Wfa5± and White is better not only because of his extra pawn, but also because of his more active pieces .) 1B.f4 0,d6 19.f5t Black can hardly parry White's numer­ous threats in the centre and on the kingside.

n.e5 0,d7 ll . . . 0,eB - This move seems

to be more passive than 1l . . . 0,d7, therefore it is played only rarely. 12 .f4 f6, Zufic - Kurajica, Rabac 2003, here it is sensible for White to take the d4-square under con­trol with the move 13 .ie3, be­cause no matter where Black's queen retreats, White's prospects are clearly superior: 13 . . . Wfc7 (or 13 . . . Vf!dB 14.exf6 .txf6 - it is worse for Black to play 14 . . . 0,xf6 15.g4-+ and White has a powerful attack. 15.Vf!e1 0,d6 16.g4t White's king­side initiative is faster than Black's queenside counterplay.) 14.exf6 .txf6 (or 14 . . . 0,xf6 15.g4 0,a5 16. 0,xa5 Vf!xa5 17.g5 and Black's compensation for the piece is in­sufficient after 17 . . . ixa3 18.0,bl±, while in case of: 17 . . . 0,eB 18.Wfe1 .td6 19 . .td3t White's initiative on the kingside can turn into a strong attack. In addition, Black's light-squared bishop is very pas-

sive and the dark squares in his camp are vulnerable.) 15.0,b5 Wff1 16 .ic5 ie7 17.g3;\; and here White exchanges unavoidably the dark­squared bishops, which is quite advantageous for him. He ends up with a slight, but stable advan­tage.

12.f4 a6 Mulyar - Yermolinsky, Seattle

2002 . 13.ie3!? This is White's most energetic

line and GM D.Rogozenko has recommended it.

13".Vf!c7 14.Vf!h5 b5 It is dubious for Black to try

14 . . .f5, because after 15.g4-+ White's attack is very dangerous.

15.id3

15".g6 White's attack is decisive after

Black's other possibility too : 15 . . . h6 16.g4 b4 17.axb4 (The seem­ingly attaractive knight-sacrifice - 17.g5? ! , can be countered by Black with: 17 . . . ltJdxe5! 1B.fxe5 Wfxe5 and he regains his piece, remaining with two extra pawns, while White's attack is not con­vincing at all .) 17 . . . 0,xb4 1B.g5

43

Chapter 2

lUxd3+ 19.!Q{d3. Now, Black's po­sition is difficult to defend. For example after: 19 . . . aS 20 .E1g1 �hB 21.fS lUxeS 22 .f6+- Black loses. He would not save the game either after: 19 . . . hxgS 20 .i.d4 f6 21 .E1h3 fxeS 22 .�h7 �f7 23.fxeS+-; or 19 . . . �hB 2 0 .E1g1 i.b7 21 .fS ! lUxeS 22 .f6+-; 21 . . .exfS 22 .g6 i.gS 23. i.xgS fxg6 24.VNh4� and White has an extra piece and his attack is still running.

16.mt6 b4 The other possibilities are

worse for Black: 16 . . . lUb6? ! - This is a futile at­

tempt to come in front of White in the development of the attack. 17.h4 lUc4 IB.hS i.xa3 19.i.xc4 bxc4 20 .lUcS i.b4 21 .lU3e4+­Black's kingside is helpless and the cold-blooded completion of the development would not help - 16 . . . i.b7 17.h4 E1fcB IB.hS i.fB 19.VNgS i.e7 20 .�g3± and here the only way for Black to avoid opening of the h-file is the move 2 0 . . . gS ! ? , but after: 21 .lUd4 lUxd4 22 .i.xd4 h6 23.E1f1 � White pushes unavoidably f4-fS and his attack is crushing.

17.axb4 tilxb4 Black loses quickly after the

other capture - 17 . . . i.xb4? IB.h4 tile7 19.94+- and he is helpless against the threats along the h­file.

44

lS.h4 tilxd3+ 19.E1xd3 E1eS It is not better for Black to con­

tinue with: 19 . . . i.b7 20 .i.d4 E1fcB (about 20 . . . E1feB 21 .hS gS 22 .fS -see 19 . . . E1eB 20 .hS gS 21.i.d4! i.b7 22 .fS) 21.hS gS 22 .fS lUxeS 23.E1e3 f6 24.E1xeS ! +- and White's attack is decisive.

2 0 .h5 g5 (White's attack is not weaker at all after: 20 . . . i.fB 21 .VNgS ie7 22 .VNg3 gS - it is very bad for Black to opt for : 22 . . . aS 23.lUd4 lUcS 24.E1ddl +- and he has no de­fence against the threats along the h-file. 23.lUbl ! ? as 24.E1c3 VNbB 2S.lUd4+-) 21.i.d4 i.b7 22.f5 lUxe5 (After 22 . . . �hB 23 .fxe6 fxe6 24.VNxe6 i.f6 2S.VNd6±, the game goes into an endgame with an extra pawn for White; mean­while he exchanges favourably the dark-squared bishops.) 23.E1g3 ! - That is White's most energetic variation. 23 . . . f6 24.fxe6 �US 25.Etfl E1aeS 26.Etf5+- Black cannot hold simultaneously the eS and f6-squares.

l.e4 cS 2. tiJj3 tiJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. tiJxd4 Yfffb6 S. tiJb3

Conclusion We have analyzed the move 4 . . . Vfffb6 in this chapter - Black repels

White's knightfrom the centre with the idea to transpose to some ba­sic lines of the Scheveningen variation, or the Paulsen system, except that White has won a dubious tempo for the retreat of his knight away

from the centre. After the forced move S. tiJb3, Black plays either a) S . . . e6, or b) S . . . l:lJf6.

In variation a), Black does not exert pressure against the centre and therefore White can begin his actions in the centre and on the kingside after 6 . tiJc3 Yfffc7 7/4, without being afraid of the move ib4. Later, his plan includes occupation of space on the kingside according to the scheme of the Keres Attack - with the help of the pawn-advance g2-g4-gS and he usually castles long. Black's main problem is that he has no safe place for his king. On the kingside White has everything ready for his attack there. In the centre, Black's king impeded the co­ordination of his pieces, while ifhe castles long he has no counter play in sight. Meanwhile, White has active possibilities on both sides of the board.

In variation b) Black exerts immediate pressure against the cen­tre and White must play the move 7. Vfffe2!? in order to proceed with his actions in the centre and on the kingside. He prepares castling long and he fortifies his e4-pawn. After the natural moves 7 . . . ib4 8.id2 0 - 0 9.a3, Black has two possibilities: b3a) 9 . . . i.xc3 and b3b) 9 . . . ie7. In variation b3a) Black presents his opponent with the two­bishop advantage, trying to prove that White's pieces on the kingside are misplaced. Black has problems to develop his queenside however and that becomes quite obvious in the main line. White sacrifices the exchange and he destroys the pawn-shelter of Black's king having a very powerful initative. In variation b3b) Black retreats his bishop to the e7-square with the idea to exploit later the move a2-a3 as a target for his queenside attack. After 1 0 . 0-0 -0, Black's best move seems to be 1 0 . . . dS, entering a position of the type of the French Defence The wonderful idea of GM D.Rogozenko - 13.ie3 Yfffc7 14. VfffhS!? bS lS. id3 - puts under doubt the entire defensive concept by Black, since White's chances are clearly superior in a middle game with actions on both sides of the board, because of his lead in development and our analysis proves that convincingly.

45

Chapter 3 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 e5 5.�b5

5 . . . a6 After the move 5 . . . d6, that

is the second most popular line for Black. He weakens the en­tire complex of dark squares in his camp by giving up his dark­squared bishop and that involves a definite strategical risk. Still, it is not so simple for White to ex­ploit that, because he makes sev­eral moves with one and the same piece and he falls behind in devel­opment considerably.

The line : 5 . . . lLlf6 6 .lLllc3, leads to positions, which will be ana­lyzed in our next volume - see 4 . . . lLlf6 .

The other variations for Black are less reliable:

5 . . . Wa5+ 6 .lLllc3 a6 (White can counter 6 . . . lLlf6 with the prosaic reaction - 7.id2 .) 7.lLld6+ hd6

46

B.Wxd6 lLlge7 9.id2 Wb6 (or 9 . . . lLld4? W.id3+-) 10 .0-0-0 Wxf2 1l.lLld5 lLlxd5 12 .exd5 lLle7 13. Wxe5+-;

5 . . . ib4+ 6 .lLllc3 lLlf6 (In case of: 6 . . . d6 7.a3 hc3+, White has the additional possibility: B. bxc3 ! ? lLlf6 9.lLlxd6+ We7, Lischi - Gajate, Email 199B, 10 .a4±) 7.a3 ixc3+ B.lLlxc3 0-0 (That is the most logical line for Black. After the frequently played move B . . . h6, it looks interesting for White to fol­low with: 9.Wd6 ! ? We7 W.Wxe7+ lLlxe7 1l.lLlb5 wfB 12 .ie3 b6 13. lLld6 lLleB 14.0-0-0±; while in case of B . . . d6, it is good for White to opt for: 9 .ig5 ie6 10 . .hf6 gxf6 1l.lLlb5 We7, Barr - Bass, Email 199B, 12.Wd2±) 9 .ig5 h6 10.ih4 d6 (It seems too risky for Black to try 10 . . . g5 1l.ig3± Santamaria - Gajate, Email 199B, while after W . . . lLld4, Boehm - Pusch, Reck­linghausen 1994, the simplest line for White is to continue patiently with: l1.id3 d6 12 .0-0±) l1.id3 ie6 12 .0-0 EicB 13.cJihU Moura - Thew, Email 2001 - the pin is quite annoying for Black and he has no hopes of equalizing easily.

4. CiJxd4 eS S. CiJbS a6 6 . CiJd6 hd6 7. Wixd6

S . . . .icS 6 .CiJ1c3 CiJf6 (After 6 . . . a6, there arises a position from the main line, except with an extra tempo for White - 7.tLld6+ hd6 B.Wixd6 Wif6, Dombrovsky - Rud­kovsky, Nikolaev 2000, 9 .�xf6 CiJxf6 1O . .igS±) 7.CiJd6+ rJJe7 (It is not logical for Black to play: 7 . . . hd6 8.�xd6 �e7 9.Wixe7+ tLlxe7 1O . .igS± Calangi - Nakapunda, Moscow 1994.) B .CiJfS+ rJJfB and here it is interesting for White to test a line, which has never been played in practice - 9.CiJe3 ! ? - he thus defends against some pos­sible counter strikes for Black like d7-dS and he simply wishes to complete his development. Mean­while, Black's king is stranded in the centre and he can hardly co­ordinate his pieces. There might follow: 9 . . . .ib4 1O . .id3 d5 11.exd5 tLlxdS 12 .tLlexdS �xdS 13.0-0 hc3 14.bxc3 .ie6 1S.!'!b1 !'!dB 16. !'!xb7 e4 17 . .ie2 �xa2 1B .�el±, or 1O . . . hc3+ 11 .bxc3 d6 12. 0-0;t;

S . . . h6 6 .tLl1c3 tLlf6 (White is threatening 7.tLldS, while in case of 6 . . . a6, the purposefulness of the move h7-h6 is rather ques­tionable: 7.tLld6+ hd6 B.�xd6 and here Black's position is ac­ceptable neither after: B . . . tLlge7, Samborska - Sliczna, Wisla 2000, 9 . .ie3 0-0 10 .0-0-0+-, nor af­ter B . . . tLlf6 9.�e3 �e7, Davydov - Strozewski, Germany 1995, 10 . .icS±, or B . . . �f6, Daniel - Thu­nold, corr. 1952, 9.�c7 - Here, I believe that White should strive for more than just an advantage

in the endgame - 9 . . . CiJge7 1O . .ie3 CiJd4 11 .0-0-0 0-0 12.f4 d6 13. �b6 CiJec6 14.fS±) 7.CiJd6+ hd6 B.�xd6 Wie7 (After B . . . �b6, White follows with: 9 . .id2 ! �d4 10.Wixd4 tLlxd4 11 .0-0-0± Jasnikowski - Zoltek, Zielona Gora 19B2, while in case of B . . . a6, it is quite unpleasant for Black if White con­tinues with : 9 . .ie3 �e7 10 . .ic5± Knuth - Dittrich, Mecklenburg 199B.) 9 .�xe7+ Wxe7 1O . .ie3 d6 11.f3 .ie6 12 .0-0-0 !'!hdB (White's plan remains practically the same irrelevant of Black's response - he starts a pawn-of­fensive on the kingside: 12 . . . !'!adB, Hedenstroem - Lucena, Skelleftea 1999, 13.g4 dS 14 . .ic5+ rJJeB 1S.exdS .ixd5 16 . .ie2;t; 12 . . . !'!acB, Hamdouchi - Shaw, Caleta 2005, 13.g4;t; 12 . . . !,!hcB 13.g4 CiJb4 14.a3 CiJa2+ 15. CiJxa2 ha2 16 .h4± Gaprindashvili - Dzindzichash­vili, Gori 196B; 12 . . . a6 13.g4 and the game suddenly transposes to the main line - see the move 9 . . . h6 in line b) 13.h4 (That is the precise reaction. The move 13 .g4 only creates unnecessary weak­nesses, but it looks like White can maintain his advantage with energetic play: 13 . . . d5 14 . .icS+ rJJeB 15.CiJbS, Hutya - Metal, corr. 1994, 15 . . . !'!d7 16.h4 dxe4 17.g5 tLlh5 1B.tLld6+ !'!xd6 19.!'!xd6 exf3 20 .!'!gl±) 13 . . . d5 (After 13 . . . tLlhS, White can play the patient move 14.�f2;t, restricting the mobility of Black's knight. ) 14 . .ic5+ WeB 15.CiJb5 b6 16.CiJc7+ rJJd7 17.tLlxd5

47

Chapter 3

and White remains with an extra pawn.

6)2Jd6+ hd6 7.%bd6

Black has tried numerous moves here, but two of them are the most important: a) 7 . . . VlJe7 and b) 7 • • . VlJf6.

We must also pay some more attention to the line: 7 . . . llJf6 8.llJc3 VlJe7. Now, White can play 9 .'!Wd1 -see variation a), but after that or­der of moves, it deserves attention for him to opt for: 9 .V!Jxe7+ llJxe7 (It is evidently in favour of White if Black plays : 9 . . . �xe7 10.,tg5± Hora - Hromada, Prague 1966.) 10.,tg5 b5 (otherwise Black might get crushed right in the opening) 11 .0-0-0 i.b7 12 .f3 - White is clearly better, because of his bish­op pair and Black's compromised pawn-structure, for example: 12 . . . i.c6 (Black has played more often here 12 .. J''k8, but he has problems castling, since his pawn on d7 is under attack, White can follow simply with 13.a3±) 13.a3 0-0 14.g3± Sherzer - Strenzwilk, Philadelphia 1992 .

The other possibilities for Black hardly deserve any attention:

48

7 .. . b5, Bryson - Pothin, Ma­nila 1992, 8 .i.e3 Vfie7 9 .i.c5 V!Jxd6 10 .,txd6 i.b7 11 .a4 b4 12 .llJd2 llJge7 13.ttJc4±;

7 . . . V!Ja5+ 8.llJc3 llJge7 9.i.d2 llJd4 10.i.d3+- Karvinen - Bar­reira, Internet 2003 ;

7 . . . llJge7 8 .llJc3 0-0 9.i.e3± Feger - Miller, Manila 1992 .

It also seems too risky for him to try something in the spirit of the King's Gambit: 7 .. .f5 8 .llJc3 V!Jf6 9.V!Jd1 llJge7 1O .exf5 0-0 (It is not better for Black to try: 10 . . . d5 11.llJxd5 llJxd5 12.Vfixd5 i.xf5 13.c3 E!d8 14.Vfic5± Gross - Kon­drak, Austria 2003, or 10 . . . Vfixf5, Fragakis - Kekatos, Greece 2002 , 11.i.d3±) 11.i.c4+ �h8 12 .0-0 V!Jxf5 13 .,te3 bS 14.i.d3 V!Je6 1S.,te4 i.b7 16.i.cS llJaS 17.Vfid6± Lanka - Kondrak, Zillerta1 1997.

a) 7 • . • VlJe7

8.%Ml Now, White has numerous

possibilities, just like in the line with 7 . . . V!Jf6, but I think that the best for him is this modest retreat. If we ignore the tactical nuances, the set-up with Vfie7-llJf6 seems to

4.t:iJxd4 eS S. 0.bS a6 6 . 0.d6 hd6 7. Wixd6

be more harmonious than Wff6-0.e7 and White should play very precisely to maintain his advan­tage. We will have a look in short at Black's alternatives :

8.Wic7 dS ! (Black exploits the unprotected queen of his oppo­nent and he thus obtains a great lead in development.) 9.Wixe7+ 0.gxe7 10 .exdS 0.xdS Il.c3 �e6 and White had to fight for equal­ity in the game Nemec - Maslik, Hlohovec 1996;

8 .Wid2 0.f6 9 .0.c3 0-0 lO .�d3 (In case of lO .b3, Black can follow with the immediate move 10 . . . bS.) lO . . . d6 11 .0.dS (or 11 .0-0 �e6, fol­lowed by b7-bS) 1l . . . 0.xdS I2.exdS e4 13.�e2 0.eS 14. 0-0 �g4, with a good game for Black, Ploenes - Schulze, corr. 1996;

8.Wid3 (White's queen comes under attack on this square.) 8 . . .

0.f6 9.0.c3 dS (It is also possible for Black to continue with 9 . . . 0.b4 lO .Widl, Petrov - Karayan­nis, Ermioni Argolidas 200S and lO . . . dS Il .a3 d4 with an excellent game for him.) 10 .0.xdS (Similar­ly, in case of: lO.�gS dxe4 11.0.xe4 Vffh4+ 12 .0.c3 �fS ! Black's pieces become tremendously active, van Leeuwen - Klundt, Gent 2000.) lO . . . 0.xdS 1l .exdS 0.d4 (Black is threatening - 12 . . . �f5.) 12 .Wid2 (or 12 .Widl Wih4 13.�d3 �g4 ! 14.Wfd2 �f3) 12 . . . �h3 and White is forced to comply with a draw - 13.0-0 �xg2 14.<;t>xg2 Wig4+.

Finally, in the variation: 8.Wixe7+ 0.gxe7 9 .0.c3 dS 10.exdS

0.b4 11 .�d3, thanks to the place­ment of his knight on e7, Black has the resource - 1l . . . �fS, equal­izing.

8 . . • 0.f6 About 8 . . . h6 9 .0.c3 0.f6 10 .�e3

- see 8 . . . 0.f6 . The other moves for Black are

rather dubious : 8 . . . Wib4+ 9.0.c3 0.ce7 (about

9 . . . 0.f6 - see 9 . . . Wib4 in the notes to the main line) lO .a3 WicS ll.�e3 Wfc7 12 .Wig4 g6 13.Wih4± Brustkern - Skorna, Germany 1992 ;

8 . . . bS 9 .0.c3 i.b7 (about 9 . . . 0.f6 lO .�gS - see 8 . . . 0.f6) lO .a4 b4 (or lO . . . 0.d4 1l .axbS axbS 12 . �xa8+ has 13.hbS 0.xbS 14. 0.xbS Wib4+ IS.0.c3 0.f6 16.0-0 0-0 17.�el �c8 18 .f3± Bley -Brennecke, Email 2004) 1l .0.dS Wid6 12 .�e3 0.f6 13.0.b6 Wfxdl+ 14.�xdl �d8 1S.f3±Abreu - Carde­nas, Guines 1997;

8 . . . d6 9.0.c3 �e6 lO.0.dS hdS 1l.exdS 0.b8 12 .Wig4 0.f6 (in case of I2 .. .f6, Laird - Lach, corr. 1982, it would be quite unpleasant for Black if White plays the simple line: 13.�d3 g6 14.Wic8+ <;t>t7 IS. �h6+-) 13.Wixg7 �g8 14.Wih6 0.bd7 IS.i.gS �g6 16.Wih4 0-0-0 17.0-0-0 �dg8 18.hf6 0.xf6 19. g3 <;t>b8 20 .�e2 and Black's com­pensation for the pawn is insuffi­cient, van der Wiel - Stripunsky, Wijk aan Zee 1996;

8 . . .fS 9 .0.c3 0.f6 (It is bad for Black to play: 9 . . . fxe4 lO.0.dS Wid6 1l.i.e3 0.f6 12 .0.b6 Wixdl + 13.�xdl �b8 14.�c4± van der Wiel - The-

49

Chapter 3

otokatos, Katerini 1992.) lO.i.gS Wifl (It is too dangerous for Black to try: 10 . . . 0-0, Shabalov - Fell­er, Torcy 1991, l1 .ltJdS WicS 12 . i.e3 1WaS+ 13.c3 fxe4 14.ltJb6 �b8 IS.a3+- and White traps the ene­my queen, or 13 . . . ltJxdS 14.1WxdS+ 1WxdS IS.exdS ltJd8 16.f4± with a clear edge for White in the end­game.) 11.i.xf6 (It is also interest­ing for White to opt for the sharp­er line - l1.exfS !? , and then: 11 . . . ltJd4 12 .i.xf6 gxf6 13.g4 hS 14.ltJe4 1We7 lS.c3 dS 16.ltJg3 h4 17.ltJhS �xhS 18.gxhS ltJxfS 19.WixdS i.e6 2 0.1Wdl gd8 21.Wic2+-) 11 . . .Wixf6, Sklavounos - Karapanos, Patras 2000, 12 .i.c4±

9.ltJc3

9 . . . h6 The alternatives for Black are: 9 . . . Wib4 10.a3 WiaS (or 10 . . . Wid4

11.i.e3 1Wxdl + 12 .�xdl 0-0, Czako - Pota, Fuzesabony 1995, 13 .ib6± and Black is totally squeezed.) l1.id2 Wic7, Leopold - Daechert, Bad Homburg 2004, 12 .igS±;

9 . . . ltJd4 lO .ie3 WicS, Pillhock - J.Peres, corr. 1994, 11.1Wd2 dS 12 .0-0-0 and White maintains a clear advantage in the endgame:

50

12 . . . ltJxe4 (or 12 . . . dxe4 13.i.xd4 exd4 14.Wixd4 Wixd4 lS.�xd4 if 5 16.ic4 0-0 17.ltJdS±) 13.tt:lxe4 dxe4 14.i.xd4 exd4 IS.Wixd4 Wixd4 16.�xd4 fS 17.ic4 id7 18.�hdl ic6 19.�d6±;

9 . . . 0-0 10 .igS 1We6 (The other ways for Black to get rid of the pin are less effective - lO . . . h6? l1.ltJdS+- ; lO . . . tt:ld4 11.tt:ldS WicS 12 .i.xf6 tt:lxc2+ 13.�d2 ltJxal 14.Wig4, Thayer - Phillips, Email 1999, 14 . . . Wic2+ lS.�e3 Wic1+ 16. �f3 Wih6 17.id3±; lO . . . Wib4 11. ixf6, J.Garcia - Castano, Gi­jon 1994, 11 . . .Vfixb2 12 .tt:ldS gxf6 13.id3 �h8 14.0-0 gg8 IS.�abl Wia3 16.WihS �g6 17.f4±) 11.id3 h6 12 .ih4 ltJd4 13 .0-0 bS, Phythyon - Koloskov, Email 2002 , 14.f4 exf4 IS.eS 1WxeS 16.�el WicS (but not 16 . . . Wid6 17.ie4 �b8 18.ixf6 gxf6 19.1tJdS+-) 17.i.xf6 gxf6 18. ltJe4 1WeS 19.c3 tt:lfS (In case of 19 . . . ltJe6, Black can hardly coor­dinate his pieces - 2 0.ltJd6 ! WicS+ 21 .�hlt) 20 .Wig4+ �h8 21 .Wih3 �g7 22 .ltJf2 ltJe3 23.ltJg4 WigS 24. ltJxe3 fxe3 2S.gxe3 dS 26.Wig3 (It is also possible for White to play 26 .Wif3, but he has no reasons to avoid the endgame - he has a stable advantage, due to Black's terrible pawn-structure.) 26 . . . hS 27.Wif2 h4 28.�f3 ig4 29 .gf4 h3 30 .g3 �fe8 31 .�fl;!;;

9 . . . bS lO .igS Wie6, Brent - Bryan, corr. 1978 (But not lO . . . h6 11.tt:ldS+- Lejeune - Lanciers, Ludison 1996. It has also been tested for Black the line: lO . . .

4. 0.xd4 e5 5. 0.b5 a6 6 . 0.d6 hd6 7. Vffxd6

Vffb4 11.ixf6 gxf6 12 .id3 0.d4, Maunrey - Tempelhoff, COIT.

1987, 13.Vffd2 ib7 14. 0-0-0 �g8 15.Vffh6;1; - and Black has prob­lems protecting his weak pawns.) 1l.id3 (White would not achieve anything much after: 1l.a4 b4 12 .0.dS 0.xd5 13.exdS Vffg6.) 11 . . . ib7 12 .0-0 0.e7 13.a3 0-0 14.Vfff3 h6 1S.ixf6 Vffxf6 16. Vffxf6 gxf6 17.f4;1;;

9 . . . d6 1O.igS ie6 11.0.dS ixdS (It is weaker for Black to play 11 . . . Vffd8, Mosi - Koloskov, Email 2002 , 12 .ixf6 gxf6 13.c3 fS 14.exfS ixfS 1S .id3 ie6 16.ie4±) 12 .exdS 0.b8 (It is worse for Black to try: 12 . . . 0.d4 13.c3 0.fS, Diaz - Ple­chaty, Benasque 2000, 14.id3±, or 12 . . . 0.a7 13 .ie2 h6 14.ie3 0-0 1S.0-0 bS 16.Vffd2 0.h7 17.a4± Grazinys - Moore, Email 1997.) 13.c4 h6 (The order of moves is not so important. The arising posi­tions are more or less the same af­ter: 13 . . . 0.bd7 14.i.e2 0-0 1S.0-0 as 16.b3 b6 17.Vffc2 �a7 18.�ae1 h6 19.ie3 Elc7 20 .Vffdl±, followed by f2-f4, P .Popovic - Z.Nikolic, Bel­grade 1992.) 14.ie3 0-0 15.ie2 0.bd7 16 .0-0 0.h7, Tarantino -Monteiro, COIT. 1995 (or 16 . . . Elac8 17.b4 0.e8 18.Elc1 f5, Mossakowski - Kloninger, Bad Zwesten 1999, 19.f4;1;) 17.Vffd2 f5 18.f4. White's position is evidently preferable. He has the bishop pair and good prospects to advance his pawn­mass on the queenside. There might follow: 18 . . . gS (or 18 . . . exf4 19.ixf4 0.g5 20 .id3 0.e4 21.ixe4

fxe4 22 .ElaeU) 19.fxeS 0.xeS 20 . i.d4 f4 2 1.Elae1 0.f6 22 .b3;1; - with initiative for White.

1 0 .i.e3 d6 It hardly deserves too much at­

tention for Black to try: 10 . . . Vfib4 1l.a3 Vffe7 (after 1l . . . Vffxb2? 12 . 0.a4, Black's queen gets trapped, Meshcheriakova Weingart­ner, Zalakaros 1995) 12 .Vffd2 bS? ! 13 .b4 ! d6 14.Eldl± Marcia - Grecescu, Timisoara 1999.

Black can also change the or­der of moves with the idea to push d7-dS at once, but if White reacts correctly - that is not going to happen:

10 . . . bS 1l.Vffd2 ib7 12 . 0-0-0 Elc8 13.f3 0-0 14.Vffd6 Vffd8 - That situation was reached by trans­position in the game Volokitin - Klundt, Mainz 2006 and here it deserved attention for White to try: 1S.0.dS 0.xdS 16.exd5 0.d4 17.i.d3 Ele8 18.@bl±;

10 . . . 0-0 1l.Vffd2 b5 12 . 0-0-0 (It is also possible for White to opt for: 12.f3 i.b7 13.0-0-0 Elac8 14.Vffd6 - see 10 . . . bS.) 12 . . . Vffe6 13.f3 0.e7 14.ic5 Eld8 1S.Vffd6+­Svidler - Maze, Noyon 200S.

11.Vffd2 i.e6 It is bad for Black to play:

11 . . . 0-0, Konnyu - Pota, Eger 1998, 12.0-0-0 �d8 13.i.b6 Eld7 14.i.c4±

12. 0 - 0 - 0 gd8 Similar positions are reached

after 12 . . . 0-0-0, but then Black must worry about the unsafe shelter of his king, besides his other problems - 13 .i.b6 Eld7

S1

Chapter 3

14.4:Jd5 i.xd5 (or 14 . . .'�f8 15.f3 hd5 16.exd5 4:Je7 17.\llVa5 4:Jfxd5? 18J:!xd5+- Balinov - Vatter, Dres­den 2000) 15.exd5 4:Jd4 16J:!e1 4:Jf5? ! 17.1Wa5 4:Je8 18.ib5+- Ren­ner - F.Roeder, Vorra 1990.

13 • .tb6 �d7 14.ltJd5 .ixd5 15.exd5

15 • • • 4:JbS, Klundt - F.Roeder, Augsburg 1987 (In case of 15 . . . 4:Jd8, C.Lopez - Elissalt, Guines 1998, White's pawn-offensive on the kingside is quite effective -16.f3 0-0 17.g4±) 16.ie2 0 - 0 17.g4± - Black's pieces are totally misplaced and he can hardly or­ganize any counterplay whatso­ever.

b) 7 • • . �f6

52

This move simplifies the posi­tion; nevertheless it is quite logi­cal and popular too . In case White retreats his queen, he presents his opponent with additional tempi. Black would then lead in devel­opment and he would manage to compensate the defects of his position. See some examples on that subject : 8 .1Wd2 4:Jge7 9 .4:Jc3 d6 1O.b3 0-0 1l .ib2 ie6 12 .4:Jd5 1Wh4 13.4:Jxe7+ 4:Jxe7 14.id3 d5 15.1We3 d4 16 .1Wg3 �xg3 17.hxg3 4:Jc6= Leko - Vallejo Pons, Lina­res 2005, or 8 .1Wd1 �g6 9 .4:Jc3 4:Jge7 1O .h4 h5 1l .ig5 d5 12 .exd5 4:Jd4 13 .id3 if5 14.i.xf5 4:Jdxf5 15.1Wd3 f6 16.ie3 1Wg4 17.g3 4:Jxe3 18.1Wxe3 gd8 19.9d1 0-0 20 .0-0 4:Jf5 21.1We4 4:Jd4 and White fails to protect his c2-pawn, Efimenko - Vallejo Pons, Khanty-Mansyisk 2005.

White consolidates his advan­tage with the move in the text and he implies that he is reluctant to complicate the fight. He wishes to exploit his edge in the endgame and the arising positions are rath­er unpleasant for Black. He has no chances to seize the initiative and he is faced with a long and la­borious defence.

S . . . 4:Jxf6 9.ltJc3 Here, Black's most principled

lines are - bl) 9 • • . d5 and b2) 9 • • • 4:Jb4.

His other possibilities do not create any problems for White -he completes calmly his develop­ment maintaining his advantage:

4 .tlJxd4 e5 5.tlJ b5 a6 6 . ttJd6 hd6 7. '&xd6

9 . . . bS 1O.ie3 0-0 11.0-0-0 ib7 12 .f3± Herrmann - Quern­heim, Koerbecke 2000 ;

9 . . . 0-0 1O .igS (It i s also pos­sible to play - 1O.ie3 bS 11.f3 - see 9 . . . bS.) 1O . . . ttJd4 (Black has great problems after his other moves too : 1O . . . d6 11 .0-0-0 l:'ld8, Zupanc - Semrl , Slovenia 1996, 12 .ttJdS+-; 1O . . . bS 11.h:f6 gxf6 12.ttJdS <±>g7, Hartwig - E.Kim, Detroit 1994, 13 .0-0-0±; 10 . . . ttJe8 11 .ttJdS± Mariani - Vlaar, Email 2003 . ) 11 .id3 bS (It is pos­sibly more reliable for Black to try: 11 . . . d6 12 .h:f6 gxf6 13.ttJdS <±>g7 14.c3 ttJc6 1S.ttJb6 l:'lb8 16.f4t) 12 .hf6 gxf6 13 .ttJdS <±>g7, Ciru­zzi - Vande Linde, Buenos Aires 2002 , 14.c3 ttJe6 IS.0-0-0 ib7 16.ttJe3± - and Black has no com­pensation for the chronical de­fects of his pawn-structure.

9 . . . d6 1O .ie3 ie6 11 .0-0-0 l:'ld8 (In case of 11 . . . 0-0-0, the fight might continue in the fol­lowing fashion: 12 .ib6 l:'ld7 13.f3 dS 14.exdS ttJxdS IS.ttJxdS l:'lxdS 16.l:'lxdS hdS 17.id3 ie6 - Black protects against the check from the fS-square, which would have taken his king even farther away from the centre - 18 .a3 hS I9.h4t) 12 .ie2 (White can also play the calm move - 12.f3t) 12 . . . bS, Kac­marcik - Cerveny, Plzen 1995, 13.a4 ! ? b4 14.ttJdS ttJxe4 (or 14 . . . h:dS IS.exdS ttJe7 16.ixa6 ttJexdS 17.igS h6 18.ixf6 ttJxf6 19.f4 <±>e7 20 .l:'lhel l:'la8 2 1.ibS <±>e6 22 .l:'ld4±) IS.h:a6 <±>d7 16.ibSt;

9 . . . ttJd4 1O .id3 bS 11.ie3 (It is not so clear after: 11 .igS ib7 12.ixf6 gxf6 13.ttJdS ixdS 14. exdS b4 and White cannot ex­ploit the precarious situation of Black's knight on d4.) 11 . . . ib7 (or 11 . . . 0-0, Vos van Zalingen - Bak­kes, Haarlem 1999, 12 . f3±) 12 .f3 ttJe6 13.0-0-0 0-0 14.l:'lheU;

9 .. . h6 1O .ie3 d6 (White should continue in a similar fashion against Black's other moves as well. That is - "central strategy", combined with gradual advance of his kingside pawns, for exam­ple: 1O . . . bS, Riek - Czekalski, Germany 1999, 11 .0-0-0 ib7 12. f3±) 11. 0-0-0 <±>e7 (1l . . . ttJg4 12. ib6 ttJd4 13.l:'ld2 ie6 14.h3±) 12.f3 ie6 (or 12 . . . bS I3.h4 ie6 14.g4 b4 IS.ttJa4 hS 16.gS ttJd7 17.l:'lh2t) 13 .g4 bS 14.h4 ttJaS, Mednis -Lombardy, New York 1969, 15. l:'lh2 ttJc4 16.hc4 ixc4 17.l:'lhd2±

bl) 9 . . . d5 lO .exd5 tLlb4 11. id3

11 . . . tLlxd3+ It is clearly worse for Black

to play: 1l . . . h6 12 .0-0 0-0 13. l:'lel l:'le8 14.f4 tLlxd3 IS.cxd3 exf4

S3

Chapter 3

16.E1xe8+ lLlxe8 17.hf4 i.fS 18. E1e1 hd3 19.E1e7 bS 20 .d6 E1d8 21 .d7 lLlf6 22 .lLldS lLlxd7 23 .i.c7+­Mohrlok - Ditt, Beverwijk 1963, or 11 . . . 0-0 12.i.gS e4 13.a3 exd3 14.axb4 dxc2 1S.!xf6 gxf6 16.md2 i.fS 17.g4 i.g6 18.f4 fS 19.9S E1ac8 20 .mxc2 E1c4 21 .E1hf1+- Haba - Tomczak, Germany 1991.

Black's most reasonable alter­native here is : 11 . . . lLlfxdS 12 .lLlxdS lLlxdS 13 .i.d2, but White main­tains a stable advantage with his couple of powerful bishops :

13 . . .fS 14.0-0-0 0-0, R.Rodri­guez - A. Fernandez, Oviedo 2003, lS.i.c4 i.e6 16.i.c3±;

13 . . . i.d714.0-0-0 0-0 lS.E1he1 E1fe8 16.c4 ! ? (This move preserves the two bishops for White. His edge is not so great after: 16.i.e4 i.c6 17.i.gS lLlb4 18 .hc6 lLlxc6 19.E1d7 f6 2 0 .i.e3 bS 21.E1ed1 E1ed8 22 .i.b6 E1xd7 23.E1xd7 E1c8 24.a3± Kauzky - Jumabekov, Goa 2006.) 16 . . . E1ac8 17.b3 bS 18.mb2 lLlf6 19 . i.c3 e4 20 .i.e2±;

13 . . . 0-0 14.0-0-0 i.e6 (about 14 . . . E1e8 lS.E1he1 i.d7 16.c4 - see 13 . . . i.d7; 14 . . . ctJe7 lS.E1he1 lLlc6 16.i.c3 E1e8 17.i.e4 f6, O.Schmidt - Feller, Trier 2002 , 18.E1d6 mfS 19.E1edl±) lS.E1he1 ctJf4, Levene -Freeman, Brighton 19S4 (but not lS .. .f6 16.f4± Imperor - Pierrard, Email 2000) 16.i.e4! E1fbS 17.i.f3 lLlg6 lS.i.b4± - White's bishops are free for action now and they will break Black's defence apart;

13 . . . i.e6 - That is obviously the most reliable plan for Black, but

S4

still it remains difficult for him to obtain an acceptable position: 14.0-0-0 0-0-0 (about 14 . . . 0-0 lS.E1he1 - see 13 . . . 0-0 14.0-0-0 i.e6; 14 . . .f6 lS.i.aS lLle7 16.i.e4 lLlc6 17.i.b6 E1cS, Coelho - Oliv­encia, Brazil 2003, lS.E1he1 mf7 19.E1d6 E1heS 20 .b3±; in case of1S . . . E1bS, Black loses a pawn: 16.i.e4 lLle7 17.hb7± Short - Tomczak, Germany 1990) lS.E1he1 lLlf4 (It is worse for Black to try: lS .. .f6 16 .c4 lLle7 17.i.aS E1d4 lS.b3 i.fS 19.i.f1 E1xd1+ 20 .E1xdl±) 16.i.f1 (It is advisable for White to preserve the two-bishop advantage. He has only a slight edge in case of: 16.hf4 exf4, R.Byrne - Sosonko, Reykjavik 19S0, 17.E1eS±) 16 . . . lLlg6 17.a4 E1d4 lS.aS E1hdS 19.i.e3 E1xd1 + 20 .E1xd1 E1xd1 + 21. mxdU

12.cxd3

12 • • • i.f5 White's advantage is consid­

erable after Black's other moves too :

12 . . . bS 13 .i.gS b4 (That attempt to chase White's knight ends bad­ly for Black. It is even less logical for him to opt for: 13 . . . 0-0, Hara­simovic - Travnicek, Czech Re-

4. 0,xd4 eS S. 0, bS a6 6 .0,d6 il.xd6 7. Wfxd6

public 1997, 14 . .b:f6 gxf6 15.f4±) 14 . .b:f6 gxf6 15.0,e4 f5, Socha -Skrochocka, Wisla 2000, 16.0,d6+ We7 17.0,c4 f6 18.f4±;

12 . . . h6 - Black manages to preserve the flexibility of his pawn-structure, but he pays a too dear price for that. He fails to regain his pawn and to obtain a sufficient compensation for it: 13 .0-0 i.f5 14J�e1 0-0-0 15.l'!xe5 .b:d3 16.i.f4± Kotronias - Mour­outis, Corinthos 1997.

13.i.g5 hd3 In case of 13 . . . 0-0, White

keeps his extra pawn - 14 . .b:f6 gxf6 15. wd2± Furlan - Markun, Slovenia 2002 .

14.l3d1 i.b5 14 . . . i.f5 (It is about the same

after: 14 . . . i.g6 15.i.xf6 gxf6 16.f4±) 15 . .b:f6 gxf6 16.f4 0-0-0 17. 0-0 e4, Bellini - Bressi, Lombardia 1991, 18.Wf2±. Black's defence remains very difficult, because of his passive pieces and compro­mised pawn-structure.

15.hf6 gxf6 16.llJe4± De Firmian - Hreinsson, Gausdal 1999 - Black loses at least a pawn here.

b2) 9 . . . llJb4

Black exploits the possibility to introduce disharmony in his opponent's set-up, since it is not good for White to play 1O.Wd1, due to 1O . . . 0,g4.

1 0 .Wd2 It seems attractive for White

to play 1O .i.d3, with the idea to transpose to the lines, which we have analyzed in variation - b1, but in that case Black obtains a relatively comfortable game af­ter: 1O . . . b5 ! 1l.i.g5 i.b7 - with the idea to force White to lose time on the move a2-a3.

1 0 . . . d6 Black wishes to complete his

development and to prepare later - d6-d5.

It seems too slow for him to try 1O . . . h6, Agayeva - Kashlin­skaya, Spain 2002 , 11 .b3 d5 (The attempt to preserve the knight on the b4-square with : 1l . . . d6 12 .i.a3 as, leads to the weakening of the b5-square and White can exploit that immediately with: 13.f3 0-0 14.lLlb5 l'!d8 15.c3 lLlc6 16.We3 d5 17.lLlc7 l'!b8 18.0,xd5 lLlxd5+ 19.exd5 l'!xd5 20 .i.d3±) 12 .i.a3 d4

55

Chapter 3

13.hb4 dxc3+ 14.i>e3 1e6 15.f3± Following: 10 .. . 0-0 11.f3 d6,

White again obtains a superior position with: 12 .a3 ttJc6 13.i>e1 h6 14.1e3 1e6 15Jld1 ElfdB, Trapl - Vokac, Trnava 19BO (15 . . . EladB 16.1b6 Eld7, Pieri - Cecconi, Mon­tecatini Terme 1994, 17.ttJa4 ttJe7 1B.c4;!;) 16.1b6 Eld7 17.ttJa4 ttJe7 1B.c4;!;. The point is that if Black does not change the structure of the position, it will be tremen­dously difficult for him to equal­ize, since White would remain with a bishop pair and a better pawn-structure.

Tournament practice has shown that Black can hardly equalize after the standard pawn­break for that system: 10 . . . d5 11.a3 d4 12 .axb4 dxc3+ 13.i>e3 ! Now, White obtains the advantage easi­ly after: 13 . . . 0-0 14.f3 1e6 15.bxc3 ElacB, Lukinov - Maslik, Pardubi­ce 1999, 16 .b5 axb5 17.hb5 Elxc3+ 1B.1d3±, or 13 . . . 1e6 14.f3 ElcB, G.Kuzmin - Lindberg, Chalkidiki 2002 , 15 .b5± - Black is in trouble, because of his vulnerable b7-pawn and White's powerful bishops.

White's task is much easier af­ter: 13 . . . cxb2 14.hb2.

56

There has been tried here : 14 . . . ttJg4+ 15.i>f3 f5 (After

15 . . . 0-0? Black remains a pawn down - 16 .h3+- Kodric - Stu­bljar, Skofja Loka 1997.) 16 .exf5 hf5 17.h3 e4+ 1B.i>e2 ttJf6 19.c4± - White thus deprives his oppo­nent's knight of the d5-square, emphasizing the displacement of Black's pieces, which are ham­pered by his own e4-pawn;

14 . . . ttJd7, Mrochen - Gaviria, Internet 2004 - Black remains hopelessly behind in development after that. 15 .1e2 i>e7 16.Elhd1 b6 17.b5 as 1B .1a3+ i>eB 19.Eld6±;

14 . . . 0-0 - This move also en­ables White to reach his optimal set-up: 15.f3 ttJd7 (or 15 . . . EleB, Letelier - Ader, Chili 1961, 16 .1e2 and Black has difficulties complet­ing his development - White can counter 16 . . . 1d7 with 17.Ela5 b5 1B.Elhal +-) 16.1e2 EleB 17.Elhd1 ttJfB 1B.1b5+- Dominguez - Gil­lani, Calvia 2004;

14 . . . 1e6 15.Ela5 (White plans to push b4-b5; while in case of: 15.f3 ttJd7, followed by i>c7 and ElhcB, Black manages to coordi­nate his pieces .) 15 . . . 0-0, Pribea­nu - M.Mueller, Mondariz 2003 (Black cannot change anything much with : 15 . . . ttJg4+ 16.i>f3 f6 17.b5 ElcB 1B.1d3 axb5 19.Elxb5 Elc7 20 .h3 ttJh6 21 .Elbl± Van Beek - Slaa, Hengelo 1996, or 15 . . . i>e7 16.1d3 ElhcB 17.b5 axb5 1B.Elxb5±) 16.1d3 ElfcB 17.Elhal±;

It looks like Black's most tena­cious defence here is : 13 . . . ttJg4+

4.tiJxd4 e5 5. ltJ b5 a6 6 .ltJd6 hd6 7,Viixd6

14.@e2 and later: 14 . . . f5? ! - Practice has shown

that Black is not better prepared for such type of action than his opponent: 15.bxc3 fxe4 (In case of 15 . . . ltJf6, White remains with a solid extra pawn - 16J':ia5 ltJxe4 17.f3 ltJd6 18J':ixe5+ @t7 19.@f2± Velimirovic - Ristic, Skender Vakuf 1980, while after 15 . . . 0-0, he maintains a clear advantage with the paradoxical variation: 16.@e1! fxe4 17.h3 ltJf6 18.ic4+ @h8, van Kerkhof - Bloemhard, Dieren 2006, 19.1":ia5 id7 20.l":ixe5 l":iac8 21 .ib3 l":ixc3 22 .ib2±) 16.h3 ltJf6 17.l":ia5 b5 18.c4 id7, Balaban - Savic, Jahorina 2000, 19.@e3 @f7 20.ib2 l":ihc8 21.ixe5 bxc4 22 .ie2 ib5 23.l":idl± - Black's po­sition is abundant with numerous weaknesses;

14 . . . ie6 1S.bxc3 ic4+ 16.@e1 ixf1 17.@xf1 l":ic8, Hauchard - Le­hericey, Chanak 1989, 18.f3 ltJf6 19.id2 @e7 20 .@e2;!;, followed by b4-bS;

14 . . . cxb2 ls.hb2 ie6 (In case of: 1S .. .f6 16.f3 ltJh6 17.@e3 ie6 18.c4 l":ic8, Martin - van Wranken, corr. 1988, it deserves attention for White to continue with: 19.cS ltJt7 20 .bS ! ? l":ixc5 21.bxa6 bxa6 22 .l":ixa6 and despite the simplifi­cations, Black has problems com­pleting his development.) 16 .h3 l":ic8 17.l":ic1 ltJf6 18.@e3 ltJd7 19.c4 f6, Medvegy - Ledger, Gibraltar 2003, 20 .ie2;!; - White plans to penetrate with his rook to the d6-square and Black has difficulties

countering that - his king would be rather unsafe on the a3-f8 di­agonal.

ll.a3 tLlc6 12.@el !? ie6 Black only loses time after:

12 . . . ltJd4 13.id3 ie6, E.Yilmaz - Bukovec, Herceg Novi 2006, 14.ie3 and he should better come back - 14 . . . ltJc6 1S.l":id1 l":id8 16.ig5 (White can also play the simple move 16.f3;!;) 16 . . . h6 17.ixf6 gxf6 18.f4 exf4 19.1":if1 l":ig8 20 .l":id2 ltJe5 21.l":ixf4 @e7 22 .l":idf2;!;

13.f3 It seems to me - that move

is more flexible than 13 .ie3 . The point is that Black can free his po­sition with the move d6-dS either immediately, or after the prelimi­nary - ltJc6-e7. In the latter case, White might not need at all to oc­cupy the e3-square with his bish­op - see the notes to Black's next move.

13 • . • d5 Black's alternative here is:

13 . . . ltJe7 14.@f2 0-0-0 1S.id3 dS 16.exdS ltJfxdS 17.ltJxdS ltJxdS 18 .l":ie1 ltJf4 19 .ifl ltJg6 20 .ie3 @c7 (In case of: 20 . . . ifS, White seizes the control over an important diagonal - 21.ic4! f6 22 .g4 id7 23.l":iadU) 21 .l":iad1 l":ihe8 22 .g3;!;

14.exdS tLlxd5 15.tLlxdS hdS 16 • .te3 0 - 0 - 0 17.@f2 .te6

Black thus prevents the un­pleasant move ib6, since now he would counter it with 18 . . . l3d2+ . In case of 17 . . . l":ihe8, White has the possibility to occupy the d­file: 18 .ib6 l":id7 19.l":idU

S7

Chapter 3

18 . .!d3 tLld4 That move restricts the scope of

the bishop on e3, but now Black's e5-pawn is too vulnerable.

19.13hel l3he8, Korneev -Tomczak, Tegel 2006, 2 0 .gadl h6. Black will have to solve the problem with his h7-pawn sooner or later. 21.Ae4;!; White's urgent task here is to realize the power

of his pieces by exploiting the vul­nerability of the dark squares on Black's queenside. He must try to create new objects for attack and to break thus his opponent's defence. He activates his bishop, creating the unpleasant threat 22 .f4 in the process. Meanwhile, he has the possibility to create an isolated pawn for his opponent at an opportune moment with the move '!e3xd4. It is rather difficult for Black to parry White's threats. His attempt to do that with the move 21 . . .f5, can only worsen his situation - after 22 .'!d3 Black will be paralyzed to protect his central pawns, while in case of 22 . . .f4, he simply loses a pawn - 23.,ixd4 exd4 24 . .!g6 �e7 25.�e4±

Conclusion The variation 4 . . . e5 5. tLlb5 a6 - is not such afrequent guest in the

contemporary tournament practice. Still, it remains interesting, be­cause of its strategical complexity. Black weakens his pawn-structure at an early stage of the game and in addition he presents his opponent with the two-bishop advantage. His hopes are based on his lead in development in order to manage to either create some counterplay in the middle game, or to repair the defects of his position. That plan has a certain drawback - White can enter an endgame (That decision is usually quite unpleasantfor Black, from the psychological point of view.). The point is that Black's chances of equalizing are connect­ed with the possibility to push d6-dS, but the game is opened after that, usually infavour of White, because of his powerful bishops. The pawn-structure remains asymmetrical and that is infavour of White too, particularly if he maneuvers skillfully. Black is faced with a dif­ficult defence. White's advantage is due to long-term strategicalfac­tors and he only needs to watchfor someforced lines and tricks, while he follows his plan. He must also be careful not to change the pawn­structure - especially on the kings ide.

58

Chapter 4 1 .e4 cS 2.tLlf3 tLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. tLlxd4 eS S.tLlbS d6

This order of moves became fashionable at the end of the 80ies of the last century and it was quite interesting for the theory of the Sicilian Defence. The position resembles a lot the Chelyabinsk variation. It arises sometimes via a transposition of moves, but meanwhile I would like to point out the important difference: Black delays the development of his king's knight, preventing thus White's move .tgS and he pre­serves the possibility to continue at some moment with the ma­neuver .tf8-e7-gS, as well as with the pawn-advance - f7-fS. This system, just like the Chelyabinsk variation, became modern mostly thanks to the profound analyses and the vast experience of GM Evgenij Sveshnikov.

6. tL) lc3 White can make use of the fact

that his knight is still not on c3 and he can play 6.c4. This move used to be considered as the best, but subsequently, Black found his way and White began to have problems maintaining his advan­tage. The main drawback of the move with the c-pawn is that the d4-square is weakened irrevoca­bly.

6 . . • a6 Black repels his opponent's

knight to the edge of the board and that looks quite logical.

After 6 . . . tLlf6, there arises the basic position of the Chelyabinsk variation - see 4 . . . tLlf6 (Book 10).

Black has also tried 6 . . . .te6, but then White plays 7.tLldS. In case of 7 .. J'k8, White follows with 8.c4 a6 (If 8 . . . tLlf6, then 9 .tLlxf6+ �xf6 10 . .te3 and it is sufficient for Black to play neither 10 . . . �d8 11.y;![d2 a6 12 .tLlc3;t Ivanovic -Gostisa, Belgrade 1988, nor 10 . . . �g6 11.f3;t and White has a stable advantage thanks to the vulnera­bility of Black's d6-pawn.) 9 .tL)bc3 (Notice that the knight was not

S9

Chapter 4

forced to retreat to the edge of the board.) 9 . . . lLlf6 (It is too dubious for Black to opt for: 9 . . . lLlge7? ! 1O . .te3 .hd5, Halasz - Rybajlak, Bratislava 1996, 11.cxd5 lLlbB 12. �b3±, while in case of: 9 . . . .te7 1O . .te3 .tg5, there would follow: 11 . .tb6 �d7 12 . .te2 lLlh6 13 .0-0 0-0 14.�d3;1; Walek - Chytilek, Czech Republic 1995.) 1O . .te3 .te7 (or 1O . . . .hd5 11.cxd5 lLlbB 12 . .td3 .te7 13.0-0 0-0 14.f3;1; Sarkar - Legaspi, Philadelphia 1996) 11 . .te2 0-0 12 . 0-0;1; and White re­mains with slightly better pros­pects . It is also possible for Black to try 7 . . . .hd5 B.exd5. He has re­treated to different squares with his knight, but he never managed to solve his opening problems:

B . . . lLlce7 9 .c4 a6 (White coun­ters the careless move 9 . . . lLlf6? with 1O .�a4 ! +-) 1O.lLlc3 lLlf6, R.Horvath - Nemeth, Tapolca 199B, 11 . .td3 g6 (11 . . . lLlg6 12 .0-0 .te7 13 . .te3;1;) 12 .0-0 .tg7 13 . .te3 0-0 14.�b3 !? �d7 15.lLla4;1; and White has powerful pressure on the queenside.

After B . . . lLlbB 9.c4 a6 (or 9 . . . lLld7 1O . .te2 .te7 11 .0-0 a6 12 .lLlc3 f5 13.f4 �b6+ 14.@h1 e4 15.lLla4 �c7 16 . .te3± Ghinda - Seliger, Decin 1976) 1O.lLlc3 lLlf6 (10 . . . 10 . . . g6? ! 11 . .td3 f5 12 . 0-0± Makka - Fakhiridou, Ermioni 2 006) 11 . .te2 .te7 12 . .te3 lLlbd7 13.0-0 0-0 14J'kU Pfaffel - Huber, Graz 1995 and White has a slight advantage, because of his bishop pair.

6 0

Now, Black has a n important choice to make. He has numerous possibilities and we must analyze in details : a) 7 • . . .te7, b) 7 • . • .te6 and c) 7 • • • bS. I will point out im­mediately that the last move is most attractive for him, since it restricts the mobility of the knight on a3. At first, we will mention his other options :

As before, there arise no origi­nal positions after: 7 . . . lLlf6 B . .tg5 - see 4 . . . lLlf6 ; meanwhile White can choose: B .lLlc4 ! ? b5 (After B . . . .te7 9 . .tg5, Black reaches an unfa­vourable for him line of the Che­lyabinsk variation - see 4 . . . lLlf6) 9 .lLle3, White should not be afraid of the move 9 . . . b4 (It is possibly more prudent for Black to try 9 . . . .te7 - see 7 . . . .te7, or 9 . . . .te6 - see 7 . . . .te6) 1O .lLlcd5 lLlxe4, be­cause after: 11.a3 bxa3 (or 11 . . . b3 12 .cxb3;1;) 12 J�xa3�, as the game Anand - Ponomariov, Wijk aan Zee 2003 showed, White's com­pensation for the pawn was more than sufficient;

It is not so good for Black to play 7 . . . lLlge7 B .lLlc4 lLld4, Lahaye

- Slaa, Leiden 1997, 9.�d3 bS 10.lDe3;!; with an edge for White;

In the game Aronin - Kuz­minykh, Leningrad 1947, Black opted for 7 . . . h6, but following: B .lDc4 bS (about B . . . .!e6 - see 7 . . . �e6) 9 .lDe3 lDf6 10 .lDedS �e7 11.�e3 0-0 12 .a4 b4 13.�b6 Wfd7 14.lDxf6+ hf6 IS.lDdS± he had great problems. It was possibly better for him to continue with B . . . lDf6, but even then the move - 9 . .!e3;!; would have emphasized the weakness of the b6-square;

The too optimistic decision 7 . . . fS can be countered by White with B.lDdS ! ? Now, it is too risky for Black to try: B . . . fxe4 9 .�e3 �bB 10 .�b6 Wfh4 (or 10 . . . WfgS 11.h4!±) 11.g3 ! WfgS 12 .h4! Wfg6 (In case of 12 . . . �h6, White plays 13.�c7!±) 13.lDc7+ me7 14.hS±. In the game Sinkevich - Averjanov, St. Peters­burg 2 0 03, Black played B • . • lDf6, but it can be recommended to White to continue with 9.�gS �aS+ (Black loses after: 9 . . . fxe4? 10.hf6 gxf6 11.WfhS+ md7 12 .�f7+ lDe7 13.lDc4+-, while if 9 . . . �e6, then 10.hf6 gxf6 11. WfhS±) 10 .c3 lDxdS (The too origi­nal line : 1O . . . fxe4 11.hf6 �e6, is insufficient for Black in view of 12.�c4±) 11.exdS lDe7 12.lDc4 Wfc7 13.a4 ! ? lDg6 14.aS �e7 IS.Wfa4+ ! �d7 ( IS . . . mf7 16.h4;!;) 16. Wfb4 �dB (16 . . . hgS? 17.lDxd6+-) 17.h4;!; and White is better.

4. lDxd4 eS S. lDbS d6 6. lDlc3

regularly in practice only lately and there are plenty of rather un­clear moments. Black does not mind the centralization of White's knight and he plans meanwhile to complete the development of his kingside.

8.lOc4

8 . . . b5 Otherwise, Black must consid­

er the invasion of White's knight to the b6-square after the devel­opment of the bishop to e3.

There are only transpositions after the move B . . . �e6 - see 7 .. . �e6, or B . . . lDf6 9 . .!gS - see 4 .. . lOf6.

It is premature for Black to play B . . .fS? ! , which was tested in the game Horbing - Jah­JaJev, Hallstahammar 2003, because after: 9 .lOdS fxe4 1O.�e3 bS 11.�b6 �d7 12 .lDc7+ mfB 13. lOxaB bxc4 14.lDc7± - White suc­ceeded in evacuating his knight away from the corner of the board.

9.lOe3 lOf6 If 9 . . . �gS, then 1O.a4 b4 (or

a) 7 • • • .!e7 1O . . . he3 11.he3 b4 12 .lDdS± This line began to be played Vlassis - Kouvatsou, Aegina 1996)

61

Chapter 4

l1 .ttJcd5 ttJf6 12 .h4 ixe3 13.ixe3;!; - Black got rid of his "bad" bishop indeed, but he was left without the key-defender of his dark squares and the d6-pawn.

l O .g3!? That i s a key-decision for

White. He is trying to deploy his forces in the most harmonious fashion and the development of his bishop on g2 is quite purpose­ful. You should not forget though - his central e4-pawn remains insufficiently protected for a mo­ment.

l O . . . b4!? This is Black's most principled

line and strangely enough, it has never been played in practice yet. The evaluation of White's previ­ous move depends on the outcome of the arising complications.

It also deserves attention for Black to try 1O . . . h5 ! ? In that case White should better ignore Black's flank operation - after 1l.ig2 h4 (about 1l . . . ttJd4 12 .0-0 h4 - see 1l . . . h4) 12 .0-0 ttJd4 (If 12 . . . g6, then 13.a4 b4 14.ttJcd5 ie6 15.c3 ! bxc3 16.bxc3 �f8 17.ia3± van Den Doel - Moiseenko, Plovdiv

62

2003, while in case of 12 . . . hxg3, it looks very good for White to con­tinue with: 13.fxg3 ! ? ie6 14.ttJcd5 :gb8 15.c3;!; with initiative for him, T.Kosintseva - Johansson, Feugen 2006.) 13.ttJcd5 ttJxd5 14.ttJxd5 ie6 15.c3 hd5 (or 15 . . . ttJc6 16.ie3 :gb8 17.'�d2;!;) 16.exd5 ttJf5 17.'�d3 g6 (or 17 . . . ttJh6 18.a4;!;) 18.a4 hxg3 (That exchange is nec­essary, because Black's position is very difficult after: 18 . . . :gb8? ! 19.axb5 axb5 20.g4 ttJg7 21 .f4 exf4 22.1xf4± Cheparinov - Spraggett, Metz 2005.) 19.hxg3 :gb8 20 .axb5 axb5 21.b4;!; and White ended up with a stable positional advantage in the game, Potkin - Eljanov, Moscow 2004.

After the calm line : 10 .. . 0-0 1l.ig2 ie6 (In case of: 1l . . . b4 12 .ttJcd5 ttJxd5 13.ttJxd5 ig5 14. hg5 WTxg5, White creates great problems for his opponent with the undermining move : 15.a3 ! - there might follow: 15 . . . bxa3 16.:gxa3;!;, 15 . . . b3 16.c3 :gb8 17. O-O;!;, or 15 . . . :gb8 16.axb4 ttJxb4 17.ttJe3!;!; KaIjakin - Bator, Saint­Vinsent 2005.) 12 .0-0 :gc8 (It is not logical for Black to play: 12 . . . ttJd7 13.ttJcd5 ttJb6? ! 14.c3± Pikula - Carron, Biel 2006, while if 12 . . . b4, then 13.ttJcd5 ixd5 14.ttJxd5 ttJxd5 15.exd5 ttJd4 16 .ie3 ttJf5, Melekhina - Golubenko, Orope­sa 2000, 17.id2 VNb6 18.1h3;!; and White maintains the two­bishop advantage. Black has also tried here: 12 . . . VNd7 13.ttJcd5 id8 14.c3;!; Slizhevsky - V.Sherbakov,

Omsk 2007; while in case of 12 . . . It'laS, White has a choice between 13.lt'lcdS It'lxdS 14.lt'lxdS It'lc4 IS. h4 ! It'lb6 16.lt'le3 gc8 17.iWf3 iWd7 18.Eld1 gfd8 19.b3 !;!;; Smikovski - Vinichenko, Omsk 2007 and 13.b3 ! ?;!;; ; after 12 . . . lt'ld4 13.lt'lcdS It'lxdS, Testor - Tober, Austria 2004, White can play 14.lt'lxdS;!;;, followed by c2-c3.) 13.lt'lcdS It'laS (That move is more precise than: 13 . . . lt'ld7 14.c3 .tgS lS.f4 exf4 16.gxf4 .th6 17.a4 ge8 18.axbS axbs 19.ttJg4± and Black's posi­tion was terrible in the game Bo­logan - Maidla, Riga 1995.) 14.c3 ttJc4. Here, White can develop his initiative with the line: lS.a4 ttJxdS (or lS . . . ttJxe3 16.ttJxf6+ hf6 17.he3 .tc4 18.ge1 iWd7 19.axbS axbS 20 .ga6;!;; Swinkels - Vander­hallen, Bethune 2006) 16.ttJxdS hdS 17.exdS fS 18.axbS axbS 19.iWe2;!;; - and despite the simpli­fications, Black's defence remains difficult.

1l.t2:'lcd5 tLlxe4 12 • .tg2 f5 Black loses material after his

other moves, because of the de­fenselessness of his knight on c6.

13.g4! White needs that super-impor­

tant resource in every position. 13 • • • .th4 Black should try to find coun­

ter chances by attacking the f2-square. Naturally, he cannot play 13 . . . g6? due to 14.gxfS gxfS lS.iWhS+-

14. 0 - 0 0 - 0 It is insufficient for Black to

4. tLlxd4 e5 5. ttJb5 d6 6 . ttJlc3

continue with 14 . . . ttJxf2 lS.gxf2 hf2+ 16.�xf2 0-0 (or 16 . . . fxg4 17.ttJxb4±) 17.�gl fxg4 (or 17 . . .f4 18.ttJxf4±) 18.ttJxb4± - and Black's pieces are hanging on the long di­agonal in all the variations.

15.gxf5 hf2 + Black does not have much of

a choice. If lS . . . ttJgS, then White should play not: 16.ttJxb4? ! ttJxb4 17 . .txa8 ttJh3+ 18.�g2 ttJf4+ 19. �h1 hfS, but: 16.f4 ! ttJf7 (or 16 . . . exf4 17.gxf4±) 17.ttJxb4±

16.gxf2 tLlxf2 17.�xf2 hi5 In general, a rook and two

pawns are good material equiva­lent of two light pieces, but in this case White's forces are perfectly coordinated and that provides him with an advantage.

18.tLlxf5 tLld4 The intermediate check 18 . . .

iWh4+?! i s useless here, because after 19.�gl gxfS, White has a very powerful maneuver at his disposal : 20 .ttJe3 ! ggS 21 .tLlf1 !±, winning material.

19.�gl tLlxf5

2 0 .iWg4!? �c8 Black loses after 20 . . . gc8?

21..tgS+- followed by 22 .ttJf6+.

63

Chapter 4

It is evidently in favour of White if Black plays : 20 . . . a5 21.!e4 g6 22 .a3 !±, or 20 . . J�a7 21.!g5 �cB 22 .�xb4 �xc2 23 J'Ul±

21.<!l�xb4 �c5+ 22.@hl 13ae8 23.!e4 g6 24.�d2;!;

Tournament practice can of course correct this analysis at some moments, but it would hardly be able to change the basic evaluation - Black's attempt to go after his opponent's central e4-pawn is extremely risky for him.

b) 7 . . . !e6

This variation is in principle similar to the previous one, but there are some basic differences too. On one hand, the move 7 . . . :!e7 is more flexible and purpose­ful, but on the other hand, because of some tactical nuances, which you will understand later, after 7 . . . !e6, White cannot follow with the abovementioned comfortable scheme with the development of his bishop to the g2-square.

8.lLlc4 b5 About B . . . lLlf6 9.!g5 - see 4 . . .

lLlf6.

64

It is too dubious for Black to play: B . . . h6? ! 9 .!e3 b5 1O .lLlb6 E:bB 1l.lLlbd5 lLlf6 12 .lLlxf6+ gxf6 13.lLld5± Fishbein - Legaspi, Philadelphia 1996, or B . . . lLld4? ! 9 .lLld5 hd5 1O.exd5 lLlf6 11.c3 lLlf5, Bauer - Gabriel, Germany 1995, 12 .!d3 !? lLle7 13 .!g5 ! and if 13 . . . lLlexd5, then 14.!e4±

In case of B . . . E:bB, as it was played in the game Rakitskij -Glicenstein, Budva 2003, White could have followed with: 9 .lLld5 ! ? b5 10.lLlce3 lLlf6 1l.!d3;!;, with the same ideas as in the main line.

After 8 . . . !e7, White can oc­cupy the b6-square with the move - 9.!e3 . There might follow:

9 . . . lLlf6 10.lLlb6 E:bB 1l.!e2 0-0 (or 1l . . . lLlxe4 12 .lLlxe4 d5 13.lLlc5 d4 14.lLlxe6 fxe6 15.lLlc4;!; Armas - Kouatly, France 1993) 12 .0-0 lLlxe4 ! ? (In case of 12 . . . lLld7, White can continue with 13.lLlcd5 and Black cannot answer with 13 . . . !g5?, because of: 14. lLlxd7 hd7 15.!b6 �eB 16.!c7+­Smikovski - Bogachkov, Omsk 2007 and he loses material. It is too passive for Black to opt for 12 . . . lLleB 13.�d2 h6 14.lLlcd5± Tol­nai - Fauland, Velden 1993.) 13. lLlxe4 f5 (White obtains a stable advantage, thanks to his superior pawn-structure, after: 13 . . . d5 14. lLlc5 d4 15.lLlxe6 fxe6 16.lLlc4 dxe3 17.lLlxe3 �6 1B.lLlc4 �c5 19.c3± Radulov - Liberzon, Nice 1974.) 14.!c4hc4 15.tLlxc4fxe4 16 .�d5+ @hB, Folkova - Medunova, Stare Mesto 2005, 17.E:adU and White

enjoys a blockade on the light squares of his opponent's game.

Instead of 9 . . . tt'lf6, Black has also tried in practice: 9 . . . bS 1O.tt'lb6 E1bS ll.tt'lbdS. Here, in case of: 1l . . . tt'lf6 12 .a4 bxa4 (12 . . . 0-0? ! 13.axbS axbS 14.bbS± Lalic -Dunnington, London 1997; 12 . . . b4 13 .tt'lxf6+ bf6 14.tt'ldSt Jaku­biec - Zeberski, Krakow 1999) 13 . . ba6 0-0 (or 13 . . . E1xb2 14.ibS id7 IS.ba4 tt'lxdS 16.tt'lxdSt), as it was played in the game Am.Rodriguez - G.Hernandez, Havana 1997, White obtained the advantage after: 14.0-0 !? E1xb2 IS.E1xa4t, while after 1l . . . b4 !? , he i s not forced to play: 12 .tt'la4 tt'lf6 13.ib6 'lWd7 14.tt'lc7+ �fS IS. tt'lxa6 E1xb6 ! 16.tt'lxb6 Wfa7co - it is more precise for White to con­tinue with: 12 .tt'le2 ! tt'lf6 13.tt'lg3 as 14.ic4 0-0 lS.0-0 tt'lg4 16.tt'lfS tt'lxe3 (The following line is in fa­vour of White: 16 . . . bfS?! 17.exfS tt'lxe3 lS.fxe3±) 17.fxe3t with a powerful initiative for him.

We must also analyze S . . . E1cS. After 9 .ie3 tt'ld4 (It is evident that Black should not lose a tempo in variations like: 9 . . . bS 1O.tt'lb6 E1bS l1 .tt'lcdS± Marcsingo - Tivolt, Ka­posvar 2000 , or 9 . . . tt'lf6 1O.tt'lb6 E1bS 1l .ie2 ie7 12 .0-0 0-0 13.a4, followed by: 13 . . . tt'ld7 14.tt'lcdS tt'lxb6 lS.ixb6 Wfd7 16.c3± de Firmian - Rocha, Lisbon 2000, or 13 . . . tt'lb4 14.tt'lbdS tt'lfxdS 15.tt'lxdS tt'lxd5 16.exdS id7 17.aS± de Vreugt - Perez Garcia, Haar­lem 1994.) 1O.bd4 bc4 1l.ixc4

4. tt'lxd4 eS S. tt'lbS d6 6 . tt'lJc3

Elxc4 12 .ie3 tt'lf6 (about 12 . . . ie7 13 .0-0 tt'lf6 14.Wfd3 Wfc7 ls .igS - see 12 . . . tt'lf6) 13.Wfd3 - The pow­erful outpost in the centre pro­vides White with a long-lasting advantage. In the game Vuckovic - Dinev, Beograd 2006, there followed: 13 . . . Wfc7 (or 13 . . . WfcS 14.ig5 Eld4 lS.Wfe2t Seres - Ja­kobsen, Budapest 2003; 13 . . . E1c6 14.igSt Zimina - Smokina, Vladi­mir 2006) 14.0-0 ie7 15 .igS Eld4 16.Wff3 'lWc6 17.ixf6 ixf6 lS.tt'ldS idS 19.c3 Eld2 20 .b3 Wfc5 21 .ElfdU - White had a powerful knight against a "bad" bishop.

9.iLle3 iLlf6 It is only a transposition after:

9 . . . ie7 1O.a4 ! ? b4 1l .tt'lcdS tt'lf6 12 .id3 - see 9 . . . tt'lf6 .

1 0 .id3 That is White's most reliable

move, which provides him with a slight but stable advantage.

It is time to explain why the move 1O .g3 is not so good when Black's bishop is on the e6-square. The point is that in that case it is very good for Black to continue with: 1O . . . b4 ! ? 11 .tt'lcd5 tt'lxe4 12 . ig2 fS and he should not be afraid

65

Chapter 4

of the line: 13.g4 g6 14.gxfS gxfS IS.�hS+ wd700 - that is the es­sential difference between the moves 7 . . . !i.e7 and 7 . . . !i.e6. In the game Carlsen - Grigore, Budapest 2003, White tried to seize the ini­tiative with: 13 .0-0 !i.e7 (Black has not tested in practice the move - 13 . . J�c8 ! ? yet, but still it de­serves serious attention.) 14.tDxfS ! !i.xfS IS.tDe3 !i.g6 16.�dS gc8 17.!i.xe4 !i.f7oo, but that only led to a very complicated situation with mutual chances.

1 0 . . . �e7 Black can try some other pos­

sibilities too : It is not in the spirit of the

position for him to opt for: 10 . . . g6 11 .0-0 !i.g7 12.a4 b4 13.tDcdS 0-0, Korneev - Cheparinov, Se­ville 2003 (or 13 . . . !i.xdS 14.exdS tDe7 IS.!i.d2 ! WlaS 16.tDc4 �cS 17. !i.e3 �c7 18.tDb6 gb8 19.aS tDexdS 2 0 .!i.xa6 �c6 21.Wld3 tDc7 22 .Wlc4± Moliboga - Vedmediuc, Kiev 2006), 14.aS ! ? !i.xdS (or 14 . . . tDxaS IS.tDxb4;!;; 14 . . . �b8 IS.tDb6 ga7 16.tDedS;!;) IS.exdS tDd4 16.!i.d2;!; - Black's a6 and b4-pawns seem to be quite vulnerable.

In the game Krotofil - Grun­wald, Pinneberg 1993, Black chose 1O . . . gc8 and White had to contin­ue with the standard plan 1l.a4 b4 12 .tDcdS;!; with a slight edge.

It is somewhat premature for Black to try 1O . . . b4, Mirabile - Ni­culescu, Nassau 1997, 1l.tDcdS;!;.

Black's most interesting al­ternative to the main line is the

66

principled move - 1O . . . tDb4 ! ? , although it would not equalize either, if White plays correctly. After the schematic move 1l.!i.e2, Black would solve all his prob­lems with the help of the freeing pawn-advance 11 . . . dS ! = , but it is stronger for White to play 11 .a4 ! , after which it i s not good for Black to try: 11 . . . bxa4? ! 12 .gxa4 dS 13.exdS tDfxdS l4.tDcxdS etJxdS (In case of 14 .. . !i.xdS, White has the tactical resource: IS.E!:xb4 ! !i.xb4+ 16.c3 !i.e7 17.Wla4+ Wf8 18.tDxdS �xdS 19.!i.e4 Wld8 20 .!i.xa8 �xa8 21 .0-0± with a great advantage for him.) IS.tDxdS �xdS 16 .0-0 !i.cS 17.!i.e4 �xdl 18.gxdl ga7 19.E!:aS± - and the endgame would be very difficult for Black, while if: ll . . . �aS 12 .0-0 tDxd3 13.�xd3 b4 14.tDcdS !i.xdS (or 14 . . . etJxdS IS.exdS !i.d7 16.tDc4 Wlc7 17.f4±), then IS.exdS! !i.e7 16.E!:dl 0-0 17.tDfS;!; with powerful pressure for White. After the natural and relatively best line for Black: 11. . . tDxd3+ 12.�xd3 b4 13.tDcdS tDxdS 14.tDxdS !i.xdS (or 14 . . . aS lS.!i.e3;!;) IS.�xdS E!:c8 (In case of IS . . . !i.e7 16.!i.d2 as 17.c3 bxc3, White has as a powerful resource the inter­mediate move 18.�c6+ ! Wf8 19. !i.xc3 g6 20 .f4t; Black still has a lot of problems after: IS . . . �c8 16 .!i.e3 !i.e7 17.0-0 0-0 IS.E!:acl;!;) and now White can play the inter­esting move - 16.!i.d2 ! ? The aris­ing position should still be tested in practice, but the analysis shows that White's queenside initiative is

quite powerful despite the simpli­fications and Black will have great problems neutralizing it. There might follow: 16 . . . aS? ! 17.�bS±; 16 . . . gxc2 17.0-0 gxb2 (or 17 . . . aS 18.gfcl±) 18.Wfd3 ! (White empha­sizes the awkward placement of his opponent's rook.) 18 . . . b3 (If 18 . . . Wfc8, then White occupies reli­ably the open c-file and Black is in a lot of trouble after that: 19.9fc1 �d7 20 .gc4 b3 21.gacl±) 19 . .!tc3 ! ga2 20.�xa6±; 16 . . . Wfb6 17.0-0 .!te7 (The exchange of queens : 17 . . . Wfc6 18.,ltxb4 �xdS 19.exdS gxc2 2 0 .gac1 gxb2, would not help Black, because of 21.,ltxd6 !±; while after 17 . . . WfcS, it is good for White to play: 18.�b7 as 19.c3 �c6 20 .WfbS !± with an obvious advantage for him.) 18.gfd1 0-0 (It is too risky for Black to try: 18 . . . gxc2 19.9dc1 gxc1+ 20 .gxc1 0-0 21 .gc6 �b7 22.�c4±) 19.aS:t. White maintains better prospects in all the variations ; nevertheless, Black's defensive opportunities should not be underestimated.

1l.a4!? White plays more often here

4. tiJxd4 eS S. tiJbS d6 6 .tiJlc3

11. 0-0, but I believe that the move 11.a4 is more precise, since it pre­vents the possibilities for Black connected with the move tiJb4.

1l . . . b4 12.tiJcdS 0 - 0 13. 0 - 0 tiJd7

In the game Andreikin - Lenic, Kirishi 2003, Black chose the im­mediate move - 13 . . . as, but White demonstrated quite energetically and convincingly the advantages of his position. There followed: 14.c3 ! bxc3 lS.bxc3 tiJb8 16 . .!ta3 tiJxdS 17.exdS .!tc8 18.gb1 Wfc7 19. �b3:t and Black's position became very difficult.

14 • .id2 as In case of 14 . . . Wfb8? ! , White

follows with: lS.,ltxb4 tiJxb4 16. tiJxe7+ @h8 17 . .!tc4± Erneste -Stepovaia, Podolsk 1990.

lS.c3! bxc3 16.hc3 tiJcS 17 •

.!tc2 gbS lS.f4 t Socko - Zozulia, Cappelle la Grande 2 00S. White controls reliably the dS-square and he has deployed favourably his dark-squared bishop. His king­side initiative is running smooth­ly after he has accomplished the pawn-advance - f2-f4.

67

Chapter 4

c) 7 • • • b5 That is the most popular and

concrete move. Black takes the c4-square under control and he creates the threat 8 . . . b4, forcing White's next move.

8.tOd5

Now, Black has numerous possibilities. White's knight on dS is very powerful, so Black is usually trying to neutralize it im­mediately. Here, we will not ana­lyze the natural move - 8 . . . tOf6, because after 9 .igS there arises the Chelyabinsk variation by a transposition of moves - see 4 . . . tOf6. Sometimes Black tries the move cl) 8 • • • .ie7, with the idea to avoid the pin along the h4-d8 diagonal, but still he most often chooses the lines : c2) 8 . • • tOge7, or c3) 8 • • • tOce7.

Before we start dealing with the main lines, we should pay some attention to some of the rarely played sidelines :

It leads only to transpositions of moves after: 8 .. .l�b8 9.c4 b4 10.it::lc2 tOf6 (about 10 . . . ie7 - see 8 . . . ie7; 1O . . . aS 11.id3 ie7 12.0-0 tOf6 - see 8 . . . ie7) l1.id3 ie7

68

- see 8 . . . ie7; The move 8 . . . ib7? ! enables

White to occupy the b6-square with: 9.ie3 gc8 10 .,ib6 �d7 l1.ie2± Kornilovich - Pervushov, St. Petersburg 1997;

It is not in the spirit of the position for Black to fianchetto his dark-squared bishop: 8 . . . g6? ! 9 .c4 b 4 10.tOc2 as, Nordenbaek - Asgeirsson, Copenhagen 2005, 11 .ie3 gb8 12 .ie2 ig7 13.0-0±;

It is rather dubious for Black to play: 8 . . . h6? ! 9 .c4 b4 (If 9 . . . bxc4, then the simplest line for White is 1O.tOxc4± Guffart - W.Steiner, Germany 1994.) 1O.lLlc2 as 11. id3± Hladik - Machacek, Brno 1987;

Black would not solve his problems with the active line: 8 . . . fS 9.id3 ie6, as i t was played in the game EI Khyam - Lahmiti, Morocco 1995 (or 9 . . .f4, Novak - Micanek, Brno 1998, 1O .c4 b4 11.lLlc2 as 12 .g3±) . Here, White could have obtained a clear ad­vantage with the variation: 1O .c4 bxc4 (or 1O . . . b4 l1 .lLlc2±) 11.lLlxc4 lLld4 12.0-0±;

It looks relatively acceptable for Black to try 8 . . . ie6. After 9 .c4 b4 (It is weaker for Black to con­tinue with 9 . . . ixdS 1O.exdS lLlb8 11.cxbS± Romsdal - Hoejgaard, Tromsoe I996, or 9 . . . bxc4 1O .lLlxc4 tOd4 11.,ie3± Kilpela - Kiviaho, Finland 2002 , while in case of 9 . . . lLld4 1O.cxbS, Black solves his problems neither with: lO . . . ixdS 11.exdS axbS 12 .lLlxbS± Tsiamis

- Fragiadakis, Athens 2005, nor with the line: lO . . . fS 11.bxa6 !? fxe4 12 .ibS+ Wf7 13.lLlf4!± Chura - Tovarek, Valtice 1991.) lO.lLlc2 gb8 (or lO . . . aS, Rafiee - Fink, Bad Zwesten 2001, 11.id3 ie7 12 .0-0 lLlf6 13.b3 0-0 14.a3;!;) 11 . id3 ie7 (or 11 . . . g6 12.0-0 ig7 13 .id2 as, Wallner - Eckhoff, Graz 2004, 14.b3± followed by lS.a3) 12 .id2 ! ? as 13.0-0 lLlf6 14.a3 b3 lS.lLlce3 0-0 16.ic3 lLld7 17.lLlfS ixfS 18.exfS lLlcS 19.geU and White had the initiative in the game Shirov - Gatland, Ber­gen 2001 .

el) S . . . J.e7 This move is reliable, but it is

somewhat passive. Black intends to complete the development of his kingside, preventing the pos­sibility - igS in the process.

9.c4

9 . . . b4 It is in favour of White if Black

plays : 9 . . . bxc4? ! 10.ie3 gb8 11. lLlxc4± Shyndin - Chernuschev­ich, Leningrad 1990.

He can try the gambit line 9 . . . lLlf6 ! ? , but then after: lO .cxbS lLld4

4.lLlxd4 e5 5. lLlb5 d6 6 .lLllc3

11 .id3 lLlxdS 12 .exdS, there arises a position, which we will analyze later - see 8 . . . lLlge7.

1 0 .tDc2 gbS Black's b4-pawn needs protec­

tion now. The careless move lO . . . lLlf6? !

can be countered by White with the line: 11.lLlxf6+ ixf6 12 .lLlxb4 ! lllxb4 13.�a4± Murariu - Vior­eanu, Las Palm as 2003 .

Black has also tried in prac­tice here lO . . . aS, but that enables White to exploit the weakening of the bS-square in many variations. There might follow: 11.id3 lLlf6 12 .0-0 0-0 13 .b3 lLld7 (In case of 13 . . . gb8, Backlund - Wismayer, Dortmund 1995, it would be in­teresting for White to try: 14.a3 ! ? bxa3 1SJ�a3 lLld7 16.lLlxe7+ �xe7 17.lLle3 lLlcS 18 .ic2 lLld4 19.1LldS �b7 20.ie3 lLlxc2 21.�xc2;!;) 14. a3. Now, it is in favour of White if Black continues with: 14 . . . gb8? ! lS.axb4 axb4 16 .id2± Djukic - Civric, Budva 2004. It is better for him to opt for 14 . . . bxa3, as it was played in the game Hoffmann - Schmittdiel, Germany 1998, but then White could have played: lS.lLlxa3 ! ? lLlcs (or lS . . . igS 16. ib2 ! ?;!;, followed by 17.lLlbS) 16. lLlbS, with a clear advantage in all the variations : 16 . . . ib7 17.ib1 ! (This is more precise than 17.ic2 lLlb4oo) 17 . . . lLlb4 (17 . . . ga6 18 .ie3;!;) 18.lLlxe7+ �xe7 19.lLlxd6 gfd8 20 . lLlfS �c7 21.�g4;!;; 16 . . . ie6 17.ic2 hdS (17 . . . lLlb4 18.lLlxb4 axb4 19.id2;!;) 18.�xdS lLlb4 19.�dU

69

Chapter 4

1l.i.d3 <llJf6 About 11 . . . i.e6 12 .i.d2 - see

8 . . . i.e6. In principle, it is desirable for

Black to trade the dark-squared bishops, but in case of: 11 . . . i.gS 12.i.xgS WixgS, Sinowjew -Petschar, Hartberg 1992, 13.tLlce3 tLlge7 14.tLlc7+ �f8 lS.h4 V9h6 16.Wia4±, he loses his castling rights and that makes his position tremendously difficult.

12. 0 - 0 0 - 0 About 1 2 . . . aS 13.b3 0-0 - see

lO . . . aS.

13.b3 ! White must prevent the fur­

ther advance of his opponent's b4-pawn.

13 . • . <llJd7 This is the most logical move

for Black. He deploys his knight to the cS-square opening the di­agonal of his bishop on e7 in the process.

About 13 . . . aS 14.a3 - see 10 . . . as.

In case of 13 . . . i.e6, Asquith - Baker, corr. 1999, White can exploit the well-familiar motive -14.i.d2, provoking 14 . . . aS and lat-

70

er: lS.a3 bxa3 16.tLlxa3;!;, having in mind that in answer to 16 . . . tLld4? - he has the resource 17.i.xaS !±

If 13 . . . Elb7, then 14.i.d2 as 15. a3 bxa3 16.Elxa3 ! ?;!; Salmensuu - Bibik, Helsinki 1999.

14.a3 ! That is a typical undermining

move, with which White liqui­dates Black's space-advantage on the queenside and he creates ad­ditional weaknesses for him.

14 • • • bxa3 Black's attempt to counter at­

tack the b3-pawn with the line: 14 . . . tLlcS 1S.tLlcxb4 tLld4, would not be sufficient due to : 16 .i.e3 ! tLlcxb3? ! 17.Elb1 and Black has seri­ous problems, for example : 17 . . . aS 18.Elxb3±, 17 . . . tLlaS 18.i.xd4 exd4 19.i.e2±, or 17 . . . i.d7 18.tLlxa6± Nikolenko - Sluka, Pardubice 1993. It is more solid for him to try 16 . . . i.b7, but even then after 17.i.xd4 exd4 18.Elb1 Ele8 19 .tLlc2;!; White remains with a stable edge.

15.b4! This is an important interme­

diate move, without which the pawn-advance a2-a3 would not have been so effective.

15 • • • .tg5 If 15 . . . tLlf6, then 16.1MI'd2;t,

while in case of 15 . . . lLlb6, Moberg - Svensson, Gothenburg 1996, White can play: 16 .tLlxe7+ ! ? 1MI'xe7 17.Elxa3;!;

16.b5 axb5 17.cxb5;!;

Now, White's initiative is quite real. He controls the d5-outpost and he has a passed pawn. In the game Janetschek - Petschar, Austria 1991, after: 17 . . . lLla5 18.tLlcb4 hC1 19.1MI'xc1 ib7, White could have increased his advan­tage with the help of the line: 20 .Elxa3 Elc8 21 .1MI'e3±. Black would not have solved his prob­lems with 17 . . . lLla7 18.1MI'e2 lLlc5 19 . .txg5 �xg5 20 .Elfb1 f5 (or 20 . . . .td7 21.b6 tLlc6 22 .Elxa3;t) 21..tc4 ie6 (but not 21 . . .tLlxe4? 22 .b6+-) 22 .Elxa3;t with an advantage for White.

c2) 8 . . . tLlge7 Black is trying to trade imme­

diately White's powerful knight on d5. He is not afraid of 9 . .tg5, because after 9 . . . h6 10 .he7 (or 1O . .th4 �a5+) 10 . . . lLlxe7, Black has a comfortable game.

4. lLlxd4 eS S. lLlbS d6 6. lLllc3

9.c4! That is the only way for White

to fight for the advantage. Black is practically forced now to act in a gambit style.

9 . . . lLld4 He sacrifices a pawn, relying

on his quick development and his future pawn-majority on the kingside in order to obtain suffi­cient compensation. We will see however, that after a precise play by White, Black's hopes would be in vain.

About 9 . . . tLlxd5 1O .exd5 lLld4 11.cxb5 - see 9 . . . tLld4.

The line: 9 . . . Elb8 1O.cxb5 lLlxd5 (or 1O . . . tLld4 1l .tLlc3 !±) 11 .exd5 lLld4, will be analyzed later as well - see 9 . . . tLld4.

White is better after: 9 . . . .te6 1O.cxb5 tLld4, Cuijpers - Fabiano, Mendrisio 1989, 1l . .te3 ! tLlxd5 (or 1l . . . hd5 12 .exd5 tLlef5 13.bxa6±) 12 .exd5 hd5 13.hd4 exd4 14. 1MI'xd4 1M1'a5+ 15.\t>dl±

In case of: 9 . . . b4 1O .lLlc2 Elb8, Maus - Schmittdiel, Bad Woer­ishofen 1991, (or 10 . . . a5, So sa -Mossong, Manila 1992, 11..td3 ! ? lLlxd5 12 .cxd5 lLle7 13 .0-0±), the best for White is 11 .id3 ! - and

71

Chapter 4

Black would hardly manage to continue without capturing on dS, which would lead to a very diffi­cult position for him from a stra­tegical point of view: 11 . . . lDxdS 12 .cxdS lDe7 13.0-0 lDg6 (or 13 . . . fS 14.f4±) 14.id2 as lS.g3 ! ie7 16 .lDe3±

Black plays very seldom 9 . . . bxc4. Mer 1O .ixc4, i t i s in­sufficient for Black to try 10 . . . ie6, Saravia - Rossel, Montevi­deo 2004, 11 .0-0 ixdS 12.exdS lDb8 (or 12 . . . lDd4? ! 13 .ie3 lDefS 14.g4 !±) 13 .ie2 ! lDd7 14.lDc4±, while if lO . . . lDxdS, then 11.h:dS id7 (or 11 .. .'�c7 12JMlc2 ib7 13. O-O± Lapinskaite - Thrower, Szeged 1994) 12 .0-0 ie7 13.id2i and White preserves a stable ad­vantage.

1 0 .cxb5!? This is the principled way for

White. He captures the sacrificed pawn. His alternative is the calm­er line : 1O .ie3 lDxdS 11.cxdS.

l O • • • lDxd5 About 1O . . . ie6 l1.ie3 - see

9 . . . ie6. 11.exd5

Black has numerous possi-

72

bilities now. The most interesting are c2a) 11 • • • id7 and c2b) 11 • • .

!i.e7. It is much easier for White

to maintain his advantage after Black's other possibilities :

It is insufficient for him to try: 11 . . . ib7? ! 12 .!i.e3± Susnik - Kolar, Vrhnika 1995;

If 11 . . .g6, then 12 .ie3 lDfS 13 .bxa6 id7 (In case of 13 . . . lDxe3, White has the intermediate move 14.ibS+ and then it is too risky for Black to play: 14 . . . id7 ls.ixd7+ 1JNxd7 16.fxe3 ih6 17:�re2±, as well as : 14 . . . lt>e7 lS.fxe3 Wb6 16. O-O !± Mokry - Kouatly, Trnava 1987.) 14.Wb3 ! ? lDxe3 lS.1JNxe3 ig7 16.ie2± Ganguly - Miton, Goa 2002 ;

Mer 1l . . . 1JNh4 (This move used to be quite popular once and it had its adherents.) White can play directly: 12 .bxa6 ! ie7 (Following 12 . . . ixa6, White should better refrain from the seemingly at­tractive line: 13.1JNa4+? It>e7+ and he should play instead: 13 .ixa6 E:xa6 14.ie3± Voss - H.Schulz, corr. 1988; White is better after 12 . . . We4+ 13.ie3 ixa6 14.ixa6 E:xa6 1S.0-0± Kranabetter - Wel­zenheimer, corr. 1998; in case of 12 . . . ig4, it is very good for White to play 13.ibS+ ! - and there might follow: 13 . . . lDxbS 14.Wa4 1JNd8 lS.1JNxg4 1JNaS+ 16.id2 1JNxa6 17.lDc2±, or 13 . . . lt>e7 14.1JNd2 if3 lS.1JNgS± Bazela - Zambor, Slo­vakia 1998.) 13 .ie3 0-0 (or 13 . . . 1JNe4 14.1JNd3 1JNxdS Is.ixd4 exd4

16. 'W'bS± Rodina - Goldenberg, Quebec 2000) 14.hd4 exd4 IS. .id3 ha6 16.0-0 gfb8 17.ha6 gxa6 18.g3 'W'gS (18 . . . 'W'f6 19.lLlc4±) 19.'W'xd4 .if6 2 0 .'lMfd3± and Black's temporary activity was gradually neutralized in the game Kovchan - Moiseenko, Alushta 1999.

It deserves some attention for Black to try the rarely played move - 11 . . .gb8. After: 12 .bxa6 !? 'W'aS+ 13.'lMfd2 'lMfxdS, as it was played in the game Hennemann - Edouard, France 2004, White had to con­tinue with: 14.a7! ga8 lS . .ibS+ and later: lS . . . @e7 16.0-0 .ib7 17.f4 lLlxbS (or 17 .. .f6 18.gf2 ! gxa7 19 . .ic4 'lMfc6 20 .'lMfd3 'lMfe4 21.'lMfc3±) 18.'W'xdS hdS 19.1LlxbS ic4 20 . a4 hf1 21 .@xfl±, or ls . . . id7 16.ixd7+ @xd7 17.0-0 gxa7 (or 17 . . . ie7 18.b3 ! gxa7 19.1Llc4 gb8 2 0 .ib2±) 18.lLlc2 ie7 19.1Llxd4 exd4 (or 19 . . . 'W'xd4 2 0.'W'e2;!;;) 20 . 'W'd3 .if6 21.id2;!;; with a superior position for White.

c2a) 1l • • • id7

The idea of that move is that Black is threatening the bS­pawn and he provokes White to

4. lLlxd4 eS S. lLlbS d6 6 . lLllc3

play 12 .bxa6 and after 12 . . . 'W'aS+ 13.id2 'lMfxdSoo, tournament prac­tice has shown that Black obtains a good position.

12 • .ie3! White should not be too

greedy. His main task here is to repel his opponent's knight away from the central d4-square.

12 • • • axb5 About 12 . . . .ie7 13.hd4 exd4

14 . .id3 axbS - see 12 . . . axbS. If 12 .. . lLlfS 13 . .id2 axbS, as it

was played in the game Prasanna - Svoysky, Batumi 2006, then White should play: 14.lLlxbS ie7 lS . .id3±

Black can regain his pawn with 12 . . . lLlxbS, but that would not solve his problems, because of 13.lLlc4. This position has been tested numerous times in prac­tice and White's chances are bet­ter: 13 .. .fS 14.a4 lLla7 (or 14 . . . lt:lc7 lS.gcl±) lS.gc1 f4 16 . .id2 lLlc8 17.'W'b3± Smirin - Shirov, Klai­peda 1988, or 13 . . . ie7, Gallagher - Kovalevskaya, Stockholm 2003, 14 . .ie2 ! ? 0-0 lS.0-0 fS 16.a4, with the idea to counter 16 .. . lLlc7 with the line: 17.lLlxeS ! dxeS 18.d6 .ie6 19 . .icS±

13.hd4 exd4 14.id3 The d4-pawn is poisoned:

14.'lMfxd4? .ie7t 14 . . . YlYa5+ Black is trying to prevent the

calm completion of White's devel­opment.

Otherwise, Black will be faced with a long and laborious defence,

73

Chapter 4

for example after: 14 . . . ie7 1S.0-0 EibB 16.tLlc2 0-0 17.tLlxd4 'lWb6 1B.ifS ieB (or 1B . . . hiS 19.tLlxfS .tf6 20 .Eic1 EifcB, Fages - Fri­jling, corr. 2002 , 21 .Eiel±; 1B . . . .tf6 19.hd7 hd4 2 0.'lWd2±) 19.EicU Skovgaard - Nilssen, Skovlunde 2006 .

15.<.!?f1!? White maintains a slight edge

in the endgame after lS.'lWd2 ie7 16.'lWxaS EixaS 17.tLlc2;!; Zhang Pengxiang - Kovalevskaya, Mos­cow 2004.

15 . . . .te7 16.'lWe2 EibS 17. fi)c2 !;!;

Following the hasty move 17.Eie1?, Black can play 17 . . . 0-0 ! The position after 17.tLlc2, arose in the game Motylev - Shariyazdan­ov, Tomsk 2004. Black could not castle short and that caused his subsequent difficulties. There fol­lowed: 17 . . . <'!?f8 1S.fi)xd4 (It is also good for White to play 1B.a3 ! ? i.f6 19.tLlb4;!; Motylev) 1 S . . . \Wb6 19.fi)c6! hc6 2 0 .dxc6 'lWxc6 21.h4!;!; and White's king's rook is activated.

c2b) 1l . . . .te7

74

This is the most popular line for Black. He is after quickest pos­sible development, ignoring his queenside. White must play very precisely in that variation.

12.id3!? I recommend this move, al­

though White usually prefers -12 . .tc4, having excellent statisti­cal results too. In fact, after 12 . . . 0-0 (or even 12 . . . axb5 ! ? 13.tLlxb5 ia6 14.tLla3 0-0 - see 12 . . . 0-0) 13.bxa6 (or 13 .0-0 fS 14.bxa6 f4) ha6 14.0-0 �b6 ! (It is weaker for Black to play: 14 . . . if6 lS.ie3 tLlf5 16 .ha6 Eixa6 17.�d3± Klovans - Kiselev, Frun­ze 19BB.) lS.b3 �c5 16 .ib2 EifbB 17.�d3 hc4 1B.tLlxc4 �xd5� Areshchenko - Maze, Aarhus 2005 and there arises an original and not so well-analyzed position, in which Black has good counter chances.

12 . . . 0 - 0 Black has serious problems

after: 12 . . . 'lWb6 13.0-0 axb5 14. ie3 b4 lS.tLlc2± Tseshkovsky -Bangiev, Simferopol 19B9, or 12 . . . .td7 13.0-0 fS 14.f4 'lWb6 15.ie3± Mansson - Barron, Hastings 2006, while in case of: 12 . . . igS

13.0-0 hcl 14J:1xcl 0-0 lS.ltJc2 ltJxbS 16.a4 ltJc7 17.ltJb4;!; Bauer - Tregubov, Clichy 2001, White has a considerable positional ad­vantage.

Black has played only very sel­dom: 12 . . . axbS 13.ltJxbS ltJxbS (It is important that White's bishop on d3 is protected and Black can­not play 13 . . . ia6; if 13 . . . �aS+, then 14.id2 �b6 IS.ltJxd4 �xd4 16.�b3 0-0 17.ie3 �g4 18.0-0± Kuzmin - Bessmoly, corr. 1988.) 14.hbS+ id7 ls.ic4 ! ?;!; - and Black's compensation for the sac­rificed pawn is insufficient.

13. 0 - 0 f5 In the game Lanka - Christian­

sen, Germany 1995, Black chose: 13 . . . �d7 14.ie3 ltJfS (or 14 . . . ltJxbS lS.ltJc4±), but White had better counter that with IS.b6 ! ltJxe3 16. fxe3±, followed by ltJc4.

If Black attacks his opponent's central pawn with the move 13 . . . ib7, then White can protect it indirectly with 14.ie3 ! - there might follow 14 . . . g6 (It is too risky for Black to play: 14 . . . hdS? ! ls.ixd4 exd4 16.�hS fS 17.hfS±; he would not solve his problems after his other possibilities either: 14 . . . ltJxbS IS.ltJxbS axbS 16.ixbS fS 17.f3;!; Pastor - Rodriguez Cos­ta, Gran Canarian 2002 ; 14 . . . if6 lSJ�el ! ?;!;) ls.ixd4 exd4 16.ic4;!; Smikovski - Bogachkov, Omsk 2006 and White is clearly better.

14.bxa6 �b6 That move creates greatest

problems for White.

4. ltJxd4 eS S. ltJ bS d6 6. ltJlc3

The straightforward line: 14 .. .f4 lS.ltJc2 �b6 (or lS . . . ltJfS 16.ltJb4± Kurlenda - Czerwon­ski, Slupsk 1989) 16 .ltJxd4 �xd4, was tested for the first time in the game Hardarson - Amason, Island 1988, but it would not be sufficient for Black due to White's precise response: 17.a4 ! id8 (In case of 17 ... e4? ! , White has pre­pared: 18.he4! �xe4 19J:1el±) 18.�e2 f3 19.9xf3 ih3 20 .E1dl±. Black is clearly worse too after: 14 .. . .txa6 lS.ha6 E1xa6 16.ie3;!;

15.ie3 ! The b2-pawn is immaterial

here. White must mobilize his forces quickly and try to protect his a6-pawn.

15 . . . ha6 In case of 1S . . . �xb2, White will

of course continue with 16.ltJc4 �4 17.E1bl �cS 18.ltJb6±, while if IS .. .f4, then 16.hd4 �xd4 17. ltJbS �xb2 (or 17 . . . �b6 18.E1c1 ha6 19.E1c6 �8 20.a4±) 18.a7 f3 19.9xf3 ih3 20 .E1el±

16.ha6 �xa6 Or 16 . . . E1xa6 17.ixd4 �xd4

18.�xd4 exd4 19.1tJc2;!; 17.hd4 exd4 18.'!oc2;!;

7S

Chapter 4

This situation is quite typical for that system. Black has some compensation for the pawn in­deed, but it is only enough to contain his opponent's initiative a bit. White cannot develop eas­ily his forces and he has problems starting the realization of his ex­tra material, but still he has made the first step towards accomplish­ing that goal. Meanwhile, it is es­sential that Black's e6-square has been compromised.

c3) 8 • • • tDce7

This is an original line and it has numerous adherents. It owes its popularity to some chess play­ers from the city of Omsk in Rus­sia (Vladimir Shcherbakov and Marat Makarov, who played it regularly at the beginning of the

76

80ies of the last century. The idea of the retreat of the queen's knight to e7 for Black is not to lose a tempo after the trade on dS. His other knight will be developed lat­er to f6 and it will exert pressure from there against White's central pawn.

9.c4 That is the best move for

White. He plays sometimes 9 .AgS, but in that case, the pin along the h4-d8 diagonal is not so annoying for Black as in the Chelyabinsk variation.

9 . • . tDxd5 It is useless for Black to play:

9 . . . Ab7? ! 1O.cxbS tDxdS 1l .bxa6± Simacek - Sluka, Valtice 1992, or 9 . . . bxc4? ! 10.Axc4± Skrochocka - Siwek, Krakow 1999.

1 0 .exd5 bxc4 Black has tried sometimes

gambit lines : 1O . . . �h4? ! 1l.cxbS �e4+ 12 .Ae3

tDf6, Dukaczewski - Rosikhin, Spain 2000, 13.tDc4 ! axbS (13 . . . �xdS? 14.ltJb6+-; 13 . . . ltJxdS 14. �a4±) 14.f3 �xdS 1S.ltJb6 �xd1 16. EQcd1 E1b8 17.tDxc8 EQcc8 18.AxbS±;

10 . . . g6? ! 1l.cxbS ltJe7, Black -Nielsen, Moscow 1994, 12 .bxa6 �aS+ 13.Ad2 'lNxdS 14.ltJbS @d7 1S.ltJc3±;

10 . . .fS? ! (This move is more logical, but still insufficient, in case White plays precisely. ) 1l .cxbS ltJf6 12 .bxa6 Axa6 (If 12 . . . �aS+, then 13.Ad2 �xdS 14.�a4+ Ad7 1S.ltJbS E1c8 16.E1c1 !± ; Black has no compensation for the pawn af-

ter: 12 . . . .!e7 13 . .!b5+ tLld7 14.0-0 0-0 15.Wfe2 f4 16 .f3 .txa6 17 . .txa6 '!Wb6+ 18.Whl l3xa6 19.tLlb5± Sle­kys - Burstein, Vilnius 1996.) 13.'!Wa4+ Wf7 (Black has noth­ing else : 13 . . . '!Wd7? 14.'!b5 .txb5 15.Wfxa8+ Wf7 16 . .!g5+-; or 13 . . . tLld7? 14 . .txa6 '!Wb6 15.Wfc6 '!Wxa6 16.tLlb5 ! +-) 14 . .txa6 '!Wb6 15.0-0 l3xa6 (or 15 . . . '!Wxa6 16.'!Wc2± Ni Hua - Mikhalevski, Qingdao 2 002) 16.'!Wc4 Wfb7 17.l3dl l3a5 (or 17 . . . .!e7 18.tLlb5 l3c8 19.Wfb3 Wf8 20 . .!g5± Ni Hua) 18 .b4 l3a4 19.tLlc2 .!e7 2 0.'!Wc6± with an over­whelming advantage for White.

10 . . . b4 1l.Wfa4+ .!d7 12.Wfxb4 f5, Grebenshchikov - Lubashov, COIT. 1993, 13.c5 ! ? dxc5 14.Wfc3 '!Wc7 (or 14 . . . .!d6 15.tLlc4;!;; 14 . . . e4 15 . .!f4;!;) 15.tLlc4;!;;

1O . . . tLlf6 (It is only a trans­position of moves after 10 . . . .!e7 1l .cxb5 tLlf6 - see 1O . • . tLlf6.) 1l.cxb5 .!e7 (In case of: 1l . . . Wfa5+ 12 .'!d2 '!Wb6, Janturin - Shka­diouk, Decin 1998, White can fol­low with: 13.bxa6 .txa6 14.Wfa4±, or 13 . . . tLlxd5 14 . .!b5±) 12 . .!c4 0-0 13 .0-0. This position has been tested in several games, which showed that Black's compensa­tion for the pawn was insuffi­cent: 13 . . . tLle4 (It is not logical for Black to continue with: 13 . . . .!g4 14.'!Wb3 l3b8 15.'!e3± Shirov - Annageldyev, Istanbul 2000; after 13 . . . axb5 14.tLlxb5, White is better following: 14 . . . tLld7, Zude - Schmittdiel, Gladenbach 1997, 15 . .!e3 tLlb6 16 . .!b3 .!a6 17.a4;!;,

4. tLlxd4 e5 5. tLlbS d6 6. tLllc3

and 14 . . . .!g4, Masserey - Gerber, Geneva 1994, 15.'!Wb3 '!Wd7 16 . .!e3;!;; if 13 . . . tLld7, Kotsur - Lputian, Abu Dhabi 2003, 14 . .!e3 f5, then simply 15.f3;!;) 14.Wfe2 f5 15.bxa6 Wfa5 (In the game Arzumanian -Zubov, Alushta 2001, Black chose 15 . . . .!g5 and White had to coun­ter that with 16 . .txg5, obtaining an advantage after every possible capture : 16 . . . Wfxg5 17.b4±, or 16 . . . tLlxg5 17.l3acl f4 18.f3±; in case of 15 . . . tLlc5, Masserey - Ceteras, Ma­maia 1991, it can be recommend­ed to White to try: 16.b4 tLlxa6 17.'!d2 e4 18.tLlb5 .!f6 19.13acU with a better game for White.) 16.f3 tLlc5 (It is less reliable for Black to play: 16 . . . tLlf6 17.'!d2 - and here he has problems in every variation: 17 . . . '!Wb6+ 18 . .!e3 Wfa5 19.a7± D.Kayumov - Kise­lev, Chelyabinsk 1993, or 17 . . . Wfa4 18.l3fcl .txa6 19.tLlb5±) 17.'!d2 Wfb6 18 .b4 tLlxa6+ 19.'!Wf2;!; - and as we are going to see, Black has difficulties developing his initia­tive, while White's material ad­vantage becomes a telling factor.

1l.tLlxc4

1l • • • c!Llf6

77

Chapter 4

About 11 . . Jl:b8 12 .,te3 llJf6 �b7 15J'!cl;!; - see 1l . . . llJf6.

Black must complete his de­velopment, but he must watch carefully about his weak squares on the queenside in the process. For example, it is slightly prema­ture for him to play 11 .. .f5, in view of 12 . .td2 . Now, White would counter 12 . . . gb8 with 13 . .ta5 �e7, Alves - Balabaev, corr. 2000, 14.�a4+ ! ? i.d7 15.�a3;l;, while in case of 12 . . . a5, Toth - Kaman, Hungary 1995, it is very strong for White to continue with: 13.�b3 ! ? llJf6 14.�b6;l; - and the exchange of queens is definitely in favour of White in similar situations.

Black plays much more often 1l . . . ,te7 (That move is more flex­ible in comparison to 11 .. .f5.) and White should better react to that with 12 . .td2 . Black has numer­ous possibilities here, but White maintains his advantage in all the variations :

Black loses his castling rights after: 12 . . . .tf5? ! 13.,ta5 �b8 14. llJb6 ga7 15.�a4+ @f8 16.i.e2± Da­niliuk - Amurskij, Armavir 1995.

The game Mohrlock - Schla­chetka, corr. 1994, continued with 12 . . . ,td7 13.,ta5 �b8 14.�d2 ga7 (or 14 . . . 11Jf6 15.11Jb6;l;) and here White can follow with 15.gc1 llJf6 16.11Jb6;l; maintaining a powerful pressure.

In case of 12 . . . gb8, Nolte - Salvador, Genova 2004, White should simply proceed with his usual plan: 13 . .ta5 �d7 14.11Jb6

78

Finally, after the prophylac­tic move - 12 . . . a5 (This is the most popular answer for Black.) White can resort to the already familiar idea to enter a favour­able endgame with: 13.�b3 !? i.d7 (If 13 . . . 11Jf6 14.11Jb6 a4, Karjakin - Kosteniuk, Brissago 2003 , then 15.�b4! gb8 16 .i.b5+ \t>f8 17.11Jxc8 �xc8 18.�xa4±) 14.�b6 ! �xb6 (or 14 . . • 11Jf6 15.11Jxd6+ hd6 16.�xd6 �e7 17.�xe7+ @xe7 18.,tc4 \t>d6 19.b3±) 15.11Jxb6 gb8 16.11Jxd7 @xd7 17.ha5 llJf6 18.a4 llJxd5 (It is too risky for Black to play: 18 . . . E1xb2? ! 19.,tb5+ @c8 20 .0-0 llJxd5 21.gfc1 + @b8 22 .gab1 gxb1 23.gxb1 @a7 24.,tc6±) 19.,tb5+ @e6 20 .,tc4 ghc8 21 .b3;l; Karja­kin - Kosteniuk, Lausanne 2003 - White has a considerable ad­vantage in that endgame thanks to his bishop pair and his danger­ous passed pawns.

12.,te3 The d5-pawn needs protec­

tion, so the line - 12 .,td2 a5co is not so effective anymore.

12 . . . gb8 Black usually takes immediate­

ly the b6-square under control, al­though it is quite possible for him to opt for 12 . . . ,te7. In that case, White should better not enter the complications after 13.11Jb6 gb8 14.'�a4+ ,td7 15.�xa6 0-0 16.i.e2 ,tc8�, instead it is simpler for him to choose: 13 . .te2 0-0 14.0-0 gb8 15.a4 and thus to transpose to the main line - see 12 . . . gb8.

13 . .ie2 That is the correct move order.

After 13.a4? ! , Black has the rather unpleasant resource - 13 . . . ttJg4 !t

13 . . . J.e7 Black has never tried in prac­

tice yet the move 13 . . J'!b5 and that is hardly surprising. After 14.a4 fu:d5 15.�c2;!; his rook is in a se­rious trouble and he will lose the exchange.

14.a4 White's aim is to occupy the

b6-square. 14 . . . 0 - 0 About 14 . . . a5 15.0-0 0-0 - see

14 . . . 0-0. It would be in favour of White

if Black chooses the rather artifi­cial line: 14 . . . �d7 15.0-0 .ib7? ! (About the more reliable move 15 . . . 0-0 - see 14 . . . 0-0.) 16 . .ia7! EidB 17.ttJb6 �f5 1B.Eic1 e4 19.Eic7 hd5 2 0 .ha6 .ie6 21 .�c2± Shi­rov - Fedorov, Istanbul 2000.

Black would not change any­thing much with 14 . . . .ib7 15.ttJb6 ttJd7 16.a5;!; Naumann - Boensch, Germany 2005.

15. 0 - 0

15 . . . J.b7

4. ttJxd4 eS S. ttJbS d6 6. ttJlc3

Black's other possibilities are not played so often, but still they are interesting and we will deal with them in details:

His attempt to attack his op­ponent's central pawn with 15 . . . if5 - after 16.a5 Eib5 (If 16 . . . �d7, as it was played in the game Ko­tsur - Fedorov, Istanbul 2000, then 17.ttJb6 �b7 1B.Eicl±; i t is in­sufficient for Black to opt for: 16 . . . .ie4 17.ttJb6 Eixb6 1B.hb6 �aB 19.if3± Sherzer - Gostisa, Buda­pest 1990.) 17.ttJb6 Eixb2 1B . .ixa6 - Now, Black's rook is isolated from the rest of his forces and it comes under attack. There might follow: 1B . . . ttJg4 19 . .ic1 Eixb6 (or 19 . . . Eib4 20.�e1 Eie4 21 .�c3±; 19 . . . Eic2 20 .id3 hd3 21.�xd3 �c7 22 .id2±) 20 .axb6 �xb6, Levacic - Popchev, Podgorica 1991, 21 .h3 ttJf6 22 .ie3±;

After 15 . . . ttJd7 16.a5, there arise original variations only af­ter: 16 . . .f5 (about 16 . . . ib7 17.ttJb6 - see 15 . . . ib7), as it was played in the game Doggers - Kuijpers, Vlissingen 2 003. Here, White had to continue with 17.f4 ! - and it was far from safe for Black to try: 17 . . . g5? ! 1B.fxg5 f4 (or 1B . . . hg5 19.ixg5 �xg5 20 .ttJxd6 Eixb2 21.Eia3 !±) 19 . .if2 e4 (or 19 . . . hg5 20 .ttJxd6±; 19 . . . �c7 20 .Eicl±) 20 . .id4±, while in case of: 17 . . . exf4 1B.hf4 ttJc5, then 19 .EieU and White would end up with a stable advantage;

Black obtained good coun­ter chances with the aggressive

79

Chapter 4

move - lS . . . Elb4 in the game Mo­tylev - Shabalov, Bermuda 2003 and there followed: 16 . .id2 'ZlxdS 17.hb4 'Zlxb4oo. It was however, much stronger for White to play: 16.aS! .ib7 (About 16 . . . ElbS 17.'Zlb6 Elxb2 18 . .id3 .ib7 19 .ic4 - see 16 . . . .ib7.) 17.'Zlb6 Elxb2 18.ic4 'lWb8 19.�d3 .id8 2 0.'lWc3;t Vokarev - Shabalov, Moscow 2003 - and Black would be forced to give up the exchange in rather unfavour­able circumstances.

The not so well-analyzed move - lS . . . 'Zle4 ! ? looks purposeful, but after 16.�c2 !? (White achieves nothing much with 16.f3 'ZlcS=) 16 . . .fS (or 16 .. . ttJf6 17.ElfdU Za­wadzka - Pokojska, Ostrow 2002) 17.id3;t White's prospects are su­perior.

After lS . . . aS, Black's rook pawn becomes a real weakness : 16.id2 Ela8 17.�e1 ! 'ZlxdS (or 17 . . . .ia6 18.'ZlxaS 'ZlxdS 19.ha6 Elxa6 20 .b4 igS 21.hgS 'lWxgS 22 .bS Elaa8 23.'Zlc6± Palac - Brumen, Pula 2000 ; 17 . . . ,ib7 18.haS 'lWb8, Nowak - Pokojska, Jarnoltowek 2003, 19.'Zlb6 Ela7 20 .b4 hdS 21 .'ZlxdS 'ZlxdS 22 .bS±) 18 . .if3 .ie6 (or 18 . . . ,ib7 19.'ZlxaS±) 19. haS �c8 (The other retreats of the queen are not any better: 19 . . . �b8 2 0.hdS hdS 2 1.'Zlb6 'lWb7 22 .'Zlxa8 Elxa8 23.'lWb4 hg2 24.'lWxb7 hb7 2S.Elfcl±; or 19 . . . �e8 2 0 .hdS hdS 21 .'Zlb6 'lWc6 22 .Elc1 �7 23.'Zlxa8 �xa8 24.f3;t Bokros - Forgacs, Budapest 2001.) 2 0.hdS hdS 21 .'Zlb6 �e6 (about

80

21 . . .'lWb7 - see 19 . . . 'lWb8) 22 .'Zlxa8 Elxa8 23.f3 .ic4 24.Elf2 dS 2S . .ib4;t - and Black's compensation for the exchange is insufficient.

The move lS . . . 'Zle8 reduces the tension around the dS-outpost and it enables White to prepare the following route for his knight: 16.'lWd2 !? fS, Antal - P.Horvath, Budapest 2003, 17.'ZlaS f4 18 . .ia7 Ela8 19.'Zlc6 'IWd7 20 . .ib6;t

In case of lS . . . 'lWd7, White an­nihilates his opponent's light­squared bishop with the help of the line: 16.'Zlb6 �fS 17.'Zlxc8 'lWxc8 and after 18.Elel, he main­tains the edge. In the game Bo­logan - Milov, New York 1997 there followed: 18 . . . �fS 19.b3 ! as (or 19 . . . e4 20 . .ic4 'Zlg4 21 .ha6 'Zlxe3 22 .fxe3 'lWeS 23 . .ic4 .id8 24.'lWd2 .ib6 2S.aS .ia7 26.b4 'IWgS 27.Elfe1 fS 28.bS .icS 29 . .if1 f4 30.Elxc5 dxcS 31.exf4 Elxf4 32 .'lWe3 Elbf8 33 . .ic4±) 20 .h3 e4 21..ic4 'Zld7 (21 . . . .id8 22 .�d2±; 21 . . .'lWeS 22 .'lWd2 id8 23 .id4±) 22 .�g4 !± and Black's position became quite difficult. It would be slightly bet­ter for Black to try 18 . . . 'lWb7, but White could counter that with 19.Elc6 'IWxb2 20 .ha6;t (Bologan).

16.'Zlb6 'Zld7 Black can hardly comply with

White's knight on b6 for long and that can be best illustrated in the variation: 16 . . . 'Zle4 17.aS fS 18.f3 'Zlf6 (It is not less problematic for Black to play: 18 . . .f4 19 .fxe4 fxe3 20.�d3 .igS 21 .Elxf8+ �xf8 22 .Elf1 'lWe7 23 . .ig4± Grosar - Svesh-

nikov, Bled 1990.) 19.b4 f4 20 .,tf2 e4 21 o,td4 e3 22 .bS± Krzesaj - Ro­manowski, Leba 2004 and White has a clear advantage.

It is an interesting alternative for Black to opt for 16 .. JYeB !? , with the idea to free the dB-square for the bishop and to capture on b6 later. After 17.aS ,tdB 1B.,tc4 ,txb6 19.,txb6 (In case of 19.axb6 ttJd7, Bogachkov - V.Sherbakov, Russia 2 001, 2 0.,txa6? ! , Black has the tactical resource - 20 . . . ttJxb6 !+) 19 . . . ttJd7 (or 19 . . JkB 20 .b3 ttJd7 2 1o,te3 fS 22.f4 !?;t Papp - Kosztolanczi, Goed 2004; 19 . . . We7 20.f3 ttJd7 2 1o.tf2;t Smikovs­ki - V.Sherbakov, Omsk 199B) 20 .,ta7! ? (White thus discoordi­nates his opponent's pieces.) 20 . . . E:aB (20 . . . E:cB? 2 1om3±) 21 o,te3 fS 22 .Wb3 ,tcB 23.f4;t Smikovski - V.Sherbakov, Omsk 199B and White preserved a slight edge.

17.a5 f5 Black is trying to exploit his

pawn-majority on the kingside, but as we are going to see, White's initiative develops much faster.

Black has also tested in prac­tice the immediate exchange: 17 . . . ttJxb6 18.,txb6 VNd7. Now, White should better play: 19. b4 E:fcB (If 19 .. .fS, then 20 .bS ! axbS 210m3 ! , planning t o counter 21 . . . ,ta6 with 22 .E:fc1 E:fcB 23.E:c6 !±; while af­ter 19 . . . E:bcB, as it was played in the game Naumann - Boensch, Solingen 200S, it was again good for White to play 20 .bS ! and lat­er 20 . . . axbS 21 oa6 .taB 22 .�bl±;

4.tiJxd4 e5 5. ttJb5 d6 6 . ttJlc3

Black will hardly solve his prob­lems with the passive line 19 . . . E:aB 20.VNb3;t) 20 .Wb3;t with the idea to follow with b4-bS.

lS.E:c1 !? White usually prefers here

1B.f3, but it turns out - that stan­dard move is hardly necessary if we take into account the tactical nuances of the position. The ad­vance of the f-pawn is not danger­ous for White.

lS . . . f4 Now, it is not so good for

Black to continue with: lB . . . ttJxb6? ! 19.,txb6 WeB 2 0 .,tc7 E:aB 21 oWb3 ,tcB 22 .E:c6± - because White easily exploits Black's weaknesses.

It is more prudent for Black to defend with 18 . . . ttJf6, as it was played in the game Nielsen - Palo, Denmark 2003. Here, instead of the double-edged move - 19.f4, White had better continue with 19.f3 ! f4 20.,tf2 VNeB (or 2 0 . . . e4 21ofxe4 ttJxe4 22 .,td4±) 21o.td3 Wf7 22 .We2 idB 23.E:fdU with powerful pressure.

19.,tg4! This intermediate move en-

B1

Chapter 4

abIes White to deploy his bishop to an active position and to re­strict his opponent's pieces.

19 • • .llJf6 2 0 • .te6+ �h8 21. .td2;!;

White has an obvious space ad­vantage. In the game D.Kayumov - Turov, Abudhabi 2002 , Black tried to create some counterplay with 21 . . .f3 22 .g3 (It is even sim­pler for White to play 22 .gxf3!±)

22 . . . itJe4? ! (It is more reliable, but still not enough for Black to equalize with 22 .. JWe8 23.lMfb3 lMfh5 24.lMfc4;!;), but that idea can be put to the test by White with the precise reaction: 23 .itJd7! itJxd2 (if 23 . . . itJc5, then 24J'!xc5 ! dxc5 25.ic3± with an overwhelm­ing advantage for White) 24.Wfxd2 ig5 25.lMfd3 !xc! 26 .itJxf8 lMfxf8 27J!xcl±

In case of 21 . . .lMfe8, as it was played in the game Haslinger - Ansell, England 2002 , White could follow with 22 .Wfb3 !? itJe4 (22 . . . f3 23.gxf3;!;; 22 . . . Wfg6 23 .f3;!;) 23.ib4 f3 (It is essential that White can counter 23 . . . Wfb5? with 24.id7! !xd5 25.Wfxd5 lMfxb4 26.l'!c4+- winning.) 24.g3;!; with an edge for White.

Conclusion The system with the early pawn-advance e7-e5 is often played in

the contemporary tournament practice and it is one of the most prin­cipled in the theory of the Sicilian Defence. Black gives up the central d5-outpost indeed, but he tries to compensate that with rapid mobili­zation offorces and occupation of space on the queenside.

In the main line (7 . . . b5), Black has problems lately, therefore the adherents to that variation have started playing more often the other lines (7 . . . ie7 and 7 . . . ie6), which can be considered as not so well an­alyzed. As we have seen in this chapter - liVhite obtains the opening advantage with a precise play.

The arising positions are rather sharp and quite various strategi­cally. It is too dangerous to play only common sense moves for both sides, so we advise our readers to study thoroughly the variations in this chapter.

We will mention that the pawn-structure, which is typical for this system, can be encountered in some other schemes in the Sicilian De­fence - that is for example the Chelyabinsk variation and some lines of the Najdorf variation. We will study these variations in our next volumes.

82

Part 2

1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 e6 5.�c3

rare 5th moves for Black

Four Knights' Variation 5 . . . tbf6

Taimanov Variation 5 . . . a6

Black often uses different or­ders of moves in the Sicilian De­fence and that enables him to avoid certain systems, which do not make him too enthusiastic (the reasons for that are usually just subjective). Still, there come moments in which Black must make key decisions and that is the case now.

In Chapter 5, we have analyzed predominantly some sidelines af­ter which White has no problems to maintain his advantage.

In Chapter 6, we are dealing with some rare lines, which Black resorts to after 5 . . . tbf6 6.tbdb5;

while to his main line - 6 . . . .tb4 (If we do not count the move 6 . . . d6, which after: 7 . .tf4 e5 8 . .tg5 leads to the Chelyabink variation - it will be dealt with in the next book of our series) we devote our Chapter 7. That is a reliable varia­tion, but it has a serious drawback - Black is trying to solve his open­ing problems in a too simple fash­ion. He manages to obtain a free game indeed, but instead White has some long-lasting pluses like the two-bishop advantage and a superior pawn-structure. As a rule, it is too difficult for Black to neutralize completely these two factors .

The next chapter marks the beginning of the analysis of the Paulsen system - which is one of the most reliable in the Sicilian Defence. It is in particular a basic opening weapon in the "Black" opening repertoire of Vishvana­tan Anand and Sergey Rublevsky. In Chapters 8 and 9, we analyze

83

the Taimanov variation: S . . . a6 6 .tZlxc6 bxc6 7.!d3.

84

That relatively old system of development is presently very fashionable again and Black must consider it after some other orders of moves too (for example in the variation 2 . . . e6 3 .d4 cxd4 4.ltJxd4 a6 S.ltJc3 Wic7 6.!d3 ltJc6 7.ltJxc6) . Black has a good pawn centre indeed; nevertheless, White has the initiative, because he controls more space.

Chapter 5 1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 e6 5.�c3

We will analyze in this chap­ter all the moves for Black, which have been tested in practice, ex-cept the most popular: (5 . . . lDf6, 5 . . . a6 and S . . . �c7) : a) 5 . . . d5?! , b) 5 . • • J.c5?! , c) 5 • • • �b6? ! , d) 5 . • • .tb4? ! , e) 5 • • • lDxd4? ! , f) 5 • • •

d6 (without the transposition to the Najdorf and the Scheveningen variations) .

111ere are some other moves too, which have been played only very seldom:

S . . . J.e7? - 111is passive move enables White to obtain a sta­ble advantage with energetic play. 6 .lDdbS! d6? (about 6 . . . a6 7.lDd6+ ixd6 8.�xd6 - see S . . . J.cS 6 .lDdbS a6 7.lDd6+ hd6 8. �xd6; Black fares only slightly better after a move, which has not been experimented in practice:

6 . . . lDf6 7.lDd6+ ixd6 8.Wfxd6 Wfe7 9.J.f4±, although White's couple of bishops and superior develop­ment provide him with a great advantage too.) 7.J.f4 e5 8.lDd5 ! Now, Black either loses his cas­tling rights, or he loses material: 8 . . . exf4 (After 8 . . . �f8 9.J.e3 lDf6 1O.lLlxf6 gxf6, Fleuch - Bilitza, Bad Wildungen 2000 , White can improve his position with: 11.�h5 ie6 12 .0-0-0± - Black's defence is difficult due to his unsafe king and compromised pawn-struc­ture. He can maintain the mate­rial equality with the line: 8 .. J3b8 9.ie3 lDf6 10 .lLlxe7 rJlxe7 11.f3 a6 12 .J.b6 ! �d7 13.lDc3± - but his king remains stranded in the cen­tre and his queenside is blocked, so he has no chances of equal­izing, Heemsoth - Duenhaupt, corr. 1951) 9 .lDbc7+ rJlf8 1O.lLlxa8 WfaS+ (White has no problems af­ter: 1O . . . lDe5 11 .lDac7 lDf6, Paak­konen - Kyrola, Jyvaskyla 1999, following: 12 .lDxf6 .hf6 13.lDd5 ig5 14.ie2+- White should win with an extra exchange.) 11. Wfd2+- Wagner Michel - Beltz, Halle 1978 ;

85

Chapter S

S . . . lLlge7? ! - That move allows White to obtain the two-bishop advantage and a powerful initia­tive. 6 .lLldbS dS (White's task is even simpler after the more natu­ral line: 6 . . . lLlg6 7.h4 ! - White de­velops his initiative taking advan­tage of the fact that his h-pawn is untouchable: 7 . . . lLlxh4? B.if4 eS 9 .ig3 lLlg6 1O.lLldS+-; 7 . . . icS B .hS lLlge7, Milosevic - Fotiadis, Ikaros 2003 and here after: 9.h6 g6 1O.ie3 !xe3 1l.lLld6+ @fB 12. �f3+- Black has no chances at all, because of his terribly vulnerable king; 7 . . . a6 B.hS lLlgeS 9.lLld6+ !xd6 1O. �xd6 �e7 11. '?Nxe7 + @xe7 12 .ie3 bS 13 .0-0-0 d6 14.f4± - Black can hardly protect his d6-pawn without his dark-squared bishop, Muller - Henke, Internet 2004.) 7.if4 eS B.exdS exf4 9 .d6 lLlfS 10 .lLlc7+ @d7, D.MacDonald - Ortiz, Email 1999 and here White's most natural move is the best too : 1l.lLlxaB !xd6 12 .id3 @e7 (It is not better for Black to try: 12 . . . EleB+ 13.ie4 @e7 14.'?NhS @fB 1S.0-0-0±. White's pieces are more active and his knight at the edge of the board is still alive.) 13 .�d2 ie6 14.0-0-0 ieS 1S.Elhelt - White's initiative is quite powerful due to the vulner­able placement of his opponent's king. The following variations illustrate Black's difficulties : 1S . . . @f6 16.E\xeS ! lLlxeS (or 16 . . . @xeS 17.�e2+ @f6 1B.!xfS �xaB 19.!xe6+- and Black's kingwill be easily checkmated, as it is deprived

B6

of any defenders .) 17.'?Nxf4+- One of Black's centralized pieces is lost after that and White remains with an extra pawn, preserving his threats against the enemy king; 1S . . . lLld6 16.g3 ! �xaB (or 16 . . . fxg3 17.f4 !xc3 1B.'?Nxc3 gxh2 19.fS+-) 17.gxf4 ixc3 1B.'?Nxc3 @d7 19.fS+­White remains with an extra ex­change; 1S . . . '?NxaB (that is the most natural move) 16.ElxeS tLlxeS 17.ixfS EldB 1B.�xf4± White has a solid extra pawn in that endgame; 1S . . .f6 16.ixfS �xd2+ 17.Elxd2 ixfS 1B.lLlc7± Black's powerful bishop pair is still not enough to compensate the exchange; 1S . . . g6 - That seems to be the most tena­cious defence for Black. 16 .ElxeS ! lLlxeS 17.'?Nxf4 �d6 (It is just ter­rible for Black to play: 17 . . . lLlxd3+ 1B.Elxd3 '?NxaB 19.'?Nc7+ @eB 20 . lLle4+-, 19 . . . @f6 20 .lLle4+ @g7 21 .�eS+ @gB 22 .'?Nf6+-, or 17 . . . '?NbB 20 . 'Wb4+ @f6 21.ixfS ! ixfS 22.lLlc7+-, 21 . . .gxfS 22 .Eld6 ! �xaB 23.lLldS+ @g6 24.�d4+-) 18.�e4 EldB 19.M1 '?NbB 20 .ElxdB @xdB 21.lLlbS lLlc6 22 .tLlbc7!± White's knights are placed a bit strangely indeed, but he has an extra pawn, a more active queen and a safer king.

a) 5 . . . d5? ! (diagram)

The main drawback of that move is not so much that he re­mains with an isolated pawn, but that he opens files in the centre, being behind in development.

l.e4 c5 2. 0.f3 0.c6 3.d4 cxd4 4. 0.xd4 e6 S. 0.c3

6.exd5 exd5 7.ib5 0.ge7 That is the most natural move,

but Black lags in the development of his kingside.

He has tried some other moves too :

7 . . . a6? 8 .0.xc6 �6, Martin - Valauskas, Dos Hermanas 2003 (Black's position is lost too after: 8 . . . 'lWd6 9.We2+ 1e6 1O.0.d4+ axb5 1l .0.cxb5 Wd7 12.if4 .Ek8 13. 'lWe5+-) 9.0.xd5+-;

7 . . . 'lWc7? 8.0.xd5 We5+ 9 . 'lWe2+- and White should mate­rialize his extra pawn in the end­game, Halasnik - Subrt, Most 1999;

7 . . . ic5? - This move pres­ents White with an overwhelm­ing material advantage. 8.0.xc6 bxc6 9 .hc6+ id7 10 .ha8 Wxa8 1l.'lWxd5+- Smolen - Repcek, Bratislava 2002 ;

7 . . . id7? ! - White wins a pawn after that move. 8.0.xd5 0.xd4 (It looks much worse for Black to play: 8 . . . 0.f6 9.'lWe2+ ie710.0.xf6+ gxf6 1l.0.xc6 bxc6 12 .id3± and all his pawns are a sorry sight; meanwhile he is a pawn down too, Veriguine - G.Velazquez, Dos Hermanas 2004.) 9.hd7+

Wxd7 1O.Wxd4 0.e7 1l .c4 0.xd5, Heistermann - Buechner, Will­ingen 2001, here it is favourable for White to keep the queens on the board: 12 .cxd5 id6 (after 12 . . . 0-0-0 13.0-0± Black's king will come under a dangerous at­tack and he will hardly regain his pawn. He loses too after: 12 . . . ie7 13.Wxg7 0-0-0 14.0-0 .Elhg8 15.Wxf7+-, it is not any better for him to opt for: 14 . . . 'lWxd5 15 . .if4 .Elhg8 16.Wc3+ ic5 17.ig3+-) 13.Wxg7 0-0-0 14.i.e3 .Elhg8 15.Wd4± Black's activity cannot compensate his being two pawns down.

S. O - O a6 8 . . . Wd6 - This is with the idea

to evacuate promptly the king to the queenside, but that would not save Black from his great difficulties. 9 . .Ele1 id7 1O .i.g5 0-0-0 11.0.xc6 ixc6 12 .Wd4+­A.Rotstein - Platzgummer, Wat­tens 1997.

8 . . . id7 - Black wishes to sim­plify the position: 9 . .Ele1 0.xd4 10.hd7+ Wxd7 1l.'lWxd4 .Elg8 12 . 1f4+- Pommerel - Gravgaard, Email 1992 .

9.ixc6+ bxc6

87

Chapter 5

1 0 .ge1 Ad7?! (White main­tains a great lead in development after: lO . . . �d6 1l.�f3±) 1l.,igS f6? (It is better for Black to play: 11. . .gbB 1V tJa4 �aS 13 .b3 cS 14.�e2±, but even then he has problems completing his de­velopment.) 12.ixf6+- gxf6? 13. fnIS# Pichelin - Bastion, Be­sancon 2004.

b) S . . . .tcS?!

Black develops prematurely his dark-squared bishop; there­fore he has great problems along the d-file.

6.tLldbS d6 About 6 . . . tDf6 7 . .tf4 - see 4 . . .

tDf6 S.tDc3 e6 6 .tDdbS ics 7.Af4; as for 6 . . . �b6 7.�d2 - see S . . . �b6 6 .tDdbS ics 7.�d2.

The move 6 . . . a6? ! - leads to a difficult position for Black. 7.tDd6+ r:J:ie7 (About 7 . . . ixd6 - see S . . . ib4 6 .tDdbS a6 7.tDd6+ ixd6.) B.if4 eS 9 .tDfS+ r:J:ifB 10.ie3 d6 (It is too dangerous for Black to open the f-file with: lO . . . ixe3? ! 1l.�d6+ tDge7 12 .fxe3 �aS? 13.tDxe7 tDxe7 14.ic4+- Odisharia - I.Ioseliani, Tbilisi 2001, it is more tenacious

BB

for Black to defend with: 12 . . . r:J:igB 13.0-0-0 �fB 14.tDa4±, but even then it is unclear how he can develop his queenside.) 1l .ixcS dxcS 12 .�xdB+ tDxdB 13.tDd6 id7 14.0-0-0 .tc6 1S.tDc4 f6 16.tDb6 15:bB 17.ic4± White has occupied the queenside with a purpose­ful play, Zubov - Mastrovasilis, Oropesa del Mar 1999.

7.if4 eS B • .te3 .tb4 It is bad for Black to capture -

B • . . ixe3?, because after 9 .fxe3±, he has no satisfactory way of de­fending of his d6-pawn.

It is better for Black to play: B . . . tDf6 9.ixcS - see 4 . . . tDf6 S.tDc3 e6 6.tDdbS .tcS 7.if4 eS B . .te3 d6 9.ixc5.

He has not tried yet the seem­ingly logical move B . . . .te6? ! , in view of: 9 .ixc5 dxc5 lO .�d6 ! Now, Black is forced to enter an endgame without a pawn. lO . . . �xd6 11.tDxd6+ r:J:ie7 12 .tDxb7 ltJd4 13.0-0-0 15:cB 14.tDd5+ .txd5 15. exd5±

9.a3 .lxc3+ But not 9 . . . a6?? 10 .axb4+- van

der Raadt - Bergsma, Hengelo 2004.

l .e4 c5 2.tiJj3 ltJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. ltJxd4 e6 5. ltJc3

1 0 • bxc3 ! rtJe7 11. Y« d3 ltJf6 (It is not better for Black to try 11 . . . a6 , because of 12 .i.b6! and now he loses after: 12 . . . �xb6 13.�xd6+ rtJe8 14.iDc7+-, while following: 12 . . . Y«d7 13.iDc7 �b8 14.�dl ltJf6 IS.'IWe3± White's pawns are weak indeed, but Black's pieces are ter­ribly misplaced.) 12.gdl ttJe8 13.c4 a6 14.ttJc3± Wehbrink - Brunner, Internet 2001.

c) 5 • • . Y«b6?!

After that move the vulner­ability of the d6-square is very important.

6.ttJdb5 i.c5 Black's other moves are not

any better: About 6 . . . ttJf6 7.i.f4 eS 8.i.e3

- see Book 10 C2 . . . ltJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ltJxd4 iDf6 S.iDc3 eS 6.ttJdbS �b6? ! 7.i.e3) ;

The move 6 . . . ltJeS? - loses out­right. 7.i.e3 �d8 8.ttJd6+ i.xd6 9.�xd6+- and Black has no de­fence against the threat 10.ltJbS, Gerhards - Krah, Bad Bertrich 1997;

6 . . . ltJb4? - This move loses time and White wins material.

7.i.e3 Y«c6, Giachino - Sapone, Ivrea 2001, 8 .a3 ltJa6 9.ltJxa7+-;

6 . . . i.b4? ! - Now, White ob­tains the two-bishop advantage and he leads in development: 7.i.f4 eS 8 .i.e3 Y«aS 9 .a3 i.xc3+ 1O.ttJxc3 ttJge7 11.Y«d6± Zezulkin - Vokoun, Czech Republic 2006 ;

6 . . . a6? ! 7.i.e3 - White has a couple of bishops after that move and he has the possibil­ity to develop his initiative in the centre as well as on both sides of the board: 7 . . . �aS 8.ttJd6+ i.xd6 9.�xd6 ttJge7 1O.i.d3 0-0 11.i.d2 Y«d8 12 .0-0± Horbach - Degior­gis , Email 2000 , 7 . . . �d8 8.ttJd6+ i.xd6 9.�xd6 Y«e7, Benjes -Lehmann, Germany 1996, 1O.Y«g3 f6 11 .0-0-0±

7.�d2 ! White's queen is a bit mis­

placed indeed, but that is only temporary, since Black must lose a tempo defending against - 8.ltJa4.

7 . . . Y«d8 That move looks strange, but

Black has no satisfactory defence anyway:

7 . . . ltJf6? - That is a blunder.

89

Chapter S

8.lLla4 �dB 9 .lLlxcS 1-0 Bennett - Marcus, corr. 2003;

7 . . . lLld4? - This move loses a piece. B .b4 ! lLlxc2+ (or B . . . hb4 9 .lLlxd4 lLlf6 1O.f3 0-0 n.a3+-) 9.Wfxc2 hb4, Shivdasani - Da Silva, Email 2 001, 1OJ:1b1 +-;

7 . . . lLleS? - This move seems to be active, but it loses by force. B .lLla4 �c6 9 .lLlxcS �xc5, Do Nas­cimento - Nogueira, corr. 19B1 and here after 10 .b3 ! +-, Black has no defence against n.ta3;

7 . . . a6 B .lLla4 hf2+? (It is bet­ter for Black to opt for B . . . �dB, but even then after: 9 .lLlxcS axbS 1O.td3±, his defence remains quite problematic.) 9 .wd1! WfaS 1O.lLld6+ We7 11.Wfxf2 Wxd6 12 . lLlb6 1-0 Hamdouchi - Dimitrov, Montpellier 2004;

7 . . . tb4? ! - Black thus loses another tempo. B .a3 te7 (B . . . txc3? - This move looks purpose­ful, but it loses. 9.Wfxc3 eS 10 .te3 WfdB n.tcs lLlge7 12 .lLld6+ wfB 13. Wff3 1-0 Casser - Lielmezs, corr. 2004.) 9 .Wff4 WfB 1O.te3 eS, Ibanez Aullana - Buenafe Moya, Valencia 2003, Black's king is misplaced; meanwhile White has a great advantage in devel­opment, therefore he needs the queens on the board. n.Wfg3 �dB 12 . 0-0-0±;

7 . . . te7? ! - That move leads to a position, in which Black will soon have problems to find a use­ful move. B .Wff4 wfB 9 .ie3 �aS 10 .0-0-0 lLlf6 n.lLld6± A.Galkin - Koster, Hoogeveen 2001 .

90

8.lLld6+ txd6 9. �xd6 a6 1 O . ie3 Wfe7 11.Wfg3 f6 12. 0 - 0 - 0 ±

White leads i n development and he has a powerful bishop pair. 12 • • • b5 13.h4! WfS 14.h5 lLle5 15.f4 lLlf7 16.Wff2+- Black will hardly manage to coordinate his pieces, Lastin - Pushkarev, Tula 2001.

d) 5 • • • ib4? !

Black fails to obtain anything out of that pin.

6.lLldb5 a6 About 6 . . . lLlf6 - see 4 . . . lLlf6

S .lLlc3 e6 6.lLldbS tb4; as for 6 . . . Wfb6 - see S . . . Wfb6 6 .lLldbS tb4.

Black has seldom played other moves:

6 . . . Wfh4? 7.lLlc7+ wdB B.lLlxaB+­Schoenbach - Rowe, corr. 2002 ;

l.e4 cS 2JiJj3 4::lc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. 4::lxd4 e6 S. 4::lc3

6 . . . d6? ! - This attempt loses a pawn. 7.a3 �xc3+ (It is not better for Black to opt for 7 . . . �cS B .b4 and now he loses quickly after: B . . . a6? 9.bxcS axbS lO.cxd6 b4 11.4::lbS �aS 12 .�e3 bxa3 13.4::lc7+ @fB 14.�b6+- Krotofil - C.Petersen, Pinneberg 1994, while after: B . . . �b6 9.4::lxd6+ @e7 1O.4::lxcB+ �xcB 11.IWxdB+ �xdB 12.�b2±, Black's slight lead in development is not sufficient to compensate the sac­rificed pawn, Lukas - Kolbe, Em­scher Lippe 1996.) B .bxc3 @e7 9.a4 4::lf6 (The move 9 . . . a6? - is just terrible for Black - 1O.4::lxd6 IWaS 11.IWd2 4::lh6? - after 11. . . @fB 12 .�a3 4::lge7 13.4::lc4+- he falls behind catastrophically in development - 12 .�a3 @f6 13 .h4 1-0 - Black has no satisfactory defence against 14. 4::l c4, Zdeb­skaja - L.Hansen, Chalkidiki 2001 ; 9 . . . h6? - That is a loss of time in a difficult position. 10 .�a3 @fB 11.4::lxd6 4::lge7, Abel Quin­teros - Alfonso Quinteros, San­tiago 2003, 12 .IWhS g6 13.IWf3+-) 1O.4::lxd6 4::leB 11 .4::lxcB+ �xcB 12 .�a3+ i>f6 (or 12 . . . 4::ld6 13.IWd2 IWc7 14.IWgS+- Sotron - Sepchat, Fontenay Ie Fleury 2003) 13.IWf3+ @g6 14.eS !± Black cannot cap­ture the pawn on eS, because he loses a knight, therefore he has no compensation for the pawn in view of the precarious situation of his king, Lugo Sanchez - Lenhart, Bratislava 1994;

6 . . . d5? ! - Black opens the po­sition, falling behind in develop-

ment considerably. 7.exdS exdS B.�f4 d4 (The move B . . . 4::lf6? is a futile attempt to seize the initia­tive. 9 .4::lc7+ @f8 1O .4::lxaB 4::le4 11. �d2 4::lxd2 12.IWxd2 d4 13.a3+­Harkins - MacKenzie, Glen­rothes 1996; after B . . . �aS 9 .4::ld6+ @fB 1O.IWxdS �xc3+ 11.bxc3 IWe7+ 12 .i.e2± the main drawback of Black's position is his lag in devel­opment and the unsafe position of his king, Iacobitz - Neimeir, corr. 2001 ; in answer to B . . . IWf6, Ros­setti - Rubin, Email 2000 , White can play: 9 .4::lc7+ @fB 1O.4::l7xdS �xc3+ 11.bxc3 IWe6+ 12 .�e2± and he remains with an extra pawn, stranding his opponent's king in the centre.) 9 .4::lc7+ @fB 1O.a3 �xc3+ (It is even worse for Black to play: 10 . . . IWf6 11 .axb4 IWxf4 12.4::l3dS IWe4+ 13 .IWe2 IWxe2+ 14. �xe2 �bB 1S.bS+-) 11.bxc3 4::lf6 (It is slightly more tenacious for Black to defend with: 11. . .�bB 12.4::lbS �aB 13.cxd4±) 12 .4::lxaB 4::ldS 13 .IWf3 �e6 14.c4 4::lxf4 1S. '&xf4 IWxaB 16.�d3+- Black has no compensation for the exchange whatsoever, Bashkite - Fomina, Tallinn 2006 ;

6 . . . �xc3+? - Now, i t will be tremendously difficult for Black to defend the weak dark squares in his camp. 7.bxc3 ! a6 (The oth­er possibilities are not better for him: 7 . . . 4::lf6, Lee - Che, Kuala Lumpur 1996, B.IWd6 IWaS 9.IWa3 ! @dB lO.IWxaS+ 4::lxaS 11.4::ld6+- he loses his f7-pawn, because White would counter every possible de-

91

Chapter S

fensive move with i.a3; 7 . . .t?Jge7 B .i.f4 e5 9 .lLld6+ @fB 1O .i.e3+­and White has an overwhelming advantage in development, while Black's king is unsafe. 1O . . . a6? Il.VNf3 f6 12.VNxf6+ 1-0 Lobo -Ventimiglia, corr. 1994) B.lLld6+ @fB 9 .i.a3 lLlge7 1O.VNh5+- Now, Black is forced to weaken his dark squares even more. 1O . . . g6 Il.VNh6+ @gB I2.0-0-0 VNa5, Rie­gler - Jug, Slovenia 1992 and here the quickest way for White to win is the move - 13.lLleB+-;

The move 6 . . . lLlge7 - enables White to establish a total control over the centre. 7.lLld6+ bd6 B. VNxd6 0-0 (or B . . . a6 9 .i.e3 - see 6 . . . a6 7.lLld6+ bd6 B.VNxd6 lLlge7 9 .i.e3) 9 .i.e3 b6 10.0-0-0 h6? ! - This move only creates a target for White, Hakkarainen - Koi­vusalo, Finland 1997, 1l.g4 lLlg6 12 .h4-+;

6 . . . VNa5 - Mer that, White ob­tains at least the two-bishop ad­vantage. 7.a3 a6? ! (It was neces­sary for Black to defend with: 7 . . . bc3+ B.lLlxc3 lLlf6 9.i.d3;!;) B .axb4 VNxal 9 .lLlc7+ @fB 1O.lLlxaB+­Demirci - Yildiz, Kusadasi 2004.

7.lLld6+

92

7 . • • @e7 In answer to 7 . . . @fB, Wood

- Lapham, Seattle 19B3, the sim­plest line for White is: B .a3 VNa5 (In the variation B . . . bc3+ 9.bxc3 lLlf6 1O .i.f4±, White's powerful knight on d6 more than compen­sates his compromised pawn­structure on the queenside.) 9 . VNd3 lLle5 (or 9 . . . lLlf6 10.i.f4±) 10 .VNd2 i.c5 1l.f4 lLlg4 (That move is easily refuted, but Black has hardly anything better.) 12 .b4 ! bb4 13.axb4 VNxal 14.i.e2 lLl4f6 15. 0-0 and Black loses unavoid-ably his queen, for example: 15 .. . lLle7 16.lLlc4 b5 17.lLla5+-, or 16 . . . d5 17.i.a3+-

Mer 7 . . . bd6 B.VNxd6, Black has nothing to counter the power of White's bishops with,

for example: About B . . . h6 9.i.e3 lLlge7 - see

B . . . lLlge7; B . . . VNh4 - Black's queen is only

seemingly active here, Boros -Szirti, Budapest 1995, 9 .i.e3 lLlge7 10.0-0-0±;

8. . . VNe7 9.VNg3 f6 (9 . . . g6? - This move only loses time and it weakens the position. 10.i.f4

l .e4 c5 2. ttJj3 ttJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. ttJxd4 e6 5. ttJc3

f6 11 .id6 Vfffl 12 .ttJa4+- Albano Rivares - Grey, Email 1991; 9 . . . �f6 10.if4 ttJge7 11. 0-0-0± De­noyelle - Gouy, France 199B) 1O.�e3 b5 (Black has problems defending his queenside after: 10 . . . Vfffl, Creyghton - Keller, Bar­men 1905, 11 .ttJa4 bS 12 .ttJb6 �bB 13 .a4±) 11 .0-0-0 Vfffl, Bleykmans - Mannheimer, Haarlem 1901, 12.h4 ttJge7 13.h5±;

B . . . ttJge7 9 .ie3 0-0 (9 . . . h6? ! - This move leads to a lag in de­velopment and it compromises Black's position. 1O.�g3 ttJg6, Sanchez Martin - Jargaldaihan, Oropesa del Mar 2000, 11.h4 �f6 12 . 0-0-0±; after 9 . . . �aS 10 .ie2 Vffe5, Fuster Garcia - Neila Castil­lo, Zaragoza 199B, White should not avoid the favourable endgame - 11.�xe5 ttJxeS 12 .ttJa4±; in an­swer to 9 . . . b5, Nguyen Van Hai -Dang Thanh Long, Vietnam 2004, White should not present his op­ponent with counter chances, by castling on opposite sides. After 1O .ie2, followed by 0-0, Black can hardly create any counter­play.) 1O .ie2 bS 1l .0-0± Tirado - Benitez Diaz, Mexico 1999.

8.M4 �a5 In answer to B . . . ttJf6, Smyslov

- Larsen, Moscow 1959, White is clearly better after: 9.a3 ! hc3+ (Following: 9 . . . ic5 10.eS ttJeB 11 .ttJce4±, White wins the fight for the d6-outpost, without com­promising his pawn-structure.) 1O .bxc3 �a5 11.�d2 ttJeS 12.ie2

�cS 13.E1dl± and Black will surely come under attack with his king stranded in the centre.

The move B . . . e5 weakens im­portant central squares . 9 .igS+ f6 10 .ttJxcB+ �xcB 1l .id2 hc3 12 .hc3 b5 13 .�d2± - White has a great advantage, because of his two bishops, while Black's d7-pawn is weak and his king is vul­nerable, Adla - Etayo, Pamplona 2001.

9.Vffd2 hc3 After: 9 . . . ttJf6 10 .ttJc4 �dB 11.

id6±, Black fails to repel White's piece from the d6-square, Hillen­brand - von Reth, Neuwied 1993.

l O .bxc3 ttJf6 In answer to 10 . . .f6 , Koulitch­

enko - Dudognon, Paris 2004, it seems logical for White to block Black's queenside with: 11 .a4 ttJe5 (White's idea is best illustrated in the variation: 11 . . . 'it>fB 12 .ttJc4 �dB 13 .i.d6+ ttJge7 14.aS 'it>fl 1S.ttJb6 E1a7 16.c4+-; Black's defence is not any easier after 11 . . . bS and 12 .ie2 bxa4 13.0-0 ttJe5 14.Vffd4 a3 1S.c4 'it>fB 16.cS± and White has an overwhelming lead in de­velopment.) 12 .ie2 'it>fB (Black loses after: 12 . . . b5? 13.he5 fxeS 14.0-0+- and his attempt to re­pel his opponent's knight with : 12 . . . �c5 13.E1d1 ttJfl, would not work, because of 14.ttJxb7+-) 13.0-0 ttJe7 14.E1fdl± and Black has problems completing his de­velopment.

1l.ie2 b5

93

Chapter S

12. 0 - 0 gd8, W.Hartston -Roth, Bath 1963 and here White wins with 13.a4! bxa4 (or 13 . . . b4 14.lLlc4 lLlxe4 15.id6+ @eB 16. �e3+- and Black loses his knight) 14.lLlc4 �b5 (or 14 . . . lLlxe4 15. id6+ @f6 16.�e3+-) 15.id6+ @e8 16.ia3+-

e) 5 . . . lLlxd4? !

The main drawback of that move is that it contributes to White's development.

6.�xd4 d6 That seems to be the most nat­

ural move. 6 . . . �c7? - After that reply,

Black's queen comes under attack and he loses quickly. 7.lLlb5 �xc2 , R.Fischer - Tordion, Quebec (si­multan) 1964 (or 7 . . . �c6 B .if4 @dB 9 .lLlc7+- Jelen - Haase,

94

Email 199B) and here White must develop his pieces with tempo and that would provide him with a material advantage. B .id3 �c6 9.if4+-

6 . . . �f6? - Black loses time and he surrenders space to his oppo­nent. 7.eS \Wg6 (Black's queen comes under attack here. It is bet­ter for him to try: 7 . . . �dB B .lLlbS - see 6 . . . lLlf6 7.eS lLlgB B .lLlbS.) B .ie3 b6 9.id3 f5 1O .exf6 �xf6 11.�e4 2':'lbB 12.lZldS+- and White has an overwhelming lead in de­velopment. 12 . . . �dB? 13.\Wg6+ 1-0 Gross - Veizaj , corr 2000 .

6 . . . lLlf6? 7.eS lLlgB (Black can hardly obtain any compensa­tion for the pawn after: 7 . . . lLldS? B .lLlxdS exdS 9.�xdS and now White's position is winning after: 9 . . . �e7 10 .ic4 f6 11.if4+- Mer­cado - Meira, Cascavel 1996, as well as following: 9 . . . ie7 1O.ie3 0-0 11 .0-0-0+- Powell - Cieslak, corr 199B - and in both cases White not only remains with an extra pawn, but he has a superior development too.) B .lLlbS a6 9 .lLld6+ ixd6 1O.�xd6 lLle7 11.id3± White has extra space and a couple of powerful bishops.

6 . . . b6? - This move is too slow and now Black fails to develop his kingside. 7.if4 ib7 (The other possibilities are not any better for him: 7 . . . h6? B.lLlbS+-; 7 . . . icS? B.�xg7+- N.Gusev - Gup­ta, Kapuskasing 2004; 7 . . . d6? B. 0-0-0 e5 9 .heS lLlf6 - He loses even quicklier after: 9 . . . �gS+

l .e4 c5 2. 11Jj3 I1Jc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. l1Jxd4 e6 S. l1Jc3

1O.f4 dxeS 11.J.bS+ 1-0 Gozzi l1Je7 B.O-O-O - see 6 . . . l1Je7 7.J.f4 - Elakany, Copenhagen 1999 - a6 8 .0-0-0; White preserves a 1O.J.bS+ J.d7 11.J.xf6+- and Black solid extra pawn after: 7 . . . J.e7? has no chances of saving the game 8.�xg7 J.f6 9.�g3+- Usbeck with a compromised structure, - Kressmann, corr. 1997; it is bad being a pawn down, Taminsyah for Black to opt for: 7 . . . l1Jf6 B.eS - Soh Huei Ming, Brunei 2003; I1JhS 9.J.e3 g6 1O .g4 I1Jg7 11 .l1Je4 in answer to 7 . . .f6, White's most J.e7 12 .l1Jf6+ �fB 13 .J.h6+-, since energetic reaction seems to be he would hardly develop his king­B.l1JbS and here it is just terrible side pieces, Berglitz - Klingen, for Black to try: B . . . eS? 9.WfdS gbB Gluecksburg 1977.) B .J.d6 J.xd6 10.J.xeS+-, but even after: B . . . J.cS 9.Wfxd6 I1Jf6, Seyb - Dorsch, 9.�c3 eS lO .J.e3±, his lag in devel- Schloss Schney 1995 (After: 9 . . . b6 opment should cause his demise; 10 .0-0-0 l1Je7 11.f4 fS 12 .J.d3± 7 . . . l1Jf6 B .l1JbS d6? Bui Trung Hieu Black falls behind in development - Dang Anh Tuan, Vung Tau considerably, S.Nilssen - Petters-2004, Black had better try: B . . . en, Hammerfest 1995) and here J.cS 9.l1Jd6+ �fB 1O.Wfd2±, but White poses greatest problems even then White has a superior for his opponent with the logical development and powerful pres- line : 10 .0-0-0 b6 (Black loses sure along the d-file. Now, after: after the seemingly active line: 9 .l1Jxd6+ J.xd6 1O .J.xd6+- White 1O . . . l1Jg4? 11.Wfg3 �gS+ 12 .i>bl remains with an extra pawn and Wfg6 13.l1Ja4 I1Jf6 14.Wfc7+- and he two bishops ; 7 . . . l1Je7 B .l1JbS I1Jc6 has no defence against the threat 9.Wfd2 eS 1O .J.gS f6 11 .J.e3 J.a6 IS.l1Jb6.) 11 .eS I1Jg4 12 .J.e2 ! I1Jxf2 12 .0-0-0 J.xbS 13.J.xbS± and 13.J.f3 I1Jxhl (or 13 . . . ga7 14.gd4 ! White has better development, I1Jxhl IS.gc4 i>dB 16 .b4 ! Wfa3+ two powerful bishops and pres- 17.i>d2+-, Black is temporar­sure along the d-file, A.Grant ily with an extra rook, but White - K.Malkin, Clarkston 2000.) will soon gain an overwhelmind B.l1JbS gcB 9 .l1Jxa7 gxc2 10 .J.d3 material advantage.) 14.J.xaB I1Jf2 gcS 11.b4 ghS 12 .l1JbS �f6 13.eS IS.gd4+- and Black's knight on WfdB 14.gc1+- Black's kingside f2 is doomed. is not developed and his rook is 6 . . . l1Je7 7.J.f4 ! I1Jc6 (or 7 . . . a6 stranded there, so his chances of B.O-O-O I1Jc6 9.Wfd2 - see 7 . . . successful defence are minimal, I1Jc6 8.�d2 a6 9 .0-0-0, while Henoch - Haase, Email 199B. after: B . . . bS 9 .i>bl J.b7, Zielin-

6 . . . a6? ! - This move en- ski - Kabachev, corr. 2003, it abIes White to develop his dark- is quite unpleasant for Black if squared bishop to the most active White follows with: 1O .J.e2 gcB position. 7.J.f4 ! �aS (About B . . . 11.h4 I1Jc6 12 .Wfd3 J.cS 13 .�g3t

9S

Chapter S

with dangerous threats along the d-file and on the kingside.) 8 .VNd2 a6 (The other possibili­ties are not better for Black: 8 . . . .ib4? ! 9 .a3 i.xc3 10 .VNxc3 0-0 1l . .id6± White's powerful dark­squared bishop paralyzes Black's pieces, Demaria - D.Hansen, Dos Hermanas 2004; 8 . . . VNb6? ! - That move also enables White to obtain the two-bishop advan­tage. 9 .tZlbS eS 10 . .ie3 VNd8, Silva - J.Svensson, Email 2001 and here after: 11 ..ic4 a6 12 .VNdS .ib4+ 13.c3 0-0 14.tZld6 hd6 1S.VNxd6± Black can hardly complete his de­velopment without material loss­es; 8 . . . .ie7? ! - Now, White estab­lishes firm control over the cen­tral squares. 9 .tZlbS eS 1O . .ie3 a6, Durban Piera - Arnedo, Logrono 2002 , 1l.tZld6+ .ixd6 12.VNxd6 Vf!e7 13.0-0-0±, it is more or less the same after: 10 . . . 0-0 11 .0-0-0 a6 12 .tZld6 bS 13.tZlfS± Braakhuis - Rovan, Email 1999) 9 .0-0-0 bS (It is bad for Black to play: 9 . . . .ie7 10 .id6 0-0 11.f4 �e8 12 .eS bS, Serpi - Rosa, Asiag 1991, af­ter 13.tZle4± Black is completely squeezed.) 1O .@b1 .ie7 11.eS gS? ! (It is better for Black to continue with the calmer line: 11 . . . 0-0 12 .tZle4 ib7 13.tZld6±, or 12 . . . VNc7 13.tZlf6+ @h8 14.id3±, although even then White's advantage is doubtless. ) 12 .ig3 fS 13.exf6 .ixf6 14.tZle4+- Black's position looks lost due to his unsafe king and his lag in development, Rosich Valles - Vieguer Passe, Barcelona 2002 .

96

7 • .ie3

7 . . . a6 Black's attempts to refrain

from playing that move lead to difficult positions :

7 . . . tZlf6 8 .0-0-0 id7, Frohm­an - Patterson, Detroit East 1983 and here Black can hardly main­tain the material balance after the energetic line: 9 .tZlbS ! .ic6 (It is not better for Black to opt for: 9 . . . hbS 1O.ixbS+ tZld7 1l . .if4± and he would lose his d6-pawn.) 10.f3 dS (10 . . . hbS 11.ixbS+ tZld7 12.if4±) 11.VNeS �c8 12 .tZlxa7 tZld7 (or 12 . . . �a8 13.exdS tZlxdS 14. c4+-) 13.Vf!g3 �a8 14.exdS hdS lS . .ibS+- and Black has prob­lems completing his development without material losses ;

7 . . . eS - That move does not solve the problems with Black's development and it weakens the dS-square. 8.VNc4 .ie6 9 .tZldS tZle7, Gott - Carlson, corr. 1968 (After: 9 . . . tZlf6 10.tZlc7+ @e7 11.tZlxe6 fxe6 12 .VNb3 VNc7 13 . .id3 @f7 14.0-0± White will soon push f2-f4 with excellent attacking prospects ; 9 . . . Vf!aS+ 1O . .id2 ixdS 11 .exdS VNcS 12 .VNa4+ @d8 13 . .ie3 Vf!xdS 14.�d1

l.e4 c5 2. &iJj3 &iJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. &iJxd4 e6 5. &iJc3

Wc6 lS.WaS± White regains his pawn, maintaining the advantage thanks to his powerful bishops and Black's unsafe king.), while here after: 1O .&iJc7+ @d7 1l.&iJxe6 fxe6 12.Wb3± Black's king is en­dangered and his pawns are quite vulnerable;

7 . . . &iJe7, Teubert - F.Rohde, Internet 2 004, now Black has problems with the protection of his d6-pawn: B .O-O-O &iJc6 9 . Wd2 WaS 1O .,if4 eS (The other possibilities are clearly worse for Black: 1O . . . &iJeS 1l.&iJbS! 'lWxa2 12.&iJc7+ @dB 13.Wc3+- and he loses at least a piece; 1O . . . ,id7 1l.,ixd6 0-0-0 12.,ixfB !!hxfB 13.Wfe3± White remains with a solid extra pawn.) 1l .,ie3 ie6 12 .@bl !!cB 13.&iJd5:t White has a stable edge thanks to his powerful centralized knight.

8. 0 - 0 - 0 e5 It is just terrible for Black to

play B . . . i.e7?, Duma - Kabakcili, Izmir 2003, because after 9.Wl'xg7 i.f6 10 .Wfg3+- he has no compen­sation for the pawn. His better option is the move B . . . i.d7, which has not been tried in practice yet, but after 9 .&iJa4:t Black will have to comply at some moment with the exchange of his bishop for White's active knight.

(diagram) 9.Wl'd2 &iJf6, Huba - Stetz,

Karvina 200S and here White can emphasize the vulnerability of the dS-outpost with the line: 1 0 .ic4 'lWc7 11.ib3 ie6 12.,tg5±

f) 5 • • • d6

This move leads to original po­sitions only very seldom.

6.i.e3 a6 About 6 . . . &iJf6 7.f3 - see the

Scheveningen variation. 6 . . . i.d7 7.Wl'd2 &iJf6 (about 7 . . .

a6 - see 6 . . . a6 7.Wl'd2 id7) B.f3 - see the Scheveningen variation.

6 . . . i.e7 7.Wfd2 &iJxd4 (about 7 . . . &iJf6 - see the Scheveningen vari­ation; 7 . . . a6 8 .0-0-0 &iJf6 9.f3 - see the Scheveningen variation) B.,ixd4 eS (about B . . . &iJf6 9.f3 - see the Scheveningen variation) 9.,te3 a6, K.Mueller - Huth, Rowy 2003 (after 9 . . . &iJf6 1O .i.b5+ id7 1l.,ixd7+ Wl'xd7 12 .ig5± White's knight reaches the dS-square and it cannot be repelled from there.), 10.&iJdS @fB 1l.ib6 'lWd7 12.0-0-0±

97

Chapter S

6 . . . 'iNc7? ! - This move enables White to provoke weakening of the dS-square. 7.tt:\dbS 'iNbS, Murshed - Abdul, Dhaka 2006, S.M4 eS (Black loses after: S . . . tt:\eS 9.'iNd4 a6 10 .0-0-0+-) 9.i.e3 tt:\f6 (It is worse for Black to play: 9 . . . a6 1O.tt:\a3 bS 1l .tt:\dS±) 1O.tt:\dS tt:\xdS 1l.exdS tt:\e7 12 .c4;!; There arose a line from the Chelyabinsk varia­tion (1.e4 cS 2 .tt:\f3 tt:\c6 3 .d4 cxd4 4.tt:\xd4 tt:\f6 S.tt:\c3 eS 6.tt:\dbS d6 7.tt:\dS tt:\xdS S .exdS tt:\e7 9.c4), except that White has already de­veloped his bishop, while Black's queen is misplaced on the bS­square.

6 . . . tt:\ge7 7.tt:\b3 - Naturally, White should not allow the ex­change of knights in that situa­tion. Black has tested in practice here:

7 . . . tt:\g6 - with the idea to com­plete the development of the king­side. S.f4 i.e7 (After S . . . a6 9.'iNf3 i.e7 10.0-0-0 'iNc7, Ulibin -A.Frolov, Sochi 1990, it deserves attention for White to play 1l.'iNf2 ! ? , for example: 1l . . . bS 12.h4t; 1l . . . i.f6 12 .'iNd2 i.e7 13.h4t and he develops a powerful initia­tive, exploiting Black's misplaced knight on g6. It is too dangerous for Black to accept the pawn-sac­rifice - 13 . . . tt:\xh4 14.fS tt:\eS 1S.'iNe1 gS 16.i.d4 bS 17.'iNf2�) 9 .'iNf3 0-0 10.0-0-0 a6 (After: 10 . . . '!Wc7 1l.h4 geS 12 .hS tt:\fS, Mikliaev -VI.Popov, Riga 1965, White should better try: 13 .tt:\bS '!WbS 14.g4 a6 15.tt:\5d4±) 1l .h4 geS (Ac-

9S

cepting the sacrifice is tremen­dously risky - 1l . . . tt:\xh4 12.'iNhS h6 13.g4 eS 14.tt:\dS±) 12 .hS tt:\fS, VI.Popov - Kirpichnikov, Riga 1965 and now after 13.g4± White is clearly ahead of his opponent in the development of his initia­tive.

7 . . . a6 - That is a useful move, not clarifying the future of the knight on e7 yet. S .f4 bS (about S . . . tt:\g6 9.'!Wf3 - see 7 . . . tt:\g6 S.f4 a6 9.'!Wf3; after S . . . '!Wc7, Putzbach - Rathje, Bargteheide 200S, it seems logical for White to try to make use of the vulnerabil­ity of the d6-pawn with the move 9 .'!Wd2 and here the most reliable line for Black seems to be: 9 . . . i.d7 10.0-0-0 tt:\cS l1.<j;Jbl - see 6 . . . a6 7.'iNd2 i.d7 S.O-O-O tt:\ge7 9 .tt:\b3 tt:\cS 1O.f4 'iNc7 11 .<j;Jbl) 9 .'iNf3 tt:\aS (It is not better for Black to try: 9 . . . i.b7 1O.0-0-0 '!Wc7? - this is a blunder, but even after: 1O . . . tt:\g6 1l.tt:\cS± White's prospects are clearly superior - 1l.hbS tt:\g6 12.i.a4 0-0-0 13.'!Wf2 geS 14.i.b6 1-0 Lau - Gruenfeld, New York 19S5.) 1O.tt:\xaS '!WxaS 1l.i.d3 tt:\c6 12 .0-0 i.e7 13.'iNg3 g6, A.Sokolov - Moor, Switzerland 2002 (In an­swer to 13 . . . 0-0, it seems strong for White to continue with : 14.fS ! ? 'iNdS IS.i.h6±, o r 14 . . . <j;JhS IS.fxe6 fxe6? ! 16.gxfS+ hfS 17.eS !±, IS . . . he6 16 . tt:\dS;!;) , and now, Black is in trouble after: 14.a3 i.d7 (or 14 . . . '!Wc7 IS.fS tt:\eS 16.i.d4±) IS.fS 'iNc7 16.a4 b4 17.tt:\e2 tt:\eS lS.i.d4± Black's king has no reliable shel-

1.e4 c5 2. 0,j3 0,c6 3.d4 cxd4 4. 0,xd4 e6 5. 0,c3

ter and he has no active play in sight.

7.VHd2 .td7 About 7 . . . i.e7 8.0-0-0 0,f6

9.f3 - see the Scheveningen varia­tion; or 7 . . . 0,f6 B.f3 - see the Sche­veningen variation.

7 . . . 'flc7 B .O-O-O bS (about B . . . 0,f6 9 .f3 - see the Najdorf varia­tion; 8 . . . .td7 9.f3 .te7 1O.@b1 0,f6 - see the Najdorf varia­tion.) 9 .0,xc6 'flxc6, Stockfleth - Saltaev, Hamburg 1991, now White can obtain a favourable pawn-structure resembling the French Defence: 10.eS dS 1l.0,e2 'flc7 12 .f4 0,h6 13.0,d4;!;; Black is behind in development and his light-squared bishop is passive.

s. o - o - o gcS About B . . . 0,f6 9.f3 - see the

Scheveningen variation. B . . . 0,ge7 9 .0,b3 ! ? 0,cB 1O.f4

'flc7 1l .@b1 bS, Fercec - Cabrilo, Jahorina 2003, after 12.'flf2 i.e7 13.'flg3 0-0 14.eS ! ?t White's po­sition looks very promising.

B . . . bS 9 .0,xc6 h:c6 10.f3 0,f6. 9.@bl b5 1 0 • .!Dxc6 hc6 11.

f3 .!Df6

12 . .!De2 !

This is a standard transfer of the knight to a more active place­ment.

12 . • • Ab7 About 12 . . . i.e7 13.0,d4 .tb7

14.g4 - see 12 . . . .tb7. 13 . .!Dd4 .te7 14.g4 .!Dd7 15.g5

.!De5 In answer to 1S . . . dS, White

has no advantage after the attrac­tive line: 16.exdS h:dS 17. 0,fS , Sammalvuo - Paronen, Jyvas­kyla 2006, in view of: 17 . . . 0-0! 1B . .!Dxe7+ 'flxe7t± and Black has better development to compen­sate White's two-bishop advan­tage. Black might be in a serious trouble however, after the move - 16 . .th3 ! - White completes his development and he attacks the vulnerable e6-square. 16 . . . 0,cS (The other moves do not seem to be reliable for Black either: 16 . . . dxe4 17.h:e6 exf3 1B . .th3 0-0 19 . .!DfS±; 16 . . . .!Db6 17.he6 ! and White has an excellent com­pensation for the piece - three pawns, moreover that Black's king is stranded in the centre. 17 . . . 0,c4 18.'flf2 fxe6 19.0,xe6--t 'flaS 20 .0,xg7+ @fB 21 . .td4 l3gB 22 .'flh4+-; 16 . . . .td6 17.f4 ! 0,cS 1B.eS .tbB 19.fSt) 17.exdS h:dS (After 17 . . . 'flxdS 1B.l3he1t Black can hardly complete his develop­ment without positional conces­sions and his most logical line leads to a transposition of moves : 18 . . . 0-0 19.0,fS exfS 20.'flxdS hdS 2U3xdS - see 17.hdS.) 18.0,fS 0-0 19.'fld4 exfS 20 .'flxdS

99

Chapter S

'WxdS 21 .�xdS;!; and White has the two-bishop advantage and a su­perior pawn-structure.

16.'Wg2 tLlc4 17.,bc4 �xc4 18.h4t

White has a powerful kingside initiative, while Black has no time to organize any counterplay on the queenside.

(diagram) 18 . . . g6 19.h5 gfS 2 0 .bxg6

bxg6, Baramidze - Bischoff, Bad Zwesten 2004 and here after

21.tLlb3 �c7 22:rgf2± Black has problems finding satisfactory de­fence against 23 .i.b6, followed by 24.tLlaS.

Conclusion We have analyzed some not so popular lines in this chapter. In

variation a), Black opens the centre, but he remains behind in de­velopment. White occupies the e-file and he impedes the mobiliza­tion of his opponent's forces. In variations b), c) and d), Black has great problems in connection with the vulnerability of his pawn on d6. In variation e), Black enhances his opponent's development and then he is forced to create weaknesses in his position. The move 5 . . . d6 has only seldom any separate importance and we have analyzed it in variation f). The game usually transposes to the Scheveningen variation; otherwise White exploits the delay of the development of Black's knight onf6, or its deployment to the e7-square and he seizes the initiative on the kingside.

100

Chapter 6 1.e4 c5 2 .tLlf3 tLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 e6 5.tLlc3 tLlf6

Contrary to the Paulsen­Kan Variation (2 . . . e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lDxd4 a6) Black has played the active move lDc6, instead of a6, and it is fruitless for White to con­tinue with his calm development. For example after 6.�e2, Black obtains a very good game by play­ing simply 6 . . . �b4, attacking his opponent's e4-pawn.

White must fightfor the advan­tage by exploiting the temporary weakness of the d6-square and he can do that in two possible ways: 6.lDxc6 bxc6 7.eS lDdS 8 .ltJe4, es­tablishing firm control over the d6-square, but falling behind in development, or by playing the move that I recommend to you -

6.lDdb5 With the idea to follow with

�f4, threatening checks from the d6 and c7-squares.

In this chapter we will ana­lyze a) 6 • • . a6? ! - that move forces White to check from the d6-square, which he intended to do anyway and b) 6 . . . �c5 - this move is played with the idea - in answer to the check on d6 to con­tinue with �e7 and to obtain a lead in development with a pur­posefully deployed dark-squared bishop. The next chapter will be devoted to the more popular (and obviously better) move - 6 . . . �b4.

The most often played move in that position is - 6 . . . d6 - and it is used mainly to eliminate the lines for White, in which he de­velops his bishop to bS (1.e4 cS 2.ltJf3 lDc6 3 .�bS, or 3.ltJc3 lDf6 4.�bS), transposing after 7.!f4 eS (It is too bad for Black to play 7 . . . ltJeS, because White follows with 8.�d4, winning a pawn: 8 . . . a6 9.lDxd6 hd6 lO J�d1 or 9 .. . §'xd6 1O .heS) 8.�gS a6 9.lDa3 bS, to the "starting" thematic position of the Chelyabinsk variation of the Sicilian Defence. It will be ana­lyzed thoroughly in our Book 10 .

Black cannot play 6 . . . dS?, be­cause of the simple tactical opera­tion: 7.exdS exdS 8.lDxdS lDxdS

101

Chapter 6

9 . WfxdS - and White wins a pawn, for which Black has no compen­sation whatsoever. For example after: 9 . . . tLlb4 1O:�c4, White is threatening a double attack on the c7 -square.

Black reaches a much worse version of the starting position of the Chelyabinsk variation after: 6 . . . b6? 7.,if4 eS 8 .,igS±, or 6 . . . ,ie7? 7.,if4 eS (or 7 . . . 0-0 B.ic7 WfeB 9 .tLld6 ,ixd6 1O.,ixd6 tLle7 ll. tLlbS+-) 8 .igS - and he cannot even repel White's knight from bS, because he has not played the move d6 yet.

Black has tried several times the not so purposeful move here - 6 . . . Wfb6 (His queen is attacking nothing from that square and it only comes under attack.) 7.,ie3 WfaS B .,id2 WfdB? 9.if4 eS 1O.igS ib4, Svidler - Karasev, St. Peters­burg 1999, 11.tLld6+ hd6 (11 . . . mfB 12 .,ic4± WfaS 13.0-0 ixc3 14. bxc3 Wfxc3 1S.ixf6 gxf6 16.WfhS+-; 1l . . . me7 12 .ixf6+ gxf6 13.tLlfS±) 12 .Wfxd6± with the threats tLlbS, or tLldS. It is better for Black to opt for: B . . . Wfb6 9 .if4 eS lO .ie3 (It is not so convincing for White to continue with: 1O .igS a6 11.ixf6 axbS 12 .igS ib4 13 .id3oo) 10 . . . WfaS 11.f3 and White has the edge, because Black's d6-square is quite vulnerable, while the pawn-sacri­fice 11 . . .dS is not quite correct, be­cause of White's simple reaction: 12 .exdS tLlb4 13.mf2 its 14.d6±, or 13 . . . a6 14.a3 axbS (14 . . . tLlxc2 1S.Wfxc2 axbS 16.ixbS±) 1s.ixb5±

102

a) 6 . . • a6?! This is not a good move for

Black - he simply forces White to play tLld6 and that leads to the disappearance of the important dark-squared bishop for Black.

7.tLld6+ hd6 8.Wfxd6

Now, Black must either repel or exchange White's queen on the d6-square. His basic moves are - al) 8 . . . �a5 and a2) 8 . . . �e7.

Black has also tried in prac­tice:

B . . . bS - This move seems to be useful (Black must develop his queenside somehow . . . ), but on the other hand he weakens his queen­side and later White can exploit that with the move a4. 9.a3 (White is threatening b4.) 9 . . :�e7 10 .if4 tLlhS 11.�xe7+ tLlxe7 12 .id6 tLlf6, Tian - Onufreichuk, Sydney 1996 and here White's simplest line would be: 13 .a4 bxa4 14.f3± with the idea to follow with tLlxa4 and then depending on circumstances tLlb6, or tLlcS;

It is useless for Black to play B . . . h6, because White does not intend to develop his bishop to gS anyway. 9.it4 �e7 10 .0-0-0

�xd6 1l.hd6 iDg4 12.l3d2± and the endgame is tremendously dif­ficult for Black, Davydov - Bister, Germany 1996.

8 . . . �b6 9.!d3 Wd4, Uwira - Lauer, Marburg 2 000, 1O.!f4± and it is rather unclear why Black has deployed his queen to the d4-square - he will have to exchange it for White's queen anyway ex­cept that he has lost a tempo in comparison to the line with 8 . . . �e7;

8 . . . iDe7 - That move is played with the idea to castle short, but here that would not solve Black's problems. 9.!e3 0-0 10.!b6 �e8, Nuesken - Karcher, Langenhagen 2000 , 1l.!d3± - and it would be rather difficult for Black to devel­op his squeezed queenside.

at) 8 . . . �a5 Black creates the threat iDxe4,

but White can easily defend against that.

9.!d2

9 • • • VNb4 Black reaches a very difficult

endgame with a weakness on d6 after: 9 . . . �eS 1O .WxeS iDxeS 11.f4

4. iDxd4 e6 5. iDc3 iDf6 6 . iDb5

and here his position is bad after: 11 .. . iDg6 12 .eS iDhS (That move loses a piece, but even after: 12 . . . iDg8 13.iDe4, Black's position is nearly hopeless.) 13.g3 iDe7 14.g4 1-0 Nazzari - Tierra, Uruguay 1971, as well as following: 11 . . . iDc6 12.eS iDg8 (or 12 .. . iDg4 13.iDe4 fS 14.iDd6+ �e7 1S.a4 iDh6, Plane -Dancourt, Plancoet 2 001, 16.!e3 iDt7 17.!cS± and it would be just a matter of simple technique for White to press his advantage home in that position.) 13.iDe4 f6 (Or 13 . . . iDge7 14.iDd6+ �f8 15. !d3 g6, Kung - Rosebrook, USA 1992, Black weakens consider­ably his dark squares, 16 .0-0-0± - and his position is quite difficult strategically. Black would not fare any better after: 1S .. .f6 16 .0-0± ­since he would not be able to cap­ture on eS anyway and he lacks any reasonable moves.) 14.iDd6+ �e7 1S.!c3 iDh6 16.0-0-0 fxeS 17.fxeS iDg4 18.l3e1 bS 19.b3 (or 19.h3 b4 2 0 .hb4 iDxb4 21.hxg4 iDxa2+ 22 .�d2 iDb4 23 .c3 iDc6 24.!d3±) 19 . . . b4 2 0.!b2 as, Frit­sch - Woelbl, Dresden 2001 and here White maintains a clear ad­vantage after 2 1.h3±, repelling his opponent's knight, since Black cannot capture on eS: 21 . . .iDgxeS 22 .heS iDxeS 23.iDxc8+-

1 0 .Wxb4 iDxb4 11. 0 - 0 - 0 Now, Black's knight must re­

treat from the b4-square and White maintains a clear advan­tage because of his bishop-pair and Black's weakness on d6.

103

Chapter 6

1l • • • .!Dg4 Or 11 . . . 0-0 12.f3 dS 13 . .!Da4

tt:lc6 14.tt:lb6 ga7 (The move 14 . . . gb8 loses a pawn: 1S.exdS tt:lxdS 16.tt:lxdS exdS 17.i.f4 ga8 18.gxdS+-) 1S.i.e3 dxe4, Johnen - Heick, Lemgo Matorf 1993 and here White must choose the right moment to capture the exchange, for example: 16.fxe4 tt:lxe4 17.g4 Mg2+-, opening additional files for White's pieces.

11 . . . tt:lc6 12.f3 bS, Johann -Francis, Bad Zwesten 1998 and now White should better play 13.i.f4±, taking the d6-square un­der control.

12.i.el 0 - 0 13.h3 .!De5 14. f4 .!Dg6 15 • .!Da4 .!Dc6 16 • .!Db6 gb8, Sergo - Plato, Sweden 1964, 17.g3 gd8 18.gd6± - Black's knights have been repelled, his queenside is squeezed and his po­sition remains very difficult.

a2) 8 .. :f�·e7 9.if4 (diagram)

9 . . . 1Bxd6 After 9 . . . bS 1O.f3 .tb7 (or

10 . . . 0-0 11.1Bxe7 tt:lxe7 12.i.d6 ge8 13.a4+- and Black will lose

104

a pawn on the queenside for sure, Krause - Golmayo, London 1927) 11 .0-0-0 eS 12.i.e3 (or 12 .�xe7+ �xe7 13.i.gS tt:ld4;!;) 12 .. Jk8. Black is not losing by force yet, but his chronical weaknesses make his position very difficult. 13 . .tcS �e6 14.�b1 tt:ld8 1S.i.a3 i.c6 16.g4 tt:lb7 17.�d2 d6 18.h4± - Black has no counterplay and his pieces are misplaced, Michiels - Kubacsny, Bad Wildbad 2003.

9 . . . tt:lhS 10.�xe7+ �xe7 (Or 10 .. . tt:lxe7 11.i.d6 bS 12 .a4 bxa4 13.tt:lxa4 tt:lf6 14.f3 - and Black's a6-pawn is doomed - 14 . . . �d8 1S.tt:lb6 ga7 16 . .tbS tt:lc6 17.tt:lxc8 �xc8 18.i.xa6+- Zavodny - Bobo­vsky, corr. 1977.) 11 . .tc7± (Black has failed to repel White's bishop from the h2-b8 diagonal.) 11 . . . tt:lf6 12 .0-0-0 tt:le8 (or 12 . . . bS 13 . .td6+ �d8 14.f3± - Black's king has remained in the centre, his queenside is vulnerable and his pieces are not developed yet, Malisauskas - Heimberger, Eger 1987.) 13 .i.b6 d6 (or 13 .. .f6 14 . .te2 d6 1SJ��d2 i.d7 16.f4 gc8, Postler - Hinkel, corr. 1982 17.ghdl± and it is unclear how Black can parry the threat i.cS.) 14.f4 f6 (or 14 . . .

id7 lS.ie2 �k8 16.gd2±) lS.ie2 llJb8 (About lS . . . id7 16J�d2 - see 13 .. .f6) 16.eS fxeS (It would be just fatal for Black to open the position completely. He should better opt for: 16 . . . dxeS 17.fxeS llJd7 18.exf6+ gxf6 19.iaS±) 17. fxeS dxeS 18.ics+ @f7 19.9d8 llJc6 20 .gf1+ @g6 21 .gd3 llJd4 (or 21 . . .llJf6 22 .gg3+ @f7 23.ihS+ g6 24.llJe4+-) 2 2 .gg3+ @h6 23.gh3+ and Black resigned, Klein - Muel­ler, Halle 2004.

9 . . . 0-0 1O.!Mfxe7 llJxe7 11.id6 ge8 12 .ie2± and it looks like the only way for Black to repel his opponent's bishop from d6 would be 12 . . . bS (weakening the queen­side ! ) 13.a4 ib7 14.f3 llJc8 lS.ia3 bxa4 16.llJxa4 ic6 17.llJcS±, but now Black must worry about the protection of his a-pawn on top of his other problems, Wojcieszyn - Konstantinou, Poland 2000.

9 . . . eS - This move is logical (Black must fight for the dark squares.) , but after: 1O.!Mfxe7+ @xe7 l1.igS,

White has another threat - the check from the dS-square and that would be rather unpleasant

4. llJxd4 e6 5. llJc3 llJj6 6. llJb5

for Black. He has no good pros­pects in that position:

11 .. . @e8? 12 .hf6 gxf6 13.llJdS gb8 14.llJxf6+ and White remains with a solid extra pawn in that endgame, Ftacnik - Simik, Zno­jmo 1999;

11. . .llJb4 12 . 0-0-0 h6 13. .txf6+ @xf6 14.a3 llJc6 lS.llJdS+ @g6, Khovrina - Samoilova, Pen­za 2006 and after 16.llJb6 gb8, White has the pleasant choice be­tween capturing the pawn and the move - 17.gd6+- with a winning position for him;

11 . . . @f8 12 .0-0-0 bS 13.f3 (or 13.hf6 gxf6 14.llJdS @g7 15. gd3) 13 . . . llJe8 14.a4 f6 lS . .te3 bxa4 16.llJxa4 @e7 17.llJb6 gb8 18.llJxc8+ gxc8 19 . .txa6+-, win­ning a pawn for White, Slobodjan - Byhan, Leutersdorf 2001 ;

11 . . .h6 12 .llJdS+ @d8 13.hf6+ gxf6 14.llJxf6+- Dovzaltz - Ma­nev, Dos Hermanas 2004; 11 . . . llJd4 12 .0-0-0 @f8 (or 12 . . . d6 13.llJdS+ 1-0 Erashchenkov -Pirk, Internet 2004) 13.hf6 gxf6 14.ltJdS @g7, Heemskerk - Di­mer, Amsterdam 1899 and here White's simplest line would be: lS.c3 llJe6 16.llJb6+-, with a ma­terial advantage once again.

1 0 . .hd6 @d8 It might be better for Black to

try: lO . . . bS 11.f3 ib7 12 .eS llJg8 13.a4 b4 14.llJe4 fS (or 14 . . . llJge7 lS.llJc5 ic8 16 . .td3±) lS.llJcS .tc8 16.0-0-0 and White has a clear advantage, because Black's queen­side is completely squeezed: 16 . . .

105

Chapter 6

lDh6 17.f4 lDf7 18.ie2 �a7 19.if3 lDfd8 20.g4±, opening the game on the queenside, Wessendorf - Degenhardt, Germany 1989.

11. 0 - 0 - 0 c!Lle8 12.ig3 rJJe7 13.e5 (It is even better for White to continue with 13.lDa4 . . . lDb6±) 13 . • • f6 14.f4 f5? 15.ih4+ rJJn 16.c!Lla4+- and White wins the d7-pawn, Steinitz - Heral, Vienna 1873 .

The fact that the move 6 . . . a6 i s almost never played nowadays, at the master level and above, is quite indicative about its quality.

b) 6 . • • ic5

Black develops his bishop and White's check - 7.lDd6 becomes senseless, since Black would sim­ply counter that with 7 . . . rJJe7, ob-

106

taining a lead in development with the idea to attack soon White's pawn on f2 with the move 'mJ6.

7.if4 White is threatening to check

on c7. Black has a choice here between bl) 7 • • . e5 and b2) 7 .. . 0 - 0 .

bl) 7 . • • e5

8.ie3 ! d6 Or 8 . . . ib4 9.a3 ixc3+ 1O .lDxc3

d6, Orsini - Dolezal, Buenos Aires 2006 (Black manages to develop his bishop on c8 in that fashion; otherwise after 10 . . . 0-0, Clarac - Bortot, Rosny sous Bois 2002 , 11.�d2 b6 12 .0-0-0 ib7 13.f3t �g4, or 10 . . . b6 11.�d6 ib7 12 .f3 �e7 13.lDb5± and White establish­es his knight on the d6-outpost.) 11 .ie2 0-0 12 .Wfd2 ie6 13.0-0-0 lDe8 14.f4t - and White's position is preferable because of his bishop pair and Black's passive knight on e8.

After the exchange of the bish­ops : 8 . . . ixe3? 9.lDd6+ rJJf8 10. fxe3, there arises a position in which White's powerful knight on d6 more than compensates the

weakness of White's doubled e­pawns. Meanwhile, Black must be careful not to come under attack along the open f-file.

It is tremendously danger­ous for Black to try to win a pawn with: 1O . . . YNb6 11 .YNd2 �xb2 12 . Eib1 YNa3 13.i.c4 lLla5 (It is still better for him to opt for: 13 . . . We7 14.lLlxt7 Eif8 15.V;Vd3±, but White is threatening a discovered check -lLld5 and that forces Black's queen to abandon the a3-square, so White's knight goes back to d6.) 14.hf7 We7 (Black loses after: 14 . . . g6 15.0-0 Wg7 16.lLlcb5 �c5 17.Eixf6 Wxf6 18.Eifl+ Wg7 19.�f2 Eif8 2 0.YNf6+ wh6 21 .lLlf5+ and White checkmates, Pantaleoni -Vancin, Lugo 1985.) 15.lLlcb5 �c5, Roeberg - Loidl, Aschach 2000 and here White could have sim­ply grabbed a piece with: 16. �xa5 �xe3+ (or 16 . . . a6 17.lLlf5+-; 16 . . . b6 17.YNa4; 16 . . . lLlxe4 17.lLlxe4 �xe3+ 18.@d1 YNxe4 19.Eifl+-) 17. wd1 +- and Black is incapable of creating any threats.

It is more prudent and better for Black to continue with 10 . . . lLle8 11.lLlxe8 (It i s even simpler for White to play: 11.i.c4 lLlxd6 12 .YNxd6+ YNe7 13.YNd3±) 11 . . . Wxe8 12 .i.c4± - and Black can hardly evacuate his king away from the centre and his d5, d6 and f7-squares are very weak. Later in the game Groszpeter - Orso, Berlin 1996, there followed: 12 . . . �h4+ 13.g3 YNh6 14.0-0 lLld8 15.lLlb5 YNxe3+ 16.Eif2 and Black

4. lLlxd4 e6 5. lLlc3 0,f6 6. 0,b5

lost so many tempi with his queen, while the rest of his pieces were not developed that after: 16 . . . YNc5 17.b4 �xb4 18.�d5 lLle6 19.0,d6+ wf8 20 .Eixt7+ Wg8 21.Eiafl, he re­signed.

9.hc5 dxc5 1 0 .YNxdS+ WxdS ll. 0 - 0 - 0 + We7

But not 11 . . . i.d7, because of 12.0,d6±

It is too dangerous for Black to play: 11 . . . 0,d4 12.f4 i.g4 13.Eid2 exf4 14.0,xd4 cxd4 15.Eixd4± - and he will have to lose his f4-pawn, Hameister - Sanchez Car­ol, Email 2000 .

12.tL'lc7 EibS 13.tL'l7d5+ tL'lxd5 14.tL'lxd5;!;

White has a slight, but stable edge in that endgame because of the vulnerability of the d5-out­post. In the game Dochev - Lind­gren, Umel 1997, Black defended rather unsuccessfully: 14 • • • wfS 15.tL'le3 ie6 16.i.c4 hc4?! (Black should not have exchanged the last defender of the d5-square. He should have tried instead the move - 16 . . . @e7;!; immediately.) 17.tL'lxc4 We7 IS.13d5 13hdS 19. 13xc5 We6 2 0 .tL'le3 tL'ld4 21.13el±

107

Chapter 6

b2) 7 • • • 0 - 0

S.i.c7 White maims his opponent's

queen to the e7-square with the idea to trade it and to transfer to a favourable endgame.

S • • :ige7 9 • .td6 hd6 1 0 . V«xd6

The specific feature of Black's set -up is that he presents his oppo­nent with the control over the d6-square. At first, he hopes that he will manage to develop his queen­side pieces despite the presence of his pawn on d7 (with b7-b6 and i.cS-b7) . Secondly, White's pieces on d6 can be exchanged (lilf6-eS) and later Black can obtain some counterplay with f'7-f5.

Black's basic possibilities in this position are b2a) 1 0 • • • V«dS and b2b) 1 0 • • • c!lJeS.

It is not so good for him to try: 1O . . . a6 11.V«xe7 lilxe7 12 .lild6 - and the move a7-a6 only com­promises here Black's queenside. 12 . . . lileS (Or at first 12 . . . b5, van Blitterswijk - Janssen, Arnhem 1996, 13.0-0-0 lileS 14.i.e2 lilxd6 15.Eixd6 - see 12 . . . lileS) 13. 0-0-0 lilxd6 14.l3xd6 f5 (Or 14 . . .

lOS

b5 15.i.e2;!; - and as i t often hap­pens in similar Sicilian Defence endgames - the advance of Black's pawns only makes his queenside more vulnerable. White has su­perior chances in comparison to the variation with 10 . . . lileS. 15 . . . l3a7 16.f4 f6 17.l3hdl lilc6 IS .i.g4. White is threatening he6. IS . . . lila5 19.b3 l3c7 20 .<tt?b2 <tt?f'7 21 .l3b6 l3c6 22 .l3bS l3eS 23.e5± with an overwhelming positional advan­tage for White, Valvo - Rasmus­sen, Winnipeg 2 001.) 15.i.d3 fxe4 16.he4 l3a7 17.f3 b5 - the place­ment of Black's pawns on a6 and b5 only compromises his queen­side. In the game Jenni - Raetsky, Lenk 2003, there followed: IS.b4 lilf5 19.hf5 l3xf5 20 .<tt?b2 <tt?fS 21.lile4 <tt?e7 22 .l3hdl fJ.c7 23.lilc5 a5 24.a3;!; - and White's pieces occupied powerful outposts, ex­ploiting the weakening of the dark squares. 24 . . . g5 25.fJ.b6 h5 26.l3d4 axb4 27.axb4 fJ.e5 2S.fJ.d2 fJ.f5 29.h3 fJ.e5 30 .fJ.bS fJ.f5 31.lile4 d5 32 .lilg3 fJ.f4 33.fJ.xb5 h4 34.lile2 l3fc4 35.lilc1±

The variation : 1O . . . V«xd6 11. lilxd6 lileS 12 .lilxeS fJ.xeS, in comparison to lO . . . lileS, has the drawback that Black does not have the counterplay connected with the pawn-advance f'7-f5. His position is therefore clearly worse: 13.0-0-0 (White can also continue with: 13 .lilb5 fJ.dS 14.0-0-0;!; M.Rytshagov - van den Doel, Netherlands 1996.) 13 . . . fJ.e7 14.lilb5 b6 15.lild6 l3bS

16.�bS �f8, Aagaard - Bellon Lo­pez, Malmo 2004 and here for ex­ample after 17.f4;1; - White would have maintained a slight but sta­ble advantage in that endgame.

b2a) 1 0 • • :�M8

Black wishes to repel White's queen from the d6-square with the move tDe8, preserving the strongest pieces on the board.

1l.tLlc7 The idea of that move is to

counter Black's idea - tDf6-e8 and to exchange that knight in order to maintain the queen on the d6-outpost.

1l . . . gb8 Or 1l . . . tDe8 12.Ct::Jxe8 1':lxe8 13.

0-0-0 a6 14.f4 bS 1S.h4 (It is not so clear after: 1S.eS tDe7 16.�d3 �b7 17.�b1 gc8 - because Black manages to deploy his pieces quite well.) 1S . . . b4 16.tLla4 �aS 17.b3 �hS (or 17 . . . �b7 18.�bU) 18.tLlcS �g4 19.hS eS 20.fxeS �gS+ 21 .�b1 �xeS 22 .�c4;1;. White maintains the advantage thanks to his dominance over the d6-outpost and Black's undevel­oped bishop on c8. Later, in the

4. tLlxd4 e6 S. tLlc3 tLlf6 6. tLlbS

game Torres - De Oliveira, corr. 2001, there followed: 22 . . . 'lWxd6 23.gxd6 as 24.h6 tLleS 2S.�dS �a7 26.hxg7 gc7 27.tLld3 tDxd3 28.cxd3± - and Black was left with too many pawn-weaknesses.

12.�e2 b6 It deserves attention for Black

to try 12 . . . bS 13.eS (It is not so good for White to capture the pawn: 13.tLl7xbS 'lWaS 14.�d2 dS 1S.exdS exdS 16.0-0 �d8 17.tLld4 tDxd4 18.�xd4 �b4 19.�d3 �xb2oo Ber­thelot - Raetsky, Sautron 2005, or 13 .hbS �b7 14.eS tLlxeSf2) 13 . . . tLle8 (or 13 . . . b4 14.exf6 bxc3 1S.fxg7 �xg7 16.'lWg3+ �h8 17. �xc3± and White remains with an extra pawn) 14.tLlxe8 �xe8 1S.f4 (It is again fruitless for White to cap­ture on bS: 1S.�xbS �aS 16.hc6 �xb2 17.0-0 dxc6 18.'lWxc6 �f8f2. Black has an excellent counter­play after: 15.0-0 b4 16.tDe4 �b7 17.�fd1 tLle7 18.tLlcS �dS 19 .�d3 �c8, or 18.�f3 �dS.) 1S . . . �b6 16.�d2;1; iltLle4 and White main­tains a slight advantage.

13.e5 tLle8 Black has an interesting possi­

bility to disrupt White's plans by playing 13 . . . �b7, in order to force the knight to retreat from the c7-square and to continue then with tLle8. After the principled line: 14.exf6 'lWxc7 (or 14 .. . �xc7 1S.fxg7 �xg7 16.tDbS �b7 17.�g3+ �h8 18.tDd6±) 1S.tDbS 'lWxd6 16.tDxd6 �b8 17.fxg7 �xg7 18.0-0-0;1; White maintains some advantage in the endgame thanks to his pow-

109

Chapter 6

erful knight. 14.tbxe8 l3xe8 15.f4 Black wanted to develop his

queen to gS. 15 • • • .tb7 It is not good for Black to con­

tinue with IS .. .f6 16 . .tf3 .tb7 17. 0-0-0 fxeS lB. �xd7 ttJd4 19. �xdB !!exdB 2 0.J.xb7 !!xb7 21.fxeS !!bd7 22 .!!hel (V.Golod) and White re­mains with a solid extra pawn.

This position was reached in the game Galkin - Kabanov, Kazan 2005 and White played here: 16 . .tf3 ttJe7 17.J.xb7 !!xb7 IB.O-O-O bS 19.ttJe4 �aS 20 .�bl b4 21 .!!d3 (or 21 .ttJcS !!c7 22 .ttJb3 �b6 23.�xb6 axb6 24.!!d4) 21 . . . ttJdS - but despite Black's weak­ness on d6, the position was rath­er unclear, because of his power­ful knight on dS.

It is evidently stronger for White to play:

16. 0 - 0 - 0 attacking o n d7 and develop­

ing pieces. After 16 . . .f6 17.�xd7 fxeS

IB . .tf3;t; White still maintains some edge thanks to the vulner­ability of the e6-pawn and the

110

presence of some tactical threats, for example: IB . . . �xd7 19.!!xd7 .taB 20 .!!c7 !!ecB 21 .!!xcB+ !!xcB 22 .fxeS ttJxeS 23.J.xaB !!xaB 24. !!el ttJg6 2S.!!xe6 ttJf4 26.!!e7 ttJxg2 27.ttJdS;t;. If Black defends his pawn with 16 . . . !!e7, then it is quite unclear how he plans to re­pel his opponent's queen from the d6-outpost and so White has a clear advantage.

Black has nothing else to try but:

16 • • • tbe7 17.�xd7 Now, White must capture that

pawn. 17 • • • ixg2 After 17 . . . tbfS lB.ihS g6 19.if3

J.xf3 20.�xdB !!bxdB 21 .gxf3;t;, Black must still try to recap­ture his pawn: 21 . . .ttJe3 22 .!!del ttJg2 23.!!e4 tbh4 24.ttJbS ttJxf3 2S.ttJd6;t; with a positional advan­tage for White.

18.�xa7 (or IB.!!hgl idS) and the complications end up in favour of White: 18 • • • tbd5 (IB . . . .tdS 19.�a4 !!aB 20 .�b4 �c7 21.!!hgl J.xa2 22 .b3 !!ecB 23. M3; IB . . . �cB 19.!!hgl±) 19.!!hgl !!a8 2 0 .ffl>7 tbxc3 (or 2 0 . . . !!e7

21 .1Mfc6 !3c7 22 .1Mfb5±) 21.'ibg2 lLlxe2+ 22 .1Mfxe2 and in order to avoid losing a pawn for noth­ing, Black must enter the varia­tion: 22 • • • !3xa2 23.!3xg7+ �xg7 24.!3xd8 !3xd8 25.c3;!; - but his king remains vulnerable and White preserves the advantage in that position with approximate material equality.

b2b) 1 0 • • • lLle8

1l.1Mfxe7 lLlxe7 12. 0 - 0 - 0 f5 That move is quite logical,

because fl-f5 is Black's only real counterplay in that position.

About 12 . . . a6 13.ltJd6 ltJxd6 14.!3xd6 - see 1O . . . a6 1l.1Mfxe7 ltJxe7 12 .ltJd6 ltJe8 13.0-0-0 ltJxd6 14.!3xd6.

13)Dd6 Things are not so clear after:

13.e5 ltJg6 14.!3el a6 15.ltJd4 b5 16.h4 �b7 17.h5 ltJe7 18.a3 !3c8 19.!3h3 ltJc7 20.f4 ltJcd5� Barna -Bellon Lopez, Catalan Bay 2004.

13 • • • lLlxd6 14.!3xd6 fxe4 15. lLlxe4 lLlf5 16.�d2 d5

16 . . . b6, Minchev - Thurlow, Internet 2005, this is a clever move - Black does not wish to

4. ltJxd4 e6 5. ltJc3 lLlj6 6. ltJb5

restrict the scope of action of his bishop with the move d7-d5 just yet. 17.ltJg5 (White plays this in anticipation of the attack - �b7) 17 . . . h6 (about 17 . . . d5 18.ltJf3 - see 16 . . . d5) 18.lLlf3 and if Black wants to avoid playing d5, he will need to complete his development with the line: 18 . . . d6 19.�c4 !3f6 (or 19 . . . g5 20.h3;!;) 20 .!3eU - and Black's central pawns are rather weak.

17.lLlg5;!;

There arose a position of the "French Defence" type. Black has a backward e6-pawn in the centre and a "bad" light-squared bishop.

17 • • • b6 Or 17 . . . �d7 18.�d3 e5 19.�e4

dxe4 20 .!3xd7 e3 21.fxe3 ltJxe3 22 . !3el ltJxg2 23.!3xe5 !3ad8 24 . !3xd8 !3xd8 25.!3e7 ltJf4 26.b4;!; Hall.

17 . . . h6 (This move only helps White to do what he would have done anyway.) 18.ltJf3 ltJd6 19.�d3 �d7 20 .!3el !3f6 (Black should not deploy his pawns on the light squares: 20 . . . b5 21.!3de2 !3f4 22 .ltJe5 �c8 - it is better for him to try 22 . . . �e8 23.g3± Black is worse, but he is not losing material yet - 23.f3 a6 24.ltJc6

111

Chapter 6

gf6 (or 24 . . . !d7 2S.lLle7+ wf7 26.lLlxdS+-) 2s.lLldB+- and Black loses his e6-pawn, Conquest - Duquesnoy, Montpellier 2006) 21 .lLleS !bS and here instead of 22 .hbS lLlxbS 23.lLld7 gg6 24.g3 b6 2S.wbl;!; Schnabel - Schae­fer, Gausdal 200S, White could have simply captured the pawn: 22 .lLlg4 gf4 23.gxe6 hd3 24.cxd3 gcB+ 2S.wdl gxg4 26.f3±

17 . . . !d7 - This move is pas­sive, but it is quite solid. IB.!d3 (White does not need to retreat with his knight yet: IB.lLlf3 lLld6 19.!d3 gaeB 2 0.gel lLlf7 21.gde2, Berg - Raetsky, Internet 2004, 21 . . .eS 22 .lLlxeS lLlxeS 23.gxeS gxeS 24.gxeS gxf2 and White still has some symbolic edge.) IB . . . g6 19.1Llf3 lLld6, Tissir - Bellon Lo­pez, Malaga 2003, 20 .gel gaeB 2 1.gde2 lLlf7 22 .c3;!;

GM Bellon Lopez has played several times the simplifying line: 17 .. . lLlh4 IB.g3 lLlf3 19.1Llxf3 gxf3 2 0 .Ag2 (After 2 0.c4 gf7 21 .b3 b6 22 .cxdS Ab7 23 .Ag2 gdB 24.ghdl hdS 2S.wb2 gfd7 26.hdS gxdS 27.gxdS exdS 2B.gcl geB 29. Wc3 E:cB+ 30.wd2 E:xcl 31.Wxcl, the king and pawn endgame turned out to be a draw: 31 . . . wf7 32 . wd2 We6 33. We3 wfS 34.f3 gS 3S.wd4 We6 36.b4 hS 37.bS h4 3B.a4 h3 39.f4 gxf4 40.gxf4 wfS 41.WxdS Wxf4 42.Wc6 wf3 43.wb7 Wg2 44.Wxa7 Wxh2 4S.aS bxaS 46.b6 Wg2 47.b7 h2 4B.bB� hl� 49.Wfb7+ wh2 SO.�c7+ and a draw Ganguly - Bellon Lopez,

112

Gibraltar 2006.) 20 . . . gf7 (That is an improvement in comparison to the variation: 20 . . . gf6 21 .c4 b6 22 .cxdS Ab7 23.f4 gcB+ 24. wbl hS 2S.E:el exdS 26.E:e7 !c6 27.hdS+ wfB 2B.geS gdB 29 .Wcl± and White ends up with a material advantage, E.Berg - Bellon Lo­pez, Gothenburg 2004; while af­ter 21 . . .dxc4 22 .E:hdl E:bB 23.f4, Black will have problems getting rid of the pin along the eighth rank.) 21.f4 (or 21 .c4 gc7 22 .b3 Ad7) 21 ... g6 22 .h4 hS 23.gel !d7 24 . .ih3 gf6 2S.gde2 wf7;!; - White has a stable advantage thanks to his better bishop, but Black has good chances to save the game af­ter an accurate defence, Coleman - Bellon Lopez, England 2006.

18.�f3 Black's centre should be

blocked. It does not seem con­vincing for White to play IB.Ad3 in view of IB . . . eS 19.E:el e4 20 . !bS lLle7 21 .ge3 h6 22 .lLlh3 !e6 23.Aa4 lLlfS 24.gc3 lLlh4 - in the game Czebe - Chernov, Interla­ken 2003 Black organized a pow­erful counterplay by an active play in the centre, forcing White

to place his knight on a bad po­sition. 25.i.b3 l'!adB 26.l'!c6 i.g4 27.l'!xd5 Wh7 2B.lLJf4 l'!xd5 29. lLJxd5 lLJxg2 30.lLJc3 e3 31.fxe3 l'!f1+ 32 .Wd2 l'!f2+ 33.Wd3 lLJel+ 34.Wc4 l'!xh2oo

18 • • .tl�d6 19.1d3 id7 It is hardly advisable for Black

to redeploy his knight: 19 . . . lLJb7 20 .c3 lLJc5 2 1.i.c2 as 22 .l'!el a4 23.lLJe5;!;. White has a stable po­sitional advantage, while Black's premature attempt to create some counterplay with the move 23 . . . a3 - led only to the forma­tion of additional weaknesses in his camp: 24.b3 l'!a7 25.b4 lLJa6 26.f3 l'!c7 27.l'!e3 ib7 2B .l'!d4 lLJbB 29 .Wd2 ia6 30 .c4 dxc4 31 .l'!xa3 ib5 32 .l'!c3 l'!a7 33.a3 l'!cB 34.lLJxc4 l'!ac7 35.ib3 WfB 36.l'!c2 lLJd7 37.lLJd6 and White won in the game M.Carlsen - Vidoniak, Gausdal 2005.

2 0 .�el lt)f7 21.c4

4. lLJxd4 e6 5. lLJc3 lt)j6 6 . lLJb5

It is also possible for White to try 21.lLJe5 lLJxe5 22 .l'!xe5;!;

21 . • • l'!ac8 22.Whl �fe8

It is preferable for White not to force the issue yet: 23.l'!c2 !?;l; (Or 23.cxd5 exd5 24.l'!xeB+ l'!xeB 25.i.c2 i.g4 26.ib3 hf3 27.gxf3 l'!el+ 2B .Wc2 WfB 29.l'!xd5 We7 - White will hardly manage to realize his edge with his com­promised pawn-structure on the kingside, Berg - Hall, Germany 2002. ) 23 • • • ic6 24.lt)d4 ih7 25.cxd5 .b:d5 26.f:U and Black is still slightly worse.

113

Chapter 7 1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4. �xd4 e6 5.�c3 �f6 6.�db5 .ib4

This is the strongest move for Black in this position, similar to 6 . . . d6. He develops a piece and he attacks White's e4-pawn.

7.a3 White forces his opponent to

exchange on c3 and thus he ob­tains the two-bishop advantage.

He achieves nothing with the check on d6 - after 7.tL'ld6+ Black plays simply 7 . . .'ll e7, attacking the knight on d6. The forced vari­ations arising after: 7.M4 tL'lxe4 B .tL'lc7 + @fB 9.�f3 (or 9.tL'lxaB �f6 1O.�f3 tL'lxc3 11.!d2 tL'ld4, Reggio - Tarrasch, Monte Carlo 1902) 9 . . . d5 10 .0-0-0 hc3 11.bxc3 e5 are rather unclear.

7 . . • .bc3+ This exchange is forced, since

it is too dangerous for Black to play 7 . . . !a5? and to lose the con-

114

trol over the d6-square complete­ly. B .M !b6 (Or B . . . !c7, Axels­son - Lindgren, Sweden 1992, 9.f4 ! ?±. White is threatening 10 .e5 and Black cannot play: 9 . . . d6 1O.tL'lxc7+ �xc7 11.tL'lb5+- - with a terrible position for him.) 9.tL'ld6+ @e7 1O.tL'lc4 ! !d4 (After 1O . . . d5 11.tL'lxb6 axb6 12 .b5 tL'la5 13.a4± Black's position is very bad, his king is in the centre and his dark squares are vulnerable.) 11 .tL'lb5 ! d5 (Naturally, Black loses after: 11 . . . ha1 12 .�d6+ @eB 13.tL'lc7+ �xc7 14.�xc7+-) 12 .tL'lxd4 dxc4 13.tL'lxc6+ bxc6 14.!g5 �c7 15. �d4 E1dB 16.�c5+ @eB 17.hf6 gxf6 1B.hc4± and White ends up with a solid extra pawn, Englisch - L.Paulsen, Leipzig 1B79.

8.tL'lxc3 d5 Black has exchanged his dark­

squared bishop and now he must compensate its absence fighting for the centre with the move - B . . . d5.

He has tried some other moves though:

B . . . a6 9.�d6 and White ob­tains with a useful extra tempo (the move a2-a3) a position from

4. 'iJxd4 e6 5. 'iJc3 'iJf6 6. 'iJdb5 i1.b4 7.a3 i1.xc3 8. 'iJxc3

the variation 6 . . . a6 7.'iJd6+i1.xd6 B .'IWxd6 (see Chapter 6) ;

B . . . d6. We have on the board a typical pawn-structure for the Sicilian Defence, but Black's dark-squared bishop is absent and his problems are like a snow avalanche. 9 .i1.g5 0-0, Faulks -Trott, Bermuda 2002 (In case of 9 . . . h6, White's initiative develops effortlessly: 10 .i1.xf6 gxf6, Powell - RMarshall, Email 1997, Il.Wld2 a6 12 .0-0-0 @e7 13.f4± ) 10 .i1.e2± - Black is completely paralyzed, because of his weak d6-pawn and the annoying pin;

B .. .'IWa5 9 .i1.d3 d5 (or 9 . . . 0-0 10.0-0 a6. Black's last several moves do not combine well to­gether. 11.i1.f4 h6 12 .i1.d6 EldB 13. e5 'iJeB (13 . . . 'iJxe5 14.h4+-) 14. b4 Wlb6 15.'iJa4 Wld4 16.i1.e7 and White won the exchange in the game Yudasina - Madivani, Ra­mat Aviv 199B.) 1O.exd5 'iJxd5 11. i1.d2 'iJxc3 12 .i1.xc3 WIgS 13.0-0 0-0 14.Elel Eld8 15.�f3 �e7, Bjelo­glav - Stavila, Budva 2003. Black lost so many tempi for queen moves and after 16.�e4+- he was forced to compromise decisively his kingside;

B . . . Wlb6. Black prevents the development of his opponent's bishop on el, but White can de­velop his kingside instead. 9 .i1.d3 and here Black should better cas­tle, because after: 9 . . . 'iJe5 1O.i1.e2 0-0, Rosenberger - von Reth, Neuwied 1993, 11.f4 'iJg6 12 .Wld3 �e3, e5, h2-h4-h5, he could

have come under a dangerous at­tack, while the move 12 . . . e5 is bad in view of: 13.f5 'iJf4 14.i1.xf4 exf4 15.e5 'iJeB 16 .0-0-0+-;

B . . . h6. The only idea behind that move is to prevent i1.g5 af­ter i1.f4 and e5. Still, after 9.f4 d6 1O .i1.e3 a6 11 .Wlf3 Wlc7 12. 0-0-0± it turns out that Black has seri­ously compromised his kingside - it is too risky for him to castle there, while it would be just ter­rible for him to play 12 . . . b5, be­cause of: 13.i1.xb5 axb5 14.'iJxb5 WlbB 15.'iJxd6� - and White has a strong attack in a position with approximate material equality, van den Berg - van Soom, Sinaia 1965;

B . . . O-O 9 .Wld6 - White pre­vents d7-d5. Here, Black has tried in practice:

9 . . . a6 - Similar neutral pas­sive moves are hardly advisable in situations like that, because the power of White's pieces increases with every move. 1O.i1.e3 (White would have countered 9 . . . h6 with the same move.) lO . . . 'iJeB, Maeder - Muhana, corr. 197B, 11 .Wlg3±;

9 . . . �b6, Sgaravatti - Som­merbauer, Latschach 2005 and here the best for White would be to play like before (see B . . . Wlb6) - 1O .i1.d3±;

9 . . . Wle7 1O.Wlxe7 'iJxe7 11.i1.g5 h6 12.i1.h4 'iJg6 13 .i1.g3 b6 14.i1.d6 EldB 15.0-0-0 i1.b7 16.f3 ElacB 17.ib5± - White's dark-squared bishop and the weak d6-square provide him with a serious advan-

115

Chapter 7

tage in the endgame, O'Donnell - South, Canada 1992 ;

9 . . . �a5 10.,td3 a6 (After 10 . . . geS 1l .,td2 �e5 12 .ttJb5 �xd6 13.ttJxd6 gdS 14.,tg5 h6 15.,txf6 gxf6 16 .0-0-0± - Black's king­side pawns are weak, as well as his d6-square and it is far from clear how he can complete his de­velopment, Paehtz - Giannopou­lou, Kallithea Chalkidiki 2003.) 11 .0-0 �e5 12 .,tf4 �xd6 13.,txd6 geS, Kelemen - P.Szabo, Hunga­ry 2000, 14.f4± - Black's position is very difficult strategically;

9 . . . ttJeS 10.�g3 d5 1l.,td3 d4 12.ttJe2 e5 13.f4 f6 14.0-0 ,te6 15.f5 ,tf7 16.�h4 ttJd6 17.gf3 Ii?hS 1S.g4t �g5 - and White has good attacking prospects on the king­side, Purdy - Charmatz, Sydney 1944.

9.exd5

Now, we will analyze both cap­tures - a) 9 . . . ttJxd5 and the main line b) 9 . . . exd5.

a) 9 . . . ttJxd5 Black avoids the appearance

of an isolated pawn on d5 with that move, but now the centre is

116

opened and that is in favour of White, because of his two bish­ops.

1 0 .,td2 !?

White prepares the evacuation of his king to the queenside and the occupation of the d-file with this useful move. Black has coun­tered that most often with : at) 10 . . . 0 - 0 and a2) 1 0 . . . �h4.

His other moves seem to be less logical :

1O . . . a6 - This looks like a loss of time, Krabbe - Fritsch, DDR 1975, 11.�h5 ttJf6 12 .�g5 0-0 13 .,td3±;

1O . . . i.d7 - That is not the most active position for that bishop, Wiesinger - Perndl, corr. 1994, 11.�h5 ttJf6 12.�h4 �e7 13. O-O-O±;

10 . . . b6 - Black prepares the fianchettoing of his bishop, but that seems to be too slow, Zakiro­va - Ertel, Kazan 2001, 11.�h5 ttJf6 12.�h4 �d4 (12 . . . 0-0 13. 0-0-0 �e7 14.,td3±) 13.�xd4 ttJxd4 14.0-0-0 0-0 15.i.f4±;

1O . . . ttJce7 - Black's knight re­treats from the centre, but that is hardly in his favour. 11.�h5 i.d7,

4 .eiJxd4 e6 5.eiJc3 liJf6 6 .liJdb5 ib4 7.a3 ixc3 B. liJxc3

Zuckerman - Steinmeyer, Man­hattan 1963, 12 .id3±;

1O . . :�Vb6 - That move en­ables White to obtain a lead in development and to occupy the central squares. 11 .liJb5 0-0 (It is not better for Black to try: 11. . . liJd4 12 .liJxd4 iWxd4 13 .ib5+ id7 14.ixd7+ Wxd7 lS. 0-0± and his king remains stranded in the cen­tre and that would be very trou­blesome for him, J.Kaplan - Sia­peras, Siegen 1970.) 12 .c4 liJde7 13 .ie3 iWd8 14.ie2 e5 lS. 0-0 liJfS 16.icS �e8 17.if3± Adler -Rogozhnikov, USSR 1967;

1O . . . iWf6 - This move leads to an unpleasant endgame for Black. 11.iWhS iWg6 (About 11 . . . 0-0 12 . id3 - see 10 . . . 0-0 l1.mrhS mrf6 12 .id3; it is even worse for Black to weaken his dark squares with: 11 . . . g6 12 .mrgS mrxgS 13.ixgS liJxc3 14.if6 0-0 lS.ixc3 �d8 16.if6 �dS 17.c4± and Black has failed to compromise his opponent's pawn-structure and White's dark­squared bishop is tremendously strong now, Walther - Schiffer, corr. 1977. ) 12 .mrxg6 hxg6 13. 0-0-0 0-0 14.g3 �d8 lS.ig2 liJxc3 16.ixc3± White has occu­pied the only open file and his bishops are very active on the long diagonals, Seres - Dibusz, Hungary 2002 ;

lO . . . eS - That move enables Black to develop his bishop to a more active position, but now he weakens important squares on the d-file. 11.mrhS ie6 (about

11. . . 0-0 12 .0-0-0 - see 10 . . . 0-0 l1.mrhS eS 12 .0-0-0) 12 . 0-0-0 mrc7 13.liJxd5 ixdS, Sanz - Melen­dez, Aragon 1991 and here after 14.ih6 ! 0-0-0 (It is too bad for Black to play: 14 . . . liJd4 lS.�xd4 ! exd4 16 .ixg7± and White's bish­ops are tremendously active.) 15.ixg7 �he8 16.id3± and White remains with a solid extra pawn;

1O . . . liJxc3 - That move only enhances White's development. 11.ixc3 mrxd1+ (about 11 . . . 0-0 12 .mrhS - see 10 . . . 0-0) 12 .�xd1 f6 (The other moves are not any better for Black: 12 . . . 0-0 13.f4 �d8 14.�xd8+ liJxd8 lS .ie2 id7 16. wf2 liJc6 17.�d1 ie8 18.if3 �c8 19.94± White's two-bishop advan­tage enables him to start an offen­sive on both sides of the board, Salimaki - Latvio , Espoo 2002 ; or 12 . . . eS 13.id3 ie6 14. 0-0 0-0 lS.�del± and Black will lose his e5-pawn, Arul - Soumya, Salem 2000.) 13.f4 id7 (Black has no active play at all after: 13 . . . We7 14.id3 id7 1S.0-0 �ad8 16.mel± Fucak - Meulders, Groningen 1968; 13 . . . eS - Black creates de­liberately a weak pawn for him in the centre with that move. 14.fxeS fxeS 1S.ibS ig4, Bringer 1 .S - In­somniac O.SS, Boissel 1999 and here the most unpleasant line for Black seems to be: 16 .�d2 0-0 17.ic4+ wh8 18.h3 ihS 19.�fl±) 14.ic4 0-0-0 lS.0-0 �he8 (It is hardly any better for Black to de­fend with: lS . . . Wc7 16.�de1 ! ? �he8 17.�f3 ic8t - or 17 . . . eS 18.fxeS

117

Chapter 7

ttJxeS 19.heS+ 1"1xeS 20.1"1xeS fxeS 21 .1"1f7± and Black loses material - lS.1"1g3 1"1e7 19.1"1ge3 1"1d6 20 .b4 ! White has forced his opponent to defend his kingside pawns and now he begins an attack on the queenside. 20 . . . ttJdS 21.bS 1"1ed7 22 . .td3 h6 23.1"1g3 b6 24 . .tb4± R.Fischer - Addison, USA 1962.) 16.1"1de1 ! eS (It is too bad for Black to play: 16 . . . 1"1e7? ! 17.b4 ! @c7 IS. bS ttJbS 19 . .tb4 1"1eeS 20.1"1f3 @b6 21 .a4+- and the difference in the activity of the pieces make us evaluate that position as win­ning for White, R.Fischer - Orni­thopoulos, Athens 1965.) 17.fxeS ttJxeS lS . .txeS 1"1xeS 19.1"1xeS fxeS 2 0 . .td3 ! .tc6 (It is better for Black to try: 20 . . . g6 21 .1"1e1 1"1eS 22 .@f2;!;, but even then he is doomed to a long and laborious defence with­out counter chances.) 21.1"1e1! 1"1dS 22 .hh7 1"1d2 23.1e4± Matulovic - Siaperas, Athens 1969.

al) 10 ... 0 - 0

This natural move enables White to develop his queen to the most active position.

11. �h5 ttJf6

l1S

The alternatives are not better for Black:

11 . . .1Wf6 - He is trying to en­ter an endgame with that move. 12 . .td3 1WeS+ 13 .1WxeS ttJxeS 14 . .te2 .td7, Medina Garcia - van Riem­sdijk, Wijk aan Zee 1971 and here after lS.ttJxdS exdS 16 . .tc3 1"1feS 17.0-0-0± Black has problems protecting his weak dS-pawn;

1l. . .ttJxc3 - This move only improves White's development. 12 . .txc3 eS (It is not preferable for Black to try: 12 . . . 1WdS 13.1Wh4 eS 14 . .td3 h6, Haapala - Vornanen, Kirjeshakki 1974, because after: 15. 0-0-0 @hS 16.1We4 1Wxe4 17. .txe4± White has the two-bishop advantage and he is dominant on the only open file.) 13 . .td3 g6 (After 13 . . . h6 14.0-0-0 1WgS+ lS.1WxgS hxgS 16 . .te4± Black will need to defend for long a very unpleasant endgame, Maeder - Naranja, Bad Pyrmont 1970.) 14.1Wh6 1Wf6 15.0-0 �g7 16.1We3± and White has excellent attacking chances thanks to the weak dark squares on Black's kingside, Tal - V.Liberzon, Kislovodsk 1964;

In answer to 11 . . .1Wb6, Erler - Calmbach, corr. 19S6, it looks very promising for White to sac­rifice a pawn with: 12 .ttJxdS exdS 13.0-0-0 1Wxf2 (Black must de­fend a very unpleasant position with material equality if he does not accept the pawn-sacrifice.) 14 . .td3 fS lS.1"1h£1 �cS 16.@b1!� White's pieces are very active and his king is safe, so he has excellent

4. 0,xd4 e6 5. 0,c3 0,f6 6. 0,db5 ib4 7.a3 ixc3 8. 0,xc3

attacking chances, for example: 16 . . . d4 (It seems that Black's de­fensive task is even more difficult after: 16 . . . g6 17. \Wh6 .!d7 lS.h4--+) 17.�f4 �t7 18.�e1 .id7 19.b4 !? �d5 (That i s Black's only move. After: 19 . . . \Wd6 20 . .ic4+- White wins the exchange, preserving very dangerous threats .) 20 .�h4 g6 (It is hardly better for Black to try: 2 0 . . . g5 ! ? 21.\Wxg5+ �g7 22 . c4 �xg2 - Black loses immedi­ately after: 22 . . . dxc3? 23.ic4+-. 23.�f4 �eS 24.�eS+ .!xeS 25.b5 0,e7 26.�bS wfS 27.icl± and de­spite the fact that White has had to advance the pawns in front of his king, his prospects are clearly superior, because he would regain unavoidably his pawn, while his opponent's king has no reliable shelter. If Black manages to avoid coming under attack, by trading the queens, the endgame would be clearly in favour of White, because of his powerful bishop pair.) 21 .\wf3 ! .!e6 (After 21 . . . �xf3 22 .gxf3±, White either wins the exchange, or he captures the d4-pawn, which cramps his bish­ops.) 22 .\Wxd5 .!xd5 23.b5 0,e7 24.�xd4± and the centre has been opened, which makes White's bishops even stronger;

1l . . . e5 - This move weakens the d5-square, but it enables Black to develop his bishop to a good position. 12 .0-0-0 .ie6, Hansson - Helmertz, BolInas 1973 (After 12 . . . 0,xc3 13 . .!xc3 \Wc7 14.id3± White exerts powerful pressure in

the centre and he maintains good attacking chances. 14 . . . e4? 15.�g5 f6 16 .\Wd5+ WhS 17.\Wxe4+- Da­betic - Rodic, Kladovo 1992 ; 12 . . . 0,f6 13.\wh4 �d4 14.\Wg3 \Wg4, Safar Zadeh - Oskooei, Iran 1993 and now after: 15.f3 �xg3 16.hxg3 .if5 17.g4 ig6 lS.ie3 �fdS 19.ic4± White has a stable advantage in that endgame. 12 . . . 0,c7 - This move looks too slow, Preibsch - Wolf, corr. 1969 and after 13.f4 ! White is ready to push that pawn even further, with­out letting Black's knight to the e6-square. White is preparing a kingside attack and the following variations illustrate the fact that Black's defence is rather difficult: 13 . . . exf4 14.ixf4 .id7 15.id3±; 13 . . . g6 14.\wh6±; 13 . . . \Wd4 14.f5 0,eS 15.ig5±; 13 . . . \WeS 14.f5 f6 15.\WxeS �eS 16.g4±) and here after: 13 . .ie3 \Wa5 14.0,xd5 .!xd5 15.f3 �fdS 16.id3;l; White has a slight, but stable edge thanks to his two-bishop advantage.

12.'Ml4

12 • • • \Wd4 Entering an endgame would

not solve the defensive problems

119

Chapter 7

for Black, but the alternatives are not better for him at all :

12 . . . lLld4 - That knight-ma­neuver looks strange. 13.0-0-0 lLlfS 14.'1Wh3 Wb6 1S . .!d3± and White is perfectly prepared for a kingside attack, Wegener - Kind, Germany 2003 ;

12 . . . Wb6 ! ? - That is an at­tempt by Black to create some threats against White's king faster that his opponent. 13.0-0-0 Eid8, Kaspersen - Buktas, corr. 1991, 14.'!d3 Eixd3 ! ? (The other possi­bilities for Black enable White to begin his offensive outright: 14 . . . eS 1S . .!gS Eid4 16.f4±; or 14 . . . Eid4 1S.Wg3 Eig4 16.Wh3 lLleS 17 . .!e3 WaS 18 . .!e2±) 1S.cxd3 lLld4 (It is not preferable for Black to try here: 1S . . . eS 16 . .!e3 WaS 17.d4±) 16 . .!e3 eS 17.hd4 exd4 18.lLle2 '!e6 19.lLlxd4± and Black can hard­ly prove that his compensation for the exchange is sufficient, for ex­ample: 19 . . . .!g4 (After 19 . . . Eic8+ 20 .�b1 .!g4 21.Eic1! Eid8 22 .h3+­White consolidates his position. It is not advisable for Black to opt for: 19 . . . .!a2 ! ? 2 0.Eid2 ! Eid8 21 .Eic2 ! h6 22 .lLlfS Eixd3 23.Wb4± and it is inconceivable how Black can improve his position later.) 20 .f3 Wxd4 21.fxg4 bS 22 .Eid2 ! b4 23.Wf2± White has parried his op­ponent's threats and he has sim­plified the position considerably.

13.Wxd4 .!Dxd4 14. 0 - 0 - 0 e5 15 • .te3 .!Dg4

Now, there follows a practi­cally forced variation, which leads

120

to a clear advantage for White, be­cause of his very active pieces.

16.hd4 exd4 17.1:�xd4 .!Dxf2 18.�gl .!Dg4 19 • .!Dd5 .!De5 2 0 . .tb5 .!Dg6 21. �el± Suetin - Roiz­man, USSR 1961.

a2) 10 . • • Wh4

Black prevents the develop­ment of his opponent's queen to the hS-square.

1l.Wf3 Still, White plans to castle

long. 1l • • • .!Dd4 That is the most aggressive

line for Black. His other possibili­ties enable White to obtain a sta­ble advantage with quite natural moves:

11 . . . 0-0 12.Wg3 Wxg3 13.hxg3

4. CiJxd4 e6 5. CiJc3 CiJf6 6. CiJdb5 ib4 7.a3 hc3 8. CiJxc3

EldB 14.id3 h6 15.0-0-0;!; and White has the two-bishop advan­tage, while after: 15 . . . b6 16.CiJxd5 exd5 17.Elhe1 ie6 1B.f3± Black must also worry about his weak d5-pawn, Matanovic - Gerusel, Bad Pyrmont 1970 ;

1l . . . lLle5 12 .1Wg3 '.Wxg3 13.hxg3 id7 14.CiJxd5 exd5 15.0-0-0± and White has excellent chances to exert powerful pressure on the kingside, while Black must take care about the protection of his vulnerable d5-pawn, which makes his defence even harder. 15 .. .f6 16.ic3 ic6 17.Ele1 0-0 1B.f4 CiJd7 19.id3 g6? (Black had better try: 19 . . . h6 20 .ig6 lLlc5 2 1.id4 CiJe4 22 .g4±) 20 .Ele7+- Scholz - El­sner, corr. 1972 .

12.'.Wd3

12 • • • CiJf4 12 . . . e5?! - This piece-sac­

rifice is very dubious. 13.CiJxd5 if5 14.'.Wc3 0-0 (Black loses quickly after: 14 . . . '.We4+? 15.lLle3 Elc8 16.id3 Elxc3 17.ixe4 Elxe3+ 1B.fxe3 ixe4 19.exd4 1-0 Har­dicsay - Regan, Budapest 197B.) 15.lLle3 ElfcB 16.'.Wb4! ixc2 , Kolar - Demian, Slovakia 2001, corr.

2002 and here White neutralizes his opponent's activity with: 17.Elc1 1We4 1B.h4! - White prepares the development of his rook with that move, but also he deprives his op­ponent's queen of the h4-square. 1B . . . a5 (It is not better for Black to continue with 1B . . . !b3, because after: 19.f3 Elxc1+ 20 .ixc1 '.Wc6 21.id2+- he has nothing else to attack.) 19.'.Wb6 ib3 20.f3 Elxc1+ 21.ixc1 '.Wbl 22 .@d2 ie6 (or 22 . . . ElcB 23.id3+-) 23 .id3 1Wa1 24. CiJc2+- White has managed to simplify the position and to par­ry Black's seemingly dangerous threats.

12 . . . 0-0 13.0-0-0 EldB (After 13 . . . CiJxc3 14.ixc3 lLlc6 15.1Wg3±, the activity of White's pieces pro­vides him with a stable advan­tage.) 14.g3 '.Wg4? (Black had bet­ter defend with: 14 . . . '.Wf6 15.lLle4 1Wf3 16.'.Wxf3 lLlxf3 17.!g2 lLlxd2 1B.Elxd2±, although even then his lag in development would make his task very difficult.) 15.h3 '.Wf3 16.'.Wxf3 lLlxf3 17.ig2 lLlxd2 1B.Elxd2+- Mecking - van Riem­sdijk, Sao Paulo 1972.

13.1We4 This is White's most energet­

ic line. He could have obtained a slight but stable advantage, thanks to his domination over the d-file and his more active pieces, in the variation: 13.ixf4 1Wxf4 14.Eld1 CiJc6 15.Ae2;!; Maxion - Laven, Germany 19B5.

13 • • • f5 It is quite evident that follow-

121

Chapter 7

ing: 13 . . . tt'lg6 14.'1Wxh4 tt'lxh4 15. O-O-O± Black's position is very difficult.

14.�xf4 c!l'lxc2+ 15.<i!?dl �xf4 16 • .lxf4 c!l'lxal 17.�c4 �d7

After 17 . . . <i!?t7 18.<i!?cl Eld8 19. i.a2 Eld4 (or 19 . . . <i!?f6 20.Elel±) 20. i.e5± Black unavoidably loses his knight on al and White obtains a slight material advantage, more­over that his pieces are more ac­tive as well.

18.<i!?e2 ! gc8 19.�a2 c!l'lc2 It is worse for Black to give back

the exchange: 19 . . . Elxc3 2 0.bxc3 tt'lc2 21 .Elbl (The move 21.i.cl seems to be stronger at first sight, for example: 21 . . .i.a4 22.i.b2 <i!?e7 23.Elcl Eld8 24.i.bl i.b5 25. <i!?f3 , but after 25 . . . i.c6, Black creates powerful threats.) and here Black must give back his extra pawn in order to save his knight and his defence becomes too difficult: 21 . . .b6? 22 .ic1 ! <i!?t7 23.<i!?dl ia4 24.i.b3+- and Black loses his knight; 21 . . .tt'lxa3 22 .Elxb7±; 21 . . . i.c6 22 .he6 tt'lxa3 23.Elal tt'lb5 24.i.e5 <i!?e7 25.hf5± White has a stable advantage, thanks to his powerful bishop pair in an open position.

122

2 0 .<i!?d3 c!l'lxa3 21.bxa3 <i!?f7 22.Elel Elhd8 (or 22 . . . Elhe8 23. f3;1;) 23.<i!?c2;1; - and White's piec­es are much more active in a po­sition with approximate material equality.

b) 9, . .exd5 1 0 .J.d3

This is the main line of the 6 . . . J.b4 system.

The position should be better for White from the point of view of common sense. At first, he has a couple of powerful bishops and he has good diagonals for them. His dark-squared bishop is par­ticularly strong and it has no op­ponent. The bishop on d3 is active and well deployed too. Secondly, Black has an isolated pawn in the centre. Why does Black enter a position like that and sometimes at the highest level?

As a compensation for the abovementioned drawbacks of his position, Black obtains a free piece-development (Ele8, ig4) and sometimes (after d5-d4) even a slight space advantage, which does not happen so often when you play with Black.

4. 0,xd4 e6 S. 0,c3 0,f6 6. 0,dbS ib4 7.a3 hc3 8. 0,xc3

As for the two-bishop advan­tage - Black has good chances to exchange one of the bishops (the one on the d3-square) either for a bishop (ic8-f5), or for a knight (0,c6-e5). He will contain the ac­tion of the other bishop with his pawns somehow (d4, h6).

Finally, the weakness of Black's isolated d5-pawn (or d4) is not so great, since knights are much more effective, in the fight against an isolated pawn, than bishops are.

Still, the evaluation of the posi­tion as better for White stands; he must take care of his opponent's ideas and counter them adequate­ly, for example, he must keep his bishops from being exchanged.

The most natural move for Black in that position is - b2) 1 0 • • • 0 - 0 , while the only way in which he can hope to exploit ad­vantageously the fact that neither side has castled is - bl) 1 0 . . . d4.

About lO . . . h6 11 .0-0 0-0 12 .h3 - see lO . . . O-O 11 .0-0 h6 12.h3 ; as for lO . . . ie6 11.0-0 0-0 - see 10 . . . 0-0 11 .0-0 ie6.

We must also see some other moves, which require separate analysis :

1O .. .'�e7+ 11.0,e2 0-0 (about 11 . . . 0,eS 12 .0-0 0,xd3 13.'�lxd3 0-0 14.ig5 - see 11 . . . 0-0) 12 .0-0 0,e5 (or 12 . . . ig4, Florian - Byrtek, Katowice 1949, 13.f3 ie6 14.ig5 '&c5+ - otherwise Black will have to unpin with the help of h6 and g5 - 15.r.t>h1 0,d7 16.'&d2;t; Aie3

and 0,d4) 13 . .ig5 0,xd3 (or 13 . . . ig4 14.f3 id7 15.0,d4 h6 , Kri­vokapic - Steinhagen, France 2007, 16.ih4. White should bet­ter not exchange on f6, before the trade on d3. 16 .. .1'!fe8 17.i'!eU - White's knight on d4 is very powerful and he has a stable ad­vantage.) 14.'�'xd3 '&e5 (It is more or less the same after 14 . . . h6, Seit­aj - Santacruz, Thessaloniki 1984 15.ixf6 '&xf6 16. 0, d4;t;) 15.ixf6 '&xf6, Amason - Ruefenacht, Zug 1983, 16.0,d4;t; and White has the standard edge in this variation - a powerful knight against a "bad" bishop and Black must also worry about his isolated pawn;

1O . . . ig4 11.f3 ie6 (about 11 . . . Wfe7 11.0,e2 ie6 12 .0-0 - see 10 . . . Wfe7+ 11 .0,e2 0-0 12 .0-0; as for 11. . .ih5 12 .0-0 0-0 - see 10 . . . 0-0 11 .0-0 ig4 12 .f3 ih5) 12.0-0 h6 (This move prevents the pin of the knight on f6 ; 12 . . . Wfb6+ 13.'it>h1 d4 14.0,e2 0-0 15.b4 and here : 15 .. . a6 16.ib2 �ad8 17.Wfd2;t;, or 15 . . . 'it>h8, Sandin - Butenschoen, corr 1961, 16.ib2 0,d5 17.Wfd2;t; - the weakness of the e3-square now is almost immaterial, because in case Black's knight occupies it, White would retreat with his rook and he will attack the weak d4-pawn, for example: 17 . . . �fe8 18.b5 0,e3 19.�fb1 0,c4 20 .ixc4 ixc4 21.bxc6 �xe2 22 .cxb7±; about 12 . . . 0-0 13.ig5 - see 10 . . . 0-0 11 .0-0 ig4 12 .f3 ie6 13.ig5) 13.if4 0-0 14.'&d2 0,e7 (Black fails to exchange the bishop: 14 . . .

123

Chapter 7

tLlh5 15.hh6 gxh6 16.Wlxh6 tLlf6 17.f4 and his position is very diffi­cult : 17 . . . Ele8 18.f5 i.d7 19.Elf3+-) 15.tLlb5 i.f5 16.Elfe1 hd3 17.Wlxd3 tLlc6 18.Eladl±. Black is clearly worse - his d5-pawn is weak and his dark squares are vulner­able. In the game Palac - Pinkus, Geneve 1996 there followed: 18 . . . Wlb6+ 19.i.e3 d4? 20.tLlxd4 Wlxb2 21 .Elb1 Wla2 22 .Elxb7+-

bt) 10 .. . d4 1l.tLle2

1l • • • i.f5 This is the move, which makes

the line with 1O . . . d4, before cas­tling, have separate importance. The exchange of the bishops is in principle favourable for Black, but the point is that he loses two tem­pi for it and as a result of that, his d4-pawn becomes endangered.

About 11 . . . 0-0 12 .0-0 - see 10 . . . 0-0 ; as for 11 . . . Wld5 12 .0-0 0-0 - see 10 . . . 0-0 11 .0-0 d4 12.tLle2 Wld5.

Black has also tried in practice: 11 . . . Wld7 12 .0-0 0-0, Gove­

darica - Novoselski, Arandjelo­vac 1990, 13.h3 Ele8 14.i.f4;l; - and Black must remove his queen

124

from the d7 -square in order to de­velop his bishop on c8, since it is usually bad for him to fianchetto his bishop in that system;

11 . . . Wla5+ 12 .Wld2 Wlb6 (Or 12 . . . Wlxd2+ 13.hd2 0-0 14.0-0 Ele8 15.Elfe1 i.d7 16.Elad1 tLlg4, Leino - Kivisto, Finland 1993, but after: 17.i.f4 tLlge5 18 .i.b5 Elad8 19.c3 dxc3 20.tLlxc3;l; the endgame is very favourable for White, be­cause of his bishop pair in a posi­tion with an open centre.) 13 .0-0 0-0 14.Wlg5 i.g4 (Or 14 . . . Ele8, Kauppinen - Fastberg, Finland 1989, 15.Wlh4;l;; 14 . . . h6 15.Wlg3 �h8 16.Wlh4 and White attacks simultaneously the d4 and h6-pawns, Kytoniemi - Fastberg, Jyvaskyla 1994.) 15.tLlg3 Elfe8 16. h3 i.d7 17.i.f4 h6 18.Wlb5 Wlxb5 19.hb5;l; - and in that endgame, even if Black exchanges one of White's bishops, his d4-pawn will remain vulnerable : 19 . . .:1�ac8 (or 19 ... a6 20 .i.d3 tLle5 21 .he5 Elxe5 22 .ElfeU) 20 .Elfe1 tLld5 21 .i.d6 Eled8 22 .tLle4 tLla5 23 .i.d3 tLlc4 24.b3 tLlxd6 25.tLlxd6 Elc7, Kujala - Kivisto, Finland 1991, 26.Ele4 and White wins his opponent's d4-pawn;

11 . . . i.g4 12 .0-0 Wld7 (About 12 . . . 0-0 - see 10 . . . 0-0 11 .0-0 d4 12 .tLle2 i.g4.) 13.f3 i.e6, Virostko - Chrz, Plzen 2 001, 14.tLlf4 0-0 15.tLlxe6 fxe6 16 .Wle2;l; and the pawn-structure is advantageous for White;

11 . . . i.e6 12 .0-0 Wld5? ! (This is simply a loss of time in that

4. ltJxd4 e6 S. ltJc3 ltJf6 6 .ltJdbS i.b4 7.a3 hc3 B. ltJxc3

case; about 12 . . . . 0-0 13.i.g5 - see 10 . . . 0-0 11 .0-0 d4 12.ltJe2 i.e6 13.i.g5.) 13.ltJf4 'rWd6, Volokitin -Janochkin, Cannes 1997, 14.ltJxe6 fxe6 15J!eU - White's two bish­ops are more important here than Black's pawn-majority in the centre. In case of 12 . . . 'rWd7, Lumo - Zakkariassen, Norway 1994, White should play 13 .ltJf4;l; any­way, since he exchanges Black's bishop. It cannot retreat, because of the check - :gel;

11 . . .h6 12 . 0-0 a6 (about 12 . . . 0-0 13 .h3 - see 10 . . . 0-0 11. 0-0 d4 12.ltJe2 h6 13 .h3) 13.b4 0-0 14.i.b2 mh8 (Or 14 . . . i.g4 15.f3 i.e6 16.mh1 mh8 17.'rWe1 13e8 18.iWf2 ltJe5 19.1tJxd4 ltJxd3 20 . cxd3± and Black has no compen­sation for the pawn, M.Rytshagov - Liiva, Tallinn 1996; or 16 . . . ltJd5 17.ltJxd4 and Black loses a pawn, since he cannot play: 17 . . . ltJe3 18.ltJxe6, Kastner - Mar­tin, USA 1972, 18 . . . fxe6 19.'rWe2 ltJxfl 20 .'rWxe6+ mh8 21.iWxh6+ and White checkmates) 15.'rWd2 'rWd6 (Or 15 . . . i.e6, Hemmelgarn - Richter, Germany 1988, 16.'rWf4 ltJd5 17.'rWe4 ltJf6 18.'rWh4 ltJg4 19.'\Wg3± - and Black has great problems with the protection of his d4-pawn; 15 . . . b5 16.'rWf4 ltJd5 17.iWg3 ltJde7 18.13ad1 13a7 19.c3 13d7 20 .cxd4 ltJd5;l; - Black's com­pensation for the pawn is evident­ly insufficient, Petrushin - Ban­guiev, Simferopol 1989; 15 . . . 'rWb6, Kanarek - Siedlinski, Koszalin 2005, 16 .c4 ! ? dxc3 17.ixc3;l; and

Black must lose an additional tempo to defend against the threat - .txf6, therefore White's couple of powerful bishops provides him with a stable advantage.) 16J�adl i.e6 (In case of 16 . . . ltJg4, Larusson - Mertens, Oerebro 1966, White should better not trade queens with the move iWf4, but he should continue simply with 17.ltJg3;l; - because the temporary removal of his knight from e2 does not fa­cilitate Black's task to protect his d4-pawn at all. Now, for example White is threatening 18.13feU, followed by either ltJf4xe6, or c4, Baczynskyj - Marchand, Albany 1989.

12. 0 - 0 White can try to refute Black's

idea in the forced variations af­ter: 12 .i.xf5 iWa5+ 13.c3, for ex­ample: 13 . . . dxc3 14.0-0 'rWxf5 15.ltJg3 'rWd7 16.13el + ltJe7 17.i.g5 iWxdl 18.13axd1 13d8 19.bxc3 13xdl 20.13xdl ltJc6 21..txf6 gxf6 22 .ltJh5 me7 23 .13e1+ md6 24.ltJxf6 mc5 and Black managed to draw that endgame thanks to his active king in the game Yemelin - Kornev, St. Petersburg 1993.

125

Chapter 7

12 . . . hd3 12 . . . .!g6 13.b4 and here: 13 . . . a6 - defending against

b4-bS. 14.'!b2 ihS lS.'IWd2 lLleS 16.lLlxd4 lLlxd3 17.�e3+ V!!e7 IS. �xd3± - and Black has no com­pensation whatsoever, Mokry - Witkowski, Prague 1975 ;

13 . . . V!!c7 14.if4 V!!b6, Kaminski - Protaziuk, Poland 1994, lS.bS lLle7 16 . .!eS EldS 17.Elel± and Black cannot castle 17 . . . 0-0, because of lS.hd4+-;

13 . . . V!!b6, Shilov - Protaziuk, Poland 1995, 14.bS lLleS ls.hg6 hxg6 16.�xd4:t, Black must en­ter an endgame without a pawn, since he cannot continue with: 16 . . . V!!xbS 17.lLlc3 WfaS 1S.Ele1+-;

13 . . . Wfd6, Migala - Byrka, Wy­sowa 2003, 14.Ele1 0-0 (or 14 . . . 0-0-0 lS . .!f4 V!!dS 16.bS hd3 17. Wfxd3 lLleS 1S.Wfh3+ lLled7 19.1Llg3-+ - and Black's king re­mains stranded on the cS-square, while White's attack is just crush­ing.) lS.bS lLleS 16.hg6 hxg6 17. V!!xd4±;

13 . . . 0-0 14.'!b2 ElcS lS.hg6 hxg6 16.lLlxd4± - The weakness of the c4-square cannot fully compensate the pawn, Sadkiewicz - Protaziuk, Rewal 1992.

13.Wfxd3 Now, Black's task is to protect

his weak d4-pawn. 13 . . . 0 - 0 After 13 . . . WfdS 14.lLlf4 V!!eS IS.

�b3 0-0 16.Wfxb7 ElfcS 17 . .!d2, Black has some positional com­pensation for the pawn indeed

126

(He exerts pressure on the open b and c-files.) , but he can hardly equalize: 17 . . . �cS lS.V!!b3 lLleS 19.Elac1 ElabS 2 0 .�a4 lLle4 and here instead of 21 .b4, Gufeld -Bukhman, Tallinn 1965, which al­lowed Black's spectacular tactical strike: 21 . . .lLlf3 + ! 22 .gxf3 V!!gS+, White had better play 21 ..!b4:t

13 . . . V!!b6, Pavlovic - Milo­savljevic, Golubac 2003, 14.Eld1 0-0-0 lS . .!f4:t - and Black's king is not so well placed on cS . It is in fact worse there than on the gS­square.

14 . .!g5

14 . . . h6 This is a useful move, which

creates a leeway for the king and it repels White's bishop to the h4-square.

14 . . . Wfd6 - That move enables White to pin Black on the d-file: lS.Eladl EladS (It is the same af­ter lS . . . ElfdS, Slabek - Szewczak, Mikolajki 1991, 16.c3.) 16 .c3 h6 (It is too bad for Black to play 16 . . . lLlg4 17.V!!h3 and White frees the file for his rook with tempo: 17 . . . f6 1S.Wfxg4 fxgS 19.1Llxd4 Elf4 20 .�e6+-, remaining with

4. l:iJxd4 e6 5. l:iJc3 l:iJf6 6. l:iJdb5 iob4 7.a3 hc3 8. l:iJxc3

a solid extra pawn, Schnaebele - Braun, Germany 1986.) 17.hf6 'Wxf6 18.l:iJxd4 l:iJxd4 19.cxd4 gd7 20 .gd2 gfd8 21 .gfdU - Black has good chances for a draw indeed, but White can still fight for a win, Padevsky - Bilek, Harrachov 1966.

14 . . . ge8 lSJ'�adl gc8 16.gfe1 ge6, Pritchett - Byway, Torquay 1982 (about 16 . . . h6 17.ioh4 - see 14 . . . h6), 17.�f1, analogously to the main line - 14 . . . h6.

14 . . . gc8 lS.gad1 'Wb6? (about lS . . . ge8 16.gfe1 - see 14 . . . ge8; as for lS . . . h6 16.ioh4 - see 14 . . . h6) 16.hf6 gxf6 17.l:iJf4± - Black does not need to leave his kingside completely in ruins, Kummerow - Khorras, Moscow 1991.

15.ioh4 ge8 About lS . . . gc8 16.gad1 ge8

17.gfe1 - see lS . . . ge8. After lS . . . gS 16.iog3 'WdS 17.

gad1 gad8 18.f3 gd7 19.iof2 gfd8, Thorhallsson - Vidarsson, Is­land 1994, 20 .gfel± Al:iJg3-fS(e4) - The weakening of Black's king­side might turn out to be very im­portant.

lS . . . 'Wd6 16.c3 gad8 17.gad1 gfe8, Toloza Soto - Munoz San­chez, Bled 2002 , 18.l:iJxd4 l:iJxd4 19.cxd4± - It might not be so easy for White to win this position with heavy pieces and an isolated d4-pawn, but the maximum that Black can rely on is a draw.

16.gadl gc8 That is the only way for Black

to protect his d4-pawn, by attack-

ing his opponent's c2-pawn. 17.gfel ge6 Black frees his queen and he is

threatening 'We7 in the process. Or 17 . . . 'We7 18.f3 'We3+ 19.

'Wxe3 dxe3 20 .hf6 gxf6 21 .l:iJf4 �g7, Kountz - Steiger, Ladenburg 1992, 22 .ge2± - and the endgame is very unpleasant for Black, be­cause of his weak e3-pawn.

After 17 . . . gS 18 .iog3 ge6 19.�f1 �g7, Ciuksyte - Milasiute, Vilka­viskis 1994, 20 .b4± - Black has compromised the shelter of his king at a moment in which he could have avoided the pin of his knight in another fashion.

18.�f1! White defends against the pin

along the e-file. 18 . . . 'Wc7 18 . . . a6 19.1:iJg1 ! ? (That is an-

other plus for the move - 18. �f1.) 19 . . . gxe1 + 20 .gxe1 'lWd6 21 .l:iJf3 l:iJd7, Haensel - Neyman, Neum­uenster 1999, 22 .c3 l:iJcS 23.'WfS l:iJe6 24.gdU - and Black has problems defending his d4-pawn.

19.�g3 White's h2-pawn was under

attack and he could not play:

127

Chapter 7

19.1tJxd4 �xel+ 20 .@xel ltJxd4 21 . �xd4 �e8+ 22 .@f1 �xh2+

19 • • • �b6 2 0 .b4 a6 21.ltJf4 Once again, the straightfor­

ward capturing of the pawn was not good for White: 21 .ltJxd4 ltJxd4 22 .�xd4 �xd4 23J3xd4 �xel+ 24.@xel �xc2= Skrzypnik - Flasinski, Laczna 2002 .

It is too early for White to clarify the situation and he should better maintain the tension.

21 • • • �ee8 Or 21 . . .�xel+ 22 .�xel �e8 23.

�xe8+ (if 23.�dl then ltJe4=) 23 . . . ltJxe8 24.ltJdS �d8 2S.�fS;!;

22.l3xe8+ �xe8 23.ltJe2;!;

Black's d4-pawn is weak, moreover that White has at his disposal numerous piece-maneu­vers (�fS, ih4, id6), so he has the initiative. Later, in the game Karpov - G.Kuzmin, Leningrad 1977, there followed: 23 • • • �d8 (Black would not have equalized completely either after: 23 . . . �c8 24.id6 ltJd7 2S.�fS �d8 26.�d3 - 26.�f4 �bS=; 26.a4 ! ? - 26 . . . ltJf8 27.�f3 f6 28.ixf8 �xf8 29. �d3;!;) 24.ih4!± .!LIe5 (24 . . . �d6 2S .. b:f6±; 24 . . . gS 2S.ig3±) 25.

128

�f5 d3 (After 2S . . . ltJc4 ! ? 26.hf6 �xf6 27.�xf6 gxf6 28.�xd4 �xd4 29.ltJxd4 ltJxa3 30 . @e2± - the king and knight endgame is bad for Black, because of his passive king and his pawn-weaknesses.) 26.cxd3 .!LIc4 27 • .!LIc3! .!LIxa3 28 . .!LIe4± and Black's kingside will be soon in ruins.

b2) 1 0 • • • 0 - 0 11. 0 - 0

11 • • • d4 This is the main line for Black,

but he has many other possibili­ties as well.

I will start with some relatively rarely played and I would like to mention immediately that if Black allows his knight to be pinned, without obtaining anything in re­turn, then he has no chances of reaching an acceptable position:

1l . . . a6 12 .if4 (It is also good for White to play 12 .igS±) 12 . . . d4 13.ltJe4 ltJdS 14.id6 �e8 IS.ig3 fS? ! 16.ltJd6± Vukcevich - Ervin, USA 1976;

1l . . . �d6 12 .h3 (That is a use­ful prophylactic move and its idea is to deprive Black's pieces of the g4-square.) 12 . . . a6 13.�el id7 14.

4. 0,xd4 e6 5. 0,c3 0,f6 6. 0,db5 ib4 7.a3 hc3 B. 0,xc3

igS h6? ! The drawback of that move is that not only Black loses a pawn, but White's pieces become suddenly quite active. lS.M6 Wfxf6 16.0,xdS vgxb2 17.l!b1 Wfd4 1B.l!xb7 l!fdB 19.0,b6+- Mach - Worsfold, Aarhus 1990;

1l . . . l!eB 12 .igS ie6 13.l!e1 h6 14.ih4 a6, Franco Gomez - F.Martinez, Mondariz 1996 and here White has a very promising set-up at his disposal - lS.h3, fol­lowed by vgf3±;

1l .. . ie6 12 .igS h6 (About 12 . . . 0,eS - see 1l . . . 0,eS; 12 . . . l!cB, Rizouk - Esteve Lopez, Balaguer 2003, 13.l!e1 ! ? - depriving Black of the possibility 0,c6-eS - 13 . . . h6 14.ih4±) 13.ih4 ltJeS (In case of 13 . . . l!cB 14.l!e1 l!c7, Middelburg - Hamers, Arnhem 1996, White can follow the already mentioned plan - lS.h3, followed by Wff3, l!ad1±) 14.l!e1 0,c4, Reyes Bar­ragan - Witwer, Dos Hermanas 2003 (About 14 . . . 0,xd3 lS.vgxd3 - see 1l . . . 0,eS 12 .igS .te6 13.l!e1 0,xd3 14.vgxd3 h6 lS.ih4; it is too passive for Black to play: 14 . . . ltJed7 1S . .tbS 0,b6 16.vgd4± Santo­Roman - Kivisto, Mendoza 19B5) lS.l!b1 (White should avoid un­necessary simplification. In case of lS.b3 0,b2, Black's defence would be slightly easier.) lS . . . l!cB 16.0,e2 l!eB 17.0,d4±;

1l . . . 0,eS. That move is more active than the ones we have al­ready analyzed, but even here, as tournament practice has shown, the pin is quite effective for White.

12 .igS ie6 (About 12 . . . ig4 13.f3 .te6 - see 11 . . .ig4 12.f3 ie6 13. igS 0,eS. Black's position is with­out any good prospects after: 12 . . . 0,xd3 13.Wfxd3 ie6 14.Wfd4 h6 15. M6 Wfxf6 16.Wfxf6 gxf6 17.l!fd1 l!fdB 1B.l!d4;!; Shanava - Kapus­tin, Moscow 199B.) 12 . . . .te6 13. l!e1 0,xd3 14.Wfxd3 h6 lS.ih4 gS (Black can hardly organize any ac­tive play unless he solves the prob­lem of his pinned knight: lS . . . b6 16.l!ad1 l!cB 17.0,bS vgd7 1B.M6 gxf6 19.0,d4± I. Papadopoulos - D.Papadopoulos, Athens 2000 ; lS . . . l!cB, A.Nielsen - V.Hansen, Aalborg 1960, 16.l!ad1±) 16.ig3 0,e4 17.0,xe4 dxe4 1B .vgxe4 '%YdS, Centeno Ortiz - Morcillo Ferran, Barcelona 2001 and here if we take into account the compromised position of Black's king, we can recommend to White to preserve the queens on the board with: 19. Wfb4 l!adB 20 .h4 f6 2 1.l!e3±;

11. . .h6. That line is more reli­able, but White now also has time for useful prophylactic. 12 .h3 ! ?

Black has difficulties to do any­thing active, while the advantages of White's position would gradu-

129

Chapter 7

ally become more and more no­ticeable. Black has tried here :

About 12 . . . d4 13 .liJe2 - see 11 . . . d4 12 .liJe2 h6 13.h3;

12 . . . liJeS 13 . .!f4 liJxd3 (This exchange does not bring any sol­ace to Black. It is hardly attrac­tive for him to opt for: 13 . . . liJg6 14 . .!g3 a6 lSJ:'!e1 liJe7? ! 16.'lWf3± Madl - Shapira, Tel Aviv 2001.) 14.'lWxd3 .!e6 lSJ:'!fel 'lWd7 16 . .!eS. Now, Black loses a pawn almost by force - 16 . . . liJh7 17J!ad1 1:'!ad8 18.�g3 f6 19 . .!c7 �c8 20 . .!f4 wh8 21.'lWe3 �fe8 22 .�xa7+- Kutu­zovic - Plecsko, Pecs 1996;

12 . . . .!e6 13.M4 d4, Klerides - Burgos Figueroa, Turin 2006 (13 . . . �d7 14.�d2 liJe7 lS.1:'!ad1 a6 Ekdyshman - Kachkina, St. Pe­tersburg 2002, 16.ieS liJh7 17. �fel±) 14.liJbS liJdS lS . .!g3;!;; ;

12 . . . a6, Fercec - Lerch, Cannes 1996, 13.1:'!e1 d4 14.liJa4;!;; - It seems to me - that is more prom­ising for White than 14.liJe2 - see 11 . . . d4 12.liJe2 h6 13.h3 a6 14. �e1;

12 . . . 1:'!e8 13 . .!f4 a6 14.1:'!e1 1:'!xe1 + (Black would not change much with: 14 . . . .!e6 lS.�d2 �c8 16J�!ad1 liJaS 17.b3 liJc6 18.liJa4 d4 19.1iJcS± Slepankova - M.Petrovic, Czech Republic 1997.) lS.'lWxe1 d4, Marinkovic - Govedarica, Bel­grade 2004, 16.liJa4;!;; ;

11 . . . .!g4. Black is trying to cre­ate some disharmony in his oppo­nent's set-up with that move, or to provoke weakening of the g1-a7 diagonal. He manages to real-

130

ize the latter task indeed, but his pieces are not active at all and he fails to acquire anything real out of that. 12.f3

and here Black must make an im­portant decision :

12 . . . .!hS 13 . .!gS �b6+ (That is the most principled line for Black, since after his other lines his posi­tion is not to be envied at all : 13 . . . liJe7 14.Whl �d6, Keres - Stoliar, Moscow 19S7, 1S.liJbS �c6 16. �e1 �fe8 17.hf6 gxf6 18 .�d2±; 13 . . . h6, Vasiesiu - Kleine, Romania 1994, 14 . .!xf6 �xf6 lS.liJxdS �d4+ 16.1:'!f2 1:'!ad8 17.c4±, or IS . . . 'lWxb2 16.c3 liJaS 17.�a4 liJc6 18. 1:'!adl±; 13 . . . .!g6 - and here af­ter the straightforward line for White: 14.hg6 hxg6 1S.hf6 �xf6 16.�xdS 1:'!fd8 17.'lWcS liJd4, Black obtains some compensation for the lost pawn, Kruger - Olland, Haarlem 1901. It is simpler for White to play 14.�bl;!;;, depriving Black of counterplay against the b2-pawn.) 14.wh1 liJe4 (In case of: 14 . . . liJeS, White remains with a solid extra pawn after: lS.hf6 'lWxf6 16.liJxdS 'lWd6 17.liJf4 liJxd3 18.liJxhS± Cochet - Huilmot,

4. tiJxd4 e6 5. tiJc3 tiJf6 6. tiJdb5 1lb4 7.a3 hc3 8. tiJxc3

France 2000 . It is also bad for Black to continue with: 14 . . . tiJe7 lS.ge1 and he is in a big trouble : lS . . . gfeB, Cubas - F.Fernandez, Sao Paulo 2002, 16.gxe7 gxe7 17.hf6 Wfxf6 1B.tiJxdS VNd6 19. tiJxe7+ Wfxe7 20.Wfel±; lS . . . Wfc5 16.Wfd2 gfeB 17.1lxf6 gxf6 1B.ge2± Marco - Mieses, Monte Carlo 1903; lS . . . Wfd6 16.Wfd2 1lg6 17.tiJbS Wfd7, Chigorin - Mieses, Monte Carlo 1901, 1B.1lxf6 gxf6 19.Wfc3±) lS.tiJxe4 dxe4 16.1lxe4 VNxb2 17. Wfbl . The arising endgame is rath­er unpleasant for Black. 17 . . . VNxb1 1B.gaxb1 fS 19.1ld3 b6 20.gbS 1lg6 21 .gdS gacB, Magem Badals - Romero Holmes, Torrevieja 1997, 22 .f4 ! ? White fixes the weak fS-pawn and he prevents radically the possibility for Black to play fS­f4, exchanging the light-squared bishops. 2 2 . . . gfeB 23.gd7± and White has the initiative in that endgame and additionally he can easily improve his position;

12 . . . 1le6 - This move is more solid and probably because of that, it is more popular. 13.1lgS

and here the game might develop in the following fashion:

13 . . . geB 14.VNd2 d4 lS.tiJe2 and Black has hardly any coun­terplay: lS . . . a6, Planinec - An­dersson, Sombor 1970, 16.tiJg3 tiJeS 17.tiJhS tiJed7 1B.gael±; IS . . . h6 16.1lh4 gcB, Kobese - Encinas, Navalmoral 1999, 17.gadl±; IS . . . gcB, Sziva - Klusek, Brno 19B9, 16.gadl±;

13 . . . tiJeS 14.ge1 tiJxd3 (or 14 . . . VNb6+ lS.�h1 tiJfd7 16.1le3 VNc7 17. 1lbS a6 1B.1lxd7 tiJxd7 19.tiJxdS± Krzyszton - Heigl, corr. 1963) 14 . . . tiJxd3 lS.VNxd3 gcB 16.tiJbS a6 17.tiJd4 Wfb6 1B.hf6 gxf6 19.b3± - Black has managed to simplify the game indeed, but he has paid a too dear price for that, Denker - Bolbochan, La Plata 1947;

13 . . . h6 14.1lh4 geB (about 14 .. . VNb6+ lS.�h1 tiJd7 16.f4 - see 13 . . . Wfb6+ 14.�h1 tiJd7 1S.f4 h6 16 .ih4; 14 . . . tiJeS, Plewe - Dietzsch, Heim­bach 19B7, lS.gel±; 14 . . . gcB, Rosas - Briao, corr. 2002 , IS.ge1 Wfb6+ 16 .1lf2 d4 17.b4±; 14 . . . gS - That move solves radically the prob­lem with the pin, but Black's king shelter is weakened considerably. - lS.1lf2 and White has a clear ad­vantage after lS . . . gcB, Janowski - Blackburne, Monte Carlo 1901, 16.tiJbS±, as well as following: IS . . . a6 16.VNd2 tiJhS 17.gfe1 bS 1B.if1 VNd7 19.9adl± Cabello Rodriguez - Martinez Torho, Benidorm 2004.) lS.ge1 Wfb6+ 16.if2 d4 17.M! a6 1B.tiJe2 tiJdS 19.c3 tiJe3 20.VNbl± and Black's seemingly active set-up crumbles, Sidenko - Barks, Email 199B;

131

Chapter 7

13 . . . 1Mlb6+ 14.c,t>h1 lDd7 (Cap­turing for Black - 14 . . :�Vxb2, ended up with his queen being trapped - 15.,ixf6 gxf6 16.1Mld2 lDeS? 17.lDa4+- N.Mueller -J.Szekely, Gyor 1906. Naturally, Black's move 16 was a blunder, but even after the correct decision - 16 . . . 1Mlb6, his position would be hopeless: 17.1Mlh6 fS 18.lilxdS i.xdS 19.,ixf5 l3fd8 20 .,ixh7+ c,t>h8 21 .i.e4+ c,t>g8 22 .1Mlg5+ c,t>f8 23.i.xd5+-) lS.f4 fS (It is only a transposition after: lS . . .f6 16.1MlhS fS 17.1Mlf3 - see lS . . .f5 16."lWf3. Black can try the plan with the advance of his d-pawn, but he has great difficulties even then - IS . . . h6 16.i.h4 d4 17.lila4 1MlaS 18.c4± Matulovic - Lombardy, Zuerich 1961, or immediately lS . . . d4, Mc­Donald - Saint Amour, Email 1999, 16.lila4 "lWaS 17.fS i.dS 18. c4 dxc3 19.1ilxc3 "lWcS 20 .i.h4± - and White is threatening to ad­vance his f-pawn.) 16.1Mlf3 l3ac8 (In case of 16 . . . 1MlcS, White has the resource 17.b4 ! and now it is bad for Black to play: 17 . . . 1Mlxc3 18.i.xf5 ! +-, as well as: 17 . . . 1Mld4 18 .lDbS 1Mlb6 19.13ae1+- Donner - Orbaan, Wageningen 19S7. It is slightly better for Black to try 16 . . . lDcS, but he has great problems then too : 17.lilxd5 1Mlxb2 18.lile7+ lDxe7 19.i.xe7 l3fc8 20 ."lWe3 lile4 21 .l3ab1 "lWc3 22J'3xb7± Jones -Maffeo, San Francisco 1977.) 16 . . . l3ac8, Ehlvest - A.Guseinov, Vol­godonsk 1983, White's position is doubtlessly superior and he

132

could have emphasized that with the move 17.l3abl±, depriving his opponent of any tactical chances. White has so many strategical pluses that he should manage to settle gradually the issue in his fa­vour after careful play.

12.lile2 The position is simplified too

much after: 12 .lDe4 i.fS 13 . .!tgS i.xe4 14.,ixe4 h6 lS.,ixf6 "lWxf6 16. l3e1 l3ad8, Leko - Timman, Wijk aan Zee 2001 - as usual in the opening, the exchanges of several light pieces are not favourable for White. He should try to redeploy his knight on e2, after castling, to g3 and later - to hS, f5 or e4 (if there is no black knight on the f6-square).

Black has tried numerous moves here, but his best are -

b2a) 12 . • . l;e8, b2b) 12 . . • 1Mld5 and b2c) 12 • • • .tg4.

The move 12 . . . i.e6 - covers the sixth rank and it does not allow Black after 13.i.gS to play "lWd6 and to get rid of the pin of the knight on f6, which is rather annoying for him. 13 . . . h6 (Or 13 . . . "lWdS 14.,ixf6 gxf6, Szarvas - Markhot, Savaria

4. 0.xd4 e6 5. 0.c3 0./6 6. 0.db5 ib4 7.a3 ixc3 8. 0.xc3

2002 , lS.0.g3± - and Black has no compensation for his kingside weaknesses.) 14.ih4 idS lS.c4 dxc3 16.0.xc3. Black has prob­lems, because of the pin of the knight on f6. He loses after: 16 . . . �d6 17 . .txf6 gxf6 18.�g4+ wh8 19.WifS and Black was checkmated in the game Li Shilong - Witwer, Dos Hermanas 2004.

12 . . . 0.dS - Black defends against the pin igS and he frees the way for his queen to the h4-square. 13.0.g3 (Black can coun­ter 13.ie4 with 13 . . . 0.de7 MfS.) 13 . . . Wih4 14.�f3 0.de7 (14 . . . ie6 lS.0.fS;!;) lSJ�el 0.g6, Kunze - Ren­ner, Wildflecken 1988 (or lS . . . ie6 16J!e4± and Black will have to comply with the weakening of his kingside pawn-structure), 16.0.fS Wid8 17.WihSt and White's threats on the kingside will force Black to exchange on fS, after which White will have a stable advantage - two bishops, while Black will have no real counterplay at all .

12 . . . 'lWb6 - This move is only seldom played. Black prepares an additional protection of his d4-pawn (Eld8) and he attacks the b2-pawn. 13 .b4 (After 13 .igS 0.g4, the placement of White's bishop is not so purposeful; if 13.0.g3, reducing the pressure against the d4-pawn, Black plays 13 . . . 0.eS; finally, Black can counter 13.h3 with the line: 13 . . . Ele8 A14.igS 0.e4) 13 . . . ig4 (13 . . . Ele8 14.ib2;!;) 14.ib2 Elad8 lS.�d2 Elfe8 16.Elfe1 a6 - and here in the game Hagara

- Hasangatin, Presov 2000, the opponents agreed to a draw. I be­lieve - that decision was a bit pre­mature for White. He had some more resources to improve his position, for example: 17.0.g3 Wic7 18 .h3 ie6 19.Ele2 0.dS 20 .0.hS;!;

12 . . . h6 - That move is played with the obvious idea to prevent the pin igS and in general to re­strict White's dark-squared bish­op. 13.h3.

This is also prophylactic against ig4, or 0.g4-eS. In this position, Black has tried:

13 .. . 0.eS - That move is not to be recommended. Black's d4-pawn is weak and he is hardly threatening to capture on d3. 14. if4 0.c6 lS.�d2 Ele8 16 .Elad1 a6 17J�fe1 ie6, Hanison - Grobler, Email 2003. In fact, Black has lost a couple of tempi and here White could have organized a decisive attack with the line : 18.ixh6 gxh6 19.Wixh6. There might fol­low for example : 19 . . . id7 20.0.f4 EleS 21 .ElxeS 0.xeS 22 .0.hS 0.xhS 23.Wih7+ wf8 24.Wih8+ We7 25. WixeS+ ie6 26.�xhS+-;

13 . . . a6 - Black defends against

133

Chapter 7

the potential threat ibSxc6, win­ning the d4-pawn. 14.E!e1 (or 14.if4 lUdS) 14 . . . lUdS (In case of 14 . . . E!e8, Lutzenberger - Duriez, Email 2002 , it looks very good for White to continue with: lS.lUg3 E!xe1+ 16.Wxe1 ie6 17.if4 lUdS 18.�e4 lUxf4 19.�xf4, followed by E!el;!;) lS.lUf4 lUxf4 16.ixf4 ie6 17.�hSt White has a very comfortable position and he can easily improve it, for example by doubling of his rooks along the e-file: 17 . . . Wd7 18.E!e2 fS 19.E!ae1 if7 20 .�f3 E!ae8 21 .E!xe8 E!xe8 22 . E!xe8+ ixe8 23.ig3± with a bet­ter endgame for White, Lobron - Gobet, Biel 1984;

13 . . . �dS 14.lUf4 Wd6 lS.lUhS lUxhS 16.�xhS. There arose a po­sition from the variation: 12 . . . WdS 13 .lUf4 Wd6 14.lUhS lUxhS 1S.�xhS h6, except that White has played an extra move - 16.h3. That move might not be the most useful in­deed, but it does not influence the evaluation of the position as better for White. 16 . . . E!e8 17.id2 id7, Severiukhina - Atnilov, Her­ceg Novi, 200S, 18.E!ae1 E!eS (It is not good for Black to play 18 . . . lUeS 19.if4±) 19.�f3t and White follows with if4 (White achieves nothing after: 19.E!xeS lUxeS 20 . ,if4 E!e8 21 .'it>h1 �f6; Black suc­ceeds in exchanging the light­squared bishops in the variation: 19.,if4 E!xhS 20.ixd6 ifS=). After 19 .�f3, it is bad for Black to opt for: 19 . . . E!ae8 20.,if4 Wf6 21.ixeS Wxf3 22 .gxf3 lUxeS 23 .'it>g2+-;

134

13 .. . Wb6 14.b4 E!d8 (It is the same after 14 . . . a6, Llanes Hurtado - Roche Simon, Zaragoza 1995, lS.ib2t) lS.ib2 a6 (Black would not change much with: lS . . . ie6 16.Wd2 E!ac8 17.E!fe1 a6 18.lUf4t Boettcher - Prestage, Email 2002.) 16.�d2 ie6 17.l:'1ad1 E!d6 18.Wf4 E!ad8 19.E!d2 Wa7 20 .E!fdl;!; - and White has a stable advan­tage, because of Black's weak d4-pawn, Pavlovic - Skembris, Bor 1983 ;

13 . . . E!e8 14.if4 ie6 (In case of 14 . . . WdS, Augustaitis -Rogozenko, Piarnu 1987, it is in­teresting for White to try: lS.c4 ! ? dxc3 16.lUxc3 Wd4 17.Wd2 E!d8 18.E!fd1 and he has a powerful initiative, for example: 18 . . . ie6 19.1UbS WcS 20 .E!ac1 We7 21.id6 Wd7 22 .We3t. Black has also tried here: 14 . . . lUdS lS.ig3 Wf6 16.�d2 ie6 17.E!ad1 E!ad8 18.E!fe1 lUde7, Berczes - Hidegh, Spata 1998, but now White had better avoid the exchange of the light -squared bishops with: 19.1Uf4 MS 20 .,ic4t) lS.Wd2 E!c8 (In case of lS . . . lUdS, White should not be afraid of the capturing on f4 - 16.E!fe1 lUxf4 17. Wxf4 WgS 18.�xgS hxgS, Somod - Kokkonen, corr. 1991, 19.f4 gxf4 20.lUf4t and White has a slight, but stable edge in that endgame.) 16.E!ad1 lUdS 17.E!fe1 Wf6 18 .ig3 (It is better for White to play 18 .ih2t, so that the bishop does not come under attack from the knight on fS.) 18 . . . tLlb6 (or 18 . . . tLlde7!?) 19.Wf4 Wd8 2 0 .ie4 tLldS

4. 0,xd4 e6 5. 0,c3 0,j6 6. 0,db5 i.b4 7.a3 hc3 8. 0,xc3

21 .�f3± and Black has great prob­lems to protect his d4-pawn, Dol­gener - Zimmer, Germany 1990;

13 . . . i.e6 14.0,f4 0,d5, Nikolaev - Schiffers, Kiev 1903, 15.0,xe6 fxe6 16.�e2;!;, and White's two bishops and the weaknesses on Black's kingside are more impor­tant than Black's pawn-majority in the centre.

12 . . . �d6. The idea of that move is that after the natural line: 13.i.f4 Wd5, White has de­veloped his bishop indeed, but he has deprived his knight of the f4-square. Still, it does not seem ad­visable for White to waste tempi for such dubious ideas. 14.0,g3 (White prevents i.f5.) 14 .. J!e8. (Black has also tried here : 14 . . . i.g4 15.£3 i.e6 16.�d2 �d7 17.Wf2 0,d5. He fails to exploit the weak­ness of the e3-square, while his problems with the protection of the d4-pawn are considerable. 18.i.d2 f5 19.0,e2 0,f6 20.i.b5;!; Hamarat - V.Ivanov, corr. 1985. After 14 . . . 0,e5, White maintains his advantage by exchanging the dark-squared bishops : 15.i.xe5 'IMlxe5 16J3e1 Wd5 17.0,e4;!; 0,g4 - or 17 . . . 0,xe4 18.i.xe4;!; - 18.Wf3 i.e6 19.'IMlg3 @h8 20 .0,d2 !? White transfers his knight to f3 and it at­tacks Black's d4-pawn from there. 20 . . . 'IMld7 21 .0,f3 0,h6 22 J!e4 0,f5 23 .'IMle5 �ad8 24.�f4 f6 25.We2± - Black's d4-pawn is doomed, Koch - Cerisier, Rouen 1987.) 15.�e1 �xe1+ 16.'IMlxe1 i.e6 17.�d1 i.g4 18.f3 i.e6 19.'IMlf2;!;. White has

completed his development and he has a slight edge, thanks to his bishop pair. Later, he can choose between several possibilities, for example c2-c4, or 0,g3-e4. The game followed later with: 19 . . . Wa2 20 .ic1 �d8? 21.i.g5 ! 0,e5 (or 21 . . . Wxb2 22 .i.xf6 gxf6 23.0,h5 0,e7 24J�'d2+- and White's attack is decisive) 22 .0,h5 0,xh5 23 .i.xd8± with a material advantage for White, Zhu Chen - Balmazi, Ger­many 2006.

12 . . . 0,g4. This is an interest­ing idea: it is advantageous for Black to exchange the bishop on d3, but if he plays 0,c6-e5, then his d4-pawn remains defenseless. Therefore, he places the other knight on the e5-square and that often forces White to part with one of the bishops. The drawback of that plan is that it contradicts the basic principles of playing in the opening, since Black plays several moves in a row with the same piece. 13.if4

and here Black has tried in prac­tice :

Naturally, it is bad for Black to play 13 . . . g5? 14.id2 We7 15.0,g3--t,

135

Chapter 7

because he would not survive for long with that gaping weakness on g5, Servat - Roman, La Plata 1992 ;

13 . . . �f6 14.'IlNd2 h6 15J�adl l3d8 16.l3fel ttJge5 17.,be5 'IlNxe5 (or 17 . . . ttJxe5 18.�e4±, attack­ing the d4-pawn) 18.ttJg3 �c7, Grabics - Abolina, Szeged 1994, 19.'IlNe2 ! �e6 20 .'IlNe4 g6 21.�h4 \t>g7 22 .ttJe4± and Black is forced to allow White's queen to come to the d6-square; otherwise he must enter the variation: 22 . . . 'IlNe7 23.'IlNxe7 l:iJxe7 24.l:iJc5 l3d6 25.l:iJxb7 l3b6 26.l:iJc5±;

13 . . . l3e8 14.'IlNd2 ttJge5 15.,be5 l3xe5 (or 15 . . . ttJxe5 16.ttJxd4±) 16.ttJg3 l3e8 (Black must first re­move his rook from e8 in order to develop his bishop to the e6-square.) 17.�f4 �e6 18.l3adU. White has the initiative on the kingside. Later, in the game Ko­tronias - Bousios, Greece 1993 there followed: 18 . . . l3c8 19.13fel �c7 20 .'IlNh4 (White provokes weakening of Black's kingside.) 20 .. . h6 21 .'IlNe4 g6 22 .�h4 \t>g7 23. ttJe4 'IlNd8 24.'IlNg3± �f5 25.l:iJd6 l3xel+ 26 .l3xel �xd3 27.cxd3 l3b8 28 .b4 a6 29.l3e8 'IlNd7 30.l3xb8 ttJxb8 31.'IlNe5+ \t>g8 32 .ttJe4+­and White won some material and the game as well.

12 . . . a6. That move is a loss of time - Black would hardly need to defend against �b5, or to play b7-b5. 13.�g5 h6 (Or 13 . . . 'IlNd6 14.l:!el \t>h8. Black defends against the tactical motive - c3

136

and after the capturing - ,bh7+ ; but that move does not contribute to his development. 15.'IlNd2 l:iJd5 16.�e4 - 16.c4 ! ? dxc3 17.ttJxc3 ttJxc3 18.'IlNxc3± Lll3adl - 16 .. .f5 17.�f3 h6 18.,bd5 'IlNxd5 19 .�e3± and Black lost a pawn in the game Leyva - Reynaldo Hernandez, Guines 1994.) 14.�h4 l3e8 (or 14 . . . �d6, Erashchenkov - Mos­kalenko, Smolensk 2 001, 15.l3eU and depending on Black reac­tion either c2-c3, or �d2) 15.l3el b5 (After 15 . . . g5 16.�g3 l:iJe4? 17.l:iJxd4 �xd4 18.c3+- Black remains a pawn down, Alek­seev - Ianocichin, Oropesa del Mar 2001 ; 15 . . . �d7 16.'IlNd2 l3c8 17.l3adl b5 18.f3 �e6 19.ttJf4± �d7 20.ttJh5 l3xel + 21 .l3xel +- and White wins, Seirawan - Comp Maestro, Zuerich 1988; 15 . . . 'IlNd6 16.c3 ! and Black cannot capture on c3, so White captures on d4 under favourable circumstances. After: 16 . .bf6 'IlNxf6 17.ttJxd4, De la Riva - Del Moral del Caz, Gijon 2002, 17 . . . �d7, Black ob­tains some compensation for the pawn.) 16.'IlNd2 (White failed to obtain any advantage in the game Klimov - Sarakauskas, St. Peters­burg 2005, 16 . .bf6 'IlNxf6 17.ttJxd4 �b7 18.l:iJxc6 ,bc6 19.l3xe8+ l3xe8 20 .'IlNcl l3e5� and Black had a sufficient compensation for the pawn.). Now, Black has problems defending against the threat ttJg3-h5 (e4), meanwhile his d4-pawn is hanging as before: 16 . . . �d6 (or 16 . . . �b7 17.ttJg3±; 16 . . . l3e5

4. CiJxd4 e6 S. CiJc3 CiJf6 6. CiJdbS ib4 7.a3 ixc3 B. CiJxc3

17.f4 ge6 18.CiJg3±) 17.ixf6 'Wxf6 !xc6 ixc6 18.CiJxd4 gad8 - and 18.CiJxd4± Black's compensation for the

b2a) 12 • • • ge8 pawn is quite sufficient.) lS . . . gS 16.if2;l;;

14 . . . ie6, Tzolas - Theofilo­poulos, Hania 1998, lS.'Wd2 - and now the move lS . . . CiJe4 is not so good anymore, because the knight is not protected, therefore White can play simply 16.'Wf4;l;;

14 . . . ig4 lS.ge1 CiJeS, Breyther - Schleicher, Hamburg 2000 (about lS . . . gS - see 12 . . . ig4 13.igS ge8 14.ge1 h6 lS.ih4 gS),

This is a natural move for Black.

13.ig5 ge5!?

and good 16.ibS;l; and if Black does not

He attacks White's bishop on gS and he intends to trade the bishops with the move ifS.

The move 13 . . . ig4 does not have any separate importance, be­cause after 14.ge1 the game trans­poses to well familiar schemes.

About 13 . . . VNd6 14J�e1 ig4 15. VNd2 - see 12 . . . ig4 13 .igS 'Wd6 14.ge1 ge8 lS.VNd2 .

13 . . . h6. White's bishop on gS is not so well placed from the point of view of tactics, since it comes under attack after CiJe4, or geS and so its forced retreat to h4 is much rather in favour of White. 14.ih4 and here:

About 14 . . . a6 1S.ge1 - see 12 . . . a6;

14 . . . id7 lS.f3 (In case of lS.VNd2, Brandl - Anreiter, corr. 1991, White must consider the promIsmg pawn-sacrifice for Black: lS . . . CiJe4 16.!xe4 'Wxh4 17.

wish to exchange on e2 immedi­ately; he would need to go back with his knight to c6 - because his d4-pawn is hanging;

14 . . . gS. That move compro­mises considerably Black's king shelter, but it is played with the idea to activate his pieces. lS.,tg3 CiJe4 (About lS . . . ,tg4 16.f3 - see 12 . . . ig4 13.,tgS h6 14.ih4 gS lS .ig3 ge8 16.f3; lS . . . VNb6? ! , Moshina - Doibani, Kishinev 2001, 16.h4 CiJe4 17.ge1t - and it cannot be good for Black to at­tack the b2-pawn, while his king­side is so vulnerable.) 16.f3 (It is weaker for White to play: 16.ge1 if 5; or 16.ibS ig4 17.f3 VNb6.) 16 . . . CiJcS 17.,tf2 (The position is rather unclear after: 17.ibS 'Wb6 18.hc6 bxc6 19.CiJxd4 ia6 20 J':'�f2 gad8, or 18.CiJxd4 CiJe6 19.hc6 gd8 20.if2 gxd4 2 1.hd4 CiJxd4.) 17 . . . VNf6 18.ibS d3, Mista - An­dres Gonzalez, Aviles 2001 and here White plays simply 19.CiJc3±.

137

Chapter 7

Black's tactical threats have been parried, his king is vulnerable and his position is in ruins.

14.M4 gdS This is a logical move. It is not

worth for Black to retreat losing a tempo: 14 . . . ge8, Mastrovasilis -Pavlidou, Kavala 200S, 1S.gel;!;. It is also possible for Black to play: 14 . . . gaS 1S.ltJg3 ltJeS 16 . .txeS, with a transposition to the main line, Zhao Jun - Stellwagen, Oropesa del Mar 2000.

lS.ltJg3 White prevents the exchange

- �fS. lS . . . ltJeS Black still forces the trade of

one of his opponent's bishops. After 1S . . . Wb6, Kountz - Roth, Ba­den 1999, White can prevent that exchange with the move 16.ltJe4;!;. If 1S . . . �g4, Guerra - Khenkin, Coruna 1992, then White should not repel Black's bishop to g6. It is much more promising for him to opt for: 16 .Wd2 ltJeS 17.�xeS gxeS 18.gfe1 gxe1+ 19.9xe1 Wb6 20 .Wb4;!;

16 • .txeS gxeS

Black has managed to simplify

138

the position somehow, but he has made several moves with his rook left and right. He has remained with an isolated pawn and White's position continues to be slightly better.

17.gel Now, after the exchange on e1,

White transfers his queen to b4 and he attacks Black's queenside pawns from there. His other pos­sibility is 17. W d2 and gadl.

17 . . . gxel+ lS.Wxel �e6 Or 18 . . . Wb6 19.Wb4;!; and af­

ter the exchange of queens, every variation leads to a better end­game for White.

19.Wb4 �d7 Anisimov - Michiels, Orope­

sa del Mar 2000 and here after: 2 0 .gdl;!; Black has difficulties protecting his d4-pawn. For ex­ample, after the natural line 2 0 . . . gdS 21.c3, he loses i t altogether.

b2b) 12 . . . WdS

The idea of that move is to play �fS on the next move and to ex­change the light-squared bishops, which is of course favourable for Black.

4'ciJxd4 e6 5. 0.c3 0.f6 6. 0.db5 �b4 7.a3 hc3 8. 0.xc3

13.0.f4 White wins a tempo by attack­

ing Black's queen, but his knight is not so well placed on that square, since it covers the diagonal of the bishop on cl. Later he would need to redeploy his knight on f4 at some moment.

13 . . . Wd6 It is not so logical for Black

to play immediately: 13 . . . Wfd8 14.0.h5 (14.1:'!e1 !? ; 14.h3 !?) 14 . . . 0.g4 15.h3 'IDl4?? (15 . . . 0.ge5) 16. hxg4 hg4 17.�e2+- Baze - Sch­weikert, Lansing 1989.

The move 13 . . . Wc5, Ernst - Novoselski, Bolzano 1990, ex­poses Black's queen to an attack after: 14.b4 iWb6 15.�b2 Me8 16.b5 0.e5 17.hd4± - and his d4-pawn is endangered too and after its exchange (c2-c3), White main­tains the advantage thanks to his active bishops.

14.0.h5

Now, we will analyze in de­tails the moves: b2bl) 14 . . . 0.g4, b2b2) 14 . . . 0.d5 and b2b3) 14 . . . 0.xh5.

The alternatives for Black are:

14 . . . Wfe5 - This is with the idea to force White to exchange on f6. 15.0.xf6+ Wfxf6 16.Wfh5 h6, Tjut­junnikov - Hasangatin, Orel 1996 (or 16 . . . g6 17.�g5 Wfe6 18.Wfh6 f6 19.9ae1 Wffl 20 .�f4;t - and Black's kingside is so vulnerable that he is clearly worse in the middle game as well as in the endgame, Flores Rios - Jorczik, Batumi 2006), 17.f4;t - White plans to counter 17 . . . �e6 with 18.f5. He has a pow­erful bishop-pair and a stable ad­vantage. He can begin an attack against his opponent's king with his g and f-pawns.

14 . . . .td7 15.�f4 0.e5 (The end­game seems to be just terrible for Black after: 15 . . . Wfe6 16.ge1 Wfg4 17.0.xf6+ gxf6 18.Wfxg4 hg4 19.h3 �h5 20.�h6 gfe8 21.f4±) 16.ge1 gfe8 17.Wfe2 �g4 18.he5 he2 19.hd6 hh5 20 .gxe8+ gxe8 21.�c5± and Black loses a pawn without any compensation whatsoever;

14 . . . ge8 15.H4 Wfe6. (Black remains much worse, but still it is possible that his best defen­sive line here is: 15 . . . 0.e5 16.gel± and the pin is quite annoying for Black: 16 . . . h6 17.h3± b.Wfe2; 16 . . . .tg4? 17.gxe5 hd1 18.gxe8+ gxe8 19.hd6 ge1+ 20.�f1 0.xh5 21.�b4+-) 16.ge1 Wfxe1+ 17.Wfxe1 gxe1+ 18.gxe1 .te6 19.0.xf6+ gxf6± - and Black's pawn-struc­ture is simply terrible in that end­game, Plachetka - Pons, Moscow 1994.

139

Chapter 7

b2bl) 14 • • • c!L\g4 15.M4 %Yd5 It is bad for Black to play:

lS .. .'IWcS 16.c!L\g3 ltJgeS 17.b4 %Yb6 (17 . . :lWe7 1B.�el±) 1B.heS ltJxeS 19.hh7+ mxh7 20 .%YhS+ mgB 21.'lWxeS± and he has no com­pensation for the pawn, Livshits - Llaneza Vega, Olomouc 2001.

lS . . . 'lWdB 16.ltJg3 'lWh4 (In case of 16 . . . 'lWf6 17.'lWd2 ltJgeS, White can afford giving up one of his bishops: 1B.heS ltJxeS 19 .!e4 !e6 20 .�fe1 h6 21 .ltJhS 'lWh4 22 .c!L\f4t Teubert - Litz, Email 2001; if 16 . . . ltJf6 17.�e1 !e6 1B.h3 �eB, Gutenev - Temirbaev, Salekhard 2006, then after the developing move - 19. 'lWd2 ! ?t White is better.) 17.ltJfS hfS 1B.hfS ltJh6 19.!g3 (White's prospects are superior too after: 19.93 ! ? 'lWf6 20.!e4t) 19 . . . 'lWgS 20.!e4 fS 21.f4 (That move is forced.) 21 . . .'lWg6 22 .!f3 ltJg4 23.'lWd3t. The e3-square in White's camp is weak indeed, but that does not provide Black with a sufficient counterplay. His knight cannot remain there for long, because of the undermining move - c3. On the other hand, the placement of White's bishop on f3 on the long diagonal spells trou­ble for Black. In the game Karpov - Alburt, Daugavpils 1971, there followed: 23 . . . �adB 24.�fe1 mhB 2S.�e2 �feB 26.�ae1 �e3 27.'lWbS �xe2 2B.he2 ltJe3 29.'lWd3 h6 30.!f3 �eB 31.b4 a6 32 .c3 ltJg4 33.�eB+ 'lWxeB 34.cxd4+- and White remained with a solid extra pawn.

140

16.c!L\g3 J.e6 The other possible set-up is

not better for Black at all : 16 . . . ltJf6 17.'lWd2 �eB 1B.�fe1 !d7 19.!gS - and his knight has no good square to retreat to. He will need to go back with it: 19 . . . ltJg4 20 .c4 'lWd6, van den Doel - Matikozian, Duisburg 1992, 21 .b4 b6 (M­ter 21 . . .ltJgeS 22 .cS 'lWfB 23.!e4± - the difference in the activity of the pieces is more than obvious.) 22 .!f4 ltJgeS 23.�acl;!; - Black's pieces are pinned, while White's pawn-majority on the queenside is more important than Black's passed d-pawn.

16 . . .fS - That move looks logi­cal, but it is too risky. Black's at­tempt to stop White's pawn-of­fensive on the kingside is in vain. 17.�e1 ltJgeS 1B .!f1 ltJg6, Gruen­berg - Vidonyak, Germany 2000 and here White maintains his advantage with the line : 19.c4 'lWdB (It is not good for Black to let his opponent's bishop to the d6-square - 19 . . . 'lWt7 20.!d6±) 20 .'lWf3 ltJxf4 21.'lWxf4 'lWf6 22 .b4 and White is better, because of his superior pawn-structure. After the natural line : 22 . . . !e6 (or 22 . . . !d7 23.cSt) Black ends up in trouble after: 23.bS ltJaS 24.ltJhS 'lWt7 (or 24 . . . 'lWg6 2S.ltJxg7 mxg7 26.'lWc7±) 2S.ltJxg7 mxg7 26 .'lWeS±

17.�el c!L\f6 It is more or less the same af­

ter: 17 . . . �adB 1B .h3 ltJf6 19.'lWd2 !cB 20.!gS �d6 21 .ltJe4 (White could have played even sim-

4. &jjxd4 e6 5. &jjc3 &jjf6 6. &jjdb5 :iJ.b4 7.a3 hc3 8. &jjxc3

pIer, for example with 2U'%adU) 21 . . .&jjxe4 22 .he4 �b5 23.:iJ.f4t Schlemermeyer - B.Stein, Ger­many 1993 and White's position improves with every move, for ex­ample after: 23 . . . l'%dd8 24.�d3t

18.h3 l'%fe8 19.�d2 gac8 2 0 .gad1 �d7 21.ge2 �d5

22.gdelt. White's set-up is quite harmonious and he can begin now active actions on the kingside. Black has no easy coun­terplay at all. 22 . . . a6 23.:iJ.g5 &jjd7 24. �f4 &jjc5, M.Brodsky - Maksimenko, Kherson 1989 (or 24 .. .f6 25.�h4±) and here White was practically winning with the line : 25.&jj:f5 &jjxd3 26.cxd3+-, with the decisive threats &jjxg7, :iJ.f6 and &jjd6.

b2b2) 14 . . . &jjd5

Naturally, it is too risky for Black to leave White's knight on h5 so close in the vicinity of his king, but he plans to defend some­how with moves like f5 or f6 . It is far from easy for White though, to attack the g7-square with other pieces .

15.�f3 ge8 About 15 . . . :iJ.e6 16.:iJ.d2 l'%fe8

17.l'%ae1 - see 15 . . . l'%e8. After 15 . . . l'%d8 16.l'%e1 :iJ.d7,

Ernst - Faldt, Malmo 1992, 17. :iJ.d2t - Black must retreat his rook to the e8-square losing a tempo, because it is useless on d8 anyway.

It is not good for Black to play: lS . . . &jjeS 16.�g3 :iJ.g4 (He weakens the shelter of his king consider­ably with : 16 . . . g6 17.:iJ.h6 l'%e8 18 .l'%ael± Ramo - M.Rodriguez, Aragon 1991.) 17.&jjxg7 (Or 17J'%e1 l'%fe8 18.l'%xeS and in the game Isu­pov - A.Platonov, Orel 1996, the position became suddenly very dangerous for White after: 18 . . . l'%xeS 19.�xg4 l'%e1+ 20 .:iJ.f1 �g6 - since he could not repel his opponent's rook away from his first rank.) 17 . . . cJ:?xg7 18 .h3 &jjf3+ (otherwise Black simply remains with his pawn-structure in ru­ins) 19.9xf3 �xg3+ 20.fxg3 hh3 21.l'%f2 :iJ.e6 22 .l'%h2±

16.:iJ.d2 :iJ.e6 17.gae1 gad8 (diagram)

This position was reached in two games.

In the encounter Szalanczy - Khenkin, Budapest 1991, there

141

Chapter 7

followed: 18J''le4 fS 19.E!:e2 g6 (Af­ter 19 ... ct:JeS 20.'lMrg3;!;, strangely enough, White failed to exploit the weakening of the dark squares.) 20.E!:fe1!? gxhS 21.'lMrxhS (It de­serves attention for White to try here: 21.i1.gS!? E!:a8 22.i1.xfS.) 21... E!:e7 22.h4 @h8 23.i1.gS i1.f7 24.'lMrf3 E!:xe2 2S.E!:xe2 E!:f8 - Black parried White's threats and he preserved his material advantage.

In the game Morozevich - Khenkin, Cappelle la Grande 1992, after 18.i1.gS ct:JeS 19.'lMrg3 ct:Jxd3, White did not obtain any advantage with the combination: 20.i1.f4 'lMrf8 21.i1.h6 (or 21.cxd3 f6), because of: 21...ct:J3f4! 22.ct:Jxf4 ct:Jxf4 23.i1.xf4 f6 with an approxi­mately equal position.

It deserved attention for White to opt for: 18.E!:e2!?;!;, with the idea to follow with E!:fe1, avoiding attack against his rooks and sim­ply doubling them. He could thus postpone for a while the creation of concrete threats on the king­side.

b2b3) 14 ..• ct:Jxh5 15.'lMrxh5 (diagram)

15 ... h6

142

Or lS .. .fS 16.i1.d2 i1.e6 17.E!:ae1 i1.dS 18.c4 dxc3 19.i1.xc3 'lMrg6 20. 'lMrh3 (�E!:e3) 20 ... 'lMrg4 21.'lMrxg4 fxg4 22.E!:e3;!; - and after the ex­change of several pawns, White obtains a long-lasting advantage with his powerful bishop pair, Golubev - Todorovic, Bela Crkva 1990.

16.E!:el i1.d7 Black must develop some­

how and his possibilities are not so great. Either he must go with his bishop to d7, or he must de­fend against i1.xh6 with the move - i1.e6.

Black loses after: 16 ... i1.e6 17.i1.xh6 gxh6 (17 ... i1.g4 18.i1.f4+-) 18.'lMrxh6+-

In case of 16 ... 'lMrf6, Harlamov - E.Platonov, Krasnodar 1999, White has the interesting reply 17.'lMrdS!?, threatening 18.'lMre4 g6 19.i1.xh6. Black can hardly find any satisfactory defence: 17 ... 'lMrh4 (or 17 ... ct:Je7 18.'lMre4 ct:Jg6 19.i1.d2t and White dominates all over the board; 17 ... i1.e6 18.'lMre4+-) 18.i1.d2 and it is not good for Black to con­tinue with: 18 ... i1.e6 (After 18 ... E!:d8 19.93 - White can base his plan on the weakness of Black's

4. 0.xd4 e6 5. 0.c3 0.f6 6. 0.db5 i.b4 7.a3 i.xc3 8. 0.xc3

eighth rank - 19 . . . lWf6 20.lWe4 g6 21 ..bh6±) 19J'.1 xe6 fxe6 20.lWxe6+ 'it>hB 21.lWg6 Wfxf2+ (or 21 . . .'it>gB 22 .lWh7+ 'it>t7 23J1e1+-) 22 .'it>h1 'it>gB 23 . .bh6 �t7 24.lWh7+ 'it>fB 25.WfhB+ 'it>e7 26.i.g5+-, or 20 . . . �t7 21 .f3± - and White regains the exchange and he remains with a solid extra pawn.

17.Wfh4 �fe8 After 17 . . .f5 1B.i.f4 lWf6 19.lWxf6

�xf6 2 0.h4;;!; �f3, 'it>f2 White has the edge in the endgame, Belyaev - Lots, Ordzhonikidze 2004.

17 .. . �aeB 1B.!f4 Wfd5 19.1Wg3 �e6 (It is possibly better for Black to play 19 . . . 'it>hB, with the idea to follow with i.f5. White main­tains his advantage too after: 20. i.d6 �xe1 + 21 .�xe1 �eB 22.�xeB+ .beB 23.h3;i;; - since the exchange of the two pairs of rooks has led to a very favourable endgame for him, Kozlitin - Tomilin, Russia 2000 . In case of 20 . . . �gB, Haen­sel - Neymann, Greifswald 2002, White should follow with 21.Wff4;i;;, preventing !f5.) 20.�xe6 lWxe6 21.i.d2 Wfe5 (After 21 . . .�eB 22 .�e1 lWxe1 + 23 . .be1 �xe1 + 24.i.f1, White gradually consolidates his position and then his mate­rial advantage should be decisive, for example: 24 . . . if5 25.lWf4 i.e6 26.lWd2±, or 24 . . . �c1 25.lWd3±) 22 .�e1 Wfxg3 23.hxg3±. White is clearly better in that endgame. Later, in the game Tiviakov - So­rokin, St. Petersburg 1993, there followed: 23 . . . �eB 24.�xeB+ .beB 25.f4 id7 26 . 'it>f2 'it>fB 27.i.e4

'it>e7 2B.'it>e2 'it>d6 29.'it>d3 b6 30.!b4!+- 'it>e6 (or 30 . . . 0.xb4+ 31.axb4 �'it>d4+-) 31.i.f3 f5 32 . 'it>c4 as 33.i.d5+ ! 'it>f6 34.i.d6 �35. !c7 and Black resigned, because White's king penetrates into his camp.

18.i.d2 Contrary to the variation 17 . . .

�aeB, after 1B.!f4 lWd5 19.1Wg3, White does not have the threat i.d6 and following: 19 . . . 'it>hB 20 . b4 a6 21.i.c7, Payen - Rosandic, Cannes 1995, 21 . . .i.f5= Black equalizes gradually.

18".tLle5 Or 1B . . . �xe1+ 19.�xe1 �eB

20.�xeB+ .beB 21.Wfe4 'it>fB 22 .f4 lWf6 23.b4;i;; Korneev - Alonso, Se­ville 2001 .

The endgame is worse for Black after the exchanges: 1B . . . �e6 19.fue6 lWxe6 20 .�e1 Wfg4 21.Wfxg4 .bg4 22 .f4 g6 23.b4;i;; . White has a bishop pair and a clear advantage and Black's at­tempt to obtain some counterplay after: 23 . . . a6 24.a4 as 25.b5 0.b4, Vehi Bach - San Segundo, San Sebastian 1995, should end rather badly for him in view of the line: 26.i.e4 �bB 27.h3 i.f5 (27 . . . i.d7 2B . .bb4 axb4 29.�d1+-) 2B . .bf5 gxf5 29.ixb4 axb4 30.�b1+-, or 26 . . . �cB 27.ixb4 axb4 2B . .bb7 �xc2 29.!e4+- �b6.

In the game Korneev - Mel­lado Trivino, Malaga 2000, in an­swer to 1B . . . a6, White entered an endgame, but not under most fa­vourable circumstances for him:

143

Chapter 7

19. ygf4 (He had better make a use­ful waiting move like for example 19J�iad1! ?;!;) 19 . . . Wxf4 20.ixf4 g5 21.i.g3 rtlg7 22.rtlf1 rtlf6 Aif5 23. 8:ed1 E!ac8 24.f4 .tf5=

It also deserves attention for White to counter 18 . . . a5, Darr - Juozapas, Dos Hermanas 2004, with the move 19.E!adU

19.i.f4 Wc5 Black is trying to force some

simplification at the price of a pawn. His other options would not solve his problems, for example: 19 . . . ttJg6, Raeuchle - Kaus, Email 1999, 20 .ixd6 ttJxh4 21.1c5 1c6 22 . .tfl±

It is quite possible that the least of evils for Black is - 19 . . . E!e7 20 .E!e2 E!ae8 21 .8:ae1 f6 22 .Wg3;!;, although his position remains clearly worse even then. For ex­ample, White is threatening the rather unpleasant transfer of his bishop to the b4-square.

2 0 .YGg3± tbg6 (20 . . . ttJxd3 21. ixh6 YGf8 22 .cxd3 .tf5 23.if4±; 20 . . . ttJg4 21.h3 ttJf6 22 .ixh6 ttJh5 23.YGg5+-) 21.hg6 fxg6 22. ygxg6 E!xel + 23.gxel .us 24. Yeg3 hc2 25.hh6 YGfS 26.

144

ge5+- - and White not only has an extra pawn, but his attack seems to be decisive, Tiviakov - Maljutin, Montecatini Terme 1994.

b2c) 12 . . . �g4

This is the main line for Black and the entire system with the move 6 . . . i.b4 owes its resurrec­tion to it during the years 2001-2003, when it was tested even at the highest level.

The pin of the knight on e2 looks a bit strange, but it is con­nected with a concrete idea. Black provokes the move f2-f3, which weakens the e3-square and later he can exploit that with the ma­neuver ttJf6-d5-e3 . If White does not play f2-f3, in some variations he must consider the possibility for Black to exchange on e2 and after the capture ixe2 - to follow with the move ttJe4.

13.i.g5 'flYd6 That logical move is the best

for Black - he unpins immediate­ly his knight on f6.

His other possibilities are: 13 . . . �h5 - with the idea to

4. l1Jxd4 e6 S. l1Jc3 l1Jf6 6 .l1JdbS �b4 7.a3 �xc3 B. l1Jxc3

trade the light-squared bishops on g6. 14.1,Igd2 �g6, Morawietz - Abdul Rahim, Oberwart 1994, 15J'!ad1 (The d4-pawn would come under attack after the ex­change of the bishops.) 15 . . J�c8 16 .�b5 h6 (Or 16 . . . l1Je4 17.hd8 l1Jxd2 18J�xd2 �fxd8 19.�fdl± -and White wins a pawn.) 17.hf6 1,Igxf6 18 .hc6 bxc6 19.Wxd4 1,1gxd4 20 .�xd4 hc2 2 1.�cl;!; - and Black has a weakness on the c6-square;

After 13 . . . l1Je5, Talla - Hasan­gatin, Czech Republic 1997, Black exchanges the bishop on d3, but he weakens his d4-pawn. 14.f3 ! ? (In this position White is not afraid of the transfer of Black's knight to the e3-square, while it would be useful for him to pre­serves the knight on e2 in order to attack his opponent's d4-pawn.) 14 . . . �e6 (or 14 . . . �5 15.l1Jf4 �g6 16.l1Jxg6;!;) 15.�el;!; and White is better - Black has serious prob­lems with the protection of his d4-pawn, since it is not good for him to follow with: 15 . . . 1,Igb6 16.hf6 gxf6 17.Wd2±;

13 . . . �e8 14.B:e1 �h5 (About 14 . . . 1,Igd6 15.Wd2 - see 13 . . . 1,Igd6; Black weakens his kingside with­out any compensation after: 14 . . . h6 15.�4 g5 16.�g3 l1Jh5 17.f3 l1Jxg3 18.l1Jxg3 �e6 19.'1M!d2± L.Fer­nandez - Cheype, Aix-Ies-Bains 2006. The move 14 . . . l1Je5, Es­calante - Jimenez Lopez, Gran Canaria 2002 , also weakens the d4-pawn and White's simplest line against that is: 15.�b5 l1Jc6

16.f3, while in answer to 16 . . . 1,Igb6, it would be enough for White to continue with 17.�d3;!;, exchang­ing on f6, compromising Black's pawn-structure on the kingside.) 15.1,Igd2 �g6 16.l1Jf4 1,Igd6 17.l1Jxg6 hxg6 18.�f4;!; - White has pre­served his two bishops and that provides him with a slight but sta­ble advantage, Small - Watson, New Zeeland 1982 ;

13 . . . h6.

One of the main ideas for Black in this variation is to exchange on e2 and after White's captur­ing with the bishop to follow with l1Jf6-e4, attacking the bishop on g5, so that move, which forces the bishop to retreat from the g5-square, only restricts Black's pos­sibilities. 14.�h4 g5 (Or 14 . . . 1,Igd6, Kirillov - A.Zaitsev, Minsk 1962, 15.�e1 and later White plays anal­ogously to the main line 13 . . . 1,Igd6, except that, as we have already pointed out, the difference is in favour of White - the bishop on g5 is more vulnerable than on h4. 14 . . . he2 15.Wxe2 B:e8 (In case of 15 . . . 1,Igd6, Zozulia - C.Foisor, Mar-seille 2006, it looks very good for

145

Chapter 7

White to follow with: 16.hf6 �fe8 17.�f3 �xf6 18.�xf6 gxf6 19.f4±, or 16 . . . �xf6 17.�fel± and White occupies the e-file. If we add to that the vulnerability of Black's d4-pawn and the total dominance of White's pieces all over the board, we can assume that Black's defence would be very difficult.) 16.�f3 �ds 17.�xds ttJxds 18.�fe1 ttJf4 19.�f1 gs 2 0.�g3 �xe1 21.�xe1 ttJe6 22 .�c4;!; and the endgame is evidently favourable for White, because his bishops are clearly stronger than Black's knights, Aleksandrov - Karapchanski, Varna 1995.) 1s.�g3;!; - The weak­nesses on Black's kingside will surely affect the outcome of the fight. 1s . . . ttJd5 (Or 15 . . . ttJhs 16.f3 ttJxg3 17.ttJxg3 �d7 18.f4+- and White has decisive threats against Black's king, Alamany - Masdeu, St Cugat 1994; 1s . . . �e8 16.f3 ihs 17.�f2 �ds 18.�d2 �ad8 19.�ad1 Wg7 20 .ttJg3 �g6, Dworakowska -Jensen, Istanbul 2000, 21.f4 ttJe4 22 .he4 he4 23.c4 �cs 24.b4--+, White captures then on gs with a powerful attack; 1s . . . �ds 16.f3 �hs 17.c4 ! dxc3 18.ttJxc3 �d4+ 19.�f2 �d7 2 0 .ttJe4 �e6 21.ttJcs± - and Black's queen is misplaced, his kingside has been compro­mised and he would hardly survive for long, Shmuter - Khmelnitsky, Lviv 1990.) 16.�d2 �6 17.b4 �fe8 18.�fe1 a6 19.h4± - Black's king is seriously endangered, Go­bet - Kivisto, Groningen 1981.

14.l:�el

146

The other possibility for White here is - 14.�d2 he2 1S.if4 �ds 16.he2 �fe8 17.�fe1 �ad8 18 .id3 ttJes 19.hes �xes 20 .�xes �xes 2U"!eU - but after the exchange of one of the bishops, Black prac­tically equalizes, Leko - Grischuk, Linares 2001 .

14 . . . gfe8 This is the most logical and

strongest line for Black. 14 . . . as - It is far from clear

why Black plays that move now, because White was not planning to follow with b4 anyway. 1s.�d2 ttJds, Mainka - B.Stein, Dort­mund 1987 and here White had the tactical possibility 16 .c4;!; and Black could not play 16 . . . dxc3? 17.ttJxc3 - because he would be incapable of protecting his knight on ds, while the move 17 . . . ttJxc3, naturally would lose, because of 18.hh7+.

In case of 14 . . . h6, White should better play 1s.ih4 - and as we have already explained, Black loses the important tactical mo­tive ttJe4, when he repels White's bishop from the gs-square. (It is worse for White to play 1s.�f4,

4. 0.xd4 e6 S. 0.c3 0.f6 6. 0.dbS !b4 7.a3 !xc3 8. 0.xc3

Schlosser - B. Stein , Budapest 19S7, ls .. :�xf4 16.0.xf4 hd1 17J'l:axd1 E!feS and the endgame is quite acceptable for Black.).

14 . . . E!adS - That move de­serves attention for Black. He pro­tects his d4-pawn and he plans to follow that with 0.es. ls.f3. Now, Black has his knight on f6 pinned and so he will need to remove his rook from dS in order to follow with 0.dS, so White can weaken the e3-square. (Black's chances of equalizing are greater after: ls.%'d2 0.es 16.0.g3, V.Gurevich ­Mashinskaya, Koszalin 1999, 16 . . . 0.xd3 ! ? 17.%'xd3 h6 lS .!xf6 %'xf6 19.%'e4 !cS=) ls . . . !cS 16.0.g3 E!deS 17.%'d2;!; A%\If4, with a slight advantage for White.

14 . . . !hS - That move is played with the idea to trade the bishops, but Black loses too many tempi in doing that. ls.%'d2 !g6 16.E!ad1 E!adS, Klundt - Heining, Stuttgart 2001, 17.0.g3 E!feS (The line 17 . . . hd3 IS . %\Ixd3 A0.fS is evidently unfavourable for Black.) lS.0.fS hfs 19.hfs;!; - and after the exchange of the bishop with which Black has lost so many tempi, he has no counterplay in sight at all.

15.�d2 (diagram)

15 . . . .b:e2 That is the idea behind the

development of the bishop to g4. In case White manages to put his knight on g3 - then the placement of Black's bishop on g4 becomes

senseless. ls . . . 0.e4? 16.he4 E!xe4 17.

f3+-lS . . . h6 16.!f4 %\IdS (or 16 . . .

%'d7 17.0.g3 %'dS lS.hh6± Me­khitarian - Di Berardino, Buenos Aires 2007; after lS . . . gxh6, White follows with 19.%'xh6 E!e6 20 .h3, regaining his piece, after which Black's position is nearly hope­less.) 17.c4 dxc3 lS.0.xc3 %'hs 19.0.bS;!; and White transfers his knight to the d6-outpost.

After lS . . . E!adS 16.0.g3 h6 17.!f4 %'fS lS.0.e4 (or lS.0.fS E!dS? Hoffmann - Haener, Basel 2006) lS . . . 0.xe4 19.E!xe4;!; White ends up with a slight edge.

lS . . . !hs 16.%,f4. This move practically forces the exchange of queens (It is not good for Black to allow doubling of his f-pawns.) in a favourable situation for White. 16 . . . E!adS 17.%'xd6 E!xd6 lS.0.f4 !g6 19.E!xeS+ 0.xeS 2 0 .E!e1 0.f6 21 .0.xg6 hxg6 22 .Wf1± Dunis -Rosin, Nice 2005.

lS . . . E!acS 16.0.g3 (16.%'f4!?) 16 . . . 0.eS (It is not good for Black to try: 16 . . . a6 17.h3 !d7, Hartman - Finnlaugsson, Sweden 1992, in view of: lS.,txf6 %,xf6 19.0.e4 %'g6

147

Chapter 7

20 .lLlcS i.fS 21 .i.xfS vtfxfS 22 . lLlxb7 'lWdS 23.c4 l±) 17.i.f4 lLlhS 18J'!e4 lLlxg3 19.i.xg3 fS 20 .fu:eS, Mikhalchishin - Guseinov, Baku 1983 and here after: 20 . . . �xeS 21.h3 AthS 22 .i.xfS± White ends up with a solid extra pawn. After the correct line - 17 . . . 'lWcS, White maintains his advantage after the exchange: 18.i.xeS �xeS 19.�xeS vtfxeS 2 0.�e1 'lWdS (It is not advis­able for Black to continue with: 20 . . . vtfd6 2 1.i.fS �d8 22 .i.xg4 lLlxg4 23.vtfgS± £1lLlfS) 21 .vtff4 i.e6 22 .�eSi and lLle4 with an initia­tive for White on the kingside.

16.Ji4! That i s an important interme­

diate move. In the forced varia­tions after: 16.�xe2 �xe2 17.'lWxe2 �e8, White fails to maintain any advantage: 18.'lWf3 (or 18.'lWd2 lLleS= Kineva - N.Nikolaev, Smolensk 200S) 18 . . . lLleS 19.'lWf4 (Or 19.vtfxb7 lLlxd3 20 .cxd3 vtfeS 21 .i.d2 lLlg4 22 .f4 vtfe2 and only White risks losing that position.) 19 . . . 'lWb6 20 .i.xf6 lLlxd3 21.'lWg3 (or 2 1.vtfxd4 vtfxf6 22 .vtfxf6 gxf6 23.cxd3 �e2 24.�b1 �d2= Dwora­kowska - Ptacnikova, Istanbul 2000) 21 . . .'lWxf6 22.vtfxd3 'lWb6= Kudrin - Rogers, London 1988.

16 • • • 'lWd7 It is hardly any better for Black

to opt for: 16 . . . 'lWdS 17.i.xe2 lLle4 18.vtfd3 lLlcS 19.vtfc4 vtffS 20.i.g3 h6 21 .b4 lLle6 22.i.d3 vtff6 23.�e4;!;. As usual in that variation, if White manages to prevent the exchange of the bishops, he maintains a

148

clear advantage. Later, in the game Tiviakov - Halkias, Amsterdam 2006, here followed: 23 . . . lLlgS 24.�f4 'lWe7 2S.h4 lLleS 26.'lWxd4 �ad8 27.'lWxa7 lLle6 28.�fS lLlxd3 29.cxd3 lLld4 30 .�eS and Black failed to regain his pawn: 30 . . . 'lWd7 31 .�xe8+ �xe8 32 .'it>h2 gS 33.'lWb6 gxh4 34.i.xh4 lLlfS 3S.i.g3 lLlxg3 36.fxg3 �e6 37.'lWf2 vtfxd3 38.�cl±

17.he2 !? In the famous game Kasparov

- Grischuk, Cannes 2001, White followed with: 17.�xe2 �xe2 18. 'lWxe2 (l8 .he2 l?) 18 . . . �e8 19. 'lWf1 vtfe6 2 0.h3 . White's posi­tion would have been better if he had managed to occupy the e-file. He failed to do that in the game though . . . and after: 2 0 . . . h6 21 .�d1 lLldS 22 .i.g3 lLlf6 23 .i.f4 lLldS 24.i.d2, Black had the tacti­cal strike: 24 . . . lLle3 l 2S.fxe3 dxe3 26.'lWe2 (or 26 .�e1 exd2 27.�xe6 �xe6 28 .i.e2 lLld4 29 .'it>f2 �xe2+ 30.'lWxe2 lLlxe2 31 .'it>xe2 'it>f8 32. 'it>xd2 'it>e7=) 26 . . . exd2 27.'lWxe6 fu:e6 28.�xd2 - and White's edge was only symbolic.

4. 11Jxd4 e6 5. 11Jc3 llJf6 6. 11Jdb5 ib4 7.a3 ixc3 B. llJxc3

In case Black follows the rec­ommendation of GM V.Golod: 17 . . . 'lWf5 lS.id3 llJe4, it deserves attention for White to force the exchange of queens with: 19.f3 lLlxd2 2 0 .ixf5 llJc4 21 .ie4 h6 (or 21 . . .11Jxb2 22 .Eieb1 lLlc4 23.Eixb7;!;;) 22 .b3t with a slight but stable ad­vantage for him.

17 . . . Eie7 lS.if3 EiaeS 19.Eixe7 Eixe7 20 .Eie1 Eixe1+ (Mer 20 . . . Eie6, White can avoid the trade of the rooks and he can play 21 .EidU, threatening Black's d4-pawn.) 21 .'lWxe1 h6 22 .'lWe2t - and in that position White has a long lasting advantage with his bishop pair, while Black has no easy counter­play, Kupreichik - Palatnik, Ros­tov 19S0 .

lS.'lWd3 V:YfS This move turns out to be a

loss of time, but Black equalizes neither after: 1S . . . EiacS 19.EiadU, nor following lS . . . lLlc5 19.'lWc4 V:Yf5 2 0.ig3 EiadS (20 . . . Eie6 21 .b4 lLle4 22 .id3±) 21 .b4 llJe6 22 .if3t - and White manages to repel his opponent's active pieces and his bishops are stronger than Black's knights.

19.93 V:Yd7 That retreat does not look

good, but Black is worse anyway after: 19 . . . 'lWf6 2 0.if3 11Jc5 21 . 'lWb5 g5 (21 . . .lLle6? 22 . 'lWxb7 +-) 22 .ixc6 bxc6 23.'lWxc5 gxf4 24.Eiad1 f3 25.EixeS+ EixeS 26.h4± (V.Golod) .

In case of 19 . . . 'lWa5, Korneev ­Lenic, Nova Gorica 2006, it looks very good for White to play 20 .b4! - since the weakening of the c3-square seems to be immaterial, for example: 20 . . . 'lWb6 21 .'lWf3, fol­lowed by id3±

2 0 .W llJc5 21:�c4 �e6 22. id2t

White has neutralized his opponent's activity in the centre. Black's pieces have been forced to retreat to passive positions and White's stable positional advantage is obvious. The game Sadvakasov - AI Modiahki, Doha 2003 continued with: 22".EiacS 23.'lWd5 Wfc7 (23 . . . 'lWxd5 24.ixd5 Eicd8 25.ig2t) 24.Eiacl EicdS 25.Wfe4 ge7 26.V:Yh4 EideS 27. ig2 h6 2S.V:Yh5 llJg5 29.Eixe7 Wfxe7 3 0 .h4 llJe6 31.Eiel V:Yd7 32.'lWg4! 1lJf8 33.V:Yxd7 Eixel+ 34.ixel llJxd7 35.b4!± @f8 (or 35 .. . �de5 ! ?±) 36.f4 ! a6 37. if'2+- and White simply ap­proached with his king Black's d4-pawn and gobbled it.

149

Chapter 7

Conclusion The order of moves, which we have analyzed in the last two chap­

ters - l.e4 c5 2JiJj3 lLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. lLlxd4 lLlf6 5. lLlc3 e6 - enables White, contrary for example to the Paulsen variation, to play 6 .lLldb5, exploiting the weakness of the d6-square.

As you have seen in our chapter 6, these lines, in which Black al­lows his opponent to deploy a piece (a knight and after its exchange -the queen and sometimes the bishop) on the d6-square, they all lead to a worse position for Black. That is not surprising, because whenever Black's pawn is on d7, he has great problems to develop his queenside; meanwhile White also has the two-bishop advantage.

It is a little better for Black (naturally with the exception of the moves 6 . . . d6 and 6 . . . !J.b4) to play 6 . . . !J.c5, after which it is pointless

for White to check on d6. In the main line - 7. !J.f4 0 - 0 8. !J.c7 Wfe7 9. !J.d6 hd6 1 O . Wixd6 lLle8 11. Wfxe7 lLlxe7 12. 0 - 0 - 0 j5 13. lLld6 lLlxd6 14. '8xd6 fxe4 15. lLlxe4 - Black ends up in a slightly worse endgame with a bad light-squared bishop.

The evaluation of the system 6 . . . !J.b4 7.a3 !J.xc3+ 8. lLlxc3 d5 9.exd5 exd5 is more complex. Black presents his opponent with the two-bish­op advantage and he complies with the isolation of his central pawn. Still, Black has afree development and a powerful counter play. In the main lines after: 1 0 . . . d4 11 . lLl e2 !J.j5, as well as: 1 0 . . . 0 - 0 11. 0 - 0 d4 12. lLle2 !J.g4, or 12 . . . Wfd5, White can maintain his advantage only by a very precise play. His chances are to either attack Black's d4-pawn (Wfd2, '8adl, often - b4 and !J.b2), or to play on the kingside (!J.g5, lLlg3, doubling rooks along the e-Jile). White should better try to keep both his bishops on the board, since that would provide him with a better endgame.

Black had good results at the beginning of the 21st century in the variation - 12 . . . !J.g4 and that on the highest possible level. Presently however, White has found a correct order of moves and that enables him to maintain his advantage.

150

Chapter S 1.e4 c5 2.tLlf3 tLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 e6 5.tLlc3 a6

This move gained popular­ity thanks to the efforts of GM M.Taimanov. It has been of­ten used by V.Jansa, An.Karpov and U.Andersson etc. It is also a part of the opening repertoire of some contemporary players like V.Anand, P.Svidler, V.Ivanchuk, S.Rublevskhy, A.Volokitin and many others.

6.clOxc6 bxc6 Capturing with the other pawn

leads to a difficult endgame for Black after: 6 . . . dxc6? 7.1WxdB+ <j;lxdB B .if4 bS (B . . . ltJf6 9.0-0-0+ clOd7 1O .eS ib4 1Vbe4± Ghadimi - Scepanik, Kiel 2006) 9.ie2 f6 10 .0-0-0+ <j;leB 11.eS± and White has a space advantage, superior development and he dominates on the d-file, Keres - Gerusel, Dortmund 1973.

7 • .td3 Now, we will analyze: a) 7 . . .

e5, b) 7 . . . d6, c) 7 . . . ffc7, while the most popular move - 7 . . . dS will be dealt with in the next chapter.

7 . . . ltJe7? ! - Black's knight is too passive here. 8 .0-0 ltJg6 9.,te3 ie7 1O .ffhS 0-0 11.f4± Borg - Pepe, corr. 1997.

7 .. . ie7 8 .0-0 ltJf6 9 .eS ltJdS, Balka - Cesek, Bmo 2004, 10. ffg4±

7 . . . g6 - That move weakens the dark squares on the kingside. B.eS .tg7 9.f4 f6, Dunlop - Pickett, Auckland 1922 (In answer to 9 . . . d6, White obtains a powerful ini­tiative with: 10.fff3 ltJe7 11.ltJe4t and now it is too risky for Black to win a pawn, because after: 11. . . dxeS 12 .fxeS ixeS 13.ltJf6+ ixf6 14.ffxf6 0-0 ls.igS� his dark squares are practically defense­less.) , 1O.clOe4 fxeS 11.ltJd6+ <j;le7 (It is worse for Black to try: 11 . . . <j;lfB 12 .0-0�) 12 .ltJc4 e4 (It is hardly better for Black to opt for: 12 . . . exf4 13.ixf4 dS 14.ltJeS ffb6 lS.fff3�) 13.ixe4 dS 14.ltJeS ffc7 lS.id3t ixeS 16.fxeS ffxeS+

lSI

Chapter 8

17.i.e2 ct'lf6 18.0-0± White has an excellent compensation for the pawn, because of the vulnerabil­ity of the dark squares in Black's camp.

7 . . . i.cS - This move compro­mises Black's kingside. 8 .0-0 ct'le7 (about 8 . . . dS 9.iWg4 - see 7 . . . dS 8 .0-0 i.cS 9.iWg4, Chapter S) 9 .iWhS i.d4, Tran - Stadler, Bayern 1995 and here White ob­tains an overwhelming advantage opening the f-file with: 1O.i.e3 he3 1l.fxe3 0-0 12.eS±. White's central pawns are doubled in­deed, but Black can hardly exploit that, while White has good attack­ing prospects and the endgame might be excellent for him due to his dominance over the dark squares.

7 . . . i.b4 - That move weak­ens the kingside as well. 8 .0-0 ct'le7 (about 8 . . . dS 9.eS - see 7 . . . dS 8.0-0 i.b4 9 .eS; after 8 . . . d6, A.Anderssen - De Vere, Baden­Baden 1870, White can empha­size the unfavourable placement of his opponent's dark-squared bishop with: 9.ct'la4 tt:lf6 1O .i.gS±) 9 .a3 hc3 1O.bxc3 0-0, Selby -Taylor, Churchill 2000 and now it seems very good for White to oc­cupy additional space with: n.eS iWaS 12 J�e1 tt:lg6 (or 12 . . . iWxc3 13. i.d2 iWd4 14.i.b4 cS lS.c3 iWdS 16. c4+-) 13.iWe2± - White has a su­perior position thanks to his two bishops and extra space. It is too dangerous for Black to gobble a pawn with: 13 . . . 'Wxc3 14.i.d2 'Wd4

1S2

lS.i.b4 Ele8 16.Elad1� and White leads in development and he has an excellent compensation for the pawn. Black loses rather quickly if he tries to simplify with: 16 . . . ct'lf4 17.hh7+ <;t>xh7 18.iWf3 'Wc4 19.Ele4 'Wxc2 20.Elxf4 <;t>g8 21.i.d6+-

7 . . . i.b7 8 .0-0 d6 (about 8 . . . dS 9.Ele1 - see 7 . . . dS 8 .0-0 i.b7 9.Ele1, Chapter S; in answer to 8 . . . cS, Marra - Lebredo, Bra­zil 200S, it is good for White to gain some space: 9 .eS 'Wc7 10 .Ele1 ct'le7 11.'WhS±) 9.i.e3 dS, Ascenzo - Dass, Internet 2004 and here after: 10.ttJa4 ttJf6 n.eS ttJd7 12.f4 cS 13.c4t White enjoys a typical position with chances for initia­tive.

7 . . . ct'lf6 - That move is less logical than the main line. White occupies the centre and Black is doomed to create additional pawn­weaknesses. 8.eS ttJdS 9 .ct'le4 'Wc7 (In answer to: 9 . . . d6, Korneev - T.Sanz, Manresa 2004, the sim­plest line for White is: 1O .ttJxd6+ hd6 11.exd6 'Wxd6 12 .0-0± - and he has a stable edge due to his powerful bishop-pair. If Black tries to simplify the position with 12 . . . ttJb4, then after: 13.i.e4 'Wxd1 14.Elxd1 fS lS.i.gS <;t>f7 16.i.f3± he remains with weak pawns and vulnerable dark squares; after: 9 . . . fS 1O.exf6 ttJxf6, Groszpeter - Kosoric, Rethymnon 2003, it seems very good for White to fol­low with 11 .i.gS and after: n . . . i.e7 12 .tt:lxf6+ i.xf6 13.'WhS+ <;t>f8 14.hf6 'Wxf6 lS. 0-0± Black has

4. ttJxd4 e6 S. ttJe3 a6 6. ttJxe6 be 7. tid3

problems defending his king as well as his central pawns, which are much rather a liability than strength. It looks slightly better for him to try: 1l . . . \Wa5+ 12 .tid2 tib4 13.c3 tie7 14.c4t, but even then Black can hardly activate his light-squared bishop without creating weak pawns.) 1O.f4 c5 (After: 10 . . . tie7 1l.c4 ttJb4 12 .tib1 c5 13.0-0 tib7 14.tie3± Black has no active prospects in sight, he lacks space and his c5 and d7-pawns remain vulnerable, Spasov - Makridis, Kavala 2001 . The fol­lowing variation was tested in a game between computers : 10 . . . \Wb6 l1.a3 tie7 12 .c4 ttJe3, Fritz 5 .32 - Junior 5 .0 , 2000 and here after: 13.\We2 ttJf5 14.b4± White had plenty of extra space without any counterplay for Black. White has a stable advantage too after: 1O . . . d6 1l .exd6 hd6 12 .ttJxd6+ \Wxd6 13. 0-0± Guillen Ramirez - Montecinos, Managua 2001.) 1l.c4 ttJb4 (The other retreat is not any better: 11 . . .ttJb6 12 .0-0 tib7 13.\We2± - Black's knight on b6 has no active prospects whatsoev­er, Priborsky - Routner, Havlick­uv Brod 2005.) 12 .tib1 tib7 13.0-0 he4 (In answer to 13 . . . EldB, Beck­emeier - Roese, Germany 1991, White can capture his opponent's other bishop after: 14.ttJd6+ hd6 15.exd6 �b6 16.f5� and Black has problems parrying White's threats on the kingside and in the centre.) 14.he4 ttJc6 15.tie3 ElbB 16.Elf2 Elb4 17.�d3± White's space

advantage is quite visible and he can proceed with active opera­tions on both sides of the board, Goerke - C.Prokop, Niederrhein 1995.

a) 7 . . . e5

Black prevents his opponent from acquiring extra space and he is ready to deploy his bishop to the gl-a7 diagonal, from where it would be quite useful for his fu­ture counterplay.

8. 0 - 0 ttJf6 That is the most logical line for

Black, but he has tried in practice some other moves too:

B . . . \wh4? ! - That is not the best square for the queen. 9 .ttJa4 ElbB, Stojanovic - Markovic, Dimitrov­grad 2003, 1O.f4 d6 11.\We2±

B . . . ttJe7? ! 9.f4 exf4, Bartolo­maeus - Roehl, Mecklenburg 2003 and here after: 1O .ti.xf4 ttJg6 1l.tig3 tic5+ 12 .@h1 0-0 13.e5 \We7 14.�h5± Black can parry White's kingside attack only by creating additional pawn-weak­nesses on the queenside.

B . . . tib4?! - Black either pres­ents his opponent with the two-

153

Chapter 8

bishop advantage with that move, or he isolates his dark-squared bishop from the actions, Vetter - Lopez Martin, corr. 2002 , af­ter 9.f4 d6 (or 9 . . . i.xc3 1O .bxc3 d6 1l.i.c4±) 1O .lLla4 lLlf6 11.c3 i.aS 12 .fxeS dxeS 13.i.gS± Black's dark-squared bishop is away from the protection of his kingside.

B . . . i.cS 9.lLla4 i.d4 (or 9 . . . i.a7 1O.c4 i.d4 11.cS) 1O .c3 i.a7, Guez - Matschek, Metz 2006, now it seems logical for White to ad­vance his c-pawn with the idea to cramp Black's bishop, or to pro­voke weaknesses on his queen­side : 11 .c4 i.d4 (White maintains a stable advantage after Black's other possibilities : 11 . . .lLlf6 12 .cS d6 13.'Wc2 0-0 14J'1dU; 11. . .d6 12 .cS lLlf6 13.'Wc2 0-0 14.:EldU) 12 .cS lLlf6 13 .i.e3 i.xe3 14.fxe3 0-0 (After: 14 . . . d6 lS.lLlb6 :ElbB 16.lLlxcB �xcB 17.cxd6± Black has no compensation for the pawn at all .) lS.i.c4 lLlxe4 16.'Wd3� - Black's queenside is not devel­oped yet and White has an excel­lent compensation for the pawn. Black's attempt to bring his forces into action with: 16 . . . dS 17.cxd6 lLlxd6 1B.:Elad1 :Ela7, leads after 19.i.b3 !± to a slight material ad­vantage for White.

9.�e2 The standard move - 9.f4 is

worse here due to : 9 . . . i.cS+ ! ? 10 .@h1 d6 11 .'We1 l2Jg4.

(diagram) 9 . . . i.c5 Following 9 . . . d6, it deserves

lS4

attention for White to try the plan with the advance of his c-pawn: 1O .lLla4 i.e7 11.c4 i.e6 (about 11 . . . 0-0 12 .b3 - see 9 . . . i.e7) 12 .cS dxcS 13.gd1 0-0 14.i.e3 'WaS lS. b3 c4 16.i.xc4 i.xc4 17.�xc4;!; -White has a slight but stable edge thanks to Black's weak queenside pawns, Rohde - Goregliad, Mine­ola 1994.

9 . . . i.e7 - This move is more reliable than 9 . . . i.cS, but it has been seldom played, because it seems to be too passive. 1O .lLla4 0-0 11.c4 d6 12 .b3 lLld7 (or 12 . . . i.e6 13.cS dxcS 14.i.e3 'WaS, Trin­gov - Osnos, Leningrad 1967, lS.:ElacU) 13 .i.b2 'Wc7, Kutuzovic - Rezan, Pula 2001 and here it deserves attention for White to play: 14.cS;!; dS (White has a good compensation for the pawn after: 14 . . . dxcS lS.i.c4�, as well as after : 14 . . . lLlxcs lS.lLlxcS dxcS 16.'WhS� and in both cases Black remains with passive pieces and weak queenside pawns.) ls.lLlb6 lLlxb6 16.cxb6 'Wxb6 17.i.xeS;!;

1 0 .t2Ja4 i.d4 Or 1O . . . i.a7 11.c4. 1l.c3 i.a7 12.c4 i.d4 After 12 . . . 'We7 13.i.e3 cS 14.

4. ttJxd4 e6 5. ttJe3 a6 6. ttJxe6 be 7. id3

E1ad1 d6, Dembo - Ambrosi, Leon 2 001, it is good for White to play lS.ttJc3± and Black's dark-squared bishop is cramped, his dS-square is weak and he has no active pros­pects .

13.�e3 he3 14.Yfxe3 0 - 0 15.E1fdl Yfc7

It is not any better for Black to try: lS . . . d6 16 .cS YfaS 17.b3 dxcS 18.YfxcS YfxcS 19.ttJxcS± and White maintains powerful pres­sure against Black's vulnerable queenside pawns.

16.c5± - Black has problems developing his queenside pieces, Dembo - Pg Mohd, Budapest 2003.

b) 7 . . . d6

Black postpones the active ac-

tions in the centre and he can opt for e6-eS or d6-dS, but the latter move loses tempi.

8. 0 - 0 tLJf6 Black plays seldom some other

moves too : 8 . . . ie7 9.f4 dS (about 9 . . . ttJf6

10.\t>hl - see 8 . . . ttJf6 9.f4 ie7 10 .\t>h1) 1O .eS fS, Eriksson - Leh­musvaara, Turku 1999 and here after: 1l .ttJa4 ttJh6 12 .ie3± White maintains a stable advantage due to the vulnerable dark squares on Black's queenside;

8 . . . g6 - This move weakens the dark squares. 9.f4 ig7 1O.Yfe1 tLJf6 1l .\t>hU - Black's bishop on g7 covers the weaknesses on the kingside, but he has no active prospects, Valiente - Izquierdo, Santiago 1996;

8 . . . dS? ! Methi - Johnsen, Lakselv 1993, that move is a loss of time in comparison to the line with 7 . . . dS. 9 'E1e1 ttJf6 (or 9 . . . d4 1O.ttJa4 eS 1l.c3±) 1O.igS ! ? - This seems to be the most aggressive move for White. 10 . . . d4 1l .ttJa4 eS (Black cannot win a pawn with the attractive line : ll . . . YfaS 12 .eS ttJd7 13.c3 ttJxeS 14.ie4 dxc3? ! lS.if4±, because he would have problems with the protection of his c6-pawn.) 12 .c3 dxc3 13.ttJxc3t;

8 . . . eS - That move helps White to open the f-file. 9.f4 exf4 (about 9 . . . ttJf6 10 . \t>h1 - see 8 . . . ttJf6 ; 9 . . . Yfc7 10.fxeS dxeS 1l.ic4 ttJf6 12 .\Wel icS+? ! - It is more reli­able for Black to keep the bishop at its place: 12 . . . ie7 13 .'1Wg3 0-0

lSS

Chapter 8

14.@h1 E!bB 1S.b3;l;, although he has problems creating counter­play even then - 13.@h1 O-O? 14.E!xf6 gxf6 1S.,th6 @hB 16.�h4 �e7 17.hfB �xfB 1B.�xf6+ @gB 19.E!f1+- Stross - Bjornsson, Li­berec 2004. Black had to go back with the bishop - 13 . . . ,te7, in or­der to protect his kingside. After: 14.,tgS 0-0 1S.�h4±, Black has lost two tempi and he must watch carefully about the possible sac­rifice on f6 - for example after: 1S . . . h6? 16.hf6 hf6 17.E!xf6 gxf6 18.�xh6 ,te6 19.E!f1 ! +- White's attack is decisive.) 10 . .txf4 ,te6 1l. eS dS, Boudre - Anka, France 1995 (Capturing of the b2-pawn seems to be too risky for Black: 11. . . �b6+ 12 .@h1 �xb2 13.ltJa4 and no mat­ter where Black's queen retreats to - his defence is extremely difficult, for example: 13 . . . �bB 14.exd6 hd6 1S.,te4± and Black lags considerably in development. He loses after: 1S . . . ,tdS 16.hdS cxdS 17.�xdS hf4 1B.E!xf4+-; it is somewhat better for him to try: 1s . . . hf4 16.hc6+ @e7 17.lDcS ! E!a7 1B.lDxe6 fxe6 19.�d4-t but White's attack against his oppo­nent's king, stranded in the cen­tre, is overwhelming. Black must concede too much in order to com­plete his development - 19 . . . lDf6 20 .E!ab1 ! �c7 21 .E!xf4 eS 22 .E!e1 E!dB 23 .E!xeS+ @fB 24.E!dS+-. It is also too dangerous for him to play: 13 . . . �a3 14.lDb6 E!dB lS.lDc4 hc4 16.hc4 dS 17.e6 !� and White's compensation for the pawn is ex-

lS6

cellent. It is bad for Black to play: 17 .. .f6 1B.,td3 g6 19.'�g4±, since he can hardly complete his de­velopment in that case. It is not better for him to follow with : 17 . . . lDf6 1B .,tc7 E!cB? ! 19.exf7+ @xf7 20 .hdS+-, while after: 1B . . . fxe6 19.hdB @xdB 2 0 .,td3± Black's two pawns do not compensate the exchange, because of his lag in development and his insecure king.) . Now, White's most aggres­sive line seems to be: 12.lZia4 lDe7 13.,te3 d4 (After 13 . . . lDg6 14.lDcS �b6 1S.b4 ! , it is bad for Black to play: lS . . . �xb4? ! 16.lDxe6 fxe6 17.�hS± and White regains his pawn, maintaining the advantage. It is also dangerous for Black to try 1S . . . lDxeS, since after 16.�e1� he cannot find a safe haven for his king, for example: 16 . . . lDxd3 17.cxd3 �c7 1B.,td4 hc5 19.,txc5 0-0-0 20 .a4-t and the queenside shelter is not reliable for Black's king.) 14.i.f2 �a5 15.c3 dxc3 16.lDxc3 �xe5 (After 16 . . . E!d8 17. �f3±, the material is equal and Black's position remains clearly inferior.) 17.�c2� White has an excellent compensation for the pawn, because of Black's lag in development and his vulnerable queenside pawns.

9.f4 (diagram)

9 . . . .te7 9 . . . �b6 - This is a loss of time,

since Black's queen is misplaced here. 10 .@h1 i.e7, Abdulsalam - Hind, Istanbul 2000 , White's

4. ttJxd4 e6 5. ttJe3 a6 6 . ttJxe6 be 7.iJ.d3

most aggressive line seems to be: 11 .eS ttJd7 (After: 11 . . . ttJdS 12 .ttJe4 dxeS 13.fxeS 0-0 14.WhS+- Black will not manage to protect his king without material losses.) 12 .exd6 hd6 13.ttJe4 iJ.e7 14.b3± - White has a superior pawn-structure, he leads in development and his pieces are more active.

9 . . . ttJd7 - White saves a tempo after that move. 1O .iJ.e3 (After the retreat of Black's knight, White should not worry anymore about the possibility - 10 . . . eS 11.fxeS ttJg4, so he can develop immedi­ately his bishop to an active posi­tion.) 1O . . . iJ.e7, Klovans - Soffer, Bie1 1991. Now, it deserves atten­tion for White to play the aggres­sive line: 11 .eS ! ? dxeS (White ob­tains the habitual advantage after: 11 . . . dS 12 .ttJa4 cS 13.c4;!;) 12 .fxeS ttJxeS 13.WhS Wd6 (Strangely enough, after: 13 . . . iJ.f6 14.ttJe4 ttJxd3 lS.�ad1 'lWdS 16.Wf3+­Black's position is undefensible, it is bad for him to follow with: 13 . . . Wc7 14.iJ.d4 iJ.f6 lS.�xf6 ! gxf6 16.ttJe4± and his extra exchange would not compensate his lag in development, the vulnerability of his dark squares and his "bad"

king.) 14.Eiad1� - White's com­pensation for the pawn is obvi­ous : Black's king is stranded in the centre. His attempt to pre­pare castling short with 14 . . . g6 can be countered by White with the tactical strike: lS.hg6 ! ? fxg6 16.We2 'lWb8 ! ? (In answer to the other retreats of the queen, White regains his piece with the move - 17.iJ.d4±) 17. iJ.d4 ttJg4 18.Wxg4 eS. It becomes clear now that White did not regain his piece, but his attack is just crushing : 19.Wf3 exd4 (It is even worse for Black to play: 19 . . . iJ.fS 20 .'lWxc6+ iJ.d7 21 .'lWe4 iJ.fS 22 .�xfS ! gxfS 23.Wc6+- and White at least re­gains the exchange, remaining with extra pawns . ) 20 .'lWf7+ @d8 21 .Eixd4+ iJ.d7 22 .�xd7+ ! @xd7 23.�d1 + Wd6 24.�xd6+ @xd6 2S.ttJe4+ @d7 26.ttJcS+ @d8 (or 26 . . . @d6 27.b4+-) 27.ttJe6+ @d7 28.ttJd4+-

After 9 . . . dS 1O.'lWf3 iJ.cS+ 11. @h1 0-0 12 .eS ttJd7, V.Orlov -Vakin, Alma-Ata 1991, it deserves attention for White to continue with: 13.ttJa4 ! ? iJ.a7 14.iJ.e3;!; - with the idea to proceed with active ac­tions on both sides of the board.

9 . . . Wc7 (Black usually follows that move with iJ.e7 and we have analyzed that in the line with - 9 . . . iJ.e7) 1O .@h1 �b8? ! Kaehler - Neese, Bad Bevensen 2002 , (It is better for Black to play 10 . . . iJ.e7 11.We1 - see 9 . . . iJ.e7.) and here White should exploit his opponent's lag in development by

157

Chapter 8

opening the centre with: 11.eS ! ? and then : 11 . . .dxeS 12 .fxeS ttJd7 (Black would not fare any bet­ter after: 12 . . . ttJdS 13.ttJe4 'lWxeS 14.c4±) 13.'lWhS g6 14.'lWf3 ttJxeS 1S.'lWf6 ttJg4 16.if4 ttJxf6 17.ixc7± and White wins the exchange, 11 . . . ttJdS 12 .ttJe4 as (about 12 . . . dxeS 13.ttJe4 - see 11 . . .dxeS 12 .fxeS ttJdS; 12 . . . ttJb4 13.ie2±) 13.'lWf3± and Black has problems complet­ing his development; 11 . . . ttJd7 12 .exd6 ixd6 13.ttJe4 ie7 14.b3± Black's queenside pawns are weak, his pieces are passive and his king is vulnerable.

9 . . . eS 10 .�h1 ig4?! (It is better for Black to play 10 . . . ie7 11 .fxeS - see 9 . . . ie7.) 11.'lWe1 exf4, Ret­tIer - Bernhoeft, Ellwangen 1996 and here White opens the cen­tre with an excellent game: 12.eS dxeS 13.ixf4 ttJd7 (or 13 . . . ie6 14.ixeS ttJg4 1S.ifS±) 14.ixeS ttJxeS 1S.'IWxeS+ 'lWe7 16.'lWf4 ie6 17.Eiael± - Black's king is weak and he lags in development. His queenside pawns are vulnerable too.

l O .�hl

l O . . . 'lWc7

158

That is the most reliable line for Black.

lO . . . eS 11.fxeS dxeS 12 .ie3 0-0 (It is more or less the same after 12 . . . 'lWaS, Whitehead - Sza­bo, Lone Pine 1977, 13 .'lWe1 Eib8 14.b3 'lWc7 1S.ttJa4;!;; Black should refrain from: 14 . . . 0-0 1S.ttJdS 'lWd8 16.ttJxe7+ 'lWxe7 17.igS±, since his king's shelter ends up in ruins.) 13 .ttJa4 Eib8 14.'lWe1 Wfc7 1S .b3;!; White's prospects are slightly superior because of Black's weak queenside pawns and his passive pieces, moreover that White can organize powerful pressure along the f-file. Black's attempt to ac­tivate his light-squared bishop leads only to weakening of the light squares: 1S . . . cS? ! (It is some­what better for Black to try: 15 . . . as 16.ic4;!;, but his position re­mains difficult anyway, because he has no counterplay, Matanovic - Bertok, Bled 1961.) 16.igS ib7 17.'lWh4 'lWc6 18.ttJc3 h6 19.ixf6 ixf6, van der Wiel - Zapata, Palma de Mallorca 1989 and now Black has problems to counter his opponent's pressure along the f­file after: 20.'lWhS igS 21 .ic4 'lWc7 22 .Eif3 Eibd8 23.Eiafl±

1O . . . dS 11.eS ttJd7 12 .ttJa4 ib7, Short - Andersson, Skel­leftea 1989, it looks sensible for White to begin queenside actions here: 13.c4 O-O? ! - That is a loss of time (It is slightly better for Black to play: 13 . . . cS 14.cxdS exdS 1S.b3;!;, but even then his hanging pawns are a liability in his posi-

4. ltJxd4 e6 S. ltJe3 a6 6. ltJxe6 be 7. �d3

tion.) 14.�e3 cS lS.�c2 h6 (or 15 . . . g6 16.cxdS exdS 17.ltJxcS± White has a solid extra pawn, after: 16 . . . �xdS 17.ltJc3± Black's pieces are passive and his queenside pawns are weak.) 16.cxdS bdS (or 16 . . .

exdS 17.ltJxcS±) 17.ltJc3± lO . . . �b7 11 .eS ltJdS (After 11 . . .

dxeS - opening of the f-file pres­ents White with additional possi­bilities. 12 .fxeS ltJd7 13.�g4 g6, Burns - Underwood, Ireland 1999 and here after 14.�g3 �c7 it de­serves attention for White to sac­rifice a pawn with IS.ltJe4 !? and if Black does not accept it, then af­ter 15 .. . 0-0 16.�f4± his dark squares are very weak; 15 . .. ltJxeS? ! - That move loses material. 16.�f4 f6 17.�h3 0-0 IS.ltJgS± Black cannot capture that knight, so he loses the exchange; IS ... �xeS 16. �f4 �dS I7J"J:adl cS lS.ltJd6+ �xd6 19.bd6± - Black's king remains stranded in the centre and that provides White with more than sufficient compensation for the pawn.) 12 .ltJe4 cS 13.exd6 bd6 14.fS ltJf6 (It is even worse for Black to play: 14 ... exfS IS.ltJxd6+ �xd6 16.bfS �c717.�el+ ltJe71S. �f4±, since he would hardly man­age to castle.) 1S.�gS eS 16. bf6 gxf6, Adams - J.Polgar, Frankfurt 1999. The basic defect of Black's position is his passive dark­squared bishop, moreover that his king has no reliable shelter. Now, the most aggressive line for White seems to be: 17.�hS �e7 ISJ�adl �gS I9.�fel 0-0-0 20.�e2±

10 . . . ltJd7 11.�hS ! ? �c7, Sanden - Bergstrom, Lindesberg 1993 (Following: 11 . . . 0-0, De Vreugt - L.Milov, Dieren 1997, White ob­tains a light, but stable advantage with: 12 .eS fS I3.exf6 ltJ xf6 14.�e2 �c7 1S.b3t - Black's central pawns are weak and he has problems ac­tivating his pieces.) , 12 .eS dxeS (It is more prudent for Black to defend with: 12 . . . dS 13.�e3 �bS 14.ltJa4t) 13.fxeS g6 (The move 13 . . . ltJxeS? - loses a piece. 14.�f4 �f6 IS.�ael +-) 14.1Wh6 �fS (After 14 ... �xeS IS.�d2 fS 16.�ael �f6 17.ltJe4 �fS IS .�e3 �gS 19.�c3 eS 20.ltJd2± Black's king is practi­cally deprived of a pawn-shelter.) IS.�h4 ltJxeS 16.�f4 �g7 17.�ae1 0-0 IS .�g3 f6 19.beS ! fxeS 20. �xfS+ bfS 21.ltJe4± Black's extra pawn does not compensate his ruined pawn-structure, his dark squares are weak and his doubled central pawns require permanent protection, so his bishops are doomed to remain passive.

lO . . . O-O? ! - This move looks sensible, but in fact it only facili­tates White's further active ac­tions. 11.eS

159

Chapter 8

and now: 1l . . . dxeS? ! - That is obviously

the worst - Black opens the f-file for his opponent's rooks. 12 .fxeS l2Jd7 13.i.f4 l2JcS 14J�'g4 �eB? ! - That move loses by force, but Black's position was bad anyway. (14 . . . WhB - Black's king runs away from the dangerous juxta­position. 1S.�ad1, now Black's queen has no good square: 1S . . . 'lWc7? ! - The queen is not well placed here, since Black cannot playf7-fS. 16.hh7! Wxh7 17.'lWhS+ WgB 1B.�f3 g6 19.�h6+-, 1S . . . 'lWb6 - The combination would not work now, but White wins with the simple move 16.�hS, for example : 16 . . . g6 17.'lWh6 �gB 1B.ie3+-, or 16 .. . l2Jxd3 17.�xd3 'lWxb2 1B.�ff3 g6 19.'lWh6 �gB 2 0 .'lWxh7+ Wxh7 21.�h3+-, Black loses too after: 1S . . . �eB 16.l2Je4 l2Jxd3 17.�xd3 fS 1B.exf6 gxf6 19. �g3+-, or 1B . . . hf6 19.i.d6 eS 2 0 .'lWg3 �t7 21.�df3+-. His most resilient defence seems to be: 14 . . . l2Jxd3 1S.i.h6 i.g5 ! 16.hg5 l2Jxe5 17.'lWg3 f6 1B.hf6 �xf6 19.'lWxeS± Black avoids being checkmated, but his weak pawns make his de­fence quite difficult in that end­game.) 1S . .th6 i.fB 16.hh7+ ! wxh7 17.hg7 hg7 18.�xt7 1-0 Khavsky - Klimov, St. Petersburg 1994;

1l . . . l2JdS - Strangely enough, Black's knight is not so well placed here. 12 .l2Je4 f5 (Or 12 . . . dxe5 13.fxeS f6 and opening of the f-file is again in favour of White:

160

14.exf6 l2Jxf6 1S.l2Jxf6+ hf6, Har­tung - Gasbarrini, Luxembourg 1996, after 16.'lWe2± Black has problems creating active actions compensating the vulnerability of his pawns.) 13.exf6 hf6? (That is a blunder.) 14.c4 l2Je7 1S.l2Jxd6+­Novik - Sikora Lerch, Czechoslo­vakia 1992. It would have been more precise for him to try: 13 . . . l2Jxf6 14.'lWe2 l2Jd5 15.a3 ! ? , but his central pawns would be weak even then. Black's passive play led to a complete destruction of his centre after: 1S . . . �bB 16.c4 l2Jf6 17.l2Jg5 e5 (or 17 . . . 'lWd7 1B.cS !±) 1B.c5±. It seems slightly better for him to opt for: 15 . . . e5 16.fxe5 dxe5 17.�xfB+ 'lWxfB 1B.l2Jg3t, but he would still have preoblems to protect his weak pawns;

11 . . .l2JeB 12 .l2Je4 g6 (After 12 . . . d5? ! 13.l2Jg5 g6 14.'lWg4± White's pieces on the kingside look quite threatening. 14 . . . h6? ! 1S.l2Jxf7 �xt7, Kojovic - Boskovic, Petro­vac 2004 and here there is no sat­isfactory defence for Black in sight after: 16 .hg6 �g7 17.'lWhS+-, or 16 . . . l2Jg7 17.�f3+-) 13 .'lWf3 a5 14. i.e3 d5 15.l2Jg5 c5, Cordovil - San­tos, Caldas de Felgueira 1999 (Black's attempt to repel his op­ponent's knight from its active po­sition fails after: 1S . . . h6 16.l2Jxe6 ! fxe6 - it is not better for Black to try: 16 . . . he6 17.fS hf5 1B.hfS gxf5 19.,ixh6 'lWd7 20 .�hS--+ and he has no defence against the transfer of White's rook to the g3-square - 17.�g4 �t7 18.�xg6+

4. tLlxd4 e6 5. tLlc3 a6 6 . tLlxe6 be 7 . .!d3

�g7 19.Wxh6± White has three pawns for the piece, while Black's king has no pawn-shelter and that is more than sufficient compen­sation. The following variations confirm that evaluation: 19 . . . d4 20 . .!d2 �b8 2U3f3 WdS 22 . �g3+-, or 2 0 . . . WdS 2U3f3 1b4 22 .c3 dxc3 23.bxc3 .!cS 24.c4 Wd4 2S. �d1 +-) 16.c4t Black's position is solid, but it is too passive.

HoWe1

H .. otOd7 The other possibilities are not

better for Black: 1l . . . eS 12 .fxeS dxeS 13.tLla4 0-0

14 . .!e3 l3b8 1S.b3 as 16.1c4 wh8 17.a3;!; Black's position seems to be defensible, but he has problems creating counterplay. In the game Matanovic - Bertok, Bled 1961, Black sacrificed the exchange, but his compensation was insufficent: 17 . . . tLlxe4 18.1b6 �b6 19.tOxb6 Wxb6 20 .Wxe4±; 1l . . . aS 12.eS tOd7 13.exd6 ixd6 14.tLle4 1e7 1S.fS tLlf6 16.fxe6 ixe6 17.tLlgS;!; and White obtains the two-bishop advantage, West - Reeves, Mel­bourne 1998; ll . . . dS 12 .Wg3 g6

13 .b3 �b8 14.Wf2;!;. Now, it is not good for Black to capture on e4, so White should not be in a hurry to advance - e4-eS, preserving the possibility to exchange on dS. 14 . . . cS? ! (That move enables White to create powerful pressure on the kingside.) IS.exdS exdS 16 .fS �b6 17.1gS 1b7 18 .l3ael 0-0 19.Wh4± Adams - MacKay, Arnhem 1988;

11. . . 0-0 - That move is as risky as 10 . . . 0-0. 12 .eS tLld7 (Re­treating the knight to the centre exposes it to attacks : 12 . . . tLldS 13.exd6 ixd6 14.tLle4 1e7, Sto­cek - Bakhtadze, Holon 1995 and here White's most energetic line is : IS.c4 ! ? tOb4 16 .1bl and Black has problems with his misplaced knight and his queenside pawns: 16 . . . cS 17.1e3 fS 18.a3±, or 16 . . . aS 17.1d2 ! .!a6 18 .b3±; in the line : IS . . . tLlf6 16.1d2 tLlxe4 17.ixe4 as 18 .1c3± White's bishops are evi­dently much more active.) 13.exd6 hd6 (Black would not change the evaluation of the position with the line : 13 . . . Wxd6 14.tLle4 WdS IS.1d2 tLlf6 16.1c3± - Black's "ac­tive" queen only enhances White's initiative, Sharif - Darakorn, Haifa 1976.) 14.tLle4 !e7 IS . .!d2 cS, Pelesev - Kelstrup, corr. 1991 and here after: 16.c4 !b7 17.1c3± Black's kingside is endangered and even if White fails to organize an attack, he will have a supe­rior endgame due to Black's weak queenside pawns.

12o'ilYg3

161

Chapter 8

12 • . . 0 - 0 , Goetz - Simon, Moscow 1990 (It is worse for Black to play: 12 . . . i.f6 13 .i.e3 2:b8 14.eS ! dxeS lS.ttJe4±, because White re­gains his pawn and he remains with the two-bishop advantage, Nguyen Van Huy - Tran Xuan Tu, Vietnam 2000.) . Now, it deserves attention for White to play the calm line : 13.i.e3 e5 (The move 13 . . . i.f6? ! - enables White to ac­tivate his forces with the help of a pawn-sacrifice: 14.eS dxeS lS.ttJe4 i.e7 16.fS exfS 17.2:xfS± Black will hardly manage to withstand the pressure of White's forces. Black has no active possibilities after: 13 . . . 2:b8 14.b3 'lffaS lS.ttJa4 i.f6 16.2:adU) 14.i.c4 i.f6 15.f5!?;t; - Black's only counterplay i s con­nected with the pawn-break - d6-dS, but that is quite difficult to ac­complish. Meanwhile, White can easily prepare a pawn-offensive on the kingside.

c) 7 . . . 'l!!ic7 (diagram)

Black makes a seemingly use­ful move without being in a hurry to attack the centre.

8. 0 - 0 ttJf6

162

He has tried some other moves too :

About 8 . . . dS 9 .2:e1 - see 7 . . . dS;

8 .. . eS 9.f4 d6 ! (It is bad for Black to play: 9 . . . ttJf6? ! 1O.fxeS 'lffxeS 11.i.f4 'lffcS+ 12 .wh1 d6, Pa­deschah - LukasLok, Internet 1999, since White can open the centre with: 13.eS dxeS 14 .heS ttJg4 lS.i.g3 i.e7 16.'lfff3±, with a considerable lead in develop­ment. It is not advisable for Black to weaken his kingside with: 9 . . . i.cS+? ! 1O.wh1 d6 ll.ttJa4! 'lffaS 12 .c3 i.a7 13.fxeS dxeS 14.i.c4±, because he has problems com­pleting his development, Viana da Costa - De Lima, Sao Paulo 2006 ; after: ll . . . i.a7 12.fxeS dxeS 13.i.c4 ttJf6 14.i.gS±, it is quite obvious that Black's dark-squared bishop is misplaced.) about 1O.fxeS - see 7 . . . d6 8.0-0 eS 9.f4 'lffc7 1O .fxeS;

8 . . . d6 9.f4 ttJf6 (In answer to 9 . . . dS, R.Kovacevic - Bocina, Pula 1992 , it is good for White to fol­low with: 10 .i.e3 ttJf6 ll.eS ttJd7 12 .ttJa4 cS 13.c4±) about 1O .wh1 - see 7 . . . d6 8 .0-0 ttJf6 9.f4 'lffc7 10.Wh1;

8 . . . i.b4? ! - This move weakens

4. ltJxd4 e6 S. ltJc3 a6 6. ltJxc6 bc 7. !d3

the kingside. 9 .1Wg4 <j;lfB 1O . .id2 ltJf6 11 .lMfe2 .id6 12.f4± Black can hardly coordinate his pieces, Fer­nandez Martin - Marino Bravo, Asturias 19B7;

B . . . .ie7? ! - It is too early for Black to develop his bishop here. 9 .1Wg4 .if6 1O.f4 eS, Camilleri - Kereinnis, corr. 199B and now after: 11.�f3 d6 12 .!c4± in con­nection with White's pressure along the f-file, Black cannot com­plete his development: 12 . . . ltJe7? ! 13 .fxeS dxeS 14.!gS ! +-;

B . . . !cS? ! - This move enables White to provoke weakening of Black's kingside. 9 .1Wg4 g6, Ste­jskal - Pasternak, Hamburg 1997 (It is not better for Black to play 9 . . . <j;lfB, Horak - Schmitzer, Email 2000 , since his king is stranded on the fB-square and White can begin active actions in the cen­tre: 1O .ltJa4 ltJf6 11 .1We2 .id6 12.f4 eS 13.c4 ! ? exf4 14.cS !eS 1S.ltJb6 l::1bB 16.ltJc4�. Black's queenside has been blocked and White en­joys an excellent compensation for the pawn. The following varia­tions illustrate Black's difficul­ties : 16 . . . gS 17.<j;lh1 ! l::1bS 1B .g3±, or 16 . . . .id4+ 17.<j;lh1 gS 1B.eS ltJdS 19.1WhS±) and White can play ag­gressively exploiting Black's vul­nerable dark squares: 1O .ltJa4 !e7 (It is hardly better for Black to try 1O . . . !a7 11 .c4±, or 10 . . . !d4 n.c3 !g7 12 .!e3±) 11 .eS ! ? - That is the most aggressive line for White. l1 . . . 1WxeS 12 .ltJb6 l::1bB 13.if4 lMfd4 14.lMfg3 ! l::1xb6 (After 14 . . .

d6 1S.ltJxcB l::1xcB 16.c3±, White regains his pawn, preserving his lead in development.) 1S.!eS lMfh4 16.1We3 ! f6 17.1Wxb6 fxeS 1B.1Wc7± White remains with an extra ex­change;

B . . . !b7 9 .!e3 l::1dB (In an­swer to 9 . . . ltJf6, Avram - Gruber, Wangs Pizol 1996, it looks very good for White to opt for: 10.f4 d6 n.lMff3 cS J2.fS±) 1O .1We2 l::1aB? (Naturally, it is better for Black to play: 1O . . . ltJf6 11.f4 dS 12 .eS ltJd7 13.ltJa4 lMfaS 14.b3;!;) 11 .f4± Vazquez - Guerra, Oviedo 200S;

Following: B . . . id6, Shishov - Gipslis, Moscow 19S9, it looks attractive for White to continue with 9.f4 !cS+ (but not 9 . . . eS 10.1Wg4±) 1O .<j;lh1 dS 11.1Wg4 g6 12.exdS cxdS (or 12 . . . exdS 13.fS±) 13.fS ! - White opens the f-file, ex­ploiting the fact that it is bad for Black to capture the pawn. 13 . . . ltJe7 14.fxe6 fxe6 1S.�f3±;

B . . . g6 - That move compro­mises the dark squares on Black's kingside, Campos - Araujo, Cascavel 1996, 9.f4 d6 (or 9 . . . dS 1O . .ie3 !g7 11 .!cS±) 1O.eS ! ? dS ( 10 . . . dxeS - This move only opens the f-file for White and it does not win a pawn at all . 11.fxeS !g7 12 .if4 heS 13.heS 1WxeS 14.1Wf3±) 11.ltJa4±;

B . . . cS - Black transfers his knight to the d4-outpost indeed, but he cannot play anymore eS or dS. 9.1We2 ltJe7, Abedinov - Oster­gaard, Sweden 2001, 1O.f4 ltJc6 11.eS !b7 12 .!e3±

163

Chapter 8

9.'\!;Ye2 It is less logical for White to

try 9.f4, because after 9 . . . dS, that advance turns out to be slightly premature.

Black has three pricipled an­swers in the diagrammed posi­tion : el) 9 . . . d6, e2) 9 • . . e5 and e3) 9 . . . d5.

He has also tried in practice : 9 . . . .id6 1O.f4 .icS (about

1O . . . eS 11 .'it>h1 - see 9 . . . eS 1O.f4 .id6 11 .'it>h1) 11 .'it>h1 hS, Klokow - Gibson, Winnipeg 1999 (It is too dangerous for Black to open the central files : 11 . . . eS? ! 12 .fxeS �xeS 13.if4 '\!;Ye6, after 14.l'�ae1 0-0 lS.eS lLldS 16.lLlxdS cxdS 17.'\!;YhS h6 1B .igS !± he has no satisfactory defence, for example he loses after: 1B . . J3eB 19.if6 ! ifB 2 0 .Eie3+-; it is not better for him to try: 11 . . . id4, after 12 .eS lLldS 13.lLle4 0-0 14.c3± White is dominant in the centre.) and here the most logical line for White seems to be to occupy the cen­tre with : 12 .eS lLlg4 (Black would not fare any better after: 12 . . . lLldS 13.lLle4 ie7 14.a3±) 13.lLle4 ie7

164

14.h3 fS lS.lLld6+ ixd6 16.exd6± and White's couple of powerful bishops and his lead in develop­ment provide him with a clear advantage. The piece-sacrifice is not dangerous for White: 16 . . . '\!;Yxd6 17.hxg4 hxg4+ lB . 'it>gl �e7 19.'\!;Yf2+-;

9 . . . hS - That move is too risky and it does not help Black's devel­opment, Verkasalo - Georgiou, Patras 2001 , 1O .eS lLlg4 (After: 1O . . . lLldS 11.lLlxdS cxdS 12 .if4 ie7 13.c4±, the basic drawback of the move 9 . . . hS becomes obvious - Black's kingside has been com­promised and it becomes risky for him to castle short.) 11.f4 dS 12.exd6 ixd6 13.lLle4 ie7 14.h3± Black has an only active piece and his king is vulnerable, so he can hardly hope to equalize;

9 . . . ie7? ! - This move is too passive. 10 .eS lLldS 11.lLlxdS cxdS 12 .Eie1 d6 13.�g4 g6 14.ih6± Black's defence is too difficult, be­cause of his weak dark squares on the kingside and the lack of reli­able shelter for his king, Vorobiov - Ozolin, Kazan 2006 ;

9 . . . ib7? ! Attard - Tatai, Bud­va 19B1, that move enables White to occupy some additional space and after 1O .eS lLldS 11.lLlxdS cxdS 12.if4;;\; White's eS-pawn cramps his opponent's position consider­ably and Black's attempt to get rid of it only worsens his situation : 12 . . . d6 13.'\!;YhS g6 14.'\!;Yh4 ie7 lS.'\!;Yg3 0-0-0 16.Eifel±

4. ltJxd4 e6 5. ltJe3 a6 6 . ltJxe6 be 7. id3

el) 9 . . . d6

That move is reliable but pas­sive and it leads to a calm play with a slight but stable advantage for White who has plenty of extra space.

l O .f4 That is the most principled an­

swer for White, although it seems quite good for him to try the calmer line 10 .ltJa4, for example: 10 . . . ie7 (After 10 . . . eS? ! 11.c4 c5, the weakness of the dS-square is evident. 12 .a3 id7 13.ltJc3 h6 14.f4 ic6 1S.ltJdS± Dimitrov - Heeren, Portugal 200S; Black obtains a standard position af­ter: lO . . . dS 1l.eS ltJd7 12.f4 ltJb6 13.ltJxb6 Wlxb6+ 14.';!?h1 cS, Nickel - Hadraba, corr. 1996 and here following: 1S.c4 d4 16.id2 ie7 17J�abl;!; White can choose which side to act on.) 1l .c4;1; - White has a slight but stable edge thanks to his space advantage. 1l . . . ltJd7 (about ll . . . cS 12 .b3 ltJd7 13.ib2 - see 1l . . . ltJd7 12 .b3 if6 13.ib2; after 11 . . . 0-0 12.f4 ib7, Girard - Pneumonidis, Quebec 1997, White can increase his space ad­vantage with 13.eS, for example:

13 . . . dxeS 14.fxeS ltJd7 lS.Wle4 g6 16.if4;1;, or 13 . . . ltJd7 14.exd6 hd6 1S.Wlc2 g6 16.cS i.e7 17.ie3;1; and in both cases Black's vulnerable dark squares present White with additional possibilities. ) 12 .b3 if6 (Black would not change much with: 12 . . . cS 13 .ib2 i.f6 14.hf6 ltJxf6 1S.f4;1; Reichmann - Kwat­schewsky, Austria 1999.) 13.ib2 hb2 14.Wlxb2 0-0 1SJ!ad1 cS 16.f4 ib7 17.ib1 l:!ad8 18.Wlf2;1; and Black has problems organiz­ing an active counterplay, because of his lack of space and his weak d6-pawn, L.Milov - Brodsky, Ber­lin 1993 .

l O • • • i.e7 That is the most popular move

for Black. About 10 . . . eS 11 .�h1 - see 9 . . .

eS 10 .f4 d6 11.�h1, variation e2. 10 . . . ib7? ! - Black's delay of

the development of his kingside enables White to develop a pow­erful initiative, Roux - Vivian, France 2000, 1l .eS dxeS 12 .fxeS ltJd7 (It is not better for Black to defend with: 12 . . . ltJdS 13.ltJe4 WlxeS - because after: 13 . . . ie7 14.ltJgS± - White attacks on the

16S

Chapter S

kingside in a position with ma­terial equality. 14.Elxf7! 1J.e7 15. 1J.d2 !±. White's pieces are well coordinated and Black can hardly parry the mounting threats. For example, he loses by force after: IS . . . mxf7? 16.lt:JgS+ 'lWxgS 17.1J.xgS hgS 18.'lWhS+ mf6 19.Elfl+ It:Jf4 2 0 .h4+-, White's attack is quite strong too after: 15 . . . Wlxb2 16.Elafl 0-0-0 17.lOc3--+, it is evidently best for Black to continue with: IS . . . 'lWd4+ 16.E1f2 0-0-0 17.ha6±, but even then he remains a pawn down, because he can hardly cap­ture White's b2-pawn.) 13.mhl ! (This is useful prophylactic.) 13 . . . i.e7 (White obtains an excellent compensation if Black captures the pawn: 13 . . . lOxeS? ! 14.i.f4 f6 IS.E1adl i.b4 16.lt:Je4� and Black must permanently worry about the possibility lOgS; 13 . . . 'lWxeS? ! 14.lt:Je4 cS IS.i.f4 'lWdS 16.lOgS lOf6 17.E1adl 'lWc6 18.1J.eS� Black's king will probably have to re­main in the centre; after 14 . . . 1J.e7 IS.1J.f4 'lWaS 16.E1adl ! 0-0 17.lOd6± White's dangerous threats on both flanks more than compensate his pawn-sacrifice. It is premature for Black to chase his opponent's light-squared bishop: 13 . . . lt:JcS? ! 14.1J.gS ! - White does not need to protect his central pawn. 14 . . . lOxd3 IS.'lWxd3 cS 16.lOe4t Black's king is stranded in the centre and that provides White with a long­term initiative. It is too risky for Black to win a pawn, because after: 16 . . . 'lWxeS 17.E1adl 1J.dS 18.E1fel!±

166

he has no defence against White's numerous threats and in the line: 17 . . . 'lWc7 18.1J.h4 ! E1c8 19 .1OgS 'lWc6 2 0.Wlh3± White regains his pawn maintaining the pressure.) 14.1J.f4 It:JcS IS.lOe4t White is dominant in the centre and he has better prospects.

10 . . . lOd7 - This is a reliable defensive line and it prevents White's immediate breakthrough in the centre. n.b3 1J.e7 12 .1J.b2 1J.f6, Balashov - Yap, Jurmala 1985 (It is not better for Black to opt for: 12 . . . 1J.b7 13.lOa4 0-0, Ash­ton - Conquest, Douglas 2005, after 14.eS dS IS.c4t there arise standard positions with a stable initiative for White.) and here White should try the resolute line : 13.eS ! ? dxeS 14.lt:Je4 exf4 (After: 14 . . . 1J.b7 IS.lOxf6+ gxf6 16.fxeS fxeS 17.E1adl± Black can hardly preserve his extra pawn without coming under attack.) lS.lOxf6+ gxf6 (Black would not change much with: lS . . . lt:Jxf6 16.mhl 1J.b7 17.1J.eS Wle7 18.c4�, since White regains his f4-pawn, preserving his kingside pressure.) 16.Wlg4 1J.b7 17.Elxf4 0-0-0 18.Wlh4�. Now, Black can keep his slight material advantage only at the price of considerable positional concessions.

lO . . . dS . That move is seldom played but it is quite logical. In comparison to 7 . . . dS, Black has lost a tempo, but White can­not develop his bishop to gS. n.eS lOd7 12 .lt:Ja4 cS (or 12 . . . lOcS

4. ltJxd4 e6 5. ltJc3 a6 6 . ltJxc6 be 7.!i.d3

13.ltJxc5 .txc5+ 14.@hU) 13.b3 ltJb6 14.ltJxb6 '&xb6, H.Pettersen - Kolberg, corr. 1970 and here after 15.c4 !i.e7 (Reduction of the tension in the centre is in favour of White after: 15 . . . d4 16.!i.d2±) 16.!i.d2;!; - White has a space ad­vantage and excellent possibili­ties to develop his initiative on both sides of the board.

n.e5 tDd5 Opening of the f-file is favour­

able for White : 1l . . . dxe5 12 .fxe5 ltJd5, Zhang Pengxiang -Wu Wen­jin, Yongchuan 2003, but now he must repel Black's active knight. 13.ltJa4 ! 0-0 (After 13 .. .f5 14.exf6 ltJxf6 15.!i.f4± Black remains with too many weak pawns, while in case of: 13 . . . ltJb4 14.'&h5± he must compromise his kingside.) 14.c4 ltJb6 (but not 14 . . . ltJb4 15.ibl±) 15.ltJxb6 '&xb6+ 16.!i.e3± - White has a superior pawn-structure and more active pieces.

12.exd6 bd6

13.tDe4! White sacrifices a pawn and he

maintains powerful pressure in the centre and on the kingside.

13, . .hf4

It is not better for Black to re­frain from capturing the pawn: 13 . . . 0-0 14.ltJxd6 '&xd6, Jova­novic - Vernacki, Osijek 2005, White has the two-bishop advan­tage and after: 15.c4 ltJf6 16.b3 !i.b7 (It is a disaster' for Black to opt for: 16 .. J=!:dS 17.!i.b2 ! '&xd3? lSJ�ad1 +-) 17.!i.b2± they are dan­gerously pointed at Black's king­side.

14.J.xf4 tDxf4 15:i;Vg4 ltJg6 16.@hl e5

After 16 .. .f5 17.'&h5 0-0 (The attempt to win material - 17 . . . fxe4? lS . .txe4+- leads to a situ­ation in which White regains his piece, while Black cannot evacu­ate his king away from the centre without material losses.) lS.ltJg5 h6 19.'iWxg6 bxg5 20 .'iWxg5 l3bS 21.b3± Black's king shelter is vulnerable and he has numerous weak pawns.

17.'&g3 '&e7, Iordachescu -Smetankin, Condom 2002 (After 17 . . . l3bS lS.ltJg5 ltJf4 19.13ae1 !i.e6 20 . .txh7!± the material is equal and therefore Black has no com­pensation for his king stranded in the centre.) 18.tDg5!? (That

167

Chapter 8

seems to be White's most energet­ic line.) 18 . . . f6 (It is too bad for Black to play: 1B . . . 0-0? 19.ixg6 ! fxg6 20 .�b3± and White obtains a material advantage. It is also not advisable for Black to try: lB . . . ie6? ! 19.�e4 �dB 20 .hc6+ @fB 2 1.lLlxe6+ �xe6 22 .�f3±, because his king remains in the centre in a position with an equal number of pawns, while White's queenside pawns are ready to advance to promotion.) 19.�ael! ?± - Black can hardly complete his develop­ment without material losses and his king has no safe haven.

c2) 9 . . . e5

1 0 .f4 �d6 Black has also tried 1O . . . d6

(It is worse for him to play 10 . . . icS+ 11 .@h1, because his dark­squared bishop does not contrib­ute to the defence of his kingside and it might come under attack in some lines, for example : 11 . . . 0-0 12 .fxeS �xeS 13.�fS �d4 14.�gS lLleB, Cronin - Justo, Thessalon­iki 19B4 and here White obtains a great advantage after: lS..!3d1 dS 16.ic4 !± with an unavoid-

168

able transition into an endgame with compromised pawn-struc­ture on Black's queenside, or 11 . . . d6 12 .lLla4 ig4? ! , Roth - Koller, Vienna 1996 - Black should bet­ter play: 12 . . . ia7 13 .c4;l; - Now, after 13.�d2 !± White obtains the two-bishop advantage, since it is bad for Black to play: 13 . . . ia7? 14.fxeS dxeS lS.�gS+- and he loses a piece.) 11 .@h1 ie7 (Black would not change much with : 11 . . . as 12 .fxeS dxeS 13.ic4 ie7 14.igS a4, Albero - Aguinagable, Spain 1998, after lS.�f2 0-0 16.�h4;l; Black has no active possibilities in sight.) 12 .fxeS dxeS 13 .igS 0-0 (13 . . . �g4 - That is an attempt by Black to solidify his fiture castling position with the help of the trans­fer of the bishop to the g6-square. Still, after 14.�f2 ihS 1S.�h4 .!g6 16.lLle2 lLlgB 17.lLlg3 hgS 1B.�xgS �e7 19.�e3± the weaknesses on his queenside are more than ob­vious, Seipel - Kakoschke, Os­terroenfeld 1996) 14.h3 �d6 (Af­ter 14 . . . lLleB, End - Kinnmark, Sundsvall 1969, it looks logical for White to continue with: lS .ie3 �bB 16.b3 lLld6 17.lLla4t) lS . .!c4 aS 16.�adl �b4 17.�f3 ! a4 (In case of: 17 . . . �xb2 18.�b1 �a3 19.1LldS �d6 20 .lLlxe7+ �xe7 21 .�bf1� White's piece-activity should turn into a decisive attack.) 18 .b3 axb3 19.cxb3;l; Black got rid of his weak a-pawn indeed, but White ob­tained an outside passed pawn. His kingide pressure seems to be quite strong too; nevertheless

4. ttJxd4 e6 5. ttJc3 a6 6. ttJxc6 bc 7. i.d3

Black's position is still solid, Lam­bert - Guridov, corr. 1985.

ll.�hl

1l . . . h6 It is worse for Black to play:

1l . . . i.b7? ! , Dobrovolsky - Jurko­vic, Hartberg 1991, because his bishop must come back after: 12 .fxeS heS 13.i.gS d6 14.ttJdU ic8 (It is too risky for Black to castle - 14 . . . 0-0? ! 1S.hf6 hf6 16J:1xf6 gxf6 17.liJe3±, because his extra exchange is almost immate­rial, while his king is too vulnera­ble.) 1S .ttJe3 hb2 16.l3ab1 i.eS (It is hardly any better for Black to try 16 . . . ic3 17.ttJc4 ttJd7, in view of 18.eS! and his defence is quite problematic, no matter how he captures the pawn: 18 . . . dxeS? 19.%VhS! l3f8 20 .hh7 id4 21. ig6+-; it is even worse for him to opt for: 19 . . . g6 20 .l3xt7! +- or 19 . . . ttJf6 20 .hf6 gxf6 21 .l3xf6+- and White has a crushing attack in both cases; 18 . . . ttJxeS? 19.13xt7! c;!}xf7 2 0 l3f1+ c;!}e8 21 .ttJxeS dxeS 22 .%VhS+ c;!}d7 23.l3f7+ c;!}d6 24. l3xc7 c;!}xc7 2S.%Vf7+ id7 26.ifS+­White obtains a decisive material advantage. Black loses even faster

after: 20 . . . c;!}g8 21 .ttJxeS heS 22 .VNxeS ! +- and he has no ade­quate defence against the check­mate. 18 . . . heS 19.ifS h6 - After 19 . . . 0-0 2 0.ie7, White wins the exchange, maintaining dangerous threats, since it is bad for Black to try 2 0 . . . l3e8 21.hh7!+- and he will be soon checkmated -20.ixd7 hd7 21.ib7!+- and Black loses his queen. 20 . . . %Vxd7 21 .ttJxeS %Ve6 22.%Vd3 ! hxgS 23. ttJxf7 0-0 24.ttJxgS± and Black loses unavoidably his d6-pawn, because of the dangerous threats against his d6-pawn.) 17.ttJc4 h6 18.ih4 ttJd7 19.%VhSiii - White maintains an excellent compen­sation for the pawn, since Black fails to take his king to safety: 19 . . . 0-0 20.i.e7 ttJf6 2 1.hf6 hf6 22 .l3xf6 gxf6 23.%Vxh6 l3b8 24. l3f1+-

11. . . exf4? ! - Strangely enough, that move does not lose im­mediately, but it leads to a very unpleasant endgame for Black: 12 .eS heS 13.ixf4 d6 14.heS dxeS 1S.l3ae1 0-0 16.%VxeS± %Vb6?, Heymann - Hackbusch, Germa­ny 1995 (Naturally, it would have been better for Black to fight in an endgame with weak queenside pawns and passive pieces than to lose the game outright.) and here after: 17.l3xf6 gxf6 18.VNxf6+­Black can save his king only at the price of huge material losses.

ll . . . hS? ! - After that move Black's king is bound to remain in the centre: 12.fS icS 13.ttJa4 i.a7,

169

Chapter S

V.Onoprienko - Voloshin, Pardu­bice 1997, 14 . .ig5;!;

11 . . . 0-0 12.f5 .ib4 13 . .ig5 .ie7, Eickhoff - Mai, Germany 2000, 14 . .ic4 .ib7 15J.=!ad1t - Black's chances to accomplish the pawn­break in the centre are minimal, so White has good attacking pros­pects on the kingside.

12 • .id2 0 - 0 It is too dangerous for Black to

continue with: 12 . . . exf4 13.e5 .ixe5 14 . .ixf4 d6 15 . .ixe5 dxe5 16J:1ae1 0-0 and here, instead of the line analyzed by GM S.Movsesian -17. %Vxe5 'lWxe5 18J3xe5;!; White's at­tack is decisive after: 17J�xf6 ! gxf6 18.'lWe3-) and it looks like Black is beyond salvation, for example: 18 . . . e4 19.%Vxh6 exd3 20 .lLle4+-, or 18 . . . <Jig7 19.'lWg3+ <Jih8 2 0.'lWh4 <Jig7 21 .l':1e3 l':1d8 22 .lLle4+-

13.f5 ge8 14 • .tc4 a5? That is a loss of time. No

doubt, it is preferable for Black to play the line recommended by GM S .Movsesian: 14 . . . l':1b8 15.l':1f3 'lWa7, but even then White's king­side initiative is very dangerous after 16.g4 !t

15.gf3!-) Now, White i s per-

170

fectly prepared for a direct king­side attack. 15 . • • .ib4 16.gg3 <Jif8 17:�e3 ! tDg8 (Black loses after his other possibilities too : 17 . . . 'lWa7 18.l':1xg7 %Vxe3 19.1':1xf7+-; 17 . . . d5 - that is supposed to be the stan­dard "counter strike in the centre against an attack on the flank". After: 18.l':1xg7 <Jixg7 19.%Vxh6+ <Jig8 20.%Vg5+ <Jih7 21 .%Vxf6 dxc4 22 .l':1f1 +- Black's pieces fail to take part in the protection of his king. His defence is quite difficult after the alternatives as well : 18 . . . dxc4 19.'lWxh6 <Jie7 2 0 . .ig5 'lWd6 21.l':1d1+-; or 18 . . . .ixc3 19.bxc3 dxc4 20.'lWxh6 <Jie7 21..ig5 %Vd6 22.%Vh5! l':1f8 23 .l':1d1+-, Black would not save the day either with: 19 . . . <Jixg7 20.%Vxh6+ <Jig8 21 .%Vg5+ <Jih7 22.%Vxf6 dxc4 23.'lWh6+ <Jig8 24.f6+-) 18.f6 gxf6 19.1':1f1+­Kasparov - Movsesian, Prague 2001 .

c3) 9 • • • d5 1 0 .,ig5

Now, it deserves attention for Black to try: c3a) 1 0 • • • ,ie7 and c3b) 1 0 • • • ,ib7.

White obtains the edge easily after Black's other moves:

4. ttJxd4 e6 5. ttJe3 06 6. ttJxe6 be 7 . .id3

1O . . . cS? - That is a blunder of a pawn. 11.exdS .id6 12.f4 Elb8, Barber - Ginsburg, Dos Herma­nas 2004, 13.ha6+-;

1O . . . d4 - Black thus blocks the centre and he cannot obtain any counterplay. 11.ttJb1 eS, Schneider - Bischof, Pinneberg 1996 (It is hardly better for Black to try: 11 . . . ttJd7, Illescas Cordoba - Valcarcel, Benidorm 1986, since after: 12.c3 cS 13.cxd4 cxd4 14.ttJd2t White has a huge lead in development.) and here it is quite sensible for White to open the c-file: 12.c3 cS (It is much worse for Black to play 12 . . . .ie7? ! , because after: 13.cxd4 exd4 14.eS ttJdS 1S . .ixe7 VIixe7 16. ttJd2± he has problems protecting his weak pawns.) 13.cxd4 cxd4 14.ttJd2t - and White's further plan includes the occupation of the c-file and the preparation of f2-f4;

1O . . . .ib4 - That move either loses a tempo, or it presents White with the two-bishop advantage. 11.exdS .ixc3 (After ll . . . ttJxdS 12 .ttJxdS cxdS 13.Elac1 .id6 14.VIihS Elb8 lS.c4t Black has problems castling.) 12 .bxc3 cxdS (The other capture is worse for Black: 12 . . . ttJxdS 13 .c4 ttJf4 14 . .ixf4 VIixf4 1S.VIihSt, because his queen re­mains stranded in the centre and it impedes the coordination of his pieces, for example: 1S . . . .id7 - the other logical line is : 1S . . . h6 16.VIics .id7 17.Elab1, and it leads to a transposition of moves -16.Elab1 h6 17. VIicS VIigS 18. VIid6

VIie7 19.Elb8+ Elxb8 20 .VIixb8+ VIid8 21.VIia7 .ic8 22.VIicS VIic7 23. .ie4 .id7 24 . .if3 !± That long and practically forced variation has led to a difficult position for Black and he can hardly complete his development without material losses . ) 13.c4 dxc4 14 . .ixc4 .ib7 1S . .id3t White's powerful bishop pair provides him with a slight advantage. Black's attempt to simplify the position with: 1S . . . ttJd7 16.Elab1 ttJcS 17.VIig4 ttJxd3 18.cxd3 hS 19.V!fb4±, leads to his king remaining in the centre and the presence of opposite-co­loured bishops on the board only enhances White's attacking chances. 19 . . . .ic6 20 .Elfc1 f6 21 . VIic4 chd7 22 . .if4 eS 23.d4+­Prandstetter - Stoeckmann, Dort­mund 1989.

c3a) 10 .. . .ie7 ll.e5

ll . . . h6 The other possibilities for

Black seem to be worse: After 1l . . . ttJe4 12 .he7 ttJxc3

13.VIig4 VIixeS 14.Elael ttJe4 1S . .ia3� his weak dark squares compensate amply White's sacrificed pawn

171

Chapter 8

and in case of: IS . . .fS 16.WfhS+ g6 17.Wfh4 Wfc7 1S.f3 lLld6 19.Wff6 lLlf7 20 .gxe6+ he6 21.gel +- White's position was winning in the game Deretic - Ivanovic, COIT. 19S0 ;

11 . . .lLlgS - This move is too pas­sive. 12 .id2 cS (or 12 . . . g6 13.lLla4 cS 14.c4± Sanden - Engstrom, Sweden 1995) 13.b3 ib7, Shmiri­na - Nill, Dresden 2004 and here it looks logical for White to play: 14.lLla4 lLlh6 (Black's lag in devel­opment is considerable after: 14 . . . c4 1S.bxc4 dxc4 16.ie4±) IS.hh6 gxh6 16.f4 ggS (or 16 . . . ic6 17.c4 dxc4 1S.ie4iii) 17.c4 dxc4 (It is not better for Black to opt for: 17 . . . d4 IS.ie4 0-0-0 19.1Llb2±) IS .ie4 cxb3 19.axb3± White's prospects are better due to his opponent's weak pawns and his passive dark­squared bishop;

1l . . . lLld7 12 .he7 Iitxe7 13.gael ib7 (It is worse for Black to try: 13 . . . cS I4.b3 fS? Is.hfS d4 16.Wfg4 1-0 Fernandes - Guerra, Lisbon 1999; or 13 . . . g6, Mitlashevsky - Dragomarezkij , Moscow 2002, after 14.lLla4 IitfS lS.c4 Iitg7 16.cS± Black's pieces are passive and his dark squares are vulnerable.) 14.b3 cS IS.f4 g6, Lanka - Folg­mann, corr. 19S6; now it looks very strong for White to follow with 16.lLldl! with the idea 16 . . . IitfS 17.fS--+

12 • .ih4 lLlg8 That move seems to be too pas­

sive, but is is evidently not worse than the attractive line - 12 . . . lLld7, since after the practically forced

172

variation: 13.he7 Iitxe7 14.gael cS lS.b3 ib7, Hracek - Volokitin, Germany 200S, it is very good for White to play the line recommend­ed by GM A.Volokitin: 16.f4 ! g6 17.lLldl! IitfS IS.fS ! ? The follow­ing variations illustrate White's dangerous attacking prospects : IS . . . gxfS I9.hfS exfS 20 .gxfS lite7 (White's game is even simpler af­ter the other lines for Black: 2 0 . . . geS 21.e6 ge7 22 .WfhS f6 23.ge3+­and Black must concede material in order to avoid being checkmat­ed, or 20 . . . gh7 21.e6 1itgS 22 .gxf7! gxf7 23.exf7+ Iith7 24.Wfd3+ Iitg7 2S.ge7 gfS 26.WffS+-; 2S . . . litfS 26.Wfe3+-; 23 . . . lithS 24.Wfg4 lLleS 2S.Wff4+-; 24 . . . lLlf6 2S.Wfg6 Wff4 26.g3 WfgS 27.WfxgS hxgS 2S.ge7 ic6 29.ge6+- and White should easily press the advantage of his extra pawns home.) 21 .gxf7! 1itxf7 22 .e6+ IitfS (or 22 . . . lite7 23.exd7+ Iitxd7 24.Wfe6+ IitdS 2S.Wff6+-; 22 . . . litg7 23.Wfg4+ IitfS 24.gfl+ lite7 2S.gf7+ Iitd6 26 .exd7! WfdS 27.Wff4+ Iitc6 2S.gf6+ Iitxd7 29. gd6+ litcs 30 .gxdS+ gxdS 31 . lLlf2+-) 23.Wff3+ lite7 (or 23 . . . lLlf6 24.Wfxf6+ IitgS 2S.e7 Wfc6 26.ge6 WfeS 27.lLle3 ! Wff7 2S.WfeS ic6 29.lLlfS+-, 27 . . . gh7 2S.lLlfS WfhS 29.ge3 ! Wfdl+ 30 .litf2 Wfd2+ 31.litg3+-) 24.exd7+ Iitxd7 2S. WffS+ Iitc6 (2S . . . litdS 26. Wff6+-) 26.ge6+ Wfd6 27.lLle3+-

13.ig3 h5 14.if4 c5 15.b3 ib7

Sedlak - Volokitin, Turin 2006.

4. tDxd4 e6 5. tLlc3 a6 6. tLlxe6 be 7.id3

16.tLldl !? (That is a standard transfer of the knight to d3 or e4.) 16 • • • tLlh6 (Black exploits the fact that it is too risky for White to capture the hS-pawn, since his opponent activates his pieces promptly and he does not lose time to protect his hS-pawn: 16 . . . g6 17.c4 d4 18.tDb2 tLlh6 19.,te4 tDfS 20 .tDd3;!;;. It is also in favour of White if Black tries the line : 16 . . . \Wc6 17.f3 tLlh6 18.c4 d4 19.tLlf2 tLlfS 2 0.\Wd2;!;; ; after 17 . . . 0-0-0 18.c4± it is much easier for White to organize an offensive on the queenside than it is for Black to create counterplay on the king­side.) 17.c4 dxc4 (White's posi­tion is better after Black's other moves: 17 . . . d4 18.f3 tDfS 19.tLlf2;!;; 17 . . . tDf5? ! 18.,txfS exfS 19.cxdS ,txdS 2 0.tDe3 ie6 2 1.tDc4± Black's king is obviously unsafe; 17 . . . gS? ! - That move is too risky, since Black cannot organize anything real on the kingside. 18.id2 d4 19.f3 tDfS 20 .tDf2 tLlh4 21.,te4;!;;; 19 . . . g4 2 0.,te4 0-0-0 21 .tDb2;!;) 18.bxc4 lM8 (After 18 . . . tLlfS 19. ixfS exfS 2 0 .tDc3;!;; White's knight obtains the excellent outpost on dS.) 19.9b1 h4 2 0 .h3 gd4

21.J.d2 \Wd7 22.l:!b3;!;; Now, the main drawback of Black's posi­tion is the lack of a reliable shelter for his king.

c3b) 1 0 • • • ,tb7 11.f4

1l • • • J.e7 1l . . . \Wb6+? ! - This computer

move is too ambitious. 12.<J;lh1 h6, episcopal - slowman, Inter­net 1999 (12 . . . \Wxb2? - That is the most principled move indeed, but White obtains a winning po­sition in the fastest possible way with: 13.tLlxdS ! cxdS 14Jl:abl \Wd4 IS.l'!xb7 dxe4 16.,txa6 id6 17. J.bS+ 'it>f8 18 J�d1 +-; Black would hardly save the game either after: 14 . . . \Wxa2 ISJ:1xb7 ,tcS 16.ixf6 gxf6 17.exdS \WxdS 18.ie4� and White's attack is decisive. It seems too strange for Black to try: 12 . . . \Wb4? ! 13.exdS cxdS I4.fS± White's threats in the centre are quite dan­gerous and Black decided to have something to suffer for and so he played: 14 . . . \Wxb2 IS.E:abl \Wxc3, Diepeveen - crafty, Internet 1999, but after: 16.E:xb7 \Wc6 17.E:tbl ie7 18.E:1b6+- he had no satisfactory defence in sight.) 13.ih4 d4 (Af-

173

Chapter 8

ter 13 . . . �xb2 14.ttJxd5+- there arise variations, which we have analyzed in our notes to Black's move 12 and the placement of the pawn on h6 and not on h7 is im­material for the evaluation of the position.) 14.ttJa4 �a5 15.b3 ia3 (or 15 . . . �h5 16.�el±) 16.ie1 �c7 (It is not better for Black to try: 16 . . . ib4 17.c3 dxc3 18.a3±) 17.b4 ttJd7 18.f5 e5 19.�g4 �f8 20 J3bl± and the difference in coordination of pieces is evident to the naked eye too.

1l . . . h6 12 .ih4 ie7 13.e5 ttJd7 14.he7 �xe7, S.German - Pan­no, Buenos Aires 1995 and here it is very good for White to follow with: 15J3ae1 c5 16.b3 g6 17.ttJd1 t and once again the placement of the pawn on h6 and not on h7 changes nothing.

11 . . .ic5+ - Black worsens the position of his bishop . . . with tempo. 12 .�h1 id4 13.e5 ttJd7, Perez Ramos - Collazo, Cuba 2000 and here it deserves atten­tion for White to continue with: 14.ttJa4 h6 15.ih4 �a5 16.c3 ia7 (It is a disaster for Black to play: 16 . . . �xa4? 17.b3 �a3 18.cxd4+-) 17.b3± - Black's king would not find a safe haven on the queen­side, while it would come under attack in the centre and on the kingside.

1l . . . dxe4 - That is an attempt by Black to seize the initiative. 12 .ttJxe4 ttJxe4 13.he4 h6 14.ih4 g5 !? , Lipcak - Lakatos, Slovakia 2002 and it is worth for White to

174

try the pawn sacrifice: 15.ie1 ! ? gxf4 16.ic3 Eig8 17.if6� Black's king is stranded in the centre, his pieces are passive and his pawns are weak.

1l . . . ttJd7 12.ttJa4 ttJc5 13.ttJxc5 hc5+ 14.�h1 ie7, Ljubisavljevic - Ivkov, Imperia 1967 and now White should open files in the centre with: 15.exd5 cxd5 (It is worse for Black to play: 15 . . . hg5 16.dxc6 ixc6 17.fxg5±) 16.he7 �xe7 17.Eiae1 g6 (After 17 . . . 0-0? 18.f5± White has excellent attack­ing chances.) 18.�e5 0-0-0 (It is too dangerous for Black to play: 18 . . . 0-0 19.f5±) 19.�d4± - Black's king has no pawn-shelter and his centre only restricts his pieces.

12.e5 ttJd7 In answer to 12 . . . ttJg8, German

- Giardelli, Buenos Aires 1993, it is worth for White to opt for 13.�g4±, forcing Black to com­promise his kingside.

13.he7 �xe7, Spassky -T.Petrosian, Palma de Mallorca 1969 and here, analogously to the game Hracek - Volokitin, Ger­many 2005, White should better follow with: 14.l:!ael c5 15.b3 g6

4. 0,xd4 e6 5. 0,c3 a6 6. 0,xc6 bc 7. id3

16.0,dl± with the idea to organize an attack after 16 . . . @f8 17.f5-+ (see

my notes to Black's move 12 in the variation c3a) .

Conclusion We have started analyzing in this chapter the variation with 5 . . .

a6, introduced in the tournament practice during the 6 0 ies of the last century, by the grandmaster from Saint Petersburg M.Taimanov. At

first, Black's main idea used to be the piece set-up - 0,ge7, Jollowed by 0,xd4, after which his king's knight was usually perfectly placed on c6 and that was instructively demonstrated by Mark Evgenievich in numerous games. Later, White managed to counter that scheme quite convincingly and Black began to use that order of moves in order to avoid the development of White's pieces according to the following active set-up: ie3, Wd2 and 0 - 0 - 0 . In that case, Black is prepared to meet 6 . ie3 with the simple reaction 6 . . . 0,f6 and White cannot play 7. Wd2, because of the active move 7 . . . ib4 and then he will be faced with a difficultfight to equalize.

White exchanges knights on c6 and he not only prevents thus Taimanov's set-up, but he has a quite effective scheme of development in mind. Naturally, that exchange has some advantages and some drawbacks for White. He acquires a lead in development and he has good prospects of occupying additional space on the kingside and in the centre. Meanwhile, the main drawback of that exchange is that Black obtains an elastic pawn-chain and he can handle it in the centre any way he pleases. Black's queen rook also gains an immediate ac­cess to the semi-open b-file.

In variation a, Black continues with the move 7 . . . e5 and he simul­taneously follows the opening principles and he ignores them. On one hand, he prevents his opponent from occupying space in the centre, but on the other hand he makes a sixth move out of seven with a pawn in the opening and that is naturally harmful to his development. White obtains an advantage without too much of an effort. He completes his development with the moves 0 - 0 and We2 and then as a rule hefol­lows a plan connected with 0,c3-a4 and the advance of his c-pawn. As a result of that, Black's pawn-chain on the queenside is destroyed and White can create additional targets there with the move c4-c5. In case Black counters White's move c4-c5, by advancing c6-c5 himself - then he weakens the important central dS-square.

175

Chapter 8

In variation b), Black's seventh move 7 . . . d6, seems to be quiteflex­ible, but somewhat passive. He is trying to postpone the final decision about his future plans and depending on White's scheme of develop­ment, Black can continue with e6-e5, or d6-d5. White's pieces set-up is simple then - he castles, he plays .f2-f4 and he places his queen on el. (Black canforce, with a precise order of moves, his opponent to play Whl, but that move is favourable for White anyway.) Later, White creates the threat e4-e5 and that compels Black to clarify the situation in the centre. White's pieces are so harmoniously deployed that he has no problems to start active actions irrelevant of the possible pawn­structure in the centre.

It seems more precise for Black to play 7 . . :f1c7, which we have analyzed in variation c). He thus prevents White's occupation of the centre and he develops a piece. Meanwhile, just like in variation b, Black preserves the possibility to choose the eventual pawn-structure in the centre. In variation el), he allows his opponent to accomplish the important central break e4-e5, which is connected with a pawn­sacrifice, but White's pieces become tremendously active after that. Black places his pawn on the e5-square in variation c2), but White then has active prospects on the kingside. In variation c3), White ob­tains a space advantage on the kingside and in the centre. Instead, Black has the pawn-tandem c5 and d5, but White counters that with the move b2-b3, preventing his opponent from occupying additional space on the queenside. The future of White's knight becomes quite important then. Strangely enough, the ideal squarefor it seems to be dl, since it can be transferred from there to f5 (after White pushes f4-f5 and he sacrifices his bishop on that square), as well as to the e4, or d3-squares (after White pushes c2-c4).

In general, we have to mention that Black's different and rather complicated possibilities in that variation do not help him obtain a satisfactory game and his objectively best line is the move 7 . . . d5, which we deal with in our next chapter.

176

Chapter 9 1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 e6 5.�c3 a6 6.�c6 bxc6 7 . .td3 d5

Black fights immediately for the centre.

S. O - O We will analyze now: a) S . . .

.td6, b) 8 o o .lYc7 and c) 8o o .�f6. About B . . . ib7 9J!e1 ltlf6 10.if4

- see B . . . ltlf6 9 J�e1 ib7 10.if4. Black plays only seldom other

moves here: 8 . . . d4 - The reduction of the

tension in the centre is favourable for White. 9 .ltle2 cS, Held - Roe­ber, Bad Bevensen 1994 and here after lO .c3 dxc3 (or lO . . . eS ll.cxd4 cxd4 12 .f4±) 1l .ltlxc3 ltle7 12.igS h6 13.ih4 VNb6 14.l3cl± White leads in development and he has an easy game against Black's vul­nerable queenside;

B . . . icS - That move weakens the g7-pawn and White can ex­ploit that outright. 9.lYg4 �fB,

N.McDonald - Gillen, Dundee 1993 (It is disaster for Black to play: 9 . . . 'lWf6? 10.igS 'lWg6 11.eS+­Vybornov - De Lillo , Dos Herma­nas 2004; 9 . . . g6 - Black weakens the dark squares on his kingside. lO.eS 'lWc7 1l.l3e1 hS 12 .'lWf4 ib7 13.ltla4 ia7, Bucher - Kohler, Lausanne 2000 and now after 14.b4± the dark squares on his queenside are also weak.) and in that position White can fight for the dominance over the dark squares with: 10 .eS gbB (or 10 . . . V!!c7 1l .ltla4 ie7 12 .l3el±) 1l.a3 V!!c7 12.ltla4 ie7 13.b4±;

In answer to B . . . ie7, Dembo -Cmilyte, Turin 2006 , it seems log­ical for White to play: 9.lYg4 ltlf6 (after 9 . . . .tf6 10.'lWg3±, the threat l1.eS is quite unpleasant) lO.'lWxg7 l3gB 1l.'lWh6 l3g6 12 .'lWd2±, since Black falls behind in development and he can hardly prove a suffi­cient compensation for the pawn;

B . . . ib4 - After that move, Black will have either to present his opponent with the two-bishop advantage, or he will have to lose tempi to retreat with that bishop. 9.eS lYc7, Pereira - Romao, Por-

177

Chapter 9

tugal 2001 , lOJ=!e1 gb8 (It is not better for Black to try: lO . . . tt:le7 11J:Yg4hc3 12 .bxc3 0-0 13.inlS±, because he will hardly prove that his opponent's doubled pawns are weak, while Black risks com­ing under attack on the kingside, moreover that he will have prob­lems activating his light-squared bishop.) 11 . .td2 tt:le7 12.'�g4 tt:lg6 13.tt:lbS gxbS 14.hh4± White's powerful dark-squared bishop provides him with a strong posi­tional pressure;

8 . . . g6 - This move compro­mises the dark squares on the kingside. 9 .1l*le2 tt:lf6 (After: 9 . . . .tg7 10 .exdS cxdS 11 .tt:lxdS .tb7 12.lDb4 1l*ld6 13.c3± White re­mains with a solid extra pawn, van den Brande - Verellen, West­erlo 2004.) 10 . .tgS .te7 11..th6± Martinovic - Rogers, Bor 1984;

8 . . . tt:le7, Borriss - Kaza, Ikaros 2002 , that try does not contrib­ute to the fight for the centre and it enables White to maintain his queen at a maximally active po­sition. 9.�hS tt:lg6 10 . .tgS 1l*laS (or 10 . . . �c7 11 .exdS cxdS 12 .gae1 1l*lb7 13.hg6 fxg6 14.1l*lf3±. Black is behind in development and his pawns in the centre need addi­tional protection. That cannot be compensated by his bishop pair and his attempt to parry the threat against the dS-pawn with the move 14 . . . .tb4 exposes him to an attack on the weak dark squares in a position with approximate material equality: 1S.tt:lxdS he1

178

16.gxe1 ga7 17.c4 �f7 18.�a3�; Black loses after: 12 . . . .te7 13.tt:lxdS exdS 14.hg6+-, while following: 12 . . . tt:le7 13.tt:le2± White deploys his knight in the centre and his lead in development becomes threatening.) 11 . .td2 �c7 12 .gae1 d4 13.tt:le2 gb8 14.b3 eS 1S.f4± Black has problems neutralizing White's kingside initiative, due to his lag in development;

8 . . . 1l*lh4, Marolt - Zorko, Slo­venia 1999 - This move looks ag­gressive, but it is slightly prema­ture. 9 .ge1 - White does not need to weaken the position of his king with the move g3. 9 . . . .tcS (Black's queen is evidently misplaced af­ter: 9 . . . d4? ! lO .tt:la4 .tb7 11 .c3± and he has problems defending his queenside. It is also bad for him to try: 9 . . . tt:lf6? ! lO.g3 1l*lg4 11 . .te2 �g6 - after 11 . . .1l*lh3? 12.eS+- Black loses at least a knight - 12 .exdS± and here he is lost after: 12 . . . tt:lxdS 13.tt:lxdS cxdS 14 . .thS �fS 1S.g4 �f6 16.�xdS+-, while in case of: 12 . . . cxdS 13 . .td3± he loses his dS-pawn.) 10.g3 1l*lf6 (Black loses a pawn after: lO . . . 1l*ld8 11.exdS cxdS 12 .tt:lxdS !b7 13.!e4±, or 12 . . . tt:lf6 13.c4 0-0 14.tt:lxf6+ �xf6 1S.!f4±) 11 .!f4 !xf2 + ! ? (It looks like this tempo­rary piece-sacrifice is Black's best chance. White would be clearly better in a calm position after 11 . . . !b7 12.eS �e7 13.tt:la4 !a7 14.c4±, as well as following: 11 . . . gS 12 .eS �h6 13.!e3 he3 14.gxe3 tt:le7 - it is a disaster for Black to try: 14 . . .

4.tiJxd4 e6 5.tijc3 a6 6 . tDxe6 be 7. id3 d5 8. 0 - 0

d4? 15.ie4+-, while in case of: 14 . . .f5 15.tDa4± he remains clearly behind in development and his dark squares are vulnerable. 15.tDa4 gb8 16.�g4± Black's piec­es are discoordinated and he has weak pawns on both sides of the board.) 12 .�xf2 g5 13.eS %Vh6 14.ie3 �xh2+ 15.�f1! (Black's idea can be best seen in the varia­tion: lS.�f3?! g4+ 16.�xg4 tDf6+ ! 17.�f3 gg8-+ and he has danger­ous threats. ) 15 . . . �h3+ 16.�e2 %Vxg3 17.�d2 �eS 18.�g4+­Black's attack has backfired and now his dark squares are very weak, moreover that his cata­strophical lag in development makes his position completely hopeless .

a) 8 . . • ,td6

This is not the best line for Black; nevertheless it is often played in practice.

9.gel tDe7 In answer to 9 . . . d4, Nissen -

Kempen, Box Hill 2000, White's most aggressive line seems to be lO.eS, with the following pos­sibilities : lO . . . ie7 1l.tDe4± and

Black can hardly complete his development: lO . . . dxc3 1l.exd6 %Vxd6 12.%Vg4 �f8 13.bxc3± and White has the two-bishop advan­tage, while Black's king is strand­ed in the centre; lO . . . ib4 1l.%Vg4 tDe7 12.a3 ia5 13.b4± Black has numerous weaknesses to worry about; lO . . . heS 1l.gxeS dxc3 12 . %Vel cxb2 13.hb2 tDe7 14.gdl± White has two powerful bishops and a lead in development, so his compensation for the pawn is more than sufficient.

After 9 . . . �c7, Tang - Melam­edoff, Winnipeg 2 003, it is ad­vantageous for White to trade his flank h2-pawn for Black's central dS-pawn. 10.exdS tDf6 (In case of: 1O . . . hh2+ 11 .�h1 id6 12 .dxe6 he6 13.%Vh5 �f8 14.tDe4± Black lags behind in development con­siderably.) 1l .dxc6 ixh2+ 12 . �h1 h5 13.%Vf3 h4 14.tDe4 tDxe4 15. gxe4± White remains with an ex­tra pawn and it would be too dif­ficult for Black to exploit his op­ponent's somewhat shaky king's shelter, because of the passivity of his queenside pieces.

l O .%Vh5 d4 This move leads to a sharp

fight, which is more favourable for White, since he leads in devel­opment.

lO .. .l2Jg6? - This is obviously a blunder. 1l.exdS 0-0 (Black could have kept his extra pawn with the line: 1l . . . %VaS 12 .id2 cxdS 13.tDbS �d8 14.tDxd6+ �xd6 15.a3±, but in that case White's couple of

179

Chapter 9

bishops provide him with a clear advantage in that open position.) 12 .dxc6 :1:1bB, ABerg - Moscoso, Email 1997 and here White's simplest decision seems to be 13.ttJe4+-

lO . . . eS - This move enables White to begin akingside offensive. ll.f4 d4 (After: ll . . . .ie6 12 .exdS cxdS l3.fxeS .icS+ 14.i>hl± White remains with a solid extra pawn, Brendel - Hess, Germany 1996.) 12 .fxeS �aS 13 .:1:1fl ttJg6 14.ttJbS ! - That is a spectacular introduc­tion to an attack. 14 . . . .ibB IS.e6 ! axbS 16.exf7+ i>fB 17.eS ! +- and despite his extra piece, Black is incapable of neutralizing the nu­merous threats : 17 . . . ttJxeS lB . .ih6 ! �c7 19 . .ixg7+ i>xg7 20 .'.Wxh7+ 1-0 S .Klimov - Lindberg, Stock­holm 1999.

1O . . . .ib4? ! - This is a loss of time, because in the variations, which we will analyze later, Black develops his bishop to the cS­square immediately. ll.a3 .ixc3 (It is possibly better for Black to pre­serve the bishop: ll . . . .icS ! ? 12 .ttJa4 .id4 13.c3 .ia7 14.b4±, although after that his queenside pawns are blocked and he has no active prospects. After: 12 . . . '.WaS I3 .b4, it is very bad for Black to play: 13 . . . .ixf2+? 14.i>xf2 �xa4 IS.ib2+-, because his dark squares are very weak and his queen remains out of play. It is slightly better for him to try: 13 . . . �xa4 14.bxc5±, but even then he has problems de­fending his dark squares.) 12 .bxc3

IBO

ttJg6, Brendel - Berset, Bern 199B. White can open files in the centre in order to exploit his lead in development and his powerful bishops: 13 . .igS �aS I4.exdS cxdS IS.c4 dxc4 (Black loses immedi­ately after: Is . . . ib7? 16 . .ixg6+-, while in case of: IS . . . d4 16.�f3 :1:1a7 17.'.Wc6+ id7 IB.�d6± Black loses either a pawn, or the ex­change.) 16 . .ixg6 ! ? fxg6 17.�f3 :1:1a7 IB . .ih4 :1:1fB 19.�g4 i>f7 20 . ig3t and White has excellent chances of organizing an attack on the weakened dark squares in his opponent's camp. The presence of opposite-coloured bishops on the board even enhances his offen­sive. lO . . . :1:1bB ll .a3 '.Wc7 12 .eS icS, Menghi - Surroca Collazo, corr. 2001, and here it is logical for White to continue with : 13.ttJa4 �aS 14.b4 '.Wxa4 IS.bxcS �aS 16. .ie3± White's powerful bishop­pair provides him with a clear ad­vantage and after 16 . . . ttJfS 17 . .if4, it is dangerous for Black to play: 17 . . . �xcS? IB . .ixfS g6 19.�h4 gxfS 20 .ie3±, because his bishop can­not take part in the defence. It is only slightly better for him to try: 17 . . . ttJe7 1B.'.WgS ttJg6 19 . .id2 '.WxcS 20 . .ib4±

10 . . . .ib7 ll.eS .icS 12 .id2 ttJg6 13.ttJa4 .ie7, Gullaksen - Roms­dal, Norway 1997 and here after 14.b4± Black has no active pros­pects in sight.

1O . . . �c7 ll.eS icS I2.�g4 ltJg6, Langrock - Lindberg, Hamburg 1999, 13 .id2 :1:1bB (or 13 . . . �b6

4 .tiJxd4 e6 5'ciJe3 a6 6 . tLlxe6 be 7. id3 d5 8. 0 - 0

14.�g3±) 14.tLla4 ie7 lS.b4 0-0 l:!g8 17.ie4±) 17.�f3 l:!b8 18.hfS 16.ic3± and Black has no coun- gxfS 19.�g3 1-0 Petrovic - Leoni, terplay in a position with material Email 1999. equality.

n.e5 �a5 12 .ig5 b) 8 . . . �c7 9.ge1 It is bad for Black to play:

12 . . . h6 13.tLle4 heS, because of: 14.if4 (14.if6 ! ?) and he is inca­pable of protecting his bishop: 14 . . . gS (or 14 . . . tLlg6 lS.tLld6+) 15. b4 �dS 16.ic4+-

12 . . . dxc3 13.exd6 cxb2 14. gab1

9 . . . ib7 There arise no original lines

after: 9 . . . tLlf6 10.igS - see 8 . . . tLlf6 9.l:!e1 �c7 1O .igS, variation c, or 9 . . . id6 1O.exdS - see 8 . . . id6 9.ge1 �c7 10 .exdS, variation a.

9 . . . d4 - Black blocks the cen­tre falling behind in develop-

14 . . . h6 ment. 1O.tLle2 eS (It is not better Black is trying to make use of for Black to try: 10 . . . cS U.c3 dxc3

the pin, preparing to castle in the 12.tLlxc3 ib7, Gilbert - Pearce, process (14 . . . tLlfS 1S.ie7!?) . 15.h4 England 1998 and here it looks tLlfS (In answer to lS . . . tLldS, White very unpleasant for him if White must redeploy his bishop to the follows with 13.�a4+, because af­long diagonal: 16 . .tf4±, exploiting ter : 13 . . . ic6 14.tLldS± the central­the fact that he is clearly better ized knight is very powerful, while after: 16 . . . 0-0 17.hh6 fS 18.c4 the line: 13 . . . �c6 14.ic2 ie7 15. - and here in case of; 18 . . . tLlb6? �aS id8 16.�a3±, leads to a po-19.hg7+- he has a checkmating sition with a considerable lead attack, while after: 18 . . . tLlf6 19.�g5 in development for White and a ga7 20 . �d2± the pawns are equal, weakness for Black on cS.) U.c3 but White has the two-bishop ad- cS, Alford - Torres Contreras, vantage and excellent play on the Merida 2002 , (Black's vulnerable dark squares.) 16 • .te7± Black's queenside pawns present White king was stranded in the centre with a stable edge after: ll . . . dxc3 and he lost quickly: 16 . . . g6 (or 16 . . . 12 .tLlxc3t ib4? ! - Black obtains a

181

Chapter 9

protected passed pawn in the cen­tre indeed, but White has occu­pied the c-file and he has the two­bishop advantage. 13.lLldS ! cxdS 14.�a4+ .td7 1S.%'xb4± Black's a6 and eS-pawn need additional pro­tection, moreover that his king is still in the centre. IS . . . gbS 16.�a3 d4 17 . .td2 %'b6 IS . .taS %'f6 19 . .tc7 gaS 2 0.�aS+- Black loses his central pawns, Soby - Moller, Vejle 1974) and here White man­ages to develop his pieces faster than his opponent after: 12 . .td2 lLlf6 13 .�c2 �b6 (It is worse for Black to play 13 . . . .td6? ! , because in answer to 14.cxd4, he loses a pawn after: 14 . . . cxd4 IS.lLlxd4!±, while the line: 14 . . . exd4 IS.f4± presents White with a full con­trol over the centre.) 14.cxd4 cxd4 (but not 14 . . . exd4?! IS.lLlf4 .tb7 16.eS± and White breaks through in the centre) IS . .taS ! �c5 (The other retreats of the queen are not any better: IS . . . �e6 16.gac1 ie7 17 . .tc7±; IS . . . �b7 16 . .tc7 lLld7 17.f4±) 16.�xcS .!xcS 17.gacl .te7 IS.b4;!; White's position is superior thanks to his domination over the c-file and the weakness of Black's a6-pawn.

1 0 .�f3 id6 10 . . . lLlf6? ! - Now, Black must

lose tempi on queen-moves. 1l.if4 �aS 12 .a3 .te7 13.b4 �dS 14.gadlt and Black has no active prospects. His attempt to create some counterplay on the queen­side led to a difficult position for him after: lO . . . aS IS.exdS cxdS

1S2

16.lLlbS gcS 17.lLla7± P.Smirnov - Bryzgalin, Kazan 2005.

White obtained a slight, but stable advantage after: lO . . . d4 1l.lLle2 cS 12 .c3 .td6 13.cxd4 cxd4, inthegameJansa -Velikov, Vrnja­cka Banja 19S2 . Now, after the prophylactic move 14.'j;lhl, Black can hardly protect his d4-pawn, for example: 14 . . . eS lS.�g3 g6 (or IS .. .f6? ! 16 . .td2±) 16 . .td2± and Black's king remains stranded in the centre, moreover that White is dominant on the c-file, so he has a stable advantage. It is more or less the same after: 14 . . . �b6 IS.gdl eS 16.lLlg3 g6 17 . .tc4 �c7 lS.ib3;!;; Black's compensation for the pawn is insufficient after: 14 .. . lLle7 IS.lLlxd4 lLlg6 16 . .tfl �aS 17.�e2;!;; White maintains su­perior prospects after: 14 . . . lLlf6 1S.lLlxd4 .teS 16.lLlb3 hS (It is worse for Black to play: 16 . . . 0-0 17.igS! ixb2 IS.gabl ieS 19.gecl �e7 20 .lLlaS± and White has pow­erful queenside pressure.) 17.ie3 lLlg4 1S.l3acl %'bS I9.l3c2 .!xb2 20 . �h3;!; Black's king i s stranded in the centre and opening of the b­file is in favour of White.

4.liJxd4 e6 S. liJc3 a6 6 . liJxe6 be 7.id3 d5 8. 0 - 0

n.e5 !? That move i s necessary; other­

wise Black will have no problems, because of his control over the eS­square.

n . . . .if8 White has excellent attacking

chances if Black accepts the pawn­sacrifice: n . . . AxeS 12.�hS Axc3 (It is hardly better for Black to try 12 . . . i.d6 13 .gxe6 liJe7 14J�e2 - be­cause no matter where he shelters his king, he will have great prob­lems. After 14 . . . 0-0-0 IS.b4 !t White's queenside initiative will soon turn into a decisive attack. It seems also too risky for Black to opt for: 14 . . . h6 IS.igS 0-0 16. gael± and White is threatening the standard destructive sacrifice - 17.Axh6--+) 13.bxc3�.

Let us see now Black's most natu­ral replies:

13 . . . liJe7 14.gbl ! liJg6 (It is dangerous for Black to try: 14 . . . st>f8 IS.gb4! c5 16J!f4 g6 17.�h4 st>g8 18.gf3±, since his chances of a successful defence are minimal due to the vulnerability of his dark squares.) Is.Axg6 fxg6 16.gxe6+ st>f7 17.�f3+ ! st>xe6 18.if4 �c8 19.

igS!--+ and despite the extra rook, Black has no satisfactory defence, for example: 19 . . . gf8 20 .gel+ st>d7 (White checkmates too after: 2 0 . . . st>d6 21 .�g3+ st>cS 22.�e3+ st>bS 23.a4+) 21 .ge7+ st>d6 22 .�g3+ st>cS 23.�e3+ st>bS 24.a4+ with an unavoidable checkmate.

13 . . . liJf6 14.gxe6+ st>d8 IS. gxf6 ! gxf6 16.gbl ge8 17.ie3 cS 18.�xh7± White has a pawn for the exchange and his pieces are very active. In addition, Black's king is dangerously stranded in the centre.

13 . . . �e7 14.gbl liJf6 IS.�gS 0-0 (It is terrible for Black to play: IS . . . g6? 16.gxb7+- ; after IS . . . gg8 16.i.e3± his pieces are passive and his king has no reliable shelter. ) 16.�h4--+ Black has managed to castle indeed, but he cannot avoid coming under attack: 16 . . . h6 (or 16 . . . �d7 17.ge3 liJe4 18.gh3 h6 19.Axh6+-) 17.hh6 gtb8 (or 17 . . . gxh6 18.ge3+-) 18.ge3+-

12.liJe2 liJe7 After 12 . . . �xeS 13.if4 �f6

14.lLlg3�, White has an excel­lent compensation for the pawn, because of his lead in develop­ment. Black's defence is very dif­ficult, for example after: 14 . . . �d8 IS.liJhS cS 16.gadl �b6 17.ieS± White regains his pawn and he has a dangerous attack.

In answer to 12 . . . c5, it is good for White to follow with the stan­dard move 13.c4, for example: 13 . . . liJe7 14.liJg3 dxc4 IS.ie4 liJdS 16.id2�. Black will lose his c4-

183

Chapter 9

pawn at some moment, while White's space advantage is long­lasting and Black cannot capture on eS - 16 . . . �xeS 17.E1ad1 ! 0-0-0 (It is not better for Black to opt for: 17 . . . E1d8 18.ic2+-) 18 .ixdS! ixdS (or 18 . . . �xdS 19.iaS+-) 19.E1xeS ixf3 2 0.gxf3+-; 13 . . . dxc4 14.ie4 E1b8 (It is worse for Black to play: 14 . . . ixe4 lS.�xe4 E1d8 16.�xc4±) lS.tt:Jg3 tt:Je7 16.id2 tt:Jg6 (or 16 . . . tt:Jc6 17.�e2 tt:Jd4 18. �xc4t) 17.iaS �c8 18.ic3t Black is doomed to a long and difficult defence, because of his lack of space and his weak queenside pawns.

13.tt:Jf4 g6 Following 13 . . . tt:Jg6, it de­

serves attention for White to con­tinue with the aggressive line: 14.tt:JhS ! ? tt:JxeS lS.�f4 f6 (It is possible that Black should better play the not so greedy move IS . . . id6, although after: 16.tt:Jxg7 @d7 17.tt:JhSt White has a powerful initiative and Black's attempt to seize it back fails after: 17 . . . �ag8 ! ? 18.tt:Jf6+ @c8 19.tt:Jxg8 tt:Jxd3 20 . �f6 ixh2+ 21 .@f1 tt:Jxe1 22 .�xh8 tt:Jxc2 23 .E1bU). Now, White ob­tains a very dangerous attack by sacrificing a piece : 16.tt:Jxf6+ ! gxf6 17.�xf6 ig7 18 .�xe6+ @f8 (After: 18 . . . �e7 19.�xe7+ @xe7 20 .f4±, White remains with an extra pawn in an endgame.) 19.ie3� and Black has no satisfactory de­fence against the threat - 20 .icS, for example: 19 . . . tt:Jt7 20 .icS+ @g8 21 .�e8+ ! if8 22 .ixf8+-; or

184

19 . . . tt:Jxd3 20.cxd3 �t7 21 .icS+ @f8 22 .1Wxt7+ @xt7 23.E1e7+ @g6 24.E1xb7+-; 19 . . . cS 20 .ixcS+ ! �xcS 21.E1xeS ! ixeS 22 .�xeS @t7 23.E1e1+-; 19 . . . �e7 20 .icS ! ! �xcS (It is not any better for him to try: 20 . . . tt:Jf3+ 21 .gxf3 �xcS 22 .�fS+ @g8 23.�d7+-, since White re­gains his piece and he remains with a couple of extra pawns, while his attack is running unop­posed.) 21 .E1xeS ! ixeS 22 .�xeS @t7 23 .E1e1 +- Black's bare king is defenseless in the centre and he will lose plenty of material, while protecting it.

In answer to 13 . . . cS, White can continue with 14.c3 ! ? , preventing the advance of Black's queenside pawns and not letting his knight come to the d4-outpost. 14 . . . tt:Jc6 (about 14 . . . g6 lS.1Wg3 ! - see 13 . . . g6 14.�g3 cS 1S.c3) lS.tt:JhSt Now, Black has problems developing his kingside without creating ad­ditional weaknesses, moreover that he can hardly find a safe ha­ven for his king. He might lose immediately after: lS . . . tt:JxeS? 16.E1xeS+-

14.�g3 !

4. tDXd4 e6 S. tDe3 a6 6 . ltlxe6 be 7. id3 dS 8. 0 - 0

That i s a n excellent idea, dem­onstrated by Anand in a blitz game - White prevents the devel­opment of Black's bishop to the g7-square, because of the reply - ltlhS !

14 • • • c5 15.c3 ! Black's cS and dS-pawns look

beautiful, but they are static. His king has no reliable shelter - his dark squares on the kingside are vulnerable and on the queenside his king might come under attack after b2-b4.

15 • • • h5 But not lS .. . ig7, due to 16.

ltlhS ! 16.h4 ig7 17.ltlh3! gg8 18.

Ji4 ltlf5 After 18 . . . 0-0-0 19.igS±

Black has no possible counterplay in sight.

19 • .ixf5 gxf5

That position was reached in the game Anand - Svidler, Rishon Le Zion 2006 and here White's most energetic line seemed to be: 2 0 .ih6! ? @f8 21.ig5±. Black's king remains in the centre and af­ter the unavoidable move - ltlf4 he loses his hS-pawn.

c) 8 • • . �f6 9.ge1

Black's most popular moves in this position are el) 9 . . . ib7 and c2) 9 • • • ie7.

He has tried some other pos­sibilities too :

About 9 . . . ib4 lO.eS ltld7 11. �g4 if8 - see 9 . . . ie7 10.eS ltld7 1U¥g4 if8;

9 . . . h6? ! - Black loses an im­portant tempo with that move. 10.if4 icS 11.eS ltld7 12.ltla4± Su­dakova - Aseeva, st. Petersburg 1999;

9 . . JJ:1b8? ! - This move enables White to deploy his pieces on good positions with tempo. lO .'lWe2 ib4 11.if4 1'!b6 12.1'!ed1 0-0 13 .ltla4 1'!b7, Watson - C.Hansen, Esb­jerg 1988 and White can capture a pawn after: 14.eS ltld7 lS.ha6 1'!a7 16.hc8 'lWxc8 17.b3 ia3 18. c4± and Black has no compensa­tion at all ;

9 . . . d4 - White obtains a long­lasting initiative after that move. 1O.ltla4 eS 11.c3 cS 12.b4 ! ? - This is his most energetic answer - White destroys his opponent's centre with the help of a tempo­rary pawn-sacrifice and also he

185

Chapter 9

obtains a space advantage. 12 . . . cxb4 13.cxd4 exd4 (The other possibilities are worse for Black: 13 . . . ltJg4 14.h3 VNxd4 1S.hxg4 VNxa1 16.ltJb6+- and he suffers great material losses, or 13 . . . VNxd4 14.,te3 VNd6 1S.ltJb6 �b8 16.'l!;!fa4+ ltJd7 17.ha6 ha6 18J�ed1 ,td3 19.1tJc4± and Black fails to com­plete his development.) 14.,tb2 ,te7 1S.eS ltJdS 16.hd4 0-0 17. i.e4 i.e6 18.ltJc5 �c8 19.1tJxe6 fxe6, Gallagher - Kaenel, Sam­naun 2004 and here after: 20 .'l!;!fb3 ltJf4 2 1.�adU White has superior chances thanks to his bishop­pair;

9 . . . 'l!;!fc7 - This move seems to be quite reliable and after 1O.i.gS,

Black has tested the following re­sponses :

1O . . . i.e7 - This move leads to the trade of the dark-squared bishops, which is favourable for White. n.eS ltJd7 (It is worse for Black to play: n . . . ltJg8 12 .'l!;!fg4 hS 13.VNg3 - it is more precise for White to follow with 13.VNh4, preventing the advance of Black's rook-pawn. 13 . . . hgS 14.VNxgS g6 1S.ltJa4 �b8, Costantini - Djin-

186

garova, Reggio Emilia 2002 and here after 16.'l!;!fe3± White is total­ly dominant on the dark squares.) 12 .he7 �xe7 13.VNhS fS, Perez Cruz - Caridi, Email 2001 and now, after 14.b4, Black has prob­lems creating counterplay, be­cause of the vulnerability of his dark squares. For example, he loses immediately after: 14 . . . cS? 1S.i.xfS+-, or 14 . . . ltJxeS 1S.'l!;!fh4+ �t7 16.'l!;!ff4 �f6 17.VNd4+-; his po­sition is very difficult too in case of: 14 . . . aS 1S.bS �f8 (but not 15 . . . cxbS 16.ltJxbS VNb6 17.ltJd6+-) 16.bxc6+-, Black only has some chances to defend with the line: 14 . . . �f8 1S.'l!;!fh4±;

1O . . . d4 - This move leads to the opening of the central files and that is very dangerous for Black, because of his lag in devel­opment. n.eS dxc3 12 .exf6 cxb2 (It is not better for Black to try: 12 . . . h6 13 .i.c1 ! ? gxf6 14.VNf3 i.e7 1S.bxc3±) 13.�b1 g6 (After: 13 . . . �b8 14.'l!;!ff3 g6 1S.i.e4 i.d7 16.i.f4 i.d6 17.hd6 VNxd6 18.�ed1 VNc7 19.'l!;!fe3± Black's king remains in the centre, while he is inca­pable of protecting his b2-pawn.) 14.�xb2 i.d6 1S.'l!;!ff3 hh2 + 16.�f1 i.d6 17.i.h6± Black's extra pawn is immaterial and his pieces are discoordinated. White will soon regain his sacrifice with an inter­est, Nowak - Thurlow, Internet 2004;

1O . . . i.b7 - That is the most solid move for Black. 1l.VNf3 ie7 12 .e5 ltJd7 13 .he7 �xe7 14.VNg3

4,tiJxd4 e6 5,tiJc3 a6 6 . �xc6 bc 7.,id3 d5 8. 0 - 0

cS, Motylev - Rublevsky, Ajac­cio 2004, (It is worse for him to play: 14 . . . Eiag8 lS.�a4 'lWaS 16.b3 cS 17.c4 d4 18.ie4±, because Black fails to advance his kingside pawns anyway, Kuijf - van Voor­thuijsen, Eindhoven 1983.) and here after: lS.b3 'it>f8 16.f4;!; White maintains his space advantage. Black must be very careful about the possible pawn-break - f4-fS.

el) 9 . . . ib7 l 0 .if4

l O • • • ,ie7 10 . . . ,icS - That is just a loss

of time - that bishop belong to the e7-square. 1l.'lWf3 0-0, Fritz 7. 0 - Genius 6.S, Stuttgart 2002 and here White's most energetic line seems to be: 12 .,igS ,ie7 (Af­ter: 12 . . . h6 13.,ih4 ie7 14.Eiada Black has no counterplay in sight.) 13.%lfh3 h6 (After: 13 . . . g6 14.'lWh4± the vulnerability of the dark squares in Black's camp is quite evident.) 14.eS �h7 1S.hh6 gxh6 16.\Wxh6 �gS 17.h4±

It is too dangerous for Black to try: 10 . . . d4 1l .eS dxc3 12 .exf6 cxb2 (After: 12 . . . \wxf6 13.ieS 'lWgS 14.'lWf3 cxb2 lS.Eiab1:;;;, Black's

lag in development is not com­pensated by his extra pawns. His best line here seems to be: lS . . . ,ib4 16.Eixb2 ! he1 17.Eixb7 0-0 18 .'lWe4 .txf2+ 19.'it>xf2 \Wd2+ 20 . 'lWe2±, but White's bishop-pair is obviously stronger than rook and pawns.) 13.Eib1 'lWxf6 14.ieS± Black's extra pawns are hardly any consolation for him after: 14 . . . 'lWe7 lS.Eixb2 cS (White's attack is very powerful too in case of: lS . . . Eid8 16.'lWf3 ,ia8 17.Eieb1--t) 16.'lWh1 1-0 Burger - Taffijn, Internet 200S.

Following: 1O . . . \WaS 1l.a3 ie7 12 .b4 'lWd8 13.eS �d7 14.\Wg4 if8 lS.�a4 \Wc7 16.c4± White has an overwhelming lead in develop­ment. 16 . . . d4 17.cS g6 18 .�b2 ,ig7 19.�c4+- Black's d6-pawn is lost and White's knight goes to the d6-outpost, while Black has no coun­terplay whatsoever, E.Mortensen - Hellsten, Copenhagen 1995;

1l.\W£3 Anand played like that, al­

though White has excellent pros­pects too after the not so often tested line: 1l .eS ! ? �d7 12 .�a4 cS 13.c4 d4 (After: 13 . . . dxc4 14.hc4 \Wc7 1S.Eic1 Eid8 16.ifl \Wc6 17.\Wc2 0-0 18 .b3 Eic8 19.'lWc3 'it>h8 20 . \Wg3± White has evidently much more space, while Black's cS­pawn is weak and he has no coun­terplay, Morozevich - Ivanchuk, Monaco 2003.) 14.b3 igS lS.'lWg4 hf4 (It is not any better for Black to try: lS . . . h6 16.ie4 he4 17.hgS hxgS 18.'lWxe4 Eic8 19.�b2 'lWc7 20 .�d3 Eih4 21.\Wf3 'it>e7 2 2 .\Wg3

187

Chapter 9

E1hS 23.E1e4± Taistra - Boschek, Internet 2003.) 16.1Wxf4 h6 17. i.e4 i.xe4 1S.1Wxe4 as 19.E1ad1 g6 20 .E1d3 @fS 21 .E1g3 @g7 22 .h4± Black can hardly counter White's powerful kingside pressure, Ni­jboer - Rublevsky, Bled 2002 .

11 . . . 0 - 0 That move looks the most nat­

ural. 1l . . . E1a7? ! - That try is too

strange. 12 .E1ad1 cS 13.exdS exdS 14.i.eS 0-0 1S.1Wg3 i.c6 16.i.e4± ­White was dominant in the centre in the game, Wibe - Niklasson, Skien 19S0.

1l . . . g6 - This move weakens the dark squares, Kolev - Da­mljanovic, Spain 200S, 12.i.h6±

11 . . .aS - Now, the bS-square has been weakened. 12 .exdS cxdS 13.i.bS+ @fS, Fedorowicz - Pabla­za, San Francisco 1997, White has prevented his opponent from cas­tling and now he can deploy his knight on bS. 14.i.d3 1Wb6 (or 14 . . . E1c8 1S.ttJbS±) 1S.ttJbS E1c8 16.a4±

ll . . . 1WaS - That is an attempt by Black at solving the problems in a tactical fashion. 12 .a3 ! d4 (It is evidently more reliable for

1SS

Black to play: 12 . . . 0-0 13.1Wh3 g6 14.b4 1WdS 1S.E1abl;!;) 13 .eS dxc3 14.exf6 cxb2 (Black's position is too worrysome after: 14 . . . i.xf6 1S.b4 1Wb6 16.i.e3 1Wc7 17.i.cS� - his king has no safe shelter and his light-squared bishop is pas­sive, while his extra pawn is pres­ently immaterial. It is not better for him to try: 16 . . . i.d4 17.1Wg4 0-0-0 18.i.xd4 1Wxd4 19.E1e4 iWdS 20.1Wxg7±, since the pawns are equal, while Black has too many weaknesses.) 1S.fxe7 !? bxa11W 16.E1xa1� Black's king is stranded in the centre, his rooks are disc­cordinated and his dark squares are vulnerable. 16 . . . @xe7 (Black's desire to capture that annoying pawn is understandable. White's attack is quite dangerous too even after the more prudent line: 16 . . . 1WcS 17.1Wg3 iWxe7 1S.1Wxg7 E1fS 19.E1bl±) 17.E1b1-+ White begins a direct attack. 17 . . . i.cS (or 17 . . . E1a7 1S.1Wg3+-) 1S.iWg3 @f8 (Black would not save the game either af­ter: 1S . . . 1WcS 19.1Wxg7 E1f8 20 .i.e3 1Wxa3 21.1WgS+ f6 22 .i.cS+ @dS 23 .1WhS+-; 20 . . . 1WdS 21.i.c4 ! 1Wd6 22 .i.e2 ! +-; 21 . . .iWxc4 22 .i.gS+ @eS 23.1Wf6+-) 19 .i.d6+ @gS 20 . i.eS+- Anand - Morovic Fernan­dez, Sao Paulo 2004.

1l . . . 1Wb6, Ruben - Coleman, Email 2002 and here it deserves attention for White to continue with 12 .E1ab1 ! ? , planning to fol­low with b2-b4, after for example: 12 . . . 0-0 13.1Wh3 g6 14.eS ttJd7 1S.1Wh6t Black's dark squares

4. lt'Jxd4 e6 S. lt'Je3 a6 6 . lt'Jxe6 be 7. i.d3 dS 8. 0 -0

are compromised and he has no counterplay in sight.

12. ti'h3 g6 13.gadl lt'Jd7 In answer to 13 . . . ge8, Paehtz

- Kursova, Kusadasi 2006, White can follow with the standard plan: 14.eS It'Jd7 1S.lt'Ja4 and no matter how Black counters that, White's prospects are clearly superior: 1S . . . It'Jb6 16.lt'Jxb6 ti'xb6 17.b3;!;; 1S . . . It'Jcs 16.lt'JxcS i.xcs 17.ti'g4t; 1S .. . cS 16.c4 ti'aS 17.b3 d4 18.i.e4;!;

14.lt'Ja4 �c5 Black would not fare any bet-

ter after: 14 . . . �b6 1S.exdS! cxdS (but not 1S . . . lt'Jxa4 16.dxc6 i.xc6 17.i.xg6 hxg6 18.i.eS ! +- and White wins) 16.i.xg6 ! hxg6 17.i.eS and here Black can parry the threat of a checkmate in one in different fashions, but he remains in a difficult position anyway: 17 . . . i.f6 18.i.xf6 ti'xf6 19.1t'Jxb6 gad8 20 .b3±; 17 . . . f6 18.ti'xe6+ gt7 19.1t'Jxb6 fxeS 20 .�xa8±; 17 . . . fS 18.ti'h8+ �t7 19.ti'g7+ �e8 20 .ti'xg6+ �d7 21.i.g7! It'Jxa4 22 . ti'xe6+ and Black is faced with the unpleasant choice between: 22 . . . �e8 23.i.xf8 �xf8 24.:geS+- and 22 . . . �c7 23.ti'xe7 + ti'xe7 24.:gxe7 + �c6 2S.i.xf8 :gxf8 26.:gd4+-

15.�xc5 hc5 16.ti'g3 a5 17.c3;!;. Black's kingside is com­promised and he can hardly create any counterplay. Instead, White has excellent attacking prospects, Scheffner - Menghi, Email 1998.

c2) 9 • • • i.e7

That is the main line for Black and it is his most logical move.

1 0 .e5 �d7 11. ti'g4 g6 11 . . . �f8 - Black leaves his king

in the centre deliberately. 12.b3 ! ? - This move i s always useful for White. 12 . . . aS (It is not better for Black to continue with: 12 . . . hS 13.ti'f4 :gb8 14.lt'Ja4 �g8 1S.c4± Perenyi - Gyorkos, Szolnok 1987.) 13.lt'Ja4 It'Jb6 14.:ge3 lLlxa4 1S.:gg3 g6 (Or 1S . . . gS 16.ti'hS �e8 - it is a disaster for Black to opt for: 16 . . . lLlcS 17.:gf3 ti'e8 18.ti'h6+ �g8 19.i.xgS i.xgS 20 .:gg3+- and White wins. 17.bxa4 V!ic7 18.:gxgS! i.xgS 19.VixgS Vie7 20.Vig7 :gf8 21.i.xh7 +- White will regain his exchange at any moment, while Black will have great problems containing his opponent's h­pawn, Ruppel - Nocci, Email 2002.) 16.ih6+ �e8 17.Vixa4

189

Chapter 9

Wfc7, Hazai - Zapata, Camaguey 1987 and here the transfer of White's bishop to the f6-square seems to be rather unpleasant for Black - 18.�g7 l'!g8 19.,tf6±

1l . . . ,tf8 - This move is too passive. 12 .b3 l'!b8 (It is worse for Black to try: 12 . . . cS 13.�b2 Wfc7?, Ottaviani - Sherwood, In­ternet 2002 , because White can organize a dangerous attack with: 14.tLlxdS ! exdS 1S.e6 tLlf6 16.hf6 gxf6 17.WfhS-+ Black's position is very difficult to defend, for exam­ple: 17 . . . ,te7 18.eXV+ wf8 19.hh7 Wff4 20 .Wfg6 WfgS 2 1.Wfg8+-, it is evidently more resilient for him to try: 17 . . . W!h7! 18.exf7+ wd8 19.1'!e8+ Wc7 20 J!ael±, although he has no satisfactory defence against c2-c4 even then. ) 13.tLla4 g6, Rogers - Mishra, Calcutta 1988 and here White obtains a clear advantage after: 14.c4 �g7 1S.Wfg3 Wfc7 16.�b2 0-0 17J�acl± Black's pieces are passive, his bishops have no good prospects and the vulnerability of his dark squares is quite obvious.

12.b3!? This move has not become so

190

popular yet, despite the fact that White will have to push that pawn anyway. That is partially due to his successes with the move - 12 .tLla4, which used to be considered as the main line. The latest games played in that line however, showed that Black could make a draw, despite having to play only moves:

12 .tLla4 WfaS 13.�h6 Wfb4 14. Wfxb4 hb4 lS.c3 �aS ! (The ex­change of the bishops after: 1S . . . ,tf8 16.�8 l'!xf8 17.c4 We7 18.cxdS cxdS 19.1'!ac1 l'!a7 2 0 .b4± leads to a very difficult endgame for Black, because of his passive light-squared bishop, his lack of space and White's dominance on the c-file, Carlsen - Vescovi, Wijk aan Zee 2006.) 16 .b4 �c7 17.f4 as 18.bS tLlb6 19.tLlxb6 (It is worse for White to play 19.tLlcS, in view of 19 . . . tLld7! and he is forced to go back with his knight, Hazai - Ro­manishin, Sochi 1982 . White has no advantage either after: 19 .tLlb2 hbS! 21.hbS+ �d7 22 .�e2 tLla4 ! 23.tLlxa4 ha4 24.c4 dxc4=) 19 . . . hb6+ 20 .wf1 cxbS 21.hbS+ id7 22 .l'!ab1 hbS+ ! (It is inferior for Black to continue here with: 2 2 . . . l'!b8? ! 23.c4 ,ta7 24.�a6 ! �c6 2S. cxdS exdS 26.fS ! ? l'!xb1 27.l'!xb1 wd7 - after: 27 . . . gxfS 28 .,td3 We7 29.hfS l'!g8 30 .h4 ! f6 31.exf6+ wxf6 32.g4±, his defence is prob­lematic, because of the weakness of his h7-pawn and his passive rooks - 28.l'!c1 gxfS 29.id3 l'!e8 30.,tf4 id4 31.hfS+ Wc7 32 .e6+ wb6 33.l'!b1+ Wc5 34.exf7+- and

4 .ciJxd4 e6 5.ciJc3 a6 6. lLlxe6 be 7. id3 d5 8. 0 - 0

White soon won the game Bacrot - Rublevsky, Khanty-Mansyisk 2005. It is more tenacious for Black, but hardly satisfactory, to defend with: 30 .. J'1e7 31.h:f5+ rJlc7 32 .hh7 id4 33.id3± and White remains with an extra outside passed pawn.) 23J'�xb5 ic7 24.c4 dxc4 25Jk5 (In case of 25.E1e4, Black has the power­ful argument 25 . . . rJld7! , while the move 25 . . . E1b8 is bad, because of: 26 .E1xb8+ hb8 27.E1d4! ia7 28.E1d6 and Black fails to bring his rook into action.) 25 . . . 0-0-0 26.E1xc4 E1d7 27.ig5 (After: 27.a4 E1hd8 28.ig5, Black has the re­source 28 . . . E1d4 ! . It is also pre­mature for White to try: 27.f5? ! gxf5.) 27 . . . rJlb7 (It is worse for Black to play: 27 . . . h6? ! 28 .if6 ! E1g8 29.E1b1t and he has problems activating his pieces.) 28.E1b1 + (White would not achieve any­thing with 28.if6 E1b8 ! =) 28 . . . rJla7! ! (This move prevents White's main idea - the pawn­break f4-f5, after which Black's e6-pawn would become vulner­avle. It is bad for Black to opt for: 28 . . . ib6? ! 29.f5 ! rJla7? ! 30J'!c6 ! id4 31.fxe6 fxe6 32.if6 !± Pono­mariov - Rublevsky, Poikovsky 2006 ; it is even worse for him to try 29 . . . E1b8?, since that does not parry White's main threat: 30.ie3 rJla7 31 .E1xb6 E1xb6 32 .E1c6 E1db7 33.fxe6 fxe6 34.E1xe6+-; it is possibly the best for Black to fol­low with: 29 . . . E1c7 30 .E1d4! E1b8 ! 31 .E1d6 E1c6 32 .ie3 rJlc7 33.fxe6

fxe6 34.rJle2±. His position re­mains difficult, but it might still not be lost altogether.) 29.f5 (It is not preferable for White to opt for: 29.E1bc1 id8 ! 30 .E1c8 rJlb7 31.rJle2 h6= ; or 29.ih4 E1b8 30.if2+ ib6=) 29 . . . E1b8 30.ie3+ rJla8 31.E1bc1? ! (White had better com­ply with the inevitable - 31.E1xb8+ rJlxb8 32 .fxe6 fxe6 33.E1e4 E1d5 34.id4 rJlb7=) 31 . . .he5+ Mekhi­tarian - Leitao, Brazil 2006 .

12 • • • Y;Vc7 Black is trying to exploit the

insufficient protection of his opponent's e5-pawn, but White defends it easily, maintaining his advantage.

12 . . . a5? ! - Black is prepar­ing counterplay connected with the advance a5-a4. 13.lLla4 lDc5 14.ih6 lDxa4 15.Y;Vxa4 id7 16. �f4± The difference in the activ­ity of the pieces is evidently in favour of White, while after 16 . . . if8, Spraggett - An.Sokolov, Saint John 1988, it deserves at­tention for White to follow with 17.c4 !? , after which it is bad for Black to opt for 17 . . . a4, due to: 18.hf8 rJlxf8 19.b4 rJlg7 20 .E1acl±

191

Chapter 9

and White is dominant in the cen­tre and on the dark squares.

12 . . . �aS? ! - This move is con­sidered to be the best after 12.l2Ja4, but here it is clearly unsatisfacto­ry. 13 . .td2 �b4? ! - Black is trying to exploit the pin; otherwise his previous move would be a loss of time. 14.a3 hc3 lS.b4 hb4 (It is possibly better for Black to play: lS . . . t2JxeS 16.�g3 �d8 17.hc3 t2Jxd3 18.cxd3 f6 - or 18 . . . 0-0 19J"!ac1 d4? ! 20 . .td2± - 19J"!ac1 0-0 20 .�d2 �d7 21 .d4� and the presence of opposite-coloured bishops provides White with pow­erful pressure on the dark squares, which more than compensates his sacrificed pawn.) 16.axb4 �c7, Thomas - Verfuerden, corr. 1998, Black's extra pawn cannot balance his weak dark squares, his passive pieces and his un­safe king, stranded in the centre. White's simplest line, emphasiz­ing the defects of Black's position, is: 17.�h6 cS (Black loses quickly after the greedy line 17 . . . t2JxeS - he destroys the pawn-shelter of his own king. 18.�f4 f6 19.�xf6 t2Jf7 2 0.�g7 �g8 21 .�xe6+ he6 22 .�xe6+-) 18.�h4 �g8 19.bxcS t2JxcS 20 .�d2± and Black's de­fence is questionable, because of the vulnerability of the dark squares in his camp.

12 . . . �b8 - This attempt to ac­tivate the rook is illogical, since Black loses important tempi, while the rook remains passive anyway. 13.t2Ja4 t2JcS (It is not better for

192

Black to try: 13 . . . 0-0 14.�h6 �e8 lS.c4 as, Fier - Lafuente, San­tos 2006, but here after: 16.cxdS cxdS 17.�acl± White is dominant all over the board. In answer to 13 . . . �c7, Jaracz - Collutiis, Porto San Giorgio 2006, White's most precise line seems to be: 14.�f4 hS - and Black's greed is switly punished after: 14 . . . gS? ! lS .�d2 t2JxeS? 16.�xeS+- White remains with an extra knight - lS.�e2 cS 16.�d2t and now, Black has prob­lems organizing any counterplay; 13 . . . hS 14.�e2 t2Jb6 1S.t2Jxb6 �xb6 16.c4 d4 17.�c2 cS 18.�d2 �b7 19.�ab1t Black's king is strand­ed in the centre and White has a long-lasting initiative. 19 . . . aS 20 .�c1 h4 21.h3 .tc6 22 .�c2 <;t>d7 23.�e4± Amonatov - Grigoriants, Moscow 2006.) 14 . .th6 t2Jxd3 (It seems even worse for Black to follow with: 14 . . . �b4 lS.�xb4 t2Jxd3 16.�c3 t2Jxe1 17.�xel± Black's dark squares are so cata­strophically weak that he has no chances for a successful defence.) lS.cxd3 �b4 16 .�g3± - Black's light-squared bishop is isolated from the actions, therefore he can hardly counter White's dark­squared offensive. 16 . . . gS 17.�g7 �g8 18.�f6 �6 19.exf6 �xf6 20 . �ac1� White regains unavoidably his pawn and the difference in the activity of the pieces provides his with clearly superior prospects. 20 . . . <;t>f8 (It looks more resilient for Black to try: 20 . . . �f4 21 .�xc6 �xg3 22.hxg3±) 21 .�xc6 �b7 22 .

4 .tiJxd4 e6 5. 0.c3 a6 6 . 0.xe6 be 7.j,d3 d5 8. 0 - 0

�e7 �f4 23.0.c5 j,a8 24'!'la7 j,c6 25.�h3 �d2 26:�fh6+ @e8 27. �xe6+ 1-0 Sax - Jansa, Baile Herculane 1982.

12 . . . 0-0 - This is a logical move, which leads to standard positions. 13 .�h6 �e8 14.0.a4 c5, Wiersma - U.Andersson, Feugen 2006, after: 15.c4 ! ? d4 16.�f4 j,b7 (or 16 . . . �c7 17.h4 j,b7 18.h5t) 17.j,e4 he4 18.�xe4t White has good attacking propects on the kingside.

In answer to 12 . . . c5, it deserves attention for White to follow with the energetic move - 13.j,h6 ! and after the active line for Black: 13 . . . �a5 14.0.a4 c4 15.j,fl j,b7, the po­sition has been tested in the game Carlsen - Mamedyarov, Moscow 2006. Here, it seems attractive for White to play 16.�h3, with the idea to win the h7-pawn. Black has numerous possibilities, but White's prospects look superior in all the lines : 16 . . . j,f8 17.0.b2 hh6 18.�xh6 �c3 19.bxc4 !± and he has powerful queenside pres­sure; 16 . . . �g8? ! 17.j,e3 h5 18.j,d4 �d2 (After: 18 . . . @f8 19.�e3 @g7 20 .0.c3± Black risks coming un­der attack.) 19.c3 j,c6 20.0.b6± White has a clearly better piece­coordination; 16 . . . j,c6 17.j,g7 �g8 18.�xh7 0-0-0 19J':i:e2 ha4 20.bxa4 j,c5 (or 20 . . . �g5 21.g3;!;) 21 .�bl �xa4 22 .c3;!;; 16 . . . g5 ! ? -This is the most aggressive move for Black. 17.j,g7 g4 18.�h5 �g8 19.�xh7 0-0-0 20 .j,e2;!; - White maintains excellent chances of

consolidating the position, re­maining with an extra pawn, for example : 20 . . . �d2 ! 21.j,h6 j,g5 22 .�adl �f4 23.g3 �e4 (Black los­es after: 23 . . . �xe5 24.hg5 �xg5 25.�xf7 �h6 26.�f4 �g6 27.�d6 �h8 28.�d4 !+- and he has no compensation for the sacrificed pawns.) 24.�xe4 dxe4 25.hg5 �xg5 26.�d6 ! 0.xe5 (It is not any better for Black to try: 26 . . . cxb3 27.cxb3 0.xe5 28.�cl±) 27.0.b6+ @c7 28.�xd8 @xd8 29 .0.xc4 0.xc4 30.hc4± White has problems materializing his extra pawn, but he is still much better.

13.0.a4 White makes a useful move

and he protects tactically his e5-pawn in the process. Now, natu­rally it is bad for Black to continue with: 13 . . . 0.xe5? 14.�xe5 �xe5 15.�b2+-

13 . . . c5 Dominguez Jakovenko,

Oropesa del Mar 1999. It is hardly better for Black to opt for 13 . . . a5, Alvarez - Hebert, Argentina 1998, since after: 14.j,b2 0-0 15.c4 j,a6 16.�e3t White has good attacking chances.

193

Chapter 9

14..e�·e2 The placement of the queen on

that square is not less active than on g3. The pawn-advance cS-c4 for Black is now impeded. His a6-pawn might be hanging at some moment and he lacks space on the kingside and in the centre.

14 . . . 0 - 0 The other replies for Black are

not any better: 14 . . . i.f8 ! ? - He transfers his bishop to a more ac­tive position. 1S.c4 ! i.g7? ! (It is better for Black to follow with: lS . . . d4 16.if4t, but White main­tains the standard initiative in this variation.) 16.cxdS exdS 17.e6 ! (White's lead in develop­ment provides him with excel­lent attacking chances.) 17 . . . lLlf6 ! (That is the only move for Black. It is bad for him to try: 17 . . . ixal? 18.exd7+ Wxd7 19.'&e7+ Wc6 20 . 1&xcS+-, because White wins the enemy queen, preserving his

checkmating attack.) 18.i.b2 ! ? ixe6 19.13acl± Now, Black not only loses his extra pawn, but he must give up some additional ma­terial in order to evacuate his king from the centre.

15.ih6 l3e8 16.c4t

White's prospects are better in that position, because he has a space advantage in the centre. Meanwhile, he has good chances of organizing a kingside attack, while on the queenside he can easily cope with Black's possible counterplay.

Conclusion We have analyzed in this chapter the main line of the variation: 5 . . .

a6 6. lLlxc6 bxc6 7. i.d3 - 7 . . . d5. After the natural move 8. 0 - 0 , Black plays most of all the following lines:

B . . . i.d6 - variation a). This move is usually a loss of time, because Blackfails to prevent the pawn-advance e4-eS;

B . . . '&c7 - variation b). Here,just like in variation a), Black is try­ing to impede White's control over the e5-square, but he does not suc­ceed. The correct plan for White, after he places his pawn on eS, was best demonstrated by Anand in his magnificent game against Svidler at the World Blitz Championship.

B . . . lLlf6 - variation c). This move seems to be the most logical. Af­ter 9 .l3el, Black's main replies are: 9 . . . i.b7 - variation el) and 9 . . . i.e7 - variation c2). In variation cl), after the natural moves 1 0 . i.f4 i.e7,

194

4 .tiJxd4 e6 S. 0.c3 a6 6 . 0.xc6 bc 7. id3 dS 8. 0 - 0

White has the pleasant choice between 11. Wif3, Jollowing Anand's ex­ample and 11.e5 0. d7 12. 0.a4, so in both cases White has a dangerous initiative on the kingside, while Black's counterplay has been impeded considerably. In variation c2, Black tries to complete his development with natural moves, but after: 10 .eS 0.d711. Wig4, he isforced to weak­en the dark squares on the kingside with 11 . . . g6 (White's task is much easier after Black's other moves.). Here, the move 12. 0.a4, used to be quite unpleasantfor Blackfor a long time, but after the best line for him - 12 . . . VffaS, it looked like the game should end in a draw after the best defence. Therefore it seems that the move 12.b3 is more logical. It is always usefulfor White in all the variations and then the move 12 . . . VffaS leads to a difficult positionfor Black. In case he plays something else, White develops his forces according to the scheme: 0. a4, ih6, he pushes c2-c4 and he has a powerful pressure in the centre and on the kingside, while Black has problems creating any counterplay.

195

Part 3

Paulsen System 1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4. �xd4 e6 5.�c3 Y!?1c7

This is no doubt a more flex­ible line for Black than 5 • • • a6. Now, the popular scheme con­nected with capturing on c6, fol­lowed by .td3 (see Chapters B and 9) is not so effective anymore, because Black has played a move, which is much more useful from the point of view of mobilization of forces. There are no objective drawbacks to that move-order. It is too difficult for White to exploit the fact that the b5-square is not controlled by Black yet, since it is considered that in the variation: 6 .ltJdb5 YNbB 7 . .te3 a6 B.Ab6 axb5 9.ltJxbS .tb4+ 1O.c3 .ta5 1l.ltJc7+ Vffxc7 12 .hc7 hc7 13.Vffg4 wfB Black obtains a promising posi­tion.

Naturally, if we have in mind that on his next move Black will

196

most probably follow with a7-a6, White can still try to transpose to the already mentioned scheme with ltJd4xc6. The point is howev­er, that White has an only move, which is reasonably connected with that idea - 6.f4. In that case, he must at first consider the vari­ation 6 . . . ltJxd4 7.YNxd4 a6, and secondly, even in case of 6 . . . a6 7.ltJxc6, Black has the possibility to change the course of the game with the line 7 . . . Vffxc6.

In general, it is worth men­tioning that the Paulsen system is quite reliable and that is based on the solid pawn-structure d7-e6-fl. It is tremendously difficult for White to organize an attack against it; meanwhile the open a3-fB diagonal presents Black with additional possibilities. In fact, after the classical move 6 . .te2 , be­sides the Scheveningen schemes, Black can choose the variation: 6 . . . a6 7.0-0 ltJf6 B . .te3 .tb4 - and presently, there have not been found any clear paths for White to claim an advantage against it.

6 . .te3 With that move, White choos-

es another system of develop­ment, which is becoming univer­sal in the Sicilian Defence - that is the set-up 'lWd2 , 0-0-0, f3, g4 etc. Here, once again, the move­order chosen by Black, presents him with additional possibilities and if White wishes to maintain the initiative, he must show right from the first moves of the game flexibility and inventiveness.

Chapter 10 is devoted to the move 6 . . . ltJf6 ! ? Black is trying to exploit maximally the advantages of his move-order in that scheme of development. He increases his pressure against the centre, try­ing to save a tempo for the move a7-a6. In case he manages to ac­complish comfortably the plan connected with �b4 and d7-dS, then White should simply forget about his dreams of obtaining an advantage in the opening. The de­fects of Black's set-up can be em­phasized only with the move 7.f4 ! and he cannot already enter the standard schemes of the Paulsen system anymore.

In Chapter 11, we have dealt with some seldom-played lines for Black after 6 . . . a6 7.Wfd2. Tour­nament practice has shown that he has no chances of equalizing in that case.

It has become evident that Black should better develop his

king's knight first - 7 . . . ltJf6 8.0-0-0 - and in Chapter 12 we have analyzed different variations with the exception of 8 . . . �b4. White has excellent prospects then too : after 8 . . . bS, he can disrupt the coordination of his opponent's forces with the move 9.if4, while after the move 8 . . . ie7, Black practically loses the advantages that the Paulsen sys­tem provides for him. There be­gins a double-edged play on the different sides of the board and White's prospects are superior as a rule.

White has more problems to obtain an advantage in the main line. After 8 . . . ib4 9.f3, Black has at his disposal several equally strong lines and we can mention among them 9 . . . ltJe7 and 9 . . . ltJaS - we have devoted to them Chap­ter 13, as well as 9 . . . ltJeS 10 .ltJb3 bS - which is the most important position of the entire variation. That is the critical line and White can develop his initiative in nu­merous ways, but Black in his turn can organize various counterplay in many lines. In Chapter 14, we suggest a cardinal solution of that problem - after 11.Wfd4 White is trying to enter an endgame. He does not plan to obtain a great ad­vantage then, but Black's counter chances are minimal indeed.

197

Chapter 1 0 1.e4 c5 2 .�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 e6 5.�c3 'fIc7 6.J.e3

6 • • . tLlf6!? This logical developing move

is more rarely played than 6 . . . a6, since Black is usually afraid to enter variations in which White can use the b5-square with his knights. Still, after: 7.tLldb5 Wlb8 8.f4 a6 9 .e5 axb5 10.exf6 b4 1l.tLlb5 b6oo, there arises a com­plex and quite unclear position, in which Black has a compact pawn-mass in the centre and his centralized king is relatively safe.

His most popular move - 6 . . . a6 will be the subject of out next chapters.

The other possibilities for Black are only rarely played:

About 6 . . . d6 7.'1Wd2 a6 - see 6 . . . a6; as for 7 . . . lLlf6 - see the Scheveningen variation;

198

6 . . . ib4? ! - This bishop-move is clearly premature and it weak­ens his king and causes dishar­mony in Black's set-up. 7.tLldb5 Wlb8 8.Wlg4 g6 (Black would not fare any better after: 8 . . . 'i:!?f8 9 .a3 tLlf6 10.�g3±) 9 .a3 ie7 10.�g3 Wlxg3 11.hxg3 'i:!?f8 12 .0-0-0± White has better development and he dominates on two semi­open files, Hector - Sagit, Go­thenburg 2006;

6 . . . g6? ! - This is a deliber­ate weakening of the kingside for Black. 7.Wld2 tLlf6 , Alvir - G.Ko­vacs, Oberwart 2005 and here White's most aggressive line seems to be: 8.if4 e5 9 .tLldb5± and he easily occupies the weak central squares in Black's camp;

6 .. . b6? ! - This move is not so often played in the Sicilian De­fence, because it is obviously too passive, Vukcevich - Lombar­dy, Oberlin 1975 and here after 7.Wld2, White's edge is evident in case of: 7 . . . a6 8 .0-0-0±, as well as following: 7 . . . tLlf6 8.tLldb5 �b8 9J�d1 a6 10.tLld6+ ixd6 1l.Wlxd6 Wlxd6 12 .gxd6 b5 13.f3±;

6 . . . tLla5? ! - This experimen-

4.t:iJxd4 e6 5Jijc3 Vf!c7 6.ie3 0.f6 7/4

tal move was tried by one of the classics in the Sicilian Defence in the game Averbakh - Taimanov, Moscow 1961, but it did not at­tract any followers. White's most aggressive line seems to be 7. 0.db5 Vf!b8 (Black loses immedi­ately after 7 . . . Vf!d8? 8.if4+-, or 7 . . . Vf!e5? 8.'\��·d2+- with the un­avoidable 9.if4 to follow.) 8 .Vf!d2 0.f6 (The move 8 . . . a6? - leads to huge material losses for Black after: 9 .ib6 axb5 1O.0.xb5+-) 9. 0-0-0 a6 1O .ib6 axb5 11.0.xb5 0.xe4 12 .Vf!e3 0.c6 (Black's posi­tion is nearly terrible after: 12 . . . ic5 13.ixc5 0.xc5 14.Vf!xc5±, be­cause of his king, stranded in the centre, and the catastrophical vulnerability of his dark squares in the centre. It is not better for him to continue with 12 . . . d5 13.ic7 ic5 14.Vf!f4±, Black loses his queen without obtaining suf­ficient material compensation for it.) 13 .0.c7+ We7 14.Vf!xe4 l3xa2 15.wbl± Black loses unavoidably the exchange and White can even postpone capturing it for a while;

6 . . . h6? ! - This move loses time and it creates a target for an attack on the kingside. 7.Vf!d2 0.f6, Saty­apragyan - Raba, Pardubice 2005 and here after 8 .0.db5, Black has serious problems: 8 . . . Vf!a5 9.f3 ib4 1O.0.d6+ wf8 1l .ic4±, he lags in development and his king

the centre, or he evacuates it to the kingside, White obtains excel­lent attacking prospects;

6 . . . 0.xd4? ! - This move helps White to complete his develop­ment: 7.Vf!xd4 a6 (In answer to 7 . . . e5, Datyner - Gassmann, Geneve 1995, White obtains a clear ad­vantage after 8.0.d5 and Black can hardly find a good square for his queen: 8 . . . Vf!a5+ 9 .id2 exd4 1O.ixa5±, or 8 . . . Vf!b8 9.Vf!c3 id6 1O .ic5±) 8 .0-0-0 0.e7, Corral - Stecher, Mittelfranken 2004 (It is very bad for Black to opt for 8 . . . ie7? , Ward - Revnell, USA 1999, because after: 9.Vf!xg7 if6 10. Vf!g3± White remains with a solid extra pawn.) and here it deserves attention for White to block his opponent's queenside with: 9 . Vf!b6 ! ? Vf!xb6 1O.ixb6 0.g6 1l.g3 d6 - otherwise Black is incapable of developing his queenside, but now after 12 .f4±, he has no satis­factory defence against the threat - 13.ic7.

remains in the centre, or 8 . . . m8 7.f4! 9. 0-0-0 ib4 1O .f3 d5 1l.if4 e5 According to the OpInIOn of 12 .exd5± and now, irrelevant of one of the contemporary clas­whether Black leaves his king in sics of the Paulsen system - GM

199

Chapter 1 0

S.Rublevsky, this move creates maximal problems for Black. White's attempt to develop his pieces, following the habitual system, without paying attention to the actions of the opponent, would not provide him even with a minimal advantage after for example: 7:�d2 i.b4 8.f3 ttJxd4 9.'lWxd4 hc3+ 1O .bxc3 O-O! (or 10 . . . eS !?) .

In the diagrammed position, Black has most often played the obvious move a) 7 . • • d6, and sometimes the more aggressive try b) 7 . . . i.b4.

He has also tested in practice: 7 . . . a6? ! - Black remains behind

in development after that move and he ends up with an isolated pawn on dS : 8.eS ttJdS 9.ttJxdS exdS, Fransson - Carlsson, Stock­holm 1994 and here White must complete his development in or­der to capitalize on the defects of Black's position. 10.i.d3 d6 (It is worse for Black to play: 10 . . . ttJxd4 11.hd4 i.cS 12 .i.xcS 'lWxcS 13.'lWf3± and his queen is out of actions. It is not better for him to try: 10 . . . 'lWb6 1l.ttJfS 'lWxb2 12 .0-0 g6 13 .ttJd6+ hd6 14.exd6�, be­cause his dark squares are quite vulnerable. White's lead in devel­opment is a more than sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn.) 1l .exd6 hd6 12.0-0t;

7 . . . ttJxd4 - That move only en­hances White's development. 8 . 'lWxd4 ttJg4 9 .ttJbS! - Now, White preserves the control over the

200

g1-a7 diagonal. 9 . . . 'lWb8 (After: 9 . . . 'lWxc2 10 .i.d3 ttJxe3 1l.'lWxe3 'lWxb2 12 .0-0+-, Black has no defence against his opponent's numerous threats. White's lead in development is rather obvious in the variation: 9 . . . 'lWc6 1O .i.g1 a6 11.ttJc3 bS 12 .i.e2t) 1O.i.d2 a6 11.ttJc3 'lWd6 (After: 1l . . . d6 12 .i.e2 ttJf6 13.0-0-0± White is perfectly prepared for his kingside offen­sive, while Black has developed only a single piece.) 12 . 'lWxd6 i.xd6 13.i.e2 ttJh6, Fier - EI Debs, Gua­rulhos 2006, The main drawback of Black's position is his passive knight. White can obtain a long­lasting positional pressure with natural moves. 14.0-0-0 bS (The other possibilities are not any bet­ter for Black: 14 . . . i.cS - this move enables White to act effectively on the queenside. 1S.ttJa4 i.a7 16.i.c3 f6 17.i.d4±; 14 . . . i.e7 1S.g4±; 14 . . . i.c7 1S.i.f3t) 1S.eS i.e7 16.i.f3 l3b8 17.ttJe4 i.b7 18.i.e3t;

7 . . . 'lWb6 - Black is trying to capture a pawn, disregarding his development, Szokol - Kyl­lo, Email 2001 , 8 .'lWd2 ! ? - That is White's most energetic reac­tion against Black's last move. White obtains a clear lead in de­velopment. 8 . . . 'lWxb2 9 .l3bl 'lWa3 1O.ttJdbS 'lWaS 1l .eS ttJg4 12 .i.g1 i.e7 (Black might lose very quick­ly after: 12 . . . i.b4? 13.l3xb4 ttJxM 14.ttJd6+ @e7 lS.ttJc4+-, or: 12 . . . a6? 13.i.b6 'lWxb6 14.ttJd6+ i.xd6 1S.l3xb6 i.cS 16.l3xc6+- and White preserves a huge mate-

4. tLlxd4 e6 5. tLlc3 vtfc7 6 . .te3 tLlf6 7 f4

rial advantage in both variations; 12 . . .fS 13.E!b3 vtfd8 14.tLld6+ ixd6 IS.vtfxd6�) 13.E!b3 !? 0-0 (After: 13 . . . a6? 14 . .tb6+- Black loses his queen.) 14 . .te2 tLlh6 (White regains his pawn too in the line: 14 . . .fS lS.tLlxa7 .tb4 16.tLlxc8 E!fxc8 17.a3 ixc3 18J3xc3;!;) IS.tLlxa7 .tb4 16.tLlabS;!; The material is equal now, while Black's pieces are mis­placed.

a) 7 • • • d6

Black thus prevents mechani­cally the pawn-advance - e4-eS. Now, there arises the Schevenin­gen variation by a transposition of moves - l.e4 c5 2 .tLlf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 tLlf6 S.tLlc3 d6 6.f4 vtfc7 7 . .te3 tLlc6, but Black's queen has been prematurely developed to c7 and accordingly he lacks time to create a sufficient coun­terplay on the queenside.

8.YNf3 White's queen is placed quite

actively on that square. Black has played most often in

that position the moves al) 8 • • •

a6, or a2) 8 • • • J.e7. 8 . . . tLlxd4? ! - This move even

increases White's lead in devel­opment. 9.ixd4 eS 1O.fxeS dxeS 1l.vtfg3± and Black has problems protecting his eS-pawn, Grabics - Boronyak, Hungary 1995.

8 . . . eS - This attempt by Black to stabilize the situation in the centre leads to a very bad position for him, Pollinger - Schleupner, Krumbach 1981, 9 .tLldbS ! ? - that is the most aggressive answer for White, since he exploits the ab­sence of the pawn on a6 and he attacks the prematurely devel­oped queen on c7. 9 . . . vtfaS (After: 9 . . . vtfd8 1O.tLldS tLlxdS 1l.exdS± White has three extra tempi in comparison to the well-familiar position from the Chelyabinsk variation - l.e4 cS 2 .tLlf3 tLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 tLlf6 S.tLlc3 eS 6.tLldbS d6 7.tLldS ! ? tLlxdS 8.exdS - he has already developed his bishop, queen and he has pushed f2-f4.) 1O .id2 J.g4 (It is not better for Black to try: 10 . . . tLlb4 1l.E!cl vtfd8 12.a3 tLlc6 13.tLldS±; 12 . . . tLla6 13.fxeS dxeS 14 . .tgS±) 1l.vtff2 tLlb4 12.E!cl± Black's pieces are un­stable and White obtains a huge lead in development because of that, for example: 12 . . . YNd8 (or 12 . . . a6 13.a3 axbS 14.axb4 vtfxb4 IS.ixbS+ id7 16.ixd7 + tLlxd7 17.0-0± Black's king is stranded in the centre and the dS-square is weak.) 13.vtfg3 .te7 14.tLlxd6+ vtfxd6 IS.fxeS vtfe6 16.exf6 ixf6 17.ib5+ tLlc6 18.0-0± White has a superior development and an extra pawn.

201

Chapter 1 0

8 . . . i.d7 9.0-0-0 hS -Black prevents the pawn-advance g2-g4 with that move, but he compro­mises his kingside. (About 9 . . . a6 1O.g4 - see 8 . . . a6 9 .0-0-0 i.d7 10 .g4; as for 9 . . . i.e7 1O .g4 - see 8 . . . i.e7 9 .0-0-0 i.d7 1O.g4; 9 . . . fLlxd4 - this i s an attempt at sim­plifying the position. 1O.hd4 i.c6 11.g4 eS 12 .i.e3 exf4 13.hf4 a6 14.gS fLld7 lS.i.c4± White's pros­pects are clearly better, because of his dominance over the dS-out­post, his extra space and Black's weak d6 and V-pawn. lS . . . fLlb6 16.i.b3 0-0-0 17.i.e3 f6 18.gxf6 gxf6 19J!hg1 fLld7 20.fLldS+- Lau - Andonov, Saint John 1988.) 10 . h3 a6, Repkova - Fomina, Debre­cen 1992 and here it deserves at­tention for White to prepare his kingside actions with 1l.i.e2 ! ? -Black has problems creating counterplay, for example: 11 . . . 0-0-0 12.�f2 <.tb8 13.fLlb3± and his king is quite unsafe, or: 11 . . . i.e7 12 .g4 fLlxd4 13.hd4 eS 14. i.e3t and White has excellent prospects on the centre and on the kingside, or 11 . . . h4 - that is the most principled answer for Black. 12 .<.tb1 (This is a useful prophy­lactic move.) 12 . . . i.e7 (Black's at­tempt to create some threats on the queenside seems to be much worse: 12 . . . bS 13.eS ! b4 14.exd6 hd6 lS.fLlcbS±, or 13 . . . dxeS 14.fxeS b4 lS.fLlcbS axbS 16. exf6± and his king is quite endangered.) 13.g4 hxg3 14.�xg3 g6 lS.h4 0-0-0 16.�f2t Black's position

202

looks solid, but i t i s too passive.

al) 8 . • . a6

This move is usually useful for Black. He prevents moves like fLlbS and prepares the advance of his b-pawn.

9. 0 - 0 - 0 After that move, Black most

often plays: ala) 9 . . . i.d7? ! and alb) 9 . . . i.e7.

He has tried in practice some other moves, though:

9 . . . bS? - That activity is too premature. 10 .eS i.b7 (Black loses even quicklier after: 10 . . . fLlxd4? 11.�xa8 fLlc6 12 .exf6 <.td7 13.i.xbS axbS 14.fLlxbS 1-0 Gelzinis - Vi­tartas, Vilnius 1995.) 11 . hbS ! axbS 12.fLldxbS �b8 (or 12 . . . �c8 13.exf6 fLlb4 14.fxg7+- Es­plana - Choque Paredes, Peru 1999) 13.exf6 gxf6, Koscielski - I .Naiditsch, Dortmund 1999 and here White's most technical decision seems to be: 14.fLle4 fLlb4 lS.fLlexd6+ hd6 16.fLlxd6+ �xd6 17.�xb7+- - Black will have to defend an endgame, in which White's queenside passed pawns seem to be decisive;

4. ttJxd4 e6 5. ttJc3 1!Nc7 6.Ae3 ttJf6 7/4

9 . . . ttJaS? ! - Black decentral­izes his knight and he falls behind in development. 1O.'�g3 bS 11.eS dxeS 12 .fxeS ttJd7 13 . .!f4t (White's centralized pieces and his lead in development provide him with a long-lasting initiative.) 13 . . . .!b7 14.ttJfS ! g6 1S.ttJd6+ .hd6 16.exd6 1!Nc5 17 . .!h6± - Black's position is very difficult, because of his vul­nerable dark squares and his un­safe king, Crafty - Patzer, 1998;

9 . . . eS? ! - These active actions for Black in the centre look rather strange, because he falls behind in development. 1O.ttJfS exf4 (The other possibilities are not bet­ter for him: 10 . . . g6? 1l.fxeS .!xiS, Martin del Campo - Dlaykan, Bucaramanga 1992 and here af­ter: 12 .exf6 ttJeS 13. ttJdS+- White remains with an extra pawn and superior development; 10 . . . dS 1l.ttJxdS ttJxdS 12.exdS ttJb4 13.1!Ne4 .!xiS? - The least of evils for Black would be to enter an endgame without a pawn: 13 . . . 1!Nxc2+ 14.1!Nxc2 ttJxc2 1S.ttJxg7+ .hg7 16.l!?xc2± - or 14.1!NxfS �c8, Kallgren - Ahlqvist, Stockholm 1994, 1S.c4 ! +- Black's knight seems to be lost, White is threat­ening - 16.a3 , as well as 16.d6 , while Black's pawn on eS is hang­ing. He has no compensation af­ter: 12 . . . hfS 13 .dxc6 e4 14.cxb7 1!Nxb7 1S.1!Ng3 �c8 16 . .!e2 1!Nc6 17.c3±, while in the variation: 13 . . . exf4 14 . .!xi4 1!Nxc6 1S.1!Nxc6+ bxc6 16 . .!c4± the material remains equal, but Black is clearly behind

in development and his queenside is vulnerable.) 1l . .!xi4 ttJeS, De Mie - Erwich, Dieren 1998, after: 12.1!Ne3 .hfS 13 .exfS Ae7 14.Ae2± White has completed his develop­ment and he is well-prepared to start his kingside pawn-offensive;

9 . . . �b8? ! - That rook might be useful on some other square as well, Licina - Schwarz, Finken­stein 1998, after: 10.1!Ng3 bS (or 10 . . . ttJxd4 1l . .hd4 bS 12 .eS±) 1l.eS dxeS 12 .fxeS ttJd7 13.ttJxc6 1!Nxc6 14.Ad3± White has a huge lead in development;

9 . . . ttJd7 - Black retreats his knight in anticipation of White's pawn-offensive on the kingside. 10 .g4 bS (It is less logical for Black to play: lO . . . ttJcS, Vadla - Feletar, Zagreb 1999, 1l.ttJxc6 1!Nxc6 12.fS bS 13.a3 �b8 14.fxe6 .he6 - but not: 14 . . . fxe6 1S.Ag2 b4 16.axb4 �xb4 17.�hf1 1!Nc7 18.gS±, because after opening of the f-file, Black's king remains stranded in the centre for a long time - 1S.ttJdS ie7 16.h4t and White's initiative seems to be much more serious than Black's possible counterplay. It is much worse for Black to play: 1l . . . bxc6? ! 12 .hcS dxcS 13.eS± and his bishops are cramped in­side his narrow cage of pawns.) 1l.gS ttJxd4, Polzin - Barbero, Germany 1997 and here it de­serves attention for White to re­frain from advancing his b-pawn with: 12 .�xd4 �b8 (about 12 . . . ie7 13.h4t - see 9 .Ae7 1O.g4 ttJxd4 11.�xd4 bS 12 .gS ttJd7 13.h4t) 13.

203

Chapter 1 0

a 3 JJ.e7 14.h4t - and White has the standard offensive plan on the kingside;

9 . . . h5 - This move creates problems for Black to castle short later, because it compromises his kingside. 1O.JJ.e2 JJ.d7 11.mb1 ! ? ltJxd4 (After: 11 . . . b5 12 .e5 ! ? dxe5 13.fxe5 ltJg4 14J!hf1 ltJgxe5 15. �g3�, the main drawback of Black's position is the absence of a reliable shelter for his king.) 12 .ixd4 JJ.c6, Delgado Kuffo - So­tomayor, Quito 1997 and here White can follow with the quite unpleasant for Black line : 13.�e3 i.e7 (Black's attempt to seize the initiative fails : 13 . . . b5? ! 14.ixf6 gxf6 15.ltJd5 �d8 16.�c3±, be­cause he will have to trade the only defender of his vulnerable light squares.) 14.f5 e5 15.JJ.b6 �d7 16.i.c4 E:c8 17.ib3± White will gradually prepare his kingside offensive, while Black will have no counterplay whatsoever;

9 . . . ltJxd4 - That exchange in the centre is in favour of White. After 1O .ixd4,

Black has tried in practice numer­ous possibilities :

204

1O . . . e5? 11 .fxe5 dxe5 12 .�g3± Now, he has tried to solve the problem with the protection of his central pawn in different fashions : 12 . . . ltJg4 13.ltJd5 �d6 14.i.c3 f6, Feher - Borcsok, Hungary 1987 and here White's simplest win seems to be: 15.ia5 mf7 16.ltJc7 �c6 17.�3+ mg6 18.ic4 ! ltJh6 19.1tJxa8+- and he has an extra rook as well as a powerful attack; 12 . . . i.d6 13.�xg7 exd4 14.�xh8+ me7 15.E:xd4+- Gipslis - Mikavi­ca, Bie1 1994; or 12 . . . ltJd7 13.ltJd5 �d6 14.ie3+- White has a colos­sal lead in development and his position is winning. In the game Siemers - Martens, Germany 1992, Black survived only for five more moves : 14 . . . �c6 15.E:d3 E:b8 16.E:c3 �a4 17.ic4 b5 18.ltJc7+ md8 19.ixf7 1-0;

1O . . . �c6? ! Helstroffer - Nezar, Nancy 2006, that move worsens the placement of the queen and after: 11.f5 i.e7 (or 11 . . .e5 12 .i.e3 .ie7 13.g4±) 12 .g4 h6 13.h4± White's kingside offensive seems to be very unpleasant for Black;

1O . . . i.d7? ! - This bishop is rather passive here. 11.id3 E:c8, van Mechelen - Plomp, Antwerp 1997, It is favourable for White to open the centre, because of his lead in development. 12 .e5 dxe5 (It is equally dangerous for Black to opt for: 12 . . . i.c6 13.�g3 ltJd5 14.f5±) 13.i.xe5 i.c6 (The other possibilities are not any better for Black. After: 13 . . . �a5 14.�xb7± White remains with an

4. lLlxd4 e6 5. lLlc3 \Wc7 6. ie3 lLlj6 7/4

extra pawn, while in the line: 13 . . . id6 14.Wfg3±, or 13 . . . Wfb6 14.l"!he1 ie7 1S.Wfg3± Black can hardly de­fend his kingside.) 14.\Wg3 \WaS 1S.l"!hel± Black has great prob­lems due to his king, stranded in the centre, for example: 1S . . . bS (or 1S . . . lLld7 16.fS !-+) 16.fS b4 17.fxe6 bxc3 18.ixf6+-;

In answer to 10 . . . ie7, Kosciel­ski - A.Martin, Ruhrgebiet 1999, it seems very good for White to continue with n.eS dxeS 12 .ixeS \WaS 13.id3± Black can hardly de­velop his queenside and his king has no reliable shelter;

1O . . . bS - This is probably the best for Black. n.a3 ib7 12 .id3 Elc8 13.l"!he1 \WaS (White's ini­tiative is very dangerous too af­ter: 13 . . . ie7 14.g4t) 14.\We3 lLld7 15.lLldS \Wd8 16.\Wg3± Black's king remains stranded in the centre and it hampers the coordination of his pieces, Tal - Gufeld, Tbilisi 1969.

ala) 9 . . . .td7? !

That is not the most active square for that bishop and it is much rather a loss of a tempo.

In comparison to the variation a2), the bishop goes to g4 in two moves. Still, that move is popular enough.

l O .g4 tLlxd4 1O . . . 0-0-0? ! - This move is

not logical and Black can hard­ly organize any counterplay on the queenside. After: n.gS lLlg8 12.lLlb3 lLlge7 13 .'1Wf2 l"!e8 14.ib6 \Wb8 1S.h4± he is practically completely stalemated, Sisniega - Chavez, Buenos Aires 1978.

10 . . . eS? ! - Now, that move looks even more strange than on the previous move. 11 .lOfS ie6 (or 1l . . . g6 12 .gS ! gxfS 13.gxf6 \Wd8 14.lOdS± and Black has no satis­factory defence against the threat 1S.ib6, Celli - Hang, corr. 1983) 12 .'J?b1 bS 13.lLldS ixdS 14.exdS lOb4 (After 14 . . . e4 1S.\Wg2 lOe7 16. lOxe7 \Wxe7 17.gS lOd7 18.id4± Black's e4-pawn is weak and his kingside is not developed.) 1S.c3 e4 16.\Wg2 lObxdS (It is not bet­ter for Black to try: 16 . . . g6 17.lLlg3 lObxdS 18.ElxdS+-) 17.l"!xdS lOxdS 18.\Wxe4+ ie7 19.\WxdS+- Bedny - G.Pavlov, St. Petersburg 2004;

1O . . . l"!c8? ! - After that move Black will have to retreat his knight to its initial square - g8. 1l.gS lOxd4 12.l"!xd4 lOg8 13.l"!c4 ic6, Talving - Kuvaldin, corr. 1986 and here White's most ag­gressive line seems to be: 14.fS bS 1S.l"!d4 exfS 16.WfxfS lOe7 17.\wf2±;

1O . . . h6? ! - Black creates a target for White with that move and his castling short becomes

20S

Chapter 1 0

too risky now. 11.h4 ttJxd4 (It is not better for Black to opt for: 11 . . . 0-0-0 12 .ttJb3 WbB, Colas - Fontana, San Jose 1992, since after 13.i.h3± White's kingside pawns are ready to advance; or 11 . . .hS 12 .gS ttJg4, M.Pavlov - Sax, Nice 1974, White should better keep his bishop: 13.i.g1 0-0-0 14.i.h3 wbB lS.ttJxc6+ and now no matter how Black plays, he re­mains a pawn down, with unsafe king and passive pieces : lS . . . hc6 16.hg4 hxg4 17.'1Wxg4 bS 1B.a3±; lS . . . bxc6 16.hg4 hxg4 17. V;Vxg4 dS 1B.V;Vf3±; lS . . . Wxc6 16.hg4 hxg4 17.Wxg4 bS 1B.V;Vf3 b4 19. ttJe2±) 12 .Eixd4 eS - This move is quite principled in many lines, in which Black exchanges on d4, but it has not been tested in that position. (12 . . . i.c6 13.gS ttJd7 14.g6 fS, Men­doza - Ruiz, Cali 2001 and here it deserves attention for White to try: lS.Wh3 !? , with the idea to sac­rifice the exchange in answer to lS . . . i.e7 - 16.exfS ! ? hhl 17.Wxhl exfS 1B.Eic4 WbB 19. V;VdS± White has a huge lead in development and he controls the light squares, so he has a clear advantage.) . M­ter: 13.Eic4 hg4 14.Wg3,

206

Black has three logical retreats, but no matter how he continues, there arise some positions from the main line with the inclusion ofthe moves h4-h6, and that is ei­ther immaterial, or it is in favour of White - he has covered the gS­square, while Black has weakened the g6-square, for example:

14 . . . V;VbB lS.ttJdS bS (or 15 . . . ttJxdS 16.exdS bS 17.Eic6 i.d7 lB. Eib6 V;Vc7 19.fxeS dxeS 20.'!d3� Black's kingside is static and he has no counterplay in sight.) 16Jk6 V;Vb7 17.Eic7 V;VbB 1B.ttJxf6+ gxf6 19J1xf7 wxf7 20.V;Vxg4± White is totally dominant on the light squares as a compensation for the exchange-sacrifice.

It is no less dangerous for Black to try: 14 • . . V;Ve7 lS.fxeS V;VxeS (After: lS . . . dxeS 16.EicS EicB 17.EixeS i.e6 1B.ttJdS Wd6 19.i.h3± - White's activity is just threaten­ing.) 16 . .!f4 %'e6 17.Eig1 ! hS 1B.Eic7 bS 19.i.g2± Black has failed to bring his king to safety and White is threatening 20 .eS, as well as 20 .ttJdS, opening files in the cen­tre;

Or 14 . . . V;Vd7 lS.ttJdS ttJxdS 16. exdS bS 17.Eic6 e4 1B.i.d4� and the activity of White's pieces more than compensates his sac­rificed pawn, for example: lB . . . ie6 19.Eixa6 ! ixdS ( In case of: 19 . . . Eixa6 20 .dxe6 fxe6 21 .Wb3± White regains the exchange and he maintains dangerous threats against Black's king, strand­ed in the centre. ) 2 0.Eib6 i.c4

4. ltJxd4 e6 5. ltJc3 Wfc7 6. i.e3 ltJf6 7.f4

21.i.h3 Wfc7 (or 2 1 . . .fS 22 .b3 i.dS 23 .Wfg6+ i.V 24.WfxfS± and White is clearly better thanks to his ac­tive pieces) 22 .E1e1 i.dS (After: 22 . . . dS 23.b3 E1xa2 24.bxc4 bxc4 2S.Wfg4+- White has three pawns for the piece and a winning posi­tion.) 23.�d3 �c4 24.E1xe4+ i.e7 2S.�xc4 bxc4 26 .E1e3± White has restored the material balance and he is well-prepared for new gains.

1l.E1xd4

1l • • • e5 That is the most logical line for

Black. His other possibilities enable

White to obtain an advantage in the centre:

1l . . . bS? ! 12 .gS eS?, Silva Pereira - Quaresma, corr. 1977 (Black's position is not too prom­ising after: 12 . . . ltJg8 13.fS±, but still that would have been his best.) and here White wins with: 13.fxeS dxeS 14.E1d3 ! b4 (or 14 . . . ltJg4 1S.i.h3+-) 1S.gxf6 bxc3 16. E'lxc3 �d6 17.fxg7+- Black has no chance of saving the game with a pawn down and a badly protected king.

1l . . . dS? ! - That move creates

another weak pawn for Black. 12.exdS ltJxdS 13.ltJxdS exdS, Chudinovskikh - Pokrovsky, corr. 1980 and here after: 14.i.g2 E1c8 (or 14 . . . i.c6 1S.�f2±) 1S.c3 i.c6 16.�f2 i.e7 17.E1hdl± Black loses unavoidably his dS-pawn and White can capture it at any op­portune moment.

11 . . .i.c6? ! - That move does not create any problems for White. 12 .gS ltJd7 13.i.h3 g6 (In answer to 13 . . . i.e7, Wittmann - Mascarinas, Thessaloniki 1984, it seems very good for White to follow with 14.fS ltJeS 1S.Wfe2 i.d7 16.E1f1±, or 14 . . . ltJcS lS.E1d2 exfS 16 . .txfS± and in both cases White remains with an overwhelming advantage in the centre and a superior development.) 14.E'lhd1 bS 1S.Wfg3± (White is clearly bet­ter with his lead in development, while Black's king is endangered in the centre.) 1S . . . i.g7 16.E'lxd6 b4 17.fS ! bxc3 (Black's king will come under a dangerous attack on the queenside as well : 17 . . . 0-0-0 18.fxe6 fxe6 19.1tJdS !� and here he loses quickly after: 19 . . . exdS 20.i.f4 �b7 21 .exdS i.bS 22 .Wfe3 E'lde8 23.�cS+ �d8 24.hd7 hd7 2S.E1b6+-, his chances for a suc­cessful defence are just minimal too in case of: 19 . . . hdS 20 .exdS i.eS 21 .dxe6 ! ixg3 22 .exd7+ �b8 23.hxg3+- and Black must give up his queen, in the best case for a rook.) 18 .E1xe6+ �d8 19.E1xc6 1-0 Timman - Larsen, London 1980.

12.E1c4 hg4 13. Wfg3

207

Chapter 1 0

13 . . . �d7 Following: 13 . . . �aS, Zsiltzova­

Lisenko - Hind, Istanbul 2000, it deserves attention for White to opt for: 14J"!:a4 ! ? �d8 (about 14 .. . exf4 ls.ixf4 �d8 16.eS - see 13 . . . exf4; after 14 . . . �c7 lS.fxeS dxeS 16.ibS+ id7 17.id4± White re­gains his pawn, maintaining pow­erful threats against Black's king, stranded in the centre.) lS.fxeS dxeS 16.Y:VxeS+ Ae6 17.ibS+ ! axbS (It is not better for Black to try: 17 . . . lLld7 18J!d1 ! axbS 19J"!:xd7!± - White remains with a queen for two rooks, but Black's rook on h8 might fail to enter the actions to the end of the game.) 18.l"!:xa8 �xa8 19.lLldS !-4 White exploits his lead in development and he orga­nizes a very powerful attack, for example: 19 . . . Y:Vxa2 20 .Y:Vb8+-; or 19 .. . lLld7 20 .lLlc7+ <;!(d8 21 .lLlxe6+ fxe6 22 J"!: d1+-. The only way for Black to offer some resistance is to try: 19 . . . lLlxdS 20.exdS±, but White regains his piece anyway and he maintains great piece-ac­tivity.

13 . . . exf4 - This move enables White to open central files and that seems to be too risky for

208

Black with his king in the cen­tre. 14.ixf4 �aS (After: 14 . . . �d7 lS.lLldS lLlxdS 16.exdS fS 17.�c3± Black does not have a single ac­tive piece on the board, his king is stranded in the centre and it is rather unclear whether he will manage to complete his de­velopment, Zahariev - Baretic, Novi Sad 1992.) lS.l"!:a4 Y:Vd8 16. eS dxe5 17.ixeS ie6, Messing - S.Cvetkovic, Novi Travnik 1969 and here the most unpleasant line for Black seems to be: 18 .ic4 ! ? l"!:c8 (or 18 . . . bS? 19.1LlxbS axbS 20.hf6 gxf6 21.ixbS+-) 19J'ld1 �b6 20.ixf6 gxf6 21.lLle4! ifS (or 21 . . .ixc4 22 .l"!:xc4 ih6+ 23.<;!(b1 l"!:xc4 24.lLld6+-) 22 .Y:Vf4 he4 23.�xe4+ ie7 24.l"!:el± - Black's problems are even greater, be­cause of the presence of opposite­coloured bishops on the board.

14.fxe5 It also deserves attention for

White to try: 14.lLldS ! ? tLlxdS (It is not better for Black to opt for: 14 . . . exf4 1S.ixf4 lLlxdS 16.exdS f6 - but not 16 . . . ie7 17.h3 gS 18.hxg4 gxf4 19.�c3 !+- - 17.id3 ! <;!(f7 18.l"!:gl�, the coordination of Black's pieces has been disrupted and it is quite evident that White will have a very powerful attack rather soon.) lS.exd5 bS 16.l"!:c6 e4 17.ig2 ! ?� and White has a huge compensa­tion for the pawn, due to his over­whelming lead in development, for example after the greedy line: 17 . . . f5 18.ib6 l"!:c8 19.Y:Vc3 l"!:xc6 20.dxc6±. Black's extra pawn

4.tiJxd4 e6 5 .tiJc3 Wffc7 6 . i.e3 l'iJf6 7.f4

would not balance White's dan­gerous passed c6-pawn, while in the variation: 17 . . . .!fS 18 . .!b6 l'k8 19.Eixc8+ 'Mfxc8 20.Eiel± White re­gains his pawn and he maintains great piece-activity.

l4 . • • dxeS

lS.'MfxeS+ 'Mfe6, De Vault -Khlystov, Email 2000, l6.if4 EidS (After: 16 . . . 'MfxeS 17.h:eS Eid8 18 .ig2 .!e6 19.Eic7 Eid7 20 .Eid1 !±, Black has problems de­fending against his opponent's ac­tive pieces, despite the numerous exchanges.) l7.Eic7 'MfxeS IS. .txeS Eid7 19.EicS+ gdS 2 0 . gxdS+ g"xdS 2l.ggl ie6 22. id4;l; - Black still has difficulties completing his development.

alb) 9 • • • .!e7 l 0 .g4

1 0 • • • l'iJxd4 In case Black wishes to simpli­

fy the position a bit with this ex­change, then he must trade on d4 right mow; otherwise, later White will manage to capture on d4 with his bishop.

lO ... hS? H.gS l'iJg4 12 . .!g1 eS, O.Popovych - Shaine, Phila­delphia 1988 and here White's fastest road to victory is the line: 13.l'iJdS 'Mfb8 (After: 13 . . . Wffd8 14.l'iJxc6 bxc6 1S .i.b6+­Black loses a rook.) 14.l'iJxc6 bxc6 1S.l'iJxe7 g"xe7 16.fS+- and Black's active knight is unavoid­ably lost.

10 . . . e5? ! - This move com­promises the light squares in the centre. 1l.l'iJfS Eig8? (Black's de­fence is difficult even after the best for him: ll . . . h:fS 12 .exf5 exf4 13.Wffxf4 h6 14.h4±) 12.g5 l'iJd7 13. l'iJdS+- Spatz - Walther, Bad Neustadt 1992 .

1O . . . l'iJa5? ! - After that move, the knight is away from the fight for the centre. 1l.gS ttJd7, Schep­ers - Freeman, Oakham 1997 and now, the most unpleasant for Black seems to be: 12 .'Mfh3 l'iJf8 (Black's attempt to occupy the c4-square with his knight leads to an immediate disaster for him: 12 . . . l'iJb6 13.g6 .!f6 14.l'iJdbS ! axbS 1S.l'iJxbS 'Mfc6 16.l'iJxd6+ g"fB 17.ibS Wffc7 18.eS+-) 13.fS l'iJc4 14.ixc4 'Mfxc4 15.Eihfl± - Black remains catastrophically behind in development.

1O . . . g6? ! - Black fails to parry

209

Chapter 1 0

White's pawn-offensive in that fashion. 1l.g5 llJd7 (It is not better for Black to try: 11 . . . lDh5, Feletar - Polajzer, Bosnjaci 2005, after: 12 .f5 lDe5 13.�h3 lDc4 14.i.e2± Black's knight is terribly mis­placed at the edge of the board.) 12 .h4 b5 13.h5 �fB 14.hxg6 hxg6 15.�h7± White is clearly ahead of his opponent in the develop­ment of his initiative, Kupreichik - Richtmann, Germany 200l .

10 . . . �bB? ! - That looks like a loss of time. 11.g5 lDd7 12 .�h3 b5 13.g6 lDxd4 14.gxf7+ r;t>xf7 15. i.xd4 i.b7, AI Sayed - Tristan, Dos Hermanas 2004. Black's king is rather unsafe and White can best emphasize that with the line : 16.�gl ! i.f6 17.i.xb5 ! i.xd4 (White's attack is checkmating af­ter: 17 . . . axb5 1B.lDxbS �c6 19.i.xf6 lDxf6 20 .lDxd6+ r;t>fB 21 .�xg7+-) 1B.i.xd7 �xd7 19.�xd4+-

10 . . . lDd7 11.gS bS (about 11 . . . 0-0 12 .�g1 - see: 10 . . . 0-0 1l.g5 lDd7 12 .�g1; as for 11 . . . �bB 12 .�h3 - see 1O . . . �bB 1l.g5 lDd7 12 .�h3; after: l1 . . .lDcS 12.f5 i.d7, Rantanen - Green, Haifa 1976, White can play the rather unpleas­ant variation for Black: 13.lDxc6 i.xc6 14.fxe6. Here, he has serious problems after: 14 . . . lDxe6 1S.lDdS i.xdS 16.exdS lDcS - and it is even worse for him to opt for 16 . . . lDxgS 17.�g2± and White regains his pawn, since Black has no de­fence against 1B.h4; or 17.h4±, as well as after: 14 . . . fxe6 1S.i.h3 i.d7 16.�hf1 0-0-0 17.�f7± and Black

210

remains at least a pawn down, or 15 . . . g6 16.i.xc5 dxcS 17.i.xe6 i.xgS+ 1B.r;t>b1 �fB 19.�h3± and Black's king remains stranded in the centre for a long time.) 12 .h4 lDcS (or 12 . . . i.b7 13.a3 lDb6? ! 14.\wf2 lDc4? - Black had better admit his mistake: 14 . . . lDd7 1S.fS± - 15.lDdxbS ! axbS 16 .lDxb5 �bB? ! 17.i.xc4 lDaS 1B.i.d3+- Black has no compensation for the two pawns whatsoever, Ciuksyte - Morrison, Birmingham 2006; 12 . . . b4 13 .lDce2 i.b7 14.llJg3 �c8 1S.�h2 lDcS 16.r;t>b1 \WaS 17.hSt Black's defence is very difficult. His king hampers the coordina­tion of his pieces in the centre and he risks coming under a danger­ous attack on the kingside, Zeller - Brenner, Deizisau 1999; it is even worse for Black to play 13 . . . lDaS, Kulaots - Kanep, Tallinn 2007, because after: 14.hS lDc4 lS.i.f2 lDdb6 16.g6 i.f6 17.i.h3t White's kingside initiative is very powerful.) 13.hS i.b7 (White's ini­tiative develops very fast after: 13 . . . b4 14.lDce2 lDxd4 lS.i.xd4 i.b7 16.lDg3 0-0 17.g6t, or lS . . . eS 16.i.e3 i.b7 17.lDg3 �c8 18.�h2t) 14.g6 fS (Black's counterplay will be too late after 14 . . . b4, due to : lS.gxf7+ r;t>xf7 16.lDxe6 ! lDxe6 17. lDdS �aS 18.i.c4--+; 17 . . . �d8 18. h6--+ and White's attack is very powerful in both cases.) 1S.h6 hxg6 16.hxg7 �g8 17.�g3± - Black can hardly maintain the material balance, Conquest - Soderberg, Tanta 1997.

4. ttlxd4 e6 5. ttlc3 �c7 6. ie3 ttlf6 7 14

1O . . . h6 - That is an attempt to parry White's pawn-onslaught on the kingside. 1l.h4 ttlxd4 (M­ter: 1l . . . eS? ! 12 .ttlfS .bfS 13.exfS 0-0-0 14.gS± White occupies the dS-outpost and that, together with his bishop pair, provides him with a great advantage, Harkins - Churchill, Cardinal 197B ; 11 . . . hS ! ? 12 .gS ttlg4 13 . .tg1 b5, Fabian - Bojda, Slovakia 2001 and here it deserves attention for White to contain Black's queenside counterplay with: 14.ttlxc6 �xc6 lS.a3t) 12 J�xd4 eS 13.E!c4 hg4. Black has accomplished his stan­dard exchange operation in the centre, but here White can enter a very favourable endgame with: 14.�xg4 ! ttlxg4 lS.E!xc7 ttlxe3 16. fxe5 dxeS (After: 16 . . . b5 17.@d2 ttlxf1+ 1B.E!xf1 dxe5 19.ttld5 hh4 20.E!fxt7±, Black can hardly save the game against White's power­ful rooks, supported by his cen­tralized knight. ) 17.E!xb7 if6, Illescas Cordoba - Campos, Bar­celona 19B2 (Naturally, Black loses after: 17 . . . ttlxf1 1B.E!xfl hh4 19.E!fxt7 igS+ 2 0.@d1 E!dB+ 21 . ttldS+-) and here White has a powerful line at his disposal - 1B.ttld5! ttlxdS 19.exdS ie7 (or 19 . . . 0-0 20.c4±) 20 . .th3 E!dB (It is not better for Black to opt for: 20 . . . g6 21.hS igS+ 22 .@d1 E!dB 23.c4±) 21 .E!e1 E!xdS (After 21. . . .td6 22 .c4 gS 23 .b4± White's pawns are much more dangerous than their counterparts.) 22 .ig2 E!d6 23 .E!xe5 E!e6 24.ic6 !± and

Black's rook on hB has failed to enter the actions.

10 . . . 0-0 - That move is too optimistic, since White's kingside set-up looks very powerful. 11 .g5 ttld7 (Or 1l . . . ttlxd4 12.,txd4 eS?? ­that is a grave blunder, Black had better try: 12 . . . ttld7 13.E!gl - see 1l . . . ttld7 12.E!gl ttlxd4 13.,txd4 -13.gxf6 .txf6 14.ttld5+- Farinha -Bastos, Lisbon 199B; 1l . . . ttleB? ! -Black's knight is too passive here, Blazkova - Stauch, Bayern 2003, 12 .h4 bS 13.ttlxc6 �xc6 14 . .td3 b4 lS.ttle2±) 12 .E!gl - this is a useful move, since White plans a mas­sive kingside offensive with pieces and pawns.

Black has tested in practice here: 12 . . . E!dB - That move supports

neither Black's counterplay, nor his kingside defence, Dambacher - De Jonge, Hengelo 1995 and here it deserves attention for White to continue with : 13.'iMh3!? ttlc5 14.f5 b5 (or 14 . . . ttle5 1S.ttlf3±) lS.ttlxc6 �xc6 16.f6 ifB 17.eS--t, followed later by a transfer of the rook to the h4-square;

12 . . . bS - Black is trying to obtain some counterplay. 13.fS

211

Chapter 1 0

lLlde5 14.�f2 �e8 (After: 14 . . . lLlxd4 15.fud4 �e8 16.f6 if8 17.h4 ib7 18.h5 �ac8 19.@bl± Black fails to obtain any counterplay on the queenside, while White will push g5-g6 on the kingside at any moment, Scholl - van der Vliet, Yelp 1974.) 15.f6 if8, Maliangkay - Tirabassi, corr. 1995 and here, before White begins his king­side onslaught, he should better take care about the defence of his queenside: 16.lLlxc6 lLlxc6 (Af­ter: 16 . . . �xc6 17.a3 ib7 18 .h4± White's hands are completely free for active actions.) 17.ib6 VNb7 (It is not better for Black to try: 17 . . . �b8 18.g6 hxg6 19.�xg6± and White maintains excellent attacking chances.) 18.fxg7 ixg7 19.�xd6± - White preserves his extra pawn and much more active pieces;

12 ... �e8 13.�h5 lLlxd4 (After: 13 . . . M8? 14.�g3 g6 15.VNh4 ig7 16.f5-+ White's attack is decisive, Belotti - T.Horvath, Mendrisio 1997.) 14.ixd4 b5 (Black would not save the game after: 14 . . . g6 15.�h4 b5 16.�g3 h5 17.ie2 b4 18.ixh5+- and White check­mates unavoidably.) 15.�d3 !+­Now, no matter how Black de­fends, his position is lost: 15 . . . g6? 16.�xh7+-; 15 . . . b4 16.�h3 lLlfB 17.g6 ! fxg6 18.�xg6 e5 19.1Lld5 �d8, Haritver - Popov, Roma­nia 1976 and now, White's sim­plest winning line seems to be: 20.fxe5 hxg6 21.ic4+-; 15 . . . lLlf8 16.f5 exf5 17.lLld5 �a5 (or 17 . . . m7

212

18.j"gh3+-) 18.ib6 �el+ 19.�dl VNxe4 20 .ig2 �a4 21.lLlf6+ ixf6 22 .gxf6+-; 15 . . . ib7 16.j"gh3 lLlf8 17.g6 ! fxg6 18.j"gxg6 e5 19.fug7+ ! @xg7 20.fxe5 d5 21.e6+ M6 22. VNg5+ 1-0 T.Horvath - van der Stricht, Gent 1997;

12 . . . lLlxd4 13.ixd4 b5 (In an­swer to 13 ... j"ge8, Wessels - Bol­werk, Germany 2004, the fol­lowing line seems to be most unpleasant for Black: 14.f5 lLle5 15.ixe5 dxe5 16.f6 !b4 17.j"gg3±) 14.f5 b4 (After: 14 . . . lLle5 15.ixe5 ! dxe5 16.f6 ic5 17.fxg7± Black's kingside is terribly compromised. 17 . . . j"gd8 18.j"gg3 fudl+ 19.1Llxdl ib7 20.id3 @xg7 21.�h5+-, Black managed to prolong the fight for more than twenty moves, but he had no chances of saving the game, U.Andersson - Es­pig, Raach 1969.) 15.ixg7! bxc3, Petrzelka - Mihailov, USSR 1975 (Black's position remains quite difficult after his other possi­bilities too: 15 . . . @xg7 16.f6+ @g8 17.fxe7 �e8 18.lLle2± and White's knight goes to the f6-square via h5. It is evidently better for Black to opt for: 15 . . . lLle5 16.ixe5 dxe5 17.lLlbl±, because his bishop pair provides him with some coun­ter chances.) and here White's most energetic line seems to be: 16.ixc3 ! lLle5 (The other moves lose even quicklier for Black: 16 . . . d5 17.VNh5+-; 16 . . . m6 17.j"gg3+-) 17.VNf4 ib7 (It is worse for Black to play: 17 . . . j"gd8 - since his rook comes under attack here. 18.g6

4. lLlxd4 e6 5. lLlc3 �c7 6 . .te3 lLlf6 7.J4

hxg6 19.fxg6 f6 20.'!Wh4 .its 21. iaS+-; Black's position is de­fenseless too after: 17 .. J:!e8 18.g6 hxg6 19.fxg6 f6 20.g7+-) 18.f6 lLlg6 19.�g4 id8 20.�h5 'it>h8 2U:!g3 he4 (or 21 . . . lLlf4 22.�h6 13g8 23.g6 ! +-) 22 . .td3 dS 23.13h3 lLlf4 24.�h6 lLlxd3+ (White check­mates as well after: 24 . . . 13g8 2S. �xh7+ hh7 26.13xh7#) 2S.cxd3 13g8 26.dxe4 �f4+ 27.13d2 �xe4 28.13d4 and Black loses after: 28 . . . �g6 29.13dh4+-

lU!:xd4

It . . . eS! ? Black wins a pawn with that

standard resource. About 1l . . . lLld7 12.gS bS 13.h4

- see 1l . . . bS 12.gS tLld7 13.h4. 1l . . . dS? ! - This move enables

White to sacrifice the exchange quite effectively. 12.exdS lLlxdS 13.13xdS ! ? exdS l4.tLlxdS �d6 1S.fS 0-0 16.gS 13d8 17.ig2± Black can hardly develop his queensidewith­out material losses, I.Platonov - B.Kogan, Kiev 1963.

11. . .0-0 12.gS lLld7 13.h4t. Now, despite the fact that White's rook has occupied the d4-square, instead of his bishop, Black's de-

fence against his opponent's pow­erful kingside initiative is very dif­ficult, for example: 13 . . . 13e8? ! 14.hS bS IS.a3 13b8 16.'it>bl .tf8 17.g6-+ and White had a very strong attack in the game Balashov - Hoffman, Albena 1989, or 13 . . . bS 14 . .th3 13b8 IS.hS b4 16.lLle2 lLlc5 17.'it>bl .tb7 18.fS± and White's kingside threats are much more dangerous than Black's counterplay on the queenside, Zontakh - Vitiugov, St. Petersburg 2003.

1l . . . bS 12 .gS lLld7 13.h4t

Black has tested different pos­sibilities in practice, but White's prospects are clearly better in all the variations :

13 . . . lLlc5 - This move seems to be senseless, because Black can hardly create any threats against the e4-pawn. 14.hS .tb7, Sigur­jonsson - Bachmann, Germany 1980 and here after: IS.fS 0-0-0 16. 'it>bl± White is quite prepared for active actions on the queen­side too after 17.a4;

13 ... 13b8 - Black is trying to organize some counterplay as quickly as possible. 14.a3 ib7 IS.ih3 .tc6, Steinberg - Chovnik,

213

Chapter 1 0

Kharkiv 1975 and White is ready to begin his kingside offensive. 16.f5! ? - Black has no satisfactory defence anymore, for example: 16 . . . llJe5 17J�Vg3 i.d7 18.i.f4 as 19.96± and White is already at­tacking his opponent's king, or 16 . . . exf5 17 . .txf5 llJe5 18.'!Wg3±. It is not better for Black to try: 16 . . . e5 17J=!d3 b4 18.axb4 l'!xb4 19J=!hdl± and he has no adequate defence against - 2 0.f6 ;

13 . . . i.b7 14.h5 e5 (After: 14 . . . llJb6 15.�f2 llJc4 16.i.xc4 bxc4 17.f5± Black's defence is very dif­ficult too, Radulov - Tayeb, Dubai 1986.) 15.fxe5 llJxe5 16. '!Wg3± Black has only one good piece -his knight on e5, while the rest of his pieces are very passive, Czebe - Vandrey, Budapest 1993.

12.fxe5 Black's bishop is on e7 now

and not on f8, so the move 12J=!c4 is not so good for White anymore due to: 12 . . . i.xg4 13.�g3 '!Wd8 ! 14. fxe5 dxe5 15.'!Wxe5 '!Wd6 ! ?

12 • • • i.xg4 12 . . . dxe5? - That is naturally

a blunder. 13Jk4 i.xg4? 14.'!Wxf6 '!Wxc4 15.�xg7 1-0 Garbarino -Madina, Buenos Aires 1984.

214

13.�g3! dxe5 14.llJd5 '!Wa5 After: 14 . . . llJxd5 15J=!xd5 i.e6

16.'!Wxg7 gf8 17.�xe5±, White re­mains with an extra pawn, but he has problems pressing that ad­vantage home.

15.gd3 h5! 15 . . . '!Wxa2? ! - This move is

too risky. 16.llJxf6+ i.xf6 17.'!Wxg4 �al+ 18.@d2 0-0 19.9gl± Black's attempt to organize an attack has failed and White's bishop is obvi­ously more powerful than several pawns.

15 . . . llJxd5? ! - That move only helps White to complete his de­velopment: 16.gxd5 b5 17.i.c4! h5 18J=!xe5 0-0 19.9xh5 ! i.xh5 20 .i.d4 i.f6 21 .i.xf6 g6 22 .�g5 @h7 23.i.d3� White's bishop are evidently more active than Black's rooks.

16.b4! That is the only resource for

White to fight for the advantage. 16 . . . �xa2 After: 16 . . . i.xb4 17.i.b6 i.d2+

18.@b2 �b5+ 19.9b3 '!Wc6 20 . llJc7+ @d7 21 .llJxa8 gxa8 22 . �xe5 i.e6 23.i.h3 !± White has excellent chances to materialize

4. tDxd4 e6 5. tDc3 �c7 6 . .te3 tDf6 7/4

his extra exchange. 17.tOc7+ wfS lS.�xe5 tOd7! This is the only move for

Black. It is too bad for him to opt for: 1S . . J'!cS 19.�xe7+ WgS (White checkmates in an amusing fashion after: 19 . . . Wxe7 20 . .tc5#) 20 . .td4 tOeS 21 . .tb2 tOxc7 22J'!c3 tDb5 23J'!xcS+ hcS 24.�g5+-; or 1S . . J'!eS 19.tDxeS tDxeS 20 . .tcS±

19J3xd7 �a3+ The other possibilities for

Black are again worse for him: 19 . . . hd7 20 . .tc5 ! hcS 21.�xc5+ 'it>gS 22 .tDxaS �a1+ 23 .Wd2±, or 19 . . . .tf6 2 0.�cS+ wgS 21.wd2 hd7 22 .tDxaS± - and Black has hardly any compensation for the piece in both variations.

2 0 .wbl �xb4+ 21.fib2 �xb2+ 22.Wxb2 H6+ (After: 22 . . . gcS 23.l:!xe7 Wxe7 24.tDdS+ 'it>d6 25 . .tg2±, the material ratio remains about equal, but Black's pawns are too far from promotion, his king is roaming in the centre of the board and it might come under attack, despite the rela­tively reduced material. ) 23 • .td4 gcS (It is not better for Black to

continue with: 23 . . . hd7 24 . .txf6 gcS 2S . .teS gh6 26 . .td3 gc6 27. tDdS;!;) 24.e5 hd7 25.exf6 gxf6 26.tOd5 J.f5 27.c4;!; White's pieces are much more active and that provides him with superior chances.

a2) S . . . .te7

Black is trying to evacuate his king promptly from the centre.

9. 0 - 0 - 0 0 - 0 About 9 . . . a6 10.g4 - see S . . . a6

9 .0-0-0 .te7 1O.g4. 9 .. . tDxd4? ! - This exchange

leads to a bad position for Black, while his king is in the centre. 1O.hd4 eS (In answer to 10 . . . 0-0, White has a very unpleasant re­source for Black at his disposal : n.eS! dxe5 12 .heS �aS 13 . .te2 gdS - Black cannot repel White's active bishop from its position : 13 . . . tDd7 14.l:!xd7 hd7 1S.�xb7± and White remains with two light pieces for a rook. 14.gxdS+ �xdS 1S.gd1 �aS 16.'it>bl± All White's pieces are active, mean­while Black can hardly develop his queenside. ) 11.fxeS dxeS (It is a disaster for Black to play: 11 . . .

21S

Chapter 1 0

.!g4? 12.'!bS+ Wd8 13.exd6+-, or 12 . . . wf8 13.exf6+-) 12.�g3 0-0 13.heS± - White has a great ad­vantage, because of his extra pawn and very active pieces, Herrera - Sanjuan Garcia, Malaga 2000.

9 . . . .!d7 1O.g4 h6 (The move -1O . . . lLlxd4 - only increases White's dominance in the centre. 11.hd4 eS 12.fxeS dxeS 13.�g3 .!d6 14. lLlbS hbS 1S.hbS+ We7 16 . .!e3± and he has two powerful bishops, extra space and a clear-cut attack­ing plan on the kingside. Black's counterplay is nowhere in sight, Feher - Fokin, Kobanya 1991.) 11.h4 hS (In answer to 11 .. . lLlxd4 12.hd4 eS 13.fxeS dxeS 14.Wfg3 .!d6, S.Klimov - I.Dorofeev, Ko­lontaevo 1997, it deserves atten­tion for White to play analogously to the variation above and to ob­tain a bishop pair with: Is.lLlb5 hb5 16.hb5+ We7 17. ie3±) 12 .g5 lLlg4, Kupreichik - Dydysh­ko, Minsk 1976 and here White should preserve his dark-squared bishop, creating serious problems for Black - 13.igl a6 14.ih3±

l O .ggl!? Unfortunately, White cannot

216

begin an effective kingside at­tack without that move. It might look like a loss of time, but af­ter: 10.g4? ! lLlxd4 lU'!xd4 eS 12.l3c4 hg4 13.�g3 exf4 ! 14.ixf4 Wfb6?, White's compensation for the pawn might be good enough only to equalize, van der Wiel - V.Iiberzon, Baden 1980 .

Mikhail Tal won a magnificent game by choosing: 10.lLldb5 !? and after: 1O . . . \1«b8 11.g4 a6 12.lLld4 lLlxd4 13.hd4 b5 14.g5 lLld7 15 . .!d3 b4, he followed with the standard, but still very beauti­ful piece-sacrifice - 16.lLld5 !? Tal - Larsen, Bled 1965. We cannot assert however, that sacrifice was 100% correct.

l O . . . �xd4 That is the most principled de­

cision for Black. He has saved a tempo for the move a7-a6 and he has managed to castle - therefore his actions in the centre seem to be quite justified. His situation would remain much worse after his other possibilities :

10 . . . l3d8?! - This move is too passive. 11.g4 id7 12.g5 lLle8, Paljusaj - Sertic, Hvar 1998, 13.f5 �eS 14.Wfh3±;

1O . . . l3e8? ! 11.g4 lLlxd4, De Roda Husman - Veld, Haarlem 2005, 12.hd4 eS 13.if2 exf4 14.gS±; 1O . . . a6 - This move most often leads to the positions, which we analyze in variation alb). 11.g4 lLlxd4 (About 11 . . . lLld7 12.g5 - see 8 . . . a6 9.0-0-0 ie7 1O.g4 0-0 11.g5 lLld7 12 .l3g1; as for 11 . . .

4. &i:Jxd4 e6 S. &i:Je3 'We7 6. i.e3 &i:Jf6 7/4

E!eB 12 .gS &i:Jd7 13.'WhS - see B . . . a6 9 .0-0-0 i.e7 1O.g4 0-0 1l.gS &i:Jd7 12 .E!gl E!eB 13.'WhS.) 12 .E!xd4 bS (12 . . . dS? ! - That move only creates a weak pawn for Black in the centre. 13.exdS &i:JxdS 14.&i:JxdS exdS lS.i.d3± Now, White can at­tack his opponent's vulnerable dS-pawn, as well as his kingside, Belova - Epstein, Yerevan 19BO) 13.gS &i:Jd7 14.fS ! ? &i:JeS lS.'Wf2 E!eB 16.f6 - see B . . . a6 9 .0-0-0 i.e7 1O .g4 0-0 1l.gS &i:Jd7 12 J1g1 bS 13.fS &i:JdeS 14.ygf2 &i:Jxd4 lS.E!xd4 E!eB 16.f6 ;

10 . . . eS? ! - That move weak­ens the important dS-outpost. 1l .&i:JdbS 'WbB (White had a very powerful attack after: ll . . . 'WaS 12 .g4 &i:JeB 13.fS� Podlesnik -Simic,Slovenia1991.)12 .g4a613.gS &i:Jd7 (It is no less perilous for Black to try: 13 . . . &i:Jg4 14.E!xg4. Here, after: 14 . . . exf4 1S.E!xf4 axbS 16.YGhS± White has dangerous threats on the kingside. It is not better for Black to try: 14 . . . axbS lS.E!h4�; while in the variation: 14 . . . hg4 lS.ygxg4 axbS 16.hbS exf4 17.YGxf4oo, White has a pawn for the exchange and great piece­activity.) 14.&i:Ja3 bS (After: 14 . . . exf4 lS.YGxf4 &i:JdeS 16.&i:Jc4± all White's pieces are in action.) lS.&i:JdS exf4 16.YGxf4 &i:JdeS 17. &i:Jf6+ <j;>hB 1B.'Wh4 h6 19.'WhS± White's powerful threats on the kingside more than compensate the unfavourable placement of his knight on a3.

lU3xd4

1l . . . e5 About 1l . . . a6 12 .g4 - see 10 . . .

a6. In answer to ll . . . dS, Spraggett

- Coudari, Montreal 19BO, White can capture the pawn - 12.exdS &i:JxdS 13.&i:JxdS exdS 14.E!xdS i.e6 lS.E!bS b6 16.i.d3;!;. It is worse for Black to play: 12 . . . exdS 13.g4 i.cS 14.gS ! ? - because White obtains a great lead in development and ex­cellent attacking chances for the exchange. 14 . . . hd4 lS.hd4 &i:Jd7 16.&i:JxdS 'Wd6 (Black must control the eS-square, because after: 16 . . . 'WaS 17.yge4 !+- he loses, for ex­ample: 17 . . . &i:JcS 1B.&i:Je7+ <j;>hB 19. hg7+ and White checkmates.) 17.id3 E!eB (It is again a disaster for Black to defend with: 17 . . . &i:JcS 1B.hh7+ <j;>xh7 19.YGhS+ <j;>gB 20 . &i:Jf6+-, since White checkmates unavoidably.) 1B.hh7+ <j;>xh7 19. 'WhS+ <j;>gB 20 .g6 fxg6 21 .E!xg6+­and Black's entire queenside fails to enter the actions.

12 .E!d2 exf4 12 . . . bS? ! - Black can hardly

obtain any compensation for the pawn after that move. 13.hbS exf4 14.ixf4 E!bB lS.E!el± Pietru­siak - Ksieski, Ciechocinek 1976.

217

Chapter 1 0

1 2 . . . lDg4? ! - Black loses too much time in order to trade piec­es. 13.lDdS 'iMd8, Mrdja - Hlavac, Pula 1992 and here after: 14. lDxe7 + 'iMxe7 1S.fS lDxe3 16. Y;Vxe3± Black is practically helpless against White's massive kingside offensive.

13.ti'xf4 .!e6 14.g4 ti'a5 15. g5 lDd7 16.a3 �ac8 17.tLld5;!;

White is better, thanks to his dominance in the centre and his potential two-bishop advantage, Maliangkay - Bang, corr. 1999.

b) 7 • • • ib4

That is an attempt by Black to create some weaknesses on White's queenside.

8.tLldb5 ti'a5 After: 8 . . . Y;Vb8 9.a3 ixc3+ 10.

218

lDxc3 0-0 11.eS± Black loses ma­terial, V.Krasnov - Malyshev, Zelenograd 1997.

9.e5 tLle4 9 .. .liJdS - That move is not

so purposeful, because it enables White to preserve the elastic­ity of his pawn-structure. 1O.id2 tLlxc3, E.Romanov - Vitiugov, Sochi 2006 and here White can avoid doubling his pawns with the help of the natural reac­tion: 11.tLlxc3. After: l1. .. dS 12 .a3 ixc3 13.ixc3 ti'a4 14.ti'g4± he has the two-bishop advantage and a powerful kingside pres­sure. In the variation: 11 . . . 0-0 12.id3 dS 13.a3t, there arises a "French-type" pawn-structure, in which White has good attacking prospects and eventually a better endgame. He maintains strong pressure on the kingside after: 1l . . . 'iMb6 12.ti'g4 0-0 13 .id3 d6 14.Y;Vh3 h6 lS.a3t

9 . . . a6 - This move leads to a better endgame for White almost by force. 10.lDd6+ ixd6 1l.ti'xd6 lDe4 12 .'iMd3 lDxc3 13. 'iMxc3 'iMxc3+ 14.bxc3 f6 lS.exf6 gxf6 16.c4;!;. White's bishop pair more than compensates the defects of his pawn-structure. 16 . . . dS 17.0-0-0 d4! - This is a wonderful idea! Black annihilates one of his oppo­nent's bishops at the price of a pawn. 18.ixd4 18 . . . lDxd4 19.�xd4 id7 20 .ie2 �c8 21.if3 �c7 22 . 'it>d2t. White will have problems materializing his extra pawm; nevertheless he is clearly better,

4. tOxd4 e6 S. tDc3 �c7 6.ie3 tDf6 7/4

Karjakin - Volokitin, Merida 2005. It also deserves attention for White to play the less greedy line: 1S . .td2 e5 19 . .td3 E!:gS 20 .g3;!; with the idea to preserve his im­portant bishop.

1 0 .�d3 tOxc3 1O .. .f5 - Now, Black reach­

es a position without any good prospects, because he will never manage to organize any effective counterplay. 1l .exf6 tOxf6 12 .ie2 0-0 13.0-0 d5 14.a3 ie7, Man­nion - Conquest, Hastings 1992, 15.tDd4;!;

11.bxc3 ie7 12.g3!? This i s a very interesting idea

of GM E.Inarkiev. White develops his bishop to g2, with the idea to exert powerful pressure on the queenside.

12 . . . 0 - 0 1 2 . . . a6? ! - This move leads to

a difficult position for Black. 13.tDd6+ hd6 14.exd6 b5 15.ig2 ib7 16 .0-0 �a4! (It is a disaster for Black to play: 16 . . . 0-0? ! 17.a4 !±, as well as : 16 . . . tDdS? ! 17.hb7 tDxb7 1S.a4!±, since he will have great problems on the queenside.) 17.ib6 ! - White is

threatening to continue with the moves E!:tb1, a3, hc6 and E!:b4, trapping his opponent's queen. 17 . . . 0-0 (It is very bad for Black to play: 17 . . . tDdS? 1S.hb7 tDxb7 19.'(gf3+-, it seems quite logical for him to try 17 . . . E!:cS ! ?, but after: 1S.E!:tb1 tDdS 19.a3 �c4 20.i.c7!± Black is almost beyond salvation, because in the endgame after: 20 . . . �c5+ 21.�d4 �xd4 22 .cxd4 tDe7, he will not manage to place his knight on the d5-square, in view of 23.c4 ! . Now, Black loses immediately after: 23 ... bxc4 24.dxe7+-, while after: 23 . . . tDf5 24.cxb5 axb5 25.E!:xb5 tDxd4 26.a4 !+-, he will hardly manage to survive for long.) 1S .E!:tb1 ! E!:acS 19.a3± e5, Inarkiev - Khalifman, Khanty-Mansiysk 2005 and here White obtains a huge advantage with the fantastic move - 20.i.d5 ! ! It would be very difficult to find it over the board, if at all . . . 20 . . . exf4 21.ixc6 E!:xc6 22.E!:b4 E!:xb6 (You can see the main idea of White's move twenty in the variation: 22 . . . E!:xd6 23. '(gxd6 �xc2 24.if2 �xc3 25.E!:e1 '(gf3 and after 26.�xfS+ ! , it be­comes clear that the e-file is opened for White's pieces. ) 23. E!:xa4 bxa4 24.gxf4± and the supe­riority of the queen over Black's rook and bishop is quite obvious, although White's victory is too far from being clear. (We have used the comments of N.Vitjugov.)

13.i.g2 f6 14.exf6 ixf6 15. 0 - O d5

219

Chapter 1 0

16.�abl! This move seems to be much

more energetic than 16J§:fel, which was tried in the game Inarkiev - Vitiugov, Moscow 2006.

16 • • • a6 17 • .!Dd6 Vixc3 18 • .th3 .!Dd8 19.Vixc3 hc3 2 0 .�fdl J.f6

After: 20 . . . bS 2U§:d3 !f6 22 . lLlxc8 l':1xc8 23.l':1xdS l':1xc2 24. l':1d6 as 2S.l':1bdl !e7 26.l':1d'Too White's active pieces compensate amply the sacrificed pawn, for example

after: 26 . . . 'i!?f7 27.!f1! b4 28 .!d3 l':1c8 29.!xh7± White regains his pawn and he preserves his bishop pair.

21.c4 d4 22.!f2 'i!?h8, Gal­lagher - Pelletier, Lenzerheide 2006, Black's extra pawn is prac­tically immaterial, since he has no moves at all. White should not be in a hurry to regain the pawn and after: 23.c5! J.d7 24.l':1b6± Black might soon lose all his weak pawns - b7, d4 and e6.

Conclusion We have started analyzing in this chapter the Paulsen system,

which begins with the move 5 . . . Vic7. White answers that with 6. !e3, with the idea to prepare castling long as quickly as possible. He in­tends to deploy his pieces according to the scheme of the "English At­tack" in the Sicilian Defence - !e3, Vlfd2, 0 - 0 - 0 ,.13. Black plays 6 . . . lLlf6 and he thus prevents that set-up, but he exposes himself to other dangerous lines. White's aggressive move - 7/4 puts Black's choice of development to a serious test.

In variation a), we have analyzed Black's answer 7 . . . d6, which prevents mechanically the pawn-advance e4-e5, but in that case, there arises an unfavourable for Black line of the Scheveningen varia­tion. In variation a1), Black tries to organize some counter play on the queenside by playing 8 . . . a6. Still, in a position with opposite sides cas­tling, White dominates in the centre and his initiative developsfaster

220

4. l1.Jxd4 e6 S 'ciJc3 Wc7 6 .1i.e3 I1.Jf6 7/4

than that of his opponent. The least of evils for Black seems to be the exchange in the centre - I1.Jxd4, at an opportune moment,followed by e6-eS. In that case, Black mustfind a series of precise moves in order to enter an endgame, in which, despite the simplifications, his defence is not easy at all. In variation a2), Black saves a tempo for the move a7-a6, trying to complete the development of his kingside as quickly as possible. White needs then to waste a tempo for the preparation of his pawn-offensive on the kingside with the move 1 0 . 'iJ.g1, since in answer to 1 0 .g2-g4, the above-mentioned exchange operation in the centre provides Black with a good game. After 1 0 . 'iJ.g1, Black cannot obtain counter chances on the queenside without the move a7-a6 and that leads to unfavourable positionsfor himfrom variation a1). After 10 .. .tiJxd4,Jollowed by l1 . . . eS, White maintains a slight, but stable ad­vantage in the middle game.

In variation b), we deal with the contemporary aggressive linefor Black - 7 . . . 1i.b4. He is ready to present his opponent with the two­bishop advantage, but he might create weak pawns for him on the queenside. In that variation, the idea of GM E.Inarkiev for White to develop his bishop on g2 is quite unpleasant for Black. White's pres­sure on the long diagonal is very effective, moreover that the defect of the doubled pawns on his queenside is more than compensated by the tremendous effect of the pressure on the semi-open b-file.

221

Chapter 11 1.e4 cS 2.li)f3 li)c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.li)xd4 e6 S.li)c3 Vlfc7 6.J.e3 a6

That is the most often played move for Black. He covers the bS­square from the possible attacks of White's knights and he pre­pares his standard counterplay on the queenside.

7.V9d2 b5!? This move i s logical, but i t is

less popular than 7 . . . lLlf6, which we will analyze in the following chapters. Black is trying to create some counterplay on the queen­side and he plans to develop his kingside only later.

About 7 . . . ie7 8 .0-0-0 lLlf6 9.f3 - see 7 .. .ltJf6 8.0-0-0 ie7 9.f3 , Chapter 12 .

7 . . . lLlge7?? - That is a typical blunder. Black has protected the bS-square with his previous move indeed, but White's attack there still works after: 8 .lLldbS! axbS

222

9.lLlxbS WleS (Black loses even quicklier after: 9 . . .'IWaS 1O .lLld6+ <±>d8 1l.WlxaS+ i'!xaS 12 .i.b6# Tarantin - Subkov, Sverdlovsk 1972 .) 10.lLld6+ Wfxd6 1l.Wfxd6 lLldS 12.Wlg3 lLldb4 13.id3+­White has an overwhelming ma­terial advantage.

7 . . . h6? ! , Vitis - Carvallo, San­tiago 1994, - This is a loss of time and it also creates a target for White's future actions on the kingside: 8 .0-0-0 lLlf6 9 .<±>b1t

7 . . . ib4 8.a3 ie7 (The other possibilities are not better for Black: 8 . . . iaS 9.lLlb3 ib6, Makuch - Halasz, Slovakia 1997, 10.i.xb6 Wlxb6 1l.WfgS± and he must either weaken his kingside, or he would lose his castling rights. After: 8 . . . WlaS 9.lLlb3 i.xc3, T.Ruck - Gy­orkos, Hungary 2006, the quiet line: 1O.lLlxaS i.xd2+ 1l.i.xd2t provides White with a slight, but stable advantage thanks to his two bishops.) 9.f4 - It is too risky for White to castle long, while his opponent's pawn is on d7, since then Black will advance his b­pawn, exploiting the drawbacks of the move - 8.a3. White there-

4. �xd4 e6 5. �e3 Wle7 6. ie3 a6 7. Wld2

fore tries to make use of the move - a3. 9 . . . d6 lO .0-0-0 �f6 11.1e2 �bB 12 .g4 b5 13.g5 �d7, S.Farago - Yeke, Budapest 2003 and here after: 14.�xc6 Wlxc6 15.id4 0-0 16.f5t White is clearly ahead of his opponent in creating threats.

7 . . . �e5 - Black plays that move with the idea to obtain the two-bishop advantage, but White has an overwhelming lead in de­velopment. 8 .0-0-0 �f6 (About B . . . b5 9.f4 - see 7 . . . b5 B.O-O-O �e5 9 .f4; as for B . . . ib4 9.�b3 �f6 10 .f3 - see 7 . . . �f6 B .O-O-O ib4 9.f3 �e5 lO.�b3.) 9 .f4 ! - That is the most energetic line for White. 9 . . . �c4 10.ixc4 Wlxc4 1l.e5 �d5 12 .�xd5 Wlxd5 13.@b1 and White obtains an obvious lead in devel­opment. His task now is to create swiftly threats along the d and f­files. 13 . . . b5 14.Wlf2 ib7 15.�f3 Wlc6 16 .�d3t White's initiative develops with natural moves and Black's defence becomes more and more difficult. 16 . . . b4 17.�hd1 icB 1B.f5� White starts his decisive attack, meanwhile Black's only active piece is his queen. 1B . . . ie7 19.f6 gxf6 20 .exf6 ixf6 21 .�g5 ixg5 22 .ixg5+- Black was help­less against White's attack on the dark squares and the game was soon over, Topalov - Ljubojevic, Monaco 2003.

Or 7 . . . �xd4 B.ixd4 �e7 (about 8. .. b5 9 .0-0-0 - see 7 . . . b5 B .O-O-O �xd4 9 .ixd4) 9.0-0-0 �c6 (about 9 . . . b5 lO.@b1 - see 7 . . . b5 B .O-O-O �xd4 9.ixd4 �e7

lO.@b1) 10.ie3 ie7, Z.Andriasian - Andreikin, Budva 2003 (about 10 . . . b5 1l.@b1 - see 7 . . . b5 B . 0-0-0 �xd4 9.1xd4 �e7 lO.@b1 �c6 11.ie3) and here White ob­tains a powerful initiative by ad­vancing his rook-pawn. 1l.h4 b5 12 .h5t

7 . . . d6 B.O-O-O 1d7 (about B . . . �f6 9 .f3 - see the Scheveningen variation; after: B . . . b5 9 .�xc6 Wlxc6, Stockfleth - Saltaev, Ham­burg 1991, it deserves attention for White to follow with: lO.e5 d5 11.�e2t and he has a powerful initiative in that "French" - type pawn-structure, thanks to his lead in development.) 9.f3 ie7, Sonter - Davidovic, Australia 1999. Now, it is reasonable for White to im­pede the development of Black's kingside with the move - 10.g4t

8. 0 - 0 - 0 White is not afraid of his oppo­

nent's threats on the queenside.

Black usually answers that with: a) 8 . . . �xd4, or b) 8, . .b4.

About B . . . �f6 9 .if4 - see 7 .. . lLlf6 B .O-O-O b5 9.if4; as for B . . . d6 9 .�xc6 - see 7 . . . d6 B .O-O-O b5 9.�xc6.

223

Chapter 11

He has tried in practice some other moves too:

S . . . �b7? ! - That possibility en­ables White to either repel Black's queen from its ideal position, or to obtain useful outposts in the cen­tre. 9 .�f4 �cS (It is a disaster for Black to play: 9 . . . lLleS? 1O.lLldxbS axbS 1l.lLlxbS+- and White re­gains his knight, due to the vulner­ability of Black's d7-pawn. After: 9 . . . d6 10.lLlxc6 \Wxc6 1l.hd6 �dS 12 .eS hd6 13.exd6 lLlf6 14.\Wd4 0-0 1S.�e2 'lMfd7 16.�f3± White remains with a solid extra pawn. 9 . . . eS 1O.lLlxc6 .hc6, Shomoev - J.Geller, Krasnodar 2002 - It is not better for Black to try: 10 . . . dxc6? 11..heS+-, while after: 10 . . . exf4 1l .lLld4 !? ib4 12.lLlfS lLlf6 13.�d4± White is dominant in the centre. 11 .lLldS ! 'lMfbS 12 .ig3±) 10.f3 lLlf6 1l.lLlb3 h6 12.h4 ib4 13.a3 Ae7, Leko - Ljubojevic, Mo­naco 2003 and here it looks logi­cal for White to continue his king­side actions with 14.g4, without being afraid of Black's queenside counterplay: 14 . . . b4 1S.axb4 hb4 16.id6 as (16 . . . hd6 17.�xd6 \WbS 1S.lLlcS±) 17.hb4 axb4 lS.lLlbS± Black's counterplay failed and he ended up with weak dark squares in the centre.

S . . . �b4 - Black can hardly make use of the pin in this line. 9 .lLlxc6 �xc6 1O.�d4 f6 11.eS ib7? ! (Or 11 . . .fxeS 12 .ixeS lLlf6 13.�gS 0-0 14.�d3 .hc3 ! 1S.ixc3 d6 16.f4± White has a stable advan­tage, because of his two powerful

224

bishops and the possibility to cre­ate some pressure against Black's hanging pawns in the centre.) 12 .ie2 0-0-0 13.if3 \Wc7 14.'lMfe3 hf3 1S.'lMfxf3 'lMfc6 16 .�xc6+ dxc6 17.lLle4± - Black has numerous weaknesses on the queenside, he lags in development and he can­not complete it without creating weaknesses on the kingside as well, Fogarasi - Kovacs, Hungary 2002;

S . . . lLleS - This move is a bit premature, because now Black has problems getting rid of the pin. 9.if4 b4 (About 9 . . . lLlf6 - see 7 . . . lLlf6 8.0-0-0 bS 9 .if4 lLleS; 9 . . . d6? ! - this logical move allows White to sacrifice a piece quite dangerously for Black. 1O .hbS+ ! axbS 11.lLlcxbS - and here Black is in trouble, no matter where he retreats his queen: l1 . . . �CS? 12 .b4 \Wb6 13.�c3, now Black loses after: 13 . . . ib7 14.lLlc7+ <tJe7 lS.ixeS dxeS 16.lLlfS+ <tJf6 17.f4 h6 1S.lLlh4+-, as well as following: 13 . . . �bS 14.heS �d7 lS.lLlxe6+-; it is not any better for Black to try: 1l . . . \Wb7 12 . .heS dxeS 13.lLlfS \Wb6 14.lLlbd6+ ixd6 lS.lLlxd6+ <tJfS 16.lLlc4 �bS - or 16 . . . �xa2 17.<tJbl+- - 17.�dS+ �eS 1S.lLlb6 �xa2 19.<tJbl+- and White re­gains his piece, remaining with an extra pawn and superior de­velopment; 11 . . .�bS - That is the most resilient defence for Black. 12.�c3 ! - After the seemingly at­tractive line for White : 12 .heS Ad7! 13.lLlxe6 .he6 14.lLlxd6+

4. lLlxd4 e6 5. lLle3 %Ve7 6 . ie3 a6 7. %Vd2

,txd6 lS.'l¥fxdM his advantage is only minimal - 12 . . . ie7 13.lLlc7+ wf8 14.lLlxa8 %Vxa8 lS.ixeS dxeS 16.lLlc6± Now, White not only has a great lead in development, but he has a material advantage too.) to.lLlce2 lLlf6 1l.lLlf3 lLlxf3 12 .gxf3 %VaS 13.wb1 dS, Saldano Dayer - Rodriguez Guerrero, Mancha Real 2001 and here it deserves attention for White to play the aggressive line: 14.lLld4 !? ib7 (Black loses after the greedy at­tempt: 14 . . . dxe4? lS.lLlbS ! axbS 16.,txbS+ id7 17.ixd7+ We7 18. id6+ wd8 19.,txe6+-) lS.lLlb3 %Va4 (It is not better for Black to try: lS . . . %Vb6 16.ieSt) 16.igS! ? dxe4 17.,txf6 gxf6 18 .ic4 ie7 (Af­ter 18 . . . exf3 19J3he1� White has a powerful attack against Black's king, stranded in the centre, for example: 19 . . . ie7 20.,txe6 ! fxe6 2U�xe6 wf7 22 .Eixe7+ wxe7 23.%Vd6+ wf7 24.%Vc7+ wf8 25. %Vxb7± The coordination of Black's pieces has been disrupted and his king has no safe shelter; after: 18 . . . Eic8 19.1LlaS ic6 20 .,txa6 Eia8 2l .lLlxc6 %Vxc6 22 .ie2± Black's badly protected king will come under attack.) 19.%Vh6 %Vc6 (or 19 . . . e3 2 0.%Vxe3 %Vc6 2l.ie2±) 20 .lLlaS %Vc7 2l.%Vg7 Eif8 22 .lLlxb7 %Vxc4 (After 22 . . . %Vxb7 23.%Vxh7± Black's king remains in the cen­tre and it stands in the way of his piece-coordination.) 23.lLlaS %VbS 24.lLlb3 exf3 2S.%Vxh� White has an excellent compensation for the pawn thanks to his outside passed

h-pawn and his better coordina­tion of pieces;

8 . . . ie7, Mongontuul - Lancha­va, Bled 2002, this move enables White to obtain a huge lead in development: 9.lLlxc6 ! dxc6 (Af­ter 9 . . . %Vxc6 to.eS± Black has problems developing his king­side.) to.est White has a power­ful initiative due to his superior development. For example: to . . . f6 1l .ie2 b4? ! 12 .lLla4±, 1l . . . %VxeS 12.if3 %Vc7 13.lLle4�; 10 . . . %VxeS 1l.id4 %VgS 12.f4 %Vh6 13.g4± and the lack of coordination of Black's pieces is quite evident in all the variations.

a) 8 . . . lLlxd4!?

This line is too slow, but it re­quires energetic play from White.

9.hd4 lLle7 In answer to 9 . . . Eib8, Kazhga­

leyev - Kobalia, Internet 2004, it deserves attention for White to occupy the centre: to.eS lLle7 1l. lLle4 lLlfS 12 .g4 lLlxd4 13.%Vxd4;!; and his centralized pieces and ob­vious lead in development provide him with superior prospects, for example : 13 . . . %Vb6 (but not 13 . . .

225

Chapter 11

h5? 14.lLld6+ h:d6 15.exd6+-) 14. �d2 b4 (Black's position is no less dangerous after: 14 . . . �d8 15 . .ig2 .ib7 16.f4 .idS 17.f5±) 15 . .ig2 .ie7 16.f4 0-0 17.f5± White creates threats much earlier than his op­ponent.

9 . . . .ib7 1O.f3 lLlf6, Valerga - Duarte, Villa Martelli 2004 (Af­ter: 10 . . . :gc8 1l.g4 d6 12 .'it>b1 lLlf6 13.a3 lLld7, Topalov - Lautier, Am­sterdam 1995, White maintains a powerful initiative with the move 14.�f2t; in answer to 1O . . . lLle7, White can exchange favourably the dark-squared bishops : 1l . .ie5 �c6 12 .id6 lLlg6 13.h:f8 lLlxf8 14.�d4±; it is hardly any better for Black to try: 12 . . . lLlc8 13.h:f8 :gxf8 14.e5 f6 15.exf6 gxf6 16 . .id3± and his h7-pawn is weak, just like his centre; meanwhile Black lags in development too, Zulaika Centeno - Manso Marquez, San Sebastian 2006.) and now White can obtain an advantage in space and a powerful initiative with: 1l .e5 lLld5 12 .lLle4 .ie7 (After: 12 . . . lLlb4 13.lLld6+ h:d6 14.exd6 �xd6 15.a3 lLlc6 16.h:g7 �xd2+ 17.:gxd2 :gg8 18 . .if6;!; White's bishop­pair provides him with excellent chances, despite Black's mobile pawn-centre, for example: 18 . . . :gg6 19 . .ic3 d5 20 . .id3 f5 21 .:ge2±, or 20 .. . :gh6 21.ig7±) 13.'it>b1t and now after the most natural move 13 . . . 0-0, Black has great difficul­ties: 14.lLlf6+ lLlxf6 (After: 14 . . . gxf6 15.exf6 h:f6 16.h:f6 �f4 17.�xf4 lLlxf4 18J�d4+- White

226

only needs to play accurately. Black's position is very diffi­cult too if he does not capture the knight - 14 . . . 'it>h8 15 . .id3 h6 16.c3± and he has no active play; meanwhile White is well-pre­pared to begin his kingside pawn­offensive.) 15.exf6 h:f6 (Black loses immediately after: 15 . . . gxf6 16.�h6 e5 17 . .id3+-) 16.h:f6 gxf6 17.�h6 f5 (or 17 . . . :gac8 18 . .id3 f5 19.94±) 18.g4! f6 (After 18 . . . hf3 19.9xf5+- White checkmates.) 19.9xf5± White's king is much saf­er in that position and that pro­vides him with better chances.

l O .'it>bl That is the most popular

move, but it is also interesting for White to try the original line: 1O.h4 ! ? lLlc6 11..ie3 :gb8 (or 11. . . b4 12.lLla4;!;) 12 .h5 b4 13.lLla4 �a5 14.b3;!; - and it is unclear how Black can organize anything ac­tive, while White's kingside of­fensive is just starting, Shomoev - Pelletier, Warsaw 2005.

l O . . . lLlc6 11 • .ie3

1l . . . lLle5 Black plays too many moves

with one and a same piece, there-

4. lLlxd4 e6 5. lLlc3 VHe7 6. i.e3 a6 7. \&d2

fore he comes under attack, but even after: ll . . . :E!bS 12.f4 i.b4, Korneev - Barlov, Spain 1995 (In answer to 12 . . . d6, Vuckovic - Pe­runovic, Kopaonik 2005, White obtains a strong initiative after: 13 .i.d3 i.e7 14.lLle2 0-0 15.h4t), here it deserves attention for White to follow with: 13.h4 !? 0-0 14.f5 ! ?t, or 13 . . . \&a5 14.h5 hc3 15.\&xc3 \&xc3 16.bxc3 i.b7 17.h6;!; and he has powerful pressure in that endgame, because of his ex­cellent bishop pair.

12.f4 lLlc4 13.hc4 VHxc4 14. i.d4 f6 15.g4!

White can transfer his lead in development into something real only with energetic play; other­wise his opponent's couple of bishops might create some prob­lems for him.

15".i.e7 16.g5 0 - 0 17.b3! White repels Black's queen to

a less favourable placement. 17" .VHc6 18.gxf6 ixf6 19.

ghg1 b4 Now, White is just forced to

play super aggressively. Black's defence is without any good pros­pects after: 19 . . . hd4 20.\&xd4 gO 21.:E!d3±

2 0 .lLld5 ! ! -+ White usually sacrifices that

piece in the Sicilian Defence in order to keep his opponent's king in the centre.

2 0 " .exd5 21.e5 !J.e7 The other possible retreat

is not better for Black: 21 . . .!J.dS 22 .e6 :E!f6 (Black would not save his king either after: 22 . . . g6 23.f5 gxf5 24.\&h6 gf6 25.:E!gf1+-) 23. f5 h6 24.:E!xg7+ ! What follows is practically forced: 24 . . . @xg7 25J.�g1+ @fS 26.\&g2 gxf5 27.\&g7+ @eS 2S .\&g6+ @e7 29.VHxf5 VHxe6 30 .i.c5+ d6 31 .\&h7+-

22.e6 The a1-hS diagonal has been

opened and Black's queenside pieces are incapable of helping in the defence of the king.

22".gf6 This seems to be the most re­

silient line for Black. He loses quickly after the

desperate variation: 22 . . . g5 ! ? 23. \&xg5 \&xe6 24.g6+-; it is equally bad for him to try: 22 . . . i.f6 23 .e7! geS 24.hf6 VHxf6 25.VHxd5+ @hS 26.\&xaS+-

Still, in the line: 22 . . . g6 23.f5 ! gxf5 24.VHh6 gf6 ! 25.ggfl dxe6 ! , that i s the only move for Black. (He loses quickly after the other possibilities : 25 . . . VHxe6 26.!J.xf6 !J.xf6 27.:E!de1 !J.g7 2S.VHh4+-, or 25 . . . i.fS 26.e7 he7 27.gxf6 hf6 2S.gel+-) 26.!J.xf6 i.fS ! 27.VHf4± Black has two pawns for the ex­change and despite his vulnerable dark squares and his lag in devel-

227

Chapter 11

opment; he can still offer some resistance.

23.f5 dxe6 It is hardly better for Black to

continue with: 23 . . . h6 24.�xg7+ @xg7 2S.�gl+ @f8 26.�g2 @e8 27.i.xf6 i.xf6 28.�g8+ @e7 29. �f7+ @d6, because after that forced line, White only needs to make two precise moves in order to win that position : 30.e7! �c3 (or 30 . . . @c7) 31 .e8tD !+-

24.�xg7+ ! This is a standard sacrifice, but

still it is very beautiful and it de­stroys the pawn-shelter of Black's king.

24 • • • @xg7 25.�gS+ @f7 26. �gl if8

White wins too after: 26 . . . @e8 27.i.xf6 i.xf6 28.�xf6 @d7 29.�g7+ @d6 30.�e7+ @eS 3l. fxe6 �c3 32 .�gS+ ! @e4 33.a4 ! ! - That is a wonderful move and its main purpose is prophylac­tic against the perpetual check. In case Black captures the pawn, his queen is defenseless - 33 . . . bxa3 34.�xh7+ @e3 (or 34 . . . @d4 3S.�g7+-) 3S.�h3+-

228

29.fxe6+- Black is incapable of protecting his king without huge material losses . 29 . • . �e7 (The game ends spectacularly after: 29 . . . i.xe6 30 .�xf8+ �xf8 3l.�xe6+ @d8 32 .ib6#; 31 . . .�e7 32 .�c6+-) 3 0 .�h6 �b8 (or 30 . . . ixe6 3l.�xf8+) 31.if6 �xe6 32.�xf8+ @d7 33.�g7+ @c6 34.ieS �b7 3S:@'h8 1-0 Short - Pogorelov, Catalan Bay 2004.

b) 8 . . . b4

Black repels White's knight at the edge of the board, but it is quite well-placed there as well.

9.tDa4 tDf6 Or 9 . . . ib7 1O.f3 tDeS (about

1O . . . tDf6 ll.tDxc6 - see 9 . . . tDf6 1O.f3 ib7 1l.tDxc6) ll.tDb3 tDf6, Schuetze - H.Neumann, Nettetal 2004 and here it deserves atten­tion for White to opt for: 12 .id4 ! ? ie7 (After: 12 . . . d6 13.tDb6 �b8 14.�xb4± Black has hardly any sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn.) 13.i.xeS �xeS 14.tDb6 �d8 IS.tDc4 �c7 16.tDd6+ i.xd6 17.�xd6 �c8 18.�xc7 �xc7 19.�d4± Black's b4-pawn falls un­avoidably and he cannot obtain

4 .tiJxd4 e6 S .tiJc3 Yfic7 6. �e3 a6 7. Yfid2

good compensation for it in the 1l.lLlb3 �b8 12.Yfif2 endgame.

1 0 .f3 lLle5 1O .. .l'�b8? - Black loses the

exchange and he falls behind in development. 1l.�f4 lLle5 12 .he5 Yfixe5 13.lLlc6+- M.Petrov - Sem­kov, Bulgaria 1995.

In answer to 10 . . . �b7, Kubac­sny - Los, Hungary 1995, White should better bring his knight closer to the centre with: l1.tDxc6 12 . . . �e7 Yfixc6 12 .tDb6 �d8 13.tDc4± and In answer to 12 . . . d5, Erdogdu now he is threatening to cap- - Mastrovasilis, Thessaloniki ture Black's dark-squared bishop 2001, it is sensible for White to with tDd6+, while in case of: 13 . . . worsen the placement of Black's d5 14.tDa5 Yfic7 15.tDxb7 Yfixb7 rook - 13.�a7 �a8 14.�d4. Now, 16. Yfid3± White remains with a Black has problems defending couple of bishops and better de- against White's threats, since he velopment. lags in development and his king

Following 10 . . . �e7, Wagner - is stranded in the centre. The Blaich, Germany 1993, it is again central files might be opened at advisable for White to bring his any moment, for example: 14 . . . knight to b6 - 1l.tDxc6 Yfixc6 (It is tDed7 15.lLlb6 tDxb6 16.hb6 Yfic6 worse for Black to play: 11. . .dxc6 17.lLla5 Yfia4 18.�c4 !± - Black can 12.tDb6 �b8 13.lLlc4±, because his evacuate his king only at the price weak queenside pawns will hard- of a pawn: 14 . . . tDc4 15.@bl �e7 ly help him to obtain any active 16.exd5 exd5 (It is not better for counterplay.) 12 .tDb6 �b8 13.Yfid4 Black to try: 16 . . . tDxd5 17.hg7�g8 0-0 (White should not be afraid 18.id4±) 17.ixf6 ixf6 18.�xd5± of 13 . . . e5 14.Yfic4±) 14.e5 �d8 15. and White remains with a solid exf6 hb6 16.Yfid2t and White has extra pawn; 14 . . . id6 - This move a powerful initiative, while Black seems to be the most logical for cannot organize any counter- Black. 15.tDb6 �b8 16.exd5 tDxd5 play, for example: 16 . . . e5 ! ? (After: (After: 16 . . . exd5 17.tDxc8 �xc8 16 . . . he3 17.Yfixe3 gxf6 18.�d4� 18.ha6 �b8 19.f4± Black has no Black's king is defenseless, while compensation for the pawn, since in the variation: 16 . . . Yfid5 17.fxg7 his king remains endangered in Yfixd2+ 18 .hd2 @xg7 19.hb4± the centre.) 17.tDxc8 �xc8 (It is White remains with a solid extra even worse for Black to play: 17 . . . pawn.) 17.fxg7 �e8 18.�d3± Yfixc8 18.Yfie2 !±) 18 .ha6 �b8

229

Chapter 11

19.ixe5 ixe5 20.�c5± and now for White is: 31 .lLib6 13adB 32 .13e7 the queens are exchanged and 13f6 33.�d5+ 13e6 34.�xe6+ dxe6 White preserves good chances to 35.13xa7+-materialize his extra pawn in the 14 . .id4 0 - 0 endgame. It is just a transposition of

12 . . . d6 - Now, Black's rook moves after: 14 . . . d6 15.lLib6 13bB is forced to occupy a less active 16.lLixcB �xcB 17.\tJbl 0-0 IB.f4 square. 13.ill7 �aB 14 . .id4 lLifd7 - see 14 . . . 0-0. 15.lLib6 13bB (After: 15 . . . lLixb6 15.\tJbl d6 16.lLib6 13bS 17. 16.ixb6 �c6 17.lLia5 �a4 1B.\tJbl± tOxcs �xcS Black's queen is terribly mis­placed and he is behind in devel­opment.) 16.lLixcB �xcB, Ibarra Jerez - Antoli Royo, Lorca 2003 and here after: 17. \tJbl lLic6 IB .te3 a5 19.lLid2 a4 20 .lLic4± Black loses his d6-pawn.

13 • .ia7 13b7 13 . . . �aB - Here, Black's rook

is placed much worse, because he loses the control over the b6-square. 14.td4 0-0 15.f4 lLic6 16.tb6 �bB 17.e5 lLid5 IB.tc5 a5 (It looks more reliable for Black to opt for: IB . . . ixc5 19.1Libxc5 f6 20 .exf6 13xf6 21.g3;t) 19.tc4 ixc5 20 .lLibxc5 lLice7 21 .lLie4t Black has difficulties parrying White's active pieces. 21 . . . ta6 22.ixd5 lLixd5 23 .lLid6 f6 24.�xd5 !� That is an excellent resource for the development of White's initiative. His light pieces are very active, contrary to Black's passive rooks. 24 . . . exd5 25.�c5 fxe5 26.lLib6 ! ? �a727.lLixd5 exf4 28.�el!± White's centralized knights are dominat­ing over all Black's pieces. 2B . . . f3 29.gxf3 gaB 30.�d4 �a7, Shirov - Kogan, Birmingham 2005 and here the quickest road to victory

230

Short - Kogan, Santo Domin­go 2002. It is obvious that White must begin his kingside offensive in the diagrammed position. It seems very promising for him to try: IS.f4 lLied7 (Black loses a pawn after his other possibilities without any sufficient compensa­tion: IB . . . lLieg4 19.�f3 e5 20 .h3±; IB . . . lLig6 19.ixf6 ixf6 20 .�xd6±; IB . . . lLic6 19.ixf6 ixf6 20 .�xd6;t) 19.e5 tOe4 (That is an attempt by Black to fortify his position in the centre. His other possible plan is connected with the line: 19 . . . dxe5 20.fxe5 lLie4 2 1.�f3 lLidc5 - but after 21 . . .lLiec5 22 .lLia5± the vul­nerability of the c6-square is very troublesome for Black - 22.td3 ! lLixd3 23.cxd3 lLig5 24.�g4 h6 25.h4;t, and Black's knight will be

4. ltJxd4 e6 S. ltJc3 1Wc7 6. i.e3 a6 7. 1Wd2

isolated from the play for long, or 20 . . . ltJdS 2 l.'\Wg3 gaB 22 .ltJd2 as 23.ltJe4;!;) 2 0 J�'e3 ! White takes the cS-square under control. (It is less precise for him to play: 20.1Wf3 dS 21.i.d3 ltJdcS 22 .g4 as! 23.fS a4 24.ltJxcS i.xcS 2S.i.xe4 dxe4 26 .1Wxe4 b3, because Black obtains excellent counterplay.) 2 0 • • • d5 21.i.d3 ltJdc5 (In case Black tries the risky move - 21. . . as, White can simply capture that pawn: 22 .i.xe4 dxe4 23.ltJxaS 1Wa6 24.ltJb3 gaB 2S.ltJcl±) 22.g4 geS. That prophylactic is just forced for Black. (Otherwise, he would hardly manage to protect his g7 -square in many variations, for example: 22 . . . aS 23.ltJxcS ltJxcS 24.fS ltJxd3 2S.f6+-; it is also bad for Black to play: 23 . . . i.xcs 24.i.xe4 i.xd4 2S.i.xh7+

c;t>xh7 26 .gxd4+-. White obtains a stable advantage after the other lines for Black: 22 . . . ltJxb3 23.cxb3 as 24.i.xe4 dxe4 2S.1Wxe4±, or 22 . . . 1Wc7 23.ltJxcS ltJxcS 24.fS±) 23.1Wh3 (White eyes the h7-square with that move and now Black's possibilities are consider­ably restricted, since his knight on e4 is static.) 23 . . . 1Wc7 (In the variation: 23 . . . 1Wc6 24.ltJxcS i.xcs 2S.i.xe4 dxe4 26.1We3 i.xd4 27.gxd4 gedB 2B.ghd1 gxd4 29.gxd4 1WbS 30 .b3± Black is inca­pable of protecting his pawn, since it is isolated from the rest of his forces.) 24.ltJxc5 hc5 25.he4 dxe4 26.1We3 hd4 27.gxd4 a5 2S.1Wxe4 a4 29.ghdl±. White dominates in the centre and he has good chances to realize his material advantage.

Conclusion With the exception of the move - 7 . . . ltJf6, which is analyzed in the

next chapters, we have dealt in this chapter with all sensible seventh moves for Black. The most logical seems to be - 7 . . . bS. He prepares his queenside counter play, delaying his piece-development. After the natural move B. O - O - O, Black has two main lines: a) B . . . ltJxd4, or b) B . . . b4. In variation a), Blackfalls behind considerably in his develop­ment and that enables White to organize a powerful attack. It is prac­tically impossible to memorize all concrete moves in the main line of the variation, but that is hardly necessary. After 2 0 . ltJdS!! White's attack develops in a quite naturalfashion. In variation b), White has a powerful initiative, thanks to his advantage in the centre. It is worth noticing the maneuver i.e3-a7-d4, with the help of which Whiteforces his opponent's rook to either occupy the not so favourable b7-square, or to go back to aB.

231

Chapter 12 1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 e6 5.�c3 V!Jc7 6.1e3 a6 7.V!Jd2 �f6

This is Black's most natural and strongest move - his knight joins in the fight for the centre.

8. 0 - 0 - 0 I n this position Black's pre­

ferred choice usually is B . . . ib4 (see the following chapters) as well as a) 8 • • • b5 and b) 8 • • • i.e7.

About B . . . d6 9.f3 - see the Scheveningen variation.

The other possibilities for Black are rarely played; neverthe­less, White's task is not easy after them at all :

B . . . llJeS 9.f4 ! - This is his most energetic move. 9 . . . llJc4 1O.ixc4 \Wxc4 H.eS llJdS 12 .llJxdS \WxdS 13.�bl (White has a great lead in development and his aim is to cre­ate threats rapidly along the d and f-files.) 13 . . . bS 14.�f2 ib7 lS.llJf3 \Wc6 16J�d3t White's initiative

232

develops with natural moves and Black's defence is difficult. 16 . . . b4 17J�hdl icB IB.fS� White's attack is becoming decisive, since Black has only his queen in action. IB . . . i.e7 19.f6 gxf6 20 .exf6 ixf6 21.llJgS ixgS 22 .i.xgS+- Black's dark squares were practically de­fenseless and the game was quick­ly over, Topalov - Ljubojevic, Mo­naco 2003;

B . . . llJg4? ! - Black plays tacti­cally, ignoring his lag in develop­ment. 9.if4 eS (The drawbacks of that move are obvious - Black weakens squares along the d-file, but his alternatives are not any better: 9 . . . llJgeS 10.i.g3 llJxd4 11. �xd4 f6 12.f4 i.cS 13.\Wd2 llJt7 14.eS fS lS.i.f2 ixf2 16.\wxf2 bS. That practically forced play has led to a position in which Black's king is stranded in the centre and his knight on t7 is too passive. Still, he intends to complete soon his development, so White must play energetically: 17.g4 ! ? - He sacrifices a pawn and he wins tempi in order to create tactical threats. 17 . . . fxg4 1B.h3 ib7 19.ig2 g3 . Black has here a more princi-

4 .tiJxd4 e6 5.tiJ c3 Wlc7 6. ie3 a6 7. Wld2 l:iJj6 8. 0 -0 -0

pled variation, but it has not been tested in practice yet - 19 . . . gxh3 20J:l:xh3 b4 21 .l:iJe4 gcB 22.ghd3� and the pressure along the d-file and the superior piece-coordina­tion more than compensate White's pawn-sacrifice. Black cannot simplify the position with: 22 . . . .ixe4 23 .he4 Wlc4 24.Wlg2 Wlxa2 25.gxd7±, since he has failed to castle, his kingside pawns are weak, while all White's pieces are in action and Black's knight and rook on hB will remain isolated for long. 2 0.Y:Vxg3 b4 21.l:iJe2 g5 22 .ixb7 Y:Vxb7 23.l:iJd4 Y:Ve4 24.f5 Y:Vxe5 25.Y:Vxe5 l:iJxe5 26.ghel± White regains his pawn and he maintains dangerous threats, thanks to his great piece activity, despite the considerable simplifi­cations, Grischuk - Needleman, Khanty-Mansyisk 2005.) 1O.l:iJd5 Y:VdB (It is worse for Black to play: 10 . . . Y:VbB? ! 1l.h3 l:iJxf2 12.Y:Vxf2 exf4 13.l:iJf5±, because he has only a single developed piece in action, while White has occupied all the key-squares in his opponent's camp.) 1l.h3 ! l:iJxf2 (In answer to 1l . . . l:iJf6 , Meera - Kavitha, Calicut 2003, White obtains a stable ad­vantage with the line: 12.l:iJxf6+ gxf6 - It is not better for Black to defend with 12 . . . Y:Vxf6 13.ig5 Y:Vd6 14.l:iJf5 �xd2+ 15.gxd2± - 13.l:iJxc6 bxc6 14.ih6± and Black's king is so unsafe that he can hardly prove the power of his central pawns.) 12 .Y:Vxf2 ! exf4 13.Y:Vxf4 d6 14.ic4 l:iJxd4? (It is better for Black to opt

for: 14 . . . l:iJe5 15.ib3 ie7 16.l:iJxe7 Y:Vxe7 17.l:iJf5 hf5 1B.exf5;!;, but White preserves a stable edge even then, thanks to his pressure against the d6-pawn and his more active heavy pieces. ) 15.gxd4 ie6 16.e5! gcB, Arizmendi - Collutiis, Saint Vincent 2003 (Black loses after: 16 . . . dxe5 17.Y:Vxe5 Wd6 1B.l:iJc7+-, while following 16 . . . b5 17.ib3 Y:VbB 1B.ge1� he can hard­ly survive with his king stranded in the centre against White's pow­erful centralized forces, for exam­ple : 1B . . . dxe5 19.9xe5 id6 20. l:iJf6+ gxf6 21 .gxe6+ fxe6 22 . Y:Vxf6+-) and here the most pre­cise line for White seems to be: 17.l:iJe3 hc4 1B.l:iJxc4 d5 19.9f1 Wc7 20.gxd5 b5 21 .l:iJe3± and he remains with an extra pawn and an overwhelming lead in develop­ment;

B . . . l:iJxd4 - This is an attempt by Black to exploit the insufficient protection of White's f2-pawn. 9.Y:Vxd4 l:iJg4 (White's chances are better too after 9 . . . d6 10.f3, for example : 1O . . . e5? ! 1l.Y:Va4+ id7 12.ib5 ic6 13.ig5 Y:Vd7 14.,hc6 bxc6 15.gd3± Black's pawns on the queenside and in the centre are weak, his development is in­ferior and his chances of creating any meaningful counterplay are just nil, Valerga - L.Bronstein, Buenos Aires 2005; 10 . . . b5 1l.g4 ib7 12 .g5 l:iJd7 13 .h4 gcB, Ro­jas - Needleman, Las Condes 2005 and here after: 14.�b1 l:iJe5 15.ie2 l:iJc4 16.,hc4, White main-

233

Chapter 12

tains a powerful initiative on the kingside after: 16 . . . bxc4 17.hSt, as well as in the variation: 16 .. .'i;!fxc4 17.Wfa7 Wfc7 1B.a3 :li.e7 19.hSt; 10 . . . :li.e7 11.g4 0-0 12 .gS lLId7 13.f4 geB 14.h4 :li.fB 1S.hSt White's kingside initiative looks threat­ening, since he dominates in the centre, AZubarev - Al.Smirnov, Voronezh 200S.) 1O .VNb6 Wfc6 (The endgame is very difficult for Black after: 10 . . . Wfxb6 11.hb6 :li.b4 12.f3 lL1f6, Fier - Needleman, Sao Paulo 2004 and now White maintains a stable advantage if he exploits Black's weak squares on the queenside with: 13 .lLIa4 dS 14.:li.d4 iaS 1S.exdS exdS 16.lLIcS±, 1S . . . lLIxdS 16.c4 lLIf6 17.lLIb6±; or 14 . . . dxe4 1S.lLIb6 gbB 16 .:li.eS± and Black loses the exchange without any sufficient compensation.) 11. :li.d4 eS 12 .ie3 lLIxe3 (It is more re­liable for Black to opt for: 12 . . . d6 13.lLIdS lLIxe3 14.VNxe3;!;) 13.Wfxe3 :li.cS 14.WfgS 0-0 1S.WfxeS d6 (After 1s . . . hf2 16.gd6 WfcS 17.lLIdS bS 18.:li.d3± White's centralized piec­es look quite impressive.) 16.Wfg3 :li.e6 17.f4 gacB 1B.fS-.t White be­gins his decisive onslaught. 1B . . . VNb6 (Black loses after: 1B . . . ixa2 19.:li.d3 d5 20.f6 VNxf6 21 .lLIxa2+­and he loses a piece, as well as fol­lowing: 1B . . . :li.d7 19.f6 g6 20 .WfgS whB 21.gd3+- and White will soon checkmate.) 19.fxe6 :li.e3+ 20 .wb1 gxc3 21.gxd6 gxc2 (After 21 . . .gc6 22 .exf7+ wh8 23.gxc6 bxc6 24.:li.c4+- White remains with three extra pawns.) 22 .Wxc2

234

VNcS+ 23.wd3 fxe6 24.b4 VNxb4 2S.Wxe3 VNcS+ 26 .We2 eS 27.gd2 gf4 2B.Wd1 1-0 M.Petrov - An­donov, Shumen 1997.

a) S . . . b5

This is a standard move for Black and he can hardly create any counterplay on the queenside without it.

9 . .tf4! White disrupts the harmony

in his opponent's camp with that move.

Here, Black most often plays al) 9 . . . lLIe5, but still the majority of the strong players prefer a2) 9 . . . 'lNb6. Black's other possibili­ties enable White to obtain a clear advantage without too much of an effort:

9 . . . eS - Black loses mate­rial practically by force after that move. 1O.lLIxc6 exf4 (It is a disas­ter for Black to play here: 10 . . . dxc6 11.ixeS+-) 11.eS dxc6 (After 11 . . . lLIg4 12.lLId4± Black is in a big trouble, because after the natu­ral line: 12 . . . :li.b7 13.hbS ! axbS 14.lLIcxbS ! White needs his knight on d4 more, because it can go to

4 .ciJxd4 e6 S. l1Jc3 VNc7 6. ie3 a6 7. VNd2 I1Jf6 8. 0 -0 -0

the e6-square at some moment. 14 .. .v�'a5 15.vgxf4 f5 16J�he1 ! g6 17.l1Jd6+ ixd6 1B.exd6+ <i>dB 19. I1Jb3+- Black's terrible piece-co­ordination makes his chances of saving the game just minimal; or 15 . . . l1Jh6 16.e6 ! dxe6 17.l1Jc7+ <i>e7 IB.l1Jdxe6 ! +- and Black's king re­mains completely bare.) 12 .exf6 ie6 13.l1Je4 idS, Luther - Stan­ke, Koenigshofen 2007 and here the most resolute line for White seems to be 14.c4 ! bxc4 (After 14 . . . ixe4 15.vgd4 gxf6 16.vgxe4+ ie7 17.<i>bl± Black's problems are even greater, due to the presence of opposite-coloured bishops on the board.) 15.ixc4 0-0-0 (The centre has been opened and Black must evacuate his king urgently from there. It is terrible for him to try 15 . . . ixe4 16J�he1 +-, as well as 15 . . . ixc4 16 .VNc3+-) 16 .ixa6+ <i>bB 17J,(hel±;

9 . . . vgb7 - This move enables White to establish firm control over the centre. 10 .e5 b4 (After 1O . . . l1Jh5 1l.l1Jxc6 VNxc6 12 .ie3± Black's knight on h5 is an ad­ditional liability in his position, Melia - Paridar, InstanbuI 2005.) 1l.exf6 bxc3 12 .V9xc3 I1Jb4 13.ic4 gxf6 14.l1Jf5± and Black can hardly defend against White's numerous threats, Sutovsky - Arakhamia­Grant, Caleta 2005.

al) 9 • . . tOe5 That is Black's most principled

reaction - he does not wish to give up his position in the centre.

1 0 .tOf3 White opens files, since it is

too bad for Black to play 1O . . . d6? due to 1l.l1Jxe5 dxe5 12 .ixe5+-

10 . . . tOfg4 10 . . . l1Jxf3 - Black not only

opens the g-file for his opponent with that exchange, but he also fortifies his centre. He will hardly manage to exploit the weakness of the doubled pawns in the nearest future. 1l.gxf3 vgc6 (It is not bet­ter for Black to try here: 1l . . . VNa5 12 .id6 b4 13.l1Jb1 V!fb6 14.ixfB <i>xfB 15J�g1t Walsh - Beaumont, Email 2002.) 12 .l1Je2 ib7 13.l1Jd4 VNb6 14.l1Jb3 ElcB 15.Elg1 b4 16.ie5t. The main drawback of Black's po­sition is his undeveloped king­side. 16 . . . d5 17.id3 as 1B . .td4! VNc7 19.ib5+ .tc6 20 .ixc6+ VNxc6 21.ixf6 gxf6 22 .exd5±. The cen­tre is opened now and that is not good for Black at all, because he has not found a better square for his king than eB. His weak pawns are not fewer than those of his opponent and their protection is even more complicated. 22 . . . VNc7 23.<i>b1 a4 24.dxe6! fxe6 25.l1Jd4 b3 26.cxb3 axb3 27.l1Jxb3+- <i>f7

235

Chapter 12

28Jk1 Wib7 29J3xc8 �xc8 30.gel Wib7 31.�d8 1-0 Acher - Milesi, Aix les Bains 2003.

1l.j.g3 f6 It is a disaster for Black to

play 11 . . . j.b4? 12.�g5±, or 11 . . •

b4? 12.liJd5 exd5 13.lLlxe5 lLlxe5 14.�xd5±.

In answer to 11 . . .d6, Luther - Banikas, Fuerth 2002, White's most energetic line seems to be: 12 .h3 ! ? lLlxf3 (It is worse for Black to opt for: 12 . . . b4 13.lLld5 ! exd5 14.hxg4 dxe4 15.lLlxe5 dxe5 16.he5± and he can hardly neu­tralize White's threats along the d-file, because of his great lag in development.) 13.gxf3 lLle5 14.f4 lLlc4 (After 14 . . . lLlc6 15.a3 j.b7 16.f5t you can see the advan­tage of having doubled pawns for White - he attacks the e6-square and Black cannot occupy the e5-square with his knight, because it can be repelled from there.) 15.hc4 �xc4 (or 15 . . . bxc4 16.f5±) 16.f5 b4 17.lLla4 Wfxa2 18.�xb4± - and Black's only active piece is his queen and that provides White with clearly better chances, for example : 18 . . . a5 19.�d4 j.d7 2 0.lLlb6 gd8 21.�d2 !±, or 18 . . . d5 19.Wfd4 ! j.b7 (After 19 . . . .!d7 20 .lLlb6 Wfa1+ 21 .�d2 �a5+ 22 . �e2 gd8 23.exd5± White's king finds a quite reliable shelter.) 20 .lLlb6 �a1+ (or 20 . . . gd8 21.c4±) 21 .�d2 Wfa5+ 22 .c3 ! gd8 23.b4 ! �a2+ 24.�e3 �c2 25.ic7± - and despite the fact that both kings re­main in the centre, White's pros-

236

pects are clearly better, because of his more active pieces, moreover that he can win the exchange at any moment.

12.h3 In the game Topalov - Mov­

sesian, Sarajevo 2001, there fol­lowed: 12.lLlxe5 lLlxe5 13. f4 lLlc4 14.hc4 �xc4 15.f5 and here White would have obtained a minimal advantage after the move 15 . . . e5 !?t, while after 15 . . . b4 !? , the position would have remained rather complicated following: 16.fxe6 bxc3 17.exd7+ �t7oo

12 • • • h4 After 12 . . . lLlxf3 13.gxf3 lLle5 14.

f4 lLlc4 15.�e1t White can develop a powerful initiative, for example: 15 . . . j.b4 16.lLld5 exd5 17.Wfxb4 dxe4 18.gd4 d5 19.hc4 bxc4 20.fud5± and Black cannot stop the advance f4-f5 and that means that White's bishop would remain much more active than its coun­terpart. It is not better for Black to try: 12 . . . lLlh6 13.lLlxe5 fxe5 14.f4 lLlt7 15.fxe5 lLlxe5 (After 15 . . . b4 16.lLla4 j.e7 17.�d4 0-0 18.j.c4± White has a solid extra pawn and more active pieces.) 16 .j.e2 !i.e7 17.ghfU Black's king has failed to find a safe haven on the queen­side and he has no counterplay. His powerful knight on e5 does not compensate the drawbacks of his position.

13.lLld5! This standard Sicilian piece­

sacrifice is just temporary in that position.

4. ltJxd4 e6 5. ltJc3 V!fc7 6. ie3 a6 7. V!fd2 ltJf6 8. 0 -0 -0

1 3 • • • exdS 14.hxg4 dxe4 IS. !xeS! fxeS 16.ltJgS ie7

It is no less dangerous for Black to opt for: I6 . . . i.b7 I7.ic4 ie7 IB.if7+ wfB I9.i.b3±, be­cause his king would not be safe at all.

17.ltJxh7�. White's attack is very powerful and that can be il­lustrated by the following varia­tions : 17 • • • gS (or I7 . . . g6 IB.ltJf6+ ! hf6 I9.�h8+ ixhB 20.V!fh6 i.f6 2I .'lWxg6+ We7 22 .gS V!fc6 23. ic4 ! +-) 18.gh6 d6 19.1tJf6+ ixf6 2 0 .gxf6 V!fe7 21.'lWxgS+­White has won a pawn and his threats against the enemy king are still present. For example after: 21 . . .i.e6 22 .'lWg6+ Wd7 23.i.c4! Black loses his d6-pawn.

a2) 9 • • • 'lWb6

Black is trying to go into an endgame, he is ready to leave his king in the centre for that, and he presents his opponent with a powerful initiative, for example: 1O.eSt 'lWxd4! (It is much weak­er for Black to play: 1O . . . ltJxd4? Il.exf6 ltJc6 I2 .ltJe4 dS I3.ltJd6+ wd7 I4.ltJxf7 ggB IS.ltJgS+-, since he ends up in a completely hope­less situation. Judit Polgar de­fended that position for more than 2S moves, but she did not sur­vive at the end, Kasimdzhanov -J.Polgar, Moscow 2002.) 1l.'lWxd4 ltJxd4 I2.exf6 ltJc6 ! (Black has only played in practice : I2 . . . ltJfS? ! I3.i.d3 g6 I4.i.e4 ga7 - but not I4 . . . dS IS.ltJxdS exdS I6.hdS �a7 I7.ic6+- and Black loses plenty of material - IS.ib8± White won the exchange and he materialized it gradually in the game, Solovjova - Vasilevich, Sochi 2006.) I3.�eI wd8 I4.fxg7 hg7 IS.ltJe4 dS !� and Black has excellent chances of neutralizing White's initiative and proving the advantages of the pawn-centre.

1 0 .ltJb3 It is easier for White to create

threats with queens present on the board.

1 0 • • • ltJg4 10 . . . i.e7 - This move is too

passive. 11.f3 0-0 I2.g4 d6 I3.gS ltJe8 I4.h4 ltJc7 IS.hS as, H.Nagy - Jakab, Hungary 2004 and here after I6.g6� Black has great prob­lems to parry the attack against his king.

237

Chapter 12

After 10 . . . .tb4 11.f3 0-0 12 .g4 fgd8 13.g5 ttJe8 14.�bl;!; White's kingside initiative is running smoothly, while Black's coun­terplay is too slow. Meanwhile, White is controlling the centre, Yemelin - Jakovenko, Krasnodar 2002 .

1l.h3 ! ttJge5 12.�bl d6 13 •

.le3 f«b7 14.�al fgb8 15.ttJd4 .ld7

It is hardly any better for Black to try: 15 . . . ttJa5 16.f4 ttJec4 17.hc4 ttJxc4 18.\&d3 ttJxe3 19.�xe3 .te7 20 .g4 b4 21 .ttJce2 \&b6 22 .\&f3 g6 23.h4t and White dominates in the centre, his king is reliably pro­tected and Black's bishops cannot be activated easily, Cheparinov - Nikolov, Pleven 2005.

16.f4 ttJc4 17.,txc4 bxc4 18. gbl J.e7 19.94;!; Anand - Oral, Deutschland 2005. White's king is safe; he has plenty of space and he has excellent chances of devel­oping a powerful initiative on the kingside. Black's position looks solid, but White's prospects are still superior.

b) 8 • • • .le7

238

That is a calm line after which Black's bishop will protect his kingside.

9.f3

Now, Black has played most often in practice bl) 9 • • • b5 or b2) 9 • • • 0 - 0 .

He has tried some other moves too, but they usually transpose to other variations:

About 9 . . . d6 1O.g4 - see the Scheveningen variation.

9 . . . h6 1O .g4 e5? (It is better for Black to play 1O . . . d6 - see the Sch­eveningen variation) 1l .ttJf5 fgg8 12 .h4+- Plaskan - Sever, Rogaska Slatina 2002 ; After 9 . . . h5 10 .�b1 d6, A.Sokolov - Maes, Mulhouse 2005, H.\&f2t there arises a posi­tion from the Scheveningen vari­ation, but' with the strange move - h5. Now, Black cannot castle short and it is not good for him to leave his king in the centre either. In case he castles long, he would have no counterplay at all there.

9 . . . ttJe5 1O.g4 d6, Csukas - Kozlitin, Hungary 2001 (About 1O . . . b5 H.g5 - see 9 . . . b5 1O.g4 ttJe5 1l.g5.) H.g5 ttJfd7 12 .f4 ttJc4 13.J.xc4 �xc4 14J�hf1t

4. liJxd4 e6 S. IiJc3 Vffc7 6 . .ie3 a6 7. Vffd2 liJj6 8. 0 -0 -0

bl) 9 . . . b5 Black is trying to organize

some counterplay on the queen­side without determining the fu­ture of his king.

l O .g4

l O . . . liJe5 This move enables White to

advance his pawns, but Black's al­ternatives are not better either:

About 1O . . . d6 - see the Scheve­ningen variation; as for 10 . . . 0-0 1l.gS - see 9 . . . 0-0 10.g4 bS 1l.gS;

1O . . . b4 - That move only cre­ates additional weaknesses on the queenside, instead of organizing counterplay. 1l .liJa4 0-0, Wagner - Blaich, Germany 1993 and here after: 12 .gS liJeS 13.liJxc6 dxc6 14 . .ib6 WfeS IS.h4± Black's pieces are passive and he has no active play;

Black fails to organize any­thing active in the centre after: 10 . . . liJxd4 1l . .ixd4 eS (He would not fare any better following: 1l . . . d6 12 .gS IiJd7? 13.hg7 l3gS 14 . .ih6+- Kin�Lee - Fernwick, Internet 1999; after 12 . . . liJhS 13. a3 0-0 14.f4t Black's knight is misplaced on hS and White's king-

side initiative is powerful. That would be Black's best, though . . . ) 12 . .ie3 .ib7 13.gS IiJhS, V.K.alinina - Stepovaia-Dianchenko, Kras­nodar 2003 and here White can play a useful prophylactic move - 14.Wbl, after which Black has problems creating counterplay, for example : 14 . . . liJf4 (It is not better for him to try 14 . . . l3cS IS.ih3±, or 14 . . . l3dS IS.Vfff2 ms 16.ia7 VffaS 17.ib6± and White's pieces are evidently quite active.) lS . .ixf4 exf4 16.Vffd4 0-0 17.Vffxd7 l3acS lS.Vffxc7 l3xc7 19.h4± White has an extra pawn and although his win will not be so simple, but still he is clearly better.

1O . . . .ib7 1l.gS IiJhS, Yakimen­ko - Chukhir, Russia 2002 , now it is favourable for White to trade the knights. 12 .liJxc6 dxc6 (or 12 . . . hc6 13.ih3±) 13.Vfff2 cS (It is worse for Black to opt for: 13 . . . b4 14.liJa4 WfaS IS.liJcS and here no matter how Black continues - he will be in trouble : IS . . . .icS 16 . .ic4 IiJf4 17.h4±; IS . . . Vffxa2 16.liJxb7 eS 17.Vffe2 ! Wfal+ IS.wd2 Vffxb2 19.Vffc4±, or lS . . . .ixcS 16 . .ixcS Vffxa2 17.Vffd4±) 14.liJe2 0-0 IS. ih3;!; Black's knight on hS is ter­ribly misplaced and that forces him to create additional weak­nesses on the kingside after: 15 . . . g6 16 . .ig4 ltJg7 17.h4i - White has good attacking chances.

10 . . . h6 1l.h4 .ib7 (About 11. . . d 6 - see the Scheveningen varia­tion; the move 11 . . .b4 - creates weaknesses on the queenside.

239

Chapter 12

1VtJa4 ds 13.ltJxc6 �xc6 14.ltJb6 E1bB ls.exds exds, Miller - Quan Zhe, Toronto 2004 and here after 16.ltJxcB E1xcB 17 . .td3± White has the two-bishop advantage and a powerful initiative on the king­side. He can also exploit Black's pawn-weaknesses on the queen­side.) 12 .E1g1 E1cB, Cid - Mene­zes, Fortaleza 1994. Here, White maintains a great advantage by simply advancing his kingside pawns: 13.gs hxgs 14.hxgs ltJhS ls.ltJxc6 hc6 16.g6 f6 17.ltJe2± Black fails to create any threats on the queenside and his king has no safe shelter;

H.g5 ltJh5 12.f4

12 • • • ltJg4 It is not better for Black to

play: 12 . . . ltJc4 13.hc4 bxc4 (or 13 . . . �xc4 14.wb1 0-0 ls.�f2t and White has good attacking chances) 14.ltJfS! .tb4 ls.ltJd6+ hd6 16.�xd6 �xd6 17.E1xd6 .tb7 1B.E1hd1 .tc6 19.E16d4± and White wins a pawn, while Black's knight on hs has no good prospects, Micic - Mastrovasilis, Novi Sad 2002 . It would not be better for Black to accept the sacrifice: 14 . . .

240

exfs ls.ltJds �c6 (He must keep the d6-square under control, be­cause after: 15 . . . �b7 16.ltJxe7 Wxe7 17.�d6+ @eB 1B . .tcs+- Black has no defence.) 16.exfs d6 (or 16 . . . .tb7 17.�e2 g6 1B.E1he1+-) 17.�e2 hfs 1B.E1hel± and White's heavy pieces are so active along the open files in the centre that he can eas­ily regain his material, preserving his powerful threats.

13.e5 .tb7 Or 13 . . . b4 14.ltJe4 .tb7 1s . .td3t 14.gg1 ltJxe3 After 14 . . . b4 lsJ�xg4 bxc3 16.

�xc3 �xc3 17.bxc3 gcB 1B.wd2± White has an extra pawn, despite its being doubled and he controls the centre with good prospects to create some pressure on the b­file.

15.�xe3 h6 It is not better for Black to opt

for ls . . . g6 16 . .tg2 hg2 17.gxg2;1;, because his knight on hs will not enter the actions anytime soon.

16.g6 f6 After 16 . . . 0-0 17 . .te2 fxg6 lB.

hhs gxhs 19.9g6� Black's king might come under a dangerous attack.

4. &Dxd4 e6 5. &Dc3 Wlc7 6. ie3 a6 7. Wld2 &Df6 8. 0 -0 -0

17.ie2 fxe5 18.fxe5 �g5 (After 18 . . . b4 19.&Da4 igS 20 . 1::lxgS hxgS 21 .WlxgS 't&d8 22 J9d2± Black's pieces are passive and his king is rather unsafe. White's com­pensation for the exchange is more than sufficient.) 19.1hg5 bxg5 2 0 .'t&xg5 ti'd8 21.Wld2 ! V!fe7 22. c!Llb3 ic6 (Black's king will not run away from the attack on the queenside - 2 2 . . . 0-0-0 23.a4 b4 24.&Da2±) 23.gfl 0 - 0 - 0 24. a4;; White has a pawn for the ex­change and powerful threats on the queenside.

b2) 9 • • • 0 - 0

This is a logical move. Black completes his development before beginning his queenside counter­play.

1 0 .g4 b5 Black's other moves do not

prevent White's kingside offen­sive and they do not help the or­ganization of his counterplay.

About lO . . . d6 - see the Sche­veningen variation; as for lO . . . &De8 1l.h4 bS 12.gS - see lO . . . bS 1l.gS &De8 12 .h4.

10 . . . ib4? ! - and Black loses

a tempo in comparison to the variation with 8 . . . ib4. 1l .a3 �aS 12.&Db3 hc3 (Or 12 . . . ib6, Dju­ric - Cavar, Banja Luka 2 004, that move impedes the advance of the b-pawn and after 13.hb6 Wlxb6 14.gS &De8 1S.h4t, or 14 . . . &DhS 1S.f4± White i s clearly ahead of his opponent in the develop­ment of his initiative.) 13.V!fxc3 d6 14.�b1 id7 1S.gS &De8 16.h4 Ek8 17.f4± and White has a stable ad­vantage thanks to his extra space and superior piece coordination, Pruess - Ferrari Nunes, Internet 2004.

lO . . . dS? ! - White is very well prepared to counter that break­through. 1l.gS &DhS (Black has no compensation for the pawn after: 1l . . . &De8 12.exdS &Dxd4 13.V!fxd4 eS 14.V!fh4± Blechschmidt - Weiss, Saarland 1992 .) 12 .exdS &DeS 13. Wle2 &Dg6 14.dxe6 fxe6 (or 14 . . . he6 1S.&Dxe6 fxe6 16.Wlc4±) 15. 't&c4± White has an extra pawn and he exerts pressure against the weak e6-pawn.

lO . . . 1::ld8 1l.gS &De8 12 .h4 bS and here after 13.hS b4 (It is a di­saster for Black to play: 13 . . . if8? 14.g6 fxg6 1S.igS ie7 16.he7 &Dxe7 17.&Dxe6+- and he soon re­signed, Kranjec - Kukovec, Mari­bor 1997.) 14.&Dce2 dS 1S.ltJxc6 V!fxc6 16.eS± White is evidently ahead of his opponent in the cre­ation of dangerous threats against the king.

lO . . . &DaS 1l.gS &DhS, Kragh - Tolstrup, Copenhagen 1998,

241

Chapter 12

Black's knights are misplaced at the edge of the board and that enables White to create powerful threats in the centre and on the kingside. 12 .lLlfS ! .tb4 (Captur­ing of the knight leads to an even more difficult position for Black after: 12 . . . exfS 13.lLldS WldB 14J3g1 (White can also play the simple line: 14.ef lLlc6 IS.f6--+ regaining his piece and maintaining dan­gerous threats on the kingside.) d6 - It is worse for Black to de­fend with 14 . . . fxe4 IS . .tb6 'lWeB 16.lLlc7+-, or 14 . . . .td6 IS.lLlb6+­and White remains with an over­whelming material advantage -IS.i.b6 'lWeB 16.WlxaS .tdB 17.hdB WlxdB IB.'lWxdB ID:dB 19.eS± Black's pieces are passive and he would hardly be able to maintain the material balance because of that.) 13.lLlg3 hc3 14.bxc3 g6 (Af­ter 14 . . . lLlxg3 1S.hxg3 'lWxg3 16 . .tf4 Wlxf3 17.'lWh2--+ White's attack is decisive.) IS.lLlxhS gxhS 16.Wld6 'lWxd6 (Black loses after 16 . . . Wlxc3 17.id4 'lWxf3 1B.WleS+-) 17J3xd6± - White has a stable advantage thanks to his total control over the dark squares.

1O . . . lLleS - That move al­lows White to continue with his kingside offensive gaining tempi in the process. H.gS lLlhS 12.f4 lLlc4 13.hc4 'lWxc4, Bakhmatov - Bischoff, Goch 1999 and here it seems quite logical for White to proceed with his kingside attack. After 14.fS ib4 IS.lLlde2t Black has two logical moves :

242

IS . . . dS 16.f6 dxe4 (or 16 . . . g6 17. a3 id6 IB.exdS± and Black has no compensation for the pawn) 17.a3 hc3 (It is not any better for Black to try: 17 . . . iaS IB.'lWd6 ic7 19.Wle7 Wlc6 20 .lLld4 Wld7 21.lLlfS±, or IB . . . Wlc6 19.Wlxc6 bxc6 20.icS± and in both cases White main­tains powerful pressure thanks to his active pieces .) IB.lLlxc3 bS 19.Wlf2 g6 (It is also bad for Black to opt for: 19 . . . eS 20 .fxg7 lLlxg7 21 .lLldS±) 20 .l3d4 'lWc6 21 . l3hdl± Black has no chances of equalizing with his passive knight on hS;

or IS . . . exfS 16.WldS 'lWxdS 17. lLlxdS (It is worse for Black to play: 16 . . . Wlc6 17.'lWxfS g6 1B.'lWf1! f6 19.1Lld4 WlcS - he loses after 19 . . . 'lWc7 20 .liJdS+- - 20 .lLlfS Wlc6 21.lLldS gxfS 22 .gxf6--+ and White's attack should be victori­ous.) 17 . . . .taS (17 .. .f4 - Black gets rid of his misplaced knight in that fashion, but he fails to complete his development: IB.lLlexf4 lLlxf4 19.hf4 and now Black has no comfortable way to remove his bishop from its being attacked: 19 . . . iaS 20 .ic7 hc7 21.lLlxc7± and White's knight is evidently

4,tiJxd4 e6 S. ttJe3 'fie7 6. ie3 a6 7. 'fid2 ttJf6 8. 0 - 0 - 0

stronger than Black's bishop; 19 . . . ic5 20 .b4 ia7 21.id6± and Black loses the exchange; 19 . . . a5 20 .ttJc7 l'!a7 2 1.ie3± Black loses a pawn.) 1B.ib6 hb6 19.ttJxb6 l'!bB 20 .exf5±

1l.g5 tDe8 Black would hardly fare any

better after 1l . . . tDh5 12.ttJce2 g6 (His counterplay in the centre would be too slow after 12 . . J�dB, Tiemann - L. Radulov, COIT. 19B7, 13 .ih3 ! ttJxd4 14.ttJxd4 d5 15.e5 !± and White has powerful threats on the kingside, while Black can hardly organize anything real on the queenside.) 13.ttJg3 ttJxd4 14. hd4 ttJf4 15.h4 e5 16.ie3 l'!dB 17.ttJe2 tDh5 1B.tDc3 ib7 19.'fif2± Black has failed to create any counterplay, L.Dominguez - Za­pata, Havana 2003.

12.h4

12 • • • 1h7 Gelfand - Karpov, Tallinn

2005. After 12 . . . b4 13.tDxc6 'fixc6

14.tDe2 1cS 1S.h5 he3 16.'fixe3:t White has good attacking chanc­es and in answer to the central pawn-break - 16 . . . d5? ! Sarasola

- Camacho, Spain 19BB, it looks very good for him to follow with: 17.exd5 exd5 1B.h6 g6 19.ttJd4± and Black's dark squares on the kingside are vulnerable as well as his d5-pawn and he will need to defend for long due to his passive pieces.

In answer to 12 . . . ttJxd4, Kor­neev - Alvarez Diaz, Sauzal 2004, it looks more active for White to continue with 13.'\Wxd4 (It is worse for White to play as in the game - 13.hd4? ! , because Black could have countered that with the line: 13 . . . b4 14.ttJa4 l'!bB� with a good counterplay, since White could not redeploy his bishop to b3, where it would have cemented the position, exerting pressure on the kingside of the opponent.) 13 . . . 'fiaS (It i s not advisable for Black to defend with: 13 . . . b4 14.ttJa4 l'!bB 1S.1c4 'fic6 16.1b3± and he has no attacking chances; after 13 . . . d6 14.�bU Black's knight on eB is quite passive.) 14.�b1 b4 15.tDe2 1b7 16.ttJc1 dS 17.eS l'!cB 1B.h5t and White has good at­tacking chances.

13.tDxc6 dxc6 After 13 . . . hc6 14.h5 b4

15.ttJe2 d5 16.eS ib5 17.ttJd4 hfl 1B.l'!dxfl:t, it is quite obvious that White is much ahead of his oppo­nent in creating threats.

14.'fif2 c5 The move 14 . . . b4 - creates

weaknesses on the queenside. 15.ttJa4 'fiaS 16.ttJc5 icB (after 16 . . . 'I1:lfxa2 17.ttJxb7 l'!cB 1B.ttJc5

243

Chapter 12

�al+ 19.<'!?d2 l3d8+ 20.id3 Wlxb2 21.<'!?e2± Black's compensation for the piece is evidently insuffi­cient) 17.ic4 lLld6 18.ib3±; after 14 . . . l3d8 lS.ie2 l3xdl+ 16.l3xdl cS 17.eS;J; Black's kingside pieces can hardly enter the actions anytime soon.

15.h5 c4 16.g6t (diagram)

White's kingside initiative is likely to turn into a dangerous at­tack.

Conclusion We have started analyzing in this chapter the main linefor Black -

7 . . . lLlf6. After the natural move B. O - O - O, Black replies usually - B . . . ib4. That move is dealt with in the next chapters.

The seldom-played moves enable White to obtain an obvious ad­vantage in the centre and to develop a powerful initiative most often on the kingside.

In variation a), Black plays the standard move B . . . b5 and he starts his queenside counterplay. White's powerful argument - 9. if4 poses serious problems to Black then. Ifhe plays 9 . . . lLle5 -variation a1), he tries to hold his position in the centre, but White can organize a pow­erful kingside initiative with precise moves. After 9 . . . �b6 - variation a2), it is not advisable for White to go into an endgame with 10 .e5 �xd4!, since Black would obtain then good counter chances because of his powerful pawn-centre. It is much easier for White to develop his initiative after playing - 1 O . lLlb3. Later, he brings his king to safety on b1 and he attacks on the kingside.

In variation b), we have analyzed the strongest linefor Black - B . . . ie7. Its main drawback is that i t is somewhat passive. White's king­side pawn-assault is obviously faster than Black's counterplay then.

244

Chapter 13 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 e6 5.�c3 V!!c7 6.J.e3 a6 7.V!!d2 �f6 8. 0 - 0 - 0 .ib4

That is Black's most active line. He is trying to prove that White's queen is not well placed on d2 ; meanwhile his bishop sup­ports the pawn-advance d7-dS, moreover that White's next move seems to be forced.

9.f3 This move is obligatory, but

that does not mean that it is bad, since it is a part of White's plan anyway.

Black has played most often here a) 9 . . . b5, b) 9 . . . d5, c) 9 . . .

�e7, d) 9 . . . �a5 and 9 . . . �e5 (see the following chapter).

The other possibilities for Black are only seldom played, since they seem to be less purposeful:

9 . . . hS? ! - This move impedes the pawn-advance g2-g4 indeed, but on the other side it makes cas-

tling short for Black practically impossible, Garcia Carbo - Cube­ro Ferreiro, Ferro1 2002, 1O.�de2 lLleS ll . .td4 d6 12.�gS±;

9 . . . �a5? ! - Now, Black can­not even compromise White's pawn-structure on the queen­side. 1O.lLlb3 hc3 IViJxa5 hd2+ 12 .,hd2 �xaS 13.haS bS 14J'!d6± Luther - Wanderer, Graz 2004;

9 . . . lLla7? ! - That is a strange move, since the knight on a7 has no good prospects whatsoever. 1O.g4 d6 11.a3 hc3 12 .'%!fxc3 '%!fxc3 13.bxc3 @e7 14.lLlb3 �c6 lS.c4± Gajsin - Gankin, Tomsk 2006;

9 . . . ilJxd4 - Black creates some weaknesses for his opponent on the queenside indeed, but he cannot exploit them effectively, because White's dark-squared bishop becomes very powerful. 1O.�xd4 .txc3 1l.bxc3 0-0 (or 1l . . . dS 12 .exdS exdS 13 . .tgS±) 12.'%!fc5;l; �d8 (after 12 . . . '%!fxcS 13.,hc5± White dominates com­pletely on the dark squares) 13.c4 dS, Schneider - Needleman, Osasco 2004. Here, the most en­ergetic line for White seems to be: 14.igS ! ilJxe4 (It is even worse for

245

Chapter 13

Black to play: 14 . . . h6 15.cxd5 hxg5 16.dxe6+- and his queen has no good square to retreat to, or 15 . . . exd5 16J'!xd5+- and Black loses material in both cases.) 15 . .hd8 'Dxc5 16.ie7± and White wins the exchange;

9 . . . 0-0 - This move seems somewhat premature, because White's kingside initiative can quickly turn into a dangerous at­tack. 1O.g4 b5 (After 1O . . . 'Dxd4 11.'IlNxd4 �a5 12 .a3 .hc3 13.�xc3 �xc3 14.bxc3 d5 15.g5 'Dh5 16.exd5 exd5 17J'!xd5;!; White has an extra pawn and a couple of bishops and that more than com­pensates the minute defects of his pawn-structure, Drexel - Straub, Bayern 2004; 10 . . . d5 - White is perfectly prepared to counter that move. ll.g5 'Dh5 12 .exd5 exd5, Reist - Vega, Lansing 1993 and here after 13.a3 .hc3 14.'IlNxc3± Black has a weak isolated pawn on d5 and a misplaced knight on h5. The other retreat of the knight is not better at all - ll . . . 'Dd7 12 .exdS exdS 13.a3 .hc3 14.'IlNxc3 'Db6, Kalivoda - Marsalek, Pri­bram 2000 and here after lS.b3±, it is difficult to find any sensible plan for Black; 10 . . J'gd8 - This move does not stop White's king­side offensive. ll.gS 'De8, Novak - Cherin, Nova Gorica 2006 and here it is sensible for White to get rid of the pin with 12.a3, because after: 12 . . . ie7 13.h4 dS 14.exdS exdS lS.hS±, as well as follow­ing: 12 . . . iaS 13.'Db3 ib6 14.h4±,

246

or 12 . . . icS 13.'Dxc6 �xc6 14.h4±, White is clearly ahead of his op­ponent in the development of his initiative; 1O . . . d6 ll .a3 ic5, Moy­ses - De Andrade, Brazil 2001 and now after 12.g5 'DhS 13.'Db3 .he3 14.�xe3t White has a pow­erful kingside initiative, because the exchange of the dark-squared bishops has weakened Black's d6-pawn considerably.) ll .gS 'Dh5 12.i>b1 'DeS, Rogers - Bjelobrk, Brisbane 2005 and here the logi­cal consequence of White's pre­vious move would have been the tactical strike: 13.'DcxbS ! �aS (It is worse for Black to play 13 . . . axbS 14.�xb4± and White re­mains with an extra pawn, or 13 . . . .hd2 14.'Dxc7 .he3 lS.'Dxa8 'Df4 16.'Db6± and Black has no compensation for the exchange.) 14.'Dc3 Eib8 (After 14 . . . .hc3 15. �xc3 �xc3 16.bxc3± White re­mains with an extra pawn and the two-bishop advantage.) lS.'Db3 �c7 16.a3 ! hc3 (Black loses after 16 . . . 'Dxf3 17.'IlNf2 ixc3 18.�xf3+-) 17.�xc3 'IlNxc3 18 .bxc3 dS 19 .ie2± White has an extra pawn, despite its being weak, as well as a couple of powerful bishops.

a) 9 . . . b5? ! Black's attempt to organize

some counterplay on the queen­side is countered by White with direct actions in the centre.

1 0 .if4 'De5 The other possibilities are

not better for Black: 1O . . . 'IlNb6

5'ciJc3 �c7 6.ie3 a6 7. �d2 tiJf6 8. 0 -0 -0 ib4 9j3

1l.tiJxc6 Wfxc6 12 .ie5 - see to . . . tiJe5 1l .tiJc6 ! �xc6 12.ixe5; 10 . . . e5 1l.tiJxc6 ixc3 12.�xc3 exf4 13.�e5+ �xe5 14.tiJxe5±; to . . . !xc3 11 .ixc7 ixd2+ 12 .gxd2±

11.ttlc6 ! White creates great problems

for his opponent with that beauti­ful move.

1l . . . hc3 After 1l . . . dxc6 12.ixe5 �e7

(Black loses immediately after 12 . . . Wfxe5?? 13.�d8#) 13.a3 ia5 (13 . . . ic5 14.Wfg5±) 14.id6± and White has powerful pressure in the centre and on the kingside.

1l . . . tiJd3+ - This move opens the c-file and it facilitates White's occupation of the centre. 12 .cxd3 �xc6 13.�b1 ixc3 (It seems more reliable for Black to try: 13 . . . !b7 14.gc1 gc8 15.d4:t, or 13 . . . 0-0 14.gc1 �b7, Vallejo Pons - Mi­ladinovic, Leon 2001, 15.d4 d5 16.e5:t although he has serious problems even then.) 14.�xc3 �xc3 15.bxc3± and the bishop pair provides White with a stable edge, Shytaj - Miladinovic, Mon­tecatini Terme 2 005.

1l . . . Wfxc6 12.ixe5t - Now,

White's queen becomes very ac­tive on the kingside and he has a powerful pressure. 12 . . . !b7 13. �g5 gc8 14.�xg7 gg8 15.�h6 ixc3 16.bxc3 gg6 17.Wff4± It is too difficult for Black to exploit his opponent's weaknesses on the kingside, while White has an extra pawn and a bishop pair, Chepari­nov - Kazantzidis, Internet 2003.

12.bxc3 ! That is the most energetic line

for White after which he obtains the two-bishop advantage. In case of: 12.�xc3 tiJd3+ ! 13.cxd3 Wfxf4+ 14.�b1 �c7 15.tiJa5 �xc3 16.bxc3 d6= White has nothing to brag about, Huerga Leache - Spoel­man, Belfort 2005.

12 . . . Wfxc6 It is too bad for Black to play

12 . . . dxc6?? 13.ixe5+- and he has nothing to protect his dark squares with.

White's chances are clearly better in a tactical fight: 12 . . . tiJxf3!? 13.ixc7 tiJxd2 14.gxd2 tiJxe4 (Black loses outright after: 14 . . . dxc6? 15.gd8+-) 15.gd4! tiJxc3 16.ia5 tiJd5 17.gxd5 ! - That is the most energetic line for White. 17 . . . exd5 18.ixb5 ! 0-0 (White checkmates after: 18 . . . axb5 19.ge1+ �f8 20 .ib4+-) 19.ttle7± and White's two light pieces are considerably stronger than Black's rook.

13.he5 0 - 0 This move seems to be quite

natural, while actually it loses, de­spite the fact that it is too hard to

247

Chapter 13

believe that! White's advantage is obvious after the other possibili­ties for Black: 13 . . . ib7 14.Vi'g5±; 13 . . . h6 (defending against 14.Vi'g5) 14.Wd4±

14.hf6! That is the most concrete action

by White, but he is slightly better too after 14.Vi'd6, or 14.id6.

14 • • • gxf6 15.e5-+ Black's defence is quite dif­

ficult against the attack, since his pawn-shelter has been com­promised and he has no pieces to defend his kingside. The fol­lowing variations illustrate that his position is beyond salvation: 15 • • • c;t>g7 (After 15 . . . fxe5 16.Vi'g5+ c;t>h8 17.1Wf6+ c;t>g8 18J3el+-, or 15 . . .f5 16.Vi'g5+ c;t>g8 17.Vi'f6+ c;t>g8 18J3d3+- White should checkmate, while after: 15 . . . Vi'd5 16.Vi'xd5 exd5 17.exf6+- Black will gradually lose that endgame without a pawn and with too passive pieces.) 16.Vi'f4! 'ilYxc3 (About 16 . . .f5 17.Wg5+ - see 15 . . . f5 16.Vi'g5+ ; a s for 15 . . . fxe5 16. Vi'g5+ - see 15 . . . fxe5 16.Vi'g5+) 17.Vi'xf6+ c;t>f8 18.id3 d5! (Black will not manage to protect

248

his h7-square either after: 18 . . . ib7? 19.1Wg5+ c;t>h8 20 .Vi'h5+-) 19.ixh7+ ! c;t>xh7 2 0 .gd3 Vi'al+ (20 . . . 1Wc4 21.f4+-) 21.c;t>d2 Vi'xhl 22.'ilYh4+ c;t>g6 23.Wg3+ c;t>h5 (23 . . . c;t>f5 24.ge3+-) 24.gd4+-

b) 9 • • • d5?!

That is a thematic move, but Black is not well prepared for it yet.

1 0 .a3 hc3 10 . . . id6 11 .lLlb3 lLle7, Ara­

khamia - Skripchenko, Warsaw 2001 (It is inferior for Black to opt for: 11 . . . 0-0 12 .exd5 lLlxd5 13.lLlxd5 exd5 14.1Wxd5 gd8 15.id3 g6 16.'ilYg5± - White has a solid extra pawn and a stable advan­tage. 16 . . . lLle5 17.c;t>bl b5 18.ie4 gb8 19.id4 ge8 20 .ghel-+ Now, White starts a direct attack: 2 0 . . . if8 21.ixg6+- h6 22 .ixt7+ c;t>xt7 23.Vi'f4+ 1-0 Ramesh - Himan­shu, Visakhapatnam 2006) and here White's most energetic line seems to be: 12.f4 e5 13.exd5 lLlf5 (In case Black does not sacrifice a pawn, then after 13 . . . exf4 14.id4± White dominates in the centre, for example: 14 . . . lLlf5 15.gel + @f8

S. lt1c3 W:!c7 6 . .!e3 a6 7. W:!d2 lt1f6 8. 0 -0 -0 .!b4 9.f3

16.hf6 gxf6 17.g3� and White has excellent attacking prospects, since Black's king is not well pro­tected.) 14.fxe5 .!xeS 15 . .!g5 0-0 (It is worse for Black to try: 15 . . . h6 16JMfe1! hxg5 17.d6±, or 16 . . . 0-0 17.d6 .!xd6 18.hf6±) 16J3e1 h6 17Jl:xe5 �xe5 18 . .!f4 W:!e7 19.d6 W:!d8 2 0 . .!e2� White has a danger­ous passed pawn in the centre for the sacrificed exchange, as well a couple of powerful bishops and noticeable initiative in the centre and good chances on the king­side.

1O . . . .!a5 11.lt1b3 dxe4 (It is bad for Black to opt for 11 . . . 0-0? 12 .lt1xa5 lt1xa5, Gallego - Ka­llio, Linares 2002 , because after 13 . .!g5 ! Black loses after: 13 . . J!d8 14.e5 �xe5 15 . .!f4 �f5 16.g4 W:!g6 17.'!d3+-, as well as following: 13 . . . lt1c4 14 . .!xc4 dxc4 15.hf6 gxf6 16.�h6 �e7 17Jl:d5 ! f5 18.�xf5+-, while after: 13 . . . dxe4 14.hf6 gxf6 15.�h6 f5 16.g4� White's attack is tremendously dangerous; 11 . . . hc3 - That i s possibly Black's most reliable move. 12.W:!xc3 0-0 13 . .!g5 dxe4 14.hf6 W:!f4+, Bonn - Mahiouz, Aix les Bains 2006 and here after: 15.lt1d2 gxf6 16.fxe4 lt1e5 17 . .!e2t Black's king shelter has been weakened indeed, but he has some com­pensation for that thanks to his powerful knight on e5.) 12 .lt1xa5 W:!xa5 (It is worse for Black to try: 12 . . . lt1xa5 13 . .!f4 �d7, Sengupta - Nikolopoulos, Denizli 2003, because after 14.�f2 ! Black's

queen has no good square: 14 . . . W:!c6 15J'!d6+-, o r 14 . . . �e7 15.'!d6 W:!d8 16. W:!g3+-) 13.fxe4 0-0 14 . .!g5 �d8 15 . .!d3 b5? (It would be better for Black to try: 15 . . . �e5 16.�hf1 b5 17.@bl .!b7 18.E1f3±, al­though even then White's threats on the kingside seem to be quite dangerous.) 16.e5+- (The game is quickly over now.) 16 . . . b4 17 . .!xf6 gxf6 18.�h6 f5 19.1t1e4 fxe4 20.he4 1-0 Rizouk - Garrido Dominguez, Seville 2003.

10 . . . .!e7!? 11.exd5 lt1xd5 (It is advantageous for Black to trade his weak knight on f6. It is worse for him to play 11 . . . exd5? 12 .g4 and here after: 12 . . . h6 13.h4 .!e6 14.'!d3± Sanchez - Laplanche, France 2004, as well as in the variation: 12 . . . .!e6 13.g5 lt1d7 14.lt1xe6 fxe6 15 . .!h3 lt1d8 16.f4± Ramaswamy - Vasquez Rami­rez, Bled 2002 , White controls the centre and he has a power­ful kingside initiative.) 12 .lt1xd5 exd5, Speckner - Suran, Germany 2001, 13.h4 0-0 14.h5 �e8 15.g4t White has the initiative and he is ready to enter an endgame, which will be very favourable for him due to the vulnerability of Black's d5-pawn.

11. Ybe3 dxe4 After 11 . . . 0-0 12 .e5 lt1d7 13.f4

�e8 14 . .!d3± Black has no coun­terplay whatsoever, Naumann - Kroencke, Kiel 2005.

12.�xe6 Wlxe6 It is not any better for Black

to continue with: 12 . . . bxc6 13 . .!c5

249

Chapter 13

exf3 14.gxf3 .tb7 15J:!g1� - be­cause White has a powerful ini­tiative on the dark squares for the pawn, while after: 15 . . . tZld5 16.�xg7 0-0-0 17.�g3± the ma­terial is equal, but White's two­bishop advantage provides him with clearly better chances.

l3.�e5 0 - 0 l4 • .tg5 �d7

Tseshkovsky - Thorfinnsson, Bie1 2004.

Now, White can enter an end­game, which is clearly superior for him thanks to his bishop pair, his pawn-majority on the queen­side and the domination on the only open file. 15. �xe4 �xe4 l6.fxe4 b5 (It is not advisable for Black to follow the recommenda­tion of GM Atalik: 16 .. .f6 17 . .te3 �e8 18 . .te2 tZlf8 19 . .th5 g6 20 .�d6 .te6 21 .�hdl±) l7 • .te2 f6 l8 • .te3 �e5 l9.�d4 .tb7 2 0 .�hdl±

e) 9 . . . �e7 (diagram)

White had problems to counter that move for a long time. Black is preparing d7-d5 and White can­not prevent that.

1 0 .�de2 !

250

White avoids doubling of his pawns and he frees the d4-square for his queen. Here, Black's most often played move is el) 1O . . . d5, but it seems more reliable for him to continue with e2) 1O . . . b5.

el) 10 • • • d5 That is Black's thematic pawn­

advance. 1l.i.g5 dxe4 It is hardly any better for

him to try: 1l . . . .td7 12 . .txf6 gxf6 13.�d4 .td6 14.exd5 .te5 15.�d2 tZlg6 16.g3 f5 17.f4 .tf6 18 . .tg2 �d8, Okkes - Peng Zhaoqin, Hoogeveen 2006, because after 19.�he1 0-0 20 .tZld4± his com­pensation for the pawn is evident­ly insufficient.

l2.hf6 gxf6 l3.�d4 exf3 13 . . . i.xc3? ! - This move only

facilitates White's piece-develop­ment. 14.tZlxc3 e5 (It is not advis­able for Black to opt for: 14 . . . �f4+ 15.wb1 tZlc6 16. 16.�c4 ! - This is the most active square for White's queen. 16 . . . 0-0 17.tZlxe4 Wg7 18.�c3 tZle7, Motylev - Tunik, Russia 2002, after 18 . . . �e5 19. �e3 !± Black has a problem to find a useful move. Here, it de-

S.tiJc3 'We7 6.i.e3 a6 7. Yiid2 CiJf6 8. 0 - 0 - 0 i.b4 9..fJ

served attention for White to play the energetic line: 19.ygc5 !? CiJg6 20 .h4� with a dangerous attack. It is worse for Black to defend with 19 . . . CiJdS? 20 .i.c4! CiJe3 21.CiJxf6 ! Wxf6 22 .ygxf8 CiJxd1 23J3xd1 Yiixc4 24.ygh6+ We7 2S.yggS+ f6 26 .Yiig7+ We8 27.Yiixf6+- and White wins.) lS.ygxe4 0-0 (In answer to: lS . . .fS 16.YGh4 i.e6, Gaponenko - Kamber, Biel 2006, it deserves attention for White to follow with: 17.g3 ! ? Eic8 18.i.d3±, or 17 . . . 0-0 18 .i.d3 f6 19.Eihgl± and White not only has a superior pawn-structure, but his pieces are more active too and his king is safer.) 16.Yiih4 i.fS (After 16 . . . YGb6 17.CiJe4 Wg7 18.Eid6± Black loses his f6-pawn.) 17. Yiixf6 Eiad8 18.i.e2 i.g6 19.h4+- Goloshchapov - Re­nette, Leuven 2003.

14.�xb4 fxe2 15.he2 f5

16.Eid6 Unfortunately Black saves the

game with only moves after: 16. i.bS+ !? axbS 17.CiJxbS ygaS 18.YGcS f6 !

It deserves attention however, to try the idea of GM Alexander Motylev, which has not been duly

appreciated yet - 16.Eihel. Af­ter 16 . . . i.d7 17.i.hS Eig8, Motylev - Ribli, Saint Vincent 200S, Black will have problems finding a re­ply and that can be emphasized by White with the precise move - 18 .g3 ! The following variations confirm that Black's defence is very difficult:

18 . . . i.c6? 19.Eixe6±; In answer to 18 . . . h6? ! , or 18 . . .

bS? ! White realizes his main threat - 19.�xe7+ ! Wxe7 20 .CiJdS+ Wd6 21.CiJxc7+ Wxc7 22 .i.xf7 Elg7 23.i.xe6± and he remains with an extra pawn. It might not be so easy to press his advantage home, but he still has his chances;

18 . . . eS 19.EidS ! ? e4 (It is not less dangerous for Black to play: 19 . . . aS 20.�h4 e4 21.�f6�) 20 . CiJxe4 fxe4 21.ygxe4 0-0-0 22 . ygxe7 Eige8 23.EicS± and again there arises an endgame with an extra pawn for White;

18 . . . CiJc6 - This is obviously the best move for Black. 19.�h4 YGd8 20 .Eixe6+ ! ? he6 21 .Eixd8+ Eixd8 22 .i.f3;!; White's queen is more mobile than Black's rook, for example: 2 2 . . . Wd7 23.Yiif4 Wc8 24.CiJa4 Eid4 2S.CiJb6+ Wd8 26.yge3t and in a position with approximate material equality, White's pieces create numerous threats with combined efforts, while Black's rook on g8 is pres­ently out of play.

16 . . . .td7 After 16 . . . 0-0 17.Eihd1� White

has an excellent compensation for

2S1

Chapter 13

the pawn, because he dominates on the only open file and Black's king is rather unsafe.

17J�hd1 �c6

18.M3!? This move is logical, but i t has

not been tested in practice yet. Black's bishop is more active than its counterpart and it is good for White to trade it. After 18.'<l:Yd4, in the game Volokitin - Ribli, Neum 2005, Black managed to equalize with 18 . . . 0-0 19.94 �fe8 !�

18 . . . 0 - 0 1 8 . . . ixf3 - The main draw-

back of that move is that the g­file is opened and Black's king is doomed to remain in the centre for a long time: 19.9xf3 tDc6 20. '<l:Yf4 '<l:Ye7 21.'<l:Yg3 ! e5 (The alterna­tives are not better for Black: 21 . . . �d8 22 .�xd8+ tDxd8 23.tDa4! h6 24.�b1 - Naturally, White should preserve queens on the board. 24 . . . '<l:Yg5 25.'<l:Ye5 ! �g8 - it is a di­saster for Black to play: 25 . . . 0-0 26.'<l:Yc5± - 26.a3 tDc6 27.Y;Yc7± White's compensation for the pawn is more than sufficient, since Black's king is stranded in the centre and his queenside has

252

no defenders left; 21 . . . '<l:Yf8 22 .�d7 �c8 23.�xb7± Material is equal in­deed, but White has more pieces into action.) 22.Y;Yg7 �f8 (It is just terrible for Black to continue with: 22 . . . Y;Yf8 23.�e6+ tDe7 24.�xe7+­and he will need to give up plenty of material to avoid being check­mated.) 23.�f6 tDd4 24.tDd5± White's pieces are tremendously active and that would enable him to obtain great material ad­vantage soon, for example: 24 . . . Y;Yd7 (After 24 . . . Y;Yc5 25.�e6+ fxe6 26.tDc7+- Black loses his queen.) 25.�xa6 ! �xa6 26.'<l:Yxe5+ �d8 (In case of 26 . . . tDe6 27.tDf6+- Black loses again his queen, while in the variation: 26 . . . �e6 27.tDc7+ �e7 28.tDxe6 fxe6 29.�xd4+- White remains with an extra pawn and with a powerful attack.) 27.tDb6 �e8 (It is hardly any better for Black to try: 27 . . . �b6 28.�xd4 �e8 29.�xd7+ �xd7 30 .Y;Yxf5+ �e7 31.'<l:Yxh7+- ; or 27 . . . tDe2+ 28.'<l:Yxe2 �xb6 29.�xd7+ �xd7 30.'<l:Yd3+ t;J;;e7 31.'<l:Yxf5+- and in both lines White's queen and pawns are considerably stronger than Black's two rooks.) 28.tDxd7 tDe2+ 29.�d2 �xe5 30.tDxe5+-. 18 . . . tDg6 - That move would not equalize for Black either. 19.hc6+ bxc6 20.tDa4! - That is a powerful maneuver for White. His knight is headed for the f6-square and it can hardly be stopped. 2 0 . . . 0-0 21.tDc5 �tb8 (or 21 . . . �fd8 22 .tDd7 c5 23.Y;Yc3±) 22 .'<l:Yc3 tDf8 23.g4 !± Black's extra pawn is practically

S. lUc3 Wic7 6.i.e3 a6 7. Wid2 lUf6 8. 0 - 0 - 0 i.b4 9j3

immaterial, since his pieces are very passive and his king is rather unsafe.

19.hc6 lUxc6 2 0 .Wih4 �e7 That seems to be forced. It is

just terrible for Black to play 20 . . . l'!adB? 2 1.�g3+ �hB 22 .l'!xdB+-, White regains his pawn too after: 20 . . . l'!acB 21 .l'!ld3 lUeS 22.l'!h3 f6 23.l'!xe6±

In the variation: 20 . . . lUe7 2UWg3+ ! lUg6 (After 21 . . .�fB 22 . �e5+ �gB 23.l'!xe6±, Black's king­side pawns are weak and his piec­es are passive.) 22 .lUd5 Wia5 23. lUb6 l'!aeB (In case of: 23 . . . �xa2 24.lUxaB l'!xaB 25.l'!dB+ l'!xdB 26.l'!xdB+ �g7 27.�c3+ e5 2B.b3;!; White is better despite the ap­proximate material equality, be­cause his rook is much stronger than Black's knight, while the ac­tions are taking part on both sides of the board.) 24. �bl ! l'!e7 (Black's position looks worrisome after: 24 . . .f6 25.ltJd7 l'!f7 26.�b3t and he has great problems to parry his opponent's numerous threats, for example: 26 . . . lUe5 27.�xb7 lUxd7 2B .l'!xd7 �xd7 29.�xd7 1Wb5 30. c4±) 25.lUd7 �cB 26.1Wg5 Wg7 27. �f6+ WgB 28 .c4!� White's piece­activity compensates amply his sacrificed pawn.

(diagram) 21.�xe7 �xe7 22.l3d7 �g6

23.l3xb7. White can rely on his pawn-onslaught to be more ef­fective than Black's counterplay, because his pieces are much more active, for example: 23 . . . l3fd8

24.l3xd8 l3xd8 25.l3b6 lUh4 26. g3 �f3 27.l3xa6 �xh2 28.b4 tDfl 29.�e2 ! �e3 3 0 .b5± and White advances his pawns much faster.

c2) 1 0 . . . b5

1l.i.f4 e5 12.i.g5 i.b7 12 . . . lUfgB !? - It looks like

Black is arranging his pieces for the next game . . . , but things are not so simple yet. 13.wbl i.a5, Yagupov - Wen, Moscow 2006 and here after: 14.lUd5 lUxd5 15.Wixd5 i.b7 16.�3 �cB 17.lUg3 h6 IB.i.h4 ! g6 (It is even worse for Black to play IB . . . g5 19.1tJf5 d5 20.i.g3±) 19 .i.d3t it becomes too difficult for Black to advance d7-d5; meanwhile he has no other sensible plan and it is too risky to grab the piece-sacrifice: 19 . . . g5

253

Chapter 13

20 .ttlf5 gxh4 21.ixb5!± 12 . . .'IWc6 ! ? - This move has not

been played yet, but it deserves attention at least because it has been recommended by strong computer programs. Its main purpose is to avoid compromising the kingside. (It is worse for Black to try 12 . . . Wfb6, which also has not been tried in practice, because af­ter: 13.lt>bl 0-0 14.a3 ic5 15.b4! if2 16.Wfd6 ! , there arises a very unpleasant endgame for him, for example: 16 . . . Wfxd6 17.l3xd6 l3d8 18.g3 ! ib7 19.ih3± and Black has serious problems with the protec­tion 0 his d7-pawn.) 13.lt>bl 0-0 (After 13 . . . h6 14.ixf6 Wfxf6 15.a3 ia5 16.ttld5 ttlxd5 17.Wfxa5 ttle3 18 J�d3 ttlc4 19.Wfb4;l; Black can hardly create any real threats on the queenside, so that White can prepare methodically his pres­sure against Black's weaknesses on the d-file.) 14.a3 ic5 (The end­game after: 14 . . . ia5 15.Wfd6 Wfxd6 16.l3xdM seems to be better for White, since Black's d7-pawn is weak and he has no counterplay at all .) 15.ttlc1 ! ? h6 (Black can present his opponent with the two-bishop advantage and he can destroy his queenside, but that would not equalize for him either: 15 . . . id4 ! ? 16.ttlb3 ixc3 17.Wfxc3 Wfxc3 18.bxc3 d5 ! ? 19.ixf6 gxf6 20 .exd5 l3d8 21 .c4;l;; or IS . . .

b4 16.axb4 ixb4 17.ttld3 ! ixc3 18.Wfxc3 Wfxc3 19.bxc3 d6 20.ttlb2 ! l3d8 21 .ttlc4 ie6 22 .lt>cU) 16.ixf6 VNxf6 (It is too dubious for Black

254

to try the aggressive move - 16 . . . gxf6? ! 17.Wfxh6 f5 18.Wfh3±, since he weakens his kingside, avoid­ing the move 12 . . . Wfc6, and he re­mains without a pawn and he is likely to come under a dangerous attack.) 17.ttld5 Wfd6 (17 . . . ttlxd5 - This pawn-sacrifice is too risky. 18.Wfxd5 Wfc6 19.Wfxe5 d6 and here after 20.Wfc3;l;, as well as following 20.Wfd5;l;, it would be too difficult for Black to prove that his bishop pair compensates his pawn-sacri­fice.) 18.ttlb3 ia7 19.93 !;l; White's bishop is deployed to the h3-square and it will exert power­ful pressure against the d7-pawn from there. Black's pieces are so awkwardly placed that he would hardly manage to defend against White's threats along the d-file.

13.@bl ia5 Or 13 . . . l3c8 14.g3 h6 15.ixf6

gxf6 16.ih3± Lupulescu - Cosma, Bucharest 2005.

14 • .bf6 gxf6 15.Wfh6

15 • • • 'Ml6! Black's difficulties are quite

obvious after: 15 . . . ttlg6 16.g3 ! , or 15 . . . l3c8 16.Wfxf6 l3g8 17.g3 ! b4 18 .ih3 ic6 19.ttld5 ixd5 20.exd5

S.tiJe3 'We7 6. ie3 a6 7. 'Wd2 0,f6 8. 0 -0 -0 ib4 9:13

'Wxc2+ 21 .�a1 'Wxe2 22 .B:hel± - these lines have been analyzed by Anand.

It is even worse for Black to play: 15 . . . b4? 16.'Wxf6 B:g8 17.0,d5 0,xd5 18.exdS B:c8, Vehi Bach - Camacho Calle, Albacete 200S and here White's most energet­ic line seems to be: 19.'WfS B:g6 20.f4+-

16.g3 'We6 After 16 . . . b4 !? , White may

continue without exchanging the knight on dS - 17.0,a4 'Wc6 18.b3 0-0-0 19.'WhS±, maintaining a considerable advantage, or 18 . . . dS 19.ih3±. The move 16 . . .f5 would not work for Black due to: 17.'Wg7 B:g8 18.'Wxe5 'We6 19.'Wf4 ! Shipov.

17.ih3 f5 18.'Wh4±

Black's king seems to be vul­nerable, so White should bet­ter preserve the queens on the board.

18 . . . f6 19.exfS YNt7 2 0 .0,e4 ixe4 21.fxe4 0,c6 22.gd6+­Anand - J.Polgar, San Luis 200S.

d) 9 . . . 0,a5 That is one of the newest

lines and it became fashionable

thanks to the efforts of Vishvana­tan Anand. Still, Black's knight is worse placed here than on the eS­square and that presents White with additional resources. He can attack Black's queen along the di­agonal with the move ie3-f4, and he can play e4-eS at some moment too. Black's knight on as would not be able to join in the defence of Black's kingside either.

1 0 .�bl The move 1O.0,b3 has been

tested at the highest level. It looks quite sensible, but Black's game is more or less easy after that. There might arise the following interest­ing variation : 1O . . . d5 11.if4 (It is still not too late for White to play 11 .�b1; now, in case of: 11 . . . hc3 12 .bxc3, the game trans­poses to the main line, while the forced variation after: 11. . .0,xb3 12 .cxb3 ! ? dxe4 is also in favour of White: 13.0,bS 'We7 14.0,c7+ YNxc7 1S.YNxb4 0,dS 16.'Wxe4 0,xe3 17.'Wxe3 0-0 18.id3;!; Luther - Maze, Reykjavik 2004.) 11 . . . 0,xb3+ 12 .cxb3 (After 12 .axb3, it is good for Black to play 12 . . . 'WaS.) 12 . . . eS ! ? (Black is trying to seize

2SS

Chapter 13

the initiative. In case of 12 . . . '&aS, White obtains easily a stable posi­tional advantage - 13.eS lDd7 14.a3 ie7 lS.lt>b1 bS 16.b4;!; Topalov - Anand, Monaco 2004.) 13.ig3 ie6 14.'&gS hc3 lS.lt>b1 (The other possibility for White is -lS.bxc3 '&xc3+ 16.lt>b1 �c8 17.id3 dxe4 18.fxe4 0-0 19.,txeS h6, or 18.heS h6 19.�g3 lDhS 20.hc3 lDxg3 21.hxg3 exd3 22 .hg7 �g8 23.ieS �c2 24.M4 �xg2 2S.�d3 if 5 26.�e1+ It>f8 27.hh6+ �g7 and White's rook on d3 is incapa­ble of inflicting the decisive strike, because it is pinned.) 15 . . . 0-0-0 16.�c1 ! ? (The other line for White here is - 16.bxc3 dxe4 17.�d8+ �xd8 18.,txeS �dS, or 17.ie2 lDdS 18.heS '&as 19.�c1 f6 20 .id4 if 5 2 1.fxe4 he4+ 22 .lt>h2 �he8 - and Black's position is quite acceptable in both cases.) 16 . . . h6 17.�xg7 (Black should not be afraid of 17.�e3 d4 18.�d3 It>b8 19.bxc3 �c8=.) 17 . . . lDhS 18.�xh8 �xh8 19.�xc3 '&xc3 20.bxc3 ltJxg3 2 1.hxg3 dxe4 22 .fxe4 �g8 23. �xh6 �xg3 24.lt>c2 �g4 2S.lt>d3 �g3+ 26 .lt>d2 �g4 27.�h2 �xe4 28.�e2. White is trying to exploit the somewhat precarious place­ment of Black's rook. 28 . . . �f4 ! 29 .lt>e3 �f6 30 .if3 (or 30.lt>e4 �f2) 30 . . . �g6 ! 31 .lt>e4 �gS - Black has succeeded just in time. Natu­rally, that analysis should not be considered as the supreme truth in that line . . .

lO • • • .b:c3 After the modest retreat of

256

White's king, Black's counter­strike in the centre does not seem to be so attractive; White will counter 10 . . . dS with 1l .lDcbS!

In case of 10 . . . lDc4 1l.hc4 �xc4 12 .lDde2, Black's bishop fails to go back to its usual place (12 . . . ie7 13.eS±) and as a result of that the vulnerability of Black's kingside becomes worrisome. 12 . . . bS (Or 12 . . . dS 13 .id4 ie7 14.hf6 hf6 1S.exdS 0-0 16.d6 id7 17. lDe4;!; Embuena Molina - San­chez Ruiz, Mondariz 1997.) 13.a3 iaS, Bujisho - Miladinovic, Nice 2004, 14.id4 (Now, Black must consider not only the possibility e4-eS, but also the queen-moves to f4 and gS.) 14 . . . h6 1S.h4 (White is threatening to continue with his pawn-offensive and he acquires the important h2-b8 diagonal for his pieces.) lS . . . �b8 16.b3 ! '&c6 17.�f4 ic7 18 .ieS±

1l.bxc3

1l . . . b5 In case of 1l . . . lDc4 12 .hc4

�xc4, White begins immediately his kingside onslaught, exploit­ing the fact that Black's queen has abandoned the h2-b8 diagonal :

S.tiJc3 Vf1c7 6.ie3 a6 7. Vf1d2 CiJf6 8. 0 - 0 - 0 ib4 9./3

13.if4 d5 14.ie5 0-0 (White was threatening 15.WTg5.) 15.hf6 gxf6 16.e5 WTc7 17.l3hel WTe7 1B.Vf1f4 fxe5 19.WTxe5 l3dB 20 .f4 f6 21.Vf1e3 Vf1f7 (Black would not have changed much with: 21 . . . l3eB 22 .CiJxe6 he6 23.f5 l3adB 24.WTxe6+ Vf1xe6 25.l3xe6±) 22 .CiJxe6 he6 23. Vf1xe6± Khairullin - Tregubov, Kazan 2 005.

White's task is much more complicated after: ll . . . d5 12.CiJb3 and here the fight might develop in the following fashion:

12 . . . 0-0 13.ig5 dxe4 14.hf6 gxf6 15.fxe4 mg7 (otherwise White would play WTh6, followed by id3 etc.) 16.id3 with the idea to dou­ble the rooks along the f-file with an initiative for White;

12 . . . CiJc4 13.ixc4 dxc4 14.CiJc5 id7 (White can counter 14 . . . 0-0 with the powerful argument - 15.CiJa4 ! ) 15.Vf1d4 ! ? (or 15.Vf1d6 0-0-0 16.Vf1xc7+ mxc7 17.l3d4 ib5 IB.a4 l3xd4 19.cxd4 ic6 20. as CiJd7;!; Volokitin - Haba, Erfurt 2005) 15 . . . e5 (or 15 . . . l3cB 16.CiJxd7 Vf1xd7 17.Vf1b6 WTe7 IB.WTb4:l;) 16. WTxc4 b6 (or 16 . . . 0-0 17.Vf1d3 ic6 IB.WTd6:l;) 17. l3xd7 ! CiJxd7 IB.Vf1d5 l3cB (or lB . . . l3dB 19.CiJb7t) 19.CiJxd7 Vf1xd7 20 .Vf1xe5+ mfB 21.hb6 f6 22 .WTd4:l;;

12 . . . h6 13.WTf2 ! (White has ex­cellent chances to fight for the initiative; in case of 13.if4 e5! his attacking resources are quickly exhausted: 14.he5 Vf1xe5 15.CiJxa5 ie6 16.WTd4 WTc7 17.e5 CiJd7 1B.CiJb3 WTxe5= Leko - Anand, Wijk aan

Zee 2004.) 13 . . . CiJc6 (The alterna­tives are not any better for Black either: 13 . . . CiJc4 14.hc4 Vf1xc4 15. Vf1g3±. 13 . . . CiJxb3 14.axb3 0-0 15.ib6 Vf1xc3 16.id4 WTc7 17.hf6 gxf6 IB.exd5 exd5 19.13xd5:l;, or 16 .. . Vf1a5 17.hf6 gxf6 IB .WTg3+ mhB 19.WTh4 mg7 20.Vf1g4+ mhB 21.exd5 exd5 22 .Vf1h5 mg7 23 .f4�) 14.ic5. Now, Black would hardly manage to castle - for example after 14 . . . CiJe7, White would fol­low with: 15.c4 ! 0-0 16.cxd5 exd5 17.e5±, while after Black's other possibilities, White's initiative re­mains very powerful thanks to the vulnerable placement of his op­ponent's king: 14 . . . b5 15.Vf1e3 Vf1e5 16.ia3 ib7 17.Vf1b6 l3bB IB.CiJd4t; 14 • . • Vf1e5 15.c4 dxe4 16.id6 Vf1f5 17.CiJd2 e5 IB.WTb6 exf3 19.9xf3�; 14 .. . id7 15.c4 dxe4 16.id6 WTdB 17.Vf1g3�

12.if4! WTb6 In case of 12 . . . e5, Zawadzka

- Berczes, Aghia Pelagia 2004, White has 13.CiJf5 ! exf4 (Af­ter 13 . . . 0-0, White wins with: 14.ih6 CiJeB 15.hg7+-, as well as with: 14.he5 Vf1xe5 15.Vf1g5 CiJg4 16.CiJh6 + ! mhB 17.CiJxf7+ ! ) 14.e5 ! , and Black has serious problems: 14 . . . CiJe4 15.fxe4 WTxe5 16.g3 f3 17.Vf1g5 CiJc6 1B.CiJd6+ mfB 19.Vf1e3t, or 14 . . . CiJh5 15.CiJd6+ me7 16.g4 ib7 17.gxh5 hf3 IB .ig2 CiJc4 19.WTxf4 hg2 20.Vf1xf7+ mdB 21.WTxg7±

13.CiJb3 CiJc4 14.WTd4 d5 It is possible that Black should

have tried to repel White's bishop

257

Chapter 13

away from the important diagonal with the line: 14 . . . 'I!¥xd4 15.cxd4 lbh5 16.i.cl d6, but even then his defence would have been difficult: 17.i.xc4 bxc4 18.lba5 �b8+ 19.mal d5 20 .i.d2 md7 21.�bl �b5 22 .a4 �xbl 23.�xbl± - White only must not forget about his knight and he should redeploy it to d6 or c5, via the b7-square at an opportune moment.

15.h:c4 Wlxd4 16.cxd4 dxc4

It is preferable for Black, from the practical point of view, to follow the recommendation of S .Shipov - 16 . . . bxc4 17.lbc5 dxe4 18.fxe4 lbd7, although even then the arising position, with op­posite-coloured bishops, is very difficult for Black: 19.1d6 lbxc5 20 .bxc5± - White's powerful outpost on d6 provides him with the control over the b-file and in general it disorganizes Black's de­fence altogether.

17.lba5 The arising endgame is with­

out any good prospects for Black. White has a powerful centre, his pieces dominate over the entire

board and his king is much closer to the centre and to the queenside, where the actions will develop.

17 • . • lbd7 The further course of the game

will indicate - that move is hardly necessary. Black had better play immediately 17 . . . i.d7, but that would not have changed the evalu­ation of the position. White would have proceeded with the same plan as in the game - 18.mb2±.

18.i.c7! 0 - 0 19.d5 exd5 2 0 .exd5 lbf6 21.�hel i.d7 22.i.e5 :gfe8 23.mb2. White emphasizes his overwhelming advantage. Black has no useful moves left and he is forced just to sit and wait. 23 • • . �ac8 24.1xf6 gxf6 25. mc3 mfS 26. md4± Leko - Anand, Moscow 2004.

Conclusion In this chapter, we analyze the move 8 . . . i.b4, which is no doubt the

most aggressive for Black. After the forced reply 9.f2-.f3, i.lack has numerous possibilities at his disposal. The main lines arise after 9 . . . lbe5. They will be dealt with in the next chapters.

Some rarely played moves, including a natural reply like 9 . . . 0 - 0, lead Black to rather difficult positions. Meanwhile, White is not sup­posed to do anything extraordinary. Either he obtains a stable ad-

258

S.ttJc3 "Wc7 6. ie3 a6 7. "Wd2 tDf6 8. 0 - 0 - 0 ib4 9.j3

vantage in the endgame, or he develops a powerful initiative on the kingside.

The standard pawn-advance for the Sicilian Defence - a) 9 . . . bS turns out to be premature in that situation. White places his knight under three attacks with his move 11 and he disrupts the pawn-shelter ofhis king deliberately on his next move. He gains some time however in order to organize some concrete threats. White thus obtains a con­siderable advantage with an energetic play in the centre and on the kingside.

Black is not well-preparedfor the immediate counter strike in the centre - b) 9 . . . d5. After the natural move 1 0 .a3, he isfaced with the unpleasant choice between perishing quickly in the complications and defending a difficult endgame without any counterplay.

White had great problems for a long time trying to cope with the move c) 9 . . . tDe7, connected with the preparation of the thematic pawn-advance d7-dS. White's most powerful argument here is the move - 1 0 . tDde2!. In variation cl), we have analyzed Black's most natural move 1 0 . . . dS, with which he practically wins a pawn by force. Hefalls behind in development though and his pawn-structure on the kingside is destroyed, so that he has problems finding a reliable shel­ter of his king. In variation c2), Black is trying to organize some coun­terplay on the queenside with the move 10 . . . bS. White has a powerful maneuver with his bishop then and he forces his opponent to advance his e-pawn, as a result of which Black's d7-pawn becomes very weak for a long time.

In variation d), we analyze the line 9 . . . tDaS, which was introduced into the tournament practice by Anand. It did not become so popular though, since Black was practically forced to give up his bishop for White's knight on c3. Black's dark squares are weak then and he must trade queens in order not to come under attack on the dark squares. In the endgame then, Black is doomed to a long and laborious defence without chances of obtaining any counterplay.

259

Chapter 14 1.e4 c5 2.tL)£3 tL)c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tL)xd4 e6 5.tL)c3 'ffc7 6 . .ie3 a6 7.'ffd2 tL)f6 8. 0 - 0 - 0 .ib4 9.£3 tL)e5

1 0 .lilb3 Black is quite ready to lose a

tempo in many variations of the Sicilian Defence in order to repel his opponent's knight from the ac­tive d4-square. Here, surprisingly White retreats his knight deliber­ately. The reason is that Black's positional threat - hc3 has be­come real and White must con­sider that possibility seriously.

1 0 • • • b5 We must analyze some other

lines for Black too : If he captures - 1O . . . hc3,

then White obtains a clear ad­vantage after 11.'lWxc3 (It is also possible for White to continue with: 1l.bxc3 lilc4 12 .hc4 'lWxc4 13.icS b6 14.hb6 0-0 IS.'lWd4± Equiza - San Emeterio, Mond­ariz 2002 , or 1l . . . dS 12 .if4 0-0

260

13.ig3 !±) 1l . . . 'lWxc3 12 .bxc3 bS (It is weaker for Black to play: 12 . . . dS 13.id4 liled7, Wiegelmann - Sue­tin, Berlin 1993, 14.exdS±) 13.if4 lilc4 14. hc4 bxc4 IS.ltJaS dS, Acher - Chernuschevich, Aix les Bains 2003, 16J:1hel 0-0 17.id6 ge8 18.exdS exdS 19.9xe8+ lilxe8 20.gxdS ie6 21 .gd4±;

Just like before, it is too opti­mistic for Black to play 1O . . . lilc4 - because he falls behind consid­erably in development: 1l.hc4 �xc4 12 .id4 0-0 (In case of 12 . . . ie7, Pavel - Papp, Budapest 2004, White maintains a stable advantage with: 13 .ieS 0-0 14. id6±) 13.a3 ie7 14.icS hcs 15. lilaS ie3 16.lilxc4 hd2+ 17.gxd2 bS 18.lLld6± Luther - Hulak, Ku­sadasi 2006;

In case of 10 . . . d6 , White can enter the following forced varia­tion: 1l.id4 lLlc6 12 .hf6 gxf6 13. a3 hc3 14.�xc3 @e7 IS.g4 id7 16.h4± - and his superior pawn­structure and the possibility for him to attack his opponent's king, stranded in the centre, qualify the position as better for White, B. Gar­cia - Borges Mateos, Cuba 2003;

6 .ie3 a6 7. Wfd2 CiJj6 8. 0 - 0 - 0 ib4 9j3 CiJe5 1 O . CiJb3

It is too slow for Black to play 10 . . . ie7, since it enables White to develop a powerful initiative af­ter: 11.f4 CiJc4 12 . .hc4 Wfxc4 13.eS CiJe4 (It is equally bad for Black to try: 13 . . . CiJg4 14.id4 fS IS.h3 CiJh6 16.Wff2 bS 17.icS ixcS IB.CiJxcS b4 19.b3 Wfxc3 20 .�bl+- Sax - Z.Medvegy, Hungary 2003.) 14.CiJxe4 Wfxe4 IS.icS .hcs 16. CiJxcS Wfc6 17.Wfe3 0-0 IB.l':id6 Wfc7 (In case of: IB . . . Wfxg2 19.1':igl Wfxh2 20.CiJe4, Black's resistance crum­bles rather quickly, for example: 20 . . . bS 21 .Eid2 Wfh6 22 .Eidg2+-) 19.Eihdl± Korneev - Bellon Lo­pez, Seville 2005;

White counters 10 . . . 0-0 with 11 .�bl and here there might fol­low:

About ll . . . dS 12 .id4 - see 10 .. . dS ; or ll . . . bS? ! 12 .CiJxbS±; or 11 . . . ixc3 12 .Wfxc3 Wfxc3 13.bxc3 dS 14.id4;t; or 1l . . . CiJc4 12 .ixc4 Wfxc4 13.id4 ie7 14.e5 lLleB IS.CiJe4;t Skibbe - Igonin, Willingen 2005; or 11 . . . ie7 12.f4 lLleg4, Tologonte­gin - Vasilkova, Moscow 2005 (In case of: 12 . . . lLlc4 13.ixc4 Wfxc4, White begins an offensive in the centre - 14.eS CiJg4 IS.id4 f6 16. h3 fxeS 17.hxg4 exd4 IB.lLlxd4 ib4 19.Wfe3 ixc3 20 .bxc3;t) 13.eS ! CiJxe3 14.Wfxe3 CiJg4 1S.Wfe2 ! CiJh6 16.lLle4 bS 17.g4 ib7 1B.ig2;t;

10 . . . dS 1l.id4 0-0 12.�bl dxe4. That is the principled line for Black. (His position remains rath­er dubious after: 12 . . . lLlc4 13 . .hc4 dxc4 14.ixf6 gxf6 1S.lLld4;t, while the continuous tension in the

centre presents White with many more additional possibilities, for example after 12 . . . EidB, he can play not only the straightforward line 13.WfgS CiJg6 14.eS, but also the insidious move 13.Wfe1 and Black cannot follow with 13"'dxe4, due to: 14.ixeS Eixd1+ 1S.CiJxd1 ! +-) 13.Wff4 id6 (It is too passive for Black to play: 13 . . . lLlfd7 14.CiJxe4±) 14.lLlxe4 CiJxe4 1S.Wfxe4 CiJc6 (After 1S . . . CiJg6, Black's knight comes under attack: 16.h4 eS 17.ic3 ie6 IB.hS CiJe7 19.94 EiacB 20.id3 fS, Dworakowska - Lakos, Szeged 2004 and here the simplest road for White to the advantage is the natural line: 21 .gxfS ixfS 22 .Wfe2;t; while in case of 16 . . .fS 17.Wfel eS, Black's eS-pawn be­comes weak after: 1B.hS CiJe7 19. ic3;t) 16.ib6 (It seems to me - that is simpler than: 16.ic3 fS 17.Wfe3 bS 1B.g4, Fressinet - De la Riva, Andorra 2004, IB . . . if4 with a rather unclear game, or 17.Wfe1 bS 1B.a3 eS 19.1LlaS lLlxaS 20.ixaS, Balogh - Gavrikov, Austria 2004, 20 . . . Wfe7!) 16 . . . Wfxb6 17.Eixd6 Wfc7 1BJ�d2 eS 19.ic4 as 20 .a4 ! g6 (Now, it is not easy for Black at all to neutralize White's pressure, for example: 20 . . . CiJe7 2 1.g4 id7 22 .Eiel EiacB 23.h4 EifdB 24.Eiedl ixa4 2S.ixf7+ �xf726.Wfxa4 Eixd2 27.Eixd2 b6 2B .Wfe4 �gB 29.CiJcU) 21.g4 CiJd4 22 .CiJxd4 (Maybe it looks quite attractive for White to try here: 22 .idS CiJxb3 23.ixb3 id7 24.idS;t, maintaining a stable edge in a position with approxi-

261

Chapter 14

mate material equality.) 22 . . . Wlxc4 23.WlxeS Wlxa4 24.h4 ! ? White is no doubt dominant, but still he must play very precisely. (In case of: 24.ltJbS .te6 2S.ltJc3 11*fc6, Acs - Fries Nielsen, Germany 2005, it is far from easy for White to ex­ploit the vulnerability of the al-hB diagonal - Black would counter 26 .ltJe4 with 26 .. .f6. The point is that the potential energy of the bishop is so great that White must act energetically - other­wise Black might avoid trouble.) 24 . . J�eB 2S.11*ff4 11*fc4 26.hS a4 (or 26 . . J�a6 27.hxg6 hxg6 2B.b3±) 27.hxg6 fxg6 2B.E!dh2 E!e7 29.WlgS Wlc7 30 .ltJbS 11*fdB 31.11*fxg6+ hxg6 32 .E!hB+ i>g7 33 .E!xdB±

1l.Y:Vd4!? This is a new idea - White must

strive to trade queens, since then he would exploit the weaknesses on Black's queenside much easier. Meanwhile, he is not afraid of the exchange on c3 and he forces his opponent to clarify his intentions concerning the bishop on b4.

In the variation: 1l .Wlf2 .txc3 12 .bxc3 d6 13 . .tb6 WfbB 14.iaS ! , White plans t o trade queens on

262

b6 except that after a complicated maneuver. His aim is quite clear after the move in the text. White has tried four other moves in that position, but Black has managed to solve his opening problems af­ter a precise play:

1) 1l . .td4 .te7 12 .11*ff2 d6 13.g4 0-0 14.i>bl (Or 14.gS ltJfd7 lS.f4, Sakaev - Xu Jun, Moscow 2004 lS .. . b4 !? , this was recommended by Delchev and Semkov 16.ltJe2 .tb7 ! ; 16.ltJa4 ltJc4 17.11*fe2 ltJaS IB.E!gl eS+t) 14 . . . ltJfd7 lS.E!gl (It is not good for White to opt for lS.f4? ! b4 ! - that is an important intermediate move. 16.ltJa4 ltJxg4 17.Y:Vg3 eS !� Jazbinsek - Ivanise­vic, Ljubljana 2005.) lS . . . .tb7 (It also deserves attention for Black to try the immediate lS . . . b4 16.ltJa4 .tb7! ? Delchev, Semkov.) 16.gS E!fcB 17.a3 ltJc4 IB . .txc4 Wlxc4!oo and there arose a position with mutual counter chances in the game, Lahno - Goloshchapov, Kharkiv 2004;

The active queen-sortie does not yield anything substantial for White after: 12 .Y:VgS ltJg6 13.Y:Vg3 - he is trying to trade queens, but Black should better avoid that: 13 . . . eS! 14.!e3 d6 lS.Wlf2 (White has also tried here: lS.h4 b4 16.ltJdS ltJxdS 17.exdS .tfS IB.E!d2 hSoo, but Black had a promising position in the game Kolesnik - Teterev, Minsk 2 004) lS . . . E!bB 16.i>bl 0-0 17.g4 b4 IB.ltJe2 as 19.9S (It is even worse for White to play: 19.h4? a4 20 .ltJbcl .txg4 !

6. !e3 a6 7. V!1d2 l1Jf6 8. 0 - 0 - 0 !b4 9.f3 l1Je5 1 0 . tiJb3

21.fxg4? that move loses imme­diately - 21 ohS ! EifcS 22 .Eid2 l1JfS 23.fxg4 l1Jxe4 24.�el dS !+ - 21 . . . EifcS 22 .Eid2 l1Jxe4 23 .V!1el hh4 24.V!1dl l1Jc3 2S.l1Jxc3 bxc3-+ Kor­neev - Lazarev, Marin 2003.) 19 . . . a4 20 .tiJbc1 l1JhS 21 ol1Jg3 tiJgf4 22 .l1JxhS l1JxhS+ and Black has al­ready advanced his pawns and his position was better in the game Smirnov - J.Geller, Togliatti 2003 .

2) I1 oc;t>bl - The drawback of this usually quite useful move for White in the Sicilian Defence is that Black can create an immedi­ate counterplay on the b-file with: 1l . . . l1Jc4 ! 12 .hc4 bxc4

13.l1Jc1 (White has also tried to place his knight in the centre 13.l1Jd4 ! ? EibS 14.c;t>al 0-0 lS.g4 d6 16.h4 - 16.a3 !as= Sax -Goloshchapov, Rethymnon 2003 - 16 . . . eS 17.tiJfS hfS 1S.gxf5 dS, Korneev - Vehi, Seville 2007, but here after the best for White: 19.exdS V!1b7 20 .!gS !as 21 oEib1 hc3 2 2 .�xc3 l1JxdS 23.V!1xeS f6 24.�e6 c;t>h8 2S.!d2 :1:!fe8� Black has more than sufficient com­pensation.) 13 . . . :1:!b8 ! Black is al-

ready eyeing his opponent's king ! I4.l1J1e2 (After 14.!f4 eS 1S.!gS V!1b6 16.tiJ1e2 0-0 I7.M6 !a3 lS.b3 V!1xf6 19.11JdS V!1dS ! , the po­sition remains approximately equal, but White played impre­cisely later and he could have be­come even worse. 20 .l1Jg3 - The situation is rather unclear after: 20 .V!1c3 cxb3 21 .axb3 d6 22 .V!1c7 V!1xc7 23.l1Jxc7 fS 24.tiJc3 :1:!f7oo - 20 . . . aS 21 .l1JfS :1:!eS 22 .g4 !b7 23.gS hdS 24.�xdS cxb3 2S.axb3, Zufic - Delchev, Zadar 2004, 2S . . . a4 !+) 14 . . . 0-0 1S.c;t>al (or lS.!f4 eS 16.!gS l1JeS ! 17.c;t>a1 d6 IS.a3, Borisek - Delchev, Nova Gorica 200S, 1S . . . !aS ! and Black is not worse at all) IS . . . dS ! 16 .!gS (It be­comes clear now that it is bad for White to play: I6.!f4? eS 17.!gS, Goloshchapov - Tregubov, Istan­bul 2003, 17 . . . hc3 ! IS.l1Jxc3 d4 I9.hf6 �b6!+) I6 . . . dxe4 I7.hf6 gxf6 18 .�h6 �eS 19.f4 �fS, Ko­rneev - Delchev, Navalmoral 2004 and here it was obvious that White's best decision was to force a draw after: 20 .l1Jd4 ! ? hc3 21ol1JxfS hb2 22 .c;t>b1 !a3= ;

3) I1o�f2 - This line i s rela­tively not so well-analyzed.

263

Chapter 14

11 . . . 0-0 ! (Here, it is not so good for Black to play: 11 . . . ttJc4? ! 12 .i.c5 ! iWf4 13.�b1 hc3 14.bxc3 d5 15.hc4!? bxc4 16.ttJd2 i.b7 17.�al;!;; Volokitin - Vachier La­grave, Cap d'Agde 2006. White's idea can be best seen in the line: 11 . . . i.xc3 12 .bxc3 d6 13.i.b6 iWbS 14.i.a5 !? , creating the threat to exchange queens on b6 after which White's endgame is clearly better. 14 . . . ttJc4 15.i.b4 a5 16.hd6 ttJxd6 17.e5 ttJd5 lS.exd6 0-0 19.ttJc5 l"ldS= ; 15.hc4 bxc4 16. ttJd4 i.b7oo; 15.iWg3 ! ttJh5 16. iWg5 ttJxa5 17.ttJxa5 iWc7 lS.ttJb3 g6 19.iWd2 0-0 20 .g4 ttJg7 21.iWxd6 iWxc3 22 .l"ld3 iWe1 - 22 . . . iWf6 23 .h4t - 23.�b2t Tseshkovsky ­Markus, Zlatibor 2006) 12 .i.c5 hc5 13.�xc5 iWxc5 14.ttJxc5 d5 15.exd5 b4 16.ttJ3a4 ttJxd5= and White has hardly any advantage in that endgame, Tseshkovsky -Bryzgalin, Belorechensk 2005;

4) 11.iWe1 - That move creates a tactical threat and it frees the d2-square for the bishop.

11 . . . i.e7 (After 11 . . .i.b7? Black falls for a simple trap: 12 .ttJxb5 axb5 13.�xb4± Abreu - Hernan-

264

dez, Morelia 2006.) 12 .f4 ttJg6 13.e5 ttJg4 14.i.d2 i.b7 15.i.d3 (Af­ter 15.h3 ttJh6 16.ttJe4 l"lcS 17.i.d3 f5 lS.ttJd6 hd6 19.exd6 �xd6, White's compensation for the pawn is insufficient. In addition, he simply blundered a piece: 20 . iWf2?? iWxd3-+ Vasilkova - Ovod, Moscow 2007.) l"lcS 16.ttJe4 (It is not enough for White to claim an advantage after: 16.iWe2 f5 ! ? 17.exf6? ! - 17.h3 ttJh6 lS.a3 0-0 19.1"lhfl d6 20 .ttJd4 �d7 21 .exd6 hd6 22.iWxe6 iWxe6 23.ttJxe6 l"lfeS 24.ttJd4 hg2 25.ttJxf5 ttJxf5 26.hf5 l"lcdS 27.l"lf2 ttJh4� Del­chev, Semkov - 17 . . . ttJxf6 IS. l"lhf1 0-0 19.93 b4 20 .ttJe4 ttJxe4 21.he4 a5+ and Black was even slightly better in the game Svidler - Vitiugov, Moscow 2006.) 16 . . . 0-0 17.�b1 (In case of 17.h3, Kolev - Delchev, Santa Cruz de La Palma 2005, Black has the surprising resource: 17 . . . ttJ4xe5! Delchev, Semkov, lS.fxe5 ttJxe5 and his compensation is just ex­cellent, which can be best illus­trated with the following lines: 19.�b1 f5 20 .ttJc3 ttJxd3 21 .cxd3 iWd6 !� with a good compensa­tion for the piece; or 19.�g3 ttJxd3 20.iWxd3 f5 2 1.ttJg3 f4 22 .ttJf1 b4! 23.�b1 hg2 24.l"lgl hh3+; 23.l"lgl l"lf5 24.c3 l"ld5 25.�c2 a5+) 17 .. .f5 lS.exf6 ttJxf6 19.1"lfl i.d5 20.i.a5 iWc6 21.ttJxf6 i.xf6 22 .g3, Zufic - Lazarev, Trieste 2005, Black could have equalized by force ifhe so wished with the line: 22 . . . e5! 23 .hg6 hxg6 24.fxe5

6. ie3 a6 7.Wfd2 llJj6 8. 0 - 0 - 0 ib4 9/3 llJe5 1 0 . llJb3

'lWxc2 2S.@al ixb3 26.axb3 E1ceB 27.Wfc3 'lWxc3 2B.ixc3 ixeS= ;

White would not achieve much with 14.llJe4 0-0 IS.icS ib7 16.llJd6 (White did not obtain any edge after I6.h3 llJh6 17.ixe7 llJxe7 IB.id3 llJdS I9.WfaS WfxaS 20.llJxaS E1a7 21 .llJxb7 E1xb7 22 .llJd6 E1c7 23.g3 f6= Belov - J.Geller, Mos­cow 2007.) 16 . . . idS 17.E1xdS ! White has some compensation indeed, but not more. 17 . . . exdS IB.'lWdl (Or IB.'lWd2 Wfc6oo; IB.g3 f6 and here it is bad for White to opt for: 19.'lWdl fxeS 20 .Wfxd5 @hB 21.fS, Balogh - Delchev, Tusnad 200S, 21 . . .ixd6 22 .ixd6 llJe3 !+, while after 19.ig2, the forced play leads to an equal position after: 19 . . . fxeS 20.ixdS 'ifihB 21.ixaB ixd6 22 .ixd6 Wfxd6 23.if3 llJf6=) IB . . . llJf6 19.93 Wfc6 (It is insufficient for Black to equal­ize with: 19 . . . llJe4 20.'lWxdS llJxcS 21 .ttJxcS E1acB 22 .b4! - 22.llJxcB? ! E1xcB 23 .b4 ttJfB 24.id3 ixcS 2S.WfxcS 'lWb7 26.'lWgl WfdSoo - 22 . . . ixd6 23.exd6 'lWc6 24.ig2 WfxdS 2S.ixdS E1feB 26 .llJxa6±; 23 . . . 'lWdB 24.ih3! 'lWf6 2S.ixd7 E1cdB 26 .E1el Wfc3 27.E1e4±) 20.exf6 ixd6 2 1.fxg7 E1feB 22 .if2 E1acB 23.id3 ic7 24.ttJd4 'lWf6 2S.llJfS ib6 26 .ixb6 'lWxb6oo with a very complicated fight, with mutual chances, Borisek - Ivanisevic, Nova Gorica 2007.

After 1l.'lWd4, Black has three logical responses : a) 1l • . . ic3, b) 11 • • • ie7 and c) 1l . . . llJc6 .

a) 1l . . . hc3

We can be easily convinced that the exchange on c3 is not a threat if we analyze this possibil­ity in details. That position is usu­ally reached if White plays 1l.Wfel (instead of 1l.Wfd4) 1l . . . ixc3 12. 'lWxc3.

12.Wfxc3 'lWxc3 13.bxc3 llJc6 We must have a look at the

other variations for Black too: 13 . . . dS - That is an attempt by

him to solve his opening problems outright. 14.id4 ! ttJed7 IS.exdS llJxdS. This is forced. (After IS . . . exdS 16 .E1el @dB 17.g4± Black is in a big trouble.) 16.ixg7 E1gB 17.id4 ib7 IB.c4 ! bxc4 19.1lJaS 0-0-0 20 .llJxc4± and Black was simply a pawn down in the game Iordachescu - Macieja, Bermuda 2004;

13 . . . llJc4 - That move has not been tested in practice yet, but it would not equalize either. 14.ixc4 bxc4 IS.llJaS dS 16.exdS exdS (or 16 . . . llJxdS 17.id4 f6 IB.ttJxc4±) 17.E1hel ie6 (It would be a mis­take for Black to try: 17 . . . 0-0? IB .icS E1dB 19.ttJc6 E1d7 20 .ttJe7 @hB 21 .llJxdS±) IB.id4±;

26S

Chapter 14

13 . . . ib7, Deepan - Smeets, Kochin 2004, 14.1f4 ! ttJg6 (It is worse for Black to opt for 14 . . . ttJc4? 1S.ixc4 bxc4 16.ttJaS±) 1S. id6 0-0-0 16.c4± - White ex­changes his doubled pawn and he preserves the two-bishop advan­tage with a clear edge.

14.c4 bxc4 After 14 . . . b4 1S.icS ! as 16.id6

hS 17.h4 ttJg8 18.ttJcS, Black can­not complete his development: 18 . . . ttJge7 19J'!d2 f6 20.f4 eS 21.g3 ttJd4 22 .ih3± and White obtained an overwhelming advantage in the game Stoinev - Todorov, So­fia 2006 .

15.ixc4 d5 Black will have to play that

move at some moment anyway. After 1S . . . aS 16.1bS ia6, Iul­

dachev - Satyapragyan, Pune 2004, 17.a4 !? , Black has a prob­lem finding a useful move, for ex­ample: 17 . . . 0-0? ! 18.ttJcS±

16.exd5 ttJe5 17.ttJa5 ttJxc4 18.ttJxc4 exd5

It is even worse for Black to try 18 . . . ttJxdS? 19.ttJd6 �f8 (After 19 . . . �e7 2 0.ic5 �f6 2U :!d4! gS 22 .h4± White's initiative is very powerful, possibly even decisive.) 20 .icS �g8 21 .c4 ltJf4 22J:!d2± and White's knight on d6 is a monster. Black's defence is quite problematic, despite the material equality.

19.tod6! White insists on attack­

ing. He can also continue with the simpler line: 19.1tJb6 Eib8

266

20 .ltJxdS± with excellent winning chances.

19 . . . �e7 2 0 .ic5 ie6 21.f4! �d7 22.f5 �c6 23.1a3 1d7 24.Eihel EihfS, Vuckovic - Lap­cevic, Bar 200S and here White could have settled the issue with the move - 25.Eid3 !+- and Black would be helpless.

b) 1l . • . 1e7

This position has been reached after another move-order in the game we will analyze now: l .e4 cS 2 .ltJf3 ltJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ltJxd4 '\Wb6 S.ltJb3 ltJf6 6 .ltJc3 e6 7.1e3 '\Wc7 8.f3 a6 9 .Wd2 bS 10 .0-0-0 ltJeS 1l.'\Wd4 ie7.

12.1e2 0 - 0 13.g4 It deserved attention for White

to trade queens with the line :

6.ie3 a6 7. 1Jlfd2 0,f6 8. 0 - 0 - 0 ib4 9/3 0,eS J O . 0,.b3

13.1Jlfb6 YNxb6 14.ixb6 d6 1S.a3 id7 16.0,aS;!; with a slightly better endgame for him.

13 • • • d6 14.b4 White would not achieve much

with 14.a3 ib7 1S.1Jlfb6 YNxb6 16. ixb6 l'lac8 17.0,aS ia8=

14 • • • i.b7 15.b5 tLlc6 After 1S . . . ltJc4 16 .gS eS 17.1Jlfd3

0,d7 18.<;t>b1t White is slightly better.

16.1Jlfd2 b4, Trkulja - Kuraji­ca, Bihac 1999 and here, instead of the move in the game - (17.0,b1), it looks much better for White to continue with: 17. tLla4 ! tLld7 18.b6 g6 19.<;t>bl a5 2 0 .tLld4!;!;

c) 1l • • • tLlc6 12 .1Jlfb6

12 • • • 1Jlfe5!? That is an exquisite move.

Black provokes the advance of White's f3-pawn, with the idea to weaken the e4-pawn. The draw­back of that move is that Black's queen is a bit awkwardly placed.

I will mention here that the other moves lead to an edge for White.

12 . . . 1Jlfxb6 13.ixb6 ixc3 (In case of 13 . . . 0-0, White has the resource : 14.a4 ! ixc3 1S.axbS axbS 16.bxc3 ia6 17.i.c5 l'lfc8 18.id6 ltJe8 19.ib4 !±; 1S . . . ixb2 16.<;t>xb2 axbS 17.icS l'ld8 18.ixbS ia6 19.ixc6 dxc6 20 .l'lxd8 l'lxd8 21.l'lal± and he is clearly better. Black's knight, as well as his king, is incapable of taking part in the fight on the queenside.) 14.bxc3 and White has the advantage in that position. His bishop-pair and Black's vulnerable dark squares compensateamplyWhite'spartial­ly compromised pawn-structure. 14 . . . dS 1S.ie2 0-0 16.0,cS l'le8 (It is hardly to be recommended to Black to continue with : 16 . . . 0,eS? ! 17.ic7 0,c4 18.ixc4 bxc4 19.i.eS dxe4 20 .i.xf6 gxf6 21.0,xe4 <;t>g7 22 .l'ld6 ib7 23.0,cS l'lfb8 24J�hd1 as 2S.0,d7 l'lg8 (but not 2S . . . l'ld8? ! 26 .l'l6d4 l'lac8? 27.l'lg4 <;t>h8 28.0,xf6+-) 26.l'l1d4 !±) 17.ic7 l'la7 18.ig3 0,hS (or 18 . . . dxe4 19. fxe4 eS 20.l'ld6 l'lc7 21 .l'lhd1 and White occupies reliably the d-file 21 . . .0,b8 22 .if2 0,fd7 23.l'l1dS 0,f6 24.l'ld8 l'lce7 2S.l'lSd6;!;) 19.if2 l'lc7 20 .l'lhe1 0,e7 21 .exdS 0,xdS (or 21 . . . exdS 22 .a4 bxa4 23.0,xa4 0,f4 24.if1± and White's couple of

267

Chapter 14

bishops is totally dominant in that position) 22 .hbS axbS 23J!xdS liJf4 24.E1gS ! f6 2S.E1g4 liJdS 26.c4;j; and White remains with an extra pawn in that endgame;

12 . . . �d6 ! ? 13.'lWxc7 hc7 14.g4 ! - White not only occupies space on the kingside, but he is ready to repel Black's knight from the f6-square at any moment. 14 . . . 0-0 (Black's plan with the immediate pawn-advance d7-dS is not good at all : 14 . . . h6 1S.�e2 b4 16.liJa4 dS 17.liJacS - White's knight has oc­cupied a perfect outpost. 17 . . . dxe4 1B.fxe4 liJeS 19.h3 0-0 20.WbU) 1S.�e2 d6 (After the natural move 1S . . . �eS, White exchanges the dark-squared bishops and he oc­cupies the d6-square: 16.�cS E1dB 17.�d6 hd6 1B.E1xd6 liJeB 19.E1d2 d6 20 .f4 b4 21 .liJa4 as 22.�bS �d7 23.E1hd1 liJeS (or 23 . . . E1abB 24.c4 bxc3 2S.liJxc3 liJb4 26.a4±; 23 . . . liJc7 24.E1xd6 liJxbS 2SJ!xd7±) 24.hd7 liJxd7 2S.gS E1a7 26.liJd4 E1b7 27.fS liJfB 2B .c4 !;J; White's pieces are very active.) 16.a3 �b7 17.gS liJd7 1B.f4 liJb6 19.E1hfU White is slightly better, thanks to his space advantage.

26B

13.�d2 !? White prevents Black's plans

and he forces his opponent to clarify his intentions concerning the future of his king. Black can leave it in the centre in case of an immediate transfer into an end­game.

13 . . . 0 - 0 Black's other possibility here

is 13 . . . E1bB 14.'lWe3 - White has exchanged the places of his queen and bishop in an original fashion. Now, his knight on c3 is reliably protected and White's queen can be quickly redeployed to the king­side. There might follow: 14 . . . 'Wc7 (or 14 . . . 0-0 1S.f4 'lWc7 16.�d3;J;) 1S.f4 (White can also try: 1S.liJdS hd2 16.E1xd2 exdS 17.exdS 'lWeS 1B.E1e2 'Wxe3 19.E1xe3 WdB 20.dxc6 dxc6 21.�d3;J;) 1S . . . d6 16 .�d3;j; and his attacking chances on the kingside are much greater with a bishop on d3 than his opponent's counterplay on the queenside. Meanwhile, Black has a problem what to do with his bishop on b4.

14.f4 ti'bS It is not good for Black to

play 14 . . . 'WhS 1S.�d3 E1bB 16.'Wf2 dS 17.exdS liJxdS (or 17 . . . hc3 1B.dxc6±) 1B.liJxdS exdS 19.h3±

15.Y:YxbS White is not forced to trade

queens now, but still it does not seem too good for him to opt for: 1S.'We3 eS !? (It is also interest­ing for Black to sacrifice a pawn with 1S . . . aS ! ? 16.liJxbS dS� - and he has a serious compensation.)

6 .�e3 a6 7Jlid2 CiJf6 8. 0 - 0 - 0 �b4 9/3 CiJ e5 1 0 . CiJ b3

16.fS �b7 17.g4 (After 17.a3 ixc3 18.ixc3 �d8 19.�e1 dS 20.exdS CiJxdS 2 1.�d2 iWd6= Black's pieces have occupied the central squares and White is not better at all .) 17 . . . ixc3 18.ixc3 CiJxe4 19.�xe4 CiJd4 20 .�xd4 ixe4 21 .�xe4 f6 22 .�g2 dS 23.�e2 e4 24.'.t?b1co - There arose a position with a non-bal­anced material ratio and only tournament practice can deliver its correct final evaluation.

15 • . • �xb8 16.e5 CiJg4 17.CiJe4 White has another interest­

ing possibility at his disposal - 17.�gl ! ? f6 (Black should not be too greedy: 17 . . . CiJxh2? 18 .�e2 fS 19.exf6 �xf6 20 .�h1 �h6 21.fS ixc3 22 .bxc3 �h4 23.fxe6 dxe6 24.�e1 �e4 2S.�d3+- and at the end he loses material. Black is again worse after: 17 . . . CiJf2 18.�e1 fS 19.a3 ixc3 20 .ixc3 CiJe4 21.�d2;t) 18.�e2 CiJf2 19.�df1 ixc3

17 .. .f6 18.�e2 fS 19.c3 �e7 20 .ixg4 fxg4 21 .�e3;!;; ;

17 . . . ixd2 18.�xd2 CiJb4 19.�e2 CiJe3 20 .�f3 CiJxa2 21 .<±>b1 CiJb4 22 .CiJd6 �b6 23.�e1 CiJc4 24.CiJxc4 bxc4 2S.CiJaS c3 26.13d6 ! - Black's bishop on c8 is a sorry sight now. 26 . . . �b5 27.CiJb3 cxb2 28.<±>xb2 f6 (or 28 . . . �b7 29 .�e2;t) 29.c3 CiJc6 30.c4 �b7 31.ixc6 dxc6 32 .�xc6;t

18.exf6 hd2 Or 18 . . . dS 19.�e2 ixd2 20 .

13xd2 dxe4 21.ixg4 �xf6 22 .�e1 �xf4 23 .�d1 �b7 24.CiJcS;!;;

20 .ixc3 CiJe4 21.�d4 (or 21.�f3 19.13xd2 CiJxf6 2 0 .CiJxf6 13xf6 CiJxc3 22 .bxc3 13b6=) 21 . . .lLlxd4 21.g3 e5 22 .fxe5 CiJxe5 23.�g2 22 .CiJxd4 �b7 23.�f3co �b7 24.hb7 13xb7 25.13hdU

17 . . . f5 ! White maintains the advantage The other lines are not any thanks to his superior pawn-

better for Black: structure.

Conclusion The variation, which we have analyzed in this chapter, is probably

one of the key-lines for the evaluation of the entire idea of the aggres­sive development - �e3, �d2, 0 - 0 - 0 in the Taimanov system of the Sicilian Defence. After 1 0 . . . b5, White has a great choice of possibili­ties. Black's counterplay seems to be sufficient in the main lines, ac­cording to the contemporary theory. Therefore, I suggest a new move and an original idea, connected with it.

269

Chapter 14

By playing 11 . Yffd4, White is trying to exchange queens and that seems to be rather unpleasantfor Black, since he can hardly avoid it. The trade of Black's dark-squared bishop on c3 turns out to be quite favourablefor White. The defect of his pawn-structure is compensat­ed by his complete dominance over the dark squares, moreover that White usually advances easily c3-c4 in most of the cases and his ad­vantage becomes overwhelming. If Black refrains from exchanging on c3 then White succeeds in trading queens. The arising positions then are clearly advantageousfor White.

270

Index of Variations

Part I. l.e4 c5 2 .lLlf3 lLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 . • • • • • • • • • • 9

Chapter I l.e4 c5 2 .lLlf3 lLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3

a) 4 . . . lLlxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 b) 4 . . . a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 c) 4 . . . d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Chapter 2 l.e4 c5 2 .lLlf3 lLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 ti'b6 5.lLlb3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

a) 5 . . . e6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 b) 5 . . . lLlf6 6.ltJc3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

b1) 6 .lLlc3 e6 7:�e2 d6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 b2) 6 .ltJc3 e6 7.vtfe2 vtfc7 . . . . . . • . • . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . 36 b3) 6 .lLlc3 e6 7.vtfe2 Ab4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Chapter 3 l.e4 c5 2.lLlf3 lLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 e5 5.lLlb5 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5 . . . a6 6.ltJd6+ hd6 7.vtfxd6 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

a) 7.vtfxd6 vtfe7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 b) 7.vtfxd6 vtff6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . 52

Chapter 4 l.e4 c5 2.lLlf3 lLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 e5 5.lLlb5 d6 6. lLl 1c3

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 6 . . . a6 7.ltJa3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

a) 7.ltJa3 ie7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 b) 7.ltJa3 !e6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 c) 7.ltJa3 b5 8.ltJd5 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

c1) 8.ltJd5 Ae7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 c2) 8.ltJd5 ltJge7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 c3) 8.ltJd5 ltJce7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

271

Index of Variations

Part 2. 1.e4 cS 2 .ti)f3 ti)c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ti)xd4 e6 S.ti)c3 • • . • • • • 83

Chapter S 1.e4 cS 2.ti)f3 ti)c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ti)xd4 e6 S.ti)c3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8S

a) S . . . dS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 b) s . . . ics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 c) S . . . Wlb6 • • • • . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • . • • • . . . . • • • . • • • . . 89 d) S . . . ib4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 e) S . . . ti)xd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 f) S . . . d6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Chapter 6 1.e4 cS 2.ti)f3 ti)c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ti)xd4 e6 S.ti)c3 ti)f6 6.ti)dbS

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 1 a) 6 . . . a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 2 b) 6 . . . icS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 6

Chapter 7 1.e4 cS 2.ti)f3 ti)c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ti)xd4 e 6 S.ti)c3 ti)f6 6.ti)dbS ib4 7.a3 hc3 8.ti)xc3

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 4 a) 8 . . . dS 9 . exdS tDxdS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 6 b) 8 . . . dS 9 . exdS exdS 1O .id3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3

b1) 10.id3 d4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 4 b2) 1O.id3 0-0 11.0-0 various . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 8

1O.id3 0-0 11.0-0 d4 12 .tDe2 various . . 1 3 2 b2a) 11.0-0 d4 12 .tDe2 ge8 . . . . 1 3 7 b2b) 11.0-0 d4 12 .tDe2 'iNdS . . . . 1 3 8 b2c) 11.0-0 d4 12.tDe2 ig4 . . . . 1 4 4

Chapter 8 1.e4 cS 2.tDf3 tDc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tDxd4 e 6 S.tDc3 a6 6.�xc6 bxc6 7 • .id3

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l S l a) 7 . . . eS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l S 3 b) 7 . . . d6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l S S c) 7 . . . 'iNc7 8.0-0 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 2

272

8 .0-0 tDf6 9.Wle2 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 4 c 1 ) 9 .'iNe2 d6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 S c 2 ) 9.'iNe2 eS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 8 c 3 ) 9 .'fge2 dS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 0

Index of Variations

Chapter 9 1.e4 cS 2.tDf3 tDc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tDxd4 e6 S.tDc3 a6 6.tDxc6 bxc6 7 . .td3 dS 8. 0 - 0

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 77 a) 8 . . . id6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9 b) 8 .. :lMfc7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 1 c) 8 . . . ttlf6 9J�e1 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 5

c1) 9.l''1:e1 ib7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 7 c2) 9 J':J:e1 ie7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 9

Part 3 . 1.e4 cS 2.ttlf3 tLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 e6 S.tLlc3 'lMfc7 6 . .i.e3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

Chapter 1 0 1.e4 c5 2.tLlf3 tLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 e6 S.tLlc3 'lMfc7 6.ie3

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 6 ... ttlf6 7.f4 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

a) 7.f4 d6 8.'lMff3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 a1) 8.Wf3 a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 a2) 8.Wf3 ie7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

b) 7.f4 ib4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

Chapter 11 1.e4 c5 2.tLlf3 tLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 e6 S.tLlc3 'lMfc7 6 • .te3 a6 7.'lMfd2

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 7 . . . b5 8.0-0-0 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

a) 8 .0-0-0 tLlxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 b) 8 .0-0-0 b4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

Chapter 12 1.e4 cS 2 .tDf3 tLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 e6 S.tLlc3 'lMfc7 6 • .te3 a6 7.'lMfd2 tLlf6 8. 0 - 0 - 0

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 a) 8 . . . b5 9 .if4 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

a1) 9 .if4 tLle5 . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 a2) 9.if4 'lMfb6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

b) 8 . . . ie7 9.f3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 b1) 9.f3 b5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 b2) 9.f3 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

273

Index oj Variations

Chapter 13 l.e4 cS 2.tt:)f3 tt:)c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tt:)xd4 e6 S.tt:)c3 V!Jc7 6 • .te3 a6 7.V!Jd2 tt:)f6 8. 0 - 0 - 0 .tb4 9.f3

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 a) 9 . . . b5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 b) 9 . . . d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 c) 9 . . . tt:)e7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

cl) 10.tt:)de2 d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 c2) 1O.tt:)de2 b5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

d) 9 . . . tt:)a5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

Chapter 14 1.e4 c5 2 .tt:)f3 tt:)c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tt:)xd4 e6 S.tt:)c3 fJc7 6 .ie3 a6 7.V!Jd2 tt:)f6 8. 0 - 0 - 0 .tb4 9.f3 tt:)eS l 0 .tt:)b3

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 1O . . . b5 1l.id4; 11.rJi>bl; 1l.V!Jf2 ; 1l.fJel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

a) 1O . . . b5 1l.V!Jd4 !xc3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 b) 1O . . . b5 1l.V!Jd4 !i.e7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 c) 1O . . . b5 1l.V!Jd4 tt:)c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

274