Paulsen/Taimanov Variations [B40 49 & B54] · PDF filehis group includes the Taimanov...

Paulsen/Taimanov Variations

[B40−49 & B54]

Written by GM John Fedorowicz, GM Tony Kosten & IM Richard Palliser

Last updated Sunday, 17 July 2011

Paulsen Defence

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvlntr0 9+p+p+pzpp0 9p+-+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Taimanov Defence

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvlntr0 9zpp+p+pzpp0 9-+n+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

his group includes the Taimanov variation, the Paulsen−Kan and some trendy

offbeat lines such as the 4...£b6 variation. New developments in the Paulsen and

Taimanov themselves have been few and far between, but there were some games

worthy of attention.

TThe Taimanov and Paulsen Kan variations fall into the category of solid Sicilians.

These positions are different from other Open Sicilian variations. The situations that arise

are less open and the theory doesn't change as drastically.

My recommendation is for players who like to avoid craziness. I have resorted to the

Taimanov against players with a wide−open attacking style.

All the game references highlighted in blue have been annotated and can be downloaded in PGN form using the PGN Games Archive on www.chesspublishing.com.

2

Contents

1 e4 c5 2 ¤f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4 ¤c6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvlntr0 9zpp+p+pzpp0 9-+n+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

4...a6


5 ¥d3 (5 c4 5 c4 Maroczy vs the Kan [B41]; 5 ¤c3 Paulsen/Kan 5 Nc3 [B43]) 5 ..¤f6 (5 ..¥c5 Paulsen/Kan 5 Bd3 Bc5 & Intro [B42]) 6 0-0 Paulsen/Kan 5 Bd3 Nf6 [B42]

4...¤f6 5 ¤c3 ¤c6 Four Knights' with ...e6 [B45], 5...¥b4 Paulsen/Kan Miscellaneous [B40]

5 ¤c3

5 ¤b5 d6 6 c4 Taimanov with 5 Nb5 [B44]

3

5...£c7

5...a6 Taimanov with ...a6 [B46] 5...d6 Keres Attack−Black doesn't play ...Nf6 [B54]

6 ¥e3

6 ¥e2 Taimanov−6 Be2, 6 g3 [B47] 6 g3 Taimanov−6 Be2, 6 g3 [B47]

6...a6 7 ¥e2

7 ¥d3 Taimanov−with 6 Be3 and 7 Bd3 [B48] 7 £d2 ¤f6 8 0-0-0 English Attack v Taimanov [B48]

7...¤f6 8 0-0 ¥b4 9 ¤a4

Taimanov Long Variation [B49]

Press F4 or click on 'Bookmarks' (F5 in older versions) to toggle the Navigation Pane,

then click on the appropriate bookmark to go straight to that section.

Ctrl + 2 resizes the page to fit the window.

All rights reserved Chess Publishing Ltd

4

Paulsen/Kan Miscellaneous [B40]

Last updated: 12/11/08 by Richard Palliser

1 e4 c5 2 ¤f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvlntr0 9zpp+p+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

4...¤f6

4...£b6 The Kveinys variation, as this is known, is a non−theoretical variation. It's nice to see some fresh ideas and this one deserves a look. 5 ¤b3 (5 ¤a3!? Attempting to take advantage of the Qb6's exposed situation. 5...¥xa3 Not a bad reaction, but it leaves the dark squares looking weird. On other moves White has chances for Nd6 dunk.. 6

bxa3 ¤f6 7 £d3 0-0 8 ¥e2 ¤c6 9 ¤xc6 dxc6 10 f3 e5 11 £c3 ¦e8 12 ¥e3 £c7 13 0-0 ¥e6=

Stellwagen,D−Tomashevsky,E/Oropesa del Mar ESP 1999 Black has put together a solid game.) 5...¤c6 (5...£c7 6 ¥d3 ¤f6 7 0-0 d6 8 c4 ¥e7 9 ¤c3 0-0 10 ¥e3 b6 11 a4!

Nisipeanu,L−Ivanchuk,V/Foros 2008) 6 ¥d3 ¤f6 7 0-0 (7 ¤c3 d6 8 0-0 ¥e7 9 ¢h1 0-0 10 ¥g5 ¥d7 11 £e1 ¤g4 12 ¥d2?! (12 ¥xe7 ¤xe7² White can pile on d6.) 12...¥h4!? Hoping to provoke some weaknesses. White was hoping to send Black on a full retreat. 13 ¢g1 ¦ae8 14 ¥e2 ¤ge5 15 £d1 ¥e7 16 ¥e3 £c7 17 f4 ¤g6 18 ¥d3 ¤b4 19 ¥e2 ¦d8 20 a3 ¤c6 Xie Jun−Portisch,L/Marbella ESP 1999 After a lot of shuffling things look about equal.) 7...¥e7 8 c4!? The attacks that come out of some of these ...£b6, ...¥c5 deals look a bit hokey. Going positional with a Maroczy Bind setup looks like a good alternative. 8...¤e5 9 ¤c3 d6 10 ¥e3 £c7 11 ¦c1 b6 12 ¥e2 (12 ¤d4 a6 13 ¥e2 ¥b7 14 f3 0-0 15 b3 is very tough for White to crack) 12...0-0 13 f4 ¤g6 (13...¤ed7!? I hate N's on g6. They're easy targets.) 14 ¤d4 a6 15 g4 This is

5

hard to believe. 15...h6 16 f5 ¤e5 17 h4 ¤h7 18 £e1 £d8 19 ¥f2 ¥d7 20 b3 ¢h8³ Galliamova,A−Portisch,L/Marbella ESP 1999 White's position is a tad stretched out.

4...¥c5!? A rare tricky variation played hoping to catch an unaware opponent. 5 ¤b3 (5 ¥e3 Menacing ¤xe6 5...£b6 6 ¤c3 ¤c6 (6...£xb2?? 7 ¤db5 ¥xe3 8 ¦b1+−) 7 ¤db5 ¥xe3 8 fxe3 ¤ge7 In the game Black gets nothing to compensate for his almost dead bishops and rooks on the back rank. Not to mention White's huge forthcoming attack! (8...£xe3+ 9 ¥e2 is also unpleasant) 9 ¤d6+ ¢f8 10 £d2 ¤e5 11 ¥e2 ¤7c6 12 0-0 a6 13 ¦xf7+!! ¤xf7 14 ¦f1 ¤ce5 15 ¥h5! g6 16 ¤xf7 ¤xf7 17 £f2 ¢e7 18 £xf7+ ¢d6 19 £f4+ ¢c6 20 ¥f3+− Motwani,P−Wortel,M/Dutch Interclubs, Holland 2000 A very crisp attack.) 5...¥b6 6 ¤c3 ¤e7 7 ¥f4 Logical play. Going for the d6 clampdown. 7...0-0 8 ¥d6 f5!? What else can Black do? 9 £d2 ¤bc6 10 ¥e2 ¥c7 11 0-0 ¥xd6 12 £xd6 fxe4 13 ¤xe4 ¤f5 14 £d2 d5 15 ¤g3 e5 16 ¦ad1 ¤fd4 17 ¤xd4 ¤xd4 18 c3 ¤xe2+ 19 £xe2 £d6 20 ¦fe1 ¦e8 21 £e4!± Tiviakov,S−Van Beek,A/Groningen NED 1999, winning a pawn in an unusual manner.

5 ¤c3 ¥b4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zpp+p+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-vl-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

5...£b6 This is the Gaw Paw (or Ga Pa) Variation, a Swedish speciality invented by

Swedish theoretician Rolf Martens. 6 e5 (6 ¤b3!? ¥b4! 7 ¥d3 ¥xc3+! 8 bxc3 d6 9 0-0

Ruiz Bravo,A−Lapshun,Y/Sants ESP 2006.) 6...¥c5! 7 ¥e3 ¤d5! 8 ¤xd5 exd5 9 ¤b5! this line comes close to refuting the entire variation, (9 ¤f5?! £xb2! is much less clear, see Meier,G−Braun,A/Hockenheim/Willingen GER 2006) 9...¥xe3 10 fxe3 Goh Wei Ming−Sadorra,J/Beijing (rapid) 2008.

6 e5 ¤d5

This is best, but I don't trust this stuff for Black. 6...¤e4?! 7 £g4! £a5 (7...¤xc3 8 £xg7 ¦f8 9 a3 ¥a5 10 ¥h6 £e7 11 ¤b3! pointed out by

Mcdonald.) 8 £xg7 ¥xc3+ 9 bxc3 £xc3+ 10 ¢e2 White's king doesn't look entirely safe, but consider Black's position after 10...¦f8? 11 ¥h6! 10...£xd4 11 £xh8+ ¢e7 12 ¥a3+ ¤c5 13 £f6+ ¢e8 14 £h8+ ¢e7 15 ¦d1! £c3 16 £f6+ ¢e8 17 £h8+ ¢e7 18 ¥c1! A deadly redeployment. 18...¤e4 19 ¥h6! d5 (19...£xc2+ 20 ¢e3+−) 20 exd6++− McDonald,N−Baker,C/Four Nations Chess League, Eng 1996

6

6...£a5? 7 exf6! ¥xc3+ 8 bxc3 £xc3+ 9 £d2 £xa1 10 c3 Black's queen is trapped!

7 ¥d2 ¤xc3 8 bxc3 ¥e7 9 £g4!

Forcing a weakness, a misplaced king or winning the exchange.

9...0-0 10 ¥h6 g6 11 ¥xf8 ¥xf8 12 £g3 £a5 13 ¥c4 ¤c6 14 ¤xc6 bxc6 15 0-0 ¥g7 16 ¦ae1

Black has no activity whatsoever.

16...f6

Trying something, but opening up the position.

17 exf6 ¥xf6 18 ¦e3 £g5 19 ¦b1+−

Almasi,Z−Fedorov,A/Polanica Zdroj POL 2000 Black's rook on a8 and bishop on c8 tell a sad tale.

7

5 c4 Maroczy vs the Kan [B41]


1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 a6 5.c4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvlntr0 9+p+p+pzpp0 9p+-+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PsNP+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This setup isn't played very much, but deserves some attention. Black's best method is to

put fast pressure on the e4 point. Other tries could lead to a passive Hedgehog. 5.¥e2 is often used as a transpositional device, 5...b6!? 6.0-0 ¥b7 7.¤c3 £c7 8.f4 ¥b4!? a

new approach, Shabalov,A−Kamsky,G/Foxwoods Open 2007.

5...¤f6 6.¤c3 ¥b4!?

This is the mainline. Black hits e4 immediately. 6...d6?! This allows White the opportunity to switch into an English opening type

Hedgehog where Black is passive. 7.g3!? b6 8.¥g2 ¥b7 9.0-0 £c7 10.b3 b5 11.¦e1 bxc4 12.¤d5! exd5 13.exd5+ ¢d8 14.bxc4 ¤bd7 15.¤c6+ ¥xc6 16.dxc6 ¤c5 17.¦b1 ¦b8 18.¦xb8+ £xb8 19.¥a3± Spasov,V−Khurtsidse,N/Korinthos Open, Greece 2001.

6...£c7 This by no means is a bad move, but Black has more challenging ideas, 7.a3! to stop ...¥b4, 7...b6 8.¥e3 ¥b7 9.f3 d6 with Hedgehog play, 10.¦c1 ¤bd7 11.¥e2 ¥e7 12.0-0 0-0 13.b4! ¦ac8 14.£d2 (14.¤b3!? £b8 15.¢h1 ¦fe8 16.¤a4 White forces Black to address the issue of his b−pawn, Radjabov,T−Kamsky,G/FIDE Grand−Prix, Baku 2008.) 14...£b8 15.¢h1 (15.¦c2!? Parligras,M−Velikov,P/Sutomore SCG 2004)

15...h5!? Annageldyev,O−Koneru,H/Hyderabad IND 2005.

7.¥d3

8

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9+p+p+pzpp0 9p+-+psn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-vlPsNP+-+0 9+-sNL+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The only sensible try to defend e4, as 7 f3 weakens a lot of kingside dark squares. 7.¥d2!? £c7 (7...0-0!?, 7...¥xc3 8.¥xc3 ¤xe4 9.£g4 ¤xc3 10.£xg7 ¦f8 11.bxc3 scores well for

White) 8.a3 ¥e7 9.¥e3 d6 and play takes on Hedgehog characteristics, Dominguez Perez,L−Andreikin,D/Capablanca Memorial, Havana 2011.

7...¤c6

Once again challenging the center. 7...£c7!? This move doesn't seem as good as 7...¥b4. 8.¤de2 ¤c6 9.0-0 ¤e5 10.h3 ¤xc4

11.£b3 ¤e5 12.£xb4 ¤xd3 13.£d4 ¤e5 14.¥f4 d6 15.¦ac1 £e7 16.¦fd1² b5 17.a4 ¥d7 Ehlvest,J−Bologan,V/Goodricke Calcutta 1999.

8.¤xc6

If 8.¥e3 d5!? 8.¤de2 is possible, see the notes to Parligras−Velikov. 8.a3!? ¥xc3+ 9.bxc3 d6 10.0-0 ¤e5 11.f4!? ¤xd3 12.£xd3 e5 13.fxe5! dxe5 14.¥g5 won

quickly in Kramnik,V−Svidler,P/Wijk aan Zee NED 2005, but Black missed a good chance later.

8...dxc6 9.£c2 e5 10.¥g5 h6 11.¥h4 0-0 12.0-0 ¥e6 13.¦fd1 ¥e7 14.¥g3 ¤d7=

Riand,J−Tukmakov,V/Mendrisio SUI 1999.

9

Paulsen/Kan 5 Bd3 − 5...Bc5 & Intro

[B42]


1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 a6 5.¥d3 ¥c5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+ntr0 9+p+p+pzpp0 9p+-+p+-+0 9+-vl-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-+L+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

A logical move, bringing the bishop out before playing ...d6, but Black should take care as

he needs this piece to defend his dark squares. Black has many alternatives: 5...¤c6 common, but perhaps not too good, 6.¤xc6 dxc6 (6...bxc6 7.0-0 d5 8.c4!? Attempting

to open the game. Black's development lags, Adams,M−Dao Thien Hai/New Delhi IND 2000.) 7.0-0 e5 8.¤d2 White's knight heads toward the squares b6, d6, and e5. (8.a4 also causes Black serious misery, Ulibin,M−Meister,Y/Samara RUS 2000)

8...¤f6 9.¤c4 £c7 10.a4 (10.¥d2!? ¥a5 threats are very annoying, Leko,P−Khalifman,A/Budapest HUN 2000) 10...¥c5 11.¥g5 ¥e6 12.¥xf6 gxf6 13.£f3 Black's king becomes a concern for the duration, Polgar,J−Miezis,N/Tallinn EST 2001.

5...d5!? 6.exd5 £xd5 7.¤c3!? is Bacrot,E−Kamsky,G/Wijk aan Zee NED 2006. 5...¤e7!? Milov's favourite Taimanov−like approach and a good way to avoid too much

theory. 6.0-0 the main line, (6.c4!? is a decent, albeit somewhat less popular alternative, 6...¤bc6 7.¤b3 d5 8.cxd5 exd5 9.0-0! this appears to suffice for an edge, Vallejo Pons,F−Andreikin,D/European Championship, Dresden 2007.) 6...¤bc6 (6...¤ec6 7.¤b3 Touloumis,A−Popchev,M/Chania GRE 1999) 7.¤xc6 ¤xc6 8.¥e3

10

¥e7 9.¤d2 0-0 (9...d5!? Shirov,A−Carlsen,M/Morelia 2008.) 10.c3 £c7! Leko,P−Kramnik,V/Melody Amber (rapid), Nice 2009.

5...b5?! 6.0-0 ¥b7 (6...£c7?! 7.a4 b4 8.¤d2 is similar, de Firmian−Feurerstein/Chicago 2000)

7.a4 b4 8.¤d2 with superior development and good squares for the pieces one could see Black's problems, Leitao,R−Loureiro,L/Sao Paulo BRA 1999.

5...g6!? This variation was very fashionable in the mid−seventies and appears to be making something of a comeback. 6.c4

a) 6.0-0 ¥g7 7.¤b3! this looks like White's most promising approach, (7.¥e3 ¤f6 (7...¤e7 8.c4 Zontakh,A−Peev,P/Lazarevac YUG 1999) 8.c4 d6 9.¤c3 0-0 10.£d2 ¤c6 11.¦ad1 ¤e5! Shirov,A−Chuchelov,V/German Bundesliga 2010) 7...¤e7 8.c4 0-0 9.¤c3 Karjakin,S−Davies,N/Mainz (rapid) 2010

b) 6.¤c3 ¥g7 7.¥e3 ¤e7 8.0-0 ¤bc6 9.¥e2 d5! Pogonina,N−Cramling,P/European Women's Championship, Plovdiv 2008

6...¥g7 7.¤e2 (7.¤f3 ¤e7 8.0-0 Varga,Z−Rogic,D/Pula CRO 1999) 7...d5 8.cxd5 exd5 9.exd5 £xd5 10.0-0 £d8 11.¤bc3 The pawn structure is basically the same, but look at White's development, Dolmatov,S−Iordachescu,V/Linares ESP 2000.

5...£b6!? 6.¤b3 £c7 McShane,L−Kengis,E/Delmenhorst GER 2000. 5...¥d6!? this looks odd, 6.0-0 ¤e7 Wagman,S−Epishin,V/Arco ITA 1999.

6.¤b3 ¥e7

Probably better than the alternative: 6...¥a7 7.c4 a) 7.0-0 ¤c6 8.£e2 a1) 8.£g4!? With the bishop on a7 this becomes stronger. 8...£f6 Black's

development looks very uncoordinated. 9.¢h1 (9.¤c3 d6!? Rublevsky,S−Zubov,A/European Club Cup, Ohrid 2009, 9.¤1d2) 9...h5 10.£g3 h4 11.£h3 ¤b4 12.f4 ¤xd3 13.cxd3 ¤e7 14.¤c3 d5 15.£f3 h3 16.g3 ¥d7 17.¥e3 ¥xe3 18.e5 £g6 19.£xe3 ¤f5 20.£b6 0-0 21.¤d4² Vuckovic,B−Bogdanov,E/Chania GRE 1999 White has control of this nice blockading square

a2) 8.c4 ¤f6 9.¤c3 d6 10.¢h1 (10.£e2 e5 11.¥e3 0-0 is solid for Black, Polgar,J−Smirin,I/Khanty−Mansiysk Olympiad 2010) 10...e5 11.¥e2 ¥e6 12.f4 h6 13.£d3 £e7? walking into a shot (13...0-0 14.f5 ¥c8 is very nice for White) 14.¤d5! ¥xd5 15.cxd5 ¤d4 16.fxe5 dxe5 17.¤xd4 ¥xd4 18.£g3 ¤xe4? (18...¦g8 was forced, but I don't know anyone who would play Black's game!) 19.£xg7 0-0-0 20.£g4++− Bellia,F−Haldemann,P/Arco ITA 1999 I liked White's opening play.

8...¤ge7 9.¥e3 e5 10.¤1d2 (10.¤c3 0-0 11.¤d5 (11.a4!? securing c4 for the bishop looks good) 11...d6 12.¥xa7 ¦xa7 13.£e3 ¥e6 14.¦fd1 ¦a8 15.¦d2? Doubling on the d line is not effective here (15.¤b6 ¦a7 16.¥c4 is favorable for White) 15...a5! Playing to chase the Nb3 16.¤b6 ¦a7 17.¥c4 a4 18.¤c1 ¤d4 19.c3? Falling for a little trick (19.¥xe6 fxe6 20.¤c4 keeps White in the game) 19...¤df5! 20.exf5 ¤xf5 21.£d3 £xb6-+ Zagrebelny−Bologan,V/Goodricke Calcutta 1999) 10...0-0 11.¤c4 d6 12.a4 ¥e6 13.a5 ¤d4 14.¤xd4 exd4 15.¥f4 Black must be concerned about his doubled d pawns 15...¥c5 16.£h5! d5 17.¤d2 ¤g6 18.e5 £d7 19.h3± Rogic,D−Delchev,A/Pula CRO 1999 Black's k−side has problems

b) 7.£e2 ¤c6 8.¥e3 Kriventsov,S−Stripunsky,A/San Diego USA 2004.

11

c) 7.£g4!? ¤f6 this is critical, (7...g6?! Grischuk,A−Istratescu,A/Khanty Mansyisk RUS 2005) 8.£g3 (8.£xg7? ¦g8 9.£h6 ¥xf2+!) 8...d6 9.¤c3 ¤c6 10.0-0 Molner,M−Smirin,I/World Open, Philadelphia 2011.

7...¤c6 8.¤c3 ¤ge7 (8...d6 9.0-0 ¤ge7 10.¦e1 is similar, DEEP JUNIOR−Kasparov,G/New York USA 2003) 9.0-0 0-0 10.£e2 d6 (10...e5 11.¥e3 (11.c5!?) 11...¤d4 12.¥xd4 exd4 13.¤d5 d6 14.¦ad1 ¤c6 15.¢h1 ¥e6 16.f4 ¦e8 17.£h5 (17.a3 or, 17.¥b1 keeps Black under pressure) 17...g6 18.£h6 ¥xd5 19.exd5 ¤b4 20.f5 £e7 21.f6 Leko,P−Kramnik,V/Wijk aan Zee NED 2000, Black is ok, and maybe even a tad better) 11.¥e3 e5 12.¥xa7 ¦xa7 13.¦fd1 White gets to play for free vs d6 13...¥e6 14.£e3 Covering d4 just in case 14...¦a8 15.¥e2 b6 Black's only active play is the ...f5 break, but it loosens things 16.¦ac1 £b8 17.¦d2 ¦a7 18.¤d5 ¤c8 19.¦c3² Galliamova,A−Kobalija,M/Samara RUS 2000 With space

7.0-0

7.c4 ¤c6 (7...d6 8.¤c3 ¤d7 9.0-0 ¤gf6 10.f4 £c7 11.£f3 (11.£e2 b6 12.¥d2 ¥b7 13.¦ae1

Naiditsch,A−Svidler,P/Dortmund GER 2004) 11...b6 12.¥e3 ¥b7 13.¦ae1 h6 14.£h3 0-0-0?! This looks really ridiculous. 15.f5 ¤e5 16.¥d4 ¢b8 17.fxe6 fxe6 18.¤d2 g5 19.¤a4 g4 20.£e3+− Reefat,S−Ehlvest,J/Dhaka BAN 2001 Black's q−side is getting wiped out) 8.0-0 ¤f6 9.¤c3 0-0 10.f4 d6 11.¢h1 b6 With White's knight on b3 this is a decent hedgehog setup 12.¥e3 ¥b7 13.£d2 ¦c8 14.¦ad1 £c7 15.¥g1 ¦fe8 16.£e3 ¤d7 17.£h3 ¤f8 18.¤d4 ¥f6 19.¤f3 ¤b4 20.¥e2 ¤g6= De Firmian,N−Svidler,P/Internet 2000 White's has no chances for an attack.

7.£g4 It makes sense to force ...g6. 7...g6 8.c4 (8.£e2 I figure getting out of the way of ...¤f6 is reasonable, 8...d6 (8...b6 Lutz,C−Horvath,C/Budapest HUN 2004) 9.a4 ¤c6 10.a5 ¤f6 11.¤c3 0-0 Black looks too cramped, 12.0-0 Svidler,P−Epishin,V/Baden−Baden GER 2002.) 8...d6 9.¤c3 ¤d7 10.£e2 £c7 11.0-0 b6 12.f4 White should delay this. It keeps Black from developing his ¤g8. If ¤gf6 then ¥h6 12...¥b7 13.f5 ¤gf6 14.fxe6 fxe6 15.¤d4 £c5 16.¥e3 £e5 This looks kinda ugly. 17.¤f3 £h5 18.h3 ¤c5 19.¤g5 White chickens out. Keeping Q's looks better. 19...£xe2 20.¥xe2= Holzke,F−Kveinys,A/Wattenschied GER 2000

7.¤c3 d6 8.£g4 g6 9.£g3 ¤f6?! Black must develop with ...¤d7, ...£c7, ...b6 and ...¥b7. Playing the waiting game. 10.¥h6! ¤bd7 11.0-0 ¤e5 12.¥e2 ¤c6 13.¦ad1 ¦g8 So the £g4 softening move pays dividends 14.f4 Now Black's king becomes the hunted 14...¤d7 15.¢h1 £c7 16.£h3 b5 17.¥g5 ¥xg5 18.fxg5 ¦f8 19.¥xb5 axb5 20.¤xb5+− Tran,P−Prusikhin,M/Fuerth GER 1999

7.¥e3 quite a popular choice these days, 7...¤f6 (Epishin's 7...d5?! 8.exd5 £xd5 was roughly treated in Nakamura,H−Epishin,V/Catalan Bay ENG 2007, 7...d6 should transpose,

7...¤c6 8.¤1d2 d5!? And why not? Bruzon Bautista,L−Andreikin,D/Havana CUB 2011) 8.¤1d2 ¤c6 9.f4 d6 (9...£c7 10.£e2! intending to castle long, Shirov,A−Manik,M/European Club Cup, Ohrid 2009.) 10.a3!? (10.c3 ¤d7 11.£e2 £c7 see Naiditsch,A−Schmaltz,R/Deizisau GER 2004.) 10...b5 11.£e2 0-0 12.0-0-0 Nielsen,P−Van Wely,L/Wolvega 2010.

7...d6

12

7...£c7 8.c4 ¤f6 9.¤c3 d6 10.f4 ¤c6 11.¥e3 ¤d7 12.¦c1 going for ¤d5 12...¤c5!? The best way to stop it 13.¤xc5 dxc5 14.e5 b6 15.¥e4 ¥b7 16.f5 ¤xe5 17.fxe6 ¥xe4 18.exf7+ ¤xf7 19.¤xe4 0-0 20.¥f4 £c6 21.¤c3 ¥f6 22.¤d5 ¦ae8= Shabalov,A−Polgar,J/Istanbul TUR 2000 Black has a solid game

7...¤c6 8.f4 d6 9.a4 (9.f5?! This rather early thrust makes little impact on Black, and indeed grants him a superb outpost on e5. 9...¤f6 10.¤c3 0-0 11.g4 ¤d7! The knight avoids getting hit by g5 and heads to the strong e5 point 12.g5? A terrible looking pawn sac 12...¥xg5 13.fxe6 fxe6 14.£g4 ¦xf1+ 15.¥xf1 ¤de5!-+ Rajlich,V−Fogarasi,T/FSGM Aug. Budapest Tourn., Hun 2000) 9...¤f6 10.¤c3 0-0 11.£e1 ¤b4 12.a5? Now White is worse. (12.¢h1 kept equality) 12...b5! 13.¥e3 (13.axb6?? ¤xd3 14.cxd3 £xb6+ wins)

13...¥b7 14.¢h1 ¦c8 15.¥b6 £d7 16.£d2 e5 17.¥e2 ¦xc3 18.£xc3 ¤xe4-+ Stripunsky,A−Goldin,A/Philadelphia USA 1999

8.£g4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+ntr0 9+p+-vlpzpp0 9p+-zpp+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+P+Q+0 9+N+L+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This is annoying for Black. 8.c4 ¤f6 9.¤c3 0-0 (9...b6 10.f4 ¤bd7 11.£e2 ¥b7 Panchanathan,M−Rowson,J/Scottish Ch.,

Edinburgh 2009) 10.f4 b6 11.£f3 ¥b7 12.£h3 ¤bd7 13.¥e3 b5?! Black goes nuts (13...e5!? looking for a nice outpost on e5) 14.cxb5 axb5 15.a3 ¦b8 16.¦ad1 e5 17.¥xb5 ¥xe4 18.fxe5 ¤xe5 19.¤d4 ¥g6 20.¤f5± Hansen,S−Akesson,R/Gentofte DEN 1999 White picks up the bishop pair and has the better structure.

8...g6 9.£e2

9.f4 I like to keep the ¥h6 idea alive so retreating £g4 to e2 looks best. 9...¤d7 10.¤c3 ¤gf6 11.£e2 £c7 12.¢h1 b6 13.a4 ¥b7 14.¥e3 h5 I don't know about this. Can't Black play human moves? (14...0-0 looks normal) 15.¥d4 h4 16.¢g1 h3 17.g3 ¦h5 18.g4 ¦h4 19.g5 ¤h5 20.¥e3 ¤c5 21.¤xc5 dxc5÷ Zhigalko,A−Faibisovich,V/Pardubice CZE 2000 unclear fits the bill!

9.£g3!? £c7 10.a4! b6 11.¤a3 ¥b7 12.¤c4 Adams,M−Caruana,F/Ruy Lopez Masters, Merida 2008.

9...¤d7

13

9...¤c6!? 10.¤c3 (10.c4 ¤e5 transposes to the mainline., 10.a4! appears to be more to the point) 10...b5 11.a4 b4 12.¤a2 ¤f6 13.¥h6! Keeping Black in the middle for as long as possible, Ginzburg,M−Garcia,R/Buenos Aires ARG 2001.

10.c4 ¤e5 11.¤c3

11.h3 ¤f6 12.¥h6 ¤h5! Kurnosov,I−Svidler,P/Russian Championship, Moscow 2010.

11...¤f6 12.¥g5

12.¥h6 ¤fg4! followed by ...0-0 takes advantage of White's waste of time.

12...h6 13.¥d2 b6 14.¤d4 £c7 15.b3 ¥b7 16.¥c2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9+lwq-vlp+-0 9pzp-zppsnpzp0 9+-+-sn-+-0 9-+PsNP+-+0 9+PsN-+-+-0 9P+LvLQzPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

16...g5!?

Looks creepy, but it cements the knight on e5.

17.¢h1 ¦g8 18.f3?!

White is better off without this.

18...h5 19.a4 h4 20.¥e3 g4 21.f4 ¤ed7 22.¢g1 ¤c5=

Lautier,J−Gelfand,B/Monaco MNC 2000, Black's king is in the middle while White's faces the bishop on b7. Both sides must be careful.

14

Paulsen/Kan 5 Bd3 Nf6 [B42]


1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 a6


5.¥d3 ¤f6 6.0-0 d6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9+p+-+pzpp0 9p+-zppsn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-+L+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

6...£c7 7.£e2 the most accurate, threatening e5, a) 7.c4 give Black some extra options − he is not forced to go straight into a

Hedgehog formation, 7...¤c6 (7...¥d6!? 8.h3 ¤c6 9.¤e2 ¤e5! Vertkin,S−Stripunsky,A/Foxwoods USA 2007) 8.¤xc6 dxc6 9.f4 ¥c5+ 10.¢h1 e5 11.f5 Jamming up Black's minor pieces. 11...h5! 12.¥g5 (12.¤d2!) 12...¥d7 (12...h4!?

intending ...¤h5 deserves a look) 13.£e2 ¥d4 14.¥h4 0-0-0 15.¤d2! Black

15

underestimated the strength of this simple move. 15...c5 (15...¥xb2 16.¦ab1 ¥d4

17.c5!+−) 16.¤f3 Now White can play around the d4−bishop, 16...¥c6 17.¦ad1 ¦d7 (17...¤g4! was the best chance) 18.h3! Might as well prevent Black's only active plan. 18...¦hd8 19.¥b1 b5 20.¦fe1± Fedorowicz,J−Serper,G/Seattle USA 2000 White's attack is about to start

b) 7.¤d2?! Black usually equalizes easily vs strange systems. 7...¥c5?! (7...¥e7 Will transpose into a Scheveningen with the d2−knight passively placed.) 8.c3 ¤c6 9.¤xc6 dxc6 10.a4 a5 11.£f3 0-0 12.¤c4 e5 13.¥g5 ¤e8 14.¥e3 ¥xe3 15.£xe3 c5?! Now I like White (15...¥e6 just a regular move like this is fine) 16.£g3 f6 17.¦fd1 (17.¤e3!? preparing to assault the light squares immediately makes sense)

17...¥e6 18.¦d2 ¦d8 19.¦ad1 ¦f7 20.£e3 ¦fd7 21.¥e2 ¤d6= Asik,J−Solak,D/Chania GRE 1999

c) 7.b3!? is quite interesting, 7...d6 8.¥e3!? Leake,J−Emms,J/London League 2007. 7...d6 (7...d5?! A very risky move. If this opening up of the position doesn't absolutely

equalize it could lead to dire consequences. 8.¤c3 ¤c6 9.¥e3 dxe4 10.¤xe4 ¥e7 11.¤xc6

£xc6 12.¥d4 ¥d7 13.¥e5 £d5 14.f4 ¥c6 15.c4 £d8 16.¢h1 0-0 17.¤xf6+ ¥xf6 18.¦ad1! Very obvious and very strong. The best kind of chess move 18...£a5 19.b4 £xb4 20.¥xf6 gxf6

21.¥xh7+!+− Fercec,N−Haldemann,P/Arco ITA 1999 its mate!) 8.c4 g6 The problem for Black in the fianchetto line is that d6 gets pounded. (8...¤bd7!? 9.¤c3 g6

transposes) 9.¤c3 ¥g7 10.¦d1 0-0 11.¤f3 (11.¥g5 b6 12.¦ac1 ¥b7 13.¥b1 ¤bd7 14.¤f3 ¦fc8 15.b3 ¤e8 Black's position is solid, but passive and with no active play. 16.¤d4 £c5 17.¥e3 £a5?! (17...£c7 was safest) 18.£d2 ¦ab8 19.£b2 ¥a8 20.f3 £h5² Ivanov,A−Serper,G/Seattle USA 2000 (120) White has the typical spatial advantage.) 11...¤bd7 (11...¤c6 12.¥c2!? (12.h3 ¤d7 13.¥f4 ¤de5 Doing his best to cover up d6. (13...¥xc3!?) 14.¦ac1 b6 15.¥b1 ¥b7? Falling for a typical trick. (15...£b8 was forced) 16.¤b5! axb5 17.cxb5 ¦fd8 18.bxc6 ¤xf3+ 19.£xf3 ¥xc6 20.£g3 e5 21.¥g5± Black is under heavy pressure, De la Riva Aguado,O−Garcia,R/Andorra AND 2001) 12...¤d7 (12...¤g4!? Naiditsch,A−Nikolov,M/European Club Cup, Plovdiv 2010.) 13.¥e3 ¤de5 14.¥b3! Shirov,A−Wang Hao/Shanghai Masters 2010.) 12.¥f4!? Eyeing the d6 pawn keeps Black occupied 12...¤g4! 13.¦ac1 ¤ge5 (13...b6 14.£d2 ¤de5 15.¥e2 ¦d8 16.¥g5!? A nice reconnaissance mission. 16...¦d7 The alternative was the weakening f6 17.¤d4 h6

18.¥h4 g5 19.¥g3 ¥b7 20.h4! Black's k−side is very loose, Lastin,A−Shaposhnikov,E/Moscow RUS 1999) 14.b3 b6 15.¥b1 ¤xf3+! 16.£xf3 ¤e5 Grigoriants,S−Bocharov,D/Irkutsk 2010.

6...e5!? an idea of Romanishin's, 7.¥g5!? a critical piece sacrifice, see Vallejo Pons,F−Kunte,A/Thailand Open, Pattaya 2011.

7.c4

16

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9+p+-+pzpp0 9p+-zppsn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PsNP+-+0 9+-+L+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

7...¥d7

There are many alternatives: 7...g6 8.¤c3 ¥g7 9.¤f3 The best plan. White's gonna go after d6 right away 9...£c7

10.£e2 ¤bd7 (10...0-0 11.h3 (11.¥f4 Ni Hua−Wang Hao/Danzhou 2010) 11...¤c6 12.¥e3 Adams,M−D'Costa,L/British League (4NCL) 2009) 11.¥f4 ¤g4 12.¦ac1 ¤ge5 13.¤xe5 ¤xe5 14.b3 ¥d7 (14...¤xd3? 15.£xd3 e5 16.¤d5±) 15.¥b1 0-0 16.¦fd1 ¦fd8 17.¥g5! A nice probing move. 17...¦e8 (17...f6 Weakens Black's position.) 18.£d2 £a5 19.¥h6 ¥c6 20.¥xg7 ¢xg7² Herrera,I−Mateo,R/Santa Clara CUB 2001 White has good pressure and Black remains passive.

7...¥e7 8.¤c3 ¥d7 9.¥e3 ¤c6 10.f4 0-0 11.¢h1 ¦e8 12.¤f3 Avoiding swaps and menacing e5 12...£a5 The queen is very clumsy here 13.a3! £c7 14.b4 b6 Black's Bd7 is in the wrong place. 15.¦c1 £b8 16.£e2 ¥d8 17.¥d2 ¥c7 18.¦ce1 h6 19.e5 ¤h7 20.exd6 ¥xd6 21.¤e5!± Kobalija,M−Meyer,B/Biel SUI 2001 With a big attack

7...b6 keeps some flexibility, 8.¤c3 ¥b7 9.£e2 (9.f4! g6 10.f5! led to a brilliant win in Leon Hoyos,M−Spraggett,K/Cali 2007., 9.a4!? ¥e7 10.a5 bxa5 11.£a4+ ¤bd7!? Topalov,V−Kamsky,G/Melody Amber (rapid), Nice 2009) 9...¤bd7 10.f4 £c7 11.¢h1 ¥e7 (11...g6?! Way too slow here, 12.f5! e5 13.¤e6 fxe6 14.fxe6 ¥e7 15.exd7+ £xd7 16.¥h6 ¦g8

17.¥g5 ¤h5 18.¥e3 ¥d8 19.a4 ¦c8 20.¤d5 ¥xd5 21.cxd5+− Tissir,M−Kreiman,B/Internet ICC 2000 Black's position is a horror show.) 12.b3 (12.¥d2 0-0 13.b4 is better for White, but at least Black is still alive) 12...h5!? the knight gets the g4−square and there's the possibility of ...h4 and ...¤h5, Young,G−Williams,C/ICC INT 2007.

7...¤bd7 8.¤c3 (8.£e2?! is less flexible, 8...g6 Very reasonable since White isn't pressuring d6 9.b3 ¥g7 10.¥b2 0-0 11.¤c3 £c7 12.¦ae1 b6 13.¢h1 ¥b7 14.f4 ¦ad8 15.¥b1 ¤c5 (15...e5! securing e5 for a horse is in the hedgehog spirit) 16.¤f3 ¤h5 17.f5 ¦de8 18.£d2 exf5 19.exf5 ¦xe1 20.¦xe1= Alava,M−Seeman,T/Paide EST 1999 Black has decent play and Nd5 isn't very threatening.) 8...b6 9.b3 I think a bigger danger to Black's setup is the pileup with £e2, ¥d2 and ¦ae1 when the e5 push is a concern 9...¥b7 10.¥b2 ¥e7 11.¦c1 0-0 12.¥b1 ¦c8 13.£f3?! I don't see the point of this move. 13...¦c5 (13...¦c7 The rook is less exposed here) 14.£e2 £a8 15.¦fe1 ¦e8 16.a3 ¥f8 17.b4 ¦cc8 (17...¦c7!? Giving Black the option of going after

17

c4) 18.¥a2 g6 19.¦cd1 £b8 20.¤f3 ¦cd8= Zapata,A−Corradine,J/Fusagasuga COL 1999

8.¤c3 ¤c6 9.¤xc6

9.¤c2 This gives Black a free hand in the center, 9...¥e7 10.b3 0-0 11.¥b2 £a5?! Playing for ...b5 is correct, but not like this (11...¦b8 12.£e2 ¤e5 13.¦fd1 £a5 14.¤e3 b5 15.f4

¤xd3 16.£xd3 ¥c6 gave Black sufficient play on the q−side in Filipowicz−Adamski Poland 1991, 11...¤e5!?) 12.¢h1 ¦fd8?! Taking the safe retreat square from the Q 13.f4 ¥e8 14.a3 ¦ac8 15.b4 £c7 16.£f3 Look how passive Black is 16...¤b8 17.¤e3 b6 18.£h3 ¥c6 19.¦ae1 ¥b7? Overlooking the threat (19...¤bd7 20.¤ed5! exd5

21.exd5 is no bargain either) 20.e5! dxe5 21.¤cd5+− Adianto,U−Torre,E/Insel Bali tt 1999.

9...¥xc6 10.£e2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9+p+-+pzpp0 9p+lzppsn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-sNL+-+-0 9PzP-+QzPPzP0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

10.b4 b6 11.¥b2 ¥e7 12.£e2 0-0 13.¦ad1 ¤d7 14.f4 ¥b7 Once again Black is too passive

15.¦f3 g6 16.¦h3 ¥f6 17.e5 dxe5 18.¥e4 £c7 19.¥xb7 £xb7 20.¤e4 ¥g7 21.fxe5 £c7 22.¤f6+± Khalifman,A−Rublevsky,S/Kazan RUS 2001 I'd avoid this line like the plague. Finding counterplay for Black is a real struggle.

10...¥e7 11.¦d1 £a5?!

This looks like a faulty idea. 11...¤d7 12.¥f4 0-0 13.¦ac1 ¤e5 14.¥b1 £b8 15.a4 ¦c8 16.¥g3 ¥e8 17.¥a2 £a7 18.¢h1

£b6 19.f4 ¤c6 20.f5!± Lastin,A−Rublevsky,S/Moscow RUS 2001 White's a2−bishop is about to join the party.

12.¥f4

12.a3 0-0 13.¥e3 ¦fc8 14.f3 ¦ab8 Black's problem is that his only play is...b5 and that gives White a target 15.b4 £c7 16.¦ac1 ¤d5 shots are looming, 16...¥e8 17.f4 ¦a8 When you see a move like this we know something has gone wrong. 18.¥d4 g6?

18

Black was better off doing nothing 19.e5± Korneev,O−Kovacevic,S/Linares ESP 2000.

12...0-0 13.a3!

Why not bother the Q?

13...¦fe8 14.h3 £h5 15.£e3 ¤d7 16.¥e2 £c5 17.£g3 £b6

Black's queen has been all over the place!

18.b4 ¤f6 19.¥xd6 ¥xe4 20.¥e5! ¥g6 21.c5±

Dolmatov,S−Kovacevic,S/Ubeda ESP 2000, Black is very tied down.

19

Paulsen/Kan 5 Nc3 [B43]


1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 a6 5.¤c3

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvlntr0 9+p+p+pzpp0 9p+-+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

5...b5!?

The most ambitious option. 5...£c7 6.¥d3 Others: a) 6.¥e3 b5 Galiana,J−Lutz,C/Calvia ESP 2004. b) 6.¥e2 b5 7.0-0 ¥b7 (7...¤f6?! 8.¥f3 e5 (8...¥b7 9.e5) 9.¤f5 Panarin,M−

Sergienko,S/Voronezh RUS 2010) 8.¦e1 (8.¥f3 d6 (8...¤c6! is much safer) 9.¦e1 White is preparing for the standard Sicilian positional piece sacrifice with ¤d5, Pein,M−King,D/Redbus KO Southend 1999) 8...¤f6?! 9.¥f3! d6 10.a4 bxa4 11.¤d5! this sacrifice is seen in many similar positions, and it's very strong here, Jobava,B−Steingrimsson,H/Crete 2007.

c) 6.g3 ¥b4 (6...¤f6 is B47) 7.¤de2 (7.¥d2 is Shabalov,A−Salov,S/Hamburg GER 1999) 7...¤f6 8.¥g2 ¥e7 9.0-0 d6 10.h3 h5!? Mason,D−Rowson,J/British League (4NCL) 2011.

d) 6.£f3!? Korchnoi's idea is a dangerous sideline, 6...¤c6 7.¤xc6!? £xc6 8.£g3 Nepomniachtchi,I−Stellwagen,D/Wijk aan Zee B 2008.

6...¤f6 a) 6...g6!? is rather provocative, 7.0-0 (7.¥e3 ¥g7 8.£d2 Damaso,R−Spraggett,K/Porto

POR 1999) 7...¥g7 8.¥e3 ¤f6 9.f4 d6 10.f5!? a little anti−positional, but also quite dangerous, Sandu,M−Sikula,V/St Die des Vosges 2007.

20

b) 6...¤c6 7.¤xc6 dxc6 8.0-0 e5 9.f4 ¤f6 10.¢h1! ¥d6 (after 10...¥c5 White doesn't have to push his f−pawn, and 11.£e1!? is trouble for Black, Christiansen,L−Kekelidze,M/New York USA 2000) 11.f5 h5 12.¥e3 £e7 13.£f3 Shirov,A−Miezis,N/Keres Memorial, Tallinn (rapid) 2011.

c) 6...¥c5 kicking the knight back to b3, 7.¤b3 ¥e7 8.0-0 (8.£g4 forces Black to make a small concession on the kingside, 8...g6 9.£e2 d6 10.0-0 ¤d7 11.¥d2 Navara,D−Damljanovic,B/Crete 2007) 8...d6 (8...¤f6 9.f4 d6 is strongly met by 10.e5!

Nepomniachtchi,I−Karttunen,M/European Club Cup, Plovdiv 2010) 9.f4 ¤d7 10.£e2 ¤gf6 11.¥d2! White dispenses with moves such as a2−a4 and ¢h1 and prepares the possibility of ¦ae1 and e4−e5, see Tiviakov,S−Caruana,F/Crete 2007.

7.£e2!? I thought this to be best, Black can't allow White to play e5, (7.0-0 ¥c5 8.¤b3 ¥a7?!

9.£f3 Ponomariov,R−Neverov,V/Ohrid MKD 2001, 7.f4!? aggressive, 7...b5 8.a3 d6

9.g4!? Bologan,V−Caruana,F/European Championship, Plovdiv 2008) 7...d6 8.0-0 b6 9.f4 see Fedorowicz,J−Stripunsky,A/New York USA 2004.

6.¥d3

Definitely White's most aggressive setup. 6.g3 tries to counter the long diagonal, 6...¥b7 7.¥g2 ¤f6 8.0-0!? a) 8.¥g5?! ¥e7 9.0-0 b4 10.¤a4 £a5! favours Black, 11.¥xf6 ¥xf6 12.¤b3 £c7

simplest, Tseitlin,M−Kobalija,M/Bugojno BIH 1999 (12...£xa4 13.¤c5 is less clear, see Benjamin,J−Serper,G/Salt Lake City USA 1999)

b) 8.£e2 8...b4 (8...£c7 9.¦e1 d6 10.a4 b4 11.¤d5! is very dangerous) 9.¤a4 ¥xe4!? (9...d6 10.¦e1 e5!?

gives White a nice edge, Tseitlin,M−Kurajica,B/Bugojno BIH 1999) 10.¥xe4 ¤xe4 11.¦e1 d5 12.¤xe6 fxe6 13.£h5+ g6 14.£e5 £f6 15.¦xe4 £xe5 16.¦xe5 ¢f7 looks fine for Black, Guliev,L−Prasad,D/Abudhabi UAE 1999.

6.¥e2 is similar, 6...¥b7 7.¥f3 ¤e7!? (7...£c7 8.0-0) 8.0-0 ¤g6 9.e5!? Guseinov,G−Kamsky,G/Baku (rapid) 2010.

6...£b6!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+kvlntr0 9+-+p+pzpp0 9pwq-+p+-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sNL+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This is the best of the Kan or Paulsen lines.

21

6...¥b7 7.0-0 ¤c6 is a decent alternative, a) 7...£b6 8.¥e3 ¥c5 9.¤ce2 ¤f6?! (9...£c7 looks a little safer) 10.b4! Picking up the

all important dark squared B. 10...¥xd4 11.¥xd4 £c7 12.c4! Opening up the position puts the pressure on Black's under developed forces. 12...e5 13.¥b2 ¤c6 14.cxb5 axb5 15.¤c3 ¤d4 16.¥xb5 0-0 17.¥d3± The q−side pawns will get rolling shortly, Svidler,P−Milov,V/Biel SUI 2000.

b) 7...¥c5 8.¤b3 (8.¥e3 d6!? 9.£g4 ¤f6! led to a convincing Black win in Starostits,I−Bauer,C/Geneve SUI 2007) 8...¥b6?! This bishop is needed on the k−side for defensive purposes. 9.a4 b4 10.a5 ¥a7 11.¤a4 d6 12.£e1 ¤c6 13.¥d2 ¤f6 14.¥xb4 ¤xb4 15.£xb4 ¦b8 16.¤b6 0-0 17.¦fd1± Black can blame his 8th move for this misery in Katalymov,B−Fronczek,H/Gladenbach GER 1999.

8.¤xc6 ¥xc6 was previously considered to give White a fairly safe edge, but recent games have cast some doubt upon this assessment, 9.¦e1

a) 9.£e2 ¥c5!? 10.e5 (10.a4 b4 11.¤d5 ¤e7 and White only had a small plus in Golubev,M−Nisipeanu,L/Predeal 2006) 10...¥d4!? Felgaer,R−Kamsky,G/Khanty−Mansiysk Olympiad 2010

b) 9.¥f4 Adhiban,B−Vachier Lagrave,M/World Junior Ch., Puerto Madryn 2009, should be met by 9...b4!

9...¥c5 (9...¤e7 10.£h5 ¤g6 11.a4 b4 12.¤d5 ¥d6 13.¥e3 0-0 14.¤b6 ¦b8 15.a5 ¤f4 16.¥xf4 ¥xf4

17.e5 g6 18.£g4 £g5 19.£xg5 ¥xg5 20.¥e4² White can get pressure on against d7. White only needed a draw in this game to move on to the next round, Ponomariov,R−Dao Thien Hai/New Delhi ITA 2000.) 10.¥e3 ¥xe3 11.¦xe3 ¤e7! Tiviakov,S−Balogh,C/Croatian Team Championship 2009.

6...¥c5 7.¤b3 ¥e7 8.£g4!? White's queen goes on a softening mission. 8...g6 (8...¤f6!? An interesting try. 9.£xg7 ¦g8 10.£h6 ¤c6 (10...¦xg2? 11.e5!±) 11.¥d2 (11.£h3 Protecting g2 looks correct. White has the 0-0 option. 11...d5 (11...e5 12.¤d5!±)

12.exd5 exd5 13.£f3 ¥g4 14.£f4² looks better) 11...¤e5 12.f4 ¤xd3+ 13.cxd3 b4 14.¤e2 ¦xg2 White's king looks airy. 15.£h3 ¦g6 16.f5 exf5 17.exf5 ¦g4 18.0-0-0 ¥b7 19.¦he1 a5 20.¢b1 a4∓ Tiviakov,S−Bosboom,M/Hoogeveen NED 1999 Black's counterplay is very fast.) 9.£e2 d6 10.0-0 b4? This gives White the chance to open things up. (10...¤d7!? is best) 11.¤d1 ¥b7 12.a3! ¤c6 13.¥d2 bxa3 14.¦xa3 £c8 a6 needs defending, but still it's an unfortunate move 15.¤e3 ¤f6 16.¤c4 £c7 17.¤ca5 ¤e5 18.¤xb7 ¤xd3 19.cxd3 £xb7 20.¤a5± White's pieces will flood the queenside while Black is castling, Ponomariov,R−Gallagher,J/ Biel SUI 2000.

6...d6 This move has been gaining in popularity over the last year, 7.a4! the most direct attempt, (7.0-0 ¤f6 8.£e2 is the method advocated in 'Experts vs', see Jones,G−Markowski,T/European Championship, Dresden 2007) 7...b4 8.¤a2 ¤f6 9.0-0 ¥b7 10.¦e1 ¥e7 11.¤xb4 this could spell the end of this line for Black, see the brilliant Vallejo Pons,F−Van Wely,L/Monte Carlo MNC 2006.

7.¤f3!

22

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+kvlntr0 9+-+p+pzpp0 9pwq-+p+-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sNL+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This slightly unstereotyped retreat has been causing Black problems for a number of years

now. 7.¤b3

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+kvlntr0 9+-+p+pzpp0 9pwq-+p+-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+NsNL+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

7...£c7 (7...¥b7? A major inaccuracy that gets Black into serious difficulties, 8.a4!

Absolutely the correct reaction. 8...b4 9.a5 £c7 10.¤a4 Dropping into b6 would be very disruptive. 10...d5?! Opening things up makes matters worse. (10...¤c6 Was the lesser of the 2 evils.) 11.exd5 ¥xd5 12.0-0 (12.¤b6?! ¥xg2 13.¤xa8 ¥xa8 14.¦g1 £xh2 Is very messy, but not bad for Black.) 12...¤d7 13.¤b6! White has a huge lead in development so opening it up makes sense. 13...¤xb6 14.axb6 £xb6 15.¥e3 Black has to move a lot of stuff out of the way before he can castle, 15...£b8 16.¤a5 White's queen eyes a4 with check, 16...¥d6 17.c4 bxc3 18.£a4+ ¢f8 19.bxc3 Now White has too many threats. c4 trapping the bishop is the main one. 19...¥xh2+ 20.¢h1 ¤f6 21.c4+− Bennett,A−Christiansen,L/Connecticut USA 2002.) 8.0-0

a) 8.£f3 ¥b7 9.¥f4?! The bishop is misplaced here 9...d6 10.0-0-0?! White is playing with fire. 10...b4 11.¤e2 ¤d7 12.¢b1 ¤gf6 13.c3? This looks mighty ugly! 13...¤e5 14.¥xe5 dxe5 15.cxb4 ¥xb4 16.£e3 0-0 17.¦c1 £d6 18.f3 a5 19.¦hd1 a4 20.¤c5 £b6 21.£g1 ¦fb8∓ Enders,P−Gallagher,J/Godesberg GER 2000 White is barely hanging on.

b) 8.£e2 ¥b7 9.¥d2 b4!? It seems when Black plays ...b4 prematurely White gets the better of it. It makes opening things up with a3 or c3 easy. 10.¤d1 ¤f6 11.c3

23

¤c6 12.¦c1 (12.cxb4 ¤xb4³) 12...a5 13.0-0 ¥e7 14.f4 d6 15.cxb4 axb4 16.¥b5 0-0 Black walked the high−wire, but came out of it fine. 17.¤f2 ¦fc8 18.¦c2 £b6 19.¥e3 £d8 20.¦fc1 ¤a5³ Karklins,A−Goldin,A/Philadelphia USA 2000

c) 8.f4 b4?! Black is better off developing with ...¥b7, 9.¤e2 ¥b7 10.¤ed4 Shahade,G−Kriventsov,S/Seattle USA 2003.

8...¥b7 (8...¤f6 9.f4 b4 10.¤b1 (10.¤e2 ¥b7 11.e5 This burns a lot of bridges. If White can't get the quick kill he'll have problems. Black's minor pieces have good squares. 11...¤d5 12.¤bd4 ¥c5 13.¢h1 ¤c6 14.¤xc6 £xc6 15.¥e4 £c7 16.£d3 f5 17.exf6 gxf6 18.c4

bxc3 19.¤xc3 ¤xc3 20.bxc3 f5³ Braylovsky,G−Smirin,I/ Internet ICC 2000 Black can torment White on the g file.) 10...¥b7 11.£e2 ¥e7 12.a3 (12.c4!? puts the question to Black) 12...a5 13.axb4 axb4 14.¦xa8 ¥xa8 15.¤1d2 ¤c6 16.e5 ¤d5 17.¤c4?! (17.¤e4!? Had to be played) 17...f5 18.exf6 ¤xf6 19.¥e3 0-0 20.¤d4 ¤xd4 21.¥xd4 ¥c5 22.¥xc5 £xc5+∓ Sorensen,J−Goldin,A/New York USA 2000 White has a8−h1 diagonal difficulties.) 9.£e2 (9.a3 ¤f6 10.f4 d6 11.¢h1 ¤bd7 The proper place for the N. 12.£e2 ¥e7 13.¤d4 0-0 14.¥d2 ¤c5 15.¦ae1 ¤fd7 16.¥e3 ¥f6 17.¥g1 ¦fe8 18.£f3 g6 19.£h3

¥g7 20.¤f3 f5!? Before White starts attacking. 21.¤g5 ¤f8 22.exf5 exf5 23.£g3 h6 24.¤f3

¤xd3 25.cxd3 £f7∓ Barua,D−Kasparov,G/Internet 2000 Black's bishop pair gives great counterplay.) 9...d6 10.f4 ¤d7 11.¥d2 (11.a4 b4 12.¤d1 ¤gf6 13.¤f2 e5 14.a5 It's not easy to see a constructive plan here. 14...¥e7 15.¦a4 d5 16.fxe5 ¤xe5 17.exd5 ¤xd5∓

Arakhamia,K−Ciuksyte,D/Moscow RUS 2001, taking a look at the Black knights as opposed to White's. The rook on a4 looks odd as well.) 11...¤gf6 12.¦ae1 ¥e7

a) 12...¤c5? This ruins everything. 13.¤xc5 dxc5 14.e5 c4 15.exf6 cxd3 16.cxd3 ¥c5+ 17.¢h1 gxf6 18.¤e4 f5 19.¦c1 fxe4 20.d4 ¦c8? (20...e3!) 21.¦xc5± Antal,G−Toth,A/Budapest HUN 1999 White has the better chances in the bishop of opposite colour middle game.

b) 12...b4 looks kinda normal. 13.¢h1 0-0 14.e5 ¤d5 15.¤xd5 ¥xd5 16.¥c3 White's bishops are very dangerous here. It's

close to double bishop sacrifice time, Dembo,Y−Sharevich,A/Vladimir RUS 2004. 7.¥e3

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+kvlntr0 9+-+p+pzpp0 9pwq-+p+-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sNLvL-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

7...¥c5 8.¥e2 (8.¤ce2 ¤f6 9.h3 ¥b7 10.0-0 £c7 Thanks to White's slow play Black is fine.

11.¤c3 d6 12.a3 ¤bd7 13.¢h1 0-0 14.¦e1 ¦ac8 15.¤b3 ¥xe3 16.¦xe3 ¦fd8 17.£e2 ¤e5 18.¦f1

d5 19.exd5 ¤xd3 20.cxd3 ¤xd5 21.¤xd5 ¥xd5∓ Anderson,R−Goldin,A/Las Vegas USA 2001) 8...¤c6 9.¤xc6 ¥xe3 (9...dxc6 10.¥xc5 £xc5 11.£d3 This line looks far too

24

passive from Black's point of view. 11...¤f6 12.0-0-0 (12.f4 e5 13.f5 (13.0-0-0 ¥e6

14.£g3 exf4 15.£xg7 ¢e7 16.¥f3 h6 17.e5 £xe5 18.¦he1 £f5 19.¤e4 ¦ag8 20.¤d6 £g6

21.£xg6 fxg6 22.¤b7 ¢f7 23.¤d6+ ¢e7 24.¤b7 ¢f7 25.¥xc6± was Mulyar−Stripunsky from rd5 in the 2002 USA championship) 13...¦a7 14.0-0-0 ¦d7 15.£f3 ¢e7?! (15...0-0 16.¦xd7 ¤xd7 17.g4² Might be a kind assessment, after all where is Black's play?) 16.¦xd7+ ¥xd7 17.¦d1 h5 18.£d3 a5 this push looks useless, but I see no decent moves. Black's forces are seriously uncoordinated. 19.¥f3 ¥c8 20.£d2 ¥a6 21.g3± De Firmian,N−Stripunsky,A/Seattle USA 2002.) 12...0-0 (12...¢e7 13.f4 e5

14.£g3ƒ) 13.f4 e5 14.f5 ¦a7 15.g4 ¦d7 16.£f3 ¦fd8 17.¥d3 (17.g5 ¦xd1+ 18.¤xd1

White needs 1 rook on for the attack. 18...¤e8 19.¤f2 £e7 20.¦g1 c5 21.£e3 c4 22.c3 ¥b7

23.f6± Balinov−Hoffmann,M/Budapest FS 1999 White continues without interruption.) 17...¤e8 18.¦he1 ¤d6 19.£e2?! (19.g5!) 19...¤b7 20.¢b1 £e7 21.£e3 ¤c5 22.g5 ¤xd3 23.cxd3 ¥b7³ Jonsson,B−Landa,K/Reykjavic ISL 1999) 10.fxe3 dxc6 11.£d4 £xd4 12.exd4 e5 13.dxe5 (13.d5?! This leads nowhere. 13...¤e7 14.dxc6

¤xc6 15.¤d5 0-0 16.c3 ¦b8 17.b4 ¥b7 18.0-0 ¤a7= Plachetka,J−Gustafsson,J/Charleville FRA 2000 Black gets pressure on c3 and his knight can redeploy to d6 in some cases.) 13...¤e7 14.a4 ¦b8 15.¥h5! While Black rounds up e5 White will be busy. 15...¤g6 16.axb5 axb5 17.¥xg6 hxg6 18.¦a7 ¦h5 19.0-0 ¥e6 20.¦c7 b4 21.¤e2 ¦xe5 22.¤d4 ¥d7 23.¦xf7! ¢xf7 24.¤xc6+− Mitkov,N−Bruzon,L/Lisbon POR 1999.

7...¤c6

7...£c7 8.e5 ¤c6 9.0-0 ¥b7 10.¦e1 b4 11.¤a4 d6 12.exd6 ¥xd6 13.¥e3 ¤f6 14.¤b6 ¦d8 15.¤c4 ¤d5 16.¤xd6+ £xd6 17.¥g5 f6 18.¥d2 0-0 19.£e2 e5 20.¦ad1² Nisipeanu,L−Kengis,E/Neukoelln GER 2000 The bishop pair gives White a slight edge.

7...¥b7 8.0-0 £c7 (8...¤f6 9.e5 ¤d5 10.¤g5!? Gashimov,V−Siebrecht,S/European Club Cup, Ohrid 2009) 9.¦e1 d6 (9...¥c5 Zhang Zhong−Ye Jiangchuan/Taiyuan CHN 2004)

10.a4 This recipe has worked for him before: 10...bxa4 (10...b4 11.¤a2 a5 (11...¤c6

12.¥d2 a5 13.c3± looks like trouble for Black) 12.c3! ¤c6 13.¥b5 White's last three moves have left Black's game in shambles, Zhang Zhong−Bannink,B/Port Erin IOM 2004) 11.¥f4 ¤d7 12.¦xa4 ¤e7 13.£a1 ¤g6 14.¥e3 £c8 15.£a2 ¥e7 16.¦a1 While Black is developing normally White is piling on. 16...¥f6 17.¦c4 £b8 18.£a4 ¢e7 19.£b3 ¦c8 20.¦b4± Ponomariov,R−Hillarp Persson,T/Torshavn FAI 2000 How did White get such a huge lead in development?

7...d6 8.0-0 (8.a4!? à la Ponomariov 8...b4 9.a5 looks pretty good) 8...¤f6 9.¥e3 £c7 10.¤d2?! This looks too slow. (10.a4!?) 10...¥b7 11.a3 White's last 2 moves lose any chance for an opening advantage. 11...¥e7 12.f4 ¤bd7 13.¥e2 0-0 14.£e1 ¤c5 15.¥f3 ¦fd8= Andersen,P−Molvig,H/Copenhagen DEN 2000 Black has a comfortable game.

8.0-0

25

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvlntr0 9+-+p+pzpp0 9pwqn+p+-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sNL+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

8.e5 £b8 9.¥f4? This allows Black the chance to lock the kingside. (9.0-0 Offering e5,but

Black should refuse anyway.) 9...f5! Now ...¤ge7 to g6 will annoy e5 10.£e2 ¤ge7 11.h3 ¤b4 12.0-0 ¥b7 13.¦fd1 ¤xd3 14.£xd3 £c7 15.a3 h6 16.¤d4 £c4 17.£g3 g5 18.b3 £c5 19.¥c1 ¥g7-+ Black has total control, Ashley,M−Smirin,I/Los Angeles USA 2000.

8...£b8

8...d6 9.a4 b4 10.a5!? Sacrificing a pawn for a serious lead in development. 10...¤xa5 11.¤a4 £c7 12.¥e3 ¦b8 13.¤b6 ¦xb6 14.¦xa5 ¦b8 15.£a1 ¤f6 16.¥xa6 ¥d7 (16...¥xa6 17.¦xa6 ¥e7 18.¦a7 ¦b7 19.¦a8+² Kuzmin,G−Rogovski,V/Ordzhonikidze UKR 2000 Black is hanging by a thread) 17.¥d3 ¥e7 18.¦a7 ¦b7 19.¦a8+ ¦b8 20.£a7 £xa7 21.¦xa7 with a pleasant edge, Gormally,D−Ciuksyte,D/Liverpool Open 2007.

8...¤ge7 9.¥e3 £c7? (9...£b8 10.a4! b4 11.¤b1) 10.¥xb5! Sutovsky,E−Kamsky,G/Khanty−Mansiysk Olympiad 2010.

9.¦e1

9.e5 ¤ge7 10.¥f4?! (10.£e2!?) 10...f5! Same idea as Ashley−Smirin from above. 11.h4 ¤b4 12.¥h2 ¥b7 Already Black is much better! 13.¥e2 ¤bd5 14.¤d4 ¤xc3 15.bxc3 ¤d5 16.£d3 £c7 17.¥f3 ¦c8∓ Shabalov,A−Smirin,I/Los Angeles USA 2000.

9...¤ge7

9...¥d6 10.£e2 when e5 is a big threat, Polivanov,A−Pixton,A/Halkidiki GRE 2003.

10.¥e3

White plays sensible developing moves and gets an edge.

10...d6 11.£d2 ¤g6 12.¤d4 ¤xd4 13.¥xd4 ¤e5

Black is having k−side problems.

26

14.f4 ¤c6 15.¥f2 ¥e7 16.¤d5! exd5 17.exd5 ¤e5 18.fxe5 dxe5 19.£e2 0-0 20.¥d4 exd4 21.£xe7±

Black's forces are discombobulated, Grischuk,A−Smirin,I/New Delhi IND 2000.

27

Taimanov with 5 Nb5 [B44]


1 e4 c5 2 ¤f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4 ¤c6 5 ¤b5

White forces Black to play ...d6. 5 c4 first is less effective, 5...¤f6 (5...¥c5!? Valenti,G−Epishin,V/Arco ITA 1999) 6 ¤c3

¥b4 7 ¤xc6 bxc6 8 ¥d3 e5 9 0-0 0-0 10 ¥d2 this is nothing much for White, Naylor,J−Thurlow,K/Coulsden ENG 1999.

5...d6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvlntr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+nzpp+-+0 9+N+-+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

6 c4

6 ¥f4 e5 7 ¥e3 White tries to provoke a sort of Sveshnikov with a tempo less, the idea being that the b5−knight will be able to return directly to c3, rather than a3, where it is awkwardly placed. I remember buying a pamphlet on this variation ('The Anti−Taimanov' by Matthias Wahls) when I was younger, and winning a few games with it. 7...a6 (7...¤f6 8 ¥g5 ¥e6 9 ¥xf6 gxf6 10 ¤d2 a6 11 ¤c3 f5 is promising for Black, see Korneev,O−Laznicka,V/Pamplona ESP 2006) 8 ¤5c3 ¤f6 9 ¥g5 This looks best, now it becomes similar to a Sveshnikov where Black hasn't played b5. (9 ¤d5 ¤xd5

10 exd5 ¤e7 followed with ...¤f5 is fine for Black) 9...¥e7 10 ¤d2?! This insipid move allows Black to free his game.. (10 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 11 ¤d5 should give White a slight pull) 10...¥g4! 11 ¥e2 ¥xe2 12 ¤xe2 d5 13 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 14 ¤c3 d4 15 ¤d5 0-0 16 0-0 g6 17 ¤c4 b5 18 ¤cb6 ¦a7 19 a4 b4 20 a5 ¥g7³ Fernando,D−Djuric,S/Lisbon POR 1999 White's knights look nice, but accomplish little.

28

6...¤f6 7 ¤1c3

7 ¤5c3 ¥e7 8 ¥e2 0-0 9 0-0 a6 10 ¥f4 The only visible point Black has is d6,but it's easily defended. 10...b6 11 ¦e1 ¥b7 12 ¤d2 ¤e5 13 ¦c1 ¦c8 14 ¥f1 £c7 15 h3 £b8 16 b3 £a8 17 £e2 ¤fd7 18 £e3 ¥c6 19 a4 f5?! It's obvious White's playing for a draw, but this might be over doing it. Fischer liked ...¢h8, ...¦g8, and then ...g5. Black can probe around a bit before this kind of drastic action, though. 20 exf5 ¦xf5 21 ¤e2² Bojkovic,N−Ioseliani,N/Nova Gorica SLO 1999.

7...a6 8 ¤a3 ¥e7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9+p+-vlpzpp0 9p+nzppsn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9sN-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

8...¤d7!? Messing around with move orders to confuse the computer, 9 ¤c2 ¥e7 10 ¥e2

b6 11 0-0 ¥b7 DEEP JUNIOR−Kasparov,G/New York USA 2003.

9 ¥e2 0-0 10 0-0 b6 11 ¥e3 ¥b7

11...¤e5 12 f4 ¤ed7 13 ¥f3 ¥b7 14 £e2 (14 ¢h1 h6!? anticipating White trying the g4 attack, Brueggemann,J−Lutz,C/Efurt GER 2004) 14...£c7 15 ¦ac1 ¦ac8 16 g4!? The best chance for action, but Black is in good defensive posture. 16...h6 17 £g2 ¤h7 18 ¤ab1 g5!? Securing the e5 point. 19 ¤d2 gxf4 20 ¥xf4 ¥g5!³ Schott,R−Le Bideau,A/Issy Les Moulineaux FRA 2000, with good dark−squared play.

12 f3

12 ¦c1 ¦e8 13 £b3 ¤d7 14 ¦fd1 ¤c5 This is all well known. 15 £c2 (15 ¥xc5?! bxc5 16

£xb7 ¤a5-+ trapping the queen) 15...£c7 16 £b1 ¤b4 17 ¤c2 ¤xc2 18 £xc2 ¦ac8 19 ¥f1 ¥f6 20 f3 £b8³ Mithrakanth,P−Thipsay,P/Calcutta IND 2000 Black's position is more flexible.

12 f4 £c7!? 13 ¥f3 ¦ac8 Diaz,C−Diamant,A/Cochabamba 2009.

12...¤e5 13 £d4

29

13 £e1 ¦e8 14 £f2 ¤ed7 15 ¦fd1 £c7 16 ¦ac1 ¦ac8 17 b4 £b8 Black is better already. White's b4 with the knight on a3 looks dubious. 18 ¤ab1 d5!? Before White plays a3 19 cxd5 exd5 20 ¤xd5 ¤xd5 21 ¦xc8 £xc8 22 exd5 ¥xb4³ Frhat,A−Surjadnji,A/Cairo EGY 2001 Black's forces are better placed.

13...¤ed7

Practice has shown that this Hedgehog is tough to deal with.

14 ¦fd1 £c7 15 ¦ac1 ¦ac8 16 ¢h1 ¦fe8 17 £d2 £b8 18 ¥g1 h6 19 ¤c2 ¤e5 20 b3 ¤ed7³

Naiditsch,A−Lutz,C/Altenkirchen GER 2001. Down the road Black can break with ...d5 or ...b5. White on the other hand is very passive.

30

Four Knights with ...e6 [B45]


1 e4 c5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4 ¤f6 5 ¤c3 e6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+p+pzpp0 9-+n+psn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

6 ¤xc6!?

I prefer this sharp approach, but White has other important alternatives: 6 ¤db5 ¥b4 (6...d6 7 ¥f4 e5 8 ¥g5 a6 Transposes into a Sveshnikov variation., 6...£b6?! 7 ¥e3

Svidler,P−Karasev,V/St Petersburg RUS 1999) 7 a3 White takes the bishop pair. Others:

a) 7 ¥f4!? the most direct, 7...¤xe4 8 ¤c7+ (8 £f3 d5 9 ¤c7+ transposes) 8...¢f8 9 £f3 (9 ¤xa8? is a known blunder: 9...£f6) 9...d5 10 0-0-0 (10 ¤xa8 e5 11 ¥b5!? this is an interesting novelty. White wants to castle kingside to avoid the mating threats that occur after 0-0-0, see Drenchev,P−Manolov,I/BUL−ch Plovdiv 1999) 10...¥xc3 11 bxc3 g5!? heads for a drawish ending (11...¦b8 is also OK, see Yoos,J−Van Riemsdijk,H/Vancouver CAN 2003) 12 £xe4 £xc7 13 ¥xc7 dxe4 White has two bishops and some initiative in return for the pawn and weakened pawn structure, Kennaugh,C−Ptacnikova,L/Olomouc CZE 2002.

b) 7 ¤d6+ ¢e7 8 ¤xc8+ ¦xc8 9 ¥d3 is best met by 9...d5 (9...¥xc3+ led to sharp play in Novak,P−Priehoda,V/Litomysl CZE 2005) 10 exd5 £xd5 11 0-0 £h5 with an equal endgame after 12 £xh5 ¤xh5

7...¥xc3+ 8 ¤xc3 d5 9 exd5 (9 ¥d3!? d4 10 ¤e2 e5 11 0-0 0-0 12 h3 ¦e8 13 ¤g3 ¤d7 14 f4 exf4 15

¥xf4 ¤de5 16 £h5 f6 17 b4 ¥e6= Ponomariov,R−Korchnoi,V/Donetsk UKR 2001, 9

31

¥d3 didn't give White any chances for an opening advantage.) 9...exd5 10 ¥d3 0-0 11 0-0 d4! 12 ¤e2! ¥g4

a) 12...£d5 13 b4 ¦d8 This over−protection isn't bad, but 13...¥f5 is more to the point. 14 ¥b2 ¥f5 15 ¦e1 a6?! This allows White time for pawn snatching. (15...¥xd3

16 £xd3 a6 17 ¦ad1² Black still has problems with his d4 pawn.) 16 ¥xf5 £xf5 17 ¤xd4 ¤xd4 18 ¥xd4 ¦ac8 19 c3± Bezgodov,A−Hellegaard,C/Aars DEN 1999, Black has some tricks, but it's a solid pawn plus.

b) 12...¦e8!? 13 ¥g5 ¥g4 will transpose below. 13 f3 (13 ¥g5 £d6 14 ¦e1 (14 £d2 ¥xe2 15 ¥f4 £d5 16 ¥xe2 ¦fe8 17 ¦fe1 ¦ad8 18 ¥d3 ¤e5 Once

Black eliminates one bishop the position becomes equal. 19 ¥xe5 ¦xe5 20 ¦xe5 £xe5 21

¦e1 £c7 22 h3 g6= Leko,P−Grischuk,A/Linares 2001.) 14...¦fe8 15 £d2 ¥xe2!? 16 ¥f4! see Korneev,O−Lenic,L/Nova Gorica SLO 2006 (16 ¦xe2?! Ponomariov,R−Andreikin,D/Ukrainian Team Championship 2009) ) 13...¥h5 14 ¥g5 (14 ¤f4! White goes after the bishop pair and this simple approach just looks like quite a good one to me. 14...¦e8 15 ¤xh5 ¤xh5 16 f4! White prepares to expand on the kingside, Topalov,V−Ivanchuk,V/Nanjing 2008) 14...£d6 15 ¦e1

a) 15 ¤g3 ¥g6 16 £d2 Looks like Black is fine at this point. 16...¤d5?! This inaccuracy allows white to get an edge. (16...¥xd3 17 £xd3 ¤d5 Is a better try. Black knights can start hopping around.) 17 ¤e4 ¥xe4?! Underestimating the bishop pair and threats against f7. 18 fxe4 ¤de7 19 ¥c4!± Bojkovic,N−Skripchenko,A/Belgrade YUG 2000, Black is already in difficulties.

b) 15 c4!? This gives White a space advantage, but Black remains solid. 15...¦fe8 (15...¤e5!? Black should be on the lookout for these ideas.) 16 b4 ¥g6 17 ¥f4 ¤e5 18 ¥xg6 hxg6 19 c5 £d5 20 £xd4 ¤xf3+ 21 ¦xf3 ¦xe2 22 £xd5 ¤xd5 23 ¦d1² Rocha,W−Maia,L/Sao Paulo BRA 1999, White's rooks have targets on f7 and b7.

15...¥g6 16 ¥h4 ¦fd8 17 ¥g3 £d5?! Black should not part with the other bishop so easily. 17...£d7 keeps the position. 18 ¤f4 £g5 19 ¤xg6 hxg6 20 £c1² Ricardi,P−Van Riemsdijk,H/Mar del Plata ARG 2000, Black can only react to what White does.

6 ¥e2!? In its pure form this move involves a pawn sacrifice that can be rather dangerous for Black: 6...¥b4 7 0-0 ¥xc3 8 bxc3 ¤xe4 Black gets to double White's pawns, plus win the important e4−pawn! 9 ¥d3 (9 £d3!? less usual, but maybe best, 9...d5 10 ¥a3

confining the black king in the centre, 10...£a5 11 ¤b5 with a strong initiative, Gashimov,V−Belikov,V/Cappelle la Grande FRA 2006) 9...¤c5!? (9...d5 is the older move, 10 ¥a3 ¤xd4 11 cxd4 £a5 12 £c1) 10 £g4 ¢f8!? Polzin,R−Bokros,A/Kirchheim GER 2006.

6 a3!? Nigel Short has had some success with this move, which spends a move to prevent the ...¥b4 pin. 6...d6 7 ¥e3 (7 ¥e2 ¥e7 8 0-0 0-0 9 ¥e3 with a Scheveningen structure where Black hopes to prove that 6.a3 is premature, Zagrebelny,S−Yagupov,I/Cappelle la Grande FRA 2006.) 7...¥e7 8 f4 0-0 9 ¤b3!? ¤a5 10 g4!? is very sharp, Anand,V−Radjabov,T/Baku (rapid) 2009.

6...bxc6 7 e5 ¤d5 8 ¤e4

32

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zp-+p+pzpp0 9-+p+p+-+0 9+-+nzP-+-0 9-+-+N+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

8...£c7

8...¥b7!? This is relatively unexplored territory. Black wants to play on the long diagonal without any sophisticated manoeuvers. The mainlines are 8...¥a6 and 8...a5. 9 ¥e2 (9

c4 seems critical, 9...¤b4 10 c5 White concedes d5 but gains a stranglehold on d6, 10...¥a6 11 ¥xa6 ¤xa6 12 £d4 with a big space plus, but Black has his chances, Svidler,P−Malakhov,V/Sochi RUS 2005) 9...c5 10 0-0 £c7 11 ¤d6+ ¥xd6 12 exd6 the pawn is immune due to the option of c4 and White hopes that its presence on d6 will cramp Black and help him to construct a powerful bind, 12...£c6 13 f3 13 ¥f3 is also met by 13...c4. 13...c4 This is forced otherwise White plays c4. 14 £d4 0-0 15 ¥xc4 ¦fc8!? critical, (15...£xd6 16 ¥b3 (16 ¦d1 ¦fc8 17 ¥d3 £b6 White has the bishop pair and the queenside majority, but Black has enough counterplay in the center. 18 £xb6 ¤xb6 19 a4 a5 20 ¥e3 ¤d5 21 ¥d2 ¤b6 22 b3 d5= Svidler−Illescas, Dos Hermanas 1999., Topalov's 16 ¦f2!? is also promising) 16...£b6 Trading queens diminishes White's tactical chances. 17 ¦d1 ¦fc8 18 £xb6 ¤xb6 19 a4 d5 20 a5 ¤c4 21 a6 ¥c6 22 ¥xc4 dxc4 23 ¥e3 ¥d5 24 ¦a5² Kasparov,G−Leko,P/Linares 1999, Black is tied down to the defense of a7, but it's not easy for White's rooks to penetrate.) 16 b3 £xd6 17 ¥b2 (17 ¦d1!? didn't trouble Black in Anand,V−Carlsen,M/Monte Carlo Blindfold 2007) 17...£b6!? Black heads into a slightly worse ending, putting an end to any big attacks from White. (17...e5!? was later preferred by Grischuk) 18 ¦f2 £xd4 19 ¥xd4 ¤b4 20 c3 ¤c6 21 ¥e3 d5 22 ¥f1 a5 23 a4² Kasparov,G−Grischuk,A/Cannes FRA 2001, White is playing for connected passed pawns on the queenside.

8...f5 I think it's always good to throw 8...£c7 9 f4 in. 9 exf6 ¤xf6 10 ¤d6+!? Obtaining the bishop pair and dark−squared control. 10...¥xd6 11 £xd6 £e7 12 ¥f4 £xd6 13 ¥xd6 ¢f7 14 ¥e2 ¦e8 15 f3 a5 16 0-0-0 ¥a6 17 ¦he1 ¥xe2 18 ¦xe2 ¦a7 19 ¦e3 ¦b7 20 ¦b3 ¦b5 21 c4 ¦xb3 22 axb3± Dubiel,J−Klimaszewski,D/Suwalki POL 1999, Black's a5 pawn is a goner.

8...£a5+!? 9 c3 this appears to be the most accurate despite self pinning the c−pawn. (9 ¥d2

White keeps the option of playing c4 in one go, but leaves his b−pawn undefended, 9...£b6! 10 c4 £xb2!? with sharp play which may favour Black, Macieja,B−Halkias,S/Antalya TUR 2004) 9...f5 10 exf6 ¤xf6 11 ¤d6+ ¥xd6 12 £xd6 ¥a6! a

33

very important move, Black exchanges his 'bad bishop', see Dembo,Y−Halkias,S/Ermioni Argolidas GRE 2005.

9 f4 £b6

9...¦b8!? Karjakin,S−Radjabov,T/European Club Cup, Plovdiv 2010.

10 c4 ¥b4+

10...¤e3?! Later on Black will have to reckon with his dark squares. 11 £d3 ¤f5 (11...¤xf1

12 ¦xf1² Black's bishop pair is bottled up.) 12 g4! ¤d4 This knight looks well placed, but is very vulnerable. 13 ¥g2 ¦b8 14 b3 a5?! Black doesn't have time for this, and it's ugly anyway. 15 ¥d2 ¥b7 16 ¥c3 c5 17 0-0 ¥e7 18 £d2 a4 19 ¦ab1 axb3 20 axb3 ¥xe4 21 ¥xe4 d5 (21...f5 22 gxf5 ¤xf5 (22...exf5 23 ¥d5± Black's king is stuck in the middle.) 23 ¦fd1 £c7 24 ¥xf5 exf5 25 e6±) 22 cxd5 exd5 23 ¥xd5 0-0 24 ¥c4+− Nakamura,H−Bokros,A/Budapest HUN 2002, White has f5−f6 on the agenda.

11 ¢e2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zp-+p+pzpp0 9-wqp+p+-+0 9+-+nzP-+-0 9-vlP+NzP-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+K+PzP0 9tR-vLQ+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11...f5!? 12 ¤f2

12 exf6?! This allows Black a little freedom. 12...¤xf6 13 ¥e3 £a5 14 ¤xf6+ gxf6 15 ¢f2 0-0 16 ¥d3 ¦f7= Wiersma,E−Timoshenko,G/Groningen NED 1999, Black is solid and has chances to roll in the center.

12...¥a6 13 ¢f3 ¤e7 14 £a4!

American GM Nick De Firmian told me he had prepared this years ago. Black's bishops are in danger.

14 ¥e3?! This normal looking developing move leads to trouble. 14...¥c5 15 ¥xc5 £xc5 With 2 threats, ...¥xc4−d5 and what happened in the game. 16 ¦c1 g5!-+

34

Bianchi,A−Van Riemsdijk,H/3lst Mar del Plata Open, Argen 2000, White's king has had it.

14...c5 15 h4 0-0 16 ¥e3 ¦ab8 17 a3 ¥d2!?

Best under the circumstances.

18 ¥xd2 £xb2 19 ¥d3?!

After this Black gets serious counterplay. 19 ¦d1!± White is probably winning here.

19...£xd2 20 £xa6 ¤c6„

De Firmian,N−Shabalov,A/Seattle USA 2000.

35

Taimanov with ...a6 [B46]


1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤c6 5.¤c3 a6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvlntr0 9+p+p+pzpp0 9p+n+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

6.¤xc6!

The best line, in my opinion. There are many alternatives: 6.¥e2 is the standard move, 6...¤ge7 Black is ready to capture on d4 and then hit the

queen. (6...¤f6?! is wrong here: 7.¤xc6 bxc6 8.e5 ¤d5 9.¤e4 £c7 10.¤d6+ ¥xd6 11.exd6

Shirov,A−Ljubojevic,L/Monaco MNC 2000.) 7.f4 White plays this now to have the f2−square available for the queen's later retreat. (7.0-0 ¤xd4 8.£xd4 ¤c6 9.£d3 ¥e7

10.¥f4 Nijboer,F−Hoeksema,E/Amsterdam NED 2000.) 7...¤xd4 (7...b5 Black should have traded on d4 when he had the chance, 8.¤f3 £b6 9.a4 b4 10.a5!? Van den Doel,E−Reinderman,D/Hoogeveen NED 1999.) 8.£xd4 b5 9.0-0 ¤c6 10.£f2 ¥e7 11.¥e3 0-0 12.a4 (12.¦ad1 ¥b7 13.a4 b4 14.¤b1 Black is bottled up and has no active play, Aarthie,R−Taimanov,M/Stockholm SWE 2001.) 12...b4 13.¥b6! Chasing the queen to a very un−Sicilian like square, Palac,M−Beliavsky,A/Bled SLO 2001.

6.g4!? ¤ge7 7.¥e3 b5 8.¤b3?! ¤a5 9.g5 ¤ec6 10.¥g2?! ¤c4 Already Black is better, Hansen,S−Andersson,U/Porz GER 2000.

6.g3 ¤ge7 7.¤b3 By preventing a capture on d4 White guarantees himself a space advantage, see Balenovic,Z−Beil,Z/Olomouc CZE 1999.

6.¥e3 ¤f6 7.f4!? this hybrid−type system looks a little suspect with Black's d−pawn still on d7, but it was promoted by John Emms in Everyman's recent 'Dangerous Weapons:

36

The Sicilian'. (7.£d2 ¥b4 (7...¤g4!? Spoelman,W−Movsesian,S/Wijk aan Zee B 2008) 8.f3 d5 9.0-0-0!? £a5 10.¤b3 ¥xc3 11.¤xa5 ¥xd2+ 12.¥xd2 dxe4 Svidler,P−Grischuk,A/Russian Championship, Moscow 2010) 7...¥b4 (7...d5 8.e5 ¤d7 takes play into French−like waters, see Radjabov,T−Ivanchuk,V/Morelia 2008) 8.¥d3 e5!? a fairly radical attempt to break up White's centre and a move which is making a good case for being established as the main line. (8...d6 9.¤xc6 bxc6 10.0-0 e5 Fier,A−Leitao,R/Brazilian Championship, Americana 2009) 9.fxe5 (9.¤xc6 dxc6 10.h3 exf4

11.¥xf4 £d4! was roughly level in Motylev,A−Potkin,V/Sochi 2007.) 9...¤xe5 10.0-0 d6 11.¢h1 (11.h3!? Radjabov,T−Anand,V/Bilbao 2008.) 11...¥xc3 12.bxc3 h6 13.¤f3 ¤fg4! Almasi,Z−Laznicka,V/Paks 2010.

6.f3!? White would like to play an English Attack set−up, but his move order does look a little suspect, 6...d5 7.exd5 exd5 8.¥e3 ¥b4! active and best, Grischuk,A−Volokitin,A/Sochi 2007.

6...bxc6 7.¥d3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvlntr0 9+-+p+pzpp0 9p+p+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sNL+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

7.e5!? an energetic thrust, 7...£c7 8.f4 d6 (8...d5! 9.exd6 ¥xd6 10.¤e4! Motwani,P−

Fritz/Belgium 2000) 9.£f3!? sacrificing a pawn for a strong initiative, Vallejo Pons,F−Andersson,U/Baden Baden GER 2004.

7...d5

7...£c7 8.0-0 ¤f6 Kasparov,G−Movsesian,S/Prague CZE 2001.

8.0-0 ¤f6

8...£c7 9.£e2 ¥b7!? Kramnik,V−Svidler,P/Monte Carlo MNC 2005.

9.¦e1

9.£e2 ¥e7 10.b3 (10.¤a4 0-0 11.c4 ¥b7 12.¥f4!? Bologan,V−Rublevsky,S/Poikovsky 2010)

10...0-0 11.¥b2 is another dangerous system for Black, see Svidler,P−Volokitin,A/Turin ITA 2006.

37

9...¥e7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9+-+-vlpzpp0 9p+p+psn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sNL+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Alternatively, 9...¥b7!? tries to stop White attacking the g7−pawn in one go, 10.£f3 White

adds defence to the e4−pawn, and brings the queen towards the kingside anyway, 10...¥e7 11.£g3 Navara,D−Macieja,B/Ermioni GRE 2006, when Black might be advised to play 11...¢f8!? see the notes.

10.e5 ¤d7 11.£g4 g6 12.¤a4!

This is better than 12.¥h6 ¦b8! 13.£h3! ¦b4 14.¥g7 ¦g8!! sacrificing material to imprison the white queen, Polgar,J−Anand,V/Sofia BUL 2005.

12...£a5

12...c5!? 13.c4! Bacrot,E−Mamedyarov,S/FIDE Grand Prix, Nalchik 2009.

13.¥h6 £b4

I think Black should try 13...c5!, threatening ...c4. 14.b3 c4 15.¥f1 ¥b7 16.£g3!? White overprotects e5 and so frees his rook for queenside operations, Naiditsch,A−Mamedyarov,S/Dortmund 2008.

14.£xb4 ¥xb4 15.c3 ¥a5

15...¥f8?! led to suffering in Carlsen,M−Vescovi,G/Wijk aan Zee NED 2006.

16.b4 ¥c7 17.f4 ¤b6!?

17...a5 18.b5! with an edge, Ponomariov,R−Rublevsky,S/Poikovsky RUS 2006.

18.¤xb6 ¥xb6+ 19.¢f1 a5!

with a quick draw, Ni Hua−Movsesian,S/Russian Team Championship, Dagomys 2010.

38

Taimanov − 6 Be2, 6 g3 [B47]


1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤c6 5.¤c3 £c7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvlntr0 9zppwqp+pzpp0 9-+n+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

6.¥e2

Classical play. 6.g3 is a popular and solid alternative, 6...a6 7.¥g2 ¤f6 (7...d6 8.0-0 ¥d7 delaying the

development of the king's knight, (8...¥e7 9.¦e1 ¥d7 10.¤xc6 ¥xc6 transposes.) 9.¤xc6 ¥xc6 10.¦e1 ¥e7 11.£g4 h5 12.£e2 h4 13.a4 hxg3 (13...¤f6 14.a5 ¢f8 Navara,D−Movsesian,S/6th matchgame, Prague 2011.) 14.hxg3 ¤f6 (Delchev and Semkov preferred 14...¢f8 ) 15.a5 ¦c8 Meier,G−Akopian,V/European Championship, Budva 2009.) 8.0-0

39

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9+pwqp+pzpp0 9p+n+psn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-zP-0 9PzPP+-zPLzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

8...¤xd4 a) 8...¥e7 9.¦e1 ¤xd4?! 10.e5! Motwani's powerful move, 10...¤b5 11.exf6 gxf6

12.¤d5! with a powerful attack, De la Riva,O−Plaskett,J/Mondariz Zonal, Spain 2000

b) 8...¥c5 9.¤xc6 (9.¤b3 ¥a7?! Shabalov,A−Shapiro,D/Philadelphia USA 1999)

9...dxc6 10.¤a4 ¥a7 11.c4 planning c5, Gruenfeld,Y−Katzir,M/Ramat Aviv ISR 2000

c) 8...d6 transposes to [B80]. 9.£xd4 ¥c5 10.¥f4 A well−known trick, if the queen retreats play is equal, 10...d6 11.£d2

(11.£d3 ¤d7!? Black is thinking about covering d6 with ...¤e5 Schneider,D−Flumbort,A/Heraklio GRE 2002) 11...h6 12.¦ad1 e5 13.¥e3 ¥e6 14.¥xc5 dxc5 15.f4 0-0 16.£d6 £a5!? a nice resource that gives good play, Adams,M−Polgar,J/Wijk aan Zee NED 2000.

The main move 6.¥e3 is considered in B48/9. 6.f4 was quite fashionable back in the Eighties, 6...a6 7.¤xc6 £xc6 8.¥d3 b5 9.£e2 ¥b7

10.¥d2! both sides have developed logically so far, 10...¥c5! (10...¦c8 see Luther,T−Sokolov,A/German Bundesliga 2009.) 11.0-0-0 ¤e7 12.a3!? Naiditsch,A−Vachier Lagrave,M/French League 2011.

6...a6 7.0-0 ¤f6 8.¢h1

40

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9+pwqp+pzpp0 9p+n+psn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+LzPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

Necessary, to play f4.

8...¤xd4

8...¥b4 is the other main possibility, 9.¥g5 (9.¤xc6 bxc6 10.f4 d5 11.e5 ¤d7 12.¤a4 is the main alternative) When Fed was Gata Kamsky's second they looked at this line, but were dismayed to find that 9...£d6! played by Karpov in the early '70s, was equalizing, (9...¥xc3 10.¥xf6 gxf6 11.bxc3 Fed feels that White has some advantage here, 11...¤e7 (11...d6!? 12.£d2 ¥d7 13.¦ad1 ¢e7 14.f4 Black has some problems with his king, Milos,G−Murshed,N/Groningen 1997) 12.£d2 h5 forced, otherwise £h6, Volokitin,A−Neverov,V/Ordzhonikidze UKR 2001.) 10.¤xc6 £xd1 11.¤xd1 (11.¦axd1 bxc6 is also fine for Black) 11...bxc6 Van den Doel,E−Van der Werf,M/NED 2001.

8...¥c5!? 9.¤xc6 bxc6 10.f4 Threatening a bind with e5 and ¤e4, Van der Wiel,J−Fominyh,A/Bugojno BIH 1999.

9.£xd4 ¥c5 10.£d3

10.£d2? Why? Vukovic,Z−Ionescu,C/Bucharest ROM 2000.

10...b5 11.f4 ¥b7

11...h5 12.e5 ¤g4 13.£h3! ¤f2+ (13...¤h6 is better) 14.¦xf2 ¥xf2 15.£f3 £a7 16.¤e4 favours White.

12.¥f3

12.a4 b4 13.e5 ¤d5 is fairly equal, Stefansson,H−Vescovi,G/Paget Parish BER 2001.

12...h5

41

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9+lwqp+pzp-0 9p+-+psn-+0 9+pvl-+-+p0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+-sNQ+L+-0 9PzPP+-+PzP0 9tR-vL-+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black needs the outpost on g4 for his knight. 12...0-0?! this hands White a nice edge, 13.e5 ¤e8 14.¥xb7 £xb7 15.a4 b4 16.¤e4 ¥e7

17.f5!? Black is already in difficulties, (17.¥e3 is less aggressive, but may be stronger, Ni Hua−Shaposhnikov,E/Shanghai CHN 2001) 17...f6 (17...exf5 18.¦xf5 ¤c7?

19.¤f6+!) 18.fxe6 dxe6 Zapata,A−Mosquera,M/Fusagasuga COL 1999, when 19.¥f4 looks best.

13.e5 ¤g4 14.¥xb7 £xb7 15.¤e4 ¦c8

15...¥e7 16.b3 ¤h6 17.¥e3 gave White a plus in Nisipeanu,L−Lautier,J/Batumi GEO 1999.

16.¥d2 ¥e7 17.¦ae1

Wang Pin−Stepovaia Dianchenko,T/Shanghai CHN 2001.

42

Taimanov − with 6 Be3 and 7 Bd3 [B48]


1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤c6 5.¤c3 £c7 6.¥e3 a6 7.¥d3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvlntr0 9+pwqp+pzpp0 9p+n+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sNLvL-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This is the traditional mainline. 7.a3 ¤xd4 (7...¤f6 8.¥e2 ¥d6?! Haslinger,S−Spoelman,W/Hilversum Open 2009) 8.£xd4

¤e7 9.£d2 ¤g6?! I'd say that 90 percent of the time the knight on g6 is misplaced. (9...¤c6 10.f4 b5 Was a better chance.) 10.f4 b5 11.¥d3 ¥b7 12.0-0 ¥e7 13.a4 b4 14.¤a2 a5 15.c3 Now White takes control of Black's weakened queenside. 15...bxc3 16.¤xc3 0-0 17.¤b5 £b8 18.¢h1 ¥c6 19.¤d4 ¥b7 20.¤b5² Socko,B−Taimanov,M/Stockholm SWE 2000, Black pieces are uncoordinated and the central breaks are ineffective.

7...¤f6

7...b5 8.¤xc6 £xc6 9.0-0 (9.e5! looks stronger, Adams,M−Polgar,J, San Luis ARG 2005)

9...¥b7 this pins the e−pawn 10.a3 I hate when White plays this. I suppose it defends e4, but a more aggressive approach is indicated. (10.¦e1 ¤f6 11.¥d4 (11.¥g5!? ¥e7

12.£f3 h6 Pruess,D−Fedorowicz,J/Seattle USA 2003) 11...¥e7 12.£f3 b4 13.¤e2 ¤xe4! White is already in trouble. 14.¥xg7 ¦g8 15.¥d4 ¤c5! Causing problems against the g2 point. 16.£xc6 ¥xc6 17.¤g3 ¤xd3 18.cxd3 f5-+ Vazquez,R−Bruzon,L/Las Tunas CUB 2001, White's position is a mess. He had to deal with Black's queen+bishop battery in a better fashion.) 10...¤f6 11.£e2 h5 (11...¥e7 12.f4

0-0 13.¥d4!? Golubev,M−Tregubov,P/Arcapita Open, Manama 2009) 12.f4 ¤g4 13.¥d2 ¥c5+ 14.¢h1 ¥d4 15.¦ae1?! A costly loss of time. (15.¤d1!? With ¥c3 ideas

43

or maybe c4 if Black castles queenside. At any rate it's more flexible.) 15...0-0-0 16.¤d1 f5! Black's bishops are strafing White's king on the diagonals. 17.¥a5 ¦df8 18.c3 ¥a7 19.e5 g5!-+ Hracek,Z−Polgar,J/Istanbul TUR 2000 − It's clear that Black's attack is out of control.

8.0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9+pwqp+pzpp0 9p+n+psn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sNLvL-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

8.¤xc6 bxc6 9.0-0 ¥e7 (9...e5 10.¤a4 (10.f4!?) 10...¦b8 11.c4 d6 12.b3 ¥e7 13.¤c3 0-0

Gives Black more play than this game.) 10.¤a4 c5 This is the structure Black should avoid at all costs. 11.c4 0-0 12.f4 d6 13.£f3 ¥b7 14.¤c3 It's very difficult for Black to get any counterplay. The only break is ...d5 and that isn't happening anytime soon. 14...¤d7 15.£h3 ¦fe8 16.¦ad1 (16.e5?! Would relieve the tension making Black a little happier. 16...¤f8 17.exd6 ¥xd6 18.¤e4 ¥e7²) 16...g6 17.f5!? Rook sacrifices are looming on f7. 17...¥f6 (17...¥f8 18.fxg6 fxg6 19.¦f7! ¢xf7 (19...¥g7 20.¦df1±

Things are very uncomfortable for Black.) 20.£xh7+ ¥g7 21.¦f1+ ¢e7 22.¥g5++−) 18.fxg6 hxg6 19.e5! Well played! This allows other pieces to join the attack. 19...dxe5 20.¤e4 ¥xe4 21.¥xe4+− Ivanov,A−Zubarev,A/Kharkov UKR 2002, Black can't cope with White's plethora of threats.

8...¤e5

44

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9+pwqp+pzpp0 9p+-+psn-+0 9+-+-sn-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sNLvL-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The knight threatens to hop to g4. Alternatives: 8...h5!? 9.h3 b5 (9...¥d6?! 10.¦e1! Dgebuadze,A−Movsesian,S/German Bundesliga 2009)

10.¤xc6 £xc6 11.¥e2!? This move makes good sense. Black is going to load up with a queen and bishop, so White plans ¥f3, negating the pressure. 11...£c7 12.¥f3 ¦b8 13.¥d4 b4 14.e5! A typical reaction, giving White attacking chances. 14...bxc3 (14...¤g8? is obviously disgusting.) 15.exf6 cxb2 16.fxg7 ¥xg7 17.¥xg7 ¦g8 18.¥xb2 ¦xb2² Kotronias,V−Miladinovic,I/Patras GRE 2001, White's safer king gives him the better chances.

8...¥d6 is examined in the notes to the Fressinet game 9.f4!? (9.¤xc6 bxc6 (9...¥xh2+?!

10.¢h1 dxc6 11.g3 traps the bishop) 10.f4 e5 is the older line) 9...¤xd4 10.e5 with complications.

8...b5!? 9.¤xc6 £xc6 10.a3 will transpose to 7...b5. 8...¤xd4 9.¥xd4 ¥c5 10.¥xc5 £xc5 is a solid line.

9.h3 ¥c5 10.¢h1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9+pwqp+pzpp0 9p+-+psn-+0 9+-vl-sn-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sNLvL-+P0 9PzPP+-zPP+0 9tR-+Q+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

This remains White's main try against one of the cornerstones of the Delchev and Semkov

'Safest Sicilian' repertoire.

45

10.£e2 d6 11.f4 ¤g6 12.¤b3 ¥xe3+ 13.£xe3 0-0 (13...b5 14.¦ad1! appears to call into question one of Delchev's main recommendations in 'The Safest Sicilian', Eggleston,D−Vehi Bach,V/Benidorm Open 2007.) 14.¦ad1 b5 15.e5 Goh Wei Ming−Mihok,O/Kecskemet 2011.

10.f4!? ¤c6 11.¤f5 is Goh Wei Ming−Ahmed,A/Beijing (rapid) 2008.

10...d6 11.f4 ¤g6 12.£e1 0-0!?

12...¥d7 13.f5 ¤e5 14.¤ce2 £b6 15.£g3 Fressinet,L−Rublevsky,S/Turin ITA 2006.

13.f5 ¤e5 14.£h4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+pwq-+pzpp0 9p+-zppsn-+0 9+-vl-snP+-0 9-+-sNP+-wQ0 9+-sNLvL-+P0 9PzPP+-+P+0 9tR-+-+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

White intends a sacrificial 15 ¦f3 followed by a brutal assault on g7.

14...¥d7!?

This looks like Black's best try. 14...b5 was advocated in 'The Safest Sicilian', but has been coming under some pressure of

late, see Carlsen,M−Vachier Lagrave,M/Cap d'Agde FRA 2006.

15.¦f3 ¤xd3!?

Play is now extremely complex, Antal,G−Vegh,E/Hungarian League 2005.

46

English Attack v Taimanov [B48]


1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤c6 5.¤c3 £c7 6.¥e3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvlntr0 9zppwqp+pzpp0 9-+n+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

6...a6

6...¤f6 7.f4 (7.f3 ¥b4!? This could work well for Black with the proper plan. 8.¤db5 Looks like the correct reaction. 8...£b8 9.a3 ¥e7 Black did well to provoke a3. 10.g4 a6 11.¤d4 b5 (11...d6!? Looks best, freeing d7 for the f6−knight. 12.£d2 0-0

13.0-0-0 ¤xd4 14.¥xd4 b5 15.g5 ¤d7 When Black will get counterplay with ...b4.) 12.£d2 0-0 13.¤ce2 (13.g5!? Looks pretty good as well.) 13...¦d8 14.g5! ¤e8 Usually this knight is misplaced on e8. The desired retreat square is d7. 15.h4 ¥b7 16.0-0-0 d5 17.¤xc6 ¥xc6 18.e5 (18.¤d4!? Looks pretty good as well.) 18...d4!? Before White puts the clamp on d4. 19.¥xd4 ¥xf3 20.¦h3 ¥g4 21.¦g3 ¥f5 22.¥h3² Mcshane−Potkin 41st World junior 2002 Goa India.) 7...¥b4!? critical as Black continues not to fear ¤db5, (7...¤xd4 is the solid choice, 8.£xd4 b6!? Zhigalko,A−Mamedyarov,S/European Club Cup, Plovdiv 2010.) 8.¤db5 £a5 9.e5 with sharp complications 9...¤d5 Grachev's usual preference (9...a6 10.¤d6+ ¥xd6 11.£xd6 ¤e4

12.£d3 ¤xc3 13.¥d2! gave White the upper hand in Izoria,Z−Gagunashvili,M/Kusadasi TUR 2006) 10.¥d2 ¤xc3 11.¤xc3 (Radjabov's 11.bxc3!?

may be more critical 11...¥c5!? Jakovenko,D−Alekseev,E/Russian Championship Playoff (rapid), M 2008) 11...d5 and Black appeared to have obtained a reasonable game, Volokitin,A−Grachev,B/Russian Team Championship, Dagomys 2008.

47

7.£d2!?

For players searching for something different against the Taimanov variation this may be it. Can the English attack be played against anything?

7...¤f6

7...b5?! Too soon. This gives White a nice option. 8.¤xc6 £xc6 9.f3 ¥b7 10.0-0-0 Arizmendi Martinez,J−Teran Alvarez,I/Lanzarote ESP 2003.

8.0-0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9+pwqp+pzpp0 9p+n+psn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzPPwQ-zPPzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

8.f3 ¤e5!? a) 8...d6 This transposes into a straight English Attack. For more on this position see

B80. 9.0-0-0 ¥e7 10.g4 0-0 11.g5 ¤d7 12.h4 ¤xd4 13.¥xd4 b5 14.¢b1 b4 15.¤e2 ¤e5 16.f4 ¤c4 (16...¤f3?! 17.£xb4± A pawn is a pawn.) 17.£d3 a5 This looks slow, but White's demonstration is lagging. (17...e5!? Looks thematic to me. Black gets the strong point e5 with good play.) 18.¤c1 ¥a6 19.£f3 e5 20.¥g1 exf4 21.£xf4 a4?! (21...¤e5!? Is fine for black.) 22.¥d4 ¦fe8 23.h5± Dominguez,L−Mortensen,E/Copenhagen DEN 2002 Black's sense of danger failed him miserably. The a5−a4 push took up valuable time with little effect.

b) 8...¥b4!? 9.a3 ¥e7 Later on Black's ...b4 will pack more of a punch with White's queenside slightly weakened. 10.g4 h6 Campora,D−Vallejo Pons,F/Dos Hermanas ESP 2003.

c) 8...b5 9.0-0-0 ¥e7 10.g4 0-0 (10...b4!? 11.¤a4!? ¦b8 12.g5 ¤h5 Caruana,F−Kogan,A/Italian Team Championship, Spoleto 2011) 11.g5 ¤e8!? (11...¤h5! 12.¤ce2

¦d8 to support the ...d5 break, Salgado Lopez,I−Movsesian,S/Aeroflot Open, Moscow 2011) 12.h4 (12.¥f4!? Motylev,A−Morozevich,A/Spanish Team Championship 2007, 12.¤xc6 dxc6!? 13.f4 ¤d6 14.£d4 ¤b7 15.£b6 £xb6 16.¥xb6 e5!

hitting back in the centre and giving Black a perfectly reasonable position, Gashimov,V−Morozevich,A/Russian Team Championship, Dagomys 2008.) 12...¥b7 (12...¤e5 13.¢b1 ¥b7 14.h5 ¦c8 15.£g2! Karjakin,S−Morozevich,A/Wijk aan

48

Zee 2009) 13.h5 White is ahead in the race situation, Motylev,A−Korneev,O/European Championship, Dresden 2007.

d) 8...¥e7 9.0-0-0 h5!? I'm quite a fan of this prophylactic approach, (9...0-0 10.g4 b5

transposes to 8...b5) 10.£f2!? (10.¥g5 b5!? Movsesian,S−Horvath,A/European Club Cup, Ohrid 2009, 10.¤xc6 is Cheparinov's choice, aiming to force a central concession from Black, 10...bxc6 11.¥f4 e5 12.¥g5 Negi,P−Vachier Lagrave,M/Biel 2010) 10...d6 11.h3 Vachier Lagrave,M−Macieja,B/German Bundesliga 2008.

9.0-0-0 b5 10.g4 (10.¢b1 ¥b7 11.g4 h6 12.h4 b4 13.¤a4 d5!? 14.¥f4!? this and the next few moves are crucial points in the variation, see Shabalov,A−Fedorowicz,J/New York USA 2003.) 10...h6 11.h4 b4 12.¤a4 d5!? This well timed break gives Black good counterplay. 13.¥e2 ¥b7 14.g5 hxg5 15.hxg5 ¦xh1 16.¦xh1 ¤fd7 17.b3? (17.exd5

¥xd5 18.b3 Looks to be equal.) 17...dxe4 18.f4 ¤f3 19.¤xf3 exf3 20.¥c4 0-0-0∓ Shytaj,L−Lazarev,V/Porto San Giorgio ITA 2002 Black's f3 pawn is gonna cause serious distractions. In my opinion Black should avoid playing ...¥b4. (Unless it persuades White to play a3.)

8.¥d3 this old favourite of Lutikov is very unusual, 8...b5 9.0-0-0 ¥b7 10.f3 now the position resembles an English Attack, Cao,S−Horvath,A/Szekesfehervar HUN 2006.

8...¥b4

Alternatives: 8...b5!? 9.¥f4 (9.¤xc6 dxc6 10.¥f4 is also good, Gashimov,V−Mastrovasilis,D/Nakhchivan

AZE 2003) 9...¤e5!? others: a) 9...£b6?! This gets Black into early difficulties. 10.e5 ¤xd4 11.exf6 ¤c6 12.¤e4!

d5 13.¤d6+ ¢d7 (13...¥xd6 14.fxg7 ¦g8 15.¥xd6 ¦xg7 16.£h6+−) 14.¤xf7 Kasimdzhanov,R−Polgar,J/Moscow RUS 2002.

b) 9...£b7?! 10.e5 and Black was blown away, Sutovsky,E−Arakhamia,K/Caleta ENG 2005

c) 9...e5 is critical, 10.¤xc6! exf4 11.e5!? (Recommended in a certain 'Starting Out: 1 e4', but the much rarer 11.¤d4! may well be stronger:) 11...dxc6 12.exf6 McDonald,N−Plaskett,J/Jack Speigel Memorial, Southend 2008, when 12...¥e6! looks like a significant improvement:

10.¤f3 (10.¥xe5 £xe5 11.f4 £c7 12.e5 b4 Black is getting enough play.) 10...¤xf3 11.gxf3 £c6 was OK for Black in Korneev,O−Parfjonov,P, Campillos ESP 2004.

8...¤g4!? 9.¥f4 (9.¥g5!? ¤xd4 10.£xd4 f6 11.¥h4 ¥c5 12.£d2 b5 is very unclear.) 9...£b6 10.h3 ¤ge5 11.¤xc6 ¤xc6 12.¥e3 £c7 13.f4 d6 looks reasonable for Black.

8...¥e7 9.f4!? Gashimov,V−Movsesian,S/Reggio Emilia 2010. (9.f3 transposes to 8. f3 ¥e7 9.0-0-0)

9.f3 ¤e5

49

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9+pwqp+pzpp0 9p+-+psn-+0 9+-+-sn-+-0 9-vl-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzPPwQ-+PzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9...¤e7!? threatening ¥xc3 almost forces White's reply, 10.¤de2 Saving the pawn

structure, but losing time, 10...b5 a favourite of Judit Polgar (10...d5 11.a3 ¥a5 was analysed in Shirov,A−Lutz,C/Dortmund 2002.) 11.¥f4 one of several tries: (11.£e1!?

aiming for £f2 and dark−squared play, Karjakin,S−Zhang Pengxiang/Tiayuan CHN 2005, 11.g4 h6 12.¦g1!? protecting the g−pawn to play f4, Leko,P−Polgar,J, San Luis ARG 2005) 11...e5 12.¥g5 h5! Black not so much wants to hold up g4 as to prevent £h6 after an exchange on f6, (12...¥b7 13.¢b1 ¥a5 14.¥xf6 gxf6 15.£h6 see Anand,V−Polgar,J/San Luis ARG 2005.) 13.¢b1 ¥a5 14.¤c1 (14.£d6 Motylev,A−Maiwald,J/European Championship, Rijeka 2010) 14...b4 15.¤a4 Karjakin,S−Nisipeanu,L/Foros 2008.

9...d5?! is one experiment that should not be repeated. 10.a3 ¥xc3 (10...¥a5 11.¤b3 ¥b6

12.¥xb6 £xb6 13.exd5± White is positionally better.) 11.£xc3 dxe4? An ill−fated material snatch, 12.fxe4 ¤xe4 13.£d3 f5 14.£c4 e5 (14...¢e7?! is this ugliness worth a pawn? Arizmendi Martinez,J−Valensi,B/Istanbul TUR 2003) 15.¤xc6 £xc6 16.¦d5! £e6 17.¦a5+− Polgar,J−Horvath,J/Halkidiki GRE 2002

9...¤a5 10.¤b3!? this looks like a good way to fight for an advantage, 10...¤xb3+ 11.axb3 d5 12.exd5 ¤xd5 13.¥d4 £a5 14.¢b1 0-0 15.¥c4 Akopian,V−Anand,V/Moscow RUS 2004.

9...0-0!? is rare, 10.g4 b5 11.g5 ¤h5 12.¢b1 ¤xd4 13.£xd4 (13.¥xd4!) 13...¥xc3! 14.£xc3 £xc3 15.bxc3 d5 breaking up White's centre, Anand,V−Polgar,J/Canada de Calatrava Rapid 2007.

10.¤b3 b5

The mixture of ...¥b4 and ...b5 seems odd.

11.¥d4!?

50

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9+-wqp+pzpp0 9p+-+psn-+0 9+p+-sn-+-0 9-vl-vLP+-+0 9+NsN-+P+-0 9PzPPwQ-+PzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

We should pay attention to this as Leko is known for his thorough preparation. 11.¢b1 ¥e7 (11...¤c4 12.¥xc4 bxc4 I find that more often than not this recapture clogs black's

counterplay. Normally in the Sicilian Black plays for ...b4 and ends up with both the C and B lines open. 13.¤c1 £b7 14.¤1e2 ¦b8 15.b3 Defending mate on b2 is a simple task. 15...0-0 16.¥f4! Chasing the rook to a passive post ends any hope of active play. 16...¦a8 17.¥d6 ¥xd6 18.£xd6 cxb3 19.axb3 a5 20.¦d4± Topalov,V−Lutz,C/Dortmund GER 2002 White has all the chances.) 12.£f2 d6 (12...¦b8 I believe Black can omit this move, 13.g4 h6?! Black should only play ...h6 when it stalls White's g5 push, see Bauer,C−Skripchenko,A/Aix les Bains FRA 2003.) 13.g4 h6 14.h4 ¤fd7 Kovchan,A−Bellaiche,A/Cappelle la Grande FRA 2003.

11.£e1!? White forces the issue on the queenside by threatening ¤xb5, 11...¥e7 (11...¤c4!?

12.¥d4 0-0 13.e5 ¥xc3 14.¥xc3 ¤d5 Black's knights have taken up some formidable posts in the center, Motylev,A−Movsesian,S/Izmir TUR 2004.) 12.f4 ¤g6! advocated in 'The Safest Sicilian' (12...¤c4?! Sutovsky,E−Polgar,J/Natanya (rapid) 2009) 13.e5 continuing to kick Black's pieces around, 13...¤g4 14.¤e4 ¤xe3! (14...0-

0 Vachier Lagrave,M−Vitiugov,N/European Championship, Plovdiv 2008.) 15.£xe3 0-0 Ter Sahakyan,S−Potkin,V/European Championship, Aix−les−Bains 2011.

11...¥e7

11...¥b7 12.¢b1 (12.£g5!? forcing the knight back to g6 can't be bad, Lindberg,B−Hansen,C/Copenhagen DEN 2004) 12...¥e7 13.£f2 ¦c8 14.a3?! this weakens White's queenside making Black's eventual ...b4 much stronger. Marjanovic,S−Perunovic,M/Budva SCG 2003.

11...0-0 12.£g5 ¥d6 13.¢b1 ¥b7 14.¥xb5!? White snatches a pawn at the expense of his king safety, Short,N−Movsesian,S/Sarajevo BIH 2004.

12.£g5 ¤g6 13.£g3

51

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9+-wqpvlpzpp0 9p+-+psnn+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-vLP+-+0 9+NsN-+PwQ-0 9PzPP+-+PzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...¥d6

13...£xg3!? This looks like a better place to trade queens. 14.hxg3 d6

14.£f2 ¦b8

14...¥xh2!? is a risky pawn snatch, Fressinet,L−Heissler,J/Rethymnon GRE 2003.

15.¢b1 0-0 16.¥c5! ¥xc5 17.£xc5²

White started pounding a6 and Black suffered, Leko,P−Vallejo Pons,F/Linares ESP 2003.

52

Taimanov Long Variation [B49]


1 e4 c5 2 ¤f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4 ¤c6 5 ¤c3 £c7 6 ¥e2 a6 7 0-0

With 7 f4 White defers castling to get his bishop to f3 as quickly as possible, which will negate Black's intended ...b5 and ...¥b7. 7...b5 8 ¤xc6 £xc6 9 ¥f3 ¥b7 10 ¥e3 b4!? White is well placed to counter this, 11 e5 £c7 12 ¤e4 Moldovan,D−Plischki,S/Litomysl CZE 2005, when I think 12...¦c8 is best.

7...¤f6 8 ¥e3 ¥b4 9 ¤a4

This is basic Taimanov theory. White runs down the bishop pair, but Black is ok.

9...0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+pwqp+pzpp0 9p+n+psn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9Nvl-sNP+-+0 9+-+-vL-+-0 9PzPP+LzPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

9...¥e7 This variation is quite solid for Black. White might get a miniscule edge, but overall

this is worthwhile from Black's point of view. 10 ¤xc6 bxc6 11 ¤b6 ¦b8 12 ¤xc8 £xc8 Delchev and Semkov suggest that Black's extra central pawn balances White's bishop pair in 'The Safest Sicilian'. 13 ¥d4 (13 e5 ¤d5 14 ¥c1 ¥c5 15 c4 ¤e7 16 b3 £c7

17 ¥b2 d6 18 exd6 ¥xd6 19 g3 ¥e5 20 ¥xe5 £xe5² Milos,G−Leitao,R/Sao Paulo BRA 1999 White has better pawns.) 13...c5 (13...0-0 14 e5 ¤d5 15 b3 ¤f4 16 ¥c4 White's structure gives a slight pull. 16...c5 17 ¥e3 ¤g6 18 f4 ¦b6 19 £e2² Ivanchuk,V−Lautier,J/Monaco MNC 2000) 14 ¥e5 ¦b6 (14...d6? 15 ¥xd6 ¦xb2 16 ¥xe7 ¢xe7 17 e5

¤d5 18 £c1±) 15 b3 opening up b2 as a retreat square for the e5−bishop (15 £d3 d6 16 ¥c3 0-0 17 b3 d5 18 e5 ¤d7 19 f4 f5 I don't like the looks of this. (19...c4!?

clearing c5 for the d7−knight and opening the c file is a better try) 20 exf6 ¥xf6 21

53

¥xf6 ¤xf6 22 ¥f3± Kasparov,G−Lautier,J/Cannes FRA 2001 Preparing to pound e6.) 15...0-0 (15...¤xe4!? 16 ¥xg7 ¦g8 17 ¥e5 ¥d6 18 ¥g3 c4!? This trades c5 for g3 weakening the White K. (18...¤xg3 19 fxg3!? With ideas of ¥h5. White has the safer king 19...¢e7 20 £d3² Shabalov,A−Macieja,B/Paget Parish BER 2001) 19 ¥xc4 ¥xg3 20 hxg3 £c5 21 ¥d3 ¤xg3 22 £f3² Shabalov,A−Lutz,C/Istanbul TUR 2000 White might be able to go pawn hunting.) 16 £d3 (16 ¥d3 d6 17 ¥b2 ¤d7 18 f4 ¥f6 19 ¥xf6

¤xf6 Black has succeeded in exchanging dark squared B's, but cannot blockade the dark squares as in other lines. 20 £e2² Dolmatov,S−Tunik,G/St Petersburg RUS Ch. 1998 White can load up for e5 creating attacking chances while weakening Black's structure.) 16...d6 (16...d5?! Too loosening. 17 exd5 exd5 18 ¥f3 c4 19 £d2 £f5 20 ¦ae1

White has the bishop pair and Black's d5 and a6 pawns are targets. 20...cxb3 21 axb3

¥b4 22 c3 ¥d6 23 £d4± Svidler,P−Tissir,M/Istanbul TUR 2000) 17 ¥b2 ¤d7! Black hurries to exchange the dark−squared bishops, Bacrot,E−Kozakov,M/French League 2009. (17...d5!? Vachier Lagrave,M−Nisipeanu,L/Coupe de France Finale 2009)

9...¥d6!? an old favourite of Anand's, 10 g3! (10 ¤xc6 bxc6 11 f4!? ¤xe4 is nothing for White, Rietze,C−Ross,C/Berlin 2010.) 10...b5! 11 ¤b6 ¦b8 12 ¤xc8 ¦xc8 13 a4 ¤xd4 14 ¥xd4 e5 15 ¥e3 ¥c5 16 £d3!? A slight improvement over Shirov−Anand, but nothing major. (16 axb5 ¥xe3 17 fxe3 axb5 18 ¥xb5 0-0 19 ¦xf6 Good enough to draw, but not more. 19...gxf6 20 ¥xd7? ¦a8!∓ Shirov,A−Anand,V/Tehran IRI 2000, 16 ¥xc5! £xc5

17 ¥d3) 16...¥xe3 17 £xe3 0-0 18 c3 £c6 19 axb5 axb5 20 ¦a5 ¦b8= Shirov,A−De la Riva Aguado,O/Andorra AND 2001, looks pretty equal as b5 is easily defended.

10 c4

10 ¤xc6 bxc6 11 ¤b6!? I believe this is most to the point. (11 ¥d3 doesn't lead to much after 11...¦b8 Marjanovic,S−Zivanic,M/Budva SCG 2004) 11...¦b8 12 ¤xc8 ¦fxc8 13 ¥xa6 ¦d8!? was the well−known game Smejkal,J−Karpov,A at Leningrad 1973.

10...¥e7 11 c5

11 ¤c3 d6 12 ¦c1 ¤xd4 Before the ¤d5 trick occurs, 13 ¥xd4 b6 14 f3 ¥b7 15 £e1 ¤d7 16 £g3 ¥f6 17 ¦fd1 ¦fd8 18 ¥e3 ¥e5 19 £f2 ¦ac8 20 g4?!³ Kosteniuk,A−Landenbergue,C/Geneva SUI 2001 It was equal before this nonsense.

11...¤xe4

54

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+pwqpvlpzpp0 9p+n+p+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9N+-sNn+-+0 9+-+-vL-+-0 9PzP-+LzPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black grabs the pawn.

12 ¦c1 ¦b8

12...¦d8 13 f4!? This an interesting idea. Preventing the ...¤g5 retreat while taking space. 13...d5 14 cxd6 ¦xd6 15 £e1 ¥d7?! (15...¤f6 16 ¥f3 with pressure) 16 ¥f3 ¤f6 17 ¤b6! ¦d8 18 ¤xc6 ¥xc6 19 ¤c4 ¤d5 20 ¤xd6² Vishveswaran−Sorokin,M/Goodricke Calcutta 1999 Black has a pawn for the exchange and control of d5.

13 g3 ¤f6

This seems a bit passive, but things are far from clear. 13...¢h8 14 ¥f3 f5 15 ¥xe4 fxe4 16 £g4² according to Agnos. 13...f5 14 ¥f3 ¤g5 15 ¥g2 e5 16 ¤f3 ¤xf3+ 17 ¥xf3 f4 18 ¥d5+ (18 ¥e4 fxe3 19 £h5 g6 20

¥xg6 hxg6 21 £xg6+ with perpetual check Anand−Lautier Monaco rapid 1998)

18...¢h8 19 ¥e4 d5! 20 cxd6 £xd6 21 £xd6 ¥xd6 22 ¥c5 is around equal Jiangchuan−Hernandez Moscow OL 1994.

14 ¥f3 g6 15 ¤b6 ¦d8 16 £a4 e5 17 ¤b3 d5 18 cxd6 ¦xd6 19 ¤a5 e4!?

Black gives back the pawn. 19...¥h3 20 ¦fe1 ¦e6 21 ¥xc6 bxc6 22 ¦xc6 ¦xc6 23 ¤xc6²

20 ¥xe4 ¤xe4 21 £xe4 ¥h3 22 ¦fe1 ¦e6 23 £f4 £xf4 24 ¥xf4

Shirov,A−Kasimdzhanov,R/Wijk aan Zee 1999 A draw was agreed here in view of

24...¤d4 25 ¦xe6 ¥xe6 26 ¥xb8 ¤e2+ 27 ¢g2 ¤xc1 28 ¤xb7 ¤xa2

and only Black can be better.

55

Keres Attack − Black doesn't play ...Nf6

[B54]


1 e4 c5 2 ¤f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4 ¤c6

A similar idea is seen in: 4...a6 5 ¤c3 d6 6 g4!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvlntr0 9+p+-+pzpp0 9p+-zpp+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+P+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zP-zP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This is a hybrid Keres attack. (6 g3 ¥d7!? Olsson,A−Agrest,E/Stockholm SWE 1999, 6 ¥e3

b5 Barua,D−Mariano,N/Calcutta IND 2001) 6...¤e7 (6...b5 7 ¥g2 ¥b7 8 0-0 ¤d7 (8...¤f6!? White's setup after 0-0 isn't as dangerous as 0-0-0.) 9 g5 ¤e7 10 f4 e5 11 ¤f5 ¤xf5 12 exf5 £b6+ 13 ¦f2 ¥xg2 14 ¢xg2 £b7+ 15 £d5 0-0-0 16 a4 b4 17 £xb7+ ¢xb7 18 ¤d5 a5 19 ¥e3± Ponomariov,R−Milov,V/Torshavn FAI 2000, Black is completely bottled−up.) 7 g5 ¤ec6 8 ¥e3 b5 9 a3 ¥b7 10 h4 ¤xd4 11 £xd4 ¤c6 12 £d2 ¦c8 13 f4 ¤a5 (13...b4!? Must be played. ) 14 h5 ¥e7 15 ¦g1 ¤c4 16 ¥xc4 ¦xc4 17 f5 £c8 18 £d3 b4 19 axb4 ¦xb4 20 b3± Black's counterchances ground to a halt, Ponomariov,R−Milov,V/Istanbul TUR 2000.

5 ¤c3 d6

Black can employ these move−order tricks to avoid the main body of theory. Black delays ...¤f6, hoping to take the steam out of the g4−g5 push.

6 g4 a6

56

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvlntr0 9+p+-+pzpp0 9p+nzpp+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+P+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zP-zP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

6...h6 7 ¥e3 a6 8 f4 g5?! Fighting for control of e5 at the cost of weakening the K−side. 9

¤f3! ¤f6 10 h3 £a5 11 £d2 gxf4 12 ¥xf4 ¤e5 13 ¥g2 ¤fd7 14 ¤xe5 ¤xe5 15 0-0 £c5+ 16 ¦f2 ¥d7 17 ¤e2 h5 18 ¥e3 £c7 19 g5 ¦c8 20 ¤f4 h4 21 ¥d4!± Motwani,P−Morrison,G/Edinburgh SCO 1999. Taking the air out of ¤c4 and keeping Black's forces uncoordinated.

6...¥e7?! 6...Nge7 makes more sense 7 ¥e3 a6 8 g5!? ¤xd4 9 £xd4 ¥xg5 Black is forced to play this. Otherwise what becomes of the knight on g8? 10 0-0-0 ¥f6 11 £b4! White has a huge lead in development. 11...¤e7 12 ¦xd6 £c7 13 ¥b6 ¤c6 14 £c5 £b8 15 f4! 0-0 (15...¥e7 16 e5 With a stranglehold on the position.) 16 ¦g1 ¥e7 17 e5 Yemelin,V−Reizniece,A/Tallinn, Estonia 2001.

7 ¥e3 ¤ge7

Alternative developments: 7...¥d7 8 £d2 b5 9 g5 ¤ge7 10 0-0-0 ¤xd4 11 £xd4 ¤c6 12 £d2 ¥e7 13 f4 0-0 14 ¢b1

¤a5 15 £f2 ¦b8 16 h4 b4 17 ¤e2 ¤c4 18 ¤d4 ¤xe3 19 £xe3 £b6 20 £d2 a5 21 f5 e5 22 ¤f3 ¦fc8 23 f6?! This keeps Black in the game. (23 g6!) 23...¥f8 24 fxg7 ¥xg7 25 ¥h3= Topalov,V−Zvjaginsev,V/Tilburg 1998. Both sides are pawn−storming.

7...¥e7!? 8 £e2 ¤xd4 9 ¥xd4 e5 10 ¥e3 ¤f6 11 ¦g1 ¥e6 12 g5 ¤d7 13 0-0-0 £a5 Was fine for Black in Luther−Stoica, Eforie−Nord 1989.

7...h6 8 h3 ¤f6 Black has returned to a Keres Attack, but one where White has been lured into an h3−based plan.

8 f4 b5 9 ¤f3

Preventing exchanges on d4, and keeping Black cramped. 9 ¤de2 is an alternative, 9...¥b7 10 £d2 ¤a5 11 ¤g3 Goh Weiming−Zhou Weiqi/Asian

Championship, Cebu City 2007. 9 £d2 ¥b7 10 0-0-0 ¤xd4! 11 ¥xd4 ¤c6 Bacrot,E−Navara,D/European Team Ch., Novi

Sad 2009.

9...b4 10 ¤a4 ¦b8 11 £d2 ¥d7 12 b3 h5 13 g5 d5!?

57

Attempting to secure f5 for his e7−knight.

14 ¥d3

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wqkvl-tr0 9+-+lsnpzp-0 9p+n+p+-+0 9+-+p+-zPp0 9Nzp-+PzP-+0 9+P+LvLN+-0 9P+PwQ-+-zP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...dxe4 15 ¥xe4 ¦b5 16 c4 bxc3 17 ¤xc3 ¦b8 18 ¦d1 ¤f5 19 ¥xf5 exf5 20 g6 fxg6 21 £g2 ¥b4 22 £xg6+ ¢f8 23 ¦d3 £e8=

Kasparov,G−Svidler,P/Cannes FRA 2001, swapping queens puts the kaibosh on White's attack.

58

Paulsen/Taimanov Variations [B40 49 & B54] · PDF filehis group includes the Taimanov...

Documents

Transcript of Paulsen/Taimanov Variations [B40 49 & B54] · PDF filehis group includes the Taimanov...