Meran Variation

Written by GM Ruslan Scherbakov

Last updated Sunday, June 5, 2011

1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 e6 5 e3 ¤bd7 6 ¥d3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+p+psn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sNLzPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This is one of the most popular systems not only in the Slav Defence but in the

whole of opening theory. Black's early attack on the queenside compels White to play his

forces there which should prevent or at least make less effective White's future attack in the

centre and on the kingside. Quite often the black king stays uncastled for a long time but as

compensation Black achieves some pluses, usually these include active and strong

queenside pieces.

Rehab

Of course, the idea of playing a queenside attack in the opening is risky but Black

develops his queenside very quickly and his long−range pieces (especially the light squared

bishop) also have great influence in the centre so the positions are usually very sharp and

give much opportunity to a player good field to use his or her creativity and imagination.

Some of the lines were thought to be unfavourable for Black for years, for example

the positions with a weak pawn on e6, but in the early 80s these were almost rehabilitated

thanks to some young Russian players like Yusupov, Dolmatov and Panchenko . The theory

of the Meran System is well developed now and is included in the opening repertoire of

many top players such as Kramnik, Shirov, Dreev, Bareev.

2

Contents

1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 e6 5 e3 ¤bd7

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

6 ¥d3 dxc4 7 ¥xc4 b5 8 ¥d3 a6

8...¥b7 9 0-0 (9 e4 D47 Meran/2, 3 & 4−Main lines 8...¥b7 9. e4 9 a3 D47 Meran/1−Various lines) 9...a6 10 e4 c5 11 d5 £c7 (11...c4 12 ¥c2 D48 Meran/6 8...¥b7 9. 0-0 a6 10. e4 c5 11. d5 c4) 12 dxe6 fxe6 13 ¥c2 D48 Meran/7 8...¥b7 9. 0-0 a6-10. e4 c5 11. d5 £c7

9 e4 c5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9+-+n+pzpp0 9p+-+psn-+0 9+pzp-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-sNL+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10 e5

10 d5 c4 11 dxe6 fxe6 12 ¥c2 D48 Meran/5 8...a6−9. e4 c5 10. d5 various lines

10...cxd4 11 ¤xb5

3

11...axb5 D49 Meran/9 main lines − 8...a6 9. e4 c5 10. e5 cxd4 11 Nxb5 axb5

11...¤xe5 12 ¤xe5 axb5

D49 Meran/8 main lines − 8...a6 9. e4 c5 10. e5 cxd4 11 Nxb5 Nxe5

Press F5 to toggle the Navigation Pane, then click on the appropriate bookmark to go

straight to that section.

Ctrl + 2 resizes the page.

All rights reserved Chess Publishing Ltd

4

Meran/1 − Various lines [D47]

Last updated: 19/11/08 by R.Scherbakov

1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 e6 5 e3 ¤bd7 6 ¥d3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+p+psn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sNLzPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

6...dxc4

The variation 6...¥d6 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+pvlpsn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sNLzPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

is not very popular as Black's counterplay is too limited here. However, it does not promise

White more than small advantage and so Black keeps reasonable chances to equalise with careful play. 7 e4 This immediate pawn advance is known to be more precise. (after 7 0-0 0-0 White should play something like 8 ¦e1 (8 e4 gives Black a good option 8...dxc4!? 9 ¥xc4 e5 10 ¥g5 £e7 11 ¦e1 (White also tried other moves: 11 h3

5

¦d8 12 £e2 h6 13 ¥e3 exd4 14 ¥xd4 ¤e5 15 ¥xe5 ¥xe5 16 ¤xe5 £xe5 17 f4 £c5+ 18 ¢h2 ¦d4

19 ¥b3 ¥e6!= with equality, in case of 11 d5 ¤b6 12 ¥b3 h6 13 ¥xf6 £xf6 14 dxc6 bxc6 15

£c2 ¥g4 Black also doesn't have any problems) 11...¦d8 (11...exd4 is doubtful as after 12 e5!? ¤xe5 13 ¤e4ƒ White's initiative looks promising) A important position is arisen. In the game Lautier − Anand/Monaco 2000 White tried a new idea: 12 £b3 (There are a lot of continuations: 12 £e2, 12 ¥b3, and 12 d5 ) 12...exd4 13 e5 (13 ¤xd4?

¤c5 followed by Bh2+ is just bad for White.) 13...¤xe5 14 ¤e4 We already saw this idea, however, in this situation it seems to be less effective. (Interesting complications would arise after 14 ¤xe5 ¥xe5 15 f4 dxc3 but Black seems to be okay in all variations.) 14...b5! 15 ¤xd6 (15 ¥xf6 gxf6 was not dangerous for Black.) 15...¤xf3+ 16 £xf3 £xd6 17 ¥xb5 ¥d7³ Black has successfully avoided direct danger and secured one extra pawn, though White has some compensation thanks to his active pieces.), after which Black might think about 8...dxc4

a) 8...e5!? is also worth considering b) while 8...h6?! is dubious: 9 c5! (not 9 e4, which would be met by 9...dxc4 10 ¥xc4 e5

with acceptable play) 9...¥c7 10 e4 dxe4 11 ¤xe4 e5 and here in the game Werle − Michiels/Antwerp 2008 12 ¤xf6+!? £xf6 13 ¥e3 (or 13 £e2!? would have promised the better chances for White)

9 ¥xc4 b5, playing in a typical Meran style.) 7...dxe4 (here 7...dxc4 8 ¥xc4 e5 is bad due to 9

dxe5 ¤xe5 10 ¤xe5 ¥xe5 11 £xd8+ ¢xd8 12 ¥xf7 and to win the pawn back Black has to part with a bishop: 12...¦f8 13 ¥c4 ¥xc3+ 14 bxc3 ¤xe4 15 0-0± with a big advantage) 8 ¤xe4 ¤xe4 9 ¥xe4 0-0 10 0-0 h6 11 ¥c2 e5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+n+pzp-0 9-+pvl-+-zp0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPL+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

An important of this system, which is quite solid but rather passive for Black, who can

usually hope only on half a point. However, for White the task to get substantial advantage is not as easy as it might seem to be. 12 ¦e1 The main continuation. (12 b4!? is also quite interesting. The idea is simple − White is going to develop his other bishop on the long diagonal, after which he would be ready to build two batteries B+Q on the diagonals a1-h8 and b1-h7. Black king would face certain problems but first he has to do something with White's Q−side pawns otherwise White will get positional advantage as well. 12...¥xb4!? A principled decision.

a) 12...¦e8 does not solve the problems: 13 c5 ¥c7 14 ¦e1 a5!? (14...exd4 15 ¦xe8+

£xe8 16 ¥b2!ƒ) 15 b5! cxb5 16 £d3 e4 17 ¦xe4 ¦xe4 18 £xe4 ¤f6 19 £d3 b4 20 a3

6

bxa3 21 ¥xa3² and White secured a small advantage but Black's position is quite playable

b) An immediate 12...exd4!? is also worthy of consideration: 13 c5 ¥c7 14 £d3 ¤f6 15 ¥b2 £d5 16 ¤xd4 ¦e8 17 ¦fe1 ¥d7 and here 18 h3² can probably secure a small advantage for White but perhaps he has to find something more convincing in this line.

13 dxe5 ¦e8 (13...¤c5 fails to solve the problems: 14 £e2 £e7 15 ¦b1 ¥a5 16 ¤d4 ¦d8 17 ¥b2

£h4 18 ¦bd1 ¥g4 19 f3 ¥e6 20 g3 £h5 21 g4 £g5 22 ¥c1 £e7 23 f4 ¥c3 24 ¥e3ƒ and White is ready to break Black's K−side) 14 ¦b1 ¥c5 15 e6! A rather unexpected and strong advance. 15...¤f6! A good reaction. (15...¦xe6?! 16 £d3 g6 17 ¥xh6ƒ gave White a strong initiative, while after 15...fxe6 16 £d3! ¤f8 17 £e4ƒ the e6−pawn limited Black's pieces very much so White can smoothly develop his initiative) 16 exf7+ ¢xf7 17 ¤e5+ ¢g8 This position arose in the game Lputian − Fontaine/Calvia (ol) 2004. White should have secured his advantage by playing 18 £xd8! ¦xd8 19 ¦e1²) 12...exd4 (or 12...¥b4 13 ¥d2 ¥xd2 14 £xd2 exd4 15 £xd4 £b6 16 £c3²) 13 £xd4 ¥c5 14 £c3² White keeps a small but clear advantage.

7 ¥xc4 b5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zp-+n+pzpp0 9-+p+psn-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+LzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

8 ¥d3

8 ¥e2

7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zp-+n+pzpp0 9-+p+psn-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+LzPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

is much less popular alternative but it is played from time to time. 8...¥b7 9 0-0 b4!? a) 9...a6 10 e4 c5 11 e5 ¤d5 12 a4 b4 13 ¤e4 £c7!? is one of popular lines b) as well as 9...¥e7 10 e4 (10 a3 is a main alternative.) 10...b4 11 e5 bxc3 12 exf6

¥xf6 (A logical alternative 12...¤xf6 leads to the position with small advantage for White after 13 bxc3 0-0 14 ¦b1²) 13 bxc3 c5 14 dxc5 This position arose in the game Kramnik − Topalov/WCh (tb/4) Elista 2006. After 14...¤xc5!? This capture is actually a novelty. 15 ¥b5+ ¢f8 16 £xd8+! Despite Black's king is not castled the swapping of queens is correct! (In case of 16 ¥a3?! £c7! White could slowly get worse. Black's pawn structure was better as well as his minor pieces while the temporary inconvenience with the king was not critical for Black) 16...¦xd8 17 ¥a3 ¦c8 18 ¦ab1! White could have maintained the pressure by 18...¥e7 19 ¤e5² and Black still had to defend accurately.

10 ¤a4 c5!? A risky approach. (A common 10...¥e7 is more reliable though the more passive option) 11 dxc5 ¤xc5 (11...¥xc5 does not equalise: 12 ¤xc5 (or 12 a3 ¥e7 13

axb4 ¥xb4 14 ¥d2²) 12...¤xc5 13 ¥b5+ ¢e7 14 ¤d4² with better chances for White) 12 ¥b5+ (12 a3!? ¤cd7 13 £d4 bxa3 14 b4 ¥e7 15 ¥xa3 0-0 16 ¦fd1² might promise a small advantage for White) 12...¤cd7 13 ¤e5 £c7 The game Kramnik − Topalov/WCh (m/8) Elista 2006 continued 14 £d4 (14 ¤xd7 ¤xd7 15 e4 with the idea ¥c1-f4 deserved attention: 15...¦d8! 16 ¥g5 f6 17 ¥e3 ¥xe4! (17...£e5? is dubious: 18 £e2 ¥d6 19 f4 £xe4 20 ¦ad1 a6 and here 21 ¦d4! could have posed serious problems for Black) 18 £e2 ¢f7 19 ¦ac1 £b7 20 ¦fd1© with excellent compensation for the pawn although Black is not bad at all after 20...¥e7÷) 14...¦d8 15 ¥d2 £a5! 16 ¥c6 ¥e7! 17 ¦fc1 ¥xc6 18 ¤xc6 £xa4 19 ¤xd8 (19 b3!? £b5 20

£xa7 was maybe stronger) 19...¥xd8 20 £xb4 £xb4 21 ¥xb4 ¤d5 22 ¥d6 f5³ and White has eventually failed in defence.

8 ¥b3 is played only occasionally.

8...¥b7

8...¥d6 is not very popular but perhaps it is a bit underestimated. Without invitation Black is changing his approach, transposing into Anti−Meran type of position − certainly not the way for true Meran players. Besides, White can save time for the Anti−Meran move £d1-c2. What can be attractive for Black in this system? The play is

8

not so sharp as in the main Meran lines since Black is not late with development of his K−side and White anyway can hardly achieve more than a small advantage. 9 0-0 (White has tried many possibilities, among those Zdenko Kozul's approach 9 ¤g5!? looks interesting but maybe not quite sufficient for White: 9...¥b7 10 £f3 £b6 (another way to prepare ...c6−c5 is 10...¦b8 11 0-0 h6 (11...c5!? 12 £h3 a6

deserves attention) 12 ¤ge4 ¥e7 13 ¦d1 0-0 14 £g3 ¤xe4 15 ¤xe4 c5 16 dxc5 ¤xc5 17 ¤xc5 ¥xc5 18 e4! (18 ¥h7+ ¢xh7 19 ¦xd8 ¦bxd8© looks acceptable for Black) 18...£b6 19 ¥f4 ¦bc8 20 ¦ac1² with a certain advantage) 11 £h3 ¥e7 12 0-0 b4 13 ¤e2 c5÷ and Black achieves a good play) 9...0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zp-+n+pzpp0 9-+pvlpsn-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sNLzPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

(9...¥b7?! can be strongly met by 10 e4 e5 11 dxe5! ¤xe5 12 ¤xe5 ¥xe5 13 f4ƒ with a clear

advantage) 10 a3 White is going to stop Black's typical ...c6−c5. a) He has tried a huge number of moves. Let's take a brief look at some games: 10

¥d2 ¥b7 11 ¦c1 ¦c8 12 ¤g5 (12 ¤e2 b4 13 e4 c5 14 e5!? ¥xf3 15 exd6 also gives somewhat better chances for White) 12...¥e7 13 a3 a5 14 £f3 h6 15 ¤ge4 ¥a8 16 £e2 £b6 17 ¦c2 ¤xe4 18 ¤xe4² with a small advantage

b) an immediate 10 e4 is playable for White: 10...e5 11 ¤e2 A typical manoeuvre, White is heading his knight towards the K−side. (11 dxe5 is harmless for Black: 11...¤xe5 12 ¤xe5 ¥xe5 13 h3 ¦e8 with excellent play, 11 ¥g5) 11...a6 (Both 11...¦e8, and 11...¥b7 are playable alternatives) 12 b3!? (As a rule, in such type of position White develops his bishop to g5 and, as a rule, it does not promise much! After 12 ¥g5 h6 13

¥h4 c5! 14 d5 c4 15 ¥c2 ¤c5 Black achieves good play) 12...¦e8 13 ¥b2 ¥b7 This position arose in the game Svidler − Inarkiev/RUS−ch Superfinal Moscow 2008. White came up with an interesting 14 ¦c1!? exd4 15 ¤exd4 c5 16 ¤f5 and here Black should have played a principled 16...¥f4! (after 16...¥f8?! White's initiative escalated smoothly: 17 e5! ¤g4 18 ¤d6! ¥xf3 19 £xf3 and so on) after which White had no other choice than to give up the exchange by 17 g3! ¥xc1 18 £xc1, getting reasonable compensation. A possible play would be 18...¥xe4 (18...¦xe4!? 19 £g5 was also very unclear) 19 ¥xe4 ¦xe4 20 ¦d1 h6 21 ¤e5ƒ with initiative but Black's position seems defendable.

c) 10 ¤e4 ¤xe4 11 ¥xe4 ¥b7 12 £c2 f5 13 ¥d3 c5 14 £e2 c4 15 ¥c2 ¤f6 gives better chances for Black

d) 10 ¤e2!? deserves attention: 10...¦e8 11 ¤g3² with a small advantage e) 10 £c2 ¥b7 is a transposition to the Anti−Meran.

9

f) 10 ¤g5!? Contrary to the Anti−Meran this typical manoeuvre can easily be played here − the moves £d1-c2 and ...¥c8−b7 are not played so ...¥d6xh2 and ...¤f6−g4 is just impossible. 10...£c7 11 f4 h6 This position arose in the game Kozul − Graf/Calvia (ol) 2004. It seems that 12 ¤ge4!?² could have secured a small advantage for White − this position requires more analysis and practical tests.

10...a5!? Black prefers this active advance in order to stop b2−b4. Now the typical freeing ...c6−c5 push looks problematic but otherwise he would never be able to play it anyway. Here he might still hope for it as the Q−side is not sealed. (Black also tried other option. After 10...¥b7 White can transpose into the pure Anti−Meran by playing 11 £c2 However, it is rather logical to treat the position without move £d1-c2 − such options as 11. h3 or 11. ¥d2 and, of course, 11. b4 have been tested in practice as well.) 11 e4 White pushes his central pawn without any delay. 11...e5 12 ¥g5 (The preliminary 12 ¤e2!? deserves attention. After 12...¥b7 13 ¥g5 h6 14 ¥h4 exd4 15 ¤exd4

¦e8 16 ¤f5 White's chances look preferable) 12...¥b7 (12...exd4!? 13 ¤xd4 ¤e5 deserves serious attention. Black can achieve good play after 14 ¥e2 ¥c5 15 ¤f3 £e7) 13 ¦e1 ¦e8 14 ¤e2 h6 15 ¥h4 This position arose in the game Jakovenko − Bologan/Poikovsky 2008. Here Black should have seriously thought about 15...£b6!? A possible continuation would have been 16 dxe5 (16 ¤g3!?÷) 16...¤xe5 17 ¥xf6 ¤xf3+ 18 gxf3 gxf6 19 £d2 (or 19 ¤g3 £c5 20 ¤f5 ¥f4) 19...£c5! 20 £xh6 £g5+ 21 £xg5+ fxg5 with sufficient compensation for the pawn.

9 a3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9zpl+n+pzpp0 9-+p+psn-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9zP-sNLzPN+-0 9-zP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This move leads to a position with minimal risk for White, but gives him only a very small

edge. Both 9 e4 and 9 0-0 are the main lines.

9...b4

10

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9zpl+n+pzpp0 9-+p+psn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-zp-zP-+-+0 9zP-sNLzPN+-0 9-zP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10 ¤e4

10 axb4 ¥xb4 11 0-0 c5 is known to be acceptable for Black. The game Kozul − Miroshnichenko/Bled 2000 continued by 12 £e2!? (12 ¤a2 was considered White's main attempt as Black cannot save the bishop from being exchanged. Yet, he can probably achieve a good play by 12...a5 (12...0-0 is less precise: 13 ¤xb4 cxb4 14 b3!?

£b6 15 ¥b2 ¦fc8 16 ¤d2² with advantage) 13 ¤xb4 axb4 14 ¦xa8 £xa8 15 ¥e2 0-0= Black has completed his development and seems to be fine. White's bishop pair is not important here as his dark−squared bishop is too passive.) 12...0-0 13 ¦d1 The position looks similar to a QGA and White treats the position the way he often does in that opening! (13 ¥a6 could be met by 13...£b6 and here the inaccurate 14 ¥d2?

allows Black to obtain a tangible advantage by 14...¥xf3! 15 £xf3 cxd4 16 exd4 £xd4 17

¥b7 ¤e5! 18 £f4 ¦ad8 19 £xd4 ¦xd4 20 ¥e3 ¦d7 21 ¦xa7 ¤c4∓) 13...£e7 (Waiting moves such as 13...h6!? deserve attention. Now 14 ¥a6 would be well met by 14...£b6 15 ¥xb7

£xb7 16 £a6 ¦fb8= with equal play.) 14 ¥a6 ¤b6 15 ¤a2 ¥xa6 16 £xa6 cxd4 17 ¤xb4 £xb4 18 ¦xd4 £b3 19 ¥d2! Taking the opportunity to develop the Bishop. 19...¦ac8 (The b2 pawn was poisoned: 19...£xb2?? 20 ¦b4 £c2 21 ¦xb6+− winning) 20 ¥b4!? (If 20 ¥c3 ¤bd5 Black has no problems at all.) 20...¦fd8 21 ¥c3 and here Black should have played 21...¤bd5! 22 £d3 £b8!= not only protecting the Rook on d8 but keeping in mind the possibility of e6−e5 followed by e5−e4.

10...¤xe4

The most precise approach − Black arranges his pieces in the best way. 10...a5 has been played a couple of times by very good players but this approach looks

suspicious to me. It does not help much to prepare the programmed advance ...c6−c5 while sometimes it would be useful for Black to have the pawn on a7. His main idea is still ...c6−c5 but he is wasting important time for preparations and it seems that White can prove better chances in this line. 11 ¤xf6+ (11 0-0 is another possibility but I like the text move more because the knight is forced to go to f6, while its best square is surely d7 in such kinds of position.) 11...¤xf6 12 e4 ¥e7 13 £e2

11

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9+l+-vlpzpp0 9-+p+psn-+0 9zp-+-+-+-0 9-zp-zPP+-+0 9zP-+L+N+-0 9-zP-+QzPPzP0 9tR-vL-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...¤d7!? This knight retreat is in the spirit of position but it does not solve the problems

completely. a) There are a lot of possible continuations but it looks like White keeps better

chances. 13...c5!? 14 ¥b5+ ¢f8 15 dxc5 ¥xc5 16 ¥d3² with the upper hand b) 13...bxa3 14 bxa3 0-0 does not prevent White's play on the K−side: 15 e5!? ¤d5

16 h4! (in case of 16 £e4 g6 17 ¥h6 ¦e8 18 h4 Black gets good counter chances by 18...c5! 19 ¥b5 ¥a6! 20 ¥xa6 (20 ¥xe8 £xe8©) 20...¦xa6÷) and 16...c5?! does not seem to be possible because of 17 ¥xh7+! ¢h8 18 ¤g5 g6 19 ¤xe6!, destroying Black's position.

c) 13...£b6?! was unsuccessfully tried in the game Bareev − Dreev/chT−RUS Azov 1996. This set−up doesn't look very good. Black usually can play c6−c5 without spending so much time and without using his queen for this role. 14 0-0 c5 15 axb4! cxb4 (In case of 15...axb4 16 ¥b5+ ¢f8 17 ¦xa8+ ¥xa8 18 d5 exd5 (18...¤xe4 19

¤e5!) 19 exd5 ¥xd5 (19...¤xd5 20 ¦e1‚) 20 ¦e1 £b7 21 ¤e5± with the idea of Ne5−d7 White's obtains a very strong initiative.) 16 d5 exd5 (Black has no time to castle since 16...0-0 is bad because of 17 d6 ¥d8 18 e5 ¤d5 19 ¤g5± with advantage) 17 ¥e3 ¥c5 (17...£e6 18 ¤d4‚ with attack) 18 ¥xc5 £xc5 19 ¦ac1! £b6 (After 19...£e7 20 e5

¤e4 21 ¥b5+ ¢f8 22 £e3 Black was faced with the same problems.) 20 ¥b5+ ¢f8 21 e5 ¤e8 (After 21...¤e4 22 ¦fd1 g6 23 ¤d4± White is also much better) 22 ¦fe1!ƒ White is going to play e5−e6 followed by ¤f3−e5, his initiative is threatening.

14 0-0 0-0 15 ¦d1 (after 15 ¥e3 c5 16 axb4 cxd4 17 ¥xd4 ¥xb4 18 ¦ac1 ¦c8 Black has no problems: 19 ¦xc8 £xc8 20 £e3 h6 21 ¦c1 £b8 22 ¥b5 ¦d8 23 ¥a4 ¤f8 24 ¥b6 ¦c8= with equal play) 15...£c7 (15...£b8 does not help Black to solve the problems: 16 ¥e3 ¦d8

17 axb4 axb4 18 ¦ac1 ¤f8 19 h4± with a clear advantage) 16 ¥e3 ¦fd8 17 axb4 axb4 18 ¦ac1 c5 If Black delays with this program advance White can simply improve his position on the K−side, advancing his h−pawn. This position arose in the game Pogorelov − Korneev/Seville 2003. It looks like White should have simply taken the pawn: 19 dxc5!? (19 ¥b1 ¥a6!? 20 £c2 c4 21 e5 ¤f8 was fine for Black) 19...¤xc5 and now 20 ¤g5! could have secured the advantage: 20...h6 (20...¥xg5 21 ¥xg5 ¦xd3 22

£xd3 ¤xd3 23 ¦xc7 ¥xe4 24 f3±) 21 ¤xf7! ¢xf7 22 ¥xc5 ¥xc5 23 £h5+ ¢g8 24 ¦xc5 £f4 25 g3 £f6 26 £e2± with a healthy extra pawn.

The line 10...c5!? 11 ¤xf6+ gxf6

12

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9zpl+n+p+p0 9-+-+pzp-+0 9+-zp-+-+-0 9-zp-zP-+-+0 9zP-+LzPN+-0 9-zP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

looks dubious but in fact Black not only damages his pawn structure − he also gets

additional control over the important e5−square and the open g−file for the rook. Yet, White can probably get better chances. (The last move was forced since other continuations were just bad. In case of 11...¤xf6? the check 12 ¥b5+ is very annoying,

while 11...£xf6? is also unacceptable for Black due to 12 ¤e5ƒ with strong initiative)

12 0-0 Other continuations are harmless for Black. (12 axb4 cxd4 13 ¤xd4 ¥xb4+ 14 ¥d2

£b6 was tested many times and Black had no problems, while after 12 e4 cxd4 13 ¤xd4

£b6 14 ¥e3 ¥c5 15 ¥b5 ¦d8ƒ Black takes the initiative) 12...cxd4 Black had a big choice.

a) 12...£b6 13 axb4 cxd4 14 ¤xd4 (14 exd4 seems less promising: 14...¥xb4 15 £e2 a5

16 ¥e3 ¥d5 17 ¤d2 £b7 18 f3 f5! 19 ¤c4 0-0! 20 ¥h6 ¦fc8 21 ¦ac1 ¥xc4! 22 ¥xc4 ¥f8 23 ¥xf8

¤xf8= and Black almost equalises) 14...¥xb4 15 ¥d2 (15 f3 ¢e7 16 ¦f2 h5 17 ¥d2 a5 18

¥xb4+ axb4 19 ¦xa8 ¦xa8 20 ¥f1 h4 21 h3 ¤e5 22 ¦d2 ¦d8 is acceptable for Black)

15...¦g8 16 f3 ¦g5 17 ¥xb4 £xb4 18 ¦f2 ¦c5 19 £d2!? £b6 20 b4ƒ and White takes the initiative

b) 12...¦g8 is interesting but it does not seem to be fully equalising as well: 13 £e2 £b6 14 axb4 cxd4 15 exd4 £c6!? (after 15...¥d6 16 ¥e4 ¢e7 17 ¦d1 ¥xe4 18 £xe4 £xb4

19 ¤h4! White's initiative is fairly strong: 19...¤c5 20 £e2 ¤b3 21 ¤f5+ ¢d7 22 ¤xd6

¤xa1 23 ¤e4 ¦g6 24 ¥d2 £xb2 25 £a6+− with decisive advantage) 16 ¢h1 ¥xb4 17 ¥f4 ¦g4!? 18 ¥g3 ¦xd4 Black is playing very actively but White can still prove the advantage of his solid position by 19 ¦fc1 (19 ¥b5!? £e4 20 £xe4 ¦xe4 21 ¦fc1 ¦c8 22

¦xc8+ ¥xc8 23 ¦xa7 also gives White better chances ) 19...£d5 20 ¥c4 ¦xc4 21 ¦xc4± and White can effectively use his rooks by, for example, Ra1-d1, Rc4−c7 with a certain initiative .

c) 12...bxa3 13 bxa3 ¥g7 looks suspicious. Then possible is 14 ¦b1 ¥xf3 15 £xf3 cxd4 16 exd4± with a clear advantage.

13 ¤xd4 ¦g8 14 f3 ¥d6 Black should play very actively to compensate drawbacks of his pawn structure and centralized position of his king. 15 £e1!? A multipurpose move − White is moving his queen to the K−side, creating threat to the Black b4−pawn in passing. It is also important to protect g3−square to neutralise Black's possible threats by g2−g3. 15...f5!? A good idea. White queen will be very useful on h4 so this manoeuvre should be prevented. (after 15...£b8? 16 £h4 ¤e5 17 ¥e2 ¢e7 18 ¥d2±

Black faces many problems after − he has no real counter chances while his king

13

was rather vulnerable) 16 axb4 £f6!? (16...£g5 was a natural alternative but the problems still remained: 17 g3 £h4!? 18 ¢g2 ¤f6 (18...¤e5 19 ¥e2) 19 ¥d2 ¤h5 20 ¤e2 and Black cannot create more threats so White's chances are preferable.) The queen looks better on f6 as it helps to advance f−pawn and does not come under e3−e4. 17 ¥a6!? (17 ¥b5!? deserved attention: 17...£h6 18 g3 £h3 19 ¤e2 and White gets advantage.) 17...¥d5 18 ¦a5! Here a draw was agreed Moskalenko − Lastin/Marganets 1999 but thorough analysis can still prove White's superiority.

11 ¥xe4 bxa3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9zpl+n+pzpp0 9-+p+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPL+-+0 9zp-+-zPN+-0 9-zP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

12 0-0!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9zpl+n+pzpp0 9-+p+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPL+-+0 9zp-+-zPN+-0 9-zP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This interesting sacrifice was introduced by Vassily Ivanchuk in the game against Vladimir

Kramnik in 1994. After the common 12 bxa3 ¥d6 Black is going to realise the program pawn advance ...c6−

c5 after some preparation as £c7, ¦b8 and so on. The tournament practice does not promise any advantage for White but Black should still play precisely. (12...¥e7?!

looks passive. The idea is probably to make White's typical manoeuvre Nf3−d2−c4 useless but White has other ideas. For example, 13 ¦b1 £c7 14 £c2 ¦c8 15 0-0 ¤f6 16

14

¥d3 c5 17 e4! c4 18 ¥f4! and White has got the advantage) 13 0-0 There are some other options.

a) 13 ¤d2!? is interesting − White improves his knight first of all, at the same time securing the bishop's retreat over the important diagonal f3−a8. Yet, this approach looks a bit slow and Black gets time to prepare the program advance ...c6−c5: 13...£c7 14 ¤c4 ¥e7 15 0-0 0-0 16 ¦b1 This position arose in the game Beliavsky − Galkin/FIDE WCh New Delhi 2000. Here it seemed quite natural to continue the preparations of the key idea − the advance ...c6−c5 − by playing 16...¦ab8 and 17 £a4 could have been met by 17...¤b6! 18 £a5 c5!? (a solid 18...¥a8 followed by ...c6−c5 could also be not bad) 19 £xa7 ¤xc4 20 ¦xb7 ¦xb7 21 £xb7 £xb7 22 ¥xb7 cxd4 and the endgame looks drawish as the White pieces are rather passive.

b) An attempt to save one tempo for castling and so to quickly put problems for Black on the Q−side by 13 ¥b2 0-0 14 ¦c1 ¦c8 15 ¤d2 looks interesting but it seems that Black has sufficient counter chances: 15...¤f6 16 ¥f3 (16 £a4!? deserved attention but it could not prevent the program ...c6−c5: 16...¤xe4 17 ¤xe4 c5! 18 dxc5

¥xe4 19 £xe4 £a5+ 20 £b4 ¦xc5 21 ¦xc5 £xc5 22 £xc5 ¥xc5 23 ¢e2 ¦b8 24 ¥e5 ¦d8 25 a4

f6 26 ¦c1 ¥b6= with drawish endgame) 16...¥a6! 17 ¤c4 ¦b8!„ with excellent counterplay, Krasenkow − Shirov/Reykjavik Edda Rapid 2003.

c) Another bishop move 13 ¥d2 was also tried but without much success: 13...¦b8 14 0-0 (the alternative 14 £a4 can be met by 14...c5 15 ¥xb7 ¦xb7 16 dxc5 ¥xc5 17 ¥a5

£b8! 18 ¦d1 0-0! and Black solves all the problems since the knight on d7 is untouchable: 19 ¦xd7? £e8! 20 ¤e5 ¦b1+ 21 ¢e2 ¦xh1-+) 14...0-0 15 ¥b4 c5 16 dxc5 ¥xc5 17 ¥xb7 ¦xb7 18 ¤d4 £b6 19 ¥xc5 £xc5 with equal play.

13...0-0 14 ¥b2 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9zpl+n+pzpp0 9-+pvlp+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPL+-+0 9zP-+-zPN+-0 9-vL-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...¦b8! (14...h6 is tempting but certainly less precise: 15 ¦c1 £c7 16 ¥b1 ¦fd8 17 £c2

¤f8 (17...¤f6? 18 e4ƒ) and here White can secure the advantage by playing 18 £c3!ƒ ) 15 £c2 c5!? A very interesting idea, completely in the spirit of this position − Black can continue his plans, ignoring White's threat! (15...f5!? was also quite possible: 16

¥d3 c5„ with excellent counter chances) 16 ¥xb7 (16 ¥xh7+?! could bring White nothing but troubles: 16...¢h8 17 ¥d3 ¥xf3 18 gxf3 cxd4 (Black also had two options to make perpetual check: 18...¥xh2+ 19 ¢g2 £g5+ 20 ¢xh2 £h4+=, 18...£h4 19 f4

£g4+ 20 ¢h1 £f3+=) 19 ¥xd4 and it looks like Black should still agree to a draw by, for example, 19...£h4 20 f4 £g4+=) 16...¦xb7 17 dxc5 (In case of 17 ¦ab1 Black

15

could simply continue by 17...£e7 (while 17...cxd4 18 £e4!? followed by £xd4 could promise White some initiative) ) 17...¥xc5 18 ¦fd1 £e7 19 a4 Black has solved all the problems and here a draw was agreed in the game Karpov − Anand/FIDE WCh (m/3) Lausanne 1998.

12...axb2

A principled choice. 12...¥d6 allows White to secure a small advantage by playing 13 b3!? a) Another interesting option is 13 b4!? but Black can probably neutralise White's

pressure with accurate play: 13...¤f6 (13...¥xb4 is worse: 14 £b3 a5 (14...£b6?! 15

¥xa3 ¥xa3 16 £xa3ƒ) 15 ¥xa3 £b6 16 ¥xb4 axb4 17 ¤d2! 0-0 18 ¤c4 £b5 19 ¤d6 £b6 20 ¦ab1²) 14 ¥d3 ¤d5! 15 ¥xa3 ¤xb4 16 ¥xb4 ¥xb4 and Black is doing well. 17 ¤e5 a5 18 £h5 £c7 19 ¦fc1 g6 20 £h6 ¥f8 21 £g5 ¥e7 22 £h6 and here a draw was agreed.

b) 13 ¤d2!? is a very rare but interesting option. 13...£c7!? XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9zplwqn+pzpp0 9-+pvlp+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPL+-+0 9zp-+-zP-+-0 9-zP-sN-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

(13...0-0 14 b3 £b8 15 h3 followed by Bc1xa3 gives a stable advantage for White) 14 ¤c4! A

wonderful idea! White leaves another pawn to the mercy of fate, counting on the control over dark−squares and passivity of Black's light−squared bishop. 14...¥xh2+ 15 ¢h1 The game Kramnik − Shirov/Tal Memorial Moscow 2008 continued 15...¤b6!? (The bishop's retreat 15...¥d6 wasn't satisfactory for Black: 16 ¤xd6+ £xd6

17 b3 £c7 18 ¥xa3 with a rather annoying initiative for the pawn) 16 ¤xb6 axb6 17 g3 ¥xg3 18 fxg3 and here Black could have achieved more counter chances by securing his passer: 18...a2! (after 18...£xg3?! 19 £h5! White neutralized opponent's counterplay) 19 ¢g2 (19 £f3? failed to 19...f5, but 19 b3!? was possibly stronger)

19...c5 20 £f3 ¥xe4 21 £xe4 0-0 22 dxc5 bxc5 23 b3 ¦a6 24 ¦f2 ¦fa8 25 ¥b2 f6© with unclear play.

13...¤f6 (In case of 13...£e7!? Here White can think about the typical manoeuvre 14 ¤d2!? (14 £c2 can be met by 14...f5!? 15 ¥xc6 ¦c8 16 ¥xd7+ £xd7÷ with good counter chances) 14...¤b6 (14...f5 15 ¥f3) 15 ¤c4 ¤xc4 16 bxc4 0-0 (16...¥xh2+? 17 ¢xh2 £h4+

18 ¢g1 £xe4 19 f3! £f5 20 ¥xa3ƒ) 17 £d3², maintaining somewhat the better chances.) 14 ¤d2! A strong idea. (14 ¥d3 does not promise much due to 14...c5! 15 ¥xa3 (or 15 dxc5 ¥xc5 16 ¥b5+ ¢e7 17 ¥xa3 ¥xa3 18 £xd8+ ¦hxd8 19 ¦xa3 a6 20 ¥c4 ¦d6=)

16

15...cxd4 16 ¥b5+ ¢e7 17 £xd4 a6 18 ¥c4 ¥xa3 19 ¦xa3 £xd4 20 ¤xd4 ¦hd8= with equal play.) 14...£c7 (14...¤xe4?! secures an extra pawn but the position Black is going to play is suspicious: 15 ¤xe4 ¥xh2+ 16 ¢xh2 £h4+ 17 ¢g1 £xe4 was too risky for Black since his king would face serious problems in center: 18 f3! (not 18 ¥xa3? c5!) 18...£d5 19 ¥xa3© Such positions with opposite−coloured bishops are too risky for Black as his bishop is too passive and his king would face serious problems in the center, and in the game Bareev − Bruzon/Havana 2006 White successfully converted his advantage.) 15 ¥f3! White is doing everything in order to prevent the programmed ...c6−c5. (15 ¥xa3!? could be played with the same idea and perhaps the same position could be reached after 15...¥xh2+ 16 ¢h1 ¥d6 17 ¥xd6 £xd6

18 ¤c4 £e7 19 ¥f3 0-0) 15...¥xh2+ 16 ¢h1 ¥d6 17 ¤c4 ¥e7 18 ¥xa3 0-0 19 ¥c5! This idea looks strong. White keeps more tension to make his opponent's defence more difficult. (In the game Topalov − Kramnik/WCh (m/4) Elista 2006 White achieved excellent compensation for the pawn after 19 ¥xe7 £xe7 20 ¦a5© but then he failed to get serious winning chances after 20...¦fd8 21 ¢g1 c5! 22 ¦xc5 ¤e4 23 ¥xe4

¥xe4 with acceptable play.) 19...¦fd8 20 b4! ¥xc5 21 bxc5 Now the knight on the d6−square would not be supported along the d−file but it is still very good for White, who has improved his pawn structure and got more space. The game Aronian − Grischuk/FIDE GP Sochi 2008, continued 21...a5 22 ¦e1 ¥a6 23 ¤b6 ¦ab8 24 ¦xa5 ¥b5 25 £a1 and White has regained the pawn and maintained a stable advantage.

In case of 12...¥e7 White can get small advantage by 13 b3!? ¤f6 14 ¥d3 By the way, this position may also arise via the move order 9.0-0 b4 10.Ne4 Be7 11.a3 Nxe4 12.Bxe4 Nf6 13.Bd3 bxa3 14.b3. Perhaps 14...£b6 (14...£a5 can be well met by 15 b4! ¥xb4 16 ¥xa3 0-0 (or 16...¥xa3 17 £b3 0-0 18 ¦xa3 £c7 19 £c2² with certain pressure over Black's Q−side) 17 ¥xb4 £xb4 18 ¤e5² Black's defence is not easy. He is unable to advance his c−pawn without concessions, and he might give the extra pawn back under unfavourable circumstances, P.H.Nielsen − Baramidze/EU−ch Plovdiv 2008) 15 ¥xa3 ¥xa3 16 ¦xa3 c5 17 dxc5 £xc5 18 b4!? £b6 (the principled 18...£xb4!? was also worth considering: 19 ¦b3 £e7 (19...¥xf3? 20 £xf3! £xb3 21 £xa8++−) 20 ¥b5+ ¢f8 21 ¤e5 g6 with reasonable chances to extinguish White's initiative) 19 £a4+ ¥c6 20 £a5 0-0 21 ¤d4 ¥d5 22 ¦fa1² and White has secured the edge.

12...¤f6 13 ¥d3 axb2 14 ¥xb2 is just a transposition to the line 12 ...axb2.

13 ¥xb2 ¤f6

After 13...¥e7 14 £c2 h6 15 ¥xc6 ¦c8 16 d5 exd5 17 ¥xd7+ £xd7 18 £b3ƒ White takes the initiative.

14 ¥d3

17

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9zpl+-+pzpp0 9-+p+psn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-+LzPN+-0 9-vL-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has achieved excellent compensation for the pawn but the question is if it would

promise more than just the initiative.

14...a5!

In the above−mentioned game Ivanchuk − Kramnik, New York 1994 Black played 14...¥e7 15 £b1 ¦b8 16 ¦xa7 £b6 17 £a2 (17 ¦a1!?) 17...0-0 18 ¦b1 ¦a8 19 ¦xa8 ¦xa8 20 £c4 ¥a6 21 £c2 ¥xd3 22 £xd3 £b5 and successfully equalised but White's play would certainly be improved.

15 d5!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9+l+-+pzpp0 9-+p+psn-+0 9zp-+P+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+LzPN+-0 9-vL-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This very unexpected pawn push poses certain problems for Black. However, White

already gives up a second pawn while his initiative does not look too dangerous at the moment...

In case of 15 £b3 ¥b4 16 ¥a3 Black would have thought about a typical 16...c5!? (a restrained 16...£e7 is also possible: 17 ¥xb4 axb4 18 ¦xa8+ ¥xa8 19 ¦b1 0-0 20 £xb4 £xb4

21 ¦xb4 c5! 22 dxc5 ¤d7 and Black equalises) 17 £a4+!? ¤d7 18 ¥b5 ¥xf3 19 gxf3 ¢e7 20 dxc5 ¤xc5 21 ¥xb4 axb4 22 £xb4 £d5 and Black is fine

18

15 £a4!? has been also tried in practice: 15...¥b4 16 ¥a3 ¤d5 17 e4 ¤b6 18 £b3 £e7 The game Gelfand − Kramnik/WCh Mexico City 2007 continued 19 ¦ab1 ¥xa3 20 £xb6 ¥b4 and here White could have thought about 21 d5!, which would still promise the better chances for White: 21...exd5 (21...cxd5? was bad due to 22 ¦fc1ƒ ¦c8? 23 ¥b5+

¢f8 24 ¦xc8+ ¥xc8 25 ¦c1+−) 22 exd5 0-0 23 dxc6 ¥c8 24 ¦fc1² and the strong c6−passer secures White's small advantage.

15...¤xd5

Black has a wide choice and it is really not easy to make a decision. 15...cxd5?? loses to 16 ¥b5+ ¤d7 17 ¤e5+− while other captures deserves attention: 15...exd5!? 16 ¤d4 ¥b4! (16...¥e7 seems worse: 17

¤f5 and here 17...0-0? is impossible because of 18 ¤xg7! ¢xg7 19 £g4+ ¢h8 20 ¥xf6+

¥xf6 21 £f5+−) 17 ¤f5 (in case of 17 £f3 0-0 18 ¤f5 ¦e8 19 ¦fc1 (19 ¤h6+ ¢f8 20

¥xh7 ¥c8 is far form clear) 19...c5 20 £g3 Black defended by 20...¤h5 21 £f3 ¤f6 with repetition of moves) 17...g6!? 18 ¤h6 ¦f8 19 £f3© with sufficient compensation for a couple of pawns

or 15...£xd5!? 16 e4!? (16 £e2 ¥b4 17 ¤e5©) 16...¤xe4 (16...£h5!?) 17 £b1 (17 ¥xe4 £xe4 18

¤e5 ¦d8 19 £h5 £f5 20 £xf5 exf5 21 ¦fe1) 17...¤c5 18 ¥c2© with good compensation.

16 ¤e5

This position arose in the game Carlsen − Aronian/Bilbao 2008, which continued

16...¤f6 17 £a4 ¥b4!? 18 ¤xc6 ¥xc6 19 £xc6+ ¢e7 20 ¦fd1ƒ

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-+-tr0 9+-+-mkpzpp0 9-+Q+psn-+0 9zp-+-+-+-0 9-vl-+-+-+0 9+-+LzP-+-0 9-vL-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+R+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

with more than sufficient compensation for the pawn.

19

Meran/2 8...Bb7 9. e4... − Various white

12th moves [D47]

Last updated: 12/12/06 by R.Scherbakov

1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 e6 5 e3 ¤bd7 6 ¥d3 dxc4 7 ¥xc4 b5 8 ¥d3 ¥b7 9 e4 b4 10 ¤a4 c5 11 e5 ¤d5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9zpl+n+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-zpnzP-+-0 9Nzp-zP-+-+0 9+-+L+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

12 dxc5

12 ¤g5 is a rare option: 12...cxd4 (12...¥e7 has been also tested: 13 £h5 ¥xg5 (13...g6 is weaker: 14 £h6 ¥f8 15 ¤xe6 ¥xh6 16 ¤xd8 ¦xd8 17 ¥xh6 cxd4 18 ¦c1 ¦c8 19 ¦xc8+ ¥xc8 20

e6 fxe6 21 ¥g7 ¦g8 22 ¥xd4² with a clear advantage) 14 ¥xg5 £a5 15 ¤xc5 ¤xc5 16 dxc5 ¥a6 17 ¥xa6 £xa6 18 £e2 £xe2+ 19 ¢xe2 ¢d7 20 ¦hc1 ¢c6 21 ¥d2 a5² Black's position looks excellent but an extra pawn is an extra pawn − he has to fight for a draw.) 13 ¤xe6 £e7 (13...fxe6!? looks risky but perhaps everything is not so clear and Black may seriously think about this brave capture. For example, 14 £h5+

¢e7 15 ¥g5+ ¤5f6 16 exf6+ gxf6 17 ¥d2 a5 18 0-0 ¤e5 with an excellent game) 14 ¤xf8 £xe5+ 15 ¥e2 ¢xf8 This is maybe more reliable. (15...¦xf8 is more risky alternative: 16 0-0 0-0-0! Black has no other way to hide the king. Yet, it is not completely safe on the queenside but the activity of all his pieces would distract White's attention. 17 ¦e1!? After (17 a3 ¢b8÷ a draw was agreed in the game Volzhin − Cs.Horvath/Gyula 2000.) 17...£f6 in case of (17...¦fe8 White has a nice move: 18

¤c5! ¤e3 19 ¥xe3 ¤xc5 20 ¥d2 £d5 21 ¥f3 ¦xe1+ 22 ¥xe1ƒ keeping the initiative) 18 a3

20

A logical continuation − White opens lines against the rival's king. (18 ¥d2 ¦fe8÷

looks unclear) 18...¢b8 19 axb4 ¤xb4 20 £b3ƒ and White seized a rather annoying initiative, Najer − Shinkevich/Togliatty 2001.) 16 0-0 ¦e8 17 ¥c4 ¦e6 in case of (17...¤f4?! White has 18 £d2! and the knight is forced to retreat back) 18 f4 £d6 (18...£f6 is more risky: 19 £b3 ¦d6 20 ¥d2!? a5 21 a3ƒ with initiative) 19 £xd4 ¤5b6 20 £xd6+ ¦xd6 21 ¤xb6 ¤xb6 22 ¥b3² Thanks to the pair of bishops White secured a small advantage in the ending.

12 ¤xc5 often leads to the same position as 12. dxc5 since 12...¥xc5 13 dxc5 ¤xc5 14 ¥b5+ ¢f8 15 0-0² promises a small but stable advantage for White.

12...¤xc5

12...£a5 is the alternative, which looks rather risky. However, a very strong knight on d5 and bishop on b7 secures Black from getting much worse: 13 0-0 ¥xc5

a) other possibilities do not solve the problems: 13...¥c6 14 ¥c2 ¤xc5 (14...h6?! 15

¤d4±) 15 ¤xc5 ¥xc5 16 ¤d4² b) 13...¤c7 14 ¥c2 ¦d8 15 ¥g5ƒ c) or 13...¤xc5 14 ¤xc5 ¥xc5 15 ¤g5ƒ 14 ¤xc5 (by the way, this position can be also reached in the line 13. Nxc5 Bxc5 14. dxc5

Qa5) 14...¤xc5 15 ¥c2² with better chances for White, according to the tournament practice.

13 ¤xc5

13 ¥b5+ is not the most popular but quite a poisonous option. 13...¤d7 14 ¥g5 £a5 (Black is forced to play without castling as 14...¥e7? can be strongly met by 15 ¤c5! ¥xg5 16

¥xd7+ ¢f8 17 ¥xe6!+−) 15 ¥xd7+ (15 ¤d4 can be well by 15...¥a6!? 16 ¥c6 ¦c8 17 ¦c1 (17 b3 ¦xc6! 18 ¤xc6 £c7∓) 17...b3+! 18 ¤c3 (18 ¥d2 ¤b4!) 18...bxa2 19 ¥xd7+ ¢xd7∓) 15...¢xd7 16 0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-vl-tr0 9zpl+k+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9wq-+nzP-vL-0 9Nzp-+-+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

(16 b3 ¥a6 is fine for Black) According to the tournament practice, the immediate 16...¥e7!?

promises very good play for Black. a) Other options seem to be weaker: 16...¥c6 17 b3 h6 (17...¥e7?! was strongly met

by 18 ¤b2! followed by Nb2−c4 with rather annoying initiative, Vladimirov −

21

Ramesh/Dubai 2004) 18 ¥d2!? (18 ¥e3 is probably less promising but still better for White: 18...¥xa4 19 bxa4 ¥e7 20 ¤d4 ¦hc8 21 £h5 g6 22 £f3 ¢e8 23 ¤b5 £xa4 24 ¤d6+

¥xd6 25 exd6 with some initiative but Black can probably hold the position thanks to his strong knight on d5) 18...¥xa4 19 bxa4² with a transposition to the line 16 ...h6.

b) 16...h6 can help White to find some work for his bishop: 17 ¥d2!? ¥c6 18 b3 ¥xa4 (18...¥b5?! can only promote the White rook: 19 ¦e1 ¥xa4 20 bxa4 ¥c5 21 a3ƒ) 19 bxa4 ¥c5 20 a3 ¦hc8 21 ¦b1 ¦ab8 22 ¤e1 ¢e8 23 £g4² with some initiative although Black should still play very precisely to keep things under control, Cvitan − Kharlov, Bern 1992

17 b3 (17 a3 has been tried without much success: 17...¦hc8 18 ¥xe7 ¢xe7 19 ¤g5 ¤f4! 20 £d6+ ¢e8 21 ¤xh7 (21 axb4 £d5 22 £xd5 ¥xd5³) 21...¤g6 22 axb4 £xe5 23 £xe5 ¤xe5 24 ¤c5 (24 ¤g5 ¦c4) 24...¥d5 25 ¤g5 ¤c6 26 ¤ge4 ¢e7 27 ¦a4 ¦cb8 28 ¤c3 ¦xb4 29 ¤xd5+ exd5³) 17...h6 18 ¥xe7 (18 ¥d2 ¦hc8„) 18...¢xe7÷ with a good play, according to the tournament practice.

13...¥xc5 14 0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9zpl+-+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-vlnzP-+-0 9-zp-+-+-+0 9+-+L+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Recently this well−developed line doesn't promise too much for White.

14...h6

14...£c7!? is a rather fresh and interesting idea: 15 ¥d2 h6 16 ¦c1 (16 £a4+?! only helps Black to develop his kingside: 16...¢e7 17 ¦ac1 ¦hc8 18 ¥e4 a5 with advantage)

16...£b6 17 ¦c4 A typical manoeuvre. (17 £e2 g6 18 ¦c2 ¢f8 19 ¦fc1 ¦c8 20 a3 a5 21

axb4 axb4 is harmless for Black) 17...¦d8 18 ¦g4 ¢f8 As often happens in this line, Black is deprived of castling but this is the only drawback of his very solid position, V.Milov − Khenkin/Bratto 2001.

15 ¤d2

22

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9zpl+-+pzp-0 9-+-+p+-zp0 9+-vlnzP-+-0 9-zp-+-+-+0 9+-+L+-+-0 9PzP-sN-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The tournament practice does not promise very much for White after 15 £e2 £b6

15...£c7!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9zplwq-+pzp-0 9-+-+p+-zp0 9+-vlnzP-+-0 9-zp-+-+-+0 9+-+L+-+-0 9PzP-sN-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

A popular option − Black is trying to disturb White's plans by attacking the e5−pawn and

quickly getting his pieces into play. The line 15...¤c3?! 16 £c2 £d5 17 ¤f3 ¦d8 18 ¤e1! ¥d4 19 ¥d2!ƒ is out of fashion since

Black has suffered some painful defeats an old line 15...0-0 is still quite playable: 16 ¤e4 (16 ¤c4 can be met by 16...f5!? 17 exf6 ¤xf6ƒ

and Black takes the initiative) 16...¥d4! (16...¥e7?! is too passive: 17 £g4ƒ with initiative) 17 ¤d6 ¥c6 (An interesting 17...¥xe5?! 18 ¤xb7 £b6 is not quite satisfactory for Black due to 19 £h5! ¥f4 20 ¤c5! £xc5 (or 20...¤f6 21 £f3 ¥xc1 22

¦axc1+−) 21 ¥xf4 £d4 22 ¥d6 £xd3 (22...¦fd8 23 ¦ad1+−) 23 ¥xf8 ¦xf8 24 £e5± with good winning chances) 18 ¥h7+! (A slow 18 £e2?! favours Black: 18...f5 19 ¦d1

£h4!ƒ with initiative) 18...¢xh7 19 £xd4²

23

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-tr-+0 9zp-+-+pzpk0 9-+lsNp+-zp0 9+-+nzP-+-0 9-zp-wQ-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White's position looks preferable thanks to his strong knight on d6 which keeps the Black

rooks passive. On the other hand, Black's minor pieces are quite good and if he gets the rooks into play everything will be fine for him. To solve this task he has to shake loose the knight on d6. 19...f6! 20 ¥d2 fxe5 (20...£d7 21 ¦ac1² was certainly better for White in the game Mamedyarov − Topalov/Hoogeveen 2006) 21 £e4+!? (after the immediate 21 £xe5 £d7 White should play 22 ¦ac1! (22 ¦fe1?! is just dubious, the game Lesiege − Akopian/Bled (ol) 2002 continued 22...¦ad8 23 ¤e4 (23 ¤c4 ¤b6!)

23...¦f5! 24 £d4 ¤f4! and Black has taken initiative.) 22...¦ad8 23 ¤c4² followed by Qe5−g3 and Nc4−e5 with a small advantage) 21...¢g8 22 £xe5 £d7 23 ¦ac1 (23 ¦fe1 ¦ad8 is fine for Black as after 24 ¤c4 (24 ¤e4 ¦f5 is also good for Black) Black has a strong retreat 24...¤b6! ) 23...¦ad8 24 ¤c4² White's knight has been pushed from d6 but there is another strong e5−square and so he is going to put it there after Qe5−g3, securing a small but stable advantage, which was proved in the game Vaganian − Johannessen/GER−chT 2003. However, Black's pieces are rather active and so he should be also satisfied with his counter chances.

16 ¦e1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9zplwq-+pzp-0 9-+-+p+-zp0 9+-vlnzP-+-0 9-zp-+-+-+0 9+-+L+-+-0 9PzP-sN-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White also tried some other options.

24

16 ¤e4 does not bother Black very much as after a simple 16...¥e7 White gets problems with e5−pawn: 17 ¦e1 £xe5 18 ¤c5 £c7 19 ¤xb7 £xb7 20 £f3 ¥f6 21 a3 0-0 22 £e4 g6 23 ¥xh6 ¥xb2! 24 ¥xf8 ¥xa1 25 ¥xb4 ¥g7 and Black is completely OK

After 16 ¤c4 Black has a choice: 16...0-0-0!? a) after 16...0-0 17 ¥d2 f5!? deserves serious attention with good counterplay (while

after 17...¦fd8 18 £g4 ¢f8 19 ¦ac1² White gets better chances)

b) 16...¦d8!? is interesting: 17 £g4 ¤e7!? 18 ¤d6+!? ¥xd6 19 exd6 £xd6 20 ¦d1 ¥c6 21 ¥e3 h5 22 £g5 £d5 23 £xd5 ¦xd5 24 ¥xa7 h4 and Black is fine

17 £e2 ¢b8 18 ¥d2 ¤b6!„ and Black achieves very active play.

16...¤e7!?

16...¦d8 which was played more often, is also not bad: 17 ¤e4 (17 £g4 can be met by 17...¤e7!, transposing to 16 ...Ne7!?) 17...¥e7 and White still failed to put real problems for Black.

17 £g4 ¦d8„

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-trk+-tr0 9zplwq-snpzp-0 9-+-+p+-zp0 9+-vl-zP-+-0 9-zp-+-+Q+0 9+-+L+-+-0 9PzP-sN-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Typically for the Meran, Black brings all his available resources into play to compensate

some inconvenience with the development of the K−side and achieves good counter chances, A.Kuzmin − Dreev/RUS−ch Qualifier St. Petersburg 2004.

25

Meran/3 8...Bb7 9. e4... − 12. 0-0 cxd4 13.

Nxd4 sac [D47]

Last updated: 05/08/04 by R.Scherbakov

1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 e6 5 e3 ¤bd7 6 ¥d3 dxc4 7 ¥xc4 b5 8 ¥d3 ¥b7 9 e4 b4 10 ¤a4 c5 11 e5 ¤d5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9zpl+n+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-zpnzP-+-0 9Nzp-zP-+-+0 9+-+L+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

12 0-0

This natural move gives Black the time to capture on d4 and so White's knight is getting out of work for a while.

12...cxd4

26

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9zpl+n+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+nzP-+-0 9Nzp-zp-+-+0 9+-+L+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

12...h6 is not very popular but it is maybe not so bad idea to avoid complicated and very

deep lines which may arise after 12... cd4. Here White has a big choice, including a transposition to one of the main lines by 13 dxc5 ¤xc5 14 ¤xc5 ¥xc5 − refer to D47/2 12. dxc5.

13 ¤xd4

A sharp continuation − White sacrifices his central pawn.

13...¤xe5 14 ¥b5+ ¤d7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9zpl+n+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+L+n+-+-0 9Nzp-sN-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

15 ¦e1

A common option. 15 £h5!? is rarely played but it is not without a poison. a) 15...¤5f6 is tempting but White keeps the initiative after a1) the stunning 16 ¤xe6!? can put some problems for Black but they are quite solvable:

16...¤xh5 17 ¤xd8 ¦xd8 18 ¦e1+ ¥e7 19 ¤c5 ¥c8 20 ¥g5 ¤hf6 (20...f6!? deserved serious attention) 21 ¦ad1!? (in the game Piket − Shirov/Monaco 2002 White played

27

the less precise 21 ¥xf6 gxf6 22 ¦ad1 ¦g8 23 f4 ¢f8 24 ¤xd7+ ¥xd7 25 ¦xd7 ¥c5+ 26 ¢f1

¦xd7 27 ¥xd7 ¢g7 and Black held the position without much problems) 21...a6! An important advance. 22 ¥a4 h6 Black is a piece up but he is tied hand and foot and can do nothing! There are no other useful moves so he clarifies situation, even losing a tempo. 23 ¥xf6 gxf6 24 ¤xd7 ¥xd7 25 ¦xd7! ¦xd7 26 ¦d1 0-0 27 ¦xd7 White's initiative looks rather annoying but fortunately Black has a strong defensive idea. 27...¦c8! (27...¥c5? was just bad as after 28 ¥b3 the Black rook got stuck to the f7−pawn) 28 g3 ¢f8 29 ¥b3 ¦d8! 30 ¦a7 ¦d2 31 ¦xa6 ¦xb2 White has no real targets to attack. Nevertheless in the game Radjabov − Shirov/Wijk aan Zee 2003 he has managed to create some problems but it hasn't changed the most likely outcome.

a2) 16 £e2 16...¦c8 (16...a6!? is worthy of consideration) 17 ¥g5 ¥e7 and here 18 ¥xf6! ¥xf6 19 ¤xe6! breaks Black's position: 19...£e7 (19...fxe6 20 £xe6+ ¥e7 21 ¦ad1 ¦c7 22

¦xd7 ¦xd7 23 ¦d1 ¥c8 24 ¤c5+−) 20 ¦fd1 (20 ¥xd7+!? ¢xd7 21 £d3+ ¢e8 22 ¤xg7+)

20...¥c6 21 ¦ac1 ¤b8 and here White can simply play 22 ¥xc6+ ¤xc6 23 £a6 £xe6 24 ¦e1 ¥e5 25 ¦xe5! £xe5 26 £xc8+ ¤d8 27 £c7 £xc7 28 ¦xc7+− with a decisive advantage.

b) 15...g6 16 £e2 An important position. Strangely enough, Black's best reply may be (16

£e5!? £f6 17 ¤f3 is also worthy of consideration.) b1) 16...a6? lost by force after 17 ¤xe6! fxe6 (17...£e7 18 ¥xd7+ ¢xd7 19 ¤ec5+ ¢c8 20 £c4

wasn't better.) 18 £xe6+ ¤e7 19 ¤c5! axb5 20 ¤xb7 £b6 21 ¤d6+ ¢d8 22 ¥e3 £a6 23 ¦ad1 ¦g8 24 ¦fe1+− and Black is just helpless, Piket,J − Pelletier,Y/Korchnoi Birthday Gp A, Zurich SUI 2001.

b2) 16...¦c8!? The question is can White find something better than 17 ¦e1 transposing to the main line, which is supposed to be quite acceptable for Black.

15...¦c8 16 £h5 g6

Here White has a choice.

17 £e2

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+rwqkvl-tr0 9zpl+n+p+p0 9-+-+p+p+0 9+L+n+-+-0 9Nzp-sN-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+QzPPzP0 9tR-vL-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

17 £e5 is probably the more promising way. Possible play is 17...£f6 18 ¤f3 ¥g7 19

¥xd7+ ¢xd7 20 £e2 £d8÷ with mutual chances.

28

17...a6

17...£e7 is also known to be fine for Black. After 18 ¥g5 £xg5 19 ¤xe6 he solves the problems by 19...£xg2+! and the ending after 20 ¢xg2 ¤f4+ 21 ¢f1 ¤xe2 22 ¦ad1! (22 ¦xe2 fxe6∓) 22...fxe6 (22...¥c6?! 23 ¦xe2 ¥xb5 24 ¤c7+ ¢d8 25 ¤xb5±

Shumiakina − Semina, URS 1988) 23 ¥xd7+ ¢f7 24 ¥xc8 ¥xc8 25 ¢xe2 (25 ¦xe2

¥a6 26 ¦d7+ ¢f6 27 ¦xa7 ¥xe2+ 28 ¢xe2 ¥d6 29 h3 ¥e7³) 25...¥a6+ is good for him: a) 26 ¢f3?! leads to troubles: 26...¥b7+ 27 ¢g3 ¥d5! 28 b3 (28 a3? ¥c6! 29 b3 bxa3-+)

28...¥d6+ 29 ¢h3 ¦f8! 30 ¤b2 ¢g7∓ with a clear advantage for Black b) 26 ¢e3 26...¥b5 27 b3 ¥h6+ 28 ¢f3 ¦c8= with a good play.

18 ¥xa6

A typical sacrifice 18 ¤xe6?! is not dangerous for Black: 18...fxe6 19 £xe6+ ¥e7 20 ¥xa6 ¥xa6 21 £xa6 and

here the knight's retreat a) 21...£c7? and after 22 ¥g5 £c6 23 £d3 in case of (23 £e2? Black could simply castle:

23...0-0 24 ¥xe7 ¤xe7∓) 23...¢f7 the line (23...¤7f6? 24 ¦ac1 £b7 25 ¦xc8+ £xc8 26 ¥xf6

¤xf6 27 £d6 0-0 28 £xe7 ¦e8 was supposed to be "winning for Black" in some comments but in fact 29 £xb4+− clears the situation in White's favour) 24 ¦ac1ƒ and Black faced serious problems, Yevseev,D − Dreev,A/Novgorod 1999.

b) 21...¤b8! After 22 £e2 0-0 23 ¥h6 ¦f7 24 ¦ad1 £a5 White can only fight for a draw by 25 £e6

b1) 25...¦d8?? 26 ¤b6! ¥f8™ (26...£xb6 27 £xb6 ¤xb6 28 ¦xd8+ ¥xd8 29 ¦e8+) 27 ¥xf8 £xb6 28 £xb6 ¤xb6 29 ¦xd8 ¦xf8 30 ¦ee8 ¤8d7 31 ¦xf8+ ¤xf8 32 ¦b8 ¤d5 33 ¦b5+−

b2) 25...¦e8 not 26 ¦xd5 £xa4 27 ¦d4!? ¤c6 28 ¦f4 ¤d8 29 £e5! £xa2 30 £b5 ¦ef8 31 ¥xf8 ¥xf8 32 ¦xf7 ¤xf7 33 £e2, keeping drawing chances thanks to slightly opened position of Black king and lack of material on the board.

18...¥xa6 19 £xa6 ¥g7! 20 ¥g5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+rwqk+-tr0 9+-+n+pvlp0 9Q+-+p+p+0 9+-+n+-vL-0 9Nzp-sN-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Here 20 ¤xe6? is dubious: 20...fxe6 21 £xe6+ (21 ¥g5 can be strongly met by 21...¤c7! 22

¦xe6+ ¢f7 23 ¥xd8 ¤xa6! 24 ¦e7+ ¢f6 25 ¦xd7+ ¦hxd8-+) 21...£e7∓

29

20...¤c7!

The only move!

21 £a5

In case of 21 £b7 Black continues to pursue the queen by 21...¦b8! 22 ¥xd8 ¦xb7 23 ¥xc7 ¦xc7 24

¤b5 ¦c2 25 ¦ac1 ¦xc1 26 ¦xc1 0-0³ and Black is at least not worse.

21...¦a8! 22 ¥xd8 ¦xa5 23 ¥xc7 ¦xa4=

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+k+-tr0 9+-vLn+pvlp0 9-+-+p+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9rzp-sN-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

In this ending Black can hardly face any problems.

30

Meran/4 8...Bb7 9. e4... − 12. 0-0 cxd4 13.

Re1 [D47]

Last updated: 17/03/06 by R.Scherbakov

1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 e6 5 e3 ¤bd7 6 ¥d3 dxc4 7 ¥xc4 b5 8 ¥d3 ¥b7 9 e4 b4 10 ¤a4 c5 11 e5 ¤d5 12 0-0 cxd4 13 ¦e1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9zpl+n+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+nzP-+-0 9Nzp-zp-+-+0 9+-+L+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...g6

Black has a wide choice. 13...¥e7!? A rare continuation which is maybe underestimated. 14 ¤xd4 0-0 a) 14...£a5 looks risky. For example: 15 ¥d2 immediate (15 a3!? is also possible)

15...¦d8 16 a3 ¤5b6 17 ¥b5 ¤xa4 18 ¥xb4!± ¥xb4 19 axb4 £b6 20 ¥xd7+! (20

£xa4? £xd4 21 ¦ad1 £g4 22 ¥xd7+ ¢e7∓) 20...¦xd7 21 £xa4 and Black is in trouble b) 14...a6 gives White the initiative after 15 £g4ƒ 15 £h5 (15 £g4!? is an alternative, a possible continuation being 15...¢h8 (15...¦e8!? 16 ¥h6

¥f8) 16 £h3 g6 17 ¥h6 ¦g8 18 ¦ac1 ¤5b6 19 ¤xb6 £xb6 20 ¤f3 ¦gc8 21 ¤g5 ¥xg5 22 ¥xg5 ¦xc1 23 ¦xc1 ¢g8 and Black is okay) 15...g6 16 £h6 ¤xe5! Only this rather unexpected blow can justify Black's strategy. (16...¦e8? is losing by force: 17 ¥xg6!! hxg6 18 ¤xe6! fxe6 19 £xg6+ ¢h8 20 £h6+ ¢g8 21 £xe6+ ¢h8 22 £h6+ ¢g8 23

¦e4!‚ with decisive attack) 17 ¦xe5 ¤f6 Now White cannot secure his extra piece because of the loose minor pieces on d−file. 18 £f4 (18 £h4?! ¤e4! is good for Black)

18...¥d6 19 £g3! (19 ¤c5?! is much weaker due to 19...¥d5) 19...¤d7 20 ¥f4 £f6 21

31

¥e4! The logical (21 ¦ae1? was actually a big mistake due to 21...¤xe5 22 ¥xe5 ¥xe5 23

¦xe5 ¦ad8 24 £e3 ¦xd4! 25 £xd4 ¦d8 followed by ...Rd3.) 21...¥xe5 22 ¥xe5 ¤xe5 23 ¥xb7 ¦ad8 24 ¤c6 ¤xc6 25 ¥xc6 £f5! Intending Qc2. The position is quite good for Black. Having the knight cut from the center of the board White can hardly hope for any advantage and should play carefully not to become worse, Dyachkov − Dreev/chT−RUS Smolensk 2000.

13...¤5b6!? came as a big surprise in the game Volzhin − M.Gurevich/Cappelle la Grande 1999. No one took this interesting move seriously probably because it looks to illogically swap the proud knight on d5 for the bad−looking knight on a4. But actually Black has a lack of space to develop his pieces so some changes are desirable especially as this reduces White's attacking possibilities on the kingside. The game continued by 14 ¤xd4 ¤xa4 15 £xa4 Gurevich suggests (15 ¤xe6 as a better move but I don't see how White would maintain his attack after 15...£a5! since 16 ¥b5 is not so strong because of 16...¤ac5! and after 17 ¤xc5 £xb5 18 ¤xb7 £xb7 19 e6

White's attack does not look very dangerous.) 15...¥c5 16 ¥b5 (16 ¤b3!? 0-0 17 £b5÷

deserved attention and led to unclear but more quiet play.) 16...0-0! and Black has achieved an excellent play.

14 ¥g5

14 ¥d2!? is less popular but rather interesting option. 14...¥g7 a) The other possibilities are: 14...¥e7 does not seem to be fully equalising. 15 ¥h6

¥f8 16 ¥d2 ¥e7 17 ¤xd4 0-0 18 ¥h6 (18 £g4 was met by 18...¤7b6 19 ¤xb6 £xb6

with a good play) 18...¦e8 19 £g4 ¥f8 (Black already had to be careful: 19...¦c8? 20

¤xe6!, 19...¤7b6? 20 ¥b5!) 20 ¥xf8 ¦xf8 21 h4ƒ and White gets advantage b) 14...a6 is interesting but White can still hope for some advantage after 15 ¥e4² 15 ¥b5! A strong idea. The play is more or less forced now. 15...a6 a) The point of White's move is that 15...0-0?! can be strongly met by 16 ¥g5! ¤e7

(16...f6 17 exf6 ¤5xf6 18 ¥xd7 £xd7 19 ¤c5±) 17 £xd4 ¥xf3 18 £xd7 £xd7 19 ¥xd7 ¥c6 20 ¥xe7 ¥xd7 21 ¥xf8 ¥xf8 22 b3± with extra exchange

b) 15...¦c8!? deserves serious attention although it has not been often tried: 16 ¥g5 £a5 17 ¤xd4 (17 ¥xd7+ ¢xd7 18 ¤xd4 h6 19 ¥d2 ¦hd8 20 a3 ¢e8 is fine for Black)

17...¦c7 and Black is ready to castle, getting quite acceptable position 16 ¤c5! (16 ¥g5?! axb5 17 ¥xd8 ¦xd8³ is just fine for Black, while 16 ¥xd7+ £xd7 17 ¤c5 £b5

18 ¦c1 0-0 19 ¤xd4 £b6 promises nothing.) 16...axb5 17 ¤xb7 £b6 18 ¤d6+ ¢e7 (18...¢f8? is much worse: 19 ¤g5 ¤xe5 20 ¦xe5 (20 ¤dxf7!? ¤xf7 21 £f3 £b7 22 ¦xe6)

20...¥xe5 (20...£xd6? fails to 21 £f3! ¥f6 22 ¦xd5! exd5 23 ¥xb4! £xb4 24 £xf6+−) 21 ¤dxf7 ¥f6 22 ¤xh8 ¥xg5 23 ¥xg5 ¢g7 24 £e2 ¢xh8 25 £e5+ ¢g8 26 ¥h6 £c7 27 £xe6+ £f7 28 £e4± and Black is in trouble) 19 ¤g5 (19 ¥g5+ is another option which seems to be less promising. Then after 19...¢f8 White has a choice. 20 ¦c1!?

a) 20 ¤xd4 can be well met by 20...¤xe5 (20...¢g8!?) 21 ¤4xb5 h6 22 ¥h4 ¤c4!? b) 20 ¥h4 was tried without much success: 20...¤xe5 21 ¤xe5 £xd6 22 ¥g3 £e7

23 ¦c1 ¢g8 24 ¤c6 £d7 and White still has to prove his compensation 20...h6 21 ¥h4 ¤xe5! (21...¢g8 22 ¥g3 ¢h7 23 ¤xf7 ¦hf8 24 ¤d6 is better for White) 22 ¤xe5

£xd6 23 ¥g3 (the position after 23 ¦c6 £xe5 24 ¦xe5 ¥xe5 25 £e2 ¥g7 26 £xb5 ¢g8 is better for Black, as was proved in a few games) 23...£e7 and Black can be satisfied

32

with his position) 19...¦hf8 (19...¤xe5 looks risky − in the position after 20 ¤dxf7!

¤xf7 21 ¦xe6+ £xe6 22 ¤xe6 ¢xe6 23 £b3ƒ Black's king is not safe) 20 f4!? A new continuation.

a) 20 ¤xe6? does not work due to 20...fxe6 21 ¥g5+ ¥f6! 22 exf6+ ¢xd6 23 £g4 ¦ae8-+

b) Before White only tried the concrete 20 ¤xh7, which can be well met by 20...¤xe5 (not 20...¥xe5? 21 ¤xf8 ¢xf8?! 22 ¤e4 ¥g7 23 £b3 ¦a4 24 ¦ac1‚) 21 ¤e4 f5! 22 ¤xf8 fxe4 23 ¤xg6+ (23 ¤h7?! e3!) 23...¤xg6 24 ¦xe4 ¤e5³ with a complicated play, in which Black is at least not worse

20...h6 21 ¤ge4© XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-tr-+0 9+-+nmkpvl-0 9-wq-sNp+pzp0 9+p+nzP-+-0 9-zp-zpNzP-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-vL-+PzP0 9tR-+QtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This complex position has been tested in the game Dyachkov − Yevseev/RUS−chT (1st

League) Sochi 2004. White has outplayed his opponent in a good style but Black would probably improve his play.

14...£a5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-tr0 9zpl+n+p+p0 9-+-+p+p+0 9wq-+nzP-vL-0 9Nzp-zp-+-+0 9+-+L+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

15 ¤d2!?

33

15 ¤xd4 is a well−known alternative and probably less promising alternative: 15...a6! (15...¥g7? loses to 16 ¥b5 a6 17 ¤c5!+−) 16 a3! (16 ¦c1 was also tried: 16...¥g7 17 ¤c6

¥xc6 18 ¦xc6 0-0 19 ¥c4 h6 20 ¥xd5 £xd5 21 £xd5 exd5 22 ¥f6 ¤xe5!! 23 ¥xe5™ ¦ae8 24 f4 f6

25 ¤b6 fxe5 26 ¤xd5= with equality.) 16...bxa3 This seems to be the most precise continuation. (16...¥g7 17 axb4! (White's play should be very concrete, a routine 17

¤f3 is harmless: 17...0-0 18 ¥d2 £c7 19 ¦c1 £b8 20 ¤c5 ¤xc5 21 ¦xc5 bxa3 22 bxa3 £a7=

and Black has no problems) 17...£xb4 (17...¤xb4? runs across a rather unexpected 18 ¤xe6! fxe6 19 ¥xg6+! hxg6 20 £d6 ¤d5 21 £xe6+ ¢f8 22 £xd7 and White gets a big advantage: 22...£c7 23 e6! ¢g8 (23...£xh2+? is just losing: 24 ¢f1 ¢g8 (24...£h1+ 25 ¢e2 £h5+ 26 f3+−) 25 £xb7+−) 24 h4 ¢h7 25 ¦ac1 £xd7 26 exd7± and Black's life is hard in this endgame) 18 ¦e4! A new and very strong idea. White has to play energetically and he does it despite this rook's move looks rather ugly. The game I.Sokolov − Stellwagen/Amsterdam 2002 continued 18...£a5 19 ¤b3 £c7 20 ¦c1 £b8 21 ¤ac5ƒ and White has taken a rather annoying initiative.) 17 bxa3 ¥g7 18 ¥d2 £d8! 19 ¦b1 (19 ¤f3 is slow: 19...0-0 20 ¦c1 ¦c8 21 £e2 ¦xc1 22 ¦xc1 £e7 with a roughly equal play) 19...¦b8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wqk+-tr0 9+l+n+pvlp0 9p+-+p+p+0 9+-+nzP-+-0 9N+-sN-+-+0 9zP-+L+-+-0 9-+-vL-zPPzP0 9+R+QtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

20 ¦xb7! Otherwise Black will complete the development without any problems. 20...¦xb7

21 ¥xa6 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-wqk+-tr0 9+r+n+pvlp0 9L+-+p+p+0 9+-+nzP-+-0 9N+-sN-+-+0 9zP-+-+-+-0 9-+-vL-zPPzP0 9+-+QtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

21...¦c7 (21...£a8 have still not been proved bad for Black although he should play very

precisely to get half a point: 22 ¥xb7 £xb7 23 ¥b4!? (23 ¤c3 was also tried: 23...0-0

34

24 ¤f3 ¦a8 25 £c1!? ¥f8 26 ¤xd5 ¥xa3 27 £c7 £xd5 28 ¦a1 ¢g7 29 ¥e1 and here Black can solve the problems by 29...¦a4!= followed by ...Ra4−c4.) 23...¤xb4 24 axb4 £xb4! 25 ¤c6 £b7 26 £d6 ¥f8 27 ¤c5! ¥xd6 (27...£c8 28 ¤e4! £a8 29 £c7!+−) 28 ¤xb7 ¥c7 (28...¥e7? 29 ¦a1!+−) 29 ¤d6+ ¢f8! (after 29...¥xd6 30 exd6 0-0 White can maintain the pressure by playing 31 ¦a1 ¤b8! (31...¤f6 32 ¦a7+−) 32 ¤a7 ¦d8 33 ¤b5 ¤d7 34 f3 ¦b8 35 ¤c7²) 30 ¦a1 ¤xe5! 31 ¦a8+ (the endgame after 31 ¤xe5

¥xd6 32 ¦a8+ ¢g7 33 ¦xh8 ¥xe5! 34 ¦a8 h5!= is drawish) 31...¢g7 32 ¦xh8 ¤xc6 (32...¢xh8? 33 ¤xe5 ¥xd6 34 ¤xf7++−) 33 ¦c8 ¥xd6 34 ¦xc6 ¥f4 35 g4 f5 and Black holds this endgame easily) 22 ¥a5 0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-wq-trk+0 9+-trn+pvlp0 9L+-+p+p+0 9vL-+nzP-+-0 9N+-sN-+-+0 9zP-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-zPPzP0 9+-+QtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has tried many options in this position but still failed to achieve advantage. 23 ¥c4!? a) 23 ¤c6 does not seem to be dangerous for Black: 23...£a8 24 ¤e7+ (Certainly

not 24 ¥xc7? £xc6 25 ¥d6 ¦a8 and White loses a piece) 24...¤xe7 25 ¥xc7 ¤d5 26 ¥f1 ¤xc7 27 £xd7 £a5ƒ and White's pawn weaknesses on a3 and e5 give excellent play for Black, Bruzon − L.Dominguez/Cuernavaca 2006.

b) In case of 23 ¤b5 ¥xe5!? Black is already better: 24 ¤xc7 (24 ¦xe5?! could be well met by a rather unexpected 24...¦c1! 25 £xc1 £xa5ƒ with better chances.) 24...¥xc7³ with better chances for Black, Gustafsson − Ribli/Germany 2002.

23...¤xe5 (23...¤f4 can been met by 24 ¤f3 £c8 25 ¥xc7 £xc7 26 £d4, securing material advantage.) 24 ¥xd5 exd5 25 ¤b5 ¦c1! 26 ¥xd8 ¦xd1 27 ¦xd1 ¦xd8 28 ¤ac3

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-tr-+k+0 9+-+-+pvlp0 9-+-+-+p+0 9+N+psn-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9zP-sN-+-+-0 9-+-+-zPPzP0 9+-+R+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

35

The forced line has led to the endgame in which Black can equalise with accurate play. 28...¦b8! (28...¤c4?! leads to real problems: 29 ¤xd5 ¢f8 30 ¤e3 ¦b8 31 ¤xc4 ¦xb5 32

¢f1 ¦b3 33 ¦c1 ¢e8 34 ¢e2 ¥f8 35 a4 ¦b4 36 ¤e3 ¢d7 37 ¦c4±) 29 ¦xd5 (Or 29 a4 ¤c4 30

¤xd5 ¤b2 31 ¤e7+ ¢f8 32 ¤c6 ¦c8 followed by ...Nb2xa4.) 29...¤c4 30 ¤e4 (30 a4

¤b6) 30...f5 31 ¤g5 ¥b2 XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-+-+k+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9-+-+-+p+0 9+N+R+psN-0 9-+n+-+-+0 9zP-+-+-+-0 9-vl-+-zPPzP0 9+-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

and Black destroys White's Q−side pawn though he will have to extinguish some

opponent's initiative.

15...¥a6

The idea of sacrificing an exchange by 15...¦c8!? deserves attention: 16 ¤c4 ¦xc4 17 ¥xc4 ¥g7© with a good play although it still hasn't found many followers.

16 ¤c4

16 ¥xa6 £xa6 17 ¤e4 is supposed to be fine for Black. For example: 17...¥g7 18 ¤ac5 (18

¤d6+ ¢f8 19 £f3 doesn't work due to 19...¤xe5! 20 ¦xe5 £xd6-+) 18...¤xc5 19 ¤xc5 £b5 20 £xd4 0-0 21 ¤e4 £b6 22 £xb6 axb6= with a roughly equal endgame

16...¥xc4 17 ¥xc4 ¥g7

36

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9zp-+n+pvlp0 9-+-+p+p+0 9wq-+nzP-vL-0 9NzpLzp-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

18 £xd4!

Only this piece sacrifice allows White to fight for the advantage.

18...£xa4

18...0-0 didn't solve the problems completely: 19 ¥b3 ¦ac8 20 f4 ¦fe8 21 ¦ad1ƒ with better chances

19 ¥xd5 exd5 20 £xd5 ¤b6

Unfortunately, Black cannot castle: 20...0-0? 21 b3 ¤b6 22 £xa8!+−

21 £d6

21 £c5 is less precise due to 21...¥f8

21...£d7

Here 21...¥f8?? is impossible due to 22 £f6+−

22 £xb4 ¥f8

37

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-tr0 9zp-+q+p+p0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+-+-zP-vL-0 9-wQ-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

In case of 22...¤d5 23 £e4 h6 24 ¥f6 0-0 25 ¦ad1 ¥xf6 26 ¦xd5 £b7 27 exf6 £xb2 28

£f4± Black suffers without a pawn

23 £h4!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-tr0 9zp-+q+p+p0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+-+-zP-vL-0 9-+-+-+-wQ0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

A fresh idea, which poses new problems for Black. 23 £c3 has been tried many times but Black is holding on: 23...£c8! (23...£e6? leads to the

troubles, as we have seen in the game Yussupow − L.Dominguez/World Teams, Yerevan 2001: 24 ¥f6 ¦g8 25 ¦ad1 followed by Rd1-d6!, 23...¦c8?? is impossible due to 24 e6!+−) 24 £f3 ¥g7 25 e6!? (25 £a3 ¥f8 26 £f3 ¥g7) 25...0-0™ (25...fxe6 26 ¦ac1

£d7 27 ¦cd1 £f7? 28 £xa8+!) 26 ¥e7 fxe6! 27 ¥xf8 £xf8 28 £b3! £f7 29 ¦xe6 ¥xb2! 30 ¦d1! (30 ¦ae1 ¥d4!) 30...¦b8! and, according to the tournament practice, Black can hold this position without much problems.

23...¥g7 24 ¦ad1 £a4 25 ¦d4 £xa2 26 ¥e7

The point − White prevents Black from castling.

26...£e6 27 ¥b4

38

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9zp-+-+pvlp0 9-sn-+q+p+0 9+-+-zP-+-0 9-vL-tR-+-wQ0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-zP-+-zPPzP0 9+-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

27...¥f8

An absolutely unnecessary push 27...a5? leads to the troubles after 28 ¦ed1! f6 29 ¥c5! ¦b8 (29...¦c8 is met by the same 30 ¦d6! £xe5 31 ¦xb6 ¦xc5 32 £a4+ ¢f8 33 ¦d8+ ¢f7 34 ¦b7+

¦c7 35 ¦xc7+ £xc7 36 ¦d7++−) 30 ¦d6+−

28 £f6! ¦g8 29 ¦d6!

White's rook on e1 is working at full power!

29...£f5! 30 ¦xb6!

White looks winning but Black still has a defence.

30...£xf6!

Certainly not 30...axb6?? 31 £c6+

31 exf6+ ¢d7 32 ¦a1 ¢c7 33 ¦b5 ¢c6 34 ¦aa5 ¦d8! 35 ¥e1 ¦d1 36 ¢f1 ¥d6 37 ¢e2±

The forced play has led to an endgame with an extra pawn for White, which is not easy to convert, Dreev − Harikrishna/World Cup Khanty Mansyisk 2005.

39

Meran/5 8 ...a6 − 9. e4 c5 10. d5 various

lines [D48]

Last updated: 14/06/07 by R.Scherbakov

1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 e6 5 e3 ¤bd7 6 ¥d3 dxc4 7 ¥xc4 b5 8 ¥d3 a6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9+-+n+pzpp0 9p+p+psn-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sNLzPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Equally with 8 ...¥b7, this is well−known and well−developed continuation.

9 e4

9 a4 is considered harmless: 9...¥b7 (9...b4 10 ¤e4 c5 is also playable, with a possible transposition into the main line) 10 0-0 b4 11 ¤e4 c5 12 ¤xf6+ gxf6!? An interesting option. Black voluntarily destroys his pawn structure, but in return strengthens control of the center, opens a file for the rook, and allows Black to direct his bishops against White's kingside. (12...¤xf6 is considered to lead to a good game for Black: 13 dxc5 ¥xc5 14 £e2 £d5! 15 ¦d1 £h5 16 h3 ¦d8 preventing e3−e4. Nevertheless, White can hope on a small advantage after 17 b3 (in the game Kramnik − Kasparov/Zurich (rapid) 2001 White played 17 ¤d4, offering harmless exchange of the queens) 17...0-0 18 ¥b2 etc.) 13 £e2 The game Gelfand − Kasimdzhanov/Candidates (m/5) Elista 2007 continued 13...¥d6 14 ¥d2 ¦g8 15 a5 £b8 16 h3 f5 with a complicated play with mutual chances.

9...c5

40

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9+-+n+pzpp0 9p+-+psn-+0 9+pzp-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-sNL+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10 d5

10 e5 is an important alternative, which leads to quite different positions.

10...c4 11 dxe6

11 ¥c2 may lead to the same positions but there are some deviations. 11...£c7 12 0-0 ¥c5 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9+-wqn+pzpp0 9p+-+psn-+0 9+pvlP+-+-0 9-+p+P+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzPL+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This is not a very popular continuation. (12...¥b7 is a common option and after 13 dxe6 fxe6

we reach a well−known position − see 8 ...¥b7 ... 11 ...c4.) 13 b3!? This immediate break looks promising. (13 £e2, and 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 £e2 are the alternatives.) 13...¤e5 (13...¥b4 has been played a couple of times. Then possible is 14 ¤e2 exd5 15 ¥f4!? ¥d6 16 ¥xd6 £xd6 17 bxc4 bxc4 18 ¤c3 0-0 19 £d4! £c5 20 exd5! £xd4 21 ¤xd4 ¥b7 (21...¤b6 22 ¤c6 ¤bxd5 23 ¤xd5 ¤xd5 24 ¥e4!) 22 ¤f5 ¦fd8 23 ¦ab1 ¤c5 24 ¦fd1 g6 25 ¤e3 and the pawn on c4 is in trouble − both Rd1-d4 and Rb1-b4 are coming) 14 ¥f4 ¤xf3+ (14...¥d6? was almost the decisive mistake in the game Yakovich − Hector/Stockholm 2001: 15 ¤xe5 ¥xe5 16 d6! £c5 17 b4! This intermediate move is very important − after closing the queenside, White can concentrate on kingside pressure. 17...£d4 18 ¥xe5 £xe5 19 £d2 g5 20 f4! gxf4 21 ¦xf4ƒ and Black is in trouble.) 15 £xf3 e5 16 ¥g5 ¥e7!? (16...¥d4 17 ¥xf6 gxf6 18 ¦ac1 ¦g8 19 h3 is clearly

41

better for White) 17 bxc4 £xc4 18 ¥b3 £b4 Black has avoided immediate catastrophe, but White's chances are clearly better thanks to his strong central passed pawn and more active pieces.

11...fxe6

An interesting possibility 11...cxd3!? 12 exd7+ £xd7 13 0-0 ¥b7 is considered in the line 8 ...¥b7 9. 0-0 a6 10. e4 c5 11. d5 c4.

12 ¥c2 £c7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9+-wqn+-zpp0 9p+-+psn-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+p+P+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzPL+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13 ¤d4

White takes the opportunity to move his knight to d4 since Black has played ...c5−c4 before ...Qd8−c7.

13 0-0 is a common option after which Black can choose between 13...¥b7, transposing to one of the main line − see 8 ...¥b7 then 11 ...c4 (and 13...¥c5, trying to take use of the fact the bishop is still on c8.)

13...¤b6!?

42

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9+-wq-+-zpp0 9psn-+psn-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+psNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPL+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

An interesting continuation − it is unclear who is taking best advantage of the unusual move

order. A tried and tested way for the knight is 13...¤c5 and after 14 0-0 ¥b7 15 ¥e3 the game

transposes to one of the dangerous for Black main lines − see 8 ...¥b7 then 11 ...c4.

14 f4

Both 14 ¥g5 ¥b4 15 f4 0-0 and 14 0-0 ¥c5 are quite acceptable for Black.

14...e5 15 fxe5 ¥g4!?

15...£xe5 16 ¤f3 £e6 17 ¥e3 promises the better chances for White.

16 ¤f3 ¤fd7„

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-tr0 9+-wqn+-zpp0 9psn-+-+-+0 9+p+-zP-+-0 9-+p+P+l+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzPL+-+PzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This position was proved to be good for Black in the game Krasenkow − Kuczynski/ch−

POL, Warsaw 2001. Yet, this tricky line is almost unexplored so the surprises are quite possible.

43

Meran/6 8...Bb7 9. 0-0 a6 − 10. e4 c5 11.

d5 c4 [D48]

Last updated: 18/04/09 by R.Scherbakov

1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 e6 5 e3 ¤bd7 6 ¥d3 dxc4 7 ¥xc4 b5 8 ¥d3 ¥b7 9 0-0 a6 10 e4 c5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9+l+n+pzpp0 9p+-+psn-+0 9+pzp-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-sNL+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

11 d5 c4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9+l+n+pzpp0 9p+-+psn-+0 9+p+P+-+-0 9-+p+P+-+0 9+-sNL+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

44

12 ¥c2

The same position would be reached if White starts with 12 dxe6 but here an extra possibility 12...cxd3!? (12...fxe6 13 ¥c2 £c7 is often just a transposition into the main line) 13 exd7+ £xd7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-tr0 9+l+q+pzpp0 9p+-+-sn-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sNp+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

should be taken into consideration − White has to do a good job to achieve something

substantial. This line is a rare guest in recent practice not so only because it is connected with a pawn sacrifice − for various reasons Black often plays ...£d8−c7 before ...c5−c4, or White prefers ¥d3−c2 before d5xe6. 14 ¦e1 (14 ¥g5 is an alternative: 14...¥e7 15 ¦e1

a) 15 ¤e5 £d4 16 ¤xd3 does not promise an advantage for White: 16...¦d8 17 ¥xf6 (17 ¤f4? £c5 18 ¤fd5 ¤xd5-+) 17...¥xf6 18 ¤f4 £c4 (or 18...0-0 19 ¤fd5 ¥xd5 20 £xd4

¥xd4 21 ¤xd5 ¥xb2) 19 £b3 £xb3 20 axb3 ¦d2 with excellent prospects for Black b) 15 e5 has been also tested: 15...¤e4!? (15...¤d5 looks satisfactory for Black as

well: 16 £xd3 ¤xc3 17 £xc3 ¥xg5 18 ¤xg5 £f5! 19 £e3 (19 £c7 ¥xg2! 20 ¤xf7 0-0!)

19...h6 20 ¤h3 0-0 21 ¤f4 ¦fe8 22 ¦fe1 ¦ac8 23 f3! (23 ¦e2?! is dubious: 23...¦c4 24

g3? ¦e4 25 £d2 g5!-+) 23...¦c2 with a good counterplay) 16 ¥xe7 ¢xe7! 17 £b3 (17

¦e1 ¤xc3 18 bxc3 £g4!) 17...¤xc3 18 £xc3 ¦hc8! with excellent play 15...¦d8 (15...0-0 is also possible: 16 e5 ¤g4 17 ¥xe7 £xe7 18 £xd3 (18 h3 d2! 19 £xd2 ¥xf3

20 gxf3 ¤xe5∓) 18...¥xf3 19 £xf3 ¤xe5 20 £g3 ¦ae8! and Black is okay) 16 e5 (16

¥xf6 ¥xf6 17 ¤d5 does not pose any problems for Black: 17...¥xd5 18 exd5+ ¢f8 19 £xd3

£xd5= with equality, in case of 16 £b3 0-0 17 ¦ad1 Black obtains a good play by 17...h6

18 ¤e5 £c7 19 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 20 ¤xd3 ¥xc3 21 bxc3 ¦c8 and so on.) 16...¤g4 17 ¤e4 0-0 18 £d2 (The natural 18 h3? fails due to the unexpected 18...¥xe4 19 ¦xe4 ¤xf2! 20 ¢xf2

¥xg5 21 ¤xg5 £f5+ followed by ...£g5−f5) 18...¥xg5!? (18...f6 is also not bad: 19 exf6

¤xf6 20 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 21 ¤c5 £c8 22 ¤xb7 £xb7) 19 £xg5 ¥xe4 20 ¦xe4 f6™ The point. White should already play carefully to avoid the worst. The game Nimzo7.32 − Rebel Tigerl2.0/Cadaqu 2000 continued by 21 e6! (21 exf6?! ¤xf6∓ is clearly better for Black thanks to his strong pawn on d3.) 21...fxg5 22 exd7 ¤f6 23 ¦d4 ¦xd7 24 ¦xd7 ¤xd7 25 ¦d1 g4 26 ¦xd3 ¤c5 27 ¦d5 ¤a4 28 ¤e5 ¦c8 29 g3 ¤xb2 30 ¤xg4³ and White is holding on) 14...¥e7 (The rare alternative 14...¥b4 is risky according to theory. After 15 ¤e5 followed by 16. Nd3 Black has to do something with his attacked Bishop.) 15 e5 ¤d5 16 ¤e4 (The direct 16 £xd3 does not promise

45

too much: 16...¤xc3 17 £xc3 0-0 18 ¥g5 (18 ¥f4 ¦ac8 19 £e3 ¥c5) 18...¦ac8 19 £e3 ¥xg5 20 ¤xg5 (after 20 £xg5 ¥xf3 21 gxf3 ¦c6 Black has nothing to worry about: 22

£f4 £h3 23 ¢h1 ¦c2 24 ¦g1 g6 25 ¦g3 £e6 with excellent play) 20...¦c2 21 b3 £g4 22 £g3 (22 ¤e4 £xe4 23 £xe4 ¥xe4 24 ¦xe4 ¦d8=) 22...£xg3 23 hxg3 h6 24 ¤e4 (24 ¤f3

¥xf3 25 gxf3 ¦d8©) 24...¥xe4 25 ¦xe4 ¦d8© and Black can probably hold this endgame without many problems.) 16...0-0 17 £xd3 £g4 Black has lost the pawn but he hopes that his active pieces, especially the powerful bishop on b7, will help him obtain good compensation. 18 ¤g3 (18 ¤fg5 also comes into consideration. Black can continue by 18...¦fd8!? (18...¤f4?? 19 ¤f6++−, 18...h6? 19 h3 £h5 20 ¤f6+!

¤xf6 21 exf6 hxg5 22 fxe7+−, 18...¦ad8 was also tested: 19 a3 f5 20 exf6 gxf6 21 £h3 £xh3™

22 ¤xh3 ¦fe8 23 ¥d2 ¢f7 24 ¦e2 ¥c6 25 ¥a5 ¦c8 26 ¦d1 with better chances for White) 19 h3 £h5 20 ¤g3 £g6 21 £xg6 hxg6 22 a3 ¦ac8© with reasonable compensation for the pawn.) 18...f5 (18...¤b4!? is probably stronger: 19 £f5 ¥xf3!? (after 19...£g6 20

¦d1 ¦fd8 21 ¥g5 ¥xg5 22 ¤xg5 ¥d5 23 a3 ¤c6 24 £xg6 hxg6 25 f4 Black looks to be just a pawn down) 20 gxf3 £xf5 21 ¤xf5 ¥c5 22 ¦e2 (22 ¦d1 ¦fd8=) 22...¤d3 23 ¥e3 (23 f4

f6! 24 e6 ¦fe8© with the idea of Ra8−c8 gives Black a good counterplay) 23...¥xe3 24 fxe3 ¤xe5= with an obvious equality) 19 ¥d2 (19 exf6 ¥xf6 promises nothing for White) 19...¦ad8 20 £b3 ¢h8 An important position is arisen. In the game Fritz 6a−Rebel Tiger 12.0/Cadaqu 2000 White came up with a new and rather unexpected 21 ¥g5!? (21 h3 £g6 is good for Black, now 22 ¦ac1 can be met by 22...f4! 23 ¤e4™ (23 ¤f1 ¤e3-+, 23 ¤e2 ¤e3 24 ¤xf4™ ¦xf4 25 ¦xe3 ¦xd2 26 ¦c7 ¥d5!-+) 23...¤e3! 24 ¥xe3 ¥d5! and White faces problems) 21...¥xg5 22 h3 £f4 23 ¤h5 Give the piece back! (23 ¤e2!? £b4 24 ¤xg5 was also worth considering.) 23...£b4 24 £xb4 ¤xb4 25 ¤xg5 ¤d3 26 ¤e6 ¤xe1 27 ¦xe1± and White realised his extra pawn with an excellent technique.

12...£c7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-tr0 9+lwqn+pzpp0 9p+-+psn-+0 9+p+P+-+-0 9-+p+P+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzPL+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

13 dxe6

The immediate 13 ¤d4

46

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-tr0 9+lwqn+pzpp0 9p+-+psn-+0 9+p+P+-+-0 9-+psNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPL+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

is supposed to be less promising. 13...¤c5 (Closing the centre by 13...e5 usually leads to a

White edge but here Black wins a couple of tempi: 14 ¤f5 g6 15 ¤h6 The game Gelfand − Dreev/Tilburg 1993 continued by 15...¤h5!? (After 15...¥d6?! 16 £f3 the Black pieces look a little paralysed.) 16 £f3 (16 g3 ¥c5 17 £f3 f6÷ was unclear)

16...¤f4 17 ¤xf7 (A very straightforward and principled decision but maybe white has to be less ambitious here and consider 17 ¤g4!? more thoroughly.) 17...¢xf7 18 g3 g5! 19 gxf4 gxf4 20 £h5+ At first glance the Black king is in trouble, but looking at the position more closely, we notice that apart from the queen no other White piece is attacking. 20...¢e7! 21 £h4+™ ¢f7 (21...¤f6? was bad because of 22 ¥xf4! exf4 (22...¦g8+ 23 ¥g3) 23 e5+−) and here the repetition of moves deserved attention as 22 ¥d1? gave Black a strong initiative after 22...¦g8+! 23 ¢h1 ¤f6 24 ¥h5+ ¦g6!!∓) 14 ¥g5!? The more reliable approach. (a thematic 14 b4 cxb3 15 axb3 b4 16 ¤a4 ¤cxe4 leads to a very sharp and complicated play: 17 ¥xe4!? Concrete action. (In case of 17 dxe6 Black achieves an excellent game by 17...¦d8! 18 exf7+ ¢xf7

19 ¥e3 ¥d6 20 h3 ¦he8ƒ 21 ¦c1 ¤c3 22 ¤xc3 bxc3³) 17...¤xe4 18 dxe6 ¥d6! The initiative is most important! 19 exf7+ (19 ¥b2!? deserved attention) 19...£xf7! Taking an opportunity to move the queen close to the White king. (19...¢xf7 20 £h5+ g6 21

£h3 £c8 22 f3 ¤c3 23 £h4 might still be somewhat better for White) 20 f3 £h5 21 g3 ¤xg3! (the brave 21...0-0?! had a great success in the game Kasparov − Kramnik/Dos Hermanas 1996 but objectively it is too risky: 22 fxe4 £h3 and here White could have prove the advantage by 23 £e2! For example, 23...¥xg3 (23...¥xe4

24 ¥f4) 24 ¤f5! ¥e5 (24...¦xf5 25 ¦xf5 ¥xh2+ 26 £xh2 £g4+ 27 ¢f2+−, 24...¥xe4 25

¤xg3+−) 25 ¥b2 ¥xb2 26 £c4+! ¢h8 27 ¤xb2 and so on) 22 hxg3! (22 ¦e1+?! is known to be a serious inaccuracy: 22...¢f7! (22...¤e4! would have been stronger: 23 ¦a2 0-0! 24 fxe4 £h4! 25 ¤e6!? (25 ¦g2 ¥xe4 26 ¦xe4 £xe4) 25...¦ad8!! 26 ¤xd8 ¦xd8‚ and Black's monstrous bishops are killing) 23 hxg3 ¥xg3 24 ¦a2 (24 ¦e2

¦ad8ƒ 25 £d3 ¦he8! 26 ¦aa2 ¥e5!∓) 24...¦ad8 and White found himself in trouble, Baramidze − A.Braun/GER−ch Saarbruecken 2009) 22...0-0 (22...¥xg3? 23 £e2+) 23 ¦a2! (23 ¢g2? £g4!) 23...¥xg3 24 ¦g2 ¥e5 25 ¤c5 ¦ad8ƒ with sufficient counter chances) 14...0-0-0 A risky but ambitious approach. Here White can already think about 15 b4 (15 ¥xf6 gxf6 16 b4 cxb3 17 ¥xb3 ¢b8 18 ¦c1 ¥d6 gives Black excellent counter chances) 15...cxb3 16 axb3 b4 17 ¤a4 ¤xa4!? (in case of 17...exd5? White gets a huge advantage by playing 18 e5! £xe5 (18...h6 19 ¥h4 g5 20 ¥g3 ¤fe4 21 ¥xe4

47

¤xe4 22 ¦c1 ¤c3 23 £d3+−) 19 ¥h4 ¤xa4 20 ¥f5+ ¢b8 21 ¥g3+−) 18 ¦xa4 ¥c5„ Black's king is vulnerable but his pieces are very active.

13...fxe6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-tr0 9+lwqn+-zpp0 9p+-+psn-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+p+P+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzPL+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

14 ¤d4

This set−up was one of the most problematic for Black during last years so he often delayed with advance ...c5−c4 in order the move ¤f3−d4. However, a recent idea by Vishy Anand seems to be a good antidote.

14 £e2 is an old and well−developed continuation. 14...¥d6 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9+lwqn+-zpp0 9p+-vlpsn-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+p+P+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzPL+QzPPzP0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

15 ¤d4 (The line 15 ¤g5 ¤c5 (a rather sophisticated way to protect the pawn e6 by 15...£c6

is probably not quite satisfactory for Black. He creates pressure over the long diagonal but places his pieces not very comfortably. After 16 f4 ¥c5+ 17 ¢h1 h6 18 e5!

White has proved better chances in the game Arencibia − L.Dominguez/Havana 2002.) 16 f4

48

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9+lwq-+-zpp0 9p+-vlpsn-+0 9+psn-+-sN-0 9-+p+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPL+Q+PzP0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

was popular in the 80's. Black obtains a good counterplay by 16...h6! (16...e5 seems to be

more risky for Black: 17 a4 b4 18 ¤d5 ¤xd5 19 exd5 0-0-0 20 £xc4 and so on) 17 ¤f3 (17 ¤h3 looks too ugly to be true. A typical 17...¤d3!? promises very good play for Black. For example, 18 e5 ¥c5+ 19 ¢h1 ¤d5 20 ¤e4 (20 ¤xd5 ¥xd5 21 b3 0-0 22 bxc4

bxc4 23 ¥e3 ¥xe3 24 £xe3 £c6∓) 20...0-0-0 This is not obligatory but completely in the spirit of the position. 21 ¤xc5 £xc5 22 ¥xd3 cxd3 23 £g4 ¢b8 24 ¤f2 ¤b6 25 ¥d2 ¤c4 26 b4 £d4∓ with a huge advantage.) 17...¤d3! One of the big Meran ideas − destroying the counterpart of the bishop on b7 by sacrificing a pawn makes the bishop very powerful. 18 ¥xd3 cxd3 19 £xd3 0-0 20 e5 (20 ¢h1?! is dubious: 20...¦ad8 21 ¤d4?! (21 £e2 was maybe safer: 21...¥xf4 22 ¥xf4 £xf4³ with the better chances for Black) 21...¥c5 22 ¥e3 ¤g4 23 ¤ce2 (23 ¥g1 is bad because of 23...¥xd4

24 ¥xd4 ¦xf4‡ 25 ¥e5 ¤f2+ 26 ¢g1 £b6-+) 23...¤xe3 24 £xe3 ¦xd4! 25 ¤xd4 £b6 26 ¦ad1 ¦d8 with a big advantage.) 20...¥c5+ 21 ¢h1 ¤d5 22 ¤xd5 ¥xd5 23 b3 ¦ad8 The Black pieces are very strong, especially the bishop on d5. It's clear that Black has no chance of losing this position but can try for more, R.Scherbakov − Kaidanov/chT−URS, Naberezhnye Chelny 1988.) 15...¤c5 16 f4 e5 17 ¤dxb5 This sacrifice is tempting but gives White nothing much. (in case of 17 ¤f5 the simplest way to solve the problems is a typical 17...¤d3! (17...0-0 was also tested and proved to be good for Black as well) 18 ¥xd3 cxd3 19 £xd3 ¥c5+ 20 ¢h1 0-0 and White already should be careful to extinguish Black's initiative.) 17...axb5 18 ¤xb5 £b6 19 ¤xd6+ £xd6 20 fxe5 £xe5 21 ¦f5 £e7 22 £xc4 The position looks promising for White. He has already got three pawns for the piece, a pair of bishops and the Black king cannot castle. However, Black has sufficient counter chances. 22...¦c8 (22...¤cd7?! is dubious because of 23 ¥d2! ¦c8 24 £b3± G.Flear − B.Kelly/Wroxham 2002.) 23 £b5+ ¤cd7! 24 £xb7 ¦xc2 25 ¥g5 £d6! 26 £a8+ £b8! (26...¢f7?! was proved to be wrong in the game Karpov − Anand/FIDE Wch Final, Lausanne (m/l) 1998: 27 £xh8 £d4+ 28 ¢h1 £xe4 29 ¦f3 ¦xg2 30 ¢xg2 ¤e5 and here White has gained decisive advantage by the brilliant 31 £xg7+!! ¢xg7 32 ¥xf6+ followed by Bf6−e5) 27 £xb8+ ¤xb8 28 ¥xf6 gxf6 29 ¦xf6 ¦xb2 30 a4 ¤d7 with obviously drawn position, G.Flear − Galkin/Port Erin IOM 2001.

The move 14 ¤g5 gained a popularity some years ago thanks to Anatoly Karpov's efforts. 14...¤c5

49

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-tr0 9+lwq-+-zpp0 9p+-+psn-+0 9+psn-+-sN-0 9-+p+P+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPL+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

15 e5!? (a surprising 15 ¥e3!? is interesting. It is connected with the piece sacrifice: 15...h6

16 ¤xe6! (Both 16 ¤h3?! ¥d6 17 f4 0-0-0ƒ, and 16 ¤f3 ¦d8 17 £e2 ¤d3 18 ¦ad1 ¥b4

would be fine for Black) 16...¤xe6 17 e5! £xe5 (There was no point to reject the gift: 17...¤d7? 18 £h5+ ¢d8 19 ¦ad1‚ with a strong attack) 18 ¥g6+ ¢e7 19 ¦e1 Thanks to opponent's centralised king White has got a strong initiative but Black still keeps sufficient defensive resources, Sargissian − Gustafsson/GER−chT 2008) 15...£xe5 (Later Alexey Shirov played 15...£c6!? a couple of times and White has proved nothing although Black's position looks dodgy: 'is also far from clear' 16 f3 ¤fd7 17 £e2 (17 ¤xh7 was also tested: 17...¤xe5 18 ¤xf8 ¦xf8 19 £d4!? ¤cd3 20 ¥xd3

¤xd3 21 ¤e4 ¦d8 22 £xg7 £b6+ 23 ¤f2 ¤xf2 24 £g6+ ¦f7 25 £g8+ ¦f8 26 £g6+ with a perpetual ) 17...¤d3 (17...¥e7 18 ¢h1 ¤d3 19 ¥xd3 cxd3 20 £xd3 ¤xe5 21 £d4 £c4 22 £xc4

¤xc4 23 ¤xe6 ¢f7 24 ¤f4² gives White the upper hand) 18 ¥xd3 cxd3 19 £xd3 ¤xe5 20 £e2 h6 21 £xe5 £c5+! 22 £xc5 ¥xc5+ 23 ¢h1 hxg5 24 ¥xg5 ¥d4 25 ¦fe1 0-0© and the bishop pair lets Black equalise without many problems.) 16 ¦e1 £d6 17 £xd6 (After 17 ¥e3 £c6 is quite good.) 17...¥xd6 18 ¥e3 Here is Karpov's idea. (It was known that either 17. Be3 or 18 ¤xe6 ¤xe6 19 ¦xe6+ ¢d7 20 ¥f5 ¢c7 could only create problems for White, but to combine these two possibilities was not such an easy idea to find.) 18...0-0 (Bad is 18...¤g4 19 ¥xc5 ¥xc5 20 ¦xe6+ ¢d7 21 ¦d1+ ¢c7 22

¤ce4± with a big advantage) 19 ¦ad1 Now Black has to waste a tempo retreating with the bishop. 19...¥e7 (19...¦fd8 is also bad: 20 ¦xd6 ¦xd6 21 ¥xc5 ¦d2 22 ¦c1 with the idea of ¥c5−e3) 20 ¥xc5 ¥xc5 21 ¤xe6 ¦fc8 White has gained some tempi since Black has had to make some moves with his dark squared bishop but what next? In the game White was quite successful with kingside pawns advance 22 h3! Preparing to advance his kingside pawns since White has a pawn majority, and Black has few pieces for defence there. 22...¦ab8 This is supposed to be the best reply. 'and Black holds this ending, according to the tournament practice.' (In the game Karpov − Kramnik/Linares 1994 Black has not found correct way and after 22...¥f8?! 23 g4 h6 24 f4 ¥f3 25 ¦d2 ¥c6 26 g5 hxg5 27 fxg5 faced serious problems) 23 ¤xc5 (23 g4 can be met by 23...¥f3 24 ¦d2 b4 (24...¦e8 is also good for black) 25 ¤a4 ¥a7÷ with a very sharp and unclear ending.) 23...¦xc5= and Black is completely okay.

14...¤c5 15 ¥e3

50

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-tr0 9+lwq-+-zpp0 9p+-+psn-+0 9+psn-+-+-0 9-+psNP+-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzPL+-zPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

15...e5!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-tr0 9+lwq-+-zpp0 9p+-+-sn-+0 9+psn-zp-+-0 9-+psNP+-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzPL+-zPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Anand also drew our attention to the moves order 15...¦d8!? 16 £e2 e5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-trkvl-tr0 9+lwq-+-zpp0 9p+-+-sn-+0 9+psn-zp-+-0 9-+psNP+-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzPL+QzPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White should probably continue by 17 ¤f3 (17 ¤f5 does not promise too much. It may

seem that Black king might face real danger when trying to escape from the center but Anand revealed a simple way to get safe position: 17...g6!

51

a) Other continuations do not solve the problems completely: 17...¤d3 18 ¥g5 (18

b3!? also deserves attention) 18...¥c5 19 ¦ad1± is clearly better for White. b) 17...b4? can be well met by 18 £xc4! bxc3 19 ¥a4+! and White is winning:

19...¦d7 (19...¤fd7 20 ¤xg7+! ¥xg7 21 ¥xc5+−) 20 ¥xc5 ¥xc5 21 ¤xg7+ ¢e7 22 £e6++− and so on.

c) 17...¤cxe4 looks too risky: 18 ¤xe4 ¤xe4 19 ¥xe4 ¥xe4 20 ¥b6! £xb6 an attempt to quiet the position by sacrificing some material by (20...¥d3?! fails to 21 ¥xc7! (21 £h5+ g6 22 ¥xc7 gxh5 23 ¥xd8 ¢xd8 24 ¦fd1 ¢c7 25 ¤e3²) 21...¥xe2 22 ¦fe1 ¦d2 (22...¥d3 23 ¦xe5+ ¢d7 24 ¥xd8 ¢xd8 25 a4+−) 23 ¥xe5+− with idea Be5−c3 and Nf5−d4 and White is probably winning.) 21 £xe4ƒ and White takes a strong−looking initiative although the position is still maybe not so clear.

d) Finally, after 17...¤e6 18 ¦ad1 g6 19 ¦xd8+ ¢xd8 Black's position does not look quite safe. Now the most precise seems to be 20 ¦d1+ (20 ¤d5 ¤xd5 21 exd5 gxf5 22

dxe6 £c6„ is not so clear) 20...¢c8 21 ¤d5 and it is important that now Black cannot play 21...¤xd5? 22 exd5 gxf5 due to the obvious 23 ¥xf5!+−

18 ¥g5 £f7 19 ¤d5 In the game Radjabov − Anand/Dubai 2002 Black captured on d5 with the bishop but I don't like this decision very much. In such positions the light−squared bishop is often the most powerful Black's piece so 19...¤xd5!? looks more to the point. A possible play would be 20 exd5 ¦xd5 21 ¤e3 (21 ¦ad1 should be met by 21...£e6! but not (21...gxf5?? due to 22 £xe5+!!+−) ) 21...¦d6 and Black should be fine.) 17...¤e6!? This manoeuvre is typical in case of the Black's long castling but in this situation it's a novelty. The idea is worthy of consideration since other moves do not solve the problems completely.

a) Black also tested some other continuations but all of them do not promise a full equality. 17...¥e7 transposing into the game Alterman − Gabriel/Bad Homburg 1997, which continued 18 a4 A typical action − White shakes Black's Q−side pawn structure. 18...¤cxe4 (Unfortunately, 18...b4? is just bad because of 19 £xc4! bxc3 20

b4±) 19 ¤xe4 ¥xe4 (In case of 19...¤xe4 20 axb5 axb5 21 ¦a7ƒ White's initiative looks very annoying.) 20 ¥xe4 ¤xe4 21 axb5 axb5 22 ¦a7 £d6 and here White has proved the better chances by the excellent and here White has proved better chances by an excellent 23 ¥d4! ¤g5! 24 ¤xe5! 0-0 25 ¤c6!±

b) 17...¥d6!? deserves attention. It would be met by 18 ¤g5! £c6 19 a4 0-0 20 axb5 axb5 21 ¦a5 ¥a6 22 ¦d1 h6 23 ¤f3 ¤g4 24 ¤d5² with slightly better chances for White.

c) Finally, in the line 17...¤d3 18 ¦ad1 ¥b4 19 ¥xd3 (19 ¤g5?! £d6 is in Black's favour: 20 ¤d5 ¥xd5 21 exd5 £xd5 22 ¥b6 ¦d7 23 £e3 h6 24 ¤h3 £e4∓) 19...cxd3 20 ¦xd3 ¦xd3 21 £xd3 ¥xc3 22 £xc3 £xc3 23 bxc3 ¤xe4 24 ¦c1 ¢e7 25 ¤xe5 ¦c8 26 ¥d4² Black keeps drawish chances but White would be also quite satisfied with his extra pawn in the ending.

The game Yevseev − R.Scherbakov/RUS−chT Ekaterinburg 2002 continued by 18 a4?! This helps Black to solve the problems. (18 ¦ad1 is more testing, keeping in mind the program Nc3−d5.) 18...¤d4! (In case of 18...b4 19 ¤d5 ¤xd5 20 exd5 ¥xd5 21 a5!?ƒ

White's initiative looks rather annoying.) 19 ¥xd4 exd4 20 ¤d5 £c5™ The threat d4−d3 is serious so White should hurry up. 21 ¤g5! (21 ¤e5? is wrong due to 21...£d6! and White loses a piece, while 21 b4? is fortunately met by 21...d3!) 21...d3 Forcing the matters. (here 21...£d6 is more risky − see the game for details) 22 ¤xf6+

52

gxf6 23 £h5+ ¢d7™ 24 £h3+ ¢e8™ 25 £h5+ (White has an opportunity to avoid the repetition of moves by 25 ¤e6!? but Black should not be too worried about it and continue 25...¥c8!÷ − please refer to the game for details) 25...¢d7 26 £h3+ ¢e8 27 £h5+ and the draw was agreed.

15...0-0-0 16 £e2 e5 17 ¤f3 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ktr-vl-tr0 9+lwq-+-zpp0 9p+-+-sn-+0 9+psn-zp-+-0 9-+p+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLN+-0 9PzPL+QzPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

(White has an interesting piece sacrifice 17 ¤dxb5!? axb5 18 ¤xb5, destroying the black

king's pawn shield. For some reason it is not popular in tournament practice − there are only 3 games in the database but, curiously enough, White has won all of them! A possible line is 18...£f7

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ktr-vl-tr0 9+l+-+qzpp0 9-+-+-sn-+0 9+Nsn-zp-+-0 9-+p+P+-+0 9+-+-vL-+-0 9PzPL+QzPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

19 ¦fc1 (or 19 ¦ac1 ¢b8 (here 19...¥a6!? deserved serious attention) 20 £e1 ¦c8 21 £a5

¤a6 22 £b6 ¦c6 23 £a7+ ¢c8 24 ¦fd1 ¤g4 25 ¥b6 and here Black should have played 25...¥b4!÷ with idea to push the bishop on b6 by ...£f7−f6 or maybe even by ...£f7−f4 and followed by ...£f4−h6 after the logical g2−g3) 19...¥a6 20 b4! ¥xb5 21 bxc5 ¥c6 22 ¦ab1 ¥e7 23 ¦b6 ¢c7 24 ¥b3! Here Black should have accepted the gift: 24...cxb3! (24...£g6? loses to 25 ¦xc6+! ¢xc6 26 £xc4‚ ¢c7 27 £a6 £xe4 28 c6

¦d4 29 £a7+ ¢d6 30 £c5++−) 25 £a6 ¢d7™ 26 ¦xc6 ¢e8 27 £a4! ¢f8 28 axb3 ¤g4!? with complicated play. White has got 3 pawns for the piece and hopes for an advantage since Black is a bit late to get his other rook into play, but this knight jump causes some inconveniences for White so the position is rather unclear. Yet, this sacrifice certainly deserves more attention and requires more analysis.) 17...¤d3

53

A rather ambitious approach. The knight looks great on d3 but can Black give it good support?! He will certainly get some problems to pay attention to...

a) Let's take a look at the other options. 17...¤cxe4?! is too risky. After 18 ¤xe4 ¤xe4 (18...¥xe4?! 19 ¥xe4 ¤xe4 20 a4!±) 19 a4 ¤c5 (19...b4 20 ¦ac1 ¢b8 21 ¥xe4 ¥xe4 22

¥b6 £xb6 23 £xe4±) 20 axb5 axb5 21 b3!‚ White makes certain progress in opening the files against opponent's king.

b) 17...¤e6 is a solid, maybe the best option, popular on the tournament practice. Then Black usually continues ...¥f8−c5 and his knight is ready to jump to either d4 or f4 while White has no other way to open the position then ¤c3−d5 after the preparatory ¦a1-d1 or ¦f1-d1 with a very complicated play in which both sides have his trumps. The Black king looks vulnerable on the queenside but the activity of his pieces does not allow White to think about direct attack in the near future.

18 a4!? (White tried some other options and 18 ¦fd1 looks the most promising among them: 18...¥b4 19 ¤g5 ¥xc3 20 bxc3 ¦he8 21 f3 h6 22 ¤h3 g5 23 ¥xd3 (or 23 ¤f2

¤f4 24 £e1²) 23...cxd3 24 ¦xd3 ¦xd3 25 £xd3 g4 26 ¤f2 gxf3 27 gxf3 ¦g8+ 28 ¢f1² with small advantage for White.) 18...b4 19 ¤d5 ¤xd5 20 exd5 e4! 21 ¤d2 This position arose in the game Nakamura − Lastin/WCh Tripoli 2004. It seems that Black should have seriously thought about 21...¥d6!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ktr-+-tr0 9+lwq-+-zpp0 9p+-vl-+-+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9Pzpp+p+-+0 9+-+nvL-+-0 9-zPLsNQzPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

, which deserves thorough analysis.

16 ¤f5

54

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-tr0 9+lwq-+-zpp0 9p+-+-sn-+0 9+psn-zpN+-0 9-+p+P+-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzPL+-zPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

in case of 16 ¤f3 Black can seriously think about K−side development: 16...¥e7!?

(16...¤cxe4!? 17 ¤xe4 ¤xe4 18 ¦e1ƒ gave White the initiative in the game Gelfand − Bareev/Novgorod 1997. Yet, after 18...¥d6 19 ¥xe4 ¥xe4 20 ¤g5 ¥d3! 21 £f3 0-0-0 22

£a8+ ¢d7 23 £xa6 ¦b8! 24 ¤f7 ¦hf8 25 ¤xd6 £xd6 26 £a5² White has achieved only slightly better chances for White − the Black king is rather safe as the White rooks cannot find any open lines, 16...¦d8 17 £e2 would be a transposition to the line 15...¦d8) 17 ¤g5 (after 17 £e2 0-0 18 ¤g5 ¦ae8 Black achieves acceptable play: 19 b4!?

cxb3 20 axb3 h6 21 b4! ¤cd7! 22 ¥b3+ ¢h8 and here White should continue 23 ¤f7+ ¦xf7

24 ¥xf7 £xc3 25 ¥xe8 ¤xe8÷ with a very complicated and unclear play although Black does not seem to be worse) 17...0-0! The point.

a) Both 17...£c6?! 18 ¤d5 ¤xd5 (18...h6? 19 ¥xc5 ¥xc5 20 ¤e6!±) 19 exd5 £xd5 20 £h5+ ¢f8 21 f3ƒ

b) and 17...h6 18 ¥xc5 hxg5 19 ¥e3 g4 20 £e2 0-0-0 21 a4 b4 22 ¤d5 ¤xd5 23 exd5 ¥xd5 24 £xg4+ ¢b8 25 ¦fd1ƒ do not equalise as Black's king is rather vulnerable in both cases

18 ¥xc5 Otherwise the knight jump was pointless. 18...¥xc5 19 ¤e6 £b6 20 ¤xf8 ¦xf8© Black has given up the exchange but now all his pieces are very active and in the game Kasimdzhanov − Kasparov/Linares 2005 his initiative has brought him big success very soon

16...g6!

This strong idea might be solving all Black's problems in this variation. 16...¤cxe4 is probably too risky: 17 ¤xe4 ¤xe4 18 £g4! (18 a4 £c6 is unclear: 19 axb5 axb5

20 ¦xa8+ ¥xa8 21 £g4 g6 22 ¤h6 ¤f6 23 £g3 ¥xh6 24 ¥xh6 ¢f7÷) 18...¤f6 19 £h3 The game Akopian − Ippolito/Catalan Bay 2007 continued 19...g6!? 20 ¥g5! gxf5 21 ¥xf6 ¦g8 22 ¦fe1!ƒ and White has maintained a strong initiative.

16...¦d8 17 £f3 (17 £e2 leads to the game Radjabov − Anand/Dubai 2002 − see 15...¦d8)

17...b4!? (17...¥d6?! 18 ¦ad1ƒ gives White the annoying initiative) 18 ¤d5 ¤xd5 19 exd5 ¥xd5 20 £g3© would lead to a complicated position which requires special analysis.

17 ¤h6 ¥g7 18 £f3 ¤e6

55

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9+lwq-+-vlp0 9p+-+nsnpsN0 9+p+-zp-+-0 9-+p+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLQ+-0 9PzPL+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

It seems unbelievable but perhaps it's already White who has to fight for equality,

Morozevich − Anand/WCh Mexico City 2007.

56

Meran/7 8...Bb7 9. 0-0 a6 − 10. e4 c5 11.

d5 Qc7 [D48]

Last updated: 05/06/11 by R.Scherbakov

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3 e6 5.e3 ¤bd7 6.¥d3 dxc4 7.¥xc4 b5 8.¥d3 ¥b7 9.0-0 a6 10.e4 c5 11.d5 £c7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-tr0 9+lwqn+pzpp0 9p+-+psn-+0 9+pzpP+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sNL+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

By delaying the advance ...c5−c4 Black can avoid some dangerous lines, connected with

the move ¤f3−d4.

12.dxe6

An attempt to use the fact Black has not played ...c5−c4 by 12.b3 is supposed to be almost harmless for Black, who can simply complete the development of the kingside by 12...¥e7 followed by 0-0. (the more active 12...¥d6? is impossible due to 13.dxe6 fxe6

14.¥xb5!±)

It deserves attention to play without capturing on e6: 12.¥c2!? The game Morozevich − Korneev/Pamplona 2006 continued 12...0-0-0 13.¤g5!? (Here in case of 13.dxe6

Black can think about 13...¤e5!? 14.£e2 ¤xf3+ 15.£xf3 fxe6 16.£h3 ¢b8„ with good counter chances, according to tournament practice) 13...¤e5!? 14.f4 ¤c4 and here White could probably have achieved the better chances by 15.a4!?ƒ

12.¥g5 is a rare and hardly promising continuation: 12...c4 13.¥c2 ¥d6 (in case of 13...¥c5 14.dxe6 fxe6 White has an active option 15.e5! ¤g4 (15...¤xe5? gave White a strong initiative in the game Peralta − Strunski/Deizisau 2008: 16.¤xe5 £xe5

57

17.¥xf6! gxf6 18.¦e1 £d4 19.£h5+ ¢e7 and here 20.¥e4! was very strong: 20...¥xe4 (20...£xf2+? 21.¢h1) 21.¤xe4 ¥b4 22.¦ad1! £e5 23.£h6! ¦ag8 24.¦e2 ¦g6 25.£h3 and Black is defenseless) 16.¥h4! ¤dxe5 (other options were in White's favour: 16...0-0? failed to 17.¥xh7+!, while 16...¥e7?! 17.¥xe7 ¢xe7 18.¦e1± is clearly better for White) 17.¤xe5 ¤xe5 18.£h5+!? (18.¥g3 0-0 19.£h5 ¦f5 is far from clear)

18...g6 19.£e2 0-0 20.¥g3 ¥d4 21.¦ad1 ¥xc3 22.bxc3 £c6 23.f3² with better chances for White) 14.dxe6 fxe6 15.¤d4 ¤c5 16.f4 0-0-0! Black has good counter chances.

12...fxe6 13.¥c2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-tr0 9+lwqn+-zpp0 9p+-+psn-+0 9+pzp-+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzPL+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

In spite of the fact Black postponed ...c5−c4 White retreats his bishop before making any

other moves − recently this is the most popular set−up. Now Black should think how to parry the coming ¤f3−g5.

In case of 13.£e2 Black is not worried about lines with ¤f3−d4 and can continue by 13...c4 14.¥c2 ¥d6, transposing into one of the main lines.

13...¥d6

Of course, Black postponed ...c5−c4 not to play it now, although, as you know, 13...c4 is quite playable as it transposes to one of the main lines.

13...0-0-0 seems to be too risky: 14.¤g5 ¤e5 15.£e2 (15.£e1?! is dubious: 15...£b6 16.f4 ¤d3 17.£g3 c4+ 18.¥e3 (18.¢h1 ¥c5 with the idea of ...Nf2) 18...¥c5 19.¥xc5 ¤xc5 20.¢h1 b4 21.¤a4 ¤xa4 22.¥xa4 h6 23.¤f7 ¤xe4ƒ with the initiative.) 15...¦e8 16.f4! (after 16.¥f4 ¥d6 17.¦ad1 ¦hf8 18.¥g3 h6 19.¤h3 g5 Black's chances are not worse.) 16...¤c6 17.¤f3 with better chances for White, Sadler − Dreev/Luzern 1997.

13...¥e7

58

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9+lwqnvl-zpp0 9p+-+psn-+0 9+pzp-+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzPL+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

is another possibility, which is not very popular as the bishop is better placed on d6. Yet,

it's not so easy for White to prove his advantage without taking risks, so Black also has chances. 14.¤g5 £c6 15.f4!? (15.£f3 leads to a very interesting position. White takes the opportunity (he has not spent time on the move Qe2) to pressurise the weak pawn on e6 by transferring his queen to h3. 15...h6! 16.£h3 hxg5! (Otherwise Black would have problems developing his pieces after 16...¤f8 17.¥e3² with the better chances for White.) 17.£xh8+ ¢f7 18.£h3 g4 19.£h4 (19.£g3 ¥d6 20.¥f4? is bad due to 20...¤h5-+) 19...¤e5 By sacrificing the exchange Black has activated all his pieces, also the White queen is not very well placed on h4. 20.¦d1 (20.f3 has been tried without much success: 20...gxf3 21.gxf3 ¤g6 (21...c4 22.¥e3 g5!? (22...¤g6 23.£e1

¦h8 looks playable as well: 24.¦d1 ¥d6 25.¦d2 £c7 26.¦xd6 £xd6 27.£d2 £e5 28.¦f2

¦h3‚ with initiative but perhaps White could improve his play) 23.£g3 ¥d6 24.¥xg5 ¦g8 25.¢h1 b4 26.¤e2 £c5 27.h4 ¤d3© with good counterplay) 22.£g5 ¦h8 23.e5 ¤h4 24.¥e4 ¤d5 25.£g4 b4 26.¤e2 £c7 27.£g3 ¦h5 28.¥f4 ¤f5 29.£e1 c4ƒ and Black has a strong initiative) 20...¥d6 This position arose in the game L.B.Hansen − Illescas Cordoba/Moscow (ol) 1994. White continued unsuccessfully: 21.¥e3?! Obviously missing Black's very beautiful and very unexpected idea. (21.¥f4!? looks stronger, the ending after 21...¤g6 22.¦xd6 ¤xh4

23.¦xc6 ¥xc6 24.¦e1 is slightly better for White.) 21...¥c7! Even here it's not so easy to see what black is thinking of. 22.¦ac1 White's position looks solid but something unusual is coming... 22...¦h8!! 23.£xh8 ¤g6 The queen is trapped!! 24.£d8™ The only move to get another piece for the queen. 24...¥xd8 25.¦xd8 b4!ƒ and Black took the initiative, his £+¥ battery is fairly annoying.) 15...h6 16.¤f3 0-0-0 17.£e2 b4 (17...¦hf8 seems to be weaker: 18.e5 ¤d5 19.¤xd5 £xd5 20.a4 b4 21.¦d1! £c6 22.a5!

with advantage, 17...¢b8!? is worthy of consideration.) 18.e5!? a) An inclusion of the moves 18.¥a4 £c7 is double−edged as after 19.e5 bxc3

20.exf6 ¥xf6 21.bxc3 Black gains time by 21...¤b6÷ b) 18.¤d1 is worthy of consideration: 18...¤xe4 19.¤e3 ¤d6 20.a3 White has

sacrificed a pawn but gained some time for rearrangement of his knight and starting of the Q−side actions. However, Black has a lot of resources. 20...¥f6!? (in case of 20...£b6?! White can take initiative 21.¤d2!ƒ followed by Nd2−c4) This position arose in the game Klimov − Yevseev/St. Petersburg (ch) 2004. It seems that White should

59

have played 21.axb4 (21.¥d3?! b3! 22.¤c4 ¤xc4 23.¥xc4 ¦he8 was quite acceptable for Black) 21...cxb4 22.¤g4© with excellent compensation for the pawn.

18...bxc3 19.exf6 ¥xf6! The best continuation. (in case of 19...gxf6?! 20.bxc3± Black doesn't have sufficient counterplay to compensate the weakness of his e6−pawn and not quite safe position of his king.) 20.bxc3 ¤b6 This position arose in the game Yakovich − Flear/Port Erin 2001. Perhaps White should have preferred 21.¥d2 ¤d5 22.£e1² with a small advantage but Black's position looks quite playable.

13...£c6!? is an interesting approach, but perhaps not quite acceptable. 14.¥f4 This is logical: White stops Black's dark−squared bishop and takes more control over the e5−square. (Black's last move prevented 14.e5?, which can be simply met by 14...¤xe5!, White also tried to prepare e−pawn push by 14.¦e1, or 14.£e2 but it can be well met by 14...¥d6) 14...¥e7!? Perhaps the most reliable option.

a) 14...¦d8 15.£e2 ¥e7 is also not quite acceptable: 16.e5 ¤h5!? (16...¤d5?! 17.¤xd5 £xd5 18.¦fd1 £c6 19.¥g5! ¤b6 (19...¥xg5? 20.¦d6!) 20.¦xd8+ ¥xd8 21.¥xd8 ¢xd8 22.¦d1+ ¤d5 23.¤g5 ¢c7 24.£g4 is much better for White) 17.¥d2! 0-0 18.¥e4 £b6 19.¤g5 ¥xe4 20.£xe4 g6 21.¦ad1 with better chances thanks to the vulnerable Black's K−side.

b) 14...0-0-0 should be better for White. Black's king is not safe while he does not get too much activity, which would compensate that. The game A.Onischuk − Zhukova/Caleta 2011 continued 15.£e2 b4 and here it was stronger to include 16.¥a4! £b6 17.¤d1 and the knight goes to c4 with tempo.

15.e5 ¤d5 16.¥e4 ¤xc3 (16...0-0!?) 17.¥xc6 ¤xd1 18.¥xb7 ¦b8 with slightly worse but acceptable ending.

14.¤g5 ¤f8

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+ksn-tr0 9+lwq-+-zpp0 9p+-vlpsn-+0 9+pzp-+-sN-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPL+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

A rather unusual defence of the pawn on e6. This set−up was invented by famous

investigator and Alexey Dreev's coach − IM Alexander Filipenko. The Black knight is not well placed on f8 but on the other hand the pawn on e6 is well protected, and Black is going to push the knight on g5 back then activate his knight.

15.f4

60

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+ksn-tr0 9+lwq-+-zpp0 9p+-vlpsn-+0 9+pzp-+-sN-0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPL+-+PzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

15...h6!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+ksn-tr0 9+lwq-+-zp-0 9p+-vlpsn-zp0 9+pzp-+-sN-0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPL+-+PzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

A fresh idea and fairly interesting. It was introduced by GM Igor Khenkin in 1999. After the old 15...0-0-0 White has eventually found the way to get better prospects: 16.£e2

(16.£e1 is an important alternative: 16...e5 (After 16...h6 17.¤f3 (17.e5?! hxg5 18.exd6

£xd6³) 17...¥xf4 18.e5 ¥xc1 (18...¥xf3? 19.¥xf4+−) 19.¦xc1² White takes the initiative) 17.¤d5! After some years of fruitless attempts it seems that White have finally found a promising way to counter Black's set−up. The first steps were made by Jeroen Piket and Michal Krasenkow in 2000, then there were followers...

a) 17.a4 does not disturb Black very much, as was proved in the game Sadler − Dreev/FIDE Wch KO Groningen (m/2) 1997: 17...b4 18.¤e2 h6 19.fxe5 ¥xe5 20.¤f3 ¤e6 21.¤xe5 £xe5 22.¦f5 £d6 with excellent play for Black.

b) Another possibilities are: 17.fxe5 ¥xe5 18.¤f3 ¤e6 19.¤xe5 £xe5 20.¦f5÷ with unclear play

c) and 17.f5 h6 18.¤f3 ¤8d7 19.¥d2 (19.¢h1 c4 20.¥d2 £c6 21.¦c1 ¤c5 is very good for Black) 19...c4 20.¦c1 £c6 21.a4 ¤c5 22.axb5 axb5 23.¥e3 b4 24.¤d5 ¤xd5 25.exd5 £xd5 with better chances for Black.

17...¥xd5 Black supposes his knight is more important in this situation. (The alternative 17...¤xd5 does not solve the problems: 18.exd5 exf4 (18...¥xd5?! was proved

61

suspicious in the game Johannessen − Goloshchapov/Dhaka 2002. After 19.¥d2! ¦e8 (19...c4 did not solve the problems. After 20.¥a5 £c5+ 21.¢h1ƒ White gets the time to develop the initiative.) 20.¦d1ƒ White has got the last piece into play and also stressed the unstable position of Black's bishops on the d−file, seizing a very annoying initiative.) White provokes a weakening of the Q−side by 19.¥d2! b4 20.¦c1 ¢b8 21.¥b3 a5 22.a3ƒ with a certain initiative. The manoeuvre Bc1-d2 is really more effective than a2−a4 because White also gets the possibility to quickly get the rook on the c−file.) 18.exd5 exf4 (Here 18...¤xd5?! is even more dangerous for Black: 19.fxe5 ¥xe5 20.¤f7 ¦e8 21.¢h1 ¦g8 22.£e4! and Black is in trouble, for example: 22...¤b6 23.¤xe5 ¦xe5 24.£g4++− and so on.) 19.a4!? (in case of 19.¥d2 Black is not forced to weaken his king's shield: 19...¦e8 20.£h4 ¤g6 (20...h6!? is also worthy of consideration.) 21.£h3+ ¢b8÷ with complicated and unclear play.) 19...b4 (A preliminary 19...¦e8?! is dubious as after 20.£h4 Black cannot protect the pawn f4 and prevent the opening of the a−file at the same time.) 20.£e2 A rather important position is arisen. 20...¢b7!? (20...c4 can be met by 21.b3 h6 22.¤e6 ¤xe6

23.dxe6 ¤d5!? 24.bxc4 ¤c3 25.£f3² White seems to be better but Black still keeps reasonable counter chances, Shirov − Dreev/Sarajevo 2002) 21.¥d3 (It was also interesting to transpose the pieces in a battery Q+B by 21.£c4!? with the idea of ¥c2−d3 − White's chances looked preferable) 21...¢a7! 22.¥xa6 ¤xd5 23.¥c4 h6! A very important resource − Black pushes the knight away from the f7−square. 24.¤h3 (both 24.¤f3 ¤b6, and 24.¤e4 ¥e5 seemed quite acceptable for Black.) 24...f3! excellent play − Black leaves the knight on h3 without a target and gets the time for his development. 25.£xf3 White prefers to keep the f−file opened. 25...¥xh2+ 26.¢h1 ¤g6! 27.£h5 ¤ge7÷ Thanks to very creative play, Black has managed to consolidate the position, Sasikiran − Kosteniuk/Hastings 2002/3.) 16...h6

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ktr-sn-tr0 9+lwq-+-zp-0 9p+-vlpsn-zp0 9+pzp-+-sN-0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPL+Q+PzP0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

17.¤f3 a) 17.¤h3 should not be too dangerous for Black. The game Kalugin −

Riazantsev/St. Petersburg 1999 continued by 17...e5 18.a4 b4 A typical reaction. (18...¤e6!? is also not bad: 19.axb5 ¤d4 20.£d1 axb5 21.¥e3 £c6 with a good play for Black) 19.¤d5 ¤xd5 20.exd5 and here Black should have better played 20...exf4!? (20...¥xd5?! 21.£xa6+ ¥b7 22.£e2 was in White's favour, while 20...¤d7!? was also worth considering.) 21.¥xf4 (21.¤xf4 g5 22.¤e6 ¥xh2+ 23.¢h1 ¤xe6 24.dxe6 ¦he8 is fine for Black.) 21...g5 22.¥xd6 £xd6 23.¦ad1 ¤d7 and Black is OK.

62

b) 17.e5!? is a double−edged decision. The game Radjabov − Dreev/Sarajevo 2002 continued by 17...hxg5 18.exd6 £xd6 19.¥e3 ¤8d7 20.¦ad1 By a cost of the pawn White has exchanged Black's important bishop and gained time for the development. 20...£c7 21.¥c1 g4! (21...gxf4 seems to be weaker as after 22.¥xf4 e5 23.¥g3© White transposes his bishop to much better position, securing his king and preparing for Q−side actions.) 22.a4!? (a dubious 22.£xe6? ¦de8ƒ gives Black a strong initiative)

22...b4 23.¤e4 ¤xe4 24.¥xe4 ¤f6 and here a rather unusual 25.¥g6!?÷ deserved attention, keeping in mind Bg6−f7.

17...¥xf4 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ktr-sn-tr0 9+lwq-+-zp-0 9p+-+psn-zp0 9+pzp-+-+-0 9-+-+Pvl-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzPL+Q+PzP0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

18.¥xf4 (18.e5!? is also interesting: 18...¥xf3 (18...¥xc1 19.¦axc1 ¤d5 seems to be weaker.

White gets certain advantage by 20.¤e4 ¢b8 21.a4 c4 22.¤d6 ¤d7 23.axb5 £b6+ 24.£f2±

Curiously enough, this position is very similar to the game Yevseev − Filippov/RUS−chT Kazan 2001 but White has even got some benefit − instead of the weakening move g2−g3 he played Ra1-c1) 19.¦xf3!? (19.£xf3 ¥xe5 20.£a8+ does not promise too much: 20...¢d7 21.£xa6 ¥xh2+ 22.¢h1 ¢e7÷ and White's initiative would be sufficient only to hold the balance) 19...¥xe5 20.a4 White does not care about the pawns − his main task is to get to the rival king. 20...¤g4 (20...b4, which was tested in the game Klimov − Filippov/RUS−ch Krasnoyarsk 2003, does not solve the problems: 21.£xa6+ ¢b8 (the attempt to simplify the position by 21...£b7

is strongly met by 22.£e2!ƒ) and now White could have proved his advantage by 22.¤e4!? For example, 22...¥xh2+ 23.¢f1 ¥e5 (23...¤8d7 24.g3) 24.¤xf6 gxf6 25.¥e4 £a7 26.£b5+ ¢c7 27.£c6+ ¢b8 28.¥e3 ¤d7 29.a5ƒ with idea Ra1-a4xb4! with a strong initiative) 21.g3 This position arose in the game Shabalov − Al Modiakhi/Bermuda 2003. It seems that Black should have preferred 21...b4!? (21...¥d4+?! 22.¢g2 £e5 23.¥e4! gave White the annoying initiative) 22.£xa6+ (22.¤e4

c4) 22...£b7 23.£xb7+ ¢xb7 24.¤b5 ¤f6÷ with complicated play) 18...£xf4 19.g3 By exchanging the dark−squared bishops White's attacking possibilities have increased as the bishop on c1 is an odd piece as usual. Yet, Black's defensive resources should not be underestimated especially taking into account he is a pawn up. 19...£c7 20.e5 ¤d5

63

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ktr-sn-tr0 9+lwq-+-zp-0 9p+-+p+-zp0 9+pzpnzP-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-sN-+NzP-0 9PzPL+Q+-zP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

21.¤e4!? (21.a4 wasn't too dangerous for Black in the game Akopian − Riazantsev/Dubai

2000: 21...¤xc3!? (The alternative was 21...b4 22.¤e4 ¢b8 keeping the queenside files closed. In that case White would pressurise the c5−pawn on the c−file as well as effectively exploiting the hole at d6 for his knight.) 22.bxc3 £c6 23.axb5 axb5 24.¦a7!? (24.¦a5 was pointless due to 24...c4 (but not 24...¤d7?! 25.¦xb5 ¦hf8 26.¦xb7!

£xb7 27.¥e4ƒ with annoying initiative) ) 24...¤d7 25.¦xb7! The key idea− without the bishop Black's position loses much of its attractiveness. On the other hand, the White bishop becomes very powerful. The main drawback, of course, is that White has already sacrificed a lot of material. 25...£xb7 26.¥e4 £a6 27.¦b1 ¢c7 (After 27...c4? 28.¤d4 ¤xe5 29.¦xb5‚ the attack could hardly be parried.) 28.¦xb5 ¦b8 (In case of 28...£a4? 29.¦b7+ ¢c8 30.¦b2ƒ Black's life wouldn't have been too easy.) 29.¦b7+! £xb7 30.¥xb7 ¦xb7 31.¢g2÷ An interesting position has arisen. Black should not be worse but he has to show good coordination between his rooks.) 21...¢b8 22.¤d6 c4 23.a4² White's chances are preferable, Yevseev − Filippov/Russian Cup Final, Kazan 2001.

16.e5!?

Any knight's retreat looks harmless for Black.

16...0-0-0

64

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ktr-sn-tr0 9+lwq-+-zp-0 9p+-vlpsn-zp0 9+pzp-zP-sN-0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPL+-+PzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

17.exd6

The position after rather unexpected 17.¤f7!? £xf7 18.exd6 deserves more practical tests

17...¦xd6 18.£e2

18.£e1? is wrong as after 18...hxg5 19.fxg5 Black has an astonishing 19...¦d1!!

18...hxg5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+k+-sn-tr0 9+lwq-+-zp-0 9p+-trpsn-+0 9+pzp-+-zp-0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPL+Q+PzP0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

19.¤e4!?

65

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+k+-sn-tr0 9+lwq-+-zp-0 9p+-trpsn-+0 9+pzp-+-zp-0 9-+-+NzP-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPL+Q+PzP0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

It is always disputable whether an inclusion of the moves a2−a4 and b5−b4 is in White's

favour. A natural 19.fxg5 ¦d4 20.h3 is strongly met by 20...¤g4! 21.¥f4 (21.¦xf8+ ¦xf8 22.hxg4 £g3-

+ was just lost) 21...¦xf4 22.¦xf4 £xf4 and here White has to go into the worse endgame by 23.£xg4 £xg4 24.hxg4³

White also included 19.a4 b4 and now continued 20.¤e4 ¦d5! A concrete and strong play − Black protects the g5−pawn by the ugly looking rook's manoeuvre. In this important position White has a rather big choice. 21.h3 (a dubious 21.¤xf6?! which just improved Black's pawn structure, will be hardly repeated again. In the game Kruppa − Dreev/ECC Halkidiki 2002 Black has achieved big advantage after 21...gxf6 22.¥e4

¦d4 23.¥xb7+ ¢xb7 24.£f3+ ¦d5 25.h3 gxf4 26.¥xf4 £c6∓, 21.¥e3!? is worthy of consideration and it might be a subject of the future battles) 21...gxf4 22.¥xf4 e5 23.¥e3 This position arose in the game Lastin − S.Ivanov/RUS−ch Krasnoyarsk 2003, which continued 23...¤e6 (In case of 23...¤8d7 24.¦ac1© White gets more than enough compensation for the pawn) 24.¤xf6 gxf6 and now White should have better played 25.£g4!ƒ, maintaining the initiative.

19.¥e3!? also comes into consideration.

19...¥xe4

The approved 19...¦d5!?, as Black played in the just mentioned games, looked more reliable. Then White can include a2−a4 if he wants.

20.¥xe4

66

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+k+-sn-tr0 9+-wq-+-zp-0 9p+-trpsn-+0 9+pzp-+-zp-0 9-+-+LzP-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+Q+PzP0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This position arose in the game Bologan − Akopian/Wijk aan Zee 2004. It seems that Black

should have played

20...¤xe4

20...¦d4 21.¥f3 gxf4 gives White strong initiative after 22.a4ƒ while in the game White also achieved better chances after 20...c4 21.¥c2! g4 22.¥e3 ¦d5

23.g3 ¦dh5 24.¦f2 ¤8d7 25.a4ƒ with initiative.

21.£xe4 ¦d5

The endgame after 21...£c6 22.£xc6+ ¦xc6 23.fxg5 e5 24.¥d2 ¤e6 25.¦ae1 ¦d8 26.¥c3 ¤xg5 27.¦xe5 ¤e6 28.a3 is clearly better for White thanks to his strong bishop and K−side pawn majority.

22.a4©

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+k+-sn-tr0 9+-wq-+-zp-0 9p+-+p+-+0 9+pzpr+-zp-0 9P+-+QzP-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-zP-+-+PzP0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has more than enough compensation for the pawn.

67

Meran/8 8...a6 9. e4 c5 − 10. e5 cxd4 11.

Nxb5 Nxe5 [D49]

Last updated: 13/02/11 by R.Scherbakov

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 c6 4.e3 ¤f6 5.¤f3 ¤bd7 6.¥d3 dxc4 7.¥xc4 b5 8.¥d3 a6 9.e4 c5 10.e5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9+-+n+pzpp0 9p+-+psn-+0 9+pzp-zP-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sNL+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This continuation is fairly dangerous for Black.

10...cxd4! 11.¤xb5!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9+-+n+pzpp0 9p+-+psn-+0 9+N+-zP-+-0 9-+-zp-+-+0 9+-+L+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

68

11...¤xe5

11...¤g4!? is not very popular but White still hasn't found a confident way to get real advantage. 12.£a4 ¥b7 The most popular continuation, connected with a pawn sacrifice. (Both 12...¦b8 13.¤d6+ ¥xd6 14.exd6, and 12...¤gxe5 13.¤xe5 ¤xe5 14.¤d6+ ¢e7

15.¤xc8+ ¦xc8 16.¥xa6 ¦a8 17.£b5 £d5 are supposed to be better for White.) 13.¤bxd4 White has gained an extra pawn but now Black's pieces come into play quickly. 13...£b6 14.0-0 ¥c5 15.h3 (15.¥e3!? is maybe stronger, although it is supposed to be acceptable for Black: 15...¤xe3 16.fxe3 h6 17.¢h1 ¦d8 18.¦ad1 0-0 with excellent play against White's pawn weaknesses ) 15...¥xf3 16.hxg4 (16.¤xf3 is interesting but probably less promising: 16...¤xf2 (16...¥xf2+? 17.¢h1 h5 is futile, as after 18.¥f4

White obtains a clear advantage) 17.¥c2 This position arose in the game Avrukh − Mittelman/Tel Aviv 2001. Here 17...¤xh3+! (17...h5?! 18.¥g5 gave White a rather annoying initiative in the game Avrukh − Mittelman/ISR−ch 2001., while 17...¤g4+?

18.¢h1 h5 19.¥g5 ¤f2+ 20.¢h2 is simply bad for Black) 18.¢h2 ¤f2 19.¥g5 ¦a7! The most precise move. (19...h5?! could be met by 20.¦xf2! ¥xf2 21.¦d1ƒ with a strong initiative) 20.¥h4 0-0! and Black is at least not worse, Morozevich − Caruana/Reggio Emilia 2010) 16...¥d5 (in case of 16...¥xd4 17.gxf3 h5!? (17...¢e7

18.¥e4! is in White's favour) White can improve on the previous games by 18.¥f4! ¦d8 (18...hxg4? 19.¥e4!ƒ) 19.¦ad1 with initiative) 17.¤f3 (17.¤b3 gives White a safe advantage but it's known to be acceptable for Black: 17...0-0! 18.£xd7 ¥xb3 19.¥xh7+

¢xh7 20.£d3+ ¢g8 21.£xb3 £xb3 22.axb3 ¦fb8 with good compensation in the ending though White can still maintain some pressure) 17...£b7 18.£f4 0-0 19.g5 ¦fd8! According to the tournament practice, Black has reasonable compensation for the pawn thanks to his active bishops but White may still look for some improvement.

12.¤xe5 axb5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+p+-sN-+-0 9-+-zp-+-+0 9+-+L+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13.¥xb5+

13.0-0 is an important alternative. After 13...£d5 14.£e2 ¥a6 (The alternative 14...¦b8 is less precise − Black will place the bishop on b7 anyway, and it is clearly better to

69

have the rook on the a−file.) 15.¥g5 ¥e7 16.f4 0-0 17.¦f3 (With the direct idea of 18. Bxf6 followed by 19. Bxh7+) 17...¥b7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+l+-vlpzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+p+qsN-vL-0 9-+-zp-zP-+0 9+-+L+R+-0 9PzP-+Q+PzP0 9tR-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

we reach a critical position of the Reynolds Attack. It is thought to be acceptable for Black,

but he must know what to do. 18.¦g3 The main line. (Another rook move 18.¦h3 does not promise much. After 18...g6 19.b3 ¦fc8 20.¥xb5! d3! 21.¦xd3 £c5+ 22.¢h1 (22.¢f1?? £xb5 23.¦d8+ ¦xd8 24.£xb5 ¥a6 wins for Black) 22...¤e4 23.¥xe7 ¤f2+ 24.¢g1 ¤h3+ 25.¢h1 a draw should be agreed) In the game Tkachiev − Bacrot/Enghien−les−Bains 2000 Black came up with an interesting 18...¦fc8!? (Both 18...¦xa2, and 18...g6 have been played with good results for Black, but perhaps White's play can be improved) 19.¥xh7+! The pawn can be taken immediately. (19.¥xf6 ¥xf6 20.¥xh7+ ¢f8 is very good for Black) 19...¢f8 (in case of 19...¤xh7 20.¥xe7 White's attack looks irresistible. For example: 20...f6 (20...g6 21.£h5) 21.£h5 ¤g5 (21...fxe5 22.£g6) and now White wins by 22.¥xf6! with a quick checkmate.) 20.¥h6!? A very beautiful idea! 20...gxh6 21.£h5! ¢e8 The only way to avoid being mated. 22.£xf7+ ¢d8 White's play looks very powerful but the whole set−up is under question as Black has parried the direct threats and secured an extra piece, although of course his king is still in danger. In the game he didn't cope with problems but objectively Black should be okay.

13...¥d7 14.¤xd7 £a5+ 15.¥d2 £xb5 16.¤xf8

70

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+ksN-tr0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+q+-+-+-0 9-+-zp-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-vL-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

16...¦xf8

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+ktr-+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+q+-+-+-0 9-+-zp-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-vL-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White queenside pawns look threatening but Black is hoping to create counterplay thanks to

his majority in the centre. Another obvious way is 16...¢xf8 17.b3 ¤d5 Not only moving the knight to its best square

but also securing the square d3 for the queen in reply to 18. a4. a) The alternatives do not solve Black's problems completely: 17...¢e7 18.a4 £d5

(18...£e5+ 19.£e2², but not 18...£d3?? 19.¥b4+) 19.0-0² b) 17...e5 18.a4 £d5 19.0-0² c) 17...h5!? 18.a4 £d5 19.0-0 h4 20.h3² − in all cases White's chances should be

preferred. 18.h4!? A strong−looking novelty − White is going to push the queen away from d3 by

Rh1-h3. The h−pawn may also lead to pressure on the Black kingside. (18.a4 has been played many times but without much success: 18...£d3 19.£e2 (19.£f3

promises nothing: 19...£xf3 20.gxf3 ¢e7 21.¢e2 ¦hb8 22.¦hb1 ¤b4 and the pawns are blocked, here 19.h4!? is also worthy of consideration) 19...£xb3 20.0-0 £c2 (20...¤c3!? is also interesting) 21.¦fc1 d3 22.£e1 (22.¦xc2 dxe2 23.¥e1=) 22...£b2 23.¦c4 (23.a5!? is also possible) 23...¦b8! 24.a5 ¢e7 with good play for Black) In the game Bareev − Iskusnykh/chT−RUS, Tomsk 2001 Black played unsuccessfully:

71

18...¤c3?! (Another knight move 18...¤b4!? deserves attention.) and after 19.¥xc3 dxc3 20.£d6+ ¢e8 (20...¢g8!? looks safer. White could then have gained the better chances with 21.¦h3 c2 (or 21...£b7 22.£d4! c2 23.¦c3 with a large advantage to White) 22.¦c3 (22.¦c1!?) 22...£f5 23.¦c1 £e4+ 24.¢f1 £xh4 25.¦1xc2 with a clear advantage) 21.0-0-0!± has found himself in difficult situation: White's rook has quickly got into play, while his king would be on the correct side on the board if an ending was reached.

17.a4

17.b3!? is rarely played. 17...¢d7!? Black has many possibilities but this move looks rather logical − somehow Black has to get his rook on f8 into play. 18.a4 £d3 19.h4! The same way to get the rook into play was used in a similar position in the game Avrukh − S.Ivanov/Beer−Sheva 1999 − see the main 17. a4. (19.£f3?! is just dubious as after 19...£e4+! Black gets an extra tempo compare to the position from the line 17. a4 Qc4 18. b3 Qd3 19. Qf3 Qe4!, which is known to be harmless for him., After 19.£e2 £xe2+ 20.¢xe2 ¤e4 21.b4 ¦fc8 22.f3 ¤c3+ 23.¥xc3 ¦xc3 Black is not much worried about White's passed pawns) 19...¤d5 20.¦h3 £e4+ 21.¢f1² White's chances are slightly preferable, Lugovoi − Kallio/Gausdal 2003.

17...£c4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+ktr-+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9P+qzp-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-zP-vL-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This move seems to be the main continuation nowadays. 17...£d5 is probably weaker: 18.0-0 ¢d7 19.a5! ¦fc8 20.£a4+ ¢d8 21.a6!? (21.f3 ¤d7!÷,

21.¦fd1 ¤e4 22.¥e3 ¦c4÷) 21...¤e4 22.¥b4ƒ and White is better. In the ending after 17...£e5+ 18.£e2 £xe2+ 19.¢xe2 e5 Black's pawn majority and strong

knight in the center do not seem to be sufficient compensation for White's passed pawns.

17...£xb2 18.0-0 ¤e4 was tested in a couple of games 10-15 years and was supposed to be risky.

18.a5!?

72

A promising idea. In case of 18.b3 Black seems to be holding on by 18...£d3 19.£f3 (19.£e2 £xb3 20.0-0

¦xa4!?÷) 19...£e4+! XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+ktr-+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9P+-zpq+-+0 9+P+-+Q+-0 9-+-vL-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

20.£xe4 ¤xe4 21.b4 (21.¥b4 ¦g8 22.¢e2 ¢d7=) 21...¢e7 22.f3 ¤c3! 23.¥xc3 dxc3 and the

position is drawn: 24.¢e2 ¦fd8 25.¦hd1 c2 26.¦dc1 (26.¦xd8 ¦xa4! 27.¦c8 ¦xa1

28.¦xc2 ¦b1=) 26...¦d4= with an obvious draw 18.£f3!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+ktr-+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9P+qzp-+-+0 9+-+-+Q+-0 9-zP-vL-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

is interesting. The game Vaganian − Bareev/FIDE WCh KO, New Delhi (2.2) 2000

continued by 18...¦c8 (18...¦xa4?! 19.¦xa4 £xa4 20.0-0 looks too dangerous for Black,

but 18...¢d7!? deserves serious attention, trying to bring the rook on g8 into play in spite of the dangers.) 19.b3 £c2 (In the ending after 19...£d5!? 20.£xd5 ¤xd5 21.¢e2

White has clearly improved on the above−mentioned lines as Black has the wrong rook on c8. However, maybe it was already more tenacious.) 20.¥b4 ¦g8 21.0-0 ¤d5 22.¥a3ƒ The position looks difficult for Black although at the moment he is keeping the White pieces at a distance thanks to his strong pieces. However, the placing of his only passive piece − the rook on g8 − will prove costly, as it is almost impossible to bring it into play. It also makes Black's king unsafe as White has an extra rook in play.

18...¤d5

73

18...¢d7?! is weaker because of 19.£a4+ (19.¦a4 £d3) 19...£xa4 20.¦xa4 e5 21.f4! ¦fe8 22.fxe5 ¦xe5+ 23.¢d1± with a big advantage.

19.h4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+ktr-+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9zP-+n+-+-0 9-+qzp-+-zP0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-zP-vL-zPP+0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Another rook's pawn is advanced, the idea being very attractive: 20. Ra4 Qd3 21. Rh3 The exchange of queens does not promise too much in this situation: 19.£a4+ £xa4

20.¦xa4 e5 21.b4 ¢d7÷ is unclear.

19...¢d7 20.¦a4 £d3

20...£b5? is much weaker: 21.¦xd4 £xb2 22.£a4+ ¢e7 and now 23.¦xd5! (23.0-0 ¦fc8÷)

23...exd5 24.¥b4+ led to big advantage: 24...¢d8 (or 24...¢f6 25.£c6+ ¢f5 26.£d7+

¢e4 27.£g4+ ¢e5 28.0-0+−) 25.0-0! (but not 25.¥xf8? £c3+ 26.¢e2 (26.¢d1? ¦b8)

26...£b2+ 27.¢f3 £c3+ 28.¢g4 ¦c8ƒ with initiative) 25...¦e8 26.£c6 £xb4 27.£xa8+ ¢e7 28.£xd5± with good winning chances.

21.¦h3 £e4+ 22.¢f1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-tr-+0 9+-+k+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9zP-+n+-+-0 9R+-zpq+-zP0 9+-+-+-+R0 9-zP-vL-zPP+0 9+-+Q+K+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

74

22...¦fb8

22...¦fc8? did nothing to stop White's idea: 23.¥e3± and if (23.¥c3±) 23...e5 then 24.¥xd4!+−

22...e5!? is an interesting idea − Black fortifies the base of his position, his strong center. This position was tested in the game Lima − Matsuura, Brasil 2003 − it looks like White should have chosen between 23.¦c4!? (and 23.a6!? − his chances look preferable but Black is not without counter chances.)

23.¥c3

XIIIIIIIIY 9rtr-+-+-+0 9+-+k+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9zP-+n+-+-0 9R+-zpq+-zP0 9+-vL-+-+R0 9-zP-+-zPP+0 9+-+Q+K+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

23.¦b3 ¦xb3 (23...£xh4?! 24.¢g1ƒ) 24.£xb3 ¦c8„ gave Black worthwhile counterplay,

according to Avrukh.

23...¤xc3™

We are already familiar with 23...e5? 24.¥xd4!+−

24.¦xd4+ ¢e8 25.¦xc3 £e5! 26.£a4+

26.b4? could be met with 26...¦xb4! This important position arose in the game Avrukh − S.Ivanov/St. Petersburg 1999. Black

should have played

26...¢f8

75

XIIIIIIIIY 9rtr-+-mk-+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9zP-+-wq-+-0 9Q+-tR-+-zP0 9+-tR-+-+-0 9-zP-+-zPP+0 9+-+-+K+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

After 26...£b5+? 27.£xb5+ ¦xb5 28.b4 ¦ab8 29.¦c7!+− Black found himself in the lost

ending.

27.£d7!?

Other moves promise nothing: 27.¦b4 ¦d8 28.¦b5 ¦d1+! 29.£xd1 £xb5+ 30.¢g1 £xa5 31.¦a3 ¦d8=

27.¦dc4 ¦xa5 28.¦c8+ ¦xc8 29.¦xc8+ ¢e7 30.£e8+ ¢f6 31.£d8+ ¢g6= with equality 27.£a3+!? ¢e8! (27...¢g8? 28.¦cd3±) 28.¦a4 ¦d8!„ and Black seems to be OK thanks to the

idea of ...Rd8−d2 although White's chances are maybe still slightly preferable.

27...£xa5 28.¦c7 £f5 29.¢g1²

XIIIIIIIIY 9rtr-+-mk-+0 9+-tRQ+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+-+q+-0 9-+-tR-+-zP0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-zP-+-zPP+0 9+-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White's chances are preferable but Black can obviously hold the position.

76

Meran/9 8...a6 9. e4 c5 − 10. e5 cxd4 11.

Nxb5 axb5 [D49]

Last updated: 19/11/08 by R.Scherbakov

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 c6 4 e3 ¤f6 5 ¤f3 ¤bd7 6 ¥d3 dxc4 7 ¥xc4 b5 8 ¥d3 a6 9 e4 c5 10 e5 cxd4! 11 ¤xb5! axb5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9+-+n+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+p+-zP-+-0 9-+-zp-+-+0 9+-+L+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This continuation recently became more popular than 11 ...Nxe5.

12 exf6 gxf6

12...£b6 13 fxg7 ¥xg7 does not promise full equality for Black.

13 0-0 £b6

77

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9+-+n+p+p0 9-wq-+pzp-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-zp-+-+0 9+-+L+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black's pawn structure is compromised but he reasonably hopes to get a counterplay thanks

to his active pieces.

14 £e2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9+-+n+p+p0 9-wq-+pzp-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-zp-+-+0 9+-+L+N+-0 9PzP-+QzPPzP0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...¥b7!

78

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-tr0 9+l+n+p+p0 9-wq-+pzp-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-zp-+-+0 9+-+L+N+-0 9PzP-+QzPPzP0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This rare option has not only been revived during the recently finished World Title match

between Kramnik and Anand but it turned to be the key to Anand's success. Black leaves his b5−pawn to the mercy of fate but he obviously counts on the activity of his pieces. This move looks quite obvious but it was always supposed to be favourable for White − after the match it became known that the man behind its revival was Rustam Kasimdzhanov.

14...b4 has a worse reputation but things are maybe not so clear: 15 ¦d1 ¥c5 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9+-+n+p+p0 9-wq-+pzp-+0 9+-vl-+-+-0 9-zp-zp-+-+0 9+-+L+N+-0 9PzP-+QzPPzP0 9tR-vLR+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black has tried some other options but without much success. a) 15...¦a5 is probably too creative. White gains a strong initiative after 16 ¥f4! ¥c5 a1) 16...¥b7?! can be strongly met by 17 ¤xd4! £xd4 18 ¥b5 £xf4 19 ¦xd7 ¥d6

(19...¥a6 fails because of the very beautiful 20 ¦ad1! ¥xb5 21 ¦d8+ ¢e7 22 £xb5! ¦xb5 23

¦1d7# checkmate.) 20 ¦xb7+ ¢f8 21 £h5 ¥c7 22 ¦d1 with a huge advantage. a2) 16...¤c5!? deserves attention. 17 ¤d2! ¥b7 (17...¥a6 18 ¤b3±) 18 ¦ac1 (with the idea of 19.Nc4 Qc6 20.Nd6!) 18...¦g8 19

f3 ¥d5 20 ¢h1ƒ with the initiative b) 15...e5? can be strongly met by 16 ¤xd4!! and Black is in trouble: 16...£xd4 (or

16...¥a6 17 ¤f5 ¦g8 18 ¥e3 ¥xd3 19 £xd3 £c6 20 f3+− with decisive advantage) 17 ¥e3 £h4 (other retreats were not satisfactory for Black: 17...£d6 18 ¥b5 £e6 19 ¦ac1 ¦g8 20

£c2+−, or 17...£d5 18 ¥b5 £b7 19 ¦ac1 ¥e7 20 ¥c6 £a6 21 £g4 with almost decisive

79

advantage) 18 ¦ac1!+− and Black has no good defence against Rc1-c4, trapping the queen.

16 a4!? This move recently became popular. White is trying to involve more resources such as the passed a−pawn or the opened b−file for the rook in case of Black's capture. (16 ¥f4 is an alternative: 16...h5!? (after 16...¥b7 White has tried a lot of possibilities but the strongest seems to be 17 ¥e4!, neutralising the Black light−squared bishop, which is the most useful and powerful piece on the board. White has more than sufficient compensation for the pawn but Black's position looks quite playable, Tkachiev − David/Cannes (m/7) 1999.) 17 ¦ac1 (White also tried to put problems for Black by 17 ¥e4 ¥a6 18 £d2 (18 £e1 can be met by 18...¦c8 19 ¦ac1 e5 20 ¥f5 ¥e7 21

¥d2 ¦xc1 22 ¦xc1 ¥b7÷) 18...¦d8 19 ¦ac1© with reasonable compensation for the pawn but Black is also not bad) 17...¦g8 This position arose in the game. Here White tried to put problems for Black by 18 ¤d2 (18 ¥g3!? ¦xa2 19 ¤xd4!? deserves attention) 18...¥b7 19 ¥e4 f5 20 ¤c4 (20 ¥f3!? deserved attention, keeping compensation for the pawn) but Black came up with a strong queen sac 20...¥xe4! 21 ¤xb6 ¦xg2+ 22 ¢f1 d3 and Black's minor forces caused troubles for White in the game De Jong − Delemarre/Leeuwarden 2004.) 16...bxa3 (If Black ignores White's pawn push and plays 16...h5 then, compare to the immediate 16. Bf4, White has got advanced a−pawn, which increases his chances: 17 ¥f4 ¢f8 18 £d2!? (or 18

¥g3 e5 19 ¤h4!?©) 18...¥b7 19 ¥e2 (19 ¥h6+!?©) 19...¦g8 20 ¥g3 ¥d5 21 ¤xd4² with advantage) 17 bxa3 ¥b7 This position arose in the game Hillarp Persson − Hector/Malmo/Copenhagen 2004. White has maintained his advantage by 18 ¥e4 ¥a6 19 £e1 ¦d8 20 ¥d2 £d6 21 ¥b4!²

14...¥a6 was a common option during years: 15 ¦d1 (Recently White has found some new ideas after 15 a4!? Black usually continues 15...¤c5 (15...¥g7?! is dubious: 16 a5! £d6 17 £e4 ¦d8 18 £g4! ¢f8 (18...0-0?? is impossible due to an obvious 19 ¥h6+−)

19 ¥f4 ¤e5 20 £h5 ¦c8 21 ¦ae1 with a strong initiative, Dreev − Bareev/RUS−ch Superfinal Moscow 2005) 16 axb5 ¥b7 17 ¦xa8+ ¥xa8 18 ¤xd4!? (18 ¥c4!? is also worthy of consideration: 18...¦g8 19 ¥f4 ¦g4 20 ¥g3 This position arose in the game Frolyanov − Adly/Groningen 2005. Here 20...¤e4! seemed stronger, taking important bishop under control. However, White's chances were still better after 21 ¦a1 ¥b7 22 ¥d3 (or 22 ¤d2!? ¤xd2 (22...¦xg3?! 23 hxg3 d3 24 ¥xd3 ¤xf2 25 ¤c4 £d4 26

£xf2 £xd3 27 ¤a5 £xb5 28 ¤xb7 £xb7 29 £xf6+−) 23 £xd2 ¦g5 24 ¥f1²) 22...¤xg3 23 hxg3²) 18...£d6! (18...£d8? 19 ¤c6±) 19 b6! ¤xd3 20 £xd3 £xb6 21 ¥e3 £b7 22 f3 ¥e7 23 ¥h6! ¥f8 24 ¥e3 ¥e7 25 ¥h6 ¥f8 26 ¤f5! £d5 (or 26...exf5 27 £xf5 £d7 28

¦e1+ ¥e7 29 £xf6 ¦g8 30 ¥g5 £a7+ 31 ¢h1 ¦xg5 32 £xg5 ¢f8 33 £e5 f6 34 £f5 ¢g7 35

£e6ƒ) and here White could have tortured Black in the endgame after 27 ¤g7+! ¥xg7 28 £xd5 ¥xd5 29 ¥xg7 ¦g8 30 ¥xf6±) 15...¦d8

a) 15...¥c5?! seems to be dubious because after 16 a3 followed by b2−b4 the bishop will be pushed back.

b) 15...¤c5!? does not promise full equality for Black but gives him reasonable drawish chances: 16 ¤xd4 ¤xd3 (16...¦d8 17 ¥e3 ¤xd3 18 £xd3 is just a transposition to the actual game.) 17 £xd3 ¦d8 (17...b4 is weaker: 18 £g3 ¦d8 19 ¥e3 £b7 20 ¤b3

£b8 21 £f3 ¦xd1+ 22 ¦xd1±) 18 ¥e3 White's chances are preferable. Black's king is not quite safe, his pawn structure is not perfect and he has problems to find work for his K−side rook. The game Hillarp Persson − Thorfinnsson/Reykjavik 2004

80

continued 18...¥c5 19 b4!? (a preliminary 19 £e4!? is also rather interesting)

19...¥xb4 20 ¤xe6! ¦xd3 21 ¥xb6 ¦xd1+ 22 ¦xd1 ¢e7 23 ¤c7!ƒ and White's initiative brings him at least extra pawn in the endgame.

16 b4! Excellent decision − if White wants to gain the advantage, ...Nd7−c5 should be parried at any cost. 16...¥xb4 Otherwise Black's queenside will be eliminated soon. 17 ¦b1 ¥c3!? Black is trying to fortify the position. (17...¥c5 does not bring desired relief although the position remains unclear: 18 ¥f4!? White is in no hurry to win back material. Instead he develops his last piece, and at the same time prevents Black's possible counterplay on the g−file and against the f2 square after d4−d3. (The more practical 18 ¥xb5!? was tested in the game Sundararajan − Sriram/ch−IND, Mumbai 2000. White reduces the deficiency in material while his chances of seizing the initiative remain quite good. 18...¥xb5 19 ¦xb5 £a7 (19...£c6!? was worthy of consideration, keeping the queen closer to the center. A possible continuation was 20 ¥b2 ¦g8!? (20...¤e5? was losing after 21 ¤xe5 fxe5 22 £c4! ¦g8 23

g3 £f3!? 24 ¦d3 £e2 25 £xc5! £xd3 26 ¥a3+−) 21 g3 and now 21...£a6!? 22 ¤xd4 ¦g5„ would promise Black reasonable counter chances.) 20 ¥b2 £xa2 21 ¤xd4 ¥xd4 22 ¦xd4ƒ White's initiative looks fairly annoying while Black's extra pawn does not promise him any winning chances even if he is able to parry all the threats) 18...¦g8 19 ¥g3© White keeps the tension and Black can neither simplify nor improve his position, and is forced to defend all over the board, although two extra pawns seem to be a good compensation for sufferings. In the game Tkachiev − Van der Wiel/Cannes 1999 Black didn't cope with problems but objectively his position is playable) 18 a4!? White has also tried some other options.

a) 18 ¥xb5 is a natural option: 18...¥xb5 19 ¦xb5 £c6 20 ¥b2 (by the way, 20 ¥a3!?

¦a8 21 ¥b4 would be a possible transposition to the line 18. Ba3!?) 20...¦g8! Obviously Black should not castle K−side as he can bring the rook into play much quicker. By the way, ...Nd7−e5 is the idea. 21 g3 ¦g4!? (21...¤e5 is worse. White can maintain the initiative by 22 ¤xe5 fxe5 23 ¥xc3 £xc3 24 £xe5ƒ) 22 ¤xd4 ¦xd4 23 ¦xd4 ¥xd4 24 ¥xd4 White's position looks preferable but Black can quickly create a pressure over the a2−pawn by 24...¦a8², getting sufficient counter chances, as was proved in the game Avrukh − Vera/Bled (ol) 2002.

b) 18 ¥a3!? is also worthy of consideration: 18...£c6 19 ¥xb5 ¥xb5 20 ¦xb5 ¦a8 (the same position can be reached by 20...¦g8! 21 g3 ¦a8 22 ¥b4 ¦g4!) 21 ¥b4 and here Black should continue by 21...¦g8! (21...¦xa2? is losing by force after 22 ¤xd4! ¥xd4

23 £xa2 ¥xf2+ 24 ¢xf2 £xb5 25 £a8+ £b8 26 ¦a1! with idea Bb4−d6, as was shown in the game Sasikiran − Karjakin/Canarias en Red blitz KO Final 2004) 22 g3 ¦g4! getting the K−side rook into play as quickly as possible. The game Donaldson − Bhat/Los Angeles 2004 continued 23 ¦c1 ¦xa2! and here White should have played 24 £d3! ¦a1 (24...¦b2 looked risky: 25 ¤xd4 ¦xd4 26 ¦xc3 ¦xd3 27 ¦xc6 ¤e5 28 ¦c7 but maybe Black could still hold on after 28...¤g6) 25 ¦xa1 ¥xa1 26 £xh7 ¢d8 27 £h8+ (White can force a draw any time by 27 ¥a5+ ¢e7 28 ¥b4+=) 27...¢c7 28 ¥a5+ ¢d6 and here White could possibly still try to put problems for Black by 29 ¦b3!? ¥c3 30 £d8 ¥xa5 31 £xa5ƒ, maintaining the initiative. Black's king is not safe but his extra pawn would compensate the inconvenience.

18...¤c5 It is not so easy to find another reasonable move. 19 ¥xb5+ (Of course, not 19

axb5? ¤xd3 20 £xd3 ¥b7) 19...¥xb5 20 ¦xb5 £a6 (20...£c6? was met by 21 £c4! ¦c8

81

(21...¦g8? failed to 22 ¦xc5 £xf3 23 £b5+ ¢f8 24 ¥h6+) 22 ¤xd4 ¥xd4 23 £xd4± with a big advantage) 21 g3!? White is not in a hurry − first he gets rid of the 1st rank problem. This position has been tested in the game Milov − Borovikov/Dos Hermanas 2004, which continued 21...d3 22 £f1 £c6 23 ¥a3! £xf3 24 ¥xc5 £e4! 25 a5!² with better chances for White but it seems that Black still keeps reasonable chances to score half a point with precise defence.

15 ¥xb5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-tr0 9+l+n+p+p0 9-wq-+pzp-+0 9+L+-+-+-0 9-+-zp-+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzP-+QzPPzP0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White might think about rejecting the gift: 15 ¥f4!?, preventing a strong development of

the other Black's bishop: 15...¥c6 (both 15...¥d5?! 16 ¥xb5 ¦g8 17 ¥g3², and 15...¥d6 16

¥xd6 £xd6 17 ¥e4! are better for White, but 15...b4!? deserved attention) 16 ¦fc1 ¤c5 17 ¤xd4!? (17 ¥g3 ¦d8 gives Black an excellent play) 17...¤xd3 18 £xd3 ¦d8 19 ¥e3 ¥c5 20 £c3 ¥xd4 21 £xc6+ £xc6 22 ¦xc6 ¥xb2 23 ¦b1 White still keeps some winning chances in this ending but it should be drawish: 23...¥d4 24 ¥xd4 ¦xd4 25 ¦c8+ ¦d8 26 ¦xd8+ ¢xd8 27 ¦xb5 ¢c7 and so on.

15...¥d6

15...¦g8!? is also interesting: 16 ¥f4 Taking a good opportunity to move the bishop into defence, neutralizing Black's pressure over the g−file. (16 ¦d1 could be strongly met by 16...¦a5! (16...¥d6 would have transposed to the game Kramnik − Anand/WCh (m/3) Bonn 2008) 17 ¥xd7+ (17 a4? ¦xb5! 18 axb5 ¤e5 gives White a very strong initiative. For example, 19 ¤xe5 (19 ¤e1 ¥b4! 20 ¥d2 d3! 21 £h5 ¤g4! 22 £h4 ¤xf2!-+)

19...¦xg2+ 20 ¢f1 fxe5 21 £xe5 ¥c5 followed by ...Qb6xb5) 17...¢xd7 18 ¦xd4+ £xd4! 19 ¤xd4 ¥xg2! and Black gives perpetual check: 20 £d2 ¥h3+ 21 ¢h1 ¥g2+=) 16...¥d6!? 17 ¥g3 (In case of 17 ¥xd6 £xd6 18 ¦fd1 Black got acceptable play by 18...e5!? (18...¢e7 was also playable but perhaps somewhat better for White after 19 g3 (not 19 ¥xd7 £d5!? 20 ¢h1 £xd7) 19...¥xf3 20 £xf3 f5 21 a4²) 19 ¤h4 (19

¦xd4 led to perpetual after 19...£xd4! 20 ¤xd4 ¥xg2!=) 19...¢f8 20 a4 ¦g5„ with reasonable counter chances) 17...f5 This position has been tested in the game Kramnik − Anand/WCh (m/5) Bonn 2008, which continued 18 ¦fc1!? f4 19 ¥h4 ¥e7! Exchange of these bishops will help Black to get e7−square for the king and so

82

to connect the rooks. 20 a4 ¥xh4 21 ¤xh4 ¢e7! and Black has maintained good counter chances and eventually won.

16 ¦d1

16 ¤xd4? could be well met by 16...¦g8! (but not 16...£xd4? 17 ¦d1 £b6 18 ¥e3 £c7 19 ¦ac1

and White quickly gets all his pieces into play: 19...£b8 20 ¥xd7+ ¢xd7 21 £b5+ ¢e7 22

¦xd6!+−) 17 ¤f3 ¢e7 with a strong initiative against White's king.

16...¦g8

Placing the rook against White's king and protecting the d4−pawn. The position is extremely complex as both sides have serious pluses and no less serious minuses. White is counting on the vulnerability of Black's king in center as well as on his Q−side passers while Black certainly hopes to exploit activity of all his pieces, The position contains a lot of tactics but correct evaluation of all consequences is also very important and very difficult in such unbalanced pawn structure!

17 g3

White had a little choice again. The pawn on d4 was untouchable: 17 ¦xd4? ¦xg2+! 18 ¢xg2 £xd4

17...¦g4!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-+0 9+l+n+p+p0 9-wq-vlpzp-+0 9+L+-+-+-0 9-+-zp-+r+0 9+-+-+NzP-0 9PzP-+QzP-zP0 9tR-vLR+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

A very unexpected and strong manoeuvre − Black throws his rook into play with a clever

assignment: to support the pawn on d4, prepare doubling on the g−file and attack the seemingly well−fortified g3−square!

18 ¥f4!?

The main point behind rook's move was that 18 ¤d2!?, which seemed rather annoying for Black, could have been strongly met by 18...¢e7!! 19 ¥xd7 (19 £xg4 £xb5 looked very unsafe for White's king) 19...¦ag8!! with strong attacking possibilities.

83

However, it seems that the position was roughly balanced after 20 ¥b5 (20 £b5?!

£c7ƒ) 20...d3!? a) Black had other playable options: 20...¥xg3 21 fxg3 d3+ 22 £f2 £xb5© b) or 20...¦xg3+ 21 hxg3 ¦xg3+ 22 ¢f1 ¥g2+ 23 ¢e1 ¦e3! 24 ¤b3 (24 fxe3 ¥g3+ 25

£f2 ¥xf2+ 26 ¢xf2 dxe3+ 27 ¢xg2 £xb5 28 b3 £e2+ 29 ¢h3 ¢e8!) 24...¦xe2+ (24...¥b4+ 25

¥d2 ¦xe2+ 26 ¥xe2 e5 27 ¦ac1²) 25 ¥xe2÷ with a very complicated play 21 £xd3 (21 ¥xd3?? ¥xg3-+) 21...¦xg3+ 22 hxg3 ¦xg3+ 23 ¢f1 ¦xd3 24 ¥xd3 £d4÷ with

sufficient counter chances.

18...¥xf4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-+0 9+l+n+p+p0 9-wq-+pzp-+0 9+L+-+-+-0 9-+-zp-vlr+0 9+-+-+NzP-0 9PzP-+QzP-zP0 9tR-+R+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The game Kramnik − Anand/WCh (m/3) Bonn 2008 continued

19 ¤xd4!?

19 ¦xd4 was more reliable but less ambitious. Black had to react with 19...¢f8! a) in case of 19...¦d8?! 20 ¦ad1 ¢f8 White could delay the capture with 21 a4!? b) while after 19...0-0-0?! 20 ¦ad1 ¥d5 21 ¥c4 (or 21 a4!? Black's king wasn't so safe

as in the center)

20 ¥xd7 (20 ¦xf4 ¦xf4 21 gxf4 £c5 also gave Black sufficient counter chances) 20...¦d8! 21 ¦ad1 (other options would bring troubles only for White: 21 £b5 £xb5 22 ¥xb5 ¦xd4 23

¤xd4 ¥e5, 21 £d3?! ¥xg3! 22 hxg3 ¥xf3 23 ¦xg4 ¥xg4 24 £b5 £d6 25 ¥c6 ¦b8 26 £a4

¦xb2∓) 21...¦xd7 22 ¦xd7 ¥xg3! 23 hxg3 ¦xg3+ 24 ¢h2 (24 ¢f1? ¥xf3-+) 24...¥xf3 25 £e3 (25 £c2?! ¦g2+ 26 ¢h3 ¥c6ƒ) 25...¦g2+ (or 25...£xe3 26 fxe3 ¦g2+) 26 ¢h3 £xe3 27 fxe3 ¦xb2 28 ¦1d2 (28 ¦d8+ ¢g7 29 ¦g1+ ¢h6³) 28...¦b1 with a probable draw.

19...h5!? 20 ¤xe6! fxe6 21 ¦xd7 ¢f8 22 £d3 ¦g7!? 23 ¦xg7 ¢xg7 24 gxf4 ¦d8 25 £e2 ¢h6 26 ¢f1 ¦g8

84

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+r+0 9+l+-+-+-0 9-wq-+pzp-mk0 9+L+-+-+p0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+QzP-zP0 9tR-+-+K+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

and Black has developed a rather annoying initiative, which eventually brought him a full

point.

85